Clean Up the Ash Pile

To the editor:

Here are some reasons FPP should begin finding ways to clean up their ash piles and arguments against increasing ash pile runoff at the Lower Colorado River Authority’s (LCRA) Fayette Power Project (FPP) center on public health risks, ecological damage, and legal compliance concerns.

1. Risks to Public Health and Drinking Water Contamination of Groundwater: Coal ash contains heavy metals like arsenic, lead, mercury, cadmium, and beryllium. Research indicates that these toxins can leach into groundwater used for drinking and irrigation when not properly contained.

Residential Well Safety: Monitoring wells at FPP are located in the “Middle Sand Unit,” which communicates with nearby residential drinking water wells. Increased runoff or leaching risks spreading these contaminants beyond the plant’s boundaries.

Cancer and Chronic Disease: Long-term exposure to coal ash pollutants is linked to various cancers, heart disease, reproductive failure, and neurological damage, especially in children.

2. Ecological Impact on Water Bodies Threat to Cedar Creek Reservoir: LCRA acknowledges that the groundwater bearing units under FPP are in communication with the Cedar Creek Reservoir. Uncontrolled runoff could degrade water quality in this recreational and ecological resource.

Selenium Toxicity: Coal ash runoff frequently contains selenium, which bioaccumulates in aquatic food chains. High levels of selenium can cause massive reproductive failure in fish, leading to local extinctions and physical deformities.

Colorado River Impact: Runoff from the plant enters Cedar Creek and its tributaries before discharging into the Colorado River below La Grange.

3. Regulatory and Structural Concerns Unlined Disposal Units: Environmental groups claim that most of Texas’s coal ash units, including those at FPP, are effectively unlined, making them prone to leaking into underlying aquifers.

Legal Challenges: The FPP has faced federal lawsuits alleging thousands of Clean Air Act violations and failures to accurately report particulate matter emissions.

Inadequate Monitoring Data: Critics argue that LCRA has repeatedly changed its data analysis methods to avoid entering a “corrective phase” for unsafe groundwater, effectively masking the extent of existing pollution.

My opinion still remains, that for 50 plus years the LCRA has had plenty of time to find ways to mitigate their waste ash.

Jerry Moerbe