Many of the organizations opposed to housing and greenways in Chapel Hill and Carrboro look organic and unique but, as we’ve pointed out in the past, share key characteristics indicating that they’re run by the same small group of people.
For instance, Friends of Bolin Creek and CHALT share a PO Box and an IP address, and the email address for both organizations goes to the same person, who has founded almost a dozen similar organizations over the past 30 years. As the Daily Tar Heel reported last year, Friends of Bolin Creek–a registered 501c3 nonprofit– may have held an illegal campaign event for candidates that CHALT backed in the last election cycle. And as we’ve documented for years, CHALT has a history of posting vague evidence-free complaints, incorrect information, and exaggerated claims about a variety of local issues.
Which brings us, once again, to the long-fraught topic of coal ash.
Let’s go back a few years.
In October 2020, CHALT publicly opposed a proposed site for a new police station and municipal services building along Weaver Dairy Road and MLK Jr. Boulevard, because it would “singl[e] out one neighborhood to bear the brunt of the impacts of this project, especially if other, more suitable sites can be found.”
CHALT’s suggestion at the time? “Capping the buried coal ash and building new offices under the Brownfields program” at 828 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
Now the Brownfields agreement is moving forward at 828 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd, CHALT’s leaders are trying to stop it from happening.
The long and complicated history of coal ash
This is a complicated issue which has plagued Chapel Hill for many years. As we previously reported, in the 1960s and 70s, clean soil was dug up from 828 MLK Jr. Blvd., and coal ash and other debris was used as structural fill. The police headquarters was built on the site in 1981. In the ensuing decades, we’ve learned that coal ash (which is the byproducts of coal combustion) is pretty nasty stuff, and the existence of the large piles of coal ash was discovered in 2013.
In the decades since coal ash was dumped on the site, we’ve learned about the negative health impacts of coal ash, and with that better understanding of its risks have come new regulations that prevent dumping of coal ash in unlined containers as was done at the 828 site.
Over the past 10 years, the town has methodically researched the site, bringing in Hart & Hickman, an environmental consulting firm with expertise in addressing the challenges of polluted sites. After a number of analyses informed by testing at the site, the Town Council decided to enter the Brownfields program managed by the state Department of Environmental Quality (NC DEQ). Through this program, NC DEQ works with property owners to develop plans to address the human health risk of the pollution on the site so that redevelopment can take place.
In September 2022, the then-Town Manager recommended that the town not move forward with housing on the site at this time—but continue to assess the site and remediation plans to relocate the municipal services center.
For nearly a year, NC DEQ continued its review and worked with the Town and its consultant on the site and its safety concerns. This is all standard procedure. it takes a long time to assess these projects which are all over the state of North Carolina.
What’s in the Brownfields agreement?
This past summer, NCDEQ posted the draft Brownfields agreement and summary for the 828 site which was available for public comment through July 30.
The details are on the department’s Public Comment webpage. DEQ also has a summary of everything that’s gone on so far. The tl;dr is this:
- The town can’t use the site for residential (which the town has already said they weren’t going to do.)
- The town can use the site for a municipal services center and parking but they can’t do that until the site has been remediated, either by enclosing the ash or by removing it
- The owner of the site has to submit a yearly report to DEQ on any new activities
- The soil cannot be disturbed under 18 inches. (In other words, once the site has been remediated it can be mowed and small vegetation planted.)
- Everything has to be approved by DEQ.
This is pretty much what we expected and similar to what occurred at the Wegmans site in Chapel Hill, which is also a Brownfields remediation site. Basically, you can build a building and asphalt on top of the site, but you can’t disturb the soil and you have to remediate the coal ash entirely.
So what’s next?
On Wednesday, a public hearing will be held at the Chapel Hill Public Library at 6:30 for additional public comment on the draft Brownfields agreement.
At issue is how to deal with the coal ash and there are basically two options: We can remove it entirely and truck it to a different community that will have to deal with it, or cap and remediate it on site. CHALT and Friends of Bolin Creek want the former, and write “Some council members have asserted that coal ash removal is risky or would harm other communities, but the real risk is leaving the coal ash on an unlined, unstable, steep slope.”
Weighing risk is hard, and stating that there’s no risk in moving coal ash to another (likely poorer) community is inaccurate and pretty gross.
The proposal the town submitted to DEQ, based on the recommendations of the environmental consultants assessing the site for the past decade, follows best practices for a site like this. It removes all surface coal ash and coal ash that is immediately below the surface and covers it with several feet of clean soil or an impervious surface such as concrete or a building. As the consultants have noted, coal ash that is 10-15 feet below the ground or deeper is not going to pose a health risk to employees or residents on the site. (More details here.)
There’s no doubt in anyone’s minds that coal ash is harmful, and the plan they’ve submitted minimizes the chance that anyone will be exposed to coal ash—and minimizes the environmental and safety impacts of the site.
Upon remediation, there will be no coal ash on the surface. There will be no coal ash on the site immediately below the surface. All areas of coal ash will be capped.
Finally, none of these counterarguments to the redevelopment of the site grapple with the unquestioned environmental and safety impacts of the thousands of truck trips that would be needed to clear the site of coal ash. That effort would require workers to come in contact with coal ash that would have been safely covered by many feet of soil and by concrete and would likely never have impacted anyone.
As Council Member Karen Stegman has pointed out: “Some are advocating for complete removal of all coal ash from the site. Apart from the prohibitive cost (current estimate ~$16 million) and health risks of digging up and transporting an estimated 5,000 truckloads of coal ash through town and through the state, risking coal ash becoming air borne during transport, it is important to ask where that coal ash would go, because it must go somewhere. Full removal would require dumping this hazard on another community – one that economically has no choice but to accept truckloads of coal ash. These landfills are located primarily in low-income areas and/or communities of color so it is important to reflect on this question of environmental justice before making such a decision. The Council is deeply concerned about the harm we could do and is factoring in the impact on other communities of color in this decision.”
Council has been thoughtful, thorough, guided by experts, and prioritized the health and safety of our community and other communities throughout this process. We encourage them to continue, and for our community to weigh the facts.