NCS000589_Weatherspoon Stormwater Hearing Officers Report_20170131

Water Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
January 31, 2017
Memorandum
To: Tracy Davis
Director, Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources (DEMLR)
From: Morella Sanchez -King 01/31 I.Z013-
Assistant Regional Supe iso , Division of Water Resources (DWR)
ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
S. JAY ZIMMERMAN
Olreclor
Subject: NPDES Stormwater Permit Hearing - Duke Energy Progress, LLC - W.H. Weatherspoon Plant
Hearing Officer's Report and Recommendations
On December 8, 2016 1 served as Hearing Officer for a public hearing on the proposed issuance of a NPDES stormwater
discharge permit for the W.H. Weatherspoon Plant, a Duke Energy Progress, LLC facility in Lumberton. As Hearing
Officer, my main focus was to consider the public comments received during the notice period and comments given at the
public hearing in making a recommendation for final action on the draft permit. The permit under consideration and
information about the hearing is included below.
W.H. Weatherspoon Plant - Permit Number NCS000589:
This facility is located at 491 Power Plant Road, Lumberton, NC - Robeson County. The Weatherspoon
Plant is a retired coal-fired steam electric generating plant that formerly operated in Robeson County. The
site was retired in 2011 and is undergoing closure. The facility has three (3) stormwater outfalls along an
access road that will discharge industrial stormwater to the Lumber River and to an unnamed tributary to
the Lumber River in the Lumber River Basin, once coal ash hauling begins. The hearing was held on
December 8, 2016 at Robeson County Community College in Lumberton, NC.
There were 22 attendees at the public hearing with 10 of these providing verbal comments at the hearing. Stormwater
Program and Fayetteville Regional Office staff represented the Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources
(DEMLR). Duke Energy representatives were also present at the hearing. As Hearing Officer, I presented the Hearing
Officer's speech at the hearing, and Bethany Georgoulias from the Stormwater Program provided an overview of the
proposed permit (included in Appendix B of this report). After the overview, I opened the hearing for public comment.
During the public comment period we also received two additional written comments, with one of the comment letters
being from the permitee, Duke Energy. DEMLR staff have reviewed all comments and made appropriate adjustments to
the final permit where warranted.
Background
The fact sheet for the permit outlines in more detail the basis for permit coverage and permit requirements for the facility.
The facility is a former steam electric power generating facility. This industry sector is required to have NPDES permit
coverage for stormwater point source discharges from the industrial activities at such facilities. The permit documents
note that for a major portion of the industrial plant area and ash handling areas of the site, stormwater is collected and
treated in the facility's wastewater treatment systems (cooling pond or ash pond). Those drainage areas are covered in a
separate wastewater NPDES permit through the Division of Water Resources (NC0005363). For the areas covered by
the stormwater permit, the major provisions of the permit are requirements for a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(SPPP) for the facility, along with monitoring (visual and quantitative), and inspection requirements. These provisions
provide comprehensive coverage through the implementation, regular evaluation, and adjustment of management
measures to minimize the discharge of pollutants during rainfall events.
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Water Resources
1617 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
919 807 6300

Hearing Officer's Report
December 8, 2016 Public Hearing
W.H. Weatherspoon Plant
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
We received comments from three entities as well as concerned citizens that pertained to the draft NPDES stormwater
permit. A summary of the public hearing comments is below, and all written comments received that were relevant to the
stormwater permit are included in Appendix C of this report. Staff in the Stormwater Program reviewed the comments
received and have developed responses to the concerns. I concur with the responses and to the recommended changes
in the final permit for this facility. The changes included are minor in nature, and the final permit maintains requirements
that are in line with those taken to public notice. In the process of finalizing the permit, staff developed a transmittal letter
for the permit that address the permittee's comments and the Division's responses to those comments. The major issues
raised in the public comments are summarized below:
• A number of the comments received were related to concerns about seeps, discharges to Jacob's Swamp and
the Lumber River from the coal ash basin and cooling pond at the site, coal ash disposal, flooding issues, public
health, and drinking water impacts.
Response: We understand that these are issues of significant concern to commenters that participated in the
process. However, these issues are handled by other program areas within the Department. The draft permit
regulates stormwater discharges only and does not authorize or control any wastewater or groundwater
discharges. The Department continues to review those issues and consider them within the appropriate
programs.
• A number of commenters requested that these NPDES discharge permits be denied. At least one commenter
(Ms. Megan Gregory) expressed that DEQ should instead require proper removal and storage of ash waste.
Response: We noted that several comments that referenced "Stormwater Permit" were actually focused on
discharges of wastewater. However, we understand the general concern about authorizing any discharges under
an NPDES permit.
Several commenters expressed concern that the permits do not protect waterways, but we concluded that the
comments did not demonstrate the NPDES stormwater permit will not protect water quality. Ms. Gregory's
comments cited infrequent monitoring requirements proposed by DEQ, but it was unclear if this was in reference
to the stormwater or wastewater permit. The final stormwater permit was modified to reflect a quarterly
monitoring schedule during ash hauling, as this is the only anticipated industrial activity in the access road
drainage areas at this site. Any benchmark exceedances trigger monthly monitoring. DEQ feels this monitoring
scheme is sufficiently frequent for stormwater discharges. Also, we expect exposed materials and contamination
risk to be minimized through best management practices implemented by the permittee under the requirements of
the SPPP and other permit stipulations, such as regular visual monitoring. The permit explicitly prohibits
authorized stormwater discharges from causing or contributing to water quality standard violations (Part I, Section
B). Also, most areas at this plant site are confined to areas draining to wastewater treatment.
We understand that many concerned citizens are advocating for ash clean-up and not allowing any discharges at
all. It is important to understand that the company will not be able to transport ash away from the plant during
future excavation and ash removal efforts unless potential stormwater discharges associated with this regulated
industrial activity are authorized by an NPDES permit. In other words, this stormwater permit plays a key role in
facilitating ash removal. The NPDES stormwater permit also mandates stormwater pollution prevention measures
and monitoring obligations designed to prevent contamination from entering surface waters from any runoff, and
in doing so establishes safeguards and regulatory oversight of the cleanup activities and the potential surface
water impacts.
• One commenter (Ms. Christine Ellis on behalf of Winyah Rivers Foundation, Inc.) requested that DEQ set limits
for stormwater discharges, instead of imposing stormwater benchmarks that do not equate to permit violations if
exceeded. The commenter asserted that benchmarks do not adequately protect water quality because they don't
prescribe standards and are not enforceable as limits. The commenter also expressed concern that discharges
could occur for 3-6 months before any action is taken, based on the proposed monitoring frequency.
Page 2

Hearing Officer's Report
December 8, 2016 Public Hearing
W.H. Weatherspoon Plant
Response: The commenter is accurate in distinguishing benchmarks from effluent limits. Benchmarks are
numerical action levels for stormwater monitoring and do not equate to a permit violation if exceeded. While
exceeding a benchmark is not in itself a permit violation, the permittee must take action in a tiered response
structure outlined in the permit. Failing to respond to benchmark exceedances as required is a permit violation.
The permit imposes quarterly monitoring during coal ash transport. Based on public comments and revisions to
earlier draft Duke Energy Steam Electric Plant stormwater permits before issuance, the Tier One Response in this
draft permit stipulated that monthly monitoring must begin after one benchmark exceedance (instead of two).
Tier Two (two consecutive benchmark exceedances) introduces the possibility of an alternative monitoring plan or
invitation to the Regional Engineer to direct subsequent actions. The final permit maintains this provision and
addresses part of the commenter's concern.
Benchmarks are determined with help from Division of Water Resources' Classification and Standards Unit and
are determined using data from multiple sources including EPA's National Recommended Water Quality Criteria,
the National Primary Drinking Water Regulation in 40 CFR 141.11, and NC Surface Water Quality Standards
(found in 15A NCAC 02B regulations). When regulations do not contain information for a particular pollutant of
concern, benchmarks are calculated per 15A NCAC 2B .0200 using peer-reviewed toxicity data. In general,
benchmarks are calculated to mimic acute water quality standards.
DEQ follows established Federal procedures for calculation of an acute standard when developing stormwater
benchmarks (acute standard/benchmark is set at 1/2 of the calculated Final Acute Value or 1/2 FAV) and typically
applies those values in NPDES stormwater permits without any dilution allowance. Benchmarks based on acute
standard calculations reflect a conservative protection level for aquatic life against negative impacts from short-
term, undiluted exposure to higher levels of chemicals. NC DEMLR believes this approach to be the most
appropriate for protecting against potential impacts of stormwater discharge exposures and to be consistent with
DEQ's NPDES permitting program.
Finally, DEQ feels that the stormwater permit as written does not compromise water quality standard protections.
Language in Part I, Section B clearly states that "stormwater discharges allowed by this permit shall not cause or
contribute to violations of Water Quality Standards."
• One commenter (Ms. Hope Taylor, on behalf of Clean Water for North Carolina) asked that radioactive elements
be added to the monitoring requirements in the stormwater permit.
DEQ feels that the information we currently have available has lead us to a reasonable suite of parameters to
assess the potential stormwater impacts for this type of facility. The Department will continue to monitor available
information on this issue, but at this time we do not feel that we have sufficient information to add additional
parameters for stormwater discharge requirements.
• During the public comment period and ahead of the Public Hearing, Duke Energy provided comments requesting
a correction to the company name in the draft permit; a request for clarification on monitoring frequency and when
the SPPP must be developed; a request to remove the initial PCB monitoring requirement, and a request to only
submit fish tissue monitoring results with the renewal application instead of within 30 days of receiving results.
In response, DEMLR has made the following revisions in the final permit:
1. The typo in the Permittee name on the front page was corrected to Duke Energy Progress, LLC.
2. The monitoring requirement for PCBs was removed on the basis that these materials have never been stored
in the subject drainage areas.
3. The monitoring requirements were revised to reflect quarterly monitoring during ash transport and further
clarification about when monitoring requirements are applicable.
4. The provision requiring fish tissue sampling results was modified to reflect that the NPDES Wastewater
Permit only requires sampling once during that permit term (not annually). However, the direction to submit
tissue sampling results within 30 days of receipt to DEMLR remains as proposed for consistency with
previously issued stormwater permits for other Duke Energy Progress facilities. Language was modified to
acknowledge the difference in reporting requirements.
Page 3

Hearing Officer's Report
December 8, 2016 Public Hearing
W.H. Weatherspoon Plant
5. The Standard Conditions in Part III, Section A 1. were revised to clarify that a Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Plan (SPPP) be developed and implemented prior to the beginning of discharges from the operation of
industrial activity in this case. This facility is considered an "existing facility applying for coverage ahead of
resuming stormwater discharges associated with industrial activity."
In addition to the items noted above, staff identified a few needed changes in the permit to address typographic errors and
areas where language needed to be clarified. These changes included some reference corrections and providing clarity
about when the permit conditions and monitoring commences or must continue, as well as minor revisions to the
electronic reporting requirements in Part II.
Based on our review of the information associated with these permits, public comments received, and discussions with
Stormwater Program staff, I recommend that the Director move forward to issue the final permit with the
modifications that have been included. The final permit is attached to this package for your signature.
In addition to the information contained above I would also like to provide some recommendations based on the
comments from this process. A number of comments seemed to be concerned with assuring oversight of the permit
conditions at the facility. Staff in the Regional Office focus on the proper implementation of permits on a daily basis, so I
am confident in their efforts to assure compliance. To assist in assuring that these efforts are handled effectively I
recommend:
1. With the issuance of this permit, the Fayetteville Regional Office should contact the facility to first assure that the
facility contacts are aware of the DEMLR Stormwater Program contacts in the regional office if they have
questions. They should also assure that the facility makes the regional office aware in advance of planned
movement of any ash material on the site. This contact should be designated to allow the regional office to
schedule an onsite visit early on in this process to review the procedures utilized and evaluate any potential
stormwater issues.
2. DEMLR has multiple programs that may be involved with activities on the facility site — Stormwater, Erosion and
Sedimentation Control, and Dam Safety. The Division should ensure that when regional staff is on site for site
visits or inspections associated with any of these program areas, staff should also be aware of the conditions
related to other programs; be ready to assess potential issues; and make appropriate programs aware of any
concerns. In turn, DEMLR staff should be sure to provide similar information in coordination with other Divisions
as well.
If you have any questions, please contact me to discuss.
Page 4

ATTACHMENTS
A. Announcement of Public Hearings
Hearing Officer's Report
December 8, 2016 Public Hearing
W.H. Weatherspoon Plant
B. Stormwater Program Presentation at the Public Hearing
C. Comments Received on Proposed Stormwater Permit
Page 5

Attachment A: Announcement of Public Hearing
PUBLIC NOTICE
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY INTENT TO ISSUE NPDES
WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PERMIT #NC0005363 AND NPDES STORMWATER DISCHARGE PERMIT
#NCS000589 Public comment or objection to the draft permits is invited. All comments received by Dec. 8, 2016
will be considered in the final determination regarding permit issuance and permit provisions.
PERMIT APPLICATION
Duke Energy Progress, Inc. has applied for NPDES permits for the W.H. Weatherspoon Plant, 491 Power Plant Rd.,
Lumberton, N.C., in Robeson County, to discharge wastewater and stormwater to the Lumber River and Jacob
Swamp in the Lumber River basin.
The draft wastewater permit and related documents are available online at: hgps://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-
resources/water-resources-hot-topics/dwr-coal-ash-regulation/duke-energy-nnpdes-permits-for-facilities-with-coal-
ash-ponds/duke-energ -nnpdes-modifications-renewals. The draft stormwater permit and related documents are
available online at:
https://deq.nc.gov/news/hot-topics/coal-ash-nc/npdes-permits. Printed copies of the draft permits and related
documents may be reviewed at the department's Fayetteville Regional Office. To make an appointment to review the
documents, please call 910-433-3300.
Public comments on the draft permit should be mailed to:
• Wastewater Permitting, Attn: Weatherspoon, 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N.C., 27699-1617
• Stormwater Permitting, Attn: Weatherspoon, 1612 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N.C., 27699-1612
Public comments may also be submitted by email to: [e-mail]. Please be sure to include
"Weatherspoon Wastewater" or "Weatherspoon Stormwater" in the email's subject line.
PUBLIC HEARING
The N.C. Department of Environmental Quality will hold a public hearing to accept comments on the
aforementioned draft permits at 6 p.m. Thursday, Dec. 8 at the Robeson Community College A.D. Lewis
Auditorium, 5160 Fayetteville Rd., Lumberton, N.C. Speaker registration begins at 5 p.m.

Attachment B: Stormwater Program Presentation
NPDES Stormwater Permit NCS000589 - Duke Energy/Weatherspoon
Public Hearing Thursday December 8, 2016
"Good evening. My name is Bethany Georgoulias, and I work in DEMLR's Stormwater Permitting Program.
Tonight I'll summarize the main features of the draft industrial stormwater permit for Duke Energy's
Weatherspoon Plant.
• As Tom explained, the Weatherspoon plant is undergoing closure, and there has not been any active coal
power generation since 2011. In addition to the coal ash pond and large cooling pond remaining on site,
there is also an access road leading to the plant site.
• This draft NPDES Stormwater Permit regulates stormwater discharges to surface waters, not any
wastewater discharges.
• The purpose of this permit is to regulate discharges of stormwater associated with industrial activities
that fall into one of ten (10) categories addressed in the federal regulations in 40 CFR Part 122.26. Those
categories include Steam Electric Power Generation Facilities.
• Some areas are excluded from permit coverage, such as areas without industrial activities, areas without
a potential point source discharge, and areas draining to wastewater treatment or otherwise permitted
under the wastewater permit. Most plant areas here drain to the cooling pond and are outside the scope
of this draft permit.
• This permit will cover discharges from three (3) stormwater outfalls that drain areas from the potential
ash hauling route along the access road when ash removal begins.
• This draft permit requires the development and implementation of a comprehensive Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan, as well as quantitative (or analytical) and qualitative (or "visual") monitoring
of stormwater discharges.
• The Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan is a written management plan that includes a detailed site
map and overview; a pollution prevention and good housekeeping program; employee training; facility
and stormwater system inspections; certification that any non-stormwater discharges are appropriately
authorized; and a Plan review and update timetable; in addition to other measures.
• Proposed analytical monitoring parameters include conventional pollutants, metals, and other potential
coal ash constituents.
• The frequency for both visual and analytical stormwater discharge monitoring is set to quarterly during
any coal or ash transport.
• Proposed monitoring does not include discharge limits. Instead the permit incorporates stormwater
benchmark values that guide management responses. If sample results exceed any benchmark
concentrations, the permittee must take action as outlined in the permit's tiered response structure.
• Finally, like the wastewater permit, this draft stormwater permit does not regulate the ultimate fate of
the coal ash. This determination will be made by DEQ in accordance with the Coal Ash Management Act
of 2014.
This concludes my overview of the draft NPDES Stormwater Permit. I will now turn the hearing back to the
Hearing Officer."

Attachment C: Comments Received on Stormwater Permit
The following section (subsequent attached pages) includes the written comments submitted during the comment period
and the comments received at the public hearing.

r' DUKE
ENERGY,
PROGRESS
October 18, 2016
Certified Mail # 7015 1520 0001 0801 5019 (2 copies)
Mr. Bradley Bennett
North Carolina Division of Energy Mineral and Land Resources
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Subject: Duke Energy Progress, LLC
Weatherspoon Plant, Robeson County
Comments on Draft Permit NCS000589
Dear Mr. Bennett,
W. H. Weatherspoon Plant
491 Power Plant Rd
Lumberton, NC 28358
Mailing Address:
Kent Tyndall
L. V. Sutton Energy Complex
801 Sutton Steam Plant Rd
Wilmington, NC 28401
o: 910.341-4775
f: 910.341-4790
Duke Energy Progress, LLC has received the draft Industrial Stormwater Permit NCS000589 for
the W.H. Weatherspoon Plant. As an additional point of information for your staff as you review
and prepare this permit for finalization, please be aware that the active erosion and
sedimentation control plan for the demolition of the Weatherspoon plant was closed out this
year. Therefore the demolition of the former coal plant is fully complete and the former plant
area has been fully graded, seeded, and achieved final stabilization.
Duke Energy appreciates the opportunity to review the permit and has the following comments
on the draft.
Title Page- the ownership entity for Weatherspoon Plant is Duke Energy Progress,
LLC.
2. The draft permit includes a semi-annual monitoring requirement for PCBs.
According to the fact sheet, the rationale for the PCB monitoring requirement is that
"electrical equipment onsite prior to decommissioning may have contained PCBs,
which persist in the environment if ever released." However, as also noted by the
fact sheet and as acknowledged in previous industrial stormwater permit coverage,
the stormwater drainage area for the former coal plant flowed to the cooling pond
where it is comingled with wastewater and sampled at NPDES outfall 001. PCB
containing materials have never been stored in the drainage areas for outfalls SW -1,
SW -2 and SW -3. Therefore Duke Energy requests that the monitoring requirement
for PCBs be removed from the permit.

3. The draft permit requires semi-annual monitoring for TSS, pH, and Oil and Grease
during a period when the outfalls are not influenced by industrial activity. The
Stormwater Permitting unit has previously taken the regulatory position that these
three outfalls were only "active" when Duke Energy was engaged in the industrial
activity of transporting industrial materials (ash). Although the fact sheet states that
stormwater regulations also apply to "areas where industrial activity has taken place
in the past and significant materials remain and are exposed to storm water", the
draft permit materials acknowledge that stormwater from all of the former industrial
areas of the plant is conveyed to the cooling pond. Industrial areas, as defined by
the stormwater regulations do not drain to outfalls SW -1, SW -2 and SW -3. The only
time that condition changes is when Duke Energy is engaged in the activity of
moving ash. Therefore Duke Energy requests that no monitoring be required at
outfalls SW -1, SW -2 and SW -3 unless Duke Energy has begun the industrial activity
of removing ash from the plant site.
4. The draft permit requires that fish tissue sampling required under NPDES Permit
NC0005363 be submitted within 30 days of receiving results from the lab. Duke
Energy request that the reporting requirement for this condition align with the NPDES
wastewater permit, which requires that the data be submitted with the renewal
application.
5. Please clarify whether Part III, Section A requires that a SPPP be developed within
6 months after permit issuance, or "prior to the beginning of discharges from the
operation of industrial activity" (i.e. prior to transportation of ash).
If there are any questions, please contact either:
• Mr. Kent Tyndall, Environmental Professional for the W. H. Weatherspoon Plant;
phone [phone] or e-mail [e-mail]; or
• Ms. LeToya Ogallo, Environmental Specialist at our North Carolina Regional
Headquarters, phone [phone] or email [e-mail].
I certify, under penalty of law, that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or
supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the
information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons
directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and
belief, true, accurate, and complete. l am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information,
including the possibility of fines and imprisonment for knowing violations.
Sincerely,
1r
Jason V. Haynes
Station Manager

Winyah Rivers Foundation, Inc.
PO Box 261954
Conway, SC 29528-6054
[e-mail]
[phone]
Regarding Weatherspoon coal ash and the draft permits to discharge. wastewater and stormwater
to the Lumber River and Jacob Swamp in the Lumber River Basin.
WE ARE HAPPY THAT DUKE WILL EXCAVATE AND REMOVE
WEATHERSPOON'S COAL ASH BUT WHILE WE WAIT FOR THIS TO BE
FINISHED MANY YEARS FROM NOW WE ASK FOR THE MOST STRINGENT
REQUIREMENTS TO BE IMPOSED AND ENFORCED TO PROTECT OUR
COMMUNITY AND OUR RIVER.
It is good that Duke will excavate the coal ash at Weatherspoon and when completed that this
will eliminate the threats we face today. But given the extended timeline for this excavation and
removal, we ask for changes in the provisions to be implemented to control pollution from
stormwater runoff at the site and from wastewater discharges during dewatering and excavation
of the coal ash impoundment.
Draft Stormwater Permit:
WITH RESPECT TO THE DRAFT STORMWATER PERMIT, WE ASK THAT DEQ
SET FIRM LIMITS FOR POLLUTANTS IN STORMWATER RUNOFF FROM THE
SITE THAT ARE APPROPRIATE ENFORCED. THE BENCHMARK
CONCENTRATIONS SET IN THE DRAFT PERMIT DO NOT PRESCRIBE WATER
QUALITY STANDARDS, ARE NOT TREATED AS VIOLATIONS IF EXCEEDED AND
ALLOW FOR POLLUTED RUNOFF WITH MINIMAL TO NO CONSEQUENCES.
We ask that DEQ set firm limits for pollutants with the potential to be discharged into surface
water. The benchmark concentrations identified in the permit do not adequately protect water
quality as they don't prescribe standards and, if exceeded, are not considered violations and are
not enforceable. Rather, they allow exceedances without any real consequences. And without a
clear understanding of the future activities with respect to excavation and movement of coal ash
on the site, benchmarking provides the opportunity for discharges to occur for 3 — 6 months,
based on the identified frequency of monitoring, before any real action is inspired. It's a kind of
three strikes philosophy; exceed the benchmarks once and increase the frequency of sampling to
monthly (from quarterly or semi-annually), exceed the benchmarks twice and Duke can propose
an alternative monitoring plan, exceed the benchmarks four times and seek advice and an
alternative monitoring plan. I understand that this is a performance based approach but Duke's
performance with controlling water pollution at the site has not met our criteria. Also past
performance is not a predictor of future performance, especially given the as yet unknown details
of coal ash excavation and movement on the site. While we appreciate that coal ash excavation
will take place at the site, we also think every effort to ensure that water quality standards are
met and enforced and that pollutants do not enter surface waters. Establishing firm numbers and
consequences that are implemented immediately to require eliminating the pollutant discharges
would make this permit more effective.

Winyah Rivers Foundation, Inc.
PO Box 261954
Conway, SC 29528-6054
christine @wi nya hrivers.or¢
[phone]
DUKE RECENTLY PROPOSED A PERMANENT REPLACEMENT WATER SUPPLY
TO 7 ELIGIBLE WELL OWNERS AND 7 HOUSEHOLDS AROUND THE
WEATHERSPOON PLANT. THIS UNDERSCORES THE NEED FOR GREATER
PROTECTIONS IN PERMITS FOR STORMWATER AND WASTEWATER AT THE
SITE.
And we recently learned that Duke is proposing a permanent replacement water supply to
eligible households around the Weatherspoon facility. Duke proposes that seven eligible well
owners be offered the option of a connection to a public water supply or the installation of a
water treatment system, and seven households (all on Taylor Drive) be offered a water treatment
system. We know that there are problems with contamination of our groundwater and surface
water and we expect that every measure be implemented and enforced to eliminate these
contaminants and protect our water quality and the health of our community.
WE DESERVE BETTER... COMPLIANCE WITH STATE AND FEDERAL
STANDARDS FOR WATER QUALITY... ELIMINATION OF EXISTING
POLLUTION ... NO NEW THREATS TO WATER QUALITY... PROTECTION OF OUR
NATURAL AND SCENIC RIVER... PROTECTIONS THAT WE HAVE A RIGHT TO.
Our community and our river deserve better than what is currently proposed in these draft
permits. While we wait for the coal ash to be excavated and removed from the site, we expect
these permits to require compliance with state and federal standards for discharges of wastewater
and stormwater into waterways. We expect that these permits will ensure that existing pollution
will be eliminated and that no new pollution will be allowed. We expect that every measure to
ensure pollution cleanup and water quality protections will be implemented and enforced. We
expect this not only because our community deserves this but also because our river is truly
special, designated s6'by the state (Natural and Scenic River Program) and the federal
governments (Wild And Scenic River Program). We ask that this river and our community not be
asked to bear any more pollution. Correct the provisions in these two permits that allow for
unrestricted pollution and that don't guarantee the protections we have a right to.

'ENERGY,, ENERGY,,
Draft NPDES Permit Public Hearing Comments
December 8, 2016
Good Evening. Thank you for the opportunity to be a part of tonight's meeting.
My name is David McNeill and I serve as a district manager for Duke Energy's
Government & Community Relations Department. I am proud to serve 8 counties in this
region, including Robeson County, and I represent Duke Energy employees who have
supported this plant and call this community home.
The Weatherspoon Plant provided Safe and reliable energy to customers for 62 years
and always strived to be a good neighbor during that time. So making sure that the ash
basin at the retired Weatherspoon Plant is closed properly is important to me - and it's
important to Duke Energy.
Finalizing the new wastewater permit is a critical step to advance the ash basin closure
process. While the site has been operating under an NPDES permit, the new draft
permit is part of the renewal process and must be in place in order to proceed with
safely closing the ash basin.
The draft permit includes strict standards that ensure people and the environment
remain protected, and are consistent with federal guidelines that apply to countless
businesses that manage wastewater.
State permit writers use an analysis recommended by the Environmental Protection
Agency to determine the reasonable potential for exceeding water quality standards
specific to each site. The appropriate limits were then added or maintained in the
permits. Duke Energy must be in compliance with the Clean Water Act for all
appropriate water quality standards.
There are also new provisions in the draft permit. For the first time, seeps will be
regulated, requiring rigorous testing and monitoring of that water. The permit also
provides a framework to treat and safely remove water from the ash basin, a necessary
step toward closure and an effective way to reduce or eliminate seeps altogether.
Last summer, Duke Energy announced plans to close the ash basin at Weatherspoon
by removing all of the material currently stored in the basin. We will continue to update
the community as we finalize our plans to begin this work.
Meanwhile, as you may know, we are researching options for providing a permanent
water solution to plant neighbors within a half mile of the basin, as required by the
state's coal ash law. Options for these residents may include offering public water
connections or water filter systems with long-term maintenance.

Georgoulias, Bethany
From: Christine Ellis <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2016 1:17 PM
To: SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject: Weatherspoon Comments - Draft Stormwater Permit
Dear Sir/Madam,
We ask that DEQ set firm limits for pollutants with the potential to be discharged into surface water. The
benchmark concentrations identified in the permit do not adequately protect water quality as they don't
prescribe standards and, if exceeded, are not considered violations and are not enforceable. Rather, they allow
exceedances without any real consequences. And without a clear understanding of the future activities with
respect to excavation and movement of coal ash on the site, benchmarking provides the opportunity for
discharges to occur for 3 — 6 months, based on the identified frequency of monitoring, before any real action is
inspired. It's a kind of three strikes philosophy; exceed the benchmarks once and increase the frequency of
sampling to monthly (from quarterly or semi-annually), exceed the benchmarks twice and Duke can propose an
alternative monitoring plan, exceed the benchmarks four times and seek advice and an alternative monitoring
plan. I understand that this is a performance based approach but Duke's performance with controlling water
pollution at the site has not met our criteria. Also past performance is not a predictor of future performance,
especially given the as yet unknown details of coal ash excavation and movement on the site. While we
appreciate that coal ash excavation will take place at the site, we also think every effort to ensure that water
quality standards are met and enforced and that pollutants do not enter surface waters. Establishing firm
numbers and consequences that are implemented immediately to require eliminating the pollutant discharges
would make this permit more effective.
Regards,
Christine Ellis
Fishable, Swimmable, Drinkable Water for Our Families and Our Future.
Christine Ellis
Deputy Director / River Advocate
Winyah Rivers Foundation, Inc.
www.winyahrivers.org
Christine @ winyahrivers.org
[phone]
A proud member of WATERKEEPER® ALLIANCE.

Georgoulias, Bethany
From: Hope Taylor < [e-mail] >
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2016 11:31 PM
To: SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject: Weatherspoon Wastewater and Weatherspoon Stormwater
The following comment is an addendum to Clean Water for North Carolina comments submitted in writing
(part of them orally) at this evening's public hearing in Lumberton.
Based on a study published in Environmental Science and Technology, there is reason to expect more
concentrated radioactivity in coal ash derived from coal from all major US coal basins. Clean Water for North
Carolina calls for monitoring for lead -210 and radioisotopes of radium in all discharges and routine sampling of
cooling pond, discharges of interstitial water from coal ash to the cooling pond and all seeps until contained or
stopped, as well as monitoring points in stormwater discharges.
""Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials in Coals and Coal Combustion Residuals in the United States,"
Nancy E. Lauer, James C. Hower, Heileen Hsu -Kim, Ross K. Taggart, Avner Vengosh. Environmental Science &
Technology, Sept. 2, 2015
Press released for this study is found at: https://nicholas.duke.edu/about/news/radioactive-contaminants-
found-coal-ash
Yours truly,
Hope Taylor, MSPH, Executive Director, Clean Water for North Carolina

Georgoulias, Bethany
From: Jessica Abbott <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2016 10:16 AM
To: SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject: Weatherspoon Stormwater
Dear DEQ,
Please do not allow Duke Energy to pollute our waterways with toxic coal ash. Our community has already been
devastated by Hurricane Matthew, and these permits would only put us in even more jeopardy. At Weatherspoon, Duke
Energy may be allowed to pump out most of the wastewater from the coal ash pit into the Lumber River and nearby
Jacob Swamp, a beloved fishing destination, with no limits on toxic pollutants. This is unacceptable.
The current permit as written would do little to protect our waterways. Please strengthen the draft NPDES permit.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jessica Abbott
24 Bird Song Ln
Parkton, NC 28371

Georgoulias, Bethany
From: Lucille and Johnny Christian <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2016 10:45 PM
To: SVC -DEN R.publiccomments
Subject: Weatherspoon Stormwater
Dear DEQ,
Please do not allow Duke Energy to pollute our waterways with toxic coal ash. Our community has already been
devastated by Hurricane Matthew, and these permits would only put us in even more jeopardy. At Weatherspoon, Duke
Energy may be allowed to pump out most of the wastewater from the coal ash pit into the Lumber River and nearby
Jacob Swamp, a beloved fishing destination, with no limits on toxic pollutants. This is unacceptable.
The current permit as written would do little to protect our waterways. Please strengthen the draft NPDES permit.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Lucille and Johnny Christian
602 Park Avenue
Fairmont„ NC 28340

Georgoulias, Bethany
From: Megan Gregory <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2016 8:03 AM
To: SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Cc: Megan M. Gregory
Subject: Deny Weatherspoon Stormwater & Wastewater Permits
To permitting officials in the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality:
I write today as a concerned citizen of North Carolina and a member of the Environmental Justice Team at
Trinity Presbyterian Church (Winston-Salem, NC) to respectfully request that you deny Duke Energy
stormwater and wastewater permits that would allow them to continue discharging polluted wastewater through
leaks from their unlined coal ash pond at their Weatherspoon plant. Instead, you must require that Duke Energy
fulfill its legal and moral responsibility to eliminate coal ash pollution by removing this waste from the
unleaking pit at Weatherspoon and storing it in safe, dry, lined landfills away from our rivers.
The proposed permits threaten public health and environmental justice and must not be granted. First, they
allow for the continued discharge of wastewater into the Lumber River through leaks, which has been unlawful
for years, according to the Southern Environmental Law Center. Second, the proposed permit sets lax limits on
contamination from these illegal seeps, including daily arsenic limits that are 34 times higher than groundwater
and surface water safety standards. Even worse, the proposed limits on discharges from the cooling pond into
the Lumber River include a daily arsenic limit over 600 times the groundwater safety standards. Finally, the
infrequent monitoring requirements proposed by the DEQ will not ensure the protection of our clean water, the
Lumber River or Jacob Swamp.
It is the responsibility of the DEQ to set and enforce limits on contamination that protect public health by
meeting or exceeding water safety standards. I ask that you do this for the communities surrounding the
Weatherspoon plant by denying Duke Energy stormwater and wastewater permits, and instead require proper
removal and storage of the dangerous waste stored there.
Together with people of faith and conscience across North Carolina, I look forward to your response on this
important matter.
Sincerely,
Megan M. Gregory
3540 Castleford Ct, Apt H
Winston-Salem NC 27106
meganmgregoryl @ gmail.com
847-287-7794

Georgoulias, Bethany
From: Rachel Cummings <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2016 11:09 PM
To: SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject: Weatherspoon Stormwater
Dear DEQ,
Please do not allow Duke Energy to pollute our waterways with toxic coal ash. Our community has already been
devastated by Hurricane Matthew, and these permits would only put us in even more jeopardy. At Weatherspoon, Duke
Energy may be allowed to pump out most of the wastewater from the coal ash pit into the Lumber River and nearby
Jacob Swamp, a beloved fishing destination, with no limits on toxic pollutants. This is unacceptable.
The current permit as written would do little to protect our waterways. Please strengthen the draft NPDES permit.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Rachel Cummings
po box 792
pembroke, NC 28372

Georgoulias, Bethany
From: Susan Bosworth <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2016 1:17 PM
To: SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject: Weatherspoon Stormwater
Dear DEQ,
Please do not allow Duke Energy to pollute our waterways with toxic coal ash. Our community has already been
devastated by Hurricane Matthew, and these permits would only put us in even more jeopardy. At Weatherspoon, Duke
Energy may be allowed to pump out most of the wastewater from the coal ash pit into the Lumber River and nearby
Jacob Swamp, a beloved fishing destination, with no limits on toxic pollutants. This is unacceptable.
The current permit as written would do little to protect our waterways. Please strengthen the draft NPDES permit.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Susan Bosworth
6711 Chickenfoot rd
St Pauls, NC 28384
910-303-1833

Georgoulias, Bethany
From: Steve Martin <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2016 2:43 PM
To: SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject: Weatherspoon Stormwater
Dear DEQ,
Please do not allow Duke Energy to pollute our waterways with toxic coal ash. Our community has already been
devastated by Hurricane Matthew, and these permits would only put us in even more jeopardy. At Weatherspoon, Duke
Energy may be allowed to pump out most of the wastewater from the coal ash pit into the Lumber River and nearby
Jacob Swamp, a beloved fishing destination, with no limits on toxic pollutants. This is unacceptable.
The current permit as written would do little to protect our waterways. Please strengthen the draft NPDES permit.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Steve Martin
202 Barker Ten Mile Rd
lumberton, NC 28358

Georgoulias, Bethany
From: Timma Locklear <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2016 3:02 AM
To: SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject: Weatherspoon Stormwater
Dear DEQ,
Please do not allow Duke Energy to pollute our waterways with toxic coal ash. The Lumber river is part of my
heritage... Lumber River is and has always been a major part of my life ... I grew up swimming in the Lumber River with my
parents, this river has played a major role in my child hood, adolescent and now adult life ... I have many fond memories
of the Lumber river, canoeing, fishing, pic nics, family outings all consisted of the Lumber River ... I am a Lumbee
Indian ... the Lumber River is home to my tribe ... my brother lives on this river and we fish on a regular basis ... my 5 year
old grand daughter loves going fishing in our Lumber River... allowing this permit would devastate our cultural rights, our
community, causing sickness disease and even death for many who depend on the Lumber river for basic survival needs
as well as recreation, because my community has already been devastated by Hurricane Matthew, and these permits
would only put us in even more jeopardy. At Weathersp oon, Duke Energy may be allowed to pump out most of the
wastewater from the coal ash pit into the Lumber River and nearby Jacob Swamp, a beloved fishing destination, with no
limits on toxic pollutants. This is unacceptable.
The current permit as written would do little to protect our waterways. Please strengthen the draft NPDES permit.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Timma Locklear
po box 3656
Pembroke, NC 28372