NC0000396_First Response_20141021

t
W,O,.M,TB,LE Pr
CARLYLE
SANDRIDGE'
& RIcE
A LIMITED L.IASII M
PARTNERSHIP
VIA FEDEX
One Wells Fargo Center
301 South College Street
Suite 3500
Charlotte, NC 28202 -6037
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
W W W.WCSr.com
October 17, 2014
Mr. Michael Hom
Environmental Engineer
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Clean Water Enforcement Branch
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303 -8960
Richard E. Morton
Direct Dial: (704) 3314948
Direct Fax: [phone]
E -mail: rmortonna.wcsr.com
Also Admitted in South Carolina
V�
�0
21
Re: First Response of Duke Energy Corporation ("Duke Energy ") to U.S. EPA's
August 25, 2014 Request for Information Pursuant to Section 308 of the Clean
Water Act
Dear Mr. Hom:
This letter, enclosed CD and the attached Responses and Objections constitute the first
response of Duke Energy to the Request for Information ( "RFP') from the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency ( "EPA ") dated August 25, 2014, addressed to Ms. Lynn J. Good of Duke
Energy. Pursuant to the agreement reached between EPA and David Buente of Sidley Austin, we
are submitting responses to question 1.
You will notice some gaps in the Bates numbers for documents that are referred to in this
response. Those gaps are due to the fact that this response includes reference to some documents
that were also referenced in Duke Energy's earlier responses to the July 31, 2014 EPA RFI.
Rather than re- number those earlier referenced documents, we have used the previously assigned
Bates numbers in this response. This, of course, results in some gaps in the series of Bates
numbers for documents referred to in this response.
RECEIVEDIDENRIDWR
OCT 2.1 2014
Water Quality
Pem*Ung Section
CALIFORNIA / DELAWARE / GEORGIA / MARYLAND / NORTH CAROLINA / SOUTH CAROLINA / VIRGINIA / WASHINGTON, D.C.

WioKOtE pr.
CAR[n.E
SANMDGE
ac RICE
PLLC
Thank you for your attention to these matters.
Sincerely,
Mr. Michael Hom
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
October 17, 2014
Page 2
REM/ngb
Enclosures
cc w /encl: Laurie Lindquist Ireland, EPA
Matthews Hicks, EPA
Denisse Diaz, EPA
Thomas Reeder, NCDENR
David Fountain, Duke Energy
Julie Ezell; Duke Energy
David Buente, Sidley Austin LLP
Sylvia Lowrance
RECEIVED /DENRIDWR
OCT 2.1 2014
Water Quality
Permitting on

Attorney Client Communication
Attorney Work Product
Privileged and Confidential
First Responses and Objections of Duke Energy Corporation to
EPA's Section 308 Reauest for Information Dated August 25. 2014
I. General Objections
A. Duke Energy Corporation ( "Duke Energy") objects to the Request for Information
( "RFI #2 ")' from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ( "EPA ") dated August 25, 2014, to
the extent that it seeks privileged information, including, but not limited to, documents and other
information protected by the attomey- client privilege and/or work product doctrine.
B. Duke Energy objects to the requirement to provide a certification by a
responsible Duke Energy official as unreasonable because it seeks to require a certification that
is not required by 33 U.S.C. § 1318(a). Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection,
Duke Energy has provided a certification.
C. Duke Energy objects to Instruction No. 5 to the extent it seeks to require Duke
Energy to identify "all ... persons consulted, examined, or referred to in the preparation of each
response" as vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and unreasonable, and to the extent it seeks
privileged information. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, Duke Energy will
provide the names of the primary individuals consulted in the preparation of the responses.
D. Duke Energy further objects to Instruction No. 5 to the extent that it seeks to
require Duke Energy to identify "all documents ... consulted, examined, or referred to in the
preparation of each response and provide true and accurate copies of all such documents" to
the extent it seeks to require Duke Energy to produce a copy of each document "consulted" or
"examined" in the preparation of the response as vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and
unreasonable, and to the extent it seeks privileged information. Duke Energy "consulted" and/or
"examined" many documents in order to locate responsive material and does not intend to
produce all such documents. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection and
Objection A, above, Duke Energy will produce the documents primarily consulted in the
preparation of the responses.
E. Duke Energy objects to Instruction No. 6 as unreasonable to the extent it seeks
to impose a duty to supplement its responses with information that was not known to Duke
Energy as of the date of RFI #2.
F. Duke Energy objects to Instruction No. 9 as unreasonable to the extent it seeks
to require Duke Energy to speculate regarding persons who might have information responsive
to RFI #2.
G. Duke Energy objects to Instruction No. 10 as unreasonable to the extent it seeks
to require Duke Energy to speculate regarding persons who might provide "a more detailed or
' Duke Energy refers to EPA's Request for Information as "RFI #2" to distinguish it from EPA's
initial Request for Information dated July 31, 2014.

Attorney Client Communication
Attorney Work Product
Privileged and Confidential
complete response" to a question or who may have additional responsive documents or
information.
H. Duke Energy objects to Instruction No. 13 as unreasonable to the extent it seeks
to require Duke Energy to speculate regarding activities undertaken by entities other than Duke
Energy.
I. Duke Energy objects to Definition No. 14 to the extent it seeks to apply all
statutory and regulatory definitions to RFI #2. This requirement is vague, ambiguous and
unreasonable. Duke Energy also objects to the definition of any term that is inconsistent with an
existing statutory or regulatory definition of the same term.
J. Duke Energy objects to Definition No. 16, directing Duke Energy to construe
"And" and "Or" either disjunctively or conjunctively as vague, ambiguous and unreasonable.
K. Duke Energy objects to Definition No. 17 as unreasonable to the extent it seeks
home address and telephone information conceming ,employees. To the extent EPA wishes to
contact any Duke Energy employee, EPA should contact Julie Ezell at (317) 838 -1100.
L. Duke Energy objects to Definition No. 21 as unreasonable to the extent it seeks
information outside the knowledge or control of Duke Energy.
M. Duke Energy objects to Definition No. 24 as vague, ambiguous and
unreasonable.
N. Duke Energy objects to Definition No. 25 as vague, ambiguous and
unreasonable.
O. Duke Energy objects to the introductory instruction under "Questions," to "identify
all documents consulted, examined, or referred to in the preparation of each response and
provide true and accurate copies of all such documents," to the extent it seeks to require Duke
Energy to produce a copy of each document "consulted" or "examined" in the preparation of the
response. as vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and unreasonable, and. to the extent it seeks
privileged information. Duke Energy "consulted" and/or "examined" many documents in order to
locate responsive material and does not intend to produce all such documents. Subject to and
without waiving the foregoing objection and Objection A, above, Duke Energy will produce the
documents primarily consulted in the preparation of the responses.
II. Responses and Specific Objections
Subject to and without waiving the General Objections above or Specific Objections below,
Duke Energy responds to Question 1 of RFI #2 as set forth below. Duke Energy reserves the
right to supplement these responses.
2

Attorney Client Communication
Attorney Work Product
Privileged and Confidential
1. NC0003433 Cape Fear Steam Electric Generating Plant:
a. Provide the reason(s) for the water drawdown of the West Ash Pond (aka 1978
Basin) and the East Ash Pond (aka 1985 Basin) during September 2013 through
March 2014.
Response:
The goal for water drawdown in both the 1978 Basin and 1985 Basin was to
facilitate repairs to the riser pipes in both of those basins and, by effecting those
repairs, achieve "no flow status" from those basins pending the eventual
decommissioning of the Cape Fear ash basins. The risers at the 1978 and 1985
Basins were leaking water into outfalls 001 and 005, respectively.
Duke Energy primarily consulted the following individuals in preparing this
response:
Lary Baxley
Robin Bryson
Toya Ogallo
Danny Wimberly
Issa Zazar
Identifying information for these individuals can be found in Appendix A to these
responses. Documents relied upon are EPARF103937 to EPARF103938,
EPARF103962 to EPARF103962, EPARF103877 to EPARF103887,
EPARF103898 to EPARF103936, EPARF103898 to EPARF103936, and
EPARF103976 to EPARF104075.
b. In your March 28, 2014 response to the NCDENR March 20, 2014, Notice of
Violation letter, you stated that
Page 3 ".. the pumping activities were part of necessary maintenance and
repair of the risers in the Ash Basins... A
1. Why was it necessary to maintain and repair the risers?
Response:
The coal -fired power generation units at Cape Fear were shut down as of
October 1, 2012. Coal ash was last sluiced to the Basins on November 8, 2012.
However, both risers were leaking, as evidenced by the fact that there was still
flow of water from internal outfalls 001 and 005 (for the 1978 Basin and 1985
Basin, respectively) even though the water level in both basins was below the
3

Attorney Client Communication
Attorney Work Product
Privileged and Confidential
tops of the risers. In order to achieve "no flow" status, repairs to the risers were
essential.
Duke Energy primarily consulted the following individuals in preparing this
response:
Larry Baxley
Robin Bryson
Toya Ogallo
Danny Wimberly
Issa Zazar
Identifying information for these individuals can be found in Appendix A to these
responses. Documents relied upon are EPARF103937 to EPARFI03938,
EPARF103962 to EPARFI03962, EPARF103877 to EPARFI03887,
EPARFI03898 to EPARFI03936, EPARF103898 to EPARFI03936, EPARF103963
to EPARF103975 and EPARF103976 to EPARFI04075.
2. When did Duke Energy first discover that the risers needed maintenance and
repair?
Response:
The relevant employees do not recall specifically when this was "first
discover[ed]." However, Duke Energy could not have realized the risers were
leaking until after the Cape Fear plant was shut down on October 1, 2012, the
last sluice lines were removed on November 8, 2012 and the water levels in the
basins dropped below the tops of the risers thereafter.
During a March 27, 2013 site inspection, outside consultant AMEC, accompanied
by Duke Energy employees Henry Gales, Macey Graham, Randall S. Harris and
Larry Baxley, noted that the risers were leaking and memorialized this finding in a
June 24, 2013 report.
However, Danny Wimberly and /or Larry Baxley may have been the among the
first Duke Energy employees to realize that the risers were leaking at some point
in time prior to the March 27, 2013 AMEC inspection. In a recent interview with
the United States Attorney's Office, Duke Energy employee Larry Baxley
reportedly stated that he requested repairs to the risers at Cape Fear as early as
the Fall of 2010 or 2011. Duke Energy does not have direct knowledge of this
interview. Duke Energy is continuing to inquire regarding this question.
Duke Energy primarily consulted the following individuals in preparing this
response:
4

Attorney Client Communication
Attorney Work Product
Privileged and Confidential
Larry Baxley
Robin Bryson
Danny Wimberly
Identifying information for these individuals can be found in Appendix A to these
responses. Documents relied upon are EPARF103778 to EPARF103780 and
EPARF103834 to EPARF103869.
3. Who at Duke Energy discovered that the risers needed maintenance and repair?
Response:
Please see response to Question 1(b)(i)(2), above.
4. Who conducted the maintenance and repair of the risers? Please provide the
company name and the name of employees who performed the work.
Response:
Glenn Underwater Services, Inc. was engaged to perform the necessary repair to
the risers in both the 1978 and 1985 Basins. On information and belief, the
Glenn Underwater employees involved in this work were John Trimboli, Caleb
Beers, Alex Paxton and Stephen Rice. Kevin Brown of Duke Energy was
involved in contracting with Glenn Underwater Services for this work.
Duke Energy primarily consulted the following individual in preparing this
response:
Rick Glenn
Kevin Brown
Identifying information for this individual can be found in Appendix A to these
responses. Documents relied upon are EPARF103962 to EPARFI03962,
EPARF103898 to EPARFI03936.
5. Did Duke Energy enter into any contracts for the maintenance and repair of the
risers? ff so, when? Please provide copies of any such contracts.
Response:
Please see response to Question 1(b)(4), above.
6�

Attorney Client Communication
Attorney Work Product
Privileged and Confidential
6. Did Duke Energy receive a cost estimate for the maintenance and repair of the
risers? If so, when? Please provide copies of the estimate(s).
Response:
Please see response to. Question 1(b)(4), above.
7 When were the risers maintained and repaired? Please provide the start and
completion dates for each riser.
Response:
Based on the Glenn Underwater Services Dive Plan, this work was commenced
and completed on March 19, 2014. For a further response to this question,
please see response to Question I (b)(4), above.
a Please provide documentation regarding the assessment of each riser and the
maintenance and repairs conducted.
Specific Obiections:
Duke Energy objects to the term "assessment" as it is used in this question on
the ground that it is vague and ambiguous.
Response:
Subject to and without waiving its objections, Duke Energy responds that
documentation regarding the assessment and repair of the risers is found in the
March 18, 2014 Glenn Underwater Services Dive Plan. No Duke employees
conducted any independent assessment or repair of the risers. For a further
response to this questions, please see response to Question 1(b)(i)(4), above.
9. In the last 10 years, has Duke Energy performed maintenance or repairs to risers
at other facilities? If so, was it the same type of maintenance or repairs that were
performed at the Cape Fear Ash Basins? Please provide the date and name of
the facilities.
Specific Obiections:
Duke Energy objections to the term "same type" as it is used in this question on
the ground that it is vague and ambiguous.
0

Attorney Client Communication
Attorney Work Product
Privileged and Confidential
Response:
Subject to and without waiving its objections, Duke Energy responds that some
repairs were reportedly made to the riser in the main portion of the ash basin at
H. F. Lee in March 2004. Specifically, the top of the riser collapsed and was
abandoned. A new stainless steel riser pipe was fabricated by Duke Energy and
installed by divers (Glenn Underwater Services). Duke Energy is searching for
documentation related to those operations and will supplement this response
when such documents are located.
In addition, and at the direction of the North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources, Division of Land Resources — Land Quality, Duke
Energy has recently assessed and is formulating plans for repair to risers and or
other spillway structures at the Sutton plant 1984 and 1971 ash basins, the Cape
Fear plant 1970, 1978, 1956 and 1985 ash basins and the Roxboro plant West
Ash Basin (South Rock Filter Dam).
Duke Energy primarily consulted the following individuals in preparing this
response:
Christopher Keenan
Tim Russell
Kevin Brown
Identifying information for these individuals can be found in Appendix A to these
responses. Documents relied upon are EPARF103939 to EPARFI03952.
10. Does Duke Energy have protocols, procedures, or plans for the maintenance or
repair of risers?
Response:
Duke Energy has no general protocols, procedures or plans for maintenance or
repairs to risers, as maintenance and repair of risers is governed on an individual
basis depending on the circumstances in any given situation. With regard to
risers at the Cape Fear 1978 and 1985 basins, separate work plans and job
hazard analyses ( "JHAs") were prepared, reviewed and revised for each basin.
Duke Energy primarily consulted the following individuals in preparing this
response:
Tim Russell
Identifying information for this individual can be found in Appendix A to these
responses. Documents relied upon are EPARF103811 to EPARFI03833,
EPARF103953 to EPARFI03956, EPARF103870 to EPARFI03876.
7

Attorney Client Communication
Attorney Work Product
Privileged and Confidential
11. if so, were such protocols, procedures, or plans used to maintain or repair risers
at Cape Fear or other facilities? Please provide the date and name of the
facilities.
Response:
Please see the response to Question 10, above.
12. What other options were considered for the maintenance and repair of the risers?
For example, did Duke Energy consider other technologies such as cofferdams
around the risers and dewatering the space between the cofferdam and risers to
enable repairs?
Specific Obiections:
Duke Energy objects to the term "options" as it is used in this question on the
ground that it is vague and ambiguous.
Response:
Subject to and without waiving its objections, Duke Energy responds that it
considered underwater repair to the risers without lowering the water levels in the
1978 and 1985 Basins, but rejected that possibility due to potential safety risks
for the divers who would be doing the repair work.
Duke Energy primarily consulted the following individuals in preparing this
response:
Larry Baxley
Kevin Brown
13. If other options were considered, describe the rationale for excluding such
options.
Response:
Please see the Spec fic Objections and response to Question 1(b)(i)(12), above.
ii. Page 4 "..Duke Energy tested water during the time period when pumping occurred —
on a voluntary, operational basis in October 2013, as part of semi- annual testing
required by the Permit in November 2013, and again in February 2014... "
1.11

Attorney Client Communication
Attorney Work Product
Privileged and Confidential
1. Provide: dates, times, and locations of each sampling event, laboratory bench
sheets and sampling results.
Response:
The NPDES Permit required semi - annual grab sampling at outfalls 001 and 005.
Those sampling dates, times and results are shown on the amended Discharge
Monitoring Reports. Whole Effluent Toxicity ("WET") testing was also conducted
at outfalls 001 and 005 during the period of pumping from the basins, even
though WET testing was not an NPDES permit requirement. The dates, times
and sampling results for the WET testing are shown on the laboratory results.
Duke Energy primarily consulted the following individuals in preparing this
response:
Larry Baxley
Robin Bryson
Identifying information for these individuals can be found in Appendix A to these
responses. Documents relied upon are EPARF103749 to EPARF103777,
EPARF103888 to EPARF103897, EPARF104076 to EPARF104092.
2. Were pumps running at the time of sampling? If not, how long had it been since
the pumps were used?
Response:
Comparing the laboratory documents referred to in the answer to Question 1(b)
(ii)(1), above, with Enclosure C to RFI #2 shows that the pumps were running
during some portion of the WET composite sampling from approximately 1:45
PM to 3:45 PM on September 30, 2013, 8:03 AM to 10 AM on October 1, 2013,
10:45 AM to 3:55 PM on October 2, 2013 and 7:30 AM to 10 AM on October 3,
2013. The pump intake and discharge lines were disconnected during semi-
annual sampling conducted in accord with the NPDES permit. For a further
response to this question, please see the response to Question 1(b)(x)(1) and
(2), below.
N. Page 4 "..,.at the time when pumping activities began, the Ash Basins had not
received any coal ash wastewater for many months... A During the pumping
activities time period of September 2013 through March 2014, identify other
waste streams that discharged into the ash ponds, and each waste stream
amount in gallons.
Specific Obiections:
E

Attorney Client Communication
Attorney Work Product
Privileged and Confidential
Duke Energy objections to the term `waste streams" as it is used in this question
on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous.
Response:
Subject to and without waiving its objections, Duke Energy responds that Duke
Energy has not quantified the number of gallons for other waste streams that
discharge into the 1978 and 1985 Basins. However, according to Attachment C,
Form 2C to the December 2, 2010 NPDES permit application, the 1978 Basin
could have received indeterminate volumes of "Coal Pile Runoff," "Low Volume
Wastes," and "Miscellaneous Wastes" as those terms are used in Attachment C,
Form 2C. The 1985 Basin could have received indeterminate volumes of
"Sanitary Waste Treatment Effluent" and "Miscellaneous Wastes," as those terms
are used in Attachment C, Form 2C. Documents relied upon are EPARF102001
to EPARF102034.
Duke Energy primarily consulted the following individual in preparing this
response:
Larry Baxley
Identifying information for this individual can be found in Appendix A to these
responses. Documents relied upon are EPARF102001- EPARF102034.
iv. Page 5 "..Duke Energy carefully developed protocols and procedures to assure
that all appropriate precautions would be taken during the process of lowering
the water level in the Ash Basins." Provide the protocols and procedures.
Response:
Please see the JHAs, work plans, comments and revisions thereto at
EPARF103811 to EPARFI03833, EPARF103953 to EPARFI03956, EPARF103870
to EPARFI03876.
Duke Energy primarily consulted the following individuals in preparing this
response:
Larry Baxley
Dennis Cole
Identifying information for these individuals can be found in Appendix A to these
responses.
V. Page 5 "..Duke Energy collected water samples between the internal and
external outfall locations and conducted whole effluent toxicity (WE7) test.
10

Attorney Client Communication
Attorney Work Product
Privileged and Confidential
1. Provide: date, time and location of the samples; the type of WET test
conducted, to include test species and testing protocol used; and the final
laboratory report
Response:
Please see the response to Question 1(b)(ii)(1), above.
2. Were pumps running at the time of sampling? If not, how long had it
been since the pumps were used?
Response:
Please see the response to Question 1(b)(ii)(2), above.
Vi. Page 5 "After careful deliberation, it became clear to Duke Energy that the safety
of its repair crews would require a lowering of water levels in the Ash Basins."
1. Why was the lowering of water levels essential to the safety of the repair
crews?
Response:
Duke Energy was concerned about the possibility of creating a condition of
differential pressure resulting from any damage to the risers during the repair
operations. The risers date to 1978 and 1985, respectively, and because they
were leaking, were known to have integrity issues. Any breach in the risers
during dive operations would have created the potential for an immediate and
life- threatening condition of differential pressure for the divers. Differential
pressures are locations under water where low pressure areas are in contact with
high pressure areas. These conditions can be caused in numerous ways,
including propeller wash and drainages that can pull a diver into underwater
structures or machinery. At the 1978 and 1985 Basins, any disturbance of the
risers could have caused loss of basin water through the risers that could have
pulled divers into the risers or other equipment, resulting in serious injury or
death. Lowering water level in the ponds greatly reduced the possibility of
creating a risk of differential pressure.
Duke Energy primarily consulted the following individuals in preparing this
response:
Larry Baxley
Robyn Bryson
Rick Glenn
11

Attorney Client Communication
Attorney Work Product
Privileged and Confidential
2. What were the deliberations that led to the decision?
Response:
Please see the response to Question 1(b)(vi)(1), above.
vii. Page 6 "Lowering the level of water in the Ash Basins permitted Duke Energy's
contractors to see clearly the condition of the leaking risers and provided a safe
environment in which those contractors could work. "
1. How did Duke Energy know the risers were leaking?
Response:
Please see response to Question 1(b)(i)(1), above.
2. What problem were the leaking risers causing that necessitated their
maintenance or repair?
Specific Obiections:
Duke Energy objects to the term "problem" as it is used in this question on the
ground that it is vague and ambiguous.
Response:
Subject to and without waiving its objections, Duke Energy responds as follows:
The Cape Fear plant had been shut down since 2012 and Duke Energy planned
to terminate the NPDES permit for that plant or, at the very least, ask that
sampling requirements for outfalls 001 and 005 be suspended because, with the
shutdown of the power generating units, there should not have been any
discharge through outfalls 001 and 005. However, the basins need to continue to
function efficiently for the estimated 2 to 3 years necessary to complete
demolition and decommissioning. As long as the risers continue to leak, the
basins cannot function efficiently. In addition, the leaking risers would make it
impossible to terminate the NPDES permit or suspend sampling requirements
from outfalls 001 and 005. Please see response to Question 1(a) as a further
response to this question.
Duke Energy primarily consulted the following individuals in preparing this
response:
Robin Bryson
12

Attorney Client Communication
Attorney Work Product
Privileged and Confidential
Ricky Ashley
Dennis Cole
David Daughtry
2. Where were employees positioned to make these observations?
Response:
The pumps were positioned on the berms near the risers and adjacent to the
pumps and pump intakes. Mr. Ashley and Mr. Daughtry were positioned in their
respective vehicles on the berms and near or adjacent to the pumps.
Duke Energy primarily consulted the following individuals in preparing this
response:
Ricky Ashley
David Daughtry
3. Did the employees observe intake water or water discharging from the
pump? This assumes that one person cannot see both from the same
location. If this is incorrect, please explain.
The pumps were located such that Mr. Ashley and Mr. Daughtry could maintain
continuous visual monitoring of the pump intakes from the location of the pumps
themselves, but Duke Energy believes that the pump discharge points were not
readily monitored from the areas near the pumps. Thus, Duke Energy believes
the pump discharge points, which were located at the permitted discharge points,
were monitored on a periodic basis.
Duke Energy primarily consulted the following individuals in preparing this
response:
Ricky Ashley
David Daughtry
4. How did Duke Energy determine if solids or ash from the bottoms, edges,
or floors of the ash basins was being pulled/pumped from the basins?
Specific Obiections:
14

Attorney Client Communication
Attorney Work Product
Privileged and Confidential
Duke Energy objects to the term "solids" as it is used in this question on the
ground that it is vague and ambiguous.
Response:
Subject to and without waiving its objections, Duke Energy responds that Mr.
Ashley and Mr. Daughtry visually monitored the pump intake points for turbidity in
accord with the protocols set forth above as described in the response to
Questions 1(b)(i)(10) and 1(b)(iv), above.
5. Did Duke Energy perform tests or sampling to verify that ash was not
being brought into suspension and discharged? if so, please provide the
results of such tests or sampling.
Response:
Duke Energy did not collect samples of water pumped from the basins for the
purpose of analyzing those samples for total suspended solids. However, water
near the pump intakes was monitored visually for signs of turbidity in accord with
the protocols referenced in the responses to Questions 1(b)(i)(10) and 1(b)(iv),
above. In addition, the amended Discharge Monitoring Reports for the relevant
period show that water that leaked from the risers, which was lower in the column
than the pump intake points (and therefore the water entering the risers through
leaks was presumably more turbid), did not exceed NPDES permit limits for total
suspended solids.
Duke Energy primarily consulted the following individuals in preparing this
response:
Robin Bryson
Larry Baxley
Ricky Ashley
David Daughtry
Identifying information for these individuals can be found in Appendix A to these
responses. Documents relied upon are EPARF103888 to EPARF103897.
6. During the pumping efforts from September 2013 through March 2014,
how many times were solids or ash determined to have been
pulled/pumped from the ash basins? How ' was this determined,
documented, and remedied?
Response:
15

Attorney Client Communication
Attorney Work Product
Privileged and Confidential
At no time were solids or ash determined to have been pulled/pumped from the
basins. Please see the answer to Question 2(viii)(5), above.
ix. Page 8 "..Duke Energy carefully evaluated feasible alternatives to its proposed
maintenance and repair work." Provide documentation (including any internal
deliberation) of the other alternatives and why they were not selected.
Response:
Please refer to the response to Questions 1(a) and 1(b)(i), above.
X. Page 8 "For safety reasons and in order to keep all access roads clear for the
laboratory personnel, pumping activities were not commenced on February 5,
2014, until after the laboratory personnel had completed their work and departed
the site."
1. Why couldn't laboratory personnel step over the hoses and walk to the
sampling location?
Response:
The sampling locations at outfalls 001 and 005 are remote from offices at the
Cape Fear plant and are not easily accessed by foot. Access is best
accomplished by vehicle, but even then vehicles must be negotiated around the
top of the berm to be turned around and placement of the pump lines would have
made this action impossible. Thus, the pump lines were removed from their
connections with the pump to allow access for sampling personnel. This was
done during NCDENR inspection as well, so that NCDENR could access the
outfalls and the remainder of the basins.
2. In the alternative, why couldn't Duke Energy temporarily remove the
hoses to allow the laboratory personnel to pass and then replace the
hoses and resume pumping once the road was clear?
Response:
The pump operators did remove hoses from the pumps in order to allow access
and then replaced those hoses and resumed pumping when sampling was
complete. (See response to Question 1(b)(x)(1), above.) Sampling was typically
conducted in the morning hours of the day. This is reflected in a note on the
pumping logs to the effect that the pump operator "started late 2 -5 -14 /waiting for
water sample to be taken." Consequently, pumping did not commence on
February 15, 2014 until 10:15 AM. See Enclosure C to this RFI #2.
Duke Energy primarily consulted the following individuals in preparing this
response:
16

Attorney Client Communication
Attorney Work Product
Privileged and Confidential
Ricky Ashley
David Daughtry
Larry Baxley
3. Did Duke Energy consider other alternatives that would have allowed
sampling during the pumping event while still ensuring the safety of the
laboratory personnel?
Response:
During the period of pumping at the basins, Duke Energy collected effluent
samples at outfalls 001 and 005 in the manner those samples had been collected
in previous years. See responses to Questions 1(b)(x)(1) and (2), above.
Xi. Page 10 "Once repairs have been completed, the water levels in the Ash Basins
should return to previous conditions."
1. Describe the previous conditions and how the water level would return
to normal.
Specific Obiections:
Duke Energy objects to the term "normal' as used in this question, on the
grounds that it is vague and ambiguous and ' that it is not used in the cited
language from Duke Energy's response to the NCDENR March 20, 2014 Notice
of Violation.
Response:
Subject to and without waiving its objections, Duke Energy responds that the
term "previous conditions" refers to water levels that are not influenced by leaking
risers and which are, therefore, "normal."
2. Have the pond water levels returned to previous conditions?
Response:
As the risers have been repaired, water levels in the basins have returned to
"previous conditions° in that they are not influenced by leaking risers.
17

Attorney Client Communication
Attorney Work Product
Privileged and Confidential
C. For the 1978 Basin pumping events and 1985 Basin pumping events, please provide an
answer and any supporting documentation for the following.
i. Was flow measured at Outaalls 001, 005, and 007 during pumping?
Response:
No; however, flow was measured at outfalls 001, 005 and 007 during the period
of pumping activity, but not during the times when the pumps were operated.
Duke Energy primarily consulted the following individuals in preparing this
response:
Robin Bryson
Larry Baxley
Henry Gales
ii. Were samples at Outfall 001 and Outfall 005 taken during pumping? If not,
please provide an explanation, other than the explanation cited in Question
1(b)(x) above.
Response:
Please see the response to Question 1(b)(ii), above.
iii. How did Duke Energy determine when to turn the pump on and off?
Specific Obiections:
Duke Energy objects to the term "determine" as used in this question on the
grounds that it is vague and ambiguous.
Response:
Subject to and without waiving its objections, Duke Energy responds that the
pump operators would usually start the pumps at or near the beginning of their
work day and shut the pumps down at the end of their work day. In the JHA and
work plan, the pump operators were given instructions to shut the pumps down in
response to certain events and circumstances.
Duke Energy primarily consulted the following individuals in preparing this
response:
Dennis Cole
Ricky Ashley
18.

Attorney Client Communication
Attorney Work Product
Privileged and Confidential
David Daughtry
Identifying information for these individuals can be found in Appendix A to these
responses. Documents relied upon are EPARF103870 to EPARF103876.
iv. What prevented the intake hose from reaching the coal ash/sediment on the
bottom of the pond?
Response:
Using an orange float or buoy, the intake hoses were suspended just below
water level in the basins. Documents relied upon are EPARF103873 to
EPARF103876, EPARF104093 to EPARF104096.
V. Where was the intake hose placed in relation to the pond surface? Did the intake
hose remain at the pond surface during the entire pumping event?
Response:
The intake hoses were placed one or two feet below the top of the water surface
and remained there during the entire pumping period. Please see also the
response to Question 1(b)(iv), above.
Vi. How far below of the top of the riser did the repair or maintenance occur?
Response:
Duke Energy does not have information necessary to answer this question with
reference to the tops of the risers. However, based on an interview with Rick
Glenn of Glenn Underwater Services, repairs at the riser at the 1985 Basin were
made 3 to 3.5 feet below the water level in March 2014 and repairs to the riser at
the 1978 Basin were made 1 foot or less below the water level.
Vii. What was the lowest pond water level achieved during the pumping event in
relation to the top of the riser?
Response:
Duke Energy does not have information necessary to relate water levels to the
tops of the risers. However, with reference to Enclosure C to this RFI #2, water
level in the 1985 Basin was lowered by approximately 8 feet during the pumping
period, while water level in the 1978 Basin was lowered approximately 4.4 feet
19

Attorney Client Communication
Attorney Work Product
Privileged and Confidential
during the pumping period. It is unknown what portion of these lowered water
levels is attributable to the pumping activity compared to how much is attributable
to the leaking risers.
viii. Where was the intake hose placed in relation to the riser's location within the
pond?
Response:
The intake hoses at each basin were placed near the risers. Documents relied
upon are EPARF103873 to EPARFI03876, EPARF104093 to EPARF104096.
Duke Energy primarily consulted the following individuals in preparing this
response:
Dennis Cole
Ricky Ashley
David Daughtry
ix. Were any operational samples or observation notes of sediment pickup taken by
the Operator of Responsible Charge or others during the pumping events? If so,
please provide any related data (to include chain of custody, bench sheets, and
results).
Response:
No. Please see the response to Question 1(b)(ii) and Enclosure C to RFI #2.
X. Were pumps run less than 48 hours after a rain event?
Response:
Yes, with reference to Enclosure C to this RFI #2.
d. For the risers that required repair and maintenance:
i. What was the estimated flow from the leaking riser(s)?
Response:

Attorney Client Communication
Attorney Work Product
Privileged and Con, fdendd
Based on revised Discharge Monitoring Reports, flow from the leaking risers was
estimated variously at less than 0.1 MGD and 0.2 MGD. Documents relied upon
are EPARF103888 to EPARF103897.
ii. Was any of the flow from the leaking riser(s) attributable to water flowing over the
riser? If so, how much?
Response:
No. Please see the response to Question 1(b)(i)(1), above.
iii. Prior to the leak, what was the estimated flow from Outfalls 001 and 005?
Response:
Based on the December 2, 2010 NPDES Permit application, estimated average
flow was 0.58 MGD and 0.66 MGD from outfalls 001 and 005, respectively.
Documents relied upon are EPARF102001 to EPARF102034.
iv. If samples were taken during the period that risers were leaking, did any such
sampling results indicate that flow from the leaking riser would not meet permit
limits?
Response:
No. Documents relied upon are EPARF103888 to EPARF103897.
V. Did sampling results indicate that flow from the leaking riser had a coal ash
signature?
Specific Obiections:
Duke Energy objects to the term "coal ash signature" on the ground that it is
vague and ambiguous.
Response:
Subject to and without waiving its objections, Duke Energy responds as follows:
21

Attorney Client Communication
Attorney Work Product
Privileged and Confidential
With reference to the July 22, 2011 NPDES permit, outfalls 001 and 005 are
required to be monitored only for the metals arsenic, selenium, iron and copper
(iron and copper monitored only on discharge of metal cleaning waste) while
outfall 007 is required to be monitored only for the metals chromium, arsenic,
mercury, nickel and copper. Based on revised Discharge Monitoring Reports
from the pumping period, there were no elevated levels for any of these metals.
Documents relied upon are EPARF103749 to EPARF103777 and EPARF103888 -
EPARF103897.
e. For the "Cape Fear Ash Pond Dewatering Levels" tables that Duke Energy provided to
NCDENR, as seen in Enclosure C.
Please describe the columns✓annotations on the pond pump logs.
Response:
With reference to Enclosure C to this RFI #2, the first four columns from the left
of the pump logs record the date, the time the pump(s) were started and stopped,
the water level(s) and the time that water level(s) were measured. The
information on the far right of the pump logs is a running total of pump operation
hours. The remaining columns relate to measurements of piezometers near the
respective basins.
ii. Where are the water levels measured within the pond?
Response:
Staff gauges used to measure water level were set close to the risers in each of
the 1978 and 1985 Basins.
Duke Energy primarily consulted the following individuals in preparing this
response:
Dennis Cole
Ricky Ashley
David Daughtry
N. How are the water levels measured?
Response:
1

Attorney Client Communication
Attorney Work Product
Privileged and Confidential
The staff gauges were not referenced to sea level, the elevation at of the top of
the risers or any other reference point. For the 1985 Basin, the water levels were
measured in inches and quarters of inches. For the 1978 Basin, the water levels
were measured in inches and tenths of inches. See Enclosure C to this RFI #2.
23

Name
Ricky Ashley
Larry Baxley
Kevin Brown
Attorney Client Communication
Attorney Work Product
Privileged and Confidential
Appendix A
Identifvina Information for Individuals Consulted
Position Employment Telephone
Address
Fossil Material Handling Tech
III /Cape Fear/Lee Ash Pond
Closure Team
EHS Construction
Manager /Carolina East Gen Env
Engineer II/Plant Demolition &
Retirement Program
Robin R. Bryson Sr. Environmental Specialist -
Water Programs
Dennis Cole Supervisor Operations/Ash Pond
Closure Team
David Daughtry Fossil Material Handling Tech
III /Cape Fear/Lee Ash Pond
Closure Team
24
Cape Fear Plant 919 -516 -1984
Lands
500 CP &L Road
Moncure, NC
27559
Weatherspoon 910- 272 -7062
Plant Lands
491 Power Plant
Road
Lumberton, NC
28358
Pinecrest Office 919 - 881 -3711
7001 Pinecrest
Road
Raleigh, NC
27613
Duke Energy 919 - 546 -3962
NC Regional
Headquarters
410 S. Wilmington
St.
Raleigh, NC
27601
Lee Plant Lands 919 -580 -3913
1677 Old
Smithfield Road
Goldsboro, NC
27530

Name
Henry Gales
Position
Fossil IC &E Tech IWCape Fear
Demo Team
Attorney Client Communication
Attorney Work Product
Privileged and Confidential
Employment Telephone
`Address'
Cape Fear Plant 919 -516 -1982
Lands
500 CP &L Road
Moncure, NC
27559
Christopher
Lead Engineer /Geotech Engineering
Duke Energy
Keenan
410 South
Wilmington Street
Raleigh, NC
27601
Rick Glenn
President
Glenn Underwater
Services, Inc.
5325 Marshall Air
Drive, Charlotte,
NC 28217
Toya Ogallo
Environmental Spc II/NPDES
Duke Energy
Compliance
410 South
Wilmington Street
Raleigh, NC
27601
Tim Russell
Supervisor /Engineering/Engineering
Duke Energy
& Closure Planning
526 South Church
Street
Charlotte, NC
28202
Danny Wimberly
Supt Operations/Plant Demolition &
Cape Fear Plant
Retirement Program
Lands
500 CP &L Road
Moncure, NC
27559
Issa Zazar
Director/ Plant Demo and
Pinecrest Office
Retirement
7001 Pinecrest
Road
Raleigh, NC
27613
25
919 -546 -4793
704 - 540 -9777
L•jL•a.Yli : ±yl
704 - 382 -4945
919-516-1980
919 - 881 -3803

Attorney Client Communication
Attorney Work Product
Privileged and Con, fidentud
Name Position Employment Telephone
Address
Certification
I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my
direction or supervision in accordance with a. system designed to assure that qualified personnel
properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or
persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the
information, I certify that the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief,
true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false
information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations.
Harry Sideris
Senior Vice President — Environment,
Health & Safety
Date:/ d P 7//
26
WCSR 33107616v1