NC0065099_Hearing Officers Report_20200313

ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
S. DANIEL SMITH
Director
MEMORANDUM
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
March 13, 2020
To: S. Daniel Smith
Director, Division of Water Resources
From: David May, Regional Supervisor VA&
Washington Regional Office
Division of Water Resources, Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Subject: Hearing Officer's Report and Recommendations
CPI USA North Carolina, LLC — Southport
NPDES Permit NCO065099
Brunswick County
I served as the Hearing Officer for the subject public hearing held at Brunswick Community College in
Bolivia, NC on November 21, 2019 at 6:00 pm. The purpose of this public hearing was to allow the
public to comment on the draft NPDES permit NCO065099 for CPI USA North Carolina, LLC in
Southport, NC.
In addition to listening to oral comments at the public hearing, I have reviewed all written comments
received prior, during and after the public comment period. hi preparation of this report, I have considered
all of the public comments, the public record, and a site visit for the facility.
The report has been prepared using the following outline:
I. Introduction
II. Facility Background
III. Public Record & Comments with Responses
IV. Summary of Topical Comments with Responses
V. Recommendations
VI. Abbreviations
VII. Attachments
D ��� North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Water Resources
512 North Salisbury Street 1 1611 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1611
NORPH GAAOLINR �
DW,b..W.f EW'm""°^t° 0. r 919.707.9000

hc: NPDES Program Files
ec: David May, Hearing Officer [[e-mail]]
DWR WiRO / Morella S. King [[e-mail]]
DWR WiRO / Tom Tharrington [[e-mail]]
DWR WQPS / John Hennessy [e-mail]]
DWR WQPS / Julie Grzyb [e-mail]]
DWR WQPS / Jeff Poupart Uef£[e-mail]]
Sarah Young, DWR PIO [[e-mail]]
DEMLR / Annette Lucas [[e-mail]]
DEMLR / Lauren Garcia [[e-mail]]
Page 2 of 27

HEARING OFFICER REPORT
for
Renewal of NPDES Permit NCO065099
CPI USA North Carolina, LLC — Southport
This report is presented to the Director of the North Carolina Division of the Water Resources
I. INTRODUCTION
On October 21, 2019, a notice of Public Hearing was published requesting public comment on the Draft
NPDES Permit NCO065099 and NPDES Stormwater Permit NCS000348 renewals for CPI USA North
Carolina, LLC — Southport located in the Cape Fear River Basin. The facility discharges to the Atlantic
Ocean via the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant's (BSEP) discharge canal. This facility is located at 11281
Powerhouse Drive near Southport, NC in Brunswick County. The public hearing was in response to
significant public interest in the renewal of this facility's NPDES and the associated issues with the coal
ash management.
The hearing was held at Brunswick Community College in Bolivia, NC on November 21, 2019 at 6:00
pm. Around 102 people attended the hearing, not counting Department staff. Twenty-one (21) people
spoke at the hearing and provided comments on the two permits being considered. Thirty-three (33)
written comments were received for the wastewater and stormwater permits. These comments were
mainly focused on bottom ash transport water, pollutants from the burning of railroad tires and tire
divided fuel (TDF), water quality at the Atlantic Ocean outfall for the BSEP discharge canal, and mistrust
of the practice of self -monitoring. Many concerns regarding air quality were expressed including the
burning of railroad tires and tire divided fuel (TDF), and ash fallout which are not regulated by either
NPDES program for wastewater or stormwater. The public comment record on the proposed permits was
closed on December 23, 2019. David May, the Washington Regional Office Supervisor with the Division
of Water Resources served as the Hearing Officer.
This Hearing Officer Report summarizes the major issues raised through the public hearing process, as
well as the Hearing Officer recommendations for the NPDES permit renewal. The Director of the
Division of Water Resources (DWR) will take final action on these recommendations.
II. FACILITY BACKGROUND
FACILITY SUMMARY:
CPI USA North Carolina, LLC operates a coal-fired steam electric generating unit (> 55 megawatt -hours) that is
100% industrial (flow <1 MGD) wastewater treatment system with wastewater generation consisting of:
• coal pile runoff (internal Outfall 001)
• fuel pile runoff from wood and tire derived fuel (TDF) (internal Outfall 001)
• low -volume wastewater (internal Outfall 001) including;
o backwash from a boiler feedwater demineralizer
o boiler blowdown
o accumulated water in the floor from miscellaneous sump pumps in the turbine building
o wash water (17,000 gal/yr) from cleaning of the mechanical drag system (MDS)
• cooling tower blowdown (internal Outfall 002)
Page 3 of 27

• reverse osmosis filter reject water (internal Outfall 004)
Outfalls 001, 002 and 004 are combined through Outfall 003, which discharges to the Brunswick Steam Electric
Plant's (BSEP) discharge canal (not waters of the state) and thence to the Atlantic Ocean. Wastewater treatment
for this facility consists of the following:
• distribution box and weir
• two (2) 500,000 gallon settling basins.
INTRODUCTION:
CPI USA North Carolina, LLC - Southport (formerly known as Primary Energy of North Carolina, LLC and
Cogentrix Southport) requires a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit to discharge
treated wastewater to the surface waters of the state. The permittee's 5-year NPDES permit for their Southport
Plant expired November 30, 2016 and they have requested renewal from the Division of Water Resources (the
Division). Wastewater effluent guidelines are regulated under 40 CFR Part 423 for Steam Electric Power
Generating Point Source Category. This Fact Sheet summarizes background information and rationale used by
the Division to determine permit limits and monitoring conditions. [See Fact Sheet Attachment A: NC00650099
Permit Renewal Application 20160502, Fact Sheet Attachment B: NC00650099 Add Info Received 20170809,
Fact Sheet Attachment C Signature Authority 20180531.]
RENEWAL HISTORY:
Additional Intermittent Waste Stream for Pipe Maintenance. In addition to requirements for cooling tower
blowdown at Outfall 002, the permittee was given permission for the 2007 renewal to discharge intermittent iron
residuals from pipe cleaning maintenance at a volume less than 5,000 gallons per year. Because of the low
relative waste volume, and the extreme dilution of this waste by the canal waters (1,700 MGD), the Division has
no objection to this discharge, but has transferred the 126 Priority Pollutants monitoring requirements to Primary
Energy's final outfall (see Final Outfall 003).
New source of wash water. On June 27, 2012 wash water from the mechanical drag system (MDS) was added to
the permit. This facility pressure washes out the MDS. Any captured overflow is pumped to the wastewater
basins. The May 10, 2012 permit modification request indicated an estimated maximum of 10,000 gallons per
year for the wash water. The April 27, 2016 permit renewal application estimated 17,000 gallons per year for the
wash water. Because of the low relative waste volume, and the extreme dilution of this waste by the canal waters
(1,700 MGD). This waste stream will be included as a low -volume waste per 40 CFR 423. [See Fact Sheet
Attachment D: NC0065099 Minor Modification Letter 20120627]
RECLASSIFICATION TO MAJOR NPDES PERMIT:
NPDES Permit NC0065099 has been reclassified as a major NPDES permit. For more details, please see Fact
Sheet Attachment E: Reclassification to Major Add Info 20170609 and Fact Sheet Attachment F: NPDES Permit
Rating Worksheet notes attachments 20170828.
EASEMENT AGREEMENT:
Historical documentation of an easement agreement between Pfizer Inc. (now Duke Energy Progress LLC) and
Cogentrix Carolina Leasing Corporation (now CPI USA North Carolina, LLC) was reviewed. The easement
agreement allows for an easement along a railway through Duke Energy Progress property and for discharge to
the BSEP discharge canal. [See Fact Sheet Attachment G: Easement Agreement Documentation.]
316 (A) THERMAL VARIANCE & OUTFALL MIXING ZONE MONITORING AT THE BRUNSWICK
STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT'S (BSEP):
A variance from the Clean Water Act Section 316(a) is not applicable because this facility does not discharge
directly to the waters of the state or waters of the US. NPDES permit NC0065099 discharges via Brunswick
Steam Electric Plant's (BSEP) discharge canal (not waters of the state) and thence to the Atlantic Ocean. The
Page 4 of 27

BSEP discharge (NPDES permit NC0007064) is regulated in accordance with the requirements of 316(a). The
following information is an excerpt from the 2011 factsheet for NPDES permit NC0007064:
Outfall Mixing Zone Monitoring. Once -though cooling water is pumped offshore to disperse in a
mixing zone surrounding the final discharge pipe. The mixing zone is defined relative to the ocean
surface and the bottom in acres with temperatures not to exceed .... Data submitted during this permit
cycle indicate compliance with the permit.
Temperature monitoring will be added to the Outfall 003 (final Outfall) to monitor for compliance with 316(a).
III. PUBLIC RECORD & COMMENTS WITH RESPONSES
Ahlers, Deborah G., Mayor, Town of Caswell Beach, NC (attended hearing)
21Nov2019 Letter with comments (rec. by e-mail 20Nov2019 & @ hearing), p. 1-6. (content nearly identical to
19Nov2019 letter from Town of Oakland)
21Nov2019 speaker #5 oral comments p. 41-42 (01:10:01-01:12:23)
• Praise:
o Thanked DEQ for allowing the Town to submit comments.
o Appreciated the hard work of staff and providing for people of NC.
o CPI, ADM, Duke Energy are good neighbors in our community.
• Pollutants of Concern (POC) (See Response Section IV. A.): Wants all POC onsite to be
identified, monitored, and limited to protect human health and aquatic life.
• Monitoring (See Response Section IV. B.): Wants all POC onsite to be identified, monitored, and
limited to protect human health and aquatic life.
• Limits (See Response Section IV. C.): Wants limitations to protect human health and aquatic life.
• Water Quality at Ocean Outfall/BSEP canal (See Response Section IV. D.):
o Wants assurance that discharge does not pose risk for the Town. The Town is close to the
ocean outfall.
o Concerned about how discharge effects beaches & recreation regarding water quality.
o Concerned about how discharge effects on tourism.
Allen, Kerri, Coastal Advocate, N.C. Coastal Federation (attended hearing)
21Nov2019 speaker #6 oral comments, p. 39-41 (01:07:09-01:10:01)
[Also see: 02Aug2019 written comments see SELC et al_NCO065099_WW Public Comment 20190802, p. 53-
74 (see summary below); 13Sept2019 written comments see letter SELC et al_NCS000348_SW Public
Comment 2 of 2_20190913, p. 75-90. (see summary below)]
• Praise: We recognize the significant efforts that have gone into these draft permits, and the
improvements that have been made.
• Criticism: Wants DEQ to protect public health.
• Pollutants of Concern (POC) (See Response Section IV. A.):
o Too much is unknown, total impacts of CPI, fully understand what is being mixed at the
site.
o Contaminants for wastewater pose health risks.
o Runoff from coal, wood, & TDF; contaminants such as arsenic, lead, cadmium, creosote
0 20,000-gallons of transformer oil onsite — concerned about PCBs.
• Monitoring (See Response Section IV. B.): Wants CPI to test wastewater during permit term.
• Permit (See Response Section IV. E.): Wants DEQ to strengthen the permits.
• Bottom Ash Transport (See Response Section IV. F. & Recommendation 1): Wants no discharge
of bottom ash transport water.
• Federal Regulation (See Response Section IV. G.): Per the CWA, polluters must control their
discharges using best available technology and economically achievable.
Page 5 of 27

Alt, Richard, resident of Southport (attended hearing)
16Dec2019 Letter to Joseph P. Hatem, Mayor of the City of Southport, rec. by NCDAQ 23Dec2019, p.7-9.
Criticism:
o Wastewater and Storm Water permits expired in 2015. State was too busy to begin renewal
until 4th quarter of 2019. I will proffer that based on the comments of the state officials of
being underfunded; the level of oversight on these important environmental issues may stay
at this same level of scrutiny.
o It would seem we have another Gen X debacle about to hit the press wherein the State of
North Carolina and EPA both knew, or should have known, they were polluting the Cape
Fear Region with toxic chemicals.
Pollutants of Concern (POC) (See Response Section IV. A.): 126 PPA does not include from the
burning of railroad ties and TDF the following:
o Hexafluoropropylene Oxide (HFPO) Dimer Acid and its Ammonium Salt
o Chromated Copper Arsenate
0 1, 3 Butadiene
o Benz (a) Pyrene (which have been listed by EPA as known human carcinogens and
mutations)
Stormwater Permit (See Response Section IV. H.):
o Benchmarks:
■ 21 chemicals tested twice a year, 7 have no benchmarks for saltwater dilution
(Aluminum, Antimony, Beryllium, Boron, Mercury, Thallium, and TR). Mercury.
■ Cannot fail tests.
■ "I was informed if DEQ saw a spike in any of these 7 chemicals they would engage CPI on the
nature of the rise but it did not appear there was an established policy to take immediate action
or to notify the local jurisdictions since CPI at that point would not have violated the permit."
o HH/Aquatic life: Concerned with limitation of mercury and impact on HH (recreation, fish
consumption), sport & commercial fisheries; and aquatic life.
Air Quality (See Response Section IV. I.):
o Last test on CPI boilers conducted June 26, 2019, it tested for proposed particulate matter,
hydrogen chloride, and Mercury.
o Fuel: None of the known byproducts of burn TDF and railroad ties are tested.
o Ash Fallout: The residents on the East side of Southport complained of almost daily soot
deposits on their homes and cars.
Baker, Lin (sp. Lynn in transcript), OCEANA [Lin was Environmental Specialist for the New York state
Shellfish Division.]
21Nov2019 speaker #8 oral comments, p. 45-47 (01:15:53-01:19:43)
Indicated "yes " to written comments on speaker in sheet but none were received.
• Overall Criticism: Criticized DEQ for GenX, lowering standards for CWA, drilling off of our
shores, and now CPI. "How is it that DEQ allows anyone to dump large quantities of any toxic
chemical into our waterways?" ... "the North Carolina Senate has made it clear that they are out
to protect the interest of big business", not the health of constituents of North Carolina" DEQ, do
your job. Protect us, don't protect CPI."
• Pollutants of Concern (POC) (See Response Section IV. A.): Why doesn't DEQ know what is in
the wastewater? And if it does know, why don't we? Is this the legacy we want to leave behind?
These pollutants should be identified before issuing a new permit. Burning of coal, TDF, and
creosote treated railroad ties.
Monitoring (See Response Section IV. B.): "Right now, the Clean Water Act requirements only
apply to one waste stream, and this plant has several."
Page 6 of 27

• Water Quality at Ocean Outfall/BSEP canal (See Response Section IV. D.): Only six football
fields of the beach at Caswell, only to be washed up on the next high tide.
• Flow: 400,000 galloons per day, including bottom ash.
• Bottom Ash Transport(See Response Section IV. F. & Recommendation 1): Concern with
discharge of bottom ash. No discharge of coal ash should be allowed.
• Air Quality (See Response Section IV. L :
o Fuel: Burning of coal, TDF, and creosote treated railroad ties.
Baldwin, Diane, resident of Oak Island, NC (attended hearing)
2019Sep2019 written comments, p. 10.
• Water Quality at Ocean Outfall/BSEP canal (See Response Section IV. D.): No discharge form CPI
should be allowed in the ocean or other waterways.
• Permit (See Response Section IV. E.): Deny discharge permits for CPI.
Baldwin, Merle, resident of Oak Island, NC (attended hearing) [Merle worked in the remediation and
hazardous waste cleanup industry.]
21Nov2019 speaker #17 oral comments p. 62-63 (01:43:28-01:46:18)
• Criticism: "you can't get something clean without getting something else dirty. And it's possible
to get everything dirty and nothing clean."
• Pollutants of Concern (POC) (See Response Section IV. A.): CPI burns creosote treated wood.
The by products from those when you don't burn it at a certain temperature such as
Pentachlorophenol.
• Monitoring (See Response Section IV. B.).
o CPI does a grab sample - one per permit period (5yrs).
o PPA Sampling should be semi-annually.
o Wants CPI to install auto samplers.
• Bottom Ash Transport (See Response Section IV. F. & Recommendation 1): Do they use
dewatering plates, or dewater with a belt (press)?
• Air Quality (See Response Section IV. I.):
o Fuel: Concerned with burn temperature, creosote, pentachlorophenol.
Brochure, Cin, Mayor, Town of Oak Island [outgoing Mayor, incoming Mayor is Ken Thomas]
19Nov2019 letter with comments, p. 11-12. (content nearly identical to 21Nov2019 letter from Town of Caswell
Beach)
• Praise:
o Thanked DEQ for allowing the Town to submit comments.
o Appreciated the hard work of staff and providing for people of NC.
o CPI, ADM, Duke Energy seek to be good neighbors in our community.
• Pollutants of Concern (POC) (See Response Section IV. A.): Wants all POC onsite to be
identified, monitored, and limited to protect human health and aquatic life.
• Monitoring (See Response Section IV. B.):
o Wants all POC to be monitored.
o Wants quadra-annual (quarterly?) reports from NCDEQ. [Response: Not sure if this in
reference to DMRs or wanting NCDEQ to report to the Town (or public)? Does the
DEMLR stormwater program have any such reporting?]
• Limits (See Response Section IV. C.): Wants limitations to protect human health and aquatic life.
• Water Quality at Ocean Outfall/BSEP canal (See Response Section IV. D.):
o Wants assurance that discharge does not pose risk for the Town. The Town is close to the
ocean outfall.
o Concerned about how discharge effects beaches & recreation regarding water quality.
Page 7 of 27

o Concerned about how discharge effects on tourism.
Brunswick Environmental Action Team (BEAT)
02Aug2019 written comments see SELC et al_NC0065099_WW Public Comment 20190802, p. 53-74
(see summary below)
Key, Peter, President, BEAT, 21Nov2019 speaker #7 oral comments p. 43-45 (01:12:23-01:15:53) (see summary
below)
Key, Peter, President, BEAT, 19Dec2019 written comments, p. 32-34. (see summary below)
Burnish, Betsy, resident of area & concerned citizen
01Aug2019 written comments, p. 13.
• Bottom Ash Transport (See Response Section IV. F. & Recommendation 1): Believes that the ash being
diffused throughout the ocean is shortsighted and does not address 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." Deny request to discharge the
ash.
Cape Fear River Watch
02Aug2019 written comments see SELC et al_NC0065099_WW Public Comment 20190802, p. 53-74 (see
summary below)
13Sept2019 written comments see letter SELC et al_NCS000348_SW Public Comment 2 of 2_20190913, p. 75-
90. (see summary below)
Clark, Chris L, resident of Southport, NC (attended hearing with wife Tina)
12Dec2019 written comments, p.14.
• Praise: Thank you for holding the public hearing and considering input form public prior to
proceeding with renewals.
• Criticism: wake up and start making tough (smart) decisions regarding the environment;
increasingly, toxic chemicals are being found in the air and water; contaminants in drinking water
supplies such as "GenX"; fish stocks and the marine life are being fouled; and health impacts will
get worse unless we wake up and take a stand now.
• Pollutants of Concern (POC) (See Response Section W. A.): toxic chemicals - burning old
railroad ties (treated with creosote) and TDF — bottom ash.
• Bottom Ash Transport (See Response Section IV. F. & Recommendation 1): understands that CPI
is not dumping any ash from their operations into the water.
• Air Quality (See Response Section IV. I.):
o Fuel:
■ strongly opposes burning old railroad ties (treated with creosote) and TDF; which are
both full of toxic chemicals.
■ Require CPI to burn fuels that are known to be clean (non -toxic) as possible, such as
natural gas.
o Emissions:
■ He has personally seen ash residue falling on homes.
■ The ash in the CPI power generation process is getting into the atmosphere and
ultimately back into the environment and waterways.
Drzeweizki, Edward, resident of Oak Island, NC (attended hearing)
21Nov2019 speaker #2 oral comments p. 32-33 (00:56:27-00:59:19)
• Criticism: "...how do we enforce and how do we guarantee that all these things are going to be in
place?... I just don't have any faith in the system because we get our water supply from the Cape
Fear River. And Chemours [ph] has promised the world that it's not going to be dumping
Page 8 of 27

chemicals in there. And as a result, to that, we have to resort to Brunswick County to putting in a
reverse -osmosis system to eliminate the pollutants that put —they're putting into the river."
Monitoring_(See Response Section IV. B.):
o Critical of the monitoring frequency of once per permit cycle for PPA.
o Generally, does not agree with the concept of self -monitoring. Mistrust.
Air Quality (See Response Section IV. I.):
o Fuel: Plant functions like a 3' world country. Burns TDF, coal, wood.
Dudley, Phil, resident of Oak Island, NC (attended hearing)
12Dec2019 written comments, p. 15.
• Criticism: "At the public hearing last night it was shocking to learn that the CPI operating permit
has had so little state oversight."... "Frankly, it is beyond belief that CPI performs its own
monitoring and that the permit allows ash to be pumped into the ocean."... "Please protect the
citizens of North Carolina and preserve our natural resources!"
• Pollutants of Concern (POC) (See Response Section IV. A.): heavy metals, arsenic, and creosote.
• Monitoring (See Response Section IV. B.): Generally, does not agree with the concept of self -
monitoring. Please require the new permit to have testing performed by an independent third
party and randomly each and every month.
• Limits (See Response Section IV. Q: Please set limits.
Bottom Ash Transport(See Response Section IV. F. & Recommendation 1): Discharge ash for
burning tires, creosote treated railroad tires. Ash needs to be retained and land -filled n
monitoring, lined facilities. Discharge ash for burning tires, creosote treated railroad tires.
Edes, Brian, Town Attorney, Town of Oak Island
05Aug2019 letter written comments, p. 16-17.
• Criticism: Town's elected officials agree that the proposed permit could detrimentally affect
residents, property owners, visitors, and Town as whole.
• Permit ,See Response Section IV. E.): Requests the public comment period be extended past the
present deadline.
Fort Caswell Costal Retreat & Conference Center
31July2019, letter from Fort Caswell (rec. 02Aug2019), p. 47-50. (see summary under Brittany Pace)
Gilly, Kennedy
02Aug2019 written comments, p. 18-19.
• Criticism: Don't let this happen!
• Bottom Ash Transport (See Response Section IV. F. & Recommendation 1): Concerned ash gets
concentrated in lagoon which they dump twice a year and scape out the contents which they truck off.
Concerned residual bottom ash (coal ash)—17,000 gallons get washed into Atlantic Ocean.
• Air Quality (See Response Section IV. I.): Concerned with power plant burning half adulterated wood,
creosote wood/treated lumber, and half TDF.
Goforth, George & Monica, residents of Harbor Oaks subdivision, South Port, NC
Harbor Oaks is one of three (3) mid -sized subdivisions located —0.5 miles from CPT.
26Nov2019 written comments (received 05Dec2019), p. 20.
• Criticism: Does not claim to be an expert. However, believes that CPI is damaging our
environment, and that the state government should address and fix this problem.
• Water Quality at Ocean Outfall/BSEP canal (See Response Section IV. D.): CPI is dumping its
significant waste into the Duke Energy canal that ends up in the Atlantic Ocean.
• Air Quality (See Response Section IV. I.):
Page 9 of 27

o Concerned with carcinogens in atmosphere.
o Burning of cresol treated wood & TDF.
o Generation of a significant amount of "black smoke" for CPI's smokestack.
o Black soot on homes and cars.
o A year ago, the City of Southport complained, CPI admitted that there was a malfunction, and
agreed to pay for power washing of homes and vehicles.
o Concerns with sooth causing respiratory illness and cancer.
Goode, Kristen, resident of Brunswick County
02Aug2019 written comments, p. 21.
• Permit ,See Response Section IV. E.): Firmly against allowing CPI to discharge inter the canals, rivers,
etc. noted in application.
Haddon, Chap, resident of Turtlewood subdivision, Southport, NC (attended hearing)
21Nov2019 speaker #12 oral comments p. 53-54 (01:29:02-01:31:42)
• Praise: "thank you for taking the time to open up and allow us to speak to you about this".
• Bottom Ash Transport (See Response Section IV. F. & Recommendation 1): Concerned that 32
years of bottom ash is in the bottom of the canal (-544,000 gallons).
• Air Quality (See Response Section IV. Ij:
• "... I will attest to the fact that we do have to clean our houses fairly frequently"
• "Our cars are coated in materials"
• "As Dr. Haten pointed out, what we breath into our lungs can clearly impact us, and could be
significant to both the elderly population, and also to the young people."
• CPI Facility (See Response Section IV. J.): Plant built in 1987 — have we updated those standards
to what we can do today in both processes, and procedures, and equipment?
Halliwell, Dale, resident of Southport, NC
03Dec2019 written comments, p. 22.
• Water Quality at Ocean Outfall/BSEP canal (See Response Section IV. D.):
o I live here and fish here. 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.
o As a homeowner, I do not discharge harmful substances.
o For us citizens, we get cleaner air and cleaner water for the effort. (The effort that CPI in
changing to a different fuel.)
Air Quality (See Response Section IV. I.):
o Would like CPI to use only biomass for fuel.
o TDF & creosote contaminated railroad ties are unacceptable.
o Not asking CPI to make capital expenditures on new equipment or change their process; only
that they do the right thing and use a cleaner fuel source.
o CPI would have long term savings for increased boiler efficiency and diminished equipment
downtime associated with cleaner fuel.
o As a former textile executive with decades of experience with steam plants and cogeneration
operations around the world, knows that clearer fuel will make process more efficient and
predictable. Equipment will last longer. CPI needs to build "good neighbor" policy.
Hatem, MD, Joseph P., Mayor -elect (at the time of the hearing, currently Mayor), Southport, NC
(attended hearing)
21Nov2019 speaker #10 oral comments p. 49-51 (01:22:57-01:26:20)
• Praise: Thanked DEQ for presentation.
• Water Quality at Ocean Outfall/BSEP canal (See Response Section IV. D.):
Page 10 of 27

o Quotes from his 2015 campaign regarding the environment and public health (health of the
City): "Southport is blessed with the maritime forest, gorgeous live oaks, the beautiful Cape
Fear River flowing into the Atlantic Ocean. The Intracoastal Waterway, creeks, and marshes,
and all need to be preserved and protected, allowing these habitats to thrive. We will promote
public health measures that provide clean water and clean air, and ally with county, state, and
federal agencies, as well as conservation groups, to enhance our environmental treasures."
o Concerned about the 1.9-billion-gallon discharge from Duke.
Air Quality (See Response Section IV. I.):
o `The second quote is from a professor at UNC School of Public Health. "Everyone is
impacted by air pollution. But our exposure is far more complicated than what we knew
before. What we are trying to investigate and highlight is what are the true drivers of toxicity
in the atmosphere. Not only the atmosphere, but in our water, in the ground."'
o We don't know the ramifications of what we are being exposed to. "The stuff that you're
wiping off your cars, you can't wipe it out of your lungs."
CPI Facility (See Response Section IV. J.):
o "If they have the technology to have these plants there, they have the technology so there will
be zero emissions from that plant."
o As the mayor, he would be happy to go out to the plant and look around and inspect.
Holden Beach (Town of), NC, Resolution 19-07
17Dec2019 written resolution (rec. 19Dec2019), p. 23-27.
• Pollutants of Concern (POC) (See Response Section IV. A.): Given the uncertainties, quarterly
monitoring frequency of pollutants of concern, which include copper and chromium, does not
appear adequate.
• Monitoring (See Response Section IV. B.): Given the uncertainties, monitoring frequency of one
per permit cycle, i.e., one in 5 years, for Priority Pollutants of concern does not appear adequate.
Given the uncertain makeup of the CPI burn mixture, consistent waste stream is difficult to
envision.
• Water Quality at Ocean Outfall/BSEP canal (See Response Section IV. D.):
o Discharges have the potential to adversely impact ocean water and onshore sand quality, with
potential safety ramifications for local and migratory species as well as humans.
o The Town relies on its reputation as a safe and pristine beach community to attract tourism,
the main economic driver for the town.
• Permit (See Response Section IV. E.): 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.
• Bottom Ash Transport (See Response Section IV. F. & Recommendation 1): Stated that Bottom
ash transport water and stormwater have been added to the allowed discharge. Has issued draft
permits with conditions that would allow increased volume of permitted discharges from the site.
• Public Information Request (See Response Section IV. K.):
o 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.
o DEQ: Make available to the public all modeling, existing individual component historical
monitoring data, and risk assessments.
Humphries, Justin, Town Attorney, Town of Caswell Beach
02Aug2019 written comments, p. 28-30.
Page 11 of 27

• Permit (See Response Section IV. E.): Renewal effects Town and residents and the Town would like the
opportunity to a greater understanding of the impact of the potential renewal prior to making public
comments. Requests extension for public comments — 30 days.
Ingram, Jennifer, resident Turtlewood subdivision, Brunswick County
21Nov2019 speaker #20 oral comments p. 65-66 (01:47:53-01:50:58)
• Criticism: Employed in the nuclear industry, worked for Duke, is an auditor for regulatory
inspections. Nuclear facilities know who they answer to. Wants CPI to be held accountable in the
same way. If DEQ fails, DEQ has to be held accountable for not doing its job.
• Public Information Request (See Response Section N. K.Z Wants statistics. Maximum allowable
concentrations.
Response: For information on allowable concentrations, please see fact sheet and
Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA) attachments. The RPA calculates the predicted
concentrations and the allowable concentrations. "
Jakus, Bob, citizen of Oak Island, NC (retired teacher that works with BEAT) (attended hearing)
21Nov2019 speaker #11 oral comments p. 59-61 (01:39:02- 01:42:10)
• Water Quality at Ocean Outfall/BSEP canal (See Response Section IV. D.): The canal is "nasty".
Had general concerns about the ocean outfall on the environment at Caswell beach and the whole
world. The world, continents, and oceans are connected. "...And I saw a whale, you know,
beaching, you know, dying on the —on our beach a couple years ago. And who knows? We just
don't know. The knowledge isn't there. But that's what we want our kids to have the enthusiasm
and excitement to learn, and to explore, and to study. What's going on with our chemistry, our
biochemistry, our microbiology, our —the statistics, the analysis, the thinking. What's best?"
Jimenez, Nick, Associate Attorney, Southern Environmental Law Center (SELL) (attended hearing)
21Nov2019 speaker #4 oral comments, p. 36-39 (01:03:26-01:07:09)
Also see: 02Aug2019 written comments see SELC et al_NC0065099_WW Public Comment 20190802, p. 53-
74. (see summary below)
13Sept2019 written comments see letter SELC et al_NCS000348_SW Public Comment 2 of
2_20190913, p. 75-90. (see summary below)
• Praise: "I want to thank you first for having this and for bringing so many folks down here. This —I
found the presentations incredibly helpful."... We learned that there was a pollutant scan when the
permit was changed to a major, which great.
• Pollutants of Concern (POC) (See Response Section IV. A.): There are a lot of substances stored on site
that are concerning.
• Monitoring (See Response Section IV. B.):
o CPI did not submit a DMR for Outfall 003.
Response: That is correct. The only monitoring required under the current permit is the PPA which
has been waived on yearly basis. Many parameters have been added to the draft permit for Outfall
003. CPI will be required to submit monthly DMRs for Outfall 003, including annual PPA.
o We believe that the facility needs to retest for primary industry pollutants under the regulations
before the permit is finalized.
o We believe the facility is subject to whole effluent toxicity testing.
• Federal Regulation (See Response Section IV. G.): "As far as best available technology, as I'm sure you
all are aware, that for steam -electric power generation, the effluent limitation guidelines are zero
discharge, no discharge for bottom ash transport water. But it appears that some of the water from the —
washing out the drag chain pit is going into the settling ponds, and then into the canal."
• Stormwater Permit (See Response Section IV. H.): Urged publicizing Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Plan.
Page 12 of 27

• CPI Facility (See Response Section IV. J.): Was concerned about the depth of ditches in reference to
stormwater.
• Transformer Fluid/PCBs (See Response Section IV. L.): Glad to hear there are not PCBs and there is full
containment of transformer fluid.
Jones, Steve, homeowner Oak Island, NC
02Aug2019 written comments, p. 31.
• Water Quality at Ocean Outfall/BSEP canal (See Response Section IV. D.): If the pollution run- off or
discharge is allowed there will be no more visits to Caswell.
• Permit (See Response Section IV. E.): Please turn this request down.
Key, Peter, President, Brunswick Environmental Action Team (BEAT)
21Nov2019 speaker #7 oral comments p. 42-45 (01:12:23-01:15:53)
19Dec2019 written comments, p. 32-34:
Also: 02Aug2019 written comments see SELC et al_NC0065099_WW Public Comment 20190802, p. 53-74.
(see summary below)
• Criticism:
o BEAT has no interest in causing harm to corporate neighbors but feels that is their right to
have the freedom to enjoy waters and air without suffering harm.
o If the cost is too much (to public/environment), then the process, and business model, are not
viable.
o Suggests CPI host local leadership to tour facility to show transparency.
Monitoring (See Response Section IV. B.):
o Needs more frequent & cumulative sampling process implemented
o The amount of water this plant uses daily could easily be used to dilute any discharge of any
chemical compound they wished.
o Would like to see more accurate sampling taken over periods of time.
o One grab sample every five years (if that is true) is inadequate to ensure compliance with the
state benchmarks on an ongoing basis.
Water Quality at Ocean Outfall/BSEP canal (See Response Section IV. D.):
o Read that toxic chemicals CPI is dumping are diluted to levels not harmful to humans and yet
tourism may be affected by public knowledge of these chemicals being discharged at
unknown times.
o Would endanger the economy built on tourism.
o Concerned about the impacts these activities may have on ocean ecosystems & wildlife.
Permit (See Response Section IV. E.): Respectfully requests the NCDEQ reject the application.
Bottom Ash Transport (See Response Section IV. F. & Recommendation 0:
o Concerned that CPI was requesting a permit to dispose of toxic bottom ash into the ocean that
may impact recreation off Caswell Beach.
o Feels that no level of bottom ash dumping is acceptable.
o Proposes an alternative: since only 17,000 gal/yr is discharged, CPI should capture the
effluent and ship via tanker truck to a disposal facility for coal ash. A typical full-sized tanker
truck is 11,000 gallons. Two tanker truck loads should not be a burden for CPI.
Kozloski, Carol, resident of Southport, NC (Lives in neighborhood that backs up to Price Creek
and CPI, attended hearing with husband Pete, see below)
21Nov2019 speaker #1 oral comments p. 30-32 (00:53:36-00:56:27)
21Nov2019 written comments submitted at the hearing, p. 35.
• Permit (See Response Section IV. E.): Asks that DEQ strengthens the permit to protect water.
• Air Quality See Response Section IV. I.):
o Ash is a direct result of tire and wood burning.
Page 13 of 27

• Ash gets on outdoor furniture, is in the pool, on sidewalks and affects other
neighborhoods in other areas of Southport.
• Discussed SOC permit. If CPI cannot meet the standards, the best solution for the
residents of Southport would be the closure of the plant.
Response: The NPDES permit is not currently under an SOC. There was a recent SOC
for the Air Quality permit.
Light & Noise Pollution (See Response Section IV. M.): Constant noise bothers people and local
wildlife.
Kozloski, Pete, resident of Southport, NC (attended hearing w/ wife Carol, see above)
29Nov2019 written comments, p. 36.
• Water Quality at Ocean Outfall/BSEP canal (See Response Section IV.
Permit (See Response Section IV. E.): The area is no longer rural. It is time for DEQ to recognize
that and deny a permit to this facility.
Air Quality (See Response Section IV. I.):
o Concerned with burning of coal, tires and treated wood.
o Concerned with discharge of waste and noxious gases.
Mosteller, Karen, citizen of Southport, NC (attended hearing)
21Nov2019 speaker #11 oral comments, p. 51-53 (01:27:00-01:29:02)
• Praise: "Thank you so much for being and having this forum."
• Pollutants of Concern (POQ (See Response Section IV. A.)/CPI Facilit,Y(See Response Section
IV. J.):
o Brought up that a fire at CPI took 14 hours to put out.
o It was woodchips and creosote mixed.
o CPI had to spread wood out so tires would not catch fire.
o Concerned with the toxicity of fire waters into stormwater.
Response: The fire waters would have flowed to the wastewater treatment system via the ditches
for fuel pile runoff.
Air Quality (See Response Section IV. I.):
o Air quality study said area is classified as rural.
o Southport is not a rural area.
o Guidelines from 1987 are being applied for the plant was built at a time when no one lived
that close to the site.
Mowery, Brittany
02Aug2019 written comments, p. 39.
• Water Quality at Ocean Outfall/BSEP canal (See Response Section IV. D.): She is concerned
with the human health effects including cancer risk from coal ash. She is concerned with effects
on wildlife and natural reefs.
• Bottom Ash Transport (See Response Section IV. F. & Recommendation 1): "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."... " There's no amount of dilution that coal ash will undergo when being flushed out that
will make it safe."
• Permit (See Response Section IV. E.): CPI is applying for a new permit (Response: This a
renewal of an existing permit.)
• Air Quality (See Response Section IV. I.): Concerned with burning of half adulterated wood,
creosote wood/treated lumber, and half tires to generate steam.
Neb, Savannah B, Marine Biologist, resident of Caswell Beach, NC
27Ju12019 written comments, p. 40-42.
• Pollutants of Concern (POQ (See Response Section IV. A.): Heavy metals and carcinogens not
extracted in the settling ponds.
• Monitoring (See Response Section IV. B.): Weekly air quality and water quality monitoring
should be mandatory.
• Monitoring (See Response Section IV. B.)/ Limits (See Response Section IV. C.):
Under the current permit there are no limits and no PPA, which should be mandatory and
performed often.
• Water Quality at Ocean Outfall/BSEP canal (See Response Section 1V. D.):
Heavy metals being deposited on the beach. The comments include concerns for the effects from
the ocean outfall to recreation, human health, marine biology, and fisheries (human
Page 15 of 27

consumption). The mixing zone introduces warmer water to the ocean that attracts fish to a
feeding ground that is toxic. Contaminants need to be tested, monitored, and regulated at a much
higher level.
Air Quality (See Response Section IV. I.): Burning of coal, TDF and wood chips hinder air
quality. Restrict burning of TDF.
CPI Facility (See Response Section IV. J.): Settling ponds are basic level techniques which rarely
work to keep the water quality at the level it should be.
Transformer Fluid/PCBs (See Response Section IV. L.): CPI currently stores 20,000 gallons of
transformer fluid on site. The region is to hurricanes. If the storage area of transformer fluid were
to be breached during a storm PCB's would be leached into the water, air and land. Removal and
relocation of transformer fluid should be addressed before permit renewal.
North Carolina Coastal Federation
02Aug2019 written comments see SELC et al_NC0065099_WW Public Comment 20190802, p. 53-74 (see
summary below)
13Sept2019 written comments see letter SELC et al_NCS000348_SW Public Comment 2 of 2_20190913, p. 75-
90. (see summary below)
Allen, Kerri, Coastal Advocate, N.C. Coastal Federation (attended hearing) 21Nov2019 speaker #6 oral
comments, p. 39-41 (01:07:09-01:10:01) (see above)
North, William, residents of Cottages of Prices Creek, Southport, NC (attended hearing w/ wife
Penelope) (provided bag of wipes from cleaning furniture)
21Nov2019 speaker #3 oral comments p. 33-36 (00:59:19-01:03:26)
• Monitoring (See Response Section IV. B.): Can't trust company to monitor itself.
• Air Quality (See Response Section IV. I.):
o Brought up the 2017 fly ash release. Said CPI was not forthcoming about the release.
o Said CPI called it a small release (4-5 tons of fly ash).
o A petrochemical smell comes from CPI from creosote or TDF.
• Light &Noise Pollution (See Response Section W. M.): Compared noise levels to living near a
freeway. The chipper onsite is also really loud. CPI releases high-pressure steam that also causes
noise.
Oak Island (Town of), NC, Resolution
17Dec2019 written resolution (rec. 23Dec2019), p. 43-46.
• Same resolution word for word as the Town of Holden Beach. See summary above.
Pace, Brittany, citizen of Brunswick County & Southport, NC (attended hearing)
Coastal Education Coordinator, Fort Caswell Coastal Retreat & Conference Center
31July2019, letter from Fort Caswell (rec. 02Aug2019), p. 47-50.
23Dec2019, written comments as citizen, p. 50-52.
• Criticism: The problems discussed at the hearing with is facility should be concerning enough for
DEQ to investigate this plant further and protect our health and environment.
• Monitoring (See Response Section IV. B.):
o Should be more than once per permit cycle. Response: Please see monthly, weekly and daily
monitoring required for Outfalls 001, 002, 003 and 004. If she is referring to the 126 PPA,
this is conducted as a scan once per permit cycle in the draft.
o More frequency monitoring of all Outfalls.
o Physical testing the wastewater for listed pollutants. Response: Did she mean chemical
testing?
o Overall criticism of the concept of self -monitoring.
• Limits (See Response Section IV. C.): Compliance with water quality -based effluent limits.
Page 16 of 27

Water Quality at Ocean Outfall/BSEP canal (See Response Section IV. D.):
o Fisheries: Do fisherman know what they are bringing to their families or to local seafood
restaurants?
o HH: Public has not idea these fish and shrimp could be contaminated.
o Recreation/Tourism: Concerns about CPI discharge on beach recreation. Residents & tourist
question health & environment.
o Not enough information provided on the impacts.
o BSEP discharge canal:
■ Always foamy and dark in color.
■ Not a welcoming site.
■ Very close to neighborhoods.
■ Any studies done after hurricanes?
Response: This is an emergency response question. The division responds to many
incidents after a hurricane. Staff may not be able to conduct a complete scientific
study of the canal within that time frame. Ambient monitoring of the ocean near the
outfall and adding monitoring to Duke Progress Energy's Outfall may provide more
information. Please note that the canal is not waters of the state or waters of the
United States. This determination starts at the ocean outfall.
o Tourism: Concerned for the safety of quests at Fort Caswell Coastal Retreat & Conference
Center that enjoy recreation and educational water activities.
CPI Facility (See Response Section IV. J.):
o Best Management Practices: Expressed concern that the ditches surrounding the fuel pile
were not deep enough to handle a storm event, that it was too close to the first outfall, and
that toxic materials. She noted that the fuel pile area contained coal, bottom ash, creosote -
treated wood, and tires are out in the open, exposed to the elements and our air. She digested
that there are plenty of Best Management Practices that could be put into place that would
minimize the wastewater and stormwater impacts.
o Facili :
■ Upgrades to plant should be a requirement.
■ Stronger preventative measures.
■ Prevent discharge of hazardous chemicals.
■ Imperative to require effective pretreatment protocols.
Parisi, Donna, resident Turtlewood HOA, Southport, NC (attended hearing)
21Nov2019 speaker #19 oral comments p. 64 (01:46:28-01:47:53)
• Criticism: Lives in the backyard of CPI. Lost a son to brain tumor because of chemicals.
• Water Oualitv at Ocean Outfall/BSEP canal (See Response Section IV. D.):
o HH: recreation, children that swim, retirees.
o The temperature of the water is quite different than the regular part of the water.
o "And it really needs to be not regulated by CPI, but by people that really care about the
environment."
Sawyer, Kath, resident of Harbor Oaks Subdivision, Southport, NC
26Nov2019 written comments, p. 52.
• Criticism:
o "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."
o "Upon moving here, I found I could no longer drink the water. It has a foul, iron filled odor
and bitter taste." She is a cancer survivor that is concerned enough to begin purchasing
alkaline water.
Page 17 of 27

• Water Quality at Ocean OutfallBSEP canal (See Response Section IV. D.): (She may be
referring to Air Quality more than Water Quality)
o General Concern for health of her and her husband.
o Pets are experiencing a myriad of skin issues and intestinal upset.
• Air Quality (See Response Section IV. I.): Experiencing ash and slime. Notices black slime on
front porch and fall decorations.
Sierra Club
02Aug2019 written comments see SELC et al_NC0065099_WW Public Comment 20190802, p. 53-74.
(see summary below)
Southern Environmental Law Center (SELL), et al., Cape Fear River Watch, Sierra Club, North
Carolina Coastal Federation, & Brunswick Environmental Action Team
02Aug2019 written comments see SELC et al_NC0065099_WW Public Comment 20190802, p. 53-74.
[Also see above : Jimenez, Nick, Associate Attorney, SELC (attended hearing), 21Nov2019 speaker #4 oral
comments, p. 36-39 (01:03:26-01:07:09)]
SELC's own summary of comments for wastewater permit NC0065099 is the following:
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; [Bottom Ash Transport
(See Response Section IV. F. & Recommendation 1)]
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; [Limits (See Response Section IV. C.)]
4. use BAT to establish the effluent limits for all of CPI's wastewater streams, including using
BPJ to determine BAT if necessary; [Limits (See Response Section IV. C.)]
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; [Bottom Ash
Transport (See Response Section IV. F. & Recommendation 1)]
6. consistently with BAT, require CPI to employ improved wastewater treatment for all waste
streams, including ZLD wherever feasible; [Limits (See Response Section IV. C.)]
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.
Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC), et al., Cape Fear River Watch, & North Carolina
Coastal Federation
13Sept2019 written comments see letter SELC et al_NCS000348_SW Public Comment 2 of 220190913, p. 75-90.
[For SELC also see: Jimenez, Nick, Associate Attorney, SELC (attended hearing), 21Nov2019 speaker #4 oral
comments, p. 36-39 (01:03:26-01:07:09)]
Stormwater Permit (See Response Section IV. H.):
• DEMLR should strengthen the draft permit
CPI Needs better control measures for improved water quality and preventative measures for
flooding. [Monitoring (See Response Section IV. B.)]
Price Creek is an important ecosystem inhabited by some vulnerable and federally threatened
species, is a valuable natural resource, and has aesthetic and economic value.
Page 18 of 27

• The different habitats in the Brunswick area are important for tourism and animal sanctuary.
• Stormwater at CPI likely contains any runoff not captured by the wastewater treatment system,
especially during flood conditions.
• Believe there are elevated levels of contaminates in stormwater.
• Concerned about the transformer oil contained onsite. (See Response Section IV. C.)
• Concerned about the areas and activities at the site that stormwater is exposed to.
• Concerned about PCBs in transformer oil. (See Response Section IV. C.)
• Concerned about flooding.
• Concerned about the constituents of coal, adulterated wood, and creosote. [Pollutants of Concern
(POC) (See Response Section W. A.)]
• Concerned about the threat of climate change and increased flooding at CPI and the exposure that
could result.
• Wants DEQ to strengthen permits to be in compliance with the CWA and believes inadequate
permits are a violation of the CWA and 40 CFR.
• Concerned the draft permit overlooks severe -storm preparedness.
• The draft permit does not address coal pile runoff or overflow from the wastewater system.
Response: The coal pile runoff belongs to the wastewater permit NC0065099.
Southport, City of
See Lora Sharkey, Alderman comments below.
Sharkey, Lora, on behalf of the City of Southport Board of Alderman (present at hearing)
21Nov2019 speaker #13 oral comments p. 54-56 (01:31:42-01:34:33)
21Nov2019 written comments submitted at the hearing, p. 91.
• Praise: "These comments are not indicative of any dislike for CPI and its employees. The plant (CPI) has
been supportive of Southport in the face of hardship dealing with hurricanes, particularly Hurricane
Florence.
• Criticism: "These comments are simply intended to express the desire to see best practices adopted to
protect the well-being of our residents and the waters we swim in, collect food from and simply
appreciate."
• Pollutants of Concern (POC) (See Response Section N. A.): Combustion of shredded tires, wood chips,
railroad tie and some coal results in ash that contains contaminates that are hazardous to water and soil if
not adequately treated or removed form wastewater before disposal.
• Federal Regulation (See Response Section IV. G.): "The City of Southport requests that CPI be required
to monitor contaminant 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."
Response: Please see Response Section IV. C. for discussion of water quality standards.
• Stormwater Permit (See Response Section IV. H.): "...The City requests that CPI be tasked with
improving containment of contaminated stormwater during flood conditions". To safeguard HH.
Todorov, Theodore G, resident of Southport, NC
13Dec2019 written comments, p. 92.
22Dec2019 written comments, p. 93.
• Criticism:
o "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.".
o Second email: "There are serious air and water quality issues as well." He didn't specify any
detail about water quality concerns.
Page 19 of 27

Air Oualitv (See Response Section IV. I.):
o "On a weekly basis (minimally) we have to wipe down railings and outdoor furniture."
o "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."
Light & Noise Pollution (See Response Section W. M.): "It can be difficult to converse, at times,
because of noise from the plant." Sent us a second email about noise that Sunday morning.
Tomlinson, Tom, resident Turtle wood Subdivision, Southport, NC (attended hearing)
21Nov2019 speaker #21 oral comments, p. 66-67 (01:50:58-01:52:26)
23Nov2019 written comments, p. 94-95.
• Praise:
o "I'm glad North Carolina has such hearings..."
o "Your initial presentation and discussion of the project background report was very
informative."
o "Thank you for your hard work at the Department of Environmental Quality."
Criticism:
o "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."
o " I expect the full process of permit approval includes some back and forth between
regulators and those regulated."
Limits (See Response Section IV. C.): 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.
Light & Noise Pollution (See Response Section IV. M.): 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.
Ward, Catherine (Katy), resident of Harbor Oaks subdivision, Southport, NC (attended hearing)
21Nov2019 speaker #17 oral comments, p. 61-62 (01:42:10-01:43:28)
• Criticism: Wants DEQ to look at CPIs permit like our kids are there.
• Air Quality See Response Section IV. I.):
o we noticed that we had constant ash on our front porches, our fans, our back porch.
o We have herbs and we can't use any of them because they are constantly covered in black soot.
o Human Health: She has a three -year -old son and is pregnant. Expressed concerns about their
health living so close to the plant. Her comments regarding HH focused on air quality.
Web, Tom, new resident of Southport, NC (attended hearing)
21Nov2019 speaker #14 oral comments, p. 57-58 (01:34:53-01:37:39)
• Noise Pollution: Been woken up during the night when the grinding is going on.
• Monitoring (See Response Section IV. B.): A lot of information comes from CPI itself. Energy
companies in this country are not all that honest. Wants DEQ to make sure CPI is truthful.
• Stormwater Permit (See Response Section IV. H.): (not sure he distinguishes the difference
between what stormwater is processed as wastewater or stormwater). "It's doesn't seem like it
would take a lot for figuring out how much stormwater the site can handle."
• Air Quality See Response Section IV. I.): Has to clean car on a regular basis (ash fallout)
Wilkins, Emily, resident of Caswell Beach, NC (attended hearing)
21Nov2019 speaker #9 oral comments, p. 47-49 (01:19:43-01:22:57)
Page 20 of 27

21Nov2019 written comments submitted at hearing, p. 96.
• Praise:
o "Thank you for providing this forum so that I have the opportunity to ask you to please
protect us from industrial waste and pollution in our environment."
o She invited DEQ to visit the Town of Caswell Beach the next morning and see the town, the
beach, dunes, maritime forest, and the ocean outfall.
o "If you cannot come perhaps you will envision this place count on, your expertise, oversight
and monitoring. We depend on you for protection from more damage and dangers to our
water, health, and wildlife."
Criticism: "I want no more industrial waste and pollution in our environment."
Water Quality at Ocean Outfall/BSEP canal (See Response Section IV. D.):
o Concerns about recreation
o Concerns about fisheries
Bud Yarbrough, resident of the Landing subdivision (attended hearing)
21Nov2019 speaker #15 oral comments, p. 58-59 (01:37:39-01:39:02)
• Air Quality (See Response Section IV. I.):
o Very interested in looking at respiratory infections in Southport area.
o Thinks there is a connection between CPI and brain tumors in the area.
o Is there a risk assessment from CPI? Response: NPDES permit renewals to not require risk
assessments for the environment or human health. When the NPDES permit for this facility
the applicant was required to perform an engineering alternatives analysis. Recent data for
this facility was reviewed by a Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA) for any exceedance of
water quality standards. These standards are based on the risk.
IV. SUMMARY OF TOPICAL COMMENTS WITH RESPONSES
A. Pollutants of Concern (POC): There were many concerns expressed about toxicants being discharged
from the burning of coal, TDF and treated railroad ties. Comments included concerns for human health
and aquatic life for these POCs. See PAA analysis Factsheet Attachment O for the 126 priority pollutant
analysis (PPA). The following POCs were given in comments:
• PCBs: See discussion of Transformer Fluid/PCBs below.
• Hexafluoropropylene Oxide (HFPO) Dimer Acid and Its Ammonium Salt: There were no
references included in the comments that provide information on the presence of this
pollutant at power generating facilities that burn TDF and treated railroad ties.
• Chromated Copper Arsenate: Total Copper and Total Chromium are monitored at multiple
Outfalls for compliance with TBELS. Arsenic was not detected in the 126 PPA. There were
no references included in the comments that provide information on the presence of this
pollutant at power generating facilities that burn TDF and treated railroad ties.
• Benzoralpyrene: The July 19, 2017 pollutant scan data indicated no detection (<5.10 µg/L)
[Fact Sheet Attachment O]. There are no clear references in the comments provided to the
presence of this chemical in relationship to TDF and treated railroad ties being burned at this
facility.
• 1,3 Butadiene: This POC is a gas that is insoluble in water.
hLtps://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/BUTADIENE
There were no references included in the comments that provide information on the presence
of this pollutant at power generating facilities that burn TDF and treated railroad ties.
• Creosote: See recommendation Section VI. 3. d. for Total Recoverable Phenolics monitoring.
Page 21 of 27

• Pentachlorophenol: The July 19, 2017 pollutant scan data indicated no detection (<25.5 µg/L)
[Fact Sheet Attachment O]. See recommendation Section VI. 3. d. for Total Recoverable
Phenolics monitoring.
• Heavy metals: For metals data see the July 19, 2017 pollutant scan. [Fact Sheet Attachment O]
• Arsenic: The July 19, 2017 pollutant scan data indicated no detection (<0.01 µg/L) [Fact
Sheet Attachment O].
Response: For POC monitoring added for the final permit please see the Hearing Officer
Recommendations Section VI. Item 3 below. Further details regarding POCs can be seen in
discussion throughout the fact sheet.
B. Monitoring:
• FrequencX: Many comments concerned monitoring frequencies such as once per permit cycle
versus annual monitoring for 126 Priority Pollutant Analysis. There were other parameters
that they wanted a greater frequency of monitoring such as monthly versus quarterly for
metals.
• Outfall 003: Generally, the comments focused only on the final Outfall 003 and the PPA,
with little emphasis or acknowledgement of monitoring or limitation for internal Outfalls 001,
002 and 004.
• POC: There were concerns expressed about monitoring for POC and emergent contaminants.
• Ocean Outfall: There were comments that suggested monitoring for the ocean outfall. Please
note that the ocean outfall is regulated under the Duke Progress BSEP NPDES permit
NC0007064.
• Grab vs. Composite: There were comments concerning grab versus composite sampling.
• WET testing: The SELC requested WET testing.
• Self -monitoring: Many comments expressed concerns with the concept of self -monitoring by
a private industry. They suggested third parties should sample.
Response
For monitoring in NPDES permit NC0065099 see Fact Sheet section 10. Monitoring Requirements
and the Hearing Officer Recommendations Section VI. Item 3 below. Further details regarding
monitoring can be seen in discussion throughout the Fact Sheet.
For grab versus composite sampling see please see 15A NCAC 02B .0505(c)(3).
For Wet Testing see Hearing Officer's Recommendations Section VI. Item 3. E. For more discussion
of WET tests see Fact Sheet Section 6. Water Quality -Based Effluent Limitations (WQBELs):
Toxicity Testing Limitations.
See permit Part II NPDES Permit Standard Conditions Section D Monitoring and Records. Please
note that CPI may utilize a third -party contract laboratory that is certified by the DWR Laboratory
Certification Branch. Split sampling can be conducted by the permittee's contract lab and DWR
regional office staff. The split sample would be analyzed by the DWR Water Sciences Section.
C. Limits: For discussion of Water Quality -Based Effluent Limitations (WQBELs) see Fact Sheet Section 6.
For discussion of Technology -Based Effluent Limitations (TBELs) see Fact Sheet Section 7.
D. Water Quality at Ocean Outfall/ BSEP canal: There were a broad range of concerns regarding water
quality at the ocean outfall. Most comments concerned water quality at the beach, ocean waters
directly offshore. The concerns included:
• Human health
• Fisheries (human consumption)
• Aquatic Life/marine life
Page 22 of 27

• Recreation/Tourism
• Local economy
• Environmental Risk
• Temperature
• Water Quality in the discharge canal
Response: Water quality concerns such as Human Health and Aquatic life are addressed by water
quality standards. These standards are developed based on risk and protection of aquatic life and
human health. The reasonable potential analysis as summarized in the Fact Sheet evaluates the
reasonable potential to exceed water quality standards. For information on the development of
standards please contact the DWR Water Quality Planning Section.
For temperature concerns see Section II Facility Background of this report and Fact Sheet page 3 of
18 for discussion of 316 (a) Thermal Variance & Outfall Mixing Zone Monitoring at the Brunswick
Steam Electric Plant's (BSEP). This regulation applies to the Duke Progress NPDES permit
NC0007064. Temperature monitoring was added to the draft permit (NC0065099) for Outfall 003
(final Outfall) to monitor for compliance with 316(a).
The BSEP charge canal is a manmade effluent channel. Therefore, the canal is not waters of the state
or waters of the United States. Water quality standards would not apply until the ocean outfall. For
information on the easement agreement between Duke Progress Energy and CPI, please see Section 11
Facility Background of this report and the Fact Sheet page 2 under Section 1: Basic Facility
Information.
E. Permit: There were a few general requests or concerns regarding the permit itself as follows:
• Requests to strengthen the permit.
• Requests to deny the permit renewal.
• Requests to deny any increase to flow such as the addition of wash water (17,000 gal/yr) from
cleaning of the mechanical drag system (MDS).
• Original requests for a public hearing.
• Town resolutions requesting additional public hearings.
• There were a few questions raised about the approval of the 1987 equipment and technology.
(This comment is more applicable to the air quality permit. Also see discussion in item J CPI
Facility below).
Response: Reissuance will be determined by the Director of the Division of Water Resources. Also
see Hearing Officer Recommendations in Section VI below. The Division provided more than the
required time for public comment for this permit renewal. Public comment was open for 30 days for
the draft permit, comments were allowed 30 days before the public hearing, and an additional 30 days
were provided after the public hearing.
F. Bottom Ash Transport Water/Bottom Ash: One primary concern regarding the draft permit was the
addition of bottom ash transport water being added to Outfall 001. Some comments misunderstood
the difference between solid bottom ash and bottom ash transport water as defined in 40 CFR 423.11
M&(p):
(f) The term bottom ash means the ash, including boiler slag, which settles in the furnace or is
dislodged from furnace walls. Economizer ash is included in this definition when it is collected
with bottom ash.
(p) The term transport water means any wastewater that is used to convey fly ash, bottom ash, or
economizer ash from the ash collection or storage equipment, or boiler, and has direct contact
with the ash. Transport water does not include low volume, short duration discharges of
Page 23 of 27

wastewater from minor leaks (e.g., leaks from valve packing, pipe flanges, or piping) or minor
maintenance events (e.g., replacement of valves or pipe sections).
Some comments misunderstand that 17,000 gallons per year of bottom ash solids were reaching the
BSEP canal.
One creative suggestion from one of the commenters (Peter Key): Since only 17,000 gal/yr is
discharged, CPI should capture the effluent and ship via tanker truck to a disposal facility for coal
ash. A typical full-sized tanker truck is 11,000 gallons. Two tanker truck loads should not be a burden
for CPI.
Response: See Hearing Officer Recommendations Section VI.
G. Federal Regulation: ation: See discussion in Fact Sheet regarding application of federal regulation for the
CWA or the categorical standards found in 40 CFR 423.
H. Stormwater Permit: CPI also holds stormwater permit NCS000348. For comments and information on
the stormwater, please contact DEMLR. Fuel pile stormwater runoff is regulated NPDES permit
NC0065099 in accordance with 40 CFR 423. See factsheet for details on TBELS.
I. Air Quality: A large portion of the comments received, especially during the public hearing, were
concerned with air quality.
Ashe Fallout: Many of the comment for air quality were about ash fallout in residential areas
surrounding the CPI facility. Many residents had complaints of an ash residue on furniture
and surfaces inside homes, on cars and other outdoor surfaces.
• Fuel Usage: There were concerns expressed by many regarding the type of fuel being burned
at the power plant such as coal, TDF, and treated railroad ties.
Response: NPDES permit NC0065099 does not regulate air quality or the fuel being consumed at
the CPI Southport Power Plant. These comments are outside the scope of the permitting action
being taken by the Division of Water Resources. Information and documents relating to air
emissions from the facility, including permitting and enforcement actions by the North Carolina
Division of Air Quality, are available on the Division of Air Quality's website:
https://xapps.ncdenr.org/aq/docs/FDocs_Search.jssp fxapps.ncdenr.orgl
J. CPI Facility: A few concerns were expressed about the facility design being up-to-date, meeting
standards for Best Management Practices, and best available technology economically achievable
(BAT). These concerns arise from the 1987 plant construction. They want the facility to achieve zero
discharge. These same concerns were expressed regarding regulation of Air Quality. They are also
concerned about storm preparedness such as more frequent hurricanes.
Response: CPI contracts licensed professional engineers to design, review and implement best
management practices at their facility. The fuel pile runoff flows to the drainage ditches discharge via
wastewater Outfall 001 is in accordance with 40 CFR 423. Solids are removed by silt screens along
the v-ditches and the sediment basins before discharge. Please note that there is no bottom ash stored
on site. The bottom ash is loaded from a concrete pit and hauled to landfill.
Regarding BAT, please see Fact Sheet Discussion of Technology Based Effluent Limits (TBELS)
with best practicable control technology currently available (BPT) vs BAT. For discussion of
Technology -Based Effluent Limitations (TBELs) see Fact Sheet Section 7.
K. Public Information Request: Please contact the DWR Public Information Officer.
Page 24 of 27

L. Transformer Fluid/PCBs: Concerns about storage of transformer fluids and the presence of PCBs
were shared by in a few comments.
Response: Transformer fluid (new or used waste) is not stored nor has ever been stored onsite. The
power plant has two actively used transformers for the production and transmission of electricity.
PCBs have not been in use since the late 1970s. The power plant was commissioned in 1987. PCBs
were not in use at that time. In the event of a release of transformer fluid, the facility has adequate
secondary containment and an oil water separator. For each outfall, the permit contains the following
condition in accordance with 40 CFR 423: The Permittee shall prevent plant site oils, hazardous
substances, or toxic substances from combining with site runoff. There shall be no discharges of
polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) compounds such as those commonly used for transformer fluid.
M. Light/Noise Pollution: Not regulated by DEQ. Light and noise pollution may be regulated by local
ordinance, zoning, and common law.
1TA:Iar171e100)yy[y11771[KI]u1u111e1711Y[13eKI
Based on review of the public record and written/oral comments received during the public hearing process,
I recommend to the Division Director that CPI USA North Carolina, LLC - Southport be revised as follows:
No discharge of bottom ash transport water for Outfall 001 will be included for the final permit.
A site review of the facility determined that mechanical drag system (MDS) equipment does not
discharge bottom ash transport water. The transport water is contained within a closed loop.
Transport water drains back into the MDS as the drag chain conveys bottom ash up an incline and
into a concrete pit for temporary storage [See Attachment G: EPA-821 -R-1 5-007 Technical
Development_ steam -electric MDS]. Bottom ash from the concrete pit is front loaded onto a truck
and hauled to an approval landfill.
On June 27, 2012 wastewater generated from pressure washing of the mechanical drag system
(MDS) was allowed as a minor modification to the permit [See Fact Sheet Attachment D:
NC0065099 Minor Modification Letter 20120627]. Any captured overflow is pumped to the
wastewater basins. The new waste stream was incorporated for this permit renewal. The term
bottom ash transport water was used inappropriately for facility description on the supplement to
cover page of the draft permit. The description will be corrected as wash water (17,000 gal/yr)
from cleaning of the mechanical drag system (MDS). This waste stream will be included as a
low -volume waste with the appropriate monitoring and limitation per 40 CFR 423.
2. For Outfall 003:
a. Quarterly monitoring for Acute Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) testing using Mysidopis
bahia (Mysid Shrimp), Pass/Fail test at 90 %, monitoring only, during the months of
January, April, July, and October will be added. The WET testing page will also be added
to the final permit. Footnote 3 and Special Condition A. (7.) is inserted for WET testing.
b. The monitoring frequency for the 126 Priority Pollutant Analysis (PAA) will be increased
from once per permit cycle to annual monitoring. In lieu of the increase in sampling
frequency, engineering calculations will not be required in the final permit. Special
Condition A. (8.) and the following footnote 4 are inserted for this parameter:
The permittee shall perform annual Effluent Pollutant Scans during the term of this
permit [see A. (8.)]. There shall be no detectible amounts of the 126 priority
pollutants (PPA) (40 CFR 423, Appendix A) contained in chemicals added to the
cooling towers except for Total Chromium and Total Zinc (covered under biocide
approvals).
Page 25 of 27

c. Quarterly monitoring for Total Recoverable Phenolics will be added to monitor for
Cresol as a pollutant of concern from the wood fuel pile runoff.
3. By the request of the permittee, sampling for Total Zinc and Total Chromium at Outfall 002 will
be changed from composite to grab. The discharge from Outfall 002 is not accessible for a
composite sampler. Please note that composite sampling will be conducted immediately below
Outfall 002 at Outfall 003 for these parameters.
&J . M.4,4
David May, Aearing Officer
VI. ABBREVIATIONS
03/13/2020
Date
BAT — best available technology economically achievable
BEAT — Brunswick Environmental Action Team
BPT — best practicable control technology currently available
BSEP — Brunswick Steam Electric Plant
CPI — Capital Power Inc. (also CPI USA North Carolina, LLC)
DAQ — North Carolina Division of Air Quality
DEMLR — Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources
DWR — Division of Water Resources
HH — human health
MDS — mechanical drag system
NCDEQ — North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
NPDES — National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
POC — Pollutants of Concern
PPA — 126 priority pollutant analysis
RPA — Reasonable Potential Analysis
TDF — Tire Derived Fuel
SELC — Southern Environmental Law Center
SOC — Special Order by Consent
SW — storm water
TBELs — technology based effluent limits
WWTP — wastewater treatment plant
WTP — water treatment plant
WQBEL — Water Quality based effluent limits
VII. ATTACHMENTS
A. Draft Permit
B. Presentation from the Public Hearing
C. Hearing Registration Sheets
D. Written Comments
E. Transcription of Oral Comments
F. Affidavit of Publication for Public Hearing
G. EPA-821-R-15-007 Technical Development_ steam -electric MDS
Fact Sheet Attachments (list in order of reference):
A. NCO065099 Permit Renewal Application 20160502, 109p.
B. NCO065099 Add Info Received 20170809, 16p.
C. NC0065099_Signature Authority_20180531, 1p.
D. NCO065099 Mod Request 20120627, 1p.
Page 26 of 27

E. Reclassification to Major Add Info 20170609, 6p.
F. NPDES Permit Rating Worksheet notes_attachments 20170828, 19p.
G. Easement Agreement Documentation, 37p.
H. NC0065099 Monitoring Report Violations Apr2014 _Mar2019, 1p.
I. NC0065099 NPDES Inspection with Categories 20150331, 5p.
J. NC0065099 Renewal Staff Report 20161108, 5 pages.
K. NC0065099 002 9595 SALTWATER RPA w_diss factors 20167a, 5p.
L. NC0065099 002 9595 GENERIC non _hardness RPA2016_53, 4 p.
M. NC0065099 003 9595 SALTWATER hardness
w_diss factors 20167a, 12p.
N. NC0065099 003 9595 GENERIC non _hardness RPA2016_53, 5p.
O. CAPITAL POWER -POLLUTANT SCAN-17-10410-7-19-17, 7p.
P. Fact Sheet Memo SW - Final 6-24-2016, 3p.
Q. 40 CFR 423,18p.
R. Affidavit of Publication, The State Port Pilot, 20190703, 1p.
Page 27 of 27

ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
LINDA CULPEPPER
Director
Mr. David H. Groves, Plant Manager
CPI USA North Carolina, LLC
1281 Powerhouse Drive
Southport, NC 28461
Dear Mr. Groves:
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
June 26, 2019
Subject: Draft NPDES Permit NCO065099
CPI USA North Carolina, LLC -Southport
Grade I Physical Chemical WPCS
SIC Code 4911
Brunswick County
The Division has reviewed your request to renew the subject permit. Please review this draft carefully to
ensure your thorough understanding of the information, conditions and requirements it contains.
The Division understands that you have made a modification to your facility by adding bottom ash
transport water to the effluent since the last permit renewal. The draft permit includes the following
significant changes from the existing permit:
1. The facility has been reclassified as a major NPDES permitted facility.
2. The facility map has been updated.
3. The facility classification of Grade I Physical Chemical Water Pollution Control System
[15A NCAC 08G .0302] has been added to the effluent pages.
4. Electronic reporting of discharge monitoring reports (eDMR) has been added [see Section A.
(7.)]
The following footnote condition has been added to internal Outfalls 001, 002, 003 and 004:
The Permittee shall prevent plant site oils, hazardous substances, or toxic substances from
combining with site runoff. There shall be no discharges of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)
compounds such as those commonly used for transformer fluid [40 CFR 423.12 (a)(2), 40
CFR 423.13 (a), 40 CFR 423.15 (a)(2)].
Weekly pH monitoring has been added to Outfalls 001, 002, 003 and 004. In accordance with
40 CFR 423.12 (b)(2) and 40 CFR 423.15 (a)(1), pH has been limited by the technology
based effluent limit, to the following: Not < 6.0 or > 9.0 standard units. In accordance with
15A NCAC 02B .0505(c)(3), pH monitoring is grab.
The following changes have been made to internal Outfall 001 monitoring:
D EQ �� North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Division of Water Resources
512 North Salisbury Street 1 1617 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
NORTH CAROLINA
DepadmamofEnmmnmemlQuelfty /� 919.707.9000

Mr. Grove
June 26, 2019
Page 2 of 3
7. Bottom ash transport water as regulated by 40 CFR 423.15 (a)(6) has been added to internal
Outfall 001.
8. In accordance with 40 CFR 423.12 (b)(9) for coal pile runoff, the Total Suspended Solids
(TSS) daily maximum is updated to 50.0 mg/l.
The following changes have been made to internal Outfall 002 monitoring:
9. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2B .0505(b), continuous flow recording has been added.
10. Monthly average limits of 0.2 mg/1 for Total Chromium and 1.0 mg/1 for Total Zinc have
been added in accordance with requirements outlined in 40 CFR 423.13 (d)(1).
11. In accordance with 15A NCAC 02B .0505(c)(3), monitoring for Total Chromium and Total
Zinc have been changed to composite sampling.
The following changes have been made to internal Outfall 004 monitoring:
12. In accordance with the WTP Strategy for Membrane technology (10/14/2019) (Table 2.1) and
15A NCAC 2B .0505(b), flow monitoring is changed to continuous recording.
13. Reverse osmosis filter reject water is regulated as low -volume wastewater 40 CFR 423.11 (b)
with technology based effluent limits found in 40 CFR 423.15 (a)(3) NSPS. Therefore, Total
Suspended Solids (TSS) and Oil & Grease (O&G) monitoring with technology based effluent
limits has been added. In accordance with the WTP Strategy for Membrane technology
(10/14/2019) (Tables 2.1 & 5.1), flows <0.5 MGD that are limited are monitored 2/Month.
14. In accordance with the WTP Strategy for Membrane technology (10/14/2019) (Tables 2.1 &
5.1) for flows <0.5 MGD, the measurement frequency for Dissolved Oxygen (DO),
Conductivity and Ammonia Nitrogen has been changed to monthly.
15. Temperature monitoring has been increased to weekly to coincide with pH monitoring.
The following changes have been made to final Outfall 003 monitoring:
16. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2B .0505(b), continuous flow recording has been added.
17. Weekly Temperature monitoring has been added to provide monitoring for the Clean Water
Act Section 316(a) variance. In accordance with 15A NCAC 02B .0505(c)(3), temperature
monitoring is grab.
18. Monitoring for 126 Priority Pollutants has been changed from grab sampling to composite
sampling. The frequency for monitoring has been reduced to once per permit cycle; however,
126 Priority Pollutants monitoring can no longer be waived [See Footnote 4].
19. Quarterly monitoring for pollutants of concern has been added for the following: Zinc,
Copper, Nickel and Chromium.
The following footnote conditions have been added to internal Outfall 004:
20. Footnote 2: The Permittee will have 18 months from the effective date of this permit to install
a continuous flow meter. Until then instantaneous measurements can be taken with the

Mr. Grove
June 26, 2019
Page 3 of 3
duration of discharge to be noted in log books and a total daily discharge reported on the
DMR.
21. Footnote 3: There shall be no detectible amounts of the 126 priority pollutants (PPA) (40
CFR 423, Appendix A) contained in chemicals added to the cooling towers except for Total
Chromium and Total Zinc (covered under biocide approvals). Compliance with the
limitations for the 126 priority pollutants shall be determined by engineering calculations
which demonstrate that the regulated pollutants are not detectable in the final discharge by
analytical methods in 40 CFR part 136 [ in accord with 40 CFR 423.13 (d)(3)]. The facility
shall, at a minimum, submit an effluent PPA along with engineering calculations with the
application to renew this permit, due six months prior to expiration.
22. Footnote 4: For the eDMR application system, any detections shall be reported by entering
"1" [Yes (Y) =1] and no detection shall be reported by entering "0" [NO (N) = 0]. Any
detections of PPA compounds shall be noted in the comments section to include the name of
the compound detected and the reported concentration. Laboratory reports shall be kept on
site in accordance with records retention requirements found in Part II. Section D. (6.).
Concurrent with this notification, the Division will solicit public comment on this draft by publishing a
notice in newspapers having circulation in the general Brunswick County area, as required by the NPDES
Program. Please provide your comments, if any, to me via email [[e-mail]] or write to my
attention care of DEQ / DWR / NPDES Program no later than July 26, 2019. Your written comments are
welcome but not mandatory.
Following the mandatory 30-day public comment period, the Division will review all pertinent comments on
your permit draft, and take appropriate action prior to issuing your NPDES permit final. If you have
questions concerning this draft, please e-mail me or call my direct line [phone].
Sincerely,
Derek Denard, Environmental Specialist
Division of Water Resources, NCDEQ
Enclosure: NPDES Permit NCO065099 (renewal DRAFT)
hc: NPDES Program Files
Tim Monroe, P.E., Leaf Environmental & Engineering, P.C., PO Box 14609, RTP, NC 27709
ec: WiRO / Tom Tharrington [[e-mail]]
WiRO / Morella S. King [[e-mail]]
Wastewater Operator Certification Group / Maureen Kimsey [[e-mail]]
Virginia Grace [[e-mail]]
US EPA [[e-mail]]

NPDES Permit NCO065099
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
PERMIT
TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE $ILIMINATION SYSTEM
(NEDES)
In compliance with the provisions of North Carolina General Statute 15.1, other lawful standards
and regulations promulgated and adopted by the North Carolina E mental Management
Commission, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, ended,
CPI USA North Carolina, LLC
is hereby authorized to dischargeV
ater m out'
located at the
CPI USA North Carolina, LC
1281 Powerhouse Drive, Southport, NC 28461
1runswick County
to receiving waters designated as the Atla can ow the Cape Fear River in accordance with
effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, e conditions set forth in Parts I, II, III and IV
hereof.
This permit shall be me effectiv 12019.
This permit and authon to discharge shall expire at midnight on , 2024.
Signed this day, 12019.
Linda Culpepper, Director
Division of Water Resources
By Authority of the Environmental Management
Page 1 of 9

NPDES Permit NCO065099
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
All previous NPDES Permits issued to this facility, whether for operation or discharge are hereby
revoked. As of this permit issuance, any previously issued permit bearing this number is no longer
effective. Therefore, the exclusive authority to operate and discharge from this facility arises under the
permit conditions, requirements, terms, and provisions included herein.
CPI USA N
is hereby authorized to:
1. continue to operate a wastewater treatment
tin consisting of,
• coal pile runoff (internal Outfall 001) 'V �W
• fuel pile runoff from wood and tire derived fuel (TDF) (internal Outfall 00
• low -volume wastewater (internal Outfall 001) includi
o backwash from a boiler feedwater deminerali
o boiler blowdown
o accumulated water in the floor from miscellaneous sump pumps in the turbine
building
• bottom ash transport water (internal Outfall 001)
• cooling tower blowdown (internal Outfall 002)
• reverse osmosis filter reject water (internal Outfall 004)
• combined flows from internal Outfalls 001, 002 and 004 through Outfall 003
with wastewater trea*m onsisting of,
• distribution box and weir 14,
• two (2) V1000 gallon settling basins
located at CPI USA North Carolina, LLC, 1281 Powerhouse Drive, Southport, in Brunswick County
and
I
2. discharge from said treatment works [combining flows from internal Outfalls 001, 002 and 004]
through Outfall 003, via the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant's discharge canal (at a location specified
on the attached map) into the Atlantic Ocean [stream segment 99-(2)], a Class SB waterbody below
the mouth of the Cape Fear River, below subbasin 03-06-17 [HUC: 030300050804] of the Cape Fear
River Basin.
Page 2 of 9

NPDES Permit NCO065099
PART I
A. (1.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
INTERNAL OUTFALL 001 [ 15A NCAC 02B .0400 et seq., 02B .0500 et seq.]
Grade I Physical Chemical Water Pollution Control System [15A NCAC 08G .0302]
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the Permittee
is authorized to discharge coal pile runoff, fuel pile runoff (wood & TDF), low -volume wastewaters
(backwash from a boiler feedwater demineralizer, boiler blowdown & miscellaneous sumps) and bottom
ash transport water from internal Outfall 001. Such discharges shall be limited, monitored and reported'
by the Permittee as specified below:
DISCHARGE
MONITORING
EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS
LIMITATIONS
REQUIREMENTS'
[Parameter Codes]
Monthly
Daily
Measurement
Sample
Sample
Average
Maximum
Frequency
Type
Location
Flow (MGD)
50050
Monitor & Report...Continuous
Recording
Effluent
pH (su)
0
Not < 6.0 or > 9.0
Weekly
rab
Effluent
tandard units
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
C0530
0.0 5 1.0 mg/
2 / Month
Composite
Effluent
(m 1
Oil & Grease (mg/L)
00556
1 g/l 20.0 mg/l
2 / Month
Grab
Effluent
[EPA Method 1664 SGT- EM
Footnotes: q -
1. The Permittee shall begin submitting Discharge Mo ng Reports electronically using NC DWR's eDMR
applicatio See Condition A. (6).
Conditi
• The tee shall preve t site oils, hazardous substances, or toxic substances from combining with site
runoff. hall be no dis es of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) compounds such as those commonly
used for tra er fluid.
Page 3 of 9

NPDES Permit NCO065099
A. (2.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
INTERNAL OUTFALL 002 [15A NCAC 02B .0400 et seq., 02B .0500 et seq.]
Grade I Physical Chemical Water Pollution Control System [15A NCAC 08G .0302]
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the Permittee
is authorized to discharge cooling tower blowdown from internal Outfall 002. Such discharges shall be
limited, monitored and reported' by the Permittee as specified below:
EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS
[Parameter Codes]
DISCHARGE
LIMITATIONS
MONITORING
REQUIREMENTS'
Monthly
Average
Daily
Maximum
Measurement
Frequency
Sample
Type
Sample
Location
Flow (MGD)
50050
Monitor & Rep'ort
Npntinuous
Recording
Effluent
pH (su)
00400
Not < 6.0 or > 9.0
standard units
Wee
Grab
Effluent
Free Available Chlorine (mg/1) 2
50064
0.2 mg/l
.5 mg/l
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Chromium (mg/1)
01034
2 mg/l
.2 mg/1
Monthly
mposite
Effluent
Total Zinc (µg/1)
01
SiLl,
1.0 mg/1
Monthly
Composite
Effluent
Footnotes:
1. The Permittee shall begin submitting Dischar onitoring Reports elect ically using NC DWR's eDMR
application system. See Condition A. (6.).
2. Neither free available chlorine (FAC) nor total re ual chlorine (TRC) may be discharged from any single
generating unit for more than two hours in any single day. Not more than one unit may discharge FAC or TRC
at any one time unless the permittee can demonstrate to the Division of Water Resources that units cannot
operate at or below this level of chlorination. Limitations for chlorine are instantaneous average and
insta aneous maximum. Monitoring will be required only during those weeks when chlorination occurs.
Conditio
The Permit
site runoff.
commonly
IV
.it site oils, hazardous substances, or toxic substances from combining with
scharges of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) compounds such as those
fluid.
Page 4 of 9

NPDES Permit NCO065099
A. (3.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
INTERNAL OUTFALL 004 [15A NCAC 02B .0400 et seq., 02B .0500 et seq.]
Grade I Physical Chemical Water Pollution Control System [15A NCAC 08G .0302]
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the Permittee
is authorized to discharge from internal Outfall 004 - Reverse Osmosis Reject Water - low -volume
wastewaters. Such discharges shall be limited, monitored and reported' by the Permittee as specified
below: _
DISCHARGE
MONITORING
EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS
LIMITATIONS
REQUIREMENTS'
[Parameter Codes]
Monthly
Daily
Measurement
Sample
Sample
Average
Maximum
Frequency
Type
Location
Flow (MGD)
50050
Monitor & Report
Continuous
Recording
Effluent
Temperature (°C)
00010
Monitor & Report
Weekly1hL
Grab
Effluent
pH (su)
00400
Not<6.0 >9.0
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
standar its
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
Co.0
mg/l
100.0 mg/l
2 / Month
Grab
Effluent
(m 1
Oil & Grease (mg/L)
00556
15.0 mg/l
20.0 mg/
2 / Month
Grab
Effluent
[EPA Method 1664 SGT-HEM]
Total Dissolved Solids (m
70295
onitor & Report
thly
Grab
Effluent
Dissolved Oxygen (D )
00300
14
Monitor & Report
Monthly
Grab
Effluent
Conductively (µmhos/cm)
00094
Monitor & Report
Monthly
Grab
Effluent
Ammonia N' 1)
C0610
Monitor & Report
Monthly
Grab
Effluent
Footnot I
1. The Pe e shall begin s ting Discharge Monitoring Reports electronically using NC DWR's eDMR
applicatio em. See Condi . (6.). '
Conditions:
• The Permittee shall prevent plant site oils, hazardous substances, or toxic substances from combining with site
runoff. There shall be no discharges of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) compounds such as those commonly
used for transformer fluid.
Page 5 of 9

NPDES Permit NCO065099
A. (4.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
OUTFALL 003 [15A NCAC 02B .0400 et seq., 02B .0500 et seq.]
Grade I Physical Chemical Water Pollution Control System [15A NCAC 08G .0302]
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is
authorized to discharge from final Outfall 003 (combined flows from Outfall 001, Outfall 002 and Outfall
004). Such discharges shall be limited, monitored and reported' by the Permittee as specified below:
EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS
[Parameter Codes]
DISCHARGE
LIMITATIONS
MONITORING
REQUIREMENTS'
Monthly
Average
Daily
Maximum
Measurement
Frequency
Sample
Type
Sample
Location
Flow (MGD) 2
50050
Monitor & Report
Continuous 2
Recorder 2
Effluent
Temperature (°C)
00010
Monitor & Report
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
PH (su)
00400
Not < 6.0 or > 9.0
standard units
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Zinc (µg/1)
01092
Monitor & Report
Quarterly
mposite
Effluent
Total Copper (µg/1)
01042
r & Report
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
Total Nickel (µg/l)
01067
nitoReport
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
Total Chromium (mg/1)
034
MIMor & Report
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
PPA (126 Priority Pollutants) 3,4
(40 CFR Part 423, Appendix A)
Excluding Zinc and Chromium
JLNo
Detec mount 4
O�lce per permit
Cycle
Composite
Effluent
Footnotes:
1. The Permittee shall begin submitting Discha for Reports electronically using NC DWR's eDMR
application system. Se ndition A. (6.).
2. The Permittee will have months from the effective ate of this permit to install a continuous flow meter.
Until then ' tantaneous measurements can be taken with the duration of discharge to be noted in log books
and a tota discharge reported on the DMR.
3. There shall Nbetectible amounts of the 126 priority pollutants (PPA) (40 CFR 423, Appendix A)
contained inded to the cooling towers except for Total Chromium and Total Zinc (covered
under biociCompliance with the limitations for the 126 priority pollutants shall be determined
by engineers which demonstrate that the regulated pollutants are not detectable in the final
discharge by analytical methods in 40 CFR part 136. The facility shall, at a minimum, submit an effluent PPA
along with engineering calculations with the application to renew this permit, due six months prior to
expiration.
4. For the eDMR application system, any detections shall be reported by entering "1" [Yes (Y) =1] and no
detection shall be reported by entering "0" [NO (N) = 01. Any detections of PPA compounds shall be noted in
the comments section to include the name of the compound detected and the reported concentration.
Laboratory reports shall be kept on site in accordance with records retention requirements found in Part II.
Section D. (6).
Conditions:
• Final discharge shall contain no floating solids or foam visible in other than trace amounts.
• The Permittee shall prevent plant site oils, hazardous substances, or toxic substances from combining with site
runoff. There shall be no discharges of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) compounds such as those commonly
used for transformer fluid.
Page 6 of 9

NPDES Permit NCO065099
A. (5.) USE OF BIOCIDES — SPECIAL CONDITION [G.S. 143-215, 143-215.1]
The permittee shall not use any biocides except those approved in conjunction with the permit application.
The permittee shall notify the Director in writing not later than ninety (90) days prior to instituting use of
any additional biocide used in cooling systems which may be toxic to aquatic life other than those
previously reported to the Division of Water Resources. Such notification shall include completion of
Biocide Worksheet Form 101 and a map locating the discharge point and receiving stream. Completion of
Biocide Worksheet Form 101 is not necessary for those outfalls containing toxicity testing. Division
approval is not necessary for the introduction of a new biocide int utfall currently being tested for
toxicity.
A. (6.) ELECTRONIC REPORTING OF MONITORING REPORTS
[G.S. 143-215.1(b)] 1
Federal regulations require electronic submittal of all discharge monitor' reports (DMRs) and program reports.
The final NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule was adopted and becam tive on Dece 1, 2015.
NOTE: This special condition supplemen rsedes the following sections within Part I of this permit
(Standard Conditions for NPDES Permits):.,
• Section B. (11.) Signatory Requirements
• Section D. (2.)
• Section D. (6.) ords tention
• Section E. (5.)14oniringtoReports
1. Reporting Requirements [Supersedes Section D. %t1d Section E. I
The permittee shall report discharge monitoring data electronically using the NC DWR's Electronic
Discharge Monitoring Report (eDMR) internet application.
Monitoring
cults obtained during the previous month(s) shall be summarized for each month and submitted
electronic ing eDMR. The eDMR system allows permitted facilities to enter monitoring data and
submit DMNeDM
y using the internet. Until such time that the state's eDMR application is
compliant wss-Media Electronic Reporting Regulation (CROMERR), permittees will be
required to arge monitoring data to the state electronically using eDMR and will be required
to completemission by printing, signing, and submitting one signed original and a copy of the
computer printed eDMR to the following address:
NC DEQ / Division of Water Resources / Water Quality Permitting Section
ATTENTION: Central Files
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
If a permittee is unable to use the eDMR system due to a demonstrated hardship or due to the facility being
physically located in an area where less than 10 percent of the households have broadband access, then a
temporary waiver from the NPDES electronic reporting requirements may be granted and discharge
monitoring data may be submitted on paper DMR forms (MR 1, 1. 1, 2, 3) or alternative forms approved by
the Director. Duplicate signed copies shall be submitted to the mailing address above. See "How to Request
a Waiver from Electronic Reporting" section below.
Page 7 of 9

NPDES Permit NC0065099
Regardless of the submission method, the first DMR is due on the last day of the month following the
issuance of the permit or in the case of a new facility, on the last day of the month following the
commencement of discharge.
Starting on December 21, 2020, the permittee must electronically report the following compliance
monitoring data and reports, when applicable:
Sewer Overflow/Bypass Event Reports;
Pretreatment Program Annual Reports; and
Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 316(b) Annual Reports. '
The permittee may seek an electronic reporting waiver from Di
from Electronic Reporting" section below). 41
2. Electronic Submissions
3.
In accordance with 40 CFR 122.41(1)(9), the
electronic submission. The permittee should
for the electronic submission.
(see "How to Request a Waiver
lentify the initial ri
ebsitresources to
ie time of each
initial recipient
Initial recipient of electronic NPDES information -from NPDES-regulated facilities means the entity (EPA or
the state authorized by EPA to implement the NPDES program) that is the designated entity for receiving
electronic NPDES data [see 40 CFR 127.2(y-
EPA plans to establish a Vsite at will also link to the appropriate ectronic reporting tool for each type
of electronic submission and for each state. Instructions on how to aIss and use the appropriate electronic
reporting tool will be available as well. Information on EPA's NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule is found at:
re ortin - ,
r%
Electronic submissions must start by the dates
JL 1 4&
"Reporting Requirements" section above.
The permittee ek a temporary electronic reporting waiver from the Division. To obtain an electronic
reporting waiver, ittee must first submit an electronic reporting waiver request to the Division.
Requests for tempora ctronic reporting waivers must be submitted in writing to the Division for written
approval at least sixty (60) days prior to the date the facility would be required under this permit to begin
submitting monitoring data and reports. The duration of a temporary waiver shall not exceed 5 years and
shall thereupon expire. At such time, monitoring data and reports shall be submitted electronically to the
Division unless the permittee re -applies for and is granted a new temporary electronic reporting waiver by the
Division. Approved electronic reporting waivers are not transferrable. Only permittees with an approved
reporting waiver request may submit monitoring data and reports on paper to the Division for the period that
the approved reporting waiver request is effective.
Information on eDMR and the application for a temporary electronic reporting waiver are found on the
following web page:
http://deq.nc. gov/about/divisions/water-resources/edmr
Page 8 of 9

NPDES Permit NC0065099
4. Signatory Requirements [Supplements Section B. (11.) (b) and Supersedes Section B. (11.) (d)1
All eDMRs submitted to the permit issuing authority shall be signed by a person described in Part II, Section
B. (11.)(a) or by a duly authorized representative of that person as described in Part II, Section B. (11.)(b). A
person, and not a position, must be delegated signatory authority for eDMR reporting purposes.
For eDMR submissions, the person signing and submitting the DMR must obtain an eDMR user account and
login credentials to access the eDMR system. For more information on North Carolina's eDMR system,
registering for eDMR and obtaining an eDMR user account, please visit the following web page:
http://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/edmr It
Certification. Any person submitting an electronic DMR using the state's eDMR system shall make the
following certification [40 CFR 122.221. NO OTHER STATEMENTS ERTIFICATION WILL BE
ACCEPTED:
"I certify, under penalty of law, that this document and all attachments were aced under my direction or
supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified perso roperly gather and
evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiryVf the per or persons an(
the system, or
those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, ormation sub is, to the best of
my knowledge and belief, true, accurgte, and complete. I am awa at there are signi t penalties for
submitting false information, including the possibility of fines and imprisonment for knowing violations. "
5. Records Retention [Supplements Section 6.
The permittee shall retain records of all Discft Monitoring Reports, ing eDMR submissions. These
records or copies shall be maintained for a peri of at least 3 years from t e date of the report. This period
may be extended by request of the Director at any time [40 CFR 122.41].
C�
Page 9 of 9

a
Progress Engergy Brunswick
Steam Electric Power
Station Discharge Canal
J,
ti
IF low, C.
Aproximate
��� •,��
J
gros
��'r��
CP1 USA NorthCarolina
NPDES Permit III I 1 1
1281 Powerhouse Drive, Southport 28461
Receiving Stream: UT to Atlantic Ocean Stream
I
• •' 1 18�T
Stream Segment: • •Sub -Basin 03-06-17
River :. •" 030300050804
1L26NE
County:BrunswickUSGS
Quad:• ••

NPDES Permit Standard Conditions
Page 1 of 18
PART II
STANDARD CONDITIONS FOR NPDES PERMITS
Section A. Definitions
2/Month
Samples are collected twice per month with at least ten calendar days between sampling events. These samples shall be
representative of the wastewater discharged during the sample period.
3/Week
Samples are collected three times per week on three separate calendar days. These samples shall be representative of
the wastewater discharged during the sample period.
Act or "the Act"
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, also known as the Clean Water Act (CWA), as amended, 33 USC 1251, et.
seq.
Annual Average
The arithmetic mean of all "daily discharges" of a pollutant measured during the calendar year. In the case of fecal
coliform, the geometric mean of such discharges.
Arithmetic Mean
The summation of the individual values divided by the number of individual values.
Bypass
The known diversion of waste streams from any portion of a treatment facility including the collection system, which is
not a designed or established or operating mode for the facility.
Calendar Day
The period from midnight of one day until midnight of the next day. However, for purposes of this permit, any
consecutive 24-hour period that reasonably represents the calendar day may be used for sampling.
Calendar Week
The period from Sunday through the following Saturday.
Calendar Quarter
One of the following distinct periods: January through March, April through June, July through September, and
October through December.
Composite Sample
A sample collected over a 24-hour period by continuous sampling or combining grab samples of at least 100 mL in
such a manner as to result in a total sample representative of the wastewater discharge during the sample period. The
Director may designate the most appropriate method (specific number and size of aliquots necessary, the time interval
between grab samples, etc.) on a case -by -case basis. Samples may be collected manually or automatically. Composite
samples may be obtained by the following methods:
(1) Continuous: a single, continuous sample collected over a 24-hour period proportional to the rate of flow.
(2) Constant time/variable volume: a series of grab samples collected at equal time intervals over a 24 hour period
of discharge and combined proportional to the rate of flow measured at the time of individual sample
collection, or
(3) Variable time/constant volume: a series of grab samples of equal volume collected over a 24 hour period with
the time intervals between samples determined by a preset number of gallons passing the sampling point. Flow
measurement between sample intervals shall be determined by use of a flow recorder and totalizer, and the
preset gallon interval between sample collection fixed at no greater than 1/24 of the expected total daily flow at
the treatment system, or
Version 1110912011.42

NPDES Permit Standard Conditions
Page 2 of 18
(4) Constant time/constant volume: a series of grab samples of equal volume collected over a 24-hour period at a
constant time interval. Use of this method requires prior approval by the Director. This method may only be
used in situations where effluent flow rates vary less than 15 percent. The following restrictions also apply:
➢ Influent and effluent grab samples shall be of equal size and of no less than 100 milliliters
➢ Influent samples shall not be collected more than once per hour.
➢ Permittees with wastewater treatment systems whose detention time < 24 hours shall collect effluent grab
samples at intervals of no greater than 20 minutes apart during any 24-hour period.
➢ Permittees with wastewater treatment systems whose detention time exceeds 24 hours shall collect effluent
grab samples at least every six hours; there must be a minimum of four samples during a 24-hour sampling
period.
Continuous flow measurement
Flow monitoring that occurs without interruption throughout the operating hours of the facility. Flow shall be
monitored continually except for the infrequent times when there may be no flow or for infrequent maintenance
activities on the flow device.
Daily Discharge
The discharge of a pollutant measured during a calendar day or any 24-hour period that reasonably represents the
calendar day for purposes of sampling. For pollutants measured in units of mass, the "daily discharge" is calculated as
the total mass of the pollutant discharged over the day. For pollutants expressed in other units of measurement, the
"daily discharge" is calculated as the average measurement of the pollutant over the day. (40 CFR 122.2; see also
"Composite Sample," above.)
Daily Maximum
The highest "daily discharge" during the calendar month.
Daily Sampling
Parameters requiring daily sampling shall be sampled 5 out of every 7 days per week unless otherwise specified in the
permit. Sampling shall be conducted on weekdays except where holidays or other disruptions of normal operations
prevent weekday sampling. If sampling is required for all seven days of the week for any permit parameter(s), that
requirement will be so noted on the Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Page(s).
DWR or "the Division"
The Division of Water Resources, Department of Environment and Natff l n eso ree Environmental Quality.
Effluent
Wastewater discharged following all treatment processes from a water pollution control facility or other point source
whether treated or untreated.
EMC
The North Carolina Environmental Management Commission
EPA
The United States Environmental Protection Agency
Facility Closure
Cessation of all activities that require coverage under this NPDES permit. Completion of facility closure will allow this
permit to be rescinded.
Geometric Mean
The Nth root of the product of the individual values where N = the number of individual values. For purposes of
calculating the geometric mean, values of "0" (or "< [detection level]") shall be considered = 1.
Grab Sample
Individual samples of at least 100 mL collected over a period of time not exceeding 15 minutes. Grab samples can be
collected manually. Grab samples must be representative of the discharge (or the receiving stream, for instream
samples).
Version 1110912011.42

NPDES Permit Standard Conditions
Page 3 of 18
Hazardous Substance
Any substance designated under 40 CFR Part 116 pursuant to Section 311 of the CWA.
Instantaneous flow measurement
The flow measured during the minimum time required for the flow measuring device or method to produce a result in
that instance. To the extent practical, instantaneous flow measurements coincide with the collection of any grab
samples required for the same sampling period so that together the samples and flow are representative of the discharge
during that sampling period.
Monthly Average (concentration limit)
The arithmetic mean of all "daily discharges" of a pollutant measured during the calendar month. In the case of fecal
coliform or other bacterial parameters or indicators, the geometric mean of such discharges.
Permit Issuiniz Authority
The Director of the Division of Water Resources.
Quarterly Average (concentration limit)
The arithmetic mean of all samples taken over a calendar quarter.
Severe prope . damage
Substantial physical damage to property, damage to the treatment facilities which causes them to become inoperable, or
substantial and permanent loss of natural resources which can reasonably be expected to occur in the absence of a
bypass. Severe property damage excludes economic loss caused by delays in production.
Toxic Pollutant:
Any pollutant listed as toxic under Section 307(a)(1) of the CWA.
Upset
An incident beyond the reasonable control of the Permittee causing unintentional and temporary noncompliance with
permit effluent limitations and/or monitoring requirements. An upset does not include noncompliance caused by
operational error, improperly designed treatment facilities, inadequate treatment facilities, lack of preventive
maintenance, or careless or improper operation.
Weekly Average (concentration limit)
The arithmetic mean of all "daily discharges" of a pollutant measured during the calendar week. In the case of fecal
coliform or other bacterial parameters or indicators, the geometric mean of such discharges.
Section B. General Conditions
1. Duty to Comply_
The Permittee must comply with all conditions of this permit. Any permit noncompliance constitutes a violation of
the CWA and is grounds for enforcement action; for permit termination, revocation and reissuance, or
modification; or denial of a permit renewal application [40 CFR 122.41].
a. The Permittee shall comply with effluent standards or prohibitions established under section 307(a) of the
CWA for toxic pollutants and with standards for sewage sludge use or disposal established under section
405(d) of the CWA within the time provided in the regulations that establish these standards or prohibitions or
standards for sewage sludge use or disposal, even if the permit has not yet been modified to incorporate the
requirement.
b. The CWA provides that any person who violates section[s] 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, 318 or 405 of the Act, or
any permit condition or limitation implementing any such sections in a permit issued under section 402, or any
requirement imposed in a pretreatment program approved under sections 402(a)(3) or 402(b)(8) of the Act, is
subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $37,500 per day for each violation. [33 USC 1319(d) and 40 CFR
122.41(a)(2)]
c. The CWA provides that any person who negligently violates sections 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, 318, or 405 of
the Act, or any condition or limitation implementing any of such sections in a permit issued under section 402
of the Act, or any requirement imposed in a pretreatment program approved under section 402(a)(3) or
402(b)(8) of the Act, is subject to criminal penalties of $2,500 to $25,000 per day of violation, or
Version 1110912011.42

NPDES Permit Standard Conditions
Page 4 of 18
imprisonment of not more than 1 year, or both. In the case of a second or subsequent conviction for a negligent
violation, a person shall be subject to criminal penalties of not more than $50,000 per day of violation, or by
imprisonment of not more than 2 years, or both. [33 USC 1319(c)(1) and 40 CFR 122.41(a)(2)]
d. Any person who knowingly violates such sections, or such conditions or limitations is subject to criminal
penalties of $5,000 to $50,000 per day of violation, or imprisonment for not more than 3 years, or both. In the
case of a second or subsequent conviction for a knowing violation, a person shall be subject to criminal
penalties of not more than $100,000 per day of violation, or imprisonment of not more than 6 years, or both.
[33 USC 1319(c)(2) and 40 CFR 122.41(a)(2)]
e. Any person who knowingly violates section 301, 302, 303, 306, 307, 308, 318 or 405 of the Act, or any permit
condition or limitation implementing any of such sections in a permit issued under section 402 of the Act, and
who knows at that time that he thereby places another person in imminent danger of death or serious bodily
injury, shall, upon conviction, be subject to a fine of not more than $250,000 or imprisonment of not more than
15 years, or both. In the case of a second or subsequent conviction for a knowing endangerment violation, a
person shall be subject to a fine of not more than $500,000 or by imprisonment of not more than 30 years, or
both. An organization, as defined in section 309(c)(3)(B)(iii) of the CWA, shall, upon conviction of violating
the imminent danger provision, be subject to a fine of not more than $1,000,000 and can be fined up to
$2,000,000 for second or subsequent convictions. [40 CFR 122.41(a)(2)]
f. Under state law, a civil penalty of not more than $25,000 per violation may be assessed against any person
who violates or fails to act in accordance with the terms, conditions, or requirements of a permit. [North
Carolina General Statutes § 143-215.6A]
g. Any person may be assessed an administrative penalty by the Administrator for violating section 301, 302,
306, 307, 308, 318 or 405 of this Act, or any permit condition or limitation implementing any of such sections
in a permit issued under section 402 of this Act. Administrative penalties for Class I violations are not to
exceed $16,000 per violation, with the maximum amount of any Class I penalty assessed not to exceed
$37,500. Penalties for Class II violations are not to exceed $16,000 per day for each day during which the
violation continues, with the maximum amount of any Class II penalty not to exceed $177,500. [33 USC
1319(g)(2) and 40 CFR 122.41(a)(3)]
2. Duty to Mitigate
The Permittee shall take all reasonable steps to minimize or prevent any discharge or sludge use or disposal in
violation of this permit with a reasonable likelihood of adversely affecting human health or the environment [40
CFR 122.41(d)].
Civil and Criminal Liability
Except as provided in permit conditions on 'Bypassing" (Part II.C.4), "Upsets" (Part II.C.S) and "Power Failures"
(Part II.C.7), nothing in this permit shall be construed to relieve the Permittee from any responsibilities, liabilities,
or penalties for noncompliance pursuant to NCGS 143-215.3, 143-215.6 or Section 309 of the Federal Act, 33 USC
1319. Furthermore, the Permittee is responsible for consequential damages, such as fish kills, even though the
responsibility for effective compliance may be temporarily suspended.
4. Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability
Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude the institution of any legal action or relieve the Permittee
from any responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties to which the Permittee is or may be subject to under NCGS 143-
215.75 et seq. or Section 311 of the Federal Act, 33 USG 1321. Furthermore, the Permittee is responsible for
consequential damages, such as fish kills, even though the responsibility for effective compliance may be
temporarily suspended.
5. Property Rights
The issuance of this permit does not convey any property rights in either real or personal property, or any exclusive
privileges, nor does it authorize any injury to private property or any invasion of personal rights, nor any
infringement of Federal, State or local laws or regulations [40 CFR 122.41(g)].
6. Onshore or Offshore Construction
This permit does not authorize or approve the construction of any onshore or offshore physical structures or
facilities or the undertaking of any work in any navigable waters.
Version 1110912011.42

NPDES Permit Standard Conditions
Page 5 of 18
7. Severability
The provisions of this permit are severable. If any provision of this permit, or the application of any provision of
this permit to any circumstances, is held invalid, the application of such provision to other circumstances, and the
remainder of this permit, shall not be affected thereby [NCGS 15013-23].
8. Duty to Provide Information
The Permittee shall furnish to the Permit Issuing Authority, within a reasonable time, any information which the
Permit Issuing Authority may request to determine whether cause exists for modifying, revoking and reissuing, or
terminating this permit or to determine compliance with this permit. The Permittee shall also furnish to the Permit
Issuing Authority upon request, copies of records required by this permit [40 CFR 122.41(h)].
9. Duty to Reapply
If the Permittee wishes to continue an activity regulated by this permit after the expiration date of this permit, the
Permittee must apply for and obtain a new permit [40 CFR 122.41(b)].
10. Expiration of Permit
The Permittee is not authorized to discharge after the expiration date. In order to receive automatic authorization to
discharge beyond the expiration date, the Permittee shall submit such information, forms, and fees as are required
by the agency authorized to issue permits no later than 180 days prior to the expiration date unless permission for a
later date has been granted by the Director. (The Director shall not grant permission for applications to be
submitted later than the expiration date of the existing permit.) [40 CFR 122.21(d)] Any Permittee that has not
requested renewal at least 180 days prior to expiration, or any Permittee that does not have a permit after the
expiration and has not requested renewal at least 180 days prior to expiration, will subject the Permittee to
enforcement procedures as provided in NCGS 143-215.6 and 33 USC 1251 et. seq.
11. Signatory Requirements
All applications, reports, or information submitted to the Permit Issuing Authority shall be signed and certified [40
CFR 122.41(k)].
a. All permit applications shall be signed as follows:
(1) For a corporation: by a responsible corporate officer. For the purpose of this Section, a responsible
corporate officer means: (a) a president, secretary, treasurer or vice president of the corporation in charge
of a principal business function, or any other person who performs similar policy or decision making
functions for the corporation, or (b) the manager of one or more manufacturing, production, or operating
facilities, provided, the manager is authorized to make management decisions which govern the operation
of the regulated facility including having the explicit or implicit duty of making major capital investment
recommendations, and initiating and directing other comprehensive measures to assure long term
environmental compliance with environmental laws and regulations; the manager can ensure that the
necessary systems are established or actions taken to gather complete and accurate information for permit
application requirements; and where authority to sign documents has been assigned or delegated to the
manager in accordance with corporate procedures .
(2) For a partnership or sole proprietorship: by a general partner or the proprietor, respectively; or
(3) For a municipality, State, Federal, or other public agency: by either a principal executive officer or
ranking elected official [40 CFR 122.22].
b. All reports required by the permit and other information requested by the Permit Issuing Authority shall be
signed by a person described in paragraph a. above or by a duly authorized representative of that person. A
person is a duly authorized representative only if.
(1) The authorization is made in writing by a person described above;
(2) The authorization specified either an individual or a position having responsibility for the overall operation
of the regulated facility or activity, such as the position of plant manager, operator of a well or well field,
superintendent, a position of equivalent responsibility, or an individual or position having overall
responsibility for environmental matters for the company. (A duly authorized representative may thus be
either a named individual or any individual occupying a named position.); and
(3) The written authorization is submitted to the Permit Issuing Authority [40 CFR 122.22]
Version 1110912011.42

NPDES Permit Standard Conditions
Page 6 of 18
c. Changes to authorization: If an authorization under paragraph (b) of this section is no longer accurate because
a different individual or position has responsibility for the overall operation of the facility, a new authorization
satisfying the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section must be submitted to the Director prior to or
together with any reports, information, or applications to be signed by an authorized representative [40 CFR
122.22]
d. Certification. Any person signing a document under paragraphs a. or b. of this section shall make the following
certification [40 CFR 122.22]. NO OTHER STATEMENTS OF CERTIFICATION WILL BE ACCEPTED:
"I certify, underpenalty of law, that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or
supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and
evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or
those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my
knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for
submitting false information, including the possibility offines and imprisonment for knowing violations. "
12. Permit Actions
This permit may be modified, revoked and reissued, or terminated for cause. The filing of a request by the
Permittee for a permit modification, revocation and reissuance, or termination, or a notification of planned changes
or anticipated noncompliance does not stay any permit condition [40 CFR 122.41(Q.
13. Permit Modification, Revocation and Reissuance, or Termination
The issuance of this permit does not prohibit the permit issuing authority from reopening and modifying the permit,
revoking and reissuing the permit, or terminating the permit as allowed by the laws, rules, and regulations
contained in Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 122 and 123; Title 15A of the North Carolina
Administrative Code, Subchapter 02H .0100; and North Carolina General Statute 143.215.1 et. al.
14. Annual Administering and Compliance Monitoring Fee Requirements
The Permittee must pay the annual administering and compliance monitoring fee within thirty days after being
billed by the Division. Failure to pay the fee in a timely manner in accordance with 15A NCAC 02H .0105(b)(2)
may cause this Division to initiate action to revoke the permit.
Section C. ODeration and Maintenance of Pollution Controls
1. Certified Operator
Owners of classified water pollution control systems must designate operators, certified by the Water Pollution
Control System Operators Certification Commission (WPCSOCC), of the appropriate type and grade for the
system, and, for each classification must [T15A NCAC 08G .0201]:
a. designate one Operator In Responsible Charge (ORC) who possesses a valid certificate of the type and grade at
least equivalent to the type and grade of the system;
b. designate one or more Back-up Operator(s) in Responsible Charge (Back-up ORCs) who possesses a valid
certificate of the type of the system and no more than one grade less than the grade of the system, with the
exception of no backup operator in responsible charge is required for systems whose minimum visitation
requirements are twice per year; and
c. submit a signed completed "Water Pollution Control System Operator Designation Form" to the Commission
(or to the local health department for owners of subsurface systems) countersigned by the designated certified
operators, designating the Operator in Responsible Charge (ORC) and the Back-up Operator in Responsible
Charge (Back-up ORC):
(1) 60 calendar days prior to wastewater or residuals being introduced into a new system; or
(2) within 120 calendar days following:
➢ receiving notification of a change in the classification of the system requiring the designation of a new
Operator in Responsible Charge (ORC) and Back-up Operator in Responsible Charge (Back-up ORC)
of the proper type and grade; or
➢ a vacancy in the position of Operator in Responsible Charge (ORC) or Back-up Operator in
Responsible Charge (Back-up ORC).
Version 1110912011.42

NPDES Permit Standard Conditions
Page 7 of 18
(3) within seven calendar days of vacancies in both ORC and Back-up ORC positions replacing or designating
at least one of the responsibilities.
The ORC of each Class I facility (or the Back-up ORC, when acting as surrogate for the ORC) must:
➢ Visit the facility as often as is necessary to insure proper operation of the treatment system; the treatment
facility must be visited at least weekly
➢ Comply with all other conditions of 15A NCAC 08G .0204.
The ORC of each Class II, III and IV facility (or the Back-up ORC, when acting as surrogate for the ORC) must:
➢ Visit the facility as often as is necessary to insure proper operation of the treatment system; the treatment
facility must be visited at least five days per week, excluding holidays
➢ Properly manage and document daily operation and maintenance of the facility
➢ Comply with all other conditions of 15A NCAC 08G .0204.
2. Proper Operation and Maintenance
The Permittee shall at all times properly operate and maintain all facilities and systems of treatment and control
(and related appurtenances) which are installed or used by the Permittee to achieve compliance with the conditions
of this permit. Proper operation and maintenance also includes adequate laboratory controls and appropriate quality
assurance procedures. This provision requires the Permittee to install and operate backup or auxiliary facilities only
when necessary to achieve compliance with the conditions of the permit [40 CFR 122.41(e)].
NOTE: Properly and officially designated operators are fully responsible for all proper operation and maintenance
of the facility, and all documentation required thereof, whether acting as a contract operator [subcontractor] or a
member of the Permittee's staff.
3. Need to Halt or Reduce not a Defense
It shall not be a defense for a Permittee in an enforcement action that it would have been necessary to halt or
reduce the permitted activity in order to maintain compliance with the condition of this permit [40 CFR 122.41(c)].
4. Bypassing of Treatment Facilities
a. Bypass not exceeding limitations [40 CFR 122.41(m)(2)]
The Permittee may allow any bypass to occur which does not cause effluent limitations to be exceeded, but
only if it also is for essential maintenance to assure efficient operation. These bypasses are not subject to the
provisions of Paragraphs b. and c. of this section.
b. Notice [40 CFR 122.41(m)(3)]
(1) Anticipated bypass. If the Permittee knows in advance of the need for a bypass, it shall submit prior notice,
if possible at least ten days before the date of the bypass; including an evaluation of the anticipated quality
and effect of the bypass.
(2) Unanticipated bypass. The Permittee shall submit notice of an unanticipated bypass as required in Part
II.E.6. (24-hour notice).
c. Prohibition of Bypass
(1) Bypass from the treatment facility is prohibited and the Permit Issuing Authority may take enforcement
action against a Permittee for bypass, unless:
(A) Bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal injury or severe property damage;
(B) There were no feasible alternatives to the bypass, such as the use of auxiliary treatment facilities,
retention of untreated wastes or maintenance during normal periods of equipment downtime. This
condition is not satisfied if adequate backup equipment should have been installed in the exercise of
reasonable engineering judgment to prevent a bypass which occurred during normal periods of
equipment downtime or preventive maintenance; and
(C) The Permittee submitted notices as required under Paragraph b. of this section.
(2) Bypass from the collection system is prohibited and the Permit Issuing Authority may take enforcement
action against a Permittee for a bypass as provided in any current or future system -wide collection system
permit associated with the treatment facility.
Version 1110912011.42

NPDES Permit Standard Conditions
Page 8 of 18
(3) The Permit Issuing Authority may approve an anticipated bypass, after considering its adverse effects, if
the Permit Issuing Authority determines that it will meet the three conditions listed above in Paragraph c.
(1) of this section.
5. Upsets
a. Effect of an upset [40 CFR 122.41(n)(2)]: An upset constitutes an affirmative defense to an action brought for
noncompliance with such technology based permit effluent limitations if the requirements of paragraph b. of
this condition are met. No determination made during administrative review of claims that noncompliance was
caused by upset, and before an action for noncompliance, is final administrative action subject to judicial
review.
b. Conditions necessary for a demonstration of upset: Any Permittee who wishes to establish the affirmative
defense of upset shall demonstrate, through properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs, or other relevant
evidence that:
(1) An upset occurred and that the Permittee can identify the cause(s) of the upset;
(2) The Permittee facility was at the time being properly operated; and
(3) The Permittee submitted notice of the upset as required in Part II.E.6.(b) of this permit.
(4) The Permittee complied with any remedial measures required under Part ILB.2. of this permit.
c. Burden of proof [40 CFR 122.41(n)(4)]: The Permittee seeking to establish the occurrence of an upset has
the burden of proof in any enforcement proceeding.
6. Removed Substances
Solids, sludges, filter backwash, or other pollutants removed in the course of treatment or control of wastewaters
shall be utilized/disposed of in accordance with NCGS 143-215.1 and in a manner such as to prevent any pollutant
from such materials from entering waters of the State or navigable waters of the United States except as permitted
by the Commission. The Permittee shall comply with all applicable state and Federal regulations governing the
disposal of sewage sludge, including 40 CFR 503, Standards for the Use and Disposal of Sewage Sludge; 40 CFR
Part 258, Criteria For Municipal Solid Waste Landfills; and 15A NCAC Subchapter 2T, Waste Not Discharged To
Surface Waters. The Permittee shall notify the Permit Issuing Authority of any significant change in its sludge use
or disposal practices.
7. Power Failures
The Permittee is responsible for maintaining adequate safeguards (as required by 15A NCAC 02H .0124) to
prevent the discharge of untreated or inadequately treated wastes during electrical power failures either by means
of alternate power sources, standby generators or retention of inadequately treated effluent.
Section D. Monitoring and Records
1. Representative Sampling
Samples collected and measurements taken, as required herein, shall be representative of the permitted discharge.
Samples collected at a frequency less than daily shall be taken on a day and time that is representative of the
discharge for the period the sample represents. All samples shall be taken at the monitoring points specified in this
permit and, unless otherwise specified, before the effluent joins or is diluted by any other wastestream, body of
water, or substance. Monitoring points shall not be changed without notification to and the approval of the Permit
Issuing Authority [40 CFR 122.41(j)].
2. Reporting
Monitoring results obtained during the previous month(s) shall be summarized for each month and reported on a
monthly Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) Form (MR 1, 1. 1, 2, 3) or alternative forms approved by the
Director, postmarked no later than the last calendar day of the month following the completed reporting period.
The first DMR is due on the last day of the month following the issuance of the permit or in the case of a new
facility, on the last day of the month following the commencement of discharge. Duplicate signed copies of these,
and all other reports required herein, shall be submitted to the following address:
Version 1110912011.42

NPDES Permit Standard Conditions
Page 9 of 18
NC DEQ/ Division of Water Resources / Water Quality Permitting Section
ATTENTION: Central Files
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Flow Measurements
Appropriate flow measurement devices and methods consistent with accepted scientific practices shall be selected
and used to ensure the accuracy and reliability of measurements of the volume of monitored discharges. The
devices shall be installed, calibrated and maintained to ensure that the accuracy of the measurements is consistent
with the accepted capability of that type of device. Devices selected shall be capable of measuring flows with a
maximum deviation of less than 10% from the true discharge rates throughout the range of expected discharge
volumes. Flow measurement devices shall be accurately calibrated at a minimum of once per year and maintained
to ensure that the accuracy of the measurements is consistent with the accepted capability of that type of device.
The Director shall approve the flow measurement device and monitoring location prior to installation.
Once -through condenser cooling water flow monitored by pump logs, or pump hour meters as specified in Part I of
this permit and based on the manufacturer's pump curves shall not be subject to this requirement.
4. Test Procedures
Laboratories used for sample analysis must be certified by the Division. Permittees should contact the Division's
Laboratory Certification Section (919 733-3908) or visit
hiips:Hdeq.nc. gov/about/divisions/water-resources/water-resources-data/water-sciences-home-page/laboratoU-
certification -branch for information regarding laboratory certifications.
Facilities whose personnel are conducting testing of field -certified parameters only must hold the appropriate field
parameter laboratory certifications.
Test procedures for the analysis of pollutants shall conform to the EMC regulations (published pursuant to NCGS
143-215.63 et. seq.), the Water and Air Quality Reporting Acts, and to regulations published pursuant to Section
304(g), 33 USC 1314, of the CWA (as amended), and 40 CFR 136; or in the case of sludge use or disposal,
approved under 40 CFR 136, unless otherwise specified in 40 CFR 503, unless other test procedures have been
specified in this permit [40 CFR 122.41].
To meet the intent of the monitoring required by this permit, all test procedures must produce minimum detection
and reporting levels that are below the permit discharge requirements and all data generated must be reported down
to the minimum detection or lower reporting level of the procedure. If no approved methods are determined
capable of achieving minimum detection and reporting levels below permit discharge requirements, then the most
sensitive (method with the lowest possible detection and reporting level) approved method must be used.
Penalties for Tampering
The CWA provides that any person who falsifies, tampers with, or knowingly renders inaccurate, any monitoring
device or method required to be maintained under this permit shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not
more than $10,000 per violation, or by imprisonment for not more than two years per violation, or by both. If a
conviction of a person is for a violation committed after a first conviction of such person under this paragraph,
punishment is a fine of not more than $20,000 per day of violation, or by imprisonment of not more than 4 years,
or both [40 CFR 122.41].
6. Records Retention
Except for records of monitoring information required by this permit related to the Permittee's sewage sludge use
and disposal activities, which shall be retained for a period of at least five years (or longer as required by 40 CFR
503), the Permittee shall retain records of all monitoring information, including:
➢ all calibration and maintenance records
➢ all original strip chart recordings for continuous monitoring instrumentation
➢ copies of all reports required by this permit
➢ copies of all data used to complete the application for this permit
Version 1110912011.42

NPDES Permit Standard Conditions
Page 10 of 18
These records or copies shall be maintained for a period of at least 3 years from the date of the sample,
measurement, report or application. This period may be extended by request of the Director at any time [40 CFR
122.41].
7. Recording Results
For each measurement or sample taken pursuant to the requirements of this permit, the Permittee shall record the
following information [40 CFR 122.41]:
a. The date, exact place, and time of sampling or measurements;
b. The individual(s) who performed the sampling or measurements;
c. The date(s) analyses were performed;
d. The individual(s) who performed the analyses;
e. The analytical techniques or methods used; and
f. The results of such analyses.
8. Inspection and Entry
The Permittee shall allow the Director, or an authorized representative (including an authorized contractor acting as
a representative of the Director), upon the presentation of credentials and other documents as may be required by
law, to;
a. Enter, at reasonable times, upon the Permittee's premises where a regulated facility or activity is located or
conducted, or where records must be kept under the conditions of this permit;
b. Have access to and copy, at reasonable times, any records that must be kept under the conditions of this permit;
c. Inspect at reasonable times any facilities, equipment (including monitoring and control equipment), practices,
or operations regulated or required under this permit; and
d. Sample or monitor at reasonable times, for the purposes of assuring permit compliance or as otherwise
authorized by the CWA, any substances or parameters at any location [40 CFR 122.41(i)].
Section E Reporting Requirements
1. Change in Discharge
All discharges authorized herein shall be consistent with the terms and conditions of this permit. The discharge of
any pollutant identified in this permit more frequently than or at a level in excess of that authorized shall constitute
a violation of the permit.
2. Planned Changes
The Permittee shall give notice to the Director as soon as possible of any planned physical alterations or additions
to the permitted facility [40 CFR 122.41(1)]. Notice is required only when:
a. The alteration or addition to a permitted facility may meet one of the criteria for new sources at 40 CFR
122.29(b); or
b. The alteration or addition could significantly change the nature or increase the quantity of pollutants
discharged. This notification applies to pollutants subject neither to effluent limitations in the permit, nor to
notification requirements under 40 CFR 122.42(a)(1); or
c. The alteration or addition results in a significant change in the Permittee's sludge use or disposal practices, and
such alteration, addition or change may justify the application of permit conditions that are different from or
absent in the existing permit, including notification of additional use or disposal sites not reported during the
permit application process or not reported pursuant to an approved land application plan.
3. Anticipated Noncompliance
The Permittee shall give advance notice to the Director of any planned changes to the permitted facility or other
activities that might result in noncompliance with the permit [40 CFR 122.41(1)(2)].
4. Transfers
This permit is not transferable to any person without prior written notice to and approval from the Director in
accordance with 40 CFR 122.61. The Director may condition approval in accordance with NCGS 143-215.1, in
Version 1110912011.42

NPDES Permit Standard Conditions
Page 11 of 18
particular NCGS 143-215.1(b)(4)b.2., and may require modification or revocation and reissuance of the permit, or
a minor modification, to identify the new permittee and incorporate such other requirements as may be necessary
under the CWA [40 CFR 122.41(1)(3), 122.61] or state statute.
5. Monitoring Reports
Monitoring results shall be reported at the intervals specified elsewhere in this permit [40 CFR 122.41(1)(4)].
a. Monitoring results must be reported on a Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) (See Part II.D.2) or forms
provided by the Director for reporting results of monitoring of sludge use or disposal practices.
b. If the Permittee monitors any pollutant more frequently than required by this permit using test procedures
approved under 40 CFR Part 136 and at a sampling location specified in this permit or other appropriate
instrument governing the discharge, the results of such monitoring shall be included in the calculation and
reporting of the data submitted on the DMR.
6. Twenty-four Hour Reporting
a. The Permittee shall report to the Director or the appropriate Regional Office any noncompliance that
potentially threatens public health or the environment. Any information shall be provided orally within 24
hours from the time the Permittee became aware of the circumstances. A written submission shall also be
provided within 5 days of the time the Permittee becomes aware of the circumstances. The written submission
shall contain a description of the noncompliance, and its cause; the period of noncompliance, including exact
dates and times, and if the noncompliance has not been corrected, the anticipated time it is expected to
continue; and steps taken or planned to reduce, eliminate, and prevent reoccurrence of the noncompliance [40
CFR 122.41(1)(6)].
b. The Director may waive the written report on a case -by -case basis for reports under this section if the oral
report has been received within 24 hours.
c. Occurrences outside normal business hours may also be reported to the Division's Emergency Response
personnel at (Qnm 662 7956 [phone] or [phone].
7. Other Noncompliance
The Permittee shall report all instances of noncompliance not reported under Part II.E.S and 6. of this permit at the
time monitoring reports are submitted. The reports shall contain the information listed in Part II.E.6. of this permit
[40 CFR 122.41(1)(7)].
8. Other Information
Where the Permittee becomes aware that it failed to submit any relevant facts in a permit application, or submitted
incorrect information in a permit application or in any report to the Director, it shall promptly submit such facts or
information [40 CFR 122.41(1)(8)].
9. Noncompliance Notification
The Permittee shall report by telephone to either the central office or the appropriate regional office of the Division
as soon as possible, but in no case more than 24 hours or on the next working day following the occurrence or first
knowledge of the occurrence of any of the following:
a. Any occurrence at the water pollution control facility which results in the discharge of significant amounts of
wastes which are abnormal in quantity or characteristic, such as the dumping of the contents of a sludge
digester; the known passage of a slug of hazardous substance through the facility; or any other unusual
circumstances.
b. Any process unit failure, due to known or unknown reasons, that render the facility incapable of adequate
wastewater treatment such as mechanical or electrical failures of pumps, aerators, compressors, etc.
c. Any failure of a pumping station, sewer line, or treatment facility resulting in a by-pass without treatment of all
or any portion of the influent to such station or facility.
Persons reporting such occurrences by telephone shall also file a written report within 5 days following first
knowledge of the occurrence. Also see reporting requirements for municipalities in Part IV.C.2.c. of this permit.
10. Availability of Reports
Except for data determined to be confidential under NCGS 143-215.3 (a)(2) or Section 308 of the Federal Act, 33
USC 1318, all reports prepared in accordance with the terms shall be available for public inspection at the offices
Version 1110912011.42

NPDES Permit Standard Conditions
Page 12 of 18
of the Division. As required by the Act, effluent data shall not be considered confidential. Knowingly making any
false statement on any such report may result in the imposition of criminal penalties as provided for in NCGS 143-
215. 1 (b)(2) or in Section 309 of the Federal Act.
11. Penalties for Falsification of Reports
The CWA provides that any person who knowingly makes any false statement, representation, or certification in
any record or other document submitted or required to be maintained under this permit, including monitoring
reports or reports of compliance or noncompliance shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than
$25,000 per violation, or by imprisonment for not more than two years per violation, or by both [40 CFR 122.41].
12. Annual Performance Reports
Permittees who own or operate facilities that primarily collect or treat municipal or domestic wastewater and have
an average annual flow greater than 200,000 gallons per day shall provide an annual report to the Permit Issuing
Authority and to the users/customers served by the Permittee (NCGS 143-215.1C). The report shall summarize the
performance of the collection or treatment system, as well as the extent to which the facility was compliant with
applicable Federal or State laws, regulations and rules pertaining to water quality. The report shall be provided no
later than sixty days after the end of the calendar or fiscal year, depending upon which annual period is used for
evaluation.
The report shall be sent to:
NC DEQ/ Division of Water Resources / Water Quality Permitting Section
ATTENTION: Central Files
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Version 1110912011.42

NPDES Permit Standard Conditions
Page 13 of 18
PART III
OTHER REQUIREMENTS
Section A. Construction
a. The Permittee shall not commence construction of wastewater treatment facilities, nor add to the plant's treatment
capacity, nor change the treatment process(es) utilized at the treatment plant unless (1) the Division has issued an
Authorization to Construct (AtC) permit or (2) the Permittee is exempted from such AtC permit requirements
under Item b. of this Section.
b. In accordance with NCGS 143-215.1(a5) [SL 2011-394], no permit shall be required to enter into a contract for the
construction, installation, or alteration of any treatment work or disposal system or to construct, install, or alter any
treatment works or disposal system within the State when the system's or work's principle function is to conduct,
treat, equalize, neutralize, stabilize, recycle, or dispose of industrial waste or sewage from an industrial facility and
the discharge of the industrial waste or sewage is authorized under a permit issued for the discharge of the
industrial waste or sewage into the waters of the State. Notwithstanding the above, the permit issued for the
discharge may be modified if required by federal regulation.
c. Issuance of an AtC will not occur until Final Plans and Specifications for the proposed construction have been
submitted by the Permittee and approved by the Division.
Section B. Groundwater Monitoring
The Permittee shall, upon written notice from the Director, conduct groundwater monitoring as may be required to
determine the compliance of this NPDES permitted facility with the current groundwater standards.
Section C. Changes in Discharges of Toxic Substances
The Permittee shall notify the Permit Issuing Authority as soon as it knows or has reason to believe (40 CFR 122.42):
a. That any activity has occurred or will occur which would result in the discharge, on a routine or frequent basis, of
any toxic pollutant which is not limited in the permit, if that discharge will exceed the highest of the following
"notification levels";
(1) One hundred micrograms per liter (100 µg/L);
(2) Two hundred micrograms per liter (200 µg/L) for acrolein and acrylonitrile; five hundred micrograms per liter
(500 µg/L) for 2,4-dinitrophenol and for 2-methyl-4,6-dinitrophenol; and one milligram per liter (1 mg/L) for
antimony;
(3) Five times the maximum concentration value reported for that pollutant in the permit application.
b. That any activity has occurred or will occur which would result in any discharge, on a non -routine or infrequent
basis, of a toxic pollutant which is not limited in the permit, if that discharge will exceed the highest of the
following "notification levels";
(1) Five hundred micrograms per liter (500 µg/L);
(2) One milligram per liter (1 mg/L) for antimony;
(3) Ten times the maximum concentration value reported for that pollutant in the permit application.
Section D. Facility Closure Requirements
The Permittee must notify the Division at least 90 days prior to the closure of any wastewater treatment system covered
by this permit. The Division may require specific measures during deactivation of the system to prevent adverse
impacts to waters of the State. This permit cannot be rescinded while any activities requiring this permit continue at the
permitted facility.
Version 1110912011.42

NPDES Permit Standard Conditions
Page 14 of 18
PART IV
SPECIAL CONDITIONS FOR MUNICIPAL FACILITIES
Section A. Definitions
In addition to the definitions in Part II of this permit, the following definitions apply to municipal facilities:
Indirect Discharge or Industrial User
Any non -domestic source that discharges wastewater containing pollutants into a POTW regulated under section
307(b), (c) or (d) of the CWA. [40 CFR 403.3 (i) and 0) and 15A NCAC 02H .0903(b)(11)]
Interference
Inhibition or disruption of the POTW treatment processes; operations; or its sludge process, use, or disposal which
causes or contributes to a violation of any requirement of the Permittee's (or any satellite POTW's if different from the
Permittee) NPDES, collection system, or non -discharge permit or prevents sewage sludge use or disposal in
compliance with specified applicable State and Federal statutes, regulations, or permits. [15A NCAC 02H
.0903(b)(14)]
Pass Through
A discharge which exits the POTW into waters of the State in quantities or concentrations which, alone or with
discharges from other sources, causes a violation, including an increase in the magnitude or duration of a violation, of
the Permittee's (or any satellite POTW's, if different from the Permittee) NPDES, collection system, or non -discharge
permit. [15A NCAC 02H .0903(b)(23)]
Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW)
A treatment works as defined by Section 212 of the CWA, which is owned by a State or local government organization.
This definition includes any devices and systems used in the storage, treatment, recycling and reclamation of municipal
sewage or industrial wastes of a liquid nature. It also includes the collection system, as defined in 15A NCAC 2T
.0402, only if it conveys wastewater to a POTW treatment plant. The term also means the local government
organization, or municipality, as defined in section 502(4) of the CWA, which has jurisdiction over indirect discharges
to and the discharges from such a treatment works. In this context, the organization may be the owner of the POTW
treatment plant or the owner of the collection system into which an indirect discharger discharges. This second type of
POTW may be referred to as a "satellite POTW organization." [15A NCAC 02H .0903(b)(26)]
"Significant Industrial User" or "SIU"
An Industrial User that discharges wastewater into a publicly owned treatment works and that [15A NCAC 02H
.0903(b)(33)]:
1. Discharges an average of 25,000 gallons per day or more of process wastewater to the POTW (excluding sanitary,
noncontact cooling and boiler blowdown wastewaters); or
2. Contributes process wastewater which makes up five percent or more of the NPDES or non -discharge permitted
flow limit or organic capacity of the POTW treatment plant. In this context, organic capacity refers to BOD, TSS
and ammonia; or
3. Is subject to categorical standards under 40 CFR Part 403.6 and 40 CFR Parts 405-471; or
4. Is designated as such by the Permittee on the basis that the Industrial User has a reasonable potential for adversely
affecting the POTW's operation or for violating any pretreatment standard or requirement, or the POTW's effluent
limitations and conditions in its NPDES or non -discharge permit, or to limit the POTW's sludge disposal options;
5. Subject to approval under 15A NCAC 02H .0907(b), the Permittee may determine that an Industrial User meeting
the criteria in paragraphs 1 or 2 of this definition above has no reasonable potential for adversely affecting the
POTW's operation or for violating any pretreatment standard or requirement, the POTW's effluent limitations and
conditions in its NPDES or non -discharge permit, or to limit the POTW's sludge disposal options, and thus is not a
Significant Industrial User (SIU); or
6. Subject to approval under 15A NCAC 02H .0907(b), the Permittee may determine that an Industrial User meeting
the criteria in paragraph 3 of this definition above meets the requirements of 40 CFR Part 403.3(v)(2) and thus is a
non -significant categorical Industrial User.
Section B. Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs)
Version 1110912011.42

NPDES Permit Standard Conditions
Page 15 of 18
All POTWs must provide adequate notice to the Director of the following [40 CFR 122.42(b)]:
1. Any new introduction of pollutants into the POTW from an indirect discharger, regardless of the means of
transport, which would be subject to section 301 or 306 of CWA if it were directly discharging those pollutants;
and
2. Any substantial change in the volume or character of pollutants being introduced by an indirect discharger as
influent to that POTW at the time of issuance of the permit.
3. For purposes of this paragraph, adequate notice shall include information on (1) the quality and quantity of effluent
introduced into the POTW, and (2) any anticipated impact that may result from the change of the quantity or
quality of effluent to be discharged from the POTW.
Section C. Municipal Control of Pollutants from Industrial Users.
1. Effluent limitations are listed in Part I of this permit. Other pollutants attributable to inputs from Industrial Users
discharging to the POTW may be present in the Permittee's discharge. At such time as sufficient information
becomes available to establish limitations for such pollutants, this permit may be revised to specify effluent
limitations for any or all of such other pollutants in accordance with best practicable technology or water quality
standards.
2. Prohibited Discharges
a. The Permittee shall develop and enforce their Pretreatment Program to implement the prohibition against the
introduction of pollutants or discharges into the waste treatment system or waste collection system which
cause or contribute to Pass Through or Interference as defined in 15A NCAC 02H .0900 and 40 CFR 403. [40
CFR 403.5(a)(1)]
b. The Permittee shall develop and enforce their Pretreatment Program to implement the prohibitions against the
introduction of the following wastes in the waste treatment or waste collection system [40 CFR 403.5(b)]:
(1) Pollutants which create a fire or explosion hazard in the POTW, including, but not limited to,
wastestreams with a closed cup flashpoint of less than 140 degrees Fahrenheit or 60 degrees Centigrade
using the test methods specified in 40 CFR 261.21;
(2) Pollutants which cause corrosive structural damage to the POTW, but in no case discharges with pH lower
than 5.0, unless the works is specifically designed to accommodate such discharges;
(3) Solid or viscous pollutants in amounts which cause obstruction to the flow in the POTW resulting in
Interference;
(4) Any pollutant, including oxygen demanding pollutants (BOD, etc.) released in a Discharge at a flow rate
and/or pollutant concentration which will cause Interference with the POTW;
(5) Heat in amounts which will inhibit biological activity in the POTW resulting in Interference, but in no
case heat in such quantities that the temperature at the POTW Treatment Plant exceeds 40°C (104°F)
unless the Division, upon request of the POTW, approves alternate temperature limits;
(6) Petroleum oil, non -biodegradable cutting oil, or products of mineral oil origin in amounts that will cause
Interference or Pass Through;
(7) Pollutants which result in the presence of toxic gases, vapors, or fumes within the POTW in a quantity that
may cause acute worker health and safety problems; or
(8) Any trucked or hauled pollutants, except at discharge points designated by the POTW.
c. The Permittee shall investigate the source of all discharges into the POTW, including slug loads and other
unusual discharges, which have the potential to adversely impact the Permittee's Pretreatment Program and/or
the operation of the POTW.
The Permittee shall report such discharges into the POTW to the Director or the appropriate Regional Office.
Any information shall be provided orally within 24 hours from the time the Permittee became aware of the
circumstances. A written submission shall also be provided within 5 days of the time the Permittee becomes
aware of the circumstances. The written submission shall contain a description of the discharge; the
investigation into possible sources; the period of the discharge, including exact dates and times; if the
discharge has not ceased, the anticipated time it is expected to continue; and steps taken or planned to reduce,
eliminate, and prevent reoccurrence of the noncompliance,
Version 1110912011.42

NPDES Permit Standard Conditions
Page 16 of 18
3. With regard to the effluent requirements listed in Part I of this permit, it may be necessary for the Permittee to
supplement the requirements of the Federal Pretreatment Standards (40 CFR, Part 403) to ensure compliance by
the Permittee with all applicable effluent limitations. Such actions by the Permittee may be necessary regarding
some or all of the industries discharging to the municipal system.
4. The Permittee shall require any Industrial User (IU) discharging to the POTW to meet Federal Pretreatment
Standards developed under Section 307(b) of the Act as amended (which includes categorical standards and
specific local limits, best management practices and narrative requirements). Prior to accepting wastewater from
any Significant Industrial User (SIU), the Permittee shall either develop and submit to the Division a new
Pretreatment Program or, as necessary, a modification of an existing Pretreatment Program, for approval as
required under section D below as well as 15A NCAC 02H .0907(a) and (b). [40 CFR 122.440)(2)]
5. This permit shall be modified, or alternatively, revoked and reissued, to incorporate or modify an approved POTW
Pretreatment Program or to include a compliance schedule for the development of a POTW Pretreatment Program
as required under Section 402 (b)(8) of the CWA and implementing regulations or by the requirements of the
approved State pretreatment program, as appropriate.
Section D. Pretreatment Programs
Under authority of sections 307 (b) and (c) and 402(b)(8) of the CWA and implementing regulations 40 CFR 403,
North Carolina General Statute 143-215.3(14) and implementing regulations 15A NCAC 02H .0900, and in accordance
with the approved pretreatment program, all provisions and regulations contained and referenced in the pretreatment
program submittal are an enforceable part of this permit. [40 CFR 122.440)(2)]
The Permittee shall operate its approved pretreatment program in accordance with Section 402(b)(8) of the CWA, 40
CFR 403, 15A NCAC 02H .0900, and the legal authorities, policies, procedures, and financial provisions contained in
its pretreatment program submission and Division approved modifications thereof. Such operation shall include but is
not limited to the implementation of the following conditions and requirements. Terms not defined in Part II or Part IV
of this permit are as defined in 15A NCAC 02H .0903 and 40 CFR 403.3.
1. Sewer Use Ordinance (SUO)
The Permittee shall maintain adequate legal authority to implement its approved pretreatment program. [15A
NCAC 02H .0903(b)(32), .0905 and .0906(b)(1); 40 CFR 403.8(f)(1) and 403.9(b)(1) and (2)]
2. Industrial Waste Survey (IWS)
The Permittee shall implement an IWS consisting of the survey of users of the POTW collection system or
treatment plant, as required by 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(i-iii) and 15A NCAC 02H .0905 [also 40 CFR 122.440)(1)],
including identification of all Industrial Users that may have an impact on the POTW and the character and amount
of pollutants contributed to the POTW by these Industrial Users and identification of those Industrial Users
meeting the definition of SIU. Where the Permittee accepts wastewater from one or more satellite POTWs, the
IWS for the Permittee shall address all satellite POTW services areas, unless the pretreatment program in those
satellite service areas is administered by a separate Permittee with an approved Pretreatment Program. The
Permittee shall submit a summary of its IWS activities to the Division at least once every five years, and as
required by the Division. The IWS submission shall include a summary of any investigations conducted under
paragraph C.2.c. of this Part. [15A NCAC 02H .0903(b)(13), .0905 and .0906(b)(2); 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2) and 403.9]
3. Monitoring Plan
The Permittee shall implement a Division -approved Monitoring Plan for the collection of facility specific data to
be used in a wastewater treatment plant Headworks Analysis (HWA) for the development of specific pretreatment
local limits. Effluent data from the Plan shall be reported on the DMRs (as required by Parts II.D and II.E.S.). [15A
NCAC 02H .0903(b)(16), .0906(b)(3) and .0905]
4. Headworks Analysis (HWA) and Local Limits
The Permittee shall obtain Division approval of a HWA at least once every five years, and as required by the
Division. Within 180 days of the effective date of this permit (or any subsequent permit modification) the
Permittee shall submit to the Division a written technical evaluation of the need to revise local limits (i.e., an
updated HWA or documentation of why one is not needed) [40 CFR 122.44]. The Permittee shall develop, in
accordance with 40 CFR 403.5(c) and 15A NCAC 02H .0909, specific Local Limits to implement the prohibitions
listed in 40 CFR 403.5(a) and (b) and 15A NCAC 02H .0909. Pursuant to 40 CFR 403.5, local limits are
Version 1110912011.42

NPDES Permit Standard Conditions
Page 17 of 18
enforceable Pretreatment Standards as defined by 40 CFR 403.3(1). [15A NCAC 02H .0903(b)(10), .0905, and
.0906(b)(4)]
Industrial User Pretreatment Permits (lUP) & Allocation Tables
In accordance with NCGS 143-215.1, the Permittee shall issue to all Significant Industrial Users, permits for
operation of pretreatment equipment and discharge to the Permittee's collection system or treatment works. These
permits shall contain limitations, sampling protocols, reporting requirements, appropriate standard and special
conditions, and compliance schedules as necessary for the installation of treatment and control technologies to
assure that their wastewater discharge will meet all applicable pretreatment standards and requirements. The
Permittee shall maintain a current Allocation Table (AT) which summarizes the results of the HWA and the limits
from all IUPs. Permitted IUP loadings for each parameter cannot exceed the treatment capacity of the POTW as
determined by the HWA. [15A NCAC 02H .0906(b)(6), .0909, .0916, and .0917; 40 CFR 403.5, 403.8(f)(1)(iii);
NCGS 143-215.67(a)]
6. Authorization to Construct (AtC)
The Permittee shall ensure that an Authorization to Construct permit (AtQ is issued to all applicable Industrial
Users for the construction or modification of any pretreatment facility. Prior to the issuance of an AtC, the
proposed pretreatment facility and treatment process must be evaluated for its capacity to comply with all
Industrial User Pretreatment Permit (IUP) limitations. [ 15A NCAC 02H .0906(b)(7) and .0905; NCGS 143-
215. 1 (a)(8)]
7. POTW Inspection & Monitoring of their Ns
The Permittee shall conduct inspection, surveillance, and monitoring activities as described in its Division
approved pretreatment program in order to determine, independent of information supplied by Industrial Users,
compliance with applicable pretreatment standards. [15A NCAC 02H .0908(e); 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(v)] The
Permittee must:
a. Inspect all Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) at least once per calendar year;
b. Sample all Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) at least once per calendar year for all SIU permit -limited
parameters including flow except as allowed under 15A NCAC .0908(e); and
c. At least once per year, document an evaluation of any non -significant categorical Industrial User for
compliance with the requirements in 40 CFR 403.3(v)(2), and either continue or revoke the designation as non-
significant.
8. IU Self Monitoring and Reporting
The Permittee shall require all Industrial Users to comply with the applicable monitoring and reporting
requirements outlined in the Division -approved pretreatment program, the industry's pretreatment permit, or in 15A
NCAC 02H .0908. [15A NCAC 02H .0906(b)(5) and .0905; 40 CFR 403.8(f)(1)(v) and (2)(iii); 40 CFR
122.440)(2) and 40 CFR 403.12]
9. Enforcement Response Plan (ERP)
The Permittee shall enforce and obtain appropriate remedies for violations of all pretreatment standards
promulgated pursuant to section 307(b) and (c) of the CWA (40 CFR 405 et. seq.), prohibitive discharge standards
as set forth in 40 CFR 403.5 and 15A NCAC 02H .0909, specific local limitations, and other pretreatment
requirements. All remedies, enforcement actions and other, shall be consistent with the Enforcement Response
Plan (ERP) approved by the Division. [15A NCAC 02H .0903(b)(7), .0906(b)(8) and .0905; 40 CFR 403.8(f)(5)]
10. Pretreatment Annual Reports (PAR)
The Permittee shall report to the Division in accordance with 15A NCAC 02H .0908. In lieu of submitting annual
reports, Modified Pretreatment Programs developed under 15A NCAC 02H .0904 (b) may be required to submit a
partial annual report or to meet with Division personnel periodically to discuss enforcement of pretreatment
requirements and other pretreatment implementation issues.
For all other active pretreatment programs, the Permittee shall submit two copies of a Pretreatment Annual Report
(PAR) describing its pretreatment activities over the previous calendar year to the Division at the following
address:
Version 1110912011.42

NPDES Permit Standard Conditions
Page 18 of 18
NC DEQ/ Division of Water Resources / Water Quality Permitting Section
Pretreatment, Emergency Response, and Collection Systems (PERCS) Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
These reports shall be submitted by March 1 of each year and shall contain the following:
a. Narrative
A narrative summary detailing actions taken, or proposed, by the Permittee to correct significant non-
compliance and to ensure compliance with pretreatment requirements;
b. Pretreatment Program Summary (PPS)
A pretreatment program summary (PPS) on forms or in a format provided by the Division;
c. Significant Non -Compliance Report (SNCR)
A list of Industrial Users (IUs) in significant noncompliance (SNC) with pretreatment requirements, and the
nature of the violations on forms or in a format provided by the Division;
d. Industrial Data Summary Forms (IDSF)
Monitoring data from samples collected by both the POTW and the Significant Industrial Users (SIUs). These
analytical results must be reported on Industrial Data Summary Forms (IDSF) or on other forms or in a format
provided by the Division;
e. Other Information
Copies of the POTW's allocation table, new or modified enforcement compliance schedules, public notice of
Ns in SNC, a summary of data or other information related to significant noncompliance determinations for
IUs that are not considered SIUs, and any other information, upon request, which in the opinion of the Director
is needed to determine compliance with the pretreatment implementation requirements of this permit;
11. Public Notice
The Permittee shall publish annually a list of Industrial Users (Ns) that were in significant noncompliance (SNC)
as defined in the Permittee's Division -approved Sewer Use Ordinance with applicable pretreatment requirements
and standards during the previous twelve month period. This list shall be published within four months of the
applicable twelve-month period. [15A NCAC 02H .0903(b)(34), .0908(b)(5) and .0905 and 40 CFR
403.8(f)(2)(viii)]
12. Record Keeping
The Permittee shall retain for a minimum of three years records of monitoring activities and results, along with
support information including general records, water quality records, and records of industrial impact on the
POTW and shall retain all other Pretreatment Program records as required by 15A NCAC 02H .0908(f). [15A
NCAC 02H .0908(f); 40 CFR 403.12(o)]
13. Pretreatment Program Resources
The Permittee shall maintain adequate funding and qualified personnel to accomplish the objectives of its approved
pretreatment program. and retain a written description of those current levels of inspection. [ 15A NCAC 02H
.0906(b)(9) and (10) and .0905; 40 CFR 403.8(f)(3), 403.9(b)(3)]
14. Modification to Pretreatment Programs
Modifications to the approved pretreatment program including but not limited to local limits modifications, POTW
monitoring of their Significant Industrial Users (SIUs), and Monitoring Plan modifications, shall be considered a
permit modification and shall be governed by 40 CFR 403.18, 15 NCAC 02H .0114 and 15A NCAC 02H .0907.
Version 1110912011.42

V- r
r � E- •�
NC
De
JLn Nr
Environmental Quality

Clean Water Act and NPDES Overview
-AM
• Clean Water Act of 1972
• Section 303 - Classifications and Standards
• Section 402 - National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
• Congress assigned the responsibility of implementation to the EPA
• Delegated to North Carolina in 1975
• 106 Grant used to administer the program
• North Carolina statues and rules used to administer the program
• EPA Oversight
• Audits
• Approve standards
• Approve major permits
Department of Environmental Quality
itmmao,momxo4v� D - —'7
,� E P& 'A
NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Environmental Duality
2

NPDES Laws & Regulations
(Federal & State)
• Federal CWA- Section 402
• Federal Regulations - Part 40 CFR
• State NCGS 143-215.1 (Permitting)
• State NCGS 143-215.6A (Compliance)
• State 15A
NCAC
02H
.0100 (Permitting)
• State 15A
NCAC
02B
.0100 and .0200 (Water quality standards)
Department of Environmental Quality
,�E
NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Environmental Duality
3

Who Needs an NPDES Permit"
• Direct discharge to surface waters (any process wastewater or collected stormwater)
• Indirect discharge/Pretreatment
• Deemed permitted activities
Department of Environmental Quality
,:::5��D E
NORTH CAROLINA 141)
Department of Environmental puality
N

NPDES Permitting Process
• Complete Application:
• Draft Permit
• Public Notice - 30 day comment period
• Public Hearing
• Final Permit Decision — Must be made within 90
days of public hearing
• If approved, permit will have up to a 5 year
duration
Department of Environmental Quality
7
a�
EQ2�
NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Environmental puality
5

Permit Conditions (Individual Permits)
• Components list and receiving stream characteristics
• Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements
• Special Conditions
• Standard Conditions (Boilerplate)
Department of Environmental Quality
DE
NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Environmental Duality

CP! USA North Carolina LLC
Southport Power Plant — History
• Power Plant Commissioned in 1987
• Permit NCO065009 originally issued June 1, 1987
• The facility was acquired in 2006 from Primary Energy Ventures
(formerly Cogentrix Southport)
• Operates under a Power Purchase Agreement with Progress
Energy (now Duke Energy Progress)
• Southport is a combined heat & power cogeneration facility
providing steam to Archer Daniels Midland Co.
D�.E
NORTH CAROLINA
W;
Department of Environmental Duality
7

I ,
or
Gcc�le Earth

CPI USA North Carolina LLC
Southport Power Plant
..M
• Two Electrical Power Generating Units
• Each Unit consists of 3 Stoker Feed Boilers supply superheated
steam to an extraction Turbine
• Each Unit Generates ~44 MW (88 MW total)
• 2018 Fuel Blend (Heat Input Basis):
• 11% Coal, 40% Tire -Derived Fuel (TDF), 49% Wood
NORTH CAROLINA �EQ
q;
Department of Environmental Duality

Wastewater Generation Consists
�f the Following
• Fuel pile runoff (Outfall 001)
➢coal pile runoff
➢Fuel pile runoff from wood
➢Tire derived fuel (TDF)
• Low -volume wastewater (Outfall 001):
➢backwash from a boiler feedwater demineralizer
➢boiler blowdown
..M
➢accumulated water in the floor from miscellaneous sump pumps in the
turbine building
➢wash water (17,000 gal/yr) from cleaning of the mechanical drag
system (MDR)
• Cooling tower blowdown (Outfall 002)
• Reverse osmosis filter reject water (Outfall 004)
DE
NORTH CAROLINA
Department o Environmental Quality Department ofEnvironmentalpuality
10

f �
}
' - • - '+rat -' _1 Y �
�.�7r AL
eL
r 'R R •
is
a � •T � � a
' *r ~Y t• -
r � w
- •�`'•' �•. sir •, j•4 .� * � ,f- y, + .%'�
1jI ,z i-•. 7F
f
�. t
pF { it Lo
r41
Y
• •' � � •� _ - mil'.
T YY
00 e ti3 r'}Fry_ �• -� •k, :� - r h �tt� r ' +� �� ' � 4~ `�� �; -� .� � x-. Yl.
•` as ; �� a�T 4 GC f

�i4101CCi
I�I.nt�
Mpg
-. t tilt
1
-tC
I' •
.�a
y '-� s w•> �t�� x � �tiYr'
WI
;
1,

_ . � . ��
-_i_ -- : f a -� -- �_.
- - ��..��
� �¢ y. {
� _ � y
�F 'rF
��;�.... } __�. � � gym. �-� �,z , -- Y �-��--�---- -�-- ---
t _irr � TM }•
._.. �'�. _ �."fir �' I v r�
- +� �� ..
h T 4fr l
_ / � }�� ff - .tiL ..
_ _ �F
- - - _+�=:�..i�. '- �`f��_ `� 4 ems-- '- . .
���tr
_ -ram �...__.� . —'-'�" -

lip. P.I6
+ - -
J !PLOP
02
L r
y f
r j d
1
z �
1 • -
I `
I '1
L
i
i r -
ILLitti
bF
r� FI 1 ■ _

Brunswick Stearn
AF-
as �-
G,plyY nbg)2010 MV-U J��e�r
9% -Dsn?JS, llM.
U8981AA MDRJI?, J'am, —d •S. 9J8 !ls�r:9 nmm9ni?y

i
�1311 In Relation to Brunswick Nuclear Power Plant
r
ip
di,
� �' .� .'yam--•-�=' -
{
F
i t
�l?
� t
OC
YY � f•y
•
w $2$c�r•Ave SE
�_} a ���i'I � •-r
7 &CO),! a r t h
• r
Legend
4
1 3000 ft
J
W

A ,
1.9 billion gallons per dc--
maximum flow from
Duke Progress Energy
Permit NC0007064
r.
fr
700gle Earth
T,
INN

■ Duke Progress Flow NCO
CPI Flow NCOO65O99
Discharge Gallons
Duke Progress Flow NC0007064 1,900,000,000
CPI Flow NC0065099 411,539

i r r
rBrunswick Steam#x I`+r
Electic Power r
J� - •ti•
4
`r Apr oxim ate
_ - �`• +' f
_ y
F #.
��i � 3' ��•�'�rr• •.jam..
_ 1 i �} � i��.TF� . �•tii �
• r� � � � r � '} lei.
Milk
apt4 ■
TP

{
F
i t � L t � • r F m••. � T
iY.r 10 .
S!
i
3b-Mt
Ul Q :�, Al- O.ORID, I-DA , end S-S -91:� Ul -S g;.3fnill 9ni

c a sm
IGoogie Earth
A
N
2. c 3 .3 ft

Effluent Limits &Monitoring Requirements
Outfall 001
._ M a -:_ .
rrw
• coal pile runoff, fuel pile runoff (wood & TDF), low -volume wastewaters (backwash from a boiler
feedwater demineralizer, boiler blowdown & miscellaneous sumps and MDS wash water)
EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS
[Parameter Codes]
Flow (MGD)
pH (su)
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
(mg/1)
Oil & Grease (mg/L)
[EPA Method 1664 SGT-HEM]
Department of Environmental Quality
50050
C0530
00556
DISCHARGE
LIMITATIONS
Monthly Daily
Average Maximum
Monitor & Report
Not < 6.0 or > 9.0
standard units
30.0 mg/I
15.0 mg/I
50.0 mg/I
20.0 mg/I
MONITORING
REQUIREMENTS
Measurement
Sample
Sample
Frequency
Type
Location
Continuous
Recording
Effluent
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
2 / Month
Composite
Effluent
2 / Month
Grab
Effluent
D_ E
14
NORTH CAROLINA A
Department of Environmental Quality
22

f �
}
' - • - '+rat -' _1 Y �
�.�7r AL
eL
r 'R R •
is
a � •T � � a
' *r ~Y t• -
r � w
- •�`'•' �•. sir •, j•4 .� * � ,f- y, + .%'�
1jI ,z i-•. 7F
f
�. t
pF { it Lo
r41
Y
• •' � � •� _ - mil'.
T YY
00 e ti3 r'}Fry_ �• -� •k, :� - r h �tt� r ' +� �� ' � 4~ `�� �; -� .� � x-. Yl.
•` as ; �� a�T 4 GC f

r---------------------------------------------`------------------------------------
Limestone '
{ Limestone silo 9torrnvrater Warehouse,/ . ' Stormwater
silo Trash OurfalI No.1 Maintenance Wastewater 1 Outfall No. S
Ash silo dumpsters Ash silo (0011 Building Outfal1001 i (005)
Pump Howse rr� I V i i
�© Drainage Area 5
R.O. Bull ding 2
Diesel Fuel Tank
E" F" P" Transformer
Water }
Tank ®I
- -_ -_ Drainage Area
111 1/4q,
r
1
Gasoline and Drum i
Storage Area 1
Stormwater '
OutfalI No. 6 i -
1
(�6) Unloading Bay r
r i
Oemrneralizer r �
--_��
Building
Neutralization Tank ■ __ - J
Condensate 1 r r Transfo r
Storage Tank � {
r `
r
1
J
r
1
1 '
r -
1
1
i
r
Stormwater 1
Outfall No.4 t r#fd
(004) i d $ r'
rr ! r �k
i
0 Cb
r
r
1
r f
f + � trrrY
1
7 �rf Yl �•
#rr
' k rf,�rrx
1
l
S •
! •
water
T&nk grain age Area T Boiler
Building
Turbine
Building
TDF
-
Sto rage
Area
Fi
+ Active
otivFv + Coal Prle
Drainage Area 2
Coal
Storage
Area
Yards II Trap Pit
- ry 1�iir•rrJ Wood
1: I Storage
Il _ Area-r{
. Swltdt-Y�alyd rrr
Truck dumper t ,q
r
I Hydraulic Oil Tank y rr
Truck Dumper 1 i•`Yrrrr Truck Dumper2
fr
! Y�
_ � Y
f
rrr
�`---- Sand Filter
A3" North
104' 0 l oil' 200'
Wastewater -
Basin430 La
r
-C M
Wastewater
Treatment
Building
Equipment and wire
storage; totes of
caustic and floeeulant
r St6rrnwater
------ ' r+ OutfalI No.2
�• r+ (002)
1 �J
Drain& red 3
r+ Stormwater
J Outfall No.3
(003)
Y rJ
.�' piles of woadr ashy and soil
Rail Car Unloading Area
Truck Dumper 2 Hydraulic Oil Tank
Truck Dumper 2 diesel Fuel Tank
LEGEND
_ Paved/Gravel Surface
--- Ra ilroad
Dra in age Area Bound ary
— Leased Area Boundary
Spill €leanup Materials
010- Stormwater Outfa II
.......■■ Conveyor
Radial Stacker
Stormwater Overland Flow
V-Ditch
------ ------- k� Sand Filter Discharge
NOTE: All 13,123 Waters in NC are in Category 5-303(d) List for Mercury
due to statewide fish consumption advice for several fish species.
See table of Southport Plant Drainage Data on next page.
`}� Figure 1-2. Site Drainage Drawing Showing Locations of Potentially- Exposed Materials

r-------------------_---_-----------_-----------_------------------------------------
. - - —
Limestone Limestorn-L, Stormwater Warehouse
silo silr�
Trash CMutfal I No. 1 Mai nterra nee ----� Wastewate r
Ash silo d� m Asters Ash silo 1001) Bui Idi ng Outf al 1 001
Pump Houma-
f� A- I :Drainare Area 5 �
R.O. Hun ding water TDF
T� rrk
+ ` � � x� Sty rags 4�lastewater
- ®� I I I I �� r AV tal
Dic,scI Fuel Tank ® 6, B a si n
C drainage Area 1
wy
r{
E_ F_ R_ Tra nsf-orm er
Gasoline a nd a rum r #ate+ }
itik Roller
T8
` Active �
Storage Area � �rainage area �
1 Bu1Idi ng �. SEE! OD OR+ Coal pi Ie
Sty rmwater 4 . JI -.. :: = : 11O. t
utfal I No. 6ar
t ) Unloading Bad r - Turbine + D r� i n age Area � *� � F�� rti � r� �
�uildl ng � r.
aem Inc raliaer i Coal
Building �r ti _---1 11
Storage 'P •
Neutralization Tank Area
f t .�
Corn densate P Transto r Yards 11 Trap pint &
Storage Task f- - - - - - - r� ��..����� Wood� �
Dail Car Ur
Storage
- Area t Truck D� m per
+'-'
I .+ Truck Dumper
r0 Switch Ywd
Traci€ Dumper 1
25

Google Earth
D2018 Google
D2018 Europa Technologies
i k�L r-
+
ker r
OU
4 �40

i
Fuel Pi
L
T Coal
Y ' j r ,
TDF
} _ .
�} Wood .
'r �-
ri
LT
i

Wood Chip Pile.._
fuel pile runoff
Wastewater V-Ditch
l
I it
IIU w
coal pile runoff

0
a = I..-
4 FM Ukl 0 R.,
, 71
stor
ter
k

- �7
s� tom{ •� � � _ _
Tire -Derived Fuel (TDF) Pile
f
•�z
• - _ .ram-. �.�LF — - -' � _�z_�• *s-�. Ott
�^ T• �4- by TT� � � .-� ��-.� � � � �� r- Z �•�~a � R .L r

+
�-
r
}
a
it 4 J�._ •4� �'r.. •' ��}C��yj .��j} 1F:.•. F-�,� }� +.
—W—� WR
IT rm
3.1
64
:� +.l�Y+�� -•hT•+ 4-4F - f ��'H �S i �,, f'y f _r'� , ,�[�' + "]��k• f �t .��`
+� 1 W.,.r• p, i k {e :Fr -�_ . S+ ~ Y- :1 �"• � _�� } `� J_ _ fir,

Tj
1
e.,
fit--
-

Mechanical Drag System for Removal of Bottom Ash
• � y: •.' +, •` Vie. � �! � .. .�(f+ _.i � T . .. . � '
*`. a i `ter• '■Y ,f,•�•,••a.. y.k �• � �{,*•• #; .t _
AN
4 ifs.: -�`� .� Y' � .Z�'?�. t .,. �`,rol . t •M1.s'
• ti
k
bt
Graphic reprinted with pert ission Roil United CoinTevor [_'o1"1�ofation [L)C'C'. 2009].
Flortire 7-14. Mechanical Wag Systeiii
Reference: US EPA, Technical Development Document for the Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Sources Category, EPA-821 -R-1 5-007, p. 7-41 — 7-42

■ il
. 51AP-W.
1 _ v
i
6.
IC
r ti1w, r
r �
rgopr
i t '
t
�� 'r� JA17 N ' •� r 1 F r _
.i �yy F � f L ; � �r •� • � ` � �
�Ji any _ �, ' +.'1 _ ih•L: � r _�{ _ �
A
bbL
' F
rt 6'
i
t
.v
.: _
0 1 16 -, - " r
, - � I
ehr
+•.. •'fir
i
%% � 'f
f
ti•i,
A
,
34

1
,41
1 �•
V,
1%
AvEr --*&f
IN
All

f
M=r
mp� wppp- 44LIPPW r
d
OF
4"o

-
1
_
Ir
r
VL
}
p
loft,
k pow
-}(

AAL
5 � � � •
ri � f ► _ � �'
4 Y
4ISM
WIN-
4 Y
.r. �
y ■
t}
■

BRA
UNIT
(ES -2)
Ba'iler, I
r
Boller
'Boller~
Fly Ash
Bottom
Ash
Cancret
Concrete
Pit
Fly Ash Silo
E-B
Pneumatic
VaC:Uum
Transport
Pump (E - 5B
Makeup
Water
Front Loader
then Truck
Bin Vent and
Fitter
k
Water
Pugmill
__TTo Truck or
Rail c ar
Pit SUBMERGED
Pod DRAG CHAINX
Front Loader
I wPump and/or wash
out drc,g
chain Alit as needed, oincrete
. �"�
then Truck
1 Wash (waste) water
dralned to wastewater basir)s Pites-t
f
���;r
rr� • g F
ha ,yed to
i O 0
5ROCESS FLEU DIAGRAM -
BOTTOM
PROJECT NO,, 236216
RIOT T � SCALE
[ASH WASTEWATER SOURCE
DAT Ei March, 016
REVISION DATE, NIA
�.
ZPI USA North G arollrm -
Sc u the art
Kant DRAWN BYM S RG
BEN 51 M G; E R & G A R R M S O N
12E1 Powerhouse �Drly
❑ ED BYE rt1,�H
ENVIRONMENTAL, I N C _
Fouthpor-t, Brunsw]Ek County, NC
FILE, CPI/SP/WW
BL.UEF]ELE} En GINEERIN10, P.C.

Ash is contained &
trucked off -site to an
approved landfill -.1,61
Ir ., d
I
.k
,4 �.
m
f
.K
y
l
■
7 '

Effluent Limits & Monitoring Requirements
Outfal 1002
• Cooling Tower Blowdown
EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS
[Parameter Codes]
Flow (MGD)
pH (su)
Free Available Chlorine (mg/1) 2
Total Chromium (mg/1)
Total Zinc (mg/1)
Department of Environmental Quality
50050
00400
50064
01034
01092
DISCHARGE
LIMITATIONS
Monthly Daily Maximum
Average
Monitor & Report
Not < 6.0 or > 9.0
standard units
0.2 mg/I 0.5 mg/I
0.2 mg/I 0.2 mg/I
1.0 mg/I 1.0 mg/I
awdwl.-
MONITORING
REQUIREMENTS
Measurement Sample Sample
Frequency Type Location
Continuous Recording Effluent
Weekly Grab Effluent
Weekly Grab Effluent
Monthly Composite Effluent
Monthly Composite Effluent
D- E
NORTH CAROLINA 141)
Department of Environmental Quality
41

IL
"Nip 4
#. #
#
AK
5
IL
� � 5
t
•ice l{�LJ �__r_� LhYS•
4

0I0111110
IM

Effluent Limits &Monitoring Requirements
Outfall 004
• Reverse osmosis filter reject water
EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS
[Parameter Codes]
Flow (MGD)
Temperature (°C)
pH (su)
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) (mg/1)
Oil & Grease (mg/L)
[EPA Method 1664 SGT-HEM]
Total Dissolved Solids (mg/1)
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) (mg/1)
Conductively (pmhos/cm)
Ammonia Nitrogen (mg/1)
Department of Environmental Quality
50050
00010
00400
C0530
00556
70295
00300
00094
C0610
DISCHARGE
LIMITATIONS
Monthly
Daily
Average
Maximum
Monitor &
Report
Monitor &
Report
Not < 6.0 or > 9.0
standard
units
30.0 mg/I
100.0 mg/I
15.0 mg/I 20.0 mg/I
Monitor & Report
Monitor & Report
Monitor & Report
Monitor & Report
MONITORING
REQUIREMENTS
Measurement Sample Sample
Frequency Type Location
Continuous Recording Effluent
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
2 / Month
Grab
Effluent
2 / Month
Grab
Effluent
Monthly
Grab
Effluent
Monthly
Grab
Effluent
Monthly
Grab
Effluent
Monthly
Grab
Effluent
D- E
NORTH CAROLINA 141)
Department of Environmental Quality

ker ! ti7i
1 1
Google Earth
D2018 Google
D2018 Europa Technologies

lip. P.I6
+ - -
J !PLOP
02
L r
y f
r j d
1
z �
1 • -
I `
I '1
L
i
i r -
ILLitti
bF
r� FI 1 ■ _

Effluent Limits &Monitoring Requirements
Outfa11003
• Combined flows from Outfalls 001, 002 & 004
EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS
[Parameter Codes]
Flow (MGD)
Temperature (°C)
pH (su)
Total Zinc (mg/1)
Total Copper (mg/1)
Total Nickel (mg/1)
Total Chromium (mg/1)
PPA (126 Priority Pollutants)
(40 CFR Part 423, Appendix A)
Excluding Zinc and Chromium
Department of Environmental Quality
50050
DISCHARGE
LIMITATIONS
Monthly Daily
Average Maximum
Monitor & Report
00010
Monitor &
Report
00400
Not < 6.0 or > 9.0
standard
units
01092
Monitor &
Report
01042
Monitor &
Report
01067
Monitor &
Report
01034
Monitor &
Report
NC01 No Detectable Amount
MONITORING
REQUIREMENTS
Measurement
Sample
Sample
Frequency
Type
Location
Continuous
Recorder
Effluent
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
Once per permit
Composite
Effluent
Cycle
it:���D- E
NORTH CAROLINA 141)
Department of Environmental Quality
47

Brunswick Stearn
AF-
as �-
G,plyY nbg)2010 MV-U J��e�r
9% -Dsn?JS, llM.
U8981AA MDRJI?, J'am, —d •S. 9J8 !ls�r:9 nmm9ni?y

Effluent Limits &Monitoring Requirements
Conditions
• The Permittee shall prevent plant site oils, hazardous substances, or toxic
substances from combining with site runoff. There shall be no discharges
of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) compounds such as those commonly
used for transformer fluid. (Outfalls 001, 002, 003, 004)
• Final discharge shall contain no floating solids or foam visible in other than
trace amounts. (Outfall 003)
D E
NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Environmental Duality

..M
Special Conditions
4
• Part I A. (5.) USE OF BIOCIDES: The permittee shall not use any biocides except those
approved in conjunction with the permit application. The permittee shall notify the Director
in writing not later than ninety (90) days prior to instituting use of any additional biocide
used in cooling systems which may be toxic to aquatic life other than those previously
reported to the Division of Water Resources. Such notification shall include completion of
Biocide Worksheet Form 101 and a map locating the discharge point and receiving
stream. Completion of Biocide Worksheet Form 101 is not necessary for those outfalls
containing toxicity testing. Division approval is not necessary for the introduction of a new
biocide into an outfall currently being tested for toxicity.
• Part I A. (6.) ELECTRONIC REPORTING OF MONITORING REPORTS
q ;
NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Environmental Duality
50

Anticipated Permit Timeline
—.. .
• Public Hearing — November 21, 2019
• Public Comment Period Closes — 5:00 p.m. on December 23, 2019
• Anticipated Hearing Officer's Report — January 2020
• Final Permit Decision (90 days) — No later than February 19, 2019
Department of Environmental Quality
,�E
NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Environmental Duality
51

Contact Information
• Derek Denard — Environmental Specialist
Compliance & Expedited Permitting Branch
• Email: [e-mail]
• Phone:[phone]
• John Hennessy —Supervisor
Compliance & Expedited Permitting Branch
• Email: [e-mail]
• Phone:[phone]
• Website:
https:Hdeg . nc.gov/about/divisions/water-
resou rces/water-resou rces-
permits/wastewater-branch/npdes-
wastewater-permits
Department of Environmental Quality
NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Environmental Duality
52

SPEAKER SIGN IN SHEET
CPI USA North Carolina LLC - NPDES Permit NCO065099 & NCS000348
PUBLIC HEARING
BRUNSWICK COMMUNITY COLLEGE, BOLIVIA, NC
NOVEMBER 21, 2019 (THURSDAY)
#
NAME
WRITTEN
COMMENTS?
WHOM DO YOU REPRESENT?
2'leer
i;rprF+T
3.
; a ph O f T
�tr•deac COer lo!'• e rl CrY rk
4.
rCv -L
5•
0 �r� A fen
N.C. C ogot-la l Pedera-H44)
6.
js
/
7.
Ql
N W.L�<. Vi rdv4MtN*ji.LAc4i0t, l2ain
S.
`, A)
oc-yy;"
9.
�y w �. �< < s
Y
�je(-T'j; c�►1�SW 21 l20�
10.
j6e
a�
12.
Al
��4i�-
Page 1 of 9

13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
SPEAKER SIGN IN SHEET
CPI USA North Carolina LLC — NPDES Permit NCO065099 & NCS000348
PUBLIC HEARING
BRUNSWICK COMMUNITY COLLEGE, BOLmA, NC
Nowm BER 21, 2019 (THURSDAY)
WRITTEN
NAME COMMENTS? WHOM DO YOU REPRESENT?
YIN
Low S�aC CC) � -Hr►�Do��
Page 2 of 9

PUBLIC HEARING NON -SPEAKER SIGN IN SHEET

PUBLIC HEARING NON -SPEAKER SIGN IN SHEET

NAME
33 1
31-► Q
PUBLIC HEARING NON -SPEAKER SIGN IN SHEET
- - WRITTEN - -
COMMENTS? WHO DO YOU REPRESENT?
Y/N
� 4,
C 0 t_
; 1-11,
LV
Q),,'Aw-tr Qi", ()o
26
�o rl 5 0 �_
G
(tr�L-[_
411
m015bn d Y, V,4ar C)
Li 6

- WRITTEN - -
NAME COMMENTS? WHO DO YOU REPRESENT?
r-� - YIN _

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
A.
NON -SPEAKER SIGN IN SHEET
CPI USA NORTH CAROLINA LLC - NPDES PERMIT NCO065099 & NCS000348
BRUNSWICK COMMUNITY COLLEGE, BOLIVIA, NC
NOVEMBER 21, 2019 (THURSDAY)
NAME
WRITTEN - — - -
COMMENTS? WHOM DO YOU REPRESENT?
Y/N
Pagel of 8

14.
15.
M arf
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
,
a4?e
22.
23.
_� G �'j
24.
25.
26.
NON -SPEAKER SIGN IN SHEET
CPI USA NORTH CAROLINA LLC — NPDES PERMIT NCO065099 & NCS000348
BRUNSWICK COMMUNITY COLLEGE, BOLIVIA, NC
NOVEMBER 21, 2019 (THURSDAY)
WRITTEN - - -
NAME COMMENTS? WHOM DO YOU REPRESENT?
Y/N
�Ltd VA,
pp
a( w, v.
r
JA it G
4
NO]
tl� e. ltl
Page 2 of 8

NON -SPEAKER SIGN IN SHEET
CPI USA NORTH CAROLINA LLC - NPDES PERMIT NCO065099 & NCS000348
BRUNSWICK COMMUNITY COLLEGE, BOLIVIA, NC
NOVEMBER 21, 2019 (THURSDAY)
Page 3 of 8

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 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 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,
.Deborah G. Ahlers, Mayor
Caswell Beach, NC
Town of Caswell Beach
1100 Caswell Beach Road
Caswell Beach, NC 28465

The same letter with comments was submitted in writing by the Town of Caswell Beach at the
November 21, 2019 Public Hearing as followings.

TOWN Of CASWELI. BEACh
1 100 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 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

Denard, Derek
From: Cuilla, Mark
Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2020 10:51 AM
To: Denard, Derek
Cc: Pullen, Booker; Willets, William
Subject: FW: [External] Fwd: NCO065099 Public Notice Submission
Attachments: CPI Public Notice Submission.docx
Please see the comment we received in DAQ. Note it was received on your deadline of the 23rd of December.
Mark J- Caill2 I;UL CPM
Epjg4wrioig &Ternivw. t]rrrsian of rlfr Qnakln-
Qj North Carolina Deparinient ofBivirxuiirwrWal €vitality
1641 Mail Scrvicc C inter 919.70'.8739 (OfTecc)
IALA.CLI Ilia it Iyii.11tilSf_'_•{i '
�nLsXa�vr m�'�abn-'e ro av fr n
mr y bo dish x1 b rd fanm
wofra Fupfc kfiIW rdd
From: Richard Alt [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, December 23, 2019 2:39 PM
To: Cuilla, Mark <[e-mail]>; Pullen, Booker <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] Fwd: NCO065099 Public Notice Submission
• I External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
[e-mail]
Mr. Cuilla and Mr. Pullen in Mr. Willwts' absense can you help me on this matter.
rchard Alt
-----Original Message -----
From: Richard Alt <richalt(a�verizon.net>
To: William.willets <William.willets(a NCDENR.gov>
Sent: Mon, Dec 23, 2019 2:32 pm
Subject: NCO065099 Public Notice Submission
Mr. Willets
I am on the road and am having an issue submitting my public notice submission. Today is the cut off can you redirect this
to the correct entity?
I thank you for any help you can provide in this matter
Best regards
Richard Alt
6165 Cottage Creek Road
Southport, NC 28146
703-5-7-7448
richalt verizon.net

Mayor Hatem:
December 16, 2019
Public comment on the CPI USA North Carolina LLC (CPI) Waste Water/Storm Water Permitting process.
1) As denoted during the Public Hearing the CPI permit for Waste & Storm Water actually expired in
2015 and per the storm water representative, the State has been too busy to begin the renewal
permitting process until the fourth quarter of 2019. 1 will proffer that based on the comments of the
state officials of being underfunded; the level of oversight on these important environmental issues may
stay at this same level of scrutiny.
2)1 have confirmed of the 21 chemicals that they test for twice a year, 7 have no bench marks for salt
water dilution (Aluminum, Antimony, Beryllium, Boron, Mercury, Thallium, and TR), and so you cannot
fail the test. This includes the possibility of mercury being dumped into the Atlantic Ocean off of Caswell
Beach where our children are allowed to swim and a great many of sport fishermen and commercial
shrimpers obtain their catch. We know that water quality tests for swimming is primarily based on
bacteria levels so that type of test would not identify a toxic level rise. We are also aware that fish have
a propensity to absorb mercury in their tissue, but at this point I have been unable to determine when, if
ever, fish have been tested specifically in this area.
I was informed if DEQ saw a spike in any of these 7 chemicals they would engage CPI on the nature of
the rise but it did not appear there was an established policy to take immediate action or to notify the
local jurisdictions since CPI at that point would not have violated the permit.
3) 1 have confirmed that the State has not required CPI to conduct any waste water tests in at least the
past 5 years because CPI has stated that they do not use any of the 126 Priority Pollutants under 40 CFR
423, Appendix A.
This is a very important point to be made, CPI is claiming they do not use any of the 126 Priority
Pollutants in their processes, but what they do not denote is that their processes of burning tires and
chemically treated railroad ties, generate the Hexafluoropropylene Oxide (HFPO), Ammonium Salt
(Dimer Acid), Chromated Copper Arsenate, 1, 3 Butatdiene, and Benz (a) Pyrene (which have been listed
by EPA as known human carcinogens and mutations, and none of these chemicals are on the EPA 126
Priority Pollutant List. This is the same scenario as the Gen-X plant being allowed by EPA and the State
of North Carolina to deposit known carcinogens into the water ways simply because they did not appear
on an outdated list of regulated chemicals.
I quote from a 1991 Lemieux and DeMarini report that EPA quotes "Mutagens are of concern because
the induction of genetic damage may cause an increase incidence of generics disease in future
generations and contribute to somatic cell diseases, including Cancer in the present generation (Amdur,
1991)
It should be noted that the State is taking the position that the new permit is stricter than the current
permit because it requires CPI to do a waste water test at least once every 5 years, they can no longer

continually get a waiver. However, the test will only look for those carcinogens on the 126 Priority
Pollutant List.
4) The last test on both of the CPI boilers was conducted June 26, 2019. It tested for "Proposed
particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, and mercury emissions. One can see that none of the known
byproducts of burning tires and chemical treated railroad ties are tested, though they are carcinogens
and mutations. The gentleman I spoke to was surprised when I mentioned that the residents on the East
side of Southport complained of almost daily soot deposits on their homes and cars.
It is hard to imagine that Governor Roy Cooper, who made his name known as Attorney General fighting
air pollution produced by the power companies, is aware of the above facts. It would seem we have
another Gen X debacle about to hit the press wherein the State of North Carolina and EPA both knew, or
should have known, they were polluting the Cape Fear Region with toxic chemicals
Rich Alt
richalt(@verizon.net
703-507-7448

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
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

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
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
• . , External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
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
[phone]
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.

,OWCN of
1�1, ISLq
ocRTN CARO
�'k�EREO I,, 1, »1:4
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,
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: Betsy Burnish <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2019 7:08 PM
To: Denard, Derek
Subject: [External] Capital Power Plant discharge permit
EExternal
email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
@nc.gov
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: 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: 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
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 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•Collier
CROSSLEY MCINTOSH COLLIER HANLEY & EDES, P.L.L.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
JOHN F. CROSSLEY (1921-2006)
5002 RANDALL PARKWAY
DouGLAs F. MCINTOSH (1959-2016)
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 o0650099 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,
46,06hu 461"
Brian Edes, Town Attorney
Town of Oak Island

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]

CPI VISA North Carolina LLC N
lti POIN Perm it 1 (AN1659"
1291 N"rhfPM*eDrWr, South purl MWI
Rrcri%mg!irtvm:I'Tin Ailriiw O=m tiirnm CWt:59 ik"IVN.-7R.fcw
swum SekmeL"-42) SO LM&arl: ua.Ofi.17
RirerBwm:CLptPeu HUC:Nu3LC,}Lm .5!`AI.I: NCCrW:L26Nt
CUuMY:6wmwkk IAkMa jUVA Quad: $uulhpon.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.

11/26/2019 RECEIVED
Mr. Derek Denard DEC 0 5 2019
N.C. Division of Water Resources
Water Quality Permitting Section, C�+
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1617 NCDE,.,,,vK/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.
Sincer ```
Y, �^
G n rc c or
608 ullivan's Ridge Road
Southport, NC 28461

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
WMI)nc.gov
ternal email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
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: 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
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!
&eatfiet emnel4 CMC, NCCMC
Town Clerk
Town of Holden Beach, NC
mailto:hfinnell(a,hbtownhall.com
telephone: [phone]
fax:[phone]

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
r
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: 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
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.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.

'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,
Justin 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
[e-mail]
Mr. Denard,
The Town requests 30 days to prepare comments.
Best regards,
JUSTIN K. HUMPHRIES
Attorney at law
.Iorumphries
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.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.

Denard, Derek
From: Steve Jones <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, August 02, 2019 1:11 PM
To: Denard, Derek
Subject: [External] Caswell Beach Runoff
WMI)nc.gov
ternal email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
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 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��ronmentn�9
Sr
.�1�c ell
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

• r, ::
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.

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

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: 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
• I 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.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.

��K'is[�ti� -
r RESOLUTION OF THE
TOWN OF OAK ISLAND
Q,Y04 CAR
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: 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
• I 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
91IFFOfU CASWELL
COASTAL RETREAT & CONFERENCE CENTER

F0KT CASWELL
COASTAL RETREAT & CONFERENCE CENTER
July 31, 2019
Derek Denard, Environmental Specialist
Division of Water Resources
N.C. Department of Environmental Quality
d erek. de nard�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: 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
al email. Do nnr rlirk links nr or)en.attaLbments urn piss 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
V Envi=1111nellafial
L.aow 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. INC 27516-2356
' 70� Southern
FEnvironmental
4j, Law Center
R
RIVER WATCH
North Carolina
Coastal Federation
Working Tagether 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
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
100% 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,
hiips://caswellbeach.orgLn-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 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.neywp-
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.org/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),
http://www.stamewsonline.com/news/20131204/report --- sea-turtles-have-economic-imp�act.
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 pit19:
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),
https://scraptirenews.com/tdf php.
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. govAVaterResources/DocView.aspx?dbid=0&id=636789&paize=1 &searchid=96996616-fDfO-
4dl5-8bdc-9f6c7dl50ff3&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 isgter.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 oil,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),
htWs://nepis.epa. gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/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),
httDs://cfbub.eDa.eov/si/si Dublic record reDort.cfin?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),
httns://www.atsdr.cdc. eov/sites/KerrMcGee/docs/Creosote%20Health%20Effects%20(Tronox).Ddf
32 Id. 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), hlWs://ngpis.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. SCL (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
ENV'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'Tof ENVT'LQUALrrY, hgps:Hdeg.nc.aov/about/divisions/water-resources/water-
resources-permits/wastewater-branch/npdes-wastewater/oplications (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.
Environental Protection Agency ("EPA").66 mNorth 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."70 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),
https://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. 211.01050) (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 wrrH NPDES PERMITS, https://www3.epa.goy/n/npdes/pubs/owmOI31.pd£
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).
8' See Renewal Application PDF 94.
82 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:Hdeq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/water-
resources-permits/wastewater-branch/npdes-wastewater/Mplications (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. gov/ncdeq/Water%2OQuality/Surface%2OWater%2OProtection/NPDES/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.aov/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.org/c/document librar/get_file?uuid=448ccafd-ced9-4764-8185-
a7f471 fbdbdd&groupld=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.deq.nc. gov/WaterResources/DocView.aspx?dbid=O&id=636789&pace= I &searchid=96996616-fOfO-
4d15-8bdc-9f6c7d15Off3&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).
i0o 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.""' 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 2H .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").
109 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. 14 First, DEQ has not
established any TBELs for Outfall 003.15 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" (`BPY) 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. "8 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 PERMIT' WRITERS' MANUAL 5-16 (Sept. 2010),
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/P 1009L35.TXT?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=EPA&Index=2006+Thru
+2010&Docs=&Query=&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=l&TocRestrict=n&Toc=&TocEntry--&QField=&QF
ieldYear--&QFieldMonth=&QFieldDg.y�—��&lntQField0p=O&ExtQField0p=O&XmIQuery:—�&File=D%3A%5Czyfiles
%5CIndex%20Data%5C06thru 10%5CTxt%5C00000023%5CP 1009L35.txt&User=ANONYMOUS&Password=an
onymous& SortMethod=h%7C-
&MaximumDocuments=l&FuzzyDegree=0&ImaeeQuality=r75 8g /r75 8/g x150yl50g16/i425&Display--hpfr&DefSe
ekPage=x&SearchBack=ZyActionL&Back=ZyActionS&BackDesc=Results%20paae&MaximumPages= l &ZyEntr
y=1&SeekPaae=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.
118 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
19 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.
120 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: [/nubs.acs.org/doilpdf/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),
hlWs://www. og odway.com/hvac-blog/2016/02/numbers-game-plant-pollution-and-zero-liquid-discharg_e/.

ZLD systems work by evaporating the purge stream and completely separating dissolved
contaminants from the water.I28 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. 132 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.I35 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
121 William A. Shaw, PE, Fundamentals of Zero Liquid Discharge System Design, POWER NIAG. (Oct. 1, 2011),
https://www.powermag.com/f mdamentals-of-zero-liquid-discharge system-design/?printmode=l.
129 Wastewater Treatment for Power Plants: Considering Zero Liquid Discharge, WESTECH ENG'G (Sept. 5, 2017),
hlW: //www. westech-inc. com/blo g-commerical-industry/wastewater-treatment-for-power-plants-considering-zero-
liquid-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),
https://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),
https://www.waterworld.com/industrial/article/16211578/examinin -zg ld-options-for-electric-power-facilities.
134 David Weakley, II, Zero Liquid Discharge: Bottom Ash Transport Water, GAI CONSULTANTS
Q016), https:-//gaiconsultants.com/zero-liquid-discharge-bottom-ash-transport-water/.
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."13' 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.
137 Examining ZLD Options for Electric Power Facilities, WATERWoRLD (Oct. 1, 2012),
https://www'waterworld.com/industrial/article/I6211578/examinin -zg ld-options-for-electric-power-facilities.
13a CAPrrAL PowER, ANNUAL REPORT 2016 at 6, https://www.cgpitalpower.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/2016-
Annual-Report.pdf.
139 CAPrrAL PowER, ANNUAL, REPORT 2017 at 8, https://www.capitalpower.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/2017-
Annual-Report.pdf.
140 CAPrrAL PowER, ANNUAL, REPORT 2018 at 10, https://www.cgpitalpower.com/w
content/uploads/2019/06/2018-Annual-Report- l .pdf.
141 See Blair -Frasier, R., & M. Hockett, Q & A: Protecting Facilities from Hurricane Damage, DISQUS (2017),
hlWs: //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

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
LAUD CENTER
601 West Rosemary Street, Suite 220
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27516-2356
Phone: [phone] x126; Fax: [phone]
www. SouthemEnvironment. orii
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, NC 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'1 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:Hsaftnc.net/wp-contegt�/uploads/2016/06/EFH-HAPC2OTable.pd
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 Ener y 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 (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-watchiniz (last visited Jul. 24, 2019).
8 Bald Head — Smith Island, AUDUBON, https://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).
to Draft Wastewater Permit Fact Sheet 2 (available on request).
3

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),
hllps: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 NCO0650099 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
25 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),
hllps://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:Hcfpub.epa. ovg /si/si public_ 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),
https://www.atsdr.cdc. gov/sites/KerrMcGee/docs/Creosote%20Health%20Effects%20(Tronoxp
df.
32 Id. at 1-2.
0

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), https://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 truncates) from coastal Georgia,
USA, Sci. TOTAL ENV'T (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 of persistent 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 ofpolychlorinated 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 uality ("water
quality -based effluent limits" or "WQBELs") on the wastewater dischargers. 5 An NPDES
permit must assure compliance with all statutory and regulatory requirements, including state
water quality standards. 6
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.
48 N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-215.1.
49 N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-215.1(b).
50 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
51 33 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)).
5a 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/appslwebgppviewerlindex.html?id=6e l25ad7628f494694e259c8
Odd64265&marker=-
78.00747286172495 %2C3 3.937426245 678445 %2C%2C%2C%2C&markertemplate=%7B%22t
itle%22%3A%22Cape%20Fear%22%2C%22longitude%22%3 A-
78.00747286172495 %2C%22latitude%22%3A3 3.937426245 678445 %2C%22isIncludeShareUrl
%22%3Atrue%7D&level=17 (interactive map last visited Sept. 13, 2019).
58 Classifications, N.C. DEP'T OF ENVT'L QUALITY,
https://deg .nc. gov/about/divisions/water-resources/planning/classification-
standards/classifications#DWRPrimMClassification (last visited Sept. 13, 2019).
10

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,
https://deq.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),
hLtp://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document libraMX/get_file?uuid=140d4802-dc9e-4e4a-8db2-
1 ec3 a336ceca&groupId=3 8364.
62 Integrated Report Files, N.C. DEP'T OF ENVT'L QUALITY,
htlps:Hdeq.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/msg=p2015 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-
I I/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/msgp20 l 5_finalpermit.pdf
(hereinafter "EPA MSGP").
68 https:Hdeq.nc.gov/about/divisions/energy-mineral-land-resources/npdes-stormwater-
E0
69 DEMLR, Supplemental Information Required for Renewal of Individual NPDES
Stormwater Permit,
htlp:Hfiles.nc. gov/ncdeq/Energy%20Mineral%20and%20Land%20Resources/Stonnwater/NPDE
S Fillable PDF Forms/NPDES-Individual-Permit-Renewal-Supplement-Info-Form-20171011-
DEMLR-SW.pdf.
70 DEMLR, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Development and Implementation
Certification,
http:Hfiles.nc. gov/ncdeq/Energy%20Mineral%20and%20Land%20Resources/Stonnwater/NPDE
S Fillable PDF Forms/NPDES-Individual-Permit-Renewal-SPPP-Certification-Form-
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://nea20l8.globalchange o�pter/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..org/wp-
content/uploads/2018/08/Hurricane-Harvey-Report-Final.pdf.
74 See, e.g., VILLAGE OF BALD HEAD ISLAND, HURRICANE FLORENCE TASK FORCE, FINAL
REPORT 2 (2019), http://villagebhi.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), hllps://www.wfla.com/news/florida/electrical-
transformers just-couldnt-handle-hurricane-michael/; Brian Palmer, Why Do Transformers
Explode?, Slate (Oct. 30, 2012 2:05PM), bl tps://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., htlps:Hhdsc.nws.noaa.aov/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
hllps://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

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

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 iPhone

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

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

NC Department of Environmental Quality
Brunswick Community College, Bolivia, NC
November 21, 2019
May:
David May, Hearing Officer
Denard:
Derek Denard, DEQ, Environmental Specialist
Garcia:
Lauren Garcia, DEQ, Environmental Specialist
Kozlowski:
Carol Kozlowski, Participant
Dazewiezri:
Edward Dazewierzi, Participant
North:
William North, Participant
Jimenez:
Nick Jimenez, Participant
Allen:
Kerri Allen, Participant
Ahlers:
Deborah Ahlers, Participant
Key:
Peter Key, Participant
Baker:
Lynn Baker, Participant
Wilkins:
Emily Wilkins, Participant
Hatem:
Joe Hatem, Participant
Mosteller:
Karen Mosteller, Participant
Haddon:
Chap Haddon, Participant
Sharkey:
Lora Sharkey, Participant
Webb:
Tom Webb, Participant
Yarb:
Bud Yarb, Participant
Jakus:
Bob Jakus, Participant
Ward:
Catherine Ward, Participant
Baldwin:
Merle Baldwin, Participant
Parisi:
Donna Parisi, Participant
Ingram:
Jennifer Ingram, Participant
Tomlin:
Tom Tomlin, Participant
M/F:
Male/Female Speaker
[INAUDIBLE]
[TECHNICAL COMMENTS]
00:05:32 May: Thank you, everybody, for coming out tonight for the hearing.
Before we get started, can everybody hear okay?
[TECHNICAL COMMENTS]
00:06:16 May: And one other quick comment before we get started. I noted one
sign or poster that we have in the audience. I would ask, if you do

NCDEQ
Brunswick Community College, Bolivia, NC
Public Hearing 11-21-19
Page 2
have signs or posters, if you would, at the conclusion, we'll have a
time period where you could hold those up to have photographed
for the file. But if you would, if you would, kind of refrain from
waving those during the hearing, that would be appreciated. But
there will be an opportunity to display those.
00:06:40 Thank you, again. This public hearing will please come to
order. Before we begin, I ask that everyone turn off or silence all
cell phones and pagers as a courtesy to the speakers. My name is
David May and I have been appointed by the director of the
Division of Water Resources and the director of the Division of
Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources to serve as hearing officer
for this hearing.
00:07:08 I am the regional supervisor for the Division of Water
Resources water quality regional operations session in the
Washington regional office. At this time, I would like to introduce
representatives from the Department of Environmental Quality, as
well as elected officials that are present tonight. And at this time, I
would ask that staff with the Department of Environmental Quality
stand to be recognized.
00:07:34 And among these at the front, there are also several in the
back, as well. And thank you. You may be seated. And we would
also like to recognize any elected officials that might be present
tonight. I believe we have one or two, and I'll apologize if I don't
Transcript prepared by
Rogers Word Service
919-834-0000
www.rogersword.com

NCDEQ
Brunswick Community College, Bolivia, NC
Public Hearing 11-21-19
Page 3
say the name correctly, but Ms. Deborah Hallers [ph] and any
others that might be present.
[INAUDIBLE]
[TECHNICAL COMMENTS]
00:08:16 May: This hearing is being held under the authority of Title 15A of the
North Carolina Administrative Code 2H.0503. A public notice for
this hearing was published in the Star News in Wilmington on
Monday, October 21", 2019, and posted online and sent by email
to the water quality certification mailing listsery [ph] on October
16th, 2019.
00:08:44 The purpose of the hearing tonight is to obtain public
comments on two draft NPDES permits. CPI USA North Carolina,
LLC has applied to renew NPDES permits to discharge wastewater
and stormwater from the Southport Power Plant at 1281
Powerhouse Drive, Southport, North Carolina, in Brunswick
County. CPI USA North Carolina, LLC holds the subject permits.
The wastewater permit is NCO065099 and the stormwater permit is
NCS000348.
00:09:23 This hearing tonight is not a question -and -answer session
with the Department of Environmental Quality staff. It's an
opportunity for us to obtain community feedback on the
applications. I'll be preparing a written record of these
proceedings. For this reason, the audio of the hearing is being
Transcript prepared by
Rogers Word Service
919-834-0000
www.rogersword.com

NCDEQ
Brunswick Community College, Bolivia, NC
Public Hearing 11-21-19
Page 4
recorded tonight. Written comments received by 5:00 p.m. on
December 23rd, 2019 will also be included as part of the record.
Written comments may be submitted to the email address or postal
address found on the handout available at the registration desk.
Equal weight will be given to both written and oral comments.
00:10:04 I will now ask Derek Denard from the Division of Water
Resources to make a short presentation for the draft NPDES
wastewater permit, NC0065099.
[INAUDIBLE]
[TECHNICAL COMMENTS]
00:10:59 Denard: Okay. My name is Derek Denard with the Division of Water
Resources. I'm an environmental specialist, and I thank you for
coming tonight, and taking some time to be with us. I'm the
permit writer for the wastewater permit. And I wanted to just give
you a little bit of information about NPDES program, the Clean
Water Act in 1972. It's Section 303, classifications [ph] and
standards, and Section 402 of the Clean Water Act. And Congress
assigned responsibility [ph] of implementation into the EPA, and
that was delegated to North Carolina in 1975.
00:11:41 And we operate under the 103 grant [ph]. North Carolina
uses [ph] statutes and rules to administer the program, and EPA
has oversight to our program. The federal Clean Water Act is
under 402, and there's federal regulations [ph] in Part 40 CFR.
Transcript prepared by
Rogers Word Service
919-834-0000
www.rogersword.com

NCDEQ
Brunswick Community College, Bolivia, NC
Public Hearing 11-21-19
Page 5
And we have our state statutes in our administrative code 2H and
213-21­1 is for permitting, 213 is for standards.
00:12:14 Well, who needs a NPDES permit? Well, we've already
mentioned wastewater and stormwater. Then there's also indirect
discharge —pretreatment [ph] programs that fall under that. And
then there's deemed permitted activities to consider [ph].
00:12:30 Permitting process, you get an application, then a draft
permit, and need public notice [ph] for 30 days. And some of you
commented on it in the 30-day period. And then we have a public
hearing, like we're having today. And then there's a final decision
and it must be made within 90 days after the public hearing. And
if approved, the permit will have up to a five-year duration.
00:12:52 Permit —there is permit conditions to consider. There's a
components list, receiving stream characteristics, effluent
limitations and monitoring requirements, special conditions,
standard conditions. So I'm getting in talking about what's an
individual permit. So that's what some of the main sections of the
individual permit.
00:13:12 Talk about —a little about [ph] the history of the power
plant. The power plant started operations in 1987, and the NPDES
permit was issued in June of that year. The facility was acquired
from Primary Energy, and then —formerly Congentrix Southport.
Operates under a purchase agreement with Progress Energy, which
Transcript prepared by
Rogers Word Service
919-834-0000
www.rogersword.com

NCDEQ
Brunswick Community College, Bolivia, NC
Public Hearing 11-21-19
Page 6
is now Duke Energy Progress. Southport is a combined heat and
power cogeneration facility providing steam to Archer Daniels
Midland.
00:13:44 And here's a picture of —let me see if this pointer is
working for me. Well, it's not a good pointer. Okay. Well, this
is —down here is Archer Daniels Midland, and there's a steam line
running across. If I had this pointer working. Oh, it does work,
but you can't see it on that screen.
00:14:08 Okay. And so there's a steam line, but they share it with a
neighboring industry. They send their steam there as part of the —
so that's why we call it the cogeneration. And it has two electrical
generating units, 44 megawatt units that total up to 88 megawatts.
And they burn a fuel blend of coal, derived tire fuel, we just call
that TDF, and wood. And you see the percentages for those there:
11, 40, and 49 respectively.
00:14:43 The facility description in the permit —and this is where
you would find it in the supplement to cover page of the permit
[ph] —there's a few main parts that are related to which outfall.
And the first part I want to talk about is the fuel pile [ph] runoff,
which is coal, fuel, and the TDF. And then the low -volume
wastewater, which is a lot of different waste streams in the facility,
and that also goes to Outfall 001. Backwash from the boiler
feedwater demineralizer, boiler blowdown in the powerhouse,
Transcript prepared by
Rogers Word Service
919-834-0000
www.rogersword.com

NCDEQ
Brunswick Community College, Bolivia, NC
Public Hearing 11-21-19
Page 7
accumulated water in the floors, and you know, miscellaneous [ph]
sump pumps. You know, any groundwater that leaks in, anything
like that, in the turbine building.
00:15:26 We've got wash water. This is new to this permit. It's
they take a pressure washer —and I'll show you pictures —and
clean the mechanical drag system. Cooling tower blowdown is in
Outfall 002, and reverse osmosis can be found in Outfall 004. This
is an overview of the plant. And if I had a pointer, I could point
out some of the things to you. I'll kind of just do
[INDISCERNIBLE].
00:15:54 So this is the cooling towers. Over here is demineralizer
[ph]. The RO is here [ph]. This is the powerhouse. The fuel piles
are here. This is wood. This is coal. And this is the tire pile. This
is the wastewater plant [ph].
00:16:13 So, hopefully y'all heard me. And so the treatment
components consist of a distribution box and weir. And you can
see the distribution box there. And this is —they have two half -
million gallon settling basins as part of the treatment process. And
this is an aerial view of that, and you can see where Outfall 001
which is the low -volume wastewater, Outfall 004, the RO water,
and Outfall 002 is the cooling tower blowdown.
00:16:48 And we see a map of the area. You see Duke Progress
Energy's Brunswick steam station is upstream on this canal. They
Transcript prepared by
Rogers Word Service
919-834-0000
www.rogersword.com

NCDEQ
Brunswick Community College, Bolivia, NC
Public Hearing 11-21-19
Page 8
divert a large portion of the Cape Fear River for cooling. So CPI
discharges to that canal at Outfall 003, which is the final outfall.
And so all the internal outfalls-001, 002, and 004combine to
Outfall 003. And you know, the numbers are out of sequence.
Well, 004 is a later addition for the RO [ph].
00:17:23 And you can see the facility is in red, and the line that is
underground traverses that railroad track in that arc to the canal.
And it discharges within —it's underwater within the canal, so they
take samples at the end of that treatment system that I showed you.
00:17:44 And this is showing some of the more aerial photographs
here. Here's the Cape Fear to the far right. And the nuclear power
plant is up —you can see it up towards the top there. And then the
small triangle at the bottom is CPI.
00:18:03 And this is the discharge from the nuclear power plant, its
1.9 billion gallons per day maximum flow. And they have an
NPDES permit, NC0007064. And you know, comparing the flows
of the two [ph], CPI's dilution is very great [ph] in that canal. The
line should be red, but it's so small, it's actually not showing up as
red. So that's about a little over 400,000 gallons.
00:18:38 Some more slides of show —you know, we're showing
some close-ups of what I talked about earlier, facility boundary
and the discharge location on the canal. And this is the —where it
discharges at the coast. And the canal actually goes under the
Transcript prepared by
Rogers Word Service
919-834-0000
www.rogersword.com

NCDEQ
Brunswick Community College, Bolivia, NC
Public Hearing 11-21-19
Page 9
Intracoastal Waterway [ph] at one point. You can see it go back
[ph]. You can see where it —very bottom, where it crosses
underneath the Intracoastal Waterway.
00:19:04 And then you'll see —this shows it better. You can see the
plume [ph] where the discharge is at, as opposed to sediment being
kicked up by the flow. So that's, you know, nearly 2 billion
gallons.
00:19:17 Get into some of the monitoring here. We're monitoring
for flow, pH, TSS, and oil and grease for the coal pile run —fuel
pile runoff and the low -volume wastewaters. We increased [ph]
total suspended solids from —we lowered it from a hundred to 50
for the daily maximum, according to the federal standards.
00:19:46 This is another picture of the facility. And I don't have a
pointer to point everything out. I think I've been over that. And
the thing I want to point out in this diagram here is the green B
[ph] trenches or ditches. And that is how their —all the —so there's
stormwater in this permit, but it's considered a wastewater because
this is a categorical [ph] industry, and this is a —one area of this
categorical industry, it's regulated by 40 CFR 423. So all the fuel
pile runoffs go into that drainage ditch. You can see it better in
this close-up, and they all drain to the wastewater basin.
00:20:30 And this is a close-up of, you know, a lot of the low -
volume waste, the boiler blowdown are in that building, the main
Transcript prepared by
Rogers Word Service
919-834-0000
www.rogersword.com

NCDEQ
Brunswick Community College, Bolivia, NC
Public Hearing 11-21-19
Page 10
powerhouse. It's a close-up of the fuel piles. You can see the
difference from the wood and the coal, and the tire -derived fuel.
And you can see those —these are the drainage ditches, and they all
converge down to Outfall 001. And then Outfall 004, this pipe
[ph] around this discharge right into the —and that's the OR [ph].
00:21:05 And this is a good view of the —you know, where the wood
chip pile is, and where it discharge —you know, it flows through
the silt screen [ph] into the V-ditch. And the coal pile, as well.
And this is a —this is where we draw the line between stormwater
and wastewater. So on this side of it, it's covered by the
stormwater permit, and Lauren [ph] is going to talk about coming
up. But the coal pile blows off into this V-ditch and drains to the
wastewater plant.
00:21:31 So they have a —they keep the different waters there
separated. Two different stormwaters, but one's considered a
wastewater for it [ph] —it comes in contact with the coal. This is
the tire -derived fuel pile, and they load it and take it down to the
plant. The rest of them are —you know, see these conveyors [ph].
They get —they convey them straight into the powerhouse. This is
the V-ditch coming in from behind the —so this is the tire pile here.
So that's the backside. So all of that drains into the —and here's a
V-ditch. We've seen this picture earlier on
Transcript prepared by
Rogers Word Service
919-834-0000
www.rogersword.com

NCDEQ
Brunswick Community College, Bolivia, NC
Public Hearing 11-21-19
Page 11
00:22:13 I'll talk a little bit about the mechanical drag system. This
is needed in this permit, for this renewal. CPI requested to include
wash water. And what they're doing is, you know, they're taking
mechanical drag chain —drag chain system and washing it with a
pressure washer. And it amounts to a maximum of maybe 17,000
gallons in a given year, or if they have any in one given year at all.
And maybe twice a year, at most. That's a mechanical drag chain,
part of it. That's a new one they have stored in the yard on pallets,
to give you an idea of what we're talking about, a drag chain. So it
just drags the bottom ash out of it [ph].
00:23:00 So this is where —this is inside the building. And I showed
you a diagram of what it looked like. So you have the boilers up
here, and the bottom ash comes out through here, and is quenched
[ph], and the drag chain pulls it out. And as it goes up this
conveyor, it's dewatered, so it's very little water involved. This is
where the bottom ash comes out, and it's scooped up, and put on a
truck, and taken to a landfill.
00:23:31 This is the pressure washer I was talking about. It sits on
the back of a semi -trailer. So it's heavy-duty industrial. So they're
just, you know, doing some maintenance. That's what that 17,000-
gallon addition.
00:23:46 And this diagram shows a little bit of the solids handling,
you know, for the coal ash. So the fly ash is also —is taken to a
Transcript prepared by
Rogers Word Service
919-834-0000
www.rogersword.com

NCDEQ
Brunswick Community College, Bolivia, NC
Public Hearing 11-21-19
Page 12
silo by vacuum, and it's handled along with the bottom ash, and
trucked off in a trailer. So there's no coal ash stored at this facility.
It's taken to an approved landfill off site.
00:24:13 Outfall 002 is a cooling tower blowdown, and there's
we're monitoring for flow, pH, free available chlorine, chromium,
and zinc. Here's the cooling towers. And here's the close-up
picture of them.
00:24:35 Outfall 004 is the RO—yeah, this reverse osmosis, so
there's a lot more parameters we're looking at here, that are
included in our water treatment plant strategy that I applied to this
permit, as well as the limits for TSS, and oil and grease, and pH.
Another [ph] look at the powerhouse. So the RO system is down
at the bottom. You see those two storage tanks at the very bottom,
that building between them, that's where it's located. And another
look at the basin [ph], it comes in at Outfall 004 there. It
discharges to the sediment base.
00:25:13 And this is Outfall 003. This is the final outfall. We've
added some additional monitoring and continuous flow monitoring
to get an idea of what their total flow is. So that's a change for this
permit. We added toxicants, including zinc, copper, nickel,
chromium. A couple of those showed up and we asked them —we
rerated this permit as a major. So they're required to fill out the
Transcript prepared by
Rogers Word Service
919-834-0000
www.rogersword.com

NCDEQ
Brunswick Community College, Bolivia, NC
Public Hearing 11-21-19
Page 13
EPA form for a major permit. And that included also doing a
pollutant scan.
00:25:42 And based on that pollutant scan, we added these toxicants,
these metals. And we also added a pollutant scan that's a
requirement once per permit cycle. In previous permit versions,
they were able to waive it based on chemical usage at the plant.
But now we're asking them to be a requirement once per permit
[ph] to monitor any toxicants.
00:26:03 Another look at the overview of the facility, where it's
going. A comment on a few footnotes that are conditions in the
permit, and one [ph], every outfall requires no PCBs be
discharged. PCBs were phased out in the late `70s for
transformers. You see a transformer at this building behind the
powerhouse. So there's no PCBs being stored there. There's no
oil being stored there for transformers. There's active transformers
in use. And that was listed among some of the activities in their
application. And there were some concerns about that.
00:26:48 And then there's another footnote. In the final discharge
there will be no floating solids or foam visible, trace amounts.
And that's out there, their wastewater plant, there's —the pipe is
underneath the channel, remember, so they can't really see what's
coming out there, but they can see what's leaving their treatment
plant, and they can note whether it has solids or foam visible there.
Transcript prepared by
Rogers Word Service
919-834-0000
www.rogersword.com

NCDEQ
Brunswick Community College, Bolivia, NC
Public Hearing 11-21-19
Page 14
00:27:14 Special conditions. If they want to use biocides to —you
know, anti -scaling [ph] agents, you know, and anything preventing
kind of growth of anything within the piping, within the boilers
[ph], and things like that, then they have to request approval from
us. And there's also electronic reporting requirement for this
permit, and every permit we have now.
00:27:39 A little bit of information about, you know, wrapping up
the public hearing today. Comment period closes on December the
23rd. Then the hearing officer before, maybe in January, we may
have it together, and a final decision sometime before February
19th for this permit, to meet the 90 days.
00:28:01 So, again, my name is Derek Denard. My supervisor is
John Hennessey. And here's our website. And I had —the most
interesting about —the thing about the facility is how they offload
chips [ph]. They have a —it's a lift that lifts the truck up and it
falls off with all the woodchips in the back.
That's it for me. And thank you for coming.
00:28:27 May: Thank you, Derek. Now that we have heard the presentation on
the wastewater permit, I will now ask Lauren Garcia from the
Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources to make a short
presentation for the draft —make a short presentation for the draft
stormwater permit, NCS000348.
Transcript prepared by
Rogers Word Service
919-834-0000
www.rogersword.com

NCDEQ
Brunswick Community College, Bolivia, NC
Public Hearing 11-21-19
Page 15
00:28:57 Garcia: Okay. So I am Lauren Garcia and I'm an environmental specialist
with the Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources. And
I'm the individual industrial permit writer. And that's my
supervisor, Annette Lucas, right there. Okay.
[TECHNICAL COMMENTS]
00:29:53 Garcia: I'm the environmental specialist with the Division of Energy,
Mineral, and Land Resources. And I'm in the individual industrial
permit writer for this stormwater permit with —at CPI.
00:30:04 And so I'm going to talk about the —well, I'm going to give
a stormwater permitting program overview, and then I'm going to
talk about what's at the facility, even though Derek went over a lot
of it already. And then I'm going to go through the draft
stormwater permit.
00:30:21 So, stormwater is permitted through the Division of
Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources, and we really just say
"DEMLR." But I'm in the stormwater program, which is broken
up into these five programs, and I'm in the industrial program.
And the NPDES is our National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System, and we have three different kinds of permits in that
program, which is the individual permit, the general permits, and a
no exposure certification. And this is an individual permit.
00:30:54 So our NPDES program is federally mandated, and it
covers a pretty wide variety of industrial activities. We determine
Transcript prepared by
Rogers Word Service
919-834-0000
www.rogersword.com

NCDEQ
Brunswick Community College, Bolivia, NC
Public Hearing 11-21-19
Page 16
who is permitted by using the SIC Codes, the Standard Industrial
Classification Codes. There are 11 federally regulated categories.
And if the facility's SIC Code fits into one of those categories,
then it has to be permitted for either the general permit, the
individual permit, or the no exposure certification.
00:31:21 So the general permits, we have 21 different industrial
general permits that cover stormwater discharges associated with
industrial activities and construction. And some of those
categories are things like metal fabrication, or food and kindred,
landfills, and ready -mix concrete. The individual permits, which is
what this is, are for the facilities that don't fit into those general
categories. And then the no exposure certifications are for
facilities that have a SIC Code that triggers permitting, but they
don't have industrial materials in operations that are exposed to
stormwater. So it's just supposed to be a building and a parking
lot.
00:32:01 So, some important notes, after a facility is permitted, it is
allowed to discharge stormwater as long as it follows the
conditions of the permit. A stormwater permit is separate from a
wastewater or air quality permit. So these permits —my
stormwater permits only pertain to stormwater. They are not for
wastewater, or air quality, or other aspects of environmental
Transcript prepared by
Rogers Word Service
919-834-0000
www.rogersword.com

NCDEQ
Brunswick Community College, Bolivia, NC
Public Hearing 11-21-19
Page 17
protection. Those are other divisions, like the Division of Air
Quality, or Water Resources.
This is a map of all of the general —well, all of our
industrial permits within our program. So we're all over the place.
00:32:46 And so, the process starts —the facilities are not allowed to
discharge stormwater without a permit. New facilities have to
apply for a permit before they open. And existing facilities have to
reapply [ph] for renewal every five years, because our general —
our permit terms are for five years.
00:33:03 So, first, the facility has to complete an application form
and provide us with very detailed descriptions, like facility
activities, a list of industrial materials, chemicals, products, and
things that will be exposed to rainwater. They also have to provide
us with some pretty detailed maps that show drainage areas, and
outfall, and things like that. So we use that information to create
the permit.
00:33:27 For individual permits, I can require the facility to do extra
things, like to install extra BMPs [ph], or perform more frequent
monitoring. It's just special things that the facility needs to
monitor for that the general permits don't cover.
00:33:44 So CPI Southport is renewing a permit, which expired in
2015, which is okay. The permit allows them to continue to
discharge under an expired permit if they apply for renewal within
Transcript prepared by
Rogers Word Service
919-834-0000
www.rogersword.com

NCDEQ
Brunswick Community College, Bolivia, NC
Public Hearing 11-21-19
Page 18
180 days of the permit expiration. And they have to stay current
with their annual permit fees. So the facility has to continue to
operate under the conditions of the permit during this time.
Because sometimes we just can't get to the renewal in time, and it
just helps us keep everything regulated.
00:34:14 The renewal application asks for similar information to the
EPA forms they have to use to apply for the permit. And the
facility updates us with industrial changes, and they give us new
maps, and information like that.
00:34:31 So, Derek gave you a pretty good overview of the facility
already. But they burn a mixture of coal, tire -derived fuel, and
wood residuals. The coal burning at the power plant has been
reduced 90% because they also burn the tire -derived fuel and the
wood residuals. The tires, they're waste tires, and they keep it out
of the landfill, and then the wood residuals come from old rail ties
that are chipped on site.
00:35:01 So, Derek went over this one, but I just wanted to show it
as an example for the kinds of maps that they have to provide us in
the applications. Because you can see here, the little squiggly
lines, they show where all of the water —the stormwater is
draining, wherever it falls on the site. And you can see also
drainage areas, and there are all kinds of things like this in the
applications.
Transcript prepared by
Rogers Word Service
919-834-0000
www.rogersword.com

NCDEQ
Brunswick Community College, Bolivia, NC
Public Hearing 11-21-19
Page 19
00:35:27 So, they have Representative Outfall Status. When they
sample for stormwater from Representative Outfall 005, which I
have marked as that red star over there —Representative Outfall
Status is granted to facilities that have a single stormwater outfall
that's representative of discharges from multiple outfalls. They
have six outfalls in total at the site, and I have —so the orange ones
are special because those are internal outfalls.
00:35:57 The facility is surrounded by a man-made ditch. It's
basically a moat. And so all of the internal stormwater drains the
stormwater to this man-made ditch, and it all leaves the site
through Outfall 005. So all stormwater at the site leaves the outfall
through outfall—or the site through Outfall 005.
00:36:21 And then I wanted to do this Price Creek clarification. The
draft permit says that the facility discharges to Price Creek. But it
was discovered during the renewal process that this was a mistake.
Stormwater at the site does not discharge to Price Creek. It
discharges through this Duke Energy effluent channel, which is the
same place that the treated wastewater goes. The Duke Energy
effluent channel, it's —the influent and effluent channel, it's about
9.6 miles long, and it discharges from a pipe that's 2,000 feet
offshore into the Atlantic Ocean.
00:36:57 So, coal on the site. Materials potentially exposed to
stormwater include the coal, wood residuals, the tire -derived duel,
Transcript prepared by
Rogers Word Service
919-834-0000
www.rogersword.com

NCDEQ
Brunswick Community College, Bolivia, NC
Public Hearing 11-21-19
Page 20
petroleum products, limestone, and ash. And coal for the boiler
plant is stored outside in the coal pile. The runoff is treated in the
low -volume wastewater system prior to discharge. It does not
drain to the stormwater system. And that's the same wastewater
system that Derek just talked about.
00:37:29 It should be noted that stormwater runoff from the coal, and
the wood, and the TDF files would never be permitted as a
stormwater discharge. The runoff from those areas is wastewater.
00:37:41 Coal is brought in by a rail at the north end of the plant, and
unloaded through a coal chute [ph], and transported by a conveyor
to the coal pile. The risk of the coal dust entering the stormwater
through other —does exist [ph], so they have BMPs, like vegetative
buffers, and they also spray water to get rid of the coal dust. And
then there's a lot of sweeping that goes on at the site.
00:38:04 So, I wanted to cover some —I wanted to show you some
pictures so that you could see the conditions at the site. Oh, I
needed . So the —before we go —limestone at the site,
that is used as a part of their air pollution control system. And the
limestone blowers and piping are sealed. And so it's not —there's
not really a risk of it being exposed to stormwater. Yes.
00:38:34 So that —oh, these are the wastewater channels. And I
wanted you to be able to see how they contain all of the product on
the far side. So these —it keeps it out of the wastewater channels
Transcript prepared by
Rogers Word Service
919-834-0000
www.rogersword.com

NCDEQ
Brunswick Community College, Bolivia, NC
Public Hearing 11-21-19
Page 21
that take it to the treatment area. And then, like Derek said, on the
other side of that is the stormwater.
00:39:01 So, that's a picture of the inside of the channel. And the —
these fencings do a pretty good job of keeping the product out of
the wastewater channels. And then that's the wood chipping.
And, oh, so, that is the silo that they keep the fly ash in. The fly
ash are the light particles that come from combustion that are
carried out with gas fumes and air. And it stays in there. It's
totally enclosed in the ash silos, and they have systems in place to
catch the ash residues. And then the fly ash is trucked off site.
00:39:38 And then this other picture is the bottom ash. And that
those are the heavy residuals left after the combustion process that
Derek was talking about, where it falls to the bottom, and then it
gets taken out by the drag chain. It doesn't leave this containment
area. It's swept back over the lip, and it's scooped out and
removed by truck.
00:40:04 And then these are two of the transformers that we saw on
site. And their transformer oil is contained in the transformers that
are in service. So there's not any other storage of the oil on site
other than what's being used in the transformers. There's no PCB
oil used on the site. And they have secondary containment, which
is this grating [ph] right here under the transformers. And it's
Transcript prepared by
Rogers Word Service
919-834-0000
www.rogersword.com

NCDEQ
Brunswick Community College, Bolivia, NC
Public Hearing 11-21-19
Page 22
supposed to catch —if there were to be a leak, it's supposed to be
able to contain all of the oil that's in the transformer.
00:40:39 They also have a spill prevention control and
countermeasure plan to prevent spills. And it outlines in that plan,
they outline spill response. And they also have spill kits on site.
00:40:54 So, for the tire -derived fuel, that is a picture of where they
have it stored on site. It's burned by those concrete blocks along
the back. And TDF may spill from trucks on paved or gravel
roads, and the truck dumpsters, the conveyors, and the radial
stacker. So stormwater that flows over the access roads, it goes
through a sand filter. And then stormwater from the berm [ph] to
TDF storage area is diverted to the wastewater treatment basins.
00:41:24 The trucks are covered and tarped, or enclosed when not
being loaded or unloaded. And the paved roads are swept. And
then spilled materials are completely cleaned up.
00:41:34 So the switchyard, that's outlined in the red down there.
It's located within the CPI site, but the switchyard is owned and
maintained by Duke Energy. But the runoff from the switchyard
does contribute to the stormwater runoff from the facility. But
those transformers that are there are up in the air. So it's just
running over a parking lot, basically.
00:42:00 So, CPI has contracted out a portion of their facility to
National Salvage, which is a different company. They chip old
Transcript prepared by
Rogers Word Service
919-834-0000
www.rogersword.com

NCDEQ
Brunswick Community College, Bolivia, NC
Public Hearing 11-21-19
Page 23
roadway ties on site for CPI to use in their fuel mixture. And
we're in the process of determining the best way to permit this
facility because they're a separate entity.
00:42:21 So, for the draft permit, you can go to our website, and the
short way to get there is just to go to deq.nc.gov/stormwater [ph].
And it will take you to a page that looks a lot like this, and it has
the same blue task bar on the side, and you want to click on
"Stormwater Public Notices," and then you want to click where
you're prompted, where it says "here," like the —right there, that is
circled in the red.
00:42:50 So this will take you to our public hearing event page,
where both the draft wastewater and the stormwater permits are
available. And you'll be able to view the drafts online after the
hearing. This page is also updated because I public —well, I'll talk
about this later, but I public -notice all of my permits. And so
you'll be able to click on them as they're updated.
00:43:15 And so, to issue or renew a permit, I contact the facility
when the renewal process begins. I review the application. I look
at all the monitoring data, the old staff reports, and other
documents in our permit file. And I draft the permit based on the
review. And then the draft permit goes out to the facility and the
applicable regional office for a 30-day comment period.
Transcript prepared by
Rogers Word Service
919-834-0000
www.rogersword.com

NCDEQ
Brunswick Community College, Bolivia, NC
Public Hearing 11-21-19
Page 24
00:43:43 And Brain Lambe back there is our regional office contact.
So that got sent to him, and then he went to do an inspection. So
then the draft permit gets published in the newspaper and on our
website for a 30-day comment period, which is where everyone
here saw it. And then, if you get enough public interest, then we
hold the public hearing. And then after all of that takes place, and
we make changes to the draft permit based on the inspection and
the comments from the facility, the staff, and the public. And then
that all goes through a final internal review, and then my
supervisor signs it.
00:44:28 So, this is the first page of the permit. And so the —I
wanted to take you through what it contains. The first part is the
introduction, which is kind of standard. The meaty parts are in part
two, which goes through monitoring, controls, limitations for
permitted discharges. Part three is the standard conditions for
NPDES stormwater and individual permits. And then part four is
definitions.
00:44:58 So, the SWPPP, or the Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Plan, is exactly like it sounds. It's a pollution prevention plan for
stormwater. And those are —that's broken up into different
sections. The first part is the site overview, where they have to
give us things like facility descriptions. And then there's a
stormwater management strategy, spill prevention and response
Transcript prepared by
Rogers Word Service
919-834-0000
www.rogersword.com

NCDEQ
Brunswick Community College, Bolivia, NC
Public Hearing 11-21-19
Page 25
procedures, preventative maintenance and good housekeeping,
facility inspections —because they have to do their own facility
inspections, and on top of the facility inspections that we do.
There's employee training, responsible parties, annual update
requirements, and SWPPP implementation.
00:45:38 So, the purpose of the SWPPP is for the facility to have an
extensive plan for keeping the site as clean as possible, to prevent
stormwater exposure to contamination. There's a lot of moving
parts involved in keeping the facility clean, like employee training,
the spill response, frequent inspections, and that's what that section
of the permit is for.
00:45:58 And then the permit also requires that the facility —or the
facility has to continue to evaluate the feasibility of the SWPPP,
and then they have to make updates. DEQ assesses compliance
with the SWPPP during our facility inspections.
00:46:17 So, DEQ uses the information provided in the application
and our observations during the site inspections to determine
sampling parameters. And the permitting includes requirements
for when the facility can sample, how and by who. Samples are
taken semi-annually, and the facility turns in those analytical
results to us in a discharge monitoring report.
00:46:40 If there is not a measurable storm event in the six-month
time frame, then the facility can also they submit a report to us
Transcript prepared by
Rogers Word Service
919-834-0000
www.rogersword.com

NCDEQ
Brunswick Community College, Bolivia, NC
Public Hearing 11-21-19
Page 26
where there's no discharge. And I included that because I'm going
to show you the —all of the monitoring data. And if it just doesn't
have two monitoring events for one year, it's because they were
able to put "no discharge."
00:47:01 So, over there —I don't know why it's cut off on the end.
The —so those are all the parameters that this facility has to sample
for every time that they take a stormwater sample. And then those
are our benchmarks that they're measuring those samples against.
00:47:16 The benchmarks are determined by the Division of Water
Resource's planning section. And because of the sporadic nature
of rainfall, acute short-term effects to aquatic organisms are
considered when establishing those benchmarks. They're not
effluent limits [ph] —they're a tool for facilities to assess the
significance of pollutants in the stormwater discharges, and to
assess the effectiveness of the SWPPPs best management
practices.
00:47:42 And you will see here that some of the benchmarks are
listed as "NA." And then this is because we don't have adequate
data available to set benchmarks for these parameters where
these —this place —discharges into saltwater. As new data
becomes available, the benchmarks can be established, and we
all —we have all the data for the facility then to compare. DEQ
Transcript prepared by
Rogers Word Service
919-834-0000
www.rogersword.com

NCDEQ
Brunswick Community College, Bolivia, NC
Public Hearing 11-21-19
Page 27
monitors the sampling data also for spikes that would indicate an
issue with the site.
00:48:10 And so this is the sampling data for the entire permit term.
Well, actually, it's more —because it's from 20—oh, no, it is.
Okay. 2010 to 2019. And I color -coded it because even though
we have the NA benchmarks for saltwater, I wanted to —you to see
that what our benchmarks for freshwater are, and so that you can
see that they're not really exceeding those.
00:48:38 We're also working right now with DWR to see if we can
update some of these NA benchmarks. And also, some of the
benchmarks anyway since 2013 have been updated. And we have
been able to update a few of them, but the data is still being
reviewed. And, well, I think we —don't we get to make this
PowerPoint available on the —yes. So you'll be able to go online
and see —or it's also in the permit online, where —well, what they
have to sample for.
00:49:09 A lot of it has to do with what's on site, like the coal, and
the TDF, and the zinc. And then there are some other things, like
total suspended solids. But it's so that they can tell if any of that is
in their stormwater.
00:49:22 So, if there is an exceedance, we have a system built into
the permit for the facility to follow, to address and identify and
prevent future benchmark exceedances. So after one, you have —
Transcript prepared by
Rogers Word Service
919-834-0000
www.rogersword.com

NCDEQ
Brunswick Community College, Bolivia, NC
Public Hearing 11-21-19
Page 28
you're in a Tier I, where you have to —and this is the shortened
version. It's a lot more extensive in the actual permit. But you
have to basically conduct an inspection, identify the source of the
exceedance, find ways to fix the issue, implement those changes,
and then you have to report it [ph] in the SWPPP.
00:49:53 Tier II, after you have two exceedances, it immediately
triggers monthly monitoring for every outfall, where each
consecutive exceedance occurred. And then you also have to
repeat the steps for Tier I. Monthly monitoring continues until
three consecutive samples are below the benchmark values. And
then if you have more, then you're in Tier III, where the facility
has to report it to the regional office, and then function under the
new requirements of the Tier III, which is things like implementing
stormwater control measures, sampling for additional or substitute
parameters, implementing site modifications, and things like that.
00:50:28 That is the meatiest part of the stormwater permit. So the
remaining parts can be reviewed online. Part III is a lot of standard
language, and it's really similar to our general permits. And then
Part IV is definitions. And then that, again, is the website where
you can go to look at everything. And then that's my contact
information.
00:50:58 May: Thank you, Lauren. That concludes the division's presentation.
At this time, we will hear from audience members who have
Transcript prepared by
Rogers Word Service
919-834-0000
www.rogersword.com

NCDEQ
Brunswick Community College, Bolivia, NC
Public Hearing 11-21-19
Page 29
signed up to speak. I will call on those who signed up to speak.
We will make effort to hear from all who have signed up. So
please make your way to the podium as quickly and efficient as
possible to ensure that we are able to hear from as many people as
possible who have signed up within the time allowed.
00:51:26 There will be a three -minute time limit for providing
comments. Again, there will be a three -minute time limit for
providing comments. Staff will keep track of the time and raise a
sign to indicate when you have one minute left, 30 seconds left,
and when your time is up.
00:51:44 Comments should be concluded when your time is up.
Speakers are encouraged to provide a written copy of their
comments. Cross-examination of speakers will not be allowed.
However, I may ask questions for clarification. We ask that
everyone respect the right of others to speak without interruption.
00:52:05 To ensure that everyone has a clear view of the
proceedings, we ask that you refrain from waving signs inside the
meeting area. If anyone has a sign, we ask that you place it along
the wall at the conclusion of the hearing so we can take photos to
include as part of the hearing record.
00:52:23 I will now call speakers in the order that they registered.
To ensure that our records are accurate, please clearly state your
name, and if applicable, the organization you are representing. In
Transcript prepared by
Rogers Word Service
919-834-0000
www.rogersword.com

NCDEQ
Brunswick Community College, Bolivia, NC
Public Hearing 11-21-19
Page 30
addition, we ask that you identify other associations you may have
that have bearing on your input tonight. For example, if you are
appearing on your own behalf, but have obtained information from
or provided research to another group that is interested in this
matter, please indicate so. And thank you for your cooperation.
00:52:56 And just a quick safety comment, as speakers come up, just
be mindful of the cords up around the podium, and be careful to
not trip.
00:53:17 May: So our first speaker that we have tonight —and apologies if I
mispronounce anybody's name but Carol Kozlowski [ph].
00:53:36 Kozlowski: Good evening. My name is Carol Kozlowski. My husband Peter
and I own a home that backs up to Price's Creek and Capital
Power.
00:53:45 I understand that the purpose of this meeting tonight is to
discuss the renewal of CPI's permits to discharge wastewater into
the Atlantic Ocean, and I thought, stormwater into Price's Creek,
but that has been corrected. So everything goes to the Atlantic
Ocean.
00:54:02 I would ask that you strengthen their permit request to
better protect our residents and our water. I feel it is also very
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, our pool, the exterior of our
Transcript prepared by
Rogers Word Service
919-834-0000
www.rogersword.com

NCDEQ
Brunswick Community College, Bolivia, NC
Public Hearing 11-21-19
Page 31
home, our sidewalks. And 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 other areas in Southport are affected.
00:54:40 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 plant's special order of consent will expire in December
of 2020.
00:55:15 I cannot imagine that CPI's discharge 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 make 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 the
sound pollution has on local wildlife populations?
00:55:43 Furthermore, the noise generated [ph] by CPI, in addition
to this visible ash, is detrimental to our property's value. 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 closure of this plant. Thank you.
Transcript prepared by
Rogers Word Service
919-834-0000
www.rogersword.com

NCDEQ
Brunswick Community College, Bolivia, NC
Public Hearing 11-21-19
Page 32
[APPLAUSE]
May: Our next speaker is Mr. Edward Dazewiezri [ph].
M: [INDISCERNIBLE]
00:56:27 Dazewiezri: Hi. My name is Ed Dazewiezri. I live on 128 Northwest Street
[ph] in Oak Island. I'm here because I'm concerned, period. If I
ramble, I apologize. But here we have a plant that is almost like a
third -world country plant. It's burning tires. It's burning coal.
And it's burning wood. The presentation over here is very
representative of how we're trying to control what's going on to be
going on over there. But how do we enforce and how do we
guarantee that all these things are going to be in place?
00:57:06 I worry that if something happens, you know, we could
easily change a time when an effluent is checked or something like
that. And we're measuring total suspended solids, but what are
those total suspended solids? We have 26 areas here —I mean,
areas where we're concerned about 26 pollutants. But in the article
that I read, the item I read, it says —let me see. Hold on. Yeah,
here we go.
00:57:38 Number 18 on a letter from —to David Groves from Derek
Denard. And it's Item 18. It says, "Monitoring for 126 priority
pollutants has been changed from grab sampling to composite
sampling. The frequency for monitoring has been reduced to once
Transcript prepared by
Rogers Word Service
919-834-0000
www.rogersword.com

NCDEQ
Brunswick Community College, Bolivia, NC
Public Hearing 11-21-19
Page 33
per permit cycle." Now, to me, that sounds like once every five
years, but I'm not sure.
00:58:07 And also, it says that, you know —it sounds like a lot of the
monitoring is going to have be done by the company itself. And I
don't know what you guys do as far as monitoring them with
audits, or surprise inspections, or things like that. And I'm just
concerned. I just don't have any faith in the system because we get
our water supply from the Cape Fear River. And Chemours [ph]
has promised the world that it's not going to be dumping chemicals
in there. And as a result to that, we have to resort to Brunswick
County to putting in a reverse -osmosis system to eliminate the
pollutants that put —they're putting into the river.
00:58:54 It would seem to me we should be more source -concerned
than end -user -concerned [ph]. And I heavily believe that this has
to be monitored and kept an eye on. And relying on you people to
keep us safe. Thank you.
[APPLAUSE]
May: Mr. William North.
00:59:19 North: First of all, I don't enjoy talking before a group. Mike [ph], could
you bring that up please? My name is William North. I live in
Price's Creek, the Cottages at Price's Creek, with my wife
Penelope. We've been there —thank you —we've been there three
years. When we first came to Southport, we were dealing with a
Transcript prepared by
Rogers Word Service
919-834-0000
www.rogersword.com

NCDEQ
Brunswick Community College, Bolivia, NC
Public Hearing 11-21-19
Page 34
the fallout from a fly ash release from the plant in late 2017. It
covered very large areas of our community, well into Southport
itself. The company was not forthcoming in telling us about this
event, or the nature of the contaminant that was falling on our
homes. They said it was fly ash, and then they stuck to their story.
01:00:11 It was greasy. It was adhesive. It was hard to remove with
detergent. It wasn't just fly ash. And it smelled bad. We never
had a determination on what that stuff was.
They said it was a small release. I asked at the meeting
with the mayor, "What do you mean by small release?" I was told,
"Four or five tons of fly ash." We can't trust CPI to be
straightforward with their information.
01:00:42 The noise levels at the plant, as been addressed [ph], are
very bad. It's, like, we live half a mile from the plant. It's like
living near a freeway. It's constant drone of that plant day and
night, punctuated by when they run the chipper. The chipper
sounds like it's in your backyard. It's —you can't have
conversations inside your house or on your porch when the chipper
is running. And worst of all is the release of high-pressure steam.
When they vent this high-pressure steam, it literally sounds like a
jet engine is adjacent to your house. And this has been addressed,
also.
Transcript prepared by
Rogers Word Service
919-834-0000
www.rogersword.com

NCDEQ
Brunswick Community College, Bolivia, NC
Public Hearing 11-21-19
Page 35
01:01:23 The smell that comes from that plant, it smells like
petrochemical. It could be tire residue. It could be creosote from
the railroad ties. Whatever it is, if you smell something, you ingest
whatever that is. If you can smell it, it's entering your body.
Whatever it is, I have a hunch it's not good for people, or animals,
or plants. It has to be addressed. That smell that comes from the
plant is constant whenever the wind comes from the northeast
toward our house.
01:01:57 The chemicals being released by the plant are worrisome
[ph]. We've had a good presentation of what they are. I'll just say
that if you allow a company, no matter what their resources are, to
monitor themselves, to be in compliance with regulations —look at
Boeing aircraft. [APPLAUSE] One of our best corporations, one
of the most highly respected corporations in this county, maybe in
the world, and look at the mess they're in because the government
let them certify their test results.
01:02:32 The issue about our wastewater runoff into Price's Creek,
I'm glad that was resolved. It is not an issue. I would like to say
that if you go onto Facebook, there are photographs of the area
underneath the filter.
[INAUDIBLE]
May: If you have a bag, you can leave that at the back for a photograph
at the end.
Transcript prepared by
Rogers Word Service
919-834-0000
www.rogersword.com

NCDEQ
Brunswick Community College, Bolivia, NC
Public Hearing 11-21-19
Page 36
North: Okay.
M: What is it?
01:03:04 North: Okay. This is what gets wiped off our porches every day. It is
fallout from the plant [ph].
M: All right.
F: [INDISCERNIBLE]
[APPLAUSE]
May: Our next speaker is Nick Jimenez.
01:03:26 Jimenez: Hi. Thank you all. I'm Nick Jimenez from the Southern
Environmental Law Center. We've submitted some written
comments on the draft permits on behalf of Cape Fear River
Watch, Coastal Federation, Sierra Club, and Brunswick
Environmental Action Team.
01:03:40 I want to thank you first for having this and for bringing so
many folks down here. This —I found the presentations incredibly
helpful. I guess I want to cover a couple of highlights from our
concerns, and one that I don't think that we fully covered in our
written comments, that maybe we'll submit in this new comment
period.
01:03:55 The first is the testing. So CPI, in the DMRs that we
reviewed, did not submit a DMR for Outfall 003, based on the
permit filed that —as we saw it. And the permit limits that they
have been testing for, of course, are the old permits, dating from
Transcript prepared by
Rogers Word Service
919-834-0000
www.rogersword.com

NCDEQ
Brunswick Community College, Bolivia, NC
Public Hearing 11-21-19
Page 37
2011. We learned from Mr. Denard today that there was a
pollutant scan when the was properly redesignated to
major NPDES [ph], which is great. We didn't understand that
from the permit review until now.
F: Can you speak up?
01:04:27 Jimenez: Sorry about that. I'm trying to get through a lot. But based on that
designation, we believe that the facility needs to retest for primary
industry pollutants under regulations. We believe it's also subject
to whole effluent toxicity testing and that a primary pollutant
analysis should be done before this permit is finalized.
01:04:50 As far as best available technology, as I'm sure you all are
aware, that for steam -electric power generation, the effluent
limitation guidelines are zero discharge, no discharge for bottom
ash transport water. But it appears that some of the water from
the —washing out the drag chain pit is going into the settling
ponds, and then into the canal.
01:05:13 And the new issue that I don't think we really teed up in
our written comments so far is the removed substances provision,
which a standard NPDES provision, and is in the draft permit.
That says pollutants removed in the course of treatment shall be
utilized or disposed of in accordance with NC General Statute 143-
215.1, and in a manner to prevent any pollutants from such
materials from entering the waters of the state, except as
Transcript prepared by
Rogers Word Service
919-834-0000
www.rogersword.com

NCDEQ
Brunswick Community College, Bolivia, NC
Public Hearing 11-21-19
Page 38
authorized by the permit. This permit, of course, doesn't authorize
bottom ash solids going into the canal, and it's a little clearer after
these presentations, but it appears that that could be the case. So
we also have that concern.
01:05:51 And I guess the last concern is touching on stormwater. So
it was very helpful to learn that the stormwater is not going into
Price Creek. That's great. We do still have concern about the
depth of those ditches and what happens when you get severe rain
in this area. Our understanding is that the permit limits are based
on a 10-year rainfall event, which is set at about seven -and -a -half
inches, but we're seeing excess of that every year lately.
01:06:19 And —we were a little unsure whether PCBs are in the
existing transformer oil, and it —on the permit review, it appeared
that there was not full secondary containment. It sounds like there
aren't PCBs, and there is full containment, which I'm glad to hear
is the case. There are a lot of other substances stored on site that
are concerning.
01:06:40 So, given the extent of the rains we've been having, we
are —a review of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, which
as we understand it, is not submitted to the state. It's kept on site
and is simply supposed to be up to standards, although it is a public
document. So we would urge publicizing that and giving it a good
look. Thank you.
Transcript prepared by
Rogers Word Service
919-834-0000
www.rogersword.com

NCDEQ
Brunswick Community College, Bolivia, NC
Public Hearing 11-21-19
Page 39
[APPLAUSE]
May: Kerri Allen.
[INAUDIBLE]
01:07:09 Allen: Good evening. My name is Kerri Allen and I am the coastal
advocate for the southeast region of the North Carolina Coastal
Federation. We are a nonprofit organization dedicated to
protecting and restoring our coast. And we currently represent
over 16,000 members throughout the state.
01:07:36 We are here tonight asking you to strengthen CPI's permits.
We recognize the significant efforts that have gone into these draft
permits, and the improvements that have been made. However, far
too much is still unknown.
01:07:49 After reviewing the draft wastewater permit, it is clear that
there is not enough information provided to fully evaluate the total
impacts that discharges from CPI have on the natural and
economic health of the region. Before we can protect our
residents, we must fully understand what is being mixed into near -
shore [ph] waters up and down our coast.
01:08:08 As we've learned tonight, CPI produces close to 400,000
gallons of wastewater a day, including nearly three300,000
gallons of processed water. The discharge from the facility
contains contaminants associated with bottom ash transport water,
as well as coal, wood, and tire -derived fuel pile runoff. Coal ash
Transcript prepared by
Rogers Word Service
919-834-0000
www.rogersword.com

NCDEQ
Brunswick Community College, Bolivia, NC
Public Hearing 11-21-19
Page 40
contaminants, which include arsenic, mercury, lead, and cadmium,
to name a few, pose serious health risks, as does ash from
adulterated [ph] and creosote -treated wood.
01:08:35 In addition to the fuel piles, a wide variety of materials at
the facility are exposed to precipitation. Of greatest concern is
approximately 20,000 gallons of transformer oil, which often
contains PCBs. I understand tonight, that may or may not be the
case. These materials are harmful if released into the environment,
and the threat of release grows each year as climate change makes
severe storms more frequent and more severe.
01:08:57 In order to strengthen the draft permit, we ask DEQ to
require CPI to test its wastewater and set limits in this permit,
based on test results. As well as prohibit CPI from discharging
bottom ash transport water.
01:09:10 Per the Clean Water Act, polluters must control their
discharges using the best available technology. As shown in
SELC's analysis, better wastewater treatment is technologically
and economically achievable. The burden of providing sufficient
evidence to reasonably ensure that the proposed [ph] system will
comply with all applicable water quality standards falls on the
permit holder, and DEQ, as they are under clear obligation to use
this information to protect public health and the environment.
Transcript prepared by
Rogers Word Service
919-834-0000
www.rogersword.com

NCDEQ
Brunswick Community College, Bolivia, NC
Public Hearing 11-21-19
Page 41
01:09:36 We thank you for your time and for the opportunity to
present these comments. We are confident that DEQ will continue
to work to strengthen these permits in order to fully address the
environmental and public health concerns to ensure the protection
of our residents and coastal resources.
[APPLAUSE]
May: Thank you. Ms. Deborah Ahlers.
01:10:01 Ahlers: Good evening. I'm Deborah Ahlers and I'm the mayor of the
Town of Caswell Beach. And I have to say one thing that —
although we're very happy that Price's Creek is not receiving the
stormwater, it concerns me that now we know that both the
discharge from the wastewater and the stormwater are going in
front of the beaches at Caswell Beach.
01:10:28 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. We appreciate the hard work that you and your staff are
doing and providing for the people of North Carolina.
01:10:47 Caswell Beach is located just a short distance from where
the permits states that wastewater, and now we know stormwater,
from CPI will be discharged into the Atlantic Ocean. Healthy
town beaches and good recreational water quality are critical for
Transcript prepared by
Rogers Word Service
919-834-0000
www.rogersword.com

NCDEQ
Brunswick Community College, Bolivia, NC
Public Hearing 11-21-19
Page 42
the Town of Caswell Beach. This summer, the population of
Caswell more than quadrupled as tourists vacation in our town to
enjoy our beaches and our clean ocean water.
01:11:10 After reading the draft permit application, Caswell Beach
respects that —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 condition 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 of our
environment.
01:11:40 Caswell Beach has no interest in causing our corporate
neighbors any undue 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 to our waters. Thank you.
[APPLAUSE] And we thank you for the opportunity.
May: Peter Key.
Transcript prepared by
Rogers Word Service
919-834-0000
www.rogersword.com

NCDEQ
Brunswick Community College, Bolivia, NC
Public Hearing 11-21-19
Page 43
01:12:23 Key: Good afternoon. My name is Peter Key. I'm the president of
Brunswick Environmental Action Team. Brunswick
Environmental Action Team thanks the staff for the North Carolina
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 do, and that your staff provides
for the health and safety for the citizens of North Carolina.
01:12:55 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.
01:13:19 Methods such as the methyl bromide situation up in
Columbus County. We worked with the Town of Sunset Beach in
in the Jinks Creek project down there. We're currently working on
this one, and also working with Southport on their wastewater
treatment facility that is planned to be located in a flood zone.
Yes.
01:13:40 Because we support a healthy and safe environment for our
residents, we are very concerned when we learned that CPI USA
Transcript prepared by
Rogers Word Service
919-834-0000
www.rogersword.com

NCDEQ
Brunswick Community College, Bolivia, NC
Public Hearing 11-21-19
Page 44
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.
01:14:01 We have read that the toxic chemicals CPI USA is dumping
are diluted to levels not harmful to humans, and yet, the
vacationing tourists knew that —if vacationing tourists 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 from tourism on the southeastern shores of
North Carolina. Therefore, we feel that no level of bottom ash
dumping is acceptable.
01:14:25 After reading the draft permit application, BEAT [ph]
respectfully requests that the North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality 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-
sized 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.
Transcript prepared by
Rogers Word Service
919-834-0000
www.rogersword.com

NCDEQ
Brunswick Community College, Bolivia, NC
Public Hearing 11-21-19
Page 45
01:14:52 Two tanker truck's loads can't be too much of a burden on
a company as large as Capital Power. We believe that none of this
waste product should be allowed to reach the public when such an
easy alternative exists. We believe that ADM and Duke Energy,
our other large corporations [ph] 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.
01:15:15 In light of some of the comments that we have heard
tonight, I would like to add the additional comment. It seems like
we've cleared up and created some other confusion and
incongruencies. And my suggestion would be that CPI USA host a
tour of the facility with local leadership. That includes the towns
of Oak Island, Caswell Beach, Southport, local news agencies, and
any other interested parties, so that they can show people what they
do at the facility, how it works, and how it relates with the permit
process. Thank you.
[APPLAUSE]
May: Lynn Baker [ph].
01:15:53 Baker: Good evening. I also was an environmental specialist for the New
York Department Environmental Conservation, shellfish division
[ph]. So I'm kind of familiar with what we're talking about
tonight.
Transcript prepared by
Rogers Word Service
919-834-0000
www.rogersword.com

NCDEQ
Brunswick Community College, Bolivia, NC
Public Hearing 11-21-19
Page 46
01:16:22 First it was GenX toxic compounds that have been
discharged into our river for years. These poison our drinking
water and the health of marine life in our waters. Then they
lowered the standards of the Clean Water Act. And then we have
the threat of drilling off of our shores. Now we find out that a
power plant, CPI, one that very few people even are aware it
exists, is releasing wastewater containing toxic chemicals to the
Atlantic off Caswell Beach.
01:17:02 DEQ is the lead stewardship agency for the protection of
North Carolina environmental resources, including air quality,
water quality, and public health. It states on its website that it
encourages responsible behavior with respect to the environment,
it enhances and ensures our quality of life.
01:17:28 So, how is it that DEQ allows anyone to dump large
quantities of any toxic chemical into our waterways? Only six
football fields off the beach at Caswell, only to be washed up on
the next high tide. How is that okay? Four hundred thousand
gallons of wastewater a day, including bottom ash. This is not an
insufficient amount. Bottom ash is a byproduct of coal combustion
and has been —I'm sorry. I can't read my own writing.
[LAUGHTER] And has been added to the facilities wastewater
since the plant's last permit renewal. Added after the renewal.
Transcript prepared by
Rogers Word Service
919-834-0000
www.rogersword.com

NCDEQ
Brunswick Community College, Bolivia, NC
Public Hearing 11-21-19
Page 47
01:18:20 DEQ does not know what CPI is emitting [ph]. These
pollutants should be identified before issuing a new permit. Right
now, the Clean Water Act requirements only apply to one waste
stream, and this plant has several.
01:18:37 The new —the North Carolina Senate has made it clear that
they are out to protect the interest of big business, not the health of
constituents of North Carolina. The Southern Environmental
Legal Center has asked for a detailed analysis of the waste before
issuing a permit. Why doesn't DEQ know what is in the
wastewater? And if it does know, why don't we? Is this the
legacy we want to leave behind? A toxic stew of incinerated tires,
creosote -treated lumber, and coal.
01:19:15 Enough. DEQ, do your j ob. Protect us, don't protect CPI.
No coal ash discharge. No renewal until we know the full scope of
what exactly is in the —
May: Thank you.
Baker: —wastewater and storm runoff. I'm done [ph].
[APPLAUSE]
May: Emily Wilkins [ph].
01:19:43 Wilkins: I'm Emily Wilkins. I'm representing myself. I am a resident of
Caswell Beach.
M/F: Louder [ph].
Transcript prepared by
Rogers Word Service
919-834-0000
www.rogersword.com

NCDEQ
Brunswick Community College, Bolivia, NC
Public Hearing 11-21-19
Page 48
01:19:56 Wilkins: Okay. I will. [LAUGHTER] Thank you for providing this forum
so that I have the opportunity to ask you to please protect us from
industrial waste and pollution in our environment. Also, I'm here
to invite you, any of the representatives of DEQ here tonight, to
join me at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow morning at a site where you will get
a personal feel for life at Caswell Beach, and where the overview
of the map —be in that environment [ph].
01:20:35 Caswell Beach is a small town of 400. It sits on the east
end of Oak Island. And you can see from this vantage point that I
invite you to join me, the beach, the dunes, the maritime forest that
abuts the beach, and the beach road. From this spot, I am
confident that you can make a better informed decision if you see
for yourself the Duke Energy canal, see where it actually —the
discharge pipe goes under the beach road, then under the beach,
and under the sea, to discharge within easy eyesight just off the
shore.
01:21:17 From this vantage point, you can see the disturbance in the
ocean water where the discharge enters the ocean. You may see
boats there, at that warm spot in the water. The fish caught in that
spot have long fed families in Brunswick County. On warm days,
you would surely see children and families on the beach enjoying
wading in the water and fishing.
Transcript prepared by
Rogers Word Service
919-834-0000
www.rogersword.com

NCDEQ
Brunswick Community College, Bolivia, NC
Public Hearing 11-21-19
Page 49
01:21:43 You can see this and more from the deck of the Tom Hess
crossover. If you cannot come —one of you said your wife
required you to be home tonight. But if you cannot come
tomorrow morning, perhaps you can envision this place, that
counts on you, your expertise, your oversight, and your
monitoring. And your job and decision -making is making so
important. We depend on you for protection from more
environmental damage and dangers to our area.
01:22:22 My name is Emily Wilkins. I will meet you tomorrow at
9:00 a.m. on Caswell Beach Road, at the intersection with
Oceangreens Lane, at the Tom Hess crossover to the beach. Please
join me.
[APPLAUSE]
May: Joe Hatem.
[APPLAUSE]
01:22:57 Hatem: I'm mightily impressed to see all y'all here tonight. Thank you for
being here. And I want to thank DEQ for this presentation. I came
here to learn. So as you speak, I take notes. I've learned so much
in a very short period of time, so I thank you all for that.
01:23:20 I just wanted toI'm just going to read two quotes. One is
from my campaign in 2015. As you know, I ran several times.
[LAUGHTER] But this is from 2015, and the reason I'm reading
this is because my platform was for the health of the city, and this
Transcript prepared by
Rogers Word Service
919-834-0000
www.rogersword.com

NCDEQ
Brunswick Community College, Bolivia, NC
Public Hearing 11-21-19
Page 50
was in particular, the health of our environment. "Southport is
blessed with the maritime forest, gorgeous live oaks, the beautiful
Cape Fear River flowing into the Atlantic Ocean. The Intracoastal
Waterway, creeks, and marshes, and all need to be preserved and
protected, allowing these habitats to thrive.
01:23:59 "We will promote public health measures that provide
clean water and clean air, and ally with county, state, and federal
agencies, as well as conservation groups, to enhance our
environmental treasures."
01:24:12 Most people when they read that, they thought that that was
probably the least important part of the platform. But I tried to tell
them, you had to vigilant. No, maybe we didn't know about GenX
in 2015, and we certainly —I didn't know until recently, that
Capital Power was putting that effluent into the Duke canal and it's
going out to Caswell Beach.
01:24:36 The it —the other thing that is so impressive is the
engineering aspect of this. I mean, you think of the power plant
there, you think of ADM, think of CPI. If they have the
technology to have these plants there, they have the technology so
there will be zero emissions from that plant. [APPLAUSE] It's in
our water. It's in our lungs. It's in your children, it's —your pets,
in our plants.
Transcript prepared by
Rogers Word Service
919-834-0000
www.rogersword.com

NCDEQ
Brunswick Community College, Bolivia, NC
Public Hearing 11-21-19
Page 51
01:25:09 The second quote is from a professor at UNC School of
Public Health. "Everyone is impacted by air pollution. But our
exposure is far more complicated than what we knew before.
What we are trying to investigate and highlight is what are the true
drivers of toxicity in the atmosphere. Not only the atmosphere, but
in our water, in the ground." I mean, we still don't know the full
ramifications of what we're being exposed to. The stuff that
you're wiping off your cars, you can't wipe it out of your lungs.
So we have to be vigilant.
01:25:58 The other thing that I just want to say briefly, I did not
realize, is 1.9 billion gallons a day coming out of Duke power
plant, including that effluent. That's pretty impressive. And
Karen [ph], we thought we had an issue with 750,000 in the sewer
plant. So we —that really pales compared to that.
01:26:20 But I'm here as a physician. I'm here as mayor -elect. I
want to hear from you at the next board of alderman meeting. We
want to look into this. I'm happy to go out to the plant and look
around and inspect [ph]. And anything I can do as mayor and as a
physician, we will do to protect our environment and protect our
citizens. Thank you.
[APPLAUSE]
May: Karen Mosteller [ph].
Transcript prepared by
Rogers Word Service
919-834-0000
www.rogersword.com

NCDEQ
Brunswick Community College, Bolivia, NC
Public Hearing 11-21-19
Page 52
01:27:00 Mosteller: Thank you so much for being here and having this forum. A lot of
well -learned people have spoken about the science, and I just
wanted to make just a couple of comments.
01:27:15 One, I just, from a stormwater perspective, I just wanted to
make sure that y' all were aware that a couple years ago we had a
fire there, and so our fire department responded, and it took about
14 hours to put it out. And it was woodchips and creosote mixed.
And they ultimately had to sort of spread it out away from the
chopped -up tires so they didn't catch on fire.
01:27:39 So water —of course, a lot of water was in that process of
putting out that fire. And so I know that becomes stormwater-ish
runoff. And so I just want to make sure that sort of —kind of the
conversation is also factored in because that is something besides
just the toxicity of what goes into the air.
01:27:58 And then, I —one thing I also wanted to say was —and I
have —I think this is the air quality report, or study, but in it, it
talks about —one of the things it says is that our area is classified
as rural. And with all these people here, we're not really what
rural —rural conjures up it's out where no people live. These
people live right up against where this is. And I just want to make
sure that as guidelines are being applied, that in `87, when this
plant was built, none of us lived that close to that. And it's a very
different environment.
Transcript prepared by
Rogers Word Service
919-834-0000
www.rogersword.com

01:28:41
[APPLAUSE]
May
01:29:02 Haddon:
01:29:37
01:30:02
Transcript prepared by
Rogers Word Service
919-834-0000
www.rogersword.com
NCDEQ
Brunswick Community College, Bolivia, NC
Public Hearing 11-21-19
Page 53
So I just wanted to also mention that. And again, thank
you. Thank you for being here.
Chap Haddon [ph].
Good evening. My name is Chap Haddon. I'm a resident of the
City of Southport and live in the Turtlewood subdivision, which is
a neighbor to CPI, right next door. I'm here tonight to first thank
you for taking the time to open up and allow us to speak to you
about this, but also, to express some concerns for not only today,
which this permits attests to, but tomorrow. I think we've asked
some of the questions that are pertinent to what we need to
understand today.
But what is the impact for tomorrow? And to understand
that, you need to really look back into the past. Now, I've asked
the question is [ph], what is in the cooling canal today? This
permit addresses how much goes out. And if I add up 32 years'
worth of bottom ash, that would be about 544,000 gallons, if I
understand, if my math is correct. That's a significant amount of
material that could still be in the bottom of that canal.
Although it was pointed out to me tonight that that swift
water going through there, the accumulation and the biology of
that area, it could be fairly significant, and we really need to

NCDEQ
Brunswick Community College, Bolivia, NC
Public Hearing 11-21-19
Page 54
understand that to make a significant decision on what we do going
forward.
01:30:17 The plant was also built in 1987. And with that in mind, it
was built with 1987 standards for pollution control. And as the
time goes on, have we updated those standards to what we can do
today in both processes, and procedures, and equipment?
01:30:33 I ask you to clearly take a look at that for the future of our
children, our grandchildren that will be living here. I do agree with
Karen, as she states that this is no longer a rural area. We set
closer than Price's Creek, closer than Arbor Oaks. And I will
attest to the fact that we do have to clean our houses fairly
frequently. Our cars are coated in materials. I've even been in the
City of Southport and seen it there. And we need to understand
what is in the materials. Not in —only the water, but also in the air.
01:31:09 As Dr. Hatem pointed out, what we breathe into our lungs
can clearly impact us, and could be significant to both the elderly
population, and also to the young people.
01:31:20 Again, I thank you for your time and taking the time to be
here, to listen to us, and allow us to express our concerns, as well
as to look at what we need to do in the future. Thank you.
[APPLAUSE]
May: Lora Sharkey.
Transcript prepared by
Rogers Word Service
919-834-0000
www.rogersword.com

NCDEQ
Brunswick Community College, Bolivia, NC
Public Hearing 11-21-19
Page 55
01:31:42 Sharkey: Good evening. I'm Lora Sharkey. And first, I want to say thank
you to Lauren and Annette [ph] for the very productive
conversation we had last Friday. I appreciate it. You answered
some of the questions that you've addressed here tonight, but I got
it first-hand, about discharges, and PCBs, and other concerns that I
had. So thank you very much for that conversation.
01:32:12 I am Lora Sharkey. I am a resident of Southport, North
Carolina, and I'm an elected official for the City of Southport. I
am here on behalf of the Southport Board of Aldermen to provide
feedback on the proposed NPDES stormwater permit for Capital
Power.
01:32:28 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 we feel it is our
responsibility to participate in this public hearing.
01:32:45 The plant —these comments are not indicative of any
dislike for CPI or its employees. The plant has been supportive
[ph] of Southport in the face of hardship, particularly dealing with
hurricanes, and most 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, the
waters we swim in, collect food from, and simply appreciate.
Transcript prepared by
Rogers Word Service
919-834-0000
www.rogersword.com

NCDEQ
Brunswick Community College, Bolivia, NC
Public Hearing 11-21-19
Page 56
01:33:13 It is public knowledge that CPI plant is permitted to burn a
variety of materials as fuel in the creation of steam and electricity.
These materials include shredded tires, woodchips, railroad ties,
and some coal. Combustion of these materials result in ash that
contains contaminants that will be hazardous to the water and soil
if not adequately treated or removed from the wastewater before
disposal.
01:33:40 The City of Southport requests that CPI be required to
monitor contaminant 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.
01:33:54 Additionally, the city requests that CPI be tasked with
improving containment of contaminated stormwater during flood
conditions. There's 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 [ph] human health. Thank you.
[APPLAUSE]
01:34:33 May: Well, at this time, we've heard from those that have registered to
speak. I would ask at this time if there's anybody else that did not
register who wishes to provide comment? Yes, sir? And if you
would, please state your name when you speak.
Transcript prepared by
Rogers Word Service
919-834-0000
www.rogersword.com

NCDEQ
Brunswick Community College, Bolivia, NC
Public Hearing 11-21-19
Page 57
01:34:53 Webb: My name is Tom Webb [ph]. I am a —new kids on the block.
Peggy and I are new residents here. We've been here about two
months. And I just want to say that we live a little bit farther away
than we've heard from some other folks. But I've still been woken
up during the night when the grinding is going on. And clean my
car on a regular basis.
01:35:24 And it's disturbing. We came here because Southport
offered something totally unique. And I'm up here now because
I'm on to put my mouth where my money is. And I've been
contributing to environmental action groups all my life. And I
finally have to get up and say enough is enough.
01:35:50 So, the two things that stood out to me were the stormwater
collection. It doesn't seem like it would take a whole lot to figure
out how much of a storm would have [ph] for it to overflow. And
I've heard about Florence. I was wondering whether there's been
any looking at what really happened at the plant when we received
35, 40 inches of rain. And that chance is increasing all the time,
from what we hear.
01:36:20 The other thing that got my attention, time and time again,
from what I saw —at least this is how I interpreted it —that a lot of
the information comes from CPI itself. [LAUGHTER] And I don't
know what —it doesn't seem like the energy companies in this
country are all that honest these days. So if, in fact, we are getting
Transcript prepared by
Rogers Word Service
919-834-0000
www.rogersword.com

NCDEQ
Brunswick Community College, Bolivia, NC
Public Hearing 11-21-19
Page 58
our information from them, and basing a permit on what they're
telling us, can we be proactive and do testing to find out whether
they're facts are, in fact, facts, not made up? So. Thanks for the
opportunity, and we have a lot of trust in you, so please honor it.
Okay. Thank you.
[APPLAUSE]
M: question, comment [ph].
May: If there's another speaker, you're welcome to come. And again—
M: [INDISCERNIBLE]
May: If you would, please state your name and who you might be
affiliated with.
01:37:39 Yarb: My name is Bud Yarb and I'm a resident of the Landing [ph]. I'm
affiliated with myself and my family. [LAUGHTER] And I just
have a couple of comments.
01:37:48 One, and this goes probably to Dr. Hatem back there [ph].
I'd be very interested in looking at the statistics for upper
respiratory infections in the Southport region. I'd also be very
interested in looking at the number of brain tumors in the
Southport area because we have some friends that have come down
with brain tumors, and there's one location within the city that has
a preponderance for brain tumors.
01:38:13 And thirdly, I'd like to know if CPI and the organizations
ever submitted a risk assessment to your organization or anyone
Transcript prepared by
Rogers Word Service
919-834-0000
www.rogersword.com

NCDEQ
Brunswick Community College, Bolivia, NC
Public Hearing 11-21-19
Page 59
else. Or if you have a risk assessment for CPI and ADM. Are you
familiar with the required risk assess —requirements for these
companies?
01:38:37 May: Right now I would apologize, but we're this isn't a question -and -
answer session.
Yarb: [INDISCERNIBLE]
May: But that's something that we could follow up on [ph].
Yarb: It's not a question. Okay. Okay. Thank you very much then.
[APPLAUSE]
May: Does anybody else wish to speak or provide comment? This
gentleman on the front.
01:39:02 Jakus: Hi. My name is Bob J-A-K-U-S, Jakus. And I'm a citizen of Oak
Island. And I'm also a person who works with the Brunswick
Environmental Action Team. I've also served with the Beach
Preservation Society of Oak Island for numerous years, though I'm
not —I was their treasurer, and I'm not on that group any longer.
But I support and love everything that they do.
01:39:37 I worked for years as an educator. I'm a retired teacher. I
was a middle school, and high school, and community college
teacher. And I even in years past taught here and had some
students, math here [ph]. So primarily though I'm a math teacher,
I've written some really exciting project -based curriculum, and I
love working with children. And the project -based activities
Transcript prepared by
Rogers Word Service
919-834-0000
www.rogersword.com

NCDEQ
Brunswick Community College, Bolivia, NC
Public Hearing 11-21-19
Page 60
involve aquatic ecosystems, an understanding of our one world,
one ocean.
01:40:06 And we start to think that there are walls everywhere.
There are seven different oceans. There are different continents.
There —but really, we're connected. And the ocean that's right
outside our door in Caswell Beach, right outside my door, when I
walk out —I can walk there in 10 minutes —it's just magnificent.
And to share that enthusiasm and excitement with the youth, with
the kids, and get them to interact with reality the —of life, and
loving life, and loving nature, is very scary when —every time I go
to Southport from Oak Island, I drive over that canal. And I look
at the canal and I go, "Oh, who would even want to put their toe in
that, that nasty -looking canal?" And I lived here in 1999, and I
saw the canal then, and it was nasty. And it's nasty now. And I'm
just like, I know that we're talking about maybe the specific
property itself, but we're connected.
01:41:10 And that canal that flows underneath Caswell Beach and
dumps water into our ocean, and our dolphins, and our whales.
And I saw a whale, you know, beaching, you know, dying on the —
on our beach a couple years ago. And who knows? We just don't
know. The knowledge isn't there. But that's what we want our
kids to have the enthusiasm and excitement to learn, and to
explore, and to study. What's going on with our chemistry, our
Transcript prepared by
Rogers Word Service
919-834-0000
www.rogersword.com

NCDEQ
Brunswick Community College, Bolivia, NC
Public Hearing 11-21-19
Page 61
biochemistry, our microbiology, our —the statistics, the analysis,
the thinking. What's best? Let's get some love. Let's get some —
who said it best, maybe George Harrison, huh? Hare Krishna.
Thank you very much. We love you [ph].
[APPLAUSE]
May: Are there any other speakers that wish to comment on the two
permits? Yes, ma'am? And again, if you would state your name,
please.
01:42:10 Ward: Hey. I'm Catherine Ward and I live in Harbor Oaks, which is in
Southport. We are right outside of where Capital Power is. And
my husband and I really weren't aware of any of the pollutants
Capital Power put out until we moved into our neighborhood. And
not long after we moved into our neighborhood, we noticed that we
had a constant [ph] ash on our front porches, our fans, our back
porch. And we recently had plants on our back porch. We have
herbs and we can't use any of them because they are constantly
covered in black soot.
01:42:47 And we're here tonight because we are concerned parents.
I'm actually from the area and I grew up here, but I didn't grow up
within a mile of Capital Power, and my little boy does. He's three
years old, and we have another one soon to be. So we're raising
kids here. And I ask you to look into this permit as if your kids
Transcript prepared by
Rogers Word Service
919-834-0000
www.rogersword.com

NCDEQ
Brunswick Community College, Bolivia, NC
Public Hearing 11-21-19
Page 62
were living within a mile of Capital Power. And that's really my
only comment.
[APPLAUSE]
May: Are there any other comments on the stormwater permit and
wastewater permit? Yes, sir?
01:43:28 Baldwin: My name is Merle Baldwin. I live in Oak Island. For over 26
years, I cleaned —did remediation and hazardous waste cleanup all
over the country. Mainly based here out of North Carolina. When
I look at some —some of the things I've learned over the years is,
you can't get something clean without getting something else dirty.
And it's possible to get everything dirty and nothing clean.
[LAUGHTER]
01:44:05 But —and when I look at this, I don't look at it as much of
a —as a human standpoint. I look at it more regulatory and how to
clean it up. So when I look at some of these —and somebody else
brought this up, which I had written down here in the slides [ph]
that Derek had, on the priority pollutants, where they had a grab
sample instead of a composite sample. And again, that was one
sample per permit period, which we're saying that the permit could
be a five-year period.
01:44:38 So, for doing all the heavy metals, and VOCs [ph], and
everything else, I think that's something that really needs to be
done, I would say, at least on a semi-annual basis. And especially
Transcript prepared by
Rogers Word Service
919-834-0000
www.rogersword.com

NCDEQ
Brunswick Community College, Bolivia, NC
Public Hearing 11-21-19
Page 63
for doing a grab sample, I don't think that that would be something
that would —I don't think is very over —you know, a composite.
It's not a representative sample.
01:45:04 With all the technologies out there now, they can put auto -
samplers in. And also, to make sure that where the sampling
points are, not in the canal, not in the ocean, but right there before
it goes into that number three discharge. I have cleaned out —you
know, I don't what the temperature —their burn temperatures are. I
know it's not —probably not incineration temperature, but when
you burn creosote and some of the other things like that,
pentachlorophenol, you get byproducts of those when you don't
burn those at an incineration temp —but just a burning temperature.
01:45:43 So you may have something left over from the creosote.
I'm assuming that's in there as well, in the bottom ash. And I
don't know if they use dewatering plates, or a dewater—belt
dewatering, however they use that for when the ash comes out.
But again, as someone else said, all that stuff can go to Pinewood,
South Carolina for hazardous waste facility. And the same thing
with the liquids. They don't —those things [ph] should not be
discharged. Thank you.
[APPLAUSE]
01:46:18 May: Is there anybody else that wishes to comment on either the
stormwater or wastewater permit?
Transcript prepared by
Rogers Word Service
919-834-0000
www.rogersword.com

NCDEQ
Brunswick Community College, Bolivia, NC
Public Hearing 11-21-19
Page 64
[INAUDIBLE]
01:46:28 Parisi: Hi. My name in Donna Parisi [ph]. I live in Turtlewood, resident,
right in Southport. My backyard literally is CPI and ADM. So my
question to you would be, in the environmental impact, I've dealt
with fracking, I've dealt with offshore drilling, as a fighter. So you
got me [ph]. My thing is, the brain tumor situation, which people
are explaining in the lands —Landings [ph], I found that. I lost a
son to cancer with a brain tumor because of chemicals. Primary
tumor [ph].
01:47:03 So it is something that really needs to be followed up on,
and needs to be checked directly, because we have a lot of
children. We have a lot of adults who have come here to live and
enjoy their retirement. And quite honestly, if I didn't see it for
myself, on a boat, the water out by Caswell Beach, I wouldn't have
believed it. But I saw it. The temperature of the water is quite a
bit different than the regular part of the water, when you come up
to that part.
01:47:30 And it really needs to be not regulated by CPI, but by
people that really care about the environment. And so that's my
piece. Bye.
[APPLAUSE]
May: Are there any other comments on the stormwater and wastewater
permit? In the back.
Transcript prepared by
Rogers Word Service
919-834-0000
www.rogersword.com

NCDEQ
Brunswick Community College, Bolivia, NC
Public Hearing 11-21-19
Page 65
01:47:53 Ingram: Hi. My name is Jennifer Ingram and I didn't come in here tonight
to talk, but as I listen to what all of my neighbors say, I —and I
think that we've been very cordial, and very understanding, and
tried to make sense of this.
01:48:21 But I come from the nuclear industry. I was employed by
Duke Energy for 10 years, and am an auditor by trade. Basically,
I've been —dealt with many inspections with Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, and conducted many audits. The nuclear industry
knows where their improvement opportunities are. They can tell
you exactly where everything is in their plant. They know exactly
what they have to work on, and they know exactly who they owe
action items to. They know who they answer to.
01:49:00 And what I'm —what I want you guys to understand is that
in the nuclear industry —and I'm assuming that most of your career
opportunities —you're held accountable. You're held to a
standard. You acknowledge your ownership. And then people
hold you accountable if you fail.
01:49:22 And what I'd like to put on notice here, tonight, is that you
guys are on notice that if you fail, you will have to come back here,
and you'll have to look everyone here in the face, and explain why,
when you had a very good opportunity to fix what's broken.
01:49:40 So, I have not heard any statistics about what the maximum
allowable parts in the water are. I don't I haven't heard anything
Transcript prepared by
Rogers Word Service
919-834-0000
www.rogersword.com

NCDEQ
Brunswick Community College, Bolivia, NC
Public Hearing 11-21-19
Page 66
about where CPI measures up to what the maximum amount
legally is. We've heard none of that. We've seen pretty pictures.
We've heard a lot of statistics thrown out as far as —not statistics,
but processes, and how you do stormwater writing.
01:50:10 And that's all great, but it doesn't answer this young lady's
question about her herbs that she can't use. And it doesn't answer
the issue about water and drinking. You all have bottles of water
sitting here. You're not drinking our water. [LAUGHTER]
[APPLAUSE]
May: Are there any other comments from folks who have not had an
opportunity to speak?
M: Okay. I'll do it. [LAUGHTER]
May: And if you could, remind us of your name.
01:50:58 Tomlin: My name is Tom Tomlin [ph]. I live in Turtlewood. At night
when the lights on the smokestacks blink, my wife says, "Is it
lightning out there?" We're that far from the plant. And people
have been talking like you can specify the limitations of what the
plant can emit or allow to leave, whether you have some control
over that.
01:51:26 And I know it's really common among businesses to say,
"Well, gee, regulation is terrible. We can't afford it. It's going to
impact our ability to make a profit." Now, let's not talk about how
much we pay the people at the top, and let's not concern ourselves
Transcript prepared by
Rogers Word Service
919-834-0000
www.rogersword.com

NCDEQ
Brunswick Community College, Bolivia, NC
Public Hearing 11-21-19
Page 67
with anything other than profits for stockholders. What I want to
suggest is that if you get feedback from CPI saying, "Well, that's a
good idea in theory, but we can't really afford to do that. It's not
practical," I would not accept that as a good argument against
following best practices and protecting this area for our spouses,
and our kids, and our grandkids, and our neighbors' babies, and
people like that. Thank you.
[APPLAUSE]
01:52:26 May: Is there anybody else that has not spoken who wishes to provide
comment on the stormwater permit or wastewater permit? Well, at
this time, seeing no hands, we will move on through the hearing
here.
01:52:43 So, if you did not speak tonight, but would like to submit
written comments, they will be accepted until 5:00 p.m. on
December 23rd, 2019. Written comments should be submitted to
the email address or postal address found on the handout available
at the registration desk. For reference, and if you didn't have an
opportunity to pick up a handout, the email address is
[e-mail]. Include CPI in the email subject
line.
01:53:20 Also, comments submitted by postal mail should be
addressed to Derek Denard, NC Division of Water Resources,
Transcript prepared by
Rogers Word Service
919-834-0000
www.rogersword.com

NCDEQ
Brunswick Community College, Bolivia, NC
Public Hearing 11-21-19
Page 68
Water Quality Permitting Section, 1617 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617.
01:53:40 Based on public comments received and information
submitted in the application, I will make a recommendation to the
director of the Division of Water Resources and the director of the
Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources for their
consideration in making a final decision on whether to issue or
deny this application.
01:54:00 At this time, I would like to thank all of you for your
attendance tonight, your feedback, and comments. This hearing at
this time is adjourned. Thank you.
M: Thank you.
[APPLAUSE]
[INAUDIBLE]
[END RECORDING]
Transcript prepared by
Rogers Word Service
919-834-0000
www.rogersword.com

AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER
PUBLIC NOTICE
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRON-
MENTAL NPDESQ WASTEWATER PERMIT ISSUE:UALITY INTENT TO Before the undersigned, a Notary Public of Said County and State,
#NC0065099 AND STORMWATER
PERMIT #NCS000348
The N.C. Department of Environ Jarimy Springer
men a uality (DEQ proposes to
issue. National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Per Who, being duly sworn or affirmed, according to the law, says that he/she is
mats Co CPI USA North Carolina LLC
- Southport Power Plant. DEQ has
scheduled' a public hearingto
gather comments. All comments
Accounting Specialist
g P
presented at the public hearing will
be considered in the agency's final
determination regarding permit is-
of THE STAR -NEWS, a corporation organized and doing business under the Laws of the State of
suance and permit provisions.
North Carolina, and publishing a newspaper known as STAR -NEWS in the City of Wilmington
PERMIT APPLICATIONS:
CPI plied $ for North NPDESpe mits Carolina
to, d �
charge
PUBLIC NOTICE N.C. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL Q UALITY INTENT TO
wastewater and stormwate •
from the Southport Power Plant,
ISSUE. NPDES WASTEWATER PERMIT #NC0065099 AND STORMWATER PERMIT
1281 Powerhouse Drive, Southport,
#NCS000348 The N.C. Department of Environmental Quality DEQ proposes to issue National
NC, Brunswick County. The facility
discharges to the Atlantic Ocean,
C F
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
ape ear River, Basm. Currently no
parameters are "water-quality'"lim-
ited. This discharge may affect fu-
ture wasteload allocations in this
portion of the Atlantic Ocean.
The draft wastewater and stormwa-
ter permits are available online at:
https://deq.nc.gov/news/events/pub
lic-hearing-cp -usa-north-carolina- was inserted in the aforesaid newspaper in space, and on dates as follows:
Ilc-wastewater-sto rmwater-perm its.
Printed copies of the draft permits
and related documents may also be
reviewed at the aepartment's Wil-
mington Regional Office. To make
an appointment to review the
documents, please call (910) 796-
7215.
PUBLIC HEARING
The N.C..Department, of Environ-
mental Quality will hold a public
heating to accept comments on the
two draft permits at 6 p.m. Thurs-
day, November, 21, 2019 at
Brunswick Community College,
Building A, 59' College Road, NC.
SpeaKer Registration will begin at 5
a.m.
101211x
And at the time of such publication Star -News was a newspaper meeting all the requirements and
qualifications prescribed by Sec. No. 1-597 G.S. of N.C.
C �
Title: Accounting S lalist
S orn or affirmed to, and subscribed before me this Z., `Iprfi
A.D., �•%' SIN E3,F, �
In Testimony Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixe g y C 2'seaf,'tize' liay a
year foresaid.
�O
dW
zTA)Qy ? U
AUB�- ary, 15Ii
My commission expires day of 20Z3��i�,y�^••'•.�••�������.•'J ��'�
lt10111Qtll�1E
Upon reading the aforegoing affidavit with the advertisement thereto annexed it is adjudged by the Court that the said
publication was duly and properly made and that the summons has been duly and legally served on the defendant(s).
This day of
Clerk of Superior Court
MAIL TO:

Section 7—Treatment Technologies and
Wastewater Management Practices
the range of 1:10 to 1:15. A DSS is designed to pump the slurry to a disposal location (i.e.,
landfill) where pozzolanic reactions occur to form a low hydraulic conductivity, high -
compressible -strength solid product within 24 to 72 hours. See Section 7.2.2 for additional
information regarding the operation of the DSS at JEA Northside [ERG, 2014b; GEA, 2013].
Because the DSS uses water to transport the bottom ash to the disposal area, this system is
considered to generate bottom ash transport water and, therefore, the zero discharge requirements
would apply to this system.
7.3.3 Mechanical Drag Svstem
Mechanical drag systems collect bottom ash from the bottom of the boiler, similar to the
description above for the wet -sluicing system. As shown in Figure 7-12, there are 84 units that
operate a mechanical drag system, which represent 34 percent of all coal-, petroleum coke-, and
oil -fired steam electric generating units which operate systems other than wet sluicing. Because
of the shape of the boiler, explained above, the bottom ash is gravity fed through the opening at
the bottom of the boiler, through a transition chute, and into a water -filled trough. The water bath
in the trough quenches the hot bottom ash as it falls from the boiler and seals the boiler gases.
The drag system comprises a drag chain with a parallel pair of chains. The chains are attached
with crossbars at regular intervals along the bottom of the water bath and move in a continuous
loop towards the far end of the bath. At the far end, the drag chain begins moving up an incline,
which dewaters the bottom ash by gravity, draining the water back to the trough as the bottom
ash moves upward. Because the bottom ash falls directly into the water bath from the bottom of
the boiler and the drag chain moves constantly on a loop, bottom ash removal is continuous. The
dewatered bottom ash is often conveyed to a nearby collection area, such as a small bunker
outside the boiler building, from which it is loaded onto trucks and either sold or transported to a
landfill. See Figure 7-14 for a diagram of a mechanical drag system.
Because the trough has a water bath, the mechanical drag system does generate some
wastewater (i.e., residual water that collects in the storage area as the bottom ash continues to
dewater). This wastewater, however, is typically completely recycled back to the quench water
bath. Additionally, EPA does not consider this wastewater to be bottom ash transport water
because the transport mechanism is the drag chain, not the water. Therefore, the MDS design
does not include operation as a closed -loop system, eliminating the need for a heat exchanger. 51
Mechanical drag systems come in various standard widths and require little headspace
under the boiler; however, the system may not be suitable for all boiler configurations. For
example, existing boilers located below grade are usually surrounded with support columns and
positioned close to the floor with the sluice lines 1 to 2 feet above the ground. A mechanical drag
system would be difficult to install with such space limitations. These systems are not able to
combine and collect bottom ash from multiple boilers and generally need a straight exit from the
boiler to the outside of the building. In addition, these systems may be susceptible to
maintenance outages because bottom ash fragments fall directly onto the drag chain. The outage
51 The MDS does not need to operate as a closed -loop system because it does not use water as the transport
mechanism to remove the bottom ash from the boiler; the conveyor is the transport mechanism. Therefore, any water
leaving with the bottom ash does not fall under the definition of "bottom ash transport water," but rather, is a low
volume waste.
7-41

Section 7—Treatment Technologies and
Wastewater Management Practices
required to install or convert to mechanical drag systems is about 6 to 8 weeks to demolish
existing equipment and install new equipment. Therefore, this installation or conversion can
occur during normal scheduled maintenance outages [CBPG, 2010].
Graphic reprinted with permission from United Conveyor Corporation [UCC, 2009].
Figure 7-14. Mechanical Drag System
7.3.4 Remote Mechanical Drag System
Remote mechanical drag systems collect bottom ash using the same operations and
equipment as wet -sluicing systems at the bottom of the boiler. However, instead of sluicing the
bottom ash directly to an impoundment, the plant pumps the bottom ash transport water to a
remote mechanical drag system. This type of system has the same configuration as a mechanical
drag system except that it has additional dewatering equipment in the trough and is not located
under the boiler, but rather in an open space on the plant property. See Figure 7-15 for a diagram
of a remote mechanical drag system. Plants converting existing bottom ash handling systems can
use this system where space or other restrictions limit the changes that can be made to the bottom
of the boiler. Currently, one U.S. plant is operating and another plant is installing a remote
mechanical drag system [ERG, 2015i, McDonough, 2012b].
7-42