NCS000348_Written Comments_20200318

Denard, Derek
From: Kristin Goode <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, August 02, 2019 10:43 AM
To: Denard, Derek
Subject: [External] Public Comment Period for NPDES Permit NCO065009
External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
[e-mail]
As a resident of Brunswick County, I am firmly against allowing Capitol Power Plant in Southport to discharge "effluence"
into the canals, rivers, etc, that are noted in their permit application.
Sincerely,
Kristin Goode

Denard, Derek
From: Pete Key <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2019 5:14 PM
To: Denard, Derek
Cc: Environmental Friend
Subject: [External] Public Comment - CPI USA NCDPES Permit
Attachments: CPI USA Public Comment Letter.docx
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Mr. Denard,
We deeply appreciate the opportunity you gave the citizens of Brunswick County, the Caswell Beach & Oak Island
Southport area specifically, to make personal comments on the permit to discharge harmful and toxic chemicals into
public waters in our area. We value the right to claim the right to clean water and environmental conditions. We have
seen the NCDEQ step in to ensure we all have that right protected many times in the past and we hope that you are able
to continue to do that in this case. You and your team did a great job putting together a presentation to help us better
understand the stakes in this permit. As an organization whose mission is to partner with local and state government to
educate and protect our citizens, we appreciate the work you have done so far.
Brunswick Environmental Action Team's comments on the permit are attached.
Warm Regards,
Pete Key - President BEAT
Oak Island, NC
910.448.4068
[e-mail]

�n�yYonment�j9
3r A
Dear Mr. Denard,
Brunswick Environmental Action Team (BEAT) thanks the staff at the NC Department of
Environmental Quality for allowing comments to be submitted on the proposed permit
application for CPI, USA. We appreciate the hard work that you and your staff provide for the
health and safety of the citizens of North Carolina.
BEAT is a group of Brunswick county residents whose mission is to embrace and support
conservation and protection of the environment as core values in personal, business, and
governmental decision making. The objective is to enhance, preserve, and maintain the
Brunswick County living experience. We have frequently come alongside local government
agencies to bring healthy and safe alternatives to challenging environmental issues in our
county. Because we support a healthy and safe environment for our residents we were very
concerned when we learned that CPI, USA ,was requesting a permit to dispose of toxic bottom
ash in the ocean, directly off Caswell Beach where our families and the families of tens of
thousands of North Carolinians recreate each year. We are also concerned about the impacts
these activities may have on the ocean ecosystems and wildlife. We have read that the toxic
chemicals CPI, USA is dumping are diluted to levels not harmful to humans and yet, if the
vacationing tourist knew that these chemicals were being dumped, at unknown times of the
year, they may be inclined to go elsewhere. This would endanger the economy we have built on
tourism on the southeastern shores of North Carolina. Therefore, we feel that no level of
bottom ash dumping is acceptable.
After reading the draft permit application, BEAT respectfully request the NCDEQ reject
the application to discharge these toxic compounds into the ocean. Instead, since as the permit
states, only 17,000 gallons a year are discharged, and a typical full size tanker truck is 11,000
gallons, CPI, USA should be required to capture the effluent and ship it via tanker truck to a
disposal facility similar to what Duke Energy is doing with their own coal ash. Two tanker truck
loads can't be too much of a burden on a company as large as Capitol Power. We believe that
none of this waste product should be allowed to reach the public, when such an easy
alternative exist. We also would feel more secure about the discharge from the plant if there
was a more frequent and cumulative sampling process implemented. The amount of water this
plant uses daily could easily be used to dilute any discharge of any chemical compound they
wished. We would like to see a much more accurate sampling taken over periods of time. There
was mention during the Public Comment session that indicated there was only one grab sample
every five years. If that is true, we find that wholly inadequate to ensure compliance with the
States benchmarks on an ongoing basis.
We believe that ADM and Duke Energy, our other local large corporations, are good
neighbors who do a lot of good in our communities. We support them in the endeavor to make
Brunswick County a great place to live and play. BEAT has no interest in causing our corporate

neighbors any undue regulatory burdens. We do, however, feel that it is our right to have the
freedom to enjoy our public waters and air without suffering the harm caused by lazy and
bottom dollar business practices. A company that produces toxic by-products should prevent
those products from reaching the public at all cost. If that cost is too much, then the process,
and the business model, are not viable. Short cuts that infringe on the public domain should not
be tolerated.
Sincerely,
Peter Key, President BEAT
Oak Island, NC

Denard, Derek
From: Betsy Burnish <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2019 7:08 PM
To: Denard, Derek
Subject: [External] Capital Power Plant discharge permit
External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
[e-mail]
Good evening,
I have just read about the request for a permit by Capital Power Plant to dump 17,000 gallons of ash every 6 months into
the Atlantic Ocean by Caswell Beach. As a resident of this area and a citizen concerned about the environment, I strongly
urge your agency to reject their request.
I can only imagine the logic behind such a request is that the ash will be diffused throughout the ocean. I believe this is
shortsighted and does not address the negative effects of large amounts of waste being placed in a living body of water.
The effects this could cause on the ecosystem of the ocean as well as the people that consume seafood and swim are
long reaching.
Please consider the effects this ash may have on our communities and ocean wildlife, and deny this permit request.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Betsy Burnish

Denard, Derek
From: Hunter Harrison <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2019 2:51 PM
To: Denard, Derek
Subject: [External] Draft NPDES Permit NC 00650099 CPI USA North Carolina, LLC - Town of Caswell Beach
Request for Extension of Public Comment Deadline
Attachments: 2019_8_5 Signed LTR OUT REQUEST FOR EXTENSION .pdf
n
External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
�[e-mail]
Hello Mr. Denard,
Please see attached The Town of Caswell Beach Request for Extension of Public Comment Deadline letter.
Best Regards,
Hunter Harrison
Legal Assistant
1904 Eastwood Rd St 310A
Wilmington, NC 28403
(p) 910.332.0721 1 (p) 888.666.2094 1 (f) 888.290.7817
http://www.hu mph riesfirm. law
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments constitute privileged and confidential attorney -client
communication, and/or confidential proprietary and/or trade secret information intended for the addressee only. This e-
mail and any attachments are covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC §§ 2510-2521, and are
legally privileged. Unauthorized review, use, disclosure, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited. The information
contained in the e-mail and any attachments is intended only for the personal use of the recipient(s) named above. If
you are not the intended recipient you are notified that use, disclosure, distribution or copying is prohibited. If you
receive this e-mail in error, notify the sender at [phone] or by reply e-mail and destroy the original and all copies
of this e-mail and all attachments immediately without reading or saving in any manner.

'yl'umphries
LAW FIRM P.c.
August 5, 2019
VIA EMAIL
Derek Denard
[e-mail]
RE: Draft NPDES Permit NC 00650099 CPI USA North Carolina, LLC -
Town of Caswell Beach Request for Extension of Public Comment
Deadline
Dear Mr. Denard,
It is my understanding that today is the deadline for public comment on the above
referenced renewal permit. I am the Town Attorney for the Town of Caswell Beach and
the Town only recently learned about the pending deadline. The proposed renewal
permit effects the Town of Caswell Beach and its residents and the Town would like the
opportunity to gain a greater understanding of the impact of the potential renewal prior to
making public comment. An extension would allow the Town to investigate and gain
insight from experts and individuals with a greater understanding of how the proposed
renewal permit effects the Town of Caswell Beach. If you have any questions or
concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
1 Justin
p,
Jun Humphries,
Attorney at law
910.332.0721 1904 Eastwood Road, Ste 310A, Wilmington, NC 28403 [e-mail]

Denard, Derek
From: Justin Humphries <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2019 9:00 AM
To: Denard, Derek
Cc: Hunter Harrison
Subject: [External] NPDES Permit NC 00650099 CPI USA North Carolina, LLC - Town of Caswell Beach Request
for Extension of Public Comment Deadline
External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Lre [e-mail]
Mr. Denard,
The Town requests 30 days to prepare comments.
Best regards,
JUSTIN K. HUMPHRIES
Attorney at law
�yl'umphries
LAW FIRM v.c.
1904 Eastwood Rd
Suite 310A
Wilmington, NC 28403
(p) 910.899.8584 1 (p) 888.666.2094 1 (f) 888.290.7817
http://www.humphriesfirm.law
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments constitute privileged and confidential attorney -client
communication, and/or confidential proprietary and/or trade secret information intended for the addressee only. This e-
mail and any attachments are covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC §§ 2510-2521, and are
legally privileged. Unauthorized review, use, disclosure, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited. The information
contained in the e-mail and any attachments is intended only for the personal use of the recipient(s) named above. If
you are not the intended recipient you are notified that use, disclosure, distribution or copying is prohibited. If you
receive this e-mail in error, notify the sender at [phone] or by reply e-mail and destroy the original and all copies
of this e-mail and all attachments immediately without reading or saving in any manner.

Denard, Derek
From: Chris Clarke <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2019 10:10 AM
To: SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject: [External] CPI permit application (NPDES permit# NCO06SO99 & NC000348)
External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
[e-mail]
My wife and I were at the Public Hearing regarding the renewal of the above permits for CPI USA NC LLC on 11/21/19.
We are residents of Southport, living at 612 W. Brown St., Unit D, Southport, NC 28461. Thank you for holding this
informational meeting. I wanted to express my concerns regarding the fuels that CPI is currently burning to generate
electric power.
I understand from the information at the meeting and the South Port Pilot news paper that CPI is not dumping any ash
from their operations into the water, but I strongly oppose allowing this company to continue to burn old railroad ties
(previously treated with creosote) and old used shredded tires; which are both full of toxic chemicals. I have personally
seen the ash residue from their process falling on homes near the plant and several people attending the meeting that
live in neighborhoods near the plant mentioned the same. Even if the water CPI is allowed to add to the Duke Power
cooling water discharged to the Cape Fear River site has no ash in it, the ash in their power generation process is getting
into the atmosphere and ultimately back into the environment and waterways!
It's time that we wake up and start making some tough (smart) decisions regarding what we are doing to the
environment that we all are live in. Increasingly we see more information regarding toxic chemicals being found in the
air and water. Drinking water supplies are continually found to have more and more contaminants in them; "GenX" is
one sad example in our area that we are dealing with! Aside from the drinking water issue our fish stocks and the marine
life are also being fouled by these chemicals. All of these issues have health impacts on all us and will continue to get
worse unless we wake up and take a stand now.
The bottom line is that I ask your agency, in considering the CPI permit renewal, to require them to burn fuels that are
known to be as clean (non -toxic) as possible, such as natural gas. I did see that the burning of coal has largely been
curtailed, which is certainly a positive, but old railroad ties and shredded tires are not in any way clean and non -toxic
and those fuels need to be eliminated now!
Thank you again for holding the meeting on 11/21 and considering input from the public prior to proceeding with the
renewals for the CPI permits mentioned above.
Respectfully,
Chris L. Clarke
612 W. Brown St., Unit D
Southport, NC 28461
email: [e-mail]
ph. [phone]

Denard, Derek
From: Phil Dudley <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2019 9:51 AM
To: SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Cc: Dudley Phil; Sue Dudley; Nicholas Jimenez
Subject: [External] CPI Renewal Permit
External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
[e-mail]
At the public hearing last night it was shocking to learn that the CPI operating permit has had so little state oversight. I
am a resident of Oak Island and have a vested interest in the water discharge. Frankly, it is beyond belief that CPI
performs its own monitoring and that the permit allows ash to be pumped into the ocean.
Self Monitoring
The only testing of the water discharge is done by CPI themselves and only once per year - did I hear that
correctly?! Please require the new permit to have testing performed by an independent third party and randomly each
and every month. Please set limits on all heavy metals and arsenic.
CPI is a business focused on profits. That's fine, capitalism works, but it works best for all when we have state oversight
of air and water discharges that effect the larger population.
If I was the CPI owner would I perform my self test while I was discharging ash from burning tires and creosote treated
railroad ties?
Ash Discharge
Where else in the state do we permit power plant ash to be discharged into public waters? That is the way third world
countries deal with power plant ash. Ash needs to be retained and land -filled in monitored, lined facilities.
Please protect the citizens North Carolina and preserve our natural resources!
All the best,
Phil Dudley
218 Sellers St.
Oak Island, NC 28465

Denard, Derek
From: Brittany Pace <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, August 02, 2019 4:38 PM
To: Denard, Derek
Subject: [External] DEQ/ DWR/ NPDES Program
Attachments: Fort Caswell Letter Regarding CPI 07.31.19.pdf
External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
[e-mail]
Mr. Denard,
Please accept the attached letter from Fort Caswell regarding the Draft NPDES Permit NC00650099,
Southport Power Plant (CPI). We wanted to express our concerns about the CPI renewal permit. If you have
any questions, please let me know.
Sincerely,
Brittany Pace
Environmental Stewardship Program
Coastal Education Coordinator
(P) 910-278-9501
� fA�"`FORT CASWELL
COASTAL itETREAT & C.C�NFE-RE-MC:E CE ITE-R.

0IFFORTCASWELL
COASTAL RETREAT & CONFERENCE CEN TER
July 31, 2019
Derek Denard, Environmental Specialist
Division of Water Resources
N.C. Department of Environmental Quality
derek.denard�7a,,ncdenr.gov
RE: Draft NPDES Permit NCO0650099
CPI USA North Carolina, LLC — Southport
Brunswick County
Dear Mr. Denard,
Fort Caswell would like to submit the following comments on the proposed
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") renewal permit for CPI
USA North Carolina, LLC's ("CPI") Southport Power Plant, noticed for public comment
by the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality ("DEQ").
Surrounded by the salt marsh, Cape Fear River, and Atlantic Ocean, Fort Caswell is at the
eastern end of a south -facing barrier island known as Oak Island. Fort Caswell is owned
and operated by the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina and is on the National
Register of Historic Places. Our campus sees thousands of people every year who enjoy
recreational and educational water activities in the Caswell Beach area. We want to
ensure the safety of our guests to do so want to make sure contamination associated with
wastewater discharge from the CPI is eliminated. It's our understanding that the
discharge empties into the Atlantic Ocean at Caswell Beach.
We request that DEQ go further to limit contaminants associated with the bottom ash
transport water, coal pile runoff, wood and tire derived fuel pile runoff, and other
wastewaters (boiler feed water, boiler blowdown, and misc. sumps), discharged from this
facility. The current draft permit needs to include the following as requirements: stronger
preventative measures, more frequent monitoring of all Outfalls, physical testing the
wastewater for listed pollutants, compliance with water quality based effluent limits, and
prevent discharge of hazardous chemicals. It is imperative to require effective
pretreatment protocols and comprehensive monitoring of discharge from CPI to protect
human health and the environment.
Sincerely,
Britta P ce
Coastal Education Coordinator
Brian Hemphill
Fort Caswell Director
100 CASWELL BEACH RD - OAK ISLAND, NC 28465
[phone] - WWW.FORTCASWELL.COM

Denard, Derek
From: Kennedy Gilly <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, August 02, 2019 10:44 AM
To: Denard, Derek
Subject: [External] Coal Ash Capitol Power Plant
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
I'm digging into this now but I don't think I'd want to eat any fish from that big box off Caswell Beach until my science
friends give me the green light. The Capitol Power Plant in Southport is applying for a new permit to discharge
"effluence" into the canal that empties into that box. What I know is, the power plant burns half adulterated wood,
creosote wood/treated lumber, and half tires to generate steam which the feed to ADM and Duke Energy. The ash gets
concentrated in lagoon which they pump off twice a year and scrape out the contents which the truck off. The residual
bottom ash (coal ash), about 17,000 gallons gets washed into the Atlantic ocean. The Comment period ends tomorrow,
August 2nd. Contact Derek Danard at NCDEQ email, [e-mail]

,._...,. Progress Fn�•' Arun1, ot_
Stern E.keclrit Fsr�wer
,';1lrinm Dis h.vge Cnnia
:•uM1 anulh �Innp. t us„ i
.
f 'T
}P
'-f 1
-- I
Aprwdnidie
E IC31itx Boundary '
1
I[R[ 5xrtl_P7 1 j
CPI USA North Cvrulins LLC N
Recris'g:irteaen:rrTin AiWLic0=m 5lrrlm ads. Srti .k4314`N.-7R:PI,flir'
Ri,erBmm:CWFer HLaL':o]A3[K duw€N .v`AI.I; t4CGrkf:l�6hik
Coumly: Bmne+nick IaRrun IUSGSQuad: Sumhpon. Nc
Don't let this happen Mr. Denard! We've already had enough issues with coal ash. Duke Energy and other similar
companies can go to hell.
ra

11/26/2019 RECEIVED
Mr. Derek Denard DEC 4 5 Y019
N.C. Division of Water Resources
Water Quality Permitting Section,
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1617 NCDE,.,,,vKi'NPDES
Dear Mr. Denard,
My wife and I are residents of "Harbor Oaks", Southport, NC 28461 and live only a few miles from the
Capital Power (CPI) USA North Carolina LLC. I believe CPI is a Canadian owned company. This plant, according to
web information, is an 88-megawatt power plant that burns coal, tires, and wood. Capital Power sells steam to the
nearby Archer Daniels Midland plant and sells electricity generated by its superheated steam to its neighbors at
Duke Energy's Brunswick Nuclear Plan.
Harbor Oaks is one of the three (3) mid -size subdivision located about .5 +/- miles from the CPI plant. Each day
Harbor Oaks residents, and I am sure others, witness daily, CPI's release of what many describe as harmful
elements, which may or may not contain cancer causing carcinogens into the atmosphere. The plant, while
burning a tremendous amount of what appears to be cresol treated wood and tire -rubber, in addition to dumping
its significant waste into the Duke Energy canal that ends up in the Atlantic Ocean, also generates a significant
amount "black" smoke from its smokestack. As the result of this "black smoke" discharge, our homes and
vehicles are often covered in a black soot type substance. At one point a year or so ago, CPI, after the city of
Southport complained, CPI admitted that there was a malfunction of the CPI smoke discharge operation, and
agreed to pay for having our homes power washed and vehicles cleaned. Although I guess "things" harmed by the
CIP operation, can be cleaned, I am more concerned that this soot like substance in the air is also entering our
lungs may be a contributing factor respiratory illness and perhaps even cancer.
I do not claim to be an environmental expert, and I am certainly not a chemist. However, I believe, at a minimum,
the CPI operation is likely damaging our environment (if not the people who live nearby the plant) and whoever at
the "North Carolina state government level" is responsible for environment/health issues such as this needs to
address and fix this problem.
Since"y,
G n rc c o
608 ullivan's Ridge Road
Southport, NC 28461

Denard, Derek
From: Steve Jones <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, August 02, 2019 1:11 PM
To: Denard, Derek
Subject: [External] Caswell Beach Runoff
External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
[e-mail]
I own two homes in OKI and visit Caswell regularly and encourage others to do so.
If the pollution run-off or discharge "effluence" is allowed there will be no more visits to Caswell.
Please Sir turn this request down.
Sincerely,
Johnie Jones

Denard, Derek
From: Pete Kozloski <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, November 29, 2019 12:26 PM
To: SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject: [External] CPI Renewal
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Hypothetical .... My company, from Canada, wants to build a power plant in Southport, NC. We will be providing power
and steam to local companies. We plan on burning, coal, railroad ties and tires. We will dispose of our wastewater and
storm water, approximately 400 thousand gallons daily, into the Atlantic Ocean. We will have approximately 250 trucks
a day, delivering materials and removing ash. All of our technology will be from 1987. The plant will generator noise,
that will be heard for miles around the plant, all day long, 7 dgys a week. And ash will be a constant problem for the
surrounding facilities and neighborhoods. What are the chances of this plant being approved today?
I think I have made my point. Unless CPI can meet todays federal, state and local government standards, the plant
should be shut down.
Peter Kozloski
5134 Prices Creek Dr.
Southport, NC 28461
207-409-6910

Denard, Derek
From: Lynne Marvin <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, December 13, 2019 9:02 AM
To: SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject: [External] CPI Permit Renewal
External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
[e-mail]
As residents of Caswell Beach we are seriously concerned with the potential of harmful bottom ash
wash and other pollutants being released into our waters, both river and ocean. We would like you to
insure that the plant's pollution controls installed in 1987 have been upgraded to standards currently
available. As we are having stronger and more frequent storms, CPI should be required to insure that
they have included adequate safeguards to protect us.
DEQ should require scans for priority pollutants at least once every year rather once every permit
period (every five years). Tests should be based on composite samples rather than grab
samples. Some sampling should be done by an outside independent source rather than depending
on self reporting by CPI alone.
It is our understanding that testing is being done for our fresh water, but we strongly feel that testing
should also be done for our salt water. A healthy beach and clean water is essential to our residents
as well as the many families who visit our beach every year.
Clark and Lynne Marvin

Denard, Derek
From: Vicki MORRISON <[e-mail]>
Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2019 2:56 PM
To: SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject: [External] CPI
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
My husband and I are residents of Southport and recently attend the public hearing for CPI permit renewal. At the
meeting, it was mentioned that CPI initially received approval to burn coal, tires and treated wood in Southport in 2006.
Part of the reason that CPI was granted this permit was due to the fact that in 2006, Southport was deemed to be a
"rural" area with approximately 2500 residents. It is important to note that since this permit was granted, our town has
grown to a population of approximately 3800 residents. We are currently experiencing a 58.4% growth rate. CPI
discharge of waste and noxious gases is affecting more and more of the residents who are part of this town. We are no
longer a rural area and, in my opinion, it is time for DEQ to recognize that and deny a permit to this facility.
Vicki Morrison
513 Majestys Court
Southport, NC 28461

Denard, Derek
From: Brittany Mowery <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, August 02, 2019 2:59 AM
To: Denard, Derek
Subject: [External] Capitol power plant permit
External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
[e-mail]
The Capitol Power Plant in Southport is applying for a new permit to discharge "effluence" into the canal. What I know
is, the power plant burns half adulterated wood, creosote wood/treated lumber, and half tires to generate steam which
they feed to ADM and Duke Energy. The ash gets concentrated in lagoon which they pump off twice a year and scrape
out the contents which they truck off. The residual bottom ash (coal ash), about 17,000 gallons gets washed into the
Atlantic ocean.
Please do not allow this permit to progress. We just moved from Salisbury, NC. Our water table was contaminated and
was causing cases of cancer all from our well water. Due to Duke powers negligence with their coal ash. My children and
their peers will come in contact with that water, our beautiful wildlife will suffer, the further sickness of natural reefs will
only worsen.
This is one of the small moments that will greatly impact the world for our children and grandchildren. Please do the
right thing and not let this happen. There's no amount of dilution that coal ash will undergo when being flushed out that
will make it safe. Then duke will try to further hike our prices to clean up their negligent mess again like they are already
doing. We already know these aren't good or morally right practices. We can not let it continue!
Our children dont deserve heightened risks of developing cancer. Before a decision is made maybe any one who gets a
final say in this should walk a Childrens cancer ward and see the suffering and hopelessness.
Brittany L. Mowery

Garcia, Lauren V
From: [e-mail]
Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2019 8:15 AM
To: Garcia, Lauren V
Subject: [External] CPI USA North Carolina LLC Discharge Permits
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
i
External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
[e-mail]
Please accept this written comment requesting that the discharge permits requested by CPI USA be denied. No
discharge from their operations should be allowed in the ocean or other waterways.
Thank you for your consideration.
Diane Baldwin
2571 West Dolphin Drive
Oak Island, NC 28465
1

Garcia, Lauren V
From: Kurt Conner <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, September 13, 2019 4:55 PM
To: Garcia, Lauren V
Cc: Chandra Taylor; Nick Jimenez; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: [External] CPI Southport Stormwater Permit Comments - Draft NPDES Permit
NCS000348
Attachments: 2019-09-13 CPI Southport Stormwater Comment Letter.pdf
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
[e-mail]
Dear Ms. Garcia:
On behalf of Cape Fear River Watch, North Carolina Coastal Federation, and Attorneys Chandra Taylor and Nick Jimenez
of the Southern Environmental Law Center, I submit the enclosed comment letter for Draft NPDES Permit NCS000348.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Thank you.
Kurt Conner
Legal Assistant
SOUTHERN
ENVIRONMENTAL
LAW CENTER
601 West Rosemary Street, Suite 220
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27516-2356
Phone: [phone] x126; Fax: [phone]
www. SouthemEnvironment. ora
This electronic message and any attached files are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the
addressee(s) named above. This communication may contain material protected by attorney -client, work
product or other privileges. If you are not the intended recipient or person responsible for delivering this
confidential communication to the intended recipient(s), and/or you have received this communication in error,
then any review, use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, copying or other distribution of this email message
and any attached files is strictly prohibited. If you have received this confidential communication in error,
please notify me immediately by reply email message and permanently delete the original message.
`,A Please consider the environment before printing this email.

SOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER
Telephone [phone] WEST ROSEMARY STREET, SUITE 220 Facsimile 919-929-9421
CHAPEL HILL, INC 27516-2356
September 13, 2019
Via E-Mail
Lauren Garcia
NPDES Industrial Stormwater Program
Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
217 West Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
[e-mail]
Re: Draft NPDES Permit NCS000348
CPI USA North Carolina, LLC — Southport Plant
1281 Powerhouse Drive
Southport, NC
Brunswick County
Dear Ms. Garcia,
On behalf of Cape Fear River Watch, North Carolina Coastal Federation, and itself, the
Southern Environmental Law Center submits these comments on the proposed National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") stormwater renewal permit for CPI USA North
Carolina, LLC's ("CPI") Southport Power Plant ("Draft Renewal Permit") recently noticed for
public comment by the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality ("DEQ") and its
Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources ("DEMLR").
For reasons set forth below, DEMLR should strengthen the draft permit. Stormwater
discharges from the Southport Power Plant appear to exceed the water quality standards that
apply to Price Creek on occasion, indicating a need for better control measures. In addition, the
low-lying coastal site is highly vulnerable to severe storms and flooding. Storms increase the
likelihood that contaminants will escape from the site in stormwater. Stormwater at the site
collects from areas that contain a wide variety of hazardous materials, including tens of
thousands of gallons of transformer oil that may contain highly toxic polychlorinated biphenyls
("PCBs"). Finally, the draft permit does not ensure that coal pile runoff that escapes
channelization to the wastewater system will meet the effluent limitation guidelines.
Charlottesville • Chapel Hill • Atlanta • Asheville • Birmingham • Charleston • Nashville • Richmond • Washington, DC

1. Price Creek and the Lower Cape Fear River
Stormwater from the Southport Power Plant discharges into Price Creek, a tributary of
the Cape Fear River.' The General Assembly declared that "among North Carolina's most
valuable resources are its coastal lands and waters" which have "extremely high ... esthetic
value. ,2
The coastal and marine environment surrounding Price Creek and the lower Cape Fear
River is no different, boasting a spectacular tidal creek and marsh system and supporting myriad
valuable natural resources. Among those resources are fish habitats vital to the State's economy.
Parts of this area have been designated as essential fish habitat or habitat areas of particular
concern under the Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C.
§§ 1801-91, to protect a variety of species, including red drum, king and Spanish mackerel,
cobia, Atlantic butterfish, bluefish, summer flounder, shrimp, ten shark species, and over fifty
snapper -grouper species.3 The lower Cape Fear River is also designated as critical habitat for the
federally endangered Atlantic sturgeon, which can live up to sixty years and travels upriver to
spawn. Hundreds of acres of riverine, estuarine, and nearshore coastal waters up and down the
coast, including those surrounding the mouth of the Cape Fear River, serve as nursery areas
where post -larval and juvenile development of young finfish and crustaceans takes place.4
Sea turtles are commonly found within the estuarine and coastal zone surrounding the
Cape Fear River mouth, as neighboring Caswell Beach and Bald Head Island are important
nesting grounds for these animals. North Carolina is home to five species of sea turtle, including
the federally threatened loggerhead sea turtle. Both nesting and non -breeding sea turtles of all
ages can be found in inshore and nearshore waters throughout the year.5 Sea turtles are iconic
' N.C. Dep't of Envt'l Quality, Div. of Energy, Mineral, and Land Res., Permit to
Discharge Stormwater Under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System No.
NCS000348 at 1 (2019) (hereinafter "Draft Stormwater Permit").
2 N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113A-102.
3 S. ATL. FISHERIES MGMT. COUNCIL, ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT —HABITAT AREAS OF
PARTICULAR CONCERN (EFH-HAPC) AND CORAL HABITAT AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN (C-
HAPC), htlp:Hsafmc.net/M-content/uploads/2016/06/EFH-HAPC20Table.pdf.
4 See 15A N.C. Admin. Code 3I.0101(4)(f) (differentiating between primary, secondary,
and special secondary nursery areas).
5 Sheryan P. Epperly, et al., Sea Turtles in North Carolina's Waters, CONSERVATION
BIOLOGY (Apr. 1995).
2

elements of the tourism industry in North Carolina. On neighboring Bald Head Island, sea turtle
viewing activities bring in as much as thirty million dollars per year in tourism spending.6
The diversity of habitats found on Bald Head and Oak Islands which border the Cape
Fear River mouth supports a great diversity of bird life throughout the year; over 330 species of
bird have been spotted in this region, from bald eagles to piping plovers. A network of bird
sanctuaries stretches across the five Brunswick barrier islands, making this region a paradise for
birders. Thousands of shorebirds stop over during winter migration, utilizing the extensive tidal
flats, marshes, and beaches. Bald Head Island supports the state's largest population of breeding
painted buntings, and the lower Cape Fear River supports the state's largest group of great
cormorants.8 In addition, dozens of marine mammal species frequent North Carolina's nearshore
waters and can often be seen from the oceanfront. Examples of such species include humpback
whales, bottlenose dolphins, and West Indian manatees.
2. Southport Power Plant
Southport Power Plant is an eighty-eight megawatt power facility located in Southport,
near the mouth of the Cape Fear River and just down the street from Duke Energy Progress'
Brunswick Nuclear Power Plant. CPI sells steam from the plant to the food industry giant
Archer Daniels Midland Company, and sells electricity to Duke Energy under a power purchase
agreement. Alberta -based CPI purchased the plant in 2006. In 2008,9 it converted the plant from
burning coal to burning "a combination of TDF (z 40%), wood (z 50%), and coal (z 10%) on a
heat input basis," although "each of the boilers is permitted to burn up to 50% of TDF on a heat
input basis."10 "TDF," or "tire -derived fuel," is essentially old tires that have been shredded,
6 Kate Elizabeth Queram, Report — Sea Turtles Have Economic Impact, STAR NEWS
(Dec. 4, 2013), http://www.stamewsonline.com/news/20131204/report---sea-turtles-have-
economic-impact.
7 Brunswick Islands Birding, N.C.'s BRUNSWICK ISLANDS,
https://www.ncbrunswick.com/activity/brunswick-bird-watching (last visited Jul. 24, 2019).
8 Bald Head — Smith Island, AUDUBON, hM2s://www.audubon.or /g important-bird-
areas/bald-head-smith-island (last visited Sept. 13, 2019).
9 See Letter from Brad Newland, Regional Air Quality Supervisor, Division of Air
Quality, NCDEQ, to Frank Hayward, Plant Manager, CPI USA North Carolina —Southport
Plant, July 12, 2018 (discussing emissions of carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and particulate
matter significantly higher than projected emissions in permit application for 2008 boiler control
retrofit and increased wood/biomass firing project) (available on Laserfiche).
10 Draft Wastewater Permit Fact Sheet 2 (available on request).

which likely would otherwise be landfilled.11 CPI has received permit modifications to burn
"adulterated resinated wood," to burn creosote -treated wood, and to construct and operate a "new
rail tie grinder," among other activities.12
The stormwater associated with steam electric generation power plants varies depending
on the activities conducted outside, hydrogeology, type, duration, and intensity of precipitation
events, and other factors.13 Stormwater from the Southport facility flows into Price Creek, which
is downhill from the site, 14and the stormwater system appears to collect stormwater from the
downhill portion of the majority of the site.15 The stormwater likely contains any runoff not
proactively captured and routed to the facility's wastewater system. Even stormwater sources
that are intended to be captured and routed to wastewater outfalls likely will be discharged as
stormwater during severe storms, particularly when the site is flooded. For example, the pad in
the coal storage area directs runoff to the wastewater treatment system via a concrete -lined
ditch.16 Recent discharge monitoring reports show that stormwater from the facility contains
elevated levels of aluminum, antimony, arsenic, boron, chromium, copper, lead, nickel,
selenium, and zinc.17
Specific sources of stormwater at the facility include: the transformer yard, including
main transformers and auxiliary transformers, containing a total of approximately 22,000 gallons
of transformer oil; the turbine building, including a turbine oil tank containing 2,000 gallons of
lubricating oil and an electro-hydraulic controller 160 gallons of hydraulic oil; the oil trap pit
containing as much as 12,160 gallons of miscellaneous oil; the demineralizer building, including
acid tanks, caustic tanks, and a drum storage area, containing 4,600 gallons of sulfuric acid and
11 Tire Derived Fuel (TDF)—Overview, SCRAP TIRE NEWS (last visited Aug. 2, 2019),
https:Hscraptirenews.com/tdf php.
12 Draft Wastewater Permit Fact Sheet 3.
13 U.S. ENVT'L PROT. AGENCY, INDUSTRIAL STORMWATER FACT SHEET SERIES: SECTOR
O: STEAM ELECTRIC POWER GENERATING FACILITIES, INCLUDING COAL HANDLING AREAS, EPA-
833-F-06-030 at 2 (2006), https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-
10/documents/sector o steamelectricpower.pdf.
14 Draft Stormwater Permit i, 2.
15 See Southport Site Plan (July 25, 2013) (available on Laserfiche).
16 Capital Power Corp., Stormwater Outfall Evaluation and Best Management Plan
Summary 2 (Feb. 3, 2014) (available on Laserfiche); see also Southport Plant Site Plan (July 25,
2017) (available on Laserfiche) (showing locations of fuel piles and storm drains).
17 Stormwater Discharge Monitoring Reports (May 28, 2015 & Nov. 2, 2015) (available
on Laserfiche).
19

4,600 gallons of sodium hydroxide; the rail car unloading area, including a diesel fuel tank
containing 300 gallons of diesel fuel and a 30 gallon hydraulic oil tank; the pump house,
including a 300-gallon diesel fuel tank for a back-up pump and a 125-gallons of transformer oil
for the electric fire pump transformer; the oil storage room containing 300 gallons of used oil and
miscellaneous oil products; the wastewater building, including acid drums with 55 gallons of
sulfuric acid and caustic drums with 55 gallons of sodium hydroxide; and the cooling tower area
including a chemical storage area with 2,000 gallons of an unidentified proprietary chemical, and
a sulfuric acid storage area with 2,110 gallons of sulfuric acid.18
Although not listed above, according to the facility's wastewater permitting materials,
exposed materials also include fly ash stored at ash silos and unloading stations.19 Management
practices for these materials include "good housekeeping" and a wet slurry for fly ash,
containment and a sand filter for proprietary chemicals, and secondary containment for the diesel
and oil.20 Ash could enter the stormwater if dikes fail or are overtopped.21
Accordingly, a wide variety of materials at the facility are exposed to precipitation.22 Of
greatest concern is approximately 22,000 gallons of transformer oil, which often contains highly
toxic PCBs.23 The transformer oil tanks do not have full -volume secondary containrnent.24
According to the CPI's "materials management practice and control measures (BPMs),"
transformer oil is handled by "Gravity discharge to Oil Trap Pit; oil is removed; accumulated
18 Southport Power Plant Expansion Construction Documents, Site Layout Map, Fig. 2
(July 25, 2013) (available on Laserfiche).
19Id. at PDF 31-32.
20 Id.
21 See Capital Power Corp., Stormwater Outfall Evaluation and Best Management Plan
Summary 2 (Feb. 3, 2014) (available via DEMLR Laserfiche).
22 See also Renewal Application for NPDES Wastewater permit NC00650099, Table A
(PDF 31-32).
23 CPI states on its website that Southport started in 1987. Southport Power Plant,
CAPITAL POWER, https://www.capitalpower.com/operations/southport-power-plant/ (last visited
Aug. 2, 2019). Manufacture of PCBs was banned in the US in 1977. If the facility purchased all
new equipment and materials, it is unclear if PCBs would be present in the transformer oil. In
addition, in its last draft NPDES wastewater permit for the facility, the Division of Water
Resources specifically prohibited the facility from discharging PCBs, indicating that DWR
believes the chemicals to be present.
24 Renewal Application for NPDES Wastewater Permit NC00650099 at PDF 29 (stating
simply that "Any spillage from these tanks and transformers would normally be contained.").

stormwater is pumped to Wastewater Basin."25 The application further states that the method of
stormwater treatment is "none."26 This presents several problems discussed in separate
comments on draft NPDES wastewater permit NC00650099, but it is also relevant here.
Although oil is expected to drain to the oil trap pit, during a severe storm the site easily can
flood27 and spread these materials through stormwater to Price Creek —and as stated above, the
entire transformer yard is a source of stormwater.
Any runoff from the fuel piles at the facility that escapes the wastewater system —such as
during a severe storm —likely contains a variety of serious contaminants. Coal contains multiple
constituents of concern, including metals such as antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium,
cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, and thallium,28 among many
others.29 Adulterated wood may contain any number of contaminants, including arsenic,
chromium, and lead .30 Creosote is a mixture of hundreds of chemicals including polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons ("PAHs"), phenol, and creosols.31 Creosote may be carried by water and
bio-accumulate in plants and animals such as snails, shellfish, and oysters.32 Exposure to
" Id. at PDF 31.
26 Id.
27 See John Murawski, Floods limit access to Duke's Brunswick nuclear plant; crews use
porta potties, cots, THE NEWS & OBSERVER (Sept. 17, 2018 12:27AM),
htlps://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article2l8530735.html.
28 See Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System; Disposal of Coal Combustion
Residuals From Electric Utilities, 80 Fed. Reg. 21301 (Apr. 17, 2015),
https://www.federalre ig'ster.gov/documents/2015/04/17/2015-00257/hazardous-and-solid-waste-
management-system-disposal-of-coal-combustion-residuals-from-electric.
29 See 40 C.F.R. § 257.96(a) (referencing constituents listed in Appendix IV); 40 C.F.R.
§ Pt. 257, App. IV (listing Constituents for Assessment Monitoring).
30 See U.S. ENVT'L PROT. AGENCY, WOOD PRODUCTS IN THE WASTE STREAM —
CHARACTERIZATION AND COMBUSTION EMISSIONS, VOL. I TECHNICAL REPORT 7-22 to 7-23
(1996),
htlps://cfpub.epa. ovg /si/sipublic _record _report. cfm?Lab=NRMRL&dirEntryId=115188.
31 U.S. DEP'T OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVS., AGENCY FOR TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND
DISEASE REGISTRY, CREOSOTE HEALTH EFFECTS: FORMER KERR MCGEE (TRONOX) FACILITY 1
(2006),
htlps://www.atsdr.edc. gov/sites/KerrMcGee/docs/Creosote%20Health%20Effects%20(Tronoxp
df.
32 Id. at 1-2.

creosote causes a wide variety of health problems ranging from stomach pains to convulsions,
birth defects, and cancer.33
These materials are harmful if released into the human environment, and the threat of
release grows each year as climate change makes severe storms more frequent and more severe.
Again, the greatest concern is the potential release of PCBs. PCBs, a known human carcinogen,
are present in transformer oil. When PCBs are exposed to stormwater and carried into
waterbodies, they end up settling in sediment. The main concern over PCBs in marine
environments is their high bioaccumulation capacity. PCBs have a high affinity for organic,
particulate matter, meaning they easily settle and become attached to ocean sediments. Small
benthic organisms like crustaceans feeding on bottom materials consume the PCBs and are
subsequently consumed by larger organisms. The effects of PCBs are greatly magnified as they
continue to accumulate up the food chain and persist in the fatty tissues of large animals like sea
turtles and marine mammals. Studies have shown that relatively low concentrations of PCBs in
aquatic environment can result in the accumulation of relatively high levels in aquatic animals.34
Marine mammals are particularly vulnerable to the toxic effects of PCBs because of their
high trophic level, long life span, and high fat content.35 For example, bottlenose dolphins off
the coast of South Carolina and Georgia have suffered from the effects of PCB contamination
from a Superfund site in Brunswick, Georgia.36 Scientists have demonstrated that this exposure
caused anemia, reduced endocrine function, and decreased immunity within the population.37
Compromised immune function in marine mammals is especially concerning, as it can leave
individuals more susceptible to infectious diseases and spread quickly among social groups,
33 Id. at 2-3.
34 Fact Sheet, Polychlorinated Biphenyls — ToxFAQs, AGENCY FOR Toxic SUBSTANCES &
DISEASE REGISTRY (ATSDR) (Jul. 2014), htips://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/tfactsl7.pdf.
35 See Alex Aguilar, et al., Biological factors affecting variability of persistent pollutant
levels in cetaceans, J. CETACEAN RES. MGMT. (1999).
36 Brian C. Balmer, et al., Relationship between persistent organic pollutants (POPS) and
ranging patterns in common bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) from coastal Georgia,
USA, Sci. TOTAL ENVT (Feb. 2011).
37 Lori H. Schwacke, et al., Anaemia, hypothyroidism and immune suppression
associated with polychlorinated biphenyl exposure in bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus),
PROC. ROYAL Soc'Y B: BIOL. SCI. (May 2011).
7

leading to large-scale population mortality.38 In addition, female dolphins contaminated with
PCBs can pass them on to their young, leading to reproductive failure or calf death.39
Although sea turtles accumulate lower concentrations of PCBs than marine mammals,
exposure can nonetheless lead to a variety of negative impacts. In loggerhead sea turtles, PCB
exposure has been shown to cause anemia, reduced immune function, and generally poor body
condition.40 Since PCBs are often stored in fat cells, contamination may also lead to pansteatitis,
or "yellow fat disease," in sea turtles, which causes extreme inflammation and swelling of fatty
tissues.al
3. Clean Water Act Permitting
"The Clean Water Act was enacted to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the waters of the United States. It establishes a goal of eliminating the
discharge of pollutants to [waters of the United States] ."42 To accomplish this goal, the Act
prohibits discharging any pollutant except in compliance with certain provisions of the Act.a3
The primary exception to liability is for discharges made pursuant to a National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") permit.44 NPDES permits control pollution by setting
(1) limits based on the technology available to treat pollutants ("technology based effluent
38 See, e.g., Marie-Franroise Van Bressem, et al., Cetacean morbillivirus: Current
knowledge and future directions, VIRUSES (Dec. 2014).
39 Randall S. Wells, et al., Integrating life -history and reproductive success data to
examine potential relationships with organochlorine compounds for bottlenose dolphins
(Tursiops truncatus) in Sarasota Bay, Florida, SCI. TOTAL, ENV'T (Oct. 2005).
40 See, e.g., Maria Camacho, et al., Potential adverse health effects ofpersistent organic
pollutants on sea turtles: Evidences from a cross -sectional study on Cape Verde loggerhead sea
turtles, So. TOTAL, ENv'T (Aug. 2013); Jennifer M. Keller, et al., Effects of organochlorine
contaminants on loggerhead sea turtle immunity: Comparison of a correlative field study and in
vitro exposure experiments, ENVTL,. HEALTH PERSP. (Jan. 2006); Jorge Orbs, et al., High levels of
polychlorinated biphenyls in tissues of Atlantic turtles stranded in the Canary Islands, Spain,
CHEMOSPHERE (Jan. 2009).
41 Jorge Orbs, et al., Pansteatitis associated with high levels of polychlorinated biphenyls
in a wild loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta, DISEASES OF AQUATIC ORGANISMS (Feb. 2013).
42 33 U.S.C. § 1251.
43 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a).
44 Piney Run Pres. Assn v. Cty. Commis of Carroll Cty., MD, 268 F.3d 255, 265 (4th
Cir. 2001).

limits" or "TBELs") and (2) any additional limits necessary to protect water quality ("water
quality -based effluent limits" or "WQBELs") on the wastewater dischargers.45 An NPDES
permit must assure compliance with all statutory and regulatory requirements, including state
water quality standards.46
DEQ issues NPDES permits under authority delegated to North Carolina by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (`EPA").47 North Carolina's primary statute for
implementing its NPDES permitting program is N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-215.1, which requires a
permit from the Environmental Management Commission ("EMC") before any person may
"make any outlet into waters of the state," or
[c]ause or permit any waste, directly or indirectly, to be discharged to or in any manner
intermixed with the waters of the State in violation of the water quality standards
applicable to the assigned classifications or in violation of any effluent standards or
limitations established for any point source, unless allowed as a condition of any permit.
48
The EMC has the power to issue permits with such conditions as the EMC believes are necessary
to achieving the purposes of Article 21 of Chapter 143 of the General Statutes, including NPDES
permits.49 The EMC has delegated its authority to issue NPDES permits to DEQ, specifically, its
Division of Water Resources.
Discharges of stormwater associated with industrial activity are subject to the NPDES
permitting requirements.50 This includes meeting all applicable provisions of the NPDES
45 33 U.S.C. § 1311(b), 1314(b); 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(a)(1), (d).
46 33 U.S.C. § 1342(a)(1)(A); 40 C.F.R. § 122.43(a); 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2H .0118;
see also 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2H .0112(c) ("No permit may be issued when the imposition of
conditions cannot reasonably ensure compliance with applicable water quality standards."); N.C.
Gen. Stat. §§ 143-215.6A-C (authorizing civil and criminal penalties and injunctive relief for
violations of surface water standards).
47 See 33 U.S.C. § 1342(b); National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Memorandum of Agreement Between the State of North Carolina and the United States
Environmental Protection Agency Region 4 (2007),
https://www. epa. gov/sites/production/files/2013-09/documents/nc-moa-npdes.pdf.
4s N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-215.1.
49 N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-215.1(b).
51 See 33 U.S.C. §§ 1342(p)(2)(B), (p)(3)(A); see also Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner
191 F.3d 1159, 1163-65 (9th Cir. 1999); 40 C.F.R. § 122.26(a)(6)(i).
W

program and the effluent limitations in 33 U.S.C. § 131 L" Stormwater associated with
industrial activity includes stormwater discharged by steam electric power generating facilities,52
such as the Southport Power Plant. "It is not necessary that storm water be contaminated or
come into direct contact with pollutants; only association with any type of industrial activity is
necessary.',53
DEQ must "establish conditions to provide for and assure compliance with all applicable
requirements of CWA and regulations."54 NPDES regulations issued under the Clean Water
Act "specifically require that each NPDES permit contain `any requirements ... necessary to ...
achieve water quality standards established under Section 303 of the Act. ,,55 Thus any permit
that fails to contain conditions necessary to achieve water quality standards violates both the Act
and 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(d)(1).56
Price Creek is classified a tidal salt water (Class SC), and as swamp water (Class Sw).57
Class SC protects the creek for "secondary recreation such as fishing, boating, and other
activities involving minimal skin contact; fish and noncommercial shellfish consumption; aquatic
life propagation and survival; and wildlife."58 Class Sw is a special classification recognizing
5133 U.S.C. §§ 1342(p)(3)(A).
52 40 C.F.R. § 122.26(b)(14)(viii).
53 N. Carolina Shellfish Growers Assn v. Holly Ridge Assocs., LLC., 357 N.C. 1429
(E.D.N.C. 2003) (quoting Natural Res. Def. Council v. EPA, 966 F.2d 1292, 1304 (9th
Cir.1992)).
54 40 C.F.R. § 122.43(a); see also 33 U.S.C. § 1342(b); Arkansas v. Oklahoma, 503 U.S.
91, 105 (1992); 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2H .0126.
55 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(d)(1).
56 Champion Int'l Corp. v. United States EPA, 648 F. Supp. 1390, 1395 (W.D.N.C. 1986)
(vacated and remanded for different reasons by 850 F.2d 182, 186 (4th Cir. 1988)).
57 NC Surface Water Classifications, N.C. DEP'T OF ENVT'L QUALITY,
https://ncdenr.maps.arcgis.com/gpps/webgppviewer/index.html?id=6e 125ad7628f494694e259c8
Odd64265 &marker=-
78.00747286172495 %2C3 3.93 7426245 678445 %2C%2C%2C%2C&markertemplate=%7B%22t
itle%22%3A%22Cape%20Fear%22%2C%221ongitude%22%3A-
78.00747286172495 %2C%221atitude%22%3A3 3.93 7426245 678445 %2C%22islnclude ShareUrl
%22%3Atrue%7D&level=17 (interactive map last visited Sept. 13, 2019).
58 Classifications, N.C. DEP'T OF ENVT'L QUALITY,
https:Hdeq.nc. gov/about/divisions/water-resources/planning/classification-
standards/classifications#DWRPrimMClassification (last visited Sept. 13, 2019).
El

the slow velocity and other natural characteristics particular to swamp waters.59 These
classifications set narrative and numeric water quality standards for the creek.60 In addition,
Price Creek is an impaired water listed under section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act for
mercury pollution.61 However, the state has not established Clean Water Act "total maximum
daily loads" for Price Creek for mercury or other pollutants.62
Some pollutants in stormwater discharges from the Southport Power Plant appear to
exceed the numeric standards63 and others come very near to them.64 CPI and DEMLR must
ensure that the control measures implemented at the site are sufficient to meet the water quality
standards. This likely will require requesting and reviewing CPI's stormwater pollution
prevention plan.
4. The draft permit overlooks severe -storm preparedness.
A stormwater pollution prevention plan ("SWPPP") documents the specific control
measures that the discharger will use to meet the applicable technology- and water quality -based
effluent limits, as well as compliance with other permit requirements such as monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting.65 The SWPPP does not itself contain effluent limits.66 An
59 Id.
60 See NC_StdsTable_06102019, N.C. DEP'T OF ENVT'L QUALITY,
ht!ps://deg.nc.gov/documents/nc-stdstable-06102019 (last visited Sept. 13, 2019).
61 N.C. DEP'T OF ENVT'L QUALITY, 2014 NC WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT FOR 305(b),
http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get _file?uuid= l40d4802-dc9e-4e4a-8db2-
1 ec3a336ceca&groupId=38364.
62 Integrated Report Files, N.C. DEP'T OF ENVT'L QUALITY,
htlps://deq.nc. gov/about/divisions/water-resources/planning/modeling-assessment/water-quality-
data-assessment/integrated-report-files (last visited Sept. 13, 2019).
63 See Stormwater Discharge Monitoring Report 2 (Nov. 2, 2015) (available via
Laserfiche) (showing discharges of copper as high as 26 micrograms, compared to water quality
standard of 4.8 micrograms acute and 3.1 micrograms chronic).
64 See id. (showing discharges of lead in the range of 5 to 6 micrograms, compared to
water quality standard of 8.1 micrograms chronic).
65 See U.S. ENVT'L PROT AGENCY, MULTI -SECTOR GENERAL PERMIT (MSGP) FACT
SHEET 41 (2015), https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-
10/documents/msgp20l5 fs.pdf (hereinafter "EPA MSGP FACT SHEET") EPA, DEVELOPING
YOUR STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN: A GUIDE FOR INDUSTRIAL OPERATORS
(2015), https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-
11/documents/swppp guide_ industrial_2015.pdf (hereinafter "DEVELOPING SWPPP").
11

operator should complete its SWPPP before applying for an individual NPDES industrial
stormwater permit or coverage under a general permit.67 North Carolina does not have a NPDES
stormwater general permit for steam electric power generation.68 DEMLR specifically directs
operators renewing individual stormwater permits not to submit SWPPPs when applying.69
Instead, operators simply certify that they have properly designed and compliant SWPPPs on-
site.70 Accordingly, although SWPPP is a public document,71 no SWPP is publicly available on
Laserfiche and the section of the draft permit for the Southport Power Plant concerning the
SWPPP simply directs CPI to "develop and implement" a SWPPP that meets the criteria set forth
in the draft permit.
These criteria do not specifically address severe storms. As the climate emergency
continues to unfold, severe storms are becoming more frequent and more severe.72 The
increasing likelihood of severe storms and the Southport Power Plant's location in a low-lying
area on the coast makes storm preparedness essential. Severe storms such as Hurricane Harvey
have led to extremely large releases of toxic materials, in part because operators of facilities that
66 Id.
67 DEVELOPING SWPPP, supra, at 32-33; see U.S. ENVT'L PROT. AGENCY, NATIONAL
POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) MULTI -SECTOR GENERAL PERMIT FOR
STORMWATER DISCHARGES ASSOCIATED WITH INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY (MSGP) 30 (2015),
https://www. epa. gov/sites/production/files/2015-10/documents/msgp2015_finalpermit.pdf
(hereinafter "EPA MSGP").
68 hops://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/energy-mineral-land-resources/npdes-stormwater-
EH�
69 DEMLR, Supplemental Information Required for Renewal of Individual NPDES
Stormwater Permit,
http://files.nc. gov/ncdeq/Energy%20Mineral%20and%20Land%20Resources/Stonnwater/NPDE
S Fillable PDF Forms/NPDES-Individual-Permit-Renewal-SUDDlement-Info-Form-20171011-
DEMLR-SW.pdf.
70 DEMLR, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Development and Implementation
Certification,
htlp:Hfiles.nc. gov/ncdeq/Energy%20Mineral%20and%20Land%20Resources/Stormwater/NPDE
S Fillable PDF Forms/NPDES-Individual-Permit-Renewal-SPPP-Certification-Fon n-
20171011-DEMLR-SW.pdf.
71 See Draft Stormwater Permit 3.
72 U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM, FOURTH NATIONAL CLIMATE
ASSESSMENT: CHAPTER 19: SOUTHEAST (2018), https://nca20l8.lzlobalchange ov�/chgpter/19/.
12

use these materials were not prepared for flooding and other conditions.73 Hurricanes have
74
caused transformers to fail. However, the Draft Stormwater Permit does not require CPI to
prepare for stormwater discharges that can be expected in severe storms.75
In light of the presence of transformer oil that likely contains PCBs as well as other
potentially hazardous materials on -site, DEMLR should require that CPI implement —and
therefore that the SWPPP contain —control measures specifically intended to prevent excursions
of WQS during severe storms. First, CPI should move as much material as possible out of
exposure to precipitation.76 Given the low-lying coastal location of the site, this should include
minimizing exposure during flood conditions, such as by elevating storage. Second, DEMLR
should require secondary containment for all transformer oil to prevent the discharge of PCBs, as
well as any other hazardous materials. At a minimum, the secondary containment should be
capable of storing the full capacity of the material stored and be capable of withstanding severe
storms, including extensive flooding.77 At a low-lying site such as this, secondary containment
that is not fully enclosed is likely insufficient.
73 See ARI PHILLIPS, ENVT'L INTEGRITY PROJ., PREPARING FOR THE NEXT STORM:
LEARNING FROM THE MAN-MADE ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTERS THAT FOLLOWED HURRICANE
HARVEY (2018), https://www.environmentalintegrit, .off rg/wp-
content/uploads/2018/08/Hurricane-Harvey-Report-Final . pd£
74 See, e.g., VILLAGE OF BALD HEAD ISLAND, HURRICANE FLORENCE TASK FORCE, FINAL
REPORT 2 (2019), http://villa ebhi.or /g new_wordpress/wp-
content/HFTF/HFTF%20Final%2OReport%20to%2OVillage%2OCouncil.pdf (noting that
recovery depended on removing unprecedented amount of stormwater and power could not be
restored until water had receded enough that flooded transformers were no longer submerged),
46 ("These improvements do not address one significant source of system vulnerability: the
transformers that are located only slightly above ground level and are vulnerable to flooding (and
in some cases, burial by sand) during a major storm. After Florence, power could not be restored
to the island until the Thursday before re-entry because of flooded transformers that could not be
safely energized."); Athina Morris, Electrical transformers just couldn't handle Hurricane
Michael, WFLA (Oct. 26, 2018 05:18PM), https://www.wfla.com/news/florida/electrical-
transformers just-couldnt-handle-hurricane-michael/; Brian Palmer, Why Do Transformers
Explode?, Slate (Oct. 30, 2012 2:05PM), https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2012/10/hurricane-
sandy-blackout-what-causes-transformers-to-explode.html.
75 Draft Stormwater Permit 3-7 (containing SWPPP)
76 See Developing 15 (listing "minimize exposure" first among non -numeric effluent
limits).
77 See 40 C.F.R. § 267.195(b)(1) (requiring secondary containment of hazardous waste to
be capable of withstanding "climatic conditions"); Blair -Frasier, R., & M. Hockett, Q & A:
13

5. The draft permit does not require CPI to meet the effluent limitation
guidelines.
The effluent limitation guidelines for steam electric power generating facilities apply to
the Southport Power Plant.78 The guidelines limit coal pile runoff.79 The guidelines exclude
untreated overflow "associated with a 10 year, 24 hour rainfall event."80 This rainfall event is
defined as "a rainfall event with a probable recurrence interval of once in ten years as defined by
the National Weather Service in Technical Paper No. 40. Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the United
States, May 1961 or equivalent regional rainfall probability information developed therefrom."81
The National Weather Service currently estimates this to be a rainfall event of 7.67 inches .82
This year, during Hurricane Dorian, the area received approximately 8.32 inches of rain.83 Last
year, during Hurricane Florence, the area received approximately 26 inches of rain.84
The draft permit does not address coal pile runoff. Even assuming that wastewater
permitting documents are accurate and coal pile runoff generally is directed from the fuel pile
pad into the wastewater outfall covered by a different NPDES permit, the draft permit still does
not address the potential for overflow from that system during a storm that rains less than the
exemption threshold of 7.67 inches. Furthermore, that threshold is outdated. As climate change
continues to make severe storms both more frequent and worse, it is clear that we must prepare
for greater rainfall and flooding. DEMLR should require greater protections.
Protecting Facilities from Hurricane Damage, DISQUS (2017),
https://www.manufacturing.net/article/2017/06/q-protecting-facilities-hurricane-damage.
71 See 40 C.F.R. § 423.10; see also EPA MSGP, supra, at 131 (explaining that, for EPA -
administered regions, MSGP authorizes discharge of coal pile runoff subject to effluent
limitations in 40 CFR Part 423).
79 40 C.F.R. § 423.12(b)(9).
80 40 C.F.R. § 423.12(b)(10).
81 40 C.F.R. § 423.11(i).
82 NOAA Atlas 14 Point Precipitation Frequency Estimates: NC, NAT'L OCEANIC &
ATMOSPHERIC ADMIN., https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_map cont.html?bkmrk=nc
(last visited Sept. 13, 2019) (search for "Powerhouse Dr., Southport, NC, 28461 ").
83 Charles Duncan, How much rain did you get from Dorian? Here are the rainfall totals
for the past week, THE NEWS & OBSERVER (Sept. 11, 2019 11:30PM),
https://www.newsobserver. com/news/weather-news/article234962072.html.
84 Historic Hurricane Florence, September 12-1 S, 2018, NAT'L WEATHER SERV
https://www.weather.gov/mhx/Florence20l8 (last visited Sept. 13, 2019).
14

Conclusion
Thank you for considering these comments. If you have any questions, please do not
hesitate to contact Chandra Taylor or Nick Jimenez at 919-967-1450.
Sincerely,
Chandra Taylor, Senior Attorney
Southern Environmental Law Center
Nick Jimenez, Associate Attorney
Southern Environmental Law Center
/s/ Dana Sargent
Dana Sargent
Executive Director, Cape Fear River Watch
/s/ Kerri Allen
Kerri Allen, Coastal Advocate
North Carolina Coastal Federation
15

Denard, Derek
From: Savanna B Neb <[e-mail]>
Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2019 2:23 PM
To: Denard, Derek
Subject: [External] Letter of Concern to CPI
Attachments: Letter toCPI (1).pdf
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Hello Derek,
My name is Savanna Neb, and I am currently a resident of Caswell Beach, North Carolina. After hearing about the
impacts made by CPI, I wrote a letter addressing my personal and professional concerns. Attached is my letter. Please let
me know if you need anything else.
Best,
Savanna Neb

To Whom it May Concern,
My name is Savanna Neb, and I am currently working as an Environmental Education
Intern on Oak Island. I have a degree in Marine Biology, and plan to receive my masters in the
coming year. I have lived here on Caswell Beach for the past six months, and plan to stay for at
least the remainder of the year.
I have just been informed about a power plant known as CPI that operates
independently here in Brunswick County. It has come to my attention that this company burns
10% coal, used tires, and wood chips. All of these practices are dirty practices that hinder our
air quality. That alone is concerning, but it has also been brought to my attention that the main
form of wastewater treatment in which CPI uses are settling ponds. Settling ponds are, in my
opinion and research, basic level techniques which rarely work to keep the water quality at the
level it should be. Considering that CPI has few regulations on what they can burn, and what
they can dispose of into the canal after it goes into the settling pond, makes this a point of great
concern to me personally. I know that under the current permit, they do have limits set, however
there is no priority pollutant analysis, which should be mandatory and performed often. The
canal deposits into the middle of Caswell Beach, and the mixing zone covers majority of the
ocean water on our beach. This means that the heavy metals and carcinogens not extracted in
the settling ponds are being deposited right in front of us.
All of this is concerning for many reasons, however my main concern is the safety of the
people living in this area, and the safety of our ocean environment. People come from all over
the country to our beach to vacation and swim in our warm ocean. I personally take children to
this beach to swim and partake in outdoor beach activities. Allowing such waste that is
potentially extremely harmful to humans, as well as ocean life, to deposit in this area is
detrimental for generations to come. Not only are the people swimming and wading in the water
getting exposed to such harmful waste immediately, but the repercussions stemming from years
of exposure may be irreversible. From a marine biology point of view, the animals that swim and
live along our coast are constantly exposed to this toxic waste. The detriment it can have
physically and biologically to these fish, invertebrates, turtles, sharks, dolphins, etc. and their
populations is unknown, but potentially irreversible as well. To tie the two concerns together, we
must look at the importance of North Carolina fisheries and the consumption of seafood by the
Brunswick County community. Many fish, mammals, and inverts will migrate to warmer areas to
feed. Since the deposit area from the canal is creating warmer water temperatures in the mixing
zone, this is bolstering an influx of fish and other sea animals due to new feeding ground. The
animals that are feeding in this toxic area are the same sea animals North Carolina fisheries are
catching in order to supply and feed the masses. This issue comes full circle when humans are
both physically exposed to the harmful waste from the CPI facility, as well as consuming
seafood that is saturated with the harmful waste.
The bottomline is that CPI as a whole, and the contaminants they produce need to be
tested, monitored, and regulated at a much higher level than they are now. Restrictions on
burning of old used tires in particular should be put into place, and weekly air quality and water
quality testing should be mandatory. Both tests across the board should be looking for not only
the common pollutants in our air and water, but the rare pollutants as well. It has also been

brought to my attention that CPI currently stores 20,000 gallons of transformer fluid on site.
Here in Brunswick County, we are prone to large storms such as hurricanes. If the storage area
of this transformer fluid were to be breached by such storms, and allowed PCB's to be leached
into our water, air, and land, it could potentially create a county wide, and even statewide,
emergency. The removal or relocation of this large amount of transformer fluid should also be
addressed before permit renewal.
It is in my professional and personal opinion that the threats posed by CPI's lack of
supervision and regulation must be addressed thoroughly before allowing them to continue
production in any form, if at all. The safety of Caswell Beach residents, vacationers, and the
health of our beach and ocean environment are of top priority, and should be treated as such.
Sincerely,
Savanna Neb
Marine Biologist
Concerned Caswell Beach Resident

Denard, Derek
From: Dale Halliwell <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2019 3:09 PM
To: SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject: [External] CPI USA North Carolina LLC - NPDES Permit NC0065099 & NCS000348
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
To the NC Division of Water Resources, Water a Quality Permitting Section,
I was unable to attend the Public Hearing held on November 21, 2019 at the Brunswick Community College campus in
Bolivia, NC for comment on the permit renewal request by CPI USA North Carolina LLC for wastewater and storm water
discharges into the Atlantic Ocean at Caswell Beach. I am submitting my written comments for the record.
I am a resident of Southport, NC and this issue is near and dear to my heart. I live here and I fish here. I do my very best
to do what is right and make a conscious effort to maintain a clean environment. As a homeowner, I do not discharge
harmful substances onto the land, or into our water or into the air we breathe. I am also bound by law from discharging
or disposing of anything that is harmful to the ocean or the creatures that live there from my boat. I take these efforts
seriously, as many of my fellow citizens do, because we all know the consequences of not doing the right thing.
The issue here is the fuel source being used at this operation. Quite simply, my fellow citizens and I would like CPI USA
to use only clean biomass for fuel. Tires, creosote contaminated railroad ties, and anything other than unadulterated
wood chips is unacceptable. We are not asking the company to make capital expenditures on new equipment, or
change their processes; only that they do the right thing and use a cleaner fuel source. They will say it costs more for
that fuel source, but that is short sighted to say the least. It is easy to calculate the long term savings to the company
from the increased boiler efficiency and diminished equipment downtime associated with cleaner fuel.
As a former textile executive with decades of experience with steam plants and cogeneration operations around the
world, I also know that using a cleaner fuel source will not only make their process much more efficient and predictable,
it will make their equipment last longer. For CPI USA it is also good for public relations and is a solid "good neighbor"
policy. For us citizens, we get cleaner air and cleaner water for the effort.
Respectfully,
Dale Halliwell
PO Box 10358
Southport, NC. 28461
Sent from Dale Halliwell
[e-mail]
910-477-7583

Denard, Derek
From: Heather Finnell <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2019 2:37 PM
To: Denard, Derek
Subject: [External] Public Comment on NCDEQ Issuance of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Permits
to CPI
Attachments: HBcomments.pdf
fl -
External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
�[e-mail]
Mr. Denard,
Please see the attached resolution adopted by the Holden Beach Board of Commissioners concerning
NCDEQ Issuance of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Permits to CPI. Would you please confirm that
the physical address I should sent comments to is 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617?
Thank you!
&eathea emnel4 CMC, NCCMC
Town Clerk
Town of Holden Beach, NC
maiIto: hfinnell(ahbtownhall.com
telephone: [phone]
fax:[phone]
i

December 18, 2019
NCDEQ-DW R
Water Quality Permitting Section
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Dear Sir or Madam,
The Board of Commissioners of the Town of Holden Beach unanimously passed a resolution concerning
the NCDEQ issuance of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Permits to CPI (Draft Permits
NCO065009 and NCS000348).
Please see the enclosed resolution that was adopted at the Board of Commissioners' Regular Meeting of
December 17, 2019 and include it as comment in the process for the requested permit. You can contact
me at [phone] or by email at [e-mail] if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
K
f
Heather Finnell
Town Clerk
TOWN OF HOLDEN BEACH / 110 ROTHSCHILD STREET / HOLDEN BEACH I NORTH CAROLINA
(9I0) 842-6488 / Fax [phone] I http://ww %v.libitiwnhall.rom

RESOLUTION 19-07
RESOLUTION REGARDING NCDEQ ISSUANCE OF NATIONAL POLLUTANT
DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) PERMITS TO CPI
LET IT BE KNOWN THAT:
WHEREAS, the Town of Holden Beach, NC is a barrier island community located in
Brunswick County; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Holden Beach barrier island is a west to east oriented island,
bounded by the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW) on the north, the Atlantic Ocean
on the south facing the Long Bay region of Brunswick County, the Shallotte Inlet to the
west and the Lockwood Folly (LWF) Inlet to the east; and
WHEREAS, Oak Island is a west to east oriented barrier island bounded by the Atlantic
Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW) on the north, the Atlantic Ocean on the south facing the
Long Bay region of Brunswick County, the LWF Inlet to the west and the mouth of the
Cape Fear river to the east; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Caswell Beach is located near the mouth of the Cape Fear River,
occupying the east end of Oak Island in Brunswick County; and
WHEREAS, CPI USA North Carolina LLC (CPI), a cogeneration power plant located at
1281 Powerhouse Drive, Southport NC, bums a mixture of coal, wood, and used tires to
generate steam and electricity for sale; and
WHEREAS, all wastewater and stormwater discharge from CPI goes to the effluent
channel used by Duke Energy Progress at their Southport power station, which
discharges into the Atlantic Ocean approximately 2000 feet offshore of Caswell Beach;
and
WHEREAS, CPI has applied to North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
(NCDEQ) for a renewal of its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permits for wastewater (Draft Permit NC0065099) and stormwater (Draft Permit
NCS000348); and
WHEREAS, NCDEQ has issued draft permits with conditions that would allow increased
volume of permitted discharges from the site.

FURTHERMORE, LET IT BE KNOWN THAT:
WHEREAS, given the uncertain makeup of the CPI burn mixture, a consistent waste
stream is difficult to envision; and
WHEREAS, bottom ash transport water and stormwater have been added to the allowed
discharge; and
WHEREAS, longer term historical data on the specific components and their
concentrations in various CPI discharges does not appear readily available on the
NCDEQ website for the permit applications; and
WHEREAS, NCDEQ states that "compliance with the limitations for 126 Priority Pollutants
shall be determined by engineering calculations which demonstrated that the regulated
pollutants are not detectable in the final discharge by analytical methods in 40 CFR part
136 (in accord with 40 CFR 423.23 (d)(3))"; and
WHEREAS, given the uncertainties, monitoring frequency of once per permit cycle, i.e.,
once in 5 years, for Priority Pollutants of concern does not appear adequate; and
WHEREAS, given the uncertainties, quarterly monitoring frequency of pollutants of
concern, which include copper and chromium, does not appear adequate; and
WHEREAS, said proposed CPI discharges have the potential to adversely impact ocean
water and onshore and offshore sand quality, with potential safety ramifications for local
and migratory marine species as well as humans; and
WHEREAS, natural nearshore transport of sand via littoral drift occurs from east to west
in Long Bay; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Holden Beach receives shoreline sand from the east to west
littoral drift and increasingly relies on offshore sand dredging for beach re -nourishment;
and

WHEREAS, the Town of Holden Beach relies on its reputation as a safe and pristine
beach community to attract tourism, the main economic driver for the town.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners of the Town of
Holden Beach that, in the best interest of environmental and public safety of the public in
general, the Town of Holden Beach and other Brunswick County beach communities, the
NC DEQ, before issuing a final permit, shall make available to the public all modelling,
existing individual component historical monitoring data, and risk assessments, whether
provided by CPI or performed by NCDEQ or other scientifically qualified entities, which
can be used to understand the level of risk associated with the proposed discharge
streams.
BE IT ALSO RESOLVED that before any decision is taken by NCDEQ on granting the
two permits in question to CPI, additional public hearings shall be held and an additional
period of public comment on the applications and proposed/draft permits shall be offered.
This the 17t" day of December, 2919.
J. Alan Holden, Mayor
ATTEST:
1 - CA"
Heather Finnell, Town Clerk

Denard, Derek
From: Lisa Stites <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2019 3:18 PM
To: Denard, Derek
Cc: David Kelly
Subject: [External] comments re: Draft Permit NCO0650099
Attachments: NCDEQLetterl11919a.pdf
External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
[e-mail]
Mr. Denard — please see the attached letter from the Town of Oak Island with comments regarding Draft
Permit NCoo650099. Please let me know if we need to do anything else in order to submit our comments
ahead of Thursday's hearing.
Regards,
Lisa P. Stites, MMC
Town Clerk
Town of Oak Island
46oi E. Oak Island Drive
Oak Island, NC 28465
(910) 2oi-8004
www.oakislandne.com
Pursuant to North Carolina General Statutes, Chapter 132, Public Records, this e-mail and any attachments, as well as any e-mail
messages(s) that may be sent in response to it, may be considered public records and therefore are subject to public records requests
for review and copying.

SOWN of
OPT
oc�TN CAROMS
'4'41. I,, 1, "' /
November 19, 2019
Re: Town of Oak Island Comments on Draft Permit NCO0650099
Dear Mr. Denard,
The Town of Oak Island thanks the staff at the NC Department of Environmental Quality for allowing
comments to be submitted on the proposed permit application for CPI, USA. We appreciate the hard
work that you and your staff provide the citizens of North Carolina.
The Town of Oak Island is located just a short distance from where the permit states that wastewater from
CPI, USA will be discharged into the Atlantic Ocean. Healthy town beaches and good recreational water
quality are critical for the Town of Oak Island. The summer population in Oak Island more than
quadruples as tourists vacation in town to enjoy our beaches and ocean waters. Oak Island is known for
its small-town atmosphere, and our residents and visitors value clean beaches and a safe environment for
swimming, fishing and other water activities. We depend on our State and Federal agencies to do their
part in keeping our coastal ecosystem safe for native wildlife and for our residents and visitors.
After reading the draft permit application, the Town of Oak Island respectfully requests NCDEQ to
require that all chemicals which are reasonably expected in this discharge stream be identified and closely
monitored on an ongoing basis as part of the permit approval required conditions. We also strongly
believe that limits should be placed on each potentially harmful chemical in the stream and be restricted
as necessary to preserve health of the community and the environment. Quadra-annual reports from
NCDEQ are essential to preserve public trust in this operation.
We think that CPI, USA, Archer Daniels Midland, and Duke Energy seek to be good neighbors in our
community. The Town of Oak Island has no interest in causing our corporate neighbors any undo
regulatory burdens. We do, however, feel that it is our right to know what chemicals are in the discharge
stream and know that those chemicals are stringently limited in order to protect our town. We trust that
CPI, USA and the Division of Water Quality will work to assure the residents and visitors of Oak Island
that the discharge stream will not pose any undo hazards to our island or our environment.
Sincerely,
i
�0 _
Cin Brochure, Mayor
Oak Island, NC
4601 E. Oak Island Drive • Oak Island, North Carolina 28465
Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone] • Website: www.oaldslandnc.com

Denard, Derek
From: Brian Edes <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2019 7:41 PM
To: Denard, Derek
Cc: David Kelly; Council; Lisa Stites
Subject: [External] Town of Oak Island's request regarding Public Comment Deadline for Draft NPDES Permit
NC 00650099 CPI USA North Carolina, LLC
Attachments: Denard re public comment extension (TOI).pdf
I External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment toi
L=[e-mail]
Mr. Denard,
Please see attached letter I am submitting on behalf of the Town of Oak Island.
Respectfully,
Brian E. Edes
Crossley McIntosh Collier Hanley & Edes, PLLC
Attorneys -at -Law
5002 Randall Parkway
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
[phone] phone
[phone] facsimile
Notice
This electronic message is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named
as recipient above. It contains confidential attorney -client privileged information
and/or attorney work product. If the reader is not the intended recipient, be hereby
notified than any dissemination, distribution or duplication of this or any part of this
communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please
delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail or by telephone.

CROSSLEY MCINTOSH COLLIER HANLEY & EDES, P.L.L.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
JOHN F. CROSSLEY (1921-2o06)
5002 RANDALL PARKWAY
DouGLAS F. MCINTOSH (1959-2o16)
WILMINGTON, NC 28403
CLAY ALLEN COLLIER
ANDREW HANLEY
August 5, 2019
BRIAN E. EDES
TELEPHONE [phone]
NORWOOD P. BLANCHARD
FAX [phone]
ANDREW PENNY
TOLL FREE 800/499-9711
E-mail: [e-mail]
Mr. Derek Denard
Via email to: [e-mail]
RE: Town of Oak Island's Request for Extension of Public Comment
Deadline for Draft NPDES Permit NC oo650099 CPI USA North
Carolina, LLC
Dear Mr. Denard,
I am the Town Attorney for the Town of Oak Island. It is my understanding that today is
the deadline for public comment on the above referenced renewal permit. Town officials,
including myself, first learned of this deadline today.
Town Manager David Kelly has spoken with the members of the Town Council including
the Mayor. The Town's elected officials agree that the proposed permit could detrimentally affect
Town residents, Town property owners, Town visitors and the Town as a whole. As such, on
behalf of the Town, I am writing to request the public comment period be extended past the
present deadline. The Town would like additional time to examine this matter further. This would
provide all who are potentially affected by this permit the opportunity to provide additional,
meaningful public comment on this issue. I am sure NCDENR, like the Town, prefers meaningful
public comment.
I thank you for your consideration of the Town's request as outlined herein. Please do not
hesitate to contact me with any questions, comments, or concerns.
Respectfully,
�f hw LA"
Brian Edes, Town Attorney
Town of Oak Island

Denard, Derek
From: Lisa Stites <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, December 23, 2019 2:43 PM
To: Denard, Derek
Subject: [External] Resolution from the Town of Oak Island
Attachments: OaklslandResolutionCPldischargePermit.pdf
External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
[e-mail]
Mr. Denard — please see the attached Resolution from the Town of Oak Island regarding the CPI discharge permit. Please
let me know if you need a paper copy or if you need anything else.
Regards,
Lisa P. Stites, MMC
Town Clerk
Town of Oak Island
46oi E. Oak Island Drive
Oak Island, NC 28465
(910) 2oi-8004
www.oakislandnc.com
Pursuant to North Carolina General Statutes, Chapter 132, Public Records, this e-mail and any attachments, as well as any e-mail
messages(s) that may be sent in response to it, may be considered public records and therefore are subject to public records requests
for review and copying.

0�,K'is,�� .
�, .,_. RESOLUTION OF THE
:- TOWN OF OAK ISLAND
CARC)
n ion+
WHEREAS, the Town of Oak Island, NC is a barrier island community located in Brunswick
County; and
WHEREAS, Oak Island is a west to east oriented barrier island bounded by the Atlantic
Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW) on the north, the Atlantic Ocean on the south facing the Long
Bay region of Brunswick County, the Lockwood Folly Inlet to the west and the mouth of the
Cape Fear river to the east; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Caswell Beach is located near the mouth of the Cape Fear river,
occupying the east end of Oak Island in Brunswick County; and
WHEREAS, CPI USA North Carolina LLC (CPI), a cogeneration power plant located at 1281
Powerhouse Drive, Southport NC, burns a mixture of coal, wood, and used tires to generate
steam and electricity for sale; and
WHEREAS, all wastewater and stormwater discharge from CPI goes to the effluent channel
used by Duke Energy Progress at the Southport power station, which discharges into the Atlantic
Ocean approximately 2000 feet offshore of Caswell Beach; and
WHEREAS, CPI has applied to North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
(NCDEQ) for a renewal of its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permits for wastewater (Draft Permit NC0065099) and stormwater (Draft Permit NCS000348);
and
WHEREAS, NCDEQ has issued draft permits with conditions that would allow increased
volume of permitted discharges from the site.
FURTHERMORE, LET IT BE KNOWN THAT:

WHEREAS, given the uncertain makeup of the CPI burn mixture, a consistent waste stream is
difficult to envision; and
WHEREAS, bottom ash transport water and stormwater have been added to the allowed
discharge; and
WHEREAS, longer term historical data on the specific components and their concentrations in
various CPI discharges does not appear readily available on the NCDEQ website for the permit
applications; and
WHEREAS, NCDEQ states that "compliance with the limitations for 126 Priority Pollutants
shall be determined by engineering calculations which demonstrated that the regulated pollutants
are not detectable in the final discharge by analytical methods in 40 CFR part 136 (in accord
with 40 CFR 423.23 (d)(3))"; and
WHEREAS, given the uncertainties, monitoring frequency of once per permit cycle, i.e., once in
5 years, for Priority Pollutants of concern does not appear adequate; and
WHEREAS, given the uncertainties, quarterly monitoring frequency of pollutants of concern,
which include copper and chromium, does not appear adequate; and
WHEREAS, said proposed CPI discharges have the potential to adversely impact ocean water
and on shore and off shore sand quality, with potential safety ramifications for local and
migratory marine species as well as humans; and
WHEREAS, natural nearshore transport of sand via littoral drift occurs from east to west in
Long Bay; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Oak Island receives shoreline sand from the east to west littoral drift
and increasingly relies on off shore sand dredging for beach re -nourishment; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Oak Island relies on its reputation as a safe and pristine beach
community to attract tourism, the main economic driver for the Town.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Oak Island Town Council that, in the best
interest of environmental and public safety for the Town of Oak Island and other Brunswick
County beach communities, the NCDEQ, before issuing a final permit, shall make available to
the public all modelling, existing individual component historical monitoring data, and risk

assessments, whether provided by CPI or performed by NCDEQ or other scientifically qualified
entities, which can be used to understand the level of risk associated with the proposed discharge
streams.
BE IT ALSO RESOLVED that before any decision is taken by NCDEQ on granting the two
permits in question to CPI, additional public hearings shall be held and an additional period of
public comment on the applications and proposed/draft permits shall be offered.
This the 17t" day of December 2019.
Ken Thomas, Mayor
Attested:
Lisa P. Stites, MMC
Town Clerk

Denard, Derek
From: Brittany Pace <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, December 23, 2019 3:37 PM
To: SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject: [External] CPI
Attachments: CPI Comments 12.23.19_Pace.pdf
External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
[e-mail]
These attached comments are submitted to Derek Denard and Lauren Garcia, regarding CPI - Southport's Power Plant.
Sincerely,
Brittany Pace

December 23, 2019
RE: NPDES Permit NC0065099 & NCS000348
CPI USA North Carolina, LLC — Southport
Brunswick County
Dear Derek Denard and Lauren Garcia,
Thank you for your presentations at the Public Hearing on November 21, 2019
regarding the wastewater and stormwater discharge permits for CPI. I previously
submitted a letter regarding the Draft Permit through my employer. However, this
letter is personal, as a concerned citizen of Brunswick County and a homeowner in
Southport.
When you drive into Southport, you cross over the "Discharge Canal". It is
always foamy and dark in color. It's not a welcoming sight, and also very close to
neighborhoods. Residents and tourists often question this canal and its affects on our
health and environment. Have any studies been done on this canal before and after
hurricanes? What pollutants are in the system and where did they flow after all the
flooding we had during hurricane season?
In the presentation, you stated CPI has a 400,000+ gallons/day flow rate, with
Duke Power having 1.9 billion gallons/day max flow, discharging straight into the
Atlantic Ocean only 2,000 feet off of Caswell Beach. You can stand on the beach and
see where it flows out; boats are always gathered there to catch fish. Do the fisherman
know what they are bringing to their families or to our local seafood restaurants? They
most likely have no idea these fish and shrimp they are bringing up could be
contaminated.
We have a responsibility to the thousands of school kids who partake in our
environmental educational programs who enter the water just a short distance down
the island from this site, our residents who walk the beach every day, and the tourists
that visit Caswell Beach each summer. There is not enough information provided to
fully evaluate the impacts that CPI's discharges are having on our community.
According to your presentations, CPI self -reports their monitoring requirements once
every permit cycle. This type of reporting is not sufficient to protect human health and
the environment. I understand the permit has been re -rated to a "major" permit,
adding a higher pollutant scan. That is a great start. However if they are not even
monitoring at base, how can we trust they will monitor at a higher capacity?
1 of 2

During the Public Hearing, photos of CPI were shared as part of the
presentation. The ditch surrounding the site is of concern. From the photos, it did not
seem very deep. Rain from one small thunderstorm could fill it. Also from the photos, it
seems you can throw a rock into the first outfall from the coal mound. The coal, bottom
ash, creosote -treated wood, and tires are out in the open, exposed to the elements
and our air. On a normal day, this would be concerning. Even more so during
hurricanes, how did they contain these toxic materials? How did they ensure toxic
pollutants did not escape their property and enter our water? The close proximity to
the outfall, the limited depth of the ditch surrounding the site, and lack of monitoring
are all areas of concern regarding CPI. There are plenty of Best Management Practices
that could be put into place that would minimize the wastewater and stormwater
impacts.
If CPI is allowed to continue business in the Southport area, upgrades to the
plant should be a requirement and strengthening the permit monitoring is a must. All
chemicals should be monitored, not just once a permit cycle and not through self -
reporting. No toxic chemicals should be allowed to be discharged into the canal and
out to our beach. After hearing from residents about the constant noise, coal dust,
health issues, poor plant management, and lack of accountability, closure of the CPI
plant is in the best interest of the community, our health, and the environment. One of
our elected officials even stated, "the stuff you are wiping off of your cars, you can't
wipe out of your lungs." This statement is so very true and should be concerning to
DEQ, enough to investigate this plant further and protect our health and environment.
Thank your for your time and the opportunity to submit these comments. Have a
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
Sincerely,
Brittany Pace
2 of 2

Denard, Derek
From: Kathy Sawyer <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2019 2:09 PM
To: SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject: [External] CPI ash from the sky?
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
To whom it may concern,
My husband and I are new residents in the Harbor Oaks neighborhood of Southport NC. I hadn't heard of the air and
water problems but figured it out pretty quickly on my own.
We formerly lived in Greenville County, SC where the air and water were sweet. Upon moving here, I found I could no
longer drink the water. It has a foul, iron filled odor and bitter taste.
As a cancer survivor, I was concerned enough to begin purchasing alkaline water and continue to do so.
As for the air, I began to notice black slime on our front porch and fall decorations. It has to be vigorously scrubbed in
order to remove it. I'm loathe to put anything on my porches because of this nauseating slime.
I was born in the coal country of South Western Pennsylvania and can honestly say that until now, I have never
experienced ash and slime. We had ash during the wild fires in South Carolina a few years ago but never thick black
slime.
I am honestly afraid for my health, the health of my husband and our pets. As for the pets, they have been experiencing
a myriad of skin issues and intestinal upset. I have switched them to bottled water as well.
I've never been afraid to live somewhere, but I am now. I do not feel safe and I have great concerns over a government
that is charged with protecting me but must also satisfy corporate relationships.
A Concerned Taxpayer,
Kathleen Sawyer
6072 Sullivan Ridge Road
Southport NC 28461
[e-mail]
Sent from my iPad

Denard, Derek
From: Chandra Taylor <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, August 02, 2019 5:34 PM
To: Denard, Derek
Subject: [External] Southport NPDES Permit Comments from Sierra Club, North Carolina Coastal Federation,
SELC, BEAT and Cape Fear Riverwatch
Attachments: Sourthport NPDES Permit Comments 08-02-2019.PDF
External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Mr. Denard,
Please find attached, comments on the Southport NPDES Permit. A hard copy will follow by U.S.P.S. We
appreciate your time and attention to this matter.
Best,
Chandra
Chandra T. Taylor
Senior Attorney
a1hem
Envi=1111nenfiel
Lwr Caw
601 West Rosemary Street, Suite 220
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27516-2356
Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
S outhemEnvironment. org
This electronic message and any attached files are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the
addressee(s) named above. This communication may contain material protected by attorney -client, work
product or other privileges. If you are not the intended recipient or person responsible for delivering this
confidential communication to the intended recipient(s), and/or you have received this communication in error,
then any review, use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, copying or other distribution of this email message
and any attached files is strictly prohibited. If you have received this confidential communication in error,
please notify the sender immediately by reply email message and permanently delete the original message.

SOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER
Telephone [phone] WEST ROSEMARY STREET, SUITE 220 Facsimile 919-929-9421
CHAPEL HILL. NC 27516-2356
:71� Southern
FEnvironmental
jr Law Center
R
RIVER WATCH
North Carolina
Coastal Federation
Working Together or a Healthy Coast
August 2, 2019
Via E-mail
Derek Denard, Environmental Specialist
Division of Water Resources
N.C. Department of Environmental Quality
512 North Salisbury Street
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
[e-mail]
Re: Draft NPDES Permit NCO0650099
CPI USA North Carolina, LLC — Southport
Grade I Physical Chemical WPCS
SIC Code 4911
Brunswick County
Dear Mr. Denard,
SIERRA
CLUB
viyon ,
m � �
On behalf of North Carolina Coastal Federation, Sierra Club, Cape Fear River Watch,
Brunswick Environmental Action Team, and itself (collectively, "Conservation Groups"), the
Southern Environmental Law Center ("SELC") submits these comments on the proposed
Charlottesville • Chapel Hill • Atlanta • Asheville • Birmingham • Charleston • Nashville • Richmond • Washington. DC
1009E recycled paper

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") renewal permit for CPI USA
North Carolina, LLC's ("CPI") Southport Power Plant ("Draft Renewal Permit") recently
noticed for public comment by the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
("DEQ„) .
The North Carolina Coastal Federation is a non-profit organization dedicated to
protecting and enhancing coastal water quality and habitat. With 16,000 supporters, the
federation represents North Carolinians who drink, fish, swim, and paddle the state's waters,
including the Cape Fear River. For the past 36 years, the federation has been taking an active
role in protecting coastal water quality, habitat and public beach access. Since 1982, the
federation has worked with coastal communities and other partners to improve and protect
coastal water quality and natural habitats, which are intricately tied to our coastal economy. By
focusing primarily, but not exclusively on natural and productive estuarine shorelines, oyster and
marsh restoration, coastal management and cleaning the estuaries of marine debris, we strive to
support and enhance the natural environment.
The Sierra Club is a national environmental organization whose mission is to explore,
enjoy, and protect the wild places of the earth; to practice and promote the responsible use of the
earth's ecosystems and resources; to educate and enlist humanity to protect and restore the
quality of the natural and human environment; and to use all lawful means to carry out these
objectives. In furtherance of this mission, the Sierra Club --on behalf of its members, including
21,000 members in North Carolina --works to accelerate the transition from dirty fuels like coal
and gas to clean energy solutions like solar, wind, and energy efficiency, and advocates for state
and federal policies and industry action to achieve this transition.
Since 1993, Cape Fear River Watch ("CFRW") has been working to protect and improve
the water quality of the Lower Cape Fear River Basin through Education, Advocacy, and Action.
CFRW engages residents of our watershed through programs to preserve and safeguard our river.
Kemp Burdette, the Cape Fear Riverkeeper, is a member of the Waterkeeper Alliance, an
international clean water advocacy organization. Kemp is a member of the Waterkeeper
Council, a small group of Waterkeepers from around the country who help determine the
direction and priorities of the Waterkeeper Alliance. CFRW works in a variety of coalitions
including Waterkeepers Carolina, the Cape Fear Arch Collaboration, the Watershed Alliance, the
Eagles Island Coalition, and the Stop Titan Action Network. CFRW has a 17 member Board of
Directors made up of scientists, community activists, lawyers, environmental consultants,
fishermen, river enthusiasts, and others concerned with protecting and improving the Cape Fear
River for everyone.
The Brunswick Environmental Action Team ("BEAT") is a genuine grass roots
organization of people who live throughout Brunswick County and have come together in
support of the natural environment. People who live in and visit Brunswick County are able to
see, hear, smell, and touch some of the most glorious natural environment in all of the country.
That opportunity is what has attracted many of our residents to make this their permanent home,
and it is what attracts hundreds of thousands of visitors every year. BEAT believes that this
opportunity carries with it important responsibilities: learning about the environment, engaging
in activities that show respect and concern for the environment, and encouraging other
individuals, state and municipality staff, and policy decision -makers to place appropriately high
2

priority on protecting the environment. It is up to all of us to make sure that this treasure is not
lost. BEAT believes stewardship of our environment is everyone's responsibility and exists as a
resource to educate about the environment, elevate awareness about environmental issues, and
advocate for conservation and preservation of the natural environment.
SELC is a non-profit legal advocacy organization dedicated to protecting the
environment of the South. SELC believes that everyone deserves to breathe clean air, drink
clean water, and live in a healthy environment. To that end, SELC partners with hundreds of
nonprofit partner organizations to protect our region through public education, policy advocacy,
and legal action, including a wide variety of efforts to protect and improve water quality
throughout the state. SELC strives to incorporate principles of environmental justice in its
program work.
Caswell Beach is a thriving seaside town known for its miles of public beach and historic
lighthouse.' The combination of public use of the beach and vibrant natural resources associated
with the area are is driving concern with reducing, as much as possible, contamination associated
with the wastewater discharge from the Southport Power Plant. Currently, this discharge
empties into the Atlantic Ocean at Caswell Beach, mixing into near -shore water up and down the
coast. Conservation Groups request that DEQ go further to limit contaminants associated with
the bottom ash transport water, coal pile runoff, wood and tire derived fuel pile runoff, and other
wastewaters (boiler feed water, boiler blowdown, and misc. sumps) discharged from this facility.
I. Background
A. Caswell Beach
The population of Caswell Beach quadruples to over 1600 in the summer months, when
visitors from across the nation flock to its quiet marshes and pristine shores to fish, boat, and
relax.2 It is the least populated beach in the Brunswick Islands and a haven for wildlife. The
Beach itself is a narrow, south -facing 2.5-mile barrier island spit on the eastern end of Oak
Island. It is separated from Bald Head Island to the east by the Cape Fear River estuary, while
the rest of Oak Island and Holden Beach lie the west. The landward side of the island consists of
a wide, marsh -filled lagoon that drains into the Intracoastal Waterway. This classic barrier island
ecosystem consists of a variety of habitat types, including neritic, sandy beach, marsh, and
estuary, all of which support a wide range of plant and animal life.
The N.C. General Assembly declared that "among North Carolina's most valuable
resources are its coastal lands and waters" which have "extremely high ... esthetic value."3 The
coastal and marine environment of Caswell Beach is no different, supporting myriad valuable
natural resources. Among those resources are fish habitats vital to the State's economy. Several
areas off Caswell Beach have been designated as essential fish habitat ("EFH") or Habitat Areas
' For more information on Caswell Beach, see Caswell Beach, NORTH CAROLINA'S BRUNSWICK ISLANDS,
https://www.ncbrunswick.com/islands/Caswell-Beach.
2 See TOWN OF CASWELL BEACH, CASWELL BEACH 2O09 CAMA LAND USE PLAN UPDATE at ii,
https://caswellbeach.org/n-content/uploads/2016/08/CASWELL Beach LUP1_201309260802252218.pdf
(discussing population).
3 N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113A-102.

of Particular Concern ("HAPC") under the Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1801-91, to protect a variety of species, including red drum, king
and Spanish mackerel, cobia, spiny lobster, ten shark species, and over fifty snapper -grouper
species.4 Hundreds of acres of estuarine and nearshore waters up and down the coast, including
those surrounding Caswell Beach, serve as nursery areas where post -larval and juvenile
development of young finfish and crustaceans takes place.5
The coastal zone of Caswell Beach also serves as important sea turtle habitat. North
Carolina is home to five species of sea turtle, including the federally threatened loggerhead sea
turtle. Non -breeding sea turtles can be found in inshore and nearshore waters throughout the
year.6 In 2014, nearshore waters off Caswell and surrounding beaches were designated as
critical habitat to protect nesting loggerhead females approaching the beach. Caswell Beach
sees the third highest nesting density of any beach in the State, with an average of 47 nests laid
on the 2.5-mile long stretch of beach per year. s Sea turtles are iconic elements of the tourism
industry in North Carolina. The Caswell Beach Turtle Watch, a local non-profit staffed entirely
with volunteers, guards emerging nestlings throughout the summer months.9 On neighboring
Bald Head Island, sea turtle viewing activities bring in as much as $33 million per year in
tourism spending.10
In addition, dozens of marine mammal species frequent North Carolina's nearshore
waters and can often be seen from shore. Examples of such species include humpback whales,
bottlenose dolphins, and West Indian manatees. The Brunswick Islands are also a haven for
coastal birds; over 330 species of bird have been spotted on the islands, from bald eagles to
piping plovers." I A network of bird sanctuaries stretches across the five barrier islands, making
this region a paradise for birders. Caswell Beach is also home to one of North Carolina's few
remaining maritime forests, a 10-acre treasure that Caswell Beach protects with strict
development and conservation ordinances. 12
Wastewater discharges at Caswell Beach have the potential to disrupt these vibrant
natural and economic resources. These comments outline SELC's concerns with the proposed
NPDES permit for Southport Power Plant and offer several suggestions for strengthening the
4 S. ATL. FISHERIES MGMT. COUNCIL, ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT —HABITAT AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN (EFH-
HAPC) AND CORAL HABITAT AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN (C-HAPC), http://safmc.net/wR-
content/uploads/2016/06/EFH-HAPC20Table.pdf.
5 See 15A N.C. Admin. Code 3I.0101(4)(f) (differentiating between primary, secondary, and special secondary
nursery areas).
6 Sheryan P. Epperly, et al., Sea Turtles in North Carolina Waters, CONSERVATION BIOLOGY (Apr. 1995).
7 79 Fed. Reg. 39856 (Jul. 10, 2014).
8 Sea Turtle Nest Monitoring System, N.C. WILDLIFE RES. COMM'N, http://www.seaturtle.ore/nestdb/?view=l (last
visited May 31, 2019). 2019 has been a record year for sea turtle nesting on Caswell Beach, with 98 nests laid and
counting, with four weeks still remaining in the nesting season.
9 See About Us, CASWELL BEACH TURTLE WATCH, http://caswellturtlewatch.org/about-us-2/ (last visited Aug. 2,
2019).
10 Kate Elizabeth Queram, Report — Sea Turtles Have Economic Impact, STAR NEWS (Dec. 4, 2013),
h!W://www.starnewsonline.com/news/20131204/report --- sea -turtles -have -economic -impact.
11 Brunswick islands Birding, N.C.'s BRUNSWICK ISLANDS, https://www.ncbrunswick.com/activity/brunswick-bird-
watching (last visited Jul. 24, 2019).
12 See, e.g., Caswell Beach, NC Code of Ordinances § 98.01: Protection and Maintenance of Areas Zoned
Conservation.
2

provisions of the permit to better protect people, wildlife, and the special coastal ecosystem at
Caswell Beach.
B. Southport Power Plant
Southport Power Plant is an eighty-eight megawatt power facility located in Southport,
near the mouth of the Cape Fear River and just down the street from Duke Energy Progress'
Brunswick Nuclear Power Plant. CPI sells steam from the plant to the food industry giant
Archer Daniels Midland Company, and sells electricity to Duke Ener under a power purchase
agreement. Alberta -based CPI purchased the plant in 2006. In 2008, it converted the plant
from burning coal to burning "a combination of TDF (z 40%), wood 50%), and coal (z 10%)
on a heat input basis," although "each of the boilers is permitted to burn up to 50% of TDF on a
heat input basis."14 "TDF," or "tire -derived fuel," is essentially old tires that have been
shredded, which likely would otherwise be landfilled.15 CPI has received permit modifications
to burn "adulterated resinated wood," to burn creosote -treated wood, and to construct and
operate a "new rail tie grinder," among other activities.16
The facility produces close to 400,000 gallons of wastewater a day, including nearly
300,000 gallons of process water.17 By comparison, an Olympic -sized swimming pool contains
a little over 660,000 gallons of water. The wastewater includes "[b]oiler and cooling tower
blowdown, fuel pile stormwater runoff (wood, coal & TDF), reverse osmosis filter reject water,
backwash from the boiler feedwater demineralizer, [and] accumulated water in the floor sump
pump in the turbine building."18 The wastewater also includes approximately 17,000 gallons per
year of water drained to the wastewater settling basins after washing out the drag -chain pitt9:
bottom -ash transport water.20
Wastewater treatment at the facility is not sophisticated, consisting of what appear to be
concrete lined settling basins. All of the facility's wastewater flows through a distribution box
and weir —essentially a box with one inlet and multiple outlets to divide wastewater into multiple
flows2'—and from there into two settling basins.22 CPI explains: "Each settling basin holds
500,000 gallons. Basins provide for settling of solids, holding for potential oil spills, pH
13 See Letter from Brad Newland, Regional Air Quality Supervisor, Division of Air Quality, NCDEQ, to Frank
Hayward, Plant Manager, CPI USA North Carolina —Southport Plant, July 12, 2018 (discussing emissions of carbon
monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter significantly higher than projected emissions in permit application
for 2008 boiler control retrofit and increased woodibiomass firing project).
14 Draft Fact Sheet 2.
15 Tire Derived Fuel (TDF)—Overview, SCRAP TIRE NEWS (last visited Aug. 2, 2019),
htlps://scrgptirenews.com/tdfj2hp.
16 Draft Fact Sheet 3.
17 Renewal Application 3 (PDF 10). For ease of reference, wherever the pagination of a permit document is not
continuous throughout the entirety of the electronic version of the document, a cross reference to the page number of
the electronic file is provided, identified as "PDF" followed by the page number. In some cases, only the PDF page
number is available.
18 Renewal Application 2 (PDF 9).
19 Renewal Application, Process Flow Diagram —Bottom Ash Wastewater Source (PDF 94).
20 See Draft Renewal Permit 2 (PDF 5).
21 U.S. ENVT'L PROT. AGENCY, Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems Manual 4-19 (2002),
https://www.epa.aov/sites/production/files/2015-06/documents/2004_07_07_septics_septic_2002_osdm all.pdf.
22 Renewal Application 2 (PDF 9).
5

adjustment, and mixing of waste streams. Most influents may be diverted to either basin,
allowing one basin to hold and pre -treat stormwater runoff or some wastewaters, if necessary."23
From the basins, the wastewater passes through a single outfall—Outfall 003—into the same
canal that carries wastewater from Duke Energy Progress' Brunswick Nuclear Plant out to the
Atlantic Ocean.24 That canal runs alongside the Cape Fear River, crosses the Elizabeth River,
and then passes under Caswell Beach and empties into the Atlantic through discharge conduits
approximately 2,000 feet offshore.25 The mixing zone for water from the canal is essentially all
of the near -shore water up and down the length of Caswell Beach.26
C. Potential Impact to Public Health and the Environment from Wastewater
While the wastewater present at the CPI facility is low -volume in comparison to large-
scale coal -burning power plants, there are still risks associated with the facility's wastewater
discharges, including: the bottom -ash transport water that has been in contact with ash from the
combustion of tires, wood, and coal; runoff from the tire, wood, and coal fuel piles; and the
potential releases from substances stored on -site exposed to precipitation, including transformer
oil, which is known to contain polychlorinated biphenyls ("PCBs").
Coal ash contains multiple constituents of concern, including metals such as antimony,
arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, and
thallium,27 among many others.28 Coal -ash contaminants pose serious health risks:
Arsenic is a known carcinogen that causes multiple forms of cancer in humans. It
is also a toxic pollutant, 40 C.F.R. § 401.15, and a priority pollutant, 40 C.F.R.
Part 423 App'x A. Arsenic is further associated with non -cancer health effects of
the skin and the nervous system.
Mercury is a well-known neurotoxicant and is listed as a toxic pollutant, 40
C.F.R. § 401.15. It has the dangerous capacity to bioaccumulate, or build up in
animal tissue. When mercury leaches from coal ash into the soil or water, it is
converted by bacteria into methylmercury, an organic form that can be absorbed
by small organisms and the larger organisms that eat them. As it moves up the
food chain, the concentration of methylmercury increases. Mercury is particulary
toxic to the developing nervous system. Exposure during gestation, infancy, or
childhood can cause developmental delays and abnormalities, reduced IQ and
mental retardation, and behavioral problems.
23 Id.
24 Renewal Application 2, 3 ("Receiving Stream: Atlantic Ocean (Outfall 003 discharges into the manmade canal
which handles discharge from Duke Energy Progress Brunswick Nuclear Power Plant. This canal discharges into
the Atlantic Ocean — see Figure 1)."), Fig. 1 (PDF 14); Draft Renewal Permit PDF 13.
25 See Brunswick Draft Renewal Permit 2,
https://edocs.deq.nc. gov/WaterResources/DocView.aspx?dbid=0&id=636789&page= l &searchid=96996616-f0f0-
4d 15-8bdc-9f6c7d 150ff3 &cr=1.
26 Draft Renewal Permit PDF 13.
27 Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System; Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals From Electric Utilities,
80 Fed. Reg. 21301 (Apr. 17, 2015), https://www.federalre_ip ster.gov/documents/2015/04/17/2015-00257/hazardous-
and-solid-waste-management-system-disposal-of-coal-combustion-residuals-from-electric.
28 See 40 C.F.R. § 257.96(a) (referencing constituents listed in Appendix IV); 40 C.F.R. § Pt. 257, App. IV (listing
Constituents for Assessment Monitoring).
2

• Lead is a very potent neurotoxicant that is highly damaging to the nervous system.
Health effects associated with exposure to lead include, but are not limited to,
neurotoxicity, developmental delays, increased blood pressure (hypertension),
impaired hearing acuity, impaired hemoglobin synthesis, and male reproductive
impairment. Importantly, many of lead's health effects may occur without overt
signs of toxicity. Lead is also classified by the EPA as a "probable human
carcinogen."
• Chronic exposure to cadmium, a toxic pollutant, 40 C.F.R. § 401.15, can result in
kidney disease and obstructive lung diseases such as emphysema. Cadmium may
also be related to hypertension and is a possible lung carcinogen. Cadmium
affects calcium metabolism and can result in bone mineral loss and associate bone
loss, osteoporosis, and bone fractures.
There are relatively few studies of tire ash, but it appears to contain similar constituents.29
Ash from adulterated wood may contain any number of contaminants, including arsenic,
chromium, and lead.30 Creosote is a mixture of hundreds of chemicals including polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons ("PAHs"), phenol, and creosols.31 To the extent that creosote makes it
into the facility's ash, it may be carried by water and bio-accumulate in plants and animals such
as snails, shellfish, and oysters.32 Exposure to creosote causes a wide variety of health problems
ranging from stomach pains to convulsions, birth defects, and cancer.33
Runoff from the fuel piles at the facility likely contains the same contaminants as those
discussed above, plus contaminants that do not end up in the facility's ash because they are
combusted and released into the air, potentially as different chemical compounds. For example,
creosote and PAHs likely will combust along with fuel, depending on the facility's efficiency,
but will be fully present in fuel piles and more likely to end up in runoff. Runoff from coal piles
is highly acidic, with pH ranging from 2.2 to 3.1, and tends to contain high concentrations of
iron, manganese, aluminum, zinc, mercury, arsenic and selenium.34
In addition to the fuel piles, a wide variety of materials at the facility are exposed to
precipitation.35 Of greatest concern is approximately 20,000 gallons of transformer oi1,36 which
29 See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Report to Congress,
Wastes From the Combustion of Fossil Fuels, Volume 2-Methods, findings, and recommendations, EPA 530-R-99-
010 at 3-20 and 3-21, and Table 3-10 (1999),
https://nepis.epa. eov/Exe/ZyPDF.cizi/1000154N.PDF?Dockey=1000154N. PDF.
30 See U.S. ENVT'L PROT. AGENCY, WOOD PRODUCTS IN THE WASTE STREAM —CHARACTERIZATION AND
COMBUSTION EMISSIONS, VOL. 1 TECHNICAL REPORT 7-22 to 7-23 (1996),
https://cfbub.eDa.izov/si/si Dublic record reDort.cfm?Lab=NRMRL&dirEntrvld=115188.
31 U.S. DEP'T OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVS., AGENCY FOR TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND DISEASE REGISTRY,
CREOSOTE HEALTH EFFECTS: FORMER KERR MCGEE (TRONOX) FACILITY 1 (2006),
https://www.atsdr.cdc. gov/sites/KerrMcGee/docs/Creosote%20Health%20Effects%20(Tronox).Ddf
32Id. at 1-2.
33 Id. at 2-3.
34 DOYE B. COX ET AL., U.S. ENVT'L PROT. AGENCY, TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY DIVISION OF ENERGY
RESEARCH, CHARACTERIZATION OF COAL PILE DRAINAGE, INTERAGENCY ENERGY/ENVIRONMENT R&D PROGRAM
REPORT ii (1979), https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/9101EJKN.PDF?Docket'=9101EJKN.PDF.
35 Renewal Application, Table A (PDF 31-32).
36 Id.
7

often contains37 highly toxic PCBs. The transformer oil tanks do not have full -volume
secondary containment.38 According to the CPI's "materials management practice and control
measures (BPMs)," transformer oil is handled by "Gravity discharge to Oil Trap Pit; oil is
removed; accumulated stormwater is pumped to Wastewater Basin."39 The application further
states that the method of stormwater treatment is "none. ,40 It is not clear from this description
how the released transformer oil is removed, but this management practice appears unable to
remove PCBs or other contaminants from transformer oil that mix with stormwater, and
therefore appears to discharge those contaminants to the wastewater settling basins and from
there to the canal and the Atlantic Ocean. Exposed materials also include fly ash stored at ash
silos and unloading stations, "proprietary chemicals" stored in chemical storage areas, and diesel
fuel and hydraulic oil tanks.41 Management practices for these materials include "good
housekeeping" and a wet slurry for fly ash, containment and a sand filter for proprietary
chemicals, and secondary containment for the diesel and oil.42
These materials are harmful if released into the human environment, and the threat of
release grows each year as climate change makes severe storms more frequent and more severe.
Again, the greatest concern is the potential release of PCBs. PCBs, a known human carcinogen,
are present in transformer oil. When PCBs are exposed to stormwater and carried into
waterbodies, they end up settling in sediment. The main concern over PCBs in marine
environments is their high bioaccumulation capacity. PCBs have a high affinity for organic,
particulate matter, meaning they easily settle and become attached to ocean sediments. Small
benthic organisms like crustaceans feeding on bottom materials consume the PCBs and are
subsequently consumed by larger organisms. The effects of PCBs are greatly magnified as they
continue to accumulate up the food chain and persist in the fatty tissues of large animals like sea
turtles and marine mammals. Studies have shown that relatively low concentrations of PCBs in
aquatic environment can result in the accumulation of relatively high levels in aquatic animals.43
Marine mammals are particularly vulnerable to the toxic effects of PCBs because of their
high trophic level, long life span, and high fat content.44 For example, bottlenose dolphins off
the coast of South Carolina and Georgia have suffered from the effects of PCB contamination
from a Superfund site in Brunswick, Georgia.45 Scientists have demonstrated that this exposure
caused anemia, reduced endocrine function, and decreased immunity within the population.46
37 CPI states on its website that Southport started in 1987. Southport Power Plant, CAPITAL POWER,
https://www.cgpitalpower.com/operations/southport-power-plant/ (last visited Aug. 2, 2019). Manufacture of PCBs
was banned in the US in 1977. If the facility purchased all new equipment and materials, it is unclear if PCBs
would be present in the transformer oil.
38 Renewal Application PDF 29 ("Any spillage from these tanks and transformers would normally be contained.").
39 Id. at PDF 31.
40 Id.
41 Id. at PDF 31-32.
42 Id.
43 Fact Sheet, Polychlorinated Biphenyls — ToxFAQs, AGENCY FOR TOXIC SUBSTANCES & DISEASE REGISTRY
(ATSDR) (Jul. 2014), https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/tfactsl7.pdf.
44 See Alex Aguilar, et al., Biological factors affecting variability of persistent pollutant levels in cetaceans, J.
CETACEAN RES. MGMT. (1999).
45 Brian C. Balmer, et al., Relationship between persistent organic pollutants (POPS) and ranging patterns in
common bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) from coastal Georgia, USA, SCI. TOTAL ENV°T (Feb. 2011).
46 Lori H. Schwacke, et al., Anaemia, hypothyroidism and immune suppression associated with polychlorinated
biphenyl exposure in bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus), PROC. ROYAL SOC'Y B: BIOL. SCI. (May 2011).

Compromised immune function in marine mammals is especially concerning, as it can leave
individuals more susceptible to infectious diseases and spread quickly among social groups,
leading to large-scale population mortality.47 In addition, female dolphins contaminated with
PCBs can pass them on to their young, leading to reproductive failure or calf death.48
Although sea turtles accumulate lower concentrations of PCBs than marine mammals,
exposure can nonetheless lead to a variety of negative impacts. In loggerhead sea turtles, PCB
exposure has been shown to cause anemia, reduced immune function, and generally poor body
condition.49 Since PCBs are often stored in fat cells, contamination may also lead to pansteatitis,
or "yellow fat disease," in sea turtles, which causes extreme inflammation and swelling of fatty
tissues. so
D. Current Permit
The current permit became effective on January 1, 2012. It expired on November 30,
2016, and was administratively extended —due to CPI submitting its renewal application before
the current permit expired —on May 2, 2016. The current permit only limits total suspended
solids, oils, and grease at Outfall 001, free available chlorine, chromium, and zinc at Outfall 002,
and pH and ammonia at Outfall 004.51 While the current permit states there must be no
detectable amount of any priority pollutants (excluding zine and chromium) from Outfall 003,
CPI is only required to conduct a priority pollutant analysis ("PPA") if the facility operators
attest to adding the chemicals during the manufacture, maintenance, or treatment process that
may contain a priority pollutant.52 As described below, the 2019 Draft Renewal Permit
strengthens some important protections for human health and the environment ,53 but nevertheless
is far too lax.
II. Flaws in the Draft Renewal Permit
In the sections that follow, this letter will discuss a number of serious flaws in the Draft
Renewal Permit. However, Conservation Groups first wish to thank the dedicated public
servants at DEQ for their work on this draft permit and to commend a number of important
protective measures that will be added. First, DEQ is right to identify Southport Power Plant as
47 See, e.g., Marie-Frangoise Van Bressem, et al., Cetacean morbillivirus: Current knowledge and future directions,
VIRUSES (Dec. 2014).
48 Randall S. Wells, et al., Integrating life -history and reproductive success data to examine potential relationships
with organochlorine compounds for bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in Sarasota Bay, Florida, SCI. TOTAL
ENVT T (Oct. 2005).
49 See, e.g., Maria Camacho, et al., Potential adverse health effects ofpersistent organic pollutants on sea turtles:
Evidences from a cross -sectional study on Cape Verde loggerhead sea turtles, SCI. TOTAL ENV°T (Aug. 2013);
Jennifer M. Keller, et al., Effects of organochlorine contaminants on loggerhead sea turtle immunity: Comparison of
a correlative field study and in vitro exposure experiments, ENVTL. HEALTH PERSP. (Jan. 2006); Jorge Orbs, et al.,
High levels of polychlorinated biphenyls in tissues of Atlantic turtles stranded in the Canary Islands, Spain,
CHEMOSPHERE (Jan. 2009).
50 Jorge Orbs, et al., Pansteatitis associated with high levels ofpolychlorinated biphenyls in a wild loggerhead sea
turtle Caretta caretta, DISEASES OF AQUATIC ORGANISMS (Feb. 2013).
51 2011 Permit PDF 5-6.
52 2011 Permit PDF 6.
53 See Draft Fact Sheet 11-14.
0

a "major" NPDES facility.54 As discussed above, the wastewater from the plant likely contains
toxic pollutants. In addition, it discharges to near -coastal waters, and there is substantial risk of
significant public health impacts given the proximity of the mixing zone to a public beach where
people swim and fish. Second, DEQ was wise to require electronic reporting of discharge
monitoring reports ("eDMR").55 This will help DEQ to identify and address any exceedances
rapidly and will make the DMRs more transparent to the public by making them available
through DEQ's Laserfiche online access system. Third, DEQ has importantly strengthened
multiple monitoring requirements, such as those for zinc, copper, nickel, and total chromium at
Outfall 003,56 and similarly at other outfalls. Frequent monitoring is essential to catching and
resolving exceedance issues quickly.57 Finally, DEQ rightly identified the presence of bottom -
ash transport water in the facility's wastewater stream'58 although this was omitted from the
sources of wastewater listed in CPI's application.59
Two new measures in the Draft Renewal Permit are improvements over the existing
permit, but must be strengthened to be adequately protective. First, DEQ will require CPI to
conduct a PPA at Outfall 003 in service of the current and renewal permits' prohibition on
discharging any priority pollutants and has not made the PPA requirement waivable.60
Conducting a PPA on the effluent is essential to determining which contaminants are present and
what needs to be done to address them. However, DEQ should continue to require CPI to
conduct a PPA at least annually by grab or composite sampling, not engineering calculations.
Second, Conservation Groups are pleased to see DEQ identify and address the potential for the
release of PCBs .61 As discussed below, however, DEQ should require stronger preventative
measures, particularly given the likelihood of severe storm impacts.
A. Clean Water Act Permitting Background
The Clean Water Act prohibits discharging any pollutant except in compliance with
certain provisions of the Act .62 The primary exception to liability is for discharges made
pursuant to a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") permit.63 NPDES
permits control pollution by setting (1) limits based on the technology available to treat
pollutants ("technology based effluent limits" or "TBELs") and (2) any additional limits
necessary to protect water quality ("water quality -based effluent limits" or "WQBELs") on the
54 Draft Renewal Permit PDF 1; see 40 C.F.R. § 122.2 (defining "major facility" as designated by the regulator);
NPDES Applications, N.C. DEP'T of ENVT'L QUALITY, https://deg.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/water-
resources-permits/wastewater-branch/npdes-wastewater/applications (last visited July 23, 2019) (defining "major
facility" as "any permit with a score of 80 or higher on the EPA Ratings Sheet").
55 Draft Renewal Permit PDF 1.
56 Draft Renewal Permit 6 (PDF 9), PDF 1-3.
57 "The effectiveness of the permitting process is heavily dependent on permit holder compliance with the CWA's
monitoring and reporting requirements." Piney Run Pres. Assn v. Cty. Commis of Carroll Cty., MD, 268 F.3d 255,
266 (4th Cir. 2001).
58 Draft Renewal Permit 2 (PDF 5).
59 Renewal Application 2 (PDF 9).
60 Draft Renewal Permit 6 n.3 (PDF 9); Draft Renewal Permit PDF 2.
61 Draft Renewal Permit PDF 1 (discussing footnote added to each outfall prohibiting discharge of PCBs).
62 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a).
63 Piney Run, 268 F.3d at 265.
10

wastewater dischargers.64 An NPDES permit must assure compliance with all statutory and
regulatory requirements, including state water quality standards.65
DEQ issues NPDES permits under authority delegated to North Carolina by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (`EPA").66 North Carolina's primary statute for
implementing its NPDES permitting program is N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-215.1, which requires a
permit from the Environmental Management Commission ("EMC") before any person may
"make any outlet into waters of the state," or
[c]ause or permit any waste, directly or indirectly, to be discharged to or in any manner
intermixed with the waters of the State in violation of the water quality standards
applicable to the assigned classifications or in violation of any effluent standards or
limitations established for any point source, unless allowed as a condition of any permit .
67
The EMC has the power to issue permits with such conditions as the EMC believes are necessary
to achieving the purposes of Article 21 of Chapter 143 of the General Statutes, including NPDES
permits.68 The EMC has delegated its authority to issue NPDES permits to DEQ, specifically, its
Division of Water Resources.
B. Require Testing and Establish Limits in This Permit
1. Require CPI to Test its Wastewater
Under North Carolina law, the applicant for a NPDES permit has "the burden of
providing sufficient evidence to reasonably ensure that the proposed system will comply with all
applicable water quality standards," and no permit may be issued that does not ensure
compliance.69 Part of the permit applicant's burden in this regard is to disclose all relevant
information, such as the presence of known constituents in a discharge that pose a potential risk
to human health. The permit applicant is required to disclose "all known toxic components that
can be reasonably expected to be in the discharge, including but not limited to those contained in
a priority pollutant analysis.i70 While the North Carolina Administrative Code does not contain
a definition of "toxic component," North Carolina water quality regulations define "toxic
substance" to include:
64 33 U.S.C. § 1311(b), 1314(b); 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(a)(1), (d).
6s 33 U.S.C. § 1342(a)(1)(A); 40 C.F.R. § 122.43(a); 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2H .0118; see also 15A N.C. Admin.
Code 2H .0112(c) ("No permit may be issued when the imposition of conditions cannot reasonably ensure
compliance with applicable water quality standards."); N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 143-215.6A-C (authorizing civil and
criminal penalties and injunctive relief for violations of surface water standards).
66 See National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Memorandum of Agreement Between the State of North
Carolina and the United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 4 (2007),
hiips://www. epa. gov/sites/production/files/2013-09/documents/nc-moa-npdes.pdf.
67 N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-215.1.
68 N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-215.1(b).
69 15A N.C.A.C. 2H .0112(c).
70 15A N.C.A.C. 2H .01050) (emphasis added); see 40 C.F.R. § Pt. 122, App. A (identifying "steam electric power
plants" as a NPDES primary industry category).
11

any substance or combination of substances (including disease -causing agents), which
after discharge and upon exposure, ingestion, inhalation, or assimilation into any
organism, either directly from the environment or indirectly by ingestion through food
chains, has the potential to cause death, disease, behavioral abnormalities, cancer, genetic
mutations, physiological malfunctions (including malfunctions or suppression in
reproduction or growth) or physical deformities in such organisms or their offspring.71
These disclosure obligations are critical, in part, because they define the scope of the
Clean Water Act's "permit shield." While compliance with the express terms of an NPDES
permit generally "shields" the permittee from liability for violations of 33 U.S.C. § 1311, the
permit does not shield the permittee from liability where the pollutant being discharged was not
within the "reasonable contemplation" of the permitting agency when it issued the permit due to
nondisclosure by the permittee.72 "`Because the permitting scheme is dependent on the
permitting authority being able to judge whether the discharge of a particular pollutant
constitutes a significant threat to the environment, discharges not within the reasonable
contemplation of the permitting authority during the permit application process do not receive
the shield's protection."73 Similarly, EPA's guidance regarding the permit shield provides that a
permit only "provides authorization and therefore a shield for ... pollutants resulting from
facility processes, waste streams and operations that have been clearly identified in the permit
application process when discharged from specified outfalls."74 Emphasizing the importance of
these disclosure requirements, the signatory to a permit application must swear to its accuracy.75
Accordingly, CPI is required to disclose all pollutants that it reasonably expects to
discharge. One way in which CPI could develop a reasonable belief about the pollutants
contained in its wastewater —the more theoretical method —is to review its various waste
streams, including which pollutants are contained in its fuel sources and which of those leach off
of fuel piles or are left in bottom ash after combustion. Another, more practical way to do so is
simply to conduct testing at the facility's outfalls, making sure to do so more than once, under
different operating conditions such as different fuel mixes. These methods are no not mutually
exclusive.
Based on the Draft Renewal Permit and CPI's Application, CPI should have identified
some additional pollutants and should have conducted additional testing. In its Application, CPI
completed the effluent data table that is item 15 of DEQ's "NPDES Permit Application —Short
Form C—Minor Industrial," which requires the applicant to provide values for: biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD5), chemical oxygen demand, total organic carbon, total suspended solids,
ammonia (as N), temperature (both winter and summer), pH, fecal coliform, and total residual
chlorine.76 The only addition that CPI made to this list was to state: "Data for minor discharge
71 15A N.C.A.C. 2B .0202(64).
72 33 U.S.C. § 1342(k); see Piney Run, 268 F.3d at 265.
73 S. Appalachian Mountain Stewards v. A & G Coal Corp., 758 F.3d 560, 564 (4th Cir. 2014) (quoting Piney Run,
268 F.3d at 268).
74 U.S. ENVT'L PROT. AGENCY, REVISED POLICY STATEMENT ON SCOPE OF DISCHARGE AUTHORIZATION AND SHIELD
ASSOCIATED WITH NPDES PERMITS, hiips://www3.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/owmOI31.pdi
75 NPDES Permit Standard Condition § II.13.11.d; 40 C.F.R. § 122.22.
76 Renewal Application PDF 11.
12

due to clean out of submerged bottom ash drag chain provided in Appendix 4."77 Appendix 4
shows discharge monitoring reports (DMRs) dating from February 2015 through February 2016
for internal Outfalls 001, 002, and 004.78
There are two big flaws with this disclosure. First, Outfall 003 does not appear among
these DMRs. This omission is alarming. Outfall 003 is the final outfall before the facility's
wastewater is conveyed to the Atlantic Ocean, making it the essential outfall both for testing and
for setting protective limits. In addition, Outfall 003 receives bottom -ash transport water and
might be the only outfall the does so,79 making testing there essential. (The Draft Renewal
Permit identifies Outfall 001 as receiving bottom -ash transport water as well.80) Furthermore,
the Application also does not explain whether any of the outfalls were tested at a time when
CPI's bottom -ash transport water was being flushed from its drag -chain pit .81
Second, these DMRs are based on the existing 2011 permit and therefore include
monitoring information only for the pollutants limited in that permit, which is incomplete. For
example, although Outfall 001 discharges coal -pile runoff and potentially bottom -ash transport
water, the 2011 permit limits only flow, total suspended solids, and oil and grease, 82 and the
DMRs for Outfall 001 show results only for these pollutants.83 Based on the pollutants that the
facility is likely to discharge, discussed above, the existing 2011 permit almost certainly fails to
set limits for important pollutants that the facility discharges. Based on the constituents of coal
ash, CPI should reasonably expect its bottom -ash transport water to contain antimony, arsenic,
barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, and thallium.
This is nearly the entire list of "other toxic pollutants (metals and cyanide) and total phenols"84
that applicants with processes in a primary industry category are required to test for. 5 Based on
discharging runoff from a woodpile that may contain creosote, CPI should reasonably expect its
wastewater also to contain a variety of PAHs, as well as phenols86 and cresol.87 In drafting the
renewed permit, DEQ must not simply transcribe those limits, but instead require CPI to meet its
disclosure obligation and set limits for any additional pollutants revealed.
Consistently with its duty to ensure compliance with the Clean Water Act88 and its
correct decision to classify Southport Power Plant as a major NPDES facility, DEQ should
require CPI to test its wastewater for the full suite of primary -industry pollutants. CPI submitted
its renewal application under its prior minor NPDES designation, on the "Short Form C—Minor
Industrial" form, with limited effluent data.89 As a major NPDES facility that discharges process
77 Id.
78 Renewal Application, App'x 4: Discharge Monitoring Reports & Supporting Effluent Data, PDF 39-93.
79 See Renewal Application PDF 15.
80 Draft Renewal Permit 3 (PDF 6).
81 See Renewal Application PDF 94.
" 2011 Permit PDF 5.
83 Renewal Application, App'x 4: Discharge Monitoring Reports & Supporting Effluent Data, PDF 40.
84 40 C.F.R. § Pt. 122, App. D, Table III.
8s 40 C.F.R. § 122.2 1 (g)(7)(v) (requiring this testing for "existing manufacturing, commercial, mining, and
silvicultural dischargers" that have "processes in one or more primary industry category").
86 See 40 C.F.R. § Pt. 122, App. D, Table III (listing total phenols).
87 See 40 C.F.R. § Pt. 122, App. D, Table V (listing cresol).
88 40 C.F.R. § 122.4(a).
89 See Renewal Application 4 (PDF 11).
13

wastewater, CPI should submit its renewal application on EPA Form 2C,90 which pursuant to
federal law requires this testing.91 DEQ should require it to do so. In light of CPI's apparent
omission of DMRs from Outfall 003, DEQ should be sure to require it to test its bottom -ash
transport water specifically, without permitting CPI to discharge that wastewater externally.
2. Require Whole Effluent Toxicity Tests
Whole effluent toxicity ("WET") refers to the aggregate toxic effect to aquatic organisms
from all pollutants contained in a facility's wastewater. It is one of the ways in which regulators
prevent the discharge of pollutants in toxic amounts. WET measures the effects of a discharger's
wastewater on specific test organisms' ability to survive, grow, and reproduce. There are
different methods of WET testing for freshwater and marine ecosystems, and for acute and
chronic toxicity. Testing methods are described in federal regulations at 40 C.F.R. § 136.3.92
Pursuant to an August 2, 1999 memorandum, DEQ requires appropriate WET testing for all
"major" NPDES dischargers and any discharger of "complex" wastewater.93
DEQ proposes not to require CPI to conduct WET testing of its discharges, reasoning that
"[b]ecause this facility discharges to the Atlantic Ocean via [Brunswick Steam Electric Plant
(`BSEP")] discharge canal (not waters of the state), WET testing is not required. ,94 This
reasoning is flawed. First, pursuant to the August 2, 1999 WET memorandum, DEQ should
require CPI to conduct WET testing simply because CPI is a major NPDES facility. Second,
DEQ's reasoning proves too much; if CPI need not conduct WET testing because the waterbody
that immediately receives its wastewater is the BSEP discharge canal, which is man-made and
not a water of the State, then none of Southport Power Plant's wastewater streams are discharged
to a jurisdictional water and it does not need a NPDES permit at all. Under this line of
reasoning, it would be the permittee for the BSEP canal —Duke Energy Progress —that is
responsible for CPI's discharges because only the BSEP discharges directly to the jurisdictional
Atlantic Ocean.95 However, the draft renewal permit for BSEP does not allow it to discharge
CPI's wastewater.96 More importantly, this position is contrary to the Clean Water Act, which
90 NPDES Applications, N.C. DEP'T OF ENVT'L QUALITY, https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/water-
resources-permits/wastewater-branch/npdes-wastewater/applications (last visited August 1, 2019).
91 U.S. Envt'l Prot. Agency, Application Form 2C—Wastewater discharge Information (EPA Form 3510-2C),
https: //files. nc.,lzov/ncdeq/W ater%2OQuality/Surface%20 W ater%20Protection/NPDE S/APPLICATION%20FORMS
/EPA-Form-2C-20090710-DWO-S WP-NPDES.pdf.
92 Whole Effluent Toxicity Methods, U.S. ENvT'L PROT. AGENCY, https://www.epa.,lzov/cwa-methods/whole-
effluent-toxicity-methods#chron-marine (last visited July 30, 2019).
93 Memorandum from Coleen Sullins, N.C. Dep't of Envt'l Quality, Div. of Water Quality, to Regional Supervisors
1 (Aug. 2, 1999), http://portal.ncdenr.oriz/c/document librar/get file?uuid=448ccafd-ced9-4764-8185-
a7f471 fbdbdd&P,roupId=38364.
94 Draft Fact Sheet 7.
95 40 C.F.R. § 230.3(o)(1)(iii); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-212(6).
96 BSEP Draft Renewal Permit 2,
https://edocs.deg.nc.gov/WaterResources/DocView.aspx?dbid=0&id=636789&pace=l &searchid=96996616-fOfU-
4dl 5-8bdc-9f6c7dl 50ff3&cr=1.
14

puts the responsibility for a discharge on the discharger, regardless of how the discharge reaches
jurisdictional waters.97
Accordingly, DEQ should require CPI to conduct appropriate WET tests. The rationale
underlying DEQ's decision not to require WET testing appears really to be not that BSEP's canal
is not jurisdictional, but that there is nothing in the canal for CPI's wastewater to kill. This may
be true as far as it goes, but the affected environment in question is the marine ecosystem in the
Atlantic Ocean around the BSEP outfall. Dilution in the BSEP canal might affect how CPI's
discharge affects that ecosystem and therefore what type of WET testing that CPI conducts. For
example, after dilution in the BSEP canal, CPI's wastewater might be less acutely toxic to
marine organisms in range of the canal's mixing zone, but might still be toxic under chronic
exposure. Which forms of WET testing to require is a decision for DEQ to make using its
expertise to protect public health and the environment. To get an accurate measurement of the
toxicity of CPI's wastewater, DEQ should require two separate WET tests, one for CPI's
wastewater when it includes bottom -ash transport water (again, without permitting CPI to
discharge this water to the canal), and one for its regular wastewater exclusive of bottom -ash
transport water. Finally, although Duke Energy Progress and CPI are each responsible for their
own discharges, the combined discharge through the BSEP canal raises an additional WET
concern, namely, that the whole of their combined pollutants might be more toxic than the sum
of their separate WETs. DEQ should require a WET test for the combined discharge because
that is what marine organisms experience.
3. Set Limits in This Permit Based on Test Results
DEQ is under an obligation to use the effluent information provided by permit applicants
to protect public health and the environment, in pursuit of the state's policy to conserve its water
and air resources and to "maintain for the citizens of the State a total environment of superior
quality."98 DEQ must not issue a permit if the conditions of the permit do not ensure compliance
with the applicable requirements of the Clean Water Act99including technology -based effluent
limitations, discussed below —and applicable water quality standards.100 To carry out the
NPDES program, DEQ should "analyze[] the environmental risk posed by the discharge, and
place[] limits on those pollutants that ... it `reasonably anticipates' could damage the
environmental integrity of the affected waterway."101
To satisfy this obligation, DEQ should require CPI to carry out the testing described
above, and then incorporate the results into limits and conditions in this renewal permit, subject
to frequent monitoring. In the Draft Renewal Permit, DEQ proposes finally to require CPI to
conduct a PPA on Outfall 003 once per permit cycle, beginning only in the next permit cycle.102
97 Upstate Forever v. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P., 887 F.3d 637, 650 (4th Cir. 2018) (citing 33 U.S.C. §
1362(12)(A)); see also N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-215.1(a)(6) (prohibiting discharge "directly or indirectly" in violation
of water quality standards or effluent limitations).
98 N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-211(a).
99 40 C.F.R. § 122.4(a).
'00 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2H .0112(c).
'0' Piney Run, 268 F.3d at 268.
102 Draft Renewal Permit cover letter 2-3; Draft Renewal Permit 6 n.3. The publicly available Laserfiche file for
Southport Power Plant's NPDES permits does not reveal any prior PPAs.
15

DEQ offers no reason for allowing this delay and none is obvious, particularly when three years
have elapsed since CPI's current weak permit expired. DEQ imposes no conditions on when this
PPA may take place during the course of the ensuing four and a half years, and in particular does
not require that it take place at a time when CPI is flushing bottom ash from its drag -chain pit.
Furthermore, DEQ proposes to allow CPI to demonstrate compliance with the priority pollutant
discharge prohibition through engineering calculations, rather than actually physically testing the
wastewater. This is insufficient. DEQ should direct CPI to conduct the testing described above,
using actual samples of its wastewater.
C. Wastewater Treatment System Must use Best Available Technology
Under the Clean Water Act, polluters must control their discharges of pollutants using the
best available technology economically achievable ("BAT"): "such effluent limitations shall
require the elimination of discharges of all pollutants if the Administrator finds ... that such
elimination is technologically and economically achievable."'0' The EPA requires that
"[t]echnology-based effluent limitations shall be established under this subpart for solids,
sludges, filter backwash, and other pollutants removed in the course of treatment or control of
wastewaters in the same manner as for other pollutants." 104
In the absence of promulgated effluent limitation guidelines, the NPDES permit writer
must use best professional judgment ("BPJ") to determine the BAT standard applicable to the
wastewater discharges from Southport Power Plant.105 When applying BPJ, "[i]ndividual
judgments []take the place of uniform national guidelines, but the technology -based standard
remains the same."10 In other words, the DWR must operate within strict limits when
identifying BAT based on BPJ.
The first step in identifying BAT is identifying available technologies. At a minimum,
technological availability is "based on the performance of the single best -performing plant in an
industrial field."107 In other words, if the technology is being applied by any plant in the
industry, it is achievable.108 But determination of technological availability is not limited to a
single industrial field. "Congress contemplated that EPA might use technology from other
industries to establish the [BAT]."109 International facilities can also be used to define BAT. 110
EPA's NPDES Permit Writers' Manual states that "BAT limitations may be based on effluent
reductions attainable through changes in a facility's processes and operations.... even when
103 33 U.S.C. § 1311(b)(2)(A).
104 40 C.F.R. § 125.3(g).
105 33 U.S.C. § 1342(a)(1)(B); 40 C.F.R. § 125.3; 15A N.C. Admin. Code 211.0118.
106 Texas Oil & Gas Assn v. U.S. E.P.A., 161 F.3d 923 (5th Cir. 1998).
107 Chem. Mfrs. Assn v. U.S. E.P.A., 870 F.2d 177, 226 (5th Cir.) decision clarified on reh'g, 885 F.2d 253 (5th Cir.
1989); see Am. Paper Inst. v. Train, 543 F.2d 328, 346 (D.C. Cir. 1976) (BAT should "at a minimum, be established
with reference to the best performer in any industrial category").
108 See Kennecott v. U.S. E.P.A., 780 F.2d 445, 448 (4th Cir. 1985) ("In setting BAT, EPA uses
not the average plant, but the optimally operating plant, the pilot plant which acts as a
beacon to show what is possible").
'09 Id. at 453.
110 Am. Frozen Food Inst. v. Train, 539 F.2d 107, 132 (D.C. Cir. 1976).
16

those technologies are not common industry practice.""' Even pilot studies and laboratory
studies can be used to establish BAT; the technology need not be in commercial use to be
considered available.' 12
In sum, BAT requires "a commitment of the maximum resources economically possible to
the ultimate goal of eliminating all polluting discharges."113
1. The Draft Renewal Permit Fails to Require Effluent Limitations Based on
BAT
There are significant flaws in DEQ's technology -based effluent limitations ("TBELs")
analysis, explained in the Draft Fact Sheet for the Draft Renewal Permit.114 First, DEQ has not
established any TBELs for Outfall 003.115 DEQ does not explain its decision to limit TBELs to
internal outfalls. As discussed above, Outfall 003 is the final outfall at the facility before CPI's
wastewater is conveyed through the BSEP canal to the ocean and appears to be the only outfall
that discharges CPI's bottom -ash transport water. As the sole external outfall at the facility, it is
crucial to establish strong TBELs for Outfall 003, and these TBELs must take into account all of
the facility's wastewater streams. To the extent that the waste streams leading to internal outfalls
may be subject to different TBELs from one another, the most stringent should apply at Outfall
003.
Second, DEQ incorrectly determined that BAT applies to only one waste stream, cooling
tower blowdown, finding that "best professional judgment" (`BPJ") or "new source performance
standards" ("NSPS") apply to the remaining waste streams, including bottom -ash transport
water.116 DEQ explains that it has relied on TBELs for the "steam electric power generating
point source category," set out at 40 C.F.R. Part 423, "' and includes excerpts from a 1982 EPA
guidance document on effluent limitations for this source category.118 This document appears to
show the concentrations of various pollutants in effluent from the coal -ash settling ponds at a
number of coal -burning power plants in the early 1980s. It does not represent the current BAT.
BAT for this source category is provided in the effluent limitation guidelines at 40 C.F.R.
§ 423.13. Applying BAT results in stricter permit limits than DEQ has proposed. Most
importantly, BAT for bottom -ash transport water is "no discharge," a standard that dischargers
"'U.S. ENVT'L PROT. AGENCY, NPDES PERmrr WRITERS' MANUAL 5-16 (Sept. 2010),
hiips://nepis.epa. gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/P 1009L3 5.TXT?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=EPA&Index=2006+Thru
+2010&Docs=&Query=&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=l&TocRestrict=n&Toc=&TocEntry�—::&QField=&QF
ieldYear=&QFieldMonth=&QFieldDay=&IntQFieldOp=O&ExtQFieldOp=O&XmlQuery=&File=D%3 A%5 Czyfiles
%5C1ndex%20Data%5C06thru10%5CTxt%5C00000023%5CP 1009L35.txt&User=ANONYMOUS&Password=an
onymous& S ortMetho d=h%7 C -
&MaximumDocuments=l&FuzzyDegree=0&ImageQuality=r750/r75 8/g x150yl5006/i425&Display=hpfr&DefSe
ekPaae=x&SearchBack=ZyActionL&Back=ZyActionS&BackDesc=Results%20paae&MaximumPaizes=1 &ZyEntr
y=1&SeekPage=x&Z. Pam.
112 See American Paper Inst. v. Train, 543 F.2d 328, 353 (D.C. Cir. 1976).
113 EPA v. National Crushed StoneAss'n, 449 U.S. 64, 74 (1980) (emphasis added).
114 Draft Fact Sheet 8.
115 Draft Fact Sheet 8-9.
116 Draft Fact Sheet 8.
117 Draft Fact Sheet 6.
' 18 Draft Fact Sheet at PDF 120-25.
17

must meet by a date to be determined by the permitting authority. This date must be "as soon as
possible beginning November 1, 2020, but no later than December 31, 2023."119 The renewal
permit that DEQ ultimately issues will extend at least into 2024, but the Draft Renewal Permit
unlawfully fails to require CPI to cease discharging any bottom -ash transport water. BAT
requires stricter effluent limitations on other wastewater streams as well. For example, BAT for
cooling -tower blowdown limits total zinc to Img/L,120 yet Outfall 001, which includes cooling -
tower blowdown,121 limits only flow, pH, total suspended solids, and oil and grease.122 As noted
above, for waste streams not listed in this regulation, the permit writer must use BPJ to determine
BAT.
Furthermore, DEQ improperly failed to apply water quality -based effluent limits
("WQBELs") on top of TBELs. In its description of its "reasonable potential analysis" ("RPA")
for toxicants, DEQ explains that WQBELs and nutrient strategies were "evaluated but not
applied at Outfall 003 (the final outfall)," apparently because the BSEP canal is not a water of
the State, and WQBELs and nutrient strategies apply to the Atlantic Ocean instead.123 For
reasons discussed above, simply because CPI's wastewater passes through the BSEP canal
before reaching jurisdictional waters does not mean that Clean Water Act requirements such as
WQBELs do not apply. The Clean Water Act contemplates protections based on the best
available technology, followed by any further restrictions necessary to meet WQBELs. 124
2. Better Wastewater Treatment is Technologically and Economically
Achievable
Zero liquid discharge ("ZLD"), a wastewater management strategy that eliminates any
liquid waste leaving the plant or facility boundary with the majority of water being recovered for
reuse, is the primary way of achieving a closed -loop cycle for industrial wastewater coming from
power plants.125 Closed -loop systems for industrial wastewater have been contemplated as cost-
effective environmental alternatives to traditional industrial wastewater discharge practices for
several decades.126 ZLD dates back to the 1970s, but has become more popular as technology
and policy have advanced. Improvements in ZLD technologies now make it possible to create a
closed system, reduce costs, and mitigate coal-fired plants' environmental impacts.127
1" 40 C.F.R. § 423.13(k)(1)(i). The ELG rule exempts electric generating units with nameplate capacities of less
than 50 megawatts, 40 C.F.R. § 423.13(k)(2); however, Southport Power Plant is larger, at approximately 88
megawatts.
"0 40 C.F.R. § 423.13(d)(1).
121 Draft Permit 3.
122 Draft Permit 3; Draft Fact Sheet 8.
123 Draft Fact Sheet 6.
124 33 U.S.C. § 1311(b), 1314(b); 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(a)(1), (d).
115 Tiezhen Tong and Menachem Elimelech, The Global Rise of Zero Liquid Discharge for
Wastewater Management: Drivers, Technologies, and Future Directions, ENVT'L SCI.& TECH.,
2016, 50, https: [/pubs.acs.org/doi/�df/10.1021/acs.est.6b01000.
126 See, e.g., William J. Lacy, The closed -loop cycle for industrial wastewater: The future pollution solution, ENVT'L
INT'L, Vol. 2, Issue 1, 3-8 (1979).
127 Numbers Game: Plant Pollution and Zero Liquid Dischargei, GOODwAY TECH. CORP. (Feb. 26, 2016),
https://www. og odway.com/hvac-blog/2016/02/numbers-game-plant-pollution-and-zero-liquid-discharge/.
OR

ZLD systems work by evaporating the purge stream and completely separating dissolved
contaminants from the water.128 This process produces a stable solid which can be landfilled or
sold, and high -quality distilled water that is returned for reuse in the plant. While ZLD requires
an energy and capital investment, the cost of the technology can be partially offset by the sale of
valuable byproducts such as calcium carbonate and critical metals and elements, which can result
in a supplementary stream of income for power plants.129 ZLD also alleviates several concerns
present with conventional wastewater treatment and disposal: for example, ZLD eliminates the
need to dispose of certain wastewater off -site, offsets freshwater shortages driven by the growth
of global water -intensive industries, and makes it easier to comply with government discharge
permits.130
In 2008, there were 82 ZLD plants, 60 of which were associated with the power industry.
In 2015, EPA promulgated technology -based effluent limitations guidelines and standards
("2015 ELGs") that tightened existing regulations on wastewater discharge from thermal power
plants and provided additional regulatory incentives for ZLD installation in U.S. power plants.131
Multiple power plants have moved towards a ZLD configuration even though the 2015 ELGs
will not take effect for several years. For example, the Dallman Power Station in Springfield,
Illinois, achieved zero liquid discharge for Flue Gas Desulfurization almost a decade ago in
2010.131 In 2012, the Mayo Generation Station in Roxboro, NC, installed a partial ZLD
treatment system for flue -gas desulfurization.133
The Southport Plant discharges four kinds of industrial wastewaters: coal pile runoff, fuel
pile runoff (wood and tire derived fuel), wastewaters (boiler feed water, boiler blowdown, and
misc. sumps), and bottom ash transport water. At least some of these discharges can be
eliminated through the adoption of a ZLD configuration. For example, the bottom ash system
could be converted to a ZLD configuration.134 Industry experts agree that closed -loop bottom
ash water systems can be implemented in an efficient and effective manner and can even
improve a power system's overall operations.135 The wastewater disposal system, which includes
cooling tower blowdown, could also be modified so that wastewater is reused rather than
discharged into the local waterway.136 For example, the Indiantown Cogeneration Plant in
12a William A. Shaw, PE, Fundamentals of Zero Liquid Discharge System Design, POWER NIAG. (Oct. 1, 2011),
https://www.powermag.com/fundamentals-of-zero-liquid-dischar ems-system-design/?printmode=1.
129 Wastewater Treatment for Power Plants: Considering Zero Liquid Discharge, WESTECH ENG'G (Sept. 5, 2017),
http: //www. westech-inc. com/blog-commerical-industry/wastewater-treatment-for-power-plants-considering-zero-
lii uid-discharge.
130 Id.
131 Id.; 40 C.F.R. § 423.13 (k)(1)(i).
132Coal fired power plant achieves ZLD for FGD wastewater, AQUATECH INTERNATIONAL CORP. (Sept. 14, 2010),
h!Ws://www.environmental-expert. com/articles/coal-fired-power-plant-achieves-zld-for-fgd-wastewater-194733.
133 Examining ZLD Options for Electric Power Facilities, WATERWORLD (Oct. 1, 2012),
h!Ws://www.waterworld.com/industrial/article/16211578/examinin -zg Id -options -for -electric -power -facilities.
134 David Weakley, II, Zero Liquid Discharge: Bottom Ash Transport Water, GAI CONSULTANTS
( 2016), https:/.Igaiconsultants.com/zero-liquid-discharge-bottom-ash-transport-water/.
1 5 Id. at 4.
136 Describing a coal-fired plant in Florida that has "modified its wastewater treatment
technology in 2017 to add equipment that allows it to reuse its wastewater instead of
discarding it, achieving zero liquid discharge and eliminating disposal into the local
waterway." Wastewater Treatment for Power Plants: Considering Zero Liquid Discharge,
19

Florida, a 360 MW coal-fired plant, has successfully operated under a ZLD scheme for
wastewater for over two decades.137
CPI has the resources to employ better wastewater treatment technology. According to
its 2016 Annual Report, "Capital Power has a strong balance sheet, an investment -grade credit
rating and access to the capital markets to fund growth."138 That year, "[it] raised approximately
$1 billion in gross proceeds from financings, which included a $450 million medium -term note, a
$183 million common -share issuance, and $150 million in preferred shares. These financings
significantly improve [its] liquidity and strengthen [its] balance sheet and financing capabilities
so [it] can continue to invest in new assets." 139 Furthermore, Dividends paid by the company to
holders of common stock have been steadily rising since 2013. "Due to the success of our
focused growth strategy in targeted Canadian and U.S. markets in both natural gas and
renewables, [the company] extended [its] 7% dividend growth target through 2021." 140 This
indicates that Capital Power has excess cash flow and anticipates having excess cash flow in the
future.
D. Storm Preparedness
In light of the presence of transformer oil that likely contains PCBs as well as other
potentially hazardous materials on -site, DEQ should require improved management practices for
storm preparedness. First, DEQ should require full -capacity secondary containment for all
transformer oil to prevent the discharge of PCBs. Merely directing CPI not to discharge PCBs is
not enough, particularly under the growing threat of severe storms. Second, DEQ should require
CPI to show that its BMPs are sufficient to prevent discharges under present and forecast severe -
storm conditions. Among other things, containment for hazardous materials such as transformer
oil should be capable of preventing discharge even during flood conditions.141
III. Conclusion
For reasons set forth above, Conservation Groups request DEQ take the following actions
concerning the renewal of the NPDES wastewater permit for Southpoint Power Plant:
1) require CPI to test its bottom -ash transport water for primary -industry pollutants
and any other pollutants that CPI reasonably should expect to discharge, but
prohibit CPI from discharging bottom -ash transport water from Outfall 003 to do
so;
WESTECH ENG'G (Sept. 5, 2017), http://www.westech-inc.com/blog-commerical-
industry/wastewater-treatment-for-power-plants-considering-zero-liquid-discharge.
131 Examining ZLD Options for Electric Power Facilities, WATERWORLD (Oct. 1, 2012),
hit2s://WWW'Waterworld.com/industrial/article/I 6211578/examinin g-zld-options-for-electric-power-facilities.
"' CAPITAL, POWER, ANNUAL REPORT 2016 at 6, https://www.cgpitalpower.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/2016-
Annual-Report.pdf.
139 CAPITAL, POWER, ANNUAL REPORT 2017 at 8, https://www.capitalpower.com/"-content/uploads/2019/06/2017-
Annual-Report.pdf.
140 CAPITAL POWER, ANNUAL REPORT 2018 at 10, hlWs://www.capitalpower.com/wP-
content/uploads/2019/06/2018-Annual-Report-1.pdf.
141 See Blair -Frasier, R., & M. Hockett, Q & A: Protecting Facilities from Hurricane Damage, DISQUS (2017),
https: //www. manufacturing.net/article/2017/06/q -protecting-facilities-hurricane-damage.
20

2) require CPI to test its other wastewater for primary -industry pollutants and any
other pollutants that CPI reasonably should expect to discharge;
3) set limits in this renewal permit based on the pollutants identified in testing and
require frequent monitoring for them, including a priority pollutant analysis for
Outfall 003 at least annually based on actual grab or composite sampling;
4) use BAT to establish the effluent limits for all of CPI's wastewater streams,
including using BPJ to determine BAT if necessary;
5) consistently with 40 C.F.R. § 423.13(k)(1)(i), require CPI to cease discharging
bottom -ash transport water as soon as possible but no later than December 31,
2023;
6) consistently with BAT, require CPI to employ improved wastewater treatment for
all waste streams, including ZLD wherever feasible;
7) require CPI to employ more protective measures to guard against releases during
severe storms.
In addition, due to high potential for CPI's wastewater discharge to affect the nearshore
ecosystem and recreation at Caswell Beach, Conservation Groups request DEQ hold a public
hearing on the renewal permit.142
Thank you for considering our comments and for your service to the State.
� *6ry
Kerri Allen, Coastal Advocate
North Carolina Coastal Federation
Pete Key
President
Brunswick Environmental Action Team
Chandra Taylor
Senior Attorney
Southern Environmental Law Center
Cape Fear Riverkeeper
Cape Fear Riverwatch
Bridget Lee
Senior Attorney
Sierra Club
Nick Jimenez
Associate Attorney
Southern Environmental Law Center
142 See 33 USC 1342(b); 40 C.F.R. § 104.3; 40 C.F.R. § 124.12.
21

Denard, Derek
From: Theodore Todorov <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, December 13, 2019 10:57 AM
To: SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: [External] CPI
External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
[e-mail]
Hello,
I live at 405 Fire Fly Lane, Southport, North Carolina. I write with concern about the request for renewal of CPI's
stormwater and wastewater discharge permits.
It is clear, more frequent, neutral oversight of the plants operations is warranted. In addition to the potential for
irreparable damage to the environment from wastewater discharge, the CPI plant is the cause of air and noise pollution
in the surrounding area. It is disruptive to residents and frankly, very messy. On a weekly basis (minimally)we have to
wipe down railings and outdoor furniture. It can be difficult to converse, at times, because of noise from the plant. We
are unsure, what, if any damage, the soot from the plant is causing to those who breathe it in the course of being
outdoors.
I suggest, as a start, a council be formed with community representation to facilitate communication between the plant
and the community. More importantly, I urge you to carefully consider CPI's permit request. There needs to first be
more transparency from CPI and assurances provided to Brunswick County residents that their health and safety are not
being jeopardized.
Sincerely,
Theodore G. Todorov
405 Fire Fly Lane
Southport, North Carolina 28461

Denard, Derek
From: Ted Todorov <[e-mail]>
Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2019 10:46 AM
To: SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject: [External] Southport CPI plant
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Good day,
I am writing for the second time to express concern about the operation of the neighboring CPI plant in Southport,
North Carolina.
As a property owner, I have major concerns about the excessive noise coming from the plant. I write this on a Sunday
morning having listened to noise from CPI constantly, day and night throughout the weekend. Even with our windows
shut the noise is loud enough to be disruptive to sleep patterns.
The noise concerns are only part of the potential damaging impacts of the plant's operations. There are serious air and
water quality issues as well.
I urge you to carefully consider the application from CPI to renew their permit and consider the detrimental effect they
are having on quality of life in Brunswick County.
Sincerely,
Theodore G. Todorov
405 Fire Fly Lane
Southport,NC. 28461
Sent from my Whone

Denard, Derek
From: Tom Tomlinson <[e-mail]>
Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2019 2:08 PM
To: Denard, Derek
Cc: SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject: [External] Comments CPI permit renewal hearing
External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
[e-mail]
Dear Mr. Derek Denard,
I was at the November 21, 2019 public hearing in Bolivia about the permit renewal of NC0065099 and NCS000348
wastewater and stormwater discharges by CPI in Southport, NC. I'm glad North Carolina has such hearings and glad I
was able to attend. Thank you for driving down from Burlington.
I was one of the last speakers. You asked us to leave you a copy of our comments if possible. This email is intended to
be my written version of my extemporaneous comments. (Maybe a wee bit expanded for clarity and context.)
---BEGIN COMMENTS SUMMARY ---
I live so close to the CPI plant that the flashing lights on the two stacks literally illuminate my bedroom walls. Even when
I draw the curtains my wife will sometimes ask me in the night if there is a storm, mistaking the flashers for lightning.
Many of the speakers tonight seemed to think you (DEQ) have the ability to make the terms of the permit stronger and
require tougher limitations on quantities of chemical contaminants that leave the plant. I hope you can. Concerns
about air, noise, and water pollution were widely expressed.
It is fairly common among businesses to complain about "excess regulation" and how this hurts their ability to remain
profitable. Sometimes regulation may slow the speed of business or add costs to operations. Pollution regulations are
necessary to protect the people and environment close to the business location. Such requirements and any potential
extra expenses are just a cost of doing business. Some costs are fixed, some are variable. Some costs are optional,
some are mandatory. Saving a few hundred thousand dollars in this area while paying high-ranking executives millions
in annual compensation is something I consider to be wrong. Objecting to spending $500K on abatement and mitigation
equipment while paying lobbyists several million dollars a year is not right. But this is how the business often likes to
frame the discussion. This is self-serving and disingenuous.
I expect the full process of permit approval includes some back and forth between regulators and those regulated. I
urge you not to be persuaded by complaints from the company (CPI) that more stringent limitations on type and
quantity of permitted pollutant discharges will cost too much to implement.
Thank you for listening to me express my thoughts.
---END COMMENTS SUMMARY ---
Your initial presentation and discussion of the project background report was very informative. I hope the Agency is
able to make this PDF available on the public DEQ website. I would like to share it with several neighbors who were
unable to attend the hearing.

I hope you are able to do the right thing for the people who live near the plant and who are directly affected by the
various forms of pollution coming from the plant.
Thank you for your hard work at the Department of Environmental Quality.
Regards,
Tom Tomlinson
5972 Gray Squirrel Path
Southport, NC 28461
336.575.3353

Denard, Derek
From: Chad Hicks <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2019 2:09 PM
To: Denard, Derek
Cc: Deborah Ahlers
Subject: [External] Public Comments on CPI Discharge Permit
Attachments: SubmittedPublicCommentsCPI.pdf
External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
[e-mail]
Hello Derek,
Please see our attached public comments.
Thanks you,
Chad Hicks
Caswell Beach

TOWN OF CASWER BEACh
1100 Caswell Beach Road • Caswell Beach, NC 28465
[phone] • Fax: [phone] • Website: www.caswelibeach.org
November 21, 2019
Derek Denard, Environmental Specialist
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality— Division of Water Resources
Water Quality Permitting Section
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Re: Town of Caswell Beach Comments on NPDES Draft Permit NC0065099
Dear Mr. Denard,
The Town of Caswell Beach wishes to thank the staff at the North Carolina Department of Environmental
Quality — Division of Water Resources for allowing the town to submit comments on the proposed
wastewater permit application for CPI USA North Carolina (CPI). We appreciate the hard work that you
and your staff provide the citizens of North Carolina.
Caswell Beach is located just a short distance from where the permit states that wastewater from CPI
will be discharged into the Atlantic Ocean. Healthy town beaches and good recreational water quality
are critical for the Town of Caswell Beach. The summer population in Caswell Beach more than
quadruples as tourists vacation in town to enjoy our beaches and ocean waters.
After reading the draft permit application, Caswell Beach respectfully asks that North Carolina
Department of Environmental Quality require that all chemicals that are reasonably expected in this
discharge stream be identified and monitored as part of the required permit approval conditions.
Caswell Beach also feels that limits should be placed on each potentially harmful chemical in the stream
and be restricted as necessary to preserve the health of our community and environment.
We believe that CPI, Archer Daniels Midland, and Duke Energy are good neighbors in our community.
Caswell Beach has no interest in causing our corporate neighbors any undo regulatory burdens. We do
however feel that it is our obligation to know what chemicals are in the discharge stream and that those

chemicals are limited in order to protect our town. We trust that CPI and the North Carolina
Department of Environmental Quality will work to assure the residents and visitors of Caswell Beach
that the discharge stream will not pose any hazards to our town or environment.
Sincerely,
IV
.Deborah G. Ahlers, Mayor
' Caswell Beach, NC
i�
Town of Caswell Beach
1100 Caswell Beach Road
Caswell Beach, NC 28465

Good evening, my name is Carole Kozloski, my husband Peter and I own a home
that backs up to Prices Creek and Capitol Power. I understand the purpose of this
meeting tonight is to discuss the renewal of CPI's permits to discharge wastewater
into the Atlantic Ocean, and storm water into Prices Creek, from their Southport
plant, I would ask that you strengthen their permit requests to better protect our
residents and our water.
I feel it is also important to discuss the ash that is emitted from the plant. The ash
is a direct result of CPI's burning of tires and railroad ties. The ash is visible on our
outdoor furniture, in our pool, on the exterior of our home and on our sidewalks, I
know this is not just an issue exclusive to our neighborhood, but also in
surrounding neighborhoods and depending on the way the wind blows, even
residents of ds tug Southport are effected.
In the summer of 2016 the Environmental Management Commission granted the
plant a special order of consent, a facility can be granted a Special Order of
Consent, if it is consistently unable to comply with the terms, conditions or
limitations in a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit. CPI's
Southport plants SOC expires in December 2020.
I cannot imagine that CPI's discharges into the water and air are safe for us or the
environment.
"In addition to these impacts on our air and water, operations at CPI emit constant
noise. When CPI opens their vents, it sounds like a jet engine taking off, and the
`noise can go on for hours. Have you examined the impact that this sound pollution
has on local wildlife populations? Furthermore, the noise generated by CPI, in
addition to the visible ash, is detrimental to our property values."
I respectfully ask that you consider all the ways CPI is polluting our environment
when making your decision on renewal.
I personally believe, if CPI cannot meet the standards, the best solution for the
residents of Southport would be the closure of this plant.

My name is Lora Sharkey. |amaresident of5outhport;NCand|amonelectednfficia|forthe City of
Southport. I am here on behalf of the Southport Board of Aldermen to provide feedback on the
proposed NPIDES stormwater permit for Capital Power. While the CPI power plant does not sit within
Southport City limits, there are city neighborhoods and an assisted living facility in close proximity to CPI
and vvafeel itisour responsibility toparticipate inthis public hearing. These comments are not
indicative ofany dislike for CPI orits employees. The plant has been supportive ofSouthport inthe face
ofhardship dealing with hurricanes, particularly Hurricane Florence. These comments are simply
intended to express the desire to see the best practices adopted to protect the well-being of our
residents and the waters we swim in, collect food from and simply appreciate.
It is public knowledge that the CPI plant is permitted to burn a variety of materials as fuel in the creation
ofsteam and electricity. These materials include shredded tires, wood chips, railroad ties and some
coal. Combustion of these materials results in ash that contains contaminates that will be hazardous to
water and soil if not adequately treated or removed from wastewater before disposal . The City of
Southport requests that CPI be required to monitor contaminate levels and treat their stormwater and
wastewater discharges in a manner that meets or exceeds water quality standards set forth in the Clean
Water Act.
Additionally, The City requests that CPI be tasked with improving containment of contaminated
stormwater during flood conditions. There is a statewide effort to direct and guide all municipalities in
flood prone areas to become more resilient in the face of climate change and increased rainfall amounts
during storm events. This proactive stance should also be applied to industry to safeguard human
health.
LJ
Y

TOWN Of CASWEII BEACh
1 100 Caswell Beach Road • Caswell Beach, NC 28465
[phone] • Fax: [phone] * Website: www.caswellbeach.org
November 21, 2019
Derek Denard, Environmental Specialist
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality — Division of Water Resources
Water Quality Permitting Section
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Re: Town of Caswell Beach Comments on NPDES Draft Permit NCO065099
Dear Mr. Denard,
The Town of Caswell Beach wishes to thank the staff at the North Carolina Department of Environmental
Quality — Division of Water Resources for allowing the town to submit comments on the proposed
wastewater permit application for CPI USA North Carolina (CPI). We appreciate the hard work that you
and your staff provide the citizens of North Carolina.
Caswell Beach is located just a short distance from where the permit states that wastewater from CPI
will be discharged into the Atlantic Ocean. Healthy town beaches and good recreational water quality
are critical for the Town of Caswell Beach. The summer population in Caswell Beach more than
quadruples as tourists vacation in town to enjoy our beaches and clean ocean waters.
After reading the draft permit application, Caswell Beach respectfully asks that North Carolina
Department of Environmental Quality require that all chemicals that are reasonably expected in this
discharge stream be identified and monitored as part of the required conditions for permit approval.
Caswell Beach also feels that limits should be placed on each potentially harmful chemical in the stream
and be restricted as necessary to preserve the health of our community and environment.
We believe that CPI, Archer Daniels Midland, and Duke Energy are good neighbors. Caswell Beach has
no interest in causing our corporate neighbors any undo regulatory burdens. We do however feel that it
is our obligation to know what chemicals are in the discharge stream and that those chemicals are

regulated and limited. We trust that CPI and the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
will work to assure the residents and visitors of Caswell Beach that the discharge stream will not pose
any hazards to our town or environment.
Sincerely, ,; r
P V C
Deborah G. Ahlers, Mayor
Caswell Beach, NC
Town of Caswell Beach
1100 Caswell Beach road
Caswell Beach, NC 28465

Thank you for providing this public forum so that I have the opportunity to say I
want no more industrial waste and pollution in our environment.
I'm here to invite you, any representative here tonight, to join me at 9 am
tomorrow for a field trip. I would love to introduce you to Caswell Beach, a small
town of approximately 400. 1 will show you the beach, dunes, and maritime
forest that abuts the beach and beach road. I am confident you can make a better
informed decision if you see for yourself the Duke Energy Canal, see where the
canal discharge pipe goes under the beach road, then under the beach, under the
sea and to a discharge point just off shore. You can see the disturbance in the
ocean water where the discharge enters the ocean. You may see boats at that
warm spot in the water. The fish caught in that spot have long fed families in
Brunswick County. On warm days, you can surely see children and families
enjoying the water for wading and fishing. You can see this and more from the
deck of the 'Four Hess crossover.
If you cannot come perhaps you will envision this place that counts on you, your
expertise, oversight and monitoring. Your job and your decision making is so
important. We depend on you for protection from more environmental damage
and dangers to our water, health, and wildlife.
My name is Emily Wilkins. I will meet you tomorrow at 9 am on Caswell Beach
Road at the intersection with OceanGreens Lane, Tom Hess cross over. Please
join me!
Phone — 336-312-3662