Multi ID #'s_Compliance Boundaries Position FINAL_20170825

Water Resources
Environmental Quality
August 25, 2017
Paul Draovitch
Senior Vice President
Environmental, Health & Safety
Duke Energy
526 South Church Street
Mail Code EC3XP
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
Subject: Compliance Boundaries for North Carolina Coal Ash Facilities
Dear Mr. Draovitch:
ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
S. JAY ZIMMERMAN
Director
The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is providing our response to
Duke Energy concerning our position relating to the establishment of compliance boundaries under
Title 15A of the North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC) Subchapter 02L Rule .0107. With
respect to the compliance boundaries at all fourteen (14) coal ash facilities, DEQ is advising Duke
Energy that:
• Compliance boundaries are associated with waste disposal areas that have an active,
individual permit.
• When any permits at these facilities expire and there is no pending permit application, any
associated compliance boundaries will cease to exist and groundwater standards must be
met inside the former compliance boundaries. Similarly, when impoundments are closed
(whether by excavation, capping -in-place or some combination thereof), they are not
eligible to be included in any NPDES permit renewal.
• If a coal combustion residuals (CCR) surface impoundment at a facility was retired or
became inactive prior to that facility's receipt of its initial wastewater NPDES permit, the
impoundment is not eligible to receive a compliance boundary.
• If a CCR surface impoundment was retired or became inactive prior to the promulgation
of the provisions in 15A NCAC 2L (2L Rules) establishing compliance boundaries (i.e.,
1984), the impoundment is not eligible to receive a compliance boundary.
• Moving forward, the compliance boundary, if any, associated with non -impoundment coal
ash storage areas will not be documented in NPDES permits, though DEQ understands that
a compliance boundary may exist under a separate permitting program.
Below, DEQ is providing a more detailed explanation regarding the establishment of compliance
boundaries at the James E. Rogers Energy Complex (Rogers), Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
(Roxboro), Allen Steam Station (Allen), and Marshall Steam Station (Marshall).
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Division of Water Resources
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
1636 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1636
919-707-9129

Ro¢ers
With respect to the Unit 5 Inactive Ash Basin, it is DEQ's understanding that this
impoundment became inactive in 1980. Consequently, pursuant to the 2L Rules and North
Carolina General Statute (N.C.G.S.) § 143-215.1, the Unit 5 Inactive Ash Basin does not
have a compliance boundary associated with any NPDES permit for Rogers.
With respect to the Units 1-4 Inactive Ash Basin, it is DEQ's understanding that this
impoundment became inactive in 1977. Consequently, pursuant to the 2L Rules and
N.C.G.S § 143-215.1, the Units 1-4 Inactive Ash Basin does not have a compliance
boundary associated with any NPDES permit for Rogers.
With respect to the Broad River, it is DEQ's understanding that, pursuant to the 2L Rules
and N.C.G.S § 143-215.1, if a coal ash facility has a property boundary — including an
internal property boundary — that is less than 500 feet from the waste boundary, the
compliance boundary coincides with the property boundary nearest the waste boundary
unless the adjacent parcels on both sides of the property boundary are under common
ownership and individually permitted for use as a disposal system pursuant to N.C.G.S. §
143-215.1 or N.C.G.S. § 130A.
Any compliance boundary at Rogers will not extend into the Broad River, regardless of the
location of any property boundary.
Roxboro
DEQ has received Duke Energy's "Roxboro Ash Basin Compliance Boundary" letter dated August
9, 2017. DEQ is currently reviewing the document and has noted the following:
DEQ has not approved the compliance boundaries proposed in Duke Energy's Ash Basin
Extension Impoundments and Discharge Canals Assessment Work Plan (Roxboro
Assessment Work Plan), submitted to DEQ in August 2016. See November 23, 2016 letter
from DEQ to Duke Energy.
In reference to the compliance boundaries proposed as part of the Roxboro Assessment
Work Plan see Figure 1-2 Site Layout Map, dated 08/15/2016), DEQ expressly
disapproves Duke Energy's proposed expansion of the compliance boundaries around any
areas not previously identified as having compliance boundaries except for the areas
termed the East Ash Basin eastern extension impoundment (EAB EEI) and the West Ash
Basin southern extension impoundment (WAB SEI) in the Roxboro Assessment Work
Plan.
With respect to the EAB EEI and WAB SEI, DEQ is continuing to assess the data and
information submitted by Duke Energy to determine whether these areas qualify for
compliance boundaries. Within thirty (30) days of receipt of this letter, please provide
o Updated data from the Roxboro Assessment Work Plan (submitted by Duke Energy
in August 2016), especially regarding the WAB SEI where assessment was
incomplete in August 2016;
o Historic drawings and other information that demonstrate the historic role of the
EAB EEI and WAB SEI, including information showing the year(s) in which they
were separated from the EAB and WAB, respectively; and

o An analysis of the jurisdictional status of Sargents Creek, the Western Discharge
Canal, the Eastern Discharge Canal, and the Heated Water Discharge Pond,
including,
■ any analysis on these issues performed by Duke or its contractors;
■ any information relating to any Natural Resource Technical Report for
Roxboro;
■ historic maps showing these features prior to the construction of the
impoundments;
■ any information regarding jurisdictional determinations provided by Duke
or its contractors to, or received from, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers;
and
■ any other information relevant to the jurisdictional status of these features.
For Roxboro, the map delineating the perimeter of any permitted waste disposal area,
requested above, should have two parts, the first reflecting the waste boundaries for the
East Ash Basin and West Ash Basin not including the EAB EEI and WAB SEI, and the
second reflecting the waste boundaries for the East Ash Basin and West Ash Basin
including the EAB EEI and WAB SEI, respectively.
Allen
In DEQ's letter of July 7, 2017, DEQ advised Duke Energy that:
With respect to the Inactive Ash Basin, it is DEQ's understanding that the Inactive Ash
Basin became inactive in 1973. Consequently, pursuant to the 2L Rules and N.C.G.S §
143-215.1, the Inactive Ash Basin does not have a compliance boundary associated with
any NPDES permit for Allen.
With respect to Lake Wylie, it is DEQ's understanding that, pursuant to the 2L Rules and
N.C.G.S § 143-215.1, if a coal ash facility has a property boundary — including an internal
property boundary — that is less than 500 feet from the waste boundary, the compliance
boundary coincides with the property boundary nearest the waste boundary unless the
adjacent parcels on both sides of the property boundary are under common ownership and
individually permitted for use as a disposal system pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 143-215.1 or
N.C.G.S. § 130A.
DEQ is now further advising Duke Energy that any compliance boundary at Allen will not extend
into Lake Wylie, regardless of the location of any property boundary.
Marshall
In DEQ's letter of May 16, 2017, DEQ advised Duke Energy that:
With respect to Lake Norman, it is DEQ's understanding that, pursuant to the 2L Rules and
N.C.G.S § 143-215.1, if a coal ash facility has a property boundary — including an internal
property boundary — that is less than 500 feet from the waste boundary, the compliance
boundary coincides with the property boundary nearest the waste boundary unless the
adjacent parcels on both sides of the property boundary are under common ownership and

individually permitted for use as a disposal system pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 143-215.1 or
N.C.G.S. § 130A.
DEQ is now further advising Duke Energy that any compliance boundary at Marshall will not
extend into Lake Norman, regardless of the location of any property boundary.
Within thirty (30) days of receipt of this letter, please provide DEQ with two maps for the facilities
listed above for review and approval. The first map should clearly delineate the permitted waste
boundary for the active CCR impoundment(s) and include the compliance boundary drawn in
accordance with the explanations provided in this letter. The second map should delineate the
perimeter of any permitted waste disposal area and associated compliance boundary associated
with any activity that is currently individually permitted pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 143-215.1 or
N.C.G.S. § 130A. For the second map, please also identify the permit that authorizes the activity
by program, permit number, date of initial permit issuance, and date of the most recent permit
renewal. Please also submit these two maps for the Mayo Steam Electric Plant, Belews Creek
Steam Station, and L. V. Sutton Energy Complex (Sutton) based on the positions provided in the
first part of this letter for review and approval. (Note that Duke Energy has already submitted an
approved map for Sutton for inclusion in the NPDES permit. That map will satisfy the first map
requested above.)
Both hard and electronic copies of the revised maps should be sent to:
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Water Resources
Attn: Debra Watts
1636 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1636
To the extent necessary, DEQ will provide similarly detailed guidance for the remaining coal ash
facilities in the near future and request revised maps be generated and submitted for review and
approval. If you have any further questions, please contact Debra Watts (Central Office) at (919)
807-6338.
Sincerely,
S. 4Jay immerman P.G. Director
>
Division of Water Resources
cc: WQROS Regional Office Supervisors
WQROS Central File Copy