HomeMy WebLinkAboutCFE agenda 011215AGENDA
Commission for the Environment
January 12, 2015
7:30 D.m.
Richard Whitted Meeting Facility (Room 250)
300 West Tryon Street, Hillsborough
Time Item Title
7:30 I. Call to Order
7:32 II. Additions or Changes to Agenda
7:35 III.
Approval of Minutes — December 8 (Attachment 1)
7:40 IV.
Committee Meetings
Following initial direction from the Chair, the CFE will break out into its standing committees (Air
and Energy, Land, Water Resources) to continue prioritizing issues as assigned. (Attachment 2)
8:15 V.
Committee Reports
The committees will report on what they have prioritized as issues to work on in 2015
8:45 VI.
Public Outreach — SOE Report
The CFE will discuss ways of conveying information from the State of the Environment report to
the general public. The information on various topics (such as fracking, invasive species, etc.)
could be reformatted for different venues. (Attachment 3)
9:15 VII.
Updates and Information Items
Staff and /or CFE members will provide updates on the following items:
➢ County to purchase rollcarts for rural recycling (Attachment 4)
➢ Prospects for fracking in North Carolina (Attachments 5 -6)
➢ Coal ash toxicity (Attachment 7)
➢ Relative rates of ozone production by different car types (Attachment 8)
➢ The Nature of Orange photo contest 2015 (Attachment 9)
➢ OWASA draft biosolids management report (Pt. 1) (Attachment 10):
http: //www.owasa.org /biosolids -re clip -pro ram
.http:,Lwww.owasa.org/Data/Sites/l/mediLalwhatWeDoLwastewater 2014-
12-19 d raft- biosol ids- report - -- 1- final,�df
9:30 IX. Adjournment
Nextmeeting., February 9 (Solid Waste Admin. Building — Chapel Hill)
Adopted 9112111
CFE Meeting Ground Rules
1. Keep to agenda topic under discussion
2. Share relevant information
3. One person speaks at a time after recognition by the Chair
4. Everyone is invited to participate in discussions / no one person
should dominate discussions
5. Strive to reach consensus first before voting
Attachment 1
Orange County
Commission for the Environment
DRAFT Meeting Summary
December 8, 2014
Orange County Solid Waste Administration Building, Chapel Hill
PRESENT: Jan Sassaman (Chair), May Becker, Peter Cada, Loren Hintz, Donna Lee Jones,
David Neal, Steve Niezgoda, Bill Newby, Jeanette O'Connor, Gary Saunders, Sheila Thomas -
Ambat, Lydia Wegman, and David Welch
ABSENT: Rebecca Ray
STAFF: Rich Shaw, Tom Davis, Brennan Bouma GUEST: Thomas Eisenhart
Call to Order — Sassaman called the meeting to order at 7:35 pm.
Additions or Changes to Agenda — There were none.
III. Minutes — Sassaman asked for a motion on the November 10 meeting summary. Hintz
motioned to approve as written: seconded by Wegman. Approved unanimously.
IV. Introduction of New CFE Member and Staff — Sassaman welcomed new CFE member
Sheila Thomas - Ambat, and Brennan Bouma, Orange County's new Sustainability
Coordinator. Sassaman asked both to introduce themselves and to describe some of
their background and interests, which they did. CFE members introduced themselves.
V. 2015 Meeting Calendar — The CFE approved its meeting calendar for 2015.
VI. Potential action items from CFE /BOCC dinner meeting — Sassaman asked CFE
members to review the list of subjects that were raised and discussed during the
October 14 dinner meeting with the board of county commissioners (BOCC). He
referred members to Attachments 5 and 6 in the meeting materials.
Niezgoda observed that the BOCC seemed receptive and interested in the
recommendations put forward by the CFE. Other members agreed.
Wegman noted Commissioner Gordon's recommendation that the CFE help educate the
public on the pros and cons of hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking." Becker noted the CFE
and BOCC adopted resolutions concerning fracking in 2012. Davis noted the CFE
summarized the fracking issues in its State of the Environment report. Sassaman
suggested the CFE use new modes of communication to help educate citizens about
this and other issues in the SOE report, such as an electronic newsletter and news
articles. He recommended sending this issue to the Water Resources Committee for
consideration. Hintz said this is not a high - priority issue for the CFE and Orange County.
Wegman noted Commissioner Dorosin's interest in the CFE re- examining environmental
issues from a social justice viewpoint, including his example of overlaying groundwater
contamination maps with basic census data.
Attachment 1
Neal recommended some sort of response to the BOCC indicating the CFE appreciates
that feedback and is exploring adding a consideration of social justice in the CFE's
overall charge from the BOCC.
Hintz noted some of the issues raised are in the purview of other advisory boards, such
as the Solid Waste Advisory Group (SWAG), the Orange Unified Transportation Board,
and Planning Board. O'Connor agreed, adding she does not believe the BOCC will pay
attention to what the CFE recommends on matters of solid waste and food composting
until the SWAG has had an opportunity to consider and discuss. Sassaman noted the
CFE only recommended that it would monitor these issues and support the SWAG.
Hintz suggested the issue of increasing the County's composting of food waste may be
something the CFE should continue to push prior to it being addressed by the SWAG.
Sassaman noted that when he served on the former Solid Waste Advisory Board they
spent a lot of time on this issue. He agreed there ought to be an increase in volume of
food waste collection and composting. Becker suggested recommending that the
County establish a County composting facility. Sassaman noted that the current process
of collecting food waste, trucking it to Chatham County, and then bringing back the
finished product, is inefficient, however establishing a County facility is would require
land, machinery, and staff. Sassaman asked that this matter be considered by the land
Resources Committee.
Sassaman asked that these and other matters raised by the CFE and BOCC be
discussed by the committees when they meet later on the agenda.
VII. Updates and Information Items — Information on the following subjects was provided
and selected items were summarized by staff: a) CFE Annual Report and Work Plan
(2014 -15), b) Orange County resolution on climate change, c) potential for solar energy
at County -owned buildings, d) Orange Well Net, e) Chapel Hill's new incentives for
green construction, f) Chapel Hill /Carrboro Schools diverting trash from landfill, g)
improvements at the Mason Farm Wastewater Treatment Plant, h) Carrboro's Energy
and Climate Protection Task Force, i) Orange County adopts parks and rec master plan,
j) Duke Energy's plans for removing coal ash from four NC sites, k) Dan River spill
damage, 1) the USEPA proposes lower ozone standard, and m) the proposed new rules
for the permitting of hydraulic fracturing in NC.
VIII. Committee Meetings — The CFE broke out into its standing committees (Air and Energy
Resources, Land Resources, and Water Resources) to initiate discussions of issues
assigned to each committee. Sassaman asked each committee to prioritize the issues
that it would like to work on in 2015 and to identify one spokesperson for reporting back
to the full CFE in January and to send its list of prioritized issues to the staff.
IX. Adjournment — Sassaman adjourned the meeting following the committee discussions,
at approximately 9:20 pm.
Summary by Rich Shaw, DEAPR Staff
2
Orange County
COMMISSION FOR THE ENVIRONMENT
(updated December 2014)
NAME OF MEMBER POS #
DATE OF APPOINTMENT
TERM
BUSINESS TELEPHONE
TOWNSHIP OF
HOME ADDRESS /TELEPHONE
COMMITTEE (Representation)
ENDS
E -MAIL
RESIDENCE
May Becker #1
9/21/10 & 11/16/14
511 Cotton Street
Air & Energy Resources
12/31/17
919 - 969 -7439
Chapel Hill
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
(At Large)
tomatocutter@yahoo.com
Peter Cada #10
9/21/10 & 11/6/14
420 Coach House Lane
Water Resources
12/31/17
919 - 485 -2071
Eno
Hillsborough, NC 27278
(At Large)
peter.cadal@tetratech.com
Loren Hintz #4
1/27/09
804 Kings Mill Rd.
Land Resources
12/31/16
919 - 933 -8987
Chapel Hill
Chapel Hill, NC 27517
(Biological Resources)
bellsouth.net
Donna Lee Jones #5
5/21/13
3035 Carriage Trail
Water Resources
12/31/15
919 - 541 -5251
Eno
Hillsborough, NC 27278
(Water Resources)
donnaleejones13 hotmaiLcom
David Neal #13
9/21/10
323 West Queen Street
Air & Energy Resources
12/31/15
919 - 732 -2156
Hillsborough
Hillsborough, NC 27278
(At Large)
David.L.Neal@gmail.com
William Newby #2
5/20/14
2821 Becketts Ridge Road
Air & Energy Resources
12/31/16
919 - 541 -5296
Hillsborough
Hillsborough, NC 27278
(Air Quality)
newby.william@epa.gov
Steven Niezgoda #14
5/21/13
524 Patriot's Pointe Dr.
Land Resources
12/31/15
716 - 998 -1490
Hillsborough
Hillsborough, NC 27278
(At Large)
steve.niezgoda@gmail.com
Jeanette O'Connor #9
5/21/13 & 11/6/14
117 S Peak Dr.
Land Resources
12/31/17
703 - 678 -6893
Chapel Hill
Carrboro, NC 27510
(At Large)
jeanette.oconnor@gmail.com
Rebecca Ray #15
11/19/13
5617 Jomali Drive
Water Resources
12/31/15
919 - 383 -0685
Eno
Durham, NC 27705
(At Large)
rebecca.ray@nc.rr.com
Jan Sassaman (Chair) #7
12/13/11
201 Bolinwood Drive
Air & Energy Resources
12/31/16
919 - 933 -1609
Chapel Hill
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
(At Large)
jan.sassaman@gmail.com
Gary Saunders #12
1/27/09
103 Woodshire Lane
Air & Energy Resources
12/31/15
919 - 707 -8413
Chapel Hill
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
(Engineer)
gary.saunders@ncdenr.gov
Sheila Thomas -Ambat #8
11/6/14
103 Hunter Hill Place
Water Resources
12/31/16
919 - 225 -4744
Chapel Hill
Chapel Hill, NC 27517
(At Large)
staemail@yahoo.com
Lydia Wegman (Vice Chair) #3
11/19/13 & 11/6/14
5704 Cascade Drive
Land Resources
:12:/31/:17]
919 - 886 -8775
Chapel Hill
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
(At Large)
Inwegman@gmail.com
David Welch #11
9/21/10 & 11/6/14
20 East Drive
Land Resources
12/31/17
919 - 406 -2101
Chapel Hill
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
(At Large)
davwelch@hotmail.com
#6
VACANT
;(;arge) 12/31/16
;;;
David Stancil 245 -2522
Director, Dept. of Environment, Agriculture, Parks & Rec.
dstancil @orangecountync.gov
Rich Shaw 245 -2514
Land Conservation Manager
rshaw @orangecountync.gov
Tom Davis 245 -2513
Water Resources Coordinator
tdavis @orangecountync.gov
Brennan Bouma 245 -2626
Sustainability Coordinator
bbouma @orangecountync.gov
12/1/2014
Attachment 3
ORANGE COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, AGRICULTURE,
PARKS AND RECREATION
MEMORANDUM
To: Commission for the Environment
From: Rich Shaw
Date: January S, 2015
Subject: Public Outreach and the State of the Environment Report 2014
The State of the Environment report 2014 includes information on a variety of important topics
of interest to the residents of Orange County. Conveying that information to people (including
elected officials) may require a combination of approaches as was suggested by Jan Sassaman
and others.
The information on various topics (such as fracking, invasive species, energy conservation, etc.)
could be reformatted for posting on the DEAPR webpage, a proposed new DEAPR electronic
newsletter, newspaper articles, and handouts for street fairs /exhibits, etc.
One idea for the upcoming meeting is for each committee to choose two topics from the SOE
report and for CFE members to work with the Staff on reformatting the information for
presentation in another media. In some cases, the information may need to be revised or
condensed. In some cases, we may need to improve the graphics or find better photographs.
I think this effort could result in a much better way of sharing information from the SOE report
and from the CFE in general.
Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation
PO Box 8181 /306 -A Revere Road
Hillsborough, NC 27278
(919) 245 -2510
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: December 9, 2014
Action Agenda
Item No. 7 -c
DEPARTMENT: Solid Waste Management PUBLIC HEARING: (Y /N) No
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
Bid Sheet
BOCC Information Item — September 4, Gayle Wilson, 919 - 968 -2885
2014 Clarence Grier, 919 - 245 -2453
PURPOSE: To authorize the purchase of •ii 95-gallon r• • r the rural roadside
-ecyclina collection program.
BACKGROUND: Orange County has been discussing the implementation of roll carts in the
rural roadside program for several years, but has experienced continuing delays to proceeding
due at least in part to recycling program funding uncertainty. The Board of County
Commissioners (BOCC) ultimately appropriated funds in the Fiscal 2014/15 budget for the
purchase of approximately 7,000 roll carts with the intention of implementing the carts in the fall
of 2014.
The BOCC directed staff to determine in advance how many rural program service area
residents wished to receive a roll cart prior to finalizing a purchase recommendation for the
Board's consideration. The BOCC further indicated that should the number of affirmative
resident responses in the current service area not utilize the budgeted quantity of roll carts, staff
could consider surveying the previously proposed service expansion area to solicit interest in roll
carts up to the authorized quantity.
In September 2014 Solid Waste staff provided an information item update (attached) of the
proposed implementation plan for rural roll carts that outlined the process by which the current
service area would be surveyed for interest in receiving a roll cart. Staff also provided a timeline
by which a recommendation would be brought to the BOCC for purchase authorization and
ultimately, distribution of the carts to residents.
In September 2014 a mailing was distributed to all residents (approx. 14,500) in the existing
rural roadside service area. A second mailing was distributed to all of the non - respondents to
the first mailing. As of November 14, 2014, staff had received 7,541 responses by mail, phone,
email or answers via the on -line survey to order carts (6,841); or alternatively to indicate that
they did not want a cart (700). Responses continue to trickle in.
irk
Based on the 6,841 responses to date, plus an estimated 10% additional residents who did not
respond to date for whatever reason that staff anticipates will desire a cart, staff believes the
County can expect at least 7,525 carts will be requested by the time of delivery or soon
thereafter, once the carts become visible along the roadways. Additionally, staff believes a
small stock (75) should be on hand in the event of new construction or to replace lost, stolen or
damaged carts. Additional carts will not be available unless or until they are approved in the
FY -201 5116 budget. Therefore staff is proposing the purchase of 7,600 roll carts at this time.
The 95- gallon rural roll carts will be virtually identical to the roll carts previously distributed in the
Towns with the exception that they will have black lids rather than blue lids. Those who did not
opt for carts may continue to use their bins roadside or carry recycling to the convenience
centers or drop -off sites.
If the proposed cart purchase is approved, the carts will be ordered with delivery to residents
expected during the month of February and residents may start using the carts upon delivery.
The distribution schedule will be partly weather dependent, but should be completed by early
March. Residents may keep the orange bins for personal use or recycle them at any Solid
Waste Convenience Center. Members of the public who have not yet ordered a cart but are
eligible (located in the existing service area) and interested can contact the Solid Waste
Department, 919 -968 -2788 or rec cliiinq orain ecouint inc „g ov.
Staff anticipates that the carts will result in increased recycling, greater collection efficiency and
fewer worker injuries with more automated collection and less manual stooping to collect from
bins. The first three months of in -Town recycling using the blue roll carts resulted in a 29
percent increase in tons of recyclables collected at the curb.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The BOCC appropriated $378,000 for 7,000 roll carts in the FY- 2014115
budget based on an estimated cost of $54/each, including distribution. These funds were to be
borrowed from the solid waste enterprise fund reserve at a 2.5% rate over five years. A $75,000
grant (reimbursable) from North Carolina Department of Environment & Natural Resources is
still expected to fund a portion of the rural cart cost.
The current cost of the carts is $58.44 or $444,144 total, including distribution and a mold label
on the lid. The increase is a result of an increase in the cost of resin; the purchase of fewer
carts than for the urban program and obtaining less of a volume discount; higher costs for cart
distribution in rural areas as opposed to in -town' and the mold label on the lid as opposed to
decals used for the urban roll carts.
North Carolina General Statute (NCGS) 143- 129(e) (3) allows local governments to make
purchases through a competitive bidding group purchasing program, which is a formally
organized program that offers competitively obtained purchasing services at discount prices to
two or more public agencies. The HGACBuy is a cooperative purchasing group that meets the
requirements of NCGS 143- 129(e) (3). The specific contract number is HGACBuy Contract
#GC01 -13.
The $66,144 budget increase is proposed to be funded by increasing the amount borrowed from
the solid waste enterprise fund reserve.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board authorized the purchase
of 7,600 95- gallon roll carts from Rerhig Pacific at a total cost of $444,144, to be borrowed from
the solid waste enterprise fund reserve over five year period at a 2.5% interest rate.
N (D
aY �.
n ;®
n
o
fD
a
ocra
.w(D
CD
w�c°) F
rO ~ O p O C
aC cP (D ® s� ro M O
T.'
CD O
?C
CD pq, lb
(D O'er fD �' CD p o p O
CD
O " 1+
mm
COD p, (D O 4.
O O
OCCDI Rio°"
P (7010. CD G.. O rr
(D
(D
O O- v
(D O Q ' R
sm',j wD & " 'C3 � n
Ca. m
O fll ro L
C
ovao��r
�t p
C1 00 n- O Arm O O (ID 1
D F� cn ° CD
cs-
Cn O bq - O
o coD ro O Op v °C
gyp.
ID M �3 r O y'
(D �'
p, oo-- �mo(oo (n n CD
(-D w ° acs
pq
& rte.., ID Z R (n � .. Rt
CD ID
YRD Eff. 9/2005
Revised 7/2007
'ID ID CD coo .
no�o CL
CD
CD
®(D �n o �ID Cr' o
(D 's
PD o' r�o Uq (D o' o pa
° (D LD. C8q ¢" �. ® p Can ep "O
CD
C
w
�.�p���qt rO
(D � -9 �i 8 ".. �i w v' vi' (D �t �C ®, rr
(D bj O CD 70. o-- 0Uq
r er � �• O (D ® Cn CD W CD 'g O A 9 O
Y C • O O CD (D O vi r 0
tOO ® �� r ,pt 0 O �� 0 O O
i CD O" : CD CL COD ® Can a W , MD R., +
CD �� (�... xi
CD
CD
i Uq (D R O O CD L (D O Uq
* �•� p o
ZO CD 90 CD M
ID
D ID
Uq
CD co "C r•� CD n � U0.
+ - ' CID rd's. C o- CD Z•' ' •.
" . O 0q M-. -. rD
CD
CD CD O (D
cis CD
i7+ CDC M.s
n Cn
CD Cp O O O p "t gL A� .'T' PCC� 4 Go CD
IZ
Dq
,F-+r i5:,C3 O "-h 08 Cn ��Op O
En
R ro
"i Oi V1 (D K 7 (D
Cn O (D
I
http://vxvxvx.vxraicom/fact-check,is'duke-teUing'thetruth'about'toxicity' 14ZOOUZO/
Fact Check: Is Duke telling "The ��_'�a—o_t Toxicity?"
BY MARK BUNU{ER (k NCCAPITOL W8Al.COM' POSTED DEC. 19,2O14
N^C, — —AoUhoCBSnoxs magazine "60 Minutes" airodho segment earlier this month
��mm Duke Energy's coal ash spill on the Dan River, someone inthe company's public relations
office was busy tweeting.
One of those short missives read, "gCoalAsh: The truth about toxicity" and linked to a fact sheet posted
online. "It's a tool that we've used at community meetings and events," said Paige Sheehan, a
spokeswoman for the company.
The sheet, she said, also been used when local government meetings. D has existed and been
posted online for several months, she said, adding that it has had a few tweaks along the way.
Our interest here on uoboyn fact-checking desk ioalways piqued xhmnwe000Uhoxnordo"Uho
truth" about any particular subject, especially complex scientific and economic topics.
"Ash contains low levels oftrace elements. Even if you docome into contact with ash, studies have
shown you'd have 0oingest large amounts 0o have the potential for experiencing adverse oDedo," says one
of three main bullet points summarizing the page-long explainer.
Although that doesn't exactly make the case for coal as part ofo balanced breakfast, despite comparing
the amount of arsenic in coal ash to the amount of arsenic in apple juice, the fact sheet does run counter to
the image of toxin-laced goop leaching into groundwater and rivers that has been part of the coal ash
narrative over the past 10 months.
THE QUESTION: Are the "low levels oftrace elements" bn coal ash really nothing to worry about, or
might this well-crafted piece of corporate communications bo downplaying the toxicity issue?
BACKGROUND: Coal ash is the material left over when coal io burned for fuel. Some ash iocaught by
scrubbers that filter air before h leaves o power plant, while other material is collected from the bottom of
boilers. Although the bulk of this material io inert, coal ash contains o number of materials considered
harmful to human health, including arsenic, cadmium, chromium, selenium, lead and mercury.
For decades, Duke and other power companies storedash in wet ponds, although more modern dry-
storage methods move the ash to lined landfills or recycle it into concrete, shingles and the like. While a
nn000ivo spill from o Tennessee Valley Authority coal ash lake raised national attention 0o the issue in
2008, battles over coal ash in North Carolina remained mainly under the political radar until Feb. 2, when
o coal ash pond o10 retired power plant in Rockingham County spilled an estimated 3 9,000 tons of coal
ash into the Dan River.
That spill brought attention to ongoing lawsuits over coal ash ponds located at 14 current and former
power.stations throughout the state. Environmentalists have long argued that toxins from unlined coal ash
ponds have fouled both groundwater and local waterways. While a 1970s case involving Belews Lake has
long been the poster child for this kind of leaching, environmental groups have argued it is occurring on a
number ofwaterways.
http://vxvxvx.vxraicom/fact-check,is'duke-teUing'thetruth'about'toxicity' 14ZOOUZO/
NEWS NOTES: It's worth noting that environmental advocates recently withdrew ostudy Llaimingjhat
fish from a lake near a coal ash vit were unsafe to eat after the company raised questions about the science
involved.
Also of note, the Duke fact sheets says, "The Environmental Protection Agency has evaluated coal ash
extensively and has repeatedly determined that it is not a hazardous waste."
That may change as soon asFriday, when the EPA is expected to issue coal ash.
The federal agency could rule that hazardous material rules apply to coal ash or impose reotrictionomore
similar 0o household waste.
SOURCING: Duke's one-page fact sheet io accompanied bvoono'pogoliotofro[eron000.Somooro
references 0o government reports detailing the materials in coal ash, the toxicological proGl of arsenic or
o handy explainer from a West Virginia scientist putting the measures of parts per million..and..p�Lr�
billion into layman's language. Most of the resources in this group are cited oo providing numerical and
scientific values for the obooL
However, there are four names that come up several times on the reference list and are used toback up
the sheet's conclusions drawn from the numbers: Lisa Bradley, John Ward, EPRI and ACAA.
E98listhe Electric Power Research Institute, on industry-funded think tank of which Duke isomember.
The ACAAiothe American Coal Ash Association, on industry bode group that promotes "the
management and use of coal combustion prodoot ."Tboro'onoUhincxrong,poroo,nddhindoobyUdnk
tanks, but it's important to keep in mind that they come to the table with o particular point ofview.
Groups that are in the business of promoting energy producers and the beneficial uses of coal ash are not
likely to highlight the potential health and environmental problems associated with the nno1odol.
Bradley is for AECOM, o company that, among other things,
provides planning and engineering services 0o the energy industry. She io also o member of the ACAA'o
executive committee.
Ward ioo marketing, communications and public affairs consultant who has worked for several energy-
related boobn00000bofxo starting his own consulting company. He also boodo Citizens for Recycling
E�st, a Denver-based group that advocates for recycling coal ash. Ward's name appears in the transcripts
of several hearings the EPA held over the past two years examining whether coal ash should bo
designated 000 hazardous waste.
While both Bradley and Ward obviously have o good deal of background related 0o energy and coal ash,
their ties to industry are not immediately clear in the citations on the Duke fact sheet.
"[r. Bradley is an Ph.D., regarded uy one of the nation's leading experts in coal ash
toxicity. She offers deep expertise in discussing the i0000," Duke's Sheehan said when asked about
Bradley's work and affiliations.
Sheehan pointed to several articles Bradley had written, including one for The Air and Waste
Association. She also pointed out that Bradley had been appointed hu the National Coal
Council bviT.S. Secretary of Energy Dr. ErnomiMoniz.
SCIENCE: To boln ovoloo10 the fact oboot, gNCCophol turned to Gerald LeBlanc, professor and
program director at North Carolina State University's Department of Environmental and Molecular
Toxicology, and Avner Vengosh, a professor at Duke University's Nicholas School of the Environment
who has oodvolv studied coal oob. \/ongoob'o latest research opooiGoollv deals with determinim4 whether
contamination comes from a particular coal ash source or not.
http: / /www.wraI.com/ fact - check -is- duke - telling- the - truth - about - toxicity - /14288028/
We should note that Duke Energy views Vengosh as "aligned with anti -coal groups," pointing to work he
has done with the Appalachian Voices website and similar advocacy groups. He is a frequent source for
North Carolina due to his expertise in the subject and his studies of the TVA spill.
We started by asking LeBlanc whether he would hand Duke Energy's fact sheet to an undergraduate
college student as a good primer on environmental risk.
"No," he said. "This was written to convey a one -sided story, that there's no problem with coal ash. I
appreciate the fact they support their facts with sources of information. The bad news is that most of those
sources are coal trade organizations."
Because of Duke Energy's reliance on industry trade groups rather than peer- reviewed research, he said,
"you have to take everything they say here with a grain of salt."
Vengosh was similarly critical of the overall impression the company's fact sheet might leave with a less -
informed reader. "The literature and the scientific evidence clearly shows that coal ash is a dangerous
material," Vengosh said.
Both Vengosh and LeBlanc cautioned that, just because there were risks associated with coal ash, does
not mean that ash ponds or other storage facilities were necessarily harmful to their immediate
environments. Rather, they said, each case needs to be carefully examined. However, both said Duke
Energy's fact sheet goes too far in downplaying the risks.
Sheehan said Duke Energy wasn't trying to have people overlook the risks associated with coal
combustion residuals but rather offer an answer to a frequently asked question about how the toxicity of
coal compares with other substances.
"The chart in the fact sheet helps the public understand which constituents are in ash and how it compares
to soil and solid waste to help inform the discussion about the best approach to continue to manage it
safely," she said.
One of LeBlanc's strongest critiques of Duke's fact sheet is it addresses things that aren't really a concern
with coal ash. "There are a few issues that we're very concerned about, and then there are a wealth of
things that we're not concerned about," LeBlanc said. "They're sort of expounding on this wealth of things
that are not problematic. We don't eat coal ash. You could say a lot of things about how much coal ash
you would need to eat to get sick ... but that's just not relevant to the issue."
Sheehan said the company regularly gets questions about direct exposure, particularly from people living
in the area of the Dan River spill. It's one reason why, she said, the company makes the comparison
between the toxins in coal ash and in the soil.
http: / /www.wraI.com/ fact - check -is- duke - telling- the - truth - about - toxicity - /14288028/
"The constituents that are naturally occurring in soil dissolve the same way as constituents in coal ash,"
she said. "There are background levels of these constituents in groundwater and surface water."
This is a point of contention in much of the litigation between environmental advocates and the company.
Environmental groups contend that rivers and groundwater see spikes in contaminants near coal ash
ponds. In general, the concern with coal ash is that water that washes through the ash picks up toxins and
washes them away where they can affect drinking water or be consumed by fish and birds, which are then
eaten by humans. Vengosh said that studies suggest that, due to the processes involved in burning coal, it
is much easier for toxins to wash out of ash into water supplies than it is for the same material to be
washed out of soils.
SMALL QUANTITIES: Duke's fact sheet makes the point that "trace elements in ash are measured in
very small units. A part per million is equivalent to four drops of water in a 55- gallon drum."
Sheehan said this was not offered up to minimize the risk but to help educate the public on words,
measurements and other information they may not have heard about before and to put it into context.
"I think it's safe to say that most of us don't spend much time thinking about measurements in parts per
billion," she said. "We included analogies in the fact sheet to help people understand the language and put
it into perspective."
LeBlanc said that he worries the descriptions of those very small amounts might give a non - scientist the
impression they're not worth worrying about.
vo different things to scientists and to a lay
" he said.
ins that government regulations set very low
materials like arsenic and selenium, he said, is
hose materials are toxic.
THE CALL: To land a green light on our fact- checkinm scale, we demand "no materially incorrect
assertions or misleading statements." While there aren't any fact errors in this sheet, our experts say the
facts Duke Energy cites are used to build a case that might give the casual reader the wrong idea.
A yellow light on our scale generally indicates a lack of context or facts that have been cherry- picked.
The focus on direct ingestion dangers and the less - than - transparent citation of industry trade groups
would meet that test for us. Generally, we reserve red lights for those willfully perpetrating factual errors.
But our fact checks will sometimes give a red light to those who are using true facts to, either on purpose
or by accident, obscure the truth.
"I don't to take sides on these things. I try to be an objective source of information for either side,"
LeBlanc said. "But I do find it a little bit disappointing when I see documents like this and they're stated
as, 'The Facts.' Really, it is trying to put some facts out there that are going to mislead. In my opinion,
that's what they're doing here."
Duke Energy earns a red light for this fact sheet.
Reporter Mark Binker
Coal - fueled
electric
cars sully
air, too
t Road Worrier
Bruce Siceloff'
A new' study finds that
plug -in electric cars can be
the dirtiest vehicles on the
road — when they run on elec-
tricity produced from the fa-
vorite fuel of America's util-
ities: coal.
Nissan Leafs, Teslas and
other electric cars have no
tailpipes and no exhaust. But
three University of Minneso-
ta researchers looked at ,air
pollution from the entire life
cycles of plug-ins and other
alternative cars.
Their calculations includ-
ed the pollutants produced
when corn is grown and fer-
mented for ethanol and
when minerals are mined to
make the big lithium -ion bat-
teries that power plug -in
cars. And for plug -in cars,
they did the math on electric-
ity derived from burning
coal and from cleaner
sources such as natural gas,
wind and solar.
The study, online at
bit..ly /1xLuhDf, was pub-
lished in December in the
Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences. It
measured each car's produc-
tion of ground ozone and
fine particulate matter — two,
unhealthy elements of air
pollution, which kills more
than 100,000 people in the
SEE SICELOFF, PAGE 8A'
SICELOFF
CONTINUED FROM PAGE IA
United States each year.
The conventional gas car
ranked in the middle of the
pack when it was compared
with 10 alternatives. Electric
cars were the cleanest if they
ran on electricity derived
from renewable sources or
natural gas. The dirtiest cars
relied on coal -fired electricity
or on ethanol.
"If we adopt electric vehi-
cles and power them with
clean fuel sources, it can
cause a large decrease in air
pollution," the lead author,
Christopher W. Tessum of
the University of Minneso-
ta's Engineering Depart-
ment, said Monday. "If we
power them with a dirty
source, coal, it causes an in-
crease in air pollution."
For every 100 air pollution
deaths attributable to gaso-
line cars, Tessum and his col-
leagues calculate the equiva-
lent of only 26 deaths from
plug -in cars, driven the same
number of miles, that use
electricity created from wind
or solar power.
Burning natural gas to
make:that same electricity is
almost as clean (50 deaths) -
and, it turns out, much clean-
er than burning compressed
natural gas in the cars them-
selves (89 deaths).
The dirtiest cars
The dirtiest picture was
painted for plug -in cars with
electricity produced entirely
from coal — at 363 deaths on
this scale, nearly four times
deadlier than the average gaso-
line car. This exaggerates the
true picture, since coal is used
to produce less than half the
nation's electric power.
Tessum and his colleagues
reckon that 45 percent of our
electricity will come from
coal in the year 2020 - he
points out that some projec-
tions are lower and at that
share they attribute 186
deaths'to these cars.
As old power plants are de-
commissioned, coal is be-
'coming a smaller part of the
electric power supply. Duke
Energy says coal is its top
fuel source for North and
South Carolina customers,
currently a 31 percent share.
Duke projects that coal will
fall by 2029 to third place be-
hind nuclear, and natural gas,
accounting by then for
21 percent of its electricity.
"If you look at the energy
mix in North Carolina,
there's also a lot of nuclear,
which is carbon- free," said
Duke spokesman Randy
Wheeless.
Gas- electric hybrid cars
tir The News & Observer+
`If we encourage
electric vehicles
with clean
electricity the
gains are much
higher.'
CHRISTOPHER W.
TESSUM
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
such as the standard Toyota
Prius — the kind that don't plug
into the electric power grid
show up pretty well in the Min- .
nesota study, with an estimat-
ed 71 pollution- related deaths
for every 100 deaths from gaso-
line cars. Since consumers
have more direct control over
what car they buy than over
the fuel source used to produce
local electricity, the Minnesota
study suggests that buying a
thrifty hybrid car might be a
good idea. ,
"Consumers, if they're con-
cerned about the health im-
pacts that come with pollution
— things like asthma, heart dis-
ease and the increased proba-
bility of death - they can buy
more efficient gasoline cars
like the Prius," Tessum said.
`But there's a ceiling for how
efficient these' cars can be. If
we encourage electric vehicles
with clean electricity genera-
tion, the gains are much high-
er.,,
Other studies have faulted .
electric cars for substantial
environmental damage,
based on high levels of pollu-
tion created in the manufac-
ture of batteries that car own-
ers recharge at their homes at
night. Tessum said the Min-
nesota study calculates much
lower pollution levels from
battery production.
Siceloff: 919- 829 -4527
bruce.siceloffp newsobservercom
or newsobserver.com /roadworrier
Twitter: @Road_Worrier
C
O
C
O
i
C
W
W
O
41
C
L
c�
a
dl
dl
s
H
Y
OC
Q
LL a
O F LLi
�Zo Z
w
fZ�O
�O�Q
CL
w Z w
a Lu I=
C
O
dl
i
V
y�
W
c�
ti
i
7
V
is
cp
aQ h
C �
O o
O
N t
L CL-
SO
� O
t =
T O
C a) v U C
V a) L a)
b,O U ^ ° D ago
ro
.V O ro •L
L V1
L O N L C a)
C', O ro > ro O 0 i
o F L 3
LI�il Vi L V o
0 Z) O
a
0 =1-0 V Q
N ro " O w
3 u s ro u
� •3 'e
a ro Q ro V a)
Q v ro " O
—co —co
W u i v V
S a ro U
t'+
d
m
d
J
a
i
C
3
-'o
d
a
-o
e
N
• •
GO%
W
whw''
W
� I �
ro T ro
V � V
O T
s U s
s
L
O O N
� N 7
V a) V
o E
O O
V
o
ro O ro
L 00
a) �
ro
E s
° o •3
ao
3
v
ro
a
s
v
cli
N
7
O
V
D
i
i
00
i
c
3
Q
0
N
d)
Z�
O
t
a0
O
a
ryry�
P-4
3
ro
a)
a) O
O
w
�
o Z)
co
0 bp a)
`
^
O
V
D
i
i
00
i
c
3
Q
0
N
i
O
t
a0
O
a
T
3
ro
a)
a) O
O
w
�
o Z)
co
0 bp a)
`
^
O
C d,0
LLLLLJW77
o f Z
vi
U L
L
p v
U
N Ln
C 0��1
T
N
Z
ul (n
M
V
0
boo
-
�
N4
y�
�U
O Co
OL
m `o
ro )
a) X
Q 3
0, C�
L
a
go Q m
0
-0
c a`
0 ro
ro
�M O
-
O
a
O
2
d LL
L w
i
t
E N L
O
T
3
-
a) O
O
w
of L
V
"
LL O
C co
o f Z
vi
U L
i
C
O
a)
N
�. '�
V O s
L O —
O ro
N 4
s
U
0
a
w
:� D 0 0
Q 3
s
0
N
" ro
O
" O
O
E j �
�
�o O
L
°
'0 O a) O
O
L
O
N N
O
b-0 a
L
N L
O
0 0�
O U a� O
O
�ao
dV
wF
a)
O
-
X
s
O O
O N 0
=
a
O
co
Q
cO
L
a V
d
a) bi
N d
0
.
Z W
d W
co N ro
LU
p
ro
O
O
N
}'
a)
0 3 u O
•� ro Q Z
4�, co
~ 3
L •�
N >`
7
•> E
N
�'
a�
N
O C
�-
fn
v +'T
C O U ro
a.i
a� NO E s s
1:
w 0 0
s ro 0
N
O
O •},
L
O
ro s Z
p a) 0 ao V
Z V CO
0
E
U
-
U r� 0 s
O
J O
aO
O O
aO
N
a) V
a
C',
O L
O oC O
d CO
O
O
O
bOX
a
—
O1
E
� -
O d-0
�L
o
a)
Z)
o Q
s a
L
O ?
w"0
O T
U
0
>
s w E
amp E 0 2:
N
w
D0Wc4
a
s
—
N
rn
T
Ln
10
—
N
7
Q
a
C
N
O
N
L
ids
N
C
C
S
A
ai
V
C
C
a)
7
E
O
O
U
O
L
a7
O
LU C
+'
0
ro
w 0
L
a7
•
p
L
O ro
S
V
•>
C
O
V
aL7 ao
V
O s
o
a,
E
V
O
U
C
CN
a,
a,
Z
ro
L
__
�_ V
0
V ro
E
D Y
U
a
"
O
bO
Gl L
o
�
O
O
Y a
O
U 5
U
E
U
O
ro
y,
a)
ao
ao
O
ao
V
C
L
C
ro 'L
ro
•>
ro
E
ro
N
0 Q
0
w
0
�- -
-� a
a) }
•� p
L C
O o �
O 9�
E
blo
z $
CD
t CA
i
s
O
C
V
S
3
O
aE
O
N
H
Z
w
F
Z
ca
Z
W
LL
Oa
�w
�Z
LUJO
�Uw
a U
W l7 W
oar
a
w
D
o N
O
U
aO
CQ
L �
0°
O
b-0
L (1
ro �
7
bpo bbO
o � �
T L
N w O
LO M
NM s
bO V
j i ±'
- o
s ro a E
d U- L w u
7 L a) U
> a) L L >� 0 � w a) N L yj O
w o m a) 0 O ro u i N O_ .� a 0
.L N :d
O 'a a O 3 p a C ed O E N 3 '> �_ E
3 L O E
O •� L d i ro N 3 N L L a) N
()
E ro ro T 7 -p a� Q O L t r
s O 0- etl 3 O o O ro ro N co
ro .� a C, ^ — C: i w U U s i
O E 2 pp a L O ro '> ro O
D a0o ro N O N U 0 -C ro T Q a�+ boo U O s 4) V > <� ro ro
N 7 L O 7 ro m 'p 3 �' N U t " L
s ro s C 0 aroi > Gl bA t t L O L ro 0 ro O ro
H d a H ro ro a a) D Q• • d n 0' O 2 V) d d L V -o LL C
i
a
0
bA
V
C
C
3
0
V
C
O
a
t
O
0
0
�
ro
•
O
S
O
•>
a) OO
0 3
aL7 ao
L O
O s
o
a,
-C
a
V
O
U
C
,�
._
a,
a,
Z
ro ~
-C L a)
__
�_ V
•�, N C
s
V ro
E
L
a7
"
O
bO
Gl L
o
�
C°
—� i a7
a)
E
Y a
-
ro
a)
W
d
O
ro
y,
a)
'�
Y
O C
ro
a7
E 7 N
O .N
O ro
N 'rop ro
N
V 7
a�
E
ro
N
L E
EA �
�- -
-� a
a) }
•� p
bC-0
}'
_
_
U N
p
N-C
N a
a� V
i° i
L
d a0
m
a
O i�
s u
0 0
O p a�
D O
N L
L •
p
ro>
s E
V 7
7
N 3
3 s
s
a
0
V
-
w
L a)
b
ro L
E
L-
ro
C
O
ro
v>
v 3
o
0
O
L
4b 0
o
C', U
O
41 /
p
L
C 0
p
d
qO
V C
C O
O
a
O a
O
bo
s
V
a
O
0 O
— d
N
0 q
3
w O
ro
d ro
T
b-0 �
X 0
0
w
E u
O
T
O
c ro
O
ao ro N
.aE
E
d
7
L'
3 v
0 �
LL
C
.
�s �
E E v '
s
O�v v
aaroi
t
C
•ro
s
N
a7
a7
" O
>.
�
O
V
N O
a,
bq ro 0
�, vi
L
L O
v
a) '
•bo
L
ro
a)
3
d
L
Lo
L "
O
i
.. 1
V
u V
0- L O
0
ro
"
a)
C
O
b-0
d
a)
L
O
d S
0
C
w
a)
W
V
o-C
Q ._ -
-o •3
,� O C
H ro
N tea),
s t;
C
'ao
L
ro
C
C
a)
�+
a +'
Q a) L L
v -C
y, ro -O
a)
v
O
-
>
v
—
>
C a)
i
i
LL O
w N a)
C
0-
v E
O O
D
a)
0
—_
3
L
a)
a)
V
0
C ro
°_ a O
i ro
s
n
0
N
v
c
bA
c .ro
a i
a)
Gl
N
ao
"')
O
c
3 O
U-
a
�_
o ro s O
•E u
bA
> s
a)
L
bA
o L
g O-
H +,
c
ao
3
0
ro
i
ro
0
C
O
a)
s
'C
=
E O —W
u 0 0
s a) ao
v O
0
U
ao
0
0
ao
a
0-
.E
ID u
ro
ct:
U a" ro
�° � ro
I
U
> a) L L >� 0 � w a) N L yj O
w o m a) 0 O ro u i N O_ .� a 0
.L N :d
O 'a a O 3 p a C ed O E N 3 '> �_ E
3 L O E
O •� L d i ro N 3 N L L a) N
()
E ro ro T 7 -p a� Q O L t r
s O 0- etl 3 O o O ro ro N co
ro .� a C, ^ — C: i w U U s i
O E 2 pp a L O ro '> ro O
D a0o ro N O N U 0 -C ro T Q a�+ boo U O s 4) V > <� ro ro
N 7 L O 7 ro m 'p 3 �' N U t " L
s ro s C 0 aroi > Gl bA t t L O L ro 0 ro O ro
H d a H ro ro a a) D Q• • d n 0' O 2 V) d d L V -o LL C
i
a
0
bA
V
C
C
3
0
V
C
O
a
t
J S
S
? p
p r
ro L
L O
O s
s L
L a
a• N
N r
ro ~
~ 0
0 a
a >
>_
v �
�, L
L V
Gl L
V Y
Y a
a L
Ln s
s V
V= N
N r
ro
'L O
7 O
O C
C 7
7 G
V 7
L L
L E
EA �
�- -
-� a
a) }
•� p
}'
Q a
O U
U N
V r
N N
N a
a� V
i° i
s
ro a
a) L
L N
N L
L •
p
ro>
s E
V 7
7
N 3
3 s
s >
> v
3° V
V
a C
O a
C V
V N
L C
v 3
C', U
O
41 /
/
y
L
C 0
-O ro3
N r
qO
V C
7 r
C O
O a
O
U O
O —
O
0 O
— d
N
0 q
p w
w O
O o
a U
X 0
0
C E
E u
O
S
S 0
d
7
O C
3 v
v i
i O
O
i
a
0
bA
V
C
C
3
0
V
C
O
a
t
`I
C
O'rnmr`
may 1 1 oit tat
M1
_-�
FAmmy GRUBB
)newsobserver.com
i® The Orange Water
,uthority's board of di-
:onsider'ending a pro-
s sprayed, treated sew-
n local farmland since
OWASA remove the water from
the 'sludge 'and send all the "dewa-
tered biosolids" to the McGill com-
pany in Chatham County for com-
The first part of a two -part draft
gen- deprived enviro
posting. The company converts
Biosolids Management Report will
micro - organisms
eat a
the biosolids into fertilizers and
be discussed at 6 p.m. Thursday in
undesirable micro
-orl
soil compost.
the OWASA Community Room,
bacteria in the biosoli
The change could save $113,000
400 Jones Ferry Road in Carrboro.
The process produc
a year in mostly sludge program
The board could decide later this
which is burned, and
personnel but also some equip -
'' month. The second part of the '
lids; or sewage sludge,
ment costs, the report says.
port, due March 6, will offer short-
sludge is regularly tes
It also could avoid the need for
and long -term solutions.
ity, trace metals, soli(
more land if future changes to fed-
Sludge is a byproduct of treating
and other materials. (
eral rules affect how much sludge
human feces and other sewage
tests for groundwater
can be sprayed, the report says.
waste. So- called biosolids are sep-
tion near sludge field:
Those rates now are based on the
arated from water at the Mason
OWASA treats 7.5
nitrogen content of the biosolids
Farm Wastewater Treatment
Ions of residential sew
and how much nitrogen is required
Plant. The biosolids are treated
at Mason Farm and pr(
by the crops being sprayed. with high temperatures in an oxy- SEE SLUDGE, PAGE 3A
Wednesday, January 7, 2015
CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1A
July 2013 to June 2014, a lit-
tle over 3,029 tons of wet bio-
solids.
Half is sprayed on 1,087
acres of farmland in Orange,
Chatham and Alamance
counties, about 86 percent
privately owned. OWASA
owns another 153 acres of
spray fields west of Orange
Grove Road that could be
used for any future spraying.
The other half is dried and
sent to McGill, which` con-
tracted with OWASA in 2007
to compost about 28 percent
of its biosolids. The New Hill
plant is roughly 50 miles
roundtrip and charges $26
per wet ton. OWASA report-
ed spraying 1,200 to 1,400
tons of sewage sludge on
farmland in 2006.
Stopping the sewage
sludge program is a good
start, said Myra Dotson,
founder of the Sewage
Sludge Action Network:
But sending all the bioso-
lids to McGill, she said, is
just exporting the problem,
because the compost and fer-
tilizers produced still contain
traces of heavy metals, bacte-
ria and other toxic materials.
Using it on lawns, gardens
and playing fields will make
more people sick, she said.
The Orange County -based
group educates people about
the dangers to public and en-
vironmental health of sewage
sludge and the garden prod-
ucts produced from it, which
What's
The OWASA Board of Di-
rectors will discuss a draft
Biosolids Management Re-
port at 6 p.m. Thursday in
the OWASA Community
Room, 400 Jones Ferry
Road in Carrboro.
Comments also can be
sent to the board via email
at boardmembers@owa-
sa.org or by mail to 400
Jones Ferry Road, Carrbo-
ro, NC 27510.
European and some U.S. sci-
entists have begun to recog-
nize.
Those researchers argue the
science behind federal Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency
rules is outdated, the National
Institutes of health reported
in 2013, and residents living
near sludge land have reported
physical symptoms, including
skin rashes and respiratory
and ,gastrointestinal distress.
More research was recom-
mended in 2002, but the NIH
reported last year that little has
been done.
One alternative, Dotson
said, is disposing of biosolids
in an incinerator equipped
with air scrubbers. Modern
systems also combine the
sludge with sawdust to create
pellets or gas that can then be
burned to produce' energy.:
She and others plan to bring
their ideas — which they've
shared with OWASA before —
to Thursday's meeting.
Grubb: 919- 932 -8746