NC0024406_Comments_20191014

•
SOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER
Telephone [phone] 601 WEST ROSEMARY STREET,SUITE 220 Facsimile 919-929-9421
CHAPEL HILL,NC 27516-2356
• October 14, 2019
VIA U.S. MAIL AND E-MAIL
Sergei Chernikov
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality RECEIVED
Water Quality Permitting Section
Attn: Belews Creek Permit OCT 21 2019
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh,NC 27699-1617 NCDEQ/DWR/NPDES
[e-mail]
Re: Draft NPDES Permit NC0024406
Belews Creek Steam Station
•
Dear Dr. Chernikov:
On behalf of Appalachian Voices,the Stokes County Branch of the NAACP, and the
Sierra Club, the Southern Enyironmental Law Center ("SELC") submits these comments on the
proposed National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") permit modification for
Duke Energy's Belews.Creek Steam Station, noticed for public comment by the North Carolina
Department of Environmental Quality. Some of us previously submitted comments on the 2016,
2017, and both 2018 draft NPDES permits for this site, and those comments remain applicable
and are incorporated by reference here, except as set out below.
In the current permit issued in March, DEQ appropriately recognized that Little Belews
Creek is a water of the.United States that must receive all the protections of the Clean Water Act.
However, the March 2019 SOC currently in effect improperly absolved Duke Energy from
complying with otherwise applicable pollution limits that should protect the creek while Duke
Energy began constructing Outfall 006 to the Dan River.
We do not object to the permit modification clarifying that Duke Energy may continue
decanting via the new outfall. We are concerned, though, that this proposed permit modification
and the SOC improperly allow Duke Energy to decant while only treating a portion of its
pollution flow, and thus dump a large portion of its coal ash wastewater directly into the Dan
River without treatment. We set out this and other comments below, but in summary: •
• The permit, not just the SOC, must require Duke.Energy to treat its decanting
wastewater with physical-chemical treatment.
• The permit must require Duke Energy to treat all, not just a small portion, of its
decanting wastewater with physical-chemical treatment.
Charlottesville • Chapel Hill • Atlanta • Asheville • Birmingham • Charleston • Nashville • Richmond • Washington,DC
/00%recycled paper

1 s
• DEQ must use its best professional judgment to set technology-based numeric
effluent limitations for Duke Energy's wastewater discharges based on what the
best available technology can achieve.
• The permit modification must transfer a flow limit for decanting from Outfall 003
to Outfall 006A.
• Because of Duke Energy's recent high levels of selenium pollution,the permit
must increase monitoring frequency of the FGD wastestream to weekly or at least
monthly.
• The permit should delete Outfall 003 if Duke Energy is no longer dumping from
the ash basin into Little Belews Creek. Likewise, it should clarify whether
Outfalls 003A, 009, and 111 have been rerouted to Outfall 006 yet.
Delete Outfall 003
The available documents leave it unclear whether Duke Energy has permanently, rather
than temporarily, stopped discharging any effluent to Little Belews Creek through Outfall 003.
Documents indicate that not only the decanting flow but the Outfall 003A lined retention basin
discharge to Little Belews Creek has been eliminated. Attachment 1, SOC S18-009, Semi-
Annual Progress Report(July 29, 2019). If that discharge has ceased, as it should,the
Department must remove Outfall 003 from the permit. The 2019 SOC and the 2019 permit only
allow discharges through Outfall 003 while Outfall 006 is under construction and not
operational. Continuing to list it as an outfall in the permit even though the outfall is no longer
needed allows for the possibility of backsliding and further pollution of Little Belews Creek. For
more than thirty years, Duke Energy unlawfully dumped its pollution into Little Belews Creek
through the supposedly authorized Outfall 003, using the Creek as its own wastewater dumping
channel. The Department has properly put a stop to that. To rule out any ambiguity or
possibility of Duke Energy resuming discharge through its old structure into Little Belews Creek,
the permit must reflect this change and delete Outfall 003 as soon as discharges have ceased.
•
Duke Energy must treat all, not just a small portion, of its contaminated decanting
wastewater.
With this permit modification, we welcome the apparent end of Duke Energy's
misappropriation of Little Belews Creek for its own private pollution needs and the recognition
that Little Belews Creek is a tributary of the Dan River and water of the United States that
receives Clean Water Act protection. However, the change to using the new outfall still fails to'
adequately protect the Dan River as the Clean Water Act requires, because it allows Duke .
Energy to dump most of its decanting flow through the new outfall untreated.
The current SOC requires that Duke Energy install a physical-chemical treatment system
and begin treating at least 800 gpm of the decanting flow within 10 months, that is,by January
2020. Special Order by Consent, EMC SOC WQ S18-009,¶2(a)(3). The permit obligates Duke
Energy to use that system to treat all of its dewatering flow-except during storm events under
certain conditions. Permit Condition A.(4.) Duke Energy's submissions to the Department
2

indicate this treatment system is constructed and operating. Attachment 2, SOC WQ SI8-004,
Quarterly Progress Report(July 23, 2019).
As an initial point, the permit modification must state that Duke Energy is required to
treat the decanting flow using physical-chemical treatment. Currently, only the SOC states this
requirement, and not until January 2020. To avoid any confusion given the early completion of
Outfall 006, the requirement that Duke Energy treat its decanting wastewater must appear
in the permit itself. DEQ should revise the second-to-last paragraph on page 9 of the permit to
state "All wastewater generated by decanting and dewatering pumps shall be treated using
physical-chemical treatment ..." Condition A.(4.).
However, the permit currently allows a decanting flow of up to 5 MGD through Outfall
003—significantly more than 800 GPM, which amounts to roughly 1.1 MGD. Condition A.(3.).
This decanting flow limit needs to be transferred to Outfall 006A, as we discuss below. But even
then, a permit that allows up to 80 percent of the flow from Duke Energy's leaking, unlined.ash
pond to go untreated is not good enough.
As we have explained in several rounds of permit comments at Belews Creek and other
Duke Energy sites, most recently for H.F. Lee, the agency must require Duke Energy to treat its
decanting and dewatering flow using the best available technology or equivalent pollution
control. This requires at least physical-chemical treatment—a technology that is in widespread
use now across Duke Energy's North Carolina plants, including at Belews Creek, and therefore
unquestionably available. Nothing in the documents we have seen, however, explains why the
treatment obligation should be limited to 800 GPM instead of the entire flow. Neither Duke
Energy nor DEQ has indicated that it would be impossible or unfeasible to treat the entire
decanting flow.
Moreover, a federal court of appeals has recently confirmed what North Carolinians
know all too well: aging, leaking, unlined coal ash ponds cannot possibly be the best"treatment"
for dewatering and decanting—yet that is what DEQ's proposal would continue to allow for
most of Duke Energy's decanted coal ash wastewater at Belews.
In the 2015 Effluent Limitation Guidelines Rule for power plants, ("ELG Rule") EPA
attempted to rubber-stamp existing unlined coal ash settling lagoons as BAT for"legacy
wastewater"—wastewater that has accumulated in ash ponds before the Rule's compliance
deadline. Final Rule, Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric
Power Generating Point Source Category, 80 Fed. Reg. 67,854 (Nov. 3, 2015). These leaking,
primitive lagoons could never be considered the best available technology, for controlling coal
ash pollution, as we pointed out in our comments on the 2013 draft of this NPDES permit. And
EPA agreed, as explained in more detail below, recognizing the deficiencies of lagoons as
pollution treatment and acknowledging that more effective technologies were readily available.
However, EPA attempted to exempt legacy wastewater from this common-sense analysis.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has now rejected EPA's gambit, holding EPA could
not lawfully declare impoundments to be the best available technology while repeatedly
recognizing that they were outdated and ineffective. Sw. Elec. Power Co. v. EPA, 920 F.3d 999
(5th Cir. 2019). The Fifth Circuit vacated this portion of the ELG Rule, stating:
3

Far from demonstrating that impoundments are the "best available technology
economically achievable" for treating legacy wastewater, the evidence recounted
in the final rule shows that impoundments are demonstrably ineffective at doing
so and demonstrably inferior to other available technologies. In light of this
record, we cannot accept that an outdated, ineffective and inferior technology is
BAT when applied to legacy wastewater.
Id. at 1019.
The Fifth Circuit stated that"everything the rule says about the record of impoundments
over the past three decades indicates that their performance in controlling discharges has been
distinctly poor.". Sw. Elec. Power Co., 920 F.3d at 1018. Indeed, the record shows that
"impoundments are demonstrably ineffective at doing so and demonstrably inferior to other
available technologies." Id. at 1019.
As it recognized, "the Supreme Court has explained that a BAT must achieve `reasonable
further progress' towards the Act's goal of eliminating pollution." Id. at 1006 (citing Nat'l
Crushed Stone, 449 U.S. at 75). EPA itself stated in the ELG rule that impoundments "are
largely ineffective at controlling discharges of toxic pollutants and nutrients." 80 Fed.Reg.
67,840.
EPA laid out the critical failings of impoundments in detail:
Pollutants that are present mostly in soluble (dissolved) form, such as selenium, boron,
and magnesium, are not effectively and reliably removed by gravity in surface
impoundments. For metals present in both soluble and particulate forms (such as
mercury), gravity settling in surface impoundments does not effectively remove the
dissolved fraction. Furthermore, the environment in some surface impoundments can
create chemical conditions (e.g., low pH) that convert particulate forms of metals to
soluble forms, which are not removed by the gravity settling process.
Id. The Fifth Circuit held that"[t]hese conceded defects in impoundments are in critical tension
with EPA's choosing them as BAT for legacy wastewater." Sw. Elec. Power Co., 920 F.3d at
1017. The same would be true if DEQ made that mistake. DEQ cannot"simply default[] to the
outdated BPT standard [of relying on unlined settling lagoons] that has been demonstrated to be
a poor performer by [EPA's] own analysis. That is antithetical to the statutorily-mandated
BAT standard." Id. at 1018 (emphasis added).
With the legacy wastewater portion of the ELGs vacated, the agency must use best
professional judgment ("BPJ")to determine the BAT standard applicable to decanting at Belews
Creek. 33 U.S.C. § 1342(a)(1)(B); 40 C.F.R. § 125.3; 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2H .0118. When
applying BPJ, "[i]ndividual judgments []take the place of uniform national guidelines, but the
technology-based standard remains the same." Texas Oil& Gas Ass'n v. EPA, 161 F.3d 923,
929.(5th Cir. 1998). The record is unequivocal: decanting from the unlined ash pond at Belews
with no additional treatment for most of the decanting flow is not Best Available Treatment and
violates the Clean Water Act.
•

•
Although the Department made significant progress toward protecting the Dan River by
requiring treatment, this permit modification should fully implement the Clean Water Act's
safeguards and require Duke Energy to treat all, not just a portion, of its decanting flow.
The Outfall 006A permit limits violate the Clean Water Act.
Duke Energy's permit modification request refers to a related request for amending the
SOC. Attachment 3, Permit Modification Request, Letter from Paul Draovitch, Duke Energy, to
Linda Culpepper, DEQ (Aug. 6, 2019). The application materials we have seen show that Duke
Energy has struggled to achieve even the lax standards set out in the SOC, violating interim
limits for selenium from its lined retention basin, violating interim action limits for TDS,
chlorides, and total hardness in Little Belews Creek; and coming close to limits for its decanting
discharge. Attachment 3, Letter from Paul Draovitch, Duke Energy, to Linda Culpepper, DEQ,
Re: SOC amendment application addendum; SOC Application Section II (June 12, 2019).
Apparently,just as the ink on the SOC was drying, Duke Energy began seeking to rewrite the
SOC to give itself easier standards to meet. Id. Section IV. But Duke Energy signed and is
bound by'the terms of the SOC; it needs to comply with the pollution limits, not change them to
continue polluting state waters above these limits.
Given that Duke Energy has been able to complete construction of both the Lined
Retention Basin and Outfall 006 ahead of schedule, we hope the agency has found it unnecessary
to further consider Duke Energy's request to weaken the SOC from this spring. But the switch to
Outfall 006A (and from there to 006) for the remainder of decanting gives Duke Energy even
more of what it wants—weak or entirely absent pollution limits for many constituents:
Parameter SOC Draft Permit Modification Outfall
normal operations 006A
� :wtv •• `‘v � va ���wG v a
Monthly Average Daily Maximum Monthly Average Daily Maximum
Cadmium ( 0.59 µg/L* 1 3.24 µg/L* Monitor& Report
Arsenic 75.0 µg/L 340.0 µg/L Monitor& Report •
Sulfates f 250.0 mg/L* 250.0 mg/L* Monitor & Report
Total Selenium 25.0 µg/L 56.0 µg/L 134.0 µg/L 1,237 µg/L
Total Aluminum 6.5 mg/L* 6.5 mg/L* _. 174.2 mg/L 174.2 mg/L.
Total Lead 2.94 µg/L* 75.48 µg/L* �..._... . 30.5 µg/L 654.6 µg/L
Thallium 2.0 µg/L* 2.0 µg/L* Monitor& Report
*Not modified by SOC—permit limit
•
This perverse result illustrates just how wrongheaded DEQ's implementation of the
Clean Water Act is. The agency continues to use water quality-based effluent limitations as the
primary basis for pollution standards in permits, rather than recognizing that the Clean Water Act
depends primarily on technology-based effluent limitations, with water-quality based limits
meant to serve as a backstop. Instead of relying solely on the.Dan River's capacity to dilute
pollution—and allowing the maximum amount of pollution up to what the river can "handle"
without becoming impaired—the agency should be setting numeric effluent limitations for the
new outfall, and all wastewater streams, based on what the Best Available Technology can
achieve.
5

Although the Department has acted rightly in ensuring Duke Energy uses physical-
chemical treatment for dewatering, the permit limits at Outfall 006A—and Outfall 006, for
normal operations—largely do not reflect not the pollution reduction that treatment can achieve.
Instead, they reflect the Department's water-quality based Reasonable Potential Analysis. The
Clean Water Act does not work like this. It does not allow polluters or their regulators to rely on
the dilution available in a receiving lake, river, or stream to maintain water quality. The
Department must use its best professional judgment to establish numeric limits based on the
technology that is not just available but actually in place at Belews Creek.
Other comments
•
• Increased Monitoring at Outfall 002: Given recent problems complying with selenium
limits, monitoring at Outfall 002, the FGD treatment system, must occur weekly or at
least monthly, not quarterly. Violations or near-violations of interim action levels for
selenium appear to have been a driving factor in Duke Energy's request for amendments
to the SOC and ultimately this permit amendment. The documents we have seen indicate
the main source of this selenium pollution is the FGD treatment system. Although Duke
Energy has indicated it is studying the issue and looking for alternate ways to reduce its
selenium pollution, the state and the public must have frequent, up-to-date information on
a problem that involves a dangerous pollutant like selenium so they can take action if
Duke violates the limits.
• Flow limit at Outfall 006A: Outfall 003 has 5 MGD.flow limit for decanting, and
Outfall 006A has a 2 MGD limit that expressly applies to dewatering only. Conditions
A.(3.) & A.(4.). This modification moves the decanting flow to Outfall 006A.
Accordingly, that outfall must now include a flow limit for decanting, not just
dewatering. Likewise; Outfall 006A conditions A.(4.)7. and 8, regarding TSS and pH
levels, and the 85%threshold condition must all be revised to expressly apply to
decanting, not just dewatering.
• Outfall 009 and Outfall 111: Similarly to Outfalls 003 and 003A, it is not clear from the
permitting materials whether Outfall 009 and Outfall 111 (the toe drain from the ash
pond) are still dumping into Little Belews Creek. If their discharges have already been
rerouted to the new Dan River outfall, with the completion of construction of Outfall 006,
then the permit should reflect this as part of this modification.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
• Sincerely,
Leslie Griffith
Staff Attorney
6

ATTACHMENT 1
SOC WQ S 18-009,
Semi-Annual Progress Report
(July 29, 2019)

•
et**, DUKE James Wells
® ENERGY Vice President
c Environmental,Health and Safety
Programs&Environmental Sciences
526 South Church Street
Charlotte,NC 28202
[phone]
•
July 29, 2019
Via Overnight Mail
Lon Snider
Winston Salem Regional Office Assistant Environmental Regional Supervisor
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Water Resources
450 West Hanes Mill Road,.Suite 300 RECEIVED/NCDEQ/DWR
Winston Salem, NC 27105
AUG 0 5 2019
Bob Sledge
North Carolina Department of Environmental Qualit Water Quality
Y F'ormltting section
Water Quality Permitting Program
Division of Water Resources
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Subject: Report Under Special Order by Consent—EMC SOC WQ S I8-009
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC_Belews Creek Steam Station
NPDES Permit NC0024406
Dear Messrs. Snider and Sledge:
On behalf of Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (DEC), I am submitting to you the Belews Creek Steam
Station Progress Report summarizing the work and activities undertaken with respect to
construction of the new Outfall 006 to the Dan River required by the Belews Creek Steam Station
NPDES Permit NC0024406 Special Order by Consent (SOC), SOC No. S 18-009 Section 2.c.
As required by the SOC, I certify under penalty.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 of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations.

Messrs. Snider and Sledge
July 29, 2019
Page 2
Please direct any questions concerning the Belews Creek Steam Station SOC No. S 18-009 to
Joyce Dishmon at [phone].
Sincerely,
, 7 -- ___ •\ (/
James W u s
Vice Presjdent, Environment, Health & Safety-
Programs 'nd Environmental Sciences
Duke Energy
Attachment
Beleivs Creek Steam Station Quarterly Progress Report
CC: Richard Baker, Duke Energy
Joyce Dishmon, Duke Energy
Brenda Johnson, Duke Energy
George Hamrick, Duke Energy
Paul Draovitch, Duke Energy
Matt Hanchey, Duke Energy
Randy Hart, Duke Energy

NPDES PERMIT N00024406
SPECIAL ORDER BY CONSENT EMC SOC WQ S18-009
SEMI-ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT
BELEWS CREEK STEAM STATION
JULY 29, 2019

Background and Summary
On March 21, 2019, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (DEC) and the North Carolina Environmental
Management Commission entered into a Special Order by Consent—EMC SOC WQ S18-009 (SOC)
applicable to Belews Creek Steam Station (Belews Creek). This report is submitted in accordance
with Section 2.c. of the SOC. In compliance with Section 2.c., this report summarizes the work
and activities undertaken with respect to the planning, design, construction and use of the new
outfall to the Dan River. The semi-annual reports are due no later than the last day of January
and July for the duration of the SOC.
The Belews Creek Steam Station is located on Belews Lake in southwestern Stokes County, NC.
Belews Creek is a two-unit, 2240-megawatt .coal-fired generating facility. The Station began
commercial operation in 1974 with Units 1 and 2.
Belews Creek operates one Ash Basin for treating sluiced Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR). The
Ash Basin was constructed from 1970 to 1972 and has been operational since 1974. It received
bottom ash sluiced from the Station until Q4 2018. Regular sluicing of fly ash ended in 1983 when
the Station converted to dry fly ash handling. The Ash Basin has an approximate area of 283
acres and has been an integral part of the Station's wastewater treatment system. The current
ash inventory of the Ash Basin is approximately 12.0 million tons as of April 30, 2019.
Discharges of process wastewater to the Ash Basin ended in March 2019 with the commissioning
of Lined Retention Basin.
Construction Status
In accordance with this SOC, Duke Energy initiated design and construction of new Outfall 006 to
the Dan River to eliminate discharge from Outfalls 003, Outfall 003A and Outfall 111.
Construction of Outfall 006 began on March 15, 2019 and was completed on July 12, 2019.
Discharge from Outfall 003A was eliminated on July 12, 2019. Duke Energy provided notification
of the initiation of construction of Outfall 006 per the SOC on March 27, 2019.

ATTACHMENT 2
SOC WQ S18-004,
Quarterly Progress Report
(July 23, 2019)

•
DUkEJams Wens
• Vtra PresKi-nt
ENERGY Environmental loalttl and Safety
Programs&Environmental Scenes
526 Sowh Church Street
Code EC 1 3K
• (Mark Ata NC
98(),37340 I-
.
July 23, 2019
Via Overnight Mail • •
Lon Snider
Winston Salem Regional Office Assistant Environmental Regional Supervisor
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Water Resources
• 450 West Hanes Mill Road, Suite 300
Winston Salem, NC 27105 •
Bob Sledge
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Water Quality Permitting Program
Division of Water Resources
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Subject: Report Under Special Order by consent - EMC SOC WQ S18-004
Duke Energy Carolinas, I.LC Belews Creek Steam Station
NPDES Permit NC0024406
Dear Messrs. Snider and Sledge:
• •
On behalf of Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC(DEC), I am submitting to you the Belews Creek Steam
Station Progress Report summarizing the work and activities undertaken with respect to closure of
coal ash surface impoundments as required by the Belews Creek Steam Station NPDES Permit
NC0024406 Special Order by Consent (SOC), SOC No, SI8-004 Section 2.c.2).
•
As required by the SOC, I certify under penalty 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 of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations.
•
•

•
Messrs. Snider and Sledge
July 23, 2019
Page 2
Please direct any questions concerning the Belews Creek Steam Station SOC No. S18-004 to
Joyce Dishmon at [phone].
•
Sincerely,
James Wells
Vice President, Environment, Health & Safety•
-
, Programs and Environmental Sciences
Duke Energy
Attachment
Belews Creek Steam Station Quarterly Progress Report
•
CC: Richard Baker, Duke Energy
Joyce Dishmon, Duke Energy
Brenda Johnson, Duke Energy
George Hamrick, Duke Energy
Paul Draovitch, Duke Energy
Matt Hanchey, Duke Energy
Randy Hart, Duke Energy
•
•

NPDES PERMIT NC0024406
SPECIAL OR©►ER BY CONSENT EMC SOC S18-004
QUARTERLY PROGRESS REPORT
BELEWS CREEK STEAM STATION
JULY 23, 2019

r •
•
Background and Summary
On July 12, 2018, Duke Energy'Carolinas, LLC (DEC) and the North Carolina Environmental Management
Commission entered into a Special Order by Consent— EMC SOC S18-004 (SOC) applicable to the Belews
Creek Steam Station (Belews Creek). This report is submitted in accordance with Section 2.c. of the SOC.
In compliance with Section 2.c., this report summarizes the work and activities undertaken with respect
to decanting work and closure of coal ash surface impoundments at Belews Creek. The quarterly reports .
are due no later than the last day of January, April, July, and October for the duration of the SOC, once
the decanting process has begun.
The Belews Creek Steam Station is located on Belews Lake in southeastern Stokes County, NC. Belews
Creek is a two-unit, 2240-megawatt coal-fired generating facility. The Station began commercial
operation in 1974 with Units 1 and 2.
Belews Creek operates one Ash Basin for storing wet sluiced Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR).• The Ash
Basin was constructed from 1970 to 1972 and has been operational since 1974. It received bottom ash
sluiced from the Station until Q4 2018. Regular sluicing of fly ash ended in 1983 when the Station
converted to dry fly ash handling. The Ash Basin has an approximate area of 283 acres and has been an
integral part of the Station's wastewater treatment system. The current ash inventory of the Ash Basin is
approximately 12.0 million tons as of April 30, 2019
Decanting Status
In compliance with this SOC, .Duke Energy initiated design and procurement efforts in Q3 2018 for a
decanting water treatment system at Belews Creek. Purchase Orders were awarded in Q4 2018 for the
civil pad and electrical infrastructure installations, as well as a Purchase Order for the OEM water .
treatment supplier. Duke Energy completed installation and commissioning of the decanting water
treatment system on March 22, 2019 and commenced mechanical decanting on March 27, 2019. Duke
Energy provided advance notice for the projected start date of decanting to NCDEQ on March 8, 2019, as
required by the NPDES Permit, and written notification for the initiation of decanting per the SOC on
April 2, 2019. Through June 30, 2019, approximately 330 million gallons have been decanted at Belews
Creek.
•
•
•
Belews Creek: 1

ATTACHMENT 3
Permit Modification Request
(Aug. 6, 2019)
L

DUKE Paul Draovitch,P.E.
Senior Vice President
ENERGY® EHS and Operations Support
526 S.Church Street
Mail Code:EC3XP
Charlotte,NC 28202
[phone]
August 6, 2019
Linda.Culpepper, Director
NC Division of Water Resources
1617 Mail Service Center RECEIVED/NCDEQ/DWR
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Subject: NPDES permit modification request AUG 0 $ 2019
Belews Creek Steam station Water Quality
NC0024406 . Permitting Section
Stokes County
Dear Ms. Culpepper,
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke Energy) hereby requests modification of the subject NPDES
permit to clarify that ash basin decanting flows may be released through outfall 006A.
Duke Energy has currently ceased ash basin decanting operations through outfall 003 pending
response and resolution to our requests for amended Special Order by Consent. This cessation of
flows from outfall 003 occurred on July 29, 2019..
Duke Energy believes that all the necessary information to complete this NPDES permit
modification requests already resides in the files available to your staff but should any additional
information be necessary please contact Mr. Shannon Langley at [phone].
Since ly,
Paul Draovitch, P.E.
Senior Vice President
Environmental, Health &Safety and Operations Support
cc: Jim Wells - via email
Richard Baker—via email
Matt Hanchey—via email
Joyce Dishmon/Filenet—via email
Brenda Johnson—via email
Reginald Anderson—Station Manager
George Hamrick—SVP CCP
www.duke-energy corn

ATTACHMENT 4
SOC Amendment Application
Addendum
(June 12, 2019)

fftDUKE Paul Dreovltch,P.E.
* Senior Vice President
ENERGY® Environmental,Health&Safety
526 S.Church Street
Mail Code:EC3XP
Charlotte,NC 28202
[phone]
June 12, 2019
Linda Culpepper,Director
NC Division of Water Resources
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh,NC 27699-1617
Subject: SOC amendment application addendum
Belews Creek Steam station
NC0024406
EMC SOC WQ S 18-009
Dear Ms. Culpepper,
Enclosed please find an addendum to the application for amendment of the subject Consent
Order. This submittal contains additional detail as to constituents for which interim relief is
being sought.
If there are any questions about this matter please feel free to contact me or Shannon Langley at
[phone] or shannon.langleygduke-energy.com.
Sincerel ,
P 1 Dra vitch,P.E.
SVP-Environmental, Health& Safety
Enclosure
cc: Jim Wells- via email
Richard Baker—via email
Matt Hanchey—via email
Joyce Dishmon/Filenet—via email
Brenda Johnson—via email
Reginald Anderson—Station Manager
www.duke-encrgy.com

Attachment
Addendum to Application for amendment to Special Order by
Consent
Belews Creek Steam station
Permit Number: NC0024406
Consent Order #: EMC SOC WQ S18-009
June 2019

SOC application Section II
SOC Compliance History
The facility has complied with all interim dates under the SOC.
Significant progress is being made towards relocation of the outfall from the Lined
Retention basin (LRB) away from the newly classified "unnamed tributary" (UT) to
the main stem of the Dan River.
Progress is being made in decanting the ash basin. As of May 26, 2018, the ash
basin has been decanted to an elevation 742.8' from a starting elevation of
748.0'.
Upon startup of the (LRB), the facility experienced two exceedences of the interim
discharge limit for selenium from outfall 003A. The facility quickly identified the
source of these exceedences and took immediate steps at significant costs to
address the conditions that led to those initial exceedences associated with
system startup.
The facility has measured values higher than the current Interim Action levels
(IAL) for total hardness, chlorides and total dissolved solids (TDS) in the UT. We
believe this to largely be a result of the way the LRB operates as a batch discharge
process with the source of these constituents being the FGD scrubber. Since its
startup, the LRB has discharged for approximately 5 hours each day.
The facility has complied with the interim discharge limits from outfall 003
however, small margin exists for selenium, sulfates and cadmium. Data received
just prior to the public notice of the Order indicated a slight increase in selenium
concentrations. Given the timing for SOC issuance, this data could not be
included in initial interim limit development.

SOC application Section IV
Why an SOC amendment is needed
An amendment to the SOC is needed to modify the UT Interim Action Level (IAL)
for total hardness, TDS, chlorides and sulfates. Duke also requests re-evaluation
of the interim limits for selenium at outfall 003 and 003A as well as cadmium and
sulfates at outfall 003 now that more data is available as to the operation of these
systems in their current state.
The SOC was issued with IAL's identical from a previous SOC for basin seepage
and without taking LRB hardness, chlorides, TDS or sulfates data into account as it
was a new system that had yet to come online. Additionally, flows from the LRB
—the system built to replace the ash basin —will have much lower flow rate than
the historic release from the ash basin but higher concentration of total water
hardness, TDS, chlorides and sulfates given that bottom ash sluice water has been
removed. The FGD wastewater system now comprises a higher percentage of the
total flow and consists of blowdown from a limestone slurry air emissions system
required for air quality permit compliance. There is no increase in mass or new
wastestream sources associated with recent system modifications but the
concentration is higher at the outfall under the current configuration since some
flows have been removed and the release process has been modified as
permitted.
It appears the cadmium permit limit for outfall 003 was developed without
considering the water hardness. Duke requests that this be re-evaluated in the
SOC and that a hardness dependent value be derived and used for hardness
dependent metals where these constituents are limited.