20150042 Ver 1_Therese Vick Blue Ridge Final Comments on PN 6:53 PM_20150516

Burdette, Jennifer a
From: Therese Vick <therese.vick @gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2015 6:53 PM
To: Higgins, Karen
Subject: Comments on Proposed Coal Ash Landfills Colon and Brickhaven
Attachments: Coal Ash Comments Final.zip_renamed
Dear Ms. Higgins:
Please accept these comments on the draft permits for the above rojects on behalf of Chatham Citizens Against Coal Ash Dump,
EnvironmentaLEE, NC WARN, and Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League.
This is the first of three (3) emails, comments attached to this one, the second and third will contain attachments.
Thank Yon,
Therese Vick
Therese Vick
North Carolina Healthy Sustainable Communities Campaign Coordinator
Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League
therese.vickggmail.com
919- 345 -3673
w w T: ��.I_a.���"9
@tvickBREDL Twitter
https:// www. facebook. com/ BlueRidgeEnvironmentalDefenseLeague ?ref =hl
From Where I Sit: Reports From The North Carolina Mining and Energy Commission Meetings
BREDL 19g4 ..201141: 1 "F/ebra it�g Thiry tears q GrassrootsActio
Be kind to all you ineet, each of us carries a burden that others cannot see

May 14, 2015
To Whom It May Concern:
Since 1978 the physicians and staff of Sanford Pediatrics,
PA have been dedicated to providing excellent medical care
for the children of Lee County. Our children face many
obstacles on the road from birth to adulthood including but
not limited to: Abnormal intrauterine development, the
dangers surrounding the birth process, infectious diseases
throughout childhood but especially during the first two
years of life, problems with growth and development, and
issues regarding education and socialization. Sanford
Pediatrics has expertise and resources to help children face
the above listed problems. Unfortunately, we cannot help
youngsters deal with environmental toxins which are so
damaging to the developing brain and immune system (to a
much higher degree than in adults). Problems that can be
caused by environmental toxins to fetuses, infants and small
children may take years to trace back to toxic exposures.
Proving consequences of such exposures to a developing fetus
or growing child, can be a lengthy and expensive process.
History is full of cases of companies denying any long-term
problems with their practices of storage and disposal of
toxic substances. There are also many examples of expensive
lawsuits and efforts to hold companies accountable once
science proves a relationship between a toxin and resulting
medical problems and deaths.
When we at Sanford Pediatrics became aware of Duke Energy's
plan to dump their coal ash in our county, the first thought
we had was regarding the threat this would pose to Lee
County's youngest and most helpless citizens. Given all
the potential problems arrayed in front of children even at
best, the last thing they need is train car and truck loads
of toxic coal ash traveling through their community and
inevitably adding pollutants to their air and drinking
water. No one on our staff can claim to be expert
toxicologists, but we do know a threat to our patients when
we see one. Sanford Pediatrics hereby goes on record as

being strongly opposed to the planned deposit of coal ash in
clay mines in Lee County,
Mindy Deason Marlowe, M.D.

BLUE RIDGE ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE LEAGUE — ENVIRONMENTALEE-
CHATHAM CITIZENS AGAINST COAL ASH DUMP — NC WARN
JOINT COMMENTS ON PROPOSED COAL ASH LANDFILLS
IN LEE AND CHATHAM COUNTIES
May 15, 2015
The following joint comments are submitted by the Blue Ridge Environmental
Defense League, EnvironmentaLEE, Chatham Citizens Against Coal Ash Dump, and
NC WARN (the "community groups ") on the proposed permits for the coal ash landfills
in Lee and Chatham Counties, at existing slate and clay mines.
The community groups have members adjacent to and in close proximity to the
proposed landfill sites, as well as members next to the existing Duke Energy coal ash
dumps, downstream from the existing dumps, and along proposed coal ash
transportation routes from the existing dumps to the proposed landfills in Lee and
Chatham Counties. The preliminary surveys of the areas adjacent to the proposed
landfill sites show some of the impacts on the members of the community groups, their
families, property, and neighbors. Property values around the proposed sites are
already depressed.
Many of the members of the community groups testified at the public hearings
held in Pittsboro and Sanford, and submitted comments as part of the agency review
process. The joint comments supplement those public comments.
1

In light of these comments, the community groups RECOMMEND all of the
permits for the proposed coal ash landfills at the Brookhaven and Colon Road sites in
Lee and Chatham Counties are DENIED.
INTRODUCTION
The NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources ( "DENR ") has
decided each of the sites requires a permit for the use of structural fill under the solid
waste program, a permit for mining and mine reclamation, and certification under the
401 water quality program. The permits overlap on environmental, technical, and
financial issues so are incorporated in these comments, which are being submitted to
the three regulatory agencies within DENR — Division of Water Resources, Division of
Waste Management, and Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources.
The comments by the community groups are being sent electronically to each of
the agencies, with paper copies of the supporting reports and expert testimony. Some of
the material, such as videotape of the December 15, 2014, Lee County Commissioners
Meeting, are provided separately in electronic storage devises. If there are differences
between the Brickhaven site in Chatham County and Colon Road site in Lee County,
the comments will note the differences.
The expressed purpose of the landfills is to dispose of coal ash from other Duke
Energy landfills adjacent to its coal -fired electric plants. Duke Energy and Charah, Inc.,
a company managing coal combustion products for utilities, have created a limited
liability corporation, Green Meadows LLC, as the NC contractor for removing the coal
2

ash from the existing landfills, transporting it to the proposed sites, and placing in the
landfills.
The Brickhaven Mine Tract "A" structural fill permit submittal, 1910 -STRUC -2015,
is for the existing Brickhaven slate and clay mine, DMLR Mine Permit No. 19 -25. The
present mine permit if for 301 acres, and the proposal is to place 12.5 million tons (10
million yd 3) of coal ash as structural fill for mine reclamation on 145 acres of the site,
over a 7.5 — 8.0 year period, in five cells ranging from 17 — 35 acres each.
The Colon Road Mine structural fill permit submittal, 5306 -STRUC -2015, is for
the existing Colon Road slate and clay mine, DMLR Mine Permit No. 53 -05. The
present mine permit if for 411 acres, and the proposal is to place 8.87 million tons (7.1
million yd 3) of coal ash as structural fill for mine reclamation on 118 acres of the site,
over a 5.0 — 5.5 year period, in five cells ranging from 15 — 32 acres.
SCOPE OF REVIEW
Each of the two proposed coal ash landfill sites must meet ALL of the permit
requirements for mining operations and solid waste landfills, as well as meet the
requirements for a 401 certification. It is the burden of the applicant to make a
conclusive showing the proposed landfills will meet each and every one of the
requirements, and the duty of the DENR agencies to fully analyze the applications to
ensure compliance with the permit requirements. As noted in these comments, parts of
the application are misleading or inadequate, relying on bald assertions. In several
places, required information and analysis is simply missing altogether; in those
3

instances the DENR agencies should stop the permitting process until the required
information is filed.
Under the NC Mining Act, G.S. 74- 51(d), a permit application may be denied for
any of the following reasons:
(1) That any requirement of this Article or any rule promulgated
hereunder will be violated by the proposed operation;
(2) That the operation will have unduly adverse effects on potable
groundwater supplies, wildlife, or fresh water, estuarine, or marine
fisheries;
(3) That the operation will violate standards of air quality, surface
water quality, or groundwater quality that have been promulgated by the
Department;
(4) That the operation will constitute a direct and substantial physical
hazard to public health and safety or to a neighboring dwelling house,
school, church, hospital, commercial or industrial building, public road or
other public property, excluding matters relating to use of a public road;
(5) That the operation will have a significantly adverse effect on the
purposes of a publicly owned park, forest or recreation area;
(6) That previous experience with similar operations indicates a
substantial possibility that the operation will result in substantial deposits
of sediment in stream beds or lakes, landslides, or acid water pollution; or
(7) 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.
0

The Mining Act requires a bond for to be posted by the applicant to ensure compliance
with operational and closure requirements. G.S. 74 -54, implemented in 15A NCAC
Nell - 1111111x1
Under the of the Coal Ash Management Act ( "CAMA "), NC Session Law 2014-
122, a permit application may be denied if it does not meet the design, construction, and
siting requirements for projects using coal ash for structural fill in G.S. 130A- 309.220
(note the statute numbers as codified are different than those in CAMA):
(a) Design, Construction, and Operation of Structural Fill Sites.
(1) A structural fill site must be designed, constructed, operated,
closed, and maintained in such a manner as to minimize the potential for
harmful release of constituents of coal combustion residuals to the
environment or create a nuisance to the public.
(2) Coal combustion products shall be collected and transported in a
manner that will prevent nuisances and hazards to public health and
safety. Coal combustion products shall be moisture conditioned, as
necessary, and transported in covered trucks to prevent dusting.
(3) Coal combustion products shall be placed uniformly and shall be
compacted to standards, including in situ density, compaction effort, and
relative density, specified by a registered professional engineer for a
specific end -use purpose.
(4) Equipment shall be provided that is capable of placing and
compacting the coal combustion products and handling the earthwork
required during the periods that coal combustion products are received at
the fill project.
(5) The coal combustion product structural fill project shall be
effectively maintained and operated as a nondischarge system to prevent
discharge to surface water resulting from the project.
(6) The coal combustion product structural fill project shall be
effectively maintained and operated to ensure no violations of
groundwater standards adopted by the Commission pursuant to Article 21
of Chapter 143 of the General Statutes due to the project.
5

(7) Surface waters resulting from precipitation shall be diverted away
from the active coal combustion product placement area during filling and
construction activity.
(8) Site development shall comply with the North Carolina
Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973, as amended.
(9) The structural fill project shall be operated with sufficient dust
control measures to minimize airborne emissions and to prevent dust from
creating a nuisance or safety hazard and shall not violate applicable air
quality regulations.
(10) Coal combustion products utilized on an exterior slope of a
structural fill shall not be placed with a slope greater than 3.0 horizontal to
1.0 vertical.
(11) Compliance with this subsection shall not insulate any of the
owners or operators of a structural fill project from claims for damages to
surface waters, groundwater, or air resulting from the operation of the
structural fill project. If the project fails to comply with the requirements of
this section, the constructor, generator, owner, or operator shall notify the
Department and shall take any immediate corrective action as may be
required by the Department.
(b) Liners, Leachate Collection System, Cap, and Groundwater
Monitoring System Required for Large Structural Fills. - For projects
involving placement of 8,000 or more tons of coal combustion products
per acre or 80,000 or more tons of coal combustion products in total per
project shall have an encapsulation liner system. The encapsulation liner
system shall be constructed on and around the structural fill and shall be
designed to efficiently contain, collect, and remove leachate generated by
the coal combustion products, as well as separate the coal combustion
products from any exposure to surrounding environs. At a minimum, the
components of the liner system shall consist of the following:
(1) A base liner, which shall consist of one of the following designs:
(2) A leachate collection system, which is constructed directly above
the base liner and shall be designed to effectively collect and remove
leachate from the project.
(3) A cap system that is designed to minimize infiltration and erosion
as follows:
D

(4) A groundwater monitoring system, that shall be approved by the
Department and, at a minimum, consists of all of the following:
(c) Siting for Structural Fill Facilities. - Coal combustion products used
as a structural fill shall not be placed:
(1) Within 50 feet of any property boundary.
(2) Within 300 horizontal feet of a private dwelling or well.
(3) Within 50 horizontal feet of the top of the bank of a perennial
stream or other surface water body.
(4) Within four feet of the seasonal high groundwater table.
(5) Within a 100 -year floodplain except as authorized under G.S. 143 -
215.54A(b). A site located in a floodplain shall not restrict the flow of the
100 -year flood, reduce the temporary water storage capacity of the
floodplain or result in washout of solid waste so as to pose a hazard to
human life, wildlife or land or water resources.
(6) Within 50 horizontal feet of a wetland, unless, after consideration
of the chemical and physical impact on the wetland, the United States
Army Corps of Engineers issues a permit or waiver for the fill.
Additionally, CAMA requires written closure plans. (G.S. 130A- 309.222). It further
requires a broad financial assurance for closure and post - closure (G.S. 130A- 309.221),
the applicant for a permit or a permit holder to construct or operate a
structural fill shall establish financial assurance that will ensure that
sufficient funds are available for facility closure, post - closure maintenance
and monitoring, any corrective action that the Department may require,
and to satisfy any potential liability for sudden and nonsudden accidental
occurrences, and subsequent costs incurred by the Department in
response to an incident at a structural fill project, even if the applicant or
permit holder becomes insolvent or ceases to reside, be incorporated, do
business, or maintain assets in the State.
(emphasis added). CAMA requires approval by the Coal Ash Commission for
excavation, monitoring and cleanup plans for the existing coal ash landfills, except for
7

the four priority sites (Asheville, Dan River, Riverbend and Sutton) listed in the CAMA,
which DENR may approve.
The Clean Water Act 401 Certification is implemented by the NC Division of
Water Resources, and the requirements for the certification are found in 15A NCAC
02H .0506(d):
The Director shall issue a certification upon determining that existing uses
are not removed or degraded by a discharge to classified surface waters
for an activity which:
(1) has no practical alternative under the criteria outlined in
Paragraph (f) of this Rule;
(2) will minimize adverse impacts to the surface waters based on
consideration of existing topography, vegetation, fish and wildlife
resources, and hydrological conditions under the criteria outlined in
Paragraph (g) of this Rule;
(3) does not result in the degradation of groundwaters or surface
waters;
(4) does not result in cumulative impacts, based upon past or
reasonably anticipated future impacts, that cause or will cause a violation
of downstream water quality standards;
(5) provides for protection of downstream water quality standards
through the use of on -site stormwater control measures; and
(6) provides for replacement of existing uses through mitigation as
described at Subparagraphs (h)(1) of this Rule.
The 401 Certification is a necessary prerequisite for obtaining permits from the US Army
Corps of Engineers. The provisions for the certification should be shown affirmatively in
the permit application and proven with careful analysis, studies, and real world testing.
0

LEGAL ISSUES
Although the technical requirements are addressed separately in the body of these
comments, there are several important legal issues that need to be resolved by the
DENR agencies:
1. The fundamental legal question is whether the proposed coal ash sites in Lee
and Chatham Counties should be regulated as solid waste landfills or mine reclamation
sites. Even though CAMA allows coal ash to be used as fill for mine reclamation, both of
the present sites will need extensive amounts of slate and clay removed before the coal
ash can be placed on site. Several of the landfill cells will be excavated on land that has
never been mined. To date, the DENR agencies have conflated the mining permit for
reclamation with the solid waste permit for coal ash use as structural fill, creating a
hybrid regulatory scheme.
Contrary to the permit applications for the proposed sites nothing can be built on
top of the finished "reclamation" site in order to preserve the integrity of the coal ash
liners. The applications do not analyze the proposed finished height of the encapsulated
coal ash above grade of the surrounding land. The need to keep liners intact and
projected height above grade would make these areas unsuitable for any future
development. This is NOT reclamation of old clay pits -- these are coal ash landfills and
should be permitted and regulated as such.
There is a significant difference in the regulation of a coal ash (also referred to as
"coal combustion residue" in state rules) landfills and the use of coal ash as structural
fill. A coal ash landfill is regulated under the 15A NCAC 13B .0500 rules with siting,
design and operational requirements and requires a permit to construct and permit to
9

operate. A structural fill is regulated under the 15A NCAC 13B .1700 rules and up until
the passage of CAMA, did not require a permit, just a notification with minimal siting,
design, construction and operational requirements. CAMA now requires permits for
larger projects, such as the Brickhaven and Colon Road sites, and requires additional
requirements, including liners, leachate collections, and cap systems. The proposed
guidelines by the US Environmental Protection Agency ( "EPA ") will be more stringent,
with coal ash clearly treated as a solid waste.' The DENR agencies need to review the
present applications to determine if the proposals meet the upcoming EPA rules.
2. The proposed landfills in Lee and Chatham County should have air quality
permits to cover the toxic dust in the cleanup of the existing landfills, the transportation
to the new landfills, and the operation at the new landfills. Air monitors should be at both
the existing and proposed landfills, and along the route. The apparent lack of daily cover
and use of heavy equipment acerbates the windblown dust. There has been no showing
that keeping moisture levels above 20% (a potential leachate problem) or the use of a
poorly described polymer will keep down the dust and the various toxic materials
associated with it. Directly relevant to the proposals before the DENR agencies, G.S.
143- 215.108A restricts many activities on site before an air quality permit is issued.
3. The bonding requirements under the Mining Act, G.S. 74 -54, implemented by
15A NCAC 05B .0103, are substantially less complete than those under the CAMA,
G.S. 130A- 309.221, which as noted above require full funding for closure and post
Final Rule: Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities; published in the Federal
Register (FR) on April 17, 2015. LttL: / /www2.ega. ov /coaVash /coaV- ash -ruVe
10

closure, but also corrective measures and all agency costs. This disparity is because
the Mining Act envisioned the reclamation of a mine to be accomplished through the
use of tailings, soil and fill material from the site, rather than through the use of toxic
coal ash, transported across the state, and used as structural fill.
The proposed bonding requirement of $2 million for the projects is therefore
based on the legal charade these are mine reclamation projects rather than solid waste
landfills. As a result, the bond required is woefully inadequate to cover future corrective
actions. In light of the estimated $10 billion projected to clean up Duke Energy's existing
coal ash landfills at 14 different sites, Duke Energy and Charah have not made the
required showing that $2 million is sufficient. A bond of $100 million, just one percent of
the cleanup should be the starting point for bonding considerations.
4. Related to the issue of the adequacy of the performance bond, long -term
liability for the coal ash should remain with Duke Energy, and any environmental
damage or damage to the members of the communities around the existing coal ash
dumps, downstream communities, communities along transportation routes, or in new
landfills should be the responsibility of Duke Energy. The establishment of a new limited
liability corporation, presumable with minimum assets, should not shield Duke Energy
from taking all corrective actions necessary to protect public health and the
environment.
5. The applications state the proposed landfills will take coal ash from Duke
Energy's existing coal ash landfills in both North and South Carolina. At present, only
11

ash from the four priority sites listed in CAMA (Asheville, Dan River, Riverbend and
Sutton) can be placed in a new landfill, and then only after DENR has expressly
approved the excavation and cleanup plans for those sites. To date, DENR has not
approved the cleanup for the priority sites. All other sites require the Coal Ash
Management Commission to approve their excavation and cleanup plans.
6. The community groups find it troublesome the DENR agencies appear to have
glossed over essential permit requirements, as well as common sense safety measures,
to expedite the Duke Energy/ Charah landfill proposals. Care upfront may mitigate
potentially catastrophic impacts later.
7. As an LLC, Green Meadows should disclose all of its partners, and the
application should present all of their track records of compliance with environmental
standards, including Duke Energy and Charah. As for Duke Energy, and even if it is not
part of the Green Meadows LLC, its track record should be closely scrutinized. In
addition to the coal ash spill into the Dan River, all of its present coal ash landfills are in
violation by leaking into surface water and groundwater, and the corporation has known
about if for decades, and done nothing. Providing bottled water to nearby residents
does not mitigate the serious criminal charges Duke Energy was convicted of earlier this
week.
12

THEREFORE, the community groups RECOMMEND that the permit applications should
be DENIED due to significant and adverse impacts on drinking water, wildlife, air quality
and dust, surface and groundwater, public housing, neighboring residences and
facilities and recreation, and the potential for substantial deposits of toxic sediment in
streams.
Without question, the proposed landfill sites will have a potential for a harmful
release to the environment and will constitute a nuisance to the public.
The direct and cumulative water quality impacts clearly point to violations of
water quality standards, and thus require denial of the 401 certification.
The claims in the applications there will be no discharges or leaking into the
groundwater have not been proven orjustified in light of the reports and expert opinions.
The required hydrogeological studies of the sites showing pathways for contamination
of groundwater and drinking wells is woefully lacking.
The absence of a waste management plan and reliance on TCPL monitoring of
the coal ash is inadequate.
Duke Energy's has a dismal track record of compliance with environmental
standards, especially as it relates to coal ash.
Please inform us in writing of any actions you take on the permits for the Lee and
Chatham landfill sites.
13

FOR BREDL, EnvironmentaLEE, and Chatham Citizens Against Coal Ash Dump
Therese Vick
NC Healthy Sustainable Communities Campaign Coordinator
Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League
PO Box 88
Glendale Springs, NC 28629
919- 345 -3673
therese.vick @gmail.com
FOR NCWARN
John D. Runkle
Attorney at Law
2121 Damascus Church Road
Chapel Hill, N.C. 27516
919- 942 -0600
jrunkle @pricecreek.com
14

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

Comments on Proposed Disposal of Coal Combustion Ash
in Subtitle D Landfill in Clay Mines
Report to
Therese Vick, Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League
Glendale Springs, NC 28629
G. Fred Lee, PhD, PE, BCEES, F.ASCE and Anne Jones -Lee, PhD
G. Fred Lee & Associates
27298 East El Macero Drive
El Macero, CA 95618
gfredlee33 @gmail.com © www.gfredlee.com
May 6, 2015
Introduction
This letter is sent in response to your request for a letter for inclusion in your comment notebook
concerning potential public health, water quality, and other impacts of the proposed disposal of
electric generation coal combustion ash in former clay mines in North Carolina.
Based on press articles I have seen on this matter, a key issue is the ability of US EPA Subtitle D
permitted landfills liners to protect public health and the environment for as long as the coal
combustion ash will be a threat. Since we have not had support to conduct a detailed review of
this proposed disposal of coal combustion ash at each location where this disposal is proposed to
take place, this letter is limited in scope to general comments on these issues based on my more
than 30 years of experience in investigating the potential and existing impacts of solid wastes
landfills that are design to meet Subtitle D landfill requirements.
Background to Comments
Dr. G. Fred Lee, PhD, PE, BCEES, F. ASCE and Dr. Anne Jones -Lee, PhD are president and
vice president, respectively, of G. Fred Lee & Associates, a private consulting firm of which we
are the two principals. Information on our firm is available on our website www.gfredlee.com
which also provides a summary of areas of our expertise and professional experience.
Dr. Lee earned a BA degree in environmental health science from San Jose State University in
1955, which included course work on landfill impacts; Master of Science in Public Health from
University of North Carolina Chapel Hill in 1957; and a PhD in Environmental Engineering with
minors in public health and aquatic chemistry from Harvard University in 1960. For 30 years he
held university graduate level teaching and research positions at several major US universities
where he conducted more than $5 million in water quality research and developed about 500
professional papers /reports. Dr. Jones -Lee earned a BS degree in biology from Southern
Methodist University in 1973 and a PhD degree Environmental Science from the University of
Texas, Dallas in 1978. For 11 years she held graduate level university teaching and research
positions at several US universities, including Associate Professor of Environmental Engineering
with tenure at the New Jersey Institute of Technology in Newark, NJ.

In addition to our university appointments, we were part-time private consultants to
governmental agencies, municipalities, environmental groups, and citizens' groups. In 1989 we
refocused our professional work to full -time private consulting and professional service.
Attached is a summary of a number of consulting projects we have undertaken that have
pertinence to these comments [see www.gfredlee.com]. As discussed most of those listed are
devoted to investigating and evaluating potential impacts of landfills on public health and
groundwater quality with particular emphasis on significant deficiencies in the US EPA Subtitle
D and C regulations governing solid and hazardous waste landfills for affording protection for as
long as wastes are a threat. We have developed over 90 professional papers /reports on these
issues, most of which are available on our website [www.gfredlee.com] in the Landfill Impacts
section. Of particular note for these general comments is our "Flawed Technology" review:
Lee, G. F. and Jones -Lee, A., "Flawed Technology of Subtitle D Landfilling of Municipal
Solid Waste," Report of G. Fred Lee & Associates, El Macero, CA, December (2004). Last
updated Jan ( 2015). www. gfredlee. com/ Landfills /SubtitleDFlawedTechnPap.pdf
That review provides detailed discussion, drawn from our expertise and experience and with
references to the professional literature, on aspects of Subtitle D landfilling approaches that
affect their ability to provide protection of public health and groundwater quality for as long as
the wastes are a threat. Particular focus is on the ability of Subtitle D liners to prevent the release
of hazardous and otherwise deleterious chemicals when contacted by water that breaches the
cover, and also of other containment and monitoring systems included in such landfills, so as to
protect public health and groundwater /environmental quality for as long as the wastes in the
landfill are a threat.
Our writings on efficacy of landfill liners for containment of waste components in landfills
evolved from our US EPA - sponsored landfill liner research and university projects on long -term
liner integrity. HDPE plastic- sheeting liners used in landfill liners is a low -cost liner material
that, if properly installed and protected from puncture during waste deposition, can provide
limited- duration containment of waste - derived components. However the integrity of key liner
properties deteriorate over time and cause the liner to eventually fail to prevent penetration by
waste - derived leachate and subsequent pollution of groundwaters underlying or hydraulically
connected to the landfill area. As discussed in our "Flawed Technology" review, the US EPA
reviewers of landfill liner integrity concluded that HDPE liners will eventually fail to prevent
waste - derived chemicals from penetrating the liner and causing groundwater pollution. As we
discussed, there is a variety of factors that affect the length of time a landfill liner will be
sufficiently effective in collecting leachate generated in the landfill; integrity could hold for a
few years, decades, or a hundred year. However, there is no doubt the eventually the liner will
fail to prevent pollution of groundwater with waste - derived leachable components. Since
landowners in the vicinity of a landfill should be entitled to groundwater free of hazardous and
deleterious chemicals forever, wastes with leachable components such as coal combustion ash
should not be permitted to be deposited in landfills that do not provide protection of the
groundwater resources forever.
In 2014 we were asked by the editor of WasteAdvantage magazine to develop a review article on
landfill postclosure issues owing to our extensive professional writings on deficiencies in the US
2

EPA Subtitle D regulations for providing public health and environmental protection from
chemicals in solid wastes that are permitted for disposal in Subtitle D landfills. Our overview of
funding issues was published as:
Jones -Lee, A., and Lee, G. F., "Landfill Post - Closure and Post - Post - Closure Care Funding -
Overview of Issues," WasteAdvantage Magazine 5(12):24 -26 December (2014).
http://www.gfredlee.com/Landfills/Funding _ Issues_WasteAdvantage.pdf
We have also developed professional writings on evaluating the impact of proposed landfills that
provide guidance on issues that need to be evaluated in permitting landfills including:
Lee, G. F., and Jones -Lee, A., "Guidance on the Evaluation of Potential Impacts of a
Proposed Landfill," Report of G. Fred Lee & Associates, El Macero, CA (2015).
http: / /www. gfredlee. com / Landfills /EvaluationImpactLF.pdf
Review of our guidance on developing landfills shows that we strongly support developing
landfills for non - recyclable wastes that will be protective for as long as the wastes that are
deposited in the landfill will be a threat.
Threat of Coal Combustion Ash
Based on our academic backgrounds in engineering /science, public health, and water quality
investigation /control, experience in conducting research, and the professional literature, coal
combustion ash contains a wide variety of hazardous and other chemicals that pose a threat to
human health, groundwater and surface water quality, and the environment. That threat will
remain for as long as the wastes are present in the landfill, effectively forever.
Several years ago we developed the following review of potential impacts of landfills and
postclosure costs:
Lee, G. F., and Jones -Lee, A., "Review of Potential Impacts of Landfills & Associated
Postclosure Cost Issues," Report of G. Fred Lee & Associates, El Macero, CA, April (2012a).
http://www.gfredlee.com/Landfills/Postclosure—Cost—issues.pdf
A section of that report beginning on page 13 addresses electric generation ash landfills. As
discussed there, coal ash has been found to leach chemicals that are a threat to water quality.
That section states:
B ect ri c Generation Ash Landfills
Some landfills receive that electric generating station combustion wastes (ash) that arise
from burning coal. Considerable attention was paid to potential environmental pollution by
coal ash residues following the failure of a large TVA coal ash pond several years ago near
Kingston, TN. r@ArdL" J §,oVubl i shed a report entitled, a/ offish Pollution Contaminates
Groundwater, Increases Cancer A #Fli,666n September 4, 2007 that is available at:
[http: // earthj ust ice.org( news(press( 2007 / coal -ash -pol l ut ion- contaminates- groundwater-
increasesrcancer- risks]. It summarizes the results of a report issued by the US EPA entitled,
rq j %m and Ecological Rsk Assessment of Coal Combustion i Afa&i mDraft report prepared
by RTI for U.S Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste, Fbsearch Triangle

Park, NCAugust 2007 [http://earthjustice.org/ sites( default/ files(library /reports(epa -coal-
com b ust ion - waste - risk - assessment . pdf]
That incident wasalso addressed in a report to Congress.
Luther, L, re " Coal Combustion Waste (COM: Issueswith Disposal and Of§T`OBJ,
Congressional Fbsearch Service report for Congress, January 12 (2010).
[http-//www.fas.org/sgp/crs(miscl 840544. pdf]
that provides a summary of potential impacts of coal combustion wastes. That report
states,
0 Gds primary concern regarding the management of OGW usually relates to the potential
for hazardous constituents to leach into surface or groundwater, and hence contaminate
drinking water, surface water, or living organisms. The presence of hazardous constituents
in the waste does not, by itself, mean that they will contaminate the surrounding air,
ground, groundwater, or surface water. There are many complex physical and
biogeochemical factors that influence the degree to which heavy metals can dissolve and
migrate o94C tj I' ILas the mass of toxins in the waste and the degree to which water is
able to flow through it. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that
arsenic and lead and other carcinogens have leached into groundwater and exceeded safe
limits when OGIVisdisposed of in unlined disposal unit$`6BJ,
That report also states that the concerns about COW management generally center around
a number of issues including:
• The waste likely contains certain hazardous constituents that EPA has determined pose
risk to human health and the environment. Those constituents include heavy metals such
as arsenic, beryllium, boron, cadmium, chromium, lead, and mercury, and certain toxic
organic materials such as dioxins and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH)
compounds.
• Under certain conditions, hazardous constituents in OGIV migrate and can contaminate
groundwater or surface water, and hence living organisms. For example, EPA
determined that the potential risk of human exposure to arsenic and other metals in
031V (via the groundwater -to- drinking -water pathway) increased significantly when
OOWwasdisposed of in unlined landfills. That risk criterion was slightly higher for
unlined surface jjdj ■r s ■r loge
USEPA minimum - design, single - composite liner and conventional groundwater monitoring
wells spaced hundreds of feet apart, in time the leachate generated in that landfill can be
expected to pollute groundwater with hazardous and otherwise deleterious chemicals.
Adequacy of Groundwater Monitoring Wells for
Detecting Groundwater Pollution before Offsite Pollution Occurs
A key issues that needs to be understood is that state landfill regulatory agencies, the US EPA,
and US EPA Subtitle D landfilling regulations typically allow landfill developers to monitor for
rd

groundwater pollution by employing vertical monitoring wells spaced hundreds of feet apart at
the point of compliance for groundwater monitoring. This approach is offered as assurance that
failure of liners to prevent leakage will be made known. That assurance is hollow for a variety
of reasons. As discussed in our "Flawed Technology" review beginning on page 27, the typical
groundwater monitoring well array for Subtitle D landfills is highly unlikely to detect polluted
groundwater before offsite groundwater pollution occurs.
Overall, based on our expertise and professional experience, we strongly recommend that the
state of North Carolina not proceed with permitting of coal combustion ash disposal in Subtitle D
landfills in clay mines because such wastes will eventually lead to groundwater pollution by the
waste - associated components.
If there are questions about these comments please contact me.
G. Fred Lee and Anne Jones -Lee

#Oq§@9D4R4&Y3@2P"§) 10,§
No Oq#CP &040 ::5
)0$ 9 AD 9L
. .o. .o
Comments on the State Mining and Structural fill (coal ash)
permits for Brickhaven Mine Tract "A" Site
and
Colon Road Mine Site
John Wagner
May 16', 2015

4 °¢ 0R#0%6jU->
92 That the operation will have unduly adverse effects on potable groundwater supplies, wildlife, or
fresh water, estuarine, or marine fisheries; ................................................................ ...............................
3
HDPE Liners for Coal Ash Dumps ........................................................................ ...............................
3
Tearingand Punctures .................................................................................... ...............................
3
Cracking............................................................................................................ ...............................
4
MicrobialBreakdown ....................................................................................... ..............................7
pHControls ...................................................................................................... ...............................
8
GulfCreek Wetlands ............................................................................................... ..............................9
Wildlife.................................................................................................................. .............................12
NorthernLong Eared Bat ............................................................................... .............................12
CapeFear Shiner ............................................................................................. .............................14
Otherthreatened wildlife ................................................................................... .............................16
93 That the operation will violate standards of air quality, surface water quality, or groundwater quality
that have been promulgated by the Department; ....................................................... .............................18
Toxins.................................................................................................................... .............................18
Hexavalent Chromium (or Cr(Vl) ) .............................................................. .............................19
Thallium.......................................................................................................... ...............................
20
Arsenic.............................................................................................................. .............................21
Antimony........................................................................................................... .............................21
InhaledUltrafine Silica .................................................................................... ...............................
23
Selenium.......................................................................................................... ...............................
24
AirQuality ............................................................................................................. .............................25
Particulates(PM 2.5) ......................................................................................... .............................25
94 That the operation will constitute a direct and substantial physical hazard to public health and
safety or to a neighboring dwelling house, school, church, hospital, commercial or industrial building,
public road or other public property, excluding matters relating to use of a public road; ......................
26
Environmental Justice Violations ........................................................................ ...............................
26
Threats.................................................................................................................. ...............................
28
Hydrogeology.................................................................................................. ...............................
28
DiabaseDikes ................................................................................................... .............................28
46 That previous experience with similar operations indicates a substantial possibility that the
operation will result in substantial deposits of sediment in stream beds or lakes, landslides, or acid
waterpollution; ........................................................................................................ ...............................
30
1

97 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: ............................................................. 30
DukePenalties and Fines ..................................................................................... ............................... 30
Additional Reasons for the Denial of all Permits .................................................... ............................... 32
BADFAITH ........................................................................................................ ............................... 32
Recommendationsand Solutions ............................................................................... .............................33
1. Deny Permits for Plastic Liners — Plastic HDPE liners are a cheap short term solution ............. 33
2. Deny Permits for Long Distance Transport — Transporting coal ash is a form of Environmental
Injustice, and it introduces coal ash toxins into the air, roadways, and railways all across the state. 33
3. Grant Duke a Permit for Solidification of Coal Ash —On site and on Duke Energy Property... 33
Bibliography............................................................................................................ ............................... 34
2

#2 That the operation will have unduly adverse effects on potable groundwater
supplies, wildlife, or fresh water, estuarine, or marine fisheries;
HDPE Liners for Coal Ash Dumps
HDPEliners in landfills and other applications fail or are made to fail as follows:
• Inadequate welding and attachment to structures
• Imposed stresses during construction
• Mechanical damage during construction
• Stress cracking at stress points
• Sarvice stresses that separate welds
Tearing and Punctures
0 Base liner installation and subgrade preparation at Airport
➢ Given that dump trucks and bulldozers will be driving over the thin liner plastic, and given
historical records that show that stress and damage during construction is the major cause for
leakage in the first years of use, Duke /Charah's permits should be denied. They have neither
proposed a means of protecting the liner, nor laid out a specific plan for how to detect and fix leaks
and punctures in the HDPE liners.
Peggs ID. Geomembrane Liner Durability: Contributing Factors and the Status Quo. Ecotoxicol Environ
Saf. 2009;72(3):838 -842.
Reddy, D. & Butul, B. A comprehensive literature review of liner failures and longevity. Florida Cent. Solid
Hazard. Waste Manage. (1999). at
<http: / /epa.gov /region05/ cleanup / rcra/ ClintonLandfill/ PDFClintonLFChemicalWaste _USEPAApplication /c
1_044.pdf>

Cracking
Fig. 7. Cracking took place at the edge of fillet extrusion seam.
Fig. 8. Cracking within and at the edge of a filet extrusion seam.
• "Except for poor welding and damage induced during installation HDPEgeomembranes have
generally only failed by stresscracking (a fundamental performance characteristic of HDPE)
or as a combination of oxidation followed by stress cracking (SC)"
"Geomembrane liners are ideally designed to be installed without stress. They are simply
intended to act as a barrier... Clearly, a zero stress installation is practically impossible to
achieve — wrinkles are unavoidable."
➢ Impermeability "It must be recognized that nothing is absolutely impermeable."
➢ Actually, even HDPEpharmaceutical medicine bottles when completely heat sealed still allow
water vapor to pass through.
Chen Y, Li Y. Determination of water vapor transmission rate (WVTR) of HDPE bottles for pharmaceutical
products. Int JPharm. 2008;358(1- 2):137 -143.
➢ "However, such diffusion `leakage' pales into insignificance compared to stone
punctures and bulldozer blade rips"
In pract ice aconfined HDPE geomem brane wi I I usually fail in the long term eit her by st ress cracki ng at
pointsof constant stress:
• stone protrusions,
• stresses across seams,
• creased w r i n kl es,
• t ext u red su rf aces.
Reddy, D. & Butul, B. A comprehensive literature review of liner failures and longevity. Florida Cent. Solid
Hazard. Waste Manage. (1999). at
<http: / /epa.gov /region05/ cleanup / rcra/ ClintonLandfill /PDFClintonLFChemic alWaste_USEPAApplication /c
1_044.pdf5
F1

"Stressed areas have also been seen at temporary dividing berms where the vertical pressure of
waste has caused the berm to spread laterally on the continuous liner - there may be wrinkling
on one side of the berm and significant tension on the other side."
"However, a landfill in Minnesota had a bulldozer nick near a sump during construction that
was repaired. The system, with waste on the floor, operated without any leak indication for
about three months. Leakage then started at a rate of about 5000 1pd. equivalent to a hole of
about 6 mm diameter under a 300 mm hydraulic head"
Statistics of Liner Damage from Actual HDPElined landfills
Table 3: Statistics of Uner Damage
WHENIWHERE
AMOUNT
DETAILS
AMOUNT
Linerinstollotion
24'
Exirvslon
61%
Melting
18%
Stone Puncture
17%
Cuts
4%
Covering
73%
Stone Punctures
687D
Heavy Equipment
16%
Grade Stakes
16%
Post - Construction
lib
Heavy Equipment
679b
Construction
31%
weather. etc.
2%
Hal Floor
78%
Stones
819b
Heavy Equipment
13%
Corner. Edge
9%
Stones
59%
Heavy Equipment
195
Welds
18%
Under Pipes
4%
Stones
30%
Welds
27%
Heavy Equipment
14%
Worker
15%
Cuts
14%
Pipe Penetrations
2%
Welds
91%
Worker
8%
Cuts
1%
Road, Storage, etc.
' ¢
Heavy Equipment
437D
Stones
21%
Worker
19%
Welds
' 7
➢ Given all these sources of leaks and punctures, what plan does Charah have to
eliminate these?
Peggs ID. Geomembrane Liner Durability: Contributing Factors and the Status Quo. Ecotoxicol Environ
Saf. 2009;72(3):838 -842.
Reddy, D. & Butul, B. A comprehensive literature review of liner failures and longevity. Florida Cent. Solid
Hazard. Waste Manage. (1999). at
<http: / /epa.gov /region05/ cleanup/ rcra/ ClintonLandfill /PDFClintonLFChemicalWaste USEPAApplication /c
1_044.pdf5

Studies of landfill leachate chemistry and degradation processes suggest that landfills managed
using typical current approaches will take hundreds, if not thousands, of years to stabilize
(Hall et al 2003). It is only after this period that they will no longer pose a pollution hazard to
their surrounding environment.
"Once a liner is covered by several meters of waste the agents for the future development of
holes in the liner are limited. The evidence to date from ELL surveys and monitoring of
leakage detection layers shows that holes are unlikely to develop for at least the first decade
of the service life of the geomembrane liner, and probably significantly longer."
➢ In other wordsy if all the common installation sources of holes and punctures
are totally avoided, then studies show you may have at least 10 years of intact
liners.
"However, to further complicate matters, the exact combinations of circumstances that generate
stress cracking are also not well established. In o pulp mill black liquor pond (effectively a
confined situation) at an incoming liquor temperature of about 70 °C environmental stress
cracking (due to detergent in the liquor) occurred at the tops of wrinkles in an indiscriminate
fashion small wrinkles on The floor were cracked but large kinked wrinkles at the toes of
slopes were not. Intermediate wrinkles on the slopes also cracked indiscriminately.
Therefore, it is impossible to predict the combinations of parameters that will generate
environmental stress cracking."
':' Needham AD, Smith J WN, Gallagher EMG. The service life of polyethylene geomembrane barriers. Eng
Geol. 2006;85(1- 2):82 -90. doi :10.1016 /j.enggeo.2005.09.030.
31

Microbial Breakdown
"The ability of microorganisms to use polyethylene as a carbon source has only been recently
established. This result has significance both from an environmental point of view, due to the
accumulation of millions of tons of waste plastics every year, but also regarding the
conservation of integrity for infrastructures incorporating this plastic. A number of
microorganisms with the ability to grow on polyethylene have been isolated. The effects of
these microorganisms on the physiochemical properties of this polymer have been described;
these include changes in crystallinity, molecular weight, topography of samples and the
functional groups found on the surface. Although the bio- degradation and biodeterioration of
polyethylene has been demonstrated by several researchers, the enzymes involved and
mechanisms associated with these phenomena are still unclear.
Research performed in polyethylene biodegradation, both using pure strains as well as complex
microbial communities has proved that biodegradation of this material although slow is actually
happening in nature. The richness of microorganisms able to degrade polyethylene is so far
limited to 17 genera of bacteria and 9 genera of fungi.
Polyethylene is a hydrophobic, high molecular weight molecule, and therefore it is commonly
accepted that biofilm colonization is the initial step for degradation of this polymer (Gilan et
al., 2004)
Complex biofilm communities comprised of different microorganisms have been detected on
polyethylene surfaces once they were exposed to different biotic environments (Albertsson et
al., 1995; Orhan and Biiyiikgiing6r, 2000; Yamada - Onodera et al., 2001; Shimada et al., 2002;
Gilan et al., 2004; Hadad et al., 2005; Sivan et al., 2006; Chiellini et al.,2007; Sudhakar et al.,
2007; Satlewal et al., 2008; Koutny et al.)
➢ In summary, in 2014 the ability of microorganisms to feed on HDPE liners has just been
established and is not well understood yet. Any claim by Charah about the duration of the
liners is based on very incomplete knowledge of liner breakdown by bacteria and fungi.
Restrepo- Fl6rez JM, Bassi A, Thompson MR. Microbial degradation and deterioration of polyethylene - A
review. hit Biodeterior Biodegrad. 2014;88:83 -90. doi :10.1016 /j.ibiod.2013.12.014.
11

pH Controls
4.2. Mobility of elements
• "Element concentrations in leachates were greater when water was the leachant (SCLP)
than when the acetic acid solution was the leachant (TCLP) for the oxyanion - forming
elements As, Mo, Se. U. and V. The opposite was the case for most other elements,
including Cd, Co. Cu. Ge, Mn, Ni, TI, and Zn. In general, transition metals will be
sorbed at high pH due to negatively charged surface sites; more sorption of oxyanions
will occur at low pH due to positively charged surface sites. "
"The behavior of trace elements in ash over varying pH is complex, however:
• some elements have been observed to leach more from CCP5 as pH increases,
• some leach more as pH decreases.
• and some amphoteric or oxyanion- forming elements leach more in both acidic and
alkaline environments than in neutral ones (Dellantonio et al.. 2010: Kosson et al..
2009: Zandi and Russell. 2007), "
"This complex behavior makes it difficult to assess the modes of occurrence of trace
elements in CCP5 using only SGLP and TCLP. as these two leaching procedures provide only
two pH- points to characterize potentially"
➢ According to the findings above, the leaching of toxic metals is dependent on the pH. Does
Charah have any specific plans for how to handle the varying toxic components as the pH
of the ash changes over time?
1. Jones KB, Ruppert LF, Swanson SM. Leaching of elements from bottom ash, economizer fly ash, and
fly ash from two coal -fired power plants. Int J Coal Geol. 2012;94(June 2010):337 -348.
N.

Gulf Creek Wetlands
Area roughly inside the blue oval is the Gulf Creek wetlands between Corinth Rd and the Cape
Fear River. This extensive area of braided creeks, cattails, bullrushes, marsh, and beaver
lodges and dams supports a wide range of water fowl and wildlife. If toxins from the tributary
running through Brickhaven drains sediment, heavy metals, and other toxins into this wetland,
a valuable Chatham County wildlife area will be lost
Hydric Soils and Floodpla
Southeast Chatham County
Clay Pir
I� Hytlric Soils
f'� tMyr. Fbotlplain
Flood plain and hydric soil maps provided by .bhn Anagnost, Jani FRadhakrishnan, and Brad 9ierman
9
I�
r
i
f
lr;
WaYw
I ,I
rbmna ryw
U a^�
M +m camp +^
Chatham
Wetlands and Floodplain
— 0
Southeast Chatham County. NC
Flood plain and hydric soil maps provided by .bhn Anagnost, Jani FRadhakrishnan, and Brad 9ierman
9
I�

Gulf Creek Wetland photographs —
These illustrate the varied habitats and wide expanse of wetlands that are threatened by toxic
runoff and toxic leachates from the proposed Brickhaven coal ash site. The Colon Road site
has extensive creeks and ponds which are not shown here.
Wood duck nest and cattails
4/4/2015 9:33am Lat:35 33V'30.7" N Lon: 79 1V'43.5" W
,
Beaver Lodge
4/4/2015 8:23am Lat: 35 33` \49.3 Lon: 79 1V'32.9" W
10

11

Wildlife
Northern Long Eared Bat
Scientific Name Myotis septentrionalis
Classification: Federally Endangered
This species was placed on the Federally Endangered Species list in April, 2015.
• Section 4.4 of Charah's 2014 "Threatened and Endangered Species Review" states that
"Currently there are no regulations protecting this species and no development constraints
due to its potential Presence" This needs to be corrected and updated.
• Charah's report further states: "Suitable summer habitat for the Northern long — eared bat
does exist within the proposed site and permanent removal of forested habitat may adversely
affect this species. The timing of tree clearing activities at the site may be affected once
the final listing decision is made. Once listed, a moratorium on tree cutting could go into
effect from approximately May 15th to August 15th.
• The noise, land clearing, excavation, and construction of the Colon Road site add serious
threats to the Northern Long Eared Bat.
The Northern Long -Eared Bat is probably a resident of
the woods in and around the proposed Lee and Chatham
dump sites. This species was once found across much of
the eastern and north central United States and parts of
Canada. Due to a fungal disease, the species "has
declined by as much as 99 percent" from the recent
population levels.
The US Fish and Wildlife range maps for
this part of North Carolina are shown below
with a close -up of the Chatham and Lee
portion of the range.
,in„ o reensboro ��'
flockY Mwnl
—
RnI�ILhI 1
'1.11'1011! '_. °Lr rnelryJl. - Jdf
JaI M /
)1 �✓ R
4"-1 � wl moon
[clap of Species occurrence
3,5 xLanL� z nL can Je.nvry k = -__ show Lavernenu
li
- e Eye
'��
Mu � aY
L.
Je.Cng La Me
seal
/`R�GOldsmn
``l
(!1 I�'- l�sllawou y/,na„
II �Y H.irn6 3 }
�/ Heservorl F[IOIAY- VA�fNA.,yFrings
114
}��
- 1006
Cen�oJn �u 1r' �nriners 1t ales r
o
loo
/(r
i10
/ / MOOre CO
Y �
Mist - netting and acoustic data indicate that the northern long -eared bat may be active almost year -
round in eastern portions of the State, likely due to mild winter temperatures and insect availability
in coastal counties" (North Carolina Department of Transportation 2014, in litt.)
12

Charah, Inc. (C1earWater Environmental Consultants Inc.). Threatened and Endangered Species Review and
Habitat Assessment. August 27, 2014:1 -8.
hops: / /www.flickr.coM/ photos/ usfwsrnidwest /16581706021/in/set- 72157650499339699
General Information
The northern long -eared bat is a medium -sized bat about 3 to 3.7 inches in length but with a wingspan of 9 to 10
inches. As its name suggests, this bat is distinguished by its long ears, particularly as compared to other bats in its
genus, Myotis, which are actually bats noted for their small ears (Myotis means mouse- eared)- The northern
long -eared bat is found across much of the eastern and north central United States and all Canadian provinces from
the Atlantic coast west to the southern Northwest
Territories and eastern British Columbia. The species' neap of species occurrence
range includes 37 states. White -nose syndrome, a fungal Initial E�tent Zogm In Zoom out I Pa r Identify
disease known to affect bats, is currently the predominant r
threat to this bat, especially throughout the Northeast
where the species has declined by up to 99 percent from on Ciry Greensboro
inston -Sal xrn� pre- white -nose syndrome levels at many hibernation sites. o o
Rocky M—ni
o
D�rrham
Although the disease has not yet spread throughout the 'r
j.,
' �'
«F Raleigh ,
northern long -eared bat's entire range (white -nose
tGreenville
o
r=�
syndrome is currently found in at least 25 of 37 states Charlotte R R !NA
where the northern long -eared bat occurs), it continues to � Mr
spread. Experts expect that where it spreads, it will have
" Jacksoi
the same impact as seen in the Northeast.
This species is listed wherever it is found, but Corurti(a -- •,,
13
r Show Layer Menu
"rl 0 ,Vira inla Beach

Cape Fear Shiner
Scientific Name: Notropis mekistocholas
Classification: Federally Endangered, State Endangered
Photo by Richard G. Biggins,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Habitat Preferences
The Cape Fear Shiner, a species that is federally
recognized as endangered, faces potentially
severe impacts from both the Brickhaven and the
Colon Road coal ash dumps.
The Cape Fear Shiner is most often found in shallow, rocky shoals within main river channels.
In winter months, they may migrate into smaller tributary streams. This species prefers clean
substrates composed of gravel, cobble, and boulders. The Cape Fear Shiner isthreatened by
"river impoundment, altered stream flows, and degraded water quality of tributaries and
main stems are documented sources of impairment to the habitat.
KWAK, THOMAS J. Restoration of Cape Fear Shiner Populations in North Carolina: Assessment of Habitat
Suitability http:// www4 .ncsu.edu /— tkwak/shiner.html
The Cape Fear shiner is an imperiled minnow species endemic (found nowhere else in the world) to the Cape Fear River basin in the
North Carolina piedmont. Populations are currently limited by dams restricting movement and degraded water quality impacting
survival and health.
14

The Charah "Environmental" impact report states:
Suitable habitat for the Cape Fear shiner does not exist within the proposed
project boundary. The streams on sitc arc inter ittent and did not have base flow
at the time of the delineation_ [t is the opinion ofCEC that the proposed project is
not likely to adversely off= the Cape Fear shiner.
Charah, Inc. (Clearwater Environmental Consultants Inc.). Threatened and Endangered Species Review and
Habitat Assessment.August 27, 2014:1 -8.
➢ They may not occur in the streams by the sites, but they will be impacted by leachate and
contaminated runoff into creeksthat drain into the Cape Fear. While the Cape Fear Shiner may
not enter the proposed project boundaries, this species probably does enter some of the creeks,
such as Gulf Creek or 9haddox Creek that drain directly from those sites.
Distribution
"Distribution by County: Cape Fear Rver Basin: Chatham Co. (Fbcky Ewer, including Bear Creek; Deep
Ewer, and Haw Ewer); Lee Co. (Deep Ewer), Moore Co. (Deep Ewer, including Falls Creek), Randolph
Co. (Deep Ewer , including Fork Creek). N"
"NOTE All headwater areas that flow into these occupied habitats should receive Special
management. "
Habitat Preferences
The Cape Fear Shiner is most often found in shallow, rocky shoalswithin main river channels. In
winter months, they may migrate into smaller tributary streams. The most obvious features of their
preferred habitat are large islandsand barsof water willow, Justiciaamericana, or other instream
vegetation.
➢ "This species prefers dean substrates composed of gravel, cobble, and boulders"
➢ "As this species and other endemic fish populations become increasingly isolated and rare, their
vulnerability to catastrophic even% such aschemical spillsy and to cumulative, subtle degradation
of physical habitat and water quality are greatly enhanced."
Hewitt AH, Cope WG, Kwak TJ, Augspurger T, Lazaro PR, Shea D. Influence of water quality and
associated contaminants on survival and growth of the endangered Cape Fear shiner (Notropis
mekistocholas). Environ Toxicol Chem. 2006;25(9):2288 -2298. doi: 10. 1897/05-569R. 1.
http: / /www.ncwildlife.org/Le aming/Species /Fish /CapeFearShiner. aspx #2513696- detailed - information
W

Other threatened wildlife
1140- §30'00 OA§-<
Four -toed salamander (Hemidactylium scutatum)
State Listing: Species of Special Concern
This salamander is quite rare in North Carolina. "They generally live in forests surrounding
swamps, bogs, marshes, and temporary bodies of water which are free of fish." The wetlands
around both the Lee and Chatham sites should be surveyed for the presence of these.
Wilson, J. Four Toed Salamander. Davidson Herpetology.
http:// bio.davidson.edu/hefpcons/hefps of NC /salamanders /Hemscu /Hem_scu.html
Illustration by Gillian Harris. "Four -toed salamander (Hemidactylium scutatum)." Gale Science
in Context. Detroit: Gale, 2004. Science in Context. Web. 3 May 2015.
16

#° :50c , G §... #<° nip
Cambarus (Cambarus) davidi Cooper 2000
Common Name: Carolina Ladle Crayfish
Classification: Nongame Fish - Crustacean
Although this crayfish is not on the state or federal endangered species list, it is endemic to the
Cape Fear and Neuse River. Due to the very limited range and small populations, both sites
should be surveyed to see if the Carolina Ladle Crayfish is present.
National Range: "Apparently limited to the upper Neuse and Cape Fear river basins in the
eastern Piedmont Plateau of North Carolina" (Cooper 2000a).
NC Physiographic Region(s): eastern upper piedmont
River Basin(s): upper Cape Fear, upper Neuse
Adult Habitat: streams (under larger rocks) and burrows
Range in North Carolina.
North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission.
r
II
http : / /www.ncwildlife.org/Leaming/ Species /Crustaceans /CambarusCdavidi. aspx #43 911185-detailed-
information
17

#3 That the operation will violate standards of air quality, surface water quality, or
groundwater quality that have been promulgated by the Department;
Toxins
There are a wide range of heavy metals and other toxins that are found in coal ash. The
specific details of the toxins present and the concentrations vary widely due to differences in
the source coal, the weathering conditions, and the combustion type — including fly ash and
bottom ash.
Below, I present a few research findings on a few toxins. Hexavalent chromium, thallium,
arsenic, antimony, and selenium have all been found in Duke's coal ash and NC DENR has
found high levels of some of these in water wells adjacent to coal ash dumps in North Carolina.

Hexavalent Chromium (or Q'(M) )
"Workplace exposure to Cr(VI) may cause the following health effects:
• lung cancer in workers who breath the airborne Cr(VI);
• irritation or damage to the nose, throat and lungs (respiratory tract) if Cr (VI) is inhaled; and
• irritation or damage to the eyes and skin if Cr(VI) contacts these organs. (OSHA 3373)
-U.S. Department of Labor. OSHA " Hexavalent Chromium" p.5 2009
. "The employer must inform any person who launders or cleans protective clothing or
equipment contaminated with Cr(VI) of the potentially harmful effects of Cr(VI) exposure, and
that the clothing and equipment should be laundered or cleaned in a
manner that minimizes skin or eye contact with Cr(VI) and prevents exposure to Cr(Vl) in
excess of the PEL. Removal of Cr(VI) from protective clothing and equipment by blowing,
shaking, or any other means that disperses Cr(VI) into the air or onto a worker's body is
prohibited."
"These metals can affect human health in a variety of ways... large amounts of any of them can
cause poisoning. The toxic effects of heavy metals in the human body can result in
• malfunctioning of the mental and central nervous- system function,
• low energy levels and
• damage to blood composition, lungs, kidneys, liver and other vital organs.
• Long -term exposure to some elements has been seen to result in slowly progressing
physical, muscular and neurological degenerative processes that have similar symptoms
to Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, muscular dystrophy and multiple sclerosis.
• Contact with heavy metals can also exacerbate allergies and long -term contact may even
cause cancer.
Hester, R E, and Harrison, R M, eds. Issues in Environmental Science and Technology, Volume 27:
Electronic Waste Management. Cambridge, GBR: Royal Society of Chemistry, 2008. ProQuest ebrary.
Web. 3 May 2015.
"Epidemiologic studies of workers in chromium chemical production and use link exposure to lung and
nasal cancer." Hayes, R.B. The carcinogenicity of metals in humans. Cancer Causes Control. 1997
May;8(3):371 -85.
19

Thallium
Thallium has been found in some of the wells next to Duke's coal ash dumps. Although it is
not present in large amounts, it is a serious health risk. Thallium was the primary ingredient in
rat poison until the 1970's when it was banned in the US due to the extreme toxicity.
Thallium can be absorbed through the skin, and can also be inhaled or ingested.
Any amount of thallium in the body shall be considered abnormal (Reed et al., 1963).
According to Mulkey and Oehme (1993), thallium levels in normal human and animals are
<1 ppb in blood and urine, and <10 ppb in tissues. ..chronic thallium poisoning mimics many
other diseases .. but accidental poisoning caused by contact with thallium- containing
materials or their careless handling occurs more frequently. Thallium has received much more
attention as an environmental pollutant since high thallium contents were found in cement
powders discharged from stacks and emissions from brickworks, and that had contaminated
adjacent farmland (Liem et al., 1984).
Thallium toxicity Sonia Galvan- Arzate, Abel Santamaria
• If the possibility exists that Brickhaven and Colon Road — already — may have experienced
some high exposures to thallium, then this should be checked both in community members in
the surrounding areas, but also in the local soils. Additional exposure to thallium may be
unusually serious if levels are already high from the brickworks.
Henderson B. Metals found in wells at NC coal plants. Charlotte Observer. January 24, 2012.
Diaz S. The Scoop on Coal Ash at Asheville Plant in North. Asheville; 2015.
Human and Ecological Risk Assessment of Coal Combustion Wastes. U.S. EPA (Draft).; April, 2010.
20

Arsenic
• Early life isatime of heightened vulnerability to arsenic
• Arsenic is "a widespread contaminant of groundwater linked (o cancer, cardiovascular
disease, and other adverse health effects.
CBS News. "Officials: Unsafe Levels of Arsenic from Duke Energy Coal Ash Dump Pouring into River.
Feb. 18, 2014.
"Occupational and environmental arsenic exposure is linked to increased lung cancer risk in humans"
Hayes, R.B. The carcinogenicity of metals in humans. Cancer Causes Control. 1997 May;8(3):371 -85.
Henderson B. Metals found in wells at NC coal plants. Charlotte Observer. January 24, 2012.
Schmidt CW. News - Science Selections Arsenic Exposure in Infancy. Environ Health Perspective.
2015;123(5):1289.
Antimony
Antimony is one of the toxins found in wells recently tested near Duke coal ash dumps.
"Even Duke got a warning letter from state health officials, because the well supplying the Buck plant
tested higher than state groundwater standardsfor antimony, a potentially harmful metal found in
coal ash." 1
• "An overview of inorganic antimony and arsenic compounds points out that the effects of
arsenic and the chemically related antimony are similar."
• "Antimony passes the human placenta after inhalation exposure and was demonstrable in
mothers' milk. "
• "In humans, exposure over a number of years causes nose bleeds, damage to the nasal septum
and antimony pneumoconiosis (dust lung disease)."
• "Antimony and its compounds accumulate in the lungs after inhalation exposure. A very slow
absorption occurs after oral administration. The presence of antimony can be demonstrated in
practically all body tissues after inhalation or ingestion."
• "Long -term inhalation of antimony trioxide dust or antimony ore dust (46 % antimony, mainly
as antimony trisulfide) caused lung tumors in female rats. There is evidence of an increase in
lung cancer mortality in humans."
• "Exposure can also occur via contaminated water, food, and soil contact. In 1916, antimony
exposure was associated with lead intoxication, with symptoms including headache, abdominal
21

pain, constipation, colic, distaste for food, loss of appetite, small mouth ulcers with salivation,
dizziness, loss of weight, albuminuria, and glycosuria ".
After inhalation exposure to metallic antimony or antimony trioxide, antimony was
demonstrated in humans in mothers' milk and in the fetal liver. 2
Antimony and its inorganic compounds ( inhalable fraction). 2007;23:1 -73.
1. Bergeron J. Duke offers water to families after most recent test results. Salisbury Post.
http : / /www.salisburypost.com/2015 /04/28 /duke - offers - water -to- families- after - most - recent - test - results /.
Published April 28, 2015.
2. EU (2004) Risk Assessment Report. Diantimony trioxide. Draft of July 2004, Brussels, Belgium
22

Inhaled Ultrafine Silica
Crystalline silica has been classified as a human lung carcinogen. Additionally, breathing
crystalline silica dust can cause silicosis, which in severe cases can be disabling, or even fatal.
The respirable silica dust enters the lungs and causes the formation of scar tissue, thus reducing
the lungs' ability to take in oxygen. There is no cure for silicosis.
"Crystalline Silica Exposure Health Hazard Information for General Industry Employees"
US Department of Labor
Occupational Health and Safety Administration
OSHA 3176. 2002 (Revised)
https: / /www.osha.gov/ Publications/osha3176.htm1
http : / /bismarcktribune.com /bakken/ crime -up- percent -last- year -in- north- dakota/article f0a23ec4 -f940-
11 e2- ad25- 0019bb2963f4.htm1
23

Selenium
(U.S EPA. 2009: Table 11). These criteria are the freshwater criteria maximum
concentration (CIVIC), to which aquatic life can be exposed briefly without
unacceptable effects, and the freshwater criteria continuous concentration (OOC), to
which aquatic life can be exposed indefinitely without unacceptable effects.
However, some regulators (e.g., US EPA. 1990) have accounted for the dilution and
attenuation of contaminant concentrations by using a general DAFoC 100 (i.e..
contaminant concentrations at a site of interest such as a well or a waterway are
assumed to be 1 %of those at a nearby contaminant source).
No elements in the 9GLP leachates from the 0CP5 from either power plant (Tables 7
and 8) exceed t he CM C5 or 000s (Table 11) after applyi ng a OAF of 100. Wit hout
applying this OAF and considering only undiluted, unattenuated leachates. As. Cr, and
Se in some 9;I.Pleachatesexceed the CMCand /or OOC,
• No CVICexistsfor Se, but S LPRy Ash leachate from the Ohio plant contains
about 32 timesas much Se asthe COG SGLPfine fly ash leachate from the New
Mexico plant (Table 8) contains Seat up to 66 timesthe COC, and all types of
EFA and FASCLPleachate from this plant contain at least 24 times the OOC
Belews Lake, North Carolina, was contaminated by selenium in wastewater released from a
coal -fired electric generating facility during 1974 -1985. Selenium bioaccumulated in aquatic
food chains and caused severe reproductive failure and teratogenic deformities in fish.
• Selenium is passed from parents to their offspring in eggs.
• A principle component of the selenium paradigm in Belews Lake or any other contaminated
body of water is that as long as selenium is bioavailable from sediments, fish and wildlife are
at risk.
• Because selenium bioaccumulates (gets increasingly concentrated as it moves through the food
chain), the risk remains serious " regardless of the concentrations in water or other
ecosystem components."
• It is clear that the time frame necessary for complete recovery from selenium contamination in
freshwater reservoirs can be on the order of decades.
1. Lemly a D. Ecosystem recovery following selenium contamination in a freshwater reservoir.
Ecotoxicol Environ Sqf. 1997;36(3):275 -281. doi:10.1006 /eesa.1996.1515.
24

Air Quality
Particulates (PM 2.5)
"It is well- established that atmospheric particulate matter (PM) is responsible for a variety of
adverse health effects on humans. Atmospheric PM, most notably particles <25 pm in
aerodynamic diameter(PM2.5), have been correlated with both acute and chronic adverse
health effects (Dockery and Pope, 1994). "
"Among other conditions, PM has been correlated with lung inflammation (Farina et al, 2011;
Halatek et al., 2011; Lin et al, 2011), exacerbation of asthma (Kelly and Fussell, 2011: Spira-
Cohen et al., 2011; Tzivian, 2011), increased hospital visits, cardiovascular problems
(Terzano et al., 2010), and increased mortality (Dockery et al, 1993; Guaita et al, 2011)."
25

#4 That the operation will constitute a direct and substantial physical hazard to
public health and safety or to a neighboring dwelling house, school, church,
hospital, commercial or industrial building, public road or other public property,
excluding matters relating to use of a public road;
Environmental Justice Violations
Colon Road: 3 Mile Map
by Don Kovasckitz (2015)
Precedents:
T.ble _
b -r
S � tl3414_31105_M90.
a O UJtl14.­ crpl
O
e ❑ x�1a n!.bnb.>Jo
O-
n O tlJa14Jn� I;�..,..n..
■
®tlp114j7105fa.m
- � tlJW4 us wort. CI�o1.1�
IF-
1
p. -11 Cenws 03ock
■l3 -le
■Y lE5
;; ®tlplla_�n_.m�ty
0
African American Population Centers
Lee Co. Map by Dr. John Barnett (2015)
• In 1978 North Carolina had 60,000 tonsof soil contaminated with PCB. The state government
selected Warren County - a rural site in one of the poorest heavily African American
neighborhoods to make a toxic landfill.
Then in 2008 the TVA had a massive coal ash spill that spread over 1,000,000,000 gallonsof
coal ash slurry across over 300 acres of homes and land and contaminated 2 rivers. The TVA
"solved" that problem by digging it up and moving it to a toxic dump in Perry County, Alabama
-a predominantly African American county, and one with one of the highest levels of poverty
in the United Gates.
Now, Duke Energy hasthe Dan Ewer coal ash spill and leaking and unstable coal ash pilesat sites
around North Carolina. It wants to perpetuate the history of moving toxic material from one
community and dumping on another. This time Duke wants to start this "solution" by moving
coal ash from Wilmington and Charlotte to Lee and Chatham County. The selected rural counties
and an area that has large African American population. This kind of Environmental Injustice
and Environmental Racism needs to stop.
The Lee County site is not empty. The map above on the left show a black dot for every
household within a 3 mile radius of the Colon Read dump site. The map on the right showsthe
racial demographicsof the County. The deep red areasare onesthat have a significant African
American population based on the US Census data. The Colon Read site is one of three areas in
26

the county with a large African American group. History is repeating this kind of Environmental
Problem Solving It istime for thisto stop.
27

Threats
Hydrogeology
Not enough is known about the basicswith Triassic Basin groundwater patterns:
"No groundwater monitoring stations have been constructed in the Triassic Basins of
North Carolina. Because of this, our understanding of the hydrogeology of the Triassic Basins is
limited to information that can be recovered from water supply wells, which typically only
extend a few hundred feet deep." p. 113
There is insufficient information about the effects of the Triassic Basin faults on
the flow of groundwater:
".. the dominant fault orientations in the Triassic basins of North Carolina are northwest - southeast and, to
a lesser extent, northeast - southwest. The degree to which these faults may transmit water is not well
understood and warrants additional investigation." p. 113
North Carolina Oil and Gas Study under Session Law 2011 — 276. NCDENRand NC Dept. of
Commerce. ,April, 2012
"Hydraulic characteristics of the diabase dikesvaried greatly, and appear to be a function of dike thickness
and the relative location within the dike and surrounding contact zone... However, the lessweathered diabase
tendsto be very highly fractured, resulting in a zone of very high hydraulic conductivity.
Diabase Dikes
Existing and induced fractures in North Carolina's shallow shale are
significant and cannot safely be ignored. These may provide a direct conduit
from surface coal ash contamination into groundwater.
"Fractures in rocks are recognized as the predominant pathways of resources and
hazardous materials, such as groundwater, hydrocarbons, geothermal fluids, and the high -
level nuclear wastes, because fractures usually have much greater permeability than the
matrix permeability."
Ishibashi, T., N. et al. GeoFlow: A novel model simulator for prediction of the 3 -D channeling
flow in a rock fracture network, Water Resource. Res., 48, 2012.
SiBssi on Law 2011 -276" April, 2012.

Diabase dikes are very common in Lee County and most of the Triassic Basin. Dense
dusters of dikes like this are known as a "swarm of dikes ".
Sanford Sub- Basin. NCGeol. aArvey (2010)
Peid, Taylor, Cumberbatch
Diabase Dikesof Eastern Redmont of NC(1978)
Burt, Carpenter, McDaniel, Wilson
Diabase dikes are probably far more common that is shown on the maps:
"Larry Daw, a Licensed Geologist in the State of North Carolina, carried out a lot of the geological
field work during the Low Level Radioactive Waste Study. The site was in a very similar area in
the Triassic Basin next to Sharron Harris. He found: "The diabase dikes at that site were far
more common that what was shown on the geological maps of the area" - Personal
communication, June 2013.
Dikes are known to serve as conduits for the flow of water:
"While diabase intrusions are not particularly permeable features, contact metamorphism of the
host rock could provide conduits for groundwater due to stress fractures and joints and high -
temperature recrystallization of the rock matrix."
"Delineation of mafic intrusions near Bedford (Virginia, USA) using geological and geophysical
methods" Keane, James and Gilstrap, Tatiana. Environ Earth Science 66:1393 -1402 (2012)
"The intrusion of the diabase dikes and sills at temperatures of 1,200 degrees Fahrenheit baked
the country rock, which significantly reduced the country rock's permeability. As the diabase
cooled, cracks formed inside the dikes and sills, which provided avenues for water to further
weather the diabase. This process provides the potential for a tabular body of groundwater to be
held by the country rock like a cistern." p. 25 -26.
NCDENR Final North Carolina Oil and Gas Study. April, 2012.
"The diabase dikes typically are well jointed, but are too thin to be considered awater- bearing unit.
However, the presence of the dikes increases probability for differential weathering, which could
enhance ground- water movement along the contact of the dike with the adjacent country rock."
In the M EC meeting on September 5t", Ken Taylor was asked about deep di kes as
conduits. He said there is no data to show that the dikes do serve as conduits below 400
ft.
29
„
Sanford Sub- Basin. NCGeol. aArvey (2010)
Peid, Taylor, Cumberbatch
Diabase Dikesof Eastern Redmont of NC(1978)
Burt, Carpenter, McDaniel, Wilson
Diabase dikes are probably far more common that is shown on the maps:
"Larry Daw, a Licensed Geologist in the State of North Carolina, carried out a lot of the geological
field work during the Low Level Radioactive Waste Study. The site was in a very similar area in
the Triassic Basin next to Sharron Harris. He found: "The diabase dikes at that site were far
more common that what was shown on the geological maps of the area" - Personal
communication, June 2013.
Dikes are known to serve as conduits for the flow of water:
"While diabase intrusions are not particularly permeable features, contact metamorphism of the
host rock could provide conduits for groundwater due to stress fractures and joints and high -
temperature recrystallization of the rock matrix."
"Delineation of mafic intrusions near Bedford (Virginia, USA) using geological and geophysical
methods" Keane, James and Gilstrap, Tatiana. Environ Earth Science 66:1393 -1402 (2012)
"The intrusion of the diabase dikes and sills at temperatures of 1,200 degrees Fahrenheit baked
the country rock, which significantly reduced the country rock's permeability. As the diabase
cooled, cracks formed inside the dikes and sills, which provided avenues for water to further
weather the diabase. This process provides the potential for a tabular body of groundwater to be
held by the country rock like a cistern." p. 25 -26.
NCDENR Final North Carolina Oil and Gas Study. April, 2012.
"The diabase dikes typically are well jointed, but are too thin to be considered awater- bearing unit.
However, the presence of the dikes increases probability for differential weathering, which could
enhance ground- water movement along the contact of the dike with the adjacent country rock."
In the M EC meeting on September 5t", Ken Taylor was asked about deep di kes as
conduits. He said there is no data to show that the dikes do serve as conduits below 400
ft.
29

If coal ash leachate seeps out of the plastic liners, or if surface contamination
occurs due to spills, windblown ash deposition, or trucking accidents, these would
all be in the top hundred feet of soil and rocks. Therefore NC State Geologist
Ken Taylor's comment indicates that Lee and Chatham's diabase dike
swarm may represent a serious threat to groundwater.
#6 That previous experience with similar operations indicates a substantial
possibility that the operation will result in substantial deposits of sediment in
stream beds or lakes, landslides, or acid water pollution;
Duke Energy has dumped a "substantial" amount of coal ash into the Dan River in February,
2014. This was not a simple accident, but was the result of cutting costs by not inspecting and
maintaining the ash drainage pipes.
#7 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 Penalties and Fines
Another example of Duke Energy's lack of concern for human health and active disregard for North
Carolina's water happened in March, 2014. At the existing coal ash pits next to the Cape Fear power
plant, Duke was caught pumping toxic leachate directly into the canal that runs into the Cape Fear
River. Coal ash leachate like this contains heavy metals and other toxins that endanger not only the
Cape Fear Shiner, all wildlife downstream of this site, but also all municipal water intakes that are
down -river from this site — all the way to Wilmington.
For Duke to engage in this type of willful disregard for North Carolina law and endanger human
health indicates that the permits they are currently applying for should be denied. This week, Duke
Energy plead Guilty to breaking numerous sections of the federal Clean Water Act and State Law.
They were fined $120 million dollars for polluting multiple rivers with coal ash.
30

March, 2014 photo of Duke Energy pumping untreated, unfiltered toxic water
directiv into a waterwav leading into the Cane Fear River.
Just paying the fine does not constitute "correcting all violations" as stipulated in #7 above.
Duke should be denied the Brickhaven and Colon Road coal ash permits. The North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources should withhold further consideration of those
permits until the Dan River and other rivers have a comprehensive cleanup of current coal ash toxins,
take effective action to halt the seepage and leaking of additional toxins into the rivers, and propose a
solution to the issue that is long term — unlike the plastic lined clay pit plans.
31

Additional Reasons for the Denial of all Permits
BAD FAITH
Duke has not acted responsibly and has hidden problems, failed to act on known problems, and
has violated state and federal laws. This is not a company that should be allowed to rush
through a permitting procedure for a cheap, short term fix to its problems.
"Since 2011, monitoring wells surrounding the pits have exceeded state groundwater standards
on 226 readings, including for high amounts of boron, manganese, iron and chromium.
Residents living near the plant were not informed of the findings, nor did state regulators
require Duke to test for contamination on any neighboring properties. Chromium is of concern
because in its most toxic form hexavalent chromium it is a known carcinogen."
Carolina N, Carolina N. Dukeville concerns over coal ash: 5 things to know. Associated Press -
CnsNews.com. http: / /www.cnsnews.com/news /article /dukeville- concerns - over -coal- ash -5- things -know.
Published June 17, 2014.
Duke is denying the relationship of the well contamination to the adjacent coal ash pits, and is
claiming that the substances are naturally occurring. Due to this behavior by Duke, it is
imperative that all wells within a half mile of the outer perimeter of the coal ash dump
sites be tested by an independent and certified agency. This baseline data will be essential
if Duke is allowed to proceed with plastic -lined storage of coal ash on either of the two
sites.
"Belews Lake, North Carolina, was contaminated by selenium in wastewater released from a
coal -fired electric generating facility during 1974 -1985. Selenium bioaccumulated in
aquatic food chains and caused severe reproductive failure and teratogenic deformities in
fish (Cumbie and Van Horn, 1978; Lemly, 1985a, 1993c). Beginning in 1986, the electric
utility company changed its coal ash disposal practices and selenium laden wastewater no
longer entered the lake. In the decade since, natural ecosystem processes have operated in the
reservoir. There has been no remediation or other manipulations to reduce selenium
levels. "
Lemly a D. Ecosystem recovery following selenium contamination in a freshwater reservoir. Ecotoxicol
Environ Saf. 1997;36(3):275 -281. doi:10.1006 /eesa.1996.1515.
Peggs ID. Geomembrane Liner Durability: Contributing Factors and the Status Quo. Ecotoxicol Environ
Saf. 2009;72(3):838 -842.
32

Recommendations and Solutions
1. Deny Permits for Plastic Liners — Plastic HDPE liners are a cheap short term solution.
2. Deny Permits for Long Distance Transport — Transporting coal ash is a form of
Environmental Injustice, and it introduces coal ash toxins into the air, roadways, and
railways all across the state.
3. Grant Duke a Permit for Solidification of Coal Ash — On site and on Duke Energy
Property.
Advantages:
The US Department of Energy is building 2 circular saltstone containers in South Carolina.
"The Environmental Management (EM) "program at Savannah River Site(SRS) has built two
more low -level salt waste disposal units ahead of schedule and under budget. Construction of
these circular units vaults built in the past are rectangular started in late 2010 and was
targeted for
completion in July 2014.
• They were completed seven months early and for $8 million less than the anticipated
total cost of $76.5 million."
• The next generation of units will be much larger, and "will need only nine of the larger
units, which will result in substantial cost savings by requiring less space to design and
build.
• This could provide local jobs. "The construction contract was awarded to BRADY and
Associates of Matthews, N.C."
New disposal units
being built at Saltstone
Of
➢ This solution uses a known and proven technology.
➢ It provides a solution without the continual flow of toxic leachate. It eliminates airborne toxic
particulates.
➢ AND — it leaves the material above ground where any problems that arise can be seen and corrected,
and the problem is not hidden away to become a future superfund site.
33

Bibliography
(National Institute of Health). Selenium Dietary Supplement Fact Sheet. NIH Fact Sheet at
<http: / /ods. od.nih.gov /factsheets/ Selenium- HealthProfessional /gh8>
2. Agency, U. E. P. Public Hearing on EPA's Proposed Rule on Hazardous and Solid Waste
Management System. (2010).
3. Assessments, H. et al. Table X . Site locations , habitat assessments , land use, and physical -
chemical measurements for two Dan River benthic macroinvertebrate sites in Rockingham
County, NC, October 28, 2014. 45g = Triassic Basin 2006 NLCD
http: / /water.usgs.gov /osw /stre. (2014).
4. Axtell, N. Full text Sierra Club: Duke coal plant violating SO2 health standard. Times News
(2015).
5. Bergeron, J. Duke offers water to families after most recent test results. Salisbury Post (2015).
at <http://www.salisburypost.com/ 2015 /04/28/ duke - offers - water -to- families- after - most - recent-
test- results />
6. Beyersmann, D. & Hartwig, A. Carcinogenic metal compounds: Recent insight into molecular
and cellular mechanisms. Arch. Toxicol. 82, 493 -512 (2008).
7. Blanchard, F. The Life History of the Four -Toed Salamander. Am. Nat. 650,262-268 (1923).
8. Brachman, R. W., Moore, I. D. & Rowe, R. K. Local strain on a leachate collection pipe. Can. J
Civ. Eng. 27,1273-1285 (2000).
9. Chen, Y. & Li, Y. Determination of water vapor transmission rate (WVTR) of HDPE bottles for
pharmaceutical products. Int. J. Pharm. 358, 137 -143 (2008).
10. Concerned Health professionals of New York. Compendium of scientific, medical, and media
findings demonstrating risks and harms of fracking (unconventional gas and oil extraction) 2nd
Edition. Physicians Scientists & Engineers for Health Energy at
<http://www.psehealthyenergy.org/site/view/I 180>
11. Crumpton, J. Duke Energy's Coal Ash Disposal Plans for Lee County. Jan 29, (2015).
12. Diaz, S. The Scoop on Coal Ash at Asheville Plant in North. (2015).
13. Evans, Lisa; Becher; Michael; Lee, B. State of Failure - How States Fail to Protect Our Health
and Drinking Water From Toxic Coal Ash. (2011).
14. Ewers, U. in The Science of the Total Environment 71, 285 -292 (Elsevier Science Publishers,
1988).
34

15. Forschungsgemeinschaft, D. Antimony and its inorganic compounds ( inhalable fraction ). 2,
(2006).
16. Fretwel, S. SC Contamination. The Columbia Herald 1 -4 (2015).
17. Giglio, M. G. A Guide to. 1 -51 (2009). doi: St John's 224.2
18. Henderson, B. Metals found in wells at NC coal plants. Charlotte Observer (2012).
19. Holmes, a. L., Wise, S. S. & Wise, J. P. Carcinogenicity of hexavalent chromium. Indian J.
Med. Res. 128,353-372 (2008).
20. House, N. C. & Charles, R. Robeson County Employers. 5573 at
<http: / /accessnc.commerce. state. nc. us /docs /topEmployers /topEmp_3715 5 .pdf>
21. Hsuan, G. G. Data base of field incidents used to establish HDPE geomembrane stress crack
resistance specifications. Geotext. Geomembranes 18, 1 -22 (2000).
22. Jones, K. B., Ruppert, L. F. & Swanson, S. M. Leaching of elements from bottom ash,
economizer fly ash, and fly ash from two coal -fired power plants. Int. J. Coal Geol. 94, 337 -348
(2012).
23. Krishnaswamy, R. K. Analysis of ductile and brittle failures from creep rupture testing of high -
density polyethylene (HDPE) pipes. Polymer (Guildfl. 46, 11664 -11672 (2005).
24. Langard, S. One hundred years of chromium and cancer: a review of epidemiological evidence
and selected case reports. Am. J Ind. Med. 17, 189 -215 (1990).
25. Lemly, a D. Ecosystem recovery following selenium contamination in a freshwater reservoir.
Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 36,275-281 (1997).
26. Lemly, A. D. Technical and Scientific Issues with Coal Ash Structural Fills in North Carolina.
27. Lemly, A. D. & Skorupa, J. P. Wildlife and the coal waste policy debate: Proposed rules for coal
waste disposal ignore lessons from 45 years of wildlife poisoning. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46,
8595-8600(2012).
28. Lockwood, A. & Fana, F. Ash in Lungs - How Breathing Coal Ash is Hazardous to your Health.
29. Muraswski, J. Lifespan of Duke Energy's coal ash liners debated. News and Observer (2015).
30. Murawski, J. Coal Ash Rarely used as Structural Fill in Triangle. News and Observer 1 -2
(2015).
31. Needham, A. D., Smith, J. W. N. & Gallagher, E. M. G. The service life of polyethylene
geomembrane barriers. Eng. Geol. 85, 82 -90 (2006).
32. North, T., Coal, C. & Management, A. Structural Fills at Clay Mines.
mi

33. Oehmig, W. N., Roessler, J. G., Zhang, J. & Townsend, T. G. Effect of ferrous metal presence
on lead leaching in municipal waste incineration bottom ashes. J. Hazard. Mater. 283, 500 -506
(2015).
34. OSHA. Fact Sheet Health Effects of Hexavalent Chromium Hexavalent chromium is a toxic
form of the element chromium. Hexavalent.
35. Peggs, L D. Geomembrane Liner Durability: Contributing Factors and the Status Quo. (2003).
36. Porter, J. THE CANARY IN THE COAL ASH. Indy Weekly 7 -8 (2014).
37. Press, A. Reports: Duke Energy was warned about pipe that caused ash spill. Tampa Bay Times
2015 (2015).
38. Reddy, D. & Butul, B. A comprehensive literature review of liner failures and longevity.
Florida Cent. Solid Hazard. Waste Manag. (1999). at
<http: / /epa.gov /region05/ cleanup / rcra/ ClintonLandfill /PDFClintonLFChemicalW aste_USEPAA
pplication /c1- 044.pdf5
39. Restrepo- F16rez, J. M., Bassi, A. & Thompson, M. R. Microbial degradation and deterioration
of polyethylene - A review. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 88, 83 -90 (2014).
40. Rivin, G. Coal Waste May Cause Carcinogrn Spikes in Drinking Water. North Carolina Health
News
41. Rowe, R. K. & Booker, J. R. Modelling impacts due to multiple landfill cells and clogging of
leachate collection systems. Can. Geotech. J 35, 1 -14 (1998).
42. Rowe, R. K. & Nadarajah, P. Estimating leachate drawdown due to pumping wells in landfills.
Can. Geotech. J. 33,1-10 (1996).
43. Rowe, R., Armstrong, M., and Cullimore, D. Particles Size and Clogging of Granular Material
by leachate.pdf. J. Geotech. Geoenvironmental Eng. 129, 775 -786 (2000).
44. Rowe, R. & Yu, Y. Factors affecting the clogging of leachate collection systems in MSW
landfills. Proc. 6th Int. Congr. Environ. Geotech. (2010). at
< http: / /www.geoeng.ca/directory/kerry pub /2010 6ICEG Rowe and Yu Leachate Collection
Systems.pdf5
45. Sager, M. Determination of arsenic, cadmium, mercury, stibium, thallium and zinc in coal and
coal fly -ash. Fuel 72, 1327 -1330 (1993).
46. Schmidt, C. W. News I Science Selections Arsenic Exposure in Infancy. Environ. Health
Perspect. 123, 1289 (2015).
36

47. Simpkins, D. L., Petherick, G. L. & Dickens, R. S. SECOND PHASE INVESTIGATIONS OF
LATE ABORIGINAL SETTLEMENT SYSTEMS IN THE ENO, HAW, AND DAN RIVER
DRAINAGES, NORTH CAROLINA. (1986). at
<www.rla.unc.edu /Publications /pdf /ResRep6.pdf>
48. Stessel, R. L & Hodge, J. S. Chemical resistance testing of geomembrane. J Hazard. Mater. 42,
265-287(1995).
49. Sullivan, J. EPA Coal Ash Proposal - What is coal? Journal of the Franklin Institute 200,
(1925).
50. Thompson, D.; Argent, B. B. Coal Ash Composition as a function of feedstock composition.
Fuel 78, 539 -548 (1999).
51. Us Epa, O. Coal Ash. (2000). at <http: / /www.epa.gov/ radiation /tenonn /coalandcoalash.html>
52. Video, L., Service, W., Agency, U. S. E. P. & Resources, N. Environmental Factor, April 2014
UNC Superfund scientists study effects of Dan River coal ash spill. (2014).
53. Wagner, J. A. Dan River Macroinvertebrate Collection Sites ( orange dots). (2014).
54. Xie, S. -H. et al. DNA damage and oxidative stress in human liver cell L -02 caused by surface
water extracts during drinking water treatment in a waterworks in China. Environ. Mol.
Mutagen. 51,229-235 (2010).
55. Zierold, K. M. Threatened and Endangered Species Review and Habitat Assessment. 1 -8
56. Zierold, K. M. & Sears, C. G. Community Views About the Health and Exposure of Children
Living Near a Coal Ash Storage Site. J Community Health 40, 357 -363 (2014).
57. Title: Toxins leaking from 2nd pipe at coal ash dump Source: Daily Herald (Infotrack
Newstand) 4 (2014).
58. Hexavalent Chromium. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (2009). at
<https: / /www. osha.gov /Publications /OSHA -3 3 73 - hexavalent- chromium.pdf>
59. Cape Fear Shiner. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2005).
60. Discussing Coal Ash Removal at the former Weatherspoon Plant on the Lumber River. 1
(2015).
61. 2014 Coal Combustion Products Study as required by the Coal Ash Management Act. Session
La,
62. Data from App. Voices on Chemical Levels.
63. NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards. (2015). at
<http: / /www.cdc.gov /nosh /npg /npgd0550.html>
37

64. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment of Coal Combustion Wastes (Draft). (2010).
65. EM Completes Salt Waste Disposal Units $ 8 Million under Budget at Savannah River Site.
66. CFM Protocol + Data Sheet - Google Docs.
67. The Coal Ash Problem. (2015).
68. Criteria For Mining Permit Reviw. (2015).

Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League
www.BREDL.org 4617 Pearl Rd Raleigh NC 27610 (919) 345 -3673 therese.vickggmail.com
To: The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Re: 5306 -STRUC -2015, Colon Mine Site Structural Fill in conjunction with NCDENR DEMLR
Mine Permit 53 -05 and 1910 -STRUC -2015, Brickhaven No.2 Mine Tract "A" Mine Structural
Fill in conjunction with NCDENR DEMLR Mine Permit 19 -25
May 16, 2015
On behalf of the members and Directors of Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League and our
member Chapters in Lee and Chatham counties, I offer the following comments on the permits
under consideration by the Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources ( DEMLR), and the
Division of Waste Management (DWM). The applicant and the Department have failed to
address important environmental, public health and safety, statutory concerns. The permit
application is deficient and should be denied.
Mine Reclamation:
The applicant has stated and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR),
through its associated divisions has accepted that the projects are "mine reclamations." This is
an unsupportable claim.
The Mining Act of 1971 states:

(12) "Reclamation" means the reasonable rehabilitation of the affected land for useful
purposes, and the protection of the natural resources of the surrounding area. Although both the
need for and the practicability of reclamation will control the type and degree of reclamation in
any specific instance, the basic objective will be to establish on a continuing basis the vegetative
cover, soil stability, water conditions and safety conditions appropriate to the area.
The applicant, as part of its permitting documents has described the project as a "beneficial" use
of coal combustion residuals. Session Law 2014 -122 (Senate Bill 729) states at:
130A- 309.201. Definitions. Unless a different meaning is required by the context, the
definitions of G.S. 130A -290 and the following definitions apply throughout this Part:
(1) "Beneficial and beneficial use" means projects promoting public health and
environmental protection, offering equivalent success relative to other alternatives, and
preserving natural resources.
(14) "Structural fill" means an engineered fill with a projected beneficial end use
constructed using coal combustion products that are properly placed and compacted. For
purposes of this Part, the term includes fill used to reclaim open pit mines and for
embankments, greenscapes,
The project currently under consideration does not meet the uses defined by North Carolina law.
Don Kovasckitz of Lee County strategic services evaluated the information submitted to DENR
by the applicant and found that over 70% of the cell footprint has never been mined. Mr.
Kovasckitz made a presentation to the Lee County Commissioners on December 15, 2014.' In a
media report, Don Kovasckitz stated: " "On the drawings, it showed different cells [of land] that
Video will included on a data stick, presentation included with comment documents.

would be used for the fill. It was about 118 acres. Over 70 percent of the area they are going to
reclaim has not been [excavated]." 2 Mr. Kovasckitz also noted that the completed project would
be 5 stories high. The unexcavated area is similar at the Brickhaven site in Chatham County.
Additionally, nature has already "reclaimed" the sites. The pits have become ponds which are
home to fish, reptiles, and amphibians. Wildlife and birds are plentiful, and much of the area
around the pits is vegetated. Local people regularly fish from the ponds, some to supplement
their diet. See photos below:
Brickhaven Stein Chatham Cbunty
OSCN095 3 ! PG
F71Yr
1 ipw w o
2 Fbtter, Zach. Local officials feel mislead by plans for Sanford. The Sanford Herald. 17 December 2014. Hard copy
included with comment documents.

Cblon Ste in Lee Cbunty

�� f•; � ate,
,1: , �-
' 1
1
�
val
�.1 i,-I, u.« ■ f +sue....
The applicant also claims that the site could be used for "future development." The City of
Charlotte recently turned down a smaller project, which would have been designed and
constructed by Charah, Inc., the parent company of Green Meadow, LLC. In a "due diligence"
report on the project, it was stated: "In addition, placing coal ash at the Airport presents other
challenges. Because the coal ash would be fully encapsulated and topped with six to eight feet of
compactable soil, the size of the encapsulation creates development restrictions. Because the Airport is
bordered by a rail line and highways, developable property at the airport is limited. Restricting the future

use of any portion of Airport property was deemed unacceptable and contributed to the negative
determination. "'
Liners and Associated Issues
The applicant has proposed a single composite liner system for the projects. However, this
design is not likely to protect groundwater from contamination. The applicant and Duke Energy
have made fabulous claims for liner longevity to local officials', the US Army Corps of
Engineers5, and the media'. The efficacy of using composite liner systems for containment of
coal ash has not been demonstrated. Dr. Dennis Lemly, Research Associate Professor of Biology
at Wake Forest University points out that there is no performance data to indicate that this design
is suitable for coal ash disposal. In a report submitted to the United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Dr. Lemly concluded, "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
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
3 City of Charlotte Coal Ash Due Diligence SudyAugust 13, 2014. Report included with comment documents.
a S ee attached letter from Duke Energy in response to Chatham County Board of Commissioners.
e S ee attached comments by Therese Vick, Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League to USArmy Corp of
Engineers.
6 Murawski, john. "LifeslDen of Duke E-ff l sooala3h linersdebeted . "AbwsaradQb :Rbleigl�. 2 May 2015.
httP:// www.newsobserver.com/news/local /coal- ash - issue /artide20108O82.html, Article included with comment
documents.

ash application is very possible for chemical reasons unrelated to direct degradation of the
membrane itself. ,7 Dr. Lemly also submitted comments to DENR outlining his concern that
there is little experience using the proposed liner system for coal ash disposal sites.' For example
compaction of coal ash causes the liquid in the waste to rise to the surface, possibly creating
problems.
In a 2013 presentation to the New York Federation of Solid Waste and Recycling, Abigail Beck,
M.S., P.E., commented that it was, "Possible but not probable to install leak -free
geomembrane. "10 Indeed, the standard manufacturer's warranties of two potential suppliers of
the HDPE liner to the applicant are five years, with some products having a warranty up to 20
years. II
World renowned landfill expert Dr. G. Fred Lee has long been critical of the "dry tomb"
approach for municipal solid waste landfills. His many studies and reports outline the certainty
of liner failure, insufficient monitoring wells placed far apart, inadequate post- closure care and
financial assurance." In comments prepared for Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, Dr.
Lee stated, "However, there is no doubt th[at] eventually the liner will fail to prevent pollution of
groundwater with waste - derived leachable components. Since landowners in the vicinity of a
Lemly, Dennis A, PhD. "Technical and Environmental Issues with Synthetic Liners Proposed for use in Cbal Ash
Disposal Applications". Comments submitted to the US Environmental Protection Agency. 21 September 2010.
8 Lemly, DennisA, PhD. "Technical and St:ientific Issueswith Cbal Ash Structural Fills in North Carolina." Comments
to the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Fesources. 22 April 2015. Comments attached with
comment document.
9 DePree, Piet. Tribble, Lowry. "The Challenge of Coal Ash." Golder Associates. 6 October 2014. Article included
with comment documents.
10 Beck, Abigail, MS, PE. "Leaks In Installed Geomembranes: An Overview of Past, Present and Future ". TRI
Associates. 6 May 2013. Presentation included with comment documents.
11 Emails to Therese Vick 23 February 2015 and 2 March 2015.
12 Lee, G. Fred, PhD. Lee, Anne - .ones, PhD. "Flawed Technology of Subtitle D Landfilling of Municipal Solid Waste."
G Fred Lee and Associates. Updated January 2015.
http: // www. gfredlee. com/ LandfiIIst- %btitIeDFIawedTechnPap.pdf. Feport included with comment documents. Dr.
Lee's resume can be viewed here: http: / /www.gfredlee.com/exp/GFL Fbsume.pdf.

landfill should be entitled to groundwater free of hazardous and deleterious chemicals forever,
wastes with leachable components such as coal combustion ash should not be permitted to be
deposited in landfills that do not provide protection of the groundwater resources forever." 13
The applicant has not provided performance or other data to demonstrate that this design will
protect the environment.
Characteristics of the Colon /Osgood and Brickhaven Communities
Disposing of 20,000,000 tons of dangerous coal ash at these sites, less than 10 miles apart, places
a disproportionate impact on the Brickhaven and Colon/Osgood communities. Every truck or
train car of coal ash will ultimately end up in these communities, no matter the route taken. The
safety, environmental, and public health impacts of the possible 200,000 train car loads, 666,667
truckloads, or some combination of the two, have not been evaluated by the applicant, Duke
Energy, or DENR. The negative air quality and public health impacts of diesel emissions are
well documented. The accelerated permit review including scheduling one hearing on three
different permits for each site is unprecedented, and the confusing electronic commenting
process (until very recently the link provided simply said "public notice ") exacerbate this already
unjust and unfair process. DENR's actions combined with already existing facilities in the
communities, and the potential for oil and gas development, place a disproportionate toxic
burden on the two communities.
13 Lee, G. Fred, PhD. Lee, Anne - ,ones, PhD. Comments on Proposed Disposal of Coal Combustion Ash Obmments
included with comment documents.

Community Surveys
Colon /Osgood:
A survey of residences within a 3 - 5 mile radius from the center of the Duke Energy /Charah coal
ash dump site was conducted during April and May 2015 by EnvironmentaLEE members.
The following information was gathered from 317 residents, most living zero to three miles from
the site. The survey is ongoing.
• Of the 317, sixty -two are senior citizens, and eighty -three are children.
• 93 confirmed chronic illnesses including (from highest to lowest occurrence) allergies, asthma,
cancer, COPD, bronchitis, and several others.
Ten additional residents registered unspecified health concerns
• 202 livestock consisting of chickens, turkeys, pigs, ducks, goats, horses, and a llama were
listed. Some animals are a food source (meat, eggs, milk, cheese). In addition, 14 households
included cats and dogs which drink from the ponds, streams, and springs.
• 20 homes have water wells for human consumption, watering gardens, and feeding animals.

87 homes receive water from the city of Sanford.
• 54 households maintain a garden as a source of food for their families. Some irrigate with
water from creeks and ponds.
• 53 families supplement diets by hunting and fishing on their own land and adjacent property.
Public Park
Depot Park is centrally situated between the rail tracks which run through downtown Sanford.
Shops, restaurants, and other small locally owned businesses run along the outside of the tracks
between street crossings.
City and county sponsored events at the park are free to the public. The most popular event is
the outdoor Summer Concert in the Park series.
The performance area and stage are within a few feet of the tracks.
According to its director, Depot Park...
• Draws 10,000 to 15,000 patrons a year
• hosts in addition to summer concerts, other outdoor activities including seasonal Farmer's
Markets every Saturday, movies in the park on Fridays ten weeks a year, an open fountain area
for children to play in, and frequent festivals
• is also available to churches, community, corporate, and private events ( fees may apply)
** *Because the source of this information is a city employee, he declined to comment on any
10

inquiry that may be associated with coal ash
P
Daycare surveys
Three child daycares and one adult care facility within a three mile radius of the proposed coal
ash dump site were surveyed. The adult care facility operates twenty four hours a day seven
11

days a week. Two additional child daycares exist along the rail tracks within city limits, one is
approximately only ten feet from the tracks for the entire length of the building and recreational
area, and the other daycare is within one block of the tracks along its main entrance and play area
for two, three, and four year olds.
Of the five daycare facilities surveyed :
• One daycare did not return survey or correspondence after numerous attempts
• One has been operating about 15 years, three others have operated more than 30 years
• 10 to 20 children are enrolled at one, more than 50 at two of the preschools, and greater than
100 children are enrolled at another
• Two of the daycares schedule outdoor recreation sessions once a day, and two schedule outdoor
recreation twice a day. Activities last thirty to forty-five minutes per session every day for ten
months.
• 25 children and 6 staff experience chronic allergies /asthma
• On a scale of 0 to 10, ranking understanding of coal ash, it's transportation, and storage issues,
directors of the facilities ranked themselves:
1 ranked an 8 ( spouse employed by
Duke Progress Energy)
1 ranked a level 7
1 ranked a level 1
1 declined to specify
The adult care facility houses greater than 100 residents, of varying condition and needs, short
12

term and long term. Located less than a mile from rail tracks and a crossing, air pollution and
immediate access to emergency assistance is a concern.
Brickhaven:
A survey of residences within a 3 mile radius from the center of the Duke Energy /Charah coal
ash dump site was conducted during April and May 2015 by Chatham Citizens Against Coal Ash
Dump members.
The following information was gathered from 424 residents, most living zero to three miles from
the site. The survey is ongoing.
13

• Of the 424, ninety -three are senior citizens, and thirty -eight are children.
• 33 admitted health problems
• Livestock consisting of chickens, ducks, goats, horses, turkeys, swans, and sheep were
listed. Some are food sources. In addition, 16 households included pets.
• 78 homes have water wells for human consumption, watering gardens, and feeding animals. Of
the 75, all survey respondents on the Moncure - Flatwood Road use well water.
64 homes receive water from the county.
• 41 households maintain a garden as a source of food for their families. In addition, much hay
and straw is grown in the area for consumption by livestock, bedding, and landscaping material.
• 29 families supplement diets by hunting and fishing.
Environmental Justice
The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources' (DENR) Equity Policy
reads (in part): "To meet the goals DENR will:
• Promote greater use and analysis of demographic information to identify communities
that may be disproportionately impacted by sources of pollution
Use demographic information to determine whether there is: 1) A need for greater
outreach to community in order to encourage more meaningful participation, or 2)
special health risks based on the nature of the population. "
Article 9 of the Solid Waste Management Act, Part 1, § 130A -294. Solid waste management
program states that:
14

c. The Department shall deny an application for a permit for a solid waste management facility if
the Department finds that:
(9) The cumulative impact of the proposed facility, when considered in relation to other similar
impacts of facilities located or proposed in the community, would have a disproportionate
adverse impact on a minority or low - income community protected by Title VI of the federal Civil
Rights Act of 1964. This subdivision shall apply only to the extent required by federal law.
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, which is a primarily African America
community 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 proposed to be transported to
rural communities in Lee and Chatham counties. Additionally, 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.
Upon review of US Census data, Chatham County is 82.3% white, Lee County is 75.5% white,
and the state of North Carolina is 71.7% white. Using the US Environmental Protection
Agency's EJ View mapping tool14, it is clear that the Colon/Osgood and Brickhaven
communities have a statistically higher percentage of people of color than the Counties they are
located in, and the state as a whole.
14 EPAEm4ronmental Justice Mapping
15

Area of Brickhaven Ste
You are ha-e: ® Home » ntnroienental ]u:ti[e » 5L9ex entry w — Mappx LJl{'YY{L'
Area of Cblon Ste
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
0 Sites reporting to EPA
1, Water Monitoring Stations
M Places (GNIS)
❑* Nonattainment Areas
0 Health
D+ Demographi6 (SF1) 2010
n, Demographics (ACS) 2010
Pop. Density (Psopisfsg ns)
Per Cinplta Income
+ Below Poverty ( %)
Ed-ar— <12G (Ho)
HS Diploma only ( %)
college Degree( %)
Age c 18 years ( %)
Homes prr1950 ( %)
Speak English < Well ( %)
Female ( %)
LJ Rental Units ( %)
D Mmonty ( %)
p ���. hY Bladcgrorp Ej
Do_
0=0
F] byTrad
D Ix cowry
at Denpgraph is 2000
D 8au ndaries and Water Feahires
D+ • DSA Tapo Map
I miles
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
a are here: EPA Home rr F vimrumen" In tice » EVeN entry » EM— Mapper
R Search
Identify
Erase
Draw
s:
Print
i bing
16
i.+] Commtinity -0ased EPA Grants
n Sites reporting to EPA
Water Monitoring Stations
+; Places (GNIS)
Nonattainment Areas
E] Health
E+7 Demographics (SF1) 2010
E] Demographics (ACS) 2010
c Pop. Density (Peopiei ml)
L+� Per Capitalnceme
E+] Below Poverty ( %)
G Education 112G W D HS Diploma Only ( %)
Hi College Degree (%)
E] Age c 18 years ( %)
M HOMES p1e1950( %)
0 : Speak English < Well ( %)
HI Female ( %)
C+] Rental Units(DA)
1i Minority ( %)
E V: by Blgckgroup
0 © -IC
014 -20
01c -ao
mac -
�aa -i W
E-] by Tract
E9 by County
E+l Demographics 2000
01 Bmmdaries and Water Features
.. USA Tapo Map
t miles
r

The Department must consider the cumulative and disproportionate impacts to the Colon /Osgood
and Brickhaven communities.
Compliance Review and Financial Assurance
Compliance Review
Article 9 of the Solid Waste Management Act Part 2 § 130A -295.3 Solid Waste Management
Program "Environmental compliance review requirements for applicants and permit holders"
states that:
(a) For purposes of this section, "applicant" means an applicant for a permit and a permit
holder and includes the owner or operator of the facility, and, if the owner or operator is a
business entity, applicant also includes: (i) the parent, subsidiary, or other affiliate of the
applicant; (ii) a partner, officer, director, member, or manager of the business entity, parent,
subsidiary, or other affiliate of the applicant; and (iii) any person with a direct or indirect
interest in the applicant, other than a minority shareholder of a publicly traded corporation
who has no involvement in management or control of the corporation or any of its parents,
subsidiaries, or affiliates.
(b) The Department shall conduct an environmental compliance review of each applicant for
a new permit, permit renewal, and permit amendment under this Article. The environmental
compliance review shall evaluate the environmental compliance history of the applicant for a
period of five years prior to the date of the application and may cover a longer period at the
17

discretion of the Department. The environmental compliance review of an applicant may
include consideration of the environmental compliance history of the parents, subsidiaries, or
other affiliates of an applicant orparent that is a business entity, including any business entity
or joint venturer with a direct or indirect interest in the applicant, and other facilities owned
or operated by any of them. The Department shall determine the scope of the review of the
environmental compliance history of the applicant, parents, subsidiaries, or other affiliates of
the applicant or parent, including any business entity or joint venturer with a direct or indirect
interest in the applicant, and of other facilities owned or operated by any of them. An applicant
for a permit shall provide environmental compliance history information for each facility,
business entity, joint venture, or other undertaking in which any of the persons listed in this
subsection is or has been an owner, operator, officer, director, manager, member, or partner,
or in which any of the persons listed in this subsection has had a direct or indirect interest as
requested by the Department.
(c) The Department shall determine the extent to which the applicant, or a parent, subsidiary,
or other affiliate of the applicant or parent, or a joint venturer with a direct or indirect interest
in the applicant, has substantially complied with the requirements applicable to any activity in
which any of these entities previously engaged, and has substantially complied with federal
and State laws, regulations, and rules for the protection of the environment. The Department
may deny an application for a permit if the applicant has a history of significant or repeated
violations of statutes, rules, orders, or permit terms or conditions for the protection of the
environment or for the conservation of natural resources as evidenced by civil penalty
assessments, administrative or judicial compliance orders, or criminal penalties.
18

Article 7 of the NC Mining Act, § G.S. 74- 51(d), states a permit maybe denied for any of the
following reasons:
7) 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.
Neither the applicant nor Duke Energy appear to have been required by the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) to provide a compliance history
during the permitting process for the Brickhaven and Colon sites. Duke Energy is a partner in these
projects, as they are being developed at their request. DENR is well aware of
Duke Energy's track record yet has failed its statutory responsibility to fulfill this requirement. On
May 16, 2015, Duke Energy pled guilty to nine misdemeanors and admitted in open court that
19

among other things, they had ignored warnings about the pipe that ultimately ruptured and caused
the February 2014 coal ash spill into the Dan River. Media reports also indicate the company will
be on probation for five years.
Financial Assurance
Duke Energy has reported to the North Carolina General Assembly that the closure of the coal
ash impoundments at their 14 facilities would cost billions. According to permit documents
submitted to the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the Division
of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources has capped the bond at $500,000.00 at each site. For the
structural fill application, the applicant has proposed to set aside $10,380,470 (Colon) and
$10,193,600 (Brickhaven) for financial assurance. The amount of the total to be set aside for
corrective action at each site is $2,000,000. The applicant states in "Permit Application
Addendum 3" for both sites that, "The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources Division of Waste Management requires that at least $2 million be set aside for
corrective action for 2 solid waste management facilities. Because the state is requiring a permit
be obtained from the Division of Waste Management, HDR has assumed that the $2 million
corrective action threshold also applies to structural fills." DENR has accepted the applicant's
proposal. The North Carolina General Assembly recognized the need that sufficient financial
assurance is vital for large structural fill projects, and grants DENR the authority the require
adequate funds be set aside for any eventuality.
Session Law 2014 -122 (Senate Bill 729) at 130A- 309.217 "Financial assurance requirements for
20

large projects using coal combustion products for structural fill" states that:
(a) For projects involving placement of 8,000 or more tons of coal combustion products per acre
or 80, 000 or more tons of coal combustion products in total per project, the applicant for a permit
or a permit holder to construct or operate a structural fill shall establish financial assurance
that will ensure that sufficient funds are available for facility closure, post - closure maintenance
and monitoring, any corrective action that the Department require, and to satisfy any potential
liability for sudden and non - sudden accidental occurrences, and subsequent costs incurred the
Department in response to an incident at a structural fill project, even if the applicant or permit
holder becomes insolvent or ceases to reside, be incorporated, do business, or maintain assets
in the State.
Despite the intent of the General Assembly, DENR is allowing the applicant, Charah, Inc.,
through its subsidiary Green Meadow, LLC, to post the bare minimum for the structural fill, and
is allowing a $500,000.00 bond cap for the mining permit. These amounts are dangerously
inadequate. Additionally, the applicant has proposed and DENR has allowed a 30 -year post-
closure period. The applicant's sole assets are coal ash landfills and structural fills, and Green
Meadow's assets are unknown. It is incumbent upon DENR to protect the environment and
taxpayers of North Carolina and require the applicant to perform post - closure care as long as the
coal ash remains a threat, and to provide sufficient financial assurance to cover remediation.15
15 S ee Lee, G. Fred, PhD. Lee, Anne —Jones PhD "Peview of Potential Impacts of Landfills& Associated post aosure
Cost Issues." Included with comment documents
21

Waste Characterization
Coal ash contains toxic constituents and is not a benign waste stream. It contains heavy metals
such as arsenic, selenium, mercury, and chromium, often present as hexavalent chromium, and
radionuclides. Recently in South Carolina, radioactive waste was found to have been disposed of
in a Duke Energy coal ash impoundment. 16 When the Division of Waste Management was
queried if the possibility for such a scenario existed in North Carolina, the answer that came was,
"... we haven't heard of it occurring, of course we weren't kept abreast of what was being
disposed of in the impoundments." Despite the most current research on appropriate test methods
for coal combustion residuals, the applicant has stated in permit documents submitted to the
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) that they will be
relying on Duke Energy's testing from the Riverbend and Sutton sites, using the "Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure" (TCLP)
TCLP
Duke Energy plans to use the TCLP to determine the toxicity of the coal ash to be disposed of in
Colon and Brickhaven. DENR has accepted this proposal. Because the TCLP may
underestimate the toxicity of coal ash, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not
recommend that the test be used for the characterization of coal ash waste. In its recently
published final rule on the disposal of coal combustion residues EPA said that, "For landfills,
EPA agrees that TCLP, SPLP and other single pH test methods may not be the most appropriate
16 Fretwell, Sammy. "Nuclear Waste, Arsenic at SC Coal Plant Raise Concern." The gate. 7 March 2015.
waste, arsenic at SCcoal plant raise concerr Article included with comment documents.
22

leachate extraction methods for all waste streams and all disposal scenarios." 17 At the November
24, 2014 meeting of the Beneficial Reuse of Coal Ash Ad Hoc Committee meeting, Ellen
Lorscheider with the Division of Waste Management (DWM) told the Committee that EPA test
methods 1313, 1314, 1315, and 1316 (collectively known as the "LEAF" method) were
preferable to TCLP.
PCBS and Other Constituents of Concern
G. Fred Lee, PhD points out that, "As discussed in the above sections of reports on PCB
management issues, the TCLP is not a valid test to evaluate whether PCBs in soils, wastes and
cement "stabilized" wastes can be leached from the wastes in sufficient concentrations to cause
pollution of the environment by PCBs. This same conclusion applies to many other types of
hazardous chemicals such as PAHs, heavy metals etc." 18 There are questions concerning the
possibility that PCBs were disposed of in coal ash impoundment. In one media report, a former
worker stated that "everything" was poured in the impoundments. Members of
EnvironmentaLEE have been told that PCBS were disposed of in the mine pits and onsite at the
Colon site. It is not clear that any site assessment of potential legacy contamination at the Colon
or Brickhaven mine sites has occurred.
Of equal concern, the TCLP does not measure radionuclides. Coal ash contains varying amounts
of Technologically Enhanced Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (TENORM). Naturally
17 Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFRParts 257 and 261 [EP,- HO -RCPA- 2009 -0640; FRL- 9919 -44- OSWEg
FAN- 2050 -AEB1 Hazardous and Slid Waste Management 34jstem; Disposal of Coal Combustion Pesiduals From
Bectric Utilities Final Rile: http:// www. qpo. qov /fdsys/pkq/FP ,2015- 04- 17/pdf/2015- 00257.pdf (Therulewillnot
be attached to comment documents).
18 Lee, G. Fred, PhD. Lee, Anne - ,ones, PhD. "TCLP Not Reliable for Evaluation of Potential Public Health and
Environmental Hazards of PCBs or Other Chemicals in Wastes: Unreliability of Cement Based
Solidification /Stabilization of Wastes." G. Fred Lee and Associates. September 2009.
http: // www. qfredlee. com /Landfills/TaP Solidification.pol. Peport included with comment documents.
23

occurring isotopes of uranium, thorium, potassium, and their decay products including radium
can be present in coal ash.
The toxicity of the coal ash to be excavated, transported, and ultimately disposed of at both sites
has not been established using the most appropriate methods recommended by EPA and others.
It is imperative that the Department of Environment and Natural Resources require a through
waste characterization using the most appropriate testing methods.
Leachate
The applicant has described its plans for leachate disposal in permit documents:
2.2.1 Leachate Collection System " Leachate will either be transported to a wastewater treatment
plant or discharged directly into a sanitary sewer system."
This is no plan.
No receiving wastewater treatment plant or sanitary sewer system has been identified. There is
no discussion of the need for pre - treatment, or evaluation of the potential impacts on a municipal
waste system. Municipal wastewater treatment plants are designed to treat biological
contaminants, not heavy metals, radionuclides, and possibly PCBs or other toxics. These
constituents will be partitioned into the discharged effluent or into the sludge- with inherent risks
to the environment and public health. For example, in Lee County, the Sanford wastewater
treatment plant discharges upstream of the Lee County drinking water intake. Coal ash contains
bromide, which can combine with chlorine and form trihalomethane; according to EPA
trihalomethane poses a cancer risk. There have already been instances of the creation of
24

trihalomethanes in Eden and Madison, downstream from the Belews Creek Steam Station
discharge. 19
How millions of gallons of leachate from millions of tons of coal ash is to be tested, treated and
disposed of should be of vital concern to DENR.
Air Quality
The excavation, transportation, and disposal of millions of tons of coal ash will have significant
and deleterious effects in the communities surrounding Duke Energy's coal ash impoundments,
the communities along the transportation routes, and, most profoundly, in the Colon and Osgood
communities. Coal ash dust is difficult to control- it is "hydrophobic ", sometimes described as
behaving like "dry water", and because of its fine particle size is easily deposited off -site and
along transport routes, depositing on land and surface water. It contains crystallized silica, the
culprit in the chronic lung disease silicosis. When inhaled, with its small particle size, coal ash is
carried deep into the lungs and can irritate the respiratory system and worsen chronic lung
disease. Toxins such as arsenic and lead as well as radionuclides are more concentrated the
smaller the particle. In a study of the Kingston, Tennessee coal ash spill Duke University
researchers found that, "The high concentrations of trace metals (Tables 1 and 2) and
radioactivity (Table 3) reported in this study for the bulk TVA coal ash are expected to magnify,
19 Gutierrez, Bertrand M. "Discharge from Belews Creek power plant affects water quality." lfnston -S31em
,burnal. Winston Salem. 13 April 2014.
http: / /www.mournalnow.com/ news/ local/ discharge- from - belews- creek- power - plant -affect s- water-
quality /article 8e6f8202- a305- 580d- a389- d96da37d5629.html Article included with comment documents.
PAI

as fine fractions of fly ash (which may be resuspended and deposited in the human respiratory
system) are typically 4 -10 times enriched in metals relative to the bulk ash and the coarse size
fraction (7, 46). The toxic metal content in coal ash, the sizes of fly ash particulates, and the
ionizing radiation (IR) exposure (both incorporated and external) may act synergistically or, less
frequent, antagonistically, affecting human health directly (predominantly through inhalation of
contaminated air) and indirectly through the food chains (consuming contaminated agricultural
products) (14). "20
Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) can be emitted from coal ash landfills. H2S is considered a broad-
spectrum poison, which means it can affect multiple systems of the body. Residents living near
coal ash disposal sites report rotten smells in their communities. 211n Uniontown Alabama, where
the coal ash from the 2008 TVA Kingston, Tennessee spill was taken, air dispersion modeling
was undertaken to determine the possible air emissions which could be coming from the landfill
there. The modeling found that, "...the Arrowhead Landfill generated a substantial amount of
H2S and TSP air emissions during normal operations. "22
In the permit documents provided to DENR by the applicant, there is no discussion of the use of
daily cover. Although the applicant offered to monitor the transport routes for the Charlotte
proposal (Due Diligence Report included with comment documents), they have not done the
same for the Colon and Brickhaven sites, the communities along the transport routes or at the
20 Ruhl, L. Vengosh, A. Et al. "Survey of the Potential Environmental and Health Impacts in the Immediate
Aftermath of the Coal Ash Spill in Kingston, Tennessee" Environmental Science and Technology. 15 August 2009.
http: / /dukespace.lib.duke.edu /dspace /handle /10161/694;. Paper included with comment documents.
21 "Ash in Lungs." Earthjustice. Physicians for Social Responsibility. August 2014. Report included with comment
documents.
22 Tarr, Jim. "An Evaluation of Particulate Matter, Hydrogen Sulfide and Non - Methane Organic Compounds from
the Arrowhead Landfill." 8 August 2012. Copy of report included with comment documents.
26

Sutton and Riverbend excavation sites. DENR has not required an air - impact analysis of the
impacts on the Lee and Chatham communities, or any permitting or monitoring.
Complaint- driven compliance will not work. Recently, near Duke Energy's Cape Fear plant, a
nearby resident took these pictures of what was apparently fugitive coal ash blowing into the
roadway. She was advised to contact me and after several phone calls and emails I was finally
put in touch with the right person at DENR.
Fugitive coal ash dust will have a significant impact on public health in the communities targeted
for coal ash landfills, along the transport corridors, and around the Riverbend and Sutton sites.
NVA

Saltstone: The Alternative for North Carolina
Because of the inherent dangers of landfilling and transportation of coal ash across North
Carolina, the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League has recommended a safer solution, the
technology called "Saltstone" for coal ash waste disposal. The technology, developed for the US
Department of Energy for use at the Savannah River Site, would allow the waste to be stored on
Duke Energy property and isolate the waste from the air, ground and surface water and the land.
For further information see: Coal Ash Disposition: The Alternative for North Carolina. 23
23 Copy of report submitted with comment documents.
28