-
Tell Person County Commissioners to Delay Rezoning Land for Hyco Gas Plants
Hearing will take place at 304 Morgan St. The meeting location in the Person Co. Office Building The Person Co. Board of Commissioners will consider Duke’s request to rezone the land for the Hyco Gas Plants, that would be supplied by the T-15 pipeline. The meeting will be Monday, 2/3 at 6pm in the Person Co. Office Building (rm 215), at 304 S. Morgan St. Roxboro, NC. At the meeting, Person County residents will be able to share their concerns about the gas plants, and all the plans attached to it, and ask them to delay rezoning the land to address those concerns. Even if you don’t say anything in the meeting, your presence lets the commissioners know that the community wants them to do everything they can to protect Person. What we know Duke still hasn’t turned in the full rezoning request, but it might not be available until the day of the meeting! It’s just not enough time to understand the impacts of the project Before the county and Duke hear the zoning request again, the community would need: A chance to review the rezoning request’s impact on farms, health, land, & water. Transparency about other industrial projects this would bring to the county, including Microsoft. Protections for our health and the economic future of our community. Some of the community concerns: We needs answers about farms, health, accountability, & the cost of living Threats to farms Person County farms are being harmed for industry that mostly serves urban areas, and now big tech companies like Microsoft. To protect our rural community, we need transparency about the industrial customers that would be served by this plant, especially Microsoft. T-15 pipeline would have to run through acres of farmland to supply the plants with methane gas. Pipelines damage soil and reduce crop yields. They destroy more profitable opportunities for landowners, like crops, livestock, or solar. Our health Duke Energy’s own analysis found that air pollution from the plants could increase the surrounding area’s already high risk of cancer. (The area has higher rates of stroke, cancer, chronic heart disease, & COPD than 70% of adults in the U.S.) The area nearby has higher rates of infant & child mortality & low birthweight, compared to the national average. (97th percentile, 95th, & 90th, respectively). Duke plans to run the gas and coal plants at the same time. Duke should pay for independent air monitoring for pollution. We need to know how they will protect local residents from high pollution during that time. Drinking water in one neighboring area was already poisoned by coal ash. The T-15 pipeline construction & potential leaks could contaminate even more local wells. The T-15 pipeline to supply the plants is proposed to run next to Woodland Elementary. Pipeline leaks & accidents happen frequently in the US. Before rezoning, Duke needs to work with the pipeline builder to move the route so Woodland is out of the blast zone. Accountability to the Community Duke’s application to rezone the land was incomplete. Even if Duke turned in their plans as of this meeting, the public had no chance to understand the impacts. Duke’s application was missing a vicinity map, topography, locations of perennial & intermittent waters, 100-year floodplain & structures within 100 feet of the land. Rezones too much land: Duke does not have full state approval to build the second gas plant proposed. That land should not be rezoned without that approval. Cost of Living + Jobs This could raise our electric bills: Duke passes on the cost of gas prices and expensive new plants to customers (which could include Piedmont customers) Duke estimates their statewide plan to build new gas plants (including the Hyco plants & more) would increase rates from 39-73% The two proposed gas plants would only employ 40-60 people as long as they operate. Risky investment: No guarantee that the gas power plants won’t be abandoned early due to state law. HB951 requires Duke to reduce carbon emissions. Duke’s says the plants will eventually use hydrogen as fuel, but the technology to burn hydrogen and sources for hydrogen on an industrial scale do not exist. We need more information on how Duke will ensure that Person isn’t home to abandoned coal turbines, gas plants, and pipelines. You can download a handout about all of the Community Concerns about Rezoning Land for Hyco Gas Plants Person County Commissioners Meeting – Rezoning Land for Hyco Gas Plants Date: Monday, Feb. 3, 2025 Time: 6 p.m. Location: Person Co. Office Building (Rm 215) Address: 304 S. Morgan St. Roxboro, NC Can’t make it? You can still let your commissioners know what you think! Commissioners Kyle Puryear, Jason Thomas, Tracy Ellixson, Antoinetta Royster, & Sherry Wilborn deserve to hear from you! Email all 5: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] You can also call: 336-597-1720 More information on the gas plants, T-15, and other Person County industrial projects The two methane gas power plants Duke Energy is proposing in Person County would be fed by the T-15 pipeline. Community Concerns about Rezoning Land for Hyco Gas Plants Fact sheet about all of the planned projects: Industrial Projects Proposed in Person County Learn more about the T-15 pipeline, its proposed route and the gas plants at www.no-t15.org Air Permit Fact Sheet: Find detailed information about the air pollution permit for the gas plants and community concerns.
Continue reading -
Microplastics Found Even in Remote Areas of NC, in WCU Study
By: Jonathan Poston Microplastics pollution in Western North Carolina’s waterways, is an environmental challenge that extends even to remote, seemingly untouched regions. New research, led by Jerry Miller, professor in Western Carolina University’s Department of Geosciences and Natural Resources, highlights the alarming origins and impact of microplastics in freshwater systems. Microplastics are defined as particles smaller than five millimeters, including microscopic fragments invisible to the naked eye. These pollutants originate from a wide range of sources, including synthetic clothing fibers, food packaging, and automotive tires. Once in the environment, they can persist for centuries, breaking down into even smaller particles known as nanoplastics. These particles infiltrate rivers, lakes, and oceans. They enter the food chain through aquatic life, posing ecological and health risks. In a phone interview about his research, Dr. Miller added, “inhalation, and from the ingestion of water” to the many ways humans are exposed to microplastics. Map of Richland Creek WatershedThe Richland Creek Watershed Study Miller, along with the research team, is focused on Haywood County’s Richland Creek watershed and its tributaries, as well as tributaries to the Cullasaja River. Supported by grants from NC Sea Grant and the NC Water Resources Research Institute, the research involved students, faculty, and local organizations. Dr. Miller’s team used a device to automatically collect water samples. Dr. Miller described the study’s sampling methods, “We can program it to collect samples at uniform time intervals during flood events. We can figure out how the concentrations change with flow in the stream…… We collect it in glass that has been thoroughly cleaned. We bring that back to the laboratory and then it goes through a filtration process, and the filter ends up in a petri dish that we can look at with a microscope where microplastics are identified, counted and characterized for size, shape, and color. Then we analyze a subset of them with a Raman spectrometer, which allows us to determine what types of plastics we’re looking at.” Researchers from WCU, Highlands Biological Station, and Virginia Tech found that 90 % of the microplastics in the watershed were fibers, largely attributed to clothing, city runoff, and atmospheric deposition. Even in remote, forested areas with minimal human activity, microplastic concentrations were significant, underscoring the role of airborne particles. How Are These Microplastics In Remote Areas Like WNC Watersheds? “One of the biggest sources of microplastics in freshwater in remote places is atmospheric deposition. We don’t know where it’s coming from in this case, but studies have shown that these small plastic fibers can include road dust, stuff from tires, lots of clothing. All of it is so fine it can get into the atmosphere and be transported over long distances. It’s been found at the top of Mt. Everest, and at the bottom of the Mariana Trench”, said Dr. Miller. Community Collaboration and Education This initiative was a collaborative effort involving WCU faculty, high school educators, and local environmental organizations like the Haywood Waterways Association. Students played a pivotal role, conducting fieldwork and analyzing plastic debris. Jason Love, associate director of WCU’s Highlands Biological Station, contributed to all aspects of the study, including the analysis of caddisflies, heading up the work on the atmospheric deposition of microplastics, and by studying microplastics in freshwater mussels, .These efforts not only advanced scientific understanding but also fostered community awareness of plastic pollution. The bigger picture & a call to action The WCU study adds to a growing body of research emphasizing the critical need for action against plastic pollution. While international and state-level efforts to curb single-use plastics have faced obstacles, studies like this underscore the urgent need for systemic changes. As far as the watersheds or areas where Dr. Miller’s team might test next, “We are expanding out after Helene to look at the Pigeon River Basin.” How Can Microsplastics Be Removed From Water, What Is The Solution? “We’re trying to figure out how much there is, what their general characteristics are. Numerous investigators are trying to figure out how to extract microplastics from the wastewater treatment plant effluent. A variety of techniques are being used, but it’s in its infancy. I’ve heard that 80-90% of microplastics can be removed depending on the methods used,” Dr. Miller said. Does Recycling Work? “The biggest avenue is to curtail the use of plastics and their release to the environment. It’s difficult. A lot of people talk about recycling being the key but in the US we only recycle about 9%. Recycling programs are kind of busted and it’s probably not the answer in the short run. Plastics are so ingrained in our society that you can’t go through life without using plastics on a daily basis. The whole recycling effort is a feel good thing: we all do it and think it’s helping out but a lot gets shipped out (to other countries where it is incinerated and goes into the atmosphere or is released to rivers or the ocean. Some investigators have argued that it might be better off landfilling it instead of recycling,” said Dr. Miller. Microplastics can end up in drinking water, especially in bottled water. Is It Too Late For Humanity When It Comes To Microplastics? Dr. Miller said, “It’s not too late. It’s always good to figure out what we’re dealing with. We don’t know what the long term chronic effects are, both on biota and humans. We’ve found microplastics in blood, plaque within the arteries, in brain tissues. The question is, is it having any effect. A Call to Action From classroom presentations to regional conferences, the research team is committed to raising awareness and driving change. By documenting the pervasive nature of microplastics, WCU and its partners aim to inspire policy reform and encourage responsible plastic use. It would be a sound hypothesis that other major watersheds in Western North Carolina, such as the French Broad River Watershed, Little Tennessee River Watershed, Catawba River Watershed, New River Watershed, Hiwassee River Watershed, Savannah River Watershed, and Yadkin-Pee Dee River Watershed, could exhibit similar levels of microplastics as those documented in WCU’s study, given the widespread distribution of human activity and potential sources of plastic pollution across these regions. As the study progresses, Miller envisions sustained collaboration between students, scientists, and community members. “Between the community, high school, and university involvement, I hope we can continue this research for years to come,” he said. The findings from Western North Carolina’s watersheds reveal a hidden yet urgent problem. Microplastics pollution is not just a coastal or marine issue—it permeates even the most remote streams and forests, threatening ecosystems and public health. Addressing this crisis requires collective action, from individual choices to systemic reforms, ensuring a cleaner, healthier environment for future generations. References: https://www.wcu.edu/stories/posts/News/2023/10/wcu-microplastics-study-sheds-light-on-huge-pollution-problem.aspx https://www.northcarolinahealthnews.org/2024/12/11/nowhere-to-hide-microplastics-are-polluting-western-north-carolina-watersheds/ Interview with Dr. Jerry Miller on 12/11/2024 Jonathan Poston lives in Chapel Hill NC and researches and writes for Clean Water For NC as a volunteer.
Continue reading -
Two Decades of Fighting to Protect NC from “Forever Chemicals”
Guest article by: Madeline Jones, author of “All About Water” Blog, student at Southlake Christian Academy Is there a local environmental issue you care about? Consider writing about it for CWFNC’s newsletter & blog! 99% of the US population that has been tested has per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, in their blood. These compounds inspired the coining of the term ‘Forever Chemicals’ as they are extremely slow to break down in the environment and thus accumulate in water bodies’ sediment, soil and all organisms’ tissues . High bodily concentrations of these chemicals can result in complications in human neurological, reproductive, cardiovascular, and immune systems. Furthermore, certain PFAS have been labeled as carcinogens. These chemicals enter the body by ingesting food, water, or air contaminated by PFAS. Although certain PFAS have been around since the late 1930s, their innumerable problems have only been widely noticed by the public of North Carolina since the 2010s. Clean Water for North Carolina, however, has been researching PFAS and advocating against their use from as early as 2003. Map from Environmental Working Group on drinking water systems that tested above EPA’s new limits. In 2002, DuPont, a chemical manufacturing company, began producing a PFAS called C8, a nonstick and stain-resistant chemical commonly used in kitchenware and carpets. Unbeknownst to most of the public, this dangerous chemical was being released from the factory, where it contaminated the surrounding water and air. By 2003, Clean Water for North Carolina began advocating for the end of production for C8 after meeting with a researcher for the US Steelworkers union. This union expressed concerns for the DuPont workers and the environment after receiving data of high concentrations of C8 in the DuPont factory workers’ blood. Based on these concerns, Clean Water for North Carolina started discussing the issue with a regulator in the Hazardous Waste Section of the NC Environment and Natural Resources agency. These discussions combined with sampling around DuPont led to the discovery of significant levels of C8 in the groundwater surrounding the DuPont plant and downstream in the Cape Fear River. The issue proved even more serious after further discussion with the local folks downwind from the plant, who were aware of C8 in their ponds, groundwater, and wells. By late 2003, Clean Water for North Carolina had started frequently meeting with farmers and other individuals concerned about their health and livestock, experiencing strange respiratory issues, rashes and tumors. Even as the evident problems of C8 increased, the chemical continued to be produced and evaded regulation by government agencies. Although Clean Water for NC continued to educate and advocate for the regulation of C8, most of the public in North Carolina was oblivious to the chemicals that had already contaminated their drinking water and were in many of their household products. Clean Water for NC’s Response To address this growing crisis at the source, members from Clean Water for North Carolina and individuals downriver from the DuPont factory traveled to a shareholder meeting of the DuPont corporation to testify about their concerns and experiences about the spread of C8. By their third year of meetings, this group convinced thirty percent of the shareholders to stop the production of C8 altogether. This was an extremely significant accomplishment, as the shareholders were making a substantial profit in the production of this chemical. After repeated pressure from CWFNC and other advocates in the media and at shareholder meetings, calling for an end to PFAS production, DuPont entered into a stewardship agreement with the Environmental Protection Agency, resulting in them paying a large penalty and phasing out of C8 at Fayetteville Works.. This allowed DuPont to create new PFAS and chemicals to replace C8, which could avoid the regulations placed by the Environmental Protection Agency. As a result, DuPont began to develop chemicals that they stated were “safer” than C8, a claim that was not supported by any data and has proved to be false. As DuPont began to receive criticism for its production of PFAS, it created a spinoff company called Chemours in Fayetteville in 2015. Chemours began producingthe PFAS, Gen-X, which they claimed was a “safer alternative” compared to other PFAFS, although Gen-X causes the same health issues as C8. Additionally, this creation of Gen-X allowed the chemical to be unstudied and unregulated by the Environmental Protection Agency, as the stewardship agreement had only applied to the chemical C8. As Chemours produced stain-resistant and nonstick materials, Gen-X and many other related compounds were released into the environment, contaminating the air and nearby waterways, especially the Caper Fear River. In 2017, the production of PFAS gained nationwide attention as high concentrations of Gen-X were found in the River and wells. This proved disastrous for many communities and counties along the river, as the Cape Fear River is their main drinking water source. A study conducted in Wilmington and Brunswick counties found high concentrations of Gen-X in the Cape Fear River basin and the community’s drinking water including schools! This issue is exacerbated by the fact that only a specific and relatively expensive type of filter can remove PFAS from drinking water. This is extremely problematic, as there are limited studies on the long-term effects of PFAS, and many of the regulations for these chemicals are just beginning to be implemented by the Environmental Protection Agency. In fact, just last week, the Environmental Protection Agency created its first national drinking water regulation for only two PFAS compounds of thousands. Many of the issues caused by PFAS have been brought to the attention of the Environmental Protection Agency by organizations such as Clean Water for North Carolina advocating for the removal and regulation of PFAS. Almost every person in the United States contains PFAS in their blood received from their drinking water and food packaging and other materials in their homes, schools, and communities. As one consumes these chemicals, they unknowingly subject themselves to toxins that have been known to cause a range of cardiovascular, neurological, and reproductive issues, and probably cancer. If left unchecked, these chemicals will continue to plague the environment for generations to come. Therefore, it is essential to advocate to government agencies for our rights to clean drinking water free from these ‘forever chemicals’ to end the spread of these carcinogens. To join us in the fight, Clean Water of North Carolina is asking you to consider attending the administrative meetings conducted by the NC Dept of Environmental Quality to regulate PFAS in groundwater in North Carolina. The regulation of PFAS in groundwater is crucial, as over 50 percent of the United States population receives their drinking water from groundwater sources, which are easily contaminated by PFAS. This contamination can occur when rainwater infused with PFAS seeps into the soil and collects as groundwater beneath the surface, or if sludge or refuse containing PFAS release the compounds into the groundwater. PFAS in Groundwater Hearings Dec. 2 & 3- Join us! By showing up and testifying about your story or experience with the issue of PFAS, you can help support the case against them. Moreover, you can express your support for the federal and North Carolina limits for PFAS. Clean Water for NC points out it is also important to note the significance of taking a stronger stance on the eradication of the production of PFAS, as this is the only way to stop their spread! The administrative hearings on Groundwater Standards for 3 PFAS compounds will be as follows: Wilmington: December 2, 2024, at 6 pm in Wilmington at U-170, Union Station Building, Cape Fear Community College Raleigh: December 3, 2024, at 6 pm in Raleigh at Ground Foor Hearing Room, Archdale Building, 512 N. Salisbury Street. You can also comment by email. Visit CWFNC.org/pfas for more information and talking points. THANKS FOR SPEAKING UP FOR OUR WATERS AND HEALTH! Works Cited chemsec. “99 per cent of Humans have PFAS Chemicals in their Blood.” chemsec, https://chemsec.org/wrappedinchemicals/facts/pfas-fact-1/. Accessed 20 November 2024. Mcninch, Alasdair. “Taking on the ‘Forever Chemical’ Threat in North Carolina School Water Supplies.” Facing South, March 15 2023, https://www.facingsouth.org/2023/03/taking-forever-chemical-threat-north-carolina-school-water-supplies. Accessed 20 November 2024.
Continue reading -
PFAS don’t HAVE to be forever, IF we stand up. Here’s how:
PFAS seep into groundwater when they are manufactured, used in products or agriculture, and through the landfills where they are disposed Join us at a public hearing or comment online! PFAS are known as “forever chemicals” because they last a long time in the environment, including in our groundwater. PFAS are linked to cancer, low birth weight, autoimmune disorders, and so much more. However, there are solutions. If we stand up for our communities, PFAS don’t have to be forever. Setting strong groundwater standards is an important part of getting to the solution. This month, stand up with Clean Water for NC & allies at a public hearing on PFAS in your area. You can also submit your comment online. Right now, NC DEQ is considering setting final standards for 3 PFAS in groundwater. That’s less than the interim standards they recently adopted for 8 types of PFAS in groundwater. Let NC Department of Environmental Quality know: We support these standards for these 3 PFAS. We want to DEQ to adopt permanently the interim standards they set for the other 5 PFAS. That the only real solution to prevent continuing buildup of PFAS chemicals in our environment is to stop production of these “convenience chemicals” for stain resistance, stick free properties, etc. Join CWFNC at the last public hearing in RALEIGH, TODAY Raleigh December 3, 2024, 6 pm (doors 5pm) Ground Floor Hearing Room, Archdale Building, 512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, NC 27604 Check out talking points below! Even if you don’t comment, your presence at a hearing sends a LOUD message to decision makers. Submit a comment online! From Nov. 1 through Dec. 31, 2024, Email comments: [email protected] Mail to: Bridget Shelton NC DEQ Division of Water Resources, Planning Section 1611 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1611 Talking points for your comment below! Talking points for your comment What’s wrong with PFAS (also known as forever chemicals): PFAS stay in environment for years, some can collect over time in humans and animals. They can even be passed down through generations from mother to child through umbilical cord blood and breastfeeding. PFAS are linked to cancer and increased risk of heart disease, lowered immune function, PFAS jeopardize NC’s future, they are linked to birth defects, infertility, & low birth weight. NC DEQ estimates 1/3 of North Carolinian’s drinking water has PFAS above the EPA’s limits. More than 80 public water systems have detected PFAS in the groundwater that is their drinking water source, and thousands, if not tens of thousands of private well owners in the state have PFAS in their water. Talking points on groundwater standards: Support adopting the proposed groundwater standards for these 3 PFAS. Demand DEQ permanently adopt the interim standards they set for the other 5 PFAS as well. In spring 2024, the Environmental Protection Agency finalized the first-ever drinking water standards for PFAS chemicals, requiring public drinking water to be tested and treated for PFAS. Unfortunately, these rules do not protect residents who rely on private well water as their primary source of drinking water, making state action vital to protect public health. To protect North Carolina community members from PFAS exposure, the Environmental Management Commission should adopt this proposal, but also move forward with a “class-based” or “subclass” approach to PFAS—this means regulating many PFAS together at once. With thousands PFAS in use – and with similar and cumulative toxic impacts – regulating them three at a time will take too long to protect human health. Groundwater standards are not enough, we need to set strong limits on PFAS in surface water. We need to set health protective standards for additional PFAS, including ones in more recent use. The three standards in the current proposal are for PFAS chemicals that were used more commonly in the past; meanwhile companies are using – and spilling – many other, newer PFAS that are also toxic.
Continue reading -
Air Permit Hearing Tonight on Gas Power Plants in Person County
A combined cycle methane gas power plant. Here’s what you can do: Duke Energy wants to build two new methane gas power plants in Person County (north of Durham). What we know: Investing in fossil fuels (gas) is bad for the climate & costly for customers. Duke Energy proposed these power plants as part of a plan to retire the Roxboro coal plant. The coal ash from that plant poisoned local residents’ groundwater. In Person, the rate of emergency room visits for asthma is higher than the state average. Person County’s cancer rate is higher than the state average. Now, Duke Energy is seeking an air permit for one of these gas plants. Tell NC Department of Environmental Quality: We can’t retire one environmental injustice, to replace it with another. Join us at the air permit hearing on Nov. 12 or submit your public comment online. Talking points below! Air Permit Public Hearing on Roxboro Gas Power Plant Date: Tuesday, Nov. 12, 2024 Time: 6 p.m. (doors open 5:30pm) Location: Piedmont Community College auditorium, Room D-101 Address: 1715 College Drive, Roxboro Submit a public comment! [email protected] with “DukeRoxboro.24A” in the subject line Voicemail: 919-707-8714 Mail (postmarked by Nov. 22) NCDEQ Division of Air Quality 1628 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1628 Sample Comment & Talking Points Dear NC DEQ, My name is _______, I am a local resident. Do not issue the air permit for the Roxboro Steam Electric Plant. This matters to me because __________________________ (insert your personal reason here!). Do not retire one environmental injustice in Person County, just to replace it with another. Here are some of my concerns: Duke Energy’s own “environmental justice” analysis shows the plant may increase the community’s already high risk of cancer from harmful air pollutants. Duke Energy wants to run the gas plant & the coal plant at the same time, unclear how long. That’s more pollution for the community, not less. Duke Energy estimates the gas plant will emit more volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and carbon monoxide than the existing coal plant. VOCs can cause liver, kidney and nervous system damage. Low to moderate levels of carbon monoxide can cause chest pain, impaired vision, and reduced brain function. The draft permit doesn’t have an effective plan to monitor for sulfur dioxide, sulfuric acid, and arsenic. In 2032, new Clean Air Act rules will take effect. Until then, the plant would run 80% of the year, emitting more than 2x the total carbon pollution the Roxboro coal units it is replacing produced in 2023. Duke Energy does not provide all the relevant pollution data. Duke fails to demonstrate why the data they do provide accurately predicts future pollution levels. The long-standing community directly next to the proposed gas plant is predominantly African American. The community has suffered the impacts from the existing coal plant for nearly 60 years. This is an environmental injustice. Issuing this permit would continue that injustice. Sincerely, Fact Sheets: Proposed Gas Powerplants/T-15 Pipeline & Air Permit The two methane gas power plants Duke Energy is proposing in Person County would be fed by the T-15 pipeline. Hyco Lake Gas Power plants & T-15 Pipeline: Learn more about both projects from this fact sheet. Learn ore about the T-15 pipeline and its proposed route at www.no-t15.org Air Permit Fact Sheet: Find detailed information about the air permit for the gas plants and community concerns.
Continue reading -
Coal Ash in NC and in the Triangle
Coal ash community advocates & CWFNC staff in 2019. CWFNC has been involved in the environmental justice fight for coal ash clean-up for over a decade. Thank you to Jonathan Poston for contributing this article. Is there a local environmental issue you care about? Consider writing about it for CWFNC’s newsletter & blog! In 2014, a major spill at a Duke Energy site in Eden, NC, dumped 39,000 tons of coal ash into the Dan River, shining a national spotlight on the issue. Now, the region has multiple coal ash ponds that threaten the local environment, especially around lakes, rivers, and groundwater supplies. Duke Energy, the state’s largest energy company, has been at the center of the controversy. The company is responsible for managing several coal ash storage sites, some of which are located near major waterways like the Neuse and Cape Fear rivers. Over time, toxic chemicals and heavy metals from these sites have seeped into the groundwater, impacting drinking water for nearby communities. These toxic elements can contaminate drinking water supplies and affect air quality. This leads to increased risk of cancer,respiratory diseases, and neurological damage. Local ecosystems are also at risk, as coal ash can harm aquatic life and pollute soil, disrupting the balance of regional biodiversity. Local Response in the Triangle The Triangle area (Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill) of North Carolina, known for its vibrant communities and research institutions, has also struggled with coal ash contamination. Most of the impact is visible in Chapel Hill where there is a highly publicized coal ash site that was discovered only in 2013, after 40-50 years of contaminating groundwater. However, nearby residents use the town’s public water system, protecting their access to safe drinking water. The issue has become a focal point of environmental activism, as residents and organizations work to combat its damaging effects in Chapel Hill. The coal ash site is located at 828 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., the Chapel Hill Police Department headquarters. This site contains coal ash and construction debris from the 1960s and 1970s, discovered by the Town in 2013. Since then, the Town has worked with the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) to follow all environmental laws and ensure public health and safety. (Photo on left: a sign indicates the site of Chapel Hill’s coal ash disposal site remediation project) In January of this year (2024) the EPA began considering adding the Chapel Hill coal ash site to the superfund list. And, as of July of this year the NC Dept of Environmental Quality (NC – DEQ) proposed that the coal ash site should be capped. While these are positive steps, locals dispute whether simply covering the site with a few feet of clean fill really mitigates the risks of arsenic and radium, along with the 18 other toxic chemicals found amid the waste. Note: From 2014 -2019, CWFNC and the Alliance of Carolinians Together Against Coal Ash worked to organize for well testing, filtration systems for contaminated wells and a complete removal of all Duke coal ash to above ground storage in impermeable sites We recently learned that some filtration systems are failing and will be working with residents to organize to get failing systems fixed
Continue reading -
Decades of Challenging the Wood Pellet Industry’s Harms to Communities
20 years ago, at a time when few in NC were aware of the rapidly growing wood pellet industry, CWFNC’s Northeast Organizer, Belinda Joyner, got word from a contact in Ahoskie, just east of her in Hertford County, of what it was like living with huge Enviva wood pellet mill. Terrible noise 24/7 from the massive mills chewing up logs to be made into pellets to be burned in electric power plants, mostly in Europe. Heavy, dangerous truck traffic through a community only hundreds of feet away. And perhaps worst of all, the sticky wood dust that was everywhere, a nuisance on homes, yards and cars, but a real health hazard to those forced to breathe it every time they stepped outside. (Image- Belinda Joyner speaking at 2019 hearing on wood pellets, as community members look on.) Belinda and Hope traveled to Ahoskie ,met with concerned residents who had contacted us, then visited door to door in nearby neighborhoods to learn of residents’ experiences and concerns. Over two years, we met with the diverse community members several times and built visible resistance to Enviva’s practices. Working with impacted neighbors, we investigate the company’s permits, what to do about the noise and dust and began learning about a predatory industry that was aggressively working to build more wood pellet plants, always in low income communities of color with little political power. The NC Division of Air Quality, which had been unaware of the problems caused by the plants, responded to the community’s pleas by requiring Enviva to implement an enforceable dust control plan, which reduced dust substantially. Sadly, noise, which can cause major stress and sleeplessness, is not considered an environmental threat by the state agency, and the local Ahoskie government was unwilling to apply their noise ordinance to an industry that was contributing hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes. When her local planning board discussed approval of an Enviva plant not far from her own western Northampton County home, Belinda, who is also President of the Concerned Citizens of Northampton County, reached out to residents close to the proposed site for the plant, trying to build resistance to the new facility, but she was met with indifference and hopes for sone new jobs. As soon as the Enviva mill started operating, the community realized their mistake in not preventing Enviva from building the plant. Meanwhile, the Dogwood Alliance, which focuses on forest issues throughout the southeast, was learning about the wood pellet industry’s major impacts on forests and heard of Belinda’s work in Northeast NC. Dogwood collaborated with Clean Water for NC on a video that focused on the environmental injustices the industry was forcing on communities, while wreaking havoc on forests, too. Video Partnering with Dogwood Alliance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNJFPefdnIw For over 10 years, Belinda has also worked closely with the Dogwood Alliance on initiatives to investigate harms to communities, take action to hold Enviva and Drax, another huge wood pellet manufacturer, accountable, educate Clean Water for NC and the regional media about the industry, and resist a major new port facility in Wilmington for shipping wood pellets to Europe. Because several European countries offered “clean energy” subsidies to electric generators there to burn wood pellets instead of coal, the market for wood pellets grew quickly and the US industry expanded through the southeast, always location in Environmental Justice communities. After years of advocacy and independent investigations, it has become clear that utilities that burn wood pellets are even worse emitters than coal plants, and the climate impacts, including the loss of forests and transportation of the pellets over thousands of miles, are even worse than coal. European governments are waking up about their misguided policies and are removing subsidies for burning wood pellets. The industry is finally experiencing major financial setbacks. Belinda shakes her head as she says, “The very least they could have done was try to be a better neighbor and make their operations less harmful to their community!”. Her relentless work with community partners, Dogwood Alliance and keeping Clean Water and other Environmental Justice allies involved in action and advocacy has been a big part of why Europe’s policies are changing and the harmful wood pellet industry is now starting to shrink. It never created more than a few jobs, and the costs to communities were huge. We salute Belinda and the outspoken community members she has motivated and empowered for their persistent and determined work to hold this industry accountable.
Continue reading -
Moriah Energy Center (MEC)—Big Liquefied Natural Gas Facility Coming to SE Person County
What is it and what can we do about it? Dominion Energy is proposing to build the Moriah Energy Center (MEC). MEC would liquefy and store natural gas for when demand is high. The MEC would be a major investment in fossil fuels, deepening the current climate crisis. It is one of several planned gas facilities and pipelines throughout the state. This gas buildout would: keep NC from meeting climate targets. Trap customers into fossil fuel dependence for decades Provide huge profits for the gas utility Emit toxins like formaldehyde, acrolein, and more. Residents are already observing muddy water running from the site even before construction starts. In this remote, rural location, even the Neuse River Keeper has trouble getting attention from inspectors. If we can’t prevent the facility from coming, the least we need is STRONG PERMITS to prevent emissions as much as possible. Strong accountability measures in the air permit are important. Dominion is trying to sell its gas subsidiary to Enbridge, a Canadian company with a very problematic safety record. Here’s what you can do about the air permit: Check out the draft permit and DEQ’s fact sheet for the air permit. Visit nomec.org to see concerns that have been raised locally. Come to the Public Hearing on August 1 at Vance Granville Community College, Henderson, NC and express your concerns. Submit your comments, calling for stronger monitoring and tighter limits on air emissions. Email: [email protected] (Use subject line: Moriah-Energy.23A) Call 919-707-8726 – Leave a message Watch here for more details about the permit and local efforts. Sign up for our email list to be sure you get future emails from Clean Water for NC. To learn more about the fight against MEC, visit NOMEC.org. You can also donate to NOMEC to help our neighbors to protect themselves.
Continue reading -
Clean Water for NC to Carry on Our Mission, Hope Taylor Returns
The Board of Directors of Clean Water for NC continues to evaluate various options for carrying out our mission with a smaller staff, and we have enlisted the help of former Executive Director Hope Taylor in resuming our community and policy work. She will work with the Board to prioritize our program work and resume our contacts with communities, partners and policy allies. You can reach Hope most afternoons at [email protected] or 919-401-9600.
Continue reading -
ACT Against Coal Ash: We Want Answers
Watch the Livestream! Press Release 828 Martin Luther King Boulevard is the location of a police station and 60,000 cubic yards of coal ash waste in Chapel Hill. The Town acquired the property after coal ash waste was already deposited, and discovered it in 2013.The Town’s plans for remediation uses the cap and contain approach, which includes some ash removal and off site disposal, capping with 3-4 ft of clean soil, a retaining wall and restricted use of groundwater. In May, the Town hosted a meeting which included town staff, environmental consultants, and DEQ’s Brownfields program, where the town promised to answer questions from the public. 73 members of the public, which included neighbors, local and statewide coalitions of coal ash-impacted community members, and clean water and air advocates, were allotted only 30 minutes to address these concerns and questions. Some answers were given during the meeting, while other questions would require additional research and consultation, but all were promised to be given written responses what would be posted on the Town of Chapel Hill’s Website. We waited SEVENTY days for the Town and DEQ to post these responses, and even when they were posted, less than half the questions were answered and many were essentially evaded, overgeneralized, or pushed to future decisions in later stages of the project. The ACT group asked 34 questions. Only a couple were answered during the meeting, and none on the response document. These included questions about housing considerations, public participation, coal ash clean up and management procedures and worker protections, and reporting and monitoring. In September, the Town posted a status update which considers a phased approach where “Under this plan, the Town would begin moving ahead with site remediation and construction of the MSC now with steps taken to allow for future development (commercial, office, or housing) on the remainder of the site at a later time.” (Status Update Town of Chapel Hill). However, the Town has yet to discuss this during a Public Regular Council meeting and answer questions we’ve been asking for FIVE months now. Our questions and concerns remain: How will the Town ensure that this proposed development does not result in disproportionate health impacts to low-income and BIPOC community members near the site or the landfill that receives coal ash? Has the Town researched options for encapsulating coal ash and storing on site? What other options have been researched aside from cap-in-place or full excavation? Excavated coal ash from the site has been sent to Uwharrie landfill - how is this landfill set up to handle coal ash specifically to prevent air and water contamination? What types of monitoring will take place during and after construction of this project? How frequently, and how long will monitoring occur? At what stages of decision-making on this project will the public be given the opportunity to comment? “I grew up in a rural, coal ash frontline community that is spread far from the landfills and the power plant. However Chapel Hill is a densely populated area with the landfills and power plant nestled in the midst of neighborhoods. This close proximity needs to be addressed. By putting people in harms way at the 828 MLK Location, either through housing, a work environment, or recreation of the proposed gathering place, the Town is placing an unfair burden on individuals, parents, and the greater community who serves the citizens of Chapel Hill: the health care system, teachers, police officers who risk personal exposure at work and will have to address the needs of individuals dealing with related mental health issues.” Caroline Armijo “The town has a chance to deal with the problem in an ethical manner that respects the nearby community, and protects the health of the community. With coal ash, and the many toxic components, the usual solutions are: 1. Sweep the problem under the rug and bury or simply cap the ash. 2. Ship the problem away and dump the coal ash on another community - usually one that is low income and/or disproportionately composed of people of color. With the coal ash that has been currently been excavated from the police station grounds, unfortunately Chapel Hill has chosen to ship the ash away with little concern for the environmental and engineering designs of the new dump site. We want to raise several questions about the Uwharrie Landfill which was selected for receiving the coal ash. Since coal ash is a "non-asbestos" material, has the town ensured that the coal ash will not be spread daily on top of the Uwharrie landfill? Did the town take any steps to require that the coal ash be deposited in the lined portion? Is Chapel Hill willing to transfer its problem and just do the minimal coal ash dump transfer without taking any of these protective measures? Has the town ever investigated the options for on-site complete encapsulation or using above-ground salt-stone technologies to solidify and protect the coal ash on-site? Please use science, community involvement, and transparency in your on-going deliberations about how to resolve the coal ash problems.” John Wagner “Though the Chapel Hill Town Council directs the public to its website for information about coal ash, and though we are invited to make comments on that site, I am concerned that the general public finds it too inaccessible, and the Council needs to have public forums regarding this very serious issue.” Lib Hutchby “Despite there being no examples of successful residential redevelopment projects constructed on coal ash sites, the town has failed to answer questions related to reporting and monitoring of the site both related to human health assessments and water quality concerns. In considering health concerns, during the Public Meeting with DEQ on May 16th, when asked if the town or DEQ has investigated the cancer rates of the current and historical occupants of 828 MLK, DEQ responded that they were not aware of such an investigation, and that that investigation would fall under NC Department of Health and Human Services and that they had not been in contact with that department. Further, according to consultants, higher concentrations of metals were identified in some perched water zones where coal ash is present in the fill. However, we ask that if this site is not excavated and no lining is installed under the site, we ask what would prevent toxins at the site from entering Bolin Creek and traveling to Jordan Lake to contaminate that drinking water source? How would a retaining wall prevent infiltration? We asked these questions and voiced these concerns during the public meeting and are still waiting for answers.” Christine Diaz “As a resident of Chapel Hill -- a voter and a taxpayer -- I expect the elected officials and institutions in my community to be open and transparent in their pursuit of our community's safety, health, and well-being. Too few of my neighbors and friends even know about the fact that coal ash is exposed on popular public greenways like Bolin Creek -- let alone that the town is considering development that could threaten more workers, families, and children. Experts and scientists much smarter and better informed than I am have outlined grave concerns about the Town's plans; they have posed some urgent questions to the Town; and every person in our community is entitled to adequate, prompt responses in forums and platforms that are accessible to everyone. To date, the Town has failed to comply with its basic obligations with regard to the coal ash threats in our community." Isabel Geffner We ask for the Town to respond to urgent concerns and questions before moving forward with this remediation and redevelopment to protect the health and safety of neighbors and community members who are or will be impacted by the coal ash at 828 Martin Luther King Blvd. Alliance of Carolinians Together (ACT) Against Coal Ash
Continue reading