Flood risk outweighs ash concerns

Environmental regulators go to great pains to keep coal ash out of rivers.

After all, it often contains lead, selenium, mercury and other pollutants that can harm aquatic life.

So why would Nebraska environmental regulators allow state emergency officials to dust the Platte River with 77 tons of the ash as they did on Thursday?

The Platte is home to endangered species, and its aquifer supplies drinking water to the state's largest cities.

Turns out, according to Nebraska and federal environmental officials, the contaminants in the ash occur at levels far below even the strictest water quality standards.

“The material is pretty benign, so if you weigh what we could be saving in terms of ... damage from a flood, it outweighs environmental concerns — based on the science,” said Mike Linder, director of the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality.

The 77 tons of ash came from the Nebraska Public Power District coal plant near Hallam, Neb. Samples from the plant were tested four times in the 1990s — 1990, 1993 and twice in 1994 — and OK'd as part of the regulatory process that permits the use of only Hallam ash on the Platte, according to state environmental regulators.

“These are extremely low levels,” said Donna Garden, who oversees the section of the department that regulates the discharge of pollutants into waterways.

Six contaminants were found at detectable levels in all four tests, according to Brian McManus, a department spokesman: barium, cadmium, chloride, selenium, nickel and zinc.

Garden said the strictest standards were used, including the threshold for what's permissible in a glass of drinking water. That standard was used in screening for cadmium, a carcinogen.

Federal drinking water standards permit 2.3 milligrams of cadmium per kilogram of drinking water. The highest concentration of cadmium in this ash, according to the four tests in 1990, was .01 milligram per kilogram.

For contaminants without specific drinking water standards, Garden said, the department evaluated the contaminants based on the potential effects they might have on aquatic life and people who get in the water.

That did little to allay the concerns of someone like Don Murh, an Omahan who contacted The World-Herald after learning of the river dusting.

“There's been quite a discussion among people who aren't very happy about this,” said Murh, an auditor at a local insurance company. “I'm not a scientist. I just have a pretty regular job, but this doesn't sound like something we should be doing, because we already have issues that need to be taken care of.”

Murh is dissatisfied with the quality of Omaha's drinking water and concerned about the health risk posed by lead contamination in soil in eastern Omaha. From his point of view, the ash simply adds to Omahans' environmental burden.

A federal environmental regulator who read through Nebraska's test results said the state has “done its homework.”

Glenn Curtis heads the water quality permitting process for the federal Environmental Protection Agency regional office that oversees Nebraska.

Curtis said Friday the state's data indicates that the contaminants in the bottom ash are bound tightly to it and do not dissolve easily in water. Essentially, he said, the contaminants would not be detectable in water.

Furthermore, he said, the data indicate that the ash did not harm the aquatic organisms it was tested on, including protozoa, minnows and water fleas.

“(Nebraska) has run the tests, and this looks fairly benign,” he said.

Coal ash is of serious concern to some environmentalists. Among those who have offered testimony to federal regulators is Dennis Lemly, a research professor of biology at Wake Forest University.

Lemly said this use of bottom ash “should be OK.”

Bottom ash contains about 10 percent of the toxic materials that fly ash does, he said. Bottom ash is the heavy material that drops to the bottom of a coal furnace while fly ash is the light, fluffy ash that floats upward and can be trapped by pollution equipment.

The state's use of bottom ash, combined with the size of the river and the fact that the ash will enter the Platte gradually as the ice melts “should pose little risk to aquatic life,” Lemly said.

The dusting was done at the behest of the Nebraska Emergency Management Agency under an emergency order issued by Gov. Dave Heineman. That means that even if the ash violated state standards, Heineman's order trumps them.

Al Berndt, assistant director of the emergency response agency, said the state is trying to protect, among other areas, well fields for Lincoln and Omaha water, a BNSF railroad bridge, a Nebraska National Guard camp and numerous homes.

In addition to the dusting, government agencies have been working to repair four holes in the levees protecting the area.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has concluded that there is a high probability of moderate to major flooding in northeastern Nebraska.

However, on Friday, an updated flooding forecast issued by the National Weather Service in Valley indicated that the threat may end up no greater than minor to moderate.

This is the fourth time in 30 years that Nebraska has dusted the Platte. Officials hope the dark ash will absorb energy from the sun and promote fissures in the ice. The fissures should make it easier for the ice to break apart in smaller chunks.

Large ice chunks more easily jam together, cause dams that back up river water and send it washing over the banks.

In Iowa, the threat of flooding is more widespread and severe, but that state doesn't dust its rivers, said Kevin Baskins, spokesman for the Iowa Department of Natural Resources.

“Most of our efforts are aimed at keeping coal ash away from water,” Baskins said.

That, too, concerns Murh.

“People look at Iowa and say, ‘They aren't doing it, why is Nebraska?'”

Linder, the head of Nebraska's environmental agency, said he understands the skepticism.

“The perception would be that this doesn't seem right,” he said. “But having had the opportunity to look at science and the actual impact, then you have a little more objective approach.”

Contact the writer:

444-1102, nancy.gaarder@owh.com

« Metro/Region

Share