IBJNews

Duke ignored water issue at Indiana plant, consultant says

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Regulatory filings alleging Duke Energy Corp. grossly mismanaged construction of its Edwardsport plant contend the utility ignored warnings for seven months over potential problems with federal regulators if it disposed of plant water deep underground.

Missteps in how to dispose of "grey water” produced in the coal-gasification process have been cited by consumer groups as among major reasons for $1 billion in cost overruns at the plant. Nearing completion, the facility is now estimated to cost more than $2.8 billion.

Earlier this month, the Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counselor alleged that Duke bungled the water disposal system to the tune of $100 million in cost overruns.

A report filed in recent weeks by OUCC’s consultant, Houston-based Accumyn Consulting, contends that Duke embraced deep-well injection disposal despite problems with the technology at another of its projects.

Duke officials in 2006 assumed that the grey water produced in the production process would be non-hazardous, according to Accumyn. A year later, Duke’s own engineers expressed “serious concerns” and recommended that partner General Electric “firm up” the analysis of the water content.

Two months later, in November 2007, GE’s report indicated the water likely would have elevated concentrations of arsenic and selenium—high enough to be characterized as hazardous under federal law.

About one month after acknowledging the results, Duke received approval from the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission to build the plant. But Duke’s management “had evidently failed to reveal important information discovered before the commission decided on approving the project,” Accumyn states in its report.

Moreover, citing documents turned over by Duke, the consultant said records don’t indicate “any significant reaction” by Duke’s project team to the GE report that water would be deemed hazardous—until about seven months later, “when the Duke Energy environmental department became involved.”

The utility expressed concern at that point that the deep-water injection plan would be disallowed by the Environmental Protection Agency, or would subject the Edwardsport plant to substantial corrective action with “huge implications” to the coal-gasification plant.

In mid-2008, even as Duke proceeded with the underground injection work, the Charlotte-based utility “wrongly believed” that it could overcome the problem by asserting an exemption under the so-called Bevill Amendment.

In early 2009 Duke officials asked Gov. Mitch Daniels, who has been a supporter of the Edwardsport coal-gasification plant, to write a letter to the EPA, urging it to apply Bevill to make the plant exempt from the hazardous waste classification under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, or RCRA.

“Alternative design options resulting from EPA’s failure to acknowledge the exemption would increase Duke Energy’s estimated capital cost by $30 million,” Daniels stated in his letter to EPA.

That was in addition to increased operating costs that would “have the potential to increase costs to Duke’s customers,” Daniels added.

But, in late 2009, EPA denied the application of the Bevill exemption. Duke abandoned the deep-injection process, for which it had already begun work, including the drilling of wells thousands of feet deep. It instead began work on a water-treatment process originally recommended by consultants.

The Accumyn report faulted Duke for ignoring evidence of the increased hazardous characteristics of grey water and the high risk of permitting.

Duke “failed to notify the commission of these risks and gambled millions of dollars on a highly doubtful outcome,” it stated.

Duke is still working on its own regulatory filing to counter the mismanagement allegations filed with the commission this month by the OUCC, watchdog group Citizens Action Coalition and by a group of Duke industrial customers.

The groups seek to block Duke from recovering from customers hundreds of millions of dollars of cost overruns.

Citizens Action Coalition officials said they were aware of concern about  the grey-water issue but were not made privy to the extent, nor that Duke asked the governor to write to EPA.

Contact with Daniels was one of numerous back-channel communications Duke made with state officials, particularly with former IURC chairman David Lott Hardy.

Such "ex parte" dialog is forbidden under the commission’s regulatory process.

Daniels fired Hardy last year after it was disclosed that Hardy knew that former IURC administrative law judge Scott Storms, who was presiding over Duke regulatory cases, had applied for a job with Duke.

Storms later got the job but Duke eventually fired him, along with two executives who frequently communicated with Hardy in an attempt to win favorable rulings from the commission.

Duke’s chairman, Jim Rogers, met with Hardy at Indianapolis restaurants on at least two occasions to discuss the Edwardsport plant progress, according to e-mail evidence provided by the CAC and the industrial customer group.

Some of the information discussed during those meetings was not formally disclosed to the commission or to parties in the Edwardsport case until weeks later, according to email evidence presented by the groups.

 

.  

ADVERTISEMENT

  • A Daniels indictment?
    This certainly reads that Daniels knowingly helped this corporation skirt regulations to profitize at the cost of the health of Indiana citizens. Certainly a skeleton worthy of nullifying Daniel's presidential chances if he had entered. Looking forward to more on this boondoggle!

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. In response to Sassafras, I have to ask if you relocated directly from Bloomington to Carmel? First, as you point out, Carmel is 48 square miles. Do you think it’s possible that some areas are more densely developed than others? That might explain traffic density in some places while others are pretty free moving. Second, your comment “have you ever been to Chicago--or just about any city outside of Indiana?” belies your bias. I don’t know, Sassafras, have you never been to Nashville, Columbus, OH, Cincinnati, St. Louis, Kansas City, Denver, Phoenix? They’re not a lot different in density than Indy. One more thing…I understand these comment sections are for expressing opinions, so those of us just looking for facts have to be patient, but you mention “low-density” Indy. How many cities in the US comprise 400 square miles with about 10% of that still being agricultural? Those facts certainly can impact the statistics.

  2. With all the past shady actions of Duke with utility regulators, one wonders do they really need such a huge amount? Concerned regulators not protecting ratepayers from the aggressive Duke monolith.

  3. I thought that had to be the way it was but had to ask because I wasn't sure. Thanks Again!

  4. I could be wrong, but I don't think Butler views the new dorm as mere replacements for Schwitzer and or Ross.

  5. An increase of only 5% is awesome compared to what most consumers face or used to face before passage of the ACA. Imagine if the Medicaid program had been expanded to the 400k Hoosiers that would be eligible, the savings would have been substantial to the state and other policy holders. The GOP predictions of plan death spirals, astronomical premium hikes and shortages of care are all bunk. Hopefully voters are paying attention. The Affordable Care Act (a.k.a Obamacare), where fully implemented, has dramatically reduced the number of uninsured and helped contained the growth in healthcare costs.

ADVERTISEMENT