6. Public Meeting Written Comments

WE SHOULD NOT BE SACRIFICE ZONE FOR DUKE ENERGY'S ENVIRONMENTAL
NEGLIGENT ACTIONS
What is a sacrifice zone?
A sacrifice zones are areas where "Americans are trapped in endless cycles of poverty,
powerlessness and despair as a direct result of capitalistic greed."
WE all know that Duke Energy has NC's Governor McCrory in their pocket. This is clearly a
conflict of interest given the Governor past relationship with Duke.
Recent documents from state files indicate that Anson County is also a targeted for the toxic
coal ash witches brew. It is for that reason on behalf of Pee Dee WALL I formally request a
hearing in our county.
Coal ash is a special waste not fit for municipal solid waste landfills and should be put in a
protected structure on Duke Energy property, thereby preventing the transfer of liability from
private to public entities. While the coal ash is on Duke's property this waste stream is toxic.
But, as soon as you load it on a train headed to a Solid Waste Landfill like the one in our county
it becomes non -toxic.
There are several reasons why disposal of coal ash in solid waste landfills is alarming:
AIR POLLUTION
WATER CONTAMINATION
LEACIFIATE
SLUDGE
TRANSPORTATION
LACKED REGUALTIONS AND ENFORCEMENT
And the RIGHT OF CITIZENS TO SAY NO
Waste Connections landfill in Polkton, NC, is in the middle of a minority community this make
this not just and environmental threat but a Justice issue.
In Anson County, Waste Connections has already had violations for arsenic in their leachate
from solid waste. How on earth can they handle coal ash?
Waste Connections plans to store the toxic leachate from the coal ash in holding ponds.
Pee Dee WALL and the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, met with Anna Baucom,
Chair of Anson County Commissioners. With documentation in hand we informed her of the
dangers of the leachate from coal ash. Ms. Baucom informed us that after speaking to Waste
Connections that the leachate would not go to our waste water treatment plant but, be placed in
holding ponds on site. Problem solved? Far from it.

Coal ash sludge is very toxic.
Coal ash sludge contains a large range of constituents, including dissolved minerals that
have been leached or washed out of the coal. In addition, the sludge contains chemicals
added to facilitate the washing or water re -use processes. I have included a list of over 50
different chemicals that can be in this sludge.
What exactly is the state requiring to be tested on this sludge? Are water treatment plants
equipped to monitor or filter out these chemicals?
Coal ash can be radioactive.
The focus in explorations of the hazards of coal waste in regions where it is produced in the
United States has previously centered on the heavy metals and toxins that are contained by the
ash, but now there is another peril to add to the list, according to researchers at Duke University.
"Until now, metals and contaminants such as selenium and arsenic have been the major known
contaminants of concern in coal ash, " according to Avner Vengosh, professor of geochemistry
and water quality at Duke and co-author of the study. He went on to say, in a statement. "This
study raises the possibility we should also be looking for radioactive elements, such as radium
isotopes and lead-210, and including them in our monitoring efforts. "
According to the recent study radioactive contaminants are found in coal ash at rates of up to
five times higher than in normal soil, and up to 10 times higher than in its parent coal
because, of the way that radioactivity is concentrated during combustion. Radium isotopes
and lead-210 naturally occur in coal, but during combustion the radium isotopes become
concentrated in the coal ash residues, and the lead-210 becomes chemically volatile and
reattaches itself to tiny particles of fly ash, "
During March 2016, Anson County commissioner, Bobby Sikes, pointed out that when he was
at the landfill recently he noticed that Waste Connections had taken down their device for
radiation detection. Are they not supposed to be able to check for radiation if they suspect it?
You can't find it if you don't look for it. If coal ash were to come to Anson's landfill how can
we trust or believe that they will check the coal ash?
Anson County should not be the dumping ground for any of Duke's 150 million tons of coal
ash. Why does Duke Energy want to send the coal ash off site? Because then it limits their
liability. This is not a legacy we should shoulder on our future generations.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has found that living next to a coal ash disposal
site can increase your risk of cancer or other diseases.
The EPA recommendations have no teeth- there will be no federal enforcement of the
regulations. It's up to individual states and communities to enforce the law and states are not

required to adopt EPA's rules. Can we trust Waste Connections to monitor its self? Laws
prohibiting county control over what is allowed to be brought to their county are not only
unethical but immoral.
The current method to determine toxicity is the TCLP test. EPA recommends using more
accurate methods to test the coal ash for toxicity other than the "Toxicity Characteristic
Leaching Procedure" (TCLP), but it is not required.
Air pollution, ammonia is a major pollutant in the coal ash leachate. Residents living near a
landfill where coal ash leachate is stored in a lagoon reported, very serious odor problems,
probably from high ammonia levels and volatile bacterial degradation products from the
leachate. This was undoubtedly an unbearable situation for those nearby residents. The
ammonia is also causing odor, breathing and other health problems for people living around the
open lagoon where the leachate is stored.
There is an increasing belief among solid waste experts that unless further steps are taken to
detoxify landfilled materials, today's society will be placing a burden on upcoming generations
to address.
It is a well-known fact that all landfills will eventually leak. Even EPA has admitted this. The
liner system they use is about the thickness of two credit cards.
How well is this landfill monitored? The state may average a visit to the site about once every
year.
The NC Coal Ash Management Commission, which played a key oversight role in closing
Duke Energy's ash ponds statewide, was abruptly disbanded. You would think by now the
Governor's office would know how to appointment members to a board. The board if and
when it is reconvened should include representatives that the citizens can trust to make the right
decisions and that are not based on what is in the best interest for Duke Energy.
The problem associated with these waste ponds is nothing new. Not until the devastating spills
and the public demanding something be done was it an issue. Then for the state to lower the
fines on Duke is ludicrous. No wonder people like Trump are getting so many people to follow
him. People are angry at the injustice of our government.
If our government would do its job and prevent such catastrophic dangers we wouldn't be in
this predicament. It is time for our government to be proactive not always re -active
The standards that the McCrory administration is applying to the water simply stated has made
the water "safe" to drink by simply upping the amount of coal ash chemicals that they deem
permissible for human consumption.
Governor McCrory has made a mockery of the state regulations that are supposed to protect the
citizens.

A lie doesn't become truth
Wrong doesn't become right
Evil doesn't become good
Just because Duke Energy and Governor McCrory say so!
Denise Lee, Pee Dee WALL
Chapter of the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League
PO Box 563
Ansonville, NC 28007

An alternative Coal ash disposal method
Coal ash is one of the largest industrial waste streams in the U.S. Each year, and around 600 coal-
fired power plants in the United States produce 140 million tons of coal ash. Nearly 56% of the coal
ash is stored in more than 1,400 sites in 45 states by landfills (dry impoundments) or coal -ash ponds
(wet impoundments), and the remaining is reused for concrete, cement and other construction materials.
North Carolina is the top -ten largest producer of coal ash in the nation. Power plants in North
Carolina produce 5.5 million tons of coal ash annually and there are 26 enormous coal ash dams,
which average store 65,000 acre feet of coal sludge in N.C.
EPA regulations for coal ash disposal are weak and dumping coal ash
into landfills is absolutely wrong! Alternative solutions are needed.
BREDL is on the fight with Coal Ash!
In March 2014, BREDL announced a campaign against coal ash landfilling disposal, and proposed
an alternative coal ash disposal method called the "Salt -Stone", which is developed to isolate
hazardous radioactive nuclear waste by the Department of Energy (DOE).
What's the Salt stone facility?
The Salt -stone facilities consist of two segments: the Salt -stone Production Facility (SPF) and the
Salt -stone Disposal Facility (SDF). Model of Salt Stone Facility
• The SPF receives the low -
radioactive treated salt
solution and mixes it with
cement, fly ash and slag for
stabilization.
Then the remaining grout
mixture is mechanically
pumped into concrete
disposal vaults that make
up the SDF. These
solidified non -hazardous,
low -radioactive grout
materials are called "salt -
stone".
• The filled vaults will be
capped with clean concrete
to isolate it from the
environment. Final closure
of the area will consist of
covering the vaults with
closure caps,.backfilling Photo httpJ/www.srs.gov/general/pubs/srr-Iw-systemplan.pdf
with earth and seeding to control water infiltration and erosion.
Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League
ranw.BREDLorg PO Box 88 Glendale SprfiW, North Carolina 286Z BREDL@skybestcom [phone]

Fr, v�;Y:d[:3
Coal slurry impoundment- SourceWatch
Coal slurry impoundment
From SourceWatch
share/Sava et.-
Coal slurry consists of solid and liquid waste and is a by-product of
the coal mining and preparation processes. It is a fine coal refuse and
water. Mining generates enormous amounts of Industrial wastelsolid
waste in the form of rocks and dirt. This refuse is used to dam the
opening of a hollow between adjacent mountains. After the dam is
built, the void behind it is typically filled with millions of gallons of
waste slurry from a coal preparation plant. This impounded liquid
waste can sometimes total billions of gallons in a single facility.
High -profile disasters associated with these slurry impoundments
have called into question their safety. In February 1972, three dams
holding a mixture of coal slurry and water in Logan County, West
Virginia failed in succession: 130 million gallons of toxic water were
released in the Buffalo Creek Flood. Out of a population of 5,000
people, 125 people were killed, 1,121 were injured, and over 4,000
were left homeless The flood caused 50 million dollars in damages.
00alsyVarm 1 400
Af
This article is part of the Coal Issues portal on
SourceWatrA a project of CoalSwarm
(htip://coalswarin.org/) and the Center for
Media and Democracy
(httpJ/www.prwatch.org). See here for help on
adding material to CoalSwarm
beam more about the threat
drilling for methane gas
poses to freshwater.
Despite evidence of negligence, the Pittston Company, which owned the compromised dam, called the
event an "Act of God." In 2002, a long valley fill in Lyburn, West Virginia failed and slid into a sediment
pond at the toe of the fill, generating a large wave of water and sediment that destroyed several cars and
houses.11l
jContents
�{ ■ 1 Composition
■ 1.1 Drinking water contaminated with hexaualent chromium from coal may cause cancer
■ 1.2 References
■ 2 List of slurry disasters
■ 2.1 Related SourceWatch articles
Composition
Coal slurry contains a large range of constituents, including dissolved minerals that have been leached or
washed out of the coal and other rocks. In addition, the slurry contains chemicals added to facilitate the
washing or water re -use processes. One of these chemicals is acrylamide. Other chemicals found in the
slurry and sludge include the following:
■ Aniline
■ Acenaphthene
htipl/www.sourcewatch.orgrindex."Ccal slurry_impoundment 1/4

I �
3l23�2b16
Coal shM impoundment- SourceWatch
■ Acenapthylene
■ Anthracene
■ Benzidine
• Benzo(a)anthracene
■ Benzo(a)pyrene
■ Benzo(b fluoranthene
■ Benzo(ghi)perylene
• Benzo(k)fluoroanthene
■ Benzyl alcohol
■ bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
■ bis(2-chloroethoxy)-methane
■ bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
■ bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
■ Butyl benzyl phthalate
■ Chrysene
■ Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
■ Dibenzofuran
■ Dibutyl phtalate
■ Diethyl phthalate
■ Dimethyl phthalate
■ Dioctylphthalate
■ Fluoranthene
■ Fluorene
■ Hexachiorobenzene
■ Hexachloroethane
■ Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene
■ Isophorone
■ N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine
■ N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
■ Naphthalene
■ Nitrobenzene
■ Phenanthrene
■ Pyrene
■ Hexachloro-1,3-Butadiene
■ Hexa-CI-1,3-Cyclopentadiene
■ 1,2,4-Dichlorobenzene
■ 1,2-Dichlorobenzene
■ 1,3-Dichlorobenzene
■ 1,4-Dichlorobenzene
■ 2,4-Dinitrotoluene
■ 2,6-Dinitrotoluene
• 2-Chloronaphtalene
■ 2-Methylnapthalene
■ 12-Nitroaniline
■ 3-3'-Dichlorobenzidine
■ 3-Nitroaniline
■ 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
■ 4-Chloroaniline
■ 4-Chhlorophenyl phenyl ether
■ 4-Nitroaniline
httpl/wwwsourcewatch.orgfindexphp/Coal slurry impoundment 214

GSWfile => "2016-03-22 Duke Coal Ash NCDEQ Public Comment Session - Catawba College"
NCDEQ PUBLIC COMMENT SESSION -- DUKE ENERGY COA&MWDEacm
BUCK STEAM STATION IMPOUNDMENTS RISK ASSESSMENT
Catawba College Center for the Environment (Room 300) MAR 8 8 2016
Tuesday, March 22, 2016 Watert]uaIily
Greg S. Weaver — Mocksville NC Regional operawn seewn
Greetings! My name is Greg Weaver. I live in Davie Co. My home property is bordered by
Dutchman's Creek, which is a tributary of the Yadkin River. It is 7 river miles from my home to
the Yadkin River. My property and home are also downstream from the Davie Co. central basin
sewage treatment facility. That system is part of the county system consisting of 81 miles (M)
of sanitary sewer mains. Needless to say, being just downstream of that facility makes me
naturally highly concerned with issues of both surface and ground water quality in NC.
It's great that we, the public, have this opportunity to share our views as citizens of NC
concerning the ongoing situation at the deactivated Duke Energy Buck Steam Station and its
coal ash retention facilities consisting of unlined, open, unprotected storage impoundments with
thousands of tons of toxic coal ash held back by very old earthen dams. Getting my remarks
prepared and getting them committed to paper is an indication of the imperative I feel for
getting our environment in order when it comes to controllable man-made contamination and
pollution such as coal ash.
In my view, coal ash is pretty much industrial litter. We don't allow it on our highways and
byways, nor should we allow coal ash to lay around in high -risk low protection facilities
consisting of earthen dams surrounding open impoundment pits.
I am also an active recreational kayak paddler and frequently volunteer with the Yadkin River
Keeper organization, which puts me in frequent contact with, and observance of, the Yadkin
River itself. My paddling includes the upper reaches of High Rock Lake where the Yadkin
River flows by the Buck Steam Station location. I have kayaked right past the Buck facility,
waved to the caretaker walking along the structure overlooking the water, and along the
riverbank nearby. On one paddle, during a High Rock Lake water pond level draw -down, I
observed first-hand the ugly, slimy, copper -colored "goo" oozing out of the soil strata that
would normally be underwater as normal lake levels. I am sure this has been tested and would
be interested in the results of those tests. Just identifying it as naturally occurring "algae" does
not mean it isn't contaminated with the toxic elements contained in coal ash and its leachates.
I feel I have a better than average acquaintance with science by virtue of my engineering
background both educationally, degreed in both in Ocean Engineering and Industrial
Engineering, and professionally. My career at Western Electric (Lucent Technologies) included
work as a hydrographer and oceanographer working in Winston-Salem on a major U.S. Navy
anti-submarine warfare project as well as later commercial telecommunications systems work as
a professionally certified project manager.
1

GSW file => "2016-03-22_Duke Coal Ash NCDEQ Public Comment Session - Catawba College"
The public didn't fall off of our collective turnip trucks regarding our concerns related to
groundwater issues, especially at the 31 coal ash retention facilities in NC, and particularly our
local Duke Energy Buck Steam Station located on the Yadkin River where it empties into High
Rock Lake. At it's simplest, to my nose, this whole coal ash situation doesn't even pass the
SMELL TEST. Local water wells are contaminated and if for no other reason that alone should
place the Buck Steam Station coal ash deposits as already causing significant problems. The
only remaining question to be dealt with is what to do about it. This site, if for no other reason
is, due to the local contamination of water wells adjacent to the site, already in a HIGH RISK
zone. Yet, the NCDEQ has somehow determined that the Buck location is of LOW TO
INTERMEDIATE priority (i.e., risk), as stated in it's "Buck Combined Cycle Steam Station Risk
Classification". The health safety of NC citizens should be of ultimate priority. By using a
"LOW TO INTERMEDIATE" priority (risk) classification there is an out to never do anything
about the current situation as low doesn't require it. INTERMEDIATE is to be moved/capped at
some future time. HIGH requires "immediate" remediation.
It is my understanding that in South Carolina, when faced with overwhelming evidence that
coal ash storage like is found at Buck is unavoidably hazardous to public waters and health, the
entire state energy industry, albeit reluctantly, finally entered into a partnership to move ALL
coal ash in unlined storage to new lined storage facilities. This seems like an enlightened
approach whose simplicity seems to be lost on Duke Energy and the NCDEQ. Duke Energy is
already moving to re -locate its coal ash stored in South Carolina to lined and capped storage
facilities. Why can't that approach be applied in North Carolina? Might it because it is just too
direct, logical fraught with common sense?
Unfortunately, it appears to me that we are on a parallel path to the tobacco industry of about 30
years ago -- years of denial, insistence that the public prove the corporate offenders in the
wrong, ignoring or mis-representation of scientific data and the eventual admission that
something was actually occurring that seriously affected the health of tobacco users. Smoking is
a conscious, optional decision -- drinking contaminated water is not. The analogy here is, of
course, the ultimate recognition of tobacco as a cancer causing substance -- after the loss of
many lives and the wasted expenditure of billions of dollars on health care, quiet court
settlements, and never-ending attorney expenses.
Coal ash is a source of many noxious and health -affecting substances which impact people
living in proximity to these ash impoundments. One need look no further than the Duke coal
ash disaster that occurred on the Dan River over 2 years ago -- 70 miles of the Dan River coated
with coal ash sludge from the 50K - 80K tons of ash released, for which Duke Energy was fined
$102M in 2015 for its negligence in managing its responsibilities to make sound judgments
regarding coal ash storage. Can it happen? It DID happen -- and can happen again. The effects
on groundwater are hidden but no less critical. The earthen dams at the Buck Steam Station are
currently rated in the NCDEQ documents as HIGH, but LOW after remediation and repair. The
action NOW should be based on the dam's condition NOW, that that rating is HIGH.
2

GSWfile => "1016-03-22_Duke Coal Ash NCDEQ Public Comment Session - Catawba College"
At least we are not in a zone of denying that coal ash (more formally, Coal Combustion
Byproducts - CCB's) is a hazardous substance. However, we are in the zone of quibbling about
the degree of contamination, how it occurs and whether or not drastic action is warranted. What
action? To remove and store coal ash from Buck into lined/capped storage facilities which are
essentially impervious to leaching into ground and surface waters. Certainly, the current unlined
and uncovered open ash retention ponds at Buck are as hazardous as they possibly can be, i.e.,
HIGH RISK, affecting both ground water and the surface waters of the Yadkin River and High
Rock Lake.
One of the techniques that worked successfully as a regularly applied element of my
professional life, and which I try to apply in many situations today, is that of RISK
MANAGEMENT. This simple concept involves a systematic assessment and action approach
that combines elements of the PROBABILITY OR CERTAINTY, of the OCCURRENCE of a
negative outcome with the IMPACT of that negative outcome. The ongoing situation which is
the focus of this meeting is that of the Buck Steam Station coal ash impoundment pits.
I would suggest that the NEGATIVE OCCURRENCE (i.e., the outcome) for this site are
several, but primarily is the contamination of ground and surface waters with toxic elements.
Coal ash commonly contains some of the earth's deadliest toxic substances: arsenic, lead,
mercury, cadmium, chromium and selenium, to name a few. This is not your daily vitamin
ingredient list. Sounds like a perfect cocktail of hazardous elements that are highly harmful to
our drinking water and the health of the residents that live around the Buck Steam Station and
around any of the other 31 storage impoundment locations in North Carolina.
The IMPACT of this negative occurrence (i.e., the contamination of ground and surface waters),
is the long-term negative effect of the toxic elements on the health of the citizens of NC,
specifically to the residents living in proximity to the Buck Steam Station and it's on -site coal
ash impoundments directly adjacent to the waters of the Yadkin River and High Rock Lake.
So what does this all mean? The goal of risk assessment is to quantitatively assess the
PROBABILITY (CERTAINTY) of the negative outcome occurring (i.e., toxic substances
entering ground and surface waters and being consumed by the public) and the IMPACT of that
outcome on health and property values. In the case of the local coal ash impoundments (i.e.,
"PITS"), but also in general for all 31 of these storage facilities in NC, a HIGH probability of
occurrence and a HIGH impact of either their catastrophic failure of the earthen dams or due to
gradual leaching and seepage into the ground and surface waters should support a HIGH RISK
status to the impoundments at the Buck Steam Station. High risk from high probability of
occurrence AND high impact from an occurrence, in my professional experience, yields a
requirement of PREVENTING the occurrence of the event, i.e., ground and surface water
contamination. That PREVENTION is the result of implementing, not just planning for, a
complete cleanup and re -storage plan to move the offending, unprotected coal ash to new lined,
capped storage facilities remote from surface waters.
3

GSW file => "2016-03-22_Duke Coal Ash NCDEQ Public Comment Session - Catawba College"
There are no guarantees of 100% certainty that new storage will be 100% secure, forever. Such
guarantees are not possible. However, implementation through proper planning, engineering
and execution to the highest standards can deliver a very high confidence in long term
protection, as contrasted to the current foot -dragging and downplaying of the extent of the
public's concerns for the safety of our water supplies and the health of our citizens.
Let me close with a few short QUOTES from the NCDEQ mission statement (from
http://d`eq.nc.zov/about/mission-statementl, which seem enlightening to me as applicable to the
current issues of concern which we are speaking of tonight. The entire NCDEQ Mission
Statement is included below marked with the source of the following quotes:
-- "...the [NCDEQ's] primary mission is to protect NC's environment..."
-- "...DEQ ... is a service organization [and] must always be a resource of invaluable public
assistance, rather than a bureaucratic obstacle of resistance."
-- "...science will inform decisions on how to best protect the environment..."
Let's all endeavor to arrive at an outcome that protects our waters and our people, not the profits
of one of the largest corporations in America. A version of what I say to myself whenever I am
doing my volunteer work on the Yadkin River or on the Appalachian Trail, is -- "Whatever is
right for our clean water needs and for the people of NC should be the right thing to do for
those charged with its protection on our behalf."
Let's NOT do the opposite and let narrow political or economic interests keep us from doing the
RIGHT thing.
Thank you!�
Submitted by: 0 U
Gregory S. Weaver
137 Sherden Lane
Mocksville NC 27028
Phone: [phone]
EMA: [e-mail]
M

GSWfile => "2016-03-22_Duke Coal Ash NCDEQ Public Comment Session - Catawba College"
NC Dept of Environmental Quality Mission Statement
(from http✓/deq.ncgov/about/mission-statement)
Preamble:
It is recognized that the N.0 Department of Environmental Quality's primary mission is to
protect North Carolina's environment and advance an all -of -the -above energy strategy that fits
North Carolina's needs. In executing this mission, DEQ operates with the broad -based
understanding that the following three fundamental principles are integral components of its
protective mandate.
Fundamental Philosophy: In its essence, DEO is a service organization. Agency personnel,
operating within the confines of the regulations, must always be a resource of invaluable public
assistance, rather than a bureaucratic obstacle o resistance.
Fundamental Economics: Acknowledging that a traditional cost/benefit analysis is not always
fully applicable to matters of the environment, the agency will be continually cognizant that an
economic cost/benefit analysis is an integral component of DEQ's public service endeavor.
Fundamental Science: That all decisions are made with a respect and understanding that science
will inform decisions on how to best protect the environment and develop energy policy. The
relevant science is complex, comprised of many components, and most importantly, contains
diversity of opinion. In this regard, all public programs and scientific conclusions must be
reflective of input from a variety of legitimate, diverse and thoughtful perspectives.
The Outcome:
That a collaborative stewardship among the citizens, government regulators and the business
community will maintain and enhance North Carolina's environment and natural resources for
the benefit and enjoyment of everyone living in or visiting our great state.

DUKE
ENERGY,
NCDEQ Ash Basin Classification Public Hearing — Buck Steam Station
March 22, 2016
Randy Welch — Duke Energy, Local Government and Community Relations Manager
Good evening and thank you for the opportunity to be a part of tonight's meeting. My name is
Randy Welch, and I have the pleasure of serving as Duke Energy's local government and
community relations manager in Rowan County. For the past 12 years, my family and I have
had the pleasure of living here in the Rowan County community, and we now call it our home.
I understand how important this issue is to the community around Buck Steam Station. We look
forward to hearing from local citizens tonight. The comments shared tonight will help inform the
state's final classifications, which direct basin closure options and deadlines.
At Duke Energy, we are continuing to deliver on our promise to safely close all coal ash basins
across the Carolinas. We are closing basins in ways that put safety first, protect the
environment, minimize impacts to communities and manage costs.
We continue to build momentum, with ash excavation underway at several sites and
comprehensive evaluations of safe closure options at other sites. Every closure solution is
evaluated against a set of guiding principles that drive our closure decisions.
An important focus in this work is making sure all closure plans protect groundwater and our
comprehensive assessments will inform our plans. Closure plans will also ensure the material
remains safely stored for the future. We'll make sure the final solution remains effective during
extreme weather, like storms and flooding. If the science says we should excavate the material,
then we will look first to whether we can direct that to an on -site lined landfill rather than
transporting it to a new location off -site.
We also continue to explore new ways to recycle ash so we have less of it that needs
permanent storage. And we are looking for solutions that are sustainable and that minimize both
broader environmental impacts and community impacts for neighbors.
This process is indeed very technical and science -based. We have submitted thousands of
pages of data to the state, but we also know closing ash basins is about people and
communities. And ensuring the safety of our neighbors and communities is our top priority.
As we move through this process, we are committed to keeping our neighbors informed. We will
continue to share updates regarding the plant through direct mailings, our company website and
one-on-one opportunities to hear directly from plant neighbors and share updates. I'm available
throughout this process to answer any questions you may have about our work to close ash
basins or other activities happening at the Buck plant.
We still have a long way to go, but we are proud of the significant progress we have made
closing coal ash basins in the Carolinas in ways that are safe for people and the environment.
And we remain committed to each and every community as we move forward with this important
work.
Again, thanks to everyone here for your time and for participating in this very important process