20070812 Ver 2_Fax_20060629

F4RON :NC DENR FAX NO. :9197334299 Jun. 30 2006 04:10AN P1
AT,?R©?
? y
Post-Ir Fax Note 7671
Phone
DRAFT
Gene Ellis
Alcoa Power Generating, Inc.
Yadkin Division
P.O. Box 576
Badin, NC 28009-0576
Dear Mr. Ellis:
Co.
Ptrorm 4
go --F. Easley,(iovernor
.i. Rnvs Jr, Sccrelury
id Natural R.csourcos
(L,? Climck, P,);, Dit,4:y
:ion of Water 4uali'ty
uufle ZZI, cwo (
RE: 401 Water Quality Certification for FERC relicensing
Yadkin Project Upgrades
As we discussed in our May 24, 2006 meeting, the following questions still need to be
addressed by APGI in order for DWQ to make our decisions with respect to issuing a 401 Water
Quality Certification for this project. The submittal that you made in your March 31, 2006 letter
to Darlene Kucken was helpful in addressing our concerns but the following questions still
remain. These questions revolve around the timing of proposed improvements to the turbines
at your facilities in order to meet the state's dissolved oxygen water quality standard and the
monitoring that will be needed to demonstrate compliance with that standard.
1 • What percent of time (approximately) is each unit operated at the Narrows and High
Dock facilities during the May to November timeframe? This information is needed
for us to determine if the sequencing for turbine upgrades is reasonable and whether
a different schedule would result in water quality improvements more quickly while
not unduly interfering with your operation of these facilities to generate electricity.
2. Please address why you need two years of engineering work and modeling on the
Narrows facility before improvements can be done to most water quality standards.
As you know, the other hydroelectric plants are generally on a three year schedule to
meet DO standards with their pending 401 Certifications and FERC relicensing. It is
unclear to us why your schedule for the Narrows facility could not be accelerated into
year 2007 to start the needed improvements at this facility, especially since it is our
understanding that the physical fix at Narrows Units 1, 2 and 3 is rather similar to that
done for Unit 4. Therefore, we continue to believe that improvements to Narrows
Unit 2 could be moved up to 2007 and this would address your concerns and costs
over shutting down two units at once. Please be aware that during refurbishment,
APGI will continue to operate all other units that have been upgraded on a first on,
last off basis.
3. Documentation for costs of alternative improvement plans. In your March 31 letter
and at our May meeting, you refer to costs of various alternative schedules. Please
provide quantitative documentation for those conclusions. As you know, the 401
Certification considers practicable alternatives (defined as '-size, configurati or
density of the proposed activity and all alternative designs (which meet) the asi$L
project purpose..," (15A NCAC 2H .0505 (f)). This documentation is neede or
to make this decision. If some of this information is proprietary, please notify us
041.
401 Oyeraot Express Review Penults Unh N?'
? C'?1rv to
1650 Mad Service Center, Raletgh, North Carodna 27699-1650 w dVll!!ClIP
2321 Crabtree 8ouievard, sulte 250, RaWgh, North CaroW 27604
Phone:[phone]FAX[phone]"11::1?ng:/ n.enr•state.nc.us/ne n
An Equal Clpparttlnity/Afflrmalive Action Empbyer-60% Rggde&10ti Post ConsurmrPaosr
JUN-29-2006 THU 14:39 TEL:[phone] NANE:DWQ-WETLANDS P. 1
FgOM :NC DENR
4
5.
6
FAX NO. :9197334299 Jun. 30 2006 04:11AN P2
accordingly and we will use the existing'DWQ procedures to handle this information.
For instance, you have referred to the cost of Alternative 2 (as discussed in your
March letter) as being $2 million or 3 to 5% of the cash flow compared to your
preferred alternative while the cost of Alternative 1 would be $6 million. Please
address whether these alternatives are practicable in the context of the above
definition.
Please be aware that the DWQ approved Quality Assurance Performance Plan
(QAPP) must be submitted to DWQ at the time of the 401 application for our review.
Therefore, we urge you to now begin to work on this product with DWQ: staff rather
than waiting for 401 application submittal. DWQ staff will require at least two months
to review the draft QAPP to work towards approval
Monitoring: APGI will need to develop a Flow Monitoring and Compliance Plan for
both developments in consultation with Progress Energy (Progress), the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS), and of urce agencies. This Plan will then need to
be part of the 401 application an iletd w h FERC within 12 months of the effective
date of a new license. This mo toring ould begin in 2008. The following
provisions will need to be incorpo into the agreement for this project
a. Routine monthly data (hourly and daily averages in spreadsheet format) will be
supplied for information purposes to NCDWQ by the last day of the following
month, (e.g. May data due June 31) via electronic mail. Discrepancies or
deviations from required flows, reservoir levels, or state standards will be briefly
noted, evaluated and discussed. A more detailed assessment along with the
corrective actions will be supplied in the annual report. An annual report,
summarizing the monthly reports will be filed with the appropriate agencies by
March 1.
b. Alcoa will need or provide compliance monitoring of flow at two locations,
downstream of High Rock Dam and also downstream of Falls Dam. USGS has
just completed field reconnisance investigations of these two tailwater areas on
Tuesday to determine the feasibility of installing USGS gages there. Water
quality monitoring (esp. of dissolved oxygen) will be needed at or downstream of
all four APGI dams and monitoring should begin as you stated above.
Please provide justification for postponing the beginning of refurbishment/upgrade
work on Tuckertown until 2016, with a completion date of 2018. This appears to
provide a 3 year period of no improvements at Tuckertown.
Thank you for your attention to these matters. the
a e
s If you
have any additional questions, please call me at 919-7339646.
Sincerely yours,
John Dorney
Cc: Secretary Bill Ross, DENR
Steve Reed, DWR
Jim Mead. DWR
Darlene Kucken, DWQ
Central files
File copy
V
--V/

JUN-29-2006 THU 14:39 TEL:[phone] NANE:DWQ-WETLANDS P.` 2
Re: next version of Alcoa letter
.r •
Subject: Re: next version of Alcoa letter
From: Steven Reed <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 23:36:20 -0400 (EDT)
To: <John. Dorney@ncmail. net>, Jim Mead <[e-mail]>, Darlene Kucken
<Darlene. Kucken@ncmai l . net>
CC: <[e-mail]>
John & Darlene,
Jim and I are in Rockingham tonight and will be on the Pee Dee looking
at the conservation lands downstream of Blewett Falls tomorrow and
therefore will not be able to participate in the meeting. We will be
in the office all day Friday and will be glad to discuss these issues
in your letter in more detail then.
I reviewed the latest version of your draft to APGI and discussed with
it with Jim, although I do not have any of my APGI files with me. Keep
in mind that the FA for C-W contains Appendix L: Flow & WQ
Implementation Plan and Appendix M: Flow, GW & WQ Monitoring Summary.
#5 in your letter recommends that APGI file a Flow monitoring
Compliance Plan with FERC and DWQ within 12 months of the effective
date of the new license. I thought we wanted all licensees to handle
any flow or water quality monitoring or implementation plans or QAPP's
the same way that they are handled in the C-W. That is, the licensees
should develop the Flow Monitoring and Compliance Plans in consultation
with DWQ and the other stakeholders during the development of the
Relicensing Settlement Agreements (RSA's) and include them in the
document. They would also file them with DWQ as part of the 401
application. Then filing them with FERC within _ months of the
effective date of the new license is fine because the plans were
developed in consultation within the stakeholder process and 401 gets
an independent review of a product that has already received
preliminary approval from DWQ and other stakeholders .
Also, for APGI we will need compliance monitoring of flow at two
locations, downstream of High Rock Dam and also downstream of Falls
Dam. USGS conducted field recons of these two tailwater areas on (A
Tuesday to determine the feasibility of installing USGS gages there.
WQ DO monitoring will be needed at or downstream of all four APGI dams
and monitoring should begin as you stated in the letter.
It is my understanding that DWQ is probably ready to sign the AIP at a tjLi
"4" and work out any remaining differences during the development of
the RSA by the end of the year.
You might also change my affiliation on the cc's to DWR rather than
DWQ. I think a "face to face" working session between DWQ and APGI
after they receive your letter will be needed to facilitate the
resolution of any outstanding issues. Please discuss whether we still
need to keep our joint meeting with Bill on Monday, July 17th at 3:30
pm on the calendar. Maybe we should keep the meeting and bring in
Alcoa to respond to your letter. Will one of you guys please give me a
call on Friday and let me know any outcomes from tomorrow's meeting?
Thanks,
Steve
1 of 1 6/29/2006 8:21 AM