Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNC0004774_Additional Information Request_20160426 e& DUKE Harry K.Sideris ENERGY® Senior Vice President Environmental,Health&Safety 526 S.Church Street Mail Code:EC3XP Charlotte,NC 28202 (704)382-4303 April 26, 2016 Jeffrey O. Poupart RECEIVEDINCDEQIDWR Water Quality Permitting Section Chief Division of Water Resources APR 2 8 2016 Department of Environmental Quality State of North Carolina Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Permitting Section Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Subject: February 26, 2016 Additional Information Request— Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC and Duke Energy Progress, LLC Dear Mr. Poupart: This letter responds to the Additional Information Request sent by you to Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC and Duke Energy Progress, LLC on February 26, 2016. Our responses to your requests are as follows: 1) Maps that identify all seeps and their relationship to jurisdictional waters as determined by the USACE. Duke Energy does not yet have jurisdictional determinations from the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for the relevant areas at all of the twelve sites mentioned in your letter. As you know, Duke Energy submitted applications for renewed or modified NPDES permits in the spring, summer and fall of 2014. As your letter reflects, the identification of jurisdictional waters as they relate to potential seeps became an issue for additional discussion following EPA's June 10, 2015 comment letter. Duke Energy promptly initiated wetland delineation studies and submitted to USACE for jurisdictional determinations in September, October, and November 2015. Duke has since worked with USACE to schedule site visits, make any necessary revisions to the information, and provide draft plats for approval. A table showing the date of the application is presented below. Nonetheless, the timing of the approved jurisdictional determinations is up to USACE and outside Duke control. To date, out of the twelve sites, only Buck has an approved jurisdictional determination, but it does not yet have a signed plat. Given the history of our discussions with the Department on these issues, Duke's efforts to obtain the requested jurisdictional determinations, and the fact that Duke does not control USACE's schedule on this point, Duke's inability to provide the final jurisdictional determinations in the timeframe you have requested should not be a basis for returning our permit applications. Duke will submit the maps you have requested for each site on a rolling basis, within a reasonable period after the jurisdictional determinations are complete. In the interim, should you desire, we are prepared to discuss the wetland delineations prepared by our consultants for each of the stations and submitted to USACE with our applications for jurisdictional determinations. Table— Status of Jurisdictional Determination Requests Plant Date of Request 'Alien;;#; . , " . `October 15,20157 Asheville August 27, 2015 Belews¢` <<;;< :;November 25,2015; : x; Buck September 10, 2015 ;Cape Fear:_ ; ;k- ;November 24,2015r Cliffside September 24, 2015 eDan'Rive`rt>';';. ; September 4',-2015 HF Lee November 25, 2015 Marshall >:; :September:10,:20151£ Mayo November 25, 2015 Rortio`ro:.::;.' , °,.November;25;2015 9 Weatherspoon November 25, 2015 Timing aside, we will not be able to state, based on topography alone, whether any identified seeps have any relationship to the impoundments or represent point source discharges of pollutants under the Clean Water Act. 2) Locations, including latitude and longitude, where seeps discharge or can potentially discharge to the jurisdictional waters. As set forth above, Duke Energy does not yet have jurisdictional determinations from USACE. In previous submittals, including in our permit applications and the proposed Discharge Assessment Plans submitted in 2014, Duke provided latitude and longitude of the location of the Areas of Wetness/seeps. We cannot specifically identify where the seep potentially discharges to jurisdictional waters without the USACE jurisdictional determination. In the interim, should you desire, we are prepared to discuss locations based on wetland delineations prepared by our consultants for each of the stations. Also, not all of the areas of wetness and seeps previously identified discharge pollutants via point source to jurisdictional waters. 3) Background concentration of the following parameters for the jurisdictional waters where seeps discharge or can potentially discharge: flow rate, hardness, Oil and Grease, COD, Chloride, F, Sulfate, Hg, Al, Ba, B, Ca, Fe, Mg, Mn, Zn, Sb, As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Mo, Ni, Se, TI, TDS, TSS, pH, temperature, and specific conductance. For the larger receiving waters, upstream data from sampling associated with current NPDES permits has been routinely submitted to DEQ and Duke's proposed Discharge Assessment Plans submitted in 2014. For other potential jurisdictional water bodies, as set forth above, Duke does yet have the final jurisdictional determinations from USACE. Hence, there is no information available for these yet to be determined water bodies. Additionally, these potentially newly identified waters may not provide an opportunity for upstream sampling if they originate and are contained fully on site or if the point of origin is characterized as the seep itself. For any such features determined to be surface waters, it may be necessary to establish one or more reference waterbodies in order to identify a generic background conditions. In addition, there are significant background influences on these seeps and or their sample point from groundwater, wetlands chemistry, flooding from major water bodies, and precipitation runoff which impacts pH and other constituents. Thus, establishment of background concentrations will likely require additional discussion between Duke Energy and the Department to ensure that appropriate data are collected for this purpose. Duke Energy is committed to providing the Department with additional information to facilitate the issuance of new permits for these twelve sites. The issues are complex and require special consideration, as illustrated by the time elapsed since the permit applications were submitted. We look forward to working with you further to resolve the issues identified here on a mutually acceptable schedule. Sincerely, • arry Sideris Senior Vice President Environmental, Health and Safety