Last night was my first meeting as Chair of the OWASA Board of Directors. (It’s on YouTube.) It was also the first time that I brought up an item that wasn’t on the agenda for discussion among the board. (To be very overt: I’m writing this as a person serving on the board, not on behalf of OWASA.)
The item at hand concerned UNC’s plans to pilot test a new fuel to replace coal at its co-generation station on Cameron Avenue. The new fuel is pellets made from a mix of paper and plastic scraps, and they contain varying amounts of PFAS compounds, aka “forever chemicals.”
Journalist Kirk Ross published a comprehensive piece on UNC’s plans shortly before our meeting, and I quoted from his piece – which you can read in full here – extensively at the dais. In it, he says:
It’s a mistake for UNC or anyone to introduce PFAS into a process that doesn’t already use it or needs to, let alone at a downtown facility in a large population center with schools, hospitals and nearby local water supply.
It certainly isn’t right, and given the risks and the costs, it also doesn’t seem practical.
Further, this application puts state environmental officials in a hell of a bind, Shortly after the university filed its application, North Carolina joined other states petitioning the Environmental Protection Agency to designate certain PFAS compounds as Hazardous Air Pollutants.
The department’s official release includes this comment from the top:
“The EPA has been proactive in addressing PFAS and supporting efforts to address PFAS contamination in our states,” said North Carolina DEQ Secretary Elizabeth S. Biser. “Adding these forever chemicals to the list of regulated pollutants addresses a gap in our regulatory authority and makes it possible to tackle a critical part of the PFAS life cycle: air emissions.”
PFAS are called “forever chemicals” because they basically never go away once they’re introduced into an environment. We know that they may be harmful to human health, and the EPA introduced new regulations last spring that mandate water utilities must adhere to strict requirements related to PFAS. (Chapelboro has a good writeup of a recent briefing we gave legislators on our community and PFAS.)
Our discussion last night centered on the questions we have about this test so that we can be better informed about ways in which it could affect our water supply at University Lake. Really good questions were raised. We requested that OWASA staff reach out to the university to learn more about their efforts and the test, and to bring that information back to the board.
Bob Epting, OWASA’s general counsel, added some historical context to the discussion and noted that anyone – including elected bodies – can request a public hearing from NC DEQ. Highlights from his comments: “I can’t imagine that the university would even apply for such a permit without a widespread community conversation about this….the coal-gen plant has impacted the community in an adverse way for so many years. Promises have been made over and over again and broken over and over again by the university to switch to fuel sources that were less harmful to the community. It is astonishing to me that the community would have learned about this proposal only by reason of the diligence of reporters….the process for getting the permit is managed by DEQ under rules that are in place. Those rules permit the public to request public hearings before the permit is issued and I would think at the very least that the University ought to be advised that the community is going to insist on public hearings where information can be analyzed, developed, and considered.”