NC0003425_Comments on Draft Permit_20170222

SOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER
Telephone [phone] WEST ROSEMARY STREET, SUITE 220 Facsimile 919-929-9421
CHAPEL HILL, NC 27516-2356
February 22, 2017
VIA EMAIL AND U.S. MAIL
Mr. S. Jay Zimmerman, Director
DENR Division of Water Resources
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C., 27699-1617
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
FEB 2 7 2017 ' J '
Re: Draft NPDES Wastewater Permit — Roxboro Steam Station, # NC0003425
Dear Mr. Zimmerman:
On behalf of the Roanoke River Basin Association (the "Association"), we submit the
following comments on the draft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES")
permit noticed for public comment by the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
("DEQ "), Division of Water Resources ("DWR"), which purports to allow Duke Energy
Progress LLC ("Duke Energy") to discharge unlimited pollution into Hyco Lake, tributary
streams, and waters of North Carolina and the United States.
In 2016, we submitted comments on a previous version of this permit, and the comments
we submitted then remain applicable to this new draft of the permit, except as modified below.
This letter repeats those comments where appropriate and adds additional comments on the new
draft.
As set forth below, the proposed permit violates the Clean Water Act ("CWA") because,
among other things: it allows unlimited pollution of Hyco Lake by a host of coal ash pollutants;
it authorizes a wastewater treatment facility to malfunction and leak wastewater; it illegally turns
North Carolina streams, a river, and a part of Hyco Lake into wastewater ditches with no clean
water protections; it puts in place overly lax and ineffective limits for some toxic pollutants; and
it reduces substantially clean water protections that have been contained in NPDES permits for
the Roxboro facility for years.
This proposed permit tries to allow Duke Energy to dump the water out of its Roxboro
coal ash lagoons into Hyco Lake without adequate protections for many toxic substances; to
legalize Duke Energy's longstanding violations of the Clean Water Act and North Carolina law;
Charlottesville • Chapel Hill • Atlanta • Asheville • Birmingham • Charleston • Nashville • Richmond • Washington, DC
100% recycled paper

and to allow Duke Energy leave its coal ash in unlined pits that will pollute Person County for
decades to come.
Over 160 commenters submitted written comments on the earlier draft NPDES permits
for Roxboro and Duke's nearby Mayo coal ash sites, over 98% of which called for stricter
standards and more cleanup at these sites, in addition to the scores of citizens who commented at
the public hearing. DEQ should heed the clear message of these commenters and the specific
points raised in RRBA's comments on the 2016 and 2017 draft permits, to require Duke Energy
to remove its coal ash from the unlined, leaking pits at these sites and impose stricter,
technology-based limits on coal ash pollutants until all the ash can be removed.
I. Introduction
At Roxboro, Duke Energy stores approximately 19.5 million tons of coal ash in two
unlined lagoons — the East and West Ash Basins — and millions more in unlined landfill and fill
areas, all on the banks of Hyco Lake in Person County. This coal ash pollutes the groundwater at
the site, and according to the data in Duke Energy's Comprehensive Site Assessment (CSA) and
Corrective Action Plans (CAP), it sits up to 73 feet below the groundwater table in the West Ash
Basin and up to 79 feet below the groundwater table in the East Ash Basin. The East Ash Basin
is 50 years old, and the West Ash Basin is over 40 years old. Their waters are held back only by
leaking dikes made of earth. The coal ash lagoons are authorized to discharge wastewater only
through a single outlet into Hyco Lake,
The East Ash Basin impounds and -partially buries two unnamed tributary streams that
flow to Hyco Lake. The waste boundary of the East Ash Basin does not include the area now
referred to by Duke Energy as the "Eastern Extension" — this is an impounded stream outside the
berm of the ash basin and outside the basin's waste boundary. Duke Energy employees have
confirmed under oath that this "Extension" area plays no role in the wastewater treatment system
at Roxboro.
The West Ash Basin impounds and partially buries Sargents River (also called Sargents
Creek), which has been rerouted and wrongly labeled as a discharge canal, and which carries
pollutants from the West Ash Basin and dumps them into Hyco Lake. Duke Energy has also
wrongly appropriated a portion of Hyco Lake — like Sargents River, a water of the United States
and of North Carolina — into its wastewater treatment system. The West Ash Basin does not
include the "Extension" area south of the filter dike; this is an impounded portion of Sargents
River that is not part of the waste treatment system at Roxboro.
Hyco Lake is an important water, recreational, fishing, and economic resource for North
Carolina, the region, and Person County. Families live along the lake. Local residents, people
who live in surrounding communities, and visitors from other areas fish, swim, and boat in and
on the Lake. Hyco Lake provides habitat for bald eagles and other wildlife.
However, Hyco Lake has been seriously harmed by the pollution from Duke Energy's
coal ash lagoon. Over the years, coal ash pollution from the Roxboro plant has devastated the
fish population, requiring long-term fish consumption advisories and leading EPA to identify the
2

site as a proven ecological damage case. In recent years, sampling of Hyco Lake's surface
water, sediments, and fish tissue has continued to show elevated levels of coal ash contaminants
including arsenic, boron, selenium, aluminum, copper, and others.
The contaminated groundwater at Roxboro flows directly into Hyco Lake, making it an
additional source of unpermitted surface water pollution. Since at least 2010, DEQ has known of
contaminated groundwater discharging "heavy metals" to surface waters at Roxboro. See Email
from J. Zimmerman to D. Watts (Mar. 10, 2010), Attachment 1.
Moreover, as set out above, Duke Energy has illegally taken Sargents River and a bay of
Hyco Lake and made them part of its wastewater treatment system. As a result, untreated coal
ash polluted water flows directly into the River from the coal ash basins and then into the Lake.
This unlawful design denies Hyco Lake and Sargents River the protections of the Clean Water
Act and North Carolina law.
On August 16, 2013, DEQ filed a verified complaint with the Wake County Superior
Court which set out that Duke Energy is discharging pollutants without authorization from
unpermitted discharges it constructed at Roxboro. Further, it has been discovered that Duke
Energy's Roxboro coal ash lagoons have additional illegal leaks. DEQ's complaint also set out
under oath that Duke Energy has violated groundwater standards at Roxboro.
DEQ stated — under oath — that Duke Energy's unpermitted engineered discharges at
Roxboro violate state law and that "without ... taking corrective action," these seeps "pose[] a
serious danger to the health, safety and welfare of the people of the State of North Carolina and
serious harm to the water resources of the State." Verified Complaint & Motion for Injunctive
Relief, State of North Carolina ex rel. N.C. DENR, DWQ v. Duke Energy Progress, LLC, No.
13 CVS 11032 (Wake Co., August 16, 2013) (Attachment 2), at 1204. As a result, DEQ asked
the court to enter a permanent injunction requiring Duke "to abate the violations of N.C. Gen.
Stat. § 143-215.1, [and] NPDES Permits" at Roxboro. Id. Prayer for Relief ¶ 2. Since filing this
complaint, however, DEQ has done nothing to require Duke Energy to stop violating the law and
its permit at Roxboro. Further, DEQ's action proposes nothing to protect,Sargents River or the
bay of Hyco Lake from Duke Energy's coal ash pollution.
Rather than following through on its sworn statements and publicly -announced intention
to obtain injunctive relief and corrective action, DEQ is now proposing to grant Duke amnesty
for the leaks emerging from its coal ash wastewater treatment lagoon.
Duke Energy has faced extensive public pressure and litigation by the Association and
other community organizations in North Carolina to force Duke Energy to address its primitive
unlined and leaking coal ash storage in North Carolina. In May of 2015, Duke Energy operating
companies, including the owner of the Roxboro coal ash lagoons, pleaded guilty 18 times to 9
coal ash crimes across North Carolina. These crimes included unpermitted coal ash lagoon
discharges very much like those flowing from the Roxboro coal ash lagoons. Duke Energy
operating companies paid a $102 million fine, and they are under nationwide criminal probation.
Under court orders, the criminal plea agreement, statutes, regulatory requirements, and
settlement agreements with conservation groups, Duke Energy is now required to excavate all

the coal ash from unlined coal ash pits at 8 of its 14 coal ash storage sites in North Carolina, plus
all its sites in South Carolina. In addition, in response to this intense public and legal pressure
and stronger legal and regulatory requirements, Duke Energy will empty the water, to the extent
that can be done, from all its coal ash lagoons in North Carolina.
However, at Roxboro and five other coal ash storage sites in North Carolina, Duke
Energy has refused to commit to removing the ash from its unlined, leaking, polluting, and
dangerous primitive coal ash pits. Instead, Duke Energy hopes to be able to pump the coal ash
polluted water out of its leaking lagoons into nearby lakes and rivers and then leave its polluting
coal ash in the groundwater in unlined pits near waterbodies, where the coal ash will continue to
pollute the state's waters forever.
Duke Energy cannot leave its polluting coal ash in place at Roxboro under the terms of its
existing NPDES permit. The Roxboro coal ash pits leak, and they pollute Hyco Lake and its
tributary waterways — all in open violation of the Clean Water Act and the NPDES permit.
DEQ has allowed this illegal pollution to continue without taking any effective action to
stop it. Instead, DEQ now proposes to change Duke Energy's NPDES permit to legalize coal ash
pollution that has been illegal for decades. At the same time, DEQ tries to give Duke Energy a
pass on complying with the Clean Water Act when it pumps its coal ash polluted water into
Hyco Lake by imposing no limits on many toxic pollutants for the millions of gallons of coal
ash polluted water Duke Energy will pump out of its' coal ash lagoons to then flow into Hyco
Lake.
This proposed permit fails to protect the public and public waters, and it violates the
Clean Water Act. DEQ should require that Duke adopt the best available technology to .treat the
coal ash polluted water before it is dumped into Sargents River and Hyco Lake, as DEQ has
required at other coal ash sites in Wilmington and Charlotte; should require Duke Energy to stop
the leaks and discharges of polluted wastewater; and should require Duke Energy remove the
coal ash and wastewater from the lagoon, with adequate protections of Hyco Lake and its
tributaries.
II. Permit Comments
A. The Proposed Permit Violates the Clean Water Act Because It Does Not Protect
Hyco Lake and Is Inconsistent with Other Permits Issued by DEQ.
(1) Dumping Coal Ash pollution into Hyco Lake and Sargents River from Duke
Energy's Coal Ash Lagoons
The proposed Roxboro permit is written to allow Duke Energy to pump all its coal ash
polluted water from the Roxboro coal ash lagoons into Hyco Lake. Part I, Sections A. (2.) &
(3.). Millions of gallons of coal ash polluted water will be pumped into Hyco Lake during the
so-called "decanting" and "dewatering" phases, over,a period of weeks or months.
4

The 2017 Draft Permit contains some 'improvements over the 2016 Draft Permit. The
2017 Draft requires that the decanting/dewatering of the Roxboro lagoons will include treatment
by "physical -chemical treatment," but without defining what that term means. The 2017 Draft
also requires monitoring — but places no limits — for arsenic, molybdenum, chromium, and
turbidity during decanting/dewatering of the coal ash lagoons into Sargents River and the bay of
Hyco Lake. Unlike the 2016 Draft Permit, there are limits for thallium where the bay of Hyco
Lake (misleadingly referred to by Duke Energy as the heated water discharge canal) opens into
the remainder of Hyco Lake (Outfall 003), but no limits for coal ash pollutants at Outfall 002,
further along the rerouted portion of Sargents River, just before it joins the bay of Hyco Lake.
The permit contains no monitoring or limits for the point source discharges of pollutants out of
the south end of the West Ash Basin at the filter dike into Sargents River.
It is important to emphasize that Sargents River is part and parcel of the water system of
Hyco Lake. It flows directly into Hyco Lake, and its waters are part of what creates the Lake.
Therefore, when the coal ash polluted water is dumped into Sargents River, it has entered the
water system that forms Hyco Lake.
Again, in stark contrast to permits DEQ has issued for other facilities for dewatering, the
permit includes NO LIMITS AT ALL on toxic coal ash pollutants when the water polluted by
coal ash is pumped from the coal ash lagoons into this water system at the filter dike, and again
as it flows through Outfall 002 further along the rerouted Sargents River channel. The permit
also contains no limits except for thallium when the coal ash pollution leaves the bay of Hyco
Lake and flows into the rest of the Lake at Outfall 003. There are no limits for arsenic, mercury,
lead, selenium, boron, barium, chloride, aluminum, copper, or any of the numerous other
pollutants associated with coal ash contamination, including those found at elevated levels in
Hyco Lake historically and today. Given the high levels of pollution in this wastewater — which
has saturated and been steeping in the coal ash for years — and the history of coal ash
contamination problems in Hyco Lake, this glaring lack of coal ash pollution limits is
unacceptable.
Most disturbingly, there are no limits even during the removal of the so-called interstitial
water — the water that is mixed in with coal ash. This water is permeated with coal ash and coal
ash pollutants, and those pollutants will be further stirred up during the pumping of this water -
and the mechanical removal of the ash. To make matters worse, the 2017 Draft Permit doubles
the amount of this highly polluted water that can be discharged into the Hyco Lake system every
day — to 2 million gallons.
For this permit to have real meaning and for it to protect Hyco Lake and the waters of the
Roanoke River Basin, there must be meaningful limits upon coal ash pollutants where they enter
the water system at the filter dike, and at Outfall 002. And there must be effective limits both
when the top layers of coal ash water are pumped out and when the heavily polluted bottom
layers are forced out into Sargents River and Hyco Lake.
The design of this permit underscores the need for limits for the discharge from the coal
ash lagoons into Sargents River. Even with the substantial dilution of the unprotected Sargents
River and an entire bay of Hyco Lake, the calculations of DEQ require limits for thallium when

the bay of Hyco Lake joins the remainder of Hyco Lake (Outfall 003), and monitoring for a suite
of toxic and heavy metal coal ash pollutants (arsenic, selenium, chloride, mercury, antimony, and
molybdenum). These requirements for the entrance of the bay into Hyco Lake demonstrate that
the coal ash lagoons will discharge large quantities of coal ash pollutants into these waterways,
yet the limits and monitoring imposed at the bay entrance provide no protection for the bay itself
and the waters flowing into it, and at that point cannot protect the Lake.,.
These are not substances that go away. They have for years been building up in the
sediments and natural systems of Sargents River and Hyco Lake, and they will continue to do so
while Duke Energy merely monitors for them. The only way to protect Hyco Lake, as well as
Sargents River, is to impose meaningful limits at the point where these pollutants actually enter
into the water system of Hyco Lake. Waiting to monitor or imposing limits where the bay enters
the rest of Hyco Lake is simply monitoring and measuring the extent of pollution, after dilution,
that should have been eliminated before the coal ash lagoons emptied into this water system.
The harm has already been done. There is no treatment system and no reasonable opportunity
for a treatment system at a point in the middle of the mouth of the bay (Outfall 003) where it
joins the rest of Hyco Lake.
Further, to ensure that Hyco Lake is protected, there must also be meaningful limits for
the full suite of coal ash pollutants at Outfall 003, where the bay empties into the rest of the
Lake. Sampling by Duke Energy of the surface water, sediments, and fish tissue in Hyco Lake
reveals elevated levels of coal ash pollutants, including chloride, sulfate, total dissolved solids
(TDS), bromide, aluminum, boron, copper, iron, manganese, selenium, strontium, and zinc,
among others.
Since Duke Energy is required to treat the coal ash polluted water by "physical/chemical
treatment," presumably Duke Energy and DEQ believe that Hyco Lake and Sargents River do
need protection from the coal ash lagoon water, and that this treatment will remove coal ash
pollution to acceptable levels.
If so, then why does the draft permit not include express limits? The apparent reason is
to deny the citizens of North Carolina, and perhaps DEQ itself, the ability to enforce this permit
against Duke Energy if its undefined "physical/chemical treatment" malfunctions or does not
remove coal ash pollutants to acceptable levels. DEQ should not adopt a permit that is
transparently drafted to deny the rights of North Carolina citizens and to deny even DEQ
itself the ability to hold Duke Energy accountable for its pollution of Hyco Lake.
(2) Selenium at Outfall 006
Selenium was detected above the water quality standard at Outfall 006, which discharges
coal pile runoff into the Hyco Reservoir. In the 2017 Draft Permit, DEQ has improved over the
2016 Draft Permit by including limits for selenium. But while the other pollutants at Outfall 006
are measured twice a month, selenium — a harmful coal ash pollutant — is the sole pollutant
measured only monthly. To make the selenium limits effective, Duke Energy should be required
to test for selenium when it is testing for the other pollutants, twice a month.
Col

Also, the 2017 Draft Permit allows Duke Energy to submit key portions of the NPDES
application — detailing the pollutants in the discharge — six months after the issuance of the
permit. This important information must be provided before a permit is issued.
(3) FGD Outfalls
Sections A. (10-11) contain provisions governing Duke Energy's internal outfalls for its
flue gas desulfurization (FGD) scrubber waste (Outfalls 010-011). This waste contains high
concentrations of the most toxic substances associated with coal ash.
The 2017 Draft Permit makes clear what may have been implied by the 2016 Draft
Permit: there shall be no discharge of untreated FGD blowdown, and there will be collection of
pH samples, with the limits for pH contained in a footnote.
These sections of the permit appear to contain limits on arsenic, mercury, selenium, and
nitrate/nitrite. However, each of these apparent limits is qualified by a footnote, footnote 3.
Footnote 3 provides that these limits do not apply until December 31, 2023 — the last possible
day for compliance with the federal Effluent Limitation Guideline rule. This date is also beyond
the expiration date of this permit, which is only valid for five years. During the intervening six
years, in fact there are no limits for arsenic, mercury, and selenium, among other pollutants.
The permit's two-stage FGD requirements are nonsensical and ineffective. Section A
(10) sets out limits for the existing treatment system. Yet, these limits are not effective until
December 31, 2023, when Duke Energy represents it will have installed a new FGD system.
Section A (11) sets out limits for a supposedly new and improved FGD system, but the permit
limits remain the same.
Consequently, the limits for the existing system are meaningless, because they do not
apply during the permit term, and the new system provides no improvements in the treatment
limits.
There are several significant problems with the design of these limits.
First, there must be meaningful limits for the current operation of the FGD treatment
system until the new system is installed. It makes no sense and denies Hyco Lake and Sargents
River any Clean Water Act protections to have absolutely no effective limits for the existing
treatment of FGD discharges. There is no reason to wait until the end of 2023 to put in place
limits for the currently operating system.
Second, the new, improved FGD system should have improved limits. That is the point
of installing it, according to the Fact Sheet accompanying the 2017 Draft Permit.
Third, by choosing the absolute last day to make limits effective, the 2017 Draft Permit
puts the schedule of Duke Energy ahead of the protection of Hyco Lake and Sargents River. The
Fact Sheet itself simply adds in an additional six months of delay in case of unforeseen and
unspecified permitting delays. Duke Energy and DEQ should ensure that no such delays occur,
7

for the benefit of these important waterways. Further, the Fact Sheet accepts Duke Energy's
proposed timeline — a proposal that happens to consume all the time legally available — with only
conclusory justifications for these delays. DEQ should require a tighter timeline for Duke
Energy that is both reasonable and also protective of these waterways.
Fourth, the mercury limits for this FGD waste are unjustifiably high, regardless of when
they go into effect. They are 1000% to 1500% higher than comparable mercury limits for the
NPDES permits recently issued by DEQ for Duke Energy's Riverbend plant in Charlotte and its
Sutton plant in Wilmington. DEQ is simply not providing the same protections to Person County
that it is providing to the metropolitan communities of Charlotte and Wilmington. This permit
for this rural community should contain the same mercury limits as those permits for major
cities.
(4) Lack of Clean Water Act Protections
These failures to require effective limits on Duke Energy's coal ash pollution betray the
public's interest in Hyco Lake and violate the Clean Water Act.
.Under the Clean Water Act, polluters must control their discharges of pollutants using the
best available technology economically achievable ("BAT"): "such effluent limitations shall
require the elimination of discharges of all pollutants if the Administrator finds ... that such
elimination is technologically and economically achievable." 33 U.S.C. § 131 l(b)(2)(A). The
EPA requires that "'[t]echnology-based effluent limitations shall be established under this subpart
for solids, sludges, filter backwash, and other pollutants removed in the course of treatment or
control of wastewaters in the same manner as for other pollutants." 40 C.F.R. § 125.3(g).
In the absence of promulgated effluent limitation guidelines, the NPDES permit writer
must use best professional judgment ("BPJ") to determine the BAT standard applicable to the
coal ash discharges at Roxboro. 33 U.S.C. § 1342(a)(1)(B); 40 C.F.R. § 125.3; 15A N.C.
Admin. Code 2H.0118. When applying BPJ, "[i]ndividual judgments []take the place of
uniform national guidelines, but the technology-based standard remains the same." Texas Oil &
Gas Assn v. EPA, 161 F.3d 923 (5th Cir. 1998). In other words, the DWR must operate within
strict limits when identifying BAT based on BPJ.
The first step in identifying BAT is identifying available technologies. At a minimum,
technological availability is "based on the performance of the single best -performing plant in an
industrial field." Chem. Mfrs. Ass'n v. EPA, 870 F.2d 177, 226 (5th Cir.) decision clarified on
reh'g, 885 F.2d 253 (5th Cir. 1989); see Am. Paper Inst. v. Train, 543 F.2d 328, 346 (D.C. Cir.
1976) (BAT should "at a minimum, be established with reference to the best performer in any
industrial category"). In other words, if the technology is being applied by any plant in the
industry, it is achievable. See Kennecott v. EPA, 780 F.2d 445, 448 (4th Cir. 1985) ("In setting
BAT, EPA uses not the average plant,, but the optimally operating plant, the pilot plant which
acts as a beacon to show what is possible").
But determination of technological availability is not limited to a single industrial field.
"Congress contemplated that EPA might use technology from other industries to establish the

[BAT]." 780 F.2d at 453. International facilities can also be used to define BAT. Am. Frozen
Food Inst. v. Train, 539 F.2d 107,132 (D.C. Cir. 1976). EPA's NPDES Permit Writers' Manual
states that "BAT limitations may be based on effluent reductions attainable through changes in a
facility's processes and operations.... even when those technologies are not common industry
practice. "1 Even pilot studies and laboratory studies can be used to establish BAT; the
technology need not be in commercial use to be considered available. See Am. Paper Inst. v.
Train, 543 F.2d 328, 353 (D.C. Cir. 1976).
In sum, BAT requires "a commitment of the maximum resources economically possible
to the ultimate goal of eliminating all polluting discharges." EPA v. National Crushed Stone
Ass'n, 449 U.S. 64; 74 (1980) (emphasis added).
There- can be no doubt that there are technologies available so that Duke Energy can
remove large amounts of pollutants from its coal ash polluted water before it is discharged into
Hyco Lake. The 2017 Draft Permit recognizes this fact by requiring "physical/chemical
treatment," but the Draft Permit does not provide any other definition of what that treatment will
be. Without meaningful limits accompanying this unspecified treatment method, the Draft
Permit puts in place only a hope that the undefined treatment system will protect the Hycc Lake
water system.
In fact, DEQ has already imposed such limits for Duke Energy's "decanting" and
"dewatering" of its Sutton (Wilmington) facility and its Riverbend (Charlotte) facility.
Attachments 3 and 4. Duke Energy is using wastewater treatment technologies to achieve those
limits at those locations. These same limits can and should be used for Roxboro.
At Roxboro, the same limits that protect the waters of Charlotte and Wilmington should
be in this permit to protect the waters of Person County.
As well, Dominion Energy in Virginia has in place wastewater treatment facilities at its
Bremo facility on the James River and its Possum Point facility on the Potomac, where it is
pumping out water from coal ash lagoons. Under agreements with a conservation group and a
local county, express limits are in place for the operation of those facilities. Limits should be put
in place at Roxboro, also.
B. The Proposed Permit Abandons Tributary Streams to Duke Energy's Coal Ash
Pollution, in Violation of the Clean Water Act.
At Roxboro, an unnamed tributary stream that flows to Hyco Lake is being contaminated
with seeps emerging from the east side of the East Ash Basin: This stream is not part of Duke
Energy's wastewater treatment system at Roxboro. It is not an authorized outfall or effluent
channel in the current NPDES permit, because it is not part of the coal ash wastewater system.
See, e.g., Roxboro CSA, Fig. 2-1 (showing that waste boundary for East Ash Basin does not
extend into this area, and it is not an outfall).
'EPA, NPDES Permit Writers' Manual (Sept. 20 10) at p. 5-16, available at:
http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/npdes/basics/upload/pwm_2010.pdf.
r
E

Consequently, there is no conceivable justification to designate this pollution of a
tributary of Hyco Lake as a supposed "outfall." This flow of pollution is not part of wastewater
treatment; it is not a discharge of treated effluent. It is simply a flow of polluted water into a
stream that is not part of any wastewater treatment system.
The Fact Sheet acknowledges that this "outfall" has not been permitted in recent years
and that this is where an old outfall "used to discharge[]." But for years, since there is no
wastewater treatment system operating there, this flow of polluted water has not been designated
a permitted "outfall."
However, now that Duke Energy has had to acknowledge its coal ash pollution of this
stream and the seeps flowing into it, and faces liability for this pollution, DEQ is attempting to
legalize Duke Energy's illegal pollution of this stream by arbitrarily designating it as. Outfall
001, without any justification other than to legalize this pollution that is unrelated to any
wastewater treatment. Duke Energy cannot be allowed to take a free-flowing stream as part of
its coal ash discharge system, and DEQ cannot designate such a stream as an outfall.
Similarly, the portions of Sargents River south of the West Ash Basin filter dike are not
part of the waste treatment system at Roxboro and seep pollution of this river is not authorized
by the permit. CSA Fig. 2-1 (showing waste boundary for West Ash Basin).
The permit's attempt to legalize the seeps and designate a stream as a wastewater outfall
is a clear example of a proposed permit that illegally eliminates or reduces the protections of the
nation's waters from pollution. The Clean Water Act's NPDES permitting program is structured
around progressive improvements in pollution control over time. The Clean Water Act permit is
a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit that is required to make progress
towards Congress's "national goal" of eliminating discharges of pollutants to waters of the
United States. 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251(a)(1).
For this reason, the CWA includes anti -backsliding requirements to ensure that the limits
and conditions imposed new or modified NPDES permits for a facility are at least as stringent as
those in previous permits. 33 U.S.C. § 1342(0); 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(1)(1) ("[W]hen a permit is
renewed or reissued, interim effluent limitations, standards or conditions must be at least as
stringent as the final effluent limitations, standards, or conditions in the previous permit ....").
The CWA's anti -backsliding requirements apply to all NPDES permit provisions, not just
effluent limits based on BPJ. 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(1)(1); In the Matter of Star-Kist Caribe, Inc.,
Petitioner, 2 E.A.D. 758 at *3 (E.P.A. Mar. 8, 1989). EPA, NPDES Permit Writers' Manual
Chapter 7, § 7.2.2, p. 7-4 (Sept. 2010), available at
http://water.epa. gov/polwaste/npdes/basics/upload/pwm_Chapt_07.pdf.
The draft permit wrongly abandons the streams at Roxboro to Duke Energy's coal ash
pollution. This backsliding is even more egregious because these streams are part of the Dan
River and Roanoke River Basins. These'waterways have suffered the most from Duke Energy's
coal ash pollution. The Dan River catastrophe dumped over 20 million gallons and 39,000 tons
of coal ash into these waterways. Bromide from Duke Energy's coal ash caused carcinogens to
10

enter drinking water systems in these watersheds. The Roanoke River Basin has more leaking
Duke Energy coal ash sites than any other part of North Carolina — Belew's Creek, Roxboro,
Mayo, and Dan River. It is inexcusable for DEQ to remove protections from the Dan River and
the Roanoke River Basins.
Moreover, Section A (1) of the 2017 Draft Permit purports to permit this Outfall 001, but
allows Duke Energy six months after the issuance of the permit to submit parts of the permit
application. DEQ cannot issue a valid permit for coal ash pollution before Duke Energy has
submitted a complete application. Moreover, the sections of the application at issue are Items V
and VI, which detail the pollutants being discharged. This qualification of the 2017 Draft Permit
indicates that Duke Energy and DEQ do not now know what pollutants this"outfall" will
discharge into Hyco Lake, and that DEQ would issue this permit before either DEQ or Duke
Energy have that knowledge.
There are these additional problems with this portion of the permit. There are no limits
for a wide range of coal ash pollutants. Such an extraordinary permit provision should at a
minimum include strict limits on all coal ash pollutants. As well, without any justification, the
permit provides that monthly sampling will fall to quarterly sampling after a year. Any reduction
in the frequency of sampling should be based on the facts gathered over the first year of the .
permit's operation, and should not be automatically assumed.
C. The "Extension" Areas Adjacent to the East and West Ash Basins Are Not
Permitted.
DEQ's NPDES permit scheme includes the monitoring of compliance boundaries for
groundwater contamination around the treatment facility. Duke Energy is now attempting to
change its waste boundary and the delineation of its "waste treatment units" to encompass the
"extension" areas outside its West and East Ash Basins in order to get the benefit of a
compliance boundary around them to authorize unlimited groundwater contamination in these
areas. Duke Energy, Ash Basin Extension Impoundments and Discharge Canals Assessment
Work Plan (August 2016), at Fig. 1-2. Duke Energy has identified coal ash outside its permitted
waste treatment facility, but rather than clean up this unpermitted source of groundwater and
surface water pollution, Duke Energy is requesting that DEQ redraw its boundaries to
incorporate and legalize this unpermitted coal ash waste and pollution. Id. at 2-4.
There is no justification for such a request. These areas have been separated from the ash
basins for decades. Id. at ES -l. They play no role in the waste treatment system at Roxboro, as
a Duke Energy employee has testified under oath. Nor are they included within the waste
boundary in Duke Energy's Comprehensive Site Assessments, Corrective Action Plans, and
other CAMA filings. In other words, Duke Energy has acknowledged repeatedly that these areas
are not part of its coal ash impoundments and the waste treatment system at Roxboro. Thus,
there is no justification for weakening the permit by arbitrarily redrawing the waste boundaries,
treatment unit boundaries, and/or compliance boundaries at Roxboro to allow unlimited pollution
of these waters.
11

D. The Draft Permit Would Give Duke Energy Amnesty for Its Unlawful Activity and
Illegally Authorize the Roxboro Waste Water Treatment Plant to Leak.
The Roxboro coal ash lagoons are permitted as a wastewater treatment facility. They are
required to contain and treat wastewater and to discharge the treated water (presumably with
pollutants removed) from a defined and designed outfall. In this case, the Roxboro wastewater
treatment facility malfunctions by leaking and discharging untreated polluted wastewater from
undesigned holes in the wastewater treatment facility.
These leaks violate the basic purpose and basic provisions of the existing and all prior
permits, even provisions that remain in the draft permit. This draft permit authorizes the
operation of an "ash pond treatment system" that must be "properly operated and maintained."
Draft Permit Section I.A. (2-3); II.C. (2). Of course, a properly operated and maintained
wastewater treatment plant discharges only as designed and does not spring leaks from its sides
and bottom.
In other words, a wastewater treatment facility cannot operate properly or legally if it
receives wastewater and then spews it into the environment, and into the waters of the state and
the United States, outside the designed treatment system. By malfunctioning in that way, a
wastewater treatment facility would be a wastewater transmission facility, leaking and disposing
of dirty wastewater into the surrounding environment.
But that is what this draft permit tries to allow. It tries to legalize defects in the
wastewater treatment facility — flows of untreated wastewater containing coal ash pollutants —
that have been illegal since the first NPDES permit was issued for this facility. Draft Permit
Section A. (1.). And it even proposes to legalize future failures in the wastewater treatment
facility, if it cracks or springs a leak in the future. Section A. (15.) ("Discharge from Seepage")
There is no justification for these changes. No aspect of Duke Energy's wastewater
treatment system requires a new outfall to Hyco Lake that legalizes the seeps; on the contrary, its
system is leaking in the same way it has illegally leaked for years. DEQ is simply attempting to
legalize Duke Energy's ongoing, illegal discharges.
As set out above, this attempt violates the anti -backsliding requirements of the Clean
Water Act.
As set out below, this attempt violates the Clean Water Act requirement that Duke
Energy use the best available technology to eliminate its pollution of United States and North
Carolina waters, because it does not require excavation of the coal ash. This approach further
violates the BAT requirement, in that the draft permit would allow Duke Energy to avoid using
key components of even its existing, minimal treatment technology of settling out pollutants in
the lagoons and skimming discharge water from the top and/or using a filter dike prior to
discharge from the permitted outfalls. This is an impermissible step backwards from using
available treatment technology, and accordingly it violates the CWA's BAT requirements.
12

The Fact Sheet for the 2016 Draft Permit asserted without any justification that
"precipitation, adsorption, and settling" — that is, the use of an unlined coal ash lagoon that is
intended to contain the ash and accompanying pollutants, but that has failed and is failing to do
so — "has been determined by NC to be BAT for this facility." Fact Sheet at 2. A lagoon that
has contaminated the groundwater for years, and is known to leak and seep, could not possibly
represent BAT for this facility. DEQ made the same statement in its fact sheet for the H.F. Lee
draft NPDES wastewater permit in 2013, yet Duke Energy subsequently determined that — far
from being BAT— the H.F. Lee coal ash lagoons were "not suited" for the long-term storage of
coal ash and needed to be fully excavated. Duke Energy, Safe Basin Closure Update,
https://www. duke -energy. com/Assets/apps/map-ash-
management/img/pdf/SafeBasinClosureUpdate—HFLee.pdf. Moreover, the West Ash Basin at
Roxboro is located in a flood plain, just like the H.F. Lee basins.
The Fact Sheet for the 2017 Draft Permit deletes this statement regarding BAT. It is now
recognized that operation of these coal ash lagoons is not BAT for this facility, but instead is an
antiquated and failing way to store coal ash and to deal with coal ash pollution. Indeed, Duke
Energy has in effect recognized this fact by agreeing to cease operating and to excavate the ash
from 10 of its 16 coal ash sites in the Carolinas. Moreover, the closing of all coal ash lagoons
and the excavation of 10 of them (to date) have been required by the North Carolina Superior
Court, South Carolina's Department of Health and Environmental Quality, and/or the North
Carolina Legislature.
Here, there is no evidence that DEQ has analyzed the available technology to control the
ash pond discharges, though DEQ now recognizes that the existing facility is not the best
available technology. Without the required BPJ analysis.and imposition of meaningful BAT
standards, the permit cannot comply with the requirements of the CWA.
Further, the permit's attempt to authorize the ongoing leaks of pollution from the
Roxboro lagoons violates the basic requirements of the Clean Water Act and North Carolina law,
because it purports to issue a permit for a malfunctioning wastewater treatment facility that leaks
in undesigned ways and pollutes the surrounding environment with untreated wastewater, rather
than treating wastewater before discharge into the environment.
A wastewater treatment lagoon contained only by leaking, earthen impoundments is not
BAT under any circumstances, and this violation of the requirements of the Clean Water Act is
even worse at Roxboro because DEQ is proposing to allow such a primitive facility, the West
Ash Basin, to operate entirely within the 100 year flood plain of Hyco Lake, placing the public
and our water resources at risk in perpetuity.
E. Permitting Waters of the United States as Components of Duke Energy's Private
Wastewater System Violates the Clean Water Act and North Carolina Law.
DEQ's draft permit for Roxboro designates the stream east of the East Ash Basin as a
permitted outfall, Outfall 001. To the extent this Roxboro permit contemplates allowing Duke
Energy to take public waters for its private use — either by designating jurisdictional streams as
"effluent channels" or otherwise — such an approach is illegal. As jurisdictional waters, such
13

streams cannot be permitted as components of Duke Energy's private wastewater treatment
system.
DEQ has no legal authority, to convert a stream — a water of the United States and of
North Carolina — into a Duke Energy wastewater ditch with no clean water protections.
The Clean Water Act provides no mechanism to convert jurisdictional waters into point
source discharges. The Clean Water Act "requires permits for the discharge of `pollutants' from
any `point source' into `waters of the United States.'" 40 C.F.R. § 122.1(b)(1)(emphasis added).
By definition, a "point source" cannot be a "water of the United States"; a point source conveys
pollutants to a water of the United States. In sum, jurisdictional waters cannot be point sources.
Instead, water quality standards must be met in the jurisdictional waterbody — here, the streams
flowing into Hyco Lake.
North Carolina law incorporates the, same foundational assumption that a point source
cannot be a stream, that is, a water of the United States or of North Carolina. ."Effluent channel
means a discernable confined and discrete conveyance which is used for transporting treated
wastewater to a receiving stream or other body of water." 15A N.C. Admin. Code 213.0202
(emphasis added). Restated, an effluent channel conveys wastewater to a receiving stream or
body of water; the effluent channel cannot itself be the receiving stream.
North Carolina law makes this point doubly clear by prohibiting designation of an
effluent channel if that channel "contain[s] natural waters except when such waters occur in
direct response to rainfall events by overland runoff." 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2B.0228(2).
"Natural waters" include ground and surface waters, as does the Clean Water Act. North
Carolina law prohibits designation of an effluent channel if that channel contains natural,
jurisdictional surface waters. North Carolina law also prohibits designation of an effluent
channel if that channel contains groundwater. In other words, an effluent channel can only be
designated if that channel would be dry except during rainfall events and as a result of
transporting waste water. Streams or seeps'that are jurisdictional surface water tributaries and/or
are influenced by natural ground water cannot be designated as "effluent channels." This
approach cannot be implemented consistent with federal and state law.
The 2017 Draft Permit also violates the Clean Water Act by treating Sargents River and
the bay of Hyco Lake as part of Duke Energy's coal ash waste water treatment system. These
bodies of water are waters of the United States and North Carolina. Sargents River is a free-
flowing water body that existed prior to Duke Energy's Roxboro coal ash facility, and Hyco
Lake was formed by damming numerous waters of the United"S-tates and North Carolina,
including Hyco River and Sargents River. This Draft Permit does not treat these waterways as
waters of the United States and waters of North Carolina entitled to the protections of the Clean
Water Act and North Carolina law. Discharges into them are not "internal" outfalls into parts of
a wastewater system, but instead unpermitted discharges into waters of the United States and
North Carolina.
This permit must also give these waterways the full protections -of the Clean Water Act
and North Carolina law.
14

F. The Coal Ash Must Be Removed from the Roxboro Unlined Pits to Prevent Illegal
Pollution.
DEQ is engaging in these illegal contortions in the draft permit in an attempt to dodge its
basic responsibility to require Duke Energy to stop its coal ash pollution of waters of North
Carolina and the United States. Moreover, there is no excuse for DEQ allowing Duke Energy to
continue to operate such a waste treatment system within the 100 -year flood plain of Hyco Lake.
Instead of stopping the ongoing pollution and safeguarding the public water resources of North
Carolina, DEQ is engaging in various awkward and illegal permit drafting to avoid the obvious
solution: to stop the ongoing illegal water pollution from the Roxboro unlined pits and remove
the threat of catastrophic failure, Duke Energy must remove its coal ash to its very nearby lined,
modern landfill.
That is the solution that is being implemented at every utility -owned waterfront coal ash
storage site in South Carolina. That is the solution being implemented at eight other Duke
Energy coal ash storage sites in North Carolina. At Roxboro and Duke Energy's nearby Mayo
facility, Duke has existing lined landfills whose planned capacity would hold the coal ash
without any separate landfill construction and with minimal transportation. Moreover, there is
ample space for an additional lined landfill on Duke Energy's 6,095 acre parcel at Roxboro.
Any NPDES permit issued by DEQ for the Roxboro facility must incorporate the Clean
Water Act's requirement of best available technology to eliminate discharges if the facility is
capable of achieving such elimination. In this case, all the utilities in the Carolinas, including
Duke Energy itself, are already implementing a guaranteed approach to eliminating their
discharges: removal of their unlined coal ash to dry, lined landfill storage or recycling.
(1) SCE&G
In South Carolina, SCE&G had unpermitted seeps and groundwater contamination at its
Wateree Station facility on the portion of the Catawba River called the Wateree River. Today,
SCE&G is in the midst of removing all its coal ash from unlined lagoons at Wateree Station to
safe, dry, lined storage in a landfill away from the Wateree River. SCE&G has already removed
over 1 million tons of coal ash from its Wateree facility. In filings with the South Carolina
Public Service Commission, SCE&G has publicly stated its commitment to clean up the coal ash
at its other facilities in South Carolina as well. Attachment 5, at 26. SCE&G has also stated
publicly that its cleanup has had no effect on customer rates. Eric Connor, "Coal ash cleanup:
Someone will pay; will it be customers?" Greenville News (Apr. 28, 2014). At the same time,
groundwater contamination has dropped by 60 to 90%.
(2) Santee Cooper
South Carolina's Public Service Authority utility, known as Santee Cooper, has also
committed to excavate its coal ash from unlined lagoons and store it in dry, lined landfills or
recycle it for concrete. Santee Cooper's Executive Vice President of Corporate Services
described the removal and recycling of the unlined coal ash from the lagoons as "cost-effective"
15

and a "triple win" for the utility's customers, the environment, and the local economy.
Attachment 6. At last report, Santee Cooper has already removed over 700,000 tons from its
Grainger Generating Station in Conway, SC, where unlined coal ash had contaminated the
groundwater and adjacent wetlands with arsenic and other pollutants. Attachment 7. Santee
Cooper is also moving ahead with excavation from its Jefferies Generating Station in Moncks
Corner, SC. David Wren, "Coal ash removal at Santee Cooper's power plants years ahead of
schedule," Post & Courier (Jan. 26, 2015). A concrete recycling facility has been built at its
Winyah facility to remove and reprocess ash, and a new modern lined landfill is being built to
hold ash that is not recycled. Id. Santee Cooper also states that its actions to eliminate the
unlined storage of coal ash will have no effect on its rates. Jim Pierobon, "Smart Utilities Know
There Are Responsible Solutions for Their Coal Ash Waste," The Energy Fix (Jan. 12, 2015).
(3) Duke Energy — South Carolina
In April 2015, conservation groups signed an agreement with Duke Energy for Duke to
remove all the coal ash from its W.S. Lee facility on the Saluda River in Anderson County,
South Carolina. Attachment 8. Duke will remove all the coal ash to dry, lined storage away
from the river, including the ash from two leaking lagoons and in an ash storage area near the
lagoons. In September 2014, the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental
Control entered into a consent enforcement agreement with Duke Energy in which Duke was
required to remove coal ash from two other storage areas on the Saluda River's banks at the Lee
facility. Attachment 9. Since then, Duke Energy has begun removing ash from the site and has
permitted a new, lined landfill for removed ash.
Duke Energy's other coal ash site in South Carolina is the H.B. Robinson facility on Lake
Robinson and Black Creek in Darlington County, SC. On April 30, 2015, after months of public
pressure from conservation groups calling for a cleanup, Duke publicly committed to excavating
all the coal ash at Robinson and storing it in a dry, lined landfill on site. Sammy Fretwell, "Duke
to clean up toxin -riddled waste pond in Hartsville," The State (Apr. 30, 2015). Duke Energy has
moved forward with permitting and constructing a lined landfill to hold the excavated ash.
(4) Duke Energy — North Carolina
Duke Energy is now required by court order and legislation to remove the ash from seven
sites across the state. Recently, after insisting that it had to leave the coal ash in unlined pits at
its Buck facility, Duke Energy entered into a settlement agreement with conservation groups
requiring it to excavate all the coal ash from the Buck site, either to a lined landfill or to be
recycled into concrete.
Duke Energy's excavation of 10 sites in two states, totaling approximately 48 million
tons of coal ash, is proof positive that dewatering and ash removal are achievable as BAT to stop
the ongoing discharges of coal ash pollutants from the Roxboro lagoons. Accordingly, ash
removal should be required in the NPDES permit for Roxboro in order to ensure the discharges
are stopped.
[1r:

In sum, excavation and dry, lined storage of coal ash formerly stored in unlined, leaking
lagoons is already standard practice among all the major utilities in the Carolinas, and Duke
Energy is now required to excavate the ash from 10 of its coal ash sites in the Carolinas.
Removal of the ash to dry, lined storage or concrete recycling is not only economically
achievable but cost effective, according to the utilities putting these cleanup methods into
practice. And it eliminates the continuing seepage into groundwater and surface waters, as well
as the risk of a catastrophic dam failure or spill, such as Duke Energy's Dan River spill in
February 2014.
Accordingly, DEQ must incorporate into the NPDES permit provisions requiring the
dewatering and excavation of the unlined coal ash from the leaking unlined pit at Roxboro, in
combination with a reasonable schedule of compliance to achieve the Clean Water Act's goal of
eliminating the discharge of pollutants to public waters.
G. DEQ Has Acknowledged that Zero Discharge Is Attainable for Seeps But Fails to
Require that Solution or to Impose Corresponding TBELS or Any Schedule of
Completion.
DEQ's fact sheet for a draft NPDES permit at another Duke Energy coal ash site,
Riverbend, conceded that a zero discharge technological solution is available to Duke Energy to
address coal ash seeps, but DEQ has failed to impose TBELs based on that technology.
The Riverbend Fact Sheet acknowledged, with respect to seeps, that "[r]eleases of this
nature would typically be addressed through an enforcement action requiring their elimination. .
. ." Attachment 10, at 3. The draft permit originally proposed by DEQ for Riverbend further
recognized the availability of a zero discharge solution — collection and "rerouting the discharge"
and "discontinuing the discharge" are available solutions for meeting technology-based effluent
limits. Attachment 11, at Condition A(5) n.4. Nonetheless, DEQ requires no action from Duke
Energy at Roxboro to address the seeps, but instead proposes in the draft permit simply to allow
them to continue. This complete disregard of an acknowledged solution to these uncontrolled
discharges does not satisfy the requirements of the federal Clean Water Act.
Indeed, DEQ must require compliance with the discharge limits achievable by the
implementation of the best available technology now, just as it has in the Sutton NPDES permit.
EPA defines a compliance schedule as "a schedule of remedial measures, ... including an
enforceable sequence of interim requirements (for example, actions, operations, or milestone
events) ...." 40 C.F.R. § 122.2. Under EPA regulations, DWQ may use compliance schedules
to achieve "compliance with CWA [Clean Water Act] and regulations ... as soon as possible,
but not later than the applicable statutory deadline under the CWA." 40 C.F.R. §
122.47(a)(1)(emphasis added). The Clean Water Act requires dischargers of color pollution to
comply with BAT -based effluent limits by March 31, 1989. 33 U.S.C. §131 l(b)(2)(A), (F).
Thus, "a permit writer may not establish a compliance schedule in a permit for TBELS
[technology-based effluent limits] because the statutory deadlines for meeting technology
standards ... have passed." EPA Permit Writers Manual, Section p. 9-8 (2010); see also EPA
Permit Writers Manual, Section 9.1.3 p. 148 (1996).
17

H. The Draft Permit Should Promptly Require Dry Handling of All Coal Ash at
Roxboro.
The permit improperly allows Duke Energy to continue sluicing bottom ash at Roxboro
until 2021. Sections A. (2) and (3). The Roxboro facility has utilized dry handling of fly ash
since the 1980s, and there is no reason why it needs five additional years to implement dry
handling of bottom ash. At other facilities, including Duke Energy's nearby Mayo facility, the
dry handling requirement for bottom ash becomes effective in 2018.
The 2017 Fact Sheet includes Duke, Energy's proposed timeline, including an added six-
month delay for unforeseen permitting delays, as well as other general delays. Since Duke
Energy has implemented dry ash handling in many places in its system, including at Roxboro, it
is not clear why this long timeline is needed to do something that Duke Energy must have been
contemplating for years. DEQ should re-examine and shorten this timeline.
I. DEQ Cannot Permit the Existing Seeps or Permit In Advance Unidentified and Thus
Unpermitted Discharges.
As set out above, not only does the draft permit attempt to authorize the existing seeps
and leaks from the coal ash lagoon, it also attempts to put in place in advance a procedure for
seeps that have not yet occurred and whose nature is unknown. Draft Permit Section A. (15.).
The draft permit refers to modifying the permit to include the new seep, but it does not specify
what public notice and comment procedures, if any, will be used for such "modification." In
other words, the draft permit tries to give Duke Energy amnesty in advance for these
malfunctions of its unlined Roxboro coal ash lagoon.
(1) The Draft Permit Violates the CWA's Prohibition on Unpermitted Point Source
Discharges.
Any non jurisdictional stream of contaminated water discharging from the Roxboro coal
ash lagoons to surface waters of the United States is a point source discharge. Rather than,
stopping the unlawful discharge, the draft permit impermissibly designates the free-flowing
stream that receives these seep discharges as itself being a permitted outfall. Thus, the proposed
permit purports to authorize unspecified point source discharges, in violation of the CWA, 33
U.S.C. § 1311(a).
Under the CWA, "Every identifiable point that emits pollution is a point source which
must be authorized by a NPDES permit...." U.S. v. Tom -Kat Dev., Inc., 614 F. Supp. 613, 614
(D. Alaska 1985) (citing 40 C.F.R. § 122.1(b) (1). Accord U.S. v. Earth Sciences, Inc., 599 F.2d
368,373 (10th Cir. 1979); Legal Envtl Assistance Found., Inc. v. Hodel, 586 F. Supp. 1163, 1168
(E.D. Tenn. 1984); U.S. v. Saint Bernard Parish, 589 F. Supp. 617 (E.D. La. 1984)). The
"NPDES program requires permits for the discharge of `pollutants' from any `point source' into
`waters of the United States."' 40 C.F.R. § 122.1(b)(1) (emphasis added).
Rather than complying with this straightforward requirement of the CWA, the proposed
permit instead tries to legalize the existing illegal seeps by creating a single, fictional outfall
18

(001). , And while the 2017 Draft Permit adds monitoring for a number of coal ash pollutants,
there still are no limits on many toxic pollutants from these seeps, including lead, mercury,
chloride, and many others. Draft Permit Section A. (1.). The permit also attempts to legalize in
advance now nonexistent but future occurring unpermitted discharges.
The draft permit's authorization of the seeps violates the most basic principles of the
Clean Water Act. DEQ itself acknowledges in the Riverbend Fact Sheet that "[t]he CWA
NPDES permitting program does not normally envision permitting of uncontrolled releases from
treatment systems" and "[r]eleases of this nature would typically be addressed through an
enforcement action requiring their elimination rather than permitting." Attachment 10, at 3
(emphasis added).
Indeed, DEQ has pending an enforcement action that has identified illegal drains and
other unpermitted seep discharges at Roxboro — an enforcement action that DEQ has not
diligently prosecuted. Yet, in this draft permit, DEQ attempts to legalize what it has already
stated, under oath, is illegal and a serious threat to North Carolina's people and their water
quality.
(2) The Proposed Permit Attempts to Shield Duke from Further Legal Violations
The seeps are prohibited under Duke Energy's current NPDES permit. These
"uncontrolled releases" of leaking wastewater should be the subject of an enforcement action
requiring their elimination. Indeed, DEQ has filed such an action in state Superior Court for the
engineered drains and other identified seeps. Duke Energy's operating companies have pleaded
guilty to criminal violations of the Clean Water Act for exactly such unpermitted discharges.
DEQ's proposed permit purports to legalize these previously illegal discharges with the
stroke of a pen, rather than requiring Duke Energy to take any action to remedy the violations.
Even more shockingly, DEQ is proposing to grant Duke amnesty for unknown numbers of future
violations of the Clean Water Act as well. This is nothing more than an attempt to shield Duke
Energy from having to comply with the laws it has been violating for years.
(3) The Draft Permit's Authorization of Future Seeps Violates the CWA's Public
Participation Requirements.
The draft permit would allow Duke to evade public notice and comment and the
opportunity for a public hearing and for judicial review, along with all the other requirements of
the state NPDES permitting program, 33 U.S.C. § 1342(b). While the draft permit vaguely states
that the permit would be "modified," there is no indication that public notice and comment
would be required. Further, the draft permit purports to set out that any new seep would be
handled in the same way as the existing seeps — without knowledge as to the nature or
circumstances of the new seep.
It is beyond the authority of DEQ to authorize new point source discharges without the
full procedures of a modification of the NPDES permit with public comment and EPA oversight.
EPA's regulations authorize limited administrative changes to an active permit through minor
19

modifications, 40 U.S.C. § 122.63, none of which condone the administrative addition of a new
point source discharge, which must be permitted as an NPDES outfall. Nor can DEQ prejudge
the way a new point source discharge would be addressed, by simply adding the seep to a list to
be addressed in the same way as it proposes to address the existing seeps. This scheme is
inconsistent with the requirements of the Clean Water Act.
The existing permit and all prior ones are the result of the full agency process, public
review, public comment, and the procedures required by the Clean Water Act and North Carolina
law. These illegal flows of polluted -water into tributary streams and Hyco Lake, prohibited by
the existing permit, cannot be made legitimate by totally changing the permit to allow
contaminated water to pop out of this purported wastewater treatment facility and flow into these
waterways. It is inconceivable that a permitted wastewater treatment facility would be allowed
to repeatedly open up leaks and discharge polluted water from the supposed wastewater
treatment lagoons into a public waterway. This proposed option is not law enforcement or
pollution elimination at all, but instead an option for the law enforcement agency to try to find a
way to make unlawful and polluting activities "permitted" and avoid dealing with the risks to the
public. This stratagem should not be adopted by a state agency that has the responsibility of
enforcing the law and protecting the State's natural resources and the public interest.
Instead, this permit should require the implementation of the proven method of
eliminating seeps from these defective wastewater treatment systems — removal of the ash to
safe, dry lined storage and appropriate dewatering of the lagoons.
J. The Draft Permit is Inconsistent with the Removed Substances Provision.
For the same reasons, the proposed permit's attempt to authorize the seeps violates the
Clean Water Act's anti -backsliding provisions because it is inconsistent with the Removed
Substances provision of the current Roxboro NPDES permit, which provides an important
limitation in the permit to prevent the entrance of pollutants removed in the course of settling
treatment from entering State and navigable waters.
The State of North Carolina has included an important standard condition in its NPDES
permits for waste treatment systems like the Roxboro lagoon, known as the Removed Substances
provision. The Removed Substances provision of the Roxboro permit, Part II.C.6, provides:
"Solids, sludges ... or other pollutants removed in the course of treatment or
control of wastewaters shall be utilized/disposed of... in a manner such as to
prevent any pollutant from such materials from entering waters of the State or
navigable waters of the United States." (emphasis added)
This is a common-sense provision to prevent pollutants removed by waste treatment
facilities from escaping out into the environment. The Removed Substances provision is an
important component of the Clean Water Act's protections, and prevents waters of the United
States from being polluted by waste treatment facilities such as the Roxboro coal ash settling
lagoon. In the Matter of 539 Alaska Placer Miners, Nos. 1085-06-14-402C & 1087-08-03-
402C, 1990 WL 324284 at *8 (EPA 1990) (inclusion of Removed Substance provision "is based
20

on the simple proposition that there is no way one can protect the water quality of the waters of
the U.S if the [polluter] is allowed to redeposit the pollutants collected in his settling ponds"); 40
C.F.R. § 440.148(c) (Removed Substances provisions ensure that "measures shall be taken to
assure that pollutants materials removed from the process water and waste streams will be
retained in storage areas ") (emphasis added).
In the context of the Roxboro permit, the Removed Substances provision is also the
implementation of a required permit component under the implementing regulations of the Clean
Water Act. The implementing regulations for the Clean Water Act require that "[t]echnology-
based effluent limitations shall be established under this subpart for solids, sludges, filter
backwash, and other pollutants removed in the course of treatment or control of wastewaters in
the same manner as for other pollutants." 40 C.F.R. § 125.3(g). Under the existing permit issued
to Duke Energy for the Roxboro plant, DEQ did not set individual TBELs for seeps from the ash
basin but rather took the only responsible step, of treating zero liquid discharge as the BAT for
contaminated seeps from a coal ash impoundment. That is, consistent with the requirement to set
TBELs for pollutants removed by the wastewater treatment ash ponds, the existing permit
prohibits any discharge of removed substances to waters of the United States or of North
Carolina.
DEQ itself has cited Duke Energy for violating the Removed Substances provision by
allowing pollutants to enter waters of the State and navigable waters due to uncontrolled releases
from Duke Energy's coal ash lagoons at its Dan River facility. In a February 28, 2014 Notice of
Violation, DEQ cites the discharge "of coal combustion residuals from the ash pond to the Dan
River, class C waters of the State" as violating the Removed Substances provision: "Failure to
utilize or dispose solids removed from the treatment process in such a manner as to prevent
pollutants from entering waters of the State (Part II, Section C. 6. of NPDES permit)." Part
II.C.6 of the Dan River NPDES Permit contains the Removed Substances permit provision.
At Roxboro, the draft permit purports to allow pollutants removed in the course of
treatment to enter waters of the State and United States via uncontrolled releases that have
sprung and that may spring out of the lagoon and start discharging to public waters at any time.
As such, the proposed permit violates the Clean Water Act's anti -backsliding requirements in
this additional way by attempting to authorize illegal discharges prohibited by the existing
permit's Removed Substances Provision.
Indeed, there is no indication that DEQ is eliminating the Removed Substances provision
from the draft permit; the Removed Substances provision is part of the standard conditions for all
NPDES permits in North Carolina. Consequently, this aspect of the draft permit is contrary to
this fundamental condition, applicable to all NPDES permits and all wastewater treatment
facilities in North Carolina.
K. The Draft Permit Threatens the Safety of the Roxboro Dam.
By allowing seeps to continue, DEQ is threatening the safety of the Roxboro coal ash
dam. DEQ itself has previously acknowledged the danger of seeps for earthen dams at Roxboro.
21

In 2010, DEQ issued a dam safety Notice of Inspection of another earthen dam at Roxboro
and warned:
Two of the more common types of earth dam failures are caused or influenced by
excessive seepage. Excessive seepage can produce progressive internal erosion of
soil from the downstream slope of the dam or foundation toward the upstream
side to form an open conduit or "pipe." Seepage pressures decrease the strength
characteristics of the embankment soil. The resulting reduction in embankment
stability can produce a slide failure of the downstream slope.
Attachment 12, at 2 (emphasis added). The Roxboro coal ash dams are high hazard dams. DEQ
is ignoring its own warnings by trying to allow the Roxboro seeps to continue and by purporting
to allow future, unknown seeps, without any knowledge of their future effects on the Roxboro
coal ash dams.
L. The Department Cannot Issue a Permit to a Facility that is Violating Surface Water
Standards.
Hyco Lake has a long history of serious contamination from Duke Energy's Roxboro
coal ash facility. As recently as this year, Duke Energy's own human Health Risk Assessment
study concluded that exposure to fish tissue caught from Hyco Reservoir and consumed under
recreational and subsistence fishing scenarios resulted in potentially unacceptable
noncarcinogenic health risk. CAP Pt. 2, Appendix D, p. 5-16. The ongoing contamination of
Hyco Lake and its tributaries means that the draft permit cannot be validly issued.
NPDES permits control pollution by setting (1) limits based on the technology available
to treat pollutants ("technology based effluent limits") and (2) any additional limits necessary to
protect water quality ("water quality -based effluent limits") on the wastewater dischargers.
33 U.S.C. §§ 131 l(b), 1314(b); 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(a)(1), (d). An NPDES permit must assure
compliance with all statutory and regulatory requirements, including state water quality
standards. 33 U.S.C. § 1342(a)(1)(A); 40 C.F.R. § 122.43(a); 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2H.01 18.
Similarly, North Carolina law provides that "[n]o permit may be issued when the
imposition of conditions cannot reasonably ensure compliance with applicable water quality
standards." 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2H.01 12(c); see also N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 143 -215.6a -c
(authorizing civil and criminal penalties and injunctive relief for violations of surface water
standards).
At Roxboro, Duke Energy is violating surface water criteria in jurisdictional waters at
Roxboro, including Hyco Lake and Sargents River. E.g., Corrective Action Plan Pt. 1, at Tables
1-3, 2-11. In addition, Duke Energy is violating water quality criteria in the unnamed stream
running along the east side of the East Ash Basin. This stream discharges at the location
22

identified in Duke Energy's CAMA reports as 5-13; the results from this sampling location show
violations of water quality criteria for at least aluminum, boron, cobalt, iron, manganese, sulfate,
TDS, and vanadium. CAP Pt. 1, Fig. 1-2; Table 1-3.
DEQ can remedy an ongoing violation of surface water quality standards and "ensure
compliance with applicable water quality standards" in these waters only by requiring that the
source of the pollution, the coal ash, be removed; that the seeps of coal ash polluted water into
these waters be stopped; and that the coal ash be removed from the unlined pits, where it
contaminates groundwater and the seeps/streams that flow into Hyco Lake and its tributaries,
directly or indirectly.
These discharges cannot be permitted as long as surface water quality standards are being
violated at Roxboro.
M. The Draft Permit Fails to Account for Discharges of Wastewater Through
Hydrologically Connected Groundwater.
The Clean Water Act is a strict liability statute prohibiting the discharge of any pollutant
to a water of the United States without a permit. 33 U.S.C. § 131 l(a). The Roxboro coal ash
pond discharges significant quantities of contaminated wastewater to Hyco Lake and its
tributaries through groundwater via a direct hydrologic connection to the Lake and streams.
Indeed, DEQ has known of contaminated groundwater discharging "heavy metals" to surface
waters at Roxboro since at least 2010, yet has not taken action to monitor, control, or stop this
discharge. Attachment 1. That discharge is not included in the current permit, and attempting to
add it now would violate the anti -backsliding provision of the Clean Water Act. 33 U.S.C.
§ 1342(0); 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(1)(1) ("[W]hen a permit is renewed or reissued, interim effluent
limitations, standards or conditions must be at least as stringent as the final effluent limitations,
standards, or conditions in the previous permit ....").
The United States Department of Justice ("DOJ") recently emphasized "EPA's
longstanding position []that a discharge from a point source to jurisdictional surface waters that
moves through groundwater with a direct hydrological connection" comes under the purview of
the CWA. See Amicus Brief, Hawaii Wildlife Fund v. County of Maui (No. 15-17447, 9th Cir.),
at 5 (Attachment 13). As expressed by DOJ, "it would hardly make sense for the CWA to
encompass a polluter who discharges pollutants via a pipe running from the factory directly to
the riverbank, but not a polluter who dumps the same pollutants into a man-made settling basin
some distance short of the river and then allows the pollutants to seep into the river'via the
groundwater." Id. at 16 (quoting N. Cal. River Watch v. Mercer Fraser Co., No. 04-4620, 2005
WL 2122052, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2005)). The same reasoning applies here. As discharges
to Hyco Lake and nearby streams via hydrologically connected groundwater were not authorized
23

and therefore prohibited under the current permit, they cannot be authorized in the draft permit,
and they are not in the draft permit.
Consequently, DEQ must require Duke Energy to stop the discharge of contaminated
wastewater to Hyco Lake and its tributaries via hydrologically connected groundwater by
removing the source of contamination — Duke Energy's coal ash — from the unlined storage areas
at Roxboro.
N. The Draft Permit Has Inadequate Monitoring.
During decanting and dewatering, Duke Energy should be required to take daily samples.
These activities are not part of the normal operation of the plant because they are not part of its
wastewater treatment function. Special care needs to be taken to ensure the limits in the permit
are enforced. As discussed above, the draft permit has no limits for toxic pollutant discharges
into Hyco Lake, and even the monitoring of these substances is mainly quarterly, while the rest
are monthly (with the exception of pH and ammonia). The internal outfall from the coal ash
lagoons still contains only weekly monitoring for the dumping of the interstitial water, and
monitoring only once every three months when the water more than three feet above the ash is
being pumped into the Hyco Lake water system. During the dumping of millions of gallons of
coal ash polluted water into Hyco Lake — an important regional water resource — daily sampling
is essential for limits to have real meaning.
DEQ also only imposes quarterly monitoring requirements at Outfall 010 for effluent
limitations that apply on a daily and monthly basis. 2017 Draft Permit at 15. At Outfall 001, to
be used for certain previously unpermitted seeps, the Draft Permit only requires monthly
monitoring for the first year, after which time monitoring is only required quarterly. Draft
Permit at 4.
These lax monitoring requirements are clearly insufficient to ensure compliance with
effluent limitations and provide critical information on the discharge of pollutants, especially
during ash pond closure. Any final permit must be corrected accordingly and include much more
robust monitoring requirements.
O. The Proposed Permit Violates North Carolina's Groundwater Rules.
Because of the groundwater contamination at and beyond the compliance boundary at
Roxboro, the state groundwater rules prohibit DEQ from issuing the proposed NPDES permit for
the Roxboro coal ash lagoon.
North Carolina's groundwater rules state that "the [Environmental Management]
Commission will not approve any disposal system subject to the provisions of G.S. 143-215.1
Which would result in a violation of a groundwater quality standard beyond a designated
compliance boundary." 15A N.C.A.C. 2L .0103(b)(2). The draft permit states on its face that it
is issued under the authority of "North Carolina General State 143-215.1." The Roxboro coal
ash lagoons are disposal systems for purposes of the 2L groundwater rules, with compliance
24�

boundaries set by the rules. 15A N.C.A.C. 2L .0107. Because DEQ issues this permit under
authority delegated by the Environmental Management Commission, this prohibition applies to
DEQ as well.
There is no question that the disposal system authorized by this permit will result in a
violation of a groundwater quality standard at a designated compliance boundary. It already has.
Groundwater contamination at Roxboro has been documented for years. Indeed, DEQ has
ordered Duke Energy to undertake assessment activities and filed an enforcement case in
Superior Court seeking injunctive relief to abate groundwater contamination at the site,
identifying at least one violation of groundwater standards already. Duke Energy's own studies
and its expert witnesses confirm that Duke Energy has contaminated the groundwater with
elevated levels of pollutants at levels above both state groundwater standards and Duke Energy's
own proposed background concentrations. See, e.g., Corrective Action Plan Part 1, at Tables 2-
10 to 2-11.
The groundwater violations at and beyond the compliance boundary will only continue,
in violation of the state groundwater rules, if the ash is allowed to remain in the unlined lagoon
where it will continue leaching pollutants into the groundwater. Because this disposal system
has already resulted in violations of groundwater quality standards and will continue to do so,
DEQ cannot issue the proposed NPDES permit without imposing conditions sufficient to ensure
these violations will cease. A requirement for final closure of the Roxboro coal,ash
impoundments and removal of the ash to dry, lined storage is the only assured solution to stop
ongoing violations of quality standards at the compliance boundary. Accordingly, the permit
should require removal of the ash to safe, dry lined storage.
P. DEQ Fails to Exercise Its Best Professional Judgment to Establish BTA under
316(b).
DEQ is permitted to allow Roxboro until the next permitting cycle to provide sufficient
information to establish final impingement mortality and entrainment BTA. 40 C.F.R. §
125.98(b)(6) However, DEQ must still "establish interim BTA requirements in the permit on a
site-specific basis based on the Director's best professional judgment." Id. (emphasis added).
There is no indication that DEQ has engaged in such analysis in this proceeding. Rather, the Fact
Sheet simply states: "The permittee shall comply with the Cooling Water Intake Structure Rule
per 40 CFR 125.95. The Division approved the facility request for an alternative schedule in '
accordance with 40 CFR 125.95(a)(2). The permittee shall submit all the materials required by
the Rule with the next renewal application." Fact Sheet at 3.
25

Roxboro first applied for its renewed permit in 2011, and the EPA's final rule regarding
316(b) was released two full years ago. DEQ has had more than sufficient time to assess at least
interim BTA for Roxboro. As such, any final permit must include, at minimum, interim BTA
standards based on DEQ's best professional judgment and consideration of the factors and
technologies specified at 40 C.F.R. §§ 125.94 and 125.98.
Q. Duke Energy's New Treatment System Will Pollute Hyco Lake and Sargents River.
The draft permit sets up a new treatment system to address pollution from the Roxboro
facility after the coal ash lagoon operation is abandoned. A new retention basin will be
constructed, discharging into Hyco Lake by way of Sargents River through new Outfalls 0012A,
0012B, and 0012C. Page 2 and 3 and Section (A.) (12) to (14).
This new retention basin will receive streams of highly polluted water, including leachate
from the Roxboro coal ash landfill, coal pile runoff, and other industrial wastes. Yet, the draft
permit contains no limits for the coal ash and other toxic and heavy metal pollutants (other than
ammonia and only for Outfall 0012C) that this retention basin will dump into Hyco Lake and
Sargents River.
The Roxboro coal ash landfill is receiving coal ash and in the future will receive all of
Duke Energy's fly and bottom ash. It should be expected that the leachate from this landfill will
be highly polluted with toxins and heavy metals from coal ash. The draft permit would allow
this highly polluted leachate to go directly to Hyco Lake after being dumped into Sargents River,
after passing through only the newly constructed retention basin.
There is no requirement for any real treatment of this leachate. It will simply be dumped
into the retention basin, wiih a host of other industrial and coal ash wastes, and then discharged
into Hyco Lake after being dumped into Sargents River. There is no requirement for any kind of
physical or chemical treatment facility. There are no limits for coal ash pollutants discharged
from the retention basin into Sargents River and thus into Hyco Lake.
This is a recipe for yet another coal ash scandal at Roxboro. After all the failures of DEQ
and Duke Energy in their management of coal ash and coal ash pollution, the public has a right
to expect that going forward both DEQ and Duke Energy will make every effort to protect North
Carolina's waters from coal ash pollution. Instead, the draft permit would abdicate DEQ's
responsibility to put in place protective and meaningful pollution limits, and would also give the
public every reason not to trust Duke Energy's handling of this pollution.
There must be meaningful and enforceable limits for the coal ash pollutants in Duke
Energy's coal ash landfill leachate, when it enters the retention basin and when it leaves the
basin and flows into Sargents River and thereby into Hyco Lake.
This permit is an opportunity for Duke Energy and DEQ to set a new path for protecting
Hyco Lake and Sargents River from the continuing pollution by Duke Energy's coal ash and its
operation of the Roxboro facility. But instead of putting in place protections for the public and
Hyco Lake and Sargents River, once more DEQ and Duke Energy propose to make Hyco Lake a

dumping ground for Duke Energy's coal ash and other pollution, without limits for the discharge
into Sargents River which would protect the waters of the Lake and the river.
For all the reasons given above, this disturbing approach violates the Clean Water Act and
North Carolina law.
R. Additional Points
The months for acute toxicity testing are missing in the first paragraph of Section A. (16).
Section A. (15) refers to the Catawba River; we believe the intended reference is either the
intake canal or Hyco Lake.
Under the Clean Water Act, DEQ and Duke Energy cannot render a portion of a permit
unenforceable by citizens by inserting the phrase "State Enforceable Only," as has been done on
Attachment 2 of the draft permit. That phrase should be deleted.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
4&��
l
Frank S. Holleman III 5
Senior Attorney
Nicholas S. Torrey
Staff Attorney
04l

EXHIBIT 1
Zimmerman to Watts Email
re: Duke & Progress Energy Well Installation
March 10, 2010

From: Zimmerman, Jay <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 9:16 AM
To: Watts, Debra <[e-mail]>
Cc: Bush, Ted <[e-mail]>; Smith, Eric <[e-mail]­v>
Subject: RE: Duke and Progress Energy - Well Installation Schedule
Debra,
The dates for Progress Energy don't seem aggressive enough considering some of the issues. The SWPS has some new
information suggesting heavy metals are leaching into the surface waters via groundwater at Roxboro plant at Hyco
Lake. They also have concerns that the ash pond at Cape Fear may be leaking. Danny Smith may bring this up during his
field visit with Chuck and Eric Smith. Have we or do we intend to negotiate a more aggressive schedule or do we agree
with what they propose? What role do the regions have (ours in this case)?
Thx
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to
third parties.
........... . ..... ....... ........... ....................... . ............ . ... .. . ......... .... .................... .. ...
From: Watts, Debra
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 5:12 PM
To: Bush, Ted; Barnhardt, Art; Davidson, Landon; Knight, Sherri; May, David; Pitner, Andrew; Stehman, Charles;
Zimmerman, Jay
Cc: Smith, Eric; Wilcox, Betty; Watts, Debra
Subject: Duke and Progress Energy - Well Installation Schedule
Regional Supervisors:
APS had asked both Duke and Progress Energy to place wells at their compliance boundaries for their facilities with Ash
Ponds. Duke has submitted a fairly aggressive schedule (below in email from Allen Stowe). Progress Energy has
provided the chart below as to when they will have final proposed locations.
We are providing these dates to you to give you an idea when the utility companies may be contacting you. Please let
myself or Eric Smith know if you have questions. Debra
Progress Energy
Facilities
Date
Date for Proposed
I
Locations
Target Sampling Date
Ashville
I location
r location with ARO
Weatherspoon
June 14, 2010
Fall 2010
Lee
July 19, 2010
Fall 2010
Mayo
September 13, 2010
Fall 2010
Roxboro
November 22, 2010
Spring 2011
Cape Fear
December 20, 2010
Spring 2011
........ ...... ........ .. I ....................... ............... .. .. ................................ . . .. .... ............. . ............. .... . ... ........................ .
From: Stowe, Allen [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 2:04 PM
To: Watts, Debra
Cc: Sullivan, Ed M; Everett, George T; Nispel, Debbie
Subject: Duke Energy Ash Basin Monitoring - Well Installation Schedule

Debra,
I have listed our projected well installation schedule for the groundwater monitoring well systems around our ash basins.
As we discussed, we will need written confirmation from Aquifer Protection regarding well locations before initiating well
installation, which is reflected in the table below:
Order
Facility
Aquifer Protection'
Approval Date
Well Installation Date
1
Riverbend Steam Station
April 1, 2010
August 31, 2010
2
Marshall Steam Station
Aril 1, 2010
August 31, 2010
3
Allen Steam Station
May 1, 2010
September 30, 2010
4
Cliffside Steam Station
May 1, 2010
September 30, 2010
5
Buck Steam Station
May 15, 2010
October 15, 2010
6
Belews Creek Steam
Station
June 1, 2010
October 31, 2010
7
Dan River Steam Station
June 1, 2010
October 31, 2010
If you need any additional information, please let me know. Thanks
Allen Stowe L,
EHS Water Management
Duke Energy Carolinas
[e-mail]
704-382-4309 (Office)
704-516-5548 (Cell)

EXHIBIT 2
Plaintiff State of North Carolina
Complaint and Motion for Injunctive Relief
August 16, 2013

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
COUNTY OF WAKE 13 CVS
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ex rel. )
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF )
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL )
RESOURCES, )
Plaintiff, )
V. ) COMPLAINT
AND MOTION. FOR
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC., ) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
RULE 65 N.C.R.C.P.
Defendant. )
The Plaintiff State of North Carolina in accordance with Article 21• of Chapter 143 of the
North Carolina General Statutes, and N.C. Gen. Stat. § IA -1, Rule 65, complaining of the
Defendant alleges and says:
PARTIES
1. Plaintiff is the sovereign State of North Carolina. This action is being brought
upon the relation of the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
("DENR") and its Division of Water Resources ("DWR" or "division"),' an agency of the State
established pursuant to the provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143B-279.1 et seg., and vested with
the statutory -authority regarding protection of the environment and enforcement of
environmental laws pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-211 et seq.
2. Defendant, Duke Energy Progress, Inc. (formerly Carolina Power & Light
Company d/b/a Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc., prior to April 29, 2013), is a corporation
I DENR's Division of Water Quality and Division of Water Resources have been
combined. and are currently operating under the name of Division of Water Resources. All
actions taken by the DWQ are considered to have been taken by the DWR.

0
organized and existing under the laws of the State of North Carolina. Defendant's principal
place of business is in Wake County, North Carolina and is located at 410 South Wilmington
Street, PEB 17B5, Raleigh, North Carolina 27601. Defendant's Registered Agent is CT
Corporation System, 150 Fayetteville Street, Box 1011, Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
3. Defendant owns the following six (6) Facilities ("6 Facilities"):
(1) Mayo Steam Electric Generating Plant ("Mayo Steam Electric
Plant") in Person County;
(2) Roxboro Steam Electric Generating Plant ("Roxboro Steam
Electric Plant") in Person County;
(3) Cape Fear Steam Electric Generating Plant ("Cape Fear Steam
Electric Plant") in Chatham County;
(4) H.F. Lee Steam Electric Plant ("Lee Steam Electric Plant") in
Wayne County;
(5) Weatherspoon Steam Electric Plant in.Robeson County; and
(6) L. Y. Sutton Electric Plant ("Sutton Electric Plant") in New
Hanover County.
4. Defendant or its predecessor was doing business in all of the counties set forth in
paragraph 3 above, at each of the 6 Facilities, at the time th6 violations or threatened violations
were committed that gave rise to this action.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5. The Superior Court has jurisdiction of this action for injunctive relief for existing
or threatened violations of various laws and rules and regulations governing the protection of the
State's water resources pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 7A-245 and 143-215.6C, and for such
other relief as the Court shall deem -proper.
2

6. Wake County ' is a proper venue for this action because Defendant's principal
place of business is located in Wake County.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
Applicable Laws and Regulations
7. Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-215.3(a)(1), the Environmental Management
Commission ("EMC" or the "Commission") has the power "[t]o make rules implementing
Articles 21, 21A, 21-B or 38 of... Chapter" 143 of the North Carolina General Statutes. These
statutes, and the rules adopted under them, are designed to further the public policy of the State,
as declared in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-211, "to provide for the conservation of its water and air
resources ... [and], within the context of this Article [21 ] and Articles 21A and 21B of this
Chapter [143], to achieve and to maintain for the citizens of the State a total environment of
superior quality."
8. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-2.11 further provides that "[s]tandards of water and air
purity shall be designed to protect human health, to prevent injury to plant and animal life, to
prevent damage to public and private property, to insure the continued enjoyment of the natural
attractions of the State, to encourage the expansion of employment opportunities, to provide a
permanent foundation for healthy industrial development and to secure for the people of North
Carolina, now and in the future, the beneficial uses of these great natural resources."
9. The Commission has the power to issue permits with conditions attached which
the Commission believes are necessary to achieve the purposes of Article 21 of Chapter 143 of
the General Statutes. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-215.1(b)(4).
10. Pursuant to its authority in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-215.3(a)(4) to delegate such of
its powers as it deems necessary, the Commission has delegated the authority to issue permits,
3

and particularly discharge permits, to the Director of the Division of Water Resources
("Director"). See Title 15A of the North Carolina Administrative Code ("NCAC"), rule
2H.01122. A copy of this rule is attached hereto as Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 1, and is incorporated
herein by reference.
11. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-215.1 requires a permit before any person can "make any
outlets into the waters of the State" or "cause or permit any waste, directly or indirectly, to be
discharged to or in any manner intermixed with the waters of the State in violation of the water
quality standards applicable to the assigned classifications ... unless allowed as a condition of
any permit, special order or other appropriate instrument issued or entered into by the
Commission under the provisions of this Article [Article 21 of Chapter 143 of the General
Statutes]." N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 143-215.1(a) (1) and (6).
12. The Commission's rules in 15A NCAC Subchapter 2L (hereinafter ."2L Rules")
"establish a series of classifications and water quality standards applicable to the groundwaters
of the State."- 15A NCAC 2L.0101(a). A copy of the 2L Rules is attached hereto as Plaintiff's
Exhibit No. 2 and is incorporated herein by reference.
13. "Groundwaters" are defined in the 2L Rules as "those waters occurring in the
subsurface under saturated conditions." 15A NCAC 2L.0102(11).
14. The 2L Rules "are applicable to all activities or actions, intentional or accidental,
which contribute to the degradation of groundwater quality, regardless of any permit issued by a
governmental agency authorizing such action or activity except an innocent landowner who is a
bona fide purchaser of property which contains a source of groundwater contamination, who
2 15A NCAC 2H.0112. This Rule actually delegates the authority to issue discharge
permits to the Director of the former DWQ. However, this authority has now been delegated to
the Director of the DWR.
4

purchased such property without knowledge or a reasonable basis for knowing that groundwater
contamination had occurred, or a person whose interest or ownership in the property is based or
derived from a security interest in the property, shall not be considered a responsible party."
15A NCAC 2L.0101(b).
15. The policy section of the 2L Rules provides that the 2L Rules "are intended to
maintain and preserve the quality of the groundwaters, prevent and abate pollution and
contamination of the waters of the state, protect public health, and permit management of the
groundwaters for their best usage by the citizens of North Carolina." 15A NCAC 2L.0103(a).
16. "Contaminant" is defined in the 2L Rules as "any substance occurring in
groundwater in concentrations which exceed the groundwater quality standards specified in Rule
.0202 of the Subchapter." 15A NCAC 2L.0102(4).
17. "Natural Conditions" are defined in the 2L Rules as "the physical, biological,
chemical and radiological conditions which occur naturally." 15A NCAC 2L.0102(16).
18. The policy section of the 2L Rules provides further that, "[i]t is the policy of the
Commission that the best usage of the groundwaters of the state is as a source of drinking water.
These groundwaters generally are a potable source of drinking water without the necessity of
significant treatment. It is the intent of these Rules to protect the overall high quality of North
Carolina's groundwaters to the levet established by the standards and to enhance and restore the
quality of degraded groundwaters where feasible and necessary to protect human health and the
environment, or to ensure their suitability as a future source of drinking water." 15A NCAC
2L.0103(a).
19. The policy section of the 2L Rules provides further that, "[n]o person shall conduct
or cause to be conducted, any activity which causes the concentration of any substance to exceed
E

11
that specified in Rule .0202 of this Subchapter, except as authorized by the rules of this
Subchapter." 15A NCAC 2L.0103(d).
20. The groundwater "Standards" are specified, in 15A NCAC 2L.0202. See 15A
NCAC 2L.0102(23). Some groundwater standards and their concentrations are specifically
listed in 15A NCAC 2L.0202(g) and (h). If a substance is not specifically listed and if it is
naturally occurring, the standard is the naturally occurring concentration as determined by the
Director. 15A NCAC 2L.0202(c). If a substance is listed, if it is naturally occurring and the
substance exceeds the established standard, the standard shall be the naturally occurring
concentration as determined by the Director. 15A NCAC 2L .0202(b)(3). If a substance is not
specifically listed and it is not naturally occurring, the substance cannot be permitted in
concentrations at or above the practical quantitation limit in Class GA or Class GSA waters,
except that the Director may establish interim maximum allowable concentrations ("IMAC")
pursuant to 15A NCAC 2L.0202(c). These are listed in Appendix #1 of 15A NCAC 2L. The
IMACs are the established standard until adopted by rule. See the last page of Plaintiff's Exhibit
No. 2.
21. The DWQ Director established the IMAC for Antimony .on August 1, 2010 and
for Thallium on October 1, 2010, substances for which standards had not been established under
the 2L Rules. A copy of the Public Notice establishing the IMACs and a copy of the Approved
IMACs are attached hereto as Plaintiff s Exhibit Nos. 3 and 4, respectively, and both exhibits are
incorporated herein by reference. The interim maximum allowable concentration for Thallium is
0.2 micrograms per liter (" gg/L") established pursuant to 15A NCAC 2L .0202(c). The interim
maximum allowable concentration for Antimony is 1 µg/L established pursuant to 15A NCAC
2L.0202(c). Seethe last page of Plaintiffs Exhibit No: 2.
R

22. "It is the intention of the Commission to protect all groundwaters to a level of
quality at least as high as that required under the standards established in Rule .0202 of this
Subchapter." 15A NCAC 2L.0103(b).
23. A "Compliance Boundary" is defined in the 2L Rules as "a boundary around a
disposal system at and beyond which groundwater quality standards may not be exceeded and
only applies to facilities which have received an individual permit issued under the authority of
[N.C. Gen. Stat. §] 143-215.1 or [N.C. Gen. Stat. §] 130A." 15A NCAC 2L.0102(3).
24. Pursuant to 15A NCAC 2L.0107(a), "[f]or disposal systems individually
permitted, prior to December 30; 1983, the compliance boundary is established at a horizontal
distance of 500 feet from the waste boundary or at the property boundary, whichever is closer to
the source."
25. The "Waste Boundary" is defined in the 2L Rules as "the perimeter of the
permitted waste disposal area." 15A NCAC 2L.0102(26).
26. A "Corrective Action Plan" is defined in the 2L Rules as "a plan for eliminating
sources of groundwater contamination or for achieving groundwater quality restoration or both."
15A NCAC 2L.0102(5). A site assessment pursuant to a corrective action plan should include
the source and cause of contamination, any imminent hazards to public health and safety, all
receptors and significant exposure pathways, the horizontal and vertical extent of the
contamination, as well as all geological and hydrogeological features influencing the movement
of the contamination. 15A NCAC 2L.0106 (g).
27. Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-215.6C, "[w]henever the Department has
reasonable cause to believe that any person has violated or is threatening to violate any of the
provisions of this Part [Part 1, Article 21, of the General Statutes], any of the terms of any permit
7

issued pursuant to this Part, or a rule implementing this Part, ..." the Department is authorized
to "request the Attorney General to institute -a civil action in the name of the State upon the
relation of the Department for injunctive relief to restrain the violation or threatened violation."
28. The statute further provides that "[u]pon a determination by the court that the
alleged violation of the provisions of this Part or the regulations of the Commission has occurred .
or is threatened, the court shall grant the relief necessary to prevent or abate the violation or
threatened violation." N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-215.6C.
29. Additionally, the section provides that "[n]either the institution of the action nor
any of the proceedings thereon shall relieve any party to such proceedings from any penalty
prescribed for the violation of this Part." N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-215.6C.
30. Defendant is a person consistent with N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-212(4) and pursuant
to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-215.6C.
Factual and Legal Allegations
All 6 Facilities
31. With the exception of the Sutton Electric Plant, which began groundwater
monitoring in 1984, and added new monitoring wells between 1990 and 2011, Defendant
implemented a voluntary groundwater monitoring program at most of the 6 Facilities in 2006.
32. In 2009, the DWQ required Defendant to place monitoring wells at the
compliance boundaries of all of the Coal Ash Ponds at all 6 Facilities.
33. The DWQ approved Defendant's proposed locations of compliance boundary
wells and monitoring wells at each of the 6 Facilities on the following dates:
(1) Mayo Steam Electric Plant— November 12, 2010;
(2) Roxboro Steam Electric Plant — November 12, 2010;
8

(3) Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant — January 4, 2011;
(4) Lee Steam Electric Plant — January 4, 2011;
(5) . Weatherspoon Steam Electric Plant— November 1, 2010; and
(6) Sutton Electric Plant — March 17, 2011 and October 24, 2011.
34. Defendant constructed compliance monitoring wells at the compliance boundaries
of the Coal. Ash Ponds at each of the 6 Facilities on -the following dates:
(1) Mayo Steam Electric Plant — November 2010;
(2) Roxboro Steam Electric Plant — October and November 2010;
(3) Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant — September 2010;
(4) Lee Steam Electric Plant — July 2010 and September 2012;
(5) Weatherspoon Steam Electric Plant — August 2010; and
(6) Sutton Electric Plant —1990 to 2012.
35. Each of the 6 Facilities has a specific set of parameters being monitored:
(1) Mayo Steam Electric Plant — Aluminum, Antimony; Arsenic,
Barium, Boron, Cadmium, Chromium, Chloride, Copper, Iron,
Lead, Manganese, Mercury, Nickel, Nitrate, pH, Selenium,
Sulfate, Thallium, Total Dissolved Solids, Water Level, and Zinc;
(2) Roxboro Steam Electric Plant — Aluminum, Antimony, Arsenic,
Barium, Boron, Cadmium, Chromium, Chloride, Copper, Iron,
Lead, Manganese, Mercury, Nickel, Nitrate, pH; Selenium,
Sulfate, Thallium, Total Dissolved Solids, Water Level, and Zinc;
(3) Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant — Aluminum, Antimony, Arsenic,
Barium, Boron, Cadmium, Chromium, Chloride, Copper, Iron,
Lead, Manganese, Mercury, Nickel, Nitrate, pH, Selenium,
Sulfate, Thallium, Total Dissolved Solids, Water Level, and Zinc;
(4) Lee Steam Electric Plant — Antimony, Arsenic, Barium, Boron,
Cadmium, Chromium, Chloride, Copper, Iron, Lead, Manganese,
Mercury, Nickel, Nitrate, pH, Selenium, Sulfate, Thallium, Total
Dissolved Solids, Water Level, and Zinc;
(5) Weatherspoon Steam Electric Plant - Antimony, Arsenic,
Barium, Boron, Cadmium, Chromium, Chloride, Copper, Iron,
01

Lead, Manganese, Mercury, Nickel, Nitrate, pH, Selenium,
Sulfate, Thallium, Total Dissolved Solids, Water Level, and Zinc;
and
(6) Sutton Electric Plant — Antimony, Arsenic, Barium, Boron,
Cadmium, Chromium, Chloride, Copper, Iron, Lead, Manganese,
Mercury, Nickel, Nitrate, pH, Selenium, Sulfate, Thallium, Total
Dissolved Solids, Water Level, and Zinc.
36. In 2010 and 2011, with the exception of the Sutton Electric Plant, Defendant
began submitting groundwater monitoring data to the DWQ from 5 of the 6 Facilities. Although
actual groundwater monitoring started in 1984, the Sutton Electric Plant NPDES Permit required
groundwater monitoring to begin in the spring of 1990.
37. On June 17, 2011, the DWQ adopted a Policy for Compliance Evaluation of
Long -Term Permitted Facilities with No Prior Groundwater Monitoring Requirements
(hereinafter the "Policy for Compliance Evaluation"). A copy of the Policy for Compliance
Evaluation is attached hereto as plaintiff's Exhibit No. 5 and is incorporated herein by reference. .
38. The Policy for Compliance Evaluation establishes an approach to evaluate
groundwater compliance at long-term permitted: facilities. Specifically, the Policy for
Compliance Evaluation requires staff and responsible parties to consider multiple factors before
determining if groundwater concentrations in samples taken at the permitted facility are a�
violation of the groundwater standards, or if the concentration is naturally occurring. Such
factors considered are well design, sample integrity, analytical methods, statistical testing, etc.
39. All 6 Facilities are subject to the Policy for Compliance Evaluation and Plaintiff
has been working with the Defendant to move through the evaluative process as described in the
policy.
40. Plaintiff's Aquifer Protection staff compiled tables of the analytical results of
groundwater samples collected at the 6 Facilities. The 6 Facilities began submitting data in
lut

2010, and Plaintiff's Aquifer Protection staff prepared 6 charts of the Ash Pond Exceedances
from 2010 to July 16, 2013. The 6 charts are labeled by National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Permit number and facility name. Each chart is attached hereto
and labeled individually as Plaintiff's Exhibit: No. 6 (Mayo Steam Electric Plant Ash Pond
Exceedances Chart); No. 7 (Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Ash Pond Exceedances Chart); No. 8
(Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant Ash Pond Exceedances Chart); No. 9 (Lee Steam Electric Plant
Ash Pond Exceedances Chart); No. 10 (Weatherspoon Steam Electric Plant Ash Pond
Exceedances Chart); and No. 11 (Sutton Electric Plant Ash Pond Exceedances Chart);
respectively, and are incorporated herein by reference.
41. Each of the 6 charts contains the following information: the well number, the
parameter sampled, the date of the sample, the 2L Groundwater Standard, the sampling result
and the unit of measurement.
Mayo ,Steam Electric Plant
42. On July 12, 1982, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-215.1, other lawful statutes
and regulations issued by the Commission, and the Clean Water Act, the DWQ issued NPDES
Permit No. NC0038377 to Progress Energy for the Mayo Steam Electric Plant .("Mayo Steam
Electric Plant NPDES Permit"), located in Person County, North Carolina.
43. The Mayo Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit has been renewed subsequently.
The current NPDES Permit was re -issued on October 14, 2009, with an expiration date of March
31, 2012. On September 28, 2011, Progress Energy submitted a renewal application to the
DWQ. Since the Defendant timely applied for re -issuance 180 days prior to the expiration date,
pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. §.15013-3, Defendant can continue to operate under the 2009 Mayo
Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit until a new permit has been issued. A copy of the 2009
11

Mayo Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit No. NCO038377 is attached hereto as Plaintiff's
Exhibit No. 12, and is incorporated herein by reference.
44. A Special Order by Consent -was approved by the EMC for the Mayo Steam
Electric Plant on June 25, 2012 and transmitted to Progress Energy on June 26, 2012. A copy of
the transmittal letter and EMC SOC WQ S10-012 is attached hereto as Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 13
and is incorporated herein by reference. To the extent that the SOC modifies the terms of the
2009 NPDES Permit for the Mayo Steam Electric Plant, the SOC controls those terms of the
permit until a new NPDES permit is issued or a judicial order is issued.
45. The Mayo Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit authorizes the discharge of treated
wastewater to receiving waters designated as the Mayo Reservoir in the Roanoke River Basin in '
accordance with the effluent limitations, monitoring requirements and other conditions set forth
in the Mayo Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit.
46. The Mayo Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit authorizes a cooling tower system
less than once per year when the cooling towers and circulating water system are drained by
gravity and discharges a wastestream directly into the Mayo Reservoir through Outfall 001.
47. The Mayo Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit authorizes a cooling tower
blowdown system that indirectly discharges to Mayo Reservoir via Internal Outfall 008 to the
Ash Pond Treatment System at Outfall 002. Cooling tower blowdown is usually mixed with ash
sluice water prior to discharge to the ash pond.
48. The Mayo Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit authorizes an Ash Pond Treatment
System at Outfall 002 that discharges directly into the Mayo Reservoir. The Ash Pond receives
ash transport water, coal pile runoff, storm water runoff, cooling tower blowdown and various
low volume wastes such as boiler blowdown, oily waste treatment, wastes/backwash from the
12

water treatment processes including Reverse -Osmosis wastewater, plant area wash down water,
equipment heat exchanger water, and treated domestic wastewater.
49. The Mayo Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit authorizes a stormwater discharge
system to discharge stormwater to the Mayo Reservoir through Outfalls 004, 005, 006a, 006b,
006c, 006d, 006e, and 010. Drainage from the outside storage area discharges at Outfall 004.
Drainage from the industrial area and the oilibottled gas storage area discharges at Outfall 005.
Drainage from the cooling tower(s) chemical feed building structure and the cooling tower area
discharges at Outfalls 006a, 006b, 006c, 006d and 006e. Drainage from the haul road for coal
ash, limestone, gypsum and gaseous anhydrous ammonia discharges at Outfall 010.
50. The effluent limitations and monitoring requirements in the Mayo Steam Electric
Plant NPDES Permit for the discharge from Outfall 001 (cooling tower system) require sampling
for the following parameters: Flow, Free Available Chlorine, Time of Chlorine Addition, Total
Chromium, Total Zinc, Priority Pollutants and pH. The Mayo Steam Electric Plant NPDES
Permit prohibits the discharge of polychlorinated biphenyl compounds ("PCBs") such as those
used for transformer fluid.
51. The effluent limitations and monitoring requirements in the Mayo Steam Electric
Plant NPDES Permit for the indirect discharge from Outfall 008 (cooling tower blowdown
system) to the Ash Pond Treatment System require sampling for the following parameters:
Flow, Free Available Chlorine, Time of Chlorine Addition, Total Chromium, Total Zinc, Priority
Pollutants and pH. The Mayo Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit does not authorize a direct
discharge to the Mayo Reservoir.
52. The effluent limitations and monitoring requirements in the Mayo Steam Electric
Plant NPDES Permit for the discharge from Outfall 002 (Ash Pond Treatment System) require
13

sampling for the following parameters without FGD wastewater: Flow, Oil and Grease, Total
Suspended Solids, Total Selenium, Acute Toxicity, Total Arsenic, Total Copper, Total Iron and
pH. After the FGD system is used to treat FGD wastewater, the Mayo Steam Electric Plant
NPDES Permit requires sampling for the following parameters: Flow, Oil and Grease, Total
Suspended Solids, Total Selenium, Acute Toxicity, Total Mercury, Total Arsenic, Total
Cadmium, Total Chlorides, Total Chromium, Total Copper, Total Fluoride, Total Lead, Total
Manganese, Total_ Nickel, Total Silver, Total Zinc, Total Barium, Total Thallium, Total
Vanadium, Total Antimony, Total Boron, Total Cobalt, Total Molybdenum, Total Iron and pH.
Among other things, the SOC authorizes Defendant to comply with all terms of its NPDES
permit except for Interim Limits for Mercury, Selenium, Boron, Manganese and Thallium during
the period of the SOC.
53. The Mayo Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit also requires Acute Toxicity
monitoring, Fish Tissue Sampling for Arsenic only, an annual biological, physical and chemical
study of Selenium,- and annual monitoring of the waters of Crutchfield Branch, 100 yards
downstream of the ash pond, for Arsenic, Copper and Selenium.
54. The effluent limitations and monitoring requirements in the Mayo Steam Electric
Plant NPDES Permit for the for the discharge from Outfall 010 (stormwater discharge system) _
require sampling for the following parameters: 13 Priority Pollutant Metals (Silver, Arsenic,
Beryllium, Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Mercury, Nickel Lead, Antimony, Selenium,
Thallium, Zinc), Aluminum, Boron, Chemical Oxygen Demand, Total Suspended Solids,
Sulfate, Oil and Grease, pH and Total Rainfall.
14

Unyermitted Seeps at the Mayo Steam Electric Plant
55. As mentioned above, the Defendant's Mayo Steam Electric Plant has two permitted
outfalls and eight stormwater outlets discharging directly into the Mayo Reservoir which are
included in the Mayo Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit.
56. Defendant's Mayo Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit does not authorize the
Defendant to make any outlet or discharge any wastewater or stormwater other than those
included in the Mayo Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit.
57. The Mayo Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit expressly prohibits a discharge
from the ash pond to Crutchfield Branch. Condition A.(8) states: "There shall be no direct
discharge from the ash pond to Crutchfield Branch. There shall. be no violation of water quality
standards in Crutchfield Branch due to any indirect discharge from the ash pond. The permittee
shall monitor the waters of Crutchfield Branch, 100 yards downstream of the dike, once per year
by grab sample for the following: arsenic, copper, and selenium."
58. Seeps identified at Defendant's Mayo Steam Electric Plant, include engineered
discharges from the toe -drains of its Ash Pond, which are at different locations from the outfalls
and stormwater outlets described in the Mayo Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit. Defendant's
Ash Pond dam has 2 engineered toe -drains (running east and west) that continuously discharge to
Crutchfield Branch and Defendant does riot have a permit for this direct discharge.
59. A seep or discharge from the Ash Pond of the Mayo Steam Electric Plant that is
not included in the Mayo Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit is an unpermitted discharge in
violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-215.1(a)(1) and (a)(6).
15

Exceedances of the 2L Groundwater Standards at the Mayo Steam Electric Plant
60. The Plaintiff s Aquifer Protection staff compiled tables of the analytical results of
groundwater samples collected at the - Mayo Steam Electric Plant from November 2010 through
July 16, 2013, and prepared a chart of the Ash Pond. Exceedances which are listed in the Mayo
Steam Electric Plant Ash Pond Exceedances Chart. See Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 6.
61. The Mayo Steam Electric Plant Ash Pond Exceedances Chart shows exceedances
from the 21, Groundwater Standard for Chromium (10 µg/L) in compliance wells BG -1 and BG -
2 during three sampling events from December 2010 to July 2012, with concentrations ranging
from 10.2 µg/L to 40.1 µg/L.
62. The Mayo Steam Electric Plant Ash Pond Exceedances Chart shows exceedances
from the 21, Groundwater Standard for Manganese (50 µg/L) in compliance wells BG -1, BG -2,
CW -1, CW -1D; CW -2, CW -21), CW -3, CW -5 and CW -6 during eight sampling events from
December 2010 through May 2013, with concentrations ranging from 52.6 gg/L to 1,440 gg/L.
63. The Mayo Steam Electric Plant Ash Pond Exceedances Chart shows exceedances
from the 21, Groundwater Standard for Total Dissolved Solids (500 milligrams per liter
("mg/L")) in compliance wells CW -3 and CW -6 during three sampling events from July 2012
through April 2013, with concentrations ranging from 520 mg/L to 550 mg/L.
64. The Mayo Steam Electric Plant Ash Pond Exceedances Chart.shows exceedances
4
from the 21, Groundwater Standard for Total Iron (300 µg/L) in compliance wells BG -1, BG -2,
CW -21), CW -3, CW -4, CW -5 and CW -6 during eight sampling events from December 2010
through May 2013, with concentrations ranging from 312 gg/L to 2,660 µg/L.
16

65. The DWR staff is working with the Defendant to determine if these exceedances
are naturally occurring or if corrective action will be required.
Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
66. On June 30, 1981, pursuant to N.C. Geri. Stat. § 143-215.1, other lawful statutes
and regulations issued by the Commission, and the Clean Water Act, the DWQ issued NPDES
Permit No. NC0003425 to Progress Energy for the Roxboro Steam Electric Plant ("Roxboro
Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit"), located in Person County, North Carolina.
67. The Roxboro Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit has been renewed
subsequently. The current NPDES Permit was re -issued on April 9, 2007, with an expiration
date of March 31, 2012. On October 10, 2011, Progress Energy submitted a renewal application
to the DWQ. Since the Defendant's predecessor timely applied for re -issuance 180 days prior to
the expiration date, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 150B-3, Defendant can continue to operate
under the 2009 Roxboro Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit until a new permit has been issued.
A copy of the 2007 Roxboro Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit No. NC0003425 is attached
hereto as Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 14, and is incorporated herein by reference.
68. The Roxboro Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit authorizes the discharge of
treated wastewater to receiving waters designated as the Hyco Lake in the Roanoke River Basin
in accordance with the effluent limitations, monitoring requirements and other conditions set
forth in the Roxboro Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit.
69. The Roxboro Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit authorizes a Heated Water
Discharge Canal System at Outfall 003. At the point that the discharge canal enters Hyco Lake,
it contains flows from several wastestreams including once through cooling water, stormwater
runoff and the effluent from the Ash Pond at Internal Outfall 002.
17

70. The Roxboro Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit authorizes a coal pile runoff
treatment system at Outfall 006 that handles runoff from the coal pile and other coal handling
areas, including limestone piles, gypsum piles and truck wheel washwater. The waters are
routed to a retention pond for treatment by neutralization, sedimentation and equalization prior to
being discharged directly into Hyco Lake.
71. The Roxboro Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit authorizes an Ash Pond
Treatment System at Internal Outfall 002 that discharges to the heated water discharge canal and
ultimately into the Hyco Lake through Outfall 003. The Ash Pond treats ash transport, low
volume wastewater, runoff from the ash landfill, dry flyash handling system washwater, coal pile
runoff silo washwater, stormwater runoff, cooling tower blowdown from unit number 4 and
domestic sewage plant effluent.
72. The Roxboro Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit authorizes a cooling tower
blowdown system from unit number 4 at Internal Outfall 005 which discharges into the Ash
Transport System, and ultimately flows into the Ash Pond at Internal Outfall 002.
73. The Roxboro Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit authorizes a chemical metal
cleaning treatment system at Internal Outfall 009 that occasionally discharges a wastestream to
the Ash Pond Treatment System. It contains chemical metal cleaning wastes.
74. The Roxboro Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit authorizes a domestic
wastewater treatment system at Internal Outfall 008 that flows into the Ash Pond Treatment
System.
75. The Roxboro Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit authorizes discharges from an
FGD treatment system at Internal Outfall 010. This wastestream is generated from blowdown
18

from the FGD treatment unit. After treatment in the bioreactors, this effluent is discharged into
the heated water discharge canal.
76. The effluent limitations and monitoring requirements in the Roxboro Steam
Electric Plant NPDES Permit for the discharge from Outfall 003 (heated water discharge canal
system to the Hyco Reservoir) require sampling for the following parameters: Flow, Total
Residual Chlorine, Total Phosphorus, Total Nitrogen, Temperature, Total Arsenic, pH and Acute
Toxicity. The Roxboro Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit prohibits the discharge of floating
solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts
77. The effluent limitations and monitoring requirements in the Roxboro Steam
Electric Plant NPDES Permit for the discharge from Outfall 006 (coal pile runoff treatment
system to the Hyco Reservoir) require sampling for the following parameters: Flow, Total
Suspended Solids, Acute Toxicity and pH.
78. The effluent limitations and monitoring requirements in the Roxboro Steam
Electric Plant NPDES Permit for the discharge from Internal Outfall 002 (Ash Pond Treatment
System) require sampling for the following parameters: Flow, Total Selenium, Oil and Grease
and Total Suspended Solids.
79. The effluent limitations and monitoring requirements in the 'Roxboro Steam
Electric Plant NPDES Permit for the discharge from Internal Outfall 005 (cooling tower
blowdown system) requite sampling for the following parameters: Flow, Free Available
Chlorine, Total Residual Chlorine, Total Chromium, Total Zinc and 126 Priority Pollutants.
80. The effluent limitations and monitoring requirements in the Roxboro Steam
Electric Plant NPDES Permit for the discharge from Internal Outfall 008 (domestic wastewater
19

treatment system) to the Ash Pond require sampling for the following parameters: Flow,
Biochemical Oxygen Demand, Total Suspended Solids, -Total Ammonia and pH.
81.- The effluent limitations and monitoring requirements in the Roxboro Steam
Electric Plant NPDES Permit for the discharge from Internal Outfall 009 (heated water discharge
canal system) require sampling for the following parameters: Flow, Total Suspended Solids, Oil
and Grease, Total Copper and Total Iron.
82. The effluent limitations and monitoring requirements in the Roxboro Steam
Electric Plant NPDES Permit for the discharge from Internal Outfall 010 (FGD treatment
system), require sampling for the following parameters: Flow, Total Beryllium, Total Mercury,
Total Antimony, Total Selenium, Total Silver and Total Vanadium.
83. Stormwater runoff to the heated water discharge canal is included in the Roxboro
Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit.
Unpermitted Seeps at the Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
84. As mentioned above, the Defendant's Roxboro Steam Electric Plant has seven
permitted outfalls, with two outfalls (Outfalls 003 and 006) discharging directly into Hyco Lake
which are included in the Roxboro Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit.
85. Defendant's Roxboro Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit does not authorize the
Defendant to make any outlet or discharge any wastewater or stormwater other than those
included in the Roxboro Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit.
86. Seeps identified ,at Defendant's Roxboro Steam Electric Plant, include 7
engineered discharges to the heated water discharge canal, which are at different locations from
the outfalls and stormwater outlets described in the Roxboro Steam Electric Plant NPDES
Permit.
20

87. Seeps identified at Defendant's Roxboro Steam , Electric Plant, include 2
stormwater discharges directly to Hyco Lake, which are at different locations from the outfalls
and stormwater outlets described in the Roxboro Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit.
88. A seep or discharge from the Ash Pond or any other part of the Roxboro Steam
Electric Plant that is not included in the Roxboro Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit is an
unpermitted discharge in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-215.1(a)(1) and (a)(6).
Exceedances in Violation of 2L Groundwater Standards at the Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
89. The Plaintiff's Aquifer Protection staff compiled a table of the analytical results
of groundwater samples collected at the Roxboro Steam Electric Plant from November 2010
through July 16, 2013, and prepared a chart of the Ash Pond Exceedances which are listed in in
the Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Ash Pond Exceedances Chart. See Plaintiff s Exhibit No. 7.
90. The Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Ash Pond Exceedances Chart shows
exceedances from the 2L Groundwater Standard for Sulfate (250 mg/L) in monitoring well CW -
5 during seven sampling events from November 2010 to April 2013, with concentrations ranging
from 296 mg/L to 873 mg/L. Although Sulfate is a naturally occurring compound, its presence
in groundwater and specific occurrence at this site indicates impacts to groundwater resulting
from the wastewater treatment and disposal associated with coal burning activities. Monitoring
well CW -5 is located at the compliance boundary of the Ash Pond Treatment System at the
Roxboro Steam Electric Plant.
91. Defendant's exceedances of the 2L Groundwater Standards for Sulfate at or
beyond the compliance boundary of the Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Ash Pond are violations of
the groundwater standards as prohibited by 15A NCAC 2L.0103(d).
21

Other Exceedances of 2L Groundwater Standards
at the Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
92. The Roxboro Steam - Electric Plant Ash Pond Exceedances Chart shows
exceedances from the 2L Groundwater Standard for Total Chromium (10 µg/L) in compliance
well BG -1 during five sampling events from November 2010 to November 2012, with
concentrations ranging from 11.1 µg/L to 42.7 µg/L. The last sample from this well remained an
exceedance of the 2L Groundwater Standard. The Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Ash Pond
Exceedances Chart shows additional exceedances from the 2L Groundwater Standard for Total
Chromium in wells CW -1, CW -2D, and CW -4 during three sampling events from November
2010 through July 2011, with concentrations ranging from 16.9 µg/L to 29.6 µg/L.
93. The Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Ash Pond Exceedances Chart shows
exceedances from the 2L Groundwater Standard for Manganese (50 µg/L) in compliance well
CW -3D during eight sampling events from . November 2010 through April 2013, with
concentrations ranging from 84.8 µg/L to 416 gg/L. The Roxboro Steam Electric • Plant Ash
Pond Exceedances Chart shows exceedances from the 2L Groundwater Standard for Manganese
in compliance wells CW -1 and CW -2 during one sampling event in" November 2010, with
concentrations of 180 µg/L and 52.9 µg/L, respectively.
94. The Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Ash Pond Exceedances Chart shows
exceedances from the 2L Groundwater Standard for Total Dissolved Solids (500 mg/L) in CW -3,
CW -4 and CW -5 during seven sampling events from November 2010 through April 2013, with
concentrations ranging from 570 mg/L to 652 mg/L in CW -3; with a value of 612 mg/L in CW -
4 in November 2011; and with concentrations ranging from 616 mg/L to 1,510 mg/L in CW -5.
22

95. The Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Ash Pond Exceedances Chart shows
exceedances from the 2L Groundwater Standard for Total Iron (300 g/L) in compliance well
BG -1 during six sampling events, from November 2010 to November 2012 with concentrations
ranging from 307 µg/L to 881 pg/L. The Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Ash Pond Exceedances
Chart shows exceedances from the 2L Groundwater Standard for Total Iron in compliance wells
CW -1, CW -2, CW -2D, CW -3, CW -3D and CW -4 during eight sampling events from November
2010 through April 2013, with concentrations ranging from 321 µg/L to 2,290 µg/L.
96. The DWR staff is working with the Defendant to determine if these exceedances
are naturally occurring or if corrective action will be required.
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant
97. On August 30, 1976, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-215.1, other lawful
statutes and regulations issued by the Commission, and the Clean Water Act, the DWQ issued
NPDES Permit No. NC0003433 to Progress -Energy for the Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant
("Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit"), located in Chatham County, North Carolina.
98. The Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit has been renewed
subsequently. The current Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit was re -issued on July
22, 2011, with an effective date of September 1, 2011, and with an expiration date of July 31,
2016. A copy of the current Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit No. NC0003433 is
attached hereto as Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 15, and'is incorporated herein by reference.
99. The Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit authorizes the discharge of
treated wastewater to -receiving waters designated as an unnamed tributary to the Cape Fear
River in the Cape Fear River Basin in accordance with the effluent limitations, monitoring
requirements and other conditions set forth in the NPDES permit.
23

100. The Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit authorizes the West Ash Pond
Treatment System (Internal Outfall 00 1) to discharge through Outfall 007 into an unnamed
tributary of the Cape Fear River. The West Ash Pond receives treated wastewater including ash
sluice waters (bottom and fly), coal pile runoff, No. 2 fuel oil tank runoff, settling basin drains,
sand bed filter backwash, parking lot drains, equipment cooling tower blowdown and drain,
boiler blowdown, metal cleaning waste, oil unloading area drains, softenef regenerate,
demineralizer regenerate, acid/caustic sump wastewater, yard and floor drains, and ash trench
drain wastewater.
101. The Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit authorizes a Once -Through
Cooling Water and Stormwater System (Internal Outfall 003) that discharges a wastestream
through Outfall 007 into an unnamed tributary of the Cape Fear River.
102. The Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit authorizes the East Ash Pond
Treatment System (Internal Outfall 005) to discharge through Outfall 007 into an unnamed
tributary of the Cape Fear River.. The East Ash Pond receives treated wastewater including ash
sluice waters (bottom and fly), runoff from yard drains, air preheater washes, electrostatic
precipitator washes, metal cleaning wastes, spent sandblast material, and treated sanitary
wastewater.
103. The Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit authorizes the discharge of
the Combined Wastewater to the Cape Fear River at Outfall 007, which is a combination of all
the internal outfalls.
104. The effluent limitations and monitoring requirements in the Cape Fear Steam
Electric Plant NPDES Permit for the discharge from Internal Outfall 001 (West Ash Pond
Treatment System) require sampling for the following parameters: Flow, Oil and Grease, Total
24

Suspended Solids, Total Arsenic, Total Selenium, Ammonia -Nitrogen, Total Iron and Total
Copper.
105. The effluent limitations and monitoring requirements in the Cape Fear Steam
Electric Plant NPDES Permit for the ' discharge from Internal Outfall 003 (Once -Through
Cooling Water and Stormwater System) require sampling for Flow.
106. The effluent limitations and monitoring requirements in the Cape Fear Steam
Electric Plant NPDES Permit for the discharge from Internal Outfall 005 (East Ash Pond
Treatment System) require sampling for the following parameters: Flow, Oil and Grease, Total
Suspended Solids, Total Arsenic, Total Selenium, Fecal Coliforrxi, Ammonia -Nitrogen, Total
Iron and Total Copper.
107. The effluent limitations and monitoring requirements in the Cape Fear Steam
Electric Plant NPDES Permit for the discharge from Outfall 007 (Combined wastewater and
stormwater discharge) require sampling four the following parameters: Flow, Total Chromium,
Total Arsenic,, Total Selenium, Total Mercury, Total Nickel, Total Copper, Total Nitrogen, Total
Phosphorus, Fecal Coliform, Temperature, pH and Chronic Toxicity. The permit also prohibits
the discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
Unpermitted Seeps at the Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant
108. As mentioned above, the Defendant's Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant has four
permitted outfalls, with one (Outfall 007) discharging directly into the Cape Fear River or into an
unnamed tributary to the Cape Fear River, which are included in the Cape Fear Steam Electric
Plant NPDES Permit.
25
4

109. Defendant's Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit does not authorize
the Defendant to make any outlet or discharge any wastewater or stormwater other than those
included in the Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit.
110. Seeps identified at Defendant's Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant, include potential
discharges from its 1985 Ash Pond, which are at different locations from the outfalls and
stormwater outlets described in the Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit. '
111. During an NPDES inspection on September 23, 2009, documented,sample results
from swamp/drainage area near permitted ' Internal Outfall 005 indicated the possibility of
seepage from the 1985 Ash pond. A grab sample was taken during the inspection by Progress
Energy and processed at Tritest Lab in Raleigh. Another grab sample was taken by DWQ and
processed at the DWQ Lab. The lab results showed the following: for Aluminum (the Tritest
Lab reported 216 gg/L; the DWQ Lab reported 1,400 gg/L); for Arsenic (the Tritest Lab
reported <3 gg/L; the DWQ Lab reported 140 gg/L); for Molybdenum (the Tritest Lab reported
<5 gg/L; the DWQ Lab reported 550 gg/L); for Selenium (the Tritest Lab reported <2 gg/L; the
DWQ Lab reported 240 gg/L); and for Vanadium (the Tritest Lab reported 13.3 gg/L; the DWQ
Lab reported 250 gg/L). Based on its review of the above results, the Plaintiffs Raleigh
Regional Office Surface Water Protection Staff concludes there may be seepage from
Defendant's 1985 Ash Pond.
112. A seep or discharge from the Ash Ponds or any other part of the Cape Fear Steam
Electric Plant that is not included in the Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit is an
unpermitted discharge in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-215.1(a)(1) and (a)(6).
26

Exceedances in Holation of 2L Groundwater Standards
at the Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant
113. Plaintiff's Aquifer Protection staff compiled a table of the analytical results of
groundwater samples collected at the Cape Fear Steam Electric -Plant from December 2010
through July 16, 2013, and prepared a chart of the Ash Pond Exceedances which are listed in the
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant Ash. Pond Exceedances Chart. See Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 8.
114. The Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant Ash Pond Exceedances Chart shows
exceedances from the 2L Groundwater Standard for Boron�(700 gg/L) in monitoring well CMW-
1 during eight sampling events from December 2010 to March 2013, with concentrations ranging.
from 1,790 µg/L to 2,950 pg/L; in monitoring well CMW-6 during six sampling events from
December 2010 to March 2013, with concentrations ranging from 704 pg/L to 1,010 µg/L; and
in monitoring well CMW-8 during eight sampling events from December 2010 to March
2013,with concentrations ranging from 1,070'µg/L to 1,340 pg/L. Although Boron is a naturally
occurring element, its presence in groundwater and specific occurrence at this site indicates
impacts to groundwater resulting from 'the waste water treatment and disposal associated with
coal burning activities.
115. Monitoring well CMW-1 is located at the southwest corner of the compliance
boundary of the West Ash Pond Treatment System at the Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant. Well
CMW-1 is located immediately adjacent to the compliance boundary and the Cape Fear River.
Monitoring well CMW-6 is located at the southeast corner of the compliance boundary of the
East Ash Pond Treatment System at the Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant. The monitoring well is
located approximately 300 feet southeast of the East Ash Pond. Monitoring well CMW-8 is
located on the western side of the compliance boundary of the West Ash Pond Treatment System
27

at the Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant. CMW-8 is located immediately between the compliance
boundary and the Cape Fear River.
116. The Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant Ash Pond Exceedances Chart also shows
exceedances from the 2L Groundwater Standard for Selenium (20 pg/L) in monitoring well
CMW-3 during eight sampling events from December 2010 to March 2013, with concentrations
ranging from 20.6 pg/L to 41.2 µg/L. Although Selenium is a naturally occurring element, its
presence in groundwater and specific occurrence at this site indicates impacts to groundwater
resulting from the wastewater treatment and disposal associated with coal burning activities.
117. The Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant Ash Pond Exceedances Chart also shows
exceedances from the 2L Groundwater Standard for Sulfate (250 mg/L) in monitoring well
CMW-2 during seven sampling events from November 2010 to March 2013, with concentrations
ranging from 260 mg/L to 630 mg/L. Although Sulfate is a naturally occurring compound, its
presence in groundwater and specific occurrence at this site indicates impacts to groundwater
resulting from the waste water treatment and,disposal associated with coal burning activities.
118. Monitoring well CMW-2 is. located adjacent to the 1956 Semi -Active Ash Pond
located in the northwest corner of the site. CMW-2, is also located on the west-northwest
compliance boundary, immediate adjacent to the Cape Fear River
119. Defendant's. exceedances of the 2L Groundwater Standards for Boron, Selenium
and Sulfate at or beyond the compliance boundary of the Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant Ash
Ponds are violations of the groundwater standards as prohibited by 15A NCAC 2L.0103(d).
Other Exceedances of 2L Groundwater Standards
at the Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant
120. The Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant Ash Pond Exceedances Chart shows
exceedances from the 2L Groundwater Standard for Arsenic (10 pg/L) in compliance well
28

CTMW-8 during one sampling event in June 2012, with a concentration of 10.5 µg/L. However,
Arsenic is naturally occurring and no other exceedances of arsenic have been identified in this
well or in other compliance monitoring wells.
121. The Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant Ash Pond Exceedances Chart consistently
shows exceedances from the 2L Groundwater Standard for Iron (300 µg/L) in CMW-1 during
eight sampling events from December 2010 to March 2013, with a maximum observed
concentration of 54,600 µg/L; in compliance wells CMW-7, CMW-8, CTMW-1 and CTMW-8
during eight sampling events from December 2010 to March 2013, with concentrations ranging
from 416 µg/L to 52,700 µg/L; in compliance wells BGMW-4, BGTMW-4, CMW-2, CMW-3,
CMW-5, CMW-6, CTMW-2 and CTMW-7 during eight sampling events from December 2010
to March 2013, with concentrations ranging from 303 µg/L to 5,950 µg/L.
122. 'The Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant Ash Pond Exceedances Chart consistently
shows exceedances from the 21, Groundwater Standard for Manganese (50 µg/L) in compliance
monitoring wells BGMW-4, CMW-1, CMW-2; CMW-3, CMW-5, CMW-6, CMW-7, CMW-8,
CTMW-1, CTMW-2, CTMW-7 and CTMW-8, during eight sampling events from December
2010 to March 2013, with concentrations ranging from 51.9 µg/I, to 18;000 µg/L.
123. The Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant Ash Pond Exceedances Chart shows
exceedances from the 2L Groundwater Standard for Boron in monitoring well CMW-3 during
seven sampling events from December 2010 through March 2013, with concentrations ranging
from 714 µg/L to 1,260 µg/L. The Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant Ash Pond Exceedances Chart
also shows an exceedance from the 21, Groundwater Standard for Sulfate in CMW-3 during one
sampling event with a concentration of 388 mg/L. Monitoring well CMW-3 is located at the
29

northwest corner of the compliance boundary of the West Ash' Pond Treatment System at the
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant, adjacent to the 1956 Semi -Active Ash Pond.
124. The Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant Ash Pond Exceedances Chart consistently
shows exceedances from the 2L Groundwater Standard for Total Dissolved Solids (500 mg/L) in
compliance wells CMW-2, CMW-3, CMW-6, and CTMW-8, during eight sampling events from
December 2010 to March 2013, with concentrations ranging from 502 mg/L to 1,100 mg/L.
125. The Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant Ash Pond Exceedances Chart consistently
shows exceedances from the 2L Groundwater Standard for pH levels in monitoring well
BGTMW-4 during three sampling events from December 2010 to March 2013, with
concentrations of 10.3, 9.4 and 9. 1,, respectively. However, recent sampling events did not
identify pH outside the acceptable 2L Groundwater Standard range of 6.5 to 8.5.
126. The DWR staff is working with the Defendant to determine if these exceedances
are naturally occurring or if corrective action will be required.
Lee Steam Electric Plant
127. , On June 30, 1977, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-215.1, other lawful statutes
and regulations issued by the Commission, and the Clean Water Act, the DWQ issued NPDES
Permit No. NC0003417 to the Progress Energy for the H.F. Lee Steam Electric Plant ("Lee
Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit"), located in Wayne County, North Carolina.
128. The. Lee Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit has been renewed subsequently.
The current Lee Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit was re -issued on October 14, 2009, with an
effective date of November 1, 2009, and with an expiration date of May 31, 2013. A copy of the
current Lee Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit No. NC0003417 is attached hereto as Plaintiff's
Exhibit No. 16, and is incorporated herein by reference.
kul

129. The Lee Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit was also modified on November 1,
2009, to reflect a name change.
130. On November 20, 2012, Defendant submitted a renewal application to the DWQ.
While the renewal application is being processed, Defendant continues to operate the Lee Steam
Electric Plant under the 2009 Lee Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit.
131. The Lee Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit"authorizes the. discharge of treated
wastewater to receiving waters designated as the Neuse River in the Neuse River Basin in
accordance with the effluent limitations, monitoring requirements and other conditions set forth
in the Lee Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit.
132. The Lee Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit authorizes an Ash Pond Treatment
System at Outfall 001 that discharges directly into the Neuse River. The Ash Pond receives ash
transport water, including effluent from a Rotamix System, storm water runoff, various low
volume wastes (such as filter plant blowdown and wash water, combustion turbine wash water),
and precipitator and air pre -heater wash water.
133. The Lee Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit authorizes the discharge of re-
circulated condenser cooling water, non -contact cooling water, coal pile runoff, low volume
waste, sanitary wastes, stormwater runoff and evaporative cooler wastewater and contaminant
stormwater from the combustion turbine site directly into the Neuse River through Outfall 002.
134. The Lee Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit authorizes the discharge of filter
plant wastewater, equipment and contaminant drains, reverse osmosis reject and filter backwash,
and quenched -heat recovery steam generator blowdown via Outfall 003 directly into the Neuse
River.. Generally, chemical metal cleaning wastes are treated by evaporation in boilers.
31

Unvermitted Seeps at the Lee Steam Electric Plant
135. As mentioned above, the Defendant's Lee Steam Electric Plant has three permitted
outfalls discharging directly into the Neuse River which are included in the Lee Steam Electric
Plant NPDES Permit.
136. Defendant's Lee Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit does not authorize the
Defendant to make any outlet or discharge any wastewater or stormwater other than those
included in the Lee Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit.
137. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff believes there are non -engineered seeps at
Defendant's Lee Steam Electric Plant, which are at different locations from the outfalls described
in the Lee Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit.
138. A. seep or discharge from the Ash Pond or any other part of the Lee Steam
Electric Plant that is not included in the Lee Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit is an
unpermitted discharge in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-215.1(a)(1) and (a)(6).
Exceedances In Violation of the 2L Groundwater Standards
at the Lee Steam Electric Plant
139. Plaintiff's Aquifer Protection staff compiled tables of the analytical results of
groundwater samples collected at the Lee Steam Electric Plant from December 2010 through
July 16, 2013, and prepared a chart of the Ash Pond Exceedances which are listed in in the Lee
Steam Electric Plant Ash Pond Exceedances Chart. See Plaintiffs Exhibit No. 9.
140. The Lee Steam Electric Plant Ash Pond Exceedances Chart shows exceedances
from the 2L Groundwater Standard for Afsenic (10 µg/L) in compliance well CMW-6 during six
sampling events from December 2010 through June 2012, with a maximum concentration of 665
µg/L; in replacement well CMW-6R during two sampling events from October 2012 and March
2013, with concentrations of 30.2 gg/L and 10.2 µg/L, respectively; and in CMW-10 during one
32

sampling event in December 2010, with a concentration of 12 µg/L. Although Arsenic is a
naturally occurring element, its presence in groundwater and specific occurrence at this site
indicates impacts to groundwater resulting from the wastewater treatment and disposal
associated with coal burning activities.
141. The Lee Steam Electric Plant Ash Pond Exceedances Chart shows exceedances
from the 24 Groundwater Standard for Boron (700 gg/L) in CMW-5 and CMW-6 (with the last
two samples taken in CMW-6's replacement well CMW-6R) during eight sampling events from
December 2010 through March 2013, with maximum concentrations of 3,940 gg/L and 4,940
gg/L, respectively; in CMW-8 during two sampling events in April 2012 and in March 2013,
with concentrations of 754 gg/L and 1,170 µg/L, respectively; and in CW -3 during three
sampling events from October 2011 through March 2012, with a maximum concentration of 947
µg/L. Although Boron is a naturally occurring element, its presence in groundwater and
specific occurrence at this site indicates impacts to groundwater resulting from the waste water
treatment and disposal associated with coal burning activities.
142. The Lee Steam Electric Plant Ash Pond Exceedances Chart shows exceedances
from the 2L Groundwater Standard for Chromium (10 µg/L) in CMW-10 during two sampling
events in December 2010 and March 2012, with concentrations of 50.3 µg/L and -20.2 µg/L,
respectively. Although Chromium is a naturally occurring element, its presence in groundwater
and specific occurrence at this site indicates impacts to groundwater resulting from the
wastewater treatment and disposal associated with coal burning activities.
143. Defendant's exceedances of the 2L Groundwater Standards for Arsenic, Boron,
and Chromium at or beyond the compliance boundary of the Lee Steam Electric Plant are
violations of the groundwater standards as prohibited by 15A NCAC 2L .0103(d).
33

Other Exceedances of 2L Groundwater Standards at the Lee Steam Electric Plant
144. The Lee Steam Electric Plant Ash Pond Exceedances Chart shows consistent
exceedances from the 21, Groundwater Standard for Iron (300 gg/L) in compliance well BGMW-
9 during eight sampling events from December 2010 through March 2013, with a maximum
concentration of 2,960 gg/L; in compliance wells CMW-10, CMW-6/CMW-6R, and.CMW-7
during eight sampling events from December 2010 through March 2013, with maximum
concentrations of 33,600 gg/L, 11,200 gg/L and 12,400 gg/L, respectively; in compliance well
BW -1 during five sampling events from October 2011 through March 2013, with a maximum
concentration of 26,700 gg/L; in compliance well CMW-5 during six sampling events from
December 2010 through March 2013, with a . maximum concentration of 1,140 gg/L; in
compliance well CW -2 during five sampling events from October 2011 through March 2013,
with a maximum concentration of 17,500 gg/L; in compliance well CW -4 during five sampling
events from October 2011 through March 2013; with a maximum concentration of 13,200 gg/L;
in compliance well CTMW-1 during seven sampling events from December 2010 through March
2013, with a maximum concentration of 3,690 gg/L; in compliance wells CW -1 and CW -3
during four sampling events from October 2011 through March 2013, with maximum
concentrations of 8,540 gg/L and 28,600 gg/L, respectively; and in compliance wells BGMW-10
and CMW-8 during one sampling event in March 2013 with maximum concentrations of 6,050
4g/L and 898 gg/L, respectively.
145. The Lee Steam Electric Plant Ash Pond- Exceedances Chart consistently shows
exceedances from the 2L Groundwater Standard for Manganese (50 gg/L) in compliance wells
CMW-6/6R and CMW-7 during eight sampling events from December 2010 through March
2013, with maximum concentrations of 936 +gg/L and 616 gg/L, respectively; in compliance
wells CMW-10 and CTMW-1 during seven sampling events from December 2010 through
34

March 2013, with maximum concentrations of 732 gg/L and 102 gg/L, respectively; in
compliance well BGMW-9 during -six sampling events from December 2010 through October
2012, with a maximum concentration 322 gg/L; in compliance well CMW-5 during five
sampling events from December 2010 through March 2012, with a maximum concentration of
163 gg/L; in compliance wells CW -1, CW -2, CW -3, CW -4, and BW -1 during eight sampling
events from October 2011 through March 2013, with maximum concentrations of 494 gg/L, 205
gg/L, 3,080 gg/L, 1,260 gg/L and 1,130 gg/L, respectively; in compliance well CMW-8 during
two sampling events in March 2012 and March 2013, with concentrations of 51.1 gg/L and
2,340 gg/L, respectively; and in compliance well BGMW-10 during one sampling event in
March 2013, with a concentration.of 83 gg/L.
146. The Lee Steam Electric Plant Ash Pond Exceedances Chart shows an exceedance
from the 2L Groundwater Standard for Total Dissolved Solids (500 mg/L) in CW -1 during one
sampling event in March 2012, with a concentration of 1,900 mg/L.
147. The DWR staff is working with the Defendant to determine if these exceedances
are naturally occurring or if corrective action will be required.
Weatherspoon Steam Electric Plant
148. On March 20, 1.980, pursuant to N.C. Geri. Stat. § 143-215.1, other lawful statutes
and regulations issued by the Commission, and the Clean Water Act, the DWQ issued NPDES
Permit No. NC0005363 to Progress Energy for the Weatherspoon Steam Electric Plant
("Weatherspoon Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit"), located in Robeson County, North
Carolina.
149. The Weatherspoon Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit has been renewed
subsequently. The current Weatherspoon Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit was re -issued on
35

November 20, 2009, with an effective date of January 1, 2010, and with an expiration date of
July 31, 2014. A copy of the current Weatherspoon Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit No.
NC0005363 is attached hereto as Plaintiffs Exhibit No: 17, and is incorporated herein by
reference.
150. The Weatherspoon Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit authorizes the continued.
discharge from a 225 -acre cooling pond ("Ash Pond") under extremely severe weather
conditions, where unavoidable to prevent loss of life, severe property damage, or damage to the
cooling -pond structure, or during pond maintenance. The Ash Pond receives recirculated cooling
water, coal pile runoff, storm water runoff, ash sluice water, domestic wastewater, various low
volume wastes including reject water from operation of a reserve osmosis water treatment unit,
and chemical metal cleaning wastewater,.. discharged from Outfall 001 (potentially).
151. The Weatherspoon Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit authorizes the continuous
discharge of Non -Contact Cooling Water from heat exchanger units through Outfall 002.
152. The Weatherspoon Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit authorizes a Stormwater
Discharge System to discharge stormwater from outfalls SW -1, SW -2, and SW -3 into the
Lumber River.
153. The effluent limitations and monitoring requirements in the Weatherspoon Steam
Electric Plant NPDES Permit for the discharge from Outfall 001 (Ash Pond) require sampling for
the following parameters: Flow, Oil and Grease; Total Suspended Solids, Total Copper, Total
Iron, Total Arsenic, Total Selenium pH, Temperature and Acute Toxicity.
154. The effluent limitations and monitoring requirements in the Weatherspoon Steam
Electric Plant NPDES Permit for the discharge from Outfall 002 (Non -Contact Cooling Water
36

- J
system) .require sampling for the following parameters: Flow, Temperature, Total Residual
Chlorine, Time of Chlorine Addition and pH.
155. The effluent limitations and monitoring requirements in the Weatherspoon Steam
Electric Plant NPDES Permit for the Stormwafer Discharge System require sampling for the
following parameters: 40 CFR Part 43 Appendix A 13 Priority Pollutant Metals, Aluminum,
Boron, Chemical Oxygen Demand, Total Suspended Solids, Sulfate, Oil and Grease, pH and
Total Rainfall. Stormwater from the Weatherspoon Plant must also be assessed for qualitative
monitoring requirements, including: • Color, Odor, Clarity, Floating 'Solids, Suspended Solids,
Foam, Oil Sheen, Erosion or deposition at the outfall and other obvious indicators of stormwater
pollution.
Exceedances in Holation of 2L Groundwater Standards
at the' Weathersnoon Steam Electric Plant
156. The Aquifer Protection staff of Plaintiffs predecessor division compiled a table
of the analytical results of groundwater samples collected at the Weatherspoon Steam Electric
Plant from - November 2010 through July 16, 2013, and prepared a chart of the Ash Pond
Exceedances which are listed in in the Weatherspoon Steam Electric Plant Ash Pond
Exceedances Chart. See Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 10.
157. The Weatherspoon Steam Electric Plant Ash Pond Exceedances Chart shows
exceedances from the alternate 2L Groundwater Standard for Iron (above the naturally occurring
background concentration of 2,040 µg/L) in compliance wells CW4 and CW -3 during eight
sampling events from November 2010 through March 2013, with concentrations ranging from
2,060 gg/L .to 4,140 µg/L; and in monitoring well CW -3 during two sampling events in June
2011 and June 2012, with concentrations of 3,740 pg/L and 2,120 µg/L, respectively. Although
Iron is a naturally occurring element, its presence in groundwater and specific occurrence at this
37

site indicates impacts to groundwater resulting from the waste water treatment and disposal
associated with coal burning activities.
158. Defendant's exceedances of the 2L Groundwater Standards for Iron at or beyond
the compliance boundary of the Weatherspoon Steam Electric Plant Ash Pond are violations of
the groundwater standards as prohibited by 15A NCAC 2L.0103(d).
Other Exceedances of 2L Groundwater Standards
at the Weatherspoon Steam Electric Plant
1.59. The Weatherspoon Steam Electric Plant Ash Pond Exceedances Chart showsan
exceedance from the 2L Groundwater Standard for Thallium (0.2 gg/L) in background
monitoring well BW -1 during one sampling event in June 2012, with a concentration of 0.66
gg/L. Background monitoring well BW -1 is located at the compliance boundary of the Ash Pond
Treatment System at the Weatherspoon Plant. Well BW -1 is located about 600 feet northwest of
the active ash pond. Whether one exceedance of the Thallium standard is sufficient to constitute
a violation is unclear.,
160. The Weatherspoon Steam Electric Plant Ash Pond Exceedances Chart'shows
exceedances from the 2L Groundwater Standard for Manganese (50 µg/L) in monitoring well
CW -1 during two sampling events in November 2010 and June 2011, with concentrations of 53.4
µg/L and 53.5 µg/L respectively; and in monitoring well CW -3 during one sampling event in
March 2013, with a concentration of 55 gg/L.
161. The DWR staff is working with the Defendant to determine if these exceedances
are naturally'occurring or if corrective action will be required.
38

Sutton Electric Plant
162 On June 30, 1977, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-215.1, other lawful statutes
and regulations issued by the Commission, and the Clean Water Act, the DWQ issued NPDES
Permit No. NCO001422 to the Progress Energy for the L. V. Sutton Electric Plant ("Sutton
Electric Plant NPDES Permit"), located in New Hanover County, North Carolina.
163. The Sutton Electric Plant NPDES Permit has been renewed subsequently. The
current Sutton Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit was re -issued on December 2, 2011, with an
effective- date of January 1, 2012, and with an expiration date of December 31, 2016. A copy of
the current Sutton Electric Plant NPDES Permit No. NC0001422 is attached hereto as Plaintiff's
Exhibit No. 18, and is incorporated herein by reference.
164. The Sutton Electric Plant NPDES Permit authorizes the discharge of wastewater
to receiving waters designated as the Cape Fear River in the Cape Fear River Basin in
accordance with the effluent limitations, monitoring requirements and other conditions set forth
in the Sutton Electric Plant NPDES Permit.
165. The Sutton Electric Plant NPDES Permit authorizes the discharge of cooling pond
blowdown, recirculation cooling water, non -contact cooling water and treated wastewater from
Internal Outfalls 002, Internal Outfall 003, and Internal Outfall 004 via Outfall 001, 'which
discharges directly into the Cape Fear River, Class C -Swamp waters in the Cape Fear River
Basin.
166. The Sutton Electric Plant NPDES Permit authorizes the discharge of coal pile
runoff, low volume wastes, ash sluice water (including wastewater generated from the Rotomix
system), and stormwater through Internal Outfall 002.
MI

167 The Sutton Electric Plant NPDES Permit authorizes the discharge of chemical
metal cleaning waste through Internal. Outfall 003. Generally, chemical metal cleaning wastes
are treated by evaporation in boilers.
168 The Sutton Electric Plant NPDES Permit authorizes the discharge of coal pile
runoff, low volume wastes, and stormwater runoff from Internal Outfall 004.
169. The Sutton Electric Plant NPDES Permit authorizes the discharge of ultrafilter
water treatment system filter backwash, closed cooling water cooler blowdown, reverse-
osmosis/electrodeionization'system reject wastewater and other low volume wastewater to the
Cooling Pond from new Internal Outfall 005 after beginning operation of a natural gas fired
combined cycle generation facility.
170. The Sutton Electric Plant NPDES Permit authorizes the discharge of low volume
wastewater including the heat recovery steam generator blowdown and auxiliary boiler
blowdown into the cooling pond from the new Internal Outfall 006 after beginning operation of a
natural gas fired combined cycle generation facility.
171. The effluent limitations and monitoring requirements in the Sutton Electric Plant
NPDES Permit for discharges from Outfall 001 require sampling for the following parameters:
Flow, Temperature, Total Residual Chlorine, Time of Chlorine Addition, Total Copper, Total
Nitrogen, Total Phosphorus, Dissolved Oxygen, Acute Toxicity, Total Mercury, pH, Total
Suspended Solids, Total Selenium, and Total Arsenic.
172. The effluent limitations and monitoring requirements in the Sutton Electric Plant
NPDES Permit for discharges from Internal Outfall 002 require sampling for the following
parameters: Flow, Oil and Grease, Total Suspended Solids, Total Arsenic, Total Selenium, and
Amonia-Nitrogen.
40

173. - The effluent limitations and monitoring requirements in the Sutton Electric Plant
NPDES Permit for discharges from Internal Outfall 003 require sampling for the following
parameters: Flow, Total Copper and Total Iron.
174. The effluent limitations and monitoring requirements in the Sutton Electric Plant
NPDES Permit for discharges from Outfall 004 require sampling for the following parameters:
Flow, Oil and Grease, Total Suspended Solids, Total Selenium, Total Arsenic and Ammonia -
Nitrogen.
175. The effluent limitations and monitoring requirements in the Sutton Electric Plant
NPDES Permit for Internal Outfall 005 require sampling for the following parameters: Flow, Oil
and Grease, Total Suspended Solids, and pH.
176 ' The effluent limitations and monitoring requirements in the Sutton Electric Plant .
NPDES Permit for Internal Outfall 006 require sampling for the following parameters: Flow, Oil
and Grease, Total Suspended Solids, and pH.
Exceedances in Isolation of 2L Groundwater Standards at the Sutton Electric Plant
177. The groundwater monitoring requirements in the Sutton Electric Plant NPDES
Permit require sampling the following compliance wells MW -4B (background), MW -5C
(background), MW -7C, MW -11, MW -12, MW -19, MW -21C, MW -22B, MW -22C, MW -23B,
MW -23C, MW -24B, MW -24C, MW -27B, MW -28B, MW -28C and MW -31C. All current wells
being sampled are located at or beyond the Compliance Boundary. Prior to October 24, 2012,
the groundwater monitoring requirements in the Sutton Electric Plant NPDES Permit required
sampling the following wells MW -2C, MW -413 (background), MW -5C (background), MW -6C,
MW -7C, MW -8, MW -9, MW -10, MW -11, MW -12, MW -17, MW -18, and MW -19. Some wells
sampled prior to October 24, 2012, were located inside the Compliance Boundary.
41

178. Plaintiffs Aquifer Protection staff compiled a table of the analytical results of
groundwater samples collected at the. Sutton Electric Plant from March 2010 through July 16,
2013, and prepared a chart of the Ash Pond Exceedances which are listed in in the Sutton
Electric Plant Ash Pond Exceedances Chart. See Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 11.
179. The Sutton Electric Plant Ash Pond Exceedances Chart shows exceedances from
the 2L Groundwater Standard for Thallium (0.2 gg/L) in compliance wells MW -19 during four
sampling events from October 2011 through March 2013, with a maximum concentration of 0.62
µg/L; and in compliance wells MW -22C and MW -24B during two sampling events in October
2012 and March 2013, with maximum concentrations of 0.35 µg/L and 0.586 µg/L, respectively.
Although Thallium is a naturally occurring element, its presence in groundwater and specific
occurrence at this site indicates impacts to groundwater resulting from the wastewater treatment
and disposal associated with coal burning activities.
180. The Sutton Electric Plant Ash Pond Exceedances Chart shows exceedances from
the 2L Groundwater Standard for Antimony (1 µg/L) in compliance well MW -24B during two
sampling events in October 2012 and March 2013 with a maximum concentration of 1.1 pg/L.
Although Antimony is a naturally occurring element, its presence in groundwater and specific
occurrence at this site indicates impacts to groundwater resulting from the wastewater treatment
and disposal associated with coal burning activities.
181. The Sutton Electric Plant Ash Pond Exceedances Chart shows exceedances from
the 2L Groundwater Standard for Boron (700 gg/L) in compliance well MW -7C during two
sampling events in March 2012 and June 2012, with a' maximum concentration of 767 pg/L; in
compliance well MW -12 during four sampling events from March 2012 through March 2013,
with a maximum concentration of 1,510 gg/L; in MW -19 during five sampling events from
42

October 2011 through March 2013, with a maximum concentration of 1,940 gg/L; in compliance
well MW -21 C during two sampling events in October 2012 and March 2013, with a maximum
concentration of 1,720 µg/L; in compliance well MW -22C during two sampling events in
October 2012 and March 2013, with a maximum concentration of 2,100 µg/L; in compliance
well MW -23B during two sampling events in October 2012 and March 2013 with a maximum
concentration of 1,330 µg/L; in compliance well MW -23C during two sampling .events in
October 2012 and March 2013, with a maximum concentration of 2,580 µg/L; in compliance
well MW -24B during two sampling events from in October 2012 and March 2013, with a
maximum concentration of 1,420 gg/L; In compliance well MW -24C during two sampling
events in October 2012 and March 2013, with a maximum concentration of 1,160 µg/L; in
compliance well MW -28C during one sampling event in March 2013, with a concentration of
1,030 gg/L; and in compliance well MW -31C during sampling events in October 2012 and
March 2013, with a maximum concentration of 1,120 gg/L. Although Boron is a naturally
occurring element, its presence in groundwater and specific occurrence at this site indicates
impacts to groundwater resulting from the wastewater treatment and disposal associated with
coal burning activities.
182. The Sutton Electric Plant Ash Pond Exceedances Chart shows exceedances from
the 2L Groundwater Standard for Selenium (20 gg/L) in compliance well MW -27B during two
sampling events in October 2012 and March 2013, with a maximum concentration of 37.1
gg/L. Although Selenium is a naturally occurring element, its presence in groundwater and
specific occurrence at this site indicates impacts to groundwater resulting from the wastewater
treatment and disposal associated with coal burning activities.
43

183. The Sutton Electric Plant Ash Pond Exceedances Chart shows exceedances from
the 2L Groundwater Standard for Total Dissolved Solids (500 mg/L) at compliance well MW -
24C during two sampling events from October 2012 to March 2013, ,with a maximum
concentration of 579 mg/L. The presence of Total Dissolved Solids in groundwater and the
specific occurrence at this site indicates impacts to groundwater resulting from the wastewater
treatment and disposal- associated- with coal burning activities.
184. The Sutton Electric Plant Ash Pond Exceedances Chart shows exceedances from
the 2L Groundwater Standard for Sulfate (250 mg/L) in compliance well MW -21C during one
sampling event in October 2012, with a concentration of 814 mg/L. Although Sulfate is a
naturally occurring compound, its presence in groundwater and specific occurrence at this site
indicates impacts to groundwater resulting from the waste water treatment and disposal
associated with coal burning activities.
185. The Sutton Electric Plant Ash Pond Exceedances Chart consistently shows
exceedances from the 2L GW standard for Manganese (50 gg/L) in compliance well MW -7C
during four sampling events from March 2012 through March 2013, with a maximum
concentration of 458 µg2); in compliance well MW -12 during four sampling events from March
2012 through March 2013, with a maximum concentration of 281 gg/L; in compliance well
MW -19 during three sampling events- from October 2011 through March 2013, with a maximum
concentration of 508 gg/L; in compliance well MW -21C during two sampling events in October
2012 and March 2013, with a maximum concentration of 1,460 gg/L; in compliance well MW -
22B during one sampling event in October 2012, with a concentration of 116 gg/L; and in
compliance wells MW -22C, MW -23B, MW -23C, MW 24B, MW -24C, MW -28C, and MW -31 C
during two, sampling events in October 2012 and March 2013, with maximum concentrations of
44

798 µg/L, 348 µg/L, 1,150 µg/L, 805 µg/L, 2,360 µg/L, 367 µg/L and 1,800 gg/L, respectively.
Although Manganese is a naturally occurring element, its presence in groundwater and specific
occurrence at this site indicates impacts to groundwater resulting from the wastewater treatment
and disposal associated with coal burning activities.
186. The Sutton Electric Plant Ash Pond Exceedances Chart consistently shows
exceedances from the 2L Groundwater Standard for Iron (3 00 gg/L) in compliance well MW -11
during one sampling event in March 2011 with a concentration of 420 µg/L; in compliance well
MW -21C during two sampling events in October 2012 and March 2013, with a maximum
concentration of 7,680 µg/L; in compliance well MW -24C during one sampling event in October
2012, with a concentration of 2,860 µg/L; and in compliance well MW -31C during two sampling
events in October 2012 and March 2013, with a maximum concentration - of 2,820 pg/L.
Although Iron is a naturally occurring element, its presence in groundwater and specific
occurrence at this site indicates impacts to groundwater resulting from the waste water treatment
and disposal associated with coal burning activities.
187. The Sutton Electric Plant Ash Pond Exceedances Chart shows an exceedance
from the 21, Groundwater Standard for Lead (15 pg/L) in compliance well MW -12 during one
sampling event in March 2012, with a concentration of 17.3 µg/L. Although Lead is a naturally
occurring element, its presence in groundwater and specific occurrence at this site indicates
impacts to groundwater resulting from the wastewater treatment and disposal associated with
coal burning activities.
188. The Sutton Electric Plant Ash Pond Exceedances Chart shows an exceedance
from the 2L Groundwater Standard for Arsenic (10 µg/L) in compliance well MW -21C during
one sampling event in March 2013, with a concentration of 15 pg/L. Although Arsenic is a
45

naturally occurring element, its presence in groundwater and specific occurrence at this site
indicates impacts to groundwater resulting from the waste water treatment and disposal
associated with coal burning activities..
189. Defendant's exceedances of the 2L Groundwater Standards for Thallium,
Antimony, Boron, Selenium, Total Dissolved Solids, Sulfate, Manganese, Iron, Lead and
Arsenic at or beyond the compliance boundary of the Sutton Electric Plant Ash Ponds are
violations of the groundwater standards as prohibited by 15A NCAC 2L.0103(d).
Risk Factors Due to Exceedances of the 2L Groundwater Standards
at the Sutton Electric Plant
190. Violations above 2L Groundwater Standards have been measured in compliance
wells MW -7C, MW -19, MW -21C, MW -22B, MW -22C, MW -23B, MW -23C, and MW -28C
which are located upgradient of two water supply wells (PW#3 and PW#4) serving the New
Hanover Water System identified as CFPUA/NHC-421 (No. NC0465191). Water supply wells
PW#3 and PW#4 are located approximately 2,200 feet from the compliance boundary or
approximately 2,700 feet from the edge of the ash ponds.
191. Compliance well MW -7C has shown violations of the 2L Groundwater Standards
for Boron, Iron, and Manganese. Compliance well MW -19 has shown pH, Boron, Iron,
Manganese, and Thallium violations. Compliance well MW -21 C has shown violations Sulfate,
Arsenic, Boron, Iron, and Manganese. Compliance well MW -22B has shown pH and
Manganese violations. Compliance well MW -22C has shown pH, Boron, Iron, Manganese, and
Thallium violations. Compliance well MW -23B has shown pH, Boron, and Manganese
violations. Compliance well MW -28C has shown pH, Boron, and Manganese.
46

Other Exceedances of the 2L Groundwater Standards at the Sutton Electric Plant
192. The Sutton Electric Plant Ash Pond Exceedances Chart shows exceedances from
the 2L Groundwater Standard for Manganese (50 gg/L) in compliance well MW -10 during four
sampling events from October 2011 to June 2012, with a maximum concentration of 96.7 gg/L;
in compliance well MW -11 during four sampling events from March 2012 through March 2013,
with a maximum concentration of 99.6 gg/L; in compliance well MW -27B during two sampling
events in October 2012 and March 2013, with a maximum concentration of 229 gg/L; in
background well MW -413 during one sampling event in June 2012, with a concentration of 265
gg/L; and in background well MW -5C during four sampling events from March 2012 to March
2013, with a maximum concentration of 447 gg/L.
193. The Sutton Electric Plant Ash Pond Exceedances Chart shows exceedances from
the 2L Groundwater Standard for Iron (300 gg/L) .in compliance well MW -7C during two
sampling events in March 2012 and June 2012, with a maximum concentration of 707 gg/L; in
compliance well MW -12 during four sampling events from March 2011 to October 2012, with a
maximum concentration of 1,490 gg/L; in compliance well MW -19 during one sampling event
in March 2010, with a concentration of 322 gg/L; in compliance well MW22-C during one
sampling event in March 2013, with a concentration of 431 gg/L; in background well MW -413
during eight sampling events from March 2010 through March 2013, with a maximum
concentration of 1,650 gg/L.
194. The Sutton Electric Plant Ash Pond - Exceedances Chart consistently shows
exceedances from the 21, Groundwater Standard for pH (6.5-8.5) in compliance wells MW -5C,
MW -7C, MW -10, MW -11, MW -12, MW -19, MW -2213, MW -22C, MW -2313, MW -23C, MW -
47

24B, MW -24C, MW-27B,.MW-28C, and MW -31C during eight sampling events from March
2010 through March 2013 with levels ranging from 4.5 to 6.47.
195. The DWR staff is working with the Defendant to determine if these exceedances
are naturally occurring or if corrective action will be required.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
196. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 195 are incorporated into these
claims for relief as if fully set forth herein.
197. With the exception of the Weatherspoon Steam Electric Plant and the Sutton
Electric Plant, which have no unpermitted seeps, Defendant's unpermitted seeps from the 4 of
the 6 Facilities (Mayo, Roxboro, Cape Fear and Lee) are violations of N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 143-
215.1(a)(1) and (a)(6).
198. Defendant's exceedances of the groundwater standards for Sulfate at or beyond
the compliance boundary of the Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Ash Pond are violations of the 2L
Groundwater Standards as prohibited by 15A NCAC 2L.0103(d).
199. Defendant's exceedances of the.groundwater standards for Boron, Selenium and
Sulfate at or beyond the compliance boundary of the Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant Ash Ponds
are violations of the 2L Groundwater Standards as prohibited by 15A NCAC 2L.0103(d).
200. Defendant's exceedances of the groundwater standards for Arsenic, Boron, and
Chromium at or beyond the compliance boundary of the Lee Steam Electric Plant Ash Ponds
Treatment System are violations of the 2L Groundwater Standards as prohibited by 15A NCAC
2L.4103 (d).
48

201. Defendant's exceedances of the groundwater standards for Iron at or beyond the
compliance boundary of the Weatherspoon Steam Electric Plant Ash Pond are violations of the
2L Groundwater Standards as prohibited by 15A NCAC 2L.0103(d).
202. Defendant's exceedances of the groundwater standards for Thallium, Antimony,
Boron, Selenium, Total Dissolved Solids, Sulfate, Manganese, Iron, Lead and Arsenic at or
beyond the compliance boundary of the Sutton Electric Plant Ash Ponds are violations of the 2L
Groundwater Standards as prohibited by 15A NCAC 2L.0103(d).
203. Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief, as set forth more specifically in the prayer
for relief, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-215.6C.
204. Defendant's violations of N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 143-215.1(a)(1) and (a)(6) for the
unpermitted seeps and Defendant's violations and potential violations of the 2L Groundwater
Standards, without assessing the problem and taking corrective action, poses a serious danger to
the health, safety and welfare of the people of the State of North Carolina and serious harm to the
water resources of the State.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHERFORE, the Plaintiff, State of North Carolina, prays that the Court grant to it the
following relief
1. That the Court accepts this verified complaint as an affidavit upon which to base
all orders of the Court;.
2. That the Court preliminarily, and upon final judgment permanently enter a
mandatory injunction requiring the Defendant to abate the violations of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-
215.1, NPDES Permits and groundwater standards at the 6 Facilities;
3. That the Court preliminarily, and upon final judgment permanently enter a
mandatory injunction requiring the Defendant take the steps required in the attached "Ash Ponds
49

Assessment Needs", which is attached hereto as Plaintiffs Exhibit No. 19, and is incorporated
herein by reference;
4. That the Defendant be taxed with the costs of this action;
5. Any other and further relief that the Court deems to be just and proper.
Respectfully submitted, this the � day of August, 2013.
go
Special puty At omey General
NC State B . 12176
per@ncdoj.
By
onald W. Laton
Assistant Attorney General
atate B o. 3
d
By
Anita LeVea
Assistant Attorney General
NC State Bar No. 13667
[e-mail]
By oll AA-.s�
Ysssistant
e L. Oliver
Attorney General
NC State Bar No. 16771
[e-mail]
N.C. Department of Justice
Environmental Division
Post Office Box 629
Raleigh, NC 27602-6629
[phone] phone
[phone] facsimile
Attorneys for the Plaintiff
State of North Carolina ex rel.
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
50

EXHIBIT 3
Sutton NPDES Permit NC0001422
December 7, 2015

Permit NC0001422 V
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
PERMIT
TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provisions of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1, other lawful
standards and regulations promulgated and adopted by the North Carolina Water Quality
Commission, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended,
Duke Energy Progress, LLC
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at the
L. V. Sutton Energy Complex
801 Sutton Steam Plant Road, Wilmington
New Hanover County
to receiving waters designated as the Cape Fear River and Sutton Lake in the Cape Fear
River Basin in accordance with the discharge limitations, monitoring requirements, and
other applicable conditions set forth in Parts I, II, III, and Appendix A.
This permit modification shall become effective December 7, 2015.
This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on December 31,
2016.
Signed this day December 3, 2015.
Original signed by S. Jay Zimmerman
S. Jay Zimmerman P.G., Director
Division of Water Resources
By the Authority of the Environmental Management Commission
Page 1 of 19

V
Permit NC0001422
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
All previous NPDES Permits issued to this facility, whether for operation or discharge are hereby
revoked. As of this permit issuance, any previously issued permit bearing this number is no longer
effective. Therefore, the exclusive authority to operate and discharge from this facility arises under
the permit conditions, requirements, terms, and provisions included herein.
Duke Energy Progress, LLC is hereby authorized to:
1. Continue to discharge cooling water, low volume wastes, stormwater, and
treated wastewater from internal wastewater outfalls 005, 006, 007, and 009
to the Effluent Channel, and internal stormwater outfalls SW001, SW002,
SW003, SW004, SW005, SW006, and SWO07 to the Effluent Channel (the
Effluent Channel discharges via external Outfall 008 to the Sutton Lake); ash
pond discharge, groundwater, treated wastewater, and stormwater runoff
(Outfall 001, Outfall 002 and Outfall 004); at a facility located at Sutton Steam
Electric Plant, 801 Sutton Steam Plant Road, Wilmington, New Hanover
County, and
2. Discharge wastewater (via Outfall 002, Outfall 004, and Outfall 008) from said
treatment works at the locations specified on the attached map into the Sutton
Lake which is classified C waters in the Cape Fear River Basin.
3. Discharge wastewater and groundwater (via Outfall 00 1) from said treatment
works at the location specified on the attached map into the Cape Fear River,
classified C -Swamp waters in the Cape Fear River Basin.
Page 2 of 19

Permit NC0001422
Part I
A. (1.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (Outfall 001 -
normal operation)? [15A NCAC 02B .0400 et seq., 02B .0500 et seq.]
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge to the Cape Fear River from Outfall 001 - removing the free
water above the settled ash layer that does not involve mechanical disturbance of the ash
(recirculation cooling water, non -contact cooling water, and treated wastewater from outfalls
002, and 004). Such discharges shall be limited and monitored6 by the Permittee as specified
below:
EFFLUENT
CHARACTERISTICS
LIMITS
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Monthly
Average_ _
Daily
maximum
Measurement Sample Sample
Frequency Type Location'
Flow, MGD
Daily
Estimate or
pump logs
Effluent
Tem erature1,2, °C
Quarterly
Grab
U, D
Tem erature2, OC
Daily
Grab
Effluent
pH
6.0s
H<_ 9.0
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Oil and Grease
15.0 mg/L
20.0 mg/L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Suspended Solids,
/L
30.0 mg/L
100.0 mg/L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
_mg
Total Nitrogen
NO2 + NO3 + TKN , mg/L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Phosphorus, mg/L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Dissolved Oxygen, mg/L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Acute Toxicity3
Monthly
Grab
Effluent
Total Mercury4
47.0 ng/L
47.0 ng/L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Arsenic
10.0 µg L
50.0 µg L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Selenium
5.0 µg/L
56.0 µg/L
Weekly .
Grab
Effluent
Total Iron
1.0 mg/L
1.0 mg/L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Lead
25.0 µ L
33.8 µ L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Cadmium
2.0 µ L
15.0 µ L.
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Aluminum
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Copper, L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Zinc, L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Turbiditys I
I
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Notes:
1. U: Upstream, 2700 feet above outfall. D: Downstream, 1.25 miles below outfall.
2. The receiving water's temperature shall not be increased by more than 2.8°C above ambient
water temperature and in no case exceed 32°C, except in the mixing zone described as follows:
Extending from the eastern shore to the centerline of the river and extending not more than
1.25 miles downstream nor more than 2700 feet from the point of discharge. The cross-
sectional area of the mixing zone shall not exceed 9% of the total cross sectional area of the river
at the point of discharge nor 2.5% at the mouth of Toomer's Creek.
3. Acute Toxicity Limit (Fathead Minnow, 24 hour at 90%); Part I, Condition A. (10.).
4. The facility shall use EPA method 1631E.
5. The discharge from this facility shall not cause turbidity in the receiving stream to exceed 50
NTU. If the instream turbidity exceeds 50 NTU due to natural background conditions, the
discharge cannot cause turbidity to increase in the receiving stream.
6. No later than 270 days from the effective date of this permit, begin submitting discharge
monitoring reports electronically using NC DWR's eDMR application system. See Special
Condition A. (23.).
7. The drawdown rate shall not exceed 1 foot/week to maintain the integrity of the dams, unless
approved by the DEQ Dam Safety Program.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
Page 3 of 19

Permit NC0001422
A. (2.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (Outfall
001 -dewatering phase)$ [15A NCAC 02B.0400 et seq., 02B.0500 et seq.]
During the period beginning on the commencement date of the dewatering operation and lasting
until expiration, the Permittee is authorized to discharge to the Cape Fear River from Outfall 001
Dewaterinq-removinq the interstitial water/ash gore water (recirculation cooling water, non -
contact cooling water, and treated wastewater from outfalls 002, and 004). Such discharges
shall be limited and monitored6 by the Permittee as specified below:
EFFLUENT
CHARACTERISTICS
LIMITS
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Monthly
Average
Daily
Maximum
Measurement Sample
Frequency Type
Sample
FLocation'
Flow
2.1 MGD
(applies only to ash
pond discharge)
Daily
Estimate
Or pump
logs
Effluent
Tem erature1,2, °C
Quarterly
Grab
U, D
Tem erature2, OC
Daily
Grab
Effluent
pH
6.0<
H <_ 9.0
Daily
Daily
Effluent
Oil and Grease
15.0 m L
20.0 m L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Suspended Solids
mg L7
30.0 mg/L
100.0 mg/L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Nitrogen
NO2 + NO3 + TKN), mg/L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Phosphorus, mg/L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Dissolved Oxygen, mg/L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Acute ToxiCity3
Monthly
Grab
Effluent
Total Iron
1.0 m L
1.0 m L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Cadmium
2.0 µ L
15.0 µ L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Aluminum
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Lead
25.0 µg L
33.8 pg L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Arsenic
10.0 pg/L
50.0 pg/L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Selenium
5.0 pg/L
56.0 pg/L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Mercury4
47.0 n L
47.0 n L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Copper, µ L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Zinc, µ L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Turbidity5
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Notes:
1. U: Upstream, 2700 feet above outfall. D: Downstream, 1.25 miles below outfall.
2. The receiving water's temperature shall not be increased by more than 2.8°C above ambient
water temperature and in no case exceed 32°C, except in the mixing zone described as follows:
Extending from the eastern shore to the centerline of the river and extending not more than
1.25 miles downstream nor more than 2700 feet from the point of discharge. The cross-
sectional area of the mixing zone shall not exceed 9% of the total cross sectional area of the river
at the point of discharge nor 2.5% at the mouth of Toomer's Creek.
3. Acute Toxicity Limit (Fathead Minnow, 24 hour at 90%); Part I, Condition A. (10.).
4. The facility shall use EPA method 1631E.
5. The discharge from this facility shall not cause turbidity in the receiving stream to exceed 50
NTU. If the instream turbidity exceeds 50 NTU due to natural background conditions, the
discharge cannot cause turbidity to increase in the receiving stream.
6. No later than 270 days from the effective date of this permit, begin submitting discharge
monitoring reports electronically using NC DWR's eDMR application system. See Special
Condition A. (23.).
7. The facility shall continuously monitor TSS concentration and the dewatering pump shall be
shutoff automatically when the limits are exceeded.
8. The drawdown rate shall not exceed 1 foot/week to maintain the integrity of the dams, unless
approved by the DEQ Dam Safety Program.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
Page 4of19

Permit NC0001422
A. (3.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (Outfall
002 -normal operation)4, s
[15A NCAC 02B .0400 et seq., 02B .0500 et seq.]
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge to Sutton Lake and/or to the 1971 ash pond from Outfall 002 -
removing of free water above the settled ash layer that does not involve mechanical disturbance of
the ash (Old Ash Pond - coal pile runoff, low volume wastes, ash sluice water, and stormwater
runoff). Such discharges to Sutton Lake shall be limited and monitored3 by the Permittee as specified
below:
EFFLUENT
CHARACTERISTICS
LIMITS
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Monthly
Average
Daily
Maximum
Measurement
Frequency
Sample Sample Location
Type
Flow, MGD
Weekly
Pump Logs
or similar
Effluent
Oil and Grease
15.0 mg/L
20.0 mg/L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Suspended
Solids
30.0 mg/L
100.0 mg/L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
pH
6.0s pH
<_ 9.0
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Copper, pg/L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Zinc, pg/L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Arsenic
10.0 µg/L
50.0 µg/L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Selenium
5.0 µg/L
56.0 µg/L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Mercury
47.0 ng/L
47.0 ng/L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Iron
1.0 mg/L
1.0 mg/L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Aluminum
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Chronic Toxicity 2
Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Notes:
1. The facility shall use EPA method 1631E.
2. Chronic Toxicity Limit (Ceriodaphnia dubia at 90%); Part I, Condition A. (21.).
3. No later than 270 days from the effective date of this permit, begin submitting discharge
monitoring reports electronically using NC DWR's eDMR application system. See Special
Condition A. (23.).
4. The facility shall submit EPA Form 2C for Outfall 002 as soon as practicable, but no later than
180 days from the effective date of this permit.
5. The drawdown rate shall not exceed 1 foot/week to maintain the integrity of the dams, unless
approved by the DEQ Dam Safety Program. ✓
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
Page 5of19

Permit NC0001422
A. (4.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (Outfall
004 -normal operation)4, 5
[15A NCAC 02B.0400 et seq., 02B .0500 et seq.]
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge to Sutton Lake and/or to Outfall 001 from Outfall 004 -
removing of free water above the settled ash layer that does not involve mechanical disturbance of
the ash (New Ash Pond - ash sluice water, coal pile runoff, low volume wastes, and stormwater
runoff). Such discharges to Sutton Lake shall be limited and monitored3 by the Permittee as specified
below:
EFFLUENT
CHARACTERISTICS
LIMITS
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Monthly Daily
Average Maximum
Measurement Sample Sample
Frequency Type Location
Flow, MGD
Weekly
Pump Logs
or similar
Effluent
Oil and Grease
15.0 mg/L
20.0 mg/L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Suspended
Solids
30.0 mg/L
100.0 mg/L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
pH
6.0<_
H<_ 9.0
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Co er, pg/L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Zinc, pg/L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Arsenic
10.0 pg/L
50.0 pg/L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Selenium
5.0 gg L
56.0 gg L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Mercury
47.0 ng/L
47.0 ng/L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Iron
1.0 m L
1.0 m L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Aluminum
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Chronic Toxicity 2
Quarterly
Grab I
Effluent
Notes:
1. The facility shall use EPA method 1631E.
2. Chronic Toxicity Limit (Ceriodaphnia dubia at 90%); Part I, Condition A. (21).
3. No later than 270 days from the effective date of this permit, begin submitting discharge
monitoring reports electronically using NC DWR's eDMR application system. See Special
Condition A. (23.).
4. The facility shall submit EPA Form 2C for Outfall 004 as soon as practicable, but no later than
180 days from the effective date of this permit.
5. The drawdown rate shall not exceed 1 foot/week to maintain the integrity of the dams, unless
approved by the DEQ Dam Safety Program.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
Page 6 of 19

Permit NC0001422
A. (5.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (Outfall
005)
[15A N,CAC 0213 .0400 et seq., 0213 .0500 et seq.]
Beginning with the commencement of this discharge and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is
authorized to discharge from Internal Outfall 005 (Combined Cycle Plant - ultrafilter water
treatment system filter backwash, closed cooling water cooler blowdown, Reverse
Osmosis/Electrodeionization system reject wastewater, and other low volume wastewater) to
the Effluent Channel. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored) by the Permittee as
specified below:
EFFLUENT
CHARACTERISTICS
EFFLUENT .LIMITATIONS
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Monthly:
Average
'Daily,
Maximum
Measurement
Frequenc
Sample -
Type _,
Sample
'Location
Flow, MGD
Daily
Pump Logs or
similar
Influent or
Effluent
Oil and Grease
15.0 mg/L
20.0 mg/L
2/Month
Grab '
Effluent
Total Suspended Solids
30.0 mg/L
100.0 mg/L
2/Month
Grab
Effluent
PH
6.0 < pH < 9.0
2/Month
Grab
Effluent
Notes:
1. No later than 270 days from the effective date of this permit, begin submitting discharge
monitoring reports electronically using NC DWR's eDMR application system. See Special
Condition A. (23.).
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
A. (6.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (Outfall
006)
[15A NCAC 02B .0400 et seq., 02B .0500 et seq.]
Beginning with -the commencement of this discharge and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is
authorized to discharge from Internal Outfall 006 (Combined Cycle Plant - low volume
wastewater including the Heat Recovery Steam generator blowdown and auxiliary boiler
blowdown) to the Effluent Channel. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored' by the
Permittee as specified below:
EFFLUENT,
CHARACTERISTICS
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Monthly
Average
Daily
Maximum
Measurementr
Frequency
Sample
Type
Sairiplg
Location
Flow, MGD
Daily
Pump Logs or
similar
Influent or
Effluent
Oil and Grease
15.0 mg/L
20.0 mg/L
2/Month
Grab
Effluent
Total Suspended Solids
30.0 mg/L
100.0 mg/L
2/Month
Grab
Effluent
PH
6.0 < pH < 9.0
2/Month
Grab
Effluent
Notes:
1.. No later than 270 days from the effective date of this permit, begin submitting discharge
monitoring reports electronically using NC DWR's eDMR application system. See Special
Condition A. (23.).
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
Page 7of19

Y
Permit NC0001422
A. (7.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (Outfall
007)
[15A NCAC 02B.0400 et seq., 02B.0500 et seq.]
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge from Internal Outfall 007 (stormwater flows from the closure
activities for coal-fired units, separate from stormwater outfalls SW001 through SWO07) to the
Effluent Channel. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored2 by the Permittee as specified
below:
EFFLUENT
CHARACTERISTICS
LIMITS
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Monthly
Average -
Daily'
'Maximum _
Measurement
Fre_ uency_
Sample '
Type _
Sample
Location
Flow, MGD
Sample
Weekly
Pump Logs
or similar
Effluent
Oil and Grease.
15.0 m L
20.0 mg/L
Monthly
Grab
Effluent
Total Suspended
Solids
30.0 mg/L
100.0 mg/L
Monthly
Grab
Effluent
Total Arsenic, µ L
15.0 m L 20.0 m L
Monthly
Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Selenium, pg/L
Monthly
Grab
Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Nitrate/nitrite as N,
mg/L
Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Mercury', ng/L
Effluent
Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Notes:
1. The facility shall use EPA method 1631E.
2. No later than 270 days from the effective date of this permit, begin submitting discharge
monitoring reports electronically using NC DWR's eDMR application system. See Special
Condition A. (23.).
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
A. (8.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (Outfall
009)
[15A NCAC 02B .0400 et seq., 02B .0500 et seq.]
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge from Internal Outfall 009 (low volume wastes from a new
simple cycle combustion turbine) to the Effluent Channel. Such discharges shall be limited and
monitored' by the Permittee as specified below:
EFFLUENT
LIMITS
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
CHARACTERISTICS
_
Monthly Daily
Measurement
Sample
Sample
Average Maximum
Frequency
a
'Location
Flow, MGD
Weekly
Pump Logs
Effluent
or similar
Oil and Grease
15.0 m L 20.0 m L
Monthly
Grab
Effluent
Total Suspended
30.0 mg/ L 100.0 mg/ L
Monthly
Grab
Effluent
Solids
-
pH
6.0 < pH < 9.0
2/Month
Grab
Effluent
Notes:
1.. No later than 270 days from the effective date of this permit, begin submitting discharge
monitoring reports electronically using NC DWR's eDMR application system. See Special
Condition A. (23.).
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
Page 8 of 19

Permit NC0001422
A. (9.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (Outfall
008)5,7
[15A NCAC 02B .0400 et seq., 02B .0500 et seq.]
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge to Sutton Lake from Outfall 008 (from internal wastewater
outfalls 005, 006, 007, and 009, and internal stormwater outfalls SWO01 through SWO07).
Such discharges shall be limited and monitored6 by the Permittee as specified below:
EFFLUENT
CHARACTERISTICS
LIMITS
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Monthly
Avera a
Daily
Maximum
Measurement Sample
Frequency Tye
Sample
Location'
Flow, MGD
Daily Estimate
or pump
logs
Effluent
-Temperature OC
Daily Grab
Effluent
-Temperature 1,2, OC
Daily Weekly Grab
Instream
Oil and Grease
15.0 mg7L
20.0 mg/L
Monthly Grab
Effluent
Total Suspended Solids
30.0 mg/L
100.0 mg/L
Monthly Grab
Effluent
Total Nitrogen
NO2 + NO3 + TKN , mg/L
Monthly Grab
Effluent
Dissolved Oxygen, mg/L
Monthly Grab
Effluent
H
6.0s H <_ 9.0
Daily Grab
Effluent
Total Phosphor -us, mg/L
Monthly Grab
Effluent
Chronic Toxicity3
Quarterly Grab
Effluent
Total Mercury4, ng/L
Quarterly Grab
Effluent
Total Arsenic, pg/L
Quarterly Grab
Effluent
Total Selenium, pg/L
Quarterly Grab
Effluent
Total Copper, pg/L
Quarterly Grab
Effluent
Total Zinc, µ L
Quarterly Grab
Effluent
Notes:
1. Instream: 1000 feet from outfall. The facility is allowed 12 months from the effective date of
the permit to begin daily instream temperature monitoring. The time is allowed for the
facility to budget, design, and install the automatic monitoring station. In the interim, the
instream temperature monitoring shall be conducted on a weekly basis.
2. The receiving water's temperature shall not be increased by more than 2.8°C above ambient
water temperature and in no case exceed 32°C. The limit is not being implemented until
further notice (Please see A. (26.)).
3. Chronic Toxicity Limit (Ceriodaphnia dubia at 90%); Part I, Condition A. (21.).
4. The facility shall use EPA method 1631E.
5. The facility shall install a screen or a barrier at the end of the Effluent Channel to minimize
fish migration into the Channel. The design of the screen/barrier shall be submitted to the
Division for approval no later than 6 month from the effective date of the permit. The
screen/barrier shall be installed no later than 6 months after Division approval.
6. No later than 270 days from the effective date of this permit, begin submitting discharge
monitoring reports electronically using NC DWR's eDMR application system. See Special
Condition A. (23.).
7. The facility shall submit EPA Form 2C for Outfall 008 as soon as practicable, but no later
than 180 days from the effective' date of this permit.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
Page 9 of 19

Permit NC0001422
A. (10.) ACUTE TOXICITY LIMIT (QUARTERLY)- OUTFALL 001
[15A NCAC 02B .0200 et seq.]
The permittee shall conduct acute toxicity tests on a monthlU basis using protocols defined in the
North Carolina Procedure Document entitled "Pass/Fail Methodology For Determining Acute
Toxicity In A Single Effluent Concentration" (Revised -July, 1992 or subsequent versions). The
monitoring shall be performed as a Fathead Minnow (Pimephales promelas) 24 hour static test. The
effluent concentration at which there may be at no time significant acute mortality is 90% (defined
as treatment two in the procedure document). Effluent, samples for self-monitoring purposes must
be obtained during representative effluent discharge below all waste treatment.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent
Discharge Monitoring Form (MR -1) for the month in which it was performed, using the parameter
code TGE6C. Additionally, DWR Form AT -2 (original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention: North Carolina Division of Water Resources
Water Sciences Section/Aquatic Toxicology Branch
1623 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1623
Completed Aquatic Toxicity Test Forms shall be filed with the Environmental Sciences Section no
later than 30 days after the end of the reporting period for which the report is made.
Test data shall be complete and accurate and include all supporting chemical/ physical
measurements performed in association with the toxicity tests, as well as all dose/response data.
Total residual chlorine of the effluent toxicity sample must be measured and reported if chlorine is
employed for disinfection of the waste stream.
Should there be no discharge of flow from the facility during a month in which toxicity monitoring is
required, the permittee will complete the information located at the top of the aquatic toxicity (AT)
test form indicating the facility name, permit number, pipe number, county, and the month/year of
the report with the notation of "No Flow" in the comment area of the form. The report shall be
submitted to the Environmental Sciences Section at the address cited above.
Should any test data from either these monitoring requirements or tests performed by the North
Carolina Division of Water Resources indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this permit
may be re -opened and modified to include alternate monitoring requirements or limits.
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum
control organism survival and appropriate environmental controls, shall constitute an invalid test
and will require immediate follow-up testing to be completed no later than the last day of the month
following the month of the initial monitoring.
A. (11.) GROUNDWATER MONITORING, WELL CONSTRUCTION, AND
SAMPLING
The permittee shall conduct groundwater monitoring to determine the compliance of this NPDES
permitted facility with the current groundwater Standards found under 15A NCAC 2L.0200. The
monitoring shall be conducted in accordance with the Sampling Plan approved by the Division.
A. (12.) STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY INSPECTIONS OF ASH POND DAMS
The facility shall meet the dam design and dam safety requirements per 15A NCAC 2K.
A. (13.) BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES PLAN
The Permittee shall continue to implement a Best Management Practices (BMP) Plan to control the
discharge of oils and the hazardous and toxic substances listed in 40 CFR, Part 117 and Tables II
Page 10 of 19

Permit NC0001422
and III of Appendix D to 40 CFR, Part 122, and shall maintain the Plan at the plant site and shall
be available for inspection by EPA and DWR personnel.
A. (14.) INTAKE SCREEN BACKWASH
Continued intake screen backwash discharge is permitted without limitations or monitoring
requirements.
A. (15.) NO DISCHARGE OF PCBs
As specified by 40 CFR 423.13 (a), there shall be no discharge of polychlorinated biphenyl
compounds such as those commonly used for transformer fluid.
A. (16.) BIOCIDE CONDITION
The permittee shall not use any biocides except those approved in conjunction with the permit
application. The permittee shall notify the Director in writing not later than ninety (90) days prior
to instituting use of any additional biocide used in cooling systems which may be toxic to aquatic
life other than those previously reported to the Division of Water Resources. Such notification shall
include completion of Biocide Worksheet Form 101 and a map locating the discharge point and
receiving stream. Completion of a Biocide Worksheet 101 is not necessary for the introduction of a
new biocide into an outfall currently being tested for toxicity.
A. (17.) FISH TISSUE MONITORING NEAR ASH POND DISCHARGE — OUTFALL
001, and OUTFALLS 002/004
The facility shall conduct fish tissue monitoring at two locations (Sutton Lake and Cape Fear River)
annually and submit the results with the NPDES permit renewal application. The objective of the
monitoring is to evaluate potential uptake of pollutants by fish tissue near the Ash Pond discharge.
The parameters analyzed in fish tissue shall be arsenic, selenium, and mercury. The monitoring shall
be conducted in accordance with the Sampling Plan approved by the Division. After the plan is
approved by the Division, it will become an enforceable part of the permit.
A. (18.) CLEAN WATER ACT SECTION 316(B)
The permittee shall comply with the Cooling Water Intake Structure Rule per 40 CFR 125.95. The
permittee shall submit all the materials required by the Rule with the next renewal
application.
A. (19.) ASH POND CLOSURE
The facility shall prepare an Ash Ponds Closure Plan in anticipation of the ash pond closure. This
Plan shall be submitted to the Division one month prior to the closure of the ash ponds.
A. (20.) LOWER CAPE FEAR MODELING
The permittee may elect to conduct a water quality model of the dilution factor for Outfall 001.
Contingent upon EPA approval of the Lower Cape Fear Modeling and its results, the Reasonable
Potential Analysis will be conducted again and the permit limits will be based on the new flow
numbers established by the model.
A. (21.) CHRONIC TOXICITY PASS/FAIL PERMIT LIMIT (QUARTERLY) — OUTFALLS
002, 004, 008
[15A NCAC 0213 .0200 et seq.]
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit observable inhibition of reproduction or significant
mortality to Ceriodaphnia dubia at an effluent concentration of 90.0%.
The permit holder shall perform at a minimum, quarterlmonitoring using test procedures outlined
in the "North Carolina Ceriodaphnia Chronic Effluent Bioassay Procedure," Revised December 2010,
or subsequent versions or "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure"
(Revised- December 2010) or subsequent versions. The tests will be performed during the months
Page 11 of 19

Permit NC0001422
of February, May, August, and November. These months signify the first month of each three-
month toxicity testing quarter assigned to the facility. Effluent sampling for this testing must be
obtained during representative effluent discharge and shall be performed at the NPDES permitted
final effluent discharge below all treatment processes.
If the test procedure performed as the first test of any single quarter results in a failure or
ChV below the permit limit, then multiple -concentration testing shall be performed at a
minimum, in each of the two following months as described in "North Carolina Phase II
Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -December 2010) or subsequent
versions.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent
Discharge Monitoring Form (MR -1) for the months in which tests were performed, using the
parameter code TGP3B for the pass/fail results and THP3B for the Chronic Value. Additionally,
DWR Form AT -3 (original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention: North Carolina Division of Water Resources
Water Sciences Section/Aquatic Toxicology Branch
1623 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1623
Completed Aquatic Toxicity Test Forms shall be filed with the Water Sciences Section no later than
30 days after the end of the reporting period for which the report is made.
Test data shall be complete, accurate, include all supporting chemical/ physical measurements and
all concentration/ response data, and be certified by laboratory supervisor and ORC or approved
designate signature. Total residual chlorine of the effluent toxicity sample must be measured and
reported if chlorine is employed for disinfection of the waste stream.
Should there be no discharge of flow from the facility during a month in which toxicity monitoring is
required, the permittee will complete the information located at the top of the aquatic toxicity (AT)
test form indicating the facility name, permit number, pipe number, county, and the month/year of
the report with the notation of "No Flow" in the comment area of the form. The report shall be
submitted to the Water Sciences Section at the address cited above.
Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina
Division of Water Resources indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this permit may be
re -opened and modified to include alternate monitoring requirements or limits.
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum
control organism survival, minimum control organism reproduction, and appropriate environmental
controls, shall constitute an invalid test and will require immediate follow-up testing to be
completed no later than the last day of the month following the month of the initial monitoring.
A. (22.) INSTREAM MONITORING
The facility shall conduct semiannual instream monitoring (1000 ft. upstream and 1000 ft.
downstream of the Outfall 001, and 1000 ft from Outfall 004) for total arsenic, total selenium, total
mercury (method 1631E), total chromium, total lead, total cadmium, total copper, and total zinc. The
monitoring results shall be submitted with the NPDES permit renewal application.
A. (23.) ELECTRONIC REPORTING OF DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORTS
(STATE ENFORCEABLE ONLY) [G.S. 143-215.1(b)]
Proposed federal regulations require electronic submittal of all discharge monitoring reports (DMRs)
and specify that, if a state does not establish a system to receive such submittals, then permittees ;
Page 12 of 19

Permit NC0001422
must submit DMRs electronically to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Division
anticipates that these regulations will be adopted and is beginning implementation in late 2013.
NOTE: This special condition supplements or supersedes the following sections within Part II of
this permit (Standard Conditions for NPDES Permits):
• Section B. (11.) Signatory Requirements
• Section D. (2.)
• Section D. (6.)
• Section E. (5.)
Reporting
Records Retention
Monitoring Reports
1. Reporting [Supersedes Section D. (2.) and Section E. (5.) (all
Beginning no later than 270 days from the effective date of this permit, the permittee shall begin
reporting discharge monitoring data electronically using the NC DWR's Electronic Discharge
Monitoring Report (eDMR) internet application.
Monitoring results obtained during the previous month(s) shall be summarized for each month
and submitted electronically using eDMR. The eDMR system allows permitted facilities to enter
monitoring data and submit DMRs electronically using the internet. Until such time that the
state's eDMR application is compliant with EPA's Cross -Media Electronic Reporting Regulation
(CROMERR), permittees will be required to submit all discharge monitoring data to the state
electronically using eDMR and will be required to complete the eDMR submission by printing,
signing, and submitting one signed original and a copy of the computer printed eDMR to the
following address:
NC DENR / DWR / Information Processing Unit
ATTENTION: Central Files / eDMR
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
If a permittee is unable to use the eDMR system due to a demonstrated hardship or due to the
facility being physically located in- an area where less than 10 percent of the households have
broadband access, then a temporary waiver from the NPDES electronic reporting requirements
may be granted and discharge monitoring data may be submitted on paper DMR forms (MR 1,
1. 1, 2, 3) or alternative forms approved by the Director. Duplicate signed copies shall be
submitted to the mailing address above.
Requests for temporary waivers from the NPDES electronic reporting requirements must be
submitted in writing to the Division for written approval at least sixty (60) days prior to the date
the facility would be required under this permit to begin using eDMR. Temporary waivers shall
be valid for twelve (12) months and shall thereupon expire. At such time, DMRs shall be
submitted electronically to the Division unless the permittee re -applies for and is granted a new
temporary waiver by the Division.
Information on eDMR and application for a temporary waiver from the NPDES electronic
reporting requirements is found on the following web page:
http: //portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/admin/bog/ipu/edmr
Regardless of the submission method, the first DMR is due on the last day of the month
following the issuance of the permit or in the case of a new facility, on the last day of the month
following the commencement of discharge.
Page 13 of 19

Permit NC0001422
2. Signatory Requirements [Supplements Section B. (11.1 (b) and supersedes Section B. (11.)
Ldu
All eDMRs submitted to the permit issuing authority shall be signed by a person described in
Part II, Section B. (11.)(a) or by a duly authorized representative of that person as described in
Part II, Section B. (11.)(b). A person, and not a position, must be delegated signatory authority
for eDMR reporting purposes.
For eDMR submissions, the person signing and submitting the DMR must obtain an eDMR user
account and login credentials to access the eDMR system. For more information on North
Carolina's eDMR system, registering for eDMR and obtaining an eDMR user account, please
visit the following web page:
http: / /-portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq / admin / bog/ ipu / edmr
Certification. Any person submitting an electronic DMR using the state's eDMR system shall
make the following certification [40 CFR 122.22]. NO OTHER STATEMENTS OF
CERTIFICATION WILL BE ACCEPTED:
"I certcfy, under penalty of law, that this document and all attachments were prepared under my
direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel
properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or
persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the
information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate,
and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information,
including the possibility of fines and imprisonment for knowing violations."
3. Records Retention [Supplements Section D. (6.)1
The permittee shall retain records of all Discharge Monitoring Reports, including eDMR
submissions. These records or copies shall be maintained for a period of at least 3 years from
the date of the report. This period may be extended by request of the Director at any time [40
CFR 122.411.
A. (24.) APPLICABLE STATE LAW (STATE ENFORCEABLE ONLY) [G. S. 143-215.1(b)]
This facility shall meet the requirements of Senate Bill 729 (Coal Ash Management Act). This permit
may be reopened to include new requirements imposed by Senate Bill 729.
A. (25.) STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN
The permittee shall develop and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SPPP). The
SPPP shall be maintained on site unless exempted from this requirement by the Division. The SPPP
is public information. The SPPP should also specifically and separately address deconstruction,
demolition, coal, and/or coal ash hauling or disposal activities. The SPPP shall include, at a
minimum, the following items:
1. Site Overview. The Site Overview shall provide a description of the physical facility and the
potential pollutant sources that may be expected to contribute to contamination of stormwater
discharges. The Site Overview shall contain the following:
(a) A general location map (USGS quadrangle map or appropriately drafted equivalent map),
showing the facility's location in relation to transportation routes and surface waters; the
name of the receiving waters to which the stormwater outfalls discharge, or if the discharge
is to a municipal separate storm sewer system, the name of the municipality and the
ultimate receiving waters; and accurate latitude and longitude of the points of stormwater
discharge associated with industrial activity. The general location map (or alternatively the
site map) shall identify whether any receiving waters are impaired (on the state's 303(d) list
Page 14 -of 19

Permit NC0001422
of impaired waters) or if the site is located in a watershed for which a TMDL has been
established, and what the parameters of concern are.
(b) A narrative description of storage practices, loading and unloading activities, outdoor
process areas, dust or particulate generating or control processes, and waste disposal
practices. A narrative description of the potential pollutants that could be expected to be
present in the stormwater discharge from each outfall. The narrative should also reference
deconstruction, demolition, coal, and/or coal ash hauling or disposal activities where
applicable.
(c) A site map drawn at a scale sufficient to clearly depict: the site property boundary; the
stormwater discharge outfalls; all on-site and adjacent surface waters and wetlands;
industrial activity areas (including storage of materials, disposal areas, process areas,
loading and unloading areas, and haul roads); site topography and finished grade; all
drainage features and structures; drainage area boundaries and total contributing area for
each outfall; direction of flow in each drainage area; industrial activities occurring in each
drainage area; buildings; stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs); and impervious
surfaces. The site map must indicate the percentage of each drainage area that is
impervious, and the site map must include a graphic scale indication and north arrow.
(d) A list of significant spills or leaks of pollutants during the previous three (3) years and any
corrective actions taken to mitigate spill impacts.
(e) Certification that the stormwater outfalls have been evaluated for the presence of non-
stormwater discharges. The permittee shall submit the first certification no later than
90 days after the effective date of this permit to the Stormwater Permitting Program
Central Office and shall re -certify annually that the stormwater outfalls have been
evaluated for the presence of non-stormwater discharges. For any non-stormwater
discharge identified, the permittee shall indicate how that discharge is permitted or
otherwise authorized. The certification statement will be signed in accordance with the
requirements found in Part II, Standard Conditions, Section B, Paragraph 11:
2. Stormwater Management Strategy. The Stormwater Management Strategy shall contain a
narrative description of the materials management practices employed which control or
minimize the stormwater exposure of significant materials, including structural and
nonstructural measures. This strategy should also address deconstruction, demolition, coal,
and/or coal ash hauling or disposal activities where applicable. The Stormwater Management
Strategy, at a minimum, shall incorporate the following:
(a) Feasibility Study. A review of the technical and economic feasibility of changing the
methods of operations and/or storage practices to eliminate or reduce exposure of materials
and processes to rainfall and run-on flows. Wherever practical, the permittee shall prevent
exposure of all storage areas, material handling operations, and manufacturing or fueling
operations. In areas where elimination of exposure is not practical, this review shall
document the feasibility of diverting the stormwater run-on away from areas of potential
contamination.
(b) Secondary Containment Requirements and Records. Secondary containment is required
for: bulk storagequid materials; storage in any amount of Section 313 of Title III of the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) water priority chemicals; and
storage in any amount of hazardous substances, in order to prevent leaks and spills from
contaminating stormwater runoff. A table or summary of all such tanks and stored
materials and their associated secondary containment areas shall be maintained. If the
secondary containment devices are connected to stormwater conveyance systems, the
connection shall be controlled by manually activated valves or other similar devices (which
shall be secured closed with a locking mechanism). Any stormwater that accumulates in
the containment area shall be observed for color, foam, outfall staining, visible sheens and
Page 15 of 19

Permit NC0001422
dry weather flow, prior to release of the accumulated stormwater. Accumulated stormwater
shall be released if found to be uncontaminated by any material. Records documenting the
individual making the observation, the description of the accumulated stormwater, and the
date and time of the release shall be kept for a period of five (5) years. For facilities subject
to a federal oil Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan (SPCC), any portion of
the SPCC Plan fully compliant with the requirements of this permit may be used to
demonstrate compliance with this permit.
In addition to secondary containment for tankage, the permittee shall provide drip pans or
other similar protection measures for truck or rail car liquid loading and unloading stations.
(c) BMP Summary. A listing of site structural and non-structural Best Management Practices
(BMPs) shall be provided. The installation and implementation of BMPs shall be based on
the assessment of the potential for sources to contribute significant quantities of pollutants
to stormwater discharges and on data collected through monitoring of stormwater
discharges. The BMP Summary shall include a written record of the specific rationale for
installation and implementation of the selected site BMPs. The BMP Summary 'should also
address deconstruction, demolition, coal, and/or coal ash hauling or disposal activities
where applicable. The permittee shall refer to the BMPs described in EPA's Multi -Sector
Permit (MSGP) and Industrial Stormwater Fact Sheet for Steam Electric Power Generating
Facilities (EPA -833-F-06-030) for guidance on BMPs that may be appropriate for this site.
The BMP Summary shall be reviewed and updated annually.
3. Spill Prevention and Response Procedures. The Spill Prevention and Response Procedures
(SPRP) shall incorporate an assessment of potential pollutant sources based on a materials
inventory of the facility. Facility personnel responsible for implementing the SPRP shall be
identified in a written list incorporated into the SPRP and signed and dated by each individual
acknowledging their responsibilities for the plan. A responsible person shall be on-site at all
times during facility operations that have increased potential to contaminate stormwater runoff
through spills or exposure of materials associated with the facility operations. The SPRP must
be site stormwater specific. Therefore, an oil Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure plan
(SPCC) may be a component of the SPRP; but may not be sufficient to completely address the
stormwater aspects of the SPRP. The common elements of the SPCC with the SPRP may be
incorporated by reference into the SPRP.
4. Preventative Maintenance and Good Housekeeping Program. A preventative maintenance
and good housekeeping program shall be developed and implemented. The program shall
address all stormwater control systems (if applicable), stormwater discharge outfalls, all on-site
and adjacent surface waters and wetlands, industrial activity areas (including material storage
areas, material handling areas, disposal areas, process areas, loading and unloading areas, and
haul roads), all drainage features and structures, and existing structural BMPs.
The program shall establish schedules of inspections, maintenance, and housekeeping activities
of stormwater control systems, as well as facility equipment, facility areas, and facility systems
that present a potential for stormwater exposure or stormwater pollution where not already
addressed under another element of the SPPP. Inspection of material handling areas and
regular cleaning schedules of these areas shall be incorporated into the program. Compliance
with the established schedules for inspections, maintenance, and housekeeping shall be
recorded and maintained in the SPPP. The program should also address deconstruction,
demolition, coal, and/or coal ash hauling or disposal activities where applicable. The Good
Housekeeping Program shall also include, but not be limited to, BMPs to accomplish the
following:
(a) Minimize contamination of stormwater runoff from oil-bearing equipment in
switchyard areas;
(b) Minimize contamination of stormwater runoff from delivery vehicles and rail cars
arriving and departing the plant site;
Page 16 of 19

Permit NC0001422
(c) Inspect all residue -hauling vehicles for proper covering over the load, adequate gate -
sealing, and overall integrity of the container body. Repair vehicles as necessary;
and
(d) Reduce or control the tracking of ash and residue from ash loading and storage
areas;
5. Facility Inspections. Inspections of the facility (including tanks, pipes, and equipment) and all
stormwater systems shall occur as part of the Preventative Maintenance and Good
Housekeeping Program at a minimum on a semi-annual schedule, once during the first half of
the year (January to June), and once during the second half (July to December), with at least 60
days separating inspection dates (unless performed more frequently than semi-annually).
6. Employee Training. Training programs shall be developed and training provided at a
minimum on an annual basis for facility personnel with responsibilities for: spill response and
cleanup, preventative maintenance activities, and for any of the facility's operations that have
the potential to contaminate stormwater runoff. The facility personnel responsible for
implementing the training shall be identified, and their annual training shall be documented by
the signature of each employee trained.
7. Responsible Party. The SPPP shall identify a specific position or positions responsible for the
overall coordination, development, implementation, and revision of the SPPP. Responsibilities
for all components of the SPPP shall be documented and position assignments provided.
8. SPPP Amendment and Annual Update. The permittee shall amend the SPPP whenever there is
a change in design, construction, operation, site drainage, maintenance, or configuration of the
physical features which may have a significant effect on the potential for the discharge of
pollutants to surface waters. All aspects of the SPPP shall be reviewed and updated on an
annual basis. The annual update shall include:
(a) an updated list of significant spills or leaks of pollutants for the previous three (3)
years, or the notation that no spills have occurred (element of the Site Overview);
(b) a written re -certification that the stormwater outfalls have been evaluated for the
presence of non-stormwater discharges (element of the Site Overview);
(c) a documented re-evaluation of the effectiveness of the on-site stormwater BMPs (BMP
Summary element of the Stormwater Management Strategy).
(d) a review and comparison of stormwater sample analytical data to any applicable
limits or benchmark values (if applicable) over the past year.
If the Director notifies the permittee that the SPPP does not meet one or more of the minimum
requirements of the permit, the permittee shall have 30 days to respond. Within 30 days of
such notice, the permittee shall submit a time schedule to the Director for modifying the SPPP
to meet minimum requirements. The permittee shall provide certification in writing to the
Director that the changes have been made.
9. SPPP Implementation. The permittee shall implement the Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Plan and all appropriate BMPs consistent with the provisions of this permit, in order to control
contaminants entering surface waters via stormwater. Implementation of the SPPP shall
include documentation of all monitoring, measurements, inspections, maintenance activities,
and training provided to employees, including the log of the sampling data and of actions taken
to implement BMPs associated with the industrial activities, including vehicle maintenance
activities. Such documentation shall be kept on-site for a period of five (5) years and made
available to the Director or the Director's authorized representative immediately upon request.
A. (26.) TEMPERATURE LIMIT COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE- OUTFALL 008
The facility shall develop the plan for compliance with the State temperature standard and submit
the plan to the Division within 1 year from the effective date of the permit. The plan shall contain
Page 17 of 19

Permit NC0001422
milestones and the specific action items. After the plan is approved by the Division, it will become an
enforceable part of the permit.
A. (27.) ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS AND DEFINITIONS
1. EPA methods 200.7 or 200.8 (or the most current versions) shall be used for analyses of all
metals except for total mercury.
2. All effluent samples for all external outfalls shall be taken at the most accessible location
after the final treatment but prior to discharge to waters of the U.S. (40 CFR 122.416)).
3. The term low volume waste sources means wastewater from all sources except thouse for
which specific limitations are otherwise established in this part (40 CFR 423.11 (b)).
4. The term chemical metal cleaning waste means any wastewater resulting from cleaning any
metal process equipment with chemical compounds, including, but not limited to, boiler
tube cleaning (40 CFR 423.11 (c)).
5. The term metal cleaning waste means any wastewater resulting from cleaning [with or
without chemical cleaning compounds] any metal process equipment including, but not
limited to, boiler tube cleaning, boiler fireside cleaning, and air preheater cleaning (40 CFR
423.11 (d)).
6. For all outfalls where the flow measurement is to be "estimated" the estimate can be done by
using calibrated V -notch weir, stop -watch and graduated cylinder, or other method
approved by the Division.
7. During normal operations removing of the free water above the settled wet ash layer shall
not involve mechanical disturbance of the ash.
Page 18 of 19

Permit NC0001422
Appendix A.
Plan for Identification of New Discharges (attached).
Page 19 of 19

EXHIBIT 4
Riverbend Final NPDES Permit NC0004961
February 12, 2016

r
Water Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
February 12, 2016
Mt. Hairy Sidetis, Senior Vice President
Environmental, Health and Safety
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC
Mail Code EC13K
P.O. Box 1006
Charlotte, North Carolina 28201-1006
PAT MCCRORY
Govemor
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
Secrelai),
S. JAY ZIMMERMAN
Subject: NPDES Permit Issuance
Permit No. NC0004961
Rivetbend Steam Station
Gaston County
Deal Mr. Sidetis:
Di eclor
The Division of Water Resources is foiivatding herewith the Final NPDES permit for Riverbend
Steam Station. This permit renewal is issued pursuant to the requirements of North Carolina
General Statute 143-215.1 and the Memorandum of Agreement between North Carolina and the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency dated October 15, 2007 (or as subsequently amended).
A public hearing was held on April 8, 2015 in Lincolnton seeking- comments on the Draft
permit. This Final permit incorporates recommendations of the DWR Heating Officer, EPA, as
well as other changes. Listed below are all changes from the Draft permit:
• The Outfall 010 .was eliminated and the Special Condition A. (16.) was updated to meet
the requirements of The Water Quality Standard Regulatory Revisions Final Rule that has
become effective on October 20, 2015.
• Fish tissue monitoring was increased to annually from once every five years to address the
EPA comment. Please see Special Condition A. (12.).
• The Additional Conditions and Definitions Special Condition was added to the permit to
address the EPA comment. Please see Special Condition A. (20.).
• Measurement frequency was changed from "Episodic" to "Per discharge event" (Outfall
002A) to address the EPA comment.
• The Flow 1 -nit was added for Outfall 002 (dewatering phase) to address the EPA
comment.
• The automatic pump shutoff requirements for TSS limit exceedance was added for Outfall
002 to address the EPA comment.
• The vas -fiance from Monthly Avetage TSS,limit (Outfall 002 and Outfall 011) was eliminated
to address the EPA comment.
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Water Resources
1617 Mail service Center I Raleigh, Noah Carolina 27699-1611
919 707 9000

• Monitoring frequency for all parameters was increased to Weekly for Outfall 002 to address
the EPA comment.
• The specific date of December 31, 2019 replaced 4.5•yeats for Outfall 002. This change
was made to address EPA comment. Please see Special Condition A. (2).
• Clarifying language was added to define the discharge from the ash pond under normal
operating conditions to address the Heating Officer -recommendation and the comment
from the permittee. Please see Special Condition A. (2).
• The definition of dewatering was added to Special Condition A. (3.). The definition was
added to address the Hearing Office recommendation and the comment from the
permittee.
• The effluent concentration for Whole Effluent Toxicity was changed to correct a typo, the
correct concentration is 2.7%. Please see footnote to Special Conditions A. (2.) and A. (3).
The footnote describing conditions for monitoring Total Copper and Total Iron was
removed (Outfall 011) to correct an error.
• Description of the wastewater sources for Outfall 001 and Outfall 002 was updated to
reflect the current status of the facility.
• Clarifying language was added to the Outfall 002 to define the conditions under which the
limits for Total Coppet and Total Iron are applicable. This change was made to address
the Hearing Officer recommendation.
• A distinct outfall was created for each seep with the effluent limits equivalent to the water
quality standards, Technology -Based limits (TSS and Oil & Grease) were also added in
accordance with the 40 CFR 423.
• The monthly seep monitoring was extended to a 12 month period, after which the
monitoring Nvill be reduced to quarterly:
• The following requitements were added to the Condition A. (2.). — Outfall 001: flow limit;
use of a floating pump station with free water skimmed from the basin surface using an
adjustable weir; daily monitoring of flow; continuous monitoring of TSS with auto pump
shut-off if TSS concentration (15 minute average) exceeds half the maximum daily TSS limit
(pumping will be allowed to continue if interruption might result in a dam failure or
damage); real time pH monitoring with an auto shut-off if the 15 --minute running average
pH falls below 6.1 standard units or rises above 8.9 standard units; drawdown to no less than
three feet above the ash; and monitoring for total chromium, total lead, total cadmium, and
total dissolved solids.
If any parts, measurement frequencies, or sampling tequirements contained in this permit are
unacceptable to you, you have the tight to an adjudicatoiy hearing upon written request witivn thirty
(30) days following receipt of this letter. This request must be in the form of a written petition,
conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes, and filed with the office of
Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-6714. Unless
such a demand is made, this permit shall be final and binding.
Please take notice that this permit is not transferable except after notice to the Division of Water
Resources. Tlie Division may require modification or revocation and teissuance of the permit. This
permit does not affect the legal requirements to obtain other permits which may be requited by the
Division of Water Resources, the Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources, the Coastal
Area Management Act, o -r any other federal or local governmental permit.

If you have any questions on this peimit, please contact Setgei Chernikov at 919-807-6386.
Sin.cetely,
*S.4;ettnaan, P.G.
Ditector, Division of Water Resources
Hardcopy: Cental Files
NPDES Files
Mooiesville Regional Office, SWPS
Email: US EPA, Region IV
Aquatic Toxicology Unit
David MeriTman, Catawba Riverkeepet, [[e-mail]]

Peimit NC0004961
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
PERMIT
TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provision of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1, other lawful
standards and regulations promulgated and adopted by the North Carolina Environmental
Management Commission, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended,
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at the
Riverbend Steam Station
Mount Holly
Gaston County
to receiving waters designated as the Catawba River (Mountain Island Lake) in the
Catawba River Basin
in accordance with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other
applicable conditions set forth in Parts I, II, III, and Appendix A.
This permit shall become effective March 1, 2016.
This permit and authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on February 29, 2020.
Signed this day February 12, 2016.
S. Jayi m an P.G., Director
Division f er Resources
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission
Page 1 of 27

Permit NC0004961
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
All previous NPDES Permits issued to this facility, whether for operation or discharge are hereby
revoked. As of this permit issuance, any previously issued permit bearing this number is no longer
effective. Therefore, the exclusive authority to operate and discharge from this facility arises under
the permit conditions, requirements, terms, and provisions included herein.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC is- hereby authorized to:
1. Continue to discharge:
• Water from the plant chiller system (outfall 001).
• Ash basin discharge (outfall 002) consisting of consisting of stormwater
from roof drains and paving, treated groundwater, track hopper sump
(groundwater), coal pile runoff, general plant/trailer sanitary wastewater,
turbine and boiler rooms sumps, vehicle rinse water, and stormwater from
pond areas, upgradient watershed, and miscellaneous stormwater flows.
Yard sump overflow (outfall 002A).
12 potentially- contaminated groundwater seeps (outfalls 101-112).
Wastewater, stormwater and groundwater (outfall 011).
From a facility located at Riverbend Steam Station, Mount Holly in Gaston
County, and
2. Discharge wastewater from said treatment works at the location specified on
the attached map into the Catawba River, which is classified WS -IV and B -CA
waters in the Catawba River Basin.
Page 2 of 27

Permit NCO004961
Part I
A. (1.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (Outfall
001.) [15A NCAC 0213 .0400 et seq., 02B .0500 et seq.]
During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge plant chiller system from outfall 001. Such discharges shall be
limited and monitored3 by the Permittee as specified below:
Notes:
1. Downstream sampling point: downstream at Mountain Island Lake. If samples are collected
below the water surface, the Permittee will record the sample depth on the DMR form.
2. The ambient temperature shall not exceed 89.60F (32.00C) and is defined as the daily average
downstream water temperature. When the Riverbend Station effluent temperature is recorded
below 89.60F (32.00C), as a daily average, then monitoring and reporting of the downstream water
temperature is not required. In cases where the Permittee experiences equipment problems and
is unable to obtain daily temperatures from the existing temperature monitoring system, the
temperature monitoring must be reestablished within five working days.
3. No later than 270 days from the effective date of this permit, begin submitting discharge
monitoring reports electronically using NC DWR's eDMR application system. See Special
Condition A. (18.).
Chlorination of the once through condenser cooling water, discharged through outfall 001, is
not allowed under this permit. Should Duke Energy wish to chlorinate its condenser cooling
water, a Division permission must be requested and received prior to commencing
chlorination.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
Page 3 of 27
EN'
'A
C-
HAR.A. ERISTICS •. -
T
;1
-Yy-
- -
`ti I.l
- ;' r
=
- - - -
1Vloiit-
hl
a
"n�
-iVieasu"re `e
xn
;S -
-
-P.
tion.
Flow, MGD
Monthly
Pump Logs
Influent or
Effluent
Temperature (°F)
Monthly
Grab
Effluent
Temperature (oF)2
59.6 (32-C)
Monthly
Grab
Downstream
Notes:
1. Downstream sampling point: downstream at Mountain Island Lake. If samples are collected
below the water surface, the Permittee will record the sample depth on the DMR form.
2. The ambient temperature shall not exceed 89.60F (32.00C) and is defined as the daily average
downstream water temperature. When the Riverbend Station effluent temperature is recorded
below 89.60F (32.00C), as a daily average, then monitoring and reporting of the downstream water
temperature is not required. In cases where the Permittee experiences equipment problems and
is unable to obtain daily temperatures from the existing temperature monitoring system, the
temperature monitoring must be reestablished within five working days.
3. No later than 270 days from the effective date of this permit, begin submitting discharge
monitoring reports electronically using NC DWR's eDMR application system. See Special
Condition A. (18.).
Chlorination of the once through condenser cooling water, discharged through outfall 001, is
not allowed under this permit. Should Duke Energy wish to chlorinate its condenser cooling
water, a Division permission must be requested and received prior to commencing
chlorination.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
Page 3 of 27

Permit NC0004961
A. (2.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (Outfall
002 -normal operation) [15A NCAC 02B .0400 et seq., 02B .0500 et seq.]
During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall 002 - Ash Pond Discharge (removing the free
water above the settled ash layer that does not involve mechanical movement of the ash).
Such discharges shall be limited and monitored6 by the Permittee as specified below:
U
-FEEL ENT ; •,��- _
4.�
.0 A •'RI CS}
_
��•� _
-
LLLIMITS =__
_ _ _
RERMONITORING`_UIREM_
.a -
_
"a" ;Sa I cats ri'
(Me m
--
r M u --
Flow
5.74 MGD
Daily
Pump logs or
estimate
Influent or Effluent
Total Suspended Sol &
23,0 mg/L
75.0 mg/L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Oil and Grease
11.0 mg/L
15.0 mg/L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Copper'
1.0 mg/L
1.0 mg/L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Iron'
1.0 mg/L
1,0 mg/L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Arsenic
52.5 g/L
72.5 ug/L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Selenium
68.0 g/L
127.5 /L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Nitrate/nitrite as N
0.65 mg/L
0.85 mg/L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Arsenic
10.5 HglU
14,5 Hg/12
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Selenium
13.6 pg/L7
25.5pg/L7
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Mercury
47.0 ng/L5
47,0 ng/L5
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Nitrate/nitrite as N
0,13 mg1U
0.17 mg/L7
Weekly.
Grab
Effluent
Total Phosphorus, mg/L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Nitrogen (NO2 + NO3 + TKN),
mg/L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
pH2
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Chronic Toxicity3
Monthly
Grab
Effluent
Turbidit 4 NTU
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Chromium, pg/L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Cadmium, g/L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Lead, g/L
Weekl _t___
Grab
Effluent
TDS, mg/L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Notes:
1. The limits for total copper and total iron only apply when chemical metal cleaning wastewaters
are being discharged.
2. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units. The facility
shall conduct a real time pH monitoring with an auto shut-off if the 15 -minute running average
pH falls below 6.1 standard units or rises above 8.9 standard units.
3. Whole Effluent Toxicity shall be monitored by chronic toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F at 2.7%. Tests
shall be conducted in January, April, July and October (see Part A.(6.) for details).
4. The discharge from this facility shall not cause turbidity in the receiving stream to exceed 50
NTU. If the instream turbidity exceeds 50 NTU due to natural background conditions, the
discharge cannot cause turbidity to increase in the receiving stream.
NTU - Nephelometric Turbidity Unit.
5. The facility shall use EPA method 1631E.
6. No later than 270 days from the effective date of this permit, begin submitting discharge '
monitoring reports electronically using NC DWR's eDMR application system. See Special
Condition A. (18.).
7. The TBEL limits shall be met no later than December 31, 2019. This time period is provided
in order for the facility to budget, design, and construct the treatment system. Permit might
be re -opened to implement the final EPA Effluent Guidelines and more stringent limits
might be added.
8. The facility shall continuously monitor TSS concentration and the dewatering pump shall be
shutoff automatically when the one half of the Daily Maximum limit (15 minutes -average) is
Page 4 of 27

Permit NC0004961
exceeded. Pumping will be allowed to continue if interruption might result in a dam failure or
damage.
The facility is allowed to drawdown the wastewater in the lagoon to no less than three feet
above the ash.
The facility shall use of a floating pump station with free water skimmed from the basin
surface using an adjustable weir.
The metal cleaning waste, coal pile runoff, ash transport water, domestic wastewater,
and low volume waste shall be discharged into the ash settling pond.
No chemicals, cleaners, or other additives may be presentAn the vehicle wash water
to be discharged from this outfall. ,
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace
amounts. The level of water in the pond should not be lowered more than 1 ft/week,
unless approved by the DEQ Dam Safety Program.
Page 5 of 27

Permit NC0004961
A. (3.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (Outfall
002-dowatering phase) [15A NCAC 02B.0400 et seq., 02B.0500 et seq.]
During the period beginning on the commencement date of the dewatering operations and lasting
until expiration, the Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall'002 - Ash Pond Discharge
(Dewatering -removing the interstitial water). Such discharges shall be limited and monitored7 by
the Permittee as specified below:
`EFFLUENT;
Ci� ET
C ATRI S ICS
HRA
- �_'"- Y,• - ___ '\y, - �u �1-h':.>=, - fir. - ���_ "p- - ;�- -
j
--
REQ - IREME T
-
,om- -Mo`n"th}`l \S•
`- ':1==:Mea9u-
r
''A 'Maxi'mum
- m -
re ent: - =_S -am Ie T•� "e;'- - -S am- le - L`-o-cafisoi�'•n''i`=- . ._
Flow
1.45 MGD
Weekly
Pump logs or
estimate
Influent or Effluent
Total Suspended Solids'
23.0 mg/L
75.0 mg/L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Oil and Grease
11.0 mg/L
15.0 mg/L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Copper2
1.0 mg/L
1.0 mg/L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Iron2
1.0 mg/L
1.0 mg/L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Arsenic
10.5 Ng/L
14.5 g/L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Selenium
13.6pg/L.
25.5 g/L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Aluminum
3.18 mg/L
3.18 mg/L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Mercury
47.0 ng/1_6
47.0 ng/Ls
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Nitrate/nitrate as N
0.13 mg/L
0.17 mg/L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Phosphorus, mg/L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Nitrogen (NO2 + NO3+ TKN),
mg/L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
H3
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Chronic Toxicity4
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Turbidity5, NTU
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Notes:
1. The facility shall continuously monitor TSS concentration and the dewatering pump shall be
shutoff automatically when the limits are exceeded.
2. The limits for total copper and total iron only apply when chemical metal cleaning
wastewaters are being discharged.
3. The pH -shall not be'less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
4. Whole Effluent Toxicity shall be monitored by chronic toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/ F at 2.7%.
Tests shall be conducted in January, April, July and October (see Part A.(6.) for details).
5. The discharge from this facility shall not cause turbidity in the receiving stream to exceed 50
NTU. If the instream turbidity exceeds 50 NTU due to natural background conditions, the
discharge cannot cause turbidity to increase in the receiving stream.
NTU - Nephelometric Turbidity Unit.
6. The facility shall use EPA method 1631E.
7. No later than 270 days from the effective date of this permit, begin submitting discharge
monitoring reports electronically using NC DWR's eDMR application system. See
Special Condition A. (18.).
The metal cleaning waste, coal pile runoff, ash transport water, domestic wastewater,
and low volume waste shall be discharged into the ash settling pond.
No chemicals, cleaners, or other additives may be present in the vehicle wash water
to be discharged from this outfall. There shall be no discharge of floating solids or
visible foam in other than trace amounts.
The level of water in the pond should not be lowered more than 1 ft/week unless
approved by the DEQ Darn Safety Program.
Page 6 of 27

Permit NCO004961
A. (4.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING'r REQUIREMENTS (Outfall
002A) [15A NCAC 02B .0400 et seq., 02B .0500 et seq.]
During the period beginning on the effective date of this p6rmit and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall 002A —Yard Sump -Overflows. Such discharges
shall be limited and monitored3 by the Permittee as specified below:
--_ �
EFFLUENT.. - :" ""= ''"
_� _; --
`" A " �.IM1TS `_ - - =
' `'` Y : , ;;'MONITORING'REQUIREMENTS ". -
-
-
."i`t
-CH� C TE ST1CS
�RA RI
; _- -
- _ - _ _ - --
-
- -
MonEhl'
_Dail
f�easureme"
"'x::Sam"'1e'T 'e°, :'r
Sa` "te Loc ion .
Ave ra' a
g
'M azimum `
qu y^:,.
:Fre' `enc`
_
Flow, MGD
Per discharge
Estimate
Effluent
event
Total Suspended Solids
23.0 mg/L
75.0 mg/L
Per discharge
Grab
Effluent
event
Oil and Grease
11,0 mg/L
15.0 mg/L
Per discharge
Grab
Effluent
event
Fecal Coliform, CPU/100 mL
Per discharge
Grab
Effluent
event
Total Copper2
1.0 mg/L
1.0 mg/L
Per discharge
Grab
Effluent
event
Total Iron2
1.0 mg/L
1.0 mg/L
Per discharge
Grab
Effluent
event
pH4
Per discharge
Grab
Effluent
event
Notes:
1. Effluent samples shall be collected prior to the discharge to the receiving stream.
2. The limits for total copper and total iron only apply when chemical metal cleaning
wastewaters are being discharged.
3. No later than 270 days from the effective date of this permit, begin submitting discharge
monitoring reports electronically using NC DWR's eDMR application system. See Special
Condition A. (18.).
4. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9,0 standard units.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace
amounts.
ALL FLOWS SHALL BE REPORTED ON MONTHLY DMRS. SHOULD NO FLOW OCCUR DURING A
GIVEN MONTH, THE WORDS "NO FLOW" SHOULD BE CLEARLY WRITEN ON THE FRONT OF
THE DMR. ALL SAMPLES SHALL BE OF A REPRESENTATIVE DISCHARGE.
Page 7 of 27

Permit NC0004961
A. (5.) CHRONIC TOXICITY PASS/FAIL PERMIT LIMIT (QUARTERLY) (Outfall
002) [15A NCAC 02B .0200 et seq.]
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit observable inhibition of reproduction or significant
mortality to CeHodaphnia dubia at an effluent concentration of 2.7%.
The permit holder shall perform at a minimum, quarterly monitoring using test procedures outlined
in the "North Carolina Ceriodaphnia Chronic Effluent Bioassay Procedure," Revised December 2010,
or subsequent versions or "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure"
(Revised- December 2010) or subsequent versions. Effluent sampling for this testing must be
obtained during representative effluent discharge and shall be performed at the NPDES permitted
final effluent discharge below all treatment processes.
If the test procedure performed as the first test of any single quarter results in a failure or
ChV below the permit limit, then multiple -concentration testing shall be performed at a
minimum, in each of the two following months as described in "North Carolina Phase II
Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -December 2010) or subsequent
versions.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent
Discharge Monitoring Form (MR -1) for the months in which tests were performed, using the
parameter code TGP313 for the pass/fail results and THP3B for the Chronic Value. Additionally,
DWR Form AT -3 (original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention: North Carolina Division of Water Resources
Water Sciences Section/Aquatic Toxicology Branch
1623 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1623
Completed Aquatic Toxicity Test Forms shall be filed with the Water Sciences Section no later than
30 days after the end of the reporting period for which the report is made.
Test data shall be complete, accurate, include all supporting chemical/ physical measurements and
all concentration/ response data, and be certified by laboratory supervisor and ORC or approved
designate signature. Total residual chlorine of the effluent toxicity sample must be measured and
reported if chlorine is employed for disinfection of the waste stream.
Should there be no discharge of flow from the facility during a month in which toxicity monitoring is
required, the permittee will complete the information located at the top of the aquatic toxicity (AT)
test form indicating the facility name, permit number, pipe number, county, and the month/year of
the report with the notation of "No Flow" in the comment area of the form. The report shall be
submitted to the Water Sciences Section at the address cited above.
Should the permittee fail to monitor during a month in which toxicity monitoring is required,
monitoring will be required during the following month. Assessment of toxicity compliance is based
on the toxicity testing quarter, which is the three month time interval that begins on the first day of
the month in which toxicity testing is required by this permit and continues until the final day of the
third month.
Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina
Division of Water Resources indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this permit may be
re -opened and modified to include alternate monitoring requirements or limits.
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum
control organism survival, minimum control organism reproduction, and appropriate environmental
controls, shall constitute an invalid test and will require immediate follow-up testing to be
completed no later than the last day of the month following the month of the initial monitoring.
Page 8 of 27

Permit NC0004961
A. (6.) BIOCIDE CONDITION
The permittee shall not use any biocides except those approved in conjunction with the permit
application, The permittee shall notify the Director in writing not later than ninety (90) days prior to
instituting use of any additional biocide used in cooling systems which may be toxic to aquatic life
other than those previously reported to the Division of Water Resources. Such notification shall
include. completion of Biocide Worksheet.Form 101 and a map locating the discharge point and
receivig stream. Completion of a Biocide Worksheet 101 is not necessary for the introduction of a
new biocide into an outfall currently being tested for toxicity.
A. (7.) SPECIAL CONDITIONS
The following special conditions are applicable to all outfalls regulated by NC0004961:
o There shall be no discharge of polychlorinated biphenyl compounds.
® Discharge of any product registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
to any waste stream which may ultimately be released to lakes, rivers, streams or other waters of
the United States is prohibited unless specifically authorized elsewhere in this permit. Discharge
of chlorine from the use of chlorine gas, sodium hypochlorite, or other similar chlorination
compounds for disinfection in the plant potable and service water systems and in sewage
treatment is authorized. Use of restricted use pesticides for lake management purposes by
applicators licensed by the N.C. Pesticide Board is allowed,
© The Permittee shall report all visible discharges of floating materials, such as an oil sheen, to the
Director when submitting DMRs
A. (S.) PERMIT TERMS
The following are applicable to all outfalls regulated by NC0004961:
• It has been determined from information submitted that the plans and procedures in place at
Riverbend Steam Station are equivalent to that of a BMP.
A. (9.) ASH SETTLING BASIN
Beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting until expiration, there shall be no discharge
of plant wastewater to the ash pond unless the Permittee provides and maintains at all times a
minimum free water volume (between the top of the sediment level and the minimum discharge
elevation) equivalent to the sum -of the maximum 24-hour plant discharges plus all direct rainfall and
all runoff flows to the pond resulting from a 10 -year, 24-hour rainfall event, when using a runoff
coefficient of 1.0. During the term of the permit, the Permittee shall remove settled material from the
ponds or otherwise enlarge the available storage capacities in order to maintain the required
minimum volumes at all times. The Permittee shall determine and report to the permit issuing
authority the following on an annual basis:
1) the actual free water volume of the ash pond,
2) physical measurements of the dimensions of the free water volume in sufficient detail to allow
validation of the calculated volume, and
3) a certification that the required volume is available with adequate safety factor to include all
solids expected to be deposited in the pond for the following year.
Present information indicates a needed volume of 86.2 acre-feet in addition to solids that will be
deposited to the ash pond; any change to plant operations affecting such certification shall be
reported to the Director within five days.
NOTE: In the event that adequate volume has been certified to exist for the term of the permit,
periodic certification is not needed.
Page 9 of 27

Permit NC0004961
A.(10.) GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL CONSTRUCTION AND SAMPLING
The permittee shall conduct groundwater monitoring to determine the compliance of this NPDES
permitted facility with the current groundwater Standards found under 15A NCAC 2L .0200. The
monitoring shall,be conducted in accordance with the Sampling Plan approved by the Division.
A. (11.) STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY INSPECTIONS OF ASH POND DAM
The facility shall meet the dam design and dam safety requirements per 15A NCAC 2K,
A.(12.) FISH TISSUE MONITORING NEAR ASH POND DISCHARGE
The facility shall conduct fish tissue monitoring annually and submit the results with the NPDES
permit renewal application. The objective of the monitoring is to evaluate potential uptake of pollutants
by fish tissue near the Ash Pond discharge. The parameters analyzed in fish tissue shall be arsenic,
selenium, and mercury. The monitoring shall be conducted in accordance with the Sampling Plan
approved by the Division.
A. (13.) INSTREAM MONITORING,
The facility shall conduct semiannual instream monitoring (one upstream and one downstream of the
ash pond discharge) for arsenic, selenium, mercury (method 1631E), chromium, lead, cadmium,
copper, zinc, total hardness, and total dissolved solids (TDS). Instream monitoring should be
conducted at the stations that have already been established through the BIP monitoring program: B
(upstream of the Outfall 002) and C (downstream of the Outfall -'002). The monitoring results shall be
submitted with the NPDES permit renewal application.
A.(14.) ASH POND CLOSURE
The facility shall prepare an Ash Pond Closure Plan in anticipation of the facility closure. This Plan
shall be submitted to the Division one month prior to the decommissioning of the ponds.
A.(15.) PRIORITY POLLUTANT ANALYSIS
The Permittee shall conduct a priority pollutant analysis (in accordance with 40 CFR Part 136) once
per permit cycle at outfall 002 and submit the results with the application for permit renewal.
A.(16.) SEEP POLLUTANT ANALYSIS
The facility identified 12 unpermitted seeps (all non -engineered) from the ash settling basin, of which
10 of the seeps have been classified as "jurisdictional waters" by the United States Army Corps of
Engineers.
Jurisdictional Water Seeps.
For the jurisdictional water seeps, the facility shall determine within 90 days from the effective date
of the permit if a seep meets the state water quality standards established in 15A NCAC 2B .0200
and submit the results of this determination to the Division. If the standards are not contravened,
the facility shall conduct monitoring for the parameters specified in A. (2 1.), A. (22.), A. (23.), A. (24,),
A. (25.), A. (26.), A. (27.), A. (28,), A. (29.), A. (30.), A. (3 1.), and A. (32.).
If any of the water quality standards are exceeded (with the exception of the Action Level standards),
the facility shall be considered in violation of the Clean Water Act until one of the options below is
fully implemented. The facility shall:
1) Submit a complete application for 404 Permit (within 30 days after determining that a water
quality standards exceeded) to pump the seep discharge to one of the existing outfalls, install
a pipe to discharge the seep to the Catawba River, or install on in-situ treatment system.
After the 404 Permit is obtained, the facility shall complete the installation of the pump, pipe,
or treatment system within 180 days from the date of the 404 permit receipt and begin
pumping/ discharging or treatment.
2) Demonstrate through modeling that the decanting and dewatering of the ash basin will result
in the elimination of the seep and submit the modeling results to the Division within 120 days
from the effective date of the permit. Within 180 days from the completion of the dewatering
Page 10 of 27

Permit NC0004961
the facility shall confirm that the seep flow 6eased. If the seep flow continues, the facility
shall choose one of the other options in this Special Condition,
3) Demonstrate that the seep is discharging through the designated "Effluent Channel' and the
water quality standards in the receiving stream are not contravened. This demonstration
should be submitted to the Division no later than 180 days from the effective date of the
permit. The "Effluent Channel' designation should be established by the DEQ Regional Office
personnel prior to the issuance of the permit and appropriate 404 permit shall be obtained.
All effluent limits, including water quality -based effluent limits, remain applicable notwithstanding
any action by the Permittee to address the violation through one of the identified options, so that any
discharg6 in exceedance of an applicable effluent limit is a violation of the Permit as long as the seep
remains flowing.
If jurisdictional water seeps contravene Action Level Standard, the facility shall conduct a Whole
Effluent Toxicity Test (WET test). If the WET result passes, the facility shall be considered in
compliance with the, state water quality standards. If the WET test fails and the Toxicity Identification
Evaluation determines that the parameter contravening the water quality standard is responsible for
the failure the facility shall be considered in violation and, shall implement one of the 3 options
identified above.
Non -Jurisdictional Water Seeps
For the non jurisdictional water seeps the facility shall demonstrate that they will not violate water
quality standards in the receiving stream or that the seep does not discharge to jurisdictional waters
or that the seep does not carry pollutants indicating ash characteristics and submit this
demonstration to the Division within 90 days from the effective date of the permit. If such
demonstration is not possible or not approved by the Division, the facility shall choose one of the 3
options identified above.
New Identified Seeps
If new seeps are identified, the facility shall follow the procedures outlined above for either
jurisdictional waters or non jurisdictional waters. The deadlines for new seeps shall be calculated
from the date of the seep discovery.
Table 1. List of Identified Seeps
The.permittee has identified 12 potentially contaminated seeps in the areas adjacent to the Mountain
Island Lake. The locations of the seeps are identified on the map attached to the permit.
Seep Coordinates and Assigned Outfall Numbers
Seep ID
Latitude
Longitude
Outfall number
S-1
35.365
-80.967
101
S-2
35.365
-80.966
102
S-3
36.369
-80.965
103
S-4
35.371
-80.963
104
S-5*
35.370
-80.963
105
S-6
35.367
-80.958
106
S-7
35.367
-80.957
107
S-8*
35.365
-80,956
108
S-9
35.371
-80.963
109
5-10
35,369
-80.960
110
5-11
35.369
-80.960
111
5-12
1 35.368
-80.959
112
*Non jurisdictional seeps
Page 11 of 27

Permit NC0004961
A. (17.) ELECTRONIC REPORTING OF DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORTS
(State Enforceable Only) [G.S. 143-215.1(b)]
Proposed federal regulations require electronic submittal of all discharge monitoring reports (DMRs)
and specify that, if a state does not establish a system to receive such submittals, then permittees
must submit DMRs electronically to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Division
anticipates that these regulations will be adopted and is beginning implementation in late 2013.
NOTE: This special condition supplements or supersedes the following sections within Part II of this
permit (Standard Conditions for NPDES Permits):
• Section B. (11.) Signatory Requirements
• Section D. (2.) Reporting
• Section D. (6.) Records Retention
• Section E. (5.) Monitoring Reports
1. Reporting [Supersedes Section D. (2.) and Section E. (5.1 (a)1
Beginning no later than 270 days from the effective date of this permit, the permittee shall begin
reporting discharge monitoring data electronically using the NC DWR's Electronic Discharge
Monitoring Report (eDMR) internet application.
Monitoring results obtained during the previous month(s) shall be summarized for each month
and submitted electronically using eDMR. The eDMR system allows permitted facilities to enter
monitoring data and submit DMRs electronically using the internet. Until such time that the
state's eDMR application is compliant with EPA's Cross -Media Electronic Reporting Regulation
(CROMERR), permittees will be required to submit all discharge monitoring data to the state
electronically using eDMR and will be required to complete the eDMR submission by printing,
signing, and submitting one signed original and a copy of the computer printed eDMR to the
following address:
NC DENR / DWR / Information Processing Unit
ATTENTION: Central Files / eDMR
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
If a permittee is unable to use the eDMR system due to a demonstrated hardship or due to the
facility being physically located in an area where less than 10 percent of the households have
broadband access, then a temporary waiver from the NPDES electronic reporting requirements
may be granted and discharge monitoring data may be submitted on paper DMR forms (MR 1,
1. 1, 2, 3) or alternative forms approved by the Director. Duplicate signed copies shall be
submitted to the mailing address above.
Requests for temporary waivers from the NPDES electronic reporting requirements must be
submitted in writing to the Division for written approval at least sixty (60) days prior to the date
the facility would be required under this permit to begin using eDMR. Temporary waivers shall
be valid for twelve (12) months and shall thereupon expire. At such time, DMRs shall be
submitted electronically to the Division unless the permittee re -applies for and is granted a new
temporary waiver by the Division.
Information on eDMR and application for a temporary waiver from the NPDES electronic
reporting requirements is found on the following web page:
http• / Iportal.ncdenr.org/web/wa/admin/bog/ipu/edmr
Page 12 of 27

Permit NC0004961
Regardless of the submission method, the first DMR is due on the last day of the month following
the issuance of the permit or in the case of a new facility, on the last day of the month following
the commencement of discharge.
2. Signatory Requirements [Supplements Section B. (11.) (b) and supersedes Section B. (11.)
All eDMRs submitted to the permit issuing authority shall be signed by a person described in
Part II, Section B. (11.)(a) or by a duly authorized representative of that person as described in
Part II, Section B. (I 1.)(b). A person, and not a position, must be delegated signatory authority
for eDMR reporting purposes.
For eDMR submissions, the person signing and submitting the DMR must obtain an eDMR user
account and login credentials to access the eDMR system. For more information on North
Carolina's eDMR system, registering for eDMR and obtaining an eDMR user account, please visit
the following web page:
http:/1 portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/admin/bo /g ipu/edmr
Certification. Any person submitting an electronic DMR using the state's eDMR system shall
make the following certification [40 CFR 122.22]. NO OTHER STATEMENTS OF CERTIFICATION
WILL BE ACCEPTED:
"I certzN, underpenalty of law, that this document and all attachments were prepared under my
direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel
properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or
persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the
information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate,
and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information,
including the possibility offines and imprisonment for knowing violations."
3. Records Retention Lupplements Section D. (6.)]
The permittee shall retain records of all Discharge Monitoring Reports, including eDMR
submissions. These records or copies shall be maintained for a period of at least 3 years from
the date of the report. This period may be extended by request of the Director at any time [40
CFR 122.41].
A. (18.) APPLICABLE STATE LAW (State Enforceable Only)
This facility shall meet the requirements of Senate Bill 729 (Coal Ash Management Act). This permit
may be reopened to include new requirements imposed by Senate Bill 729.
Page 13 of 27

Permit NC0004961
A. (19.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (Outfall
011) [15A NCAC 02B .0400 et seq., 02B .0500 et seq.]
During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall 011 — Former Stormwater Outfall 1. Such
discharges shall be limited and monitored3 by the Permittee as specified below:
EFFLUENT_';MONITORING
CHARACTERISTICS
- -
REQUIREMENTS, _
- - -
Monttil ` ;'Daily
Average Maximum
Measurement ; Sample Type: Sample`Locdtion `.
'Fregiaericy'; -
Flow, MGD
Monthly
Pump logs or
estimate
Influent or Effluent
Total Suspended Solids
23.0 mg/L
75.0 mg/L
Monthly
Grab
Effluent
Oil and Grease
91.0 mg/L
95.0 mg/L
Annuall
Grab
Effluent
Total Arsenic, ug/L
Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Selenium, g/L
Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Mercury4, ng/L
Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Nitrate/nitrate as N, mg/L
Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
.Total Phosphorus, mg/L
Semi-annually
Grab
Effluent
Total Nitrogen (NO2+ NO3 + TKN),
mg/L
Semi-annually
Grab
Effluent
pHA
Monthly
Grab
Effluent
Turbidity2, NTU
Monthly
Grab
Effluent
Notes:
1. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
2. The discharge from this facility shall not cause turbidity in the receiving stream to exceed 50
NTU. If the instream turbidity exceeds 50 NTU due to natural background conditions, the
discharge cannot cause turbidity to increase in the receiving stream.
NTU - Nephelometric Turbidity Unit.
3. No later than 270 days from the effective date of this permit, begin submitting discharge
monitoring reports electronically using NC DWR's eDMR application system. See
Special Condition A. (18.).
4. The facility shall use EPA method 1631E.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace
amounts.
A. (20.) ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS AND DEFINITIONS
1. EPA methods 200.7 or 200.8 (or the most current versions) shall be used for analyses of all
metals except for total mercury.
2. All effluent samples for all external outfalls shall be taken at the most accessible location after
the final treatment but prior to discharge to waters of the U.S. (40 CFR 122.416)).
3. The term low volume waste sources means wastewater from all sources except those for which
specific limitations are otherwise established in this part (40 CFR 423.11 (b)).
4. The term chemical metal cleaning waste means any wastewater resulting from cleaning any
metal process equipment with chemical compounds, including, but not limited to, boiler tube
cleaning (40 CFR 423.11 (c)).
5. The term metal cleaning waste means any wastewater resulting from cleaning [with or
without chemical cleaning compounds] any metal process equipment including, but not
limited to, boiler tube cleaning, boiler fireside cleaning, and air preheater cleaning (40 CFR
423.11 (d)).
6. For all outfalls where the flow measurement is to be "estimated" the estimate can be done by
using calibrated,V-notch weir, stop -watch and graduated cylinder, or other method approved
by the Division.
Page 14 of 27

Permit NC0004961
A. (21.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (Outfall
101) [15A NCAC 02B .0400 et seq., 02B.0500 et seq.]
During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall 101 - Seep Discharge. Such discharges shall be
limited and monitored' by the Permittee as specified below:
EFFLUENT :;_- -.:-..`,-_ ". `,•`= ; .` :':..::. :.
CHARACTERISTICS
:.:
:: • : ` ,.
:::.. `_=<<LI"MITS ....; `=
Daily
Average' Maztmum`
_;. '. =: -=_ :"=-MONITORING;REQUIREMENT$,
IVleasa:reineni''` "Sample;Type: Samplelocatkn
= .Y:
: Frdqudricy?::
Flow, MGD
Monthly/Quarterly
Estimate
Effluent
H3
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Fluoride
1.8 mg/L
1.8 mg/L
Month[y/Quarterly Month[/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Mercur 4, ng/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Barium
1.0 mg/L
1,0 mg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Iron, mg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Manganese, Ng/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Zinc, pg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Arsenic
10.0 pg/L
50,0 Ng/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Cadmium
2.0 pg/L
15.0 g/L
Month' /Quarterl
Grab
Effluent
Total Chromium
50.0 g/L
1,022.0 ug/L
Monthl/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Copper, g/L
Monthly/Qu rterl
Grab
Effluent
Total Lead, Hg/L
25.Opg/L
33.8 Hg/L
Month ly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Nickel
25,0 pg/L
25.0 g/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Selenium
5.0 pg/L
56.0 Ng/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Nitrate as N
10.0 mg/L
10.0 mg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Sulfates
250.0 mg/L
250,0 mg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Chlorides
250.0 mg/L
250.0 mg/L
Monthl /Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
TDS
500.0 mg/L
500.0 mg/L
Monthl/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Hardness, mg/L
100.0 mg/L
100.0 mg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
TSS
30,0 mg/L
100.0 mg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Oil and Grease
15.0 mg/L
20.0 mg/L.
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Temperature, OC
Monthly/Qu rterly
Grab
Effluent
Specific Conductance, prnho/cm
Month ly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Notes: u
1. No later than 270 days from the effective date of this permit, begin submitting discharge
monitoring reports electronically using NC DWR's eDMR application system. See Special
Condition A. (18.) .
2. The facility shall conduct'monthly sampling from the effective date of the permit. After one year
from the effective date of the permit the monitoring will be reduced to quarterly
3. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
4. The facility shall use EPA method 1631E.
If the facility is unable to obtain a seep sample due to the dry or low flow conditions
preventing the facility from obtaining a representative sample, the "no flow" should be
reported on the DMR. This requirement is established in the Section D of the Standard
Conditions and 40 CER 122.41 a).
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace
amounts.
Page 15 of 27

Permit NC0004961
A. (22.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (Outfall
102) [15A NCAC 02B .0400 et seq., 02B .0500 et seq.]
During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall 102 - Seep Discharge. Such discharges shall be
limited and monitored' by the Permittee asspecified below:
=. I I - -- ONITO ING" E UIRE ENTS
EFFLUENT = :L M T.S' `.r. M R R Q M
TE ��_ - -
RA RIC ._
- - - _ `as "�"e' y'e" :Sam^• e�''""-e � 'rSam� Ie�Lo t n
'Me -
- p.
re
era" zimu F iieric
e Ma m
%1v ;
Flow, MGD
Monthly/Quarterly
Estimate
Effluent
pH3
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Fluoride
1.8 mg/L
1.8 mg/L
Monthly/Quarterly Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Mercur 4, ng/L
Monthly/Qu rterl
Grab
Effluent
Total Barium
1.0 mg/L
1.0 mg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Iron, mg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Manganese, Hg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Zinc, Hg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Arsenic
10.0 Hg/L
50.0 g/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Cadmium
2,0 Hg/L
15.0 N /L
Monthly/Quarterl
Grab
Effluent
Total Chromium
50.0 g/L
1,022.0 Hg/L
Monthly/Quarterly Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Copper, Hg/L
Month/ /Qu rterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Lead, Hg/L
25,OHg/L
33.8 pg/L
Month/ /Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Nickel
25.0 lug/L
25.0 lug/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Selenium
5.0 lug/L
56.0 pg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Nitrate as N
10.0 mg/L
10.0 mg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Sulfates
250.0 mg/L
250,0 mg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Chlorides
250.0 mg/L
250.0 mg/L
MonthlylQuarterly
Grab
Effluent
TDS
500.0 mg/L
500.0 mg/L
Monthly/Quarterly Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
.Total Hardness, mg/L
100.0 mg/L
100.0 mg/L
Monthly/QuarterlL
Grab
Effluent
TSS, mg/L
30.0 mg/L
100.0 mg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Oil and Grease
15.0 mg/L
20.0 mg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Temperature, OC
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Specific Conductance, Hmho/cm
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Notes:
1. No later than 270 days from the effective date of this permit, begin submitting discharge
monitoring reports electronically using NC DWR's eDMR application system. See Special
Condition A. (18.).
2. The facility shall conduct monthly sampling from the effective date of the permit. After one year
from the effective date of the permit the monitoring will be reduced to quarterly
3. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
4. The facility shall use EPA method 1631E.
If the facility is unable to obtain a seep sample due to the dry or low flow conditions
preventing the facility from obtaining a representative sample, the "no flow" should be
reported on the DMR. This requirement is established in the Section D of the Standard
Conditions and 40 CFR 122.416).
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace
amounts.
Page 16 of 27

Permit NC0004961
A. (23.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (Outfall
103) [15A NCAC 02B .0400 et seq., 02B .0500 et seq.]
During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall 103 - Seep Discharge. Such discharges shall be
limited and monitored' by the Permittee as specified below:
f F_FL.UENT;,'=C MIM -MONITORING=RE UIREMEN7S =
C " A _
H RAC SICS -
i' RI
E - - - _
_ -Mo ;D`'I =:MeTs' enion
ai a u'rem ° Sa' ' le T e': m le Loc
Y..,' Y K Yp p
- - p-
T" 'Maxim ` ,Fre
Flow, MGD
Monthly/Quarterly
Estimate
Effluent
pH3
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Fluoride
1.8 mg/L
1.8 mg/L
Month' /Quarter)
Grab
Effluent
Total Mercury4, ng/L
uarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Barium
1,0 mg/L
1,0 mg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Iron, mg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Manganese, Ng/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Zinc, Hg/L
Monthly/Qu rterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Arsenic
10.0 g/L
50.0 Hg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Cadmium
2,0 ug/L
15.0 pg/L
Month' /Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Chromium
50.0 /L
1,022.0 g/L
Month' /Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Copper, pg/L
Monthly/Qu rterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Lead, Ng/L
25.Olug/L
33,8 Ng/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Nickel
25.0 g/L
25,0 Hg/L
Monthly/Quarter)
Grab
Effluent
Total Selenium
5.0 ug/L
56.0 Hg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Nitrate as N
10,0 mg/L
10,0 mg/L
Month ly/Qu arter'F
Grab
Effluent
Sulfates
250.0 mg/L
250.0 mg/L
Month' /Qu arterly
Grab
Effluent
Chlorides
250.0 m /L
250.0 m /L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent -
TDS
500.0 mg/L
500.0 mg/L
Monthly/Quartegy
Grab
Effluent
Total Hardness, mg/L
100.0 mg/L
100.0 mg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
TSS, mg/L
30.0 mg/L
100.0 mg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Oil and Grease
15.0 mg/L
20.0 mg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Temperature, OC
Monthly/Quarter)
Grab
Effluent
Specific Conductance, lumho/cm
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Notes:
1. No later than 270 days from the effective date of this permit, begin submitting discharge
monitoring reports electronically using NC DWR's eDMR application system. See Special
Condition A. (18.).
2. The facility shall conduct monthly sampling from the effective date of the permit. After one year
from the effective date of the permit the monitoring will be reduced to quarterly
3. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
4. The facility shall use EPA method 1631E.
If the facility is unable to obtain a seep sample due to the dry or low flow conditions
preventing the facility from obtaining a representative sample, the "no flow" should be
reported on the DMR. This requirement is established in the Section D of the Standard
Conditions and 40 CPR 122.41 (j).
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace
amounts.
Page 17 of 27

Permit NC0004961
A. (24.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (Outfall
104) [15A NCAC 02B .0400 et seq., 02B.0500 et seq.]
During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall 104 - Seep Discharge. Such discharges shall be
limited and monitored' by the Permittee as specified below:
MONITO ING'REQ UIRE_MENTS =
;hFFL'UENT°= I R
1
�C� STIGS.� - - -_
-CHARA TERI - � - -
Month' "Dail -Meas'u're tit":`J Sam I T a" L`oc' 'oii`
- y . m p.- , Yp, p
ve � �`Mazirriurii� Fre nc '�a
-_ _ -- •`4�_ - - - A rage;
Flow, MGD
Monthly/Quarterly
Estimate
Effluent
H3
Month ly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Fluoride
1.8 mg/L
1.8 mg/L
Month' /.Quarter)
Grab
Effluent
Total Mercury4, ng/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Barium
1.0 mg/L
1.0 mg/L
Month' /Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Iron, mg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Manganese, lag/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Zinc, g/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Arsenic
10.0 lag/L
50.0 lag/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Cadmium
2.0 g/L
15.0 g/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Chromium
50.0 Ng/L
1,022.0 lag/L
Month' /Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Copper, g/L
Monthly/Qu rterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Lead, lag/L
25.Olag/L
33,8 lag/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Nickel
25.0 lag/L
25.0 lag/L
Month' /Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Selenium
5.0 Ng/L
56.0 lag/L
Month' /Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Nitrate as N
10.0 mg/L
10.0 mg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Sulfates
250.0 mg/L
250.0 mg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Chlorides
250.0 mg/L
250.0 mg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
TDS
500.0 m /L
500.0 mg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Hardness, mg/L
100.0 mg/L
100.0 mg/L
Month' /Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
TSS, mg/L
30,0 mg/L
100,0 mg/L
Month' /Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Oil and Grease
15.0 mg/L
20.0 mg/L
Month' /Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Temperature, °C
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Specific Conductance, umho/cm
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Notes:
1. No later than 270 days from the effective date of this permit, begin submitting discharge
monitoring reports electronically using NC DWR's eDMR application system. See Special
Condition A. (18.).
2. The facility shall conduct monthly sampling from the effective date of the permit. After one year
from the effective date of the permit the monitoring will be reduced to quarterly
3. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
4. The facility shall use EPA method 1631E.
If the facility is unable to obtain a seep sample due to the dry or low flow conditions
preventing the facility from obtaining a representative sample, the "no flow" should be
reported on the DMR. This requirement is established in the Section D of the Standard
Conditions and 40 CFR 122.410).
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace
amounts.
Page 18 of 27

Permit NC0004961
A. (25.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS -(Outfall
105) [15A NCAC 02B .0400 et seq., 02B.0500 et seq.]
During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall 105 - Seep Discharge. Such discharges shall be
limited and monitored' by the Permittee as specified below:
trFLIJ N -_ _ "LI lTS`_.;',;'' _ 0' - -
)_T.. ° M M NITORIiVG. REQl11REMENTS:::
_ - :- - _ - : -.
C�HARA CTr.,
R E I _
_- "o e::
Mas re ent ;° eT
ra u m $am "I Location_
= -
--�Mazim Fre ec
- - g urn" qu n
Flow, MGD
Monthly/Quarterly
Estimate
Effluent
H3
Month/ /Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Fluoride
1.8 m /L
1.8 mg/L
Monthly/Quarteqy
Grab
Effluent
Total Mercu 4, ng/L
Monthly/Qu rterl
Grab
Effluent
Total Barium
1.0 mg/L
1.0 mg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Iron, mg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Manganese, pg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Zinc, pg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Arsenic
10.0 pg/L
50.0 Pg/L
Monthly/Quarterl
Grab
Effluent
Total Cadmium
2.0 pg/L
15.0 pg/L
Month/ /Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Chromium
50.0 pg/L
1,022.0 pg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Copper, g/L
Month/ /Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Lead, pg/L
25.Opg/L
33.8 ptg/L
Month/ /Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Nickel
25.0 Hg/L
25.0 pg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Selenium
5.0 g/L
56.0 pg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Nitrate as N
10.0 mg/L
10.0 mg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Sulfates
250.0 mg/L
250.0 mg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Chlorides
250.0 mg/L
250.0 mg/L
Monthly/Quarterl
Grab
Effluent
TDS .
500.0 mg/L
500.0 mg/L
Month/ /Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Hardness, mg/L
100.0 mg/L
100.0 mg/L
Month/ /Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
TSS, mg/L
30.0 mg/L
100.0 mg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Oil and Grease
15.0 mg/L
20.0 mg/L
Month/ /Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Temperature, OC
Month/ /Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Specific Conductance, pmho/cm
Month/ /Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Notes:
1. No later than 270 days from the effective date of this permit, begin submitting discharge
monitoring reports electronically using NC DWR's eDMR application system. See Special
Condition A. (18.).
2. The facility shall conduct monthly sampling from the effective date of the permit. After one year
from the effective date of the permit the monitoring will be reduced to quarterly
3. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
4. The facility shall use EPA method 1631E.
If the facility is unable to obtain a seep sample due to the dry or low flow conditions
preventing the facility from obtaining a representative sample, the "no flow" should be
reported on the DMR. This requirement is established in the Section D of the Standard
Conditions and 40 CFR 122.41 (j).
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace
amounts.
Page 19 of 27

Permit NC0004961
A. (26.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (Outfall
106) [15A NCAC 02B .0400 et seq., 02B .0500 et seq.]
During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall 106 - Seep Discharge. Such discharges shall be
limited and monitored' by the Permittee as specified below:
EFI=GUENT `, MONITORINGREQUIREMENTS""
aCw,
'ARA E 1 -
H - -
�;
'Ie ocati n
�Mo �t - 'Dail"'._. easuremeritIe:T •e. , ;',Sam o
Maxi ,• '- - -
m ►n. - re n q -
Flow, MGD
Monthly/Quarterly
Estimate
Effluent
pH3
Monthly/Qu rterl
Grab
Effluent
Fluoride
1.8 mg/L
1.8 mg/L
Monthly/Quarter)
Grab
Effluent
Total Mercury4, ng/L
Monthly/Qu rterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Barium
1.0 mg/L
1.0 mg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Iron, mg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Manganese, iag/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Zinc, ug/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Arsenic
10.0 g1L
50.0 fag/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Cadmium
2.0 g/L
15.0 lag/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Chromium
50.0 g/L
1,022.0 ug/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Copper; lag/L
Month/ /Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Lead, pg/L
25.Ofag/L
33.8 Ng/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Nickel
25.0 fag/L
25.0 pg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Selenium
5.0 fag/L
56.0 pg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Nitrate as N
10.0 mg/L
10.0 mg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Sulfates
250.0 mg/L
250.0 mg1L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Chlorides
250.0 mg/L
250.0 mg/L
Monthly/Quarter)
Grab
Effluent
TDS
500.0 mg/L
500.0 mg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Hardness, mg/L
100.0 mg/L
100.0 mg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
TSS, mg/L
30.0 mg/L
100,0 mg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Oil and Grease
15.0 mg/L
20.0 mg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Temperature, OC
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Specific Conductance, Nmho/cm
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Notes:
1. No later than 270 days from the effective date of this permit, begin submitting discharge
monitoring reports electronically using NC DWR's eDMR application system. See Special
Condition A. (18.).
2. The facility shall conduct monthly sampling from the effective date of the permit. After one year
from the effective date of the permit the monitoring will be reduced to quarterly
3. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
4. The facility shall use EPA method 1631E.
If the facility is unable to obtain a seep sample due to the dry or low now conditions
preventing the facility from obtaining a representative sample, the "no flow" should be
reported on the DMR. This requirement is established in the Section D of the Standard
Conditions and 40 CFR 1.22.41 (j).
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace
amounts.
Page 20 of 27

Permit NCOOO4961
A. (27.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (Outfall
107) [15A NCAC 02B .0400 et seq., 02B .0500 et seq.]
During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall 107 - Seep Discharge, Such discharges shall be
limited and monitored' by the Permittee as specified below:
ONI ,ORING'R UI E TS ,
T �Q REM N _
n _
�t
_ H_AR_AGTE I TICS_ _ _ -
iVfo'"" i e er_i ' e'
f Da I asurem Sam le -T' Sam"le'Loc` tion
.n„lily',=�=,: - ,Y� �`M t„�'�- .p .Yp. a,
_ Ave `a` et :F e"
- - r ;:Maximum-
Flow, MGD
Monthly/Quarterly
Estimate
Effluent
pH3
Monthly/Qu rterl
Grab
Effluent
Fluoride
1.8 mg/L
1.8 mg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Mercur 4, ng/L
Monthly/Q arterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Barium
1.0 mg/L
1.0 mg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Iron, mg/L
Monthly/Qu rterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Manganese, ptg/L
Monthl /Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Zinc, pg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Arsenic
10.0 ug/L
50.0 pg/L
Month ly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Cadmium
2,0 ug/L
15.0 g/L
Monthly/Quarterly Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Chromium
50.0 g/L
1,022.0 ug/L
MonthlylQuarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Copper, ug/L
Monthly/Qu rterl
Grab
Effluent
Total Lead, pg/L
25.Oug/L
33.8 pg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Nickel
25.0 ug/L
25.0 g/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Selenium
5.0 g/L
56.0 pg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Nitrate as N
10.0 mg/L
10.0 mg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Sulfates
250.0 mg/L
250.0 mg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Chlorides
250,0 mg/L
250.0 mg/L
Monthly/Quarterly Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
TDS
500.0 mg/L
500.0 mg/L
Month l /Qu arterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Hardness, mg/L
100.0 mg/L
100.0 mg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
TSS, mg/L
30.0 mg/L
100.0 mg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Oil and Grease
15.0 mg/L
20,0 mg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Temperature, OC
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Specific Conductance, pmho/cm
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Notes:
1. No later than 270 days from the effective date of this permit, begin submitting discharge
monitoring reports electronically using NC DWR's eDMR application system. See Special
Condition A. (18.).
2. The facility shall conduct monthly sampling from the effective date of the permit. After one year
from the effective date of the permit the monitoring will be reduced to quarterly
3. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
4. The facility shall use'EPA method 1631E.
If the facility is unable to obtain a seep sample due to the dry or low flow conditions
preventing the facility from obtaining a representative sample, the "no flow'? should be
reported on the DMR. This requirement is established in the Section D of the Standard
Conditions and 40 CFR 122.41 (j).
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace
amounts.
Page 21 of 27

Permit NC0004961
A.'(28.) EFFLUENT LIMtITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (Outfall
1.08) [15A NCAC 02B .0400 et seq., 02B .0500 et seq.]
During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall 108 -Seep Discharge. Such discharges shall be
limited and monitored' by the Permittee as specified below:
EFUENT, - : ,LIMITS _ MON ITORING'REQUIREMENTS;',;
C•ST CS.
_CTE I I -
FIA
RA
; :, ocalion
Dail ' ,;E';1Neasuremerit . am I a e _
-2 y
"e -
- -Ave 'e � im m � •,F n - - -
- - ra ax' "u' re u 'c
�M_ a
Flow, MGD
Monthly/Quarterly
Estimate
Effluent
pH3
Monthly/Qu rterl
Grab
Effluent
Fluoride
1.8 mg/L
1.8 mg/L
Monthly/Quarter)
Grab
Effluent
Total Mercu 4, ng/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Barium
1.0 mg/L
1.0 mg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Iron, mg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Manganese, pg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Zinc, g/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Arsenic
10,0 Hg/L
50.0 pg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Cadmium
2.0 ug/L
15.0 pg/L_
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Chromium
50.0 g/L
1,022.0 Ng/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Copper, g/L
Monthly/Qu rterl
Grab
Effluent
Total Lead, Hg/L
25,ONg/L
33.8 g/L
Month ly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Nickel
25,0 g/L
25.0 pg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Selenium
5.0 g/L
56.0 g/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Nitrate as N
10.0 mg/L
10.0 mg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Sulfates
250.0 mg/L
250,0 mg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Chlorides
250,0 mg/L.
250.0 mg/L
Month ly/Qu arteqL
Grab
Effluent
TDS
500.0 mg/L
500,0 mg/L
Month ly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Hardness, mg/L
100,0 mg/L
100.0 mg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
TSS, mg/L
30.0 mg/L
100.0 mg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Oil and Grease
15.0 mg/L
20.0 mg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Temperature, OC
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Specific Conductance, prnho/cm
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Notes:
1. No later than 270 days from the effective date of this permit, begin submitting discharge
monitoring reports electronically using NC DWR's eDMR application system. See Special
Condition A. (18.).
2. The facility shall conduct monthly sampling from the effective date of the permit. After one year
from the effective date of the permit the monitoring will be reduced to quarterly
-3. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
4. The facility shall use EPA method 1631E.
If the facility is unable to obtain a seep sample due to the dry or low flow conditions
preventing the facility from obtaining a representative sample, the "no flow" should be
reported on the DMR. This requirement is established in the Section D of the Standard
Conditions and 40 CFR 122.41 U). -
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace
amounts.
Page 22 of 27

Permit NCOOO4961
A. (29.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (Outfall
109) [15A NCAC 02B .0400 et seq., O2B .0500 et seq.]
During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall 109 - Seep Discharge. Such discharges shall be
limited and monitored' by the Permittee asspecified below:
EFFLUENT 'LIMITS
C A TRI I
-:_ E - �
�Sale Ty 'e:
am`eLocation-orl_
ver ` "e�'. ''m
a" "Maze um � `F a "`uery``c '�:•
-- g r
Flow, MGD
Monthly/Quarterly
Estimate
Effluent
pH3
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Fluoride
1.8 mg/L
1.8 mg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Mercur 4, ng/L
Monthly/Qu rterl
Grab
Effluent
Total Barium
1.0 mg/L
1.0 mg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Iron, mg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Manganese, pg/L
Month' /Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Zinc, pg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Arsenic
10.0 Ng/L
50.0 pg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Cadmium
2.0 g/L
15.0 pg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Chromium
50.0 /L
1,022.0 g/L
Month' /Quarterl
Grab
Effluent
Total Copper, pg/L
Monthly]Qu rterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Lead, g/L
25.Opg/L
33.8 g/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Nickel
25.0 Hg/L
25.0 gIL
Month' /Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Selenium
5.0 Ng/L
56.0 Ng/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Nitrate as N
10.0 mg/L
10.0 mg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Sulfates
250.0 mg/L
250.0 mg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Chlorides
250.0 mg/L
250.0 mg/L
Monthly/Quarterly Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
TDS
500.0 mg/L.
500.0 mg/L
Monthly/Quarterly Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Hardness, mg/L
100.0 mg/L
100.0 mg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
TSS, mg/L
30.0 mg/L
100.0 mg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Oil and Grease
15.0 mg/L
20.0 mg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Temperature, OC
Monthly/ uarterly
Grab
Effluent
Specific Conductance, pmho/cm
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Notes:
1. No later than 270 days from the effective date of this permit, begin submitting discharge
monitoring reports electronically using NC DWR's eDMR application system. See Special
Condition A. (18.).
2. The facility shall conduct monthly sampling from the effective date of the permit. After one year
from the effective date of the permit the monitoring will be- reduced to quarterly
3. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
4. The facility shall use EPA method 1631E.
If the facility is unable to obtain a seep sample due to the dry or low now conditions
preventing the facility from obtaining a representative sample, the "no flow" should be
reported on the DMR. This requirement is established in the Section D of the Standard
Conditions and 40 CFR 122.41 (j).
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace
amounts.
Page 23 of 27

Permit NC0004961
A. (30.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (Outfall
110) [I5A NCAC 02B .0400 et seq., 02B .0500 et seq.]
During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall 110 - Seep Discharge. Such discharges shall be
limited and monitored' by the Permittee as specified below:
ARA H ER I T. -
- -
-
LIMIT$`_ - = 'MONITORING�REQUIREMENTS.,
- _
.,'Moiithl `' - _ --.Dail ''Mea§ureme`rit::: -Said ' le T e � lSairi 'le` Location
Avera a Maximum ; ::Fre`' uenc`'2=
g q Y
Flow, MGD
Monthly/Quarterly
Estimate
Effluent
H3
Monthly/Qua terly
Grab
Effluent
Fluoride
1.8 mg/L
1.8 mg/L
Month/ /Quarter/
Grab
Effluent
Total Mercury4, ng/L
Month/ /Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Barium
1.0 mg/L
1.0 mg/L
Month/ /Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Iron, mg/L
Monthly/Qua terly
Grab
Effluent
Total Manganese, Hg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Zinc, Ng/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Arsenic
10.0 Hg/L
50.0 ug/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Cadmium
2.0 g/L
15.0 Hg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Chromium
50.0 ug/L
1,022.0 Hg/L
Monthl/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Copper, g/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Lead, Hg/L
25.OHg/L
33.8 Hg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Nickel
25.0 Hg/L
25.0 H /L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Selenium
5.0 pg/L
56.0 Ng/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Nitrate as N
10.0 mg/L
10.0 mg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Sulfates
250.0 mg/L
250.0 mg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Chlorides
250.0 mg/L
250.0 mg/L
Month/ /Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
TDS
500.0 mg/L
500.0 mg/L
Month/ /Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Hardness, mg/L
100.0 mg/L
100.0 mg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
TSS, mg/L
30.0 mg/L
100.0 mg/L
Month/ /Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Oil and Grease
15.0 mg/L
20.0 mg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Temperature, OC
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Specific Conductance, umho/cm
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Notes:
1. No later than 270 days from the effective date of this permit, begin 'submitting discharge
monitoring reports electronically using NC DWR's eDMR application system. See Special
Condition A. (18.) .
•2. The facility shall conduct monthly sampling from the effective date -of the permit. After one year
from the effective date of the permit the monitoring will be reduced to quarterly
3. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
4. The facility shall use EPA method 1631E.
If the facility is unable to obtain a seep sample due to the dry or low now conditions
preventing the facility from obtaining a representative sample, the "no flow" should be
reported on the DMR. This requirement is established in the Section D of the Standard
Conditions and 40 CFR 122.41 (j).
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace
amounts.
Page 24 of 27

Permit NCOOO4961
A. (31.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (Outfall
111) [15A NCAC 02B .0400 et seq., O2B .0500 et seq.]
During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall 111 - Seep Discharge. Such discharges shall be
limited and monitored? by the Permittee as specified below:
�FFLIJENT.: :: ;' :":: =;"-LIMITS' :. - - _ - MONITORING REQUIREMENTS .
C ,A$TICR...0 E •..:_ =
N ATRI
Moiitl ly,. sainpleType '.-' Sample Location"
"-'Average Maximum .: -
Flow, MGD
Monthly/Quarterly
Estimate
Effluent
pH3
Month! /Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Fluoride
1.8 mg/L
1.8 mg/L
Monthly/QuarteqL
Grab
Effluent
Total Mercur 4, ng/L
Monthly/ uarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Barium
1.0 mg/L
1.0 mg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Iron, mg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Manganese, ug/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Zinc, pg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Arsenic
10.0 Ng/L
50,0 pg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Cadmium
2.0 Ng/L
15.0 Ng/L
Monthly/Quarter!
Grab
Effluent
Total Chromium
50.0 ug/L
1,022.0 g/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Copper, g/L
Monthly/Qu rterl
Grab
Effluent
Total Lead, pg/L
25.ONg/L
33,8 pg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Nickel
25.0 µg/L
25,0 pg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Selenium
5,0 pg/L
56,0 pg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Nitrate as N
10.0 mg/L
10,0 mg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Sulfates
250.0 mg/L
250,0 mg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Chlorides
250.0 mg/L
250.0 mg/L
Month! lQu arterly
Grab
Effluent
TDS
500.0 mg/L
500.0 mg/L
Monthly/Quarterly Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Hardness, mg/L
100.0 mg/L
100.0 mg/L
Month! /Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
TSS, mg/L
30,0 mg/L
100.0 mg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Oil and Grease
15,0 mg/L
20.0 mg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Temperature, OC
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Specific Conductance, pmho/cm
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Notes:
1. No later than 270 days from the effective date of this permit, begin submitting discharge
monitoring reports electronically using NC DWR's eDMR application system. See Special
Condition A. (18.)
2. The facility shall conduct monthly sampling from the effective date of the permit. After one year
from the effective date of the permit the monitoring will be reduced to quarterly
3. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
4. The facility shall use EPA method 1631E.
If the facility is unable to obtain a seep sample due to the dry or low flow conditions
preventing the facility from obtaining a representative sample, the "no flow" should be
reported on the DMR. This requirement is established in the Section D of the Standard
Conditions and 40 CFR 122.41 (j).
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible roam in other than trace
amounts.
Page 25 of 27

Permit NC0004961
A. (32.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (Outfall
112) [15A NCAC 02B .0400 et seq., 02B .0500 et seq.]
During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall 112 - Seep Discharge. Such discharges shall be
limited and monitored' by the Permittee as si3ecified below:
''°f,ft< LIMITS MONITORING REQUIREMENTS.;
_
S I --
CNARACTERICS
T -
- _- - - -- - = D •'.f- , M6asu'remerit ;� m ' e ' e Location
i, ;`,t: , Vii. - i,il' .7 ` - - -• C„J'_.-,; -
1' - - ,'1..� - -
ax` =Fre"uen C
"Ave a e'." ':M imam a=;
Flow, MGD
Monthly/Quarterly
Estimate
Effluent
H3
Monthly/Qua terl
Grab
Effluent
Fluoride
1.8 mg/L
1.8 mg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Mercur 4, ng/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Barium
1.0 mg/L
1.0 mg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Iron, mg/L
Month/ /Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Manganese, pg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Zinc, Ng/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Arsenic
10.0 g/L
50.0 pg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Cadmium
2.0 g/L
15.0 pg/L
Month/ /Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Chromium
50.0 g/L
.1,022.0 pg/L
Month/ /Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Copper, g/L
Monthly/Qu rterl
Grab
Effluent
Total Lead, pg/L
25.Opg/L
33.8 pg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Nickel
25.0 pg/L
25.0 Ng/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Selenium
5.0 pg/L
56.0 Ng/L
Month lylQuarterly
Grab
Effluent
Nitrate as N
10.0 mg/L
10.0 mg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Sulfates
250.0 mg/L
250.0 mg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Chlorides
250.0 mg/L
250.0 mg/L
Month ly/Quart6rly
Grab
Effluent
TDS
500.0 mg/L
500.0 mg/L
Month/ /Quarter)
Grab
Effluent
Total Hardness, mg/L
100.0 mg/L
100.0 mg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
TSS, mg/L
30.0 mg/L
100.0 mg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Oil and Grease
15.0 mg/L
20.0 mg/L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Temperature, OC
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Specific Conductance, pmho/cm
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Notes:
1. No later than 270 days from the effective date of this permit, begin submitting discharge
monitoring reports electronically using NC DWR's eDMR application system. See Special
Condition A. (18.).
2. The facility shall conduct monthly sampling from the effective date of the permit. After one year
from the effective date of the permit the monitoring will be reduced to quarterly
3. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
4. The facility shall use EPA method 1631E.
If the facility is unable to obtain a seep sample due to the dry or low now conditions
preventing the facility from obtaining a representative sample, the "no flow" should be
reported on the DMR. This requirement is established in the Section D of the Standard
Conditions and 40 CFR 122.41 (j).
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace
amounts.
Page 26 of 27

Permit NC0004961
Appendix A
Plan for Identification of New Discharges (attached).
Page 27 of 27

EXHIBIT 5
South Carolina Electric & Gas Company
Integrated Resource Plan (IRP)
February 28, 2014

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA.
South Carolina Electric & Gas Company'"s Integrated
Resource Plan (IRP)
(Please type or print)
Submitted by: , K: Chad Burgess
Addre§sc SCANA Corp.
220 Operation_Wpy MC C222
Cayce, SC 2903-3701
BEFORE THE
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
OF'SOUTH CAROLINA
COVER SHEET
'DOCKET
NUMBER: 2014 0 - E
SC Bar Nximber: ,69456
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Other:
Email: chad.burgess(a�scana.tom
NOTE: The cover sheet and information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filing.and service'of pleadings or'otherpapers
as required by law_ This form is,required for use by the, Public Service Commission of South Carolina for the purpose; of docketing and must
be filled out completely,.
DOCKETING INFORMATION (Clhecic,all that apply.)
❑ Emergency Relief demanded in petition ❑ Request, fdr,i'tem to be placed on Commission' s. Agenda expeditiously
❑, Other:
INDUSTRY (Check one)
XATURE OF ACTION (Checli all that apply)
R Electric
❑ Affidavit
❑ Letter
❑ Request
❑ Electric/Gas
❑ Agreement
'❑ Memorandum
❑ Request for Certificatio
❑ Electric/Telecommunications
❑ Answer
❑ Motion
❑ Request for investigatior
❑ Electric/Water
❑ Appellate Review
,❑ Objection
❑ Resale Agreement
❑ Electric/Water/Telecom.
❑ Applibation
❑ Petition
❑ Resale Amendment
❑ Electric/Water/Sewer
❑ Brief
❑ Petition for Reconsideration
❑ Reservation Letter
❑ Gas ❑ Certificate
❑ R'ailr�—oa�c — — � �-^�-- ��— ❑Comments
'❑ Sewer
❑ Telecommunicdtions
❑ Transportation
❑ Water
❑ WatedS_ewer,
❑ Administrafive'Matter
❑ Other:
❑ Coniplaint
❑ Consent Order
❑ Discovery
❑ Exhibit
❑ Petition for Rulemaking ❑ Response
Petition for Rule•to-$how-Cause--❑ Respoitse-to Discovery
Petition to Intervene ❑Return to Petition
❑ Petition to Intervene Out of Time ❑ Stipulation
❑ Prefiled, Testimony ❑ Subpoena
❑ Promotion Q.Othein
❑ Expedited,Consideration
❑ Interconnection Agreement
❑ lntereoimection, Amendment
❑ Late -Filed E'xhibit
❑ Proposed Order lntegrated,ResourcePlan
❑ Protest
❑ Publisher's Affidavit,
❑ Report

ROvvEp FOR LBVJ"47
Y
Februar . 28j, .2,014
February __ . _
VIA EL CTRONIOLVILIXG
The Honorable Jocelyn ,G, Boyd
Chief Clerk/Administrator
Public S'orvlce'Commission of South Carolina
101 Executive Center Drive
Columbia; South ',Carph a 20210
K. Chad Burgess
Associate General counsel
chad.burciess6Dkona.com
ohAa Electric -&,,Ga , Company,s. 2014, 14te afed ResourceRE. 'South G# 5
Plan
Docket No: 20, -14 --
Dear Ms. Boyd -
In --accordance with S.C. Code Atn;§58-37-40 (Supp.2013):and Drder No. 987-
.502 enclosed you will -find the 2oI4 Integrated. Resource Plan 'of.South Carolina
Electric & Gas -,Company, ((SCE&G20_14,IRP"); This filing -also serves, to :satisfy the
annual reporting requirements of the Utility, Fa'jW5
c 'Siting ,and Environmental
__
Protection Ad.:S.C. Code A,.nn,§ 5'8-8-3-340.
By copy of this- letter, we; Are—also serving the Sbutli Carolina Office ,of
Regulatory 9t4ff andthe.South. Q in Energy Office with acopy 'of the SCE_ &G
2014 IRP .and attach a dertificatbbf :service to that pffqct:
Ifyou ,have: any ctuestioiis 6k,.c-o—ncern.s".,please doriot hesitate to, c'oii_t­eci1-u8­
;
Very
KCB/kms
cc: John W' Flitter
.Jeffery M. Nelson; Esquire_
Ashlio Lancast6r'
,(all via'plectribilik -and Tj:-8.
truIy, .yours,
K. Chad"Ikd--kess
First Class., Mail)

BEFORE,
THE PUBLIC SERVICE, COMMISSION �or,
SOUTH CAROLINA
DOCKET NO.,2014- 4E
INRE:
South CarolinaElectric&.Gas Company's
Thtegrated Resource Plan CERTIFICATE OF
SERVICE
This is the certify that I have caused to be served this day one (1) copy of the
2014 Integrated Resource Plan of South Carolina Electric & Gas Company via
electronic mail and U.S. First Class Mail to the persons named below at the address set
forth:
Jefffey Nelson, Esquire
Office of Regulatory Staff
1401 Main Street, Suite 900
Columbia, SC 29201
inelsoii@rL4bast6ff;sc.gov
John Flitter
'Office, of Regulatory St4ff
1401 MainStreet, Suite 900
Columbia, SC 29201
iflittergregstaff.sc.,gov
Ashliie Lancaster
SC Energy -Office
1200 Senate Street
-408"Weide-Hampton Building
Co1uhabia,'SC. 29201
[e-mail]
,,Karen M. Scruggs
Cdycej $outliCatotifia
This 28th ,day of Fekdafy201Q1
4

2014
Integrated
Resource
Plan
A SCANA COMPANY

Introduction
This document presents South Carolina Electric & Gas Company's ("SCE&G" or
"Company") Integrated Resource Plan ("IRP") for meeting the energy needs of its customers
over the next fifteen years, 2014 through 2028. This document is filed with the Public Service
Commission of South Carolina ("Commission") in accordance with S.C. Code Ann. § 58-37-40
(Supp. 2013) and Order No. 98-502 and also serves to satisfy the annual reporting requirements
of the Utility Facility Siting and Environmental Protection Act, S.C. Code Ann. § 58-33-430
(Supp. 2013). The objective of the Company's IRP is to develop a resource plan that will
provide reliable and economically priced energy to its customers while complying with all
environmental laws and regulations.
I. Demand and Energy Forecast for the Fifteen -Year Period Ending 2028
Total territorial energy sales on SCE&G's system are expected to grow at an average rate
of 1.6% per year over the next 15 years, while firm territorial summer peak demand and winter
peak demand will increase at 1.6% and 1.7% per year, respectively, over this forecast horizon.
The table below contains these projected loads. By convention winter follows summer.
Summer
Peak
(MW)
Winter
Peak
QMW)
Energy
Sales
(GWH)
2014
4,786
4,496
22,648
2015
4,849
4,557
22,732
2016
4,968
4,632
22,944
2017
5,073
4,713
23,423
2018
5,166
4,814
23,765
2019
5,245
4,894
24,279
2020
5,319
4,967
24,683
2021
5,385
5,057
25,065
2022
5,458
5,152
25,533
2023
5,540
5,249
26,032
2024
5,623
5,349
26,514
2025
5,705
5,447
27,007
2026
5,789
5,541
27,481
2027
5,867
5,636
27,935
2028
5,943
5,731
28,397

The energy sales forecast for SCE&G is made for over 30 individual categories. The categories
are subgroups of our seven classes of customers. The three primary customer classes -
residential, commercial, and industrial - comprise just over 93% of our sales. The following bar
chart shows the relative contribution to territorial sales made by each class. The "other" class in
the chart below includes street lighting, other public authorities, municipalities and electric
cooperatives.
Percent Sales By Class 2014
0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0%
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Other
6
I
SCE&G's forecasting process is divided into two parts: development of the baseline
forecast, followed by adjustments for energy efficiency impacts. A detailed description of the
short-range baseline forecasting process and statistical models is contained in Appendix A of this
report. Short-range is defined as the next two years. Appendix B contains similar information
for the long-range methodology. Long range is defined as beyond two years. Sales projections
for each group are based on statistical and econometric models derived from historical
relationships.
1. System Peak Demand: Summer vs. Winter
SCE&G usually peaks in the summer as seen in the chart below. This is reasonable for
several reasons. First, the climate in SCE&G's service area is generally hotter in the summer
than colder in the winter relative to a given base temperature. Second,'the penetration of air -
conditioners among SCE&G's customers approaches 100% since there are no real substitutes for

electric air -conditioners at present. Finally, a large number of residential and gas customers heat
their homes and businesses with natural gas. Results of the peak demand forecast methodology
used herein show that the general pattern of higher summer peaks relative to winter peaks will
continue.
The following charts shows SCE&G's experience with summer versus winter peaking.
By industry convention, the winter period is assumed to follow the summer period. In 19 of the
past 24 years, SCE&G peaked in the summer. One other notable feature of the peak demand
chart is the greater variability in winter peak demand.
Comparison of SCE&G Annual Summer and Winter Peak History
1990-2013
MW
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
PLOT summer winter
—
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3
Year
The forecast of summer peak demand is developed by combining the load profile
characteristics of each customer class collected in the Company's Load Research Program with
forecasted energy. The winter peak demand is projected through its correlation with annual
energy sales and winter degree-day departures from normal.
2. DSM Impact on Forecast
SCE&G expects its energy efficiency ("EE") programs to reduce retail sales in 2014 by
84,627 MWH or approximately 85 GVM. Retail sales after this EE impact are expected to be
22,035 GWH. Therefore, the EE programs are expected to reduce retail sales by 0.384% from
3

what they would have been. To gauge how its EE programs compared to other companies in the
Southeast, SCE&G analyzed the EE impacts filed with the U.S. Energy Information
Administration ("EIA") in 2012, the latest year available. There were 47 companies filing from
the Southeast, in particular, from the NERC regions of SERC and FRCC. Two companies were
dropped from the analysis for bad data. The chart below shows graphically the distribution of
reported results. The median EE impact was 0.19%. Thus half the companies showed results
higher and half lower than this median value. SCE&G's expectation for 2014 is twice this
median value placing it in the top half of the distribution and almost into the top quartile.
Clearly SCE&G's EE programs compare favorably with other companies in the Southeast.
EIA 861 Reported Energy Efficiency Impacts for 2012
80
70
60
50
c
d
m
40
a
30
20
10 ` —
0
0.075 0.225 0.375 0.525
eepct
Lognormal
Lower Quartile 0.03
Median 0.19
Upper Quartile 0.51
0.675 0.825
As part of the forecast development, the 0.38% EE savings was divided into a residential and
commercial component. In addition, savings due to lighting efficiencies were removed from the
class numbers and combined with lighting efficiency effects due to federally mandated measures.
This was necessary to produce a consistent forecast of lighting efficiency effects. After this
adjustment, the annual EE percentages used to produce the forecast were determined to be 0.31%
and 0.13% for the residential and commercial sectors, respectively. The table below illustrates
the calculation of the EE reductions. The far right-hand column labeled "Cumulative
M

Reductions" is the sum of the residential and commercial cumulative reductions and represents
the "SCE&G DSM Programs" column shown in a subsequent forecast summary table.
3. Energy Efficiency Adjustments
Several adjustments were made to the baseline projections to incorporate significant
factors not reflected in historical experience. These were increased air-conditioning and heat
pump efficiency standards and improved lighting efficiencies, both mandated by federal law, and
the addition of SCE&G's energy efficiency programs. The following table shows the baseline
projection, the energy efficiency adjustments and the resulting forecast of territorial energy sales.
5
Baseline
Residential
(GWH)
Cumulative
Reductions
(GWH)
Derivation of Annual EE Savings
Incremental Baseline Cumulative
Reductions Commercial Reductions
(GWH) Inc. % (GWH) (GWH)
Incremental
Reductions
(GWH)
Inc. %
Cumulative
Reductions
(GWH)
2014
7,883
-
-
-
7,247
-
-
-
-
2015
7,919
-
-
-
7,257
-
-
-
-
2016
8,053
-25
-25
-0.31
7,437
-10
-10
-0.13
-35
2017
8,192
-50
-25
-0.31
7,615
-20
-10
-0.13
-70
2018
8,318
-76
-26
-0.31
7,777
-30
-10
-0.13
-106
2019
8,511
-103
-26
-0.31
8,042
-40
-10
-0.13
-143
2020
8,697
-129
-27
-0.31
8,300
-51
-11
-0.13
-180
2021
8,877
-157
-28
-0.31
8,544
-62
-11
-0.13
-219
2022
9,054
-185
-28
-0.31
8,783
-73
-11
-0.13
-259
2023
9,242
-214
-29
-0.31
9,041
-85
-12
-0.13
-299
2024
9,420
-243
-29
-0.31
9,288
-97
-12
-0.13
-340
2025
9,602
-273
-30
-0.31
9,540
-110
-12
-0.13
-382
2026
9,777
-303
-30
-0.31
9,782
-122
-13
-0.13
-425
2027
9,947
-334
-31
-0.31
10,015
-135
-13
-0.13
-469
2028
10,120
-365
-31
-0.31
10,257
-149
-13
-0.13
-514
3. Energy Efficiency Adjustments
Several adjustments were made to the baseline projections to incorporate significant
factors not reflected in historical experience. These were increased air-conditioning and heat
pump efficiency standards and improved lighting efficiencies, both mandated by federal law, and
the addition of SCE&G's energy efficiency programs. The following table shows the baseline
projection, the energy efficiency adjustments and the resulting forecast of territorial energy sales.
5

Baseline sales are projected to grow at the rate of 2.0% per year. The impact of energy
efficiency, both from SCE&G's DSM programs and from federal mandates, causes the ultimate
territorial sales growth to fall to 1.6% per year as reported earlier.
Since the baseline forecast utilizes historical relationships between energy use and driver
variables such as weather, economics, and customer behavior, it embodies changes which have
occurred between them over time. For example, construction techniques which result in better
insulated houses have had a dampening effect on energy use. Because this process happens with
the addition of new houses and/or extensive home renovations, it occurs gradually. Over time
this factor and others are captured in the forecast methodology. However, when significant
events occur that impact energy use but are not captured in the historical relationships, they must
be accounted for outside the traditional model structure.
The first adjustment relates to federal mandates for air-conditioning units and heat
pumps. In 2006, the minimum Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio ("SEER") for newly
manufactured appliances was raised from 10 to 13, which means that cooling loads for a house
that replaced a 10 SEER unit with a 13 SEER unit would decrease by 30% assuming no change
Baseline
Sales
(GWR)
Energy Efficiency
SCE&G Total
DSM Federal EE
Programs Mandates Impact
(GWH) (GWH) (G
Territorial
Sales
(GWH)
2014
22,773
0
-125
-125
22,648
2015
22,919
0
-187
-187
22,732
2016
23,446
-35
-467
-502
22,944
2017
23,999
-70
-506
-576
23,423
2018
24,415
-106
-544
-650
23,765
2019
25,011
-143
-589
-732
24,279
2020
25,565
-180
-702
-882
24,683
2021
26,103
-219
-819
-1,038
25,065
2022
26,633
-259
-841
-1,100
25,533
2023
27,195
-299
-864
-1,163
26,032
2024
27,740
-340
-886
-1,226
26,514
2025
28,297
-382
-908
-1,290
27,007
2026
28,836
-425
-930
-1,355
27,481
2027
29,355
-469
-951
-1,420
27,935
2028
29,883
-514
-972
-1,486
28,397
Baseline sales are projected to grow at the rate of 2.0% per year. The impact of energy
efficiency, both from SCE&G's DSM programs and from federal mandates, causes the ultimate
territorial sales growth to fall to 1.6% per year as reported earlier.
Since the baseline forecast utilizes historical relationships between energy use and driver
variables such as weather, economics, and customer behavior, it embodies changes which have
occurred between them over time. For example, construction techniques which result in better
insulated houses have had a dampening effect on energy use. Because this process happens with
the addition of new houses and/or extensive home renovations, it occurs gradually. Over time
this factor and others are captured in the forecast methodology. However, when significant
events occur that impact energy use but are not captured in the historical relationships, they must
be accounted for outside the traditional model structure.
The first adjustment relates to federal mandates for air-conditioning units and heat
pumps. In 2006, the minimum Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio ("SEER") for newly
manufactured appliances was raised from 10 to 13, which means that cooling loads for a house
that replaced a 10 SEER unit with a 13 SEER unit would decrease by 30% assuming no change

in other factors. The last mandated change to efficiencies like this took place in 1992, when the
minimum SEER was raised from 8 to 10, a 25% increase in energy efficiency. Since then air -
conditioner and heat pump manufacturers introduced much higher -efficiency units, and models
are now available with SEERS over 20. However, overall market production of heat pumps and
air -conditioners is concentrated at the lower end of the SEER mandate. The 2006 minimum
SEER rating represented a significant change in energy use which would not be fully captured by
statistical forecasting techniques based on historical relationships. For this reason an adjustment
to the baseline was warranted.
A second reduction was made to the baseline energy projections beginning in 2013 for
savings related to lighting. Mandated federal efficiencies as a result of the Energy Independence
and Security Act of 2007 took effect in 2013 and will be phased in through 2015. Standard
incandescent light bulbs are inexpensive and provide good illumination, but they are extremely
inefficient. Compact fluorescent light bulbs ("CFLs") have become increasingly popular over
the past several years as substitutes. They last much longer and generally use about one-fourth
the energy that incandescent light bulbs use. However, CFLs are more expensive and still have
some unpopular lighting characteristics, so their large-scale use as a result of market forces was
not guaranteed. The new mandates will not force a complete switchover to CFLs, but they will
impose efficiency standards that can only be met by them or newly developed high -efficiency
incandescent light bulbs. Again, this shift in lighting represents a change in energy use which
was not fully reflected in the historical data.
The final adjustment to the baseline forecast was to account for SCE&G's new set of
energy efficiency programs. These energy efficiency programs along with the others in
SCE&G's existing DSM portfolio are discussed later in the IRP. In developing the forecast it
was assumed that the impacts of these programs were captured in the baseline forecast for the
next two years but thereafter had to be reflected in the forecast on an incremental basis.
4. Load Impact of Energy Efficiency and Demand Response Programs
The Company's energy efficiency programs ("EE") and its demand response programs
("DR") will reduce the need for additional generating capacity on the system. The EE programs
implemented by our customers should lower not only their overall energy needs but also their
power needs during peak periods. The DR programs serve more directly as a substitute for
peaking capacity. The Company has two DR programs: an interruptible program for large

00
N N N N N N N N N N N NN N N m
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
N N N N N N N N N
W V M W .A W N F, O l0 W V M W S
I n I p rn rn cn rn n Ln u, Ln Ln ;u•I Ln a
�D O
In AA W N N0 LO 00 V 01 w� N N0 C
N N W N N N N N W W N O V N 4:�- C. m
In (0 I -A 00 Ln O (0 Ln I -A VI 0) O N 0) m
O N
ao n
M
NN N N 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 N
Ul .A N O l0 V M (n .A W N I-- is
V W lO M A I -A O V to .A W N N O O H
IL T
3 m
fu m m
W O OV OW O M N (D •A W W W M •A W tOi1 `C
O �?
M N O
V Ul W I-- O W V Ln N O W (n W i i A m f!
O w m ko P. V_ N m w w F" w V w r* m 'c
rn of rn rn to to cn cn cn ,cn cn to cn cn cn B M
N FA O O w w V m m w .A W N N O d N fD
(n V W O N W •A V O N A- .A W O A. 7
Ln m Ul CO I -A .A w W m w Pb V W w w C.
z v
3
v
W W W W N N N N N N N N N N N, to 3
I" I -A O O lO l0 l0 w w w V V m M Ln V) C.
W O m w w m N w m W l0 Cn V O V
_ v
u, v1 cn n u, v, ,A rA 3 (DD
l0 w V V m In .AW W N N0 to w V 0)
A
• M 00 O N W U7. w N .P Ol V m A 00 7
N Ol (0 0) N 00 V .A O Ln Ln N 0) 00 0) C.
r i
(D o
� � O
a
CDPL CPC
CD ~ ��
. CD
CL o
PD 0
CD
� UQ
C
�- CD
�O!
CCD c
o �
r4 -
CD CD
n
O
o
O
�C3
C,
uq
A� A
� d
O cn
O
CD
ti
C
�C
CD
N
O
M
cn
'd
O
O
CD
0
tro
cn
CD
En
CDO
CD
N
O
O
CCD
w
rn
rn
r

II. SCE&G's Program for Meeting Its Demand and Energy Forecasts in an
Economic and Reliable Manner
A. Demand Side Management
Demand Side Management (DSM) can be broadly defined as the set of actions that can be taken
to influence the level and timing of the consumption of energy. There are two common subsets
of Demand Side Management: Energy Efficiency and Load Management (also known as
Demand Response). Energy Efficiency typically includes actions designed to increase efficiency
by maintaining the same level of production or comfort, but using less energy input in an
economically efficient way. Load Management typically includes actions specifically designed
to encourage customers to reduce usage during peak times or shift that usage to other times.
Energy Efficiency
SCE&G's Energy Efficiency programs include Customer Information Programs, Web -Based
Information and Services Programs, Energy Conservation and the Demand Side Management
Programs. A description of each follows:
1. Customer Information Programs: SCE&G's customer information programs fall under
two headings: the Annual Energy Efficiency Campaigns and Web -based Information
Initiatives. The following is an overview of each.
Annual Energy Efficiency Campaigns
a. Customer Insights and Analysis: In 2013, SCE&G continued to proactively
educate its customers and create awareness on issues related to energy efficiency
and conservation. To help maximize the effectiveness of our campaigns, ongoing
customer feedback is used to ensure marketing and communications efforts are
consistent with what customers value most. Key insights gained through
SCE&G's Brand Health Study and Voice of the Customer Panels are integrated to
ensure we are communicating in a consistent manner that customers will
understand.
As a result, SCE&G continues to highlight programs/services that reflect three
main categories identified by our customers as offering the best opportunity to
0

save energy and money. These areas include rebates and incentives, in-home
services and education.
b. Media/Channel Preferences: Placement of all marketing, and advertising is
carefully reviewed, taking into consideration the customers' preferred methods of
receiving information about SCE&G's energy efficiency programs and services.
Priority channels include television (local news and select cable stations); online
banner advertising, radio, electronic/print newsletters, direct mail, bill inserts and
newspapers (major daily and weekly minority publications). SCE&G's statewide
business office locations also serve as a distribution point for sharing information
with customers. In addition, SCE&G has also incorporated social media, e.g.
Twitter and Facebook, into its communications strategy. Key South Carolina
markets covered, with all marketing communications, include Columbia,
Charleston, Aiken and Beaufort.
c. Public Affairs/News Media/Speakers Bureau: Furthermore, SCE&G
understands the value of public affairs as an integral part of a well-rounded
energy efficiency communication strategy and actively engages news media
(broadcast and print) for coverage of key programs and services that will benefit
our customers now and in the future. Public Affairs and Marketing staff also
provide support with securing company experts to address a variety of
organizations through a formal Speakers' Bureau, extending our outreach to
church groups, senior citizen and low-income housing communities, civic
organizations, builder groups and homeowner associations.
d. Special Events: Another key component to SCE&G's annual marketing
initiatives include participation in a variety of events that offer the opportunity to
further extend customer education and outreach of energy information. SCE&G's
2013 schedule included a solid mix of special events to include the Home
Builders Association ("HBA") Home Improvement Show and Tour of Homes in
Columbia and Black Expos in Columbia and Charleston.
e. EnergyWise Communications: Brand positioning of SCE&G's energy
efficiency programs and services with all marketing and advertising initiatives
falls under the EnergyWise umbrella — an SCE&G registered trademark in South
10

Carolina and encompasses general awareness education as well as program
specific offerings.
General Awareness Education: Last year's advertising included
messaging on a wide range of topics such as year-round and seasonal
energy efficiency tips that are practical for customers to manage on their
own or that have a no -cost, low-cost factor to them. Examples include
thermostat settings, checking air filters monthly, water heater settings and
unplugging appliances that are sometimes perceived to be "energy
vampires" (lights, TV's, computers, cell phone chargers, etc.).
Program Specific Offerings: In 2013, SCE&G continued to heavily
promote its portfolio of residential electric rebate/incentive programs
under its Demand Side Management (DSM) department — many of which
were featured in our general awareness advertising schedule. Specific
programs included ENERGY STAR Lighting, our free Home Energy
Check-up, Home Performance with ENERGY STAR and Residential
Heating & Cooling and Water Heating Equipment.
2. Web -Based Information and Services Programs: SCE&G's online offerings can be
broken into four components: Customer Awareness Information, the Energy Analyzer,
free online Energy Audit and EnergyWise e -newsletter. Altogether, there have been
more than 5.1 million visits to SCE&G's website in 2013. Customers must be registered
to use the interactive tools Energy Analyzer and Energy Audit. There are over 350,000
customers registered for this access. Descriptions of the four categories listed above
follows:
a. Customer Awareness Information: The SCE&G website, www.seeg.com,
supports all communication efforts to promote energy savings information —
both general awareness tips and program -specific overviews, tools and
resources — all through a section called `Be EnergyWise and Save". Energy
savings information includes detailed information on each of the Demand Side
Management programs for residential and commercial/industrial customers, as
well as how-to videos on insulation, thermostats and door and windows.
b. Energy Analyzer: The Energy Analyzer, in use since 2004, is a 24 -month
bill analysis tool. It uses complex analytics to identify a customer's seasonal
11

usages and target the best ways to reduce demand. This Web -based tool
allows customers to access their current and historical consumption data and
compare their energy usage month-to-month and year-to-year -- noting trends,
temperature impact and spikes in their consumption. There were a little over
106,000 visits to the Energy Analyzer tool in 2013.
c. Online Energy Audit: The Online Energy Audit tool leads customers
through the process of creating a complete inventory of their home's
insulation and appliance efficiency. The tool allows customers to see the
energy and financial savings of upgrades before making an investment. Over
7,000 customers used the Energy Audit tool in 2013.
d. SCE&G EnergyWise E -Newsletter: SCE&G's web -based information and
services included ongoing management of its EnergyWise e -newsletter to
support customer demand for additional information on ways to help them
save energy. A total of 2,464 customers are registered for the e -newsletters
distributed in 2013.
3. Energy Conservation
Energy conservation is a term that has been used interchangeably with energy efficiency.
However, energy conservation has the connotation of using less energy in order to save
rather than using less energy to perform the same or better function more efficiently. The
following is an overview of each SCE&G energy conservation offering:
a. Energy Saver / Conservation Rate: The Rate 6 (Energy
Saver/Conservation) rewards homeowners and homebuilders who upgrade
their existing homes or build their new homes to a high level of energy
efficiency with a reduced electric rate. This reduced rate, combined with a
significant reduction in energy usage, provides for considerable savings for
our customers. Participation in the program is very easy as the requirements
are prescriptive which is beneficial to all of our customers and trade allies.
Homes built to this standard have improved comfort levels and increased re-
sale value over homes built to the minimum building code standard, which is
also a significant benefit to participants. Information on this program is
,available on our website and by brochure.
12

b. Seasonal Rates: Many of our rates are designed with components that vary
by season. Energy provided in the peak usage season is charged a premium to
encourage conservation and efficient use.
4. Demand Side Management Programs
In 2013, SCE&G completed a comprehensive evaluation of the existing DSM programs
with the specific intention of updating programs and introducing new programs to the
DSM portfolio. In May 2013, the Company presented the new portfolio to the
Commission and received approval in November 2013. The Commission approved a
suite of eleven (11) DSM programs, which includes nine programs targeting SCE&G's
residential customer classes and two programs targeting SCE&G's commercial and
industrial customer classes. A description of each program follows:
a. Residential Home Energy Reports provides customers with free monthly/bi-
monthly reports comparing their energy usage to a peer group and providing
information to help identify, analyze and act upon potential energy efficiency
measures and behaviors.
b. Residential Energy Information Display provides customers with an in-home
display that shows information from the customer's meter regarding current
energy usage and cost; and the approximate use and cost to date for the month.
The displays were distributed to targeted customers, upon their request, at a
discounted price.
c. Residential Home Energy Check-up program provides customers with a visual
energy assessment performed by SCE&G staff at the customer's home. At the
completion of the visit, customers are offered an energy efficiency kit containing
simple measures, such as compact fluorescent light bulbs ("CFL"), water heater
wraps and/or pipe insulation. The Home Energy Check-up is provided free of
charge to all residential customers who elect to participate.
d. Residential Home Performance with ENERGY STAR® program promotes a
comprehensive energy efficiency audit of the home by trained contractors.
SCE&G provides incentives to customers for implementing specific measures
based on the audit findings.
13

e. Residential ENERGY STAR Lighting program incentivizes residential
customers to purchase and install high -efficiency ENERGY STAR® qualified
lighting products by providing discounts to the manufacturers and retailers.
f. Residential Heating & Cooling and Water.Heating Equipment program
provides incentives to customers for purchasing and installing high efficiency
HVAC equipment and non -electric resistance water heaters in new and existing
homes.
g. Residential Heating & Cooling Efficiency Improvements program provides
residential customers with incentives to improve the efficiency of existing AC and
heat pump systems through HVAC tune-ups (system optimizer), complete duct
replacements, duct insulation and duct sealing. The system optimizer was
discontinued in May 2013.
h. Residential ENERGY STAR° New Homes program provides incentives to
customers and builders who are willing to commit to ENERGY STAR® standards
in new home construction.
i. Neighborhood Energy Efficiency Program (NEEP), approved by the
Commission in April 2013, provides qualifying customers energy education, an
on-site energy survey of the dwelling, and direct installation of low-cost energy
saving measures at no additional cost to the customer. The program is delivered
in a neighborhood door-to-door sweep approach and offers customers who are
eligible and wish to participate a variety of direct installation energy efficiency
measures.
j. Commercial and Industrial Prescriptive program provides incentives to non-
residential customers to invest in high -efficiency lighting and fixtures, high
efficiency motors and other equipment. To ensure simplicity, the program
includes a master list of measures and incentive levels that are easily accessible to
commercial and industrial customers on the website.
k. Commercial and Industrial Custom program provides custom incentives to
commercial and industrial customers based on the calculated efficiency benefits
of their particular energy efficiency plans or construction proposals. This
program applies to technologies and applications that are more complex and
14

customer -specific. All aspects of this program fit within the parameters of both
retrofit and new construction projects.
5. Load Management Programs
The primary goal of SCE&G's load management programs is to reduce the need for
additional generating capacity. There are four load management programs: Standby
Generator Program, Interruptible Load Program, Real Time Pricing Rate and the Time of
Use Rates. A description of each follows:
a. Standby Generator Program: The Standby Generator Program for wholesale
customers provides about 25 megawatts of peaking capacity that can be called
upon when reserve capacity is low on the system. This capacity is owned by our
wholesale customers and through a contractual arrangement is made available to
SCE&G dispatchers. SCE&G has a retail version of its standby generator
program in which SCE&G can call on 20 or more customers to run their
emergency generators. This retail program provides about 17 MWs of additional
capacity as needed.
b. Interruptible Load Program: SCE&G has over 150 megawatts of interruptible
customer load under contract. Participating customers receive a discount on their
demand charges, for shedding load when SCE&G is short of capacity.
c. Real Time Pricing ("RTP") Rate: A number of customers receive power under
our real time pricing rate. During peak usage periods throughout the year when
capacity is low in the market, the RTP program sends a high price signal to
participating customers which encourages conservation and load shifting. Of
course during low usage periods, prices are lower.
d. Time of Use Rates: Our time of use rates contain higher charges during the peak
usage periods of the day and lower charges during off-peak periods. This
encourages customers to conserve energy during peak periods and to shift energy
consumption to off-peak periods. All SCE&G customers have the option of
purchasing electricity under a time of use rate.
SCE&G's resource plan shows the need for additional capacity in the future to continue
providing reliable electric service to its customers. As SCE&G evaluates how to satisfy
this need, the Company will consider, among other things, demand response
technologies.
15

B. Supply'Side Management
Clean Energy at SCE&G
Clean energy includes energy efficiency and clean energy supply options like nuclear
power, hydro power, combined heat and power and renewable energy.
1. Existing Sources of Clean Energy
SCE&G is committed to generating more of its power from clean energy sources. This
commitment is reflected: in the amount of current and projected generation coming from clean
sources, in the certified renewable energy credits that the Company generates each year, in the
Company's net metering program, and in the Company's support for Palmetto Clean Energy,
Inc. Below is a discussion of each of these topics.
a. Current Generation: SCE&G currently generates clean energy from hydro, nuclear, solar
and biomass. The following chart shows the current and expected amounts of clean energy in
GWH and as a percentage of retail sales.
As seen in the chart above, SCE&G currently generates a little over 30% of its retail sales from
clean energy sources but by 2019 it expects to generate about 74% from clean
energy.
According to the EIA, the U.S. as a nation currently generates about 33% of its retail sales as
clean energy and it expects this percentage to increase slightly over the next ten years or so. The
following chart
graphs EIA's forecast for US clean energy.
16
SCE&G Clean Energy Plan
30,000
80%
25,000
70
60%
20,000
50%
NIp
s
15,000
40%
10,000
30%
20
5,000
10%
-
0%
.�oti�
�atiti �oti3 ti�yh ti�ti� ti�y� �otiti
ti��h
—
- Clean Energy ...... Retail Sales ® ® ® % Clean Energy
011614
As seen in the chart above, SCE&G currently generates a little over 30% of its retail sales from
clean energy sources but by 2019 it expects to generate about 74% from clean
energy.
According to the EIA, the U.S. as a nation currently generates about 33% of its retail sales as
clean energy and it expects this percentage to increase slightly over the next ten years or so. The
following chart
graphs EIA's forecast for US clean energy.
16

SCE&G compares very favorably to the nation in its clean energy plans since by 2019 it should
be meeting about twice as much of its retail sales with clean energy on a relative basis compared
to the nation.
b. Renewable Energy Credits: The SCE&G-owned electric generator, located at the KapStone
Charleston Kraft LLC facility, generates electricity using a mixture of coal and biomass.
KapStone Charleston Kraft, LLC, produces black liquor through its Kraft pulping process and
produces and purchases biomass fuels. These fuels which are used to produce renewable energy
and the electricity generated qualify for Renewable Energy
Certificates ("REC") as approved by Green -e Energy, a
leading national independent certification and verification
program for renewable energy administered by the Center
for Resource Solutions, a nonprofit company based in San
Francisco, California. The nearby table shows the MWHs
of renewable energy generated by the Kapstone generator,
formerly known as the Cogen South generator:
Year
MWh
US Clean
Energy Forecast
371,573
1.7%
2008
EIA
AE02014
2009
351,614
1.7%
2010
346,190
36.0%
2011
5,000
1.5%
2012
414,047
1.9%
2013
385,202
1.8%
35.5
X
4,000
35.0%
34.5
(D
3,000
34.0%
0
2,000
33.5%
=33.0%
32.5%
1,000
32.0%
31.5
-
-Clean Energy ...... Net
Generation to the Grid ® ® ® % Clean Energy
oioeia
SCE&G compares very favorably to the nation in its clean energy plans since by 2019 it should
be meeting about twice as much of its retail sales with clean energy on a relative basis compared
to the nation.
b. Renewable Energy Credits: The SCE&G-owned electric generator, located at the KapStone
Charleston Kraft LLC facility, generates electricity using a mixture of coal and biomass.
KapStone Charleston Kraft, LLC, produces black liquor through its Kraft pulping process and
produces and purchases biomass fuels. These fuels which are used to produce renewable energy
and the electricity generated qualify for Renewable Energy
Certificates ("REC") as approved by Green -e Energy, a
leading national independent certification and verification
program for renewable energy administered by the Center
for Resource Solutions, a nonprofit company based in San
Francisco, California. The nearby table shows the MWHs
of renewable energy generated by the Kapstone generator,
formerly known as the Cogen South generator:
Year
MWh
% of Retail Sales
2007
371,573
1.7%
2008
369,780
1.7%
2009
351,614
1.7%
2010
346,190
1.5%
2011
336,604
1.5%
2012
414,047
1.9%
2013
385,202
1.8%
c. Boeing Solar Generator: In 2011, SCE&G installed approximately 10 acres of thin-film
laminate panels (18,095 individual panels) on the roof of Boeing's North Charleston assembly
plant. The PV system, having an alternating current peak output of 2.35 MW, began generating
in October 2011. All RECs and energy generated by the roof top solar system are provided to
17

Boeing for onsite use. At the time of completion this was the largest roof -top solar generator in
the Southeast. Over the last two years the Boeing solar plant has generated the following
amounts of energy:
Year
MWh
2012
3,513
2013
3,410
d. Net Metering Rates and the PR -1 Rate: Protecting the environment includes encouraging
and helping our customers to take steps to do the same. Net -metering provides a way for
residential and commercial customers interested in generating their own renewable electricity to
partially power their homes or businesses and sell the excess energy back to SCE&G. For
residential customers, the generator output capacity cannot exceed the annual maximum
household demand or 20 KW, whichever is less.. For small commercial customers, the generator
output capacity cannot exceed the annual maximum demand of the business or 100 KW,
whichever is less. Under its PR -1 rate for qualifying facilities, the Company will pay the
qualifying customer for any power generated and transmitted to the SCE&G system. The PR -1
rate is developed using SCE&G's avoided costs.
e. Palmetto Clean Energy, Inc.: Palmetto Clean Energy, Inc. ("PaCE") is a non-profit, tax
exempt organization formed by SCE&G, Duke Energy, Progress Energy, the South Carolina
Office of Regulatory Staff ("ORS") and the S.C. Energy Office for the purpose of promoting the
development of renewable power in South Carolina. Customers make a tax deductible
contribution to PaCE and PaCE uses the funds collected to pay renewable generators a financial
incentive for their power.
2. Future Clean Energy
SCE&G is participating in activities seeking to advance renewable technologies in the
future. Specifically the Company is involved with off -shore wind activities in the state, co -firing
with biomass fuels, building solar generation, studying smart grid opportunities and distribution
automation. These activities are set forth in more detail below.
a. I New, Renewable Projects: SCE&G's customers'and other South Carolina stakeholders have
expressed a desire for solar energy in the State, and SCE&G is looking for ways to integrate
18

additional solar into the system in the most economical way possible while beginning to grow a
new energy economy in South Carolina based on a diverse portfolio of generation. SCE&G
currently has approximately 4 megawatts of solar generation on the system, and plans to build
new solar farms that will add up to 20 megawatts of renewable energy to our system. We have
created an experienced team focused on research, design, and implementation of renewable
energy resources (solar, wind, and biomass). In 2014-2016, we plan to install several solar farms
on the system. These solar farms will be built in various locations throughout the system and
will include opportunities for research, education, and expansion of the energy economy in S.C.
b. Off -Shore Wind Activities: SCANA/SCE&G is a founding member of the Southeastern
Coastal Wind Coalition and participates in the Utility Advisory Group of that organization. The
mission of Southeastern Coastal Wind Coalition is to advance the coastal and offshore wind
industry in ways that result in net economic benefits to industry, utilities, ratepayers, and citizens
of the Southeast. The focus is three fold:
1. Research and Analysis — objective, transparent, data -driven, and focused on
economics.
2. Policy / Market Making — exploring multistate collaborative efforts and working
with utilities, not against them.
3. Education and Outreach — website, communications, and targeted outreach.
SCE&G participated in the Regulatory Task Force for Coastal Clean Energy. This task
force -was established with a 2008 grant from the U.S. Department of Energy. The goal is to
identify and overcome existing barriers for coastal clean energy development for wind, wave and
tidal energy projects in South Carolina. Efforts included an offshore wind transmission study; a
wind, wave and ocean current study; and creation of a Regulatory Task Force. The mission of
the Regulatory Task Force was to foster a regulatory environment conducive to wind, wave and
tidal energy development in state waters. The Regulatory Task Force was comprised of state and
federal regulatory and resource protection agencies, universities, private industry and utility
companies.
SCANA/SCE&G participated in discussions to locate a 40 MW demonstration wind farm
off the coast of Georgetown. This effort, known as Palmetto Wind, includes Clemson
University's Restoration Institute, Coastal Carolina University, Santee Cooper, the S.C. Energy
19

Office and various utilities. Palmetto Wind has been put on hold due to the high cost of the
project.
SCE&G invested $3.5 million in the Clemson University Restoration Institute's wind
turbine drive train -testing facility at the Clemson campus in North Charleston. This new facility
is dedicated to groundbreaking research, education, and innovation with the world's most
advanced wind turbine drive train testing facility capable of full-scale highly accelerated
mechanical and electrical testing of advanced drive train systems for wind turbines.
c. Co -firing with Biomass: SCE&G continues to investigate and evaluate the co -firing of
biomass and other engineered waste products in our existing coal burning facilities. The goal of
the project is to determine the operational practicality as well as the economic and fuel supply
implications of co -firing in existing coal units. Co -firing of biomass fuel in our existing units
represents an opportunity to include additional renewable fuels in our production mix without
having to build new facilities or spend significant capital on existing facilities. Results are
evaluated by the Fossil Hydro department to determine the feasibility for a future course of
action.
d. Smart Grid Activities: SCE&G currently has approximately 9,300 AMI meters that are
installed predominately on our medium to large commercial customers as well as our smaller
industrial customers. Other applications where this technology is deployed include all time -of -
use accounts and all accounts with customer generation (net metering). These meters utilize
public wireless networks as the communication backbone and have full two-way communication
capability. Register readings and load profile data are remotely collected daily from all AMI
meters. In addition to traditional metering functions, the technology also provides real-time
monitoring capability including power outage/restoration, meter/site diagnostics, and power
quality monitoring. Load profile data is provided to customers daily via web applications
enabling these customers to have quick access to energy usage allowing better management of
their energy consumption. Moving forward, this technology will also enable more sophisticated
DSM offerings that may be attractive to a variety of customer classes.
e. Distribution Automation: SCE&G is continuing to expand the penetration of automated
Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition ("SCADA") switching and other intelligent devices
20

throughout the system. We have approximately 850 SCADA switches and reclosers, most of
which can detect system outages and operate automatically to isolate sections of line with
problems thereby minimizing the number of affected customers. Some of these isolating
switches can communicate with each other to determine the optimal configuration to restore
service to as many customers as possible without operator intervention. We are continuing to
evaluate systems that will help these automated devices communicate with each other and safely
reconfigure the system in a fully automated fashion.
L Environmental Mitigation Activities: In order to reduce NOx emissions and to meet
compliance requirements, SCE&G installed Selective Catalytic Reduction ("SCR") equipment at
Cope Station in the fall of 2008. The SCR began full time operation on January 1, 2009, and has
run well since -that time. It is capable of reducing NOx.emissions at Cope Station by
approximately 90%. SCE&G is also utilizing the existing SCRs at Williams and Wateree
Stations along with previously installed low NOx burners at the other coal-fired units to meet the
Clean Air Interstate Rule ("CAIR") requirements for NOx which are in effect while the Cross
State Air Pollution Rule is under a court-ordered stay. Additionally, SCE&G has installed flue
gas desulfurization ("FGD") equipment, commonly known as wet scrubbers, at Williams and
Wateree Stations to reduce SO2 emissions. The in-service dates for Williams and Wateree
Stations were February 25, 2010, and October 12, 2010, respectively. Scrubber performance
tests at both stations met the SO2 designed removal rate of 98%. Mercury emission control has
also been realized in the industry via the operation of FGD equipment. Consequently, the
continued operation of the FGD equipment will contribute to SCE&G's strategy for meeting the
impending requirements of the US EPA's Mercury and Air Toxics Standard ("MATS°') that will
become effective on April 16, 2015. The Chem -Mod fuel additive being used at McMeekin
Station, Cope Station, and Williams Station will similarly contribute to SCE&G's efforts in stack
emission control for mercury, as well as for NOx and SO2.
In response to the US EPA's impending MATS, the last coal-fired boiler at Urquhart
Station, Unit 3, was converted to natural gas. Decommissioning of the plant's former coal
handling facilities is in progress. Also in response to MATS Canadys Station ceased operations
on November 6, 2013, and decommissioning efforts are in progress.
In an effort to cease bottom ash sluicing to the Wateree Station's ash ponds, SCE&G
installed two remote submerged flight conveyors that dewater boiler bottom ash sluice and
21

recycle the overflow back to the boiler for reuse. This retrofit was completed for Units 1 and 2
during October 2012. The bottom ash is then marketed as an ingredient in the manufacture of
pre -stressed concrete products.
g. Nuclear Power in the Future — Small and Modular: Small Modular Reactor ("SMR")
technology continues to be developed. DOE has awarded two grants, totaling $452 million, for
SMR development. At about a third, or less, of the size of current nuclear power plants, SMRs
could make available, for a smaller capital investment, a modular design for specific generation
needs. SCE&G will continue to evaluate this technology as it develops.
3. Summary of Proposed and Recently Finalized Regulations
The EPA has either proposed or recently finalized 6 regulations and modified one
additional regulation. These are Cross -State Air Pollution Rule ("CSAPR"), Mercury and Air
Toxics Standards ("MATS"), Greenhouse Gases, Cooling Water Intake Structures, Coal
Combustion Residuals, Effluent Limitation Guidelines, and a new 1 -hour sulfur dioxide National -
Ambient Air Quality Standard ("NAAQS").
a. Cross -State Air Pollution Rule ("CSAPR")
On December 30, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a
stay delaying implementation of CSAPR pending the outcome of a legal appeal. On August 21,
2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit vacated CSAPR and left CAIR in place.
The federal court ordered the EPA to continue administering the previously promulgated CAIR.
On October 5, 2012, the EPA filed a petition for rehearing of the order. On January 24, 2013,
the United States Court of Appeals -for the D.C. Circuit denied EPA's petition for rehearing.
The Court ordered EPA to continue to enforce the 2005 CAIR until CSAPR could be re -issued.
The EPA's petition for rehearing of the Court of Appeals' order was denied. In June 2013, the
U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the Court of Appeals' decision and oral arguments were
held on December, 10, 2013. A decision is still pending. Air quality control installations that
SCE&G has already completed have allowed the Company to comply with the reinstated CAIR
and will also allow it to comply with CSAPR if reinstated.
CSAPR, which was intended to replace CAIR, was initially finalized in July 2011 under
the, Clean Air Act and would affect 27 states including South Carolina, requiring reductions in
22

sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions beginning in 2012, with stricter
reductions in 2014. The rule established an emissions cap for SO2 and NOx and limited the
trading region for emission allowances by separating affected states into two groups with no
trading between the groups.
SCE&G Fossil Hydro generation is in compliance with emission limits set by CSAPR
and CAIR:
b. Mercury and Air Toxics Standards ("MATS")
Proposed under the Clean Air Act, this rule sets numeric emission limits for mercury.-
particulate
ercury;particulate matter as a surrogate for toxic metals, and hydrogen chloride as a surrogate for acid
gases. The final rule also revises new source performance standards for power plants to address
emissions of particulate matter, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. The rule would replace the
court -vacated Clean Air Mercury Rule. MATS was proposed in May 2011, and the final rule
was issued on December 21, 2011.
The rule became effective on April 16, 2012. Compliance with MATS is required within
three years. A 1 -year extension may be granted by the state permitting authorities if additional
time is needed for units that are required to run for reliability purposes which would otherwise be
deactivated, or which, due to factors beyond the control of the owner/operator, have a delay in
installation of controls or need to operate because another unit has had such a delay. It is
expected that coal-fired.generators will need to have a combination of flue gas desulfurization,
selective catalytic reduction and fabric filters in order to comply with the standards. A second
year of extension may also be possible for reliability critical units that qualify for an
Administrative Order at the end of the 1 -year extension. All extension requests must be
supported by the written concurrence of the appropriate Planning Authority and will be
considered by EPA on a case-by-case basis, supplemented by consultation with FERC and/or
other entities with relevant reliability. expertise as appropriate.
SCE&G applied for and received a 1 -year extension from DHEC for both McMeekin and
Canadys. With the retirement of Canadys in the 4th quarter of 2013, only McMeekin has a
waiver that will allow the continued use of coal until April 2016.
23

e. Greenhouse Gases
The EPA's rule addressing the emission of greenhouse gases was proposed under the
Clean Air Act and would establish performance standards for new and modified generating units,
along with emissions guidelines for existing generating units. This action will amend the new
source performance standards ("NSPS") for electric generating units ("EGU") and will establish
the first NSPS for greenhouse gas ("GHG") emissions. The Rule essentially requires all new
fossil fuel -fired power plants to meet the carbon dioxide ("CO2") emissions profile of a
combined cycle natural gas plant. While most new natural gas plants wilt not be required to
include any new technologies, no new coal plants can be constructed without carbon capture and
sequestration ("CCS") capabilities. The first part of this rule,, related to new generation sources,
was released in April 2012 and was expected to become final in March 2013.
As part of the President's Climate Action Plan and by Presidential Memorandum issued
June 25, 2013, the EPA issued a revised carbon standard for new power plants by re -proposing
NSPS under the CAA for emissions of carbon dioxide from newly constructed fossil fuel -fired
units. The April 2012 rule was withdrawn by EPA and the new rule, which became final on
January 8, 2014, still requires all new fossil fuel -fired power plants to meet the carbon dioxide
emissions profile of a combined cycle natural gas plant. While most new natural gas plants will
not be required to include any new technologies, no new coal fired plants could be constructed
without carbon capture and sequestration capabilities. The Company is evaluating the final rule,
but does not plan to construct new coal fired units in the near future.
The Presidential Memorandum also directed EPA to issue standards, regulations, or
guidelines for existing units by June 1, 2014, to be made final no later than June 1, 2015. The
Company also cannot predict when rules will become final for existing units, if at all, or what
conditions they may impose on the Company, if any.
SCE&G's new nuclear generation will mitigate CO2 concerns going forward. The
following chart shows that SCE&G's CO2 emissions will fall well below its 1995 level after the
next several years.
24

d. Cooling Water Intake Structures
Proposed under section §316(b) of the Clean Water Act, this rule is intended to reduce
damage to aquatic life through impingement, when organisms are trapped against inlet screens,
and entrainment, when they are drawn into the generator's cooling water system. Facilities that
withdraw at least 2 million gallons per day would be subject to a limit on the number of fish that
can be killed through impingement: Facilities that withdraw at least 125 million gallons per day
and new units at existing facilities may be subject to more stringent restrictions. The rule was
proposed in April 2011, and a final rule is now expected by April 17, 2014.
There is considerable uncertainty regarding when the regulations would be effective and
the steps that would have to be taken in order to meet them. Facilities must comply with Best
Available Technology Standards within 8 years, but many required submittals are due much
earlier, as early as six months after rule promulgation. Compliance actions range from enhanced
screening and reconfiguration of water intake systems to installation of cooling towers to reduce
the flow rate. On SCE&G's system, Jasper, Cope and Wateree Stations have closed cycle
cooling towers installed and should not be significantly affected by these regulations. The
Company is currently conducting studies and is developing or implementing compliance plans
for these initiatives.
25
SCE&G
Electric CO2
21
19
17
15
o
13
11
7
v1 W 1� 00 O O -1
O O O O O H c-1
N m 'It Ln W
c 1 c -I -1 -1 ci
1, 00 O O .--1 N
ci -4 ri N N N
_
O O O O O O O
N N N N N N N
OO O O O
N N N N N
O O O O O O
N N N N N N
Actual -Projected Projected
1995 Actual
2005 Actual
010614
d. Cooling Water Intake Structures
Proposed under section §316(b) of the Clean Water Act, this rule is intended to reduce
damage to aquatic life through impingement, when organisms are trapped against inlet screens,
and entrainment, when they are drawn into the generator's cooling water system. Facilities that
withdraw at least 2 million gallons per day would be subject to a limit on the number of fish that
can be killed through impingement: Facilities that withdraw at least 125 million gallons per day
and new units at existing facilities may be subject to more stringent restrictions. The rule was
proposed in April 2011, and a final rule is now expected by April 17, 2014.
There is considerable uncertainty regarding when the regulations would be effective and
the steps that would have to be taken in order to meet them. Facilities must comply with Best
Available Technology Standards within 8 years, but many required submittals are due much
earlier, as early as six months after rule promulgation. Compliance actions range from enhanced
screening and reconfiguration of water intake systems to installation of cooling towers to reduce
the flow rate. On SCE&G's system, Jasper, Cope and Wateree Stations have closed cycle
cooling towers installed and should not be significantly affected by these regulations. The
Company is currently conducting studies and is developing or implementing compliance plans
for these initiatives.
25

e. Coal Combustion Residuals
In response to concerns over the potential structural failure of coal ash impoundment
facilities instigated by the December 2008 failure that occurred at a Tennessee Valley Authority
facility, EPA has proposed changing the classification of coal combustion residuals from its
current status of an exempt waste. Two options were proposed under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act: (1) list residuals as special hazardous wastes when destined for disposal in
landfills or surface impoundments or (2) regulate as a non -hazardous waste. The proposed rule
was released in June 2010 and comments were received through November 2010. EPA has not
issued the rule as yet and has not specified when a final rule will be issued. The effective date is
believed to be dependent on which option is selected. If coal combustion residuals are classified
as non -hazardous wastes, the rule would be effective six months after promulgation. A special
hazardous waste designation would likely push compliance out until about 2021 when the state
adopts the rule. Timing will- vary from state to state.
On January 18, 2012, several environmental groups, led by Earthjustice, filed a notice of
intent to sue the EPA to force the agency to finalize its proposed rule determining how coal.
combustion residuals (commonly referred to as "coal ash") will be categorized. On January 22,
2013, the Court in the coal combustion residuals ("CCR") deadline litigation postponed the
status conference in the case until April 26, 2013. On October 29, a federal district judge
ordered EPA to file by December 29, 2013, a timeline for the completion of this rule. However,
because environmental groups and coal ash recyclers are in settlement negotiations concerning
the timeline, in December, the district court accepted a motion to give EPA additional time
(until late January) to file the timeline. In January, a consent decree was filed that sets forth
EPA's obligation to sign, by December 19, 2014, a notice for publication in the Federal Register
taking final action on the Agency's rule for CCR.
The final CCR rule may require the closure of ash ponds. SCE&G has three generating
facilities that have employed ash storage ponds, and all of these ponds have either been closed
after all ash was removed or are part of an ash pond closure project that includes complete
removal of the ash prior to closure. The electric generating facilities which continue to be coal-
fired have dry ash handling, and the ash ponds undergoing closure have a detailed dam safety
inspection conducted at least quarterly.
26

L Effluent Limitation Guidelines
The Clean Water Act ("CWA") establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of
pollutants into the waters of the United States. It provides EPA and the States with a variety of
programs and tools to protect and restore the nation's waters. These programs and tools
generally rely either on water quality -based controls, such as water quality standards and water
quality -based permit limitations, or technology-based controls such as effluent guidelines and
technology-based permit limitations. The EPA is currently developing a proposed rule to amend
the effluent guidelines and standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating category. Once
issued, the Steam Electric effluent guidelines and standards will be incorporated into State
administered wastewater permits known as National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
("NPDES") permits. EPA's decision to proceed with a rulemaking was announced on
September 15, 2009, following completion of a preliminary study.
EPA reviewed wastewater discharges from power plants and the treatment technologies
available to reduce pollutant discharges. EPA believes that the current regulations, which were
last updated in 1982, do not adequately address the pollutants being discharged and have not kept
pace with changes that have occurred in the electric power industry over the last three decades.
EPA's main reason for this concern is that the air pollution control technologies that have been
retrofitted to power plants in order to reduce air emissions put a majority of those contaminants
into the wastewater discharge. In 2010, EPA submitted an Information Collection Request
("ICR") to all electric utilities to aid in their review of plant operations, pollution control
technologies, and current wastewater discharges. Consequently, SCE&G expended considerable
time and resources to answer a 213 -page questionnaire for each of its electric generating
facilities.
Under the CWA, compliance with applicable limitations is achieved under State -issued
National Permit Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. As a facility's NPDES permit
is renewed (every 5 years) any new effluent limitations would be incorporated. New federal
effluent limitation guidelines for steam electric generating units (the ELG Rule) were published
in the Federal Register on June 7, 2013. Comments were due by September 20, 2013, and the
rule is expected to be finalized May 22, 2014. EPA expects compliance as soon as possible after
July 2017 but no later than July 2020. Once the rule becomes effective, the State environmental
regulators will.modify the NPDES permits to match more restrictive standards thus requiring
utilities to retrofit each facility with new wastewater treatment technologies. Based on the
27

proposed rule, SCE&G expects that wastewater treatment technology retrofits will be required at
Williams and Wateree at a minimum.
g. NAAQS 1 -hour SO2
In June 2010, EPA revised the primary SO2 standard by establishing a new 1 -hour
standard at a level of 75 parts per billion ("ppb"). The EPA revoked the two existing primary
standards of 140 ppb evaluated over 24 -hours, and 30 ppb per hour averaged over an entire year.
The new form is the 3 -year average of the 99th percentile of the annual distribution of daily
maximum 1 -hour average concentrations. EPA also required states to install new monitors by
January 1, 2013. Compliance requires both monitoring and refined dispersion modeling of SO2
sources to meet the new standard.
The new 1 -hour national ambient air quality standard ("NAAQS") for SO2 presents new
challenges and is driving strategic planning for large SO2 emitters around the country. For this
new standard, EPA is requiring the unusual step of using air quality modeling for criteria
pollutant attainment designations. EPA released its draft guidance for this State Implementation
Plan ("SIP") modeling and the states prepared for designation modeling efforts. However, later
guidance issued during June 2012 indicated that EPA would back off of the modeling
requirement.
Historically, ambient air monitoring data has provided the basis for attainment
designations. The shift to using models instead of ambient data poses significant challenges.
For example, due to the stringent nature of the short term SO2 standards, the conservative nature
of the models and use of conservative inputs in the model (short-term emission limits), the
results can significantly overstate reality. Also there are likely to be surprises for historically
grandfathered sources or even new well-controlled sources.
During 2013, EPA deferred designations for South Carolina for future action. On
January 7, 2014, EPA made available two updated draft documents that provide technical
assistance for states implementing the 2010 health -based, sulfur dioxide (SO2) standard. These
documents provide technical advice on the use of modeling and monitoring to determine if an
area meets the 2010 SO2 air quality standard. In a future rule expected in 2014, the EPA will
establish requirements for characterizing SO2 air quality in priority areas, focusing on areas with
sources that have emissions higher than a threshold amount. The EPA expects to establish these
thresholds taking population into account. States will have the flexibility to characterize air
28

quality using modeling of actual emissions or using appropriately sited existing and new
monitors. These data would be used in two future rounds of designations in 2017 (based on
modeling) and 2020 (based on new monitoring). EPA expects to issue a Data Requirements
Rule for implementing the 1 -Hour SO2 standard during 2014. Air quality control installations
that SCE&G and GENCO have already completed and planned retirements of older coal-fired
units are expected to allow the Company to comply with the 1 -Hour SO2 standard.
4. Supply Side Resources at SCE&G
a. Existing Supply Resources
SCE&G owns and operates six (6) coal-fired fossil fuel units, one (1) gas-fired steam
unit, eight (8) combined cycle gas turbine/steam generator units (gas/oil fired), sixteen (16)
peaking turbine units, four (4) hydroelectric generating plants, and one Pumped Storage Facility.
In addition, SCE&G receives the output of 85 MWs from a cogeneration facility. The total net
non-nuclear summer generating capability rating of these facilities is 4,590 MWs in summer and
4,764 MWs in winter. These ratings, which are updated at least on an annual basis, reflect the
expectation for the coming summer and winter seasons. When SCE&G's nuclear capacity (647
MWs in summer and 661 MWs in winter), a long term capacity purchase (25 MWs) and
additional capacity (20 MWs) provided through a contract with the Southeastern Power
Administration are added, SCE&G's total supply capacity is 5,282 MWs in summers and 5,470
MWs in winter. This is summarized in the table on the following page.
s This supply capacity does not include the Company's solar generator with a DC nominal rating of 2.6 MWs which
lies behind a customer's meter.
M

Existing Long Term Supply Resources
The following table shows the generating capacity that is available to SCE&G in 2014.
Coal -Fired Steam:
McMeekin — Near Irmo, SC
Wateree — Eastover, SC
*Williams — Goose Creek, SC
Cope - Cope, SC
Kapstone — Charleston, SC
Total Coal -Fired Steam Capacity
Gas -Fired Steam:
Urquhart — Beech Island, SC
Nuclear:
V. C. Summer - Parr, SC
I. C. Turbines:
Hardeeville, SC
Urquhart — Beech Island, SC
Coit — Columbia, SC
Parr, SC
Williams — Goose Creek, SC
Hagood — Charleston, SC
Urquhart No. 4 — Beech Island, SC
Urquhart Combined Cycle — Beech Island, SC
Jasper Combined Cycle — Jasper, SC
Total 1. C. Turbines Capacity
Hydro:
Neal Shoals — Carlisle, SC
Parr Shoals — Parr, SC
Stevens Creek - Near Martinez, GA
Saluda - Near Irmo, SC
Fairfield Pumped Storage - Parr, SC
•Total Hydro Capacity
Other: Long -Term Purchases
SEPA
Grand Total:
In -Service Summer
Date MW
1958
250
250
1970
684
684
1973
605
610
1996
415
415
1999
85
85
1991
2,039
2,044
1953 95 961
1984 647 6611
1968
9
9
1969
39
48
1969
28
38
1970
60
73
1972
40
52
1991
128
145
1999
48
49
2002
458
484
2004
852
924
1,662
1,822
1905
3
4
1914
7
12
1914
8
10
1930
200
200
1978
576
576
794
802
25
25
20
20
5.282
* Williams Station is owned by GENCO, a wholly owned subsidiary of SCANA and is operated by SCE&G.
Not reflected in the table is a solar PV generator owned by SCE&G with a nominal direct current rating of
2.6 MWs nor a purchase of 300 MWs of firm capacity for the years 2014-2015.
30

The bar chart below shows SCE&G's actual 2013 relative energy generation and relative
capacity by fuel source.
b. DSM from the Supply Side
SCE&G is able to achieve a DSM -like impact from the supply side using its Fairfield
Pumped Storage Plant. The Company uses off-peak energy to pump water uphill into the
Monticello Reservoir and then displaces on -peak generation by releasing the water and
generating power. This accomplishes the same goal as many DSM programs, namely, shifting
use to off-peak periods and lowering demands during high cost, on -peak periods. The following
graph shows the impact that Fairfield Pumped Storage had on a typical summer weekday.
Impact of Pumped Storage
Average Summer ®ay in 2013
4000
3500 -
m
3000 _ -
t
2500
2000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1112 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2122 23 24
Hour of Day
`Territorial Load * Net of Fairfield
31

In effect the Fairfield Pumped Storage Plant was used to shave about 218 MWs from the
daily peak times of 2:00pm through 6:00pm and to move about 2.4% of customer's daily energy
needs off peak. Because of this valuable supply side capability, a similar capability on the
demand side, such as a time of use rate, would be less valuable on SCE&G's system than on
many other utility systems.
c. Planning Reserve Margin and Operating Reserves
The Company provides for the reliability of its electric service by maintaining an
adequate reserve margin of supply capacity. The appropriate level of reserve capacity for
SCE&G is in the range of 14 to 20 percent of its firm peak demand. This range of reserves will
allow SCE&G to have adequate daily operating reserves and to have reserves to cover two
primary sources of risk: supply risk and demand risk.
Supply reserves are needed to balance the "supply risk" that some SCE&G generation
capacity may be forced out of service or its capacity reduced on any particular day because of
mechanical failures, fuel related problems, environmental limitations or other force
majeure/unforeseen events. The amount of capacity forced -out or down -rated will vary from
day-to-day. SCE&G's reserve margin range is designed to cover most of these days as well as
the outage of any one of our generating units.
Another component of reserve margin is the demand reserve. This is needed to cover
"demand risk" related to unexpected increases in customer load above our peak demand forecast.
This can be the result of extreme weather conditions or other unexpected events.
The level of daily operating reserves required by the SCE&G system is dictated by
operating agreements with other VACAR companies. VACAR is the organization of utilities
serving customers in the Virginia -Carolinas region of the country who have entered into a
reserve sharing agreement. These utilities are members of the SERC Reliability Corporation, a
nonprofit corporation responsible for promoting and improving the reliability of the bulk power
transmission system in much of the southeastern United States. While it can vary by a few
megawatts each year, SCE&G's pro -rata share of this capacity is always around 200 megawatts.
To analyze these three components of reserve and establish a reserve margin target range,
SCE&G employs three methodologies: 1) the component method which analyzes separately
each of the three components mentioned above; 2) the traditional and industry standard
technique of "Loss of Load Probability," or LOLP, using a range of LOLP from 1 day per year to
32

I day in 10 years; and 3) the largest unit out method. The results of this analysis are summarized
in the following table and support a reserve margin target range of 14% to 20%.
By maintaining a reserve margin in the 14 to 20 percent range, the Company addresses the
uncertainties related to load and to the availability of generation on its system. It also allows the
Company to meet its VACAR obligation. SCE&G will monitor its reserve margin policy in light
of the changing power markets and its system needs and will make changes to the policy as
warranted.
d. New Nuclear Capacity
On May 30, 2008, SCE&G filed with the Commission a Combined Application for a
Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Convenience and Necessity and for a
Base Load Review Order for the construction and operation of two 1,117 net MW nuclear units
to be located at the V.C. Summer Nuclear Station near Jenkinsville, South Carolina. Following a
full hearing on the Combined Application, the Commission issued Order No. 2009-104(A)
granting SCE&G, among other things, a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public
Convenience and Necessity.
On March 30, 2012, the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued a
combined Construction and Operation License ("COL") to SCE&G for each unit. Both units
will have the Westinghouse AP 1000 design and -use passive safety systems to enhance the safety
of the units.
On January 27, 2014, SCE&G and Santee Cooper agreed to increase SCE&G's
ownership share from 55% to 60% in three stages. SCE&G will acquire an additional 1% of the
2,234 MWs of capacity when Unit #2 achieves commercial operation which is expected around
December 2017 or the first quarter of 2018. An additional 2% will go to SCE&G one year later
33
Low MWs
Low %
High MWs
High %
Component Method
766
16.0%
1016
21.3%
LOLP
721
14.4%
1171
23.5%
Largest Unit
644
13.5%
966
20.2%
644
1171
Reserve Policy
14.0%
20.0%
By maintaining a reserve margin in the 14 to 20 percent range, the Company addresses the
uncertainties related to load and to the availability of generation on its system. It also allows the
Company to meet its VACAR obligation. SCE&G will monitor its reserve margin policy in light
of the changing power markets and its system needs and will make changes to the policy as
warranted.
d. New Nuclear Capacity
On May 30, 2008, SCE&G filed with the Commission a Combined Application for a
Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Convenience and Necessity and for a
Base Load Review Order for the construction and operation of two 1,117 net MW nuclear units
to be located at the V.C. Summer Nuclear Station near Jenkinsville, South Carolina. Following a
full hearing on the Combined Application, the Commission issued Order No. 2009-104(A)
granting SCE&G, among other things, a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public
Convenience and Necessity.
On March 30, 2012, the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued a
combined Construction and Operation License ("COL") to SCE&G for each unit. Both units
will have the Westinghouse AP 1000 design and -use passive safety systems to enhance the safety
of the units.
On January 27, 2014, SCE&G and Santee Cooper agreed to increase SCE&G's
ownership share from 55% to 60% in three stages. SCE&G will acquire an additional 1% of the
2,234 MWs of capacity when Unit #2 achieves commercial operation which is expected around
December 2017 or the first quarter of 2018. An additional 2% will go to SCE&G one year later
33

and another 2% one year after that. By December 2019 or the first quarter of 2020, SCE&G will
own 60% of both units (670 MWs each) while Santee Cooper will own 40%.
e. Retirement of Coal Plants
When the EPA promulgated its Mercury and Air Toxics Standards ("MATS") on
December 21, 2011, SCE&G had six small coal-fired units in its fleet totaling 730 MWs ranging
in age from 45 to 57 years that could not meet the emission standards without further
modifications to the units. Those six units are displayed in the following table.
Plant Name
Capacity (MW)
Commercialization Date
Canadys 1
90
1962
Canadys 2
115
1964
Canadys 3
180
1967
Urquhart 3
95
1955
McMeekin 1
125
1958
McMeekin 2
125
1958
After a thorough retirement analysis, the Company decided that these six units would be retired
when the addition of new nuclear capacity was available as a replacement.2 As part of this
retirement plan the Company has retired Canadys' Units #1, 2 and 3 and has converted Urquhart
#3 to be fired with natural gas while dismantling the coal handling facilities at this unit. The
capacity (250 MWs) of the remaining two coal-fired units, McMeekin 1&2, is required to
maintain system reliability until the new nuclear capacity is available. Under the MATS
regulations but with a one year waiver granted by South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control ("SCDHEC") these units cannot run on coal after April 15, 2016. The
Company is currently looking at ways to bridge, with dispatchable resources, the gap between
the MATS compliance date and the availability of the new nuclear capacity.
z In announcing its plans to retire the units in its 2012 Integrated Resource Plan, the Company
was careful to note that its retirement plans were subject to change if circumstances changed.
See SCE&G's 2012 Integrated Resource Plan, at 29 (May 30, 2012) ("Although today's
reference resource plan calls for the retirement of the six coal-fired units, the Company will
continue to monitor, among other things, developments in environmental regulation and will
continue to analyze its options and modify the plan as needed to benefit its customers.").
34

E Renewable Resources
SCE&G continues to monitor the development of renewable sources of energy and looks
for economic opportunities hies to include them in its resource plan.
1. Busbar Costs of Renewable Resources
The following charts show the busbar cost of renewable resources compared to other
potential resource additions. The busbar cost is shown in terms of $/MWh at various capacity
factors. It is assumed that the overnight capital costs of solar. PV and off -shore wind are $3,873
per KW and $6,230 per KW respectively. The capital cost for a combined cycle facility and a
combustion turbine facility are $1,023 per KW and $676 per KW respectively. Solar PV and off
shore wind can be seen as more costly than traditional sources of power.
There are four charts shown on the next page. The two charts on the left side of the page
show the busbar costs with and without the federal investment tax credit ("ITC"). As an
approximation it is assumed that the ITC will reduce the capital cost of solar and wind by 30%.
The two charts on the right side of the page show the same information but with the vertical axis
truncated at $500/MWh thereby displaying more granularity at higher capacity factors.
35

$/MWh vs Capacity Factor
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Ln O ��-I OO
N N MM M d d MM M LD l0 ^ r- 00 M M M
Solar PV Off -Shore Wind
-!—Combustion Turbine—Combined Cycle
$/MWh vs Capacity Factor.
30% ITC for Solar and Wind
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
u1 O Ln ON MM M -:t � OLn M 1.0 lD r^ n 00 00 Ol M O
N
r-1
----Solar PV Off -Shore Wind
—* --Combustion Turbine Combined Cycle
36
$/MWh vs Capacity factor
500
30% ITC for Solar and Wind
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
—
100
50
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ln O Ln O to O to O Ln O Ln O Ln O to O Ln O to O
rl H N N M M I:t d- Ln Ln lD (D 1, n 00 00 0) M O
r -I
Ln o un o Ln o Ln o Ln o Ln o Ln o Ln o m o m o
i -I e -I N N M M wt ct M M LD lD 1, n 00 M M M O
i -I
—t -Solar PV-4—Off-Shore Wind
—*--Combustion Turbine —K—Combined Cycle
$/MWh vs Capacity Factor
30% ITC for Solar and Wind
500
400
300
200
100
—
50
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ln O Ln O to O to O Ln O Ln O Ln O to O Ln O to O
rl H N N M M I:t d- Ln Ln lD (D 1, n 00 00 0) M O
r -I
Solar PV Off -Shore Wind
—* --Combustion Turbine Combined Cycle

2. CO2 Emissions and Renewable Resources
The following table compares several types of generation to SCE&G's new nuclear
capacity in terms of CO2 output, both emitted and avoided, assuming that half gas and half coal
generation is being displaced.
Equivalent Avoided CO2 Emissions to SCE&G's New Nuclear Capacity
Type
Avoided CO2
Emissions
Output
MWh
Capacity
MW
CO2 Emissions
Tons
New Nuclear
6,756,327
10,564,560
1,340
0
Solar PV
6,756,327
10,564,560
7,354
0
Offshore Wind
6,756,327
10,564,560
3,260
0
Combined Cycle
6,756,327
25,316,685
3,613
9,434,389
To avoid the same number of tons of CO2 as 1,340 MWs of nuclear capacity, you would need
more than 5 times that capacity in solar PV capacity or almost 2.5 times that capacity in off shore
wind capacity or more than 2.5 times that capacity in gas fired combined cycle capacity.
3. The Projected Cost of Distributed Solar Photovoltaic Energy
The National Renewable Energy Laboratory ("NREL") has produced and made available
to the public a financial calculator to evaluate renewable technologies. The NREL model known
as the System Advisor Model ("SAM") was used to estimate the level cost of solar energy
("LCOE") in South Carolina under several scenarios. See https:Hsam.nrel.gov for more
information on the SAM model. The following table shows the LCOE for a commercial
customer seeking a power purchase agreement ("PPA"). The LCOE is reduced by both a federal
and a state investment tax credit ("ITC") and by the use of accelerated depreciation, in particular,
5 year MACRS. It assumes the project is financed with 80% debt at 7% interest with a target
internal rate of return ("IRR") of 15%. Since the capital cost of a solar PV installation are size
and site specific and since the costs continue to change each year, the LCOE is shown for several
levels of capital cost.
37

Levelized Cost of Solar Energy for a Commercial Installation
Size 2000 KW
Size 200 KW
Capital Cost $/watt
L.C.O.E. $/MWh
Capital Cost $/watt
L.C.O.E. $/MWh
$3.00
$102.50
$4.00
$121.80
$2.50
$88.30
$3.00
$93.40
$2.00
$74.00
$2.50
$79.20
The following table shows similar results for a residential installation.
Levelized Cost of Solar Energy for a
Residential Installation
Size 5 KW
Capital Cost $/Watt
L.C.O.E. $/MWh
$6.00
$193.70
$5.00
$155.00
$4.00
$116.30
$3.00
$77.50
4. Potential Impact of Solar PV on the Resource Plan
It is difficult to pinpoint how much and how fast solar photovoltaic energy resources will
develop in SCE&G's service territory, but it is evident that these resources will play a role in
SCE&G's energy supply in the coming years. The cost of solar panels and associated equipment
has been decreasing over the past years. Much of the ongoing and future cost reduction of solar
farms is likely to be driven by efficiencies in design and construction, and the pace of reductions
is likely to slow, but how far and how fast the costs will drop in the future is not certain. Federal
and state tax incentives encourage the installation of solar facilities, but the level of support is
likely to change in the future. Finally solar development is encouraged through the policy of net
energy metering ("NEM") whereby all solar energy generated at a customer's site is valued at
the customer's retail rate. Since much of the utility's fixed costs are recovered through a
volumetric, per kWh charge, utilities generally claim that this policy is not sustainable.
Conversely, particular solar installations may bring value to the system that is unaccounted for
under current rate designs. SCE&G is working to better understand the costs and benefits of
solar energy resources on its system so that costs and value are appropriately accounted for. The
38

following table shows the impact of solar generation when its DC capacity is set to 2% of
SCE&G's firm system peak. Approximately 56% of the DC rating of solar capacity will be
generating on a summer afternoon and contribute to reducing the summer peak demand. There
will be no solar generation at the time of SCE&G's winter peak demand which usually occurs
between 7 and 8 am.
g. Projected Loads and resources
SCE&G's resource plan for the next 15 years is shown in the table labeled "SCE&G
Forecast Loads and Resources - 2014 IRP " on a subsequent page. The resource plan shows the
need for additional capacity and identifies, on a preliminary basis, whether the need is for
peaking/intermediate capacity or base load capacity.
On line 10 the resource plan shows decreases in capacity which relate to the retirement of
coal units as previously discussed. The resource plan shows the addition of peaking capacity on
line 8 and the need for any firm one year capacity purchases on line 12. The Company has
secured the purchase of 300MWs in the years 2014 through 2016. Capacity is added to maintain
the SCE&G's planning reserve margin within the target range of 14% to 20%. The resource plan
39
Impact When Solar DC Capacity Set to 2% of System Peak
Percent
System
Solar
Summer
Winter
Solar
of
Peak
DC MW
Peak
Peak
Energy
Retail
Year
MW
@1%
Impact
Impact
MWH
Sales
2014
4,786
96
54
0
134,161
0.6%
2015
4,849
97
54
0.
135,927
0.6%
2016
4,968
99
56
0
139,263
0.6%
2017
5,074
101
57
0
142,234
0.6%
2018
5,166
103
58
0
144,813
0.6%
2019
5,246
105
59
0
147,056
0.6%
2020
5,319
106
60
0
149,102
0.6%
2021
5,385
108
60
0
150,952
0.6%
2022
5,458
109
61
0
152,999
0.6%
2023
5,540
111
62
0
155,297
0.6%
2024
5,623
112
63
0
157,624
0.6%
2025
5,704
114
64
0
159,895
0.6%
2026
5,790
116
65
0
162,305
0.6%
2027
5,867
117
66
0
164,464
0.6%
2028
5,942
119
67
0
166,566
0.6%
g. Projected Loads and resources
SCE&G's resource plan for the next 15 years is shown in the table labeled "SCE&G
Forecast Loads and Resources - 2014 IRP " on a subsequent page. The resource plan shows the
need for additional capacity and identifies, on a preliminary basis, whether the need is for
peaking/intermediate capacity or base load capacity.
On line 10 the resource plan shows decreases in capacity which relate to the retirement of
coal units as previously discussed. The resource plan shows the addition of peaking capacity on
line 8 and the need for any firm one year capacity purchases on line 12. The Company has
secured the purchase of 300MWs in the years 2014 through 2016. Capacity is added to maintain
the SCE&G's planning reserve margin within the target range of 14% to 20%. The resource plan
39

thus constructed represents one possible way to meet the increasing demand of our customers.
Before the Company commits to adding a new resource, it will'perform a study to determine
what type resource will best serve our customers.
The Company believes that its supply plan, summarized in the following table, will be as
benign to the environment as possible because of the Company's continuing efforts to utilize
state-of-the-art emission reduction technology in compliance with state and federal laws and
regulations. The supply plan will also help SCE&G keep its cost of energy service at a minimum
since the generating units being added are competitive with alternatives in the market.
40

SCE&G Forecast of Summer Loads and Resources - 2014 IRP
YEAR
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
Load Forecast
1
I Baseline Trend
50461
5113
5272
5407
5525
56321
5734
58301
5921
6023
6125
6227
63321
6430
6525
2
EE Impact
-3
4
-37
-58
-80
-103
7129
-156
-171
-187
-203
-220
-236
-253
-270
3
Gross Territorial Peak
5043
5109
5235
5349
5445
5529
5605
5674
5750
5836
5922
6007
6096
6177
6255
4
Demand Response
--257
-260
-267
-275
-279
-283
-286
-289
-292
-296
-299
-303
-306
-310
-313
5
Net Territorial Peak
47861
4849
4968
5074
5166
5246
5319
53851
5458
5540
5623
57041
5790
5867
5942
Systern Capacity
6
justing
5282
5287
5290
5293
5293
5918
6242
6288
6288
6288
6381
6474
6567
6660-
6753
Additions
7
Solar Plant (20 NNVs DC)
5
3
3
8
_
Peaking/Intermediate
93
93
93
93
93
93
9
Baseload
625
669
46
10
Retirements
-345
11
Total System Capacity
5287
5290
5293
5293
5918
6242
6288
6288
6288
6381
6474
6567
6660
6753
6846
12
Firm Annual Purchase
300
300
375
500
13
Total Production Capability
5587
5590
5668
5793
5918
6242
6288
- 6288
6288
63811
6474
6567
6660
6753
6846
Reserves
14
Margin (1-13-1-5)
801
741
700
719
752
'996
9691
903
830
841
851
863
870
886
904
15
% Reserve Nbrgin (1-14/1-5)
16.7%
15.3%
14.1%1
14.2%
14.6%
19.0%
18.2%1
16.8%1
15.2%1
15.2%
15.1%
15.1%
15.0%
15.1%
15.2%
16
% NERC Resk n L141 L5 -L4
15.9%1
14.5%1
13.4%1
13.4%1
13.8%
18.0%
17.3%
F15.9%
14.4%1
14.4%1
14.0
14.4%
14.3%1
14.3%
14.5%
Note: L17 shows the reserve margin calculated according to NERC's new definition. See the following link for details:
http://www.nerc.com/docs/pc/ris/RIS Report on Reserve Mares Treatment of CCDR %2006.01.10.pdf
41

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
42

III. Transmission System Assessment and Planning
SCE&G's transmission planning practices develop and coordinate a program that provides
for timely modifications to the SCE&G transmission system to ensure a reliable and economical
delivery of power. This program includes the determination of the current capability of the
electrical network and a ten-year schedule of future additions and modifications to the system.
These additions and modifications are required to support customer growth, provide emergency
assistance and maintain economic opportunities for our customers while meeting SCE&G and
industry transmission performance standards.
SCE&G has an ongoing process to determine the current and future performance level of
the SCE&G transmission system. Numerous internal studies are undertaken that address the
service needs of our customers. These needs include: 1) distributed load growth of existing
residential, commercial, industrial, and wholesale customers, 2) new residential, commercial,
industrial, and wholesale customers and 3) customers who use only transmission services on the
SCE&G system.
SCE&G has developed and adheres to a set of internal Long Range Planning Criteria
which can be summarized as follows:
The requirements of the SCE&G "LONG RANGE PLANNING CRITERIA " will be
satisfied if the system is designed so that during any of the following contingencies, only
short -time overloads, low voltages and local loss of load will occur and that after
appropriate switching and re -dispatching, all non -radial load can be served with
reasonable voltages and that lines and transformers are operating"within acceptable
limits.
a. Loss of any bus and associated facilities operating at a voltage level of 115kV or
above
b. Loss of any line operating at a voltage level of 11 SkV or above
c. Loss of entire generating capability in any one plant
d. Loss of all circuits on a common structure
e. Loss of any transmission transformer
f. Loss of any generating unit simultaneous with the loss of a single transmission line
Outages more severe are considered acceptable if they will not cause equipment damage
or result in uncontrolled cascading outside the local area.
Furthermore, SCE&G subscribes to the set of mandatory Electric Reliability Organization
("ERO"), also known as the North American Electric Reliability Corporation ("NERC"),
43

Reliability Standards for Transmission Planning, as approved by the NERC Board of Trustees and
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC").
SCE&G assesses and designs its transmission system to be compliant with the
requirements as set forth in these standards. A copy of the NERC Reliability Standards is
available at the NERC website http://www.nerc.com/.
The SCE&G transmission system is interconnected with Duke Energy Progress, Duke
Energy Carolinas, South Carolina Public Service Authority ("Santee Cooper"), Georgia Power
("Southern Company") and the Southeastern Electric Power Administration ("SEPA") systems.
Because of these interconnections with neighboring systems, system conditions on other systems
can affect the capabilities of the SCE&G transmission system and also system conditions on the
SCE&G transmission system can affect other systems. SCE&G participates with other
transmission planners throughout the southeast to develop current and future power flow and
stability models of the integrated transmission grid for the NERC Eastern Interconnection. All
participants' models are merged together to produce current and future models of the integrated
electrical network. Using these models, SCE&G evaluates its current and future transmission
system for compliance with the SCE&G Long Range Planning Criteria and the NERC Reliability
Standards.
To ensure the reliability of the SCE&G transmission system while considering conditions
on other systems and to assess the reliability of the integrated transmission grid, SCE&G
participates in assessment studies with neighboring transmission planners in South Carolina,
North Carolina and Georgia. Also, SCE&G on a periodic and ongoing basis participates with
other transmission planners throughout the southeast to assess the reliability of the southeastern
integrated transmission grid for the long-term horizon (up to 10 years) and for upcoming
seasonal (summer and winter) system conditions.
The following is a list of joint studies with neighboring transmission owners completed
over the past year:
1. SERC NTSG Reliability 2013 Summer Study
2. SERC NTSG Reliability 2013/2014 Winter Study
3. SERC LTSG 2017 Summer Peak Study
4. SERC NTSG OASIS 2013 January Studies (13Q1)
5. SERC NTSG OASIS 2013 April Studies (13Q2)
6. SERC NTSG OASIS 2013 July Studies (13Q3)
7. SERC NTSG OASIS 2013 October Studies (13Q4)
8. SERC DSG 2014 Summer Peak/Shoulder/Light Load/Winter Peak, 2015 Summer
Peak, and 2019 Summer Peak/Light Load/Winter Peak Dynamics Studies
44

9. ERAG 2018 Summer Transmission System Assessment
10. CTCA 2019 Summer Study
11. CTCA 2024 Carolinas Wind Study
12. SCRTP 2014 Summer Peak, 2013/2014 Winter Peak, 2018 Summer Peak, and 2023
Summer Peak Transfer Studies
13. EIPC 2018 & 2023 Roll -Up Integration Studies
where the acronyms used above have the following reference:
SERC - SERC Reliability Corporation
NTSG - Near Term Study Group of SERC
LTSG - Long Term Study Group of SERC
OASIS - Open Access Same -time Information System
DSG Dynamics Study Group
ERAG - Eastern Interconnection Reliability Assessment Group
CTCA - Carolinas Transmission Coordination Arrangement
SCRTP - South Carolina Regional Transmission Planning
EIPC - Eastern Interconnection Planning Collaborative
These activities, as discussed above, provide for a reliable and cost effective transmission
system for SCE&G customers.
Eastern Interconnection Planning Collaborative (EIPC)
The Eastern Interconnection Planning Collaborative ("EIPC") was initiated by a coalition
of regional Planning Authorities. These Planning Authorities are entities listed on the NERC
compliance registry as Planning Authorities and represent the entire Eastern Interconnection.
The EIPC was founded to be a broad-based, transparent collaborative process among all
interested stakeholders:
- State and Federal policy makers
- Consumer and environmental interests
- Transmission Planning Authorities
- Market participants generating, transmitting or consuming electricity within the
Eastern Interconnection
The EIPC provides a grass-roots approach which builds upon the regional ekpansion
plans developed each year by regional stakeholders in collaboration with their respective NERC
Planning Authorities. This approach provides coordinated interregional analysis for the entire
45

Eastern Interconnection guided by the consensus input of an open and transparent stakeholder
process.
The EIPC purpose is to model the impact on the grid of various policy options
determined to be of interest by state, provincial and federal policy makers and other stakeholders.
This work builds upon, rather than replaces, the current local and regional transmission planning
processes developed by the Planning Authorities and associated regional stakeholder groups
within the entire Eastern Interconnection. Those processes are informed by the EIPC analysis
efforts including the interconnection -wide review of the existing regional plans and development
of transmission options associated with the various policy options.
FERC Order 1000 — Transmission Planning and Cost Allocation
On July 21, 2011, the FERC issued Order 1000 - Transmission Planning and Cost
Allocation by Transmission Owning and Operating Utilities. With respect to transmission
planning, this Final Rule: (1) requires that each public utility transmission provider participate in
a regional transmission planning process that produces a regional transmission plan; (2) requires
that each public utility transmission provider amend its OATT to describe procedures that
provide for the consideration of transmission needs driven by public policy requirements in the
local and regional transmission planning processes; (3) removes from FERC -approved tariffs and
agreements a federal right of first refusal for certain new transmission facilities; and (4) improves
coordination between neighboring transmission planning regions for new interregional
transmission facilities. Also, this Final Rule requires that each public utility transmission
provider participate in a regional transmission planning process that has: (1) a regional cost
allocation method for the cost of new transmission facilities selected in a regional transmission
plan for purposes of cost allocation; and (2) an interregional cost allocation method for the cost
of certain new transmission facilities that are located in two or more neighboring transmission
planning regions and are jointly evaluated by the regions in the interregional transmission
coordination procedures required by this Final Rule. Each cost allocation method must satisfy
six cost allocation principles.
On October 11, 2012, SCE&G filed with the FERC its proposed actions to achieve
compliance with the Regional requirements of Order 1000. On April 18, 2013, FERC
conditionally accepted SCE&G's filing subject to SCE&G providing more clarity and adding
greater detail to SCE&G's compliance plans. On October 15, 2013, SCE&G submitted a second

filing addressing these points. FERC is currently reviewing SCE&G's second filing. SCE&G
worked with its neighboring planning region (Southeastern Regional Transmission Planning
"SERTP") to develop actions to achieve compliance with the interregional requirements of Order
1000. On July 10, 2013, SCE&G filed with the FERC its proposed actions to achieve
compliance with the Interregional requirements of Order 1000. FERC is currently reviewing
SCE&G's Interregional compliance filing.
47

Short Range Methodology
This section presents the development of the short-range electric sales forecasts for the
Company. Two years of monthly forecasts for electric customers, average usage, and total usage
were developed according to Company class and rate structures, with industrial customers
further classified into SIC (Standard Industrial Classification) codes. Residential customers were
classified by housing type (single family, multi -family, and mobile homes), rate, and by a
statistical estimate of weather sensitivity. For each forecasting group, the number of customers
and either total usage or average usage was estimated for each month of the forecast period.
The short-range methodologies used to develop these models were determined primarily
by available data, both historical and forecast. Monthly sales .data by class and rate are generally
available historically. Daily heating and cooling degree data for Columbia and Charleston are
also available historically, and were projected using a 15 -year average of the daily values.
Industrial production indices are also available by SIC on a quarterly basis, and can be
transformed to a monthly series. Therefore, sales, weather, industrial production indices, and
time dependent variables were used in the short range forecast. In general, the forecast groups
fall into two classifications, weather sensitive and non -weather sensitive. For the weather
sensitive classes, regression analysis was the methodology used, while for the non -weather
sensitive classes regression analysis or time series models based on the autoregressive integrated
moving average (ARIMA) approach of Box -Jenkins were used.
The short range forecast developed from these methodologies was also adjusted for
federally mandated lighting programs, new industrial loads, terminated contracts, or economic
factors as discussed in Section 3.
A-1

Regression Models
Regression analysis is a method of developing an equation which relates one variable,
such as usage, to one or more other variables which help explain fluctuations and trends in the
first. This method is mathematically constructed so that the resulting combination of explanatory
variables produces the smallest squared error between the historic actual values and those
estimated by -the regression. The output of the regression analysis provides an equation for the
variable being explained. Several statistics which indicate the success of the regression analysis
fit are shown for each model. Several of these indicators are R2, Root Mean Squared Error,
Durbin -Watson Statistic, F -Statistic, and the T -Statistics of the Coefficient. PROC REG of SAS'
was used to estimate all regression models. PROC AUTOREG of SAS was used if significant
autocorrelation, as indicated by the Durbin -Watson statistic, was present in the model.
Two variables were used extensively in developing weather sensitive average use
models: heating degree days ("HDD") and cooling degree days ("CDD"). The values for HDD
and CDD are the average of the values for Charleston and Columbia. The base for HDD was 60°
and for CDD was 750. In order to account for cycle billing, the degree day values for each day
were weighted by the number of billing cycles which included that day for the current month's
billing. The daily weighted degree day values were summed to obtain monthly degree day
values. Billing sales for a calendar month may actually reflect consumption that occurred in the
previous month based on weather conditions in that period and also consumption occurring in the
current month. Therefore, this method more accurately reflects the impact of weather variations
on the consumption data.
The development of average use models began with plots of the HDD and CDD data
versus average use by month. This process led to the grouping of months with similar average
use patterns. Summer and winter groups were chosen, with the summer models including the
A-2

months of May through October, and the winter models including the months of November
through April. For each of the groups, an average use model was developed. Total usage
models were developed with a similar methodology for the municipal customers. For these
customers, HDD and CDD were weighted based on Cycle 20 distributions. This is the last
reading date for bills in any given month, and is generally used for larger customers.
Simple plots of average use over time revealed significant changes in average use for
some customer groups. Three types of variables were used to measure the effect of time on
average use:
Number of months since a base period;
2. Dummy variable indicating before or after a specific point in time; and,
3. Dummy variable for a specific month or months.
Some models revealed a decreasing trend in average use, which is consistent with
conservation efforts and improvements in energy efficiency. However, other models showed an
increasing average use over time. This could be the result of larger houses, increasing appliance
saturations, lower real electricity prices, and/or higher real incomes.
ARIMA Models
Autoregressive integrated moving average ("ARIMA") procedures were used in
developing the short range forecasts. For various class/rate groups, they were used to develop
customer estimates, average use estimates, or total use estimates.
ARIMA procedures were developed for the analysis of time series data, i.e., sets of
observations generated sequentially in time. This Box -Jenkins approach is based on the
assumption that the behavior of a time series is due to one or more identifiable influences. This
method recognizes three effects that a particular observation may have on subsequent values in
the series:
SCI

1. A decaying effect leads to the inclusion of autoregressive (AR) terms;
2. A long-term or permanent effect leads to integrated (I) terms; and,
3. A temporary or limited effect leads to moving average (MA) terms.
Seasonal effects may also be explained by adding additional terms of each type (AR, I, or MA).
The ARIMA procedure models the behavior of a variable that forms an equally spaced
time series with no missing values. The mathematical model is written:
Zt = u + Yi (B) X,,t + q (B)/ f (B) at
This model expresses the data as a combination of past values of the random shocks and
past values of the other series, where:
t indexes time
B is the backshift operator, that is B (Xt) = Xt-i
Zt is the original data or a difference of the original data
f(B) is the autoregressive operator, f(B) = 1— fl B - ... - fl Bp
u is the constant term
q(B) is the moving average operator, q (B) = 1 - ql B - ... - qq B9
at is the independent disturbance, also called the random error
Xi,t is the ith input time series
yi(B) is the transfer function weights for the ith input series (modeled as a ratio of polynomials)
yi(B) is equal to wi (B)/ di (B), where wi (B) and di (B) are polynomials in B.
The Box -Jenkins approach is most noted for its three-step iterative process of
identification, estimation, and diagnostic checking to deterinine the order of a time series. The
autocorrelation and partial autocorrelation functions are used to identify a tentative model for
univariate time series. This tentative model is estimated. After the tentative model has been
A-4

fitted to the data, various checks are performed to see if the model is appropriate. These checks
involve analysis of the residual series created by the estimation process and often lead to
refinements in the tentative model. The iterative process is repeated until a satisfactory model is
found.
Many computer packages perform this iterative analysis. PROC APJMA of (SAS/ETS)2
was used in developing the ARIMA models contained herein. The attractiveness of ARIMA
models comes from data requirements. ARIMA models utilize data about past energy use or
customers to forecast future energy use or customers. Past history on energy use and customers
serves as a proxy for all the measures of factors underlying energy use and customers when other
variables were not available. Univariate ARIMA models were used to forecast average use or
total usage when weather-related variables did not significantly affect energy use or alternative
independent explanatory variables were not available.
Footnotes
1. SAS Institute, Inc., SAS/STAT"" Guide for Personal Computers, Version 6 Edition.
Cary, NC: SAS Institute, Inc., 1987.
2. SAS Institute, Inc., SAS/ETS User's Guide, Version 6, First Edition. Cary, NC: SAS
Institute, Inc., 1988.
A-5

Electric Sales Assumptions
For short-term forecasting, over 30 forecasting groups were defined using the Company's
customer class and rate structures. Industrial (Class 30) Rate 23 was further divided using SIC
codes. In addition, twenty-eight large industrial customers were individually projected. The
residential class was disaggregated into several sub -groups, starting first with rate. Next, a
regression analysis was done to separate customers into two categories, "more weather -sensitive"
and "less weather sensitive". Generally speaking, the former group is associated with higher
average use per customer in winter months relative to the latter group. Finally, these categories
were divided by housing type (single family, multi -family, and mobile homes). Each municipal
account represents a forecasting group and was also individually forecast. Discussions were held
with Industrial Marketing and Economic Development representatives within the Company
regarding prospects for industrial expansions or new customers, and adjustments made to
customer, rate, or account projections where appropriate. Table 1 contains the definition for
each group and Table 2 identifies the methodology used and the values forecasted by forecasting
groups.
The forecast for Company Use is based on historic trends and adjusted for Summer I
nuclear plant outages. Unaccounted energy, which is the difference between generation and
sales and represents for the most part system losses, is usually between 4-5% of total territorial
sales. The average annual loss for the three previous years was 4.6%, and this value was
assumed throughout the forecast. The monthly allocations for unaccounted use were based on a
regression model using normal total degree-days for the calendar month and total degree-days
weighted by cycle billing. Adding Company Use and unaccounted energy to monthly territorial
sales produces electric generation requirements.
A-6

TABLE 1
Short -Term Forecasting Groups
Class
Rate/SIC
Number Class Name
Designation
Comment
10 Residential Less Weather-
Single Family
Rates 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 18, 25, 26, 62, 64
Sensitive
Multi Family
67, 68, 69
910 Residential More Weather-
Mobile Homes
Sensitive
20 Commercial Less Weather-
Rate 9
Small General Service
Sensitive
Rate 12
Churches
Rate 20, 21
Medium General Service
Rate 22
Schools
Rate 24
Large General Service
Other Rates
3, 10, 11, 14, 16, 18, 25,26
29, 62, 67, 69
920 Commercial Space Heating
Rate 9
Small General Service
More Weather -
Sensitive
30 Industrial Non -Space Heating
Rate 9
Small General Service
Rate 20, 21
Medium General Service
Rate 23, SIC 22
Textile Mill Products
Rate 23, SIC 24
Lumber, Wood Products, Furniture and
Fixtures (SIC Codes 24 and 25)
Rate 23, SIC 26
Paper and Allied Products
Rate 23, SIC 28
Chemical and Allied Products
Rate 23, SIC 30
Rubber and Miscellaneous Products
Rate 23, SIC 32
Stone, Clay, Glass, and Concrete
Rate 23, SIC 33
Primary Metal Industries; Fabricated Metal
Products; Machinery; Electric and
Electronic Machinery, Equipment and
Supplies; and Transportation Equipment
(SIC Codes 33-37)
Rate 23, SIC 99
Other or Unknown SIC Code*
Rate 27, 60
Large General Service
Other
Rates 18, 25, and 26
60 Street Lighting
Rates 3, 9, 13, 17,
18, 25, 26, 29, and 69
70 Other Public Authority
Rates 3, 9, 20, 21,
25, 26, 29, 65 and 66
92 Municipal
Rate 60, 61
Three Individual Accounts
*Includes small industrial customers from all SIC classifications that were not previously forecasted
individually. Industrial Rate 23 also includes Rate 24. Commercial Rate 24 also includes Rate 23.

TABLE 2
Summary of Methodologies Used To Produce
The Short Range Forecast
Value Forecasted Methodology Forecasting Groups
Average Use Regression Class 10, All Groups
Class 910, All Groups
Class 20, Rates 9, 12, 20, 22, 24, 99
Class 920, Rate 9
Class 70, Rate 3
Total Usage ARIMA/ Class 30, Rates 9, 20, 99, and 23,
Regression for SIC = 91 and 99
Class 930, Rate 9
Class 60
Class 70, Rates 65, 66
Regression Class 92, All Accounts
Class 97, One Account
Customers ARE\4A Class 10, All Groups
Class 910, All Groups
Class 20, All Rates
Class 920, Rate 9
Class 30, All Rates Except 60, 99, and 23
for SIC = 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 33, and 91
Class 930, Rate 9
Class 60
Class 70, Rate 3

Appendix S

Long Range Sales Forecast
Electric Sales Forecast
This section presents the development of the long-range electric sales forecast for the
Company. The long-range electric sales forecast was developed for six classes of service:
residential, commercial, industrial, street lighting, other public authorities, and municipals. These
classes were disaggregated into appropriate subgroups where data was available and there were
notable differences in the data patterns. The residential, commercial, and industrial classes are
considered the major classes of service and account for over 93% of total territorial sales. A
customer forecast was developed for each major class of service. For the residential class, forecasts
were also produced for those customers categorized into two groups, more and less weather -
sensitive. They were further disaggregated into housing types of single family, multi -family and
mobile homes. In addition, two residential classes and residential street lighting were evaluated
separately. These subgroups were chosen based on available data and differences in the average
usage levels and/or data patterns. The industrial class was disaggregated into two digit SIC code
classification for the large general service customers, while smaller industrial customers were
grouped into an "other" category. These subgroups were chosen to account for the differences in
the industrial mix in the service territory. With the exception of the residential group, the forecast
for sales was estimated based on total usage in that class of service. The number of residential
customers and average usage per customer were estimated separately and total sales were calculated
as a product of the two.
The forecast for each class of service was developed utilizing an econometric approach.
The structure of the econometric model was based upon the relationship between the variable to be
forecasted and the economic environment, weather, conservation, and/or price.
FIN

Forecast Methodology
Development of the models for long-term forecasting was econometric in approach and used
the technique of regression analysis. Regression analysis is a method of developing an equation
which relates one variable, such as sales or customers, to one or more other variables that are
statistically correlated with the first, such as weather, personal income or population growth.
Generally, the goal is to find the combination of explanatory variables producing the smallest error
between the historic actual values and those estimated by the regression. The output of the
regression analysis provides an equation for the variable being explained. In the equation, the
variable being explained equals the sum of the explanatory variables each multiplied by an
estimated coefficient. Various statistics, which indicate the success of the regression analysis fit,
were used to evaluate each model. The indicators were R2, mean squared Error of the Regression,
Durbin -Watson Statistic and the T -Statistics of the Coefficient. PROC REG and PROC
AUTOREG of SAS were used to estimate all regression models. PROC REG was used for
preliminary model specification, elimination of insignificant variables, and also for the final model
specifications. Model development also included residual analysis for incorporating dummy
variables and an analysis of how well the models fit the historical data, plus checks for any
statistical problems such as autocorrelation or multicollinearity. PROC AUTOREG was used if
autocorrelation was present as indicated by the Durbin -Watson statistic.
Prior to developing the long-range models, certain design decisions were made:
• The multiplicative or double log model form was chosen. This form allows forecasting
based on growth rates, since elasticities with respect to each explanatory variable are given
directly by their respective regression coefficients. Elasticity explains the responsiveness of
changes in one variable (e.g. sales) to changes in any other variable (e.g. price). Thus, the
elasticity coefficient can be applied to the forecasted growth rate of the explanatory variable
B-2

to obtain a forecasted growth rate for a dependent variable. These projected growth rates
were then applied to the last year of the short range forecast to obtain the forecast level for
customers or sales for the long range forecast. This is a constant elasticity model, therefore,
it is important to evaluate the reasonableness of the model coefficients.
• One way to incorporate conservation effects on electricity is through real prices or time
trend variables. Models selected for the major classes would include these variables, if they
were statistically significant.
• The remaining variables to be included in the models for the major classes would come
from four categories:
1 Demographic variables - Population.
2. Measures of economic well-being or activity: real personal income, real per capita
income, employment variables, and industrial production indices.
3. Weather variables - average summer/winter temperature or heating and cooling degree-
days.
4. Variables identified through residual analysis or knowledge of political changes, major
economics events, etc. (e.g., the gas price spike in 2005 attributable to Hurricane Katrina
and recession versus non -recession years).
Standard statistical procedures were used to obtain preliminary specifications for the
models. Model parameters were then estimated using historical data and competitive models were
evaluated on the basis of.
• Residual analysis and traditional "goodness of fit" measures to determine how well these
models fit the historical data and whether there were any statistical problems such as
autocorrelation or multicollinearity.
• An examination of the model results for the most recently completed full year.
IM

a An analysis of the reasonableness of the long-term trend generated by the models. The
major criteria here was the presence of any obvious problems, such as the forecasts
exceeding all rational expectations based on historical trends and current industry
expectations.
• An analysis of the reasonableness of the elasticity coefficient for each explanatory variable.
Over the years a host of studies have been conducted on various elasticities relating to
electricity sales. Therefore, one check was to see if the estimated coefficients from
Company models were in-line with others. As a result of the evaluative procedure, final
models were obtained for each class.
• The drivers for the long-range electric forecast included the following variables.
Service Area Housing Starts
Service Area Real Per Capita Income
Service Area Real Personal Income
State Industrial Production Indices
Real Price of Electricity
Average Summer Temperature
Average Winter Temperature
Heating Degree Days
Cooling Degree Days
The service area data included Richland, Lexington, Berkeley, Dorchester, Charleston,
Aiken and Beaufort counties, which account for the vast majority of total territorial electric sales.
Service area historic data and projections were used for all classes with the exception of the
industrial class. Industrial productions indices were only available on a statewide basis, so
forecasting relationships were developed using that data. Since industry patterns are generally

based on regional and national economic patterns, this linking of Company industrial sales to a
larger geographic index was appropriate.
Economic Assumptions
In order to generate the electric sales forecast, forecasts must be available for the
independent variables. The forecasts for the economic and demographic variables were obtained
from Global Insight, Inc. and the forecasts for the price and weather variables were based on
historical data. The trend projection developed by Global Insight is characterized by slow, steady
growth, representing the mean of all possible paths that the economy could follow if subject to no
major disruptions, such as substantial oil price shocks, untoward swings in policy, or excessively
rapid increases in demand.
Average summer temperature or CDD (Average of June, July, and August temperature) and
average winter temperature or HDD (Average of December (previous year), January and February
temperature) were assumed to be equal to the normal values used in the short range forecast.
After the trend econometric forecasts were completed, reductions were made to account for
higher air-conditioning efficiencies, DSM programs, and the replacement of incandescent light
bulbs with more efficient CFL or LED light bulbs. Industrial sales were increased if new customers
are anticipated or if there are expansions among existing customers not contained in the short-term
projections.
Peak Demand Forecast
This section describes the procedures used to create the long-range summer and winter peak
demand forecasts. It also describes the methodology used to forecast monthly peak demands.
Development of summer peak demands will be discussed initially, followed by the construction of
winter peaks.
M

Summer Peak Demand
The forecast of summer peak demands was developed with a load factor methodology. This
methodology may be characterized as a building-block approach because class, rate, and some
individual customer peaks are separately determined and then summed to derive the territorial peak.
Briefly, the following steps were used to develop the summer peak demand projections.
Load factors for selected classes and rates were first calculated from historical data and then used to
estimate peak demands from the projected energy consumption among these categories. Next,
planning peaks were determined for a number of large industrial customers. The demands of these
customers were forecasted individually. Summing these class, rate, and individual customer
demands provided the forecast of summer territorial peak demand. Next, savings identified from
SCE&G's demand-side management programs were removed. Finally, the incremental reductions
in demand resulting from the Company's standby generator and interruptible programs were
subtracted from the peak demand forecast. This calculation gave the firm summer territorial peak
demand, which was used for planning purposes.
Load Factor Development
As mentioned above, load factors are required to calculate KW demands from KWH energy.
This can be seen from the following equation, which shows the relationship between annual load
factors, energy, and demand:
Load Factor =Energy/(Demand x 8760)
The load factor is thus seen to be a ratio of total energy consumption relative to what it
might have been if the customer had maintained demand at its peak level throughout the year. The
value of a system coincident load factor will usually range between 0 and 1, with lower values
indicating more variation in a customer's consumption patterns, as typified by residential users with

relatively large space -conditioning loads. Conversely, higher values result from more level demand
patterns throughout the year, such as those seen in the industrial sector.
Rearrangement of the above equation makes it possible to calculate peak demand, given
energy and a corresponding load factor. This form of the equation is used to project peak demand
herein. The question then becomes one of determining an appropriate load factor to apply to
projected energy sales.
The load factors used for the peak demand forecast were not based on one-hour coincident
peaks. Instead, it was determined that use of a 4 -hour average class peak was more appropriate for
forecasting purposes. This was true for two primary reasons. First, analysis of territorial peaks
showed that all of the summer peaks had occurred between the hours of 2 and 6 PM. However, the
distribution of these peaks between those four hours was fairly evenly spread. It was thus
concluded that while the annual peak would occur during the 4 -hour band, it Would not be possible
to say with a high degree of confidence during which hour it world happen.
Second, the coincident peak demand of the residential and commercial classes depended on
the hour of the peak's occurrence. This was due to the former tending to increase over the 4 -hour
band, while the latter declined. Thus, load factors based on peaks occurring at, say, 2 PM, would be
quite different from those developed for a 5 PM peak. It should also be noted that the class
contribution to peak is quite stable for groups other than residential and commercial. This means
that the 4 -hour average class demand, for say, municipals, was within 2% of the 1 -hour coincident
peak. Consequently, since the hourly probability of occurrence was roughly equal for peak demand,
it was decided that a 4 -hour average demand was most appropriate for forecasting purposes.
The effect of system line losses were embedded into the class load factors so they could be
applied directly to customer level sales and produce generation level demands. This was a
convenient way of incorporating line losses into the peak demand projections.
M.

Energy Projections
For those categories whose peak demand was to be projected from KWH sales, the next
requirement was a forecast of applicable sales on an annual basis. These projections were utilized
in the peak demand forecast construction. In addition, street light sales were excluded from forecast
sales levels when required, since there is no contribution to peak demand from this type of sale.
Combining load factors and energy sales resulted in a preliminary, or unadjusted peak
demand forecast by class and/or rate. The large industrial customers whose peak demands were
developed separately were also added to this forecast.
Derivation of the planning peak required that the impact of demand reduction programs be
subtracted from the unadjusted peak demand forecast. This is true because the capacity expansion
plan is sized to meet the firm peak demand, which includes the reductions attributable to such
programs.
Winter Peak Demand
To project winter peaks actual winter peak demands were correlated with three primary
explanatory factors: total territorial energy, customers, and weather during the day of the winter
peak's occurrence. Other dummy variables were also included in the model to account for unusual
events, such as recessions or extremely cold winters.
The logic behind the choice of these variables as determinants of winter peak demand is
straightforward. Over time, growth in total territorial load is correlated with economic growth and
activity in SCE&G's service area, and as such may be used as a proxy variable for those economic
factors, which cause winter peak demand to change. It should be noted that the winter peak for any
given year by industry convention is defined as occurring after the summer peak for that year. The
winter period for each year is December of that year, along with January and February of the
following year. For example, the winter peak in 1968 of 962 MW occurred on December 11, 1968,

while the winter peak for 1969 of 1,126 MW took place on January 8, 1970. In addition to
economic factors, weather also causes winter peak demand to fluctuate, so the impact of this
element was measured by two variables: the average of heating degree days (HDD) experienced on
the winter peak day in Columbia and Charleston and the minimum temperature on the peak day.
The presence of a weather variable reduces the bias which would exist in the other explanatory
variables' coefficients if weather were excluded from the regression model, given that the weather
variable should be included. When the actual forecast of winter peak demand was calculated, the
normal value of heating degree-days over the sample period was used. Although the ratio of winter
to summer peak demands fluctuated over the sample period, it did show an increase over time. A
primary cause for this increasing ratio was growth in the number of electric space heating
customers. Due to the introduction and rapid acceptance of heat pumps over the past three decades,
space -heating residential customers increased from less than 5,000 in 1965 to almost 217,000 in
2004, a 10.2% annual growth rate. However, this growth slowed dramatically in the 1990's, so the
expectation is that the ratio of summer to winter peaks will change slowly in the future.
:•

EXHIBIT 6
Santee Cooper Press Release .
Santee Cooper announces plans to recycle
ash for beneficial use
11/19/2013

5/5/2015 https://www.santeecooper.com/about-santee-cooper/news- rel eases/news-items/santee-cooper-announces-plans-to-recycle-ash-for-beneficial- use. aspx
MJ Business to Business 1!2!r Education and Safety Qo Contact Us ® Careers Z�) Storms and Outages 6Zo Blog I 41p
s , n
I
i`
santee cooper" -- -- - - - - °
Home > About Santee Cooper_News
(,LLeadership
Santee Cooper announces plans to recycle ash for
Investors ' beneficial use
Communications
11/19/2013
I Newsroom
i—Energy Matters Santee Cooper announced today plans to use all of the ash in ponds at its Jefferies, Winyah
and Grainger generating stations for beneficial purposes. Beneficial use provides economic,
environmental and customer benefits.
Santee Cooper has recycled fly ash, bottom ash and gypsum since the 1970s. Prior to the
recent recession, Santee Cooper was using about 90 percent of those materials for beneficial
purposes. Its gypsum recycling program actually brought American Gypsum and about 100
new jobs to Georgetown County in 2008, where that company makes wallboard. The utility's
ash is used by the cement and concrete block industries and has helped build projects
including Charleston's Ravenel Bridge.
Santee Cooper has worked to recycle as much of its ash as possible through the decades.
EPA regulations spurring the closure of coal-fired generating stations around the country have
resulted in greater demand for ash and the development of new technology that increases the
viability of pond ash.
"As we continue working to close units at Jefferies and Grainger and consider long-term
needs for Winyah, Santee Cooper is focused on solutions that are cost-effective and
beneficial to the environment and the economy," said R.M. Singletary, executive vice
president of corporate services. "This is a triple win. It is cost-effective, which means it is
responsive to our customers' best interests. It utilizes innovative technology to help an
important South Carolina industry be sustainable. And it is an EPA -approved use of ash."
"This plan also addresses comments by our neighbors, the City of Conway, and DHEC about
long-term placement of the ash, and it does so in a manner that is responsible to customers,"
Singletary added. "It's a solution that really does have something favorable for all involved."
The plans announced today will empty the ash ponds at the three stations over the next 10 to
15 years. Santee Cooper will provide excavation, loading and transportation of the ash to the
plants where it will be used.
Santee Cooper is South Carolina's largest power producer, -the largest Green Power
generator and the ultimate source of electricity for 2 million people across the state. Through
its low-cost, reliable and environmentally responsible electricity and water services, and
through innovative partnerships and initiatives that attract and retain industry and jobs, Santee
Cooper powers South Carolina. To learn more, visit www.santeecooper.com
https://www.santeecooper.com/about-santee-cooper/news- rel eases/news-items/santee-cooper- announces- plans -to -recycle -ash -for- beneficial- use.aspx 1/2

Get added to Santee Cooper's Mailing List ,®
STAY INFORMED
Read Our Blog
Energy Educators Institute
Annual Reports
Power Source Magazine
» Employment Opportunities
>> Energy Matters
R
ENERGY & YOU
» Green Energy
— Reduce the Use
Environmental Stewardship
Track Your Energy Use
eSG B Follow: f 04 N
all, .
RESIDENTIAL
BUSINESSES
» Pay My Bill
» Our Pates
» Start,& Stop Service
» Reduce The Use & Save
»'Reduce the Use"&,Save,
> Pay My, Bill
Lake Residents
» Report an Outage
» Report an=Outage

EXHIBIT 7
Grainger Generating Station
Ash Removal Report
January 17, 2017

'Psantee coope(
CERTIFIED MAIL
January 17, 2017
Jeffrey P. deBessonet, Director
South Carolina Department of Health
and Environmental Control
Water Facilities Permitting Division
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
RE: Grainger Generating Station
Ash Pond Closure: Ash Removal Report
Santee Cooper's annual closure plan states that Santee .Cooper will provide status reports to
DHEC every six months regarding the amount of ash and underlying soil removed from
Grainger Generating Station.
Removal of ash for beneficial use began at Grainger on'March 17, 2014. The following table
provides tons of ash and soil removed for 2015 and 2016.
JYear
Month,'
Ash tons '
Scs,il, tons
2.01;5-
`Total
�284�,438,
';p
2016
January
19,825
0
2016
February
1,757
0
2016
March
36,945
0
2016
Aril
26,918
0
2016
May
28,484
0
2016
June
20,236
1,379
2016
July
30,104
2,973
2016
August
32,982
6,131
2016
September
17,578
586
2016
October
8,864
0
2016
November
24,397
2,746 -
2016
December
18,650
3,241
201}6
Trofaf
266' F74'1
'i�7;056;
201,5,&_,r20r116i
T) Of
:55;1,'147;9
1,T056
i ame upaatea for clarification on 1/17/17
Sincerely,
Susan W. Jacky , P.E.
Manager
CCP and Waste Management
SWJ:ADM:pjc-
cc. Frank Holleman
P.O. Box 2946101 I Monks comer, SC 29461-61 01 I One Riverwood Drive I Moncks Corner, SC 29461-2901 1 [phone]

EXHIBIT 8
W.S. Lee Steam Station (SC)
Settlement Agreement
April 23, 2015

G
SETTLEME, Yr ACRE, EMENI!
This Settlement Agrcdmdnt ('AgrdcniunV), is entered this 23 day 6f
A- k-
20jl'5, betwee'n Upstaf& +'brev''cel and 8AVe Otir SAluda. (aalleecti.vely, the
Groups"), on 111.0 - bric h'alidi fthd Du'kc Energy Carolinas, LLC Energy'),
on thb othcr,,bri behalf or theniselwas and t6ir respective successors, ptedc'
qqssqrs; assigns,
aMifiatosj patent c6rftpah'ieg;. subsidiaries shareholders; 6(fiqers.L •directolsi q&PI11s, and.
Whereas the -patties hereto earlier entered into an 'agreernmif dated Sqptember 23, 2014
(atacli6l hcreto)' under which Duke. Cnergy agreed to remove aw k8li 'trorii the Inheffid Asti
h� shl and, Ash Fill area, . 1,beated at the site 05f, the 6qa_l=rjred,� Wer plant known" as the W.S,-. Lim
po
-9'tdaM S,tkion 6n the Saluda kiVeri in Anderson Cou arblina (iercinartc
afid ike Q-ons'crvaiIqn G'�bups, agreed hdi id, lake -any legal, action ,ufifl , J,dfter'NIdv(jmbdrr 16,
M14, pending the potcome of Dti.keEAergy i's �.valu�tlqrT of Primary lib -7 Set6ndqi-y
_3 y. Ash Bas
.AS-h Agsihi.afid Structural Pill aebu:_
lidpio b5ve nMv.fesbIvqd thdiniAterg set out -in thisAgreem6m:,
Novy, therefore, thb patf.ics tb this Agreeriient agree as fb] IoVvs:
.
Federal A6bjWtj6ft. TIT�. '-�rfic6 acj�AO�Vle go drat the. United States
P
rriviPoptnui�ial Protection Agency' Or6iiitilgat6d the Hfizardous and Solid W`4�tc ivtatt gcp.OW
sus era:; l"Of Coal Ccimbusticn.Rqsi4uajs 60M'1331,e6tric l3tilifi6s.(".0 _-R rulb"), �Vhj . 6 - 11 ��Yas
2615 SOT&I and th'k ilie CCR' rraie
,-sm Min"ifinimi- 66-Or'611ing, 6 fpj- ffiaNjago�hpr-t anddisp4vj of,bb`1 ccinibiistlon
,residuals gid the :cjosur6 of -ash impoundrhents, and flat the CCR rile rquir eg. Duke. Endt to.

publish for public availability information regarding implementation of the CCR rule, including
periodic progress reports and monitoring information.
2. Undertakings by Duke Energy. In consideration of the promises contained herein,
the adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, Duke Energy agrees to implement the following
actions at and with respect to W.S. Lee:
(a) Within one (1) year of receiving all required regulatory permits, license,
and approvals ("approvals"), and the close of any challenges to those approvals,
commence excavating all the coal ash, and further soil removal if required by the
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control ("DHEC") to
prevent impacts to groundwater quality (such ash and soil being hereinafter
referred to jointly as the "Removed Ash and Soil") from the Inactive Ash Basin
and/or Ash Fill, as indicated on the attached Exhibit A, and diligently complete
excavation of both within five (5) years;
(b) Within five (5) years of receiving all required regulatory permits, license,
and approvals, including the Closure Plan submitted to DHEC and approvals
associated with the Closure Plan, including storage or disposal permit
requirements, ("approvals"), and the close of any challenges to those approvals,
commence excavating all the coal ash, and further soil removal if required by
DHEC to prevent impacts to groundwater quality (such ash and soil being
hereinafter referred to jointly as the "Removed Ash and Soil") from the Primary
Ash3asin, Secondary Ash Basin, and/or Structural Fill at W.S. Lee, as indicated
on the attached Exhibit A, and diligently complete excavation of all within ten
(10) years of commencement;
2

(c) Dewater all impoundments in compliance the W.S. Lee NPDES permit, as
modified (the "Lee NPDES permit");
(d) Dispose of Removed Ash and Soil in lined storage meeting the
requirements in Paragraph 3 below, and approved and properly permitted
pursuant to applicable law and regulation, unless beneficially recycled in a
manner that does not result in application to the surface or subsurface of the land
except in a lined facility meeting all the requirements set forth in subparagraphs
(a) and (b) of Paragraph 3 of this Agreement.
(e) Thereafter, stabilize and close, or reuse for disposal, all the areas from
which Removed Ash and Soil were taken (collectively the "Lee Impoundments")
in accordance with applicable law, regulation, and -the approved Closure Plan.
(f) Timely apply for all permits and approvals necessary to facilitate the
removal of coal ash and soil from the Lee Impoundments;
(g) Close the Lee Impoundments, which may include reuse of the impoundment
as a lined landfill, in compliance with the CCR rule and as part of the CCR rule's
required Closure Plan, identify all permits required from DHEC and apply for those in a
timely manner, as required by the CCR Closure Plan;
(h) Sample and analyze groundwater as required by the CCR rule and by the
existing NPDES permit and any additional requirements imposed by DHEC;
(i) If in two consecutive sample periods, the concentration of any monitored
groundwater constituent increases from the prior period's measurement in any
sampling well, then Duke Energy shall report the event to DHEC and confer with
DHEC on what remedial action is needed, if any, provided that no reporting or

remedial action shall be required for any concentrations below the applicable
groundwater standard.
3. Duke Energy and the Conservation Groups agree to the following.
(a) All of the Removed Ash and Soil from the Lee Impoundments shall be
deposited into a properly permitted facility meeting, at a minimum, all siting,
construction and engineering requirements of 40 C.F.R. Part 258 (Subtitle D of
RCRA) and, if disposal occurs in South Carolina, South Carolina's sanitary
landfill regulation for Class III landfills (Regulation 61-107.19, Part V), except
that a lined landfill on the Lee site that meets all other requirements of this
Paragraph may have a waste boundary located 500 feet or more from the Saluda
River. Duke Energy will not seek approval of a design pursuant to 40 C.F.R. §
258.40(a)(1), S.C. Code Regs. 61-107.19, or under the laws of another state
unless it has obtained prior written approval of the Conservation Groups for that
design.
(b) Removed Ash under this Consent Order will be stored in a lined CCR
landfill space meeting all requirements established by applicable statute, law, and
regulation. CCR landfill is defined in the CCR rule. Any material that is
commingled with Ash shall be disposed of in accord with applicable federal or
state regulations. Nothing in this Paragraph shall prohibit the Company from
disposing, depositing, or processing Removed Ash through beneficial reuse
including lined structural fill applications, lined mine reclamations, abrasives,
filter materials, concrete, cement or such other technologies as provided for under
state and federal law (including the CCR rule, as applicable). In no event shall
2

any Removed Ash and Soil be placed in a solid waste landfill that does not meet
the requirements set forth in subparagraphs (a) and (b) of this Paragraph. If the
Removed Ash and Soil is removed to and stored in a lined structural fill site, or
used for another beneficial purpose, the Removed Ash and Soil will not be
permanently deposited on the surface or subsurface of the land except in a lined
facility meeting all the requirements set forth in subparagraphs (a) and (b) of this
Paragraph, provided that Removed Ash and Soil may be relocated and stored
temporarily on the surface of the land if part of permanent lined disposal on site in
compliance with the approved Closure Plan. Duke Energy shall not place coal
ash in or on any perennial stream at the Lee site.
4. Undertakings of the Conservation Groups. In consideration of the promises
contained herein, the adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, the Conservation Groups
agree:
(a) The Conservation Groups will not object to, contest, or sue with regard to
the Closure Plan for the Lee Impoundments or with regard to any approval needed
to comply with this Agreement provided that the closure plan and any approval is
consistent with the terms of this Agreement.
(b) The Conservation Groups, on behalf of themselves and their successors,
predecessors, assigns, affiliates, parent companies, subsidiaries, officers,
directors, agents, and employees, hereby completely release and forever discharge
Duke Energy from all civil claims that could have been alleged by the
Conservation Groups related to unpermitted discharges from the Lee
Impoundments, contamination of groundwater from the Lee Impoundments,
5
V

I
NPDES permit violations related to the Lee Impoundments, and for management
of coal ash at W.S. Lee in compliance with this Agreement; provided, however,
that nothing in this paragraph shall limit the Conservation Groups' right to
enforce compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
(c) The Conservation Groups, on behalf of themselves and their successors,
predecessors, assigns, affiliates, parent companies, subsidiaries, officers,
directors, agents, and employees, hereby covenant not to bring a citizen suit for
coal ash pollution from the Lee Impoundments under the CCR rule or the South
Carolina Pollution Control Act, so long as Duke Energy is substantially in
compliance with all terms and conditions of this Agreement.
(d) The Conservation Groups shall not object to or otherwise contest or sue in
connection with any of the following:
(i) The Closure Plan for the Lee Impoundments, provided that plan is
consistent with the terms of this Agreement;
(ii) Any and all permits and approvals necessary to effectuate this
Agreement, facilitate the removal of coal ash and soil from the Lee
Impoundments, and close the Lee Impoundments consistent with and as
provided in this Agreement, including but not limited to any permit to
construct or operate an onsite landfill for the disposal of coal ash and soil.
5. Force Majeure. Duke Energy agrees to perform all requirements under this
Agreement within the time limits established under this Agreement, unless the
performance is delayed by a force majeure.
0

(a) For purposes of this Agreement, a force majeure is defined as any event
arising from causes beyond the control of the company, or any entity controlled
by the company or its contractors, which delays or prevents performance of any
obligation under this Agreement despite best efforts to fulfill the obligation and
includes but is not limited to war, civil unrest, act of God, or act of a
governmental or regulatory body delaying performance or making it impossible,
including, without limitation, any appeal or decision remanding, overturning,
modifying, or otherwise acting (or failing to act) on a permit or similar permission
or action that prevents or delays an action needed for the performance of any of
the work contemplated under this Agreement such that it prevents or substantially
interferes with its performance within the time frames specified herein.
(b) The requirement that Duke Energy exercise "best efforts to fulfill the
obligation" includes using commercially reasonable efforts to anticipate any
potential force majeure event and to address the effects of any potential force
majeure event: (i) as it is occurring, and (ii) following the potential force majeure
event, such that the delay is minimized to the greatest extent possible.
(c) Force majeure does not include financial inability to complete the work,
increased. cost of performance, or changes in business or economic circumstances.
(d) Failure of a permitting authority to issue a necessary approval in a timely
_fashion may constitute a force majeure where the failure of the permitting
authority to act prevents Duke Energy from meeting the requirements in this
agreement, and is beyond the control of Duke Energy, and Duke Energy has taken
all steps available to it to obtain the necessary permit, including but not limited to
7

f
submitting a complete permit application, responding to requests for additional
information by the permitting authority in a timely fashion, and accepting lawful
permit terms and conditions after expeditiously exhausting any legal rights to
appeal terms and conditions imposed by the permitting authority.
6. Warranty of Capacity to Enter into Agreement. The parties represent that they
have the legal capacity to enter into this Agreement, and that this Agreement is not for the
benefit of any parry other than those who have entered into this Agreement, and gives no rights
or remedies to any third parties.
7. Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire understanding and
agreement between the parties to this Agreement with respect to .the matters referred to herein.
No other representations, covenants, undertakings, or other prior or contemporaneous
agreements, oral or written, respecting such matters, which are not specifically incorporated
herein, shall be deemed in any way to exist or to bind any of the parties to this Agreement. The
parties to this Agreement acknowledge that all terms of this Agreement are contractual and not
merely a recital.
8. Modification by Writing Only. The parties agree that this Agreement may be
modified only by a writing signed by all parties to this Agreement and that any oral agreements
are not binding until reduced to writing and signed by the parties to this Agreement.
9. Binding upon Successors and Assigns. The parties to this Agreement agree that
this Agreement is binding upon the parties' respective successors and assigns.
10. Execution in Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in multiple
counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original Agreement, and all of which shall
constitute one agreement to be effective as of the Effective Date. Photocopies or facsimile
8

copies of executed copies of this Agreement may be treated as originals. A duly authorized
attorney may sign on behalf of a corporate entity.
11. Notice and Communication Between the Parties.
(a) Notices required or authorized to be given pursuant to this Agreement
shall be sent to the persons at the addresses set out below in subparagraph (c). Notices
are effective upon receipt. Duke Energy will contemporaneously provide counsel for the
Conservation Groups with copies of all: (i) reports submitted to DHEC that are required
by this Agreement, as well as any reports submitted to DHEC regarding any spills or
releases of coal ash into the Saluda River and any breaks or breaches of the Lee
Impoundments); (ii) groundwater monitoring data and NPDES discharge monitoring
reports) submitted to DHEC; and (iii) permit applications, including the Closure Plan,
submitted to DHEC that are related to the undertakings specified in this agreement;
provided however, that any portion of any such report or data that is deemed proprietary
information by a Duke Energy contractor, shall be redacted to the extent that itis
submitted to DHEC as proprietary information; only those portions deemed proprietary
information will be redacted. Commencing six months after the execution of this
Settlement•Agreement, and continuing each six months thereafter until one year after
excavation of the Removed Ash and Soil has been completed, Duke Energy will provide
counsel for the Conservation Groups with a written report summarizing its actions under
this Agreement, including (1) the amount of ash and soil removed during the six-month
period; (2) the results of all monitoring, sampling and analysis of ash, soil and
groundwater at W.S. Lee; (3) the progress of dewatering of Lee Impoundments; (4) all

activities performed pursuant to this Agreement during the six-month period; and (5) the
destination and/or intended use of the Removed Ash and Soil.
(b) Alternatively, in lieu of providing the reports and information above
directly to counsel for the Conservation Groups, Duke Energy may choose to make any
of the reports and information in subparagraph (a) available on a website that is
accessible to the public. If Duke Energy chooses to comply with subparagraph (a) by this
alternative means of making any such report or information available via a publicly
accessible website, Duke Energy shall first notify counsel for the Conservation Groups
regarding which reports or information will be provided by this alternative means. If at
any time Duke Energy chooses to no longer make such report or information available on
a publicly accessible website, it shall then provide counsel for the Conservation Groups
such report or information pursuant to the means described in subparagraph (a).
(c) Reports and other materials required by this Agreement to be sent by Duke
Energy may be sent by Duke Energy to counsel for the Conservation Groups by e-mail.
All other notices may be.delivered in person or sent by U.S. Mail or an overnight delivery
service. Any party may change the persons and/or addresses for notice by providing
notice to the representative(s) of the other party set out below.
For the Conservation Groups:
Frank S. Holleman III, Esq.
Southern Environmental Law Center
601 W. Rosemary Street, Suite 220
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27516
[e-mail]
For Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC:
Garry S. Rice, Deputy General Counsel
Duke Energy Corporation
10

d
550 South Tryon Street
Mail Code DEC45A
Charlotte, NC 28202
[e-mail]
12. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted in
accordance with the laws of the State ofSouth Carolina.
13. Effective Date. This Agreement shall become effective immediately following
execution by all of the parties listed below.
Executed this 1rn
5 day of A„n a -w by;

Executed this rA day of Uy:
UPSTAJX FOREVER
By:
Its:1-5�,ee–t-L- v 1 i r'ec%r
12

n
Executed this day of ter`' by:
SAVE OUR SALUD
By:
Its:�.5 L� L."
.13

A
� �" ^�• 4� R ?.s. "'�,1_.i�. �.ilt / ^ Y t � - '-'?� -.� 4i� `. � ?j�\[j�j,,,�;jy
� •�!} �.' .�.xe J•r • c. ter- "2._. •s'` _ , .��` - - - ` �, i ,+; q[�r f
Xt, ;7
We Nj�
4. _ to i M1 .... t ,�` i •'� . �j, .. ' , '♦/
' r Secondary Ash Pond h v
-1,—
rim
rimary Ash Pond
AT-
� 3#� r. s�'r ,f• � y�` � p# „� � iia `� 4���� � *�` r
� ti Bid �r'�:� f �� - �' F � `�_t��$.. t _ i` 1� • �;•
_Ar a,i
1 i yN .�
_ a
i InactiyveAsh B. sin'"
17
Ash Fill Area
w J'+,

EXHIBIT 9
SC DHEC & Duke Energy Consent Agreement
W.S. Lee Steam Station (SC)
September 2014

J71 -M, STATE -OF-SOUTH CAROLINA
BEFORE TBE-DEPARTMENT'OF 4AND
AIIII AND - ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL
IN RE; DUDE ENERGY'CAROVNAS, LLC
W-j'S. LEE STEAM
-STATION
ANDERSONCOUNTY
CONSENT-AGREEMENT-
14 IENT-
14'43=,H-W
This:Consent Agreement-l"S:eiiterdd,,Imto"6
b'e'tweenthe ,South ._Carolina Department :ofHealth
.and Envifonmental.Contrbl,(SCi)MC,,,or .the DqpArtinoni) and Dae Ener LLC (Duke
Energy) Nyith respect to the, investigation and reinpdiation_,qf two ash,-pj4.c0i.nqnt;keas-,atthe.WUHAfti
.State's (W.5.)Lee 'Std' m'gidti6b:located at.105 Lei-, Steam Road, 1e1ton' Soiith.lbaroh'na,.-in.Ajiderson,
'
Cduhtv.tT1,�axMap Niini.ber2.60-00-01"'-003-'000). The 'Site -shall include the "Inactive Ash Basin" and`
the "Ash -VM Area," .and; all areas -where .,ashother coal cbmbusfibn residuals, of, their constituents,
incl4diuk .contaminants, (collectively "Qpal Corhbusti6n, 'Residitals or CCR - or ash) ']bay .have
potentially, ly, pljgi*ed -ftqtpt4qst ash placement areas; 61le6tivelv-t&ferr6dto-as,th6"8!te"
y
IP4e,,j3TIOFgy,i§entdiilg,iint6,.this,.Coii-§biit°Agri66nienttbasse-sg-;Ind.,'6ddress;au-.releastbi, _ _. - �
threat ofrelea§e sof C61 Combustion Re8fdiialsor pollutants . from the Site -to-the ,e'nv1r'6_-nm-dnt
:and to provide--pnergy.
.'for the dispqsitW4 of lbp'Sit' Duke will take all necessary steps
in
c0tnPjian'ce'wfth:6l1 . efiVkohm6htQ .14Nyg to l)r6veiit futur6 xel6asds, from the Site: Ththe-, interest.of
tc9bjAjig the. piAtt6ts herein, Wioiout_,delay, 'Diibb E ConsentConsent4ergy 49'reps to, the, entry f this
-Agreementv(thoqt ififg4tibn and without 1hid-a-diiiissibb or' adjudication bf 'any jss'u- 6,6f fkt. of I
except xc or',purp6ses-ofenforcmg-thiis rit, Duke Enfty. agrees that -this C-6n��i�t Agreement
a�#eerlae u
-shall .-bd deemed ;an adinfssion-:of fact and Jayy,only as necessary y -of this � Consent. , for at broefimit
1

I
Agreement by the Qepartment or in subsequent actions relating to this Site by the Depaftniefit;
#IXDIN,G$'OV- PACT
Based .on information known by the liepartmght5 the following findings of fact ,afQ,asserted
by the Department ,for purposes. of this Consent Agreement:
I '.Duke EhOrgy,owns and operates W;S:. Lee Stearn Station .as a cycling ding stdItionjo supplement
supply when electi-icity - demand -is high.. Three .(j) toalriWd units; which became,
.9pe_ratiofial in -the 1950's, g—enti,;ite,eipp'r.-O"N-imdtely'370 megawatts MW)'of electri 'ity, Units
gaN
I and -2 wero"introdUced to service, begihnin'erP in '1951 T6116Wed. by'Uliit,3 in, 1959. Two
combustion i.qfbines (CTs) were -addd-d in 2007 and generate, an additional approximiqe:94
NIW's. Thb CTs .use .diesel fuel. or *ural gas as. their fuel source- zod serve .9.emergency
Back­upjp6wee to,:Odonee Oticl6ar Stati6fi.
2. Prior to 1974, ,CCR was placed 'in the Inactive Ash Basin, Nvllicb is an. uftrd2Mlatqd basih
locatedsouthof thp power- plant. Constructed, in 1951, and expanded in IM, theyInactive
Ash 'Basin Was, formed by an approximately 3MO fe6t long, rim dike,,that Inipodrid§,
approximately 19;qqjres, The dike has.a:,maxidium height of 6Q .feet above -grade with a crest
elevation
16vatibn bf,690 feet above sdii 1&61.
3. CMis',,believed to'have been usedih the past as backfill 'into a borrow area identified-asjhe-
Ash. Fill A:rea,which is-I.ocated lie6r the, Inaciivc,Asb -Basin.
4. Ort May 1, 2614,­])0ke Endgy, itiftiatdd ge9tecIfnical chhfactefization of the inaceive Ash
-Basin.
5. On-M4y M. 2014, Ddke Energy -submitted a plan for the geotechnical' characterization on the
Ash Fill Area.

CONCLUSIONS .OFLAW
The Department 'has the -authority to implement -and enforce, laws and related reaulations
, ur§dant'to.the South,tafolind Hdzar(f6us W­Aste'rManag6mehi Act, S.C. Co&Anfi.. §44-5.&10, et.
,seq. (Rev. ?002 and Supp, .10.1 3j, the Pollution Control Act, S . C. Code
2008arid. ,SOpp. 2013) and the ;South Carolina Solid Waste Polidy and .Management Act, S.,CI,Qjdd
,Ann;..§44=9,6-10;.ci.5pq:(Rpv.200-and .Supp. ,201.3)., These -Acts aLitlior'lz"-e,flie-Department ,to issue'
orders; Assess- civilpenalties; , conduct Midie8, inVestigAtiohs, arid- research, to, iibAtej.;control ,dhd
preventppildtion;,ario toprotectIlle health of persons brthe-dnviro-nmen , t.
NO THEREFORE lT f§ AGREED, with.. th6. -d66s&nf of q6h 'Ei* i6d th6
--,rgy
'be i ht, and pursuant to, the, -E�oijth,Carblina HazardoUs. Waste Managemeiit �,ct. the Pollution
pdilme
Control Act, and/or the Solid Waistd Policy"and, Mariqjzdment Act,that, Qu . Ice Energy shall;
1. Vq*, ninety -(99) -days ,of receipt of .this .fully _eXecuted. Consent Agreement; submit.10 the
Deptirtm'eht for review And approval, Arr Ash Removal Plan fdt the'Site. The Ash'R6mbvdI
Plan shall ine'ludO a time sch&dU'. le for'implerneptatibn of all major activities required, by t4e
Plan. The Ash,Rembval Plan mist .include, bit -is not limitedA6, chaedc.tetizati,on 6fthd' ash,,
provisions, for the -safe removal of theash management of stppn,Whter during the project,
and ffiftnaEX6rhent ftltdrhativqs f6f the asil'by'-pither'benefleidl reuse or'disposition -in a South
Qaralina-ppritlitted Cliiss .3 "solid -waste disposal facility or a facility meeting eqWvaldnt
standards outside of South Carolina..The Ash, Rem6vAI Plan shall also include an, evaluation
,of"thq- stability, of,the,rim, dike and, any other ,slopes impounding the CCRplacementareas
duflil-ci ash ,f6ffi&ifl activities. Any,c6indents ,generated thf6ugh the DeOgilibent'§ review v of
the Ash .Removal Plan, must- be -ad dr ed; ih writing by; Duke Energy within fifteen •(15)
days ,of Duke Erbrgy',s-,rftqipt ofj9did d6ffimcifts. .Upon :the Department's approval ,of the
,kslV9e%ri1pval,Planznd the time schedule -tor implementation thereof, the Asli Removal Plan

1�
and schedule shall be incorporated herein and become ian enforceable, part ,of this Consent
Agreement.
2. 'Submit, -along with but under separate eover�,from.•the Ash Removal Plan, a Health and_
Safety Plan (HASP) ponsistent with Oocupational Safety and Health Administration
regulations. The HASP shall be. submitted fq the Department in the form of :one .(1)"
electronic copy (.p -df format). Duke Energy. agrees tile. HASP is submitted.to the Department
fof informational purposes only. The Department expressly denies, any _liability ,that _may
result from Duke. Energy's implement4tion of the HASP.,
3, Begin iniplemeniatian ofthe- Ash-Removal.,Plan :described in paragraph ,i Withn fifteen (1 )
days- of Duke Energy's receipt of the Department's written approval. .of the Ash Removal
Plan..
-4. Upon completion ofthe work approved in, the Asli Removal Plana submit an Ash, Removal
Report to. the Department. The ,Ash Removal Repoft shall surmnafize the activities taken
during implementation of 'the Ash Removal Plan and shall-dontain. appropriate
documentation thatash lias'been removed fr6in fSe Site `in accordance with the AshRemoval
Plan'.
5. 'Within.thidy'(30) days of approval of the Ash Removal .Rdpoft, submit an Assessment Plan
49 the Department. The Assessment Plan shall include; but is not,]imited to; the following: -a
description ,of work deeded 'for the 'delineation 'of the vertical and'hofizontal' extent of any
confamination, indluding an cissessment of "surface :water, groundwater; and soil underlying
the,tSite; .an d aluAf6n'of risks to himftn 'heAlth :aiid .the -environment; and a schedule -for
implementation,
Upon completion of -the activities'owl'ined injhe;approved Assessment Plan—submit W the
Department an Assessment Report summarizing the findings of the investigations pefforfied
pursuarit to the A'ssessmetif-Plan. The.Ddp.qrtMeht;shall review'-tlid,,AssessmbnfiRepdi-t to
4

4
determine completion ofthe "field investigation and sufficiency'o'f the documentation: If the
Department determines that additional' field .investigation is necessary, Duke Energy shall
conduct ,additional field ;investigation to -compleie :such .task. Alternatively, -if the
Department determines- the field -investigation to be, complete; ,but th1 ,conclusions �ih Duke
Energy's .Assessniei t Report are not approved, .Duke Energy.-sliall submit. a Revision .to the.
.Assessment Report within. :thirty _(30)" days after receipt of the Department's disapproval.
The Revision shall address the Dep6Rment's.comunent's
7. Within silty (60) days of approval of the -Assessment _Report, submit to the Department .a
Closure Plan, which details the actions- to be taken for .the final disposition of .the Site, and
evaluates the need'for additional. remediation of soils, surface water and;groundtivatef., :If
'remedial :actions are necessary; Duke Energy -shall also submit to -the .Department for
approval ;a Remedial Plan, which. includes -a -proposed remedy, justification for the proposed'
'refiledy„ the design 'of'the- proposed -remedy :and 1 schedule for implementation. The
-seheduld of ,implementati'orn must extend through till completion of the remedy., The
Closure Plan and,, if necessary, theR&medial Plan -shall be based upon the results of the field
investigation,-ash.remoVal activitigs.and the 'folloN�ing seven,(7) criteria:.
A. Overall, protection of Human health and, the environment;
b. .Compliance with appl'icable,or relevant and appropriate standards,• -
c. Zong4orm effectiveness -and permaiietice;
Reduction of toxicity, mobility or volume;
e. Shoi:t--term effectiveness;
f. hmplemeintability;
g. Costs.
Any comments �geilerated through the Department's review .of,the Closure Plan and .any
required Reinedial Plan. must,be 'addressed .in writing by Duke Energy within .fifteen �(15.)
days Of Duke- Energy's .receipt,of sai&.commenn. This,fifteen.(j-) day deadline.;may be..
5

If
extended by mutual agreement of the, parties if the .comment resolution requires extensive
revision, such as re-engiijeeririg. Upon Department approval of the_•Closure.Plan,, Remedial
Plan and.the implementation schedule,.the Closure.Plan; Remedial Plan, and implementation
khedule - shall be ricorpofated herein -and become an .enforceable. ,part of this Consent
Agreement.
9. Begin .to implement the Closure- Plan and the Remedial Plan -w.ithift forty-five: (45) days of
the Department's approval of the.'Plaris;, and thereafter, take all necessary and reasonabie
steps -to ensure'tiinely completion of the Plans,
10, 'Vlioii Duke)✓nergy's successful coniplefion..of,the,t6fms of.this Consent Agrd6inent,.submit
to the Department- a written- final Report. 'The. Final Report shall contain all necessary
documentation supporting Duke Energy's reniddiation of the Site and "successful .arid
complete compliance -with this Cbment.Agreement. Once the Department has -approved the
Riiial Report, the Departinent will provide Duke.Energy .a w"fitteh approval 'of, completion
that provides. a Covenant Not .to Sue 'to.,Duke ,Energy for the, response actions specifically
:covered in .this Consent Agreement; approved_ by the Department 'and 'completed an
accordance with the, approved work plans and reports'.
I1. Notwithstanding.any,other.provision-of:this'ConsentAgreement, including�the-CovenanfNot.
to _5iie;
the Departtneiit reserves the'Tight to require Duke Energy to perform any additional
work at the Site,of to feimliurse the D'e_pafffind it for additional work if Duke Energy, declines.
to undertalce such work, if: (i) condifions=at the Site,,previously unknown to the Department,
are -discovered -after completion of the work, approved by iM Department pursuant .to this
.Consent Agreement ,and warrant further .assessment or remediation to address a release,.or-
tlueat of a'release in-. order, toprotect human health or the environment, on(ii) information is.
received, iii ,whole or in pant, •after, completion of the work approved �y the Department
pursuant to this Consent Agreement, -arid ;these' -previously unknown conditions �or -this

information indicates that the completed work ,is hot protective of hUnian health and the
environment.. -In exigent,circumstances; the Department reserves the right to perform the
additional work` and Duke Energy will reinibursethe Department for,the work
lw consideration ;for the Department's Covenant Not to Sue, Duke Energy agrees not to
assOt any claims or causes of action -against the Department arising out of response aefivities
undertaken at the Site, .or to seek :any other .costs,damages or. attorney's fees from the
Department arising, out of response activities undertaken at the 'Sitd `ekcept'for those claims
.or causes of action reesulfing from the intentional or.gros'sly negligent acts or omissions.of the
Department. 146wev tr Duke Energy reserves a11 available defenses, -not inconsik6ht.wit,h
this-to'nsent Agreement, to any claims or causes of action- asset ted ,against, Duke Energy'
arising'out of response activities'undertaken at theSite by.the Departtrient.
13.
Submit - to, the Department a written• monthly progress report' within thirty, -(3V) days of the
execution of this Consent Agreement aid once every morith thereaftei until completion of
the- work required under 'this. Consent. Agreement. 'The progress reports, shall include the
following:- ;(a) a description -of the -actions which Duke Energy has taken toward achieving
compliance with this Consent Agreement during the previous month; (b) results ofsampting
'and tests, in summary format received by Duke Energy duffing the reporting period; (c)
description,of,all actions wlucli are kheduled for the nekt,rnonth to4cliieve coimpliance with
this Consent Agreement, and other .information relating to the ,progress of the wotk as
deemed necessary or requested by 'the. Department; and (d) information regarding the
percentage,of .work completed'atid any delays encouirtered, or anti'cipated-'that may.dffe6t the
approved schedule for imlilementation -of'-the terms of this Consent Agreement; And -a
dese-4tion of efforts made to mitigate delays'or.avoid anticipated delays,
_14. Prepare .all Plans and 'perform all activities under this Consent Agtdemetit. following
appropriate-DHEC and ERA guidelines: All Plans and 'associated reports shall �be prepared
7

in kcordanc6 vViiii industry standdfdsand endorsed ,by- aTipfess'iohal Engineer ,(P;E;) pd/br-
Vrofqs-s1ona'l'Ge6log'-i$t '(P.Q:):ddly 4 1 . ce-nsdd in �8buth-'Cafolinq; Unless otherwise requested;"
(l) .paper ,'copy, And one --(1) electronic, ,copy ,(.pdf -format) df -ea6li document prepared
Linder tliis- Coiisdnt- Agreement :shall be submitted, to the- DepArtfiidnVs Project, Manager.
Unless: otjjqrwise:.directed ,iii writing, all correspondence,, work, plans and reports should be
kibinittedtothe D&pArtm n0s Project'm
anager-at the f6116wihaAd,dre§8:
4A Hofho
y
86tith Cdepli,iia'D6p,dtttbent.,Of-HeAlth, and tnviroiiftitmdl Conttol
Bureau of Und'afid Waste Management
2600Bull,$tkeet
'Poluinbia.'SO'uth Car6l - iha 29201
fiprnI6'[e-mail]:._gov
R diffibtirk tthe, D6p',irtftfe-h-t,oh �a quartetly, b6sisi,for'All- pa4, present •and f-dture -*costs, dir6ct
incurred b - the, Departnient P.Lirsdatit' to this Consent Agreement 'and- As'
and, indilrect -917-
ght,.Cpsts include., but are not-Iiiiiited to,'ihe'di'r6ct,and',ilpdiroct costs
provided b�,' law, bVersi—
of tegotiati4g,theteins ofithi� Consent Agreement; reviewing plans, and repr§,
_supervising
corresponding workk-An-d "activities?And -'costs -Associated with: public participation. Thd
-
-beptifimqot shgll pTovId6:dodumefitati6n of its','Oversijfit C6sts in-suMi6i6nt-d6taij �sq,.as, to
-sl16iV,thepersonnel 'inVolNi6d, f6f edcliftrson; expenses;
and odier-sbdcifc°costs, Payments care'due-to tlie-.Oppgrtmeiit.Witlliiiihfrty-,(30) d4ys-pf,the.
date
jjoWeV&f, it is q.ns6fit-AgF6&iI1ent if
0 IlId Department's invoice;ta'VioJatioft,oftM'C
late. pay neiittis Ppred Within th,ifty (36) addi,fional,days-,
N' p t hrunentih -v�,rifip�gat least b6bre thd schedLil'6d -'ddadline
_ify, thq:Dep t -flvt 0) days
if ally -event occurs VWcfi causes .ot may ,cause a. delay is meeting any 61"rhe,
sC'Iidc 4ildd dates for. bqrhpjeti6n,:ofahy,spp&iFidd activity p4rsuant tatliis C6nsept,AP-deffi-ent.
Duke.Energy

causes 6f -delay. 'it Asdehdiftdble, the measures tak6h or to be tAken'to, _' " or minimize
Prewit
the delay, and the timetable by,which biae Energy proposes that ihoso, measures will be
imple'Indilted. The Department shall -provide written notice to Duke. Energy I
4s soon as,
pradtidable that a spp lf��
ti _extelhs6 oftimehas beets grantod'-or.that, no exten-sionlias-teen
9fafit0d. Ari dxtensi6n, shall be,geantdd fok ami scheduled actiVity, delayed by an event- of
forcenidft-w,--a which sluill mean d i
any event, arising from,.c'a
-uses beyond the control .of Duke
Energy hat causes. adclay in or prevehts the performance ot,any,dftie civriditip�fisundeir. this-
.qbnsent AgrQeihdnt'includihg, but.n6t limited to: 0) acts pf God; fire, war, -insurrection-
civil distuibake-p 'NPI'Psibfi-', b),ddv adverse Weather conditions tliat.C'Ould,iC6t'be ,reas�ijfiably
P. __P__
ain.tipipatqdpa,ug,ing,unU$Lialdeiay'm-,,tTansportatiOlIAnd/orfidld"*6rk.ad,tiV,ieies,7 c) restraint
bydourt.-,otd6tot-otddr.ofp4bli-dauthority; 'O) inability toobtdi6,,aftdr,ekrcise-bftea§6fiabl'e'
diligence and timtly, s,ubmdttaj of 'dIf required applications, any necessary -auth rizations,
.mits, or licenses due to -.a6ti6h,6r inaction of -any-;&Verhrftetlt -a I
agency ,or
authority; 'and e) 461' with applicable.
table. stAtU I tes, or regulations
_n q$ caused by compliance
'99veming 't6fItf6:cti4g, pr-O"cUteffidnt of acquisition'despiteprocedures, despite the dkqdis& d
Able ,dillgeiice �y OOkp Energy. , not.
force which arenotforde w u?
reason cye b
example; but are not lim''Ited to, unanticipated or :increased casts.,bf
pdrfOrmcindq, bhAngdd
ec(in6niie-,ciieuinstaiieesi,b6i-rnal.,prec:ip;ltatioi!events; 6rjii
iftireby,006 Eh6
.rgy q exercise,,
'dtjc' 4:ijigigrice in obtaining g verrunefttal permits orperfbrhiingIAnyothet kequirementbftfii§
:Consent Agreement or,any prOcedurq necessary ;td provide, performance pur-suant to' the
Oir'ovis-io.ns of thi'g,Conslofit Agre6mei it, Any extension, shdII be granted at the -8616 &crdtl6ft
'of the Deptirtintnt, incorporated by 'reference as an enforceable part 'of this Cdn9efit
fte'e-im'efit, and, therdOt be iefer'red to as ab.attachnierit to the, Consent Agreement,
171 E'niployees,oft'h6D-6ailih&,iit.the - "I I o 'be denied
i.,I--teslidctive,cons�iltaiif� dfid4ontractofs�, n t
wi
,ac6ass during` ,normal ,business - hours, -or at'an 'time..wbric underthis Consent Agreement- is,

.being performed or during :any.environmentat emergency or, imminent threat ,situation, as
determinedby.the Department or as allowed by applicable law.
IT 'IS � AGREED THAT Ili -is Consent Agteement shall be bindhig upon . and inure to the
benefit of Duke Energy and its officers, directors, agents, receivers, trustees; heirs, executors,
admin'Ntfators; successors; and assigns and to the benefit of the Departineiit and 'any successor
agency of the State. of .South .Carolina that may. have responsibility for and jurisdiction over the
subject matter of this Consent .Agreement.. Dube Energy ;may', n6t .assign its. rights or obligations
under this Consent Agreement withoutthe prior: written consent'of the Department.
IT IS FURTHER AGREED. that failure to meet any -deadline-or to perform•the requirements
.of this,Coiisent Agreement without an d w6ved ektension.of time and failure io timely cure as'noted
,below, may be deeined.a violation of -the Pollution Control Act, the South tarolind Hazardous Waste
Management Act and/or- the Solid Waste Management and Policy Act, .as ;amended. Upon
ascertaining ,any -such violation, the Department shall, notify Duke Energy in writing of any such
deemed violation .and that appropriate actioh,may be initiated by, the Departiiieint-in.,the,appropriate
forum to oli'tain compliance 'with Ahe provisions,:of this Consent Agreement aiid tile, aforesaid Acts.
Duke Energy 'shall' have thirty (50) days to cure any deemed violations of this Consent Agreement.
Applicable penalties may begin to accrue,aftef• Usuance. of'the Departi-nent's'deter-mination.that the
alleged violation has not,been cu red 'during,thatthirty (30) day period.
($j,dhatd-ke Pcige FolloiO)
Is

FOR THESOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT -
OF HEALTH AND E NVIRONMENTAL CONTROL
Biireau of Land and Waste Managethent
Van Keisldr, P�G., Director
Division of Compliance and Enfbrcem�ht
Attorney
Office of Oeneril Counsel
WE CONSENT:
DUKE ENERGY CAROLINA, LLC
Date: C� 42(� j Iq .
bate: I Ll
'(Please �Ieaily pript,riame and title)
11

EXHIBIT 10
DE_ NR/DWR Fact Sheet for NPDES Development
Riverbend Permit Renewal NC0004961
2015

DENR/DWR
FACT SHEET FOR NPDES PERMIT DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT RENEWAL
NPDES No. NC0004961
Facility Information
Applicant/Facility Name:
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC — Riverbend Steam Station
Applicant Address_ :
P.O. Box 1006, Charlotte, North Carolina 28201
Facility Address:
175 Steam Plant Road; Mount Holly, North Carolina 28120
Permitted Flow
No limit
Type of Waste:
100% industrial
Prim.SIC Code: 4911 — Electric Services
Facility/Permit Status:
Class I/Active; Renewal
County:
Gaston County
Miscellaneous
Receiving Stream:
Catawba River
(Mt. Island Lake)
Regional Office:
Mooresville
Stream Classification:
WS -IV and B -CA
State Grid / USGS Quad:
F15Sw
303(d) Listed?
No
Permit Writer:
Sergei Chernikov,
Ph.D.
Subbasin:
03-08-33
Date:
May 21, 2014
Drainage Area (mi):
1800
'
001: Lat. 350 21' 28" N Long. 800 58' 12" W
002: Lat. 350 22' 06" N Long. 80° 57' 31" W
002B: Lat. 35'21'51"N Long. 80'58'11"W
011: Lat. 350 21138" N Long. 80'58'38"W
Summer 7Q10 (cfs)
80
Winter 7Q 10 (cfs):
30Q2 (cfs)
Average Flow (cfs):
2700
IWC %for Outfall 002:
(%)
0.4 — discharge
g
2.7 — dewatering
SUMMARY
Duke Energy's Riverbend Steam Station was a coal fired steam electric plant in Gaston County,
the electricity generation was discontinued on 04/1/2013. The facility has 5 permitted outfalls in
the current NPDES discharge permit. The sources of wastewater for these outfalls include non -
contact cooling water, ash basin discharge, sanitary waste, stormwater from process areas, sump
overflows, and potentially contaminated groundwater seeps. The facility has no FGD scrubber.
Currently, discharge of cooling water has discontinued and discharge from the ash pond
significantly decreased.
In addition to NPDES Permit NC0004961, the facility also holds 0388R20 (air permit) and
NCD024717423 (Hazardous wastes). The facility is subject to 40 CFR 423 — Steam Electric
Power Generation.
The following descriptions of the wastes at each outfall are offered:
001— Once through cooling water consisting of intake screen backwash and water from
the plant chiller system, turbine lube oil coolers, condensate coolers, main turbine steam
condensers and the intake tunnel dewatering sump.
Since the facility was shut down, the discharge from this outfall is not anticipated.
Pact Sheet
NPDES NC0004961 Renewal
Page 1

002 — Ash basin discharge consisting of induced draft fan and preheater bearing cooling
water, stormwater from roof drains and paving, treated groundwater, track hopper sump
(groundwater), coal pile runoff, laboratory drain and chemical makeup tanks and drums
rinsate wastes, general plant/trailer sanitary wastewater, turbine and boiler rooms sumps,
vehicle rinse water, and stormwater from pond areas, upgradient watershed, and
miscellaneous stormwater flows. Most of the waste streams have discontinued, but some
will remain.
002A- Yard drain sump overflow, discharge occurs rarely.
010 — Combined flow from all seeps.
011 — Former stormwater Outfall 1. Contains stormwater and groundwater flow, also
includes wastewater from 10,000 gallon oil separator tank #3. The drainage basin
includes a 2.7 acre portion of the main switchyard and 8,700 ft2 of the plant yard between
power house and combustion turbine area. The powerhouse covers about 1.5 acres of the
drainage basin. 100% of the drainage basin is paved or roofed.
This facility discharges to the Mountain Island Lake (Catawba River) in sub -basin 03-08-33.
The receiving stream is not listed as impaired.
Duke Energy Submitted Application dated May 15, 2014. The current permit expires February
28, 2015.
Duke Energy is required by the Coal Ash Management Act to remove all ash from the site by
August 1, 2019.
The discharge pipe NPDES outfall 002 from the secondary ash basin discharge tower at
Riverbend Steam Station will be slip lined to ensure integrity. While this pipe is being slip lined,
an alternative arrangement to convey wastewater to the permitted NPDES outfall 002 will be
utilized. Temporary piping will be positioned in the secondary ash basin and the treated
wastewater will be pumped to the NPDES outfall 002 discharge flow weir, located before the
concrete flume that discharges into Mountain Island Lake. Once the slip line repairs are
completed, the system will be returned to its original configuration. NPDES monitoring
requirements will continue to be collected during the slip line project at the NPDES outfall 002
discharge flow weir.
SEEPS -OUTFALL 010
The facility identified 12 unpermitted seeps from the ash settling basin. Seeps can be classified
as either engineered seeps (toe drains) from the earthen dam or non -engineered seeps that occur
as wastewater moves from the ash settling basin into groundwater and then into surface water,
either directly or after emerging on land. Engineered seeps can be captured and routed through a
permitted outfall.
The non -engineered seeps represent a treatment system that has the potential to contaminate
groundwater and surface water. The original design and location of the impoundment are such
that wastewaster is not contained and directed to only engineered outfalls as the NPDES program
generally contemplates, but wastes are also being released to groundwater and emerging in the
form of seeps at the surface at diffuse and remote locations, with wastewater then flowing into
surface waters depending on site specific factors. Potential groundwater contamination is
regulated through North Carolina's 2L program. The CWA NPDES permitting program does not
Fact Sheet
NPDES NC0004961 Renewal
Page 2

normally envision permitting of uncontrolled releases from treatment systems; such releases are 1
difficult to monitor and control, and it is difficult to accurately predict their impact on water
quality. Releases of this nature would typically be addressed through an enforcement action
requiring their elimination rather than permitting.
The non -engineered seeps at this facility represent a unique circumstance, where the occurrence
of the seeps is attributable to an original pond design that will require long-term action to fully
address. Recent North Carolina legislation (Coal Ash Management Act of 2014) establishes a
framework for addressing all coal ash impoundments in the state to ensure that groundwater and
surface water are adequately protected through closure or other measures. However, action to
close or otherwise address coal ash impoundments and their threats to surface waters and
groundwater will occur over a long term of those actions. In light of the long-term nature of
action to fully address these impoundments, the Division is proposing, as an interim measure, to
ensure that all non -engineered seeps are appropriately identified, monitored, and subject to
protective effluent limits by including the seep discharges as authorized discharges in the
facility's NPDES permit. The permit includes requirements to regularly inspect for new seeps,
monitoring requirements for all identified seeps, and applicable effluent limits which ensure that
the seeps will not result in unacceptable impacts to the receiving stream.
The facility identified 12 unpermitted seeps and conducted chemical analysis of the discharges.
The total flow from the seeps was measured at 0.14 MGD. Although, all seeps don't have a
permanent discharge and discharge from all seeps does not reach the surface water, for the
purposes of the permitting it was assumed that all seeps reach the surface water. The seeps are
not located on the walls of the dike, they appear as an emerging groundwater in a swampy area
adjacent to the lake.
The, maximum allowable parameter concentration for seeps was determined by multiplying the
highest concentration for a baseline seep data by 10. These values are substantially lower than
the allowable concentration determined by the Reasonable Potential Analysis for the combined
seep flow. The maximum allowable concentrations for Pb and TDS were established at the level
of the water quality standards.
ASH POND DAMS
Seepage through earthen dams is common and is an expected consequence of impounding water
with an earthen embankment. Even the tightest, best -compacted clays cannot prevent some
water from seeping through them. Seepage is not necessarily an indication that a dam has
structural problems, but should be kept in check through various engineering controls and
regularly monitored for changes in quantity or quality which, over time, may result in dam
failure.
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS (RPA)
The Division conducted EPA -recommended analyses to determine the reasonable potential for
toxicants to be discharged at levels exceeding water quality standards/EPA criteria by this
facility from outfall 002 (Ash Pond). Calculations included: As, Be, Cd, Total Phenolic
Compounds, Cr, Cu, CN, Pb, Hg, Mo, Ni, Se, Ag, Zn, and Fe (please see attached). The renewal
application listed 0.19 MGD as a current flow. The analysis indicates no reasonable potential to
violate the surface water quality standards or EPA criteria. However, the monitoring will
continue per recommendation of the hearing officer during the last renewal.
The Division also considered data for other parameters of concern in the EPA Form 2C that the
facility submitted for the renewal. The majority of the parameters were not detected in the
Fact Sheet
NPDES NC0004961 Renewal
Page 3

discharge. The Division reviewed the following parameters that were detected in the discharge
and have applicable state standards or EPA criteria for Class C WS -IV stream: fecal coliform,
nitrate, Al, Ba, B, Co, Mn, Sb, and Tl. Most of these parameters were well below the state
standards/EPA criteria. Only 1 parameter exceeded EPA criteria: Al (162 ug/L is above 87 ug/L).
Considering the in -stream waste concentration of only 0.4%, even Al is not expected to violate
applicable water quality criterion.
The RPA was also conducted for the combined flow from all the seeps. The highest
concentration for each constituent was chosen from one of the 12 seeps and used for the RPA.
The RPA was not considered for the parameters that don't have an applicable state water quality
standard. Calculations included: As, Cd, Chlorides, Cr, Cu, F, Pb, Hg, Ni, Se, Zn, Ba, 176, and
Mn (please see attached). The analysis indicates no reasonable potential to violate the water
quality standards or EPA criteria. The combined flow volume for all the seeps was measured at
0.14 MGD. However, the flow of 0.5 MGD was used for the RPA to incorporate a safety factor,
account for potential new seeps that might emerge in the future or increase in flow volume at the
existing seeps.
The RPA was also conducted for the Outfall 011. Calculations included: As, Cd, Chlorides, Cr,
Cu, F, Pb, Hg, Ni, Se, Zn, Ba, Fe, and Mn (please see attached). The analysis indicates no
reasonable potential to violate the water quality standards or EPA criteria. The flow volume for
the Outfall 011 was measured at 0.00036 MGD. However, the flow of 0.001 MGD was used for
the RPA to incorporate a safety factor and potential increase in flow.
The RPA analysis indicates that existing discharges from the facility outfalls will not cause
contravention of the state water -quality standards/ EPA criteria.
DEWATERING — OUTFALL 002
To meet the requirements of the Coal Ash Management Act of 2014, the facility needs to
dewater two ash ponds and excavate the ash to deposit it in the landfills. The facility highest
discharge rate from the dewatering process will be 1.45 MGD. The facility submitted data for the
surface water in the ash ponds, interstitial water in the ash, and interstitial ash water that was
treated by 20 µm filter and 0.45 µm filter. To evaluate the impact of the dewatering on the
receiving stream the RPA was conducted for the wastewater that will be generated by the
dewatering process. To introduce the margin of safety, the highest measured concentration for a
particular parameter was used. The RPA was conducted for As, Cd, Chlorides, Cr, Cu, F, Pb,
Mo, Hg, Ni, Se, Zn, Ba, Fe, and Mn, 5O4, Al, B, Sb, and Tl (please see attached).
Based on the results of the RPA, the limit for Total Aluminum will be added to the dewatering
effluent page.
TECHNOLOGY BASED EFFLUENT LIMITS OUTFALL002 AND OUTFALL 010
The existing federal regulations require development of Technology Based Effluent Limits
(TBELs) for the parameters of concern. Since the EPA has not promulgated any new Effluent
Guidelines for Power Plants since 1982, the Division has reviewed the performance of the
existing coal-fired power plants to establish TBELs: Marshall Steam Station, Belews Steam
Station, and Allen Steam Station. Two of these facilities (Belews and Allen) were used by EPA
to establish the proposed Effluent Guidelines for Power Plants. The Division focused on the
following parameters: Total Arsenic,, Total Mercury, Total Selenium, and Nitrate/nitrite as N.
These parameters are consistent with the parameters selected by EPA in the proposed Effluent
Guidelines. The Division agrees with the EPA statement from the proposed Effluent Guidelines
Fact Sheet
NPDES NC0004961 Renewal
Page 4

that justifies TBEL limitations for only four pollutants of concern: "Effluent limits and
monitoring for all pollutants of concern is not necessary to ensure that the pollutants are
adequately controlled because many of the pollutants originate from similar sources, have similar
treatabilities, and are removed by similar mechanisms. Because of this, it may be sufficient to
establish effluent limits for one pollutant as a surrogate or indicator pollutant that ensures the
removal of other pollutants of concern."
Based on the review of the effluent data for the past 5 years the Division established the
following TBELs for the coal-fired power plants in North Carolina. The monthly average limits
for Total Arsenic and Total Selenium are based on 95th percentile of the effluent data, which is
consistent with the EPA methodology, and daily maximum limits for these constituents are based
on the 99.9th percentile of the effluent data. The Total Mercury limit is based on the Statewide
Mercury TMDL implementation strategy and was established by the Division previously.
Total Arsenic —10.5 µg/L (Monthly Average); 14.5 µg/L (Daily Maximum)
Total Selenium — 13:6 µtg/L (Monthly Average); 25.5 µg/l, (Daily Maximum)
Total Mercury — 47.0 ng/L (Monthly Average); 47.0 ng/L (Daily Maximum)
The Division does not have any long-term data for Nitrate/nitrate as N. Therefore, the limits for
this parameter are based on the proposed EPA Effluent Guidelines.
Nitrate/nitrite as N — 0.13 mg/L (Monthly Average); 0.17 mg/L (Daily Maximum)
Facility is allowed 4.5 years from the effective date of the permit to comply with the TBELs
(Outfall 002 only—Ash Pond Discharge). This time period is provided in order for the facility to
budget, design, and construct the treatment system. The compliance schedule is consistent with
the proposed EPA Effluent Guidelines that require compliance with the TBELs "as soon as
possible within the next permit cycle beginning July 1, 2012". Since the permit cycle is 5 years,
the Effluent Guidelines will allow the facility to comply with the TBELs by June 30, 2022. This
permit has a more stringent requirements, the facility shall comply with the TBELs by the end of
2019.
In the interim, the facility shall comply with the BPJ temporary limits that are derived by
multiplying the proposed TBELs by 5, please see below:
Total Arsenic — 52.5 µg/L (Monthly Average); 72.5 µg/L (Daily Maximum)
Total Selenium — 68.0 µg/L (Monthly Average); 127.5 µg/L (Daily Maximum)
Nitrate/nitrite as N — 0.65 mg/L (Monthly Average); 0.85 mg/L (Daily Maximum)
Although these interim limits higher than the proposed TBELs, they are significantly lower than
the allowable concentrations determined by the Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA) - and
should be protective of the water quality in the receiving stream. The RPA allowable
concentrations are listed below:
Total Arsenic —13,632.3 µg/L (Monthly Average); 91,690.8 µg/L (Daily Maximum)
Total Selenium —1,363.2 µg/L (Monthly Average); 12,492.0 µg/L (Daily Maximum)
TEMPERATURE VARIANCE REMOVAL -OUTFALL 001
The facility historically had a temperature variance in accordance with CWA Section 316(a). In
order to maintain the variance the facility had to conduct annual biological and chemical
monitoring of the receiving stream to demonstrate that it has a balanced and indigenous
Fact Sheet
NPDES NC0004961 Renewal
Page 5

macroinvertebrate and fish community. The latest BIP (balanced and indigenous population)
report was submitted to DWQ in August of 2009. The ESS has reviewed the report and
concluded that the Mountain Island Lake near Riverbend Station has a balanced and indigenous
macroinvertebrate and fish community.
Since the facility discontinued electricity generation in 2013, it does not wish to request
continuation of the temperature variance. Therefore, Effluent Sheet A. (1.) was modified to
reflect temperature requirements without a variance.
CWA SECTION 316(B)
Since the facility discontinued electricity generation in 2013 and does not use cooling water, it
will not be the subject to the Section 316(b) of Clean Water Act.
INSTREAM MONITORING -OUTFALL 002
The facility historically had 7 monitoring station, 2 located upstream and 5 located downstream.
It is recommended that the monitoring will continue.
The permit also required semi-annual upstream and downstream monitoring of the ash pond
discharge. Upstream site (Station B) is approximately 2 miles upstream of the discharge and
downstream location (Station C) is approximately 0.5 miles downstream of the discharge. These
monitoring stations have been established through the BIP monitoring program, which was
required to maintain 316(a) temperature variance. The monitored parameters are: As, Cd, Cr, Cu,
Hg, Pb, Se, Zn, and Total Dissolved Solids (TDS). The majority of the results are below
detection level, the rest of the results are below water quality standards. These results are
consistent with the previous monitoring results.
It is required that the monitoring at the stations B and C will continue until discharges from the
station are ceased. It is also required that the facility uses low level method 1631E for all Hg
analysis.
FISH TISSUE MONITORING -OUTFALL 002
The permit required fish tissue monitoring for As, Se, and Hg near the ash pond discharge once
every 5 years. This frequency is consistent with EPA guidance. Sunfish and bass tissues were
analyzed for these trace elements. The results were below action levels for Se and Hg (10.0 µg/g
— Se, 0.40 µg/g — Hg, NC) and screening value for As (1.20 — µg/g, EPA). These results are
consistent with the previous monitoring results.
TOXICITY TESTING- Outfall 002:
Current Requirement: . 24hr Chronic P/F @ 10%
Recommended Requirement: 24hr Chronic P/F @ 2.7% (flow during dewatering)
Monitoring Schedule: January, April, July, October
This facility has passed all chronic toxicity tests during the previous permit cycle, please see
attached. The change is the instream waste concentration was made based on the significant
decrease in -the discharge volume.
COMPLIANCE SUMMARY
Notwithstanding the civil lawsuit filed for unauthorized discharges and groundwater
exceedances/violations, based on the monitoring required under the current version of the permit
there, were no violations of effluent standards contained in the permit.
Fact Sheet
NPDES NC0004961 Renewal
Page 6

PERMIT LIMITS DEVELOPMENT
• The pH limits (Outfalls 002, 002A, and 010) in the permit are based on the North
Carolina water quality standards (15A NCAC 2B .0200).-
• The limits for Oil and Grease and Total Suspended Solids (Outfall 002 and Outfall 002A)
are based on the Best Professional Judgment and are lower than prescribed in the 40 CFR
423.
• The limits for Total Copper and Total Iron (Outfall 002 and Outfall 002A) were
established in accordance with the 40 CFR 423.
• The temperature limits (Outfall 001) are based on the North Carolina water quality
standards (15A NCAC 2B .0200).
• The turbidity limit in the permit (Outfall 002) is based on the North Carolina water
quality standards (15A NCAC 2B .0200).
• The Technology Based Effluent Limits (Outfall 002 and Outfall 010) for Total Arsenic,
Total Mercury, Total Selenium, and Nitrate/nitrate as N are based on the requirements of
40 CFR 125.3(a) , 40 CFR 122.44(a)(1); 125.3(c) and (d).
• The Interim Technology Based Effluent Limits (Outfall 002) for Total Arsenic, Total
Selenium, and Nitrate/nitrate as N are based on the requirements of 40 CFR 125.3(a) , 40
CFR 122.44(a)(1); 125.3(c) and (d).
• The Whole Effluent Toxicity limit (Outfall 002) is based on the requirements of 15A
NCAC 2B.0500.
• The Total Aluminum limits (Outfall 002, dewatering) in the permit are based on the
results of the statistical analysis of the interstitial water data.
REQUESTED MODIFICATIONS
With the permit application for renewal, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC has requested the
following modifications:
Monitoring Frequencies (Outfall 002)
Parameter
Present
Proposed'-
roposed-Flow
Flow
Weekly
Monthly
Total Nitrogen
2/year
1/year
Total Phosphorus
2/year
1/year
Total Copper
Quarterly
none
Total Iron
Quarterly
none
These requests could not be granted because the Division needs these data to assure compliance
with the water quality standards and criteria during the upcoming ash pond decanting/dewatering
process.
PROPOSED CHANGES:
• Monitoring requirements for Outfall 001 were adjusted due to the discontinuation of
once -through cooling water discharges.
• The Ash Pond Closure Special Condition was updated (Please see A. (15.)).
• The Seep Outfall 010 (Please see A. (5)) and Seep Pollutant Analysis Special Condition
(Please see A. (17.)) were added to the permit.
• The Appendix A and Appendix B were added to the permit.
• A separate effluent page for the dewatering of the ash ponds (Outfall 002) was added to
the permit (Please see Special Condition A. (3)).
• The Boiler Cleaning Waste Special Condition was eliminated due to the discontinuation
of the power generation.
Fact Sheet
NPDES NC0004961 Renewal
Page 7

• The Section 316(a) of CWA Thermal Variance Special Condition was eliminated due to
the discontinuation of the power generation.
• The Section 316(b) of CWA Special Condition was eliminated due to the discontinuation
of the power generation.
• The turbidity limit was added to the permit to meet the state turbidity standard per 15A
NCAC 2B .0211(3) (k) (Outfall 002).
• The Technology Based Effluent Limits for Total Arsenic, Total Mercury, Total Selenium,
and Nitrate/nitrite as N, were added to the permit and are based on the requirements of 40
CFR 125.3(a) , 40 CFR 122.44(a)(1); 40 CFR 125.3(c) and (d) (Outfall 002 and Outfall
010).
• The Interim Technology Based Effluent Limits (Outfall 002) for Total Arsenic, Total
Selenium, and Nitrate/nitrate as N were added to the permit and are based on the
requirements of 40 CFR 125.3(a) , 40 CFR 122.44(a)(1); 125.3(c) and (d).
• Proposed federal regulations require electronic submittal of all discharge monitoring
reports (DMRs) and specify that, if a state does not establish a system to receive such
submittals, then permittees must submit DMRs electronically to the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). The Division anticipates that these regulations will be adopted
and is beginning implementation.
The requirement to begin reporting discharge monitoring data electronically using the NC
DWR's Electronic Discharge Monitoring Report (eDMR) internet application has been
added to the permit. (Please see Special Condition A. (18.)).
The Applicable State Law Special Condition was added to the permit to meet the
requirements of Senate Bill 729 (Coal Ash Management Act, Please see Special
Condition A. (19.)).
The Outfall 011 (former Stormwater Outfall 1) was added to the permit (Please see A.
(20.)).
PROPOSED SCHEDULE:
Draft Permit to Public Notice: March 6 , 2015 (est.)
Permit Scheduled to Issue: July 27, 2015 (est.)
STATE CONTACT:
If you have any questions on any of the above information or on the attached permit, please
contact Sergei Chernikov at [phone] or [e-mail]
Fact Sheet
NPDES NC0004961 Renewal
Page 8

EXHIBIT I I
Riverbend Draft NPDES Permit NC0004961

Permit NC0004961
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
Draft PERMIT
TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER UNDER THE
NAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provision of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1, other lawful
standards and regulations promulgated and adopted by the North Carolina Environmental
Management Commission, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended,
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at the
Riverbend Steam Station
Mount Holly
Gaston County
to receiving waters designated as the Catawba River in the Catawba River Basin
in accordance with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other
applicable conditions set forth in Parts I, II, III and IV hereof.
This permit shall become effective
This permit and authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on February 28, 2020.
Signed this day
DRAFT
S. Jay Zimmerman, Director
Division of Water Resources
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission
Page 1 of 15

Permit NC0004961
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
All previous NPDES Permits issued to this facility, whether for operation or discharge are hereby
revoked. As of this permit issuance, any previously issued permit bearing this number is no longer
effective. Therefore, the exclusive authority to operate and discharge from this facility arises under
the permit conditions, requirements, terms, and provisions included herein.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC is hereby authorized to:
1. Continue to discharge:
• Once through cooling water (outfall 001) consisting of intake screen
backwash and water from the plant chiller system, turbine lube oil coolers,
condensate coolers, main turbine steam condensers and the intake tunnel
dewatering sump
• Ash basin discharge (outfall 002) consisting of induced draft fan and
preheater bearing cooling water, stormwater from roof drains and paving,
treated groundwater, track hopper sump (groundwater), coal pile runoff,
laboratory drain and chemical makeup tanks and drums rinsate wastes,
general plant/trailer sanitary wastewater, turbine and boiler rooms sumps,
vehicle rinse water, and stormwater from pond areas, upgradient
watershed, and miscellaneous stormwater flows.
• Yard sump_ overflow (outfall 002A).
• 12 potentially contaminated groundwater seeps (outfall 010).
• Wastewater, stormwater and groundwater (outfall 011).
From a facility located at Riverbend Steam Station, Mount Holly in Gaston
County, and
2. Discharge wastewater from said treatment works at the location specified on
the attached map into the Catawba River, which is classified WS -IV and B -CA
waters in the Catawba River Basin.
Page 2 of 15

Permit NC0004961 .j
Part I
A. (1.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (Outfall
001) [15A NCAC 02B .0400 et seq., 02B .0500 et seq.]
During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge once -through cooling water and intake screen backwash from
outfall 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored3 by the Permittee as specified below:
EFFLUENT
CHARACTERISTICS
LIMITS
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Monthly Daily
Average _ Maximum
Measurement
Fre uenc
Sample Type Sample
Location'
Flow
Monthly
Pump Logs Influent or
Effluent
m erature of
LTemperature
Monthly
Grab Effluent
(OF)2
89.6 (32-C)
Monthly
Grab Downstream
Notes:
1. Downstream sampling point: downstream at Mountain Island Lake. If samples are collected
below the water surface, the Permittee will record the sample depth on the DMR form.
2. The ambient temperature shall not exceed 89.60F (32.00C) and is defined as the daily average
downstream water temperature. When the Riverbend Station effluent temperature is recorded
below 89.60F (32.00C), as a daily average, then monitoring and reporting of the downstream water
temperature is not required. In cases where the Permittee experiences equipment problems and
is unable to obtain daily temperatures from the existing temperature monitoring system, the
temperature monitoring must be reestablished within five working days.
3. No later than 270 days from the effective date of this permit, begin submitting discharge
monitoring reports electronically using NC DWR's eDMR application system. See Special
Condition A. (18.) .
Chlorination of the* once through condenser cooling water, discharged through outfall 001, is
not allowed under this permit. Should Duke Energy wish to chlorinate its condenser cooling
water, a permit modification must be requested and received prior to commencing
chlorination.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
Page 3 of 15

Permit NC0004961
A. (2.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (Outfall
002) [15A NCAC 0213 .0400 et seq., 02B,.0500 et seq.]
During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall 002 - Ash Pond Discharge. Such discharges shall be
limited and monitored7 by the Permittee as specified below:
EFFLUENT
CHARACTERISTICS
LIMITS
Monthly Daily
Average Maximum
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Measurement Sample Type Sample Location
Frequency
Flow
Weekly
Pump logs or
estimate
Influent or Effluent
Total Suspended Solids'
23.0 mg/L
75.0 mg/L
Monthly
Grab
Effluent
Oil and Grease
11.0 mg/L
15.0 mg/L
Annually
Grab
Effluent
Total Copper2
1.0 mg/L
1.0 mg/L
Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Iron2
1.0 m /L
1.0 m /L
Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Arsenic
52.5 pg/L
72.5 pg/L
Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Selenium
68.0 /L
127.5 /L
Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Nitrate/nitrite as N
0.65 m /L
0.85 m /L
Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Arsenic
10.5 pg/L8
14.5 pg/L8
Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Selenium
13.6 /L8
25.5pg/L8
Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Mercury
47.0 ng/L6
47.0 ng/L6
Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Nitrate/nitrite as N
0.13 mg/L8
0.17 mg/L8
Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Phosphorus
Semi-annually
Grab
Effluent
Total Nitrogen NO2 + NO3 + TKN
Semi-annually
Grab
Effluent
pH3
Monthly
Grab
Effluent
Chronic Toxicity4
Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Turbidity5
Monthly
Grab
Effluent
Notes:
1. Monthly average of 43 mg/L is permitted provided that the Permittee can satisfactorily
demonstrate that the difference between 23 mg/L and 43 mg/L is a result of the concentration of
total suspended solids in the intake water.
2. The limits for total copper and total iron only apply during a chemical metals cleaning.
3. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
4. Whole Effluent Toxicity shall be monitored by chronic toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F at 10%. Tests
shall be conducted in January, April, July and October (see Part A.(6.) for details).
5. The discharge from this facility shall not cause turbidity in the receiving stream to exceed 50
NTU. If the instream turbidity exceeds 50 NTU due to natural background conditions, the
discharge cannot cause turbidity to increase in the receiving stream.
NTU - Nephelometric Turbidity Unit.
6. The facility shall use EPA method 1631E.
7. No later than 270 days from the effective date of this permit, begin submitting discharge
monitoring reports electronically using NC DWR's eDMR application system. See Special
Condition A. (18.).
8. Facility is allowed 4.5 years from the effective date of the permit to comply with the TBELs.
This time period is provided in order for the facility to budget, design, and construct the
treatment system. Permit might be re -opened to implement the final EPA Effluent
Guidelines and more stringent limits might be added.
The metal cleaning waste, coal pile runoff, ash transport water, domestic wastewater,
and low volume waste shall be discharged into the ash settling pond.
No chemicals, cleaners, or other additives may be present in the vehicle wash water
to be discharged from this outfall.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace
amounts.
Page 4 of 15

Permit NC0004961
A. (3.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (Outfall
002) [15A NCAC 02B .0400 et seq., 02B .0500 et seq.]
During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall 002 - Ash Pond Discharge (Dewatering). Such '
discharges shall be limited and monitored7 by the Permittee as specified below:
tPFL"UENT :� ,..;
,CHARACTERISTICS..;
LIMITS ,'
Monthly; _ Daily
Averageui�emeirt
:Mazimuin
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Meas ; Sample Type Sample�Location
Frequency. .;
Flow
Weekly
Pump logs or
estimate
Influent or Effluent
Total Suspended Solids'
23.0 m /L
75.0 m /L
Monthly
Grab
Effluent
Oil and Grease
11.0 m /L
15.0 m /L
Annually
Grab
Effluent
Total Copper2
1.0 mg/L
1.0 mg/L
Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Iron2
1.0 mg/L
1.0 mg/L
Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Arsenic
10.5 Ng/L
14.5 Ng/L
Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Selenium
13.6 pg/L
25.5 Ng/L
Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Aluminum
3.18 mg/L
3.18 mg/L
Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Mercury
47.0 n /L5
47.0 n /L6
Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Nitrate/nitrate as N
0.13 m /L
0.17 m /L
Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Phosphorus
Semi-annually
Grab
Effluent
Total Nitrogen NO2 + NO3 + TKN)
Semi-annually
Grab
Effluent
pH3
Monthly
Grab
Effluent
Chronic Toxicity4
Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Turbidity5
Monthly
Grab
Effluent
Notes:
1. Monthly average of 43 mg/ L is permitted provided that the Permittee can satisfactorily
demonstrate that the difference between 23 mg/L and 43 mg/L is a result of the
concentration of total'suspended solids in the intake water.
2. The limits for total copper and total iron only apply during a chemical metals cleaning.
3. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
4. Whole Effluent Toxicity shall be monitored by chronic toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F at 10%.
Tests shall be conducted in January, April, July and October (see Part A.(6.) for details).
5. The discharge from this facility shall not cause turbidity in the receiving stream to exceed 50
NTU. If the instream turbidity exceeds 50 NTU due to natural background conditions, the
discharge cannot cause turbidity to increase in the receiving stream.
NTU - Nephelometric Turbidity Unit.
6. The facility shall use EPA method 1631E.
7. No later than 270 days from the effective date of this permit, begin submitting discharge
monitoring reports electronically using NC- DWR's eDMR application system. See
Special Condition A. (18.).
The metal cleaning waste, coal pile runoff, ash transport water, domestic wastewater,
and low volume waste .shall be discharged into the ash settling pond.
No chemicals, cleaners, or other additives may be present in the vehicle wash water
to be discharged from this outfall.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace
amounts.
Page 5 of 15

Permit NC0004961
A. (4.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (Outfall
002A) [15A NCAC 02B .0400 et seq., 02B .0500 et seq.]
During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall 002A — Yard Sump Overflows. Such discharges
shall be limited and monitored4 by the Permittee as specified below:
EFFLUENT
CHARACTERISTICS
LIMITS y;
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS `,
�IN�onthty Daily ..:
Average I Maximum _
'Measurement Sample Type ' -Sample Location'
. �Frequency.°
Flow
Episodic
Estimate
Effluent
Total Suspended Solids2
23.0 m /L
75.0 m /L
Eisodic
Grab
Effluent
Oil and Grease2
11.0 m /L
15.0 m /L
Eisodic
Grab
Effluent
Fecal Coliform
Episodic
Grab
Effluent
Total Copper3
1.0 mg/L
1.0 mg/L
Episodic
Grab
Effluent
Total Iron3
1.0 mg/L
1.0 mg/L
Episodic
Grab
Effluent
pH5
Episodic
Grab
Effluent
Notes:
1. Effluent sampling shall be conducted at a point upstream of discharge to the receiving
stream.
2. The monthly average limits for total suspended solids and oil and grease are applicable only if
the overflow occurs for more than 24 hours.
3. The limits for total copper and total iron only apply during a chemical metals cleaning.
4. No later than 270 days from the effective date of this permit, begin submitting discharge
monitoring reports electronically using NC DWR's eDMR application system. See Special
Condition A. (18.).
5. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
THERE SHALL BE NO DISCHARGE OF FLOATING SOLIDS OR VISIBLE FOAM IN OTHER THAN
TRACE AMOUNTS
ALL FLOWS SHALL BE REPORTED ON MONTHLY DMRS. SHOULD NO FLOW OCCUR DURING A
GIVEN MONTH, THE WORDS "NO FLOW" SHOULD BE CLEARLY WRITEN ON THE FRONT OF.
THE DMR. EPISODIC SAMPLING IS REQUIRED PER OCCURRANCE WHEN SUMP OVERFLOWS
OCCUR FOR LONGER THAN ONE HOUR. ALL SAMPLES SHALL BE OF A REPRESENTATIVE
DISCHARGE.
Page 6 of 15

Permit NC0004961 1
A. (5.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (Outfall
010) [15A NCAC 02B .0400 et seq., 02B .0500 et seq.]
During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge from Outfall 010 (combined seep outfall). Such discharges
shall be limited and monitored' by the Permittee as specified below:
EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS
DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Monthly
Average
Weekly
Average
Daily
Maximum
Measurement
Frequency2
Sample
Type
Sample Location
Total Suspended Solids
30.0 mg/L
100.0 mg/L
Monthly
Grab
Effluent
Total Arsenic
10.5 pg/L4
14.5 pg/L4
Monthly
Grab
Effluent
Total Mercury3
47.0 ng/L4
47.0 ngIL4
Monthly
Grab
Effluent
Total Selenium
13.6 pg/L4
25.5 pg/L4
Monthly
Grab
Effluent
Nitrate/nitrite as N
0.13 mg/L4
0.17 mg/L4
Monthly
Grab
Effluent
Flow
Monitor & Report
Monthly
Grab
Effluent
TDS
Monitor & Report
Monthly
Grab
Effluent .
Chlorides
Monitor & Report
Monthly
Grab
Effluent
Fluoride
Monitor & Report
Monthly
Grab
Effluent
Total Barium
Monitor & Report
Monthly
Grab
Effluent
Total Iron
Monitor & Report
Monthly
Grab
Effluent
Total Manganese
Monitor & Report
Monthly
Grab
Effluent
Total Zinc
Monitor & Report
Monthly
Grab
Effluent
Total Cadmium
Monitor & Report
Monthly
Grab
Effluent
Total Chromium
Monitor & Report
Monthly
Grab
Effluent
Total Copper
Monitor & Report
Monthly
Grab
Effluent
Total Lead
Monitor & Report
Monthly
Grab
Effluent
Total Nickel
Monitor & Report
Monthly
Grab
Effluent
Temperature
Monitor & Report
Monthly
Grab
Effluent
Specific Conductance
Monitor & Report
Monthly
Grab
Effluent
pH
Between 6.0 and 9.0 standard units
Monthly
Grab
Effluent
NOTES:
1. No later than 270 days from the effective date of this permit, begin submitting discharge
monitoring reports electronically using NC DWR's eDMR application system. See Special
Condition A. (18.) .
2. After the first year, the monitoring frequency will be reduced to a semi-annual basis.
3. The facility shall use EPA method 1631E.
4. The limits can be met by installation of the treatment system, re-routing the discharge to the
existing treatment system, or discontinuing the discharge.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
Page 7of15

Permit NC0004961
A. (6.) CHRONIC TOXICITY PASS/FAIL PERMIT LIMIT (QUARTERLY) (Outfall
002) [15A NCAC 02B .0200 et seq.]
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit observable inhibition of reproduction or significant
mortality to Ceriodaphnia dubia at an effluent concentration of 2.7%.
The permit holder shall perform at a minimum, cruarterlU monitoring using test procedures outlined
in the "North Carolina Ceriodaphnia Chronic Effluent Bioassay Procedure," Revised December 2010,
or subsequent versions or "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure"
(Revised- December 2010) or subsequent versions. The tests will be performed during the months of
January, April, July, and October. These months signify the first month of each three-month
toxicity testing quarter assigned to the facility. Effluent sampling for .this testing must be obtained
during representative effluent discharge and shall be performed at the NPDES permitted final
effluent discharge below all treatment processes.
If the test procedure performed as the first test of any single quarter results in a failure or
ChV below the permit limit, then multiple -concentration testing shall be performed at a
minimum, in each of the two following months as described in "North Carolina Phase II
Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -December 2010) or subsequent
versions.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent
Discharge Monitoring Form (MR -1) for the months in which tests were performed, using the
parameter code TGP3B for the pass/fail results and THP3B for the Chronic Value. Additionally,
DWR Form AT -3 (original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention: North Carolina Division of Water Resources
Water Sciences Section/Aquatic Toxicology Branch
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Completed Aquatic Toxicity Test Forms shall be filed with the Water Sciences Section no later than
30 days after the end of the reporting period for which the report is made.
Test data shall be complete, accurate, include all supporting chemical/ physical measurements and
all concentration/ response data, and be certified by laboratory supervisor and ORC or approved
designate signature. Total residual chlorine of the effluent toxicity sample must be measured and
reported if chlorine is employed for disinfection of the waste stream.
Should there be no discharge of flow from the facility during a month in which toxicity monitoring is
required, the permittee will complete the information located at the top of the aquatic toxicity (AT)
test form indicating the facility name, permit number, pipe number, county, and the month/year of
the report with the notation of "No Flow" in the comment area of the form. The report shall be
submitted to the Water Sciences Section at the address cited above.
Should the permittee fail to monitor during a month in which toxicity monitoring is required,
monitoring will be required during the following month. Assessment of toxicity compliance is based
on the toxicity testing quarter, which is the three month time interval that begins on the first day of
the month in which toxicity testing is required by this permit and continues until the final day of the
third month.
Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina
Division of Water Resources indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this permit may be
re -opened and modified to include alternate monitoring requirements or limits.
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum
control organism survival, minimum control organism reproduction, and appropriate environmental
Page 8 of 15

Permit NC0004961
controls, shall constitute an invalid test and will require immediate follow-up testing to be
completed no later than the last day of the month following the month of the initial monitoring.
A. (7.) BIOCIDE CONDITION
The permittee shall not use any biocides except those approved in conjunction with the permit
application. The permittee shall notify the Director in writing not later than ninety (90) days prior to
instituting use of any additional biocide used in cooling systems which may be toxic to aquatic life
other than those previously reported to the Division of Water Resources. Such notification shall
include completion of Biocide Worksheet From 101 and a map locating the discharge point and
receiving stream. Completion of a Biocide Worksheet 101 is not necessary for the introduction of a
new biocide into an outfall currently being tested for toxicity.
A. (8.) SPECIAL CONDITIONS
The following special conditions are applicable to all outfalls regulated by NC0004961:
• There shall be no discharge of polychlorinated biphenyl compounds.
• The Permittee shall check the diked areas for leaks by a visual inspection and shall report any
leakage detected
• Nothing contained in this permit shall be construed as a waiver by the Permittee or any right to a
hearing it may have pursuant to State or Federal laws or regulations.
• Discharge of any product registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
to any waste stream which may ultimately be released to lakes, rivers, streams or other waters of
the United States is prohibited unless specifically authorized elsewhere in this permit. Discharge
of chlorine from the use of chlorine gas, sodium hypochlorite, or other similar chlorination
compounds for disinfection in the plant potable and service water systems and in sewage
treatment is authorized. Use of restricted use pesticides for lake management purposes by
applicators licensed by the N.C. Pesticide Board is allowed.
• The Permittee shall report all visible discharges of floating materials, such as an oil sheen, to the
Director when submitting DMRs
A. (9.) PERMIT TERMS
The following are applicable to all outfalls regulated by NC0004961:
The term "low volume waste sources" means, taken collectively as if from one source, wastewater
from all sources except those for which speck limitations are otherwise established in this part.
Low volume wastewater sources include, but are not limited to: wastewater from wet scrubber
air pollution control systems, ion exchange water treatment system, water treatment evaporator
blowdown, laboratory and sampling streams, boiler blowdown, floor drains, cooling tower basin
cleaning wastes, and recirculating service water systems. Sanitary and air conditioning wastes
are not included.
The term "metal cleaning waste" means any wastewater resulting from cleaning (with or without
chemical cleaning compounds) any metal process equipment including, but not limited to, boiler
tube cleaning, boiler fireside cleaning, and air preheater cleaning. Chemical metal cleaning will
be conducted according to Duke Energy approved equivalency demonstration.
It has been determined from information submitted that the plans and procedures in place at
Riverbend Steam Station are equivalent to that of a BMP.
A. (10.) ASH SETTLING BASIN
Beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting until expiration, there shall be no discharge
of plant wastewater to the ash pond unless the Permittee provides and maintains at all times a
minimum free water volume (between the top of the sediment level and the minimum discharge
elevation) equivalent to the sum of the maximum 24-hour plant discharges plus all direct rainfall and
all runoff flows to the pond resulting from a 10 -year, 24-hour rainfall event, when using a runoff
coefficient of 1:0. During. the term of the permit, the Permittee shall remove settled material from the
ponds or otherwise enlarge the available storage capacities in order to maintain the required
Page 9 of 15

Permit NC0004961
minimum volumes at all times. The Permittee shall determine and report to the permit issuing
authority the following on an annual basis:
1) the actual free water volume of the ash pond,
2) physical measurements of the dimensions of the free water volume in sufficient detail to allow
validation of the calculated volume, and
3) a certification that the required volume is available with adequate safety factor to include all
solids expected to be deposited in the pond for the following year.
Present information indicates a needed volume of 86.2 acre-feet in addition to solids that will be
deposited to the ash pond; any change to plant operations affecting such certification shall be
reported to the Director within five days.
NOTE: In the event that adequate volume has been certified to exist for the term of the permit,
periodic certification is not needed.
A. (11.) GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL CONSTRUCTION AND SAMPLING
The permittee shall conduct groundwater monitoring to determine the compliance of this NPDES
permitted facility with the current groundwater Standards found under 15A NCAC 2L .0200. The
monitoring shall be conducted in accordance with the Sampling Plan approved by the Division.
A.(12.) STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY INSPECTIONS OF ASH POND DAM
The facility shall meet the dam design and dam safety requirements per 15A NCAC 2K.
A.(13.) FISH TISSUE MONITORING NEAR ASH POND DISCHARGE
The facility shall conduct fish tissue monitoring once during the permit term and submit the results
with the NPDES permit renewal application. The objective of the monitoring is to evaluate potential
uptake of pollutants by fish tissue near the Ash Pond discharge. The parameters analyzed in fish
tissue shall be arsenic, selenium, and mercury. The monitoring shall be conducted in accordance
with the Sampling Plan approved by the Division.
A.(14.) INSTREAM MONITORING
The facility shall conduct semiannual in stream monitoring (one upstream and one downstream of
the ash pond discharge) for arsenic, selenium, mercury (method 1631E), chromium, lead, cadmium,
copper, zinc, and total dissolved solids (TDS). Instream monitoring should be conducted at the
stations that have already been established through the BIP monitoring program: B (upstream of the
Outfall 002) and C (downstream of the Outfall 002). The monitoring results shall be submitted with
the NPDES permit renewal application.
A.(15.) ASH POND CLOSURE
The facility shall prepare an Ash Pond Closure Plan in anticipation of the facility closure. This Plan
shall be submitted to the Division one month prior to the decommissioning of the pond.
A:(16.) PRIORITY POLLUTANT ANALYSIS
The Permittee shall conduct a priority pollutant analysis (in accordance with 40 CFR Part 136) once
per permit cycle at outfall 002 and submit the results with the application for permit renewal.
A.(17.) SEEP POLLUTANT ANALYSIS
Seeps with locations identified in Appendix A are classified collectively as Outfall 010. The facility
shall continue to implement the Plan for Identification of New Discharges (see Appendix B) to
determine if new seeps have emerged.
Seeps are ephemeral in nature and enter the river at various changing locations. Seeps entering the
river from the upstream edge of permittee's property to the downstream property boundary shall be
calculated as if entering at one location.
Page 10 of 15

Permit NC0004961
Permittee shall conduct seep identification survey semi-annually to determine if new seeps have
started or that previously identified seeps have significantly changed in size or flow. New seeps
identified through the seep survey or otherwise discovered or reported to the permittee shall have
their flow calculated, be sampled for parameters indicated with results and location(s) reported to
Division of Water Resources within 5 days of detection (location only, sampling results shall be
submitted within 30 days of sampling) for administrative inclusion in Appendix A.
Newly identified seeps or seeps whose flow increases will not be considered as new outfalls or
wastestream requiring modification of the permit as long as total flow of all seeps does not exceed 0.5
million gallons per day (MGD) and pollutant characterization is similar to previously identified seeps
identified in Table 1 and formation of seep(s) or increase in flow was not caused by change in
operations by permittee. If the pollutant sampling concentration of a new seep exceeds the
concentrations in Table 1 the Division will calculate reasonable potential and determine if either
administrative inclusion of the seep or formal modification of the permit is necessary. Permittee will
be notified by the Division within 30 days of receiving the sampling results if permit modification is
necessary.
The maximum allowable parameter concentration in Table 1 is determined by multiplying the highest
baseline seep concentration levels by 10.
Table 1. Seep Monitoring Parameters and Screening Values
Parameter
Maximum allowable
parameter
concentration
Maximum allowable
total flow for all
existing and future
see s
Chlorides
73.0 m /L
0.5 MGD
Fluoride
10.0 mg/L
0.5 MGD
Total Mercury (Method
1631E) 1
47.0 ng/L
0.5 MGD
Total Barium
1.0 m /L
0.5 MGD
Total Iron
65.1 mg/L
0.5 MGD
Total Manganese
12.3 m L
0.5 MGD
Total Zinc
190.0 µ L
0.5 MGD
Arsenic'
14.5 µ L
0.5 MGD
Total Cadmium
10.0 µ L
0.5 MGD
Total Chromium
10.0 µ L
0.5 MGD
Total Copper
15.8 µ L
0.5 MGD
Total Lead
25.0 µ L
0.5 MGD
Total Nickel
87.7 µ L
0.5 MGD
Selenium'
25.5 µ L
0.5 MGD
Nitrate Nitrite as N'
0.17 m L
0.5 MGD
H
6.0-9.0
0.5 MGD
TDS
500.0 m L
0.5 MGD
TSS
75.0 m L
0.5 MGD
Temperature
monitor
0.5 MGD
Specific Conductance
monitor
0.5 MGD
Notes:
1. Technology Based Effluent Limits. The limits can be met by installation of the treatment
system, re-routing the discharge to the existing treatment system, or discontinuing the
discharge.
A. (18.) ELECTRONIC REPORTING OF DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORTS
(State Enforceable Only) [G.S. 143-215.1(b)]
Proposed federal regulations require electronic submittal of all discharge monitoring reports (DMRs)
and specify that, if a state does not establish a system to receive such submittals, then permittees
must submit DMRs electronically to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Division
anticipates that these regulations will be adopted and is beginning implementation in late 2013.
Page 11 of 15

Permit NC0004961
NOTE: This special condition supplements or supersedes the following sections within Part II of this
permit (Standard Conditions for NPDES Permits):
• Section B. (11.) Signatory Requirements
• Section D. (2.)
• Section D.'(6.)
• Section E. (5.)
Reporting
Records Retention
Monitoring Reports
1. Reporting [Supersedes Section D. (2.) and Section E. (5.) (a)1
Beginning no later than 270 days from the effective date"of this permit, the permittee shall begin
reporting discharge monitoring data electronically using the NC DWR's Electronic Discharge
Monitoring Report (eDMR) internet application.
Monitoring results obtained during the previous month(s) shall be summarized for each month
and submitted electronically using eDMR. The eDMR system allows permitted facilities to enter
monitoring data and submit DMRs electronically using the internet. Until such time that the
state's eDMR application is compliant with EPA's Cross -Media Electronic Reporting Regulation
(CROMERR), permittees will be required to submit all discharge monitoring data to the state
electronically using eDMR and will be required to complete the eDMR submission by printing,
signing, and submitting one signed original and a copy of the computer printed eDMR to the
following address:
NC DENR / DWR / Information Processing Unit
ATTENTION: Central Files / eDMR
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
If a permittee is unable to use the eDMR system due to a demonstrated hardship or due to the
facility being physically located in an area where less than 10 percent of the households have
broadband access, then a temporary waiver from the NPDES electronic reporting requirements
may be granted and discharge monitoring data may be submitted on paper DMR forms (MR 1,
1. 1, 2, 3) or alternative forms approved by the Director. Duplicate signed copies shall be
submitted to the mailing address above.
Requests for temporary waivers from the NPDES electronic reporting requirements must be
submitted in writing to the Division for written approval at least sixty (60) days prior to the date
the facility would be required under this permit to begin using eDMR. Temporary waivers shall
be valid for twelve (12) months and shall thereupon expire. At such time, DMRs shall be
submitted electronically to the Division unless the permittee re -applies for and is granted a new
temporary waiver by the Division.
Information on eDMR and application for a temporary waiver from the NPDES electronic
reporting requirements is found on the following web page:
http: / /-portal. ncdenr. org /web/ wq/ admin/ bog/ ipu / edmr
Regardless of the submission method, the first DMR is due on the last day of the month following
the issuance of the permit or in the case of a new facility, on the last day of the month following
the commencement of discharge.
Page 12 of 15

Permit NC0004961
2. Signatory Requirements [Supplements Section B. (11.) (b) and supersedes Section B. (11.)
All eDMRs submitted to the permit issuing authority shall be signed by a person described in
Part II, Section B. (11.)(a) or by a duly authorized representative of that person as described in
Part 11, Section B. (11.)(b). A person, and not a position, must be delegated signatory authority
for eDMR reporting purposes.
For eDMR submissions, the person signing and submitting the DMR must obtain an eDMR user
account and login credentials to access the eDMR system. For more information on North
Carolina's eDMR system, registering for eDMR and obtaining an eDMR user account, please visit
the following web page:
http: / /portal.ncdenr.org/web/­wq/admin/­bog/i-pu/edmr
Certification. Any person submitting an electronic DMR using the state's eDMR system shall
make the following certification [40 CFR 122.221. NO OTHER STATEMENTS OF CERTIFICATION
WILL BE ACCEPTED:
"I certify, under penalty of law, that this document and all attachments were prepared under my
direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel
properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or
persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the
information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate,
and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information,
including the possibility of fines and imprisonment for knowing violations. "
3. Records Retention [Supplements Section D. (6.)]
The permittee shall retain records of all Discharge Monitoring Reports, including eDMR
submissions. These records or copies shall be maintained for a period of at least 3 years from
the date of the report. This period may be extended by request of the Director at any time [40
CFR 122.41].
A. (19.) APPLICABLE STATE LAW (State Enforceable Only)
This facility shall meet the requirements of Senate Bill 729 (Coal Ash Management Act). This permit
may be reopened to include new requirements imposed by Senate Bill 729.
Page 13 of 15

Permit NC0004961
A. (20.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (Outfall
011) [15A NCAC 02B .0400 et seq., 02B .0500 et seq.] .
During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall 011 — Former Stormwater Outfall 1. Such
discharges shall be limited and monitored5 by the Permittee as specified below:
EFFLUENT
CHARACTERISTICS
LIMITS
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Monthly Daily Measurement Sample Type Sample Location
Average Maximum Frequency
Flow
Monthly
Pump logs or
estimate
Influent or Effluent
Total Suspended Solids'
23.0 mg/L
75.0 mg/L
Monthly
Grab
Effluent
Oil and Grease
11.0 mg/L
15.0 mg/L
Annually
Grab
Effluent
Total Arsenic
Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Selenium
Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Mercury6
Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Nitrate/nitrate as N
Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Phosphorus
Semi-annually
Grab
Effluent
Total Nitrogen NO2 + NO3 + TKN)
Semi-annually
Grab
Effluent
pH3
Monthly
Grab
Effluent
Turbidity4
Monthly
Grab
Effluent
Notes:
1. Monthly average of 43 mg/L is permitted provided that the Permittee can satisfactorily
demonstrate that the difference between 23 mg/L and 43 mg/L is a result of the
concentration of total suspended solids in the intake water.
2. The limits for total copper and total iron only apply during a chemical metals cleaning.
3. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
4. The discharge from this facility shall not cause turbidity in the receiving stream to exceed 50
NTU. If the instream turbidity exceeds 50 NTU due to natural background conditions, the
discharge cannot cause turbidity to increase in the receiving stream.
NTU - Nephelometric Turbidity Unit.
5. No later than 270 days from the effective date of this permit, begin submitting discharge
monitoring reports electronically using NC DWR's eDMR application system. See
Special Condition A. (18.).
6. The facility shall use EPA method 1631E.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace
amounts.
Page 14 of 15

W47,400 me
Appendix A
The permittee has identified 12 potentially contaminated seeps in the areas adjacent to the Mountain
Island Lake. The locations of the seeps are identified on the map attached to the permit. Existing and
newly identified seeps shall be sampled on a monthly basis for the first 12 months. After the first
year the monitoring frequency will be reduced to a semi-annual basis.
Seep Coordinates and Assigned Outfall Numbers
Seep ID
Latitude
Longitude
Outfall number
S-1
35.365
-80.967
101
S-2
35.365
-80.966
102
S-3
36.369
-80.965
103
S-4
35.371
-80.963
104
S-5
35.370
-80.963
105
S-6
35.367
-80.958
106
S-7
35.367
-80.957
107
S-8
35.365
-80.956
108
S-9
35.371
-80.963
109
5-10
35.369
-80.960
110
5-11
35.369
-80.960
111
5-12
35.368
-80.959
112
Plan for Identification of New Discharges.
Appendix B
Page 15 of 15

EXHIBIT 12
Notice of Inspection - Dam -Safety Law
Lake Hyco Dam
June 10, 2010

RMENK
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
James D. Simons, PG, PE Land Quality Section Beverly Eaves Perdue, Governor
Director and State Geologist Dee Freeman, Secretary
June 10, 2010
NOTICE OF INSPECTION
DAM SAFETY LAW
Mr. Fred Holt
Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc.
Environmental, Health and Safety Services Section
PO Box 1551 PEB 4
Raleigh, NC 27602
RE: Lake Hyco Dam
State ID: PERSO-002
Person County
Watershed: Roanoke
Dear Mr. Holt:
Pursuant to the North Carolina Dam Safety Law of 1967, on February 24 and March 8, 2010, personnel of the Land Quality
Section performed a periodic inspection of the subject high hazard potential dam, which is located on the Hyco River in Person
County. The Dam Safety Law of 1967 provides for the certification and inspection of dams in the interest of public health,
safety, and welfare. Our goal is to reduce the risk of failure of such dams, to prevent injuries to persons, damage to property,
and to ensure the maintenance of stream flows.
According to the above mentioned visual inspections, the dam appears to be in a stable condition at this time. However, we
recommend the following items pertinent to maintenance and operation of the darn:.
(1) Continue to remove all trees and thick undergrowth from the embankment and immediate surrounding area. This will serve
to (a) prevent the formation of a root system which might significantly increase seepage through the dam which could ultimately
result in failure of the structure, (b) reduce the possibility of damage to the dam due to the uprooting of trees by wind or other
natural causes, and (c) facilitate inspection and increase the likelihood of early detection of more serious problems connected
with the dam. This is particularly important along the abutment contacts where seepage has been observed.
(2)Maintain a ground cover sufficient to restrain accelerated erosion on all earthen portions of the structure. This will enhance
the stability of the dam should these portions become exposed to overflow or other forms of concentrated flow. This particularly
applies where erosion was observed at the abutment contacts. As discussed with Progress Energy personnel during our visit, it is
recommended that you work to achieve a predominantly turf grass cover. Weeping lovegrass and serecia lespedeza should be
taken out of the seed mixes used; appropriate clover and Korean or Kobe lespedeza should be added if a legume is desired. The
recently proposed SlopeMaster specifications for use at the Cape Fear Plant are considered an acceptable alternative.
Raleigh Regional Office
1628 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1628 - Phone: [phone] / FAX: [phone]
3800 Barrett Drive, Raleigh, North Carolina, 27699

Notice of Inspection
PERSO-002
June 10, 2010
Page 2 of 2
(3) Periodically monitor the dam and appurtenant works with respect to elements affecting their safety. This is in light of the
legal duties, obligations, and liabilities arising from the ownership and/or operation of a dam. This particularly applies to the
previously described erosion and evidence of seepage observed as well as the condition of the concrete spillway. Your current
inspection program, including periodic reviews by your independent consultant, is an appropriate way to address this
recommendation.
Two of the more common types of earth dam failures are caused or influenced by excessive seepage. Excessive seepage can
produce progressive internal erosion of soil from the downstream slope of the dam or foundation toward the upstream side to
form an open conduit or "pipe". Seepage pressures decrease the strength characteristics of the embankment soil. The resulting
reduction in the embankment stability can produce a slide failure of the downstream slope. Please monitor the dam for any
changes of this nature.
As a dam owner, you may incur liability should your dam have a problem or fail, if such an event results in loss of life,
property damage, or environmental damage downstream. It is therefore requested that you prepare an Emergency Action
Plan (EAP) for this dam. The EAP establishes procedures to be followed in events that could adversely impact the dam
such as extreme precipitation, seismic activity, excessive seepage, slides, sinkholes, and other natural hazards, and for
warning the public downstream in the event of an emergency at the dam. Guidance -for preparing an EAP can be found on
the Internet at hM?://www.dlr.enr.state.nc.us/pap-es/darnsafeMrogram.litmi or by calling Dam Safety Program staff at (919)
733-4574. Two copies of an EAP for this dam should be submitted to the following address:
NC Division of Land Resources
Land Quality Section
Attn: Mr. Steven M. McEvoy, PE
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1612
Although the inspections by our staff are relatively infrequent and offer no safety guarantees, we hope that you will use the
information provided in this letter as you fulfill your obligation to safely maintain and operate your dam. In order to help us
keep our records up-to-date and therefore serve you better, please notify us concerning any changes in address or ownership.
Your cooperation in this effort is greatly appreciated.
If there are any questions or if we can be of any assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me at (919)7914200.
Sincerely,
Johl L. HoCley, Jr., PE,
R g oval Engineer
L d Quality Section
Raleigh Regional Office
cc: State Dam Safety Engineer
File .

EXHIBIT 13
EPA Amicus Brief - Hawaii Wildlife Fund
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
No. 15-17447, May 31, 2016

Case 2:15-cvMftk!269AG44JK,0,TbbtNMti • isil IB aE Il 40 17:� 0 a I 4`u R&gelD# 9128
No. 15-17447
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HAWAII WILDLIFE FUND; SIERRA CLUB -MAUI GROUP;
SURFRIDER FOUNDATION; WEST MAUI
PRESERVATION ASSOCIATION,
Plaintiffs -Appe llees,
Mm
COUNTY OF MAUI,
Defendant -Appellant.
On Appeal from, the U.S. District Court, Dist. of Hawaii
No. 12-cv-198, Hon. Susan Oki Mollway, District Judge
BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES AS AMICUS CURIAE
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS APPELLEES
OF COUNSEL:
KARYN WENDELOWSKI
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Office of General Counsel
Washington, D.C.
JOHN C. CRUDEN
Assistant Attorney General
AARON P. AVILA
R. JUSTIN SMITH
FREDERICK H. TURNER
Attorneys, U.S. Dep't of Justice
Env't & Natural Resources Div.
P.O. Box 7415
Washington, DC 20044
[phone]
[e-mail]

Case Skald a J AG 4 O 'MW- (i IFb W O)7ABii o. 4(%Lfffi@EDP-4ff R&•-1R&gel D# 9129
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.................................................................... iii
INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES..................................................1
ISSUESPRESENTED.............................................................................. 2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE.................................................................. 3
I. STATUTORY BACKGROUND................................................................ 3
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND................................................................... 6
III. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND............................................................. 7
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT.................................................................10
ARGUMENT...........................................................................................13
I. THE DISTRICT COURT'S DECISIONS ARE CONSISTENT WITH
THE LANGUAGE AND PURPOSE OF THE CWA...................................13
A. Discharges of Pollutants to Jurisdictional Surface
Waters Through Groundwater with a Direct Hydrological
Connection Properly Require CWA Permits ...........................14
B. The District Court's Decisions Give Full Effect to
Congress's Intent to Restore and Maintain the
Nation's Waters.......................................................................20
C.' The District Court's Finding of Liability is Consistent
with EPA's Longstanding Position..........................................22
II. THE COUNTY IS LIABLE FOR UNPERMITTED DISCHARGES
DUE TO THE "DIRECT HYDROLOGICAL CONNECTION" BETWEEN
THE GROUNDWATER AND THE OCEAN ............................................. 26
III. THE DISTRICT COURT CORRECTLY HELD THAT THE COUNTY
HAD FAIR NOTICE FOR PURPOSES OF CIVIL PENALTIES .................. 32
CONCLUSION.......................................................................................36
i

Qi}:+1:1a J " Ott �'- 1 "UGy .i it �� ifo �,�tt ll)-�lw• ii a. � .. % � -
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ............................,.................... -........37
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.................................................................38
ii

Q}:":1 j '1t e; T 1 ',!►Cct ii r li 15'0: '! • o .n (I) �:• i « M.N.-
w � iii m a � - � . •
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Bath Petrol. Storage, Inc. v. Sovas,
309 F. Supp. 2d 357 (N.D.N.Y. 2004) ............................................... 22
Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, Inc.,
467 U.S. 837 (1984).................................................................... 12,24
Friends of Sakonnet v. Dutra,
738 F. Supp. 623 (D.R.I. 1990)...................................:..................... 15
Greater Yellowstone Coal. 'v. Larson,
641 F. Supp. 2d 1120 (D. Idaho 2009) ........................................ 31,32
Haw. Wildlife Fund v. Cty. of Maui,
No. 12-198, 2015 WL 328227 (D. Haw. Jan. 23, 2015) .... 6, 7, 8, 9, 28
Haw. Wildlife Fund v. Cty. of Maui,
No. 12-198, 2015 WL 3903918 (D. Haw. June 25, 2015) ................... 9
Hawai'i Wildlife Fund v. County of Maui,
24 F. Supp. 3d 980 (D. Haw. 2014) .......................................... passim
Headwaters, Inc. v. Talent Irrigation Dist.,
243 F.3d 526 (9th Cir. 2001).............................................................. 5
Hernandez v. Esso Std. Oil Co.,
599 F. Supp. 2d 175 (D.P.R. 2009) ................................................... 19
Hudson R. Fishermen's Ass'n v. City of New York,
751 F. Supp. 1088 (S.D.N.Y. 1990) ................................................... 22
Idaho Rural Council v. Bosma,
143 F. Supp. 2d 1169 (D. Idaho 2001) ............................ 11, 18, 19, 21
Inland Steel v. EPA,
901 F.2d 1419 (7th Cir. 1990)........................................................... 22
iii

In re EPA & Dept of Def. Final Rule,
803 F.3d 804 (6th Cir. 2015)....................................................I......... 24
McClellan Ecological Seepage Situation v. Cheney,
No. 86-475, 20 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,877 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 1990) ....... 31
McClellan Ecological Seepage Situation v. Cheney,
763 F. Supp. 431 (E.D. Cal. 1989) .................................................... 31
McClellan Ecological Seepage Situation v. Weinberger,
707 F. Supp. 1182 (E.D. Cal:. 1988) .................................................. 30
N. Cal. River Watch v. City of Healdsburg,
496 F.3d 993 (9th Cir. 2007).............................................................. 8
N. Cal. River Watch v. Mercer Fraser Co.,
No. 04-4620, 2005 WL 2122052 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2005) ... 16, 17, 19
Nw. Envtl. Def. Ctr. v. Grabhorn,
No. 08-548, 2009 WL 3672895 (D. Or. Oct. 30, 2009) ...................... 19
O'Leary v. Moyer's Landfill, Inc.,
523 F. Supp. 642 (E.D. Pa. 1981) ..................................................... 15
Rapanos v. United States,
547 U.S. 715 (2006) ...................................................... 2, 8, 10, 15, 16
Rice v. Harken Expl. Co.,
250 F.3d 264 (5th Cir. 2001) ...................................................... 19,20
S.F. Herring Ass'n v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co.,
81T. Supp. 3d 847 (N.D. Cal. 2015) ................................................ 18
Sierra Club v. Abston Constr. Co.,
620 F.2d 41 (5th Cir. 1980) .................................................. 10, 14, 15
Sierra Club v. El Paso Gold Mines, Inc.,
421 F.3d 1133 (10th Cir. 2005) ........................................................ 16
iv

"►ICtgir ` i• Iii 1 ; • " i;iy U) i l o':• is �'�: I�.`. �i :� r ii,� 7� , - •
Sierra Club v. Va. Elec. & Power Co.,
No. 15-112, 2015 WL 6830301 (E.D. Va. Nov. 6, 2015) .................... 18
United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins,
520 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2008)............................................................ 33
United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc.,
474 U.S. 121 (1985).......................................................................... 20
United States v. Velsicol Chem. Corp.,
438 F. Supp. 945 (W.D. Tenn. 1976) ................................................ 16
Vill. of Oconomowoc Lake v. Dayton Hudson Corp.,
24 F.3d 962 (7th Cir. 1994).............................................................. 19
Wash. Wilderness Coal. v. Hecla Mining Co.,
870 F. Supp. 983 (E.D. Wash.. 1994) ................................................ 21
Yadkin Riverkeeper v. Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC,
No. 14-753, 2015 WL 6157706 D.N.C. Oct. 20, 2015 18
Statutes
33 U.S.C. § 1251(a)..............................:................................................... 3
33 U.S.C. § 1311............................................................................. 3, 4, 14
33 U.S.C. § 1318(a)(A)...........,.....................................................:.......... 34 •
33 U.S.C. § 1319...............................:....................................................... 4
33 U.S.C. § 1319(d).................................................................. I......... 55 35
33 U.S.C. § 1341(a)................................................................................ 35
33 U.S.C. § 1341(a)(1)............................................................................ 31
33 U.S.C. § 1342.............................................................................. 1, 3, 4
33 U.S.C. § 1342(a)................................................................................... 4
v

1-11w T&INkCy I ii' "'i It%� � tih il) '� ��i1 Iz � �� �.. ,� :� i �Su` - :, � - � • • �
33 U.S.C. § 1342(b).................................................................................. 4
33 U.S.C. § 1342(d).................................................................................. 4
33 U.S.C. § 1344.................................................................................. 3,4
33 U.S.C. § 1362...................................................................................... 3
33 U.S.C. § 1362(6).................................................................................. 3
33 U.S.C. § 1362(7).............................................................................. 2,4
33 U.S.C. § 1362(8).................................................................................. 2
33 U.S.C. § 1362(12)(A)..................................................................... 3,14
33 U.S.C. § 1362(14)................................................................................. 4
33 U.S.C. § 1365...................................................................................... 4
Federal Register
39 Fed. Reg. 43,759 (Dec. 18, 1974) ........................................................ 4
55 Fed. Reg. 47,990 (Dec. 2, 1990) ........................................................ 23
56 Fed. Reg. 64,876 (Dec. 12, 1991) .................................................. 5,23
66 Fed. Reg. 2960 (Jan. 12, 2001) ....................................... 12, 23, 24, 26
80 Fed. Reg. 37,054 (June 29, 2015) ............................................... 17,25
vi

� r • • ii • M may �■r� o..: v •
Q�}ttida " �l1 1 "flCt .� it • i Ifs �.�y (1) .w ii tr �: i . :� . �Si • -
The United States respectfully submits this brief as amicus curiae
pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29(a).
INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
implements the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251-1387,
together with the states. That includes promulgating regulations
regarding the CWA's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES). Id. § 1342. The United States participates as amicus curiae
because it has an interest in the proper interpretation of the NPDES-
permit provisions and the framework for analyzing whether discharges
of pollutants to jurisdictional surface waters through groundwater are
subject to those provisions.' The United States also has an interest
because it enforces the CWA and because it is a potential defendant in
actions alleging the discharge of pollutants from federal facilities
through groundwater.
The United States agrees with the result the district court reached
in this case and urges affirmance. In the United States' view, a NPDES
' We use the term "jurisdictional surface waters" throughout this brief
to mean "waters of the United States."
1

111111111111
IIT:1,! 1iiiQ�1'r ',MRI?�: •�•,.�- �• • •
permit is required here because the discharges from the Defendant -
Appellant County of Maui's wastewater treatment facility are from a
point source (i.e., the injection wells) to waters of the United States (i.e.,
the Pacific Ocean2). To be clear, the United States does not contend that
groundwater is a point source, nor does the United States contend that
groundwater is a water of the United States regulated by the Clean
Water Act. Moreover, the United States does not agree with the district
court's application of the "significant nexus" standard from Rapanos v.
United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006).
ISSUES PRESENTED
This amicus brief addresses the following issues:
1. Whether a discharge of pollutants from a point source to
jurisdictional surface waters through groundwater with a direct
hydrological connection to jurisdictional surface waters is regulated
under the CWA.
2. Whether the site-specific facts here give rise to a "discharge of a
pollutant" under the CWA.
2 More specifically, into the Pacific Ocean that is part of the United
States' territorial seas under the CWA. 33 U.S.C. § 1362(7), (8).
9

Q�711:it:� J ��, �I� / ��/�il II ; II )F : �i • :ii1 (�) �'w If i� J9 Nin II : Il `� �!'1 n •
3. Whether the County had fair notice that it was subject to civil
penalties for its discharges- to jurisdictional surface waters without 'a
NPDES permit.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
I. STATUTORY BACKGROUND
Congress enacted the Clean Water Act to "restore and maintain
the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters."
33 U.S.C. § 1251(a). Congress therefore prohibited any non -excepted
"discharge of any pollutant" to "navigable waters" unless it is
authorized by a permit. Id. §§ 1311, 1342, 1344, 1362. The CWA defines
"discharge of a pollutant" as "any addition of any pollutant to navigable
waters from any point source." Id. § 1362(12)(A) (emphasis added).
Pollutant means -"dredged spoil, solid waste, incinerator, sewage,
garbage, sewage sludge, munitions, chemical wastes, biological
materials, radioactive materials, heat, wrecked or discarded equipment,
rock, sand, cellar dirt and industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste
discharged into water." Id. § 1362(6). The CWA defines "navigable
waters" as "the waters of the United States, including the territorial
seas"; and a point source is "any discernible, confined and discrete
3

Q9.3d a J ' A i! 4'•' 1 'nro P it � i Ifs I • o t:;i1 il) � �iw i .e �`J: 1 `.. ii o I Bio " � : ' � • • i
conveyance, including but not limited to any pipe, ditch, channel,
tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure, container, rolling stock,
concentrated animal feeding operation, or vessel or other floating craft,
from which pollutants are or may be discharged." Id. § 1362(7), (14).
The CWA authorizes EPA to issue NPDES permits under Section
402(a), but EPA may authorize a state to administer its own NPDES
program if EPA determines that it meets the statutory criteria. Id.
§ 1342(a), (b). When a state receives such authorization, EPA retains
oversight and enforcement authorities. Id. §§ 1319, 1342(d). Hawaii
obtained such permitting authority in 1974. See 39 Fed. Reg. 43,759
(Dec. 18, 1974).
The CWA is a strict -liability regime that prohibits non -excepted
discharges unless they are authorized by a CWA permit. Id. §§ 1311,
13422 1344. An unpermitted discharge constitutes a violation of the
CWA regardless of fault and is subject to enforcement by the state or
federal government or a private citizen. Id. §§ 1319, 1365. To establish
liability for a violation of the permit requirement, a plaintiff must show
there was (1) a discharge (2) of a pollutant (3) to navigable waters (4)
M

P! 111 11111
T —:)VIWAT,g'� '�/(:1 Il lid Iii ':'; • :it1 �) � i i : I t �•�L h.: 11 : 0 '' �! °1 • ' • •
from a point source. Headwaters, Inc. v. Talent Irrigation Dist., 243
F.3d 526, 532 (9th Cir. 2001).
The CWA includes a civil -penalty provision for those who violate
the Act. 33 U.S.C. § 1319(d). When determining a civil -penalty amount,
courts must consider "the seriousness of the violation or violations, the
economic. benefit (if any) resulting from the violation, any history of
such violations, any good -faith efforts to comply with the applicable
requirements, the economic impact of the penalty on the violator, and
such other matters as justice may require." Id.
EPA's longstanding position is that a discharge from a point
source to jurisdictional surface waters that moves through groundwater
with a direct hydrological connection comes under the purview of the
CWA's permitting requirements. E.g., Amendments to the Water
Quality Standards Regulations that Pertain to Standards on Indian
Reservations, 56 Fed. Reg. 64,876, 64,982 (Dec. 12, 1991) ("[T]he
affected ground waters are not considered `waters of the United.States'
but discharges to them are regulated because such discharges are
effectively discharges to the directly connected surface waters.").
5

Qya� a ' �t t. �' 1 'UGC ii ii R� S '! • ;ih fl) �':. ii ;�,°�: ��.; i ! o s: �S m 0- D • • 2 1
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The County operates the Lahaina Wastewater Reclamation
Facility. Haw. Wildlife Fund v. Cty. of Maui, 24 F. Supp. 3d 980, 983 (D.
Haw. 2014) [Hawaii 1]. The facility receives approximately four million
gallons of sewage each day. Id. After treating the sewage, the facility
releases three to five million gallons of effluent into four on-site
injection wells. Id. at 983-84. The effluent travels into a shallow
groundwater aquifer and then flows into the Pacific Ocean through the
seafloor at points known as "submarine springs." Id. at 984; see also
Haw. Wildlife Fund v. Cty. of Maui, No. 12-198, 2015 WL 328227, at *1
(D. Haw. Jan. 23, 2015) [Hawaii II].
EPA, the Hawaii Department of Health (DOH), and others
conducted a tracer -dye study that confirmed this conclusion for injection
wells 3 and 4. Hawaii I, 24 F. Supp. 3d at 984. According to the study, it
took the leading edge of the dye 84 days to go from wells 3 and 4 to the
ocean and about 64% of the dye injected into these wells was discharged
from the submarine springs to the Pacific Ocean. Id. The dye's
appearance in the ocean "conclusively demonstrated that a
hydrogeologic connection exists." Id. at 985-86.
109

ii
III
Will"IU i!'e� i � • i';y:1 ��i: 1�:: ii, : b iii m •
Although tracer dye was not placed into well 1 and dye from well 2
was not detected in the study, the County "acknowledge [d] that there is
a hydrogeologic connection between wells 1 and 2 and the ocean."
Hawaii 11, 2015 WL 328227, at *1-2. The tracer -dye study models
indicated that, in some circumstances, treated effluent from well 2
would move along flowpaths similar to those traveled by the dye
injected into wells 3 and 4 and emerge at the same springs.
Supplemental Excerpts of Record (SER) 237, 240, 243. There is no
dispute that given the proximity of wells 1 and 2, the modeling for well
2 predicts the flowpaths for discharges from well 1. Excerpts of Record
(ER) 443; SER 189.
III. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In April 2012, Plaintiffs -Appellees Hawaii Wildlife Fund, Sierra
Club -Maui Group, Surfrider Foundation, and West Maui Preservation
Association filed suit seeking to require the County to obtain and
comply with a NPDES permit and to pay civil penalties. Hawaii 1, 24 F.
Supp. 3d at 986. The district court issued three partial summary -
judgment opinions in favor of Plaintiffs. The parties then entered into a
settlement agreement, in which the County stipulated to terms
7

r.• .•. 11 • M �� a Ii 7... �•
S9.iida J ' t!. + 1',l(c� ..� it nii ISL <,.�i fp �We 1111 . �!$ - • -
contingent on a final judgment that the County violated the CWA and
that the County was "not immune from" civil penalties. Haw. Wildlife
Fund v. Cty. of Maui, No. 12-198, ECF No. 259. The court entered final
judgment in accordance with its opinions and the settlement
agreement.
The district court's first- opinion held the County liable under the
CWA for unpermitted discharges from wells 3 and 4. Hawaii I, 24 F.
Supp. 3d at 1000. The court started its analysis with the language and
purpose of the CWA, and also relied on EPA's interpretation and case
law-. Id. at 995-96. The court explained that Plaintiffs "must show that
pollutants can be directly traced from the injection wells to the ocean
such that the discharge at the LWRF is a de facto discharge into the
ocean." Id. at 998 (emphasis in original). The court found that Plaintiffs
had met this burden. Id. at 998-1000. The district court also found CWA
liability under the "significant nexus" standard from Justice Kennedy's
concurring opinion in Rapanos, 547 U.S. at 755-56, and the Ninth
Circuit's application of that standard in Northern California River
Watch v. City of Healdsburg, 496 F.3d 993, 999 -1000 -(9th Cir. 2007).
0

Qyai: i� J ,11 -+, -, ,' 1 'IIC:� ,i �I -�i Ido r,.�o (I) '� d:�i o, � �: �, .: ii, vb � �si :� - � • i
The district court's second opinion held the County liable for
unpermitted discharges from wells 1 and 2. Hawaii II, 2015 WL
328227, at *6. The County "expressly conced[ed] that pollutants
introduced by the County into wells 1 and 2 were making their way to
the ocean," and the court rejected the County's argument that liability
does not arise unless a pollutant passes through "a series of sequential
point sources." Id. at *2-4.
The district court's third opinion rejected the County's argument
that it was not subject to civil penalties for its unpermitted discharges
because it lacked fair notice. Haw. Wildlife Fund v. Cty. of Maui, No.
12-198, 2015 WL 3903918, at *6 (D. Haw. June 25, 2015) [Hawaii III].
The court determined that the County had notice because the
discharges "clearly implicate[d] each statutory element." Id. at *4. The
court further held that its adjudication of the first motion for partial
summary -judgment provided notice to the County. Id. at *6.
The parties then entered into a settlement agreement, in which
the County stipulated that it would make good faith efforts to obtain
and comply with a NPDES permit and that it would pay $100,000 in
civil penalties and $2.5 million for a supplemental environmental
D

QI:U�a J �1R � - 1 '11�� .iii '•iii Ifo -a �; • � ►.�h U)'iV.:�i a � �: �., ii ii t' �!u : • - � . i i
project, all contingent on a final judgment and ruling that the County
violated the CWA and that the County was "not immune from" civil
penalties. Haw. Wildlife Fund v. Cty. of Maui, No. 12-198, ECF No. 259.
The district court then entered a final judgment.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
The judgment should be affirmed because it is consistent with the
language and purpose of the Clean Water Act and EPA's longstanding
interpretation and practice of issuing NPDES permits for discharges of
pollutants similar to the ones here. As Justice Scalia said in Rapanos,
the statute's language prohibiting "any addition of any pollutant to
navigable waters from any point source" does not limit liability only to
discharges of pollutants directly to navigable waters. See Rapanos, 547
U.S. at 743 (plurality op.) (emphasis in original). Courts have
interpreted the CWA as covering not only discharges of pollutants
directly to navigable waters, but also discharges of pollutants that
travel from a point source to navigable waters over the surface of the
ground or through underground means. E.g., Sierra Club v. Abston
Constr. Co., 620 F.2d 415 44-45 (5th Cir. 1980). The discharges in this
case fall squarely within the statutory language.
10

Ql�a:li:� � " �l 1 ��• 1 ',/Ct .i Ii � •�i� IFo : '; • " iii (1) '� �:r 'i �r �'�: I:T.; i b : �i�i 91 :, : - � • • �
In the United States' view, a NPDES permit is required here
because the discharges at issue are from a point source (i.e., the
injection wells) to waters of the United States (i.e., the Pacific Ocean's
coastal waters). To be clear, the United States views groundwater as
neither a point source nor a water of the United States regulated by the
CWA. The United States therefore agrees with the district court's
conclusion that a NPDES permit was required here, but only to the
extent that the court's analysis is consistent with the above -stated
principles regarding groundwater.
The district court's conclusions accord with the CWA's purpose.
Congress enacted the CWA "to restore and maintain ... the country's
waters"; and to achieve this goal, Congress created a strict -liability
regime prohibiting •discharges unless they are authorized under the
CWA. Recognizing Congress's goals in the CWA, courts have concluded
that in certain circumstances discharges of pollutants that reach
navigable waters through groundwater fall squarely within the
statute's terms. E.g., Idaho Rural Council v. Bosma, 143 F. Supp. 2d
1169, 1179-80 (D. Idaho 2001).
11

ig
n • .• n• y• u n r,. i m •
r1pill11�:3:ii:i J ' �1! +i 1 ',l ct 1 i1 9i IEo �,ay (p '� �.� i o �r' M. l.., Il . sir • - •
Even if Congress's intent on this issue had been ambiguous, EPA
has clearly stated for decades that pollutants that move through
groundwater can constitute discharges subject to the CWA, and that,
interpretation is entitled to Chevron deference. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v.
Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. .837, 842-43 (1984). It has been
EPA's longstanding position that discharges moving through
groundwater to a jurisdictional surface water are subject to CWA
permitting requirements if there is a "direct hydrological connection"
between the groundwater and the surface water. See NPDES Permit
Regulation and Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, 66 Fed. Reg. 2960, 3017
(Jan. 12, 2001). This formulation recognizes that some hydrological
connections are too circuitous and attenuated to come under the CWA.
Id.
The County argues that the district court dispensed with the
requirements that a discharge be "from a point source" and "to
navigable water" because the effluent was discharged from a nonpoint
source and because the effluent was discharged into groundwater,
which is not covered by the CWA. Opening Brief (Op. Br.) at 21, 27, 30.
12

Q9a.i a J �� f � 1 "1/Ct ,1 ii • i Ifo t,.�c� 11) '� �'w i a, � �: �� i ��a - � � - � • �
This attempt to bifurcate the movement of the pollutants into two
separate events is inconsistent with the statute's language and purpose.
It also ignores the undisputed fact that the pollutants moved through
that groundwater to the ocean.
The County's argument that no civil penalty should have been
imposed because the County lacked.fair notice lacks merit. The County
was on notice both as a general matter—through the CWA's language
and EPA's statements in rulemakings—and specifically—through
communications from EPA to the County. In any event, the question of
fair notice goes to the amount of the civil penalty, an amount the
County stipulated to, and is only one of many factors informing a civil -
penalty amount.
ARGUMENT
I. THE DISTRICT COURT'S DECISIONS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE
LANGUAGE AND PURPOSE OF THE CAVA.
The district court's judgment holding the County liable under the
CWA is consistent with the text and purpose of the statute. It is also
consistent with EPA's long -held position governing when the CWA
requires permits for discharges of pollutants that move to jurisdictional
surface waters through groundwater with a direct hydrological
13

QI)ad.7 J +l �• ��l(1 i II' ' l: IFo .� n • �.. �1 (�) I�w, I a ���0 fT:: ? . I Kiri m M 0 i
connection. The County cannot recast the nature of the discharges to
avoid that result.
A. Discharges of Pollutants to Jurisdictional Surface Waters
Through Groundwater with a Direct Hydrological
Connection Properly Require CWA Permits.
When Congress prohibited the unpermitted "discharge of any
pollutant," it defined this term broadly as "any addition of any pollutant
to navigable waters from any point source." 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311,
1362(12)(A). As the County concedes, "a point source does not need to
discharge directly into navigable waters to trigger NPDES permitting."
Op. Br. at 27. Because Congress did not limit the term "discharges of
pollutants" to only direct discharges to navigable waters, discharges
through groundwater may fall within the purview of the CWA.
This reading of "discharge of a pollutant" has been applied in
other similar contexts where discharges of pollutants have moved from
a point source to navigable waters over the surface of the ground or by
some other means. In Sierra Club v. Abston Construction, which
addressed discharges from mining operations that traveled to navigable
waters in part through surface runoff, the Fifth Circuit stated that
"[g]ravity flow, resulting in a discharge into navigable body of water,
14

�; • .• a •� r •,: f7.. t • �l : • .. • •
may be part of a point source discharge if the [discharger] at least
initially collected and channeled the water and other materials."3 620
F.2d at 44-45; see also Friends of Sakonnet v. Dutra, 738 F. Supp. 623,
628, 630 (D.R.I. 1990) (defendant liable for discharge of "raw sewage
[that] was running directly from the leaching field, on the surface of the
ground for approximately 250 feet, into the [surface water]"); O'Leary v.
Moyer's Landfill, Inc., 523 F. Supp. 642, 647 (E.D. Pa. 1981) ("[T]here is
no requirement that the point source need be directly adjacent to the
waters it pollutes.").
That Congress gave the term "discharge of a pollutant" a broad
meaning finds support in cases where CWA liability attached for
discharges from point sources that traveled through other means before
reaching surface waters. See Rapanos, 547 U.S. at 743 (noting that
courts have found violations of Section 301 "even if the pollutants
discharged from a point source do not emit `directly into' covered
3 The County misconstrues the United States' position as amicus curiae
in Abston Construction. See Op. Br. at 30-31. The United States took the
position that discharges of pollutants that traveled indirectly from a
point source to jurisdictional surface waters through surface runoff or
the gravity flow of rainwater come within the scope of the CWA. Brief
for the United States as Amicus Curiae, at 35-36, Sierra Club v. Abston
Constr. Co., No. 77-2530 (5th Cir. 1980).
15

■ �� • .a u • �.• r
Q ." y5 J 1 � - ��/�1 1 II ` i I�u i„t(1 W 7lig I e
waters, but pass `through conveyances' in between") (citing Sierra Club
v. El Paso Gold Mines, Inc., 421 F.3d 1133, 1137 (10th Cir. 2005)
(defendant could be liable for discharges conveyed from its point -source
mine shaft to jurisdictional surface water through a tunnel that
defendant did not own); United States_ v. Velsicol Chem. Corp., 438 F. .
Supp. 945, 946-47 (W.D. Tenn. 1976) (holding that CWA covered
pollutants discharged from defendant's point source to jurisdictional
surface waters conveyed through a sewer system that the defendant did
not own)).
Because courts have interpreted the term "discharge of a
pollutant" to cover discharges over the ground and through other
means, exempting discharges through groundwater could lead to absurd
results. As one court noted, "it would hardly make sense for the CWA to
encompass a polluter who discharges pollutants via a pipe running from
the factory directly to the riverbank, but not a polluter who dumps the
same pollutants into a man-made settling basin some distance short of
the river and then allows the pollutants to seep into the river via the
groundwater." N. Cal. River Watch v. Mercer Fraser Co., No. 04-4620,
2005 WL 2122052, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2005).
16

The County concedes that discharges need not be direct and that a
discharge through a conveyance requires a permit. Op. Br. at 27. The
County argues, however, that the conveyance itself must be a point
source and that because groundwater is not a point source, the district
court "impermissibly `transform[s] a nonpoint source into a point
source."' Id. at 27-28, 33. The County's interpretation is flawed.
Contrary to the County's argument, the district court did not eliminate
the requirement that a discharge be "from a point source." All it said
was that pollutants from a point source need not be emitted directly
into covered waters. The case law does not require the means by which
the pollutant discharged from a point source reaches a water of the
United States to be a point source.
While the County's statement that the statutory definition of
"navigable waters" does not include groundwater is accurate, Op. Br. at
21, it is beside the point. There is no dispute that groundwater itself is
not a "navigable water," 80 Fed. Reg. 37,054, 37,055 (June 29, 2015),
but the district court's decisions hinge on the movement of pollutants to
jurisdictional surface waters through groundwater with a direct
17

Q9a1a J �l� �� 1'flGt ill i' Iti :';• ��1 ll) ��'w i v ���:IT'.':i: :•�S� 0' O•
hydrological connection. Such an addition of pollutants to navigable
waters falls squarely within the CWA's scope.
The County relies on the treatment of groundwater in legislative
history, Op. Br. at 21-23, but this "only supports the unremarkable
proposition with which all courts agree—that the CWA does not
regulate `isolated/nontributary groundwater' which has no [effect] on
surface water." Bosma, 143 F. Supp. 2d,at 1180. It does not. undermine
the conclusion that discharges of pollutants through groundwater to
jurisdictional surface waters are subject to the NPDES program.
The County contends that case law does not support the district
court's interpretation, Op. Br. at 35-37, but this argument largely
ignores the majority of the courts that have addressed this issue and
concluded that discharges that move from a point source to,
jurisdictional surface waters via groundwater with a hydrological
connection are subject to regulation under the CWA. See, e.g., Sierra
Club v. Va. Elec. & Power Co., No. 15-112, 2015 WL 6830301 (E.D. Va.
Nov. 6, 2015); Yadkin Riverkeeper v. Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, No.
14-753, 2015 WL 6157706 (M.D.N.C. Oct. 20, 2015); S.F. Herring Assn
v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 81 F. Supp. 3d 847 (N.D. Cal. 2015); Hernandez

Or; Tl (C1 1 I -1 Iii : ' • `• . �1III) iw I i�, �'11110f :: t " ► ala ° - •
v. Esso Std. Oil Co., 599 F. Supp. 2d 175 (D.P.R. 2009); Nw. Envtl. Def.
Ctr. v. Grabhorn, No. 08-548, 2009 WL 3672895 (D. Or. Oct. 30, 2009);
Mercer Fraser, 2005 WL 2122052; Bosma, 143 F. Supp. 2d 1169.
The County's reliance on other case law (Op. Br. at 35-36) is
unavailing for three reasons. First, none of the cases are controlling
precedent. Second, most of these decisions are inapposite because they
do not address the issue of discharges of pollutants that move through
groundwater to jurisdictional surface waters. In Village of Oconomowoc
Lake v. Dayton Hudson, Corp., the court examined whether
groundwater itself was a navigable water, i.e., a water within the
meaning of the CWA. 24 F.3d 962, 965 (7th Cir. 1994). That is distinct
from whether a CWA permit is required when pollutants travel to
jurisdictional surface waters through groundwater with a direct
hydrological connection.
Third, these cases do not foreclose application of the CWA where a
direct hydrological connection to jurisdictional surface waters can be
found. In Rice v. Harken Exploration Co., the court concluded that a
discharge of oil that might reach navigable waters by gradual, natural
seepage was not the equivalent of a discharge to navigable waters. 250
19

11
Q��1ti� i �(� �� �'1/(1 ill' 'ii? Iii • ":i9 fl)11 17' 1 •
F.3d 264, 271 (5th Cir. 2001). The court suggested, however, that it
would be open to finding a discharge had occurred through groundwater
when it underscored the plaintiffs' failure to provide any "evidence of a
close, direct and proximate link between [the defendant's] discharges of
oil and any resulting actual, identifiable oil contamination of a
particular body of natural surface water." Id. at 272.
B. The District Court's Decisions Give Full Effect to
Congress's Intent to Restore and Maintain the Nation's
Waters.
Congress's purpose in enacting the CWA—to "restore and
maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's
waters"—embraced a "broad, systemic view ... of water quality."
United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc., 474 U.S. 121, 132
(1985). The County attempts to minimalize that goal. Adopting the
County's theory would allow dischargers to avoid responsibility simply
by discharging pollutants from a point source into jurisdictional surface
waters through any means that was not direct.
Courts have viewed the CWA's broad purpose of protecting the
quality of navigable waters as a clear congressional signal that "any
pollutant which enters such waters, whether directly.or through
20

Q�:j:i:1 i �l � ��< � '�1G1 SII" i li IF : �i • `� �ii1 (l) � i':.. II .r ���O I;a i s . i �l � ' (� •
groundwater, is subject to regulation by NPDES permit." Wash.
Wilderness Coal. v. Hecla Mining Co., 870 F. Supp. 983, 990 (E.D.
Wash. 1994). "Stated even more simply, whether pollution is introduced
by a visible, above -ground conduit or enters the surface water through
the aquifer matters little to the fish, waterfowl, and recreational users
which are affected by the degradation to our nation's rivers and
streams." Bosma, 143 F. Supp. 2d at 1179-80.
The state's authority to protect groundwater is in no way impaired
by subjecting point sources to NPDES-permit requirements to protect
surface waters. Thus, the County's argument that it should not be liable
here because "preservation of states' authority over the regulation of
groundwater" is a "co -equal" goal of the CWA misses the mark. Op. Br.
at 34-35. This emphatically is not a case about the regulation of
groundwater. Instead it is about the regulation of discharges of
pollutants to waters of the United States. To the extent the County's
argument relies on the regulatory scheme governing disposal into wells,
Op. Br. at 24-27, that is flawed because the regulation of wells under
the Safe Drinking Water Act's (SDWA) Underground Injection Control
(UIC) program does not preclude or displace regulation under the
21

Ip �'1/fct ii t•�i Ifs :' • "i;fy fl) �1':•, i T. 12:?i: �"�:- 9 - • •
CWA's NPDES program.4 See Hudson R. Fishermen's Assn v. City of
New York, 751 F. Supp. 1088, 1100 (S.D.N.Y. 1990), of f'd, 940 F.2d 649
(2d Cir. 1991) (objectives of the CWA and the SDWA are not "mutually
exclusive"); see also Bath Petrol. Storage, Inc. v. Sovas, 309 F. Supp. 2d
3572 369 (N.D.N.Y. 2004).
C. The District Court's Finding of Liability Is Consistent with
EPA's Longstanding Position.
EPA's longstanding position has been that point -source discharges
of pollutants moving through groundwater to a jurisdictional surface
water are subject to CWA permitting requirements if there is a "direct
hydrological connection" between the groundwater and the surface
water. EPA has repeatedly articulated this view in multiple rulemaking
preambles. In 1990, EPA stated that "this rulemaking only addresses
discharges to water of the United States; consequently discharges to
ground waters are not covered by this rulemaking (unless there is a
4 The County misconstrues EPA's position in Inland Steel v. EPA, 901
F.2d 1419 (7th Cir. 1990). EPA argued that not all disposals into
injection wells are discharges of pollutants under the CWA, and that
the connection between the wells and navigable waters in that case was
too attenuated to bring the discharges under the purview of the CWA.
Id. at 1422-23. That position (embraced by the Seventh Circuit) does not
mean that "injection into wells is not a discharge of pollutants requiring
a NPDES permit." Op. Br. at 27.
22

�f1:ii:1 J �� 9JC1
51"
hydrological
?
hydrological connection b6tween the ground water and a nearby surface
water body)." NPDES Permit Application Regulations for Storm Water
Discharges, 55 Fed. Reg. 47,990, 47,997 (Dec. 2, 1990).
And in the preamble to its final rule addressing water quality
standards on Indian lands, EPA stated:
[T]he Act requires NPDES permits for discharges to
groundwater where there is a direct hydrological connection
between groundwaters and surface waters. In these
situations, the affected groundwaters are not considered
"waters of the United States" but discharges to them are
regulated because such discharges are effectively discharges
to the directly connected surface waters.
56 Fed. Reg. at 64,982.
In 2001, EPA reiterated its position: "As a legal and factual
matter, EPA has made a determination that, in. general, collected or
channeled pollutants conveyed to surface waters via ground water can
constitute a discharge subject to the Clean Water Act." 66 Fed. Reg. at
3017. EPA recognized that the determination was "a factual inquiry,
like all point source determinations," adding:
The time and distance by which a point source discharge is
connected to surface waters via hydrologically connected
surface waters will be affected by many site specific factors,
such as geology, flow, and slope. Therefore, EPA is not
proposing to establish any specific criteria beyond confining
23

S9�Jy�a J � � 1 '�/C1 ,i it ;-Iii Ito ►.,�t (p "� �'.• i �e �: l � � - G � �d , � - � • •
the scope of the regulation to discharges to surface water via
a "direct" hydrological connection.
Id. A general hydrological connection between all groundwater and
surface waters is insufficient; there must be evidence showing a direct
hydrological connection between specific groundwater and specific
surface waters. Id.
To the extent there is statutory ambiguity about whether the
CWA applies to discharges to jurisdictional surface waters through
groundwater, EPA's interpretation is entitled to Chevron deference.
Chevron, 467 U.S. at 842-43.
The County's contention that the direct -hydrological -connection
standard is at odds with EPA's recently -stated position on whether
groundwater is a jurisdictional water misinterprets EPA's statements.
Op. Br. at 38-39. The Clean Water Rule, which was promulgated in
June 2015 (and stayed by the Sixth Circuit pending further order of the
court, see In re EPA & Dept of Def. Final Rule, 803 F.3d 804, 809 (6th -
Cir. 2015)), expressly excludes groundwater from the definition of
"waters of the United States." 80 Fed. Reg. 37,054. But, as EPA
clarified, the fact that groundwater itself is not jurisdictional under the
CWA does not mean that pollutants that reach waters of the United
24

s9.lyl:a � - � e.' � •��c, .�� • � its:
M
".,y �u .�, i 3 : �, .; :: sl, - � • - �
States through groundwater do not require CWA permits. "EPA agrees
that the agency has a longstanding and consistent interpretation that
the Clean Water Act may cover discharges of pollutants from point
sources to surface water that occur via ground water that has a direct
hydrologic connection to the surface water. Nothing in this rule changes
or affects that longstanding interpretation, including the exclusion of
groundwater from the definition of `waters of the United States."' See
EPA, Response to Comments — Topic 10 Legal Analysis (June 30, 2015);
available at http://www.epa.gov/cleanwaterrule/response-comments-
cle an -water -rule - definition -waters -unite d- states. The County
erroneously attempts to conflate the jurisdictional exclusion of
groundwater with the role that groundwater can play as the pathway
through which pollutants from a point source reach jurisdictional
surface waters.5
5 The district court stated that if the proposed Clean Water Rule was
finalized, it "would likely mean that the groundwater under the
[facility] could not itself be considered `waters of the United States"' and
that this would affect whether Plaintiffs could also prevail under
Healdsburg. Hawaii 1, 24 F. Supp. 3d at 1001. But the court erred in
attempting to apply Healdsburg because the jurisdictional status of
groundwater itself is irrelevant to whether discharges that move
through groundwater to jurisdictional waters require NPDES permits.
25

■ ,n + .• �1 • v �• �i n ,ALL e m •
QM'lAi:lOi J �l � �� '.b C1 ,i II � ii Iia i .�h (�) � 1.� I it � : l... C G �i�� - :� ' •
II. THE COUNTY IS LIABLE FOR UNPERMITTED DISCHARGES DUE TO
THE "DIRECT HYDROLOGICAL CONNECTION" BETWEEN THE
GROUNDWATER AND THE OCEAN.
Discharges of pollutants from a point source that move through
groundwater are subject to CWA permitting requirements if there is a
direct hydrological connection between the groundwater and a
jurisdictional surface water.6 Ascertaining whether there is a direct
hydrological connection is a fact -specific determination. 66 Fed. Reg. at
3017. To qualify as "direct," a pollutant must be able to proceed from
the point of injection to the surface water without significant
interruption. Relevant evidence includes the time it takes for a
pollutant to move to surface waters, the distance it travels, and its
traceability to the point source. These factors will be affected by the
type of pollutant, geology, direction of groundwater flow, and evidence
that the pollutant can or does reach jurisdictional surface waters. Id.
Here, the district court correctly held that the County discharged
pollutants to the ocean through groundwater. In Hawaii I, the court
6 Some courts refer to a "hydrological connection." The more accurate
formulation, however, is a "direct hydrological connection," which
recognizes that some connections are too circuitous and attenuated to
be under the CWXs purview.
26

Iifm .- ii ria 1111ta �,at (I) �l.. i �, : i, ., c : c Sa :, • - •
determined that a direct hydrological connection exists between the
groundwater and the ocean. The tracer -dye study clearly established
that the discharges moved from wells 3 and 4 to the ocean in relatively
short order.? Hawaii I, 24 F. Supp. 3d at 984. The study concluded that
after 84 days, the dye began to appear along the North Kaanapah
Beach, half a mile from the facility. Id. The tracer -dye study also
estimated that 64% of the treated effluent from wells 3 and 4 followed
this route to the ocean. Id.
Although the court's ultimate conclusion was correct, the court's
alternative explanation for the County's liability under the "significant
nexus" standard from Rapanos and Healdsburg was erroneous. Hawaii
I, 24 F. Supp. 3d at 1004. Rapanos and Healdsburg applied the
"significant nexus" standard in determining whether the receiving
waters were "waters of the United States." In contrast, here, there is no
dispute that the Pacific Ocean (the receiving water in this case), as a
"territorial sea," is a "navigable water" under the CWA. This Court
7 Although this tracer -dye study simplified the analysis, such studies
are not the only means of demonstrating a direct hydrological
connection. It also is not necessary to trace the exact pathway that the
pollutants take to establish that a direct hydrological connection exists.
27

�Jij11�:3d:1 J ' t I 'fl Rt " i Ifi <.�y !i 1,.+•I i1 R �: I.., G if :- • ' 9 • •
should clarify that the "significant nexus" standard has no relevance
here.
In Hawaii II, the district court correctly held the County
discharged pollutants from wells 1 and 2 to the ocean through
groundwater. But the court's opinion did not go into great detail about
the movement through groundwater because the County "expressly
conced[ed] that pollutants introduced by the County into wells 1 and 2.
were making their way to the ocean" and "acknowledge [d] that there is
a hydrogeologic connection between wells 1 and 2 and the ocean."
Hawaii II, 2015 WL 328227, at *2.
There was additional evidence that a direct hydrological
connection existed between wells 1 and 2 and the Pacific Ocean. First,
the tracer -dye study models indicated that in some circumstances
treated effluent from well 2 would move along flowpaths that were
similar to those traveled by the dye injected into wells 3 and 4 and
would emerge at the same submarine springs. SER 237, 240, 243.
Because wells 3 and 4 are located between the springs and well 2, the
flowpath for these discharges would be affected by the amount of
effluent injected into each well. SER 237. When most of the effluent was
_:

Case 2:15-cvE Q2A263AG44WO_M M EM3 MM84 119: 4T4ft@i� MAO RBLgelD# 9163
injected into wells 3 and 4, the effluent from well 2 would travel
northwesterly from the wells and not toward the springs; however,
when well 2 received all of the effluent, the study indicated that the
discharges would emerge at the springs. SER 240, 243. There was no
dispute that given the proximity of wells 1 and 2, the modeling for- well
2 predicts the pathways for discharges from well 1. ER 443, SER 189.
Second, Plaintiffs' expert stated that the effluent discharged from
wells 1 and 2 "will be conveyed ... relatively quickly (i.e., with first
arrival at the ocean in a matter of months)" and concluded that "[s]ince
the aquifer material and hydraulic gradient in the area of all four ...
wells are similar, the groundwater flow will also be similar." SER 183.
Although the County's expert argued that the point of entry for
pollutants into the ocean from wells 1 and 2 could not be identified, the
County did not dispute that the study showed effluent emerging at the
same springs where the effluent from wells 3 and 4 emerged. Haw.
Wildlife Fund v. Cty. of Maui, No. 12-198, ECF No. 136, at 16.
Any fears about the implications of point -source discharges to
jurisdictional surface waters through groundwater with a direct
hydrological connection being subject to NPDES-permit requirements
29

g!''• 1 'fIG� ii r i� It :'; • " i..n U):. i « �'�: i�;; c € c i' ��u` =' : - t . • • •
are unwarranted. Op. Br. at 43-44. EPA and states have been issuing
permits for this type of discharge from a number of industries, including
chemical plants, concentrated animal feeding operations, mines, and oil
and gas waste -treatment facilities. See, e.g., NPDES Permit No.
NM0022306, available at https://www.env.nm.gov/swgb/Permits/;
NPDES Permit No. WA0023434, available at
https://yosemite.epa. gov/r10/water. nsf/NPD ES+Permits/CurrentOR&W
Further, only those discharges that move through groundwater
with a direct hydrological connection to surface waters are affected.
That not all discharges through groundwater are subject to NPDES-
permit requirements is shown by cases where the hydrological
connections were too attenuated. In McClellan Ecological Seepage
Situation (MESS) v. Weinberger, the court agreed with the plaintiff that
discharges through groundwater may be subject to the CWA and
allowed the parties to submit evidence on the issue. 707 F. Supp. 1182,
1196 (E.D. Cal. 1988). Based on evidence indicating that it would take
"literally dozens, and perhaps hundreds, of years for any pollutants in
the groundwater to reach surface waters," the court found that there
30

Q9�j:i:� �� +' 1 'flf:� i ii�i Ian • . t fl) � r� iE , WA � ; : �i�i - • -
were no regulated discharges. MESS v. Cheney, 763 F. Supp. 431, 437
(E.D. Cal. 1989). And even after allowing the plaintiff an opportunity to
provide more testimony at trial, the court ruled that the plaintiff had
failed to meet its burden. MESS v. Cheney, No. 86-475,20 Envtl. L.
Rep. 20,877 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 1990), vacated on other grounds, 47 F.3d
325, 331 (9th Cir. 1995).
Likewise, in Greater Yellowstone Coalition v. Larson, evidence
indicated that the connection to surface waters was too attenuated. 641
F. Supp. 2d 1120 (D. Idaho 2000), aff'd 628 F.3d 1143, 1153 (9th Cir.
2010). In that case, federal agencies determined that a CWA Section
401 certification was not required for a mining operation. Under Section
401, "[a]ny applicant for a Federal license or permit to conduct any
activity ... which may result in any discharge into the navigable
waters, shall provide the licensing or permitting agency a certification
from the State ... that any such .discharge will comply with the
applicable provisions." 33 U.S.C. § 1341(a)(1). The agencies based their
determination on evidence that before reaching surface waters, the
pollutants would pass through hundreds of feet of overburden and
bedrock, and then travel underground through soil and rock for one to
31

Q�1:"1:1:� J ' l �' 1 '1/ft ' • '• :i1 (1) '� �'� it w �'�: I�:; C �Sn " - • • •
four miles. Greater Yellowstone, 641 F. Supp. 2d at 1139. Modeling
predicted that the movement of peak. concentrations would take
between 60 and 420 years. Id. The court weighed competing evidence
from the plaintiff and ultimately deferred to the agencies'
determination that the hydrological connection was too attenuated. Id.
at 1141.
Unlike MESS and Greater Yellowstone, in which the connection
was too attenuated, the discharges here resulted from a direct
hydrological connection, and thus require a permit.
ITI. THE DISTRICT COURT CORRECTLY HELD THAT THE COUNTY HAD
FAIR NOTICE FOR PURPOSES OF CIVIL PENALTIES.
In the Argument section of its brief, the County maintains that
this Court should direct the district court to set aside any civil penalties
"imposed on the County regardless of the outcome of the challenge to
the district court's liability rulings" because it lacked fair notice. Op. Br.
at 47. As an initial matter, the County would seemingly be precluded
from appealing the fair -notice issue as to civil penalties because it
stipulated to their amount in the settlement agreement. To the extent
that the County has reserved its right to appeal the issue, however, the
County's argument lacks merit., ,
32

�'n.•i• ��,w 17�.. iii i,i��7 Il•� �• • •
1 'PTi` a '• 1 i I
)TOO
,:•
This Court has held that a party may not be deprived of property
through civil penalties without fair notice. See United States v.
Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins, 520 F.3d 976, 980 (9th Cir.
2008). To provide notice, "a statute or regulation must `give the person
of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is
prohibited so that he may act accordingly."' Id.
This Court looks first to the language of the statute when
determining whether a party had fair notice. Id. As discussed above,
Congress used broad language in'the CWA in defining the discharge of
pollutants, and that expansiveness provides a `reasonable opportunity
for a person to know what the statute prohibits. The breadth of that
language is only bolstered by the intent of the CWA.
Moreover, EPA has made multiple public statements in
rulemaking preambles that consistently described its interpretation
that discharges of pollutants to jurisdictional surface waters through
groundwater with a direct hydrological connection are subject to
NPDES permitting under the CWA. Further, with respect to specific
communications with the County, EPA sent two letters to the County in
early 2010. In January 2010, EPA stated that it was "investigating the
33

Qq:1d:� J �� R �� "11Ct .1 i • �i Ifs. i,PP (I) + �'.r i 'm � �: a �; �L' - ei Feu ,• - � •
possible discharge of pollutants to the coastal waters of the Pacific
Ocean along the Kaanapali coast of Maui." SER 5. This investigation
was spurred in part by a 2007 study concluding that much of the
nitrogen in Kaanapali coastal waters came from the County's facility
and a 2009 study that found the same nitrogen signature and other
"wastewater presence" in the ocean. Hawaii I, 24 F. Supp. 3d at 984.
The letter continued: "In order to assess the impact of the [facility's]
effluent on the coastal waters and determine compliance with the Act,
EPA is requiring the County to sample the injected effluent, sample the
coastal seeps, conduct an introduced tracer study, and submit reports
on findings to EPA." SER 5. EPA required this sampling, monitoring,
and reporting pursuant to CWA Section 308, under which "the [EPA]
Administrator shall require the owner or operator of any point source"
to provide the information. 33 U.S.C. § 1318(a)(A). The letter provided
notice that there was evidence suggesting a hydrological connection.
In March 2010, EPA responded to the County's request for a UIC
permit renewal under the SDWA "by informing the County that recent
studies `strongly suggest that effluent from the facility's injection wells
is discharging into the near shore coastal zone of the Pacific Ocean."
34

11:jy a J ' �l t + •. 1 .0%t ,iii ; r'1111b. t..:i n, �QW: �, r, �1!�i - � � - � •
Hawaii 1, 24 F. Supp. 3d at 984 (quoting ER 122). As a result, EPA
required the County to apply for a CWA Section 401 water -quality
certification for its injection facilities as a prerequisite to EPA's
issuance of a new UIC permit. ER 121-22; see 33 U.S.C. § 1341(a). The
County's assertion that this letter did not put it on notice of potential
CWA liability because the certification was related to its UIC permit
rather than any obligations under the NPDES program is unavailing.
Op. Br. at 56-57. A UIC permit does not preclude the need for a NPDES
permit where required, and the March 2010 communication reiterated
EPA's position that the discharges might be covered by the CWA,
depending on the results of the ordered sampling, monitoring, and
reporting.
The County was on fair notice. In any event, fair notice is only one
of many factors informing a civil -penalty amount, see 33 U.S.C. §
1319(d), and thus the County's argument that the penalty should be set
aside for lack of fair notice alone is flawed.
35

ppliglig =' • :'; • "C' 1 -f
' - (• • 1
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the district court's judgment should be
affirmed.
OF COUNSEL:
KARYN WENDELOWSKI
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Office of General Counsel
Washington, D.C.
May 31, 2016
90-12-14672
Respectfully submitted,
JOHN C. CRUDEN
Assistant Attorney General
I s / Frederick H. Turner
FREDERICK H. TURNER
AARON P. AVILA
R. JUSTIN SMITH
Attorneys, U.S. Dep't of Justice
Env't & Natural Resources Div.
P.O. Box 7415
Washington, DC 20044
[phone]
[e-mail]
36

11.34:7 J a, �;• 1 "f/ftiii` • �i, Iii .: " •Ly
10M! 'N (l) iNo':w i� a �`�: ��:; ' : v i�,; g - - •
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
WITH TYPE VOLUME LIMITATION, TYPEFACE
REQUIREMENTS, AND TYPE -STYLE REQUIREMENTS
This brief complies with the type -volume limitation of Fed. R. App.
P. 32(a)(7)(B) (for amicus briefs as provided by Fed. R. App. P. 29(d))
J
because it contains 6,904 words, excluding the parts of the brief
exempted by Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B)(iii). This brief complies with the
typeface requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(5) and the type -style
requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(6) because it has been prepared in
a proportionally spaced typeface using Microsoft Word 14 -point Century
Schoolbook.
37
I s / Frederick H. Turner
FREDERICK H. TURNER
U.S. Department of Justice
Env't & Natural Resources Div.
P:O. Box 7415
Washington,.DC 20044
[phone]
[e-mail]

Q9:R�:� 1 �1 a �' - 1 'flC1 � ,i ii � t� IFb r,.�y II) � �'.�it � � J: � .'.: 2 % � Bei �' A � ' � •
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on May 31, 2016, I electronically filed the
foregoing brief with the Clerk of the Court for the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit using the appellate CM/ECF system,
which will serve the brief on the other participants in this case.
/s /Frederick H. Turner
FREDERICK H. TURNER
U.S. Department of Justice
Env't & Natural Resources Div.
P.O. Box 7415
Washington, DC 20044
[phone]
[e-mail]
W