Communicating Environmental Hazards: Neighborhood-level Environmental Health Information Concerning Coal Ash Ponds

Stephanie Piperno, Jeff Rose PhD Davidson College Davidson, NC March 13, 2015

Coal Ash Ponds

q A harmful by-product of burning coal

q Contains metals like arsenic, antimony, chromium, and selenium.

q Mixed with water and stored in ponds (often unlined) q Health effects: increased risk of cancer, stomach aliments, and lung and heart problems.

Image 1. Where does coal ash come from?

Ponds in the United States 1,400 coal ash dumps in the United States

70% are located in low-income communities 200 are known to have contaminated nearby waters 21 of the nations 45 high hazard ponds are in the Southeast

Image 2. Coal ash sites

Coal ash ponds in North Carolina q North Carolina has 37 coal ash dumps located at 14 sites spread through out the state q Dan River Coal Ash Spill in Eden, NC

Attention from the media

q Riverbend Steam Stations 2 ponds make EPAs hazardous ponds list

Image 4. Dan River spill Image 3. Hazardous ponds in NC

Riverbend Steam Station

Image 5. Riverbend Steam Station, Mt. Holly, NC.

Riverbend Steam Station Mt. Holly, NC

Image 6. Aerial map of Riverbend and Stonewater

q 1) How aware are Stonewater residents of Riverbends coal ash ponds and how did these residents become aware and educated about the ponds?

q 2) What sources of information did the residents find most trustworthy?

q 3) What sources of information do the residents perceive as responsible for disseminating environmental risk information?

Research questions

Image 7. Smoke stacks

Hypotheses

Two dependent variables: q Knowledge q Source of information

q Independent Variables: q Years lived in Stonewater q Level of education q Race q Gender

Knowledge= B0 + B1years + B2level of education + B3race + B4gender + B5responsibility+ E

Source of Information= B0 + B1trust + B2level of education + B3race + B4gender +B5responsibility+ E

Methods

q Developed a 23-question questionnaire

q Created a pilot questionnaire and distributed it to a local community

q Administered using three methods: o By foot to 150 homes o On the community home page o Personal emails sent to 140 residents

Image 8. Aerial view of Stonewater

Questionnaire results

q 35 responses over a 27 day period q 82% white q 56% of respondents were male

q Response rate?

Level of Education Response %

High school graduate 1 3% Trade/technical/vocational training 0 0% Associate degree 9 27% Master's degree 10 30% Professional degree 10 30% Doctorate degree 3 9% Total 33 100%

Year moved into home Number of Residents

N/A 5 2003 1 2005 4 2007 2 2008 2 2009 2 2010 6 2011 5 2012 3 2013 4 2014 1

Results

Regression StatisticsMultiple R 0.595474941R Square 0.354590405Adjusted R Square -0.063027568Standard Error 0.592327159Observations 29

ANOVAdf SS MS F Significance F

Regression 11 3.276904432 0.2979004 0.84907841 0.59957727Residual 17 5.964474879 0.35085146Total 28 9.24137931

Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95%Intercept 53.02666334 102.2934584 0.51837785 0.610876077 -162.79367 268.846995Year -0.026182068 0.050811314 -0.5152803 0.612992693 -0.1333846 0.08102043Q19 Education -0.079059514 0.121141439 -0.6526215 0.52272829 -0.3346456 0.17652658Q21 Black 0.545384906 0.686721332 0.79418664 0.438033376 -0.9034705 1.99424027Q21 Asian 0.496171336 0.53576043 0.92610672 0.367351978 -0.6341844 1.62652704Q20 Female 0.315492364 0.286871643 1.09976839 0.286763574 -0.2897539 0.92073863Q12 Duke 0.216003403 0.155471719 1.38934209 0.182659516 -0.1120133 0.54402006Q12 Developer 0.162012683 0.254332517 0.63701128 0.532602834 -0.374582 0.69860739Q12 Real Estate -0.216281638 0.238170013 -0.9080977 0.376520471 -0.7187764 0.28621316Q12 Media 0.130467425 0.164184032 0.79464138 0.437775834 -0.2159306 0.47686545Q12 Town -0.122943198 0.182025283 -0.6754183 0.50849388 -0.506983 0.26109658Q12 Resident 0.14665833 0.165518477 0.88605413 0.387950738 -0.2025551 0.49587179

Regression 1: Knowledge as dependent variable

Regression 2: Source of

Information

Significance F P-Value (Education)

Coefficients

Social Media 0.024 0.035 -5.835

Real Estate 0.020 0.035 -5.711

Community 0.025 0.039 -5.753

Significant Results

Level of educations influence on source of information:

Discussion

q Residents are more informed today about environmental risks of coal ash ponds.

q Level of education influences what sources people use

Answer Response % Very aware 5 15% Somewhat aware 12 35% Unaware 8 24% Never heard the term "coal ash" 9 26% Total 34 100%

Response % 19 56% 14 41% 1 3%

0 0%

34 100%

Awareness when first moved to Stonewater Awareness today

Conclusions

q One organized, trusted, and accessible system of environmental risk information

q Mixed levels of community engagement

q Economic interests outweigh health concerns

q Small sample size q Needed more questions about

demographics (income, job, and age)

q Most concerned residents could

have already moved out of Stonewater

q Could explore further the types of

sources individuals use to obtain information Ex. What kind of materials are

people using when they select personal investigation

Research Application

Sources

http://appvoices.org/coalash/facts/ http://earthjustice.org/features/the-coal-ash-problem http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/ apr/04/world-bank-funding-coal-power http://www.southeastcoalash.org/ http://www.resilience.org/stories/2013-07-22/ water-stress-threatens-future-energy-production http://imgarcade.com/1/coal-ash-pond/