_Buck Meeting Officer Report Final 5-13-16

Water Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
MEMORANDUM
April 22, 2016
To: Secretary Donald R. van der Vaart
From: Andrew Pitner
Division of Water Resources
Mooresville Regional Office
Subject: Meeting Officer's Report and Recommendations
Coal Ash Impoundment Classification(s)
Buck Combined Cycle Station
PAT MCCRORY
Governor
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
Secretory
S. JAY ZIMMERMAN
Director
On March 22, 2016, I served as meeting officer for a public meeting held at Catawba College
in Salisbury, NC. 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 Buck
Combined Cycle Station.
In addition to listening to oral comments at the public meeting, I have reviewed all written
comments received during the public comment period. In preparing this report I have
considered all of the public comments in making a recommendation on the proposed risk
classification for the Buck Combined Cycle Station.
This report has been prepared using the following outline:
I. History/Background
II. March 22, 2016 Public Meeting and Oral Comments Summary
III. Written Public Comments Summary
IV. Attachments
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Water Resources
1611 Mail service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1611
919 707 9000

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 requires 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 are based on the
information available to the department as of December 2015. They are of critical importance
because of the environmental impact and closure costs associated with each classification.
Impoundments classified as intermediate or high must be excavated at a potential cost of up to $10
billion for all impoundments, while environmentally protective, less costly options are available
for low priority impoundments. Closure costs could be passed on to the ratepayer. It is also
important to note that these are 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.
Subsequent to the issuance of DEQ's initial draft proposed classifications, fourteen public
meetings were held across the state to receive oral comments from the public in addition to the
open public comment period that ended on April 18, 2016. Meetings were held in each County in
which a site is located. DEQ will consider all public comments received and issue its final
classification for each impoundment by May 18, 2016.
H. March 22, 2016 Public Meeting and Oral Comments Summary
Approximately 190 people attended the public hearing, including staff members of the DEQ and
the meeting officer. A total of 190 individuals completed sign -in forms at the meeting (Attachment
I). As meeting officer, I provided opening comments and Steve Lanter, hydrogeologist from the
Central Office, presented a brief presentation on the proposed risk classification for the Buck
Combined Cycle Station.
Twenty-one individuals registered before the meeting to make comments and nine additional
individuals made comments after the 21 that registered were finished speaking. Speakers were
Page 2 of 6

given five minutes for initial presentations and additional time was provided after everyone that
registered to speak was finished. The list of speakers is included as Attachment II. The following
is a summary of oral comments received at the public meeting by topic (in no particular order):
• Beneficial Reuse — Comments suggested alternate uses of coal ash such as fertilizer and
encapsulation using polymers. Another commenter suggested that beneficial reuse would
not work.
• Dam Safety — Comments were made concerning about the repair work to the dam and
Notices of Deficiency that Duke received regarding the state of the dam.
• Excavation — Comments included following South Carolina's lead by excavating the coal
ash. Other comments suggested that capping in place will not work.
Groundwater Assessments — Commenters referenced an expert report prepared by Dr.
Steven Campbell and Dr. Richard Spruill (Groundwater Management Associates, Inc.) on
February 29, 2016, that focuses on the Comprehensive Site Assessment and Corrective
Action Plan Reports prepared by HDR, Inc. for the Buck Combined Cycle Station.
Commenters also questioned the validity of Duke Energy's consultants reports since they
are being paid by Duke. One comment referenced a report prepared by Dr. Vengosh (Duke
University) on radiation resulting from coal ash and wonders why DEQ did not have Duke
sample for radiation. One commenter pointed out that the vanadium belt that runs through
the state and noted that Duke's coal ash ponds coincidentally fall within that zone. This
commenter also stated that perhaps the ash from the stacks was responsible for the
existence of this vanadium belt. One citizen believes that they saw a coal ash dump across
from some vineyards and wants to know if DEQ has looked into it. Several citizens
commented on Duke's reports. A comment noted that the groundwater flow model was
flawed as it had no -flow boundaries between Duke's wells and the private water supply
wells. Another comment stated that Duke's report suggested that there were no coal ash
ponds from 1926 to 1957 and that there was no disclosure about where the ash was stored
during that timeframe. Other comments suggested that cap -in-place will not work since
the coal ash sits in the groundwater table. A comment pointed out that Duke's monitoring
wells were about 70 feet deep but the private water supply wells are, on average, about 150
feet deep.
• Health Issues — Several citizens spoke of their own personal health issues and/or health
issues of others in the area that they suggest may be a result of their drinking water.
• Landfills — A commenter believed that coal ash is a special waste and should not be put in
municipal solid waste landfills but rather put into salt mines. They also brought up that the
Environmental Protection Agency stated that all landfills will eventually leak. They also
asked if there are monitoring wells at a landfill and contamination goes between them, how
would DEQ know?
• Private Water Supply Well Issues — Citizens commented about being inconvenienced by
the bottled water and that Duke should supply them with good clean water. A citizen stated
that the average hexavalent chromium concentrations in public water supplies is 0.7 ug/L
and the average concentration in private water supply wells around Buck was 1.73 ug/L.
They stated that the science did not change but yet received the letters from DHHS stating
their water was ok to drink after receiving the initial "do not drink" recommendations.
Some commenters were concerned about having their wells tested and one particular
commenter stated that they had not received their results of their well test.
Page 3 of 6

• Risk Classification — All comments suggested that the site should be ranked either
intermediate or high.
• Surface Water — Several comments claimed to have either seen contamination in the river
or seeps entering the river.
• Not Applicable — A representative from Duke Energy spoke about Duke's ongoing efforts
to close basins around the state. One person stated that Duke was more focused on profits
rather than people. Several commenters had comments relating to politics that were not
applicable to risk classification of the site.
III. Written Public Comment Summary
In addition to the public meeting, DEQ received written comments during the public comment
period. DEQ received one comment hand -submitted during the public meeting, 97 letters sent via
United States Postal Service mail, and 873 comments received via email. Written comments
received during the public comment period include the following summarized by topic (in no
particular order):
• Beneficial Reuse — A member of the National Ash Management Advisory Board presented
information that suggests that the aggressive closure schedules preclude the pursuit of
beneficial reuse opportunities. Several commenters suggested that Duke should research
storage options that provide better long-term solutions than lined landfills; favoring those
that reuse coal ash or fully encapsulate the ash above ground with a more permanent barrier
than a synthetic liner. Other alternative uses of coal ash that commenters suggested were
use in plastics, bricks, concrete, agricultural soil additive, and cinders that can be spread
on snowy roads.
• Costs — A majority of the comments were requests de that Duke not pass on their cost to
the consumers.
• Dam Safety — Several commenters suggested that the darn safety ranking should be high
because we can't assume that Duke will make the necessary repairs or correct the
fundamental issues with the dam. Other comments referred to the notices Duke has
received concerning the state of the dam.
Environmental Justice — A research assistant at Duke University submitted their report
on the impact of the coal ash ponds on low-income and communities of color, as well as
cumulative impacts from nearby emitting facilities. A representative from the Southern
Alliance for Clean Energy provided a petition that asks that Duke Energy be required to
remove all of the coal ash at each of its 14 power plants sites to dry, lined storage away
from our waterways and groundwater, and from our most vulnerable communities such as
low-income communities or communities of color. A representative from Clean Water for
North Carolina stated that, while only 17 % of the population living within a one -mile
radius of the Buck Steam Station is minority, according to EPA's Enforcement and
Compliance History Online tool, 34% of the population is below the federal poverty level,
and 55% have only a high school education or less.
Excavation — The National Ash Management Advisory Board suggested other alternatives
to excavation such as capping -in-place, monitored natural attenuation, slurry cutoff walls,
in-place stabilization/fixation, pumping wells, permeable reactive barriers and volume
Page 4 of 6

reduction of impounded ash through escalation of beneficial use. They also suggested that
the additional risk imposed by excavating and transporting ash from one location to another
can exceed the potential risk posed by leaving the ash in place. The remainder of the
comments suggested that Duke should remove the coal ash from the site to safe, lined
storage areas away from waterways.
• Groundwater Assessments — The National Ash Management Advisory Board stated that
licensed engineers and geologists, with support from health and environmental risk
assessors, have determined that there is no imminent hazard and that those same
professionals have determined that existing conditions at these sites do not present a
substantial likelihood that death, serious illness, severe personal injury, or a substantial
endangerment to health, property, or the environment will occur. Several commenters
mentioned the fact that harmful constituents have been detected in the monitoring wells at
levels that exceed the standards. Several comments were about the coal ash sitting in the
groundwater table and that capping -in-place would not be adequate. Other commenters
pointed out flaws with Duke's groundwater assessments including flaws in their models
and not testing at depths comparable to the private wells.
• Health Issues — Several citizens spoke of their own personal health issues and/or health
issues of others in the area that they suggest may be a result of their drinking water.
• Home Values — All of the citizen comments were concerning the value of their homes
being lowered by the contamination found in their wells.
• Private Well Issues — A representative from the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy stated
that no one should have to question the safety of their drinking water. A majority of the
remaining comments were about people's wells being contaminated presumably by the
Buck ash ponds.
• Risk Classification — All citizen comments suggested ranking the site as intermediate or
high risk. The National Ash Management Advisory Board stated that it may be appropriate
for legislation to define the initiation of closure activities, but it should not stipulate a
prescriptive approach with specific completion dates. Duke supplied a massive report for
consideration in the risk classification for all of their sites. SELC submitted a large report
with their comments on the risk classification.
• Surface Water — Most of the comments were regarding concerns about the ponds leaking
into the river. Other comments were regarding NCDEQ cited Duke Energy for broken,
failing corrugated metal storm water pipes at Buck that are cracked and leaking, the same
problem that caused the Dan River coal ash spill in February 2014.
• Not Applicable — Several comments suggested that Duke should invest in renewable
energy and move away from coal and natural gas. The remainder of the comments were
not relevant to the risk classification for the site.
Page 5 of 6

IV. Attachments
1. Public Notice of March 22, 2016 Meeting
2. Public Meeting Sign -in Forms
3. Public Meeting Speaker List
4. Audio File of Public Meeting
5. Written Public Comments Received
6. Supporting documentation received during public hearing
7. Emails
8. Meeting Notes
9. Public Comment Summary Spreadsheet
10. Meeting Agenda
11. Presentation
Page 6 of 6