Todd Paris, Staff Writer and Salisbury Attorney
♦ In August 2015 the local print media revealed that the state health standard for the carcinogen hexavalent chromium in wells near coal ash pits was .07 parts per billion and that in a 2013 voluntary test of Salisbury-Rowan Utilities municipal water, some samples were as high as .13 parts per billion. These standards were monkeyed with by members of the legislative and executive branches to favor higher concentrations to the point that one highly regarded state epidemiologist resigned, claiming that the state is misleading citizens.
N.C. Gen. Stat. 130A-309.211. (the newest revision of the Coal Ash Law) says: “Preference shall be given to permanent replacement water supplies by connection to public water supplies; provided that (i) a household may elect to receive a filtration system in lieu of a connection to public water supplies and (ii) if the Department determines that connection to a public water supply to a particular household would be cost-prohibitive, the Department shall authorize provision of a permanent replacement water supply to that household through installation of a filtration system.”
http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2015/Bills/House/PDF/H630v4.pdf
Local efforts from the county commission seem to be to find a way to run SRU water to Dukeville, focusing on the economic benefits (jobs) offered by one parcel which would be “on the way to Dukeville.” Jobs are good and Commissioner Craig Pierce should be commended for trying to get “shovel-ready” industrial sites up and running in North and South Rowan. City water may well help.
However, I have some questions.
If Salisbury-Rowan Utilities’ water carries or sometimes carries more hexavalent chromium than some wells at Dukeville, how is piping city water to those houses helpful?
Since the new statute does not require Duke to run Salisbury-Rowan Utilities water to Dukeville if it is “cost prohibitive” and they may merely be required to provide filters systems, why does the general public and some officials think Duke is going to pay for any water lines?
Since the legislation evidently allows the substitution of home water filters in lieu of Salisbury-Rowan Utilities water, there must be existing filter systems that remove hexavalent chromium. Who makes these and what do they cost?
Since they apparently make filter systems that remove hexavalent chromium, why hasn’t SRU installed a big one in the treatment plant to remove this cancer causing agent from City water?
If installing a treatment plant sized filter is cost prohibitive, why isn’t SRU providing a rebate or program to pay for in-house filter systems for those who don’t wish to drink hexavalant chromium?
Why hasn’t the City of Salisbury at least told consumers what filter system to buy at their own expense if they wish to stop drinking hexavalant chromium and whether or not our refrigerator and tap filters are doing the job?
While we can drink bottled water it’s doubtful that local restaurants cook food and wash dishes in bottled water. Does boiling the water remove hexavalent chromium? Would advertising hexavalent chromium free food by properly filtered water provide a commercial advantage to establishments that spend the money?
When I studied local government at UNCC many years ago they told me the most important things that a city does is to remove human and solid waste, prevent and put out fires and make sure clean safe drinking water comes into the city. They said, everything else is optional.
Salisbury, what’s in your water?
Press release below from EWG.Org
Contact: Alex Formuzis
(202)-667-6982
alex@ewg.org
Press Release:
WASHINGTON, D.C. – As news about North Carolina’s governor and his administration downplaying the risks of drinking water contaminated with hexavalent chromium unfolds, two leading environmental health advocates are pushing the Obama administration to finally set a nationwide standard for the highly toxic chemical.
Erin Brockovich, a noted environmental health advocate, and EWG President Ken Cook called on the Environmental Protection Agency to stop dragging its feet and move quickly to set a tough national standard, known as a Maximum Contaminant Level, or MCL, for the ubiquitous carcinogen found in millions of Americans’ tap water.
In a joint letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, Brockovich and Cook wrote:
We write with deep concern about this continued delay. It is clear that the delay is sowing confusion among state and local regulators, utilities and the public about how much hexavalent chromium is safe in drinking water. This confusion is resulting in many Americans’ exposure to unregulated levels of hexavalent chromium that federal, state and independent scientists agree pose health hazards.
The request comes as a top state health official in North Carolina resigned in protest over meddling by Gov. Pat McCrory and his staff. McCrory sought to retract “do-not-drink” warnings directed at some residents whose tap water comes from wells likely tainted by hexavalent chromium from nearby Duke Energy coal-burning facilities.
The situation in North Carolina is, in part, a result of the absence of a stringent nationwide health-protective EPA standard, argued Brockovich and Cook:
States like North Carolina, where industrial byproducts like coal ash increase the risk of hexavalent chromium contamination, need a federal mandate to set strong, health-protective standards for levels of the contaminant in drinking water. Without it, states will continue to use inconsistent and potentially unsafe guidelines, and leave citizens confused about whether their drinking water is safe.
A report issued by EWG back in December 2010 found hexavalent chromium in tap water from 31 of 35 American cities.
“It’s high time EPA put in place a stringent national standard to protect Americans from drinking water contaminated with hexavalent chromium,” said Cook in a separate statement. “A lack of a federal standard, and the ongoing delay in setting one, are confusing utilities, states and citizens about what level of hexavalent chromium in drinking water is safe. Until EPA acts, we will likely continue to see the situation happening in North Carolina unfold in other states.”
