NC0004979_Correspondence_20210728 (5)

SOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER
Telephone [phone]
VIA U.S. MAIL AND E-MAIL
601 WEST ROSEMARY STREET, SUITE 220 Facsimile 919-929-9421
CHAPEL HILL. NC 27516-2356
December 17, 2019
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Water Quality Permitting Section
Attn: Allen Permit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1617
[e-mail]
Re: Comments on Draft NPDES Major Modification, Permit No. NC0004979,
Allen Steam Station
Dear Dr. Chernikov:
On behalf of itself, Catawba Riverkeeper Foundation, Sierra Club, and Waterkeeper
Alliance, 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 Allen plant on the Catawba River and Lake Wylie. This proposed modification does
not protect North Carolina or its water resources from the serious coal ash pollution of Duke
Energy, and it fails to uphold the Department's mission of protecting North Carolina's
communities and clean water. Indeed, it flies in the face of earlier public comments: the original
draft permit initially proposed a later compliance date, but after public comments called for more
protection, DEQ required the earlier February 2020 date.1 DEQ should maintain its commitment
to protecting the public, especially when it already made the correct decision to require
compliance with these pollution limits earlier in response to public comments.
The proposed modification lacks any rational justification and must not be finalized.
With this modification, NCDEQ proposes to push back Duke Energy's obligation to
comply with permit limits on discharges of flue gas desulfurization ("FGD") wastewater that the
agency already determined are necessary, even though Duke Energy has installed the treatment
technology necessary to meet those pollution limits. The revision would needlessly delay the
effectiveness of the permit's pollution limits on FGD wastewater from February 2020 to
1 Compare DEQ, Draft Permit, Condition A(8), available at
https: //files. nc.gov/ncdeq/Water%20Quality/NPDES%20Coal%20Ash/2014%20Duke%20Energy%20Renewals%2
0and%20Modifications/Allen%20Draft%20WW%204979%20Permit%20041618.pdf, with DEQ, Final Permit,
Condition A(8) (July 13, 2018), available at
https: //files. nc.gov/ncdeq/Water%20Quality/NPDES%20Coal%20Ash/2014%20Duke%20Energy%20Renewals%2
Oand%20Modifications/Allen/Allen-4979-final-permit-signed-2018.pdf
Charlottesville • Chapel Hill • Atlanta • Asheville • Birmingham • Charleston • Nashville • Richmond • Washington. DC
100% recycled paper

S. Chernikov
December 17, 2019
Page 2 of 7
November 2020 when the treatment technology on which these limits are based is already in
place at the facility. This weakening of the permit is contrary to the facts on the ground and is
arbitrary and capricious. The existence of the treatment technology at Allen provides absolutely
no protection to the public and our waterways without enforceable limits in the permit. The only
conceivable reason for Duke Energy's request for delay is that it hopes to stave off pollution
limits as long as possible, with the ultimate goal of avoiding them altogether, if it is able to
obtain further delays until the plant retires.
FGD wastewater contains many harmful contaminants including arsenic, selenium, and
bromide. When bromide mixes with chlorine in treated drinking water supplies, it forms
carcinogens called trihalomethanes.2 There have been problems with bromides contaminating
drinking water supplies in North Carolina, including at Allen. Duke Energy's discharges of
bromide into the Catawba River have caused trihalomethanes to form in drinking water supplies,
including the drinking water supply for the City of Charlotte.3 Duke Energy made similar
admissions as part of its criminal plea agreement.4 Duke Energy's bromide discharges can affect
downstream communities in North and South Carolina.5 More than 100,000 people depend upon
Lake Wylie for drinking water including the communities of Belmont, NC, and Rock Hill, SC,
and more downstream rely upon the Catawba River. The risk presented by bromide discharges
in the Catawba River is not merely hypothetical; in 2015, bromide discharges caused THMs to
form in treated drinking water above the Safe Drinking Water Act regulatory level of 0.080 µg/L
in water supplies from the Catawba River.
Discharges of heavy metals, including those found in FGD wastewater also impact
wildlife, including fish people eat. At the Cliffside plant, for example, researchers from
Appalachian State University studied the tissue of fish caught in the Broad River near the plant's
discharge pipes.6 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
2 EPA, Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source
Category, 80 Fed. Reg. 67,838, 67,872, 67,886 (Nov. 3, 2015) ("Bromide discharges from steam electric power
plants can contribute to the formation of carcinogenic DBPs [disinfection byproducts, e.g., trihalomethanes] in
public drinking water systems," and "[s]tudies indicate that exposure to THMs [trihalomethanes] and other DBPs
from chlorinated water is associated with human bladder cancer.").
3 Dep. Tr. of Duke Energy (via Corporate Designee Zachary Hall) at 47:14-48:15 (Feb. 10, 2017) ("Q. Okay. And
have discharges from Duke Energy's ash basin at Marshall contributed to the increases in trihalomethanes at the
Charlotte intake? A. They have.").
4 Joint Factual Statement, United States of America v. Duke Energy, No. 5:15-CR-62-H at 52-53 (May 14, 2015).
s Duke Energy Compliance Officers' Report at 18-19, United States v. Duke Energy (E.D.N.C. Apr. 29, 2016).
6 See 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.

S. Chernikov
December 17, 2019
Page 3 of 7
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.
Strong limits, applied as soon as possible, are an important protection against pollution
and are necessary to ensure the safety of human health and the environment. EPA reaffirmed
that Clean Water Act requirements apply to bromide, and instructed permitting authorities to
develop permit limits on a site -specific basis for bromide when necessary to meet narrative water
quality standards.8 North Carolina has put in place exactly such narrative criteria for water
quality to protect people from unsafe levels of pollutants such as brominated trihalomethanes:
"Human health standards: the concentration of toxic substances shall not exceed the level
necessary to protect human health through exposure routes of fish tissue consumption, water
consumption, or other route identified as appropriate for the water body."9
The permit already has limits on FGD wastewater, set to kick in on February 28, 2020.
There is no rational basis for delaying the implementation of pollution limits for Internal Outfall
005. In its request for the modification, Duke Energy implies it is somehow entitled to the
amendment because of a recent Fifth Circuit decision about EPA's 2017 rule postponing certain
compliance dates (the "Delay Rule").
However, contrary to Duke Energy's suggestion, 40 CFR Part 423 has not changed since
NCDEQ issued the permit in July 2018. The Delay Rule, establishing a November 2020
compliance date, went into effect in 2017 and was in effect when the permit was issued in July
2018.1° The Fifth Circuit's recent ruling, rejecting a challenge to the Delay Rule, is not a valid
basis for NCDEQ to weaken permit protections. The ruling did not change anything in 40 CFR
423; it merely confirmed that EPA had the authority to amend the compliance date as it had
already done."
Accordingly, there is no authority for reopening the permit. Duke Energy relies solely on
the permit's reopener provision, which states: "This permit may be reopened and modified if
7 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.
8 80 Fed. Reg. at 67,886-87 ("[W]ater quality -based effluent limitations for steam electric power plant discharges
may be required under the regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(d)(1), where necessary to meet either numeric criteria (e.g.,
for bromide, TDS or conductivity) or narrative criteria in state water quality standards.... These narrative criteria
may be used to develop water quality -based effluent limitations on a site -specific basis for the discharge of
pollutants that impact drinking water sources, such as bromide.").
9 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2B .0208(a)(2).
10 See Postponement of Certain Compliance Dates for the Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the
Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category, 82 Fed. Reg. 43494, 43499 (Sept. 18, 2017) (codified at 40
C.F.R. pt. 423) ("This rule is effective immediately upon publication.").
11 See Clean Water Action v. United States Envtl. Prot. Agency, 936 F.3d 308, 310 (5th Cir. 2019).

S. Chernikov
December 17, 2019
Page 4 of 7
changes are made to 40 C.F.R. 423." Permit at A(8), n.4. That provision is inapplicable here
because there have been no "changes to 40 C.F.R. 423."
The Clean Water Act sets a floor for pollution standards, not a ceiling,12 and EPA's 2017
Delay Rule did not prevent state agencies from imposing a deadline earlier than November 2020.
Indeed, in the Delay Rule, EPA justified postponing the compliance deadline in part because a
state permitting authority could "require[] similar effluent limitations" before the federal
November 2020 deadline.13 Thus, if Duke Energy was unhappy with the February 2020
compliance deadline DEQ set in its permit, it needed to challenge the permit by timely filing a
petition for a contested case with the North Carolina Office of Administrative Hearings.14 It
cannot now challenge the permit by asking for a modification without any change having been
made to the relevant regulation.
However, one thing has changed since DEQ issued the July 2018 permit: Duke Energy
installed the new ultrafiltration system it will use to treat its FGD discharge and reduce its
pollution even further. This technology is in place and in service now.15 As Duke Energy
represented in the rate case in which it seeks cost recovery for this treatment system, Duke
Energy "upgrade[d] the existing scrubber wastewater treatment plant to meet the ELG effluent
guidelines. The new system will allow Allen Station to be in compliance with the ELG, CAMA,
and CCR Rules."16 The upgrades are finished and have been in service since January 2019.17
The fact that the treatment technology already has been installed only further underscores
the inappropriateness of this proposed modification. EPA issued the Delay Rule because it
planned to revise the effluent limitations guidelines ("ELGs") put in place in 2015, and while it
reconsidered the 2015 ELG Rule, EPA wanted to "prevent the potentially needless expenditure
of resources" —namely the "initial capital costs" of engineering design, equipment, shipping, site
preparation, and construction associated with installation of the treatment technology.18
12 See 33 U.S.C. § 1370.
13 82 Fed. Reg. at 43498.
14 See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 150-B; 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2I.0302 ("Any person entitled to a hearing under this Section
may request a hearing with 60 days after receiving notification of the action taken or proposed to be taken. Failure
to timely file a request for hearing constitutes waiver of the opportunity for a hearing.")
15 See 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), attached hereto as Exhibit 2 (reflecting January 31, 2019 as the "In -
Service Date" for Project ID CAS000201); see also letter from Elizabeth Glenn, Senior Environmental Scientist,
Duke Energy, to Corey Basinger, Regional Office Supervisor, DEQ (Jan. 24, 2019), available at
https: //edocs. deq.nc. gov/WaterResources/DocView. aspx?id=811689&dbid=0&repo=WaterResources.
16 Exhibit 2.
17 See id.
18 82 Fed. Reg. at 43496, 43497; see also Clean Water Action, 936 F.3d at 315 ("The agency sought to avoid
imposing potentially needless compliance costs[.]").

S. Chernikov
December 17, 2019
Page 5 of 7
So, in an effort to avoid having utilities take on "potentially needless compliance
costs,"19 EPA postponed compliance with the rule to November 2020, when it anticipated its
rulemaking would be final.2° However, Duke Energy elected to install its ultrafiltration system
already, consistent with the February 2020 effluent limitations in the permit. Given that Duke
Energy already has incurred the costs of installing the treatment system (and indeed has already
sought rate recovery,21 to offset these costs), the cost -avoidance rationale for the November 2020
deadline in the Delay Rule is not applicable here and does not justify postponing the deadline in
the permit.
For this same reason, it would be fundamentally unfair to the ratepayers of North
Carolina for DEQ to further delay giving the public the benefit of the technology Duke Energy
has already installed, in the form of enforceable limits. The technology will reduce pollution
discharged to waters of the state, which benefits North Carolinians. Duke Energy is seeking to
charge North Carolinians $9.6 million for installation of that technology through rate recovery.22
If DEQ allows Duke Energy to further delay use of the technology, North Carolinians will be
stuck with the bill for installing the technology but not receive any of the benefits of mandated
water quality improvements. DEQ should avoid this unjust result by denying the permit
modification request.
Not only does the proposed modification lack any justification based on the permit's
plain language, federal regulations, or the recent Fifth Circuit decision, 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.23 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.24 The Clean
19 Clean Water Action, 936 F.3d at 315
20 See 82 Fed. Reg. at 43498.
21 See Exhibit 2; 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/NCUCNiewFile.aspx?Id=9ea94bc4-c977-4655-8540-e5c19c6c5123 ("[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.")
22 See Exhibit 2.
23 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251(a)(1).
24 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 ....").

S. Chernikov
December 17, 2019
Page 6 of 7
Water Act's anti -backsliding requirements apply to all NPDES permit provisions, not just
effluent limits based on Best Professional Judgment.25
There is no justification for DEQ to backslide from its original permitting decision, which
determined that a compliance deadline of February 2020 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, with the
bonus potential for avoiding compliance altogether while the Trump EPA finalizes changes to
the ELG rule. DEQ originally proposed in the draft permit26 to give Duke Energy a later
compliance date but then, after receiving public comment, corrected course in the final permit by
setting the February 2020 deadline. As explained in this letter, there is no reason for DEQ to
delay the implementation of enforceable pollution limits especially when Duke Energy has the
treatment technology to meet them already in place.
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 Fifth Circuit's recent
decision, the 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 Catawba River,
Lake Wylie, and the Catawba-Wateree River Basin from pollution by the Allen Plant.
DEQ Must Eliminate Any Ambiguity Over Internal Outfall 005.
DEQ needs to correct outdated references to Internal Outfall 005 discharging to the ash
basin because Duke Energy has rerouted Internal Outfall 005 to its new retention basin.
This permit modification concerns limits applied to Internal Outfall 005, which is listed
in the proposed modification as discharging "treated FGD wet scrubber wastewater to the ash
settling basin."27 "Outfall 005 is internal, discharging to the Ash Pond."28 However, Duke
Energy reports that on February 9, 2019, "[w]astewater flows were removed from the [ash]
25 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. epa.gov/polwaste/npdes/basics/upload/pwm_chapt_07.pdf.
26 See DEQ, Draft Permit, Condition A(8), available at
https: //files. nc.gov/ncdeq/W ater%20Quality/NPDES%20Coa1%20Ash/2014%20Duke%20Energy%20Renewals%2
0and%20Modifications/Allen%20Draft%20 W W %204979%20Permit%20041618.p df.
27 Permit Modification at A(8).
28 NCDEQ, Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit Development, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC—Allen Steam Station, 2
(May 10, 2016), available at
https: //files. nc.gov/ncdeq/W ater+Quality/NPDES+Coal+Ash/2014+Duke+Energy+Renewals+and+Modifications/A
llen-4979-fact-sheet--2018.pdf ("Permit Fact Sheet").

S. Chernikov
December 17, 2019
Page 7 of 7
basin[,]"29 meaning Duke Energy no longer discharges FGD wastewater through Internal Outfall
005 to the ash basin.30 As NC DEQ confirmed, Duke Energy has rerouted flows from Internal
Outfall 005 to the new retention basin.31 The new retention basis then discharges to Lake Wylie.
Permit Condition A(8) is understood to apply effluent limitations to the rerouted FGD
discharges from Internal Outfall 005,32 but the permit language still references discharge to the
ash basin. To eliminate any ambiguity between the text of the permit and what is happening in
practice, Condition A(8) must be corrected to reflect that discharge from Outfall 005 has been
rerouted from the ash basin to the retention basin and thus that Duke Energy is no longer
authorized to discharge to the ash basin. Condition A(8) should read:
During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting until permit
expiration, the Permitee is authorized to discharge from internal outfall 005—treated
FGD wet scrubber wastewater to retention basin.
In addition, other parts of the permit and fact sheet that reference Outfall 005 should be
made consistent with the change to Condition A(8), including but not limited to:
• Paragraph 3 of the Supplement to Permit Cover Sheet, which should read:
"Continue to operate a Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) wet scrubber wastewater
treatment system discharging to the Retention Basin through Internal Outfall
005..." (Permit at 2), and
• Bullet 7 of the Permit Fact Sheet, which should read: "Outfall 005 is internal,
discharging to the Retention Basin." (Permit Fact Sheet at 2).
Accordingly, to eliminate any ambiguity, the permit must be updated to reflect our
common understanding that the limits in Condition A(8) continue to apply to the rerouted flow
from Outfall 005 to the retention basin.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
)
Sincerely,
) e0
Megan Kimball
Associate Attorney
29 Duke Energy, Report Under Special Order by Consent, Quarterly Progress Report for 3rd Quarter 2019 (Oct. 24,
2019), available at [insert].
30 "After the Retention Basin is completed, all the waste streams previously discharged to the Ash Pond will be re-
routed to the Retention Basin, and discharges to the Ash Pond will cease." Permit Fact Sheet at 2.
31 See e-mail from Sergei Chernikov, NDDEQ, Environmental Engineer II, to Megan Kimball, SELC, Associate
Attorney (Dec. 6, 2019), attached as Exhibit 3.
32 See Exhibit 3.

EXHIBIT 1

Heavy Metal
Accumulation in Fish of
the Broad River Near the
Rogers Energy Complex
Coal Ash Basins
Alexandra Gibbs', Sarah Kornegay', 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.
• Based in Mooresboro, North Carolina
• Proximity to coal fields and textile
industry
• Most recent update was in 2012 (adding
Unit 6)
o Extremely stringent and effective air
quality control

• 2015 - "Do not drink" letters are sent
from Duke Energy to all residents
within a half mile of the power plant.
This was rescinded in spring of 2016.
• January 2016- NC DEQ classifies
Cliffside coal ash basins as of "low"
and "low/intermediate" priority for
cleanup
• July 2016- WBTV reports hexavalent
chromium levels 4x-9x higher than
standards in drinking wells within a few
miles
• March 2018- Duke Energy reports
elevated levels of Se, As, Cr, and TI in
test wells surrounding Cliffside
THE PROGRESSIVE PULSE
Groundwater wells near Marshall, Cliffside
coal ash basins have a thallium problem
wbtv corn
ON YOUR SIDE
* DRYS WEATHER SPORES VIDEO TRAFFIC FEATURES COMMUNITY
New tests find coal ash
contaminants in water wells
outside half -mile radius
amlis7e Meriy.jwy Nh2TAT.V9pmfTr
IlpdfId AeAea4y. Jv1JNA29 rT lJ%pmidr
81 Nick adman.. Reposer [CNrYa1
Battle over coal ash continues in Cliffside
HOST POPULAR
Mink.* ite
2 crwcwarpmA d*M
WOLIVIL !ern Kunst.
shelbystar.com

The Broad River
• Principal tributary of the Congaree River.
• Flows south-easterly
• Part of the Santee River watershed
• Samples were collected in a one mile stretch
downstream of the Rogers Energy Complex
yip Nytivo•
Charlotte
L aka MGlrtlrr'
T"
[Or +orae,rr ' -
Chariesmn

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.

BC 221 Bridge Crossing (F,S,W)
TW 2814 Riverfront Dr. Tap Water (W)
TPD Top Discharge (W)
PLS Runoff Seep at Powerlines (W)
RFD Riverfront Drive Seep (W)
DSTD 40 yds. Downstream of Toe Drainage (F,W)
TED Toe Drainage (W,S)
SCS Seep at Suck Creek (W)
SC Suck Creek (F,S,W)
D Dam (Left and Right) (F,W)

Left and Right Dam
Seep at Suck Creek

Top Discharge
Toe Drainage

Collection Methods
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Collecting Permit #18-SFC00038
• Fish Assessment
o Electroshocking at each site
o Fish species and length where recorded
o EPA method 3050
• Soil Assessment
o Approx. 20 grams taken from each site
o EPA method 3050
• Water Assessment
o Approx. 250mL taken from each site
o EPA method 3015

12
10
g
C
1 aII[ i I II I 1111ii1
Collection Sites
i
221 Bridge Crossing
• Wh it e 5u cker
• Ch anel Catfish
• Redbreast Sunfish
• Tot a l
Left Dam Right Dam
• Margin ed Madtorn
• Hogsu cker
• Long Eared Sunfish
i
Su ck Creek Downstream of Toe
Drainage
• Creek Chub
• Threadfi n Shad
• Pumpkinseed Sunfish
Redear.Sunfish
• Bluegill
• Yellow Perch

Water Chemistry
DSTD 7.48
TPD 7.58
TED 5.53
Cr) PLS 7.11
E SCS 5.97
m
E' SC 7.15
Dam 7. Z7
BC 7.15
5.2 5.4 5.5 5.8 7 7.2 7.4 7.5 7.8
pH
Recorded Temperature values
DSTD 13.9
TPD 16.4
TED 16.6
PLS 17.2
a 5C3 14.1
E
5C 14.15
Dam 12.5
BC 13.1
0 5 10 15
Temperature (C)
2D

Recorded Specific Conducitvity
RANGE OF TOLERANCE FOR
DISSOVED OXYGEN IN FISH
PARTS PER MILLION (PPM) DISSOLVED OXYGEN
[] 1 4 0 4 5 6
7 8 9 10
/11111 OP
3.0 PPM 6.0 PPM 5 9.0 PPM
too IOW IOr supports SoppOrt5
fish populations spawning abundant
Fish populations
3.0.5.0PPM 57.0PPM
12-24 hour supports
range of tolerance 1 growth/activity
stressful conditions
v
.x
40 yds
Top D6charge
Toe Drain
Powerline
A.O.W
Suck Creek
Dam
221 Br idea
DO mg/L (ppm)
835
7.51
8.6
10.91
10.25
10.15
11.14
11.02
0 2 4 5 8 10 12
DSTD - 48.6
TPD
TED
595.4
595.4
v
v
PLS 386.9
SCS 65.2
SC - 50.1
Dam 55
BC 43.1
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Specific Conductivity
Axis Title

g_
0_
0
0
U
1.2
1
D.B
a.b
0.4
0.2
0
White
utike•.
Arsenic (As) levels
Yelbw Catfi, White Catfi,
Perch utiker
White Long Eared
Fucker 5unfi1
EPA published in 2009 that the
safe Cd and As level for 4 fish
High Cd levels lead to lung issues/cancer in
humans and bioaccumulates in fish leading to
whole body damage
High As levels lead to death in humans and
behaviors and breathing changes in fish
0.45
0.4
0.35
LL
0.3
00.z5
L' 0.2
0.05
0
Cadmium (Cd) levels
White Yelbw Catfiti h to
Sucker Perch Sucker
:at t7 r,'h to Lcn; Eared
Sucker Sun' t7
Eggs Fesh {ae eve

Chromium (Cr) levels
3.5
3
a 2.5
0 2
1.5
1
0
White Yelbw Catfii
Sucker Perch
White Catfii White Long Eared
Sucker
Eggs Flesh - S. a Ie; e'
Sucker 5unf-t7
Recommended daily
High Cu levels have no effect on humans and
can be lethal to fish due to gill fraying and inability
to transport of salts
High Cr levels lead to cancer in humans and
negative effects on reproduction in fish
1.2 ppm
16
14
E 12
0_
0_
c 1D
6
4
2
a
Copper(Cu) levels
L I
White Yelbw Catfish White Catfii White Lcn; Eared
Sucker Perch Sucker Sucker Sun' d7
■ Eggs ■ F Ie ,h

Lead (Pb) levels
60
50
a
a40
C
. 30
U 20
C
O
" 10
0
'eV hite Yelbw Catfish White Catfish White Long Eared
Sucker Perch Sucker Sucker Sunfish
Eggs F esh —Safe Le1el
n—.c .. I.......I . £�
High Se levels cause gastrointestinal distress in
humans and larval impairments in fish
1.:i2 ppm
26
S8
- 16
a 14
c 12
0
Sa
4 s
u 6
0 4
2
a
High Pb levels have neural effects in humans
and reproductive & behavioural disorders in fish
v..J Nf✓iii
Selenium (Se) levels
1:!!!
White YeIbw Catfist- White Carlsh V,11ite Long Eared
Sucker Perch Sucker Sucker Sunfd7
Eggs Flesh 5&e eve

Sao
450
?400
a E50
a
SDD
zoo
Q 15.0
0 100
50
0
Zinc (Zn) levels
White Yellmw Catfii White Catfii White Long Eared
Sucker Perch Sucker Sucker Sunfish
■ Eggs ■ F Ish
High Zn levels cause gastrointestinal
distress in humans and effect development
in fish
Recommended daily intake for
adult humans is
8 mg/day

0.2
0.18
0.16
0.14
c 0.12
+7. 0.1
c 0.08
2 0.06
a 0.04
0.02
0
100
•
Concentration [Cd] vs. Length (mm)
•
i M • # •
•• •
• • •
150 200 250 HO 35v
Length Rmm}
Vertical bar indicates length at maturity.
Horizontal bar indicates previously stated
safe levels
• - Reference
- Downstream
14
12
2
0
100
Concentration [Se] vs. Length (mm)
150
200
250
Length mm}
550
400

L2
1
_
E
a
n 0.8
e
0
+� 0.5
0o
e
8 0.4
e
0
0.2
0
Concentration [As] vs. Length (rnm)
•
41
1
•
•
• •
•
•
•
•
• •
•
• •
• ••
•••
•
•
•
• •
•
••
•
•
HO
150 200 250 300 350
Length mm}
J
Vertical bar indicates length at maturity.
Horizontal bar indicates previously stated
safe levels
• - Reference
o - Downstream
18
16
Concentration [Pb] vs Length (run)
E 14
a 12
e •
O 10 •
Do
Do
" 8
e
a, • 6
e
0
2
0
•
•
•
• •
•• ••• •
* •
tap
• • •
0' •
• 'I
100 150
•
• • . 1
200 250 300 350 400
Length (rnrn}

1.S
0- 1.2
6 1
0.2
0
100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Concentration [Cr] vs. Length (run)
•
• •
• # •
••
•
• • ••• •
•
• •• #
• •
•%• • • • •
•
•
Length (mm}
Vertical bar indicates length at maturity.
Horizontal bar indicates previously stated
safe levels
• - Reference
- Downstream
400
350
340
E
a
a 250
C
0
;o 200
C
°] 150
100
50
Concentration [Zri] vs. Length (rim)
150 20v 250
Length Rmm)
300 350 400

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 e.3r PPMfor Toxic Met..ls
12
16
un 6
4
1
■
■ WhiteSucker (8)
• BlueGi1 (8)
■ Catfish (6)
Long Eared Sunfish (4)
■ Creek Chub (2)
• Margined hladtom (3)
• Red Breasted Sunfish (S)
• Hogsucker(2)
■ Threadtin Shad (1)
• Gizzard Shad (1)
• Pumpkinseed Sunfish (1)
■ Yelbw Perch (1)
Horizontal line indicates the
following safe levels:
Cu - Daily intake level of 0.9
mg/day
Pb - 0.3 ppm was
determined by EU as level
of concern
Se - Safe Se level is 1.32
ppm for 4 fish meals/month
Cu
Pb
Se

Reference Site Fillet and Egg Levels
14
12
10
4
2
0 I I
As Cr Cu
■ White Sucker (6+1) s Margined Madtom (1)
Pb
Creek Chub (2) Red Eared sunfish (0+1)
Se

9
8
7
E
5
a
ago
ti
4
a,o
E 3
2
1
0
As
■ Catfish (6+1)
■ Red Breasted Sunfish (2)
Dam Site Fillet and Egg Levels
Cr
■ White Sucker (2+2)
■ Gizzard Shad (1)
•
Cu
• Hogsucker (2)
• Margined Madtom (2)
Pb
Threadfin Shad (1)
• Long Eared Sunfish (2)
Se
• Blue Gill (3)
• Yellow Perch (1+1)

12
10
_ S
E
0_
0_
6
4
W]
E
2
Downstream of Toe Drainage Fillet Levels
As
Cr Cu Pb Se
• Long Eared Sunfish (2)
lc Blue Gill (1) Pumpkinseed Sunfish (1)

6
5
4
E
o_
0
x
dA
b
2
1
0
Suck Creek Fillet Levels
As Cr Cu Pb
Se
• Blue Gill (3)

E
a
a
E
30
20
10
0
Sediment Sample Element Levels
221 Bridge Crossing
1
Toe Drainage
Sample Site
Suck Creek
■ As
■ Cd
■ Cr
■ Cu
■ Pb
■ Se

0.1
0, 09
0.08
0.07
1 0.06
a.
J 0.05
r 0.04
(0, 0'33
0.02
0.01
0
1
As Cd
■ 221 Bridge Crossing (Reference)
Suck Creek
■ Top Drainage
II 2814 Riverfront Drive Tap Water
Water Sample Element Levels
.dlI6„ iiilillill _
Cr
■ Riverfront Drive Seep
■ Suck Creek Seep
1 Downstream Toe Drainage
Cu
Se
O Dam
■ Powerfine Seep
• Toe Drainage
TI

0,6
0,5
0,1
0
Water Sample Element Levels
I� II 1111111111111111
221 Bridge Riverfront Drive Darn SuckCreek Suck Creek Powerline Seep Top Drainage Downstream Toe Drainage 2814 Riverfront
Crossing Seep Seep Toe Drainage Drive Tap
(Reference) Water
■Pb rZn

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
• 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.
• We would also like to thank Dr. Shea Tuberty and Dr. Carol Babyak
Appal achn
STATE [UNIVERSITY

Questions?
U TE THU
50 140V BP,DL -11-
Kiwi meats, co► l-p. i .Tlat
lCd -MESS W i IV S?
WrCIA twlAlAFTS,

EXHIBIT 2

Duke Energy Carolinas
Response to
North Carolina Public Staff Data Request
Data Request No. NCPS 42
Docket No. E-7, Sub 1214
Date of Request: October 16, 2019
Date of Response: October 25, 2019
X
CONFIDENTIAL
NOT CONFIDENTIAL
Confidential Responses are provided pursuant to Confidentiality Agreement
The attached response to North Carolina Public Staff Data Request No. 42-2, was
provided to me by the following individual(s): Hadia Lugo, Manager II, Finance, and was
provided to North Carolina Public Staff under my supervision.
Camal O. Robinson
Senior Counsel
Duke Energy Carolinas

North Carolina Public Staff
Data Request No. 42
DEC Docket No. E-7, Sub 1214
Item No. 42-2
Page 1 of 1
Request:
2. For the approximately $689 million of investment made in the Company's coal fired
generation fleet (Direct Testimony of Steve Immel, page 6) provide the following:
a. For total project costs of $1 million or greater:
i. Project identifier
ii. Initial budget
iii. Final budget
iv. Actual spend
v. Start date of project
vi. Initial expected completion date
vii. Actual completion date
viii. Description of project
ix. Explanation of why project was necessary
x. Environmental violations (both potential and those that had been observed) or other
requirements project was designed to address
b. For total project costs of less than $1 million, but greater than $100,000:
i. Project identifier
ii. Actual spend
iii. Completion date
iv. Description of project
Response:
See attached file with answers for 42-2 & 42-3.
bMM
EE
DEC NC PS DR 42-2
& 42-3.xlsx

Duke Energy Carolinas
Docket No. E-7, Sub 1214 Public Staff DR 42-2
Answers to 42-2 Questions»»
Project ID
Project Identifier / Name
Initial budget
from Initial
Funding)
Final Budget
(Authorized
Funding)
Actual Spend
Forecasted
Additions
Total Actual
Spend /
Forecasted
Spend
Start date of
Project (Initial
Funding
Approval)
Initial
expectedCompletion
Completion
Date (on
Advance)
Actual
Date (In-
Service Date)
Description of
project
Explanation of Why project was necessary
Enviromental
Violations (both
potential and those(Estimate
that had been
observed) or other
requirements project
was designed to
address
The Coal Combustion Residual (CCR) Rules issued
by the EPA require the Allen ash basin to be closed
CAS000026 DRY BOTTOM ASH CONVERSION $ 34,533,750 $ 68,716,545 $ 68,221,972 $ - $ 68,221,972 9/22/2015 4/30/2018 1/9/2019 Refer to and retired. To accomplish this all ash basin inflow Refer to Column "L"
Column "A" streams must be eliminated. This requires that the
Allen wet bottom ash system be converted to a "dry"
system to collect and handle the bottom ash.
CAS000201
Enhanced FGD Wastewater
Treatment
$ 3,247,180 $ 10,207,152 $ 9,676,047 $ $ 9,676,047 12/18/2015 4/30/2019 1/31/2019
CAS000281 Storm Water/Process Water $ 19,252,611 $ 29,988,355 $ 28,830,996 $
Reroute
$ 28,830,996 5/13/2016 4/17/2018 12/30/2018
CAS000282 Lined Retention Basin $ 22,195,756 $ 39,432,666 $ 39,349,432 $ $ 39,349,432 5/16/2016 4/17/2018 10/29/2018
CBC000214 Alternate Start-up Dry Fly Ash $ 4,902,443 $ 8,822,248 $ 8,788,900 $ $ 8,788,900 6/13/2016 4/17/2018 3/26/2018
System
CBC000360
Enhanced FGD Wastewater
Treatment
$ 10,373,419 $ 9,603,867 $ 9,134,384 $ $ 9,134,384 12/18/2015 4/30/2019 9/10/2018
Refer to
Column "A"
Refer to
Column "A"
Refer to
Column "A"
Refer to
Column "A"
Refer to
Column "A"
In response to the CCR Rule, Allen Steam Station will
be closing the ash basin that currently accepts FGD
waste water treatment effluent. This project will
upgrade the existing scrubber wastewater treatment Refer to Column "L"
plant to meet the ELG effluent guidelines. The new
system will allow Allen Station to be in compliance
with the ELG, CAMA, and CCR Rules.
The Coal Combustion Residual (CCR) Rule issued by
the EPA and the CAMA issued by North Carolina
require the Allen ash basin to be closed and retired.
To accomplish this all the ash basin inflow streams
must be eliminated. This requires that the Allen storm Refer to Column "L"
water and process water inflows be intercepted and
routed to a new lined retention basin for treatment
before they are discharged. The lined retention basin
is being implemented under a separate funding
project.
The Coal Combustion Residual (CCR) Rules issued
by the EPA and the CAMA issued by North Carolina
require the Allen ash basin to be closed and retired.
To accomplish this all ash basin inflow streams must Refer to Column "L"
be eliminated. This requires that the Allen storm water
and process water inflows be intercepted and routed
to a new lined retention basin for treatment before
they are discharged.
The Coal Combustion Residual (CCR) Rules issued
by the EPA and the CAMA regulations issued by North
Carolina require the Belews Creek ash basin to be
closed and retired. To accomplish this all ash basin
inflow streams must be eliminated. This requires that
the existing Fly Ash Hydro -Conveyor system be
removed from service. As a result of the removal of
the Hydro -Conveyor system several single points of
failure are created within the existing remaining
system that must be addressed to provide redundancy
and reliability to the station.
Refer to Column "L"
In response to the CCR Rule issued by the EPA and
the North Carolina CAMA regulations, Belews Creek
Steam Station will be closing the ash basin that
currently accepts FGD waste water treatment effluent.
This project will add an Ultra Filtration system to the Refer to Column "L"
existing FGD scrubber wastewater treatment plant to
meet Effluent Limitation Guidelines issued by the
EPA. The addition of the Ultra Filtration system will
produce an effluent that will be in compliance with
ELG, CAMA, and CCR Rules.

CBC000370 BC Dry Bottom Ash Conversion $ 76,353,840 $ 71,370,274 $ 68,402,456
GBC000443 CCP Storm Water/Process Water $ 13,391,128 $ 27,146,429 $ 25,983,608
Reroute
$ 68,402,456 9/22/2015 4/30/2018 5/9/2018
$ 25,983,608 5/10/2016 4/17/2018 1/3/2019
CBC000444 CCP Lined Retention Basin $ 23,737,406 $ 37,649,650 $ 34,422,089 $ 34,422,089 5/10/2016 4/17/2018 12/18/2019
CBKCC0027 CCP Process Water Reroute $ 3,350,112 $ 3,350,112 $ 1,478,661 $ 1,478,661 10/5/2016 2/28/2017 12/6/2018
CC5051310 U5 Bottom Ash Conveying Sys. $ 11,223,440 $ 18,217,046 $ 12,883,460 $ 12,883,460 9/22/2018 4/30/2018 5/23/2018
CC5051492 CS Unit 5 Dry Flyash Conversion $ 36,524,399 $ 32,902,255 $ 804,601
CC5060038 CCP CS #6 Air Heater Flyash System $ 3,248,623 $ 2,934,101 $ 1,525,627
$ 804,601 9/22/2015 4/30/2018 10/29/2017
$ 1,525,627 11/7/2017 11/30/2018 11/2/2018
Refer to
Column "A"
Refer to
Column "A"
Refer to
Column "A"
Refer to
Column "A"
Refer to
Column "A"
Refer to
Column "A"
Refer to
Column "A"
The Coal Combustion Residual (CCR) Rules issued
by the EPA require the Belews Creek ash basin to be
closed and retired. To accomplish this all ash basin
inflow streams must be eliminated. This requires that Refer to Column "L"
the Belews Creek wet bottom ash system be
converted to a "dry" system to collect and handle the
bottom ash.
The Coal Combustion Residual (CCR) Rules issued
by the EPA require the Belews Creek ash basin to be
closed and retired. To accomplish this all ash basin
inflow streams must be eliminated. This requires that Refer to Column "L"
the Belews Creek storm water and process water
inflows be intercepted and routed to a new lined
retention basin for treatment before they are
discharged.
The Coal Combustion Residual (CCR) Rules issued
by the EPA and the North Carolina Coal Ash
Management Act (CAMA) require the Belews Creek
ash basin to be closed and retired. To accomplish this
all ash basin inflow streams must be eliminated. This
requires that the Belews Creek storm water and Refer to Column "L"
process water inflows be intercepted and routed to a
new lined retention basin for treatment before they are
discharged. A separate project is in progress to
convert the bottom ash system to a dry process
eliminating the inflow to the ash basin.
The Coal Combustion Residual (CCR) Rules issued
by the EPA and the CAMA issued by North Carolina
require the Buck ash basin to be closed and retired.
To accomplish this all ash basin inflow streams must
be eliminated. This requires that the Buck Combined
Cycle CT process water inflows be intercepted and
routed to a new permitted outfall. On March 12, 2014, Refer to Column "L"
Lynn Good (Chief Executive Office) sent a letter to Pat
McCory (Govemor, North Carolina) committing to
dewater the ash basin within 24-36 months upon
receipt of permits. On December 17, 2015 a letter
from NCDEQ was received authorizing Duke to
decant the Buck ash basin.
The Coal Combustion Residual (CCR) Rules issued
by the EPA require the Cliffside ash basin to be
closed and retired. To accomplish this all ash basin
inflow streams must be eliminated. This requires that Refer to Column "L"
the Cliffside Unit # 5 wet bottom ash system be
converted to a "dry" system to collect and handle the
bottom ash.
The Coal Ash Management Act of North Carolina
(CAMA) and the Coal Combustion Residual Rules
(CCR) issued by the EPA require that all Duke Energy
ash basins be retired and closed. To accomplish this
all ash basin inflow streams must be eliminated and
the fly ash produced must be handled using a "dry" Refer to Column "L"
system. Currently Cliffside #5 operates with a flyash
collection system that utilizes a pressurized piping
and water sluicing system to transport the flyash to
the ash basin. The existing pressure piping,
hydroveyors and sluice tanks will be removed.
Currently the Cliffside Unit #6 Air Preheater ash is
collected and wet sluiced into the Unit #6 Submerged
Flight Conveyor (SFC). Any overflow from the SFC
flows into the Process Water Discharge System. The
Effluent Limitation Guidelines (ELG) prohibit the
discharge of sluicing water into the Process Water
Treatment & Discharge system. To be in compliance
with the ELG regulations, the air preheater ash must
be collected dry and transported to the ash silo.
Refer to Column "L"

CC5560046 Storm Water/Process Water $ 25,469,732 $ 24,313,948 $ 23,283,068 $ 23,283,068 7/28/2016 4/17/2018 1/16/2019
Reroute
CCS560047 Active Waste Water Treatment $ 64,318,391 $ 65,002,657 $ 61,776,217
System
$ 61,776,217 7/28/2016 4/17/2018 12/19/2018
CC5560077 Lined Retention Basins $ 15,760,604 $ 15,940,605 $ 13,982,888 $ 13,982,888 5/2/2017 10/31/2018 12/7/2018
CL5000085 Waste Water Treatment $ 16,992,862 $ 19,379,615 $ 19,125,923 $ 19,125,923 6/13/2016 4/17/2018 8/27/2018
CMS000212 MAR Enhncd. FGD Wastewater $ 90,334,121 $ 85,899,031 $ 83,960,338
Treat.
CMS000285 Storm Water/Process Water $ 20,284,452 $ 51,383,210 $ 49,277,263
Reroute
$ 83,960,338 7/28/2016 4/17/2018 3/12/2019
$ 49,277,263 7/26/2016 4/17/2018 12/12/2018
CM5000286 Lined Retention Basin $ 36,859,086 $ 35,049,617 $ 35,473,159 $ 35,473,159 7/28/2016 4/17/2018 10/9/2018
CM5000602 CCP - Dry Bottom Ash Haul road $ 2,583,038 $ 944,132 $ 744,925
construction
$ 744,925 5/1/2017 12/31/2017 4/4/2018
Refer to
Column "A"
Refer to
Column "A"
Refer to
Column "A"
Refer to
Column "A"
Refer to
Column "A"
Refer to
Column "A"
Refer to
Column "A"
Refer to
Column "A"
The Coal Combustion Residual (CCR) Rules issued
by the EPA and the CAMA issued by North Carolina
require the Cliffside ash basin to be closed and
retired. To accomplish this all ash basin inflow
streams must be eliminated. This requires that the
Cliffside storm water and process water inflows be
intercepted and routed to a new lined retention basin
for treatment before they are discharged.
The Coal Combustion Residual (CCR) Rules issued
by the EPA and the CAMA issued by North Carolina
require the Cliffside ash basin to be closed and
retired. To accomplish this all ash basin inflow
streams must be eliminated. This requires that the Refer to Column "L"
Cliffside storm water and process water inflows be
intercepted and routed to a new waste water
treatment system for treatment before they are
discharged.
The Coal Combustion Residual (CCR) Rules issued
by the EPA and the CAMA issued by North Carolina
require the Cliffside ash basin to be closed and
retired. To accomplish this all ash basin inflow
streams must be eliminated. This requires that the
Cliffside storm water and process water inflows be Refer to Column "L"
intercepted and routed to a new lined retention basin.
All the collected water will be treated in the Active
Waste Water Treatment system prior to being
discharged. The Active Waste Water Treatment
system is being implemented under a separate
funding package
The Coal Combustion Residual (CCR) Rules issued
by the EPA require the WS Lee ash basin to be closed
and retired. To accomplish this all ash basin inflow
streams must be eliminated. This requires that the Refer to Column "L"
WS Lee storm water and process water inflows be
intercepted and routed to a new lined retention basin
for treatment before they are discharged.
Refer to Column "L"
The Flue gas Desulfurization (FGD) Waste Water Treatmen
System (W WT) is driven by the following regulatory
requirements: • The Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) Coal Combustion residuals (CCR) Rule which
requires the closure of the ash basin; • The New Effluent
Limitation Guidelines (ELG) Rule has more stringent
technology based limitations. Refer to Column "L"
To allow closure of the ash basin and comply with the ELG
requirements, treatment of the FGD waste stream will be
required at Marshall. The FGD waste stream will be treated
in the new system prior to being discharged.
The Coal Combustion Residual (CCR) Rules issued
by the EPA and the North Carolina CAMA regulations
require the Marshall ash basin to be closed and
retired. To accomplish this all ash basin inflow
streams must be eliminated. This requires that the Refer to Column "L"
Marshall storm water and process water inflows be
intercepted and routed to new holding basin and lined
retention basin for treatment before they are
discharged
The Coal Combustion Residual (CCR) Rules issued
by the EPA and the CAMA issued by North Carolina
require the Marshall ash basin to be closed and
retired. To accomplish this all ash basin inflow Refer to Column "L"
streams must be eliminated. This requires that the
Marshall storm water and process water inflows be
intercepted and routed to a new lined retention basin
for treatment before they are discharged.
The Coal Combustion Residual (CCR) Rules issued
by the EPA require the Marshall ash basin to be
closed and retired. To accomplish this all ash basin
inflow streams must be eliminated. This requires that
the Marshall wet bottom ash system be converted to a
"dry" system to collect and handle the bottom ash.
Refer to Column "L"

CMSCM1227 MS Dry Bottom Ash System $ 51,783,310 $ 97,248,004 $ 81,903,644 $ 81,903,644 9/22/2015 4/30/2018 9/29/2018
Conversion
CMS000156
CCP - Marshall Dry Fly Ash
Reliability
$ 9,216,801 $ 12,383,816 $ - $ 10,317,284 $ 10,317,284 12/18/2017 10/31/2019
$ 679,029,657 $ 10,317,284 $ 689,346,941
Refer to
Column "A"
The Coal Combustion Residual (CCR) Rules issued
by the EPA require the Marshall ash basin to be
closed and retired. To accomplish this all ash basin Refer to Column "L"
inflow streams must be eliminated. This requires that
the Marshall wet bottom ash system be converted to a
"dry" system to collect and handle the bottom ash.
The Coal Combustion Residual (CCR) Rules issued
by the EPA require the Marshall ash basin to be
closed and retired. To accomplish this all ash basin
inflow streams must be eliminated. This requires that
the Marshall hydro -conveying system for fly ash
collection & transportation be eliminated. Marshall
11/7/2019 Refer to has been converted to a dry fly ash collection and
(Forecast) Column "A" transportation system. However, the existing wet fly
ash collection system has been maintained to serve
as a back-up to be used when the dry system is out of
service for repairs or maintenance. With the removal
of the wet system, the DFA system must be able to
operate and transfer all flyash produced to maintain
unit reliability.
Refer to Column "L"

EXHIBIT 3

From: Chernikov, Sergei
To: Megan Kimball
Subject: RE: [External] Allen Steam Station Permit # NC0004979
Date: Friday, December 06, 2019 1:51:10 PM
Megan,
This internal outfall is currently being used. The 2nd page of the permit states:
• Outfall 006: Upon completion of construction of the Retention Basin, discharge
domestic wastewater, stormwater from the coal pile area, miscellaneous stormwater
flows, ash sluice, wastewater from turbine non-destructive testing, landfill leachate,
FGD blowdown, yard drain sump, water treatment filter backwash, treated
groundwater, laboratory wastes, and the power house sump at Unit 5. The domestic
waste is pre-treated by a septic tank. Outfall 006 wastewater is treated using chemical
coagulation, settling, and pH neutralization. Outfall 002 and Outfall 006 might be
operational at the same time during the transition period.
Therefore, discharge from Outfall 5 has been rerouted to the Retention basin.
Thank you!
Sergei
Sergei Chernikov, Ph.D.
Environmental Engineer II
Complex NPDES Permitting Unit
NEW Tel. [phone]
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Express Mail: 512 N. Salisbury St., Raleigh, NC 27604
From: Megan Kimball [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, December 6, 2019 1:47 PM
To: Chernikov, Sergei <[e-mail]>
Cc: Nick Torrey <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] Allen Steam Station Permit # NC0004979
rrnMiniliffrilMail. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an
attachmenreport.s pa m P nc.gov
Hi Sergei,

Thank you for your response. My question is about whether Internal Outfall 005, which is the
subject of the modification, is still in use because my understanding based on the permit and the
fact sheet for the permit is that it flows to the ash basin, and Duke Energy has said that it stopped
wastewater flow to the ash basin. In other words, is this modification being made to an internal
outfall that is no longer being used? And if this internal outfall is no longer being used, where is the
FGD flow going now?
Thank you,
Megan
Megan Kimball
Associate Attorney I Southern Environmental Law Center
601 West Rosemary Street, Suite 220 I Chapel Hill, NC 27516-2356
T: 919-967-1450
F: 919-929-9421
E: mkimball©selcnc.org
http://www.southernenvironment.org
PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is
privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message,
you are hereby notified that disseminating, distributing, or copying it or any attachment to it is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this message in error, please notify me immediately by email and delete the original message.
From: Chernikov, Sergei [mailto:sergei.chernikov(ncdenr.gov]
Sent: Friday, December 06, 2019 1:40 PM
To: Megan Kimball
Subject: RE: [External] Allen Steam Station Permit # NC0004979
Megan,
This is Major Modification that only addresses 1 issue in the permit. We are not making any other
changes or updates. That will be done during the next renewal.
This modification is ONLY to extend the deadline for FGD discharge.
The Fact Sheet is very short, it is only 1 page and it explains what is being done. The Major
Modification is also just one page. The Cover Letter explains that we are only changing 1 date on 1
page.
The permit had been recently renewed and we had a discussion with SELC about all the conditions
and outfalls in the permit.
Thank you!
Sergei
Sergei Chernikov, Ph.D.
Environmental Engineer II

Complex NPDES Permitting Unit
NEW Tel. [phone]
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Express Mail: 512 N. Salisbury St., Raleigh, NC 27604
From: Megan Kimball [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, December 6, 2019 1:30 PM
To: Chernikov, Sergei <[e-mail]>
Cc: Nick Torrey <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] Allen Steam Station Permit # NC0004979
External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail]
Hi Sergei,
We have been reviewing the proposed NPDES permit modification for the Allen plant and have a few
questions. The permit modification says it is authorizing Duke Energy to discharge from Internal
Outfall 005 into the ash basin, which if I'm understanding correctly, is not being used anymore
because Duke Energy stopped wastewater flow to the ash basin back in February.
As I understand the permit and the fact sheet, Internal Outfall 005 goes to the ash basin (permit
condition A8 on p. 12, and in the description of Outfall 005 on page 2 of the fact sheet). In its
submissions to DEQ, Duke Energy says it has stopped wastewater flow to the ash basin, including
FGD wastewater (see, for example, the October 2019 report Duke submitted pursuant to the SOC,
which says "wastewater flows were removed from the basin on February 9, 2019").
Is my understanding correct? And if so, where is the FGD wastewater flow going now? Is it going to
the new retention basin and being discharged from Outfall 006? Is there an internal outfall to the
new retention basin that should be permitted? The fact sheet mentions an Internal Outfall 007, but
there is no Internal Outfall 007 in the permit, just an external spillway labeled as Outfall 007.
In short, it looks like the proposed modification contains an outdated reference to Internal Outfall
005 that should be removed/updated to reflect that no discharges to the ash basin will be
authorized anymore. If you could please clarify if that is correct and how the modification will be
revised, I would appreciate it.
Thank you for your help,
Megan
Megan Kimball
Associate Attorney Southern Environmental Law Center
601 West Rosemary Street, Suite 220 I Chapel Hill, NC 27516-2356
T: 919-967-1450
F: 919-929-9421

E: [e-mail]
http://www.southernenvironment.org
PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is
privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message,
you are hereby notified that disseminating, distributing, or copying it or any attachment to it is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this message in error, please notify me immediately by email and delete the original message.