20150042 Ver 1_Martha Girolami (2)_20150515

Burdette, Jennifer a
From: MARTHA W GIROLAMI <mgirolami @me.com>
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 1:04 PM
To: SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Cc: Burdette, Jennifer a
Subject: Comments on the Brickhaven No. 2 Mine Tract "A" and Colon Road Mine Permits
(5306, 1910, 53 -05, 19 -25)
Attachments: Comments on the Mining Permit May 16 2015.docx

May 15, 2015
Mining Program
NCDENR /Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1612
Comments on the State Mining and Structural fill (coal ash) permits for
Brickhaven Mine Tract "A" Site and Colon Road Mine Site
I live in Chatham County and have closely followed the proposed coal ash fill
projects 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 forced upon the citizens
of Chatham and Lee. Landfills should not be used for coal ash residuals.
Coal ash is very toxic. http: / /www.psr.org/assets/pdfs /coal - ash.pdf
Therefore, Coal ash residuals must be made into concrete to eliminate dispersion of
toxic ash dust and to prevent the formation of toxic leachate. Coal ash solidification
and storage must be done on site, at the power plants. Also the permits from NC
DENR are weak and fail to protect the people, environment and the many plants and
animals living in and around these two clay mine sites. The Chatham Board of
Commissioners has unanimously passed a resolution opposing this coal ash dump at
Brickhaven.
1. 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 explicit plans in its permit
to handle coal ash in an enclosed space to prevent dispersion and loss. Unbelievably
there is no air permit for these coal ash landfills! Citizens must rely on 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 will involve backhoeing ash from
rail cars to trucks or to the ground and dumping ash into mine cells with trucks or
front end loaders. Both trucks, backhoe, loaders and especially "empty" rail cars will
contain ash residues 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 ash in
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, two 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 unregulated, toxic air pollution from coal ash
dust clouds coming from the inactive Cape Fear power plant.

April 3, 2015: photos taken of coal ash air pollution blowing from the Cape Fear
Secondly, 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 rural highways. 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.wso ctv.com/news/news/sp ecial-rep orts.19 -investigates- coal-ash-
cleanup -problems.Inj 4j 41
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, passes 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 ash dust particles contain toxic
heavy metals which are often carcinogens and neurotoxins and are often
radioactive. All toxins to humans are also toxic to wildlife as these metals become
incorporated into their environment and food chain and /or are breathed in or pass
through skin or membranes to damage health and viability.
http: /Iearthjustice.org/news/press/ 2014 / ash -in- lungs- how - breathing- coal - ash -is-
hazardous -to -your- health
Additionally, there are no common sense severe weather rules governing the
transport and material handling of coal ash. Strong winds and rains must be
reasons to stop work and cover exposed coal ash; but there are no permit
restrictions. There are no requirements to immediately cover ash when deposited
on the site.
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; it is not
enclosed; and regulations are minimal. Air pollution from coal ash dust from the
Duke Energy Cape Fear power plant 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, from corrosivity (1-12S) and from radioactivity. The coal
ash air pollution constitutes irreversible and permanent harm to environment and
health.
Do not approve this permit because of the inadequacy and difficulty of dust
control for this toxic coal ash. Approval should be denied because there is no
air permit and no effective material handling procedures. The short and long
term damage to human and ecological health is a certainty with this project.
These permits must be denied because Criteria 2 of the Mining Permit Review
applies:
Criteria 2: "That the operation will have unduly adverse effects on potable
groundwater supplies, wildlife, or fresh water, estuarine, or marine fisheries"
These permits must be denied because Criteria 3 of the Mining Permit Review
applies:
Criteria 3: "That the operation will violate standards of air quality, surface
water quality, or ground water quality that have been promulgated by the
Department."

2. 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.
Also, the permits do not specifically exclude coal ash from other sites in NC and from
other states. In fact, South Carolina coal ash is included in the permit scope. It is
questionable that any legal limits may be placed on the customers, in or out of state.
This coal ash dump will be a commercial enterprise and will be subject to the laws of
commerce.
For the reason that the project size is too large and ill defined and coal ash is
not exclusive to the Sutton and Riverbend plants, these permits for coal ash
reclamation in Lee and Chatham counties must not be approved.
3. 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. Brickhaven and Colon Road sites will likely be new Superfund
sites in 30 years or less. The finger pointing and blame game between these parties
will prevent real and timely (if indeed this is possible) remediation actions.
Making this project a commercial enterprise and transferring liability and
responsibility from Duke Energy to small, financial companies are bad ideas
which must result in no approval of these permits by DENR.
4. 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 will receive this burden of pollution.

Duke Energy reported at the NC Legislature's Environmental Review commission on
April 22, 2014 that the cost for them to clean up the 33 coal ash pits to dry ash
landfill standards was between $8 and $10 billion dollars. Dividing this range by 33
gives you a rough estimate of the magnitude of groundwater pollution clean up. The
cost per coal ash pit ranged from $212 to $303 million dollars. So Duke Energy's
own cost estimates show how inadequate the bonding and corrective action funds
are for these coal ash deposits.
The subsequent pollution from these coal ash mine deposits /landfills will damage
the quality of life and the prosperity and desirability of the Brickhaven and Colon
Road neighborhoods, farms and businesses. Since there is no planning now for
probable groundwater pollution, it appears likely that future clean up and
remediation will never be done or the costs will burden future NC taxpayers unfairly
for countless years. The contamination of these from groundwater leachate leakage
and blown ash dust and spills is largely irreversible.
SB O r;�r
h(& ru°� 87,89- $10 ,Q9
$1 i7 i1
a "��e�de„i�'� ,ii rr,'
a+mn
5k19i
�yyc,�+tt yK c s6AB -88.99
11111111.
57.9
„rrni`
1 1
I 1
S60
I 1
I 1
S50
1 1
I 1
$4.0
I 1
$30
S2.09. $2 58
1
I
52.9.1
51.0
1 1
I 1
I I I 1
6asaltne A�suurpiion Full EacavadYom AII�Cbry Sys.Eams
Dullke Energy supports a prudent, environmentalMy sound, and cost effective soNutlon
slam
this spectrum that addresses both active and retired sites.
Notes: Assumes nom- hazardous desgnabon by he W'....5.. EPA
AIII costsexpnessed are rough order ormagni #ude esbrna#es. These are subteot to detailed) engineering studies and do mot indlude inancing, inflaban and ncreased cperabons and maMenance costs..
From the ERC on April 22nd
LLtp-://www.ncleq.net/documentsites/committees/ERC/2013-2014 ERC
Documents/Commission Meetings/7 ®April 2014 /Handouts and
Presentations/5. ewton® uke Energy ® Coal Ash resentation.pdf
The permit to deposit coal ash in Brickhaven and Colon Road should not be
approved because there is insufficient funds available to clean up a ground-
water contamination or pollution from surface spills and air blown
coal ash dust. Also liners do not last and groundwater contamination will
occur.
The permits must be denied because the criteria 2, 3 and 4 applies for the
Chatham and Lee clay mines coal ash reclamation projects.

Criteria 2: "That the operation will have unduly adverse effects on potable
groundwater supplies, wildlife, or fresh water, estuarine, or marine fisheries."
Criteria 3: "That the operation will violate standards of air quality, surface
water quality, or ground water quality that have been promulgated by the
Department."
Criteria 4: "That the operation will constitute a direct and substantial physical
hazard to public health and safety or to the neighboring dwelling house,
school, church, hospital, commercial or industrial building, public road or
other public property, excluding matters relating to the use of a public road."
S. Solidfication and Above Ground Storage
Coal ash should be mixed with concrete and stored in above ground containment
as discussed in the following articles. 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 100+
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
solidified — turned into concrete and then disposed of in above - ground containment
at the source power plant. The unsolidified coal ash must NOT be transported
across the state to Brickhaven and Colon Road mines. This salt -stone technology
is discussed in these articles.
http: / /www.bredl.org/pdf4 /Coal ash report 14 -083 w ARpx A +B.pdf
http: /Ienergy.gov/em/ articles /em- completes- salt - waste - disposal- units- 8- million-
under- budget- savannah - river -site
6. 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 permits must be rejected because of the real threat to groundwater from
liner degradation and selenium passage through the liners. Liners have not
been tested adequately for coal ash and are not proven. The permits must be
denied because the criteria 2 applies for the Chatham and Lee clay mines coal
ash reclamation projects.
Criteria 2: "That the operation will have unduly adverse effects on potable
groundwater supplies, wildlife, or fresh water, estuarine, or marine fisheries."
7. The Discharge of Coal Ash into the Brickhaven Clay Mine is Not Mine
Reclamation
From Wikipedia:
Mine reclamation is the process of restoring land that has been mined to a
natural or economically usable state. Although the process of mine reclamation
occurs once mining is completed, the planning of mine reclamation activities
occurs prior to a mine being permitted or started. Mine reclamation creates useful
landscapes that meet a variety of goals ranging from the restoration of productive
ecosystems to the creation of industrial and municipal resources. In the United
States, mine reclamation is a regular part of modern mining practices. Modern
mine reclamation minimizes and mitigates the environmental effects of mining.
Common sense and any definition you can find for mine reclamation in state
regulations all over the USA require the restoration of the land, creation of a
useful landscape and the mitigation and minimization of the effects of mining.
The Brickhaven coal ash dump plan has nothing in common with the intent and
execution of mining reclamation.
Below is given the GIS illustration developed by Don Kovasckitz, director of GIS
Strategic Services for Lee County NC, to show what the eight million tons of coal ash
would look like at the Colon Road site in Lee County. This deposit is five or more
stories in height. This mass of ash is to be placed on land that is mostly undisturbed,
i.e. never mined. Nothing useful can be built on top of this mountain of ash.
There is nothing in the permit that deals with the maintenance of grass, the
removal of trees, the repair of erosion over time. Enormous labor costs and /or
enormous volumes of toxic herbicide will be needed to maintain the cover and kill

the trees. Of course tree roots will penetrate any liner. No provisions have been
made for upkeep of the mountain of coal ash to prevent degradation forever.
So What is a Landfill?
According to Zero Waste America's web site, a landfill is a carefully
designed structure built into or on top of the ground in which trash is
isolated from the surrounding environment. The purpose is to avoid
any water related connection between the waste and the surrounding
environment, particularly groundwater. This isolation is accomplished
with a bottom liner and daily covering of soil. Basically, a landfill is like
a bathtub in the ground; a double -lined landfill is one bathtub inside
another. Unfortunately, unlike bathtubs all landfills eventually will leak,
out the bottom or over the top.
http: / /www.iun.edu /—nwadmin /environw /landfills/
What is the composition of a Landfill?
There are four main components of any secured permitted landfill; a
bottom liner, a leachate collection system, a cover and the natural
hydro geologic setting. The natural setting can be selected to minimize
the possibility of wastes escaping to groundwater beneath a landfill.

The other components must be engineered. Each component or
element of a landfill is critical for success.
Both the Colon Road and the Brickhaven sites are unfit for a landfill
site because they are each in a flood plain, groundwater is often at the
surface and most importantly, both areas drain to wetlands that flow
into the Deep River. Groundwater leakages, toxic storm water runoff
from spilled and blown ash dust will all flow to pollute downstream.
The geology and hydrology are completely ill suited to contain
pollution when the liners leak.
These permits must be denied because the siting of these coal
ash deposits will endanger the groundwater since the
hydrogeology is unsuitable for a landfill and downstream
surface water and ecology will be polluted.
The permits must be denied because the criteria 2 of the Mining Permit
review applies. The coal ash mine reclamation fails for this reason.
Criteria 2: "That the operation will have unduly adverse effects on potable
groundwater supplies, wildlife, or fresh water, estuarine, or marine fisheries."
S. Duke Energy has been convicted of violation of many
environmental laws in North Carolina.
Duke Energy has criminally broken North Carolina's environmental
laws in its management of coal ash as documented by the following
quotes from NC media. For this reason these coal ash mine
reclamation /landfills in Chatham and Lee Counties, designed by Duke
Energy, should NOT be permitted. Duke Energy is the prime mover in
the plan to transfer coal ash in Chatham and Lee and to transfer its
liability to its affiliates, Charah and Green Meadows. Duke Energy and
by association its partners Charah and Green Meadows do not meet
the criteria for granting these mining permits.
The Criteria number 7 applies and for this reason the permit
must be denied.
That the applicant or any parent, subsidiary, or other affiliate of the
applicant or parent has not been in substantial compliance with this
Article, rules adopted under this Article, or other laws or rules of this
State for the protection of the environment or has not corrected all
violations that the applicant or any parent, subsidiary, or other
affiliate of the applicant or parent may have committed under this
Article or rules adopted under this Article and that resulted in:
a. Revocation of a permit,
b. Forfeiture of part or all of a bond or other security,
c. Conviction of a misdemeanor under G.S. 74 -64,
d. Any other court order issued under G.S. 74 -64, or
e. Final assessment of a civil penalty under G.S. 74 -64.

"Duke Energy, the nation's largest utility corporation, pleaded guilty on Thursday
to criminal violations of the federal Clean Water Act for the discharge of coal ash,
a potentially toxic waste product, and for a failure to properly maintain
equipment at a number of power plants in its home state of North Carolina. The
company also agreed to pay $tot million in fines and environmental fees."
http://www.newsobserver.com/ news /politics - government /state-
politics/article20876190. html
"One of six shareholder lawsuits Duke Energy faces over coal ash issues claims the
company improperly influenced North Carolina's Department of Environment and
Natural Resources....
"It claims Duke directors and officers knew about Clean Water Act violations related
to coal ash and of failure to maintain its ash ponds....
"That directors "sanctioned activities to avoid compliance with the law by allowing
improper influence of DENR to minimize regulation "....
http : / /www.charlotteobserver.com/ news /local /article20669556.html
Thank you
Martha Girolami
473 Mount Pisgah Church Rd
Apex, NC 27523
Chatham County
mgirolami @mac.com
919 - 362 -5759