AA Learn more about in-home care options for your loved ones

3 earthquakes reported in same area this week

Infinite Scroll Enabled

GET LOCAL BREAKING NEWS ALERTS

The latest breaking updates, delivered straight to your email inbox.

Your Email Address

Privacy Notice

JENKINSVILLE, S.C. —

Two earthquakes were reported Thursday in South Carolina, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.

The first was reported at 6:28 a.m. near Jenkinsville. This registered as a 1.8 magnitude.

The second was 2 minutes later, also near Jenkinsville, and was a 1.7 magnitude.

This content is imported from Twitter. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

USGS reports a 1.8 magnitude #earthquake occurred near Jenkinsville, South Carolina, at 6:28 this morning (10/28/21). More info: #sctweets https://t.co/xFotTMDmSP pic.twitter.com/TPc9Nrd2x0

— SC Emergency Management Division (@SCEMD) October 28, 2021

This content is imported from Twitter. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

USGS now reporting a second #earthquake occurring in the same area, this time a 1.7 magnitude at 6:30 this morning. More information: #sctweets https://t.co/If2rf41cbw pic.twitter.com/Y7DoXWdcRl

— SC Emergency Management Division (@SCEMD) October 28, 2021

A 2.2 magnitude earthquake was reported in this same area on Monday.

Recommended

Sky 4 flies over F-35 crash area as MCAS Beaufort leadership makes statement on probe

The State

State regulators are pressing a small utility with a history of troubles to explain why elevated levels of radioactivity showed up in the drinking water the company piped to customers last year in Fairfield County.

The Jenkinsville Water Co. violated state drinking water standards for radioactivity from July through December of last year, even though the company had installed a treatment system to filter out the contamination.

Radioactivity levels have dropped to within safe standards in recent months, but not by much — and state regulators say they are concerned about the 2,500 people who rely on Jenkinsville Water.

“You are responsible for providing safe potable water to your customers,’’ according to a July 23 letter to Jenkinsville from the S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control. Water quality “data indicates a necessity for you to initiate an investigation and some form of corrective actions to resolve the violations.’’

The letter gave Jenkinsville a month to tell the public about the violations. In the meantime, DHEC is considering making an enforcement case against Jenkinsville Water that could result in fines or other sanctions. The violations have been referred to DHEC’s enforcement staff, agency spokeswoman Laura Renwick said in an email.

Jenkinsville, a community of working class neighborhoods and higher-end lake houses north of Columbia, has had problems with radioactivity in the water before. Since 2010, the water company has been sanctioned by DHEC four separate times for failing to comply with state drinking water standards, including two for radioactivity.

The company began treating the water at one problematic well after finding radioactivity exceeded safe drinking water standards in 2013 and 2014. Some of the problems cleared up after the treatment process began, but radioactivity levels spiked last year in the public supply well on Clowney Road, DHEC records show.

The Jenkinsville Water Co. operates in a part of South Carolina served by the V.C. Summer nuclear plant, but its problems are not known to be related to the power plant. Like some other small water systems, Jenkinsville is in an area where radioactivity occurs naturally in groundwater.

Despite that, water systems must take steps to lower the naturally occurring radiation in drinking water they supply to customers to make sure people’s health is protected. Over time, drinking water with elevated levels of radioactive pollutants can increase a person’s chances of bone cancer and kidney damage.

In this case, Jenkinsville was cited for having gross alpha levels above safe drinking water standards. These readings are a measure of radioactivity in the water from contaminants such as radium or uranium.

DHEC says it is not common for water systems to have violations for high gross alpha readings. Agency records show that from 2012 to 2018, the agency made more than 250 enforcement cases for drinking water violations statewide, but only about a dozen were for radioactive pollution in water.

Jenkinsville Water Co. manager Greg Ginyard said the water is safe to drink. He maintained that the treatment system is functioning since radioactivity has met the safe drinking water standard this year. DHEC said other wells the company relies on comply with the radiation standard.

Ginyard questioned whether elevated levels of gross alpha radiation last year resulted from DHEC errors since that agency tests the water. He is scheduled to meet with DHEC Aug. 7.

“It could have been a mistake,’’ Ginyard said. “We didn’t know anything about it until Thursday, when we got the letter from DHEC.’’

The Jenkinsville Water Co. is one of many small utilities across South Carolina that struggle to comply with drinking water requirements. Unlike big systems, scores of smaller systems lack the money or the expertise to operate in compliance with state and federal safe drinking water laws, The State reported in its “Tainted Water’’ series this past March. Small water systems individually serve only small pockets of the state’s population, but collectively provide water to about 800,000 people.

Through the years, the Jenkinsville Water Co. has had a tense relationship with some customers who have said the system needs substantial improvement.

Fairfield County Councilwoman Bertha Goins, a customer of the system, complained this year of substandard service and muddy water running from her tap. Ginyard has hotly denied that, and this year, had the company’s attorney threaten to sue Goins if she did not stop complaining or provide proof of her complaint.

The Jenkinsville Water System was built in 1975 with money provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, according to an engineering study by HPG Consulting Engineers Inc. Ginyard says the system is not a public body, despite a state Attorney General’s opinion that it is.

Records show that the utility averaged gross alpha radiation levels of 18 pico curies per liter for the period from January 2018 through June of this year. The safe drinking water limit is 15. The highest levels found were 34 during the testing period last fall, according to the letter from DHEC to Ginyard. The levels dropped to below 13 for the three-month testing period that ended in June, records show.

Matt Mattoon, a Lake Monticello property owner who gets water from the Jenkinsville System, said he’s concerned. Mattoon said the local utility has not done enough to safeguard water it pipes to customers. He has been tracking the issue of radiation in the water since 2013.

““It should be scary for all of us if we’ve been having water problems since 2013 -- and now it’s 2019 and we’re still having problems with the same well,’’ Mattoon said. “Long-term exposure to this water is dangerous.’’

A 2014 report prepared by the Jenkinsville Water Co. says the radioactivity treatment system would be installed while the company examined whether to build a small drinking water plant on the Broad River.

At the time, DHEC said the treatment system was a short term solution until the surface water plant was built. But the surface water treatment system, targeted for operation in 2017, was never constructed. Ginyard said Monday the surface water plant turned out not to be a viable alternative.

“Developing a new water source, adding additional treatment methods or implementing different treatment methods could resolve the problem’’ of elevated gross alpha radiation levels, DHEC’s Renwick said in her email to The State.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is scrutinizing the V.C. Summer Power Plant in South Carolina more closely after it determined problems with a backup generator had not been properly identified and repaired by plant officials. V.C. Summer is located in Jenkinsville, South Carolina, less than a half hour from the state’s capital of Columbia. With one nuclear reactor, the plant has been cited for problems in the past but none have been serious enough to require evacuations of nearby residents. Sam Fretwell, an environment writer for The State newspaper in Columbia, explains why the NRC was concerned about the backup generator.

Sam Fretwell: This generator is one of two backup diesel generators. They're there to make sure that the nuclear plant maintains power in case they lose their normal power. This particular generator had some hiccups in it that raised concerns from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Gwendolyn Glenn: And the NRC issued a white finding. What is the white finding?

Fretwell: They have five basic color codes for severity of violations. The least severe is a green, the most is a red. So the white is the next lowest. White is considered a moderate risk. They are not very commonly given out.

Glenn: So you said that this was one of two generators that the plant has. How important are these generators?

Fretwell: They're backup generators. So they're there in case something happens to the main power supply. They're very important to making sure that the plant continues to have power if the main supply goes out. That's important because you need power to keep the nuclear plant cool. And if it's not cool, then it can overheat and you can have radiation releases and that's not what you want to see happen.

Glenn: Was the other one working? And if there had been an emergency, would that have been sufficient to keep things cool?

[Read The State's story: SC nuclear plant draws federal scrutiny after atomic safety equipment sputters]

Fretwell: There was another one and it was working. The bottom line is that if you had a failure of main power and you had a failure of that one generator, the second generator would not have been available to take care of that. I mean, the big thing with nuclear plants is that they build on redundancies and they have all these backup systems. They're there in case of an emergency because nuclear power, while a reliable source of energy, can be a dangerous thing if it's not properly managed.

Glenn: In your reporting, I saw where it said it was not inherently dangerous. So although as you said, this was important to have it working properly, there was no danger to the public.

Fretwell: Yeah, that's right. Because the main power source was operating. This was a test. They were trying to see if this would work in case the main power source went out. So it wasn't a danger issue to the public. It is an issue of concern, though, because had you not had that main power, there could have been a problem.

Glenn: And from your reporting, I also understand that a concern of theirs was that this particular backup generator went unfixed for three weeks and January and February last year. So they knew about it but didn't fix it. Is that accurate?

Fretwell: Yes. And that's what the NRC documents show. And what it boils down to is the power company was saying, we think this thing will work, even though it's having these hiccups and problems. The NRC looked at it and said, we don't think it'll work. And their word is kind of the final say on that.

Glenn: And had it been taken care of at this point.

Fretwell: The company said it has. I think they also indicated that they were still doing some other work. They were a little vague about that. But the company says they have to straighten this out.

Glenn: Now, this plant has had other white findings issued by the NRC in the past. Have any of them been serious and been threats to the public?

Fretwell: I know one of the white findings was in 2006, and that had to do with a shipment of radioactive material in a package that had excessive radiation levels. It appears that it was resolved, but that's one of them. There was another one I found that was from 2009. It was talking about an inoperable turbine feed water pump. That, again, is something that makes the power plant work.

Glenn: Okay. And how important is this plant to that area? How much power does it provide?

Fretwell: That's a pretty major source of Dominion Energy mix here in South Carolina. Coal plants are on the way out because of the carbon emissions and the pollution that they're associated with them. Nuclear plants, despite some of these dangers, are seen as a way for power to be produced without carbon.

Glenn: And also this plant where it's located is also the site where they were going to add two more reactors. And that particular project was abandoned after billions was spent on it, correct?

Fretwell: That's correct. It was a major effort on the part of the power company at the time, SCG, and just was fraught with problems. And finally they just walked away from it. People were billed for this project before it was even built. So you had higher power bills for a project that never was finished.

Glenn: Anything else you like to add about this that I didn't ask?

Fretwell: You know, these issues are we try to point them out when they occur because nuclear plants, like I say, are important to the energy mix. But there can be some pretty substantial environmental problems if they're not operated properly. So we feel like it's important to point some of these things out.

Sign up for our daily headlines newsletter

Email Address

A small South Carolina utility with a recent history of drinking water violations has taken the unusual step of suing a customer who complained about the quality of water piped to her house in rural Fairfield County.

In a lawsuit filed this past week, the Jenkinsville Water Co. says Bertha Goins has made false and reckless statements about water quality that have embarrassed the utility and damaged its reputation. The company threatened last year to sue Goins if she did not recant her complaints about substandard water or prove her allegations.

But Goins, a Fairfield County councilwoman, said she is telling the truth — and the water utility doesn’t like that.

The libel and slander suit raised questions this past week about whether it would chill free speech in South Carolina.

According to the suit, Goins has complained to the media and at public meetings that the water has contained sediment and was substandard. Goins also claims there is a “causal connection’’ between health problems suffered by her husband and the water, the suit alleges.

“Defendant has engaged in a public campaign of maliciously attacking Jenkinsville Water Co. by stating that the water .... is substandard,’’ the suit says. The suit goes on to say that Goins’ complaints “are false, defamatory and impugn the good reputation Jenkinsville Water Co. has with respect to the quality of its water.’’

In making statements critical of the water, Goins knew they would be published in newspapers, broadcast on television or published online, the suit says. She also knew her comments about the water at county council meetings would wind up in government meeting minutes, the suit says.

The lawsuit, however, says the water in Jenkinsville is so tasty that the utility has won awards in two of the past three years from state and national water utility associations. And it says a local politician also has praised the company’s president.

Jenkinsville’s suit, which seeks actual and punitive damages, said Goins never made direct contact with the utility about problems she had with the water. She also refused to allow testing of her water after one initial test last year found no problems, the suit said. Goins said the person who came to test her water did not have proper identification and she was unsure who he was.

The Jenkinsville Water Co. is among legions of small utilities across South Carolina. It provides drinking water to Jenkinsville, a crossroads community about a half hour’s drive north of Columbia. The company serves about 2,500 people in a community best known for the V.C. Summer nuclear power plant, just down the road.

The water company’s case against Goins is a concern to free speech advocates, who question whether the suit could discourage complaints.

“As a general matter, this is pretty unusual,’’ said Sarah Matthews, an attorney for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press in Washington.

“For a utility company to sue a customer for complaining about the quality of the water — to sue them for libel — is extremely troubling. This is why the First Amendment is so important. It protects a person’s right to speak freely. That right is particularly important where people have information that should be shared with others, such as about public health problems.’’

Matthews said South Carolina, unlike 30 other states, doesn’t have a law specifically discouraging lawsuits that are intended to curtail free speech.

Jay Bender, a lawyer for the S.C. Press Association who has represented The State and other newspapers, questioned why a public body would take legal action against a customer. The Jenkinsville Water Co. has said it is private, but research Bender said he has done indicates it is public. S.C. Attorney General Alan Wilson also issued an opinion in 2011 that the water company is public.

“It is the government suing a citizen for speech,’’ Bender said. “That is entirely inconsistent with democracy.’’

Goins, a former Jenkinsville Water Co. board member, said she is now trying to determine her next move. But one thing is for sure: she’ll keep speaking the truth, Goins said.

The water system is getting old and it has had problems delivering the quality of water that customers deserve, Goins said.

Goins, who has clashed with Jenkinsville Water Co. President Greg Ginyard, said the company is wasting customers’ money by filing a lawsuit. She also said she never claimed the water made her husband sick.

“How can you sue a customer?’’ she asked, noting that the utility “is trying to discourage anyone from speaking about the problems they have with the water company.’’

T. Jeff Goodwyn, a Columbia lawyer representing the Jenkinsville Water Co., said Goins’ continued and unsubstantiated complaints about the water left the company little choice but to file suit. She had been quiet for a while but began complaining again this year, Goodwyn said. He says the case is not an attempt to chill free speech.

“She’s back at it, despite us winning awards,’’ Goodwyn said. “She’s got no basis for badmouthing us. We just couldn’t sit on our hands anymore.’’

The dispute between Goins and Ginyard, the water company president, has simmered for some time.

Goins favors developing a regional water system to replace or support what she says is an outdated system in Jenkinsville. Ginyard says Jenkinsville provides quality water to its customers.

Regardless of that dispute, the water company has had troubles in recent years complying with safe drinking water rules, according to state environmental records reviewed by The State newspaper. State regulators have raised concerns about bacteria and radioactive material in the water.

The utility has been sanctioned by state regulators four times since 2010 for violating drinking water laws, and in 2019, regulators raised questions about the company’s compliance with the rules, state enforcement records show.

In the most recent case, which involved elevated radioactivity readings in the water, Jenkinsville reached a consent agreement with the Department of Health and Environmental Control. Jenkinsville disputed DHEC’s allegations about drinking water violations, and ultimately, DHEC agreed not to fine the utility if it would make improvements to address the issue with radioactivity.

The Jenkinsville Water Co. is among scores of small water systems across South Carolina facing increasing challenges, The State reported last year.

Many systems are growing old and the pipes are beginning to crumble, but they don’t have enough ratepayers to pay for repairs. Many systems also can’t get state or federal aid because they don’t have the expertise to seek grants or loans, or the money to pay back even low interest loans. Some systems also are reluctant to join regional water authorities because they don’t want to give up control or the revenue that, in some cases, is used to support small town services.

This story was originally published March 7, 2020, 6:50 AM.

JENKINSVILLE, S.C. (WIS) —

Another earthquake has been reported in a South Carolina town, making this the seventh one to be reported there in a week.

The South Carolina Emergency Operations Center called the earthquakes a swarm in a release on Monday.

Officials with the United States Geological Survey confirmed that a magnitude 2 earthquake occurred in Jenkinsville on Monday morning around 11 a.m.

The first earthquake to be reported in the town was Monday, Oct. 25, around 12:40 p.m. That earthquake was measured at a 2.2 magnitude.

Three of the seven occurred on Oct. 28, (1.8, 1.7 and 2.1, respectively) according to USGS officials.

The fifth earthquake to be reported by officials was a 2.1 magnitude earthquake on Oct. 29 at 6:21 p.m.

A sixth earthquake measuring in at 2.2 magnitude, hit Jenkinsville at 4:23 a.m. on Halloween. (See video above.)

Recommended

Sky 4 flies over F-35 crash area as MCAS Beaufort leadership makes statement on probe

You can report and see reports of people feeling the earthquake by clicking here.

Seismologists believe these low-magnitude quakes, while unusual, are normal background activity and are not indicators of larger earthquakes to come.

“Earthquake swarms are not an uncommon occurrence in the vicinity of the Monticello Reservoir – a much larger swarm of microearthquakes occurred as the reservoir was first filled starting in December 1977,” Dr. Steven C. Jaume', with the College of Charleston’s Department of Geology and Environmental Geosciences Department said. “Thousands of earthquakes, none larger than magnitude 2.9, occurred in the years that followed. Earthquake activity declined in the late 1980’s through the mid-1990’s, but then picked up again in late 1996. Between December 1996 and mid-1999 several more earthquake swarms occurred, with nearly 1,000 earthquakes occurring at that time, with the largest being a magnitude 2.5.”

More earthquakes are possible for the next several months or even years in the area near the Monticello Reservoir, according to Jaume’, and how frequently they occur cannot be predicted.

Twenty earthquakes have been recorded throughout South Carolina since January 2021, SCEMD said. The Palmetto State normally experiences an average of 10-20 earthquakes each year. The South Carolina Emergency Management Division encourages all residents to stay informed about earthquake activity in the state and to have a family emergency plan in the event of a major earthquake.

“We know our state was at the center of major earthquakes in the past. We all need to be prepared for the possibility of a large-scale earthquake, however unlikely the possibility may be,” SCEMD Director Kim Stenson said.

The epicenter of the largest earthquake ever recorded along the eastern United States seaboard was just outside of Charleston on Aug. 31, 1886. The 7.3 magnitude quake devastated the region and was felt from Chicago to Cuba. According to a study commissioned by SCEMD, an earthquake of similar magnitude occurring today would result in tremendous loss of life, severe property damage and extreme economic loss. Results of the study are detailed in the South Carolina Earthquake Guide.

Residents can keep track of all earthquakes in South Carolina and even get notified when one occurs using the earthquake map tools located within the SC Emergency Manager mobile app, available in the App Store and on Google Play.

Additional earthquake resources are available through The Great Southeast Shakeout and through the South Carolina Earthquake Education and Preparedness program.