CFE minutes 060914 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

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