• Lake Sediments Record North Carolina’s Coal Legacy

    By: Kimberly M. S. Cartier, EOS October 14, 2022 Sediment cores taken from five lakes in North Carolina reveal the state’s history of coal ash pollution from power plants. Analysis of these cores, published in Environmental Science and Technology, explains that although coal ash deposition has declined in recent years, its legacy lives on in the contaminants the ash left behind to seep into the environment. These toxins could be affecting the health of local residents and ecosystems. “These are recreational lakes,” Zhen Wang, an environmental geochemistry doctoral student at Duke University in Durham, N.C., and the lead author of the study, said in a statement. “Some of them…were originally built for the coal plant, but over the years, it has become very desirable real estate where people build their dream homes. It looks very pristine and beautiful, but if you dig in, you find piles of toxic coal ash.” Decades of Pollution Coal ash is the by-product of burning coal and is one of the most prevalent forms of industrial waste in the United States—around 130 million metric tons are produced every year. Ash contains toxic metals, including lead, mercury, arsenic, and selenium, which can cause respiratory diseases and cancers after short- or long-term exposure. Coauthor Avner Vengosh of Duke University and his colleagues have been investigating the water quality of lakes and groundwater across North Carolina for more than a decade. Some of their past work has focused on pollution in the five artificial lakes sampled in the new study—Hyco Lake, Mayo Lake, Belews Lake, Mountain Island Lake, and Lake Sutton—each of which is located near a coal plant. The team collected cores up to 70 centimeters deep from the lakes between July 2020 and August 2021. They also collected a core from Lake Waccamaw, a natural lake close to Lake Sutton, for comparison. “The oldest sediments we collected were aged to mid-1950s,” Vengosh said, “representing 60–70 years of sedimentation.” Some of the cores look back to before the nearby coal plants were installed and provide a good baseline to understand a plant’s environmental impact. For each core, the researchers analyzed the morphology, magnetic and geochemical properties, and strontium isotopes of the lake sediments and the embedded coal ash to track the history of ash deposition into the lakes. The cores revealed three distinct phases of coal ash release into the lakes. The first phase, from the 1960s to 1970s, saw significant deposition of both coarse and fine-grained ash particles as ash was dumped right into the lakes. During the second phase, from the 1970s to 1990s, the enactment of the Clean Air Act meant that coal ash was stored in ponds next to the plant. The level of pollution into the nearby lakes decreased during this time, and larger particles were captured by air filters instead of entering the environment. The third phase, from the 1990s to the present, also saw a decrease in the quantity of coal ash deposited into the lakes as storage changed from wet coal ash ponds to dry landfills and a few plants shifted from coal to natural gas for energy production. Using streamflow data from the U.S. Geological Survey, the team found that the lakes accumulated more coal ash during times of high streamflow and precipitation. This result suggests that stormwater runoff, flooding, and effluent discharge from coal ash ponds and dry landfills are some of the main mechanisms by which the ash enters nearby lakes. Ash can also enter the air, land in the surrounding landscape, and be washed into the lakes by rain. The researchers noted that climate change continues to heighten the severity of the storms striking North Carolina, including hurricanes like Florence in 2018, which bodes ill for the coal ash still stored at these plants. Research speculates that coal ash enters North Carolina lakes via three pathways: airborne ash that settles into the lakes and surrounding landscape, stormwater runoff from coal ash ponds, and effluent discharge from coal ash ponds. Once in the lake bottom sediments, the coal ash can release contaminants into the water, increasing their bioavailability. Credit: Wang et al., 2022, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.2c04717 A Toxic Legacy The plants near Hyco, Mayo, and Belews Lakes continue to burn coal for power; the Sutton Plant has switched to natural gas, and the Riverbend Plant near Mountain Island Lake has been retired. But the toxic legacy of all of these energy plants continues. “Coal ash that was stored in the nearby coal ash ponds seems to continue [to be] displaced and transported into the lakes, specifically during times of major flooding like hurricane episodes,” Vengosh said. “The problem of coal ash legacy did not go away by switching to natural gas.” Once in the lake bed, the coal ash breaks down and releases contaminants into the water. Those contaminants become bioavailable, which is a concern for the local ecosystems and the residents who live nearby. All five lakes are destinations for recreational boating, fishing, and camping, and Hyco Lake is also a residential area. What’s more, Mountain Island Lake is a local drinking water intake, noted Amanda Strawderman, polluter accountability program director for the nonprofit Clean Water for North Carolina. This study raises pressing questions, she said. “To what degree could suspended particles of coal ash be taken into the municipal drinking water treatment system? Is this water being tested and remediated for toxic coal ash constituents? If remediation is taking place, to what extent are those 800,000 residents of the Charlotte/Mecklenburg area bearing the cost burden of that remediation through water rates?” This study examined the environmental risks of bioaccumulation of coal ash pollutants, Vengosh said, but “it is well known that the assembly of contaminants in coal ash are highly toxic [to people]. There are reports that many workers who participated in the cleanup of the coal ash spill in the Tennessee Valley Authority [in 2008] became severely sick, with a high percentage of cancer. Many of them have already passed.” “This alarming study reinforces the need to regulate generation and management of coal ash waste to understand where coal ash exists,” Strawderman added, “and strengthen protections for communities in North Carolina and beyond.” Read the article on EOS


    Continue reading
  • Viewpoints: We’re Still Waiting on Chapel Hill Coal Ash Answers

    By: Amanda Strawderman, Op-Ed for Chapelboro.com September 9, 2022 May 16, 2022. That was the date the Town of Chapel Hill and NC Dept of Environmental Quality held a virtual meeting to inform the public of the process of the urgent yet controversial redevelopment of the town’s property at 828 MLK Blvd. Urgent, first and foremost, because the site contains an estimated 60,000 cubic yards of coal ash made up of carcinogenic compounds and heavy metals, exposure to which is known to be harmful to human health. And even after coal ash was discovered and the Town made initial cleanup efforts, sections of this site have continued to be exposed to rain and wind, and is of concern to the community. Controversial, because the Town has proposed to build residential housing and municipal buildings atop the site without first removing all of the coal ash. Given the risks for more exposure during and after the completion of this project, people naturally have questions about how they will be protected. It’s important to note that this was not the first meeting on the topic. Members of the public have been showing up for Chapel Hill Town Council meetings and reaching out with emails and phone calls for months. After being chided by some council members for speaking out without being fully informed, folks wanted to do just that, to become better informed and give the Town the opportunity to demonstrate that they have public health and safety considerations at the forefront of this project. And so on May 16, despite allotting only 30 minutes for questions, 73 members of the public – neighbors, local and statewide coalitions of coal ash-impacted community members, health experts, clean air and water advocates – attended the meeting to voice their concerns and ask for answers. Some questions were addressed during the meeting while others would require research and consultation, but all were promised to be given written responses that would soon be posted on the Town of Chapel Hill’s website. Seventy days. That’s how long we waited for the Town and DEQ to post those responses (Note that members of the public are expected to provide comments within 30 days after notice of a draft permit for polluting facilities). And even when these replies 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. To illustrate, community members have long been asking about the potential removal methods for the coal ash at the site, and when DEQ responded, they simply stated “decisions about removal should be directed to the Town of Chapel Hill representatives.” Yet the Town had insisted they were bringing in DEQ for their expertise. When asked if DEQ’s brownfield program had previous experience with ‘mitigated coal ash on proposed housing sites’ they discussed projects at other types of sites with elevated metals, avoiding the true answer that the program has NEVER put a residential development on top of a former coal ash site. Discourse that has the public running in circles doesn’t exactly build confidence that any number of potentially negative consequences from this project have been considered. Far from trying to obstruct progress, we just want to understand the plan. Aside from the redevelopment proposal that has been put forth, what other types of clean-up and remediation options has the Town even considered or been given estimates? How would potential exposure and health risks differ between users and activities at the redeveloped site (residents/employees or long-term vs visitors or short-term)? Have they consulted the NC Department of Health and Human Services or other health researchers about potential public health impacts from these proposals? How will they ensure workers and community members will be protected during construction? How will the waste be handled, transported, and stored so that coal ash dust doesn’t escape into the air we breathe or the water we drink? How long will they monitor the local environment after the project is completed? And whichever plan they choose, how will they ensure negative impacts are not disproportionately borne by low-income or BIPOC community members? These are just some of the valid concerns that haven’t been addressed. Considering that this is only one of who knows how many undiscovered coal ash sites across the state, what is decided now doesn’t only affect the residents of Chapel Hill, the next one could be in any one of our neighborhoods. It is in everyone’s best interest to see that justice is done for our fellow Carolinians in this matter. Decide for yourself and follow the issue on the Chapel Hill website or Futureof828.org. Watch the recording of the meeting, read their responses, and participate in the upcoming meetings to ask your own questions. This project is still at the early stages, but if we don’t make sure the Town is thinking things through, then decisions will be made and they might just claim it’s too late, that too much effort has already gone into this plan, too much money has been invested, or that we should have said something sooner. It’s now September and the next Chapel Hill Town Council meeting is on the 14th. To the council and DEQ, we HAVE spoken, we’re still here, and we’re waiting for answers. Read the article on Chapelboro.com


    Continue reading
  • REPORT: “A Pandemic’s Impact – Utility Disconnections, Evictions & Houselessness”

    Clean Water for NC has been involved in advocating for low-income North Carolinians against utility rate increases for years, and we saw new concerns emerge with COVID’s significant financial hardship for many families nationally and in North Carolina. Staff, along with volunteer Lee Barnes, explored the nuances and impacts of the pandemic on utility insecurity, eviction insecurity, and houselessness in the U.S., and specifically North Carolina, during COVID-19.  Read the Report: "A Pandemic's Impact" The Utility and eviction moratoria are discussed in the context of race and class, especially considering access to utilities and reasonably priced rent before the pandemic as compared to during. The nature of utility shut-offs and why utility access is so important during a pandemic is covered in some detail, and there is discussion of private vs. public water utilities. We examine types of evictions and the legal nature of these evictions, along with the geographic patterns of evictions in the United States. The emotional, financial, and medical impacts of houselessness on Americans, especially during the pandemic, and especially during the climate crisis, are explored, as well as their racial context. We also include resources and highlight organizations providing assistance.  Clean Water for NC aims to demonstrate our commitment to holistically considering the issues facing underserved communities. We hope state policies better protect BIPOC communities facing water disconnections, higher rates of eviction, and unhoused status. Read the Report: "A Pandemic's Impact"


    Continue reading
  • Is your well water safe to drink? New resource from UNC-Chapel Hill, partners can help you decide

    Is your well water safe to drink? New resource from UNC-Chapel Hill, partners can help you decide Story by: Andrew George, Community Engagement Coordinator | UNC Institute for the Environment Press contact: Emily Williams, Director of Community and University Relations | UNC Institute for the Environment,  [email protected], (919) 962-0965 People who rely on private well water in North Carolina have a better chance of learning whether their well water is safe to drink thanks to an initiative of the UNC School of Law Well Water Pro Bono Project, the UNC Superfund Research Program (UNC SRP), the environmental non-profit Clean Water for North Carolina (CWFNC), NC Department of Health and Human Services (NC DHHS), Division of Public Health, Private Well and Health Program, and the NC Real Estate Commission. The team is engaged in a collaborative effort to provide North Carolinians with information they need to assess the safety of their well water. In October 2021, law students partnered with the NC Real Estate Commission to publish a brochure describing common well water contaminants, how to test for them, and resources for removing them when present. With UNC SRP and CWFNC, the team designed the brochure to inform realtors, property owners, and home buyers about the need for regular well testing as well as how to test well water and opportunities to reduce the cost of testing. An estimated 2.5 million people in NC rely on private wells for their drinking water. Although the state has the fifth largest population of well users in the country, drinking water from private wells is not regulated by state or federal agencies. As a result, most well water is not tested. Many contaminants cannot be tasted, smelled, or seen, making well testing the only way to know if contaminants are present and vital to protecting health or property. “North Carolina does not require real estate transactions to include a well water test, unless there is a known contaminant that the seller has a duty to disclose,” says Professor Maria Savasta-Kennedy, the author of North Carolina’s Environmental Law Practice Guide, who teaches environmental law and environmental justice at UNC School of Law. “Neither the federal Safe Drinking Water Act nor other federal or state regulation governs what is in your well water and how safe it is to drink.” Savasta-Kennedy supervises the Well Water Pro Bono Project, along with Cathy Cralle Jones, senior litigator with the Law Offices of F. Bryan Brice Jr. in Raleigh, who first brought the project to the law school. “The North Carolina Real Estate Commission is thrilled to be involved in bringing these much-needed resources to consumers,” said Charlie Moody, assistant director for the Regulatory Affairs Division of the NC Real Estate Commission. “Additionally, these materials will assist real estate brokers in educating their clients about the importance of well water testing.” When a new well is constructed in North Carolina, the local health department is required to conduct an initial test for a limited number of contaminants (N.C. Gen. Stat. 87-97), but ongoing testing is not required. Additionally, testing is not required for any wells installed prior to 2008. Radon, a prevalent, naturally occurring contaminant in the state, and emerging contaminants such as PFAS and GenX are not included on the list of contaminants that must be tested. “This effort to increase well water testing during real estate transactions complements our ongoing work to support private well users with cutting edge science and potential solutions when contamination is found,” said Rebecca Fry, director of the UNC SRP. “With our community partners, we will continue to incorporate the best science into policy dialogues, so private well users can feel confident making decisions about their drinking water to protect their families and communities.” The next steps include sharing this information broadly, and CWFNC is positioned to take on some of that work. According to Rachel Velez, CWFNC’s Water Justice program director, “absent state and federal regulations for private wells, we are excited to explore creative solutions for protecting well users. We look forward to engaging our statewide membership to better understand the obstacles rural and low-income private well users face when trying to provide a safe drinking water source for their households.” If you are a private well user and would like more information about this effort and research projects to improve drinking water in NC, please visit the UNC Superfund Research Project web page: https://sph.unc.edu/superfund-pages/cec/.  For more information about Well Water Pro Bono Project at UNC School of Law, please visit https://law.unc.edu/news/2021/10/well-water-testing-pro-bono-project/.


    Continue reading
  • Will property owners who lost land to scuttled Atlantic Coast Pipeline get it back?

    By: Lisa Sorg, NC Policy WatchOctober 28, 2021 Advocates cry foul as future of thousands of easements in North Carolina and Virginia remains uncertain  Dominion Energy laid claim to 3,100 tracts of private land along the Atlantic Coast Pipeline route, including hundreds in North Carolina, but the company is not immediately returning that acreage to property owners, even though the project has been cancelled. Now property rights and environmental advocates, as well as landowners themselves, are asking federal officials to formally intervene. Under the name…


    Continue reading
  • Amanda Strawderman: Completing Census could help fight pollution in NC

    By: Amanda Strawderman, Opinion Editorial in Fayetteville Observer August 20, 2020 Too many communities across the country are faced with living in unhealthy environments due to pollution related to drinking water and air quality. Environmental Justice (EJ) is the reality, backed by statistics, that polluting industries have historically targeted areas of low-income, or communities of color. The federal Environmental Protection Agency created a tool known as the EJ Screen with the purpose of identifying disproportionate impacts of pollution to such communities throughout the country. Grassroots leaders, environmental advocates and the public should be able use this tool to help prevent permits that…


    Continue reading
  • Belinda Joyner Is Tired of Fighting the Atlantic Coast Pipeline, But She’s Still Fighting

    By: Lewis Kendall, IndyWeek July 1, 2020 “We are tired of being dumped on.” In February, Belinda Joyner caught a ride to the U.S. Supreme Court. Alongside a couple of close friends, the 67-year-old rode from her home in Garysburg, a 1,000-person town near the North Carolina-Virginia border, up to Washington, D.C. They were there to watch the court hear arguments over whether the U.S. Forest Service should be allowed to issue permits for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline to be built through national forest lands connected to the Appalachian Trail. The 600-mile, $8 billion pipeline—spearheaded by Dominion Energy and Duke Energy and first…


    Continue reading
  • Consumers shouldn’t pay cleanup costs for coal ash dumping

    Op-Ed by Rachel Velez, Clean Water for North Carolina Published in the Burlington Times-News January 26, 2020 Impacted community members and environmental justice activists won a huge victory earlier this month when the N.C. Department of Environmental Quality, community groups and Duke Energy signed a settlement agreement requiring the utility giant to fully excavate 80 million tons of coal ash from leaking, unlined pits in six sites across the state. This isn’t a complete victory, however, if Duke Energy is allowed to shove the cost of its coal ash cleanup onto customers — and that’s exactly what it’s asking the N.C. Utilities Commission…


    Continue reading
  • Pipeline protest reaches downtown Roanoke

    By: Heather Rousseau, The Roanoke Times September 24, 2019 About 150 people gathered in downtown Roanoke to protest against two proposed natural gas pipelines on Monday. Pipeline Protest SUN SiNG Collective performs at a rally with about 150 people gathered in downtown Roanoke Monday protesting against two proposed natural gas pipelines. Protesters from Virginia,…


    Continue reading