NC0001422_Comments on Draft Permit_20150808

• Cimi) DUKE Environmental Services
ENERGY® Duke Energy
526 South Church Street
Charlotte,NC 28202
Mailing Address:
Mail Code EC3XP/P.O.Box 1006
Charlotte,NC 28201-1006
August 5, 2015
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources Rf�l✓EIVEDIDENRIDWR
Division of Water Resources AUG _ s 2015
Attn: Wastewater Permitting
1617 Mail Service Center water Quality
Permitting Section
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Subject: Comments on the DRAFT NPDES Permit for L.V. Sutton Energy Complex
Permit No.: NC0001422
New Hanover County
Wastewater Permitting staff:
The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) Division of Water
Resources (the Division) issued a draft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit
for the Duke Energy(hereinafter"Duke") L.V.Sutton Energy Complex dated July 1, 2015 (Draft Permit).
Duke Energy commends NCDENR for developing the Draft Permit, which recognizes the existing
discharges from the facility's outfalls will not cause contravention of the state water quality standards.
Safe, long-term storage of coal ash across all of Duke's coal fired generation fleet fleet is a priority for
Duke. The issuance of the final NPDES permit is a critical prerequisite to de-watering the ash basins at
Sutton and moving forward with the Company's previously announced intent to excavate the Sutton ash
basins.
Duke continues to work as quickly as possible to close the ash basins and finalizing this wastewater
permit is a critical step to advance the ash basin closure process. In order to facilitate the closure
process, Duke supports any permit conditions that are reasonable, supported by applicable law,
regulation and appropriate administrative procedures, and ensure that any discharges will not adversely
affect water quality. However, Duke does not support the inclusion of permit requirements that are
without the support of law, regulation and/or appropriate administrative procedures. Duke, therefore,
respectfully submits the following comments on the subject permit.
NCDENR appears to have issued the Draft Permit in accordance with the letter from Thomas A. Reeder
to Mr. Harry Sideris with Duke, dated November 5, 2014 (Notice Letter), giving notice of the need to
revise the Plant's NPDES permit(NC0001422) (Existing Permit), based on NCDENR's decision to reclassify
the Plant's cooling pond (a/k/a Sutton Lake) as a "waters of the State." In response, Duke filed a
protective appeal of the Notice Letter by a petition for contested case hearing filed at the Office of

Page 12
Administrative Hearings on December 5, 2014 (Appeal). At Duke's request,there has been no action on
the Appeal since it was filed.
I.Comments on the Development of the Technology Based Effluent Limits(TBELs)
The subject permit attempts to establish technology based effluent limits (TBELs) for arsenic and
selenium for outfalls 001,outfall 002 and Outfall 004.The TBELs for arsenic and selenium were based on
an evaluation of the effluent data from the ash basin discharges from Belews Creek,Allen and Marshall
Steam Stations.
The NPDES regulations at §125.3(c)(2) require permit writers developing case-by-case effluent
limitations to consider the following:
• The appropriate technology for the category class of point sources of which the applicant is a
member,based on all available information.
• Any unique factors relating to the applicant.
The regulations also require that, in setting case-by-case limitations, the permit writer consider several
specific factors established in §125.3(d), to select a model treatment technology and derive effluent
limitations on the basis of that treatment technology. That process and the factors considered by the
permit writer are the same factors required to be considered by EPA in developing effluent guidelines.
For establishing best available technology(BAT) requirements for toxic and non-conventional pollutants,
the following factors must be considered:
— The age of equipment and facilities involved,
— Process employed,
— Engineering aspects of the application of various types of control techniques,
— Process changes,
— The cost of achieving such effluent reductions,and
— Non-water quality environmental impacts(including energy requirements).
Based on the information published by the Division, there was no indication that any of these
required factors were considered in establishing the proposed TBELs and the TBELs are thereby not
supported by proper development and process.
Furthermore, the Fact Sheet states "The existing federal regulations require the development of
Technology Based Effluent Limits (TBELs) for the parameters of concern." NPDES delegated authority's
have the discretion to choose whether or not to impose BPJ limits as evidenced by a recent court ruling
in Tennessee. The state court affirmed a 2013 decision of the Tennessee Board of Water Quality, Oil,
and Gas (the Board) holding that TVA's Bull Run Fossil Plant is not required to have "BPJ" permit limits
beyond what the 1982 Effluent Limitations Guidelines require. The Board ruled against
environmentalists' claim that more permit limits were required. The Board stated the permit complies
with the 1982 ELG rules, and "[b]ecause the 1982 ELG for power plants governs, a Best Professional
Judgment(BPJ) analysis was not required."The Board further stated, when EPA set the 1982 rules, EPA

Page 13
considered setting numeric limits for metals but decided not to because they were "present in amounts
too small to be effectively reduced"1.
In addition, it is stated in EPA's NPDES Permitting Manual (September 2010), regarding situations in
which case-by-case TBELs are necessary, "The permit writer should make sure that the pollutant of
concern is not already controlled by the effluent guidelines and was not considered by EPA when the
Agency developed the effluent guidelines."2 Since EPA considered setting numeric limits for metals, the
Division is not obligated to establish TBELs for these parameters.
The Division's decision to propose TBELs appears to be dictated by a memorandum from James A.
Hanlon to EPA Water Division Directors for its Regions: Memorandum, James A. Hanlon to Water
Division Directors, Regions 1-10, "National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permitting of
Wastewater Discharges from Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) and Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR)
Impoundments at Steam Electric Power Plants" (June 7, 2010). It is important to note the Hanlon
memorandum is guidance and not legally binding,as stated in Section VI of the memo.
II. Permit assumes Sutton Cooling Pond is"waters of the State"
Duke will evaluate the Appeal in light of the provisions of the Draft Permit, but nothing contained in
these comments should be taken as contrary to Duke's position in the Appeal. In particular, nothing in
these comments should be seen as an acknowledgement or acceptance of any currently disputed facts
with regard to the status of the classification of Sutton Cooling pond as "waters of the State" as
challenged in the Appeal. This reservation includes any terms in the Draft Permit that are based on (or
otherwise flow from) the assertions and assumptions in the Notice Letter, including, without limitation,
the portions of Sections A.(3.),A.(4.),A.(8.),A. (9.)and A.(26.)
Ill.Specific comments on outfall 001 conditions
1. The fact sheet for the Draft Permit acknowledges that outfall 001 contains a "cooling pond
discharge", "Non contact cooling water"and "recirculating cooling water"further supporting
Duke's position that the supposed "reclassification"of the facility's cooling pond to"waters of
the state"was not carried out following proper administrative process.
2. Upstream and Downstream monitoring for temperature is a modified requirement should be
removed from the permit. In accordance with the MOA between NCDENR, NCDWR and
members of the Lower Cape Fear River program, instream monitoring is conducted by one
organization to increase efficiency, effectiveness, and flexibility and to ensure basinwide
consistency. Duke has entered into a contract with the University of North Carolina at
Wimington, as a member of the Lower Cape Fear river program, to perform this monitoring.
1 In the Matter of Tennessee Clean Water Network v. Tennessee Dept.of Environment and Conservation,Case No.
WPC10-0116(Tenn. Dept.of Env.and Conservation Dec.17,2013).
2 Refer to EPA's NPDES Permit Writers' Manual,September 2010,Section 5.2.3.2"Identifying the Need for Case-
by-Case TBELs"p.5-45—46.

Page 14
Duke request the waiver of individual Upstream/Downstream sampling for being a member in
the Lower Cape Fear River program be reinserted into the permit
3. The permit imposes TBELs for mercury at outfall 001,002 and 004.These limits are based on the
statewide mercury total maximum daily load (TMDL). The fact sheet discusses a statewide
mercury TMDL and asserts that since all Sutton sampling data is below 12 ng/l and maximum
sampling results are below 47 ng/I, no mercury limit is required. However a mercury limit is
imposed. This mercury limit appears to be in direct conflict with the rationale provided in the
fact sheet and should be removed. In lieu of removal, Duke Energy requests a 4.5 year
compliance schedule to comply with the mercury limit. With the limits being newly proposed, a
compliance schedule should be included to allow for the design, evaluation, budget, and
construction of a treatment system to meet the limits.
4. Total Arsenic—The permit proposes a total arsenic daily maximum limit of 50 ug/I. The North
Carolina Enviromental Management Commision reviewed the water quality standard for arsenic
in November 2014 and modified the acute standard to 340 ug/I. The daily maximum limit
should be adjusted to reflect this change.
5. Total iron- The permit proposes a total iron limit of 1.0 mg/I. Duke requests clarification as to
the origin and applicability of this limit. The North Carolina Environmental Management
Commision removed the previous instream standard for iron in November 2014. With the
removal of the coal fired generation at this site, there is currently no categorical steam electric
activity on the site. Duke acknowledges that the proposed modifications to the Steam Electric
Effluent Limitation Guidelines proposed for finalization later this year seeks to clarify
applicability to combined cycle generation units. Until that process has been finalized, it is
Duke's position that the generation at Sutton is not classified as "Steam Electric" and
therefore,categorical iron limits for chemical metal cleaning wastewaters would not apply.
6. Total Aluminum —There is no properly adopted state water quality standard for aluminum in
North Carolina Waters. The presence of naturally occurring aluminum in North Carolina waters
is abundant. Duke staff reviewed EPA STORET data for aluminum analysis in North Carolina
surface waters since 1997. Duke found 30,976 records of analysis of total aluminum. Of those
tests, 27,776 (89.6%) of the samples were in excess of the proposed effluent limit imposed in
the permt of 87 ug/I. The average of those sample results was 723 ug/I. DWR has apparently
attempted to impose a limit based on a reference to aluminum in the EPA National
recommended criteria table. The EPA recommended criteria are not meant to be used for
regulatory purposes. Duke requests this limit be removed as DENR has not established a
properly adopted water quality standard for aluminum.
7. Outfall 001 (Dewatering phase)—Weekly acute toxicity requirements—Weekly acute toxicity
testing is overly burdensome and unnecessary. Duke has not been able to find an aquatic
toxicity laboratory that can support this volume of testing given the required frequency, hold
times, etc. Duke requests that this sampling frequency remain "quarterly" as indicated in
Condition A. (10.) of the permit during dewatering given the stringent other limtis applied to
this activity and Duke's inability to secure testing resources sufficient to meet the
requirement.

. Page 15
IV.Specific comments related to outfall 002
1. Total Arsenic — The permit proposes a total arsenic daily maximum limit of 50 ug/1. The
North Carolina Enviromental Management Commision reviewed the water quality standard
for arsenic in November 2014 and modified the acute standard to 340 ug/I. The daily
maximum limit should be adjusted to reflect this change.
2. As noted in Setion II above, nothing contained in these comments should be taken as
contrary to Duke's position in the Appeal. This reservation includes any terms in Sections
A.(3.),A.(17.)and A.(21.)of the Draft Permit pertaining to Outfall 002.
3. To facilitate preparation for ash removal, Duke requests acknowledgement and recognition
in the permit that water may be pumped from the old ash pond to the new ash pond and
consequently released to the Cape Fear River via outfall 001 if Duke chooses to direct
water in that manner. Flows from Outfall 002 currently cannot be directed to outfall 001
and would need to be sent to outfall 001 (Cape Fear River) via outfall 004 (New ash pond).
Under this scenario,the limits established for outfall 001—dewatering phase should not be
applicable due to the treatment by the new ash pond.
V.Specific comments on outfall 004
1. Total Arsenic—The permit proposes a total arsenic daily maximum limit of 50 ug/I. The North
Carolina Enviromental Management Commision reviewed the water quality standard for arsenic
in November 2014 and modified the acute standard to 340 ug/I. The daily maximum limit
should be adjusted to reflect this change.
2. Total Iron-The permit proposes a total iron limit of 1.0 mg/I. Duke requests clarification as to
the origin and applicability of this limit. The North Carolina Environmental Management
Commision removed the previous instream standard for iron in November 2014. With the
removal of the coal fired generation at this site, there is currently no categorical steam electric
activity on the site. Duke acknowledges that the proposed modifications to the Steam Electric
Effluent Limitation Guidelines proposed for finalization later this year seeks to clarify
applicability to combined cycle generation units. Until that process has been finalized, it is
Duke's position that the generation at Sutton is not classified as "Steam Electric" and
therefore,categorical iron limits for chemical metal cleaning wastewaters would not apply. If
the generation is classified as "Steam Electric" in the future, the total iron limit would only
apply to chemical metal cleaning waste.
3. Total Aluminum —There is no properly adopted state water quality standard for aluminum in
North Carolina Waters. The presence of naturally occurring aluminum in North Carolina waters
is abundant. Duke staff reviewed EPA STORET data for aluminum analysis in North Carolina
surface waters since 1997. Duke found 30,976 records of analysis of total aluminum. Of those
tests, 27,776 (89.6%) of the samples were in excess of the proposed effluent limit imposed in
the permt of 87 ug/I. The average of those sample results was 723 ug/I. DWR has apparently
attempted to impose a limit based on a reference to aluminum in the EPA National
recommended criteria table. The EPA recommended criteria are not meant to be used for
regulatory purposes. Duke requests this limit be removed until DWR establishes a properly
adopted water quality standard for aluminum.

.
Page 16
4. As noted in Setion II above, nothing contained in these comments should be taken as contrary
to Duke's position in the Appeal. This reservation includes any terms in Sections A.(3.),A.(17.)
and A.(21.)of the Draft Permit pertaining to Outfall 004.
5. To facilitate preparation for ash removal, Duke requests acknowledgement and recognition in
the permit that water may be pumped from the old ash pond to the new ash pond and
consequently released to the Cape Fear River via outfall 001 if Duke chooses to direct water in
that manner. Flows from Outfall 002 currently cannot be directed to outfall 001 and would
need to be sent to outfall 001 (Cape Fear River) via outfall 004 (New ash pond). Under this
scenario,the limits established for outfall 001—dewatering phase should not be applicable due
to the treatment by the new ash pond.
VI. pH limits and other conditions on internal wastestreams(outfall 005,006,007 and 009)
1. The proposed pH limits should be removed from internal wastestreams. EPA has allowed for
dilution and comingling as a treatment for pH of internal wastereams. A reference document
supporting this position is attached. (Attachment#1).
2. Outfall 007—Outfall 007 is defined as stormwater flows yet contains a requirement for monthly
sampling. As this flow enters the effluent channel and is composed of stormwater,the sampling
frequency should be reduced to quarterly to align with stormwater sampling activities in other,
recently issued stormwater permits.
3. Outfall 009—Low volume waste from simple cycle combustion turbine—There is no steam cycle
associated with a simple cycle combustion turbine so steam electric effluent guildine limits
should not apply at this point. Duke requests that limits imposed based on effluent guidelines
be removed from this non-steam electric internal outfall.
VII.Specific comments on outfall 008
1. As noted in Setion II above, nothing contained in these comments should be taken as contrary
to Duke's position in the Appeal. This reservation includes any terms in Sections A.(3.),A.(9.),
A.(21.)and A.(26.)of the Draft Permit pertaining to Outfall 008.
2. Duke requests the flow measurement sample type be modified to read "Estimate or pump
logs".
3. Note#2 in outfall 008 is fundamentally inconsistent with the fact that the Sutton cooling pond
was contructed for the purpose of providing evaporative cooling from the facility. Even if the
Sutton Cooling pond is found to be waters of the State, Duke believes that the cooling pond
should be deemed a mixing zone for thermal discharges and requests that the final permit do
so. Regardless, Duke will collect temperature data to use should the company need to apply for
a 316(a)thermal variance or additional thermal mixing zone request at some point in the future.
Duke also requests that the final permit include a compliance schedule to install and begin
recording daily temperatures at the outfall and 1000 feet from the outfall. As the permit is
currently drafted,this daily monitoring would begin upon issuance of the permit; however, such
systems take significant time and effort to design, obtain and implement. Consequently, Duke
requests a minimum of one year to have in place a permanently operational temperature
gauging station capable of transmitting tenmperature data.

. Page 17
4. Note # 5 requires Duke to install a 3/8" mesh screen or barrier. Duke is concerned about the
potential for plugging(obstruction)of such a installation and the impacts that may have on plant
operations. Duke requests the condition be modified to read "The facility shall install a screen
or barrier at the end of the Effluent Channel to minimize fish migration into the channel. The
design of the barrier must be approved by DWR's Wilmington Regional Office and installed
within 12 months of DWR approval."
VIII.Condition A.(18)Clean Water Act Section 316(b)
1. As noted in Setion II above, nothing contained in these comments should be taken as contrary
to Duke's position in the Appeal. This reservation includes any terms in any portions of Section
A.(18.)of the Draft Permit that are affected by or based on the assertions in the Notice Letter.
2. Regardless of the future classification of the Sutton cooling basin or impoundment, Duke
contends the cooling water system for the Sutton combined-cycle unit is properly classified as a
closed-cycle recirculating system (CCRS).The final §316(b) rule for existing facilities defines CCRS
to include impoundments of waters of the U.S. (WOTUS),specifically the definition states:
"(2) Closed-cycle recirculating system also includes a system with impoundments of
waters of the U.S. where the impoundment was constructed prior to October 14,
2014 and created for the purpose of serving as part of the cooling water system as
documented in the project purpose statement for any required Clean Water Act
section 404 permit obtained to construct the impoundment. In the case of an
impoundment whose construction pre-dated the CWA requirement to obtain a
section 404 permit,documentation of the project's purpose must be demonstrated to
the satisfaction of the Director. This documentation could be some other license or
permit obtained to lawfully construct the impoundment for the purposes of a cooling
water system, or other such evidence as the Director finds necessary... If waters of
the United States are withdrawn for purposes of replenishing losses to a closed-cycle
recirculating system other than those due to blowdown, drift, and evaporation from
the cooling system, the Director may determine a cooling system is a closed-cycle
recirculating system if the facility demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Director that
make-up water withdrawals attributed specifically to the cooling portion of the
cooling system have been minimized."
40 C.F.R. § 125.92(c)(2) (emphasis added). This definition provides two simple criteria for
impounded WOTUS to meet to be considered CCRS:
• Criterion#1:The impoundment was constructed prior to October 14,2014; and
• Criterion #2: The impoundment was "created for the purpose of serving as part of the
cooling water system" as documented in the Clean Water Act Section 404 permit or
otherwise demonstrated to the satisfaction of the NPDES Director(i.e., NCDENR).
The following documents are provided as evidence the Sutton Cooling pond meets the criteria above:
1. US Army Corps of Engineers Permit Under Section 10 issued to Carolina & Light Company, dated
June 17, 1971, "authorizing excavating and filling as necessary to construct an off-stream cooling
lake adjacent to the Cape Fear River at the L.V. Sutton Steam Electric Plant near Wilmington,
N.C." (Attachment#2)

Page 18
2. North Carolina Board of Water and Air Resources permit issued to Carolina Power & Light
Company,dated November 19, 1970 granting authorization "for the construction of a 1,110 acre
cooling lake supplied by a river makeup pump to cool and supply the condenser water (580
mgd.)for a 620 M.W.steam electric generation station, purge water will be uniformly controlled
and discharged into the Cape Fear River," (Attachment#3)
Duke, therefore, requests that NCDENR confirm the cooling water system for the Sutton Combined
Cycle is designated as a CCRS. In addition, Duke requests a waiver from all of the information required
under 40 CFR 122.21(r)(9)-(13)as allowed under 40 CFR 122.21(ii)(B),which states:
"Existing facilities greater than 125 mgd AIF. In addition, the owner or operator of an
existing facility that withdraws greater than 125 mgd actual intake flow(AIF),as defined at
40 CFR 125.92 (a), of water for cooling purposes must also submit to the Director for
review the information required under paragraphs (r)(9), (10), (11), (12), and (13) of this
section. If the owner or operator of an existing facility intends to comply with the BTA
(best technology available) standards for entrainment using a closed-cycle recirculating
system as defined at 40 CFR 125.92(c),the Director may reduce or waive some or all of
the information required under paragraphs(r)(9)through(13)of this section."
X.Condition A.(27)
1. Interstitial water should be defined in the permit as entrapped water(i.e., water occupying the
pore space within the ash and below the ash surface). Interstitial wastewater would be
generated through mechanical movement of ash such as through dredging, and excavating
trenches within the ash and discharge would generally occur by controlled pumping.
XI. Additional Comments specific to information found in the permit fact sheet
1. On Page 4,the permit fact sheet makes reference to nitrate/nitrite limits in the permit.
There are no nitrate/nitrite limits in permit. Reference in fact sheet should be corrected.
Duke Energy welcomes any further discussion on our comments or the Draft Permit. If you have any
questions, please contact Mr. E.Shannon Langley at(919)546-2439 or at shannon.langley@duke-
energy.com.
Sincerely,
7 #--`J
Harry Sideris
Duke Energy
Senior Vice President- Environmental, Health&Safety
Attachments
cc: Mr. David May—Sutton Public Hearing officer
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, NC 27889

Page 19
bc: Jay Huntley-Sutton Station Manager
Jim Wells, VP—Duke EHS CCP
Richard Baker
Kent Tyndall—Sutton Plant Environmental Coordinator
Shannon Langley-NCRH 15
Toya Ogal o—NCRH 15

LV.Sutton Energy Complex
Comments on DRAFT NPDES permit NC0001422
August 5,2015 submittal
Attachment 1

SENT BY:ENV AFFAIRS P : 2-22-95 7:35Am ; 53474 917585218;# 2
• •r
•
'N. i �� UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON,D.C. 204$0
wad
ocr 181966
Mr. Louis Canziani
New York State
Department of Environmental
Conservation
Room 6126
Two World Trade Center
Kew York , MY 10047
Dear Mr. Canziani :
This is to confirm our recent conversation regarding
. effluent limitations guidelines for the steam electric power
industry (40 CFR Part 423) . .
In my letter of June 22, 1984 to Ms. Ursula Basch of
your office. I summarized the applicability of the steam
electric regulation pH limitation as applicable to low volume
waste streams when such wastewaters are commingled with
(once-through) cooling waters . The interpretation that I
provided was not in accord with prior information and instruc-
tions provided to EPA and State permitting authorities on
this subject.
The pH limitation per Part 423 applies at the "end-of-
pipe" discharge to surface waters when the wastewater discharge
contains low volume wastewater that is commingled with once-
through cooling water. However, the intent of Part 423 is
also that the total suspended solids and oil and grease
limitations appllcable..t.o low volume waste streams be applied
to tihe law volume Waste component of such a combined discharge
prior to commingling of the individual waste streams.
T
I apologize for any confusion in permit development or
delays in permit issuance that may have occurred in this
matter. If you have any further questions, please contact me
at (202) 382-7131.
Sincerely,
... --a-6.4......
Dennis Ruddy
Project Officer
Industrial Technology Division

LV.Sutton Energy Complex
Comments on DRAFT NPDES permit N00001422
August 5,2015 submittal
Attachment

DEPA1ZT:.-Sr_r:T OF THE ARMY
+ c VILMIt,c:I0:4 Dl':T;c,Ci. Ctu:t GF 1iru;11::7F.ns
P. 0. 110X 1two
!"1WILMIIJGTON 1:OltTII CA; ,LINA 2i:4011•,
•y�„c,f
;;M;i:S (Permit No. /:!1-71 ) 17 Juno B71
lir. J. A. Jo:':s, S(nior 111 c Presidoht
Operar'tin
I'.;',cr 6 Li;;::t Co.'s:nv
Ra lci};h, 1'.or;:h Ca;rolin•t 27(:+12
]scar }:r. Jones:
In accordance with yonr written request''; of 20 Nov 70 and 5, 16, 1.7, i.il;l 30 l:;
there is il.c]osed a Fa Ilmit a.ut"hc,ri::ir+•* c>xca•.itit?,s, and iil li.r,; a:; nr.'ce.;ca.rv'
to con:,t;ruct nn off-.it::. -'.i ceoli.i2c hike adjacent to the Cape 17ear i.'ivor at
the L. V. Sutton Lij' ;t Electric Ilan;: near Wilmington, N. C.
If any r.:ateriaal changes in the location or plan;; of the structure or
work arc found ncer:::S;i i v oh a:ccomit or unforesen or altered conditions
or otherwi r:2, rev i nzW. it.cu ; sho:.l d be submitted prorwt ly to the District
Engineer in elder that thc.:c re.lil:d pian:;, if found unobjectionalh.'.e,
may receive the approval rl'.iuircd by law before construction is begun.
Your attcn lion ft c:tl].ed to cc.:IdiLion (n) of the ii:closed permit w'h-i:'h
rcguiaatl • ( i3)ttc.:: no:, (y this affiC.' relative:c to the C(iC...i ^,::n
:1-
and c.:.: 115't1;,o (fates.
The inc1C'7,C'd i:otic:' oC Allu'i,ocikx.tiea must 1;:1 conspicuouoly displayed at
the site of the wort:.
Sincerely yours,
—6)
2 Incls PAUL. S. i)E;:1SOa
1. Permit Colo: :•I, Corp:, of }'!t"it^.e:;r:,
2. Li+C Fo_-.. 436 District 1:nzit;'c r
SAP1•I.-73
11 ,:a,y 71
Copy fuini..;h:'t: w/o
coholis,Aor, t:. Div l;r r:o;:?
SpL : "isle•. 7 ii:,, I:a1_'i.t•,h, .Y: 27611

DEl'AR HUT or 111AI:Iiv
Pi;RffIT
ngtr,n District, Corps o I:nginl'er.s
I ►;. itl . •
u.
'1,
Referring; to written request dated .
upon the recommendation of th^ Chief of I:ni.;ireers, and undt'r the provi.irn;
of Section 10 of the Act of Congress approved !larch 3, 11199 (3:1 U.S.C. 403),
entitled "An act making ap;,rupr;at•ions for the construction, repair, ;:nd
preser•fation of certain public works on rivers and harbors, and for other
purposes," you are hereby authorised by the Secretary of the Army
tr;i�....a.' tie i !1 a... i: :C•.. i:1'• ::u
to l' • • i : a!rl c. l:"t,I 1
•
(Here describ the prop:,,=:'d structure or work aid its intended urn,
including, in Ch.: ca:.e of an application for a fill. permit, a dPscrip-•
tion of the structures, if any, proposed to be erected cn the fill. )
(Here to be named the river, harbor, or waterway concerned. )
at t .'t'a .,:i '. : r, aar i i !: ..r:, :::,.•, C.
(Here to be named the nearest well-known locality--preferably a to .-11 or
city--and the dirt-ill-1N! in miles and tenths from so:r:a defi.nita point in
the sane, statin;' whethJr above or below or giving direction by pt,ir.ts
of compass.)
in accord !nce with the plans and dr:,wiu4s attached hereto
(On drawiih;;S: jive file number or oth::: l7'Uinito ldehhtl1$c!atio:i 11i1iks.)
•
sub,jcc•t 1 o the fel lot:'?or, !ondi tion;,:

(a) That this iwirwieni does not convey any property rights either
in r i I estato or material, or any excliivo privileges; and that it does
not anthorize any injury to private property or invasion of private
riehts, or any infringement or Federal, State or local laws or reulatiouA,
nor does it obviate the ncceesity or obtaining State o, local as:-ent re-
quired icy law for the strnctnre or wnri authorized.
(ii) That the structnre or work authorized heroin shall he in accordance
with 11r! plans and drawings attached hereto and con-,1ruction ball be sub-
ject to the supervision and approval of the District Engineer, Corps of Engi-
neers, in charge or the District in which the work is to be p-rfor.cd.
(c) That the District Engineer may at any time mai.P such inAp-rtions
as he may deem necessary to assure that the construction or work is per-
formed in accordance with the conditions of this permit and all expenses
thereof shall be borne by the permittee.
(d) That the permittee shall comply promptly with any lawful regula-
tions, conditions, or instrnctions arfecting the structure or work author-
ized herein if and when issued by the federal Water Quality Administration
and/or the State agency havin juriAletion to abtle or vovent water pollu-
tion, includin therms1 or radiation pollution. Such regulations, conditions
or instructions in effect or hereafter prescribed by the Federal Water Qual-
it,y Administration and/or the State agency are hereby made a condition of
this permit.
(e) That the permitter. will maintain the work authorized herein in
good condition in accoriknce with the approved plans.
(f) That this permit may, prior to the completion of the structure or
work authorised herein, be suFrn&.d by authority o thE, Secretary of the
Army if it is determined that suspension is in the public interest.*
(g) That this permit may at any time be modified by authority of the
Secretary of the Army if it is determined that, under existing circum-
stances, modification is in the public interest.* The permitteP, upon
receipt of a notice of modirication, shall comply therewith as directed by
the Secretary of the Army or his authorized representative.
(h) That this permit may be revoked by authority of the Secretary of
the Army if the permittee rails to comply with any of its provisions or if
the Secretary determines that, under the existing circumstances, such action
is required in the public interest.*
(i) That any modification, suspension or revocation of thin permit:
shall riot be the basis for a claim (or damages against the United States.
(j) That the United States 'ml mm no way be liable for any damage
to any structure or work authorized herein which may be caused by or result
from future operations undortakou by the Government in the public Int.N.est.*
2

1: e 'e•iit. l, . , , .. •Ili (:e:
(k) Th:,* uc ati:rlr'pt shall he mad' by the l:'rtat etc• to forbid the fell
and free 11' by the public of .I.1 !?iivie':,hle wcrlero at of c(ij <:Cei. .co the
structure_ or work authorized by th ' :d t.
(1) Th-t. if the display or lightf: midon any
' :lt(t] :)r; l,t�Ic'I'tt'•.t. or t7,3}'}:
author?:'f d herein in n`.... (i her-1:i re p rovi 6;-d For a 1:w, !.Inchi i :i?t " .'i''(}
signal:; ni.y lee pro f,:crihedr by t'he United St•:F:?J Coast C.;:.rci Li:..11
insla1l'd and maintained
by and rat the e):Ir�11E. . of the lar::{ia'c; .
(m) That the permittee shall notify the District Cr:giner.' ut +i:ill tii z
the construction or t•cul. will he co:Amenced, as fu in th iiiie:oof the t i 1.ic
of Comm:-:r.Ce1::cnt as the Di:,t'"ict Engineer may specify , and of its completion.-
(n)
.f1 c )n(n) That if the structure or !lark herein authorized is not cn.npletcd
on or Lcio e iday of " 4:11•;1'_ , 19 1•!, this s
, i t
not previously ;evc ;r or specia-caliy 'at.(Tn6cstiT shall c:iF+Gcand
be null
and void.
(o) That the legal requirements of all FeJe!'al i'lgencies be riv.t.
(p) That this permit does not authorize or apprev•' t}:L (.*o:'t'tr uetI no of
particular structures, the :authorization or approval of which may require
action by the Congress or other agencies of the Federal Goverment.
(q) That all the provisions of this permit shall be binding on any
assignee or successor in interest of the parritttee.
(r) That if the recording of thin permit is ponaib1e under avpl;cr5le
State or local I . thy? remittee shall take such i:cticn as i:' y he 1?cce •r;'
to record this
cial
charged pe iiit with the Registrar of Leeds ot : "1'r `x
it•.tc
with the responsibility of maintaining • :corns tic!_ el: ,
,o :,::dr
interests in real property.
(s) That the permittee agree to make every reasonable of:ort to pro:;:!-
cute the construction or work authori?ed herein in a manner so T: to oinimil.?
any adverrl impact of the construction or work on fish, tole}li.f: o:ttl
environmental values.
(t) That the p.rnitte:e agrees that it will prosecute ti con-.•truce
or work authorized herein in a manner so as to minimize any dei;r..o! i:ion of
water quality.
3

*A juitrirint ai-s to t...thetiwr or Ii)t tAisp...nsion, modification or revoc,:ti,:n
is in the public interet involves a contdderation or the irr,pact tbut
Slid' action or thc abFence ills any such action : ay love on factor::: -
ing, the pultlic intorest. Such f;.ictors include, but arc not Liii•iti,(1
navi; at ion, 115-.:11 mid td 1 i fe, water tjualii-v, econnicii C3, COO:_:e j
aest het ics, recreiiti rn, w; tet upply, flood da;nage pri:•verii lull, :o ' ,! , s
and, in general, the riE:eds and tiel.fare of the 3G pie.
BY AUTHORM or THE SECRET:VW OF THE ARMY:
17 Junc 1971
PAUL S. DENISON (nate)
Colonel, Corps of Enfs.lincers
District EnL;i neer
.•
PENITTEE YIENEBY ACCY;1TS TEP.,if; ADD CONDITIONS 01"f111S PER11T.!
(j;I:;(.1 ,!... • • . i,!1,•,!..
•• . June 15, 1971
• .
J1 gnat:UV;
o' lerritittce
I : Senior Vice President:
Engineering & Operating
4
ENG Form 1771-11
25 May 1970

•
LV.Sutton Energy Complex
Comments on DRAFT NPDES permit N00001422
August 5,2015 submittal
Attachment 3

• ` ' NORTH CAROLINA
•
BOARD OF WATER AND AIR RESOURCES
RALEIGH
PERMIT
For the Discharge of Sewage, Industrial Wastes, or Other Wastes
In accordance with the provisions of Article 21 of Chapter 143, General Statutes of North Carolina
as amended, and other applicable Laws, Rules and Regulations
PERMISSION IS HEREBY GRANTED TO
Carolina Power & Light Company
L. V. Sutton S. E. Plant
New Hanover County
FOR THE
construction of a 1,110 acre cooling lake supplied by a river
makeup pump station to cool and supply the condenser water
•
(580 m.g.d.) for a 620 M.W. stream electric generation station,
purge water will be uniformly controlled and discharged into
the Cape Fear River,
in accordance with the application dated November 19 , 19_7_2_, and in conformity with
the plans, specifications, and other supporting data, all of which are filed with the Department of
Water and Air Resources and are considered a part of this Permit.
This Permit shall be effective from the date of its issuance until __ate.cember___l3_.19Th.__, and
t shall be subject to the following specified conditions and limitations:
1. This permit shall become void unless the facilities are constructed in accordance
with the approved plans, specifications, and other supporting data and are completed
and placed in operation on or before March 31, 1972, or as this date may be amended
by the Board of Plater and Air Resources.
2. This permit is effective only with respect to the nature and volume of cooling
water as described in the application and other supporting data furnished by the
applicant for this stream electric generating station.
3. Water quality monitored one (1) foot below the water surface shall comply with
the stream standards outside a mixing zone extending from the eastern shore to the
center line of the river and extending not more than 1.25 miles downstream nor more
than 2700 feet upstream from point of discharge. The cross sectional area of the
designated zone shall not exceed 9.0% of the total cross sectional area of the river
at the point of discharge nor 2.56 at the mouth of upper Toomer's Creek.
4. The Company, shall conduct studies to determine thermal patterns under extreme
conditions and submit findings to the Department of Water and Air Resources. The
Company shall also establish an adequate monitoring program approved by the Department
and shall furnish data at regular intervals and in such form and detail as may be
required by the Department.
5. In the event the Company cannot comply with the terms and conditions contained
herein, the discharge shall cease and not be resumed until these conditions can
be met.
6. The Company, at least six months prior to the expiration of this permit, shall
request its extension. Upon receipt of the request, the Board will review the adequacy .
of the facilities described herein and, if indicated, will extend the permit for such
period of time and under such conditions and limitations as deemed proper.
Permit issued this the 27th day of JANUARY ,
By t•41
E. C. Hubbard, Assistant Director
Permit No. 1969 Department of Water and Air Resources

•
I
. 4
NORTH CAROLINA
Wake County -
CERTIFICATE
THIS CERTIFICATE is issued in conformity with the requirements of
Public Law 91-224 of the United States and subject to the rules of the North
Carolina Board of Water and Air Resources to Carolina Power and Light Company,
Raleigh, North Carolina, pursuant to application filed on the 20th day of
November, 1970, to discharge into the surface waters of New Hanover County,
North Carolina, cooling water from the off-stream cooling lake serving the
Company's L. V. Sutton Steam Electric Plant.
After publication of notice of the application in the Wilmington
Morning Star on the 8th day of December, 1970, and determination that no
public hearing upon said application is necessary, the North Carolina Board
of Water and Air Resources hereby certifies, subject to any conditions here-
inafter set forth, that there is reasonable assurance that the proposed activity
of the applicant will be conducted in a manner which will not violate applicable
water quality standards.
Conditions of Certificate: Applicable project construction and opera-
tion is to be done in accordance with plans and specifications made a part of North
Carolina Board of Water and Air Resources Permit Number 1969. Terms and conditions
set forth in Permit Number 1969 are by reference incorporated in and made a part
of this certification.
Violation of any of the conditions herein set forth shall result in
revocation of this Certificate.
This the 27th day of January, 1971.
NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF WAT AND AIR RESOURCES
by - ,4(Z7-
Ge rge E. Pickett, Director
Certificate No. 4-A

e•
•
Nnv.c:ulu..r 19 19211_
TO: North Carolina Board of Water and Air Resources
Raleigh, North Carolina
Gentlemen:
In accordance with the provisions of Article 21 of Chapter 143, General Statutes of North Carolina as amend-
ed, application is hereby made by Carolina Power & Light Company
(Name of board, individual ur others)
xbtka a pukl fc service corpora ion with general offices , in the county
(Name of city, village,town,sanitary district or establishment)
of Wake , to the North Carolina Board of Water and Air Resources for the approval
(Name of county)
of the accompanying plans, specifications, and other data submitted herewith covering the construction
gg and operation of a 1110 acre cooling lake with make-up pater station
and for a "Certificate of Approval" and/or "Permit" for the discharge of heated water
'Owego.
from crlig this cooling pond
industrial waste or other wastes) (sewers or treatment plant)
serving L. V. Sutton S. E. Plant into
(Name of municipality, institution,or industry,etc.) (Name of treatment plant)
XX rhe snrfare _waters of the Cape Fear River
(surLee or ground waters) (Name of water course if surface
waters;if ground waters, state %ster course to which they are tributary) at
E2.305.400 on the North Carolina Grid System
and N195,200 (Exact location of point of discharge)
The plans for the proposed works have been prepared by Brown &_13,2Qt_,_jnc.
(Engineering Firm)
of Houston, Texas . It is estimated that treatment works will provide
(Addreea)
adequate capacity to serve the Sutton Plant for
the life of the plant
mczarDistattar Y4xars( at which time it is estimated the average daily sewage or waste flow will not
exceed ** gallons. It is further expected that the treatment works will effect overall reductions in
pollution as follows: B.O.D. (5-day 20°C ** %, suspended solids %, total solids **
coliform bacteria k* %, and toxic materials • ** %. The cost of the proposed works is estimated
to be: sewers $ ** , pumping stations $ ** , treatn,•'nt plant 5 ** ,atteczac
L5.0 million, The works will be completed and in operation on or ht torr• _ March 31 1 7g_2
including land
The applicant hereby agrees that the proposed works will h .onstrect ' in strict accordance with the ap-
proved plans and specifications or subsequently approved changes t«rr•in •tt„I iuther agrees to place its opera-
tion under the care of a competent person and to maintain and (•pt:ratt, th, t'l;int according to the best accepted
practice and in accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the t...irrt,
** Not applicable - See attached
Report. Signature
Title [or !'i ct President
Mailing Address __P- S?.`h.x....1.551. Raleigh, N. C. 27602
• Specify percentage reduction for each tock substance, using additional sheet, ti�•cc.,,',