20150041 Ver 1_USACE Add Info Request_20150512

�y1T OF.
O Nris of �"� •
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403 -1343
May 06, 2015
Regulatory Division/1200A
Action ID: SAW- 2014 -02254
Mr. Charles Price
Green Meadows, LLC
12601 Plantside Drive
Louisville, Kentucky 40299
Dear Mr. Price,
his Ody/lyz
MAY 12
Reference our March 5, 2015, Public Notice for the proposed mine reclamation project
located at the Brickhaven and Sanford Mines. The Brickhaven Mine is located off Moncure-
Flatwood Road approximately 2 miles east of Moncure, in Chatham County, North Carolina.
The Sanford Mine is located off Brickyard Road approximately 1 mile northeast of Sanford,
in Lee County, North Carolina.
The project would permanently impact a total of 4,166 linear feet of warm water stream,
and 1.14 acres of non - isolated wetlands. Specifically, jurisdictional impacts at the
Brickhaven site would impact 2,450 linear feet of stream channel, 0.05 acre of non - isolated
wetlands, and 0.5 acre of isolated wetlands. The jurisdictional impacts for the Sanford site
would impact 1,716 linear feet of stream channel and 1.09 acres of wetlands. The non -
isolated wetlands and unnamed tributaries at the Brickhaven site flow into Gulf and Shaddox
Creek, while at the Sanford site, the non - isolated wetlands and unnamed tributaries flow into
Roberts Creek. Both of these Creeks are in the Cape Fear Basin (8 -Digit Cataloging Unit
03030004 and 03030003, respectively).
To help us with our review of this proposal, some additional information is required as
listed below:
1. This project does not need to be located within waters of the U.S. in order to
satisfy your Purpose and Need statement. As required by the 404(b)(1) Guidelines (40 CFR
part 230) other practicable alternatives must be evaluated to ensure that the Least
Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) is identified.
Printed on ® Recycled Paper

IF
IPA
Please elaborate on the criteria used to evaluate other mine sites, identify the mines that were
considered, and an explanation of why these alternative mine sites were determined to be
unsuitable as it applies to Purpose and Need.
2. In the alternatives analysis of your application, it states that coal ash can be used
in cement and asphalt concrete. One cement company currently accepts coal ash from Duke
power plants for this purpose. Please provide detailed information as to why some or all of
the coal ash cannot be used in this manner.
3. In your application for this project, you utilize the term, Phase 1. Please provide
clarification as to what activities are specifically involved in Phase I. In addition, please
elaborate on any future phases and their potential impacts to the Waters of the United States
(WOUS). Besides impacts to WOUS at the Brickhaven and Sanford Mines, please identify
other impacts to WOUS at offsite locations resulting from the transfer of coal ash to the
Brickhaven and Sanford Mines. This would include improvements to transportation and
handling facilities at the Riverbend and Sutton Power Plants, as well as other known
locations that will be contributing coal ash to these sites.
4. The application states that "The purpose of the proposed project is to close ash
basins at the Riverbend Steam Station and the Sutton Electric Plant by August of 2019 as
required by the Coal Ash Management Act of 2014 (CAMA14)." This Project Purpose is
defined too broadly and does not have any direct relation to the activity for which you are
seeking a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit. Therefore, we would recommend that it be
revised to state something to the effect of. "The purpose of the proposed project is to dispose
of coal ash in a suitable manner and in an environmentally sound location. The long -term
disposal of coal ash in suitable locations will facilitate the closing of coal ash basins across
North Carolina, as required by the CAMA14."
5. Maps supplied with the application indicate that there is an "Arch Culvert" on one
of the streams at the Sanford Mine, and two "Spanning Structures" at the Brickhaven Mine
crossing a stream and a wetland. While these proposals do not result in a direct loss of
jurisdictional features, they are known to have an adverse impact upon aquatic resources and
will require compensatory mitigation for their indirect impacts to jurisdictional waters.
Printed on ® Recycled Paper

-3-
Based on our experience with these types of structures and depending on the quality of the
aquatic resource, we have required compensatory mitigation at a half the ratio that would be
required if the stream were to be culverted.
6. A cemetery ( "presumed to be the Zion Hill Cemetery ") is located at the Sanford
site. Please explain what measures will be taken to preserve and protect this cemetery and
allow public access.
7. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the public have expressed
concerns about the transportation of coal ash to the two project areas. Much of these
concerns were addressed on page 17 of the application package. Please clarify what steps
Charah, Inc. will be taking to minimize loss of coal ash during transport and storage at the
proposed disposal location.
8. There were several public comments expressing concern about possible
groundwater contamination from coal ash at these two reclamation sites. Although you will
address concerns related to water quality and groundwater monitoring through the North
Carolina Division of Water Resources and the 401 process, we refer the following
representative comments for reference:
(a) The Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC), in a comment letter to the
USACE dated March 23, 2015 (copy enclosed), recommended that two monitoring wells be
added at both reclamation sites. In addition, they have recommended that monthly
monitoring of groundwater elevations be required for the first year in order to verify
assumptions about seasonal high water levels and that background sampling should be
conducted on a quarterly basis for the first year in order to evaluate possible seasonal
variation in water quality.
(b) The Haw River Assembly, in a comment letter to the USACE dated
April 2, 2015 (copy enclosed), asked if there was a "plan for baseline monitoring of
neighbors' drinking water wells in an area surrounding the mines ?" The concern with
contaminated drinking water was also addressed by other members of the public during the
comment period.
Printed on ® Recycled Paper

M
(c) In a petition signed by 110 residents of Chatham County, and submitted to our
office via email on April 8, 2015 (copy enclosed), concerns were expressed about coal ash
containing "... high levels of heavy metals such as arsenic, lead, mercury, and other toxic
substances, which requires utmost precautions and protections for handling, transporting, and
disposal." This petition and a number of other commentors expressed concerns about the
disposal of leachate, and questioned whether municipal wastewater treatment plants would
be able to handle heavy metals and other toxins contained in coal ash. Many commenters
were also concerned that the liners lining the coal ash pits would eventually deteriorate and
toxic substances would be released into the streams, wetlands and groundwater. Please
address concerns about heavy metals and other toxic substances in the coal ash including:
the precautions and protections for handling, transporting, and disposal of coal ash to insure
that heavy metals and other toxins do not escape into the environment; the adequacy of
municipal wastewater treatments plants to handle these substances in the leachate; and the
potential of heavy metal and leachate entering the watershed because of deteriorating liners.
9. The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), in a comment
letter to the USACE dated April 2, 2015 (copy enclosed), recommended "...a minimum 200 -
foot undisturbed, native, forested buffer along perennial streams, and a 100 -foot buffer along
intermittent streams and wetlands is advised." Further stating that "Maintaining
undisturbed, forested buffers along these areas will minimize impacts to aquatic and
terrestrial wildlife resources, water quality and aquatic habitat both within and downstream
of the project area. In addition, forested riparian buffers protect water quality by stabilizing
stream banks and filtering stormwater runoff." Many of the public comments received by
the USACE also expressed concerns about protecting existing streams from pollutants and
sediment during storm events at the project sites. In light of these comments, please evaluate
and comment on the NCWRC's recommendation for 200 -foot buffers on perennial streams
and 100 -foot buffers along intermittent streams and wetlands.
Printed on ® Recycled Paper

-5-
10. The NCWRC recommended relocation of "...streams using natural channel
design methods. If streams cannot be relocated, stream channels should be diverted to
prevent surface waters from coming into contact with disposed materials." The loss of flow
from impacts to upstream tributaries could negatively impact stream quality downstream, as
well as base flows. Please evaluate the potential for stream relocation, and the downstream
impacts from losses to upstream WOUS, as well as efforts to prevent surface waters from
coming into contact with disposed materials.
11. The Chatham County petition also states that "...the heavy flow of truck and train
traffic will increase safety issues, i.e. accidents, spillage, fly ash, noise, and air pollution."
Numerous other comments received at our office, from both Chatham and Lee Counties,
expressed similar concerns. In light of these concerns, please address the precautions
(specifically: accidents, spillage and noise) taken in the transport of coal ash at these two
sites.
12. The Chatham County petition further states that the "Transport and storage of
Coal Ash would adversely affect the economics of the community /county." Numerous other
comments received at our office, from both Chatham and Lee Counties, expressed similar
concerns. In addition, several commenters are concerned that the proximity of their
properties to the mine sites will result in a devaluation of their properties. In light of these
concerns, please address how the transport and storage of coal ash will affect the economies
of the host communities /counties, including property values near the mines and within the
two counties.
13. List any other authorizations required for this project.
14. As you may be aware, in accordance with Executive Order 12898, we are
responsible for identifying and addressing disproportionately high and adverse human health
or environmental effects on minority and low- income populations. Based on an initial
review of available census data of the potentially affected communities, we have determined
that there is potentially a disproportionate impact to a local minority population. We will
need to continue to evaluate this issue during permitting review process.
Printed on ® Recycled Paper

M
Your response to these comments are important to our review of your proposal and
should be provided by June 5, 2015, to avoid delays in the review of your application. If you
have questions or comments, please contact Mr. Craig Brown at the Raleigh Regulatory
Field Office address, telephone [phone] ext. 35.
Sincerely,
Jean B. Gibby
Chief, Raleigh Regulatory
Field Office
Enclosures: (as stated)
cc: (with enclosures):
Jennifer Burdette
NCDENR, Division of Water Resources
Water Quality Programs
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Printed on ® Recycled Paper

Brown, Craig J SAW
From: Mary Ann Perkins [mapnbrickhaven @windstream.net]
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 11:55 AM
To: Brown, Craig J SAW
Cc: karen.higgins @ncdenr.gov; jennifer.burdette @ ncdenr.gov; boyd.devane @ncdenr.gov;
james.crawford @chathamnc.org; mike.cross @chathamnc.org; diana.hales @chathamnc.org;
karen.howard @chathamnc.org; walter.petty @chathamnc.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] FW: Comments on US Army Corps 404 Permit & NC DENR 401 Permit to
Green Meadows, LLC
Importance: High
Dear All:
Uu
1
i�
Thank you for the opportunity for citizens to comment on the 401 & 404 permit applications
Green Meadows, LLC (affiliated with Charah), for the proposed storage of coal ash in
Southeast Chatham County, generated from several plants owned by Duke Progress Energy.
My family and descendants have resided in the Brickhaven /Corinth Community for almost 100
years so you would say that we have a "vested" interest and ownership. We have witnessed the
operations of the local power plant, as we live less than 2 miles from it. When it was
built, we were thankful that such a large company (Cape Fear Steam Plant owned by Carolina
Power & Light) provided jobs to many families in the area. In those early years, we had no
idea of the upcoming air & water pollution that this plant was generating. We were shocked
and dismayed to learn that the trusted company that fed and clothed many families would
purposely pump tons of coal ash into streams and rivers, hence contaminating water used by
thousands of people and destroying our fish & wildlife.
As a result of the power plant, other heavy industry eventually came to our area, even a
nuclear plant. The residents refer to our community as the "dumping" ground for Chatham.
Even the local television station (WRAL -TV) refers to our area as "Boot Heel" because of its
shape. Our community has united in several other environmental issues that would have
adversely affected our area, and the proposals were defeated. We were given an opportunity
to speak at public hearings and request that one be scheduled for the 404 permit. Thank you
for giving us the opportunity to speak on the State's water quality, structural fill & mining
permits, at public hearings on April 13 & 16th.
Safety & Economics: In a given day within the Brickhaven Community, we have tons of vehicles
on Corinth Road. We presently have the power plant owned by Duke Progress Energy currently
being "dismantled ", 2 wood product plants, 1 glue /formaldehyde plant, 1 brick manufacture
plant, a new Solar Farm with thousands of panels, a RV Park, the Dickens Farm, and a
community store. Residents' homes, approximately 60, are interspersed among all this and
most own their home, except for the RV Park! And, Corinth Road is only 3.5 miles long!
Employees of these industries work shifts, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. We, therefore,
have commuters traveling on Corinth Road at all times, day and night, along with the speeding
1

4
Sincerely,
Larry & Mary Ann Perkins
3045 Corinth Road
Moncure, NC 27559

Brown, Craig J SAW
From: Billie Hinton [billiehinton @gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 12:27 PM
To: Brown, Craig J SAW
Subject: [EXTERNAL] coal ash in Chatham County
Mr. Craig Brown
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105 <x- apple- data - detectors: //6>
Wake Forest, NC 27587 <x- apple- data - detectors: //6>
Dear Mr. Brown:
I so appreciate your office being open to citizen concerns about the application of Green
Meadows' (a company belonging to Charah) for permission to destroy stream and wetlands in the
vicinity of their two proposed clay mine sites in Chatham and Lee Counties. I cannot fathom
how they will safely transport 20 million tons of coal ash and have seen video footage of
what people have had to endure near Asheville.
I live on Meadow View Drive, a private lane .03 mile off Pittsboro - Moncure Road. We are
already besieged with logging trucks and other big rigs barreling down that road and have
seen accidents, see ongoing road deterioration due to the heavy traffic, and hear the noise
of these large trucks from our farm. I have no doubt we will also experience coal ash dust if
so much of it will be transported through our area.
We own and live on a small organic horse farm. Our horses are outside 24/7 and we are out
there many hours of the day, as are our cats and dogs. We grow and own food and use well
water. I am concerned about air and water pollution from these trucks and trains carrying
coal ash, which is known to include many toxic by- products. Horses in particular are
sensitive to selenium toxicity and I have read this is one ingredient in coal ash.
In my opinion there is no good reason for Duke to move this toxic material all over the state
when they could simply create safe long -term storage on their own property right where the
coal ash already 'lives.' As you probably know, we already have a huge amount of coal ash in
ponds near the Cape Fear River right here in Moncure. Do we really need more?
I have been horrified to see this process unfold, with so little opportunity for citizens and
homeowners to give input and have their voices both heard and incorporated into an effective
i

IT
plan. My husband and I bought this farm 10 years ago, reassured by its proximity to so many
acres of Corps of Engineer land. We felt sure the Corps would be as vigilant as we about the
wildlife, the water, and the air.
I'm disappointed to see so many things happening around us: fracking, big development, and
the coal ash dumping. I ask you to please set up a public hearing with regards to the Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) permit 404 related to the federal Clean Water Act.
We all need to work together to preserve the environment we live in. I hope that together we
can protect the land, the water, and the air.
Sincerely,
Billie Hinton
November Hill Farm
196 Meadow View Drive
Moncure, NC 27559
919.604.2770
Sent from my iPad
2

Brown, Craig J SAW
From: ylisabet @windstream.net
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 9:50 PM
To: Brown, Craig J SAW
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Coal Ash Toxic Dump Site
March 31, 2015
Dear Mr. Brown:
We appreciate your office being open�to citizen concerns about the application of Green
Meadows' (a company belonging to Charah) for permission to destroy stream and wetlands in the
vicinity of their two proposed clay mine sites for moving 20 million tons of coal ash from
the Sutton plant near Wilmington and the Riverbend plant near Charlotte to Brickhaven near
Moncure in southeast Chatham and to Colon Road in northern Lee county. Many of us will be
writing to you, but it would be even more helpful for you to schedule an open hearing.
Please do so. There are many good reasons why we should not be home to all this toxic coal
ash.
I live in the Jonesboro area of Sanford, NC. We frequently travel down Colon Road in order
to connect to Hwy 1 to go to Raleigh. We prefer this route as it is never congested and
gives us an easy, quick route out -of -town!
We do not wish to breathe the air pollution that we expect from the coal ash transportation
by truck and rail car! Neither do the locals in the area .... their air quality and property
values will be affected by this dump site!
This action would affect children playing outside, waiting for the school bus, playing sports
and pets /livestock that live in the area!
The flow of trucks would mean accidents, especially on secondary roads; the trains would
contribute to congestion in this area especially since there are two RR crossings within 1/2
mile of each other!!
The toxic waste dump site sits on top of our watershed! The liners will fail eventually;
that is just what plastic does! And our water supply in the Cape Fear River will be
contaminated!
The citizens of Lee County were given no choice in this matter!!! If is not fair that this
decision was made without local input!!
Please hold a public hearing re: the Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) permit, the 404, related
to the federal Clean Water Act.
Anne Mathis
Sanford, NC
ylisabet0windstream.net
919 - 776 -4596
1

Brown, Craig J SAW
From:
Marsha Ligon [mhligon53 @gmail.com]
Sent:
Wednesday, April 01, 2015 11:36 PM
To:
Brown, Craig J SAW
Subject:
[EXTERNAL] Deny 404 permit
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Flagged
Mr Brown
Air quality is a great concern in Lee county.
Regularly, especially in the summer when the air is very humid and heavy, there is a strong
caustic odor which permeates over a large area of the county. Sometimes it is so strong I
won't take my three year old grandchild outside to play. At its worst, you can almost
taste it. It has a petroleum smell to it. Many of us believe it is caused by Noble Oil, a
local industry, burning off residue. Calls have been made and the local environmental board
alerted, but nothing has happened.
So in addition to this possible contaminant, we may also have to fear the toxic coal ash
particulates if you pass this permit request. Air , in the open environment, can not be
controlled and the air borne organic compounds associated with coal ash are dangerous.
Also, there is nothing in place to monitor or protect the air. Lee and Chatham are not the
only counties threatened as air does not recognize physical boundaries.
Deny this permit to protect the very breath of life for Lee, Chatham, and other counties.
Marsha H Ligon
1413 Palmetto Path
Sanford NC
Sent from my iPhone
1

I
Brown, Craig J SAW
From: Marsha Ligon [mhligon53 @gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2015 7:25 PM
To: Brown, Craig J SAW
Cc: karen.higgins @ncdenr.gov
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 404 for Lee and Chatham coal ash
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Mr Brown and also Ms Higgins
Yesterday I met a young man who has begun a kayaking and canoeing business along the Deep
River through Lee and Chatham counties. This is a brand new venture never done before in our
area and could bring much positive light to our counties. This is the kind of recreational
business that will improve our economy , countryside, and community interest.
In this vicinity, the Deep River is already burdened by a poultry plant and a waste water
treatment facility, and as you are aware, all upstream from the Sanford Water Plant from
which most area residents receive water. This water is at high risk for contamination as it
is, please deny the permits for a coal ash facility that would further threaten the water as
well as deter recreational use of our river.
Thank you
Marsha Ligon
1413 Palmetto Path
Sanford, NC
Sent from my iPhone
1

Brown, Craig J SAW
From: Marsha Ligon [mhligon53 @gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, April 06, 2015 10:54 PM
To: Brown, Craig J SAW
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Coal ash disposal in Lee and Harnett counties
Mr Brown,
This is my final letter before the Apr 6 deadline ends.
I have written letters in reference to the economic - conservation, welfare of citizens,
general environment, and air quality impacts to our communities if Duke is allowed to
transport its toxic waste into our counties.
My last concern is the aesthetic quality of the small downtown area of Sanford, as well as
health risks. The March 5 Sanford Herald covered numerous Easter celebrations, one of them
being an Easter egg hunt at Depot Park. As you might have guessed, the park is aptly named as
it is situated between the two major railroads that run right through the middle of town.
The park has become a very popular location for holiday celebrations, seasonal street fairs,
our local Farmer's Market, and hosts movies in the park through the summer months, just to
name a few.
The rail tracks are not more than ten feet away from the park's boundaries on two sides.
Coal ash trains will end the opportunity to facilitate this wonderful venue not only as a
nuisance but as a health risk.
Shops and restaurants along the outside of both tracks have been upgraded to increase
pedestrian traffic and business. But the expected heavy rail traffic transporting millions
of tons of coal ash will definitely decrease that.
Depot Park and the revitalized downtown area can not survive the coal ash onslaught. Please
reject the permit that, if granted, will lead to the demise of our downtown.
Marsha Ligon
Resident Lee county
1

Brown, Craig J SAW
From: Alan Cormack [abcormack @gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 10:14 AM
To: Brown, Craig J SAW
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public hearing request
Dear Mr. Brown,
I am concerned about the effects of the proposed coal ash dumping sites in Chatham and Lee
Counties. I join with those who request a public hearing before deciding what to do. Thanks
for listening.
Alan B Cormack
1

t
Brown, Craig J SAW
From: Alice Loyd [aliceloyd @earthlink.net]
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 11:48 AM
To: Brown, Craig J SAW
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Comment regarding Duke Energy- Chara permits for Brickhaven and Colon Rd
coal ash fills
Mr. Craig J. Brown
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive
Suite 105 Wake Forest
North Carolina 27587
I'm writing regarding the Duke Energy- Charah request for permits to site coal ash fills at
Brickhaven (Moncure) and Colon (Sanford) in North Carolina. Please consider the problems a
coal ash fill would bring to these area, and hold a public hearing prior to rendering a
decision.
I am most concerned about the environmental impacts of the proposed coal ash fill:
impacts on the nearby wetlands and intermittent and perennial streams
• impacts on the many protected plant and animal species in these streams and
tributaries
• provisions for water monitoring and the need for wider stream buffers that have yet
to be addressed
• impact of coal ash on private or public well water users in both areas and
downstream surface water supply in municipalities
inability of local wastewater treatment plant to handle heavy metals.
I'm also concerned about the economic impacts on the people 'in these areas:
• decline of property values on surrounding land and homes
• paltry amount of job creation
• lawsuits will certainly follow approval.
I also think a public hearing is in order regarding the coal ash fill sites.
1

Please consider the problems a coal ash fill would bring to these areaa, and hold a public
hearing prior to rendering a decision.
Thank you,
Alice Loyd
800 Northclift Drive
Raleigh, NC 27609
2

Brown, Craig J SAW
From: kenneth Dowdy [kdowd002 @gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2015 8:31 AM
To: Brown, Craig J SAW
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Coal Ash impact
What would prevent the same contamination that happened to the Dan River Site from happening
at the brickhaven site directly located and impacting the Cape Fear River?
Water quality, air quality and quality of life directly and negatively impacted.
If the Ash can not be handled safely on the sites that they are located, how will
transporting it across the state and dumping it in Chatham and Lee County make it safer?
If it is classified as non - hazardous just leave it where it is.
1

M
Brown, Craig J SAW
From: judyhogan @mindspring.com
Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2015 2:03 PM
To: Brown, Craig J SAW
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Addendum to my letter of 3/24/15 on Green Meadows permit 404
(UNCLASSIFIED)
Dear Mr. Brown, thank you this letter. One point I'd like to clarify. You
are saying that the Army Corps will make a determination about whether to
hold a public hearing after April 16 (after the DENR hearings) or after May
16 (end of the public comments sent in to DENR on the other three permits?
Thank you. Judy Hogan.
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Brown, Craig J SAW
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 2:00 PM
To: judyhogan @mindspring.com
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Addendum to my letter of 3/24/15 on Green Meadows
permit 404 (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
April 1, 2015
Regulatory Division
Action ID: SAW- 2014 -02254
Dear Ms Hogan:
Thank you for your emails of March 24 & 30, commenting on the proposed mine
reclamation sites located at the Brickhaven and Colon mine sites, in Chatham
and Lee Counties, North Carolina.
In your letter, a request was made for a public hearing to discuss the
environmental effects that may result from the proposed mine reclamation
projects. Representatives of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will be in
attendance at the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources public hearings concerning the mine reclamation projects to be
held on April 13, 2015, (Sanford, NC) and April 16, 2015 (Pittsboro, NC). At
this time, based on the public comments that we have received during the
Public Notice comment period and the opportunity for the public to offer
comments during the state sponsored public hearings, we don't believe that
any additional information could be obtained by holding a Corps of Engineers
public hearing. However, a final determination as to the need to hold a
Corps sponsored public hearing will be made following the end of the comment
period and the state sponsored public hearings.
We appreciate your interest and concern and assure you that your comments
will be carefully considered. If you have additional comments or questions,
please do not hesitate to contact me, Raleigh Regulatory Field Office,
Regulatory Division, telephone [phone] x35.
1

I
Sincerely,
Craig Brown
Regulatory Specialist
Regulatory Division
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: judyhogan @mindspring.com [ mailto :judyhogan @mindspring.com]
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 8:46 AM
To: Brown, Craig 3 SAW
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Addendum to my letter of 3/24/15 on Green Meadows permit
404
Mr. Craig Brown
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
March 30, 2015
Dear Mr. Brown:
I wrote to you back on March 24, but I have learned some new information, so
I'm writing again in an addendum to my first letter. First, I want to thank
you for encouraging citizens to call or write to you. We feel very
acknowledged by you in our concerns.
We held a prayer vigil on March 25, last Wednesday afternoon, at the
Buckhorn United Methodist Church in Brickhaven, with 75 people in
attendance, including four ministers who offered prayers, and three of us
activists who have been working on this issue. On my drive down Corinth Rd.
and then down Hwy 42 to the church, I observed all the six factories and
their full parking lots. The particle board plant is especially large now,
and it had hundreds of cars in its parking lot. Apparently they work three
shifts in 24 hours, making for a great deal of traffic both going north
toward Moncure and Highway #1, and toward Sanford on NC highway 42. I
passed 60 homes, and an RV park run by Mr. Dickson, who is also a farmer,
growing deer corn and some other farm crops. I learned from those living in
the area that Mr. Dickson's RV park backs up to the Brickhaven site for the
proposed coal ash dump, and that it contains 75 places for RVs to park. The
park looked quite full.
We in our coal ash group, Chatham Citizens Against Coal Ash Dump, had
several new folks present who reside very close to the proposed dump sites,
both from Brickhaven and from Colon Road, come to our meeting Friday night.
We are urging them to write to you or call you. They are very disturbed.
A woman farmer who lives next door to the Colon Road site said she had
helped birth 10 kids from her goats this week. I believe she'll write to
you. She also has horses. She has been especially sad and worried.
I asked my agricultural agent, Debbie Roos, out of the Agriculture
2

- -
_
i
. _ �
-
- � ..
`
' '' - .r �
�� :.
_
� � , ' �' - -- � �
�.
�
�;
��
i
-.
- , , -yl
l r_
- � ..
-_ � 1
' ', `5�.,
1 - � � i �
_;�
- `'-
1
'1, y.. -r_ • 1' Y� '7r
.!i: __ Cdr � a
4
�
•
�
-
.� n .. --
ray'
,.f � i'
.V -. -, _ ..- ��•
_
1 � . •- [ _
�
� �
,
- . '
r
.. � r
. °V r 1 i r
.. ,. ..
f
i
-
»t
_
_ � �
f - r
� _ ,
- i
, �
•{
r _
,.
` - . . - _
1
-
_
y. . _
,
._ � , _ -
1�
- f
..
.. - 11
�5` 1: `l. `
�
?r,
.-
.�.
.. �
. _
�.,
-1,V
' � � � - - � �
,� � - .v. . -- � 1!''l�j• �
- �,
� ll
_ �% .. 11,i. ...
.
.. 't. !�' Jf""f iii
- � r
at
. I - � J
� b -
-
._ .... � �
_ S
�
� -'1

n
Extension Service in Chatham to tell me the names of the farms along the
proposed truck route, which we found on the Charah permit: from Charlotte,
trucks would take 421 from Greensboro, then from Siler City, 64, then
through Pittsboro (perhaps the 87 link which goes south and connects to
Moncure - Pittsboro Rd.) They could go through the circle in Pittsboro, but I
would guess not. It has steady traffic and is in the heart of the downtown.
Here are the names of farms along that route. On 64 into Pittsboro (the
by -pass 64 becomes a narrow two -lane road, Business 64), there are Howard's
Farm (peaches, apples, and blaeberries), Oakmont Nursery, Huckleberry Trail
Farm, and there's the new Alpaca farm. On Moncure - Pittsboro Rd, there is an
organic farm right next to our two -lane road called Edible Earthscapes.
They grow vegetables all year long.
The Charah people have told us at the open houses sponsored by Duke back in
December 2014 that the coal ash would not come out of the trucks, but we saw
films from a Charlotte TV station of Charah moving coal ash only a short
distance in Asheville to the airport, and those living on that road were
suffering from coal ash coming off the trucks. One man was wearing a gas
mask to mow his lawn. We understand it also comes off the rail cars, and
that the railroads do very little oversight. Our post office in Moncure is
maybe 100 yards or less from the CSX railroad line. There are two delivery
routes to outlying areas around Moncure, but about 400 people get their mail
in the post office, and many of us drive there every day to get our mail.
Those who live in "downtown" Moncure are between old #1 and the railroad
line. Many of the folks who live in Moncure live either along
Moncure - Pittsboro Rd.,along Old #1, and or along Corinth Rd. I would expect
the trucks coming from Charlotte to the Colon Road site would also use the
same route down Moncure - Pittsboro Rd, and then down five miles on new #1 to
Colon road. From Wilmington, since those trucks would come around Raleigh
on I -40 and then down new #1 probably to either Pea Ridge Road (exits'81
(off #1) or to Moncure - Flatwood Rd, (exit 84 off #1) and then down Corinth
Rd to Brickhaven, more Moncure folks would be affected. There are homes on
both Pea Ridge and Moncure - Flatwood roads. Our fire department is located
at the corner of Old #1 and Pea Ridge Road. Duke and Charah are asking a
lot of our volunteer fire department who are called out whenever traffic
accidents occur or hazardous spills.
Another issue which has many folks concerned is how EMT and fire department
personnel will get to the people who live anywhere near this dump with all
the train cars and especially at crossings. We have lots of people
commuting and school buses, but if a coal ash train blocked the crossings by
the post office or near the Recycle center, how would the EMTs get to the
people. At one of the Duke open houses when, Mr. Charles Price, the owner of
Charah and Green Meadows, was asked this question back-in December, he
merely shrugged.
Duke Energy likes to tout itself as a "good neighbor." We know better.
Right now it seems to me that Duke and Charah, and the limited liability
company, Green Meadows, have set it up so that they can do whatever they
want without concern for the people whose lives they will affect. This much
coal ash from those hundreds of trucks and train cars over the years to
come, will, in effect, be like genocide. We can't live here in a healthy
way if there is coal ash in our air and getting into our ground water and
eventually into the Cape Fear. We know that Duke has a big coal ash
problem, but they shouldn't be moving it around, and they shouldn't be
storing in "land fills." It is toxic, it does harm and sickens human beings.
We need to slow this process down. Both Duke and the DENR folks are rushing
3

things. They have set open hearings for April 13 and April 16, in Lee and
Chatham, for three permits. This is unprecedented. We may have legal
options, though it's tricky with the state allowing this.
This is why we so need you to schedule an open hearing. The federal Army
Corps could slow this down and even stop it. Please use whatever power you
have to keep us from being the recipient in Lee and Chatham of 20 million
tons of coal ash. The liners will leak. The leachate, I hear, can go
through the liners. Nothing serious could be built on top of these coal ash
dumps, and the whole area would suffer economically and harm so many people's
lives not only here but all along these roads and rail lines. Plus, it
would be a precedent, and North Carolina has a lot more clay pits. I feel
like the little boy with his finger in the dyke. Thank you for listening.
Please do all you can. Thank you again,
Judy Hogan, PO Box 253, Moncure, NC 27559. 919 - 545 -9932
judyhogan @mindspring.com
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
4

-
- �
-�
` -
- - 1 _ - n ,.
_ -- ..
_ .. . -...
-
- � _-
.. { al'y Y..c -
1S w. -.
� .�t� �� ,. 'c!
.Lo- i � � -
�.�
_,
.,
..
.. _f,
- �� � �
.. _ _
- �
_
k
..
_
- - ,
_r ,
•
ti
", _
�
.��
. �
• � t'
'� ' ,
-
< • -
.
� �
... , ,�
� � -. er-
.-
r . .
• , _
� - � .
-
��
� ,.
a � .._ 1
• - •tip -. �
- - - -, � `
,. - -
,-_ .. � _ � , ,

Mr. Craig Brown
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Dear Mr. Brown:
We appreciate your office being open to citizen concerns about the application of Green Meadows' (a
company belonging to Charah) for permission to dump toxic coal ash in our community, on top of Lee
County's watershed, wetlands and in most cases within eye site of our backyards.
I live at 1770 Post Office Road, a two land rural road with moderate to heavy traffic. Most homes on this
road are very close to the road with homes located behind them as well; closer to the railroad tracks.
While my property is not adjacent to the proprosed Coal Ash dump site. I have concerns for my home,
land and the pond on my property. From my front porch just a short walk through the woods across the
rail road tracks is where they want to dump Millions of Tons of Toxic Coal Ash.
My pond supplies water to my garden in the summer which supplies me with 50% of my food. It also
supplies my livestock with fresh water. My pond has a natural underground spring which feeds my pond
in turn my ponds run off feeds into an overflow creek which feeds into the pond located on the adjacent
property. I fear that if Toxic Chemicals of Coal Ash leach into the ground over top of our water shed then
in into the underground water supply my pond will become contaminated. My livestock will in turn
become exposed to this!
I also expect the air will be polluted from transporting coal ash by truck and rail car. Where our
property is located there is always a breeze blowing from the direction of the proposed Coal Ash dump
site. I fear that Fly Ash will make it's way to my property and containmate my land, my vegetable garden
and barrels of rainwater we collect. I have a beautiful grand- daughter that I would be afraid to let come
visit me and if she did I would be scared to let her play outside if the air becomes polluted from Coal
Ash.
When we bought this property there was lots of trash in piles 5 feet or higher where the previous
owners just tossed their household waste right outiside where ever they could. My husband and I
worked for years to remove and clean up this land. We removed trash, we raked rocks, we dug holes
and planted grass and trees. We put our life savings into this property and made it a home .
I fear that our land value will decrease and we will not be able to sell it for what it is valued at.
In the summer we spend most of our off time outside, gardening, playing with the family pets and
having cookouts with the neighbors. If the Coal Ash is allowed to be dumped in our community we will
have to be concerned about exposure to toxic chemicals in the air while trying to enjoy our time ,
outside.

r�

I also fear the constant flow of trucks which would mean more traffic on a very winding, narrow two
lane road and how fast our EMS get to us in case of an emergency. Would my house burn down while
the EMS had to wait for the'Coal Ash trunks to find a safe place to pull over? Or if I or a loved one
needed EMS to transport us to the hospital. Would we die while waiting for the ambulance to come get
to us? These are just a few of my concerns on a list of many.
Mr. Brown if you could hold a public hearing so you could hear and talk to the people that live out here
and their concerns it would be most appreciated; as we think that this was just shoved on us without
any thought as to the potential dangers to the people of our community.
Thank you so much for your time;
Donna Bray
1770 Post Office Road
Sanford, NC 27330

Brown, Craig J SAW
From: Haw River Assembly [info @hawriver.org]
Sent: Friday, April 03, 2015 3:08 PM
To: Brown, Craig J SAW
Subject: [EXTERNAL] HRA Comments on Green Meadows 404 permit
Attachments: HRA Comments- Green Meadows 404 permit.docx
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Mr. Brown,
I have attached (and also sent by post) comments from the Haw River Assembly on the Green
Meadows 404 permit application seeking US ACE authorization for discharge into streams and
wetlands for coal ash repositories at the Brickhaven and Sanford (Colon) Mines in Chatham and
Lee Counties, North Carolina.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments. We are also asking for a public hearing
on this 404 permit.
Regards,
Elaine Chiosso
Haw Riverkeeper
Haw River Assembly
P.O.Box 187
Bynum NC 27228
(919) 542 -5790
chiosso0hawriver.or
www.hawriver.org
Protecting the Haw River and Jordan Lake since 1982
1

-,
.. _ .� L
_ � V,
1�, �,
�.
i I � .. _ ,.
i

P.O. Box 187 Bynum NC 27228 (919) 542 -5790 info @hawriver.org
April 2, 2015
Mr. Craig Brown
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Dear Mr. Brown:
The Haw River Assembly is a non - profit organization that has been working since 1982. to
protect the Haw River and Jordan Lake in the Upper Cape Fear basin and to safeguard water
quality for the communities that live in this watershed.
We wish to comment on the application from Green Meadows, LLC seeking Department of the
Army authorization to discharge fill material into 1.14 acres of jurisdictional headwater and
riparian wetlands, 4,166 linear feet of jurisdictional intermittent and perennial streams, along
with 0.50 acre of isolated wetlands non jurisdictional wetlands, associated with coal ash
repositories to be located at the Brickhaven and Sanford (Colon) Mines in Chatham and Lee
Counties, North Carolina.
A portion of the 301 acre permitted area of the Brickhaven Mine site, located off Moncure-
Flatwood Road, drains to Shaddox Creek, a tributary of the Haw River, and the site is near Haw
River Assembly members living in the southeast Chatham County Moncure and Brickhaven
communities. We have many questions and concerns about negative impacts that both of these
proposed coal ash repositories could have on surface and groundwater, public health and safety,
and destruction of wildlife and the environment. We do not believe the cumulative impacts of the
coal ash on downstream waters has been sufficiently looked at. Downstream from both these
clay mine sites, the Cape Fear River is used as a drinking water source for many municipalities,
and is also habitat for the federally listed endangered species, the Cape Fear shiner, and other
threatened species and species of concern.
We are asking at this time that a public hearing be held on this 404 permit so that the
public has the opportunity to discuss openly the many concerns they have.
Among our many concerns and questions are the following:
Groundwater contamination: It is a fact that all liners will eventually degrade and leak, and
some much sooner, due to improper installation or breaches. The applicant states in the draft 404
permit that "The proposed HDPE liner is designed to industry standards and has an expected life
of 500+ years ". However, the December 16, 2014 letter from David Cox, NC Wildlife

Resources Commission to NC Land Quality Section concerning the Green Meadows mining
permit gives a very different picture of the durability and risks of these liners, "...the liners have
an estimated safe life of 80 to 100 years if no mechanical stress is induced (Reddy, 1999). If
either of these occurs, aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources can be exposed to coal
combustion products or its constituents through direct contact with contaminated soil or surface
water, or through ingestion of contaminated plants, soils, or aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates."
And what about human exposure to contamination? Is there a plan for baseline monitoring of
neighbors' drinking water wells in an area surrounding the mine site? Both the Brickhaven and
Colon Rd. clay pits are within the Deep River shale basin, with its very fractured underlying
geology including diabase dikes. Has there been consideration of what the impacts of fracking in
the area could mean to long term stability of these coal ash repositories and cumulative impacts
on water quality?
Impacts on Surface waters:
The 404 permit would allow impacts and destruction to 2662 linear feet of stream and .45 acres
of wetlands in the Brickhaven site alone. Mitigation in form of payment to a fund for stream
restoration elsewhere will not mitigate the damage being done to these streams, and the habitat
that relies on them.
Three miles of Gulf Creek, downstream from the Brickhaven clay pit, has been on the EPA's
303(d) impaired waters list since 1998 and 2000, down to the confluence with the Cape Fear
River. A tributary of Gulf Creek flows through the Brickhaven clay mining site where coal ash
would be brought The current 20141isting
shows that Gulf Creek is exceeding fresh
water quality standards due to "Poor Fish
Community" and "Narrative Standard" (2014
NC 303(4) List - Category 5 Final December
19, 2014, page 16). Given that Gulf Creek
constantly runs the color of the clay mining
site it is draining, we assume this means the
turbidity narrative standard for sediment is
being exceeded (photo at right, taken by
HRA in January 25, 2015).
We are very concerned that some of the coal
ash that will be encapsulated at the
Brickhaven site (as well as at the Sanford
site) will eventually end up downstream into
the Cape Fear River adding to the current
sediment load and coal ash wastewater from
the Moncure Coal Plant ash storage ponds.
The stormwater retention systems, berm
heights and sediment ponds are all based on
engineering designs that assume weather
patterns based on the past. We face a very
unknown future due to climate change, and
the likelihood of more frequent and severe storms should be considered for these plans. Failure

or overtopping of the berms or breaching of the containment of the coal ash could lead to
massive pollution of the Cape Fear River. The 8 million tons of ash planned for internment at
this site will be in addition to the millions of tons of coal ash currently sitting in ponds next to the
Moncure Coal Ash plant less than 2 miles away. If a hurricane or other major storm were to
damage or destroy the berms and other containment at both sites, it would have a devastating
impact to the Cape Fear River and the downstream water users. Downstream water systems who
take their source water from the Cape Fear River include Sanford, Harnett County (which
supplies Lillington, Angier, Ft. Bragg, Holly Springs, and Fuquay - Varina), Dunn, Fayetteville,
and Brunswick County (including Wilmington).
Air Pollution:
We have seen estimates that moving 8 million tons of coal ash to the Brickhaven site could
require 400,000 truckloads or 120,000 train car loads. The transport of this huge amount of coal
ash will most certainly mean measurable amounts of coal ash residue along roadsides and in
yards, and which could become a significant air pollutant to those living along the transport
routes. Will transport vehicles be required to have closed and covered containers? Who will
monitor and regulate this? Who will monitor air quality to ensure public safety?
Wildlife and Environmental Concerns:
Outside of the mined areas at the Brickhaven site, there are mixed pine/hardwood forests and
oak hickory streams and wetlands, as well as abandoned sediment basins that have become
wetland habitat. The permit application by Green Meadows LLC shows that large excavations
would be made beyond the current mined areas, destroying considerable wildlife habitat.
Among the concerns in the December 16, 2014 letter from NC Wildlife Resources Commission
was the need for greater stream buffers; water monitoring for additional constituents (aluminum,
boron and mercury), longer post closure care of the site; dust control; and questions about types
of chemicals that might be used onsite for dust suppressants and sediment control flocculants that
could be toxic to fish and wildlife.
We also believe the issue of whether these two clay mine areas at Brickhaven and Sanford
(Colon) will be "mine reclamation" as claimed by Green Meadows, or are actually coal ash
landfills, needs to be resolved. The proposed excavation of currently un -mined land; the
proposed finished height of the encapsulated coal ash at above grade of the surrounding land;
and the prohibition of mechanical stress on top of the finished "reclamation" in order to preserve
the integrity of the coal ash liners, would make these areas unsuitable for any developmentThis is
a coal ash landfill and should be permitted and regulated as that, and new EPA guidelines should
be in play. We do not believe US ACE should issue a 404 permit until this issue is resolved.
Endangered Species:
We believe that the proposed project may impact federally listed endangered or threatened
species or their formally designated critical habitat, and that the Corps should initiate
consultation under Section 7 of the ESA and not make a permit decision until the consultation
process is complete.
In the December 16, 2014 letter referenced above, the Division of Wildlife Resources discussed
terrestrial and aquatic species that could be impacted from the Brickhaven site. Tributaries of
Shaddox Creek drain this site, and flow into the Haw River just before it's confluence with the

Cape Fear River. Tributaries of Gulf Creek also flow into the nearby Cape Fear River, habitat for
recorded populations of the federal and state endangered Cape Fear Shiner, as well as federal
species of concern and state threatened yellow lampmussel, Carolina redhorse, Roanoke
slabshell, and other state and federal species of concern. The Cape Fear/McKay Island Natural
Heritage area is just downstream of the Brickhaven site just above the confluence of Gulf Creek
and the Cape Fear River. To say that these species will not be impacted because they are not
within the project site is incorrect, since waters from these tributaries -and any pollution they
carry- will flow into the Cape Fear River and into the critical habitat for the species listed above.
Disposal of leachate:
Coal ash leachate is likely to contain high levels of heavy metals including arsenic, lead,
mercury, cadmium, chromium, selenium, aluminum, antimony, barium, beryllium, boron,
bromide, chlorine, cobalt, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, thallium, vanadium, and zinc. Some
coal ash also contains radioactive materials. Despite collection of leachate, some will eventually
reach groundwater as the liners disintegrate over time. The leachate that is collected will need to
be taken to a municipal wastewater treatment plant. The heavy metals and other constituents of
coal ash leachate can interfere with the wastewater treatment plant, and create new problems and
costs that are borne by those municipalities. Among these pollutants are the bromides from the
coal plant scrubber, which can become a constituent of the fly ash "The lack of regulations for
bromides can be a problem, said Tom Boyd, a senior environmental specialist at the Department
of Environment and Natural Resources. Boyd, who works with drinking -water plants in
northwest North Carolina, said coal plants send their scrubber waste to wastewater treatment
systems, but that those systems often fail to remove the bromide. "Sadly, it's passing through
into the waters of the state," he said. Boyd, like Hoffmann, noted that North Carolina does not
control bromide releases into streams or rivers. "It's a non - regulated chemical," he said. (
http: / /www. northcarolinahealthnews. org/ 2014 /04/07/ coal - waste - may- cause - carcinogen- spikes-
in- drinking - watery The Cape Fear River already has highly elevated levels of bromide.
Cumulative Impact:
Given the very real chance that there will be contamination of both surface waters and
groundwaters from these proposed coal ash repositories, the pollution that would flow
downstream into the Cape Fear River would be in addition to the current coal ash wastewater
seepage into the Cape Fear River from the ash ponds at the Duke Energy Moncure Coal Ash
plant in this same stretch of river. Gulf Creek is already on the EPA 303(d) list and would be
further degraded by any increased sedimentation from excavation and construction at the
Brickhaven clay pits, as well as any coal ash pollution.
In summary, we request a public hearing be held on this 404 permit, and that the permit
should not be issued until all concerns and questions have been adequately addressed.
Sincerely,
Elaine Chiosso,
Haw Riverkeeper

Brown, Craig J SAW
From: Susan Poe [shpoe @windstream.net]
Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2015 6:42 PM
To: Brown, Craig J SAW; Karen Higgins
Subject: [EXTERNAL] US Army Corps 404 Permit & DENR 401 Permit to Green Meadows, LLC
Attachments: photo 1.JPG; Untitled attachment 00010.txt; photo 2.JPG; Untitled attachment 00013.txt;
photo 3.JPG; Untitled attachment 00016.txt; COAL ASH LETTER 2 - ARMY CORP OF
ENGRS - CHATHAM COMMISSIONERS.docx
Importance: High
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Mr. Brown & Ms. Higgins:
Further to my subject letter to you dated March 28, 2015 (attached), I'm writing to inform
you of a situation my husband & I encountered yesterday.
Please find attached several pictures taken yesterday afternoon while driving by Duke
Energy's Cape Fear Plant on Corinth Rd. in Chatham County (less than 2 mi. from our house).
These pictures show a huge amount of coal ash blowing off their ash pond right beside the
highway during low wind conditions. I can only imagine how bad it would be with high winds!
Cars were driving through the ash cloud as it hovered over the highway, along with bicyclists
and motorcyclists also. (Corinth Rd. seems to be one of their favorite routes!)
If we're exposed to this much air pollution from coal ash now, can you imagine what we're
facing with trucks and rail cars transporting it in every day to the Brickhaven mine site
less than a mile from our house? We have three small grandchildren living next door and
behind us, and they love to play outdoors. We enjoyed an afternoon flying kites with them
one day last week for the first time this spring. (That was after taking a walk with them to
pick up trash beside the highway as we try to teach them to be good stewards of God's great
earth.) It breaks my heart though to know what they're going to be faced with in the years
to come unless something is done to stop Duke Energy from bringing all this coal ash into our
area. At the very least, they should be held responsible for the air pollution that's taking
place right now.
Respectfully submitted for your consideration,
Susan H. Poe
3503 Corinth Rd., Moncure, NC 27559 - (919) 776 -5397 - shpoe(@windstream.net
1

':,r FA A vp
x
jq
Iy 04
7fFe, ryi V! A-
&
;jr1b. N I - , ; I
mkkt�--45, R, Po
PA
44
kL, q N ;
-L4 P.,
Ilk,
15
g vr
Div.
ii
T J� n
._ (i�:r •� ,i:, ,� R : +Si. �i'�' � {. A i �,4
V
MR,
.4T r
V A ......

ipl�'�y�.`f!�� j'A'f'� � "/��(��i.•�:���q:,���n,i<r�:y � ��:;ts „ -..
`�� T�l:�'�'n �:� • At:r , �`... �'t14'.., b nttl e/106°
'•r��'��t ll���v.y:•�'^..:a1i I.'~.h %�.. r � �.. 1 � ;', G {p'�a :l;`q �.�g� .-'�.7
-O �.p;, 364 ;i��j, D._.1�Lt' •�1�:'. .•��i .1 '. i 17�f 4' ��i 1 r.•�;
•• 5i�'� .u�;b11.Rf
• �� i3�ti,: al” � ��'.:7iY k"'T,'Jttl..4'Q•a'.r ., ,'t.l'':•' °. f�i1 X5"67 •_'!: - �_S
����� / 1 %ai.=`, 51.'?t� ,'�i�C •:F. �.' AI'•t �.�,, ,lSt,•, �, ,'�•' yf:�
� Y.Y9 �'�� d t r1'�.:' � I�f :' _ O. � :•' '�L� �'sGi's'�:
.� �^.! J �' •! .'4,. •f ; '• i:`I•h��l' 'r-7 wrtCc.: ..' 1 •,,7.
ti
,t� 1 ' 1 L, .. .. •lY+ � q 1 �:. ., , � j ��i ( � '���,J, JJ!!16;Lj"J �.yy{. ? 1� I� °i :
_ '. ,fI•''.Y 1' 11fi _ J ` :1 %Y .i? '1 t. i .f �
.i ,,��t.,f•1.,•; ham.; '`c; {. II 1: ��.'�.' .i. :, ;+ :7iY�.� �. _
'.1 . � 1: • � � ..ly � �',': `.''t 1t1,, ,•11.,9••'•1• :li�'- ''1 . .•'..
-fit¢ � ��`�1.1 °:'• '.•r � .. ?I. ': (I�C,..!:''�Y. °.t �Rvt •. `r: -j`'; -� ..

IVA
fit'
MCI. Y.
t
dWrK fi
Q
gf
o•l
IZ,

March 28, 2015
Mr. Craig Brown
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Dear Mr. Brown:
SUBJECT: US Army Corps 404 Permit & DENR 401 Permit to Green Meadows, LLC
Thank you for the opportunity given citizens to comment on the stream & wetlands permit
applications of Green Meadows, LLC (affiliated with Charah), for Duke Energy to store coal ash in
Lee & Chatham Counties. As a life -long resident of the Brickhaven community of Chatham County,
I am very concerned about Duke Energy's plan and how it will affect our safety, health, and quality
of life (not to mention property values!).
We've been told — 120 trucks a day, plus numerous railcars, will be hauling this coal ash into these
areas. As we're already inundated with trucks on roads in this industrial section of Chatham County,
we can only imagine what the traffic will be like once all these additional trucks start coming in.
Case in point: After turning onto Corinth Rd. from Old US 1 last Wednesday, I met two 18- wheelers,
a tanker truck, a log truck, & then another tanker truck within '/2 mile! There are currently four large
industries on Corinth Rd. which is approximately four miles long. Factor in traffic from all their
employees, and residents in the community, and you can imagine how crowded these roads are
already. Add all of Charah's trucks and you have accidents just waiting to happen!
Another concern I have is what the pollution from this coal ash will do to our environment. I know
Charah claims it will be "wet down" and "covered with a tarp" before leaving the Duke Energy plant
sites. With those sites over 100 miles away, do they really think this toxic ash (with contents of
mercury, lead, arsenic, selenium, etc.) will not dry out during transport and be released into the
environment? — and not just in Lee & Chatham counties but all the counties it will pass through to get
here!
We live on land that has been in our family for over 100 years, as do our daughters and their families,
and the Brickhaven mine site is less than a mile from our house. We have an abundance of good well
water and are very concerned about ground water contamination from this coal ash once it is stored in
the clay mines. We've already had to contend with water run -off from these mines through our
property that has polluted Goff Creek nearby (which flows into the Cape Fear River). What was once
a clear, refreshing body of water is now nothing more than a muddy eyesore! (See enclosed
pictures)

-2-
I appeal to you to schedule an open hearing on this matter, listen to what the citizens have to say, and
reject Green Meadows' permits. Duke Energy needs to take responsibility for this problem they've
created and find other alternatives for handling their coal ash.
Sincerely,
Susan H. Poe
3503 Corinth Rd., Moncure, NC 27559 — (919) 776 -5397 — shpoegwindstream.net

I
Brown, Craig J SAW
From:
terica [terica4peace @gmail.com]
Sent:
Friday, April 03, 2015 9:12 PM
To:
Brown, Craig J SAW
Subject:
[EXTERNAL] Green Meadow 404 permit for the clay pits
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Flagged
Mr. Craig Brown
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
April 3 , 2015
Dear Mr. Brown:
We appreciate your office being open to citizen concerns about the application of Green
Meadows' (a company belonging to Charah) for permission to destroy stream and wetlands in the
vicinity of their two proposed clay mine sites for moving 20 million tons of coal ash from
the Sutton plant near Wilmington and the Riverbend plant near Charlotte to Brickhaven near
Moncure in southeast Chatham and to Colon Road in northern Lee county.
We are already being threatened with the danger of fracking coming to Lee and Chatham , have
mercy on us and truly do all you can to stop this environmental and social injustice from
coming upon us 1
Many of us will be writing to you, but it would be even more helpful for you to schedule an
open hearing. There are many good reasons why we should not be home to all this toxic coal
ash.
One very important reason Lee County has verses Chatham or other NC counties is "We have
'no' coal ash problem , pond or dump now in our county, period ."
One of the Biggest lies is them calling this a reclamation , that land has been reclaimed
safely by nature . I have made a video I hope you will watch that shows what I am saying .
https: / /youtu.be /MXW53hB 39w <https: / /youtu.be /MXW5JhB 39w>
There is also a gravesite of a WWI African American Soldier and his family on the colon
proposed megadump . You can get the story we have about it here
http: / /www.environmentalee.org /apps /blog/ <http: / /www.environmentalee.ore /apps /blog />

I
I live in Sanford and so do 2 my sons and grandchildren . I have 6 grandchildren that are not
old enough to ask you to please help us , so I am .
My family has homes and gardens on Lower Moncure Rd , which is a 2 lane rural winding road
with heavy traffic now .
It has been named one of Lee counties top 10 most dangerous roads in the past ! Flow of
trucks would mean accidents, especially on these secondary, two -lane roads.
They live at a location that is within miles of the proposed Colon Coal Ash Megadump and use
well water too. They live between 2 RR tracks that this toxic fly -ash will travel as well as
the trucks carrying it . This will affect all children playing outside, waiting for the
school bus, playing sports, pets who are partly or all living outside?
All of their neighbors have NO access to city water and rely on their water wells ,ponds ,
streams to live and raise animals,horses , livestock & gardens too.
At least one well on Lower Moncure Rd is over 100 years old and has never ran dry or never
been contaminated . Water has been drawn from that well for many generations of Luxton
families and livestock when other wells went dry. I remember stories of people coming from
all over the county in horse and buggy to get water from that well.
This proposed Coal ash dump property in right on top of our watershed ! This is a threat to
our drinking water wells ? If coal ash was on the ground and moved to the Cape Fear River it
will threaten drinking water to several counties that use it for city water !
Many farmers and gardeners in Chatham and Lee are trying hard to grow clean organic
vegetables and livestock .How can they get people to want to buy or eat their food with the
stigma of a coal ash megadump?
There are better ways to clean up the coal ash than to dump it on a watershed in a county
that HAS NO COAL ASH problems !
Thanks for reading this.
Sincerly ,
Terica Luxton
3616 Lee Ave
Sanford , NC 27332
919 - 776 -4371
2

Proud member of EnvironmentaLEE.org < http : / /www.environmentalee.org />
https: // www .facebook.com /EnvironmentaLEE < https: // www .facebook.com /EnvironmentaLEE>
twitter https: / /twitter.com /EnvironmentaLEE < https : / /twitter.com /EnvironmentaLEE>

V
Brown, Craig J SAW
From: lowtherl@�charter.net
Sent: Friday, April 03, 2015 11:57 PM
To: Brown, Craig J SAW
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Coal Ash in Lee /Chatham Counties
Mr. Craig Brown
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
April 3, 2015
Dear Mr. Brown:
Thank you for your willingness to hear the citizen concerns about Green Meadows' (a company
belonging to Charah) application for a 404 stream and wetlands impact permit. My concern is
why they would even want to destroy stream and wetlands in the vicinity of their two proposed
clay mine sites by moving 20 million tons of coal ash from the Sutton plant near Wilmington
and the Riverbend plant near Charlotte to Colon Road in northern Lee County and Brickhaven
near Moncure in southeast Chatham county when they have far more viable options right where
they are such as saltstone encapsulation on Duke's property. The use of saltstone
encapsulation would be utilized away from waterways (vs. destroying them), does not expose NC
communities to harmful toxins during transportation of the coal ash from the coast, and would
be far more economical.
I live on Deep River Road, approximately halfway between the proposed sites, so the coal ash
trucks and trains would be very close to my home. This is another concern. We already have
a large amount of heavy traffic and large trucks which will be greatly increased if the coal
ash is approved for these sites. This is not only inconvenient, but creates many safety
issues as well. As we all know, the coal ash contains many toxins that will affect the
health of the individuals, animals, and plants in those communities. Increased traffic can
cause traffic accidents, wear and tear on the roads, additional concerns for our children
waiting at the bus stops, etc.
How will emergency vehicles (ie: Fire Department, EMS, etc.) reach individuals in the
community who need their help if a train is blocking the railroad crossing to get to the
other side? Have there been any impact assessments done to see how normal traffic, weather,
emergencies, disasters, etc. would be handled with all the extra highway and railroad traffic
- especially if a train happens to be blocking a railroad crossing needed for access or exit
routes in an emergency.
Are there any plans to monitor air quality? Unfortunately, there is already a huge amount of
coal ash in ponds near the Cape Fear Plant on Corinth Road in Moncure that are affecting, at
a minimum, air quality. I have seen pictures of the ash cloud as it hovers over the highway.
This is visibly affecting the environment here, the health of individuals /animals in the
community, and decreasing the value of our homes. How much coal ash is one area expected to
take?
Another way we see the damage coal ash can do is in the news. Duke Energy and Virginia just
agreed to a $2.5 million coal ash settlement (4/3/15 - subject to approval) over the coal ash
spill in the Dan River last year. This is one example of how much damage can be done in a
relatively short amount of time. If water monitoring is conducted hundreds of feet apart,
what is the probability of detecting any ground water polluted by landfill leachate. There
are many private wells in this area. All liners leak. Could Colon /Corinth become another
Danville, VA incident?
1

The progression of this coal ash plan to date has been very disappointing to me since the
voices of the people involved (members of the community, homeowners) have been basically
omitted. We moved here more than 25 years ago and were excited to raise our family in a
community that preserved the environment that we lived in; where we could enjoy taking walks,
enjoying the beautiful land filled with wildlife, large natural ponds, streams, and habitats
for many animals. We also looked forward to honoring and preserving that same tradition for
future generations to enjoy. Once it is destroyed, sadly, there is no way to turn back the
clock.
Please help us protect the precious land, water, and air we enjoy. I respectfully ask you to
please set up a public hearing with regards to the Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) permit 404
related to the federal Clean Water Act and an Environmental Assessment (EA) and /or
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA).
Sincerely,
Debbie Lowther
5359 Deep River Road
Sanford, NC 27330
919 - 774 -1933
lowtherl (@charter.net
z

Brown, Craig J SAW
From:
Edward Kelly [nedkellypbo @me.com]
Sent:
Sunday, April 05, 2015 3:52 PM
To:
Brown, Craig J SAW; Karen Higgins
Cc:
Jennifer Burdette; Boyd Devane; Jim Crawford; Mike Cross; Diana Hales; Karen Howard;
Walter Petty
Subject:
[EXTERNAL] Core Action ID Number: SAW- 2014 -02254
Attachments:
4 April 2015 Questions concerning Corps Action ID no SAW- 2014- 02254.pdf
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Flagged
Dear Craig Brown,
The contents of this email are duplicated in the attached pdf document below. As a resident
of Pittsboro, relatively close to the sites in Chatham and Lee counties selected for storage
of coal ash, I am very concerned about Corps Action ID Number SAW- 2014 - 02254. Let me start
by saying that many residents in Chatham County are already chronically unhappy about the
nuclear waste that accumulates daily at the nearby Shearon Harris nuclear plant. Now we are
being asked to be the dumping ground for someone else's disregard for the environment that
has been going on for many years at a distant site or sites. It is ironic that in both
cases, investor owned utilities are the cause of the environmental risks.
Coal ash contains a significant amount of toxic heavy metals and organic chemicals that pose
risks to the environment and to public health. The idea of moving coal ash a distance of
many miles from its accumulation site to other places unrelated to its production sounds like
multiplying the risk of contamination from original sites to potentially any point along its,
route of transport, and especially at the locations where it currently lies and those to
which it is being transported. Also, since the prevailing winds in the Chatham and Lee
County areas blow from southwest to northeast, we are usually upwind of the Raleigh
metropolitan area, a high- density population target for any accidents or unintended leakage
that may occur during or after the process of moving the coal ash to its intended places of
storage.
With these thoughts in mind, I am posing the following questions to you:
What method will be used to move coal ash from existing sites and containment areas
into train cars, and what types of train cars will be used to transport the ash?
What will be the route(s) of transport? How much escape of coal ash do you anticipate
while the ash is being moved, and at what points are the largest amounts of coal ash escape
likely to occur.
What process will be used to move the coal ash from railway cars to the proposed
storage areas, and how much spillage of coal ash do you anticipate beyond the confines of the -
proposed storage containers?
Will the storage containers themselves pose any threat to the environment, that is,
does the High Density Polyethylene liner for the storage container pose any threat to the
environment?
Since coal ash itself is very corrosive, have studies been done to assure that coal
ash will not corrode through the High Density Polyethylene long before the 500 years of
projected secure duration of the liner for the coal ash container? ,
i

•' Does the "high shrink -swell potential" mentioned in the section titled "Existing Site
Conditions" on page 2 of the Public Notice document issued on March 5, 2015 pose any threat
to the integrity of the liner of the container?
• Will workers involved in moving the coal ash wear hazardous materials protective
clothing?
o If not, why not?
o If yes, to what extent does this imply that the proposed movement of coal ash will be
dangerous to biologic species, including humans, at certain points, or at unpredictable
locations, along the corridor for moving the coal ash?
In closing, I have one additional thought that may or may not be relevant. I do not know
exactly how the sites in Chatham and Lee Counties were chosen for this project, and I assume
from the description of the proposed storage sites that they have reasonable geologic
conditions for such a project, should it be the best solution for storage of the previously
mishandled coal ash. However, I'm not convinced that this is the best solution. And, as a
citizen of this area, I cannot ignore the fact that we are in a gerrymandered district that
is majority Democratic, while the executive and legislative branches of government in our
state are Republican. Does the choice of this solution to a problem that is both
environmental and political have to do with current electoral politics in North Carolina? I
hope not.
Edward A. Kelly, MD
315 Hillsboro Street
Pittsboro, NC 27413
nedkellvpboOme.com
6

To: Craig Brown, US Army Corp of Engineers, Craig.J.Brown(@usace.army.mil
CC: Karen Higgins, 401 and Buffer Permitting Unit, karen.higginsoncdenr.gov;
Jennifer Burdette, Jennifer.burdetteCa ncdenr.gov; Boyd Devane,
boyd.devane@ncdenr; Jim Crawford, Chair, Chatham County Board of
Commissioners (CCBoC), iames.crawford(@chathamnc.org: Mike Cross CCBoC,
milce.cross(@chathamnc.org; Diana Hales, CCBoC, diana.hales(@chathamnc.org;
Karen Howard CCBoC, [e-mail]$; Walter Petty CCBoC
walter.petty(@chathamnc.org
Concerns and questions about Corps Action ID Number: SAW- 2014 - 02254, the
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers (Corps), involving the movement and
subsequent storage of coal ash from the Dan river site or any other site to proposed
storage sites in Chatham and Lee Counties, in the State of North Carolina.
Dear Craig Brown,
As a resident of Pittsboro, relatively close to the sites in Chatham and Lee counties
selected for storage of coal ash, I am very concerned about Corps Action ID Number
SAW- 2014 - 02254. Let me start by saying that many residents in Chatham County
are already chronically unhappy about the nuclear waste that accumulates daily at
the nearby Shearon Harris nuclear plant. Now we are being asked to be the
dumping ground for someone else's disregard for the environment that has been
going on for many years at a distant site or sites. It is ironic that in both cases,
investor owned utilities are the cause of the environmental risks.
Coal ash contains a significant amount of toxic heavy metals and organic chemicals
that pose risks to the environment and to public health. The idea of moving coal ash
a distance of many miles from its accumulation site to other places unrelated to its
production sounds like multiplying the risk of contamination from original sites to
potentially any point along its route of transport, and especially at the locations
where it currently lies and those to which it is being transported. Also, since the
prevailing winds in the Chatham and Lee County areas blow from southwest to
northeast, we are usually upwind of the Raleigh metropolitan area, a high - density
population target for any accidents or unintended leakage that may occur during or
after the process of moving the coal ash to its intended places of storage.
With these thoughts in mind, I am posing the following questions to you:
• What method will be used to move coal ash from existing sites and containment
areas into train cars, and what types of train cars will be used to transport the
ash?
• What will be the route(s) of transport? How much escape of coal ash do you
anticipate while the ash is being moved, and at what points are the largest
amounts of coal ash escape likely to occur.

• What process will be used to move the coal ash from railway cars to the
proposed storage areas, and how much spillage of coal ash do you anticipate
beyond the confines of the proposed storage containers?
• Will the storage containers themselves pose any threat to the environment, that
is, does the High Density Polyethylene liner for the storage container pose any
threat to the environment?
• Since coal ash itself is very corrosive, have studies been done to assure that coal
ash will not corrode through the High Density Polyethylene long before the 500
years of projected secure duration of the liner for the coal ash container?
• Does the "high shrink -swell potential" mentioned in the section titled "Existing
Site Conditions" on page 2 of the Public Notice document issued on March 5,
2015 pose any threat to the integrity of the liner of the container?
• Will workers involved in moving the coal ash wear hazardous materials
protective clothing?
o If not, why not?
o If yes, to what extent does this imply that the proposed movement of coal
ash will be dangerous to biologic species, including humans, at certain
points, or at unpredictable locations, along the corridor for moving the
coal ash?
In closing, I have one additional thought that may or may not be relevant. I do not
know exactly how the sites in Chatham and Lee Counties were chosen for this
project, and I assume from the description of the proposed storage sites that they
have reasonable geologic conditions for such a project, should it be the best solution
for storage of the previously mishandled coal ash. However, I'm not convinced that
this is the best solution. And, as a citizen of this area, I cannot ignore the fact that we
are in a gerrymandered district that is majority Democratic, while the executive and
legislative branches of government in our state are Republican. Does the choice of
this solution to a problem that is both environmental and political have to do with
current electoral politics in North Carolina? I hope not.
Edward A. Kelly, MD
315 Hillsboro Street
Pittsboro, NC 27413
nedkellypboOme.com

Brown, Craig J SAW
From: judyhogan @mindspring.com
Sent: Monday, April 06, 2015 8:27 AM
To: Brown, Craig J SAW
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Addendum to my letter of 3/24/15 on Green Meadows permit 404
(UNCLASSIFIED)
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
No problem. I merely wanted to be sure to send out the information to
others. We had a strange occurrence near the old Cape Fear coal- burning
plant on Friday, April 4. Two women who've written to you and live on
Corinth Rd, Mary Ann Perkins and Susan Poe, both drove through a dark cloud
of coal ash dust coming, they thought, from one of coal ash ponds near the
road there. They photographed it. I wanted them to report it, but they
elected to check it out again on Saturday, and it wasn't there. Friday and
Sat AM were both very windy. I believe Susan Poe sent it to you - -the photo.
This is one of the big things we're worried about. Thanks so much for the
time and trouble you are taking and in such an open, friendly way! Judy
Hogan
Original Message---- -
From: Brown, Craig J SAW
Sent: Monday, April 06, 2015 8:03 AM
To: ludyhoRanOmindsprinR.com
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Addendum to
permit 404 (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
my letter of 3/24/15 on Green Meadows
Judy, I think making a decision after the April 16th date is more
reasonable. Craig
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: iudyhogan0mindspring.com [ mailto :iudyhopanomindspring.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2015 2:03 PM
To: Brown, Craig J SAW
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Addendum to my letter of 3/24/15 on Green Meadows
permit 404 (UNCLASSIFIED)
Dear Mr. Brown, thank you this letter. One point I'd like to clarify. You
are saying that the Army Corps will make a determination about whether to
hold a public hearing after April 16 (after the DENR hearings) or after May
16 (end of the public comments sent in to DENR on the other three permits?
Thank you. Judy Hogan.

Brown, Craig J SAW
From:
Lisa Mansfield [lisakm41 @hotmail.com]
Sent:
Monday, April 06, 2015 10:09 AM
To:
Brown, Craig J SAW
Subject:
[EXTERNAL] Coal Ash
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Flagged
Dear Mr. Brown,
I had written a letter about the coal ash that is to be dumped at the Brickhaven site which
is right next door to our property. My husband wanted me to include a personal message from
him, Ellis M. Mansfield.
He has lived on this property all his life. He grew up here and had many fond memories of
fishing and farming the land.
We do not have a lot of money and we work very hard for what we have. The land we have is the
only thing we have of value. With this coal ash site coming here the land value will be
reduced to nearly nothing! It hurts my husband who has worked so hard see the only thing he
has of worth be ruined. This ash makes so much mess wherever it is dumped that it is
impossible to enjoy life anywhere around the dump site. Pictures and video from the Asheville
site are terrible! The dust from this ash goes everywhere and people wear masks just to mow
their yard!
I voiced a lot of our concerns already in my previous letter but I want you to know that
anything you can do to help us stop this destruction of our way of life here in Brickhaven
will be greatly appreciated! Thank you!
Ellis Mansfield
Lisa Mansfield
1149 Moncure Flatwood Road
Moncure, NC 27559
919 - 776 -0811
919 -770 7804 cell
1

P.
I
Brown, Craig J SAW
From:
Mary Ann Perkins [mapnbrickhaven @windstream.net]
Sent:
Monday, April 06, 2015 10:47 AM
To:
Brown, Craig J SAW
Cc:
karen.higgins @ncdenr.gov
Subject:
[EXTERNAL] Emailing: 04 -06 -2015 09;26;51AM
Attachments:
04 -06 -2015 09;26;51AM.PDF
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Flagged
Dear Mr. Brown:
As today is the last day for comments regarding the 404 permitting of Green
Meadows LLC (Charah) to store coal ash in the clay pits at Brickhaven
Community, please accept the attached Petition, signed by 110 people, with
more signatures to come prior to the Public Hearing on April 16 in Chatham
County.
Thank you,
Mary Ann Perkins, Resident
Brickhaven Community
Your message is ready to be sent with the following file or link
attachments:
04 -06 -2015 09;26;51AM
Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent
sending or receiving certain types of file attachments. Check your e -mail
security settings to determine how attachments are handled.
1

' �.
_
� � 1 _
_ _- _ .._ ' '
-
- .
..
-5
.
�
� !ri'
.` -.- i? .rid -
f ..- r .�'a C� 4. life. _ �
� ._ ,T _1 ,��
- � .
'
` - -
-
,� _
f ��,.. T, �
� � -.�� _ -'�
, _ -',
_.j
-
t,
_�._ - �
r - .

A Petition Against
Transport and Storage of Toxic Coal Ash in Southeast Chatham County, NC
Brickhaven Community
To, Army Corps of Engineers, NC Department of Environment & Natural Resources (NCDENR),
Chatham County Board of Commissioners
Requested Action of the Undersigned Petitioners;
• Deny required permits of Green Meadows, LLC or Charah to transport and
store toxic coal ash in the Brickhaven Community in clay pits; and
• Reject offers by Duke Progress Energy to the Chatham County Board of
Commissioners allowing Coal Ash transport and storage from other sites to
Southeast Chatham County.
Based on the Following Concerns
a. Coal Ash is the nation's second largest waste stream and contains high levels of heavy
metals such as arsenic, lead, mercury, and other toxic substances, which requires the
utmost precautions and protections for handling, transporting and disposal.
b. Hosting the disposal of coal ash means that residents will face substantially higher risk
of exposure to cancer- causing toxins during the transport, disposal, and storage of coal
ash.
C. Heavy flow of more truck and train traffic will increase safety issues, i.e. accidents,
spillage, fly ash, noise and air pollution.
d. Transport and storage of Coal Ash would adversely affect the economics of the
community /county.
e. Studies by the EPA and other agencies on the impact of mine disposal of Coal Ash reveal
potential health and environmental concerns that should be more clearly addressed by
state and /or federal regulations.
f. Coal Ash should be stored on -site at the facilities operated by Duke Progress Energy by a
method that prevents toxic exposure and contamination to humans and wildlife.
April 1, 2015

Signature of Petitioners
6�
Wxnr , /9.(/�
C�
4
�l VIA (I rc IJ, —
:Z41
6�
Wxnr , /9.(/�
C�
4

W/
Brown, Craig J SAW
From: MARTHA W GIROLAMI [mgirolami @mac.com]
Sent: Monday, April 06, 2015 12:33 PM
To: Brown, Craig J SAW
Cc: karen.higgens @ncdenr.gov
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Comments on Green Meadow SAW- 2014 -02254 permit/404 impact permit
Attachments: Comments to the Corps April 6.docx
Dear Mr. Brown
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Martha Girolami
473 Mount Pisgah Church Rd
Apex, NC 27523
919 - 362 -5759

April 6, 2015
Mr. Craig Brown
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Dear Mr. Brown,
I appreciate your consideration of my comments on the application from Green
Meadows, LLC seeking Department of the Army authorization to discharge fill
material into jurisdictional wetlands and streams associated with coal ash pits to be
located at the Brickhaven and Colon Road Mines in Chatham and Lee Counties, NC.
I live in Chatham County and have closely followed this proposed project by
Duke Energy and Charah /Green Meadows. My interest was provoked because I
oppose the lack of Democracy, i.e. there was no local government involvement and
collaboration in this decision to transport and dispose of millions of tons of coal ash
in my county. Coal ash dumps are being imposed. Also, landfills should not be used
for coal ash residuals and the permits from DENR are weak and fail to protect the
people, environment and many plants and animals living in and around these two
clay mines. The Chatham Board of Commissioners has unanimously passed a
resolution opposing this coal ash dump at Brickhaven.
Air Pollution and the Environment and Health:
Air pollution is a probable danger to the transport routes and the clay mines and
surrounding areas. Considerable tonnage of coal ash will be lost in material
handling and transport. Green Meadows / Charah has no stated plans in its permit to
do its material handling in an enclosed space to prevent dispersion and loss. There
is no air permit. Citizens must rely on only nuisance complaints which may activate
calls to keep the ash damp or some minimal strategy. Loosely tarped trucks and
open rail cars are to be used with no sealed barriers to prevent blow out of ash.
Material handling on site may involve backhoeing ash from rail cars to trucks or to
the ground, dumping ash into mine cells. Both trucks, backhoe and especially
"empty" rail cars will still contain ash that can be released to the air as they move
around the site or return to the Sutton and Riverbend plants to be refilled.
Since the fly ash portion of the coal ash residuals is low micron or submicron in size,
it is very difficult to prevent dispersion over the countryside and to confine in any
type of windy conditions or during the motion of transportation by rail or truck. To
illustrate how coal ash is readily dispersed and released by Duke Energy or
subcontractors, a few examples are given below.
On April 3, 2015, two photos taken by a resident of the Brickhaven area on Corinth
Road are attached. These show the air pollution from coal ash dust clouds coming
off of the pond at the inactive Cape Fear power plant.
Charah is causing significant pollution currently from trucking coal ash from the
Duke Energy Asheville power plant to its Asheville airport coal ash construction fill

project several miles down a rural highway. On February 4, 2015 a reporter with
WSOTV in Charlotte interviewed a landowner along this road. He said that trucks
drive by every two minutes and that "ash from the trucks has turned the road gray"
and that to cut his grass "you have to wear a mask. The whole side of the road ...it's
dust." The link below is to the article and video about this air pollution.
http: / /www.wsoctv.com /news /news /special- reports/9- investigates- coal -ash-
cleanup- problems /nO.K.1
April 3, 2015: photos taken of coal ash air pollution blowing from the Cape Fear

In "Ash in Lungs: How Breathing Coal Ash is Hazardous to Your Health"
released by Physicians for Social Responsibility and Earthjustice, the authors state
that coal fly ash which is less than 2.5 microns in size, is able to go deep into your
lungs. These particles are known to cause heart disease, asthma, stroke and
COPD as well as silicosis (like asbestosis) and cancer. Also these dust particles
contain toxic heavy metals and often radioactivity which are often carcinogens and
neurotoxins. Almost all toxins to humans are toxic to wildlife as these metals
become incorporated into their environment and food or are breathed in or pass
through skin or membranes to damage health and viability.
http: / /earthjustice.org /news /press /2014/ ash -in- lungs- how - breathing- coal - ash -is-
hazardous-to- ,your- health
In summary, material handling combined with winds and poor practices can
broadcast coal fly ash over many miles around the Brickhaven and Colon Road
projects and all transport routes. Material handling has low standards, is not
enclosed and regulations are minimal. Air pollution from coal ash is already
impacting the target area in Chatham and other sites in NC. Toxicity is from the
particle size which passes into the lung's aveoli, from metal toxicity and from
radioactivity. The coal ash air pollution constitutes irreversible and permanent
harm to environment and health.
Project Size and Scope:
The DENR permits call for 11.5 million Tons maximum storage of ash at the
Brickhaven mine and 9 million Tons at Colon Road mine. However, the third page of
the Green Meadows permit application (SAW- 2014 - 02254) under Project
Description states that "Approximately 3 million tons of coal ash would be
transported to the Brickhaven and Sanford Mines for use in mine reclamation." This
is a serious difference in project size and impact. This discrepancy must be resolved
since certainly the scale of the project is a fundamental consideration for your
decision.
Liability Transfer and Commercial Enterprise
Duke Energy has transferred liability to Charah /Green Meadows for all
environmental impacts that may occur at the coal ash dumps at the clay mines
for the next 30 years. By buying the services of Charah /Green Meadows, Duke
Energy which has enormous financial resources, is no longer responsible for its own
coal ash wastes. Green Meadows as a limited liability corporation has minor cash
reserves and assets. Also, by making the landfill /mine reclamation a commercial
enterprise, by the laws of interstate commerce, the business must accept coal ash
from outside the state of NC and from other companies besides Duke Energy in NC.
Brickhaven and Colon Road will likely be new Superfund sites in 30 years and the
finger pointing and blame game between these parties will prevent real and timely
(if indeed this is possible) remediation actions.

Groundwater and Clean up:
The clean up moneys /bonds etc. are inadequate for a clean up if /when leaks occur
in the linings. The DENR permit requires that only $2 million be set aside by Green
Meadows for correction action for spills and leaks. Plastic liner manufacturers have
no real knowledge of how long their liners will last. Email inquiries into liner HDPE
liner longevity produced two longevity estimates of 5 and 20 years. But the coal ash
and its toxic metal composition are forever. Also once a leak is detected, since the
ash is buried in a large cell and is partially underground, how is it possible to find
where the leak is and repair it? It cannot be done. All that can be done is watch the
plume grow and put homes /farms on county water if available. Rivers and streams
and the wildlife that depend on them receive this burden of pollution.
Above Ground Storage
Coal ash should be mixed with concrete and stored in above ground containment
as discussed in the following article. Of course these storage bunkers must be sited
at the source power plant. Two wrongs don't make a right. Dumping ash in unlined
riverside pits at the power plants (first wrong) and dumping this coal ash 200+
miles away in Brickhaven and Colon Road (second wrong) do not make a right. The
more than 100 million tons of coal ash at power plants across NC must be disposed
of in above - ground bunkers at the source power plant and must NOT be transported
across the state to Brickhaven and Colon Road mines. This salt -stone technology
is discussed in this article.
http:-/./www.bredi.org/pdf4/Coal ash report 14 -083 w Appx A +B pdf
Selenium and HDPE Liners:
Dr. A. Dennis Lemly, Research Fish Biologist with the USDA Forest Service and
Department of Biology at Wake Forest University raises concerns that landfill liners
and membranes are permeable to anions of selenium and points out that there are
no "post closure data and no selenium measurements at all" in coal ash landfill
performance applications. He reviews the toxicity of selenium, its high
concentration in coal ash leachate and that "ammoniated coal ash, which is the
predominant form produced today, enhances the leaching rate of elements that
form anionic compounds in solution, in particular selenium, arsenic, molybdenum,
fluoride, and vanadium."
Dr. Lemly discusses an EPA report that states that "leakage through properly
constructed HDPE GM primary liners that have undergone CQA monitoring will
occasionally be in excess of 200 Lphd (liters per hectare per day) during active
period of operation and up to 200 Lphd during post closure period." He states
this may constitute an environmental hazard with "biological significance ".
He goes on to evaluate this release saying that unless there is more than a 1000 fold
dilution factor of the released leachate, containing a typical coal ash leachate
concentration of selenium of 2000 microgram per liter, then the concentration of
polluted water could be as much as 2 micrograms per liter. This concentration is
toxic to fish and wildlife.
There is no data that says a HDPE or any other type of membrane liner

will not be permeable to certain anions specifically toxic selenium. This reliance on
landfills and liners for coal ash residuals is not based on science or experience. As
discussed in the previous section, the only safe storage of coal ash residuals is in
above ground concrete bunkers using the salt stone technology.
Reference: Lemly, A.D. 2010. Technical and Environmental Issues with Synthetic
Liners Proposed for use in Coal Ash Disposal Applications. Technical Report to
USEPA Available from the Author at the Department of Biology, Wake Forest
University, Winston - Salem, NC 27109.
The Need for a Hearing on the Green Meadows Permit:
Since each citizen is allowed only 3 minutes to communicate to the hearing officers
information, criticism and suggestions on the proposed Coal ash dumps in
Brickhaven and Colon Road and since there are three permits being commented on
in two meeting of three hours each, I do not think this is enough time. It is very
unusual to have more than one permit commented on at a hearing. People need
time to tell their stories, to describe their concerns. Some can spit out opinions
in seconds and others need more time.
Also, this accelerated process of coal ash clean up is mandated by the NC Legislature
in its Coal Ash Management Act. There has never been a decree like this before.
DENR has been under heavy and unsuitable pressure to create permits for
a landfill type project based on very little time and scant environmental information.
Normally a landfill permit will require over two years to complete but this permit
has been developed in less than a year. Concerned citizens need to have a say on
this one permit, not diluted or confused with the DENR permits.
Due to the many significant and irreversible environmental risks of this permit
application by Green Meadows, in my view, it should not be approved.
Thank you
Martha Girolami
473 Mount Pisgah Church Rd
Apex, NC 27523
Chatham County
919 - 362 -5759

r
Brown, Craig J SAW
From: Arlene [alicearlene @yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, April 06, 2015 1:54 PM
To: Brown, Craig J SAW
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: Impact statement
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: Arlene <alicearlene(@yahoo.com>
Date: April 6, 2015 at 1:45:02 PM EDT
To: Arlene <[e-mail]>
Subject: Impact statement
Dear Army Corps of Engineers,
My name is Arlene Jackson and I live in Sanford NC. I am very opposed to the plan that
Duke Energy has for bringing 20 million tons of coal ash to Lee and Chatham Counties. My
husband and I own a 40 acres horse farm and we also board horses for other people. One of
our horses had to be put down because it had eye cancer. We also lost a cat because of eye
cancer. I have had cancer surgery and there have been a lot of people on this road that have
also gotten cancer. Perhaps I need to get the Army Corp of Engineers to investigate this
problem. The last thing we need right now is for Lee County to get one more cancer causing
substance on top of the ones we already have.
I am particularly concerned about the fact that the liners don't work and only give
people a false sense of security. Dennis Lemly has studied the harmful effects of coal ash
for 30 years and I have learned a lot from him. I am going to forward you a 10 page PDF that
he wrote about the liners. I think this project should be halted immediately based on that
fact. What is the point in moving forward, if the liners have not even been tested on
Selenium ? I feel like we are just a
bunch of guinea pigs. Don't they care about our health? Other reasons for saying no to
their permits is that there has not been enough time to study the endangered plants and
animals that live on this site. This project is too close to 2000 families, It is on an
upper aquifer, has wetlands, is parallel to the Jonesboro Faultline, is touching the FEMA
floodplain, is near abandoned coal mine shafts, and is in a predominantly African American
community. This site is also located near an area that will be fracked which will compound
the problem. It is too close to surface water such as the creeks that pass through and the
Deep River, Cape Fear River and Jordan Lake.
Many people's lives will be impacted by the trains and truck traffic that will be
hauling coal ash half way across the state.
I have two grown children who also live in Sanford. My son has two small sons. They
attend a church daycare that is located right beside the train tracks that run past
their playground. I am a retired teacher and I am also concerned about the many
children attending the schools that will be affected.
So, altogether there are 12 people in my family. All of them will be impacted, so you
should make 12 copies of this letter to include in your booklet that you are going to bring
to the
April 13th. meeting at the Dennis Wicker Center.
1

Their names are Alice Rosser, Sherman Rosser, Vivian Rosser,
Jackson,
Melissa Jackson, Brent Jackson, Brandon Allred, Susan Cole,
And myself Arlene Jackson.
Sent from my iPad
N
Lyndon Rosser, Gary
Tate Jackson, Jude Jackson

Brown, Craig J SAW
From:
Arlene [alicearlene @yahoo.com]
Sent:
Monday, April 06, 2015 1:53 PM
To:
Brown, Craig J SAW
Subject:
[EXTERNAL] Fwd: Coal ash coming to Lee County NC
Attachments:
Lemly -Se and Liners - review.pdf
Dear Army Corps Of Engineers,
Please read the PDF file located at the end of this
valuable information. Please attach it to my impact
a few minutes.
Thank you, Arlene Jackson
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
letter. It contains a lot of very
statement that I will be sending you in
From: Arlene <alicearlene0yahoo.com>
Date: February 18, 2015 at 3:07:25 PM EST
To: "infopalldiRitalprint.com" <info(@alldigitalprint.com>
Subject: Fwd: Coal ash coming to Lee County NC
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: Arlene <alicearlene0yahoo.com>
Date: February 18, 2015 at 2:12:54 PM EST
To: ktrogdon(@sanfordherald.com, kathryn.trogdon(@gmail.com
Subject: Fwd: Coal ash coming to Lee County NC
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: " Lemly, Dennis" <lemlyadowfu.edu>
Date: February 17, 2015 at 4:58:13 PM EST
To: Arlene <alicearleneoVahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Coal ash coming to Lee County NC
1

Hello Arlene,
Landfills such as those proposed for Lee County are not the "solution" to
coal ash disposal ....... they are a
"band aid" that may delay water pollution problems, but likely won't stop
them. I advocate recycling want they can, and encapsulating the rest into a concrete "coal
ash tombstone" that would remain on power plant property as a permanent memorial of their
waste, and their commitment to keep the coal ash out of our waterways and environment.
I attached a technical report on why I don't believe liners are the "cure
all" for disposal of coal ash.
Let me know if you need anything else.
Sincerely,
Dennis Lemly
On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 9:30 AM, Arlene <alicearlene(@yahoo.com> wrote:
Dear Mr. Lemly, I' ve read a lot about you on the Internet and was
wondering if you could share some of your expertise with me and others in Lee County. Duke
Energy plans to move 8 million or more tons of coal ash to our town from Flemington NC and
Ashville NC. They are placing it right on top of our water shed area and there are 2000
homes within one half mile of the dump site. They plan to put a liner down first. What
problems can you foresee in the near or distant future with this plan? I think Flemington
sued to get rid of it. What makes anyone think that we want it? We would love to have you
come speak at a town hall type meeting. Even better would be if you would agree to an
interview with 60 minutes as a follow up story to the one Leslie Sthall recently did. We
don't think Duke is being a good neighbor. Would you want a coal ash dump near your home?
Knowing all you do would you move? We think they should take the stance that Va,NC has and
solve the problem where the stuff already is instead of dragging it all over the state. May
I quote your online information or any comments you return to me or do you prefer to remain
anonymous?
Sent from my iPad
Thank you, Arlene Jackson
919 - 258 -9393
Cell. 919 - 352 -2112
5057 Cox Mill Road
Sanford, NC. 27332
alicearlene(@yahoo.com
z

Technical and Environmental Issues with Synthetic Liners Proposed for use in Coal Ash
Disposal Applications
A. Dennis Lemly, Ph.D.
Research Fish Biologist
USDA - Forest Service, Southern Research Station
Piedmont Aquatic Research Laboratory
Department of Biology, Wake Forest University, Winston - Salem, NC
dlemly @fs.fed.us, 336 -758 -4532
Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery
Washington, DC
EPA Docket ID No. EPA— HQ —RCRA- 2009 -0640
Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System:
Identification and Listing of Special Wastes:
Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities — Proposed Rule
September 21, 2010

BACKGROUND
The USEPA is holding a total of 8 hearings on classification and disposal of coal combustion
residuals (CCRs) prior to completing and issuing its final rule (1). The Geosynthetic Materials
Association (GMA) was among the first in line to address the issue on August 30 at the initial
hearing in Arlington, VA, and will deliver similar testimony at each of the other hearings as well.
GMA has long maintained a position that CCRs can be safely contained as solid waste and that a
designation as special waste (hazardous waste) would be overkill. However, regardless of the
designation EPA makes, it is becoming clear that through advocacy efforts by GMA and others,
the use of Geosynthetic Membrane (GM) liner systems that use High Density Polyethylene
(HDPE) as the primary liner material will likely be required in the disposal of coal ash waste.
GMA has posted several written comments on this issue. (The complete set of GMA's
comments can be found at: http : / /geosyntheticsmagazine.com /news /gmaupdate). In addition
to the public hearings and written comments, GMA bolstered support for geosynthetic lining of
coal ash sites during Capitol Hill meetings with U.S. House and Senate staffs during GMA's
Lobby Day activities on September 15.
Following are the comments made by GMA members during the August 30 EPA hearing in
Arlington, just outside Washington, D.C.:
Today I am representing the Geosynthetic Materials Association, the trade group of 80
companies that manufacture, distribute and install geosynthetic materials, including liners
systems. The industry employs 12,000 people throughout the United States.
Our comment to EPA is very simple. We request that EPA mandate the geosynthetic lining of
coal ash storage facilities using composite lining systems. In the shortest terms, use liners,
specifically composite liners.
Why? Because liners work. Concerns of safety regarding CCRs are mitigated if the landfill
storage sites are lined with a composite liner system of a geomembrone and a geosynthetic clay
liner. A composite liner system prevents the leachate from entering the environment. Safety
concerns regarding surface impoundments are also mitigated if the impoundments are lined
with a composite liner system.
The American Society of Civil Engineers does a regular "Report Card on America's
Infrastructure. "For the last three report cards, representing over a decade, solid waste has
received the highest grade of any category. My industry does a good job of taking America's
waste and properly storing it to protect the environment. The materials, technology and people
exist [nowj —the engineers, engineering techniques and standards, the general contractors and
installers who can build the proper facilities and the regulators and inspectors who assure the
work is done correctly. We urge EPA to "use what exists and is working today."

Further, our industry has continuously improved over time and EPA has been a part of that
effort. Over the years, EPA has commissioned nearly 80 studies of the design and performance
of lining systems. We specifically call your attention to a 2002 study titled "Assessment and
Recommendations for Optimal Performance of Waste Containment Systems" (EPA 600/R-
021099). That study contains a great deal of pertinent information on how to construct
containment systems. Most illustrative for today is a graph charting the leakage rate of
different designs over the life cycle of nearly 200 facilities. The composite liner system of a
geomembrone and a geosynthetic clay liner was demonstrated to have the lowest leakage rate
over all life cycle stages, including a near zero leakage rate after the facilities are closed and
final cover placed. Our materials work.
Use of composite liner systems will achieve the EPA mission to protect human health and the
environment for all Americans.
A brief word on the hazardous /non- hazardous question. While coal ash does contain heavy
metals, it lacks the traditional characteristics of hazardous materials, radioactivity or the
presence of infectious medical waste, etc. In the opinion of our trade organization, coal ash can
be properly stored using subtitle "D" regulations, a non - hazardous solid waste designation with
composite liner systems.
Thank you.
In addition to the above italicized comments delivered in oral testimony, the GMA website
includes this chart and following legend as evidence of liner performance:
Chart courtesy of the Geosynthetic Research Institute (GRI) at Drexel University.
3
400
(30) Geomembrane compacted
clay .- composite liner
Geomembrane GCL
composite liner
a
w
2ao
(31)0 , ��' of sites_ of that type)
GM /CCL (32)
1Q0
(19y"� (411
(;MIGCL i9) 8,15)
0
SO)
Initial Subsequent After
Filling Filling Final Cover
Life Cycle Stage
3

Waste disposal sites in the U.S. -199 total —with a variety of designs and materials were
examined. The survey population included sites at different phases of the site lifespan as
indicated on the "X" axis. The site leakage (collection) rate was plotted on the "Y" axis for the
three types of liner design: yellow – geomembrane alone, green – geomembrane and compacted
clay, red –a geomembrane and GCL (geosynthetic clay liner) composite liner system. The key
point is the optimal performance of the composite liner system(s), including a near zero leakage
rate for the closed ( "After Final Cover ") site.
Data Source: Bonaparte, Daniel, and Koerner. (2002) "Assessment and Recommendations for
Optimal Performance of Waste Containment Systems," EPA /600 /R- 02/099. U. S. EPA, ORD,
Cincinnati, OH
ISSUE WITH GMA POSITION
I am not an expert in GM liner performance but I do know a fair bit about selenium as a water
pollutant from coal ash, the threat it poses to fish and wildlife health, and the importance of
proper disposal techniques in mitigating that threat. Selenium is a trace element that leaches
out of CCRs, bioaccumulates in aquatic food chains, and causes deformed young, reproductive
failure, and other toxic effects. I have studied the environmental toxicology of selenium as a
water pollutant from CCRs for over 30 years and published 47 research papers and a reference
book on selenium sources, environmental cycling, and toxic impacts (see attached technical
qualifications). My investigations of CCR impacts span the country, beginning with the
landmark pollution event at Belews Lake, North Carolina in the 1970's, which eliminated 19
species of fish, and continuing today, with the on -going catastrophe from the TVA ash spill in
Tennessee, which has polluted an entire river ecosystem and elevated tissue concentrations of
selenium in fish to levels that cause massive reproductive failure.
After hearing the testimony of GMA members and seeing the confidence they expressed in the
ability of liners to control coal ash pollutants, I investigated further by reading the reference
they cited as the primary support for their position (EPA /600 /R- 02/099).
In the course of my initial review I found that liner performance results in GMA's cited data
source did not measure up to the level of reliability and confidence they had espoused in their
written and oral statements. For example, selenium was not measured in the leachate from the
single coal ash disposal site studied (out of 199 sites), or any other for that matter. The report
did state that the leachate rate was 300 -600% greater for the coal ash site than other waste
types, which suggested to me that post - closure data is critical to evaluate the performance of
GM materials in the context of what GMA was saying about EPA's proposed rule, i.e., that
composite liners will protect people and the environment. Yet, there was no post - closure data
for the coal waste site. This led me to question GMA's position and whether they could
reasonably (accurately) project performance for a HDPE primary liner in a coal -ash application
when there is (1) no post - closure data and (2) no selenium measurements at all in their key
reference citation. I am a generally a proponent of liners and I believe they are a step in the
4

right direction. However, what GMA presented, based solely on the EPA 2002 study, was not
convincing or conclusive with respect to coal ash and selenium. The lack of information on
mobility and containment of selenium seemed to rise to the level of a fatal flaw in GMA's
analysis and statements about a GM liner's ability to protect the environment.
FURTHER ANALYSIS
I voiced the above concerns to GMA by posting a reply in the comment forum of their website
on September 13. One of their members responded with the following:
"The performance of liner systems is typically not —in fact, almost never — evaluated
against specific agents (i.e., selenium).
The interaction of geosynthetic liner materials to an extremely wide range of chemicals
is well -known and understood. There is one general class of chemical (very low
molecular weight halogenated hydrocarbons) where there are measurable interaction
differences between the chemical and the geosynthetic material, depending on the
specific nature of the chemical.
For all other general classifications of chemical interactions, the performances of the
geosynthetics are relatively uniform. Thus, testing is not done for a specific chemical.
In fact, it is thought that mixtures of a wide range of chemical components present a
more difficult performance standard for geosynthetic barriers. That is why, during the
early use of geosynthetics, a large number of tests were conducted using leachate from
waste containment facilities, which contained a broad range of chemical constituents.
These tests, identified under the name EPA 9090, have successfully demonstrated the
inertness to a broad range of chemicals that has allowed geosynthetic materials such as
high- density polyethylene to contain materials effectively for decades ".
This response was not sufficient to allay my concerns and I continued my analysis of the liner
performance issue by examining the EPA 9090 studies and other performance information.
Following this analysis I posted the following reply on GMA's website on September 16:
"I am not concerned about selenium interacting with the membrane and degrading it,
which is what EPA 9090 examines (compatibility). I want to know if there are
permeability issues for the oxyanion and organic forms of selenium (selenate, selenite,
selenomethionine, hydrogen selenide, etc.). Specifically, are there (1) laboratory studies
showing that permeation or co- transport of selenium and water do not occur in the
long -term (months- years) when the membrane is exposed to whole -ash leachate, and
(2) field monitoring studies to confirm that none of these forms is passing through and
getting into groundwater or surface water at concentrations of concern to fish and
5

wildlife health ( >1 ug /L) during the operational life of a lined coal ash landfill or surface
impoundment, and 1, 5, 10 etc. years after closure. It would also be very useful to know
the volume of leachate that is contained by the liner during the same period, as well as
its Se concentration. The 1984 EPA 9090 tests and many others since then were
conducted with industrial or municipal waste leachate that contained <5 ug /L Se.....coal
ash leachate can have >20,000. Unless there are lab and field performance studies
available which show satisfactory results, it is, at best, misleading for a GMA
spokesperson to appear at an EPA hearing on coal ash disposal and contend that "our
liners work" with respect to selenium pollution. You can't credibly say they work if you
can't demonstrate that they work. This demonstration has apparently not been done for
selenium. I hope your last statement, i.e., that geosynthetic materials have effectively
contained materials for decades, will prove true for selenium and coal ash, but I see no
current evidence or proof of this in the trade, scientific, or regulatory literature. Are
there others within your industry that have additional information that would be useful
in answering my questions ? ".
LATEST DEVELOPMENTS AND CONCLUSIONS
As of September 21, GMA has not responded to my latest comment, but I have continued to
study the liner issue and I have discovered an even more disturbing set of circumstances that I
wish to bring to the attention of EPA. Data in the 2002 EPA report seem much less supportive
of GMA's statements about liner performance than they would have you believe. For example,
13 cells with GM /CCL or GM /GCL /CCL composite liners were monitored (Table 5 -6, pages 5 -25 —
5 -30), none of which was a coal ash disposal cell. Only 5 produced sufficient data for a
conclusion about leakage and overall performance. Four were deemed effective and one began
to fail after only 12 months due to "breakthrough" of the diagnostic constituents sulfate and
chloride which, like selenium, are anions. The report states (page 5 -31) "The reason for the
increase in the anion concentrations in the LDS (Leak Detection System) flow from Cell AD7 is
unclear ". This "unknown" leaves open the question I raised about selenium movement through
liners, and is particularly troubling in light of the fact that Cell AD7 is part of a facility that was
built, operated, and closed under Construction Quality Assurance (CQA) monitoring for a Class
IV Hazardous Waste Landfill. Moreover, diagnostic organics (toluene, benzene, xylene) did not
exhibit "breakthrough ", indicating that liner failure cannot be attributed to tears, holes, or
some other physical failure that allowed whole -waste leachate to pass through. Also, anionic
forms of selenium are known to interact with High Density Polyethylene (2), the predominant
constituent of synthetic liners, which could facilitate their passage through this membrane
material. Finally, the combined sulfate - chloride concentration of overlying whole -waste
leachate was much greater in the failed cell than in 3 of the 4 intact cells (16, 864 mg /L vs. 201,
341, 821; Table E -4 -9), suggesting that anionic strength of the leachate may have been a factor
contributing to liner failure. Coal ash produces leachate with an exceptionally high anionic
strength due to the presence of sulfate, chloride, and many other constituents. Sulfate
concentrations alone can exceed 30,000 mg /L (3). Moreover, ammoniated coal ash, which is
the predominant form produced today, enhances the leaching rate of elements that form
6

anionic compounds in solution, in particular, selenium, arsenic, molybdenum, fluoride, and
vanadium (4). Collectively, these factors suggest that failure of HDPE liner material in a coal ash
application is very possible for chemical reasons unrelated to direct degradation of the
membrane itself. The EPA report goes on to state (page 5 -32) "The conclusions for composite
liners should be considered preliminary. Additional analyses are recommended ....... the
additional analyses should include a more thorough analysis of the transport characteristics of a
wider array of key chemical constituents than considered in this study ". The 2002 EPA report
confirms my suspicion that the behavior of selenium is largely unknown and untested for
composite liner systems. What the EPA report shows is alarming - -- a 20% failure rate. If you
project that to the multitude of lined coal ash waste sites that are /will be in existence, it is easy
to see my concerns. With respect to selenium pollution, GMA's remarks may be leading to a
false sense of security and complacency. In fact, it is likely that a patchwork of ticking time
bombs is being created, some of which have already exploded, some of which will explode in
the near future, and some of which will explode in the long term. GM composite liners may not
be the cure -all suggested by GMA's rather bold statement "Use of composite liner systems will
achieve the EPA mission to protect human health and the environment for all Americans ". EPA's
call for additional monitoring and assessment is well founded. Proper ground and surface
water monitoring studies would reveal the true extent of existing and potential problems, but
they apparently don't exist ..... yet. Until this information is available, it is imperative that GMA
stick to facts when discussing the utility of GM liners in the context of an EPA hearing or other
forums. Their effectiveness for coal ash disposal is currently unverified and questionable.
Also, the EPA report brings up another important issue..... "engineering significance" versus
"biological significance ". Regarding the intact cells, it is stated on page 5 -31 that "leachate
migration into the LDS at a rate of any engineering significance has not occurred ", and
concludes on page E -128 that "leakage through properly constructed HDPE GM primary liners
that have undergone CQA monitoring will occasionally be in excess of 200 Lphd during the
active period of operation and up to 200 Lphd during the post - closure period ". The engineering
significance of this leakage rate may not be a concern, but the environmental hazard may be.
Consider, for example, that a 200 Lphd leak for a 25 ha landfill will produce 5,000 liters per day,
or about 1,300 gallons. If that liquid contains a typical coal ash leachate concentration of
selenium (2,000 ug /L, 5), and assuming a dilution factor of 1000 is achieved in groundwater or
surface water (which would require uniform mixing and percolation of the leak water through 3
feet of saturated soil underlying the landfill (7), assimilation by 40 acre -feet of impounded
surface water, or incorporation into a 2 cfs surface stream flow), then the result is 1,300,000
gallons of ambient water per day containing 2 ug Se /L, a concentration that poses a toxic threat
to fish and wildlife (6). This is a tremendous volume of polluted water, amounting to more than
the total daily wastewater flow from a typical town of about 10,000 people (8, 9). If 1000 -fold
dilution is not achieved, Se levels will be higher and pose an even greater risk. Thus, what
constitutes engineering success may not equate to environmental success. Based on the
material I have reviewed, the only scientifically and environmentally credible conclusion is that
HDPE liners won't necessarily solve, or effectively lessen, selenium pollution problems from
disposal of coal combustion residues. If EPA has information generated since their 2002 study
7

indicating otherwise, it should be made available for external public review, assessment, and
comment prior to final rulemaking.
References
(1) http: / /www.epa.gov/ wastes /nonhaz/ industrial / special /fossil /ccr- rule /ccr - hearing htm
(2) http:// www. springerlink .com /content/i3u3h927u5188443/
(3) http: / /www.cses.vt.edu /revegetation/ Papers/ o20PDF/ CCP %2OFiles%20for %20Web /Publicati
ons/ Stewart,% 20B. R. , %20W.L. /o20Daniels /o20and /o20M L /o20Jackson %201997 %20Evaluation
%20of %201eachate %20guality.pdf
(4) http: / /www.flyash.info /2003 /81has.pdf
(5) http:/ /pubs. acs .org /doi /abs/10.1021/ef900044w
(6) Lemly, A.D. 2002. Selenium assessment in aquatic ecosystems: A guide for hazard
evaluation and water quality criteria. Springer - Verlag, New York.
(7) http://www.noble-org/ag/Soils/soilWaterRelationships/Index.htm
(8) http://www.archdale-nc.gov/index.asp?TVpe=B BASIC &SEC= f9534B7F5- 399B -4EC9 -8754
C41389A2C5031
(9) http:Hwww.city-data.com/city/­Archdale-North-Carolina.html
TECHNICAL QUALIFICATIONS STATEMENT OF DR. A. DENNIS LEMLY
I have spent over 30 years investigating the effects of aquatic pollution from coal combustion residues
(CCR). I have extensive experience conducting field and laboratory research on selenium, which is one
of the most toxic trace elements in CCR. My studies have focused on aquatic cycling, bioaccumulation,
and effects on fish. These studies include intensive investigation of two of the most substantial cases of
selenium pollution that have taken place in the USA: (1) Belews Lake, North Carolina, where 19 species
of fish were eliminated due to selenium in CCR, and (2) Kesterson Marsh, California, where thousands of
fish and aquatic birds were poisoned. My career began in the 1970's with studies of the landmark
pollution event at Belews Lake, which established the fundamental principles of selenium
bioaccumulation and reproductive toxicity in fish resulting from CCR. In the 1980's, I was a research
project manager for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, directing studies that determined impacts of
selenium from agricultural irrigation drainage on fish and aquatic birds at Kesterson and in 14 other
western states. In the 1990's, the emphasis of my research shifted to the development of methods and
8

guidelines for hazard assessment and water quality criteria for selenium, which led to the publication of
a reference book (see item 42 below). This handbook contains the first comprehensive assessment tools
for evaluating selenium pollution from CCR on an ecosystem scale. I have consulted on selenium
contamination issues ranging from CCR landfill leachate in Hong Kong to mountain top removal coal
mining in West Virginia. I provide the methods and technical guidance necessary to identify, evaluate,
and correct aquatic selenium problems before they become significant toxic threats to fish and wildlife
populations. I have Masters and Doctorate degrees in biology from Wake Forest University.
PUBLICATIONS ON SELENIUM TOXICITY FROM COAL COMBUSTION RESIDUES, COAL MINING, AND
OTHER SOURCES:
1. Lemly, A.D. 1982. Response of juvenile centrarchids to sublethal concentrations of waterborne
selenium: I. Uptake, tissue distribution, and retention. Aquatic Toxicology 2: 235 -252.
2. Lemly, A.D. 1982. Determination of selenium in fish tissues with differential pulse polarography.
Environmental Technology 3: 497 -502.
3. Lemly, A.D. 1983. A simple activity quotient for detecting pollution- induced stress in fishes.
Environmental Technology 4: 173 -178.
4. Lemly, A.D. 1985. Ecological basis for regulating aquatic emissions from the power industry: The
case with selenium. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 5: 465 -486.
5. Lemly, A.D. 1985. Toxicology of selenium in a freshwater reservoir: Implications for environmental
hazard evaluation and safety. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 10: 314 -338.
6. Lemly, A.D. 1986. Effects of selenium on fish and other aquatic life. Pages 153 -162 in J.B. Anderson
and S.S. Anderson, editors. Toxic Substances in Agricultural Water Supply and Drainage: Defining the
Problems. U.S. Committee on Irrigation Drainage, Denver, CO.
7. Lemly, A.D., and G.J. Smith. 1987. Aquatic Cycling of Selenium: Implications for Fish and Wildlife.
Fish and Wildlife Leaflet 12. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. 10 pages.
8. Lemly, A.D. 1989. Cycling of selenium in the environment. Pages 113 -123 in A.Q. Howard, editor.
Selenium and Agricultural Drainage: Implications for San Francisco Bay and the California Environment.
The Bay Institute of San Francisco, Tiburon, CA.
9. Lemly, A.D., and G.J. Smith. 1991. Selenium in aquatic ecosystems: Potential impacts on fish and
wildlife. In R.C. Severson, S.E. Fisher, Jr., and L.P. Gough, editors. Proceedings of the Billings Land
Reclamation Symposium on Selenium in Arid and Semiarid Environments, Western United States. U.S.
Geological Survey Circular 1064: 43 -53.
10. Lemly, A.D. 1993. Subsurface agricultural irrigation drainage: The need for regulation.
Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 17: 157 -180.
11. Lemly, A.D., S.E. Finger, and M.K. Nelson. 1993. Sources and impacts of irrigation drainwater
contaminants in and wetlands. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 12: 2265 -2279.
12. Lemly, A.D. 1993. Guidelines for evaluating selenium data from aquatic monitoring and
assessment studies. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 28: 83 -100.
13. Lemly, A.D. 1993. Teratogenic effects of selenium in natural populations of freshwater fish.
Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 26: 181 -204.
9

14. Lemly, A.D. 1993. Metabolic stress during winter increases the toxicity of selenium to fish. Aquatic
Toxicology 27: 133 -158.
15. Lemly, A.D. 1994. Agriculture and wildlife: Ecological implications of subsurface irrigation drainage.
Journal of Arid Environments 28: 85 -94.
16. Lemly, A.D. 1994. Irrigated agriculture and freshwater wetlands: A struggle for coexistence in the
western United States. Wetlands Ecology and Management 3: 3 -15.
17. Lemly, A.D. 1995. A protocol for aquatic hazard assessment of selenium. Ecotoxicology and
Environmental Safety 32: 280 -288.
18. Lemly, A.D. 1996. Selenium in aquatic organisms. Chapter 19 (pages 427 -445) in W.N. Beyer, G.H.
Heinz, and A.W. Redmon- Norwood, editors. Environmental Contaminants in Wildlife: Interpreting
Tissue Concentrations. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL.
19. Lemly. A.D. 1996. Winter Stress Syndrome: An important consideration for hazard assessment of
aquatic pollutants. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 34: 223 -227.
20. Lemly, A.D. 1996. Identifying and reducing environmental risks from agricultural irrigation drainage
in developing countries. Proceedings of the World Congress of Toxicology in Developing Countries 3:
177 -190.
21. Lemly, A.D. 1996. Assessing the toxic threat of selenium to fish and aquatic birds. Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment 43:19 -35.
22. Lemly, A.D. 1996. Wastewater discharges may be most hazardous to fish during winter.
Environmental Pollution 93: 169 -174.
23. Lemly, A.D. 1996. Evaluation of the hazard quotient method for risk assessment of selenium.
Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 35: 156 -162.
24. Lemly, A.D. 1997. Ecosystem recovery following selenium contamination in a freshwater reservoir.
Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 36: 275 -281.
25. Lemly, A.D. 1997. Environmental hazard of selenium in the Animas La Plata Water Development
Project. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 37: 92 -96.
26. Lemly, A.D. 1997. Role of season in aquatic hazard assessment. Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment 45: 89 -98.
27. Lemly, A.D. 1997. A teratogenic deformity index for evaluating impacts of selenium on fish
populations. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 37: 259 -266.
28. Lemly, A.D. 1997. Environmental implications of excessive selenium. Biomedical and
Environmental Sciences 10: 415 -435.
29. Lemly, A.D. 1998. Pathology of selenium poisoning in fish. Chapter 16 (Pages 281 -296) in W.T.
Frankenberger and R.A. Engberg, editors. Environmental Chemistry of Selenium. Marcel- Dekker Press,
New York, NY.
30. Lemly, A.D. 1998. A position paper on selenium in ecotoxicology: A procedure for deriving site -
specific water quality criteria. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 39: 1 -9.
31. Lemly, A.D. 1998. Belews Lake: Lessons learned. Pages 3 -6 and E15 -20 in U.S. EPA Publication EPA -
822 -R -98 -007. Report on the Peer Consultation Workshop on Selenium Aquatic Toxicity and
Bioaccumulation. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
32. Lemly, A.D. 1999. Case study: Contaminant impacts on freshwater wetlands at Kesterson National
10

r
Wildlife Refuge, California. Chapter 6 (pages 191 -206) in M.A. Lewis et al., editors. Ecotoxicology and
Risk Assessment for Wetlands. SETAC Press, Pensacola, FL.
33. Lemly, A.D. 1999. Selenium transport and bioaccumulation in aquatic ecosystems: A proposal for
water quality criteria based on hydrological units. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 42: 150 -156.
34. Lemly, A.D. 1999. Irrigation drainage. Pages 304 -307 in M.A. Mares, editor. Encyclopedia of
Deserts. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK.
35. Hamilton, 5.1., and A.D. Lemly. 1999. The water - sediment controversy in setting environmental
standards for selenium. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 44: 227 -235.
36. Lemly, A.D. 1999. Selenium impacts on fish: An insidious time bomb. Human and Ecological Risk
Assessment 5: 1139 -1151.
37. Lemly, A.D., R.T. Kingsford, and J.R. Thompson. 2000. Irrigated agriculture and wildlife
conservation: Conflict on a global scale. Environmental Management 25: 485 -512.
38. Lemly, A.D. 2001. Irrigation- induced demise of wetlands. Pages 399 -410 in R.E. Munn and I.
Douglas, editors. Global Environmental Change, Volume 3: Causes and Consequences of Global
Environmental Change. John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichester, United Kingdom.
39. Lemly, A.D. 2002. Symptoms and implications of selenium toxicity in fish: The Belews Lake case
example. Aquatic Toxicology 57: 39 -49.
40. Lemly, A.D., and H.M. Ohlendorf. 2002. Regulatory implications of using constructed wetlands to
treat selenium -laden wastewater. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 52: 46 -56.
41. Lemly, A.D. 2002. A procedure for setting environmentally safe Total Maximum Daily Loads
(TMDLs) for selenium. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 52:123 -127.
42. Lemly, A.D. 2002. Selenium Assessment in Aquatic Ecosystems: A Guide for Hazard Evaluation and
Water Quality Criteria. Springer - Verlag Publishers, New York, NY.
43. Lemly, A.D. 2004. Aquatic selenium pollution is a global environmental safety issue. Ecotoxicology
and Environmental Safety 59: 44 -56.
44. Kingsford, R.T., A.D. Lemly, and J.R. Thompson. 2006. Impacts of dams, river management, and
diversions on desert rivers. Chapter 8 (pages 203 -247) in R.T. Kingsford (editor). Ecology of Desert
Rivers. Cambridge University Press, UK.
45. Lemly, A.D. 2007. A procedure for NEPA assessment of selenium hazards associated with mining.
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 125: 361 -375.
46. Lemly, A.D., and J.P. Skorupa. 2007. Technical issues affecting the implementation of US
Environmental Protection Agency's proposed fish tissue -based aquatic criterion for selenium.
Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 3: 552 -558.
47. Lemly, A.D. 2008. Aquatic hazard of selenium pollution from coal mining. Chapter 6 (Pages 167-
183) in G.B. Fosdyke (editor). Coal Mining: Research, Technology, and Safety. Nova Science Publishers,
New York, NY.
48. Palmer, M.A., E.S. Bernhardt, W.N. Schlesinger, K.N. Eshleman, E. Fonfoula - Georgious, M.S.
Hendryx, A.D. Lemly, G.E. Likens, 01 Louck, M.E. Power, P.S. White, and P.R. Wilcock. 2010.
Mountaintop mining consequences. Science 327:148 -149.
11

L
Brown, Craig J SAW
From: Therese Vick [therese.vick @gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, April 06, 2015 2:58 PM
To: Brown, Craig J SAW
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Corps Action ID Number: SAW- 2014 -02254
Attachments: TVickB RED LAC E404Comments04O62015 .pdf; Lemly -Se and Liners - review (1) (1).pdf; %
Minority Brickhaven.pdf; %Minority Colon.pdf
Dear Mr. Brown:
Please find attached my comments and supporting documents on the Green Meadows 404 permit.
Sincerely,
Therese Vick
Therese Vick
North Carolina Healthy Sustainable Communities Campaign Coordinator
Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League
therese.vickOgmail.com
919 - 345 -3673
www.bredl.org <http: / /goog 1000906453>
@tvickBREDL Twitter
https:// www. facebook. com/ BlueRidgeEnvironmentalDefenseLeaeue ?ref =hl
From Where I Sit: Reports From The North Carolina Mining and Energy Commission
< http: // bredlbetweenthelines .blogspot.com />
BREDL 1984 -2014: Celebrating Thirty Years of Grassroots Action
Be kind to all you meet, each of us carries a burden that others cannot see—
1
Meetings

Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League
ww%v.BREDL.org 4617 Pearl Rd Raleigh NC 27610 (919) 345 -3673 [e-mail]
Mr. Craig Brown
Regulatory Specialist
Regulatory Division
United States Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
April 6, 2015
Re: Corps Action ID Number: SAW- 2014 -02254
Dear Mr. Brown:
On behalf of the members and Directors of Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League
(BREDL) and our Lee and Chatham County chapters, I write to offer the following comments on
the 404 permit applications under consideration for the proposed Colon and Brickhaven coal ash
disposal sites.
Request for a Public Hearin
Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League requests that the Corps hold a public hearing on the
draft 404 permit. The substantial impact and huge scale of the proposed coal ash disposal sites
demand additional public input. Moreover, Lee and Chatham Counties are understood to be
"ground zero" for natural gas extraction in North Carolina- with its attendant potential to impact
the waters of the United States from spills, waste pit overflows and leaks, and stormwater run-
off. Cumulative and indirect impacts must be studied.
Environmental Justice
Poor rural communities and communities of color are more likely to be targeted for waste
disposal. Coal ash disposal is no exception. For example, coal ash waste from the Kingston,
Tennessee spill was take to Uniontown, Alabama, over 300 miles away. Similarly, coal ash
waste from the Wilmington area (over 100 miles away), and the Charlotte area (also over 100
miles away) is being transported to rural communities in Lee and Chatham counties. The permit
documents submitted by the applicant to DENR identify all of North and South Carolina as

potential service areas. There is nothing in federal or state law to prohibit coal ash from coming
from anywhere.
Executive order # 12898 requires that federal agencies, "To the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, and consistent with the principles set forth in the report on the National
Performance Review, each Federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its
mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority
populations and low - income populations in the United States and its territories and possessions,
the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the Commonwealth of the
Mariana Islands. " The communities near the Brickhaven and Colon sites have a higher
percentage of minority residents than the state average. Images from US EPA EJ View mapping
tool attached to emailed comments. Legend:
O i Knonty (%)
c- ♦ by Blod group JJ
=.o -w
M, hi Trail
Disposing of 20,000,000 tons of dangerous coal ash at these sites, less than 10 miles apart,
places a disproportionate toxic burden on the Brickhaven and Colon/Osgood communities. The
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources' (DENR) accelerated permit
review including scheduling one hearing on three different permits for each site is
unprecedented, and the confusing electronic commenting process (the link simply says "public
notice ") exacerbate this already unjust and unfair process.
Need for an Environmental Impact Statement
The permitting of these two landfills will have a significant impact on the whole region. The
cumulative and indirect impacts of the proposed permitting activities must be evaluated.
Cape Fear Watershed
o Duke Energy has coal ash impoundments on the Cape Fear River.
• Bodies of water are already impaired within the Cape Fear River Basin.
• There are two old unlined landfills in Randolph County located on the Deep River
currently contaminating groundwater, and a new regional landfill -which could
also receive coal ash is proposed at the same site.
• If the Lee and Chatham County sites are permitted- a dangerous precedent will be
set. There are many clay mines located in the Cape Fear region. )
• The City of Sanford's wastewater treatment plant, which could be the recipient of
concentrated leachate from both sites, discharges into the Deep River.
• To move the 20,000,000 tons of coal ash from the Sutton and Riverbend sites to
Lee and Chatham counties, it could take up to 200,000 railcars, 666,667
1 http: / /www.bredI.org /pdf5 /150109 REPORT CoalAsh- ClavMine- Dumpsites pdf

truckloads, or combination of the two. The potential impact of spills along the
transport routes should be evaluated; additionally deposition into surface waters
from fugitive ash should be assessed.
Needs and welfare of the people
o The effect of the proposed coal ash disposal sites on property owners near the
sites have not been studied.
• Many people in Lee and Chatham counties depend on gardens to supplement their
diets, and raise chickens, goats and other animals as well. The potential for coal
ash to settle on gardens and affect livestock has not been considered.
• The public health impact of fugitive coal ash on air quality has not been studied.
• Safety
o Potential impacts on emergency service response time have not been evaluated.
o Impacts on the transportation of school children have not been considered.
o The impact of increased traffic from fracking operations in addition to coal ash
disposal has not been assessed.
Inconsistencies
There are several inconsistencies within the applicant's project description, which the Corps has
posted on the web page related to the 404 permit under consideration.' The impacts of the
proposed activity cannot be accurately assessed using erroneous information.
Project Description:
In the project description provided to the Corps, the applicant states:
o "Approximately 3 million tons of coal ash would be transported to the Brickhaven
and Sanford Mines for use in mine reclamation." According to documents
currently under review by DENR' , the amount of coal ash to be disposed of at the
Colon site is up to 8,800,000 tons, and the amount of coal ash to be disposed of at
the Brickhaven site is up to 12,000,000 tons - 20,000,000 tons total. Additionally,
Duke Energy has stated to the local officials in Chatham County that coal ash
from their Cape Fear facility may also be disposed of at the Brickhaven site.
o "The coal ash would be contained within an engineered fill cell that utilizes a
High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) liner that is seamed and welded to ensure the
liner is leakproof. "-According to the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), all liners leak, it is a matter of if, not when. Additionally, tests
2 SAW- 2014 -02254
3 Colon: Permit Application Overview /Facility Plan /Engineering Plan /Operations Plan /Closure & Post - Closure Plan
Brickhaven: Permit Application Overview /Facility Plan /Engineering Plan /Operations Plan /Closure & Post - Closure
Plan

have not determined that the constituents of coal ash are even minimally
prevented from being released into the environment. Selenium is of particular
concern.4
o "The proposed HDPE liner is designed to industry standards and has an expected
life of 500+ years. " Two of the venders listed in the applicants permit documents
reviewed by DENR have stated that the standard manufacturer's warranty is 5
years, with some special applications up to 20 years.s
What is being described by Duke Energy, Charah, and NC DENR is not "mine reclamation."
Indeed, Lee County's GIS Services have determined that almost 80% of the footprint of the
Colon landfill has never been excavated. Describing a coal ash landfill as "mine reclamation"
allow the companies and the state to sidestep a lengthier and more deliberate permitting process
with opportunities for public participation at almost every step.
We urge the Corps to deny the 404 permit.
Sincerely,
i
Therese Vick
North Carolina Healthy, Sustainable Communities Campaign Coordinator
4 Lemley, Dennis, Dr. Technical and Environmental Issues with Synthetic Liners Proposed for use in Coal Ash
Disposal Applications. 21 September 2010. (Attached to email with these comments).
5 Emails to Therese Vick from GSE and Solmax.

Technical and Environmental Issues with Synthetic Liners Proposed for use in Coal Ash
Disposal Applications
A. Dennis Lemly, Ph.D.
Research Fish Biologist
USDA - Forest Service, Southern Research Station
Piedmont Aquatic Research Laboratory
Department of Biology, Wake Forest University, Winston - Salem, NC
dlemiy @fs.fed.us, 336 - 758 -4532
Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery
Washington, DC
EPA Docket ID No. EPA— HQ —RCRA- 2009 -0640
Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System:
Identification and Listing of Special Wastes:
Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities — Proposed Rule
September 21, 2010

BACKGROUND
The USEPA is holding a total of 8 hearings on classification and disposal of coal combustion
residuals (CCRs) prior to completing and issuing its final rule (1). The Geosynthetic Materials
Association (GMA) was among the first in line to address the issue on August 30 at the initial
hearing in Arlington, VA, and will deliver similar testimony at each of the other hearings as well.
GMA has long maintained a position that CCRs can be safely contained as solid waste and that a
designation as special waste (hazardous waste) would be overkill. However, regardless of the
designation EPA makes, it is becoming clear that through advocacy efforts by GMA and others,
the use of Geosynthetic Membrane (GM) liner systems that use High Density Polyethylene
(HDPE) as the primary liner material will likely be required in the disposal of coal ash waste.
GMA has posted several written comments on this issue. (The complete set of GMA's
comments can be found at: http:Hgeosyntheticsmagazine.com /news /gmaupdate). In addition
to the public hearings and written comments, GMA bolstered support for geosynthetic lining of
coal ash sites during Capitol Hill meetings with U.S. House and Senate staffs during GMA's
Lobby Day activities on September 15.
Following are the comments made by GMA members during the August 30 EPA hearing in
Arlington, just outside Washington, D.C.:
Today I am representing the Geosynthetic Materials Association, the trade group of 80
companies that manufacture, distribute and install geosynthetic materials, including liners
systems. The industry employs 12,000 people throughout the United States.
Our comment to EPA is very simple. We request that EPA mandate the geosynthetic lining of
coal ash storage facilities using composite lining systems. In the shortest terms, use liners,
specifically composite liners.
Why? Because liners work. Concerns of safety regarding CCRs are mitigated if the landfill
storage sites are lined with a composite liner system of a geomembrone and a geosynthetic clay
liner. A composite liner system prevents the leachate from entering the environment. Safety
concerns regarding surface impoundments are also mitigated if the impoundments are lined
with a composite liner system.
The American Society of Civil Engineers does a regular "Report Card on America's
Infrastructure. "For the last three report cards, representing over a decade, solid waste has
received the highest grade of any category. My industry does a good job of taking America's
waste and properly storing it to protect the environment. The materials, technology and people
exist [now] —the engineers, engineering techniques and standards, the general contractors and
installers who can build the proper facilities and the regulators and inspectors who assure the
work is done correctly. We urge EPA to "use what exists and is working today."

Further, our industry has continuously improved over time and EPA has been a part of that
effort. Over the years, EPA has commissioned nearly 80 studies of the design and performance
of lining systems. We specifically call your attention to a 2002 study titled "Assessment and
Recommendations for Optimal Performance of Waste Containment Systems" (EPA 600/R-
021099). That study contains a great deal of pertinent information on how to construct
containment systems. Most illustrative for today is a graph charting the leakage rate of
different designs over the life cycle of nearly 200 facilities. The composite liner system of a
geomembrone and a geosynthetic clay liner was demonstrated to have the lowest leakage rate
over all life cycle stages, including a near zero leakage rate after the facilities are closed and
final cover placed. Our materials work.
Use of composite liner systems will achieve the EPA mission to protect human health and the
environment for all Americans.
A brief word on the hazardous /non- hazardous question. While coal ash does contain heavy
metals, it lacks the traditional characteristics of hazardous materials, radioactivity or the
presence of infectious medical waste, etc. In the opinion of our trade organization, coal ash can
be properly stored using subtitle "D" regulations, a non - hazardous solid waste designation with
composite liner systems.
Thank you.
In addition to the above italicized comments delivered in oral testimony, the GMA website
includes this chart and following legend as evidence of liner performance:
Chart courtesy of the Geosynthetic Research Institute (GRI) at Drexel University.
(30) Geomembrane compacted
clay —composite liner
-_ Geomembrane GGL
a
GM - composite liner
200. (31)* A (# of sites of that type)
GM /CCL (32)
J 100 (19)p (41
Gra /GCL
'�19)
Initial Sutuequent After
Filling Filling Final Cover
Life Cycle Stage
3

Waste disposal sites in the U.S. -199 total —with a variety of designs and materials were
examined. The survey population included sites at different phases of the site lifespan as
indicated on the "X" axis. The site leakage (collection) rate was plotted on the "Y" axis for the
three types of liner design: yellow – geomembrane alone, green – geomembrane and compacted
clay, red –a geomembrane and GCL (geosynthetic clay liner) composite liner system. The key
point is the optimal performance of the composite liner system(s), including a near zero leakage
rate for the closed ( "After Final Cover ") site.
Data Source: Bonaparte, Daniel, and Koerner. (2002) "Assessment and Recommendations for
Optimal Performance of Waste Containment Systems," EPA /600 /R- 02/099. U. S. EPA, ORD,
Cincinnati, OH
ISSUE WITH GMA POSITION
I am not an expert in GM liner performance but I do know a fair bit about selenium as a water
pollutant from coal ash, the threat it poses to fish and wildlife health, and the importance of
proper disposal techniques in mitigating that threat. Selenium is a trace element that leaches
out of CCRs, bioaccumulates in aquatic food chains, and causes deformed young, reproductive
failure, and other toxic effects. I have studied the environmental toxicology of selenium as a
water pollutant from CCRs for over 30 years and published 47 research papers and a reference
book on selenium sources, environmental cycling, and toxic impacts (see attached technical
qualifications). My investigations of CCR impacts span the country, beginning with the
landmark pollution event at Belews Lake, North Carolina in the 1970's, which eliminated 19
species of fish, and continuing today, with the on -going catastrophe from the TVA ash spill in
Tennessee, which has polluted an entire river ecosystem and elevated tissue concentrations of
selenium in fish to levels that cause massive reproductive failure.
After hearing the testimony of GMA members and seeing the confidence they expressed in the
ability of liners to control coal ash pollutants, I investigated further by reading the reference
they cited as the primary support for their position (EPA /600 /R- 02/099).
In the course of my initial review I found that liner performance results in GMA's cited data
source did not measure up to the level of reliability and confidence they had espoused in their
written and oral statements. For example, selenium was not measured in the leachate from the
single coal ash disposal site studied (out of 199 sites), or any other for that matter. The report
did state that the leachate rate was 300 -600% greater for the coal ash site than other waste
types, which suggested to me that post - closure data is critical to evaluate the performance of
GM materials in the context of what GMA was saying about EPA's proposed rule, i.e., that
composite liners will protect people and the environment. Yet, there was no post - closure data
for the coal waste site. This led me to question GMA's position and whether they could
reasonably (accurately) project performance for a HDPE primary liner in a coal -ash application
when there is (1) no post - closure data and (2) no selenium measurements at all in their key
reference citation. I am a generally a proponent of liners and I believe they are a step in the
4

right direction. However, what GMA presented, based solely on the EPA 2002 study, was not
convincing or conclusive with respect to coal ash and selenium. The lack of information on
mobility and containment of selenium seemed to rise to the level of a fatal flaw in GMA's
analysis and statements about a GM liner's ability to protect the environment.
FURTHER ANALYSIS
I voiced the above concerns to GMA by posting a reply in the comment forum of their website
on September 13. One of their members responded with the following:
"The performance of liner systems is typically not —in fact, almost never — evaluated
against specific agents (i.e., selenium).
The interaction of geosynthetic liner materials to an extremely wide range of chemicals
is well -known and understood. There is one general class of chemical (very low
molecular weight halogenated hydrocarbons) where there are measurable interaction
differences between the chemical and the geosynthetic material, depending on the
specific nature of the chemical.
For all other general classifications of chemical interactions, the performances of the
geosynthetics are relatively uniform. Thus, testing is not done for a specific chemical.
In fact, it is thought that mixtures of a wide range of chemical components present a
more difficult performance standard for geosynthetic barriers. That is why, during the
early use of geosynthetics, a large number of tests were conducted using leachate from
waste containment facilities, which contained a broad range of chemical constituents.
These tests, identified under the name EPA 9090, have successfully demonstrated the
inertness to a broad range of chemicals that has allowed geosynthetic materials such as
high- density polyethylene to contain materials effectively for decades ".
This response was not sufficient to allay my concerns and I continued my analysis of the liner
performance issue by examining the EPA 9090 studies and other performance information.
Following this analysis I posted the following reply on GMA's website on September 16:
"I am not concerned about selenium interacting with the membrane and degrading it,
which is what EPA 9090 examines (compatibility). I want to know if there are
permeability issues for the oxyanion and organic forms of selenium (selenate, selenite,
selenomethionine, hydrogen selenide, etc.). Specifically, are there (1) laboratory studies
showing that permeation or co- transport of selenium and water do not occur in the
long -term (months - years) when the membrane is exposed to whole -ash leachate, and
(2) field monitoring studies to confirm that none of these forms is passing through and
getting into groundwater or surface water at concentrations of concern to fish and

wildlife health ( >1 ug /L) during the operational life of a lined coal ash landfill or surface
impoundment, and 1, 5,10 etc. years after closure. It would also be very useful to know
the volume of leachate that is contained by the liner during the same period, as well as
its Se concentration. The 1984 EPA 9090 tests and many others since then were
conducted with industrial or municipal waste leachate that contained <5 ug /L Se.....coal
ash leachate can have >20,000. Unless there are lab and field performance studies
available which show satisfactory results, it is, at best, misleading for a GMA
spokesperson to appear at an EPA hearing on coal ash disposal and contend that "our
liners work" with respect to selenium pollution. You can't credibly say they work if you
can't demonstrate that they work. This demonstration has apparently not been done for
selenium. I hope your last statement, i.e., that geosynthetic materials have effectively
contained materials for decades, will prove true for selenium and coal ash, but I see no
current evidence or proof of this in the trade, scientific, or regulatory literature. Are
there others within your industry that have additional information that would be useful
in answering my questions ? ".
LATEST DEVELOPMENTS AND CONCLUSIONS
As of September 21, GMA has not responded to my latest comment, but I have continued to
study the liner issue and I have discovered an even more disturbing set of circumstances that I
wish to bring to the attention of EPA. Data in the 2002 EPA report seem much less supportive
of GMA's statements about liner performance than they would have you believe. For example,
13 cells with GM /CCL or GM /GCL /CCL composite liners were monitored (Table 5 -6, pages 5 -25 —
5 -30), none of which was a coal ash disposal cell. Only 5 produced sufficient data for a
conclusion about leakage and overall performance. Four were deemed effective and one began
to fail after only 12 months due to "breakthrough" of the diagnostic constituents sulfate and
chloride which, like selenium, are anions. The report states (page 5 -31) "The reason for the
increase in the anion concentrations in the LDS (Leak Detection System) flow from Cell AD7 is
unclear ". This "unknown" leaves open the question I raised about selenium movement through
liners, and is particularly troubling in light of the fact that Cell AD7 is part of a facility that was
built, operated, and closed under Construction Quality Assurance (CQA) monitoring for a Class
IV Hazardous Waste Landfill. Moreover, diagnostic organics (toluene, benzene, xylene) did not
exhibit "breakthrough ", indicating that liner failure cannot be attributed to tears, holes, or
some other physical failure that allowed whole -waste leachate to pass through. Also, anionic
forms of selenium are known to interact with High Density Polyethylene (2), the predominant
constituent of synthetic liners, which could facilitate their passage through this membrane
material. Finally, the combined sulfate - chloride concentration of overlying whole -waste
leachate was much greater in the failed cell than in 3 of the 4 intact cells (16, 864 mg /L vs. 201,
341, 821; Table E -4 -9), suggesting that anionic strength of the leachate may have been a factor
contributing to liner failure. Coal ash produces leachate with an exceptionally high anionic
strength due to the presence of sulfate, chloride, and many other constituents. Sulfate
concentrations alone can exceed 30,000 mg /L (3). Moreover, ammoniated coal ash, which is
the predominant form produced today, enhances the leaching rate of elements that form
6

anionic compounds in solution, in particular, selenium, arsenic, molybdenum, fluoride, and
vanadium (4). Collectively, these factors suggest that failure of HDPE liner material in a coal ash
application is very possible for chemical reasons unrelated to direct degradation of the
membrane itself. The EPA report goes on to state (page 5 -32) "The conclusions for composite
liners should be considered preliminary. Additional analyses are recommended ....... the
additional analyses should include a more thorough analysis of the transport characteristics of a
wider array of key chemical constituents than considered in this study ". The 2002 EPA report
confirms my suspicion that the behavior of selenium is largely unknown and untested for
composite liner systems. What the EPA report shows is alarming - -- a 20% failure rate. If you
project that to the multitude of lined coal ash waste sites that are /will be in existence, it is easy
to see my concerns. With respect to selenium pollution, GMA's remarks may be leading to a
false sense of security and complacency. In fact, it is likely that a patchwork of ticking time
bombs is being created, some of which have already exploded, some of which will explode in
the near future, and some of which will explode in the long term. GM composite liners may not
be the cure -all suggested by GMA's rather bold statement "Use of composite linersystems will
achieve the EPA mission to protect human health and the environment for all Americans ". EPA's
call for additional monitoring and assessment is well founded. Proper ground and surface
water monitoring studies would reveal the true extent of existing and potential problems, but
they apparently don't exist.....yet. Until this information is available, it is imperative that GMA
stick to facts when discussing the utility of GM liners in the context of an EPA hearing or other
forums. Their effectiveness for coal ash disposal is currently unverified and questionable.
Also, the EPA report brings up another important issue..... "engineering significance" versus
"biological significance ". Regarding the intact cells, it is stated on page 5 -31 that "leachate
migration into the LDS at a rate of any engineering significance has not occurred ", and
concludes on page E -128 that "leakage through properly constructed HDPE GM primary liners
that have undergone CQA monitoring will occasionally be in excess of 200 Lphd during the
active period of operation and up to 200 Lphd during the post - closure period ". The engineering
significance of this leakage rate may not be a concern, but the environmental hazard may be.
Consider, for example, that a 200 Lphd leak for a 25 ha landfill will produce 5,000 liters per day,
or about 1,300 gallons. If that liquid contains a typical coal ash leachate concentration of
selenium (2,000 ug /L, 5), and assuming a dilution factor of 1000 is achieved in groundwater or
surface water (which would require uniform mixing and percolation of the leak water through 3
feet of saturated soil underlying the landfill (7), assimilation by 40 acre -feet of impounded
surface water, or incorporation into a 2 cfs surface stream flow), then the result is 1,300,000
gallons of ambient water per day containing 2 ug Se %L, a concentration that poses a toxic threat
to fish and wildlife (6). This is a tremendous volume of polluted water, amounting to more than
the total daily wastewater flow from a typical town of about 10,000 people (8, 9). If 1000 -fold
dilution is not achieved, Se levels will be higher and pose an even greater risk. Thus, what
constitutes engineering success may not equate to environmental success. Based on the
material I have reviewed, the only scientifically and environmentally credible conclusion is that
HDPE liners won't necessarily solve, or effectively lessen, selenium pollution problems from
disposal of coal combustion residues. If EPA has information generated since their 2002 study

indicating otherwise, it should be made available for external public review, assessment, and
comment prior to final rulemaking.
References
(1) http: / /www.epa.gov/ wastes /nonhaz/ industrial / special / fossil /ccr- rule /ccr- hearing.htm
(2) http: // www. springerlink .com /content/i3u3h927u5188443/
( 3) http: / /www.cses.vt.edu /revegetation/ Papers% 20PDF/ CCP %2OFiles%20for %2OWeb /Publicati
ons/ Stewart,% 20B. R.,% 20W. L.% 20Daniels %20and %20M.L. %20Jackson.° /x201997. %20Evaluation
%20of %20leachate %20gual ity.pdf
(4) http: / /www.flyash.info /2003 /81has.pdf
(5) http:/ /pubs. acs .org /doi /abs/10.1021/ef900044w
(6) Lemly, A.D. 2002. Selenium assessment in aquatic ecosystems: A guide for hazard
evaluation and water quality criteria. Springer - Verlag, New York.
(7) http: / /www.noble.org /ag/ Soils/ SoilWaterRelationships /index.htm
(8) http: // www. archdale- nc.gov /index.asp ?Type =B BASIC &SEC= {9534B7F5- 3998- 4EC9 -8754-
C41389A2C503}
(9) http: / /www.city- data.com /city /Archdale- North - Carolina.html
TECHNICAL QUALIFICATIONS STATEMENT OF DR. A. DENNIS LEMLY
I have spent over 30 years investigating the effects of aquatic pollution from coal combustion residues
(CCR). I have extensive experience conducting field and laboratory research on selenium, which is one
of the most toxic trace elements in CCR. My studies have focused on aquatic cycling, bioaccumulation,
and effects on fish. These studies include intensive investigation of two of the most substantial cases of
selenium pollution that have taken place in the USA: (1) Belews Lake, North Carolina, where 19 species
of fish were eliminated due to selenium in CCR, and (2) Kesterson Marsh, California, where thousands of
fish and aquatic birds were poisoned. My career began in the 1970's with studies of the landmark
pollution event at Belews Lake, which established the fundamental principles of selenium
bioaccumulation and reproductive toxicity in fish resulting from CCR. In the 1980's, I was a research
project manager for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, directing studies that determined impacts of
selenium from agricultural irrigation drainage on fish and aquatic birds at Kesterson and in 14 other
western states. In the 1990's, the emphasis of my research shifted to the development of methods and
0

guidelines for hazard assessment and water quality criteria for selenium, which led to the publication of
a reference book (see item 42 below). This handbook contains the first comprehensive assessment tools
for evaluating selenium pollution from CCR on an ecosystem scale. I have consulted on selenium
contamination issues ranging from CCR landfill leachate in Hong Kong to mountain top removal coal
mining in West Virginia. I provide the methods and technical guidance necessary to identify, evaluate,
and correct aquatic selenium problems before they become significant toxic threats to fish and wildlife
populations. I have Masters and Doctorate degrees in biology from Wake Forest University.
PUBLICATIONS ON SELENIUM TOXICITY FROM COAL COMBUSTION RESIDUES, COAL MINING, AND
OTHER SOURCES:
1. Lemly, A.D. 1982. Response of juvenile centrarchids to sublethal concentrations of waterborne
selenium: I. Uptake, tissue distribution, and retention. Aquatic Toxicology 2: 235 -252.
2. Lemly, A.D. 1982. Determination of selenium in fish tissues with differential pulse polarography.
Environmental Technology 3: 497 -502.
3. Lemly, A.D. 1983. A simple activity quotient for detecting pollution- induced stress in fishes.
Environmental Technology 4: 173 -178.
4. Lemly, A.D. 1985. Ecological basis for regulating aquatic emissions from the power industry: The
case with selenium. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 5: 465 -486.
5. Lemly, A.D. 1985. Toxicology of selenium in a freshwater reservoir: Implications for environmental
hazard evaluation and safety. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 10: 314 -338.
6. Lemly, A.D. 1986. Effects of selenium on fish and other aquatic life. Pages 153 -162 in J.B. Anderson
and S.S. Anderson, editors. Toxic Substances in Agricultural Water Supply and Drainage: Defining the
Problems. U.S. Committee on Irrigation Drainage, Denver, CO.
7. Lemly, A.D., and G.J. Smith. 1987. Aquatic Cycling of Selenium: Implications for Fish and Wildlife.
Fish and Wildlife Leaflet 12. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. 10 pages.
8. Lemly, A.D. 1989. Cycling of selenium in the environment. Pages 113 -123 in A.Q. Howard, editor.
Selenium and Agricultural Drainage: Implications for San Francisco Bay and the California Environment.
The Bay Institute of San Francisco, Tiburon, CA.
9. Lemly, A.D., and G.J. Smith. 1991. Selenium in aquatic ecosystems: Potential impacts on fish and
wildlife. In R.C. Severson, S.E. Fisher, Jr., and L.P. Gough, editors. Proceedings of the Billings Land
Reclamation Symposium on Selenium in Arid and Semiarid Environments, Western United States. U.S.
Geological Survey Circular 1064: 43 -53.
10. Lemly, A.D. 1993. Subsurface agricultural irrigation drainage: The need for regulation.
Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 17: 157 -180.
11. Lemly, A.D., S.E. Finger, and M.K. Nelson. 1993. Sources and impacts of irrigation drainwater
contaminants in arid wetlands. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 12: 2265 -2279.
12. Lemly, A.D. 1993. Guidelines for evaluating selenium data from aquatic monitoring and
assessment studies. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 28: 83 -100.
13. Lemly, A.D. 1993. Teratogenic effects of selenium in natural populations of freshwater fish.
Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 26: 181 -204.
0
1 �

14. Lemly, A.D. 1993. Metabolic stress during winter increases the toxicity of selenium to fish. Aquatic
Toxicology 27: 133 -158.
15. Lemly, A.D. 1994. Agriculture and wildlife: Ecological implications of subsurface irrigation drainage.
Journal of Arid Environments 28: 85 -94.
16. Lemly, A.D. 1994. Irrigated agriculture and freshwater wetlands: A struggle for coexistence in the
western United States. Wetlands Ecology and Management 3: 3 -15.
17. Lemly, A.D. 1995. A protocol for aquatic hazard assessment of selenium. Ecotoxicology and
Environmental Safety 32: 280 -288.
18. Lemly, A.D. 1996. Selenium in aquatic organisms. Chapter 19 (pages 427 -445) in W.N. Beyer, G.H.
Heinz, and A.W. Redmon- Norwood, editors. Environmental Contaminants in Wildlife: Interpreting
Tissue Concentrations. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL.
19. Lemly. A.D. 1996. Winter Stress Syndrome: An important consideration for hazard assessment of
aquatic pollutants. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 34: 223 -227.
20. Lemly, A.D. 1996. Identifying and reducing environmental risks from agricultural irrigation drainage
in developing countries. Proceedings of the World Congress of Toxicology in Developing Countries 3:
177 -190.
21. Lemly, A.D. 1996. Assessing the toxic threat of selenium to fish and aquatic birds. Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment 43: 19 -35.
22. Lemly, A.D. 1996. Wastewater discharges may be most hazardous to fish during winter.
Environmental Pollution 93: 169 -174.
23. Lemly, A.D. 1996. Evaluation of the hazard quotient method for risk assessment of selenium.
Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 35: 156 -162.
24. Lemly, A.D. 1997. Ecosystem recovery following selenium contamination in a freshwater reservoir.
Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 36: 275 -281.
25. Lemly, A.D. 1997. Environmental hazard of selenium in the Animas La Plata Water Development
Project. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 37: 92 -96.
26. Lemly, A.D. 1997. Role of season in aquatic hazard assessment. Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment 45: 89 -98.
27. Lemly, A.D. 1997. A teratogenic deformity index for evaluating impacts of selenium on fish
populations. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 37: 259 -266.
28. Lemly, A.D. 1997. Environmental implications of excessive selenium. Biomedical and
Environmental Sciences 10: 415 -435.
29. Lemly, A.D. 1998. Pathology of selenium poisoning in fish. Chapter 16 (Pages 281 -296) in W.T.
Frankenberger and R.A. Engberg, editors. Environmental Chemistry of Selenium. Marcel- Dekker Press,
New York, NY.
30. Lemly, A.D. 1998. A position paper on selenium in ecotoxicology: A procedure for deriving site -
specific water quality criteria. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 39:1 -9.
31. Lemly, A.D. 1998. Belews Lake: Lessons learned. Pages 3 -6 and E15 -20 in U.S. EPA Publication EPA -
822 -R -98 -007. Report on the Peer Consultation Workshop on Selenium Aquatic Toxicity and
Bioaccumulation. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
32. Lemly, A.D. 1999. Case study: Contaminant impacts on freshwater wetlands at Kesterson National
10

Wildlife Refuge, California. Chapter 6 (pages 191 -206) in M.A. Lewis et al., editors. Ecotoxicology and
Risk Assessment for Wetlands. SETAC Press, Pensacola, FL.
33. Lemly, A.D. 1999. Selenium transport and bioaccumulation in aquatic ecosystems: A proposal for
water quality criteria based on hydrological units. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 42: 150 -156.
34. Lemly, A.D. 1999. Irrigation drainage. Pages 304 -307 in M.A. Mares, editor. Encyclopedia of
Deserts. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK.
35. Hamilton, S.J., and A.D. Lemly. 1999. The water - sediment controversy in setting environmental
standards for selenium. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 44: 227 -235.
36. Lemly, A.D. 1999. Selenium impacts on fish: An insidious time bomb. Human and Ecological Risk
Assessment 5: 1139 -1151.
37. Lemly, A.D., R.T. Kingsford, and J.R. Thompson. 2000. Irrigated agriculture and wildlife
conservation: Conflict on a global scale. Environmental Management 25:485-512.
38. Lemly, A.D. 2001. Irrigation- induced demise of wetlands. Pages 399 -410 in R.E. Munn and I.
Douglas, editors. Global Environmental Change, Volume 3: Causes and Consequences of Global
Environmental Change. John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichester, United Kingdom.
39. Lemly, A.D. 2002. Symptoms and implications of selenium toxicity in fish: The Belews Lake case
example. Aquatic Toxicology 57: 39 -49.
40. Lemly, A.D., and H.M. Ohlendorf. 2002. Regulatory implications of using constructed wetlands to
treat selenium -laden wastewater. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 52: 46 -56.
41. Lemly, A.D. 2002. A procedure for setting environmentally safe Total Maximum Daily Loads
(TMDLs) for selenium. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 52: 123 -127.
42. Lemly, A.D. 2002. Selenium Assessment in Aquatic Ecosystems: A Guide for Hazard Evaluation and
Water Quality Criteria. Springer - Verlag Publishers, New York, NY.
43. Lemly, A.D. 2004. Aquatic selenium pollution is a global environmental safety issue. Ecotoxicology
and Environmental Safety 59: 44 -56.
44. Kingsford, R.T., A.D. Lemly, and J.R. Thompson. 2006. Impacts of dams, river management, and
diversions on desert rivers. Chapter 8 (pages 203 -247) in R.T. Kingsford (editor). Ecology of Desert
Rivers. Cambridge University Press, UK.
45. Lemly, A.D. 2007. A procedure for NEPA assessment of selenium hazards associated with mining.
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 125: 361 -375.
46. Lemly, A.D., and J.P. Skorupa. 2007. Technical issues affecting the implementation of US
Environmental Protection Agency's proposed fish tissue -based aquatic criterion for selenium.
Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 3: 552 -558.
47. Lemly, A.D. 2008. Aquatic hazard of selenium pollution from coal mining. Chapter 6 (Pages 167-
183) in G.B. Fosdyke (editor). Coal Mining: Research, Technology, and Safety. Nova Science Publishers,
New York, NY.
48. Palmer, M.A., E.S. Bernhardt, W.N. Schlesinger, K.N. Eshleman, E. Fonfoula - Georgious, M.S.
Hendryx, A.D. Lemly, G.E. Likens, 01 Louck, M.E. Power, P.S. White, and P.R. Wilcock. 2010.
Mountaintop mining consequences. Science 327:148 -149.
11

4/6/2015
EJYew Print Map
http://epamapl4.epa.gov/eimaptprirtmap.itmi 111

4/6/2015
EJV ew NO Map
%Minority Colon Coal Ash Disposal Site Source:EPA E] View
http:// epatnapl4 .epa.gavNmap/printmap.html 1/1

Brown, Craig J SAW
From:
debhall @windstream.net
Sent:
Monday, April 06, 2015 3:46 PM
To:
Brown, Craig J SAW
Subject:
[EXTERNAL]
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Flagged
Mr. Brown,
I bought a beautiful farm in Chatham County after retiring from the military in 2004. I am
concerned about the environmental impact of coal ash the air and water quality in our
community. Living along the Deep River, and relying on its water for a source of irrigation
for my farm, it concerns me what may happen to my crops and livestock once coal ash is dumped
along the river
It is against the better interest of our community and our state to store coal ash in liquid
form any location which would effect water, ground and air.
Kimberly Godon
1963 Alton King Rd.
Goldston, NC 27252
1

Brown, Craig J SAW
From:
debhall @windstream.net
Sent:
Monday, April 06, 2015 3:53 PM
To:
Brown, Craig J SAW
Subject:
[EXTERNAL]
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Flagged
Mr. Brown,
I do not want coal ash in our community because it is a hazardous material. This will
pollute our air and our water. Coal ash is dangerous to human health and the environment.
This is injustice to our community and can ruin our land equity and also hurt the economy
here.
Lucinda Sechrest
271 Fayetteville Rd.
Gulf, NC 27256
1

r
Brown, Craig J SAW
From:
debhall @windstream.net
Sent:
Monday, April 06, 2015 4:00 PM
To:
Brown, Craig J SAW
Subject:
[EXTERNAL]
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Flagged
Mr. Brown,
We do not need coal ash dumped in brick pits in Lee County and Chatham County. The pits are
not solid enough to prevent leakage of the coal ash. It is a health risk for everyone. We
need to have a public hearing before anything is done. As a Constitutional right, the public
has a right to voice their opinion.
Nancy Ellis Gregorinci
5401 R. Jordan Rd
Sanford, NC 2730

Brown, Craig J SAW
From:
debhall @windstream.net
Sent:
Monday, April 06, 2015 4:05 PM
To:
Brown, Craig J SAW
Subject:
[EXTERNAL]
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Flagged
Mr. Brown,
We don't need coal ash for fear of getting in groundwater I have lived in Chatham County
all my life with family ties going back to the 1600's.
3/3/2015
Phillip Oldham
4315 Goldston - Carbonton Rd.
Goldston,NC 27252
i

i
Brown, Craig J SAW
From: debhall @windstream.net
Sent: Monday, April 06, 2015 4:12 PM
To: Brown, Craig J SAW
Subject: [EXTERNAL]
Mr. Brown,
I have written one letter, but want to take one more opportunity to ask you to deny this
permit to place coal ash in Lee and Chatham Counties. The hazards of coal ash seems to be
depending on who you are talking to, just like the hazards of smoking so many years ago.
The tobacco industry declared tobacco to be without harm, and we know now they knew, as our
government knew, that it was very harmful. Please listen to the public outcry that even
though our legislature has made this action legal, it certainly is not safe, nor fair to our
county. Duke can maintain this coal ash on its own property. Say no!!
1

Brown, Craig J SAW
From: Jeannie Ueanniea @centurylink.net]
Sent: Monday, April 06, 2015 4:39 PM
To: Brown, Craig J SAW
Cc: karen.higgins @ncdenr.gov
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 404 Permit Public Comments
Attachments: 2015 -APR 6- USACOE Final draft - public comment- JA.pdf
Mr. Craig Brown,
I am submitting my public comments on the 404 permit as a pdf.
Thank you.
Jeannie Ambrose
1

April 6, 2015
Mr. Craig Brown
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Dear Mr. Brown:
I am a North Carolina native and long -time Chatham Co. resident. My thanks to the U.S. Corps of
Engineers for having a public comment period on the 401 permit for the Brickhaven Mine #2
reclamationilandfill project submitted by Charah and Green Meadows.
Regretfully, I am seeing many changes to land use policies and environmental regulations on both
the federal and state levels that weaken the protection of our natural resources here and across our
state and country. Even the decision over who has jurisdiction to regulate and protect certain
bodies of water has been challenged in the courts. We promote the continual loss of streams and
wetlands and its hydrological connectivity to surface and ground water through the acceptable
practice of applying for mitigation programs to restore areas already damaged by irresponsible
and poor management practices that resulted in contamination or destruction of ecosystems. And
in some cases, we may not have a complete understanding of what native flora and fauna
populated the habitat to be restored.
Wetland scientists understand that cumulative losses of wetlands and other bodies of water will
ultimately have a critical impact on downstream water quality, habitat and wildlife. In contrast,
isolated wetlands are not just "mud holes" that have little value as one realtor stated in news
coverage of NC SB 734. Isolated wetlands may appear to be physically or geographically
separate from other bodies of water but this is seldom the case. We need a better understanding of
hydrologic interconnections and how wetlands and isolated wetlands serve as nutrient sinks —
especially, in the carbonaceous shale area of the Durham - Sanford subbasin of the NC Triassic
basin underlying the feisic soil here.
Brickhaven Rail Spur [Moncure Holdings, LLC]
This property has been a managed timberland with utility easements. A proposed rail spur crosses
a wetland area and an unnamed tributary in the 100 -year floodplain. Arched culverts will span
these crossings. Unnamed tributaries flow into Shaddox Creek, a sinuous, perennial stream
classified as WS -IV and for Class C uses. Shaddox Creek connects to the Haw River just above
the confluence of the Haw River and the Deep River to form the Cape Fear River, a source of
drinking water.
How can the construction of the rail infrastructure have no impact to the wetland and stream as
noted on the property map of the site [north of the clay mine]?
Also what stream monitoring analysis will be conducted to determine the kinds of chemicals and
the amounts in the cumulative dust and diesel pollutants coming from the hundreds of train cars
carrying the millions of tons of coal combustion residuals [at 20% moisture content] that will be
transported and unloaded over many years?
Who would be responsible to conduct and pay for such tests?
Brickhaven Clay Mine #2 [Green Meadows, LLC]
Impacts to five isolated wetlands and four unnamed streams or water bodies are noted on the
permit map. Again the significance of these small, isolated wetlands to habitat may be

disproportionate to their size: they exist although the surrounding land has been disturbed by
mining activities.
In addition, the water in the open clay pit contains suspended sediment running off the eroded
slope of the mound and banks. This erosion can be seen in aerial views of the "lake."
Shouldn't there be installation of erosion controls in place that prevent the muddy runoff from
continuing downstream to an unnamed tributary that flows into Gulf Creek and surrounding
wetlands. Gulf Creek eventually flows into the Cape Fear River. This heavy sediment load does
not support healthy aquatic communities.
And how will sediments in this large volume of water, which must be drained from the pit before
mine reclamation activities begin, be handled prior to being discharged?
Inventory of Natural and Cultural Resources
The NC Wildlife Resources agency compiled a list of 404 aquatic and riparian species for
conservation status as nongame wildlife in the Southeast for inclusion in its 10 -year revision of
the NC Wildlife Action Plan. These recommendations will be up for public review, and if
adopted, WAP would include rare insects that have been excluded as an integral part of the
ecosystem.
In 2012, a survey list by Withers and Ravenel of the potential occurrence of federally listed
Threatened and Endangered Species and habitats on the Moncure Holdings property was first
obtained from data base searches prior to field transects of the vegetative communities. Current
surveys of plant and animal species present in various regions are needed to update these data
records. No aquatic specimen sampling studies prior to construction of rail infrastructure has been
conducted. If an inventory of priority aquatic species in the Cape Fear River basin will not be
done, then assessment of the aquatic species present will be incomplete for comparison if any
environmental damage should occur in their aquatic habitat. Assessments of Threatened and
Endangered Species are conducted only within property borders: note that any negative
environmental impacts may affect nearby or downstream communities living outside the legal
boundaries.
TRC Environmental Corporation conducted an archaeological survey at the Brickhaven #2 Mine
in 2014. It was determined that field site 2 was possibly eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places. Note that this area is near Impact #110.02 AC isolated wetland on the
ClearWater permit map.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to submit public comments. Two photos are included on
page 2. If you require references, additional photos or maps for clarification, please indicate what
is needed.
Before the USACOE issues the 404 permit, we request a public hearing on the 404 permit to fully
address all the concerns and additional questions or issues that we may have regarding our
environment, public health, safety and welfare.
Sincerely,
Jeannie Ambrose

Photo 1. Aerial view of areas with erosion and sedimentation issues at Brickhaven
Tt4:_ - Jl rl ,_____
2. Aerial view of runoff from Brickhaven Mine #2 to stream behind private
residential property.

Brown, Craig J SAW
From: Vicki Grigston [rgrigston @aol.com]
Sent: Monday, April 06, 2015 5:02 PM
To: Brown, Craig J SAW
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Colon Road Proposed Coal Ash Storage Site
Mr. Craig Brown
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
April 6, 2015
Dear Mr. Brown:
Thank you for the opportunity to express my concerns about the application of Green Meadows,
a company belonging to Charah, to operate a coal ash storage facility near Colon Road in Lee
County near Sanford, NC.
I live at 1077 Farrell Road in Sanford, very near to the proposed Colon Road coal ash storage
facility. I will be directly affected should this application be approved. My son and his
family live next door to me. I am a 61 year old female. My granddaughters are ages 5 years
and 8 months, respectively. We are examples of many citizens who will be directly affected
because the Colon Road site is in the middle of a community - not in a remote location away
from humans and other life, such as our pets and the wildlife that we share our lives with.
Farrell Road connects with Osgood Road near my home, which, in turn, connects with Colon
Road. Very close to my property are the railroad tracks,. which I believe will be used by,
Charah to transport the coal ash.-
I am very concerned about the negative effects that this facility would have on me and my
community, economically, but more importantly, environmentally and physically. Economically,
the value of my property will likely decline. I'm not sure I would be able to sell my
property and if so, probably not for the higher price I would receive if the coal ash were
not dumped at the Colon Road site. Environmentally,, I believe there is potential for
groundwater and air contamination. This would potentially affect my pond and the life it
contains, as well as other wildlife. There may also be the possibility of dry ash flying
from the railway cars, creating pollutants to vegetation, including our garden, and
decreasing the quality and safety of the very air we breathe. And the potential noise
pollution would negatively affect our mental well being.
1

Duke Energy is a documented coal ash polluter. I do not trust them or their regard for our
community. Therefore, I again thank you for hearing and considering my concerns.
Vicki Grigston

Brown, Craig J SAW
From: Susan Jancuski [sjancuski @gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, April 06, 2015 5:09 PM
To: Brown, Craig J SAW
Subject: [EXTERNAL] coal ash letter
Attachments: coal ash - craig brown.docx
Please consider our voice.
Thank you so much,
Susan and Brooke Harrington
3605 Corinth Road
Moncure, NC 27559
919 - 498 -5472

Mr. Craig Brown
Craig.J.Brown @usace.army.mil
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
April 6, 2015
Dear Mr., Brown,
Thank you for accepting our concerns about the application of Green Meadows' (a company belonging
to Charah) for permission to destroy the stream and wetlands in the area of their two proposed clay
mine sites for moving 20 million tons of coal ash from Sutton plant near Wilmington to Riverbend plant
near Charlotte to Brickhaven, near Moncure in southeast Chatham County to Colon Road in Northern
Lee County. There are many of us writing to you but nothing could possibly make you hear the real
concerns of our community besides a real conversation. We appreciate your valuable time and please
request that you hear our issues at a public hearing on this with the Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
permit, the 404, related to the federal Clean Water Act. There are many reasons why we have valid
concerns about toxic coal ash being dumped in our back yards.
We live on Corinth Road, Brickhaven NC. Our mailing address is Moncure. Our house sits on the two -
lane road, a couple houses up from the tracks where trains plan to roll through and the trucks will fly by
carrying toxic coal ash. At this time, we don't have concerns about our children playing and our animals
running on our land because there isn't much traffic and the air is clean. We have concerns about coal
ash getting in our air, ground water and eventually into the Cape Fear River.
Coal ash trucks and rail cars will increase traffic and make traveling that small road a bit scarier. We
image that it's much harder to stop a large truck going 55 when a deer runs into its path and we will see
an increase in the number of animals lying dead on the side of roads. The increase in trucks means
more wear and tear on our roads. Who is going to maintain those roads?
We've seen some of the neighbor children riding to and from each other's homes on 4 -wheel drive
vehicles at times. With big trucks riding our roads, these children are in danger of being hit. Bus stops
are located on these 2 lane roads, again endangering the children in our community.
Trucks and trains are only the beginning.
We understand that Duke Energy has a huge coal ash problem, but being into a rush to move it into our
backyards with plans of storing coal ash in liners that will possibly leak does not seem like an acceptable
solution to our community. Duke does not appear to be keeping the "community wellbeing" in mind
while making their corporate decisions.

r
Brooke grew up fishing and swimming in what is now the huge muddy clay pit but was once a beautiful
pond. The clay pit is full of thick red silt that runs off into the stream behind our house. He hasn't been
able to fish there in about 20 years and his kids were very little the last time they ever swam there. Our
hope was that one day, our grandkids would experience the same simple pleasures that we had. Brooke
has tried to take turbidity levels of the water but the red silt is so thick that levels are impossible to get a
reading on. If this is filled with coal ash, we are fearful that we will have coal ash spilled over into the
stream behind our house making things even worse.
We are currently in our 50s, working hard to get my kids off to college before we make our final move
back to Brickhaven in a couple of years. We plan on retiring to our county home within the next 5 years
and calling Brickhaven our final home. In our retirement years, we plan to raise a few farm animals,
have a huge garden, and drink our fresh well water. With the impeding outlook of coal ash and the
overflowing possibility of polluted waters, we may not be able to drink our own water. A garden may be
an impossible dream and our animals may not have a have a healthy water source. All of these things
concern us.
When you think about community wellbeing is Duke Energy really looking out for us — the community?
Connectedness
Connection is fostered by a community's social networks that:
• Offer social support
• Enhance social trust
• Support members living harmoniously together
• Foster civic engagement
• Empower members to participate in community and democracy
Livability
A livable community is supported by the infrastructure, including:
• Housing
• Transportation
• Education
• Parks and recreation
• Human services
• Public safety
• Access to culture and the arts
Equity
An equitable community is supported by values of diversity, social justice, and individual empowerment,
where:
• All members are treated with fairness and justice
• Basic needs are met (adequate access to health services, decent housing, food, personal security)

• There is equal opportunity to get education and meet individual potential
(taken from: http: / /www.takingcharge.csh.umn.edu/ enhance - your - wellbeing/ community /what- community - wellbeing)
Please hear our concerns and consider listening to the concerns of our neighbors. Please do whatever is
in your power to hear our voices and schedule a meeting. If the federal Army Corps could slow this
down and even stop it, we would be forever grateful. Please use whatever power you have to keep us
from being the recipient in Lee and Chatham of 20 million tons of coal ash. The liners may leak, the
leachate may go through the liners. Nothing serious would ever be able to be built top of these coal ash
dumps. The entire area would suffer economic growth from any revenue that would be generated from
the healthy land and healthy lives that are currently in the area and along the roads and rail lines. North
Carolina has many more clay pits, and coal ash problems that need to be dealt with. Coming up with a
solution that strengthens community ties to improve resident involvement would be greatly appreciated
by opening your doors at an open forum.
Please hear us.
Thank you so much for your time,
Miss Susan Jancuski (Mrs. Donald B. Jancuski, to be 7- 15 -15)
919 - 609 -2712
siancuski @gmail.com
1121 Creek Haven Drive
Holly Springs, NC 27512
And Mr. Donald Brooke Harrington
919 - 498 -5472
donaldbharrington(@gmaii.com
3605 Corinth Road
Moncure, NC 27559

i
Brown, Craig J SAW
From: Hope Taylor [hope @cwfnc.org]
Sent: Monday, April 06, 2015 10:40 PM
To: Brown, Craig J SAW
Cc: karen.higgins @ncdenr.gov; jennifer.burdette @ncdenr.gov; boyd.devane @ncdenr.gov
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Clean Water for NC Comments on 404 permit for coal ash landfills in Chatham,
Lee
April 6, 2015
Mr. Craig Brown
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Dear Mr. Brown:
I am writing you on behalf of Clean Water for NC, a statewide environmental justice
organization working for the environmental health, safe water resources and quality of life
for communities faces with existing or potential environmental threats.
We submit the following comments on the application from Green Meadows, LLC seeking
Department of the Army authorization to discharge fill into 1.14 acres of headwater and
riparian wetlands, 4,166 linear feet of jurisdictional intermittent and perennial streams,
and 0.50 acre of isolated wetlands non - jurisdictional wetlands, associated with coal ash
repositories planned for the Brickhaven Mine in Chatham County and Sanford (Colon) Mine in
Lee County, North Carolina. More broadly, our concern is that other former clay mines around
the state may be sought for similar coal ash disposal in other locations and that similar
potential impacts to surface and groundwater, air quality, and land uses could occur at any
such location.
The 301 acre permitted area of the Mine sites are close to several Clean Water for NC members
and allies living in these areas of Lee and Chatham Counties. Numerous concerns remain about
negative impacts these proposed coal ash repositories could reasonably be expected to impose
on surface and groundwater, as well as public health and safety and ecological receptors.
Downstream from both these clay mine sites, the Cape Fear River is a source of drinking
water for several municipalities, including Sanford, Harnett County (which supplies
Lillington, Angier, Ft. Bragg, Holly Springs, and Fuquay - Varina), Dunn, Fayetteville, and
Brunswick County.
We hereby request a public hearing on this 404 permit to allow for comprehensive public input
on this permit.
1

Specific Comments
Groundwater contamination: The applicant states in the draft 404 permit that the HDPE liner
"is designed to industry standards and has an expected life of 500+ years ". However,
numerous examples of degradation and damage to such liners exist, with potential significant
damage to groundwater in the area. Baseline and follow up testing of neighbors' drinking
water wells for at least 3,000 feet from the mine sites must be required. Both the Brickhaven
and Colon Rd. clay pits overlay the Deep River shale basin, with its very fractured
underlying geology including diabase dikes. Any hydraulic fracturing in or near these coal
ash repositories can therefore be expected to compromise the stability of these repositories
and increase the risk of contamination of groundwater supplies.
Disposal of leachate:
Coal ash leachate is likely to contain high levels of heavy metals including arsenic, lead,
mercury, cadmium, chromium, selenium, aluminum, antimony, barium, beryllium, boron, bromide,
chlorine, cobalt, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, thallium, vanadium, and zinc. Some coal ash
also contains radioactive materials. Despite collection of leachate, some will eventually
reach groundwater as the liners disintegrate over time. The leachate that is collected will
need to be removed to a pretreatment system before being discharged to a municipal wastewater
treatment plant, which is still likely to experience upsets and possible compliance failures
due to the relatively high levels of influent chemicals in the leachate.
Impacts on Surface waters:
The 404 permit would allow impacts and destruction to nearly Y. mile of stream and .45 acres
of wetlands for the Brickhaven site. Stream restoration at another location is never
sufficient to restore the ecological values of the streams to be filled and degrade.
We are very concerned that some of the coal ash that will be at both sites could eventually
could add to the current load of sediment and coal ash wastewater from the Moncure Coal Plant
ash impoundments, with inadequate stormwater retention and sediment pond capacity based on
optimistic projections from past meteorological data. Failure or overtopping of the berms or
breaching of the containment of the coal ash could lead to massive pollution of the Cape Fear
River. The 8 million tons of ash planned for internment at the Moncure site will be in
addition to the millions of tons of coal ash currently sitting in ponds next to the Moncure
Coal Ash plant less than 2 miles away. If a hurricane or other major storm were to damage or
destroy the berms and other containment at both sites, it would have a devastating impact to
the Cape Fear River and the downstream water users.
Particulate and toxic air pollution:
The transportation of 8 million tons of coal ash to the Brickhaven site could require
hundreds of thousands of truck or train car loads, leaving significant coal ash residue along
2

roadsides and in yards, and allowing for blowing coal ash from moving vehicles to reach
people moving and living near the roadways to be used, even if transport vehicles are
required to use closed and covered containers. No satisfactory plan for ongoing monitoring
and control of this coal ash dust has been proposed and the permit fails to require this.
Mine reclamation... or landfill, and regulatory requirements.
Whether these two clay mine areas at Brickhaven and Sanford (Colon) will be "mine
reclamation" as claimed by Green Meadows, must be critically questioned. The proposed
excavation of land which has not previously been mined, the prohibition of mechanical stress
on top of the finished "reclamation" in order to preserve the integrity of the coal ash
liners, and the proposed height of the encapsulated coal ash significantly above the level of
surrounding land, would all make these areas unsuitable for any development whatsoever.
These would unquestionably be coal ash landfills and must be permitted and regulated as such,
with all new applicable EPA provisions. The Army Corps of Engineers much not issue a 404
permit for this site, as it's clear this issue is unresolved.
Again, we call for a public hearing as critical for evaluation of this 404 permit request,
with the permit to be denied until all concerns have been fully addressed.
Yours truly,
Hope Taylor, MSPH
Executive Director
Clean Water for NC
1318 Broad St.
Durham, NC 27705
(919) 401 -9600
3

q
Brown, Craig J SAW
From: john_wagner @sarbo.net
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 1:15 AM
To: Brown, Craig J SAW
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: Chatham and Lee Coal Ash Permit
Attachments: Army Corp Wetland 404 Permit.docx
Craig Brown,
I am resending this because your email bounced with the message that the size limit had been
exceeded. I'm leaving out the photographs and will send them separately or through US mail.
Thank you,
John Wagner
From: "john wagner" <John wagner0sarbo.net>
To: "Craig J Brown" <Craig.J.Brownpusace.army.mil>
Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2015 1:09:19 AM
Subject: Chatham and Lee Coal Ash Permit
Craig Brown,
Attached is my submission for the public comments on the Army Corp of Engineers 404 Wetland
permits for Lee and Chatham Counties. I have also attached some photographs and maps of the
wetlands around the Brickhaven site.
Thank you for considering these important issues.
Sincerely yours,
John Wagner
210 Jessamine Lane
Pittsboro, NC 27312
1

April 6, 2015
Mr. Craig Brown
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Dear Mr. Brown:
I am submitting these comments to you and to those at the Army Corp of Engineers that will be reviewing the
Green Meadows /Charah/Duke Energy permits for the creation of coal ash dumps in Lee and Chatham Counties.
I have extremely serious concerns about the projects and the effects that they will cause to the communities
surrounding the sites, and to the nearby and downstream wetlands.
I raise these concerns as a resident of Chatham County and a concerned North Carolina citizen. I think that the
plans have been rushed through, and do not provide adequate protection for the surface waters and the
groundwater. In addition, the bulk movement of millions of tons of coal ash by rail or by truck will inevitably
lead to serious health effects not only in the vicinity of the coal ash pits, but all along the transportation routes.
I am a member of the Society for Freshwater Science, and although I am not a professional biologist, I did work
for three years on the macroinvertebrate team of an EPA funded non -point pollution study across rivers and
streams from the coastal plains of Georgia to the Georgia mountains. I have seen first -hand what toxins and
water contamination can do to the health of streams and wetlands.
In this submission, I want to address several major issues. I hope that you will take my comments and those of
other residents of North Carolina seriously and will open the process up to public comments on all of the risks
involved in the current coal ash permits. This process involves such a wide range of impacts and problems that
it should not be rushed.
Please open the 404 permit to public hearings in both Lee and Chatham County. The long -term
implications and health risks are far too serious to act on without local and scientific input about the current
plan and alternatives that might provide a longer -term protection to the area's economy, and especially to the
water, air, and health of these counties.
The following pages contain maps, photographs, and materials related to the project. Thank you for considering
these issues.
John Wagner
Chatham County

First I want to address the impact on wetlands downstream of the sites. Any coal ash that blows from the site
will be washed into the creeks, wetlands, and eventually drain into the Cape Fear. More importantly, the plastic
liners will leak. I address some of the liner permeability, puncture, crack, and tear issues later, but the liners
will break down over time and the materials will seep into the groundwater. I have walked some of the areas
downstream of the Brickhaven site and think that Gulf Creek has some wetlands that need to be protected — not
replaced with some artificial mitigation areas somewhere else. Just a few miles downstream, there is a
substantial wide wetland that spreads out into cattail, bulrush, and grassland marsh that provides water, feeding
grounds, and food for wood ducks, mallards, and a wide variety of waterfowl. Please see attached photographs
and maps.

1
The HPDE liner material may theoretically have a long period before it deteriorates. The reality is probably
quite different. Scratches, seams, temperature, pH, stretching, and corrosive materials all shorten the expected
lifespan. Numerous examples of material failure are mentioned in a 2013 issue of the journal "Materials ". A
few excerpts below indicate some some potential sources of failure..
"However, large deformations, puncture holes, and tears occur under complicated pressures
generated by the landfill refuse dump because the HDPE geomembrane is prone to uneven
settlement and punctures."
"The tensile strength of the geomembrane decreased with corrosion temperature increases. The
tensile strength of the geomembrane decreased by over 50% and the puncture strength was only
half of the intact sample when the corrosion time was 15 days and the corrosion temperature was
increased to 80 °C. Tensile strength and puncture strength proved to be extremely sensitive to
temperature. (4) In a word, the residual strength of the geomembrane decreased with the increase
in corrosion time or corrosion temperature. The elongation of the corroded geomembrane was
generally greater than that of the uncorroded one. The elongation variation increased and then
decreased as the temperature increased. However, this differs from the impact of corrosion
time. Both the reduction in puncture strength and the increase in puncture deformation had
positive correlations with corrosion time or temperature. In conclusion, corrosion softened the
geomembrane."
Qiang Xue, Qian Zhang, Zhen -Ze Li and Kai Xiao" The Tension and Puncture Properties of HDPE
Geomembrane under the Corrosion of Leachate." Materials 2013, 6, 4109 -4121; doi:10.3390/ma6094109

,1
Another issue that is discussed in the literature is the tremendous variability in the release of toxins, and the
fact that coal ash constituents tend to have serious leaching issues. Leaching of different heavy metals in
particular seem to be affected differentially by variations in pH. The Lee and Chatham permits should not be
granted until the makeup of the coal ash is carefully determined and optimal pH levels studied. Ultimately a
better solution to isolating the coal ash from groundwater and surface water needs to be investigated. The
current plans to offer very minimal protection for a very short duration.
"Review of the data presented in Table 13 and Table 14, for fly ash and FGD gypsum,
show a range of total concentration of constituents, but a much broader range (by orders
of magnitude) of leaching values, in nearly all cases. This much greater range of leaching
values only partially illustrates what more detailed review of the data shows: that for
CCRs, the rate of constituent release to the environment is affected by leaching
conditions (in some cases dramatically so), and that leaching evaluation under a single set
of conditions will, in many cases, lead to inaccurate conclusions about expected leaching
in the field."
P. xii'
"Summary data in Table ES -2 on the leach results from evaluation of 34 fly ash samples
across the plausible management pH domain of 5.4 to 12.4, indicates leaching
concentration ranges over several orders of magnitude as a function of pH and ash
source:
• the leach results at the upper end of the concentration ranges exceeded the TC values for As,
Ba, Cd, Cr, and Se.
the leach results at the upper end of the concentration ranges exceeded the MCL or DWEL
for Sb, As, Ba, B, Cd, Cr, Pb, Mo, Se, and Tl."
"Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues from Electric Utilities — Leaching and Characterization Data"
EPA- 600/R- 09/151, December 2009

The issue of HDPE cracking and subsequent leaking needs to be addressed. Rowe and Sangum examined the
behavior of geomembranes and cracks. It is significant to note that their research involved geomembranes in
contact with a clay surface:
"Several investigators have reported field evidence of the vulnerability of HDPE
geomembranes to stress cracking.Peggs and Carlson (1989) have reported in detail
several field observations of different polyethylene geomembranes.Rowe et al.
(1998) have reported field observation of cracks on a 14 -year old geomembrane used
as a liner for leachate lagoon.
cracks mostly appear at the discontinuities formed by overlapping seams, patches, scratches and
gouges where stress concentrations are readily established.
Stress cracking is important because:
(a) even short cracks can allow excessive leachate through the geomembrane that may
readily move laterally in areas of poor contact between the geomembrane and the
underlying clay; and
(b) short cracks can grow with time eventually allowing excessive leakage through the
geomembrane even in areas of good contact with the clay.In either case, once the leakage
increases substantially, the geomembrane ceases to perform the barrier function for which it
was designed as discussed by Rowe et al.(1998)" p. 87 -88
R.Kerry Rowe *, Henri P.Sangam . "Durability of HDPE geomembranes" Geotextiles and Geomembranes 20
(2002) 77 -95.

Finally, I think that Dr. Lemly's letter to the EPA (attached) raises enough serious concerns that by itself
provides enough known problems, and enough unknowns, that it should be sufficient for the Army Corp of
Engineers to deny the Duke /Charah wetland permit until these issues are investigated and resolved. Dr. Lemly
is a Ph.D. research biologist with decades of experience in the effects of coal ash and coal ash leachate on
wildlife. His knowledge of the effects of bioaccumulation of selenium from stream sediments to benthic
macroinvertebrates, to fish and then to birds is cause for major concerns in the Lee and Chatham County
wetlands that surround the coal ash sites.
"I want to know if there are permeability issues for the oxyanion and organic forms of selenium
(selenate, selenite, selenomethionine, hydrogen selenide, etc.). Specifically, are there:
(1) laboratory studies showing that permeation or co- transport of seleniumand water do not occur in
the long -term (months - years) when the membrane is exposed to whole -ash leachate, and
(2) field monitoring studies to confirm that none of these forms is passing through and getting into
groundwater or surface water at concentrations of concern to fish and wildlife health ( >1 ug /L)
during the operational life of a lined coal ash landfill" p. 5 -6
Out of 5 monitored coal ash disposal sites, "one began to fail after only 12 months due to
"breakthrough" of the diagnostic constituents sulfate and chloride which, like selenium, are anions.
The report states (page 5 -31) "The reason for the increase in the anion concentrations in the LDS
(Leak Detection System) flow from Cell AD7 is unclear ".
Lemly, A. Dennis. "Technical and Environmental Issues with Synthetic Liners Proposed for use in Coal Ash
Disposal Applications" Document submitted to the US EPA for the EPA Docket ID No. EPA— HQ —RCRA-
2009 -0640 Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System:
Identification and Listing of Special Wastes: Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from ElectricUtilities —
Proposed Rule. September 21, 2010.
Thank you for considering these issues. Please provide public hearings for both counties.
Sincerely yours,
John Wagner
210 Jessamine Lane
Pittsboro, NC 27312

Brown, Craig J SAW
From: Terri Volz [terrijv @hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 7:34 PM
To: Brown, Craig J SAW
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Request for an open hearing
Dear Mr. Brown:
We appreciate your office being open to citizen concerns about the application of Green
Meadows' for permission to destroy stream and wetlands in the vicinity of their two proposed
clay mine sites for moving 20 million tons of coal ash from the Sutton plant near Wilmington
and the Riverbend plant near Charlotte to Brickhaven near Moncure in southeast Chatham and to
Colon Road in northern Lee county.
Many of us will be writing to you, but it would be even more helpful for you to schedule an
open hearing. Please do so.
There are many good reasons why we should not be home to all this toxic coal ash.
We are concerned about the air pollution from the coal ash transportation by truck and rail
car.
Would this affect children playing outside, waiting for the school bus, playing sports, pets
that are partly or all living outside?
Flow of trucks would mean accidents, especially on secondary, two -lane roads, and more so if
on winding roads.
How would this affect our drinking water? If coal ash was on the ground and moved to the Cape
Fear River? What about citizens with wells?
We are retired and living on a fixed income. We weren't given a choice. This was decided
without our input.
Please hold a public hearing on this Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) permit, the 404, related
to the federal Clean Water Act.
Richard and Terri Volz
2232 Valley Road
Sanford, NC 27330
(919) 776 -2304
1

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636 -3726
March 20, 2015
Mr. Clement Riddle
Ms. Rebekah Newton
C1earWater Environmental Consultants
224 South Grove Street, Suite F
Hendersonville, North Carolina 28 792
Re: Sanford and Brickhaven Mine Individual Permit Application package
Dear: Mr. Riddle and Ms.-Newton
In your Individual Permit application package, you requested our comments about the above
mentioned Environmental Assessment (EA). The following comments are provided in
accordance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703, et seq.); Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.0 1531 -1543) (Act); and the National
Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. §4321 et seq.).
The project consists of placing excavated coal ash from Duke Energy's Riverbend and Sutton
sites based upon the Coal Ash Management Act of 2014, into appropriately lined and sealed
areas such as the sites proposed in this application. The Sanford and Brickhaven mines are
located in Lee and Chatham County respectively, and were previously active clay mine
operations. Approximately 7.25 million cubic yards and 9.2 million cubic yards of coal ash will
be placed within the Sanford and Brickhaven mine properties respectively. This will cause the
loss of 1.14 acres of non - isolated wetlands and 0.50 acres of isolated wetlands, in addition to
4,166 linear feet of stream. Charah, Inc. has been contracted for the disposal process for these
two sites.
During a project meeting on January 29, 2015 a few concerns were brought up regarding the
transportation process of the coal ash from Riverbend and Sutton sites to the Sanford and
Brickhaven mines. The concerns consisted of potential impacts to the aquatic and terrestrial
communities along the routes the coal ash would travel if it were not properly and securely stofed
for transportation.3 This concern has been addressed on page 17 of the provided package. The
Service encourages Charah, Inc. to strongly monitor the trucks and railroad transfer of this
material in order to ensure NCGS 130A- 309.216(a)(2) is adhered to. Preventing air -borne loss of
coal ash during rail and truck transfer is critical, and you have stated that the coal ash would be
moisture conditioned at 20% moisture and transported in covered trucks or rail cars with a
sealant to prevent dusting.
Listed Endangered and proposed species occurring or potentially occurring within Lee and /or
Chatham Counties include: Red - cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), Cape Fear shiner
(Notropis n7ekistochaolas), Harperella (Ptilimniuni viviparum), Northern long -eared bat (Myous

spetentrionalis) (Proposed) and the Bald Eagle (Haliateetits leucocephalus) (Bald and Golden
Eagle Protection Act).
During onsite reviews conducted by C1earWater and a site visit conducted with various agency
personnel, it was detennined that no suitable habitat was present on or immediately adjacent to
Sanford and Briciclnaven sites for the red - cockaded woodpecker, Cape Fear shiner, or Harperella.:
The sites also did not appear to contain suitable habitat for Bald Eagle, but any large trees should
be re-visited-prior to removing trees to ensure a new nest has not been recently formed in this
area. If a nest or eagle is observed, please contact our office for further consultation, Additional
eagle information and guidelines for tree removal can be found at the following link:
http:// www. fvis.gov /southeast/es/baldeagle/
As indicated in your Listed Species Assessment, there is potentially suitable summer habitat on
the site for the norther long -eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis). On October 2, 2013, the
northern long -eared bat was proposed for listing as an endangered species and the project site
occurs within its published range (per the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) —
Northern Long -Eared Bat Interim Conference Planning Guidance). During the summer,
northern long -eared bats typically roost singly or in colonies in a wide - variety of forested
habitats, underneath bark or in cavities /crevices of both live trees and snags. Northern long -eared
bats have also been documented roosting in man-made structures (i.e., buildings, barns, etc.)
during the summer. Northern long -eared bats predominately winter in hibernacula that include
caves and abandoned mine portals, and potentially large boulder areas. It should be noted that
the general habitat types described above may not be all- inclusive, and additional habitat types
may be identified as new information is obtained.
On January 16, 2015, the USFWS proposed listing the Northern Long -Eared Bat with a rule
under Section 4(d) of the Act. Although the USFWS has not yet made a final determination for
the northern long -eared bat, the USFWS published the 4(d) proposal in the event that the final
determination is to list northern long -eared bat as a threatened species. A Conservation Measure
included in the proposed 4(d) rule states that incidental take from forest clearing activities will
not be prohibited if the activity is conducted in a manner that avoids cutting or destroying known,
occupied maternity roost trees during the pup season (June 1 -July 31). Because a final
determination decision has not been made, and these dates may change due to public comments,
we recommend that no tree clearing /cutting occur between May 15 and August 15 to minimize
potential impacts to the northern long -eared bat. Although there is likely no maternity habitat
affected by your project, if you implement the aforementioned tree cutting restrictions, should the
northern long -eared bat be placed on the endangered and threatened species list, our concurrence
with a "not likely to adversely affect" determination can be assumed fi•om this letter and further
consultation on the northern long -eared bat "post - listing" is not necessary as long as
circumstances remain the same. Similarly, we encourage you to complete all tree clearing of
potential summer habitat before March 31 of any year.
In accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, (ESA) and based on the
information reviewed and provided in the Individual Permit application package, and other
available information, we concur with your assessment that the proposed projects for Brickhaven
and Colon mines are not likely to adversely affect federally listed species or their critical habitat
as defined by the ESA. We believe that the requirements of section 7 (a)(2) of the ESA have been

satisfied for this project. Please remember that obligations under the ESA must be reconsidered
if: (1) new information identifies impacts of this action that may affect listed species or critical
habitat in a manner not previously considered; (2) this action is modified in a maimer that was
not considered in this review; or, (3) anew species is listed or critical habitat determined that
may be affected by the identified action.
We are concerned about the potential direct, indirect, and secondary impacts that could occur to
the streams, wetlands, and forested areas associated with the subject project. It is important that
you minimize or avoid impacts to the aquatic resources located within and downstream of the
project. We recommend the following measures to help minimize project impacts:
Preserve and /or restore forested riparian buffers. We are concerned that the increase in
impervious surface area, along with the loss and lack of riparian buffers, will impact aquatic
resources on the site and downstream of the project area. Forested riparian buffers, a minimum
of 100 feet wide along perennial streams and 50 feet wide along intermittent streams, should be
created and /or maintained along all aquatic areas. Riparian buffers provide travel corridors and
habitat for wildlife displaced by development. In addition, riparian buffers protect water quality
by stabilizing stream banks, filtering storm water runoff, and providing habitat for aquatic and
fisheries resources.
Install and maintain stringent measures to control erosion and sediment in order to prevent
unnecessary impacts to aquatic resources within and downstream of the project site. Disturbed
areas should be reseeded with seed mixtures that are beneficial to wildlife. Frequent
maintenance of these devices is critical to then proper f %nction in order to minimize sediment
discharge from the project site. -
Keep equipment out of streams by operating from the banks in a fashion that minimizes
disturbance to woody vegetation. Equipment should be inspected daily and should be maintained
to prevent the contamination of surface waters from leaking fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or
other toxic materials. All fuels, lubricants, and other toxic materials should be stored outside the
riparian management area of the stream, in a location where the material can be contained.
Equipment should be checked for leaks of hydraulic fluids, cooling systerrr liquids, and fuel and
should be cleaned before fording any stream. Also, all fiieling operations should be
accomplished outside the riparian area.
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission has developed a Guidance Memorandum (a
copy can be found on our website at (http: / /www.fws.gov /raleigli) to address and mitigate
secondary and cumulative impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources and water quality.
We recommend that you consider this document in the development of your projects and in
completing an initiation package for consultation (if necessary).
For your convenience ,a list of all federally protected endangered and threatened species in North
Carolina is now available on our website at <http: / /www.fws.gov /raleigh >. Our web page
contains a complete and updated list of federally protected species, and a list of federal species of
concern known to occur in each county in North Carolina.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to review and provide comments on the proposed action.
Should you have any questions regarding the project, please contact Emily J. Wells at (919) 856-

4520, extension 25.
Sincerely,
Pet Benjamin,
Field Supervisor
cc: NMFS, Beaufort, NC
EPA, Atlanta, GA
WRC, Raleigh

SOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER
Telephone 919 - 967 -1450 601 WEST ROSEMARY STREET, SUITE 220 Facsimile 919 - 929 -9421
CHAPEL HILL, NC 27516 -2356
March 23, 2015
VL4 E -MAIL AND U.S. MAIL
Mr. Craig Brown
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Craig,JBrown@usace,army.mil
RE: Comments on Section 404 Permit Application for Green Meadows Mine
Fills, Corps Action ID Number: SAW- 2014 -02254
Dear Mr. Brown:
On behalf of the Catawba Riverkeeper Foundation, Cape Fear River Watch, Waterkeeper
Alliance, and the Sierra Club (collectively; the "Conservation Groups "), the Southern
Environmental Law Center offers the following comments on the application of Green
Meadows, LLC (a subsidiary of coal ash management company Charah, Inc.) for a Section 404
Clean Water Act permit for mine fills impacting jurisdictional wetlands and streams in Lee and
Chatham Counties.
The Conservation Groups are plaintiffs in pending federal lawsuits and plaintiff -
intervenors in pending state enforcement actions against Duke Energy Progress, Inc. and Duke
Energy Carolinas LLC (collectively, "Duke Energy ") for coal ash pollution at its Riverbend
facility on Mountain Island Lake near Charlotte, NC, and its L.V. Sutton facility on Sutton Lake
near Wilmington, NC. The Conservation Groups have long advocated for cleanup of Duke
Energy's coal ash at Riverbend and Sutton as well as other sites around the state, including Duke
Energy's Cape Fear facility, which is located very close to both the Chatham and Lee County
mine fills. The Chatham and Lee County mine fills proposed in this application are currently
planned to receive coal ash that would be excavated from Duke Energy's Riverbend and Sutton
facilities.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the "Corps ") should add the conditions described
below to any 404 permit for these sites to ensure adequate monitoring to protect jurisdictional
waters at the site.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ( "EPA ") 404(b)(1) Guidelines state that a
Section 404 permit must be denied where the proposed project "does not include all appropriate
and practicable measures to minimize potential harm to the aquatic ecosystem." 40 C.F.R.
§ 230.12(a)(3)(iii). They also state that "no discharge ... shall be permitted unless appropriate
and practicable steps have been taken which will minimize potential adverse impacts of the
Charlottesville • Chapel Hill • Atlanta • Asheville • Birmingham • Charleston - Nashville • Richmond • Washington, DC
100% recycled paper

discharge on the aquatic ecosystem." 40 C.F.R. § 230.10(d). Likewise, the EPA/Corps
mitigation guidelines explain that a Section 404 permit may be issued only after a determination
that "all appropriate and practicable steps to avoid and minimize adverse impacts" have been
taken. 33 C.F.R. § 332.1(c)(2) (emphasis added).
In this case, the following monitoring conditions should be added to ensure that all
appropriate and practicable steps to minimize potential harm to the aquatic ecosystem have been
taken. 40 C.F.R. § 230.12(a)(3)(iii). The applicant has a duty to demonstrate conformity with the
EPA 404(b)(1) Guidelines and the Corps has a duty to verify compliance with the Guidelines,
Utahns for Better Transp. v. U.S. Dep't ofTransp., 305 F.3d 1152, 1189 (10th Cir. 2002).
Colon Site (Lee Co.)
1. At least two monitoring wells should be added to the plan. One additional well should be
located along the east end of the northern side of the fill directly north of PZ -9s, where
the intermittent tributary is closest to the compliance boundary. The second additional
well should be located along the northern side of the fill directly north of PZ -12. Each of
these locations currently show high hydraulic gradients toward the creek and are not
monitored in the proposed monitoring plan.
2. The Water Quality Monitoring Plan (included in the Design Hydrogeological Report at
Section 13.5) calls for four initial background monitoring events. Monthly monitoring of
groundwater elevations should be required for at least the next year in order to verify
assumptions about the seasonal high water levels. Background sampling should be
conducted on a quarterly basis for the first year in order to evaluate possible seasonal
variation in water quality.
Brickhaven Site (Chatham Co.):
1. At least two monitoring wells should be added to the plan. One should be located on the
southeast coiner of the fill, and another on the southwest corner of the fill, both located
downgradient of the low points of the planned landfill liner.
2. The Water Quality Monitoring Plan (included in the Design Hydrogeological Report at
Section 13.5) calls for four initial background monitoring events. Monthly monitoring of
groundwater elevations should be required for at least the next year in order to verify
assumptions about the seasonal high water levels. Background sampling should be
conducted on a quarterly basis for the first year in order to evaluate possible seasonal
variation in water quality.
In addition to the Corps requiring the conditions described above in any 404 permit
issued for the proposed projects, we further request that the Corps serve us with copies of any
additional public notices related to this 404 application and any draft or final permit.
4

Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments.
Sincerely yours,
���
Frank S. Holleman III
Nicholas S. Torrey
�9"- ST

Mr. Craig Brown
US Army Corps of Engineers:
RECEIVED-
APR 0 1 2015
RALEIGH REGULATORY
FIELD OFFICE
My name is James D. McNeill. I am a resident in the Colon community of Lee County, NC. I am very
concerned about the Coal Ash being dumped in our area of the county. I feel that it will affect our
environment a lot. We have quite a bit of wildlife that could become extinct in this area. I have COPD &
��, 5 �
, and am on breathing treatments every 4 to 6 hours. Coal ash can only have a very negative
impact on me.
We have worked hard for 68 years to live in this community but it seems that we don't count when it
comes to what can be put in our community. We are not financially able or young enough to relocate to
another area, even if we could find a buyer. Our property would not be able to be sold now because no
one would want to live here with the possibility of having coal ash close by. This land out in this area,
has creeks & can be very wet with the rains that we get. I am doubtful of the life of the liners that are
going to be used to contain the coal ash. I have children that I would like to inherit what we have
worked for all our lives, but I worry that this is not a place they would want to be.
Duke Energy & Charah have no liability if something should happen! Duke Energy has not got a good
track record!
James D. McNeill
53 TTarpey Lane
Sanford, NC 27330

Mr. Craig Brown
US Army Corps of Engineers:
RECEIVED
APR 01 2015
RALEIGH REGULATORY
-- FIELD OFFICE
My name is Nora K McNeill. I am a resident in the Colon community of Lee County, NC. I am very
concerned about the Coal Ash being dumped in our area of the county. I feel that it will affect our
environment a lot. We have quite a bit of wildlife that could become extinct in this area. I love to see the
animals & fear for their safety. This area can be beautiful in the spring with all the wild flowers & birds. I
have health issues that I feel could be impacted. I have difficulty breathing at times due to heart issues. I
grew up in this area & am now 86 years young. I really hate to see the area become a coal ash dump
site.
We have worked hard for 68 years to live in this community but it seems that we don't count when it
comes to what can be put in our community. We are not financially able or young enough to relocate to
another area, even if we could find a buyer. Our property would not be able to be sold now because no
one would want to live here with the possibility of having coal ash close by. The land out in this area, has
creeks & can be very wet with the rains that we get. I am doubtful of the life of the liners that are going
to be used to contain the coal ash. I have children that I would like to inherit what we have worked for
all our lives, but I worry that this is not a place they would want to be.
Duke Energy & Charah have no liability if something should happen! Duke Energy has not got a good
track record!
Nora K. McNeill
4ww
53 T Tarpey Lane
Sanford, NC 27330

Mr. Craig Brown
US Army Corps of Engineers:
RECEIVED
APR 01 2015
RALEIGH REGULATORY
FIELD OFFICE
My name is Robert McGehee. I am a resident in the Colon community of Lee County, NC. I am very
concerned about the Coal Ash being dumped in our area of the county. I feel that it will affect our
environment as we know it. We have quite a bit of wildlife that could become extinct in this area. I feel
that coal ash can only have a very negative impact on us.
We have worked hard to have a nice home that could become worthless for any resale value with coal
ash here. A neighbor has already had a buyer that has backed out of buying land here because of the
possibility of coal ash being dumped here. I also feel that it will be hazardous to our water system
because of the creeks & marshy land. I am doubtful of the life of the liners that are going to be used to
contain the coal ash. I have a grandson who likes to come & stay when he has a break from school. He
loves to play in the yard & shoot basketball, ride his bike. I would be scared for him to play outside if
they haul coal ash & it is windy. He has allergies that could be impacted. During intercession, he can be
here as much as three weeks at the time. How can anyone moving coal ash contain what will be in the
air? No one will be moving to this community because of the coal ash!
Duke Energy & Charah have no liability if something should happen! Duke Energy has not got a good
track record & it is very scary to me to think of the things that could happen in my area.
Robert McGehee
507 Brickyard Road
Sanford, NC 27330

Mr. Craig Brown
US Army Corps of Engineers:
RECEIVED
APR 01 2015
RALEIGH REGULATORY
— F_OFFICE
My name is Sarah McGehee. I am a resident in the Colon community of Lee County, NC. I am very
concerned about the Coal Ash being dumped in our Shale Pits (not clay pits which was verified by Bob
Brickhouse, former engineer for Sanford Brick & Tile Co.). I do firmly believe that this would be
detrimental to our environment & wildlife in this area. I have enjoyed fishing in the ponds in the area
over the years. I also feel that it will be hazardous to our water system because of the creeks & marshy
land. I am doubtful of the life of the liners that are going to be used to contain the coal ash. The decline
of property value in this area will be a real factor not just something people THINK may happen. Who
would want to live in this area? I have a grandson who likes to come & stay when he has a break from
school. He loves to play in the yard & I would be scared for him to play outside if they haul coal ash & it
is windy. He has allergies that could be impacted. During intercession, he can be here as much as three
weeks at the time. How can anyone moving coal ash contain what will be in the air? I know they said
they would wet it down, but it will still be in the air. I have grown up in this community. I am 67 years
old & have never lived anywhere else. I don't want to see this community die out because no one will
want to live here or move into our neighborhood. Please listen to our plea for no coal ash in Lee County.
Duke & Charah have no liability if something should happen! Duke Energy has not got a good track
record & it is very scary to me to think of the things that could happen in my area.
Sarah McGehee
507 Brickyard Road
Sanford, NC 27330

� In'i r, C-►��. �5 � ►� e w � -
3331 1A Q,, oL v-r- A- �oS
r
Fo re s i' , Al --
U.'r cl-, cz, 9 , o ► s. RECEIVED
1 APR 0 1 2015
RALEIGH REGULATORY
FIELD
i 1 OFFICE
o P`, vl `i U-,-\ Cn-\ -tA e GO Gv` Ctrs i s S v - A-tn ck -- is
i 6
U-r V- o v in (� vi c, C O
� J 1
-S- U \-Af V\ � Y up-w4-� V-1 yj v-\ -f y dt 6
�L,e C�a•7 w�+h e CA-
's
e c�,,,,.\ V CV -7 lr� s e,T a �j a v UA 0cp `\ S (\ h
se,c, wefr wl"N c, w, e - .-VI3 \0 'c' ev e,
�N ,:vv z- V- e. c" cY $ o v -\ v c, c, o v {`
o clil, ck AAl-.l 2 T cy X• yl 5 A-
AA, �,., v� `� ►� 5 Cvv\
S -e oC +V l- i vl _1 �1
Lei
v S , W v1(w e 4
CJ, Cv- e S a,� y `�. r^ t c tA ov✓ c",
Ck
V ` o J
I;
our k owi Z "\%,N `A,\ L- C.v- .2 -e k\ (66' � cv--2 C 0 Aj�, O A- -� � aw-s
r v v y � v w- � v-crr �e..w,►- �f � `�� v 3 z c,Q -�tv C o�.�r-a, ti-\ �•,�,,,,.�
S 1r ens,
i

r � -
i
V -QA W ', A� S 'l I t
A-( c,- G u c\,{ 0. J L S
Vt
i
TcN \/k caw Ae s e vv\ a,,.,. 7 v- Z^S a,,,, S . 0 Lfr
,5 D krrcL --�r1 vvo S -�-m.r. AA-.c: q rro v h vi W c.,A'eq,
i V
e,,- 4►,, U t Fn , I NGW . I I C y,
1iV'� 1 e t ry C v a.J( CA- 5 �. Gt.�. J i F'S G aL.'�wvv� i vi CA, - 1 e S
U.JV-
``0,,
+Ur A V S �^ i r S )` A41 f-A CA- S v CtNGw, -:u of
5
1 S 5 e.an -S oar vv\ b Z o20 . I-in ,,, I �rn� - fit/ vn . i-�►l r w
V � e c%vc o. vX i c 2 Cv % J J ,l Lk (, 2 � Gam "
�° `
- - - i ove V';v lv5
ct e, cA ,, vi $ -`r CA, � 1 i S �e„� � o yl c�-�` ✓*�- 4Z_
e cw . i S K, cn.pi � h5 � w e.,-, f ci
C� v � �0 vv� 1r vV, YN
a. a .� ��„ `�!� e e u cJl - c,
J
e v10 , s a- ���eti, Gvn• e.
ct b 0 V C o c
i n -d
S K t S-6 b m av e..00 0 s o � ov✓clJ� S w� S V►1 o S� t y
�a l t v C l,VI 0 -TU w. fl 0 vT ,kA- 1 o
C,
'S i I �"
V -QA W ', A� S 'l I t
A-( c,- G u c\,{ 0. J L S
Vt
i
TcN \/k caw Ae s e vv\ a,,.,. 7 v- Z^S a,,,, S . 0 Lfr
,5 D krrcL --�r1 vvo S -�-m.r. AA-.c: q rro v h vi W c.,A'eq,
i V
e,,- 4►,, U t Fn , I NGW . I I C y,
1iV'� 1 e t ry C v a.J( CA- 5 �. Gt.�. J i F'S G aL.'�wvv� i vi CA, - 1 e S
U.JV-
``0,,
+Ur A V S �^ i r S )` A41 f-A CA- S v CtNGw, -:u of
5
1 S 5 e.an -S oar vv\ b Z o20 . I-in ,,, I �rn� - fit/ vn . i-�►l r w
V � e c%vc o. vX i c 2 Cv % J J ,l Lk (, 2 � Gam "
�° `
- - - i ove V';v lv5
ct e, cA ,, vi $ -`r CA, � 1 i S �e„� � o yl c�-�` ✓*�- 4Z_
e cw . i S K, cn.pi � h5 � w e.,-, f ci
C� v � �0 vv� 1r vV, YN
a. a .� ��„ `�!� e e u cJl - c,
J
e v10 , s a- ���eti, Gvn• e.
ct b 0 V C o c
i n -d
S K t S-6 b m av e..00 0 s o � ov✓clJ� S w� S V►1 o S� t y
�a l t v C l,VI 0 -TU w. fl 0 vT ,kA- 1 o

3
UG� \5 Ck 4n W`A VJ 2 GGw�',�.q v O vv- v,6cA 1 'kuul i "q
44,-,3 +U i s w� 2$ 5 e S 1 E e.1 ► V 2 a,n C.-
Y' a cr1 a.v, a k wV Q. C� r eM W o Y- i vl i
CA,,
W �� i✓�vw.`, �i �S . 1�0,�/ W`� I 1*'�A� liJCiv- W
a0t �5� -Y��kS vv� ,may ck <'k w,,
o v+ A4,-, Q.. VA u v-v �(J �` i ov-, o
1`lves �Q caysc- (3 �- a \\ A-S
CU Cr-' OI. S L\
Vl i3k \0(5v'S•
s v j, ck- vv\ e. s S n -ez v )o �
' �`� e S +► G� e.v.-\' S � q,V e. � 1nr��cvV' � o,.S � 5 � Vv� vw � rW.S S
Ar , "A'\ c, v � '� viq `� �- ` co w, o. 5 t-N
.J
C G. u S IL V►\ v cj, a o vq N a. � c O v zr A-1
ova %' -k4-\ t-
CA �„, d ., s CO CJ s �, s x,11 ow ,,,Q cO.� q- IPA' IP- l
U,1 s 0 c cv-, .�A C..6 V V+ rup 0�,) VIP,s.
V e OIA LA,-,1l b e v\ ,e k4- 4z v\ iD A-iA \ Y\ , -�k, 5
Gc7 U u� 5 s �e. 15 PeA r w, ; �r� P.�Q a,�, cR w, �j v
c� v\ A- w r } Av v-,-\ av e L/V e u v e `e in e4- e
Vi Gw V- E^^n a c� e� - e- uv 1 e ck In Gy e- A-D L `� V C
h �-4. VV\-, -A wz ,p kss .

a .
f �
►'l �► Q - Gw - �- IM a.v, - 1 S - 1 S �� cA -
.
I ti `U J v � l S � S S V Q... v " I- Cv Q- (Q LiN`� U V� ✓1 vY„1
Cu ,r,,T y W W kV- a M. e( i C- � 0 W
` I
� t h c � v �► : �. � U �( e s w�►. � c e. v CA- % S ca,.v- � y
` f 1 d
e i r cA e c i s 'i cn-, A-o cl wY, yq c�,� i 4� 1 S
T Y,n vw `� �- w'N11 V5 Z qAV
ICk v j _ cam„ cJ1 a ; C� l� a , 'i-h vu
•e-cA- l9 y- -- � GV
��►a �rnC't, CW C- Froc --%,j O LA
-1 U - �'o L-1 C e I I
1; s a, 1- yn X11 In oA- vv� o ,1 , c cvv\

1 f'
1
- APR 0 1 2015
RALEIGi i REGU
Fle OFFICETORY
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Pat McCrory Office of Archives and History
Secretary Susan Kluttz Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
March 26, 2015
Paul Webb
TRC Environmental Corporation
50101 Governor's Drive, Suite 250
Chapel Hill, NC 27517
Re: Archaeological Survey Report and Addendum Report of the Brickhaven Mine No. 2, Chatham County,
SAWCO- 2014 - 02254; ER 15 -0540
Dear Mr. Webb:
Thank you for your letter of February 11, 2015, transmitting the archaeological survey report by Brooke
Kenline and James A. Nyman of your staff for our review concerning the above project.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we concur that the
following properties are not eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places:
31CH990, 31CH991, 31CH992, 31CH993, 31CH994 and 31CH995
None of these sites retain sufficient stratigraphic integrity or artifact diversity to yield information important to
history or prehistory. All are disturbed and low density.
Site 31CH857, which was previously recorded, was not assessed for eligibility during your recent investigation.
There is the potential for undisturbed cultural deposits at this site. If 31CH857 is to be affected by the
proposed project, additional investigations will be needed prior to project implementation in order to
determine its significance.
The report meets our office's guidelines and those of the Secretary of the Interior. We look forward to
working with you and your staff as this project moves forward. No additional investigation is needed for the
remaining six archaeological sites.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 276994617 Telephone /Fax: (919) 807 - 6570/807 -6599

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Pat McCrory
Secretary Susan Kluttz
March 26, 2015
Paul Webb
TRC Environmental Corporation
50101 Governor's Drive, Suite 250
Chapel Hill, NC 27517
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
Re: Archaeological Survey Report and Addendum Report of the Sanford Mine, Lee County,
SAWCO- 2015 - 00107; ER 15 -0539
Dear Mr. Webb:
Thank you for your letter of February 11, 2015, transmitting the archaeological survey report by Brooke
Kenline and James A. Nyman of your staff for our review concerning the above project.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we concur that the
following properties are not eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places:
31LE170, 31LE171, 31LE172, 31LE173, 31LE174, 31LE175, 31LE176, 31LE177 * *, 31LE178 * *, 31LE179
and 31LE180 **
None of these sites retain sufficient stratigraphic integrity or artifact diversity to yield information important to
history or prehistory. All are severely disturbed and deflated.
Site 31LE181 ** is a cemetery containing both marked and unmarked graves. While it is not eligible for
inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, it is protected by state law. The cemetery should be
preserved in place and care taken to provide a sufficient buffer to insure that no unmarked graves are
disturbed. If the cemetery cannot be preserved, it should be removed in accordance with Chapter 65 of the
North Carolina General Statutes.
The report meets our office's guidelines and those of the Secretary of the Interior. No additional
archaeological investigation is needed for thisproject.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Location: 109 East Jones Street Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699 -4617 Telephone /Fax: (919) 807 - 6570/807 -6599

March 28, 2015
Mr. Craig Brown
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
DVic lld . Rro-- t'n:
IVED
APR 01 2015
RALEIGH REGULATORY
1. FIELD OFFICE
SUBJECT: US Army Corps 404 Permit & DENR 401 Permit to Green Meadows, LLC
Thank you for the opportunity given citizens to comment on the stream & wetlands permit
applications of Green Meadows, LLC (affiliated with Charah), for Duke Energy to store coal ash in
Lee & Chatham Counties. As a life -long resident of the Brickhaven community of Chatham County,
I am very concerned about Duke Energy's plan and how it will affect our safety, health, and quality
of life (not to mention property values!).
We've been told — 120 trucks a day, plus numerous railcars, will be hauling this coal ash into these
areas. As we're already inundated with trucks on roads in this industrial section of Chatham County,
we can only imagine what the traffic will be like once all these additional trucks start coming in.
Case in point: After turning onto Corinth Rd. from Old US 1 last Wednesday, I met two 18- wheelers,
a tanker truck, a log truck, & then another tanker truck within V2 mile! There are currently four large
industries on Corinth Rd. which is approximately four miles long. Factor in traffic from all their
employees, and residents in the community, and you can imagine how crowded these roads are
already. -Add all of Charah's trucks and you have, accidents just waiting to happen!
Another concern I have is what the pollution from this coal ash will do to our environment. I know
Charah claims it will be "wet down" and "covered with a tarp" before leaving the Duke Energy plant
sites. With those sites over 100 miles away, do they really think this toxic ash (with contents of
mercury, leaal arsenic, selenium, etc.) will not dry out during transport and be released into the
environment? — and not just in Lee & Chatham counties but all the counties it will pass through to get
here!
We live on land that has been in our family for over 100 years, as do our daughters and their families,
and the Brickhaven mine site is less than a mile from our house. We have an abundance of good well
water and are very concerned about ground water contamination from this coal ash once it is stored in
the clay mines. We've already had to contend with water run -off from these mines through our
property that has polluted Goff Creek nearby (which flows into the Cape Fear River). What was once
a clear, refreshing body of water is now nothing more than a muddy eyesore! (See enclosed
pictures)

• ` at t
,t
1.
Tau•uzRarTsputnn ao us — L6£5-9LL (616) — 65SLZ DN `aznauoW "P-4 gauuoD £OS£

APR 01 2015
RALEIGH REGULATORY
FIELD OFFICE
GS �
� g
r17 /ten !v' <2
/�v /fie -Grr[,W- �
/lL
cam'
,(% .��
co
� y! �i� -CXw (i�L� L +�C.JCc,.. (ivy' "V�('Y%l.°`}'LLC�'CQ� 4'�'✓`" a �'V CLa "L r Vic.. .
6i?C G(.%�i ✓�
Q a
4E crGm 7rt z

V
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Gordon Myers, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Craig Brown
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
US Army Corps of Engineers
FROM: Gabriela Garrison
Eastern Piedmont Coordinator
Habitat Conservation
DATE: April 2, 2015
SUBJECT: Public Notice for Green Meadows, LLC to Discharge Fill Material into Jurisdictional
Wetlands and Streams in Association with Coal Ash Repositories at Brickhaven and
Colon Mines, Chatham and Lee Counties, respectively, North Carolina. Corps Action
ID#: SAW- 2014 - 02254.
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the subject
document. Our comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (as
amended), Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 -667e) and North
Carolina General Statutes (G.S. 113 -131 et seq.).
Green Meadows, LLC proposes to permanently impact 1.14 acres of jurisdictional wetlands, 0.50 acres of
isolated (non jurisdictional) wetlands and 4,166 linear feet of jurisdictional intermittent and perennial
streams at Brickhaven and Colon Mines, located in Chatham and Lee Counties, respectively. In
accordance with the Coal Ash Management Act of 2014, Duke Energy is obligated to close its coal ash
basins at four plants across the state. As such, Duke Energy has partnered with Charah, Inc. to transport
approximately three million tons of coal ash from the Riverbend Steam Station and Sutton Electric Plant
for use as structural fill in reclamation pits at Brickhaven and Colon Mines. Structural fill and associated
infrastructure will encompass 166 acres at Brickhaven Mine and 137 acres at Colon Mine.
The coal ash will be contained in engineered fill cells that use a High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) liner,
seamed and welded to ensure no leakage will occur. The liner forms a continuous chemical - resistant
barrier to prevent potential groundwater and soil contamination. The base of the fill cell will consist of
three layers: a geosynthetic clay liner, the HPDE liner and a fabric drainage liner. When the sites have
been filled, the cells will be capped with a layer of compacted soil, at least 6 feet in depth on the surface
and 2 feet in depth along the side slopes. Leachate will be collected and disposed of properly at an
existing wastewater treatment plant.
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699 -1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]

Page 2
April 2, 2015
Brickhaven and Colon Mines
Corps Action ID No.: SAW- 2014 -02254
Charah, Inc. compiled a list of 140 potential mine reclamation sites in North Carolina. Site conditions
such as mine status (active vs. inactive), road access, rail access, proximity to Duke Energy plant sites and
availability for redevelopment were considered. Mines that were not eliminated due to site constraints
were contacted regarding potential purchase. General Shale, the previous operator of Brickhaven and
Colon Mines, was the only entity willing to sell its mine sites to Green Meadows, LLC.
The applicant has stated that 75% of streams and 95% of wetlands on both mine sites will be avoided. At
Brickhaven Mine, proposed railroads have been moved upslope of stream channels, and railroad crossings
will use arched culverts across jurisdictional streams. At Colon Mine, a stockpile and laydown yard area
has been eliminated and existing road crossings will be used. Green Meadows, LLC will mitigate for
unavoidable impacts at a 1:1 ratio through payment to the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
(formerly the Ecosystem Enhancement Program) in -lieu fee program.
At Brickhaven Mine, an unnamed tributary to Gulf Creek in the Cape Fear River basin flows through the
site; a portion of the site drains to an unnamed tributary to Shaddox Creek. Downstream of the site, there
are records for the federal and state - endangered Cape Fear shiner (Notropis mekistocholas), the federal
species of concern and state - endangered yellow lampmussel (Lampsilis carioca) and the state - threatened
Roanoke slabshell (Elliptio roanokensis) and eastern lampmussel (L. radiata); there are also occurrences
of the Atlantic spike (E. producta) and Carolina slabshell (E. congarea), both present on the Natural
Heritage Program `Watch List'. There are records for the federal species of concern and state - special
concern Bachman's sparrow (Peucaea aestivalis), the state - threatened bald eagle (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus) and the state - special concern four -toed salamander (Hemidactylium scutatum) within
close proximity of the mine. The Natural Heritage Natural Area, Cape Fear River/McKay Island
Floodplain, is located downstream of the site. Game lands owned by NCWRC are located near the site.
At Colon Mine, Roberts Creek and unnamed tributaries to Roberts Creek in the Cape Fear River basin
flow through the site. Downstream of the site, there are records for the Cape Fear shiner, the yellow
lampmussel, the eastern lampmussel, the Roanoke slabshell, the Atlantic spike and the Carolina slabshell.
There are records for the bald eagle close to the mine. The Natural Heritage Natural Area, Cape Fear
River/McKay Island Floodplain, is located downstream of the site.
The NCWRC offers the following comments and recommendations to minimize impacts to aquatic and
terrestrial wildlife resources:
1. Due to the presence of a federally listed species at both mine sites, a minimum 200 -foot undisturbed,
native, forested buffer along perennial streams, and a 100 -foot buffer along intermittent streams and
wetlands is advised. Maintaining undisturbed, forested buffers along these areas will minimize
impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources, water quality and aquatic habitat both within and
downstream of the project area. In addition, forested riparian buffers protect water quality by
stabilizing stream banks and filtering stormwater runoff. Grassed buffers, particularly fescue, will not
provide the same value as forested buffers.
2. Where feasible, relocate streams using natural channel design methods. If streams cannot be
relocated, stream channels should be diverted to prevent surface waters from coming into contact with
disposed materials.
3. Stormwater control structures should be designed to achieve no net change in the hydrology of the
watershed.
4. Water quality monitoring should be performed downstream of both mine sites. In addition to
monitoring for the coal combustion constituents in Appendix I (i.e., Appendix I to 40 C.F.R. Part

Page 3
April 2, 2015
Brickhaven and Colon Mines
Corps Action ID No.: SAW- 2014 -02254
258), aluminum, boron and mercury should be added as they have the potential to adversely impact
aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources (RTI 2002). If constituents are found in downstream surface
waters, the applicant should notify the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources. Measures to identify the source and contain the constituents should be implemented
immediately. Downstream water quality monitoring for coal combustion constituents should
continue during post - closure. At a minimum, downstream water quality monitoring should be
performed if coal combustion constituents are found during groundwater monitoring.
5. Where feasible, stockpile top soils for final site reclamation. Excavated materials should not be
stockpiled where sediment will erode to surface waters.
6. Use seed mixtures, such as native warm season grasses, that are beneficial to wildlife in the
reclamation plan. An exact seeding mixture will need to account for soil types, moisture, pH and
degree of slope of areas to be stabilized. Relatively shallow sediment basins should be reclaimed as
wetlands where practicable. Please contact Jason Allen, District Wildlife Biologist, at (336) 524-
9801 for additional information and ideas that will benefit wildlife.
Sediment and erosion control measures should be installed prior to any land clearing or construction.
The use of biodegradable and wildlife- friendly sediment and erosion control devices is strongly
recommended. Silt fencing, fiber rolls and/or other products should have loose -weave netting that is
made of natural fiber materials with movable joints between the vertical and horizontal twines. Silt
fencing that has been reinforced with plastic or metal mesh should be avoided as it impedes the
movement of terrestrial wildlife species. Excessive silt and sediment loads can have detrimental
effects on aquatic resources including destruction of spawning habitat, suffocation of eggs and
clogging of gills.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If I can be of further assistance,
please contact me at (910) 409 -7350 or gabriela. garrison ancwildlife.org.
Literature cited
RTI.2002. Constituent screening for coal combustion wastes. October 2002.
(https:Hwww.rti.oriz/Vubs /epa -hq -rcra- 2006 - 0796- 04701.pd_)
cc: Karen Higgins, NCDWR
Jason Allen, NCWRC

rm
Brown, Craig J SAW
From: Garrison, Gabriela [gabriela .garrison @ncwildlife.org]
Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2015 3:53 PM
To: Brown, Craig J SAW
Cc: Higgins, Karen
Subject: [EXTERNAL] WRC Comments - Public Notice SAW- 2014 -02254
Attachments: WRC Comments—Corps #SAW- 2014 -02254 Brickhaven -Colon Mines.pdf
Hi Craig,
I have attached WRC recommendations for the Public Notice regarding Brickhaven and Colon
Mines and coal ash storage, SAW- 2014 - 02254.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Hope you have a great weekend,
Gabriela Garrison
Eastern Piedmont Habitat Conservation Coordinator
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
PO Box 149; Hoffman, NC 28347
Cell: 910 - 409 -7350
gaabriela .garrison(@ncwildlife.org
Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and
may be disclosed to third parties.
1

Dear Mr. Brown
My name is Nick Morgan I am a resident of Wake County. I often fish at Jordan Lake with my father. The
coal ash dump will have horrible affects on the wild life in and around Chatham and Lee Counties where
my parents live work and play. The water and air in and around Wake Chatham and Lee will be ruined.
My drinking water will be contaminated birds and wildlife in the wetlands will cease to thrive in these
areas. Thank you for rejecting the counties permit to poison us. -
Thanks
Nick Morgan RECEIV'EC
APR 0 3 2015
RALEIGH REGULATORY
FIELD OFFICE

Diana Hales
Chatham County Commissioner
528 Will Be Lane
Siler City, NC 27344
919.663.2372
30 March 2015
Mr. Craig Brown
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Corps Action ID Number: SAW- 2014 -02254
Dear Mr. Brown:
F? E 6E-1 -V-E- -c-
APR 0 3 2015
RALEIGH REGULATORY
-ZtOFFICE
I am writing to ask you to hold a public hearing about the permit application from Green r�
Meadows LLC (wholly owned by Charah Inc.) for the Colon site (Sanford) and Brickhaven
(Moncure) mines for a coal ash (solid waste) fill that will discharge material into 4,166 linear
feet of jurisdictional intermittent and perennial streams, and 1.14 acres of headwaters and
riparian wetlands. I also request an Environmental Impact Statement be completed on this
project in both locations.
Under your project description, you indicate 3 million tons of coal ash is to be transported; the
number is closer to 20 million tons; 8 million tons for Sanford, 12 million tons scheduled for
Moncure. If the applicant is stating 3 million tons for mine reclamation, what are the remaining
tons going to be used for?
If your permit must balance against "reasonable foreseeable detriments" the airborne
particulate matter of 20 million tons of coal ash traveling by road or railroad car from
Wilmington and Charlotte across the state into the heart of the Piedmont should be a concern
for everyone along the route, and especially at the receiving sites. There are no train
overpasses in either area, meaning that at every RR crossing all traffic, schools buses, and
emergency response will come to a complete stop when these trains are moving into the
disposal areas. It is estimated that more than 200,000 rail cars will be needed over the 5 year
plan to haul that tonnage to Chatham and Lee; and more than twice that many trips if
transported by truck. This is a public health and safety concern.
The project recitation also says the proposed HDPE liner has a life expectancy of 500+ years.
Curious, since the manufacturers mentioned a 25 -year guarantee when contacted.

There will be natural habitat losses, as well as no mitigation for severe sedimentation and
erosion that is already on the Brickhaven site. The downstream habitat of the Cape Fear Shiner,
a federal endangered species, should be considered in this permit as well.
This is a game changer, in perpetuity, for both the Colon and Brickhaven areas. There is only a
30 year assumed liability for this operation, and the cumulative impacts could make this entire
area unlivable in the future because of surface water and groundwater contamination and
potential landslides resulting from these giant build -up structures that will dominate the
surrounding landscapes. Several weeks ago there was a large landslide in West Virginia that
was from a fill collapse on top of a mountain; it had the unmistakable appearance of coal ash.
That is an additional concern.
There are numerous issues that need to be discussed in a public hearing, and the Army Corps of
Engineers should provide due diligence through requiring an Environmental Impact Statement
for this long- lasting endeavor.
Sincerely,
&o,
Diana Hales
Chatham County Commissioner

RECEIVEC
APR 0 3 2015
n saALr r.H REGULATORY
- - --
-----
- - -- - - - - - -- - -- — Caw �=� __ -- -- -- - - --
Uv
NA
--- - - - - -- -- - -
Aw

AA qv�-10.% 0-6�
NI
b-
�r,c- 'r
V-L)
A-Q
1-4

c�
• r7 ,
}
'A •
X�qw in am Alp

�, ��,..
� ty i � � ��. �R �
. t .• ��'� �� �'t 111 �...,,,r.� �: � � i
.+
.'t . +'.� � _ ',
.*� .r�'
#�
-.�
.f
i t
,_`� ' �
.. _ � a
� -- �; ,�,
�� �+f'':
.s<
t
..t,

0

Mh
�Sg `��.a- ��`�1?��u. ``t�c�•i.(,41��9.i � vc� �at,�� -ice �c� � ,. � �

MSD - Industrial Self - Monitoring Report
IDE
.o IVEC. Industrial Self- Monitoring Report
APR 0 3 2015 July 2014
,ALEIGH REGULATORY
FIELD OFFICE
Cu Pb nr6 A� mag, 6819
1 ! . 1 I rrah I
03
0- 028646119.8917.10'
4 I e ! l
s ;
04
Metraporitan S
`y
Industrial W
-
0.023029'15.997.10`
Phone: (828) 225-
I6 �I Grab i
Fax: [phone]
=' • - -`r
Co. Name: Charah
a . _ _. , ; �-
�.me>�•��Ri
Permit #: G -0'
07
r-
4 pin. S.s CA
- TA°
0.02930
.10'
0708
101
02
0.0289r920�12j�
}20-351
710!i
_; _
MSD - Industrial Self - Monitoring Report
IDE
.o IVEC. Industrial Self- Monitoring Report
APR 0 3 2015 July 2014
,ALEIGH REGULATORY
FIELD OFFICE
Cu Pb nr6 A� mag, 6819
1 ! . 1 I rrah I
03
0- 028646119.8917.10'
4 I e ! l
tau
04
11
.101
Grab _
05
0.023029'15.997.10`
4i {�I_
��R_ ^�1
I6 �I Grab i
06
0.025797
17.917.101
a . _ _. , ; �-
�.me>�•��Ri
1 C Grab
07
0.02874019.967.10,
- TA°
Grab
0.028940
0708
10` '_�{
rab
0
0.0276219.2217.10
'
Grab
10
0.02553117.737.1
_
1 <0. 001; <0.005$<0.005; <0.005; <0. 005' <0.001l00111 <0010�0.080'0.0D00010.0804 C
i
11
0.024241
Grab
12
O.O2378416.5217.101
Gab
13
0.0262951jIM..10
�rab
i
14
'0.02827
I
Grab
i
15 0.029170217.101
0.6
1
Grab
f
16 10.028488
19.7817.10`
_w; _ {f�oi I! _i_ I, ., I �_l Grab
17 10.02465117:127.106.7
i< 0.001;<0.005;<0.005` <0.0051_ <0. 005 <0. 001;0. 042 ; <0.010,0.11110.00000110.0680i
Com.
18 0.023101
16.04
19
0.02409
16.73
_I11�,�i1
001,�if �— + �� .I_ _ e 'r �;_�3 !
i _I Grab
20
0.0_24_993.17.36
7.001 i I 1 I i ! 3 I
�i�,�i
-�E =
?_ I Gr__ ,a b j
21
0.02494717.3217.10;
i� ,cl' Piw�!
�I Grab
22
0.024564117.06
7.101! — ii` l� 1��!
-� :
l� ( Grab
�1.� ��
23
0.025717
17.86
I__�__
7.1011 =!= -- si. �= III >.t.
Grab
��fl Grab
24
0.02850719.80!7.10•
6 I
- pl- -I — l
tt
t t Grab
25
0.025954
18.02
7.10 '
�lii_
- ____I.�I I
26 ;0.025952!18.027.10iT
y -, ,. 9i �;- -'_._
_.�1.. -�
Grab
27
10.02695618.727.10;
Y -I. a.� , i ®Il�llI
�1
Grab 1
~`
28 X0.028061
19.49�7.i0;'
fa t"`s 1r
_�Il !
`;
( Grab
29 °0.02609218.12
7.001 -
-_`� —
- -f_I Grab I
30
0.024084
16.73;7.10'�i
! `. r- '
-Y'I
f_ ____ 1 Grab -I
31
0- 023901416.6017.101
i ' 6 i�l l
Grab f
' All monitoring data and sampling frequencies meet permit requirements:
' All monitoring data and sampling frequencies DO NOT meet permit requirements.
If the facilityis non- compfiant, please commenton corrective actions being taken in respectto equipment, operation, maintenance, etc., and a time table for improvements to
tie ,ae -
Ag- Beryllium I Sri - Selenium I CN = Arsenic I MEK - Barium
Hg - Loco Level Mercury in mg /L as required by permit
1 certrty under penalty of taw that this Monthly Self- Mmitoring Report and all attachments were prepared Comments:
under ny direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assume that quafdied
personnel properly gather and evaluate the Information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or
persons w ho manage the system or those people d'ae* responsible for gathering the information. the
information submitted is, to the best of my fmowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. l am
aware that there are significant penalities for submlting false Information, Including the possib3ty of
fines and Imprisonment for knowing violations.
Name & Date: F7ornan Divers, 8/15/201A
r
Signature
Dgipllysgned by No manDvers
9 O`trmNOmnanmivers,o.puraharcE-
Eemail�ndrvers,lunlrrnm,N15
1 oatcmraoars 1esa41 -04roa
http : /Mmmurt>sdbc.orglwrffnchvaste entry_modulephp'. omra id= 35& companid= 29&printable= l&ecfitable =D 12

9/18/�d14
MSD - Industrial Self - Monitoring Report
Metropolitan Sewerage District Industrial Self - Monitoring Report
Industrial Waste Division
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Co. Name: Charah Inc 02
Permit #: G -0362
August 2014
Co: All monitoring data and sampling frequencies meet permit requirements.
All monitoring data and sampling frequencies DO NOT meet permit requirements.
If the facility is non - compliant, please comment an corrective actions being taken in respect to equipment, operation, maintenarim, etc., and a time table for improvements to
be made.
Ag = Beryllium I Sn = Selenium I CN = Arsenic I MEK = Barium
Hg = Low Level Mercury in mg/L as required by permit
1 certify under penalty of lase that flits MonlhlySelf- Monitoring Report and all attachments were prepared under my. Comments:
direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel property galherand
evaluate the information submitted. Based on my Inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, orlhose
i
people directly responsible forgathering the information, the fnformationsubmitted Is, to the best of my knowledge i
and belief, true, accurate, and complete. l am aware that there are slgnifi ant penaities forsubmilting false
Information, lnchrdurg the possibility of fines and impdsonment for knowing violations. I`
Name 8r Date: I17orn =_n Diners, 9/19/201 — ^_
Signature
fA4e701tW -19 V230'DA'LJ
Copyright Ll 201Z Metropolitan Sewerage District. All Rights Reserved.
http:flwww.msdbc.orgtwrrinc /waste entry_module.php ?month id =36& company _id= 298rprintable- -I&editable =0 1/1

• 10/16/2014
Metropolitan Sewerage District
Industrial Waste Division
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Co. Name: Charah Inr-02
Permit 4: G -0362
MSD - industrial Self- Monitoring Report
Industrial Self- Monitoring Report
September 2014
All monitoring data and sampling frequencies meet permit requirements.
All monitoring data and sampling frequencies DO NOT meet permit requirements.
If the facility is non - compliant, please comment on corrective actions being taken in inspect to equipment, operation, maintenance, etc., and a timetable for improvements to
be made.
Ag = Beryllium I Sn = Selenium I CM = Arsenic I P1EK = Barium
Hg= LLHg in mg /L as required by permit.
J.
I cer ify under penalty of law that this Monthly Self-Monitoring Report and all attachments avere prepared under my Comments:
direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel property gather and
evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those
people directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knovwledge
and belief, true, aomrate, and complete. l am aware that there are significant penaritis for submitling false
information, Including the possibility of fines and Imprisonment for knowing violations.
Name & Date: I Norman Divers, 10/20/2014
ev Digicn- -N fma D Norman Divers
I Signature DN:cn= NormanDiver�a= Oharah ou=EE :� hamhmn�us
Date 7014.10]00@0 &11-040P
Copyright Q 2012 Metropolitan Selverage District All Rights Reserved.
htlp :llwww.msdbc.org /iwrinetwaste entry_module.php ?month id= 37 &company_id =28 &printable =1 &editable =0 111

r , • 1111712!'114
Metropolitan Sewerage District
eo `:
Industrial Waste Division
r G��
Phone: [phone]
"•;��►' • / ;'
Fax: [phone]
•
Co. Name: Charah IncL02
Permit #: G -352
MSD - Industrial Self:- Monitoring Report
Industrial Self- Monitoring Report
October 2014 -
12.1917.00'x_ _
1258f7A0': �l
31 10.027,20!15.43 :7.UU'•
All
All monitoring data and sampling frequencies meet permit requirements.
AO monitoring data and sampring frequencies DO NOT meet permit requirements.
If thefacility is non - compliant, please comment on corrective actions being taken in respect to equipment, operation, maintenance, etc., and a time table for improvements to
be made.
Ag = Beryllium l Sn = Selenium l CN = Arsenic j MEK = Barium
Hg= LLHg in m as required by permit.
I certify under penalty of taw that this Monthly Se &Monkoring Report and all adachmenls were prepared under my
direction or supervaion in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and
evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those
people directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my Iminsledge
and belief, true, accurate. and complete. I am aware that there are significant pena6tirs for submitting false
information, Including the possibility of fines and impriscament for Immiirig iftlations.
Name & Date: jiyorman Divers, it 19 201a
Digitally signed by Norman Divers
Signature DN:rn cffnan Diverso--Chantyou =E
01- Eema�t =ndive [e-mail]
Date 2014.11.19 09HT3a -11M
Comments:
is
Copyright O 2012 Metropolitan Sewerage Disbict. All Rights Reserved.
Itttp :l/www.msdbc.orglwrinchvaste entry_module.php7month id--M company _id= 29&printabie= l8editabte =0
111

.12/1512914
Metropolitan Sewerage District
Industrial Waste Division
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Co. Name: Charah Inc 02
Permit #: G -0362
MSD - Industrial Self - Monitoring Report
Industrial Self- Monitoring Report
November 2014
All monitoring data and sampling frequencies meet permit requirements.
Ali monitoring data and sampling frequencies DO NOT meet permit requirements.
It the faaTtly is non - compliant, please comment on corrective actions being taken in respectto equipment, operation, maintenance, eto., and a time table forimprovements to
be made,
Ag = Beryllium I Sn= Selenium I CN = Arsenic I MEK = Bari=
Hg = LLHg in mg /L as required by permit
1 cerfily under penalty of law that this Monthy Se1l-Momloring Report and all attadlments were prepared under my
Comments:
direction or supervision to accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and
evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those
people directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knawledge
and be5ef, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are signifirarit pena5ties for suhmdting false
information, including the possi3aity of fines and imprisonment for Imavving violations. A
Name & Date Norman Divers, 12 16 2074
Signature Digimllysigned by Norman Divers
Dfto= Korman Divers, u- Qarah,ou =EE
emalt= n&ers@charah=rrk rrllS
Date:20M12161&51]9 -0507
Copyright © 2012 t4etropolitan Sellerage DLstrid. All Rights Reserved.
http : //www.msdbc.orgriwrriinctwaste entry Module.php ?month id=39 &company ld =29 €printable= 1&editable =o 111

111f�20e5 MSD - Industrial Self - Monitoring Report
Metropolitan Sewerage District
J'•
Qc �} Industrial Waste Division
Phone: [phone]
• tf r`�
'•,�r� � Fax: [phone]
Co. Name: Charah Inc-02
Permit a: G -0362
Industrial Self- Monitoring Report
December 2014
r All monitoring data and sampling frequencies meet permit requirements.
All monitoring data and sampling frequencies DO NOT meet permit requirements.
If the facility is non - compliant, please comment on corrective actions being taken in respect to equipment operation, maintenance, etc., and a time table for improvements to
be made.
Ag = Beryllium I Sn= Selenium I CN = Arsenic I MEK = Barium
Hg = LLHg in mglL as required by permit
I certify under penalty of law that tills Monthly Self - Monitoring Report and of attadlments were prepared under my
direction or supervision in ao:ardanoe with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and
evaluate the information submitted. Based an my inquiry of the person or personswho manage the system, or those
people directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted Is, to the best of mytnowledge
and belief, true, acarrate, and complete. l am aware that there are signf ant penaMes for submitting false
information, including the possiMy of fines and imprisonment for lmowing violations.
Name & Date: Norman Divers, 1/19/2015
Signature O1giGmysignedby& Duel
Dkodtmman IXve4a-0unhvs -
DacMU1.19 lain-97-0M
Comments:
i
Copyright @ 2012 Mt tmpmlitan S_werage District. All Rights Reserved.
httpJ /www.msdbc.orgfrwrinclwaste enlry _nodule.php ?month id =40& company _id= 29&printable= 1 &edit8ble =0
�
��
1f1
•
1
I
j „

".-N , , el
Vi

To: Diana Hales
Cc: glucier@earth]ink.net
Subject: Re: Charah self monitoring leachate, Asheville
Hello Diana,
Thanks for sharing this information.
You are correct ..... the term Comp means composite sample. They
use an automated sampling machine that will collect small
amounts at set time intervals during a 24 hour period and deposit
them into a single collection bottle. They will then analyze that
composite sample.
I have no idea why they do not use correct elemental notation..... it
is certainly confusing.
Two things jump out at me:
(1) The concentrations of selenium and arsenic are alarming and
are far above toxic levels for fish and wildlife. Selenium levels
were 11 -42 ug/L in the July, September, November and December
samples...... the toxic threshold is 2 ug/L. Arsenic levels were 59-
136 ug/L .... the toxic threshold is 9 ug/L. The concentrations of
selenium and arsenic rate a high hazard to fish and
wildlife. Levels of barium (680 -876 ug/L) are also a
concern ........ the threshold for fish and wildlife toxicity is only 250
ug/L.
(2) The analytical sensitivity for cadmium, copper, nickel, lead,
and zinc is not low enough to provide meaningful results.
Everything is reported as less than values, which means it was
below detection limits and the actual amounts are therefore
essentially not measured and not reported. The stated detection
limits (less than values) are all well above toxic levels for fish and
wildlife. Therefore, the actual amounts of all of these are
unknown, and could very well be present at toxic levels, but
unmeasured.
So these reports point out definite toxicity hazards for fish and
wildlife, and also reveal that the methods used to measure
contaminants are not sensitive enough to allow a complete and
accurate hazard assessment for fish and wildlife.
Let me know if you need anything else.
Sincerely,
Dennis Lemly
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 8:42 AM, Diana Hales
<[e-mail],-<mailto:[e-mail]

>> wrote:
Dr. Lemly and Dr. Lucier. These self - monitoring reports we
provided by Charah at the Chatham County Board of
Commissioner's meeting March 2. They cover July 2014 to
December 2014. Lots of questions about this, including why e
note box comment that readings for Ag = Beryllium and CN
Arsenic, and MEK = Barium. Why not use the correct elementa
notation? Also, what does Comp refer to in the sample
type? Composite ??
What do you make of these reports from the Metropolitan
Sewerage District? Appreciate your thoughts on these readings.
RECEIVEC
APR Q 3 2015
RALEIGH REGULATORY
FIELD OFFICE

ll�
MUM v ml.,
APR 0 3 2015 , I I
ts
P -- O- Ss -� ,f!- /G _ - - �C__/.4' l �Lt, _G �� �G__� _1_� re��L�p�- /__C�- --
C,
d T'o
AA
c 05 e 6-f
4e
/go3 Pasrff;ce,
SAn f'oad 9%C ,Y933 -0

RECEIVEC
APR 0 3 2015
RALEIGH REGULATORY
(� FIELD OFFICE
A!R-,
� 4
-- P- u?h- - -6-A-A- ate., .�.et/�\._.. -
Y
- -- - - - -- - - -
U� s bU
. uv

&0 w v)
J GOy- �S 0 �►� `s v\ ee,� S 2� u) cz�'a, �'�� ►c2
333 A-m 1 V'omae'��VZ
�U0, Q- ��re1) 1 ll%L --9
7S' 87
V\ cu, c 1-..�. �� , oZ o t s
RECEIVEC
APR 0 3 2015
`n RALEIGH REGULATORY
flvt� 1 ►� V . 1� b w N , FIELD OFFICE
c"10 2At-\
Uwe to 0 V f CA c v- -.s
C._, CU v. \ Ol S (4 VVY l : \,^) U- S S cn A-o 1 -Q Q rv\
rn o j� - G, 1 t AJ-. , 5 �v o�, v\ of"� -x s P,, Aso
1 y\ cw, � l 2.aN- 5 q Y� o W'% �-, c� v - k e r-e c,,,, A
A--; vvv c- v,*,,, of as V�) CV%I% j
t5 1_ _ can �j c� \��- i s Go J G S 1.
GL c, A Gw. G'l i T Jv� s i i S -,y—&,V\ w U r- r- i -4 c k d J-
\ -S tl\ e,1.1 Wl o,,,., vw -l..`, S u,� G z 1- A-t-\ e-
YYI� r, GC Jctl . ckt310 -kCk5 CA,.- �O�L_Y'fZ 4ZA of 1C4
AAAo.i- pyope, -� A4-\,+ ke- wc,5 juw\ A-o Glit
Yh L � �J v \ lJl OL k O \l `s e-. C", o-, � CX -� w t, S 1 � `J'
e1 U v1 Y- % v\ c3 S q C'. S A-0 "' v , \` A 01,11 Ti 1 c, l -T
k tw.►r� C b ",ft A-ti e_ Co j C o k
\A/k o w J�1 \ a U e-- Sip e" of i V\ c1 Vh u c., -klcni"
prolp eq A-� w 'AU\ -s:-- c, ti, J w. y �A u -skq rteA cam, 7'

f
Uv\ e- 5 S� Y'\ a.vA y A rU cM S Vvvi "' i h 5 A4-\ c 16- v a c s
A"o kit c w^, es S C G,•,.,',h y y-�o �v ► c, i Q v e4,\
Cpl "A- ro l -ems Vv. I G�-2 aA , o kow i " i o vv-
CA 0
I
VY
I
s
1

RECEIVEC
APR 0 3 2m
RALEIGH
Lo �;FFI LATORY
FIE� E
Co R

CHATHAM COLINTY
NORTH CAROLINA
April 1, 2015
Mr. Craig Brown
US Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Jim Crawford, Chair
Mike Cross, Vice Chair
Diana Hales
Karen Howard
Walter Petty
RECEIVE
APR 0 3 2015
RALEIGH REGULATORY
FIELD
Subject: Corps Action ID Number: SAW- 2014 -02254 Comments
Dear Mr. Brown,
In response to the Public Notice on the application for authorization to impact streams
and wetlands under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, Chatham County would like to formally
request that a public hearing be held to consider the application. The County requests this public
hearing due to the impact that the disposal of coal ash in the Brickhaven Mine will have in
Chatham County. It is our belief that the transportation of ash to the site and ultimate disposal
within the mine will have adverse immediate and cumulative impacts on the population in the
area surrounding the mine. A Public Hearing in Chatham County will allow residents to fully
understand the proposed impacts and provide valuable feedback to the Army Corps of Engineers
for consideration of the application.
If the Corps chooses to hold this Public Hearing, we will be happy to assist with finding
an appropriate meeting location.
Sincerely,
90Y."'M ly . V
James G. Crawford
Chairman, Chatham County Board of Commissioners
P. B. Box 1809,12 East Street, Pittshoro, NC 27312 ■ 919- 542 -0200 ■ FAX [phone]

RECEIVEC
APR 0 3 2015
RALEIGH REGULATORY
� /f

Dear Mr. Brown
My name is Christine Morgan a long time resident of Lee County. The coal ash dump will bless us with
falling property values, contaminated drinking water, contaminated earth for my garden . The Haw and
Cape Fear Rivers are part of delicate eco systems that deserve a fighting chance. Please do not give the
peDOle of this area extra diseases to ftht off.
Thank you
Christine Morgan
pPR � 32.015
�EIC OFFICE
alr1 REG'ULP,f Or"(
AL
Fli~I.D �

RECEIVEC
Qb, (_0 N
f APR 0 3 2015
RALEIGH REGULATORY
FIELD OFFICE
A y
U- �,
I lu
Af�
af
Ovrd--
�Y, S"; /� � 4r -•, •i -j ,i ,, l rte, -_ - � - - -i - �- ��/ ^ -_ � +1 r : ' - ` � L - - - - -- --
Il
0 0

Isl
RECEIVED
APR 03 2015
RALEIGH REGULAFORY
FIELD OFFICE
f
A-Ka--Alt a)
T f)

r s..
G
RECEI EV
APR 0 6 2015
RALEIGH REGULATORY
`_FIELD OFFICE
A A
c� a .97t°�% -1-

COPY
FR p
E"CEIlV
APR 13 2015
-RALEIGH REGULATORY
J' a FPE'LD,OFFI -E
.S
�•��I ��— ��I�L.!{ �Li.GI SiGJ'J�`ilJ GJ� cF yGL�� / /�—
1 ✓ /c1�
�! l �� L1� C�7,J'l y�c„J
// L. �y��G— JGc��u �`�y
2 J;v
yiyi %v.S
�sy

a
P.O. Box 187 Bynum NC 27228 (919) 542 -5790 infoLhawrtver.org
April 2, 2015
Mr. Craig Brown
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Dear Mr. Brown:
M,
r ' r
LA4 Y 1 2 201 S rVR
The Haw River Assembly is a non - profit organization that has been working since 1982. to
protect the Haw River and Jordan Lake in the Upper Cape Fear basin and to safeguard water
quality for the communities that live in this watershed.
We wish to comment on the application from Green Meadows, LLC seeking Department of the
Army authorization to discharge fill material into 1.14 acres of jurisdictional headwater and
riparian wetlands, 4,166 linear feet of jurisdictional intermittent and perennial streams, along
with 0.50 acre of isolated wetlands non jurisdictional wetlands, associated with coal ash
repositories to be located at the Brickhaven and Sanford (Colon) Mines in Chatham and Lee
Counties, North Carolina.
A portion of the 301 acre permitted area of the Brickhaven Mine site, located off Moncure-
Flatwood Road, drains to Shaddox Creek, a tributary of the Haw River, and the site is near Haw
River Assembly members living in the southeast Chatham County Moncure and Brickhaven
communities. We have many questions and concerns about negative impacts that both of these
proposed coal ash repositories could have on surface and groundwater, public health and safety,
and destruction of wildlife and the environment. We do not believe the cumulative impacts of the
coal ash on downstream waters has been sufficiently looked at. Downstream from both these
clay mine sites, the Cape Fear River is used as a drinking water source for many municipalities,
and is also habitat for the federally listed endangered species, the Cape Fear shiner, and other
threatened species and species of concern.
We are asking at this time that a public hearing be held on this 404 permit so that the
public has the opportunity to discuss openly the many concerns they have.
Among our many concerns and questions are the following:
Groundwater contamination: It is a fact that all liners will eventually degrade and leak, and
some much sooner, due to improper installation or breaches. The applicant states in the draft 404
permit that "The proposed HDPE liner is designed to industry standards and has an expected life
of 500+ years ". However, the December 16, 2014 letter from David Cox, NC Wildlife

Resources Commission to NC Land Quality Section concerning the Green Meadows mining
permit gives a very different picture of the durability and risks of these liners, "...the liners have
an estimated safe life of 80 to 100 years if no mechanical stress is induced (Reddy, 1999). If
either of these occurs, aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources can be exposed to coal
combustion products or its constituents through direct contact with contaminated soil or surface
water, or through ingestion of contaminated plants, soils, or aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates."
And what about human exposure to contamination? Is there a plan for baseline monitoring of
neighbors' drinking water wells in an area surrounding the mine site? Both the Brickhaven and
Colon Rd. clay pits are within the Deep River shale basin, with its very fractured underlying
geology including diabase dikes. Has there been consideration of what the impacts of fracking in
the area could mean to long term stability of these coal ash repositories and cumulative impacts
on water quality?
Impacts on Surface waters:
The 404 permit would allow impacts and destruction to 2662 linear feet of stream and .45 acres
of wetlands in the Brickhaven site alone. Mitigation in form of payment to a fund for stream
restoration elsewhere will not mitigate the damage being done to these streams, and the habitat
that relies on them.
Three miles of Gulf Creek, downstream from the Brickhaven clay pit, has been on the EPA's
303(d) impaired waters list since 1998 and 2000, down to the confluence with the Cape Fear
River. A tributary of Gulf Creek flows through the Brickhaven clay mining site where coal ash
would be brought The current 2014 listing
shows that Gulf Creek is exceeding fresh
water quality standards due to "Poor Fish
Community" and "Narrative Standard" (2014
NC 303(4) List - Category 5 Final December
19, 2014, page 16). Given that Gulf Creek
constantly runs the color of the clay mining
site it is draining, we assume this means the
turbidity narrative standard for sediment is
being exceeded (photo at right, taken by
HRA in January 25, 2015).
We are very concerned that some of the coal
ash that will be encapsulated at the
Brickhaven site (as well as at the Sanford
site) will eventually end up downstream into
the Cape Fear River adding to the current
sediment load and coal ash wastewater from
the Moncure Coal Plant ash storage ponds.
The stormwater retention systems, berm
heights and sediment ponds are all based on
engineering designs that assume weather
patterns based on the past. We face a very
unknown future due to climate change, and
the likelihood of more frequent and severe storms should be considered for these plans. Failure

M
or overtopping of the berms or breaching of the containment of the coal ash could lead to
massive pollution of the Cape Fear River. The 8 million tons of ash planned for internment at
this site will be in addition to the millions of tons of coal ash currently sitting in ponds next to the
Moncure Coal Ash plant less than 2 miles away. If a hurricane or other major storm were to
damage or destroy the berms and other containment at both sites, it would have a devastating
impact to the Cape Fear River and the downstream water users. Downstream water systems who
take their source water from the Cape Fear River include Sanford, Harnett County (which
supplies Lillington, Angier, Ft. Bragg, Holly Springs, and Fuquay- Varina), Dunn, Fayetteville,
and Brunswick County (including Wilmington).
Air Pollution:
We have seen estimates that moving 8 million tons of coal ash to the Brickhaven site could
require 400,000 truckloads or 120,000 train car loads. The transport of this huge amount of coal
ash will most certainly mean measurable amounts of coal ash residue along roadsides and in
yards, and which could become a significant air pollutant to those living along the transport
routes. Will transport vehicles be required to have closed and covered containers? Who will
monitor and regulate this? Who will monitor air quality to ensure public safety?
Wildlife and Environmental Concerns:
Outside of the mined areas at the Brickhaven site, there are mixed pine/hardwood forests and
oak hickory streams and wetlands, as well as abandoned sediment basins that have become
wetland habitat. The permit application by Green Meadows LLC shows that large excavations
would be made beyond the current mined areas, destroying considerable wildlife habitat.
Among the concerns in the December 16, 2014 letter from NC Wildlife Resources Commission
was the need for greater stream buffers; water monitoring for additional constituents (aluminum,
boron and mercury), longer post closure care of the site; dust control; and questions about types
of chemicals that might be used onsite for dust suppressants and sediment control flocculants that
could be toxic to fish and wildlife.
We also believe the issue of whether these two clay mine areas at Brickhaven and Sanford
(Colon) will be "mine reclamation" as claimed by Green Meadows, or are actually coal ash
landfills, needs to be resolved. The proposed excavation of currently un -mined land; the
proposed finished height of the encapsulated coal ash at above grade of the surrounding land;
and the prohibition of mechanical stress on top of the finished "reclamation" in order to preserve
the integrity of the coal ash liners, would make these areas unsuitable for any developmentThis is
a coal ash landfill and should be permitted and regulated as that, and new EPA guidelines should
be in play. We do not believe US ACE should issue a 404 permit until this issue is resolved.
Endangered Species:
We believe that the proposed project may impact federally listed endangered or threatened
species or their formally designated critical habitat, and that the Corps should initiate
consultation under Section 7 of the ESA and not make a permit decision until the consultation
process is complete.
In the December 16, 2014 letter referenced above, the Division of Wildlife Resources discussed
terrestrial and aquatic species that could be impacted from the Brickhaven site. Tributaries of
Shaddox Creek drain this site, and flow into the, Haw River just before it's confluence with the

Cape Fear River. Tributaries of Gulf Creek also flow into the nearby Cape Fear River, habitat for
recorded populations of the federal and state endangered Cape Fear Shiner, as well as federal
species of concern and state threatened yellow lampmussel, Carolina redhorse, Roanoke
slabshell, and other state and federal species of concern. The Cape Fear/McKay Island Natural
Heritage area is just downstream of the Brickhaven site just above the confluence of Gulf Creek
and the Cape Fear River. To say that these species will not be impacted because they are not
within the project site is incorrect, since waters from these tributaries -and any pollution they
carry- will flow into the Cape Fear River and into the critical habitat for the species listed above.
Disposal of leachate:
Coal ash leachate is likely to contain high levels of heavy metals including arsenic, lead,
mercury, cadmium, chromium, selenium, aluminum, antimony, barium, beryllium, boron,
bromide, chlorine, cobalt, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, thallium, vanadium, and zinc. Some
coal ash also contains radioactive materials. Despite collection of leachate, some will eventually
reach groundwater as the liners disintegrate over time. The leachate that is collected will need to
be taken to a municipal wastewater treatment plant. The heavy metals and other constituents of
coal ash leachate can interfere with the wastewater treatment plant, and create new problems and
costs that are borne by those municipalities. Among these pollutants are the bromides from the
coal plant scrubber, which can become a constituent of the fly ash "The lack of regulations for
bromides can be a problem, said Tom Boyd, a senior environmental specialist at the Department
of Environment and Natural Resources. Boyd, who works with drinking -water plants in
northwest North Carolina, said coal plants send their scrubber waste to wastewater treatment
systems, but that those systems often fail to remove the bromide. "Sadly, it's passing through
into the waters of the state," he said. Boyd, like Hoffmann, noted that North Carolina does not
control bromide releases into streams or rivers. "It's a non - regulated chemical," he said. (
http: / /www. northcarol inahealthnews. org/ 2014 /04/07 /coal- waste - may- cause - carcinogen - spikes-
in- drinking- watero The Cape Fear River already has highly elevated levels of bromide.
Cumulative Impact:
Given the very real chance that there will be contamination of both surface waters and
groundwaters from these proposed coal ash repositories, the pollution that would flow
downstream into the Cape Fear River would be in addition to the current coal ash wastewater
seepage into the Cape Fear River from the ash ponds at the Duke Energy Moncure Coal Ash
plant in this same stretch of river. Gulf Creek is already on the EPA 303(d) list and would be
further degraded by any increased sedimentation from excavation and construction at the
Brickhaven clay pits, as well as any coal ash pollution.
In summary, we request a public hearing be held on this 404 permit, and that the permit
should not be issued until all concerns and questions have been adequately addressed.
Sincerely,
Elaine Chiosso,
Haw Riverkeeper