Transcript Overview of the North Carolina Electronic Discharge

Jeff Poupart
Water Quality Permitting Section Chief
NCDENR / Division of Water Resources
Questions?
 Does the New Law Really Impact Facilities other than
Duke
 Has the Coal Ash Challenge changed How DWR
interacts with Regulated Industries?
2
Does the New Law Really Impact
Facilities other than Duke?
Simple answer Yes and No
 Yes some spill reporting requirements
changed
 No If you don’t burn coal or store
combustion residuals
Has the Coal Ash Challenge
changed How DWR interacts with
Regulated Industries?
First let’s start with some
background on coal ash
So how did this coal ash stuff start?
TVA Kinston Power Plant
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 CatawbaWateree 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
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
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
Groundhog Day February 2, 2014
Pipe collapses at Dan River Facility
What was released?
• ~ 30,000 – 39,000 tons of ash from primary ash basin
• ~ 24 – 27 million gallons of ash basin water
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 8th
48” pipe plugged on Feb.
Plug design used
to seal 48”pipe
th
8
Grout/concrete
pumped in to pipe
…So where did all the coal ash
go?
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
First coal ash deposit identified immediately
downstream of the 48” pipe outlet.
Removal of ash deposit completed early March.
 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
 Aluminum & Iron remain elevated at
all stations due to background
contributions
 All data posted on DWR website
 Sediment
 100 yards from release:
 Aluminum, Arsenic, Barium,
Copper, Iron, Mercury Above
EPA Screening Values
 Danville:
 Aluminum, Boron, Iron &
Strontium Above EPA Screening
Values
Fish Tissue –
• First round = background
• Nothing above federal and state
guidelines
 Surface water sampling




started February 3rd
Daily through midMarch
Weekly mid-March to
May
Twice/month June-July
Monthly beginning
August
• NC
– 3 Stations – Hwy 14, VA Line &
Milton
– Monthly surface water, yearly fish
tissue, yearly benthos
• Duke
– Continuing monitoring
– Natural Resources Damage
Assessment and Restoration
Agreement
Unauthorized Surface Water
Discharges
 Types of Unauthorized Discharges
 Engineered e.g. dam toe drains
 Unengineered seeps and weeps
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
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
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
 1st round of three draft NPDES permits are Went to
Public notice and Hearing is April 8
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
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)
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
Litigation Trend in NC
 What if DWR doesn't’t 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
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
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
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
 Industry’s responsibility is to consistently audit their
processes, analyze risk and maintain pollution control
systems to avoid being the next big environmental
issue.
Question/Answer