20150042 Ver 1_Sharon Garbutt_20150516

Burdette, Jennifer a
From: Sharon Garbutt <sharongarbutt @earthlink.net>
Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2015 2:24 PM
To: SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject: Comments to DWM, DEMLR and 401 water Certification regarding Permits for
Brickhaven and Colon Rd. mine reclamation via coal ash deposit
Attachments: 5- 15 -'15 COMMENTS PER MINE RECLAMATION PROJECTS WITH COAL ASH FILL IN
CHATHAM COUNTY AND LEE COUNTY .pdf
Attached are general comments regarding the Permits required for the mine reclamation coal ash
projects on Brickhaven and Colon Rd. in Chatham and Lee counties. Because the comments refer
to both projects and all permits, I am submitting this one consolidated list of comments.
Thank you for your consideration,
Thelma Sharon Garbutt
595 Pokeberry Lane
Pittsboro, NC 27312
1

COMMENTS PER MINE RECLAMATION PROJECTS WITH COAL ASH FILL IN
CHATHAM COUNTY AND LEE COUNTY, NC
•! The staffing levels at DENR have been cut by nearly 30% by the current
legislature. Adequate monitoring of the Brickhaven and Colon Rd. mine
reclamation projects will require intensive staffing in order to assure that the
project is done safely (if this is even possible!) Staff will be needed to
constantly monitor the control of ash at the site - -ash being brought in and
ash already deposited. Staff will also be needed to monitor the control of ash
at the sites at which removal is taking place. Monitoring will need to be
routine and frequent. Staff will also need to be available to respond to
complaints —and the population will complain! With DENR staff already
overworked, how will DENR accomplish the large amount of monitoring
required by this project? DENR will be open to lawsuits for negligence.
•! This is not mine reclamation; this is a landfill. I have read comments
submitted by many others concerning this point, so I'll just say "ditto" —since
I know you are already overworked and have a lot to read.
•! If this project is allowed to proceed as a mine reclamation project then it
may set a very dangerous precedent. The line between a mine reclamation
and a landfill will be seriously blurred and it could lead to serious legal,
environmental and development problems for North Carolina and especially
for DENR in the future. Solving these problems will absorb even more time
and financial resources from DENR and the State.
•! The exposure of coal ash to the weather as it is being deposited presents a
serious threat to the environment and this issue is not adequately addressed
by Charah /Green Meadows. Torrential rains occur in Chatham County where
I have lived for over 30 yrs. The predictions are for more frequent torrential
rain events. How will the exposed coal ash be contained during such an
event? If there is a tornado or a hurricane, how will the dispersion of coal
ash be controlled? How will it be removed from residents' property —
especially those with children, farms, home wells... Will Green Meadows pay
for the clean up of the property of these residents? Will the State of NC pay
for it? Will these residents, for the most part impoverished, need to pay for a
lawsuit to have Green Meadows, Duke Energy or NC clean it up? Is this the
kind of government we now have here in NC —let the poor people figure it
out?
•! The problems with liners to control leachate have been well documented by
others whose comments I have read. Once again, I'll save you some time and
just say "ditto."
•! The Brickhaven site is essentially in a wetland. Any discharge into ground or
surface waters will harm these wetlands. In addition, some of the excavated
pits are full of water already. Hydrological studies of this area must be done
before any permitting is considered.
•! THERE IS A SAFE WAY TO DISPOSE OF THIS COAL ASH. THE COAL ASH CAN
BE MIXED WITH CONCRETE AND STORED AS CONCRETE BLOCKS IN A

CONCRETE BUNKER ON SITE. FORGET THE EXCUSE THAT THE
LEGISLATURE HAS ORDERED DUKE TO REMOVE THE COAL ASH IN TOO
SHORT A TIME TO ACCOMPLISH THIS TYPE OF DISPOSAL. THE
LEGISLATURE CAN AMEND THAT TIME REQUIREMENT -THEY AMEND
LEGISLATION ALL THE TIME. THE ONLY REASON IT IS NOT BEING
REQUIRED IS BECAUSE IT WILL COST DUKE ENERGY MORE MONEY THAN
THEY WANT TO SPEND. DUKE ENERGY PROFITS WERE 2.7 BILLION
DOLLARS IN 2013. THEY CAN AFFORD TO SAFELY DISPOSE THEIR
COAL ASH IN CONCRETE BUNKERS.