S O U T H E R N E N V I R O N M E N TA L L AW C E N T E R
Telephone 919-967-1450
601 WEST ROSEMARY STREET, SUITE 220
CHAPEL HILL, NC 27516-2356
Facsimile 919-929-9421
April 28, 2017
VIA ELECTRONIC AND U.S. MAIL
Joseph Voelker
Division of Air Quality
1641 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1641
[email protected]
Re: Comments on the Draft Title V Permit Modification for Marshall Steam Station
(Permit No. 03676T54)
Dear Mr. Voelker:
The Southern Environmental Law Center, on behalf of itself, the Catawba Riverkeeper,
Clean Air Carolina, and Medical Advocates for Healthy Air, respectfully submits the following
comments on the draft air permit modification proposed by the North Carolina Department of
Environment Quality (“NCDEQ”) for the Marshall Steam Station (“Marshall”), which is owned
and operated by Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (“Duke Energy”).
The draft permit does not protect the people of North Carolina. Instead, it allows Duke
Energy to cut corners on meeting its federal mercury and air toxic requirements by adding
bromides to its coal plant operations, even though these substances are known to cause
carcinogens to form in downstream drinking water intakes. In fact, Duke Energy has testified
under oath that its use of these same bromide additives in recent years caused carcinogens to
form in the drinking water system for the Charlotte metropolitan area, which serves
approximately one million customers.
NCDEQ must reject Duke Energy’s proposal to repeat this same mistake again, and
instead require Duke Energy to install modern, widely-used baghouse pollution controls to limit
its mercury and air toxic pollution at Marshall. And rather than allowing Duke Energy to
increase its bromide discharges, NCDEQ must require Duke Energy to stop the bromide
discharges from its coal ash basin by removing the contents of the basin to dry, lined storage.
I.
NCDEQ’s Proposed Permit Allows Duke Energy To Use A Substance That Has
Already Caused Carcinogens To Spike In Downstream Drinking Water Intakes.
1
NCDEQ’s proposal to allow Duke to use bromides to reduce Marshall’s mercury and air
toxic emissions would only exacerbate another serious problem stemming from the Marshall coal
plant operations: contamination of downstream drinking water supplies with cancer-causing
pollutants. To control mercury and air toxic emissions from Marshall, NCDEQ proposes to
allow Duke Energy to use a ‘halide salt’ fuel additive and activated carbon injection, both of
which are commonly laced with bromide. 1 These brominated additives would then be captured
by the plant’s scrubber and discharged with the scrubber wastewater into Duke Energy’s coal ash
basin at Marshall, which in turn discharges through its outfall and illegal seeps into the Catawba
River. 2
Unfortunately, bromide additives are known to cause carcinogens to form when they
enter downstream drinking water intakes. These carcinogens are called trihalomethanes, and
form when bromides mix with chlorine in drinking water supplies. Bromide persists in surface
waters over long distances, and can cause high levels of trihalomethanes far downstream of the
contamination source. 3 In Alabama, for example, the Water Works Board for the City of
Birmingham brought a lawsuit against an industrial source of bromides that was causing
trihalomethane contamination over 90 miles downstream in the city’s water supply. 4
The American Water Works Association and the National Association of Water
Companies have also filed a lawsuit concerning the serious problems caused by brominated
trihalomethanes from coal plant operations: “bromide discharges from steam electric power
plants ha[ve] created a threat to drinking water supplies and to public health due to the
creation of carcinogenic substances that are formed as a result of the increased bromide
discharges.” 5
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) has also recognized bromide
discharges from coal operations as a national problem for drinking water suppliers and the
people who rely on them: “[d]rinking water utilities are concerned as well, noting that the
bromide concentrations have made it increasingly difficult for them to meet SDWA requirements
for total trihalomethanes (TTHMs). . . . And, bromide loadings into surface waters from coalfired steam electric power plants could potentially increase in the future as more plant operators
use bromide addition to improve the control of mercury emissions.” 6
There are many drinking water systems collectively serving over 1.2 million people
downstream of the Marshall coal ash site. As a result, bromides that are introduced into Duke
1
NCDEQ, Draft Air Quality Title V Permit for Duke Energy Carolina’s Marshall Steam Station, No. 03676T54 at
3-4 (Mar. 29, 2017).
2
Attachment A, Duke Energy Marshall NPDES Permit No. NC0004987 at 2 (Oct. 1, 2016).
3
Attachment B, Jeanne M. VanBriesen, Ph.D., P.E., Potential Drinking Water Effects of Bromide Discharges from
Coal-Fired Electric Power Plants at 23 (2013).
4
Attachment C, Verified Complaint at ¶ 25, Water Works and Sewer Board of the City of Birmingham v. Umicore,
CV 2007-094 (Marshall Cnty. Cir. Ct. Apr. 27, 2007).
5
Attachment D, Opening Brief of Petitioners American Water Works Association and National Association of
Water Companies at 5, Southwestern Electric Power Company v. EPA (5th Cir. Dec. 5, 2016) (emphasis added).
6
EPA, Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source
Category, 80 Fed. Reg. 67,838, 67,886 (Nov. 3, 2015).
2
Energy’s coal-burning process to control air pollution may instead end up contributing to
cancerous substances in the drinking water that over a million people rely on.
A.
Trihalomethanes cause many serious health problems, including cancer.
The trihalomethanes that will result from the bromide additives allowed by the proposed
permit carry with them serious health risks. Drinking water contaminated with trihalomethanes
can cause liver, kidney, and central nervous system problems, as well as an increased risk of
cancer. 7 EPA has recognized that “[b]romide discharges from steam electric power plants can
contribute to the formation of carcinogenic DBPs [disinfection byproducts, e.g., trihalomethanes]
in public drinking water systems,” and “[s]tudies indicate that exposure to THMs
[trihalomethanes] and other DBPs from chlorinated water is associated with human bladder
cancer.” 8
In response to these health risks, EPA set a federal maximum contaminant level of 80
parts per billion for trihalomethanes. However, this level is not based only on what is protective
of human health. Instead, this level is relaxed to incorporate what has been deemed to be
technologically and economically feasible for drinking water systems. 9 The maximum
contaminant level goal, in contrast, focuses exclusively on protection of human health, and
reflects the level of contamination at which “no known or anticipated adverse effects on the
health of persons occur.” 10 Only EPA’s maximum contaminant level goal has been determined
to be free of known harmful health effects.
EPA has set maximum contaminant level goals for a number of different types of
brominated trihalomethanes, which are the types of trihalomethanes caused by discharges from
Duke Energy’s coal plants. For two types of trihalomethanes that are formed by bromide,
bromodichloromethane and bromoform, EPA set a maximum contaminant level goal of zero—
meaning that people should not be exposed to any level of these carcinogens. 11 For another
bromide-caused trihalomethane, dibromochloromethane, EPA set a maximum contaminant level
of 60 parts per billion. 12 All of these types of trihalomethanes—bromoform,
7
Attachment E, Massachusetts Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, Current Regulatory Limit: Total
Trihalomethanes (TTHMs) (last updated May 2004),
http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/massdep/water/drinking/standards/total-trihalomethanes-tthms.html; EPA,
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule, 71 Fed.
Reg. 387, 391, 394-407 (Jan. 4, 2006), available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2006/01/04/063/national-primary-drinking-water-regulations-stage-2-disinfectants-and-disinfection-byproducts-rule.
8
EPA, Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source
Category, 80 Fed. Reg. 67,838, 67,872, 67,886 (Nov. 3, 2015).
9
NCDEQ, Well Water Testing Information, https://deq.nc.gov/news/hot-topics/coal-ash-nc/well-water-testinginformation (last visited Apr. 28, 2017) (“Federal standards apply to public water supplies and take into account a
vast array of inputs, including the cost and technology available to filtrate water to a certain level.”).
10
EPA, National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule, 71
Fed. Reg. 387, 392 (Jan. 4, 2006), available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2006/01/04/063/national-primary-drinking-water-regulations-stage-2-disinfectants-and-disinfection-byproducts-rule.
11
Attachment F, EPA National Primary Drinking Water Regulations at 5 (May 2009),
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-11/documents/howeparegulates_mcl_0.pdf.
12
Id.
3
bromodichloromethane, and dibromochloromethane—have been found in drinking water intakes
downstream of Duke Energy’s coal ash sites. 13
B.
Duke Energy’s bromide discharges at Marshall have already caused
carcinogens to form in drinking water systems that serve over a million
people.
As Duke Energy admitted in sworn testimony, Duke Energy’s use of bromide additives at
Marshall in recent years has caused trihalomethanes to form in downstream drinking water
supplies (answers below were given under oath by Duke Energy via its corporate designee):
Q. Okay. And have discharges from Duke Energy’s ash basin at Marshall
contributed to the increases in trihalomethanes at the Charlotte intake?
A. They have.
Q. Okay.
A. So we were refining coal at Marshall and at Allen. And what that means is
there is a -- you can add coal -- add brominated -- calcium bromide solution prior
to combustion. And bromide being very reactive during the combustion process, it
helps to sequester mercury. So we were doing it to meet MATS compliance
obligations. During that time frame that we were refining coal, bromide
concentrations increased substantially. And when I say “substantially,” I mean
about an 80 percent increase -Q. Okay.
A. -- in our ash basin. And consequently there was an increase in Catawba River
bromide concentrations that was manifesting itself through increased
trihalomethane formation at the Catawba drinking water plants. So we ceased
refining coal once the plea agreement was signed May of 2015, and subsequent
bromide concentrations have -- subsequently, bromide concentrations have
reduced about 80 percent in our ash basin and roughly 75 percent in the Catawba
River itself. 14
Yet as explained below, NCDEQ’s proposed permit would allow Duke Energy to once
again add calcium bromide and other bromide additives to its coal operations—the exact same
additives that caused these serious problems in the Charlotte drinking water system just a few
years ago, and that Duke Energy said it would stop using after its federal plea agreement for
criminal violations of the Clean Water Act.
Following its use of brominated additives, Duke Energy discharged significant quantities
of bromide from its ash basin at Marshall. Test results from illegal seeps leaking from the
Marshall coal ash basin show bromide levels as high as 22,000 parts per billion in 2015—
13
See, e.g., Attachment G, NCDEQ, Summary of Bromide Issues in the WSRO [Winston Salem Regional Office] at
Appx. A-B (Dec. 6, 2011).
14
Attachment H, Dep. Tr. of Duke Energy (Zachary Hall) at 47:14-48:15 (Feb. 10, 2017) (emphasis added).
4
approximately a thousand times higher than Duke Energy’s own determinations of background
bromide levels, as described below. 15
As a result of these bromide discharges from the coal ash basin, the surface waters
downstream of Duke Energy’s Marshall coal ash site became overloaded with bromide. Duke
Energy testified that bromide levels in the Catawba River are approximately double downstream
of Duke Energy’s coal plant operations, compared to upstream levels:
Q. Okay. And has Duke Energy developed a background level or range of
bromide at any of the sites?
....
A. -- upstream of our operations on the Catawba, except where there are spikes
near potential other anthropogenic sources, the background concentrations seem
to be in the 20 or 30 parts per billion range. . . . Downstream of our operations
they are in the 50 to 60 parts per billion range. 16
Numerous drinking water providers draw water from the Catawba River downstream of
the Marshall plant that is contaminated with these high levels of bromide. These drinking water
supplies collectively serve over 1.2 million residential and wholesale customers.
As part of its criminal plea agreement, Duke Energy had to identify at-risk drinking water
supplies that may be affected by its bromide discharges. 17 Downstream of Marshall, the drinking
water supplies identified by Duke Energy include Mooresville (approximately 15,000 customers
served, with an intake approximately five miles downstream from Marshall), Lincoln County
(approximately 30,000 customers served, with an intake approximately 9 miles downstream of
Marshall), Charlotte-Mecklenburg (approximately one million customers served, with an intake
approximately 18 miles downstream of Marshall), Gastonia (also known as Two Rivers Utilities;
approximately 96,000 customers served, with an intake approximately 31 miles downstream of
Marshall) Mount Holly (approximately 20,000 customers served, with an intake approximately
31 miles downstream of Marshall), and Belmont (approximately 10,000 customers served, with
an intake approximately 38 miles downstream of Marshall). 18
The spikes in carcinogens in downstream drinking water supplies began immediately
after Duke Energy started using brominated additives at Marshall. In 2010, Duke Energy
received a permit to test the use of calcium dibromide (also called calcium bromide) and
activated carbon injection on a temporary basis for mercury control at Marshall. 19 In February of
2013, Duke Energy began applying calcium bromide to coal at its Marshall plant. 20 In March of
15
Attachment I, Letter from Brad Loveland, Duke Energy, to Sergei Chernikov, North Carolina Division of Water
Resources (Aug. 14, 2015).
16
Attachment H, Dep. Tr. of Duke Energy (Zachary Hall) at 77:8-78:3 (Feb. 10, 2017).
17
Attachment J, Duke Energy Compliance Officers’ Report at 18-19, United States v. Duke Energy (E.D.N.C. Apr.
29, 2016).
18
Id.; EPA, Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) (last visited Apr. 28, 2017), available at
https://www3.epa.gov/enviro/facts/sdwis/search.html.
19
See NCDEQ, Draft Air Permit Review for Air Quality Title V Permit for Duke Energy Carolina’s Marshall Steam
Station, No. 03676T54 at 5 (Mar. 29, 2017) (hereinafter “Draft T54 Air Permit Review”).
20
Attachment K, Charlotte Water, Trihalomethane (THM) Timeline Summary (Aug. 13, 2015).
5
2014, Duke also received permission to construct a brominated activated carbon injection
system. 21
In May of 2014, Charlotte Water identified spikes in bromide-related trihalomethanes in
second quarter 2014 test results. 22 These levels continued to rise, and in August of 2015 were so
high that Charlotte Water was required to notify its customers of the high trihalomethane levels
and associated risks. 23 Similarly, brominated trihalomethanes increased in other drinking water
intakes downstream of Charlotte in this timeframe. In 2015, over 90 percent of trihalomethanes
in the City of Gastonia’s water supply were the brominated variety. 24
Although the individual sub-species of brominated trihalomethanes were not reported for
all drinking water supplies, high total trihalomethane levels were present in drinking water
supplies downstream of Marshall during this timeframe, including a high of 127 parts per billion
in Mooresville. 25 For comparison, the City of Birmingham, Alabama had to shut down its
drinking water intake when trihalomethane levels reached 130 parts per billion. 26 Other drinking
water intakes downstream of Marshall have been contaminated with high levels of
trihalomethanes as well, including levels as high as 91 in Lincoln County; 27 116 in CharlotteMecklenburg; 28 106 in the City of Gastonia (also known as Two Rivers); 91 in Mount Holly; 29
and 88 in Belmont 30 (all numbers are in parts per billion). In contrast, trihalomethane levels in
drinking water systems upstream of the Marshall plant had much lower levels, with highs
ranging from 50 to 72 during the 2014-2015 time period. 31
Trihalomethane levels may be even higher in people’s drinking water from these systems,
since trihalomethanes continue to form in the transmission system as water travels from the
treatment system to the consumer’s tap. 32
C.
NCDEQ’s proposed permit would repeat these mistakes by allowing Duke
Energy to again use the same cancer-causing additives.
The draft permit would allow Duke Energy to use halide salts, such as calcium bromide,
at all four of its coal-burning units at Marshall, and activated carbon injection at one of the
21
See Draft T54 Air Permit Review at 5.
Attachment K, Charlotte Water, Trihalomethane (THM) Timeline Summary (Aug. 13, 2015).
23
Id.; Attachment L, Charlotte Water, Special Notice of Drinking Water Monitoring Results (Aug. 13, 2015).
24
Attachment M, 2015 Water Quality Report for Gastonia, Two Rivers Utilities at 2.
25
Attachment N, 2015 Annual Drinking Water Quality Report (Consumer Confidence Report) for the Town of
Mooresville at 4.
26
Attachment C, Verified Complaint at ¶ 21, Water Works and Sewer Board of the City of Birmingham v. Umicore,
CV 2007-094 (Marshall Cnty. Cir. Ct. Apr. 27, 2007).
27
Attachment O, 2015 Annual Drinking Water Quality Report Lincoln County Water System at 6.
28
Attachment P, 2015 Annual Drinking Water Quality Report Charlotte Water, Water System Number: 01-60-010
at 6 (2015) (trihalomethane levels detected as high as 116 parts per billion, with an average of 77 parts per billion).
29
Attachment Q, 2015 Annual Drinking Water Quality Report City of Mount Holly at 5.
30
Attachment R, 2014 Annual Drinking Water Quality Report for the City of Belmont.
31
See, e.g., Attachment S, 2015 Annual Drinking Water Quality Report City of Lenoir at 5.
32
Attachment B, Jeanne M. VanBriesen, Ph.D., P.E., Potential Drinking Water Effects of Bromide Discharges from
Coal-Fired Electric Power Plants at 21 (2013).
22
6
units. 33 These are the very same additives that Duke Energy used during 2014-2015 at Marshall
that led to trihalomethane spikes downstream. Duke Energy cannot be allowed to reverse course
and return to using these additives and increasing its dangerous downstream pollution.
The permit and accompanying ‘permit review’ document also contain what appears to be
a serious mistake: although NCDEQ’s permit review says that it is removing calcium bromide
from the permit, the draft permit itself actually includes this dangerous additive. Specifically,
the draft permit subjects the modifications in permit T51 (issued by NCDEQ to Duke Energy for
Marshall in Nov. 2014) to the Title V permitting process. 34 Perplexingly, however, although
permit T51 removed provisions for the use of calcium dibromide from the permit because they
“are no longer needed,” the current draft permit T54 continues to allow for the use of halide
salts, including calcium dibromide. The provision allowing for the use of calcium dibromide
was removed in permit T51 in November of 2014, and was added back into the permit through
the issuance of permit T53 in February of 2017. Yet although the draft permit review for T54
says that it is adopting the changes in the T51 permit, including the removal of calcium
dibromide as a compliance option, 35 the draft permit itself continues to allow for the use of
halide salts, including calcium dibromide.
Because NCDEQ is taking comments on permit provisions that are diametrically opposed
to the language in the draft permit, it must correct this serious mistake. Given that bromide has
caused significant downstream drinking water contamination, and that NCDEQ has already
determined that calcium dibromide is “no longer needed” at the Marshall plant, it would be
arbitrary and capricious for NCDEQ to issue a final permit allowing Duke Energy to use these
brominated additives.
Duke Energy itself has testified that new permits allowing the company to use halide salts
are concerning in light of the potential for downstream impacts. Moreover, the individual that
Duke Energy selected to testify on behalf of the company on the issue of contaminants in
downstream drinking water intakes was not even aware of a proposed permit—one very similar
to this permit for Marshall—that would allow the use of halide salts at Duke Energy’s Allen
plant:
Q. . . . [Y]ou’re not aware of the draft permit that DEQ recently issued that would allow
the use of halide salts at the Allen Steam Station?
...
A. I was not aware of that.
...
Q. Okay. And would that raise any concerns for you if there was a proposal to increase
use of halide salts with regard to bromide issues?
...
A. Yes.
Q. And what are those concerns, just to sum up?
33
NCDEQ, Draft Air Quality Title V Permit for Duke Energy Carolina’s Marshall Steam Station, No. 03676T54 at
3-4 (Mar. 29, 2017).
34
Draft T54 Air Permit Review at 2.
35
Draft T54 Air Permit Review at 7.
7
...
A. The concerns would be increased halogen concentrations within the ash basin itself.
Q. And could that increase discharges downstream . . . .
...
A. Yes. 36
NCDEQ cannot issue a permit allowing the use of additives that it has determined are
unnecessary and that Duke Energy itself has admitted under oath are concerning because of their
potential impacts downstream.
D.
Duke Energy’s bromide discharges already contribute to carcinogens across
North Carolina, and the proposed permit would only make this problem
worse.
Cities and towns across North Carolina are already struggling to deal with carcinogens
caused by existing, ongoing bromide discharges from Duke Energy’s coal ash basins. Bromides
have been present in Duke Energy’s coal burning process and its coal ash basins for years at the
company’s Allen, Asheville, Belews Creek, Cliffside, Marshall, Mayo, and Roxboro coal plants.
These bromide discharges from Duke Energy’s coal ash basins have contributed to the formation
of carcinogens in numerous downstream drinking water intakes, many of which have exceeded
the federal maximum contaminant level for trihalomethane.
This problem is pervasive at Duke Energy’s coal ash sites across North Carolina. In
2011, downstream drinking water providers along the Dan River traced spikes in trihalomethane
carcinogens to bromide discharges from the Belews Creek coal ash basin. 37 At that time, Duke
Energy had not even informed NCDEQ that bromide was present in its coal ash basin
discharges. 38 The bromide discharges from the Belews Creek coal ash basin have affected
downstream communities such as the Town of Madison, the City of Eden, and the City of
Danville. These impacted drinking water systems collectively serve nearly 70,000 people. 39
Duke Energy was required by its criminal plea agreement with the federal government to provide
funding to resolve the carcinogen contamination at Madison and Eden. 40
But although Duke Energy has poured millions of dollars into attempts to find a band-aid
solution, it has not been able to eliminate the bromide-caused carcinogens in these drinking
water intakes. In 2016, trihalomethane levels in the City of Eden’s water supply were detected
as high as 100 parts per billion.41 And there is no guarantee that the so-called ‘fixes’ that Duke
Energy is pursuing will ever eliminate these bromide-caused carcinogens from peoples’ drinking
36
Attachment H, Dep. Tr. of Duke Energy (Zachary Hall) at 83:11-84:25 (Feb. 10, 2017).
Attachment T, Joint Factual Statement, United States of America v. Duke Energy, No. 5:15-CR-62-H at 52-53
(May 14, 2015).
38
Id.
39
EPA, Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) (last visited Apr. 28, 2017), available at
https://www3.epa.gov/enviro/facts/sdwis/search.html.
40
Attachment U, Plea Agreement, Exhibit B, United States v. Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, No. 5:15-CR-62-H, at
10 (May 14, 2015).
41
Attachment V, 2016 Water Quality Report, City of Eden Public Utilities Department, Public Water System ID #
02-79-010 at 5 (2016).
37
8
water. Although the City of Eden has proposed switching from chloride to chloramines to
reduce the bromide/chlorine reaction that creates trihalomethanes, it has not yet begun on-theground implementation of this switch. 42
Moreover, this proposed ‘fix’ will create other problems. Chloramines have a powerful
leaching effect on lead in water system pipes, and use of chloramines in Washington, D.C.
resulted in a lead contamination crisis similar to the one in Flint, Michigan. 43 Moreover,
chloramines themselves are linked to health problems such as respiratory irritants, severe skin
reactions, and greater exposure to pathogens in the water. 44 And the City of Eden itself has
recognized that certain sub-categories of people, such as people with kidney issues, will need to
take special precautions when drinking chloramine-treated water. 45 The City of Danville
continues to suffer from trihalomethane levels as high as 111 parts per billion, and does not
appear to have received any financial assistance from Duke Energy to treat these high levels of
carcinogens. 46 The same is true for the County of Halifax downstream of Belews Creek, which
had trihalomethane levels as high as 139 parts per billion in recent years, compared to only half
that much before Duke Energy began discharging bromide in its scrubber waste at Belews
Creek. 47
At the Allen coal plant, Duke Energy’s bromide discharges have contributed to the
formation of carcinogens in downstream drinking water intakes that are also downstream of the
Marshall coal plant. Levels of trihalomethanes as high as 138 parts per billion have been found
in recent years in the drinking water system for Rock Hill (67,549 residents served), which also
provides water to Fort Mill (11,800 residents served), Tega Cay (8,009 residents served), York
(23,975 residents served), River Hills (8,566 residents served), the Catawba Indian Nation (440
residents served), and others. 48 The Allen site is also upstream of drinking water intakes for
Lancaster (71,669 residents served), Chester (12,731 residents served) and Kershaw (27,379
residents served). 49
42
Attachment W, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Belews Creek Steam Station - #NC0024406, Bromide Reduction
Evaluation Semi-Annual Report (Oct. 25, 2016).
43
The Conversation, Contributor to U.S. News and World Report, Piping as Poison: The Flint Water Crisis and
America's Toxic Infrastructure (Jan. 25, 2016) https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-01-25/piping-as-poisonthe-flint-water-crisis-and-americas-toxic-infrastructure.
44
Citizens Concerned About Chloramine, Chloramine Facts (Sept. 11, 2006),
http://www.chloramine.org/chloraminefacts.htm. According to the World Health Organization, “monochloramine is
about 2,000 and 100,000 times less effective than free chlorine for the inactivation of E. Coli and rotaviruses,
respectively.” World Health Organization, Seminar Pack for Drinking-Water Quality at 5,
http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/S04.pdf.
45
Attachment X, 2015 Water Quality Report, City of Eden Public Utilities Department, Public Water System ID #
02-79-010 at 5 (2015).
46
Attachment Y, City of Danville 2015 Water Quality Report, PWSID # 5590100 at 2-3 (2015) (showing
trihalomethane detections as high as 100 parts per billion). The City of Danville installed a new mixing and aeration
system at one of its storage reservoirs to help remove trihalomethanes, but there is no public information yet on
whether the system has reduced—much less eliminated—trihalomethanes. Id.
47
Attachment Z, 2015 Annual Drinking Water Quality Report for Halifax County at 4.
48
Attachment AA, Rock Hill Utilities, 2015 Water Quality Consumer Confidence Report, 4610002 at 5 (2015);
EPA, Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) (last visited Apr. 28, 2017), available at
https://www3.epa.gov/enviro/facts/sdwis/search.html.
49
EPA, Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) (last visited Apr. 28, 2017), available at
https://www3.epa.gov/enviro/facts/sdwis/search.html.
9
Downstream of Duke Energy’s Mayo and Roxboro coal ash sites, a violation of the
trihalomethane federal standard occurred in 2016 in the water supply for Clarksville (1,400
residents served). 50 Also downstream of these coal plants at the Henderson-Kerr Lake water
supply (15,325 residents served), trihalomethane levels reached as high as 150 parts per billion in
recent years—approximately double the trihalomethane levels present before Duke Energy began
discharging bromides in scrubber waste into these waters. 51
Near the Cliffside coal ash site on the French Broad River, high trihalomethane levels
have been detected in the water at the City of Shelby’s water supply (21,263 residents served),
which also serves the Town of Boiling Springs (4,608 residents served), as well as at the water
supply for Gaffney and the City of Union. 52
Additional communities may be exposed to this contamination going forward. New
water intakes may be added downstream of Duke Energy’s coal ash contamination. And many
people who live in close proximity to Duke Energy’s coal ash sites have contamination in their
drinking water wells, and have received letters from the State of North Carolina telling them that
their water is unsafe to drink. Duke Energy is required by law to provide alternative drinking
water to many of these individuals, either by paying for connection to public water supplies or
for in-home filters. In December of 2016, Duke Energy announced its intention to offer
municipal water to many of these affected individuals. 53 For people living near the Allen coal
ash basins, the municipal water would come from the City of Belmont’s water supply 54—which
is downstream of Duke Energy’s Marshall site and has elevated levels of carcinogenic
trihalomethanes, as described above.
This means that people whose wells have been contaminated may now have to
choose between contaminated well water or municipal water that has been contaminated
by Duke Energy’s bromide discharges. Any additional bromide and trihalomethane
contamination caused by NCDEQ’s proposed permit for Marshall would further pollute this
alternative water source for people with contaminated wells.
50
Attachment BB, Town of Clarksville, Virginia, Important Information About Your Drinking Water (Jan. 4, 2017),
http://www.clarksvilleva.org/important-information-about-your-drinking-water/ (“Based on quarterly test results of
routine samples collected between July 1, 2016 and September 30, 2016, our system exceeded the Primary
Maximum Contaminant Level (PMCL) for total Trihalomethane (TTHM). The standard for TTHM is 0.080 mg/L
based on a four quarter running average. The average concentration of TTHM over this monitoring period was 0.082
mg/L.”).
51
Attachment CC, Henderson – Kerr Lake Regional Water System, Notice to the Public, Henderson – Kerr Lake
Regional Water System Has Levels of Total Trihalomethanes (TTHMs) Above Drinking Water Standards (Jan. 5,
2015); Attachment DD, 2014 Henderson – Kerr Lake Regional Water System, Annual Water Quality Report, PWS
ID#: NC0291010 at 6 (2014) (showing trihalomethanes levels as high as 150 parts per billion, with an average of
105 parts per billion); Attachment EE, 2006 Annual Drinking Water Quality Report City of Henderson – Kerr Lake
Regional Water System PWS ID# 02-91-010 at 2.
52
Attachment FF, Town of Boiling Springs 2015 Annual Drinking Water Quality Report, Water System ID
Number: 01-23-025 at 5 (2015) (trihalomethanes detected as high as 105 parts per billion).
53
Duke Energy, North Carolina Permanent Water Plans, https://www.duke-energy.com/our-company/aboutus/power-plants/ash-management/water-plans (last visited Apr. 28, 2017).
54
Attachment GG, Duke Energy, Permanent Water Supply Proposal to DEQ – Allen (Dec. 7, 2016).
10
In sum, hundreds of thousands of people who drink water from these drinking water
supplies downstream of Duke Energy’s coal operations have been exposed to unsafe levels of
carcinogenic trihalomethanes for years, and many more may be exposed going forward. The
additional bromides allowed by the proposed permit would add to this problem that downstream
communities are already struggling to cope with.
E.
There are no limits in Duke Energy’s wastewater permit that would protect
people from these dangerous discharges.
There are no limits for halides or bromides in Duke Energy’s wastewater permit for
Marshall to protect downstream communities from these dangerous substances. 55
Duke Energy already discharges high levels of bromides through its permitted outfall 56
and the illegal discharges seeping from the sides of its coal ash basins at Marshall. 57 NCDEQ
has not taken any action to limit these discharges. That means that Duke Energy’s wastewater
permit provides no limit on the amount of additional bromide that Duke Energy could discharge
into North Carolina’s waters if NCDEQ moves forward with the air quality permit as drafted for
Marshall. The additional bromide authorized by the draft air quality permit would only add to
the problems encountered by downstream drinking water intakes.
Surprisingly, NCDEQ has not included limits from bromide discharges in Duke Energy’s
wastewater permit despite the fact that it is required to do so under state and federal clean water
laws. North Carolina regulations provide that “[w]ater quality based effluent limitations or
management practices for direct or indirect discharges of waste or for other sources of water
pollution will be developed by the Division such that the water quality standards and best usage
of receiving waters and all downstream waters will not be impaired.” 58 Longstanding Clean
Water Act regulations similarly provide that agencies must establish water quality-based permit
limits on bromide if necessary to meet narrative water quality standards, including standards to
protect human health:
In addition to the conditions established under § 122.43(a), each NPDES permit shall
include conditions meeting the following requirements when applicable.
...
(d) Water quality standards and State requirements: any requirements in addition to or
more stringent than promulgated effluent limitations guidelines or standards under
sections 301, 304, 306, 307, 318, and 405 of [the] CWA necessary to:
(1) Achieve water quality standards established under section 303 of the CWA,
including State narrative criteria for water quality.
(i) Limitations must control all pollutants or pollutant parameters (either conventional,
nonconventional, or toxic pollutants) which the Director determines are or may be
55
Attachment A, Duke Energy Marshall NPDES Permit No. NC0004987 at 4, 6, 8, 12, & 13 (Oct. 1, 2016).
Attachment HH, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC – NPDES Permit Application, Marshall Steam Station - #
NC0004987 at PDF 22 (Oct. 9, 2014) (showing bromide levels as high as 3,800 parts per billion from the coal ash
basin discharge outfall).
57
Attachment I, Letter from Brad Loveland, Duke Energy, to Sergei Chernikov, North Carolina Division of Water
Resources (Aug. 14, 2015).
58
15A N.C. Admin. Code 02B .0203
56
11
discharged at a level which will cause, have the reasonable potential to cause, or
contribute to an excursion above any State water quality standard, including State
narrative criteria for water quality. 59
EPA has recognized that this well-established requirement applies to bromide: “water
quality-based effluent limitations for steam electric power plant discharges may be required
under the regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(d)(1), where necessary to meet either numeric criteria
(e.g., for bromide, TDS or conductivity) or narrative criteria in state water quality standards. . . .
These narrative criteria may be used to develop water quality-based effluent limitations on a sitespecific basis for the discharge of pollutants that impact drinking water sources, such as
bromide.”
North Carolina has put in place exactly such narrative criteria for water quality to protect
people from unsafe levels of pollutants such as brominated trihalomethanes: “Human health
standards: the concentration of toxic substances shall not exceed the level necessary to protect
human health through exposure routes of fish tissue consumption, water consumption, or other
route identified as appropriate for the water body.” 60
NCDEQ is therefore required to set water quality based effluent limitations for bromide
sufficient to protect people from toxic trihalomethane contamination, but has thus far failed to do
so. NCDEQ has an ongoing obligation to correct this error in Duke Energy’s wastewater permit
for Marshall and for all other operating coal plants in North Carolina, especially in light of Duke
Energy’s efforts to secure air permits that allow it to add more bromide to its discharges.
II.
NCDEQ Must Instead Require Duke Energy To Install Pollution Controls That Will
Protect, Rather Than Harm, The People of North Carolina.
The North Carolina Air Pollution Control Act empowers NCDEQ “to grant and renew a
permit with such conditions attached as the Commission believes necessary to achieve the
purposes of this section or the requirements of the Clean Air Act.” 61 This includes the
requirement that “[s]tandards of water and air purity shall be designed to protect human health . .
. .” 62 The permit as drafted fails to comply with this fundamental tenet of North Carolina law.
Rather than allowing Duke Energy to add cancer-causing substances to its coal
operations, NCDEQ should require Duke Energy to install technologies that are proven to reduce
toxic air emissions without carcinogenic side effects. Fabric filters, also known as baghouses,
are widely used throughout the coal power plant industry to capture toxic particles before they
escape into the air that people breathe. Over one-third of the coal-fired power generated in the
United States in recent years comes from power plants that are equipped with baghouses to help
control their air pollution.
59
40 C.F.R. § 122.44(d)(1)(i).
15A N.C. Admin. Code 02B .0208(a)(2).
61
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-215.108(c)(1).
62
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-211.
60
12
Yet the Marshall coal plant does not have this basic pollution control technology to
protect the public from emissions of mercury and other toxic pollutants. This is true despite the
fact that the Marshall plant has emitted as much as 192 tons of these hazardous pollutants
annually in recent years. 63
These toxic pollutants cause numerous health problems. Mercury can cause neurological
problems in children, including lower IQ, learning disabilities, and memory problems. 64
Hydrogen chloride, another toxic pollutant emitted by the Marshall plant, can cause respiratory
problems like asthma, eye and skin irritation, and tooth discoloration. 65 In 2012, EPA passed
Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, which require coal plants like Marshall to limit their
emissions of toxic pollutants. These standards, if implemented correctly, will prevent up to 480
premature deaths in North Carolina annually, while creating up to $3.9 billion in health benefits
for the people of North Carolina each year. 66
The Marshall plant is located in a heavily populated residential area, meaning that many
people around the Marshall site suffer from the lack of modern pollution controls at the plant.
According to the latest census data, over 1,400 people live within five miles of the Marshall coal
plant. The Marshall plant is also located just under 30 miles from the heart of the Charlotte
metropolitan area, which has a population of well over two million people. These people and
other communities downwind of Marshall deserve to have robust protections in place against
toxic pollution from the Marshall plant.
For all of these reasons, NCDEQ cannot allow Duke Energy to use a pollution control
strategy that poisons downstream communities, and must instead require Duke Energy to install
widely-used pollution controls that do not simply convert one problem into another.
III.
Rather Than Allowing Duke Energy To Increase Its Bromide Discharges, NCDEQ
Must Require Duke Energy To Eliminate Ongoing Bromide Discharges By
Excavating the Ash Basin at Marshall.
NCDEQ must also require Duke Energy to excavate its bromide-contaminated coal ash in
order to stop the ongoing discharge of bromides from the coal ash basin at Marshall that continue
to contribute to cancer-causing substances in downstream drinking water intakes. Instead of
requiring Duke Energy to address the bromide problems at Marshall head-on, the draft air permit
would allow Duke Energy to add to those problems. This is a step backwards, not forwards, and
must be corrected.
IV.
Conclusion
63
Draft T54 Air Permit Review at 1.
Attachment II, EPA, Health Effects of Exposure to Mercury, https://www.epa.gov/mercury/health-effectsexposures-mercury (last updated May 31, 2016).
65
Attachment JJ, Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry, Toxic Substances Portal, Hydrogen Chloride
(Apr. 2002), https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/tf.asp?id=759&tid=147#bookmark05 (last updated July 27, 2015).
66
Attachment KK, EPA, Mercury and Air Toxics Standards in North Carolina, https://www.epa.gov/mats/mercuryand-air-toxics-standards-north-carolina (last updated Dec. 7, 2016).
64
13
For all of these reasons, NCDEQ must rescind the draft air quality permit; issue a new
permit that requires Duke Energy to reduce its mercury and air toxics emissions through proven
technologies that do not create other problems for downstream communities, such as baghouses;
and require Duke Energy to excavate the materials from its ash basin to eliminate bromide
discharges from the basin.
Respectfully submitted,
_____________________
Myra Blake
Staff Attorney
[email protected]
Nicholas S. Torrey
Staff Attorney
[email protected]
Southern Environmental Law Center
601 West Rosemary Street, Suite 220
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27516
On behalf of the Catawba Riverkeeper,
Clean Air Carolina, and Medical Advocates
for Healthy Air
cc: Jay Zimmerman, [email protected]
14