VI. Supporting Documentation Received during Public Meeting

COAL ASH DISPOSITION
The Alternative for North Carolina
Technical Report No. 14-083
March 24, 2014
Louis A. Zeller
Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League
mm-33RGDL.org PO Box 88 Glendale Springs, North Carolina 28629 BREDLAskphesLcom [phone]
C-Me quam bibed

page 2 Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League
Preface
Shortly after the coal ash dump discharge into the Dan River on February 2, 2014, more
than a few elected officials and advocacy groups began calling for removal of the ash from plant
sites to double -lined landfills. However, present solid waste landfills were never designed for
the hazards presented by coal ash and are not suitable. Municipal solid waste is a mixture of
household garbage and commercial waste, and presently permitted landfills do a poor job of
coping with these materials, let alone waste which presents special hazards. Coal ash is the toxic
residue left after combustion in a power plant. Coal ash presents special problems because of its
toxic nature and requires a specialized solution to prevent the spread of toxic heavy metals and
other compounds into the air, soil and water. Recognizing this, and in consultation with our
members living downstream from the spill and near solid waste dumps, the Blue Ridge
Environmental Defense League set out to find a solution to the immediate problem of what to do
with coal ash from Duke Energy's Dan River power plant and, ultimately, thirteen other coal-
fired power plants with ash dumps extending across North Carolina from the mountains to the
coast.
As a first step, based on the principles of fairness, equity and environmental justice, the
Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League Board of Directors Executive Committee on March
14, 2014 adopted the following resolution:
RESOLVED: That no coal ash waste should be transferred from power plant sites to solid waste
landfills.
FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED: That storage of coal ash by electric power plant operators
should be done at plant sites but in a manner which would isolate it from surface water,
groundwater and airborne dispersion.
With this sound footing, the League authorized this report for the purpose of educating
elected officials and other decision makers, the news media and other opinion leaders, and
advocacy groups and the general public.
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of
foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light,
it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had
everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all
going direct the other way...
Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities

s'
Technical Report 14-083
page 3
NOW
lq V
Table of Contents
vow
,0W
Page
Executive Summary
4
�.r
Hazards of Coal Ash
5
Coal Ash Cleanup: A Tale of Two Cities
7
Eden, North Carolina: In Harm's Way
10
r..r
Landfills Are Not Acceptable for Coal Ash
11
vow
`MW
The National Picture
15
,Mw
The Alternative for North Carolina
16
*MW
Appendix A: EPRI List of Coal Ash Toxics
4010
Appendix B: In Harm's Way —Dan River Steam Station
�r
VOW
NMW
Mw
a.r
r..r
r..r

page 4 Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League
Executive Summary
Fly ash is the dry residue from burning of coal captured by the pollution control devices. Bottom
ash is the residue which collects in the bottom of the boiler during the coal burning process.
Both types of ash are laced with toxic elements, including arsenic, chromium, lead, selenium and
mercury. Also, radioactive strontium and uranium remain after the burning process and are
concentrated in the ash.
During the early 1990's, implementation of the new Subtitle D regulations prompted widespread
closure of traditional unlined landfills and a flurry of new double -lined landfills relying on a
layer of clay and a layer of plastic. The double liners were thought to provide protection from
contamination of groundwater. However, the fatal flaw of solid waste landfills is that they are
subject to natural forces which make leakage and contamination inevitable.
Assurances by solid waste landfill regulators and commercial companies that waste is safely
contained and managed by a double -lined landfill are false. Impartial experts agree that liner
failure is inevitable, regardless of the liner type. That all liners will eventually fail is not in
dispute. The only question is: How long will it take?
The inherent injustice of transporting toxic waste from a power plant site to a waste dump is
currently the subject of a Civil Rights lawsuit. The solution to the coal ash problem cannot be
the transfer of liability from the generator of the waste to the public. Nor can it be the
infringement of community well-being.
Getting coal ash out of the impoundments near rivers and lakes must be done as rapidly as
possible but to a more secure site within the power plant operators' responsibility.
A study by the Electric Power Research Institute confirms that combustion of coal tends to
concentrate many toxic elements in the bottom and fly ash. High levels of toxic and radioactive
elements in coal ash make the deposition of the ash on cropland, roads, airport runways and other
methods unacceptable. Needless and life -threatening contamination of the environment would
be the result. Therefore, these methods are also unacceptable ways of dealing with the coal ash
problem.
As an alternative, we propose that the ash be stored by the power plant operators onsite but in a
manner which would isolate it from surface water, groundwater and the air. One method
involves the use of cylindrical concrete tanks. Such concrete vaults are used commercially for
waste sludge and liquids. The mixture includes cement, fly ash, and slag which is put into the
concrete vaults where it hardens. Such vaults may be as large as 120,000 square feet,
approximately two football fields in size. They are modular, allowing for expansion as the need
arises.
The Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League opposes the transfer the coal ash pollution
problem from the private power company to municipal landfills, affecting communities already
exposed to the risk of contamination caused by waste dumping. Blue Ridge Environmental

Technical Report 14-083 oaee 5
Defense League policy calls for the closing of such landfills, and the promotion of Zero Waste.
Dumping ash in landfills would prolong the mega -dump problem and make it worse.
Hazards of Coal Ash
The two types of waste residue from the combustion of coal are fly ash and bottom ash.
Fly ash is the dry residue from burning of coal captured by the pollution control devices. These
fine particulates are trapped by pollution control devices required by most air quality agencies to
r, reduce visible emissions. Fly ash is of lighter weight and smaller size than bottom ash, in a
... range of 1 to 100 microns, with a median of 20-25 microns (also micrometer or µm, one
thousandth of a millimeter, 1 x 10-6 meter, about 0.000039 inches). Toxic elements which
become volatile in the combustion process, such as selenium and arsenic, become attached to
.. these fine particulates.'
Bottom ash is the residue which collects in the bottom of the boiler during the coal burning
�r process. Heavier and larger than fly ash, bottom ash has the consistency of sand or gravel, with a
.. size ranging from 0.1 to 50 millimeters. After combustion, bottom ash is typically mixed with
.or water for transfer via sluice pipe from the power plant, then de -watered and stored.
..r Fly Ash and Bottom Ash Collection at a Typical Coal-fired Power Plant
Economizer
FGD Absorber
Particulate
Collector
JA
Air Heater
Bottom Fly Ash FGD Gypsum Slack
Ash/Slag Collection Collection
Collection
r..r
.. Toxic constituents of coal ash vary according to the type of coal burned —lignite, subbituminous,
bituminous and anthracite, the sulfur content, the methods of pollution control —cyclones, bag
houses and electrostatic precipitators, and whether it is fly ash or bottom ash. Other factors
`r Coal Ash Disposal Manual: Third Edition. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 1995. TR-104137
'- Illustration from: "Coal Ash: Characteristics, Management and Environmental Issues," Electric Power Research
Institute (EPRI), Technical Update -Coal Combustion Products -Environmental Issues, September 2009
r.n
�r
..r
r..

page 6 Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League
affecting the ash include ammonia -based nitrogen oxide (NO,,) control, carbon injection for
mercury control, and sodium -based sulfur trioxide (SO3) control. (SO3 is the major contributor to
acid rain and sulfuric acid emissions from power plants). A detailed study of ash revealed the
following:3
The concentrations of As, Cd, Hg, Mo, Ni, and Pb in fly ash are related to the S content
of the coal. Generally, those feed coals with a high S content contain higher
concentrations of these elements. The concentrations of these elements are also greater
for baghouse fly ash compared to ESP fly ash for the same station. The S content of fly
ash from high S coal is 0.1 % for pulverized ESP fly ash and 7% for baghouse fly ash
from the fluidized bed, indicating that most of the S is captured by fly ash in the
fluidized bed. The baghouse fly ash from the fluidized bed has the highest content of
Cd, Hg, Mo, Pb, and Se, indicating that CaO, for the most part, captures them. Arsenic
is captured by calcium -bearing minerals and hematite, and forms a stable complex of
calcium or a transition metal of iron hydroxy arsenate hydrate
[(M2+)2Fe3(ASO4)3(OH)4• 1OH2O1 in the fly ash. Most elements in fly ash have
enrichment indices of greater than 0.7 indicating that they are more enriched in the fly
ash than in the feed coal, except for Hg in all ESP ashes. Mercury is an exception; it is
more enriched in baghouse fly ash compared to ESP.
A study by the Electric Power Research Institute confirms that combustion of coal tends to
concentrate many toxic elements in the bottom and fly ash. The EPRI analysis compared the
concentrations of 28 elements found in natural soil and rock to levels detected in bottom ash and
fly ash. Chromium is more highly concentrated in bottom ash. Lead and mercury are more
highly concentrated in fly ash. Also, the study indicated that uranium and strontium were highly
concentrated in both bottom ash and fly ash as compared to naturally occurring soil levels. The
relative concentrations above natural soil levels for six elements are listed in the table below. The
EPRI study did not have data on the various radioactive isotopes of strontium and uranium.
Fly ash
BottomElement
loll
conce
above
Arsenic
19914 %
69 %
7
Chromium
184 %
901 %
57.5
Lead
737 %
104 %
15
Mercury
148 %
--
0.105
Strontium
548 %
337 %
260
Uranium
273 %
214 %
2.55
Appendix A to this report contains the EPRI data listing all twenty-eight coal ash elements they
analyzed and compared to the levels found in natural rock and soil in milligrams per kilogram
(ppm)•
3 Corrigendum to "Characteristics and composition of fly ash from Canadian coal-fired power plants" Fariborz
Goodarzi [Fuel 85 (10-11) (2006) 1418-27] Fuel, Volume 85, Issues 17-18, December 2006, Pages 2683-2684,
accessed 3/20/14 at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/SO016236105004643

r 00W
4000
Technical Report 14-083 page
r.+
,=w The presence of high levels of toxic and radioactive elements in coal ash makes the deposition of
4MW the ash on cropland, roads, airport runways and other methods of using the material largely a
means of dispersing the harmful substances into the air, soil and water. Needless and life -
vow threatening contamination of the environment would be the result. Therefore, these methods are
rr unacceptable ways of dealing with the problems created by the burning of coal.
VEW Aquatic Impacts
The tons of coal ash from the recent spill site near Eden, NC, are responsible for the death of a
4=0 huge number of aquatic organisms in the Dan River: fish, mussels, clams, frogs and turtles. One
biologist described it as "a graveyard." Water birds, raptors, mammals and reptiles will also be
affected by the bioaccumulation of selenium in the food chain. Although selenium is an essential
trace element, it is toxic at high levels. An elevated level of selenium in the river water also
v..+ interferes with the development of fish larvae, and bioaccumulation of selenium has been known
to wipe out whole species.4
*EW Dr. Dennis Lemly, Professor of Biology at Wake Forest University, provided the following
�Mw description of how selenium in coal ash can harm fish:5
In concentrations that are too high, selenium leaves fish with deformities that include
misshapen spines; "craniofacial" defects of the mouth, jaw and gill cover; fin
irregularities; unnatural accumulations of fluids and chronic swelling; and eye problems
*NW that include cataracts and protruding eyeballs.
hd
Dr. Lemly added that a high level of selenium also renders fish unable to reproduce and that, if
"'d selenium contamination is prolonged, the species can be eliminated from the area.
tw
Coal Ash Clean Up: A Tale of Two Cities
Kingston, Tennessee
r■r
�=w On December 22, 2008, a dike failed at the TVA Kingston Fossil Plant in Roane County,
vow Tennessee, releasing 5.4 million cubic yards of coal ash sludge. The failure of containment
structures at the plant's onsite Class II landfill caused the disaster. Eight years before the break,
4MW the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation's Solid Waste Management
*EW Division had issued TVA a Class II landfill permit as part of a plan to close the plant's nearby
settling pond which discharged waste water into the Emory and Clinch rivers.
r.+
rr
4MW 'Aquatic Hazard of Selenium Releases From Coal Mining in the Mud River Ecosystem, West Virginia, Lemly D,
April 17, 2008, accessed 3/18/14 at http://www.wvhighlands.org/PDFs/LemlyEx6.pdf
4MW 5 Email to L. Zeller from Anne Cockrell, "Information/Concerns to Share about the Dan River Coal Ash Spill,"
March 9, 2014. Dr. Lemly, a Research Associate Professor of Biology at Wake Forest University and a U.S. Forest
Service Cooperator, has published 47 research articles on selenium toxicity to fish and wildlife, as well as the
reference book Selenium Assessment in Aquatic Ecosystems. He has consulted on selenium pollution issues ranging
from power plant waste in Australia to mountaintop removal coal mining in West Virginia.
e.r
d■r
400.

page 8 Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League
In Tennessee a Class II Disposal Facility is: 6
a landfill which receives waste which is generated by one or more industrial or
manufacturing plants and is used or to be used for the disposal of solid waste generated
by such plants, which may include industrial wastes, commercial wastes, institutional
wastes, farming wastes, bulky wastes, landscaping and land clearing wastes,
construction/demolition wastes, and shredded automotive tires. Additionally a Class II
disposal facility may also serve as a monofill for ash disposal from the incineration of
municipal solid waste.
The state standards for a coal -ash fill project require:7
(I) A geologic buffer of at least three feet with a maximum saturated conductivity of 1 x
10-6centimeters per second between the base of the fill and the seasonal high water
table of the uppermost unconfined aquifer or the top of the formation of a confined
aquifer, or such other protection as approved by the Commissioner taking into account
site specific coal ash and soil characteristics, ambient groundwater quality, and
projected flows in and around the site; and
(II) A ground water monitoring program approved by the department that reports
sampling results to the department at least once each year. If sampling results indicate
that the fill area has caused the ground water protection standards to be exceeded, the
owner or operator of the facility shall commence an assessment monitoring program in
accordance with regulations adopted by the board and carry -out all corrective measures
specified by the Commissioner.
The Class II landfill at TVA's Kingston Fossil Plant failed with catastrophic consequences for
the residents of Roane County, Tennessee.
On January 12, 2009, three weeks after the disaster, the Tennessee Department of Environment
and Conservation issued an administrative legal order$ which required TVA to:
1. Prevent movement of contaminated materials into waters of the state,
2. Cooperate with the state's comprehensive review of all the utility's coal ash
impoundments in the state,
3. Submit to the state all documents relevant to understanding the cause of the containment
failure within 20 days,
4. Cooperate fully with and support the state's investigation into the failure,
5. Submit a corrective action plan within 45 days,
6. After review, furnish any additional requested by the state at a meeting with. state
officials,
6 Rules of Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Solid Waste Management, Chapter 0400-11-
01.01(3)(b)
7 Rules of Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Solid Waste Management, Chapter 0400-11-
01.02(2)(a)(2)(viii)
' Commissioner's Order, Case No. OGC09-0001, In the Matter of Tennessee Valley Authority, Division of Water
Pollution Control, Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, James H. Fyke, Commissioner, January
12, 2009

Technical Report 14-083 pa ee99
4MW
40W 7. Implement the corrective action plan according to a schedule determined by the state,
8. Submit all data gathered during the corrective action,
9. Perform any additional actions directed by the state,
10. Submit written reports on performance, results and additional work needed, and
11. Pay all costs associated with the state's investigation and oversight.
The State of Tennessee was the sole authority regarding this emergency plan, but it did not
relieve the utility of other obligations under state or federal law, nor did it prevent the state from
pursuing civil or criminal action against the company. TDEC did assess a civil penalty of $11.5
`r million from TVA.
saw Over 3.5 million cubic yards of ash spilled into the Emory River was removed by mechanical
and hydraulic dredge and shipped to an EPA -approved Arrowhead Landfill in Uniontown,
�••Alabama. The dredging was completed in May 2010 and the last shipment of ash was in
December 2010.9
Uniontown, Alabama
r.r
The citizens of Uniontown had opposed the Arrowhead Landfill since it was constructed in 2003.
The landfill was permitted by the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM)
to accept the municipal, industrial and "special" wastes from 16 states. Uniontown is in Perry
County, Alabama, about 350 miles from Kingston, Tennessee. Perry County's population is 68
�+ percent African -American. Uniontown, the community nearest the Arrowhead Landfill, is 88
percent African -American.
""' The Arrowhead Landfill was permitted by the state to accept the municipal, industrial and
*EW "special" waste from 16 states.io
4000 The Arrowhead Landfill, located in Uniontown, AL (population 1,775) was permitted
by ADEM to dispose of nearly all the coal ash removed from Harriman as a result of the
TVA spill (4 million tons). Instead of using protective management techniques, the ash
40W was dumped in mounds as high as 60 feet with nothing covering them. From the front
porch of several Uniontown homes, residents have only mounds of coal ash from TN to
gaze upon and air contaminated by the dust to breath. The dumped ash rises above the
*MW tree line and is within 100 feet of their front steps.
rftw
ww With the arrival of coal ash, the situation in Uniontown deteriorated. Residents living near the
waste dump reported a noxious, nauseating smell from coal ash waste. Also, they reported
4MW fugitive ash dust covering their homes and automobiles.
law
9 "Ash Slide at TVA Kingston Fossil Plant," Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, website
accessed March 22, 2014 at http://www.tn.gov/environment/kingston/index.shtml
�r 10 "A Toxic Inheritance: An Alabama community inherits America's worst coal ash spill," Earthjustice blog accessed
3/21/14 at http://earthjustice.org/features/campaignsta-toxic-inheritance
r.r
v■r
4MW
VMW

page 10 Blue Ridge Environmental Defense Lea ague
The inherent injustice of transporting toxic waste from the largely white community in Roane
County, Tennessee to a majority black community is currently the subject of a Civil Rights
lawsuit brought by Earthjustice and a local attorney: 11
In December of 2013, Earthjustice attorneys informed the EPA's Office of Civil Rights
that Earthjustice would be representing six Alabama residents in a civil rights complaint
under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits recipients of federal
funds, including state agencies, from taking actions or implementing policies that have
unjustified disproportionate adverse effect on the basis of race. The complaint is against
the Alabama Department of Environmental Management for reissuing and modifying
the landfill's permit without proper and readily enforceable protections of public health.
At the time of this report, the case is unresolved and awaits adjudication; no hearing date has
been set.
Eden, North Carolina: In Harm's Way
On February 2, 2014, in the third largest coal ash disaster in history, Duke Energy's Dan River
Steam Station released a torrent of toxic sludge into the Dan River near Eden, North Carolina.
The story made national and world news that day, but the disaster was an accident waiting to
happen. Ample warnings were there. Regulatory officials in North Carolina were aware of
excessive groundwater contamination. Risks to residents from coal ash impoundments were
known to the company and state and federal officials. Yet nothing was done.
The Dan River flows 214 miles through North Carolina and Virginia. It arises in Patrick County,
Virginia and crosses into North Carolina at Stokes County, flows east into Rockingham County,
veers back into Virginia and then reenters North Carolina and flows into Caswell County, then
back into Mecklenburg County, Virginia where it empties into the John H. Kerr Reservoir, also
known to North Carolinians as Kerr Lake and to Virginians as Buggs Island Lake. The Kerr
Reservoir is formed by a dam on the Roanoke River, which flows east into Lake Gaston.
The Dan River Steam Station's coal ash was stored in two impoundments covering 39 acres with
a capacity of 664 acre-feet. The embankments and dikes constructed over a fifty-eight year
period had created the hazardous situation which ended with an eruption of over 35 million
gallons of ash and contaminated water into the Dan River. A report issued over three years ago
by the Environmental Integrity Project, Earthjustice and Sierra Club concluded12:
Voluntary groundwater monitoring at Duke Energy's Dan River Steam Station's coal
ash ponds has detected levels of chromium, iron, lead, manganese, silver, and sulfate
that exceed state groundwater standards and federal Maximum Contaminant Levels
(MCLs) and Secondary MCLs (SMCLs). Dan River Steam Station has two unlined coal
ash ponds as well as an unlined dry ash landfill. Fifteen years of sporadic voluntary
monitoring beginning in November 1993 indicates that there is on -site groundwater
11 Ibid
12 In Harm's Way: Lack of Federal Coal Ash Regulations Endangers Americans And Their Environment, Jeff Stant,
August 26, 2010, accessed 3/ 18/ 14 at http://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/files/report-in-harms-way.pdf

4MW
tow
Technical Report 14-083 page 11
contamination that is likely migrating outside of the state -designated "compliance
boundary" for Dan River's CCW impoundments. EPA ranked both wet CCW ponds at
Dan River Steam Station as "high hazard" surface impoundments, meaning that their
failure will probably cause loss of life (USEPA, 2009).
The In Harm's Way investigators reported 39 new cases of contamination caused by improperly
disposed coal combustion waste, including Dan River. These reports were in addition to similar
,low cases of contamination found at scores of other sites and catalogued during the previous decade
%ONO by the US Environmental Protection Agency, bringing the total number of known sites
�,..r contaminated by coal ash waste to 167 in 34 states.
The Dan River Steam Station chapter of In Harm's Way is attached to this report as Appendix B.
Landfills Are Not Acceutable for Coal Ash
NOW During the mid-201h Century open pit waste dumps and trash heaps gave way to "sanitary
landfills" which covered the waste with earthen caps to solve the problems of rodents, insects
*EW and odors. But the underground environment and consequent anaerobic decomposition of the
waste introduced new problems: methane gas and toxic liquid leachate. To solve these problems,
Congress enacted the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act in 1976." Subtitle D of RCRA
is a section of the law which governs municipal solid waste landfills accepting so-called non-
IVEr hazardous waste; i.e., household garbage and commercial solid waste. RCRA Subtitle C governs
hazardous wastes. 14
NMW The solid waste program, under RCRA Subtitle D, encourages states to develop
vow comprehensive plans to manage nonhazardous industrial solid waste and municipal
vow solid waste, sets criteria for municipal solid waste landfills and other solid waste
disposal facilities, and prohibits the open dumping of solid waste.
NUW The hazardous waste program, under RCRA Subtitle C, establishes a system for
controlling hazardous waste from the time it is generated until its ultimate disposal — in
effect, from "cradle to grave."
low RCRA (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act) regulates solid waste. Generally, solid
wastes are any discarded materials which are not hazardous. Specific definitions and exclusions
*EW are located primarily in Title 40 Part 261 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Municipal solid
waste landfills may accept household waste, non -hazardous sludge, industrial solid waste, and
construction and demolition debris. Municipal solid waste landfills must comply with federal
%MW regulations at 40 CFR Part 258, Subtitle D. RCRA also regulates hazardous waste; that is,
VEW wastes which are ignitable, corrosive, reactive or toxic. The regulations are located primarily in
*MW 13 42 U.S.C. §6901 et seq. (1976). The Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901-6992k) consists of title II of
Public Law 89-272 and the amendments made by subsequent enactments. This Act is popularly referred to as the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, after the short title of the law that amended the Solid Waste Disposal Act
,low in its entirety in 1976 (P.L. 94-580).
NMr 'a "History of RCRA," EPA website accessed 3/22/14 at http://www.epa.gov/waste/laws-regs/rcrahistory.htm
\=W
NMW
`ow

page 12 Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League
Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations at Part 261, Subpart C. There are twenty-one
Subtitle C hazardous waste landfills in the United States, identified by the US Environmental
Protection Agency for disposal of RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste. Pursuant to 40 CFR
§261.4(b)(4), "Fly ash waste, bottom ash waste, slag waste, and flue gas emission control waste,
generated primarily from the combustion of coal or other fossil fuels..." is solid waste.
In 1988, the US EPA altered Subtitle D regulations because single composite liners for landfills
would not prevent groundwater pollution. But the new double -lined landfills —permitted by
North Carolina and most other state waste management agencies under Subtitle D—suffer from a
combination of technological cross-purposes, regulatory short-sightedness and public relations
hyperbole.
During the early 1990's, implementation of the new Subtitle D regulations prompted widespread
closure of traditional unlined landfills and a flung of new double -lined landfills relying on a
layer of clay and a layer of plastic. The double liners were thought to provide protection from
contamination of groundwater. However, the fatal flaw of solid waste landfills is that they are
subject to natural forces which make leakage and contamination inevitable. For example, on
average rodents move over five tons of soil per acre annually. The diagram below illustrates the
typical Subtitle D landfill:
Cross-section of a Subtitle D Landfill
Man;taring Wtll h1Ul1vC Stmtp
Typical Subtitle D-Type Single -Composite -Lined Landfill
Key Problems with the Subtitle D Approach15
• Heavy metals will not "detoxify" in landfill
• All landfill liners eventually leak
15 "Issues Concerning Impacts of Landfills on Groundwater Quality & Public Health," G. Fred Lee and Associates,
most recently accessed 3/22/14 at http://www.gfredlee.com/Landfill Impacts.html
`.r
ar
1n/

Technical Report 14-083 naee 13
.. • Groundwater monitoring regimens likely to miss finger -plumes of incipient leakage; off -
site well pollution may be first indication of failure
• Post -closure care and remediation funding required indefinitely, long-term financial
responsibility will be shifted to county, public and local residents
•.r
... According to Dr. G. Fred Lee:16
... [T]he typical groundwater monitoring program allowed by regulatory agencies for
Subtitle D landfills involving the use of monitoring wells at the point of compliance,
`.. which have zones of capture of about one foot, but which are spaced hundreds of feet
apart, means that there must be widespread, general failure of the liner system before
these monitoring wells can be expected to detect failure. The initial failure of the liner
... system will not be through general leakage throughout the bottom of the landfill, but
will be through holes, rips, tears, or points of deterioration in the plastic sheeting
.. flexible membrane liner. As discussed by Cherry in 1990, the initial liner failures will
produce finger -like plumes of leachate that will have a high probability of passing
between the monitoring wells and not being detected by them
r..r
�. Lee concludes:
v.r
Many of the components of the wastes in Subtitle D landfills will be a threat to pollute
..r groundwaters forever. The liner systems being allowed at best only postpone when
..� groundwater pollution occurs. The groundwater monitoring systems being allowed are
.r largely cosmetic in detecting off -site groundwater pollution before widespread pollution
occurs. Anyone who claims otherwise either doesn't understand the basic issues
... involved, or is deliberately distorting the readily available information on these issues.
.. The so-called promise of a double -lined landfill to protect groundwater is belied by the limited
..r guarantee offered by manufacturers: "A five year warranty is the typical warranty now offered in
the industry."17,11 Moreover, cleanup costs have not been set aside for the inevitable failures:
"The funding that is now provided for closure of Subtitle D landfills is grossly inadequate
... compared to the funding that will be needed.s19
The conceptual flaw which undermines the reliability of Subtitle D is illustrated in the following
diagram.
..r
�+ b "Detecting Failure of Subtitle D Landfill Liner Systems," G. Fred Lee, PhD, PE, DEE, G. Fred Lee & Associates,
`.r El Macero, California, November 1111. Accessed most recently on March 22, 2014 at
http://www.gfredlee.com/detecting_failure.pdf
.r 10 Dever, Raymond J.; Walsh, James J. "Long Term Care for Landfills, More or Less?' SCS Engineers.
H xM.sevenpineets.coni. Web. 12 July 2005. Accessed 1May 2013.
�.r s Colorado Lining International, HDPE liner information page. http://www.coloradolining.com/products/hdpe.htm
Lee, G. Fred, Jones -Lee, Anne. "Overview of Landfill Post -Closure Issues." G. Fred Lee and Associates.
WUIV.0-edlee.com. Web. Accessed I May 2013.
V

nagc 14 Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League
Schematic Diagram of Subtitle D Solid Waste Landfill Undetected Failure20
Leak
La'00
c
m
Capture zone for Early warning
conventional sampling monitoring wells
Monitoring wells which are supposed to detect underground plumes of contamination are placed
too far apart to ensure capture of the contamination. Experts who have studied the construction,
operation and closure of Subtitle D landfills found that "[G]roundwater monitoring wells spaced
hundreds of feet apart...will have a low probability of detecting groundwater polluted by landfill
leachate...... 21
Assurances by solid waste landfill regulators and commercial companies that toxic leachate is
safely contained and managed by a double -lined landfill are false. Impartial experts agree that
liner failure is inevitable, regardless of the liner type. That all liners will eventually fail is not in
dispute. The only question is: How long will it take?
Re -use of Ash Re -introduces Contamination
Methods of using ash by incorporating it into road building and cement block construction have
been tried and the results are unsatisfactory. That the ash becomes immobilized is a common but
false claim. Research indicates that contaminants in the ash, heavy metals in particular, are
leached from roadways and cement blocks made with ash, endangering the environment and
public health. For example, in Newcastle, UK, where ash from a local incinerator had been
applied from 1994-1999 on local allotments and paths, hazardous levels of dioxins and heavy
metals were found.zz
2° Diagram by L. Zeller based on original by Dr. John Cherry
2' G. Fred Lee; Jones -Lee Anne. "Flawed Technology of Subtitle D Landfilling of Municipal Solid Waste." G. Fred
Lee and Associates. iry w ,fredieexom. Updated February 2013. G. Fred Lee and Associates. Web. Accessed 30
April 2013.
"Ryder, RE., "Incinerator Ash is Inert." ToxCat, 2000. 3(1). Citation 49 accessed 3/23/14 at
bttp: //www.zerowaste.co. nz/assets/Reports/ W astedopportunities.pdf

Technical Report 14-083 page 15
The National Picture
rr
As detailed above, coal ash impoundments a national problem. The following analysis is from a
Duke University legal forum:2
Consider the following daunting statistics about existing surface impoundments. In the
wake of the Kingston spill, the EPA undertook an investigation of existing surface
... impoundments' integrity, finding that 109 of 584 such facilities nationwide had either a
"high" or a "significant" hazard potential rating .... In addition, 186 of the units were not
.. designed by a professional engineer.... Although the impoundments were designed to
last for about 40 years, 56 were older than 50 years old and 360 were between 26 and
40 years old.... Moreover, 35 units at 25 facilities had already reported releases ranging
from minor spills to the massive release at the Kingston facility.
Under the Coal Combustion Residuals Proposed Rule, the US Environmental Protection Agency
was to promulgate regulations for coal ash waste:24
EPA is proposing to regulate for the first time coal ash to address the risks from the
.., disposal of the wastes generated by electric utilities and independent power producers.
.. EPA is considering two possible options for the management of coal ash for public
comment. Both options fall under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA). Under the first proposal, EPA would list these residuals as special wastes
... subject to regulation under subtitle C of RCRA, when destined for disposal in landfills
or surface impoundments. Under the second proposal, EPA would regulate coal ash
under subtitle D of RCRA, the section for non -hazardous wastes.
But the EPA's action was forced by events and legal action brought by public interest
organizations. The following excerpts are from the EPA Consent Decree of January 29, 2014:
WHEREAS, Plaintiff Appalachian Voices, et al., allege in their complaint that EPA has
failed to perform a nondiscretionary duty arising under section 2002(b) of RCRA, 42
... U.S.C. § 6912(b), by failing to complete the required review, at least every three years,
and revision if necessary, of RCRA subtitle D regulations pertaining to coal combustion
residuals;
..r EPA proposed rule published on June 21, 2010, 75 Fed. Reg. 24,148, EPA proposed, as
one regulatory option, to revise its RCRA subtitle D regulations pertaining to coal
combustion residuals.
..r
rr
v The End Game of Deregulation: Myopic Risk Management and the Next Catastrophe, Thomas O. McGarity &
Rena I. Steinzor, Duke Environmental Law and Policy Forum, Fall 2012, Vol. 23:93, Pg. 9, accessed 3/23/14 at
http://scholarship.law. duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1240&context--delpf
..r 24 Coal Combustion Residuals — Proposed Rule — June 21, 2010,
http: //www. epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industriaUspecial/fossi I/ccr-rule/index. htm
�.r
f.r
ftw
v.n

page 16 Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League
The EPA Administrator shall, by December 19, 2014, sign for publication in the Federal
Register a notice taking final action regarding EPA's proposed revision of RCRA
subtitle D regulations pertaining to coal combustion residuals.
Ending the foot -dragging by the federal agency with jurisdiction in this matter is a long -overdue
step towards re -regulation for the protection of public health and the environment which is the
premise of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and other federal laws.
The Alternative for North Carolina
As demonstrated above, RCRA landfills are unsuitable for coal ash, and re -use merely spreads
the problem around. So, what other techniques might there be to keep the toxic substances in the
ash from escaping into the environment? This chapter will outline possible alternative methods
of sequestering coal ash from the water, soil and air. These are now in use and could be
employed, perhaps with modification, to the special conditions found in various sites.
Simply stated, one acceptable way to deal with ash is to solidify it with concrete, protect it from
weather, and store it above ground. This method has been in use for fifty years.
Saltstone
The United States Department of Energy has developed a method of isolating hazardous waste at
the Savannah River Site in South Carolina known as the "saltstone" process. Production
byproducts from decades of defense operations are stored in dozens of million -gallon tanks at
SRS. The wastes are a witch's brew of toxic compounds including heavy metals and radioactive
compounds. After radioactive substances are removed, the remaining mixture is transferred to
the Saltstone Production Facility and mixed with cement, slag, and fly ash to form a grout which
is then disposed of in the Saltstone Disposal Facility.
The grout mixture, or slurry, is mechanically pumped into concrete disposal vaults that make up
the Saltstone Disposal Facility. The mixture solidifies into a non -hazardous, low -radioactive
saltstone waste: When a concrete vault is filled, it is capped with clean concrete to isolate it from
the environment. Final closure of the area consists of covering the vaults with engineered
closure caps, backfilling with earth and seeding to control water infiltration and erosion. The
saltstone plant has been in operation since 1990, processing waste from SRS tank farms (see
illustration). Currently there are two vault sizes at the SDF — 60,000 and 120,000 square feet.
For comparison, a typical football field including end zones is just over 57,000 square feet.
TVA's Kingston Fossil plant had a 244 acre settling pond for ash containment. Duke Energy's
Dan River Steam Station has 39 acres of ash impoundment area.

v.r
Technical Report 14-083 uaae 17
New Saltstone Disposal
Units Under Construction25
The Savannah River Site remediation fact sheet states:26
Saltstone Disposal Units (SDUs) are permanent disposal units to contain low -activity
waste grout produced from solidification of decontaminated non -hazardous salt waste at
the Savannah River Site (SRS). These units are cylindrical concrete tanks that are based
on a design used commercially for storage of water and other liquids.
The most recently developed unit design, SDU-6, will also be cylindrical but will be
built 10 times larger than the others. It will be 375 feet in diameter and 43 feet tall,
while units 2, 3 and 5 are 150 feet in diameter and 22 feet tall.
Photographs from Savannah River Rertiediation "Fact Sheet: Saltstone Facilities," May 2012 and Sept. 2013
26 Savannah River Remediation "Fact Sheet: Saltstone Facilities," Sept. 2013

page 18 Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League
Testing and analysis by the Department of Energy27 have concluded that waste disposal in the
Saltstone Disposal Facility will not release material above U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency drinking water standards. Wells near the edge of the disposal site are used to monitor
groundwater to ensure that it meets the applicable standards. The standards are listed in the table
below.
Selected Groundwater Protection Standards Met by the Saltstone Process
Element
Level
Units
Standard
Arsenic
50
ppb
SDWS
Cadmium
5
p b
PDWS
Chromium
100
ppb
PDWS
Lead
15
ppb
PDWS
Mercury elemental
2
b
PDWS
Mercury (methyl)
-
-
background
Molybdenum
-
-
background
Nickel
100
ppb
PDWS
Selenium
50
ppb
PDWS
The Savannah River Site waste undergoing remediation in this manner was about 36.4 million
gallons.28 It is worth noting that this is just about the size of the Dan River coal ash spill in
North Carolina.
27 The Savannah River Site is owned by U.S. Department of Energy. The SRS Liquid Waste contract is managed by
Savannah River Remediation, a team of companies led by URS Corp. with partners Bechtel National, C112M Hill
and Babcock & Wilcox.
28 "Technical Evaluation Report for Draft Waste Determination for Salt Waste Disposal," Larry W. Camper,
Director, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, US NRC Office of Nuclear Material Safety
and Safeguards to Charles E. Anderson, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Environmental
Management, U.S. Department of Energy, December 28, 2005

Technical Report 14-083 Appendix A:
EPRI List of Coal Ash Toxics
Range 10`" percentile-90`" percentile in bulk composition of fly ash, bottom ash, rock, and soil
Element mg/kg
Aluminum
70,000-140,000
Bottom
59,000-130,000
9,800-96,000
15,000-100,000
Calcium
7,400-150,000
5,700-150,000
6,000-83,000
1,500-62,000
Iron
34,000-130,000
40,000-160,000
8,800-95,000
7,000-50,000
Silicon
160,000-270,000
160,000-280,000
57,000-380,000
230,000-390,060
Magnesium
3,900-23,000
3,400 - 17,000
700-56,000
1,000-15,000
Potassium
6,200-21 ,000
4,600 - 18,000
4,000-45,000
4,500-25,000
Sodium
1,700-17,000
1,600 - 11 ,000
900-34,000
1,000-20,000
Sulfur
1,900-34,000
BDL-15,000
200-42,000
840-1,500
Titanium
4,300-9,000 4,
100-7,200
200-5,400
1,000-5,000
Antimony
BDL-16
All BOL
0.08-1.8
BDL-1.3
Arsenic
22-260
2.6-21
0.50-14
2.0-12
Barium
380-5100
380-3600
67-1,400
200-1,000
Beryllium
2.2-26
0.21-14
0.10-4.4
BDL-2.0
Boron
120-1000
BDL-335
0.2-220
BDL-70
Cadmium
BDL-3.7
All BDL
0.5-3.6
BDL-0.5
Chromium
27-300
51-1100
1.9-310
15-100
Copper
62-220
39-120
10-120
5.0-50
Lead
21-230
8.1-53
3.8-44
BDL-30
Manganese
91-700
85-890
175-1400
100-1,000
Mercury
0.01-0.51
BDL-0.07
0.1-2.0
0.02-0.19
Molybdenum
9.0-60
3.8-27
1.0-16
All BDL
Nickel
47-230
39-440
2.0-220
5-30
Selenium
1.8-18
BDL-4.2
0.60-4.9
BDL-0.75
Strontium
270-3100
270-2000
61-890
20-500
Thallium
BDL-45
All BDL
0.1-1.8
0.20-0.70
Uranium
BDL-19
BDL-16
0.84-43
1.2-3.9
Vanadium
BDL-360
BDL-250
19-330
20-150
Zinc
63-680
1 16-370
25-140
22-99
BDL - Below Detection Limit
..r * Source for most fly ash and bottom ash data is EPRI CP-INFO Database', Beryllium, thallium, mercury (bottom
ash only) and boron (bottom ash only) are from the EPRI PISCES Database6
.r ** Source for rock data is US Geological Survey National Geochemical database'
* * * Source for most soils data is Shacklette and Boemgen (1984)s; cadmium and thallium data are from Smith et al
(2005)'
3 CP-INFO Database. EPRI: August 5, 2009.
v.r 6 PISCES Database. EPRI: August 5, 2009.
or ' Geochemistry of Rock Samplesfrom the National Geochemical Database. US Geological Survey: 2008.
http://tin.er.usgs.gov/metadata/ngdbrock.html.
Shacklette, H. and J. Boerngen, 1984. Element Concentrations in Soils and Other Surficial Materials of the
Conterminous United States, US Geological Survey Professional Paper 1270.
9 Smith, D.; Cannon, W.; Woodruff. L.; Garrett, R.; Klassen, R.; Kilburn. J.; Horton, J.; King, H; Goldhaber, M.;
Morrison, J. , 2005. Major- and Trace -Element Concentrations in Soils from Two Continental -Scale Transects of the
` United States and Canada. US Geological Survey Open File Report 2005-1253.
Source: Coal Ash —Characteristics, Management and Environmental Issues
.. September 2009 © Electric Power Research Institute

Appendix B: IN HARM'S WAY: Lack of Federal Coal Ash Regulations Endangers Americans and Their Environment
Dan River Steam Station
Entity Company — Location
Duke Energy - Dan River Steam Station
524 S Edgewood Rd
Eden, NC 27288
Rockingham County
Latitude: 36.489495 Longitude:-79.715427
Determination
Demonstrated on -site damage to groundwater
Probable Cause(s)
Leaching of coal combustion waste (CCW) contaminants into groundwater
Summary
Voluntary groundwater monitoring at Duke Energy's Dan River Steam Station's coal ash ponds has
detected levels of chromium, iron, lead, manganese, silver, and sulfate that exceed state groundwater
standards and federal Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs).and Secondary MCLs (SMCLs). Dan River
Steam Station has two unlined coal ash ponds as well as an unlined dry ash landfill. Fifteen years of
sporadic voluntary monitoring beginning in November 1993 indicates that there is on -site groundwater
contamination that is likely migrating outside of the state -designated "compliance boundary" for Dan
River's CCW impoundments. EPA ranked both wet CCW ponds at Dan River Steam Station as "high
hazard" surface impoundments, meaning that their failure will probably cause loss of life (USEPA, 2009).
Damage Case — Dan River Steam Station Page 97

..r IN HARMS WAY: Lack of Federal Coal Ash Regulations Endangers Americans and Their Environment
.. Test of Proof
Groundwater monitoring found exceedances of groundwater standards, such as North Carolina
standards, federal MCLs, and federal SMCLs (Duke Energy and NC DENR, 1993-2009). For example:
• Chromium was reported at 0.0611 mg/L in April 2008, over the state groundwater standard of
�r 0.05 mg/L.
..r • Iron exceedances ranged from 0.32 mg/L to 69.73 mg/L between November 1993 and April
2008, the latter being over 232 times the SMCL and state groundwater standard of 0.3 mg/L.
.r • Lead exceedances ranged from 0.01522 mg/L to 0.0392 mg/L between April 1998 and April
2008, the latter being over twice the MCL and state groundwater standard of 0.015 mg/L.
• All recorded manganese values exceeded SMCLs and state groundwater standards. Manganese
... concentrations ranged from 0.32 mg/L to 7.058 mg/L, the latter being over 141 times the SMCL
and state groundwater standard of 0.05 mg/L.
• Silver was reported at 0.0411 mg/L in April 2008, over twice the state groundwater standard
�+ of 0.0175 mg/L
...r a Sulfate exceedances ranged from 510 mg/L to 560 mg/L between November 1993 and April
1996, more than twice the SMCL and state groundwater standard of 250 mg/L (DENR).
or
v.r The full extent of the groundwater contamination is unknown. Groundwater testing was only conducted
within the boundaries of the CCW impoundment structure because the impoundment extends all the way
to the Dan River, making downgradient groundwater monitoring difficult. No off -site monitoring has been
conducted.
High levels of iron, lead, and manganese in wells presumed to be "background" indicate possible
contamination from the on -site dry coal ash storage facilities and warrant further investigation.
r.r Groundwater monitoring has only targeted the wet CCW storage site, ignoring the dry CCW landfill.
..r
Constituents Involved
v.r
Chromium, iron, lead, manganese, silver, and sulfate
At Risk Populations
..r The Dan River Steam Station is located in a fairly densely populated area. Private well data is
supposed to be archived at the county level; however, Rockingham had only an incomplete list of
registered wells from the 1970s, without the geospatial data necessary to map wells in relation to the
Dan River Steam Station. Although not an exhaustive list, the private well data available showed that
... there are over a dozen private suburban residences within two miles of the CCW impoundments at Dan
River. In addition, public well data available through the North Carolina Department of Natural
Resources, shows five public drinking water wells within a five -mile radius of Dan River that serve over
60 citizens.
..r
.r Damage Case — Dan River Steam Station Page 98

IN HARM'S WAY: Lack o/ Federal Coal Ash Regulations Endangers Americans and Their Environment
Incident and Date Damage 0 identified
Exceedances of groundwater standards were first documented in November 1993
V tc
The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) is aware of existing
groundwater contamination at levels that exceed state groundwater standards at the Dan River Plant.
However, DENR has not required a corrective action plan to restore contaminated groundwater at the
Dan River Plant and has no plans to take action to eliminate the source of contamination until it reaches
the "compliance boundary." DENR plans to require groundwater monitoring outside of the compliance
boundary upon permit renewal for all coal ash ponds (Henderson, 2010), but this may be difficult in the
case of the Dan River Steam Station because its coal ash impoundments abut the Dan River.
Despite evidence of groundwater contamination, DENR has not required Duke Energy to take any
remedial action. Under North Carolina law, a company is only required to take cleanup action if
contamination is spreading outside of a designated "compliance boundary." As long as Duke Energy
continues to monitor only inside the compliance boundary at the Dan River Plant, they will not produce
data sufficient to trigger cleanup.
Wastes Present
Fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag, and flue gas emission residuals from the Dan River Steam Station (Duke
Energy, 2009)
Damage Case — Dan River Steam Station
Page 99
*A/

v IN HARM'S WAY: Lack of Federal Coal Ash Regulations Endangers Americans and Their Environment
r. Type(s) of Waste Management Unit
... Two unlined wet coal ash impoundments and one unlined dry coal ash landfill
... Active or Inactive Waste Management Unit
Two active wet coal ash impoundments and one inactive, capped dry landfill
e.► Hydrogeologic Conditions
The CCW impoundments abut the Dan River, indicating that shallow off -site groundwater contamination
..r may be diluted. Further hydrogeologic information was unavailable.
..r
.+ Additional Narrative
The Dan River Steam Station began operation in 1949. The CCW storage imopundment was originally
built in 1956, seven years after the plant began operating. The embankment walls were raised in 1967.
In 1977, the embankment walls were raised again, and an interior dike was built to divide the
impoundment into the two that exist today. It should be noted that the western dike walls of the primary
..r and secondary ash ponds were constructed on top of existing coal ash deposits. The two impoundments
together cover 39 acres, with a total storage capacity of 664 acre feet. The impoundments have been
periodically dredged and the dredged ash spoils are stored in an unlined dry ash landfill just north of
..r the ponds. The last dredging occurred in 2007. Another dredging is unlikely because the plant is
..r
expected to be decommissioned soon.
Source(s)
�+ Duke Energy & NC DENR. 1993-2008. Dan River Steam Station: Coal Ash Pond Voluntary Monitoring Data.
Duke Energy. 2009. Letter from Richard Kinch, Duke Energy to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ,
Re: CERCLA 104(e) Request for Information (Mar. 25, 2009), available at
�r http•//www epa ciov/epawaste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys/duke-dan-river pdf.
Henderson, Bruce. 2010. "State to require monitoring of ash Ponds," Charlotte Observer (Feb. 2, 2010).
.r NCDENR. 2006. Classifications and Water Quality Standards Applicable to The Groundwaters of North
..r
Carolina, 15A N.C. Admin. Code subchpt. 2L §§ .0100, .0200, .0300 (amended Dec. 7, 2006).
NCREDC. North Carolina Rural Economic Development Center (NCREDC), NC Center for Geographic
Information & Analysis, Raleigh, NC, 20000320, onemap_prod.SDEADMIN.wwells.
Powers. 2009. R. Powers. Dan River Ash Basin NPDES Permit NC0003468 Waste Review and Compliance
.. Boundary: Duke Energy — Dan River Steam Station, Rockingham County, North Carolina (Apr. 27 2009).
Rizzo. 2009. Paul C. Rizzo Associates, Inc., "Final Report: CCW Impoundments Inspection Report: Dan River
Steam Station Rockingham County, North Carolina". (Sept. 2009).
USEPA. 2009. Fact Sheet: Coal Combustion Residues (CCR) — Surface Impoundments with High Hazard
" Potential Ratings. EPA530-F-09-006 (updated Aug. 2009). available at:
... http://ww�.ena.aov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/ccrs-fs/index.htm
u.r
Damage Case — Dan River Steam Station Page 100
•.r

MountainTrue comments at Asheville Coal Ash Hearing- March 1.2016
- Welcome to Asheville where, as I like to say, we got the coal ash party started in
North Carolina.
The 3.5 year campaign to clean up coal ash and protect water quality, human health,
and communities around the state has involved just about every element a
campaign can - grassroots pressure on the state and Duke, protests, litigation,
legislation, politics, posturing, negotiation, national media, federal involvement,
enforcement actions, fines, more litigation, tragedies like the Dan River spill and
victories like the closure of the Asheville coal plant
As a result of all of that work and attention, NC now has the only, and therefore the
strongest, law in the country requiring clean up and proper disposal of coal ash.
CAMA is not a perfect law by any stretch, and we have been openly critical of DEQ's
rigid reliance on it even when Duke was willing to go above and beyond its
requirements, but it is the framework we have.
We are fortunate here in Asheville that we had a place for most of our coal ash, so
the issue of excavation and proper disposal was never really in doubt here. We are
grateful to the airport and Duke for making that partnership work, and we were
pleased that the general assembly affirmed and codified the plan for full excavation
at Asheville through the Coal Ash Management Act.
- But not all communities in North Carolina impacted by coal ash pollution are so
fortunate. While most of the coal ash basins in the state have been classified as high
or intermediate risk, and therefore will be excavated, four have been rated low risk
and 8 have been rated low -intermediate, which is a classification that does not
actually exist in the statute.
We believe there are no low risk sites, and we particularly take issue with the
classification of the three ash basins at the Cliffside/Rogers plant as low and
low/intermediate.
These ash basins fail each of DEQs tests -
o Tests have revealed high levels of toxic arsenic, chromium, cobalt, hexavalent
chromium, thallium and vanadium in groundwater
o There are 28 illegal surface water discharges that dump hundreds of
thousands of gallons of water contaminated with toxic heavy metals into the
Broad River and Suck Creek each and every day

o The three Cliffside coal ash dams have received 5 notices of deficiency for
structural integrity in the last 2 years for some of the same problems that
caused the Dan River spill.
- Even Duke disagrees with DEQ on one of the basins and is excavating it on its own
accord.
- And our expert reports, submitted yesterday, conclude that capping and leaving
these ponds in place will result in ongoing contamination to groundwater and
surface water in levels that exceed state standards.
- In light of the overwhelming evidence of coal ash pollution at the Cliffside/Rogers
plant, we ask that DEQ re-examine its data and analysis and classify those coal ash
basins in a way that will result in the protection of water quality and nearby
communities just as those of us in Asheville are protected.
- Any other classification ignores the science and needlessly continues to put people
at risk.

.. �. vif.^ ,�.'r1 � .f-1 � I,h #.11 ,�'. 1��tt - I :si'�..�t c�-. s#.,, .t,t. :ti. :� .': I... �. ti'•� ��, :�� i.. i ... _ .°}':
First thank you for opening up a discussion of the futility of trying to
decide which communitites are more important to protect and which
communitites are less important to protect.
I hope by the end of this evening, and certainly by the end of the state
wide hearings you are holding, you will get the message that ALL
communities, ALL rivers and the creatures that live in them, ALL the homes
and the children and the pets and the old folks. in each and every
community in North Carina are to be egL!ally valued and protected.
I read in DEQ's Risk Classification document how you try to determine
ranking of the coal ash ponds around the state and what factors were
looked at.
Many of the factors seem problematic to me, some because our ability to
predict and understand the science tbehind them is currently inadequate,
and some because our ability to give a flip -is uncertain.
For example, one factor is the looking at the 'structural condition of
the impoundment'. Wasn't it known. beforehand that the impoundment
structure at the Dan River plant was faulty? And yet, nothing was done
about it. Has that human factor of really caring that people and the
waterways are safe, acutally improved?
How about ratings based on whether the soil and groundwater near a pond
and presumably at times near homes, and schools and businesses, are
contaminated yet?
YET? What if they aren't discernibly contaminated Wday, but they will be
next week? Or in a month? How can you possible project that?
Another factor the document says you will use in determining a site's
ranking: a consideration of ..."The geological... features influencing
the movement ...of the contaminents." Wouldn't an earthquakes
influence the movement of contaminants? Who is that good at predicting
how prone an area is to earthquakes. Did you know there was a 2.5
magnitude earthquake 6 km from Burnsville, about 24 hours ago, and

another one in Bakersville about 3 months ago? There are earthquakes
happening all over North Carolina, very hard to predict and probably,
should fracking become routine, becoming more frequent.
Lastly, in my list of why ranking coal ash pond sites is folly, is the
consideration you list of whether a site is prone to 100 year flooding. Do
we know any more what is meant by 100 year flooding? There was a major
flood in this area 100 years ago, in 1916, but there has also been major
flooding since then, in 1940, in 1999 when NC was hit by three hurricanes
in a rover— Dennis, Floyd and Irene. Then there was. Hurricane Sandy, 4
years ago.
What IS all this about 100 year floods? We can't tell WHEN they are
coming, nor WHERE they are coming. Are they coming to a coal ash pond
near you?
Because of the really difficult problems inherent in ranking the coal ash
pond locations, many of us would advocate for following the wise counsel
of Clean Water for North Carolina, who stated in their Resolution on Coal
Ash and Impacted Communities
Duke Energy must be required to remove coal ash from all existing
impoundments and place it in sealed, above ground containment with
ongoing monitoring for groundwater contamination and structural
weakness, by 2019, to prevent ground and surface water contamination,
and failure of structurally weak impoundments;
ca�7; sca7l`
6,512 pe NC a�s0�
028 2S8 N73

f DUKE
ENERGY
Coal Ash Classifications Public Hearing — Asheville Plant
Jason A. Walls
Local Government and Community Relations Manager, Duke Energy — Asheville Area
March 1, 2016
Good evening and thank you for allowing me to address you this evening.
My name is Jason Walls and I proudly serve as the Local Government and Community
Relations Manager for Duke Energy here in the Asheville area. Every day, I get to work for our
customers in Avery, Buncombe, Haywood, Madison, Mitchell and Yancey counties — where we
proudly serve more than 350,000 people.
We are part of the cities and towns we serve and work hard to help build healthy communities
through philanthropy, volunteerism, community involvement and more. Over the past three
years, Duke Energy Progress has invested more than $1.5 million dollars into workforce
development, STEM -related education, environmental and other community efforts in this
region.
Since the Asheville Plant started generating electricity in 1964, we've invested more than $300
million in environmental controls to improve air emissions from the Asheville Plant.
Beginning in 2008, the company entered into an agreement to beneficially reuse coal ash as a
structural fill at the Asheville Regional Airport. As a result, more than 4 million tons of ash from
the Asheville Plant was excavated and transported to a lined structural fill project at the
Asheville Regional Airport.
This allowed ash, a valuable construction material, to replace soil where the airport has built a
new taxiway and have other projects planned. These projects set the standard for how to safely
store and beneficially reuse it for a broader good.
The partnership with the Asheville Regional Airport saved the airport more than $10 million
dollars and created over 40 acres for aeronautical development.
We're closing coal ash basins in ways that put safety first, protect the environment, minimize
impacts to communities and manage costs. We are proud of what we've accomplished and
remain committed to excavating ash in a way that minimizes impacts on our neighbors.
Although the work at the airport is now complete, our commitment to excavate and close the
ash basins at the Asheville Plant is steadfast. Currently, ash is also being excavated and
transported to a variety of other off -site fully -lined storage solutions, including a landfill in
Homer, Ga., and a landfill at our Rogers Energy Complex in Mooresboro, N.C.
The Asheville Plant has a deadline of full excavation by 2022, and the Cliffside landfill provides
a ready to use, fully lined operating facility in close proximity.
As we work to close the ash basins at the Asheville Plant, we additionally turn our attention to
the retirement of the coal-fired units at the Asheville Plant. Yesterday, Duke Energy Progress
received approval for its $1 billion Western Carolinas Modernization Project, which enables

retirement of the Asheville Plant's coal-fired units and replaces them with two new 280-
megawatt combined cycle natural gas -fueled electric generating units.
Additionally, Duke Energy Progress is committed and excited to work alongside the City of
Asheville, Buncombe County and surrounding communities to maximize programs and
innovative energy solutions to reduce energy use in the fast-growing region. We envision this
work including active community engagement, deliberate investment in distributed energy
resources and greater promotion of and access to energy efficiency and demand -side
management programs..
These are exciting times in an ever -changing industry. Duke Energy Progress is thrilled to be a
part of this work to create a cleaner and smarter energy future for North Carolina's Western
Region.
Thank you for your time tonight.