The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutV. Sutton_EmailAttachmentsCOAL ASH, RACE & CLASS IN NORTH CAROLINA Libbie Weimer, MCRP April 181", 2016 The following document presents profiles of the fourteen coal ash sites and two permitted coal ash landfills in North Carolina. The report begins with summaries of data collected across all sites. Then, the report details the sites. For each site, the report presents information about the residents within three study distances— 1km, 3km and 5km from the edge of the pond or landfill. For each site and each study distance, the profile contains data on 1) demographics including population and population density, race and ethnicity, and income; 2) cumulative impacts from other toxic facilities including number of facilities and pounds of onsite toxic releases from those facilities. Each site profile summarizes this information in the final measure, 3) an environmental justice index score that compares the 1 km, 3 km, and 5 km study level information to three regions: the state, the county, and the locality. The environmental justice index incorporates impacts on low-income communities, communities of color and cumulative impacts into one score for each site. For a more detailed explanation of the all methods used to create these profiles, please see the appendix. The accuracy of the results is limited by the data available in the U.S Census. Due to racial and economic segregation, the report may overestimate or underestimate the impact of coal ash on communities of color and/or low-income communities. While this problem exists with all small -area studies, unfortunately, the census is especially ill -suited for research involving rural communities. The limitations of this analysis highlight the importance of ground-truthing the data by collaborating with members of the communities profiled in this report. REPORT SUMMARIES Legend r s Figure 1. Asheville Dan River • • Roxboro Belews Creek Mayo Buck Marshall Cape Fear, Brickhaven Riverbend Colon Mill • • Clifl:side Allen Operational Coal Plants Closed Coal Plants Structurai Fill Sites Weatherspoon Lee Sutton 0 40 80 160 Miles Locations of the fourteen coal ash ponds and two permitted coal ash landfill sites, with North Carolina county borders shown for reference. POPULATION m Site Marne / Analysis Level Belews Asheville Creek Buck Cape Fear CliHslde Dan Raver Lee Marshall Mayo Rrverbend Roxboro Sutton Weathers.. 20K 1000 C-0o 800 700 600 N C m d c 0 500 Q, 0 d 14K 400 300 200 5K 100 OK EmAl - Am mAmll =mA111=.1 oil mth E e E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E€ E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y r M to - M !A r M Ili - M N - M Ln M 0 f M Ln M UY m Ln M UY M 0 f M Ln M Ln M U' RACE/ETHNICITY Bedews Allen Asheville {Creek 16 Si 0.4 NC Stale 9> N"' G ze 0.2 0.4 0.3 Y INC Stale Ox, Black 0? ■ lift 02 Site Narne I Analysis Level Buck Cape Fear Clif cle Dan River Lee Marshall Mayo Riverbend Roxboro Sutton Weathers.. ■■■ 0-1 NCStr+t �a'jno 0-0 ■ <i10 l■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■ E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E Y' 1' Y Y Y Y Y AlY Y Y Y Y Y Y SC Y Y' : C Y Y : C Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 1^ Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y � t! Ili � [! N � IA � f"i VS r N1 tli � R+i N � M N � c�i i!Y � E'Y Il7 � 1'i N � i`] V1 � 4^7 N � fR N � [+i IF1 INCOME Site Name 1 Analysis Level Belews Allen Asheville Creek Buck Cape Fear C€inside Clan River Lee Marshall Mayo Riverbend Roxboro Sutton Weathers.. .0� 70K Is. 10K 30+t '04 0� _ E E E E E E E E E - c - c E E E E c - . en Ifs ^ rq VI --- M U's ^ ICY E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E SUTTON PLANT DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS POPULATION Population Count Site Name 1km 3km 5km Sutton 0 480 5217 Population Density (people per sq. mi.) 1km 3km 5km 0 21 105 RACE/ % Non -white % Black % Latino ETHNICITY Site Name 1km 3km 5km 1km 3km 5km 1km 3km 5km Sutton N/A 54.4% 45.1% N/A 44.4% 35.6% N/A 7.5% 10.3% INCOME Median Income Estimate Site Name 1km 3km 5km Sutton N/A $ 38,255 $ 43,099 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS SITE NAME REFERENCE COUNT(IES) ONE OR MORE TRI % OF COUNT(IES)' % OF COUNT(IES)' TRI (*ACTIVE COAL SITES W/IN 5KM TRI SITES W/IN ONSITE RELEASES PLANT) BUFFER 5KM BUFFER W/IN 5KM BUFFER Sutton Brunswick, New Hanover Y 26% 6% Closest City: Wilmington Plant Status: Closed Coal Ash Pond Acreage: 1,329 DEQ Site Prioritization: High ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE INDEX — SUTTON Indicator Race/Ethnicity Income C Reference Census Region State County Census Tract State County Tract Demographic Information J N N Po z z Q W >cc W G=J £ � ° S �u ZI N� O O U +r t c c N +' o cc ° Z co a �n U I U I U I U I U I U Z) a `^ J co ?: o Y — ° Z m J z co I I J I J I Z Z Z Z Z Z Q 3 Q v C G! DIST. HI HI HI H H H WI wI WI o � o 00 0 � 0 00 o � UI ? U H p a O (+p Z co V) v) U U U U U U 00 0 0 x N/A - - - - - 1 km x x x x x x 6 x 1 x 8 480 261 213 36 38,255 3 km x x x x x x x x x 9 0 x 10 5,217 2,352 1,855 537 43,099 5 km MEAN 6.00 CAPE FEAR $RIVER WATCH f�EA 'M p,1 L�' 617 Surry Street Wilmington, NC 28401 (910) 762-5606 www. capefearriverwatch. org OFFICERS Doug Springer President Jeannie Lennon Vice President Julia Berger Secretary Brent McAbee Treasurer BOARD OF DIRECTORS Chantay Allen Larry Cahoon Rich Carpenter Alan Cradick Philip Gerard Gordon Johnson Melissa Juhan Captain E. Jot Owens Ted Poucher Dana Sargent Roger Shew Thomas Tewey STAFF Kemp Burdette CAPE FEAR RIVERKEEPERV Frank Yelverton Executive Director Jennifer Cole Communications Coordinator Kay Lynn Plummer -Hernandez Education Coordinator Patrick O'Conner Greenfield Lake Director Protecting and improving the water quality of the Lower Cape Fear River Basin through Education, Advocacy, and Action 17 March 2016 N.C. Division of Waste Management Solid Waste Section N.C. Department of Environmental Quality Attn: Ed Mussler 1646 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1611 Re: Duke Energy Sutton Plant Proposed Impoundment Classification Mr. Ed Mussler, My name is Kemp Burdette. I am the Cape Fear Riverkeeper and I represent nearly 1000 members of Cape Fear River Watch, a grass roots citizen based environmental group. I first became acquainted with the coal ash ponds at the Sutton plant as a teenager when I frequently fished in Sutton Lake — sometimes eating the panfish I would catch there with my friends. Later as an adult, in my role as the Cape Fear Riverkeeper, I documented the breach that occurred in the Sutton coal ash pond berms, after heavy rainfall in 2010, from the seat of a small airplane. I have also carefully reviewed the documentation of groundwater contamination at the Sutton site and the close proximity of the contamination plume relative to the, until very recently, drinking water supply for the community of Flemington. I read the contract whereby Duke Energy pressured the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority into giving up their rights to utilize ground water in a 17 square mile area centered on the Sutton site. I've wondered if the nearby soccer complex where my children may one day want to play soccer could be irrigated with contaminated groundwater. I have read the peer reviewed scientific research from a leading researcher in his field, documenting the contamination of Sutton Lake with selenium, a common ingredient in coal ash, and its horrific impacts on fish in that lake — the fish I used to eat. I have read the state's own reports noting the poor condition of bass in Sutton Lake due to selenium contamination. WATERKEEPER`ALLIANCE MEMBER We are a 501(c)3 nonprofit. Tax ID#58-2121884. Financial information about this organization and a copy of its license are available from the Charitable Solicitation Licensing Section at 1-888-830- 4989. The license is not an endorsement by the State. For all of these reasons, for the history of structural integrity failure, for the impacts to surface waters, specifically a publically funded fishing lake and the Cape Fear River upstream of Wilmington, NC, and for documented significant contamination of groundwater resources, I fully agree with the high risk designation that the Sutton coal ash ponds have earned. Because of this designation the Sutton ash ponds are being cleaned up. Ash is being removed from unlined ponds, dried, and placed in lined and capped landfills away from waterbodies. Clearly, cleaning up these ponds is the right thing to do. What is also clear is that without efforts by citizens and citizen groups like ours, this clean-up would not have occurred. Further, our community is not the only community impacted by surface and ground water contamination from coal ash ponds and the threat of berm failures like what we saw in Kingston, TN or Dan River. These communities deserve to have the threat of coal ash cleaned up in their communities too. Every single coal ash pond should have its toxic contents dried out, and moved away from waterways into safe lined and capped landfills with leachate treatment systems. Upstream from us in Chatham County, five more ponds sit in terrible shape, most of them having already failed to some degree before. They are contaminating groundwater, they are seeping into the Cape Fear River upstream of drinking water intakes for hundreds of thousands of North Carolinians, including me, my children, and most of the people in this room tonight. These ponds are high risk ponds — there is no question. I've seen them with my own two eyes. They must be cleaned up, and quickly, before we see another Dan River spill or contaminate another family's drinking water. cleanenergy.org Southern A111once for Clean Energy April 18, 2016 N.C. Division of Waste Management Solid Waste Section N.C. Department of Environmental Quality Attn: Ed Mussler 1646 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1611 VIA E-MAIL RE: Public Comments on DEQ's Draft Ratings for Duke Energy's Coal Ash Impoundments Dear Mr. Mussler, 1.866.522.SACE www.cleanenergy.org P.O. Box 1842 Knoxville, TN 37901 865.637.6055 46 Orchard Street Asheville, NC 28801 828.254.6776 250 Arizona Avenue, NE Atlanta, GA 30307 404.373.5832 P.O. Box 310 Indian Rocks Beach, FL 33785 954.295.5714 P.O. Box 13672 Charleston, SC 29422 843.225.2371 Thank you for the public comment opportunity regarding DEQ's draft ratings for Duke Energy's coal ash impoundments. I'm pleased that Duke is already required to move some of its coal ash to proper storage. I'm writing to urge you to rank every coal ash impoundment in North Carolina as high or intermediate priority. Duke Energy should be required to remove all of the coal ash at each of its 14 power plants sites to dry, lined storage away from our waterways and groundwater, and from our most vulnerable communities such as low-income communities or communities of color Duke's leaking coal ash impoundments across the state continue to threaten ground and surface water. State health officials advised communities close to Duke's facilities not to drink their well water because of harmful pollutants like vanadium and hexavalent chromium. No family should have to question the safety of their water. Yet rating impoundments as low risk would allow Duke to cap coal ash in place, with nothing to stop groundwater from mixing with the ash and carrying contamination to surrounding communities and waterways. DEQ's rating process offers the best opportunity to properly deal with Duke's coal ash pollution and ensure the health and safety of NC communities. Please ensure Duke's coal ash is moved to lined, dry storage, away from our rivers and waterways and our most vulnerable communities Thank you for your consideration, Adam Reaves High Risk Energy Coordinator Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (SACE) adam@cleaneneryg.org 828.254.6776 ext. 35 North Carolina Doug Franklin, Hayesville Sally MacMillan, Arden Jody McClung, Weaverville Greg Hamby, Kitty Hawk Doris Whitfield, Raleigh David Loven, Chapel Hill Chris Berg, Flat Rock Connie Leeper, Durham Frank Bennett, Raleigh Marcia Bennett, Raleigh Michael Morgan, Swannanoa M. Hazeltine, Sunset Beach Janet Smith, Greenville Jennifer Weiss, Raleigh Beth Ullmer, Asheville Margaret Horner, Leland Steve Miller, Asheville Jeannie McKinney, Durham Jane Laping, Asheville Ellen Chelmis, Asheville Sarah Gilliam, Asheville Sarah Davis, Raleigh Elizabeth Bonzo-Savage, Madison Mamie Colburn, Asheville Jackson Leonard, Greensboro Maxwell DeHoll, Asheville Graham March, Asheville Victoria Carlisle, Asheville Rhonda Bolton, Hendersonville Evan Willeford, Asheville Shelby Sopina, Raleigh Miles Neyen, Belmont Molly Turner, Asheville Banna Weldense, Asheville Kaia Rubin, Asheville Anna Emslie, Asheville Janet Smith, Greenville Patricia Hedrick, Charlotte Adam Reaves, Asheville Alan Spencer, Waynesville Nancy Hitchcock, Hendersonville John Coyle, Leland cleanenergy.org Clean Energy w Cathy Williams, Hayesville Gary Clontz, Clyde Doug Wingeier, Asheville Ann Karson, Candler Frank Contreras, Asheville Ann Kieffer, Asheville Elizabeth Adams, Cary Tennessee Marty Menane, Knoxville Lorraine Barker, Nashville Nicholas Stamper, Philadelphia Florida Britany Perry, Longwood Kimber Strawbridge, Jacksonville Janice Hallman, Clearwater Beach Sean McLaughlin, Clermont National Ash Management Advisory Board Dr. John L. Daniels, P.E. Dr. Jeffrey C. Evans, P.E. Dr. William E. Wolfe, P.E. Chair Groundwater Subcommittee Chair Closure Plan Subcommittee Chair Dr. Susan E. Burns, P.E., Member Mr. Bob Deacy, Member Dr. Garrick E. Louis, Member Dr. Patricia D. Galloway, P.E. Member and Project Management Oversight Board Chair Dr. Robert B. Jewell, Member Dr. Lawrence L. Sutter, Member Dr. Krishna R. Reddy, P.E., Member Dr. Joyce S. Tsuji, DABT, Member April 5, 2o16 Mr. Tom Reeder Assistant Secretary North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality 217 West Jones Street Raleigh, NC 27603 RE: National Ash Management Advisory Board Comments on Proposed Risk Classifications Dear Mr. Reeder, This letter is written in response to the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality's (DEO) request for public comment on its proposed risk classifications of coal ash impoundments. Our comments are directed at impoundments which have proposed classifications of low -intermediate, intermediate, and high, according to DEQ's application of the Coal Ash Management Act (CAMA). This letter has been compiled, reviewed and endorsed by the National Ash Management Advisory Board (NAMAB). Note that Duke Energy is required to actively maintain the NAMAB for compliance with its Plea Agreement, as per United States of America v. Duke Energy Business Services, LLC, and settlement in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Western Division. The NAMAB is an independent group of experts chartered through Duke Energy and managed by the University of North Carolina at Charlotte (UNC Charlotte). Board members provide advice to Duke Energy, but they are contracted with and report to UNC Charlotte. The NAMAB has been integrally involved in the review of groundwater assessment plans, comprehensive site assessments, and corrective action plans, which have been submitted to DEQ Likewise, it has participated in the review of stability and engineering related assessments and with the implementation of NAMAB-recommended health and environmental assessments of risk. While licensed professionals are responsible for these work products, the group is sufficiently aware of the site -specific conditions to which the CAMA risk classification criteria are being applied. For example, licensed engineers and geologists, with support from health and environmental risk assessors, have determined that there is no imminent hazard. Those same professionals have determined that existing conditions at these sites do not present a substantial likelihood that death, serious illness, severe personal injury, or a substantial endangerment to health, property, or the environment will occur. In the abstract, a risk classification system is logical. In reality, DEQs risk classification cannot be de -coupled from the prescriptive remedy approach defined by CAMA. A risk classification of intermediate or high (for instance high priority as prescribed in the case of Asheville, Dan River, Riverbend and Sutton) by law requires excavation and re - disposal to a new location without a scientific basis, and without consideration of broader immediate and life cycle impacts to communities and the environment. Moreover, aggressive closure schedules preclude the pursuit of beneficial use opportunities. Excavation of coal ash is one method of addressing site's groundwater or stability concerns. However, based on holistic and life cycle considerations, it may not be a safe, effective and sustainable alternative. Other alternatives either individually or in combinations, such as capping, monitored natural attenuation, slurry cutoff walls, in -place stabilization/fixation, pumping wells, permeable reactive barriers and volume reduction of impounded ash through escalation of beneficial use, should be considered and compared on an impoundment by impoundment basis to develop an effective, safe and sustainable remedial strategy. The efficacy of these alternative methods increases with the amount of ash in any given location, i.e., the larger the impoundment, the smarter we need to be. The environmental and geotechnical remediation business is very mature and has evolved beyond a "dig and haul" mentality as the best and most environmentally protective solution. The additional risk imposed by excavating and transporting ash from one location to another can exceed the potential risk posed by leaving the ash in place. Risk drivers include the statistical certainty of traffic fatalities and injuries, as tabulated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Likewise, excavation results in ecological disturbance, ongoing site releases from ash disturbance for years and broader environmental impacts from resource use and emissions, as noted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). These risks and impacts should be calculated and considered before embarking on the mass movement of tens of millions of tons of material. Licensed engineers and scientists have the education and experience needed to select and design the means, methods and timeline for closure activities. It may be appropriate for legislation to define the initiation of closure activities, but it should not stipulate a prescriptive approach with specific completion dates. The latter depends on site -specific details that are encountered as data are collected and professionally evaluated. This logic is understood by the environmental professionals as well as the EPA in reference to its approach to evaluating corrective action: "EPA understands that there are a variety of activities that may be necessary in order to select the appropriate remedy (e.g., discussions with affected citizens, state and local governments; conducting on -site studies or pilot projects); and, once selected, to implement the remedy (e.g., securing on -site utilities if needed, obtaining any necessary permits, etc.). That is why EPA does not find it appropriate to set specific timeframes for selecting the remedy or to begin implementing the selected remedy." This logic was incorporated into CAMA, given the provision for the Coal Ash Management Commission (CAMC). The CAMC existed to perform several tasks, one of which was to "Review and make recommendations on statutes and rules related to the management of coal ash". That provision was intended to allow for a statutory response to evolving data and analysis as has accumulated to date. Unless the CAMA language for intermediate and high risk (and for that matter, for high priority sites) is changed, the appropriate risk classification for virtually all impoundments is "Low". This is because a risk classification of "Low" allows for all options to be considered, including full excavation, supported by the science and engineering and protective of human health and the environment. This will allow DEQto review and approve a rational closure option that is protective of the public and environment, based on site -specific conditions. We would be pleased to meet with you or other DEQstaff at any time. Our board is composed of highly credentialed and published experts with many years of experience on the relevant subjects from here and abroad. And we are independent. Respectfully, Dr. John L. Daniels, P.E., Chair (Professor and Chair of Civil and Environmental Engineering, UNC Charlotte) Signed on behalf of entire NAMAB: Dr. Jeffrey C. Evans, P.E., Groundwater Subcommittee Chair (Professor and Chair of Mechanical Engineering, Bucknell University) Dr. William E. Wolfe, P.E., Closure Plan Subcommittee Chair (Professor Emeritus of Civil, Environmental and Geodetic Engineering, The Ohio State University) Dr. Patricia D. Galloway, P.E., member and Project Management Oversight Board Chair (President and CEO of Pegasus Global Holdings, Inc.) Dr. Susan E. Burns, P.E., member (Georgia Power Distinguished Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology) Dr. Robert B. Jewell, member (Senior Research Engineer, University of Kentucky) Dr. Lawrence L. Sutter, member (Professor of Materials Science and Engineering, Michigan Technological University) Dr. Garrick E. Louis, member (Associate Professor of Systems Engineering, University of Virginia and Science Advisor, U.S. Department of State) Mr. Bob Deacy, member (Senior Vice President, Tennessee Valley Authority) Dr. Krishna R. Reddy, P.E., member (Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Illinois at Chicago) Dr. Joyce S. Tsuji, DABT, member (Principal and Board -Certified Toxicologist, Exponent, Inc.)