A Proposal: Insure owners of wells near coal ash sites aren’t exposed to greater health risks as a result

April 18, 2016. An earlier post discussed the confusion over “do not drink” advisories issued — and later withdrawn —  for  a number of wells near coal ash sites.  There continues to be confusion among legislators, state agencies and the public about the correct response to high levels of hexavalent chromium (Cr-6) and vanadium in drinking water wells near coal ash impoundments. This post attempts to  clarify some misconceptions and offers a proposal.

First, a clarification about individual contaminant standards.  Some legislators understood presentations by the  Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS)  to mean that there are multiple, inconsistent standards for a contaminant. In fact,  the state uses one standard for each contaminant to determine health risk and require groundwater remediation. But as the earlier post explained, the standard may come from Safe Drinking Water Act standards  or state groundwater rules.  Drinking water standards address a narrow set of contaminants  likely to be found in public water systems; groundwater standards  cover a broader range of extremely hazardous substances that may become a health threat because of a specific pollution incident.

State groundwater rules list health-based concentration limits for many hazardous substances, but also recognize that a pollution incident may involve a contaminant that does not yet have a groundwater standard.  For those contaminants, the rules set the default standard at “non-detect” —  any detectable concentration of the contaminant would be a violation. But the rules also create a process for setting  an interim groundwater standard that would allow concentrations above detection levels based on an evaluation of health risk.  DHHS used that process  to develop the interim standards for vanadium and hexavalent chromium (CR-6) that  led to  “do not drink” advisories for  a number of wells near coal ash facilities.

Gaps in the changing state response.  DEQ and DHHS offered a two-part explanation for withdrawal of the “do not drink” letters. The two points and some additional context for each:

  1. Levels of vanadium and Cr-6 in the wells do not violate state or federal drinking water rules.  Since there is no drinking water standard for either vanadium or Cr-6, this is true as far as it goes.  But the lack of a drinking water standard does not imply safety.  State and federal agencies have never relied solely on drinking water standards to make decisions about mitigation of health risks at contaminated sites  because drinking water standards do not cover many extremely hazardous substances.  That is why the process for asking DHHS to set interim state groundwater standards  exists. The question should be whether concentrations of vanadium and Cr-6  in the wells represent a significant additional health risk that can be minimized by either providing an alternative water source or remediating the groundwater.
  2. A number of large N.C. public water systems also do not meet the DHHS interim standards for vanadium and Cr-6.  The implication has been that the well water is as safe as water supplied to customers of public water systems.  In recent weeks, media and public interest organizations have looked more closely at the levels of vanadium and Cr-6 in public water systems as compared to the wells near coal ash facilities.   Although some N.C. water systems exceed the DHHS interim standards for vanadium or hexavalent chromium, most  water systems appear to meet the DHHS standards. A WRAL news story includes a chart showing both maximum and average concentrations of Cr-6 in public water systems across the state here.  DHHS set the interim standard for Cr-6 at 0.07 parts per billion, representing a 1:1 million cancer risk over a lifetime. WRAL’s analysis found that only about one-third of N.C.’s public water systems have average concentrations of Cr-6 exceeding 0.07 ppb.  More importantly, those public water systems come much closer to meeting the  DHHS standard than a number of the tested wells. The public water systems with the highest average concentrations of Cr-6 had concentrations less than half that of some wells tested near Buck Steam Station.

A proposal:  Issuance of health advisories and steps to provide alternative water supply to well owners should be based on comparative health risk.

The discussion of health advisories issued to well owners around coal ash sites has become focused on whether  public water systems meet the DHHS recommended standards for vanadium and Cr-6.  That is the wrong question. Many (most) North Carolina water systems meet the DHHS standards;  those that do not still provide water that is safer than water in a number of the tested wells. Environmental remediation programs exist in part to reduce  health risks created by a pollution incident.  To the extent well owners will be exposed to greater health risk as a result of groundwater contamination, the additional risk should be eliminated or minimized to the extent possible.  The question is not whether all public water systems meet the DHHS standards. The question is whether groundwater pollution has exposed these well owners to greater health risk — and one way to answer that question is to compare contaminant levels in the well water to the nearest public water system. If the public water system provides water with lower contaminant concentrations that translate into lower additional cancer risk and less risk of acute toxicity, the well owner should be provided with advice on the higher risk of drinking the well water.  And any person responsible for the contamination should be required to provide an alternative water source.

2 thoughts on “A Proposal: Insure owners of wells near coal ash sites aren’t exposed to greater health risks as a result

  1. Envision

    The safety of drinking water is an important issue to bring up not only for water in North Carolina, but for water around the United States. In addition to all the great points being brought up on the aspects of North Carolina’s drinking water, I wish I would’ve seen more light shed on other public water safety issues throughout United States history comparing it to this minor one.

    It seems that the North Carolina DEQ and DHHS handled this water safety issue much better than many others that have come about over the years throughout the United States, and it’s tough to tell why that is.

  2. Barbara Morales

    I am 1 of those that have a polluted well and I am MORE THAN UPSET AND ANGRY AND THE WAY OUR STATE’S GOVERNMENT, ETC is totally and completely caving into Duke. They are and have been poisoning those of us who live near their coal ash plants and the ponds, etc. WHY IS IT THAT THEY ARE REFUSING TO NOW CLEAN UP AND MOVE THE COAL ASH PONDS TO SAFE LINED PITS, ETC. I HAVE A DAUGHTER WHO HAS BEEN SICK NOW FOR OVER 6 years and I am wondering how much of her health problems is due to our well water and the fact that we live right near the plant and from the time she was 12 until 2011 the smoke stacks of the Glenn Allen plant were also spewing out chemicals into our air!!
    Because of my financial situation with the mortgage and the value of my house I simply CAN NOT AFFORD TO PROVIDE ALL THE HEALTH CARE, MEDICINES, TREATMENTS SHE NEEDS. ALSO THEIR OWN EMPLOYEES DO NOT DRINK THE WATER. AT WORK THEY ARE SUPPLIED WITH BOTTLED WATER!!!!!! BUT OH NOW IT ALL OF A SUDDEN OKAY FOR US TO GO BACK TO DRINKING OUR WELL WATER. I AM CERTAIN THAT THE ARSENIC IN OUR WELL WATER WAS THE MAIN CAUSE OF THE MANY, MANY URNIARY TRACT INFECTIONS SHE SUFFERED AND ALSO THE INCONTINENT (WHICH IS ANY OLD PERSON’S PROBLEM). SHE SUFFERED THIS WHILE A SENIOR IN HIGH SCHOOL, ETC. OUR URINAROLOGIST WAS GOING CRAZY TRYING TO FIND OUT WHY SHE WAS SUFFERING FROM INCONTINENT!!!!!!!!! ONCE I FOUND OUT THERE WAS ARSENIC IN OUR WELL ATER AND PUT HER ON BOTTLE WATER BOTH THE UTI’S AND THE INCONTINENT WENT AWAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THE POEPLE WHO REPRESENT US IN RALEIGH DO NOT CARE FOR THE AVERAGE NORTH CAROLINIAN, they have proved this time and time again. NORTH CAROLINA USED TO BE A GREAT STATE AND LOOK AT IT NOW. EVEN SOUTH CAROLINA HAS MADE THEIR COAL ASH ENERGY COMPANIES CLEAN UP AND MOVE THEIR COAL ASH PONDS AND IT IS WORKING THERE AND NOT COSTING ANY WHERE NEAR WHAT DUKE CLAIMS IT WILL HERE, ETC. TO ME THIS SAYS THAT THEY ARE GREEDY, DO NOT CARE FOR THEIR CUSTOMERS AND JUST TRYING TO BUY THEIR WAY OUT OF THE MESSES THEY HAVE CREATED AND CAUSED OVER ALL THESE YEARS OF MAKING HUGH PROFITS OFF OF US!!!!!!!!!!!!

Comments are closed.