Debra, Please find enclosed the Injunction Document and ...
From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Attachments:
King, Morella s Watts, Debra Smith, Eric; Wilcox, Betty; Zimmerman, Jay RE: Duke Injunction Cases; Draft Amended Complaints to add 6 facilities to each complaint; Attorney Client Privileged and Attorney Work Product Wednesday, July 31, 2013 4:01:54 PM Draft Duke Energy Progress Second Amended Injunction Complaint-Wiro Edited 07 31 2013.docx.doc Copy of NC0001422 Sutton Groundwater Monitoring 2010 to 7-16-2013 mod Exceed- Violations in Yellow.xlsx
Debra, Please find enclosed the Injunction Document and associated Spreadsheet with the edits as required in your message below and discussed earlier today. Thank you!! Morella ===========
Morella Sanchez King 910 796 7218 From: Watts, Debra Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 12:03 PM To: Barnhardt, Art; Bolich, Rick; Davidson, Landon; King, Morella s; Knight, Sherri; May, David; Pitner, Andrew Cc: Smith, Eric; Wilcox, Betty; Watts, Debra; Zimmerman, Jay Subject: FW: Duke Injunction Cases; Draft Amended Complaints to add 6 facilities to each complaint; Attorney Client Privileged and Attorney Work Product
Regional Supervisors (yes I’m back J ) Appreciate all the efforts you have already put into the amended Injunction Complaints that Jay sent you (email below). There seems to be some confusion as to what we need from each of you concerning violations for the Ash Pond facilities. In order to make it simpler for us to combine your input into one document for Kathy Cooper, please send us the following by COB Wednesday, July 31. [Some of you may have done this in a different format (sent us your own spreadsheets, etc.), but if you could do it in the format below, it will help simplify things for all of us.] 1. Attached are spreadsheets for each Ash Pond facility for all groundwater monitoring in BIMS from 2010 through July 16, 2013. Most exceedances have already been highlighted in red, but you may want to look at the entire spreadsheet to make sure Betty caught all the exceedances. Once you determined the exceedances are correct, HIGHLIGHT IN YELLOW the violations and send the spreadsheet back to us. The data highlighted in yellow (violations) should be addressed in the Injunction Complaint. 2. Also attached are the Amended Injunction Complaints for Progress and Duke. Once you know what your violations are, please look at the appropriate Injunction document and
amend the language through track changes under Exceedances of 2L Groundwater Standards… and also under Other Exceedances…. You may also want to look at the Prayer for Relief to make sure it includes your changes. a. Your changes should summarize and match the violations you highlighted (MOST IMPORTANT). b. If nothing has changed, leave the language unchanged, but for most of you, you will be adding the additional sampling events, or you may have decided there are more violations than last time. c. If there are no violations, this should be indicated on your excel sheet, but you may want to indicate in your email back to us. d. Don’t worry about the exhibits AG refers to in the Complaints – the new exhibit will probably be a pared down version of the spreadsheet you highlight. For ARO and MRO, I talked with Jay and since Ashville and Riverbend have already been negotiated, please do not change the language on these. For MRO and maybe others that have DWM sites that may be causing the violations, again, I talked with Jay, and at this time he suggested we NOT include violations you are not sure are coming from the DWQ permitted sites, although Jay does want to address this in the near future. Please send your responses back to me, but copy Betty (who will work with you on any errors you may find), Eric Smith, and of course jay Zimmerman. Thanks everyone and call me if you have questions. Debra Debra J. Watts, Supervisor Groundwater Protection Unit Aquifer Protection Section 919-807-6338 From: Zimmerman, Jay Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 9:16 AM To: Barnhardt, Art; Bolich, Rick; Davidson, Landon; King, Morella s; Knight, Sherri; May, David; Pitner, Andrew Cc: Watts, Debra; Smith, Eric; Wilcox, Betty Subject: FW: Duke Injunction Cases; Draft Amended Complaints to add 6 facilities to each complaint; Attorney Client Privileged and Attorney Work Product Importance: High
All, Recently I met with DENR management and our attorneys concerning future actions we were considering to take against the remaining Duke facilities. In order to be prepared once a decision
has been made concerning that future action, please conduct a thorough review of the amended injunction complaints and groundwater quality data that you have for each Duke or Progress facility as requested by Kathy Cooper and determine whether or not violations of 2L standards exist for each parameter and for each well at or beyond the compliance boundary. The goal is to determine the total number of violations that have occurred (e.g.- number of parameters exceeded and the number of times exceeded for each well). I’d like to have this by the COB on Monday, July 29,2013. Please forward to Eric Smith and copy Betty and Debra and me. I realize that determining whether or not violations exist in the groundwater for each of these facilities can be difficult at times, particularly since some of the parameters occur naturally in the groundwater at the various sites. As always, use your best professional judgment in light of the information that you have and your respective knowledge of the groundwater conditions in your regions. Each of you must feel comfortable with your decisions concerning whether or not violations exist. Feel free to call me if you wish to discuss. Thanks, Jay Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties unless the content is exempt by statute or other regulation.
From: Cooper, Kathy [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, July 19, 2013 5:23 PM To: Matthews, Matt; Zimmerman, Jay Cc: Poupart, Jeff; Smith, Eric; Watts, Debra; Laton, Don; LeVeaux, Anita; Oliver, Jane; Davidson, Landon; Presnell, Lacy; Osborne, Jay L Subject: Duke Injunction Cases; Draft Amended Complaints to add 6 facilities to each complaint; Attorney Client Privileged and Attorney Work Product
All, Attached are the draft amended complaints to add the six Duke Energy Carolinas Facilities to the Riverbend Complaint and to add the six Duke Energy Progress Facilities to the Asheville Complaint. Please review the documents and let us know the changes we should make after the regional offices go out and inspect the facilities, especially where we have said “upon information and belief” in the documents. Those sections are highlighted. Also, we need more current information on the groundwater exceedances as well. If you take us up to July 31st, that would be great. Please let Don, Anita Jane and I know if you have any questions. Thanks, Kathy Cooper Kathryn Jones Cooper Special Deputy Attorney General
Water and Land Section Environmental Division
Post Office Box 629 Raleigh, NC 27602-0629 (919) 716-6600 (main telephone number) (919) 716-6960 (direct dial) (919) 716-6766 (fax) [email protected]
From: Cooper, Kathy Sent: Friday, July 19, 2013 11:16 AM To: 'Presnell, Lacy'; Zimmerman, Jay; Osborne, Jay L Cc: Matthews, Matt; Poupart, Jeff; Smith, Eric; Watts, Debra; Laton, Don; LeVeaux, Anita; Oliver, Jane; Davidson, Landon Subject: RE: State of NC ex. rel. DENR, DWQ v. Duke Energy Carolinas; Attorney Client Privileged and Attorney Work Product
Lacy, We have conferred with Duke’s counsel about the clarification of Draft Consent Order Concerning Paragraph 36. Here is the language that we would like to be posted on DWQ’s website: For clarification purposes, the there is a typographical error in the Draft Consent Order in the first sentence in paragraph 36 which will be corrected in the final document. The sentence will be rewritten to substitute ¶33 for ¶34 to read as follows: 36. No later than 120 days of the DWQ determination of naturally occurring concentrations, Duke Energy Progress shall submit a report evaluating whether or not substances in compliance boundary wells (other than those addressed in ¶ 33 above) exceed the groundwater standards. If that language looks OK to you all, can someone in DWQ get it posted and let me know when it has been posted so I can respond to DJ Gerken? Thanks, Kathy Cooper Kathryn Jones Cooper Special Deputy Attorney General Water and Land Section Environmental Division
Post Office Box 629 Raleigh, NC 27602-0629 (919) 716-6600 (main telephone number) (919) 716-6960 (direct dial) (919) 716-6766 (fax) [email protected]
From: Presnell, Lacy [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 3:48 PM To: Cooper, Kathy; Zimmerman, Jay; Osborne, Jay L Cc: Matthews, Matt; Poupart, Jeff; Smith, Eric; Watts, Debra; Laton, Don; LeVeaux, Anita; Oliver, Jane; Davidson, Landon Subject: RE: State of NC ex. rel. DENR, DWQ v. Duke Energy Carolinas; Attorney Client Privileged and Attorney Work Product
My inclination is to consult with Charles Case, and, if Duke concurs, post a simple note on the DWQ website about the correction. Let me know if you think a different approach is better. Lacy M. Presnell III General Counsel N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources Telephone: 919-707-8616 Mailing Address: 1601 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1601 Physical Address: 217 W. Jones Street Raleigh, NC 27603
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Cooper, Kathy [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 12:29 PM To: Zimmerman, Jay; Presnell, Lacy; Osborne, Jay L Cc: Matthews, Matt; Poupart, Jeff; Smith, Eric; Watts, Debra; Laton, Don; LeVeaux, Anita; Oliver, Jane; Davidson, Landon Subject: RE: State of NC ex. rel. DENR, DWQ v. Duke Energy Carolinas; Attorney Client Privileged and Attorney Work Product
Thanks Jay. Lacy, do you think we should put a note on the website acknowledging that change? We (Don,
Anita, Jane and I) can draft something at our meeting at 2 pm today. Thanks, Kathy Cooper Kathryn Jones Cooper Special Deputy Attorney General Water and Land Section Environmental Division
Post Office Box 629 Raleigh, NC 27602-0629 (919) 716-6600 (main telephone number) (919) 716-6960 (direct dial) (919) 716-6766 (fax) [email protected]
From: Zimmerman, Jay [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 12:17 PM To: Cooper, Kathy; Presnell, Lacy; Osborne, Jay L Cc: Matthews, Matt; Poupart, Jeff; Smith, Eric; Watts, Debra; Laton, Don; LeVeaux, Anita; Oliver, Jane; Davidson, Landon Subject: RE: State of NC ex. rel. DENR, DWQ v. Duke Energy Carolinas
Good catch by Mr. Gerken although it appears he may have also incorrectly referenced a paragraph. When Mr. Gerken references ‘whether the third sentence in ¶ 35 of the proposed consent,
which currently reads “(other than those addressed in ¶ 34),” is a typographical error that instead should cross-reference ¶33.’, I believe he is in error. I believe he meant to say “the third line in ¶ 36” . And yes, the reference should be to paragraph 33 and not 34. Jay
S. Jay Zimmerman, L.G. Chief, Aquifer Protection Section Division of Water Quality 1636 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1636 Ph# (919) 807-6351, Fax# (919)807-6480
web page: http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/aps Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties unless the content is exempt by statute or other regulation.
From: Cooper, Kathy [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 11:18 AM To: Presnell, Lacy; Osborne, Jay L Cc: Zimmerman, Jay; Matthews, Matt; Poupart, Jeff; Smith, Eric; Watts, Debra; Laton, Don; LeVeaux, Anita; Oliver, Jane
Subject: FW: State of NC ex. rel. DENR, DWQ v. Duke Energy Carolinas
Everyone, DJ Gerken called yesterday afternoon with a question the Draft Consent Order. I asked him to put his question in writing to me so that we could adequately research it and possibly modify the draft or put a statement on the website and contact counsel in the cases to make any necessary clarifications. Please see his issue below; review the paragraphs he cites and let me know if we need to clarify/modify the Draft Consent Order. We traded so many versions on the last few days that we may have inadvertently cited to the wrong paragraph (Paragraph 34) in Paragraph 35 as to what DWQ would do with the data concerning background info. Let me know what you think. Thanks, Kathy Cooper Kathryn Jones Cooper Special Deputy Attorney General Water and Land Section Environmental Division
Post Office Box 629 Raleigh, NC 27602-0629 (919) 716-6600 (main telephone number) (919) 716-6960 (direct dial) (919) 716-6766 (fax) [email protected]
From: DJ Gerken [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2013 6:11 PM To: Cooper, Kathy Subject: RE: State of NC ex. rel. DENR, DWQ v. Duke Energy Carolinas
Kathy – Thanks for taking time to speak with me today. As we discussed on the phone briefly, I am seeking a clarification about the text of the proposed consent agreement. At its simplest, my question is whether the third sentence in ¶ 35 of the proposed consent, which currently reads “(other than those addressed in ¶ 34),” is a typographical error that instead should cross-reference ¶33. As I understand the proposed agreement, ¶33 applies to the groundwater exceedences described in ¶¶83-89 of the amended complaint, which the state has
alleged are “violations of the groundwater standards.” I think I understand ¶¶34-37 of the proposed agreement to deal with the exceedences alleged in ¶¶ 90-98 of the amended complaint, which the state alleged it was “working with the Defendant to determine if these exceedences are naturally occurring.” If my understanding of the general structure is right, the statement in ¶35 that it excludes the exceedences addressed in ¶34 would seem to be a typographical error. It would fit more logically if ¶35 was instead excluding the exceedences covered by ¶33. I would like to get clarification on that point, if that is possible, as soon as practicable as I don’t want to burden the process by raising an illusory concern. I am of course happy to reach out to Duke’s counsel with the same question – or for you to do so if you prefer – I just thought it easier to start with a conversation. Thank you DJ
DJ Gerken Senior Attorney Southern Environmental Law Center [email protected] 22 S. Pack Square, Suite 700 Asheville, North Carolina 28801-3494 Tel: (828) 258-2023 Fax: (828) 258-2024
King, Morella s Watts, Debra Smith, Eric; Wilcox, Betty; Zimmerman, Jay RE: Duke Injunction Cases; Draft Amended Complaints to add 6 facilities to each complaint; Attorney Client Privileged and Attorney Work Product Wednesday, July 31, 2013 4:01:54 PM Draft Duke Energy Progress Second Amended Injunction Complaint-Wiro Edited 07 31 2013.docx.doc Copy of NC0001422 Sutton Groundwater Monitoring 2010 to 7-16-2013 mod Exceed- Violations in Yellow.xlsx
Debra, Please find enclosed the Injunction Document and associated Spreadsheet with the edits as required in your message below and discussed earlier today. Thank you!! Morella ===========
Morella Sanchez King 910 796 7218 From: Watts, Debra Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 12:03 PM To: Barnhardt, Art; Bolich, Rick; Davidson, Landon; King, Morella s; Knight, Sherri; May, David; Pitner, Andrew Cc: Smith, Eric; Wilcox, Betty; Watts, Debra; Zimmerman, Jay Subject: FW: Duke Injunction Cases; Draft Amended Complaints to add 6 facilities to each complaint; Attorney Client Privileged and Attorney Work Product
Regional Supervisors (yes I’m back J ) Appreciate all the efforts you have already put into the amended Injunction Complaints that Jay sent you (email below). There seems to be some confusion as to what we need from each of you concerning violations for the Ash Pond facilities. In order to make it simpler for us to combine your input into one document for Kathy Cooper, please send us the following by COB Wednesday, July 31. [Some of you may have done this in a different format (sent us your own spreadsheets, etc.), but if you could do it in the format below, it will help simplify things for all of us.] 1. Attached are spreadsheets for each Ash Pond facility for all groundwater monitoring in BIMS from 2010 through July 16, 2013. Most exceedances have already been highlighted in red, but you may want to look at the entire spreadsheet to make sure Betty caught all the exceedances. Once you determined the exceedances are correct, HIGHLIGHT IN YELLOW the violations and send the spreadsheet back to us. The data highlighted in yellow (violations) should be addressed in the Injunction Complaint. 2. Also attached are the Amended Injunction Complaints for Progress and Duke. Once you know what your violations are, please look at the appropriate Injunction document and
amend the language through track changes under Exceedances of 2L Groundwater Standards… and also under Other Exceedances…. You may also want to look at the Prayer for Relief to make sure it includes your changes. a. Your changes should summarize and match the violations you highlighted (MOST IMPORTANT). b. If nothing has changed, leave the language unchanged, but for most of you, you will be adding the additional sampling events, or you may have decided there are more violations than last time. c. If there are no violations, this should be indicated on your excel sheet, but you may want to indicate in your email back to us. d. Don’t worry about the exhibits AG refers to in the Complaints – the new exhibit will probably be a pared down version of the spreadsheet you highlight. For ARO and MRO, I talked with Jay and since Ashville and Riverbend have already been negotiated, please do not change the language on these. For MRO and maybe others that have DWM sites that may be causing the violations, again, I talked with Jay, and at this time he suggested we NOT include violations you are not sure are coming from the DWQ permitted sites, although Jay does want to address this in the near future. Please send your responses back to me, but copy Betty (who will work with you on any errors you may find), Eric Smith, and of course jay Zimmerman. Thanks everyone and call me if you have questions. Debra Debra J. Watts, Supervisor Groundwater Protection Unit Aquifer Protection Section 919-807-6338 From: Zimmerman, Jay Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 9:16 AM To: Barnhardt, Art; Bolich, Rick; Davidson, Landon; King, Morella s; Knight, Sherri; May, David; Pitner, Andrew Cc: Watts, Debra; Smith, Eric; Wilcox, Betty Subject: FW: Duke Injunction Cases; Draft Amended Complaints to add 6 facilities to each complaint; Attorney Client Privileged and Attorney Work Product Importance: High
All, Recently I met with DENR management and our attorneys concerning future actions we were considering to take against the remaining Duke facilities. In order to be prepared once a decision
has been made concerning that future action, please conduct a thorough review of the amended injunction complaints and groundwater quality data that you have for each Duke or Progress facility as requested by Kathy Cooper and determine whether or not violations of 2L standards exist for each parameter and for each well at or beyond the compliance boundary. The goal is to determine the total number of violations that have occurred (e.g.- number of parameters exceeded and the number of times exceeded for each well). I’d like to have this by the COB on Monday, July 29,2013. Please forward to Eric Smith and copy Betty and Debra and me. I realize that determining whether or not violations exist in the groundwater for each of these facilities can be difficult at times, particularly since some of the parameters occur naturally in the groundwater at the various sites. As always, use your best professional judgment in light of the information that you have and your respective knowledge of the groundwater conditions in your regions. Each of you must feel comfortable with your decisions concerning whether or not violations exist. Feel free to call me if you wish to discuss. Thanks, Jay Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties unless the content is exempt by statute or other regulation.
From: Cooper, Kathy [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, July 19, 2013 5:23 PM To: Matthews, Matt; Zimmerman, Jay Cc: Poupart, Jeff; Smith, Eric; Watts, Debra; Laton, Don; LeVeaux, Anita; Oliver, Jane; Davidson, Landon; Presnell, Lacy; Osborne, Jay L Subject: Duke Injunction Cases; Draft Amended Complaints to add 6 facilities to each complaint; Attorney Client Privileged and Attorney Work Product
All, Attached are the draft amended complaints to add the six Duke Energy Carolinas Facilities to the Riverbend Complaint and to add the six Duke Energy Progress Facilities to the Asheville Complaint. Please review the documents and let us know the changes we should make after the regional offices go out and inspect the facilities, especially where we have said “upon information and belief” in the documents. Those sections are highlighted. Also, we need more current information on the groundwater exceedances as well. If you take us up to July 31st, that would be great. Please let Don, Anita Jane and I know if you have any questions. Thanks, Kathy Cooper Kathryn Jones Cooper Special Deputy Attorney General
Water and Land Section Environmental Division
Post Office Box 629 Raleigh, NC 27602-0629 (919) 716-6600 (main telephone number) (919) 716-6960 (direct dial) (919) 716-6766 (fax) [email protected]
From: Cooper, Kathy Sent: Friday, July 19, 2013 11:16 AM To: 'Presnell, Lacy'; Zimmerman, Jay; Osborne, Jay L Cc: Matthews, Matt; Poupart, Jeff; Smith, Eric; Watts, Debra; Laton, Don; LeVeaux, Anita; Oliver, Jane; Davidson, Landon Subject: RE: State of NC ex. rel. DENR, DWQ v. Duke Energy Carolinas; Attorney Client Privileged and Attorney Work Product
Lacy, We have conferred with Duke’s counsel about the clarification of Draft Consent Order Concerning Paragraph 36. Here is the language that we would like to be posted on DWQ’s website: For clarification purposes, the there is a typographical error in the Draft Consent Order in the first sentence in paragraph 36 which will be corrected in the final document. The sentence will be rewritten to substitute ¶33 for ¶34 to read as follows: 36. No later than 120 days of the DWQ determination of naturally occurring concentrations, Duke Energy Progress shall submit a report evaluating whether or not substances in compliance boundary wells (other than those addressed in ¶ 33 above) exceed the groundwater standards. If that language looks OK to you all, can someone in DWQ get it posted and let me know when it has been posted so I can respond to DJ Gerken? Thanks, Kathy Cooper Kathryn Jones Cooper Special Deputy Attorney General Water and Land Section Environmental Division
Post Office Box 629 Raleigh, NC 27602-0629 (919) 716-6600 (main telephone number) (919) 716-6960 (direct dial) (919) 716-6766 (fax) [email protected]
From: Presnell, Lacy [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 3:48 PM To: Cooper, Kathy; Zimmerman, Jay; Osborne, Jay L Cc: Matthews, Matt; Poupart, Jeff; Smith, Eric; Watts, Debra; Laton, Don; LeVeaux, Anita; Oliver, Jane; Davidson, Landon Subject: RE: State of NC ex. rel. DENR, DWQ v. Duke Energy Carolinas; Attorney Client Privileged and Attorney Work Product
My inclination is to consult with Charles Case, and, if Duke concurs, post a simple note on the DWQ website about the correction. Let me know if you think a different approach is better. Lacy M. Presnell III General Counsel N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources Telephone: 919-707-8616 Mailing Address: 1601 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1601 Physical Address: 217 W. Jones Street Raleigh, NC 27603
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Cooper, Kathy [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 12:29 PM To: Zimmerman, Jay; Presnell, Lacy; Osborne, Jay L Cc: Matthews, Matt; Poupart, Jeff; Smith, Eric; Watts, Debra; Laton, Don; LeVeaux, Anita; Oliver, Jane; Davidson, Landon Subject: RE: State of NC ex. rel. DENR, DWQ v. Duke Energy Carolinas; Attorney Client Privileged and Attorney Work Product
Thanks Jay. Lacy, do you think we should put a note on the website acknowledging that change? We (Don,
Anita, Jane and I) can draft something at our meeting at 2 pm today. Thanks, Kathy Cooper Kathryn Jones Cooper Special Deputy Attorney General Water and Land Section Environmental Division
Post Office Box 629 Raleigh, NC 27602-0629 (919) 716-6600 (main telephone number) (919) 716-6960 (direct dial) (919) 716-6766 (fax) [email protected]
From: Zimmerman, Jay [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 12:17 PM To: Cooper, Kathy; Presnell, Lacy; Osborne, Jay L Cc: Matthews, Matt; Poupart, Jeff; Smith, Eric; Watts, Debra; Laton, Don; LeVeaux, Anita; Oliver, Jane; Davidson, Landon Subject: RE: State of NC ex. rel. DENR, DWQ v. Duke Energy Carolinas
Good catch by Mr. Gerken although it appears he may have also incorrectly referenced a paragraph. When Mr. Gerken references ‘whether the third sentence in ¶ 35 of the proposed consent,
which currently reads “(other than those addressed in ¶ 34),” is a typographical error that instead should cross-reference ¶33.’, I believe he is in error. I believe he meant to say “the third line in ¶ 36” . And yes, the reference should be to paragraph 33 and not 34. Jay
S. Jay Zimmerman, L.G. Chief, Aquifer Protection Section Division of Water Quality 1636 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1636 Ph# (919) 807-6351, Fax# (919)807-6480
web page: http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/aps Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties unless the content is exempt by statute or other regulation.
From: Cooper, Kathy [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 11:18 AM To: Presnell, Lacy; Osborne, Jay L Cc: Zimmerman, Jay; Matthews, Matt; Poupart, Jeff; Smith, Eric; Watts, Debra; Laton, Don; LeVeaux, Anita; Oliver, Jane
Subject: FW: State of NC ex. rel. DENR, DWQ v. Duke Energy Carolinas
Everyone, DJ Gerken called yesterday afternoon with a question the Draft Consent Order. I asked him to put his question in writing to me so that we could adequately research it and possibly modify the draft or put a statement on the website and contact counsel in the cases to make any necessary clarifications. Please see his issue below; review the paragraphs he cites and let me know if we need to clarify/modify the Draft Consent Order. We traded so many versions on the last few days that we may have inadvertently cited to the wrong paragraph (Paragraph 34) in Paragraph 35 as to what DWQ would do with the data concerning background info. Let me know what you think. Thanks, Kathy Cooper Kathryn Jones Cooper Special Deputy Attorney General Water and Land Section Environmental Division
Post Office Box 629 Raleigh, NC 27602-0629 (919) 716-6600 (main telephone number) (919) 716-6960 (direct dial) (919) 716-6766 (fax) [email protected]
From: DJ Gerken [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2013 6:11 PM To: Cooper, Kathy Subject: RE: State of NC ex. rel. DENR, DWQ v. Duke Energy Carolinas
Kathy – Thanks for taking time to speak with me today. As we discussed on the phone briefly, I am seeking a clarification about the text of the proposed consent agreement. At its simplest, my question is whether the third sentence in ¶ 35 of the proposed consent, which currently reads “(other than those addressed in ¶ 34),” is a typographical error that instead should cross-reference ¶33. As I understand the proposed agreement, ¶33 applies to the groundwater exceedences described in ¶¶83-89 of the amended complaint, which the state has
alleged are “violations of the groundwater standards.” I think I understand ¶¶34-37 of the proposed agreement to deal with the exceedences alleged in ¶¶ 90-98 of the amended complaint, which the state alleged it was “working with the Defendant to determine if these exceedences are naturally occurring.” If my understanding of the general structure is right, the statement in ¶35 that it excludes the exceedences addressed in ¶34 would seem to be a typographical error. It would fit more logically if ¶35 was instead excluding the exceedences covered by ¶33. I would like to get clarification on that point, if that is possible, as soon as practicable as I don’t want to burden the process by raising an illusory concern. I am of course happy to reach out to Duke’s counsel with the same question – or for you to do so if you prefer – I just thought it easier to start with a conversation. Thank you DJ
DJ Gerken Senior Attorney Southern Environmental Law Center [email protected] 22 S. Pack Square, Suite 700 Asheville, North Carolina 28801-3494 Tel: (828) 258-2023 Fax: (828) 258-2024
