23022_Chapel Hill Police Property_PCReceivedJuly2024_20240821

From: CHRIS BLUE
To: Richardson. ]ohn
Cc: Mary lane Nirdlinaer Susan Brown
Subject: FW: Request for Public Hearing
Date: Monday, July 8, 20241:58:22 PM
Attachments: Screenshot 2024-07-05 at 8,07.27 PM.Dna
imaae001.nna
FYI
Christopher C. Blue
Town Manager
Town of Chapel Hill
405 Martin Luther King Jr Blvd.
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
919 968 2743
From: FOBC President <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, July S, 2024 8:19 PM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: Tom Henkel <[e-mail]>; Martha Hoelzer <[e-mail]>; JULIE MCCLINTOCK <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Nick Torrey
<[e-mail]>; CHRIS BLUE <[e-mail]>; Jess Anderson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Request for Public Hearing
®❑
Caution external email: Don't click links or attachments from unknown senders. To check or report click the Phish Alert Button
Bruce Nicholson,
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Dear Mr. Nicholson,
We respectfully request a public meeting on the Chapel Hill Police Property draft Brownfields Agreement, No. 23022-19-068. This coal ash site has been the subject of
intense public concern since coal ash was first disclosed on the property in 2013.
The draft Brownfields Agreement between Chapel Hill and the NC Department of Environmental Quality was released on July 1st for public comment until the end of July.
Judging from past hearings and the public's interest in this topic, including students and faculty, this mid -summer timing is unfortunate. It will not ensure full participation
and comment on this controversial issue of great interest to our community.
We urgently call for your office to extend the public comment period to September and hold a public hearing on the draft Brownfields Agreement in September 2024.
Please keep the comment period open to include comments made at the meeting. The notice says the comment period will be only 30 days, beginning July 1.
Thankyou!
Sincerely,
Tom Henkel, Former Chair, Chapel Hill Environmental Stewardship Committee
Julie McClintock and Martha Hoelzer, Co -Presidents of Friends of Bolin Creek

From:
Nick Torrev
To:
Nicholson, Bruce
Cc:
Eckard, Sharon; Town Council; Richardson, John; Julie Mcclintock; Ben Elliott; Jennifer Doucette
Subject:
Comments on proposed brownfields agreement - CH Police Property, Proj. 23022-19-068
Date:
Tuesday, July 30, 2024 4:17:58 PM
Attachments:
2024-07-30 Comment Letter - Friends of Bolin Creek.Ddf
Caution external email: Don't click links or attachments from unknown senders. To
check or report click the Phish Alert Button
Mr. Nicholson,
Attached please find comments on the proposed brownfields agreement for the coal ash site
at 828 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. in Chapel Hill, submitted by the Southern Environmental
Law Center on behalf of Friends of Bolin Creek. Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you,
Nicholas S. Torrey
Southern Environmental Law Center
601 West Rosemary Street, Suite 220
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
[phone]
[e-mail]
PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This email and any attachments may be protected by the attorney -client privilege, as attorney work -
product, or based on other privileges or provisions of law. If you are not an intended recipient of this
message, do not read, copy, use, forward, or disclose the email or any of its attachments. Instead,
immediately notify the sender by replying to this email and then delete it from your system. The
unauthorized disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of this email or any attachments is prohibited.

SOUTHERN 601 West Rosemary Street, Suite 220 Telephone [phone]
ENVIRONMENTAL Chapel Hill, NC 27516 Facsimile 919-929-9421
LAW
CENTER
July 30, 2024
Via Email
Bruce Nicholson, Chief
Brownfields Redevelopment Section
Division of Waste Management
NC Department of Environmental Quality
1646 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1646
[e-mail]
Mr. Nicholson:
On behalf of Friends of Bolin Creek, we submit this comment letter in response to the
proposed Brownfields Agreement (the "Draft Agreement") between NC DEQ and the Town of
Chapel Hill, regarding the coal ash site at 828 Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard (the "Site"). As
explained below, the Draft Agreement is inadequate because it fails to clean up unsafe areas of
coal ash at the Site and disregards significant health hazards and long-term environmental risks.
Introduction
The Site contains a former "borrow pit," in which tens of thousands of tons of coal ash
containing arsenic, mercury, and many other toxic pollutants were dumped. The coal ash covers
about 4.5 acres, including a steep, forty -foot slope extending downward to the Bolin Creek
floodplain.
This site is not appropriate for redevelopment while leaving large amounts of toxic
industrial waste in place, as the proposed brownfields agreement would allow. The coal ash at
this site has been found to contain high levels of arsenic, radiation, and many other toxic
pollutants. Much of the coal ash is located on an eroding, steep slope. The coal ash was dumped
haphazardly with other kinds of debris (not compacted for use as structural fill), raising serious
stability concerns, and unlike other forms of hazardous waste, coal ash is known to be highly
unstable.
In fact, a significant sinkhole opened in a contaminated portion of the site this year, I
confirming the concerns we have raised repeatedly that leaving the coal ash in place poses a
long-term risk that erosion or structural failure will expose covered coal ash over time, as has
happened at numerous locations throughout the Southeast. The Draft Agreement would allow
1 See HART & HICKMAN, INTERIM REMEDIAL MEASURES MAINTENANCE REPORT, Appendix B: Pre- and Post -Interim
Remedial Measures Maintenance Conditions Photographs (Photograph 3) (Jun. 5, 2024).
Charlottesville Chapel Hill Atlanta Asheville Birmingham Charleston Nashville Richmond Washington, DC

Chapel Hill to leave the coal ash in place covered with a layer of dirt, but this sinkhole illustrates
the folly of that approach; this site is not stable and not an appropriate location for the long-term
storage of toxic industrial waste. It also suggests the Site is not suitable for construction of new
buildings like the municipal services center the town has proposed. In Mooresville, NC, buried
coal ash has repeatedly collapsed in sinkholes and other structural failures, exposing the public to
coal ash and damaging property.2
The town's handling of this sinkhole also raises serious concerns: from the available
documents, it appears the town did not investigate why and how the sinkhole occurred, and
instead simply filled it in with rocks and covered it with dirt once it was discovered. This
approach is irresponsible and will not keep the public and Chapel Hill's environment safe.
In short, the Draft Agreement is not protective of the people and environment of Chapel
Hill. DEQ must redo the Draft Agreement to require the Town to remove unsafe areas of coal
ash in order to protect people, animals, and Bolin Creek, and to make the site suitable for reuse.
1. DEQ Should Extend the Comment Period to Include a Public Meeting
Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 130A-310.34(c), any person who desires a public meeting
regarding a proposed brownfields agreement must request one within 21 days after the public
comment period begins. The Southern Environmental Law Center requested such a meeting on
July 2, 2024,3 and we reiterate here that a meaningful public comment period must include an in -
person meeting in Chapel Hill involving all interested parties.
Community members ranging from students to other town residents have raised concerns
at town council meetings and other fora for years about the Site. Many of these people are
currently out of town because of UNC's summer vacation or travel and thus would be excluded
from the public comment period if it is limited to thirty days in July. DEQ has referenced some
future in -person public meeting at an indefinite time in early Fall 2024, and Town staff have
indicated that they will consider oral comments made at such a meeting, but to date we have
received no response from DEQ to our request that the comment period officially be extended to
include a public meeting this fall.
DEQ must extend the comment period to include the public meeting. Moreover, any
public meeting occurring in the fall without the opportunity to submit written public comments
around that time would be an exercise in futility. Therefore, we hope DEQ will fix this problem
2 E.g., Ron Lee, "It's Hard": Massive Sinkhole Craters Mooresville Business Owner's Dream, WBTV (Apr. 26,
2024), https://www.wbtv.com/2024/04/26/its-hard-massive-sinkhole-craters-mooresville-business-owners-dream/;
Lisa Sorg, Breaking: Coal Ash Released after Sinkhole Collapse in Mooresville, NC NEwSLINE: THE PULSE (Sept.
21, 2020) https://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/2020/09/21/breaking-coal-ash-released-after-sinkhole-collapse-in-
mooresville/#sthash.sVgnYatT.BE56rDyG.dpbs; Marvin Beach, Coal Ash Uncovered Near Lake Norman High
School in Mooresville, WCCB (Oct. 24, 2018), https://www.wccbcharlotte.com/2018/10/24/coal-ash-uncovered-
near-lake-norman-high-school-in-mooresville/.
3 See Email from N. Torrey to B. Nicholson (July 2, 2024), attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
2

by extending the public comment period to include an in -person meeting in September after most
residents and students have returned to Chapel Hill from the summer holidays, and also accept
written comments up through the public meeting. Doing so is essential to provide legitimacy to
this key decision on a matter of grave public concern.
2. The Draft Agreement Fails to Protect Chapel Hill from the Risks of Toxic Coal Ash
a. The Draft Agreement allows the development of recreational spaces on top of tens
of thousands of tons of coal ash.
The Draft Agreement does not require Chapel Hill or future developers to remove any
coal ash from the Site, which would mean that tens of thousands of tons of coal ash would be left
in place, covered with a layer of soil;' a retaining wall would attempt to contain the eroding,
steep forty -foot slope of coal ash on the southern portion of the property.' No cleanup or real -
world preventative measures would protect Chapel Hill from coal ash becoming exposed through
erosion, disturbance, or structural failures; nor from the migration of coal ash pollutants through
the water, soil, or air. Instead, the Draft Agreement relies exclusively on legal restrictions
contained in the property's deed prohibiting various activities.6
Notably, the Draft Agreement appears to recognize the dangers of this approach by
prohibiting use of the Site for residential housing, a childcare center, adult care center, a school,
or a dog park.' If the Draft Agreement's approach were safe, these activities would be permitted
on the Site.
However, despite this acknowledgement that the proposed approach is not safe, the Draft
Agreement fails to protect local residents and pets because it does provide for the use of the Site
for any of the following: splash pads, a sports field, open space, greenways, parks, playgrounds,
and picnic and public gathering areas, and campgrounds.8 None of these activities should be
permitted on this contaminated coal ash site.
b. Coal ash presents a serious risk to the health and safety of Chapel Hill's residents
and environment.
In 2013, Chapel Hill disclosed the presence of tens of thousands of tons of coal ash at 828
Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd.9 There are multiple areas at the Site where coal ash is exposed or
4 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, PROPOSED BROWNFIELDS AGREEMENT RE: CHAPEL
HILL POLICE PROPERTY, Exhibit A, at I I (Jul. 1, 2024).
5Id. at 18-19.
6Id. at 13-25.
7Id. at 14, 23.
8 Id. at 14.
9 Aidan Bennett, Does the Coal Ash Under the Chapel Hill Police Station Pose a Public Health Risk?, THE DAILY
TAR HEEL (Nov. 25, 2018).

very close to the ground's surface.10 The tens of thousands of tons of coal ash at this site span
several acres, and the area of coal ash soil contamination includes an eroding, steep slope near
the southern part of the property along the Bolin Creek trail (a public greenway), Bolin Creek,
and its surrounding floodplain.1I
Coal ash contains heavy metals and toxic pollutants that remain in high concentrations
after coal is burned for fuel. The heavy metal contaminants include arsenic, lead, mercury,
cadmium, chromium, and selenium. These contaminants can leach out of ash into soil and water.
If consumed or inhaled, these metals can cause cancer, heart damage, reproductive problems,
birth defects, and gastrointestinal illness. 12 Inhalation of coal ash particulates causes asthma,
heart complications, and lung tissue scarring.13 In addition, the radioactive properties of the
heavy metals in coal ash contribute to lung disease and cause respiratory -related cancers .14
Importantly, the coal ash at the Site has been found to contain radioactive materials
including radium and a radioisotope of lead in independent testing by a leading coal ash expert at
Duke University.15 These radioisotopes release gamma radiation that can migrate through
overlying soil. Gamma radiation poses a serious human health risk. For these radioactive
chemicals, even minor circumstantial exposure to humans can cause long-term health problems
like rashes, cancer, and reproductive illness. And the concentration of radioisotopes in coal ash
at the Site found in independent testing exceeds the levels the EPA has identified as posing
unacceptable risks.16
Moreover, EPA found cancer risks exceeding health standards when coal ash is mixed
with soil at ratios that include very small amounts of coal ash (1 and 2 percent of the soil
10 See HART & HICKMAN, INTERIM REMEDIAL MEASURES MAINTENANCE REPORT, fig.2 (Site Map) (Jun. 5, 2024)
(see pink areas of exposed ash and yellow areas of ash under less than two feet of cover).
11 See HART & HICKMAN, INTERIM REMEDIAL MEASURES MAINTENANCE REPORT, fig.2 (Site Map) (Jun. 5, 2024);
Letter from Nick Torrey to Amy Axon, NC DEQ, Additional Comments on Phase II Remedial Investigation Report
at 7 (Flood Plain Map) (May 9, 2017); HART & HICKMAN, TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL POLICE DEPARTMENT PROPERTY
CROSS-SECTION A -A' fig.5 (Jan. 12, 2017).
12 Coal Ash: Hazardous to Human Health, PHYSICIANS FOR SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY (May 2018), available at
https://www.psr.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/coal-ash-hazardous-to-human-health.pdf-, see also Clara G. Sears
& Kristina M. Zierold, Health of Children Living Near Coal Ash, 4 GLOBAL PEDIATRIC HEALTH (2017), available at
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5533260/.
" Alan H. Lockwood & Lisa Evans, How Breathing Coal Ash Is Hazardous to Your Health, EARTHJUSTICE &
PHYSICIANS FOR SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY at 3 (2014), available at
https:Hearthjustice.org/sites/default/filcs/files/Ash_In_Lungs_l .pdf
14 Lisa Evans, Ash in Lungs: How Breathing Coal Ash is Hazardous to Your Health, EARTHJUSTICE (Jul. 31, 2014)
https:Hearthjustice. org/article/ash-in-lungs-how-breathing-coal-ash-is-hazardous-to-your-
health#:—:text=Fly%20ash%20particles%20%28a%20maj or%20component%20of%20coa1,U. S. %3 A%20heart%20d
isease%2C%20cancer%2C%20respiratory%20diseases%20and%20stroke; see also EARTHJUSTICE, Toxic Coal Ash
in North Carolina: Addressing Coal Plants'Hazardous Legacy (May 3, 2023), https:Hearthjustice.org/feature/coal-
ash-states/north-carolina.
" Gordon Williams et al., Coal Ash Legacy in Chapel Hill at 5, DUKE UNIVERSITY (2022), attached hereto as Exhibit
2.
16 Id. at 4-6, DUKE UNIVERSITY (2022); U.S. EPA, DRAFT RISK ASSESSMENT OF COAL COMBUSTION RESIDUALS:
LEGACY IMPOUNDMENTS AND CCR MANAGEMENT UNITS at 6-12, 5-10-5-12, 7-2 (Oct. 2023).
al

mixture).17 When coal ash constitutes 8 to 17 percent of the soil mixture, EPA found cancer risks
above 1 in 10,000.18 According to EPA, "waste streams whose risks are calculated to be 1 x 10-4
[that is, 1 in 10,000] or higher generally will be considered to pose a substantial present or
potential hazard to human health and the environment ...." 80 Fed. Reg. 21,302, 21,449 (Apr.
17, 2015). These findings are even more alarming because at the Site in Chapel Hill, the
concentrations of coal ash in the soil are in many cases far higher than those EPA found to pose
unacceptable risks, and there are areas of exposed coal ash as well as many areas where there is
only very thin cover.
Arsenic is also present in the Site's coal ash in levels up to 32 times higher than North
Carolina's Commercial Preliminary Soil Remediation Goal level.19 Recently, EPA published a
draft IRIS update to arsenic toxicity standards based on recent scientific developments.20 The
most up to date science in the EPA's IRIS assessment demonstrates significantly heightened
health risks from inorganic arsenic. EPA proposed raising the cancer potency estimate by 35
times, finding that much smaller amounts of arsenic are carcinogenic than was previously
understood. In addition, EPA found an increased risk of heart disease from arsenic ingestion and
recommended that the safe daily lifetime dose be 10 times lower than the current amount. These
findings indicate serious harm from exposure to low levels of arsenic, which in turn raises the
risk of exposure to coal ash at the site.21 In the event of arsenic ingestion, there is also an
increased risk of heart disease.22
The updated toxicity data should necessitate re -doing the Town's risk assessment results
and should be reflected in the Draft Agreement —but they are not.
And despite these updated risk factors related to coal ash contamination at the site, DEQ
and Chapel Hill propose to move forward with land uses that lack meaningful protections to
prevent exposure to the pollution at the Site. The Draft Agreement appears not to weigh the
better -understood, heightened risks posed by the chemicals present in the coal ash here,23 despite
this updated information having been shared earlier this year with Chapel Hill and DEQ.24 In
17 EPA Draft Risk Assessment at 6-10.
18 Id.
19 Results of Post -Data Gap Assessment (Dec. 1, 2020) at Table 1.
21 The redlined version of the Draft Risk Assessment was finalized in April 2024.
21 U.S. EPA, DRAFT RISK ASSESSMENT OF COAL COMBUSTION RESIDUALS: LEGACY IMPOUNDMENTS AND CCR
MANAGEMENT UNITS at 3-7, 3-8 (Oct. 2023).
22 Id.
23 See NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, PROPOSED BROWNFIELDs AGREEMENT RE:
CHAPEL HILL POLICE PROPERTY, Exhibit A, Environmental Information Summary at 3-5 (Jul. 1, 2024); NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, PROPOSED BROWNFIELDS AGREEMENT RE: CHAPEL HILL
POLICE PROPERTY, Exhibit 2 data tables at 1, 7 (Jul. 1, 2024) (sections of Agreement showing that DEQ and Chapel
Hill have not tested for radium despite its documented presence at the site, and demonstrating that in several media
like soil, groundwater, and the coal ash there, arsenic is present in high levels).
24 See letter from Nick Torrey, Attorney, Southern Environmental Law Center to Mayor Jessica Anderson, Chapel
Hill Town Council, and Sharon Eckard, Eastern Branch Head, Division of Waste Management at NC DEC (Jan. 9,
2024).
5

responding to this information in June, DEQ discussed increased health risks from arsenic, but
refused to change the remediation plans in relation to the increased cancer risk from arsenic.25
In light of these increased risks from radioisotopes and arsenic, it is imperative that DEQ
reevaluate its risk assessments before moving forward with the proposed Brownfields agreement
or initiating long-term remedial action.26
c. Land use restrictions are insufficient to protect against real -world coal ash
exposure.
DEQ's decision memorandum does contain some updated risk calculations, which show
that the contamination at the site poses unacceptable health risks to members of the public
engaging in recreation at the Site.27 But the memo goes on to claim that these risks "will be
mitigated or eliminated through the land use restrictions that would be set forth through the
recordation of the Notice of Brownfields Property at the Orange County Register of Deeds."28 In
other words, the Draft Agreement relies on prohibitions against various activities (such as
ground -contact sports, disturbing the soil, and using the groundwater) rather than cleaning up
any of the unsafe levels of contamination.
The idea that the land use restrictions will keep the public safe from the coal ash hazards
at this Site is misguided, because children and animals will not be restrained by legalese
contained in deed restrictions. Indeed, we know that warnings and other such restrictions, even
including physical barriers, have not worked at this Site. A recent report includes a photograph
showing a child's bike located mere feet away from the large sinkhole that opened at the Site,
indicating that children have gained access and played around this area.29 And yet, on page 11 of
its land use Decision Memorandum, DEQ states that "the Town ha[s] taken appropriate measures
to prohibit access to areas impacted by coal ash material." 30 The reality is that Chapel Hill has
not effectively prevented people from entering the contaminated areas of the property, and as a
result, DEQ's assessment is not credible. Given that the Site is located near an apartment
complex and residential neighborhood, and that allowable reuses of the Site could include green
21 Decision Memorandum, Brownfields Redevelopment Assessment File, RE: Chapel Hill Police Property at 21, 39
(June 14, 2024), available at
https:Hedocs.deq.nc.gov/WasteManagement/DocView.aspx?id=1881795&dbid=0&repo=WasteManagement&search
id=074581e3-4a55-48e8-b812-245dl9579dlc.
26 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, PROPOSED BROWNFIELDs AGREEMENT RE:
CHAPEL HILL POLICE PROPERTY, Exhibit 2 at 5-6, data tables (Jul. 1, 2024).
27 Decision Memorandum, Brownfields Redevelopment Assessment File, RE: Chapel Hill Police Property at 16, 17,
20, 34 (June 14, 2024), available at
https:Hedocs.deq.nc.gov/WasteManagement/DocView.aspx?id=1881795&dbid=0&repo=WasteManagement&search
id=074581e3-4a55-48e8-b812-245dl9579dlc.
28 Id. at 39.
29 HART & HICKMAN, INTERIM REMEDIAL MEASURES MAINTENANCE REPORT, Appendix B: Pre- and Post -Interim
Remedial Measures Maintenance Conditions Photographs (Photograph 3) (Jun. 5, 2024).
30 Id. at 11.
71

spaces and play areas for children and pets, the Draft Agreement's reliance on legal prohibitions
to address the serious health risks from the coal ash at this Site is not acceptable.
d. A dirt cap is insufficient to contain the coal ash at the Site.
The Draft Agreement does not require Chapel Hill to remove even an ounce of coal ash
from the Site. Instead, the Draft Agreement requires the coal ash be "capped" with Soil. 31 Soil
caps covering unlined coal ash pits are unreliable because these cover materials degrade over
time, allowing the coal ash to be exposed.32 Soil is likely to be eroded significantly due to the
topography of the Site, and the risks are compounded by its use as a green space or playground,
as neither children nor animals are meaningfully restrained by deed restrictions.
Numerous examples demonstrate that soil caps are prone to later issues and re -exposure
of coal ash. Mooresville, North Carolina has experienced public outrage and health concerns
about coal ash fills that were authorized by NC DEQ and covered with dirt and pavement, but
have become exposed in multiple ways,33 including from structural failure merely 50 yards away
from a high school;34 the area has high rates of several unusual cancers.35 In Tennessee, a
playground constructed on top of coal ash mixed with dirt was confirmed to have exposed coal
ash where children play. At this site, the coal ash was buried beneath a synthetic barrier in
addition to a layer of fill dirt (a more protective, though still insufficient, approach than the Draft
31 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, PROPOSED BROWNFIELDs AGREEMENT RE:
CHAPEL HILL POLICE PROPERTY, Exhibit A at 19, para. 13.n (Jul. 1, 2024).
32 See Frank Holleman, Cap Coal Ash in Place? Duke and Others have Learned Better, UTILITY DIVE (Feb. 24,
2020) https://www.utilitydive.com/news/cap-coal-ash-in-place-duke-and-others-have-learned-better/572755/ for
several examples of why coal ash capping is an ineffective remedy to coal ash contamination sites.
33 Kristin Leigh, 9 Investigates: Coal Ash Site Exposed Near Lake Norman High School, WSOC-TV 9 (Oct. 24,
2018) https://www.wsoctv.com/news/local/9-investigates-coal-ash-site-exposed-near-lake-norman-high-
school/858440521/.
" Lisa Sorg, Breaking: Coal Ash Released after Sinkhole Collapse in Mooresville, NC NEWSLINE: THE PULSE (Sept.
21, 2020), https://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/2020/09/21/breaking-coal-ash-released-after-sinkhole-collapse-in-
mooresville/#sthash.sVgnYatT.BE56rDyG.dpbs; Marvin Beach, Coal Ash Uncovered Near Lake Norman High
School in Mooresville, WCCB (Oct. 24, 2018) https://www.wccbcharlotte.com/2018/10/24/coal-ash-uncovered-near-
lake-norman-high-schoolin-mooresville/; Kristin Leigh, 9Investigates: Coal Ash Site Exposed Near Lake Norman
High School, WSOC (Oct. 24, 2018), https://www.wsoctv.com/news/local/9-investigates-coal-ash-site-exposed-
near-lake-normanhigh-school/858440521; Megan Suggs, Coal Ash Disturbed Near Lake Norman High School,
STATESVILLE RECORD & LANDMARK (Oct. 24, 2018), https://www.statesville.com/news/local/coal-ash-disturbed-
near-lakenorman-high-school/article_35dc35d0-d7d0-1le8-a330-53ddc2f70dl2.html; see also Erik Ortiz, Teen's
Cancer Uncovers a Mystery in One North Carolina Town: Why Here?, NBC NEWS (Jan. 4, 2020),
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/cancer/teen-s-cancer-uncovers-mystery-one-north-carolina-town-why-nl 062011;
Megan Suggs, Mooresville's `Coal Ash Corridor'Is Largest Concentration In State, MOORESVILLE TRIBUNE (Oct.
27, 2018), https://mooresvilletribune.com/news/local/mooresvilles-coal-ash-corridor-is-largest-concentration-in-
state/article_decd08c2-dal e-11 e8-96f2-0011 d2c512.html.
35 E.g., Savannah Levins, Realtors Were Supposed to Discuss Real Estate. Instead Mooresville Residents Demanded
Coal Ash Answers, WCNC CHARLOTTE (Jan. 9, 2020), https://www.wcnc.com/article/news/health/mooresville-
realtors-cancer-cluster/275-ed27562f-280c-4e2e-b32e-ccc2139a475 e.
7

Agreement proposes), and the ash still became exposed.36 And the Chapel Hill Police Station
property is itself an example of a failed dirt cap —buried ash on the site has become exposed over
time due to erosion.37
In addition, the placement of soil and buildings on top of coal ash at this Site poses a
significant risk of sinkholes and structural collapses.38 This very site has had a sinkhole occur in
a stormwater drainage ditch at the property, where coal ash apparently made up the material in
and under the topsoil.39 This is an indication of future risks, and other sites have seen similar
soil collapses because of coal ash left underneath soil.40 For instance, a sinkhole in Mooresville,
NC occurred where coal ash was used as fill material underneath a parking lot.41 That sinkhole
is massive and has exposed coal ash to the open air and a nearby creek. Another instance arose
at the We Energies facility in Wisconsin, where coal ash along a steep slope had been paved over
and had buildings constructed on top; without warning, the slope of ash spontaneously collapsed
and spilled into Lake Michigan.42
The risk of placing soil over the Site's coal ash is increased given the current and future
presence of children in the area. Next to the sinkhole that was recently documented at the Site, a
child's bicycle was photographed leaning against a building.43 The Draft Agreement requires no
measures to meaningfully protect local children. As currently written, the Draft Agreement
allows a playground or green space to be built at the site, creating a long-term risk that the coal
ash could be exposed from erosion, digging, sinkholes, or shifting soil.44 The apparent lack of
investigation by Chapel Hill, DEQ, and the H&H contractors41 into the cause of the sinkhole is
36 Jamie Satterfield, Tennessee Health Department, TDEC, Confirm Toxic Waste at Anderson County Playground,
TENNESSEE LOOKOUT (Apr. 14, 2022), https://tennesseelookout.com/2022/04/14/tennessee-health-department-tdec-
confirm-toxic-waste-at-anderson-county-playground/.
37 Michelle Cassell, EPA Denies Petition for Coal Ash Cleanup, THE LOCAL REPORTER (May 2, 2024)
https://thelocalreporter.press/epa-denies-petition-for-coal-ash-cleanup/ (depicting a photo of openly exposed coal ash
on top of the ground at the Site).
38 ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITY PROJECT, COAL's POISONOUS LEGACY: GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATED BY COAL
ASH ACROSS THE U.S. at 9 (Mar. 4, 2019).
39 See HART & HICKMAN, INTERIM REMEDIAL MEASURES MAINTENANCE REPORT at 8, (Jun. 5, 2024); Id. at
Appendix B: Pre- and Post -Interim Remedial Measures Maintenance Conditions Photographs (Photograph 3) (Jun.
5, 2024).
40 ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITY PROJECT, COAL's POISONOUS LEGACY: GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATED BY COAL
ASH ACROSS THE U.S. at 9, n. 6 (Mar. 4, 2019).
41 Ron Lee, `It's Hard ": Massive Sinkhole Craters Mooresville Business Owner's Dream, WBTV (Apr. 26, 2024),
https://www.wbty. com/2024/04/26/its-hard-massive-sinkhole-craters-mooresville-business-owners-dream/.
42 Meg Jones & Don Behm, Bluff Collapse at Power Plant Sends Dirt, Coal Ash into Lake, MILWAUKEE JOURNAL
SENTINEL: MILWAUKEE NEWS (Oct. 31, 2011) https:Harchive.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/authorities-investigate-
bluff-collapse-at-we-energies-plant-132929538.htm1/.
43 See HART & HICKMAN, INTERIM REMEDIAL MEASURES MAINTENANCE REPORT, Appendix B: Pre- and Post -
Interim Remedial Measures Maintenance Conditions Photographs (Photograph 3) (Jun. 5, 2024).
44 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, PROPOSED BROWNFIELDs AGREEMENT RE:
CHAPEL HILL POLICE PROPERTY (Exhibit A) at 13-14 (Jul. 1, 2024).
45 HART & HICKMAN, INTERIM REMEDIAL MEASURES MAINTENANCE REPORT at 8, (Jun. 5, 2024) ("Lastly, repairs
were made to the storm diversion channel that diverts surface water runoff from the police department parking lot
N.

irresponsible, and fails to ensure that the Site is safe. All these cases show why the Draft
Agreement would allow an unacceptable risk of exposure, structural instability, and later release.
e. The proposed retaining wall is insufficient to prevent erosion of the coal ash
slope.
The retaining wall proposed by the Draft Agreement is not an acceptable solution because
of the long-term risks of keeping a steep coal ash slope in place, as well as the hurricane and
floodplain risks along the base of this steep slope. The embankment extends to the 100-year and
500-year floodplains of Bolin Creek.46 A retaining wall along the floodplain will not remediate
the coal ash and will likely fail to contain it.
In addition, common sense dictates it is not safe to keep coal ash alongside a floodplain.
As climate change accelerates, rainfall events will continue to grow more severe.4' These events
will only become more frequent and stronger as climate change continues, which will lead to
increased flooding along many of the town's waterways —including Bolin Creek.48 Indeed,
Bolin Creek has flooded up to the base of the coal ash and proposed retaining wall on multiple
occasions in the past few years.49 Considering these extreme weather events, a retaining wall
would likely be insufficient to keep the site safe.50 As previously mentioned, this is a steep hill
of soil and exposed ash, making it a high -erosion area. Stormwater could accumulate behind the
wall, or intensify the flow of soil contaminants underneath the wall into Bolin Creek.
3. DEQ Should Require the Town to Remove Unsafe Areas of Coal Ash
Removing the unsafe areas of coal ash to a dry, lined industrial solid waste landfill is the
safest way to remediate this site, protect people, and protect the environment. Chapel Hill has
already removed a small amount of eroded ash to lined landfill storage successfully. And coal
ash removal has been done throughout the Carolinas in a safe manner at a vastly larger scale, as
evidenced by Duke Energy's ongoing and completed cleanups of numerous coal ash dumps and
towards an existing outfall channel east of the parking lot (Figure 2). Specifically, CCI backfilled a sinkhole that had
formed within the storm diversion channel ...").
46 See Letter from Nick Torrey to Amy Axon, NC DEQ, Additional Comments on Phase II Remedial Investigation
Report at 7 (Flood Plain Map) (May 9, 2017); SELC, Map (Oct. 29, 2018) (showing 100-year floodplain in blue,
500-year floodplain in orange, overlapping with areas of exposed coal ash; note: the coal ash near the trail, closest to
the creek, has been removed since this map was created, but ash on the embankment remains).
47 See Letter from SELC to Chapel Hill Town Council at 6-9 (Nov. 2, 2018); see also Alyssa LaFaro, An Active
Storm Season (June 30, 2020), available at https://www.unc.edu/posts/2020/06/30/an-active-storm-season/.
48 See Crystal Price, Neighbors Near Bolin Creek Frustrated with Ongoing Flooding Issue in Chapel Hill, CBS 17
(Feb. 7, 2020, 6:09 PM), available at https://www.cbsl7.com/news/local-news/orange-county-news/neighbors-
nearbolin-creek-frustrated-with-ongoing-flooding-issue-in-chapel-hill/.
49 Id.; https://www.youtLibe.com/shorts/iVVrvXfFjbA (Friends of Bolin Creek video showing flooding from
Hurricane Florence extending to base of coal ash embankment).
so Mary Anne Hitt, Coal Ash Was a Disaster in North Carolina Well Before Hurricane Florence And Now It's Even
Worse (Oct. 1, 2018), available at https://www.sierraclub.org/compass/2018/10/coal-ash-was-disaster-northcarolina-
well-hurricane-florence-and-now-it-s-even-worse (noting that, after Hurricane Florence, floodwaters "overtopped a
retaining wall between [Sutton] lake and one of the unlined coal ash dumps" at that site).
X

lagoons from Asheville to Wilmington.51 The sinkhole threat and risk of release at this Site
necessitate the removal of unsafe areas of coal ash. Specifically, DEQ should require Chapel
Hill to remove the steep slope of coal ash bordering Bolin Creek, and every area where coal ash
and contaminated soil at the Site present a cancer risk to humans greater than 1 in 1,000,000,
using EPA's latest health risk information.
Both federal law and common sense dictate that these problematic areas of coal ash be
removed. Given ongoing erosion at the Site's slope,52 allowing coal ash to remain there would
pose an unacceptable risk, especially when the area experiences heavy rains. The slope
continues to erode and cause stormwater contamination issues.53 The town and its consultant
have been unable to prevent continued erosion issues, even with the interim remedial measures
that have been taken.54 Moreover, the steep slope's location adjacent to the Bolin Creek
floodplain makes any plan to leave this area of coal ash in place short-sighted, unsafe, and
impractical, especially given increasingly destructive severe weather events throughout North
Carolina.55
Removal of the coal ash safely to a lined landfill would serve the human environment and
the wildlife in Chapel Hill and Carrboro. Many animals call the forests around the Site home,
including deer, birds, squirrels, and rabbits.56 The Bolin Creek area that borders the Site is home
to turtles, frogs, fish, and salamanders.57 Runoff from the Site and onsite contamination
endangers these creatures, who use the water in Bolin Creek and the plants around the slope as
vital resources.
4. DEQ Should Require Continued Soil and Water Monitoring in Perpetuity
As we have advocated for years, the steep slope and additional areas of coal ash posing
cancer risks should be removed. To the extent other coal ash is left onsite, there must be robust
soil and groundwater monitoring throughout and surface water monitoring in the sections of
Bolin Creek bordering the site, in perpetuity. The Draft Agreement's provision that no Site
51 Duke Energy Agrees to Remove Coal Ash in North Carolina, PBS NEWS (Jan. 2, 2020)
https://www.pbs. org/newshour/nation/duke-energy-agrees-to-remove-coal-ash-in-north-carolina.
51 HART & HICKMAN, INTERIM REMEDIAL MEASURES MAINTENANCE REPORT at i, 4-5 (Jun. 5, 2024).
53 Id. at 4,7.
54 Id. at 7, 9; see also id. at 12 (soil results from the embankment showing high levels of arsenic contamination).
55 Maddie Policastro, N.C. Experiences Increase in Extreme Weather Residents Urge Communities to Take Action,
THE DAILY TAR HEEL (Jan. 17, 2023) https://www.dailytarheel.com/article/2023/0I/city-nc-impacts-of-climate-
change; National Centers for Environmental Information, Billion -Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters: North
Carolina Summary, NOAA (Jul. 12, 2024) https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/billions/state-summary/NC.
" See Bolin Creek Natural Area Conservation Planning Guide (Draft), FRIENDS OF BOLIN CREEK (Nov. 2018) at 15,
available at http:/ibolincreek.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Bolin-Creek-Natural-Area-2018-Conservation-
Planning-Guide-Draft-Abridged-Version.pdf.
51 Id. At 15-16; see also Felipe Hernandez et al., Raccoons (Procyon loto) as Sentinels of Trace Element
Contamination and Physiological Effects of Exposure to Coal Fly Ash, 72 Archive of Environmental Contamination
and Toxicology 235, 241, 244 (2017).
10

groundwater may be used58 does not address the fact that the Site's stormwater runoff and
groundwater flows into Bolin Creek, which in turn enters Jordan Lake. Jordan Lake is a massive
water resource providing drinking water to nearly 700,000 Triangle residents and offering
recreational space to around a million annual visitors.59
The fact that the agreement contemplates continued groundwater monitoring in only three
wells is unacceptable. These wells cover a fraction of the site that is contaminated by coal ash,
despite the presence of contaminated groundwater samples in several other locations with high
levels of arsenic, hexavalent chromium, and other contaminants.60 Coal ash contaminates a wide
area of the Site, at varying depths.61 If DEQ allows Chapel Hill to leave any coal ash at the Site,
there must be robust monitoring of groundwater, soil, and Bolin Creek to prevent the release of
ash contaminants out into the surrounding community. Therefore, DEQ should require that all
current wells are kept in operation to monitor the groundwater located beneath the soil into
perpetuity. The Draft Agreement should require that the written plan and schedule to be made at
a later date include comprehensive long-term testing for toxic contaminants in the groundwater,
in all current groundwater monitoring wells.62
Conclusion
We hope that NC DEQ will commit to genuine remediation of the 828 Martin Luther
King, Jr. Blvd. property. It is long past time for Chapel Hill to remove the unsafe areas of coal
ash from the Site. The proposed approach poses too many serious risks from coal ash pollutants
including arsenic and radium, and from the long-term threat of structural failures and exposure of
coal ash at this eroding and unstable site located directly above a public greenway and Bolin
Creek. As a result, the Draft Agreement is unacceptable.
58 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, PROPOSED BROWNFIELDs AGREEMENT RE:
CHAPEL HILL POLICE PROPERTY (Exhibit A) at 17 (Jul. 1, 2024).
59 Mary Claire McCarthy, Protecting the Forests Protects Our Drinking Water Supplies in the Jordan Lake
Watershed (Aug. 11, 2020), available at https:Hcollaboratory.unc.edu/news/2020/08/11/protecting-the-forests-
protects-our-drinking-water-supplies-in-the Jordan-lake-
watershed/#:-: text=Jordan%20Lake%20scrves%20a%20mixture,flood%20control%20for%20downstream%20regio
60 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, PROPOSED BROWNFIELDs AGREEMENT RE:
CHAPEL HILL POLICE PROPERTY, Exhibit A, Environmental Information Summary at 3-5 (Jul. 1, 2024); Non -
Residential Well Construction Record, Well MW #1 (Apr. 30, 2013); Letter from Nick Torrey to Amy Axon, NC
DEQ, Additional Comments on Phase II Remedial Investigation Report at 7 (Flood Plain Map) (May 9, 2017); HART
& HICKMAN, TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL POLICE DEPARTMENT PROPERTY CROSS-SECTION A -A', fig.5 (Jan. 12, 2017).
61 Letter from Nick Torrey to Amy Axon, NC DEQ, Additional Comments on Phase II Remedial Investigation
Report at 3-4 (May 9, 2017).
62 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, PROPOSED BROWNFIELDs AGREEMENT RE:
CHAPEL HILL POLICE PROPERTY, Land Use Restrictions at 5 (Jul. 1, 2024).
11

Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
\j
Nicholas S. Torrey
Senior Attorney
Cc: Sharon Eckard, PG
Mayor Jessica Anderson
Chapel Hill Town Council
John Richardson, Chapel Hill Community Resilience Officer
12

EXHIBIT I

public meeting request: Chapel Hill Police Property, 23022-19-068
Nick Torrey < [e-mail] >
Sun 7/21/2024 12:35 PM
To:[e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Cc:Julie Mcclintock <[e-mail]>
Mr. Nicholson,
submitted the below request on July 2, but just realized it went to your old email address. Hopefully you
already received it but just in case, please accept it now.
Thankyou!
Nick Torrey
From: Nick Torrey <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2024 9:59 AM
To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Cc: Julie Mcclintock <[e-mail]>; Megan Kimball <[e-mail]>; Ben Elliott
<[e-mail]>
Subject: public meeting request: Chapel Hill Police Property, 23022-19-068
Mr. Nicholson,
Pursuant to NCGS 130A-310.34(c), I'm writing to request a public meeting on the Chapel Hill Police Property
draft brownfields agreement, No. 23022-19-068. This site has been the subject of intense public concern since
coal ash was first disclosed on the property in 2013. Numerous residents have spoken out at town council
meetings and in other forums to weigh in as the town evaluated the site over the years. Now, the town and
DEQ have scheduled the comment period on the draft brownfields agreement to take place when the
maximum number of residents, including concerned students, are out of town on summer vacation. The notice
materials mention some kind of public meeting in the early fall, but do not make clear that the comment period
will remain open to include comments made at the meeting; on the contrary, the notice says the comment
period will be only 30 days, beginning July 1. Thus, it appears that currently, any public meeting will be an
empty exercise.
Please fix this serious problem by extending the public comment period to include a public meeting in
September, after local residents return from summer holidays. It is imperative that the public have a full
opportunity to weigh in and have DEQ consider all comments made in person about their concerns and
personal stakes in the redevelopment of this contaminated coal ash site, before finalizing any brownfields
agreement.
Thank you,
Nick Torrey
Nicholas S. Torrey
Southern Environmental Law Center
601 West Rosemary Street, Suite 220
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
[phone]
[e-mail]

PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This email and any attachments may be protected by the attorney -client privilege, as attorney work -product, or based on
other privileges or provisions of law. If you are not an intended recipient of this message, do not read, copy, use, forward,
or disclose the email or any of its attachments. Instead, immediately notify the sender by replying to this email and then
delete it from your system. The unauthorized disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of this email or any attachments is
prohibited.

EXHIBIT 2

Coal ash legacy in Chapel Hill
Gordon Williams,' Ellen Cowan,' Zhen Wang,' Robert Hill,' Avner Vengosh 1
(1) Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University
(2) Department of Geological and Environmental Sciences, Appalachian State University
Summary of Findings:
Results from optical and elemental analyses of soil samples collected from the hillside below 828
Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. along Bolin Creek in Chapel Hill clearly indicate the occurrence of
coal ash on site. The concentrations of toxic metals (e.g. As, Se, Mo, Sb, Tl) in the Chapel Hill
coal ash are higher by up to 10 to 30-fold relative to the baseline concentrations of the North
Carolina soil, and exceed EPA threshold guidelines for ecological standards, which may pose
human and environmental health concerns. Likewise, the concentrations and distribution of the
radionuclides radium-226 and radium-228 in the Chapel Hill coal ash are consistent with
radionuclides occurrence in coal ash and are higher by 2- to 4-fold than common soils. The Chapel
Hill coal ash is distinctive from modern Appalachian Fly Ash likely due to selective removal and
atmospheric emission of small sphere particles during the historic coal combustion in the coal-
fired power plant, prior to the mandatory installation of electrostatic precipitators or other particle
filtration devices that aim to prevent small sphere atmospheric emissions.
Description of Sampling and Methods:
On the lower slope of the hillside below 828 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. visible eroding
outcroppings of black sooty material, later identified as coal ash, were located and three cores at
two locations were collected on August 2nd, 2022. During coring, the material was highly
compressible such that the hand auger sank and compressed the material with little effort. As such
the samples were collected at somewhat irregular intervals and often represent a mixture of several
feet of compressed material (depth ranges are noted for each sample). At location B, cores B 1 and
B2 were taken as replicates where B2 was started about 3 feet up the hillside from B 1 and both
cores were completed when the hand auger reached an impenetrable layer. At location A, core Al
was completed into what appeared to be a native background soil that was underlying the landfill
and an approximately 6-inch-deep sample of this soil was also collected. Physical observations
and optical point counting analysis were performed using a polarizing microscope at Appalachian
State University and trace element analyses were performed at the Duke Environmental
Geochemistry Laboratory by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry. For elemental
analyses, the bulk sample was fully digested. Detailed descriptions of both analytical methods are
reported in Wang et al. (2021) 1.
Results:
For decades coal ash material originating from the University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill coal plant was placed in an open space near the Chapel Hill police station adjacent to Bolin
Creek. New city plans to develop the property for low-income housing raise questions about the
content and composition of the coal ash at this site and its potential effects on human health should

the site be used for housing. On August 2nd, 2022, three cores with a maximum depth of 4.5ft were
collected from the site and were analyzed by microscopic point counting at Appalachian State
University and analyzed for trace elements at the Duke Environmental Geochemistry Laboratory.
The optical survey under a microscope shows that the materials at the site are composed of
nearly 100% coal ash with the one underlying soil composed of 37.7% ash particles (Table 1). The
ash contained lacey ash and ash rods that are likely carbon rich and appear delicate as well as some
clear spheres but also many plerospheres that are large in diameter (Figure 1). The occurrence of
carbon in the Chapel Hill coal ash could reflect historic coal combustion under lower temperature,
as compared to modern thermoelectric plants.
Sample
Percent Fly Ash
Description
Al Surface
99.8
fine black powder
Al 0-3.5 ft
99.7
fine black powder
Al 3.5-4 ft
99.7
fine black powder
Al 4-4.5 ft
37.7
soil beneath ash
B 1 Surface
99.8
fine black powder
B 1 0-2.5 ft
99.7
fine black powder
B2 0-2 ft
99.7
fine black powder
B2 2-3 ft
99.7
fine black powder
B2 3 ft
99.4
fine black powder
Table 1 (above): Sample list with optical and
field descriptions.
Table 2 (right): Average elemental composition
of each core (A 1, Bl, B2) in mg/kg. Core AI
excludes the soil sample.
Trace element data of the materials show
elevated concentrations of toxic metals and
metalloids (Table 2). The data were compared to two
Element
Al
B1
B2
As
39.5
58.2
53.5
Se
12.9
6.1
8.7
Mo
8.6
5.2
5.1
Sb
4.7
6.2
5.9
in
2.0
3.0
2.7
V
120.0
173.7
162.5
Cr
63.4
95.4
90.3
Ni
42.1
77.7
73.6
Co
24.1
41.1
38.5
Zn
7.8
87.5
54.4
Cu
84.2
127.2
122.8
Li
61.5
95.5
86.8
Rb
96.9
132.1
122.6
Sr
458.1
623.9
625.3
Ba
2707.0
3363.5
3070.7
Th
10.4
14.7
13.7
U
4.2
6.1
5.9
Pb
35.3
35.4
35.9
Cd
0.3
0.5
0.5
references, (1) the mean Appalachian fly ash
composition that reflect the current coal ash that is generated today in North Carolina as reported
in Wang et al. 2021, and (2) the mean North Carolina soil baseline composition reported by the
USGS 1,2. The mean Appalachian fly ash was used as a reference point since the UNC-Chapel
Hill coal-fired power plant has been reported to primarily use Eastern Coal I
The high concentrations of trace elements data from Chapel Hill site, including As, Se, Mo,
Sb, Tl, V, Cr, Ni, Co, Zn, Cu, Li, Rb, Sr, Ba, Th, U, Pb, and Cd, are consistent with previous
reports of the enrichment of these elements in fly ash 1. The elemental distribution patterns of the
three cores resemble that of the Appalachian fly ash (Figure 2), suggesting that they are likely the
same coal source. By comparison of the elemental concentrations to the NC baseline soil dataset,
we show that all these elements are enriched in the Chapel Hill samples (except with Zn where all
samples are slightly depleted or moderately enriched; Figure 2). For example, As and Se are
2

respectively 10-15-fold and 10-22-fold enriched relative to the average NC soil concentrations.
jP i
4k
Figure 1: A. Photomicrograph of modern Appalachian coal ash (APP-14). Note many small
clear spheres. Circled orange sphere has a 9.5 um diameter. Scale bar = 200 um. B.-F.
Photomicrographs of samples collected from Chapel Hill. Scale bar = 50 ,um. B. Site Al
Surface, Plerosphere and black spheres up to 40 ,um diameter. C. Site AI 3.5-4 ft, Spheres,
opaque and amorphous particles D. Site AI 0-3.5 ft, Black spheres, rods, and lacey particles
E. Site B2 0-2 ft, Blackspheres up to 44,um diameter, lacey and amorphous particles. F. Site
B2, 0-2 ft, Spheres averaging 20 ,um diameter and clear and black amorphous ash particles.
3

Our data show that there is some mixing of the coal ash with the underlying local soil, as
represented by sample Al 4-4.5 ft, which shows a lower coal ash percentage (37.7%) and lower
trace metals concentrations. The concentrations of toxic metals in the Chapel Hill coal ash also
exceed the aquatic freshwater sediment toxicity guidelines used by the U.S. EPA to define
potential ecological impact including V (average value of 152 mg/kg versus 57 mg/kg guideline),
As (50 mg/kg versus 10 mg/kg guideline), Sb (5.6 mg/kg versus 2 mg/kg guideline), Ni (64 mg/kg
versus 23 mg/kg guideline), Se (9.2 mg/kg versus 2 mg/kg guideline), and Cu (111 mg/kg versus
31.6 mg/kg guideline) 17. The concentration of As and Tl in the Chapel Hill coal ash were
respectively just below and exceeding the EPA Regional Removal Management Levels for
Chemicals (RMLs) threshold values for Residential Soils S (Figure 3). The RMLs are designed to
assist decision -making concerning comprehensive environmental response, compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA) removal actions at Superfund sites 1. Overall, the data indicate that
concentrations of toxic elements in the Chapel Hill site exceed the ecological threshold values for
aquatic freshwater sediment toxicity and the levels of two highly toxic elements of As and Tl are
close and exceed the maximum levels recommended by EPA for Residential Soils 1.
100
0.1
Enrichments Relative to NC Sail Baseline
............................................................ t A 1 Average (excluding soil)
...........................................................
. ..................................................... f B1 Average
. .. .................................................. B2 Average
. .._......................................... tAverage APP Fly Ash
. A ^%. QVA rZ0
..................................,,.............
, � 4 �° �, ,�, 4 0 -� CR v,` c" y> �p cat <` '3 4o C�
Figure 2: The ratios between the average values of trace elements measured in the 3 cores from the Chapel
Hill site (Al, Bl, B2) and average of modern Appalachian fly ash currently generated in coal plants'
relative to the NC soil baseline (defined as `Enrichment factor'). The similarity in the patterns between
the modern Appalachian fly ash (APP Fly Ash) and Chapel Hill coal ash reconfirm the presence of coal
ash in the Chapel Hill site, yet with selective depletion of the small sphere particles that are differentially
enriched in these elements. This observation is consistent with the microscopic observation of the presence
of relatively large coal ash spheres in the Chapel Hill site (Fig. 1).
A comparison of the composition of the Chapel Hill coal ash to the composition of modern
produced Appalachian Fly Ash show relatively depleted concentrations in the characteristically
El

enriched elements, except for Ba of which all the Chapel Hill coal ash samples are relatively
enriched (Figure 4). The relative lower concentrations of trace metals in the Chapel Hill coal ash
are consistent with the microscopic observation of the coal ash that show that lacey ash and ash
rods are most likely the particles that are carbon -rich (they look like soot). The Chapel Hill coal
ash is characterized by large diameter spheres (black and plerospheres) and generally do not
include small clear spheres that occur in modern fly ash (Figure 1). Since the Chapel Hill fly ash
was generated before the air quality regulations that enforce the installation of electrostatic
precipitators or other particle filtration devices, smaller particulate matter that is known to be
enriched in many trace elements might have been emitted to the atmosphere and deposited widely
over the surrounding region 10,11 Consequently, the residual large spheres of the Chapel Hill coal
ash contain relatively low trace elements concentrations when compared to the modern coal ash,
but nonetheless higher than typical soils in North Carolina.
70
60
EPA Resident Soil
50
bb
b° 40
U
30
20
H
Freshwater sediment
10
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
Figure 3: Box plots of the arsenic and thallium concentrations in the Chapel Hill coal ash as compared
to the ecological threshold values for aquatic freshwater sediment toxicity and the Regional Removal
Management Levels for Chemicals (RMLs) threshold values for Residential Soils 8.
In addition to trace elements, we analyzed the radionuclides 226Ra, 22'Ra, and 21°Pb
activities (amount of radioactivity, proportional to concentration) in three core samples. The total
activity of Ra nuclides (i.e., 22sRa + 226Ra) of three select samples (i.e., Al 0-3.5 ft, 131 0-2.5 ft,
and B2 2-3 ft) were 164 Bq/kg, 170 Bq/kg, and 156 Bq/kg, respectively, with a mean value of 163
Bq/kg. This value is about 60% of the total activity of Ra nuclides in modern Appalachian coal
ash (mean = 283 Bq/kg) 9, which is consistent with the relatively lower concentration of other trace
metals measured in the Chapel Hill coal ash (Figure 4). Based on the Th and U concentration data
from the USGS NC soil survey 2, the estimated total Ra of average common soils in NC ranges
from 43.9 Bq/kg in upper soil to 72.5 Bq/kg in deeper soil horizon (— 100 cm). Therefore, the total
activity of Ra nuclides in the Chapel Hill coal ash is higher by 2.2- to 3.7-fold than common soils.
The 228Ra/226Ra activity ratio of the Chapel Hill coal ash (0.69) is also consistent with the
composition of coal ash from eastern U.S. 9, and different from the 228Ra/226Ra in common soils in
North Carolina (an activity ratio of 1.2) 1.

14
1
Enrichments Relative to Appalachian Fly Ash
IiL
� l{
tAl Surface + B1 0-2.5 ft
tA] 0-3.5 ft
t B2 0-2 ft
---O--Al 3.5-4 ft
t B2 2-3 ft
--- I—A14-4.5 ft
B2 3 ft
B ] Surface
'5 4'o '�) "�' tit C,t ~ C V G" yti <p cat �Z;N xS J 4O C�
Figure 4: Enrichment factors for samples relative to the mean values of modern Appalachian Fly
Ash composition. Nearly all samples are depleted in elemental concentrations relative to the
Appalachian Fly Ash. This is consistent with the theory that smaller, elementally enriched
particles, were emitted to the atmosphere during coal combustion, resulting in the formation of
larger, less enriched coal ash spheres that were placed in the Chapel Hill site. The soil sample,
AI 4-4.5 ft shows some similar enrichment patterns to the other samples but largely is depleted in
all elements listed which is consistent with our optical analysis that the soil contains only a small
fraction coal ash.
References:
(1) Wang, Z.; Coyte, R. M.; Cowan, E. A.; Stapleton, H. M.; Dwyer, G. S.; Vengosh, A.
Evaluation and Integration of Geochemical Indicators for Detecting Trace Levels of Coal Fly
Ash in Soils. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2021, 55 (15), 10387-10397.
https:Hdoi.org/l0.1021/acs.est.1cO1215.
(2) Smith, D. B.; Cannon, W. F.; Woodruff, L. G.; Solano, F.; Kilburn, J. E.; Fey, D. L.
Geochemical and Mineralogical Data for Soils of the Conterminous United States; Data Series
801; Data Series; US Geological Survey, 2013. https://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/801/.
(3) Prete, P. J. Ash Management Alternatives: UNC-CH Power Plant, University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1987.
(4) Long, E. R. Calculation and Uses of Mean Sediment Quality Guideline Quotients: A
Critical Review. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2006, 40 (6), 1726-1736.
rel

https:Hdoi.org/l0.1021/es058012d.
(5) Long, E. R.; MacDonald, D. D.; Severn, C. G.; Hong, C. B. Classifying Probabilities of
Acute Toxicity in Marine Sediments with Empirically Derived Sediment Quality Guidelines.
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 2000, 19 (10), 2598-2601.
https:Hdoi.org/10.1002/etc.5620191028.
(6) MacDonald, D. D.; Ingersoll, C. G.; Berger, T. A. Development and Evaluation of
Consensus -Based Sediment Quality Guidelines for Freshwater Ecosystems. Arch. Environ.
Contain. Toxicol. 2000, 39 (1), 20-31. https:Hdoi.org/10.1007/s002440010075.
(7) MacDonald, D. D.; Ingersoll, C. G.; Smorong, D. E.; Lindskoog, R. A.; Biernacki, G. S.
and T. Development and Evaluation of Numerical Sediment Quality Assessment Guidelines for
Florida Inland Waters. 2003.
(8) U.S. EPA. Regional Removal Management Levels (RMLs) User's Guide. May 2022.
https://www. epa. gov/risk/regional-removal-management-levels-rmis-users-guide.
(9) Lauer, N.E., Hower, J.C., Hsu -Kim, H., Taggart, R.K. and Vengosh, A. Naturally
occurring radioactive materials in coals and coal combustion residuals in the United States.
Environmental science & technology, 49(18), pp. 11227-11233, 2015
(10) Clarke, L. B. The Fate of Trace Elements during Coal Combustion and Gasification: An
Overview. Fuel 1993, 72 (6), 731-736. https:Hdoi.org/10.1016/0016-2361(93)90072-A.
(11) Czech, T.; Marchewicz, A.; Sobczyk, A. T.; Krupa, A.; Jaworek, A.; Sliwinski, L.;
Rosiak, D. Heavy Metals Partitioning in Fly Ashes between Various Stages of Electrostatic
Precipitator after Combustion of Different Types of Coal. Process Safety and Environmental
Protection 2020, 133, 18-31. htlps:Hdoi.org/l0.1016/j_psep.2019.10.033.
7

From:
John Morris
To:
Nicholson, Bruce
Cc:
Town Council
Subject:
Proposed Brownfields Agreement at 828 MLK Blvd. in Chapel Hill
Date:
Tuesday, July 30, 2024 5:52:29 PM
Caution external email: Don't click links or attachments from unknown senders. To
check or report click the Phish Alert Button
Dear Mr. Nicholson,
I am writing to provide feedback on the proposed brownfields agreement for the coal ash site
at 828 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. in Chapel Hill.
The draft Brownfields plan aims to safeguard public health; however, it falls short on several
fronts.
The draft agreement does not entail the removal of any coal ash. Moreover, it permits the
establishment of a playground and green spaces where children and pets could be exposed to
the soil. The deed restrictions against disturbing the cap will be challenging to uphold in a
construction zone where new structures will necessitate underground utilities and footings.
The thin soil cap is vulnerable to erosion and being washed away.
Considering that Bolin Creek overflows during flooding, it could potentially disturb the coal ash
beneath the surface. This could result in the ash being carried into the Greenway walking area,
Bolin Creek, and ultimately into Jordan Lake. Leaving the ash in place, next to a stream prone
to flooding, poses an unacceptable risk to water quality and public health.
John Morris

From:
Grey Brown
To:
Nicholson, Bruce
Cc:
Town Council
Subject:
Ash dump on Bolin Creek
Date:
Tuesday, July 30, 2024 9:58:52 AM
Caution external email: Don't click links or attachments from unknown senders. To
check or report click the Phish Alert Button
Dear Officials,
I lived for fifteen years on Bolin Creek. My daughters grew up roaming its banks, wading and playing. We
walked our dogs and explored the woods; Bolin Creek was a huge part of their wildlife education and it is
where they learned to love nature.
It is a beautiful place if you have not been there. I hope you have visited especially as it faces UNC's
decision to place a government services complex on the coals ash pile with minimal protective measure.
Town residents need quick access to natural areas, especially those that feature water. Residents seek
this. People who consider moving here from other places look for these features. Often these prospective
residents come from places where there are many options for outdoor activities and forests. Paths and
environments like the Bolin Creek area make us more appealing to prospective residents.
Bolin Creek is also vital to the wildlife in our area. The EPA has just reported that coal ash is much more
dangerous to people and animals than previously reported.
I am a citizen of Chapel HIII, a long time lover of Bolin Creek and a voter. Please stand up to UNC and do
not allow this to happen.
Thank you,
Grey Brown
177 Sprunt Street
Chapel Hill, NC

From: Steve Fleck
To: Nicholson. Bruce; Town Council
Subject: Brownfields draft agreement with Town of Chapel Hill
Date: Tuesday, July 30, 2024 11:57:08 AM
ICaution external email: Don't click links or attachments from unknown senders. To
check or report click the Phish Alert Button
July 30 2024
Mr. Bruce Nicholson
In response to the Department of Environmental Quality's 30-day response period to the Brownfields draft agreement between the DEQ
and the Town of Chapel Hill, I wish to make a few brief observations. I hope that such issues can be raised in a public meeting, which
among other community members I requested before the July 21 deadline.
1. The draft agreement, despite its length, leaves this citizen with a sense of a major lack of clarity in various respects. In
particular, the agreement leaves it to the Town to design a `final remedy', which the DEQ will then review and perhaps revise,
perhaps approve as is, but to all evidence, with no provision for further public input in this extremely important document.
2. Among the questions that the document raises, first and foremost is that it leaves unclear whether any removal of CCPs is
mandated. Further questions arise from this circumstance.
3. Was full removal of the CCPs and contaminated soil ever considered? If so, by what actions was it considered - who was
contacted for such a consideration? And if not, why?
4. Does the DEQ intend to mandate `cap and contain', as the language in Exhibit A p. 19 (pdf page 33), appears to state? Or does it
leave room for alternatives, as the `e.g.' in Exhibit A p. 11 (pdf p. 25) appears to suggest?
5. While the Town has quite properly shelved its longstanding plan to build housing at 828 - and the DEQ has quite properly
declared it illegal, it is most puzzling why it would wish to build a playground with - presumably - only 2' of clean soil covering
it. If more soil is actually to be mandated, then the final agreement should surely state this clearly. Short of serious protections
for children playing in dirt, as they will always do, I would oppose any such construction.
6. Dr. Avner Vengosh of Duke's Environmental Engineering, a world-renowned expert on the environmental effects of coal ash
residues, has stated that `cap and contain' can work, but only if very carefully implemented. I would propose that Dr. Vengosh
be consulted on any such remediation.
7. Dr. Pamela Schultz, the highly respected environmental and chemical engineer in Chapel Hill, also a former Chair of the Town's
Stormwater Advisory Board, has weighed in against building housing on top of this mountain of contamination. Surely such a
distinguished authority in this field should be listened to in the finalizing of the Brownfields agreement.
With all best regards,
Respectfully,
Stephen Fleck
102 Sycamore Drive
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
[phone]

From:
Lindsay Garrison
To:
Nicholson, Bruce
Cc:
Town Council
Subject:
Chapel Hill Brownfields and Bolin Creek
Date:
Tuesday, July 30, 2024 4:40:13 PM
Caution external email: Don't click links or attachments from unknown senders. To
check or report click the Phish Alert Button
Dear Mr. Nicholson
In the mitigation plan as outlined for 828 Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd, coal
ash remains next to Bolin Creek and the adjacent hill. Merely covering the
ash with a layer of soil poses unacceptable long-term health risks. Relying
on minimal land use restrictions does not sufficiently protect the health or
the environment and leaves residents and Bolin Creek at risk. The current
coal ash mitigation plan needs to be revised. We need to get this right and
invest in the best solution, not the easiest or cheapest option.
Cordially,
Lindsay Garrison
Chapel Hill Resident

From:
Eli Celli
To:
Nicholson, Bruce
Cc:
Town Council
Subject:
Coal Ash - Building Gov"t Services Building
Date:
Tuesday, July 30, 2024 4:21:42 PM
Caution external email: Don't click links or attachments from unknown senders. To
check or report click the Phish Alert Button
Good afternoon,
I am writing asking the Town of Chapel Hill and NC DEQ to reconsider building
the government services building on top of the existing coal ash dump on MLK Jr.
Blvd. Considering the EPA just issued a new report stating coal ash is even more
toxic and than previously known I believe the coal ash needs to be safely removed
prior to any construction. I also think the Town should reevaluate the risk factors of
leaving the coal ash based on the new EPA report before anything at the site is
touched.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Eli
Eli Celli
elice11i407&gmail.com

From:
Neva Whybark
To:
Nicholson, Bruce
Cc:
Town Council
Subject:
Coal ash site - CH Police building
Date:
Tuesday, July 30, 2024 12:53:07 PM
Caution external email: Don't click links or attachments from unknown senders. To
check or report click the Phish Alert Button
The coal ash should be removed FIRST!
Otherwise, the health risks remain unacceptable for anyone or anything
built there. Sink holes are not predictable.
Deal with it now as it should be dealt with to avoid more complex serious
situations in the future.
Would you want to work or live there or nearby if this project proceeds???
Please do what is right for the citizens of Chapel Hill and the future of
Chapel Hill community.
Neva Whybark

From:
Nicholson, Bruce
To:
Eckard, Sharon
Cc:
Lucas, Katherine G
Subject:
FW: [External] public meeting request: Chapel Hill Police Property, 23022-19-068
Date:
Monday, July 22, 2024 10:40:56 AM
Sharon,
Forwarding FYI...
Bruce
From: Nick Torrey <[e-mail]>
Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2024 12:36 PM
To: Nicholson, Bruce <[e-mail]>
Cc: Julie McClintock <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] public meeting request: Chapel Hill Police Property, 23022-19-068
You don't often get email from ntorreyCcDselcnc.ora. Learn why this is important
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Report suspicious emails with the
Report Message button located on your Outlook menu bar on the Home tab.
Mr. Nicholson,
I submitted the below request on July 2, but just realized it went to your old email address.
Hopefully you already received it but just in case, please accept it now.
Thank you!
Nick Torrey
From: Nick Torrey <ntorrey(@selcnc.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2024 9:59 AM
To: bruce.nicholson(@ncdenr.gov <bruce.nicholson(@ncdenr.gov>
Cc: Julie McClintock <mcclintock.julie(@gmail.com>; Megan Kimball <mkimball(@selcnc.org>; Ben
Elliott <belliott(@selcnc.org>
Subject: public meeting request: Chapel Hill Police Property, 23022-19-068
Mr. Nicholson,
Pursuant to NCGS 130A-310.34(c), I'm writing to request a public meeting on the Chapel Hill
Police Property draft brownfields agreement, No. 23022-19-068. This site has been the subject
of intense public concern since coal ash was first disclosed on the property in 2013. Numerous
residents have spoken out at town council meetings and in other forums to weigh in as the
town evaluated the site over the years. Now, the town and DEQ have scheduled the comment
period on the draft brownfields agreement to take place when the maximum number of
residents, including concerned students, are out of town on summer vacation. The notice

materials mention some kind of public meeting in the early fall, but do not make clear that the
comment period will remain open to include comments made at the meeting; on the contrary,
the notice says the comment period will be only 30 days, beginning July 1. Thus, it appears
that currently, any public meeting will be an empty exercise.
Please fix this serious problem by extending the public comment period to include a public
meeting in September, after local residents return from summer holidays. It is imperative that
the public have a full opportunity to weigh in and have DEQ consider all comments made in
person about their concerns and personal stakes in the redevelopment of this contaminated
coal ash site, before finalizing any brownfields agreement.
Thank you,
Nick Torrey
Nicholas S. Torrey
Southern Environmental Law Center
601 West Rosemary Street, Suite 220
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
[phone]
ntorreyQselcnc.org
PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This email and any attachments may be protected by the attorney -client privilege, as attorney work -
product, or based on other privileges or provisions of law. If you are not an intended recipient of this
message, do not read, copy, use, forward, or disclose the email or any of its attachments. Instead,
immediately notify the sender by replying to this email and then delete it from your system. The
unauthorized disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of this email or any attachments is prohibited.
Email correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third
parties by an authorized state official.

From: thenkel1936Calamail.com
To: Town Council
Subject: FW: Town of Chapel Hill Plans for Coal Ash Dump at 828 MLK-Jr. Blvd
Date: Wednesday, July 31, 2024 9:46:09 AM
Attachments: Safe. Housina.Chapel.Hill.Petition. Sig natures. pdf
Caution external email: Don't click links or attachments from unknown senders. To
check or report click the Phish Alert Button
Mayor Anderson and Council Members —
I urge you to reconsider your plans for 828 MLK-Jr. Blvd!
Regards.
Tom Henkel
From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2024 10:44 AM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: 'Julie McClintock' <[e-mail]>
Subject: Town of Chapel Hill Plans for Coal Ash Dump at 828 MLK-Jr. Blvd
Mr. Nicholson —
I am writing to you as past Chairman of the Chapel Hill Environmental Stewardship Advisory
Board and a resident of Chapel Hill since 1998. In 2013, the Chapel Hill staff began
discussions about replacing the CH Police Headquarters at 828 MLK-Jr. Blvd with a newtown
office building and some affordable housing. At that time, it was discovered that the site was
formerly a private land fill which contained about 40-tons of coal ash from the UNC-CH coal-
fired steam plant, which had been dumped there in the 1960s. Further investigation showed
that this landfill was unlined. As a member of a Town advisory board at that time, and a
resident of property on Mount Bolus Rd just up the hill from the site, I was invited to sit in with a
selected committee to discuss what to do about the coal ash at that site. After several
meetings with input from experts, the general consensus from the attendees was that no
development should take place on this site unless all of the coal ash was removed.
After 2013, a new mayor and Council was elected, and the issue of what to do about the coal
ash continued to be unresolved. After coal ash started leaking out of the side of the hill
overlooking the Bolin Creek trail, the Town took some steps to try to contain the coal ash. In
early 2023, a local group of concerned citizens submitted the attached petition. This issue
then came before my advisory board (ESAB), and we held a virtual public hearing. Again, all
speakers opposed any development on this site until all of the coal ash was removed. The
ESAB then unanimously advised the mayor and council to remediate the site with the
complete removal of the remaining coal ash. We pointed out the expert testimony from Duke

University scientists, and the estimated cost of remediation at less than $6M. This was about
half the estimated cost obtained by Town staff. This issue remains on the ESAB agenda.
In my opinion, the Brownfields Agreement is most inadequate to maintain public health and
safety, for it is impossible to prevent toxic coal ash from causing environmental damage by
only capping the top of the site and constructing a wall along the hill overlooking Bolin Creek.
Furthermore, because the coal ash came originally from the UNC-CH steam plant, the
University should be required to provide funding for this remediation. Finally, I call upon your
agency to conduct a public hearing in this matter in September 2024 so that the voices of more
Chapel Hill residents can be heard.
Regards,
E. Thomas Henkel, Ph.D
223 Cedar Breeze Lane
Chapel Hill, NC 27517
919-593-5510

Safe Housing, forChavelflJl
Everyone Deserves a Sale Place to lave
www.safehousingchapelhill.org
A Petition for the Town Council to Hear Coal Ash Scientists Discuss the Health Impacts of Coal Ash on
Future Residents of 828 Martin Luther King Boulevard and To Remove All of the Coal Ash from the Site
1. WHEREAS the Town Council has already voted 8-1 to pursue the development of 225-275 units of
housing on top of a 60,000 ton toxic coal ash waste dump at 828 Martin Luther King Boulevard
2. WHEREAS a Town Council member, at the March 21, 2022 Council meeting did declare that the
Council was "listening to the science" related to the coal ash at this site
3. WHEREAS the Town Council's consultant Hart & Hickman, in their October, 2021 Risk Assessment
Report on 828 MLK did not include references to coal ash health impacts scientific research
4. WHEREAS Safe Housing for Chapel Hill, at no expense to the taxpayers, engaged the nation's top 3
coal ash health impacts scientists to provide their research as part of its analysis of the Town's
proposal to build housing: Dr. Avner Vengosh, Duke University, Dr. Julia Kravchenko, Duke School of
Medicine, Dr. Kristina Zierold, University of Alabama, Birmingham
5. WHEREAS that scientific research makes it crystal clear that the 35 toxic metals in coal ash are each
potential causes of cancer, organ failure, and even death
6. WHEREAS Dr. Avner Vengosh of Duke University's Nicholas School of the Environment conducted his
own soil samples at 828 MLK and issued a report on September 8, 2022 indicated he found 19 toxic
metals including lead, mercury, arsenic, and radium 226, and that the soil at this site was 3-4 times
the recommended safety levels by the EPA
7. WHEREAS the Mayor and Town Council members, as well as DEQ staff, even though invited, chose
not attend a public forum on September 22, 2022 by Safe Housing for Chapel Hill, which featured
these 3 top coal ash health impacts scientists
8. WHEREAS repeated requests of the Mayor by Safe Housing for Chapel Hill for the Town Council to
hear these reputed coal ash health impacts scientists have been rejected.
9. WHEREAS the Town Council has refused to remove the coal ash before any construction, claiming it
would cost $13-16M, that it is unsafe to remove, and there is no safe place to place it, when in fact a
coal ash removal engineering company says it would cost $1.5-5M to remove, they could do so
safely, and it could be taken to one of the new lined landfills in Raleigh.
10. WHEREAS the ultimate responsibility for this coal ash dump belongs to the University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill and its power plant who deposited it into this coal ash dump at 828 MLK,
Therefore, be it resolved that the Town Council take these actions:
• Listen to the science, the nation's top coal ash health impacts scientists, by holding a public forum
where the Town Council members and the public may hear from them about the health impacts of
coal ash at 828 Martin Luther King Boulevard on future residents and workers at this site.
• Remove all the coal ash before any construction begins, using standard safe removal protocols, and
moving it to a lined landfill.
• Chapel Hill pays for this removal of the coal ash with UNC-CH being a significant contributor.
See all of our documentation and the research at www.safehousingchapelhill.org
SIGNED:

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Dr. Edward Marshall
Julie Marshall
Dr. Stephen Fleck
Rita M. May
Julie McClintock
Steve Soltan
George Henry
Patricia Lester
Elizabeth Mt. Onan, CHOCE
Dr. Julia Kravchenko
Mark A. Hainline
Burwell Ware
Dick Ludington
Robert Beasley
Prabhavathi Fernandes
Michael Fernandes
Mary C. Kaiser
Caroline Sherman
Bruce Boehm
Dave Sidor
Emily Keel
Edward Fishman
Priscilla Merryman
Bob Nau
David Schmidt
Susan Bickford
Howard Sawhill
Fred Jenkins
Mark Scroggs
Angel Garcia on "Next Door'
Dr. Douglas Frederick
Dr. Diane Bloom
Mary Ellen Rickards
Amelia Covington, Climate Action
William Zang
Carolina Sullivan
Linda K. Brown
Mary Jenne, Women's International League
Maple Osterbrink, A.C.T./CWFNC working group
Nancy Sinreich
Joey Sinreich
Sharon Dinsmore
Dr. Avner Vengosh
Peter Dinsmore
Andrew Dinsmore
Joseph Dinsmore
Evelene Huber
John Stephens
Dr. Martha Cox
Ellen Zhu
John Kent
Karen Kent
Agnieszka Mateja-Paduch
2

54. Marcin Paduch
55. Nikolai Skiba
56. Lubov Skiba
57. Adaora Adimora
58. Dr. Kristina Zierold
59. Lisa Evans
60. Susan Wind
61. Chris Nidel
62. Erik E. Crown
63. Kim Konte, Non -Toxic Neighborhoods
64. Diane Cotter
65. Jodi Whalen
66. Stel Bailey
67. Meredith Wilson
68. Jerry Heindel
69. Susan Lunsford
70. Lesley Pacey
71. Sam Mink
72. Cara Rockford
73. Jonathan Marshall
74. David Cox
75. Mitch Knisely
76. Leah Beldon
77. Ben Fleck
78. Patricia Fleck
79. Dr. Donna M. Bickford
80. Isabel Geffner
81. Molly McConnell
82. Diane Willis
83. Brittney Adamo
84. Change.org supporter #1
85. Change.org supporter #2
86. Change.org supporter #3
87. Change.org supporter #4
88. Change.org supporter #5
89. Change.org supporter #6
90. Change.org supporter #7
91. Change.org supporter #8
92. Change.org supporter #9
93. Change.org supporter #10
94. Change.org supporter #11
95. Change.org supporter #12
96. Change.org supporter #13
97. Change.org signature #14
98. Change.org signature #15
99. Change.org signature #16
100.Change.org signatures #17
101.Change.org signatures #17
102.Change.org signatures #18
103.Change.org signatures #19
104.Change.org signatures #20
105.Change.org signatures #21
106.Change.org signatures #22
3

107.Change.org signatures #23
108.Change.org signatures #24
109.Change.org signatures #25
110.Change.org signatures #26
111.Change.org signatures #27
112.Change.org signatures #28
113.Change.org signatures #29
114.Change.org signatures #30
115.Change.org signatures #31
116.Change.org signatures #32
117.Change.org signatures #33
118.Change.org signatures #34
119.Change.org signatures #35
120.Change.org signatures #36
121.Change.org signatures #37
122.Change.org signatures #38
123.Change.org signatures #39
124.Change.org signatures #40
125.Change.org signatures #41
126.Change.org signatures #42
127.Change.org signatures #43
128.Change.org signatures #44
129.Change.org signatures #45
130.Change.org signatures #46
131.Change.org signatures #47
132.Change.org signatures #48
133.Change.org signatures #49
134.Change.org signatures #50
135.Change.org signatures #51
136.Change.org signatures #52
137.Change.org signatures #53
138.Change.org signatures #54
139.Change.org signatures #55
140.Change.org signatures #56
141.Change.org signatures #57
142.Change.org signatures #58
143.Change.org signatures #59
144.Change.org signatures #60
145.Change.org signatures #61
146.Change.org signatures #62
147.Change.org signatures #63
148.Change.org signatures #64
149.Change.org signatures #65
150.Change.org signatures #66
151.Change.org signatures #67
152.Change.org signatures #68
153.Change.org signatures #69
154.Change.org signatures #70
155.Change.org signatures #71
156.Change.org signatures #72
157.Change.org signatures #73
158.Change.org signatures #74
159.Change.org signatures #75
4

160.Change.org signatures #76
161.Change.org signatures #77

From: Lynda Haake
To: Town Council
Subject: Fwd: Chapel Hill Coal Ash
Date: Tuesday, July 30, 2024 8:46:32 AM
ICaution external email: Don't click links or attachments from unknown senders. To
check or report click the Phish Alert Button
Sent from my Wad
Begin forwarded message:
From: Lynda Haake <[e-mail]>
Date: July 30, 2024 at 8:44:57 AM EDT
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Chapel Hill Coal Ash
Dear Mr. Nicholson:
I have been a resident of Chapel Hill for 27 years. I am very
disappointed that this community and our officials would even
entertain building on the coal ash site along Bolin Creek.
In my opinion, the only way to utilize this plot of land is to allow it to
go back to nature. I realize that land in Chapel Hill is at a premium;
we need affordable housing, and we need to make good use of all
existing land, but to build anything on a potential environmental
hazard is ill-advised at best. Bolin creek is right next to this plot.
Any leakage (which is unavoidable over time if disturbed) will
pollute this creek and endanger our wildlife and our community
health. If this land is allowed to go back to nature, the risks it will
pose will be minimized over time as the soil is stabilized with native
growth.
Please consider denying the ill-advised proposal to build a
government office on this site.
Lynda Haake

Booker Creek
Sent from my Wad

From:
erg ry v
To:
Town Council
Subject:
Oppose building on coal ash site
Date:
Tuesday, July 30, 2024 11:26:13 AM
Caution external email: Don't click links or attachments from unknown senders. To check or report click the Phish
Alert Button
I wish to express my opposition to the proposed building on the coal ash site near Bolin creek in Chapel Hill. This
would create an unsafe environment during construction and to those individuals required to work there after
construction.
Jerry Villemain
108 Buckeye Lane
Chapel Hill NC 27516

From:
Sara Bacon
To:
Nicholson. Bruce
Cc:
Town Council
Subject:
Reconsider Coal Ash Project
Date:
Tuesday, July 30, 2024 2:21:40 PM
Caution external email: Don't click links or attachments from unknown senders. To
check or report click the Phish Alert Button
To whom it may concern:
I find the present agreement does not protect public health and the environment. Coal ash is
terribly toxic to both humans and wildlife. Please reconsider your current plan to adopt a more
health and environmentally conscious one.
My best,
Sara
Sara Bacon, Principal
Pronouns: She/Her/Hers
Command C
p: 347-844-9208 x703
w: commandc.com c- saraCa commandc.com
Read our reviews on Clutch