NC0004987_Major Modification Response_20180213

SOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER
Telephone [phone] PATTON AVENUE SUITE 304 Facsimile 828-258-2024
ASHEVILLE, NC 28801-3321
February 13, 2018
VIA First Class U.S. Mail and Electronic Mail
Mr. Sergei Chernikov
NCDEQ/Division of Water Resources
Water Quality Permitting Section - NPDES
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Sergei Chernikovkncdenr.gov
pubhcconimentsgncdenr g,ov
RECEI ED/DENR/DWR
FEB 2 9 2018
Water Resources
Permitting Section
Re: Draft NPDES Major Modification— Marshall Steam Station, #NC0004987
Dear Mr. Chernikov:
On behalf of the Catawba Riverkeeper Foundation, Inc. (the "Foundation"), the Sierra
Club, and the Waterkeeper Alliance (together the "conservation groups"), we are providing these
comments on the draft major modification of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System ('NPDES") permit noticed for public comment by the North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality ("DEQ") Division of Water Resources for Duke Energy's Marshall
Steam Station ("Marshall"), located near Terrell, North Carolina. The conservation groups
challenged the existing permit in the Office of Administrative Hearings ("OAH") in October
2016 (16 EHR 09913); the challenge is stayed pending expected resolution through this
modification.
DEQ's proposed modifications address major flaws in the existing Marshall permit that
are subject to the pending challenge in OAH, and these are changes we support. Our comments
will address these needed changes.
Although this is a positive step, DEQ also proposes to grant a new set of changes for
Duke Energy that, unfortunately, introduce new errors. Among the most problematic: DEQ
caves to Duke Energy's unjustified request to extend its date to comply with federal effluent
limitation guidelines (" ELGs"), which means Duke Energy will dump heavy metals in Lake
Norman for longer; DEQ attempts to bypass ordinary modification procedures for future,
hypothetical law changes; and DEQ eliminates a condition requiring "physical/chemical
treatment" of wastewater during decommissioning of the ash pond, supposedly for faster
dewatering, but does not specify how water quality will be protected.
Lastly, we flag additional problems, most of which were raised in our 2015 and 2016
comments, that DEQ should not miss the opportunity to fix here.
Charlottesville • Chapel Hill • Atlanta • Asheville • Birmingham • Charleston • Nashville • Richmond • Washington, DC
100% recycled paper

1) We Support the Elimination of Conditions Designating Seeps as Effluent Channels
DEQ previously permitted two non -engineered seeps at the Marshall Steam Station as
effluent channels, purporting to authorize these seeps to carry wastewater that had escaped from
the unlined coal ash pond. 2016 Permit, § A(30) (outfalls 101 and 102). Because these seeps are
both jurisdictional surface water tributaries and are influenced by natural ground water, this
approach could not be implemented consistent with federal and state law. In a shift we support,
the major modification proposes to eliminate seeps 101 and 102 from the permit and abandons
this approach to non -engineered seeps. Alongside the elimination of seep permitting from the
Marshall permit, DEQ is proposing a Special Order by Consent as a new mechanism to oversee
non -engineered seeps at Duke Energy's Marshall Steam Station for an interim period while
accelerated decanting occurs. We generally support this approach, which appropriately leaves to
the wayside DEQ's prior attempt to legitimize the Marshall leaks by permitting them. However,
we have specific concerns with particular terms of the Special Order by Consent — for example,
the process to "disposition" the seeps at Marshall. These concerns are laid out in separate
comments on the SOC. For purposes of this major modification, we support removing the
Marshall seeps as effluent channels from the permit, and view this modification as necessary to
comply with federal and state law.
2) We Support the Addition of a Map and Compliance Boundary Condition Enforcing
Groundwater Rules at the Shoreline of Lake Norman.
North Carolina implements some parts of its Groundwater Protection Rule ("2L Rule")
through permits issued to industrial facilities under the solid waste disposal statutes or the
NPDES permit program. See 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2L .0106(c) (defining permitted as having
a permit pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-215.1 or § 130A-294). The 2L Rule, as we have
previously commented, directs that "[t]he [compliance] boundary shall be established by the
Director, or his designee at the time of permit issuance." 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2L .0107(c).
The "compliance boundary" is a "boundary around a disposal system at and beyond which
groundwater quality standards may not be exceeded." 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2L.0102(3).
The absence of a map designating a compliance boundary at the Marshall facility was a
critical omission in the Marshall permit. Although the Marshall permit neglected to provide such
a map, prior maps approved by DEQ had embedded in them another flaw: the compliance
boundary at Marshall extended underneath Lake Norman, the impermissible effect of which was
to allow contaminated groundwater to flow from beneath the ash pond into Lake Norman. State
law requires the compliance boundary to stop at the shoreline, and the Clean Water Act does not
allow Duke Energy to co-opt Lake Norman as part of its waste disposal system. The major
modification adds a groundwater compliance boundary map that no longer extends the point of
compliance into Lake Norman. We support this change and the addition of related condition
A.(32.) as important steps toward enforcing the 2L Rule at the Marshall Steam Station.
2

3) Postponing Compliance with Federal ELGs Is Unjustified and Unlawful
DEQ proposes to give Duke Energy extra time to meet the minimum standards of federal
law, effectively allowing it to continue discharging polluted wastewater into Lake Norman
longer than is justified. DEQ's modification would postpone, from 2021 to 2023, the dates to
stop discharging of bottom ash transport water and to meet tighter limits for flue gas
desulphurization ("FGD") wastewater. This is based solely on the Trump administration's
efforts to relax the federal ELGs for this pollution at some hypothetical point in the future.
Indeed, DEQ's short explanation says the dates are modified for precisely this reason: "due to the
proposed EPA rulemaking that might result in different deadlines and/or BAT determinations."
Fact Sheet at page 3.
At the outset, EPA's postponement rule is itself subject to ongoing legal challenges. )
Even if the postponement ends up withstanding legal scrutiny, nothing in the rule revision
provides a basis for modifying the Marshall permit ELG implementation dates. EPA's
postponement (codified at 40 CFR 423.11, 423.13, and 423.16) simply authorizes NPDES
permitting agencies, starting in September 2017, to require elimination of bottom ash discharge
as soon as November 1, 2020 as opposed to November 1, 2018, but no later than December 31,
2023. That new rule does not require DEQ to reopen its prior compliance date determination and
offers no particular basis for delaying compliance with bottom ash or FGD effluent limitations at
Marshall. Of particular relevance here, the revised rule also does not change the factors set forth
in 40 C.F.R. § 423.11(t) that DEQ is required to consider when establishing an "as soon as
possible" date for compliance. The only change related to compliance dates is the two-year
postponement of the beginning of the compliance period, so that compliance with bottom ash
and FGD effluent limitations must now occur "as soon as possible" between 2020 and 2023,
instead of between 2018 and 2023 in the 2015 ELG Rule. The compliance date of 2021 in the
existing Marshall permit is within the later implementation period under the revised rule. EPA
has emphasized that the standards for which it delayed the compliance deadlines remain in
effect, despite the agency's ongoing reconsideration process.2 The revised rule itself provides no
basis for DEQ to revisit its original compliance date determination summarized in the 2016 Fact
Sheet for the Marshall permit.
In addition, there is no indication that Duke Energy will have any actual impediments to
meeting ELGs for bottom ash and FGD waste by the current deadline of 2021. Neither Duke
Energy nor DEQ even pretend there are any technological or logistical reasons for the delay.
' See, e g, http•//www biologicaldiversity.org/programs/environmental_health/pdfs/ELG-Delay-Sec-7-
complamt.pdf; see also Clean Water Action, Sierra Club, Waterkeeper Alliance et al v E Scott Pruitt,
Administrator, US Environmental Protection Agency, et al. (D D.C. 1 17-cv-00817-KBJ, pending mot. to amend
complaint).
2 See 82 Fed. Reg at 43,496 ("This maintains the 2015 Rule as a whole at this time, with the only change being to
postpone specific compliance deadlines for two wastestreams."), see also U.S. EPA, Response to Comment
Document, EPA -HQ -OW -2009-0819, SE06669, at 8 ("The only thing the Postponement Rule does is revise the
2015 ELG Rule's new, more stringent compliance dates for two wastestreams discharged from existing sources
(bottom ash transport water and flue gas desulfunzation wastewater). Otherwise, it leaves the Rule unchanged.")

Nor could they – the compliance dates in the existing permit were already overly generous, as we
commented on the existing permit. Moreover, a technical assessment of the feasibility of ELG
compliance at the Marshall plant prepared by environmental, chemical, and mechanical
engineering expert Dr. Ranajit Sahu, attached hereto, demonstrates that zero discharge of bottom
ash wastewater can be achieved by November 2020 and that compliance with the new FGD
wastewater limits also can be achieved by November 2020—both sooner than the January 31,
2021 compliance dates in the existing permit.
The ELG implementation dates in the existing permit give Duke Energy several years of
delay to comply with the ELGs for bottom ash transport water and FGD wastewater. When the
permit issued in 2016, the ELG then required the new limitations to start "as soon as possible
beginning November 1, 2018, but no later than December 21, 2023." 40 C.F.R. § 423 12(h), (k),
(g) (emphasis added). DEQ then allowed Duke Energy, at its request, to continue dumping toxic
bottom ash transport and FGD wastewater into Lake Norman for an additional two years and
three months beyond November 2018, or until January 31, 2021. Although the EPA left to state
permitting authorities the responsibility of determining when the new limits will apply, EPA
presumed that the "as soon as possible" date is November 1, 2018, "unless the permitting
authority establishes a later date, after receiving information from the discharger." 40 C.F.R.
§ 423.11(t). Any determination that a later date is appropriate must be well-documented,
independently justified, and reflect consideration, at a minimum, of the specific factors set forth
in EPA's regulations. See id. In allowing delayed compliance the first time, rather than
exercising any independent judgment or attempting to verify any of the information submitted by
Duke Energy, DEQ simply "concurred" with the pithy technical justification supplied by Duke
Energy. This too fell short of the well-documented justification required by EPA regulation. But
now DEQ manages to make the situation worse by delaying the compliance date by years more –
this time without even the veneer of legal justification under federal or state law. Allowing
unnecessary delay in complying with federal ELGs without any valid justification would be
arbitrary and capricious.
Duke Energy's earlier justification demonstrated, if anything, that compliance was easily
obtainable by 2021, and Duke Energy has supplied no justification casting doubt on the
achievability of these dates Based upon the technology that Duke Energy has already promised
is feasible to implement for zero discharge of bottom ash transport water, the dates in the current
permit would apply as a matter of best professional judgment ("BPF), even in the complete
absence of an ELG dictating a date. Furthermore, the hypothetical possibility that federal law
might relax does not provide Duke Energy or DEQ a legal basis to delay implementation of
presently achievable, best available technology. Allowing Duke Energy to keep discharging
pollution when technology is readily available to reduce and eliminate the discharges is
indefensible and unlawful. DEQ must reverse course and reject Duke Energy's unjustified
request for delay.
This is not the first place a U.S. utility has tried to game ELG compliance dates. We note
that Michigan DEQ recently entertained a similar request from DTE Electric Company to delay
compliance with ELGs for bottom ash transport water at its DECO -Belle River plant. As here,
this request was simply based upon the EPA rule and reconsideration. Michigan's DEQ
a]

ultimately rejected the request, which like this one, had rio acceptable technical or legal
justification. The fact sheet and denial related to that request are attached.
Finally, relaxing the compliance deadline for meeting effluent limitations for bottom ash
transport water and FGD waste also runs afoul of the anti -backsliding provisions of the CWA. 33
U.S.C. § 1342(0); 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(11)(1). "[W]hen a permit is renewed or reissued, [ ]
effluent limitations, standards or conditions must be at least as stringent as the final effluent
limitations, standards, or conditions in the previous permit." 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(1)(1). Permits
can be modified when new ELGs are promulgated but only if "EPA has revised, withdrawn, or
modified that portion of the regulation or effluent limitation guideline on which the permit
condition was based." 40 C.F.R. § 122.62(a)(3)(i)(B). The previous compliance date was based
on the portion of the ELGs requiring use of technology as soon as possible but no later than
2023. As explained above, that portion of the ELG has not changed. The only change is that the
earliest date for compliance has been delayed from 2018 to 2020, which is inapposite here, as
compliance with ELGs at the Marshall station was not based on that portion of the regulation.
4) DEQ Cannot Bypass Modification Procedures Based Upon Hypothetical
Amendments to the Coal Ash Management Act.
The modification proposes to add a condition that correctly notes that "by December 31,
2019 the facility shall convert to the disposal of dry bottom ash, as defined in CAMA." See
Conditions A.(2.) and A. (3.). However, DEQ also has added language that purports to allow an
automatic modification of the date for dry bottom ash disposal: "if the House Bill is amended, in
such case the new date will be substituted without re -opening of the permit." DEQ's regulations
require all permit modifications to go through "the same public notice and other procedural
requirements as the issuance of permits," except for limited categories. 15A N.C. Admin. Code
02H .0114(b). An amendment in state law by the legislature is not one of the categories that
allows DEQ to bypass ordinary notice and comment procedures that govern its NPDES
permitting program. The attempt to bypass the ordinary procedural requirements for a permit
modification, by bootstrapping in as -of -yet changes in state law, must be eliminated, and in any
event, has no lawful basis.
5) DEQ Does Not Provide Any Legitimate Basis for Removing the Condition
Requiring "Physical/Chemical Treatment" of Ash Pond Effluent During Dewatering
or Decanting.
DEQ's modification removes the following condition that, on its face, requires physical -
chemical treatment of ash pond wastewater during ash pond decommissioning:
When the facility commences the ash pond/ponds decommissioning process, the
facility shall treat the wastewater discharged from the ash pond/ponds by the
physical -chemical treatment facilities.
Marshall Permit, Conditions A.(2.) and A.(3.).

EPA's comments supported adding this condition in the existing permit,3 and Duke
Energy does not request this modification in either August or December 2017 requests. For its
part, DEQ's fact sheet yields little insight into this deletion, stating only the requirement is
eliminated to "meet accelerated closure requirements in the SOC." Fact Sheet at 6. While not
explained, we understand "SOC" to refer to a proposed "Special Order by Consent" presently out
for public comment, which proposes to accelerate decanting of the ash pond at the Marshall ash
pond as a step toward eliminating non -engineered seeps. DEQ provides no explanation about
how, in the absence of the above condition, it will assure water quality is protected in Lake
Norman, which will be crucial during any accelerated decanting. It does not appear DEQ has
revisited its WQBELs in light of accelerated closure activities. DEQ must make sure the
WQBELs derived from the Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA) conducted for outfall 002 are
protective in light of the pace of closure activities being proposed in the SOC For example,
DEQ notes in its public notice that "total arsenic is the water quality limited parameter." DEQ
must assure that effluent limitations for arsenic are stringent enough to achieve water quality in
this segment of Lake Norman, even if this means imposing limitations "more stringent than
minimum treatment requirements." 5A N.C. Admin. Code 02B .0404 (addressing effluent
limitations in water quality limited segments). In addition, DEQ cannot relax any technology-
based limitations imposed from the last permit without violating the CWA's anti -backsliding
provisions 33 U.S.C. § 1342(0); 40 C F R. § 122.44(1)(1) ("[W]hen a permit is renewed or
reissued, interim effluent limitations, standards or conditions must be at least as stringent as the
final effluent limitations, standards, or conditions in the previous permit ...."). In the absence
of an adequate record explaining the removal of this condition and additional assurances and
measures that will be taken to assure water quality standards are protected during accelerated
closure activities, DEQ must retain the condition.
6) DEQ Must Impose Sufficiently Stringent Effluent Limitations.
NPDES permits control pollution by setting (1) limits based on the technology available
to treat pollutants ("technology based effluent limits") and (2) any additional limits necessary to
protect water quality ("water quality -based effluent limits") on the wastewater dischargers. 33
U S.C. §§ 1311(b), 1314(b); 40 C.F.R. § 122 44(a)(1), (d). An NPDES permit must assure
compliance with all statutory and regulatory requirements, including state water quality
standards. 33 U.S.C. § 1342(a)(1)(A); 40 C.F R § 122.43(a), 15A N C. Admin. Code 2H 0118.
New Outfall 005 will discharge from a new lined retention basin that, according to Duke
Energy, will handle wastewater flows currently directed to the unlined ash pond. The
permit limits for this outfall must reflect, at a minimum, technology-based effluent
limitations required for the various waste streams being routed to the lined retention
basin. This includes coal pile runoff, and Duke Energy specifically requested that the
ELG limits for TSS from coal pile runoff be imposed from the lined retention basin The
TSS limit must be tightened to 50.0 mg/L daily maximum, consistent with that limit in
Outfall 002. See 40 CFR § 423.12.
3 See EPA Comment letter to DEQ Regarding Marshall permit (Aug 19, 2016) (on file with DEQ).
4 https //deq nc gov/news/events/public-comment-peiiod-opens-inaishall-steam-station-peimrt-nc0004987

Outfall 002 - Turbidity: the conditions related to net turbidity from the ash pond must be
revised to achieve water quality standards in the receiving stream. Note 5 to Conditions
A (2.) (normal) and A.(3.) (dewatering) states that "net turbidity shall not exceed 50 NTU
... measured by the difference between the effluent turbidity and the background
turbidity." First, because Lake Norman is an impounded portion of the Catawba River,
the applicable standard is 25 NTU. 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2B.0211(21). Second,
allowing a net increase over background conditions in the effluent in an amount
equivalent to the maximum allowed in the standard does not assure water quality
standards will be met in the Catawba River. This term must be revised to reflect water
quality in the receiving stream, which DEQ did in the Sutton NPDES permit (and
indicated it would do in the Cliffside permit): "The discharge from this facility shall not
cause turbidity in the receiving stream to exceed 50 NTU. If the instream turbidity
exceeds 50 NTU due to natural background conditions, the discharge cannot cause
turbidity to increase in the receiving stream." NPDES Permit Modification NC0001422
(Dec. 7, 2015) Condition A.(2) note 5. This reflects the standard which provides, "if
turbidity exceeds these levels due to natural background conditions, the existing turbidity
level shall not be increased." 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2B.0211(21).
Outfall 002 - Arsenic: As stated above, DEQ must assure that effluent limitations for
arsenic are stringent enough to achieve water quality in this segment of Lake Norman,
which is a drinking water supply reservoir. The modified permit continues to allow from
Outfall 002 (dewatering) a daily maximum arsenic discharge of 11,121 gg/L — which is
1,112 times higher than the surface water quality standard applicable to a water supply
15A NCAC 02B .0216(3)(h)(ii) (setting arsenic at 10 µg/L). The explanation of RPA
provided in the 2018 fact sheet for the existing WQBELs lists the freshwater aquatic life
standards for arsenic, while simply noting it is "necessary to evaluate" the more stringent
arsenic standard for human health. 2018 Fact Sheet at 7, table 1, n 3 Any WQBEL must
be sufficiently stringent to protect human health, including compliance with WS -IV water
supply standards. Arsenic is a known carcinogen that causes multiple forms of cancer in
humans. It is also a toxic pollutant, 40 C.F.R. § 401 15, and a priority pollutant, 40
C.F.R. Part 423 App'x A. Arsenic is also associated with non -cancer health effects of the
skin and the nervous system. As we raised in our previous comments, allowing such a
high discharge of arsenic into a public drinking water supply that also receives heavy
recreational use is risky. Riverbend's more protective limit of 14.5 µg/L daily maximum
arsenic discharge, and technologies used to achieve that limit, like adding filtration,
demonstrate that technologies are available to more limit arsenic discharges during
dewatering. Those technologies and stronger effluent limits must be applied at Marshall
at the outset to protect water quality in Lake Norman.
• Outfall 002 — Monitoring: As we stated previously, the monitoring requirements for ash
pond effluent should be expanded to include constituents known to discharge through
coal ash effluent. At a minimum, the constituents identified by the DWR in the SOC to
5 hap //edocs deq nc gov/WateIResouices/DOCV1ew aspx9dbid=0&id=489038&page=l&ci=1
7

be monitored in ash pond seep discharges from Marshall (Attachment B), should also be
monitored in the main outfall of the ash pond. The omission of cadmium and lead, in
particular, is striking because Duke has identified those contaminants as associated with
the Marshall coal ash pond and exceeding surface water standards in Lake Norman.
Duke Energy, Marshall Corrective Action Plan Part II, 21 Monitoring for other
constituents of interest identified in Duke's Marshall Corrective Action Plan — including
but not limited to boron, chromium, cobalt, manganese, nickel and sulfate — should also
be monitored. During dewatering, it is particularly critical to require monitoring for a
sufficient list of contaminants to make sure any violations of water quality standards
(narrative and numeric) are detected, even if DEQ is not presently anticipating those
violations. In other words, DEQ needs to capture sufficiently broad information about
the effluent during decanting and dewatering to make sure additional steps can be taken
in time to protect water quality and public health in Lake Norman.
7) The Permit Modification Should Address Flaws in the Original Permit:
In proposing a modified permit, DEQ has allowed several problems to persist. Many of
these were raised in our comments submitted in 2016 and 2015, and we specifically incorporate
those comments here Here, we touch on ongoing problems that DEQ should use this
modification to address:
The Modified Permit Must Set a Limit for Bromide Discharges: The existing permit
added a linut to monitor bromide but set no discharge limit on the ash pond outfall.
When bromide mixes with chlorine in treated drinking water supplies, it forms
carcinogens known as trihalomethanes ("THMs").6 As Duke Energy has admitted in
sworn testimony, the company's discharges of bromide from the Marshall coal ash basin
in recent years has caused tnhalomethanes to form in downstream drinking water
supplies, including the drinking water supply for the City of Charlotte.7 Duke Energy
made similar admissions as part of its criminal plea agreement.8 Downstream of
Marshall, Duke Energy has identified the following at -risk drinking water supplies that
may be affected by its bromide discharges: Mooresville, Lincoln County, Charlotte -
Mecklenburg, Gastonia, Mount Holly, and Belmont. 9 These water supplies collectively
6 EPA, Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source
Category, 80 Fed Reg 67,838, 67,872, 67,886 (Nov 3, 2015) (`Bromide discharges from steam electric power
plants can contribute to the formation of carcinogenic DBPs [disinfection byproducts, e g, tnhalomethanes] in
public drinking water systems," and "[s]tudies indicate that exposure to THMs [tnhalomethanes] and other DBPs
from chlorinated water is associated with human bladder cancer.")
7 Dep Tr of Duke Energy (via Corporate Designee Zachary Hall) at 47:14-48 15 (Feb 10, 2017) ("Q. Okay And
have discharges from Duke Energy's ash basin at Marshall contributed to the increases in trihalomethanes at the
Charlotte intake? A They have ")
8 Joint Factual Statement, United States ofAmerica v Duke Energy, No 5.15 -CR -62-H at 52-53 (May 14, 2015)
9 Duke Energy Compliance Officers' Report at 18-19, United States v Duke Energy (E D N C. Apr 29, 2016)

serve over 1.2 million people. 10 The risk presented by bromide discharges in the
Catawba River is not merely hypothetical, in 2015, bromide discharges caused THMs to
form in treated drinking water above the Safe Drinking Water Act regulatory level of
0.080 µg/L in water supplies downstream of Marshall.
Despite this known threat to downstream drinking water supplies, it still does not appear
that DEQ has conducted RPA to determine what limits need to be set for bromide
discharges in the Marshall permit. Longstanding Clean Water Act regulations require
agencies to establish water quality -based permit limits on bromide if necessary to meet
narrative water quality standards, including standards to protect human health."
Under the ELG rule, EPA reaffirmed that this established requirement applies to bromide,
and instructed permitting authorities to develop permit limits on a site-specific basis for
bromide when necessary to meet narrative water quality standards. 12 North Carolina has
put in place exactly such narrative criteria for water quality to protect people from unsafe
levels of pollutants such as brominated trihalomethanes: "Human health standards: the
concentration of toxic substances shall not exceed the level necessary to protect human
health through exposure routes of fish tissue consumption, water consumption, or other
route identified as appropriate for the water body." 13 DEQ must set limits for bromide in
the permit sufficient to protect everyone who drinks water downstream, particularly
during dewatering and decanting
The Modified Permit Overlooks Discharges of Wastewater Througl, i H dy rolo ically
Connected Groundwater: As explained in prior comments, the CWA is a strict liability
statute prohibiting the discharge of any pollutant to a water of the United States without a
permit. 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a). The coal ash pond at Marshall is estimated to discharge at
least 234,244 gallons per day of contaminated wastewater to Lake Norman — over 85
million gallons annually — through groundwater via a direct hydrologic connection to the
lake. Duke Energy, Appendix D to the Marshall Corrective Action Plan Part II, 3. That
discharge is not included in the current permit. 33 U S.C. § 1342(0); 40 C.F.R.
§ 122.44(1)(1) ("[W]hen a permit is renewed or reissued, interim effluent limitations,
standards or conditions must be at least as stringent as the final effluent limitations,
standards, or conditions in the previous permit ...."). DEQ must incorporate the
10 EPA, Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) (last visited Apr 28, 2017), available at
https //www3 epa gov/enviro/facts/sdwis/search html
" 40 C.F R § 122 44(d)(1)(i) ("[e]ach NPDES pernut shall include conditions meeting the following requirements
: any requirements in addition to or more stringent than promulgated effluent limitations guidelines or standards
under sections 301, 304, 306, 307, 318, and 405 of [the] CWA necessary to (1) Achieve water quality standards
established under section 303 of the CWA, including State narrative criteria for water quality ")
12 80 Fed Reg at 67,886-87 ("[W]ater quality -based effluent limitations for steam electric power plant discharges
may be required under the regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(d)(1), where necessary to meet either numeric criteria (e g,
for bromide, TDS or conductivity) or narrative criteria in state water quality standards.... These narrative criteria
may be used to develop water quality -based effluent limitations on a site-specific basis for the discharge of
pollutants that impact drinking water sources, such as bromide ").
13 15A N C Admin Code 2B 0208(a)(2).
9

hydrologically connected discharge into its RPA to determine if there is a reasonable
potential to violate or contribute to a violation of surface water quality standards.
Ultimately, DEQ should require Duke Energy to stop the discharge of contaminated
wastewater to Lake Norman via hydrologically connected groundwater by removing the
source of contamination — Duke Energy's coal ash.
The Permit Continues to Violate the Removed Substances Provision- As we articulated in
our prior comments, the approach set forth by DEQ violates the existing Removed
Substances provision (Standard Conditions, Part II C.6) of the permit, providing:
"Solids, sludges ... or other pollutants removed in the course of treatment or control of
wastewaters shall be utilized/disposed of... in a manner such as to prevent any pollutant
from such materials from entering waters of the State or navigable waters of the United
States." (emphasis added). Coal ash at Marshall — the "removed substance" — is sitting as
much as 70 feet below the groundwater table. Duke Energy, Comprehensive Site
Assessment Figures. Groundwater is a water of the State. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-212(6).
Coal ash is a "pollutant" regulated under the Clean Water Act. See supra. The
Department must require Duke Energy to remove the "removed substances" from the
waters of the State and should not authorize the ongoing violation of an existing permit
term by purporting to issue a new permit with the same terms while the facility is in
violation of the existing permit.
The Permit Continues to Violate Requirements Applicable to Critical Areas: The
Marshall plant is located in a WS -IV "critical area." See 2018 Draft Modification Permit
Fact Sheet, 1 14 Waters within a critical area "shall meet the Maximum Contaminant
Level concentrations considered safe for drinking, culinary, or food-processing purposes
that are specified in the national drinking water regulations and in the North Carolina
Rules Governing Public Water Supplies." 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2B .0216(2).
"Sources of water pollution that preclude any of these uses on either a short-term or long-
term basis shall be considered to be violating a water quality standard." Id. Based on
samples collected by Duke Energy, it appears that surface water around the Marshall
plant continues to violate this standard. Unless the "source[] of water pollution" is
removed, the Marshall plant may continue to violate this standard, preventing it from
being permitted in compliance with North Carolina law.
8) Conclusion
The draft permit modification is inconsistent with the requirements of North Carolina and
federal law for the reasons described above. We ask for the permit modification to be withdrawn
and for the permit to be rewritten to correct the legal deficiencies we identify, to protect water
quality and the public interest. We also request a hearing so that the public has a sufficient
opportunity to weigh in on these important issues.
14 "Critical area means the area adjacent to a water supply intake or reservoir where risk associated with pollution is
greater than from the remaining portions of the watershed " 15A N C Admin Code 2B .0202(20)
10

Smcerely,
Aw")
Amelia Y. Burnette
Austin DJ Gerken
Patnck Hunter
Thomas Lodwick
Southern Environmental Law Center
48 Patton Avenue, Suite 304
Asheville, NC 28801
828-258-2023
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Counselfor
Catawba Riverkeeper Foundation, Inc.
Sam Perkins, Catawba Riverkeeper®
715 N Church St, Suite 120
Charlotte, NC 28202
[e-mail] —
Waterkeeper Alliance
Donna Lisenby
Clean & Safe Energy Campaign Manager
[e-mail]
Sierra Club
Bridget Lee
50 F Street, NW, 8th Floor
Washington, DC 20001
[e-mail]
cc: Karrie Jo -Shell, Engineer, EPA Region 4 (via email only)
11

SELC Comments on Marshall NPDES Permit Modification #NC0004987 — February 13, 2018
ATTACHMENTS
Technical Assessment of Feasibility of Timely Compliance with the ELG Rule
Requirements for Bottom Ash Transport Water and FGD Wastewater at the Marshall
Power Plant: '
Expert Report by Dr. Ranajit (Ron) Sahu
2. Michigan DEQ's Decision on DECO -Belle River Permit Modification Request & Fact
Sheet.

SELC Comments on Marshall NPDES Permit Modification #NC0004987 — February 13, 2018
ATTACHMENT 1
Technical Assessment of Feasibility of Timely Compliance with the ELG Rule Requirements for
Bottom Ash Transport Water and FGD Wastewater at the Marshall Power Plant:
Expert Report by Dr. Ranajit (Ron) Sahu

Technical Assessment of Feasibility of Timely Compliance with the
ELG Rule Requirements for Bottom Ash Transport Water and
FGD Wastewater at the Marshall Power Plant:
Expert Report by Dr. Ranajit (Ron) Sahu
February 12, 2018

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION
. ... 2
2 BOTTOM ASH HANDLING AND FGD WASTEWATER TREATMENT AT THE
MARSHALL PLANT . ...............
2
3. EXISTING PERMIT AND PROPOSED REVISED DATES FOR COMPLIANCE WITH
ELGS FOR BOTTOM ASH TRANSPORT WATER AND FGD WASTEWATER AT THE
MARSHALL PLANT ....... ......
4
4 TECHNOLOGY CHOICES FOR BATW ELG COMPLIANCE.
5
5 TECHNOLOGY CHOICES FOR FGD ELG COMPLIANCE.. .. .... ...
... 8
6. DUKE ENERGY'S PLANNING TO COMPLY WITH THE ELGS
..11
7. CRITIQUE OF DUKE'S PROPOSED COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE ..... .........
.12
8. COMPARISON OF DUKE'S COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE WITH THOSE OF OTHER
LARGE PROJECTS
15
9 CONCLUSIONS .. ............ .............
16
10 AUTHOR'S EXPERTISE AND QUALIFICATIONS. ..... ... .....
.17
ATTACHMENT A - RESUME .... ......
.. 1
ATTACHMENT B -LIST OF PUBLICATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS ... ......
6
ATTACHMENT C - PREVIOUS EXPERT WITNESS TESTIMONY
8

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This is an assessment of the schedule for achieving compliance with the U S Environmental Protection
Agency's ("EPA") revised effluent limitations guidelines ("ELGs")' for bottom ash transport water
(`BATW") and flue gas desulfurization ("FGD") wastewater generated at Duke Energy Carolinas'
("Duke") coal-fired Marshall Steam Station ("Marshall" or the "Plant") proposed by the North Carolina
Department of Environmental Quality ("DEQ") in the draft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System ("NPDES") permit for the Plant
The draft permit proposes a December 2023 date for compliance with the BATW and the FGD
wastewater ELGs The draft permit does not provide for expeditious compliance with the new
requirements and, instead, adopts Duke's artificially stretched -out timelines for all phases of work,
providing for the unnecessary scheduling of tasks sequentially rather than in parallel, ignoring work that
has already been completed or begun, and failing to include sufficient detail to justify the elongated
schedules.
Based on industry -wide recognition of the feasibility of completing the necessary upgrades sooner and
on Duke's own experience with the type of upgrades required, as well as on the fact that it already has
selected the requisite technology and begun preparations, Duke should be able to achieve compliance
with the bottom ash transport water ELGs by November 1, 2020, at the latest, and with the FGD
wastewater ELGs also by November 1, 2020, at the latest. I note that these dates are not that different
from the January 31, 2021 compliance dates proposed by Duke itself for meeting the BATW and FGD
wastewater ELGs in its May 9, 2016 letter to DEQ (In addition, Duke must comply with the North
Carolina Coal Ash Management Act which requires dry handling of bottom ash by December 31,
2019 )
Since Duke was well on its way to complying with the BATW and FGD wastewater ELGs at Marshall
by January 31, 2021 in mid-2016—with a very leisurely schedule as discussed in its May 9, 2016 letter to
DEQ—the extension of compliance deadlines until December 31, 2023 (1 e., almost three additional
years) is technical untenable.
1 U S EPA, Effluent Iamztations Guidehnes and Standards for the Steam Electric Poiver Generatzng Point Source Category, Final Rule,
80 Fed Reg 67,838 (Nov 3, 2015) (revising 40 C F R Part 423) [hereinafter "ELGs" or "BLG Rule"]
'- The ELGs also affect fly ash transport water But since fly ash is dry handled at Marshall, it is effectively in compliance
with that ELG requiring zero discharge

1. INTRODUCTION
This is an assessment of the schedule for achieving compliance with EPA's revised effluent limitations
guidelines for BATW and FGD wastewater generated at Duke's Marshall Plant proposed in the draft
NPDES wastewater permit for the Plant Specifically, this assessment evaluates Duke's extended
schedule for acliieving compliance with these requirements and finds this schedule to be unsupported
2. BOTTOM ASH HANDLING AND FGD WASTEWATER TREATMENT AT THE
MARSHALL PLANT
Duke operates four generating units at Marshall- Unit 1 (built in 1965, approximately 385 MW), Unit 2
(built in 1966, approximately 385 MW), Unit 3 (built in 1969, approximately 670 MW), and Unit 4 (built
in 1970, approximately 670 MW) All four units were retrofitted with FGD for sulfur dioxide control,
between 2006 and 2007
Duke handles bottom ash from all four units using wet sluicing. The BATW transport water is directed
to an existing impoundment (the "ash basin") from which waters are discharged via Outfall 002
Wastewater from the Marshall units' FGD systems is sent to a treatment system comprised of a solids
removal system and constructed wetlands. Details of the current FGD wastewater system are as
follows, as excerpted from a technical paper presented by Duke in 2008 3
At Marshall, "[A] combination of a waste water solids removal system (WWSRS) and a
[Constructed Wetlands Treatment System] CWTS was selected over the other treatment
processes mainly because it met the anticipated waste water treatment needs at a
significantly lower lifecycle cost ..The WWSRS flow diagram is shown in [the figure
below]
3 Wylie, Robert, et al, Duke Energy Carolina LLC's Strategy and Initial Experience of FGD Waste Water Treatment
Systems, presented at the International Water Conference, October 2008, San Antonio, Texas Available at
http //citeseerx ist psu edu/v1ewdoc/download?doi=10 1 1 621 5654&iep=ree1&type=pdf
14

Figure 2: Marshall Station WWSRS Flow Diagram
.. ......... . ..
Sludge
_ Dewotenng
Sludge
Tank Cake
PflhirtC
Treated
WN9lny/pt e,
llu W.�adNAl
.0 pphv 1.,41
The WWSRS is comprised of an Equalization Tank (EQ) taking an average flow at up
to 542 gpm when all three absorbers are in operation and discharging a purge The
purpose of the EQ is to provide mixing of the waste water from the three absorbers
and to provide an inventory of waste water to assure continuous flow to the
downstream clarifier The effluent from the EQ is pumped to a flocculating clarifier
where suspended solids are settled out and discharged from the clarifier to the sludge
holding tank Polymer is injected into the line leaving the EQ, to enhance the formation
of floc in the clarifier No pH adjustment is made at any point within the WWSRS or
the CWTS The overflow from the clarifier flows to the wetland supply tank and then is
pumped to the CWTS about one mile away. Sludge is pumped from the sludge tank to a
set of three recessed chamber type filter presses ("plate and frame type"). The sludge is
dewatered to about 60-70 wt% solids and discharged to a truck located below the filter
press discharge Filtrate from the filter presses is pumped back to the EQ A
Maintenance Tank is also included in the WWSRS system to act as a backup to the EQ
or the Sludge Tank or the clarifier (for short durations), when any of them requires
servicing The dewatered sludge is hauled to an onsite lined landfill
The Marshall FGD units were brought on line between October 2006 and May 2007.
The WWSRS started up in December 2006, and although it experienced some normal
start-up challenges... overall it is providing excellent results
Another positive impact in the WWSRS was the higher reduction of mercury and
selenium in the clarification stage than had been expected This is explained by more of
the mercury and selenium being in a suspended form than expected in the design basis
and thus able to be significantly reduced by clarification The net effect of this situation
is that less load is placed on the constructed wetlands allowing them to function as a
pohshing process "4
4 Ib d
Poyr mr
FGD Wurpe from
HYdroetonos
Glanficatton
Equahmn on
.. ......... . ..
Sludge
_ Dewotenng
Sludge
Tank Cake
PflhirtC
Treated
WN9lny/pt e,
llu W.�adNAl
.0 pphv 1.,41
The WWSRS is comprised of an Equalization Tank (EQ) taking an average flow at up
to 542 gpm when all three absorbers are in operation and discharging a purge The
purpose of the EQ is to provide mixing of the waste water from the three absorbers
and to provide an inventory of waste water to assure continuous flow to the
downstream clarifier The effluent from the EQ is pumped to a flocculating clarifier
where suspended solids are settled out and discharged from the clarifier to the sludge
holding tank Polymer is injected into the line leaving the EQ, to enhance the formation
of floc in the clarifier No pH adjustment is made at any point within the WWSRS or
the CWTS The overflow from the clarifier flows to the wetland supply tank and then is
pumped to the CWTS about one mile away. Sludge is pumped from the sludge tank to a
set of three recessed chamber type filter presses ("plate and frame type"). The sludge is
dewatered to about 60-70 wt% solids and discharged to a truck located below the filter
press discharge Filtrate from the filter presses is pumped back to the EQ A
Maintenance Tank is also included in the WWSRS system to act as a backup to the EQ
or the Sludge Tank or the clarifier (for short durations), when any of them requires
servicing The dewatered sludge is hauled to an onsite lined landfill
The Marshall FGD units were brought on line between October 2006 and May 2007.
The WWSRS started up in December 2006, and although it experienced some normal
start-up challenges... overall it is providing excellent results
Another positive impact in the WWSRS was the higher reduction of mercury and
selenium in the clarification stage than had been expected This is explained by more of
the mercury and selenium being in a suspended form than expected in the design basis
and thus able to be significantly reduced by clarification The net effect of this situation
is that less load is placed on the constructed wetlands allowing them to function as a
pohshing process "4
4 Ib d

In addition, the 2008 Duke paper also notes that Duke conducted additional bioreactor testing at
Marshall in support of likely bioreactor use at its other plants, including Belews Creek and Allen
"During the period of May through December 2007, a pilot test of the fixed film
biological treatment system to be used at Belews Creek and Allen Steam Stations for the
removal of selenium and other metals was performed at Duke Energy's Marshall Steam
Station It was determined that an opportunity to test the technology on actual FGD
purge waters would provide valuable operating experience for the startup of the Belews
Creek WWTS and provide potential design improvements for the Allen WWTS, still
under construction
Key results of the study are as follows
• Selenium removal below 100 ppb (performance guarantee for Belews Creek and Allen)
was achieved for the entire test period
• Selenium removal below 21 ppb (Allen NPDES limit) was achieved 80% of the time
• Selenium speciation had no impact on bioreactor performance, including organic
forms such as SeCN
• Effect selenium removal was achieved during significant changes in influent water
characteristics
• 100% nitrate removal is not required to achieve effective selenium reduction
• The use of [dibasic acid] DBA in the FGD Scrubber reduced the amount of nutrient
addition required
• Station upsets and shutdowns had no significant impacts on performance "5
As the discussion above shows, Duke, as a utility, and especially Marshall as an operating plant, has
significant experience in physical/chernical as well as biological treatment of FGD wastewaters—since
2007 or roughly for 10 years.
3. EXISTING PERMIT AND PROPOSED REVISED DATES FOR COMPLIANCE
WITH ELGS FOR BOTTOM ASH TRANSPORT WATER AND FGD
WASTEWATER AT THE MARSHALL PLANT
The current NPDES permit for the Plant permit no NC0004987—provides that "[b]y January 31,
2021, there shall be no discharge of pollutants in bottom ash transport water," and that technology-
based effluent limits for discharges of treated FGD wet scrubber wastewater "shall become effective on
January 31, 2021 " These compliance dates adopted in the current permit are those requested by Duke
in the May 9, 2016 letter to DEQ as noted earlier The letter provides details regarding Duke's plans
for compliance with the new ELGs for bottom ash transport water and FGD wastewater
Thus, in 2016, Duke requested 4 years and 7 months (or 55 months) for compliance with the bottom
ash transport water limit, citing the need to convert to a dry ash handling system. "To convert the wet
bottom ash transport system at [Marshall] to a closed loop system, Duke plans to install a remote
mechanical drag chain system (RMDS) Duke would like to request January 31, 2021 as the
5 Did
4

applicability date for the no discharge of bottom ash transport water, assuming a permit effective date
of July 1, 2016."
For FGD wastewater ELG compliance, Duke also requested a 55 -month compliance schedule, citing
the need to replace the existing FGD wastewater treatment system at Marshall "Me plan to evaluate
the development of a new physical/chemical system augmented by a selenium reduction system Duke
would like to request January 31, 2021 as the applicability date for the best available technology (BAT)
limits for FGD wastewater, assuming a permit effective date of July 1, 2016."
It appears from the record that DEQ simply accepted Duke's requested compliance schedule without
any analysis or clarification In fact, DEQ confirmed as much, stating "Duke provided the justification
for the proposed deadline and DEQ concurred with the compliance date "
Now, as noted earlier, Duke is seeking an even longer compliance schedule, and has asked DEQ to
allow it to wait until December 31, 2023 to comply with the limits That is, 70 months (nearly six years)
from now Neither the previous 55 -month nor the currently requested 70 -month compliance timeline
is supported by any of Duke's submittals or by any independent analysis conducted by DEQ In my
opinion, compliance can be achieved sooner.
4. TECHNOLOGY CHOICES FOR BATW ELG COMPLIANCE
As noted earlier, Duke has stated that it intends to meet the zero discharge requirement for bottom ash
transport water using a RMDS In fact, Duke has previously indicated to the EPA that it intended to
convert its wet sluicing system to a dry or closed loop system at Marshall, well before finalization of the
ELG Rule Ina memorandum dated September 30, 2015, EPA's contractor ERG lists a number of
plants "with announced" bottom ash handling conversions ' According to the ERG memorandum, the
bottom ash conversion at Marshall would be completed by December 31, 2020 based on a survey
conducted by EPA, years earlier than Duke's current timeline.
There are significant vendor resources available to meet a much earlier compliance date than the
currently proposed December 31, 2023 In fact, many vendors were actively involved with EPA during
the ELG rulemaking
A. Vendor Pool and Experience
In order "to gather information on handling fly ash and bottom ash" during the ELG
rulemaking, EPA "contacted several ash handling and ash storage vendors The vendors
provided the following types of information for EPA's analyses
• Type of fly ash and bottom ash handling systems available for reducing or eliminating
ash transport water,
• Equipment, modifications, and demolition required to convert wet -sluicing fly ash and
bottom ash handling systems to dry ash handling or closed-loop recycle systems,
G See ERG, Memorandum re Bottom Ash Complete Recycle (Sept 30, 2015), EPA -HQ -OW -2009-0819-6212, Tables 1 and
2, available at https //www regulations gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819-6212

• Equipment that can be reused as part of the conversion from wet to dry handling or in
a closed-loop recycle system,
• Outage time required for the different types of ash handling systems,
• Maintenance required for each type of system,
• Operating data for each type of system,
• Purchased equipment, other direct, and indirect capital costs for fly ash and bottom ash
conversions,
• Specifications for the types of ash storage available (e.g., steel silos or concrete silos) for
the different types of handling systems,
• Equipment and installation capital costs associated with the storage of fly ash and
bottom ash, and
• Operation and maintenance costs for fly ash and bottom ash handling systems
The vendor community has been well aware of the rule requirements and participated fully in the
rulemaking. There are numerous well-qualified U.S. vendors (and foreign vendors that are active in the
U S market) that are capable of providing equipment and services for ash handling and conversion of
wet bottom ash handling systems to dry systems or closed-loop recycle systems Major vendors include
United Conveyer Corporation ("UCC"),' Clyde Bergemann,' and Magaldi10—each of which has wet to
dry conversion technologies Other vendors such as GE, Veoha, Nalco, Aquatech, Heartland, LB
Industrial Systems, and many others also have potential capabilities and solutions for specific aspects of
ash handling The ELG docket shows that EPA consulted extensively with at least UCC and Clyde
Bergemann with respect to bottom ash transport water and handling during rule development " Both
of these vendors have wet to dry ash conversion systems which have been installed at coal plants
around the world, including the U S This includes RDMS, which Duke has selected as the compliance
option at Marshall.
That the vendor community for bottom ash handling is robust is not surprising given that the U S
coal-fired power plant fleet is over 800 units strong, with each one generating copious amounts of
bottom ash that must be handled and managed Further, as the ELGs rulemaking record shows, a
significant portion of the U S coal fleet already meets the ELG BAT standard for bottom ash
wastewater using dry handling systems. These vendors already have many technology solutions and
offerings for achieving a zero discharge bottom ash wastewater standard As EPA states in the
preamble to the ELG Rule
7 U S EPA, Technical Development Document for the Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric
Power Generating Point Source Category, EPA -821-R-15-007 at 3-21 and 3-22 (Sept 2015)
8 UCC offers various hydraulic, mechanical, pneumatic, and vibratory systems for dry bottom ash handling See
http Hunitedconveyor com/bottom_ash/ (last visited Sep 26, 2016)
9 Clyde Bergemann offers a trademarked "DRYCON" system for dry bottom ash handling See
http //www cbpg com/en/products-solutions-materials-handling-bottom-ash/drycon%E2%84%A2 (last visited Sep 26,
2016)
10 Magaldi offers a dry ash handling system called MAC See http//wwwmagaldicom/en/magalch—Solutions—for/Ash-
Handling-Mac —911 php#tab_fototab (last visited Sep 26, 2016)
11 See, for example, ERG/EPA Call Notes re Ash Handling Conversion in the Industry (May 24, 2012), EPA -HQ -OW -
2009 -0819-0580, available at https //www regulations gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819-0580 (pertaining to EPA
and its contractor's discussions with UCC), ERG Memorandum re Ash Handling Documentation from Communications
with Clyde Bergemann (Sept 30, 2015), EPA -HQ -OW -2009-0819-6232, available at
https //www regulations gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819-6232
rol

technologies for control of bottom ash transport water are demonstrably available.
Based on survey data, more than 80 percent of coal-fired generating units built in the
last 20 years have installed dry bottom ash handling systems In addition, EPA found
that more than half of the entities that would be subject to BAT requirements for
bottom ash transport water are already employing zero discharge technologies (dry
handling or closed-loop wet ash handling) or planning to do so in the near future 12
In addition to the vendor base and experience, comments provided to EPA during the ELG
rulemaking show that the compliance schedule for BATW can be much shorter than what Duke has
proposed I note here, in particular, the comments to EPA provided by the Utility Water Act Group
("UWAG"), an industry consortium, which includes almost all U S. utilities as its members 13 Duke is a
member of UWAG
B. Compliance Timeline by Others
In its comments, pertaining to bottom ash conversions, UWAG offers case studies showing conversion
to dry bottom ash handling in 36 months or less-
[I]n the case study presented in the attachment, it would take 30-36 months to
convert from a wet bottom ash hopper to a dry bottom ash hopper for a large
unit Another case study for adding a remote wet ash hopper and submerged flight
conveyor would take 27-33 months 14
The project implementation timeframes referenced in this section, which are already considerably
shorter than Duke's earlier 55 -month and current 70 -month request, are relevant for situations in which
no initial planning or assessment has been completed However, it is reasonable to expect that Duke
has conducted significant planning at Marshall, since it has already selected RDMS as the compliance
solution Thus, the implementation schedule at Marshall should be shorter that the 36 months noted in
the UWAG comments
In addition, other utilities, such as the Southern Company, in their own comments on the proposed
ELG Rule also indicated their ability to convert wet bottom ash handling systems to dry systems in the
same time frames as indicated in the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) comments is
12 80 Fed Reg at 67,852
13 As UWAG's comment's note, "UWAG is a voluntary, ad boc, non-profit, unincorporated group of 198 individual energy
companies and three national trade associations of energy companies the Edison Electric Institute, the National Rural
Electric Cooperative Association, and the American Public Power Association The individual energy companies operate
power plants and other facilities that generate, transmit, and distribute electricity to residential, commercial, industrial, and
institutional customers " Utility Water Act Group Comments on EPA's Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category, at 1 n 1
14 Id at 84
15 Southern Company Comments on EPA's Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric
Power Generating Point Source Category, Appendix B
7

C. BATW Compliance Schedule Summary
Thus, Duke has a good selection of experienced and prepared vendors to select from to achieve
compliance with the bottom ash transport water ELG requirements Based on communications with
several vendors, their relatively low workloads at present makes it an ideal time to negotiate favorable
terms for procurement as well expedited fabrication and installation In summary, there is no reason, in
my opinion, that Duke cannot meet a compliance date of November 2020 for the zero -discharge ELG
for BATW at Marshall—approximately 32 months from now
5. TECHNOLOGY CHOICES FOR FGD ELG COMPLIANCE
For FGD wastewater compliance, as noted previously, Duke has roughly 10 years of experience dealing
with treating this wastewater Of course, Duke, like all other major utilities, was actively involved in the
development of the ELG rule by EPA since initial data collection efforts beinning in roughly 2009
EPA staff and contractors made visits to various Duke plants duan the development of the rule Thus,
Duke was well aware of the proposed and final ELG rule limits --with the final limits being less
stringent than what was initial proposed by EPA
Duke has installed FGD wastewater treatment systems at other power plants (e g, Mayo and Allen)
and, therefore, already has close to a decade of operating experience with those systems Given Duke's
experience with such systems and its vendor relationships (as well as the potential leverage Duke has
with the vendors, given the multiple installations throughout the Duke system), a compliance strategy
for new FGD wastewater discharge limitations involving the installation of a physical/ chemical
treatment system (which could be a modification of its existing physical treatment system) along with a
GE ABMet [Advanced Biological Metals Removal Process] bioreactor likely would be the simplest,
least -cost, and most expeditous option Duke has indicated that it intends to do something similar
"The existing FGD Wastewater Treatment System (WWTS) currently flows through
constructed wetlands and then flows through Internal Outfall 004 To comply with the
Federal ELG for FGD wastewater, a new FGD WWTS system will be constructed and
utilized This system will consist of physical/chemical treatment units, a bioreactor, and
ultrafiltration systems. Solids settled and collected in the physical/ chemical system will
be handled via a series of filter presses and disposed of -in the facility's onsite landfill. A
new Internal Outfall 006 will be required to accommodate the new FGD WWT
discharge The new Internal Outfall 006 will be directed to the retention basin described
in item #2 of this letter Duke requests that a new Internal Outfall 006 for the new
FGD wastewater treatment system discharge be added to the permit "1
6
While Duke has indicated elsewhere that it intends to remove its existing treatment system and install
the new physical/chemical plus bioreactor system along with the ultrafiltration system as noted above,
the company has not explained why portions of the current treatment system couldn'tbe modified and
used, along with adding the bioreactor
16 Letter dated August 22, 2017 from Duke to DEQ

A. Vendor Experience
Like for BATW, with regards to FGD wastewater, as discussed in the record for the ELG Rule, EPA
consulted widely with the vendor community as well as with EPRI The Agency reviewed EPRI's
many studies on wastewater pollutant reduction technologies, as well as studies by GE, the vendors
used by Duke for its bioreactors at other plants 17
In addition to GE and past use of GE's ABMet technology, there are other technology suppliers and
vendors who have biological treatment options that can meet the FGD wastewater ELG requirements
These include Frontier Water Systems (SeFIAWI),18 and Envirogen Technologies " Indeed, as EPA
notes in the ELG Rule preamble
forty-five percent of all steam electric power plants with wet scrubbers have
equipment or processes in place able to meet the final BAT/PSES effluent
limitations and standards Many of these plants use FGD wastewater management
approaches that eliminate the discharge of FGD wastewater. Other plants employ
wastewater treatment technologies that reduce the amount of pollutants in the FGD
waste stream. Both chemical precipitation and biological treatment are well-
demonstrated technologies that are available to steam electric power plants for use in
treating FGD wastewater Based on industry survey responses, 39 U S steam
electric power plants (44 percent of plants discharging FGD wastewater) use some
form of chemical precipitation as part of their FGD wastewater treatment system.
More than half of these plants (30 percent of plants discharging FGD wastewater)
use both hydroxide and sulfide precipitation in the process to further reduce metals
concentrations In addition, chemical precipitation has been used at thousands of
industrial facilities nationwide for the last several decades.20
Thus, Duke has a good selection of experienced and prepared vendors to select from to achieve
compliance with the FGD wastewater ELG requirements
B. Compliance Schedule Achieved by Others
Regarding the required installation timehnes for a system such as the ABMet, it is instructive to look to
prior experience I use AEP's Mountaineer plant as an example At its Mountaineer plant, owner AEP
selected the ABMet system after prior evaluations in 2011 21
In April 2011, GE put out an announcement describing this system and suggested it could be
operational in approximately 8 months.
11 U S EPA, Technical Development Document for the Effluent Lumtation Guidelines and Standards for the Steam
Electric Power Generating Point Source Category, EPA -821-R-15-007 at 3-24, 7-56, and 7-57
18 See Power Magazine, November 2016, p 42, see also http //frontierwater com/product-hne/
19 See http //www envirogen com/pages/contanunants/selenium-2/
20 80 Fed Reg at 67,850
21 http //www busmesswnre com/news/home/20110414006578/en/r1EP-Turns-GE%E2%80%99s-ABMet%C2%AE-
Technology-Reduce-Selenium
E

American Electric Power chose GE's ABMET wastewater bioreactor system at
AEP's 1,300 MW Mountaineer coal-fired power plant in West Virginia The system
uses a molasses -based product as a nutrient for microbes that reduce selenium,
which is found in wastewater from many coal-fired power plants. The microbes are
seeded in a bed of activated carbon that acts as a growth medium to create a biofilm
The wastewater passes through the reactor and reduces the selenium in the water
The system is expected to be operational by the end of 2011 AEP is the third U.S.-
utility to use GE's wastewater treatment process
As GE noted, even back in 2011, over four years prior to the finalization of the ELG Rule in 2015 and
over two years prior to the proposed rule, AEP was the third utility to use this process
A later statement confirms that the GE ABMet at Mountaineer was indeed installed quickly and
produced selenium concentrations that meet the ELG limits (23 daily max/12 monthly average) "The
ABMet system has consistently achieved less than 10 Vpb selenium level . The ABMet system has
been in service since November 2011 and as of June 2014 has provided 100% availability. ,13
The system was announced for Mountaineer in mid-April 2011 and was already in service by
November 2011—i.e , in less than 8 months
The physical/chemical treatment process at Mountaineer, in which FGD wastewater is first treated
before it is biologically treated in the GE ABMet system, was installed after 2008, as discussed in EPA's
Technical Development Document for the ELG Rule
One example of a treatment system operating to meet only the BPT-based
limitations for TSS, pH, and O&G was AEP's Mountaineer plant, which iiutially
operated a chemical precipitation system to treat its FGD wastewater In 2008, 1 year
after the start-up of the FGD scrubbers and the FGD wastewater treatment system,
the plant went through a permit renewal process and the state proposed to add a
WQBEL for mercury. Based on the proposed mercury limitations in the new permit,
AEP conducted a pilot study evaluating three different technologies that could be
installed as additional treatment downstream of the currently operating chemical
precipitation system. Mountaineer conducted the pilot study from July through
December 2008 During the first 3 months of the study, the mercury concentrations
of the chemical precipitation system effluent feeding the pilot tests averaged 1,300
parts per trilhon(ppt) None of the three technologies achieved the target effluent
concentrations for the pilot testing Therefore, AEP took steps to optimize the solids
removal in the chemical precipitation system, including adding additional polymers
and organosulfide Using these optimization steps, AEP noted that "Lt]he
combination of supplemental coagulation and organosulfide addition consistently
yielded approximately 80 percent of additional mercury reduction " within the
chemical precipitation system (internal citation omitted) 2
1
'-Z http //www power-eng com/articles/2011/04/ge-wastewater-system-picked-for-mountaineer html (emphasis added)
2' https //www gewater com/kcpguest/documents/Case%20Stuches /CS1472EN pdf (emphasis added)
24 EPA, Technical Development Document for the Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric
Power Generating Point Source Category, U S Environmental Protection Agency, EPA -821-R-15-007 at 7-6 and 7-7 (Sep
2015), available at https //www epa gov/eg/steam-electric-power-generating-effluent-gwdehnes-2015-final-rule-documents
10

It is likely that AEP began evaluations for options to treat selenium at Mountaineer in 2009 or later,
after it had optimized its physical/ chemical treatment system for mercury in 2008, as discussed
Assuming a start sometime in early 2009, the fact that AEP was able to select the GE ABMet system by
April 2011, as described, means that this process took only around two years Moreover, this
technology evaluation was for the first application of this (relatively, at that tune) new technology at a
plant in AEP's system I note that Duke also has had almost 10 years of experience with similar
systems at its plants In any case, since the GE ABMet technology has now been operating for over 5
additional years at many more plants, with considerably more accumulated experience, the evaluation
and implementation steps should take even less time
Finally, recent discussions with GE confirm that it is able to bring its ABMet biological system online
in 18-24 months for most plants 25
C. FGD Wastewater ELG Compliance Schedule Summary
Thus, there is simply no support for the claim that Duke needs 6 more years to achieve FGD ELG
compliance at Marshall Even if Duke wants to completely remove its existing system and install a
completely new GE ABMet or similar system, it should be able to do so in around 2 years
Nonetheless, allowing for some slack, it is my opinion that compliance can definitely be achieved by
November 2020, or roughly 32 months from now
6. DUKE ENERGY'S PLANNING TO COMPLY WITH THE ELGS
As discussed previously, it is reasonable to assume that Duke's planning process for ELG compliance
likely began some time ago. Public statements from Duke Energy show that the company has already
evaluated options and developed likely costs for compliance with the ELGs at Marshall and its other
facilities, and that implementation can and should occur more gwcldy than the ti mchnc proposed by
Duke and DEQ
In its 2013 Annual Report, Duke acknowledged that its power plants would be subject to forthcoming
effluent limits 26 In its next annual report, Duke offered cost estimates for compliance with the
proposed ELGs and notes that "[r]egwrements to comply with the Final rule may begin as early as late
2018 for some facilities "'"' Even though the ELGs had not yet been finalized, Duke recognized that
the rule would likely be final by September 2015 and had already developed cost estimates for
compliance Duke necessarily would have had to complete considerable planning and engineering work
in the 2013-2014 time period to be able to share such cost estimates
25 Personal communications with GE staff located in Ontario Canada dealing in coal plant ELG compliance options,
including GE ABMet and other solutions
26 Duke Energy, 2013 Annual Report, available at http //www annualreports com/Company/duke-energy-corporation ("On
June 7, 2013, the EPA proposed Steam Electric Effluent Lunitations Gwdehnes (ELGs) The EPA is under a court order to
finalize the rule by May 22, 2014 The EPA has proposed eight options for the rule, which vary in stringency and cost The
proposed regulation applies to seven waste streams, including wastewater from air pollution control equipment and ash
transport water Most, if not all of the steam electric generating facilities the Duke Energy Registrants own are likely affected
sources Compliance is proposed as soon as possible after July 1, 2017, but may extend until July 1, 2022 The Duke Energy
Registrants are unable to predict the outcome of the rulemaking, but the impact could be significant ")
'' Duke Energy, 2014 Annual Report at 59, available at http //www annualreports com/Company/duke-energy-corporation
11

In its annual reports for 2015 and 2016, Duke again projected compliance dates and costs for the ELGs
and represented to its shareholders and the public that "[t]he Duke Energy Registrants are well-
positioned to meet the requirements of the rule due to current efforts to convert to dry ash handling "28
This statement is not surprising and is consistent with Duke's ability to comply with the ELGs at
Marshall much more quickly than proposed in the draft pem-nt
7. CRITIQUE OF DUKE'S PROPOSED COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE
In light of the information above, I have reviewed the proposed ti mehnes for ELG compliance at the
Marshall Plant As noted above, Duke attempts to make the case that the compliance deadlines should
be pushed out until December 31, 2023-70 months from now This delay is not Justified by Duke's
submissions to DEQ and directly contradicts EPA's expectations of expeditious compliance with the
ELG Rule
Compliance with the bottom ash transport water ELG zero discharge requirements should take no
more than 27-32 months, at the most, consistent with industry comments to the EPA during ELG
rulemaking Given Duke's assessment of closed-loop or dry ash handling systems prior to September
2015, starting the ti mehne for necessary retrofits at September 2015 would be conservative Even if
Duke didn't begin retrofits until September 9, 2016, when DEQ issued a final NPDES permit for the
plant, it is feasible that Duke could have completed construction and optimization of treatment systems
by December 2018. Nonetheless and for the sake of a conservative estimate, I have assumed a
construction start date of today Accordingly, I concluded that compliance can be achieved, at the
latest, 32 months from today—namely by November 2020
With regards to FGD wastewater, it is clear from the discussion above, that Duke was able to work
with GE and implement new bioreactor technology at multiple units in a period of 48 months or less.
Now, Duke has 10 years of operational experience with these systems at multiple plants As shown
earlier, AEP was able to implement the GE ABMet system at Mountaineer in roughly 24 months In
addition, vendors other than GE are able to provide biological treatment systems It is therefore not
unreasonable to assume that today, with its experience and understanding of FGD operations under all
conditions (after all, each of the FGDs have operated for over 10 years at Marshall), Duke should be
able to meet the ELG requirements in far less than 48 months—which is the maximum time it took
Duke to install these brand new technologies at multiple plants, almost 10 years ago In my opinion,
Duke has not Justified any need for an FGD wastewater ELG compliance date later than November
2020, or 32 months from today. This is generous when compared to what AEP was able to do at
Mountaineer and includes additional time for tie-ins, commissioning, and optimization
As mentioned earlier, Duke's most recent detailed discussion of the implementation schedule for
BATW and FGD wastewater compliance is contained in its May 2016 letter to DEQ—when it
requested January 2021 compliance dates It is clear from even a cursory reading of its schedule
discussion in the May 2016 letter that the discussion is generic, boiler plate, with little or no Marshall -
specific support for the long compliance tunes noted in that letter Basically, in its May 2016 letter,
Duke "supports" its then 55 -month compliance schedule for both the BATW and the FGD wastewater
ELGs, as summarized in the two charts below, relying on unsupported (i e, with no details) and
'-$ Duke Energy, 2015 Annual Report at 63 avatlable at http //www annualreports com/Company/duke-energy-corporation,
Duke Energy, 2016 Annual Report at 60 available at https //www duke -energy com/_/media/pdfs/our-
company/investors/de-annual-reports/2016/2016annualreport pdf
12

speculative tunes for design, procurement, "potential" permit delays, construction/tie-in, and
startup/commissioning/optimization Duke provided no details regarding engineering, procurement,
or permitting or any explanation of the proposed schedule for specific tasks included in the charts
below
Remote Mechanical Drag System (RMDS)
FGD WWT Upgrade
Activi!y
Duration (Months)
Design
11
• Siting
4
10
• Engineering
7
4
Procurement
• Engineering
12
Potential Permitting Delays
6
Construction/TMe-in
13
Optimization & Operational Experience'
13
• Commissioning
2
• Start -Up
6
Start-up & Optimization'
Total:
55
1) Even though is it estimated that commissioning and start-up can occur in 8 months, Duke
anticipates needing a 13 month window to obtain the necessary o eratin time at full lead.
A little more than a year after Duke sent the May 2016 letter, it sent another letter to the DEQ on
August 22, 2017, requesting that the NPDES permit contain no compliance date at all. While the
August 22, 2017 letter bases its request on claimed regulatory uncertainty, it also contains some
additional detail as to the BATW and FGD wastewater treatment systems. Importantly, some of the
additional information in the August 2017 letter directly undercuts the ti mehnes outlined in Duke's May
2016 letter—i.e., Duke provides enough detail in its August 2017 letter to confirm that its generic
13
FGD WWT Upgrade
Activity
Duration (Months)
Design & Engineering
10
• Siting
4
• Engineering
6
Procurement
12
Potential Permitting Delays
6
Construction/Tie-in
12
Start-up & Optimization'
IS
• Commissioning
6
• Start -Up
6
Total:
55
I) Duke is allocating a 15 month window to complete the commissioning and start-up under all
expected operating conditions from full load to partial load to periods of no load
A little more than a year after Duke sent the May 2016 letter, it sent another letter to the DEQ on
August 22, 2017, requesting that the NPDES permit contain no compliance date at all. While the
August 22, 2017 letter bases its request on claimed regulatory uncertainty, it also contains some
additional detail as to the BATW and FGD wastewater treatment systems. Importantly, some of the
additional information in the August 2017 letter directly undercuts the ti mehnes outlined in Duke's May
2016 letter—i.e., Duke provides enough detail in its August 2017 letter to confirm that its generic
13

schedule -related justifications in its May 2016 letter are not valid anymore and have been superseded by
its own progress since that time
First, Duke confirms that, at least for BATW, it is well into project implementation to meet the North
Carolina Coal Ash Management Act deadline of December 31, 2019 for dry ash handling
"[P]rojects are underway including the installation of a submerged flight conveyor and
redundant fly ash handling equipment to convert ash handling of both bottom ash and
fly ash to 100% dry handling "
And, contrary to its previous assertions in May 2016 that it would need more time to either develop or
update its water/wastewater flow and mass balances, Duke's August 22, 2017 letter indicates that its
planning for a new retention basin necessitated the development of such balances and that these have
already been developed-
"[T]he retention basin will be approximately 19.5 acres in area and will have chemical
feed systems for the addition of flocculent and pH adjustment chemicals Calculated
predictions for influent and effluent concentrations for the Retention Basin are included
on Table 1 in Attachment #4 These predicted concentrations were developed first by
characterizing the wastewater streams that are currently discharging into the ash basin,
then by developing flow and mass balances to determine the influent load on the new
retention basin, next the removal performance for the new retention basin and chemical
feed system was estimated by extrapolating the projected total suspended solids removal
efficiency to predict the effluent concentrations. It is anticipated this retention basin will
have a flow volume of approximately 5 0 Million Gallons per Day (MGD) to Lake
Norman Duke requests a new NPDES Outfall 005 for the discharge from the
Retention Basin be added to the permit." (Emphasis added)
Another argument that Duke made in May 2016, justifying a longer schedule, is that it did not know
where the new treatment systems will be located and that therefore permitting and other related matters
would take time to resolve Duke's August 22, 2017 letter, however, confirms that the location of the
new FGD wastewater treatment system is no longer an uncertainty.
"Duke intends to process legacy FGD wastewater through existing permitted Internal
Outfall 004 until the treatment units associated with that outfall are decommissioned
and closed The requested new Internal Outfall 006 for treated FGD wastewater and
Internal Outfall 004 will need to both be operational for a period of time Outfall 004
will continue to discharge into the ash settling basin. Upon completion of a new FGD
Wastewater treatment system, Outfall 004 will remain solely for stormwater discharge
Storm water from the new FGD treatment area will be directed to the retention basin
and discharge through Outfall 005 The location of the new FGD wastewater treatment
system and its associated Internal Outfall 006 is identified on the Site Plan available in
Attachment #2." (Emphasis added.)
Thus, the details provided by Duke in its August 22, 2017 letter confirm that Duke has made significant
progress with regards to its BATW and FGD wastewater ELG compliance, including- selecting the
technologies for compliance; completing necessary supporting engineering such as water and mass
balances, confirming the locations of these technologies at Marshall
14

Based on this, it is reasonable, in my opinion, to assume that related issues such as vendor selection,
other supporting engineering work, procurement activities, permitting, etc which were supposedly
uncertain in May 2016—have either been addressed or could be addressed in relatively short order
All of this confirms my opinion that Duke has made ample progress and can comfortably meet the
ELGs for BATW and FGD wastewater by November 2020, as I have suggested Of course, in its most
recent letter to DNR on December 6, 2017, requesting the December 31, 2023 compliance dates, Duke
does not (and cannot) make any technical arguments for the even more expanded schedule.
S. COMPARISON OF DUKE'S COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE WITH THOSE OF
OTHER LARGE PROJECTS
Duke's proposed compliance schedule, as noted above, are not supported and, indeed, are at odds with
shorter timeframes identified by EPA and other groups as well as those experienced by Duke at its own
plants. Additionally, in comparison to other major projects at coal-fired units, the 70 -month schedules
proposed for ELG compliance are simply unreasonable and too long Here, comparisons are made
using the expected timehnes for implementing complex air pollution control projects at coal-fired
boilers These include the installation of dry and wet FGD systems and the installation of Selective
Catalytic Reduction ("SCR") controls for NOx control These projects, for units of similar size to the
Roxboro units, often cost hundreds of million dollars Yet, while often complex and challenging to
implement, timelines for such projects are in the range of 3 to 5 years—starting from conceptual
engineering through completion during scheduled outages
Three example timehnes are shown below—for dry FGD, wet FGD, and SCR projects, respectively—
as developed by a contractor for MISO, the independent system operator for the US"' These
timelines are generally conservative—1 e, the timelines shown are generally high, reflecting the most
complex installations, with typical projects capable of implementation in less time Nonetheless, as the
charts below illustrate, the expected durations for implementing dry FGD or SCR are around 46
months and around 56 months for wet FGD
Given the far greater complexity of these projects, Duke's assertion that the relatively much simpler
conversion of Marshall's wet sluicing bottom ash system to a dry or a closed loop system and the
installation of a wastewater treatment system will take 70 months—on par or longer than the far more
complex FGD installations at coal units is untenable.
29 The Brattle Group, SubpyCbain and outage Analysis of MISO Coal Retrofits for MATS, Appendix A (May 2012), auazlable at
http //www bratde com/news-and-knowledge/news/brattle-econormsts-identify-challenges-for-meso-s-coal-fleet-to-
comply-with-epa-s-mats-rule
15

Typical Timelines for Dry FGD, Wet FGD, DSI and ACI Retrofit Projects
DiT FGD
Project Phase 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60
r
Peimittmg i
Design Engineering
SystemInterface / Site Fugmeermg
-Procurement
Construction
Outage
NVet FGD
Project Please 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 5S 60
Design Engineering __j
System Interface/ Site Fu¢uiccnng
Procurement
Construction
outage
SCR
Project Phase 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 1S 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60
Pen_mttmQI
Design FnQmeennQ�� ---- — —
System Interface _/Site Engmeermg
PfOcurenwnt
L Constriction~
OuLage --
9. CONCLUSIONS
Duke does not need almost six years (70 months) to achieve compliance with the ELG requirements
for either BATW or FGD wastewater Duke's "justifications" for the drawn out timelines are vague
and unsupported They also contradict Duke's own experience and that of others, and are at odds with
EPA's expectation of expeditous compliance Any reading of Duke's " lustifcations" for its timehnes
will show that Duke, far from being expeditious, in fact made every effort to stretch out its timelines,
using every excuse possible. Duke's schedule includes sequential tasks that could be done in parallel,
does not recognize work already done, and does not provide any detail whatsoever for the proposed
months and years for specific tasks
In fact, the necessary upgrades could be achieved on much shorter timehnes. As demonstrated herein,
based on publicly available information, Duke could achieve compliance with the BATW zero -
discharge ELG by November 2020, at the latest, and with the FGD wastewater ELGs also by
November 2020, if not earlier In my opinion, even these suggested shortened timehnes are generous
given the status reported by Duke in its August 2017 letter to DEQ, and Duke should have no problem
achieving compliance even sooner if it devotes adequate resources to achieve expeditious compliance
IV

10. AUTHOR'S EXPERTISE AND QUALIFICATIONS
Dr Ranajit Sahu has over twenty-five years of experience in the fields of environmental, mechanical,
and chemical engineering including program and project management services, design and specification
of pollution control equipment for a wide range of emissions sources, soils and groundwater
remediation including landfills as remedy; combustion engineering evaluations, energy studies,
multimedia environmental regulatory compliance (involving statutes and regulations such as the Federal
CAA and its Amendments, Clean Water Act, TSCA, RCRA, CERCLA, SARA, OSHA, NEPA as well
as various related state statutes), transportation air quality impact analysis; multimedia compliance
audits, multimedia pernutting (including air quality NSR/PSD permitting, Tide V permitting, NPDES
permitting for industrial and storm water discharges, RCRA permitting, etc), multimedia/multi-
pathway human health risk assessments for toxics, air dispersion modeling, and regulatory strategy
development and support including negotiation of consent agreements and orders.
Over the last twenty-three years, Dr Sahu has consulted on several municipal landfill related projects
addressing landfill gas generation, landfill gas collection, and the treatment/disposal/control of such
gases in combustion equipment such as engines, turbines, and flares In particular, Dr Sahu has
executed numerous projects relating to flare emissions from sources such as landfills as well as
refineries and chemical plants. He has served as a peer -reviewer for EPA in relation to flare
combustion efficiency, flare destruction efficiency, and flaring emissions
A significant portion of Dr Sahu's educational background and consulting experience deals with
addressing environmental impacts due to coal-fired power plants including all aspects of air emissions
from such plants but also environmental impacts from water/waste water, cooling water, and
solid/hazardous wastes at such plants and impacts due to coal mining, transportation, and stockpiling.
Dr Sahu holds a B S , M S , and Ph D., in Mechanical Engineering, the first from the Indian Institute of
Technology (Kharagpur, India) and the latter two from the California Institute of Technology (Caltech)
in Pasadena, California. His research specialization was in the combustion of coal and, among other
things, understanding air pollution aspects of coal combustion in power plants as well as the formation
of ash during combustion.
The opinions expressed in the report are Dr. Sahu's and are based on the data and facts available at the
time of writing. Should additional relevant or pertinent information become available, Dr Sahu
reserves the right to supplement the discussion and findings
17

ATTACHMENT A — RESUME
RANART (RON) SAHU, Ph.D, QEP, CEM (Nevada)
CONSULTANT, ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENERGY ISSUES
311 North Story Place
Alhambra, CA 91801
Phone: [phone]
e-mail (preferred): [e-mail]
EXPERIENCE SUMMARY
Dr. Sahu has over twenty five years of experience in the fields of environmental, mechanical, and
chemical engineering including: program and project management services; design and
specification of pollution control equipment for a wide range of emissions sources; soils and
groundwater remediation including landfills as remedy; combustion engineering evaluations; energy
studies; multimedia environmental regulatory compliance (involving statutes and regulations such
as the Federal CAA and its Amendments, Clean Water Act, TSCA, RCRA, CERCLA, SARA,
OSHA, NEPA as well as various related state statutes); transportation air quality impact analysis;
multimedia compliance audits; multimedia permitting (including air quality NSR/PSD permitting,
Title V permitting, NPDES permitting for industrial and storm water discharges, RCRA permitting,
etc.), multimedia/multi-pathway human health risk assessments for toxics; air dispersion modeling;
and regulatory strategy development and support including negotiation of consent agreements and
orders.
Specifically, over the last twenty-three years, Dr. Sahu has consulted on several municipal landfill
related projects addressing landfill gas generation, landfill gas collection, and the
treatment/disposal/control of such gases in combustion equipment such as engines, turbines, and
flares. In particular, Dr. Sahu has executed numerous projects relating to flare emissions from
sources such as landfills as well as refineries and chemical plants. He has served as a peer -reviewer
for EPA in relation to flare combustion efficiency, flare destruction efficiency, and flaring
emissions.
A significant portion of Dr. Sahu's educational background and consulting experience deals with
addressing environmental impacts due to coal-fired power plants including all aspects of air
emissions from such plants but also environmental impacts from water/waste water, cooling water,
and solid/hazardous wastes at such plants and impacts due to coal mining, transportation, and
stockpiling.
Dr. Sahu holds a B.S., M.S., and Ph.D., in Mechanical Engineering, the first from the Indian
Institute of Technology (Kharagpur, `India) and the latter two from the California Institute of
Technology (Caltech) in Pasadena, California. His research specialization was in the combustion of
coal and, among other things, understanding air pollution aspects of coal combustion in power
plants as well as the formation of ash during combustion.

He has over twenty-three years of project management experience and has successfully managed
and executed numerous projects in this time period. This includes basic and applied research
projects, design projects, regulatory compliance projects, permitting projects, energy studies, risk
assessment projects, and projects involving the communication of environmental data and
information to the public. Notably, he has successfully managed a complex soils and groundwater
remediation project with a value of over $140 million involving soils characterization, development
and implementation of the remediation strategy including construction of a CAMU/landfill and
associated groundwater monitoring, regulatory and public interactions and other challenges.
He has provided consulting services to numerous private sector, public sector and public interest
group clients. His major clients include various steel mills, petroleum refineries, cement
companies, aerospace companies, power generation facilities, lawn and garden equipment
manufacturers, spa manufacturers, chemical distribution facilities, and various entities in the public
sector including EPA, the US Dept. of Justice, California DTSC, various municipalities, etc.). Dr.
Sahu has performed projects in over 44 states, numerous local jurisdictions and internationally.
In addition to consulting, Dr. Sahu has taught numerous courses in several Southern California
universities including UCLA (air pollution), UC Riverside (air pollution, process hazard analysis),
and Loyola Marymount University (air pollution, risk assessment, hazardous waste management)
for the past seventeen years. In this time period he has also taught at Caltech, his alma mater
(various engineering courses), at the University of Southern California (air pollution controls) and
at California State University, Fullerton (transportation and air quality).
Dr. Sahu has and continues to provide expert witness services in a number of environmental areas
discussed above in both state and Federal courts as well as before administrative bodies.
EXPERIENCE RECORD
2000 -now Independent Consultant. Providing a variety of private sector (industrial companies,
land development companies, law firms, etc.) public sector (such as the US
Department of Justice) and public interest group clients with project management, air
quality consulting, waste remediation and management consulting, as well as
regulatory and engineering support consulting services.
1995-2000 Parsons ES, Associate, Senior Project Manager and Department Manager for Air
Quality/Geosciences/Hazardous Waste Groups, Pasadena. Responsible for the
management of a group of approximately 24 air quality and environmental
professionals, 15 geoscience, and 10 hazardous waste professionals providing full-
service consulting, project management, regulatory compliance and A/E design
assistance in all areas.
Parsons ES, Manager for Air Source Testing Services. Responsible for the
management of 8 individuals in the area of air source testing and air regulatory
permitting projects located in Bakersfield, California.
2

1992-1995 Engmeering-Science, Inc. Principal Engineer and Senior Project Manager in the air
quality department. Responsibilities included multimedia regulatory compliance and
permitting (including hazardous and nuclear materials), air pollution engineering
(emissions from stationary and mobile sources, control of criteria and air toxics,
dispersion modeling, risk assessment, visibility analysis, odor analysis), supervisory
functions and project•management
1990-1992 Engineering -Science, Inc. Principal Engineer and Project Manager in the air quality
department. Responsibilities included permitting, tracking regulatory issues,
technical analysis, and supervisory functions on numerous air, water, and hazardous
waste projects. Responsibilities also include client and agency interfacing, project
cost and schedule control, and reporting to internal and external upper management
regarding project status.
1989-1990 Kinetics Technology International, Corp Development Engineer. Involved in
thermal engineering R&D and project work related to low-NOx ceramic radiant
burners, fired heater NOx reduction, SCR design, and fired heater retrofitting
1988-1989 Heat Transfer Research, Inc Research Engineer. Involved in the design of fired
heaters, heat exchangers, air coolers, and other non -fired equipment. Also did
research in the area of heat exchanger tube vibrations.
EDUCATION
1984-1988 Ph.D., Mechanical Engineering, California Institute of Technology (Caltech),
Pasadena, CA.
1984 M. S., Mechanical Engineering, Caltech, Pasadena, CA.
1978-1983 B. Tech (Honors), Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT)
Kharagpur, India
TEACHING EXPERIENCE
Caltech
"Thermodynamics," Teaching Assistant, California Institute of Technology, 1983, 1987
"Air Pollution Control," Teaching Assistant, California Institute of Technology, 1985
"Caltech Secondary and High School Saturday Program," - taught various mathematics (algebra through calculus)
and science (physics and chemistry) courses to high school students, 1983-1989.
"Heat Transfer," - taught this course in the Fall and Winter terms of 1994-1995 in the Division of Engineering and
Applied Science
"Thermodynamics and Heat Transfer," Fall and Winter Terms of 1996-1997.
U.C. Riverside, Extension
3

"Toxic and Hazardous Air Contaminants," University of California Extension Program, Riverside, California
Various years since 1992
"Prevention and Management of Accidental Air Emissions," University of California Extension Program, Riverside,
California Various years since 1992
"Air Pollution Control Systems and Strategies," University of California Extension Program, Riverside, California,
Summer 1992-93, Summer 1993-1994
"Air Pollution Calculations," University of California Extension Program, Riverside, California, Fall 1993-94,
Winter 1993-94, Fall 1994-95
"Process Safety Management," University of California Extension Program, Riverside, California Various years
since 1992-2010. '
"Process Safety Management," University of California Extension Program, Riverside, California, at SCAQMD,
Spring 1993-94
"Advanced Hazard Analysis - A Special Course for LEPCs," University of California Extension Program, Riverside,
California, taught at San Diego, California, Spring 1993-1994.
"Advanced Hazardous Waste Management" University of California Extension Program, Riverside, California
2005
Loyola Marymount Umversity
"Fundamentals of Air Pollution - Regulations, Controls and Engineering," Loyola Marymount University, Dept of
Civil Engineering Various years since 1993
"Air Pollution Control," Loyola Marymount University, Dept of Civil Engineering, Fall 1994
"Environmental Risk Assessment," Loyola Marymount University, Dept. of Civil Engineering Various years since
1998
"Hazardous Waste Remediation" Loyola Marymount University, Dept of Civil Engineering Various years since
2006
Umversily of Southern California
"Air Pollution Controls," University of Southern California, Dept of Civil Engineering, Fall 1993, Fall 1994
"Air Pollution Fundamentals," University of Southern California, Dept of Civil Engineering, Winter 1994
Uruversity of California, Los Angeles
"Air Pollution Fundamentals," University of California, Los Angeles, Dept of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Spring 1994, Spring 1999, Spring 2000, Spring 2003, Spring 2006, Spring 2007, Spring 2008, Spring
2009.
International Programs
"Environmental Planning and Management," 5 week program for visiting Chinese delegation, 1994.
"Environmental Planning and Management," 1 day program for visiting Russian delegation, 1995
4

"Air Pollution Planning and Management," IEP, UCR, Spring 1996
"Environmental Issues and Air Pollution," IEP, UCR, October 1996
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS AND HONORS
President of India Gold Medal, IIT Kharagpur, India, 1983
Member of the Alternatives Assessment Committee of the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission,
established by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, 1992 -present
American Society of Mechanical Engineers Los Angeles Section Executive Committee, Heat Transfer Division,
and Fuels and Combustion Technology Division, 1987 -present.
Air and Waste Management Association, 1989 -present
PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATIONS
EIT, California (# XE088305), 1993
REA I, California (#07438), 2000.
Certified Permitting Professional, South Coast AQMD (#C8320), since 1993
QEP, Institute of Professional Environmental Practice, since 2000
CEM, State of Nevada (#EM -1699) Expiration 10/07/2019.

ATTACHMENT B - LIST OF PUBLICATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS
PUBLICATIONS (PARTIAL LIST)
"Physical Properties and Oxidation Rates of Chars from Bituminous Coals," with Y A. Levendis, R C Flagan and
G R Gavalas, Fuel, 67, 275-283 (1988)
"Char Combustion Measurement and Analysis of Particle Temperature Histones," with R C Flagan, G R Gavalas
and P S. Northrop, Comb Sci Tech 60, 215-230 (1988)
"On the Combustion of Bituminous Coal Chars," PhD Thesis, California Institute of Technology (1988)
"Optical Pyrometry A Powerful Tool for Coal Combustion Diagnostics," J Coal Quahty, 8, 17-22 (1989)
"Post -Ignition Transients in the Combustion of Single Char Particles," with Y.A Levendis, R C Flagan and G R
Gavalas, Fuel, 68, 849-855 (1989)
"A Model for Single Particle Combustion of Bituminous Coal Char " Proc ASME National Heat Transfer
Conference, Philadelphia, HTD-Vol 106, 505-513 (1989)
"Discrete Simulation of Cenosphenc Coal -Char Combustion," with R C Flagan and G.R Gavalas, Combust Flame,
77, 337-346 (1989)
"Particle Measurements in Coal Combustion," with R C Flagan, in "Combustion Measurements" (ed N Chigier),
Hemisphere Publishing Corp (1991)
"Cross Linking in Pore Structures and Its Effect on Reactivity," with G R Gavalas in preparation.
"Natural Frequencies and Mode Shapes of Straight Tubes," Proprietary Report for Heat Transfer Research Institute,
Alhambra, CA (1990)
"Optimal Tube Layouts for Kamui SL-Senes Exchangers," with K Ishihara, Proprietary Report for Kamui
Company Limited, Tokyo, Japan (1990)
"HTRI Process Heater Conceptual Design," Proprietary Report for Heat Transfer Research Institute, Alhambra, CA
(1990)
"Asymptotic Theory of Transonic Wind Tunnel Wall Interference," with N D Malmuth and others, Arnold
Engineering Development Center, Air Force Systems Command, USAF (1990)
"Gas Radiation in a Fired Heater Convection Section," Proprietary Report for Heat Transfer Research Institute,
College Station, TX (1990)
"Heat Transfer and Pressure Drop in NTIW Heat Exchangers," Proprietary Report for Heat Transfer Research
Institute, College Station, TX (1991)
"NOx Control and Thermal Design," Thermal Engineering Tech Briefs, (1994)
"From Puchase of Landmark Environmental Insurance to Remediation Case Study in Henderson, Nevada," with
Robin E Bain and Jill Quillen, presented at the AQMA Annual Meeting, Florida, 2001
"The Jones Act Contribution to Global Warming, Acid Rain and Toxic Air Contaminants," with Charles W.
Botsford, presented at the AQMA Annual Meeting, Florida, 2001
0

PRESENTATIONS (PARTIAL LIST
"Pore Structure and Combustion Kinetics - Interpretation of Single Particle Temperature -Time Histones," with P S
Northrop, R C Flagan and G.R Gavalas, presented at the AIChE Annual Meeting, New York (1987)
"Measurement of Temperature -Time Histories of Burning Single Coal Char Particles," with R C Flagan, presented
at the American Flame Research Committee Fall International Symposium, Pittsburgh, (198 8)
"Physical Characterization of a Cenospheric Coal Char Burned at High Temperatures," with R C Flagan and G R.
Gavalas, presented at the Fall Meeting of the Western States Section of the Combustion Institute, Laguna Beach,
California (1988).
"Control of Nitrogen Oxide Emissions in Gas Fired Heaters - The Retrofit Experience," with G P Croce and R
Patel, presented at the International Conference on Environmental Control of Combustion Processes (Jointly
sponsored by the American Flame Research Committee and the Japan Flame Research Committee), Honolulu,
Hawaii (1991)
"Air Toxics - Past, Present and the Future," presented at the Joint AIChE/AAEE Breakfast Meeting at the AIChE
1991 Annual Meeting, Los Angeles, California, November 17-22 (1991).
"Air Toxics Emissions and Risk Impacts from Automobiles Using Reformulated Gasolmes," presented at the Third
Annual Current Issues in Air Toxics Conference, Sacramento, California, November 9-10 (1992)
"Air Toxics from Mobile Sources," presented at the Environmental Health Sciences (ESE) Seminar Series, UCLA,
Los Angeles, California, November 12, (1992)
"Kilns, Ovens, and Dryers - Present and Future," presented at the Gas Company Air Quality Permit Assistance
Seminar, Industry Hills Sheraton, California, November 20, (1992).
"The Design and Implementation of Vehicle Scrapping Programs," presented at the 86th Annual Meeting of the Air
and Waste Management Association, Denver, Colorado, June 12, 1993
"Air Quality Planning and Control in Bening, China," presented at the 87th Annual Meeting of the Air and Waste
Management Association, Cincinnati, Ohio, June 19-24, 1994.

ATTACHMENT C — PREVIOUS EXPERT WITNESS TESTIMONY
Expert Litigation Support
Occasions where Dr. Sahu has provided Written or Oral testimony before Conger:
1. In July 2012, provided expert written and oral testimony to the House Subcommittee on Energy and the
Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology at a Hearing entitled "Hitting the Ethanol Blend
Wall — Examining the Science on El "
Matters for which Dr Sahu has provided affidavits and expert reports include:
2 Affidavit for Rocky Mountain Steel Mills, Inc located in Pueblo Colorado — dealing with the technical
uncertainties associated with night-time opacity measurements in general and at this steel mini -mill
3 Expert reports and depositions (2/28/2002 and 3/1/2002, 12/2/2003 and 12/3/2003, 5/24/2004) on behalf of the
United States in connection with the Ohio Edison NSR Cases United States, et al v Ohio Edison Co, et al,
C2-99-1181 (Southern District of Ohio)
4 Expert reports and depositions (5/23/2002 and 5/24/2002) on behalf of the United States in connection with the
Illinois Power NSR Case. United States v Illinois Power Co, et al, 99-833-MJR (Southern District of
Illinois)
5 Expert reports and depositions (11/25/2002 and 11/26/2002) on behalf of the United States in connection with
the Duke Power NSR Case United States, et al v Duke Energy Corp , 1 00 -CV -1262 (Middle District of
North Carolina)
6 Expert reports and depositions (10/6/2004 and 10/7/2004; 7/10/2006) on behalf of the United States in
connection with the American Electric Power NSR Cases United States, et al v 4mencan Electric Power
Service Corp, et al, C2-99-1182, C2-99-1250 (Southern District of Ohio)
7 Affidavit (March 2005) on behalf of the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy and others in the
matter of the Application of Heron Lake BioEnergy LLC to construct and operate an ethanol production
facility — submitted to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
8 Expert Report and Deposition (10/31/2005 and 11/1/2005) on behalf of the United States in connection with
the East Kentucky Power Cooperative NSR Case United States v East Kentucky Power Cooperative, Inc,
5.04-cv-00034-KSF (Eastern District of Kentucky).
9. Affidavits and deposition on behalf of Basic Management Inc (BMI) Companies in connection with the BMI
vs USA remediation cost recovery Case
10 Expert Report on behalf of Penn Future and others in the Cambria Coke plant permit challenge in
Pennsylvania
11 Expert Report on behalf of the Appalachian Center for the Economy and the Environment and others in the
Western Greenbrier permit challenge in West Virginia
12 Expert Report, deposition (via telephone on January 26, 2007) on behalf of various Montana petitioners
(Citizens Awareness Network (CAN), Women's Voices for the Earth (WVE) and the Clark Fork Coalition
(CFC)) in the Thompson River Cogeneration LLC Permit No 3175-04 challenge
13. Expert Report and deposition (2/2/07) on behalf of the Texas Clean Air Cities Coalition at the Texas State
Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) in the matter of the permit challenges to TXU Project Apollo's
eight new proposed PRB-fired PC boilers located at seven TX sites.
14 Expert Testimony (July 2007) on behalf of the Izaak Walton League of America and others in connection with
the acquisition of power by Xcel Energy from the proposed Gascoyne Power Plant — at the State of Minnesota,
Office of Administrative Hearings for the Minnesota PUC (MPUC No E002/CN-06-1518, OAH No 12-2500-
17857-2)

15. Affidavit (July 2007) Comments on the Big Cajun I Draft Permit on behalf of the Sierra Club — submitted to
the Louisiana DEQ.
16. Expert Report and Deposition (12/13/2007) on behalf of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania — Dept. of
Environmental Protection, State of Connecticut, State of New York, and State of New Jersey (Plaintiffs) in
connection with the Allegheny Energy NSR Case Plaintiffs v Allegheny Energy Inc, et al, 2 05cv0885
(Western District of Pennsylvania)
17 Expert Reports and Pre -filed Testimony before the Utah Air Quality Board on behalf of Sierra Club in the
Sevier Power Plant permit challenge
18 Expert Report and Deposition (October 2007) on behalf of MTD Products Inc, in connection with General
Power Products, LLC v MTD Products Inc , 1 06 CVA 0143 (Southern District of Ohio, Western Division)
19. Expert Report and Deposition (June 2008) on behalf of Sierra Club and others in the matter of permit
challenges (Title V 28 0801-29 and PSD 28 0803 -PSD) for the Big Stone II unit, proposed to be located near
Milbank, South Dakota
20 Expert Reports, Affidavit, and Deposition (August 15, 2008) on behalf of Earthjustice in the matter of air
permit challenge (CT -4631) for the Basin Electric Dry Fork station, under construction near Gillette, Wyoming
before the Environmental Quality Council of the State of Wyoming
21. Affidavits (May 2010/June 2010 in the Office of Administrative Hearings))/Declaration and Expert Report
(November 2009 in the Office of Administrative Hearings) on behalf of NRDC and the Southern
Environmental Law Center in the matter of the air permit challenge for Duke Cliffside Unit 6 Office of
Administrative Hearing Matters 08 EHR 0771, 0835 and 0836 and 09 HER 3102, 3174, and 3176
(consolidated)
22 Declaration (August 2008), Expert Report (January 2009), and Declaration (May 2009) on behalf of Southern
Alliance for Clean Energy in the matter of the air permit challenge for Duke Cliffside Unit 6. Southern
Alliance for Clean Energy et al, v Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Case No 1 08-cv-00318-LHT-DLH
(Western District of North Carolina, Asheville Division)
23. Declaration (August 2008) on behalf of the Sierra Club in the matter of Dominion Wise County plant
MACT.us
24 Expert Report (June 2008) on behalf of Sierra Club for the Green Energy Resource Recovery Project, MACT
Analysis
25 Expert Report (February 2009) on behalf of Sierra Club and the Environmental Integrity Project in the matter
of the air permit challenge for NRG Limestone's proposed Unit 3 in Texas
26 Expert Report (June 2009) on behalf of MTD Products, Inc , in the matter of Alice Holmes and Vernon Holmes
v Home Depot USA, Inc, et al
27 Expert Report (August 2009) on behalf of Sierra Club and the Southern Environmental Law Center in the
matter of the air permit challenge for Santee Cooper's proposed Pee Dee plant in South Carolina)
28. Statements (May 2008 and September 2009) on behalf of the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy
to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency in the matter of the Minnesota Haze State Implementation Plans
29 Expert Report (August 2009) on behalf of Environmental Defense, in the matter of permit challenges to the
proposed Las Brisas coal fired power plant project at the Texas State Office of Administrative Hearings
(SOAH)
30. Expert Report and Rebuttal Report (September 2009) on behalf of the Sierra Club, in the matter of challenges
to the proposed Medicine Bow Fuel and Power IGL plant in Cheyenne, Wyoming
31 Expert Report (December 2009) and Rebuttal reports (May 2010 and June 2010) on behalf of the United States
in connection with the Alabama Power Company NSR Case United States v Alabama Power Company, CV -
01 -HS -152-5 (Northern District of Alabama, Southern Division).
Z

32 Pre -filed Testimony (October 2009) on behalf of Environmental Defense and others, in the matter of
challenges to the proposed White Stallion Energy Center coal fired power plant project at the Texas State
Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH)
33 Pre -filed Testimony (July 2010) and Written Rebuttal Testimony (August 2010) on behalf of the State of New
Mexico Environment Department in the matter of Proposed Regulation 20.2 350 NMAC — Greenhouse Gas
Cap and Trade Provisions, No EIB 10-04 (R), to the State of New Mexico, Environmental Improvement
Board
34 Expert Report (August 2010) and Rebuttal Expert Report (October 2010) on behalf of the United States in
connection with the Louisiana Generating NSR Case. United States v Louisiana Generating, LLC, 09-CV100-
RET-CN (Middle District of Louisiana) — Liability Phase
35 Declaration (August 2010), Reply Declaration (November 2010), Expert Report (April 2011), Supplemental
and Rebuttal Expert Report (July 2011) on behalf of the United States in the matter of DTE Energy Company
and Detroit Edison Company (Monroe Unit 2) United States ofAmenca v DTE Energy Company and Detroit
Edison Company, Civil Action No 2 10-cv-13101-BAF-RSW (Eastern District of Michigan)
36 Expert Report and Deposition (August 2010) as well as Affidavit (September 2010) on behalf of Kentucky
Waterways Alliance, Sierra Club, and Valley Watch in the matter of challenges to the NPDES permit issued
for the Tnmble County power plant by the Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet to Louisville Gas and
Electric, File No DOW -41106-047
37 Expert Report (August 2010), Rebuttal Expert Report (September 2010), Supplemental Expert Report
(September 2011), and Declaration (November 2011) on behalf of Wild Earth Guardians in the matter of
opacity exceedances and monitor downtime at the Public Service Company of Colorado (Xcel)'s Cherokee
powerplant No. 09-cv-1862 (Districtof Colorado)
38. Written Direct Expert Testimony (August 2010) and Affidavit (February 2012) on behalf of Fall -Line Alliance
for a Clean Environment and others in the matter of the PSD Air Pen -nit for Plant Washington issued by
Georgia DNR at the Office of State Administrative Hearing, State of Georgia (OSAH-BNR-AQ-1031707-98-
WALKER)
39 Deposition (August 2010) on behalf of Environmental Defense, in the matter of the remanded permit challenge
to the proposed Las Brisas coal fired power plant project at the Texas State Office of Administrative Hearings
(SOAR)
40 Expert Report, Supplemental/Rebuttal Expert Report, and Declarations (October 2010, November 2010,
September 2012) on behalf of New Mexico Environment Department (Plaintiff -Intervenor), Grand Canyon
Trust and Sierra Club (Plaintiffs) in the matter of Plaintiffs v Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM),
Civil No. 1 02 -CV -0552 BB/ATC (ACE) (District of New Mexico)
41 Expert Report (October 2010) and Rebuttal Expert Report (November 2010) (BART Determinations for PSCo
Hayden and CSU Martin Drake units) to the Colorado Air Quality Commission on behalf of Coalition of
Environmental Organizations
42 Expert Report (November 2010) (BART Determinations for TnState Craig Units, CSU Nixon Unit, and PRPA
Rawhide Unit) to the Colorado Air Quality Commission on behalf of Coalition of Environmental
Organizations
43 Declaration (November 2010) on behalf of the Sierra Club in connection with the Martin Lake Station Units 1,
2, and 3 Sierra Club v Energy Future Holdings Corporation and Luminant Generation Company LLC, Case
No. 5 10-cv-00156-DF-CMC (Eastern District of Texas, Texarkana Division)
44 Pre -Filed Testimony (January 2011) and Declaration (February 2011) to the Georgia Office of State
Administrative Hearings (OSAH) in the matter of Minor Source HAPs status for the proposed Longleaf Energy
Associates power plant (OSAH-BNR-AQ-1115157-60-HOWELLS) on behalf of the Friends of the
Chattahoochee and the Sierra Club).
45 Declaration (February 2011) in the matter of the Draft Title V Permit for RRI Energy MidAtlantic Power
Holdings LLC Shawville Generating Station (Pennsylvania), ID No. 17-00001 on behalf of the Sierra Club
10

46 Expert Report (March 2011), Rebuttal Expert Report (June 2011) on behalf of the United States in United
States ofAmenca v Cemex, Inc , Civil Action No. 09-cv-00019-MSK-MEH (District of Colorado)
47 Declaration (April 2011) and Expert Report (July 16, 2012) in the matter of the Lower Colorado River
Authority (LCRA)'s Fayette (Sam Seymour) Power Plant on behalf of the Texas Campaign for the
Environment Texas Campaign for the Environment v Lower Colorado River Authority, Civil Action No
4 11-cv-00791 (Southern District of Texas, Houston Division).
48 Declaration (June 2011) on behalf of the Plaintiffs MYTAPN in the matter of Microsoft -Yes, Toxic Air
Pollution -No (MYTAPN) v State of Washington, Department of Ecology and Microsoft Corporation
Columbia Data Center to the Pollution Control Hearings Board, State of Washington, Matter No. PCHB No
10-162
49 Expert Report (June 2011) on behalf of the New Hampshire Sierra Club at the State of New Hampshire Public
Utilities Commission, Docket No 10-261 — the 2010 Least Cost Integrated Resource Plan (LCIRP) submitted
by the Public Service Company of New Hampshire (re Merrimack Station Units 1 and 2)
50 Declaration (August 2011) in the matter of the Sandy Creek Energy Associates L P Sandy Creek Power Plant
on behalf of Sierra Club and Public Citizen Sierra Club, Inc and Public Citizen, Inc v Sandy Creek Energy
Associates, L P, Civil Action No A -08 -CA -648 -LY (Western District of Texas, Austin Division)
51 Expert Report (October 2011) on behalf of the Defendants in the matter of John Quiles and Jeanette Quiles et
al v Bradford -White Corporation, MTD Products, Inc, Kohler Co, et al, Case No 3 10-cv-747 (TJM/DEP)
(Northern District of New York)
52 Declaration (October 2011) on behalf of the Plaintiffs in the matter of American Nurses Association et al
(Plaintiffs), v US EPA (Defendant), Case No 1 08-cv-02198-RMC (US District Court for the District of
Columbia)
53 Declaration (February 2012) and Second Declaration (February 2012) in the matter of Washington
Environmental Council and Sierra Club Washington State Chapter v Washington State Department of
Ecology and Western States Petroleum Association, Case No 11-417-MJP (Western District of Washington).
54 Expert Report (March 2012) and Supplemental Expert Report (November 2013) in the matter of Environment
Texas Citizen Lobby, Inc and Sierra Club v ExxonMobil Corporation et al, Civil Action No 4 10-cv-4969
(Southern District of Texas, Houston Division)
55 Declaration (March 2012) in the matter of Center for Biological Diversity, et al v United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Case No 11-1101 (consolidated with I1-1285, 11-1328 and 11-1336) (US
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit)
56 Declaration (March 2012) in the matter of Sierra Club v The Kansas Department of Health and Environment,
Case No 11 -105,493 -AS (Holcomb power plant) (Supreme Court of the State of Kansas)
57 Declaration (March 2012) in the matter of the Las Bnsas Energy Center Environmental Defense Fund et al, v
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Cause No D -1 -GN -11-001364 (District Court of Travis County,
Texas, 26151 Judicial District)
58 Expert Report (April 2012), Supplemental and Rebuttal Expert Report (July 2012), and Supplemental Rebuttal
Expert Report (August 2012) on behalf of the states of New Jersey and Connecticut in the matter of the
Portland Power plant State of New Jersey and State of Connecticut (Intervenor -Plaints v RRI Energy Mid -
Atlantic Power Holdings et a1, Civil Action No 07 -CV -5298 (JKG) (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
59 Declaration (April 2012) in the matter of the EPA's EGU MATS Rule, on behalf of the Environmental
Integrity Project
60. Expert Report (August 2012) on behalf of the United States in connection with the Louisiana Generating NSR
Case United States v Louisiana Generating, LLC, 09-CV100-RET-CN (Middle District of Louisiana) — Harm
Phase
61 Declaration (September 2012) in the Matter of the Application of Energy Answers Incinerator, Inc for a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to Construct a 120 MW Generating Facility in Baltimore City,
Maryland, before the Public Service Commission of Maryland, Case No 9199
11

62 Expert Report (October 2012) on behalf of the Appellants (Robert Concilus and Leah Humes) in the matter of
Robert Concilus and Leah Humes v Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
and Crawford Renewable Energy, before the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board,
Docket No 2011-167-R.
63 Expert Report (October 2012), Supplemental Expert Report (January 2013), and Affidavit (June 2013) in the
matter of various Environmental Petitioners v North Carolina DENR/DAQ and Carolinas Cement Company,
before the Office of Administrative Hearings, State of North Carolina.
64 Pre -filed Testimony (October 2012) on behalf of No -Sag in the matter of the North Springfield Sustainable
Energy Project before the State of Vermont, Public Service Board
65 Pre -filed Testimony (November 2012) on behalf of Clean Wisconsin in the matter of Application of Wisconsin
Public Service Corporation for Authority to Construct and Place in Operation a New Multi -Pollutant Control
Technology System (ReACT) for Unit 3 of the Weston Generating Station, before the Public Service
Commission of Wisconsin, Docket No 6690 -CE -197
66 Expert Report (February 2013) on behalf of Petitioners in the matter of Credence Crematory, Cause No. 12 -A-
J -4538 before the Indiana Office of Environmental Adjudication
67 Expert Report (April 2013), Rebuttal report (July 2013), and Declarations (October 2013, November 2013) on
behalf of the Sierra Club in connection with the Lummant Big Brown Case Sierra Club v Energy Future
Holdings Corporation and Luminant Generation Company LLC, Civil Action No 6.12-cv-00108-WSS
(Western District of Texas, Waco Division)
68 Declaration (April 2013) on behalf of Petitioners in the matter of Sierra Club, et al, (Petitioners) v
Environmental Protection Agency et al (Resppondents), Case No, 13-1112, (Court of Appeals, District of
Columbia Circuit)
69 Expert Report (May 2013) and Rebuttal Expert Report (July 2013) on behalf of the Sierra Club in connection
with the Luminant Martin Lake Case Sierra Club v Energy Future Holdings Corporation and Luminant
Generation Company LLC, Civil Action No. 5 10-cv-0156-MHS-CMC (Eastern District of Texas, Texarkana
Division)
70 Declaration (August 2013) on behalf of A J Acosta Company, Inc, in the matter of A J Acosta Company,
Inc, v County of San Bernardino, Case No CIVSS803651
71. Comments (October 2013) on behalf of the Washington Environmental Council and the Sierra Club in the
matter of the Washington State Oil Refinery RACT (for Greenhouse Gases), submitted to the Washington
State Department of Ecology, the Northwest Clean Air Agency, and the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency.
72 Statement (November 2013) on behalf of various Environmental Organizations in the matter of the Boswell
Energy Center (BEC) Unit 4 Environmental Retrofit Project, to the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission,
Docket No E -015/M-12-920
73 Expert Report (December 2013) on behalf of the United States in United States of America v Ameren
Missouri, Civil Action No 4 11-cv-00077-RWS (Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division).
74 Expert Testimony (December 2013) on behalf of the Sierra Club in the matter of Public Service Company of
New Hampshire Merrimack Station Scrubber Project and Cost Recovery, Docket No DE 11-250, to the State
of New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission
75 Expert Report (January 2014) on behalf of Baia, Inc , in Baia, Inc, v Automotive Testing and Development
Services, Inc et al, Civil Action No 8.13 -CV -02057 -GRA (District of South Carolina, Anderson/Greenwood
Division)
76 Declaration (March 2014) on behalf of the Center for International Environmental Law, Chesapeake Climate
Action Network, Friends of the Earth, Pacific Environment, and the Sierra Club (Plaintiffs) in the matter of
Plaintiffs v the Export -Import Bank (Ex-lin Bank) of the United States, Civil Action No 13-1820 RC (District
Court for the District of Columbia)
12

77 Declaration (April 2014) on behalf of Respondent -Intervenors in the matter of Mexichem Specialty Resins Inc,
et al, (Petitioners) v Environmental Protection Agency et al, Case No , 12-1260 (and Consolidated Case Nos
12-1263, 12-1265, 12-1266, and 12-1267), (Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit)
78 Direct Prefiled Testimony (June 2014) on behalf of the Michigan Environmental Council and the Sierra Club
in the matter of the Application of DTE Electric Company for Authority to Implement a Power Supply Cost
Recovery (PSCR) Plan in its Rate Schedules for 2014 Metered Jurisdictional Sales of Electricity, Case No U-
17319 (Michigan Public Service Commission)
79 Expert Report (June 2014) on behalf of ECM Biofilms in the matter of the US Federal Trade Commission
(FTC) v ECM Biofilms (FTC Docket #9358)
80 Direct Prefiled Testimony (August 2014) on behalf of the Michigan Environmental Council and the Sierra
Club in the matter of the Application of Consumers Energy Company for Authority to Implement a Power
Supply Cost Recovery (PSCR) Plan in its Rate Schedules for 2014 Metered Jurisdictional Sales of Electricity,
Case No U-17317 (Michigan Public Service Commission)
81 Declaration (July 2014) on behalf of Public Health Intervenors in the matter of EME Homer City Generation v
US EPA (Case No. 11-1302 and consolidated cases) relating to the lifting of the stay entered by the Court on
December 30, 2011 (US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia)
82 Expert Report (September 2014), Rebuttal Expert Report (December 2014) and Supplemental Expert Report
(March 2015) on behalf of Plaintiffs in the matter of Sierra Club and Montana Environmental Information
Center (Plaintiffs) v PPL Montana LLC, Avista Corporation, Puget Sound Energy, Portland General Electric
Company, Northwestern Corporation, and Pacificorp (Defendants), Civil Action No CV 13-32-BLG-DLC-
JCL (US District Court for the District of Montana, Billings Division)
83 Expert Report (November 2014) on behalf of Niagara County, the Town of Lewiston, and the Villages of
Lewiston and Youngstown in the matter of CWM Chemical Services, LLC New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) Permit Application Nos. 9-2934-00022/00225, 9-2934-00022/00231,
9-2934-00022/00232, and 9-2934-00022/00249 (pending)
84 Declaration (January 2015) relating to Startup/Shutdown in the MATS Rule (EPA Docket ID No EPA -HQ -
OAR -2009-0234) on behalf of the Environmental Integrity Project
85 Pre -filed Direct Testimony (March 2015), Supplemental Testimony (May 2015), and Surrebuttal Testimony
(December 2015) on behalf of Friends of the Columbia Gorge in the matter of the Application for a Site
Certificate for the Troutdale Energy Center before the Oregon Energy Facility Siting Council.
86 Brief of Amici Curiae Experts in Air Pollution Control and Air Quality Regulation in Support of the
Respondents, On Writs of Certiorari to the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, No 14-46, 47,
48 Michigan et al, (Petitioners) v EPA et al, Utility Air Regulatory Group (Petitioners) v EPA et al,
National Mining Association et al, (Petitioner) v EPA et al, (Supreme Court of the United States)
87 Expert Report (March 2015) and Rebuttal Expert Report (January 2016) on behalf of Plaintiffs in the matter of
Conservation Law Foundation v Broadrock Gas Services LLC, Rhode Island LFG GENCO LLC, and Rhode
Island Resource Recovery Corporation (Defendants), Civil Action No 1 13-cv-00777-M-PAS (US District
Court for the District of Rhode Island)
88 Declaration (April 2015) relating to various Technical Corrections for the MATS Rule (EPA Docket ID No
EPA -HQ -OAR -2009-0234) on behalf of the Environmental Integrity Project
89 Direct Prefiled Testimony (May 2015) on behalf of the Michigan Environmental Council, the Natural
Resources Defense Council, and the Sierra Club in the matter of the Application of DTE Electric Company for
Authority to Increase its Rates, Amend its Rate Schedules and Rules Governing the Distribution and Supply of
Electric Energy and for Miscellaneous Accounting Authority, Case No. U-17767 (Michigan Public Service
Commission).
90 Expert Report (July 2015) and Rebuttal Expert Report (July 2015) on behalf of Plaintiffs in the matter of
Northwest Environmental Defense Center et al, v Cascade Kelly Holdings LLC, d/b/a Columbia Pacific Bio -
Refinery, and Global Partners LP (Defendants), Civil Action No. 3.14-cv-01059-SI (US District Court for the
District of Oregon, Portland Division).
13

91 Declaration (August 2015, Docket No 1570376) in support of "Opposition of Respondent -Intervenors
American Lung Association, et al, to Tri-State Generation's Emergency Motion," Declaration (September
2015, Docket No 1574820) in support of "Joint Motion of the State, Local Government, and Public Health
Respondent -Intervenors for Remand Without Vacatur," Declaration (October 2015) in support of "Joint
Motion of the State, Local Government, and Public Health Respondent -Intervenors to State and Certain
Industry Petitioners' Motion to Govern, White Stallion Energy Center, LLC v US EPA, Case No 12-1100 (US
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia)
92. Declaration (September 2015) in support of the Draft Title V Permit for Dickerson Generating Station
(Proposed Permit No 24-031-0019) on behalf of the Environmental Integrity Project
93 Expert Report (Liability Phase) (December 2015) and Rebuttal Expert Report (February 2016) on behalf of
Plaintiffs in the matter of Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc, Sierra Club, Inc, Environmental Law and
Policy Center, and Respiratory Health Association v Illinois Power Resources LLC, and Illinois Power
Resources Generating LLC (Defendants), Civil Action No 1 13-cv-01181 (US District Court for the Central
District of Illinois, Peoria Division)
94 Declaration (December 2015) in support of the Petition to Object to the Title V Permit for Morgantown
Generating Station (Proposed Permit No 24-017-0014) on behalf of the Environmental Integrity Project
95 Expert Report (November 2015) on behalf of Appellants in the matter of Sierra Club, et al v Craig W Butler,
Director of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency et al, ERAC Case No 14-256814
96. Affidavit (January 2016) on behalf of Bridgewatch Detroit in the matter of Bndgewatch Detroit v Waterfront
Petroleum Terminal Co, and Waterfront Terminal Holdings, LLC, in the Circuit Court for the County of
Wayne, State of Michigan
97 Expert Report (February 2016) and Rebuttal Expert Report (July 2016) on behalf of the challengers in the
matter of the Delaware Riverkeeper Network, Clean Air Council, et. al , vs Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection and R E Gas Development LLC regarding the Geyer well site before
the Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board
98. Direct Testimony (May 2016) in the matter of Tesoro Savage LLC Vancouver Energy Distribution Terminal,
Case No 15-001 before the State of Washington Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council.
99 Declaration (June 2016) relating to deficiencies in air quality analysis for the proposed Millemum Bulk
Terminal, Port of Longview, Washington
100.Declaration (December 2016) relating to EPA's refusal to set limits on PM emissions from coal-fired power
plants that reflect pollution reductions achievable with fabric filters on behalf of Environmental Integrity
Project, Clean Air Council, Chesapeake Climate Action Network, Downwinders at Risk represented by
Earthjustice in the matter of ARIPPA v EPA, Case No 15-1180 (D C Circuit Court of Appeals)
101 Expert Report (January 2017) on the Environmental Impacts Analysis associated with the Huntley and Huntley
Poseidon Well Pad on behalf citizens in the matter of the special exception use Zoning Hearing Board of Penn
Township, Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania
102 Expert Report (January 2017) on the Environmental Impacts Analysis associated with the Apex Energy Backus
Well Pad on behalf citizens in the matter of the special exception use Zoning Hearing Board of Penn
Township, Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania
103 Expert Report (January 2017) on the Environmental Impacts Analysis associated with the Apex Energy
Drakulic Well Pad on behalf citizens in the matter of the special exception use Zoning Hearing Board of Penn
Township, Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania
104 Expert Report (January 2017) on the Environmental Impacts Analysis associated with the Apex Energy
Deutsch Well Pad on behalf citizens in the matter of the special exception use Zoning Hearing Board of Penn
Township, Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania
105.Affidavit (February 2017) pertaining to deficiencies water discharge compliance issues at the Wood River
Refinery in the matter of People of the State of Illinois (Plaintifg v Phillips 66 Company, ConocoPhillips
Company, WRB Refining LP (Defendants), Case No 16 -CH -656, (Circuit Court for the Third Judicial Circuit,
Madison County, Illinois).
14

106 Expert Report (March 2017) on behalf of the Plaintiff pertaimng to non -degradation analysis for waste water
discharges from a power plant in the matter of Sierra Club (Plaint fj) v Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection (PADEP) and Lackawanna Energy Center, Docket No 2016-047-L (consolidated),
(Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board)
107 Expert Report (March 2017) on behalf of the Plaintiff pertaining to air enussions from the Heritage incinerator
in East Liverpool, Ohio in the matter of Save our County (Plaints v Heritage Thermal Services, Inc
(Defendant), Case No 4 16-CV-1544-BYP, (US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern
Division)
108 Rebuttal Expert Report (June 2017) on behalf of Plaintiffs in the matter of Casey Voight and Julie Voight
(Plaintiffs) v Coyote Creek Mining Company LLC (Defendant), Civil Action No 1.15 -CV -00109 (US District
Court for the District of North Dakota, Western Division)
109 Expert Affidavit (August 2017) and Penalty/Remedy Expert Affidavit (October 2017) on behalf of Plaintiff in
the matter of Wildearth Guardians (Plaintff v Colorado Springs Utility Board (Defendant,) Civil Action No.
1 15-cv-00357-CMA-CBS (US District Court for the District of Colorado)
110 Expert Report (August 2017) on behalf of Appellant in the matter of Patricia Ann Troiano (Appellant) v
Upper Burrell Township Zoning Hearing Board (Appellee), Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County,
Pennsylvania, Civil Division
111 Expert Report (October 2017), Supplemental Expert Report (October 2017), and and Rebuttal Expert Report
(November 2017) on behalf of Defendant in the matter of Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal (Plaintiff) v
City of Oakland (Defendant,) Civil Action No 3.16-cv-07014-VC (US District Court for the Northern District
of California, San Francisco Division)
112 Declaration (December 2017) on behalf of the Environmental Integrity Project in the matter of permit issuance
for ATI Flat Rolled Products Holdings, Breckenridge, PA to the Allegheny County Health Department.
113 Expert Report (Harm Phase) (January 2018) on behalf of Plaintiffs in the matter of Natural Resources Defense
Council, Inc, Sierra Club, Inc, and Respiratory Health Association v Illinois Power Resources LLC, and
Illinois Power Resources Generating LLC (Defendants), Civil Action No. 1 13-cv-01181 (US District Court
for the Central District of Illinois, Peoria Division)
Occasions where Dr. Sahu has provided oral testimony in depositions, at trial or in similar
proceedings include the following.
114 Deposition on behalf of Rocky Mountain Steel Mills, Inc located in Pueblo, Colorado — dealing with the
manufacture of steel in mini -mills including methods of air pollution control and BACT in steel mini -mills and
opacity issues at this steel mini -mill
115 Trial Testimony (February 2002) on behalf of Rocky Mountain Steel Mills, Inc in Denver District Court
116 Trial Testimony (February 2003) on behalf of the United States in the Ohio Edison NSR Cases, United States,
et al v Ohio Edison Co , et al , C2-99-1181 (Southern District of Ohio)
117 Trial Testimony (June 2003) on behalf of the United States in the Illinois Power NSR Case, United States v
Illinois Power Co, et a1, 99-833-MJR (Southern District of Illinois)
118 Deposition (10/20/2005) on behalf of the United States in connection with the Cinergy NSR Case United
States, et al v Cinergy Corp, et a1, IP 99 -1693 -C -M/S (Southern District of Indiana)
119 Oral Testimony (August 2006) on behalf of the Appalachian Center for the Economy and the Environment re
the Western Greenbrier plant, WV before the West Virginia DEP.
120 Oral Testimony (May 2007) on behalf of various Montana petitioners (Citizens Awareness Network (CAN),
Women's Voices for the Earth (WVE) and the Clark Fork Coalition (CFC)) re the Thompson River
Cogeneration plant before the Montana Board of Environmental Review
15

121 Oral Testimony (October 2007) on behalf of the Sierra Club re the Sevier Power Plant before the Utah Air
Quality Board
122.Oral Testimony (August 2008) on behalf of the Sierra Club and Clean Water re Big Stone Unit H before the
South Dakota Board of Minerals and the Environment
123 Oral Testimony (February 2009) on behalf of the Sierra Club and the Southern Environmental Law Center re
Santee Cooper Pee Dee units before the South Carolina Board of Health and Environmental Control
124 Oral Testimony (February 2009) on behalf of the Sierra Club and the Environmental Integrity Project re NRG
Limestone Unit 3 before the Texas State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) Administrative Law
Judges
125.Deposition (July 2009) on behalf of MTD Products, Inc, in the matter of Alice Holmes and Vernon Holmes v
Home Depot USA, Inc, et al
126.Deposition (October 2009) on behalf of Environmental Defense and others, in the matter of challenges to the
proposed Coleto Creek coal fired power plant project at the Texas State Office of Administrative Hearings
(SOAH)
127.Deposition (October 2009) on behalf of Environmental Defense, in the matter of permit challenges to the
proposed Las Bnsas coal fired power plant project at the Texas State Office of Administrative Hearings
(SOAH)
128.Deposition (October 2009) on behalf of the Sierra Club, in the matter of challenges to the proposed Medicine
Bow Fuel and Power IGL plant in Cheyenne, Wyoming
129 Deposition (October 2009) on behalf of Environmental Defense and others, in the matter of challenges to the
proposed Tenaska coal fired power plant project at the Texas State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH).
(April 2010)
130.Oral Testimony (November 2009) on behalf of the Environmental Defense Fund re the Las Bnsas Energy
Center before the Texas State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) Administrative Law Judges
131.Deposition (December 2009) on behalf of Environmental Defense and others, in the matter of challenges to the
proposed White Stallion Energy Center coal fired power plant project at the Texas State Office of
Administrative Hearings (SOAH)
132 Oral Testimony (February 2010) on behalf of the Environmental Defense Fund re the White Stallion Energy
Center before the Texas State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) Administrative Law Judges
133 Deposition (June 2010) on behalf of the United States in connection with the Alabama Power Company NSR
Case United States v Alabama Power Company, CV -01 -HS -152-5 (Northern District of Alabama, Southern
Division).
134 Trial Testimony (September 2010) on behalf of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania — Dept of Environmental
Protection, State of Connecticut, State of New York, State of Maryland, and State of New Jersey (Plaintiffs) in
connection with the Allegheny Energy NSR Case in US District Court in the Western District of Pennsylvania
Plaintiffs v Allegheny Energy Inc, et al, 2.05cv0885 (Western District of Pennsylvania).
135 Oral Direct and Rebuttal Testimony (September 2010) on behalf of Fall -Line Alliance for a Clean
Environment and others in the matter of the PSD Air Permit for Plant Washington issued by Georgia DNR at
the Office of State Administrative Hearing, State of Georgia (OSAH-BNR-AQ-1031707-98-WALKER)
136 Oral Testimony (September 2010) on behalf of the State of New Mexico Environment Department in the
matter of Proposed Regulation 20.2 350 NMAC — Greenhouse Gas Cap and Trade Provisions, No EIB 10-04
(R), to the State of New Mexico, Environmental Improvement Board
137 Oral Testimony (October 2010) on behalf of the Environmental Defense Fund re the Las Brisas Energy Center
before the Texas State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) Administrative Law Judges
138 Oral Testimony (November 2010) regarding BART for PSCo Hayden, CSU Martin Drake units before the
Colorado Air Quality Commission on behalf of the Coalition of Environmental Organizations.
16

139.Oral Testimony (December 2010) regarding BART for TnState Craig Units, CSU Nixon Unit, and PRPA
Rawhide Unit) before the Colorado Air Quality Commission on behalf of the Coalition of Environmental
Organizations
140 Deposition (December 2010) on behalf of the United States in connection with the Louisiana Generating NSR
Case United States v Louisiana Generating, LLC, 09-CV100-RET-CN (Middle District of Louisiana).
141.Deposition (February 2011 and January 2012) on behalf of Wild Earth Guardians in the matter of opacity
exceedances and monitor downtime at the Public Service Company of Colorado (Xcel)'s Cherokee power
plant. No 09-cv-1862 (D Colo)
142. Oral Testimony (February 2011) to the Georgia Office of State Administrative Hearings (OSAH) in the matter
of Minor Source HAPS status for the proposed Longleaf Energy Associates power plant (OSAH-BNR-AQ-
1115157-60-HOWELLS) on behalf of the Friends of the Chattahoochee and the Sierra Club).
143.Deposition (August 2011) ori behalf of the United States in United States of Amencd v Cemex, Inc , Civil
Action No 09-cv-00019-MSK-MEH (Distnct of Colorado)
144 Deposition (July 2011) and Oral Testimony at Hearing (February 2012) on behalf of the Plaintiffs MYTAPN
in the matter of Microsoft -Yes, Toxic Air Pollution -No (MYTAPN) v State of Waslungton, Department of
Ecology and Microsoft Corporation Columbia Data Center to the Pollution Control Hearings Board, State of
Washington, Matter No. PCHB No. 10-162
145 Oral Testimony at Hearing (March 2012) on behalf of the United States in connection with the Louisiana
Generating NSR Case United States v Louisiana Generating, LLC, 09-CV100-RET-CN (Middle District of
Louisiana)
146 Oral Testimony at Hearing (April 2012) on behalf of the New Hampshire Sierra Club at the State of New
Hampshire Public Utilities Commission, Docket No 10-261 — the 2010 Least Cost Integrated Resource Plan
(LC1RP) submitted by the Public Service Company of New Hampshire (re Merrimack Station Units 1 and 2)
147 Oral Testimony at Hearing (November 2012) on behalf of Clean Wisconsin in the matter of Application of
Wisconsin Public Service Corporation for Authority to Construct and Place in Operation a New Multi -
Pollutant Control Technology System (ReACT) for Unit 3 of the Weston Generating Station, before the Public
Service Commission of Wisconsin, Docket No 6690 -CE -197
148 Deposition (March 2013) in the matter of various Environmental Petitioners v North Carolina DENR/DAQ
and Carolinas Cement Company, before the Office of Administrative Hearings, State of North Carolina
149 Deposition (August 2013) on behalf of the Sierra Club in connection with the Luminant Big Brown Case
Sierra Club v Energy Future Holdings Corporation and Luminant Generation Company LLC, Civil Action
No 6.12-cv-00108-WSS (Western District of Texas, Waco Division)
150.Deposition (August 2013) on behalf of the Sierra Club in connection with the Luminant Martin Lake Case
Sierra Club v Energy Future Holdings Corporation and Luminant Generation Company LLC, Civil Action
No 5.10-cv-0156-MHS-CMC (Eastern District of Texas, Texarkana Division)
151 Deposition (February 2014) on behalf of the United States in United States of America v Ameren Missouri,
Civil Action No 4.11-cv-00077-RWS (Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division)
152 Trial Testimony (February 2014) in the matter of Environment Texas Citizen Lobby, Inc and Sierra Club v
ExxonMobil Corporation et al, Civil Action No 4.10-cv-4969 (Southern District of Texas, Houston Division)
153 Trial Testimony (February 2014) on behalf of the Sierra Club in connection with the Lummant Big Brown
Case Sierra Club v Energy Future Holdings Corporation and Luminant Generation Company LLC, Civil
Action No 6.12-cv-00108-WSS (Western District of Texas, Waco Division)
154.Deposition (June 2014) and Trial (August 2014) on behalf of ECM Biofilms in the matter of the US Federal
Trade Commission (FTC) v ECMBiofilms (FTC Docket #9358)
155 Deposition (February 2015) on behalf of Plaintiffs in the matter of Sierra Club and Montana Environmental
Information Center (Plaintiffs) v PPL Montana LLC, Avista Corporation, Puget Sound Energy, Portland
General Electric Company, Northwestern Corporation, and Pac fcorp (Defendants), Civil Action No CV 13-
32-BLG-DLC-JCL (US District Court for the District of Montana, Billings Division).
17

156 Oral Testimony at Hearing (April 2015) on behalf of Niagara County, the Town of Lewiston, and the Villages
of Lewiston and Youngstown in the matter of CWM Chemical Services, LLC New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) Permit Application Nos 9-2934-00022/00225,9-2934-00022/00231,
9-2934-00022/00232, and 9-2934-00022/00249 (pending)
157.Deposition (August 2015) on behalf of Plaintiff in the matter of Conservation Law Foundation (Plaints v
Broadrock Gas Services LLC, Rhode Island LFG GENCO LLC, and Rhode Island Resource Recovery
Corporation (Defendants), Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-00777-M-PAS (US District Court for the District of
Rhode Island)
158 Testimony at Hearing (August 2015) on behalf of the Sierra Club in the matter of Amendments to 35 Illinois
Administrative Code Parts 214, 217, and 225 before the Illinois Pollution Control Board, R15-21.
159 Deposition (May 2015) on behalf of Plaintiffs in the matter of Northwest Environmental Defense Center et a1,
(Plaintiffs) v Cascade Kelly Holdings LLC, d1b/a Columbia Pacific Bio-Refinery, and Global Partners LP
(Defendants), Civil Action No 3 14-cv-01059-SI (US District Court for the District of Oregon, Portland
Division)
160.Trial Testimony (October 2015) on behalf of Plaintiffs in the matter of Northwest Environmental Defense
Center et al, (Plaintiffs) v Cascade Kelly Holdings LLC, d/b/a Columbia Pacific Bio-Refinery, and Global
Partners LP (Defendants), Civil Action No. 3 14-cv-01059-SI (US District Court for the District of Oregon,
Portland Division).
161.Deposition (April 2016) on behalf of the Plaintiffs in UNatural Resources Defense Council, Respiratory
Health Association, and Sierra Club (Plaintiffs) v Illinois Power Resources LLC and Illinois Power Resources
Generation LLC (Defendants), Civil Action No 1.13-cv-01181 (Central District of Illinois, Peoria Division)
162 Trial Testimony at Hearing (July 2016) in the matter of Tesoro Savage LLC Vancouver Energy Distribution
Terminal, Case No 15-001 before the State of Washington Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council
163 Trial Testimony (December 2016) on behalf of the challengers in the matter of the Delaware Riverkeeper
Network, Clean Air Council, et. al, vs. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection and R E Gas Development LLC regarding the Geyer well site before the Pennsylvania
Environmental Hearing Board
164 Trial Testimony (July-August 2016) on behalf of the United States in United States of America v Ameren
Missouri, Civil Action No 4 11-cv-00077-RWS (Eastern District of Missoun, Eastern Division)
165 Trial Testimony (January 2017) on the Environmental Impacts Analysis associated with the Huntley and
Huntley Poseidon Well Pad Hearing on behalf citizens in the matter of the special exception use Zoning
Hearing Board of Penn Township, Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania
166 Trial Testimony (January 2017) on the Environmental Impacts Analysis associated with the Apex energy
Backus Well Pad Hearing on behalf citizens in the matter of the special exception use Zoning Hearing Board
of Penn Township, Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania
167 Trial Testimony (January 2017) on the Environmental Impacts Analysis associated with the Apex energy
Drakulic Well Pad Hearing on behalf citizens in the matter of the special exception use Zoning Hearing Board
of Penn Township, Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania
168.Tnal Testimony (January 2017) on the Environmental Impacts Analysis associated with the Apex energy
Deutsch Well Pad Hearing on behalf citizens in the matter of the special exception use Zoning Hearing Board
of Penn Township, Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania
169.Deposition Testimony (July 2017) on behalf of Plaintiffs in the matter of Casey Voight and Julie Voight v
Coyote Creek Mining Company LLC (Defendant) Civil Action No 1 15-CV-00109 (US District Court for the
District of North Dakota, Western Division)
170 Deposition Testimony (November 2017) on behalf of Defendant in the matter of Oakland Bulk and Oversized
Terminal (Plaintif)q v City of Oakland (Defendant,) Civil Action No 3 16-cv-07014-VC (US District Court for
the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division)
18

171 Deposition Testimony (December 2017) on behalf of Plaintiff in the matter of Wildearth Guardians (Plaintiff)
v Colorado Springs Utility Board (Defendant) Civil Action No 1:15-cv-00357-CMA-CBS (US District Court
for the District of Colorado).
172 Deposition Testimony (January 2018) in the matter of National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) v
State of Washington Department of Ecology and British Petroleum (BP) before the Washington Pollution
Control Hearing Board, Case No 17-055.
173 Trial Testimony (January 2018) on behalf of Defendant in the matter of Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal
(Plaintiffi v City of Oakland (Defendant,) Civil Action No 3 16-cv-07014-VC (US District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Francisco Division)
IVE

SELC Comments on Marshall NPDES Permit Modification #NC0004987 — February 13, 2018
ATTACHMENT 2
Michigan DEQ's Decision on DECO -Belle River Permit Modification Request & Fact Sheet

1/3/2018 Sierra Club Mad - NPDES Permit No M10038172 DECO -Belle River Pit Modification
Casey Roberts <casey. robe rts@s ierrac I ub.org>
NPDES Permit No. M10038172 DECO -Belle River Pit Modification
Buckmaster, Tarek (DEQ) <BUCKMASTERT@mlchigan gov> Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 149 PM
To "casey roberts@sierraclub org" <casey.roberts@sierraclub org>, "Oday Salim GLELC ([e-mail])"
<oday.salim@glelc org>, Thomas Cmar <tcmar@earthjustice org>, "regina [e-mail]"
<regina strong@sierraclub org>
Cc "Alexander, Christine (DEQ)" <[e-mail]>, "Argiroff, Phil (DEQ)" <[e-mail]>,
"Aiello, Christine (DEQ)" <AIELLOC@mlchigan gov>
Dear Ms. Roberts, Mr. Cmar, Mr Salim, and Ms. Strong
Thank you for your comments submitted via email and MlWaters in regard to the permit modification proposed for the
DTE Electric Company's Belle River Power Plant The MDEQ proposed to modify this permit in accordance with the Final
EPA Rule in 40 CFR 423, entitled "Postponement of Certain Compliance Dates for the Effluent Limitation Guidelines and
Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category," effective September 18, 2017 Specifically,
the MDEQ proposed to postpone the interim compliance dates associated with Part I A.10 —Schedule for Elimination of
Bottom Ash Transport Water Discharge, and to revise the final compliance date of that schedule, from December 31,
2021, to December 31, 2023 This proposed revision to Part LA 10 of the permit would also necessitate a similar
revision to Part I.A.11. — Bottom Ash Transport Water Discharge Prohibition.
Your comments expressed opposition to the proposed revisions to Part LA 10 — Schedule for Elimination of Bottom Ash
Transport Water Discharge, and Part I All — Bottom Ash Transport Water Discharge Prohibition Specifically,
commenters requested that the MDEQ reinstate the final compliance date of December 31, 2021, and that the Interim
deadlines associated with that final compliance date also be reinstated.
Based on the number of comments received during the public notice period for this proposed permit
modification, and after careful consideration of these comments and consistent with further evaluation of
EPA's postponement rule, the MDEQ has agreed to reinstate the final compliance dates of both Part I.A.10
and Part I A 11., to December 31, 2021, and the final modified permit, issued today, now reflects these
changes Please see the attached PDF copy of the permit
As you know, the EPA's postponement rule delays, for a period of two years, the earliest compliance date
for the new, more stringent, BAT effluent limitations for bottom ash transport water. This rule postpones the
earliest compliance date from November 1, 2018, to November 1, 2020. Given this, the MDEQ believes
that postponement of the interim compliance dates associated with Part I.A.10. of the subject permit Is both
justified and necessary to avoid Interim compliance dates that are earlier than the new earliest compliance
date set forth in EPA's postponement rule. Note that the only Interim compliance date retained in the
schedule within the subject permit is July 1, 2021. That date has been retained because It is later than the
new earliest compliance date established by EPA's postponement rule.
There was also a request to extend the public comment period and hold a public hearing on the permit
modification. The MDEQ has determined that a public hearing is not necessary based on restoration of the
final compliance date of December 31, 2021. Similarly, the MDEQ has determined that an extension to the
public comment period is not warranted.
https //mad google com/mad/u/0/?ui=2&ik=5d8050484f&jsver-1 QCYKmiiAi4 en &view=pt&msg=1609e7598ed2f4c4&q=from%3A%20BUCKMASTERT 1/2

1/3/2018 Sierra Club Mail - NPDES Permit No M10038172 DECO -Belle River Pit Modification
In closing, the MDEQ believes the permit modification and change to the schedule fully complies with
applicable state and federal law. Thank you again for your comments and for your willingness to share your
concerns with us. We greatly value your participation in this process and believe that It resulted In a better
permit. If you have any questions about the subject permit as revised, please do not hesitate to contact me
Sincerely,
Tarek Buckmaster
Lakes Erie and Huron Permits Unit
Permits Section, Water Resources Division
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
517-230-4233 New Number
buckmastert@michigan gov
NPDES Permit - FINAL—DECO-Belle River Plt.pdf
310K
https //mad google com/mad/u/0/?w=2&ik=5d8050484f&jsver-1 QCYKmliAi4 en &view=pt&msg=1609e7588ed2f4c4&q=from%3A%20BUCKMASTERT 2/2

Permit No M10038172
FACT SHEET
PERMITTEE / DESIGNATED SITE NAME DTE Electric Company / DECO -Belle River Plt
COUNTY St Clair
DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
Bottom ash transport water, nonchemical metal cleaning wastewater, and low-volume wastewater discharged through
Monitoring Point 001 B and/or Monitoring Point 002A are treated via sedimentation in ash settling basins prior to discharge
through Outfall 001 and/or Outfall 002, respectively Groundwater, storm water, and combustion residual leachate from
the Range Road Site discharged through Monitoring Point 001 B are treated via settling Storm water and low-volume
wastewater consisting of oily wastewater discharged through Monitoring Point 001 C are treated via an oil/water separator
skimming system prior to discharge through Outfall 001
MAP OF DISCHARGE LOCATION
Facility Coordinates Latitude 42 773888, Longitude -82 495833
1
I ` Outfall•0021f t
Belle
er
Power -Plants
+`� c�svaT! \ . �g +� �?,C 1 S! ••r,+� r��F�,F �f+ J l
-1 +6 outfall•0014
moi' l /
Lj
�� -^--\\ ' �za �� J, ti� f �F I �r" �( cf�'�'J�� � � _ S li ,s,� /._ `, • ,�•- � G U 1 � a)
—�-� �7, ter•: �! C,g`Ina4
RECEIVING WATER
The St Clair River is protected for agricultural uses, navigation, industrial water supply, public water supply in areas with
designated public water supply intakes, cold -water fish, other indigenous aquatic life and wildlife, partial body contact
recreation, total body contact recreation (May through October), and fish consumption

The receiving stream flows used to develop effluent limitations are a 95 percent exceedance-flow of 130,000 cfs, a
harmonic mean flow of 209,000 cfs, and a 90 -day, 10 -year low flow of 185,000 cfs
MIXING ZONE
For toxic pollutants, the volume of the St. Clair River used to ensure that effluent limitations are sufficiently stringent to
meet Water Quality Standards is 25 percent of the applicable design flow of the receiving stream
For other pollutants, the volume of the St. Clair River used to ensure that effluent limitations are sufficiently stringent to
meet Water Quality Standards is the applicable design flow of the receiving stream
RECEIVING WATER
The unnamed tributary of the Belle River (known locally as Webster Drain) is protected for agricultural uses, navigation,
industrial water supply, public water supply in areas with designated public water supply intakes, warm -water fish, other
indigenous aquatic life and wildlife, partial body contact recreation, total body contact recreation (May through October),
and fish consumption
The receiving stream flows used to develop effluent limitations are a 95 percent exceedance flow of 0 cfs, a harmonic
mean flow of 0 2 cfs, and a 90 -day, 10 -year low flow of 0 1 cfs
MIXING ZONE
For toxic pollutants, the volume of the unnamed tributary of the Belle River used to ensure that effluent limitations are
sufficiently stringent to meet Water Quality Standards is 25 percent of the applicable design flow of the receiving stream
For other pollutants, the volume of the unnamed tributary of the Belle River used to ensure that effluent limitations are
sufficiently stringent to meet Water Quality Standards is the applicable design flow of the receiving stream
EXISTING EFFLUENT QUALITY (from DMR data from October 2010 to October 2015)
MONITORING POINT 001A
Parameter
Minimum Maximum
Maximum Maximum
Units
Daily Monthly
7 -Day Daily
Total Residual Chlorine
-- —
-- 140
ug/I
Chlorination Duration
-- —
-- 159
min/day
Flow
-- 821.6
-- 9591
MGD
pH
7.5 —
-- 8.7
S U
Temperature
-- —
-- 96
°F
Thermal Discharge
-- 5,928
-- --
MBTU/hr
Total Copper
-- —
-- 12
ug/I
Total Mercury
-- 085
--- --
ng/I

MONITORING POINT 001B
Minimum Maximum Maximum
Maximum
Units
Parameter Minimum
Maximum
Maximum Maximum
Units
Daily
Monthly
7 -Day Daily
MGD
Flow --
985
-- 15.09
MGD
Oil & Grease --
5
--- 13
mg/I
Total Suspended Solids --
18
--- 77
mg/I
MONITORING POINT 001C
MONITORING POINT 002A - No discharge occurred during the period
PROPOSED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (see draft permit)
BASIS FOR PROPOSED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (see Basis for Decision Memo)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The Department proposes to modify the facility's previously issued permit in accordance with the Final EPA Rule in 40
CFR 423, entitled "Postponement of Certain Compliance Dates for the Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for
the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category," dated September 12, 2017 Specifically, the Department
proposes to postpone the interim compliance dates associated with the Schedule for Elimination of Bottom Ash Transport
Water Discharge, and to revise the final compliance date of that schedule to December 31, 2023
The EPA projects that it will formulate revised effluent limitation guidelines for bottom ash transport water by fall of 2020 It
is the Department's intention to revise the facility's compliance schedule again at that time, consistent with the revised
effluent limitation guidelines and applicable facility design, procurement, and construction
The revised compliance schedule proposed for the facility is excerpted below from the proposed draft permit
10. Schedule for Elimination of Bottom Ash Transport Water Discharge
The permittee shall eliminate the discharge of bottom ash transport water to surface waters of the state in
accordance with the following schedule All submittals shall be to the Department In accordance with the Final
EPA Rule in 40 CFR 423, entitled "Postponement of Certain Compliance Dates for the Effluent Limitation
Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category," dated September 12,
2017, the dates listed in items a through e, below, are now postponed by this permit modification. The EPA
projects that it will formulate revised effluent limitation guidelines for bottom ash transport water by fall of 2020. It
is the Department's intention to revise this entire compliance schedule at that time consistent with the revised
regulation and applicable design, procurement and construction, based on the revised effluent limitation
guidelines
a On or before (date postponed and not enforceable under this permit), the permittee shall submit the
completed technology feasibility evaluation and the approach selected to achieve elimination of the
discharge of bottom ash transport water to surface waters of the state at Monitoring Point 001A,
Monitoring Point 001 B, and Monitoring Point 002A, specified in Part I A 1., Part I.A.2 , and Part I A 4,
r
Minimum Maximum Maximum
Maximum
Units
Parameter
Daily Monthly 7 -Day
Daily
Flow
-- 0.135 --
0 385
MGD
Oil & Grease
-- 7 ---
36
mg/I
Total Suspended Solids
-- 16 ---
44
mg/I
MONITORING POINT 002A - No discharge occurred during the period
PROPOSED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (see draft permit)
BASIS FOR PROPOSED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (see Basis for Decision Memo)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The Department proposes to modify the facility's previously issued permit in accordance with the Final EPA Rule in 40
CFR 423, entitled "Postponement of Certain Compliance Dates for the Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for
the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category," dated September 12, 2017 Specifically, the Department
proposes to postpone the interim compliance dates associated with the Schedule for Elimination of Bottom Ash Transport
Water Discharge, and to revise the final compliance date of that schedule to December 31, 2023
The EPA projects that it will formulate revised effluent limitation guidelines for bottom ash transport water by fall of 2020 It
is the Department's intention to revise the facility's compliance schedule again at that time, consistent with the revised
effluent limitation guidelines and applicable facility design, procurement, and construction
The revised compliance schedule proposed for the facility is excerpted below from the proposed draft permit
10. Schedule for Elimination of Bottom Ash Transport Water Discharge
The permittee shall eliminate the discharge of bottom ash transport water to surface waters of the state in
accordance with the following schedule All submittals shall be to the Department In accordance with the Final
EPA Rule in 40 CFR 423, entitled "Postponement of Certain Compliance Dates for the Effluent Limitation
Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category," dated September 12,
2017, the dates listed in items a through e, below, are now postponed by this permit modification. The EPA
projects that it will formulate revised effluent limitation guidelines for bottom ash transport water by fall of 2020. It
is the Department's intention to revise this entire compliance schedule at that time consistent with the revised
regulation and applicable design, procurement and construction, based on the revised effluent limitation
guidelines
a On or before (date postponed and not enforceable under this permit), the permittee shall submit the
completed technology feasibility evaluation and the approach selected to achieve elimination of the
discharge of bottom ash transport water to surface waters of the state at Monitoring Point 001A,
Monitoring Point 001 B, and Monitoring Point 002A, specified in Part I A 1., Part I.A.2 , and Part I A 4,
r

respectively The submittal shall include an assessment of the ability to design and build the selected
approach
b On or before (date postponed and not enforceable under this permit), the permittee shall commence the
engineering design process for the selected approach
c On or before (date postponed and not enforceable under this permit), the permittee shall submit a status
report that describes the ongoing engineering design process, and the procurement/fabrication
processes, of the selected approach.
a On or before (date postponed and not enforceable under this permit), the permittee shall commence
construction for the selected approach
b On or before (date postponed and not enforceable under this permit), the permittee shall submit a status
report of the ongoing construction, and specify any impediments to meeting the final compliance date.
c On or before December 31. 2023, the permittee shall eliminate the discharge of bottom ash transport
water to surface waters of the state at Monitoring Point 001A, Monitoring Point 001 B, and Monitoring
Point 002A, specified in Part I.A 1., Part I A.2 , and Part LA 4., respectively.
This proposed revision will also necessitate a revision to the permit condition entitled Bottom Ash Transport Water
Discharge Prohibition The proposed revision is excerpted below from the proposed draft permit
11. Bottom Ash Transport Water Discharge Prohibition
The EPA projects that it will formulate revised effluent limitation guidelines for bottom ash transport water by fall of
2020 It is the Department's intention to revise the entire compliance schedule of the bottom ash transport water
discharge prohibition listed above at that time, consistent with the revised regulation and applicable design,
procurement and construction, based on the revised effluent limitation guidelines
Beginning on December 31, 2023, the permittee is prohibited from discharging newly generated bottom ash
transport water from any outfall
No changes to numeric limits are proposed as part of this permitting action.
REGISTER OF INTERESTED PERSONS
Any person interested in a particular application, or group of applications, may leave his/her name, address, and
telephone number as part of the file for an application The list of names will be maintained as a means for persons with
an interest in an application to contact others with similar interests
PUBLIC COMMENT
Persons wishing to submit comments or request a public hearing should go to https //miwaters deq.state mi us, select
'Public Notice Search,' search for this public notice by entering the permit number or site name into the search field, click
'Search', click 'View,' click 'Add Comment,' enter information into the fields, and then click 'Submit ' Comments or
objections to the draft permit received between November 17. 2017, and December 18. 2017, will be considered in the
final decision to issue the permit
Any person may request the Department of Environmental Quality (Department) to hold a public hearing on the
application The request should include specific reasons for the request, indicating which portions of the application or
draft permit constitute the need for a hearing If submitted comments indicate significant public interest in the application
or if useful information may be produced, the Department, at its discretion, may hold a public hearing on the application
If a public hearing is scheduled, public notice of the hearing will be provided at least 30 days in advance The hearing will
normally be held in the vicinity of the discharge The Department will consider comments made at the hearing when
making its final determinations on the permit. Inquiries should be directed to Christine Aiello, Permits Section, Water
Resources Division, Department of Environmental Quality, RO Box 30458, Lansing, Michigan 48909-7958, telephone
517-284-5582, or e-mail aielloc@michigan gov

PUBLIC NOTICE
Date- November 17, 2017
Permit No.. M10038172
Designated Site Name- DECO -Belle River Pit
The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), Water Resources Division (WRD), proposes to
modify a permit previously issued to the DTE Electric Company for the Belle River Power Plant,
4505 King Road, China, MI 48054. The applicant discharges noncontact cooling water, treated
process wastewater, treated groundwater, treated combustion residual leachate, and storm water
to the St. Clair River and an unnamed tributary of the Belle River (known locally as Webster Drain).
The draft permit includes the following modifications to the previously -issued permit: The
permit conditions entitled Schedule for Elimination of Bottom Ash Transport Water Discharge (Part
I.A.10.) and Bottom Ash Transport Water Discharge Prohibition (Part I.A.11.) have been revised.
Copies of the public notice, fact sheet, basis for decision memo, draft permit, and EPA 40 CFR Part
423 Final Rule: Postponement of Certain Compliance Dates for the Effluent Limitations Guidelines
and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category, may be obtained
via the Internet at https-//miwaters deq.state mi us (select'Public Notice Search,' enter the permit
number or site name in the search field, and then click 'Search'), or at the WRD's Southeast
Michigan District Office located at 27700 Donald Court, Warren, MI 48092-2793, telephone: 586-
753-3700.
Persons wishing to submit comments or request a public hearing should go to
https-//miwaters deq.state.mi.us, select 'Public Notice Search,' search for this public notice, click
'View,' click 'Add Comment,' enter information into the fields, and then click `Submit.' Inquiries
should be directed to Christine Aiello, Permits Section, WRD, DEQ, P.O. Box 30458, Lansing,
Michigan 48909-7958; telephone: [phone]; or e-mail: [e-mail].
Comments or objections to the draft permit received by December 18. 2017, will be considered in
the final decision to issue the permit.