_Dan River Meeting Officer Report Final 5-13-16

Water Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
MEMORANDUM
April 22, 2016
To: Secretary Donald R. van der Vaart
From: Sherri Knight
Division of Water Resources
Winston-Salem Regional Office
Subject: Meeting Officer's Report and Recommendations
Coal Ash Impoundment Classification(s)
Dan River Combined Cycle Station
PAT MCCRORY
Governor
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
Secretary
S. JAY ZIMMERMAN
Director
On March 1, 2016, I served as meeting officer for a public meeting held at Eden Town Hall in
Eden, 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 Dan River
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 Dan River Combined Cycle Station.
This report has been prepared using the following outline:
I. History/Background
II. March 1, 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 1, 2016 Public Meeting and Oral Comments Summary
Approximately 45 people attended the public hearing, including staff members of the DEQ and
the meeting officer. A total of 37 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, provided a brief presentation on the proposed risk classification for the Dan River
Combined Cycle Station.
Four individuals registered before the meeting to make comments. Speakers were given five
minutes for initial presentations and additional time was provided after everyone that registered to
Page 2 of 4

speak was finished. The list of speakers is included as Attachment IL The following is a summary
of oral comments received at the public meeting summarized by topic (in no particular order):
• Environmental Justice — One speaker was from Lee County representing Lee County
NAACP and voiced his concerns regarding the removal of ash to Lee County as the
disposal area has low income, minority and older populations.
• Risk Classification — A citizen commented about the nine factors listed in CAMA and
asked how DEQ combined these nine factors into three criteria (dam safety, groundwater,
and surface water). Another citizen suggested that all sites should be high-risk.
• Not Applicable — A Duke representative gave an update of the Dan River Combined Cycle
Station and the on-going ash removal. There were other concerns about the general
workings of the Department and distrust of Governor McCrory.
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, two letters sent
via United States Postal Service mail, and 193 comments received via email. The following is a
summary of the written comments received during the comment period (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.
• Costs — Requests were made that Duke not pass on their cost to the consumers.
• 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.
• 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
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. Citizens commented that
they would like to see ash removed and stored in dry, 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
Page 3 of 4

substantial likelihood that death, serious illness, severe personal injury, or a substantial
endangerment to health, property, or the environment will occur.
• Landfills — Citizens encouraged Duke to avoid trucking the ash to landfills in other
communities and want Duke to store the ash on Duke's property or away from other
communities. A suggestion was given 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.
• 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.
• Risk Classification — All citizen comments supported the high-risk classification for the
site. 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.
• Not Applicable — A citizen was upset and believes that Duke is being allowed to run all
over this State. Another comment suggested that Duke should invest in renewable energy
and move away from coal and natural gas.
IV. Attachments
1. Public Notice of March 1, 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 4 of 4