VIII. Public Comment Summary Spreadsheet - Roxboro

Roxboro Public Comments
Name
Organization/ Affiliation/
Occupation
Date Received
How comment was
submitted
Comment Summary
BRODY DELGADO
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1 - Dear N.C. Department of Environmental Quality, I'm very concerned about two of Duke Energy's coal ash plants, the
Roxboro Steam Station and Mayo Steam Station, that were not ranked high priority. NC DEQ should require Duke to move all of their
leaking, unlined coal ash pits at these sites to safer, dry lined storage away from our waterways. Chromium, manganese, and other
dangerous pollutants have been detected at levels well above standards in groundwater near the coal ash pits at both sites. Chromium
particularly dangerous carcinogen, while manganese is associated with nervous system and muscle problems. Please rank Roxboro S
Station and Mayo Steam Station as high priority. The ponds at both of these sites are directly threatening communities. Capping in plat
not acceptable. Thank you.
E. Ken Ashworth
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2 - Dear N.C. Department of Environmental Quality, My family has lived in the South Boston, VA, area for over 200 years
very concerned about two of Duke Energy's coal ash plants, the Mayo Steam Station and the Roxboro Steam Station. Both of these sit
should be listed as high priority and should receive a full cleanup. This region already suffered when pipes burst at the Dan River site,
causing 39,000 tons of ash to gush into the Dan River. More than 287,000 people rely on drinking water intakes downstream from May
Roxboro. Because of their close proximity to each other --and the history of the Dan River spill --this area is uniquely affected by coal a:
contamination and should be protected by NC DEQ. Capping these leaking, unlined toxic coal ash pits in place will not protect downsti
communities from the threat of a dangerous dam failure or a disaster similar to the Dan River. Please require Duke Energy to move U
and Roxboro's dangerous coal ash to safer dry, lined storage away from rivers and groundwater sources. Thank you.
David Bates
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
atrick mann
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Meriel Shire
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Charlotte Dungan
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Tom O'Neal
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Robert Johnson
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Jeff Thomas
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Mark Richardson
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Thomas Quinn
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Teresa Woolverton
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Claudine Lewis
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Cathy Pescevich Kre lin
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Herbert House
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Francis Chandler
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Robert Stanzione
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Joe Grimes
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Br na Rapp
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
gary giles
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Todd O'Buckley
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Angela Vieth
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Phillip Kinnaird
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Tom Warren
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Sara Vernon
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Robert Griffin
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Soren Palmer
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Peter Stein
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Keith Levene
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Belinda Scott
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Paul Naylor
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Bree Kalb
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1 + I hope you can have some empathy for the people who live near these sites; they have been cheated of the peaceful a
healthy surroundings you and I enjoy every day.
NATASHA BATTLE
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Chris Hab ood
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Chris Jerrell
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Deborah Ferruccio
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
PEGGY RAY
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Sharon Beasley
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Phyllis Swank
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Bonnie Williams
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Miriam An ress
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Katherine Kovach
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
William Hardin
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Christine Westfall
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Betsey Granda
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Ken Thompson
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Gary Gartner
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Allen Bose
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Margaret Lucas
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Jim Thomas
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Michele A dlett
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Diahanne Payne
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Julia Holiman
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1 + The people and the environment are suffering due to corporate denial of responsibility.
Margaret M res
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
William Gaither
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
peter birckhead
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
karen carpenter
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Jill Luczkovich
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Brian Bolduc
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Patrick Gray
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Nicole Fouche
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Jim McKernan
professor
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
ted frazer
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Monika W
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1 + Why is this even aquestion? Their negligence caused the spill, they should clean it up.
Anne Cassebaum
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Jeffrey Collins
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Jim McKernan
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Bob Chaudoin
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Cheryl Hustvedt
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Amy Dosser
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Nina Gordev
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Thomas Struhsaker
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Katerena DePas uale
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Edhriz Siraliev
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Ella De blois
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Thomas Carson
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Tia Edwards
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Joe Gilbert
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Susan Olou hlin
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Joanne Nikides
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Bristol Bowman
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Elizabeth Albright
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Linda Barnett
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Charles Benz
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Benjamin Wheeler
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Carol Hay
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Amy Trester
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Brittany Scaturro
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Kristy Thompson
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Stewart Crank
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Collin Perry
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Paul Collins
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Katrina Wesson
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2

sammy braswell
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Ronald Mimnau h
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Pat Shane
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1 + The quality of our environment is critical to all citizens of NC. It is unconscionable to pollute it when it could have been
prevented. It is even more unacceptable NOT to do everything ossible to correct pollution that has occurred.
Jon Powell
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Ron Mimnau h
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
barbara kepley
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Matthew Fait
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Oscar Moncada
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Caroline Foster
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1 + I'm a new mother with a 9 week old baby. Stop jeopardizing the health of your constituents, many of whom are still
developing and are more negatively affected by pollutants than adults. You're playing with lives and futures, start acting like it.
Rebekah Keith
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Brett Meager
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1 + When I make a mess, I clean it up. Please do the same!
James Bowman
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Kevin McLaughlin
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Sarah Ambrose
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Rachel Scharfenber
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Waleska Domeneck
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Sandra Kroosw k
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Jerry Stubberfield
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Dave Rogers
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Ruth Efird
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Audrey Cooper
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Dolores Campbell
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Lorri Drozd k
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Lorelei DiBernardo
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Shane Sykes
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Joe Romano
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Michael Large
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
SheilaFirehair Spencer-Stoverr
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2 + The everyday citizens of North Carolina had nothing to do with this debacle, didn't ask for it, vote on it, in most case
weren't even aware. (so much for transparency) If I were to crash into someone's home, car, knock down a fence, the responsibilit
repair, making things right and proper once more ---on my back, no one else's. Duke should be held to the same rule of law. Duke did
Duke can fix it.
Michael Koren
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Sarah Olson Rogers
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Robert Love
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
E. Houston
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Donald Rumph
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Gillian lery
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Marilyn Dreamwalker Mejorado
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
AI son Boyer Rode
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Marion Edrin ton
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Gregory Taylor
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Charles Pettee
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Carl Stearns
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Chuck Williford
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Holly Woodard
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Audrey Urling
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Walter Davis
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2 + If Duke gets away with lax legislation and is not forced to really clean up the coal ash, what happens when they make a
nuclear mistake in judgment.
Paula Poe
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Don Narensky
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
George Phillips
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Beth Messersmith
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Martha Brimm
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Robert May
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Charley Rowe
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Ben Salemi
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Lisa Garber
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Clinton Cherry
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Victoria Spencer
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Mary Ellen Adams
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Teresa Baker
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Roy Cooper
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1 + And while you are at it, start investigating what or who is contaminating the Roanoke River & Gardners Creek in the
Jamesville area. For the past 40 years people living in this area has been told you can fish for the fish in these waters. But you can NC
any of the fish you catch. Now either some company here in NC upstream is putting contaminates in the water. Or a company in VA is.
Either way, it needs to be cleaned up.
Susan Leete
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
TrippCarter
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Brian Powell
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Candace L
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Susan Poe
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Lisette Fee
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
sam retsch bo art
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
John Mitchener
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Jeff Jenkins
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Michael Busko
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Jay Newhard
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Paul Cau hell
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Joyce Hudson
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Sarah Millikan
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Michael Strong
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Marc Pendergast
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Mary Stoudt
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
AnthonyMorgan
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
David Owens
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Julianne Ziefle
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Charles Webb
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Joanne Napoli
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Suzanne Everette
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Nancy Mueller
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Ruth Miller
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Steven Gohr
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Dorothy Bailey
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Jeff Klu er
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Kathryn Casey
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Edna PERRINE
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Erin Dodder
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Eric Lazzari
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Sue Newbrou h
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Arnold Gordon
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Marilyn Talbot
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Jon LaScala
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Neil Infante
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Melina Piluras
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Suzanne Edwards
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Carol Crowley
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
David Watson
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Sarba a Falk
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Rachele Dawn
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2

Jean Lang
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Will Rhem
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #3 - 1 am writing to urge you to enforce a full clean up of the Roxboro and Mayo coal ash ponds. Moving coal ash to dry line
storage away from waterways is the best solution to protect our communities and families. We deserve clean water that is free from co
ash contamination. Roxboro Steam Plant is one of Duke Energy's largest coal ash sites, with an estimated 19.4 million tons of coal as
stored in its leaking, unlined pits. Wastewater laden with toxic metals and other pollutants from Roxboro's multiple coal ash ponds is
discharged into Hyco Lake, the area's main destination for fishing and other recreation. More than 287,000 people rely on drinking watf
intakes downstream from the leaking, unlined coal ash pits at Duke Energy's Roxboro and Mayo sites. manganese- a toxic pollutant
associated with nervous system and muscle problems, chromium and other pollutants have been detected at levels well above state
standards in groundwater near the leaking, unlined coal ash pits at Duke Energy's Roxboro Power Station, according to groundwater
monitoring data from DEQ. The Mayo coal ash pond is an unlined, leaking impoundment of approximately 140 acres on Mayo Lake, it
Roxboro, NC. A family living near the Mayo Plant has been notified by NC DENR that their well water is not safe to drink or cook with,
to high levels of lead, sodium, and vanadium above NC DHHS health -based screening levels. How many more wells will be contamine
this coal ash is left in place? One thing is clear: coal ash is polluting our water. I strongly urge the McCrory administration to require Du
Energy to remove all coal ash from leaking coal ash pits to dry lined storage that will isolate the ash from our water.
Nancy Scott
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Adrienne Fabian
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Teresa Jefferys
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
KathyMills
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Susan Yarnell
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Hart Palmer
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Melinda Vann
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Alice Wieting
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Maureen dostert
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Elisha Gaha an
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Nathan Maxwell
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Braden Craig
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Joyce Pusel
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Tom Petzold
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
diane reed
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
John Wolfe
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
James Chambo
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Patricia Hill
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Josh Ligon
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Mary Price
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
stuart moon
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
carol ostrow
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
George Spruill
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Lisa Hamill
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
mf solomon
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
John Quante
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Betsy Bickel
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Linda Lesher
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Wanda Bass
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Felisa Meier
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
shelley frazier
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
david atkins
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
T maria Owens
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Elizabeth Gilson
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Linda Denton
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Michele Clark
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Alexis LaMere
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
John Wiles
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Kenneth Crews
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
'im prah
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
A. Giddings
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
an ela horan
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Paul Vau hn
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Barbara Stenross
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Vivienne Graves
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2 + They also should not be allowed to raise rates for the next 20 years- their customers should not pay for their mistakes.
Karen Phair
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Willis James
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2 + The fact that mccrory is an ex Duke energy employee should remove him from the DEQ. Is he still on the take from du
energy with campaign contributions? Didn't he reduce a cleanup cost in the millions to a few hundred thlousand dollars?
The current legislature is a public disgrace. How much have they been paid to pass legislation that is notgood for North Carolina. By t
way the state ranks in the bottom 5 in the country. A imbecile could do a better job than the legislators are doing and they woud not he
be paid off
Furaha Youngblood
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1 + I find it ironic that Governor McCrory, a former Duke Energy official, is dragging his feet on solving this important
environmental roblem.
Charlie Kelly
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Kathleen Spalding
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Lee Nelson
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
JC Honeycutt
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2 + If our state government lets Duke shirk their responsibilities on this, we might as well drop the name "North Carolina" ai
start calling ourselves "The Captive Vassals of Duke Power".
Sheila Jones
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
David Savi e
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Laura Brown
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #2
Jane Burgess
citizen
2/25/16
email
Comment #1
Robert Steele
citizen
2/26/16
email
Comment #2
Christine Heady
citizen
2/26/16
email
Comment #1
Jess Shell
citizen
2/26/16
email
Comment #2
Kevin O'Donnell
citizen
2/26/16
email
Comment #2
Cynthia Mastro
citizen
2/26/16
email
Comment #1
Patty Webb
citizen
2/26/16
email
Comment #2
Hannah Jacobs
citizen
2/26/16
email
Comment #2
Jacquelyn Kennedy
citizen
2/26/16
email
Comment #1
Anne Hodges-Copple
citizen
2/26/16
email
Comment #1
Deborah Starkey
citizen
2/26/16
email
Comment #2
Ann Koppelman
citizen
2/26/16
email
Comment #2
stacy Whiteni ht
citizen
2/26/16
email
Comment #2
Eric Waite
citizen
2/26/16
email
Comment #1
Adam Versen i
citizen
2/26/16
email
Comment #1
Christy Ann Saffle
citizen
2/26/16
email
Comment #2
Linda Tally
citizen
2/26/16
email
Comment #2
Elizabeth McWhorter
citizen
2/26/16
email
Comment #1
Jan Halle
citizen
2/26/16
email
Comment #1
Jayne Boyer
citizen
2/26/16
email
Comment #2
Julia Jessop
citizen
2/26/16
email
Comment #1
Leigh Lubasz
citizen
2/26/16
email
Comment #2
Burley Gentry
citizen
2/26/16
email
Comment #1 + I have lived around Mayo Creek Reservoir all my life even before there was a lake. I grew up in this area. My family he
lived in this area for hundreds of years. It has always been a beautiful community with natural springs abundant. The last think I want tc
happen is someone like Duke Power come into our community and basically dump harmful pollutants in our waterways and destry the
wildlife and pollute our drinking water. I don't care how big or little the leak is ANY AND ALL ARE UNACCEPTABLE! This land was her
way before Duke Power was and it is THEIR responsibility not to damage it and to clean up any mess they may incur! If you refuse to
then you are part of the problem as well and not performing your duties as you should. It is high time we start holding characters
accountable for their actions and stop letting them pay their way out of these issues. And to top it off, they should not be allowed to rai:
their rates to offset any cost for the clean up. That would be the same as having the community pay for their mistake. Any cap that is p
place should be a rates cap on the power they are supplying to the community. I think they should also be made to hold a public confer
and come clean of the problem and to state they are sorry and are willing to accept the responsibility of cleaning up their mess!

Leah Anderson
citizen
2/26/16
email
Comment #2
Margaret Clemen
citizen
2/26/16
email
Comment #2
Jeffrey Nicolaisen
citizen
2/26/16
email
Comment #1
John Arrington
citizen
2/26/16
email
Comment #1
Jan Glenn
citizen
2/26/16
email
Comment #4 - The Roxboro Steam Plant is one of Duke Energy's largest coal ash sites, with an estimated 33.4 million tons of ash on
of which 19.4 million tons is stored in leaking, unlined pits. The site has seven permitted outfalls, with two outfalls discharging directly i
Hyco Lake. Over 287,000 people rely on drinking water intakes downstream from the Roxboro site. In the last five reporting years, Dul
Energy disposed of over 1.6 million pounds of vanadium, over 700,000 pounds of chromium, and over 1.1 million pounds of mangane:
its Roxboro site. Chromium, manganese, and other pollutants have been detected at levels well above standards in groundwater near
coal ash pits at Duke Energy's Roxboro Power Station. Chromium has been detected at 327% above standard and manganese, which
associated with nervous system and muscle problems, has been detected at 732% above standard in nearby groundwater. I support th
Intermediate classification of the East Basin, but the West Basin should not be left for cap -in -place with a Low ranking. Due to its physi
location within the arms of a reservoir, the best solution is to excavate the ash and move it to a lined facility away from the current loco
The West Basin at Roxboro should be classified as Intermediate.
Peter Crow
citizen
2/26/16
email
Comment #4
Elaine Terrell
citizen
2/26/16
email
Comment #2
Adam Hartz
citizen
2/26/16
email
Comment #1
Joan Brannon
citizen
2/26/16
email
Comment #4
John Kane
citizen
2/26/16
email
Comment #2
Lori Rauch
citizen
2/26/16
email
Comment #1
Katie Baird
citizen
2/26/16
email
Comment #2
Nina Broadway
citizen
2/26/16
email
Comment #2
Martha Spencer
citizen
2/26/16
email
Comment #4
Lucia Welborne
citizen
2/26/16
email
Comment #1
Lenore Madeleine
citizen
2/26/16
email
Comment #4
bob coleman
citizen
2/26/16
email
Comment #1
Janine Tokarcz k
citizen
2/26/16
email
Comment #1
Earlene Gentry
citizen
2/26/16
email
Comment #1 + Here in Rockingham County we have seen this coal ash up close; this waste should be handled as "hazardous" and full
dealt with by Duke Energy at their expense.
Stephen Sample
citizen
2/26/16
email
Comment #2
Tracy Feldman
citizen
2/26/16
email
Comment #2
Anne MINNOTTE
citizen
2/27/16
email
Comment #2
Valerie Williams
citizen
2/27/16
email
Comment #2
David Hill
citizen
2/27/16
email
The Roxboro Power Station coal ash pits should be rated intermediate or higher to require removal of the ash to lined pits. The Dan R
ash release has already subjected the regional water to toxic pollution. Leaving any coal ash in the area in unlined pits will add further
toxics to the water supply. Passing the cost of ash pond remediation on to the public by Duke is criminal and should be investigated.
Julie Coleman
citizen
2/27/16
email
Comment #1
Suzanne Setti
citizen
2/27/16
email
Comment #1
Alison B
citizen
2/27/16
email
Comment #1
Fred Read
citizen
2/27/16
email
Comment #1
Don Nicholson
citizen
2/27/16
email
Comment #2
John Emerson
citizen
2/27/16
email
Comment #2
Mike Pucci
citizen
2/27/16
email
Comment #2
SARAH KAZDAN
citizen
2/27/16
email
Comment #1
Sherry Wilkins
citizen
2/27/16
email
Comment #2
Bracy Lilley
citizen
2/27/16
email
Comment #1 + When BIG COMPANIES make mistakes/ pollute the environment, THEY must pay to remedy it, just like the individual
CITIZEN/ VOTER would have to!!!! STOP CORPORATE WELFARE, please ...........
Darcy Szeremi
citizen
2/27/16
email
Comment #2
Arianne Hartsell-Gund
citizen
2/27/16
email
Comment #2
Debbie Burroughs
citizen
2/27/16
email
Comment #2
John Davis
citizen
2/27/16
email
Comment #2 + I am a public school teacher in Durham and I am especially concerned about the potential impact of these sites on chilc
given what we have seen happen to children in Flint Michigan recently.
BILLY TAYLOR
citizen
2/27/16
email
Comment #1
Todd Patton
citizen
2/28/16
email
Comment #1
James Cooke
citizen
2/28/16
email
Comment #2
theresa mcaskill
citizen
2/28/16
email
Comment #2
Kuranda Kasatka
citizen
2/28/16
email
Comment #1
Robert McCormick
citizen
2/28/16
email
Comment #1
Lisa Garabedian
citizen
2/28/16
email
Comment #1
Nancy Gar is
citizen
2/29/16
email
Comment #4
Teresa Baker
citizen
2/29/16
email
Comment #1
Maria Kelly
citizen
2/29/16
email
Comment #1
Charles Sto ford
citizen
3/1/16
email
Comment #2
April Ballance
citizen
3/1/16
email
Comment #2
Sally Moseley
citizen
3/1/16
email
Comment #2
Jerry Perlmutter
citizen
3/1/16
email
Comment #1
Mark Shipman
citizen
3/2/16
email
Comment #1
Linda Naylor
citizen
3/2/16
email
Comment #1
Stacey Lawless
citizen
3/2/16
email
Comment #1
Mike Pucci
Pcitizen, Roanoke River
Basin Association
3/2/16
email
Comment #1
Deborah Winegar
citizen
3/2/16
email
Comment #4
Maryann Pitman
citizen
3/2/16
email
Comment #2
Lisa Hughes
citizen
3/3/16
email
Being a citizen of Mcghees Mill Rd with the plant basically in my back yard my water has not been tested by Progress Energy. It appea
they do not have concerns with the long term citizens who have lived this close to the plant.. Test the water until it stops testing positiv,
Amy Adams
citizen
3/3/16
email
Comment #4
First northcarolina Last northcarolina
Sierra Club
3/3/16
email
Comment #3
Marie Garlock
citizen
3/3/16
email
Comment #2
Barbara Conrad
citizen
3/3/16
email
Comment #2
abby bailey
citizen
3/3/16
email
Comment #4
Stuart Mandel
citizen
3/3/16
email
Comment #4
Tom McKay
citizen
3/3/16
email
Comment #4
Sharon Olson
citizen
3/3/16
email
Comment #4
Laura Hill
citizen
3/3/16
email
Comment #4
Robert Schwartz
citizen
3/3/16
email
Comment #4
Anne Jones
citizen
3/3/16
email
Comment #4
Eric Teagarden
citizen
3/4/16
email
Comment #2 + Leaving coal ash in place is NOT a cleanup plan! All communities deserve clean water --it's past time for Duke Energy
remove its coal ash from leaking, unlined pits across North Carolina to safer dry, lined storage away from our waterways and groundwE
Jerri Andrews
citizen
3/4/16
email
Comment #2
Leona Whichard
citizen
3/4/16
email
Comment #2
Kelly McQuoid
citizen
3/4/16
email
Comment #2
Judith Porter
citizen
3/5/16
email
Comment #4
Sean Purdy
citizen
3/6/16
email
Comment #1
D. Grady
citizen
3/6/16
email
Comment #2
Nate Lotze
citizen
3/7/16
email
Comment #2
Carolyn Turner
citizen
3/7/16
email
Two of Duke Energy's coal ash plants, the Roxboro Steam Station and Mayo Steam Station, were not ranked high priority, BUT they ni
to be. NC DEQ should require Duke to move ALL of their leaking, unlined coal ash pits at these sites to safer, dry lined storage away fr
our waterways. Please rank Roxboro Steam Station and Mayo Steam Station as high priority. The ponds at both of these sites are dire)
threateninq communities. Capping in place is Oust not enough.
Philip Haradon
citizen
3/8/16
email
Comment #2
Bristol Bowman
citizen
3/9/16
email
Comment #3
James Jackson
citizen
3/9/16
email
Comment #3
Debra Kinney
citizen
3/9/16
email
Comment #3
Shoshanah Naiman
citizen
3/9/16
email
Comment #3
Bob Rosen
citizen
3/9/16
email
Comment #3
Thomas O'Neal
citizen
3/9/16
email
Comment #3

Paul Naylor
citizen
3/9/16
email
Comment #3
Michael David Loven
citizen
3/9/16
email
Comment #3
Melissa Grcich
citizen
3/9/16
email
Comment #3
Justin Pearce
citizen
3/9/16
email
Comment #3
Dorothy Osborn
citizen
3/9/16
email
Comment #3
William M Harrison Jr
citizen
3/9/16
email
Comment #3
Wendy Waugh
citizen
3/9/16
email
Comment #3
mf solomon
citizen
3/9/16
email
Comment #3
Kenneth George
citizen
3/9/16
email
Comment #3
Emily Pakes
citizen
3/9/16
email
Comment #3
Joyce Pusel
citizen
3/9/16
email
Comment #3
David Galloway
citizen
3/9/16
email
Comment #3
Robert Schafer
citizen
3/9/16
email
Comment #3
Shelley Tsui
citizen
3/9/16
email
Comment #3
Eva Rogers
citizen
3/9/16
email
Comment #3
Claudia Kaplan
citizen
3/9/16
email
Comment #3
Earlene Gentry
citizen
3/9/16
email
Comment #2 + As a landowner in Rockingham County, I am highly concerned about leaching from unlined storage because my proper
one location reaches very close to the Dan River. Do all you can, please, to ensure clean water for all NC citizens.
Candace L
citizen
3/9/16
email
Comment #3
Monika Winchester
citizen
3/9/16
email
Comment #3 + There is no time for a long, slow clean up, if that is even slated for these two sites. They need to be cleaned up now.
Poisoned water supplies poison humans and animals. The lesson from Flint, Michigan, even though it was the diversion of water into I
pipes, should have taught Everyone involved in water quality that this is no game. It's time to get serious and do something NOW.
Leigh Anne Bella
citizen
3/9/16
email
Comment #3
Eleanor Eltoft
citizen
3/9/16
email
Comment #3
Waleska Domeneck
citizen
3/9/16
email
Comment #1
Waleska Domeneck
citizen
3/9/16
email
Comment #3
Erica Brierley
citizen
3/9/16
email
Comment #3
Evelyn Giefer
citizen
3/9/16
email
Comment #3
Kate Pierse
citizen
3/9/16
email
Comment #3
Angela Vieth
citizen
3/9/16
email
Comment #3
Asia Rumse
citizen
3/9/16
email
Comment #3
Tat'ana Adams
citizen
3/9/16
email
Comment #3
Harriette Frank
citizen
3/9/16
email
Comment #3
Marie Garlock
citizen
3/9/16
email
Comment #3
Ed Mathis
citizen
3/9/16
email
Comment #3
Susan Hindman
citizen
3/9/16
email
Comment #3
Deb Oakley
citizen
3/9/16
email
Comment #3
Karen Phair
citizen
3/9/16
email
Comment #3
Dorothy Gilbert
citizen
3/9/16
email
Comment #3
Maria Salgado
citizen
3/9/16
email
Comment #3
Viv Graves
citizen
3/9/16
email
Comment #3
Stephen Sample
citizen
3/9/16
email
Comment #3
Carol Young
citizen
3/9/16
email
Comment #3
Christopher Loftis
citizen
3/9/16
email
Comment #3
Becky Wilkes
citizen
3/10/16
email
Comment #3
Doris Hinson
citizen
3/10/16
email
Comment #3
Dennis Wilkerson
citizen
3/10/16
email
Comment #3
Anne Saulter
citizen
3/10/16
email
Comment #3
Vince Winskunas
citizen
3/10/16
email
Comment #3
Benjamin Wheeler
citizen
3/10/16
email
Comment #3
Miranda McCraw
citizen
3/10/16
email
Comment #3
Annette Sheppard
citizen
3/10/16
email
Comment #3
Pamela Lee
citizen
3/10/16
email
Comment #3
Eva Mo ensen
citizen
3/10/16
email
Comment #3
Martha Brimm
citizen
3/10/16
email
Comment #3
Diana Gray
citizen
3/10/16
email
Comment #3
Lynn Mendes
citizen
3/10/16
email
Comment #4
Holly Potthoff
citizen
3/11/16
email
Comment #3
Tom Edmonds
citizen
3/11/16
email
1 am very concerned about Duke Energy's classification of the Roxboro Hyco Lake plant for coal ash cleanup. As a citizen living on Hy
Lake I feel very strongly that the site should be classified as High Priority and receive a full cleanup. Coal ash leaching into ground wat
acquifers poses a significant health threat for local citizens without access to publicly treated water. We depend upon ground water for
drinking and other household uses and therefore need every assurance that we will not be poisoned by contaminated ground or surfac(
water from this or any other source.
Tanya Jisa
citizen
3/11/16
email
Comment #1
Katel n Redfoot
citizen
3/11/16
email
Comment #1
Fuller Caton
citizen
3/11/16
email
Comment #3
Kurt Weaver
citizen
3/13/16
email
Comment #3
Dale Eltoft
citizen
3/13/16
email
Comment #3
Lynn Mendes
citizen
3/14/16
email
Comment #4
Charles Davis
citizen
3/16/16
email
Comment #1
Lisa Garber
citizen
3/16/16
email
Comment #3
Sybil Evans
citizen
3/16/16
email
Comment #2
Emily Feidelson
citizen
3/17/16
email
Comment #3
Bryon Sundberg
citizen
3/18/16
email
Comment #2
Wyman Whipple
citizen
3/20/16
email
Comment #4
Kay Rimmer
citizen
3/20/16
email
1 have a lake house on Hyco lake and my concern is how does the coal ash play into all the cancer we have here in Person County? N
mother pass away due to cancer and she camped at the lake just about every weekend during the summer and ate the fish. She live r
from the power plant in the Chub Lake area. My dads boat seats would get burn by the flying ash all the time or leave a black film . Ha:
already otten into our wells? I hoe you will put our lakes back at the top as high risk.
Carol Hoke
citizen
3/21/16
email
Comment #4
Oscar Revilla
citizen
3/21/16
email
Comment #4
Jessica Heflin
citizen
3/23/16
email
It is very disappointing to read this article in the Courier Times about the lack of interest in solving a pollution issue that puts citizens at
kind of risk. I have heard customers n my store talk about their friends and neighbors not being able to even take showers because the
water is polluted. THIS IS A PROBLEM. Humans have the right to Life, Liberty and Property; especially us as Americans. So, im aakin
please reconsider your decisions with these families in mind, whom as citizens of Person County, have enough to worries and clean w�
should NOT be one of them. Think about our home we share, Mother Earth. What is the outlook for our future if we continue to disrega
these issues while they're still maintainable? Careless!!
Wanda Jones
citizen
3/24/16
email
Comment #1
Bradley Mefford
citizen
3/24/16
email
Comment #4
r worrell
citizen
3/24/16
email
Comment #4
Pam Bloom
citizen
3/25/16
email
Comment #4
Janet Smith
citizen
3/25/16
email
Comment #4
Martha Cunningham
citizen
3/25/16
email
Comment #4
Leslie Po lawski
citizen
3/26/16
email
Comment #4
Tom Sander
citizen
3/29/16
email
Comment #2
Karolyn &Richard Mangeot
out of state citizen
3/31/16
email
1 am writing about the Roxboro Steam Plant because my husband and I are planning a move to Rougemont later this year. I can truly say that we
NOT interested in moving to a community or a state where safe drinking water is a concern. Everything I've read about the Roxboro Steam Plant
ash pits alarms us as two of the 287,000 people rely on drinking water from a well downstream from the Roxboro site. We clearly are concerned ;
the chromium, manganese, and other pollutants in groundwater near the coal ash pits at Duke Energy's Roxboro Power Station. Because of this
strongly urge you to insist on classified the Roxboro West Basin as intermediate and excavating the West Basin ash and moving it to a lined facilit
somewhere else. The Intermediate classification of the East Basin appears to be appropriate. Thank you from two future citizens.
Sandra Tucker
citizen
4/3/16
email
Comment #4
scott karns
citizen
4/3/16
email
Comment #4

leaders spoke out across NC. The attached document contains the statement and names of leaders near the Roxboro area who signed on to ask tl
their community be protected. Coal ash is in leaking, unlined pits across the state and contains toxins, such as lead, mercury, arsenic, and hexava
chromium, none of which we want in our waterways or drinking water supplies. The undersigned individuals ask that state government leaders al
state regulators take appropriate action to require the removal of coal ash out of all unlined pits and into safer lined storage away from waterway
Byrd Blackwell
Roxboro City Council
4/6/16
email
community is low priority.
"We, the undersigned elected officials, are concerned about the danger coal ash presents for our communities. Coal ash is currently found in leak
unlined pits across the state and contains a toxic slurry of heavy metals that threaten nearby communities. We ask that state government leaders
state regulators take appropriate action to require the removal of coal ash out of all unlined pits and into safer lined storage away from our water
Please ensure that coal ash ponds and landfills do not put at risk the safety, health, and economic well-being of downstream communities, receivi
leaders spoke out across NC. The attached document contains the statement and names of leaders near the Roxboro area who signed on to ask tl
their community be protected. Coal ash is in leaking, unlined pits across the state and contains toxins, such as lead, mercury, arsenic, and hexava
chromium, none of which we want in our waterways or drinking water supplies. The undersigned individuals ask that state government leaders al
state regulators take appropriate action to require the removal of coal ash out of all unlined pits and into safer lined storage away from waterway
Nate Hall
Caswell Co Commissioner
4/6/16
email
community is low priority.
"We, the undersigned elected officials, are concerned about the danger coal ash presents for our communities. Coal ash is currently found in leak
unlined pits across the state and contains a toxic slurry of heavy metals that threaten nearby communities. We ask that state government leaders
state regulators take appropriate action to require the removal of coal ash out of all unlined pits and into safer lined storage away from our water
Please ensure that coal ash ponds and landfills do not put at risk the safety, health, and economic well-being of downstream communities, receivi
Dr. Schwartz
citizen
4/6/16
email
Comment #4
Jesse Boeckermann
citizen
4/6/16
email
Comment #4
William, Margaret Holcomb & FAMILY
citizen
4/6/16
email
Comment #4
John Dimling
citizen
4/6/16
email
Comment #4
Kenneth A Byrd
citizen
4/6/16
email
Comment #4
Beth Stanberry
citizen
4/6/16
email
Comment #4
James Davidson
citizen
4/6/16
email
Comment #4
John O'Connor
citizen
4/6/16
email
Comment #4
Stephanie Langston
citizen
4/6/16
email
Comment #4
Nancy Khoury
citizen
4/6/16
email
Comment #4
rebecca hurd
citizen
4/6/16
email
Comment #4
Martin Hazeltine
citizen
4/6/16
email
Comment #4
Robert Sondgerath
citizen
4/6/16
email
Comment #4
William Van Hine
citizen
4/6/16
email
Comment #4
Mary Fields
citizen
4/6/16
email
Comment #4
Barbara Cerridwen
citizen
4/6/16
email
Comment #4
Kate Fleming
citizen
4/6/16
email
Comment #4
Laura England
citizen
4/6/16
email
Comment #4
Meg Morgan
citizen
4/6/16
email
Comment #4
James Schall
citizen
4/6/16
email
Comment #4
Christi Dillon
citizen
4/7/16
email
Comment #4
Melanie Porter
citizen
4/8/16
email
Comment #4
Donald Dawson
citizen
4/8/16
email
Comment #4
James Stone
citizen
4/8/16
email
Comment #4
Jeff Hibbard
citizen
4/9/16
email
Comment #4
Eric Witt
citizen
4/10/16
email
Comment #2
ear Mr. Reeder, I his letter is written in response to the North Uarolina Uepartment oT Environmentalua i y s request or pubi
comment on its proposed risk classifications of coal ash impoundments. Our comments are directed at impoundments which have prol
classifications of low -intermediate, intermediate, and high, according to DEQ's application of the Coal Ash Management Act (CAMA). I
letter has been compiled, reviewed and endorsed by the National Ash Management Advisory Board (NAMAB). Note that Duke Energy
required to actively maintain the NAMAB for compliance with its Plea Agreement, as per United States of America v. Duke Energy BuE
Services, LLC, and settlement in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Western Division. The NAM
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 haE
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 wit
implementation of NAMAB-recommended health and environmental assessments of risk. While licensed professionals are responsible
these work products, the group is sufficiently aware of the site -specific conditions to which the CAMA risk classification criteria are beir
applied. For example, licensed engineers and geologists, with support from health and environmental risk assessors, have determined
there is no imminent hazard. Those same professionals have determined that existing conditions at these sites do not present a substa
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, DEQ's risk classification cannot be de -coupled from the prescrip
Dr. John Daniels
Chair of NAMAB
4/5/16
email
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, an,
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
stability concerns. However, based on holistic and life cycle considerations, it may not be a safe, effective and sustainable alternative.
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 benefic
use, should be considered and compared on an impoundment by impoundment basis to develop an effective, safe and sustainable ren
strategy. The efficacy of these alternative methods increases with the amount of ash in any given location, i.e., the larger the impounds
the smarter we need to be. The environmental and geotechnical remediation business is very mature and has evolved beyond a "dig a
haul" mentality as the best and most environmentally protective solution. The additional risk imposed by excavating and transporting E
from one location to another can exceed the potential risk posed by leaving the ash in place. Risk drivers include the statistical certaini
traffic fatalities and injuries, as tabulated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Likewise, excavation results in ecologi
disturbance, ongoing site releases from ash disturbance for years and broader environmental impacts from resource use and emission
noted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). These risks and impacts should be calculated and considered before emba
the power plant sold scoops of coal ash for $10 in the 1980s, not knowing the dangers citizens spread it on their driveways, then told la
Phillip Bentley
citizen
3/23/16
USPS letter
could get into their wells / hold Duke to a high classification / why is Duke only sending bottled water to certain families?, Duke should
supply water to all neighbors until cleanup is fullfilled
Michaela Coleman
citizen
4/11/16
email
Comment #4
Erica Gunnison
citizen
4/11/16
email
Comment #4
I believe the State should classify the Roxboro plant as high risk until more well water is tested. Wells tested outside the 1\2 mile have also shown
citizen
4/12/16
email
contamination and do not drink letters have been issued. I believe it to be very negligent on Duke Energy's part not to make sure that the citizens it
L Hughes
area are made to feel comfortable in their living environment. Move the ash to a lined facility away from current location.
Connie Raper
citizen
4/12/16
email
Comment #3
Dear Mr Ed Mussler, This communication is following up from the DEQ meeting in Roxboro regarding the decision by the DEQ to classify the Coal
ponds at the Roxboro and Mayo plants as Class 1. I'm writing to express my concern about this decision and request the DEQ to insist upon remo\
the coal ash from these (and all) containment areas. There is no doubt that this coal ash poses a threat to the environment and citizens of Persor
County. There is an immediate risk to all people who already have contaminated wells and a future risk as the coal ash spreads further. The
information relayed at the DEQ meeting in Roxboro indicated the contamination is already spreading into the water table. As a biologist, I cannot
UCB Biosciences
understand any reason for leaving this residue in the ground in its current state, while there is huge potential for a negative impact on the surrou
Charles Howerton
4/12/16
email
Consultant
community. As a citizen, I look toward the DEQ to protect the environment. Leaving the coal ash in the ground in its current condition indicates t
the DEQ is not protecting the environment, citizens, and future welfare of the Person County area. There were great questions brought up at the
meeting regarding how the Person County sites were reclassified within 1 month of their original Level 2 and Level 3 categories. It was very conv
that DEQ response was we are not able to provide responses to questions. A failure to act at this time an insist upon removal of the coal ash mak
DEQ a knowing contributor to any future damages this coal ash will cause. Are you and DEQ prepared to accept that responsibility. If not, act no,
Reclassify the Roxboro and Mayo sites and remove the Coal Ash now.
Brian Sewell
citizen
4/13/16
email
Comment #4
Matthew Wasson
citizen
4/13/16
email
Comment #4
Adam Wells
citizen
4/13/16
email
Comment #4
Allison Verling
citizen
4/13/16
email
Comment #4
Lauren Essick
citizen
4/13/16
email
Comment #4
James Davidson
citizen
4/13/16
email
Comment #4
Andy Myers
citizen
4/13/16
email
Comment #4
Katie Harris
citizen
4/13/16
email
Comment #4
Margie MacDonald
citizen
4/13/16
email
Comment #4

Amalie Duvall
citizen
4/13/16
email
Comment #4
Elizabeth Payne
citizen
4/13/16
email
Comment #4
Jeffrey Deal
citizen
4/13/16
email
Comment #4
Denise DerGarabedian
citizen
4/13/16
email
Comment #4
Jeannie Yount
citizen
4/13/16
email
Comment #4
Rory Mcllmoil
citizen
4/14/16
email
Comment #4
LINDA JAMISCN
citizen
4/14/16
email
Comment #4
WAYNE WINSTEAD
citizen
4/14/16
email
Comment #4
Sandra Winstead
citizen
4/14/16
email
Comment #4
Brenda Wayne Wyatt
citizen
4/14/16
email
Comment #4
Eliza Laubach
citizen
4/14/16
email
Comment #4
Patricia Hill
citizen
4/14/16
email
Comment #4 + Due to a recent study done by Duke University that find changing coal ash from aerobic to anaerobic by capping increases leachin€
arsenic into the ground water, I believe that all ash should be placed into a lined monofill on site. Although I do believe that there are even safer
alternatives.
Loyd Poole
citizen
4/13/16
USPS letter
Dear Duke Power Coal Ash Roxboro Power Station, I Loyd Poole classify Roxboro, N.C. as "high risk" coal ash. The coal ash is still leaking on a daily
which contaminates surrounding groundwater. More ground water needs to be tested from the nearby drinking water well draws from. They hav
tested 19 wells within 1/2 mile and there are 47 property owners and it's not fair that everybody water is not being tested. Thank You Loyd Poole
Nick Torrey
SELC
3/16/16
PublicHearing Oral
Community not low priority / deserves same cleanupn level as Charlotte, Wilmington & Asheville / DEQ doing diservice if allowed Duk,
cap in place / can't expect problem to go away w/ capping, must clean it up, not cover it up / request all 3 basins be high priority / after
registered speakers spoke, Nick spoke again - heard about teh science adn whether coal ash is contaminating people's wells / heard fr(
Duke that it's a fact there is no groundwater contamination, this is NOT true / DEQ said after rewivice of teh assessmetn reports, the da
was so inadequate in teh anaylsis of the extent of the contamination that we don't know the degree of contamination in the wells / big
success of cleaning up coal ash in SC, specfically Santee Cooper / Santee C000per is cleaning up all of their sites, win for the compna
win for the community, cleaning up without raises rates, actually creating jobs / same could be true for NC
Eva Hester
citizen
4/14/16
email
Personally I feel like Roxboro should be classified as high risk. They want us to believe that the water is clean when we know it's not. The CSA clan
that wells within 1500 ft down gradient of the boundary and claims low risk to supply wells, but groundwater flow at supply well depths has not L
adequately defined. There are 47 property owners and 17 structures within 1/2 mile of the pits, but only 19 wells have been tested. Therefore,sa)
Roxboro was not at risk would be false. Thanks.
Vickie McIver
citizen
4/14/16
email
Although u e claims the water is sae to drink I still think ox oro should e considered ig risk. If the water was that safe there would've been
need for letters in the first place. Of 47 properties and 17 structures only 19 wells have been tested. That's not even half therefore their conclusion t1
water is safe is invalid. Even with the tests the wells tested have shown serious exceedances along with the receiving of "do not drink" letters. By th
information provided saying Roxboro is not high risk wouldn't be accurate. Thanks.
Herb Pomfrey
citizen
4/14/16
email
Comment #4
Sue Crotts
citizen
4/14/16
email
Comment #4
Eric Teagarden
citizen
4/14/16
email
Comment #4
Scott Teagarden
citizen
4/15/16
email
Comment #4
Nicki Faircloth
citizen
4/15/16
email
Comment #4
Molly Moore
citizen
4/15/16
email
Comment #4
Helen Livingston
citizen
4/15/16
email
Comment #4
Abigail Huggins
citizen
4/15/16
email
Comment #4
Andrew Huggins
citizen
4/15/16
email
Comment #4
Dennis Huggins
citizen
4/15/16
email
Comment #4
Jan Huggins
citizen
4/15/16
email
Comment #4
Rachel Minick
citizen
4/15/16
email
Comment #4
Edward Thompson
citizen
4/16/16
email
Comment #4
Joe Bearden
citizen
4/16/16
email
Comment #4
Karen Bearden
citizen
4/16/16
email
Comment #4
Jeremy Sprinkle
citizen
4/16/16
email
Comment #4
Rachel Larson
citizen
4/16/16
email
Comment #4
monte brown
citizen
4/16/16
email
Comment #1 + Like Life there is no "do over" or mulligan in this one. Hyco is the third largest coal plant in America and needs to be cle
up NOW so please do the right thing take the actions required to clean it up. Follow your mothers advice. If it is worth doing it is wortl•
doing right.
Jeanne Brown
citizen
4/16/16
email
The purpose of my letter is to request that Duke Energy's coal ash plants, the Roxboro and Mayo Steam Stations, be designated as "H
Priority/High Risk" and that they be fully cleaned up. The data speaks for itself: In the last five reporting years, Duke Energy disposed
over 1.6 million pounds of vanadium, over 700,000 pounds of the chromium, and over 1.1 million pounds of manganese at its Roxborc
The polluted groundwater at the Roxboro site flows directly into Hyco Lake, as Duke's own reports admit. Full clean up as opposed to
capping in place is critical to maintaining the long-term health and usability of Hyco Lake's many users including residents of the 1,40(
houses on the lake, recreational boaters, local fishermen and others. Furthermore, removal of the toxic ash to a safe, lined facility is a
critically important step in protecting local groundwater and downstream water sources. This region, which houses three separate enerc
producing plants for the people from Virginia to South Carolina, deserves your protection. Thank you.
John Norton
citizen
4/16/16
email
Comment #1
Rosa Milne
citizen
4/16/16
email
Comment #3
John and Elizabeth Norton
citizen
4/16/16
email
Comment #1 + Pollutants need to be moved from the site to prevent further pollution of the lake and groundwater.
David Kirsh
citizen
4/16/16
email
Comment #3
Lisa Erwin Davidson
citizen
4/16/16
email
Comment #3
Ronald Mimnaugh
citizen
4/16/16
email
Comment #3
Daniel Duonnolo
citizen
4/16/16
email
Comment #3
Alyson Boyer Rode
citizen
4/16/16
email
Comment #3
Gary Brown
citizen
4/16/16
email
Comment #3
Susan Chapman
citizen
4/16/16
email
Comment #3
Carol Johnson
citizen
4/16/16
email
Comment #4 + I am a scientist who studies the fate of metal pollutants in environments similar to coal ash ponds, and my colleagues s
toxic metals in coal ash samples. I have PhD in Geosciences from Virginia Tech (field of geochemistry) and am currently a researcher a
Duke University in Environmental Engineering. I am writing to urge you to enforce a full clean up of the Roxboro and Mayo coal ash pc
Moving coal ash to dry lined storage away from waterways is the best solution to protect our communities and families. We deserve c
water that is free from coal ash contamination.
Betsy Barlow
citizen
4/16/16
email
Comment #3
Howard Faulkner
citizen
4/16/16
email
Comment #3
Stacynicole Robinson
citizen
4/16/16
email
Comment #3
Lawrence and Harriette Frank
citizen
4/16/16
email
Comment #3
Betsy Buchanan
citizen
4/16/16
email
Comment #3
Scott Wegener
citizen
4/16/16
email
Comment #3
Veronica Palmer
citizen
4/16/16
email
Comment #3
Stephen Lang
citizen
4/16/16
email
Comment #3
Susan Mcfall
citizen
4/16/16
email
Comment #3
Shirley Cason
citizen
4/16/16
email
Comment #3
Ellie Mayer
citizen
4/16/16
email
Comment #3
Linda Cullen
citizen
4/16/16
email
Comment #3
Neil And Sharon Freedman
citizen
4/16/16
email
Comment #3
Robert du Rivage
citizen
4/16/16
email
Comment #4
Joseph Mazza
citizen
4/16/16
email
Comment #3
E Jezierski
citizen
4/16/16
email
Comment #3
Dimitri Putilin
citizen
4/16/16
email
Comment #3
Dr. Manijeh Berenji Md, Mph
citizen
4/16/16
email
Comment #3
Steve Haughton
citizen
4/17/16
email
Comment #3
Linda Tally
citizen
4/17/16
email
Comment #3
Dawn Goodman
citizen
4/17/16
email
Comment #3
Samuel Grossinger
citizen
4/17/16
email
Comment #3

I write as a well water user living not too far from the Mayo and Roxboro coal ash pits and I ask you to carefully consider the imp
your decision on the people of Person County. As was presented in the March 16 meeting in Roxboro (and not disputed!), the co,
in Duke Energy's Roxboro and Mayo unlined ponds extends down to the groundwater level. The "Do not drink" orders to NC fai
living near coal ash ponds were not issued based on nothing and no evidence. It is thus small comfort to hear that a mere
upgrade allows for a reclassification of these local sites from high to low risk. As becomes clear from the report of your office,
classification remains "low risk" then excavation is not required as it is for the intermediate and high risk ponds. We have the
Tatjana Adams
citizen
4/17/16
email
common sense to know that this is potentially a decision that will impact us for generations. A piece of land and a home mak
almost all of the wealth that most of the lower and middle income people living here have to pass , deserves your protection.
you.the environment, citizens, and future welfare of the Person County area. There were great questions brought up at the
meeting regarding how the Person County sites were reclassified within 1 month of their original Level 2 and Level 3 categori
was very convenient that DEQ response was we are not able to provide responses to questions. A failure to act at this time an
upon removal of the coal ash makes DEQ a knowing contributor to any future damages this coal ash will cause. Are you and
prepared to accept that responsibility. If not, act now. Reclassify the Roxboro and Mayo sites and remove the Coa
now.vironmental risk assessors, have determined that there is no imminent hazard. Those same professio
Julia Sendor
citizen
4/17/16
email
Comment #4
Sheila Jones
citizen
4/17/16
email
Comment #3
Katherine Rosati
citizen
4/17/16
email
Comment #3
Leah Smith
citizen
4/17/16
email
Comment #4
Peggy Ray
citizen
4/17/16
email
Comment #3
1 would like to say that I'm outraged that Duke Energy hasn't taken responsibility for their actions and it's time that they do
My family has lived in an area that has been constantly polluted for years. It's become a scary situation knowing that our w
water is contaminated. We shouldn't have to go to the laundromat to do our laundry when we have washer and dryer
appliances in our home, or go to other family members' home to wash our hair because we're afraid that our hair will fall oL
Gail Winstead
citizen
4/17/16
email
use bottle waters for drinking and cooking. This has become very expensive and downright absurd. I believe it's appalling tf
my family has to fear for their health because a billion dollar corporation can't discard pollutants in a safe place that doesn't
affect people. Duke Energy knows exactly what they're doing and it simply not right. Why should we have to continue to su
Our well has been tested, and we've received a letter to not drink the water. So what does that honestly tell you? I can
confidently say that I classify Roxboro as high risk for contaminates.
Michael Busko
citizen
4/17/16
email
Comment #3
For the past 25 years we have lived and owned 4 different homes and property on Hyco Lake, NC. We very concerned about two of DL
Energy's coal ash plants, the Roxboro Steam Station and the Mayo Steam Station. Both of these sites should be listed as high priority a
should receive a full cleanup. The Roxboro Steam Plant is one of Duke Energy's largest coal ash sites, with an estimated 27.5 million to
coal ash stored in the leaking, unlined pits on site, including ash stored in portions of Hyco Lake. The 1973 West Basin, 1966 East Basin,
the recently discovered Eastern Extension of the East Basin at Roxboro should all be designated as High Risk because the ash is stored
portions of Hyco Lake and is deeply submerged in the groundwater. The ash must be excavated to remove it from public waters and st
the ongoing pollution. This region already suffered when pipes burst at the Dan River site, causing 39,000 tons of ash to gush into the I
River. More than 287,000 people rely on drinking water intakes downstream from Mayo and Roxboro. Because of their close proximit),
each other --and the history of the Dan River spill --this area is uniquely affected by coal ash contamination and should be protected by
DEQ. Capping these leaking, unlined toxic coal ash pits in place will not protect downstream communities from the threat of a dangerc
dam failure or a disaster similar to the Dan River. Please require Duke Energy to move Mayo and Roxboro's dangerous coal ash to safe
lined storage away from rivers and groundwater sources. Chromium, manganese and other pollutants have been detected at levels wl
Mary Ann and Herbert Fuchs
citizen
4/18/16
email
above standards in groundwater near the leaking, unlined coal ash pits at Duke Energy's Roxboro Power Station --for example, chromiL
has been detected at 327% above the groundwater standard and manganese associated with nervous system and muscle problems at
732% above the standard in nearby groundwater. In the last five reporting years, Duke Energy disposed of over 1.6 million pounds of
vanadium, over 700,000 pounds of the chromium, and over 1.1 million pounds of manganese at its Roxboro site. The polluted groundv
at the Roxboro site flows directly into Hyco Lake, as Duke's own reports admit. Groundwater levels measured at the site and reported
Duke's Comprehensive Site Assessment show that the coal ash at Roxboro extends over 70 feet deep into the groundwater in the 197'
basin and over 50 feet deep into the groundwater in the 1966 ash basin. Duke's cap in place modeling shows the coal ash will remain
saturated in the groundwater. If left in place, the coal ash will continue to leach pollutants into the groundwater and into Hyco Lake, ai
unacceptable result. The newly -discovered Eastern Extension of the East Basin should also be designated High Risk. Large numbers of
people with drinking water supply wells live on McGhees Mill Road, very close to this lagoon. Please support our request: 1. The Roxb
facility must be designated as High Risk. 2. Pollutants need to be moved from the site to prevent further pollution of the lake and
groundwater.
James Nunley
citizen
4/18/16
email
Comment #2
Moni Hill
citizen
4/18/16
email
Comment #4
Kevin Sewell
citizen
4/18/16
email
Comment #4
Lori Gilcrist
citizen
4/18/16
email
Comment #4
Burnitt Bealle
citizen
4/18/16
email
Comment #4
Gordon Schuit
citizen
4/18/16
email
Comment #4
Sabine Schoenbach
citizen
4/18/16
email
Comment #4
Janet Tice
citizen
4/18/16
email
Comment #4
Deja Lizer
citizen
4/18/16
email
Comment #4
Stephen Wollentin
citizen
4/18/16
email
Comment #4
Andrea Thompson
citizen
4/18/16
email
Comment #4
Margie Huggins
citizen
4/18/16
email
Comment #4
Randy Outland
citizen
4/18/16
email
Comment #4
William & Barbara Cunningham
citizen
4/18/16
email
Comment #4
Eli Helbert
citizen
4/18/16
email
Comment #4
David Henderson
citizen
4/18/16
email
Comment #4
Clark Goslee
citizen
4/18/16
email
Comment #4
ANNA HO
citizen
4/18/16
email
Comment #2
I write as a concerned NC citizen (Ashe and Orange counties) about the proposed classification of a dozen of Duke energy's i
ash sites around the state. Those proposed as low or intermediate priorityAllen, Bellews Creek, Buck, Cape Fear, HF Lee,
Marshall, Mayo, Rogers, Roxboro, and Weatherspoon—put at proven risk the clean drinking water that all citizens of the stat
deserve and expect. I applaud the efforts of Duke Energy to attend immediately to the high priority sites for cleanup, removal
secure off -site, lined and contained storage. These plans will safeguard the ground water, rivers, and streams of our state. The
need to be applied as well to the dozen other sites listed above. For low and intermediate priority sites, to leave in place and "
those coal ash storage sites merely by covering them with tarps means that we aren't willing to protect against ground water
contamination as dangerous chemicals seep from the unlined areas into municipal water sources and private wells. That leachi
citizen
4/18/16
email
has been well documented, as has the medically dangerous, and potentially life -threatening, effects of ongoing exposure to
contaminated water. In Flint, Michigan we have seen the tragic consequences of official denials, of declaring the water safe, o
ignoring science: otherwise healthy children have suffered from prolonged exposure in life changing and permanent ways. The
parents and grandparents have been put at risk for diseases and disabilities. The impact on the state in medical costs, as well a
civil and criminal penalties, will extend for at least a generation. Because coal -generated power requires enormous quantities c
water, Duke Energy understandably located their plans near water sources —and it is those same water sources that now must
protected from the harmful and serious effects of the chemicals contained in the coal ash by-products. For the future
health —medical and financialI urge NC DEQ to classify all of the coal ash sites as high priority and require Duke Energy tc
transfer the coal ash to contained, lined, safe storage sites, protecting our ground water, streams, and rivers.
Kate Douglas Torrey
Emily Willey
citizen
4/18/16
email
Comment #4
Jonathan Gach
citizen
4/18/16
email
Comment #4

Karl DeKing
citizen
4/18/16
email
Comment #4
Lynn Willis
citizen
4/18/16
email
Comment #4
Barry Anderson
citizen
4/18/16
email
Comment #4
Ken Goldsmith
citizen
4/18/16
email
Comment #4
Jim Stolz
citizen
4/18/16
email
Comment #4
Ruth Miller
citizen
4/18/16
email
Comment #4
Jeanne Supin
citizen
4/18/16
email
Comment #4
vesta burnett
citizen
4/18/16
email
Comment #4
Jay Marlow
citizen
4/18/16
email
Comment #4
Marilyn Constine
citizen
4/18/16
email
Comment #4
Tarence Ray
citizen
4/18/16
email
Comment #4
Sarah Kellogg
citizen
4/18/16
email
Comment #4
Stephanie Langston
citizen
4/18/16
email
Comment #4
Robert Phipps
citizen
4/18/16
email
Comment #4
Sandy Forrest
citizen
4/18/16
email
Comment #4
Davis Clark
citizen
4/18/16
email
Comment #4
Les Short
citizen
4/18/16
email
Comment #4
Eula Apostolopoulos
citizen
4/18/16
email
Comment #4
David Walker
citizen
4/18/16
email
Comment #4
Larry Smith -Black
citizen
4/18/16
email
Comment #4
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 s
Adam Reaves
Southern Alliance for
4/18/16
email
continue to threaten ground and surface water. State health officials advised communities close to Duke's facilities not to drink their we
Clean Energy
water because of harmful pollutants like vanadium and hexavalent chromium. No family should have to question the safety of their we
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 polluti
and ensure the health and safety of NC communities. Please ensure Duke's coal ash is moved to lined, dry storage, away from our riv(
and waterways and our most vulnerable communities
Thank youfor our consideration
s a pro essO engineering Tirm wan over Tifteen years of practice in coal ash management, t3laCKroCK Engineers, Inc. ac oc ,
designed and supervised
improvements for the first lined Ash Pond Closure for Carolina Power & Light beginning in 2003. BlackRock is submitting the following
independent public comments regarding proposed classification of the subject facility for consideration by the North Carolina Departure
Environmental Quality (DEQ) in the proposed final risk classification. 1. State Law and Relevant Risk Factors. We understand that DEi
required to prioritize the subject facility according to the
North Carolina Coal Ash Management Act (the "Law") adopted in August 2014. The criteria for classification (130A-209.211) include "a
factor the Department deems relevant to the establishment of risk." In our judgment, it is relevant that the U.S. Environmental Protecti(
Agency published a Final Rule for Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals (40 CFR Part 257,"CCR Rules") which became effective on
October 14, 2015. While the State Law was effective in compelling early assessment activities, it is relevant that the compliance
timeframes, remediation and closure performance standards in the CCR Rules be considered in the current risk classification process.
example, completion of the Closure Plan prepared by a professional engineer is required for all CCR Ponds on or before October 17, 2
which includes the following CCR Rule performance demonstrations: i. "the CCR unit must be closed in a manner that will control, mini
or eliminate, to the maximum extent practicable, post -closure infiltration of liquids into the waste and releases of CCR, Ieachate, or
contaminated run-off to the ground or surface waters." ii. "The CCR unit must be closed in a manner that will preclude the probability o-
Gary W. Ahlberg, P.E.
BlackRock Engineers
4/18/16
email
future impoundment of water, sediment, or slurry."iii. "The CCR unit must be closed in a manner that will provide for major slope stabili
"The
which is discussed is Unit M.1 of this document for closure plans." iv. CCR unit must be closed in a manner that will minimize the
for further maintenance of the unit." 2. Remedial Action to Reduce Risk.
New technologies continue to emerge that can improve existing conditions and mitigate circumstances. The CCR Rules were develope
apply a set of national standards for closure of CCR impoundments and development of CCR landfills. Aside from the high risk of sites
may be eroded by adjacent stream or flood flow, or other structural or environmental conditions that cannot be effectively remediated,
CCR Rules provide a process for reasonable assessment and remediation actions. Remedial and closure activities planned and
implemented by the owner to comply with the CCR Rules could reduce the relevant risk factors. It stands to reason, if existing conditioi
can be mitigated according to conditions and milestones established by DEQ in the final classification, then a lower risk classification n
be supported. Given that amendments to the Law are needed to be consistent with the more recent and comprehensive Federal CCR I
DEQ should use conditionally prioritize the risk classifications in the same manner used to add conditions to permits to ensure complia
with pertinent rules. By way of example, the CCR Rules require remedial actions for in -place closure of CCR to meet the following
performance requirements:
"(i) Free liquids must be eliminated by removing liquid wastes or solidifying the remaining wastes and waste residues. (ii) Remaining w
must be stabilized sufficient to support the final cover system." Progress and completion of remedial measures for overfill landfills that
demonstrate compliance as "new CCR landfills" under the CCR Rules would avoid removal of millions of tons of dry ash placed in land
Nick Torrey
Southern Environmental
4/18/16
email
Initial Written Comments - See Hearing Officer's Report for more details
Law Center
Philip Marschall
citizen
4/18/16
email
Comment #4
Andrew Payne
citizen
4/18/16
email
Comment #4
Carol Dugger
citizen
4/18/16
email
Comment #4
Karen Horton
citizen
4/18/16
email
Comment #4
Braethun Bharathae-Lane
citizen
4/18/16
email
Comment #4
Robert Coffin
citizen
4/18/16
email
Comment #4
Chloe Crabtree
citizen
4/18/16
email
Comment #4
Dot Griffith
citizen
4/18/16
email
Comment #4
Kelly Arnold
citizen
4/18/16
email
Comment #4
Mark Shapiro
citizen
4/18/16
email
Comment #3
Elizabeth Goyer
citizen
4/18/16
email
Comment #4
Linda Kellogg
citizen
4/18/16
email
Comment #4
Joseph Phillips
citizen
4/18/16
email
Comment #4
Darcy Jones
citizen
4/18/16
email
Comment #4
Charlie Kelly
citizen
4/18/16
email
Comment #4
Molly Clay
citizen
4/18/16
email
Comment #4
Ricki Draper
citizen
4/18/16
email
Comment #4
Nina Rajagopalan
citizen
4/18/16
email
Comment #4
Tom Patterson
citizen
4/18/16
email
Comment #4
Margaret Anderson
citizen
4/18/16
email
Comment #3
emma a
citizen
4/18/16
email
Comment #4
Terry Kellogg
citizen
4/18/16
email
Comment #4
Attached is a report on the impact of the coal ash ponds on low-income and communities of color, as well as cumulative iml
from nearby emitting facilities. Low-income communities more likely to be burdened by environmental hazards, and the stz
Libbie Weimer
Duke University research
4/19/16
email
not doing enough to take environmental justice concerns into account. The report outlines the population, race/ethnicity ar
assistant
income at three distance intervals (1km, 3km, 5km) from the edge of ash basins at each Duke facility. For Roxboro specifics
the report gave an environmental justice index score. See full report for more details.
Ken Mauney
citizen
4/18/16
email
Comment #3
Christine Drea
citizen
4/18/16
email
Comment #3
Rosemarie Sawdon
citizen
4/18/16
email
Comment #3
Sheila Maphet
citizen
4/18/16
email
Comment #4
Mary Washburn
citizen
4/18/16
email
Comment #4

David Bellard
citizen
4/18/16
email
Comment #4
Amelia Cline
citizen
4/18/16
email
Comment #4
Caroline Armijo
citizen
4/18/16
email
Comment #4
Kevin Oshnock
citizen
4/18/16
email
Comment #4
Alex Benz
citizen
4/18/16
email
Comment #4
John Freeze
citizen
4/18/16
email
Comment #4
Leigh Rhodes
citizen
4/18/16
email
Comment #4
Sue Fife
citizen
4/19/16
USPS letter
concerned about her "tan" water / Duke will not supply her with bottled water, has been purchasing water for years / states that Duke kr
this is a high risk area
Comment #4 + WOW! 33.4 million tons of ash on site, and another 19.4 million in unlined pits. All of which are leaking, directly into
groundwater of surrounding low-income, majority people of color communities. And ruining the GORGEOUS Hyco lake. 287,000 peopl
Marie Garlock
citizen
4/19/16
email
relying on this drinking water --and all of them in YOUR charge? Don't you want to do the RIGHT thing? We want you to, and we suppo
in doing so!! Clean it up --don't push negligence, ignorance, and dysfunction. We see instead the GREAT capacities of this organizatio
NCDEQ--to promote integrity, right and responsible action, bound and inspired by science, not in defiance of it.
Jason Kellogg
citizen
4/19/16
email
Comment #4
Suzanne Fleishman
citizen
4/19/16
email
Comment #4
is alarmed with the number of family members and others in the community with cancer and other health issues / lives outside of the 1
Maggie Jeffers
citizen
4/17/16
USPS letter
compliance boundary and requests her well to be tested as she cannot afford to have it tested herself / if not enough accurate data to
classify Roxboro as low risk, then shut the plant down for 5-10 years
Bridget Lee
Sierra Club
4/19/16
email
the four page letter requested all ash basins at the Roxboro plant to be classified as high risk - See written comments for more detail
Nick Torrey
Southern Environmental
4/25/16
email
Supplemental Written Comments - See Hearing Officer's Report for more details
Law Center
Lisa Hughes
resident
3/16/16
PublicHearing Oral
concerned wells aren't being tested outside the 1/2 mile boundary / sample wells until you find no contamination in the area / install
roundwater wells between the ash basins and residents / Just clean it up!
Phyllis Jeffers
resident
3/16/16
PublicHearing Oral
lives about 1/2 mile from Roxboro Plant / Duke only tested water within the 1500-ft compliance boundary / wouldn't test her well when
requested it to be tested / if nothing is in the water, then why does Duke keep sending me water twice a month / Test the wells!!
calls Person Co home / understands how important Mayo and Hyco lakes are to the people / community important to Duke b/c they liv(
Duke Energy Regional
work in the area too / Duke closing ash ponds in ways that are safe and will protect public health and the environment while managing
Tanya Evans
Manager
3/16/16
PublicHearing Oral
/ all closure plans will protect groundwater and make sure it's safe for the future / stated as fact that there is no indication that coal ash
impacting peoples' wells verified by assessment reports conducted by independent consultants / Duke will update neighbors through or
one contact and mailings / the process of closing the ponds is technical and scientific
Duke let coal ash contamination leak into groundwater for decades / I'm concerned about the groundwater quality / good corporate citi2
Patrick Wiley
resident
3/16/16
PublicHearing Oral
don't carelessly dump on neighbors / 30 days not long enough to finalize draft closure plans / wants ash removed from ponds and plar
onsite lined landfill
concerned people don't know their drinking water is contaminated / this is a statewide problem / took a disaster on Groundhog Day to g
Nick Wood
ACT Against Coal Ash
3/16/16
PublicHearing Oral
government to wake up / mentioned "secret" dinner with McCrory and Van de Vaart night before structural fills were permitted / mentio
Representative
$25 million fine was reduced to $7 million / water is not safe to drink, need facts to test wells / let's have a solution based on independe
testi n
both Roxboro and Mayo ash ponds should be ranked high risk to be sure the ash is stored in dry lined landfills away from the river /
Rosemarie Sawdon
Sierra Club representative
3/16/16
PublicHearing Oral
mentioned 287,000 residents rely on drinking water downstream / mentioned Roxboro is one of Duke's largest sites with 19.4 million to
ash in ponds / no one should be ranked low risk / everyone deserves a good quality of life with clean water
Marji Stehle
resident
3/16/16
PublicHearing Oral
lives on Hyco lake in full view of power plant / one summer day she saw black smoke spewing from the plant and called Duke to ask al
the black smoke, never got a response / now Duke wants us to trust them, I've got a problem with that
Marcus Henderson
resident
3/16/16
PublicHearing Oral
asked that testing of drinking water wells be conducted outside the 1500-ft compliance boundary of the coal ash ponds / keep testing w
until you find no contamination
angry about letters to the Currier Times blasting/blaming Duke Energy / mentioned state regulators made up MCLs that were higher th,
Andy Whithers
resident
3/16/16
PublicHearing Oral
they ever should have been / ponds should be classified as low risk / delighted to have Duke Energy as a neighbor and think they shou
always be our neighbor
Aaron Puryear
resident
3/16/16
PublicHearing Oral
coal ash pollution has been a problem for several years, first as air pollution, now as water pollution / the scientific data is being manipi
by Duke / move ash away from the ponds
Sierra Club Beyond Coal
people across NC have been drinking water contaminated with carcinogens / Duke and McCrory should be moving heaven and earth t(
Emma Greenbaum
Campaign
3/16/16
PublicHearing Oral
move these coal ash hazards, that has not happened / the coal ash sits beneath the groundwater table at both Mayo and Roxboro ponc
no site should be classified as low risk
Armstrong Pillow
resident
3/16/16
PublicHearing Oral
Mayo and Roxboro coal ash sites must be thoroughly cleaned up / classify them as high risk / Duke should take the responsibility to cle
up all sites within 3 years
US Congressional (R)
asked where the Duke data came from / mentioned if someone has a problem with the water in their well then they should have it teste
Chris Hardin
candidate in Guilford Co
3/16/16
PublicHearing Oral
the end of the day, trust the experts that say the water is safe to drink / need to work on both sides of the political aisle / finds it hard to
believe there is a well water problem
mentioned it's ridiculous to make a villain out of Duke / the data in the reports was scientific evidence not theory / asked audience WhE
PJ Gentry
resident
3/16/16
PublicHearing Oral
coal ash?, they aid It's bad, asked Who told you that? / mentioned arsenic found natural in rock and, selenium used in livestock feed /,
comes from the earth, these are minerals that come from the earth / agrees there needs to be a cleanup, but doesn't need the angry rh
to stir people's emotions
Ken Rose
Chair of Headwaters
3/16/16
PublicHearing Oral
there needs to be a scientific process / scientists ranked the ponds as high, then politicians above the scientists ranked the ponds as to
Group of Sierra Club
the ponds in Charlotte, Asheville and Wilmington are ranked high, but in poor rural areas the coal ash ponds are ranked low risk
lives on Hyco Lake in sight of the Roxboro Plant, can hear announcements over the loud speakers / CAMA is the only law of it's kind it
Larry Yarborough
State Representative
3/16/16
PublicHearing Oral
nation, other states are waiting to see what NC does / mentioned positive things are happening / beneficial reuse is increasing / has a
healthy skepticism of the government
not until tonight did he realize he was living in a hazardous community after hearing the other comments / bothers him that people are
Leigh Woodall
resident
3/16/16
PublicHearing Oral
bashing Duke / Duke has been an outstanding neighbor for over 40 years / the unlined ponds have been used for several decades / no
creditable reports that state the water is unsafe to drink / moving such large quantities of coal ash would create environmental impacts
cappingis agood method of closure using a synthetic cap liner / rate May and Roxboro as low risk
after the Dan River incident he spear headed a bipartisan committee to deal with coal ash / sponsored SB856, first bill to address coal
Mike Woodard
NC Senator
3/16/16
PublicHearing Oral
CAMA took some of the SB856 language to build it's law / science backs the intermediate risk to excavate and move to lined landfill / ,
What happened between Nov 30 and Dec 31 that changed the classifications from high to low / urged DEQ to classify both Mayo and
Roxboro as high risk
asked Where are you going to put all of the coal ash? / put it in concrete, fly ash can be used to make concrete that lasts for 100s of ye
John Schulz
resident
3/16/16
PublicHearing Oral
can make better bridges and roads with it and lower taxes / once fly ash is encapsulated in the concrete, it won't leach into the water / c
of the democratic side vs. the republican side, it's everyone's side
had audience raise hands to see who believed there was a problem, lots of hands / asked audience to raise their hands if they had fait[
Paul Taylor
resident
3/16/16
PublicHearing Oral
Duke and DEQ to do everting in their power to fix the problem, no hands / encouraged everyone to stand and make a statement / we n
not, can not, will not let corporateprofits/criminals destroy our health and what's left of this land
Lib Hutchby
resident
3/16/16
PublicHearing Oral
How are Duke/DEQ going to fix theproblem? / lives in Wake Co, but concerned about the citizens of Person Co
Garrett Brennan
resident
3/16/16
PublicHearing Oral
What's the science behind the do not drink letters? / Is the water safe to drink? / Where is the original scientist, Dr Kenneth Rudo, who
not to drink the water? / would be good of DEQ to produce this scientist / would be smart to hear from Dr Rudo
speaking of behalf of Sarah Crutchfield / Why won't Duke test their wells? / rank both Roxboro and Mayo as high risk / concerned abou
Bryan Brice
attorney
3/16/16
PublicHearing Oral
huge data gaps in the assessment reports, ask Duke to fill in the data gaps about groundwater contamination / very concerned this will
into a Flint, MI
Howard Eastwood
resident
3/16/16
PublicHearing Oral
wants Duke to test more wells / wants Duke to install more wells to test groundwater quality
Don Lawinski
resident
3/16/16
PublicHearing Oral
initially Mao and Roxboro basins were ranked high, why are they now ranked low?
Pete Gladwell
NC Congressional
3/16/16
PublicHearing Oral
We all know there is a problem / why would it take 12 years?
candidate D
learned last week a young man with 3 children living near the plant has a neuromuscular disease and his neighbor might have the sam
Betty Blalock
resident
3/16/16
PublicHearing Oral
disease / not sure if the contaminated water is the cause, but it sounds fishy / thinks Duke should put it in soapstone and place it on the
own property
Executive Director,
Don't put toxic coal ash in unlined pits / concerned about the toxic chemicals getting into the groundwater that will eventually end up in
Andrew Lester
Roanoke River Basin
3/16/16
PublicHearing Oral
Dan River / move ash away from lakes and rivers into lined pits
Association
Sue Fife
resident
3/16/16
PublicHearing Oral
handed bottled water to hearing officer and asked would you drink this water / she doesn't want to wait 20 years for clean up, do it now