This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Slide 1
Jeff Poupart Water Quality Permitting Section Chief NCDENR /
Division of Water Resources
Slide 2
Questions? Does the New Law Really Impact Facilities other than
Duke Has the Coal Ash Challenge changed How DWR interacts with
Regulated Industries? 2
Slide 3
Does the New Law Really Impact Facilities other than Duke?
Simple answer Yes and No Yes some spill reporting requirements
changed No If you dont burn coal or store combustion residuals
Slide 4
Has the Coal Ash Challenge changed How DWR interacts with
Regulated Industries? First lets start with some background on coal
ash
Slide 5
So how did this coal ash stuff start?
Slide 6
TVA Kinston Power Plant
Slide 7
How did we get here In 2012, the Catawba Riverkeeper Foundation
and SELC settled suits with SCE&G and Santee Cooper under which
they agreed to remove 2.4 million tons and 1.3 million tons of coal
ash from the Catawba- Wateree River near Columbia, South Carolina
and another plant near Myrtle Beach. 2013 SELC issues 60 day Notice
of Intent to sue in NC to Riverbend and Asheville Duke power plants
Spring 2013 NC DENR files for injunctive relief in superior court
eventually expands to all 14 plants
Slide 8
How did we get here Throughout 2013 and into 2014 Cases and
initial proposed settlement work their way through various court
procedures and evidence discovery and motions In the mean time
there was another high profile case not related to ash but related
to coal that had the publics interest
Slide 9
January 9, 2014 Freedom Industries Charleston, West Virginia
Release of up to 7,500 US gallons of crude 4-
methylcyclohexanemethanol (MCHM) into the Elk River Crude MCHM is a
chemical foaming agent utilized in the processing of coal Outcome
Up to 300,000 residents within nine counties were without access to
potable water Injuries 169+ affected 14 hospitalized
Slide 10
Groundhog Day February 2, 2014 Pipe collapses at Dan River
Facility
Slide 11
~ 30,000 39,000 tons of ash from primary ash basin ~ 24 27
million gallons of ash basin water What was released?
Slide 12
How and when was the spill stopped? 1. First attempted using an
inflatable bladder 2. This process failed several times 3. Next
tried to plug pipe at failure point. 4. This process failed due to
instability of ash 5. Designed a plug system to fill the pipe from
the outlet end with grout/concrete 6. This process was successful
on Feb 8 th
Slide 13
48 pipe plugged on Feb. 8 th Plug design used to seal 48pipe
Grout/concrete pumped in to pipe
Slide 14
So where did all the coal ash go?
Slide 15
Dan River Long Term Remediation Sec. Skvarla requested EPA take
role of lead agency under CERCLA for response to Dan River release
Response crosses state lines Long term activities being coordinated
by Stakeholders Group consisting of EPA, NC DENR, VA DEQ, US FWS,
US Army Corps of Engineers, US Coast Guard, Rockingham County,
Danville, South Boston, Clarksville and Duke Energy Stakeholders
Group meets every Wednesday in Eden, NC Stakeholders Group share
and discuss sampling results: - Chemical analyses, sediment
sampling, fish community, benthic data, fish tissue, etc.
Stakeholders Group coordinate and collaborate to establish long
term remediation plan
Slide 16
First coal ash deposit identified immediately downstream of the
48 pipe outlet. Removal of ash deposit completed early March.
Slide 17
Surface Water through June 2014 Surface Water through June 2014
Arsenic has decreased from 40 ug/L to less than 2.0 ug/L at Draper
Landing by mid-March Arsenic has decreased from 40 ug/L to less
than 2.0 ug/L at Draper Landing by mid-March Aluminum & Iron
remain elevated at all stations due to background contributions
Aluminum & Iron remain elevated at all stations due to
background contributions All data posted on DWR website All data
posted on DWR website
Fish Tissue First round = background Nothing above federal and
state guidelines
Slide 20
Surface water sampling started February 3 rd Surface water
sampling started February 3 rd Daily through mid- March Daily
through mid- March Weekly mid-March to May Weekly mid-March to May
Twice/month June-July Twice/month June-July Monthly beginning
August Monthly beginning August
Slide 21
NC NC 3 Stations Hwy 14, VA Line & Milton Monthly surface
water, yearly fish tissue, yearly benthos Duke Duke Continuing
monitoring Natural Resources Damage Assessment and Restoration
Agreement
Slide 22
Unauthorized Surface Water Discharges Types of Unauthorized
Discharges Engineered e.g. dam toe drains Unengineered seeps and
weeps
Slide 23
How is permitting of seep determined The flow and pollutant
concentration of the unpermitted discharge is compared with the
dilution flow of the stream it flows int0 if there is no reasonable
potential to violate water quality standards the discharge is given
monitoring only, no limits in the permit. Examples of drought flow
in River at various coal power plant sites Buck 1030 cubic feet
second 554 MGD Asheville 306 cfs or 165 million gallons per day
Mayo, Roxboro discharge into Reservoir no dilution must meet
standard at end of pipe
Slide 24
How is permitting of seep determined As seeps flow change in
flow appear and disappear NC has taken the approach of aggregating
the seeps together and estimating total flow plus additional factor
this will mean that unless significant changes occur major
modification of permit not necessary Seeps combined outfall Monthly
monitoring for 18 different parameters in draft permit
Slide 25
Current Situation We have received applications to modify or
renew permits for all 14 affected coal fired plants We have
tentatively agreed on a process for permitting potential dewatering
discharges as flows are diverted from ash ponds 1 st round of three
draft NPDES permits are Went to Public notice and Hearing is April
8
Slide 26
Has the Coal Ash Challenge changed How DWR interacts with
Regulated Industries? Largest fine in NC DWR History $25.1 Million
for groundwater contamination at Sutton plant Every single piece of
paper back and forth between the company is up on the internet
Press releases issued for almost every interaction Often picked up
by AP or other news service
Slide 27
Has the Coal Ash Challenge changed How DWR interacts with
Regulated Industries? Multiple court actions filed Federal and
State Thousands of public comments received on original settlement
Unprecedented level of Third party interaction (SELC and
Riverkeepers et al)
Slide 28
Has the Coal Ash Challenge changed How DWR interacts with
Regulated Industries? Intense involvement by EPA Region IV on every
aspect of every action we take Increase in Frequency of monitoring
and number of parameters sampled Every word and every sampling
result in the history of the each facilitates file scrutinized
Slide 29
Litigation Trend in NC What if DWR doesn'tt take a formal
enforcement action 1st Lawsuit American Canoe Assoc vs. City of
Greensboro 1998 mostly failure to monitor violations DWR received
four Notices of Intent to sue under CWA from SELC just last year.
EPA ECHO website of all compliance date and Internet make it much
easier for public to be aware of violations. Increased interest in
permit issuance under Article 150 B of state statutes DWR
developing new enforcement tools
Slide 30
Slide 31
Has the Coal Ash Challenge changed How DWR interacts with
Regulated Industries? Yes and No No, We are still the courtesy
professional regulators we were on Feb 1, 2014 Yes, the world has
changed communication occurs in a flash where traditional and
social media look for the next big thing (e.g. In the picture is
the dress white and gold or blue and black) Yes, Once the focus has
started on an issue even the smallest detail receives laser
focus
Slide 32
Has the Coal Ash Challenge changed How DWR interacts with
Regulated Industries? Yes Citizens are more educated and involved a
few minutes on Google and anyone can become an expert on a
pollutant or an industrial sector or a permitting process We both
the regulators and industry need to continue to strive to make sure
that ALL documentation is accurate We have to continue to work
together to maintain and build public trust that we are protecting
the environment
Slide 33
Has the Coal Ash Challenge changed How DWR interacts with
Regulated Industries? Our responsibility is to continue to issue
permits, conduct inspection and take proper compliance and
enforcement actions when necessary Industrys responsibility is to
consistently audit their processes, analyze risk and maintain
pollution control systems to avoid being the next big environmental
issue.