NC0005088_Comments_20200511

SOUTHERN 'ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER
Telephone [phone] • 601 WEST ROSEMARY STREET,SUITE 220 Facsimile 919-929.9421
CHAPEL HILL, NC 27516-2356
• May 11, 2020•
RECEIVED
VIA U.S. MAIL AND E-MAIL
MAY 2 0 2020
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality N�D�QIpWRINPDES
Water Quality Permitting Section
Attn: Rogers/Cliffside Permit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1617
[e-mail]
•
[e-mail]
Re: Comments on Draft NPDES Major Modification, Permit No. NC0005088,
Rogers Energy Complex/Cliffside Steam Station
Dear Dr. Chernikov: •
On behalf of itself, MountainTrue, and the Broad Riverkeeper, the Southern
Environmental Law Center submits these comments on the proposed major modification to the
. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit for Duke Energy's Cliffside/Rogers
Energy Complex plant. •
This proposed extension to the deadline for complying with the nationwide 2015 Effluent
Limitation Guidelines' flue gas desulfurization ("FGD") wastewater protections is unlawful,:and
. it conflicts with the decision the Department already made that the appropriate compliance date
for these technology-based limits on toxic FGD wastewater is December 31, 2021.
Duke Energy has been trying for years to push off complying with these nationwide
protections as long as possible, even though they have now been in effect for almost five years.
In previous rounds of draft permits, Duke Energy had requested the latest possible compliance
date of December 2023, but after reviewing Duke Energy's submissions and receiving public
comments on the draft permit two years ago, DEQ rightly decided the appropriate date was
December 31, 2021.
Now, DEQ is proposing to reverse course and give in to Duke Energy's renewed 2023
•
request, this time based on nothing more than a proposed action by the Trump Administration's
EPA. No existing regulation or change to Duke Energy's ability to comply with its current
permit justifies this delay. The proposed permit would only serve Duke Energy's unjustified
Charlottesville • Chapel Hill • Atlanta • Asheville • Birmingham • Charleston •• Nashville • Richmond • Washington,DC

•
preferences and the Trump Administration's polluter-friendly agenda. DEQ has no legitimate
basis for departing from the determination it already made that Duke Energy can and must
comply with the FGD limits by the end of 2021.
DEQ must ensure the Broad River is protected as soon as possible. FGD wastewater
contains many harmful contaminants including arsenic, selenium, and bromide. As we have
made clear in previous comments, discharges of heavy metals, including those found in FGD
wastewater, also impact wildlife, including fish people eat.
• At the Cliffside plant, researchers from Appalachian State University studied the tissue of
fish caught in the Broad.River near the plant's discharge pipes.' Upstream, the level of selenium
accumulated in the fish was 2 parts per million (ppm, or 2mg/kg dry body weight), but at the
weir dam next to the ash ponds, it was higher, ranging from 1-5 ppm. Downstream of a drainage
pipe from the ash pond, the fish tissue accumulation was higher still: 10 ppm of selenium, which
the researchers warned is a level of high concern. At this level of contamination, EPA
recommends people should limit consumption of those fish to four meals per month to prevent
non-cancer health effects.2
By ordering Duke Energy to excavate its leaking coal ash pits at Cliffside, DEQ.set in
motion what will be a tremendous benefit for the future of the Broad River and the wildlife and
people who depend on it. Now is not the time for DEQ to undermine that achievement by
delaying these important and achievable protections against Duke Energy's additional, ongoing
discharges of toxic power plant wastewater.
DEQ Has No Grounds to Modify the Current Permit.
DEQ has already determined Duke Energy's FGD compliance obligations in the current-
permit: "The Division evaluated the schedule of compliance for the FGD limits and
determined that Duke did not provide sufficient justification to delay the completion of the
project until December 31, 2023. The compliance date was modified to December 31, 2021."3
With this modification,NCDEQ proposes to push back by two full years Duke Energy's
established obligation to comply with permit limits on discharges of FGD wastewater. But Duke
Energy has done nothing in the last two years to justify further delay in complying with the FGD
limits. This weakening of the'permit is contrary to the Division's prior determination and the
facts on the ground. It is therefore arbitrary and capricious.
Alexandra Gibbs,et al,Heavy Metal Accumulation in Fish of the Broad River Near the Rogers Energy
Complex Coal Ash Basins, attached as Exhibit 1.
2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in
Fish Advisories, Vol. 2 (Nov. 2000), available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015
06/documents/volume2.pdf.
3 Cover Letter to Final NPDES Permit Renewal (July 13, 2018)(emphasis added), attached as Exhibit 2.

The facts at Cliffside provide no basis for DEQ to abandon its determination that the
appropriate compliance date is December 2021. Duke Energy has not even attempted to
demonstrate that it would have any problem complying with the current compliance date. On the
contrary, Duke Energy's most recent report under its Clean Water Act criminal plea
agreement states that construction work for the FGD wastewater treatment system began
last year: "Rogers (Cliffside) FGD WWT project commenced civil construction site work in
Q3 2019.'4 And just recently, Duke Energy sent DEQ a Notice of Intent that it is proceeding
with constructing a bioreactor wastewater treatment system—the technology necessary to
comply with the ELG Rule for FGD wastewater—at Cliffside. Duke Energy confirmed that this
wastewater treatment system is expected to be complete by the third quarter of 2021, also
consistent with the current compliance date.5 Duke Energy has.made no claim that its FGD
treatment system would not be operational by the current compliance deadline of December 31,
2021.
In short, Duke Energy's own filings all confirm that it is proceeding ahead with treatment
•
system construction on schedule. These facts directly contradict Duke Energy's request to put
off compliance with the FGD pollution limits for an additional two years.
In its request for a permit modification, Duke Energy relies entirely on speculation about
a regulatory change the Trump Administration has not yet made, which could apply to retiring
coal plants.' The proposed rule Duke Energy refers to is an unjustified and unlawful giveaway to
the utility industry, rolling back protections against toxic wastewater that were decades.overdue.'
And specifically, for units that utilities say they will retire by 2028, EPA has proposed to allow
plants to keep relying on leaking surface impoundments and nothing more for wastewater
"treatment.'
Duke Energy has indicated that it may retire Cliffside Unit 5 by 2026, though it has not
committed to do so. Duke Energy's modification request refers opaquely to "evaluat[ing] the
retirement dates and treatment needs for the facility in light of the alternatives presented in the
new version of the rule." Exhibit 5, at 1. But Duke Energy's request to delay the FGD limits at
Cliffside makes no sense: notwithstanding the possible retirement of Unit 5, the company is
already installing the technology to comply with the FGD standards—and no doubt will seek to
recover its costs from ratepayers. Duke Energy asks DEQ to ignore the ongoing construction of
this treatment system and to be even more proactively polluter-friendly than the Trump
Administration by further delaying enforceabletechnology-based pollution limits from the
permit, in the hopes that Duke may never have to comply with these limits. Because Duke
4 Duke Energy, Compliance Officers' Report(Jan. 31, 2020), at 25, attached as Exhibit 3.
'Duke Energy,Notice of Intent(April 20, 2020), attached as Exhibit 4
6
Duke Energy, Permit Modification Request(Jan. 15, 2020), attached as Exhibit 5.
' Letter from the Southern Environmental Law Center to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(Jan.21,
2020), attached as Exhibit 6.
8 See 84 Fed. Reg. 64,630 (Table VII-1—Main Regulatory Options).

Energy is already installing the FGD treatment system, there is no justification for further
delay; Duke Energy must comply with the FGD pollution limits on the schedule determined
by DEQ in the current permit.
Moreover, Duke Energy's attempt to rely upon this proposed rollback is contrary to
DEQ's own determination in April 2019 that the Cliffside leaking surface impoundments must
be eliminated in order to protect the environment and the public interest. It makes absolutely no
sense for DEQ to rightly conclude that these impoundments are environmentally unsound, and at
the same time modify a permit to allow Duke Energy to avoid treatment to remove some of the
most dangerous pollutants coming from the Cliffside facility, based on a proposed rule that is
premised on the continued operation of such defective impoundments.
Duke Energy asks DEQ to rely on a proposed regulation has not yet been finalized. Duke
Energy speculates that it may be finalized "this summer," Exhibit 5 at 1, but of course neither
DEQ nor Duke Energy know when—if at all—the regulation would be finalized, or,just as
important, what the substance of such a final rule might be. Moreover, even if the ELG rule
were finalized in some form, it then would not go into effect until 60 days after publication in the
Federal Register9—if it were not enjoined by the inevitable legal challenges that would ensue.
In other words,the draft rule proposed by the Trump Administration will not go into
effect any time soon, may be substantially changed, or may never go into effect at all. DEQ has
no basis for departing from its earlier determination of the proper compliance date. And DEQ
certainly should not accept Duke Energy's invitation to pave the way for Trump Administration
rollbacks before they even take place. It is unthinkable that DEQ would use its regulatory
process to put in place the damaging proposals of the Trump Administration's EPA before the
Trump Administration itself has been able to enact them.
Granting this Delay Would Violate the Clean Water Act.
Because no facts or laws have changed since DEQ issued this permit in 2018, giving in to
this request would be unlawful.
First, DEQ has no authority to reopen the permit. The permit's reopener provision
states: "This permit may be reopened and modified if changes are made to 40 C.F.R. 423."
Permit at A(5), n.3 (emphasis added). That provision is inapplicable here because no "changes
to 40 C.F.R. 423"have been made.
Moreover, Duke Energy attempts to justify the 2023 compliance date by claiming this
date is "allowed by the currently codified rules." Exhibit 5 at 1. This claim is incorrect. The
currently codified rules require Duke Energy to comply with the FGD limits"as soon as
possible." EPA requires that the "as soon as possible" date is November 1, 2020, "unless the
9 See 5 U.S.C. § 801(3); 84 Fed. Reg. 64,671 (the proposed ELG rule is a"major rule"as defomed by 5
U.S.C. § 804(2)).

permitting authority establishes a later date, after receiving information from the discharger." 40
C.F.R. § 423.11(t). The ELG Rule spells out specific factors the agency should consider in
deciding whether to grant a deadline after the earliest date. Id. Here, based on the agency's
evaluation of Duke Energy's submissions, DEQ has determined that the date required under the
current rules is December 31, 2021 for Cliffside. Because no existing regulatory requirement has.
changed, nor has anything has changed about Duke Energy's ability to comply by 2021, the
unjustified 2023 compliance date requested by Duke Energy is not allowed by the currently
codified rules. And the mere possibility of a change to existing rules—particularly when Duke
Energy has already begun treatment system construction to comply with those rules—is not an
"appropriate" factor for the agency to consider in a deadline determination. Id.
Duke Energy attempts to suggest that DEQ should grant its request to put off compliance
with the required FGD limits because a"reasonable potential analysis" did not calculate water
quality based effluent limitations were required. Exhibit 5 at 1. However, the Clean Water Act
requires that Duke Energy must comply with the ELG Rule's technology based effluent
limitations. See 33 U.S.C. § 1311(b)(2)(A). Water quality based effluent limitations are only
relevant here if they are "more stringent" than the technology based limits. Id. at §
1311(b)(1)(C).
Not only does the proposed modification lack any justification based on the construction .
schedule at the site, the permit's plain language, or existing federal regulations, but it is also
impermissible because in reducing the protections of the current permit, it runs afoul of the Clean
Water Act's anti-backsliding requirements. The Clean Water Act's National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System permitting program is structured around progressive improvements in
pollution control over time to meet Congress's "national goal" of eliminating discharges of
pollutants to waters of the United States.10 For this reason, the Clean Water Act includes anti-
backsliding requirements to ensure that the limits and conditions imposed new or modified
NPDES permits for a facility are at least as stringent as those in previous permits.11 The Clean
Water Act's anti-backsliding requirements apply to all NPDES permit provisions, not just
effluent limits based on Best Professional Judgment.12
There is no justification for DEQ to backslide from its original permitting decision, which
determined that a compliance deadline of December 2021 was required—and which Duke
Energy accepted and is bound by. With this request for modification, Duke Energy is just asking
for what it has sought from the very beginning—an unreasonably long time to comply. DEQ
10 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251(a)(1).
11 33 U.S.C. § 1342(o); 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(1)(1) ("[W]hen a permit is renewed or reissued, interim
effluent limitations, standards or conditions must be at least as stringent as the final effluent limitations,
standards, or conditions in the previous permit . . . .").
12 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(1)(1);In the Matter of Star-Kist Caribe, Inc., Petitioner, 2 E.A.D. 758 at *3 (E.P:A.
Mar. 8, 1989). EPA,NPDES Permit Writers' Manual Chapter 7, § 7:2.2, p. 7-4 (Sept. 2010), available at
http://water.a pa.gov/po lwaste/n pd es/basics/upload/pwm_chapt_0 7.pdf.

originally proposed in the draft permit13 to give Duke Energy a later compliance date but then,
after receiving public comment, corrected course in the final permit by setting the December.
. 2021 deadline. As explained in this letter, there is no reason for DEQ to undo the correct
decision it already made.
Revising the permit to delay implementation of pollution limits violates the Clean Water
Act. It also lacks any rational basis because it is not justified by the facts, the existing federal
regulations, or the plain language of the permit. To avoid violating the Clean Water Act's anti-
backsliding provisions, DEQ must not weaken the permit by delaying the compliance deadline
for essential pollution limits. The implementation of pollution limits on Duke Energy's FGD
discharge is necessary to protect the Broad River from Duke Energy's documented harmful
pollution at its Cliffside Plant.
DEQ Must Clarify Duke Energy's Compliance Timeline for Section 316(b).
In addition to being unjustified, the draft modification also contains an ambiguity.
Condition A(24), regarding Section 316(b) cooling water intake structure requirements, states
that "Nile permittee shall submit all the materials required by the Rule 3.5 years from the
effective date of the permit." This language has been carried over from the current permit. As a
result, it could be read to imply that Duke Energy would have 3.5 years from the issuance of a
modified permit to submit the required information. If the permit were modified, Condition
A(24) should require Duke Energy to submit the required materials within the time required by
the current permit, whose effective date is September 1, 2018.
However, as explained above, there is no basis to modify the current permit's FGD
compliance schedule, and DEQ should not do so. No regulatory change has been made, and it
would be arbitrary and capricious for DEQ to abandon the determination the agency already
made.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
Nicholas S. Torrey
Senior Attorney
13 See DEQ, Draft Permit, Condition A(5),available at
https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Water%20Quality/NPDES%20Coa1%20Ash/2014%20Duke%20Energy%20Re
newals%20and%20Modifications/Rogers%20NC0005088%20-%20Draft%20WW%20Permit%o20-
%20May%202018.pdf •

RECEIVED
MAY 2 0 2020
NCDEQ/DWR/NPDES
EXHIBIT 1

HeavyMetal
Accumulation in Fish of .�. ,
the Broad River Near the4a.
=
,, , , p :i �Rogers Energy Complexti
k
trlit _.....,
t* - ., ..,
,1
Coal Ash Basins ; '=4=
Alexandra Gibbs', Sarah Karnegay', Matthew Roach', Zach Hardwick', David
Caldwell2, Guy Hutchins3, Shea Tuberty'
'Appalachian State University, 2Broad Riverkeeper, 3Cliffside, NC community member

Background
• Rogers Energy Complex formerly known as Cliffside Steam Station
.•
opened 1940. if
, ir .4 ,,
, ,-• Based in Mooresboro, North Carolina 1
... ...- -.
,A f .
0 Proximity to coal fields and textile ii 4
industry
VI f
.,,
0 Most recent update was in 2012 (adding
. , i ,..,:,-7:, ,,,,,,,,,g-,_. .4 -` -- • = - -0 -
U n i t 6)
_ , .. .
''."';''' '.1,41ti.f'41'-4?*;;Earitt_. 4441t4" ,,TLVIPAO:re.i.,;:-•ttlik `'1:14:- *.'CI'-
, ,".../k:,.. i'''''r7 ' .**"7,,"" :.....-74r. t:',"Fr•-,-,,,'"",,, .:!;;1---,ce,..,1"•",/,
o Extremely stringent and effective air , ,,,,,, ,,v,,,..' ,.; „.
747.14=-Z.:; "-,•"--,-,..,..;'=4.---,t;-,---:."'.4- ,-=-.- -.-4.' ---'---
quality control

• 2015 - "Do not drink" letters are sent
1HE PROGRESSIVE PULSE
from Duke Energy to all residents
within a half mile of the power plant.p Groiindwa.ter wells near Marshall, Cliffside
This was rescinded in spring of 2016. =oa[ ash hasins have a thaltium nrnh!ern
3)
•
• January 2016- NC DEQ classifies
wbtv,cos
Cliffside coal ash basins as of "low" oNvi.xt
SUN
NEWS MA HER SPDRTS 4170 `VFW FE.RR ,OV.,V4 II
and "low/intermediate" priority for New tests find coal ash
cleanup contaminants in water wells
outside half-mile radius
• July 2016- WBTV reports hexavalent r :KV. ` sth in,*4-pfe
"`
Of HKY Ochwr.RrFonte ,...,
chromium levels 4x-9x higher than Battle over coal ash continues in Chtsule
sheibystarcom
standards in drinking wells within a few
miles
r
MOST POPULAR .a,+: ',.y a.4 ;'e`.1 ,s. t >
• March 2018- Duke Energy reports PROTECT OUR. A.„,
WATER
elevated levels of Se, As, Cr, and TI in ��� �
2 =tr+t,..,as x«
test wells surrounding Cliffside �`-`

The Broad River
,..,---711---\." 0—
• Principal tributary of the Congaree River.
c.s- e ,t Charlotte
• Flows south-easterly ',ry•
Fto.111 MA
- It . , \
• Part of the Santee River watershed 4, a .
• Samples were collected in a one mile stretch />--a-
downstream of the Rogers Energy Complex 1

Human Health Effects
Selenium- Signs of selenium toxicity occur at selenium ingestion levels of 0.7 —
7.0 mg/day while 0.2 mg/day is nutritionally adequate.Effects include nail and hair
loss, GI stress, and endocrine system disruption.
Chromium- Hexavalent chromium is considered the most toxic form because it
readily passes cellular membranes and is reduced to the trivalent form. Known
carcinogen.
Arsenic- Ingesting very high levels of arsenic can result in death. Exposure to
lower levels can cause nausea and vomiting, decreased production of red and
white blood cells, abnormal heart rhythm, and a sensation of "pins and needles" in
hands and feet.

Human Health Effects
Cadmium - Bioaccumulates in the food web. Health impacts include kidney
damage, bone demineralization, impair lung function, and increased risk of lung
cancer. Chronic low environmental exposure may have adverse effects on kidneys
and bones.
Lead - At high levels of exposure, lead attacks brain and central nervous system
and can cause death. Lead concentrations as low as 0.5 mg/L may be associated
with decreased intelligence in children.
Zinc U.S National Library of Medicine states that oral LD50 for zinc is close to 3
g/kg body weight. High amounts of zinc may cause fever, coughing, stomach
pain, and fatigue.

Fish Health Effects
Selenium- Bioaccumulates in the food web leading to reproductive impairments
such as larval deformity and negative effects on juvenile growth.
Chromium- Elevates levels of free-roaming amino acids (present to decrease metal
toxicity), impacts fertilization, decreases glycogen stores in liver, and causes
hypertrophy.
Arsenic- Toxic levels lead to increased aggression and biomass, decreased
operculum movement, and glycolysis is inhibited. Ingestion via water is more toxic
than absorption via diet. Does not bioaccumulate.

Fish Health Effects
Cadmium Bioaccumulates in the food web and can cause liver disease, and
nerve/brain damage, affects birth weight and skeleton development in animals.
Zinc - Adverse effects in fish include structural damages, which affect the growth,
improvement and survival of the fish. It accumulates in the gills of fish and this
designates a depressing effect on tissue respiration leading to hypoxia.
Lead - Can severely damage organs and can cause reproductive disorders,
behavioral disorders, and heart disease.

.
,o.
4
a "O rppy„n �R.
SGS '''
e ,
'Tit ,'"/Ar"..,_4-'--5, --., , 4, l's.!6:4"- -= _,.--
P
=-r '� t
x ti
'1 � � :�
a
* . Goggle Earth
,
BC 221 Bridge Crossing (F,S,W) I TPD Top Discharge (W)
T 2814 Riverfront Dr. Tap Water (W) PLS�
W �Runoff Seep at Powerlines (W)
RFD i Riverfront Drive Seep (W) e SCS Seep at Suck Creek (W)
DSTD 40 yds. Downstream of Toe Drainage (F,W) SC ; Suck Creek (F,S,W)
TED f Toe Drainage (W,S) D Dam (Left and Right) (F,W)

•
(j
s e ),• k iy }
w. :-•--.
•
{ _ °mac & }
tt' gg ' 9p
. [ � ,� .'fix- ,
•
; -,- `$ wP row K.:d _
am' $' -
z
Left and Right Darn x
• Seep at Suck Creek

•
a '.Tpfy• "1' •
,' .
.11
`fi..
r "•-f 'r, ti e't.S. t7 �r`4 y ,t -.«. t 7 , :\ ;ç } x A �' w g Ar rw .. 4'. {'
•
of
i I ' � �w Q�
.4
tla' AB 6n l 4J4 rl\
I--t a 4 f •a, r t : fe / :l +i ,� ri
a afl:a s `�} y 'w .�
Ex' 'aa kF c*ra„ro d rt; ' ,,," ' �1 , r'y .y fi F�`1i.� �
4
a { reef r 5� K �. 7 ,
40
FWD ai av r ay ', y
rn�x ' ,`'C P r r` • a 4) 1'44;(Yak i ,r '..' 5�+ ,'r I } i Y/ y r�
1� >`, a 'tJ�,,�5�r�i�TT •.4e " � :-;�?+,. .2'I�'�.i s'�'"r I u. '^, .rb�
•
, , • •,• • fr,'4,,, •4 0 vift0t1 4.6.0.,44,',,,,,, ,-, '44.,), .
• ',, :;,-..,,,,..,. ., , '4L'--.•1.,!-".—,'•4‘,•'.'!pit'!'1.3,tii.,t,l''4,::„.:.t.' '''.'.;11;',,P,:".,,,"''!',,: ', •••.'.,e"l',A" ''*''''•.-'"
1i.I './)y jj fr.'
CA�iS!tf1T�i1 .1t ' it , � fJ';,",F,`4ff�h 4*';
.r 7. { ,,.'l� zc�!' �}`x ', #dab `
§§ R
P" w t ,
03
(C3
i� '
Q
4.
Y" '6 x,,, 4�.
•

Collection Methods
NC Wildlife Resources Commission 4 � 4
Collecting Permit #18-SFC00038 � �=
; . s to _ ..r ,, ' '�
• Fish Assessment
a Electroshocking at each site111
f.
Fish species and length where recorded
EPA method 3050
• Soil Assessment ,Aik*---f.A.t.-r.-4.?, � � u
3
4144.
Approx. 20 grams taken from each site °�� '
,-„,,,t,,,,,t-.,-:.7.„`i: _,,,,4:*.q.,;-_,...„.;...,..„„: - ,,, ''-A
EPA method 3050 .
• Water Assessment
k,` 7 � _ , .
Approx. 250mL taken from each site �
a
i
EPA method 3015 ,. - � ;� s �-,..- '"
< _ a �- ` ..<� 9 .

Collection Sites
10
E
"FS
z
0
• 1111II I I I II •
221 Bridge Crossing Left Darn Right Dam Suck Creek Downstream of Toe
Drainage
• White Sucker • Margined Madtom • Creek Chub Redear Sunfish
• Chanel Catfish a Hogsucker • Threadfin Shad Eiluegill
a Redbreast Sunfish a Long Eared Sunfish a Pumpkinseed Sunfish a Yellow Perch
• Total

Recorded Temperature values
DSTD 13.9
TP[3 16.4
Water Chemistry TED
1
p� • 6.i
17.2 .
V
SCS14.1
'Al SC . 14.15
. Darn 12.5
BC 13.1 •
0.
C 1 20
Recorded pH values Temperature ,:c
C6TO 7.46
7pp 7S8
•
. TED 8111111111111111111111111111111111111 6.68. .
z
'A PLS 7.11 .•
v
5 6..97. . .
a
.n SC 7.16
Dam 7.27
8C 7.15
6.2 6_4 6.6 6.8 7 7.2 7_4 7-6 7.8
P

)441110 Recorded Specific Conducitvity
RANGE OF TOLERANCE FOR t fi'p a�■rt 48.6
DIS SC D OXYGEN 1N FISH
PARTS PER MILLION(PPPt1) DISSOLVED OXYGEN IPO 595..
,> 4 8 6 7 8 9 10 TEt? 595 4
' 9, .: :! PLS 34D.7
i +• .+ E SCS 111111111111i 65.2
• ‘e0 0 w aPPM >coc) St Om 50.1
top lour,vr lawns somas
'0,me.ribtro" nxw ldurdert
l�Sti totkttattnc3r'!5 i 53
14.S.ti.teem a 7 tf PPM
1244 two `> rt$ BC ags .431
range of miervme i wthho-tvatg
0 100 2 300 400 500 600 700
DO rng/L (ppm)
lt) Spec frc C3nduct v€ty'
4-0ras 10.96
Top Dschar€e 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111MI 5.35
.Toe Drat ? 7.51 .
sr
Powers Ile. 1111111111111111111111.111111110111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 8 6
X A 0,'a-1 10.25
rtt
S"ucY Creek 10.15
Darn _.. 11.14
221 Br age 11.022
6 2 .. 6 5 10 12
,,s;—t-e

. .
Arsenic (As) levels ,.
1.2
1 z- High As levels lead to death in humans and
behaviors and breathing changes in fish
c
0
-i•-•1 0 6 4,44 -44,
.=
..,
:44r. gAz:
0.4
„.,
i';:ii!,
. . ,. .e.,,,-- ..:- _,,,, ,._ 00
u 0.2 - --- 7-'''-' 01' --= -1' gig
-'.3 , ,33,3.,,,,,,,,_ y,.„.,,,*:Z -3,3.3.3,3,, ' ;33-3.3 , '
: ':::i. '''''''t '''', 'r,::' '=,•A
White Yelbw Catfish White Catfish White Long Eared
• Sucker • Perch Sucker • Sucker Sunfish
Cadmium (Cd) levels
nom Eggs F esh • Safe tee,
0.45
0 4
1 0.35 •
EPA published in 2009 that the
6 0_25
.c
safe Cd and As level for 4 fish ' 2 0.2
'C'
i 4, 0 15
u
•
i c
i High Cd levels lead to lung issues/cancer in 0 DI
ti _____ ,_ . _ ______ ....,_. ,
humans and bioaccumulates in fish leading to 0.05 0 ,........., ..... .4.=
1 whole body damage White Yeibw CatfLth White Catfish White Long Eared
_
Sucker Perch Sucker Sucker Sunfill
• rem Eggs • owes Flesh Szfe tvel

Chromium (Cr) levels
3.5
3
a 2 5
ix .02 High Cr yillee:vchwels leacci,,,,, to ciaincer in humansii and
E 2
- 1,5 negative effects on reproduction in fish
. , .
. i
,.,
c 1
. I 1 .2 ppm
0.5
White Yellow Catf di White Catf.J-1 '11h te Long Eared
Sucker Perch. Sucker Sucker Sun'J1
NM Eggs awn F lesh —- S k,,de e
Copper (Cu) levels
16
lA
-7-_- 12
— i o
Recommended daily
i .
; s
High Cu levels have no effect on humans and -
= 6
can be lethal to fish due to gill fraying and inability li' 4
Lip transport of salts
White Catf III White Carl' White Long Eared
Sucker
p
Sucker Sucker Sunfish
a Eggsv Flesh

Lead (Pb) levels
60
50
E
eL High Pb levels have neural effects in humans
0 and reproductive & behavioural disorders in fish
t) 20
L. 10
0
White Yenow Catfish White Catfish White Long Eared
Sucker Perch Sucker Sucker Sunf
Selenium (Se) levels
MIR Eggs 6.4:4-.4-F esh —SeLeve
20
18
16
a 14
g 12
8
High Se levels cause gastrointestinal distress in
u 6
humans and larval impairments in fish
0 4
T3 2 ppm 2
=
Wh=te Ye.bv4 Catftsh WhiteCarf,ti Whyte Long Eared
Sucker Perch Sucker Sucker Sure
wars Eggi,- cFh Se eve

Zinc (Zn) levels
500
450
400 High Zn : :::n :: :'pment
evels gatesti
a- 350
250 \ distress
\\ iflfish 5100
White Ye4 w catfi White catfish White Long Eared
Sucker Perch Sucker Sucker Sunfish
II Eggs Flesh Recommended daily intake for
adult humans is
8 mg/day

Concentration [Cci]vs. Length (mm)
• • - Reference
•
0 - Downstream
c 3,12
0 1
ace
0
• •• • •
* 4110
•5 • *
100 150
Length (mm)
Concentration [Se] vs. Length (mm)
14
12
1.0
0
c 4
•
• 41 4
Vertical bar indicates length at maturity.
Horizontal bar indicates previously stated 100 15-2 227 25C 35C
• safe levels Length (ram)

Concentration [Asj vs. Length (mm)
0 Reference
• • - Downstream
Et G.R
.2 • •• • •
►S .
•
v 0.d • t •
o • ••
L.) , , • ,
•
`.
103 15 % 250 3W 35v, 400
Length imm)
Concentration [Pb] vs. Length (mm)
18
16 •
1
a •
a 12
_ o
o . 0— • a
c
cb • • •
J •
Vertical bar indicates length at maturity.
Horizontal bar indicates previously stated Length (mm)
safe levels

Concentration [Cr]vs. Length (mm)
1.8
- Reference
1.4 * - Downstream
0. 1.2.
0 • 4
• •
•
emu_-
Q
=1� • •
v
Length 1mml Concentration[Zn]vs; Length (mm)
6
100
0
U
Vertical bar indicates length at maturity. ' ° '�' •
Horizontal bar indicates previously stated 1 ' -=-
length tmm►
safe levels

Feeding Habits
• White Sucker - Bottom feeder eating mainly small invertebrates, algae, and plant
matter.
• Bluegill - Adult bluegill diet consists of mainly aquatic insect larvae (mayflies,
caddisflies, dragonflies) but can also include crayfish, leeches, snails, and other
small fish.
• Channel Catfish - Feed mostly on snails, insects, crawfish, algae, and plants.
• Long Eared Sunfish - Mostly carnivorous feeding on aquatic insects, small
crustaceans, fish eggs, and young bass.
• Margined Madtom - Feed mainly on aquatic insect larvae.
• Red Breasted Sunfish Feed mainly on aquatic insect larvae and small fish.

Fish Species vs Mean PPM for Toxic Metals
12
20
Horizontal line indicates the
following safe levels:
WhaeSucker(8)
€i eGii(S)
Cat; ,(6) Cu — Daily intake level of 0.9
Long Eared Su9rsh(4, mg/day
Creek Chutsi2)
6 F9argenedPrtadtomi3) Pb - 0.3 ppm was
° '°Red
areaed Sunfish
'=' determined by EU as level
▪' "` es ' of concern
■Threadfn Shad(1)
■Gzzard Shad(1)
■Pumpkinseed Sunfsh(1)
Se - Safe Se level is 1 .32
Y Perch(1 ppm for 4 fish meals/month
2
o
Cu Pb Se

Reference Site Fillet and Egg Levels
14
12
10
n. &
-
n
E
4
411-7
As
Cr Cu Pb Se
a White Sucker(6+1) [Margined Madtom (1) a Creek Chub (2) s Red Eared Sunfish (0-1
)

. .
Dam Site Fillet and Egg Levels
9
0
..--... 6
E
0_
0_ 5
• --Y 4 • • .
0,2 •
E 3 ..'".•:•.. ,-,,,,,,,;
..,,,....,
-., .,.
,.
, .
.,,
• . 4- .
1 • -..,..,,
" •, :Er:;:°:
... ., ...:
. .
0 11111',7'''''''.- MUNI. • 111 1,7,-.- * P il Mall ..tif:- - --''' ..:' l''''' . '
As Cr Cu Pb . Se
a Catfish (6+1) a White Sucker(2+2) • it Hogsucker (2) a Threadfin Shad (1) $Blue Gill(3)
$Red Breasted Sunfish (2) III Qizzard Shad (.1) I Margined Madtom(2) $ Long Eared Sunfish (2) I Yellow Perch(11) -.
•

Downstream of Toe Drainage Fillet Levels
12
10
8
t
(a.t° •
ta)
4
2 rkrrel
1111Limete' Nommem.
As Cr Cu Pb Se
• Long Eared Sunfish (21 n. Blue Gill (1) Pumpkinseed Sunfish (1)

Suck Creek Fillet Levels
6
5
4
r1Z 3
W Blue Gill (3)
E
txo
2
1
0
As Cr Cu Pb Se

Sediment Sample Dement Leve s
30 a As
ii Cd
l'-,
.1 '
-...,..,,
IN a
a Pb
20 !f,,11.,.;
a Se
a iel
o..
„..._... ' e, •
GI
E 10 pm-.
it::t
rA-4.-LA.-
MA
,
4'4'4 ' -1 i,-4-„,
4„Ai:. 0;4A.A
140
4ir AA,...•
1
f.A.. .',.A,---,A4 g • 4,,Ii37
, -
.,4
-.'-..“5' ''..fk =•, .
,..',;,..A-...,
, .
'lit
1:1",y
L,-
0 ,...-—
,,,mo
221111•11101k -
221 Bridge Crossing Toe Drainage Suck Creek
Sample Site

Water Sample Element Levels
• al
0.09
0.08
• 0.07
1. 0.06
17 0.05
0.04
• 0.03 •
0.02
0.01
0 II II II 111 I 1 .
As Cd Cr Cu Se
al 221 Bri se Crossing(RefererKe) V.River front Drive Seep 'it Darn
Suck Creek I Suck Creek Seep Power line Seep
V Top Drainage *Downstream Toe Drainage I Toe Drainage
1 2814 Riverfront Drive Tap Water

Water Sample Element Levels
0.4
.w.
-''0.
m
0.2
0.1
I
221 Bridge Riverfront Drive Darn Suck Creek Suck Creek Powerline Seep Tap Drainage Downstream Toe Drainage 2814 Riverfront
Crossing Seep Seep Toe Drainage Drive Tap
(Reference) Water
Pb 5 Zn

Implications & Future research
• Copper, selenium and zinc had significant differences between up and
downstream
o Major impacts on juvenile development
• Almost all collected fish have elevated levels for different heavy metals
o Even some elevated levels on the reference site
• Collections from tributaries to the Broad River
• Collections of larval fish
o Both populations and development

Acknowledgements
(10 We would like to thank the Appalachian State University Biology and
Chemistry Departments.
• We would like to thank the Madison Malone, Broad Riverkeeper David
Caldwell and a resident of the community Guy Hutchins.
et We would also like to thank Dr. Shea Tuberty and Dr. Carol Babyak
,
,. ,-
/17
::..,
AppalachYian •
fo , STATE UNIVERSITY

Questions?
�� �� �r f
t��A '/ N4�TAL C01lTQIATtfsiJT ' 'ski �`1� " �` `7
�' {N IVIES WA �? Wti�iE STAR;` D F15411tida �
;ef vJ ITI MAdaN �a
. .,
I�j
_.....
___ To. 0 * , ,,, ,..
t‘ . .....„4............
.i.......
,_....,,, ,.,..
r ,„rtitl �. ~ a 1 o fir ", �1. �3
t 4„,,,,,, ., .s,
•
�r s I� s N � �. +t xit �l° l �[• . ss�.f
•
• � }I f
COt4t,WP c- $ E At�AMsrv' _�ta`1 a� t�a.,� Ic .I �,Ct�M

EXHIBIT 2

•
•
ROY COOPER, ,'1,�•
Governor NORTH CAROLINA
MICHAEL S.REGAN Erwinmunenta!Quattty
Secretary
LINDA CULPEPPER
Interim Oka trx
July 13,2018
Mr.Paul Draovitch, Senior Vice President EH&S
Duke Energy Carolinas,LLC
526 Church St.
Mail Code: EC3XP
Charlotte,NC 28202
Subject: Final NPDES Permit Renewal
Permit NC0005088
Rogers Energy Complex
Cleveland&Rutherford Counties
Class II Facility— Sanitary WWTP
Dear Mr.Draovitch:
Division personnel have reviewed and approved your application for renewal of the subject permit.
Accordingly, we are forwarding the attached NPDES permit. This permit is issued pursuant to the
requirements of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 and the Memorandum of Agreement between
North Carolina and the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency dated October 15,2007(or as subsequently
amended).
This final permit contains the following changes from your draft permit:
• The discharge from Outfall 106 was reclassified as discharging to a UT to the Broad River. The
RPA was revised which resulted in the implementation of limits for TDS and aluminum.
• Sampling frequency for metals during dewatering was modified to weekly.Bromide sampling was
added to the monitoring requirements.
• Sampling frequency for total arsenic, total mercury and total selenium during decanting was
modified to weekly. Bromide sampling was added to the monitoring requirements.
• A footnote was added for the decanting and dewatering effluent pages that requires the facility to
discontinue the discharge if pollutant levels reach 85%of the allowable concentrations and to report
the event to the Division.
North Caroling;Department of Environmental Quality l Division of water Resources
512 North Salistrury Street 1161.7 Mail Service Center Raleigh,North Carolina 27699-1617
91.9.707,9000

• Footnote 8 for outfall 005 was modified to clarify that monthly monitoring is required during
normal operations and during decanting. In addition, the fecal coliform sample type was changed
to grab.
• The downstream sample location for the instream monitoring required by special condition A.(13)
was modified to approximately 250 meters from the discharge.
• Special condition A.(24)was modified to require the submittal of materials required by the 316(b)
rule by 3.5 years from the issuance of the permit and to add language stating that the Division
determined that operating and maintaining the existing Closed-cycle recirculating system meets the
requirements for an interim BTA.
• The Division evaluated the schedule of compliance for the FGD limits and determined that Duke
did not provide sufficient justification to delay the completion of the project until December 31,
2023.The compliance date was modified to December 31, 2021.
If any parts, measurement frequencies or sampling requirements contained in this permit are unacceptable
to you,you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon written request within thirty(30)days following
receipt of this letter. This request must be in the form of a written petition,conforming to Chapter 150B of
the North Carolina General Statutes, and filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings (6714 Mail
Service Center,Raleigh;North Carolina 27699-6714). Unless such demand is made,this decision shall be
final and binding.
Please note that this permit is not transferable except after notice to the Division. The Division may require
modification or revocation and reissuance of the permit. This permit does not affect the legal requirements
to obtain other permits which may be required by the Division of Water Resources or any other Federal,
State, or Local governmental permits that may be required.
If you have any questions concerning this permit,please contact Teresa Rodriguez at(919)807-6387 or via
email at [e-mail].
Sincerely,
Linda Culpepper
Interim Director,Division of Water Resources,NCDEQ
Hardcopy: NPDES Files
Central Files
Ecopy: DWR/Asheville Regional Office/Water Quality Program
US EPA Region 4.
DWR/Aquatic Toxicology Branch/Susan Meadows

Permit No.NC0005088
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
PERMIT
TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provisions of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1,other lawful standards and
regulations promulgated and adopted by the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission,
and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,as amended,
Duke Energy Carolinas,LLC.
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at
Rogers Energy Complex
573 Duke Power Rd
Mooresboro
Cleveland&Rutherford County
to receiving waters designated as the Broad River in the Broad River Basin
in accordance with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements,and other conditions set forth in Parts I,
II, and III hereof.
This permit shall become effective September 1,2018.
This permit and authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on August 31,2023.
Signed this day July 13,2018.
Linda ulpepper, Interim Director
Division of Water Resources
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission
Page 1 of 29

Permit No.NC0005088
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.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC is hereby authorized to:
1. Continue to operate the following systems Iocated at the Rogers Energy Complex,573 Duke Power Rd,
Mooresboro,in Rutherford&Cleveland Counties:
• Outfall 002-Ash Basin Treatment System. Continue to discharge treated wastewater from the ash basin
through outfall 002, containing low volume wastes, coal pile runoff, metal cleaning wastes, treated
domestic wastewater,chemical metal cleaning wastes,water treatment system wastewaters,ash transport
water, landfill leachate (landfill contains fly and bottom ash, and gypsum from FGD system), cooling
towers blowdown,runoff from limestone stacking area and gypsum stacking area. Upon commencement
of the discharge from Outfall 005 Wastewater Treatment System discharge wastewater from the ash basin
decanting and dewatering.
• Internal Outfall 004 - Flue Gas Desulfurization Treatment System. Continue to operate a FGD wet
scrubber treatment system consisting of equalization tank,reaction tank,clarifier,filters,and effluent tank
discharging to the ash basin (Outfall 002). Upon commencement of the discharge from Outfall 005
Wastewater Treatment System discharge the effluent from the FGD treatment system and the heat
exchanger non-contact cooling water combined with the effluent of the Wastewater Treatment System
(outfall 005).
• Outfall 005 - Wastewater Treatment System (WWTS). Upon commencement of the discharge from the
new Wastewater Treatment System, discharge holding basin effluent (Outfall 002C - Unit 5 fly ash silo
sump,coal pile runoff,gypsum pile runoff and limestone pile runoff),Basement Basin effluent(RO reject,
Unit 5 process and stormwater. and Unit 6 sanitary system), Unit 6 cooling tower blowdown, landfill
leachate,Unit 6 process sump (mechanical drag chain overflow, and cooling tower raw water treatment
wastwaters, Unit 5 process sump (sanitary system, low volume wastes, mechanical drag chain overflow
and cooling tower blowdown), ash basin dewatering/decanting. The FGD WWTS discharge (Internal
Outfall 004) and heat exchanger non-contact cooling water will be combined with the discharge from the
WWTS before discharge to the Broad River,
• Outfall 002B - Basement Basin Overflow. Discharge overflow from a 100 yr 24 hr storm event. The
Basement Basin receives wastewater from the Unit 6 sanitary system,Unit 5 stormwater and low volume
wastes and RO reject.
• Outfall 002C-Holding Basin Emergency Overflow. Discharge overflow from a 100 yr 24 hr storm event
from the Holding Basin. The Holding Basing receives wastewater from the coal pile runoff, gypsum pile
runoff,limestone pile runoff,Unit 5 fly ash silo sump and Basement Basin auxiliary basin overflow.
• Outfalls 104 and 106-Constructed Seeps. Continue to discharge seepage from outfall 104(lat 35°13'3.5"
long 81°45'9.3")and outfall 106(lat 35°13'6.3" long 81°44' 53.7").
Page 2 of 29

Permit No.NC0005088
2. Discharge from said outfalls at the location specified on the attached map into the Broad River classified as
WS-IV water in the Broad River Basin.Outfall 106 discharge is to an UT of the Broad River.
Page 3 of 29

Permit No.NC0005088
PART I
A. (1.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS [15A NCAC 02B .0400 et seq., 02B
.0500 et seq.]
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until commencement of dewatering or
expiration,the Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall 002-ash pond effluent (decanting the free water
above the settled ash layer that does not involve mechanical disturbance of the ash). Such discharges shall be
limited and monitored)by the Permittee as specified below:
Discharge Limitations Monitoring Requirements
Effluent Characteristics Monthly Daily Measurement Sample
Average Maximum Frequency Sample Type 2
g q cy Location
Flow(MGD) Weekly Calculation or E -*
similar readings
Oil and Grease 15.0 mg/L 20.0 mg/L Monthly Grab E
Total Suspended Solids3,4 30.0 mg/L 50.0 mg/L Monthly Grab E
Total Copper 102 µg/L 111 µg/L See Note 5 Grab E
Total Iron 1.0 mg/L 1.0 mg/L See Note 5 Grab E
Total Chromium 0.2 mg/L_ 0.2 mg/L Monthly Grab •� E
Total Zinc 1.0 mg/L 1.0 mg/L Monthly Grab E
Total Residual Chlorine6 28 µg/L 2/Month Grab E
Total Selenium,µg/L Weekly Grab E
Total Arsenic,µg/L Weekly Grab E
Total Mercury 7,ng/L Weekly Grab E
Total Cadmium,µg/L Monthly Grab E
Total Lead,µg/L Monthly _ Grab E
Total Thallium,µg/L Monthly Grab E
Total Bromide,µg/L Monthly Grab E
pH-I 8 6.0 to 9.0 S.U. 2/Month Grab E
Total Dissolved Solids Monthly Grab E
Hardness-Total as Quarterly Grab E
[CaCO3 or(Ca+Mg)] mg/L
Turbidity 9,NTU Monthly Grab E
BODs 30 mg/1 45 mg/1 Monthly Grab E
Fecal Coliform 200/100 mL 400/100 mL Monthly Grab E
Total Nitrogen
(NO2+NO3+TKN) Quarterly Grab E
Total Phosphorus Quarterly Grab E
Chronic Toxicity 10 Quarterly Grab E
Temperature Weekly Grab E
Page4of29

Permit No.NC0005088
126 pollutants contained in
chemicals added for cooling
tower maintenance(except No detectable amounts 11 Annual Grab E
Total chromium and Total
Zinc)
Notes:
1. The permittee shall submit Discharge Monitoring Reports electronically using NC DWR's eDMR application
system.See Special Condition A. (28).
2. Sample Locations: E-Effluent;Effluent sampling shall be conducted at the discharge from the ash settling pond
prior to mixing with any other waste streams.
3. A total suspended solids monthly average of 50 mg/L is permitted provided that the permittee can satisfactorily
demonstrate that the difference between the monthly average of 30 mg/L and 50 mg/L is the result of the
concentration of total suspended solids in the intake water.
4. The facility shall continuously monitor TSS concentration when the decanting process commences(and the pump
is operating) and the decanting pump shall be shut off automatically when one half of the Daily Maximum limit
(15 minutes average) is exceeded. Pumping will be allowed to continue if interruption might result in a dam
failure or damage.
5. Monitoring shall be per occurrence of chemical metal cleaning and sample shall be from a representative
discharge.
6. The Division shall consider all effluent TRC values reported below 50 µg/L to be in compliance with the permit.
However, the permittee shall continue to record and submit all values reported by a North Carolina certified
laboratory(including field certified),even if these values fall below 50 ag/L.Neither free available chlorine(FAC)
nor TRC may be discharged from any single generating unit for more than two hours in any single day, and not
more than one unit in the plant may discharge FAC or TRC,unless the discharger demonstrates to the Division
that the unit(s)cannot operate at or below this level of chlorination.
7. The facility shall employ method 1631E,
8. The facility shall continuously monitor pH when the decanting process commences(and the pump is operating)
and the decanting pump shall be shut off automatically when 15 minutes running average pH falls below 6.1
standard units or rises above 8.9 standard units.Pumping will be allowed to continue if interruption might result
in a dam failure or damage.
9. The discharge from this facility shall not cause turbidity in the receiving stream to exceed 50 NTU. If the instream
turbidity exceeds 50 NTU due to natural background conditions,the discharge cannot cause turbidity to increase
in the receiving stream. Therefore, if the effluent measurement exceeds 50 NTU, the Permittee shall sample
upstream and downstream turbidity in the receiving waterbody, within 24 hours, to demonstrate the existing
turbidity level in the receiving waterbody was not increased. All data shall be reported on the DMRs. (See 15A
NCAC 2B.0211 (21)). NTU-Nephelometric Turbidity Unit
10. Chronic Toxicity(Ceriodaphnia)P/F at 7.7% quarterly;See condition A. (9)of this permit.
11. Limitations and monitoring requirements for the 126 Priority Pollutants (per 40 CFR Part 423, Appendix A,
exclusive of zinc and chromium) apply only if these substances are added by the permittee for cooling tower
maintenance. Compliance with the limitations for the 126 priority pollutants in 40 CFR 423.13 (d)(1) may be
determined by engineering calculations which demonstrate that the regulated pollutants are not detectable in the
final discharge by the analytical methods in 40 CFR Part 136. All primary industries are required to submit a
priority pollutant analysis in accordance with 40 CFR Part 122 with their application for permit
renewal.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
By November 1,2020 there shall be no discharge of pollutants in bottom ash transport waters.This requirement
only applies to bottom ash transport water generated after November 1,2020.
In accordance with N.C.G.S. §130A-309.210,by December 31,2019,the facility shall convert to the disposal of dry
Page 5 of 29

Permit No.NC0005088
bottom ash,as defined in the Coal Ash Management Act("CAMA").
Fly ash is dry handled at this facility.
The facility is allowed to drawdown the wastewater in the ash pond to no less than three feet above the ash.
The facility shall use a floating pump station during decanting with free water skimmed from the basin surface
using an adjustable weir.
The limits and conditions in Section A. (2)of the permit apply when water in the ash settling basin is lowered
below the three feet trigger mark,measured at the pump intake.
The facility shall notify via e-mail DWR Complex NPDES Permitting Unit and DWR Asheville Regional Office
seven calendar days prior to the commencement of the dewatering.
The rate for lowering the liquid level in a coal ash pond shall not exceed one(1)foot per day unless a higher rate is
supported to the satisfaction of DEMLR and in accordance with NCAC,Title 15A,Subchapter 2K.
When the facility commences the ash pond decanting/dewatering,the facility shall treat the wastewater discharged
from the ash pond using physical-chemical treatment,if necessary,to assure state Water Quality Standards are not
contravened in the receiving stream.Duke Energy shall notify DWR NPDES Permitting and DWR Asheville
Regional Office,in writing,within seven calendar days of installing additional physical-chemical treatment at this
Outfall.
If any one of the pollutants(As,Se,Hg,Ni,and Pb)reaches 85% of the allowable level during the
decanting/dewatering,the facility shall immediately discontinue discharge of the wastewater and report it to the
Regional Office and Complex NPDES Permitting Branch via telephone and e-mail.
Page 6 of 29

Permit No.NC0005088
A. (2.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS [15A NCAC 02B .0400 et seq., 02B
.0500 et seq.]
During the period beginning on the commencement of the dewatering operation and lasting until permit expiration,
the Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall 002 (Dewatering - removing the interstitial water). Such
discharges shall be limited and monitored' by the Permittee as specified below:
Discharge Limitations Monitoring Requirements
Effluent Characteristics Monthly Daily Measurement Sample
Sample Type 2
Average Maximum Frequency Location
Flow(MGD) 1 MGD Weekly Calculation or Effluent
similar readings•
Oil and Grease 15.0 mg/L 20.0.mg/L Monthly Grab Effluent
Total Suspended Solids3 ( 30.0 mg/L 50.0 mg/L Monthly Grab Effluent
• Total Chromium 0.2 mg/L 0.2 mg/L Weekly Grab Effluent
Total Zinc 1.0 mg/L 1.0 mg/L Weekly Grab Effluent
Total Cadmium,µg/L Weekly Grab Effluent
Total Copper,µg/L Weekly Grab Effluent
Total Iron,µg/L Weekly Grab • Effluent
Total Lead,µg/L Weekly Grab Effluent
Total Mercury4,ng/L Weekly Grab Effluent
Total Arsenic,µg/L Weekly Grab Effluent
Total Selenium,µg/L i Weekly Grab Effluent
Total Molybdenum,µg/L Weekly Grab Effluent
Total Thallium,µg/L Weekly Grab r Effluent
Total Bromide,µg/L Weekly Grab • Effluent
Total Dissolved Solids,mg/L Weekly Grab Effluent
Chronic Toxicity5 Monthly Grab Effluent
Total Nitrogen Effluent
(NO2+NO3+TKN) Quarterly Grab
Total Phosphorus Quarterly Grab Effluent
pH 6 6.0 to 9.0 S.0 2/Month Grab Effluent 1
Turbidity 7,NTU Weekly Grab Effluent
_
Hardness-Total as Effluent
[CaCO3 or(Ca+Mg)] mg/L Quarterly Grab
Temperature Weekly Grab Effluent
126 pollutants contained in
chemicals added for cooling
tower maintenance(except No detectable amounts 8 Annual Grab Effluent
Total chromium and Total
Zinc)
Page 7 of 29

Permit No.NC0005088
Notes:
1. The permittee shall submit Discharge Monitoring Reports electronically using NC DWR's eDMR application
system.See Special Condition A. (28).
2. Sample Locations:Effluent sampling shall be conducted at the discharge from the ash settling pond prior to
mixing with any other waste streams.
3. The facility shall continuously monitor TSS concentration when the dewatering process commences(and the
pump is operating) and the dewatering pump shall be shut off automatically when one half of the Daily
Maximum limit(15 minutes average)is exceeded.Pumping will be allowed to continue if interruption might
result in a dam failure or damage.
4. The facility shall employ method 1631E.
5. Chronic Toxicity Monthly(Ceriodaplmia)P/F at 0.5 %;See condition A, (10)of this permit.
6. The facility shall continuously monitor pH when the dewatering process commences(and the pump is
operating)and the dewatering pump shall be shut off automatically when 15 minutes running average pH
falls below 6.1 standard units or rises above 8.9 standard units.Pumping will be allowed to continue if
interruption might result in a dam failure or damage.
7. The discharge from this facility shall not cause turbidity in the receiving stream to exceed 50 NTU. If the
instream turbidity exceeds 50 NTU due to natural background conditions, the discharge cannot cause
turbidity to increase in the receiving stream. Therefore, if the effluent measurement exceeds 50 NTU, the
Permittee shall sample upstream and downstream turbidity in the receiving waterbody,within 24 hours,to
demonstrate the existing turbidity level in the receiving waterbody was not increased. All data shall be
reported on the DMRs. (See 15A NCAC 2B.0211(21)). NTU-Nephelometric Turbidity Unit
8. Limitations and monitoring requirements for the 126 Priority Pollutants (per 40 CFR Part 423,Appendix A,
exclusive of zinc and chromium)apply only if these substances are added by the permittee for cooling tower
maintenance. Compliance with the limitations for the 126 priority pollutants in 40 CFR 423.13(d)(1)may be
determined by engineering calculations which demonstrate that the regulated pollutants are not detectable
in the final discharge by the analytical methods in 40 CFR Part 136, All primary industries are required to
submit a priority pollutant analysis in accordance with 40 CFR Part 122 with their application for permit
renewal.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
By November 1,2020 there shall be no discharge of pollutants in bottom ash transport waters.This requirement
only applies to bottom ash transport water generated after November 1,2020.
In accordance with N.C.G.S. §130A-309.210,by December 31,2019, the facility shall convert to the disposal of dry
bottom ash,as defined in the Coal Ash Management Act("CAMA").
Fly ash is dry handled at this facility.
There shall be no discharge of metal cleaning wastes to the ash basin once the dewatering operations commence.
The facility shall notify via e-mail DWR Complex NPDES Permitting Unit and DWR Asheville Regional Office
seven calendar days prior to the commencement of the dewatering.
The rate for lowering the liquid level in a coal ash pond shall not exceed one(1)foot per day unless a higher rate is
supported to the satisfaction of DEMLR and in accordance with NCAC,Title 15A,Subchapter 2K.
When the facility commences the ash pond decanting/dewatering,the facility shall treat the wastewater discharged
from the ash pond using physical-chemical treatment,if necessary,to assure state Water Quality Standards are not
contravened in the receiving stream.Duke Energy shall notify DWR NPDES Permitting and DWR Asheville
Regional Office,in writing,within seven calendar days of installing additional physical-chemical treatment at this
Outfall.
Page 8 of 29

Permit No.NC0005088
If any one of the pollutants(As,Se,Hg,Ni,and Pb)reaches 85% of the allowable level during the
decanting/dewatering,the facility shall immediately discontinue discharge of the wastewater and report it to the
Regional Office and Complex NPDES Permitting Branch via telephone and e-mail,
A. (3)EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS [15A NCAC 02B.0400 et seq.,02B
.0500 et eq.]
During the period beginning upon commencement of operations of the new holding cell and lasting until expiration,
the Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall 002B- Basement Basin Emergency Overflow. Such discharges
shall be limited and monitored)by the Permittee as specified below:
Discharge Limitations Monitoring Requirements
Effluent Characteristics Monthly Daily Measurement Sample
Average Maximum Frequency Sample Type Location
Flow(MGD) Per discharge Estimate Effluent
event
Oil and Grease 15 ir►g/L 20 mg/L Per discharge Grab Effluent
event
Per discharge Effluent
Total Suspended Solids 30 mg/L 100 mg/L Grab
event
Per discharge Effluent
pi I 6.0 to 9.0 S.U. Grab
event
BOD5 30 mg/L 45 mg/L Per discharge Grab Effluent
event
Per discharge Effluent
Fecal Coliform 200/100 mL 400/100 mL Grab
event
'l'otal Copper 102 µg/L 111 µg/L See Note 2 Grab Effluent
Total Iron 1.0 mg/L 1.0 mg/L See Note 2 Grab Effluent
Acute Toxicity3 --- u Per discharge Grab Effluent
event
Notes:
1. The permittee shall submit Discharge Monitoring Reports electronically using NC DWR's eDMR application
system. See Special Condition A. (28).
2. Monitor only if the emergency overflow is used when chemical metal cleaning waste is being discharged.
3. Acute Toxicity-Per discharge event,See Special Condition A. (12).
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
Episodic sampling is required per occurrence when pond overflows occur for longer than one hour. All
samples shall be of a representative discharge.The Division shall be notified in writing when the basin
discharges and the duration of the discharge.This notification shall be submitted within 10 days of the
discharge to the following address:
Asheville Water Quality Regional Operations Section NPDES Complex Permitting Unit
2090 U.S.70 Highway 1617 Mail Service Center
Swannanoa,NC 28778-8211 Raleigh,NC 227699-1617
Page 9 of 29

Permit No.NC0005088
A. (4) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS [15A NCAC 02B.0400 et seq.,02B
.0500 et seq.]
During the period beginning upon commencement of operations of the new holding basin and lasting until
expiration,the Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall 002C-Holding Basin Emergency Overflow. Such
discharges shall be limited and monitored.'by the Permittee as specified below:
Discharge Limitations Monitoring Requirements
Effluent Characteristics Monthly Daily Measurement Sample
Average Maximum Frequency Sample Type Location
Flow(MGD) Per discharge Estimate Effluent
event
Oil and Grease 15 mg/L 20 mg/L Per discharge Grab Effluent
event
Per discharge Effluent
Total Suspended Solids 30 mg/L 50 mg/L Grab
event
pH 6.0 to 9.0 S.U. Per discharge Grab Effluent
event
Grab
BOr 30mg/L 45 mg/1_
Per discharge Effluent
event
Fecal Coliform 200/100 mL 400/10Q mL Per discharge Grab ' Effluent
event
Total Copper 102 µg/L 111 µg/L See Note 2 Grab Effluent
Total Iron 1.0 mg/L 1.0 mg/L See Note 2 Grab Effluent
Acute Toxicity3 Per discharge Grab Effluent
event
Notes:
1. The permittee shall submit Discharge Monitoring Reports electronically using NC DWR's eDMR application
system. See Special Condition A. (28).
2. Monitor only if the emergency overflow is used when chemical metal cleaning waste is being discharged.
3. Acute Toxicity-Per discharge event,See Special Condition A. (12).
Episodic sampling is required per occurrence when pond overflows occur for longer than one hour. All
samples shall be of a representative discharge.The Division shall be notified in writing when the basin
discharges and the duration of the discharge.This notification shall be submitted within 10 days of the
discharge to the following address:
Asheville Water Quality Regional Operations Section NPDES Complex Permitting Unit
2090 U.S.70 Highway 1617 Mail Service Center
Swannanoa,NC 28778-8211 Raleigh,NC 227699-1617
Page 10 of 29

Permit No.NC0005088
A. (5.)EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS [15A NCAC 02B .0400 et seq.,
02B .0500 et seq.]
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-FGD Wastewater Treatment System. Such discharges shall be
limited and monitored)by the Permittee as specified below:
Discharge Limitations Monitoring Requirements
Effluent Characteristics Monthly Daily Measurement Sample
Average Maximum Frequency Sample Type Location2
Flow Monthly Pump Logs or Effluent
similar readings
Total Suspended Solids 30 mg/L 100 mg/L Quarterly Grab Effluent
Oil and Grease 15 mg/L 20 mg/L Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Arsenic3 8 µg/L 11 µg/L Quarterly Grab Effluent.
Total Mercury3.4 356 ng/L 788 ng/L Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Selenium3 12 pg/L 23}ig/L Quarterly Grab Effluent
Nitrate&Nitrite as N3 4.4 mg/L 17 mg/L Quarterly Grab Effluent ,
pH Quarterly Grab Effluent
Notes:
1. The permittee shall submit Discharge Monitoring Reports electronically using NC DWR's eDMR application
system. See Special Condition A. (28).
2. Samples taken in compliance with the monitoring requirements listed above shall be taken prior to mixing
with other sources of wastewater.
3. In accord with the Steam Electric Effluent Limitations Guidelines for FGD wastewater(40 C.F.R.423),these
limits shall become effective on December 31,2021. This permit may be reopened and modified if changes are
made to 40 C.F.R.423.
4. The facility shall employ method 1631E.
Page 11 of 29

Permit No.NC0005088
A. (6.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS [15A NCAC 02B .0400 et seq., 02B
.0500 et seq.]
During the period beginning upon commencement of discharge from the new WWTS and lasting until permit
expiration,the Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall 005-WWTS. Such discharges shall be limited and
monitored)by the Permittee as specified below:
Discharge Limitations Monitoring Requirements
Effluent Characteristics Monthly Daily Measurement Sample
Average Maximum Frequency Sample Type Location2
Flow(MGD) Continuous Recorder3 E
Oil and Grease 15.0 mg/L 20.0 mg/L 2/Month Grab E
Total Suspended Solids 30.0 mg/L 50.0 mg/L 2/Month Composite E
Total Copper 251 µg/L 272 µg/L See Note 4 Grab E
Total Iron 1.0 mg/L 1 1.0 mg/L See Note 4 Grab E
Total Chromium 0.2 mg/L ' 0.2 mg/L Monthly Grab E
Total Zinc 1.0 mg/L 1.0 mg/L Monthly Grab E
Chronic Toxicity5 Quarterly Composite 1 E
Total Nitrogen
(NO2+NO3+TICK) Quarterly Composite E
Total Phosphorus Quarterly 1 Composite E •
pH 6.0 to 9.0 S.U. 2/Month• Grab E
Total Residual Chlorine6 28 µg/L 2/Month Grab E
BOD,5-day,20°C 30.0 mg/L 45.0 mg/L Monthly Composite E
Fecal Coliform (geo.mean) 200/100 mL 400/100 mL Monthly Grab E
Hardness-Total as
. [CaCO3 or(Ca+Mg)] mg/L • Quarterly Grab E, U
Temperatures 100°F Weekly Grab E
Temperature Weekly Grab U,D
Total Selenium8,µg/L Monthly/Weekly Grab E
Total Cadmium8,µg/L Monthly/Weekly ? Grab E
Total Mercurys.9,ng/L Monthly/Weekly Grab E
Total Arsenics,µg/L Monthly/Weekly Grab E Total Leads,µg/L Monthly/Weekly Grab E
Total Thalliums µg/L Monthly/Weekly Grab E
Total Bromides,µg/L Monthly/Weekly Grab E
Total Molybdenums,µg/L Monthly/Weekly Grab E
Total Dissolved Solids8,mg/L Monthly/Weekly Grab E
126 pollutants contained in
chemicals added for cooling
tower maintenance(except No detectable amounts 10 Annual Grab E
Total chromium and Total
Zinc)
•
Page 12 of 29

Permit No.NC0005088
Notes:
1. The permittee shall submit Discharge Monitoring Reports electronically using NC DWR's eDMR
application system. See Special Condition A. (28).
2. Sample Locations: E-Effluent from treatment system prior to mixing with other sources of wastewater,U-
upstream at the Station Intake,and D-at least 476 feet from the discharge.
3. Flow may be measured by pump logs.
4. Monitoring shall be per occurrence of chemical metal cleaning and sample shall be from a representative
discharge.
5. Chronic Toxicity(Ceriodaphnia)P/F at 3.14%;March,June,September,and December;See Special Condition
A. (11)of this permit.
6. The Division shall consider all effluent TRC values reported below 50 µg/L to be in compliance with the
permit. However,the permittee shall continue to record and submit all values reported by a North Carolina
certified laboratory(including field certified),even if these values fall below 50 µg/L. Neither free available
chlorine(FAC) nor TRC may be discharged from any single generating unit for more than two hours in any
single day, and not more than one unit in the plant may discharge FAC or TRC, unless the discharger
demonstrates to the Division that the unit(s)cannot operate at or below this level of chlorination.
7. See Special Condition A. (27)Temperature Mixing Zone.
8. Monthly monitoring is required during normal operations and decanting, weekly monitoring during
dewatering.
9. The facility shall employ method 1631E.
10. Limitations and monitoring requirements for the 126 Priority Pollutants (per 40 CFR Part 423, Appendix A,
exclusive of zinc and chromium)apply only if these substances are added by the permittee for cooling tower
maintenance. Compliance with the limitations for the 126 priority pollutants in 40 CFR 423.13(d)(1)may be
determined by engineering calculations which demonstrate that the regulated pollutants are not detectable
in the final discharge by the analytical methods in 40 CFR Part 136. All primary industries are required to
submit a priority pollutant analysis in accordance with 40 CFR Part 122 with their application for permit
renewal.
Within 180 days of the commencement of operations of the treatment system the permittee shall submit Items V
and VI of NPDES application Form 2C.
All domestic wastewater produced at the power plant is to be fully treated through the onsite wastewater treatment
system prior to being discharged.
The permittee shall obtain authorization from the Division prior to using any biocide in the cooling water;see
condition A. (20).
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or foam visible in other than trace amounts.
See Special condition A. (29)Notification of Start-up.
Page 13 of 29

Permit No. NC0005088
A. (7.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS OutfalI 104 [15A NCAC 02B .0400 et
seq.,02B .0500 et seq.]
During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting until expiration,the Permittee is
authorized to discharge from outfall 104-constructed seep.Such discharges shall be limited and monitored1 by
the Permittee as specified below:
Effluent Discharge Limitations Monitoring Requirements'
Characteristics Monthly Daily Measurement Sample Sample
Average Maximum Frequency2 Type Location
Flow,MGD Monthly/Quarterly Estimate ^ Effluent
_pH 6.0 to 9.0 S.U. Monthly/Quarterly Grab • Effluent
TSS 30.0 mg/L 100.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Oil and Grease 15.0 mg/L 20.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Fluoride,µg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Mercury3,ng/L I Monthly/Quarterly Grab . Effluent
Total Barium,mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Iron,µg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Manganese,µg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Zinc,µg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Arsenic,µg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Cadmium,µg/L . _ Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Chromium,µg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Copper,ug/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Lead,µg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Nickel,µg/L Monthly/Quarterly , _ Grab • Effluent
Total Selenium,µg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Nitrate/nitrite as N, Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
mg/L _
Sulfates,mg/L �W Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Chlorides,mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
TDS,mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Hardness,mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Turbidity4 Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Temperature,oC Monthly/Quarterly _ Grab _ Effluent
Conductivity,µmho/cm Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Notes:
1. The permittee shall submit Discharge Monitoring Reports electronically using NC DWR's eDMR application
system.See Special.Condition A. (28).
2. The facility shall conduct monthly sampling from the effective date of the permit.After one year from the
effective date of the permit the monitoring will be reduced to quarterly.
3. The facility shall use EPA method 1631E.
. 4. The discharge from this facility shall not cause turbidity in the receiving stream to exceed 50 NTU. If the
instream turbidity exceeds 50 NTU due to natural background conditions,the discharge cannot cause turbidity
to increase in the receiving.stream. Therefore,if the effluent measurement exceeds 50 NTU,the Permittee shall
sample upstream and downstream turbidity in the receiving waterbody,within 24 hours,to demonstrate the
existing turbidity level in the receiving waterbody was not increased.All data shall be reported on the DMRs.
(See 15A NCAC 2B.0211 (21)).
Page 14 of 29

Permit No.NC0005088
If no discharge occurs during the reporting period or the Permittee is unable to obtain a representative sample due
to low-flow conditions at the seep, the Permittee shall submit its DMR, as required, and indicate"No Flow" for the
seep outfall(15A NCAC 02B.0506(a)(1)(E)).
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
Page 15 of 29

Permit No.NC0005088
A. (8) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Outfall 106 [15A NCAC 02B .0400 et
seq.,02B.0500 et seq.]
During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting until expiration,the Permittee is
authorized to discharge from outfall 106-constructed seep(Toe Drain).Such discharges shall be limited and
monitored)by the Permittee as specified below:
Effluent Discharge Limitations Monitoring,Requirements
Characteristics Monthly Daily Measurement Monthly Daily
_ Average Maximum Frequency2 Average Maximum
Flow,MGD Monthly/Quarterly Estimate Effluent
pH 6.0 to 9.0 S.U. Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
TSS 30.0 mg/L 100.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Oil and Grease 15.0 mg/L 20.0 mg/L. Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Fluoride,µg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Aluminum 6.5 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Mercur_y3,ng/L 1 Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Barium,mg/L { Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Iron,µg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Manganese,µg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab i Effluent
Total Zinc,µ•/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Arsenic,µg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Cadmium,µg/L i Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Chromium,µg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab _ Effluent
Total Copper,µg/L f Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Lead,µg/L I� Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Nickel,µg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
_Total Selenium,µg/L 1 Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Nitrate/nitrite as N, Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
mg/L
Sulfates,mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Chlorides,mg/L _ Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total.Dissolved Solids 500 mg/L _ _ Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Hardness,mg/L
g/ Month)y/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Turbidity, Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Temperature,°C Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Conductivit µmho/cm Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Notes:_......___
1. The permittee shall submit Discharge Monitoring Reports electronically using NC DWR's eDMR application
system. See Special Condition A. (28).
2. The facility shall conduct monthly sampling from the effective date of the.permit.After one year from the
effective date of the permit the monitoring will be reduced to quarterly.
3. The facility shall use EPA method 1631E.
4. The discharge from this facility shall not cause turbidity in the receiving stream to exceed 50 NTU. If the
. instream turbidity exceeds 50 NTU due to natural background conditions,the discharge cannot cause turbidity
to increase in the receiving stream. Therefore,if the effluent measurement exceeds 50 NTU,the Permittee shall
sample upstream and downstream turbidity in the receiving waterbody,within 24 hours,to demonstrate the
existing turbidity level in the receiving waterbody was not increased.All data shall be reported on the DMRs.
(See 15A NCAC 2B.0211 (21)).
•
Page 16 of 29

Permit No.NC0005088
If no discharge occurs during the reporting period or the Permittee is unable to obtain a representative sample due
to low-flow conditions at the seep, the Permittee shall submit its DMR,as required, and indicate"No Flow" for the
seep outfall(15A NCAC 02B.0506(a)(1)(E)).
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
A. (9.) CHRONIC TOXICITY PERMIT LIMIT(Quarterly) (Outfall 002-Ash Pond decanting) [15A NCAC
02B .0400 et seq., 02B .0500 et seq.]
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit observable inhibition of reproduction or significant mortality to
Ceriodaphnia dubia at an effluent concentration of 7.7 %.
The permit holder shall perform at a minimum,quarterly monitoring using test procedures outlined in the"North
Carolina Ceriodaphnia Chronic Effluent Bioassay Procedure," Revised December 2010,or subsequent versions or
"North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised-December 2010)or subsequent
versions.The tests will be performed during the months of January,April,July and October. These months
signify the first month of each three-month toxicity testing quarter assigned to the facility. Effluent sampling for
this testing must be obtained during representative effluent discharge and shall be performed at the NPDES
permitted final effluent discharge below all treatment processes. Effluent sampling for this testing must be
obtained during representative effluent discharge and shall be performed at the NPDES permitted final effluent
discharge below all treatment processes.
If the test procedure performed as the first test of any single quarter results in a failure or ChV below the permit
limit,then multiple-concentration testing shall be performed at a minimum,in each of the two following
months as described in"North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised
December 2010)or subsequent versions.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent Discharge
Monitoring Form(MR-1)for the months in which tests were performed,using the parameter code TGP3B for the
pass/fail results and THP3B for the Chronic Value. Additionally,DWR Form AT-3(original)is to be sent to the
following address:
Attention: North Carolina Division of Water Resources
Water Sciences Section/Aquatic Toxicology Branch
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh,NC 27699-1621
Completed Aquatic Toxicity Test Forms shall be filed with the Water Sciences Section no later than 30 days after the
end of the reporting period for which the report is made.
Test data shall be complete,accurate, include all supporting chemical/physical measurements and all
concentration/response data,and be certified by laboratory supervisor and ORC or approved designate signature.
Total residual chlorine of the effluent toxicity sample must be measured and reported if chlorine is employed for
disinfection of the waste stream.
Should there be no discharge of flow from the facility during a month in which toxicity monitoring is required, the
permittee will complete the information located at the top of the aquatic toxicity(AT)test form indicating the
facility name,permit number,pipe number,county,and the month/year of the report with the notation of"No
Flow" in the comment area of the form. The report shall be submitted to the Water Sciences Section at the address
cited above.
Page 17 of 29

Permit No.NC0005088
Should the permittee fail to monitor during a month in which toxicity monitoring is required,monitoring will be
required during the following month. Assessment of toxicity compliance is based on the toxicity testing quarter,
which is the three month time interval that begins on the first day of the month in which toxicity testing is required
by this permit and continues until the final day of the third month.
Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina Division of Water
Resources indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream,this permit may be re-opened and modified to include
alternate monitoring requirements or limits.
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum control organism
survival, minimum control organism reproduction, and appropriate environmental controls, shall constitute an
invalid test and will require immediate follow-up testing to be completed no later than the last day of the month
following the month of the initial monitoring.
A. (10.) CHRONIC TOXICITY PERMIT LIMIT (MONTHLY) (Outfall 002-Ash Pond Dewatering) [15A NCAC
02B.0400 et seq.,02B.0500 et seq.]
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit observable inhibition of reproduction or significant mortality to
Ceriodaphnia dubia at an effluent concentration of 0.5%.
The permit holder shall perform at a minimum,monthly monitoring using test procedures outlined in the"North
Carolina Ceriodaphnia Chronic Effluent Bioassay Procedure," Revised December 2010,or subsequent versions or
"North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised-December 2010)or subsequent
versions. Effluent sampling for this testing must be obtained during representative effluent discharge and shall be
performed at the NPDES permitted final effluent discharge below all treatment processes.
If the test procedure performed as the first test of any single quarter results in a failure or ChV below the permit
limit,then multiple-concentration testing shall be performed at a minimum,in each of the two following
months as described in"North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised-
December 2010) or subsequent versions.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent Discharge
Monitoring Form (MR-1)for the months in which tests were performed,using the parameter code TGP3B for the
pass/fail results and THP3B for the Chronic Value. Additionally, DWR Form AT-3(original)is to be sent to the
following address:
Attention: North Carolina Division of Water Resources
Water Sciences Section/Aquatic Toxicology Branch
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1621
Completed Aquatic Toxicity Test Forms shall be filed with the Water Sciences Section no later than 30 days after the
end of the reporting period for which the report is made.
Test data shall be complete,accurate,include all supporting chemical/physical measurements and all
concentration/response data,and be certified by laboratory supervisor and ORC or approved designate signature.
Total residual chlorine of the effluent toxicity sample must be measured and reported if chlorine is employed for
disinfection of the waste stream.
Should there be no discharge of flow from the facility during a month in which toxicity monitoring is required,the
permittee will complete the information located at the top of the aquatic toxicity(AT)test form indicating the
facility name,permit number,pipe number,county,and the month/year of the report with the notation of"No
Page 18 of 29

Permit No.NC0005088
Flow" in the comment area of the form. The report shall be submitted to the Water Sciences Section at the address
cited above.
Should the permittee fail to monitor during a month in which toxicity monitoring is required,monitoring will be
required during the following month.Assessment of toxicity compliance is based on the toxicity testing quarter,
which is the three month time interval that begins on the first day of the month in which toxicity testing is required
by this permit and continues until the final day of the third month.
Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina Division of Water
Resources indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this permit may be re-opened and modified to include
alternate monitoring requirements or limits.
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum control organism
survival, minimum control organism reproduction, and appropriate environmental controls, shall constitute an
invalid test and will require immediate follow-up testing to be completed no later than the last day of the month
following the month of the initial monitoring.
A. (11.) CHRONIC TOXICITY PERMIT LIMIT(QUARTERLY) (Outfall 005) [15A NCAC 02B.0400 et seq.,02B
.0500 et seq.]
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit observable inhibition of reproduction or significant mortality to
Ceriodaphnia dubia at an effluent concentration of 3.14 %.
The permit holder shall perform at a minimum,quarterly monitoring using test procedures outlined in the"North
Carolina Ceriodaphnia Chronic Effluent Bioassay Procedure,"Revised December 2010,or subsequent versions or
"North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised-December 2010)or subsequent
versions.The tests will be performed during the months of March,June,September and December. These months
signify the first month of each three-month toxicity testing quarter assigned to the facility. Effluent sampling for
this testing must be obtained during representative effluent discharge and shall be performed at the NPDES
permitted final effluent discharge below all treatment processes.
If the test procedure performed as the first test of any single quarter results in a failure or ChV below the permit
limit,then multiple-concentration testing shall be performed at a minimum,in each of the two following
months as described in"North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised-
December 2010)or subsequent versions.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent Discharge
Monitoring Form(MR-1)for the months in which tests were performed,using the parameter code TGP3B for the
pass/fail results and THP3B for the Chronic Value. Additionally,DWR Form AT-3(original)is to be sent to the
following address:
Attention: North Carolina Division of Water Resources
Water Sciences Section/Aquatic Toxicology Branch
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh,NC 27699-1621
Completed Aquatic Toxicity Test Forms shall be filed with the Water Sciences Section no later than 30 days after the
end of the reporting period for which the report is made.
Test data shall be complete,accurate,include all supporting chemical/physical measurements and all
concentration/response data, and be certified by laboratory supervisor and ORC or approved designate signature.
Page 19 of 29

Permit No.NC0005088
Total residual chlorine of the effluent toxicity sample must be measured and reported if chlorine is employed for
disinfection of the waste stream.
Should there be no discharge of flow from the facility during a month in which toxicity monitoring is required,the
permittee will complete the information located at the top of the aquatic toxicity(AT)test form indicating the
facility name,permit number,pipe number,county,and the month/year of the report with the notation of"No
Flow" in the comment area of the form. The report shall be submitted to the Water Sciences Section at the address
cited above.
Should the permittee fail to monitor during a month in which toxicity monitoring is required,monitoring will be
required during the following month. Assessment of toxicity compliance is based on the toxicity testing quarter,
which is the three month time interval that begins on the first day of the month in which toxicity testing is required
by this permit and continues until the final day of the third month.
Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina Division of Water
Resources indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream,this permit may be re-opened and modified to include
alternate monitoring requirements or limits.
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum control organism
survival, minimum control organism reproduction, and appropriate environmental controls, shall constitute an
invalid test and will require immediate follow-up testing to be completed no later than the last day of the month
following the month of the initial monitoring.
A. (12.) ACUTE TOXICITY MONITORING-EPISODIC (Outfalls 002B,002C) [15A NCAC 02B .0400 et seq.,02B
.0500 et seq.]
The permittee shall conduct FIVE acute toxicity tests using protocols defined as definitive in E.P.A.Document
EPA/600/4-90/027 entitled"Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents to Freshwater and Marine
Organisms."The monitoring shall be performed as a Fathead Minnow(Pimephales promelas)24 hour static test.
Effluent samples for self-monitoring purposes must be obtained below all waste treatment.Sampling and
subsequent testing will occur during the first five discrete discharge events after the effective date of this permit.
After monitoring of the first five toxicity tests,the permittee will conduct one test annually,with the annual period
beginning in January of the next calendar year.The annual test requirement must be performed and reported by
June 30.If no discharge occurs by June 30,notification will be made to the Division within 2 weeks after June 30.
Toxicity testing will be performed on the next discharge event for the annual test requirement.
The parameter code for this test is TAE6C. All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will
be entered on the Effluent Discharge Form(MR-1)for the month in which it was performed,using the appropriate
parameter code.Additionally,DWQ Form AT-1 (original)is to be sent to the following address:
Attention: North Carolina Division of Water Resources
Water Sciences Section/Aquatic Toxicology Branch
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh,North Carolina 27699-1621
Completed Aquatic Toxicity Test Forms shall be filed with the Water Sciences Section no later than 30 days after the
end of the reporting period for which the report is made.
Page 20 of 29

Permit No.NC0005088
Test data shall be complete and accurate and include all supporting chemical/physical measurements performed in
association with the toxicity tests,as well as all dose/response data.Total residual chlorine of the effluent toxicity
sample must be measured and reported if chlorine is employed for disinfection of the waste stream.
Should any test data from either these monitoring requirements or tests performed by the North Carolina Division
of Water Resources indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream,this permit may be re-opened and modified
to include alternate monitoring requirements or limits.
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document,such as minimum control organism
survival and appropriate environmental controls,shall constitute an invalid test and will require immediate follow-
up testing to be completed no later than the last day of the month following the month of the initial monitoring.
A. (13.) INSTREAM MONITORING [15A NCAC 02B.0500 ET SEQ.]
The facility shall conduct monthly in-stream monitoring upstream at Alternate Route 221 and downstream
approximately 250 meters from the discharge for total arsenic, total selenium, total mercury, total chromium,
dissolved lead, dissolved cadmium, dissolved copper, dissolved zinc, total bromide, total hardness (as CaCO3),
temperature, turbidity, and total dissolved solids (IDS). The monitoring results shall be reported on the facility's
Discharge Monitoring Reports and included with the NPDES permit renewal application.
A. (14.) FISH TISSUE MONITORING NEAR ASH POND DISCHARGE [NCGS 143-215.3(a)(2)]
The facility shall conduct fish tissue monitoring annually and submit the results with the NPDES permit renewal
application. The objective of this monitoring is to evaluate potential uptake of pollutants by fish tissue near the ash
pond discharge. The parameters analyzed in fish tissue shall include arsenic,selenium,and mercury.The monitoring
shall be conducted in accordance with the sampling plan approved by the Division.The plan should be submitted to
the Division within 180 days from the effective date of the permit. Upon approval, the plan becomes an enforceable
part of the permit.
Copies of the plan and monitoring results shall be submitted to:
Electronic version (CD and PDF)and hard copy:
DWR Water Science Section
1623 Mail Service Center
Raleigh,NC 27699-1623
Electronic version only(CD and PDF):
WQ Permitting Section-NPDES
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh,NC 27699-1617
A. (15.) CHEMICAL DISCHARGES [G.S.143-215,143-215.1]
Discharge of any product registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act to any waste
stream which may ultimately be released to lakes, rivers,streams or other waters of the United States is prohibited
unless specifically authorized elsewhere in this permit. Discharge of chlorine from the use of chlorine gas,sodium
hypochlorite, or other similar chlorination compounds for disinfection in plant potable and service water systems
and in sewage treatment is authorized. Use of restricted use pesticides for lake management purposes by applicators
licensed by the N.C.Pesticide Board is allowed.
Page 21 of 29

•
Permit No.NC0005088
A. (16.) ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS AND DEFINITIONS [G.S.143-215.3(a)(2)&143-215,66]
1. EPA methods 200.7 or 200.8(or the most current versions)shall be used for analyses of all metals except for
total mercury(EPA Method 1631E).
2. All effluent samples for all external outfalls shall be taken at the most accessible location after the final
treatment but prior to discharge to waters of the U.S.(40 CFR 122.41(j)).
3. The term low volume waste sources means wastewater from all sources except those for which specific limitations
are otherwise established in this part(40 CFR 423.11 (b)).
4. The term chemical metal cleaning waste means any wastewater resulting from cleaning any metal process
equipment with chemical compounds,including,but not limited to,boiler tube cleaning(40 CFR 423.11 (c)).
5. The term metal cleaning waste means any wastewater resulting from cleaning[with or without chemical cleaning
compounds] any metal process equipment including,but not limited to,boiler tube cleaning,boiler fireside
cleaning,and air preheater cleaning(40 CFR 423.11 (d)).
6. For all outfalls where the flow measurement is to be"estimated" the estimate can be done by using calibrated
V-notch weir,stop-watch and graduated cylinder,or other method approved by the Division. •
7. The term"FGD wet scrubber wastewater"means wastewater resulting from the use of the flue-gas
desulfurization wet scrubber.
8. There shall be no discharge of polychlorinated biphenyl compounds.
9. The permittee shall report the presence of cenospheres observed in any samples on the DMRs in the comment
section.
10. The applicant is permitted to discharge chemical metal cleaning wastes to the ash pond.
11. Nothing contained in this permit shall be construed as a waiver by the permittee of any right to a hearing it
may have pursuant to State or Federal laws and regulations.
A. (17.) STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY INSPECTIONS OF ASH DAMS [15A NCAC 02K.0208]
The facility shall meet the dam design and dam safety requirements per 15A NCAC 2K.
A. (18.) FLOATING MATERIALS[15A NCAC 02B.0400 et seq.]
The Permittee shall report all visible discharges of floating materials, such as an oil sheen, to the Director when
submitting DMRs.
A. (19.) INTAKE SCREEN BACKWASH JG.S. 143-215, 143-215.1]
Continued intake screen backwash discharge is permitted without limitations or monitoring requirements.
A. (20.) BIOCIDE CONDITION [NCGS 143-215.1]
The permittee shall no.t 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 new biocides into
outfalls currently tested for whole effluent toxicity.
•
Page 22 of 29

Permit No.NC0005088
A. (21.) CHEMICAL METAL CLEANING WASTES [40 CFR 423]
It has been demonstrated that under certain conditions it is possible to reduce the concentration of metals in boiler
cleaning wastes in the range of 92 to 99+percent by treatment in ash ponds. Because of dilution problems, and the
existence of boundary interface layers at the extremities of the plume, it is difficult to prove beyond doubt that the
quantity of iron and copper discharged will always be less than one milligram per liter times the flow of metal
cleaning when treated in this manner.
The application of physical/chemical methods of treating wastes has also been demonstrated to be effective in the
treatment of metal cleaning wastes. However, the effectiveness of ash pond treatment should be considered in
relation to the small differences in effluent quality realized between the two methods.
It has been demonstrated that the presence of ions of copper,iron,nickel, and zinc in the ash pond waters was not
measurably increased during the ash pond equivalency demonstration at the Duke Energy's Riverbend Steam
Station. Therefore, when the following conditions are implemented during metal cleaning procedures, effective
treatment for metals can be obtained at this facility:
1. Large ash basin providing potential reaction volumes in the ratio of 100 to 1.
2. Well-defined shallow ash delta near the ash basin influent.
3. Ash pond pH of no less than 6.5 prior to metal cleaning waste addition.
4. Four days retention time in ash pond with effluent virtually stopped.
5. Boiler volume less than 86,000 gallons.
6. Chemicals for cleaning to include only one or more of the following:
(a) Copper removal step- sodium bromate, NaBrO; ammonium carbonate, (NH)CO; and ammonium
hydroxide,NHOH.
(b) Iron removal step-hydrochloric acid, HC1; and ammonium bifluoride, (NH)BF and proprietary
inhibitors.
7. Maximum dilution of wastes before entering ash pond should not be greater than 6 to 1.
8. After treatment of metal cleaning wastes, if monitoring of basin effluents as required by the permit reveals
discharges outside the limits of the permit.permittee will re-close the basin discharge,conduct such in-basin
sampling as necessary to determine the cause of nonconformance, will take appropriate corrective actions,
and will file a report with EPA including all pertinent data.
A. (22.) TOXICITY REOPENER CONDITION [G.S. 143-215.1(b)]
This permit shall be modified, or revoked and reissued to incorporate toxicity limitations and monitoring
requirements in the event toxicity testing or other studies conducted on the effluent or receiving stream indicate that
detrimental effects may be expected in the receiving stream as a result of this discharge.
A. (23.) DOMESTIC WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT [G.S.143-215,143-215.1]
The permittee shall at all times properly operate and maintain the domestic wastewater treatment plant to meet
secondary treatment standards.
A. (24.) CWA 316(b)REQUIREMENTS [40 CFR 125.95J
The permittee shall comply with the Cooling Water Intake Structure Rule per 40 CFR 125.95.The permittee shall
submit all the materials required by the Rule 3.5 years from the effective date of the permit.
Page 23 of 29

Permit No.NC0005088
PP
Copies of all applicable materials should be submitted to:
P
Electronic version(CD and PDF)and hard copy.
DWR Water Science Section
1623 Mail Service Center
Raleigh,NC 27699-1623
Electronic version only(CD and PDF):
WQ Permitting Section-NPDES
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh,NC 27699-1617
Pursuit to 40 CFR 125.98 the Director has determined that operating and maintaining the existing Closed-cycle
recirculating system meets the requirements for an interim BTA.
Nothing in this permit authorizes take for the purposes of a facility's compliance with the Endangered Species
Act.
A. (25.) APPLICABLE STATE LAW(State Enforceable Only) [NCGS 143-215.1(b)]
This facility shall meet the General Statute requirements under NCGS§130A-309.200 et seq.This permit may be
reopened to include new requirements imposed under these Statutes.
A. (26.) ASH POND CLOSURE
The facility shall prepare an Ash Ponds Closure Plan. This Plan shall be submitted to the Division one month prior
to the closure of the ash ponds.
A. (27.)TEMPERATURE MIXING ZONE-OUTFALL 005 [G.S. 143-215.3(a)(2)]
a)The temperature mixing zone is defined as the area extending from outfall 005 to approximately 145 meters(476
feet)downstream and 37 meters(121 feet)wide.The discharge shall not result in acute toxicity to aquatic life,
prevent free passage of aquatic organisms around the mixing zone,result in offensive conditions,produce
undesirable aquatic life or result in a dominance of nuisance species outside of the assigned mixing zone;or
endanger the public health or welfare.
b)The temperature standard of 32°C(89.6°F)and the maximum temperature increase above natural temperature of
2.8°C(5.04°F)shall be met at the end of the mixing zone. The natural water temperature shall be the temperature
measured at the upstream sampling location.The increase in temperature is defined as the difference in
temperature between the upstream and downstream sampling Iocations.
c)The results of all temperature monitoring shall be reported in the monthly DMRs. When possible,instream
monitoring for temperature shall be performed during times the facility is operating at full loading.
d)After 12 months of temperature data are collected the permittee shall submit a report to the Division to verify the
Cormix model predictions.The report shall include field verification of assumptions used in the model and a
summary of temperature data for effluent,upstream and downstream and shall be submitted to:
Page 24 of 29

Permit No.NC0005088
Division of Water Resources
WQ Permitting Section-NPDES
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh,NC 27699-1617
e)Once during the permit term the permittee shall perform an assessment to verify that the mixing zone does not
prevent the passage of aquatic organisms around the mixing zone. A study plan shall be submitted to the Division
prior to commencement of the study to the following address:
Division of Water Resources Division of Water Resources
WQ Permitting Section-NPDES Water Sciences Section
1617 Mail Service Center 1623 Mail Service Center
Raleigh,NC 27699-1617 Raleigh,NC 27699-1623
f)This permit may be reopened to implement alternative temperature limits or requirements based on the results of
the data collected.
A. (28.)ELECTRONIC REPORTING OF DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORTS [G.S.143-215.1(b)]
Federal regulations require electronic submittal of all discharge monitoring reports(DMRs)and program reports.
The final NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule was adopted and became effective on December 21,2015.
NOTE: This special condition supplements or supersedes the following sections within Part II of this permit
(Standard Conditions for NPDES Permits):
• Section B. (11.) Signatory Requirements
• Section D. (2.) Reporting
• Section D. (6.) Records Retention
• Section E. (5.) Monitoring Reports
1. Reporting Requirements(Supersedes Section D. (2.)and Section E.(5.) (a)j
The permittee shall report discharge monitoring data electronically using the NC DWR's Electronic Discharge
Monitoring Report(eDMR)internet application.
Monitoring results obtained during the previous month(s)shall be summarized for each month and submitted
electronically using eDMR. The eDMR system allows permitted facilities to enter monitoring data and submit
DMRs electronically using the internet. Until such time that the state's eDMR application is compliant with
EPA's Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Regulation(CROMERR),permittees will be required to submit all
• discharge monitoring data to the"state electronically using eDMR and will be required to complete the eDMR
submission by printing,signing,and submitting one signed original and a copy of the computer printed eDMR
to the following address:
NC DENR/ 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
Page 25 of 29

Permit No.NC0005088
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.
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 the Division(see"How to Request a Waiver from
Electronic Reporting"section below).
2. Electronic Submissions
In accordance with 40 CFR 122.41(1)(9),the permittee must identify the initial recipient at the time of each
electronic submission. The permittee should use the EPA's website resources to identify the initial recipient for
the electronic submission.
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(b)].
EPA plans to establish a website that will also link to the appropriate electronic reporting tool for each type of
electronic submission and for each state. Instructions on how to access and use the appropriate electronic
reporting tool will be available as well. Information on EPA's NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule is found at:
http:/%www2.epa.gov/compliancef`final-national-pollutant-discharge-elimination s\5tc: yl ripdes-electroruc-
reporting-rule.
Electronic submissions must start by the dates listed in the"Reporting Requirements" section above.
3. How to Request a Waiver from EIectronic Reporting
The permittee may seek a temporary electronic reporting waiver from the Division. To obtain an electronic
reporting waiver,a permittee must first submit an electronic reporting waiver request to the Division. Requests
for temporary electronic 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:
Page 26 of 29

Permit No.NC0005088
http://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions1 water-resource edmr
4. Signatory Requirements[Supplements Section B. (11.) (b)and Supersedes Section B. (11.) (d)]
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:/r denc,g2v/abouti divisions/water-resources/edmr
Certification. Any person submitting an electronic DMR using the state's eDMR system shall make the
following certification[40 CFR 122.22]. NO OTHER STATEMENTS OF CERTIFICATION WILL BE
ACCEPTED:
"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 fines
and imprisonment for knowing violations."
5. Records Retention[Supplements Section D. (6.)[
The permittee shall retain records of all Discharge Monitoring Reports,including eDMR submissions. These
records or copies shall be maintained for a period of at least 3 years from the date of the report. This period
may be extended by request of the Director at any time [40 CFR 122.41].
A. (29.)NOTIFICATION OF START-UP-OUTFALL 005 [G.S.143-215.1(a)]
The permittee shall notify the Asheville Regional Office and the NPDES Permitting Unit in writing,seven(7)
calendar days prior to the commencement of the discharge from the new waste water treatment system(Outfall
005).In addition,the permittee shall notify if the decanting and/or dewatering of the ash basin will be routed to the
new treatment system.Notification shall be sent to the following addresses:
Division of Water Resources Division of Water Resources
WQ Permitting Section-NPDES Asheville Water Quality Regional Operations Section
1617 Mail Service Center 2090 U.S.70 Highway
Raleigh,NC 27699-1617 Swannanoa,NC 28778-8211
A. (30)COMPLIANCE BOUNDARY [15A NCAC 02L.0107]
The compliance boundary for the disposal system shall be specified in accordance with 15A NCAC 02L.0107(a)or
(b) dependent upon the date permitted. An exceedance of groundwater standards at or beyond the compliance
boundary is subject to remediation action according to 15A NCAC 02L.0106(c), (d),or(e)as well as enforcement
•
Page 27 of 29

Permit No.NO0005088
actions in accordance with North Carolina General Statute 143-215.6A through 143-215.6C.The compliance
boundary map for this facility is incorporated herein and attached hereto as Attachment A.
Page 28 of 29

Permit No.NC0005088
.
4 ,43:1_,)
, , ..p.3 . .-.. t".197-6) , ,L.---.._ 1 )/i \ ' i */1 ,.
1( -)1 . 1 , --,-, , ..,,, ....._,..
1 •.<" 4./.` ( ‘:.-, -,,,,,,,_-_,..-,•-•' • , !t, , A/,-1,„Arir*-/ , __, .....- , -,,,,-; 1 kt„,6!„),-,-,-„
--,•kg., 7 ': ' - ''') c--. .,. f•-,,- -1397.-z.. ,',' A \),.,ei(ty: "; --- (----'2 ('--- )) // -
' r 1 t '' ' . ),•...2 5,41PT , _ 1 ...^. )( f' ::'",,,,',.., //-,i(--" .547e, ---.\.,„.-,._- __,_______S%1/4_....-. _2_•--- -.- Outfall 002B ,cr.101-1'
2 --- '4 ‘:‘...‘3'-`"?' "--1:-.1 ' I '' ''''''''. -.Z=Z)N--",3' - ; ' \ -,....... r'%•7'.J.\ ,,,-Th
- '. 1 • --- ' — •.-P'1/4,--z,-,--•:.,••,-.---\ ( • /"N, ,:-`• - -,:-,-------') --'\1,,r-,;\
---- 1
• --- -. , ," 0") ' ' - : \... f I:c--;;.). .Lc...-- ,,,...
'*''' Outfall 002C
--
Outfallaiiiia..
- 4- -401, r A. -, 005 -----•----,•-•"'",--..
. ":-...1. . ...•' -,-.1.-.0\-/ -•-. --__--, _
,,, .k..... 1., -::j...-tv-tt• "kl, >":_ :-/r- _ -..•;., ..„..../ ,,,' /..--1.— - - - 1 ,,...:.•-- r-\....\.,„.ci---
• y-, (...,'-="''7'‘.,,,,, /' 4,' U r`'I'i `\ie., ' ;;!$ -\ ,4,..e... ''', )1, -• ( r'
, ‘N\V"
,,,--_,,,•q6 r,"'\\ , -_,.
s',/ .-, ,,)4i Ci...:' %, `-----"4-: Outfall 104 ,-;•-,,' Outfall 106
lir \ , . -- .- - ' .7 , , - ,.- _ ,,,
.._ ,• , ,„, ‘, . r-c-,----•,-.."---, 'if , ,)/ i , i
----.,,N , kL. . /-I if-,N,:••., i t, ';',-,. '-),, „ I .; ',..-,C.,;`,'' "? )\. \'-,-,.., )i 'i if , cr.L,.
v" r.- -- ' ' -•=\--- ' ' li i ' ''''''`"---,..,17,--,is 'fzi.,-::,.-- ' \ • , i
•-'c\"-..... it) , wi) ' 4, '_ - - - -' i ' ..-.„''',' :.,-,::',....i.:....::„.(. \\,.':, I ( - Outfall 002 I.
• ; •-,----. - i 1 - "- - ....---:-•-:."."--- )l'•r 3\ I`
- 0-tss, ( i' -\\• ,*, \ * ''s.'\ r,':‘ 4',..... , ) ,.),„, ',') ," ,,,," '•,,,:,.\,,,,f,",,`,,,L1,:\ Q,,,,...1.:fr‘s. ';;4) e".7.:.:,
__-,---,,.\ . • ,
. " `, (:, 0 \;41:4*4.'.• ( , .1! 1 / \ '4;4'0 j:''''/I 1 `..' ---,--- ss\`'‘\\ {.''''''':``'`'' 1;S , i•
', ,,,-,/G60'4-,,,,,• - :i".- ___:e718./. . c, c-- • ,.,, ,,,. ? (--z,,/_• ) *,-"t ',\._,-, ,i;,,,,;/.' r:-„,, 1,•,1
11 • • :. •-;:-..--f.i:-..---.-1.--- '-if --f\--.,_-e . :
e2 , ( --'4::‘''j (-:CMPEAtiar, - i
, .04 ,, -- ,,t,. •-•725.
='-'•- •- •-•\ ( -. . - •'*' - 1 t ( ,--
_,. QoaHD (-1-- \- '\,, i
•, . 4.--ee t , -' ---, - ' •••-•\ .,. „," ---- , 7 , , _
::•'''
\.):...r., J-:-.", , , •,, • ,•< -- etf,..._..., v•-• \,...„' \---, _.,---1 /,
. , • ,
-\------- ek / , ) ., •.,,,,s-- , els, eor> r"1, /
• c ,/-_„.•• --N..-- - / ks, - • ) 0,, • (..I.L„,.0 7/i 4., , '.1,.',\,\1\:........,:",) ,,,•••
-
•-, ,
\..‘, , ' \(/,c--- \ ,...• ••.,•\ i ,-•
' ' )
( ( , C"<„,. - „ \ /".'
x
-.-., /_ ..) ,•,, r,,,, ,/,' -
N ‘,, --*\--\''''
, . _ ,,, i ,,,...c.s.,c,„),
,,, ir",-, "".- •
: , , • :„, , ,...1 i ( • , ._,..\. ',.. ' ,..,.-
.. ,
,,-,,,•••° '•••) C ---,..„.,,.../ _ i ,
. ,, , • - ...,,,,,,2, "---) • ) ___
'1 . . - • , ') -
I \• • i• ---•/„, -' --•1 k A "".;• i
, -,...„, ) ,,,, S \ ,'• , ,
'r.ri /7,- .(;(7 0'• . t' -, /1- 1 ,„„/ i i
- ,\I ''''C,.
f , ,
- ',.. I ,,,, k \‘, ; ! 5,...„
i.„-• ,, „,`, ^ :.
NC0005088 Rogers Energy Complex-Rutherford County
Receiving Stream:Broad River Outfall: Latitude: Longitude: - -
Classification: WS-IV 002 35° 13'06" 81°44'54"
HUC: 03050105 002B 35° 13' 16" 81°45'31"
Sub-basin:03-08-02 002C 35° 13'09" 81°45'22" -4- N
005 35° 13'07" 81°45' 19" Facility Location
104 35° 13'3.5" 81°45'9.3"
106 35° 13'6.3" 810 44'53.7"
Page 29 of 29

ATMs, 1'H 4^33.•',RSA T 3.",',J. E R'H PGL 1
t i
. "
v.
c t^ ,✓' y i
din 5
s g
...
a" a �t ai
Y
s� x
g ,- ;- ,"„;,,,,,',': -..:,! , `y
z
E.
m
x A
i . •aria ,ewa�ra•r�a • x'
x esa.w.ar.a .aw .jy • '
y _
s
,
S r
an
r
I LEGEND
R
ACTIVE ASH BASIN WASTE BOUNDRY " ,.•:..•• —. -'
'.3 ACTIVE ASH BASIN COUPUANCE BOIRDARY '._ ti .•'*
•
.,- _ t _� �_...._..
FORMER ASH BASIN WASTE BOUNDARY -,^ — T.. '" _F :w.
LANDFILL WASTE BOUNDARYh t
FIGURE-I
r+.r,�.uacw.TT*
LANDFILL COMPLIANCE BOUNDARY ! • � WASTE AND COMPLIANCE BOUNDARIES
14.M.a*R¢t,eua[tA
;:::ASH STORAGE BOUNDARY wmeuasan.amA,.,:seai CUFFSiDESTl:AMSTATION
INACTIVE ASH 0451N WASTE BOUNDARY { - _ ppPHONE " ' DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS,LLC
S)/ClTc.t"� °"°°'A MOORESBORO,NORTH CAROLINA
r�J DUKE ENERGY PROPERTY BOUNDARY W , a¢�e
""'" 1 ne.t+e= vtn�-rih ltrxaMn,tie�....v a...:a¢�a.a.•a.—e x. . a
Attachment A

EXHIBIT 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )
) CASE NOS:
)
V. ) 5:15-CR-67-H-2
) 5:1 5-CR-68-H-2
) 5: 15-CR-62,67&68
DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS,LLC; )
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS,LLC;AND )
DUKE ENERGY BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC )
NATIONWIDE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE PLAN/
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE PLAN-NORTH CAROLINA
COMPLIANCE OFFICERS'REPORT
JANUARY 31, 2020

NECP/ECP-NC Compliance Officers' Report
January 31,2020
Table of Contents
I. Background 3
A. Introduction 3
B. Milestones for completed and active requirements stated within the ECPs 4
II. Implementation of the NECP 6
A. Reporting Requirements and Standards 6
Environmental Event Summary 6
Company-wide Reportable Environmental Events 7
Environmental Concerns Line Submissions Report 10
Excavation Status on the Four Priority Sites 12
Volume of Coal Ash/Wastewater at Ash Impoundments 14
B. Operational Advancements and Recent..Developments 15
EN1000 Training update for New/Returning Employees 15
Compliance Rover Process Advancements 15
III. CAM Audits 17
A. Summary of final 2019 CAM Audit Reports 17
B. Seeps from Coal Ash Surface Impoundments 17
C. Groundwater.Exceedances Beyond Compliance Boundaries 18
D. Other Findings 18
E. Open Lines of Inquiry 18
IV. Environmental Achievements 19
A. CCR Implementation 19
B. CAMA Groundwater Programs 20
C. CCP Maintenance and Repairs to Ash Management Facilities 23
D. Beneficial Reuse Update 26
E. Dewatering 27
F. Closure Planning 28
G. National Ash Management Advisory Board Update 31
V. Environmental Challenges and Corrective Actions 32
A. Legal Issues 32
B. NPDES Permits 33
C. Seeps 33
D. Bromide Claims Process Update 34
VI. EHS Leadership Reporting Structure 35
VII. Conclusion 35
2 .

NECP/ECP-NC Compliance Officers' Report
January 31,2020
Background
A. Introduction
Pursuant to the schedule provided by the Court Appointed Monitor("CAM"), this Compliance
Officers' Report provides an update of the activities pertaining to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of the Nationwide Environmental Compliance Plan ("NECP")
and Statewide Environmental Compliance Plan ("ECP-NC") (collectively, the "Environmental
Compliance Plans" or"ECPs") through January 3, 2020, the reporting period. As permitted in
the Plea Agreements, this report is a combined effort detailing the required information for all
three co-defendants: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC ("DEC"), Duke Energy Progress, LLC
("DEP"), and Duke Energy Business Services, LLC ("DEBS").
Over these past four years, and continuing for the second half of 2019, Duke Energy has
sustained its strong progress for operational excellence and continued to build momentum for the
future. Throughout 2019, the company earnestly sought ways to build upon and improve its
overall performance and efficiency. Duke Energy continues to set performance records while
the workforce continues to set an industry standard for safety and operational excellence. The
company's excavation activities under the Coal Ash Management Act ("CAMA") have been
completed at many sites ahead of their respective excavation deadlines, and it maintains its focus
on environmental safety practices and meeting the needs of the customers in a responsible and
efficient way. Additionally, on January 2, 2020, Duke Energy, the North Carolina Department
of Environmental Quality ("NCDEQ"), and a coalition of environmental advocacy groups
announced a settlement agreement that resolves the portfolio of coal ash-related cases in state
and federal court and provides a path forward for Duke Energy to close its remaining coal ash
basins in North Carolina. This settlement agreement paves the way for the approval of the
closure plans and groundwater corrective active plans submitted by the company at the end of
2019 and reflects a significant step forward in Duke Energy's coal ash management.
With the effective implementation of the ECPs, Duke Energy has set a standard for operational
excellence in an ever-changing industry and continues to be recognized by its peers as a leader in
the utility industry for operations and business practices alike. Continuing to blaze the trail for
operational excellence, Ethisphere Institute has recognized Duke Energy with its Compliance
Leader Verification for 2019 and 2020. Compliance Leader Verification is awarded to
companies with leading ethics and compliance programs. Duke Energy is the first domestic
electric and gas investor-owned utility to earn this designation. This award speaks to the
dedication the company has for seeking operational excellence in employee training and
communications, risk measurement and mitigation, monitoring practices to expose misconduct,
consistency in the application of disciplinary measures, and employee perceptions of the
company's ethics culture. Additionally, Duke Energy has been named to Fortune magazine's
3

NECP/ECP-NC Compliance Officers' Report
•
January 31,2020
2020 list of the World's Most Admired Companies for the third year in a row. Duke Energy was
ranked 5th among gas and electric utilities. As in previous years, this recognition is determined
by independent surveys from approximately 3,900 executives, directors, and industry analysts.
based on nine attributes: innovation, people management, use of corporate assets, social
responsibility, quality of management, financial soundness, long-term investment, quality of
products/services and global competitiveness. Duke Energy continues to execute a customer-
focused strategy that is guiding its investments and delivering value to customers.
B. Milestones for Completed and Active Requirements Stated within the ECPs
The NECP is subject to continuous improvement and changes based on regulatory requirements
and advancements that govern Duke Energy's environmental policies and procedures. The chart
below illustrates Duke Energy's compliance with the major requirements of the Judgments and
ECPs and provides a status update for these tasks moving forward. Additional requirements and
submissions have been established by the CAM and are reviewed further in this report.
Summary of Relevant NECP Requirementst
NECP Requirement , Judgment Reference' NECP Status
Reference
Develop a proposed NECP for Additional Probation Approved
Court approval and implement Term 3; Special Sections 1 &4 1/7/16
the NECP Conditions 3A
Post reports prepared pursuant.
to the NECP or ECP-NC to Special Conditions 2C, 2F
Duke's website accessible to the and 2G Sections 5, 8 Ongoing
public and provide them to the
identified organizations
Prepare semi-annual report • Special Conditions 6A This report—
demonstrating compliance Section 8 Submitted
with the NECP and ECP-NC 1/31/20
Establish a toll-free hotline for
employees and others to report
suspected violations of Special Conditions 2H •
environmental requirements, and 21. Section 6 Completed
the NECP, or ECP-NC; notify
employees and the public of its
Availability
•
Notes:ABSAT—Ash Basin Strategic Action Team;CCP-Coal Combustion Products;NAMAB-National Ash Management Advisory Board
2 Unless otherwise noted,references are to all three Judgments.
4

•
•
NECP/ECP-NC Compliance-Officers'Report
January 31,2020
NECP Requirement Judgment Reference2 NECP Status
Reference
Following approval of the
NECP, notify employees and Special Conditions 3B
shareholders of Duke Energy Section 1 Completed
Corporation per the Judgments •
Maintain Duke support for the
functions of ABSAT3, CCP, Special Conditions 3C Section 2 On-going
and NAMAB .
Establish points of contact for
the ABSAT, EHS, and CCP Special Conditions 3D
Section 3 Completed
teams
Comply with the US EPA's
CCR Rule,NC's Coal Ash
Management Act("CAMA"), Special Conditions 3E Section 4 On-going
and the referenced Coal Ash •
Excavation Plans • .
Store excavated coal ash in DEC &DEP: Special ECP-NC •
lined CCR landfills or Conditions 3F Section 5 On-going
impoundments
Provide semi-annual Submitted
•
excavation reports for DEBS: Special Condition Section 8 & concurrent with
referenced facilities 3F . Exhibit E this report on
1/31/19
Determine volumes of DEBS: Special Condition
wastewater and coal ash in 3G Submitted
Duke's NC ash impoundments DEC&DEP: Special • ECP-NC 11/13/19
Section 6
on a semi-annual basis Condition 3H
Provide a full report of the status DEBS: Special Condition
of coal ash excavation for 3H Section 8 & Submitted
referenced facilities DEC & DEP:.Special Exhibit E 1 1/14/10
Condition 3I
Implement a training program
for Duke Energy employees
•
about coal ash impoundments Special Conditions 4A Section 7 Completed
and the requirements of the .
NECP and
ECP-NC
•
3 In 2015,ABSAT was merged into CCP creating a combined organization dedicated to management of all coal ash related matters.
5

•
NECP/ECP-NC Compliance Officers' Report
January 31,2020
NECP Requirement Judgment Reference2 NECP Status
Reference
Identify a Compliance Officer
responsible for ensuring Special Conditions 6A Section 3 Completed
• compliance with the NECP
and ECP-NC
II. Implementation and Updates of the NECP/ECP-NC
A. Reporting Requirements and Standards
The NECP and ECP-NC were prepared bythe Environmental, Health and SafetyCoal
p p
Combustion Products ("EHS CCP") Compliance group and the Legal Department, with input
from a variety of departments within Duke Energy, including CCP, Fossil Hydro Operations,
Human Resources, and Treasury. The detailed plans received extensive review from the
Compliance Officers and subject matter experts ("SMEs"). The CAM also provided extensive
review and feedback for Duke Energy's consideration. The NECP and the ECP-NC were
approved by the Court on January 7, 2016.
Per the terms of the NECP, Duke Energy updates the NECP regularly,but no less than every six
months, to accurately reflect any changes to the content of those sections. Duke Energy
submitted the sixth revision ("Rev 6") of Title I, Title II and the Exhibits of the NECP to the
CAM on December 6, 2019 which went into effect on January 8, 2020. This sixth revision
included, in part, updated processes and procedures, as well as organizational changes and
reporting processes since February 2019. At that time, there were not any revisions required to
the ECP-NC. The Plea Agreements and Judgments require DEBS, DEP, and DEC to submit
regular reports on multiple-different topics to demonstrate compliance with the ECPs. To meet
these requirements, Duke Energy has developed several programs and processes that are
discussed below.
Environmental Event Summary
Duke Energy continues to submit the weekly Environmental Event Report containing potential
environmental violations in DEC, DEP and DEBS to the CAM and EPA Authorized
Representatives using event definitions provided in the Duke.Energy Environmental Compliance
• Manual ADMP-EHS-EHS-00004, Environmental, Health and Safety Event Reporting and
Investigation Program, (formerly EHS-PGM-105) and the reporting criteria set forth in the
ECPs. The Environmental Event Report contains the following classes of environmental events:
1. Environmental Events per ADMP-EHS-EHS-00004 categorized as Category Land 2
events including, but not limited to:
• Regulatory citations (i.e.,Notices of Violation ("NOV"),Notices/Letters of
6

•
NECP/ECP-NC Compliance Officers' Report
January 31,2020
Deficiencies ("NOD") unless they.are solely information requests)
• Environmental events that require reporting to a regulatory agency (i.e., oil spills to
waters, chemical releases greater than the reportable quantity limit)
2. Environmental Events per ADMP-EHS-EHS-00004 categorized as Category 3 events,
if the event was reported to a regulatory agency.
The Report contains all such events recorded by DEC, DEP, and DEBS. •
Company-wide Reportable Environmental Events
Although the weekly report is limited to DEC, DEP, and DEBS, Duke Energy monitors •
environmental events from all regions and operations across the company beyond just the
defendant companies as part of its environmental management program. The tracking of events
provides insight to the company's improved environmental performance.
During the reporting period, a total of 71 events have been reported in the weekly Environmental
Event Report under the ECP-NC and NECP. The most frequently reported type of event
involves a transformer release or spill of non-PCB oil caused by a car accident or a third party.
Among the events reported, 13 events received a NOV or NOD from North Carolina Department
of Environment Quality ("NCDEQ").
• The charts below illustrate the current company-wide.Environmental Performance for Duke
Energy, as compared to the previous four years. Within this reporting period, there have been a
total of 13 category 2 reportable environmental events. As seen in the second graph below, the
number of REEs has continued to decline, with 2019 performance continuing the trend.4. A copy
of all Weekly Environmental Event Reports generated from July 6, 2019 through January 3, •
2020 is provided in Exhibit A.
•
•
4 Starting in 2016,distribution environmental events were captured,but pad mount transformer events were exempt from internal goals while the Pad
Mounted Transformer Improvement Plan was implemented. All distribution events have been included in REE totals for Duke Energy's internal goals since
2018. Similarly,Piedmont Natural Gas events were not included in 2017 and 2018 REE totals,but have been included since Q1 2019.
• 7

•
NECP/ECP-NC Compliance Officers' Report
January 31,2020
50
40 2019 Target
30 � p�m
20
10
s,'C'' Fe"4 Oat p.0 i vs� \‘3" P4 50 o \,,\©`' Qe�
02015 0201i5 02017 02018 02019 02020
40
31
18
20
118s
5 4
,02300 0010 01 210 0
0 _
.2015 2016 .2017 k 2018 02019 1102021
The following contains summaries of several notable events contained in the Weekly
Environmental Event Reports over the reporting period.
Mayo Leachate NOV
On July 22, 2019, Duke Energy received a NOV from NCDEQ as a result of three events
involving the release of leachate from the Mayo leachate collection system, as previously
reported in the Weekly Environmental Event Reports. The events were dated June 29, 2017,
January 25, 2019, and June 12, 2019. The NOV requests that Duke Energy conduct a third-party
evaluation of the leachate collection system at the Mayo plant by a professional engineer with
expertise in leachate system design and operation, and establish a plan for implementing the
report's recommendations. Duke Energy responded to NCDEQ Division of Waste Management
8

NECP/ECP-NC Compliance Officers'Report
January 31,2020
(DWM) letter on August 5, 2019. Corrective actions included: 1) Conducting quarterly
inspections of riser flanges; 2) Modifications based on proximity to environmental receptors
(e.g. removal of select clean-out vaults, installation of clear covers, installation of leak detection
equipment, quarterly testing of alarms and weekly inspection of select vaults); and 3) Duke
Energy's Welding Standard was updated; 4) Duke Energy's Landfill Development Standard and
Best Practices were updated. The 3rd Party Engineering Evaluation was submitted October 16;
2019. A conference call was held with DWM on October 30, 2019. Tasks recommended by the
3rd Party Engineer continue to be implemented in accordance with the schedule defined in the
tracking table.
Nantahala Fish Kills NOV
On August 12, 2019, Duke Energy received a NOV from NCDEQ based on an event previously
reported in the August 2, 2019 Report of Environmental Events at the Nantahala Hydro Station
on July 29, 2019 involving the release of warmer water into the Nantahala River resulting in fish
kills. The NOV requested a response by August 20, 2019. Duke Energy responded to NCDEQ
Division of Water Resources by letter dated August 19, 2019,. outlining corrective actions
including: actions to ensure awareness and accelerate mobilization and actions to enhance
effectiveness of real-time field considerations. Duke Energy responded to Additional
Information Request issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission by letter on
September 22, 2020.
• HF Lee Dam Safety NOD
On September 30, 2019,NCDEQ issued a NOD for the HF Lee Inactive Ash Basin Dams #1, #2
and #3, based on an inspection of the dams on September 10, 2019. Prior to August 21, 2019,
these dams had been exempt from the North Carolina Dam Safety Law of 1967. On August 21,
NCDEQ issued a letter changing the hazard classification of the dams from low to high, thereby
imposing new obligations. During the inspection on September 10, numerous trees were
observed to be present on the downstream slope of the dam embankment on both dams. On the
southwest corner downstream slope of the embankment of Dam # 3, a leaning tree and uprooted
tree root ball caused the embankment to become unstable. The NOD requests that the services
of a registered professional engineer or an experienced engineering firm make a study of the
conditions outlined in this letter and to submit plans and specifications for repair based on the
results of the study for each dam by November 25, 2019. Duke Energy provided a response to
each NOD via letters dated November 21, 2019. NCDEQ is currently reviewing the responses.
In addition, trees and bushes less than 6 inches in diameter, measured at chest height should be
removed from the dam embankments by January 23, 2020. The trees and brush have been
removed as requested by NCDEQ.
9

NECP/ECP-NC Compliance Officers' Report
January 31,2020
Marshall SOC NOV
On November 11, 2019, Duke Energy received.a Notice of Violation from the NCDEQ Water
Quality Permitting Section for exceedance of the Special Order by Consent Interim Action
Levels for hardness for Seep S-01 (316 mg/L result, 200 mg/L IAL) on September 25, 2019.
Duke Energy was given 30 days to provide additional information to dispute the stipulated
penalty of$4500. Duke Energy provided a response on December. 19, 2019 that included.
support and background information to demonstrate Duke Energy's position that the noted
exceedance of water hardness was due to circumstances and events beyond the reasonable
control of Duke Energy and therefore further penalties and actions should not be due in
accordance with condition 5 of the subject order. Duke Energy has also requested amendment
of the Consent Order to assure similar situations are covered in the future should drought
conditions return. Both of those submittals are under review as of the time of this report.
Belews Creek SOC NOV .
On December 18, 2019., NCDEQ issued a NOV to the Belews Creek Steam Station for
violations of interim action levels and interim discharge limits established by the second Belews
Creek SOC (involving relocation of the NPDES outfall) and for an exceedance of an NPDES
permit limit. The NOV directs Duke Energy to take remedial actions, and invites Duke Energy
to respond with a description of any events or circumstances beyond the control of Duke Energy
that would have caused the non-compliance. Duke Energy has completed interim remedial
actions to address the items and provided a response on January 17, 2020 describing the causes
of the violations that were beyond its reasonable control and the significant efforts taken to
address the violations. .
Environmental Concerns Line Submissions Report
As required by the Judgments and Plea Agreements, Duke Energy launched the Environmental
Concerns Line, also refe
rred erred to as the Hotline, on June 1, 2015. This line is accessible twenty-
four hours per day, seven days per week for any person to report suspected violations of
applicable environmental laws or regulations, or violations of the NECP or ECP-NC. Reports are
submitted via the toll-free telephone number, web form, and email. The Environmental
Concerns Line process is managed similarly to Duke Energy's Ethics Concerns Line by an
outside vendor, NAVEX. Calls, emails and web submissions are received through a call-center
24 hours a day and then presented to the EHS CCP Compliance team to investigate.
Per the terms of the Plea Agreements, Duke Energy is required to periodically apprise its
employees and the public of the availability of the toll-free hotline and electronic mailbox by
posting notices on the Internet, the company-wide portal and electronic mail system, by
providing notices in appropriate employee work areas and by publication in community outlets.
The company continues to satisfy this obligation through a number of means, including issuing
10

NECP/ECP-NC Compliance Officers' Report
January 31,2020
quarterly reminders of the Environmental Concerns Line in a weekly publication, "This Week
@Duke Energy,"that is sent to all employees, company-wide. Additionally, Duke Energy
continues to use its public website, print and social media avenues to reach a broader spectrum
of the public and ensure that the public is aware of the Environmental Concerns Line. The
company has also expanded its notification efforts to include bill mentions in residential
customer bills and newspaper print ads in several large markets.
Since the submission of the last Compliance.Officers' Report in July 2019, Duke Energy has
received 236 reports through the Environmental Concerns Line and, as of January 24, 2020, 20
investigations remained open. For the reporting period, the Environmental Concerns Line has
received an average of 34 reports per month and the matters have been resolved on an average of
26 days. For this reporting period, the majority of the concerns were initiated via hotline phone
(51.27%), as depicted in the chart below.
Environmental Concerns Line— Initiated by Source
T
=
44
i sm_
M. o
Intake Method . Count(%)
•Hou)ne Phone [phone]%)
E mail 87(36.86%)
Hotline Web 26(11.02%)
•none 1(0.42%)
•Report Form 1(0.42%)
Total 236
Since July, the largest reporting area of concern was Utility Equipment, with a total of 73
submissions, as depicted in the chart below. Utility Equipment matters involve reports by
customers concerning company products and equipment (e.g. power lines and transformers). An
illustration of the Environmental Concerns Line Activity as of January 24, 2020 is provided in
Exhibit B.
11

NECP/ECP-NC Compliance Officers' Report
January 31,2020
Environmental Concerns Line- Submission by Topic
80
60
40
20I II I MI ME mow
• ,f � 71{90 9191.9
x inetax--Ns rm 41+1695a01 �(s±.t.w:n _ Srt 4+i1F
•W::.arwn.v.,sW
0(,0gne wwaNnxM Wet), 2011rPAM
Fttvreruz +Ral 9119v9f 2139IMO
..ern. 2.26."
•0w2. 4",S4.2221.ivaur mar, 19*0,^1 t+V c229
*ashe Y4:a«tr^er,1 t ti ria a+ezyl 1 S 97.tl3fima •94,9.99.4999,19s994r9 f Z9 cAa.
•frwaaataeul Pobrp 114 N:AE) •'k9ar.*I04.9.99.- 9.4ue41., 14944916
A summary list of all Environmental Concerns Line matters received through January 2, 2020 is included
as Exhibit C. During this reporting period, there have not been any matters that have involved a suspected
environmental violation.
Excavation Status on the Four Priority Sites
Duke Energy is submitting its eighth Semi-Annual Report on Closure and Excavation to the
CAM, concurrently with this report, on January 31, 2020. The Excavation Reports provide a
detailed description of Duke Energy's efforts to excavate coal ash and close all of the coal,ash
impoundments at the four high-priority sites in.North Carolina(Asheville, Dan River,Riverbend,
and Sutton). This includes information regarding the status of the critical milestones as set out
in the excavation plans for those sites. Summaries of the current excavation progress at each site
are provided below. Greater detail is provided in the Semi-Annual Excavation Report, also
accessible on the Duke Energy public website at https://www.duke-energy.com/our-
company/environment/compliance-and-reporting/environmental-compliance-plans.
Asheville Steam Electric Generating Station
The Asheville site has continued to make progress with excavation efforts. As previously
reported, ash excavation of the 1982 Ash Basin was completed in September 2016. Excavation
of the 1964 Ash Basin is ongoing. During the period of January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019,.
Asheville excavated approximately 739,186 tons of ash from the 1964 Ash Basin and transported
it to the R&B Landfill in Homer, Georgia. As of December 31, 2019, approximately 6,954,649
12

NECP/ECP-NC Compliance Officers' Report
January 31,2020
tons of ash have been excavated from the Asheville site.
North Carolina state law requires that ash from the Asheville Plant's ash basins be excavated and
relocated to a lined facility with the ash basins closed by August 1, 2022. The current plan is for
the Asheville site to complete excavation of the 1964 Basin by February 28, 2022, and perform
ash removal verification procedures in advance of the August 1, 2022 compliance date. At
present, the Asheville site is not considered at risk for excavation completion in the required
time frame.
Dan River Steam Station
The Dan River site has completed excavation required under CAMA. Excavation of the Primary
and Secondary Ash Basins was completed on May 20, 2019, as validated by third-party
sampling performed on May 23, 2019.
During the period January 1,2019 to May 20, 2019, Dan River excavated approximately
725,648 tons of ash from the Primary and Secondary Ash Basins and transported it to the on-site
landfill. To date, approximately 2,298,599 tons of ash have been placed in the on-site landfill.
In addition, Dan River completed shipping ash to Roanoke Cement for beneficial reuse on May
17, 2019. As of May17, 139 35.1 tons were sent to Roanoke Cementfor
beneficial reuse. As of
June 30, 2019, approximately 3,672,602 tons of ash have been excavated from the Dan River
site and placed in permitted lined CCR facilities both on and off site.
North Carolina state law required that ash from the basins at the Dan River site be excavated and
relocated to a lined facility, with the ash basins closed by August 1, 2019. This requirement has
been met. Duke Energy submitted a letter to NCDEQ dated May 24, 2019 to provide
notification that dewatering and removal of CCR from the Dan River Steam Station surface
impoundments was completed on May 20, 2019. Soil sampling data from the excavated basins
was submitted to NCDEQ on July 31, 2019. On September 11, 2019, Duke Energy received
Confirmation of Excavation Requirements for the Dan River Ash Basins from NCDEQ.
Although not required by North Carolina state law, excavation of Ash Stack 2 has been
completed. Soil sampling data from the excavated area of Ash Stack 2 is expected to be
submitted to NCDEQ by March 31, 2020.
Riverbend Steam Station
The Riverbend site has completed ash excavation efforts. Excavation of the Primary and
Secondary Ash Basins, Ash Stack, and Cinder Pit was completed on March 16, 2019,
approximately five months ahead of the statutory completion date.
During the period January 1, 2019.to March 16, 2019, Riverbend excavated approximately
195,530 tons of ash from the site and transported it by rail to the Brickhaven Structural Fill site
near Moncure,North Carolina. As of March 16, 2019, approximately 5,351,309 million tons of
• 13

•
•
NECP/ECP-NC Compliance Officers' Report
January 31,2020
ash have been excavated from the Riverbend site. North Carolina state law required that ash
from the basins at the Riverbend site be excavated and relocated to a lined facility, with the ash
basins closed by August 1, 2019.
L.V. Sutton Electric Station
The Sutton site completed excavation required under CAMA on June 24, 2019 (the 1971 Ash
Basin was completed on June 14, 2019, and the 1984 Ash Basin was completed on June 24,
2019). Final grade surveys of the 1971 Ash Basin and 1984 Ash Basin have also been
completed. Finally, final compliance testing of the basins was completed on June 14, 2019 and
July12, 2019, respectively.
Cell 8, the last of the six landfill cells, was placed in service in April 2019. Cell 4 reached its
final elevation and capacity as planned in January 2019, followed by Cell 5 in July 2019. The
first phase of landfill closure commenced in April 2019 on Cells 3 and 4, followed by Cell 5 in
July 2019. Closure activities for Cells 3,4, and 5 were substantially complete on August 28,
2019.
During the period of January 1, 2019 to June 30, 2019, Sutton excavated approximately
1,924,428 tons of CAMA ash from the 1971 and 1984 Ash Basins and transported it to the on-
site landfill, meeting the CAMA closure date of August 1, 2019. LOLA excavation began on
July 9, 2019, and is currently scheduled to complete on June 23, 2020.Through December 31,
2019, approximately 443,954 tons of non-CAMA ash have been excavated from the LOLA and
transported to the on-site landfill. To date, 5,216,908 tons of ash have been placed in the on-site
landfill. This includes 4,772,954 tons of CAMA ash and 443,954 tons of non-CAMA ash. As of
December 31, 2019, approximately 7,233,301 tons of ash were excavated from the Sutton site
and placed in permitted lined CCR facilities both on- and off-site. This includes 6,789,347 tons
of CAMA ash and 443,954 tons of non-CAMA ash.
Volume of Coal Ash and Wastewater in NC Ash Impoundments
On November 13, 2019, Duke Energy provided the CAM the current volume determinations of
wastewater and coal ash contained in each of Duke's North Carolina coal ash impoundments.
This record is maintained on the CCP Operations & Maintenance ("O&M") SharePoint webpage
where it is accessible to the facility staff and employees responsible for making environmental or
emergency reports. Additionally, a copy is filed with the Emergency Action Plans ("EAPs") at
each facility. Following the six-month reporting schedule, Duke Energy will submit the next
report providing the volume of wastewater and coal ash in each of its wet-storage coal ash
impoundments in North Carolina at the conclusion of any activities that significantly change the
volumes.
•
14

NECP/ECP-NC Compliance Officers' Report
January 31,2020
B. Operational Advancements and Recent Developments
EN1000 Training Update and Recent Developments
Duke Energy continues to successfully administer the Environmental Risk, Reporting and.
Compliance ("EN1000") computer-based training course to domestic new hires and employees
returning from leave who missed the original 2016 deployment. For new or returning domestic
Duke Energy employees, the course is automatically assigned by the company's Learning
Management System ("LMS") based on a nightly review of the HR database. Since June 30,
2019, completions for Duke and legacy-Piedmont Natural Gas (now the Natural Gas Business
Unit or NGBU) employees are in the same Learning Management System. From July 1, 2019 to
December 31, 2019, there were a total of 1,113 new completions. •
Compliance Rover Process Advancements and Lessons Learned
As described in the NECP, Duke Energy developed new procedures to ensure consistent
regulatory compliance at all stations. Beginning in February 2016, Duke Energy implemented a
• robust process to detect and prevent non-compliance with all federal, state, and local
environmental laws, regulations and/or ordinances applicable to coal ash management activities,
as outlined in the Compliance Plan Elements section of the NECP. Additionally, beginning in
early 2017, Duke Energy launched the implementation of the EHSMS to ensure the consistency
and effectiveness of its EHS management activities, including continually improving EHS risk
management and preventing and detecting non-compliances. The EHSMS model is based on a
simple `plan-do-check-adjust' system that requires critical planning processes to ensure a
comprehensive understanding of applicable legal requirements and EHS risks that need to be
adequately controlled. The initial development along with the on-going
management/sustainment of the Compliance Requirements Registers is specifically addressed in
the EHSMS Planning Sub-element 2b, Compliance Obligations: relevant laws, regulations and
other EHS obligations are proactively identified and managed through compliance action
tracking systems. Completion of all tasks required for compliance with regulations, permits, and
policies are verified by a team of Compliance Rovers ("Rovers"). From July 1 through
December 31, 2019, the Compliance Rovers reviewed and closed a total of 2,183 tasks. The
Compliance Rovers reviewed 10 tasks that required follow up but were closed by the end of the
due month. 2,173 tasks reviewed by the Compliance Rovers were verified with no further action
required. From January 1 through December 31, 2019, the Compliance Rovers reviewed and
closed a total of 4,068 tasks as verified with no further action required.
The chart below illustrates each month's progress on all verification tasks through July 1, 2019
through_December 31, 2019 which have been verified and closed, completed after follow-up
actions were conducted, or remained open until follow up actions were completed at a later date.
15

NECP/ECP-NC Compliance Officers'Report
January 31,2020
Compliance Rover Tasks
July August September October November December
Corrective Action Completed 0 0 0 0 0 0
Follow Up Required and Open 0 0 0 0 0 0
Follow Up Required and Complete 1 3 1 0 2 0
Verified/Closed 317 295 263 346 372 272
While the initial.Compliance Verification Process and supporting Compliance Requirement
Registers were launched in February 2016, the management of these requirements is designed to
be responsive to change and is continuously reviewed. Since the July 2019 report, the following
areas described below were conducted to enhance the effectiveness of the Rover's compliance
verification process and continue to be maintained:
• Sustainment of Requirements Register: Register Sustainment,on-going management of
the Compliance Registers,continued throughout 2019 as the process for updating,
creating, and/or ending tasks in work management systems related to the terms of
Probation. As a further means of control, specific actionable and applicable requirements
identified in the relevant federal, state, and local environmental laws, as well as
requirements contained in site environmental permits, continued to be documented in
environmental compliance registers and maintained in eTRAC. The Environmental
Compliance Obligation Management Procedure (ADMP.-ENV-EVS-00022) addresses
regulatory obligations that are applicable to Duke Energy operations including applicable
EHS statutes, regulations, ordinances, compliance requirements, and other commitments
made to regulators and other relevant stakeholders, as appropriate, are identified and
documented. Potential changes to compliance obligations continued to be monitored and
new applicable requirements were incorporated into the compliance management process.
Any new environmental laws and other legal requirements (including revised permits)
were addressed as well.
• Two-person Peer Teams and Lessons Learned: As part of the Compliance Verification
Process advancements associated with the EHS Management System Element 4
(Performance Monitoring and Inspections/Audits), the EHS CCP Rover team continues
to utilize their"2-person peer team"process designed to enhance the detailed
performance monitoring being conducted at each of the 21 coal ash sites. As part of this
effort, each two-person Rover team was responsible for researching a specific topic and
conducting a training session to enhance the program knowledge of all six Rovers. This
training was designed to create a more thorough understanding of compliance
verifications in these areas. Two selected topics, CCR rule and ES&C (erosion and
sediment control), were reviewed with the entire Rover team during the 1st and 2nd
quarters of 2019. Additional researching and presentation on the SPCC program, was
16

NECP/ECP-NC Compliance Officers'Report
January 31,2020
reviewed with the entire Rover team during the 4th quarter of 2019. Each of these topics
were chosen based upon Rover field observations during their site visits, recent rule
implementations as well as items of interest noted during the CAM audits. As outlined in
the Rover Lessons Learned procedure (ADMP-ENV-EHS-00009), any new information
obtained from these program specific reviews during 2019 was also captured and
communicated to improve performance at other locations.
III. CAM Audits
A. Summary of final 2019 CAM Audit Reports
Under the terms of the Judgments and the Plea Agreements, the CAM established a schedule for
conducting annual environmental compliance audits of Duke Energy's facilities with coal ash
impoundments. Additionally,.the CAM was permitted to hire an auditing firm to assist with this
requirement.
The CAM selected two audit consultants, Advanced GeoServices and Elm Consulting (Audit
Team), to assist/conduct the audits of Duke Energy's facilities with coal ash impoundments. The
audit schedule for this reporting period was as follows:
• Roxboro Steam Plant—July 22-23, 20.19
• Mayo Steam Station—July 24-25, 2019
• HF Lee Plant—August 12-13, 2019
• Cape Fear Plant—August 14-15,.2019
• East Bend Station— September 16-17, 2019
• Gibson Station —October 21-22, 2019
• Gallagher Station— October 23-24, 2019
• Cayuga Station—November 4-5, 2019
• Wabash River Station—November 6-7, 2019
Final audit reports were issued for Marshall, Buck, Roxboro, Mayo, HF Lee, Cape Fear, East
Bend, Gibson, Gallagher, Cayuga and Wabash River stations during this reporting period. The
following sections cover the findings in those final audit reports, and Duke Energy's actions to
address those findings. There were no findings for Mayo, East Bend, Gibson, Gallagher and
Wabash River.
B. Seeps from Coal Ash Surface Impoundments
At Cape Fear the Audit Team found that certain seeps at the facility were not covered under
Clean Water Act(CWA)NPDES permits. On January 27, 2020, Duke Energy received a final,
executed version of a new Special Order by Consent("SOC"), which covers non-constructed
seeps at the facility. The SOC follows the format of SOCs for other sites and provides a
compliance schedule for Duke Energy to.address seeps at Cape Fear.
17

NECP/ECP-NC Compliance Officers' Report
January 31,2020
C. Groundwater Exceedances Beyond Compliance Boundaries
At Marshall, Buck, Roxboro, HF Lee and Cape Fear the Audit Team found that constituents
were documented that exceed the standards for CLASS GA waters, established in 15A NCAC
2L .0202 in monitoring wells located at or beyond compliance boundaries.
At Marshall, Buck, HF Lee and Cape Fear, Duke Energy is in the process of addressing
groundwater impacts under the procedures set out in the Coal Ash Management Act(CAMA).
To date, for these sites, Duke Energy has submitted a Comprehensive Site Assessment, a two-
part Corrective Action Plan, and a Comprehensive Site Assessment Supplement.
At Marshall an Updated Comprehensive Site Assessment was submitted to NCDEQ.
Investigatory work continues and the Updated Corrective Action Plan was submitted to NCDEQ
by December 31, 2019.
At Buck, the Comprehensive Site Assessment will be updated and submitted to NCDEQ no later
than 10/1/20. The Corrective Action Plan will be updated and submitted to NCDEQ no later
than 7/1/21.
At Roxboro, Duke Energy is in the process of addressing groundwater impacts under the
procedures set out in the Coal Ash Management Act. Ash Basin closure plans will be submitted
to NCDEQ by December 31, 2019. An updated•Corrective Action Plan for the East and West
Ash Basins was submitted to NCDEQ December 31, 2019. The Updated Comprehensive Site
Assessment for sources at the facility not associated with the impoundments is due March 31,
2020.
At HF Lee, investigatory work continues. The Updated Comprehensive Site Assessment for
impoundments and other primary and secondary sources is due on October 1, 2020, and the
Updated Corrective Action Plan for these sources is due on July 1, 2021.
At Cape Fear, investigatory work continues. The Updated Comprehensive Site Assessment for
impoundments and other primary and secondary sources is due on September 1, 2020, and the
Updated Corrective Action Plan for these sources is due on June 1, 2021.
D. Other Findings
There were no other CAM Audit findings.
E. Open Lines of Inquiry
Open Lines of Inquiry are items identified by the Audit Team while on-site that, due to limited
available information or the need for additional research, could not be determined as being in
compliance or out of compliance.
18

NECP/ECP-NC Compliance Officers' Report
January 31,2020
At Marshall, the auditors stated that varying amounts of FGD materials that are intended to be
transferred to the Gypsum Pad by way of the Facility's conveyor system equipment are instead
lost to the ground surface under the normal operating conditions of the Facility's conveyor
system. Under the current management practices, FGD materials appear to accumulate on the
ground in the vicinity of the conveyor equipment relatively quickly and remain in place with
continuing deposition for up to one month before being cleaned up and disposed of as a solid
waste. Deposits and accumulations of waste FGD materials under the conveyor system as a
result of Duke Energy's operating practices may qualify as "CCR piles" under the CCR Rule.
The auditors further concluded that it was not clear from the language of the CCR Rule or from
EPA guidance whether the FGD material that is consistently released to the ground from the
FGD conveying system and that is managed by Duke Energy as a solid waste for disposal,
constitutes CCR under the CCR Rule, and if so, whether the CCR that accumulates on the
ground is subject to regulation as a CCR pile and therefore as a CCR landfill. If the FGD
material that is released does constitute CCR and if it is subject to regulation as a CCR pile,
Duke Energy would be required to apply the CCR Rule landfill standards to this area and this
would constitute a Finding. Due to the lack of clarity, the Audit Team includes this observation
as an Open Line of Inquiry.
In response, Duke Energy stated a.position that the CCR rule's landfill standards do not apply to
the incidental falloff of FGD material, which is not CCR. Contrary to the Auditors' assertions,
the CCR rule makes clear that this material is a.product and, therefore, not subject to the rule's
provisions regarding the management of CCR piles. Marshall Steam Station designs and
operates its air pollution control devices to produce an optimal product: synthetic gypsum. The
synthetic gypsum is produced to product specification and reused as a valuable input for
wallboard manufacturing. The station exercises special care to ensure that the product makes it
thorough conveyance to the stack-out pad and that minimal product is lost in transit. This
includes routine inspection and maintenance of the conveyance system, along with frequent
cleaning (vacuuming) of gypsum material that is lost to ground surface. To further address
FGD material management, the station will continue to focus on the efficiency of FGD gypsum
cleaning operations.
Final audit reports are made available to the public on Duke Energy's website, at
https://www.duke-energy.com/our-company/environment/compliance-and-
reporting/environmental-compliance-plans. Duke Energy's corrective actions to resolve the
audit findings are also posted on this website.
IV. Environmental Achievements
A. CCR Rule Implementation
Duke Energy continues to work diligently to meet the EPA CCR rule requirements. In the last
19

NECP/ECP-NC Compliance Officers' Report
January 31,2020
six months of 2019, Duke Energy completed several CCR requirements. The annual EAP face-
to-face meetings with local emergency responders were completed, placed in the operating
record, and uploaded to the external CCR website. Annual inspections of CCR impoundments
and CCR landfills were placed in the operating record and were uploaded to the external CCR
website. The annual fugitive dust reports were completed and placed in the operating record, as
well as uploaded onto the external CCR website. The semiannual progress reports for
groundwater remedy selection were completed, placed in the operating record and uploaded to
the external CCR website. Looking ahead, the next CCR requirement is the Annual Groundwater
Monitoring and Corrective Action reports which are due by January 31, 2020.
B. Groundwater Programs
In response to increased interest concerning coal ash in North Carolina, the North Carolina
Department of Environmentand Natural Resources ("NCDENR") issued a Notice of Regulatory
Requirements ("NORR") to Duke Energy on August 13, 2014 requiring submittal of
Groundwater Assessment Plans ("GAP") and Receptor Surveys for potential receptors within a
one-half mile radius of each facility's compliance boundary. Similar requirements were outlined
in CAMA, which was passed on August 20, 2014.
To date Duke Energy has submitted receptor surveys, revised receptor surveys, comprehensive
site assessment work plans, comprehensive site assessment reports, supplemental comprehensive
site assessment reports, and Corrective Action Plans ("CAPs") for all 14 North Carolina coal
fired stations.
After completing the Groundwater Assessment reports in 2015, areas at each site needing further
investigation were identified, and another program was launched to install additional wells and
continue sampling efforts. A total of 200 additional wells (about 18,000 linear feet of drilling)
were installed across the 14 facilities in early to mid-2016 and Comprehensive Site Assessment
("CSA") Supplements were submitted to NCDEQ between July 7, 2016 and September 16,
2016.
As part of the Settlement Agreement between NCDEQ and Duke Energy, Asheville Steam
Electric Plant, Belews Creek Steam Station, HF Lee Energy Complex, and LV Sutton are
required to implement accelerated remediation of groundwater. Accelerated Remediation
Summaries and Interim Action Plans were submitted to NCDEQ in 2016. NCDEQ sent a letter
to Duke Energy on July 22, 2016 requiring all facilities have a remedial system start-up date no
later than March 31, 2017, unless an extension is requested before March 1, 2017. Duke Energy
submitted a letter February 17, 2017 (incorrectly dated 2016) that requested a schedule extension
along with clarifying additional milestones requested by NCDEQ. On March 28, 2017,NCDEQ
issued a letter approving the schedule extensions for the four sites.
For the Sutton site, the final approval to begin construction of the extraction system was received
20

NECP/ECP-NC Compliance Officers'Report
January 31,2020
on March 15, 2017. The 100% Basis of Design ("BOD") final submitted was received by
NCDEQ on January 25, 2017 and approved via letter from NCDEQ on March 15, 2017.
Construction of the system began ahead of schedule on March 20, 2017 and was completed
ahead of the deadline. Duke Energy communicated to NCDEQ on August 9, 2017 that the
system was fully operational.
For the HF Lee site, Duke Energy has acquired the property to the east of the ash basin where
offsite impacts were identified and reported in the CSAs. Duke Energy received written
confirmation from NCDEQ on April 12, 2017, stating that"Division of Water Resources agrees
to allow Duke to forego the installation of the interceptor wells for the time being and to focus
efforts on closure of the impoundment through ash removal." Therefore, the activities related to
design, review, permitting, and implementation of the Interim Action Plan Accelerated
Remediation are being discontinued. This information was relayed back to NCDEQ in a letter on
April 17, 2017 to complete the communication and a response from NCDEQ was not
anticipated.
For the Asheville site, construction began ahead of schedule on October 9, 2017 after receiving
all regulatory approvals and submittal of the 100% BOD Report. On October 31, 2017 NCDEQ
provided review comments on the 100%BOD. After drilling and well development for the two
remaining extraction well locations were determined to be dry, the project team worked with
NCDEQ to identify two alternative locations to install replacement extraction wells. These
alternate locations also failed to yield groundwater after drilling and well development. This
condition is attributed to the inconsistency of the fractured bedrock. NCDEQ agreed to accept.a
revision to the system to consist of a single 30 gpm well and Duke Energy provided responses
and revisions to the 100% BOD in a letter dated December 15, 2017. The groundwater
extraction system start-up and testing for Asheville began on February 19, 2018 and the system
began full operation on March 19, 2018.
For the Belews Creek site, construction for the.Belews Creek system began ahead of schedule on
August 30, 2017 after receiving all required permits and submittal of the 100% BOD Report. On
October 31, 2017 NCDEQ provided review comments on the 100%BOD. Duke Energy
provided responses and revisions in a letter dated December 14, 2017. The groundwater
extraction system start-up and testing began in December 2017 with the final remaining tasks
including on-boarding. The system began full operation on March 14, 2018 with minor punch
list items being completed.
The annual Effectiveness.Monitoring Report for the Sutton groundwater extraction system was
submitted to NCDEQ on May 15, 2019; whereas similar reports for Belews Creek and Asheville
were extended until July 31, 2019, consistent with the annual CAMA reports. These due dates
were established by NCDEQ via letter dated April 4, 2019.
A letter dated June 2, 2017 was received by Duke Energy from NCDEQ requiring updated CSAs
21

NECP/ECP-NC Compliance Officers' Report
January 31.,2020
and CAPs for the Allen, Marshall, Rogers (Cliffside), Roxboro, Mayo, and Belews Creek coal
ash facilities. Two deadlines were set for delivery of the updated CSAs:
• CSA 1st Set (Belews Creek, Mayo, and Roxboro)—October 31, 2017
• CSA 2nd Set (Allen, Marshall and Rogers (Cliffside))—January 31,2018
In the June 2, 2017 letter the CAPs submittal dates were March 31, 20.18 for set 1 and June 30,
2018 for set 2. After additional discussions with NCDEQ it was determined that the CAPs
would be submitted for Allen, Marshall, Rogers (Cliffside), Roxboro, Mayo, and Belews Creek 4
months after the approval of the updated CSAs. This was confirmed in a letter received by Duke
Energy on September 22, 2017.
The updated CSAs for Roxboro, Mayo, Belews Creek, and Riverbend were submitted on
October 31, 2017. The updated CSAs for Allen, Marshall, Rogers (Cliffside), Sutton and Dan
River were submitted to NCDEQ on January 31, 2018.
Additional source investigations at other coal ash facilities began in late 2018 and will continue
in 2019. On September 8, 2017, Duke Energy received a letter titled "Technical Direction
Regarding Other Primary and Secondary Sources at Duke Energy Coal Ash Facilities". This
letter directs Duke Energy to look at other potential primary and secondary sources at these
facilities such as additional CCR storage areas, raw coal piles, and structural fills that were not
addressed during the CAMA process. Work plans for the existing or inactive coal piles at Allen,
Weatherspoon, and Riverbend were submitted to NCDEQ in the first quarter of 2018 and have
been subsequently approved. Work plans for coal piles and other source areas have been
submitted to NCDEQ for Asheville, Cliffside and Sutton with additional draft work plans
underway for eventual submittal to NCDEQ.
On April 5, 2019,NCDEQ sent Duke Energy a letter revising the schedule for yet-unfinished
activities (CSAs; CAPs) addressed in NCDEQ's letter of October 8, 2018, for all 14 Duke
Energy coal ash facilities. Subsequently, on May 9, 2019,NCDEQ sent Duke Energy a second
letter revising the schedule set out in the April 5 letter as it pertains to remaining activities
associated with the six sites.
The focus of work for the second half of 2019 centered upon submittal of the Updated CAPs for
Allen, Belews Creek, Cliffside, Marshall, Mayo and Roxboro. In preparation for the submittal
of CAPs, updated Background Threshold Values (`.BTVs" for groundwater were submitted to
NCDEQ dated June 13, 2019. NCDEQ asserted that a different methodology was used to
calculate BTVs and denied Duke's submittal via letter dated August 20, 2019. NCDEQ then
took the approach to calculate groundwater BTVs for these six sktesand submitted the BTVs to
Duke via letter dated October 17, 2019.
22

NECP/ECP-NC Compliance Officers' Report
January 31,2020
While preparation of CAPs were underway, NCDEQ provided additional clarification via two
separate letters. First,NCDEQ letter dated September 10, 2019 provided additional CAP
guidance while the second letter dated October 24, 2019 provided guidance for management of
constituents of interest(COIs). Duke did the best possible to factor the NCDEQ information
into the updated CAPs.. On December 31, 2019, Duke Energy submitted the updated CAPS for
these six sites to NCDEQ.
At all 14 North Carolina sites, modifications to the Interim Monitoring Plans (IMP) were
completed and submitted to NCDEQ via letter dated November 26, 2019 The updates included
modifications to the well sampling frequency (Quarterly or Semi-Annually) along with
modifications to the constituent sampling list and agreement for site-wide dissolved constituent.
analysis in either the first or second quarter of the year. NCDEQ took this request under
advisement and via email dated December 30, 2019, stated that Duke needed to follow the
approved IMPs for quarter 1 and 2 of 2020. NCDEQ further stated in that email that further
correspondence regarding IMPs would be forthcoming at a later date.
NCDEQ approved Duke's request via letter dated December 31, 2019 that the 2019 annual IMP
reports (due to NCDEQ by April 30, 2020) could be deferred. As the Duke request stated, the
information required by these annual IMP reports would be found in updated CAPs and CSAs to
be submitted to NCDEQ in late 2019 through fall 2020. NCDEQ also agreed with Duke, via
letter dated December 31, 2019, to data cutoff dates for information to be included in Updated
CAPs and CSAs to be submitted in 2020.
C. CCP Maintenance and Repairs to Ash Management Facilities
Duke Energy owns and operates 14 sites in North Carolina with coal ash impoundments. In.
addition to the North Carolina sites, Duke Energy also operates two sites in South Carolina (WS
Lee and Robinson), four sites in Indiana (Cayuga, Gallagher, Gibson, and Wabash River), one
site in Kentucky (East Bend) and one site in Florida (Crystal River). Duke Energy continues to
enhance the reliability of its ash management structures by making improvements to increase
overall efficiency and productivity. Throughout the second half of 2019, the following projects
and maintenance activities were completed and/or continue, enhancing the reliability of Duke
Energy's ash management facilities:
Carolinas East Sites
• The new outfall for Belews Creek was placed in service Q4 2019.
• Commenced decanting of the Belews Creek Ash Basin Q 1 2019.
• Continued to operate the Belews Creek Groundwater Rernediation System.
• Belews Creek Dry Bottom Ash ("DBA") pH Control System was placed in service Q3 2019.
23

NECP/ECP-NC Compliance Officers' Report-
January 31,2020
• Placed a new water treatment system and new Outfall #008 in-service at Cape Fear. Continued
decanting to maintain the basin in a decanted state.
• Continued maintenance dewatering at the HF Lee Active Ash Basin, as needed, to maintain the
basin in a decanted state.
• Continued maintenance dewatering at the Cape Fear 85 and 78 Basins, as needed,to maintain the
basin in a decanted state.
• Continued decanting of the Mayo Ash Basin.
• Began construction of dedicated power to the Ash Basin Seep Mitigation project Q4 2019..
Scheduled to complete Q1 2020.
• Began decommissioning of the Mayo Flue-gas desulfurization ("FGD") Basin Q4 2019.
Schedule to complete Q2 2020.
• Continue to prepare Roxboro FGD wasterwater treatment ("WWT") for operation, which is
scheduled for Q1 2020. Operation of the new FGD WWT System is pending receipt of the new
NC NPDES permit.
• Completed construction of Phase 1 of the Roxboro Coal Pile Holding Basin Project Q2 2019.
Scheduled to begin operation in 2020, pending receipt of the new NC NPDES permit, which was
received in Q4, 2019.
• Continued engineering for Phase 11 of the Roxboro Coal Pile Holding Basin Project.
• Roxboro Dry Bottom Ash pH Control System was placed in service Q3 2019.
• Began construction of Roxboro Unit 1 Dry Fly Ash system Q3, 2019. Scheduled to begin
operation Q2 2020.
• • Began cleanout of storm. drain pipe between Roxboro's East and West Ash Basins, Q4 2019.
Schedule to complete Q1 2020.
• Continued to operate and maintain the Sutton Groundwater Remediation System.
• Continued interstitial dewatering at Sutton. Projected to be completed Q4 2019.
• Hurricane Florence damaged the Sutton Cooling Lake Dike, resulting in breaches in three
locations. Permanent repairs were completed for the breach 1 and 3 locations in Q4 2019.
• Weatherspoon ash excavation in support of beneficiation continues.
• Continued to install and develop additional groundwater wells to meet CAMA and CCR Rule
requirements.
Carolinas West Siteg
• Allen DBA pH Control System was placed in service Q4 2019.
• Allen Air Preheater Wash Water Tank was placed in service Q2 2019.
24

NECP/ECP-NC Compliance Officers' Report
January 31,2020
• Continued interstitial dewatering of the Asheville 1964 Ash Basin.
• Continued to operate the Asheville Groundwater Remediation System.
• Completed construction of a lined retention basin adjacent to the Asheville 1964 Basin Q3 2019.
• Commenced decanting of the Buck Ash Basins Q 1 2019.
• Continued decanting of the Rogers (Cliffside) Active Ash Basin.
•
Rogers (Cliffside) FGD WWT project commenced civil construction site work in Q3 2019.
• Rogers (Cliffside) Landfill Phase 3 engineering was completed Q4 2019 with construction to
start Q1 2020.
• Marshall Stormwater diversion and temporary stormwater pond was placed into service Q3 2019.
• Commenced decanting of the Marshall Basin Q3 2019.
• Marshall DBA pH.Controls System installation in progress with completion scheduled in Q1
2020.
• Marshall Dry Fly Ash Upgrades installation in progress with completion scheduled in Q1 2020..
• Completed interstitial dewatering at Riverbend Q1 2019.
• Completed removal of the ash from the Secondary Ash Basin and stockpiling in the Primary
Ash Basin at WS Lee Q2 2019.
• Continued to install and develop additional groundwater wells to meet CAMA and CCR Rule
requirements.
Midwest Sites
• Completed Cayuga Dry Bottom Ash and Lined Retention Basin pH control system project.
• Completed installation of the East Bend Lined Retention Basin Q4 2019.
• Completed installation of the East Bend Cell 2 at the West Landfill Q4 2019.
• Continued installation for the Gallagher Lined Retention Basin. Scheduled to be in service Q4
2020.
• Completed installation for Gallagher Landfill Cells 4 and 5. Scheduled to be in service Q4 2020.
• Completed project development and received full project funding for the Gibson Air Preheater
Wash Water Pipe Reroute Q1 2019.
• Completed installation of the Gibson Restricted Waste System (RWS) Landfill Closure Project
Q4 2019.
• Completed Gibson East Ash Pond Cells 2 and 3 Closure Project Q4 2019.
25

•
•
•
• NECP/ECP-NC Compliance Officers'Report
• January.31,2020
• Closure of the Gibson East Ash Settling Basin scheduled.to be completed Q2 2020. •
• Gibson South Aggregate Landfill Slope Repairs Project completed Q4 2019. •
• Continued to install and develop additional groundwater wells•to meet CCR Rule requirements.
• The process/stormwater pond at the Wabash River site was put into service Q4 2019. The slip
lined stormwater pipe under Ash Pond A will continue to be inspected while in service and plans
•
are to excavate the material from the top of the pipe during the initial phase of Ash Pond Closure
by removal for Ash Pond A.
In addition to all of the above-mentioned sampling of projects, each ash basin and landfill is inspected by a
qualified engineer, every seven days. Minor maintenance items such as repair of the vegetation cover,animal
• burrows, or minor erosion have been identified during these routine inspections and repaired on an on-going
basis. Significant vegetation management/grass cutting efforts continue on a regular basis to allow for
appropriate inspections.
D. Beneficial Reuse Update
The performance results are listed.below:
CCP Beneficial Use Report—January 2020
The performance results are listed below (all values in tons x 1,000):
2016 2017 2018 2019
Ash Produced 2,69`i 2,521 2,301 2,079
Ash Reused' 1,718 1,796 1,824 1,274
Gypsum Produced 3,014 2,991 3,170 2,224
Gypsum Reused" 2,937 3,115 3,004 1,844
Sulfur Reuse 29 40 37 41
Slag Reuse 233 333 264 312 1
Total'Production 5,971 5,885 5,772 4,657
Total Reuse 4,916 5,284 5,128 3,472
'Beneficial reuse volumes include current year production and material stored on-site from previous years.
Duke Energy remains committed to exploring opportunities to recycle ash produced at operating
coal plants and the ash currently stored in basins. Basin ash sales at the retired Weatherspoon
Steam Station and Dan River Steam Station totaled 300,000 tons during 2019 compared to
332,000 tons used in 2018 with Dan River completing excavation of the basin by mid-year.
Sales of basin ash provide a lower cost opportunity compared to disposal and reduce the site •
requirements for permanent disposal. •
Construction plans are underway for three ash thermal beneficiation plants to process basin ash
at the retired Buck, Cape Fear, and H.F. Lee Steam Stations, which will safely recycle the
material for encapsulated use in concrete products.
•
26

NECP/ECP-NC Compliance Officers'Report
January 31,2020
The equipment is expected to process up to 900,000 tons of ash per year, suitable for concrete
use in the North Carolina market, and beneficially utilize the ash stored to avoid permanent
placement. The Buck and H.F. Lee beneficiation units are expected to begin operations, during
the fourth quarter of 2020, while the Cape Fear unit is expected to begin operations in the second
quarter of 2020.
Duke Energy remains an active participant and industry leader with participation in the EPRI
Beneficial Reuse Research Program, which funds ongoing efforts to identify marketable
technology to reuse extracted ponded ash, including material that is considered non-
specification. Duke Energy is independently exploring developing technologies to process
landfilled ash that requires minimal capital for use in concrete and aggregate production.
E. Dewatering
Interstitial dewatering efforts were completed at Riverbend in Q1 2019. Similarly, interstitial
dewatering was completed at the Dan River and Sutton sites in Q2 2019. Interstitial dewatering
at the Asheville site continues with wastewater treatment currently being performed using the
existing rim ditch, center pond, and center pond filtration system. This includes interstitial
wastewater, sluiced CCR from the Asheville coal facility, as well as other stormwater and
process water flows. This current treatment process is located within the confines of the 1964
Ash Basin.
Under the Mountain Energy Act of North Carolina (MEA), Duke Energy was required to cease
coal burning operations at Asheville no later than January 31, 2020. After which, Duke Energy
must remove the rim ditch, center pond, and center pond filtration system to provide access to
the ash for excavation. Therefore, Duke Energy has constructed and commissioned a Lined
Retention Basin (LRB).and wastewater treatment system, during 2019, that will manage and
treat water flows after coal plant cessation. Interstitial dewatering will continue throughout the
excavation of the ash basin and is anticipated to conclude in Q 1 2022.
Decanting of the Secondary Ash Basin at the WS Lee site was completed during Ql 2019. Duke
Energy subsequently commenced interstitial dewatering of the Secondary and Primary Ash
Basins. Interstitial dewatering of the Secondary Ash Basin was completed in Q2 2019 and
dewatering of the Primary Ash Basin will continue throughout the closure process.
Decanting of the Active Ash Basin at the HF Lee site was completed during Q4 2018. Pursuant
to an SOC with the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission (EMC), Duke
Energy commenced interstitial dewatering at HF Lee in July 2019,
As previously mentioned, the Cape Fear site completed decanting (bulk dewatering) of the 1978
and 1985 Ash Basins in December 2017 utilizing an onsite WTS. Duke Energy received a
revised NPDES permit,which took effect on February 1, 2019. This permit included a new
27

NECP/ECP-NC Compliance Officers' Report
January 31,2020
outfall (Outfall 008) for ash basin decanting and dewatering to the Cape Fear River. Throughout
Q1 and Q2 2019, Duke Energy installed this new outfall structure along with a new wastewater
treatment system. Using this new wastewater treatment system and outfall, Duke Energy
commenced with maintenance decanting of the 1978 Ash Basin in Q2 2019 and with the 1985
Ash Basin in Q3 2019.
As previously reported for its other CCR sites throughout North Carolina, Duke Energy has
agreed to SOCs with the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission (EMC). In
part, these SOCs create commitments from Duke Energy to complete decanting of its ash basins
within a defined time frame.. The Belews Creek, Buck, and Cliffside sites all commenced.
decanting in Q1 2019. The Allen and Mayo sites commenced decanting in Q2 2019. The
Marshall site commenced decanting in Q3 2019.
Decanting is required to be completed in 2020 for five of the sites. The last site must complete
by the end of Q 1. 2021.
As previously report, Roxboro site was fully installed and ready for service in Q2 2019.
However, Duke Energy must receive an updated NPDES permit from NCDEQ before it can
commence decanting. Duke Energy anticipates receipt of this revised permit in 2020. At the
Marshall site, Duke Energy completed installation of the wastewater treatment infrastructure and
equipment and initiated decanting in Q2 2019. The Marshall site commenced decanting on July
16, 2019, ahead of the September 30, 2019 requirement.
As previously reported, at the Robinson site, the ash basin does not contain any bulk water, thus
decanting is not required. In preparation of landfill operation, Duke Energy has executed an
Industrial Users Permit with the City of Hartsville to treat leachate wastewater from the landfill
at the city's Publicly Owned Treatment Works. Duke Energy will further evaluate if there is a
need for interstitial dewatering in the future. Initial test borings do not suggest that there is a
significant amount of interstitial water.
F. Closure Planning
Duke Energy's team of CCP Engineers is dedicated to the safe closure of the ash impoundments
to ensure that the Company is in compliance with CAMA and the Federal CCR rule. During this
reporting period, closure engineering activities occurred at the following sites:
Riverbend Steam Station
Removal of CCR materials from the ash basin, cinder pit and ash stack areas were completed
during Q1 2019. Work is currently underway to decommission both the Primary and Secondary
Dams. 0
• 28

•
NECP/ECP-NC Compliance Officers' Report
January 31,2020
Robinson Steam Station
Construction of the landfill continues. The contractor has graded Cell 1, is currently placing
clay and geosynthetic liners in the cell and is continuing to prepare base grades for Cell 2.
Asheville Steam Electric Station
Engineering has developed a detailed design for a lined retention basin (LRB) that has been
constructed along the eastern the edge of the 1964 Basin. This LRB will be used to prevent the
coal plant's industrial stormwater and low-volume process water from entering the 1964 Basin
after the coal unit ceases operation. Construction of the LRB was completed in September 2019,
and the water treatment facility was completed in November 2019.
Work continues on ash removal from the 1964 basin including removal of ash from the inside
face of the dam. The ash removal contractor, Waste Management, continues dewatering
interstitial water from the coal ash by the installation of vertical wells and pumping from sumps.
The revised permit package for the 1964 dam decommissioning was submitted to NCDEQ Dam
Safety on November 21, 2019, with feedback anticipated by January 19. 2020.
Engineering drawings for the final phases of ash removal from the 1964 Basin and the
demolition of the rim ditch facility are complete. Bid documents were submitted to contractors
in Q3 2019, and a purchase order has been issued.
L. V. Sutton Electric Station
The closure engineering work included support of landfill operations, addressing basin
• closure/excavation issues, and the deployment of the first phase of the on-site landfill closure,
using Closure Turf as an alternate cover system. Construction quality assurance and engineering
support services were provided for the closure of Cells 3 and 4 of the on-site landfill.
All ash has been removed from the 1971 Basin and the 1984 Basin. Clean closure quality
assurance and engineering support services were provided for the 1971 and 1984 Basins to
support excavation activities within the basins during this period. The 1971 Dam has been
decommissioned and a certification report was submitted to NCDEQ Dam Safety on July 12,
2019. NCDEQ provided their certificate of final approval, for the 1971 dam decommissioning,
on October 10, 2019.
Dan River Station
The closure engineering team continued to support work inside the Primary and Secondary
Basins, Ash Stack 2 excavation as well as operation of the landfill and finalizing closure plans
for the landfill. NCDEQ Division of Waste Management approved the on-site Landfill Closure
Plan on October 28, 2019. Final grading plans for the footprint of the Ash Basins and Ash Stack
29

NECP/ECP-NC Compliance Officers' Report
January 31,2020
2 were issued for construction in November 2019.
Other North Carolina Sites
On April 1, 2019,NCDEQ issued a determination directing Duke Energy to excavate the.CCR
in the remaining ash impoundments in North Carolina. On April 26, 2019, Duke Energy filed a
Petition for Contested Case Hearing before the North Carolina Office of Administrative
Hearings (OAH) appealing this decision, and on May 24,2019, Duke Energy filed amended
petitions in this case. Duke Energy submitted Closure Plans to NCDEQ on December 31, 2019
for review and approval in accordance with CAMA requirements. On January 2, 2020, Duke
Energy announced that it agreed with NCDEQ, and community groups to a plan to permanently
close the remaining coal ash basins in North Carolina primarily by excavation with ash moved to
lined landfills. Under the agreement, seven of the basins will be excavated, with ash moved to
lined landfills, including two at Allen, one at Belews Creek, one at Mayo, one at Roxboro, and
two at Cliffside/Rogers. At Marshall and Roxboro, uncapped basin ash will be excavated and
moved to lined landfills. The agreement completely resolves the pending litigation over ash.
basin closure plans in various courts, including the North Carolina Office of Administrative
Hearings appeal. The parties will make necessary court filings to dismiss each case.
East Bend Generating Station
East Bend's ash basin is currently in the process of being closed by removal of CCR materials
and repurposed as a lined retention pond. Removal of all CCR material was completed on
July 30, 2019. Engineering activities are in support of project implementation.
Cayuga Generating Station
Engineering developed a Closure Plan and submitted it to the Indiana Department of
Environmental Management(IDEM) on December 16, 2016. Duke Energy received a Request
for Additional Information (RAI) related to the Closure Plan on June 15, 2018. A response to
the RAI was submitted on August 15, 2018, including revision to the original Closure Plan.
Supplemental responses were submitted on September 26, 2018. Duke Energy received a
second RAI dated December 17, 2018, with responses submitted to IDEM on February 15,
2019. Duke Energy received a third RAI dated September 19, 2019, with responses submitted
to IDEM on November 11, 2019. Duke Energy received Draft Approval of the Modified
Closure/Post Closure Plan from IDEM on December 16, 2019. Current field activities include
placement of structural fill in Ash Disposal Area#1 in accordance with IDEM's approved plans
for such placement.
Wabash River Generating Station
Engineering developed a Closure Plan and submitted it to IDEM on December 16, 2016. The
Closure Plan was modified to address certain property ownership issues related to the north ash
30

NECP/ECP-NC Compliance Officers' Report
January 31,2020
basin. The modified Closure Plan also addressed the response(s)to a RAI issued in October
2017, which was deferred until the property ownership issues were resolved. These
modifications were submitted in a series of responses on January 31, February 19, July 30, and
September 25, 2018. Duke Energy received a second RAI dated December 17, 2018, with
responses submitted to IDEM on February 15, 2019. Duke Energy received an additional RAI
on August 16, 2019, which included a partial Closure Plan Approval, with a response submitted
on November 5, 2019. The process/stormwater pond was put into service Q4 2019.
Gibson Generating Station
Engineering developed a Closure Plan and submitted it to IDEM on December 16, 2016. Duke
Energy received a RAI related to the Closure Plan for the South Ash Fill Area on June 15, 2018.
Responses were submitted to IDEM on August 15, 2018. Supplemental information related to
the June 15, 2018 request was submitted in September 2018. Duke Energy received a second
RAI dated December 17, 2018, with responses submitted to IDEM on February 15, 2019.
Additional engineering analysis related to slope stability on the North Ash Basin is still
underway. Sixty percent (permit level) design, stability analysis and drawings and specifications
for north embankment stabilization are ready to be included in Duke Energy's Closure Plan RAI
response submittal. IDEM has requested a technical review of Duke Energy's proposed
solutions, which were discussed at a meeting on January 15,2020.
Gallagher Generating Station
Engineering developed a Closure Plan and submitted it to IDEM on December 16, 2016. Duke
Energy received a RAI related to the Closure Plan on June 15, 2018. Responses were submitted
to IDEM on August 17, 2018. Duke Energy received a second RAI dated December 17, 2018,
with responses submitted to IDEM on February 15, 2019. Duke Energy received a third RAI on
September 9, 2019, with responses submitted to IDEM on November 6, 2019. Duke Energy
received a Partial Approval of the Closure/Post Closure Plan on December 10, 2019. Current
field activities include installation of landfill cells 4 and 5.
G. National Ash Management Advisory Board
As required by the Judgment and Plea Agreements, Duke Energy maintains support for the
National Ash Management Advisory Board ("NAMAB") as an active contributor that serves in
an advisory role to the Company with regards to the management of coal ash related matters. As
stated within the NECP, NAMAB is an external advisory panel of national experts assembled at
Duke Energy's request by the UNC Charlotte Lee College of Engineering.
The NAMAB typically focuses on the review of planning for closure activities and the
effectiveness of the associated decisions and designs in addressing site-specific needs. The
strategy to define the activities associated with the closing of a particular ash basin involves a
31

NECP/ECP-NC Compliance Officers'Report
January 31,2020
methodical sequence of engineering assessment, strategy development,conceptual closure
planning and detailed closure planning. The NAMAB conducts on-going review of activities
associated with Duke Energy's strategy development, project planning and project
implementation. This independent review assists Duke Energy hi ensuring compliance with the
NECP. Duke Energy has also engaged NAMAB to review and advise the company regarding
Duke Energy's development of comprehensive groundwater assessments and associated CAPs.
Within the reporting structure,NAMAB provides counsel to CCP, Senior Management, and to
the Board of Directors, as requested.
The NAMAB has continued as an independent group of experts to advise Duke Energy using
Guiding Principles on Closure Plans of Ash Impoundments in a way that is safe, timely and
environmentally sound.
The NAMAB activities and accomplishments since July 2019 include the following:
• NAMAB Chair met monthly with Duke CCP and EHS organizations.
• NAMAB reviewed and provided comments on closure plans for cap in place
for Allen, Belews Creek, Cliffside, Marshall, Mayo and Roxboro.
• NAMAB stayed apprised of news articles regarding CCR, including those related
to Duke Energy.
• Held NAMAB General Meeting in Charlotte on September 10, 2019.
• Reviewed cap-in-place closure plans.
• William Wolfe,NAMAB member, spoke on dynamic properties of CCR at a
CCR short course in Charlotte, NC on November 6, 2019.
The NAMAB activities and planned for the next six months include the following:
• Will continue monthly meetings with CCP and EHS organizations.
• Review of additional corrective action plans and closure plans.
NAMAB continues to conduct formal reviews and provides comments to Duke Energy on
specific documents and presentations. During this reporting period, NAMAB reviewed closure
plan, modeling reports and performed CAP review.
V. Environmental Challenges and Corrective Actions
A. Legal Issues
OAH Appeals
On April 1, 2019, NCDEQ issued a decision directing Duke Energy to excavate coal ash at six
sites in North Carolina(Allen, Belews Creek, Cliffside/Rogers, Marshall, Mayo, and Roxboro).
The company challenged the decision in the North Carolina Office of Administrative Hearings
32

NECP/ECP-NC Compliance Officers' Report
January 31,2020
("OAH") on April 26. Several additional parties have joined the case since it was filed. The
Southern Environmental Law Center intervened on behalf of environmental groups, and several
industry groups intervened for the limited purpose of briefing issues related to the federal CCR
Rule. Prehearing statements were filed on May 30. NCDEQ filed a motion to dismiss on June
14. However, on January 2, 2020, Duke Energy announced that it agreed with NCDEQ and
• community groups in a December 31, 2019 Settlement Agreement to a plan to permanently close
the remaining coal ash basins in North Carolina primarily by excavation with ash moved to lined
landfills. Under the agreement, seven of the basins will be excavated, with ash moved to lined
landfills, including two at Allen, one at Belews-Creek, one at Mayo, one at Roxboro, and two at
Cliffside/Rogers. At Marshall and Roxboro, uncapped basin ash will be excavated and moved to
lined landfills. The agreement completely resolves the pending litigation in the North Carolina
Office of Administrative Hearings. Upon public notice and entry of a consent decree submitted
to the North Carolina Superior Court, Duke Energy will dismiss the litigation.
State Enforcement Actions
These actions involved state court litigation with NCDEQ and environmental groups regarding
groundwater and seeps at plants in North Carolina. However, as a result of the December 31,
2019 settlement, this litigation will be completely resolved upon public notice and entry of a
consent decree submitted to the North Carolina Superior Court.
Federal Citizen Suits
Mayo and Roxboro Clean Water Act Citizen Suits
At Duke Energy's request, these cases were consolidated for trial in May 2018. The trial was
initially set for December 2018 and later rescheduled to July 2019. However, as a result of the
December 31, 2019 settlement, this litigation will be completely resolved upon public notice and
entry of a consent decree submitted to the North Carolina Superior Court.
Belews Creek Clean Water Act Citizen Suit
As a result of the December 31, 2019 settlement, this litigation will be completely resolved upon
public notice and entry of a consent decree submitted to the North Carolina Superior Court.
B. NPDES Permits
Duke Energy has renewed NPDES permits for all its North Carolina coal plants except for
Roxboro. A draft permit for Roxboro was published for public comment on January 15, 2020.
The comment period will close after 30 days, and Duke Energy expects the Department to issue
the permit after a reasonable time to review and address any comments received.
C. Seeps
Duke Energy has entered Special Orders by Consent with NCDEQ covering seeps at all of its
33

NECP/ECP-NC Compliance Officers'Report
January 31,2020
North Carolina coal plants. The two most recent SOCS, for Cape Fear and Weatherspoon, were
received on January 27, 2020. Although there are variations from site to site, the SOCs
generally require DEC and DEP to accelerate activities associated with rerouting wastewater and
stormwater away from the impoundments and decanting coal ash wastewater from the
impoundments to eliminate or reduce seepage. The SOCs also establish interim action levels for
coal ash-related constituents in surface waters receiving flow from seeps. Seeps not eliminated
by decanting will be addressed in groundwater CAPs or closure plans. The SOCs required DEC
and DEP to file progress reports, which are available on NCDEQ's website at
https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/water-quality-permitting/npdes-
wastewater/duke-energy-facility.
DEC has also entered a second SOC, dated March 21, 2019, for Belews Creek, providing for the
relocation of several outfalls that convey flows from the surface impoundment and the new lined
retention basin to an Unnamed Tributary. The Unnamed Tributary was previously designated as
an "effluent channel" under North Carolina regulations, but that designation was changed with
the most recent version of the NPDES permit, also issued on March 21. The result of the
changed designation is that stricter standards are now applied to the discharges and in the
Unnamed Tributary. After the initial round of sampling under the new SOC, Duke Energy
determined that the Lined Retention Basin would not be able to comply with the newly
applicable limits. In response, Duke Energy took multiple steps, including rerouting certain
flows away from the Lined Retention Basin, rerouting the discharge from the Lined Retention
Basin to the Dan River, and applying for an amendment to the SOC. Duke Energy is waiting for
action from NCDEQ on the amendment application.
D. Bromide Claims Process Updates
The Plea Agreements permit the CAM to create a procedure for local governments that are
potentially affected by bromide discharges from DEC or DEP plants with FGD scrubbers (i.e.,
that are located downstream from Duke Energy-operated FGD scrubbers and that draw water
into water treatment facilities). The procedure serves as guidance for those local governments to
submit evidence of the impacts and claims for restitution if those local governments have
experienced increases in trihalomethanes at their water treatment facilities related to increases in
bromide released by the Duke Energy plants. The CAM's Bromide Restitution and Remediation
Process, as approved by the Court, is available to the public at www.duke-
energy.com/compliance. The website also contains maps and data for the Catawba River and for
the Broad River,a list of dates that FGD scrubbers were installed at Duke Energy's North.
Carolina plants, and example materials that may be provided in support of a claim. Notice
regarding the process was also mailed to local governments identified by Duke Energy as
potential claimants.
Two claims have been submitted and approved through the BRRP. The first, by the City of Rock
34

NECP/ECP-NC Compliance Officers' Report
January 31,2020
Hill, South Carolina, was resolved by a settlement agreement approved by the CAM on March 6,
2018. The second, by the City of Eden, was resolved by a settlement agreement approved by the
CAM on November 7, 2018.
VI. ENS Leadership Reporting Structure
Since the last Compliance Officers' Report submitted in July 2019, and as reflected in Revision
6 of the NECP, Duke Energy has not made any major modifications to the EHS-CCP
organization. Paul Draovitch continues to provide leadership for the Environmental, Health and
Safety groups responsible for developing and advancing corporate policies, programs and
strategies to ensure the company's overall compliance with environmental, health and safety law
and regulations.
The CCP organization is led by George Hamrick and remains unchanged since the last report.
VII. Conclusion
Duke Energy continues to comply with the obligations under the judgments, plea agreements
and the ECPs. The company continues to improve environmental, health and safety performance
enterprise-wide.
Duke Energy is committed to powering the lives of its customers and the vitality of its
communities. That is Duke Energy's stated purpose, and its focus on sustainable improvements
and performance helps the company keep this promise.
35

Exhibits

Exhibit A
Environmental Events:July 5, 2019 thru January 3, 2020
Documents Reporting
Date Location Brief Description Uploaded to
SharePoint Category
An overhead transformer released an estimated 30 gallons of
non-PCB oil to soil, not in proximity to water,after a third party
7/8/2019 Winston- vehicle accident. NCDEQ was notified and cleanup was None 3
Salem, NC conducted by a third party. This constitutes final resolution of
this event.
During a routine inspection at the Cape Fear Beneficiation •
Project,sediment deposition was observed in an adjacent •
Cape Fear wetland downstream of installed erosion control measures. It is
7/10/2019 Fossil and CT estimated that less than 1 cubic yard of material was released None 3
Plants, NC into the wetland. NCDEQ and the USACOE were notified and
• cleanup was completed. This constitutes final resolution of this
event.
A hose on a diesel pile hammer broke and released an
Goldsboro, estimated 2.5 gallons of hydraulic oil to the ground, less than
7/10/2019 NC 100 feet from a wetland,with no oil reaching it. Cleanup was None 3
completed and NCDEQ was notified. This constitutes final
resolution of this event.
•
A pad mounted transformer released an estimated 66 gallons of
•
non-PCB oil, not in proximity to water,due to equipment failure.
7/16/2019 Durham, NC NCDEQ was notified and cleanup was completed by a third None • 3
party. This constitutes final resolution of this event.
On the afternoon of July 16, 2019,a heavy rainfall event
occurred,at Asheville Power Station. During post-rainfall
inspections of the erosion control measures on July 17, 2019
Asheville sediment deposition was observed in two jurisdictional Follow-up
7/17/2019 wetlands downstream of installed erosion control measures. It Report,Once . 3
Station, NC is estimated that 1.3 cubic feet and 1 cubic foot of material was Available
released into each wetland, respectively. NCDEQ and the
USACOE were notified,and cleanup was completed on July
• _ 17th. NCDEQ inspected the site on July 18, 2019. _
As follow-up to the October 2017 fuel oil spill at the North
Carolina Regional Headquarters Building, EPA conducted an
inspection of the clean-up efforts and a review of the SPCC plan
for the building on June 12, 2019. The inspectors did not NOD,60 day
identify any concerns with the clean-up efforts and applauded Follow-up
7/18/2019 Raleigh, NC the monitoring enhancements that had been made following 3
Report,Once
the spill. They took a copy of the building's SPCC plan for a Available
detailed review. On July 18,2019 Duke Energy received a
Notice of Deficiency for the SPCC plan. EPA identified four items
needing additional clarity in the document,and requested a
response within 60 days of receipt of the NOD.
•
•
A- 1 .

Exhibit A
Environmental Events: July 5, 2019 thru January 3, 2020
Documents
Date Location Brief Description Uploaded to Reporting
SharePoint Category
Duke Energy received a NOV from NCDEQ as a result of three
events involving the release of leachate from the Mayo leachate
collection system,as previously reported in the Weekly
Environmental Event Reports. The events were dated June 29,
2017,January 25, 2019,and June 12, 2019, The NOV requests
that Duke Energy conduct a third-party evaluation of the
Mayo Steam NOV, Follow-
7/22/2019 Electric Plant, leachate•collection system at the Mayo plant by a professional up reports, 2
NC engineer with expertise in leachate system design and Once available
operation,and establish a plan for implementing the report's
recommendations. The evaluation report is due no later than
90 days from receipt of the NOV and a 15 day follow-up report
will be submitted to NCDEQ. Duke Energy is taking steps to
have the third-party evaluation conducted and the 15 day
follow-up report is in development.
A pad mounted transformer released an estimated 34 gallons of
non-PCB oil to soil, not in proximity to water, due to damage
7/26/2019 Castalia, NC from a third party lawn mower. NCDEQ was notified and None 3
cleanup was conducted by a third party. This constitutes final
resolution of this event.
On Tuesday July 23,2019,the Nantahala Hydro Station
generating unit went into a forced outage due to a startup
failure. On Wednesday,July 24, in accordance with the FERC
License Hydroelectric Project Maintenance and Emergency •
Protocol,the spillway gate was partially opened at the •
Nantahala Dam for lake level management and whitewater
recreation flow releases. Using the spillway gate rather than the
Nantahala deeper hydro station intake results in warmer water being
released in the Nantahala River which is a trout stream. During FERC
7/29/2019 Hydro TBD
the spillway releasesFriday
Station, NC p ay gate on nday through Sunday,fisheries Notification.
biologists and water quality experts were on-site monitoring
water
ate quality and the fishery. Sunday morning(July 28),
fisheries biologists observed impacts to the fishery and reported
a fish killand Hydro Operations immediately closed the spillway
gate. NCDEQ and FERC were notified. The unit was returned to
service on July 28th. Duke Energy continues to monitor site
conditions and will develop and implement a fish restoration
plan.
A pole mounted transformer released an estimated 39 gallons
8/1/2019 Webster, NC of non-PCB oil to soil, not in proximity to water after a tree fell None 3
on the pole. NCDEQ was notified and cleanup was completed
by a third party. This constitutes final resolution of this event.
After a heavy rain event,the secondary sediment basin pump
Riverbend filter bag became clogged due to large amounts of water and silt Follow up
8/1/2019 Steam moving through the pumps. The bag split open, releasing of a report,once 3
small amount of silt into wetlands and WOTUS. NCDEQ and
Station, NC available
USACOE were notified. The area was stabilized and cleanup was
completed.
A- 2
•

Exhibit A
Environmental Events:July 5, 2019 thru January 3, 2020
r Documents
Date Location Brief Description Uploaded to Reporting
it
SharePoint Category
The Landfill Containment System low flow pump header
riser/flange connection at the industrial landfill released an
estimated 20 gallons of leachate to soil, not in proximity to
Marshall water. The release remained on site and did not flow to
8/5/2019 Steam WOTUS. The pipe fitting on the LCS leachate line at the top of None 3
Station, NC the header had become disconnected. The pipe fitting was
reconnected and the system was returned to service. A
courtesy notification was provided to NCDEQ. This constitutes
final resolution of this event.
On August 12, 2019, Duke Energy received a NOV
•
from NCDEQ based on an event previously reported
Nantahala in the August 2, 2019 Report of Environmental Events NOV,
8/12/2019 Hydro at the Nantahala Hydro Station on July 29, 2019 Response, 3
involving the release of warmer water into the once
Station, NC Nantahala River resulting in fish kills. The NOV submitted
• requested a response by August 20, 2019, and it is in
development.
On August 14, 2019, Duke Energy received a NOV
from NCDEQ based on an event previously reported
in the July 19, 2019 Report of Environmental Events NOV,
8/14/2019 Asheville at Asheville Power Station on July 16, 2019 where Response, 3
Station, NC sediment deposition was observed in two once.
jurisdictional wetlands downstream of installed submitted
erosion control measures. The NOV requests follow-
up responses and they are in development.
A pad mounted transformer released an estimated
•
Sanford, 40 gallons of non-PCB oil to soil, not in proximity to
8/28/2019 NC water, due to equipment failure. NCDEQ was None 2
notified and cleanup was completed by a third party.
This constitutes final resolution of this event.
A pad mounted transformer released an estimated
30 gallons of non-PCB oil to soil, not in proximity to
8/28/2019 Raeford, water, after a third party vehicle accident. NCDEQ None 3
NC was notified and cleanup was completed by a third
party. This constitutes final resolution of this event.
Sampling results for Outfall 005 indicated 26.6 mg/L
Harris Oil and Grease, over the maximum daily limit of 20
8/30/2019 Nuclear mg/L. A courtesy notification was made to NCDEQ. None, 3
Plant, NC This constitutes final resolution of this event.
A - 3

Exhibit A
Environmental Events:July 5, 2019 thru January 3, 2020
Documents
Reporting
Date Location Brief Description Uploaded to Category
SharePoint_ _
A digger derrick boom pump released an estimated
Lumberton,
40 gallons of hydraulic fluid, not in proximity to
9/4/2019 NC water, due to equipment failure. NCDEQ was None 3
notified and cleanup was completed. This constitutes
final resolution of this event.
A Sutton landfill site inspection completed post Hurricane
Sutton Dorian revealed erosion rills on the east side of cells 6 and
•
Energy
7 which had exposed ash. An estimated one cubic yard of
9/6/2019 Complex, ash travelled into the eastern perimeter ditch. Ash did not None 3
NC track to the south perimeter ditch nor into the south
•
stormwater pond. NCDEQ was notified and cleanup was
conducted by a third party and Duke Energy.
An overhead transformer released an estimated 34
gallons of non-PCB oil to soil, not in proximity to water,
Rocky Point,
9/6/2019 NC due to heavy wind and rain from hurricane Dorian. None 3
NCDEQ was notified and cleanup was completed by a third
party. This constitutes final resolution of this event.
Marshall experienced an exceedance of the Special Order
by Consent Interim Action Limit for hardness for the 5-01
seep. The SOC became effective in April 2018. Quarterly •
sampling was conducted on August 12, 2019, and results
Marshall indicate that the hardness concentration (267 mg/L) is
9/9/2019 Steam above the limit of 200 mg/L. Exceedances will be reported None 3
Station, NC to NCDEQ on the quarterly report (due October 30th).
Corrective actions are being developed including
additional sampling due to the sampling area being
effected by a beaver dam, which caused the water to
pond instead of allowing the water to continuously flow.
On September 9, 2019, Duke Energy received a NOV from
NCDEQ for Temperature Frequency Violations from June
•
7th through June 30th. On June 7, 2019 the historical
temperature data loggers were removed from service at
Temperature Stations 003 Downstream (4C4D) and 002A
•
Roxboro (Cane Creek) as part of a temperature monitoring upgrade
Steam project that would transmit data wirelessly, eliminating •
• 9/9/2019 Electric the need for station chemistry technicians to make NOV 3
Power Plant monthly boat trips to retrieve the dataloggers. The permit •
, NC requires a minimum of 5 days of monitoring per month.
The new, wireless data loggers were placed in service on
July 23rd, 2019, and eDMR listed 6 days of data for the
month of June, which met the permit requirement. Duke
Energy is in communication with NCDEQ to request that
the NOV be rescinded.
A - 4

Exhibit A
Environmental Events:July 5, 2019 thru January 3, 2020
Documents
Date Location Brief Description Uploaded to Reporting
SharePoint Category
Duke Energy received a NOV from SCDHEC on September
10, 2019 for the Whole Effluent Toxicity Test analysis •
Catawba failure of the sample collected at Outfall 001 in April 2019 •
• 9/10/2019 Nuclear and reported in the quarterly Discharge Monitoring NOV 3
Station, SC Report submitted in July 2019. Since an explanation of
this exceedance was submitted in the June 2019 DMRs, no
response is required to the NOV at this time. The source
of the toxicity in the effluent is being investigated.
An overhead transformer released an estimated 39
•
gallons of non-PCB oil to gravel and soil, not in proximity
Four Oaks, to water, due to a trash collection vehicle breaking the
9/11/2019 NC pole. NCDEQ was notified, and cleanup was completed by None 3
a third party. This constitutes final resolution of this
event.
A leak from a hose on a grinder released approximately
•
H. F. Lee 1.5 gallons of hydraulic oil to the ground, approximately
Energy 50 feet from a wetland and 90 feet from the Neuse River.
9/17/2019 No oil reached the wetland or river. The equipment was None 3
Complex, immediately shut down, cleanup was completed and
NC
NCDEQ was notified. This constitutes final resolution of
this event. •
A hydraulic drill being used for a project at the site
released an estimated 2 gallons of an approved EAL into
Wylie Hydro Lake Wylie due to equipment failure. The spill was •
9/24/2019 immediately contained by booms in the area and cleanup None 3
Station, SC was conducted. Oil booms are in place continuously. NRC
was notified, and this constitutes final resolution of this •
event.
A pad mounted transformer released an estimated 35
Greensboro,
gallons of non-PCB oil to soil and concrete, due to •
9/29/2019 NC equipment failure. NCDEQ was notified and cleanup was None 2
conducted by a third party. This constitutes final •
resolution of this event.
During the annual leachate pond clean out, defects were
identified on the liner along the bottom of the pond.
Additionally, a crack estimated at 12 inches long was
McGuire
observed through the liner at the effluent riser structure,
9/30/2029 Nuclear where the riser pipe was designed to penetrate the liner. None • 3
Station, NC A courtesy notification was provided to NCDEQ.
Investigations are ongoing to determine if a secondary
geosynthetic liner is containing the water or if it is in
contact with the soil/clay material under the liner. Water
and soil samples will be taken if necessary.
A - 5

Exhibit A
Environmental Events:July 5, 2019 thru January 3, 2020
Documents
Reporting
Date Location Brief Description Uploaded to
SharePoint Category
On September 30, 2019, NCDEQ issued a NOD for the HF
Lee Inactive Ash Basin Dams #2 and #3, based on an
inspection of the dams on September 10, 2019. During
the inspections, numerous trees were observed to be
present on the downstream slope of the dam •
embankment on both dams. On the southwest corner •
•
downstream slope of the embankment of dam #3, a
leaning tree and uprooted tree root ball caused the
•
embankment to become unstable. On August 21, 2019,
NCDEQ issued a letter changing the hazard classification of
9/30/2019 H. F. Lee, NC NOD 3
the referenced dams from low to high. Previously, these
dams had been exempt from the Dam Safety Law of 1967. •
The NOD requests that the services of a registered
professional engineer or an experienced engineering firm
make a study of the conditions outlined in this letter and
to submit plans and specifications for repair based on the
results of the study for each dam by November 25, 2019. •
In addition,'trees and bushes less than 6 inches in •
diameter, measured at chest height should be removed
from the dam embankments by January 23, 2020.
Duke Energy received a NOV from SCDHEC due to a total
W. S. Lee copper exceedance of outfall 001, reported in the July
10/1/2019 Steam DMR. The NOV states that since an explanation for the NOV 3
Station, SC exceedance was submitted previously, no written •
response is required.
A hydraulic drill being used for a project at the site
released an 8' x 8' rainbow sheen of an approved EAL into
Mountain Mountain Island Lake due to equipment failure. The spill
10/1/2019 Island Hydro was immediately contained by booms in the area and None 3
•
Station, NC cleanup was conducted. Oil booms are in place
continuously. The drilling projects at Wylie and Mountain
Island Hydro are on stand down. NRC was notified.
During bank stabilization activities, a dump truck released
Cowans
an estimated 2 gallons of hydraulic fluid to soil, within 100
10/9/2019 feet of water. NCDEQ was notified. The spill was cleaned None 3
Ford, NC
up and the dump truck was taken off site for repairs. This
constitutes final resolution of this event.
The storm drain basin discharge piping to the stabilization
facility was punctured during drilling activities, which
Brunswick resulted in a release of tritiated water of a 30 x 30 area.
10/9/2019 Nuclear The storm drain basin discharge pumps have been secured 3
• Plant, NC and the release has stopped. Alternate methods of
discharging water to the stabilization facility have been
A - 6

Exhibit A
Environmental Events:July 5, 2019 thru January 3, 2020
7
Documents
Date Location Brief Description Uploaded to Reporting
SharePoint Category
implemented. A courtesy notification was provided to
NCDEQ.
•
•
Hydraulic equipment (drill, hose, pump) in containment
on the barge at the Mountain Island TRSL project released
EAL into containment. There was a hole in the •
containment and some of the EAL was released from the
Mountain containment to the surface of the barge. A small amount
10/10/2019 Island (approx. 1 tsp) of the oil ran off of the barge into the None . 3
Hydro, NC water creating a small sheen which was contained by the
barge and oil boom. NRC was notified that an estimated •
less than 1 quart of EAL was released into containment.
The area was cleaned up with an absorbent pad. This
constitutes final resolution of this event.
The FGD sump released an estimated 3500 gallons of
wastewater to the heated water discharge pond, which is
Roxboro within the wastewater treatment system when the sump
10/20/2019 Fossil and pumps tripped and the secondary valve did not open fully. None 2 •
' CT Plant, NC NCDEQ was notified. The primary retention basin inlet
valve will remain in manual to prevent loss of flow until •
the Secondary valve can be repaired. •
After heavy rains from Tropical Depression Nestor, an
estimated 1.5 cubic yards of sediment breached erosion
control measures and was released into a wetland outside •
Riverbend the limits of disturbance. The measures included multiple
10/21/2019 Steam silt fences and riprap. This occurred at the site of the None' 3
•
Station, NC sediment basin, which had been completed, however final
grading had not been completed, including installation of
a diversion ditch. NCDEQ was notified and cleanup was
completed.
A water truck released an estimated 2 quarts of hydraulic
Dan River •
fluid within 100 ft. of a wetland, due to equipment failure.
10/24/2019 Steam NCDEQ was notified and cleanup was completed. This None 3
Station, NC constitutes final resolution of this event.
A - 7

Exhibit A
Environmental Events:July 5, 2019 thru January 3, 2020
Documents
Date Location Brief Description Uploaded to Reporting
•
SharePoint Category
After an inspection, Duke Energy received a NOAV from
the SCDHEC UST Management Division for incorrectly
completing certain logs, records and other requirements
for tank# 15 and tank# 16. The inspector indicated, all
Wenwood the alleged violations were the result of two of the Veeder •
•
10/28/2019 Transformer Root test result strips (dated December 2018 and March NOAV 3
Repair Shop, 2019) being torn off without the word "passed" being •
SC printed and shown on them. Although this would be
considered in compliance with the regulation, the NOAV
•
was issued because this is the only mechanism to
document deficiencies. Since the alleged violations were
closed on-site, no actions or responses are required.
A pad mounted transformer released an estimated 55 •
•
• gallons of non-PCB oil to soil, not in proximity to water,
Charlotte,NC due to a third party vehicle accident. NCDEQ was notified None. 3
• and a third party conducted cleanup. This constitutes final •
resolution of this event.
On November 4, 2019, Duke Energy received a NOV dated
Harris
October 30, 2019, from NCDEQ for the Daily Maximum NOV,follow- •
11/4/2019 Nuclear Exceedance (25.8 mg/L on 8/10/2019) and the Monthly up report 3
Plant, NC Average Exceedance (25.8 mg/Lon 8/31/2019) for Oil & once
Grease at Outfall 005. The NOV requests a response submitted
within 10 business days.
Two overhead regulators released 180 gallons of non-PCB
Reidsville, oil to soil, not in proximity to water, after a third party
11/4/2019 NC vehicle struck the regulator platform. NCDEQ was notified None 3
and a third party conducted cleanup. This constitutes final •
resolution of this event.
A pad mounted transformer released an estimated 150 •
gallons of non-PCB oil to soil, not in proximity to water,
11/8/2019 Cary, NC due to equipment failure. NCDEQ and Wake County •
• None 2
Environmental Services were notified and a third party
conducted cleanup. This constitutes final resolution of
this event.
Duke Energy received a Notice of Violation from the •
NCDEQ Water Quality Permitting Section for violation of
Marshall the Special Order by Consent Interim Action Levels for
11/22/2019 Steam Hardness for Seep S-01 (316 mg/L result, 200 mg/L limit) NOV • 3
Station, NC on September 25, 2019). Duke Energy has 30 business
days to provide additional information to dispute the •
stipulated penalty of$4500.
•
•
A - 8

Exhibit A
Environmental Events:July 5, 2019 thru January 3, 2020
Documents —
ng
Date Location Brief Description Uploaded to Repo
gti
SharePoint Cate ory
An overhead transformer released an estimated 12
gallons of non-PCB oil, to asphalt, and an estimated 2
Kernersville. gallons entered a storm drain and made contact with
11/26/2019 NC WOTUS, due to a third party truck knocking down the None • 3
pole. NCDEQ and NRC were notified. Cleanup was
completed by a third party. This constitutes final
resolution of this event.
A pad mounted transformer released 284 gallons of non-
PCB oil to soil, mulch, and asphalt, not in proximity to
water, due to a third party vehicle accident. NCDEQ and
12/6/2019 Raleigh, NC •
Wake County Department of Environmental Services were None • 3
notified and cleanup was completed by a third party. This
constitutes final resolution of this event.
Duke Energy received a Notice of Opportunity to Show
Cause on December 12, 2019 from the United States EPA,
Region 4 after the EPA conducted an inspection of the •
Duke Energy substation located in the Erwin Business
Substation Complex on November 21, 2019. The notice states the •
located at EPA could not determine if any of the electrical equipment Notice of
12/10/2019 200 N. 13th containing liquid in the substation contained PCBs or was Opportunity 3
Street, PCB free. Initial investigation by Duke Energy indicates to Show
Erwin, NC that all the equipment is non-PCB and is properly labeled Cause •
as non-PCB. The notice also states that the EPA is offering
Duke Energy the opportunity to meet with EPA to show
cause as to why the EPA should not initiate enforcement
action. Duke Energy intends to participate in this meeting
with EPA.
NCDEQ issued a NOV to the Belews Creek Steam Station
dated 12/18/19 and received on 12/18/19, for violations
of interim action levels established by the SOC and for NOV,
Belews exceedances of the NPDES permit. The NOV directs Duke
response
12/19/2019 Creek Steam Energy to take remedial actions, and invites Duke Energy 3
once
Station, NC to respond with a description of any events or •
•
circumstances beyond the control of Duke Energy that submitted.
•
would have caused the non-compliances. Any response is
due by 1/31/20.
•
•
A - 9 •

Exhibit A
Environmental Events:July 5, 2019 thru January 3, 2020 •
Documents
Date Location Brief Description Uploaded to Reporting
SharePoint Category
Duke Energy received a NOV and assessment of civil
•
penalty and enforcement costs from NCDEQ on December
31st in the amount of$290.94 for the Daily Maximum
Exceedance (25.8 mg/L with daily limit of 20 mg/Lon
8/10/2019) and the Monthly Average Exceedance (25.8
mg/L with monthly average limit of 15 mg/L on
Harris
Nuclear 8/31/2019) for Oil & Grease at Outfall 005 submitted in •
•
12/31/2019 the August 2019 DMR at Harris Nuclear Plant. A NOV for NOV 2
Power Plant, the same exceedance was received by Duke Energy on
NC November 4, 2019 and reported in the Report of
Environmental Events dated November 8, 2019. A follow-
up report was submitted to NCDEQ on November 13th in
response to the original NOV. Duke Energy has 30 days
• from receipt of the current NOV to submit payment,
request remission, or request an administrative hearing.
•
A - 10

Exhibit B
Environmental Concerns Line Activity
July 5, 2019 through January 3, 2020
INITIATED 60 --- Initiated by Source 10,0
55 53
50 48 47 47 47
45 43
■ 236 Environmental Concerns contacts 40 38 17 37%
V
■ ■
•
I51%
II I.- II 23 I
1111
to ll * * . 111. 111 .111111%
✓el+ �F6 4'9,P -9:P y� ✓
9I- ✓e ek 'let to °C> 20L OFC
II Hotline Phone(121) D Hotline Web(26)
iii 2019 2020 ■Env Concerns Line Email(87) In Management Referral(2)
CLOSED
80 73
• 213 investigations have been closed 70 1
60 i
■ 23 matters were open investigations as of 50 _ao
1/17/20 40
30 Its to 26 23 IIUnsubstantiated
■ Average of 26 days open 20 4
10di 6 1 3 . 4 8 t. 7 2
0 r ..1+-,
5aey <Pr ,e e ,a�� aa�,\ s ,ec, cp rep —1 rep �e. p e ,\ao
a5�e\e C,oa °o� 1 ac c aca`' aca°e oSQ �\Q ,�aO \a•c° ,`\O �& `e,,` Q
cam O&�o \JaS� ac0 ear off. --1." oche oche ogee o„fie �,e ��a
zQy•a �e\cG ec•e�\ eon e°e\a` J F'c,\� cC� ,c,\,o 0s e�`a, a5
oae �a a, d c� J �o� ,6,
c o
i( , DUKE
' ENERGY,.

•
Exhibit C
Environmental Concerns Line Report: July 5, 2019 thru January 3, 2020
Case Date Case
Case Summary , State
Number • Opened Status
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
7 5071 07/09/2019 Concerns Line requesting tree removal services on their NC Closed
property.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
•
7-5072 07/09/2019 Concerns Line regarding concerns about a previously NC Closed
reported sunken boat in Lake Norman.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
7-5073 07/09/2019 Concerns Line regarding the contents of the herbicides used Unknown Closed
for spraying in their area.
ENV 2019- An anonymous reporter contacted the Environmental
7 5077 07/09/2019 Concerns Line to report utility lines in their area that run Nc Closed
• through trees and create sparks when it rains.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
7-5078 07/10/2019 Concerns Line to report exposed wires near a Florida FL Closed
wildlife preserve.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
7-5080 07/10/2019 Concerns Line regarding concerns about the recent tree FL Closed
trimming in their area.
•
ENV-2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
7-5081 07/10/2019 Concerns Line to report a downed utility line on their area. NC. Closed
ENV -2019- An anonymous reporter contacted the Environmental
7-5082 07/10l2019 Concerns Line to report a damaged utility box in their area. FL Closed
An anonymous reporter contacted the Environmental
ENV-2019- Concerns Line to alleging that Duke Energy has left gravel
07/11/2019 FL Closed
• 7-5083 and dirt on the highway after recent services were
performed in the area.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
7-5085 07/11/2019 Concerns Line regarding the cost of their utility bill and to NC Closed
report a tree touching the utility line on their property.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
7 5127 07/12/2019 Concerns Line to request.vegetation management services NC Closed
in their area.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
7-5086 07/12/2019 Concerns Line regarding concerns about the chemicals SC Closed
used for spraying near their property.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
7-5087 07/12/2019 Concerns Line alleging that Duke Energy sprayed herbicide NC Closed
in a conservation area.
•
ENV 2019 An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
7-5088 07/12/2019 Concerns Line to report the installation of plastic drainage FL Closed
pipes in Orange County, FL. •
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
7-5089 07/12/2019 Concerns Line requesting that a cove be re-dredged in their NC Closed
neighborhood, due to recent construction in the area.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
7-5091 07/12/2019 Concerns Line requesting the contact information for filing NC Closed
•
an insurance claim against Duke Energy.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
7-5131 07/14/2019 Concerns Line regarding information on the disposal of Unknown Closed
fluorescent bulbs.
ENV -2019- An anonymous reporter contacted the Environmental
7-5102 07/16/2019 Concerns Line alleging that a neighbor has extended a NC Closed
•
C-1

Exhibit C
Environmental Concerns Line Report: July 5, 2019 thru January 3, 2020
Case . Date
Case Summary , State
Number.'� r Opened Status
chain link fence in Lake Norman without the necessary
permits.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
7 5105 07/16/2019 Concerns Line regarding the debris left behind after the SC Closed
recent tree trimming services in their area.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
7 5130 07/17/2019 Concerns Line to request information on rebates for solar Unknown Closed
power energy.
ENV-2019- 07/17/2019 An anonymous contacted the Environmental Concerns Line SC Closed
7-5108 to report broken utility poles in Greenville, SC.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
7-5109 07/17/2019 Concerns Line to provide a suggestion for the disposal of NC Closed
coal ash.
An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
• ENV-2019- Concerns Line alleging that a third-party contractor
7-5114 07/17/2019 damaged their yard after recent tree trimming services on NC Closed
their property.
An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
ENV-2019- 07/18/2019 Concerns Line to report a leaking pad-mounted transformer NC Closed
7-5128 and to request the PCB contents of another transformer at a
site in Spindale, NC.
An anonymous reporter contacted the Environmental
ENV-2019- Concerns Line to report a neighbor that recently cut trees off
7-5123 07/18/2019 of their property without the required permits and approval SC Closed
from Duke Energy.
ENV 2019- A Customer Service representative contacted the
7 5129 07/19/2019 Environmental Concerns Line to report a leaking NC Closed
transformer on a customer's property.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
7 5133 07/19/2019 Concerns Line to request that Duke Energy lower the gas OH' Closed
shutoff access on their property.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
7 5136 07/19/2019 Concerns Line to alleging that a third-party contractor cut a IN Closed
tree in their yard without the homeowner's approval.
ENV 2019- An anonymous reporter contacted the Environmental
7 5142 07/22/2019 Concerns Line alleging that a live wire is hanging over a fire OH Closed
hydrant in their area.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
7 5150 07/23/2019 Concerns Line to report large chunks of piers and docks NC Closed
washing up on their property from Lake Hickory
ENV-2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
7 5163 07/23/2019 Concerns Line regarding the outdated outdoor equipment at OH Closed
their home.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
7-5169 07/24/2019 Concerns Line to request vegetation management services FL Closed
_ for the easement near their property.
ENV-2019- An anonymous reporter contacted the Environmental
7-5178 07/25/2019 Concerns Line to report a broken utility box in their area. FL Closed
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
7 5172 07/25/2019 Concerns Line to report a transformer submerged in water in FL Closed
their area.
C -2

Exhibit C
Environmental Concerns Line Report: July 5, 2019 thru January 3, 2020
Case Date Case
Case Summary State
Number Opened, Status
An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
ENV-2019- Concerns Line alleging that the chemicals from recent
7-5173 07/25/2019 spraying in their area damaged their property and FL Closed
surrounding area.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
7-5177 07/25/2019 Concerns Line to inquire about the herbicide Duke Energy SC Closed
sprays in upstate South Carolina? •
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
7 5189 07/26/2019 Concerns Line to report a leaking transformer near their FL Closed
property.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
7 5190 07/26/2019 Concerns Line alleging that a neighbor is inappropriately SC Closed
interfering with the utility line near their home.
An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
ENV-2019- Concerns Line alleging that Duke Energy increased water
7-5191 07/27/2019 temperatures in the Nantahala River for recreational NC Closed
purposes, causing the death of several fish in the area.
An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
• ENV- 2019- Concerns Line alleging that Duke Energy increased water
07/27/2019 NC Closed
7-5192 temperatures in the Nantahala River for recreational
purposes, causing the death of several fish in the area. _
An anonymous reporter contacted the Environmental
ENV-2019- Concerns Line alleging that Duke Energy increased water
7-5193 07/27/2019 temperatures in the Nantahala River for recreational NC Closed
purposes, causing the death of several fish in the area.
An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
ENV-2019- Concerns Line alleging that Duke Energy increased water
7-5194 07/27/2019 temperatures in the Nantahala River for recreational NC Closed
purposes, causing the death of several fish in the area.
An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
ENV-2019- Concerns Line alleging that Duke Energy increased water
7-5195 07/27/2019 NC Closed
temperatures in the Nantahala River for recreational
purposes, causing the death of several fish in the area. _
An anonymous reporter contacted the Environmental
ENV-2019- Concerns Line alleging that Duke Energy increased water
7-5196 07/27/2019 temperatures in the Nantahala River for recreational NC Closed
purposes, causing the death of several fish in the area.
An anonymous reporter contacted the Environmental
•
ENV -2019- Concerns Line to express their frustrations with the
7-5208 07/30/2019 increased water temperatures in the Nantahala River for NC Closed
recreational purposes, causing the death of several fish in
the area.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
7-5216 07/31/2019 Concerns Line regarding concerns about future electricity NC Closed
services in an area that has a faulty drainage swale.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
7 5217 07/31/2019 Concerns Line regarding the use of the right-of-way access NC Closed
on their property.
ENV -2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
8 5218 08/01/2019 Concerns Line to report a malfunctioning street light in New IN Closed
Albany, IN.
C-3
•

Exhibit C
Environmental Concerns Line Report: July 5, 2019 thru January 3, 2020
Case Date Case
Case Summary State
Number Opened Status
ENV - 2019- ' An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
8 5225 08/02/2019 Concerns Line regarding concerns about the chemicals NC Closed
used for recent spraying in their area. •
ENV 2019- An anonymous reporter contacted the Environmental •
8-5230 08/05/2019 Concerns Line to provide additional information for a NC Closed
concern previously reported in July 2019.
An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental •
•
ENV-2019- Concerns Line regarding questions about the utility lines that
08/05/2019 NC Closed
8-5232 run through an easement on the property they are interested
in purchasing.
ENV-2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
8-5236 •
08/06/2019 Concerns Line alleging that Duke Energy crews removed a SC . Closed
tree from their yard and left the debris on their property.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
8-5238 •
08/06/2019 Concerns Line regarding concerns about the chemicals NC Closed
used for recent spraying in their area.
ENV-2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
8-5239 •
08/06/2019 Concerns Line to report dead tree threatening a power line NC Closed
in their area. •
ENV-2019- An anonymous reporter contacted the Environmental •
8 5245 08/07/2019 Concerns Line to report a.tree branch that has fallen on a NC • Closed
utility line in front of their home.
ENV-2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
08/07/2019 CT' Closed
8-5246 •Concerns Line to report a fallen utility line.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
8-5260 08/08/2019 Concerns Line regarding tree limbs that are rubbing against FL • Closed
utility lines and creating sparks in their neighborhood.
•
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
8 5261• 08/08/2019 Concerns Line regarding the recent placement and FL Closed
installation of a utility pole behind their home.
An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental •
•
ENV- 2019- 08/08/2019 Concerns Line alleging a lack of attention from Duke Energy NC . • Closed
8-5262 regarding vegetation management of the power line
easement in the back of their property. •
ENV-2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
8-5263 08/09/2019 Concerns Line regarding the noise from the electrical tower NC Closed
near their home.
ENV 2019- An anonymous reporter contacted the Environmental
8-5264 08/09/2019 Concerns Line regarding concerns about emissions from NC Closed
power plants in Clemson, SC.
ENV-2019 An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental T
8-5269 08/09/2019 Concerns Line inquiring about the third party contractors NC Closed
pumping water from the pond on her property.
ENV-2019- •An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
8-5274 08/10/2019 Concerns Line to report a potential gas leak in their area. OH • Closed
ENV-2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
8-5275 08/10/2019 Concerns Line to report a large tree close to the utility lines SC Closed
in their yard. •
ENV 2019 A Duke Energy Employee contacted the Environmental
8-5276 08/12/2019 Concerns Line to report a dead osprey at a°Duke Energy NC• Closed
facility. •
C-4 •

Exhibit C
Environmental Concerns Line Report: July 5, 2019 thru January 3, 2020
- Case Date Case
Case Summary State
Number Opened Status
An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
ENV- 2019- Concerns Line to all-terrain vehicles that are going through
8 5277 08/12/2019 Duke Energy property to access Osprey Nature Trail in NC Closed
Greensboro, North Carolina.
ENV-2019- 08/12/2019 An anonymous reporter contacted the Environmental NC Closed
8-5280 Concerns Line to report a falling power line in Raleigh, NC.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
8-5287 08/13/2019 Concerns Line to report a branch that has fallen from a tree NC Closed
in their yard.
An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
ENV- 2019- Concerns Line requesting for Duke Energy to remove the
08/14/2019 NC Closed
8-5300 debris left on their property after recent tree trimming
services near their property.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
8 5315 08/14/2019 Concerns Line to report tree branches that are touching the FL Closed
power lines at their home.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
8-5318 08/14/2019 Concerns Line alleging health issues from the smart meter Unknown Closed
installed at their home.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
8-5322 08/15/2019 Concerns Line regarding concerns about the recent trees NC Closed
removed near their property.
An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
ENV -2019- Concerns Line inquiring if Duke Energy has found any
8-5325 08/15/2019 SC Closed
cyanobacteria in Lake Keowee after recent news events in
the South.
ENV 2019 An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental •
8-5326 08/15/2019 Concerns Line requesting the voltage of EMFs to be IN . Closed
reduced in their area.
An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
ENV-2019- Concerns Line inquiring if Duke Energy has found any
8-5327 08/15/2019 cyanobacteria in Lake Keowee after recent news events in SC Closed
the South.
An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
ENV-2019- Concerns Line inquiring if Duke Energy has found any
8-5328 08/15/2019 NC Closed
cyanobacteria in Lake Norman after recent news events in
the South.
ENV 2019 An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
8-5329 08/15/2019 Concerns Line alleging that a Duke Energy employee was NC Closed
• not practicing safe driving behaviors on the interstate.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental •
8-5334 08/16/2019 Concerns Line requesting information about safety Unknown Closed
evaluations at Duke Energy's nuclear facilities.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
8-5335 08/16/2019 Concerns Line regarding the removal of debris from recent NC Closed
tree trimming services in their area.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
8-5360 08/19/2019 Concerns Line to report a tree limb hanging on a utility line SC . Closed
in their area.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
8-5362 08/19/2019 Concerns Line requesting the removal of tree stumps from IN Closed
their yard after recent tree trimming services.
C-5

Exhibit C
Environmental Concerns Line Report: July 5, 2019 thru January 3, 2020
Case Date • Case
Case Summary State
Number Opened Status
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
8-5367 08/20/2019 Concerns Line to report a tree laying on a utility line in their NC Closed
area.
An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
ENV-2019- Concerns Line regarding concerns about electrical lines in
8-5376 08/21/2019 their area that are sticking up and have not been buried NC Closed
since July 2019.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
8-5379 08/21/2019 Concerns Line to report a tree limb laying on a power line in NC Closed
Greensboro, NC.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
8-5380 08/21/2019 Concerns Line alleging that the wires from their home were FL Closed
incorrectly attached and has caused damage at their home.
An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
ENV-2019- Concerns Line alleging that Duke Energy has been spraying
08/22/2019 NC Closed
8-5382 chemicals that have killed the trees and plants on their
property.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
8-5383 08/22/2019 Concerns Line alleging that a neighbor has been stealing NC Closed
electricity services.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
8-5385 08/22/2019 Concerns Line regarding the status of their recent complaint FL Closed
pertaining to the installation of gates on their property.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
8-5387 08/22/2019 Concerns Line to report branches and debris on their Unknown Closed
property after recent tree trimming services by Duke Energy.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
8-5390 08/23/2019 Concerns Line to report a tree that has become entwined IN . Closed
with an electrical wire on their property.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
8-5396 08/25/2019 Concerns Line to report a hanging utility line on their NC . Closed
property.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
8 5401 08/26/2019 Concerns Line regarding concerns about the coves in their SC Closed
area.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
8-5408 08/27/2019 Concerns Line alleging that a third-party contractor Unknown Closed
incorrectly trimmed trees on their property.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
8 5419 08/28/2019 Concerns Line alleging Duke Energy has been creating loud NC Closed
noises from heavy machinery in their area.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
8-5426 08/29/2019 Concerns Line alleging that Duke Energy bucket trucks NC Closed
damaged trees after recent services in their area.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
8-5427 08/29/2019 Concerns Line requesting attention and repairs to an area NC Closed
recently used for underground line installation.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
8-5428 08/29/2019 Concerns Line requesting for the removal of the smart meter KY Closed
at their home in Kentucky.
C-6

Exhibit C
Environmental Concerns Line Report: July 5, 2019 thru January 3, 2020
Case Date • Case
Case Summary State
Number Opened Status
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
8-5429 08/29/2019 Concerns Line requesting vegetation management services FL Closed
in her area.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
8-5431 08/30/2019 Concerns Line requesting confirmation of the ownership of SC Closed
property in Greenville, SC.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
8-5438 08/30/2019 Concerns Line requesting for Duke Energy to complete tree Unknown Closed
trimming services on their property.
ENV-2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
9-5444 09/02/2019 Concerns Line to report an open and exposed utility box in FL Closed
their area. •
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
9-5447 09/03/2019 Concerns Line alleging that an unmarked concrete slab on NC. Closed
Hickory Lake damaged their boat.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
9-5448 09/03/2019 Concerns Line requesting for their property to be added to NC Closed
the "no-spray" list.
• ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
9 5451 09/03/2019 Concerns Line regarding the contact person for NC In Process
access/permission to Duke Energy Property.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
9-5464 09/04/2019 Concerns Line requesting the removal of old transmission NC In Process
lines on their property.
An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
ENV-2019- Concerns Line regarding concerns about herons running
9-5468 09/05/2019 into the high tension wires behind their home due to lack of IN Closed
visibility.
ENV-2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
9-5469 09/05/2019 Concerns Line requesting vegetation management services FL Closed
in their area.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
9-5470 09/05/2019 Concerns Line requesting assistance to set up new utility IN Closed
services in their area.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
9 5481 09/09/2019 Concerns Line alleging that an abandoned hole is retaining NC In Process
water after the recent installation of a utility line in their area.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
9-5482 09/09/2019 Concerns Line regarding underground installation services NC Closed
on their property.
ENV 2019- An anonymous reporter contacted the Environmental
9-5483 09/09/2019 Concerns Line requesting the removal of a fence installed NC Closed
by Duke Energy.
ENV 2019- An anonymous reporter contacted the Environmental
9-5485 09/10/2019 Concerns Line alleging that a home owner has modified FL Closed
their meter without approval and the required permits.
An anonymous reporter contacted the Environmental
ENV 2019 09/10/2019 Concerns Line regarding concerns about a fence interfering NC Closed
9-5486 with Duke Energy's access to the utility lines in their
neighborhood.
ENV-2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
9-5488 09/10/2019 Concerns Line to report graffiti on a Duke Energy tower. •
FL Closed
C-7

Exhibit C
Environmental Concerns Line Report: July 5, 2019 thru January 3, 2020
Case Date Case
Case Summary State
Number" Opened Status
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
9-5490 09/11/2019 Concerns Line regarding the maintenance and upkeep of OH . Closed
the Duke Energy substation in their area.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
09/11/2019 Concerns Line requesting apermit to plant flowers in an NC . Closed
9-5492 q 9
area near Duke Energy property.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
9-5494 09/11/2019 Concerns Line alleging that a third-party contactor for Duke Unknown Closed
Energy threatened their pet with a weapon on their property.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
9-5497 09/12/2019 Concerns Line requesting vegetation management services IN Closed
in their area.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
9 5511 09/12/2019 Concerns Line to report an electric meter they found in OH Closed
Cincinnati, OH.
• ENV 2019- A Customer Service representative contacted the
9 5512 09/12/2019 Environmental Concerns Line to request an EMF reading for NC Closed
a customer's home.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
9-5513 09/12/2019 Concerns line requesting information to perform an OH Closed
environmental site assessment in Warren County, Ohio.
ENV-2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
9-5514 09/12/2019 Concerns Line to report a falling power line in DeLand, FL. FL Closed
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
9 5515 09/12/2019 Concerns Line regarding concerns about a recently installed NC . Closed
fence in their area.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
9-5525 09/14/2019 Concerns Line to request that Duke Energy remove a smart NC Closed
meter that was installed at their home. •
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
9-5527 09/16/2019 Concerns Line to request information about the herbicides NC. Closed
being used at Crowders Mountain State Park.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
9 5541 09/17/2019 Concerns Line to report dead limbs hanging over utility lines IN Closed
in their area.
ENV-2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
9-5543 09/17/2019 Concerns Line to report a leaning a utility pole In King, NC. NC Closed
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
9-5544 09/18/2019 Concerns Line regarding concerns about the smart meters FL Closed
in their area.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
9-5545 09/18/2019 Concerns Line to request information about the herbicides NC , Closed
being used in an area of Chapel Hill, NC.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
9-5549 09/18/2019 Concerns Line requesting review of a hole created on their Unknown Closed
property while creating a new pipeline.
ENV -2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
9-5558 09/19/2019 Concerns Line to report a falling utility line in Franklin, IN. IN Closed
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
9-5559 09/19/2019 Concerns Line requesting removal of the mulch under the NC Closed
power grids in their neighborhood. . •
C-8

Exhibit C
Environmental Concerns Line Report: July 5, 2019 thru January 3, 2020
Case Date ` Case
Case Summary, State
Number Opened Status
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
9-5569 09/23/2019 Concerns Line to report a potential oil leak from a utility box IN Closed
at their home.
ENV 2019- An anonymous reporter contacted the Environmental
9-5574 09/23/2019 Concerns Line alleging individuals have been stealing utility SC . Closed
• services in their area.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
9 5577 09/24/2019 Concerns Line to report neighbors that removed a tree from NC Closed
the shoreline without authorization.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
9-5580 09/24/2019 Concerns Line to report a potential oil leak from a NC Closed
transformer on their property. •
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
9 5590 09/25/2019 Concerns Line alleging that a third-party contractor sprayed NC Closed
chemicals on their property without permission.
An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
ENV -2019- 09/25/2019 Concerns Line requesting additional information about the NC Closed
9-5593 increased water temperatures in the Nantahala River hat
caused the death of several fish in July 2019.
•
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
9 5594 09/25/2019 Concerns Line alleging that a third-party contractor sprayed NC' Closed
chemicals on their property without permission.
ENV 2019- An anonymous reporter contacted the Environmental
9-5596 09/25/2019 Concerns Line regarding the contents of the herbicides NC Closed
being sprayed in their community.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
9 5599 09/26/2019 Concerns Line to report a third-party contractor littering on NC Closed
Highway 9 in Black Mountain, NC.
ENV-2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
9-5600 09/26/2019 Concerns Line to report river debris in the Pee Dee River. SC Closed_
ENV-2019- 09/26/2019 An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental SC Closed
9-5601 Concerns Line alleging a large growth of kudzu in their area.
•
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
9-5602 09/26/2019 Concerns Line requesting information for tree management NC. Closed
for solar energy.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
9-5603 09/26/2019 Concerns Line customer requesting the removal of an old NC Closed
utility line on their property.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
• 9 5604 09/26/2019 Concerns Line requesting Duke Energy's participation in a Unknown Closed
"Living Shorelines Tech Transfer"workshop.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
9-5605 09/26/2019 Concerns Line regarding concerns about a utility pole FL Closed
recently installed in St. Petersburg, FL.
An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
ENV-2019- 10/01/2019 Concerns Line alleging that an outage permit has stalled FL Closed
10-5619 work and caused large amounts of algae to grow in the
water killing plant and animal life in Newport Richie, FL.
An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
ENV-2019- Concerns Line seeking contact information and documents
10-5622 10/01/2019 IN Closed
about a recent insurance claim regarding an automobile
accident.
C-9

Exhibit C
Environmental Concerns Line Report: July 5, 2019 thru January 3, 2020
Case Date Case Summary State • Case
Number Opened Status
ENV 2019- An anonymous reporter contacted the Environmental
10-5623 10/01/2019 Concerns Line to report a large tree leaning against a utility SC Closed
• line in their neighborhood:
ENV 2019- An anonymous reporter contacted the Environmental
10-5628 10/02/2019 Concerns Line alleging inappropriate behavior of a third- NC Closed
party contractor on their party.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
10-5631 10/02/2019 Concerns Line requesting vegetation management services FL Closed
in their area. •
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
10-5648 10/03/2019 Concerns Line to provide their updated address to customer FL. Closed
service.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
10-5652 10/04/2019 Concerns Line alleging unsafe driving practices of a Duke FL Closed
Energy truck driver in Casselberry, FL.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
10-5656• 10/07/2019 Concerns Line regarding a rusting transformer in IN Closed
Noblesville, IN.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
10-5663 10/08/2019 Concerns Line inquiring about having a choice in utility Unknown Closed
providers.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
10-5665 10/08/2019 Concerns Line alleging a powerline is causing interference IN Closed
with the AM radio band in Plainfield, IN.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
10-5673 10/09/2019 Concerns Line requesting information on use of power NC • Closed
resources in the Charlotte area.
ENV 2019- An anonymous reporter contacted the Environmental
10-5679 10/10/2019 Concerns Line alleging vegetation management workers are FL . Closed •
not following safety protocols in Largo, FL.
ENV 2019 An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
•
10-5680 10/10/2019 Concerns Line requesting information on power Unknown Closed
transmission infrastructure.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
10-5683 10/11/2019 Concerns Line regarding vegetation management/pesticide NC Closed
spraying in Chatham County, NC.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
10-5690 10/12/2019 Concerns Line regarding concerns about the recent NC Closed
spraying services in their area.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
10-5691 10/13/2019 Concerns Line alleging a constant noise coming from the NC Closed
generator in their neighborhood.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
10-5696 10/14/2019 Concerns Line requesting information about safe distances IN Closed
for high voltage utility lines in Columbus, IN.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
10-5702 •
10/15/2019 Concerns Line to request an inspection of a utility pole in FL Closed
their area.
ENV-2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
10-5709 10/16/2019 Concerns Line requesting to be added to the "No-Spray" list. NC • Closed
C-10

Exhibit C
Environmental Concerns Line Report: July 5, 2019 thru January 3, 2020
Case Date Ca` e Case
Number Opened ` �, � �� `�� � � r� State Status
- � ,. W
ENV 2019- An anonymous reporter contacted the Environmental
10 5715 10/17/2019 Concerns Line alleging unsafe driving practices of a Duke FL . Closed
Energy truck driver in St. Petersburg, FL.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
10-5716 10/17/2019 Concerns Line regarding concerns about Duke Energy's CA Closed
efforts to lower the risk of climate change.
•
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
10 5717 10/17/2019 Concerns Line regarding concerns about Duke Energy's CA Closed
efforts to lower the risk of climate change.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
10 5718 10/17/2019 Concerns Line regarding concerns about Duke Energy's CA Closed
efforts to lower the risk of climate change.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
10 5719 10/17/2019 Concerns Line regarding concerns about Duke Energy's CA Closed
efforts to lower the risk of climate change. •
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
10-5723 10/19/2019 Concerns Line to report branches leaning on a utility line in FL Closed
St. Petersburg, FL. _
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
10-5735 10/21/2019 Concerns Line alleging that a utility line fell and struck their FL Closed
car.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
10-5744 10/23/2019 Concerns Line to report a street light that is covered with SC Closed
leaves and branches in Greenville, SC.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
10-5745 10/23/2019 Concerns Line regarding safety concerns for excess wires KY Closed
• from recent service installations in their neighborhood.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
10-5746 10/23/2019 Concerns Line regarding concerns about the smart meter OH Closed
recently installed on their property.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
10-5747 10/23/2019 Concerns Line requesting the removal of electrical meters OH Closed
that have washed ashore on their property.
ENV-2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
10-5748 10/23/2019 Concerns Line regarding their status on the "No Spray" list. NC Closed
ENV 2019 An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
10-5751 10/24/2019 Concerns Line regarding concerns about the lights provided NC Closed
from the Duke Energy efficiency program.
ENV-2019- 10/27/2019 An anonymous reporter contacted the Environmental IN Closed
10-5756 Concerns Line to report a fallen utility line in their area.
ENV 2019 An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
10-5763 10/29/2019 Concerns Line regarding the disposal of tree trunks after SC Closed
tree recent trimming services in their area.
ENV 2019 An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
10-5765 10/29/2019 Concerns Line regarding concerns about coal sludge in their SC Closed
area.
An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
ENV-2019- 10/31/2019 Concerns Line requesting Duke Energy to clean up the SC' Closed
10-5772 Bramlett Road manufactured gas plant in Greenville South
Carolina.
C-11

Exhibit C
Environmental Concerns Line Report: July 5, 2019 thru January 3, 2020
Case Date �, , Case Summary" Case
Nu � State`, Status
rta�b�r�'� � Opened �,
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
10-5773 10/31/2019 Concerns Line regarding concerns about a cove that feeds SC Closed
into Lake Keowee.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
10-5774 10/31/2019 Concerns Line with an inquiry regarding the ownership and OH Closed
contents of a transformer in Cincinnati, OH.
An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
ENV- 2019- 10/31/2019 Concerns Line requesting Duke Energy to clean up the SC Closed
10-5775 Bramlett Road manufactured gas plant in Greenville South
Carolina.
•
An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
ENV 2019 10/31/2019 Concerns Line requesting Duke Energy to clean up the SC Closed
10-5776 Bramlett Road manufactured gas plant in Greenville South
Carolina.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
10-5777 10/31/2019 Concerns Line with an inquiry regarding the ownership and NC Closed
•
contents of a transformer in Garner, NC.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
10-5778 10/31/2019 Concerns Line to request tree trimming services in their FL Closed
area.
ENV- 2019- 10/31/2019 An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental NC Closed
10-5782 Concerns Line to report a power outage at their home.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
11-5784 11/01/2019 Concerns Line requesting Duke Energy to cleanup a former SC Closed
production site in Greenville, South Carolina.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
11-5786 11/01/2019 Concerns Line regarding questions about coal plants in NC Closed
Charlotte, NC.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
11 5791 11/04/2019 Concerns Line requesting the removal of branches left in a NC Closed
• creek after recent tree trimming services in their area.
ENV 2019- An anonymous reporter contacted the Environmental
11-5797 11/05/2019 Concerns Line alleging unsafe work practices from Duke NC Closed
Energy employees while working on a home in their area.
ENV 2019- An anonymous reporter contacted the Environmental
11-5800 11/05/2019 Concerns Line alleging that their neighbors have NC Closed
compromised the utility pole and line in their neighborhood.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
11-5816 11/07/2019 Concerns Line to report a broken utility pole on their FL Closed
property.
ENV -2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
11-5821 11/08/2019 Concerns Line regarding concerns about a potential NC In Process
transformer leak in Cary, NC.
ENV-2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
11-5823 11/09/2019 Concerns Line to report a loose light in their. area. NC Closed
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
11-5824 11/11/2019 Concerns Line alleging health issues caused by Duke NC Closed
Energy.
ENV 2019- An anonymous reporter contacted the Environmental
11 5845 11/14/2019 Concerns Line to report exposed wires hanging from a pole FL In Process
in Largo, FL.
•
C-12

Exhibit C
Environmental Concerns Line Report: July 5, 2019 thru January 3, 2020
Case Date Case
Case Summary State
Number Opened Status
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
11-5846 11/14/2019 Concerns Line requesting the safe removal of a bird's nest NC Closed
on a light pole in their area.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
11-5847 11/14/2019 Concerns Line to request the removal of a dead tree at a IN Closed
substation in Hancock County, IN.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
11-5849 11/14/2019 Concerns Line regarding the high pressure gas line testing IN. In Process
near their neighborhood. •
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
11-5850 11/14/2019 Concerns Line to urge Duke Energy to stop aerial spraying Unknown Closed
of herbicides.
• ENV 2019- An anonymous reporter contacted the Environmental
11-5868 11/15/2019 Concerns Line requesting the replacement of a lightbulb that Unknown Closed
has gone out in their area.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
11-5870 11/16/2019 Concerns Line to report sparks from the broken utility lines FL In Process
in their area.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
11-5884 11/20/2019 Concerns Line regarding the smell of burning trees in an FL Closed
area where solar panels are being constructed.
ENV 2019- An anonymous reporter contacted the Environmental
11-5889 11/21/2019 Concerns Line to report two secondary pedestals that are IN Closed
exposed and/or destroyed in their area.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
11 5890 11/21/2019 Concerns Line to report a confederate flag displayed on a NC Closed
utility pole in Pittsboro, NC.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
11-5891 11/21/2019 Concerns Line alleging radio interference in their area is IN Closed
caused by a leaning utility pole in their area.
An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
ENV-2019- 11/26/2019 Concerns Line to report a leaking transformer and to inquire OH Closed
12-5957 about the ownership of an additional transformer in their
area.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
11-5921 11/26/2019 Concerns Line regarding leasing portions of the wooded IN Closed
property near the Wabash River Station.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
11-5924 11/26/2019 Concerns Line to request vegetation management services SC Closed
in their neighborhood.
ENV 2019- An anonymous reporter contacted the Environmental
12-5954 12/01/2019 Concerns Line to report sagging utility lines in their IN Closed
•
neighborhood.
An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
ENV-2019- Concerns Line regarding concerns about the proximity of the
12-5967 12/03/2019 power lines next to a home they are interested in NC Closed
purchasing.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
12-5968 12/03/2019 Concerns Line regarding the frequency of power loss at their NC . Closed
home.
•
C-13

Exhibit C
Environmental Concerns Line Report: July 5, 2019 thru January 3, 2020
Case Date' Case
Case Summary :State
Number Opened Status
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
12-5969 12/03/2019 Concerns Line regarding notification of a recent IN Closed
environmental assessment on their property.
• ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
12-5975 12/05/2019 Concerns Line alleging that a fraudulent account has been Unknown Closed
created in their name.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
12-5979 12/06/2019 Concerns Line to regarding technology issues with a newly FL In Process
installed meter at their business.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
12-5983 12/07/2019 Concerns Line to report illegal dumping of metal scraps at a OH Closed
Duke Energy substation.
ENV-2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
12-6003 12/11/2019 Concerns Line to report a sink hole in their neighborhood. NC In Process
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
12-6004 12/11/2019 Concerns Line requesting for Duke Energy to adjust the FL In Process
placement of a light in Seminole, FL. •
ENV-2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
12-6006 12/12/2019 Concerns Line to report a damaged antenna on a tower in NC. Closed
Stacy, NC.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
12-6007 12/12/2019 Concerns Line to report a damaged antenna on a tower in NC Closed
Stacy, NC.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
12-6008• 12/12/2019 Concerns Line to regarding recent repair services at their NC In Process
residence.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
12-6009 12/12/2019 Concerns Line alleging radio interference caused by the SC Closed
electricity meter in their area.
ENV 2019- An anonymous reporter contacted the Environmental
12-6010 12/13/2019 Concerns Line to express concerns about the Asheville NC Closed
Plant located near Lake Julian.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
12/17/2019 Concerns Line alleging an increased amount red mud SC Closed
12 6017 running from Little River into Lake Keowee.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
12-6031 12/19/2019 Concerns Line requesting information regarding a previous OH . Closed
spill cleanup in Fairfield, OH.
An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
ENV -2019 12/26/2019 Concerns Line alleging that Duke Energy field technicians FL Closed
12-6044 left debris on the median in their neighborhood, which has
direct access to the canals.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
12-6045 12/26/2019 Concerns Line to express concerns about the coal ash Unknown Closed
landfill located near Lake Julian.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
12-6046 12/26/2019 Concerns Line to report a sunken whole in their yard caused KY Closed
from the recent gas line construction.
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
12-6052 12/31/2019 Concerns Line to report a utility pole on their property that SC Closed
needs to be repaired.
C-14

Exhibit C
Environmental Concerns Line Report: July 5, 2019 thru January 3, 2020
Case 1 Date
j Number 1Opened Case Summary State Case 1
Status
ENV 2019- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
12-6053 12/31/2019 Concerns Line to report a low service mast in their FL In Process
neighborhood.
ENV 2020- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
1-6056 01/02/2020 Concerns Line to report a utility pole on their property that SC Closed
needs to be repaired.
ENV 2020- An identified non-employee contacted the Environmental
1 6061 01/02/2020 Concerns Line alleging a light nuisance in their NC Closed
neighborhood is in violation of a county ordinance. •
•
•
•
• C-15

EXHIBIT 4

•
•
DUKE Duke,Energy Carolinas,LLC
'• Cliffside Steam Station
ENERGY; 573 Duke Power Road
Mooreskoro,NC 28114-7754
CAROLINAS
RECEIVED
April 20,2020
APR 2 2 2020
Mr. William Willets,PE
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality nivtston of Alr Quality w�
217 West Jones Street L.-r- -R SF=e4'ti`�F=.g=�rt�� �""
1641 Mail Service Center
Raleigh,NC 27699-1641
Subject: Duke Energy Carolinas,LLC
Cliffside Steam Station
• Facility ID: 8100028,Air Permit No. 04044T43
Notice of Intent to Construct Wastewater Treatment Bioreactor and Lime
Silo Equipped with Bin Vent Filter Under G.S. 143-215.108A
Dear Mr. Willets:
Duke. Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke Energy) operates the Cliffside Steam Station (Cliffside)
located in Mooresboro, NC. Operations at Cliffside are categorized under the North American
Industrial Classification System(NAICS)code 221112 for Electric Power Generation,Fossil Fuel
and Standard Industrial Classification(SIC)code 4911 for Electric Services. The air quality permit
for Cliffside includes two electric utility boilers, two auxiliary boilers, and various other ancillary
equipment.
This letter serves as notification that Duke Energy is proposing to begin construction of a
wastewater tr6tment project at Cliffside prior to the receipt of an air permit, pursuant to NC
General Statue 143-215.108A. The project involves minor changes to the design of the station
support facilities and includes installation of a wastewater treatment bioreactor and lime storage
silo equipped with a particulate dust collection system. In addition, the project will include an
8,000-gallon hydrochloric acid storage tank for wastewater treatment. The wastewater treatment
system will be used to treat wastewater streams that are being redirected from the existing wet ash
basin. This project is similar to the wastewater treatment system permitted at the Marshall Steam
Station for which the North Carolina Department of Air Quality(NCDAQ) approved a Notice of
Intent to Construct on July 10,2017.
The wastewater treatment bioreactor will emit an estimated 1.87 tons per year of hydrogen sulfide
(H2S). The lime silo will emit an estimated 0.15 tons per year of particulate matter less than 2.5
microns in diameter(PM2,$). Emissions of hydrochloric acid from the storage tank are expected

Mr. William Willets
April 20,2020.
•
Page 2
to be less than 500 pounds.per year. Qualification for the "Intent to Construct" process was
discussed with you in an email and was given guidance on April 3,2020 to proceed with the Public
Notice of Intent to Construct and written notification to NCDAQ.
Duke Energy acknowledges that the air contaminant sources, equipment, and associated air
cleaning devices may not be operated in a manner that alters the emissions of any air contaminant
until a modified air permit under G.S. 143-215.108A is obtained. We also acknowledge that any
alteration or expansion of the physical arrangement or operation of an air contaminant source,
equipment, or associated air cleaning device prior to the modification of a permit under
G.S. 143-215.108 is undertaken at our own risk and with the knowledge that we may be denied a
modification of the permit under G.S. 143-215.108A without regard to our financial investment or
alteration or expansion of the facility.
The notice of intent to construct containing the required elements is provided as Enclosure 1 to
this letter. The public notice was published in the Forest City Daily Courier on April 14, 2020.
Proof of publication is included in Enclosure 2 to this letter. A $200,processing fee is also be sent
directly to your office from our accounting department.
I certifyunder penaltyof law that all information and statements provided in our notice of intent
to construct, including any attachments, are true, accurate, and complete to the best of my
knowledge and ability. Please contact Daniel Markley [phone], Dan.Markley(a)duk.e-
energy.com). if you have any questions regarding our request.
Regards,
David P.Barnhardt
General Manager II
cc: Brendan Davey,NCDAQ -Asheville Regional Office
Daniel Markley, Duke Energy
Cynthia Winston, Duke Energy
Amy Marshall,ALL4
Enclosures: 1 —Notice'of Intent to Construct
2—Proof of Publication

Enclosure 1
Notice of Intent to Construct

5 1
. Notice of Construction
Prior to Receipt of Air Permit
Notice is hereby given that Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC is proposing to begin construction of a
project at the Cliffside Steam Station pursuant to North Carolina General Statute 143-215.I08A.
Construction will begin prior to receipt of an.operating air quality permit from the North Carolina
Division of Air Quality(NCDAQ)for an alteration of the existing Cliffside Steam Station electric
generating facility located in Mooresboro, NC. The proposed alteration involves minor changes
to the design of the station support facilities, and it includes installation of a wastewater treatment
bioreactor and lime storage silo equipped with a particulate dust collection system. These systems
are being installed to treat wastewater streams that are being redirected from the wet ash basin in
preparation for closing the ash basin. Written comments regarding the proposed alteration may be
submitted to the NCDAQ at the following address:
Attention: Mr. William Willets, PE
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
217 West Jones Street •
1641 Mail Service Center
Raleigh,NC 27699-1641
The Cliffside Steam Station is located at the following address:
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC
Cliffside Steam Station
573 Duke Power Road
Mooresboro, Rutherford County,NC 28114
Facility contact person for permit revisions:
Daniel A. Markley, PE- Lead Environmental Specialist
Duke Energy Corporation
P.O. Box 1006, Mail Code 13K
Charlotte,NC 28801-1006
The current air permit for this facility is Title V Air Quality Permit No. 04044T43, issued to the
Cliffside Steam Station, Mooresboro, NC, on January 8, 2019. The facilities to be added in this
permit revision include installation of a wastewater treatment bioreactor, a lime storage silo
equipped with a particulate dust collection system, and a hydrogen chloride storage tank.
Conservative, worst-case fugitive emissions of hydrogen sulfide gas from the bioreactor are
estimated to be 1.87 tons per year(10.3 pounds per day). The lime silo will emit an estimated 0.15
tons per year of particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.$). Emissions of
hydrochloric acid from the storage tank are expected to be less than 500 pounds per year.
The proposed construction for the alteration is scheduled to begin on or about May 1, 2020. The
construction is expected to be completed during the third quarter of 2021.

. •
•
•
•
•-•-•
•
•
Enclosure 2
•
Proof of Publication of Public Notice . • I
•
•
•
•! •
•

e
`•
Tuesdey.Apnl 14.2020,THE DAILY COURIER AY '
•
Sanders backs Biden as ex-rivals join forces to beat Trump
•
BY BILL BAMOWANO •I am asking all Americana, presidential campaign,which is socialist is objectionable to Perhaps eager to avoid •
• ALBXANOMJAFFE I'm asking every Democrat,I'm was centered around progres- Republicans end some Demo- a repeat of Out bruising eloe-
AuoaveoPlgu asking every Independent,I'm sine pollttee such a.univer• crate. _ don year,Sanders offered his '
• WASHINGTON-Bernie asking a lot of Republicans to sal health pre.There were Still,Sanders embrace of endorsement much earlier '
•Sanders endorsed Joe Biden's come together in des campaign early-signs that some leading Riders was crucial for someone In the 2020 campaign.Sand.
• presidential campaign on Men- to support your candidacy,.progressives weren't ready to who is lasked'with bridging the era backed Clinton lour years
day,encouraging his progree winch I endorse,"die Vermont fully fallow Sanders'Inod,And Democratic Parry's entrenched ago,but.only alter the end of a
sive supporter to rally behind senator said to a virtual event Trump's1'onlpaign was eager ideological divides.Democrat- drawrsmd nomination fight and.
• the presumptive Democratic with Bidtn: to use the no,ddnedient to tic It dlvunily helped contribute to a bider dispute over the Demo.
nominee in an urgent bid to The backing came Ins than Bidet more dorely to Sentient Hillary Clinton's loss to Trump trade pladorm that mended In
defeat President DeraidTnunp. a week slier Sanders ended his whose identity as a democrat- a 2016. the summer convention,
•
LFGA ntih5 Intl d• tree, Irgnl: Bn',l, ,Ml'. 8366 lega,a
•
NOTICE OF nese mooed thereby and lath Forest Mountain Subdivision by hew to Mind Main Sonar Olindafe
SUBSTITUTE TRUSTEE'S ure to carry out and perform as shown on phi entitled'N,w ache%Mae le unable to con Rehabilitation Prefect
FORECLORURe SALE the etlpulallone and ag,..-Fonr Mountain,Motion I'by.n7 one le UM property for any BM for the construction of the
OF REAL PROPERTY meets contained therein and,Nathan Odom,Registered remote the sole remedy of the Project wxl be received at
NOTICE OF SUBSTITUTE,pursuant to demand of the Land Surveyor,dated NOV.,pumheee,le the talon o1 the Broad Alm Water Autnuity •
RUTHERFORD COUNTY TRUSTEE'S PO Re CLOS. Problem the indehled'Isn se.bar ln,teat,and mooted in deposll.Reason for such Inab located al 13e Duke SI.
IN THE GENERAL 1MEf SALE Of REAL PROP•:wad by sale Deed Cl Trust,Plat Book IS al Page 05, sty to'convay Include,out we Op edits,NC 28160,unlit '
COURT OF JUSTICE IBA the undersigned subslltou Rutherford County Registry,ml reeled to,the fling o1 a Wedneeday,April 22.2020 al
SUPERIOR COURT UNDER AND BY VIRTUE 01 Trial.will place for nit.al,elere.nce to wMch to hereby anxrup:y petition pear to the 2:C0 p.m.local time.AI That
DIVISION the power and adhorhy can.putdo audio,the highest eta-made for greeter certainty el side and relncatemenl of Ine time the Bids received will be
BEFORE THE CLERK tat/wain Thal cert.Deed at eerier dish el the usual pram description. loan w0houl knowledge of the publkyapned and read.The
1e OP 244 True dated Mey 30.2018 and of eel,at Rutherford County Subject la Protective Coven.Tod..If the vallasy a1 the ea opening can Also he view
IN THE MATTER OF THE recorded May 31,2010 ex-Courthouse,In ROIMdardon,ante New Forest Mountain,.ele is challenged by any Is Zoom,A Into MI be nnl to
FORECtosuaE by Tnamae muted and delivered from North Carolina,on April 23,Se0ion i,recorded In Daed pally,Ine Trustee,In Peek sole prospeon odder.
mama.pu0Nlluta frog,,of OLEN C.WILLS and wire,2020 et1,00 PA.,lost weal beak 581 al Pages 312,d,emlon.If they belle.the The Project Ind..Ina lot.
a Ona of Pont Executed by AUCIA N.WILLS(the'Oblip-of lend,including Improve-Roma old County RsgMry.enallanga 0 have mea may lawns Work:
GLEN C.Willa and wile,of)to JARALD N.WILLIS,mute thereon,mated lying being the lame end Identical aave Me Wets be void and The prided shall consist at
ALICIA N.WILLS dated May truel.,.more.In Deed of and being In the townehlp of property whlan rea mnyeyed Morn the deposit.The par.water male rehabilitation for
30.2010,an0 recorded May Tryst book eu ber 2000,Morgan,County el Rutherford by Beverly Schoch and Riot chaear will here no further Broad Rivet Wale Authority
3*.a01e In Da,*Tro,l pages 11.33..Rutherford State al NOM Carolina.sod band,Terry Schoch Po Oren C.remedy and sewer mein tenth/Illation'
• Boo,2000 or Pao*31.25 of County Registry,Muth Cslo.being mar.partlaai.rly de-Wills and wife,Allele N.Wee M ache br poem..of Ina for In.Town of Spindale.
the Rutherford County qe•line:and because al default In edified as fallout by deed dated April 20,2018 property may helm.porno• Bin an requested for the lot •
71suy the payment or the Indebted.Lot Na.2,Beallan 1 Of New In Deed Book 2006 at Page 21 ant to G.S.46-21.28 In favor lowing Contract:Man Steel
of the Rutherford County Re.o NI porchsser and ege/Ml spinda.Renableellco Project
gletry. the party or pants.In pane Conked
Save end except any re'ebb by me clerk of nme,br OOlamng the Bidding Deco.
I ,deeds on release.or cowl or the county In alloy menu '
NOTICE OF CONSTRUCTION prior Conveyances of record,the property la sod The Issuing Office for me
OAR prapeny le commonly My penon who occupies the ammo 0ucumanta lei
PRIOR TO RECEIPT OF AIR PERMIT known es Lot 2.eedlon 1 in property pungent to a renw Odom engmaenng,PILL
the New Forest Mountain Bub agreement*meted into or re. 1E5 Oak sower
division. newel or.or aMr October 1, Foreevet C17,NC 28043
AcOrea of Property 0 Deer 2037,may,enter nalvmg the Propective Bddue may ob.
Notice Is hereby even that Duke Energy Carolinas,LLC is proposing to path.Lot No.2,section 1 of nonce of ale,lemineie the urn or examine the Bidding
been construction of a armed at the CIiR3ide Steam Station pursuant New Feted MOW.Bubdivl-rental epee meet upon 10 Document.al the Issuing 01•
' tto North Carolina General Statute 143.215.108A.Construction will tan,Morgan Tewn.nlp,days'written b,Ol to the here on Monday ureupn
•
beginprior to receipt of an operatingR ae.rt Record county. Ne 'Loaded.Tel nonce snail alw Tnundry amdd I.noun
H P air quality permit from the Preeenl owners:Glen Neale that upon lermmalon of of I:00 a.m,endeAOpm.and
North Careen'Division of Air Quality INICDAQ)for en alteration of the c,wn1a,and woe Atka N.a r nII em sgreem to they ten- obtain meal.el the Bid.nt la ll
Winn Nu Pot rest doe larder ding Documents from theism!.
existing Cliffside Steam Station electric generating facility located in me terms of the sale are that ine rental agr.ment prorated Ina DMa all deedthed bd.
Mooresboro,NC.The proposed alteration involves minor change to real properly herelnbefate a-to the effective dale of the ter.MANI eats at Bidding Dodo
• the designof the station support facilities,end It Inductee Installation scribed wan be sold br eon d mmatdn menu will not be evenable
pp the Maned Odder.The Satan-Tnte Is the rah am of AprIl tom the Issuing Drnee, •
of a wastewater treatment biortector and lime storage ski equipped tine Trustee reserves the light 2020. Nether Owner nor Engineer
with a particulate dust collection system.These systems are being to requite a use deposit or a KING LAW OFFICES,PLLC will be responsible lot toil or
- Installed to treat wastewater streams that are bale redirected from centred clink no.to exceed Thomn.ads p.eul sett el Bidding Doou •
-
H the greeter of live percent Subs..Trustee merle Including addenda,11
the wan ash)resin In preparation for closing the ash basin,Written• tau)of the amount el UM MO Xing Lew any,obtained from scums
• comments regarding the proposed alteration may be submitted l0 the or Seven Hundred Fitly DOB as Buser.Post other IMn me issuing 01110.
Tare(MOOD).In the event Fun.City,NC MO Bidding Documents may be
NCOAO e1 the following address: - that meaHolder Is exempt bore (Vel 2e59332 purchased floe the Miming
Ming the...the b.re faze)288.1110 pact omd come the hour.loam
Attention:Mc William Mims,PE lul bidder may also be re-•NC gw Number Eden sued above.Cps does not
(alred to pay m.o.camps tmenbaunlpewalnceacorn nude eloping chew. Uponoe
North Caroline Department of Environmental Quality on the Truces'.Deed,any issuing receipt a pay-
217 Wool Jones Street Land Toner Tax,and the Apr.?,im loth men!.printed,cried Bidding Doou•
rea restated IA.soa by N,C.0.8.Sec- ADVERTie oMENo merits or electronic docu• •
1641 Mail Service Center Inn 7A.SOINro), FOR BIDS.REBID meals on comma disk will be
Ratelgh,NC 27699-1641 The real proerty be , BROAD RIVER sant via the prospect!.The
ab ore described le Dame WATER AUTHORITY dn'e delhary,er null The
allured rot hate AS 18. SPINOALR NC sapping chat a amount will
The Ctif side Steam Station is located at the following address: WHERE IS'and wit be sold MAIN STREET SPINDALE depend on tM snlpping meth.
• fabled to ell nperlor Ile..RENABNITATION PROJECT od Mee.Bidding Dodo. •
unpe:d taxes and medal ere General Notice mama ere available lot pi,Duke Energy Carolinas,LLC • easements.Omar conditions Bran River weldr Auth on,Uree In the following fermam
Clftlside Steam Station - will be...need al'ha UAl.towns)I.nquating Bide for Forma Gott
573 Duke Power Road The sere will be herd open for me c.,,,porropop o me fatdw-Bldding Document.moans
ten(101 days for upset bids se Ing Pnlad: sldd:ete DravAneq s100,o0 •
Modresboro,Rutherford County,NC 28114 The RutherfOMlon Police Department Wading Documents S311.00
00 0l g
P HetpSin Drawings)230.od
Facility moiler soars far permit revisions: Is currently seeking candidates Carload Disc containing Bid •
gY P P I for the position of POLICE:OFFICER ding Documents m doomed.
I Daniel A.Markley,PE-Lead Environmental Specialist de aumenl forma tPOF)
Duke Energy Corporation • S25.Do '
Nem.repel/entente mdWde High School e,a Oueenons shell be rec.lad
P.O.Box 1006,Moll Code 13K vatic North Gamine drier•,Man.,and Nadu1 Caroline until 2:00 p.m.on April 20.
Charlotte,NC 28801.1006 • ISLET certification required.Candidates mint aase. MO. •
elrineenl beagrer,.check,•physics!lmduding drug inebrtddone to bled.rs.
screening)College a ew degree.prior I.entormmenl or prior Subminad bid peckegre mint
The current air permit for this facility Is Title V Air Quality Permit No. ilitary prelerrad but rot rewired. de cleerl labeled'Main street
04044143,Issued la the Clipaide Steam Station,Monreshoro,NC, Spindaie RanadMalmn Prged
on January 8,2019.The fe011lties(o be added In this permit revision or he need and des ensd ibn ilrh.ponodo.i.w coomm'unur. Marne tHunnicutt attention
54
include installation of a wastewater treatment bloreactor,a lime oriented palidng.The clew.be required to perform eny subminlof ere encouraged.
storage silo equipped with a particulate dust collection system,end legal task resigned to no officer by IM Poke CNN end will aia a/A mbled as Omen must
be neIgned to ma petrol division of tea department.Na be received by 1:00 ore.on
a hydrogen chloride storage tank.Conservative,woret•case fugitive hires win D.r.oue,d to complete a one(1)year Apni 22,2020.lure low bid Is•
emissions of hydrogen sulfide gas from the bioreattor ere estimated to probationary period.The Town of Ainhenamron chars a received via email,original
• be 1.87 tons per year(10.3 pounds par day).The lima silo will emit comprehensive r t,M e,opporr10n10.ill rev!nd:ea eLcaia end prier,documents
eentrac Eman.d bed
• an estimated 0.15 ton per year of particulate matter less than 2.5 training Wnn aseanleled pay for performance msrn pay should be sell to not dodo.
microns in diameter IPM2.5).Emissions of hydrochloric acid from the Sterling saucy depending on dueldmrrons will a oats Me glneering.wm.
la ry at 534,803. For nalit uster rpuranente re.
• Storage lank are expected lobe less than 500 pounds per year. . gemmp el0 submetel,sod.
Plea truce the completed epplketlon era,mop..of Clans,pomades,and con.
Theproposed construction for the alteration is scheduled to begin on regv 05 o 01.jOi ins to IM Town of RIC 211 Nren, aea award,rear to the In.
H ice North.Mein St,Rul0ertardton,NC tams emotions to Bidders trial are
• or about May I,2020.The construction Is expected to be completed Application pease available online el mofmuded in me Bidding Docu-
duricg the third quarter of 2021. www001om ,M ma1,Position n tion open unit filled eo2 mei .
Direc1t Link to Job Pealing and Required Appll telon.:
nsp.Mhedordmn.neu Apr.la,Mb
how-rid-Yepplyly_lotfo.,town jobaAnded.php
S111[0 I 1 0". HS :l''. .(0)FAIH[CIVIIES:
262 OLD US 74 HWY,RUSTIC 107 DOGWOOD VALLEY RD,FOREST CITY J53 NEW HOPE RD,RUTHERFOROTON
•
!fir fir �,I�4 1 �:�t ,h. --• E :it yL
3RR418A Ork''inch on E10 nreowlcreek in back. 3BRJ28A Neat Brick Ranch on level lot,House Well maintained 4BR/SBA with plenty of space,
Frepiace,woad Poore,updated kitcnphen a bathroom. has hardwood floors,nice screened porch. lots of windows,kitchen island has granite
theerdewin•moats hoic meWM18147ies S18a000 Located neergdfcourse.MLSa47126 S125,000 counter top,rtewnMgerefor targgedeck and
KathyKey828-429.4641 Century 21 First Real KathyKey 820.429.4841 Century 21 First Real hahyney 28.4 9.41ng.Century
re Realty
,,r M Y Really Y y Y b Kathy Key 828.429./g41 Century 21 Fire Ra31ty

RECEIVED
MAY 2 0 2020
NCDEQIDWRINPDES
EXHIBIT 5

- DUKE
ENERGY
January 15, 2020 •
•
REG
Ms. Julie Grzyb X• 2 F 02d
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality !AN �'
Division of Water Resources yc >t�IDWR(NPDES
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 •
Subject: Rogers Energy Complex
NPDES Permit NC0005088
Permit Modification Request •
Dear Ms. Grzyb:
By this letter, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC requests a modification of NPDES Permit
NC0005088 to extend the deadline by which Rogers Energy Complex must comply with
• new effluent limits for flue gas desulfurization (FGD) wastewater. This request was
previously discussed with Mr. Jeff Poupart in a meeting on December 18, 2019,
EPA's existing rule regarding Steam Electric Power Generating ELGs allows the
Department to set a compliance date within a range of acceptable dates. Previously,
Duke Energy requested a compliance date of December 31, 2023 for FGD wastewaters
• at the subject facility in order to allow an appropriate planning, construction, and
implementation window. Based on the information available at the time, the Department
instead gave the facility until December 31, 2021 to comply. Since then, EPA has
proposed significant changes to the ELG's. Among the changes is a condition that coal
fired units that are retired by a certain date will be exempt from meeting the stringent
Technology Based Effluent Limits (TBEL's) for FGD wastewaters. These rules are
• expected to be finalized this summer.
It now appears the ELGs will provide several alternatives for facilities that are retired by
a certain date. Given this new information in the record, Duke requests modification of
the compliance date for FGD ELG's to the December 31, 2023 as allowed by the
currently codified rules. This will allow the company to evaluate the retirement dates
and treatment needs for the facility in light of the alternatives presented in the new
version of the rule. In accordance with its RPA evaluation, the Department has
determined there are no water quality-based effluent limits required at the site for
constituents associated with FGD wastewater in order to assure the receiving water
meets applicable criteria.
A check in the amount of $1,030 is attached for evaluation of this request.

.
Ms. Julie Grzyb
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Water Resources
January 15, 2020
If you have questions, please contact Robert Wylie at [phone] or
[e-mail].
Sincerely,
EDave Barnhardt, General Manager II
Rogers Energy Complex
DB/sl
cc: Landon Davidson (Asps. 2,0 33 s, o ,e) 5 /57 7 -1 jt
Asheville DWR regional Office
2090 U.S. Highway 70
Swannanoa, NC 28778-8211
Robert Wylie - EC13
Steve Hodges •
Shannon Langley NC15
FileNet
33 to e au00 15 5 —1 ',7)
c.a - -)oci
•
•
•
•
•
•

MAC 2 01o10
iJ
TI
C,DE.QIDWRINpOES
EXHIBIT 6

•
SOUTHERN ENVIRON.MENTAL LAW CENTER •
Telephone [phone] 601 WEST ROSEMARY STREET.SUITE 220 Facsimile 919-929-9421
CHAPEL HILL.NC 27516-2356
January 21, 2020
VIA FEDERAL ER ULEMAKING PORTAL
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPA Docket Center, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819,
Office of Science and Technology Docket,
Mail Code 2822IT
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20460
Re: Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power
Generating Point Source Category Proposed Rule,
Docket No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819 .
Dear Administrator Wheeler: •
We submit these comments on behalf of the Southern Environmental Law Center and the
following environmental and community groups located across the Southeast: Alabama Rivers
Alliance, Altamaha Riverkeeper, Appalachian Voices, Black Warrior Riverkeeper, Broad
• Riverkeeper, Cape Fear River Watch, Catawba Riverkeeper, Chattahoochee Riverkeeper,
Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Clean Fairfax, Clean Water for North Carolina, Coastal •
Conservation League, Coosa River Basin Initiative, Coosa Riverkeeper, Creation Justice•
Network, United Church of Christ Southern Conference, Dan Riverkeeper, Flint Riverkeeper,
Georgia River Network, Good Stewards of Rockingham, Lumber Riverkeeper, Mobile
Baykeeper, MountainTrue,New River Land Trust, North Carolina Council of Churches, North •
Carolina Poor People's Campaign, Ogeechee Riverkeeper, Potomac Riverkeeper Network,
Rappahannock League for Environmental Protection, Roanoke River Basin Association, Save
Our Saluda, Statewide Organizing for Community eMpowerment, Stokes County NAACP,
Tennessee Chapter Sierra Club, Tennessee Citizens for Wilderness Planning, Tennessee Clean
Water Network, Tennessee Scenic Rivers Association, The Lilies Project, Upstate Forever,
Virginia Conservation Network, Waccamaw Riverkeeper, Waterkeepers Chesapeake, Wild
Virginia, and Winyah Rivers Alliance.
We write to express our strong opposition to EPA's proposal to weaken the effluent
limitations guidelines and standards for the steam electric point source category under the Clean
Water Act (the "2015 Rule"). We agree with and have joined in separate comments by
Earthjustice, Clean Water Action, Sierra Club and others explaining our significant concerns
over the proposed rule. Our purpose here is not to reiterate those comments, which we adopt and
incorporate by reference, but instead to highlight the real-world consequences of EPA's
proposals. Our focus is on the Southeast, a region that continues to shoulder a disproportionate
pollution burden from coal-based electricity generation. The 2015 Rule appropriately forces
coal-burning utilities to lessen that burden. Accordingly, we join in urging EPA to change
• course and instead strengthen the 2015 Rule with effluent limitations that would further reduce
pollution of our lakes, rivers, and streams. •
•
Charlottesville • Chapel Hill • Atlanta • Asheville • Birmingham • Charleston • Nashville • Richmond • Washington,DC
100%recycled paper

•
Mr. A. Wheeler
Page2of56
January 21, 2020
I. BACKGROUND
In this proposal, EPA once more seeks to subject communities and their clean water to
more pollution and risks from the primitive operation of the worst functioning coal-fired plants.
EPA is acting as though it is entirely ignorant of how communities, states, and utilities are
reacting to EPA's failures. In'determining the best available technology to reduce pollution, EPA
would allow utilities not to operate existing and installed pollution control systems. EPA's
proposal directly contravenes the Clean Water Act, backslides on existing permit requirements,
and discards available technologies that utilities are using today.
EPA even subjects itself to ridicule by determining that for some poor-performing
utilities, an unlined hole in the ground is the best available technology for dealing with a coal-
fired plant's water pollution. •
The country is rejecting EPA's retrograde mentality. Duke Energy, the North Carolina
Department of Environmental Quality, and community groups we represent recently announced
an agreement that requires the excavation of at least 80 million tons of coal ash from unlined pits
across that state.' Duke Energy is already required by court orders and settlements to excavate
more than 53 million additional tons from 10 coal-fired plant sites across North and South.
Carolina. All three South Carolina utilities— SCE&G/Dominion, Santee Cooper, and Duke.
Energy—have excavated or are excavating every unlined waterfront coal ash pit in that state.. In
fact, five entire sets of coal ash lagoons in the Carolinas have now been completely excavated—
at Dan River, Wilmington, Charlotte, Columbia, and Conway. In Virginia, Dominion is required
to excavate every pit in that state. Georgia Power has announced plans to excavate almost 50
million tons of ash from pits across the state, and TVA has been required by public pressure and
settlement to excavate over 15 million tons from sites in Memphis and Nashville. By our count,
utilities in the Southeast are now committed and required to excavate almost a quarter billion
tons of coal ash and about 70 percent of all the impoundments covered by the 2015 CCR Rule,
And of course, utilities across the region have abandoned primitive unlined pits as the way to
dispose of coal ash or to manage streams of wastewater flowing,from coal-fired plants. ,Dry
storage and active waste treatment are the standard.
In the prior Administration, EPA played a role in this progress through its Clean Water
Act prosecution of Duke Energy after the Dan River spill in North Carolina, the adoption of the
2015 ELG and CCR Rules, and otherwise. But'in this Administration, EPA has contributed
nothing to this region-wide pollution cleanup, and in fact has taken action through its regulatory
rollbacks to slow progress.
•
As the public has demanded more protection, legislatures across the country have
responded while EPA has stepped back. Coal ash legislation has been enacted by Virginia,
North Carolina, South Carolina, Illinois, and Puerto Rico—in the face of inadequate national
protections from EPA.
Settlement Agreement,Duke Energy Carolinas, et. al. v. NC DEQ, et. al. (D'ec.31,2019),available at
https://www.southernenvironment.org/uploads/words_docs/Final_Agreement_12-31-19_signature_version_-
_with_signatures.pdf(Attachment 1).

Mr. A. Wheeler
Page 3 of 56
January21, 2020
EPA has repeatedly acknowledged the toxicity, quantity, and dangers of the pollution
streams flowing from coal-fired plants. Yet, in this proposal, EPA does analytical backflips and
disregards evidence in order to exempt the worst coal-fired plants from existing, feasible; and
effective means of controlling water pollution. In the course of doing so, EPA simply refuses to
comply with the well-established requirements of the Clean Water Act. This proposal is in effect
EPA's attempt to nullify the best available technology requirements set out in the Clean Water
Act. And what EPA is doing is not only illegal but contrary to plain common sense.
Utilities across our region have announced their ability to comply with the requirements
of the 2015 ELG Rule. In at least one instance, the utility has spent the money to put in place
technology to meet those standards and is seeking to recover those costs, and their permits
require them to comply with.the 2015 Rule as it now stands. Yet, EPA would put in place
exemptions, loopholes, and exceptions that would excuse utilities' failure to use and fully
implement already-installed technology, compliance with existing permits, and adoption of
available and proven technologies. And in the face of the fact that utilities across the Carolinas
and elsewhere have already stopped putting coal ash in unlined water-filled pits and in fact are
well on the way toward removing the ash already in these pits, EPA makes the absolutely
incredible assertion that some utilities will not be able to find a place to put their coal ash other
than an aging, unlined, leaking, polluting hole in the ground.
This is a proposal that embarrasses an EPA of any political stripe. We encourage EPA to
abandon this effort to help out the worst actors in the coal ash industry at the expense of
America's communities and clean water.
IL EPA'S PROPOSAL TO WEAKEN THE EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
GUIDELINES VIOLATES THE BAT STANDARD.
The Clean Water Act's central mechanism for achieving its ambitious goal of eliminating
all pollution is the promulgation and imposition of increasingly stringent effluent limits. EPA's
attempt to backslide by weakening the existing effluent limits violates the Clean Water Act and
the BAT standard.
EPA's proposed ELGs violate the Clean Water Act because they propose less stringent
limits and technology than the 2015 rule. For FGD waste, EPA is proposing to weaken the
effluent limits based on a less-protective technology; while EPA claims the additional pollution
would be "de minimis," in fact the agency is proposing to authorize selenium limits three times
higher than those in the 2015 rule. For bottom ash, EPA is proposing to weaken the 2015 non-
discharge standard to once again allow wastewater discharges, even though completely dry
handling systems are available and in place throughout the country. For so-called "high flow"
facilities, EPA is embracing as BAT chemical precipitation alone, which it rejected in both the
2015 Rule and in this rulemaking for every single plant except one. And with its proposed
carveouts for low-utilization plants and those retiring by 2028, EPA is proposing to allow
unlined impoundments to serve as BAT, when EPA itself has demonstrated exhaustively that
these primitive, leaking impoundments do not treat wastewater effectively. These proposals are
directly contrary to the requirements of the Act, which requires forward progress.

Mr. A. Wheeler
Page4of56
January 21, 2020
"Few laws have shouldered a weightier burden"than the Clean Water Act,2 which
established that"it is the national goal that the discharge of pollutants into navigable waters be
eliminated[.]"3 To that end, the Act requires EPA to set "effluent limitation guidelines," which
are "technology-based rather than harm based."4 EPA's effluent limits under the BAT standard
must"result in reasonable further progress toward the national goal of eliminating the discharge
of all pollutants."5
Because the "best available technology" standard is dynamically tied to the best
performing facility, the Act anticipates revisions, when appropriate, to become only more
stringent. Those revisions, like all BAT standards, must"result in.reasonable further progress"
toward the elimination of all discharges.
Thus, the text of the Act requires that when EPA finalizes a rule setting BAT in 2020, it
must make reasonable further progress beyond the limits set in the 2015 Rule and towards
eliminating pollution from waters of the United States. While EPA has delayed some of the
compliance dates in the 2015 ELG rule, it is beyond question that the rule was finalized,6 and
established BAT for various categories of point sources.. BAT analysis requires each new ELG to
result in reasonable further progress in comparison to the prior standard.
Backsliding to a less stringent"best available technology" standard is not progress,
because allowing more pollution cannot be forward movement toward the elimination of all
pollution from waters of the US. A less stringent standard certainly is not further progress toward
that goal, because it does not extend or accelerate that movement toward zero discharge. To
achieve reasonable further progress, each new BAT standard must bring us closer to zero. •
• discharge, covering at least as many pollutants with at least the same level of stringency as the
prior standard.
Weakening effluent limitations is antithetical to the plain language and clear intent of the
Clean Water Act. "After all, BAT is supposed to be the CWA's most stringent standard for
setting discharge limits for existing sources."7 The CWA requires EPA to progressively tighten
• pollution limits over time with BAT:8 "BAT is the gold standard for controlling water pollution.
2 Sw. Elec. Power Co. v. EPA,920 F.3d 999, 1004(5th Cir.2019).
3 33 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(1).
4 Tex. Oil& Gas Ass'n v. EPA, 161 F.3d 923,927(5th Cir. 1998).
5 33 U.S.C. § 1311(b)(2)(A). .
6 That EPA styles its current proposal as a"reconsideration" is irrelevant. Regulated industry petitioned for
reconsideration of the 2015 ELGs in 2017"pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 553(e)for a rulemaking to reconsider the[2015
ELGs]." The Administrative Procedure Act provides,"Each agency shall give an interested person the right to
petition for the issuance,amendment,or repeal of a rule."5 U.S.C. § 553(e). "[T]his provision simply establishes
the right to petition an agency to initiate a new rulemaking, including a rulemaking to amend or rescind a final rule
prescribed by an agency,that requires full notice and comment." NRDC v.Abraham,355 F.3d 179,203 (2d Cir.
2004)(emphasis original). The APA"makes no distinction . . . between initial agency action and subsequent agency
action undoing or revising that action." Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut.Auto. Ins. Co.,463 U.S.29,
42(1983). For this reason,the Fifth Circuit considered EPA's 2017"delay rule"a new rulemaking,subject to the
same standard of review as any other rulemaking. Clean Water Action v. EPA,936 F.3d 308,312-13 (5th Cir.
2019). A"reconsideration" is a new rulemaking,and it does not affect the finality of prior rulemakings.
Sw. Elec. Power Co.,920 F3d at 1016.
8 33 USC§ 1311(b).

Mr. A. Wheeler
• Page5of56
January 21, 2020
from existing sources. By requiring BAT, the Act forces implementation of increasingly
stringent pollution control methods."9 As the Supreme Court has explained, "a BAT must
achieve `reasonable further progress' towards the Act's goal of eliminating pollution[.]"10 By
tripling the amount of selenium pollution allowed by the ELG, allowing unnecessary bottom ash
wastewater discharges, allowing higher mercury discharges and unlimited selenium and
nitrate/nitrite discharges from a so-called "high flow" facility, and proposing to allow primitive,
poorly-performing unlined impoundments as BAT for certain facilities, EPA proposes to go
backward instead of forward. "EPA has contravened the plain language of the CWA, which
defines BAT as the technology that 'will result in reasonable further progress' toward pollutant
discharge elimination."11
III. FGD WASTEWATER
a. The BAT Standard Does Not Allow EPA to Use a "Voluntary Incentive
Program"to Avoid Requiring the Best Available Technology.
EPA has no authority to substitute a"voluntary incentive program" for the requirements
of the BAT standard. Where, as here, a technology such as membrane filtration is significantly
more effective at eliminating pollution and is affordable for the industry, the Clean Water Act
requires that EPA use it as the best available technology to set nationwide effluent limits for the
industry. There is no basis in the statute for EPA's proposal to allow polluters to decide whether
• or not to'comply with effluent limits based on membrane filtration.
Indeed, by doing so, EPA is purporting to let utilities themselves create new
subcategories within the industry: those that choose to comply with the less-protective Option 2
standard, and those that choose to comply with the more-protective VIP standard.This approach
is directly contrary to the Clean Water Act, which mandates that industry comply with effluent
limits set by EPA based on the single best-performing facility. To make compliance voluntary
undermines BAT and the entire structure of the Clean Water Act.
The current proposal is particularly problematic because EPA is saying that a better
technology is affordable for the industry, yet is refusing to mandate it. Moreover,EPA's current
proposal would delay compliance with the VIP limits significantly beyond the compliance date
for its mandatory BAT standard (2028 vs. 2025). In the 2015 rule, EPA did not provide an
additional extension but rather allowed facilities to comply by the end of the standard "rip later
than" period. The current proposal allows facilities to avoid complying with protective effluent
limits for eight more years, creating a significant harm to waterways and communities in the
meantime.
9 Sw. Elec. Power Co.,920 F.3d at 1004("The Act therefore mandates a system in which,as available pollution-
control technology advances, pollution-discharge limits will tighten.");see also, EPA v. Nat'l Crushed Stone Ass'n,
449 U.S.64,69(1980)(the Act"provides for increasingly stringent effluent limitations")(citing 33 U.S.C. §
1311(b)); Chem. Mfrs.Ass v. EPA,870 F.2d 177, 196(5th Cir. 1989),decision clarified on reh'g,885 F.2d 253
(5th Cir. 1989)(the Act requires compliance with"technology-based pollutant-effluent limitations that, in time,will
become more stringent")(citing 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(b), 1314(b)).
1°Sw. Elec. Power Co.,920 F.3d at 1006(quoting Nat'l Crushed Stone,449.U.S.at 75, 101 S.Ct.295).
Sw. Elec. Power Co.,920 F.3d at 1016.

Mr. A. Wheeler
Page 6 of 56
January 21, 2020
EPA cannot make compliance voluntary when, as explained below, membrane filtration
is the best available technology economically achievable.
b. Membrane filtration should be BAT.
EPA must set membrane filtration12 as BAT because, as EPA's rulemaking record
reflects, it is available, economically achievable,13 better performing, and more beneficial than
both high- and low-residence time bioreactors.
1. Membrane filtration is available, as contemplated by the CWA.
The Clean Water Act requires polluters to use the best available technology economically
achievable ("BAT") to control and ideally eliminate their discharge of pollutants.14 Congress
made the Act "technology-forcing": technology-based effluent limitations spur innovation in
wastewater treatment and control and ensure progress toward the Act's goal'of eliminating the
discharge of pollutants into navigable waters.1.5 "The BAT standard reflects the intention of
Congress to use the latest scientific research and technology in setting effluent limits, pushing
industries toward the goal of zero discharge as quickly as possible. 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."16
EPA is wrong to determine membrane technology cannot be BAT because it finds it is
not currently available nationwide. Courts long have recognized that"best available technology"
for existing sources need not be "widely in use" or even have "demonstrated"present availability
in the regulated industry. It is enough that the technology be available at some point in the
future. "[I]n establishing these [] standards, the Agency may [.,.] even assess technologies that
have not been applied as long as the record demonstrates that there is a reasonable basis to
believe that the technology will be available by [the deadline for compliance]."17
As the Fourth Circuit held: "Progress would be slowed if EPA were invariably limited to
•
treatment schemes already inforce at the plants which are the subject of the rulemaking.
Congress envisioned the scanning of broader horizons and asked EPA to survey related
12 For the purpose of these comments,the term"membrane filtration"means technology,including nanofiltration,
reverse osmosis,forward osmosis,and electrodialysis reversal(EDR)membranes,that is used to remove a broad
range of dissolved pollutants. As EPA explains,membrane filtration also includes ultrafiltration and microfiltration
membranes,which are primarily used for removing suspended solids. See 84 Fed.Reg.at 64,632. However,in
these comments,the term"membrane filtration,"which we recommend as BAT,refers only to technologies that can
remove dissolved pollutants.This approach matches how EPA uses the term"membrane filtration" in the
rulemaking. See 84 Fed.Reg.at 64,632.
13 EPA does not dispute membrane technology is economically achievable. See 84 Fed.Reg. at 64,634.
14 33 U.S.C. § 1311(b)(2)(A).
15 Kennecott v. EPA,780 F.2d 445,•448(4th Cir. 1985);see also Nat'!Crushed Stone,449 U.S.at 74.
16 Kennecott,780 F.2d at 448 (citing A Legislative History of the Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972,
93d Cong., 1st Sess. (Comm. Print 1973),at 798(hereinafter"Leg.Hist."))("`The distinction between best
practicable and best available is intended to reflect the need to press toward increasingly higher levels of control....'"
(quoting Leg.Hist.at 170)).
17 Tanners'Council ofAm., Inc. v. Train,540 F.2d 1188, 1195 (4th Cir. 1976);see also FMC Corp. v. Train,539
F.2d 973,983-84(4th Cir. 1976)(same).

•
•
Mr. A. Wheeler
Page7of56 •
January 21, 2020
industries and current research to find technologies which might be used to decrease the
discharge of pollutants."18 "[I]t is clear that Congress did not intend by that phrase ['available
technology'] to limit the technology to that which is widely in use."19
• As these cases set forth, EPA can rely on data from plants using the model technology
anywhere in the world. As EPA itself stated in the prior ELG rule: "BAT is intended to reflect
the highest performance in the industry, and it may reflect a higher level of performance than is
currently being achieved based on technology transferred from a different category or
subcategory, bench scale or pilot studies, or foreign plants."20 EPA can also rely on pilot plant
data. "As the House Report [on the Clean Water Act] stated:.`It will be sufficient, for the
purpose of setting the level of control under available technology, [...] that there is sufficient
information and data from a relevant pilot2plant or semi-work plant to provide the needed
economic and technical justi.fication[.]"'). 1 Additionally, courts have found a certain degree of
uncertainty about the technology to be acceptable because those technical questions can be
resolved by ongoing research, and EPA has a statutory obligation to revise ELGs in light of such
future research.22 Finally, EPA can rely on data from plants using the model technology in
entirely different industries, so long as the record demonstrates the technology is transferrable to
the regulated industry, and it can be reasonably predicted that the technology would be capable
of meeting the effluent standards.23 .
Membrane filtration is obviously available, as shown by EPA's selection of the
technology for the Voluntary.Incentives Program ("VIP"). Moreover, EPA's record
demonstrates membrane technology is in use at three plants in China, and it has been piloted by
at least seven plants in the United States, including at Duke Energy's Belews Creek site in North
Carolina.24 The technology is also in use in other industries. EPA's site visit notes reflect:
"According to [Duke Energy], the paste encapsulation technology is well-proven over the past
•
18 Kennecott,780 F.2d at 453(citing Leg:Hist.at 170).
19 See Am. Iron&Steel Inst. v. EPA,526 F.2d 1027, 1058(3d Cir. 1975),amended, 560 F.2d 589(3d Cir. 1977);see
also id. at 1061 (extending its conclusions about BAT for new sources to existing sources).
20 80 Fed.Reg.67,843 (citing Am. Paper Inst. v. Train,543 F.2d 328,353 (D.C.Cir. 1976);Am. Frozen Food Inst.
v. Train,539 F.2d 107, 132(D.C.Cir. 1976))).Accord Kennecott,780 F.2d at 453 (relying on data from plants in
Japan and Sweden).
21 See Am. Iron&Steel Inst.,526 F.2d at 1058("[S]ince we have concluded that reliance on pilot plant technology
was proper in establishing limitations for new sources, it should also be proper in establishing[BAT] limitations for
existing sources.")
22 See NRDC v. EPA, 863 F.2d 1420, 1433 (9th Cir. 1988)(despite EPA's asserted lack of"complete information"
on availability of technology,declaring BAT limitation invalid because"Congress has demonstrated its intent to
require industry to do as much as possible to control toxic discharges")(citing 33 U.S.C. § 1311(b)(2)(A)(i));
Tanners'Council,540 F.2d at 1195-96("There are several technical questions which need to be resolved prior to
initiation of full-scale nitrification-denitrification facilities on a tannery waste.However,it is deemed that such
questions can be answered by on-going research in other areas and by investigations initiated prior to[the
compliance deadline].");see also Sw. Elec.Power Co.,920 F.3d at 1018-19(rejecting EPA's BAT rationale that it
lacked data).
23 See Kennecott,780 F.2d at 453 ("The model technology may exist at a plant not within the primary base metals
industry. Congress contemplated that EPA might use technology from other industries to establish the Best
Available Technology."); Tanners'Council, 540 F.2d at 1192.
24 See 84 Fed. Reg. at 64,632. •

•
Mr. A. Wheeler
Page 8 of 56
January 21, 2020
several decades in the mining industry for tailings deposition and underground backfill."25 Not
only is membrane filtration available, but it can be implemented sooner than 2028. EPA's record
shows a membrane filtration system can be implemented within anywhere between 12 months
and 28 months.26 Accordingly, membrane technology is "available," as Courts have interpreted
the term to mean under the Clean Water Act and should be used as BAT.
2. Membrane filtration is demonstrably superior.to low-residence time biological
treatment.
Courts have held that a technology that is "demonstrably inferior to other available
technologies" cannot be considered BAT.27 "[T]he Supreme Court has explained that a BAT
must achieve `reasonable further progress' towards the Act's goal of eliminating pollution."28
As EPA's record shows, membrane filtration is more effective at controlling pollution
than low residence time biological treatment.29 In addition, it is the only technology that can
control bromide, aside from a zero liquid discharge system, like the vapor compressor evaporator
system at Duke Energy's Mayo facility in North Carolina.30 It is particularly compelling and
urgent for EPA to adopt as BAT the technology that controls bromide, because, as set out below
in the section on Bromides, bromide is an FGD pollutant that has significant consequences for
public water supplies, local government expenditures, and public health. In North Carolina, even
sites with high residence time biological treatment have had difficulty controlling selenium due
to variability caused by fuel changes.31 To address selenium spikes, Duke Energy added
ultrafiltration to its treatment systems at Allen and Belews Creek.
Not only is membrane filtration effective at controlling pollution and is therefore a better
wastewater treatment system, but the record demonstrates it also has more benefits than low
residence time biological treatment. Overall, EPA estimates Option 4, using membrane filtration
as BAT, would realize $105.9 million in annualized benefits at three percent discount rate,
whereas EPA's preferred Option 2, using low-residence time biological treatment, would achieve
$19.6 million—less than one-fifth the benefits of Option 4. The differences in benefits included
25 EPA,Notes from Site Visit to Duke Energy's Belews Creek Steam Station on December 13,2017, Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819-7337("Belews Creek Site Visit Notes").
26 See ERG,FGD and Bottom Ash Implementation Timing—DCN SE08480,at 3,Docket ID No.EPA-HQ-OW-
2009-0819-8191 (Oct. 17,2019);Email from Greg Johnson,New Logic Research,to Phillip Flanders,Ronald
Jordan,and Elizabeth Gentile, Docket ID No.EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819-8179(June 22,2019);KLeeNwater,
Budgetary Proposal—Wastewater Treatment&Water Reuse Systems—DCN SE07065A18,at 13,Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819-7617(Nov. 16,2017);ERG,Technologies for the Treatment of Flue Gas Desulfurization
Wastewater—DCN SE07367,at M-2,Docket ID No.EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819-8155 (Oct.22,2019).
27 See Sw. Elec. Power Co.,920 F,3d at 1019(rejecting surface impoundments as BAT).
28 Id. at 1006(citing Nat'l Crushed Stone,449 U.S. at 75).
29 See, e.g., 84 Fed. Reg. at 64631 (ultrafilters downstream of biological filters cannot remove the dissolved metals
and inorganics(e.g. nutrients,bromides,etc.)that nanofiltration or reverse osmosis can).
3o Id.
31 Belews Site Visit Notes,supra n.26;EPA,Variability in Flue Gas Desulfurization Wastewater:Monitoring and
Response,Docket ID No.EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819-6033 (Sept. 30,2015)("EPA FGD Variability Memo");Duke
Energy, Summary of the Effects of Fuel on the Performance of the FGD Wastewater Treatment System at Allen and
Belews Creek Steam Stations, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819-6033,DCN SE05846A1 (May 22,2015)
("Duke Energy FGD Variability Memo").

Mr. A. Wheeler
Page9of56
January 21, 2020
in EPA's analysis are significant. For example, membrane filtration uses much less water.
EPA's preferred Option 2 would use 21 million more gallons of water per year, whereas Option
4 would save 9 million gallons per year over the baseline—creating a 30 million gallon
difference between the two options.32 EPA admits Option 2 is expected to increase water
withdrawal from aquifers, whereas membrane filtration would not.33 Membrane filtration would
also achieve nearly double the surface water quality benefits, produce a quarter of the air.
emissions, and significantly reduce the need for dredging maintenance for both navigable rivers
and reservoirs.34
Importantly, the human health benefits are also significantly greater under Option 4, even
considering that in its health costs analysis, EPA inappropriately credits Option 2 with the
benefits of bromide reductions that it claims will be achieved by membrane filtration, the basis
for the Voluntary Incentives Program. This is a serious mistake—Option 2, for which BAT is
chemical precipitation followed by low-residence time biological treatment and ultrafiltration,
does not include the membrane filtration that is responsible for these health benefits. Even with
• EPA's faulty assumptions that inflate the health benefits for Option 2, Option 4 would achieve
more than twice the human health benefits of Option 2.35 .
EPA claims these health benefits will result under the Option 2 scenario because plants
will opt-in to the Voluntary Incentives Program. But there is no basis for this assumption; on the
contrary, EPA appears to be attempting to use the benefits of a more protective technology—the
membrane filtration of the VIP option—to enhance its evaluation of a less-protective approach,
Option 2. EPA claims, for example, that Santee Cooper's Cross and Winyah plants would be
among those that would adopt the VIP approach—but when we asked, Santee Cooper reported
that it has made no such decision and that it has never indicated to EPA (or otherwise) that it was
planning to adopt this technology.36 SCE&G/Dominion likewise reported that it has not decided
to adopt this technology for its South Carolina facilities listed on EPA's table.37
In other words, EPA's analysis is based on pure speculation. Its proposed approach,
Option 2, must be evaluated based on the pollution controls Option 2 actually requires—not on
the possibility that utilities might voluntarily adopt a more protective approach that is not
actually required by EPA's proposed rule.
• . Instead of looking to the overall benefits of membrane filtration over low-residence time
biological treatment, EPA wrongly focuses narrowly on cost to industry, including the
opportunity cost of using fly,ash to dispose of brine resulting from the membrane filtration
process rather than selling it for use in concrete. EPA attempts to cloak this industry concern as
an unacceptable non-water quality environmental impact, claiming membrane filtration could
"discourage more valuable forms of beneficial reuse of[fly ash]" and "potentially caus[e] more
32 See 84 Fed. Reg.at 64,652-53.
33 See Fed. Reg. at 64,659.
34 See 84 Fed. Reg.at 64,658-59.
35 See 84 Fed.Reg.at 64,656.
36 Telephone conversation with Vice President for Environmental and Water Systems(Jan. 14,2020).
37 Telephone conversation with Vice President for Fossil and Hydro Operations(Dec. 19,2019).

Mr. A. Wheeler
Page 10 of 56
January 21, 2020
[fly ash] to be incorporated in wastes being disposed."38 However, this concern is completely
speculative. As the record shows, there are other methods of disposing of brine that do not
require fly ash. Additionally, only fifty percent of fly ash is currently sold for beneficial use;
using fly ash to encapsulate brine will not necessarily reduce the amount of fly ash sold for
beneficial use because there is plenty of fly ash to spare.39 Removing dissolved metals and
organics with membrane filtration and disposing of the resulting brine with fly ash in a dry, lined
landfill, away from surface water and out of groundwater, benefits the environment far more than
discharging those pollutants directly into our waterways, as EPA proposes to do under Option 2.
The benefits of membrane filtration outlined above far outweigh EPA's narrow so-called
environmental impact—which is really an industry concern about cost—of encapsulating fly ash.
c. At the very least, EPA must retain high residence time biological treatment as
BAT—it cannot reverse course and set a lesser technology as BAT.
At the very least, EPA must retain chemical precipitation plus high residence time
biological treatment as BAT. As the Fifth Circuit has held,"BAT limitations must be based on
the performance of the single-best performing plant in an industrial field."40 Duke Energy has
demonstrated that using high-residence time biological treatment as the technological basis for
pollution limits is both available and economically achievable. In North Carolina, Duke Energy
has been operating high residence time bioreactors—General Electric's ABMet system—at
Belews Creek, Allen, and Roxboro for more than a decade. The technology was available then,
and it is available now. GE is a large international company with the scale and resources to
provide the technology and support needed to achieve ELG compliance. Contractors have
significant experience deploying the ABMet system in North Carolina and could deploy it more
widely in North Carolina and across the Southeast.
The argument that it would be "tilting at windmills"to set BAT based on high-residence
time rather than low-residence time is both factually and legally wrong. Factually, the
differences EPA proposes in selenium limits, both monthly and daily, are not de minimis—EPA
proposes to triple the amount of pollution allowed by the 2015 Rule. .
It is particularly important to have controls truly based on the best available technology
given the well-established harms of selenium contamination. Selenium is toxic to fish, and it can
be toxic to humans. Scientific studies on human health effects have shown low levels of
environmental exposure can cause severe cardiomyopathy, and high exposures can have adverse
effects on the endocrine system, particularly the thyroid, and increase the risk of type 2 diabetes,
some types of cancers such as melanoma and lymphoid cancers, and nervous system •
38 84 Fed.Reg.at 64,633.
39 See id.
40 Sw. Elec. Power Co.,920 F.3d at 1006; see also Kennecott,780 F.2d at 448("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.")
(citing A Legislative History of the Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972,93d Cong., 1st Sess.(Comm.
Print 1973),at 798).

•
•
Mr. A. Wheeler
Page 11 of 56
•
January 21, 2020 •
disturbances.41 Especially because selenium is known to have a toxic effect on fish and human
health at low levels, EPA must retain the more protective limits set forth in the 2015 Rule:
Selenium contamination has been an issue across the Southeast. In past decades in North
Carolina, selenium pollution from the Belews Creek site has devastated the fish population in
Belews Lake, eliminating 95 percent of fish species present in Belews Lake. In 2007, EPA
classified Belews Lake a"proven ecological damage case" due to selenium poisoning from
leaking coal ash pits at the Belews Creek plant.42 Selenium bioaccumulates and persists in the
environment, and birds that feed in Belews Lake continue to experience adverse effects from
selenium poisoning. According to Duke Energy's own studies, selenium concentrations in fish
tissue continue to be two to three times higher downstream of the Belews Creek coal ash site,
compared to upstream concentrations.43
•
Also in North Carolina around the Cliffside plant, researchers at Appalachian State
University have detected high levels of heavy metals, including selenium, in the tissue of fish
caught near the plant in the Broad River.44 They studied fish caught upstream, downstream, and
• at the pipe where Duke Energy dumps polluted water into the river. The researchers discovered
the fish downstream have accumulated highly elevated levels of heavy metals, including arsenic,
lead, selenium, and zinc. At a public meeting held by NC DEQ in January 2019, the lead
researcher, Dr. Shea Tuberty, implored DEQ to consider these findings in its coal ash pond
closure determinations. Dr. Tuberty mentioned selenium as an example. Upstream, the level of
selenium accumulated in the fish was 2 parts per million (ppm, or 2mg/kg dry body weight), but
at the weir dam next to the ash ponds, it was higher, ranging from 1-5 ppm. Downstream of a
drainage pipe from the ash pond, the fish tissue accumulation was higher still: 10 ppm of
selenium, which he warned is a level of high concern. At that level of contamination, he said,
EPA recommends people should limit consumption of those fish to four meals per month to
prevent non-cancer health effects.45 As Dr. Tuberty said, the truth about whether the water is
contaminated is in the animals we eat. The fish tissue study indicates that discharge at Cliffside,
which includes FGD wastewater, is polluting the water. .
Selenium pollution is concerning for many reasons, not the least of which is
environmental justice. In 2016, the United States Commission on Civil Rights found the
percentage of minorities and low income individuals living near coal ash sites is
•
41 See, e.g., Marco Vinceti,et al,Health risk assessment of environmental selenium: Emerging evidence and
challenges(Review), 15 MOLECULAR MED.REP.3323,3324(2017),available at
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5428396/pdf/mmr-15-05-3323.pdf(Attachment 2).
42 Excerpt of EPA Office of Solid Waste,Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments at 25(July 9,2007)
(Attachment 3).
3 Excerpt of Duke Energy,Belews Creek Steam Station,2013 Dan River Summary at 2-3 (Dec.2014)(Attachment
4).
44 See Alexandra Gibbs,et al, Heavy Metal Accumulation in Fish of the Broad River Near the Rogers Energy
Complex Coal Ash Basins(Attachment 5).
45 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish
•
Advisories,Vol.2(Nov.2000),available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-
06/documents/volume2.pdf(Attachment 6).

Mr. A. Wheeler
Page 12 of 56
January 21, 2020
"disproportionately high," when compared with national averages.46 It further found that "racial
minorities and low income communities are disproportionately affected by the siting of waste
disposal facilities and often lack political and financial clout to properly bargain with polluters
when fighting a decision or seeking redress."47 In North Carolina, the Belews Creek site.is in
Walnut Cove, a community that is 74 percent people of color. The report published by the
United States Commission on Civil Rights documents the serious environmental justice concerns
in this community, including selenium pollution from the plant that killed 19 of 20 fish species in
Belews Lake.48 The community around Duke Energy's North Carolina Cliffside/Rogers plant is
also an environmental justice community. Pollution at the Cliffside site disproportionately
burdens lower-income families. Selenium contamination jeopardizes the fish in the Broad River
that some subsistence fishermen may rely upon to feed their families. Please see the attached
letter from the Southern Environmental Law Center and partnering community groups to the NC
DEQ Environmental Justice and Equity Board, dated January 30, 2019, for more information on
environmental justice concerns related to coal ash sites in North Carolina.49
EPA attempts to justify tripling selenium limits because low-residence time systems
supposedly experience "increased short-term variability" over high-residence time systems.5°
However, the end result of this excuse is to allow sharply increased pollution, not just in
occasional spikes but day after day, month after month. EPA may hope that these systems
perform comparably to high-residence time bioreactors in the long term, but the proposed limits
would allow power plants to discharge pollution at levels triple the 2015 Rule not just
occasionally but indefinitely. EPA's proposal to drastically relax not just daily maximum limits
but monthly averages indicates that low-residence time systems are not just less consistent than
high-residence time systems—they are "demonstrably inferior."
This justification also fails because utilities must account for variability by improving
processes and operations, not relying on EPA to weaken limits. High-residence time systems
also experience variability, which EPA foresaw and addressed in its 2015 rulemaking. In the
2015 Rule, EPA set the daily maximum at 23 micrograms per liter and the monthly average at 12
micrograms per liter. These limits were based on "long-term average effluent values and.
variability factors that account for variation in performance at well-operated facilities that
employ the technologies that constitute the bases for control."51. Now, EPA is proposing to more
than triple the daily maximum to 76 micrograms per liter, and nearly triple the monthly average
to 31 micrograms per liter.
In the 2015 rulemaking, EPA acknowledged that"some dischargers, including those that
are operating [BAT], may need to improve their treatment system operations in order to
46 U.S.Commission on Civil Rights,Environmental Justice: Examining the Environmental Protection Agency's
Compliance and Enforcement of Title VI and Executive Order 12,898 at 4(Sept.2016),available at
https://www.usccr.gov/pubs/2016/Statutory_Enforcement_Report2016.pdf(the"Commission Report")(Attachment
7).
41
Id. at 4,6. •
48 Id. at 194.
49 Letter from Southern Environmental Law Center to NC DEQ Environmental Justice and Equity Board,'Jan.30,
2019(Attachment 8)("SELC EJ Letter").
5°84 Fed. Reg.at 64,632.
5I 2015 Rule at 67,869.

Mr. A. Wheeler
Page 13 of 56
January 21, 2020
consistently meet the effluent limitations and standards. This is.consistent with the CWA, which
requires that discharge limitations and standards reflect [BAT] or the best available demonstrated
control technology." 2 As EPA stated: "such exceedances [due to variability] can be controlled
by diligent process and wastewater treatment system operational practices" or by "upgrad[ing].or
replac[ing] existing treatment systems to ensure that the treatment system is designed to achieve
performance that targets the effluent concentrations at the long-term average."53
At its Belews Creek and Allen sites, Duke Energy has seen variability in selenium.
reductions due to fuel changes,54 and it addressed this issue—as the Clean Water Act requires
and EPA foresaw—by improving its high residence time treatment systems to include
ultrafiltration in order to "to meet the ELG effluent guidelines."55
There is no reason to set selenium limits three times higher—as EPA now proposes to
do—because of variability. Like Duke Energy has done in North Carolina, utilities must deal
with variability by making improvements to ensure they can consistently meet the limitations,
rather than asking regulators to triple the amount of pollution allowed. Weakening limits
eliminates the incentive to improve performance. And if low-residence time units experience
such dramatic, persistent variability that they pollute more even when performing optimally, then
that should further disqualify the technology as BAT. EPA must not let the tail wag the dog by
tripling pollution limits.
Legally, EPA is wrong to argue that it may set BAT based on the conclusory assumption
that additional pollution reductions would be "de minimis." As explained in Part II above,
EPA's argument is contrary to the language in the Clean Water Act defining BAT, which
requires"best available technology economically achievable for such category or class, which
will result in reasonable further progress toward the national goal of eliminating the
discharge of all pollutants[.]"56 "[T]he Administrator [of EPA] must `require industry,
regardless of a discharge's effect on water quality, to employ defined levels of technology to
meet effluent limitations."'57.
In support of its argument EPA cites American Petroleum Institute v. EPA, which says, in
dicta, that "EPA would disserve its mandate were it to tilt at windmills by imposing BAT
52 2015 Rule at 67,870.
53 2015 Rule at 67,870.
sa EPA FGD Variability Memo;Duke Energy FGD Variability Memo.
"Duke Energy Carolinas Response to North Carolina Public Staff Data Request, Data Request No.NCPS.42,
Docket No.E-7, Sub 1214(Oct.25,2019)(Attachment 9);see also Direct Testimony of Steve Immel for Duke
Energy Carolinas,LLC,North Carolina Utilities Commission,Docket No.E-7,Sub 1214,6(Sept.30,2019),
available at https://starwl.ncuc.net/NCUC/ViewFile.aspx?Id=9ea94bc4-c977-4655-8540-e5c19c6c5123(Attachment
10)("[The Company has made significant investments within its coal fleet to meet environmental regulations to
allow for the continued operation of active plants, including the ... Effluent Limitations Guidelines("ELG"),
totaling approximately$689 million, largely driven by dry bottom ash conversions, wastewater treatment
enhancements,and lined retention basins projects.").
5633 U.S.C. 1311(b)(2)(A)(emphasis added).
6'Sw. Elec. Power Co.,920 F.3d at 1005 (quoting Am. Petroleum Inst. v. EPA,661 F.2d 340,344(5th Cir: 1981));
see also Tex. Oil& Gas, 161 F.3d at 927(ELGs are"technology-based rather than harm-based"insofar as they
"reflect the capabilities of available pollution control technologies to prevent or limit different discharges rather than
the impact that those discharges have on the waters").

• Mr. A. Wheeler
Page 14 of 56 •
January 21, 2020
limitations which removed de minimis amounts of polluting agents from our nation's waters,
while imposing possibly disabling costs upon the regulated industry."58 This quote from.
American Petroleum Institute is factually inapposite here because, as explained above, the
reductions are not de minimis. The "de minimis" dicta in American Petroleum is not the correct
legal standard, but in any event, it still would not justify basing FGD limits on a technology less
than BAT because the 2015 Rule in no way represents "the point of regulation ad absurdum"
described by the Fifth Circuit: as explained above, the pollution reductions achieved by the 2015
Rule are not"miniscule" and•the cost of compliance would not be "disabling" upon the regulated
industry.59 Indeed, at its Belews Creek, Allen, Roxboro, and Marshall sites, Duke Energy has
installed and is operating new technology to control pollution without incurring "disabling
costs."6o
EPA attempts to further justify tripling selenium limits by arguing that low-residence
time systems are less expensive, take up less space, and require fewer process changes than high-
residence time systems. However this justification fails too because the Clean Water Act does
not require polluters to adopt any one specific treatment technology—it simply requires polluters
to meet effluent limitations, which are set based on best available technology.
These effluent limitations are being met now—and indeed, even low-residence time
systems are capable of meeting the existing limits. At North Carolina's Marshall site, Duke
Energy determined it could meet the limits that were based on high-residence time biological
treatment by installing a low-residence time biological treatment system—Frontier's SeHAWK
technology. In April 2018,NC DEQ issued a permit including limits based on the 2015 ELGs
(for selenium—a daily maximum of 23 micrograms per liter, and monthly average of 12
micrograms per liter), and Duke Energy did not.challenge the permit.61 The ability of this
system to meet the existing limits further undermines EPA's purported justification for
weakening them.
d. FGD limits must be implemented without further delay.
EPA should not delay ELG compliance deadlines until 2025. There is no reason to drag
out implementation of the rule because utilities already have been preparing to comply with the
rule since 2015. In fact, some sites already have installed treatment technologies that meet the
2015 requirements and many others have evaluated treatment options and begun planning and
implementation. For example:
'Am. Petroleum Inst. v. E.P.A.,787 F.2d 965 (5th Cir. 1986).
59 Id. at 972-973. .
6o Moreover, if an individual plant faced truly faced"disabling costs,"the Clean Water Act provides a remedy for
permit applicants in"unique permitting situations,"and allows variances under certain circumstances, including
"economic capability of the applicant." See 33 USC § 1311;40 CFR§124.62(b)(1); EPA,NPDES Permit Writers'
• Manual,Chapter 10,available at https://www3.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/chapt_10.pdf(Attachment 11).
61 NC DEQ,NPDES Permit for Marshall Steam Station,No.NC0004987,Condition A(7),Effluent Limitations and
Monitoring Requirements(Internal Outfall 004)(May 1,2018),available at
https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Coal%20Ash/NPDES%20Permitting%202015/Marshall%20W W%204987-
final%20major%20mod-2018.pdf(Attachment 12)("Marshall Permit").

Mr. A. Wheeler
Page 15 of 56
January 21, 2020
•
• In North Carolina, Duke Energy successfully deployed a zero liquid discharge
system at its Mayo Plant,and it has been operating biological treatment systems at
its Belews Creek, Roxboro, Allen, and Marshall sites.
• In Tennessee, the Gallatin site "is a dry FGD operation and does not discharge
• •
FGD wastewater."62
•
• In South Carolina, Dominion Energy South Carolina (formerly SCE&G? has.
reportedly already achieved compliance with the Rule at Cope Station.6 Cope
Station uses dry ash handling and has a dry scrubber system and thus produces no
fly ash, bottom ash or FGD wastewater discharges.64 And as early as 2016,
Dominion began evaluating compliance pathways for the 2015 Rule's FGD
wastewater requirements for its Wateree Plant and Williams Station.65
• In Virginia,the compliance date for development of a biological treatment
component at its Chesterfield site in accordance with the ELG Rule is set for
March 29, 2022.66 Virginia DEQ established that deadline-more than 20
months ahead of the 2015 Rule's outer deadline—based on Dominion's own
plans, designs, and schedules.67 Although commenters argued compliance could
be achieved even sooner, even Dominion's schedule establishes the plain fact that
compliance will be readily achieved well in advance of the outer deadline.68
62 Tenn. Dep't of Environment&Conservation,Modified NPDES Permit TN0005428,R-9(Oct. 12,2018),.
available at http://environment-
online.tn.gov:8080/pls/enf reports/f?p=9034:34308:::NO:RIR:IREQ_PERMIT_NUMBER,IREQ_FILE_TYPE:TN
0005428,Permit(Attachment 13).
63 Response of SCE&G to S.C. Coastal Conservation League and Southern Alliance for Clean Energy's First Data
Request,.South Carolina Public Service Commission,Dkt. 2017-9-E,Resp. 2h at p. 4(Apr. 11,2016)
("Cope Station is already compliant with the EPA's effluent limitation guidelines.")(Attachment 14).
64 See SCE&G 2019 Integrated Resource Plan,South Carolina Public Service Commission, Dkt.No.2019-9-E,at
25,27(Feb. 8,2019),available at https://dms.psc.sc.gov/Attachments/Matter/9f865fe4-f830-4ccd-afub-
9ee5bcb25c10(Attachment 15).
65 Wateree and William ELG Compliance Strategy Technology Screening Workshop,Meeting Summary,prepared •
by ch2m(Oct.5,2016)(Attachment 16).
66 Letter from Michael P.Murphy,Virginia Department of Environmental Quality,to Pamela F.Faggert,Vice
President and Chief Environmental Officer,Dominion Electric and Power Company,RE: VPDES Permit No.
VA0004146,Dominion Chesterfield Power Station(Sept. 23,2016)(enclosing VPDES permit),
available at
http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Portals/0/DEQ/Water/PollutionDischargeElimination/Coal_Ash/ChesterfieldNA00041
46FinalPermit.pdf?ver=2016-10-31-163846-840(Attachment 17).
67 Virginia Department of Environmental Quality,VPDES Permit Fact Sheet,Dominion Chesterfield Power Station,
at 21 (Sept.23,2016),available at
http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Portals/0/DEQ/W ater/PollutionDischargeEl imination/Coal_Ash/Chesterfield/VA00041
46FinalFactSheet.pdf?ver=2016-10-31-163847-060(Attachment 18).
68 Virginia Department of Environmental Quality,Response to Comments,VPDES Permit No.VA0004146, '
Dominion Chesterfield Power Station,at 2-3 (Aug.23,2016),available at
http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Portals/0/DEQ/Water/PollutionDischargeElimination/Coal_Ash/Chesterfield/Responset
oPublicComments08.19.16.pdf(Attachment 19).

•
Mr. A. Wheeler
Page 16 of 56
January 21, 2020
Moreover, multiple utilities have made public statements that they will be able to comply
with the more stringent requirements of the 2015 Rule on time. For example, Duke Energy told
investors the company is "well-positioned to meet the majority of the [ELG Rule's]
requirements."69 Georgia Power Company, in a filing accompanying its 2019 Integrated
Resource Plan, told regulators: "Based on current requirements [for FGD wastewater] in the rule,
the Company has developed a design, procurement, construction, and commissioning schedule
that provides a strategy to be in-compliance by the latest applicability date of December 31,
2023."70 In 2016, Georgia Power expressed confidence in its ability to meet ELG deadlines at •
Plant Hammond: "Georgia Power and Plant Hammond have consistently met or exceeded all
environmental regulations, and Plant Hammond's compliance With the Effluent Limitation
Guidelines is no exception."71
Indeed, Georgia Power should be well-situated to meet the 2023 outer deadline for FGD
wastewater given it began evaluating treatment options in 2012 at the Water Research Center at
its Plant Bowen. Georgia Power's parent company, the Southern Company has spent the good
part of a decade and millions of dollars developing and evaluating treatment methods at the
Water Research Center, including biological treatment.72 Georgia Power has been considering a
range of treatment technologies, including zero liquid discharge and physical-chemical treatment
followed by General Electric's ABMet technology.73 In a 2018 permit renewal application for
Plant Scherer, Georgia Power estimated that "[a] single FGDW treatment system with physical,
chemical, and biological treatment will take, on average, four years to comrlete detailed design
engineering,procurement of equipment and materials, and construction."7 Four years from
2018 would mean that the company estimated it could complete construction of a FGD treatment
system for Plant Scherer by 2022.
Standing firm on existing timeframes is-especially important because experience in the
Southeast shows that utilities have consistently taken advantage.of maximum timeframes in the
rule and agencies have often gone along with utilities' requests. Utilities will ask for the
maximum timeframes—currently December 31, 2023—whether they need it or not. For
example:
•
• In South Carolina, Dominion Energy South Carolina (then SCE&G) requested
that SC DHEC incorporate the outer compliance.deadline of December 3.1, 2023
•
69 Duke Energy Corporation,U.S. Securities&Exchange Comm'n Form 10-K,Comm'n file number 1-32853,at 63,
available at https://www.duke-energy.com/_/media/pdfs/our-company/investors/de-annual-
reports/2017/2017annualreport.pdf?la=en(for fiscal year ending Dec.31,2017)(Attachment 20).
70 Georgia Power Company,2019 rntegrated Resource Plan Doc. Filing#175473,Environmental Compliance
Strategy Update for 2019 filed before the Georgia Public Service Commission Jan.31,2019("GPC ECS 2019"),at
66,available at https://psc.ga.gov/search%facts-document/?documentId=175473 (PD 2019 IRP,PD Vol 2,6 PD
ECS)(Attachment 21). .
71 Georgia Power Company's Plant Hammond Effluent Limitation Guidelines Rule Applicability Timing-.NPDES
Permit Application 2016,at 5(Attachment 22).
72 Id. at 1,3. •
• 73 Plant Scherer Effluent Limitations Guidelines Rule Applicability Timing, NPDES Permit Application 2018 at p. 5
("Scherer ELG Timing Memo")(Attachment 23)(The WRC also evaluated technologies from Frontier Water
Systems,Inotec,Evoqua,and Liberty Hydro,and"an in-house Biofilm technology.").
74 See id. (emphasis added).

•
•
Mr. A. Wheeler
Page 17 of 56
January 21, 2020
•
into its NPDES permit for Williams Station;the permit as issued required the
plant to either comply with the rule by November 1., 2018 or, if they submitted a
study outlining treatment options and compliance schedules, by December 31,,
2023.75 In February 2018, after EPA postponed the November 1, 2.0I8 deadline
under the rule until November 1,2020, the utility requested a modification to its •
permit to incorporate the later date.76
•
• The Alabama permitting authority is finally issuing a new permit for Alabama
Power's Gaston facility eight years after the last permit expired.77 However, the
utility requested and the agency acquiesced to an extended ELG compliance
deadline of December 31, 2023.78 Alabama Power has been discharging FGD
wastewater for years without limit. There is no reason for the permit to delay
compliance with the ELGs to the latest possible date.
• In February 2017, EPD published notice of an updated draft NPDES permit for
Georgia Power's Plant Hammond, a 1950s-era coal plant that sits on the Coosa.
River several miles upstream of the Georgia-Alabama border. Although
Hammond has since been decommissioned, the draft NPDES permit sought to
grant Georgia Power the maximum time allowable to achieve compliance with the
ELG Rule (i.e. until December 31, 2023), even though the utility did not
substantiate its need for so much time.
• Even at the Allen plant in NorthCarolina, which has been operating a FGD high-
residence time biological treatment system for years, Duke Energy asked NC
DEQ to modify the permit to push the ELG compliance date back, for no reason
other than EPA's 2017 rulemaking delayed the compliance timeframe.79 This is
not the first time Duke Energy pressed for a later deadline at Allen based on the
timeframes in the rule—when the permit was initially being issued in 2018, the
draft permit included a compliance date of December 31, 2023, which NC DEQ
revised to November 1, 2021 after receiving public comment on this issue.80 This
issue has also come up at other Duke Energy sites in North Carolina.81
75 South Carolina Generating Company A.M. Williams Station NPDES Permit No.SC0003883,Part V.9,at 37
(Nov. 16,2016)(Attachment 24). •
6 South Carolina Dept.of Health and Envtl.Control,Public Notice No. 18-011-M(Feb.22,2018),
https://www.scdhec.gov/sites/default/files/docs/Docs/Environment/PublicNotice/5878.pdf(Attachment 25).
77 Alabama Department of Environmental Management,Revised Draft Permit,NPDES Permit Number AL0003140
(Dec.6,2019),available at http://www.adem.state.al.us/newsEvents/notices/dec19/npdes/12apc-gaston.pdf
(excerpted at Attachment 26)("Gaston Draft Permit").
78 id
79 Letter from the Southern Environmental Law Center to N.C. Department of Environmental Quality,Dec. 17,2019
(Attachment 27);Letter from Duke Energy to NC Department of Environmental Quality,Oct.9,2019,available at
https://edocs.deq.nc.gov/WaterResources/DocView.aspx?id=1003721&dbid=0&repo=WaterResources(Attachment
28). . .
8°Compare DEQ,Draft Permit,Condition A(8),available at
https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Water%20Qua1ity/NPDES%20Coal%20Ash/2014%20Duke%20Energy%20Renewals%o2
Oand%20Modifications/Allen%20Draft%20WW%20497.9%20Permit%20041618.pdf(Attachment 29),with DEQ,
• Final Permit, .

Mr. A. Wheeler
Page 18.of 56
January 21, 2020
Permitting delays only compound the harms that would come from rolling back this
provision of the rule because the permits are slow to implement the new protections. In the
Southeast, agencies routinely issue permit renewals years beyond the five-year cycle established
in the Clean Water Act, further delaying protections. For example:
• In Alabama,NPDES wastewater permits have expired for five plants—some,.
have been expired for a decade, and all were expired before the 2015 Rule was
published. Just last month, Alabama Department of Environmental Management
issued a draft permit for the Gaston site, which has a permit that expired in 2012
and has been administratively continued for eight years.82
• In Georgia, all permits for Georgia Power's active coal-fired units at Plants
Bowen, Scherer, and Wansley are expired. All of these coal plants have FGD
technology that create FGD wastewater. Yet all of them continue to operate
under NPDES permits issued before the scrubbers were installed and began
generating waste. Thus, the NPDES permits do not address—or even
contemplate—the discharge of FGD wastewater and set no limits on such
discharges.83 The permits instead only require compliance with the 1982 ELGs.
• In South Carolina, three of five permits have expired—the permit for the Cross
site expired in 2006, nearly fifteen years ago. Permit renewals for these three
South Carolina sites have been pending with the permitting agency for eight to ten
years.84
• In Virginia, the wastewater permit for the Chesterfield Power Station expired in
2009 and was administratively continued for seven years, until a new permit was
issued in 2016.
•
Condition A(8)(July 13,2018),available at
https://fi les.nc.gov/ncdeq/W ater%20Quality/NPDES%20Coal%20Ash/2014%20Duke%20Energy%20Renewals%2
0and%20Modifications/Allen/Allen-4979-final-permit-signed-2018.pdf(Attachment 30); letter from Southern
Environmental Law Center to NC DEQ(May 14,2018)(Attachment 31).
8' For example,Duke Energy's Marshall site. Compare DEQ,Draft Permit,Condition A(7),available at
https://fi les.nc.gov/ncdeq/Water%20Quality/NPDES%20Coal%20Ash/Marshall%20Draft%20Permit%20010918.pd
f,(Attachment 32),with Marshall Permit,Condition A(7)(Attachment 12); letter from Southern Environmental Law
Center to NC DEQ(Feb. 13,2018)(Attachment 33).
82 Gaston Draft Permit, Attachment 26.
83 See Georgia Power 2016 Integrated Resource Plan, Environmental Compliance Strategy, at p. 30,Table 2.10-1
(Jan.2016)(listing installation dates for FGD technology at Georgia Power's coal-fired power plants)(Attachment
34).
84 See Letter from South Carolina Environmental Law Project to SC DHEC, Sept.23,2019(Attachment 35).

Mr. A. Wheeler
Page 19 of 56
January 21, 2020
State Facility NPDES Permit Expiration
No. Date
Alabama Alabama Power— Barry AL0002879 10/31/2013
Alabama Alabama Power—Gaston AL0003140 06/30/2012
Alabama Alabama Power—Gorgas AL00.02909 09/05/2012
Alabama Alabama Power—Miller AL0027146 01/31/2012
• Alabama PowerSouth"—Lowman AL0003671 02/28/2010
Georgia Bowen GA001449 06/30/2012
Georgia McIntosh GA0003883 05/31/2004
Georgia Scherer 11/30/2006
Georgia Wansley 08/31/2011
South Dominion—Cope Station SC0045772 12/31/2023
Carolina
South Dominion— Wateree Station SC0002038 12/31/2012
Carolina
South Dominion— Williams Station SC0003883 12/31/202.1
Carolina
South Santee Cooper—Cross Generating SC0037401 08/31/201 0
Carolina Station
South Santee Cooper—Winyah Generating SC002247,1 07/31/2011
Carolina Station
IV. BOTTOM ASH WASTEWATER
a. The Best Available Technology.Standard Requires Non-Discharge.Systems for
Bottom Ash.
EPA's proposal to weaken the current non-discharge standard for bottom ash handling is
incompatible with the Clean Water Act. "
Bottom ash handling does not require generating any wastewater. Technology to.remove
bottom ash for dry landfill storage or recycling, such as Mechanical Drag and Conveyor systems,

•
Mr. A. Wheeler
Page 20 of 56 •
January21, 2020 .
exists and is already in place at facilities around the country. According to EPA, over'75%o of all
facilities already use dry handling or closed-loop systems.85 Moreover, these solutions need not
rely on advanced technology: Santee Cooper has indicated in public meetings that it works with
a local manufacturer who collects and trucks bottom ash off-site for use in cinder blocks. Thus,
the best available technology is plainly a non-discharge system, and there is no justification for
allowing the unnecessary bottom ash wastewater discharges proposed by EPA.
1. EPA's Rationale Violates the Clean Water Act's Requirements.
EPA offers two rationales for its proposed weakening of the BAT standard: process
changes and cost.86 Neither justifies EPA's approach.
The Clean Water Act requires that polluters use the best available technology
economically achievable to eliminate their discharge of pollutants.87 As EPA acknowledges,
"BAT is intended to reflect the highest performance in the industry."88 In Southwest Electric
Power Co., the Fifth Circuit reaffirmed that"BAT limitations must 'be based on the performance
of the single best performing plant in an industrial field."'89 In other words, if the technology is
being applied by any plant in the industry, it is achievable.90
a. Cost
• As these standards should make clear, cost cannot be the basis for adopting a technology
less protective than the non-discharge systems that are already available for bottom ash handling.
Cost is "not a factor to be given primary importance"—even for the "best practical technology"
standard, which (unlike BAT) contemplates a cost-benefit analysis; cost necessarily plays an
even lesser role in the BAT standard.91 In assessing BAT, "total cost is no longer to be
considered in comparison to effluent reduction benefits."92 Instead, the cost of a given
technology may be considered only as to whether it can be reasonably borne by the industry.93
•
Here, EPA's analysis violates the BAT standard by selecting technology based on cost,
even though it is clear better protections are economically achievable. Moreover, to the extent
EPA is relying on the "benefit-cost analysis" it has attached to the proposed rule, such analysis
also cannot justify the proposed weakening of BAT, as the plain text of the rule states and the
Supreme Court has confirmed, the BAT standard,does not allow such an analysis.
85 See 84 Fed.Reg.at 64,634.
86 See id. at 64,635.
B7 33 U.S.C. § 1311(b)(2)(A).
88 84 Fed.Reg.at 64,624. •
89 920 F.3d at 1006(quoting Chem. Mfrs.Ass'n, 870 F.2d at 226;see also Am. Paper Inst.,543 F.2d at 346(BAT
should"at a minimum,be established with reference to the best performer intany industrial category.").
90 See Kennecott,780 F.2d at 448("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.").
91 Am. Iron&Steel Inst., 526 F.2d at 1051.
92 Nat'l Crushed Stone, 449 U.S. at 71.
93 Chem. Mfrs. Ass'n, 870 F.2d at 262;accord Riverkeeper, Inc. v. U.S. E.P.A.,358 F.3d 174, 195 (2d Cir.2004)
(same); FMC Corp.,539 F.2d at 978-79("The Act's overriding objective of eliminating... the discharge of
pollution into the waters of our Nation indicates that Congress,in its legislative wisdom,has determined that the
many intangible benefits of clean water"take precedence over cost considerations).

Mr. A. Wheeler
Page 21 of 56
January 21, 2020
•
There is no question that dry handling and other true non-discharge systems are
economically achievable and that their cost can be borne by the industry. EPA confirms that it
"does not find" the cost of closed-loop handling systems "to be economically unachievable."94
In other words, EPA does not dispute that such systems are the best available technology
economically achievable.
b. Process Changes
EPA also attempts to justify its approach "based on its discretion to give particular weight
to . . . process changes," citing utilities' obligation to stop using their impoundments for all
wastestreams and potential maintenance issues with closed loop bottom ash handling systems
that it claims could result,95 but these arguments lack support.
EPA asserts that ceasing other flows into coal ash impoundments in preparation for
closure "compound[s]"the challenges of operating non-discharge bottom ash systems,96 but
Duke Energy has never made such a claim in North Carolina. Duke Energy is installing lined
retention basins for its other waste streams,97 and other utilities can do the same.
EPA states that some facilities may use their bottom ash systems to treat other waste
streams that previously were routed to ash ponds, resulting in increased maintenance problems.98
EPA argues this practice justifies the proposed weakening of the standards. But the Fifth Circuit
rejected such an approach just last year. The court explained that BAT must be set only in
reference to the waste stream in question, not others.9
Here, utilities' decisions to operate their systems in ways that make them less effective at
their intended purpose—bottom ash handling—provides no legitimate basis for weakening the
bottom ash handling requirement.
And contrary to EPA's unsupported claim, there is no reason why requiring utilities to.
properly manage their wastewater streams "could also result in the prolonged use of unlined
surface impoundments."100 Indeed,this claim makes no sense, especially when EPA is
attempting to rely on the proposed CCR Rule deadline to cease routing wastestreams to
impoundments as a basis for weakening the bottom ash technology standard.
As for maintenance costs associated with operating a truly closed loop system, the
proposed weakening of the BAT standard is not needed. EPA admits that facilities using wet
systems can take "relatively straightforward steps" to address maintenance, stormwater, and
94 84 Fed. Reg. at 64,635.
9s Id.
96 See id.
97 See, e.g.,Attachments 12 at 2(Outfall 005)and 30 at 2(Outfall 006);NC DEQ,NPDES Permit NC0038377
Mayo Steam Electric Generating Plant,2(Outfall 002A)(July 13,2018),available at
https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Water+Quality/NPDES+Coal+Ash/2014+Duke+Energy+Renewals+and+Modifications/M
ayo/MAYO-38377-final-permit-signed-2018.pdf(Attachment 36). . .
98 See 84 Fed. Reg. at 64,635.
99 Sw. Elec. Power Co.,920 F.3d at 1027("the agency has explicitly factored into its BAT determination the
regulation of wastestreams other than leachate, which contravenes the plain text and structure of the Act.").
10°84 Fed.Reg.at 64,635.

•
Mr. A. Wheeler
Page22of56
• January 21, 2020
buildup issues in order to avoid discharging polluted wastewater into the nation's waterways—
but EPA is not requiring them to do so, and instead proposes to weaken the rule.101 This
approach is unjustified.
And while EPA claims other facilities may need to make "more extensive process
changes,"102 this claim also does not justify departing from the BAT standard. Utilities have
been on notice for years that they must achieve zero discharge, and some chose to implement wet
rather than dry systems in order to do so. If some of this technology does not work as specified,
resulting in additional compliance costs, that is a matter for those utilities to resolve with their.
vendors and/or their insurance providers; the public should not be forced to accept less effective
wastewater treatment at those facilities. Still less should the public be forced to accept a
nationwide rule that allows all facilities to pollute more based on less effective treatment at a few
poorly performing facilities.
Despite its reliance on the "process changes" element of the BAT analysis, EPA has not
attempted to show that implementing or maintaining a closed-loop system cannot be done. Nor
has EPA attempted to argue that the cost of compliance is unachievable. Instead, EPA merely
makes vague reference to its desire to give utilities "flexibilities,"103 a concept that cannot dictate
the BAT standard. Instead, it appears that EPA's "process changes" rationale is really.just an
attempt to lower costs for utilities.
In essence,EPA is attempting to rewrite the BAT requirement to accommodate utility
preferences to save money at the expense of the nation's waters. For example, EPA's 2017
Belews Creek site visit notes state that Duke Energy would prefer to "bleed" off a portion of the
bottom ash wastewater to deal with fines. However, EPA also reports that SCE&G/Dominion's
Wateree plant in South Carolina"recently installed lamella plate clarifiers to remove solids
recirculating within the plant's remote SFC system."104 EPA should maintain a standard that
ensures Duke Energy and other utilities implement this type of solution rather than discharging
large volumes of contaminated wastewater.
Similarly, Duke Energy has claimed a tax credit for operating a "dry bottom ash
handling" system at Belews Creek, stating that this system "is used for pollution abatement"
"100%" of the time.105 Yet the EPA Belews Creek site visit notes state that Duke Energy prefers
to let the system "rest" 10%of the time.106 EPA should require Duke Energy to use the system
to its full pollution control capacity—all the more so because Duke is charging its customers
and receiving tax credits for using this system 100 percent of the time.
Moreover, the current ELG rule already accounts for utilities' needs. As one industry
publication explained in 2016, "After nearly five years of data collection, technology and cost
evaluations, draft rulemaking, public comment and industry commentary, utilities now have the
101 See id.
1°2 See id.
1°3 1d
104 Belews Creek Site Visit Notes,supra n.26,at 3.
1°5 Duke Energy,Application for Certification of Pollution Control Facility(July 19,2018)(Attachment 37).
1°6 Belews Creek Site Visit Notes,supra n.26,at 3.

Mr. A. Wheeler
Page 23 of 56
January 21, 2020
regulatory clarity necessary for compliance strategy development, technology selection,
budgeting, permitting, scheduling and ultimately project implementation." The ELG rule
already provides flexibility for maintenance by, for example,excluding from the definition of
transport water"low volume, short duration discharges of wastewater from . . . minor
maintenance events (e.g., replacement of valves or pipe sections)."l08
EPA's proposed approach illustrates the importance of the BAT standard Congress
created. Without the BAT standard, EPA—as it is trying to do here—could allow utilities'
preferences to dictate the level of water pollution controls that would be applied. Average or
even worse-performing plants could be used as the basis for setting nationwide effluent
standards,just as EPA is proposing here.
Fortunately, that is not how the Clean Water Act works. It requires the BAT standards to
be set based on the best-performing technology available. There are numerous facilities handling
their bottom ash today without any discharges: this technology is plainly economically
achievable and in place already. And indeed, EPA makes no attempt to argue that non-discharge
bottom ash handling is unavailable or infeasible. EPA admits that"now over 75 percent" of all
facilities have installed or are implementing non-discharge systems.109 Moreover, EPA states
that even more types of dry handling systems are now"available and in use" than in 2015, and
that these new types of systems allow for more flexible installations to accommodate space
constraints.110 These developments only confirm that zero discharge, based on the performance
of dry handling systems, is BAT for bottom ash.
Yet EPA is proposing to downgrade its BAT standard to different and far less effective
technology—high recycle rate wet systems—as the "model treatment technology."111 EPA is
proposing to backslide from the admittedly"available and in use" non-discharge systems
currently operating around the country that provide the basis for the BAT limitations under the
current rule. There is no justification for this approach.
EPA should not be rewriting the rule to accommodate utility preferences, but rather
requiring utilities to comply with the straightforward non-discharge standards that have been in
place for years and are being met at facilities around the country.
2. EPA's Proposal Is Unnecessarily Harmful.
There is no need for this proposed weakening of the bottom ash standard.
Examples throughout the Southeast illustrate that utilities can successfully implement
non-discharge systems. Georgia Power has committed to complying with the ELG Rule standard
for Bottom Ash Transport Water per § 40 CFR 423.13(k) by November 1, 2020.112 The
107 Power Engineering,"Dry Ash Conversions"(Feb.25;2016),https://www.power-eng.com/2016/02/25/dry-ash-
.
conversions/#gref(Attachment 38).
108 40 C.F.R. § 423.1 1(p).
1o9 84 Fed. Reg.at 64,634.
no ld
I" Id.at 64,663.
112 Scherer ELG Timing Memo,Attachment 23 at 7.

•
Mr. A. Wheeler
Page 24 of 56
•
January 21, 2020
company is installing completely dry Magaldi systems at Plant Scherer 13 and is also installing
dry pneumatic systems at Bowen, Scherer, and Wansley.114
In April 2019, Santee.Cooper's Cross Generating Station in South Carolina completed
upgrades that allow all bottom ash to be handled dry.115 And in.2017, Santee Cooper proposed
to construct a zero discharge remote mechanical drag chain system to handle bottom ash at its
Winyah Generating Station.116
Alabama Power already has installed a pneumatic ash extractor system with dedicated
clinker grinder for handling bottom ash completely dry at its Miller power plant. And it has
installed closed-loop systems at its Gaston and Barry facilities.'17
And all coal-fired power plants in North Carolina have already stopped sluicing bottom
ash to impoundments and have installed non-discharge systems. (These are primarily dray chain
systems, although the Mayo facility has used a pneumatic bottom ash system for years.)1' Duke
Energy, which operates these facilities, requested compliance dates in each of its NPDES
applications to allow it time to "optimize" its systems, and so far as we are aware, Duke.Energy
has never claimed to the state environmental agency that it was infeasible to achieve a true non-
discharge system. Duke Energy and the other Southeastern utilities' success in installing and
operating these systems makes clear that there is no cause to delay or weaken the non-discharge
BAT requirement nationwide.
In addition, the harms of EPA's proposed change are serious and apparent, as EPA itself
has acknowledged previously. Coal ash wastewater, including bottom ash transport water, is a
major source of dangerous pollutants.
As EPA explained in the 2015 rulemaking:
•
[C]urrent scientific literature indicates that steam electric power plant wastewaters
[including] bottom ash transport water. . . contain large amounts of a wide .
range of harmful pollutants, some of which are toxic and bioaccumulative, and
which cause significant, widespread detrimental environmental and human
health impacts.
•
113 Id at 5. •
114 GPC ECS 2019,Attachment 21 at 65.
115 Santee Cooper, Cross Bottom Ash Pond Closure Plan,at 3 (Aug.21,2019),available at
https://www.santeecooper.com/About/CCR-Data-Rule/Cross/pdfs/Closure-and-postclosure-care/20190821-CGS-
Bottom-Ash-Pond-Closure-Plan-Rev l.pdf(Attachment 39).
116 WorleyParsons Group,Preliminary Engineering Report for Santee Cooper Winyah Station Low Volume.Waste
Ponds,at 4(July 12,2017)(Attachment 40).
117 Alabama Power,Environmental Compliance Update(Dec. 12,2018),at 25-34(Attachment 41);Alabama
Power,Preliminary Environmental Compliance Plan(Nov. 1,2019),at 44(excerpted in Attachment 42).
118 See,e.g.,NC DEQ,Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit Development, NPDES No. NC0038377, Duke Energy
Progress, LLC, Mayo Steam Electric Generating Plant(Feb.9,2018),available at
https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/W ater+Quality/NPDES+Coal+Ash/2014+Duke+Energy+Renewals+and+Modifications/M
ayo/MAYO-38377--fact-sheet-2018.pdf(Attachment 43).

Mr. A. Wheeler
Page 25 of 56
January 21, 2020
Discharges of steam electric power plant wastewaters present a serious public
health concern due to the potential human exposure to toxic pollutants through
consumption of contaminated fish and drinking water. Toxic pollutants that
detrimentally affect human health that are commonly found in steam electric
power plant wastewater discharges include mercury, lead, arsenic, cadmium,
thallium, and selenium, along with numerous others (see EA Section 3). These
pollutants are associated with a variety of documented adverse human health
impacts. For example, human exposure to elevated levels of mercury for
relatively short periods of time can result in kidney and brain damage. Pregnant
women who are exposed to mercury can pass the contaminant to their developing
fetus, leading to possible toxic injury of the fetal brain and damage to other parts
of the nervous system. Human exposure to elevated levels of lead can cause
serious damage to the brain, kidneys, nervous system, and red blood cells,
especially in children. Arsenic is associated with an increased risk of liver and
bladder cancer in humans, as well as non-cancer impacts including dermal,
cardiovascular, respiratory, and reproductive effects such as excess incidences of
miscarriages, stillbirths, preterm births, and low birth weights. Chronic exposure
to cadmium, a probable carcinogen, can lead to kidney failure, lung damage, and
weakened bones. Human exposure to elevated levels of thallium can lead to
neurological symptoms, hair loss, gastrointestinal effects, liver and kidney
damage, and reproductive and developmental damage. Long-term exposure to
selenium can damage the kidney, liver, and nervous and circulatory systems.
The pollutants in steam electric power plant wastewater can bioaccumulate within
fish and other aquatic wildlife in the receiving waters and subsequently be
transferred to recreational and subsistence fishers who consume these
contaminated fish, potentially resulting in the acute and chronic health impacts
described above. Certain populations are particularly at risk, including women
who are pregnant, nursing, or may become pregnant, and communities relying
on consumption offish from contaminated waters as a major food source.
Discharges of steam electric power plant pollutants to surface waters also have
the potential to contaminate drinking water sources, causing potential problems
for drinking water systems and, if left untreated,potential adverse health
effects.I 19
•
None of these facts justifying the non-discharge BAT standard has changed. In light of
the clear harms and risks posed by bottom ash transport water, and the fact that the best available
technology is capable of eliminating all discharges of this wastewater, EPA's proposal to allow
increased bottom ash wastewater discharges is unnecessarily harmful.
3. EPA's Proposal Is Unrealistic
Rather than employing a BAT standard, EPA proposes that effluent limitations for
purged wastewater be established by permitting agencies on a case-by-case basis using best
119 80 Fed.Reg.67,837,67,872. .

•
Mr. A. Wheeler
Page 26 of 56
January 21, 2020
professional judgment(BPJ). This is unjustified and a mistake: a nationwide standard, zero
discharge, is already in place, based on readily available technology already operating in the
field. EPA lacks the authority to abandon the current nationwide standard under these
circumstances.
Moreover, agencies refuse all too often to apply best professional judgment to set
technology-based limits. For example, in Tennessee, TDEC has repeatedly refused to set
effluent limits using BPJ, forcing conservation groups to file suit. ° Indeed, EPA has previously
acknowledged that BPJ is not appropriate where:
there are sufficient data to set uniform, nationally applicable limitations on . . .
wastewater at plants across the nation. Given this, BPJ permitting of FGD wastewater
would place an unnecessary burden on permitting authorities, including state and local
agencies, to conduct a complex technical analysis that they may not have the resources or
expertise to complete. BPJ permitting of FGD wastewater would also unnecessarily
burden the regulated industry because of associated delays and,uncertainty with respect to
permits.121
These same principles, which EPA articulated in the 2015 rulemaking regarding FGD
wastewater, apply equally to bottom ash transport water—EPA should maintain the current,
uniform limits.
V. CARVE-OUTS
•
a. Characteristics of the Southeastern Power Sector Undermine Reliability Concerns
EPA cites the need to maintain electric "system reliability as basis for carving out
subcategories for low utilization boilers and boilers retiring by 2028. Yet, as fully explained in
the comments submitted on our behalf by Earthjustice, the Agency fails to provide a reasonable.
link between a hypothetical impact on the electric grid and the potential decision by the owners
of those boilers to retire them rather than invest in the measures necessary to comply with the
ELGs. EPA's rationale lacks merit when compared with the'reality of the power sector in the
Southeast.
First, the Southeast is awash in excess generating capacity. Of the six states covered by
SELC, within the North American Electric Reliability Corporation framework, all or most of five
are covered by the SERC region and one falls within PJM. The four SERC sub-regions have
anticipated 2024 reserve margins of between 25 and 36% (representing a cumulative expected
capacity surplus of nearly 25 GW, against the reference margin level, or target reserve margin,
needed for reliability in this region of 15%. Similarly, PJM has an anticipated 2024 reserve
margin of 34%(an expected capacity surplus of nearly 27 GW), more than double the target
reserve margin of 15.7%. For the South, the existence of so much surplus generating capacity
120 See Tenn. Clean Water Network v. Tenn. Bd, of Water Quality, Oil, &Gas,No. 13-1742-I,5-12(Tenn.Ch.Ct.
Jan 28,2015)(reviewing conservation groups' efforts and TDEC's refusal to set limits via BPJ)(Attachment 44);
Letter from Vojin Janjic,Tenn.Dep't of Env't&Conservation,to Terence Edward Cheek,TVA(July 1,2018)
(failing to set limits using BPJ)(Attachment 45).
121 80 Fed. Reg. 67,837,67,852.

Mr. A. Wheeler
Page27of56
January 21, 2020
undercuts EPA's facile conclusion that the loss of the boilers.in these subcategories would rob
the grid of much needed generating capacity.
Second, the vast majority of coal-fired power plants in our region are owned and operated
by either vertically integrated investor-owned utilities, such as Dominion Energy, Duke Energy,
and Georgia Power, or public power utilities such as Tennessee Valley Authority and Santee
Cooper. Both types of entities develop long-range energy plans based on least-cost planning
principles, which includes factoring in the range of anticipated costs of different energy resource
types. These costs can vary depending on many inputs, such as'possible regulatory requi'rements
for environmental compliance. For the investor-owned utilities, their long-term plans must be
approved in integrated resource planning proceedings conducted by the state commissions which
oversee their business decisions. For instance, Virginia law requires that an IRP "systematically
evaluate . . . [t]he effect of current and pending state and federal environmental regulations upon
the continued operation of existing electric generation facilities or options for construction of
new electric generation facilities" and "[t]he most cost effective means of complying with
current and pending state and federal environmental regulations, including compliance options to
minimize effects on customer rates of such regulations."122 By virtue of these and other similar
requirements, the owners of coal-fired boilers in the Southeast are and have been under the
obligation, in many instances backed by the force of state law, to acknowledge and plan for the
possibility that the environmental and public health safeguards implemented by the ELGs could
compel retirement of some coal capacity. EPA offers no explanation for why these requirements
have not already had their intended effect of preparing the utilities for this potential result of the
ELGs and why therefore it must be a federal environmental agency that steps in to relieve the
utilities of their legal obligation.
Third, a shift away from coal-fired generation is well underway, driven by market forces.
The vacuum left by the gradual disappearance of coal in the Southeast's generation fleet has
primarily been filled by natural gas generation, which has seen its fuel cost reduced by newly
available supplies of gas. And even clean alternatives, chiefly solar power, are cheaper than
continuing to run coal plants. One recent report conservatively compared the current(20.17)
marginal cost of energy for operating coal-fired power plants across the country to the levelized
cost of energy for new wind and solar power localized around each coal plant. In discussing
their findings, the authors noted that new solar out-competes existing coal: "[I]t is hard to.
imagine Southeastern utilities not relying heavily on solar and complementary load shifting
resources to replace the coal and save customers money."123 Thus, even absent the additional
investments required to comply with the ELGs, economic pressures outside of EPA's purview
are compelling utilities to close their coal-fired operations, undercutting the Agency's claim that
allowing some of these units a carve-out from the ELG safeguards would prevent the broad and •
122 Va. Code§56-599 B 8&B 9. See also, e.g.,NCUC Rule R8-60(g)(in an IRP,each utility"shall analyze ...
significant assumptions, including,but not limited to,the risks associated with wholesale markets,fuel costs,
construction/implementation costs,"transmission and distribution costs,and costs of complying with environmental
regulation"); SC Code 58-37-40(B)(1)(e)(iii))(IRPs must include consideration of"sensitivity analyses related to
fuel costs,environmental regulations,and other uncertainties or risks").
123 Eric Gimon,et al.,The Coal Cost Crossover: Economic Viability of Existing Coal Compared to New Local Wind
and Solar Resources(March 2019),available at https://energyinnovation.org/publication/the-coal-cost-crossover/,at
10(Attachment 115).

Mr. A. Wheeler
Page28of56
January 21, 2020
inexorable retirement of coal in the region, and any associated reliability implications for the
electric grid.124
b. Allowing Retiring Plants to Avoid Protective Pollution Limits Until 2028 Is
Unreasonable and Unlawful.
Unlined coal ash impoundments do not satisfy the BAT standard. Yet EPA is proposing
to allow coal units retiring by 2028 to enjoy weak, non-protective pollution limits by using these
unlined impoundments as the model "technology"—an absurd approach, especially since EPA
itself has shown that such impoundments do not effectively treat wastewater. This purported
exemption from true BAT standards is unlawful because there is no valid justification for
allowing utilities to avoid protective pollution limits for another eight years based on the
assumption of ineffective, leaking impoundments as BAT.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has explained the impermissible dangers of unlined
surface impoundments:
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. . . . 125
The Fifth Circuit explained 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."126 Indeed, the record shows that"impoundments are
demonstrably ineffective at doing so and demonstrably inferior to other available
technologies."127
As the court recognized, "the Supreme Court has explained that a BAT must achieve
`reasonable further progress' towards the Act's goal of eliminating pollution."128 EPA itself
stated in the earlier ELG rule that impoundments "are largely ineffective at controlling
discharges of toxic pollutants,and nutrients."129 EPA went on to lay 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
124 See also letter from Southern Environmental Law.Center to EPA, 18-22 (Oct.31,2018)(Attachment 116).
125 Sw. Elec. Power Co.,920 F.3d at 1019.
126 Id at 1018.
127 Id. at 1019.
128 Id. at 1006(citing Nat'l Crushed Stone,449 U.S.at 75).
129 80 Fed.Reg.67,840.

•
Mr. A. Wheeler
Page 29 of 56
January 21, 2020
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.13°
EPA claims that the Fifth Circuit"left open the possibility that surface impoundments
could be used as the basis for BAT effluent limitations so long as the Agency identifies a
statutory factor, such as cost, in its rationale for selecting surface impoundments."131 But the
court said no such thing. Instead, the court made clear that the well-documented deficiencies
EPA identified with unlined impoundments make them incompatible with the BAT standard.
The Fifth Circuit pointed out that EPA's approach to legacy wastewater,just as with the
proposed exception here, is self-contradictory: "having rejected impoundments as BAT because
they would not achieve `reasonable further progress' toward eliminating pollution from those
streams, EPA turned around and chose impoundments as BAT . . ."132 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.133
The same is true here for plants that will continue to operate until 2028. "The BAT
factors are designed to support achievement of an effluent limitation that`shall require the
• elimination of discharges of all pollutants,' if`technologically and economically achievable.",134
EPA 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."135
As explained above, unlined impoundments are incompatible with the BAT standard
because of their well-documented inability to treat FGD and bottom ash wastewater. Moreover,
EPA's cost analysis is faulty because it purports to evaluate cost on the basis of individual units,
rather than on an industry-wide basis, and because it contains no finding that the costs of . .
treatment technology cannot be borne by the industry.
Market forces are driving plant retirements, as EPA admits: "As these changes happen in
the industry, the electric power infrastructure adjusts and generally trends toward the optimal
infrastructure and operations . . . .'•'136 Utilities, not EPA, are positioned to decide how best to
meet the needs of their customers. EPA should not gut existing regulations in an attempt to.
prolong the life of outdated, polluting, and uneconomical coal-fired power plants. If water
quality protections are required, as they are here, it is utilities'job to comply while ensuring they
meet their demand. .
Duke Energy's Allen power plant on Lake Wylie in North Carolina illustrates the
problems with this exemption. Theplant would be eligible for the proposed exemption: Duke
P g P P P
130
Id.
131 84 Fed.Reg.at 64,639.
132 Sw. Elec. Power Co.,920 F.3d at 1016(emphasis in original).
133 Id. at 1017.
134 Id. at 1028(citing 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(b)(2)(A); 1314(b)(2)).
135 Id. at 1018(emphasis added). .
136 84 Fed. Reg.at 64,626.

•
Mr. A. Wheeler
Page 30 of 56
January 21, 2020 •
Energy previously planned to fully retire all coal generating units at Allen by 2028, and recently
accelerated that schedule to 2024. But Duke Energy already has installed a high-residence-time
bioreactor for its FGD wastewater, and has a current NPDES permit with the current BAT
effluent limits.137 Moreover, Duke is required to excavate its unlined impoundments at Allen to
lined landfill storage.
However, EPA's proposal would allow the Allen facility to avoid complying with strict,
enforceable pollution limits. The company is currently trying to undo the technology-based
effluent limits in its permit for the Allen facility.138 If EPA provides this early retirement
exemption, it is clear that Duke Energy will take advantage of the opportunity to avoid
enforceable pollutant limits for the remaining life of the plant—even though the treatment
technology necessary to comply is in place now. Duke Energy is required to eliminate the.
impoundments at Allen, but with no enforceable limits in place, there would be no guarantee that
Duke Energy will operate its FGD wastewater treatment system effectively, or even operate it at
all. The public would be deprived of the protections that Congress mandated with the Clean
Water Act. EPA must avoid this absurd outcome.
Numerous facilities around the region also demonstrate that early retirement is
compatible with modern ash,handling and pollution controls. For example:
• In Virginia, Dominion contemplates retiring all of the coal units at its Chesterfield
plant by 2023, as set out in the section of its IRP listing"retirement assumptions
used for planning purposes."139 The company has already converted Chesterfield
(and all its other coal plans in Virginia) to dry ash handling.
• In South Carolina, Santee Cooper has committed to retire all four coal units at its
Winyah power plant by 2027 (Units 1 and 2 in 2023, 3 and 4 in 2027),140 and has
already stopped using its unlined coal ash lagoons.
• Georgia Power has indicated it plans to retire Plant Bowen Units 1 and 2 prior to
Dec. 31, 2028.141 The company has already installed dry ash handling systems at
the plant.
These facilities illustrate that much more effective waste handling technologies are
available for retiring plants; unlined impoundments are manifestly not the best available
technology. And in addition, if EPA implements the proposed exemption, it will contravene the
Clean Water Act by removing enforceable requirements from facilities like these that have the
technology already in place to meet more protective limits. Far from helping these utilities, EPA
137 Attachment 30.
138 Attachment 28.
139 Dominion IRP at 48 (Appendix 3J)(Attachment 46). •
14°Santee Cooper,Santee Cooper Business Forecast,3 (Sept.9,2019),available at
https://www.santeecooper.com/AboutB usi ness-Forecast/_pdfs/2019-09-09-Santee-Cooper-B usiness-
Forecast.pdf,(Attachment 47).
141 Georgia Power Company,2019 Integrated Resource Plan Doc.Filing#175473,Main Doc filed before the
Georgia Public Service Commission January 31,2019, 1-7 available at https://p§c.ga.gov/search/facts-
document/?documentId=175473 (PD 2019 IRP, Main Doc,2019 IRP Main Document)(Attachment 48).

Mr. A. Wheeler
Page 31.of 56 •
January 21, 2020
will be harming them in the eyes of investors and stock analysts by letting other utilities off the
hook without having to incur the same expenses. •
c. The Low-Utilization Exemption Is Unlawful. • .
•
EPA is proposing to allow individual coal-burning generating units to avoid complying
with the BAT standard for the rest of the industry, and instead use primitive, unlined, leaking
impoundments that EPA itself has already documented to be utterly ineffective at treating
• wastewater.
This proposal would allow numerous facilities in the Southeast to avoid more protective
pollution limits and continue using their unlined lagoons for bottom ash. Continued operation of
coal ash impoundments risks structural failures or other types of coal ash spills. Impoundments
not only fail to adequately treat the wastewater, but they also leak pollutants into the surrounding
groundwater and surface water. For example, in North Carolina, Georgia, Virginia, and
Tennessee, virtually every unlined coal ash lagoon has reported statistically significant increases
of pollutants over groundwater protection standards.142 For Example, TVA's Gallatin plant is
built on karst geology and rapidly-moving pollution leaking out of its impoundments is
contaminating the Cumberland River. TVA's Allen facility has caused groundwater
contamination of 300 times the arsenic MCL, threatening the Memphis Sand Aquifer, the
drinking water source for the city of Memphis.
In 2016, a team of Duke University researchers performed seep, groundwater and surface
water sampling at 15 coal ash sites in 5 states, including unlined impoundments at Georgia
Power's Plant Branch and Plant Arkwright. 143 This published, peer-reviewed study concluded
that there was "strong evidence for the leaking of coal ash ponds to adjacent surface water and
shallow groundwater"— "systemic evidence" of toxic pollution at"levels above drinking water
and ecological standards..." 144 The CCR Leak Study concluded that unlined impoundments at
Georgia Power's Plant Branch was polluting nearby Lake Sinclair with boron and strontium,
contaminating groundwater with one or more toxic pollutants at levels exceeding the
groundwater protection standard or other health-based standards. 145
In Virginia, Dominion Energy's Chesterfield Units 5 and 6 run so infrequently that
Dominion has started to describe them as "peaker" units; both units will likely be eligible for the
proposed exception. The 15 million tons of ash in Chesterfield's two impoundments are
immediately adjacent to a public park, Dutch Gap Conservation Area. An expert analyzed
142 Groundwater exceedance reporting forms disclosed pursuant to the CCR Rule are compiled at Attachment 49.
143 See Jennifer Harkness, Barry Sulkin and Avner Vengosh,Evidence for Coal Ash Ponds Leaking in Southeastern
United States,Envtl. Science and Tech.,(June 10,2016)("CCR Leak Study")(Attachment 50);see also Tim Lucas,
Coal Ash Ponds Found to Leak Toxic Chemicals: Long-lasting contamination won't be cleaned up by ash removal
alone,DUKE TODAY(June 10,2016),available at https://today.duke.edu/2016/06/ashpondleaks(summarizing CCR
Pond Leaking Study,reporting that,"In all of the investigated sites,we saw evidence of leaking"and"high levels of
contaminants"in polluted surface waters,according to Duke geochemistry and water quality professor Avner
Vengosh)(Attachment 51).
144 See Attachment 50 at 6583 (Abstract).
145 See id. at 6587.

Mr. A. Wheeler
Page 32 of 56
January 21, 2020
surface water and sediment sampling data and concluded that there are elevated cancer risks and
other health hazards for recreational visitors to Dutch Gap.146 Eliminating this leaking, unlined
pit should be required by EPA under the Clean Water Act, but if this proposal were the only
authority in place, Dominion would be allowed to continue operating it. Fortunately, Virginia
has enacted legislation requiring this impoundment (and all of Dominion's unlined
impoundments in the state) to be fully excavated to dry, lined landfill storage or recycling.l47
But this site illustrates the serious consequences of EPA's approach.
EPA attempts to argue that cost justifies its choice of unlined impoundments as BAT for
these facilities. But the agency has made no attempt to demonstrate that selecting impoundments
in these circumstances reflects "a commitment of the maximum resources economically possible
to the ultimate goal of eliminating all polluting discharges,"which was the intent of Congress in
enacting BAT standards in the first place.148
Moreover, the agency's analysis of cost is incompatible with the BAT standard. The cost
of a given technology is relevant only as to whether it"can be reasonably borne by the industry,"
not an individual unit.149 Yet EPA purports to evaluate the cost of imposing treatment
requirements in terms of the economic competitiveness of an individual boiler.15° That is not a
valid approach to BAT.
Because BAT requires consideration of whether cost is economically achievable for the
industry as a whole, it does not authorize EPA to weigh the cost of implementation for certain
• boilers against others and deem them "disproportionate," as it has done here.151 These are "low-
utilization" boilers because the industry has determined that it is more economical to use others
to meet demand,but that is not a reason to exempt the industry from complying with required
pollution controls at these facilities. The cost per megawatt for an individual boiler is irrelevant
to the BAT inquiry.
• EPA's analysis is also faulty because many plants with a low-utilization boiler likely will
need to upgrade their treatment systems for their other boilers. For example, Duke Energy's
Roxboro plant in Semora,NC, has one unit likely to qualify as low-utilization. But the facility
has had to install a bioreactor to deal with its significant selenium pollution of Hyco Lake, and
this bioreactor treats FGD wastewater from both power generating units at the plant.152 Thus,
the costs of treatment have been incurred—as they would be at most, if not all, facilities---and
are recovered through the rates charged for power generated by all units at the facility, making
EPA's per-unit economic analysis even more baseless. Exempting generating units under these
circumstances is unjustified:.a facility that must treat its wastewater from other units should
combine its wastewater flows from low-utilization units through that treatment system.
146 See Dr.Carolyn L. Fordham,PhD.,Terra Technologies Environmental Services,Human Health and Ecological
Risk Assessment, Chesterfield Power Station Ash Ponds(Nov. 9,2018)(Attachment 52).
147 2019 Va.Acts Ch.651. •
148 Nat'!Crushed Stone Ass 449 U.S.at 74;accord Sw. Elec. Power Co.,920,F.3d at 1030. ,
149 Chem. Mfrs. Ass 870 F.2d at 262(emphasis added).
15°84 Fed.Reg. at 64,639.
151 ld.
152 NC DEQ,Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit Development,NPDES#NC0003425 (Roxboro)(Jan. 5,2017)
(Attachment 53).

Mr. A. Wheeler •
Page 33 of 56
January 21, 2020
EPA also claims that "energy requirements"justify its proposed carveout, asserting that
these units' continued operation "is useful, if not necessary, for ensuring electricity reliability in
the near term."153 But this argument lacks merit, as explained above. Moreover, if EPA were to
look seriously at using its regulation to attempt to prolong the life of these coal-fired generating
units, it would need to take into account their air emissions, including greenhouse gas emissions,
from their operation as well as the environmental impacts of mining and transporting coal to
these facilities. But EPA appears not to have done any such thing.
d. High FGD flow subcategory.
1. Background
In the 2019 Proposal, EPA proposes a high FGD flow subcategory ("High Flow
Subcategory"), which would establish BAT based on chemical precipitation alone for facilities
• with purge flows greater than four million gallons per day.154 The High Flow Subcategory
would apply only to the Cumberland Fossil Plant("Cumberland Plant"), a coal plant owned and
operated by the Tennessee Valley Authority("TVA"), the nation's largest publicly-owned
utility.'55
The Cumberland Plant is the largest coal-fired power plant in TVA's fleet.156 The
• Cumberland Plant is located in Cumberland City, Tennessee, at the confluence of Wells Creek
and a stretch of the Cumberland River known as Lake Barkley and is upstream from cherished
recreational and wildlife areas in Tennessee, including Barkley Wildlife Management Area,.
Cross Creeks National Wildlife Refuge, and Land Between the Lakes National Recreation
Area.157 The Cumberland River/Lake Barkley(river miles 90.3-108) is included on Tennessee's
list of Known Exceptional Tennessee Waters and Outstanding National Resource Waters due to
the Cross Creeks National Wildlife.Refuge and the presence of state-endangered lake
sturgeon.lsa Several drinking water intakes are also located downstream from the Cumberland
Plant 159
•
The Cumberland Plant burns millions of tons of coal annually, resulting in approximately
one million tons of coal combustion residuals (coal ash) waste generated annually and, in 2016,
153 84 Fed.Reg.at 64,639.
'54 84 Fed. Reg.at 64,638.
155 Danielle Stewart,Environmental Research Group,Alternative Flue Gas Desulfurization Treatment Costs for
High Flow Plants—DCN SE07126,EPA-HQ-2009-0819-8200(Oct.30,2019)("[O]nly one plant,Cumberland
(plant ID 6329),meets the requirements of this subcategory.").
l56 Tenn. Valley Auth.,Cumberland Fossil Plant,https://www.tva.gov/Energy/Our-Power-
System/Coal/Cumberland-Fossil-Plant(2,470 megawatt generating capacity)(Attachment 54).
15'Southern Envtl. Law Ctr.,Cumberland Fossil Plant: Managed Natural Resource Areas Downstream,May 22,
2015 (Attachment 55). .
• 158 Tenn.Dep't Envt.&Conservation,Exceptional Tennessee Waters&ORNWs in Tennessee:Cumberland River
(Lake Barkley),http://tdec.tn.gov:8080/pls/enf reports/f?p=9034:34304:0: (last visited Apr.25,2019)(Attachment
56).
159 Southern Envtl. Law Ctr.,Tennessee Valley Authority Coal Ash Sites and Downstream Drinking Water Intakes,
June 30,2016(Attachment 57).

Mr. A. Wheeler
Page34of56
January 21, 2020
an average of 2,097 million gallons of wastewater each day.16° In the 2019 Proposal, EPA asserts
that the Cumberland Plant is the single largest source of FGD wastewater in the country,
accounting for"approximately one-sixth to one-seventh of all industry FGD wastewater
flows.„161
In 1994, TVA chose to install a scrubber that discharges large amounts of FGD
wastewater after a single use'rather than recycling the wastewater in its industrial process.162
TVA's stated reasons for selecting a high-flow, once-through scrubber included "the ability to
burn a wide range of coals" and "the lack of any wastewater treatment effluent limitations for
metals."163 Like most other coal plants, prior to the adoption of the 2015 ELG Rule, TVA's
NPDES permit included no limits on toxic pollutants like mercury, arsenic, and selenium.164 For
this reason, shifting toxic pollution from the air.to the water made economic sense for TVA in
1994.
For decades, TVA has been discharging massive quantities,of toxic pollutants into state-
designated Exceptional Tennessee Waters on the Cumberland River. A 2016 report published by
the Environmental Integrity Project identified the Cumberland Plant as the worst mercury
polluter among coal plants nationwide.165 Mercury is a neurotoxin that accumulates in fish and
can cause damage to a person's nervous, digestive, and immune systems.166 The report, based
on information provided by TVA to the federal EPA and available to the public in the Toxics
Release Inventory, found that in 2015, TVA dumped 120 pounds of mercury generated at the
Cumberland Plant into the Cumberland River.167 The same report identifies the Cumberland
Plant as the second-worst selenium polluter among coal plants nationwide.168 Like mercury,
selenium also accumulates in fish. Selenium can cause damage to a person's circulatory
system.169 In 2015, TVA dumped 6,000 pounds of selenium generated at the Cumberland Plant
160 Tenn. Valley Auth.,Cumberland Fossil Plant Coal Combustion Residuals Management Operations
Environmental Impact Statement(Apr.2018), at S-1 ("The plant consumes an average of 5.6 million tons of coal
annually and produces approximately 1 million tons of CCR each year.")(Attachment 58);Tenn. Valley Auth.,
Cumberland Fossil Plant(CUF)--NPDES Permit No.TN0005789—Updated Permit Renewal Application(Aug. 1,
2016)(reporting an average flow of 2,096.987 mgd from Outfall 2,which includes discharge from internal Outfall
001)(Attachment 59).
161 84 Fed.Reg.at 64,638,n.54.
162 Tenn. Valley Auth.,Cumberland Fossil Plant—NPDES Permit No.TN0005789—TVA Request for Alternative
Effluent Limitations for Wet Flue Gas Desulfurization System Discharges Based on.Fundamentally Different
Factors Pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 1311(n),at 4(Apr.28,2016)(Attachment 60)("TVA FDF Request").
163 Id. at 5.
164 Tenn. Dep't of Envtl.&Conservation,Cumberland Fossil Plant,NPDES Permit No.TN0005789 Part A,2
(effective date January 1,2008)(Attachment 61).
65
Environmental Integrity Project,Toxic Wastewater from Coal Plants,at 16(Aug.2,2016),
http://environmental integrity.org/wp-content/uploads/Toxic-W astewater-from-Coal-Plants-2016.08.11-1.pdf
(Attachment 62)("EIP Report");see also Mark Hicks,Cumberland City Plant Rated Worst Mercury Polluter,
Clarksville Leaf-Chronicle(Aug. 11,2016),http://www.theleafchronicle.com/story/news/2016/08/11/cumberland
fossil-plant-rated-worst-mercury-polluter-us/88559336/(Attachment 63).
166 EIP Report,Attachment 62,at 8(Aug.2,2016).
167 Id. at 16.
168 Id
169 Id. at 8.

•
Mr. A. Wheeler
Page 35 of 56
January 21, 2020
into the Cumberland River.170 Although TVA's subsequent Toxic Release Inventory reporting
indicates a reduction in mercury discharges, in 2018, TVA continued to dump 60 pounds of
mercury into the river.171 In 2016, the last year TVA reported, the utility discharged 1,300
pounds of selenium from the Cumberland Plant.'72
Although, as discussed throughout these comments, technologies exist and have long
existed to remove toxic pollutants from FGD wastewater, for the better part of the past decade,
TVA has sought to exempt itself from its obligation under the CWA to install modern water
pollution controls at the Cumberland Plant.
During the comment period for the 2015 ELG Rule, TVA requested a less stringent
subcategory for Cumberland. TVA wrote that"a uniform BAT requirement for all FGD designs
is impracticable and that a subcategory or other approach for existing 'once through' and/or
high-flow FGD designs is warranted."173 TVA primarily argued that Cumberland could not.
achieve the ELGs because its FGD system, due to its metallurgy, would corrode if it recirculated
wastewater.And TVA claimed that modifying Cumberland's scrubber material to something
more corrosion resistant, or simply complying without recirculation, would be too expensive.174
In the 2015 ELG Rule, EPA rejected these claims and denied TVA's request for a special
subcategory. EPA disagreed with TVA's technical premise, finding Cumberland could
recirculate some wastewater without corroding its FGD system. Moreover, EPA found its
proposed BAT to be affordable for industry as a whole, as the Clean Water Act requires.175
Rather than complying with the 2015 ELG Rule,TVA has persisted in its efforts to seek
less stringent effluent limitations for Cumberland. In April 2016, TVA applied for a
Fundamentally Different Factors ("FDF") variance to exempt Cumberland from the 2015 ELGs.
TVA rehashed the same arguments: Cumberland can't recycle wastewater, so compliance would
• be expensive.176 EPA never granted TVA's application,17 and the State of Tennessee
no Id. at 16.
171 EPA,TRI On-Site and Off-Site Reported Disposed of or Otherwise Related (In Pounds)Trend Report for
Facilities in US TVA Cumberland Fossil Plant(TRI ID 37050STVCM815CU)for Mercury Compounds Chemical
US 2000-2018 (Nov. 12,2019),
•
https://enviro.epa.gov/triexplorer/release_trends?tri=37050STVCM815CU&p_view=TRYR&trilib=TRIQ I&sort=_
VIEW_&sort fmt=1&state=All+states&county=All+counties&chemical=N458&industry=ALL&coreyear=&tab_r
r=1&FLD=AIRLBY&FLD=E 1&FLD=E2&FLD=E3&FLD=E4&FLD=E41&FLD=E(Attachment 64).
2 EPA,.TRI On-Site and Off-Site Reported Disposed of or Otherwise Related(In Pounds)Trend Report for
Facilities in US TVA Cumberland Fossil Plant(TRI ID 37050STVCM815CU)for Selenium Compounds Chemical
US 2000-2018 (Nov. 12,2019),
https://enviro.epa.gov/triexplorer/release_trends?tri=37050STVCM8I 5CU&p_view=TRYR&trilib=TRIQ 1&sort=_
VIEW &sort fmt=l&state=All+states&county=All+counties&chemical=N725&industry=ALL&core_year=&tab_r
pt=I&FLD=AIRLBY&FLD=EI&FLD=E2&FLD=E3&FLD=E4&FLD=E41&FLD=E(Attachment 65).
173 EPA,Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source
Category:EPA's Responses to Public Comments,Docket ID No.EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819-4607-Al,Comment
Excerpt No.4,3-583 (Sep.2015).
174 Id.,Comment Excerpt No. 5,5-35 to 5-38.
175 Id. at 5-38 to 5-41. .
176 TVA FRF Request,Attachment 60.
177 In December 2016,environmental groups,including the Southern Environmental Law Center and the Sierra
Club,submitted comments to EPA Region 4 outlining the inadequacy of TVA's FDF variance application,which is
attached and incorporated by reference. Letter from Amanda Garcia et al.,Southern Envtl. Law Ctr.,to Heather

•
Mr. A. Wheeler
Page 36 of 56
January 21, 2020
incorporated the 2015 ELGs into TVA's NPDES permit, which•was reissued in 2018.178 In
TVA's comments on the draft permit, TVA expressly stated that it could comply with the 2015
ELG Rule's limits on mercury and arsenic by September 1, 2021, when the utility would
complete installation of a new physical-chemical treatment system for the Cumberland Plant.179
Meanwhile, a coalition of industry trade groups, of which TVA is a member, had
successfully petitioned the EPA to reconsider the 2015 ELG Rule.180 TVA then lobbied EPA for
special effluent limitations for Cumberland, meeting with David Ross, Assistant Administrator
of the Office of Water in September 2018, to discuss the "uniqueness of their once-through
systems and the need for either an.FDF [variance] or some other relief in the regulation."181
Since that meeting, TVA has confidently assumed that, one way or another, the
Cumberland Plant will not have to comply with the 2015 ELGs..In July 2019, TVA published an
Environmental Assessment for the proposed construction of FGD wastewater treatment facilities,
whose purpose was "to meet the regulatory limits established by EPA's ELGs for Steam-Electric
Generating Facilities."182 The draft EA explored three alternatives, only one of which would
comply with the 2015 ELG Rule.TVA's preferred alternative, and the one it ultimately selected,
would lead it to violate the 2015 ELGs' restrictions on selenium and nitrate/nitrite and the terms
of its current NPDES permit.183
The High Flow Subcategory culminates TVA's years-long campaign to receive special
treatment for the Cumberland Plant.
2. EPA proposes a subcategory just for Cumberland
The High Flow Subcategory would "establish a new subcategory for facilities with high
FGD flows based on the statutory factor of cost."184 In the 2019 Proposal, EPA discusses only
•
McTeer Toney,Envtl.Prot.Agency,re: TVA,Cumberland Fossil Plant--NPDES Permit No.TN0005789—TVA
Request for Alternative Effluent Limitations for Wet Flue Gas Desulfurization System Discharges Based on
Fundamentally Different Factors Pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 1311(n)(April 28,2016)(Dec.21,2016)(Attachment 66).
178 Tenn. Dep't Envt.&Conservation,NPDES Permit No. TN0005789 I(A)(4),.at 6(2018)(Attachment 67)
("Cumberland NPDES Permit").
79 Tenn. Valley Auth.,Cumberland Fossil Plant—NPDES Permit No.TN0005789—Draft NPDES Permit
Comments,3 (May 23,2018)("We suggest establishing Tier limits for mercury and arsenic that would apply on
• September 1,2021,or upon construction and startup of physical/chemical treatment and division approval of the
initial operating period.")(Attachment 103). .
180 Envtl. Prot.Agency,Proposed Rule,Postponement of Certain Compliance Dates for the Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category,82 Fed.Reg.26,017,
26,018(Jun.6,2017).
181 September 12,2018 email from Richard Benware to Jan Matuszko,Docket ID No. EPA HQ-2019-006928,at 61.
1B2 Tenn. Valley Auth.,Cumberland Fossil Plant(CUF) Wastewater Treatment Facility Final Environmental •
• Assessment,at 5 (Jul.2019)(Attachment 68)("Cumberland EA").
183 Cumberland NPDES Permit,Attachment 67 at 6. The Southern Environmental Law Center and the Sierra Club
submitted comments on TVA's draft environmental assessment highlighting TVA's obligation to comply with
existing law.These comments are attached and incorporated by reference. Letter from Christina Reichert et al.,
Southern Envtl. Law Ctr.,to Ashley Farless,Tenn.Valley Auth.,re:Tennessee Valley Authority's Draft
Environmental Assessment for the Cumberland Fossil Plant(CUF)Wastewater Treatment Facility(May 1,2019)
(Attachment 69). •
184 84 Fed.Reg.at 64,638.

Mr. A. Wheeler
Page 37 of 56
January 21, 2020 •
•
the Cumberland Plant in the context of the High Flow Subcategory, and a memorandum from the
Environmental Research Group confirms that the Cumberland Plant will be the only member of
this subcategory.185 For the FGD wastewater category, EPA proposes to establish chemical
precipitation plus biological treatment as BAT.186 In contrast, EPA proposes chemical
precipitation alone as BAT for the High Flow Subcategory.187
Although TVA previously stated that it could comply with the 2015 ELG Rule limits on
mercury by September 1, 2021, the High Flow Subcategory would allow Cumberland to
discharge nearly ten times the concentration of mercury as other FGD wastewater dischargers.188
According to EPA, Cumberland discharg.es "millions of gallons per day [more] than the next
highest flow rate in the entire industry." 89 EPA's proposed mercury limit coupled with its
estimate of the Cumberland Plant's flows would result in the Cumberland Plant discharging over
twenty times more mercury than other facilities.190 EPA proposes no limitations for selenium or
nitrate/nitrite for Cumberland.191 The High Flow Subcategory thus shields Cumberland from the
selenium and nitrate/nitrite limitations EPA proposes for the FGD wastewater category.192
3. The Clean Water Act prohibits EPA 's proposed subcategory.
The High Flow Subcategory is inconsistent with the requirements of the Clean Water
Act, which does not authorize a subcategory of one based on cost.
•
a. Subcategories of One
•
The text, structure, and legislative history of the Act demonstrate that BAT is a •
categorical, industry-wide standard. Congress created a separate mechanism, the FDF variance,
for plant-by-plant determinations. Prior to codification of the FDF variance in the CWA, the
Supreme Court suggested in dicta that single-member subcategories are permissible.193 But •
Congress's subsequent codification of a more limited FDF variance changed the Act's structure,
making clear that "Congress intended 'fundamentally different''characteristics of particular
plants to be considered by the EPA in a Section 301(n) FDF variance proceeding."194
165 Danielle Stewart, Environmental Research Group,Alternative Flue Gas Desulfurization Treatment Costs for
High Flow Plants—DCN SE07126,Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-2009-0819-8200(Oct.30,2019)("[O]nly one plant,
Cumberland(plant ID 6329),meets the requirements of this subcategory."). •
186 84 Fed.Reg.at 64,631. •
187 Id. at 64,638.
188 Id. at 64,673-74.
1891d. at 64,638.
190 Consultant ERG estimates Cumberland's FGD Purge Flow as 5,142,240 gallons per day(gpd)and its Optimized
FGD Flow as 4,418,898 gpd.Sara Bossenbroek and Danielle Stewart,Environmental Research Group,"Flue Gas
Desulfurizatioon Flow Methodology for Compliance Costs and Pollutant Loadings—DCN SE07091,"Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-2009-0819-8200(July 8,2019).Those figures are more than twice as much as the next highest rates:
FGD Purge Flow of 2,153,520 gpd at Big Bend Station and Optimized Purge Flow of 1,644,985 gpd at Trimble
County.Id.
191 84 Fed.Reg.at 64,674. •
192
Id. at 64,673.
193 See Chem Mfrs. Ass v. NRDC,470 U.S. 116, 131 (1985)("EPA could promulgate rules . . .creating a
subcategory for each source which is fundamentally different").
194 Chem Mfrs. Ass'n,870 F.2d at 236.

Mr. A. Wheeler
Page 38 of 56
January 21, 2020 •
The Clean Water Act requires the EPA to establish "effluent limitations for categories
and classes of point sources" by applying the "best available technology economically •
achievable for such category or class, which will result in reasonable further progress toward the
national goal of eliminating the discharge of all pollutants."195 "[S]uch effluent limitations shall
require the elimination of discharges of all pollutants if the Administrator finds . . . that such
elimination is technologically and economically achievable for a category or class of point
sources . . . ."196 The related BAT provision requires EPA to "identify . . . the degree of effluent
reduction attainable through the application of the best control measures and practices achievable
. . .for classes and categories of point sources."197
In contrast to the ELG provisions' emphasis on "categories and classes," the FDF
variance in the same section authorizes modifying effluent limitations "for a facility."198
"[W]hen the legislature uses certain language in one part of the statute and different language in
another,the court assumes different meanings were intended."199 This textual distinction
between "categories and classes of point sources" and "a facility" is meaningless if an individual
facility can be a category.20°
As the courts have long recognized, "Congress intended BAT limitations to be based on
•
the performance of the single best-performing plant in an industrial field."201 BAT only works by
comparing facilities, requiring multiple plants within a category for the standard to function as
designed. The BAT standard requires EPA to compare facilities across an industrial field and to
set standards based on what the single best facility is doing.
The statute provides two ways to establish BAT for a facility. One is through categorical •
effluent limitation guidelines, "which are nationwide standards set by the EPA Administrator to
govern pollutant discharges from point sources."202 The second method is through individual
FDF variances: EPA may create a less stringent, single-facility BAT for any facility that
demonstrates that it is fundamentally different with respect to at least one factor EPA considered
in setting BAT for the broader category or subcategory.203 The EPA must consider the same
195 33 U.S.C. § 1311(b)(2)(A)(emphasis added).
196 Id. (emphasis added).
197 Id. (emphasis added).Analyzing this text,the Supreme Court has read ELGs as categorical mechanisms, in
contrast with the Act's individual mechanisms like NPDES permits and FDF variances.E.I. du Pont de Nemours&
Co. v. Train,430 U.S. 112,136(1977)("The statute thus focuses expressly on the characteristics of the `category or
class' rather than the characteristics of the individual point sources.Normally, such classwide determinations would
be made by regulation,not in the course of issuing a permit to one member of the class.").
19833 U.S.C. § 1311(n)(1).
199 Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain,542 U.S.692,711 n.9(2004).
200 The ordinary meaning of"class"or"category" implies multiple constituent members. A single plant cannot be a
category or class by itself.
201 Sw. Elec. Power Co.,920 F.3d at 1018(quoting Chem. Mfrs. Ass'n, 870 F.2d at 226).See also Kennecott,780
F.2d at 448("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.").
2°2 Sw. Elec. Power Co.,920 F.3d at 1005.
203 33 U.S.C. § 1314(n)(1)(A). •

Mr. A. Wheeler
Page39of56
January 21, 2020
factors for an FDF variance that it has considered for setting BAT pursuant to § 1314(b)(2)(B)—
"other than cost."2o4
The two mechanisms create a distinct structure: generalized, categorical BAT standards
"are to be established prior to consideration of the characteristics of the individual plant."2o5
Congress created a "coherent statutory scheme: One vehicle promulgating categorical regulations
of national scope and one vehicle to address concerns relating to individual [facilities]."206
A subcategory of one, like the High Flow Subcategory proposed by EPA,turns BAT on
its head. Rather than forcing all facilities to operate as cleanly as the single best facility, EPA
would set BAT based on the single worst-polluting facility. EPA would allow Cumberland to
remain the largest wastewater polluter by setting a standard lower than what any every other
FGD wastewater facility must achieve. By comparing all plants to the best performers, Congress
structured the BAT standard to demand improvement. "BAT must achieve `reasonable further
progress' towards the Act's goal of eliminatingollution,"207 and EPA's proposal fails that
P P P
essential requirement.208
b. The Act Prohibits EPA from Creating Single-Facility, Cost-Based BAT
Subcategories
Even if a subcategory of one were permissible, which it is not, a subcategory of one
based on cost is flatly inconsistent with the Clean Water Act.
The costs of an individual facility are not relevant in setting BAT. The Act requires BAT
to be "economically achievable for a category or class of point sources."209 As the 1972
conference report explains, Congress directed EPA to "make the determination of the economic
impact of an effluent limitation on the basis of classes and categories of point sources, as
distinguished from a plant-by-plant determination.„210 Courts have consistently found that BAT
"does not refer to any individual plant" in assessing economic achievability.21
2041d
205 Du Pont,430 U.S.at 127 n.17.See also Texas Oil& Gas, 161 F.3d at 939("We agree that Congress intended to
foreclose plant-by-plant evaluation•of facilities within a subcategory.").
206 Chem. Mfrs.Ass'n,870 F.2d at 259.The Fifth Circuit panel was discussing the structural relationship of the
pretreatment standards(categorical)with removal credits provision(plant-by-plant)but expressly compared that
structure to the"FDF variance scheme discussed.above"—about which the court stated that"Congress intended
`fundamentally different' characteristics of particular plants to be considered by the EPA in a Section 301(n)FDF
variance proceeding."Id. at 236.
207 Sw. Elec. Power Co.,920 F.3d at 1006.
• 208 See Chem. Mfrs.Ass'n,870 F.2d at 236(rejecting industry request for a single-plant subcategory and finding that
setting BAT in a national rulemaking based on a single plant's characteristics conflicts with the structure Congress
created).
2°9 33 U.S.C. § 1311(b)(2)(A). .
210 Sen. Conf.Rep.No.92-1236,at 121 (1972).
211 Du Pont,430 U.S.at 127 n.17.The Supreme Court pointed to 33 U.S.C. §311(c),which allows modification of
BAT limitations for a facility if"such modification requirements(1)will represent the maximum use of technology
within the economic capability of the owner or operator;and(2)will result in reasonable further progress toward the
elimination of the discharge of pollutants."The Court explained,"This provision shows that the [33 U.S.C. §
1311(b)] limitations for 1983 are to be established prior to consideration of the characteristics of the individual

Mr. A. Wheeler
Page 40 of 56
January 21, 2020 •
Congress structured the Clean Water Act to prohibit EPA from setting effluent limitations
for toxic pollutants212 based on an individual facility's costs. BAT sets effluent limitations based
on industry-wide costs,not individual facility costs.213 Section 301(c) modifications allow EPA
to modify an individual facility's effluent limitations based on facility-specific costs.214 But
Congress prohibited such modifications for toxic pollutants, like those at issue here.215 The FDF
variance allows individual accommodation based on any factor"other than cost."216 FDF. .
• variances are unavailable here because cost is the only factor EPA cites to support
subcategorization.
Legislative history confirms that the Act does not authorize EPA to create single-facility,
cost-based BAT subcategories.
When codifying the FDF variance, Congress reiterated its intent to prohibit single-
facility, cost-based subcategories. Regarding the FDF variance, the 1986 conference report
stated, "The bill specifically excludes consideration of costs, independent of other eligible
factors, as a basis for establishing a fundamental difference with regard to an individual
facility."217
Senator Robert Stafford (R-VT), Chairman of the Environment and Public Works
Committee and a member of the conference committee, explained:
If a facility faces higher individual cost than the industry average, that is a
reflection of economic efficiency of the facility rather than the ability of the
industry as a whole to meet the necessary pollution control costs. To establish
plant.Moreover,it shows that the term 'best technology economically achievable' does not refer to any individual
plant.Otherwise,it would be impossible for this `economically achievable'technology to be beyond the individual
owner's `economic capability."'Du Pont,430 U.S.at 127 n.17(internal citation omitted).See also Texas Oil&Gas
Ass'n, 161 F.3d at 928 ("[Iln promulgating ELGs the EPA must set discharge limits that reflect the amount of
pollutant that would be discharged by a point source employing the best available technology that the EPA
determines to be economically feasible across the category or subcategory as a whole.");"Chem. Mfrs. Ass'n,870
F.2d at 219 n.157("Congress intended that economic impacts be determined only for classes of facilities,rather than
on a plant-by-plant basis. 1972 Leg. Hist. at 255,304.").
212 Arsenic,mercury,and selenium are toxic pollutants for purposes of setting BAT.See 33 U.S.C. § 1317(a)(1)
(requiring EPA to publish list of toxic pollutants); § 1317(a)(2)(requiring EPA to set BAT for listed toxic
pollutants);40 C.F.R. §401.15(listing arsenic,mercury;and selenium as toxic pollutants pursuant to 33 U.S.C. §
1317(a)(1)).
213 Du Pont,430 U.S.at 127 n.17.See also Nat'l Crushed Stone,449 U.S.at 79("Congress foresaw and accepted
the economic hardship, including the closing of some plants,that effluent limitations would cause;and Congress
took certain steps to alleviate this hardship . . .").
214 33 U.S.C. § 1311(c).
215 Compare id. ("The Administrator may modify the requirements of subsection(b)(2)(A)of this section with
respect to any point source for which a permit application is filed after July 1, 1977,upon a showing by the owner or
operator of such point source satisfactory to the Administrator that such modified requirements(1)will represent the
maximum use of technology within the economic capability of the owner or operator;and(2)will result in
reasonable further progress toward the elimination of the discharge of pollutants.")with id. § 1311(1)("Other than as
provided in subsection(n)of this section,the Administrator may not modify any requirement of this section as it
applies to any specific pollutant which is on the toxic pollutant list under section 1317(a)(1)of this title.").
216Id. § 1314(n)(1)(A). Section 301(g)provides another mechanism to modify ELGs for individual facilities,but
301(g)modifications are likewise barred for toxic pollutants.Id. § 1311(g)(4)(a).
212 H.R. Rep.No.99-1004,at 123 (1986)(Conf.Rep.).

Mr. A. Wheeler
Page 41 of 56 •
January 21, 2020
individual effluent limits on the basis of plant-specific cost of compliance would
be to vitiate the principle of industrywide minimum treatment levels. For these
reasons . . . the conferees agreed to adopt the Senate approach and exclude the
individual cost of compliance from the factors the Administrator may consider
when deciding whether to grant an FDF variance to a particular facility. Although
the act does not and should not provide a mechanism to modify the requirements
of an effluent guideline on the basis offundamentally different costs at an
individual facility, section 301(c) of the act provides for modification of
requirements in a case where such requirements are beyond the economic •
capability of the owner. . . . In addition, section 301(c) is subject to section 301(l),
which prohibits.the Administrator from modifying any requirement as it applies to
a toxic pollutant. This provision assures that toxic pollutants will be controlled,
regardless of the economic capability of the discharger.218
In short, the Clean Water Act,does not authorize EPA to make single-plant, cost-based
exceptions to effluent limitations for toxic pollutants, as EPA proposes to do in the High Flow
Subcategory.
4. EPA has no reasoned basis for its policy shift in establishing the high flow
category.
In the 2015 ELG Rule, EPA rejected both a high flow subcategory and the use of
chemical precipitation alone to establish BAT. The EPA has provided no reasoned basis for its
policy reversal.
a. The High Flow Subcategory Is an Unexplained Reversal.
EPA proposes a subcategory for"facilities with high FGD flows based on the statutory
factor of costs." 19 EPA explains, "Based on the typical chloride concentrations in the FGD
scrubber, the facility would be able to recycle little, if any, of the wastewater back to the
scrubber as a means for reducing the flow volume sent to a treatment system. . . . [A]s a result of
the inability to recycle these high flows, TVA stated that the cost of a biological treatment
system would be high."22° EPA takes TVA at its word,justifying the subcategory on that basis.
But in 2015, EPA considered and rejected doing exactly what it now proposes. TVA had
argued that"a uniform BAT requirement for all FGD designs is impracticable and that a
subcategory or other approach for existing 'once through' and/or high-flow FGD designs is
warranted."221 TVA asserted that the FGD systems' metallurgy at certain facilities, including
Cumberland, could not achieve the flow minimization EPA presumed.222 The result is that
218 132 Cong. Rec. S16,426(daily ed.Oct. 16, 1986)(statement of Sen. Stafford)(emphasis added).
219 84 Fed.Reg.at 64,638.
220 id.
221 EPA,Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source
Category: EPA's Responses to Public Comments,Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819-4607-A1,Comment
Excerpt No.4,3-583(Sept.2015).
222 Id.,Comment Excerpt No.5,5-35.

Mr. A. Wheeler -
Page 42 of 56
January 21, 2020
"facilities with `once-through' and/or high-flow FGDs would unfairly bear the brunt of the
industry's cost to treat to comply with the ELGs."223
In 2015, EPA agency disagreed. The found that the FGD wastewater BAT, chemical
g
precipitation plus biological treatment, was "achievable and affordable for the industry as a
whole."224 Finding high FGD flow wastewater characteristics to be "within the same range" as
other facilities in the category, EPA declined to create a high FGD flow subcategory.225 EPA
cited the "variability of FGD wastewater flow rates at plants," which could incentivize plants to
discharge more wastewater to become part of the less stringent subcategory.226 The scenario
would likely lead to "an increase in intake water, which is non-water quality environmental
impact" and "an increase in wastewater discharge volumes and potentially no reduction in
pollutant loadings, which would not result in reasonable further progress toward the national goal
of eliminating the discharge of all pollutants."227
In the 2015 ELG Rule, EPA considered and rejected TVA's arguments that
Cumberland's FGD system metallurgy prohibited compliance with the BAT limitations due to
corrosion and operational concerns. EPA found that the Cumberland FGD system could tolerate
higher concentrations of chloride than TVA stated would be possible, thus allowing for increased
wastewater recirculation.228 Highlighting several options for wastewater recycling, EPA
emphasized that "plants are not required to install or operate a certain FGD wastewater treatment
technology to meet the final ELG's."229
The only new information EPA cites for the policy shift is a brief email, in which TVA
provides "preliminary estimates[of compliance.costs] with an accuracy of-30%to +50%."230
EPA has not addressed its 2015 findings that a high FGD flow subcategory would create
incentive to discharge more wastewater and result in related non-water quality environmental
impacts of increased intake water. Facing the same arguments TVA presented in 2015, and with
essentially the same data, EPA reaches the opposite conclusion. Yet EPA fails to explain the
inconsistencies of doing so.
b. EPA Proposes a BAT It Previously Rejected as Inadequate.
EPA unlawfully proposes a BAT that it previously rejected as inadequate. EPA proposes
chemical precipitation alone as BAT for high FGD flow facilities.231 But in 2015, EPA rejected
chemical precipitation as BAT. The agency found chemical precipitation was "not effective at
removing selenium, nitrogen compounds, and certain metals that contribute to high
concentrations of TDS in FGD wastewater."232 Discharging those pollutants "caus[es] adverse
223 Id.,Comment Excerpt No.4,3-584.
2241d. at 3-585.
225 Id. at 3-586.
2261d. .
2271d
228 Id. at 3-587.
2291d.,Comment Excerpt No. 5,5-40 to 5-41.
23°See Email to Anna Wildeman.(Nov. 13,2018)-DCN SE08195,Docket ID No.EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819.
231 84 Fed. Reg.at 64,638.
232 80 Fed. Reg.at 67,851.

•
Mr. A. Wheeler
Page 43 of 56 •
January 21, 2020
human health impacts and some of the most egregious environmental impacts."233 EPA therefore
"determined that, by itself, chemical precipitation would not result in reasonable further progress
toward the national goal of eliminating the discharge of all pollutants (see CWA section
301(b)(2)(A)), and rejected that technology basis as BAT."z34
In the 2019 Proposal, EPA does not explain or acknowledge important inconsistencies
created by its policy reversal: How can a technology EPA once rejected as inadequate become
the best available technology more than four years later? Does EPA still expect human health
impacts and egregious environmental impacts from pollutants discharged in wastewater treated
only by chemical precipitation? Most importantly, does chemical precipitation alone result in
reasonable further progress toward the national goal of eliminating the discharge of all
pollutants? EPA's proposed rule is arbitrary and capricious because it fails to explain or even
acknowledge these critical inconsistencies. Instead, EPA relies solely on cost to explain its
proposal.
c. EPA has no basis in the CWA for the High Flow Subcategory
EPA has no reasoned basis to reverse its policy, because it has no statutory authority for
its current position. As discussed, the Clean Water Act authorizes EPA to promulgate ELGs for
categories and classes of point, and other provisions, like the NPDES program or FDF variance,
tailor the Act's requirements for individual facilities.235 Congress made every effort to prohibit
• EPA from modifying a facility's effluent limitations for toxic pollutants based on an individual
facility's compliance costs.23 A one-facility, cost-based subcategory for toxic pollutants flouts
the text, structure, and legislative history of the Clean Water Act. Therefore, EPA has no
reasoned basis for its new policy.
5. The proposal is arbitrary and capricious.
•
Even if EPA acknowledges and explains the many inconsistencies of its policy shift, the
proposed subcategory would still be arbitrary and capricious because the agency overestimates
costs, gives controlling weight to an irrelevant factor while ignoring mandated factors, ignores
reasonable alternatives, and reaches contradictory conclusions.
a. EPA Overestimates Compliance Costs.
EPA justifies the High Flow Subcategory based only on compliance costs, but the agency
significantly overestimates those costs. Compliance costs correlate to FGD wastewater flow
rate,237 which EPA estimates as exceeding four million gallons per day (mgd) for the
Cumberland Plant.238
233 1d
234 Id. at 67,852.
235 See Section V(d)(3)—The Act Prohibits EPA's Proposed Subcategory.
236 See Section V(d)(3)(b)-The Act Prohibits EPA from Creating Single-Facility,Cost-Based BAT Subcategories.
237 See TDD, Section 5.2.1.
238 EPA does not expressly find Cumberland exceeds 4 mgd in the preamble,but it cites Cumberland in establishing
this category for facilities exceeding 4 mgd. EPA seems to rely on memoranda from the Environmental Research
Group,which estimate Cumberland's FGD wastewater flows as exceeding 4 mgd.See, e.g, Sara Bossenbroek and

Mr. A. Wheeler
Page 44 of 56
January 21, 2020
First EPA's cost calculations incorrectly assume the Cumberland Plant constantly
operates at full capacity, generating 2,470 MW;but Cumberland's average generation over the
last three years was 1,244 MW.239 About half the generation means about half the FGD.
wastewater flow rates and about half the costs.
It is irrational to base costs on peak output. Cumberland rarely reaches 2,470 MW in
generation. Those peaks have become increasingly rare, a trend likely to continue.240 TVA could
meet peak demand through other facilities in its diverse generation portfolio. TVA could add
equalization capacity, temporarily storing excess FGD wastewater in rare instances when the
Cumberland Plant must approach 2,470 MW. These alternative responses to peak demand would
lower costs by ensuring that the Cumberland Plant could consistently recirculate FGD
wastewater without risk of corrosion.
Second, EPA ignores TVA's reasonable alternatives to decrease FGD flow and thereby
decrease costs.EPA states that chlorine concentrations bar wastewater recirculation at the
Cumberland Plant, leading to high flows and high costs. But TVA has an obvious and simple
solution to lower chlorine concentrations in its FGD wastewater: use more Powder River Basin
coal, which has about twenty times less chlorine than TVA's current blend.241 Lower chlorine
levels would allow the Cumberland Plant to recirculate more wastewater without risk of
corrosion. By recirculating more wastewater, Cumberland would decrease its FGD purge flow
and compliance costs.
Although EPA asserts in the preamble that its rationale for the High Flow Subcategory
"reflects the reasonably predictable flow associated with actual and expected FGD
operations,"242 the agency did not consider the ramifications of the Cumberland Plant's actual
(and declining) capacity factors in its cost analysis.243 EPA's cost analysis is unsupported by the
record, which shows that Cumberland Plant's costs are much lower than EPA estimates and that
TVA has reasonable alternatives to lower those costs.
b. EPA Relies on an Irrelevant Factor and Ignores Statutory Factors
EPA improperly considered the costs of a single facility in setting BAT for the High
Flow Subcategory. BAT must be economically achievable, but"Congress intended that
economic impacts be determined for classes of facilities, rather than on a plant-by-plant
basis."244 The Act's structure and legislative history show that Congress intended to prohibit
EPA from setting effluent limitations for toxic pollutants based on an individual facility's
costs.245 And while industry-wide costs are relevant in setting BAT, they are of secondary
Danielle Stewart, Environmental Research Group,"Flue Gas Desulfurizatioon Flow Methodology for Compliance
Costs and Pollutant Loadings—DCN SE07091,"Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-2009-0819-8200(July 8,2019)
239 Dr.Ranajit Sahu,High FGD Flow Subcategory,at 10,Jan. 15,2020("Sahu Report")(Attachment 70).
24°See id. at 8-9.
241 See id. at 6-7.
242 84 Fed.Reg. 64,638. • •
243 Sahu Report,Attachment 70,at 9. _
244 Chem. Mfrs. Ass'n, 870 F.2d at 219 n.157.
245 See Section V(d)(3)-The Act Prohibits EPA's Proposed Subcategory.

Mr. A. Wheeler
Page 45 of 56
January 21, 2020 •
importance.246 Allegedly disproportionate costs for a single facility are not a legitimate factor for
setting BAT, which "represents a commitment of the maximum resources economically possible
to the ultimate goal of eliminating all polluting discharges."247 By justifying BAT for toxic
pollutants solely based on Cumberland's relatively high compliance costs, "the agency has relied
on factors which Congress has not intended it to consider."24
EPA ignored BAT's express statutory factors. To justify a BAT subcategory, a class of
facilities must be fundamentally different with respect to the factors listed in 33 U.S.C. §
1314(b)(2)(B).249 "Although the EPA has significant discretion in deciding how much weight to
accord each statutory factor under the CWA, it is not free to ignore any individual factor entirely. •
Both the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1314(b)(2), and the EPA's own regulations, 40 C.F.R. § 125(c)-(d),
state that the EPA shall take into account (or apply) certain factors in making a BAT
determination . ."250 Those factors include "the engineering aspects of the application Of
various types of control techniques, process changes, [and] non-water quality environmental
impact." 33 U.S.C. § 1314(b)(2)(B). In the High Flow Subcategory, EPA has ignored every
factor but cost. Nowhere does EPA address the non-water quality environmental impacts; despite •
the agency's 2015 refusal to create a high FGD flow subcategory partly because of the potential
"increase in intake water, which is non-water quality environmental impact that EPA is required
to consider under section 304(b) of the Clean Water Act."251 EPA's failure to consider relevant
statutory factors is arbitrary and capricious.
c. Even if EPA had considered the BAT factors, not one supports
subcategorization.
TVA has argued against complying with the 2015 ELG Rule based on non-water quality
impacts, process changes, and engineering aspects of the application of the 2015 BAT. TVA has
argued that changing its FGD wastewater pollution control technology would "risk air
compliance impacts."252 But other plants meet their equally stringent air compliance obligations
while also recycling FGD wastewater. TVA has cited concerns of increased mercury in the
gypsum it markets 53 Not only is that concern unsupported by any evidence, but protecting the
economic viability of a marketing program not a reason the Clean Water Act contemplates for
relaxing effluent limitations.254 TVA has stated that recirculation "increases the complexity of
•
246 See Am. Iron and Steel Inst. v. EPA,526 F.2d 1027, 1052 n.51 (3d Cir. 1975)("[I]t is clear that for`BATEA'
standards,cost was to be less important than for the `BPCTCA' standards,and that for even the `BPCTCA'
standards cost was not to be given primary importance.").
247 Nat'l Crushed Stone,449 U.S.at 74.
248 Motor Vehicle Mfrs.Ass'n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut.Auto. Ins. Co.,463 U.S.29,43 (1983).
249 Citizens Coal Council v. EPA,447 F.3d 879,893(6th Cir.2006). •
25°Texas Oil& Gas,Ass'n, 161 F.3d at 934.See also Sw. Elec. Power Co.,920 F.3d at 1006("[T]he Act lists factors
the Administrator must consider in determining BAT.").
251 EPA,Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source
Category: EPA's Responses to Public Comments, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819-4607-Al,Comment
Excerpt No.4,3-586(Sept.2015).
252 Cumberland EA,Attachment 68, at 12(Jul.2019).
253 Id
254 In 2019,TVA reported to its state regulator that it was acquiring the wallboard facility to which it previously
marketed its gypsum.Tenn. Valley Auth.,Wet FGD Wastewater Treatment and Bottom Ash ELG Project Updates,

•
Mr. A. Wheeler
Page 46 of 56
January 21, 2020
wastewater which reduces its ability to be treated."255 But other facilities overcome this same
"complexity," which is present in all FGD recirculated wastewater. And as EPA found in 2015,
the Cumberland Plant's FGD system metallurgy can recirculate wastewater without corroding.
TVA has acknowledged the system's ability to accept up to 3,175 ppm chloride, a level
sufficient to increase FGD wastewater recirculation without causing corrosion.256 Finally,
because TVA's average generation at the Cumberland Plant is much lower than EPA assumes,
for the vast majority of the time the Cumberland Plant's actual flow rates are less than 4 mgd—
the threshold EPA has established for the High Flow Subcategory—without any changes at all to
how the units are operating.257 In summary, the facts show that the sole plant for which EPA
proposes the High Flow Subcategory does not require subcategorization.
d. EPA Ignores Reasonable Alternatives
EPA unlawfully fails to consider any alternatives. Under all four options EPA considered,
BAT for the High Flow Subcategory is chemical precipitation.258 There are numerous available
technologies EPA refused to consider for high FGD flow facilities, including various
combinations of chemical precipitation, biological treatment (high- or low-residence time),
membrane technology, thermal technology. EPA's failure is particularly egregious because the
agency failed to evaluate a single alternative—despite a congressional mandate to find the"best
available technology economically achievable."
Similarly, in proposing the High Flow Subcategory, EPA fails to consider Cumberland's
alternatives for meeting the same standard as other facilities. Assuming Cumberland's scrubber
metallurgy prevents compliance with the FGD wastewater category's BAT (a position EPA
rejected in 2015), TVA could,modify its scrubber materials or line its absorbers to increase
resistance to corrosion. TVA could replace some or all high sulfur coal with low sulfur and low
chlorine sub-bituminous Powder River Basin coal at Cumberland. As EPA informed TVA in
2015, "plants are not required to install or operate a certain FGD wastewater treatment
technology to meet the final ELG's."259 EPA now assumes that BAT mandates a single
technology, arguing that Cumberland's inability to implement that technology justifies special
treatment.Erroneously ruling out one existing technology for one plant does not justify •
weakening BAT, a"technology-forcing" standard Congress created "to press development of
new, more efficient and effective pollution-control technologies."260 Even if Cumberland could
not achieve the effluent limitations through the same technology as other facilities in the
category, TVA has alternative means to•comply with the standards. EPA has unlawfully failed to
consider any of those alternatives.
Cumberland Fossil Plant,NPDES Permit No. TN0005789,Annual Report 2018(January 24,2019)(Attachment
71).
255/d
256 Sahu Report,Attachment 70,at 5.
257 Sahu Report,Attachment 70,at 6-10.
258 See 84 Fed.Reg.at 64,630.
259 Envtl. Prot.Agency,Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating
Point Source Category: EPA's Responses to Public Comments,EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819-4607-AI,Comment
Excerpt No. 5, 5-40 to 5-41.
26°Sw. Elec. Power Co.,920 F.3d at 1005.

Mr. A. Wheeler
Page47of56
January 21, 2020
e. EPA Paradoxically Endorses and Rejects the Same Technology as BAT
Setting chemical precipitation as BAT, despite rejecting it elsewhere as inadequate, is
arbitrary and capricious. In 2015, EPA found that chemical precipitation would not result in
reasonable further progress.261 Consistent with that finding, EPA's current proposal rejects the
chemical precipitation as BAT for the FGD wastewater category, partly because chemical
precipitation inadequately reduces discharges of pollutants, including selenium and
nitrate/nitrite.262.EPA's "paradoxical action"—selecting chemical precipitation as BAT, while
rejecting it as inadequate elsewhere—"signals arbitrary and capricious agency action."263
Further, "EPA has contravened the plain language of the CWA, which defines BAT as the
technology that 'will result in reasonable further progress' toward pollutant discharge
elimination."264
VI. BROMIDES
In this rulemaking, EPA proposes not to set membrane filtration technology—or any
technology, for that matter—as BAT for bromide reduction. Instead, it proposes to impose no
limits for bromide and instead rely entirely on plants' participation in the Voluntary Incentive
Program to achieve the health benefits it credits to Option 2. EPA's approach is unacceptable for
many reasons, not the least of which is that membrane filtration is available and economically
achievable and therefore should be used as BAT, as explained above. It is also unacceptable
because EPA's assumption that plants will voluntarily implement membrane filtration under VIP
is completely speculative.
EPA asked for comment on various "sub-options" to control bromide. We support these
requirements as a bare-minimum improvement over EPA's previous inaction on bromides, but
EPA cannot stop there. Although it is important to monitor discharges,encourage reducing
bromide use at plants, and set numerical limits based on product substitution, those measures are
not enough, as described in more detail below. EPA must do more to protect public health and
comply with the Clean Water Act: it must set enforceable, numeric, effluent limitations.based on
the best available technology.
Bromides are dangerous because they can lead to the formation of trihalomethanes in
drinking water supplies. Trihalomethanes can increase the risk of cancer, and can lead to liver,
kidney, or central nervous system disease. Trihalomethanes are formed in the course of
chlorination of drinking water when chlorine interacts with organic matter. The addition of
bromide to source water can increase both the overall level of trihalomethanes and the
prevalence of brominated species. Even a small increase in the amount of bromide in source
water can increase the prevalence and concentrations of brominated trihalomethanes
(bromoform, dibromochloromethane, and bromodichloromethane), thereby increasing the risk of
harm, because organic disinfection byproduct precursors react preferentially with bromine over.
261 80 Fed.Reg.at 67,852.
262 84 Fed.Reg. at 64,632.
263 Sw. Elec. Power Co.,920 F.3d at 1016.
264 Id. (emphasis original).

•
• Mr. A. Wheeler
Page 48.of 56 •
January 21, 2020
•
chlorine, generating higher concentrations of brominated trihalomethanes.265 Of the four
trihalomethane species regulated by EPA with a cumulative maximum contaminant level-(MCL),
two, bromoform and bromodichloromethane, have a MCL goal of zero, meaning no level of
these trihalomethanes is safe for human health.266
As EPA admits,267 membrane filtration, or equivalent zero-discharge technology,,is the
only technology that would adequately control bromide, and therefore, it should be used as BAT.
a. Experience in North Carolina and Virginia illustrates why EPA's proposed
sub-options are not enough.
•
Bromide contamination has been a serious issue for communities in North Carolina and
Virginia downstream from Duke Energy's Belews Creek facility, which sits on the Dan River in
Stokes County,NC, near the Virginia border.268 Shortly after Duke Energy installed FGD •
scrubbers at the plant, the town of Eden observed increased levels of trihalomethanes in its
treated drinking water.269
As a result of water testing, Eden confirmed in 2011 that Belews Creek was the source of
bromide, and internal documents reveal Duke Energy agreed that the FGD system at Belews
Creek was likely the source. Thereafter, high levels of trihalomethanes were observed in •
Madison,NC, which is on the Dan River, closer to Belews Creek than Eden, and the Henry
County,VA and Dan River Water utilities, which both purchase water from Eden,NC. •
Madison, Henry County, VA, and Dan River Water all received notices of violation for unsafe
levels of trihalomethanes. .
In conjunction with its criminal plea agreement and in subsequent testimony, Duke
Energy admitted that its bromide discharges from its FGD wastewater at its Belews Creek site
into the Dan River contributed to trihalomethane formation in downstream water systems,
including the drinking water.systems for Madison and.Eden,North Carolina.270 Rather than
265 Jeanne M. VanBriesen, Ph.D.,P.E.,"Potential Drinking Water Effects of Bromide Discharges from Coal-fired
Electric Power Plants,"at 16-18(Attachment 72).
266 EPA National Drinking Water Regulations at 5 (May 2009),available at https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-
drinking-water/national-primary-drinking-water-regulations(Attachment 73).EPA defines the Maximum
Contaminant Level Goal as the"level of a contaminant in drinking water below•which there is no known or.
expected risk to health."
267 See, e.g.,Proposed TDDat 8-2 and 8-4(stating that bromide is"not reliably removed" by chemical precipitation
or"CP+LRTR"),and id. at 8-6("Based on data for thermal systems and process knowledge and performance data
for membrane systems,all pollutants present in FGD wastewater would be effectively treated by membrane
filtration").
268 Bertrand Gutierrez,Madison and Eden continue costly search for cleaner drinking water,GREENSBORO NEWS&
RECORD(Mar. 19,2017),available at https://www.greensboro.com/news/local .news/madison-and-eden-continue-
costly-search-for-cleaner-drinking-water/article_deb43a91-9463-5c8f-a5df-d230ce708b32.html(Attachment 74);
Bertrand Gutierrez,Discharge from Belews Creek power plant affects water quality, WINSTON-SALEM JOURNAL
(Apr. 13,2014),available at https://www.journalnow.com/news/local/discharge-from-belews-creek-power.-plant- •
• affects-water-quality/article_8e6f8202-a305-580d-a3.89-d96da37d5629.html (Attachment 75).
269 Joint Factual Statement, United States v. Duke Energy„No. 5:15-CR-62-H,¶¶ 162-184(May 14,2015)
(Attachment 76)("Duke Energy Joint Factual Statement").
270 Duke Energy Joint Factual Statement, Attachment 76; Duke Energy 30(b)(6)Testimony of Zachary Hall at
38:21-25 (Attachment 77).

Mr. A. Wheeler
Page49of56
January 21, 2020 •
eliminate its bromide discharges, Duke Energy entered into agreements with the towns of Eden
and Madison to assist them in modifying their drinking water treatment systems to address the.
trihalomethanes at the backend. Sampling from 2017 shows Duke Energy continued to .
discharge bromide into Little Belews Creek, a tributary of the Dan River.271
Cerlicle en<v
® tit — AxlOn 0 Sharon Kmtuck
Is `=J J Mt Cross O 'll
Crilz Fbrod Pasture
Spencer &osNlle ®
® Beenslurs fan 0 Ringgold
menu. nu ®
C,nville
Ridgeway
g Sandy Level Caccedo an ,.lard f'1
V ( Maintain HIII
emy Kit 0 410
WieGInIA
'1011114 CASOLWA
Malrlrnony an ® y.nawn
' ® ® Pelham Provltlence Blanch
Sandy Ridge
0 Eden
Delta O ten O L� O PLOW
Stoneville Wmdwo.d 6.23
Prestonvllle. .
O Cig
DOEgor0wn �'.l
man ® Meyodan Wlndmere
Dillard Wentworth
Allison Yenceyvllle „
Shanncn
® Modieon ® F.rval CaaNlI r
C7
Local hill
® - Reidavlee
® " Cllishoro Yt Ashland
Pine stall `�:'/ Ffigr
Cara V a Cherry Gins.MrieOvAle
•
N'alrn:t Cwe Belews Creek - Cernp Springs Jericho ��I
POWer Station Mcnroelan
a Williamsburg -0
Q f), ® •
Ande,On +
Fulp
Bekws creek O
Stekesdaie Goggle Cst I '
•,,,...,,i M.pdr.i2020 Uniud0.n nOn. emdf..t.,k 2nriu
Map showing proximity of Madison, Eden, and Danville to Belews Creek. Henry County, VA is
adjacent to the VA-NC state line, above Eden, NC. Dan River Water provides water in
• Rockingham'County, NC, where Madison and Eden are located.
NC DEQ implemented measures similar to those EPA proposes now as "sub-options:" it
revised Duke Energy's NPDES permit to include additional monitoring and bromide reduction
planning requirements for bromide, and after community pressure it also revised Duke Energy.'s
air permit to prohibit the use of brominated additives. Although these were good steps toward
controlling bromide pollution in NC, persistent detection of trihalomethanes downstream
demonstrates that these measures are not enough to abate the serious public health risk posed by
discharging bromides.
1. Monitoring and bromide minimization plans alone are not enough to address
bromide discharges.
Monitoring and bromide minimization plans are important measures for EPA to require,
but EPA must not rely on these alone to control bromide pollution because these procedural
requirements by themselves have proven completely ineffective in North Carolina. Duke Energy
knew it was discharging bromide into the Dan River, which is a public drinking water source, yet
•
271 Pace Analytical Sampling Results(Jan. 11,2017)(Attachment 78).

Mr. A. Wheeler
Page 50.of 56 •
January 21, 2020
it did nothing to address the problem until the downstream community recognized the problem
and Duke Energy faced criminal charges. By that time, Duke Energy had been discharging
bromide without limit into the Dan River for years, and it took several more years until the
downstream drinking water utilities were able take action to address the problem.
Even with the new drinking water treatment technology and additional monitoring and
reporting requirements, elevated levels of trihalomethane continue to be found in the water.272
Moreover, Duke Energy's efforts are unproductive. Semi-annually, Duke Energy provides a
"progress" report on bromide reductions to NC DEQ, which is so devoid of detail that it is
impossible to tell what"progress," if any, has been made in minimizing discharge of bromide.273
Duke Energy's required semiannual bromide reduction reporting illustrates why EPA's sub-
option is inadequate by itself—this type of reporting without actual obligations to reduce
pollution fails to achieve much aside from paperwork.
Instead of simply requiring monitoring or non-numeric bromide minimization plans, EPA
must require plants to eliminate bromide discharges by setting effluent limitations based on
membrane filtration as BAT. In addition, EPA's monitoring and reporting requirements must
call for reporting of more detailed information,including sampling results, so that regulators,
downstream drinking water utilities, and the public can better understand the extent of the
bromide discharge and take action as needed.
2. Reducing brominated additives is an important step but will not fully eliminate
bromide discharges.
EPA's proposed sub-options related to brominated additives also are important first steps
for controlling bromide pollution because states often cannot be relied.upon to impose
appropriate controls on bromide through water quality-based effluent limitations, as EPA has
recognized, and states have also failed to reliably control bromide pollution through air permits.
However, product substitution only addresses one part of the bromide pollution problem, and
only numeric effluent limitations based on BAT can fully protect communities against harm to
their drinking water supplies.
•
`Halide salt' fuel additive and activated carbon injection are sometimes used by plants to
help control mercury and air toxic emissions. Both are commonly laced with bromide. These
brominated additives are then captured by the plant's scrubber and discharged with the scrubber
wastewater into wastewater basins, which in turn discharges into rivers, lakes, and streams.
Brominated additives.to coal operations have been an'issue in the Southeast. For
example, in 2017 at the Allen and Marshall coal plants in North,Carolina,274 NC DEQ proposed
to increase the level of allowed brominated additives, even though Duke Energy's wastewater
discharge of bromide contributed to the formation of carcinogens in downstream drinking water
272 David Cornwell,Expert Report Re: Duke Energy Carolinas Belews Creek Steam Station,22(April 8,2019)
(Attachment 79).
273 See letter from Duke Energy to NC DEQ(May 15,2019)(Attachment 80).
274 Fortunately,Duke Energy has since removed halide salt additives from its operations. See letter from Duke
Energy to NC DEQ,June 12,2017(Attachment 81).

•
Mr. A. Wheeler
Page 51 of 56
January 21, 2020
intakes serving more than a million people.275 Following public scrutiny and a lawsuit filed over
the Allen permit by the Southern Environmental Law Center, NC DEQ reversed course on the
Allen and Marshall permits, and Duke Energy removed halide salts from its operations. NC
DEQ subsequently issued permits prohibiting the use of"halogen containing compounds (e.g.
bromide)."276 See the attached comment letters to the NC DEC for more information on bromide
problems in North Carolina.277 Brominated additives are also an issue in Virginia. Although
such use has apparently ceased, Dominion Energy was permitted to use up to 6,500 tons per year
of a halide salt(calcium bromide) at its Chesterfield Power Station on the James River in
Virginia.278
Although eliminating•the use of brominated additives is important, as seen in North
Carolina, simply eliminating them does not fully address the problem. Duke Energy no longer
uses halide salts at Belews Creek, but it still discharges enough bromide to cause serious issues
downstream. The best solution is for EPA to eliminate bromide discharge by creating strong
effluent limitations based on membrane filtration technology.
b. Membrane filtration is necessary to eliminate bromide discharge and prevent
the formation of trihalomethanes in downstream drinking water supplies.
It is essential for EPA to address bromide discharges by settling an effluent limitation for
power plants, rather than leaving it up to drinking water utilities to treat the resulting
trihalomethanes downstream. By failing to put a limit on bromide discharges, EPA shifts the
burden of dealing with the downstream impacts of bromide pollution onto already-burdened
drinking water utilities, which are often small, rural municipalities.
The experience in North Carolina and Virginia underscores the importance of setting
membrane filtration as BAT for bromide. Even though Duke Energy poured millions of dollars
into attempts to help find a band-aid solution for the Madison and Eden drinking water utilities,
it was not able to eliminate the bromide-caused carcinogens in these drinking water systems.
There is no guarantee that the so-called `fixes' that Duke Energy pursued will eliminate these
bromide-caused carcinogens from peoples' drinking water. In 2015, trihalomethane levels in the
City of Eden's water supply were detected as high as 89 parts per billion,279 and in 2016, they
increased to as high as 100 ppb.280 In 2017, trihalomethane levels were detected as high as 87
ppm,281 and in 2018 (the most recent reporting year),they were as high as 86 ppm.282 •
•
275 See Letter from Southern Environmental Law Center to NC DEQ,April 28,2017(Attachment 82)("Marshall
Comment Letter");letter from Southern Environmental Law Center to NC DEQ,Feb.27,2017(Attachment 83)
("Allen Comment Letter").
276 See e.g.,NC DEQ,Air Quality Permit No. 03757T43 (Sept. 15,2017)(Attachment 84).
277/d.
278 See Dominion,Operation&Maintenance Manual VPDES Discharge Facilities,Chesterfield Power Station,23
(June 12,2012)(Attachment 85)(excerpts).
279 City of Eden,2015 Annual Drinking Water Quality Report,
5,available at http://www.edennc.us/DocumentCenterNiew/1226(Attachment 86).
280 City of Eden,2016 Annual Drinking Water Quality Report,5,available at
https://www.edennc.us/DocumentCenter/View/5779/2016-Water-Quality-Report(Attachment 87). .
281City of Eden,2017 Annual Drinking Water Quality Report,4,available at
https://www.edennc.us/DocumentCenter/View/1 03 1 6/20 1 7-Water-Quality-Report--(Attachment 88).

Mr. A. Wheeler
Page 52 of 56
January 21, 2020 •
The City of Danville, Virginia, which is on the North Carolina border on the Dan.River,
downstream of Belews Creek, also took action to address trihalomethanes that were formed as a
result of bromide discharges from Belews Creek. In 2015, it reported installing new technology
to reduce the formation of trihalomethanes, yet based on subsequent water quality reports, it does
not seem to have been effective. In 2018 (the most recent reporting year), Danville suffered
from total trihalomethane levels as high as 120 parts per billion, and in the third quarter of 2018,
it violated the EPA MCL of 80 ppb with an average level of total trihalomethane of 85 ppb.283
Moreover, the proposed `fix' of substituting chloramines for chlorine creates other
problems for downstream drinking water users: chloramines are linked to health problems such
as respiratory irritants, severe skin reactions, and greater exposure to pathogens in the water.284
The City of Eden itself has recognized that certain sub-categories of people, such as people with
kidney issues, will need to take special precautions when drinking chloramine-treated water.285
Chloramines can also lead to the formation of carcinogenic byproducts called nitrosamines..
Nitrosamine formation may be hastened by the presence of bromides.286 Chloramines also cause
other problems, including the leaching of lead from pipes. The switch from chlorine to
chloramine has been implicated in elevated levels of lead observed in drinking water in •
Washington, DC and other cities. In these drinking-water distribution systems,the leaching of
lead from pipes had been inhibited for many decades by a chlorine-induced coating of insoluble
lead oxide on the surface of the pipes. After chlorine was replaced by chloramine, which is not
as strong an oxidant, the coatings became more soluble and released higher concentrations of
lead into the drinking water.287 Lead leaching from chloramines should be a concern in many
places, including, for example, some communities in South Carolina whose drinking water
•
282 City of Eden,2018 Annual Drinking Water Quality Report, 5,available at
https://www.edennc.us/DocumentCenter/View/11061/2018-Water-Quality-Report(Attachment 89).
283 City of Danville,2018 Water Quality Report,4,available at
https://danviIleutilities.com/Attachments/2018%20Water%20Quality%20Report%20FINAL.pdf(Attachment 90);
see also City of Danville 2015 Water Quality Report,PWSID#5590100 at 2-3 (2015)(showing
trihalomethane detections as high as 100 parts per billion)(Attachment 91); City of Danville 2016 Water Quality
Report,available at https://danvilleutilities.com/Attachments/2016%20Water%20Quality%20Report.pdf(showing
total trihalomethane detections as high as 108 ppb)(Attachment 92);City of Danville 2017 Water Quality Report,.
available at https://danvilleutilities.com/Attachments/2017%20Water%20Quality%20Report%20Final.pdf(showing
trihalomethane detections as high as 91 ppb)(Attachment 93).The City of Danville installed a new mixing and
aeration system at one of its storage reservoirs to help remove trihalomethanes,but subsequent water quality reports
show high levels of total trihalomethanes are still detected in drinking water.Id.
284Citizens Concerned About Chloramine,Chloramine Facts(Sept. 11,2006),
http://www.chloramine.org/chloraminefacts.htm(Attachment 94);see also World Health Organization,Seminar
Pack for Drinking-Water Quality at 5,http://www.who.int/water sanitation health/dwq/SO4.pdf(According to the
World Health Organization,"monochloramine is about 2,000 and 100,000 times less effective than free chlorine for
the inactivation of E. Coli and rotaviruses,
respectively.")(Attachment 95).
285 Eden 2015 Water Quality Report,Attachment 86.
286 See Amisha Shah et al., Trade-Offs in Disinfection Byproduct Formation Associated with Precursor Preoxidation
for Control of N-Nitrosodimethylamine Formation,46 Environ. Sci.Technol.4809,4809(2012)(Attachment 96).
287 David L. Sedlak and Urs von Gunten, The Chlorine Dilemma,311 Science Mag.42,43 (2011)(Attachment 97).

Mr. A. Wheeler
Page 53 of 56
January 21, 2020
utilities switched to chloramines due to concerns about bromides from upstream FGD
wastewater discharge. 288
Belews Creek may be one of the best documented examples of bromide issues from FGD
discharges in our region, but it is not the onlyone. For example, in Alabama, the Cityof
g g P
Birmingham had to shut down its drinking water intake when trihalomethane levels reached 130
parts per billion, 50 parts per billion over the EPA standard.289 In Virginia, quarterly sampling at
a drinking water plant in Hopewell, VA, downstream of Dominion Energy's Chesterfield Power
Station, indicates that, since at least 2011, total trihalomethanes levels have been elevated, and
have regularly approached or exceeded the MCL, and brominated forms of trihalomethanes have
been present at levels higher than would be expected without bromide addition to source•
water.290 The FGD discharge at Chesterfield Power Station is likely a significant contributor to
this chronic problem. There also have been problems at sites in.North Carolina other than
Belews Creek.29.1
In sum, an effluent limitation based on membrane filtration is sorely needed to control
bromide. Although there is an outdated federal limit on total trihalomethanes in drinking water,
there has been no federal limit for bromide in FGD wastewater, meaning the common source of
the problem (power plants discharging bromides) is left unchecked. States, including North
Carolina and Virginia, have no state limits on bromide. At Belews Creek, there were no
numerical limits on bromide discharges in Duke Energy's wastewater permit. Duke Energy's
permit for Belews Creek still contains no numerical limits for bromide—it is only required to
periodically monitor it.292 Likewise, Dominion Energy's permit for Chesterfield does not limit
bromide discharge, nor does it require monitoring. Instead of placing the onus of dealing with
the problems created by bromide on downstream drinking water systems, EPA must address the
problem on the front end by requiring effluent limitations based on membrane filtration.
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
•
The concerns presented in this letter are worsened by the fact that pollution from coal-
fired power plants disproportionately burdens communities of color, low-income families, and
indigenous people. Coal ash pollution is a serious environmental justice problem nationwide.
•
In 2016, the United States Commission on Civil Rights (the "Commission") issued a
report specifically examining,coal ash and environmental justice.293 The Commission found the
288 Sammy Fretwell;Lead tainted water in SC communities,THE STATE(Feb..19,2016),available at
http://www.thestate.com/news/local/article61283287.html(Attachment 98).
289 Verified Complaint at¶21, Water Works and Sewer Board of the City of Birmingham v. Umicore,CV 2007-094
(Marshall Cnty. Cir. Ct. Apr.27,2007)(Attachment 99)._ •
290 See, e.g.,Letter from Office of Drinking Water,Virginia Department of Health to Virginia-American Water
Company, Re: City of Hopewell(Oct. 1,2012)(Attachment 100).
291 See Marshall Comment Letter,Attachment 82;Allen Comment Letter,Attachment 83.
292 NC DEQ,Final NPDES Permit Renewal, Permit NC0024406, Belews Creek Steam Station(March 21,2019),
available at https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Coal%20Ash/2019-actions/24406-Final-Permit-signed-2019.pdf(Attachment
101);see also letter from Southern Environmental Law Center to NC DEQ(July 30,2018)(Attachment 102).
293 Commission Report,Attachment 7,at 3 (The Commission defines environmental justice as a civil right,meaning
"the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race,color,national origin,or income,

Mr. A. Wheeler •
Page 54 of 56
January 21, 2020
percentage of minorities and low income individuals living near coal ash is "disproportionately
high," when compared with national averages.294 It further found that"racial minorities and low
income communities are disproportionately affected by the siting of waste disposal facilities and s
often lack political and financial clout to properly bargain with polluters when fighting a decision
or seeking redress."295 Among other sources, the Commission based these findings on statistics
from a peer-reviewed study that shows polluters "tend to site facilities that can negatively impact
human health in these communities because they lack the political clout and resources necessary
to fight siting decisions."296 .
This is especially true in the Southeast. The Commission cites a 1983 report ordered by
Congress from the United States General Accountability Office, which discovered that three-
quarters of hazardous waste sites in eight states in the Southeast were located in primarily poor
and African American or Latino communities.297 A 1994 report by the United Church of Christ
Commission for Racial Justice revealed the situation was only getting worse—the number of
• people of color living near hazardous waste facilities increased by six percent between 1980 and
1993, so that people of color were.47 percent more likely than whites to live near hazardous
waste.298 The Commission notes that more than 20 years since this report, "its findings may still
hold relevance today as environmental issues still impact minorities and low-income
communities."299
•
Coal ash contamination has harmed low-income, minority, and indigenous communities.
in our region300 in many ways—including, for example, polluting the groundwater that families
and small farmers rely upon in rural areas,301 raising serious worker safety issues for low-wage
laborers hired to clean-up coal ash spills,302 and siting landfills in environmental justice
communities.303
•
with respect to the development, implementation,and enforcement of environmental laws,regulations and
policies.").
294 Id. at 4.
295 Id. at 4,6.
296 Id. at 6.
297 Id. at 7. •
298 Id. at 8.
299 Id
300 See SELC EJ Letter,Attachment 8(discussion of environmental justice impacts in North Carolina). In February
2019,the NC DEQ Environmental Justice and Equity Board agreed and recommended to NC DEQ that it require
full excavation at all remaining coal ash sites in North Carolina. See letter from Dr.Marian Johnson-Thompson,
Vice Chair,NC DEQ Environmental Justice and Equity Board,to Michael Regan, Secretary,NC DEQ(Feb. 15,
2019)(Attachment 104). On April'1,2019,NC DEQ ordered Duke Energy to fully excavate all six coal ash sites at
issue. See, e.g.,NC DEQ,DEQ Coal Combustion Residuals Surface Impoundment Closure Determination, Belews
Creek Steam Station(April.1,2019),available at https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Coal%20Ash/2019-april-
decision/belews/BelewsCreek_FINAL_ImpoundmentClosureDeterminationReport_20190401.pdf(Attachment
105).
301 See letter from Southern Environmental Law Center to Georgia Environmental Protection Division, 17(Aug. 5,
2019)(Attachment 106).
• 302 In November 2018,a jury found that TVA's contractor for the Kingston clean-up failed to adequately protect
workers from exposure to coal ash contamination. See Jamie Satterfield,Jury:Jacobs Engineering endangered
Kingston disaster clean-up workers,KNOX NEWS(Nov. 7,2018),available at
https://www.knoxnews.com/storyinews/crime/20 1 8/11/07/verdict-reached-favor-sickened-workers-coal-ash-

Mr. A. Wheeler
Page 55 of 56
January 21, 2020
EPA's EJSCREEN tool demonstrates the significant environmental justice issues near
power plants in the Southeast. For example, in South Carolina, three plants are located in
majority-minority and low-income communities, and those communities face environmental
risks that far exceed the national averages. These three communities rank in the top third
percentile for all eleven of EPA's environmental justice indices, with the Cross and Wateree
plants ranking in the 99th percentile for EPA's wastewater discharge indicator and the Winyah
plant ranking in the 96th percentile for that indicator.304
Meanwhile, Eden,North Carolina and Danville, Virginia bear the brunt of the harm from
bromide discharged by Duke Energy from Belews Creek, as explained above, and both of these
communities face significant environmental justice concerns. Danville ranks between the 78th to
97th percentile for all eleven of EPA's environmental justice indices, and Eden comes close,
ranging between the 65th and 95th percentiles.305 Both are in the,top five percent for the
wastewater discharge indicator(Danville-97%; Eden-95%).
These five places are only examples of a larger problem. The same analysis could be
performed for plants across the Southeast and the nation, and we would find similar patterns
confirming what the U.S. Commission on Human Rights found in 2016: pollution from power
plants disproportionately harms minority, low-income, and indigenous communities.
EPA's proposal to base effluent limitations on less-than-best available technology only
exacerbates the harm to these communities. Instead of protecting the environment and public
health, EPA prioritizes minimal cost-savings spread across the entire industry at the expense of
the surrounding communities directly impacted.by water pollution from particular facilities.
Instead of requiring utilities to internalize the cost of harm from their industry, EPA proposes to
shift this burden to surrounding communities that are least able to bear it, at significant expense
cleanup-lawsuit/1917514002/(Attachment 107). Forty-four Kingston disaster workers have died from illnesses they
assert in the lawsuit were caused by coal ash exposure,and more than 400 are sick,according to an ongoing tally
from court records by Knox News.'See Jamie Satterfield,Activists honor Kingston coal ash cleanup workers and
announce upcoming protest against Jacobs, KNOX NEWS(Nov. 17,2019), .
https://www.knoxnews.com/story/news/local/tennessee/tvacoalash/2019/11/18/kingston-coal-ash-cleanup-workers-
honored jobs-with justice/4205940002/(Attachment 108).
303 In the aftermath of the Kingston coal ash failure,TVA transported ash to the Arrowhead Landfill in Perry
County,Alabama,a landfill in an environmental justice community that had already been subjected to repeated
violations of pollution laws. See Kristen Lombardi, Welcome to Uniontown:Arrowhead Landfill Battle a Modern •
• Civil Rights Struggle,NBC NEWS(Aug. 5,2015),http://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/epa-environmental-
injustice-uniontown-n402836(Attachment 109). In September 2016,the United States Commission on Civil Rights
issued a report finding that the decision to move coal ash to the Arrowhead Landfill was primarily based on
technical considerations, including cost,and did not properly take into account environmental justice concerns. See
Commission Report,Attachment 7,at 65-69.
304 EJSCREEN Report for five-mile radius around Cross Station,Cross Station Rd,Pineville, SC 29468,
https://ejscreen.epa.gov/mapper/(last accessed Jan.20,2020)(Attachment 110);EJSCREEN Report for five-mile
radius around Wateree Station, 142 Wateree Station Rd,Eastover,SC 29044,https://ejscreen.epa.gov/mapper/(last
accessed Jan. 20,2020)(Attachment 111); EJSCREEN Report for five-mile radius around Winyah Station,661
Steam Plant Dr,Georgetown,SC 29440,https://ejscreen.epa.gov/mapper/(last accessed Jan.20,2020)(Attachment
112).
305 EJSCREEN Report for three-mile radius around Danville, VA,https://ejscreen.epa.gov/mapper/(last accessed
Jan.20,2020)(Attachment 113); EJSCREEN Report for three-mile radius around Eden,NC,
https://ejscreen.epa.gov/mapper/(last accessed Jan.20,2020)(Attachment 114).

Mr. A. Wheeler
Page 56 of 56 •
January 21, 2020
to the public, including precious local tax dollars, while placing at risk natural resources and.
human health.
For example, EPA proposes no limits on bromide discharges, shifting the cost of this
pollution to downstream communities. EPA estimates this proposal would result in more bladder
cancer cases and deaths306 and cost the public $120 million in lost benefits,307 but it would save
the industry $121 million.308 And these are only the costs EPA took into account. In its
proposal, EPA fails to account for other costs to the public.
As we have seen in Danville and Eden, in order to address the carcinogenic
trihalomethanes in drinking water resulting from bromide discharges, local governments will
need to invest in costly drinking water treatment technology, diverting resources from other.
pressing needs in the community. Some municipalities may not be able to afford a fix; others
that can afford it may be unsuccessful, as has been the case in Danville and Eden, described
above. Many residents in these communities have no choice but to continue to drink the water
from their taps and face the cancer risk; they may not be able to afford expensive reverse
osmosis treatment systems or bottled water.
Instead of placing the burden on downstream communities, EPA must establish an
effluent limitation for bromide based on membrane filtration, which would filter out bromides.
and avoid public health effects downstream. Utilities are in the best position to shoulder the cost
of bromides; not downstream communities.
EPA must fix these environmental injustices by following the mandate of the Clean
Water Act and establishing increasingly stringent effluent limitations for power plants based on
truly "best" available technology, without any carve-outs, as we explain above.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
Megan Kimball
Nicholas Torrey
Frank Holleman
Leslie Griffith
Amanda.Garcia •
Trey Bussey
306 EPA,Benefit&Cost Analysis,Table 4-7(estimating Option 2 would result in $37 million in benefits per year,
whereas Option 4 would result in$84 million—more than twice as much).
3p7 84 Fed. Reg.64,660(Option 2'would result in$68.5 million total annualized benefits at a three percent discount
rate,whereas Option 4 would result in$188 million in benefits.)
3°8 84 Fed.Reg.64,645(Option 2 would save industry$147 million,and Option 4 would save industry$26 million).