RE State of NC ex rel DENR DWQ v Duke Energy Carolinas Attorney ...

Report 4 Downloads 24 Views
Page 1

From: Cooper,_Kathy To: =?utf-8?Q?Presnell _Lacy?= =?utf-8?Q?Zimmerman _Jay?= <[email protected]> =?utf-8?Q?Osborne _Jay_L?= <[email protected]> Date: 7/18/2013 4:37:41 PM Subject: RE:_State_of_NC_ex._rel._DENR,_DWQ_v._Duke_Energy_Carolinas;_Attorney_Client_Privileged_and_Attorney_Work_Produc Lacy, I think that is a great idea. We are checking with Charles Case and Matt Hanchey to see if the following simple clarification could be posted: For clarification purposes, the first sentence in paragraph 36 has been 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. Thanks, Kathy Kathryn Jones Cooper Special Deputy Attorney General Water and Land Section Environmental Division signature

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

4_28_2014

Page 2 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 signature

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 C arolina 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 signature

4_28_2014

Page 3 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 crossreference ¶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

4_28_2014