_Belews Mtg Officer Report FINAL 051316

Energy, Mineral &
Land Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
MEMORANDUM
May 13, 2016
To: Secretary Donald R. van der Vaart
PAT McCRORY
Governor
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
Secretary
TRACY DAVIS
Director
From: William E. Toby Vinson, Jr., PE, CPM, Chief of Program Operations
Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources
Subject: Meeting Officer's Report
Coal Ash Impoundment Classification(s)
Belews Creek Steam Station
On March 24, 2016, I served as meeting officer for a public meeting held at the Stokes
County Courthouse at 1012 N. Main Street in Danbury, N.C. The purpose of the public
meeting was to allow the public to comment on the proposed risk classification for coal
combustion residuals impoundments at the Belews Creek Steam Station. This report
summarizes all of the public comments related to the proposed risk classification for the
Belews Creek Steam Station.
This report has been prepared using the following outline:
I. History/Background
II. March 24, 2016 Public Meeting and Oral Comments Summary
III. Written Public Comments Summary
IV. Attachments
State of North Carolina Environmental Quality Energy, Mineral and land Resources
512N. Salisbury Street 1612 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612
919 707 9200

I. History/Background
Under the historic Coal Ash Management Act (CAMA) of 2014, all coal ash impoundments in
North Carolina are required to be closed. The deadlines for closure depend on the classification
of each impoundment as low, intermediate, or high. CAMA required the Department of
Environmental Quality, or DEQ, to make available to the public the initial draft proposed
classifications no later than Dec. 31, 2015. These draft proposed classifications were based on
the information available to the department as of December 2015. It is important to note that
these were not the final proposed classifications. After the release of the draft proposed
classifications, CAMA requires the following process:
• DEQ must make available a written declaration that provides the documentation to
support the draft proposed classifications within 30 days, which will be made available
on the DEQ website. The written declaration will provide the technical and scientific
background data and analyses and describe in detail how each impoundment was
evaluated.
• DEQ will publish a summary of the declaration weekly for three consecutive weeks in a
newspaper in each county where a coal ash facility is located.
• The declaration will be provided to each local health director and made available in a
library in each county where a coal ash facility is located.
• The summary of the declaration will be provided to each person who makes a request.
• A public meeting will be held in each county where a coal ash facility is located.
• Following completion of the public meetings and the submission of comments, the
department will consider the comments and develop final proposed classifications.
II. March 24, 2016 Public Meeting and Oral Comments Summary
Approximately 136 people attended the public meeting, including staff members of the DEQ and
the meeting officer. A total of 127 individuals completed sign -in forms at the meeting
(Attachment I). As meeting officer, I provided opening comments and provided a brief
presentation on the proposed risk classification for the Belews Creek Steam Station.
Before the meeting commenced, 31 individuals registered to present oral comments. Speakers
were given three minutes for initial presentations and additional time was provided after
everyone that registered to speak had finished. An additional four people spoke from the floor
following the initial speakers. One of the original 31 speakers that signed up to present oral
comments left the meeting before speaking. The list of speakers is included as Attachment II.
The following is a summary of oral comments received at the public meeting summarized by
topic (in no particular order):
Environmental: There were concerns about quality/pollution of ground and surface
water and having available drinking water for the long term, rather than having to rely on
bottled water from Duke. The accuracy of the groundwater assessment was also
questioned and additional comments claimed that additional groundwater modeling is
needed. There were also comments regarding air pollution. Comments were made
State of North Carolina Environmental Quality Energy, Mineral and land Resources
512N. Salisbury Street 1612 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612
919 707 9200

alleging that wildlife and pets have been adversely affected. Hydraulic fracturing was
mentioned as being an unacceptable practice and that increased use of alternative, clean
energy should be pursued.
Property Values: There were concerns about loss of property value and that the risk
caused by this coal ash issue is preventing developers from coming to Stokes County.
Health Issues: There were comments regarding toxic materials relating to health issues
including but not limited to cancer, Parkinson's disease and asthma. It was also stated
that people (not just groundwater) need to be tested to determine any adverse health
impacts.
Criticism of the Administration and General Assembly: There were comments critical
of the Administration and General Assembly for a perceived inappropriate relationship
with Duke Energy that would result in the State not taking the appropriate measures for
its citizens. Comments were also made regarding the hiding of the hazards of coal ash.
Changing Reports and Classifications: There were comments critical of reports
regarding changing risk classifications, as well as comments questioning whether well
water that was tested is safe to drink.
Environmental Justice: Comments were made regarding Title 6 and protection of
communities from discrimination.
Dam Safety: Comments were made that seismic activity from hydraulic fracturing could
damage the dams and that the dam is in need of repair.
Risk Classification: Comments were made supporting only risk classifications of
intermediate or high. It was also mentioned that cap -in-place is unacceptable. There were
comments addressing solid encapsulation of coal ash instead of landfilling. Comments
also suggested following South Carolina's lead in how to perform the ash clean-up.
Duke Energy commented that it is evaluating all closure solutions taking science,
continued safety, costs, people and community into account.
III. Written Public Comment Summary
In addition to the public meeting, DEQ received written comments during the public comment
period. DEQ received three comments that were submitted during the public meeting. There
were 840 written comments submitted via United States Postal Service and email. (782 emails
and 58 US Mail)
The following is a summary of written comments received at the public meeting, via email and
by mail summarized by topic (in no particular order):
Environmental: There were comments claiming that DEQ's groundwater assessment
was inadequate and that there are existing issues with impacted groundwater where
contamination exceeds federal limits. There were comments related to protecting all
sources of drinking water and that 360,000 people are relying on water intakes
State of North Carolina Environmental Quality Energy, Mineral and land Resources
512N. Salisbury Street 1612 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612
919 707 9200

downstream of the Belews Creek facility. Comments also expressed concern over having
to have bottled water provided by Duke Energy, but that it should continue to be provided
until a replacement source is secured.
Health Issues: There were comments regarding toxic materials relating to health issues
being traced back to the Belews Creek coal ash basin. Those health issues include but
were not limited to cancer, gastro-intestinal problems and asthma.
Criticism of the Administration and General Assembly: Comments were provided
which stated that legislated allowance of any contamination was unacceptable. Other
comments included that DEQ cannot separate risk classifications from the prescriptive
Coal Ash Management Act, which does not allow for consideration of impacts to
communities and the environment, nor does it pursue beneficial use opportunities or other
engineered methods of protection that do not include dig and haul. These comments
included requests that legislation should define the initiation of closure activities but that
legislation should not stipulate a prescriptive approach with completion deadlines when
other appropriate methods are available.
Environmental Justice: Comments were made regarding Title 6 and protection of
communities from discrimination.
Dam Safety: There were comments regarding stability of the dams at Belews Creek and
that they have not been repaired. There were also concerns that dam failure would be
catastrophic because the coal ash impoundment currently stores 12 million tons of coal
ash.
Risk Classification: There were comments that Belews Creek should be an intermediate
or high risk facility and that all coal ash should be removed to lined landfills instead of
allowing cap -in-place which will not protect the community. Comments suggested
following South Carolina's lead in how to perform the ash clean-up as seen at the
Catawba-Wateree River site. Comments also requested that alternative methods of
disposal be used including solid encapsulation, recycling and reuse. It should be noted
that many comments provided appear to use the words priority and hazard in place of
risk.
Landfills: Comments were provided which claim the existing onsite landfill has not been
adequately assessed for contributing toward groundwater contamination. Other comments
included the recommendation to avoid trucking ash material to other communities but
rather landfill it on Duke Energy's property.
Costs: There were comments requesting that Duke Energy shareholders—not
ratepayers—pay for the cost of the clean-up.
Closure: Comments were received requesting public access to all closure plans, as well
as giving the locally impacted communities input on the final plans for permanent storage
of coal ash.
Other: One comment made the claim that the well water in the area hasn't changed and
that people complaining are just trying to get a payday out of the issues raised.
State of North Carolina Environmental Quality Energy, Mineral and land Resources
512N. Salisbury Street 1612 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612
919 707 9200

IV. Attachments
I. Public Notice of March 24, 2016 Meeting
II. Public Meeting Sign -in Forms
III. Public Meeting Speaker List
IV. Audio File of Public Meeting
V. Written Public Comments Received
VI. Supporting Documentation Received During Public Hearing
State of North Carolina Environmental Quality Energy, Mineral and land Resources
512N. Salisbury Street 1612 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612
919 707 9200