@NCCapitol

@NCCapitol

Duke Energy denies stormwater violations

Posted March 27

A coal ash pond at the former Lee Steam Station near Goldsboro sits along the Neuse River.

— Duke Energy is asking the state Department of Environment and Natural Resources to rescind six notices of violation over stormwater discharges.

The notices were issued by DENR on Feb. 28, four weeks after the massive coal ash spill at Duke's Dan River plant. 

According to the notices, Duke has been discharging stormwater without the required permits at six coal ash sites: Belew's Creek, Cliffside, Dan River, Roxboro, Lee and Sutton.

The state could fine the utility $25,000 per day of violation per site. It's not clear how far back the state could go in assessing that time frame. 

In its response to the notices, required by law within 30 calendar days, Duke said Thursday that the citations are "in error." 

According to a letter from Duke Senior Vice President Charles Gates, the utility did not need stormwater permits at two of its sites – Lee, in Goldsboro, and Sutton, near Wilmington – because combined wastewater/stormwater discharge permits have been in place at those sites for years. 

For the four other sites, the letter says, Duke has had permit applications pending for months or years at DENR and was working through the permitting process with the agency in good faith.  

"We expected that DENR would be issuing the stormwater permits," said Duke spokesman Tom Williams, noting that the process had taken longer than usual.

The letter notes that utility staff left an April 24, 2012, meeting with the agency "with the understanding that NCDENR would consider and clarify their approach for stormwater permitting and communicate that to the companies."  

"We were waiting for action by the staff," Williams said, "and then we were slapped with a violation, ultimately, following the spill."  

DENR spokeswoman Bridget Munger would say only that the response "provided information for our consideration in determining whether to proceed with additional enforcement action."

"DENR staff will make that decision after careful review of the information provided by the utility, as well as all information collected in the department’s recent inspections of Duke Energy facilities statewide," Munger said.

6 Comments

This story is closed for comments. Comments on WRAL.com news stories are accepted and moderated between the hours of 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. Monday through Friday.

Oldest First
View all
  • scubagirl2 Mar 31, 10:38 a.m.

    DO NOT RESCIND THE NOTICES!!!! I canNOT believe the gall of DE.....they have GOT to be on drugs!!!

    They need to be slapped with every single fine possible AND prohibited from raising rates for a couple of years!!!! The can use some of their profits to do things right. The shareholders can ante up (I'm one of them) and just not get some of those dividends every quarter. THAT would be the fair and correct thing to do.....

  • mikeyj Mar 28, 3:25 p.m.

    WTH! Are those people smoking dope?
    It sounds like they are grasping hard here that their knuckles are white. Just scared for my rates when I used to be a "Progress Energy" User

  • GOPtakersSociety Mar 28, 11:57 a.m.

    what's sadly hilarious is that these folks in cahoots with each other are now pointing fingers at each other....criminals tend to do this

  • Stuck in the snow Mar 28, 9:42 a.m.

    In what reality is moving forward without a permit ok? They just admitted to breaking the law. You don't build a house before securing the building permit so why should this be any different. Pay the fine!!

  • rduwxboy Mar 27, 7:57 p.m.

    I'd like to see WRAL dig more into the recent draining into the Cape Fear of a coal ash pond recently. Another news outlet discovered paperwork from a DENR inspector who wrote bout in a report but it wasn't looked into after being turned in.

  • Rebelyell55 Mar 27, 7:42 p.m.

    So at the other sites, since they didn't have permit, they just went about discharge anyway? I guess they thought some of their buddies at DENR was gonna just look the other way or issue an "after the fact" permit?