NC0001422_More Information Received_20150302

.N f' DUKE Hany K.Sideris
ENERGY. Senior Vice President
Environmental,Health&Safety
526 S.Church Street
Mail Code:EC3XP
Charlotte,NC 28202
[phone]
February 23, 2015
Thomas Reeder
Assistant Secretary of the Environment
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1601 Mail Service Center RECEIVED/DENRIDWR
Raleigh, NC 27699-1601
MAR 0 2 2015
Re: Response to Information Requested for Permit Issuance
L. V. Sutton Electric Plant NC0001422 Water Quality
New Hanover County Permitting Section
Dear Assistant Secretary Reeder,
Your letter of February 6th indicates that the Department is preparing draft NPDES permits for
wastewater and stormwater at the Sutton facility, in conjunction with your November 5, 2014
notice letter. Your letter also indicates that any information submitted within 14 days of Duke
Energy's receipt of it will be considered. This letter and the attached materials transmitted by
Mr. Clare are provided in response to your February 6th letter.
While Duke Energy appreciates the opportunity to provide the materials transmitted by Mr.
Clare's letter, it is necessary to note that inadequate time has been provided to prepare a
complete response. My February 5 letter summarized the categories of information and
analysis that Duke Energy believes will be needed to appropriately modify the Sutton NPDES
permit, as well as the timeframes and meeting schedules to produce and evaluate that
information. Given those time constraints, your February 6th letter did not take into account the
time necessary for the company's technical personnel to communicate with Departmental
contacts and conduct the studies needed to submit complete application materials.
Nevertheless, the attached documents constitute Duke Energy's best efforts to provide as
complete and responsive application materials that could be produced within the time frame.
Duke Energy urges the Department to incorporate into any draft amended NPDES permit the
time frames that are reflected in my February 5 letter, presumably in the form of a compliance
schedule. As noted in my letter, the changes from these permit amendments may result in
significant capital costs and operational impacts. Further, a modified NPDES permit that does
not reflect the complexities of operating the current plant and completing decommissioning and
closure activities regarding the coal facilities at the plant could result in unavoidable
noncompliance, including an inability to comply with the 2019 deadline for closure contained in
the Coal Ash Management Act (CAMA) passed by the North Carolina General Assembly in
2014. Further, the impacts of the CCR rule recently published by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency need to be evaluated and taken into account in modifying the NPDES permit
(and any other permits in place at the Sutton plant).
Duke Energy believes that the most efficient and effective means for the Department to produce
a draft modified permit would be to meet with our technical personnel prior to issuing any draft.
We request such a meeting. The company further believes that sufficient time should be

• Mr. Thomas Reeder
Response to Information Requested for Permit Issuance
February 23, 2015
allotted to allow such communications to jointly review Duke Energy's submittals, in order to
discuss how to structure the modified NPDES permit. If such discussions are not provided,
Duke Energy is concerned that the process of publishing a draft and final modified permit will
take more time than would be otherwise needed. The company continues to urge the
Department to follow the timeline suggested in my February 5 letter.
The Sutton plant has been operated for many years based on the classification of the cooling
pond, as with the recent construction of the new natural gas power block located there. Making
the modifications that will be needed as a result of a reclassification of the cooling pond will
require significant time and resources to ensure that the continued operation of the plant and
the timely closure of the preexisting coal facilities and completion of the steps necessary to
comply with the provisions of CAMA will not be imperiled.
Finally, my February 5 letter requested DENR's written concurrence of Duke Energy's
understanding from our communications with the Department that the Sutton plant may continue
to lawfully operate in accordance with the current NPDES permit until such time as any modified
version with appropriate compliance timetables is issued in final form. While we renew that
request, we would reiterate the company's belief that such operation is consistent with federal
Clean Water Act and the applicable North Carolina statutes and rules, and our efforts to comply
with your notice letter and the February 6th letter should not be deemed in any way inconsistent
with that view.
Sincerely,
'
Harry K. Sideris
SVP, Environmental Health and Safety
Enclosures:
1. Letter from Allen Clare to Jeff Poupart re: NPDES Wastewater Application Materials
2. Letter from Allen Clare to Bradley Bennett re: Industrial Stormwater Evaluation
Cc: Jeff Poupart, NCDENR, DWR Water Quality Permitting Section
Bradley Bennett, NCDEMLR, Stormwater Permitting Program