Comments on EPA Proposed Rules on Management of Coal Combustion 

Residuals (CCR) from Electric Utilities

Page 1 of 11

Existing Programs with Regulatory Authority 

Three divisions in the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) have a 

role in the oversight of coal combustion residuals (CCR) management (Division of Land Resources 

(DLR), Division of Waste Management (DWM) and Division of Water Quality (DWQ). As background for 

these comments and in response to EPA requests for information, current authority for each of the 

existing state programs is described below.

Dam Safety: The Division of Land Resources (DLR) implements the North Carolina Dam Safety 

Law. The Dam Safety Law of 1967 (NCGS 143-215.23) was amended in 2009 to include dams at 

non-nuclear power generation facilities formerly under jurisdiction of the North Carolina 

Utilities Commission, effective January 1, 2010. This includes CCR disposal facilities involving or 

formerly involving sluiced waste delivery. From the effective date, activities involving 

construction, alteration, repair, or removal of dams at these facilities require prior written 

approval from the DLR in accordance with regulations 15A NCAC 2K. In addition, the statute and 

regulations require approved activity to be performed under supervision by an engineer legally 

qualified in the state of North Carolina. These facilities are now included in the inspection 

program authorized by NCGS 143-215.32 and detailed in 15A NCAC 2K .0217 and .0301, and are 

subject to all enforcement procedures authorized by NCGS 143-215.36 and detailed in 15A 

NCAC 2K .0302, .0401 and .0402. It should be noted that regulatory authority for prescribing 

minimum release requirements from dams to support aquatic habitat is provided by NCGS 143-

215.31 and is detailed in 15A NCSC 2K .0500.

CCR Landfills: The North Carolina Division of Waste Management (DWM) implements North 

Carolina Solid Waste law and regulations that apply to coal combustion residuals generated as a 

dry CCR. 

North Carolina has eight landfills that currently receive CCR and two closed CCR landfills. These 

landfills are built to RCRA Subtitle D Part 257 standards and according to North Carolina 

industrial sanitary landfill regulations. Five of the active landfills are lined with a single liner or a 

single composite liner, and groundwater is monitored by wells at the compliance review 

boundary. Three of the active landfills are sited on previously used CCR (dry) impoundments or 

landfills. These landfills have a double liner with a leak detection system between the liners. 

Monitoring wells are not required at these facilities. Compliance is determined based on

monitoring of the leak detection system. The closed unlined landfills are under post-closure 

care, including groundwater monitoring and maintenance of the landfill cap. 

The North Carolina Solid Waste Management program includes statutes and rules pertaining to 

the following aspects of siting, design and operation of CCR industrial landfills:
Comments on EPA Proposed Rules on Management of Coal Combustion 

Residuals (CCR) from Electric Utilities

Page 2 of 11

 Landfills must be permitted according to North Carolina regulations NCAC 13B .0503 and 

.0504

 Location restrictions address depth to groundwater and distance to surface waters, 

wetlands, floodplains and parks. 

 Design criteria include a leachate collection system, closure cap and a composite liner, 

or alternately, the permittee must show that the design of the landfill will ensure that 

groundwater standards will not be exceeded at the compliance boundary. All active 

CCR landfills in North Carolina are lined. 

 CCR industrial landfills in North Carolina are inspected on a regular basis by Division of 

Waste Management staff.

 Groundwater detection monitoring is conducted at least semi-annually by the facility 

and reported to the Division of Waste Management. 

 Requirements for assessment monitoring, assessment of corrective measures, selection 

of remedy and implementations of the corrective action regulations are defined.

 Closure criteria and post-closure care requirements are included.

 All plans and reviews of applications and reports require approval by the Division of 

Waste Management before construction, operation, monitoring, assessment, corrective 

action, closure, or post-closure can occur.

CCR structural fills and beneficial reuse of dry CCR : North Carolina has approximately 75 

inactive CCR structural fills. The structural fills were primarily built after regulations became 

effective in 1994. Regulations 15A NCAC 13B .1700, Requirements for Beneficial Use of Coal 

Combustion By-Products, include requirements that the user give DWM notice of intent to 

construct and a final certification that construction was done according to regulations. The rules 

also set out siting, design, construction, operation, closure, and recordation requirements. The 

regulations also allow beneficial use of CCR without a permit as: 

 Soil nutrient additives under the authority of the North Carolina Department of Agriculture;

 Traction control material or road surface material if approved by the North Carolina 

Department of Transportation;

 A manufacturing component in products including concrete products, lightweight aggregate, 

roofing materials, plastics, paint, and roller-compacted concrete; 

 A substitute for materials or products such as blasting grit, roofing granules, filter cloth 

precoat for sludge dewatering and pipe bedding

 A stabilized structural fill product which is produced with a cementitious binder and 

compacted for the constructed end use. 

The regulations also require that generators of CCR report annually to DWM the amount of CCR 

produced, disposed, used in structural fills and used for other uses described above.
Comments on EPA Proposed Rules on Management of Coal Combustion 

Residuals (CCR) from Electric Utilities

Page 3 of 11

CCR surface impoundments: The North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) regulates 

disposal of CCR under the following programs:

NPDES Wastewater Strategy: The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

program regulates wastewater discharges to surface waters to ensure that surface water quality 

standards are maintained. The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) delegated this

program to the state of North Carolina. Additional North Carolina statutes and rules are found 

at G.S. 143-215.1 and 15A NCAC 2H.0100- Wastewater Discharges to Surface Waters. Currently, 

there are 14 coal-fired power plants in North Carolina that are covered under individual NPDES 

permits. 

 Technology-Based Effluent Limits. Discharges from coal plants to surface waters are subject 

to Federal EPA technology-based effluent limits found at 40 CFR 423- Steam Electric Power 

Generating Point Source Category. These federal guidelines cover discharges of fly ash and 

bottom ash transport water from coal ash ponds.

 Water Quality-Based Effluent Limits. Discharges to surface waters may also include effluent 

limits based on protection of state surface water quality standards (per 15A NCAC 2B.0200) 

or EPA water quality criteria.

 Ash Pond Structural Integrity Inspection. Responsibility for inspecting ash pond dams falls 

under jurisdiction of the Dam Safety Program within the Division of Land Resources (DENR) 

in accordance with 15A NCAC 2K.

 Groundwater Monitoring. Ash ponds regulated under NPDES permits are further regulated 

by rules for North Carolina groundwater standards found in 15A NCAC 2L. These rules 

require regulatory boundaries (e.g. Waste Boundary, Compliance Boundary) around all 

waste disposal areas. Action to be taken regarding exceedances of groundwater standards 

at the Compliance Boundary are in accordance with State Rules 15A NCAC 2L .0106. In 

December 2009, DWQ sent a letter to the 14 coal-fired power plants in the state, directing 

them to place wells at their Compliance Boundaries to help determine if any groundwater 

exceedances exist.

NPDES Stormwater Strategy: The NPDES program also regulates stormwater discharges to 

surface waters that are associated with industrial activity. Under 40 CFR 122, Category vii, 

steam electric-generating facilities, including coal handling sites, are subject to NPDES 

stormwater permitting requirements. 

The DWQ Stormwater Permitting Unit has researched potential stormwater contaminants from

coal combustion and formulated a consistent strategy for renewal of permits in 2009. This 

strategy includes:

 Stormwater semi-annual monitoring for 13 priority metals, including Mercury (Hg)

 Stormwater semi-annual monitoring for COD, TSS, pH, sulfates, and Oil & Grease

 Permits include “benchmark values” that are not limits. These benchmarks trigger 

responses under the facility’s Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SPPP), and may 

include more frequent (monthly) monitoring. 
Comments on EPA Proposed Rules on Management of Coal Combustion 

Residuals (CCR) from Electric Utilities

Page 4 of 11

DWQ is also investigating the potential influence of coal ash constituents on concrete ready-mix 

wastewater discharges.

Beneficial Reuse Permitting

DWQ regulates beneficial uses of coal combustion residuals (CCRs) that are defined as 

wastewater treatment residuals. Applicable North Carolina statutes and rules are found at G.S. 

143-215.1; 143-215.3(a) and 15A NCAC 2T.1200-Coal Combustion Products Management. The 

beneficial uses of CCRs allowed in North Carolina include the following:

 manufacturing component of products in which the CCRs are encapsulated in the 

manufactured product (e.g., concrete, brick, asphalt, plastics, etc.)

 fuel for combustion in boilers, furnaces, etc.

 cover and other uses at a landfill

 material for traction control during snow or ice events

 substitute for blasting grit, roofing granules, and filter cloth pre-coat for residuals 

dewatering 

 flowable fill for backfill of trenches; raw product for the stabilization of residuals;

 soil nutrient additive, amendment, or other agricultural purpose;

 overlay for roads, residential driveways, farm roads, and high-traffic farm areas

 bedding for pipes, railroad beds, and underground storage tanks; and structural fill

Currently, most of the beneficial uses of CCRs are deemed permitted under 15A NCAC 2T.1203. 

However, prior to some uses of un-encapsulated CCRs (e.g., agricultural uses, traction control, 

etc.), CCRs must meet leachate concentration limits. For land application, CCRs must also meet 

pollutant limits listed in 40 CFR 503.13.

Prior Approval Under Subtitle D Approach is Needed:

A system of prior approval of design and operational plans, such as the permitting system used in North 

Carolina, should be included in the regulations. A state agency should issue the prior approval for CCR 

disposal facilities. 

Existing state programs should have the ability to gain EPA program approval to implement permitting,

inspection/enforcement and other oversight of the CCR landfills and surface impoundments under RCRA 

Subtitle D. 

Groundwater monitoring and air criteria should be reported to the state program. 

Prior approval from the state program should be required for assessment monitoring plans, assessment 

of corrective measures, selection of remedy and implementations of the corrective action regulations, 

closure plans and post-closure care plans. 
Comments on EPA Proposed Rules on Management of Coal Combustion 

Residuals (CCR) from Electric Utilities

Page 5 of 11

Landfill Construction Standards and Monitoring System Alternatives needed: 

Liner Requirement: The proposed EPA regulations require two components for a composite liner: 

minimum 30-mil flexible membrane (HDPE must be 60 mil or greater) and a two-foot layer of compacted 

soil consisting of 1x10-7hydraulic conductivity or less. 

Comment: The range of site suitability characteristics and the scarcity of adequate clay for use in the 

required composite liner system (this is especially true in North Carolina) will make alternate liner 

designs a necessity. Alternative liner designs should be based on engineering comparisons and 

groundwater modeling that shows performance at the compliance boundary. 

Groundwater Monitoring: The proposed regulations would require landfills to have groundwater 

monitoring with a minimum of one upgradient and three downgradient wells. 

Comment: For the past several years, North Carolina has allowed by practice and then required by 

statute that landfills located on inactive (and dry) impoundments have a double liner with a leak 

detection zone. Alternative methods to detect releases from CCR landfills to groundwater, such as use 

of a leak detection system, should be allowed in the regulations. 

Surface Impoundment Construction Standards: 

According to the proposed regulations, new and retro-fitted impoundments will require a composite 

liner, with the upper component consisting of a minimum 30-mil flexible membrane liner (FML) and the 

lower component consisting of at least a two-foot layer of compacted soil with a hydraulic conductivity 

of no more than 1×10−7cm/sec. The FML component must be installed in direct and uniform contact 

with the compacted soil component. 

Comment: The placement of the lower component (two feet of compacted clay) would be difficult or 

impossible due to the wet conditions of active impoundments and the scarcity of adequate clay for use 

in the liner system (this is especially true in North Carolina). Alternative but equivalent surface 

impoundment designs are needed in the regulations. 

Note errors in the following proposed regulations: §257.71 Design Criteria for Existing CCR Surface 

Impoundments (a)(1) and §257.72 Design Criteria for New CCR Surface Impoundments and Lateral

Expansions (a)(1) should read:

“With a composite liner as defined in paragraph (a)(2) of this section and a leachate collection 

system between above the upper and lower components component of the composite liner. The 

design of the composite liner and leachate collection system must be prepared by, or under the 

direction of, and certified by an independent registered, professional engineer.” 

Distance to Groundwater: 

§257.60 Placement above the natural water table (a) should read: 
Comments on EPA Proposed Rules on Management of Coal Combustion 

Residuals (CCR) from Electric Utilities

Page 6 of 11

“(a) New CCR landfills and lateral expansions and New CCR Surface impoundments and lateral 

expansions must be constructed with a base that is located a minimum of two four feet above the 

upper limit of the natural water table.”

The above clarifies that lateral expansions of landfills must meet the standard, and that the distance 

from the liner to the upper limit of the natural seasonal high water table should be increased from two 

feet to a minimum of four feet, as is required in North Carolina. 

Statistical Analysis of the Groundwater: 

The proposed regulations require statistical analysis to demonstrate real background concentrations and 

alternative potential contaminant sources. 

Comment: Statistical analysis can be useful, but many data points are needed for a valid statistical 

analysis on environmental data. It could take years to cross the minimum required data threshold; 

therefore, statistical analysis may not be an appropriate tool by itself given the extended time period 

needed for it to function properly. 

An alternative to the use of statistical analysis should be allowed. The EPA should require that an 

exceedance of established groundwater standards trigger the groundwater assessment and corrective 

action requirements. 

Additional Structural Fill Regulations Needed: 

Within the definition of a landfill, “large scale fill” is not defined. We propose that the EPA quantify the 

size of the fill and take “large scale” out of the definition § 257.40 Disposal standards for 

owners/operators of CCR landfills and CCR surface impoundments. (a)(2): 

“CCR Landfill means a disposal facility or part of a facility where CCRs are placed in or on land 

and which is not a land treatment facility, a surface impoundment, an underground injection well, 

a salt dome formation, a salt bed formation, an underground mine, a cave, or a corrective action 

management unit. For purposes of this proposed rule, landfills also include piles, sand and gravel 

pits, quarries, and/or, large scale fill operations where CCR exceeds 5,000 cubic yards. Sites that 

are excavated so that more coal ash can be used as fill are also considered CCR landfills.”

For all of the (small) structural fills not regulated under the definition of CCR landfill, regulation is 

needed by EPA, including: 

 Designated end use encapsulating fill on top. End use includes: embankments, foundations, 

construction foundations, and for bases/sub-bases under a structure or a footprint of a paved 

road, parking lot, sidewalk, walkway, or similar structure

 Fill must be completed within certain time period. (NC DENR suggests 18 months.)
Comments on EPA Proposed Rules on Management of Coal Combustion 

Residuals (CCR) from Electric Utilities

Page 7 of 11

 Separation to groundwater from waste equal to or exceeding two feet

 Limit the type of soil under fill to specific soil types (cannot be built on coarse sand, gravel, or 

within areas of Karst topography)

 No excavation allowed before fill placement 

 Groundwater and dust monitoring requirements (It should be noted that lead, arsenic, and 

sulfate consistently exceed the North Carolina groundwater standards at a structural fill in the 

state.)

Beneficial Uses:

Regardless of whether Subtitle C or D is chosen, it is important that beneficial use (encapsulated and 

unencapsulated) is better defined within the proposed regulations. The regulations should include 

clarification on the use of CCR as fill material. More evaluation should be conducted for both 

encapsulated and unencapsulated uses of CCRs, and detailed guidance should be developed regarding 

beneficial use. EPA-established guidance and regulations will assure better consistency in requirements 

from state to state.

For storage prior to beneficial use, North Carolina’s current administrative code (15A NCAC 2T.1206) 

requires setbacks from surface waters, water supply sources/wells, and the seasonal high water table. 

EPA should consider these provisions in the federal rules to address concerns regarding stockpiles, 

storage duration, potential surface runoff or groundwater contamination.

Definitions for: “Active life”/“Existing” CCR Landfill/“Surface Impoundment”

“Active life”, according to the proposed regulations, refers to the time period from initial placement of 

CCR to closure of the landfills and surface impoundment. This cradle-to-grave approach is in conflict 

with the definition for “existing”’ which requires that the landfill or surface impoundment be “in 

operation” as of the date of the regulations. The Subtitle D approach would be more protective if it 

considered, at a minimum, all of the landfills and impoundments which did not obtain proper closure as 

“existing”. 

A “surface impoundment” or landfill will still pose a threat to the environment even after it no longer 

receives waste. This risk will be minimized when impoundment closure requirements, including cap and 

cover, are met. We propose that a surface impoundment be considered active until it meets closure 

requirements. 

(Note reference error in proposed regulation § 257.40 Disposal standards for owners/operators of CCR 

landfills and CCR surface impoundments. (a)(2) Definitions: 

“Active life means the period of operation beginning with the initial placement of CCRs in the 

landfill or surface impoundment and ending at completion of closure activities in accordance with 

§ 257.110. § 257.100.”)
Comments on EPA Proposed Rules on Management of Coal Combustion 

Residuals (CCR) from Electric Utilities

Page 8 of 11

Financial Assurance: 

EPA should include regulations requiring financial assurance to cover the costs of future corrective 

actions, closure and post-closure care. 

Comment and Supporting Information Solicited In the Federal Register: 

The following is in response to EPA’s solicitation for comments on beneficial use, stigma, general 

comment on co-proposals (including subtitle C and D), Surface Impoundment Closeout, and damage 

cases: 

Beneficial Use

 EPA Request: Information and data on the extent to which states request and evaluate CCR 

characterization data prior to the beneficial use of unencapsulated CCRs.

Response: Unencapsulated CCR must meet both the ceiling concentration limits and monthly 

average concentration limits established in 40 CFR 503 for the distribution of residuals. The 

analysis results must be submitted prior to the use of CCRs and annually thereafter for land 

application. 

 EPA Request: Whether certain uses of CCRs (e.g., uses involving unencapsulated uses of CCRs) 

warrant tighter control and why such tighter control is necessary.

Response: Additional evaluation is recommended for agricultural use (land application) and 

structural fill, where large volumes of CCRs are involved, to determine if tighter controls such as 

pollutant limits and setbacks are required due to potential causes of groundwater and surface 

water contamination. In addition, to better protect groundwater resources, liners should be 

required for a large-scale structural fill. 

 

 EPA Request: Is it necessary to better define beneficial use or develop detailed guidance on the 

beneficial use of CCRs to ensure protection of human health and the environment? (Including: 

Should certain unencapsulated beneficial uses be prohibited?

Response: It is necessary to better define beneficial use and develop detailed guidance, since 

there are many unclear aspects of the beneficial use of CCRs. At a minimum, the rules should 

define and clarify the following: encapsulated and unencapsulated uses; large-scale fill 
Comments on EPA Proposed Rules on Management of Coal Combustion 

Residuals (CCR) from Electric Utilities

Page 9 of 11

operations; structural fill; agricultural beneficial uses; and any unencapsulated uses that involve 

large volumes of CCRs that may be prohibited due to potential impacts to the environment. 

 

 EPA Request: If characterization of materials is required, what type of characterization is most 

appropriate? If the CCRs exceed the toxicity characteristic at pH levels different from the TCLP, 

should they be excluded from beneficial use? When are totals levels relevant?

Response: Risk analysis for potential pollutants in CCR that are not currently included in 40 CFR 

503 should be conducted to determine if additional pollutant limits are needed for CCR. The 

risk analysis and requirements need to be specific, such as “a distance of 100 feet from storage 

or land application of CCRs to a ground water receptor is required”. It is also recommended that 

CCRs that exceed the toxicity characteristic at pH levels different from the TCLP should be 

excluded from beneficial use if the material will be exposed to such pH levels for extended 

periods of time. 

 EPA Request: Historically, EPA has proposed or imposed conditions on other types of hazardous 

wastes used in a manner constituting disposal (e.g., maximum application rates and risk-based 

concentration limits for cement kiln dust used as a liming agent in agricultural applications- see 

64 FR 45639; August 20, 1999) and maximum allowable total concentrations for nonnutritive 

and toxic metals in zinc fertilizers produced from recycled hazardous secondary materials (see 

67 FR 48393; July 24, 2002). Should EPA establish standards, such as maximum/minimum 

thresholds, or rely on implementing states to impose CCR site-specific limits based on front-end 

characterization that ensures individual beneficial uses remain protective?

Response: EPA should establish standards to ensure that beneficial uses of CCR are protective 

of human health and the environment and to ensure consistency in management of these 

materials throughout the country. Standards should include storage specifications and 

operational requirements of the CCR until such time as the CCR is incorporated into a product.

 EPA Request: Whether additional beneficial uses of CCRs have been established, since the May 

2000 Regulatory Determination, that have not been discussed elsewhere in today’s preamble. 

The Agency solicits comment on any new uses of CCR, as well as the information and data which 

support that CCRs are beneficially used in an environmentally sound manner.

Response: North Carolina approves CCR use for the uses listed in EPA’s May 2000 Regulatory 

Determination. North Carolina has not established additional beneficial uses of CCRs since the 

adoption of the rules 15A NCAC 02T.1200 in 2006.

RCRA Subtitle D 
Comments on EPA Proposed Rules on Management of Coal Combustion 

Residuals (CCR) from Electric Utilities

Page 10 of 11

 EPA Request: Is the subtitle “D prime” option as protective of human health and the 

environment?

Response: The subtitle “D-Prime” modification allows the continued operation of wet storage 

impoundments for the rest of their “useful life.” Based on the findings presented in the proposed 

language and current documented damage cases, these sites have a potential to cause, or are 

currently causing, groundwater contamination. Allowing facilities to continue operating these 

surface impoundments without having to properly close them or install liners does not provide the 

best option for the protection of human health and the environment. Regulation under Subtitle D,

but with additional provisions to address issues not covered in the Subtitle D provisions, is the best 

option. The use of Subtitle D could be protective if the rules address concerns raised by these 

comments and the program is implemented through state permitting programs that meet minimum 

federal standards.

Damage Cases 

 EPA Request: EPA requested a response from the State on a report submitted to EPA on 

February 24, 2010 by the Environmental Integrity Project and Earth Justice. 

 Response: The February 24, 2010 report “Out of Control: Mounting Damages from Coal Ash 

Waste Sites” addresses the following six North Carolina sites that have on-site coal ash storage:

o Sutton Steam Plant, Progress Energy – Wilmington, NC 

o Lee Steam Plant, Progress Energy – Goldsboro, NC 

o Cape Fear Steam Plant, Progress Energy – Moncure, NC 

o Asheville Steam Electric Plant, Progress Energy – Arden, NC 

o Belews Creek Steam Station, Duke Energy – Belews Creek, NC 

o Swift Creek Landfill, ReUse Technology, Inc./Full Circle Solutions, Inc. - Rocky Mount, NC

Surface impoundments: Overall, the levels of data reported are accurate; however, the data 

reported was from wells located inside the State Compliance Boundary, with the exception of 

Sutton Steam Plant. (The State Compliance Boundary establishes the location at which 

groundwater standards must be met; exceedance of the state groundwater standard can be 

allowed within the compliance boundary as long as the groundwater standard is met at the 

boundary.) In addition, there is no reference in the report to background or naturally occurring 

concentrations, which may be applicable to several of the listed exceedances. As for 

groundwater contamination approaching property lines, with the exception of the Sutton Steam 

Plant data submitted to DENR has not indicated this. Although corrective action has not been 

required due to lack of documentation for non-compliance, DWQ has sent a letter to both 

Progress and Duke Energy, directing them to place wells at their Compliance Boundaries to help 

DENR determine if further action will be required.
Comments on EPA Proposed Rules on Management of Coal Combustion 

Residuals (CCR) from Electric Utilities

Page 11 of 11

As for Sutton Steam Plant, in 1987 a Notice of Non-Compliance was sent to the Carolina Power 

and Light Company (now Progress Energy) concerning chloride and total dissolved solids 

contamination. More recently Progress Energy noted exceedances of several constituents and 

submitted a site assessment plan to the DWQ’s Regional Office. This is currently under review 

to determine what additional action is required in accordance with State Rules15A NCAC 2L 

.0106(d).

Belews Creek Steam Station Landfills: Three landfills exist at this site, not the five that the 

document suggested may be on site. The report assumed that Permits 85-01 and 85-02 are 

located on the Belews Creek site, when those permits actually refer to permitted facilities 

elsewhere in the county. 

The document also states that “Information obtained does not indicate whether any of these 

[three landfill] sites are lined”. Landfill 85-03 (Pinehall Road) is an inactive unlined landfill that 

has been closed and capped. 85-04 (Craig Road Ash) and 85-05 (FGD) are active lined landfills. 

During efforts by Duke Power to expand the existing Pinehall Road landfill, contamination was 

found in wells. Assuming that the contamination in the wells at the Pinehall Road landfill may 

be in part attributable to the landfill (as well as the surrounding ponds and areas of ash on the 

ground), Duke Power and DWM created a corrective action plan to close and cap the landfill. 

The cap, consisting of a drainage geonet overlain by a 40 mil LLDPE geomembrane and two feet 

of soil cover over the entire landfill, was designed to cut off infiltration and thus cut off any 

continuing contamination under and around the landfill. 

Some of the original groundwater wells, which are located at extreme distances from the landfill 

and in areas where there was waste on the ground, are not representative of the groundwater 

moving from the landfill. Duke Power worked with the DWM to come up with meaningful 

groundwater monitoring locations. The report refers to the closure of a number of monitoring 

wells. These wells were closed because they did not represent what was occurring at the 

landfill. The document refers to an exceedance during groundwater monitoring events at both 

of the lined landfills. Craig Rd Ash landfill began accepting waste August 22, 2007; the FGD 

landfill began accepting waste February 12, 2008. The exceedances noted were found by the 

DWM to be background levels.

Swift Creek Structural Fill “Landfill”: The damage assessment for the Swift Creek site appears 

essentially accurate.