GOVERNMENT; COMMUNITY NEWS
By Michelle Cassell
Editor
CHAPEL HILL–The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality’s Division of Air Quality (NCDAQ) is holding a public hearing on a draft air quality permit for the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC) coal-burning cogeneration plant. The hearing will be held on Jan. 16 at 6 p.m. in the Chapel Hill Town Hall. Doors open at 5:30 p.m.
According to the DAQ, UNC’s cogeneration facility, located at 575 W. Cameron Ave. in Chapel Hill, is classified as a major source requiring a Title V air quality permit. The plant burns coal and natural gas to produce electricity and steam for the UNC campus, including the UNC-Chapel Hill hospital.
This article will attempt to help Carrboro and Chapel Hill citizens understand the background of the cogeneration plant and the process that UNC is proposing. It will present the positive and negative consequences of modifying UNC’s current permit. The modification would allow UNC to burn engineered pellets in addition to the coal mix without any physical changes to the boilers.
What is being proposed?
In August, the University announced it would seek an allowance from NCDEQ to allow it to burn engineered pellets, coal, and natural gas. UNC released the following information in support of the introduction of the pellets into its fuel sources for the cogeneration plant:
“In support of the University’s Climate Action Plan, Carolina is working to transition away from coal while increasing the use of renewable fuels. As part of the University’s ongoing research and monitoring of alternative fuels, we are pursuing a modification to our Title V Permit, in compliance with the federal Clean Air Act, with the N.C. Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Division of Air Quality so that we can test a new alternative fuel for 12 months. The DEQ will run a standard public comment and hearing process as part of the permit modification request.”
If approved, the University will propose to test its engineered fuel pellets from Convergen Energy, known as non-hazardous secondary material (NHSM), for one year. Created from pre-consumer paper and plastic scraps that would otherwise end up in landfills, the EPA classified this ultra-low carbon fuel as a non-hazardous, non-waste fuel. This fuel is cost-competitive, boasts an emissions profile that matches or exceeds that of our current fuels and has shown promising results at other industrial sites and universities, according to the UNC information.
“The new pellet fuel is expected to reduce emissions of particulate matter and sulfur dioxide while increasing emissions of nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide,” reads the January 16 NCDEQ public meeting announcement. “There would be no physical changes to the boilers (at the cogeneration facility).”
What will using the pellets in addition to coal and gas do to emissions?
Convergen Energy explained that using the engineered pellets will decrease the following:
- Particulate matter: These tiny particles can be inhaled and cause respiratory problems, cardiovascular issues, and even premature death. Reducing these is a significant health benefit, especially in urban areas with already poor air quality.
- Sulfur dioxide: This gas contributes to acid rain and respiratory problems. Reducing it lessens environmental damage and improves air quality.
According to Convergen, using the pellets will increase the following:
- Nitrogen oxides: These contribute to smog and respiratory problems. The increase is a negative, but it’s important to consider the trade-off with the significant reductions in particulate matter and sulfur dioxide.
- Carbon monoxide is a toxic gas that reduces the blood’s ability to carry oxygen. The increase is a concern, but again, it needs to be weighed against the other emission changes.
“Based on an analysis of the pellets, the facility would not emit more than 1.2 pounds of PFAS per year,” stated the University’s public hearing announcement.
Why is this helpful?
Convergen says:
The shift in emissions suggests a move away from more harmful pollutants (particulate matter and sulfur dioxide) toward less harmful ones (nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide), although any increase in emissions is not ideal. This could be helpful in the short term as it lessens the immediate health risks associated with particulate matter and sulfur dioxide.
Convergen said it’s crucial to monitor the increased emissions and work toward further reducing all pollutants in the long term. This might involve using new technologies or refining the pellet fuel composition.
The announcement for the public hearing states that the engineered pellets produced by Convergen have been known to contain small traces of a per- and polyfluoroalkyl substance, also known as PFAS and negatively termed “forever chemicals” by detractors. The materials accumulate over time in the natural environment and in the bodies of animals and humans, causing possible long-term health risks.
As a result, UNC’s draft permit to NCDEQ for the cogeneration facility requires the University to routinely sample the Convergen pellets (which consist of byproducts from recycled packaging and labeling) while also testing its boilers for potential and actual PFAS emissions. In its August announcement, the University stated that the modification to the Title V permit with NCDEQ would allow the testing of the alternate fuel for a one-year period.
Experts weigh in on the proposal:
Senior Attorney, Southeast Program at the Center for Biological Diversity Perrin de Jong told TLR by email, “In terms of the switch being helpful or harmful, this proposal is to throw Chapel Hill and Carrboro out of the frying pan and into the fire. They are talking about trading one type of harmful air pollution for another kind (or multiple other kinds). They’re both bad options.”
Perrin de Jong has led the legal campaign to stop coal burning at the UNC cogeneration plant and submitted a petition to the EPA to name the MLK site in Chapel Hill a Superfund site. Both attempts have failed.
UNC proposes replacing the coal with burning plastic trash and wood fiber. “This would likely create even worse environmental justice impacts on those historically Black neighborhoods along the Chapel Hill/Carrboro border (Pine Knolls, Tin Top, Lloyd-Broad, Northside) in the form of localized toxic air impacts (burning plastic is incredibly nasty, and burning recycled plastic – which is what they’re proposing to do – is likely to be even worse),” said de Jong.
In an exclusive interview, Mike Ewall, Executive Director of the Energy Justice Network, told TLR by phone, “What you have to understand is that they (UNC-Chapel Hill) are under a lot of pressure to stop burning coal.” He explained that the use of burning waste, whether it’s paper, plastics or municipal waste, is actually worse for the climate than burning coal. “However, the bills that I have seen, and different policies that have been adopted to go after fossil fuels, do not cover these other sources even though their emissions are worse for the climate than fossil fuels.
Ewall said that burning “biomass,” as Convergen labels the makeup of the pellets, is a major loophole. “Because where do you think plastic comes from? It’s from oil and gas. So they are fossil fuels but are not regulated as such,” said Ewall. He said what is driving the argument to use the pellets is that “they don’t care about the toxic stuff.”
“They care about what regulations are driving this in terms of carbon policy or renewable energy mandates,” said Ewall.
The bottom line, Ewall said, is that “Everyone with a bad idea says it’s sustainable and green and clean. That’s all their public relations. Because who wants to be coming to the community and say, oh, we got something really filthy for you?
Questions and comments from the public
The public is encouraged to attend the upcoming hearing and provide comments on the proposed action. Sign-up will be available upon arrival. Oral comments should be limited to three minutes or less. Written comments may also be submitted during the hearing.
Comments on the project can also be submitted by email to DAQ.publiccomments@deq.nc.gov with the subject line “UNC.24A” or by leaving a voicemail at 919-707-8448. Comments can also be mailed to:
NCDEQ Division of Air Quality
1628 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1628
The public comment period ends on Jan. 23, 2025. DAQ will consider all public comments before deciding on the proposed permit. A date for the final decision has not been .
“The new pellet fuel is expected to reduce emissions of particulate matter and sulfur dioxide while increasing emissions of nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide,” reads the January 16 NCDEQ public meeting announcement. “There would be no physical changes to the boilers (at the cogeneration facility).”
The global debate on carbon footprint reduction, coupled with the rising cost of traditional energy sources and methods, means the need for cleaner power has never been greater. A growing number of customers are recognizing the advantages that Convergen Energy solutions can deliver. These include major single-site organizations with energy generation needs, such as municipalities, universities, hotels, hospitals, manufacturers, and industrials with large quantities of non-recyclable residuals.
Michelle Cassell is a seasoned reporter who has covered everything from crime to hurricanes and local politics to human interest over the course of 35 years. As managing editor, she hopes to encourage writers of a wide range of backgrounds and interests in TLR’s coverage of Southern Orange County news.
This reporter can be reached at Info@TheLocalReporter.press
Michelle’s articles on the cogeneration facility at UNCCH fully relay the viewpoints of multiple sides of the problems and proposed solutions without forming a conclusion, as is appropriate for neutral presentation of available “facts”.