HomeMy WebLinkAboutCFE minutes 060914
1
Orange County
Commission for the Environment
Meeting Summary
June 9, 2014
Orange County West Campus Office Building, Hillsborough
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
PRESENT: Jan Sassaman (Chair), May Becker, Peter Cada, Loren Hintz, Donna Lee Jones,
William Newby, Jeanette O’Connor, Lydia Wegman
ABSENT: David Neal, Steve Niezgoda, Rebecca Ray, Gary Saunders, David Welch
STAFF: Rich Shaw, Tom Davis GUESTS: Indira Everett and Mark McIntire (Duke Energy)
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I. Call to Order – Sassaman called the meeting to order at 7:38 pm.
II. Ad ditions or Changes to Agenda – No changes or additions.
III. Minutes – Sassaman asked for comments on the minutes for May 12. Hintz motioned to
approve as written; Cada seconded. Approved unanimously.
IV. CFE Appointments – Sassaman welcomed Newby to the CFE. Newby introduced
himself, and CFE members followed with brief introductions. Sassaman said the other
new members (Leath and Miller) would attend the August meeting.
V. Coal Ash site remediation by Duke Energy – Sassaman welcomed Indira Everett and
Mark McIntire from Duke Energy, who had asked to present an update on the Dan River
coal ash spill and Duke Energy’s strategy for addressing 33 coal ash sites that they
manage throughout North Carolina.
Everett said she is Duke Energy’s District Manager for Government and Community
Relations for Orange, Durham, Lee, and Chatham counties. She thanked Commissioner
Barry Jacobs and the CFE for arranging this opportunity to speak on these issues.
Everett said she and McIntire were here to talk about any matters and answer any
questions about coal ash. Both are actively engaged in addressing the Dan River spill
and are working hard to talk to the community in that area and near any of their plants.
Everett referred CFE members to handouts in their meeting materials: 1) an update on
the company’s response to the Feb. 2 coal ash spill, and 2) a background sheet about
coal ash in NC. She handed out a summary of Duke Energy’s ash management plan
from the company’s website: www.duke-energy.com/ash-management. She said Duke
Energy has 33 coal ash basins in NC—14 of which are near current or former coal-
powered power plants. Everett said Duke Energy hired an independent engineering firm
to assess the conditions of all 33 sites. Duke Energy is reviewing the findings they
received on May 31 and will develop a strategy to address each site on a case-by-case
basis. A report will be out by the end of 2014. McIntire noted that considerable work is
going on at many sites prior to that report coming out.
McIntire said he is Director of Environmental Affairs for Duke Energy in NC. He provided
background on his previous work experiences, including NCDENR and Progress
2
Energy. He said Duke Energy has taken ownership for the Dan River spill and for all of
its coal ash sites. He encouraged CFE members to contact him with any questions.
CFE members provided feedback and asked several questions.
McIntire described Duke Energy’s energy production facilities in North Carolina. He
noted they had shut down seven coal-powered plants and in the near future may be
announcing plans to shut down some of the remaining seven coal-powered plants in NC.
He said Duke Energy’s energy production in NC is currently 1/3 nuclear, 1/3 coal, and
1/3 natural gas – with the percentage of natural gas generated facilities on the rise. He
said Duke operates 20 hydroelectric facilities and has a growing number of renewable
energy facilities operated by third parties.
McIntire said Duke Energy’s emissions of greenhouse gases has reduced by 30 percent
since 1995, but is still the second largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the US. He
then described some of the ground and surface water monitoring and toxicity testing that
occurs at each facility, and the excellent compliance rate with state regulations.
McIntire discussed Duke Energy’s plans to excavate and remove coal ash from the site
next to the Dan River. He said this is one of five high-risk sites located near water
resources. In each case they try to find markets to re-use the ash, such as for an airport
runway in Asheville. He discussed the extensive sampling that has been done in the Dan
River, the results showing compliance with drinking water standards, and the 39,000
tons of ash that was released into the river. McIntire said the USEPA wants Duke
Energy to remove a portion of that material, although the US Fish & Wildlife Service
feels it may be more harmful to aquatic wildlife by removing the ash.
McIntire responded to questions from CFE members on the following subjects:
Becker asked questions about surface water monitoring. McIntire explained the
difference between discharge monitoring versus ambient water quality monitoring—
noting that Duke Energy provides monthly reports on its effluent discharge
monitoring in order to remain in compliance with its federal permits.
Hintz asked about the testing for selenium and thallium. McIntire explained testing
that occurs both upstream (for background data) and down gradient. He noted there
have been no verified cases of well contamination from coal ash.
Wegman asked when the reports from the independent assessment would be
released. Everett said it may be coming out in July 2014. McIntire identified several
separate reports being completed and released on separate timeframes.
Newby asked if coal ash is used for paving roadways. McIntire said yes, coal ash
can be used for interstate highway construction, although NCDOT has recently
expressed reluctance due to the recent bad publicity.
O’Connor asked why Duke Energy and other utilities feel it’s too expensive to
relocate coal ash from river corridors. McIntire said Duke shareholders will pay to
relocate coal ash from the Dan River facility, but he is unsure who will pay to relocate
from other sites. He said in some cases there is no clear benefit to the environment
from relocating the ash. Also, some sites are so large that the truck traffic could be
more detrimental to air quality than may be worthwhile.
Sassaman asked if Duke Energy prioritized its sites for remediation. McIntire said
they have done so at the macro level, and have identified five sites in locations
3
associated with drinking water as top priority: Asheville, Cliffside (Mooresville),
Riverbend (Mount Holly/retired plant), Sutton (Wilmington/retired plant), and Dan
River (Eden/retired plant). Other sites have yet to be prioritized.
Sassaman asked if Duke Energy monitors for radionuclides. McIntire said this is not
a significant issue for coal ash.
Sassaman thanked Everett and McIntire for their information. Everett will provide their
contact information for the staff to provide CFE members if they had further questions.
VI. State of the Environment 2014 – Shaw reported on the status of the report, and
thanked Sassaman, Wegman, and Davis for their help with the Air and Energy section.
He reported that Niezgoda had reported back on dead or inactive links in the report,
which Shaw will address. Sassaman reviewed the list of tasks needed to complete each
section (from the May meeting) and identified who was working on each task. Becker
and Cada said they would meet to decide on the status and trends for the Water section.
Sassaman asked Shaw to provide a revised draft of the Air and Energy section to him
and Wegman on or before June 27.
VII. Environmental Summit – Shaw reported that the following dates have been identified
for holding the summit: September 13, September 20, and October 11. He said there are
no UNC home football games on either of those dates, nor have any major events or
festivals been identified thus far. Shaw stated a preference of October 11.
CFE members agreed on October 11 as first choice and September 20 as back -up date.
Shaw said staff will confirm the availability of the Maple View venue.
Sassaman asked the summit subcommittee members to communicate with staff over the
next two months on potential speakers for the panel discussion. Hintz noted that the May
meeting summary included three suggested speakers: Don Francisco (UNC Chapel
Hill/water issues), Avner Vengosh (Duke/fracking), Mike Kunz (NC Botanical
Garden/invasive plant species, and Judd Edeburn (Duke/forest management).
Sassaman asked staff and CFE members to report back at the August meeting.
VIII. Updates and Information Items – Information on the following subjects was provided
and selected items were summarized by staff: a) Nature of Orange photo contest, b)
funding for Orange County rural curbside recycling programs, c) coal ash found on Town
of Chapel Hill property, d) other coal ash sites in the Triangle and rural NC, e) solar farm
planned off Mt. Sinai Road, f) widening of I-40, g) NC law allows fracking, h) proposed
reduction of air quality monitors, i) Chatham Park development (Pittsboro), j) Jordan
Lake water circulators on hold, k) USEPA sets limits on
IX. Adjournment – Sassaman adjourned the meeting at 9:30 pm.
Summary by Rich Shaw, DEAPR Staff