NC0004375_correspondence_20111027

Wakild, Chuck
From: Smith, Robin
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 12:57 PM
To: Sullins, Coleen
Cc: Wakild, Chuck
Subject: RE: Reventure
Thanks — I probably only need one of you. I was just afraid trying to figure this out by email would end up taking more
time that just talking through how the different pieces fit together.
Robin W. Smith
Asst. Secretary for Environment
N.C. Dept. of Environment & Natural Resources
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh N.C. 27604
[phone]
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties.
From: Sullins, Coleen
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 11:12 AM
To: Smith, Robin; Matthews, Dexter; Mcgee, Melba
Cc: Freeman, Dee; Wakild, Chuck; Matthews, Matt
Subject: RE: Reventure
Robin — I have copied Chuck and Matt on this email as they has been more involved in this project than I have and if the
questions get more specific, they will likely have more information to provide. I would say in response to your #2, that
yes, the nitrogen and phosphorus credits would be transferable. We would need to capture the transfer in some
document so that we can maintain a record of it for the future (it would have been the WWTP NPDES permit). I think
we can probably work with them on how to do that. The Mt Holly issue has been in flux for some time, so I am not
surprised to hear that is still the case. Depending on how Charlotte and Belmont have worked out their agreement (for
example if Charlotte will take over that plant), we could put all the allocation into that one permit. If we need to capture
it in an MOA that we track separately, we can also probably figure out a method to do that as well. We have managed
allocations as assets in other basins and people have bought and sold them. Because of some of the issues that have
developed and controversy over the use of the assets in other cases (Bay River comes to mind), we need to assure that
we spell out the ownership and any rules governing the use of those assets (can't be used in areas where the waters
would be impaired by their use), in a legal document. Coleen
Coleen H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
Phone: [phone]
Email correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties unless the content is exempt by statute or other regulation.
From: Smith, Robin
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 10:17 AM
1

To: Sullins, Coleen; Matthews, Dexter; Mcgee, Melba
Cc: Freeman, Dee
Subject: Reventure
Importance: High
/ i/tf ?.a► iI - alley Awe VVe-
R vpv1 f ur.� jrlKki-en4-%Yid/-04
Coleen, Dexter and Melba -- I had a call from the asst Charlotte city manager, Ron Kimble, on Tuesday afternoon with
several questions related to Reventure. There are some timing issues that both the city and Reventure need to figure
out because some decisions affect Reventure's ability to meet financial assurance requirements of the Brownfields
agreement.
From my conversation with Mr. Kimble, I made notes on these questions:
1. How long will it take to get the EIS for the new Charlotte wastewater treatment plant through the review
process? (Apparently the city has nearly completed the draft.) I gave Mr. Kimble a rough estimate of 6-8
months if the EIS is in good shape when it is submitted, but told him that I wanted to check in with Melba
to be sure that is a decent estimate.
2. Are the nitrogen and phosphorus credits that Charlotte plans to buy from Clariant transferable? Charlotte
has already agreed to buy the credits from the Clariant wastewater treatment facility on the Reventure site
(which will be taken offline) and negotiated a price. The issue seems to be that Reventure needs the cash
from sale of the credits sooner rather than later and Charlotte wants to be sure that it has options for
disposing of those credits if necessary. I don't know all of the moving pieces, but it sounds like there is
some possibility that the City may decide not to build the WWTP or not to build it in the near term because
the economic downturn has reduced projected demand for new sewer service. Charlotte has been
negotiating with Belmont and Mt. Holly to take wastewater from both towns (which would allow those
plants to go offline) and the outcome of those negotiations may determine whether Charlotte goes ahead
with the WWTP project. The City already has an MOA to take Belmont's waste, but the outcome of
negotiations with Mt. Holly sound a little less certain. It sounds like closing those deals may be critical to
Charlotte going ahead with the WWTP now rather than later (my interpretation).
Charlotte is willing to go ahead and buy the property for the new wastewater treatment plant because that
would be an asset that could be resold if the WWTP project doesn't move forward. The City wants to know if
there are options for transferring the nitrogen and phosphorus credits under those circumstances.
3. How does all of this fit in with the financial assurance requirements under the Brownfields agreement? (My
question) Mr. Kimble indicated that Reventure needs cash to meet those requirements and that is driving
the push to go ahead and close the deal with Charlotte to purchase both the property for the WWTP and the
nutrient credits.
Thanks.
Robin W. Smith
Asst. Secretary for Environment
N.C. Dept. of Environment & Natural Resources
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh N.C. 27604
[phone]
4443 9ert
4 1L,'i', jsre lJ "a
Pi1? /
r �
tee /JpL
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties.
2