News from North Carolina

North Carolina Environmental Agency Removes Climate Change Links From Website

Think Progress,

12 March, 2014

At some point in the last two months, The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) removed links and documents containing information about climate change from its website, according to a report in WRAL News.

The DENR’s Division of Air Quality apparently removed information about climate change that had been available on the front page, including a full page of information and resources about greenhouse gases that no longer exists, WRAL’s report said. Also missing is a 100-page report on possible economic impacts of greenhouse gas mitigation, and the state’s 118-page Climate Action Plan, according to WRAL.

The agency’s Division of Air Quality spokesman Tom Mather told Climate Progress that the reports were simply removed because they were old — not because of the Department wants to downplay climate change. Mather did say, however, that climate change programs were not of great importance to the DENR because of a lack of federal regulation.

“What you’ve gotta recognize is that states like North Carolina have state laws we have to enforce, and federal laws. Currently there are very few federal regulations dealing with climate change,” Mather said. “Because of declining revenue, we have to make choices all the time about where we allocate our resources, so it makes sense that we devote resources where we have a clear regulatory responsibility.”

DENR has earned a good deal of mistrust from environmentalists in no small part due to itsquestionable handling of the February Dan River disaster, during which 82,000 tons of coal ash were accidentally released from a 27-acre coal ash storage pond owned by Duke Energy. The U.S. Justice Department has recently opened a criminal investigation into DENR due to that spill, questioning the relationship between the agency and Duke — a company that also was a 28-year employer of Gov. Pat McCrory.

The state has also been in the spotlight in past years for its climate change denial, most notably marked by a law passed in 2012 to stop the use of climate-related science to plan for future events. Specifically, that law forces coastal counties to ignore observations and the best science-based projections in planning for future sea level rise.

DENR’s website change has raised questions on whether the removal of climate change information is a reflection of the current administration’s philosophy. Both McCrory and DENR Secretary John Skvarla have made no secret of their skepticism on climate change, despite the fact that 97 percent of scientists agree that man-made global warming is occurring (approximately the same percentage of scientists that agree on the age of the universe, or that cigarettes kill).

“Our secretary has said that he feels that our department needs to recognize that there are all kinds of views on this subject, a diversity of views, and that’s been his primary position,” Mather said.

If it were the case that DENR’s website change reflected a broader decision to downplay climate change, North Carolina Sierra Club communication Dustin Chicurel-Bayard said it would be the wrong one.

“Ignoring climate change and sea level rise would undermine the investments that we make in infrastructure for decades to come,” Chicurel-Bayard told Climate Progress. “If that is the case, it would be very concerning that scientific information is not being made available to public employees.”

However, Mather said Skvarla’s position on climate change had nothing to do with the removal of climate change information from the DENR’s website, and that much of the information is still available with a bit of effort.

“There was no directive from our department,” Mather said, noting the decision was ultimately made by Air Quality Director Sheila Holman. “We are continually updating and revising our website, just like anyone who has a website. … We have removed some links that were formally up there for climate change issues, but we still have a lot of climate change links up on other pages.”

Breaking: Duke Energy Caught Dumping Wastewater from Coal Ash Lagoon Into Local Watershed

Eco Watch,

17 March, 2014

Waterkeeper Alliance released aerial surveillance photos taken from a fixed-wing aircraft last week which show Duke Energy workers pumping wastewater from two of Duke Energy’s toxic coal ash lagoons into a canal that drains into the Cape Fear River.

The revelation comes less than two months after the Dan River disaster, where at least 30,000 tons of coal ash spilled from another of Duke Energy’s toxic coal ash lagoons. The pumping also came just days before a federal grand jury convenes in Raleigh to hear evidence in a criminal investigation of Duke Energy, the North Carolina Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and the handling of coal ash. 

In these revealing stories in Sunday’s New York Times and Monday’s Los Angeles Times, Duke Energy admitted its workers were pumping coal ash wastewater out of a toxic wastewater pond and into a canal which drains into the Cape Fear River. The Cape Fear River is a source of public drinking water for residents in Fayetteville, Sanford, Dunn, Harnett County, Fort Bragg and Wilmington.  

Even more startling, Duke Energy described the pumping of coal ash wastewater into a watershed as part of “routine maintenance.” The New York Times quoted Duke Energy spokesman Jeff Brooks as saying: “They’re lowering the water to conduct the maintenance they need to.” According to the New York Times, Duke claims it notified state regulators—a claim that was contradicted by officials with DENR.

Duke Energy cannot lawfully discharge any pollutant to a waterway without a proper permit in place.

“To label the secret, unmitigated, intentional discharge of untold amounts of highly toxic wastewater as ‘routine maintenance’ seems ludicrous,” said Peter Harrison of the Waterkeeper Alliance. “Here, Duke Energy has admitted that it deliberately emptied the contents of its ash ponds into the Cape Fear River watershed, just weeks after decimating at least 70 miles of the Dan River with its coal ash, and just days before it will appear in front of a federal grand jury for its suspected criminal activity related to its coal ash.”

DENR has indicated that Duke did not notify the agency prior to pumping the ponds, and that regulators noticed the pumping during a site visit on an unspecified day last week. “If DENR did not authorize Duke’s pumping, it would show an appalling disregard for the law and the welfare of North Carolinians,” Harrison added.

Cape Fear Riverkeeper Kemp Burdette said, “I am gravely concerned that neither Duke nor DENR gave any public notice that untold gallons of concentrated untreated coal ash waste was deliberately dumped into the Cape Fear watershed. Hundreds of thousands of North Carolinians rely on the Cape Fear river for drinking water, fishing and swimming. We do not want heavy metals from coal ash in our river.” 

Waterkeeper Alliance Global Coal Campaign Coordinator Donna Lisenby said, “Duke never obtained an official modification of its NPDES permit to allow the discharge the highly concentrated coal ash waste water from the bottom of their ponds into the Cape Fear river watershed—if it had happened through open channels, the public would have had a chance to object. This was either illegal, unilateral action by Duke—or a quiet backroom deal with DENR.  There is no evidence that any valid, publicly available permit allows them to discharge untold gallons of untreated concentrated coal ash waste water. Duke Energy should provide the specific language from the permit they claim allowed them to discharge highly concentrated untreated coal ash waste water into a standing body of water with almost no flow to dilute it.” 

The Public Needs Answers

In light of these startling photos and initial response from Duke Energy, Waterkeeper Alliance and Cape Fear Riverkeeper call on Duke Energy and North Carolina DENR to clarify answers to these questions for the public:

1. Precisely when did Duke notify DENR that they were going to pump coal ash water into the Cape Fear river watershed? Was it before or after Waterkeeper Alliance photos were provided to state regulators via a news reporter on March 11?

2. Precisely when did DENR discover the pumping activity on a site visit last week? When did it intend to inform the public that a potentially staggering volume of coal ash wastewater had been dumped into the river? DENR should describe exactly what transpired on this alleged site visit when staff discovered the discharges.

3. Has DENR actually issued a permit that allows Duke Energy to pump millions of gallons of concentrated untreated wastewater from two coal ash ponds simultaneously? If so, when was the permit issued? Was it before or after the Dan River spill? Was it before or after the criminal investigation was launched by federal investigators?

4. How much of Duke Energy’s untreated coal ash wastewater entered the Cape Fear River? A “bathtub ring” visible in the aerial photos suggests the wastewater levels in both coal ash ponds had receded several feet by the time the photos were taken on Monday March 10. Given the size of the ponds, that means Duke potentially pumped millions of gallons of highly concentrated, untreated coal ash wastewater from two ponds prior to March 10. Did Duke measure the amount of wastewater pumped from the two coal ash lagoons? Did it test the untreated wastewater for the heavy metals commonly found in coal ash? If so, how much aluminum, arsenic, boron, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, iron, lead, manganese, selenium, thallium and zinc did they dump upstream of the drinking water intakes of Fayetteville, Sanford, Dunn, Harnett County, Fort Bragg and Wilmington?

5. Duke says this pumping was legal and permitted for “routine maintenance” by a permit. Can they provide a copy of the permit highlighting the specific language that allows them to pump millions of gallons of concentrated untreated coal ash wastewater from two coal ash ponds at the same time? Is pumping of coal ash wastewater using portable pumps a “routine?” How many times have they pumped coal ash water into public rivers from portable pumps? Can they provide a list of the locations of their other facilities in North Carolina that have used temporary pumps to dump untreated coal ash wastewater into waters of the state? Did they notify downstream drinking water providers and DENR before they did it? Did they measure the amount of untreated coal ash water they dumped into the public waters? Did they test it for heavy metals before they began pumping?

6. Has Duke Energy ever before publicly acknowledged that they use portable pumps to dump coal ash water into into public waters?