_Riverbend Meeting Officer Report Final 5-13-16

Water Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
MEMORANDUM
April 22, 2016
To: Secretary Donald R. van der Vaart
From: Corey Basinger
Division of Water Resources
Mooresville Regional Office
Subject: Meeting Officer's Report
Coal Ash Impoundment Classification(s)
Riverbend Steam Station
PAT MCCRORY
Governor
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
Secretary
S. JAY ZIMMERMAN
Director
On March 1, 2016, I served as meeting officer for a public meeting held at Gaston College in
Dallas, NC. The purpose of the public meeting was to allow the public to comment on the
proposed risk classification for coal combustion residuals impoundments at the Riverbend
Steam Station. This report summarizes all of the public comments related to the proposed risk
classification for the Riverbend Steam Station.
This report has been prepared using the following outline:
I. History/Background
II. March 1, 2016 Public Meeting and Oral Comments Summary
III. Written Public Comments Summary
W. Attachments
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Water Resources
1611 Mail service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1611
919 707 9000

I. History/Background
Under the historic Coal Ash Management Act (CAMA) of 2014, all coal ash impoundments in
North Carolina are required to be closed. The deadlines for closure depend on the classification
of each impoundment as low, intermediate, or high. CAMA requires the Department of
Environmental Quality, or DEQ, to make available to the public the initial draft proposed
classifications no later than Dec. 31, 2015. These draft proposed classifications are based on the
information available to the department as of December 2015. They are of critical importance
because of the environmental impact and closure costs associated with each classification.
Impoundments classified as intermediate or high must be excavated at a potential cost of up to $10
billion for all impoundments, while environmentally protective, less costly options are available
for low priority impoundments. Closure costs could be passed on to the ratepayer. It is also
important to note that these are not the final proposed classifications. After the release of the draft
proposed classifications, CAMA requires the following process:
• DEQ must make available a written declaration that provides the documentation to support
the draft proposed classifications within 30 days, which will be made available on the DEQ
website. The written declaration will provide the technical and scientific background data
and analyses and describe in detail how each impoundment was evaluated.
• DEQ will publish a summary of the declaration weekly for three consecutive weeks in a
newspaper in each county where a coal ash facility is located.
• The declaration will be provided to each local health director and made available in a
library in each county where a coal ash facility is located.
• The summary of the declaration will be provided to each person who makes a request.
• A public meeting will be held in each county where a coal ash facility is located.
• Following completion of the public meetings and the submission of comments, the
department will consider the comments and develop final proposed classifications.
Subsequent to the issuance of DEQ's initial draft proposed classifications, fourteen public
meetings were held across the state to receive oral comments from the public in addition to the
open public comment period that ended on April 18, 2016. Meetings were held in each County in
which a site is located. DEQ will consider all public comments received and issue its final
classification for each impoundment by May 18, 2016.
H. March 1, 2016 Public Meeting and Oral Comments Summary
Approximately 60 people attended the public hearing, including staff members of the DEQ and
the meeting officer. A total of 45 individuals completed sign -in forms at the meeting (Attachment
I). As meeting officer, I provided opening comments and Bruce Parris, hydrogeologist from the
Mooresville Regional Office, provided a brief presentation on the proposed risk classification for
the Riverbend Steam Station.
Sixteen individuals registered before the meeting to make comments. Speakers were given five
minutes for initial presentations and additional time was provided after everyone that registered to
Page 2 of 5

speak was finished. The list of speakers is included as Attachment II. Written comments received
during the public comment period include the following summarized by topic (in no particular
order):
• Beneficial Reuse Areas — There was a concern about contamination resulting from off-
site fill areas.
• Costs — Requests were made that Duke not pass on their cost to the consumers.
• Dam Safety — There was a concern of a huge impact on the lake if the dam were to fail.
• Excavation — There was a concern about worker safety during excavation.
• Groundwater Assessments — There was a mention of a report by Dr. Vengosh from Duke
University which suggested that there was arsenic in soils near the facility. The public
questioned if any other third party experts have done work at the site to verify data provided
by Duke and its consultants. There was a suggestion that Duke may be dumping ash in
other areas of the site other than the ash ponds.
• Health Issues_— Many citizens spoke of their own personal health issues and/or health
issues of others in the area that they suggest may be a result of their drinking water. Some
fear drinking their water, using their pool, and giving water to their children.
• Home Values — Citizens commented that their home values have dropped as a result of not
being able to drink from their wells.
• Landfills — Comments suggested that caps or liners are not sufficient because they are not
permanent. A suggestion was made that the trucks transporting the coal ash should be
covered going both ways and should be washed after dumping their loads. There was a
concern about dust resulting from the transportation of coal ash.
• Risk Classification — All comments supported the high-risk classification for the site.
• Surface Water — A citizen claimed to have seen illegal discharges into the river. One
citizen asked if the water being decanted from the ash ponds is filtered prior to discharging.
There was a suggestion about checking river monitors north and south of plant to monitor
water quality.
• Not Applicable — A Duke representative spoke about the current status of clean-up at the
Riverbend facility.
III. Written Public Comment Summary
In addition to the public meeting, DEQ received written comments during the public comment
period. DEQ did not received any comments that were hand -submitted during the public meeting,
one letter was sent via United States Postal Service mail, and there were 180 comments received
via email. The following is a summary of the written comments received during the comment
period (in no particular order):
Beneficial Reuse Areas — A member of the National Ash Management Advisory Board
presented information that suggests that the aggressive closure schedules preclude the
pursuit of beneficial reuse opportunities.
Costs — Requests were made that Duke not pass on their cost to the consumers.
Page 3 of 5

• Environmental Justice — A research assistant at Duke University submitted their report
on the impact of the coal ash ponds on low-income and communities of color, as well as
cumulative impacts from nearby emitting facilities. A representative from the Southern
Alliance for Clean Energy provided a petition that asks that Duke Energy be required to
remove all of the coal ash at each of its 14 power plants sites to dry, lined storage away
from waterways and groundwater, and from our most vulnerable communities such as low-
income communities or communities of color.
• Excavation — The National Ash Management Advisory Board suggested other alternatives
to excavation such as capping -in-place, monitored natural attenuation, slurry cutoff walls,
in-place stabilization/fixation, pumping wells, permeable reactive barriers and volume
reduction of impounded ash through escalation of beneficial use. They also suggested that
the additional risk imposed by excavating and transporting ash from one location to another
can exceed the potential risk posed by leaving the ash in place.
• Groundwater Assessments — Comments pointed out the fact that harmful pollutants have
been detected in groundwater wells around the coal ash ponds. The National Ash
Management Advisory Board stated that licensed engineers and geologists, with support
from health and environmental risk assessors, have determined that there is no imminent
hazard and that those same professionals have determined that existing conditions at these
sites do not present a substantial likelihood that death, serious illness, severe personal
injury, or a substantial endangerment to health, property, or the environment will occur.
• Landfills — Citizens encouraged Duke to avoid trucking the ash to landfills in other
communities and want Duke to store the ash on Duke's property or away from other
communities. Suggestions were also made that Duke should continue to research
alternative storage options that will provide a permanent solution for coal ash storage which
fully encapsulates it with a more permanent barrier than a synthetic liner.
• Private Well Issues — A representative from the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy stated
that no one should have to question the safety of their drinking water.
• Risk Classification — All citizen comments supported the high-risk classification for the
site. The National Ash Management Advisory Board stated that it may be appropriate for
legislation to define the initiation of closure activities, but it should not stipulate a
prescriptive approach with specific completion dates. Duke supplied a massive report for
consideration in the risk classification for all of their sites.
• Surface Water — All comments were concerned about seeps and leaks from the site
flowing into the lake which serves as the drinking water supply for Charlotte.
Page 4 of 5

IV. Attachments
1. Public Notice of March 1, 2016 Meeting
2. Public Meeting Sign -in Forms
3. Public Meeting Speaker List
4. Audio File of Public Meeting
5. Written Public Comments Received
6. Supporting documentation received during public hearing
7. Emails
8. Meeting Notes
9. Public Comment Summary Spreadsheet
10. Meeting Agenda
11. Presentation
Page 5 of 5