Talking Points for DENR Public Comments on Coal Ash Dumps
in Chatham and Lee counties
Duke Energy and it's contractor, Charah-Green Meadows LLC, must get permits approved by the state
before dumping coal ash at the old clay mine sites at Brickhaven and Colon Rd. These include the
certification of stream and wetlands impacts, structural fill permits and mining permit modifications.
Written comments are due May 16.
Send your mining permit and the structural fill permit comments to publiccomments@ncdenr.gov.
Send comments on the 401 Certification for stream and wetlands impacts to jennifer.burdette@ncdenr.gov
Here are some points you can raise in written or spoken comments concerning all three
permit applications:
Mine Reclamation or Coal Ash landfill? The state needs to reconsider whether these two clay mine areas at
Brickhaven and Sanford (Colon) will be "mine reclamation" as the permit applications state, or are actually
coal ash landfills. The proposed excavation of currently land that has never been mined; the proposed finished
height of the encapsulated coal ash at above grade of the surrounding land; and the fact that nothing can be
built on top of the finished "reclamation" site in order to preserve the integrity of the coal ash liners, 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 that, and new EPA guidelines should be in play.
Integrity of the liners: It is a fact that all liners will eventually degrade and leak, and some much sooner, due
to improper installation or breaches. The applicant says that "The proposed HDPE liner is designed to
industry standards and has an expected life of 500+ years". However, the December 16, 2014 letter from
David Cox, NC Wildlife Resources Commission to NC Land Quality Section concerning the Green Meadows
mining permit gives a very different picture of the durability and risks of these liners, "...the liners have an
estimated safe life of 80 to 100 years if no mechanical stress is induced.
Economics: What will be the expected decline of property values in the area surrounding these coal ash
dumps? Those adjacent to the properties may not have the money available to relocate and current property
values could be diminished greatly. What will be the costs to counties and their taxpayers for the increased
need for EMT availability, What are the true estimates of job creation - and job loss due to economic decline
of the communities surrounding the coal ash dumps. What will be the impact on agriculture and farms in the
areas where the coal ash dumps are? There are also recreational facilities including a golf course nearby that
could also be negatively impacted.
Air pollution: We have seen estimates that moving 8 million tons of coal ash to the Brickhaven site alone
could require 400,000 truckloads or 120,000 train car loads . The transport of this huge amount of coal ash will
most certainly mean measurable amounts of coal ash residue along roadsides and in yards, and which could
become a significant air pollutant to those living along the transport routes. Will transport vehicles be required
to have closed and covered containers? Who will monitor and regulate this? Who will monitor air quality on a
long-term basis, during transport and once the ash is landfilled, to ensure public health is not compromised?
Endangered Species: We believe that the proposed project may impact federally listed endangered or
threatened species or their designated critical habitat, and that no permits should be approved until this is
investigated. There are many threatened and endangered species in the Cape Fear River downstream of
where tributaries from these coal ash dumps would drain, including the federally listed Cape Fear Shiner.
Water supply and quality :What will be the impact of coal ash on private or public well water users and
downstream surface water supply in municipalities? If a hurricane or other major storm were to damage or
destroy the berms and other containment at both sites, it would have a devastating impact to the Cape Fear
River and the downstream water users. Downstream water systems who take their source water from the
Cape Fear River include Sanford, Harnett County (which supplies Lillington, Angier, Ft. Bragg, Holly Springs,
and Fuquay-Varina), Dunn, Fayetteville, and Brunswick County (including Wilmington).
Disposal of coal ash leachate: Coal ash leachate is likely to contain high levels of heavy metals including
arsenic, lead, mercury, cadmium, chromium, selenium, aluminum, antimony, barium, beryllium, boron,
bromide, chlorine, cobalt, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, thallium, vanadium, and zinc. Some coal ash also
contains radioactive materials. Despite collection of leachate, some will eventually reach groundwater as the
liners disintegrate over time. The leachate that is collected will need to be taken to a municipal wastewater
treatment plant. The heavy metals and other constituents of coal ash leachate can interfere with the
wastewater treatment plant, and create new problems and costs that are borne by those municipalities.
Safety : Heavy flow of truck traffic will increase accidents on already dangerous and windy roads that already
have excessive truck traffic.
Cumulative Impact: There is a very real chance that there will be contamination of both surface waters and
groundwaters from these proposed coal ash repositories, and that pollution would flow downstream into the
Cape Fear River. This pollution would be in addition to the current coal ash wastewater seepage into the Cape
Fear River from the ash ponds at the Duke Energy Moncure Coal Ash plant in this same stretch of river. Gulf
Creek is already on the EPA 303(d) list and would be further degraded by any increased sedimentation from
excavation and construction at the Brickhaven clay pits, as well as any coal ash pollution.
The needs and welfare of the people: Speak from your own experience of how this could harm you.
Mining Act Permit
According to section 74-51. of the Mining Act, a permit can be denied for any of the following reasons:
(d)
The Department may deny the permit upon finding:
(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.
It seems clear that this permit application could be denied due to impacts on drinking water, wildlife, air
quality, surface and groundwater, public house, neighboring residences and facilities and recreation, and
substantial deposits of sediment in streams - as listed above in # 2- 6. In addition it would seem their are
grounds to deny Duke Energy a permit based on #7 - that they have already violated " rules of this State for
the protection of the environment" because of the coal ash spill into the Dan River, as well as violations for water
pollution from coal ash ponds leaking into the Cape Fear River at Moncure and other sites around the state.
And send your comments to the Chatham and Lee County Boards of Commissioners
Lee County Board of Commissioners
Robert T. Reives rreives@leecountync.gov 919-774-4434
Reverend Dr. Ricky Frazier rfrazier@leecountync.gov 919-776-0083
Amy Dalrymple adalrymple@leecountync.gov 910-890-1389
Dr. Andre Knecht aknecht@leecountync.gov 919.770.1875
Doc Oldham doldham@leecountync.gov 919-776-6615
Tim Sloan tsloan@leecountync.gov 919-770-3861
Kirk Smith ksmith@leecountync.gov919-935-3197
Chatham County Board of Commissioners
Jim Crawford, Chair james.crawford@chathamnc.org 919 933-9858
Mike Cross mike.cross@chathamnc.org 919 774-3309
Diana Hales diana.hales@chathamnc.org 919 663-2372
Karen Howard karen.howard@chathamnc.org 919 636-5799
Walter Petty walter.petty@chathamnc.org 919 200-1940