NC0001422_Comments on Draft Permit November 2015_20151117

• ' (� DUKE
ENERGY
November 17, 2015
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Water Resources
Attn: Wastewater Permitting
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Harry K. Sideris
Senior Vice President
Environmental, Health & Safety
526 South Church Street
Mail Code: ECUP
Charlotte, NC 28202
704-382-4303
RECEIVED/DENR/DWR
Subject: Comments on the DRAFT NPDES Permit for L.V. Sutton Energy Complex
Permit No.: NC0001422
New Hanover County
Wastewater Permitting Staff:
NOV 2 0 2015
(Nater Quality
Permitting Section
The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) Division of Water Resources (the
Division) issued a draft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit for the Duke
Energy (hereinafter "Duke") L.V. Sutton Energy Complex dated October 14, 2015. Recognizing the
expediency with which this permit must be issued to address compliance requirements imposed on the
facility by the Coal Ash Management Act and other requirements, Duke's comments below will focus on
permit issues in a narrower fashion than would otherwise be the case. Duke hereby submits the
following comments on this draft permit.
1. Pages 1 and 2 of the draft permit reference Duke Energy Progress, Inc. Please note that on July
31, 2015 Duke filed documentation with the NC Secretary of State to support a name change to
Duke Energy Progress, LLC.
2. Page 2, item 2 of the draft permit states that Sutton Lake is classified C waters. In accordance
with 15A NCAC 02B .0301(i), Duke Energy believes that Sutton Lake would be appropriately
classified as C-Sw waters. This citation states that any stream which is not named in the
schedule of stream classifications carries the same classification as that assigned to the stream
segment to which it is tributary. Sutton Lake discharges to a class C-Sw segment of the Cape
Fear River. Therefore Sutton Lake should be classified C-Sw as well.
3. As discussed in previous permit submittals and as authorized under this draft permit, Duke
Energy will be installing wastewater treatment for the discharge of interstitial water. Consistent
with the descriptions of permitted wastestreams on pages A(1) and A(2), Duke Energy also
requests that the term "treated wastewater" also be added to the description in Item 1 on page
2 ("ash pond discharge, treated wastewater, groundwater, and stormwater runoff (outfall 001,
Outfall 002, and Outfall 004)..."

.... ....... ........................................._....._ ._._....._...._......----_--.-----.--.-.._..--_-.....--.._.....-.__.......................__........
Page 12
4. Section A(1)
a. Footnotes 1 and 2 do not apply to the effluent temperature monitoring requirement.
This comment also applies to page A(2).
b. Duke is a member of the Lower Cape Fear Monitoring Coalition and requests that the
instream temperature monitoring requirement be waived in accordance with that
membership, as has been allowed in previous permits.
c. Please modify Footnote 7 to state "The drawdown rate shall not exceed... unless
approved by NCDEQ Dam Safety". This comment also applies to pages A(2), A(3), and
A(4).
5. Section A(2).
a. Duke understands that the DEQ intends to limit the discharge from the ash pond to the
historic average flow rate (2.1 MGD). Since the flow limit is intended to apply to the ash
pond discharge, Duke would recommend changing the sample location for the flow limit
from "Effluent" to "ash pond discharge". Duke would also request a footnote on "Flow"
to specifically clarify that the flow limit only applies to the discharge from the ash pond.
The fact sheet states "The facility's highest discharge rate from the dewatering process
will be 2.1 MGD". We would recommend that this language be used for the footnote as
well.
b. The sample type for pH contains a typo. The entry should read "Grab".
6. Section A(3). Duke understands that the DEQ intends to allow the movement of water from the
"old" 1971 ash pond to the "new" 1984 pond for additional treatment and discharge. To clarify,
Duke recommends that outfall description be modified as follows: "During the period beginning
on the effective date of the permit... the Permittee is authorized to discharge to Sutton Lake
and/or the new ash pond from Outfall 002."
7. Duke understands that the DEQ intends to impose permit limits on discharges from the ash
ponds to the Sutton Lake, as described on pages A(3) and A(4). To clarify that these limits only
apply on discharges to the Sutton Lake (limits to the Cape Fear River are outlined on pages A(1)
and A(2)), Duke requests the clarification "Such discharges to Sutton Lake shall be limited and
monitored by the Permittee as specified below". This comment applies to existing language on
both page A(3) and A(4).
8. Section A(10). The requirements of this section contain several typos that reference quarterly
monitoring. Similarly, the paragraphs beginning "Should any single quarterly..." and "Should the
permittee fail to monitor"... should be deleted since the language pertains to a quarterly
monitoring requirement. The toxicity conditions also reference the "Environmental Sciences
Section" (should likely be "Water Sciences Section").
9. Section A(16). Duke requests the following clarification "Completion of a Biocide Worksheet
101 and Director notification is not necessary for the introduction of a new biocide into an
outfall currently tested for toxicity."
10. Section A(19). It is unclear what DEQ means by "in anticipation of facility conversion". Duke
recommends that this phrase be removed from the condition.
11. Section A(21). The Division's Whole Effluent Toxicity Guidance states that "If the discharge is to
a lake or lake arm where 7Q10 estimates are not meaningful, a 24 -hr acute 'no significant
mortality' limit will be applied with the fathead minnow as the test organism". Therefore Duke

Page 13
_................. ...........--..-..-..-...-..-.._-.._-......._-......_.-.............------- -- ----- -
Energy requests that the toxicity testing requirement for outfalls 002, 004 and 008 align with
that policy. The result of this change would be that all outfalls have the same toxicity testing
requirement.
12. Section A(22). Duke requests that the upstream sample location in the Cape .Fear River
(referenced in A(22), A(1), and A(2)) be defined as the intake structure on the Cape Fear River.
Duke also requests that the locations described in A(22) as "1000 ft from Outfall 004" and the
location described in A(9) as "1000 feet from outfall" be defined as the public boat ramp.
13. Section A(27). Item 3 contains the typo "thouse". Items 4 and 5 refer to terminology that is not
used in the permit.
Duke appreciates the opportunity to comment on this draft permit. If you have any questions, please
contact LeToya Ogallo at [phone] or at [e-mail].
Sincerely,
Harry Sideris
Duke Energy
Senior Vice President Environment, Health & Safety
bc: Jay Huntley- Sutton Station Manager
Jim Wells, VP — Duke EHS CCP
Richard Baker
Kent Tyndall —Sutton Plant Environmental Coordinator
Toya Ogallo — NCRH 15