NC0003425_Comments_20170222

SIERRA
February 22, 2017
Via email toiubliccomments@ncdenrgov
Mr. S. Jay Zimmerman P.G., Director
Division of Water Resources
Department of Environmental Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C., 27699-1617
Re: Supplemental Comments on Draft NPDES Permit No. NC0003425 for Duke
Energy's Roxboro Steam Electric Generating Plant
Dear Mr. Zimmerman,
On behalf of our more than 60,000 North Carolina members and supporters, Sierra Club
respectfully submits these comments on the January 2017 draft National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System ("NPDES") permit for Duke Energy's Roxboro Steam Electric Generating
Plant ("Roxboro"), Permit No. NC0003425, noticed for public comment by the North Carolina
Department of Environmental Quality ("DEQ"). These comments supplement Sierra Club's
November 4, 2016 comments —which we incorporate by reference and attach here as Exhibit 1—
on DEQ's August 2016 Draft Permit.
DEQ's January 2017 Revised Draft Permit, like the August 2016 Draft Permit before it, fails
to comply with the federal Clean Water Act ("CWA") and with North Carolina law and to
adequately protect Person County waters. DEQ should revise Roxboro's permit again to —
Require compliance with new effluent limits for the discharge of bottom ash transport water
and flue gas desulfurization ("FGD") wastewater and bottom ash transport water by
November 1, 2018;
• Set site -specific technology -based effluent limits, particularly for the discharge of legacy ash
basin wastewater;
• Revise water quality -based effluent limits using comprehensive, updated data sets and
appropriate baselines;
• Require immediate corrective action to eliminate all seeps of contaminated water;
• Require removal of toxic coal ash waste to prevent future pollution of ground and surface
waters;

• Increase the frequency of discharge monitoring to allow for accurate evaluation of permit
compliance and water quality impacts; and
Develop interim requirements to reduce lethal impingement and entrainment from the
plant's cooling system.
COMMENTS
A. DEQ's Proposed Compliance Deadlines For The Revised ELGs Are Not
Justified.
The EPA periodically codifies national effluent limitation guidelines ("ELGs") for NPDES
permits that reflect Best Available Technology ("BAT") standards for particular discharges,
pollutants, and activities found in categories of point sources. See 40 C.F.R. § 423. Where those
guidelines have been set, they establish the floor or minimum level of control that must be imposed
in a NPDES permit. EPA recently updated ELGs for steam electric power plants such as Roxboro.
80 Fed. Reg. 67,838 (Nov. 3, 2015). Among other things, the new rule prohibits the discharge of
pollutants from bottom ash and fly ash transport water and limits the amounts of arsenic, mercury,
selenium, and nitrate that may be discharged in FGD wastewater. 40 C.F.R. §5 423.13 (g)(1)(i),
(h)(1)(i), and (k)(1)(i). Dischargers must meet these limitations "as soon as possible beginning
November 1, 2018." Id. (emphasis added).
The phrase "as soon as possible" means November 1, 2018, unless the permitting authority
establishes a later date based on a well -documented justification and the authority's consideration of
certain enumerated factors in the final rule. 40 C.F.R. § 423.11(t). EPA instructs permitting
authorities to "provide a well -documented justification for how [they] determined the `as soon as
possible' date in the fact sheet or administrative record for the permit" and to "explain why allowing
additional time to meet the limitations is appropriate," if that is the authority's conclusion.'
As explained in Sierra Club's November 2016 comments,2 rather than properly assess a
reasonable timeline for expeditious ELG compliance at Roxboro, as required by the CWA, DEQ
has simply rubber-stamped the compliance dates requested by Duke. The January 2017 Revised
Draft Permit does not provide for expeditious compliance with the ELGs and instead, endorses
Duke's artificially inflated timelines. Because DEQ has not offered a well -documented and
supported proposal to delay compliance with the ELGs, DEQ should revise the Draft Permit to
require compliance with the ELGs by the presumptive compliance date of November 1, 2018.
1. DEQ Should Require Roxboro To Comply With A Zero Discharge Standard For
Bottom Ash Transport Water By November 1, 2018.
As discussed in detail in Sierra Club's November 2016 comments' and in the accompanying
1 See U.S. EPA, TECHNICAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT FOR THE EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
2 See Sierra Club November 4, 2016 Comments, attached as Exhibit 1, at 9-11.
3 Id. at 9-10.

assessment by Dr. Ranajit Sahu4—attached here as Exhibits 1 and 2—Roxboro should be able to
comply with a zero discharge standard for bottom ash transport water well before the Revised Draft
Permit's proposed deadline of April 30, 2021. Yet, as in the prior permit draft, DEQ appears to have
simply copied Duke's proposed compliance schedule into the Revised Draft Permit Fact Sheets and
offers no independent or well -documented explanation for why additional compliance time and
extended dumping of polluted bottom ash wastewater into Hyco Lake is appropriate. DEQ has not
responded, or it seems considered, our November 2016 comments on setting and documenting
appropriate compliance timelines, nor has DEQ verified Duke's requested schedule.
Duke intends to comply with the zero discharge standard for bottom ash transport water by
converting from wet to dry handling using a remote mechanical drag system ("RMDS"). In addition
to the revised ELGs, the North Carolina Coal Ash Management Act ("CAMA") also requires
conversion to dry ash handling by December 31, 2019, and Duke already has begun preparations for
this conversion at Roxboro.
Nonetheless, Duke has requested until April 30, 2021 to meet the zero discharge standard-
15 months beyond the state deadline and 30 months beyond EPA's default compliance date.
Despite the fact that Duke plans to install the RMDS equipment and convert to dry ash handling by
December 31, 2019 in order to comply with CAMA, the utility inexplicably requests an additional 15
months to eliminate discharges of bottom ash transport water. Duke's compliance timeline is
unsupported and artificially elongated, using inflated estimates of the time required to complete
tasks, failing to allow for overlapping tasks which can be completed simultaneously, and making
unsubstantiated claims regarding resource shortages and permitting delays.
As described in our previous comments and Dr. Sahu's assessment, Duke has been on
notice of its ELGs compliance for years now and has been planning to convert to dry ash handling
at Roxboro under CAMA since September 2014, providing Duke plenty of time to begin working
toward compliance. Indeed, in its final rule, EPA instructed, "[r]egardless of when a plant's NPDES
permit is ready for renewal, the plant should immediately begin evaluating how it intends to comply
with the requirements of the final ELGs. In cases where significant changes in operation are
appropriate, the plant should discuss such changes with the permitting authority and evaluate
appropriate steps and a timeline for the changes, even prior to the permit renewal process." 80 Fed.
Reg. 67,882-83 (emphasis added).
Dr. Sahu concludes, based on Duke's own statements and planning activities to date, that
Duke could achieve compliance with the bottom ash transport water ELGs at Roxboro by
September 2018, at the latest.
Indeed, depending on the scope of the required conversions at a particular coal plant,
industry itself projects that the total time needed for bottom ash system retrofits ranges from 27 to
36 months, from the start of conceptual engineering to final commissioning.' fiAt Duke Energy's own
4 Dr. Ranajit Sahu, Technical Assessment of Feasibility of Timely Compliance with the ELG Rule Requirements for Bottom
Ash Transport Water and FGD Wastewater at the Roxboro Power Plant (Nov. 4, 2016) attached as Exhibit 2.
s DEQ, Draft Permit Fact Sheet for Roxboro Steam Electric Generating Plant Gan. 21, 2017) at 4 ["Revised
Draft Permit Fact Sheet"].
6 Duke Energy, NPDES Wastewater Permit Application Submittal #8 (Aug. 15, 2016).
7 Utility Water Act Group, Comments on EPA's Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam
2

Mayo Plant, for example, a wet -to -dry bottom ash handling system conversion was completed in
under a year and a half' At the South Carolina Electric & Gas Company Wateree plant, conversion
to a closed -loop bottom ash handling system was completed in two and a half years from bidding of
the contracts to project completion.' In 2010, the BL England Station retrofitted a recycle system on
two coal -burning units (one is 125-MW, the other is 155-MW) as well as a 170-MW oil -burning unit
in less than two years from award of the contract to operation of the new system.10
Delaying compliance with the zero discharge standard for bottom ash transport water
beyond November 1, 2018 is unnecessary and will gratuitously put public and environmental health
at risk. Bottom ash transport water is known to contain a number of toxic metals in both suspended
and dissolved form." Yet DEQ continues to require no limits on highly toxic metals discharged in
bottom ash transport water at Roxboro, including arsenic, selenium, molybdenum, cadmium,
chromium, lead, selenium, and mercury. Especially since EPA updated the ELGs to address the
"outstanding public health and environmental problem" related to the discharge of effluent
containing toxic and other pollutants from power plants, DEQ has all the more reason to require
Roxboro to comply with the zero discharge standard by the November 1, 2018 deadline.
2. DEQ Should Require Roxboro To Comply With Effluent Limitations For FGD
Wastewater By November 1. 2018.
Roxboro must meet new technology -based effluent limits for FGD wastewater discharges
into Hyco Lake by November 1, 2018. 40 C.F.R. § 423.13(g) (1) (i). The revised ELGs set daily
maximum and monthly average limits on concentrations of arsenic, mercury, selenium, and
nitrate/nitrite in discharges of FGD wastewater. These limits represent what is achievable if FGD
wastewater is treated using chemical precipitation and an anoxic/anaerobic fixed -film biological
treatment system. 80 Fed. Reg. at 67,850. Duke already utilizes a biological treatment system at
Roxboro, which it plans to upgrade in order to meet the ELGs.
DEQ proposes to adopt Duke's requested compliance schedule, allowing until December
31, 2023—the latest possible date allowed —to meet the FGD wastewater ELGs.12 Again, as
Electric Posner Generating Point Source Category (Sept. 30, 2013), Attach. 11: Retrofitting Dry Bottom Ash
Handling.
8 See DEF Progress, Inc., Mayo Steam Electric Generating Plant, Quarterly Progress Report 0anuasy — March 2015)
("Dry bottom ash handling system began construction on December 14, 2012. As of March 31, 2014,
construction of this system was 100% complete.").
9 U.S. EPA, Final Notes from Site Visit at South Carolina Electric & Gas Company's Wlateree Station on January 24,
2013, DCN SE03779, available athttp://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OW-2009-
0819-1917.
10 Dennis Del Vecchio and Robert G. Walsh, Wet to Dry Bottom Ash Disposal Conversion Project - BL England
Station, Posner -Gen, December 2011, February 2008 - February 2010.
11 See e.g., U.S. EPA, Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category: Final Detailed Study Report,
EPA 821-R-09-008, 3-19 (Oct. 2009); U.S. EPA, Development Document for Final Effluent Limitations
Guidelines, New Source Performance Standards, and Pretreatment Standards for the Steam Electric Point
Source Category, Table V-33 (Nov. 1982).
12DEQ, Draft Permit No. NCO038377 for Roxboro Steam Electric Generating Plant Qan. 21, 2017) at 55
A.(10)-A.(11) ["Revised Draft Permit']; Revised Permit Fact Sheet at 10; Duke Energy, NPDES Wastewater
Permit Application Submittal #8 (Aug. 15, 2016).

expressed in Sierra Club's November 2016 comments,13 there is no justification for Duke needing
over seven years from its proposed schedule to meet the FGD wastewater ELGs at Roxboro.
Duke's schedule is inflated, offers unsupported claims regarding vendors and capabilities, and fails
to account for prior planning, completed tasks, and Duke's substantial experience with similar
systems, including at Roxboro. As Dr. Sahu explains in his assessment, Duke should be able to
complete upgrades and meet the FGD wastewater ELGs by November 2019 at the latest, and
possibly sooner.
DEQ has not responded to our November 2016 comments and once again fails to offer a
well -documented justification for the prolonged compliance FGD wastewater ELGs period in the
Revised Draft Permit or to verify and evaluate Duke's proposed delays. Nothing in Duke's permit
renewal application or updates justifies an extension of the default compliance timeline until
December 31, 2023. As such, DEQ should modify the Revised Draft Permit to require Roxboro to
meet the new FGD wastewater ELG limits by November 1, 2018.
B. DEQ Must Establish Technology -Based Effluent Limitations Using Best
Professional Judgment.
The CWA requires technology -based effluent limitations ("TBELs") as a minimum level of
control for NPDES permits. In the absence of national ELGs reflecting BAT, or where such
guidelines are inadequate, a state permitting agency must promulgate permit effluent limitations, in
accordance with BAT, on a case -by -case basis using the permit writer's best professional judgment
("BPJ"). 40 C.F.R. § 125.3(c)(2) and (3); see also Texas Oil & Gas Assn v. EPA, 161 F.3d 923, 928-29
(5th Cir. 1998). In doing so, the state agency is bound by the same factors that EPA is required to
apply in determining and applying BAT limits in a permit. 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(b), 1342(b); see also 33
U.S.C. § 1314(b)(2)(B); Natural Res. Def. Council v. EPA, 859 F.2d 156,183 (D.C. Cir. 1988).
As explained in Sierra Club's November 2016 comments,14 DEQ has failed to perform BAT
site -specific analyses at Roxboro. In particular, DEQ has not evaluated BAT for dewatering
Roxboro's ash ponds, despite applicable technology being available" and in use. For example, in
Virginia, Dominion installed a treatment system at its Bremo plant to reduce pollutant
concentrations in legacy ash basin wastewater before dewatering.16 Dominion also installed a
treatment plant at its Possum Point plant for legacy ash wastewater. Treatment systems now
operating at these two plants have treated toxic constituents, including arsenic, antimony, cadmium,
chromium, mercury, and selenium, to levels below quantification limits (e.g., 5 ug/L).17
13 See Sierra Club November 4, 2016 Comments, attached as Exhibit 1, at 11.
14 Id. at 8.
is A technology is considered "available" where there is, or could feasibly be, use within an industry. Courts
have explained that even if "no plant in a given industry has adopted a pollution control device which could
be installed [this] does not mean that the device is not `available."' Hooker Cbems. & Plastics Corp. v. Train, 537
F.2d 620, 636 (2d Cir. 1976). Likewise, a technology is "economically achievable" under the BAT standard if
it is affordable for the best -run facility within an industry. See, e.g., Reynolds Metals Co. v. EPA, 760 F.2d 549
(4th Cir. 1985).
16 Settlement Agreement between the James River Association and Virginia Electric and Power Company
d/b/a Dominion Virginia Power (Mar. 7, 2016), available at
https: / /www.dom.com/library/domcom/pdfs/corporate/ our-commitments/environment/ coal-ash/bremo-
s ettlement.pdPla= en.
17 See DOMINION, WATER TREATMENT AND TESTING, https://www.dom.com/about-us/news-
4

EPA Region 4 has, appropriately, called for the development of technology -based standards
on a case -by -case basis for discharges of legacy ash wastewater from Duke Energy's coal ash ponds
in North Carolina:
The EPA notes that any permit modifications should include additional technology -
based effluent limitations on a case -by -case basis based on best professional judgment
as required section [sic] by 5 402(a) of the Clean Water Act, 40 CFR 5 122.44(a), 5
123.25, and § 125.3 In particular any additional technology -based effluent limitations
should address pollutants discharged from the ash ponds that are not included in
effluent guidelines for the steam electric power generating industry in 40 CFR Part 23.15
It is unclear whether DEQ has considered TBELs for decanting and dewatering the
Roxboro ash basins. The Revised Draft Permit notes that "[w]hen the facility commences the ash
pond decanting/dewatering, the facility shall treat the wastewater discharged from the ash pond by
physical -chemical treatment."" However, DEQ offers no additional explanation as to what
particular treatment is required and there is no evidence in the permitting record of DEQ's
consideration of technological -based limits for decanting and dewatering or that DEQ performed
site -specific analyses of technological -based limits for any flows. DEQ must assess appropriate
TBELs for all effluent discharges —particularly for treating legacy ash wastewater from the ash
pond, develop effluent limits accordingly, and revise Roxboro's permit.
C. The Revised Draft Permit Fails To Set Adequate Water Quality -Based Effluent
Limitations For Roxboro's Toxic Pollutant Discharges.
In addition to omitting appropriate BAT standards, the Revised Draft Permit's effluent
limitations appear insufficient to adequately protect water quality and meet requirements for water
quality -based effluent limits ("WQBELs"). Despite documented high levels of toxic contaminants in
discharge water, DEQ's methods seem to underestimate pollutant levels in both discharge and
receiving waters, resulting in effectively no limits on nearly all of these pollutants.
After application of the most stringent treatment technologies available under the BAT
standard, if a discharge causes or contributes to, or has the reasonable potential to cause or
contribute to, violation of water quality standards, permitting agencies must include in the governing
NPDES permit any limits necessary to ensure that water quality standards are maintained and not
violated. See 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(d); see also Am. Paper Inst. P. EPA, 996 F.2d 346, 350 (D.C. Cit. 1993);
IFlaterkeeperAlliance, Inc. v. EPA, 399 F.3d 486, 502 (2d. Cir. 2005). Agencies must conduct a
reasonable potential analysis ("RPA") and determine whether additional narrative and numeric water
WQBELs are required to protect human health and aquatic life. 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(d)(1).
center/electric-projects-and-initiatives/coal-ash-pond-closure-management/water-testing-results (last visited
Jan. 3, 2016).
18 Letter from Mark J. Nuhfer, Chief, Municipal & Industrial NPDES Section, EPA Region 4 to Jeffrey
Poupart, Chief, Permitting Section, Division of Water Quality, North Carolina Department of Environment
& Natural Resources (Sep. 16, 2014), available at
http://edocs.deq.nc.gov/WaterResources/O/doc/266481 /Pagel .aspx.
19 Revised Draft Permit §5 A.(2), A.(3).

As described in Sierra Club's November 2016 comments,20 selenium, arsenic, and
molybdenum were all found in Roxboro's ash pond wastewater at concentrations above North
Carolina water quality standards. Selenium was found at Outfall 002 (ash pond discharge) in
concentrations as high as 68.8 µg/L—in other words, nearly three times the daily maximum
protective discharge limit that EPA has set for FGD wastewater in the ELGs.21 At Outfall 003
(discharge canal that dumps combined wastewaters into Hyco Lake), arsenic levels of 17.1 ug/L
have been documented —again, far above EPA's daily discharge limit of 11 ug/L.22
Yet these high levels of pollutants do not appear to be incorporated into DEQ's RPA. For
example, despite recorded arsenic levels as high as 17.1 ug/L at Outfall 003, the RPA lists a
maximum predicted concentration of 5 ug/L.23 Likewise, regardless of high concentrations of
selenium, the RPA shows a maximum value of only 4.1 ug/L.24 No RPA was even performed for
molybdenum impacts. These omissions may be in part due to DEQ's use of an outdated and
incomplete data set dating back to 2010 and 2011.25 The result, in any event, is that the Revised
Draft Permit sets no limits whatsoever on toxic contaminants known to exist in Roxboro's ash
wastewater, such as selenium, arsenic, and molybdenum; only thallium is restricted at Outfall 003.26
Furthermore, DEQ's RPA uses incorrect baselines that fail to account for highly polluted
water in Hyco Lake. The Revised Draft Permit Fact Sheet states that "[f]or the purposes of the
RPA, the background concentrations for all parameters were assumed to be below detection level.i2' This is clearly
inaccurate and fails to account for the known, heavy pollution at Hyco Lake following years of coal
ash dumping. For example, sampling of "surface water, sediments and fish tissue has continued to
show elevated levels of coal ash contaminants including arsenic, boron, selenium, copper, and
others.i21
Finally, DEQ has doubled the daily discharge limit on ash pond dewatering from 1 million
gallons per day in the August 2016 Draft Permit to 2 million gallons per day in the January 2017
Revised Draft Permit, with no explanation.29 In both drafts, dumping is essentially unrestricted.
DEQ should justify this increase and why this level of dumping has been deemed safe.
The Revised Draft Permit allows Duke to dump millions of gallons of polluted coal ash
water into Hyco Lake without any meaningful effluent limits on critical coal ash wastewater
constituents. We urge DEQ to revisit its RPA, after selecting BAT, and to ensure that WQBELs are
sufficient to protect public waters.
D. The Revised Draft Permit Attempts To Sanctions Hazardous, Illegal Seeps
20 See Sierra Club November 4, 2016 Comments, attached as Exhibit 1, at 7-9.
21 Revised Draft Permit Fact Sheet at 3; 40 C.F.R. § 423.13(g)(1)(i).
22 Revised Draft Permit Fact Sheet at 4; 40 C.F.R. § 423.13(g)(1)(i).
23 Revised Draft Permit Fact Sheet at 25, 35-36.
24 Id. at 25, 29-31.
25 Id. at 5.
26 Revised Draft Permit at § A. (4).
27 Revised Draft Permit Fact Sheet at 5 (emphasis added).
28 See Southern Environmental Law Center Nov. 4, 2016 Comments on Draft NPDES Wastewater Permit
#NC0003426.
29 Revised Draft Permit Fact Sheet at 4; Revised Draft Permit at § A.(3).

Rather than Require Corrective Action.
DEQ cannot permit the illegal discharge of polluted wastewater through seeps, as referenced
in Sierra Club's November 2016 comments.30 Sixteen unpermitted seeps discharging pollutants from
coal ash pollutants have been identified at Roxboro.31 Rather than require Duke to take corrective
action, DEQ proposes to include fifteen of the seeps in the Revised Draft Permit: DEQ proposes to
regulate four of the seeps "through a common outfall to Hyco Reservoir at the intake canal" via
Outfall 001 and to cover eleven more under Outfall 003.32
The seeps are unauthorized discharges to Waters of the United States. 33 U.S.C. § 1311; 40
C.F.R. §122.1(b)(1). Under the CWA, "[e]very identifiable point that emits pollution is a point
source which must be authorized by a NPDES permit." U.S. P. Tom-KatDet,., Inc., 614 F. Supp. 613,
614 (D. Alaska 1985) (citing 40 C.F.R. 5 122.1(b) (1)).
DEQ has acknowledged that "[r]eleases of this nature would typically be addressed through
an enforcement action requiring their elimination rather than permitting" and that the "CWA
NPDES permitting program does not normally envision permitting of uncontrolled releases from
treatment systems; such releases are difficult to monitor and control, and it is difficult to accurately
predict their impact on water quality. ,33 In fact, DEQ previously sought a permanent injunction
requiring Duke to take corrective action to stop the Roxboro seeps, finding that the seeps posed a
serious danger to the health, safety, and welfare of the people and waters of North Carolina.34
DEQ cannot sanction Duke Energy's illegal discharges into jurisdictional waters and shield
Duke from the legal consequences of its unlawful activity. To ensure compliance with water quality
standards, protect the structural integrity of Roxboro's coal ash dams, and avoid violating anti -
backsliding requirements, DEQ must require that the leaking of contaminated water from all of the
seeps be stopped.
E. Toxic Ash Coal Ash Must Be Removed From The Ash Basins In Order To
Prevent Continued Contamination Of Ground And Surface Waters.
DEQ must address the unauthorized, polluting discharges of hydrologically connected
groundwater and seeps from the ash basins to Hyco Lake and its tributaries. Approximately 19.5
million tons of coal ash is stored in the unlined ash basins at Roxboro, resting far below the water
table.35 Contaminants from the coal ash are actively polluting groundwater at the site and flowing
into Hyco Lake and will continue to leach into ground and surface waters so long as the coal ash
30 Sierra Club November 4, 2016 Comments, attached as Exhibit 1, at 12-13; see also Southern Environmental
Law Center Nov. 4, 2016 Comments on Draft NPDES Wastewater Permit #NC0003426.
31 Revised Draft Permit Fact Sheet at 10.
32 Id. at 2, 10-11; Revised Draft Permit at A. (1), A. (4).
33 See NCDENR/DWR, FACT SHEET FOR NPDES PERMIT DEVELOPMENT, No. NC0004979, Duke Energy
Carolinas, LLC — Allen Steam Station, at 2 (2015).
34 See Southern Environmental Law Center Nov. 4, 2016 Comments on Draft NPDES Wastewater Permit
#NC0003426, citing Verified Complaint & Motion for Injunctive Relief, State of North Carolina ex. rel. N.C.
DENIK, DWQ v. Duke Energy Progress LLC, No. 13 CVS 11032 (Wake Co., August 16, 2013).
35 Id. at 2.

remains in place.36 The only way to prevent further ground and surface water contamination —
including from the unpermitted ash basin seeps, which cannot otherwise meet permit limits —is to
remove the, the legacy ash wastewater and submerged coal ash in the unlined ash ponds.
F. The Revised Draft Permit Contains Inadequate Monitoring Requirements.
The Revised Draft Permit's monitoring requirements are inadequate to ensure compliance
with corresponding effluent limitations or to properly assess potential water quality impacts, as
previously discussed in Sierra Club's November 2016 comments.37 Moreover, DEQ's monitoring
frequencies disregard EPA regulations requiring that discharges for all permit effluent limitations,
unless impracticable, be sufficient to yield data representative of the monitored activity. 40 C.F.R.
122.48(b).
For example, DEQ only imposes monthly, bi-monthly, or even quarterly monitoring
requirements at Outfalls 003, 006, 010, 011, 012, 012B, and 012C for daily and monthly effluent
limits.31 Likewise, at Outfall 001 for unpermitted seeps,39 the Revised Draft Permit requires just
monthly monitoring for the first year, at which time monitoring is only required quarterly for daily
and monthly limits.40 And there are no monitoring requirements at all for mercury at Outfall 003, in
spite of the fact that mercury has been detected at above 50% of the water quality standard at that
outfall, DEQ's own threshold, and the statewide mercury TDL.41
M
DEQ's deficient monitoring requirements don't match the proposed discharge limits in the
Revised Draft Permit and fail to allow for oversight of discharges and compliance with permit
conditions. DEQ should revisit the monitoring conditions to ensure frequent monitoring and
sampling that matches effluent limits.
G. The Revised Draft Permit Fails To Establish Interim Requirements To Reduce
Impingement And Entrainment Impacts.
As explained in Sierra Club's November 2016 comments,42 DEQ's approval of an alternate
schedule for impingement and entrainment requirements does not eliminate DEQ's obligation to
"establish interim BTA requirements in the permit on a site -specific basis based on the Director's
best professional judgment." 40 C.F.R. § 125.98(6) (emphasis added). Roxboro's antiquated once -
through cooling system uses approximately 1,114 million gallons per day of freshwater from the
Hyco Lake and must be brought into compliance with CWA Section 316(b) "as soon as possible."
Until the system reaches compliance, it is subject to interim requirements to reduce impingement
and entrainment.
36 Id. at 2, 3, 10.
31 Sierra Club November 4, 2016 Comments, attached as Exhibit 1, at 13.
38 Revised Draft Permit at §5 A.(4), A.(6), A.(10), A.(11), A.(12), A.(13), A.(14).
39 DEQ's approach to regulating the seeps in the Draft Permit is impermissible, as discussed herein.
However, the daily limits at these proposed "outfalls" should theoretically also require daily monitoring, and
should in actuality be monitored regularly until the leaks have been repaired.
40 Revised Draft Permit at A. (1).
41 Id. at A. (4); Revised Draft Permit Fact Sheet at 5.
42 Sierra Club November 4, 2016 Comments, attached as Exhibit 1, at 11-12.

Facilities like Roxboro are required to submit an application at the same time as their
NPDES permit renewal application with information supporting entrainment and impingement
technology decisions. 40 C.F.R. § 122.21. Facilities with permits expiring before July 14, 2018 may
request an alternate schedule for information submittal, to be granted only if "the owner or operator
of the facility demonstrates that it could not develop the required information by the applicable date
for submission."40 C.F.R. § 125.95(a)(2). However, permitting agencies must still establish interim
BTA requirements in the permit using BPJ on a site -specific basis. 40 C.F.R. § 125.98(6).
There is, still, no indication that DEQ has made any attempt to develop interim
requirements for the Revised Draft Permit. EPA's final rule on impingement and entrainment
requirements was released over two full ago and Duke submitted its NPDES permit renewal
application in 2011, giving DEQ adequate time to begin assessing interim impingement and
entrainment requirements. DEQ must revise Roxboro's permit once more and, at minimum,
evaluate interim BTA standards based on DEQ's BPJ and consideration of the factors and
technologies specified at 40 C.F.R. §§ 125.94 & 125.98.
CONCLUSION
We urge DEQ to incorporate these changes into the Revised Draft Permit, to amend the
remaining defects, and to protect Person County waters. We thank DEQ for its attention to and
consideration of these comments. Please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned if you would
like to discuss them further.
Sincerely,
/s/ Elizabeth Tedsen Winkelman
Law Office of Elizabeth T. Winkelman
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Outside Counsel for Sierra Club
Bridget Lee
Sierra Club
50 F Street NW, Eighth Floor
Washington, DC 20001
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Cc:
EPA Region 4 ([e-mail])
Molly Davis, Chief, NPDES Permitting Section ([e-mail])
Paul Schwartz, Assistant Regional Counsel ([e-mail])
Karrie ]o Shell, National Energy Sector Permitting Expert ([e-mail])

Exhibit 1

.,� SIERRA
CLUB
November 4, 2016
Via E-mail to [e-mail]
S. Jay Zimmerman, Director
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Water Resources
Wastewater Permitting
ATTN: Roxboro Permit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Re: Comments on Draft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit for
Duke Energy's Roxboro Steam Electric Plant, Permit No. NC0003425
Dear Mr. Zimmerman,
On behalf of our North Carolina members and supporters, Sierra Club respectfully
submits these comments on the draft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
("NPDES") permit for Duke Energy's Roxboro Steam Electric Plant ("Roxboro" or the "Plant"),
Permit No. NC0003425 ("Draft Permit"), noticed for public comment by the North Carolina
Department of Environmental Quality ("DEQ").
As set forth below, the Draft Permit violates the Clean Water Act because it fails to set
adequate effluent limitations, establishes unreasonably long timelines for compliance with
Effluent Limitation Guidelines ("ELGs"), fails to set interim requirements for impingement and
entrainment, attempts to permit illegal seeps, and contains insufficient monitoring requirements.
Given these and other defects in the Draft Permit identified below (as well as those discussed
more fully in comments submitted by the Southern Environmental Law Center, which we hereby
incorporate fully be reference), we urge DEQ to withdraw the Draft Permit, revise it to address
such defects, and reissue it for public comment.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Roxboro Steam Electric Station
With the ability to generate more than 2,200 megawatts of energy, the Roxboro Plant is
the largest coal-fired power plant in North Carolina. The Plant is also one of the oldest, with its
first unit coming online in 1966. The Plant withdraws large quantities of water from adjacent
Hyco Lake for cooling and steam generation purposes and returns a portion of that water to the
river at exceedingly high temperatures. The Plant is equipped with flue gas desulfurization

("FGD") systems (or "scrubbers") and with selective catalytic reduction ("SCR") systems. These
systems remove pollutants from the Plant's exhaust gases, including sulfur dioxide, nitrogen
oxides, and mercury, but their operation results in the generation of coal combustion residuals
and wastewater streams with higher concentrations of toxic pollutants.
The Plant is located on Hyco Lake in Person County, North Carolina, about 7 miles
northwest of the City of Roxboro. Hyco Lake, a popular destination for fishing and other outdoor
recreation, is designated as a Class WS-V and Class B water because, among other uses, the lake
is used "for primary recreation, including frequent or organized swimming."' Nevertheless, the
Plant currently discharges coal ash pond wastewater, stormwater runoff, ash landfill runoff,
chemical metal cleaning wastes treatment basin, FGD wastewater, cooling water, coal pile
runoff, and other wastewaters into Hyco Lake.2
By Duke's estimates, approximately 19.5 million tons of coal combustion residuals (or
"coal ash"), including fly and bottom ash, are stored in two on -site, unlined surface
impoundments, or coal ash ponds, as well as additional millions on an unlined landfill and other
unlined fill areas. The on -site ash ponds have a number of seeps, which DEQ has acknowledged
could pose a serious threat to public health and environmental quality.3 Duke has faced
significant public pressure and legal challenges to address its primitive and dangerous ash
handling practices, but has nevertheless refused to remove coal ash from its unlined ponds at
Roxboro and other sites across the state.
B. Governing Law and Regulations
In enacting the Clean Water Act, Congress established as a national goal the elimination
of all discharges of pollution into navigable waters.4 The Act's implementing regulations are
designed to ensure that this ambitious goal will be met and, to this end, establish the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") permitting program. Under this program, no
pollutant may be discharged from any point source without a NPDES permit, and any failure to
comply with such a permit constitutes a violation of the Clean Water Act.5 The NPDES permit
program is an integral part of the Act's plan to eliminate pollution discharges and restore and
maintain the health and integrity of the nation's waters.6 In North Carolina, the Environmental
Management Commission ("BMC") and DEQ are tasked with ensuring the requirements of the
federal permit program are met through the operation of the state NPDES permitting program.
1 15A NCAC 2B.0219; see also Fact Sheet at 1; 15A NCAC 213.0218.
2 See Roxboro Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit No. NC0003425 Fact Sheet (hereinafter "Permit Fact Sheet") 6.
3 State of North Carolina ex rel. N.C. DENR, DWQ v. Duke Energy Progress, LLC, No. 13 CVS 11032 (Wake Co.,
Aug. 16, 2013).
4 33 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(1).
5 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(a) and 1342(a); 40 C.F.R. § 122.41(a).
6 33 U.S.C. § 1342.
7 See 15A N.C. ADMIN. CODE §§ 2A.0105, 2A.0107.
PA

1. Technology and Water Quality Based Effluent Limitations
The Clean Water Act requires that NPDES permits include effluent limits based on the
performance achievable through the use of statutorily -prescribed levels of technology that "will
result in reasonable further progress toward the national goal of eliminating the discharge of all
pollutants."8 Technology -based effluent limitations ("TBELs") constitute a minimum level of
controls that must be included in a NPDES permit "regardless of a discharge's effect on water
quality."9
For facilities like the Roxboro Plant, discharges of pollutants must be eliminated or
controlled through application of Best Available Technology ("BAT").10 In accordance with the
Act's goal to eliminate all discharges of pollutants, BAT limits "shall require the elimination of
discharges of all pollutants if the Administrator finds, on the basis of information available to
him ... that such elimination is technologically and economically achievable ...."11 A
technology is considered "available" where there has been or could be practicable use within an
industry.' Courts have explained that even where "no plant in a given industry has adopted a
pollution control device which could be installed does not mean that the device is not
'available,"' thus ensuring that industry cannot game the system by all agreeing to not adopt the
latest, best pollution control technology.13 A discharger of pollutants may also be required to
transfer a particular technology that has been used in another context where the transfer is
practicable. Likewise, a technology is "economically achievable" under the BAT standard if it is
affordable for the best -run facility within an industry.14
The requirement to meet the BAT standard is ongoing; it compels polluting industries to
meet ever more stringent limitations on the path towards complete elimination of water
pollution.15 With each renewal of a NPDES permit, the permitting agency must reconsider
whether further pollution reductions are attainable. The objective of the law is continuous, rapid
improvement:
The BAT standard reflects the intention of Congress to use the latest scientific
research and technology in setting effluent limits, pushing industries toward the
goal of zero discharge as quickly as possible. In setting BAT, EPA uses not the
a 33 U.S.C. § 131l(b)(2)(A)(i), see also id. § 131l(b)(1)(A).
9 Am. Petroleum Inst. v. EPA, 661 F.2d 340, 344 (5th Cir. 1981).
10 See 33 U.S.C. § 1311(b)(2)(A).
" 33 U.S.C. § 131 l(b)(2)(A).
12 See Chem. Mfrs. Assn v. EPA, 870 F.2d 177, 226 (5th Cir. 1989) ("Congress intended these [BAT] limitations to
be based on the performance of the single best -performing plant in an industrial field.").
13 Hooker Chems. & Plastics Corp. v. Train, 537 F.2d 620, 636 (2d Cir. 1976).
14 See, e.g., Reynolds Metals Co. v. EPA, 760 F.2d 549, 562 (4th Cir. 1985); Tanner's Council ofAm. v. Train, 540
F.2d 1188, 1191-92 (4th Cir. 1976).
15 See NRDC v. EPA, 822 F.2d 104, 123 (D.C. Cir. 1987).

average plant, but the optimally operating plant, the pilot plant which acts as a
beacon to show what is possible.16
In sum, "BAT should represent a commitment of the maximum resources economically possible
to the ultimate goal of eliminating all polluting discharges."17
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") periodically codifies national
effluent limitation guidelines ("ELGs") for NPDES permits that reflect BAT standards for
particular discharges, pollutants, and activities found in a category of point sources.18 Where
those guidelines have been set, they establish the floor —the minimum level of control that must
be imposed in an NPDES permit. However, where EPA has not set ELGs for a pollutant or
source or particular activity, or where such guidelines are inadequate, a state permitting agency
must promulgate permit effluent limitations, in accordance with BAT, on a case -by -case basis
using the permit writer's best professional judgment.19 In doing so, the state agency is bound by
the same factors that EPA is required to apply in determining and applying BAT limits in a
permit.20
EPA recently updated its ELGs for steam electric power plants, like Roxboro. EPA's
final rule, published in November 2015, noted: "[s]team electric power plants contribute the
greatest amount of all toxic pollutants discharged to surface waters by industrial categories
regulated under the [Clean Water Act]."21 Among other things, the new rule prohibits the
discharge of pollutants from fly ash and bottom ash transport water and limits the amount of
arsenic, mercury, selenium, and nitrate that may be discharged in FGD wastewater.22 Dischargers
must meet these limitations "as soon as possible beginning November 1, 2018, but no later than
December 31, 2023."23 The rule further provides that "as soon as possible date means November
1, 2018, unless the permitting authority establishes a later date, after receiving information from
the discharger" and considering certain factors specified in the rule.24 Where a permitting
authority establishes a later compliance date, it must "provide a well -documented justification
... in the fact sheet or administrative record for the permit" explaining "why allowing additional
16 Kennecott v. EPA, 780 F.2d 445, 448 (4th Cir. 1985) (citing 1 Legislative History of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act of 1972, 798 (Committee Print compiled for the Senate Committee on Public Works by the Library of
Congress), Ser. No. 93-1 (1973)).
17 Natural Res. Def. Council v. EPA, 863 F.2d 1420, 1426 (9th Cir. 1988) (quotations omitted); see also EPA v.
Nat'l Crushed Stone Assn, 449 U.S. 64, 74-75 (1980) (if a discharger of pollutants can afford the best available
technology, then it must meet, and should not be allowed a variance from, stringent BAT limits).
18 See 40 C.F.R. § 423.
19 40 C.F.R. § 125.3(c)(2) and (3); see also Texas Oil & Gas Assn v. EPA, 161 F.3d 923, 928-29 (5th Cir. 1998).
20 See 33 U.S.C. §§ 131 l(b) & 1342(b); see also 33 U.S.C. § 1314(b)(2)(B); Natural Res. Def Council v. EPA, 859
F.2d 156, 183 (D.C. Cir. 1988).
21 U.S. EPA, Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source
Category, 80 Fed. Reg. 67,838 (Nov. 3, 2015) (codified at 40 C.F.R. Pt. 423).
22 40 C.F.R. §§ 423.13 (g)(1)(i), (h)(1)(i), and (k)(1)(i).
23 Id.
24 40 C.F.R. § 423.1 l(t); 80 Fed. Reg. at 67883.
2

time to meet the limitations is appropriate, and why the discharger cannot meet the final effluent
limitations as of November 1, 2018."25
2. Water Quality Requirements
One of the most important functions that a state performs under the Clean Water Act is to
promulgate water quality standards.26 Water quality standards consist of both "designated `uses'
for a body of water (e.g., public water supply, recreation, agriculture) and a set of `criteria'
specifying the maximum concentration of pollutants that may be present in the water without
impairing its suitability for designated uses."27
After application of the most stringent treatment technologies available under the BAT
standard, if a discharge causes or contributes, or has the reasonable potential to cause or
contribute to a violation of water quality standards, the permitting agency must also include any
limits in the NPDES permits necessary to ensure that water quality standards (both narrative and
numeric) are maintained and not violated —these limits are generally referred to as Water Quality
Based Effluent Limits ("WQBELs").28 Only after an analysis of available treatment technologies
is conduced will WQBELs be developed.
3. Cooling Water Systems
Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act requires that the "location, design, construction,
and capacity of cooling water intake structures reflect the best technology available (`BTA") for
minimizing adverse environmental impact" —including impingement, entrainment, and increased
water temperature.29 As with all technology -based standards, dischargers must comply with
Section 316(b)'s technology -based effluent limitations immediately, meaning that the Roxboro
Plant should have been brought into compliance long ago. The Plant now must be brought into
compliance with Section 316(b) "as soon as possible," and, in the interim, must be subject to
"interim requirements and dates for their achievement." 30
In 2004, EPA published regulations designed to implement Section 316(b) at existing
power plants like Roxboro. Following lejal challenges, however, the Second Circuit remanded
numerous aspects of the rule to the EPA. 1 The U.S. Supreme Court reviewed the Second
Circuit's decision on the limited issue of whether Section 316 authorizes EPA to balance costs
25 80 Fed. Reg. at 67883.
26 See 33 U.S.C. §§ 1313(a)—(c) (requiring states to adopt water quality standards and requiring EPA to set water
quality standards when states fail to do so).
27 American Paper Inst. v. EPA, 996 F.2d 346, 349 (D.C. Cir. 1993); see 33 U.S.C. § 1313(c)(2)(A).
26 See 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(d). "[T]he permit must contain effluent limits" for any pollutant for which the state
determines there is a reasonable potential for the pollutant to cause or contribute to a violation. Id.
§ 122.44(d)(1)(iii); see also Am. Paperinst. v. EPA, 996 F.2d 346, 350 (D.C. Cir. 1993); Waterkeeper Alliance, Inc.
v. EPA, 399 F.3d 486, 502 (2d. Cir. 2005).
29 33 U.S.C. § 1326(b).
30 40 C.F.R. § 122.47(a); see also 33 U.S.C. § 131l(b).
31 See Riverkeeper Inc. v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 475 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2007) [hereinafter Riverkeeper II].
5

and benefits.32 Other aspects of the Riverkeeper II decision were not addressed by the Supreme
Court's review. In response to the Second Circuit's remand of extensive portions of the rule,
EPA withdrew the entire regulation for existing facilities so that it could revise the rule to be
consistent with the Clean Water Act.33 Notwithstanding the withdrawal of those rules, EPA
instructed states that they could not lawfully delay NPDES permitting or fail to include BTA
determinations in NPDES permits, and that they should continue to make BTA determinations
and implement Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act on the basis that they had for forty
years —using their best professional judgment ("BPJ"),34
On May 19, 2014, the EPA Administrator signed a new final rule implementing Section
316(b) of the Clean Water Act at existing facilities.35 This rule requires existing facilities to
adhere to one of seven compliance options as BTA for impingement and mortality reduction and
requires DEQ to establish a BTA-based standard for entrainment using BPJ. Facilities like
Roxboro are required to submit an application at the same time as their NPDES permit renewal
application with information supporting entrainment and impingement technology decisions.36
However, facilities with permits expiring before July 14, 2018 may request an alternative
schedule for information submittal, which will be granted only if "the owner or operator of the
facility demonstrates that it could not develop the required information by the applicable date for
submission."37 When an alternative schedule has been granted, the permitting agency must still
establish interim BTA requirements in the permit using BPJ on a site -specific basis. 38 As
discussed further below, the new rule does not alter the inevitability of the conclusion that
closed -cycle cooling is the best technology available to reduce the adverse environmental
impacts of Chesterfield's cooling system.
For entrainment control, the new rule specifies five factors that a permit writer must
consider when establishing a site -specific entrainment standard:
(i) Numbers and types of organisms entrained ... ; (ii) Impact of changes in [air]
emissions ... associated with entrainment technologies; (iii) Land availability
inasmuch as it relates to the feasibility of entrainment technology; (iv) Remaining
[facility] useful plant life; and (v) Quantified and qualitative social benefits and
costs of available entrainment technologies when such information on both
benefits and costs is of sufficient rigor to make a decision.39
32 Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc., 556 U.S. 208 (2009).
33 See EPA, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System —Suspension of Regulations Establishing
Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structures at Phase II Existing Facilities; Suspension of Final Rule, 72 Fed.
Reg. 37,107 (July 9, 2007).
34 See EPA Memorandum from Benjamin Grumbles, Implementation of the Decision in Riverkeeper, Inc. v. EPA,
Remanding the Cooling Water Intake Structures Phase II Regulation (March 20, 2007) ("all permits for Phase II
[existing] facilities should include conditions under section 316(b) of the CWA developed on a Best Professional
Judgment basis.").
35 79 Fed. Reg. 48,300.
36 40 C.F.R. § 122.21.
37 40 C.F.R. § 125.95(a)(2).
38 40 C.F.R. § 125.98(6).
39 40 C.F.R. § 125.98(f)(2).
no

In addition, the rule provides that the BTA decision may also be based on six additional factors
"to the extent the applicant submitted information ... on these factors," and may also be based
on any additional information requested by the permit writer .40 These six additional factors are:
(i) Entrainment impacts on the waterbody; (ii) Thermal discharge impacts; (iii) Credit for
reductions in flow associated with the retirement of units occurring within the ten years
preceding October 14, 2014; (iv) Impacts on the reliability of energy delivery within the
immediate area; (v) Impacts on water consumption; and (vi) Availability of process
water, gray water, waste water, reclaimed water, or other waters of appropriate quantity
and quality for reuse as cooling water.41
To control impingement, the new regulations designate a set of "pre -approved"
technologies that a facility can implement to satisfy the BTA standard .42 The regulations also
allow a facility to use other technologies to meet the BTA standard if it can show that they will
perform sufficiently.43
II. THE DRAFT PERMIT VIOLATES THE CLEAN WATER ACT
A. The Draft Permit Fails to Establish Sufficient Effluent Limits for Toxic Pollutants.
With the exception of reporting requirements for a handful of pollutants, the Draft Permit
fails to include effluent limits for most toxic pollutants that currently are being discharged or will
be discharged as part of the ash pond closure process from Outfalls 002, 003, and 006. The
priority pollutant scan data submitted by Duke as part of its 2011 NPDES permit renewal
application indicate that mercury, arsenic, selenium, molybdenum, lead, fluoride, and other
harmful pollutants currently are being discharged by Roxboro through external Outfalls 003 and
006. The Draft Permit nevertheless fails to place any limit on these discharges, even during ash
pond closure activities, which likely will increase pollutant concentrations in discharge streams.
North Carolina law requires Duke to close the ash ponds at the Roxboro Plant by
December 31, 2024.44 Duke has indicated that its closure plans will involve the decanting and
dewatering of the West ash pond and the discharge of wastewater contaminated with coal ash
constituents via Outfalls 002 and 003 into Hyco Lake.45 Other than limits on discharges of oil
and grease, total suspended solids, and pH,4 the only restriction the Draft Permit establishes for
the dewatering phase is a limit on flow through Outfall 002 of 1 million gallons per day.47 And
for Outfall 003, the Draft Permit only sets limits for chlorine and ammonia.48 The Draft Permit
40 40 C.F.R. §§ 125.98(f)(3) and (i).
" 40 C.F.R. § 125.98(i).
42 40 C.F.R. § 125.94(c).
43 See 40 C.F.R. §§ 125.94(c)(6) and (7).
44 N.C.G.S.A. § 130A-309.214.
45 See Roxboro Fact Sheet at 4.
46 Draft Permit at 5.
47 See id. at 7.
41 Id. at 8.
7

places no limits whatsoever on discharges of selenium, arsenic, and molybdenum from the ash
pond despite the agency's admission that all three toxic pollutants were detected at
concentrations higher than the water quality standards.49
Similarly, selenium was detected above the water quality standard at Outfall 006, which
discharges coal pile runoff into the Hyco Lake. DEQ nevertheless only imposes quarterly
monitoring requirements for selenium discharged from that outfall.
1. DEQ failed to impose TBELs for the Plant's toxic pollutant discharges.
The Clean Water Act requires DEQ to use its best professional judgment to assess BAT
for Roxboro and impose TBELs accordingly. However, DEQ hardly engaged in any site -specific
technology analysis for Roxboro, instead relying ELGs and state water quality and mercury
TMDL regulations.50 In doing so, DEQ fails to include any limitation whatsoever on a number of
pollutants known to be discharged from Outfalls 002, 003, and 006, including arsenic, mercury,
and selenium. This is especially concerning given the serious likelihood of increased toxic
pollutant discharge during Roxboro's ash pond closure process.
ELGs only represent the minimum technology -based limitations required at plants like
Roxboro. DEQ still has a duty to impose any additional limitations that BAT allows, i.e.,
limitations based on technology that could be practically used in an industry and that is
affordable for the best -run facility in that industry.51 DEQ need not even look as far as the
industry's top performers to see that some technology is available to control these pollutant
discharges at Roxboro. Like Roxboro, another Duke Energy coal plant in North Carolina, the
L.V. Sutton Steam Electric Plant, is closing its ash pond through a decanting and dewatering
process.52 Unlike Roxboro, however, Sutton's NPDES permit includes effluent limitations for
those discharges, including limits on selenium, arsenic, and mercury.53 There is no reason to
believe that no technology is available that could curtail discharge of the many pollutants
discharged by Roxboro when Duke is currently limiting those pollutants at its other plants. Thus
DEQ must assess appropriate TBELs for discharges from the Roxboro ash pond, as well as from
the Plant's coal pile runoff discharged through Outfall 006, and impose restrictions at least as
stringent as those at Duke's other plants, or else explain why no such technology is available.
2. DEQ failed to impose WQBELs for the Plant's toxic pollutant discharges.
In addition to ignoring its duty to impose TBELs at Roxboro based on BAT, effluent
limitations included in the Draft Permit are insufficient to adequately protect water quality.
Selenium, arsenic, and molybdenum were all found in Roxboro's discharges at concentrations
higher than the state's water quality standards, and selenium was found at Outfall 002 (the ash
49 Fact Sheet at 4.
so See id. at 3-8.
5140 C.F.R. § 125.3(c)(2) and (3); see also Texas Oil & Gas Assn v. EPA, 161 F.3d 923, 928-29 (5th Cir. 1998);
Tanner's Council ofAm. v. Train, 540 F.2d 1188, 1195 (4th Cir. 1976), Hooker Chems. & Plastics Corp. v. Train,
537 F.2d 620, 636 (2d Cir. 1976).
52 See L.V. Sutton Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit No. NC000142 at 3-4.
53 ld.

pond discharge) in concentrations as high as 68.8 µg/1.54 Selenium was also detected at Outfall
006 above water quality standards.55 DEQ nevertheless proposes only monitoring for these
pollutants, and only on a quarterly basis for some. Such measures are inadequate to protect water
quality. These pollutants must be limited until such time that Roxboro can demonstrate that its
discharges are not a threat to water quality.
The Draft Permit also fails to limit or even require the monitoring of mercury discharged
at Outfall 003. The Fact Sheet notes that mercury was not found in concentrations above the
water quality standard of 12 ng/l in samples taken in 2010 and 2011.56 DEQ's failure to establish
WQBELs based on this incomplete and outdated sampling data is not justified. Indeed, mercury
was detected above 50% of that standard at Outfall 003 in 2010 and 2011.57 As discussed above,
DEQ has a duty to establish TBELs for mercury and other pollutants. Moreover, given the fact
that ash pond closure discharges will contain large amounts of mercury that could negatively
impact water quality, DEQ must establish limits on mercury discharges that will protect water
quality. At the very least, DEQ, should require the monitoring necessary to properly assess
potential water quality impacts, before pond decanting and dewatering commence.
B. The Proposed Deadlines for Compliance with New ELGs Are Not Justified.
Rather than properly assess a reasonable timeline for expeditious ELG compliance at
Roxboro as required by the Clean Water Act, DEQ has simply rubber stamped the compliance
dates requested by Duke. As discussed, Roxboro must comply with the ELGs as soon as possible
(i.e., by November 1, 2018 unless DEQ determines that compliance is not possible by that
date).58 Any such determination must be well documented and thoroughly explained .59 There is
no indication that DEQ made any such determination. Instead, it appears simply to have granted
Duke's requested compliance timeline without any independent explanation. In its current form,
the Draft Permit allows Duke until April 2021 to comply with the bottom ash transport water
ELGs and until December 2023 to comply with the FGD wastewater ELGs at the Roxboro Plant.
However, as discussed in detail in the Technical Assessment by Dr. Ranajit Sahu ("Sahu
Assessment") [attached hereto], Duke should have no problem complying with these effluent
limitations much earlier than contemplated by the Draft Permit.
Duke has been on notice of its precise obligations under the updated ELGs since the final
rule was published in September 2015 and has known that new requirements were to be adopted
for far longer. Indeed, Duke made public statements indicating that it was planning for ELG
compliance as early as 2013 and had done enough planning to assess the potential costs of
compliance as early as 2014.60 Moreover, Duke has known that dry ash handling would be
54 Fact Sheet at 4.
55 Id. at 8.
56 This is the most recent sample data available. Id. at 6.
57 See Fact Sheet at 6, Table 5: Mercury Evaluation Outfall 003.
58 40 C.F.R. § 423.11(t); 80 Fed. Reg. at 67,883.
59 80 Fed. Reg. at 67,883.
60 See Duke Energy 2013 Annual Report; Duke Energy 2014 Annual Report at 59, available at
http://www.annualreports.com/Company/duke-energy-corporation.
X

required since September 2014, when North Carolina's Coal Ash Management Act ("CAMA")
was passed. Therefore, Duke has had plenty of time to begin working toward compliance and has
no excuse for waiting until after the Plant's permit renewal to begin doing so. Indeed, in its final
rule, EPA instructed "[r]egardless of when a plant's NPDES permit is ready for renewal, the
plant should immediately begin evaluating how it intends to comply with the requirements of the
final ELGs. In cases where significant changes in operation are appropriate, the plant should
discuss such changes with the permitting authority and evaluate appropriate steps and a timeline
for the changes, even prior to the permit renewal process."61 Nevertheless, the proposed
compliance schedule for meeting ELGs for bottom ash transport water and FGD wastewater
completely fails to take into account any previously conducted planning work. Further, Duke's
requested timeline for ELG compliance at Roxboro fails to overlap tasks that could clearly be
done concurrently, overestimates time needed for certain tasks, and relies on unsubstantiated
claims about potential delay due to staffing, permitting, or siting issues. Despite these
shortcomings and without any indication of an independent evaluation or even request for
addition information from the company, DEQ has proposed to approve Duke's schedule, without
any apparent analysis of the schedule's reasonableness.
1. DEQ should require compliance with bottom ash transport water ELGs at the
Roxboro Plant by November 1, 2018.
As discussed in detail in the Saint Assessment, Duke should be able to comply with the
bottom ash transport water ELGs at Roxboro well before the date proposed in the Draft Permit.
Bottom ash generated at the Roxboro Plant currently is wet sluiced to the West ash pond, and, in
order to comply with the new ELGs, Duke intends to convert the Plant from wet handling of
bottom ash to dry handling. North Carolina law also requires the conversion to dry ash handling,
but by December 31, 2019. Nevertheless, Duke has requested until April 30, 2021, to convert to
dry ash handling16 months beyond the state law deadline and 2 years and 6 months beyond
EPA's November 1, 2018 default compliance date. This extra time is simply not justified, and
DEQ has offered no evidence that it has scrutinized and verified this claim.
Duke's requested April 30, 2021 compliance date is based on artificially inflated
estimates of the time required for completion of various tasks. Duke relies on a number of
completely unsupported and speculative claims to rationalize its excessively drawn out schedule,
requesting a full year to attain a U.S. Army Corps permit, for example, without providing any
evidence that such a permit is necessary. The proposed timeline also fails to overlap tasks that
can and should be completed concurrently, such as infrastructure construction on site and
procurement activities. In addition, Duke claims to need additional time for compliance
although it does not specify precisely how much time —on account of a resource shortage caused
by compliance efforts at other facilities. As the largest power producer in the nation and a
Fortune 500 company, Duke should have no trouble hiring additional staff or third parties. And,
as stated above, Duke has been on notice of its upcoming obligations at its various facilities for
years now.
61 80 Fed. Reg. at 67,882-83 (emphasis added).
10

2. DEQ should require compliance with FGD wastewater ELGs at the Roxboro Plant by
November 2018.
Duke has requested until December 31, 2023—the latest possible date allowed for under
the rule —to comply with the FGD wastewater ELGs. There is simply no reason why Duke
would need more than seven years from today to make the necessary upgrades at the Roxboro
Plant. The schedule submitted to DEQ in purported justification of a December 2023 compliance
date is grossly inflated, includes unsupported conjecture, and should have been rejected —or, at
the very least, questioned. The Roxboro Plant already has some of the treatment system elements
necessary for compliance. As discussed in the Sahu Assessment, Duke should be able to
complete an update of that system by November 2019 at the absolute latest and very likely could
finish the necessary work sooner. Absent an independent evaluation by DEQ supporting an
extended compliance timeline, Duke must comply by November 2018.
Given the existing FGD wastewater treatment system and Duke's nearly ten years of
experience with the system (as well as with similar systems at other plants), Duke is well
positioned to comply with the ELGs by November 2018. And the need to retrofit other facilities
for ELG compliance does not provide an excuse for delay. In fact, Duke itself has had experience
installing FGD wastewater treatment equipment at multiple plants. In addition to the bioreactor
system at Roxboro, Duke was able to install three other systems between 2006 and 2009. At the
time, this technology was brand new.62 Duke has now had many years of experience with the
design, construction, and operation of these systems. There is no justification for the claim that
Duke now needs nearly double the time it took to install four brand new systems to now upgrade
a single system that it has been working with for years.
C. The Draft Permit Fails to Establish Interim Requirements to Reduce the Plant's
Impingement and Entrainment Impacts.
DEQ's approval of an alternate schedule for Duke's provision of information regarding
impingement and entrainment does not eliminate DEQ's obligation to "establish interim BTA
requirements in the permit on a site -specific basis based on the Director's best professional
judgment. ,63 There is no indication that DEQ has made any attempt to develop interim
requirements during this permit renewal cycle. Rather, the Fact Sheet simply states:
The permittee shall comply with the Cooling Water Intake Structure Rule per
40 CFR 125.95. The Division approved the facility request for an alternative
schedule in accordance with 40 CFR 125.95(a)(2). The permittee shall submit all
the materials required by the Rule with the next renewal application.64
Duke first applied for the renewal of the Roxboro Plant's permit in 2011, and EPA's final rule
regarding 316(b) was released two full years ago. Accordingly, DEQ has had more than
sufficient time to assess interim BTA for Roxboro. As such, any final permit must include, at
62 See "Bugs " Used to Treat FGD Wastewater, Power Engineering (Sept. 2009).
63 Id. (emphasis added).
64 Fact Sheet at 3.
11

minimum, interim BTA standards based on DEQ's best professional judgment and consideration
of the factors and technologies specified at 40 C.F.R. §§ 125.94 & 125.98.
D. The Draft Permit Would Illegally Legitimize Dangerous Seeps Rather than
Requiring Duke to Correct Them.
As discussed more robustly in SELC's comments, DEQ's permitting of several seeps
from Roxboro's ash pond is highly problematic. Again, to the extent that those issues are not
discussed here, Sierra Club adopts SELC's comments by reference. Sixteen unpermitted seeps
discharging pollutants from coal ash and other sources were identified at Roxboro.65 Far from
requiring Duke to take any corrective action concerning the seeps, DEQ proposes to simply
include these seeps, as well as future seeps, in the permit.66 Meanwhile, these seeps discharge
toxic pollutants in violation of water quality standards and threaten the structural integrity of the
Roxboro dam.
DEQ's proposed treatment of seeps in the Draft Permit would effectively legalize
decades -long violations of the Clean Water Act. In addition, the Draft Permit also attempts to
legitimize seeps that occur in the future that would otherwise be illegal. The Draft Permit
provides an express mechanism to "modify" the permit to include such seeps when they spring
up, but includes no requirements for public notice and comment on such modification. 7 This is
clearly in direct violation of the Clean Water Act; DEQ does not have the authority to authorize
new discharges without first engaging in all NPDES permit modification procedures.68
The Draft Permit also attempts to sanction Roxboro's unpermitted seeps by illegally
abandoning an independent stream as an outfall for those seeps.69 An effluent channel is meant to
convey wastewater to a receiving stream or water body, and therefore cannot itself be a stream.70
Moreover, seeps at Duke's Roxboro facility are violating water quality standards, and, thus,
DEQ is prohibited from permitting those seeps as doing so "cannot reasonably ensure
compliance with applicable water quality standards" as required by North Carolina law.71
Furthermore, permitting seeps that have previously been illegal violates the Clean Water Act's
anti -backsliding provision.72
As DEQ has acknowledged, zero liquid discharge from the ash ponds is the best available
technology. In addition, a prohibition on future discharges from the ponds is the most reasonable
option for remedying the serious health and environmental concerns associated with the seeps.
6s See id.
66 id.
67 Draft Permit at 14.
68 See 33 U.S.C. § 1342(b) (laying out requirements for state NPDES permitting programs, including provisions for
notice and comment, the right to request a hearing, and judicial review).
69 See Fact Sheet at 11; see, e.g., Roxboro CSA, Fig. 2-1 (showing waste boundary for East Ash Basin)
70 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2B.0202.
71 15A N.C. Admin. Code 211.0112(c).
72 33 U.S.C. § 1342(o); 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 ....").
12

Thus, DEQ has a duty to impose TBELs based on a zero liquid discharge system immediately.
At the very minimum, proper effluent limits must be assessed for and imposed upon each
individual seep.
E. The Draft Permit Contains Inadequate Monitoring Requirements
The Draft Permit's monitoring requirements are inadequate to ensure compliance with
corresponding effluent limitations or effectively assess toxic pollution in those discharges. At
Outfall 003, for instance, the Draft Permit only contemplates quarterly monitoring of arsenic and
selenium, despite the fact that those pollutants were found in concentrations above water quality
standards in ash pond water, which will eventually be discharged through Outfall 003.73 DEQ
also only imposes quarterly monitoring requirements at Outfall 010 for effluent limitations that
apply on a daily and monthly basis.74 At Outfall 001, to be used for certain previously
unpermitted seeps, the Draft Permit only requires monthly monitoring for the first year, at which
time monitoring is only required quarterly.75 These lax monitoring requirements are clearly
insufficient to ensure compliance with effluent limitations and provide critical information on the
discharge of pollutants, especially during ash pond closure. Any final permit must be corrected
accordingly and include much more robust monitoring requirements.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, DEQ should re -issue a new draft NPDES permit for the
Roxboro Plant correcting the deficiencies identified above as soon as possible, and notice it for
public comment. We thank DEQ for its attention to and consideration of these comments. Please
do not hesitate to contact the undersigned if you would like to discuss them further.
73 Draft Permit at 8.
74 Id. at 12.
75 Id. at 4.
Sincerely,
/s/ Lane Johnson
Lane Johnson
Law Office of Lane Johnson
1722 Newton Street NW
Washington, D.C. 20010
[phone]
[e-mail]
Outside Counsel for Sierra Club
Bridget Lee
Sierra Club
50 F Street NW, 8th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20001
[phone]
[e-mail]
13

cc (via e-mail):
Molly Davis, Chief, NPDES Permitting Section ([e-mail])
Paul Schwartz, Assistant Regional Counsel ([e-mail])
Karrie-Jo Shell, National Energy Sector Permitting Expert (shell.karrie [e-mail])
14

Exhibit 2

Technical Assessment of Feasibility of Timely Compliance with the
ELG Rule Requirements for Bottom Ash Transport Water and
FGD Wastewater at the Roxboro Power Plant:
Expert Report by Dr. Ranajit (Ron) Sahu
November 4, 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVESUMMARY.................................................................................................................................. 1
1. INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................................... 2
2. BOTTOM ASH HANDLING AND FGD WASTEWATER TREATMENT AT THE
ROXBOROPLANT............................................................................................................................................. 2
3. THE ELGS....................................................................................................................................................... 4
4. TECHNOLOGY CHOICES........................................................................................................................ 5
A. Vendor Experience and Discussions During the ELG Rulemaking.......................................................................................... 6
B. Utility Water Act Group (UWAG) Comments on Bottom Ash Compliance During Development of the ELGs ........... 9
C. Duke's Actual Experience Installing FGD Treatment at Roxboro............................................................................................. 9
5. DUKE ENERGY'S PUBLIC STATEMENTS AND PLANNING TO COMPLY WITH THE
ELGS......................................................................................................................................................................
11
A. Duke Energy's 2013 Annual Report and SEC Form 10-K Filing.............................................................................................11
B. Duke Energy's 2014 Annual Report and SEC Form 10-K Filing.............................................................................................11
C. Duke Energy's 2015 Annual Report and SEC Form 10-K Filing.............................................................................................12
6. CRITIQUE OF DUKE'S PROPOSED COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE ............................................
13
7. COMPARISON OF DUKE'S COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE WITH THAT OF OTHER
LARGEPROJECTS............................................................................................................................................
22
8. CONCLUSIONS..........................................................................................................................................
23
9. AUTHOR'S EXPERTISE AND QUALIFICATIONS.........................................................................
24
ATTACHMENTA - RESUME........................................................................................................................
25
ATTACHMENT B - LIST OF PUBLICATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS ......................................
30
ATTACHMENT C - PREVIOUS EXPERT WITNESS TESTIMONY .................................................
32

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 and
flue gas desulfurization ("FGD") wastewater generated at Duke Energy Progress's ("Duke") Roxboro
coal-fired power plant (the "Plant") as proposed by the North Carolina Department of Environmental
Quality, Division of Water Resources ("DWR") in the draft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System ("NPDES") permit for the Plant.
The draft permit proposes an April 2021 date for compliance with the bottom ash transport water
ELGs and a December 2023 date for compliance with the FGD wastewater ELGs. These draft
permits do not provide for expeditious compliance with the new requirements and, instead, reflect
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 industry -wide recognition of
the feasibility of completing the necessary upgrades sooner and on Duke's own experience with these
type of upgrades, Duke should be able to achieve compliance with the bottom ash transport water
ELGs by September 2018, at the latest, and with the FGD wastewater ELGs by November 2019, at the
latest.

1. INTRODUCTION
This is an assessment of the schedule for achieving compliance with EPA's revised effluent limitations
guidelines for bottom ash transport water' and FGD wastewater generated at Duke's Roxboro Plant
proposed in the draft NPDES wastewater permit for the Plant. Specifically, this assessment evaluates
Duke's extended schedule for achieving compliance with these requirements and finds this schedule to
be unsupported.
2. BOTTOM ASH HANDLING AND FGD WASTEWATER TREATMENT AT THE
ROXBORO PLANT
Duke operates four generating units at Roxboro: Unit 1 (built in 1966, approximately 410 MW); Unit 2
(built in 1968, approximately 657 NM; Unit 3 (built in 1973, approximately 745 MW); and Unit 4 (built
in 1980, approximately 745 MW). All four units were retrofitted with FGD for sulfur dioxide control,
between 2007 and 2008.
Duke handles bottom ash from all four units using wet sluicing.2 Intake water from Hyco Lake is used
for ash sluicing for Units 1-3 and cooling tower blowdown is used for Unit 4. All of the ash sluice
water is sent to the ash pond.3
As noted, all four units have FGD systems — Babcock and Wilcox Limestone, forced oxidation, tray -
tower scrubbers. According to EPA's notes from a site visit conducted roughly around the time of
installation of the scrubbers:
Roxboro's FGD wastewater treatment system consists of a settling pond followed by
an (sic) biological treatment system for treatment of nitrogen compounds and
metals. Wastewater then flows from the bioreactor to the ash pond discharge canal,
which commingles with the cooling water discharge canal, and is discharged to Hyco
Lake.4
EPA described the Plant's biological treatment system as follows:
The bioreactor at Roxboro has four parallel trains that each have two biological cells
in series. The wastewater enters at the top of the first cell in the series and flows
downward through activated carbon charcoal material. The charcoal material
contains microbes to reduce the metals present in the wastewater to their elemental
state. The effluent from the first cell is pumped to the top of the second cell in the
1 40 C.F.R. 5 423.11(f) (defusing the term "bottom ash" as "the ash, including boiler slag, which settles in the furnace or is
dislodged from furnace walls. Economizer ash is included in this definition when it is collected with bottom ash);
5 423.11(p) (defining the term "transport water" as "any wastewater that is used to convey fly ash, bottom ash, or
economizer ash from the ash collection or storage equipment, or boiler, and has direct contact with the ash. Transport
water does not include low volume, short duration discharges of wastewater from minor leaks (e.g., leaks from valve
packing, pipe flanges, or piping) or minor maintenance events (e.g., replacement of valves or pipe sections)").
2 See U.S. EPA, Site Visit Notes: Progress Energy Carolinas' Roxboro Steam Electric Plant (March 11, 2008), EPA-HQ-
OW-2009-0819-0686, available at https://www.regalations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819-0686.
3 Ibid.
4 Ibid.
PA

series. The effluent from each of the four trains is combined and discharged to the
ash pond canal. Outfall 010 is an internal monitoring point for the FGD effluent
prior to it entering the Ash Pond Discharge Canal. Outfall 010 enters the Ash Pond
Discharge Canal downstream of outfall 002 (ash pond discharge to the Ash Pond
Discharge Canal), but upstream of outfall 003 (Heated Water Discharge Canal).'
Additional process detail for the bioreactors is provided as follows:
Each of the four treatment trains is designed for a four-hour retention time (based
on all four units operating FGDs and all four treatment trains operating). The design
flow rate through all four trains is 700 gpm (175 gpm each). At the time of the visit,
each train had an 8 hour retention time. At the time of the visit, Roxboro was
operating all four bioreactor trains even though only two FGD scrubbers were
operating. Therefore, each bioreactor train was processing wastewater at
approximately 50 percent of design flowrate, doubling the retention time.
Initial sampling results from the bioreactor (circa March 2008), provided to EPA are as follows:'
Roxboro Sampling Results: March 4, 2008
Analvte
Sample
Influent to the Bio
System u IL
Effluent from the
Blo System u IL
Percent
Removal
Mercury
1
0.511
0.023
95.5
2
0.511
<0.019
Seleniunl
1
1840
47
97.4
2
1840
394
78
On September 27, 2011, Progress Energy, the then owner of the Roxboro plant applied for a renewal
of its NPDES permit No. NC0003425. This renewal was substantially updated by Duke on October
13, 2014. Various updates and supplements to the renewal application were provided to DWR between
2011 and 2016 by Progress and Duke, including Submittal #8 on August 15, 2016, which was
"intended to provide an update of modifications that will be necessary to comply with the [ELG].i' In
particular, Item 13 in Submittal #8 and the referenced Attachment 4 provide details regarding Duke's
plans for ELG compliance, including planned compliance with the new ELGs for bottom ash transport
water and FGD wastewater.
With regards to bottom ash transport water, Duke states that:
To convert the wet bottom ash transport system at Roxboro to a closed loop system,
Duke plans to install a remote mechanical drag chain system (RMDS). Duke would
5 Ibid.
6 Ibid.
7 Ibid.
8 Letter from Duke to the DWR, dated August 15, 2016.

like to request April 30, 2021 as the applicability date for the zero discharge of
bottom ash transport water, assuming a permit effective date of October 1, 2016.
This means that Duke has requested 4 years and 7 months (or 55 months) for compliance with this
BAT standard. In addition, since the permit renewal has not yet been issued, Duke's requested
compliance date is actually beyond April 30, 2021.
With regards to FGD wastewater ELG compliance, Duke states the following in its August 15, 2016
Submittal #8:
....Duke is planning on conducting several evaluations to determine whether the
FGD wastewater flow can be reduced, and the existing bioreactor can be utilized in
addition to evaluating viable selenium reduction technologies. These evaluations will
allow Duke to select the most cost effective FGD wastewater system for Roxboro.
In addition, it has recently come to Duke's attention [that] GE is claiming intellectual
property rights on the biological treatment system for FGD wastewater, thus,
making GE the sole provider of EPA's model technology. With these evaluations in
process and uncertainty of GE's intellectual property claim, Duke would like to
request December 31, 2023 as the applicability date for the BAT limits for FGD
wastewater, assuming a permit effective date of October 1, 2016.
The draft permit proposes to adopt Duke's requested December 31, 2023 compliance date —the latest
possible date for compliance in the ELG rule. Thus, Duke is claiming to need 7 years and 3 months (or
87 months) to comply with this part of the ELG rule.
These extraordinarily long compliance timelines for both bottom ash transport water and FGD
wastewater are not supported by Duke's August 15, 2016 Submittal #8 or by any independent analysis
conducted by DWR. In my opinion, compliance can be achieved sooner.
3. THE ELGS
After many years of work,' EPA finalized the ELGs in November 2015.10 The ELGs revise and
strengthen technology -based effluent limitations guidelines and standards for wastewater discharges
from steam electric power plants, including coal-fired units such as Roxboro Units 1-4.
The final ELGs set federal limits on the discharge toxic metals and other harmful pollutants from
wastewater at steam electric power plants. The ELGs are based on technology improvements in the
steam electric power industry over the last three decades and establish new requirements for wastewater
streams from the following processes and byproducts associated with flue gas desulfurization, fly ash,
bottom ash, flue gas mercury control, and gasification of fuels such as coal and petroleum coke.
The ELGs establish a zero discharge best available technology ("BAT") standard for bottom ash
wastewater to be achieved "as soon as possible beginning November 1, 2018, but no later than
9 As EPA noted in the preamble to the final ELG Rule, "....EPA initiated a steam electric ELG rulemaking following a
detailed study in 2009. EPA published the proposed rule on June 7, 2013, and took public comments until September 20,
2013." 80 Fed. Reg. at 67,844.
to The Final ELG Rule was published in the Federal Register on November 3, 2015. 80 Fed. Reg. 67,838.
al

December 31, 2023." 11 For FGD wastewater, the BAT standard is expressed in specific
concentration limits for mercury, arsenic, selenium, and nitrate/nitrite also to be achieved "as soon as
possible beginning November 1, 2018, but no later than December 31, 2023."12 Federal regulations
provide that "[t]he phrase `as soon as possible' means November 1, 2018, unless the permitting
authority establishes a later date" based on a well -documented justification, and lay out the factors
that bear consideration of a permitting authority when varying a compliance deadline from the
November 1, 2018 default.13 Specifically, those factors are as follows:
(1) Time to expeditiously plan (including to raise capital), design, procure, and install
equipment to comply with the requirements of this part.
(2) Changes being made or planned at the plant in response to:
(i) New source performance standards for greenhouse gases from new fossil
fuel fired electric generating units, under sections 111. 30 I, 302, and 307( d)( I
)(C) of the Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7411. 7601, 7602, 7607(d)(1
XC);
(ii) Emission guidelines for greenhouse gases from existing fossil fuel -fired
electric generating units, under sections 111. 301, 302, and 307(d) of the Clean
Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7411. 7601. 7602, 7607(d); or
(iii) Regulations that address the disposal of coal combustion residuals as solid
waste, under sections 1006(b), 1008(a), 2002(a), 3001, 4004, and 4005(a) of the
Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1970, as amended by the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984, 42 U.S.C. 6906(b), 6907(a), 6912(a), 6944, and 6945(a).
(3) For FGD wastewater requirements only, an initial commissioning period for the
treatment system to optimize the installed equipment.
(4) Other factors as appropriate.
It is important to note that the very first factor in the list above requires a consideration of
"expeditious" planning in all aspects of compliance with the ELG rule. Nevertheless, the proposed
timelines for compliance do not seem to reflect this "expeditious" aspect at all. Arguably, the proposed
timeline is based on leisurely compliance as opposed to expeditious compliance.
Thus, as explained in greater detail below, it is my opinion that neither DWR nor Duke has justified
why "as soon as possible" in this instance should be as long as 87 months for FGD wastewater ELG
compliance or 55 months for bottom ash transport water ELG compliance.
4. TECHNOLOGY CHOICES
As noted earlier, Duke has stated that it intends to meet the zero discharge BAT 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 Roxboro, well before
finalization of the ELG Rule. In a memorandum dated September 30, 2015, EPA's contractor ERG
lists a number of plants "with announced" bottom ash handling conversions. This list includes the
11 40 C.F.R. § 423.13(k)(1).
12 40 C.F.R. § 423.13(g)(1).
13 40 C.F.R. § 423.11(t).
5

Roxboro plant. In fact, in the same memorandum, Roxboro is also identified as having announced its
intent to convert, even accounting for the Clean Power Plan (CPP) rule.14 According to the ERG
memorandum, the bottom ash conversion at Roxboro would be completed by December 31, 2020
based on a survey conducted by EPA, a few months sooner than Duke's current timeline. Nonetheless,
I disagree that the bottom ash conversion at Roxboro would need even that much time.
For FGD waste water compliance, it is clear that the Roxboro plant is already equipped with a
treatment system, namely settling ponds following by a series of bioreactors. Duke has indicated that it
intends to broadly revisit its compliance strategy for FGD wastewater since the current system may not
be able to meet the ELG selenium requirement in particular. Nonetheless, given EPA's identification
of biologcal treatment systems as part of the best available technology upon which the FGD
wastewater ELG is based, it appears unlikely (and Duke certainly has not indicated) that Duke intends
to altogether scrap its existing bioreactor treatment system at Roxboro.15 In addition, Duke has
installed similar systems at its other power plants (e.g., Mayo and Allen) and, therefore, already has
close to a decade of operating experience with such systems in four of its plants. Given Duke's
experience with such systems and its vendor relationship (as well as the potential leverage Duke has
with the vendor, given the multiple installations throughout the Duke system), a compliance strategy
for new FGD wastewater discharge limitations involving the supplementation or modification of
Duke's current bioreactor system likely would be the simplest, least -cost, and most expeditous option.
An upgrade of the current system likely will entail optimization of the volume of wastewater being
handled by the system — i.e., a reduction in FGD wastewater flows.
A. Vendor Experience and Discussions During the ELG Rulemaking
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;
• 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 (eg., steel silos or concrete silos) for
the different types of handling systems:
14 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. In its justification for the long
timelines for compliance, Duke attempts to include uncertainties with respect to Clean Power Plan requirements as one
reason for the delay.
15 Duke may need to relocate the system in order to deal with the ash present at the current location of the bioreactor, but
that is not the same as scrapping the system.
no

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."16
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"),17 Clyde Bergemann,18 and Magaldi" — each of which has wet to
dry conversion technologies. Other vendors such as GE, Veolia, 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.20 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.
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:
...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.21
16 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).
17 UCC offers various hydraulic, mechanical, pneumatic, and vibratory systems for dry bottom ash handling. See
http://unitedconveyor.com/bottom—ash/ (last visited Sep. 26, 2016).
18 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).
19 Magaldi offers a dry ash handling system called MAC. See http://www.magaldi.com/en/magaldi_solutions_for/Ash-
Handling-Mac_9_11.php#tab_fototab (last visited Sep. 26, 2016).
20 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.
21 80 Fed. Reg. at 67,852.
7

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.
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 (of which Duke is a member) and reviewed EPRI's
many studies on wastewater pollutant reduction technologies, as well as studies by GE, the vendors
used by Duke for its existing bioreactor at Roxboro and bioreactors at other plants."
In addition to GE and past use of GE's ABMet technology [Advanced Biological Metals Removal
Process], 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
(SeHAWK),23 and Envirogen Technologies.24 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."
Thus, Duke has a good selection of experienced and prepared vendors to select from to achieve
compliance with the FGD wastewater ELG requirements.
22 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 3-24, 7-56, and 7-57.
23 See Power Magazine, November 2016, p. 42; see also http://frontierwater.com/product-line/.
24 See http://www.envirogen.com/pages/contaminants/selenium-2/.
25 80 Fed. Reg. at 67,850.

B. Utility Water Act Group (UWAG) Comments on Bottom Ash Compliance During
Development of the ELGs
While numerous parties provided comments to the EPA during its ELG rulemaking, it is particularly
important to note certain relevant portions of comments provided by the Utility Water Act Group
("UWAG"), an industry consortium, which includes almost all U.S. utilities as its members.26 Duke is a
member of UWAG.
In its comments, pertaining to bottom ash conversions, UWAG offers case studies showing conversion
to dry bottom ash handling in 36 months or less:
Mn 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.27
The project implementation timeframes referenced in this section, which are already considerably
shorter than what Duke has proposed (i.e., 55 months), are relevant for situations in which no initial
planning or assessment has been completed. However, since, as shown next, there are clear indications
that Duke has undertaken significant, multi -year efforts to begin planning for a conversion to dry
bottom ash handling, the implementation schedule at Roxboro should be shorter.
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 EPRI comments.28
C. Duke's Actual Experience Installing FGD Treatment at Roxboro
As noted above, Duke has installed treatment technologies, including physical settling followed by
bioreactors, at several of its plants for treating FGD wastewater. An examination of the timelines for
installation of those treatment systems is useful in judging the reasonableness of the proposed 87-
month compliance schedule.
The FGD systems (scrubbers) at Roxboro went into operation between 2007 and 2008. The scrubbers
began operating as follows: in April 2007 for Unit 2; in December 2007 for Unit 4; in March 2008 for
Unit 3; and in December 2008 for Unit 1.21 Clearly, a wastewater treatment system for a scrubber
26 As UWAG's comment's note, "UWAG is a voluntary, ad hoc, 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.
21 Id. at 84.
28 Southern Company Comments on EPA's Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric
Power Generating Point Source Category, Appendix B.
29 U.S. EPA, Site Visit Notes: Progress Energy Carolinas' Roxboro Steam Electric Plant (March 11, 2008), EPA-HQ-OW-
2009-0819-0686, available athttps://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819-0686;
www.epa.gov/ampd.
X

would only begin operation after the scrubber itself started to operate. While the treatment system can
be designed and installed in conjunction with the FGD system, its actual operations can only follow the
FGD system. Regarding the timeline for the initial installation of Roxboro's FGD wastewater
treatment system, EPA noted:
Roxboro stated that they have been transferring water to the settling pond since the
Unit 2 FGD system began operation in April 2007; however, Roxboro only began
transferring wastewater to the bioreactor on February 27 [2008] (two weeks prior to
the site visit [which occurred in Match 2008]). According to plant staff, the
bioreactor is expected to reach steady state operation approximately 2-4 weeks after
startup.3o
Consistent with the timeline above, GE indicates in all of its literature that the Roxboro wastewater
bioreactor was operational in 2008.31 From this timeline, it is possible to conclude that: (a) while the
design of the bioreactor system was likely completed in parallel with the design of the FGD systems,
and some portion of its construction was also done in parallel with the installation and commissioning
of the FGD systems, the actual installation and operation of the bioreactors occurred within less than
12 months (i.e., after April 2007 and through February 27, 2008) of the FGD beginning operation.
As noted in a November 2006 Power Engineering article, "[F]our ABMet projects to treat FGD
wastewater are currently in design or under construction in the United States with the first scheduled to
start in 2007.i32 Given the list of GE ABMet projects, these four can only be the Duke plants —
Roxboro, Belews Creek, Mayo, and Allen. Additionally, since the GE ABMet technology was brand
new at that time, Duke and Progress (the then owners of Roxboro and Mayo) conducted a pilot test of
the technology at Duke's Marshall station between May -December 2007.33 In summary, Duke (and
Progress), working with GE, were able to evaluate, pilot test, design, construct, install, and make
operational four such bioreactor systems in the time period 2006-2009 (at most 48 months), at four
power plants.
Thus, the absolute longest compliance timeline Duke could realistically point to would be 48 months.
Forty-eight months from the finalization of the ELGs Rule would be November 2019. That date is,
however, an outer -bound estimate. Given the fact that Duke already has bioreactors in operation at
Roxboro and is on record as having begun planning for ELG compliance (likely beginning when the
proposed ELG Rule was promulgated in 2013), it would be more than reasonable to conclude that
completion of design, construction, and optimization of the FGD wastewater treatment system
upgrades needed at the Roxboro Plant could take considerably less time.
30 Ibid. at 4-5.
31 See GE, ABMet Experience List Quly 2015), EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819-5572, available at
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819-5572; ERG Memorandum re Status of Biological
Treatment Systems to Remove Selenium (April 19, 2013), EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819-2127, available at
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819-2127. In fact, GE indicates that it started up the
Roxboro and the Belews Creek systems in 2008 and the May and Allen systems in 2009— i.e., all four of the Duke systems
within two years.
32 See Using Biology to Treat Selenium, PowerMag (Nov. 1, 2011), http://www.power-eng.com/articles/print/volume-
110/issue-11 /features/using-biology-to-treat-selenium.html.
33 "Bugs" Used to Treat FGD Wastewater, Power Engineering (Sept. 2009).
10

5. DUKE ENERGY'S PUBLIC STATEMENTS AND PLANNING TO COMPLY
WITH THE ELGS
Public statements from Duke Energy corroborate that the company has already evaluated options and
developed likely costs for compliance with the ELGs at Roxboro and other facilities, and that
implementation can and should occur more quickly than in the schedules proposed by Duke and DWR.
A. Duke Energy's 2013 Annual Report and SEC Form 10-K Filing
In a brief discussion in its 2013 Annual Report, Duke Energy provided the following general statement,
(although no cost estimates) regarding compliance with the then -proposed revised ELGs for steam
electric power plants:
Steam Electric Effluent Limitation Guidelines
On June 7, 2013, the EPA proposed Steam Electric Effluent
Limitations Guidelines (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.34
B. Duke Energy's 2014 Annual Report and SEC Form 10-K Filing
Again in 2014, Duke Energy considered compliance with the proposed ELGs, this time offering cost
estimates:
Steam Electric Effluent Limitation Guidelines
On June 7, 2013, the EPA proposed Steam Electric Effluent
Limitations Guidelines. The EPA is under a revised court order to
finalize the rule by September 30, 2015. 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. Requirements to comply
with the Final rule may begin as early as late 2018 for some facilities.
Estimated Cost and Impacts of Rulemakings
34 Duke Energy, 2013 Annual Report, available at http://www.annualreports.com/Company/duke-energy-corporation.
11

The following table provides estimated costs, excluding AFUDC, of
new control equipment that may need to be installed on existing
power plants, including conversion of plants to dry disposal of
bottom ash and fly ash, to comply with the above regulations over
the five years ended December 31, 2019
G-1 n111
E --wnd5
%3r -Dap
BUD Barg
S 1AM
Clue Emrg :L3Id1135
61 i
Rrvm mq
K5
Uke EmrD Npss
415
Duke EhEp Fulda
`a
Me MErL% area
15
DUKE N IL% hC 12IL3
U I
35
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.
The statement above also shows that Duke anticipated that compliance would be required "as early as
late 2018" which is consistent with EPA's final compliance schedule beginning in November 2018.
C. Duke Energy's 2015 Annual Report and SEC Form 10-K Filing
Finally, in 2015, Duke Energy again projected compliance dates and costs for the ELGs:
Steam Electric Effluent Limitations Guidelines
On January 4, 2016, the final Steam Electric Effluent Limitations
Guidelines (ELG) rule became effective. The rule establishes new
requirements for wastewater streams associated with steam electric
power generation and includes more stringent controls for any new
coal plants that may be built in the future. Affected facilities must
comply between 2018 and 2023, depending on timing of new Clean
Water Act permits. Most, if not all, of the steam electric generating
facilities the Duke Energy Registrants own are likely affected sources.
The Duke EnerQv Registrants are well -positioned to meet the
requirements of the rule due to current efforts to convert to dry ash
ss Duke Energy, 2014 Annual Report at 59, available at http://www.annualreports.com/Company/duke-energy-corporation.
12

handling.
Estimated Cost and Impacts of Kulemakings
Duke Energy will incur capital expenditures to comply with the
environmental regulations and rules discussed above. The following
five-year table provides estimated costs, excluding AFUDC, of new
control equipment that may need to be installed on existing power
plants primarily to comply with the Coal Ash Act requirements for
conversion to dry disposal of bottom ash and fly ash, MATS, Clean
Water Act 316(b) and ELGs, through December 31, 2020.
(in mi [lien s}
Me -Year Estimated Go sts
Bake Energy
5 1,350
Duke Energy Carol inns
fi25
Progress Energy
350
Duke Energy Pro em
300
Duke Energy Florida
50
Duke Energy Ohio
100
Me Energy Indiana
275
»36
The cost estimate of $300 million presented to shareholders and the SEC for Duke Energy Progress
relates directly to the Roxboro units, since, of Duke Energy Progress's not -yet -retired coal units, only
the Roxboro units will need to retrofit to comply with the ELGs. The Asheville units are retiring rather
than complying (that retirement announcement in 2015 may explain the lowering of the $475 million
compliance cost estimate included in the 2014 Annual Report) and the Mayo units already utilize dry
ash handling and zero liquid discharge FGD wastewater treatment systems.
Notably, Duke Energy states 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.i37 This statement is not
surprising and is consistent with Duke's ability to comply with the ELGs at Roxboro much more
quickly than proposed in the draft permit.
6. CRITIQUE OF DUKE'S PROPOSED COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE
In light of the information above, I have reviewed the proposed timelines for ELG compliance at the
Roxboro Plant. As noted above, Duke attempts to make the case that the compliance timeline should
be 55 months for bottom ash transport water and 87 months for FGD waste water. These timelines
36 Duke Energy, 2015 Annual Report at 63 available at http://www.annualreports.com/Company/duke-energy-corporation
(emphasis added).
37 Ibid.
13

are not justified by Duke's submissions to DWR and directly contradict EPA's expectations of
expeditious compliance with the ELG Rule.
In my opinion, compliance with the bottom ash transport water ELG zero discharge requirements
should take no more than 27-36 months, at the most, consistent with industry comments to the EPA
during ELG rulemaking. Given that the record is clear that Duke had committed to conversion to dry
or closed -loop ash handling to EPA prior to September 2015 (which commitment would have to have
been based on the assessment of such conversion prior to September 2015), starting the timeline for
necessary retrofits at September 2015 would be conservative. This is also consistent with EPA's
expectation of compliance by November 2018.
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 almost 10 years of operational experience with these systems at multiple plants. 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 four FGDs have operated for almost 10 years at Roxboro), Duke
should be able to meet the ELG requirements in 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. Whether
Duke chooses to achieve compliance by optimizing its FGD wastewater flow and/or supplementing or
modifying its existing bioreactor system (working with GE or another vendors), or even scrapping its
current system and installing a new system, it should have no trouble doing so by November 2019.
Below are my specific criticisms of the elements of Duke's proposed timelines. I provide Duke's
justification (in italics) followed by my critique. All of the text in italics below is from Attachment 4 to
Duke's August 15, 2016 Submittal #8 to DWR.
A. Bottom Ash Transport Water
It is important to note Duke will be installing RMDS at four stations in N. Carolina; therefore,
additional time is needed compared to a single installation to account for managing multiple pr jects
simultaneously.
At the outset, I note that Duke's ability to make upgrades at multiple facilities is a simple matter of
resources. Duke can hire more technical or other staff as needed in order to manage multiple projects.
This is routine in industry. Duke has a track record of managing even more complex projects, such as
multiple FGD units at its coal plants. Moreover, Duke's explanation of the proposed schedule does
not specify how much additional time it claims to need at Roxboro given its obligations at its other
plants.
Design & Engineering
Duke has initiated the design phase, but, due to the simultaneous implementation ofprograms, such as
the CCR Rule and NC-C.AMA. across applicable sites in North Carolina, engineering and technology
resources are limited. Duke, therefore, estimates the design and engineering process will take an
additional 8 months from the permit effect date.
Again, Duke can address resources by additional hiring, either to supplement its own in-house staff or
by hiring qualified engineering contractors. This is routine practice when large projects have to be
14

managed simultaneously. Thus the need for 8 additional months to complete the design is not
supported, especially when the work is reasonably expected to have commenced at least since the final
ELG Rule went into effect. At best, this should take no more than a couple of months or less.
rater Balance
The first step in the design process of the RMDS is to develop a detailed water balance of the current
BATW ... This will require the streams to be characters.Zed for both volumetric flow and constituent
make-up in order to si.Ze and design an appropriate treatment system.... Wlith most coal-fired units
operating in an infrequent mode, the opportunities to collect samples are limited and the operation
schedule could affect the schedule of this task. Upon completion of the water balance, detailed
engineering of the RMDS system and piping reroutes of non-BATWI can commence.
Given Duke's operation of the Roxboro units for almost a decade in their current configuration (i.e.,
with the FGD systems and wastewater treatment in operation), Duke should have a very good water
balance already. Its ability to manage the current BATW would otherwise not be possible. Thus, this
task is superfluous. At best, simple confirmation of the existing water balance can be done and should
not take much time at all. As Duke notes earlier, it has "initiated the design phase," and this means that
it must already have conducted an assessment or confirmation of the water balance.
Siting
The RMDS will need to be sited appropriately to avoid any historical or current coal combustion
product disposal (CCP) sites and avoid construction areas that will be used to complete closure of the
ash basins at Roxboro. In addition, Duke will attempt to site the ystem to avoid waters of the U.S.
(WIOTUS). However, based on the final siting of the stem, WIOTUS may not be avoided, and
permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers may be required.
Duke (and Progress prior to that) has been operating the Roxboro plant since 1966 (when Unit 1 began
operation) and in its current configuration since 1980 (when all four units were in operation). As I have
noted earlier, Duke undertook major projects such as the installation of the four FGD systems in the
2007-2008 time frame. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that Duke should have a very good idea of
the locations of coal combustion product disposal and the locations of waters of the US. Thus, the
siting issue is a matter of avoiding these areas. Duke has not made the case, showing maps or data that
the RDMS has to be located in areas where there are WOTUS or that it cannot be located in areas
without interfering with the closure of historic or current ash basins. As such, raising the issue of siting
of the RDMS and adding time for its determination is purely speculative. It is my opinion that unless
Duke shows otherwise, it should be assumed that the RDMS can be sited avoiding WOTUS and
interferences with ash closure activities.
Permitting
If WOTUS cannot be avoided, then permitting from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
will be needed. At this time, it is unknown whether a USACE permit will be required or the type of
permit that may be required (nationwide permit (NPWI) or individual permit). Duke, therefore, has
included 12 months in the schedule to prepare and obtain any necessary USACE permits.
Once the RMDS is commissioned, the permitted discharge flows will change drastically.... With
significant changes to the characteristics of the permitted discharge, Duke anticpates a NPDESpermit
modification will be required to revise the permit to account for the changes inflow and constituent
make-up.
15

Even though the permitting task will be initiated during the design and engineering phase, it is expect
(sic) to continue through the procurement phase and up to the construction phase. In addition, the extent
and complexity of the permits required are unknown at this time. The required permits will be evaluated
during the engineering and design phase. Since the time needed to prepare the
permit applications and the time needed to receive the permits is uncertain, Duke allocated 6 months to
account for potential permitting delays.
Again, and as discussed above, it is simply speculative to anticipate that permitting from the USACE
will be required at all. Thus, the 12 months included in the schedule for this activity is also speculative
and unsupported. Similarly, even though an NPDES permit modification may be needed, the
speculative additional 6 months of permitting delays is also unsupported. As Duke notes, permitting
activities can be completed in parallel with the design and engineering phases. Raising "extent and
complexity of the permits" with no details and without any support is simply an excuse to pad the
schedule.
Procurement
After the design is complete, Duke will initiate the process to procure the necessary outside resources to
construct and install the new wastewater treatment ystems. This process will involve the following steps:
- Evaluate potential vendors forproposal solicitation;
- Develop and submit request forproposal (RFP) to selected vendors;
- Conduct a review and vendor selection based on the received bids;
- Develop required contract documents;
- Acquire materials (potentially from overseas, which involves:
o Shipment, and
o Equ pment Fabrication
- Fabrication and inspection of equipment.
RMDS have a fabrication queue that is dependent on total industry -wide demand. Duke, therefore, has
allocated 12 months to acquire the necessary materials.
Duke does not demonstrate that it would need to acquire materials from overseas; that element of the
schedule is purely speculative. Nor does this description explain how much additional time Duke has
assumed would be needed for overseas acquisitions. Likewise, Duke's description does not identify
how much additional time it assumes would be needed with respect to fabrication queues. Given
Duke's reference to fabrication queues, it is fair to assume that Duke has begun discussions with
qualified vendors of the RDMS technology. This is consistent with Duke's prior representations to
EPA that it should be well along on its bottom ash conversion project by now and suggests that less
time is actually needed to procure equipment than 12 months.
Construction
Once all the necessary materials are procured, Duke estimates construction of the RMDS will take
approximately 13 months. In addition, the tie-in of the RMDS to each individual generating unit will
need to occur during outages, which are anticipated to occur between March to May and October to
November depending on generation demand.
Since the bulk of the RDMS will be supplied by vendors, with tie-ins to be done on site, it is not clear
why 13 months of additional time is allocated for construction. Piping and any additional infrastructure
for tie-ins can be constructed in parallel while vendor equipment is on order. Thus, the procurement
16

and on -site construction tasks can overlap and do not have to be done sequentially as assumed by
Duke. Even accounting for unit tie-ins which will have to be coordinated with scheduled unit outages
(of which there are typically two every year — generally in the spring and fall), the need for 13 additional
months for construction is not supported in my opinion.
Optimi.Zation and Operational Experience
As stated above, Duke is planning to have the equipment installed by December 31, 2019 at the latest
to meet the obligations under CAMA, in addition, to any CCR requirements. Again, these rules
regulate the bottom ash material, not the transport water. Given the system will continue to ut&.Ze water
to transport bottom ash, time will be needed to gain operational experience and optimize the ystem to
meet the Zero discharge limit. Duke estimates a 16 month window will be required to gain the necessary
operational experience and fine-tune the gstem. The 16 month window is estimated based on the
potential that the station may only be operating at full load during the winter and summer months and
load and account for commissioning / optimising occurring at molt ple facilities simultaneously. In
addition, with NCDEQ approving the implementation date of January 31, 2021 for Marshall Steam
Station, Duke would like to stagger the commissioning / optimi.Zation activities for Roxboro by 3
months.
In my opinion, providing 16 months to "gain operational experience and optimize the system" is
excessive. Duke has implemented more complex projects (such as the FGDs in 2007-2008 and the
wastewater treatment system involving bioreactors in the 2008 time frame) which did not require
anywhere close to 16 months to gain operational experience. Thus, its justification for 16 months to
understand and optimize a mechanical system is not supported. In fact, the term "optimization" in this
context (i.e., when the goal is zero discharge) is itself unclear. To assist its operators in gaining
operational experience, Duke can send its operators to train with the RDMS vendor that will be/likely
has been selected; and/or make arrangements for its operators to spend time at other plants that have
similar systems. For example, Duke's Mayo plant has long operated a dry ash handling system. Of
course, this training can happen in conjunction with equipment procurement and any onsite tie-in
construction. Thus, without significant additional support, I disagree with the need for a sequential 16-
month task for gaining operational experience.
B. FGD Wastewater
At a minimum, Duke anticipates having to install a new tank -based physical/chemical treatment
ystem followed by a selenium reduction technology. The selenium reduction technology has notyet been
selected and Duke will be evaluating suitable technologies based on cost and feasibility. A biological
treatment ystem is currently installed at Roxboro, but the ELG limits cannot be achieved with the
current ystem. Duke will evaluate the current biological treatment ystem to determine whether the
ystem can be used as pars of an upgraded treatment ystem or will need to be discarded and completely
replaced.
EPA proposed the ELG Rule on July 7, 2013 — more than three years ago. In the proposal, EPA listed
two limits for selenium, widely understood to be the more challenging aspect of meeting the FGD
wastewater limits: a daily limit of 16 ug/L and a 30-day limit of 10 ug/L.38 These limits were made less
stringent in the final rule promulgated on November 3, 2015.39 The daily limit was increased from 16
38 78 Fed. Reg. 34,534 ( July 7, 2013).
39 80 Fed. Reg. 67,895 (Nov. 3, 2015).
17

ug/L to 23 ug/L and the monthly limit was increased from 10 ug/L to 12 ug/L. Thus, Duke has had
over three years as of this writing to anticipate that it would have to meet more stringent limits for
selenium than what it is able to meet with its current GE ABMet system. In that time period, all of the
vendors of bioreactor technologies, including GE have stated that their systems are capable of meeting
the ELG limits. Thus, while I agree that the current system at Roxboro will need modification, it is my
opinion that at least since 2013, Duke has had notice that it may have to meet a more stringent
selenium limit. It is therefore not a reasonable assumption that Duke would have done nothing in
these intervening three years to address all of its options on how it might meet: first, the more stringent
proposed limits; and later, the less stringent final rule limits for selenium. Thus, it is not acceptable for
Duke to state that it now "will evaluate the current biological treatment system...." It is more
reasonable to assume that these evaluations have been or should have been long completed by now.
In addition, the FGD flow rate for Foxboro is estimated at approximately 1,094 gallons per minute
(gbm). In the proposed ELG rule, EPA assumed Foxboro could reduce its FGD flow to 375Om by
recirculating some of the FGD water back to the FGD gstem. This would allow for the design of a
significantly smaller system, resulting in a significant reduction in cost. Duke is evaluating options to
reduce the FGD flow, which would affect the technology selection, design and cost of the system.
I agree that reducing the FGD flow rate would allow Duke to use a smaller system for wastewater
treatment. By increasing the residence time, it may even be able to use its current system, with
relatively minor changes. It is not clear, however, how EPA arrived at the lower 375 gpm likely flow
without Duke being aware of this possibility. EPA's information on the process at Roxboro is based
on data that Duke provided. Any assessment of process optimization that EPA or its contractors did,
could easily have been done by Duke itself — arguably with more precision and detail. It is only
reasonable to assume that Duke knows its own system better than EPA does. Thus, Duke's assertion
that it is "evaluating options" to reduce the FGD flow rate, when others have already made such
assessment (which Duke does not refute or challenge) is specious.
To further complicate matters, EPA's model technology for the treatment of FGD wastewater is
physical/ chemical followed by biological treatment. Recently, the biological treatment system vendor for
the ABMet gstem, GE, has claimed intellectualproperty rights on all biological treatment technologies
for FGD wastewater. This could have significant impacts on the cost and procurement schedule of the
treatment gstem. With an EPA estimate of 88 stations within the industry expected to upgrade the
FGD wastewater treatment gstem to comply with the ELG limits; the implementation date must take
into account limited resources of EPA's chosen model technology.
Duke's reference to "EPA's model technology" is irrelevant. EPA suggested its model technology for
all coal plants in the U.S. with a wide range of wastewater properties. The specific types of treatment
that will be needed depend on site specific properties of wastewater. Duke, having operated its FGDs
under all types of plant conditions, for almost 10 years now, should, presumably, have considerable data
on what its wastewater properties are and how they vary by now. Thus, it is not at all reasonable for
Duke assert as a reason for its compliance delay the fact that 88 stations will be upgrading their systems
to "EPA's chosen model technology." Each plant operator will do what it needs to do to meet the
ELG limits for all of the regulated pollutants, including selenium and nitrate/nitrite. As I have noted
earlier, there are several vendors that have systems capable of meeting the FGD wastewater ELGs.
Thus, Duke's suggestion that it is locked into working with GE rings hollow. Thus, to the extent Duke
is using these arguments to justify its non -expeditious schedule, they are unsupported and plainly,
specious.
W.

Design dam' Engineering
As with the RMDS, engineering and technology resources are limited due to regulatory requirements for
concurrent implementation of programs, such as the CCR Rule and NC -LAMA across applicable
sites in North Carolina. Duke is, therefore, estimating 30 months to complete the design and
engineering phase of the pr ject.
FGD Flow Reduction Evaluation
Duke is evaluating options, such as recirculating some of the FGD water back to the FGD gstem, to
reduce the FGD wastewater flow rate to design and install a cost effective gstem. As stated above,
EPA assumed Roxboro could reduce the FGD wastewater flow to 375 gym. Whether recirculating
some of the FGD water back to the FGD gstem is a viable option is dependent on the chlorides in the
FGD water and chloride impacts on the materials of construction of the FGD scrubber. Duke will also
determine if other flow reduction measures are available for Roxboro. This is a critical step in the design
and technology evaluation to ensure a cost ffctive treatment gstem.
Existing Bioreactor Evaluation
A biological treatment gstem is installed at Roxboro. However, the current gstem cannot meet the final
ELG limits for FGD wastewater. Currently, it is unknown whether the existing biological treatment
gstem can be used as part of an upgraded treatment gstem or if the biological treatment system will
need to be discarded and completely replaced. Duke, therefore, is planning on conducting an evaluation
to determine the feasibility and cost of using the existing biological reactor or replacing the entire gstem.
Siting
As with the RMDS, the FGD WWT system will need to be sited to avoid any former or current
CCR sites and avoid construction areas that will be used to complete closure of the ash basins at
Roxboro. Additionally, Duke will need to site the system to avoid nuisance odor outside the properly
boundary. Duke will also attempt to site the gstem to avoid WOTUS. However, based on the final
siting of the system WOTUS may not be avoided, and permits from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers may be required.
Technology Selection
Duke has significant experience in the design, construction and operation of biological treatment ystems
for selenium reduction. Based on Duke's experience, biological treatment alone may not be a fool proof
technology based on the characteristics of the coal. Duke, therefore, is obligated to review and evaluate
whether other suitable technologies are available to treat FGD wastewater for selenium reduction at
Roxboro. This is particularly important with GE claiming intellectual properly rights on the biological
treatment ystem for FGD wastewater, thus being the sole provider of this technology. Duke will be
working closely with utility organ.Zations, such as the EPRI, to ident�ft suitable technologies for the
removal of selenium from FGD wastewater and possibly additional polishing steps that may be required
to meet the limits. Upon completion of the siting and technology selection, the engineering design of the
gstem will be completed.
Permitting
If WOTUS cannot be avoided, then permitting from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
will be needed. At this time, it is unknown whether a USACE permit will be required or the type of
permit that may be required (nationwide permit (NPWI) or individual permit. Duke, therefore, has
LLB

included 12 months in the schedule to prepare and obtain any necessary USACE permits. The
installation of the FGD WIW"l may change the characteristics of the final discharge, therefore, a
NPDES permit modification may be required to revise the permit to account for the changes inflow
and constituent make-up.
Even through the permitting task will be initiated during the design and engineering phase, it is expect
to continue through the procurement phase and up to the construction phase. In addition, the extent and
complexity of the permits required are unknown at this time. The requiredpermits will be evaluated
during the engineering and design phase. Since time needed to prepare the permit applications and the
time needed to receive the permits is uncertain, Duke allocated 6 months to account for potential
permitting delays.
Duke has proposed a 30 month timeline for this first, design phase, including the five sub -activities —
by sequentially allocating 6, 6, 8, 4, and 6 months, respectively to: flow evaluation, evaluation of the
biological system, technology evaluation, siting, and permitting. This timeline is wholly unsupported.
First, it is not clear why, even if they were necessary in the first place, several of these tasks cannot be
done in parallel as opposed to sequentially. For example, the flow evaluation (which deals with how to
minimize flow of wastewater generation in the FGDs) can be done in parallel with the evaluation of the
biological system and/or the technology evaluation. These three activities can be done in parallel or
with significant overlap.
Second, as discussed above: (i) with the passage of over three years since the ELG rule was proposed
with more stringent limits for selenium; (ii) with EPA having already conducted flow optimization and
evaluation; (iii) Duke's almost 10 years of experience running its biological system; (iv) Duke's almost
10 years of experience with GE as its vendor for its FGD wastewater treatment systems not just at
Roxboro but at Mayo, Allen, and Belews Creek as well — it would seem reasonable that no additional
time should be needed or justified for flow evaluation, evaluation of the biological system, and
technology selection.
Third, as noted in the discussion earlier dealing with the compliance for bottom ash transport water
ELGs, siting and permitting are simply additional delay factors being proposed by Duke, with no
support or justification. To summarize, it is a reasonable expectation that Duke should know its plant
well enough to know if it will have any siting problems, dealing with WOTUS or CCR issues. It
certainly has not made the case that any modifications (or even relocation) of its current system or a
new system will need to be sited where WOTUS will be affected or that the CCR rule -related actions
will interfere. Thus, raising siting and permitting issues, which may not be needed, are simply
speculative.
In summary, even if it were reasonable to assume that these actions would require 30 months, which is
simply unsupported because many of these tasks can be done in parallel, Duke has had well over 30
months since the proposed rule to complete each of these evaluations. Thus, no additional time for
these tasks is justified.
Procurement
After the design is complete, Duke will initiate the process to procure the necessary outside resources to
construct and install the new wastewater treatment ystems. This process will involve the following steps.-
- Evaluate potential vendors forproposal solicitation;
C

- Develop and submit a requestforproposal (BFP) to selected vendors;
- Conduct a review and vendor selection based on the received bids;
- Develop required contract documents;
- Acquire materials (potentially from overseas), which involves:
o Shipment, and
o Equ pment Fabrication
- Fabrication and inspection of equipment.
The selenium reduction technology will have a fabrication queue that is dependent on total industry -amide
demand. With GE claiming intellectual propero rights on biological treatment additional time will need
to be factored into the implementation date. Duke, therefore, has allocated 24 months to acquire the
necessary materials. Additionally, raw materials needed may have an extended lead-time from time of
order to delivery, such as the granulated activated carbon used in the biological ystem, which has a lead
time of 12 months. As stated above, GE is claiming intellectual properly rights on the biological
treatment system. If this claim is upheld, GE will be the only supplier of the biological treatment system.
Given the potential number of facilities installing treatment ystem for FGD wastewater in the industry,
additional 8 months is allocated to account for an extended procurement period.
Duke's proposed timeline for procurement is unsupported by any evidence. Instead, Duke has simply
regurgitated the same generic steps for its discussions on procurement (see previous discussion for the
bottom ash conversion project and Duke's language in that instance). In addition, Duke points vaguely
to a potential issue with its current technology vendor GE, but offers no evidence regarding the
speculative claim that GE would be the only vendor able to supply biological treatment equipment or
evidence that even if GE were the only vendor that it would be unable to meet market demands in a
timely fashion. Without some clarifying detail, it is my opinion that a 20 month schedule for
procurement is unsupported.
Construction/Tie In
Once all the necessary materials are procured, Duke estimates construction of the FGD WWT will
take approximately 16 months to complete. In addition, the tie-in of the FGD A' ' F to each
individual FGD scrubber will need to occur during outages, which are anticipated to occur between
March to May and October to November depending on generation demand. Furthermore, an additional
4 months were included in the schedule to account for the potential of GE being the sole provider of the
biological treatment ystem.
Again, as with the construction/tie in for the bottom ash transport water RMDS system, piping and any
additional infrastructure for tie-ins can be constructed in parallel while vendor equipment is on order.
Thus, the procurement and on -site construction tasks can overlap and do not have to be done
sequentially as assumed by Duke. Thus, the need for 16 additional months for construction is not
supported in my opinion. In my opinion, the tie-in of a new or upgraded FGD wastewater treatment
system should take no more time than was needed when the existing system was installed in 2008, i.e.,
considerably less than 16 months. The scheduling of an additional four months "to account for the
potential of GE being the sole provider of the biological treatment system" is unsupported. If
anything, given GE's familiarity with the current system and the simplifications of dealing with just one
vendor, it should take less time and not more time if there is a single provider.
21

Commissioning & Start-up
Duke estimates that commissioning and start-up of the FGD WVIT will take 12 months to complete,
6 months for each task. Duke, however, 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.
This will allow the identification of necessary actions that need to be completed in order to maintain the
ystem under different operating scenarios.
The 12 or 15 months Duke has allocated for commissioning and startup is unjustified. As discussed
above, the biological treatment system (which is the most complicated element of the overall treatment
system — whether it is preceded by the settling pond as it is currently at Roxboro, or if it is preceded by
some sort of chemical/precipitation system, if needed) has been functional at Roxboro for almost a
decade now. The record shows that this system was commissioned and started up at Roxboro in a
matter of a few months back in 2007/2008. With the additional experience gained by Duke's
operational staff, it should not take Duke longer to commission and startup a system that they are more
familiar with this time around. I find no support for Duke's proposed time allocation for these tasks.
7. COMPARISON OF DUKE'S COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE WITH THAT OF
OTHER LARGE PROJECTS
Duke's proposed compliance schedules, 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, these 55-month and
87-month schedules proposed for ELG compliance are simply unreasonable and too long. Here,
comparisons are made using the expected timelines 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 timelines 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 U.S.40 These
timelines are generally conservative—i.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 Roxboro's wet sluicing bottom ash system to a dry or a closed loop system will take 55
months —on par or longer than the far more complex FGD installations at coal units —is untenable.
Even more egregious is Duke's ` justification" of 87 months for achieving compliance with the FGD
wastewater ELG requirements —given its existing bioreactor and its significant experience in operating
such systems.
40 The Brattle Group, Supply Chain and Outage Analysis of MISO Coal Retrofits forMATS, Appendix A (May 2012), available at
http: / /www.brattle. com/ news-and-knowledge/news /brattle-economists-identify-challenges-for-miso-s-coal-fleet-to-
comply-with-epa-s-mats-rule.
22

Typical Timelines for Dry FGD, Wet FGD, DSI and ACI Retrofit Projects
Dry 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
Pernittmg
Design Engineering
System Interface 1 Site Engineering
Procurement
construction
Testing
Outage
wet 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
PemAting
Design Engineering
Systeminterface 1 Site Engineering
Procurement _
Construction
Testing _
Outage
SCR
PrajectPhase 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
Penn itting
Design Engineering
Systeminterface 1 Site Engineering
Procurement
Construction
Testing
outage
8. CONCLUSIONS
Duke does not need 55 months and 87 months to achieve compliance with the ELG requirements for
bottom ash transport water and FGD wastewater, respectively. Duke's "justifications" for such
timelines are vague and unsupported. They also contradict Duke's own experience (for FGD
wastewater treatment) and that of others (for bottom ash zero discharge), and are at odds with EPA's
expectation of expeditous compliance. Any reading of Duke's ` justifcations" for its timelines 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 timelines. As demonstrated herein,
based on publicly available information, Duke could achieve compliance with the bottom ash transport
water ELGs by September 2018, at the latest, and with the FGD wastewater ELGs by November 2019
(if not even earlier). In my opinion, even these suggested shortened timelinesare generous and Duke
should have no problem achieving compliance even sooner if it devotes adequate resources to achieve
expeditious compliance, as expected in the final ELG Rule.
23

9. 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 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.
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.
W

ATTACHMENT A - RESUME
RANAJIT (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
25

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 over the past twenty three years 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-present 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.
1992-1995 Engineering -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.
we

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
"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.
27

"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 University
"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.
University 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.
University 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.
W9.

"Environmental Planning and Management," 1 day program for visiting Russian delegation, 1995.
"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, West Coast Section, 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 10/07/2017.
3t

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 Histories," 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. CoalQuality, 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 Cenospheric 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-Series 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).
30

"From Puchase of Landmark Environmental Insurance to Remediation: Case Study in Henderson,
Nevada," with Robin E. Bain and Jill Quillin, 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.
PRESENTATIONS (PARTIAL LIST)
"Pore Structure and Combustion Kinetics - Interpretation of Single Particle Temperature -Time
Histories," 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, (1988).
"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 Gasolines,"
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 Beijing, China," presented at the 87th Annual Meeting of the
Air and Waste Management Association, Cincinnati, Ohio, June 19-24, 1994.
31

ATTACHMENT C — PREVIOUS EXPERT WITNESS TESTIMONY
1. Occasions where Dr. Sahu has provided Written or Oral testimony before Congress:
(a) 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 E15."
2. Matters for which Dr. Sahu has provided affidavits and expert reports include:
(b) 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.
(c) 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.
P. Ohio Edison Co., et al., C2-99-1181 (Southern District of Ohio).
(d) 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 P. Illinois Power Co., et al., 99-833-MJR
(Southern District of Illinois).
(e) 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. P. Duke Energy Corp., 1:00-CV-1262
(Middle District of North Carolina).
(f) 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. P. American
Electric Power Service Corp., et al., C2-99-1182, C2-99-1250 (Southern District of Ohio).
(g) 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.
(h) 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).
(i) Affidavits and deposition on behalf of Basic Management Inc. (BMI) Companies in connection
with the BMI vs. USA remediation cost recovery Case.
(j) Expert Report on behalf of Penn Future and others in the Cambria Coke plant permit challenge in
Pennsylvania.
(k) 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.
32

(1) 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.
(m) 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.
(n) 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).
(o) Affidavit (July 2007) Comments on the Big Cajun I Draft Permit on behalf of the Sierra Club —
submitted to the Louisiana DEQ.
(p) 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 P. Allegheny Energy Inc., et
al., 2:05cv0885 (Western District of Pennsylvania).
(q) Expert Reports and Pre -filed Testimony before the Utah Air Quality Board on behalf of Sierra
Club in the Sevier Power Plant permit challenge.
(r) 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) .
(s) 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.
(t) 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.
(u) 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).
(v) 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., P. Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Case No. 1:08-cv-
00318-LHT-DLH (Western District of North Carolina, Asheville Division).
33

(w) Declaration (August 2008) on behalf of the Sierra Club in the matter of Dominion Wise County
plant MACT.us
(x) Expert Report Qune 2008) on behalf of Sierra Club for the Green Energy Resource Recovery
Project, MACT Analysis.
(y) 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.
(z) Expert Report Qune 2009) on behalf of MTD Products, Inc., in the matter of Alice Holmes and
Vernon Holmes v. Home Depot USA, Inc., et al.
(aa) 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).
(bb) 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.
(cc) 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).
(dd) 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.
(ee) 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-S (Northern District of Alabama, Southern Division).
(ff 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).
(gg) Pre -filed Testimony Quly 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.
(hh) 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.
(ii) Declaration (August 2010), Reply Declaration (November 2010), Expert Report (April 2011),
Supplemental and Rebuttal Expert Report Quly 2011) on behalf of the United States in the matter
of DTE Energy Company and Detroit Edison Company (Monroe Unit 2). United States ofAmerica v.
34

DTE Energy Company and Detroit Edison Company, Civil Action No. 2:10-cv-13101-BAF-RSW
(Eastern District of Michigan).
(jj) 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 Trimble County power plant by the Kentucky Energy and
Environment Cabinet to Louisville Gas and Electric, File No. DOW-41106-047.
(kk) 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 power plant. No. 09-cv-1862 (District of Colorado).
(ll) 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 Permit for Plant
Washington issued by Georgia DNR at the Office of State Administrative Hearing, State of
Georgia (OSAH-BNR-AQ-1031707-98-WALKER).
(mm) 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 (SOAH).
(nn) 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).
(oo) 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.
(pp) Expert Report (November 2010) (BART Determinations for TriState Craig Units, CSU Nixon
Unit, and PRPA Rawhide Unit) to the Colorado Air Quality Commission on behalf of Coalition of
Environmental Organizations.
(qq) Declaration (November 2010) on behalf of the Sierra Club in connection with the Martin Lake
Station Units 1, 2, and 3. Sierra Club P. Energy Future Holdings Corporation and Luminant Generation
Company LLC, Case No. 5:1 0-cv-00 1 56-DF-CMC (Eastern District of Texas, Texarkana Division).
(rr) Pre -Filed Testimony Qanuary 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-1 1 15157-60-HOWELLS) on
behalf of the Friends of the Chattahoochee and the Sierra Club).
(ss) 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.
35

(tt) Expert Report (March 2011), Rebuttal Expert Report Qune 2011) on behalf of the United States in
United States ofAmerica v. Cemex, Inc., Civil Action No. 09-cv-00019-MSK-MEH (District of
Colorado).
(uu) Declaration (April 2011) and Expert Report Quly 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).
(vv) Declaration Qune 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.
(ww) Expert Report Qune 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).
(xx) 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 Citi.Zen, Inc. v.
Sandy Creek Energy Associates, L.P., Civil Action No. A-08-CA-648-LY (Western District of Texas,
Austin Division).
(yy) Expert Report (October 2011) on behalf of the Defendants in the matter of John Quiles and Jeanette
Quiles et al. P. Bradford -White Corporation, MTD Products, Inc., Kohler Co., et al., Case No. 3:10-cv-747
(TJM/DEP) (Northern District of New York).
(zz) 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).
(aaa) Expert Report (March 2012) and Supplemental Expert Report (November 2013) in the matter of
Environment Texas Citi.Zen Lobby, Inc and Sierra Club v. ExxonMobil Corporation et al., Civil Action No.
4:10-cv-4969 (Southern District of Texas, Houston Division).
(bbb) Declaration (March 2012) in the matter of Center for Biological Diversity, et al. P. United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Case No. 11-1101 (consolidated with 11-1285, 11-1328 and 11-1336)
(US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit).
(ccc) Declaration (March 2012) in the matter of Sierra Club P. The Kansas Department of Health and
Environment, Case No. 11-105,493-AS (Holcomb power plant) (Supreme Court of the State of
Kansas).
(ddd) Declaration (March 2012) in the matter of the Las Brisas Energy Center Environmental Defense Fund
et al., v. Texas Commission on EnvironmentalQuality, Cause No. D-1-GN-11-001364 (District Court of
Travis County, Texas, 261"judicial District).
36

(eee) Expert Report (April 2012), Supplemental and Rebuttal Expert Report Quly 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 -Plaint v. RRI Energy Mid -Atlantic Power Holdings et al., Civil Action No. 07-CV-5298
QKG) (Eastern District of Pennsylvania).
(fffl Declaration (April 2012) in the matter of the EPA's EGU MATS Rule, on behalf of the
Environmental Integrity Project.
(ggg) 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.
(hhh) 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.
(iii) 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.
(jjj) Expert Report (October 2012), Supplemental Expert Report Qanuary 2013), and Affidavit Qune
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.
(kkk) 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.
(lll) 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.
(mmm) 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.
(nnn) Expert Report (April 2013), Rebuttal report Quly 2013), and Declarations (October 2013,
November 2013) on behalf of the Sierra Club in connection with the Luminant Big Brown Case.
Sierra Club P. Energy Future Holdings Corporation and Luminant Generation Company LLC, Civil Action
No. 6:12-cv-00108-WSS (Western District of Texas, Waco Division).
(000) 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).
37

(ppp) Expert Report (May 2013) and Rebuttal Expert Report Quly 2013) on behalf of the Sierra Club
in connection with the Luminant Martin Lake Case. Sierra Club P. Energy Future Holdings Corporation
and Luminant Generation Company LLC, Civil Action No. 5:1 0-cv-01 56-MHS-CMC (Eastern District
of Texas, Texarkana Division).
(qqq) Declaration (August 2013) on behalf of A. J. Acosta Company, Inc., in the matter of A. J. Acosta
Company, Inc., P. County of San Bernardino, Case No. CIVSS803651.
(rrr) 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.
(sss) 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.
(ttt) Expert Report (December 2013) on behalf of the United States in United States ofAmerica v. Ameren
Missouri, Civil Action No. 4:11-cv-00077-RWS (Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division).
(uuu) 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.
(vvv) Expert Report Qanuary 2014) on behalf of Baja, Inc., in Baja, 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).
(www) 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 Plaintos v. the EVort-Import Bank (Ex-Im Bank) of the United States,
Civil Action No. 13-1820 RC (District Court for the District of Columbia).
(xxx) 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).
(yyy) Direct Prefiled Testimony Qune 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).
(zzz) Expert Report Qune 2014) on behalf of ECM Biofilms in the matter of the US Federal Trade
Commission (FTC) v. ECM Biofilms (FTC Docket #9358).
(aaaa) 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).
(bbbb) Declaration Quly 2014) on behalf of Public Health Intervenors in the matter of EME Homer
City Generation P. 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).
(cccc) 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) P. PPL Montana LLC, Avista Corporation, Puget Sound Energy,
Portland General Electric Company, Nortbavestern Corporation, and Pacifcorp (Defendants), Civil Action No.
CV 13-32-BLG-DLC JCL (US District Court for the District of Montana, Billings Division).
(dddd) 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).
(eeee) Pre -filed Direct Testimony (March 2015) and Rebuttal Testimony (August 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.
(ffffl Expert Report (March 2015) on behalf of Plaintiffs in the matter of Conservation Law Foundation P.
Broadrock Gas Services LLC, Rbode Island LFG GENCO LLC, and Rbode Island Resource Recovery
Corporation (Defendants), Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-00777-M-PAS (US District Court for the District
of Rhode Island).
(gggg) 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).
(hhhh) Expert Report Quly 2015) and Rebuttal Expert Report Quly 2015) on behalf of Plaintiffs in the
matter of Northwest Environmental Defense Center et. al., P. Cascade Kelly Holdings LLC, dl bl a Columbia
Pacific Bio-Refnery, and Global Partners LP (Defendants), Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-01059-SI (US District
Court for the District of Oregon, Portland Division).
(iiii) 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," Wlbite
Stallion Energy Center, LLC v. US EPA, Case No. 12-1100 (US Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia).
(jjjj) Expert Report (November 2015) on behalf of Appellants in the matter of Sierra Club, et al. v. Craig
Wl Butler, Director of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency ey al., ERAC Case No. 14-256814.
at

3. Occasions where Dr. Sahu has provided oral testimony in depositions, at trial or in similar
proceedings include the following:
(kkkk) 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.
(llll) Trial Testimony (February 2002) on behalf of Rocky Mountain Steel Mills, Inc. in Denver District
Court.
(mmmm) Trial Testimony (February 2003) on behalf of the United States in the Ohio Edison NSR
Cases, United States, et al. P. Ohio Edison Co., et al., C2-99-1181 (Southern District of Ohio).
(nnnn) Trial Testimony Qune 2003) on behalf of the United States in the Illinois Power NSR Case,
United States P. Illinois Power Co., et al., 99-833-MJR (Southern District of Illinois).
(0000) 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 al., IP 99-1693-C-M/S (Southern District of Indiana).
(pppp) 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.
(gggq) 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.
(rrrr) Oral Testimony (October 2007) on behalf of the Sierra Club re. the Sevier Power Plant before
the Utah Air Quality Board.
(ssss) Oral Testimony (August 2008) on behalf of the Sierra Club and Clean Water re. Big Stone Unit
II before the South Dakota Board of Minerals and the Environment.
(tttt) 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.
(uuuu) 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.
(vvw) Deposition Quly 2009) on behalf of MTD Products, Inc., in the matter of Alice Holmes and
Vernon Holmes P. Home Depot USA, Inc., et al.
(wwww) 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).
.O

(xxxx) Deposition (October 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).
(yyyy) 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.
(zzzz) 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).
(aaaaa) Oral Testimony (November 2009) 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.
(bbbbb) 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).
(ccccc) 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.
(ddddd) Deposition Qune 2010) on behalf of the United States in connection with the Alabama Power
Company NSR Case. United Stater v. Alabama Power Company, CV-01 -HS-1 52-S (Northern District of
Alabama, Southern Division).
(eeeee) 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. Plaints v. Allegheny Energy Inc., et al., 2:05cv0885 (Western
District of Pennsylvania).
(fffff 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).
(ggggg) 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.
(hhhhh) 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.
41

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.
(jjjjj) Oral Testimony (December 2010) regarding BART for TriState Craig Units, CSU Nixon Unit,
and PRPA Rawhide Unit) before the Colorado Air Quality Commission on behalf of the Coalition
of Environmental Organizations.
(kkkkk) Deposition (December 2010) on behalf of the United States in connection with the Louisiana
Generating NSR Case. United States P. Louisiana Generating LLC, 09-CV100-RET-CN (Middle
District of Louisiana).
(lllll) 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.).
(mmmmm) 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-1 1 15157-60-HOWELLS) on behalf of the Friends of the
Chattahoochee and the Sierra Club).
(nnnnn) Deposition (August 2011) on behalf of the United States in United States ofAmerica V. Cemex,
Inc., Civil Action No. 09-cv-00019-MSK-MEH (District of Colorado).
(00000) 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 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.
(ppppp) Oral Testimony at Hearing (March 2012) on behalf of the United States in connection with
the Louisiana Generating NSR Case. United States P. Louisiana Generating LLC, 09-CV100-RET-CN
(Middle District of Louisiana).
(gggqq) 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 (LCIRP) submitted by the Public Service Company of New Hampshire
(re. Merrimack Station Units 1 and 2).
(rrrrr) 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.
(sssss) 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.
42

(ttttt) 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).
(uuuuu) 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. 5:1 0-cv-01 56-MHS-CMC (Eastern District of Texas, Texarkana Division).
(vvvvv) Deposition (February 2014) on behalf of the United States in United States ofAmenca P. Ameren
Missouri, Civil Action No. 4:11-cv-00077-RWS (Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division).
(wwwww) 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).
(xxxxx) Trial Testimony (February 2014) 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).
(yyyyy) Deposition Qune 2014) and Trial (August 2014) on behalf of ECM Biofilms in the matter of
the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) P. ECM Biofilms (FTC Docket #9358).
(zzzzz) Deposition (February 2015) on behalf of Plaintiffs in the matter of Sierra Club and Montana
Environmental Information Center (Plaintiffs) P. PPL Montana LLC, Avista Corporation, Puget Sound Energy,
Portland General Electric Company, Northwestern Corporation, and Pacifrcorp (Defendants), Civil Action No.
CV 13-32-BLG-DLC JCL (US District Court for the District of Montana, Billings Division).
(aaaaaa) 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).
(bbbbbb) Deposition (August 2015) on behalf of Plaintiff in the matter of Conservation Late Foundation
(Plaint v. Broadrock Gas Services LLC, Rhode Island LFG GENCO LLC, and Rhode Island Resource
Recovery Corporation (Defendants), Civil Action No. 1: 1 3-cv-00777-M-PAS (US District Court for the
District of Rhode Island).
(cccccc) 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.
(dddddd) Deposition (May 2015) on behalf of Plaintiffs in the matter of Northwest Environmental Defense
Center et. al., (Plaintiffs) P. Cascade Kelly Holdings LLC, d/bl 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).
43

(eeeeee) Trial Testimony (October 2015) on behalf of Plaintiffs in the matter of Nortbwest Environmental
Defense Center et. al., (Plaintiffs) P. Cascade Kelly Holdings LLC, dl bl a Columbia Pacific Bio-Kefnery, and
Global Partners LP (Defendants), Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-01059-SI (US District Court for the
District of Oregon, Portland Division).