NC0000396_Public Hearing_20181108

Hearing Officer's Report
August 22, 2018, Public Hearing
NPDES Permit NC0000396
For Duke Energy Progress, LLC
for the
Asheville Plant — Buncombe County
I. History /Background
Duke Energy's Asheville Plant is, at present, a coal fired steam electric generating facility. The
facility utilizes water for the containment and conveyance of coal ash. Coal ash wastewater and
other waste streams have been directed to large impoundments commonly called coal ash basins,
where the solids separate from the liquid portion and settle at the bottom of the basins. The
supernatant (i.e., the liquid portion after the solids have precipitated out) is discharged as
regulated by the facilities' NPDES permits.
The plant began operating in 1964. It is a two -unit facility with a capacity of producing 376
megawatts of power. Two combustion turbine (non -coal fired) units are also located at the site.
The coal-fired plant is scheduled to be retired in early 2020, upon the completion of a new,
combined -cycle facility that will be powered by natural gas. A coal ash basin wastewater
treatment system continues to exist at the site, though it has been significantly modified during
the lifetime of the coal-fired plant.
The facility used to be served by two coal ash basins: the 1964 Ash Basin (approximately 21
acres of surface area) and the 1982 Ash Basin (approximately 20 acres of surface area). The
1982 Ash Basin has been emptied of coal ash wastewater and has been excavated. The new
combined -cycle plant is being constructed in the footprint of the 1982 Ash Basin.
Most of the northern portion of the 1964 Ash Basin has been decanted. Its surface is essentially
dry with the exception of the northeast portion of the basin known as the Duck Pond, Will
A low -volume wastewater and stormwater from the site. The southeastern portion of the
1964 Ash Basin has been modified to include a concrete -lined rim ditch treatment system with a
shallow, approximately 2 acre settling basin at its end. The rim ditch contains weirs to slow
down the flow of wastewater and utilizes the introduction of polymers to improve the settling of
coal combustion residuals. Solids are removed from the system, set aside to dry, and removed
from the site. The rim ditch also receives flow from the Duck Pond. This system discharges to
the French Broad River via outfall 001 per the terms of NPDES permNC0000396.
it
Because of the relatively short time that the coal-fired plant will remain in service, the facility
has not switched to a system for the dry handling of bottom ash. Coal ash will be sluiced to the
rim ditch system until the coal-fired plant is decommissioned (anticipated to occur in early
2020).
The Duke Energy coal ash basins are unlined, earthen impoundments. Such earthen structures
are prone to experiencethe flow of liquid through the porous spaces that ex0st in the dams, sides,

or bottoms. The wastewater flow through those porous spaces is known as seepage. When
seepage reaches the land's surface on the outer wall of a basin, or upon the surface of the
surrounding terrain, it is referred to as a seep. Earthen dam structures will often have features
within their construction that are designed to collect and convey seepage and precipitation falling
on their outer facing walls. Such collection and conveyance of seepage and precipitation are
referred to as "constructed seeps," and they help keep dams from becoming saturated and
potentially unstable. Constructed seeps from the coal ash basins can be identified, monitored,
and sampled as distinct point source discharges, making them suitable for inclusion as outfalls in
NPDES permits and subject to the requirements therein.
§ 130A-309.210 of the Coal Ash Management Act of 2014 requires owners of coal combustion
residuals surface impoundments to identify and assess all discharges from the impoundments and
to implement corrective action to prevent unpermitted discharges from the impoundments to the
surface waters of the State. Identification of discharges includes engineered channels designed
or improved for the purpose of collecting water from the toe of the impoundment (toe drains), as
well as non -engineered seeps and weeps. One method of proposed corrective action allowed
under the Act is to make application for a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Permit amendment to bring the unpermitted discharge under permit regulations.
A summary of the proposed changes to the NPDES Permits can be found on the Fact Sheet for
NPDES Permit Development in Attachment B. Note that there is an error on the Fact Sheet on
page 8 of 13; the monitoring frequency for several metals was increased to weekly (not reduced)
and Total Thallium should not be included.
II. Site Visit
The Hearing Officer conducted a site visit of the Asheville Facility on August 22, 2018,
accompanied by staff from Duke Energy and the Division of Water Resources,
III. August 22, 2018 Public Meeting and Comments Summary
Turning to the public meeting and written comments, this portion of the report is organized as
follows:
A. Summary of Notice Provided and Overview of Public Meeting
B. Summary of Speakers' Comments, and DEQ's Responses
C. Summary of Comments and DEQ's Responses
A.
Public notice of consideration of the draft NPDES permit and notification of the holding of a
public hearing on the matter was published in the Asheville Citizen -Times on July 22, 2018. The
public notice directed those wishing to find more information about the draft NPDES permit to
an internet address within the DEQ website. Information regarding the draft NPDES permit was

posted on DEQ's website under a "Asheville Steam Electric Plant" heading on the Duke Energy
NPDES Wastewater Permitting web page.
A public hearing was held on Wednesday, August 22, 2018, at 6:00 pm, in the Skyland/South
Buncombe Library (260 Overlook Road, Asheville, NC). The hearing was held in conjunction
with a hearing regarding the draft Special Order by Consent (SOC) for the same facility.
Approximately 16 people attended the public hearing, including 6 staff members of the Division
of Water Resources. A total of 9 individuals signed the attendance sign4n sheets at the hearing.
The hearing was called to order at 6600 pm by Ms. Deborah Gore, the hearing officer for the
NPDES permit. Ms. Gore offered opening comments regarding the hearing and the scope of its
concern, then introduced Mr. Mitch Gillespie as the hearing officer for the SOC. Points of
emphasis were made regarding how additional public comment could be made by submitting
written statements during the hearing or by using the email address. Attendees were informed
that all comments needed to be submitted no later than August 23, 2018 in order to receive
consideration.
Three individuals registered in advance of the hearing to provide oral comments. No time limit
was imposed upon those who wished to speak. Speakers were encouraged to keep their remarks
concise and to the point, and to make clear when points were addressed toward the NPDES
permit or the SOC.
After all attendees that wished to speak had availed themselves of the opportunity, the assembled
group was reminded of their opportunity to submit written comments on the matter no later than
the close of business on Thursday, August 23. Attendees were advised that public notice of the
hearing stated the hearing would close no earlier than 7*00 pm, to ensure local citizens were
given sufficient time to travel to the venue to avail themselves of the opportunity to provide
comments. The hearing was recessed at 6*27 pm. The meeting was adjourned at 7*00 pm, with
no additional members of the public providing comment.
Items providing documentation of the public notice, public hearing and public comment are
identified in the Attachments section of this report.
B. Summary of Speakers' Comments and DEQ's Res onses
1. Jason Walls: Duke Enemy
Mr. Walls introduced himself as Duke Energy's Local Government and Community Relations
Manager in the Asheville Region. Mr. Walls stated he looked forward to hearing from citizens,
as public comment is vitally important to Duke Energy's mission to close coal ash basins across
the state. He noted that Duke Energy has already moved nearly 6 million tons of coal ash from
the site for beneficial reuse or to lined locations. Excavation of coal ash will be completed by
2022. The 1982 ash basin is gone, and its footprint is the site of a new 560 megawatt combined
cycle, natural gas plant that is expected to be in operation in late 2019.

Mr. Walls stated that the draft wastewater permit contains important new provisions including
specific requirements to keep the French Broad River well protected as Duke continues the
gradual removal of basin water and excavation of coal ash. The draft permit requires frequent
additional monitoring and reporting of water quality in the river itself as an added safeguard to
ensure the river remains well protected.
Mr. Walls said coal ash removal is part of a broader modernization project in North Carolina's
western region.
DEO Response
No response from DEQ is required.
2. Amanda Strawderman: Clean Water For North Carolina (CWFNC)
Ms. Strawderman provided comments regarding both the draft permit and the SOC. Only the
comments related to the draft NPDES permit are summarized here. Ms. Strawderman also
provided a written copy of her shared remarks, which is included as Attachment C to this report.
• DEQ must require Duke Energy to monitor all coal ash contaminates of concern during any
decanting, dewatering and wastewater dischargers form the ash holding basin, instead of just
a few.
DEQ Res onse
The DEQ assigns the appropriate permit limits and monitoring requirements based on the
Reasonable Potential Analysis or 40 CFR 423 requirements. According to the Division's policy,
if a predicted maximum concentration for a particular parameter (based on RPA results) is less
than 50% of the allowable amount, the monitoring for this parameter is not required.
• DEQ is misguided in removing thallium monitoring and effluent limits.
)EC)
Res onse
The thallium monitoring was eliminated based on the results of the Reasonable Potential
Analysis. The predicted thallium concentration is substantially lower than allowable thallium
concentration. Therefore, thallium monitoring was eliminated.
• The permit fails to include effluent limits for mercury at three constructed seeps (toe drains).
DEQ Response
Based on the Statewide Mercury TMDL implementation procedure the limit is not warranted
since no single measurement of mercury exceeded 47 ng/L in the toe drain discharge.

• DEQ must require specific physical and chemical treatment during all discharges from the
lined ash holding basins.
D Q Response
The DEQ assigns the appropriate permit limits based on the Reasonable Potential Analysis or 40
CFR 423 requirements. The facility has the ability to choose the mechanism to achieve
compliance with these limits.
• DEQ should provide future public comment opportunities on the fish tissue sampling plan.
DEQ Res onse
Need for public comment for the fish sampling plan is not justified. It will substantially
complicate and delay implementation of this portion of the permit.
3. Dan Gilbert: Local Citizen
Mr. Gilbert stated he is a property owner who lives in a small community (115 Justin Trail, in
Arden) located directly across the French Broad River from the Asheville Plant. His home is
within one-half mile of the plant, but across the river from the plant, causing his location to not
be subject to provisions within the Coal Ash Management Act regulating provision for testing
and replacement of contaminated on -site, drinking water wells. He said Duke Energy has been
working with him regarding the testing of his well, and he hoped that pending the results of
testing, Duke Energy would provide water to his community, preferably in the form of a
connection to a municipal drinking water system. He has been waiting for three years and
wishes to see movement on a solution.
Mr. Gilbert asked why the permitting and SOC actions were moving forward in light of the
relatively short time le$ in the life of the coal-fired plant and the ash basins. He was told that
because the event was a hearing, the event was designed hear the comments of the participating
public, and it was not appropriate to conduct a question and answer session. Mr. Gilbert was told
DEQ staff would be available to answer questions following the conclusion of the hearing.
He stated Duke Energy would be installing a natural gas line to connect the new plant to Enka,
and the pipeline is proposed to come through his neighborhood and under the French Broad
River. He feels the drilling under the river to the plant site will create a more direct pathway for
groundwater contamination to reach and potentially affect the groundwater under his property.
DEQ Response
Any facility that discharges wastewater to surface waters is required to obtain a NPDES permit
per the CWA. Other issues mentioned by Mr. Gilbert in his comments are outside the scope of
the NPDES permit.

4. Xavier Boatright: Clean Water For North Carolina (CWFNC)
Mr. Boatright stated that he understood the need for the permit renewal and the SOC, but
believes it is important that DEQ helps the community as well as Duke Energy. Duke Energy
needs to be a good neighbor to people like Dan Gilbert, who have been affected by coal ash
contamination. He noted that Jeri Cruz-Segarra, a neighbor of Asheville Plant, passed away in
December 2017, and speculated that had she still been living, she would be present, asking for
municipal water lines to be extended to the area. The community has determined treatment
systems are not adequate, and not what the community wants. Given that a strong advocate has
been lost in the midst of all the work being done around the Asheville Plant, it is important that
Duke Energy not neglect the nearby people who have been impacted. Others in the
neighborhood experience chronic illness, as did Ms. Cruz-Segarra. He does not see how they
can continue to struggle for much longer with bottled water.
DEO Response
The provision of alternate water, while important, is outside the scope of the NPDES permit.
C. Summary of Written Comments and DE 's Res onses
Written comments were received from the Southern Environmental Law Center ("SELC"), on
behalf Mountain True and the French Broad Riverkeeper, the Waterkeeper Alliance, and the
Sierra Club and from Clean Water for North Carolina (CWFNC).
The written comments addressed issues associated with both the NPDES permit renewal and the
SOC. The complete text of the written comments and DEQ's response addressing the draft
NPDES permit can be found in Attachments C and D, respectively.
IV. Recommendations
Based on the review of the public record, written and oral public comments, the North Carolina
General Statutes and Administrative Code, the Coal Ash Management Act of 2014, the site visit
and discussions with other DWR staff, I recommend to the Division Director that the draft
NPDES permit for the Duke Energy Progress Asheville Steam Electric Plant be modified and
issued with the following changes:
Add bromide monitoring to Outfalls 001 (Ash Pond Treatment System and Rim Ditch) and 101
(Toe Drain Effluent).
Add TSS limit to Outfa11005 (treated FDG wet scrubber)
Remove reference to Outfall 102 in the Fact Sheet.

Delete the following sentence in the Final Permit: "the permittee shall submit all the material
required by the Rule with the next renewal application."
V. Attachments
A. Draft NPDES permit
B. Fact Sheet
C. Written comments received during public comment period
D. DEQ response to written comments
E. Notice of Public Hearing
F. Sign4n sheets

� � 1

Permit NC0000396
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
Draft PERMIT
TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER UNDER THE
ATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATIO
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 Environmental
Management Commission, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended,
Duke Energy Progress, LLC
is hereby authot•ized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at the
Asheville Steam Electric Plant
200 CP&L Drive
Arden, North Carolina
Buncombe County
to receiving waters designated as the French Broad River, UT to French Broad River and Lake
Julian in the French Broad River Basin in accordance with effluent limitations, monitoring
requirements, and other applicable conditions set forth in Parts I, II, and III hereof.
This permit shall become effective
This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on
Signed this day
DRAFT
Linda Culpepper, Interim Director
Division of Water Resources
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission
Page 1 of 16

Permit NC0000396
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 operate the following systems located at Asheville Steam Electric Generating
Plant, 200 CP&L Drive, Arden, Buncombe County:
■ Ash Pond 1964/Rim Ditch Treatment System (Outfa11001). Outfa11001 discharges
directly to the French Broad River. The ash pond/rim ditch receives ash transport water,
coal pile runoff, storm water runoff, groundwater, FGD wastewater, various low volume
wastes (such as boiler blowdown, backwash from the water treatment processes, ash
hopper seal water, plant drains), air preheater cleaning water and chemical metal cleaning
wastewater discharged from Internal Outfall 004 (potentially) and Internal Outfall 005
(potentially).
■ Once Through Non -Contact Cooling Water System (Outfa11002). This waste stream is
discharged directly to Lake Julian via Outfall 002.
■ Chemical Metal Cleaning Treatment System (Internal Outfa11004). This waste stream
may occasionally be discharged via Internal Outfall 004 to the ash pond treatment
system. Generally chemical metal cleaning wastes are treated by evaporation in boilers.
■ Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) wet scrubber wastewater treatment system, which
will discharge to the secondary settling basin (after the Ash Pond) via internal Outfall
005 (with ultimate discharge via Outfall 001). The facility can also discharge the FGD
wastewater to the local POTW.
■ 3 toe drains from 1964 ash pond combined into Outfall 101 (lat. 35.468, long. —
82.549); and
2. Discharge from said heatment works and/or outfalls at the locations specified on the attached
map into the French Broad River (via Outfall 001)5 UT to French Broad River (via Outfall
101) and Lake Julian (via Outfall 002) classified as B waters (French Broad River and UT to
French Broad River) and C waters (Lake Julian) in the French Broad River Basin,
Page 2 of 16

Permit NC0000396
Part I
A. (1.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (Outfall
)01-dewatering) [15ANCAC 02B .0400 et seq., 02B .0500 et seq.]
During the period beginning the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge from Outfall 001 (Ash Pond Treatment System, and Rim
Ditch). Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
PARAMETER
LIMITS
Monthly Daily
Average Maximum
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Measurement Sample; Sample
Frequency Type Locations
Flow, MGD
Weekly
Instantaneous
Effluent
Oil and Grease
15.0 m
20.0 m L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Suspended Solids6
30.0 m L
50.0 m
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
H7
6.0 5 H < 9.0
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Mercury3
47.0 n
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Arsenic,
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Selenium,
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Beryllium,
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Cadmium,
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Chlorides, m L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Chromium,
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Copper, ga
I
WeeklyGrab
Effluent
Total Fluoride, m
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Lead,
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Nickel,
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Silver, /L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Zinc,
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Nitrogen
02+NO3+TKN m
Monthly
Grab
Effluent
Total Phosphorus, m
Monthly
Grab
Effluent
Chronic Toxicity'
Monthly
Grab
Effluent
Turbidit 5 NTU
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Notes:
1. Sample locations: Effluent.
2. Please see Special Condition A. (14.).
3. The facility shall use EPA method 1631E. The limit is an annual average limit based on a
calendar year.
4. Chronic Toxicity Limit (Ceriodaphnia dubia) at 1.8%; See Special Condition A. (6.).
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. Therefore, if the effluent
measurement exceeds 50 NTU, the Permittee shall sample upstream and downstream
turbidity in the receiving waterbody, within 24 hours, to demonstrate the existing turbidity
level in the receiving waterbody was not increased. All data shall be reported on the DMRs.
(See 15A NCAC 2B .0211 (21)).
6. 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
exceeded. Pumping will be allowed to continue if interruption might result in a dam failure or
Page 3 of 16

Permit NC0000396
damage. The continuous TSS monitoring is only required when the pumps are employed for
dewatering.
7. The facility shall continuously monitor pH and the dewatering pump shall be shutoff
automatically when the 15 minutes running average pH falls below 6.1 standard units or rises
above 8.9 standard units. Pumping will be allowed to continue if interruption might result in
a dam failure or damage. The continuous pH monitoring is only required when the pumps are
employed for dewatering.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
There shall be no discharge of polychlorinated biphenyl compounds such as those
commonly used for transformer fluid.
If one of the pollutants (As, Se, Hg, Ni, and Pb) reaches 85% of the allowable level during
the decanting/dewatering, the facility shall immediately discontinue discharge of the
wastewater and report it to the Regional Office and Complex NPDES Permitting Branch
via telephone and a -mail.
The rate for lowering the liquid level in a coal ash pond shall not exceed one (1) foot per
Jay unless a higher rate is supported to the satisfaction of DEN R and in accordance with
NCAC, Title 15A, Subchapter 2K.
The facility shall use a floating pump suction pipe with free water skimmed from the basin
surface using an adjustable weir.
By January 31, 2021 there shall be no discharge of pollutants in fly ash transport water.
This requirement only applies to fly ash transport water generated after January 31, 2021.
By January 31, 2021 there shall be no discharge of pollutants in bottom ash transport
water. This requirement only applies to bottom ash transport water generated after
January 31, 2021.
The facility shall treat the wastewater discharged from the ash pond using physical -
chemical treatment, if necessary, to assure state Water Quality Standards are not
contravened in the receiving stream. Duke Energy shall notify DWR NPDES Permitting
and DWR Asheville Regional Office, in writing, within seven calendar days of installing
additional physical -chemical treatment at this Outfall.
Page 4 of 16

Permit NC0000396
A. (2.) 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 the permit and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge from Outfall 002 (Once Through Cooling Water). Such
dischar es shall be limited and monitored3 by the Permittee asspecified below:
PARAMETER
LIMITS '
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Monthly ;
Average
Maximum
Measurement
Frequency
Sample
Type
Sample
Locationl
Flow MGD
Daily
Pump Los
Effluent
Total Residual Chlorine2
200
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Time of Chlorine
Addition
2 hours
Daily
Logs
Effluent
Temperature
44.4°C
Daily
Recorder
Effluent
H 6.0 S PH < 9.0 Weekl
Grab
Effluent
Notes
1. Sample locations: Effluent.
2. Total residual chlorine shall not be discharged from any single generating unit for more than
two hours per day, unless the Permittee demonstrates to the Division of Water Resources that
discharge for more than two hours is required for macroinvertebrate control. The 200 µg/L
limitation is an instantaneous maximum effluent limitation defined as the value which shall
not be exceeded at any time, and is to be measured during the chlorine release period. If the
chlorine release period is programmed for multiple intervals per day, sampling is required
only during one representative interval per day. Simultaneous multi -unit chlorination is
permitted. Monitoring for total residual chlorine is required only if chlorine is added to the
system.
3. Please see Special Condition A. (14.).
The mixing zone has been defined as all of Lake Julian.
Based upon studies conducted by the permittee and submitted to the Division, it has been
determined pursuant to Section 316(a) of the Clean Water Act that the thermal component of the
discharge assures the protection and propagation of a balanced, indigenous population of
shellfish, fish and wildlife in the receiving water body.
There shall be no chromium, zinc, or copper added to the discharge except as pre -approved
additives to biocidal compounds.
There shall be no discharge of polychlorinated biphenyl compounds such as those commonly
used for transformer fluid. There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other
than trace amounts.
Page 5 of 16

Permit NC0000396
A. (3.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (Outfall
004) [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 004 (Chemical Metal Cleaning
Treatment System). Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as
specified below:
PARAMETER
LIMITS
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Monthly
Daily
Measurement
Sample;
Sample
Average
Maximum
Fre uenc
Type
Location'
Flow MGD
Per discharge event
Instantaneous
Effluent
Total Copper 1.0 m L
1.0 mWL
Per discharge event
Grab
Effluent
Total Iron 1.0 m /L
1.0 Mal
Per discharge event
Grab
Effluent
Notes:
1. Sample locations: Effluent, prior to mixing with any other waste stream.
2. Please see Special Condition A. (14.).
The chemical metal cleaning waste shall be discharged after pretreatment.
There shall be no discharge of polychloi7nated biphenyl compounds such as those commonly
used for transformer fluid. There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other
than trace amounts.
Page 6 of 16

Permit NC0000396
A. (4.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (Outfall
005) [15A NCAC 02B .0400 et seq., 02B .0500 et seq.]
During the period beginning the effective date of this permit and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge from Internal Outfall 005 (treated FGD wet scrubber
wastewater). Such discharges shall be limited and monitored2 by the Permittee as specified
below:
PARAMETER
LIMITS
MONITORING
RE UIREMENTS
Monthly ; Daily
Measurement
Sample;
Sample
Average Maximum `
Frequency
T e
Type
Locationi
Flow, MGD
Instantaneous
Effluent
Total Suspended Solids, m
Monthly
Grab
Effluent
Total Mercury', n /L
356.0 n 4 788.0 n 4
Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Arsenic
8.0 4 11.0
Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Selenium
12.0 4 23.0 ggIV
Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Nitrate/nitrite as N
4.4 mgV 17.0 m 4
Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Notes:
1. Sample locations: Effluent from the physical -chemical treatment system.
Z. The facility shall use EPA method 1631E.
3. Please see Special Condition A. (14.).
4. In accord with the Steam Electric Effluent Limitations Guidelines for FGD wastewater (40
C.F.R. 423), these limits shall become effective on January 31, 2021. This permit maybe
reopened and modified if changes are made to 40 C.F.R. 423.
Page 7 of 16

Permit NC0000396
A. (5.) 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— Toe Drain effluent (1964 pond 3 toe
drains). Such discharges shall be limited and monitored' by the Permittee as specified below:
PARAMETER
LIMITS
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Monthly
Average
Daily
Maximum
Measurement
Fre uenc z
Sample
T e
Sample';
Location
Flow, MGD
Monthly/Quarterly
Estimate
Effluent
H3
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
TSS
30.0 m
100.0 m
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Oil and Grease
15.0 m
20.0 m
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Fluoride, m L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Mercury', n
Monthl / uarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Barium m
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Zinc
125.7 L
125.7
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Arsenic
Monthl /Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Boron
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Cadmium
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Chromium
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Copper,
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Thallium
Monthly/ uarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Lead
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Nickel
25.0 gwL
335.2
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Selenium
5.0
56.0
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Nitrate/nitrite as N m
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Sulfates m
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Chlorides
230.0 m
230.0 m
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
TDS, m
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Hardness m L
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Temperature, °C
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Conductivity, mho/cm
Monthly/Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Notes
1. Please See Special Condition A. (14.).
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 no discharge occurs during the reporting period or the Permittee is unable to obtain a
representative sample due to low -flow conditions at the seep, the Permittee shall submit its
)MR, as required, and indicate "No Flow" for the seep (15A NCAC 02B .0506(a)(1)(E)).
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
Page 8 of 16

Permit NC0000396
A. (6.) CHRONIC TOXICITY PERMIT LIMIT (Outfall 001)
[ 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 1.8 %.
The permit holder shall perform at a minimum, monrh2 y 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 month 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 (MR4) for the months in which tests were performed, using the
parameter code TGP3B for the pass/fail results and THP311 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.
Page 9 of 16

Permit NC0000396
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. (7.) CLEAN WATER ACT SECTION 316(a) THERMAL VARIANCE
[40 CFR 125, Subpart H]
The thermal variance granted under Section 316(a) terminates on expiration of this NPDES
permit. Should the permittee wish a continuation of its 316(a) thermal variance beyond the term
of this permit, reapplication for such continuation shall be submitted in accordance with 40 CFR
Part 125, Subpart H and Section 122.21(m)(6) not later than 180 days prior to permit expiration.
Reapplication shall include a basis for continuation such as a) plant operating conditions and
load factors are unchanged and are expected to remain so for the term of the reissued permit; b)
there are no changes to plant discharges or other discharges in the plant site area which could
interact with the thermal discharges; and c) there are no changes to the biotic community of the
receiving water body which would impact the previous variance determination.
The next 316(a) studies shall be performed in accordance with the Division of Water Resources
approved plan. The temperature analysis and the balanced and indigenous study plan shall
conform to the specifications outlined in 40 CFR 125 Subpart H, the EPA's Draft 316(a)
Guidance Manual, dated 1977, and the Region 4 letter to NCDENR, dated June 3, 2010. EPA
shall be provided an opportunity to review the plan prior to the commencement of the study.
Copies of all the study plans, study results, and any other applicable materials should be
submitted to:
1) Electronic Version Only (pdf and CD)
Division of Water Resources
WQ Permitting Section - NPDES
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
2) Electronic Version (pdf and CD) and Hard Copy
Division of Water Resources
Water Sciences Section
1623 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 276994623
CLEAN WATER ACT SECTION 316(b)
[40 CFR 125.95]
Page 10 of 16

Permit NC0000396
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.
Copies of all the study plans, study results, and any other applicable materials should be
submitted to:
1) Electronic Version Only (pdf and CD)
Division of Water Resources
WQ Permitting Section - NPDES
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 276994 617
2) Electronic Version (pdf and CD) and Hard Copy
Division of Water Resources
Water Sciences Section
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1621
Pursuit to 40 CFR 125.98 the Director has determined that operating and maintaining the
existing cooling system meets the requirements for an interim BTA.
The permittee shall submit all the materials required by the 316(b) Rule 180 days before the
planned commencement of cooling water withdrawals for the operation of the new unit.
Nothing in this permit authorizes take for the purposes of a facility's compliance with the
Endangered Species Act.
A. (9.) STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY INSPECTIONS OF ASH POND DAM
[15A NCAC 02K.0208]
The facility shall meet the dam design and dam safety requirements per 15A NCAC 2K.
A. (10.) INSTREAM MONITORING (Outfa11001)
[ 15A NCAC 02B.0500 ET sEQ.]
The facility shall conduct monthly in-sh•eam monitoring (5,500 ft. upstream and 2,900 ft.
downstream of the Outfall 001) for total arsenic, total selenium, total mercury, total chromium,
dissolved lead, dissolved cadmium, dissolved copper, dissolved zinc, total bromide, total hardness
(as CaCO3), temperature, turbidity, and total dissolved solids (TDS). The monitoring results shall
be reported on the facility's Discharge Monitoring Reports and included with the NPDES permit
renewal application.
A. (11.) APPLICABLE STATE LAW (State Enforceable Only)
[NCGS 143-215.1(b)]
This facility shall meet the General Statute requirements under NCGS § 130A-309.200 et seq.
This permit maybe reopened to include new requirements imposed under these Statutes.
Page 11 of 16

Permit NC0000396
A. (12.) TOXICITY RE -OPENER CONDITION
[NCGS 143-215.1(b)]
This permit shall be modified, or revoked and reissued to incorporate toxicity limitations and
monitoring requirements in the event toxicity testing or other studies conducted on the effluent or
receiving stream indicate that detrimental effects may be expected in the receiving stream as a
result of this discharge.
A. (13.) FISH TISSUE MONITORING NEAR ASH POND DISCHARGE [NCGS 143-215.3 (a) (2)] 1
(Outfa11001)
The facility shall conduct fish tissue monitoring annually and submit the results with the NPDES
permit renewal application. The objective of this monitoring is to evaluate potential uptake of
pollutants by fish tissue near the ash pond discharge. The parameters analyzed in fish tissue shall
include arsenic, selenium, and mercury. The monitoring shall be conducted in accordance with the
sampling plan approved by the Division. The plan should be submitted to the Division within 180
days from the effective date of the permit. Upon approval, the plan becomes an enforceable part
of the permit.
Copies of all the study plans, study results, and any other applicable materials should be
submitted to:
1) Electronic Version Only (pdf and CD)
Division of Water Resources
WQ Permitting Section - NPDES
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
2) Electronic Version (pdf and CD) and Hard Copy
Division of Water Resources
Water Sciences Section
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1621
A. (14.) ELECTRONIC REPORTING OF DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORTS
Federal regulations require electronic submittal of all discharge monitoring reports (DMRs) and
program reports. The final NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule was adopted and became effective
on December 21, 2015.
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
Page 12 of 16

• Section D. (6.)
• Section E. (5.)
Records Retention
Monitoring Reports
Permit NC0000396
1. Reporting Requirements (Supersedes Section D. (2) and Section E. (5) (a)1
The permittee shall report discharge monitoring data electronically using the NC DWR's
Electronic Discharge Monitoring Report (eDMR) internet application.
Monitoring results obtained during the previous months) 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 /Division of Water Resources /Water Quality Permitting Section
ATTENTION: Central Files
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
)MR 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. See "How to Request a
Waiver from Electronic Reporting" section below.
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.
Starting on December 21, 2020, the permittee must electronically report the following
compliance monitoring data and reports, when applicable:
• Sewer Overflow/Bypass Event Reports;
• Pretreatment Program Annual Reports; and
• Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 316(b) Annual Reports.
The permittee may seek an electronic reporting waiver from the Division (see "How to
Request a Waiver from Electronic Reporting" section below).
2. Electronic Submissions
Page 13 of 16

Permit NC0000396
In accordance with 40 CFR 122.41(1)(9), the permittee must identify the initial recipient at
the time of each electronic submission. The permittee should use the EPA's website
resources to identify the initial recipient for the electronic submission.
Initial recipient of electronic NPDES information from NPDES-regulated facilities means the
entity (EPA or the state authorized by EPA to implement the NPDES program) that is the
designated entity for receiving electronic NPDES data [see 40 CFR 127.2(b)].
EPA plans to establish a website that will also link to the appropriate electronic reporting tool
for each type of electronic submission and for each state. Instructions on how to access and
use the appropriate electronic reporting tool will be available as well. Information on EPA's
NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule is found at: http://www2.epa.�ov/compliance/final-
national-pollutant-discharge-elimination-system-npdesaelectronic-reporting-rule.
Electronic submissions must start by the dates listed in the "Reporting Requirements" section
above.
3. How to Reauest a Waiver from Electronic Reporting
The permittee Mn seek a temporary electronic reporting waiver from the Division. To
obtain an electronic reporting waiver, a permittee must first submit an electronic reporting
waiver request to the Division. Requests for temporary electronic reporting waivers 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 submitting monitoring data and
reports. The duration of a temporary waiver shall not exceed 5 years and shall thereupon
expire. At such time, monitoring data and reports shall be submitted electronically to the
Division unless the permittee re -applies for and is granted a new temporary electronic
reporting waiver by the Division. Approved electronic reporting waivers are not
transferrable. Only permittees with an approved reporting waiver request may submit
monitoring data and reports on paper to the Division for the period that the approved
reporting waiver request is effective.
Information on eDMR and the application for a temporary electronic reporting waiver are
found on the following web page:
ht�://deg. nc. Gov/about/divisions/water-resources/edrnr
4. Si�natory Requirements (Supplements Section B (11) (b) and Supersedes Section B
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.
or
eDMR submissions, the person signi
ng and submitting the DMR must obtain an eDMR
user account and login credentials to access the eDMR system. For mare information on
Page 14 of 16

Permit NC0000396
North Carolina's eDMR system, registering for eDMR and obtaining an eDMR user account,
please visit the following web page:
http://de .nc.�oviaboutldivisions/water-resources/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 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. "
5. 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 122.41].
A. (15.) ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS AND DEFINITIONS
[NCGS 143-215.3 (a) (2) and NC 143-215,66]
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 (EPA Method 1631E).
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 122.410)).
3. The term low volume waste sources mean wastewater from all sources except those for
which specific limitations are otherwise established in this part (40 CFR 423.11 (b)).
4. The tern 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. The tern "FGD wet scrubber wastewater" means wastewater resulting from the use of the
flue -gas desulfurization wet scrubber.
8. There shall be no discharge of polychlorinated biphenyl compounds.
Page 15 of 16

Permit NC0000396
9. The permittee shall report the presence of cenospheres observed in any samples on the
DMRs in the comment section.
10. Nothing contained in this permit shall be construed as a waiver by the permittee of any
right to a hearing it may have pursuant to State or Federal laws and regulations.
A. (16.) BIOCIDE CONDITION
[NCGS 143-215.11
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 Biocide Worksheet Form 101 is not necessary for those
outfalls containing toxicity testing. Division approval is not necessary for the introduction of new
biocides into outfalls currently tested for whole effluent toxicity.
A. (17.) COMPLIANCE BOUNDARY
[ 15A NCAC 02L.01071
The compliance boundary for the disposal system shall be specified in accordance with 15A
NCAC 02L .0107(a) or (b) dependent upon the date permitted. An exceedance of groundwater
standards at or beyond the compliance boundary is subject to remediation action according to
15A NCAC 02L .0106(c), (d), or (e) as well as enforcement actions in accordance with North
Carolina General Statute 143-215.6A through 143-215.6C. The compliance boundary map for
this facility is incorporated herein and attached hereto as Attachment A.
Page 16 of 16

Fact Sheet

DEQ/DWR
FACT SHEET FOR NPDES PERMIT DEVELOPMENT
NPDES No. NC0000396, Duke Energy Progress, LLC
Asheville Steam Electric Plant
Facility Information
Applicant/FacilityApplicant/Facility Name:
Duke Energy Progress,
Inc./ Asheville
Steam Electric Plant
Applicant Address:
200 CP&L Drive,
Arden, NC 28704
Facility Address:
same
Permitted Flow
Not applicable
Type of Waste:
100 % Industrial
Facili /Permit Status:
Renewal
County:
Buncombe
Miscellaneous
Receiving Stream:
French Broad River
(001, 010 through
015,Lake Julian 002
Regional Office:
ARO
Stream Classification:
B (French Broad
River)
C(LakeJulian)
Quad
F8NE
303 d Listed?:
No
Permit Writer:
Ser ei Chernikov, Ph.D.
Subbasin:
040302 (French
Broad
Date:
May 3, 2018
Drainage Area (mi2):
655 (French Broad
River discharge, 001
11AW �r
Summer 7Q10 (cfs)
Winter 7 10 cfs
306
409 winter
30Q2 cfs :
631
Average Flow cfs :
1769
IWC (%):
Est., 1.75%
(Based on a flow of
3.52 MGD
Primary SIC Code$
4911
SUMMARY
This is a renewal of the NPDES wastewater permit for Asheville Steam Electric Plant (Asheville
Plant). The Asheville Plant is a coal fired steam electric generating plant (2 Units; 2 internal combustion
turbines). This facility is subject to EPA effluent guideline limits per 40 CFR 423 - Steam Electric
Power Generating Point Source Category. The facility is located in the Mountain area of the state; the
applicable state water quality temperature standard is 29°C (84.2 F).
The site has 1 new ash pond (built in 1982), 1 old ash pond (build in 1964) and a cooling pond (Lake
Julian). The facility has excavated all ash from the 1982 pond, the ash is currently being removed from
the 1964 pond. The state law requires all the ash to be removed by August 1, 2022. Lake Julian is a
320-acre waterbody constructed in 1963 by CP&L (original owner of the facility) to serve as a cooling
Page
lofl3

NPDES PERMIT FACT SHEET
NPDES No. NC0000396
water source, it is classified as "waters of the State". Discharge from Lake Julian to the French Broad
River is extremely rare and any occurrence would be during periods of heavy rainfall. These discharges
are routed through a spillway.
The facility has installed a new Reverse Osmosis (RO) system in 2010, it will be used in conjunction
with alum coagulation/filtration to provide water for various plant processes. The reject stream
from the RO unit is sent to the ash pond.
The EPA's contractor conducted a review of the stability of the ash pond dams at the site in 2010.
The contractor determined that the embankment and spillway systems appeared to be structurally
sound for both dams (old and new ash ponds). However, the contractor recommended that some
studies be conducted on the 1964 dam, including a slope stability analysis. After conducting these
studies, Progress Energy (owner of the facility at the time) decided to make the enhancements to the
1964 dam. In order to accommodate these enhancements, the facility had to move the existing
Outfall 001 approximately 3,000 ft. downstream. Permission for this relocation was granted by
DWQ on May 13, 2011. All the enhancements to the 1964 dam were completed in 2012.
The facility is being converted to the combined cycle plant powered by natural gas, the new plant is
expected to begin power production by the end of 2019, the coal-fired units will be shut -down by
January 31, 2020.
Outfall 001.
Outfall 001 discharges directly to the French Broad River. The ash pond/rim ditch receives ash
transport water, coal pile runoff, storm water runoff, various low volume wastes (such as boiler
blowdown, backwash from the water treatment processes, ash hopper seal water, plant drains), air
preheater cleaning water and chemical metal cleaning wastewater discharged from Internal Outfall
004 (potentially). It also might contain some stormwater and groundwater seepage from an old ash
pond. Historically, this flow has been allowed to evaporate and/or infiltrate. The enhancements to
the old pond that were completed in 2011 require that this water level be managed and maintained
below a certain elevation. Therefore, it may be necessary to periodically pump water from the old
ash pond to the combined, relocated settling basin and Outfall 001.
Outfall 002.
Once through non -contact cooling water system. This waste stream is discharged directly to Lake
Julian via Outfall 002.
Internal Outfall 004.
Chemical Metal Cleaning Treatment System. This waste stream may occasionally be discharged via
Internal Outfall 004 to the ash pond treatment system or to the old ash pond (with prior DWR
approval). Generally chemical metal cleaning wastes are treated by evaporation in boilers.
Internal Outfall 005,
Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) wet scrubber wastewater treatment system. Currently, FGD
wastewaters are discharged to the Buncombe County Water Reclamation Facility.
Outfall 101.
1964 pond toe drains (combined outfall for 3 toe drains). This outfall discharges to an Unnamed
Tributary (UT) to French Broad River.
Page 2 of 13

NPDES PERMIT FACT SHEET
NPDES No. NC O000396
TOE DRAINS- OuTFALL 101.
The facility identified 3 unpermitted toe drains from the 1964 ash settling basin, wastewaters from
the toe drains are collected in the same structure and discharged through a single pipe. The location
of Outfall 101 is identified below and depicted on the map attached to the permit.
Table 1. Discharge Coordinates and Assigned Outfall Numbers
Seep ID
Latitude
Longitude
Outfall number
64 EO-01, 64 EO-02,
35.468
-82.549
Outfall 101
and 64 EO-03
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�- OUTFr�LL 001 AND OUTF�LL 101
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.
For the purposes of the RPA, the background concentrations for all parameters were assumed to be
below detections level. The RPA uses 95% probability level and 95% confidence basis in accordance
with the EPA Guidance entitled "Technical Support Document for Water Quality -based Toxics
Control." The RPA included evaluation of dissolved metals' standards, utilizing a default hardness
value of 25 mg/L CaCO3 for hardness -dependent metals. The RPA spreadsheets are attached to this
Fact Sheet.
a) RPA for Dewatering of Ash Pond (Outfall 001).
The RPA was conducted for dewatering of Ash Pond, the calculations included: As, Be, Cd, Chlorides,
Cr, Cu, Pb, Hg, Mo, Ni, Se, Zn, Al, Sb, and Tl (please see attached). The renewal application listed
3.52 MGD as a current flow. The discharge data on the EPA Form 2C was used for the RPA, it was
supplemented by the analysis of the free standing water in the ash pond. The analysis indicates no
reasonable potential to violate the surface water quality standards or EPA criteria.
b) RPA for Toe Drain (Outfall 101).
The RPA calculations vas conducted for 3 toe drains and the worst case scenario was used to establish
the permit limits. The calculations included: As, Cd, Chlorides, Cr, Cu, Pb, Hg, Mo, Ni, Se, Zn, Sb,
Tl, and Al. The flow volume for 64EO-01 toe drain was measured at 0.033 MGD. However, the flow
of 1.0 MGD was used for RPA calculations to incorporate a safety factor and account for a potential
increase in flow volume. The flow volume for this 64EO-02 toe drain was measured at 0.039 MGD.
However, the flow of 0.1 MGD was used for RPA. The flow volume for 64EO-03 toe drain was
measured at 0.001 MGD. However, the flow of 1.0 MGD was used for RPA
The analysis indicates that the limits for Chlorides, Ni, Se, and Zn are necessary to protect the receiving
stream. The appropriate limits were added to the permit.
Page 3 of 13

NPDES PERMIT FACT SHEET
NPDES No. NC0000396
The proposed permit requires that EPA methods 200.7 or 200.8 (or the most current versions) shall
be used for analyses of all metals except for total mercury.
MERCURY EVALUATION
The State of North Carolina has a state-kvide mercury impairment. The TMDL has been developed
to address this issue in 2012. The TMDL included the implementation strategy, both documents were
approved by EPA in 2012.
The mercury evaluation was conducted in accordance with the Permitting Guidelines for Statewide
Mercury TMDL,
Year
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Annual average
53.3
24.1
17.6
21.1
11.4
concentration n /L
Maximum sampling
173
56.4
83.2
49.2
43.3
result n /L
111l: W ZLLGl `/UYLllLy uaZScu auOwaoie mercury erIruent discharge concentration for this facility is 680.E
ng/L. All Annual average mercury concentrations are below allowable. However, there are values that
exceed TBEL of 47.0 ng/L. Based on the Permitting Guidelines for Statewide Mercury TMDL, the
TBEL limit of 47.0 ng/L will be added to the permit.
OUTF�LL 001, OUTFt1LL 002
There is a current Section 316(a) thermal variance for Lake Julian pending renewal. The facility
conducts biological monitoring of Lake Julian to meet the requirements of the Section 316(a) CWA.
The Water Sciences Section (WSS) of the DWR reviewed the biological monitoring report that was
submitted to the DWQ in 2010. The ESS determined that "the fisheries community in Lake Julian
currently meets the balanced and indigenous population (BIP) definition of Section 316(a) of the Clean
Water Act". The WSS also imposed the additional monitoring requirements for the future BIP studies.
Lake Julian has been monitored since 1973, monitoring encompasses water quality, water chemistry,
phytoplankton, zooplankton, benthic macroinvertebrates, and fish. Prior to 2001 the monitoring was
conducted annually, currently it is conducted triennially.
The 2007-2008 Monitoring Report also investigated fish tissue. Fish tissue of bass and channel
catfish collected from Lake Julian were analyzed for As, Cd, Cu, Hg, and Se. All trace element
concentrations in fish tissue were below detection level with an exception of Se. However, all Se
values were well below the NC consumption advisory threshold of 50 µg/g dry weight.
In addition to Lake Julian, the facility conducts fish tissue sampling at 3 stations in French Broad River
to determine potential impacts of the discharge. The latest fish tissue report was submitted to WSS in
2012. The WSS concluded: "2012 data demonstrates that there were no selenium issues noted at any
of the three stations on the French Broad River and all selenium levels remain well below the North
Carolina Department of Health and Human Services (NCDHHS) fish consumption advisory criteria
of 10 ppm". The WSS also concluded; "In terms of mercury, a total of 91 total fish were collected
from the three stations. From this total, only seven individuals (8%) exceeded the 0.4 ppm NCDHHS
mercury advisory criteria."
Page 4 of 13

NPDES PERMIT FACT SHEET NPDES No. NC O000396
The WSS also reviewed that fish tissue data for 2014 and 2016. The WSS stated: "The review of the
2014 data demonstrates that there were no selenium issues noted at any of the three stations on the
French Broad River and all selenium levels remain well below the North Carolina DHHS fish
consumption advisory criteria of 10 mg/kg. For 2014, as was the case in previous years, there were
exceedences of 0.4 mg/kg mercury criteria measured at all three monitoring locations (upstream,
adjacent to the discharge and below the discharge). However, based on the Duke Energy data
presented in the 2014 NPDES report (and past reports), we agree that these levels are not attributable
to the discharge from the Asheville plant." The 2016 review states that "there have been no changes
in Mercury and Selenium levels since the FGD system went operational".
INSTREAM MONITORING— OvTF�Lr 001 OuTF�LL 002
The 2007-2008 Environmental Monitoring Report for Lake Julian concludes that `Except for
copper, all mean trace element mean concentrations surface waters remained below their respective
reporting limits during 2007. All measured copper concentrations were relatively low and less than
the North Carolina water quality standard". The same report provides data for Cu, Se, and As that
were measured in two locations at lake Julian, and in the French Broad River below the discharge
from ash pond. The vast majority of samples were below detection level, the remaining samples
were well below water quality standards. The only exception is one Se measurement in French Broad
River (5.1 ug/L) that slightly exceeded the water quality standard of 5.0 µg/L.
The update to the permit renewal application submitted in 2014 provided instream sampling data for
Oil & Grease, COD, Chlorides, Fluoride, Sulfate, Mercury, Aluminum, Barium, Boron, Calcium,
Hardness, Iron, Magnesium, Manganese, Zinc, Antimony, Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Copper,
Lead, Molybdenum, Nickel, Selenium, Thallium, TDS, TSS, pH, Temperature, Specific
Conductance, and Turbidity. The upstream monitoring station was located 5,500 ft. upstream of
Outfall 001 and the downstream monitoring station was located 2,900 ft. downstream of the Outfall
001.
The following parameters were below detection level at both monitoring stations: Oil &Grease,
COD, Fluoride, Mercury, Boron, Antimony, Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Lead,
Molybdenum, Nickel, Selenium, and Thallium. The rest of the parameters did not indicate a
significant difference between the upstream and the downstream monitoring locations except for
Specific Conductance.
The proposed permit will require monthly monitoring for total arsenic, total selenium, total mercury,
total chromium, dissolved lead, dissolved cadmium, dissolved copper, dissolved zinc, total bromide,
total hardness (as CaCO3), temperature, turbidity, and total dissolved solids (TDS).
CWA 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 316(b) Rule 180 days before the planned
commencement of cooling water withdrawals for the operation of the new unit.
The rule requires the Director to establish interim BTA requirements in the permit on asite-specific
basis based on the Director's best professional judgment in accordance with �125.90(b) and 40 CFR
401.14. However, the facility is undergoing a conversion to a combined cycle plant with the closed -
cycle cooling system. The final design of the new facility is being finalized and will be provided to
the DEQ before the end of 2018. The new facility will utilize the close -cycle cooling system, which
Page
5of13

NPDES PERMIT FACT SHEET
NPDES No. NC0000396
is one of the pre -approved technologies to satisfy the impingement requirements. The actual intake
flow of the new plant will be less than 125 MGD. In addition, if the owner of an existing facility
plans to retire the facility before the current NPDES permit expires, per 122.21 (r) (1) (ii) (F)) the
submittal requirements listed in 5122.21 (r)(1)(ii)(A), (B), and (C) do not apply.
In the absence of the comprehensive information required by the 316(b) rule the DEQ has
determined that the existing cooling system meets the criteria of the interim BTA.
TONICITY TESTING-OUTFr1LL 001
Current Requirement: Outfall 001 — Chronic P/F @ 1.8% using Cefiodapbnia Dubia
Recommended Requirement: Outfall 001 — Chronic P/F @ 1.8% using Ceiiodaphnia Duhia.
This facility has passed all toxicity tests during the previous permit cycle, please see attached.
For the purposes of the permitting, the long term average flow was used in conjunction with the
7Q10 summer flow to calculate the percent effluent concentrations to be used for WET tests for
each facility.
COMPLIANCE SUMMARY
During the last 5 years, the facility had no violations of the permit limits, please see attached.
PERMIT LIMITS DEVELOPMENT
• The temperature limits (Outfall 002) are based on the North Carolina water quality standards
(15A NCAC 2B .0200) and 316(a) Thermal Variance.
• The Total Residual Chlorine Limit and Time of Chlorine Addition Limit (Outfall 002) were
established in accordance with the 40 CFR 423.
• The limits for Oil and Grease and Total Suspended Solids (Outfall 001 and Outfall 101) were
established in accordance with the 40 CFR 423.
• The pH limits (Outfall 001, Outfall 002, and Outfall 101) in the permit are based on the North
Carolina water quality standards (15A NCAC 2B .0200).
• The turbidity limit in the permit (Outfall 001) is based on the North Carolina water quality
standards (15A NCAC 2B .0200).
• The mercury limit in the permit (Outfall 001) is based on the North Carolina water quality
standards (15A NCAC 2B .0200) and implementation strategy for Statewide Mercury
TMDL.
• The Technology Based Effluent Limits for Total Arsenic, Total Mercury, Total Selenium,
and Nitrate/nitrite as N (Outfall 005) are based on the requirements of 40 CFR 423.
• The Whole Effluent Toxicity limit (Outfall 001) is based on the requirements of 15A NCAC
2B .0500.
• The limits for Total Copper and Total Iron (Outfall 004) were established in accordance with
the 40 CFR 423.
• The limits for Chlorides, Total Nickel, Total Selenium, and Total Zinc in the permit (Outfall
101) are based on the North Carolina water quality standards (15A NCAC 2B .0200).
PROPOSED CHANGES
• The Technology Based Effluent Limit for Total Mercury was added to the permit (Outfall
001) and is based on the requirements of 40 CFR 125.3(a) , 40 CFR 122.44(a)(1); 40 CFR
125.3(c) and (d).
Page
6of13

NPDES PERMIT FACT SHEET
NPDES No. NC0000396
• The Technology Based Effluent Limits for Total Mercury, Total Arsenic, Total Selenium,
and Nitrate/nitrite as N were added to the permit (Outfall 005) and are based on the
requirements of 40 CFR 423.
• The turbidity limit was added to the permit (Outfall 001) to meet the state turbidity standard
per 15A NCAC 2B .0211(3) (k).
• The daily maximum TSS limit for Outfall 001 was reduced from 100 mg/L to 50 mg/L to
meet the requirements of 40 CFR 423.
• An effluent page for Outfall 001 was modified to incorporate dewatering.
• The Toe Drains Outfall (Outfall 101) was added to the permit.
• The Clean Water Act Section 316(a) Thermal Variance Special Condition was updated to
reflect the new regulations. Please see Special Condition A. (7.).
• The Clean Water Act Section 316(b) Special Condition was added to the permit. Please see
Special Condition A. (8.).
• The Structural Integrity Inspections of Ash Pond Dam Special Condition was added to the
permit. Please see Special Condition A. (9.).
• The Instream Monitoring Special Condition was added to the permit to monitor the impact
of the facility on the receiving stream. Please see Special Condition A. (10.).
• 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. (11.).
• The Fish Tissue Monitoring Near Ash Pond Discharge Special Condition was updated. Please
see Special Condition A. (13.).
• Federal regulations require electronic submittal of all discharge monitoring reports (DMRs)
and program reports. The final NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule was adopted and became
effective on December 21, 2015. 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 your final NPDES permit. [See Special Condition A.
(14.)]
For information on eDMR, registering for eDMR and obtaining an eDMR user account,
please visit the following web page: http://deq.nc.go��Jabout/divisions watei-
resources edmr.
For more information on EPA's final NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule, please visit the
following web site;
htt_s; w«v.federalteister.gow/documents/�015/10/22j2015-24954 national- ollutant-
dischatgge-elms cation-seste-tlpdes-electronic-reporting-rule
• The Additional Conditions and Definitions Special Condition was added to the permit. Please
see Special Condition A. (15.).
• Monitoring for Total Beryllium, Total Cadmium, Chlorides, Total Chromium, Fluoride,
Total Lead, Total Manganese, Total Nickel, Total Silver, and Total Zinc was removed from
the permit (Outfall 005) to be consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR 423.
• The stormwater outfalls were deleted from the permit. The facility received a separate
stormwater permit.
• The Biocide Special Condition A. (16.) was added to the permit to be consistent with the
permitting procedure for power plants.
Page7of13

NPDES PERMIT FACT SHEET
NPDES No. NCO000396
• The Special Condition entitled Compliance Boundary was added to the permit. Please see
Special Condition A. (17.).
• The monitoring frequency for Total Mercury, Total Arsenic, Total Selenium, Total Beryllium,
Total Cadmium, Chlorides, Total Chromium, Total Copper, Total Fluoride, Total Lead, Total
Nickel, Total Silver, Total Thallium, Total Zinc, and Chronic Toxicity were reduced to Weekly
from Quarterly (Outfall 001).
• The monitoring for Total Manganese was eliminated due to the removal of the Manganese
state standard during the latest tri-annual review (Outfall 001).
• The Selenium speciation special condition was removed from the permit.
PROPOSED SCHEDULE
Draft Permit to Public Notice: July 22 2018 (est.)
Permit Scheduled to Issue: August 31, 2018 (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].
Page8of13

NPDES PERMIT FACT SHEET
NPDES No. NCO000396
=..�ni� v�aiivaiu� — rrCJI1WaLCT JianCLarCtS
The NC 2007-2015 Water Quality Standard (WQS) Triennial Review was approved by the NC
Environmental Management Commission (EMC) on November 13, 2014. The US EPA
subsequently approved the WQS revisions on April 6, 2016, with some exceptions. Therefore, metal
limits in draft permits out to public notice after April 6, 2016 must be calculated to protect the new
standards - as approved.
Table 1. NC Dissolved
Metals Water
Quality Standards/Aquatic
Life Protection
Parameter
Acute FW, µg/1
Chronic FW,
Acute SW, µg/l
Chronic SW,
(Dissolved)
µg/l
(Dissolved)
µg/1
(Dissolved)
(Dissolved)
Arsenic
340
150
Beryllium
65
6.5
Cadmium
Calculation
Calculation
ium III
Calculation
Calculation
VChr;oniiurnVI
16
11
M
r
Calculation -
Calculation
Lead
Calculation
Calculation
Nickel
Calculation
Calculation
Silver
Calculation
0.06
1.9
0.1
Zinc
Calculation
Calculation
90
81
Table 1 Notes:
1, FW= Freshwater, SW= Saltwater
2. Calculation = Hardness dependent standard
3. Only the aquatic life standards listed above are expressed in dissolved form. Aquatic life
standards for Mercury and selenium are still expressed as Total Recoverable Metals due to
bioaccumulative concerns (as are all human health standards for all metals). It is still
necessary to evaluate total recoverable aquatic life and human health standards listed in 15A
NCAC 2B.0200 (e.g., arsenic at 10 µg/l for human health protection; cyanide at 5 µg/L and
fluoride at 1.8 mg/L for aquatic life protection).
Table 2. Dissolved Freshwater Standards for Hardness -Dependent Metals
The Water Effects Ratio (WER) is equal to one unless determined otherwise under
15A NCAC 02B .0211 Subparagraph (11)(d)
Metal
NC Dissolved Standard, µ /1
Cadmium,
Acute
WER*{1.136672-[ln hardness](0.041838)} e^{0.9151 [lip
hardness]-
3.1485}
Cadmium,
Acute Trout
WER* {1.136672-[h7 hardness] (0.041838)) e^ {0.9151 [ha
hardness]-
waters
3#62361
Cadmium,
Chronic
WER*{1.101672-[hz hardness](0.041838)} e^{0.7998[&
hardness]-
4.4451 }
Chromium
III, Acute
WER*0.316 e^ {0.8190[b/ hardness]+3.7256}
Page 9 of 13

NPDES PERMIT FACT SHEET
NPDES No. NC0000396
Chromium III, Chronic
WER*0.860 • e^ {0.8190[ln hardness]+0.6848}
Copper, Acute
WER*0.960 • e"{0.9422[ln hardness]-1.700}
Copper, Chronic
WER*0.960 • e"{0.8545[ln hardness]-1.7021
Lead, Acute
WER* { 1.46203-[ln
1.460}
hardness] (0.145712)1 e^ { 1.273 [ln hardness]-
Lead, Chronic
WER*{1.46203-[In
4.705 }
hardness] (0.145712)} e^{1.273[1n hardness]-
Nickel, Acute
WER*0.998 • e^
(0.8460[ln hardness]+2.255)
Nickel, Chronic
WER*0.997 • e'
{0.8460[dn hardness]+0.0584}
Silver, Acute
WER*0.85 e^{1.72[ln
hardness]-6.59}
Silver, Chronic
Not applicable
Zinc, Acute
WER*0.978 • e^
{0.8473[/n hardness]+0.884)
Zinc, Chronic
WER*0.986 • e"{0.8473[ln
hardness]+0.884}
General Information on the Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA)
The RPA process itself did not change as the result of the new metals standards. However,
application of the dissolved and hardness -dependent standards requires additional consideration in
order to establish the numeric standard for each metal of concern of each individual discharge.
The hardness -based standards require some knowledge of the effluent and instream (upstream)
hardness and so must be calculated case -by -case for each discharge.
Metals limits must be expressed as `total recoverable' metals in accordance with 40 CFR 122.45(c).
The discharge-specc standards must be converted to the equivalent total values for use in the RPA
calculations. We will generally rely on default translator values developed for each metal (more on
that below), but it is also possible to consider case -specific translators developed in accordance with
established methodology.
RPA Permitting Guidance/WQBELs for Hardness -Dependent Metals -Freshwater
The RPA is designed to predict the maximum likely effluent concentrations for each metal of
concern, based on recent effluent data, and calculate the allowable effluent concentrations, based on
applicable standards and the critical low -flow values for the receiving stream.
If the maximum predicted value is greater than the maximum allowed value (chronic or acute), the
discharge has reasonable potential to exceed the standard, which warrants a permit limit in most
cases. If monitoring for a particular pollutant indicates that the pollutant is not present (i.e.
consistently below detection level), then the Division may remove the monitoring requirement in the
reissued permit.
1. To perform a RPA on the Freshwater hardness -dependent metals the Permit Writer
compiles the following information:
Page 10of13

NPDES PERMIT FACT SHEET
NPDES No. NC0000396
• Critical low flow of the receiving stream, 7Q10 (the spreadsheet automatically
calculates the 1Q10 using the formula 1Q10 = 0.843 (s7Q10, cfs) 0.993
• Effluent hardness and upstream hardness, site -specific data is preferred
• Permitted flow
• Receiving stream classification
2. In order to establish the numeric standard for each hardness -dependent metal of concern
and for each individual discharge, the Permit Writer must first determine what effluent and
instream (upstream) hardness values to use in the equations.
The permit writer reviews DMR's, Effluent Pollutant Scans, and Toxicity Test results for any
hardness data and contacts the Permittee to see if any additional data is available for
instream hardness values, upstream of the discharge.
If no hardness data is available, the permit writer may choose to do an initial evaluation
using a default hardness of 25 mg/L (CaCO3 or (Ca + Mg)). Minimum and maximum limits
on the hardness value used for water quality calculations are 25 mg/L and 400 mg/L,
respectively.
If the use of a default hardness value results in ahardness-dependent metal showing
reasonable potential, the permit writer contacts the Permittee and requests 5 site -specific
effluent and upstream hardness samples over a period of one week. The RPA is rerun using
the new data.
The overall hardness value used in the water quality calculations is calculated as follows:
Combined Hardness (chronic)
_ (Permitted Flow, cfs *Avg Effluent Hardness mg/L) +1s7O10 cfs *Avg Upstream
m L
(Permitted Flow, cfs + s7Q10, cfs)
The Combined Hardness for acute is the same but the calculation uses the 1 Q1 0 flow.
3. The permit writer converts the numeric standard for each metal of concern to a total
recoverable metal, using the EPA Default Partition Coefficients (DPCs) or site -specific
translators, if any have been developed using federally approved methodology.
Pagellofl3

IDES PERMIT FACT SHEET
NPDES No. NC0000396
4. The
EPA default partition coefficients or the "Fraction Dissolved" converts the
value for dissolved metal at laboratory conditions to total recoverable metal
at in -stream ambient conditions. This factor is calculated using the linear
partition coefficients found in The Metals Translator: Guidance for
Calculating a Total Recoverable Permit Limit from a Dissolved Criterion
(EPA 823-13-96-007, June 1996) and the equation:
Cdiss - 1
Ctotal 1 + { [Kpo] [ss,t+a)] [10"6] }
Where:
ss = in -stream suspended solids concentration [mg/1], minimum of 10 mg/L
used, and
Kpo and a = constants that express the equilibrium relationship between
dissolved and adsorbed forms of metals. A list of constants used for each
hardness -dependent metal can also be found in the RPA program under a
numeric standard for each metal of concern is divided by the default partition coefficient (or
site -specific translator) to obtain a Total Recoverable Metal at ambient conditions.
In some cases, where an EPA default partition coefficient translator does not exist (ie.
silver), the dissolved numeric standard for each metal of concern is divided by the EPA
conversion factor to obtain a Total Recoverable Metal at ambient conditions. This method
presumes that the metal is dissolved to the same extent as it was during EPA's criteria
development for metals. For more information on conversion factors see the June, 1996
EPA Translator Guidance Document,
5. The RPA spreadsheet uses a mass balance equation to determine the total allowable
concentration (permit limits) for each pollutant using the following equation:
Ca = (s7Q10 + Qw) (Cwgs)�s710) (Cb)
Qw
Where: Ca = allowable effluent concentration (µg/L or mg/L)
Cwqs = NC Water Quality Standard or federal criteria (µg/L or mg/L)
Cb = background concentration: assume zero for all toxicants except NH3* (µg/L or
mg/L)
Qw = permitted effluent flow (cfs, match s7Q10)
s7Q10 = summer low flow used to protect aquatic life from chronic toxicity and human
health through the consumption of water, fish, and shellfish from noncarcinogens (cfs)
* Discussions are on -going with EPA on how best to address background
concentrations
Flows other than s7Q10 may be incorporated as applicable;
1Q10 =used in the equation to protect aquatic life from acute toxicity
QA = used in the equation to protect human health through the consumption of
water, fish, and shellfish from carcinogens
30Q2 = used in the equation to protect aesthetic quality
Page
12of13

NPDES PERMIT FACT SHEET
NPDES No. NC0000396
G. The permit writer enters the most recent 2-3 years of effluent data for each pollutant of
concern. Data entered must have been taken within four and one-half years prior to the
date of the permit application (40 CFR 122.21). The RPA spreadsheet estimates the 95th
percentile upper concentration of each pollutant. The Predicted Max concentrations are
compared to the Total allowable concentrations to determine if a permit limit is
necessary. If the predicted max exceeds the acute or chronic Total allowable
concentrations, the discharge is considered to show reasonable potential to violate the
water quality standard, and a permit limit (Total allowable concentration) is included in
the permit in accordance with the U.S. EPA Technical Support Document for Water
Quality -Based Toxics Control published in 1991.
7. When appropriate, permit writers develop facility specific compliance schedules in
accordance with the EPA Headquarters Memo dated May 10, 2007 from James Hanlon to
Alexis Strauss on 40 CFR 122.47 Compliance Schedule Requirements,
8. The Total Chromium NC WQS was removed and replaced with trivalent chromium and
hexavalent chromium Water Quality Standards. As a cost savings measure, total chromium
data results may be used as a conservative surrogate in cases where there are no analytical
results based on chromium III or VI. In these cases, the projected maximum concentration
(95th %) for total chromium will be compared against water quality standards for chromium
III and chromium VI.
9. Effluent hardness sampling and instream hardness sampling, upstream of the discharge, are
inserted into all permits with facilities monitoring for hardness -dependent metals to ensure
the accuracy of the permit limits and to build a more robust hardness dataset.
10. Hardness and flow values used in the Reasonable Potential Analysis for this permit included:
Parameter
Value
Comments Data Source
Average Effluent Hardness (mg/L)
[Total as, CaCO3 or Ca+M ]
25.0
Default value
Average Upstream Hardness
(mg/L)
25.0
Default value
[Total as, CaCO3 or Ca+M ]
7Q10 summer cfs
0
Lake or Tidal
1Q10 cfs
0
Lake or Tidal
Permitted Flow (MGD)
2.1
For dewaterin
Page 13 of 13

Written Comments

S OUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER
Telephone [phone]
48 PATTON AVENUE, SUITE 304
ASHEVILLE, NC 28801-3321
August 239 2018
Via First Class U.S. Mail and Electronic Mail
Sergei Chernikov
DWR — Wastewater Permitting
Attn: Asheville Permit
Attn: Asheville SOC
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
publiccomments (?ncdem•. gov
Facsimile 828-258-2024
Re: Asheville Steam Electric Plant, Draft NPDES Permit, #NC0000396, and
Special Order by Consent, EMC SOC WQ S17-010
Dear Mr. Chernikov:
On behalf of MountainTiue and the French Broad Riverkeeper, the Waterkeeper
Alliance, and the Sierra Club, we submit the following comments on the draft renewal National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") permit and Special Order by Consent
("SOC") noticed for public comment by the North Carolina Department of Environmental
Quality ("DEQ") Division of Water Resources for Duke Energy's discharge of pollution from its
Asheville Steam Electric Plant ("Asheville plant"),
MountainTiue is a nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting streams, rivers, and
groundwater from contamination, MountainTrue houses the French Broad Riverkeeper who
monitors and advocates for improved water quality across the French Broad River watershed.
MountainTrue's members use the French Broad River for recreation, business, or educational
purposes and rely on groundwater as a source of drinking water, including groundwater in close
proximity to the Asheville plant.
Waterkeeper Alliance is a nonprofit organization dedicated to achieving drinkable,
fishable, swimmable water everywhere on earth. Waterkeeper Alliance works through local
waterkeepers including the French Broad Riverkeeper.
Sierra Club is a nonprofit organization that seeks to restore the quality of the natural and
human environment. As part of that mission it seeks to improve water quality. Sierra Club's
members also rely on the French Broad River for recreation, business, or educational purposes.
Charlottesville Chapel Hill •Atlanta •Asheville Birmingham Charleston Nashville Richmond Washington, DC
1004o recycled paper

MountainTrue and the French Broad Riverkeeper, Waterkeeper Alliance, and the Sierra
Club all advocate for cleaner water, awareness and education of the French Broad River,
improved access, and broadened recreational opportunities within the French Broad River Basin.
For years, each organization has advocated in the courts and public arena for proper cleanup and
remediation of Duke Energy's unlined, leaking coal ash impoundments, including those at the
Asheville plant.
This revised permit is long overdue. NPDES permits are to be renewed every five years
but Duke has operated under the current permit at the Asheville plant for over ten years. We are
glad to see DEQ issue a new NPDES permit to better reflect and incorporate changes in the
plant's wastewater treatment system.
The most significant change is incorporating the requirement to excavate the 1982 and
1964 ash ponds at the Asheville plant. Removing ash from leaking, unlined ponds perched
above major rivers and drinking water reservoirs is the best and safest way to deal with the
decades of coal ash mismanagement at Duke's power plants. Removing the ash helps alleviate
surface water contamination, groundwater contamination, and removes the threat of catastrophic
failure of the ponds similar to what occurred at TVA's Kingston plant in 2008 and Duke's Dan
River plant in 2014. We advocated for Asheville's ponds being excavated and moved to dry,
lined storage to address the source of contamination of groundwater and surface water. All
North Carolinians living near or downstream of unlined ash ponds deserve this basi
Nc protection.
The draft permit includes other improvements. The monitoring requirements for outfall
001 are changed from quarterly to weekly. This is a positive development that will help ensure
water quality standards are not contravened. Water quality -based effluent limitations
("WQBELs") at outfall 101 appear to have been determined based on compliance with water
quality standards in an unnamed tributary to the French Broad River rather than the river itself
We support those limits. The Clean Water Act requires DEQ to promulgate permit limits
necessary to protect receiving waterbodies, and because the unnamed tributary is a water of the
United States, instituting WQBELs in the tributary is appropriate and required by law.
Other aspects of the permit need clarification or improvement. Duke pled guilty to
criminal violations of the Clean Water Act for its illegal seeps at the Asheville plant. DEQ
should not now legitimize those seeps by permitting them. DEQ should also add stricter limits
for all contaminants being discharged from outfalls 001 and 101 into the French Broad River.
Technologies are available to reduce contaminant loading to the river; DEQ should require Duke
to utilize them. Additional needed improvements and clarifications are discussed below.
2

1) DEQ Should Make the Following Changes to the Draft Permit
In 2015, Duke pled guilty to criminal violations of the Clean Water Act for illegal seeps
at the Asheville plant. See Joint Factual Statement, U.S. v. Duke Energy, No. 5:15-CR-62-11, No.
5:1 5-CR-67-H, No. 5:15-CR-68-H (E.D.N.C), ¶¶ 3.4. Outfall 101 purports to permit seeps from
toe drains on the 1964 ash pond. DEQ should not now seek to permit what Duke has
acknowledged was a criminal violation. Duke should continue excavating the 1964 pond and,
once complete, reassess how to alleviate these illegal discharges.
• DEO Should Add Limits to Discharges from Outfalls 001 and 101
Outfalls 001 and 101 include no limits on some of the most harmful pollutants that Duke
can dump into the French Broad River. Neither of these outfalls includes limits on arsenic,
chromium, cadmium, copper, nitrogen, or lead. Several of the non -limited constituents were
identified as potentially problematic "constituents of interest" in Duke's Comprehensive Site
Assessment and other CAMA-required studies. The technology to appropriately limit those
discharges is unquestioningly available; DEQ has incorporated stricter limits in other Duke
permits such as for the Sutton plant. DEQ must appropriately limit the discharge of these
constituents to protect aquatic populations and members of the public who recreate on and
consume fish from the French Broad River,
Neither Outfa11001 nor 101 require Duke to monitor discharges of bromide, much less
set an appropriate limit. The permit proposes to add instream monitoring for bromide but sets no
discharge limit on the ash pond outfall and provides no express provision requiring development
of such a limit within the permit term, if needed, based upon monitoring results. When bromide
mixes with chlorine in treated drinking water supplies, it forms carcinogens known as
trihalomethanes ('% Ms"). r Despite this known threat to downstream drinking water supplies,
it still does not appear that DEQ plans to conduct RPA to determine whether or what limits need
to be set related to bromide discharges in the Asheville permit. Longstanding Clean Water Act
regulations require agencies to establish water quality -based permit limits on bromide, if
necessary to meet narrative water quality standards, including standards to protect human
� EPA, Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source
Category, 80 Fed. Reg. 67,838, 67,872, 67,886 (Nov. 3, 2015) ("Bromide discharges from steam electric power
plants can contribute to the formation of carcinogenic DBPs [disinfection byproducts, e.g., trihalomethanes] in
public drinking water systems," and "[s]tudies indicate that exposure to THMs [trihalomethanes] and other DBPs
from chlorinated water is associated with human bladder cancer.")
3

health.2 Under the ELG rule, EPA reaffirmed that this requirement applies to bromide and
instructed permitting authorities to develop permit limits on a site -specific basis for bromide
when necessary to meet narrative water quality standards .3 North Carolina has put in place
exactly such narrative criteria for water quality to protect people from unsafe levels of pollutants
such as brominated trihalomethanes: "Human health standards: the concentration of toxic
substances shall not exceed the level necessary to protect human health through exposure routes
of fish tissue consumption, water consumption, or other route identified as appropriate for the
water body." DEQ must allow for a limit for bromide within this permit, based upon
monitoring, sufficient to protect everyone who drinks water downstream.
• DEO Should Add Boron, Sulfate, and Thallium Limits and Monitoring Requirements to
Outfall 001
Boron and sulfate are two key indicators of coal ash contamination and are often present
in discharges from coal ash ponds. Outfall 101 appropriately requires Duke to monitor
discharges of boron and sulfate but that obligation is missing for outfall 001. DEQ should
require Duke to monitor boron and sulfate discharges from outfall 001 and set appropriate limits
for both outfalls.
Outfa11001 also does not require monitoring, or set appropriate limits, for thallium
discharges. This may be a mistake as the Permit Fact Sheet suggests that thallium monitoring is
required for outfall 001. See Fact Sheet, 8. The Asheville plant has long dealt with problems
from thallium contamination. DEQ should add thallium to the list of constituents that must be
monitored for outfall 001 and set narrow limits on thallium discharges.
• DEO Should Add a Mercury Limit to Outfall 101
The Permit Fact Sheet recognizes that compliance with the statewide mercury Total
Maximum Daily Load requires instituting a technology -based effluent limitation for mercury of
z 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(d)(1)(i) ("[e]ach NPDES permit shall include conditions meeting the following requirements . .
any requirements in addition to or more stringent than promulgated effluent limitations guidelines or standards
under sections 301, 304, 306, 307, 318, and 405 of [the] CWA necessary to: (1) Achieve water quality standards
established under section 303 of the CWA, including State narrative criteria for water quality.").
s 80 Fed. Reg. at 67,886-87 ("[W]ater quality -based effluent limitations for steam electric power plant discharges
may be required under the regulations at 40 CFR 122.440(1), where necessary to meet either numeric criteria
for bromide, TDS or conductivity) or narrative criteria in state water quality standards.... These narrative criteria
may be used to develop water quality -based effluent limitations on a site -specific basis for the discharge of
pollutants that impact drinking water sources, such as bromide.").
a 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2B .0208(a)(2).
0

47 ng/1. See Fact Sheet, 4. Outfa11001 includes this limit but it is missing from outfall 101. To
comply with the mercury TMDL, DEQ should add a mercury limit of 47 ng/l to outfall 101.
• DEO Should Reassess Duke's 316(a) Variance Using Updated Information
Cooling water discharges to Lake Julian increase water temperature in the lake so
drastically that they require a Clean Water Act Section 316(a) variance. To assess compliance
with the requirements of Section 316(a) "DWR reviewed the biological monitoring report that
was submitted to the DWQ in 2010." Fact Sheet, 4. That report is now quite dated. And it
appears that monitoring in the lake is "conducted triennially" so much more current information
should be available. Id. There is no reason to ignore this updated information. DEQ should
reassess the variance in light of more recent data and disclose its findings to the public with an
appropriate opportunity for public comment. DEQ cannot continue to let Duke discharge
superheated water if Duke cannot show, with adequate and up-to-date information, that this heat
pollution will not harm the indigenous fish in Lake Julian.
• DEQ Should Provide Future Public Comment Opportunities on the Fish Tissue Sampling
Plan
Condition A.(13) requires Duke to submit a fish tissue monitoring plan within 180 days
of the effective date of the permit. We support development and implementation of a fish tissue
sampling plan and ask that DEQ commit to making the monitoring plan available for public
coment before incorporati mng it as an enforceable part of the permit.
• DEO Should Amend Permit Provisions Related to FGD Waste
Several of the permit provisions related to discharge of FGD waste (outfa11005) must be
revised. First, the draft permit drops monitoring requirements at outfall 005 for beryllium,
cadmium, chlorides, chromium, copper, fluoride, lead, manganese, nickel, silver, thallium, and
zinc. The final permit should reinstate these monitoring requirements. The fact that FGD waste
is discharged to the Buncombe County sewer system only heightens the need to closely monitor
what is being discharged. Fact Sheet, 2. Buncombe County deserves to know what Duke is
discharging into its treatment works.
The Permit Fact Sheet suggests these monitoring requirements were dropped to comply
with 40 C.F.R. Part 423. Fact Sheet, 7. Those federal regulations establish minimum effluent
limitations that must be met for all discharges of FGD waste at steam electric power plants.
Those limitations are a floor, not a ceiling. DEQ could require additional limitations and
certainly can and should continue to require Duke to monitor its discharge for certain pollutants,
5

as it has done in the past. The monitoring requirements applicable to FGD discharge in the
current permit should be reinstated in the draft permit.
Second, DEQ proposes to decrease those monitoring requirements that remain from
monthly to quarterly. We are aware of no reason to reduce these requirements and relaxing
no of FGD waste may run afoul of the Clean Water Act's anti -backsliding provision.
DEQ should continue to require the discharge to be monitored on a monthly basis.
Finally, outfa110051acks alimit on discharge of total suspended solids ("TSS"). The
provisions of the ELG Rule DEQ points to in justifying delay of the effective date of limits on
FGD discharge until January 31, 2021, require application of a TSS limit of 100 mg/1 per day
maximum, not to exceed 30 mg/1 averaged over 30 consecutive days. 40 C.F.R. §
423.13(g)(1)(ii). DEQ must add those limits to outfall 005,
• DEQ Should Add an Effective Tri�aer to Ensure Compliance with Turbidity Standards
The draft permit condition related to turbidity correctly states the limit as it relates to the
receiving stream: "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." Draft
Permit Condition A.(1) note 5. This reflects the standard which provides, "if turbidity exceeds
these levels due to natural background conditions, the existing turbidity level shall not be
increased." 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2B .0211(21). However, it is unclear how the monitoring
will achieve compliance with the standard. Upstream and downstream instream monitoring for
turbidity is only triggered when the effluent measurement exceeds 50 NTU. Waiting until
effluent turbidity exceeds the limit for the French Broad River will not prevent the effluent from
causing instream violations when discharging less than 50 NTU. DEQ must add a trigger that can
effectively achieve compliance with the 50 NTU standard.
2) DEQ Should Clarify the Following Draft Permit Provisions
• The Status of Dewaterina at the Asheville Plant and Associated Limits are Unclear
DEQ should clarify the status of dewatering the 1964 ash basin. The companion SOC
reports that dewatering "is underway within the 1964 ash basin." SOC, 7. But the permit
conveys that "ash is currently being removed from the 1964 pond." Draft NPDES Permit, 1. We
assume that dewatering is necessary before excavation, but we also understood the 1964 basin to
be a retired unit. The SOC also suggests that additional "decanting" of wastewater is necessary
for the rim ditch system which sits atop the 1964 pond. SOC, 7. DEQ should clarify if its
references to decanting and dewatering apply to the entire 1964 ash pond or are specific to the
0

in ditch system.
The Permit Fact Sheet provides that the "effluent page for Outfall 001 was modified to
incorporate dewatering" but it is unclear how. Fact Sheet, 7. The limits for Outfall 001 in the
draft permit are similar to limits imposed under the current permit. Conditions applicable to
outfall 001 in the draft permit limit "lowering the liquid level in [the] coal ash pond" to "one foot
per day" but it is unclear how that is applicable. Draft NPDES Permit, 4. Our understanding is
there is no standing water in the 1964 ash pond, though there may be water in the lined rim ditch
system and duck pond. What does the "one foot per day" limitation apply to?
Similarly, conditions applicable to outfall 001 state that if "one of the pollutants (As, Se,
Hg, Ni, and Pb) reaches 85% of the allowable level during the decanting/dewatering, the facility
shall immediately discontinue discharge of the wastewater." Id. For the most part, the draft
permit does not include limits on the referenced pollutants so it is unclear how the discharge
could reach "85% of the allowable level." DEQ should clarify this limitation.
If further dewatering of the 1964 ash pond is necessary, then DEQ should revise the draft
permit to incorporate more stringent limits and monitoring requirements appropriate for
discharges of wastewater that has been percolating through heavy metal -laden coal ash
potentially for decades. If the references to dewatering and decanting refer to the rim ditch
system and duck pond, then DEQ should clarify how this will occur. Does dewatering those
systems refer to simply emptying their contents into the French Broad River? That would
effectively turn the river into the treatment system, rather than the current rim ditch and duck
pond system. A better solution would be to discharge that wastewater into an appropriate
disposal system, potentially the Buncombe County sewer system for processing. If DEQ plans to
allow Duke to discharge rim ditch and duck pond waste streams directly into the river, DEQ
must assess and require application of appropriate technologies to reduce contaminant loading to
the river.
Finally, outfa11001 authorizes discharges from the ash pond treatment system and rim
ditch. Draft NPDES Permit, 3. DEQ should make clear that once the plant stops burning coal to
generate electricity there will be no further discharges from this outfall.
• The Fact Sheet References Outfall 102
The Permit Fact Sheet references a reasonable potential analysis for outfall 102. Fact
Sheet, 3. The draft permit appears to lack an outfall 102 and we assume this is a mistake. DEQ
should delete the reference or explain what outfall 102 is.
7

• Clean Water Act Section 316(b)Requirements Conflict
Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act requires certain utilities to meet best technology
available standards for cooling water intake structures. The Cooling Water Intake Structure
Rule requires Duke Energy to submit information demonstrating how it will comply. The draft
permit states both that "the permittee shall submit all the materials required by the Rule with the
next renewal application" and that "the permittee shall submit all the materials required by the
316(b) Rule 180 days before the planned commencement of cooling water withdrawals for the
operation of the new unit." Draft NPDES Permit, 11. We assume the "new unit" is the new
natural gas unit. It is unclear how both permit provisions can be accurate. DEQ has provided no
reason why submission of information required by the Clean Water Act should be delayed until
the next NPDES permit renewal. DEQ should clarify that the provision requiring the materials
'180 days before the planned commencement of cooling water withdrawals for the operation of
the new unit" controls and delete the conflicting provision delaying submission of materials until
the next permit. Additionally, the fact that the coal units at Asheville will be retired does not
allow the facility to escape complying with the 316(b) Rule. The Rule also includes
requirements for "new facilities." See e.g., 40 C.F.R. § 125.81. To the extent use of the word
"retirement" in the Fact Sheet implies the facility may not have to comply with the Rule at all, it
should be deleted. See Fact Sheet, 6.
• Discharge Throualr Outfall 101 Is Not Yet Authorized
The draft permit states that discharges through outfall 101 are authorized "beginning on
the effective date of this permit." Draft NPDES Permit, 8. But according to the SOC, discharge
from outfall 101 must be pumped "back into the 1964 ash basin until the commencement of
decanting from the rim ditch system." SOC, 10. Our understanding is the rim ditch system has
not yet been decanted. The draft permit should clarify that discharges through outfall 101 are, in
Fact, not authorized "beginning on the effective date of this permit" but only after the rim ditch is
decanted.
3) DEQ Should Revise the Companion Special Order By Consent
• Corrective Action for Seeps Should Not be Delayed Unti12020
As with SOCs issued for other Duke power plants, "decanting of wastewater... is
expected to eliminate or substantially reduce the seeps from the ash basins." SOC, 5. Previous
SOCs therefore triggered further corrective action for remaining seeps on completion of
decanting. The Asheville SOC admits that "[d]ecanting is largely complete at the 1964 basin,"
and fully complete at the 1982 basin, yet gives Duke a fiee pass on further corrective action to
eliminate seeps remaining after decanting until "the Asheville coal fired generation ceases, and

no later than April 30, 2020. SOC, 7. There is no reason for this delay. Duke should be
required to begin assessing further corrective action as soon as decanting is complete. For the
1982 basin, further corrective action should be assessed immediately.
Corrective Action Should Be Required For All Contaminated Seeps Not Eliminated
The SOC provides a process for seeps to be "dispositioned." SOC, 7. Dispositioned
seeps are those that do not need further corrective action. SOC, 8. Two potential ways to
disposition seeps may ultimately prove problematic and DEQ should clarify that neither method
allows seeps contaminated by coal ash to escape corrective action.
First, previous SOCs allowed seeps to be dispositioned if "the seep is no longer impacted
by flow from any coal ash basin such that concentrations of all pollutants listed in [an attachment
to the SOC] meet state [water quality] criteria." EMC SOC WQ 517-009, 9. That disposition
Af-ramp was problematic because, as we explained in comments on that proposed SOC "there is
no exception under the CWA for unpermitted discharges of pollutants, even if such discharges
do not cause a water quality standard to be exceeded." Letter from Amelia Burnette, SELL, to
Bob Sledge, DWR (Feb. 14, 2018).
This SOC improves that language by omitting the reference to water -quality standards
and only allowing a seep to be dispositioned if "the seep is no longer impacted by flow from any
coal ash basin as determined by the Director of DWR." SOC, 7. For this provision to comply
with the Clean Water Act DEQ should clarify that: 1) "flow" includes the addition of coal ash
contaminants to a seep whether by groundwater, surficial flow, or otherwise; and 2) that exercise
of the Director's "best professional judgment" cannot turn on whether the addition of coal ash
contaminants leads to exceedances of water quality standards. A seep can only be dispositioned
under this criteria if the unpeimitted addition of pollutants to a waterbody ceases entirely.
Second, as with other SOCs, this SOC allows a seep to be dispositioned if it does not
"flow to" waters of the United States or of the State. SOU, 7. To the extent "flow to" means via
a surface water connection, the SOC proposes to excuse seeps that appear to terminate before
connecting with a stream, wetland, or the river. Yet this would allow seeps that connect to
adjacent waterbodies via short groundwater hydrologic connections to continue.
The Clean Water Act is a strict liability statute prohibiting the discharge of any pollutant
to a water of the United States without a proper permit. 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a). Duke Energy
cannot evade the CWA by discharging pollutants to streams and rivers through short,
hydrological groundwater connections. EPA has stated repeatedly that the CWA applies to such
hydrologically -connected groundwater discharges. E.g., 66 Fed. Reg. 2960, 3015 (Jan. 12, 2001)
("EPA is restating that the Agency interprets the Clean Water Act to apply to discharges of
C

pollutants from a point source via ground water that has a direct hydrologic connection to surface
water."); accord 55 Fed. Reg. 47990, 47997 (Nov. 16, 1990) (announcing stormwater runoff
rules and explaining that discharges to groundwater are covered by the rule where there is a
hydrological connection between the groundwater and a nearby surface water body). In addition
to EPA, "[t]he majority of courts have held that groundwaters that are hydrologically connected
to surface waters are regulated waters of the United States, and that unpermitted discharges into
such groundwaters are prohibited under section 131 L" Friends of Santa Fe Cty. v. LAC
Minerals, Inc., 892 F. Supp. 1333, 1358 (D.N.M. 1995) (citations omitted).
This principle continues to be affirmed by the courts, and has been applied to Duke'S
facilities. See Upstate Forever v. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P., 887 F.3d 637, 651 (4th
Cir. 2018) (finding discharge from point source to navigable water though direct hydrologic
groundwater connection subject to Clean Water Act). Yadkin Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Duke Energy
Carolinas, LLC, 141 F. Supp. 3d 428, 445 (M.D.N.C. 2015) ("This Court agrees with the line of
cases affirming CWA jurisdiction over the discharge of pollutants to navigable surface waters
via hydrologically connected groundwater, which serves as a conduit between the point source
and the navigable waters."); see also Hawai'i Wildlife Fund v. Cty. of Maui, No. 1547447, 2018
WL 650973, at *9 (9th Cir. Feb. 1, 2018) ("The County could not under the CWA build an ocean
outfall to dispose of pollutants directly into the Pacific Ocean without an NPDES permit. It
cannot do so indirectly either to avoid CWA liability. To hold otherwise would make a mockery
of the CWA's prohibitions"). DEQ possesses no authority to ignore polluted seeps that are
traveling short distances through groundwater and discharging into the adjacent rivers, lakes and
streams.
4) Conclusion
This draft permit modification is an improvement over previous permits particularly in
that it incorporates dewatering and excavation of the Duke's coal ash ponds to dry, lined storage.
However, portions of the permit remain inconsistent with North Carolina and federal law for the
reasons described above. We ask for the permit to be rewritten to correct the legal deficiencies
we identify, to protect water quality and the public interest. Additionally, we ask that DEQ
clarify that seeps cannot be dispositioned under the terms of the SOC unless discharges of coal
ash contaminants to waters of the United States and waters of the State are eliminated entirely,
and require Duke to begin assessing further corrective action for seeps once decanting is
complete.
10

Sincerely,
Patrick Hunter
Southern Environmental Law Center
48 Patton Avenue, Suite 304
Asheville, NC 28801
828-258-2023
[e-mail]
On behalf of MountainTrue, Waterkeeper
Alliance, and the Sierra Club
cc: via email only
Karrie Jo -Shell, Engineer, EPA Region 4
11

• This draft permit will allow Duke Energy to use "physical and chemical treatment" on discharged
wastewater during dewatering/decanting only when deemed necessary) Given the huge lack of
effluent limits for the many toxic constituents of coal ash (arsenic, selenium, chromium), DEQ must
require specific physical and chemical treatment during all discharges from the lined ash holding
basins to safeguard the French Broad River Basin.
• The current draft of this permit requires Duke Energy to submit a plan for fish tissue monitoring
near the lined ash holding basin discharge (Outfall 001) to DEQ within 180 days of the permit being
issued. Transparency and public inclusion is most Important during the submission and acceptance
of a fish tissue monitoring plan. Impacted neighbors and local fishermen should be given the
opportunity to weigh in on the final plan.
Keep the French Broad River safe from illegal coal ash leaks and toxic discharges:
The neighboring community has been overburdened by coal ash contamination from the Asheville Steam
Station for many years. Duke Energy has not been a good neighbor and continues to deny contamination of
private wells in the community without providing proper evidence. Furthermore, the company recently ran
two gas pipelines through the community during Duke's conversion to a fracked gas plant, which further
impacts property values and public health. Well users in the community have relied on bottled water for
more than 3 years and some are still waiting on a reliable solution I DEQ has now drafted a Special Order by
Consent (SOC #WQ S17-010) that would grant Duke Energy amnesty to allow illegal flows of contaminated
water into the French Broad River and neighboring communities. In 2015, Duke Energy pleaded guilty to
Clean Water Act Crimes for the same seeps at Asheville and many other sites in North Carolina.
• DEQ is issuing Duke Energy a paltry fine of $135,000 for the 18 illegal seeps at the Asheville site. This
fine is inadequate for a company that generates more than $22 billion in operating revenue and
pays its CEO more than $20 million dollars a year. DEQ must do more to hold Duke accountable and
protect the public from future illegal toxic discharges that threaten the health of the communities
neighboring and downstream the Asheville Steam Station.
• Furthermore, DEQ should require Duke Energy to do more in preparation for irregular and
unexpected weather events that could cause further toxic threats to the neighboring community.
Duke Energy must be required to develop a contingency plan to address any future impacts of coal ash
contamination at the Asheville Steam Station and provide the neighboring community with continuous
monitoring data following the complete excavation of the site. Cleanups in SC have shown
contamination to be reduced by more than 95% following complete excavation. Duke Energy should be
required to share the results of the coal ash cleanup with the impacted and neighboring communities.
For questions and more information contact:
Xavier Boatright -Environmental Justice Organizer and Researcher
828-251-1291 / 1-800-929-4480, [e-mail]

DEQ Response to Written Comments

Responses to SELL/CWFNC comments for Asheville Permit
09/06/2010
• DEQ Should Not Permit DUke's Illegal Constructed Seeps
The CWA allows discharges of the pollutants via point sources to be covered under the NPDES
permits. Toe drain meet the definition of the point source discharge and can be included in the
NPDES permit. This approach is authorized by the Coal Ash Management Act and has been
discussed with EPA, the EPA did not raise any objections against including the toe drains in the
NPDES permits. When Duke decommissions the ash pond, the toe drain discharge will cease. In
addition, the DEQ is developing the SOC in which Duke will be fined for the illegal discharges.
This approach is not unique to Duke, DEQ periodically discovers illegal point source discharges.
When this occurs, the owner is fined for illegal discharge, but the discharge is subsequently
covered by the NPDES permit.
In addition, the recent update to 40 CFR 423 allows for ash seepage and has appropriate
Technology Based Effluent Limits for such discharges.
• DEQ Should Add Limits to Discharges from Outfalls 001 and 101
The need for water quality based effluent permit limits is determined based on the results of the
reasonable potential analysis (RPA). The RPA procedure utilized by the Division is conducted
in accordance with the EPA's regulation (40 CFR 122.44(d)(1)). When the permitting authority
determines, using procedures in paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section, that a discharge causes, has
the reasonable potential to cause, or contributes to an in -stream excursion above the allowable
ambient concentration of a State numeric criteria within a State water quality standard for an
individual pollutant, the permit must contain effluent limits for that pollutant. Permit limits are
added only if the results of the RPA indicate the potential for exceeding the water quality
standards, and are not arbitrarily assigned. However, absence of permit limits does not allow the
facility to violate instream water quality standards.
• llt✓U Should Add Bromide Limits and Monitoring Requirements to Outfalls 001 and 101
The DEQ is unable to develop a limit for bromides due to the absence of the appropriate EPA
criteria and a paucity of the scientific research on the subject. The EPA is currently developing a
bromide criterion and when it is promulgated the DEQ will conduct the RPA analysis for the
facilities that discharge bromides. The appropriate limits will be subsequently implemented if
RPA indicates a need for such limits.
Bromide monitoring will be added to Out -falls 001 and 101 in the Bnal permit.
• DEQ Should Add Boron Sulfate and Thallium Limits
Outfa11001
Page 1 of 4

The need for water quality based effluent permit limits is determined based on the results of the
reasonable potential analysis (RPA). The RPA procedure utilized by the Division is conducted
in accordance with the EPA's regulation (40 CFR 122.44(d)(1)). When the permitting authority
determines, using procedures in paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section, that a discharge causes, has
the reasonable potential to cause, or contributes to an in -stream excursion above the allowable
ambient concentration of a State numeric criteria within a State water quality standard for an
individual pollutant, the permit must contain effluent limits for that pollutant. Permit limits are
added only if the results of the RPA indicate the potential for exceeding the water quality
standards, and are not arbitrarily assigned. However, absence of permit limits does not allow the
facility to violate instream water quality standards.
• DEO Should Add a Mercury Limit to Outfall 101
Based on the Statewide Mercury TMDL implementation procedure the limit is not warranted
since no single measurement of mercury exceeded 47 ng/L and the toe drain discharge.
• DEO Should Reassess Duke's 316(a) Variance Using Updated Information
The Water Sciences Section (WSS) of the DWR reviewed the biological monitoring report that
was submitted to the DWQ in 2010. The ESS determined that "the fisheries community in Lake
Julian currently meets the balanced and indigenous population (BIP) definition of Section 316(a)
of the Clean Water Act". The WSS also imposed the additional monitoring requirements for the
future BIP studies.
In addition, the coal-fired facility will discontinue power generation by January 31, 2020, which
All eliminate the discharge of the heated wastewater to Lake Julian. The new combined cycle
gas -operated unit will have cooling towers and will discharge to the French Broad River.
f1Ta
Plan
Need for the public comments for the fish tissue sampling plan is not justified, it will
substantially complicate and delay implementation of this portion of the permit.
• DEO Should Amend Permit Provisions Related to FGD Waste
Quarterly monitoring requirements is consistent with the existing rules and regulations and do
not trigger the anti -backsliding provisions of the CWA since the permit limits are not being
relaxed.
The TSS limit will be added in the Final Permit.
Monitoring for all of the FGD pollutants is not necessary to evaluate impact of the discharge.
EPA stated that "Effluent limits and monitoring for all pollutants of concern is not necessary to
Page 2 of 4

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."
• 1�tJO Should Add an
The turbidity language in the permit has been reviewed and approved by EPA and has an
effective mechanism for compliance. In addition, monitoring of the effluent discharges from the
similar facilities does not indicate propensity for turbidity concentration above 50 NTU in the ash
pond discharges.
quality is protected
The DEQ assigns the appropriate permit limits based on the Reasonable Potential Analysis or 40
CFR 423 requirements. The facility has the ability to choose the mechanism to achieve the
compliance with these limits. In the past the DEQ had an authority to issue Authorization to
Construct permits, which in effect prescribed a treatment method for a particular wastewater.
However, the state legislature has removed this authority from DEQ and now the Department
cannot issue ATC permits for industrial facilities (Session Law 2011-394).
• "I'he Status of
The permit authorizes dewatering in the 1964 ash pond and the RPA for the effluent page was
based on the analysis of the interstitial data. The decanting of the 1964 pond has been completed.
• The Fact Sheet References Outfall 102
The reference is the remnant of the previous draft when the facility had separate outfalls for each
toe drain.
This reference will be deleted when the Final Permit is issued.
• Clean W
The reference in the Fact Sheet is correct since the coal-fired facility will be retired, and the
combined cycle plant is the new unit.
The following sentence will be deleted in the Final Permit. "the permittee shall submit all the
materials required by the Rule with the next renewal application."
Page 3 of 4

• Discharge Through Outfall 101 Is Not Yet Authorized
The permit authorizes the discharge from Outfall 101. However, the SOC supersedes the permit
and the facility shall follow the SOC requirements.
Page 4 of 4

Attachment E
Notice of Public Hearing

PUBLIC NOTICE
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
INTENT TO ISSUE NPDES WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PERMIT #NC0000396
INTENT TO HOLD PUBLIC HEARING ON DRAFT SPECIAL ORDER BY CONSENT
PUBLIC HEARING
The N.C. Department of Environmental Quality will hold a public hearing to accept comments on the renewal of
draft NPDES wastewater permit #NC0000396 for Duke Energy Progress, LLC's Asheville Steam Electric Plant,
200 CP&L Drive, Arden, N.C., Buncombe County and draft Special Order by Consent #S 17-010 that has been
requested by Duke Energy Progress, LLC for the same facility. The public hearing will be held at 6 p.m.
Wednesday, Aug. 22 at the Skyland/South Buncombe Library, 260 Overlook Road, Asheville, N.C. Speaker
registration begins at 5 p.m. The public hearing will close after all comments are received but no earlier than 7
PM.
Public comments on the draft permit modification maybe submitted by mail to: DWR-Wastewater Pennitting,
Attn: Asheville Permit, 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N.C., 276994617. Public comments may also be
submitted by email to.0 publiccomments(cz�ncdem ov. Please be sure to include "Asheville Permit" in the email's
subject line. All comments received by Aug. 23, 2018 will be considered in the final determination regarding
permit issuance and permit provisions.
PERMIT APPLICATION
The Asheville Steam Electric Plant discharges treated industrial wastewater to Lake Julian, the French Broad
River, and an Unnamed Tributary to French Broad River in the French Broad River basin. This discharge may
affect future allocations in this portion of the French Broad River basin.
The thermal component of the discharge is subject to effluent limitations under the federal Clean Water Act
sections 301/306 and N.C. Administrative Code Section: 15A NCAC 213.0211 (3) 0), which prohibits an
exceedance of 2.8 degrees C (5.04 degrees F) above the natural water temperature, and in no case to exceed 32
degrees C (89.6 degrees F). The permit holder has requested a continuance of a Clean Water Act 316(a) variance,
which would impose an alternative, less stringent limitation on the thermal component of the discharge. The
proposed variance imposes a monthly average limit of 44.4 degrees C (111.9 degrees F). On the basis of the N.C.
Administrative Code Section: 15A NCAC 2B.0208 (2) (b) and other lawful standards and regulations, the N.C.
Division of Water Resources proposes to continue the 316(a) variance in conjunction with renewal of the permit.
SPECIAL ORDER BY CONSENT
Duke Energy Progress, LLC has requested Special Order by Consent #WQ S 17-010 for its Asheville Plant to
address issues related to seeps that emanate from the coal ash basins at that location and potentially flow to
adjacent surface waters.
Compliance with this Order requires Duke Energy to complete activities associated with closure of coal ash
basins at the Asheville Plant as a means of eliminating seeps that originate in those basins. During the time that
the Order is effective, interim action levels will be established in small bodies of water receiving flow from seeps.
Seeps not eliminated as a result of closure activities shall be addressed through further corrective action and
remediation measures. As drafted, this Order will expire no later than June 30, 2022.
The N.C. Environmental Management Commission plans to consider the issuance of the special order during its
Sept. 13, 2018 meeting in Raleigh, N.C. The Aug. 22, 2018 public hearing noted above shall serve as an
opportunity for the public to provide written and/or oral comments regarding the draft special order. Public
comments on the order may also be submitted by mail to: DWR-Wastewater Permitting, Attn' Asheville SOC,
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N.C., 276994617. Public comments may also be submitted by email to:
pub liccomments(ncdent% o�v. Please be sure to include "Asheville SOC" in the email's subject line. All
comments on the draft Order received by Aug. 23, 2018 will be considered in its final determination.
PUBLIC REVIEW OF DOCUMENTS

The draft wastewater permit and related documents are available online at: https://goo al/3WtzMF. The draft
order is available online at: https://bit.ly/2LkIF4K. Printed copies of the draft order or draft permit and related
documents may be reviewed at the department's Asheville Regional Office. To make an appointment to review
the documents, please call 828-2964500.
Questions regarding the draft permit, draft order or public hearing may be sent to the attention of Mr. Bob Sledge,
N.C. Division of Water Resources, 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1617. Mr. Sledge may also be
reached at 919-807-6398 or bobsled e c ,ncdenn ov.

Attachment F
Sign -in Sheets

Elected Officials
Name
Senator Terry Van Duyn
Public Hearing 8/22/2018
Duke Energy Progress, LLC SOC S 17-010
Please Sign In Here
Position/Title
N.C. State Senator
Representing
District 49 (Buncombe County)
Skyland/South Buncombe Library
Asheville, NC

A
i
` ... 1..1 1 I :i:. f 1 61 11 '1:
' , ';

"AB*
kWA
i t o �jq to
Augazst 22, 201� 1