23022_Chapel Hill Police Property_PCRecd18Sep2024_20241002

Comments on Brownfields Agreement
September 18, 2024 Public Hearing
E. Thomas Henkel, Ph.D
1 am past Chairperson of the Chapel Hill Environmental Stewardship Advisory Board
(ESAB), which has had the coal ash problem at 828 MLK-Jr Blvd on our agenda for several
years. When this problem was first identified over 10 years ago, my family lived at 3 Mount
Bolus Rd, which is just up the hill from the contaminated site. Since I was a member of the
predecessor ESAB advisory board, the Town Staff invited me to participate with a select
committee to analyze and discuss this coal ash issue and to make recommendations on
what actions the Town should take. The general consensus of this committee was that no
redevelopment of this site should be undertaken unless all of the coal ash was removed.
In the fall of 2022, the ESAB held a virtual public hearing to consider what should be done
about the coal ash at this site, and we heard from Dr. Avner Vengosh, Distinguished
Professor of Environmental Quality at Duke University. He and his colleagues had
conducted testing of the site to determine the toxicity of the buried coal ash, and they
prepared an extensive report. I will now give you a copy of their report. Their
recommendation was that all of the coal ash should be removed before any redevelopment
of the property was undertaken. The ESAB then petitioned the Mayor and Council to follow
the recommendations of this report.
I have read the Draft Brownfields Agreement, and I urge the following changes to Section VI:
Work To Be Performed:
New Paragraph 11: Prior to redevelopment of the Brownfields Property, Prospective
Developer shall excavate and remove all of the CCP structural fill (i.e. coal ash) from the
site by a qualified contractor. Such CCP material shall then be transported to a properly
lined landfill which is certified to receive and store CCP material.
Other paragraphs of the Agreement shall then be modified accordingly to reflect the new
language of Paragraph 11.
Thank you!

Coal ash legacy in Chapel Hill
Gordon Williams,' Ellen Cowan, 2 Zhen Wang,1 Robert Hill,1 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 2" d, 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 B1 and both
cores were completed when the hand auger reached an impenetrable layer. At location A, core A 1
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 2" d, 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.
Sam le
Percent Fl • Ash
Description
Al Surface
99.8
fine black powder
Al 0-3.5 ft
99.7
fine black powdeE
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 Cowder
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 (A1, B1, B2) in mg/kg. Core Al
excludes the soil sample.
Trace element data of the materials show
ElementF
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
TI
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
elevated concentrations of toxic metals and
metalloids (Table 2). The data were compared to two
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 12. 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 3.
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.
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 µm. B.-F.
Photomicrographs of samples collected from Chapel Hall. 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, Black spheres 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.

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 (I I I mg/kg versus
31.6 mg/kg guideline) 1. The concentration of As and TI 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 8 (Figure 3). The RMLs are designed to
assist decision -making concerning comprehensive environmental response, compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA) removal actions at Superfund sites a. 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 8.
Enrichments Relative to NC Soil Baseline
100
U.1
Figure 2: The ratios between the average values oftrace elements measured in the 3 cores from the Chapel
Hill site (A1, BI, 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
4

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 11,11 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 Rcsident Soil
4.0
3.5
50
p 3.0 —
40
2.5
30
? 2.0 EPA Resident Soil
Cd
20
1.5
Freshwater sediment
10
1.0
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 s.
In addition to trace elements, we analyzed the radionuclides 2z.Ra, 228Ra, and 2111Pb
activities (amount of radioactivity, proportional to concentration) in three core samples. The total
activity of Ra nuclides (i.e., 228Ra + 226Ra) of three select samples (i.e., Al 0-3.5 ft, B1 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) I.
r

10
o.1
Enrichments Relative to A
AS11
— Al Surface
T— B] 0-2.5 R
A l 0-3.5 ft
-L B2 0-2 ft
Al 3.54 ft
B2 2-3 ft
Al 44.5 ft
B2 3 ft
B 1 Surface
T' gz 4P q 1� J 0 ,� 0 ti�- G11 N? ,;gl cat R;' ,<r J Quo 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,
A14-4.5 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://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.IcO1215.
(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.
IN

https:Hdoi.org/ 10.1021 /es05 8012d.
(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://doi.org/l0.1002/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://doi.org/l0. 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.
htts://www.e )a.,_>ov/risk/reaional-removal-mana,,ement-levels-rmis-users-.uide.
(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) CIarke, L. B. The Fate of Trace Elements during Coal Combustion and Gasification: An
Overview. Fuel 1993, 72 (6), 731-736. https://doi.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. https://doi.orp/I 0. 10 1 6/i.psep.2019.10.033.

r'nnl_Ash Health Impacts of the Proposed Housing Eroject at 828 Martin Luther Kinrq
Boulevard,
Chay_el Hill, NC: A Research and Policy_ Report
... we have been studying this for eight years with a lot of caution and a lot of testing... we've
heard over and over again `listen to the science, listen to the science", and that's what we're
doing.../ think reacting emotionally to this is not helpful... we will continue to listen to the science...
our consultants have been really thorough, we ... need to move forward...
--Karen Stegman, Chapel Hill Town Council member, March 21, 2022 Council Meeting
It is not responsible for the town to build on this site without knowledge
of the risks. Town officials are in total darkness about those risks.
--Dr. Avner Vengosh, Distinguished Professor of Environmental
Quality, Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University
Coal ash at
n Searing
The Mayor and Chapel Hill Town Council, as this research paper will show, are about to make a tragic mistake,
making an uninformed decision to build 225-275 units of housing on top of a 60,000 ton coal ash dump at 828
Martin Luther King Blvd. The vote to proceed with this plan was 8-1. This is tragic because coal ash is the new
asbestos —its toxic metals are incredibly dangerous to the health and safety of children, pregnant women, families,
and workers —arsenic, mercury, lead, radium 226, boron, and 30 other toxic metals —each of which causes a range
of diseases including cancers, respiratory and neurobehavioral issues, and death. Uninformed because the Town's
consultant, Hart & Hickman, failed to provide the Council with a complete assessment of the health risks of coal
ash —scientific data that is readily available. Due to this failure of the consultants, Safe Housing for Chapel Hill
spent over 5 months collecting the scientific data, engaged the nation's top 3 coal ash scientists, and worked with
other national, regional, and local advocacy groups to bring this information to the public. Here is a link to a 2 hour
public forum featuring these 3 scientists on September 22, 2022:
f)tLAsJ.' wwvv.uiupuuh.t umi'si �)vvv4oq�iiauovm :hm/Coal.Ash.Health.Impacts.at%20828.MLK.Scientists.Speak.9-22-
22.mp4?dl=0
Confirmation bias is when the Council only asks for the data that will confirm the decision they have already made,
and refusing to consider additional data. Willful blindness is when the Council goes ahead with their decision in
spite of health science data that is contrary to their foregone conclusion. Currently, our Town Council and Mayor
are operating on both these principles. This report scientifically shows that the coal ash at 828 MLK is a clear and
present danger to the health and safety of anyone who would live there. The scientists said of this proposal to

build housing on top of coal ash: "it's crazy", "it makes no sense," "they are uninformed". So the policy question
that needs to be answered is this:
Why would our Mayor and Town Council, knowing the science of coal ash and its health impacts on
people, deliberately proceed to build housing on top of a coal ash dump? Do the Mayor and Town
Council care about the health and safety of children, pregnant women and families who would live
there? in light of all this scientific data, what is the Town's motive to proceed? What will they do
now? They have a clear choice.
RATIONALE FOR THIS RESEARCH REPORT
This research report was prepared because our Town's elected officials have so far not seen the coal ash health
science data that is easily available, and because they do not seem interested in hearing it. As a result, a group of
citizens formed Safe Housing forChapel Hill and, at no cost to the taxpayers, conducted an exhaustive review of
the literature, engaged the nation's top 3 coal ash scientists, discussed our situation with national, regional, state
and local environmental advocacy groups, public interest attorneys, and Region IV and national EPA.
The Town of Chapel Hill's plan to build about 225-275 housing units on top of approximately 60,000 tons of toxic
coal ash at 828 Martin Luther King Boulevard presents a clear and present health and safety danger to future
residents, especially children and pregnant women and must be removed before anything is built on that site,
especially housing.
Coal ash comes from coal-fired power plants, in this case UNC's power plant, and at 828 MLK Blvd. consists of at
least 19 toxic metals like arsenic, lead, mercury, cobalt, cadmium, radium 226 and radium 228, boron, strontium,
lithium, among others, all of which are present at this site, metals that can cause serious health problems including
cancer, neurobehavioral problems in children, and death. Here are 4 specific reasons why we did this research:
• The Town Council, even after 8 years of studies and expensive consultant research, still does not have the
requisite health impacts scientific data to be able to make an informed decision an whether to build
housing at this site. A significant amount of that data was publicly available in 2018, long before Hart &
Hickman issued their health and safety risk assessment in 2021.
• it is clear from the public debate that Town officials fail to grasp the enormity of the public health and
safety risks of these toxic metals for children, pregnant women, and families who would live there.
• Coal ash is the new asbestos. The metals in coal ash, according to the Centers for Disease Control, cause
cancer and can kill. Town officials appear to have fallen prey to confirmation bias —they want so much to
proceed with this building project that they either did not look for, or did not consider any data, logic, or
public opinion that could be contrary to what seems to be their foregone decision —to build housing on
top of this toxic coal ash dump.
• The health impacts data is clearly available, as you will see in this paper. It can only be willful blindness to
proceed on the current polity path, a path which deliberately puts the health and safety of the children,
pregnant mothers, families, and workers at risk.
We are not opposed to building housing at 828—we are, however, adamantly opposed, on health science grounds,
to building it on top of a toxic coal ash dump. In fact, it is our intention to help our Town prevent a public health
crisis like what happened in Mooresville/Lake Norman and Huntersville about a decade ago —many homes were
built on top of coal ash structural fill, and a number of years later, two thyroid cancer clusters showed up, one in
each town. They discovered 42,000 tons of coal ash next to Lake Norman High School. 25 students got cancer, and
6 have died.
We believe it is the duty, moral responsibility, and obligation of our elected officials to protect the health and safety
of our citizens from potential cancers and death. Even one child or adult getting ill years from now is one too
many. Therefore, all coal ash must be removed before any construction begins. It can be done safely and at a
small expense when compared to the ongoing severe health risks to people living there
2

OVERVIEW OF THIS REPORT
In this report, we will present the results of 5 months of research, interviews, dialogues, and meetings with the
nation's top 3 coal ash scientists, the EPA in Region IV and Washington, DC, multiple regional and local advocacy
groups, attorneys at reputable environmental organizations, and national public interest research and policy
groups such as the Environmental Integrity Project, Earth Justice, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, North
Carolina for Clean Water, and others. This report is organized as follows:
Executive Summary
I. Understanding Coal Ash, and at 828 Martin Luther King Boulevard
II. Chapel Hill's Proposal to Build Housing on Top of Coal Ash at 828 Martin Luther King Boulevard
III. Hart & Hickman Health & Ecological Risk Assessment and Expert Challenges
IV. The Health Impacts of Coal Ash-3 Top National Coal Scientists Speak
V. Coal Ash at 828 MLK—Remediate Or Remove?
Conclusion
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
What follows is a summary of the main points of this research and policy paper. In it we provide:
• An analysis of the Hart & Hickman reports and what they failed to consider that is essential to
understanding the health risks of coal ash
• An analysis of the legal dimension of this project, including Federal law, the 2014 Coal Ash Management
Act, and the DEQ Brownfield Agreement process
• An overview of the coal ash health science featuring 3 of the nation's top coal ash scientists: Dr. Julia
Kravchenko of the Duke School of Medicine; Dr. Avner Vengosh of the Nicholas School of the
Environment at Duke University; and Dr. Kristina Zierold of the Department of Environment Health
Sciences at the University of Alabama, Birmingham
• Biographies of the coal ash scientists as well as a sample of the research available on coal ash
• 2 critical coal ash health science papers will be appended to this document, 1 paper which was
overlooked by Hart & Hickman —a comprehensive literature review of coal ash health impacts and
communities by Dr. Kravchenko. Also appended is a scientific report analyzing the coal ash at 828 MLK by
Dr. Vengosh
Given the length of this analysis, here are the bottom line messages of this paper:
Coal ash is the new asbestos —arsenic mercury, lead radium 226 boron and 30 other toxic metals
o The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says there are 35 toxic metals in coal ash; the Centers for
Disease Control said the toxic metals include arsenic, mercury, lead, boron, antimony, and radium
226 and 228, each one of which can cause serious damage to lungs, kidneys, brains, nervous systems,
can cause cancer and death
o Physicians for Social Responsibility: "if eaten, drunk, or inhaled, these chemicals can cause cancers,
cognitive deficits, developmental delays, and behavioral problems, heart damage, lung disease,
kidney disease, reproductive problems, and impaired bone growth in children."
o Dr. Julia Kravchenko, Duke School of Medicine: Diseases due to coal ash include: premature death,
lung cancer, respiratory mortality, bronchitis and asthma in children, cardiovascular disease,
diabetes, low birth weight, and infant mortality
828 MLK Blvd. is in effect a "su erfund site" —a clear and present danger to the health and safet
of anyone at or near 828 MLK Boulevard
o There is an estimated 60,000 tons of toxic coal ash and other waste in a dump used by the University
of North Carolina; this coal ash has at least 19 toxic metals in it, e.g. arsenic, lead, and mercury.
o The Town has acknowledged the toxicity coal ash at 828: in 2014, after Duke Energy's Dan River coal
ash spill in Eden, NC., Falcon Engineering was commissioned to map where the coal ash was —it
3

covers over half the site; in 2020 they removed 1000 tons of coal ash along Bolin Creek, rebuilt the
Greenway, put up a fence along the embankment, and put up a sign warning the public of the public
health hazard
o In 2021, Hart & Hickman found:
■ 11 toxic metals at locations all over the 828 site at depths of 1' to 30'
■ Concluded that "...Some impacted perched groundwater may eventually migrate through
underlying unsaturated zones to groundwater in the main underlying unconfined
aquifer..."
o In August, 2022, Dr. Avner Vengosh, Distinguished Professor of Environmental Quality at Duke
University, in several soil samples from the 828 site, found concentrations of 19 toxic metals (e.g.
Arsenic, Selenium, Molybdenum, Thallium, Mercury, and Lead) 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
The Town knew for years that coal ash at 828 MLK was a dan er to human health &safety
0 1950-1970s—University of North Carolina power plant dumps toxic coal ash at 828 MLK Boulevard
0 2014—After the disastrous Duke Energy coal spill into the Dan River, Chapel Hill commissioned Falcon
Engineering to map where the coal ash was; it covered well over half the 10 acre site, including
underneath the current police station
0 2017—The Southern Environmental Law Center told the Town that there were public health and
environmental safety risks —it was in the water, on the land and could be eroded with flooding,
taking it right into the public water supply
0 2020 the Town removed 1000 tons of coal ash from the embankment and reconstructed the
greenway, put up a fence, and posted a warning sign to not trespass due to the public health dangers
of coal ash
0 2021 Hart & Hickman risk assessment documented coal ash at 1' to 30' in depth, at least 11 toxic
metals, and that it would be a risk for residents to live there
0 2022—in the Memorandum of Understanding with the developer, Belmont Sayre, the Town says
none of the residential units will be for sale —only for rent. Why? We can speculate it is because they
know the health risks of coal ash from extended stays
The 828 MLK proiect appears to violate the 2014 Coal Ash Management Act
o CAMA is crystal clear about what is not allowable under the law: Structural Fill Must Not Be:
■ Within the 100-year floodplain—in 2017, the Southern Environmental Law Center concluded
'The coal ash extends into the floodplain of Bolin Creek."
■ Within 50 feet of a property boundary, wetland, bank of a perennial stream or surface water
body
■ Within 300 feet of a private dwelling or well
■ Within 50 horizontal feet of a wetland
• In regard to these last 3 points —the residential units would be on top of the coal ash rather
than 300' away
o The Town claims that because the 828 MILK coal ash dump was there before 2014, CAMA does not
apply; Dr. Vengosh rebutted this statement saying that "every coal ash dump in the country was
created before 2014."A red herring.
o In a letter to the Town Council March 23, 2022, Dr. Pamela Schultz, an environmental and chemical
engineer, and former Chair and still member of the Chapel Hill Stormwater Advisory Board, disputed
several points made by town officials about CAMA:
■ On the use of coal ash structural fill which is being considered, the Town Attorney said it was
still legal; Dr. Schultz said this practice no longer occurs in North Carolina
■ DEQ says on its website that only 2 structural fills larger than 8000 tons per acre have been
permitted since 2014; Dr. Schultz pointed out that 828 is estimated at 13,000 tons per acre
M

■ Dr. Schultz: "I do not believe the council was given all the information needed to make a
good decision. Of particular concern is the misrepresentation of the risk assessment
results."
o Technical questions have been raised as to whether 828 MLK is covered by this law —whether it is or
not is beside the point-828 MLK should be governed by the spirit and intent of this law —you don't
build on top of toxic coal ash
The Town's consultants Hart & Hickman failed to do a thorough health impacts risk assessment—
leavinig the Town Council uniformed to make a science -based decision
0 2018—Dr. Julia Kravchenko of Duke's School of Medicine, published a comprehensive analysis of the
coal ash health risks in communities —it was not even cited by Hart & Hickman in their 2021 report
o Oct. 7, 2021—in Hart & Hickman's health risk assessment of 828 MLK, no health scientific research
was cited from nationally recognized coal ash scientists, nor were they listed in their bibliography —
they failed to do a complete job, leading the Town Council to conclude there are few if any health
risks for people living there
o Hart & Hickman also failed to review the research on coal ash and children ages 6-14 conducted by
Dr. Kristina Zierold of the University of Alabama, or Dr. Avner Vengosh at Duke's Nicholas School of
the Environment, who has conducted research on coal ash and water and soil for over 10 years
o EPA, the CDC, and Physicians for Social Responsibility, cited above, all have done the research
showing that the toxic metals in coal ash can cause cancer and death —why did Hart & Hickman not
do that research?
o In May, 2022, the Environmental Integrity Project in Washington, DC, which has evaluated coal ash
projects for over 20 years, concluded, after reading the 2021 report:
...shows that the site is not safe for redevelopment as a residential property, and it fails to
show that the site is not adversely affecting local surface water. Risk estimates presented... are
too low. The true risks of redevelopment would be even higher if the Risk Assessment were to
fully account for all coal ash risk drivers (boron, lithium, and molybdenum). Not only was the
health science not fully assessed, even the ecological analysis was incomplete —and tragically so
o To confuse things more for the Council, what are we to believe about Hart & Hickman's rosition on
health risks to human bein s?
■ Still, the 2021 risk assessment concluded that "acceptable risk levels were exceeded for a
future resident.." and for construction workers
■ In the ecological risk assessment section, they said there was potential for erosion of the soil
leading to coal ash flowing down the embankment into the greenway
■ But on the other hand, on March 21, 2022, Hart & Hickman consultants created significant
confusion by telling the Town Council that it was "safe" to live there —up to 10 years for a
child and 16 years for an adult —without risk; this belies the reality that even Hart & Hickman
concluded there were risks, even though they didn't do the research
■ Later Hart & Hickman confuse us even more by saying that for redevelopment an option is to
excavate or remove the coal ash
o This failure to do the health sciences research, and subsequent opposing statements on the health
risk led Dr. Vengosh to say, "The Town Council is flying bind on this critical element of the proposal"
The DEQ's Brownfield Agreement process violates the public trust and does not keep us safe
o If a future resident got cancer or died, or a child got cancer or had neurobehavioral problems, no one
is responsible except that individual —not the State, the Town, or the developer —everyone is on their
own
o The May 16, 2022 public "hearing" consisted of a 60 minute presentation, and 30 minutes for 17
people to make comments; questions submitted did not get answered for 11 weeks, and then many
questions were not answered completely or at all; one organization submitted 34 questions and got 2
answered —every single comment opposed this project —they were ignored
o In a letter from Sharon Eckard on September 21, 2022, she clearly stated that the public will only get
to comment, in a 30 day window, after they have made their decision —this violates the public trust
5

o DEQ has said that they would not be responsible for worker safety during construction, leaving it to
the contractor
o Historically, DEQ has approved 98% of all brownfield agreements, giving citizens of Chapel Hill the
clear impression that the decision to proceed with the 828 MILK housing project is a done deal
The nation's top coal ash scientists are clear coal ash is hazardous to human health
o Dr. Julia Kravchenko Duke School of Medicine: "The Impact of Coal -Powered Electrical Plants and
Coal Ash impoundments on the Health of Residential Communities," with H. Kim Lyerly, NC Med
Journal, (Sept -Oct, 2018). This peer -reviewed analysis of over 8000 scientific articles that led to 113
reviewed in detail, concludes in part:
■ Coal ash particulate matter, can upon inhalation, penetrate deep into the respiratory tract
and deposit in the lungs, leading to respiratory, cardiovascular, and cerebrovascular diseases
and lung cancer
■ ...the spectrum of metals in coal ash (e.g. arsenic, mercury, lead, cadmium...) have been
shown to be associated with neurotoxic, carcinogenic, teratogenic, and mutagenic effects.
■ In terms of water and soil contamination, "even low concentrations of some contaminants
(e.g. arsenic) could be on issue because they can be retained in suspended sediments and
remobilized with environmental changes
■ ...coal ash can impact human health at every stage of use from the initial mining of coal to
the post -combustion disposal of coal ash.
Dr. Avner Vengosh, Nicholas School of the Environment Duke University:
• On August 2, 2022, Dr. Vengosh and his team took a number of core soil samples at 828 MLK
on the embankment, and at no cost to the Chapel Hill taxpayer, analyzed it, and prepared a
scientific report that is attached to this report; it concluded:
• There were 19 toxic metals in the coal ash samples —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 effect on human health should the site be used
for housing.
• 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
• The concentration of As (Arsenic) and TI (Thallium) in the Chapel Hill coal ash were
respectively just below and exceeding the EPA Regional Removal Management Levels far
Chemicals (RMLs) threshold values for Residential Soils. The RMLs are designed to assist
decision -making concerning comprehensive environmental response, compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA) removal actions at Superfund sites.
• ':..exposure to higher levels of radium over a long period of time may result in harmful
effects including anemia, cataracts, fractured teeth, cancer (especially bone cancer),
and death.
• "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 Ti are close and exceed the maximum
levels recommended by EPA for Residential Soils"
• Dr Vengosh also outlined 4 additional risk factors for housing at 828 MLK:
• To demolition workers due to coal ash dust (fly ash); plumes of coal ash if not properly
treated
• To people living at 828 MLK—soil deterioration of the 3-4' cover can be degraded
leaving buried coal ash exposed, like at Lake Norman High School where 25 students got
cancer and 6 died —lust putting dirt over it is not enough protection against fly ash."
• Leaching of coal ash into the water supply —"Even if you close up all the places where
there is coal ash, covering it won't prevent leaching which will get into the ground
water or the creek."
0

• Lack of monitoring in perpetuity —who would do this? What would happen if coal ash is
discovered?
■ In summary, Dr. Vengosh has said: "The Town does not have adequate information to
protect the health and safety of potential residents."
Dr. Kristina Zierold Department of Environment Health Sciences University of Alabama
Birmingham: She is a leading coal ash scientist who has focused on the health impacts of coal ash on
children 6-14
■ She discusses how coal ash gets into human systems through inhalation, chronic exposure,
ingestion, and leaching
• "Children who live in homes near coal ash dumps/plants have significant neurobehavioral
issues involving mental health, depression, aggressiveness, ADHD, gastrointestinal problems,
degenerative diseases, and respiratory disease."
■ Dr. Zierold's research is on children living near coal ash —living on coal ash would increase
their chances of significant physical and mental health risks
The Bottom Line: the only option to protect health and safety of future residents and workers is to
remove all coal ash before buildin an _ hing at 828 MILK
o What this paper shows is that the Town has failed to make a compelling, science -based case for
building residential housing on top of about 60,000 tons of coal ash
o It is the Town Council and Mayor's moral and public health responsibility to keep our citizens safe —
the proposed plan does not do that.
o The Brownfield Agreement process in effect covers up the issue by shielding the Town and developer
from any liability, shifting all the risk to the people who would live at 828 MLK
o Remediation will not work —as Dr. Vengosh and Dr. Zierold have pointed out, soil deterioration, soil
instability, runoff, and leaching into the water supply, since there is no liner under the coal ash; as Dr.
Vengosh pointed out, Even if you close up all the places where there is coal ash, covering it won't
prevent leaching which will get into the ground water or the creek."
o Frank Holleman, Southern Environmental Law Center has said: "Excavation is now the established
industry standard... if a capped site fails, how will management defend their decision contrary to this
industry trend in response to the inevitable... investigations, claimant litigation and shareholder
questions."
o Excavation and removal is the only option to protect the health and safety of future residents, and
workers, at 828; Hart & Hickman suggested it; the Brownfield Agreement Issue 9, Insurance as Safety,
suggests it; health science risk data require it
o The Town Attorney quoted the cost of removal as being $13-16 Million; we checked on this with an
engineering firm that does this for a living —the cost is $2.5-5.0 Million —which in the Sept. 13, 2022
memo from the City Manager the Town is prepared to finance through debt capacity; it can also be
safely removed to a lined landfill that would not impact any other community
o All coal ash must be removed before anythinghs built at 828 MILK.
7

Friends of Bolin Creek
September 18, 2024
Good Evening,
I am Julie McClintock, Co -President of Friends of Bolin Creek. This agreement
is unacceptable because it does not sufficiently protect public health from
onsite pollution. The fundamental problem is that the draft agreement
requires no coal ash removal.
The EPA says that coal ash is more dangerous than initially thought. The EPA
found an elevated cancer risk even when ash comprises only 1 % to 2% of the
soil mixture. Due to the high levels of�arsenic and cadmium found in coal ash,
people can develop health problems uv n ated to cancer, such as heart
disease and stroke.
Coal ash is no longer used in NC for structural fill. If this proposed plan goes
forward "as is," the Town would rely on structural debris and coal ash as the
foundation for the new buildings. Only rarely have buildings been constructed
on top of coal ash fill, and when they have, the results have been unsafe. The
developing sinkhole pictured in the DEQ report points to the continuing risk of
settling, causing more coal ash exposure at the surface.
The coal ash is perched on a ledge overhanging Bolin Creek, an impaired
waterway feeding Jordan Lake, a primary drinking water supply. The Town
removed 1000 tons of coal ash that had washed down the bank to the creek
area, where the public greenway is located, but the steep bank will continue
to erode down the bank onto the greenway and into Bolin Creek. We have
video footage of flood waters during Hurricane Florence lapping the hill of coal
ash and inevitably carrying coal ash into Bolin Creek.
The deed restrictions are inadequate to deal with the flooding and settling
expected over time. Including a playground in the plan is nonsensical and
dangerous.
Council members have expressed concern about the risks of removing the
ash. Yet SELC has forged numerous agreements with Duke Energy requiring

the removal of millions of tons of coal ash to lined landfills in NC and SC and
has done so safely. The bottom line is that the more ash removed from this
site, the safer it will be for neighbors, town workers, and the public.
In conclusion, I am submitting a letter from Pamela Schultz, a chemist and
environmental engineer, dated March 23, 2022. Her letter makes a crucial
point that when the Town Council decided to proceed, they misunderstood
the risk assessment results. Both long-term and short-term exposure to coal
ash may have health consequences, and construction workers experiencing
health impacts cannot be dismissed.
We call upon the Town of Chapel Hill and the Department of Environmental
Quality to reject this plan that fails to protect human health.
Julie McClintock
Co -President
Friends of Bolin Creek

P. Schultz to Council March 23, 2022
TO: Chapel Hill Mayor Hernminger and Town Council Members
FROM: Pamela Schultz, PhD
RE: Police- Station- Property Redevelopment
DATE: March 23, 2022
Dear Mayor Herr minger and Town Council Members,
My name is Pamela Schultz. I am a Chemist & Environmental Engineer. l
have a PhD from the University of North Carolina in Environmental
Sciences & Engineering. l have a Master's degree from Clemson in
Environmental Science & Engineering. I have a Bachelor's degree in
Chemistry from Providence College.
I have conducted numerous human health risk assessments for the US
Environmental Protection Agency on landfills and waste sites, for mixtures
of contaminants including heavy metals.
This past Monday, l watched the video of the last Council work session to
prepare for Monday's Public meeting on the redevelopment of the Police
Station- property. It is clear the Council is tasked with making difficult
decisions about complex issues and are relying upon competent, accurate
advice from the towns consultants.
+ applaud the council for asking probing questions and working hard- to
make sure they have the information needed to make a good decision. As
stated by Council Member Jessica Anderson 1:12:50 -- " We have
everything we need and we understand it as non -experts."
Given that, please consider the following inaccuracies and incomplete
information, presented during that meeting.
Rage-1

P. Schutz to Council
1. Residentia=l Risk Scenario
March 23, 2022
At about 58:00 minutes, Council member Jessica Anderson asked for a
summary of the current conditions front the latest risk assessment. The
consultant stated that the residential exposure scenario showed
unacceptable risk to a person living at the site for 26 years. Council
member Anderson asked for confirmation.
Q. Council member Andersen " You just said someone- would have- to We
there for 26 years for it to be an unacceptable risk?"
A. Hart & Dickman -- "Yes. 10 years as a child and l6 as an adult. "
The answer to this should- have been no. Risk assessments do NOT
calculate the number of years it takes for an unacceptable risk to take
place. If that number were calculated, it would be something less than the
number of years quoted, since this scenario exceeded the acceptable
health risk level.
The implication of this conversation was that 26 years is a long time to live
in one place, and the. However, many children continue to live with parents
in their 20s. I myself have a 20+ year old living with me, who's lived in the
same house since age 2.
This is serious because it implies the risk assessment is overly
conservative, but risk assessments are not designed to be protective of
most people, but all- people and possible scenarios.
2. Short-term Health Effects
Council member Anderson had a related follow-up question.
Page-2

P. Schu{tz to CouncR
March 23, 2022
Q_ Council memherAnderson -- -- "So even if there was a failure, which
sounds unlikely, that would mean you would have a really short-term exposure
which isn't the -risk anyway. Is that fair?"
A. Hart & Hickman -- "That's correct."
The answer to this should have been no. _ Both long-term and short-term
exposure to coal ash may cause adverse health effects. Cancer risk is
evaluated over decades of exposure. Health effects other than cancer are
lumped into non -cancer health impacts (neurological effects, other impacts
to major Organs).
Non --cancer health effects are evaluated over shorter time frames (1 year or
less), by comparing to a threshold — the dose is either above or below a
safe level.
In the -risk assessment, the - dose to -a- resident exceeded a safe level by
over 3 times, and the dose to a construction worker exceeded a safe
level by 10 times.
Exposure Pathway Residential I Construction Worker
Carcinogenic Risk Hazard Index I Carcinogenic Risk Hazard Index
Exposure Unit #1 - Upper Level
Soil Direct Contact 2.4E-05 3.6E+00 7AE-06 7
_ Exposure Unit#2 - Lower Level
ISoil Direct Contact NIA N/A 1.4E-06 3.6E+00
Soil Direct Contact I 9AE-05
Exposure Unit #3 - Embankment
Page 3

P. Schultz to Council
March 23, 2022
The table- shown above provides data from Page 37 of the risk assessment.
The entries in red exceed a safe level dose, including background soil
concentrations. Excluding background-, the construction work its the Upper
level has the same hazard index.
This is serious as it indicates that construction at this location may indeed
cause health impacts to workers and a failure of the proposed retaining wall
may cause- health impacts to clean-up workers. Personal- protective
equipment can minimize exposure, but appropriate use of PPE can be
difficult to achieve in the field.
Note that the cancer risk here is compared to the upper end of the
acceptable range of 1 E-4. The Council has indicated a desire to meet a
more protective standard of 4 E-5 cancer risk.
3. Coal Ash- as Structural Fill
The council for the town, Keith Johnson, repeatedly described the use of
coal ash as fill as previously "very common" but "less common now".
Daring the, Q&Acouncil member Adafn Searing asked the following.
Q. Council member Searing — "Would we allow it to happen today?"
A. Johnson -- "Yes. Now there are protections in place but it is still legal under
certain -circumstances ... given... under a- law put in place -by North Carolina in
2014 to use coal ash for structural fill. "
The answer to this should have been no. For aW intents and purposes,
this practice is no longer occurring in NC.
Page-4

P. Schultz to CouncA
March 23, 2022
Per NCDEQ-s wehsife -- "There have only been two structural fills larger than
8, 000 tons per acre permitted since the enactment of CAMA in 2014. There have
been no- structural fills less than 8, 000 tors per acre -permitted since- LAMA.
CAMA is the Coal Ash Management Act {LAMA} of 2014. Per this act, sites
with coal ash used as fill must NOT be within 50-feet of a property
boundary, wetland, or other- surface water body, and Must NOT be within
300-feet of a private dwelling or well. (The full list of protective measures
is attached for your review.)
Itt summary, I do not believe the council was given- all the information
needed to make a good decision. Of particular concern is the
misrepresentation of the risk assessment results.
I urge the council to take a protective approach and use this site for
commercial, rather than residential use. As a member of the
Stormwater Advisory -Board, I can attest to the large number of
concept plans with new housing options, flowing into the planning
department now, located throughout Chapel Hill.
This Police Station site could be a wonderful- benefit to our town as
the location of the municipal services center. As a small business
owner, I can also attest to -the need for affordable office- space- for
small businesses.
I fully support commercial uses of the site assuming development is
limited to the upland portion of the site, furthest from the coal ash
embankment. To fully- protect public health-, the remaining land
should be capped, as soon as possible, with minimal disturbance, to
limit exposure to construction workers and existing residents.
Page 5

P. Schultz to Council March 23, 2022
Rddttional Comments and Supporting Information:
How Much Ash is There? Based on the Phase 11 Report, there are
approximately 60,000 cubic yards of coal ash at the police station property.
Using a factor for 1.1 tons per cubic yard, there is an estimated 66,000 tons
of ash. Given the 4.5 acre size of the property, that would convert to over
14,000 tons per acre.
How Many Truck Loads? More recently, the towns consultants have
indicated the amount of ash is likely less than 60,000; however, the
estimated number of track loads to completely remediate the site,
estimated at 5,000 truck loads, has not been lowered. This number is
quoted in pubhc Meetings and even- in the Media.
"That could- cost $13 million to $1-6 mtfl-ion and send- 5,000 dump track
loads of dirt to a landfill in another county, said Keith Johnson, an attorney
representing the town."
https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/counties/orange-count
article258978953. htm I
Where- wtll- all- this clean soil- come from-? The current plan indicates that
we would cap the site with 3 to 4 feet of clean soil. Soil caps are typically
2#t depth, so this additional depth is -protective, but where will all this soil
come from? This is a lot of soil.
1 acre—foot of so+l = 2,40a tons {approxknate @ 92 Ibsku. ft.}
2,000 tons * 4.5 acres * 3 feet = 27,000 tons of soil to cover the site
If 66,000 tons of ash requires approximately 5,000 truck loads to
remediate, then 27,000 tons of soil to cap the site requires approximately
2,000 truck loads of soil to cap the site with 3 feet of clean soil.

P. Schultz to Council
March 23, 2022
What about the neighbors that live next to the site today? Fugitive
dust from the ash contains fine particles that, when inhaled, can get deep
into our lungs. These fine particles have the highest concentrations of
metals. This is a scenario that is difficult for risk assessment methods to
assess. Once that exposure occurs — it cannot be taken away.
Our understanding of the health impacts to children are continuing to
emerge, as evidenced by the following summary of a study on coal fly ash
exposure to children agent 6 to 14.
Coal fly ash exposure and affective disorders in children aged 6 to
14 --- "..there may be a potential relationship between fly ash
exposure and affective disorders in children: Fly ash storage is an
emerging environmental health threat throughout the world. This
study may provide impetus for understanding the health- impacts
from exposure and promote improved regulations."
1tt sJ/eh . niehs. nih. ciovldoill0.9289/isee.2020. virtual. P-0924
If we can cap sites for lead, why can't we do this for ash? The site
developers have noted that sites with lead contamination are successfully
capped routinely in urban areas. Coal ash and lead in soils are very
different. Lead contamination in urban areas is often from paint chips.
Exposed ash is much more likely to be transported as dust after a
disturbance and deposited elsewhere. The construction project proposed
for this site will clearly be disturbing coal ash to provide solid foundations
for these multi -story structures.
Page 7

P. Schultz to Council
March 23, 2022
2014 NC Coal Ash Management Act (current rules) https://deg.nc.gov/
about/divisions/waste-management/solid-waste-section/coal-ash:
structural -fills The Act applies to sites with over 8,000 tons coal ash per
acre.
• A liner,
• Leachate collection system,
• Cap,
• Groundwater monitoring system which is certified by a licensed geologist
or professional engineer to be effective in providing early detection of any
release of hazardous constituents from any point in a structural fill or
leachate impoundment to the uppermost aquifer, so as to be protective of
public health, safety, and welfare, the environment and natural resources.
• Sufficient dust control,
• Financial assurance that will ensure that sufficient funds are available for
facility closure, post -closure maintenance and monitoring any corrective
action required, and to satisfy any potential liability for accidental
occurrences, and subsequent costs in response to an incident, and
A structural fill must not be:
• Within the 100-year flood -plain; it shall not restrict the flow of the 100-year
flood, reduce the temporary water storage capacity or result of washout of
the- waste- to pose a hazard to human life-, wildlife or land or water
resources.
Within four feet of the seasonal high ground- water table-.
• Within 25-feet of a property boundary, bedrock outcrop.
Within 50-feet of a property boundary, wetland, frank of a perennial stream
or other surface water body.
• Within 300-feet of a private dwelling or well.
Page 8

P. Schultz to Council
March 23, 2022
Table showing the details of the calculations for construction
workers. The exposure is from ingestion, dermal, and inhalation.
DVQ RIACakWW.-Rtacl G.rR-C..M-&.W d-S.t
1'a D.k- d-MI
tan: S< 7QIEPA R54Tatk
r ..... -....
7M. ®: BRY TIKI-lT-0fiO
ra..aaea4 RID: U!KCwU--*RW4 tr
•-i✓Ilfe dla)i.4•Aw -a. an m6Waror RfeAba.Noar Elio!%fflNl fv0[.Ok 91ft)P�'•�O. nol in�00r ln/r.!(;IdAI YSO[4OkY(iN�ivpO�lnbrvnon.
r._Noh 2iat tlrEPAM.r.o rouewsa an>� ed.a,e oreaxxralopefacmrrn6xrfarkad thr ejareir6.apassiblenmfr.lare m.eariekorAaraMgmaewr Lmdmncmemiwsare poredw AkeEPA.nrm imgk�iof800
ag4gfarms-fiddld-lmd.
_....
0
7.0E-06
1.1EH1
CAS K
CLemiwl Name:
1a8a4im
Caroe.n.tim
(mgylg)
Ikneal
Ca.ermntim
(mshg)
tdn4lF.i
••_- �"__
(uROrg)'
fagejtim
Cniemogeaie
Rink
I)emzJ
Cammogmic
Relc
MuLdan
C �S,,,;,,
Biel[
Cakulaled
Kist
HmN
01>afim
I)emd
Hr®S
Qwrie@
[.lulutan
ilr®d
Quot n
Caladmed
Nm-
Cal,kqpaic
iSwrd
7440-38-2
9£.9
£
3SE"
SAE-07
1.S[.K
SJE46
STGtl
9.lEfi?
IAEHt
7440.39-3
Bablm
3200
3200
3200
4.7F.02
IAE-01
1.4F.01
744041-7
"um and
6.99
6.99
6.99
S]E00
£2E08
4.S13-Li
7.9E-02
93E02
744043-9
1.5
IS
176-09
8JF.09
L8E-03
I.IE¢i
3.4E-02
4AF.02
16065-83-1
imdlbb Sal6
MS
MS
NS
L7E-0S
3
2.lE-03
18£40.29-9
2.
2.7
27
SAE4R
7AEdl
73E-07
1.06Ai
2.OAri�03
- 3bE03
744049J
Cabot
30
30
70
t.36-07
_
83E-07
296A3
lAR-K
3.7FA1
740050$
C
180
180
SWI
33FlOT
33E-02
7439A2-I
-Id«d['.ovonm.Y
30
30
30
�.••
Q."
6L-
ia744dr5
[.
IS00
I500
Ism1.8E-0I
fi,7610
f,9P'HO
7419A74
-0ImpaY (elemeaW?
Il
11
11E440
LlEHO
7440-02-0
HieYel Saln
43
41
43
3-4P�S
I 3AE-08
63E-03
1.8P 02
53E-02
77t2447
S<Irniim
1
13
13
7.7&03
ISE-04
7.8E-03
7a4p2ai
Srrmtium Sable
323
32£
725
4AE-04
a»aa
7aa0-Tt4V
77uti1m 15at16k SaW
0.6
0.6
0.6
4.tE-02
44E-IR
749062-T
Vamdilmaad Compmmds
73
73
73
2.2E0
l;[-01
1.9E-01
7440-666
�Cn
2
720
IZO
12E-03
13E-03