Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNC0001422_Draft Permit Comments_20150806 4., DUKE Environmental Services ENERGY® Duke Energy 526 South Church Street Charlotte,NC 28202 Mailing Address: Mail Code EC3XP/P.O.Box 1006 Charlotte,NC 28201-1006 August 5, 2015 North Carolina Department of RECEIVED/DENR/DWR Environment and Natural Resources AUG 0 5 2015 Division of Water Resources Attn:Wastewater Permitting Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Permitting Section Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Subject: Comments on the DRAFT NPDES Permit for L.V.Sutton Energy Complex Permit No.: NC0001422 New Hanover County Wastewater Permitting staff: The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) Division of Water Resources (the Division) issued a draft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit for the Duke Energy(hereinafter"Duke") L.V. Sutton Energy Complex dated July 1, 2015 (Draft Permit). Duke Energy commends NCDENR for developing the Draft Permit, which recognizes the existing discharges from the facility's outfalls will not cause contravention of the state water quality standards. Safe, long-term storage of coal ash across all of Duke's coal fired generation fleet fleet is a priority for Duke. The issuance of the final NPDES permit is a critical prerequisite to de-watering the ash basins at Sutton and moving forward with the Company's previously announced intent to excavate the Sutton ash basins. Duke continues to work as quickly as possible to close the ash basins and finalizing this wastewater permit is a critical step to advance the ash basin closure process. In order to facilitate the closure process, Duke supports any permit conditions that are reasonable, supported by applicable law, regulation and appropriate administrative procedures, and ensure that any discharges will not adversely affect water quality. However, Duke does not support the inclusion of permit requirements that are without the support of law, regulation and/or appropriate administrative procedures. Duke, therefore, respectfully submits the following comments on the subject permit. NCDENR appears to have issued the Draft Permit in accordance with the letter from Thomas A. Reeder to Mr. Harry Sideris with Duke, dated November 5, 2014 (Notice Letter), giving notice of the need to revise the Plant's NPDES permit(NC0001422) (Existing Permit), based on NCDENR's decision to reclassify the Plant's cooling pond (a/k/a Sutton Lake) as a "waters of the State." In response, Duke filed a protective appeal of the Notice Letter by a petition for contested case hearing filed at the Office of Page 12 Administrative Hearings on December 5,2014 (Appeal). At Duke's request, there has been no action on the Appeal since it was filed. j.Comments on the Development of the Technology Based Effluent Limits(TBELs) The subject permit attempts to establish technology based effluent limits (TBELs) for arsenic and selenium for outfalls 001,outfall 002 and Outfall 004.The TBELs for arsenic and selenium were based on an evaluation of the effluent data from the ash basin discharges from Belews Creek,Allen and Marshall Steam Stations. The NPDES regulations at §125.3(c)(2) require permit writers developing case-by-case effluent limitations to consider the following: • The appropriate technology for the category class of point sources of which the applicant is a member, based on all available information. • Any unique factors relating to the applicant. The regulations also require that, In setting case-by-case limitations, the permit writer consider several specific factors established in §125.3(d), to select a model treatment technology and derive effluent limitations on the basis of that treatment technology. That process and the factors considered by the permit writer are the same factors required to be considered by EPA in developing effluent guidelines. For establishing best available technology(BAT) requirements for toxic and non-conventional pollutants, the following factors must be considered: — The age of equipment and facilities involved, — Process employed, — Engineering aspects of the application of various types of control techniques, — Process changes, — The cost of achieving such effluent reductions,and — Non-water quality environmental impacts(including energy requirements). Based on the information published by the Division, there was no indication that any of these required factors were considered In establishing the proposed TBELs and the TBELs are thereby not supported by proper development and process. Furthermore, the Fact Sheet states "The existing federal regulations require the development of Technology Based Effluent Limits (TBELs) for the parameters of concern." NPDES delegated authority's have the discretion to choose whether or not to impose BPJ limits as evidenced by a recent court ruling in Tennessee. The state court affirmed a 2013 decision of the Tennessee Board of Water Quality, Oil, and Gas (the Board) holding that TVA's Bull Run Fossil Plant is not required to have "BPJ" permit limits beyond what the 1982 Effluent Limitations Guidelines require. The Board ruled against environmentalists' claim that more permit limits were required. The Board stated the permit complies with the 1982 ELG rules, and "(b]ecause the 1982 ELG for power plants governs, a Best Professional Judgment(BPJ)analysis was not required."The Board further stated, when EPA set the 1982 rules, EPA Page 13 considered setting numeric limits for metals but decided not to because they were "present in amounts too small to be effectively reduced"1 In addition, it is stated in EPA's NPDES Permitting Manual (September 2010), regarding situations in which case-by-case TBELs are necessary, "The permit writer should make sure that the pollutant of concern is not already controlled by the effluent guidelines and was not considered by EPA when the Agency developed the effluent guidelines."2 Since EPA considered setting numeric limits for metals,the Division is not obligated to establish TBELs for these parameters. The Division's decision to propose TBELs appears to be dictated by a memorandum from James A. Hanlon to EPA Water Division Directors for its Regions: Memorandum, James A. Hanlon to Water Division Directors, Regions 1-10,"National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)Permitting of Wastewater Discharges from Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) and Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR) Impoundments at Steam Electric Power Plants" (June 7, 2010). It is important to note the Hanlon memorandum is guidance and not legally binding,as stated in Section VI of the memo. II.Permit assumes Sutton Cooling Pond is"waters of the State" Duke will evaluate the Appeal in light of the provisions of the Draft Permit, but nothing contained in these comments should be taken as contrary to Duke's position in the Appeal. In particular, nothing in these comments should be seen as an acknowledgement or acceptance of any currently disputed facts with regard to the status of the classification of Sutton Cooling pond as "waters of the State" as challenged in the Appeal. This reservation includes any terms in the Draft Permit that are based on (or otherwise flow from)the assertions and assumptions in the Notice Letter, including, without limitation, the portions of Sections A.(3.),A.(4.),A.(8.),A. (9.)and A.(26.) Ill.Specific comments on outfall 001 conditions 1. The fact sheet for the Draft Permit acknowledges that outfall 001 contains a "cooling pond discharge","Non contact cooling water"and "recirculating cooling water"further supporting Duke's position that the supposed"reclassification"of the facility's cooling pond to"waters of the state"was not carried out following proper administrative process. 2. Upstream and Downstream monitoring for temperature is a modified requirement should be removed from the permit. In accordance with the MOA between NCDENR, NCDWR and members of the Lower Cape Fear River program, instream monitoring is conducted by one organization to increase efficiency, effectiveness, and flexibility and to ensure basinwide consistency. Duke has entered into a contract with the University of North Carolina at Wimington, as a member of the Lower Cape Fear river program, to perform this monitoring. 1 In the Matter of Tennessee aeon Water Network v. Tennessee Dept.of Environment and Conservation,Case No. WPC10-0116(Tenn.Dept.of Env.and Conservation Dec. 17,2013). 2 Refer to EPA's NPDES Permit Writers'Manual,September 2010,Section 5.2.3.2 identifying the Need for Case- by-Case TBELs"p.5-45—46. Page 14 Duke request the waiver of individual Upstream/Downstream sampling for being a member in the Lower Cape Fear River program be reinserted into the permit 3. The permit imposes TBEIs for mercury at outfall 001,002 and 004.These limits are based on the statewide mercury total maximum daily load (TMDL). The fact sheet discusses a statewide mercury TMDL and asserts that since alt Sutton sampling data is below 12 ng/l and maximum sampling results are below 47 ng/I, no mercury limit is required. However a mercury limit is imposed. This mercury limit appears to be in direct conflict with the rationale provided in the fact sheet and should be removed. In lieu of removal, Duke Energy requests a 4.5 year compliance schedule to comply with the mercury limit. With the limits being newly proposed, a compliance schedule should be included to allow for the design, evaluation, budget, and construction of a treatment system to meet the limits. 4. Total Arsenic—The permit proposes a total arsenic daily maximum limit of 50 ug/l. The North Carolina Enviromental Management Commision reviewed the water quality standard for arsenic in November 2014 and modified the acute standard to 340 ug/t. The daily maximum limit should be adjusted to reflect this change. 5. Total iron-The permit proposes a total iron limit of 1.0 mg/I. Duke requests clarification as to the origin and applicability of this limit. The North Carolina Environmental Management Commision removed the previous instream standard for iron in November 2014. With the removal of the coal fired generation at this site, there is currently no categorical steam electric activity on the site. Duke acknowledges that the proposed modifications to the Steam Electric Effluent Limitation Guidelines proposed for finalization later this year seeks to clarify applicability to combined cycle generation units. Until that process has been finalized, it is Duke's position that the generation at Sutton is not classified as "Steam Electric" and therefore,categorical iron limits for chemical metal deaning wastewaters would not apply. 6. Total Aluminum—There is no properly adopted state water quality standard for aluminum in North Carolina Waters. The presence of naturally occurring aluminum in North Carolina waters is abundant. Duke staff reviewed EPA STORET data for aluminum analysis in North Carolina surface waters since 1997. Duke found 30,976 records of analysis of total aluminum. Of those tests, 27,776 (89.6%) of the samples were in excess of the proposed effluent limit imposed in the permt of 87 ug/I. The average of those sample results was 723 ug/l. DWR has apparently attempted to impose a limit based on a reference to aluminum in the EPA National recommended criteria table. The EPA recommended criteria are not meant to be used for regulatory purposes. Duke requests this limit be removed as DENR has not established a properly adopted water quality standard for aluminum. 7. Outfall 001 (Dewatering phase)—Weekly acute toxicity requirements—Weekly acute toxicity testing is overly burdensome and unnecessary. Duke has not been able to find an aquatic toxicity laboratory that can support this volume of testing given the required frequency, hold times, etc. Duke requests that this sampling frequency remain "quarterly" as indicated in Condition A. (10.) of the permit during dewatering given the stringent other Iimtis applied to this activity and Duke's inability to secure testing resources sufficient to meet the requirement. • • Page 15 IV.Soedfic comments related to outfall 002 1. Total Arsenic — The permit proposes a total arsenic daily maximum limit of 50 ug/I. The North Carolina Enviromental Management Commision reviewed the water quality standard for arsenic in November 2014 and modified the acute standard to 340 ug/I. The daily maximum limit should be adjusted to reflect this change. 2. As noted in Setion II above, nothing contained in these comments should be taken as contrary to Duke's position in the Appeal. This reservation indudes any terms in Sections A.(3.),A.(17.)and A.(21.)of the Draft Permit pertaining to Outfall 002. 3. To facilitate preparation for ash removal, Duke requests acknowledgement and recognition in the permit that water may be pumped from the old ash pond to the new ash pond and consequently released to the Cape Fear River via outfall 001 if Duke chooses to direct water in that manner. Flows from Outfall 002 currently cannot be directed to outfall 001 and would need to be sent to outfall 001 (Cape Fear River)via outfall 004 (New ash pond). Under this scenario, the limits established for outfall 001—dewatering phase should not be applicable due to the treatment by the new ash pond. V.Soeciflc comments on outfall 004 1. Total Arsenic—The permit proposes a total arsenic daily maximum limit of 50 ug/I. The North Carolina Enviromental Management Commision reviewed the water quality standard for arsenic in November 2014 and modified the acute standard to 340 ug/I. The daily maximum limit should be adjusted to reflect this change. 2. Total Iron-The permit proposes a total iron limit of 1.0 mg/I. Duke requests clarification as to the origin and applicability of this limit. The North Carolina Environmental Management Commision removed the previous instream standard for iron in November 2014. With the removal of the coal fired generation at this site, there is currently no categorical steam electric activity on the site. Duke acknowledges that the proposed modifications to the Steam Electric Effluent Limitation Guidelines proposed for finalization later this year seeks to clarify applicability to combined cycle generation units. Until that process has been finalized, it is Duke's position that the generation at Sutton is not classified as "Steam Electric" and therefore,categorical iron limits for chemical metal cleaning wastewaters would not apply. If the generation is classified as "Steam Electric" in the future, the total iron limit would only apply to chemical metal cleaning waste. 3. Total Aluminum—There is no properly adopted state water quality standard for aluminum in North Carolina Waters. The presence of naturally occurring aluminum in North Carolina waters is abundant. Duke staff reviewed EPA STORET data for aluminum analysis in North Carolina surface waters since 1997. Duke found 30,976 records of analysis of total aluminum. Of those tests, 27,776 (89.6%) of the samples were in excess of the proposed effluent limit imposed in the permt of 87 ug/I. The average of those sample results was 723 ug/l. DWR has apparently attempted to impose a limit based on a reference to aluminum in the EPA National recommended criteria table. The EPA recommended criteria are not meant to be used for regulatory purposes. Duke requests this limit be removed until DWR establishes a properly adopted water quality standard for aluminum. Page 16 4. As noted in Setion II above, nothing contained in these comments should be taken as contrary to Duke's position in the Appeal. This reservation includes any terms in Sections A.(3.),A.(17.) and A.(21.)of the Draft Permit pertaining to Outfall 004. 5. To facilitate preparation for ash removal, Duke requests acknowledgement and recognition in the permit that water may be pumped from the old ash pond to the new ash pond and consequently released to the Cape Fear River via outfall 001 if Duke chooses to direct water in that manner. Flows from Outfall 002 currently cannot be directed to outfall 001 and would need to be sent to outfall 001 (Cape Fear River) via outfall 004 (New ash pond). Under this scenario,the limits established for outfall 001—dewatering phase should not be applicable due to the treatment by the new ash pond. VI.pH limits and other conditions on internal wastestreams(outfall 005.006.007 and 0091 1. The proposed pH limits should be removed from internal wastestreams. EPA has allowed for dilution and comingling as a treatment for pH of internal wastereams. A reference document supporting this position is attached.(Attachment#1). 2. Outfall 007—Outfall 007 is defined as stormwater flows yet contains a requirement for monthly sampling. As this flow enters the effluent channel and is composed of stormwater,the sampling frequency should be reduced to quarterly to align with stormwater sampling activities in other, recently issued stormwater permits. 3. Outfall 009—Low volume waste from simple cycle combustion turbine—There is no steam cycle associated with a simple cycle combustion turbine so steam electric effluent guildine limits should not apply at this point. Duke requests that limits imposed based on effluent guidelines be removed from this non-steam electric internal outfall. VII.Specific comments on outfall 008 1. As noted in Setion II above, nothing contained in these comments should be taken as contrary to Duke's position in the Appeal. This reservation includes any terms in Sections A.(3.),A.(9.), A.(21.)and A.(26.)of the Draft Permit pertaining to Outfall 008. 2. Duke requests the flow measurement sample type be modified to read "Estimate or pump logs". 3. Note#2 in outfall 008 is fundamentally inconsistent with the fact that the Sutton cooling pond was contructed for the purpose of providing evaporative cooling from the facility. Even if the Sutton Cooling pond is found to be waters of the State, Duke believes that the cooling pond should be deemed a mixing zone for thermal discharges and requests that the final permit do so. Regardless, Duke will collect temperature data to use should the company need to apply for a 316(a)thermal variance or additional thermal mixing zone request at some point in the future. Duke also requests that the final permit include a compliance schedule to install and begin recording daily temperatures at the outfall and 1000 feet from the outfall. As the permit is currently drafted,this daily monitoring would begin upon issuance of the permit; however,such systems take significant time and effort to design, obtain and implement. Consequently, Duke requests a minimum of one year to have in place a permanently operational temperature gauging station capable of transmitting tenmperature data. • Page 17 4. Note # 5 requires Duke to install a 3/8" mesh screen or barrier. Duke is concerned about the potential for plugging(obstruction)of such a installation and the impacts that may have on plant operations. Duke requests the condition be modified to read "The facility shall install a screen or barrier at the end of the Effluent Channel to minimize fish migration into the channel. The design of the barrier must be approved by DWR's Wilmington Regional Office and installed within 12 months of DWR approval." VIII.Condition A.(181 Clean Water Act Section 316(bl 1. As noted in Setion II above, nothing contained in these comments should be taken as contrary to Duke's position in the Appeal. This reservation indudes any terms in any portions of Section A.(18.)of the Draft Permit that are affected by or based on the assertions in the Notice Letter. 2. Regardless of the future classification of the Sutton cooling basin or impoundment, Duke contends the cooling water system for the Sutton combined-cycle unit is properly classified as a closed-cycle recirculating system(CCRS).The final§316(b)rule for existing facilities defines CCRS to include impoundments of waters of the U.S.(WOTUS),specifically the definition states: "(2) Closed-cycle recirculating system also includes a system with impoundments of waters of the U.S. where the impoundment was constructed prior to October 14, 2014 and created for the purpose of serving as part of the cooling water system as documented in the project purpose statement for any required Clean Water Act section 404 permit obtained to construct the impoundment. In the case of an impoundment whose construction pre-dated the CWA requirement to obtain a section 404 permit,documentation of the project's purpose must be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Director. This documentation could be some other license or permit obtained to lawfully construct the impoundment for the purposes of a cooling water system, or other such evidence as the Director finds necessary... If waters of the United States are withdrawn for purposes of replenishing losses to a closed-cycle recirculating system other than those due to blowdown, drift, and evaporation from the cooling system, the Director may determine a cooling system is a closed-cycle recirculating system if the facility demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Director that make-up water withdrawals attributed specifically to the cooling portion of the cooling system have been minimized." 40 C.F.R. § 125.92(c)(2) (emphasis added). This definition provides two simple criteria for impounded WOTUS to meet to be considered CCRS: • Criterion#1:The impoundment was constructed prior to October 14,2014;and • Criterion #2: The impoundment was "created for the purpose of serving as part of the cooling water system" as documented in the Clean Water Act Section 404 permit or otherwise demonstrated to the satisfaction of the NPDES Director(i.e., NCDENR). The following documents are provided as evidence the Sutton Cooling pond meets the criteria above: 1. US Army Corps of Engineers Permit Under Section 10 issued to Carolina&Light Company,dated June 17, 1971,"authorizing excavating and filling as necessary to construct an off-stream cooling lake adjacent to the Cape Fear River at the L.V. Sutton Steam Electric Plant near Wilmington, N.C." (Attachment#2) Page 18 2. North Carolina Board of Water and Air Resources permit issued to Carolina Power & Light Company,dated November 19,1970 granting authorization"for the construction of a 1,110 acre cooling lake supplied by a river makeup pump to cool and supply the condenser water (580 mgd.)for a 620 M.W.steam electric generation station,purge water will be uniformly controlled and discharged into the Cape Fear River,"(Attachment#3) Duke, therefore, requests that NCDENR confirm the cooling water system for the Sutton Combined Cycle is designated as a CCRS. In addition, Duke requests a waiver from all of the information required under 40 CFR 122.21(r)(9)-(13)as allowed under 40 CFR 122.21(ii)(B),which states: "Existing facilities greater than 125 mgd AIF. In addition, the owner or operator of an existing facility that withdraws greater than 125 mgd actual intake flow(AIF),as defined at 40 CFR 125.92 (a), of water for cooling purposes must also submit to the Director for review the information required under paragraphs (r)(9), (10), (11), (12), and (13) of this section. If the owner or operator of an existing facility intends to comply with the BTA (best technology available) standards for entrainment using a closed-cycle recirculating system as defined at 40 CFR 125.92(c),the Director may reduce or waive some or all of the information required under paragraphs(r)(9)through(13)of this section." X.Condition A.127) 1. Interstitial water should be defined in the permit as entrapped water(i.e., water occupying the pore space within the ash and below the ash surface). Interstitial wastewater would be generated through mechanical movement of ash such as through dredging, and excavating trenches within the ash and discharge would generally occur by controlled pumping. XI. Additional Comments specific to information found in the permit fact sheet 1. On Page 4,the permit fact sheet makes reference to nitrate/nitrite limits in the permit. There are no nitrate/nitrite limits in permit. Reference in fact sheet should be corrected. Duke Energy welcomes any further discussion on our comments or the Draft Permit. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. E.Shannon Langley at(919)546-2439 or at shannon.langley@duke- energy.com. Sincerely, f Harry Sideris Duke Energy Senior Vice President-Environmental,Health&Safety Attachments cc: Mr. David May—Sutton Public Hearing officer 943 Washington Square Mall Washington, NC 27889 Page 19 • bc: Jay Huntley-Sutton Station Manager Jim Wells, VP—Duke EHS CCP Richard Baker Kent Tyndall-Sutton Plant Environmental Coordinator Shannon Langley-NCRH 15 Toys Ogallo—NCRH 15 • • r ,z LV.Sutton Energy Complex Comments on DRAFT NPDES permit NC0001422 August 5,2015 submittal Attachment I • 1 ri _ • - SENT BY:ENV AFFAIRS P ; 22-22-95 7:36AM ; 53474 917E68218;h 2 (4 .1% UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY .10V WASHINGTON. D.C. 20440 nate OGT 1 81985 Mr. Louis Cenrlani New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Room 6126 Two World Trade Center New York , NY 10047 Deer Mr. Cenzl enl : This is to confirm our recent conversation regarding effluent limitations guidelines for the steam electric power industry (40 CFR Part 423) . In my letter of June 22, 1984 to Ms . Ursula Basch of your office , I summarized the applicability of the steam electric regulation pH limitation as applicable to low volume waste streams when such wastewaters are commingled with (once-through) cooling waters . The interpretation that I provided was not in accord with prior information and instruc- tions provided to EPA and State permitting authorities on this subject. The pH limitation per Part 423 applies at the pend-of- pipe" discharge to surface waters when the wastewater discharge contains low volume wastewater that is commingled with once- through cooling water. However, the intent of Part 423 is also that the total suspended solids and oil and grease limitations applicable ..to low volume waste streams be applied to the low volume Waste component of such a combined discharge prior to cemmingling of the individual waste streams. I apologize for any confusion in permit development or delays in permit issuance that may have occurred in this matter. If you have any further questions , please contact me at (202) 382-7131 . Sincerely, Dennis Ruddy' Project Officer Industrial Technology Division LV.Sutton Energy Complex Comments on DRAFT NPDES permit NC0001422 August 5,2015 submittal Attachment 2 k • :.` DEP.! RT;.•SI_I;T OF THC 111;i.1Y i • ` W1LI•tulc.io 1 61':T:ticl. Cath•. OF Nf l;11::?1.n5 I'i;:';.•,' /. ..1.1 P. !J. 110): I(lpfj .i.t i' WILM1fIf l Ot: 1:010'11 CA.'.;/LII':n. ^I:•tC.I , .:At:f.S (Permit Po. /:!:,71 ) 17 .',11r:- 1;71 !!r. J. A. Jc: .s, Srnioi Vic,: Pre.^.ilietlt }:n;'ir-ali.n'; L- Oper.,tin:; . C ,r01.:... 1'.,.,cr 6 Lip,:::: Co.-,. rte. Raleigh, North Cato1iu•1 ?7( 12 lira: Kr. Jones: In accordance with yatlr written r',quest ' of ?.0 1ov 70 and 5, 16, 1.7, nnJ 30 1:.,. there is i1clored a F�?'.r..`./ti.Ittheri;ah:; 1'.`:c.r:...til?s and ii11il';; ac tece.;snry LO co. eruct an off- t::.:: 1 ceol'i.i' lake ud jac'tCape :car Myer at •i, i to l:liC: the• L. V. SuLton Si: 'Ln Electric Plan;.: near !:I1r1.in;;ton, N. C. If any r.:atcria1 changr,s in tk.e lecaticn or pin;; of the strt,.cture or 1:o1-k are `Ilen'1 ncrn;..,;1'v oll i:cciehIt of llncoreseen or alterc'd conditionsu or others•Th r.Vi;zd p:c.il Silot.?d bn iil1j:;littcd proptly to the District Cnginccr in o..-ler th.L thc.:c re.i e'd plans;, if fcui.d u':o!)1ctionailit:, may receive thovi,1. rb luir ! by law before construction is b;Ig tn. Your at tc i:l• on is ei ]dei' to cc•'Nii Lion N) t:f the i :c10:''d p:!mit i•:'fi'::•h requi i.. tic. i '1.i ttc.. to no (y this c f f is re t%Iti,ie to tat: cG^i:S:::i�•^.. Y"•:'tt and a• ; Ir;-.•;:I ilzit-cc The incic7vd i.otic: of J1111-Iloii4i:Lica 'n'it h cuPsp c,iauc).v disr1ayn:: .:t the site of the won :. Sincerely yours, ;ie, 4'. x....„ -,,,,_ --6 2 Incas PAUL S. i}M;'l`O3 1. Permit Colo: •1, Corp:: of C•t1i,:^-_r., 2. T:i:C For.,. 4316 District i:n;ii;' .r 11 Xay 71 Copy fui ni.t:r t: w/o i.+:c 1: . (:ntltmi^ iolt':1.', ! Ft:v c.f (,:)71 ,•: `apt. :'i: !,..•Y i.i: , i;;11•:i.eh, .:(: 27611 • DamomaT or IDE /WHY PERMIT Wilmington District, Cnrps uE Engini%ers • •••;:. ;.:•t•••! ';.•- " fleforring to written request datvd • • • :•• upon the recoalTendation of tho Mier of Engineers, and undor the pr,ovi.7irns of Section 10 of the Act of Congress approved larch 3, IF49 (33 U.S.C. 403), entitled "An act maLing appropriations for the construction, rcpalr, ::nd prcseration of certain palie wocks on rivers and harbors, and fur other purposes," you art: hereby authorized by the Secretary of the Army a; •• a.; • " ;tit •• c•,t;; fl10' (Here descrit: the prop-is:A structure or work and its intended urn, including, in th, car..;.! of an application for a fill remit, a tion of of the structures, if any, proposed to be erected on the fill. ) • (Here to be named the river, harbor, or waterway cuncerncd.) at , , i :1:: , (Here to be named the neoret von-known locality--prefera!lly a to-11 or city--and the d]: tan in miles and tenths from Sc:.c definite poinl. in the sate, statin;' whelh.:r ;.bove or below or giving direction by points of compass. ) in accorO 'aec with the plan:4 and drawings attached hereto (On dr,;win:s: give file nof:br:r or nth: - 6:2Fiuite ideutif.ic.at'on p •• ' . • . . . . subject 10 the follov:Sng . . • • •• i, (a) That this .1li':t r18,eut 'Ictt.•}; not cr,invey any property rij;lit:; either in r ,l estate or material, or any excIiu.ive I;rivile;t and that it does not atitl ,ri::0 air injury to private property or invasion of private rights, or ally iiifr'ill:'pment of Fe(it'•r'a1, Slate or local laws or ,-r.I'ulat i uus nor dos it obviate the Acca:::Sity of (:!'tai iii rig it.'. Q (I: local ast,en1 rt- ' quir ed by law for the structure or wurl: :alt:.ari xt:d. (h) That tltr struernr(• or work anthori:tod herein shall be in accardanro t.itir tiny plans and dra'::i:r:'; attached hereto and construction !.l, 111 he :.!Ib- .ject to the supervision and approval. of the District Cngi ver'r, Corps of Crgi- neers, in charge of the District in which the work is to be p••rfur.,,sd. (c) That the District: Cngineer may at any t.imP make such insp,.ctinns as he may deem necessary to assure that the construction or t.'ork 1:: `r•-- fom,d in accordance with the conditions of this permit and all expenses thereur shall be borne: by the permittee. (d) That the permittee shall comply promptly with any lawful regula- tions, conditions, or im,.ti'i(1ioris aflectin;! the Still-titr.'e or work author- ized herein if and whorl issued by the federal Paler Quality Administration and/or the State agency having jttri:.diction to abr tc or v2vent tion, includin,' thrrm.,l or radiation pollution. Such regulations, conditions or instruction: in effect or hereafter prescribed by the Federal Water Qual- ]t;' Administration and/or the Mate agency are hereby made a condition of this permit. (e) That the permittee will maintain the work ,authorized herein in good condition in accordi_nce with the approved plaits. (f) That this permit may, prior to the completion of the St:1101:10 or work out hon •rf•d herein, he Sus p''rlt;:'d by authority of the Secretary of the Army if it is determined that suspension is in the public interest." (g) That this permit may at any time l'm e le modified by authori.t • of the Army Secretary of theif it is determined that, under existing circum- stances, modification is in the public interest.* The permitted, upon receipt; of a notice of modification, shall. comply therewith directed as i e the Secretary of the Army or his authorized representative. cter. by (h) That this permit may he revoked by authority of tite Secret:iary or the Army if the permittee fails to comply with any of its provi siorle or if the Secretary determines that, under the existing circlrn,tances, such action is required in the public interest,* (i) That any modification, ::uspensint-' or revocation of this; permit shall not be the basis for a cli:im for ()images il;'ainst- the United States. (1) That the United State:.: )all.in no way be liable to any Stralcttire or won: authorized herein which ma,' be (:illi_.(:() by or result from future operations uudert;ikon by the tswc:rnaent in the public Intere t.,` 2. f: I 'I•i il. . !• . . . ..., . .. Ilt is (1:) Tli no ;lti:rtr.pt sh:11 1,n n;. 1' by the 1:••r:.:'tt • to (`orhid the full and fret: a::: by th:_ pub1_c of .1.1 u:.ivi!*'•hlc water, at or zd, structure or work ;:nthorizt:d by thls permit. (1) 11i't if the d:t Fp];'.v of li;;htf•. turd ::i1',n.:)Yi on a any r:t?t:rt't'.'.c' or %7-Jr: authors•.'d h::r•(•til in 1:. (i l' i!ise ([• t�n�l:. .. 1 •`` ;:.r :ciJir,::1 t'C•r by h:;,�, uapcl: lii:itt:: •';'d til :r t:::.� st• p_'o:ii;i'i1+cii by t'1:_ United St.:te:J C.c:::',t C_::..rc ..t..i. he installed r r and iai nt,li r,_a by tsr:a tat the erj,• . . the i:+:r:+� ,. . .:11= ori:t,.. (m) Th;a the p -o;ttee s';a11 aatify the District fr_!.(fa_r.:- at 'a:c:t: t n.i• the construction or wo1-1. will he ca:r,:xmeed, as far in edvallc:c' of thf! 1.1;4 : of Cor•im nCeinunt i:?: the t)i:;t'"ict Engineer may specify, •1n(; of its cn14plet5on. (n) That if th'• structure or !•:1rk herein authorized is not cq:!ip f; ed orr or before day of _ _ _ 19 �• this not previous1.77or s oeI('il'ill!T: JiiTE [it?C� sial cf:Ase and null and Vold, (o) That the le;;;i1 requirement; of all Federal Agencies be m!!•. (p) That this p-m'.it does not authorize or apprC.••'•• t1:c conEtruei ioat i•i pal'tieult:r structures, the ::ut'horiv%ition or approval of •r cll t:•::y i 'ltt;r action by the Congress or other t ge:lcics of the Federal Covi r i_:? ni. 1 (ii) That ;ill the provision::: of this permit !;h31.1 be biudirg on ,:iv assignee or successor in interest of the permittee. (r) That if the rccording of this p^rent is pos.;iible under ;:r•+lli(:�'.i1 State or local last-Sthe `a_rit`ec sh ll take such ic ii: l is � I:::'Y be t::!C'::''"'>':• to record th:is p` _:tit t;ith the Registrar r • ' :a. of h�cd c• c�tit�:..• �..:1,•r•':ri,•t: ,:i• cial charw:d t!ith the I'c:pan;ibi1ity or IAitinzalnir.g . ucoi:ds'ui tiv!. r•ri- interests in real property. (s) That the paztiittee agree to make every reasonable cf:'ort to pre.:,::- cute the construction or work authorl.^•.Cd herein in /f mann_': so ; ; to iii rit;ij :? any adverm impact of the construction cr t•cirk on fish, wildlife ,...: oi,; r,•.1 environmental values. (t) That the perni tt[_e agrees that it will + • 1;'":t,:,ecntt, ail•• c•r,;l:;ruci- ,;:: or work ;:uthorizt•d heroin in a tilaaoner so as to minimize any dl'j;ri.w.';:ioe of water quality. 3 . . • *A judgmnt ;:s to whethr or nut Iluspnsina, modiricalion or revoca1j,.;# is in the public :i tit:. involves a conf.dder.%tion or the luTcct tha: av Ruch action or the ahenci.! .1 ally such art-ion mi#y have on lector::: ing thp pnhlic jitlerust.. Smeh factors inc/nd.:!, hut are not 1.1t 1 navigation, fish and 1::iUllife, vat.lr quality, economic:1, cotwervation, aesthetics, recrez:tion, w:!te supply, flood dir.zage prciveciiion, pco-is and, in gemral, the nE':ed5i and velrare of the p2ople. BY AUTgOPITY or THE SECETAFZY OF THE AN1Y: - ) -.0. -- 17 Juno 1971 PAUL S. 12MISON (Wile) Colonel, Corp n of Ensircers District En; ineer ( PERMITTEE li1;M:UY ACCTATS ThE TEMS An CaPITIONS OV TOIS fEd:17T' .. . : .*:, # ::!.#•# ' ip::... June 15, 11)71 C... ...7 Jignatt..n/te hIrmittce) DrIl#:) (.../ TIME: Senior Vicc. PresiOnnt .......... ..... . . ____ ___ Engineering & Operating 4 ENG rOIM 1721-R 25 May 1970 ,; '.... "."' " '"'F.'."4'?'''''?"4","'''.''..."."-*'"' ' • :'''' '''' ,,,... ,e•., '1. ....., 1..,.;,,,,, ''"'•+.7'-'-'; ,,,,,,,,; .!'''.""rir"'"."..""'........'''.7...."''"1 • 0 . . • • ) 1 —._ ...-_, . -....;:... v.:...!. . %:. . • k :. '-• \ • \t: % N:s............................\.\ . . • . • • . - -..6- •St • • cN\ II• n.:::::.:'>:-. /•--_. .'‘ V- \ I•I ":...I:::(-2.- 1 -}N\ le: • '7:--1 1 :---s...N ,I,' --..-::,:-.___:.•-z.Z- ‘ () p „..• -..--,‘ . _ •. -I •• , ...,"\ I ..-•••.......•:/ • . .1 -.......--... --. •-• c...--.).....•,..': • v. il• r • • '............"..........Z:.......".:.•...::...,.... . .............• '''' •.:I.:.: ::"! -....•.....\, \..... ' .'..T 1"\*,7...'S•.'.,.,..•A.4 4.I.;. \ lz. . ?.. .. N‘NL.1.1: ) ...MN... ..-.,.... . t t4 :1:. • i...4.. -. t. 1 ....,..4.4. .11•• 4"...f.i .:4"1... •••4 ..."...1. "•••4.1‘.....: 7::::\ ,...t..,..., • .-1 ••....e...., . 444.4.... ..:.. ,.1..f......r+..1—....".1.• C..11••11. T.nik•.% kV\ • ir. --.. ...... \ i • a::.7•1 ?72-...........---- --i\r• cv.,:...4.7.v-3;"? ....+••••......w.•••••• i.:4;; •di .i‘... . ... . ti 14i: • sV ...• I.f IU ..:.. '••:: i" .•••;'...." • 0 .7,1; i r. C/..•F..••:•.....e'...:•' . -:;1:::FA? ....•%, 1': - • ...., ,. I. K 527:-.11: z..1. C.;31.:*.;,*':: ::,.7.,•...-: !••W., . ,•.••.. ... :::171:::::::.1 L,••=:•-i../.* ,IF....!...,... J 1•••‘7. •.••••••.•••••• • --• . LV.Sutton Energy Complex Comments on DRAFT NPDES permit NC0001422 August 5,2015 submittal Attachment 3 _ .• • • ` NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF WATER AND AIR RESOURCES RALEIGH PERMIT For the Discharge of Sewage, Industrial Wastes, or Other Wastes In accordance with the provisions of Article 21 of Chapter 143, General Statutes of North Carolina as amended, and other applicable Laws, Rules and Regulations PERMISSION IS HEREBY GRANTED TO Carolina Power & Light Company L. V. Sutton S. E. Plant New Hanover County FOR THE construction of a 1,110 acre cooling lake supplied by a river makeup pump station to cool and supply the condenser water (580 m.g.d.) for a 620 M.W. stream electric generation station, purge water will be uniformly controlled and discharged into the Cape Fear River, in accordance with the application dated November_ 19 , 1912_, and in conformity with the plans, specifications, and other supporting data, all of which are filed with the Department of Water snd Air Resources and are considered a part of this Permit. This Permit shall be effective from the date of its issuance until __Dep ka _1l,_19ilz__, and shall be subject to the following specified c:+nditions end limitations: 1. This permit shall become void unless the facilities are constructed in accordance with the approved plans, specifications, and other supporting data and are completed and placed in operation on or before March 31, 1972, or as this date may be amended by the Board of Water and Air Resources. 2. This permit is effective only with respect to the nature and volune of cooling water as described in the application and other supporting data furnished by the applicant for this stream electric generating station. 3. Water quality monitored one (1) foot below the water surface shall comply with the stream standards outside a mixing zone extending from the eastern shore to the center line of the river and extending not more than 1.25 miles downstream nor more than 2700 feet upstream from point of discharge. the cross sectional area of the designated zone shall net exceed 9.0% of the total cross sectional area of the river at the point of discharge nor 2.516 at the mouth of upper boomer's Creek. 4. The Company, shall conduct studies to determine thermal patterns under extreme conditions and submit findings to the Department of Water and Air Resources. The Company shall also establish an adequate monitoring program approved by the Department and shall furnish data at regular intervals and in such form and detail as may be required by the Department. 5. In the event the Company cannot comply with the terms and conditions contained herein, the discharge shall cease and not be resumed until these conditions can be met. 6. The Company, at least six months prior to the expiration of this permit,shall request its extension. Upon receipt of the request, the Board will review the adequacy . of the facilities described herein and, if indicated, will extend the permit for such period of time and under such conditions and limitations as deemed proper. Permit issued this the 27th day of JANUARY • 19_71— BY 971__BY e ---- E. C. Hubbard, Assistant Director Permit No. 1969 Department of Water and Mr Resources • 4 NORTH CAROLINA Wake County CERTIFICATE THIS CERTIFICATE is issued in conformity with the requirements of Public Law 91-224 of the United States and subject to the rules of the North Carolina Board of Water and Air Resources to Carolina Power and Light Company, Raleigh, North Carolina, pursuant to application filed on the 20th day of November, 1970, to discharge into the surface waters of New Hanover County, North Carolina, cooling water from the off-stream cooling lake serving the Company's L. V. Sutton Steam Electric Plant. After publication of notice of the application in the Wilmington Morning Star on the 8th day of December, 1970, and determination that no public hearing upon said application is necessary, the North Carolina Board of Water and Air Resources hereby certifies, subject to any conditions here- inafter set forth, that there is reasonable assurance that the proposed activity of the applicant will be conducted in a manner which will not violate applicable water quality standards. Conditions of Certificate: Applicable project construction and opera- tion is to be done in accordance with plans and specifications made a part of North Carolina Board of Water and Air Resources Permit Number 1969. Terms and conditions set forth in Permit Number 1969 are by reference incorporated in and made a part of this certification. Violation of any of the conditions herein set forth shall result in revocation of this Certificate. This the 27th day of January, 1971. NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF WAT AND AIR RESOURCES by A(Zr Ge rge E. Pickett, Director Certificate No. 4-A • NnVL•Illtf .)• 1 q 1921E TO: North Carolina Board of Water and Air Resources Raleigh, North Carolina Gentlemen: In accordance with the provisions of Article 21 of Chapter 143, General Statutes of North Carolina as amend- ed, application Is hereby made by Carolina Power & Light Company (Name of board,individu..l or others) >ligts a pithlir• seryice c9rporation with general offices in the county (Nemo of city,village.town,soldiery district or establishment) of Wake . to the North Carolina Board of Water and Air Resources for the approval (Noma of county) of the accompanying plans, specifications, and other data submitted herewith covering the construction la and operation of a_1110 acre cooling lake with ke-uR man s •a nn and for a "Certificate of Approval" and/or "Permit" for the discharge of heated water saws... from tfil; this cooling pond Industrial waste or other wastes) (saw►ra or treatment plant) serving L. V. Sutton S. E. Plant into (Nome of municipality, institution,or industry.ate.) (Name of treatment plant) >a rho attrfor•e waters of the_Cape Fear River (surface or ground waters) (Name of water If swisse water,:ii ground waters,state water soluse to which they are tributary) at 12.305.400 on the North Carolina Grid System and N195,200 (L:set location of point 0/discharge) The plans for the proposed works have been prepared by Brown 6.1212!:, Inc- (Engineering Firm) of Houston, Texas , It is estimated that treatment works will provide (Address) adequate capacity to serve the Sutton Plant for the life of the plant mnamtmckxatx Atatstxx at which time it is estimated the average daily sewage or waste flow will not exceed ** gallons. It is further expected that the treatment v.vrks will effect overall reductions In pollution as follows: B.O.D. (5-day 20°C ** %, suspended solids %, total solids ** coliform bacteria si=te %, and toxic materials • *'fir %. The cost of the proposed works is estimated to be: sewers $ ** . pumping stations $ ::: , treutne•nt plant S ** •sleben: g_5.0 million The works will be completed and In operation on or hctwr• , March 31 172 including land The applicant hereby agrees that the proposed works will h: :or thief ' i:l strict accordance with the ap- proved plans and specifications or subsequently approved changes !heroin •11..) !I,:'her agrees to place its opera- tion under the care of a competent person and to maintain and (•pt:rttt• the 1•1at:t according to the best accepted practice and in accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the 1..•arrl, ** Not applicable - See attached Report. Signature • • '1 7)e• -- TitleiLkn.' Yict•_President Mailing Address_moi).`];, �,_•j•;iil, Raleigh. N. C. 27602 • Sp.elfy Percentage reduction for each tone substance.using additional sheet, If...rr.•a•.