NC0003417_Report_20190607

ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. RECAN
Secretary
LINDA CULPEPPER
Director
MEMORANDUM
To: Linda Culpepper
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
December 31, 2018
From: Jim Gregson
Subject: Hearing Officer's Report and Recommendations
Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Draft NPDES Wastewater Permit No. NC0003417
H.F. Lee Energy Complex, Wayne County
On December 15, 2016, 1 served as the Hearing Officer for the Subject Public Hearing held at the Wayne
County Center, 208 West Chestnut Street, Goldsboro, NC. The purpose of the public hearing was to
allow the public to comment on the draft NPDES wastewater permit for Duke Energy Progress, LLC's H.F
Lee Energy Complex.
In addition to listening to oral comments at the public hearing, I have reviewed all written comments
received during the public comment period which ended on December 15, 2016. In preparation of this
report I have considered all of the public comments and the public record.
The report has been prepared using the following outline:
I. Site History / Background
II. December 15, 2016, Public Hearing and Comments Summary
Ill. Recommendations
IV. Attachments
State of North Carolina I Department of Enviromnental Quality I Division of Water Resources
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, NC 28405
910 796 7215

Hearing Officer Report
December 15, 2016, PUBLIC HEARING — DRAFT NPDES PERMIT No. NC0003417
FOR DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC TO
DISCHARGE WASTEWATER
FROM THE H.F. LEE ENERGY COMPLEX, 1199 BLACK JACK CHURCH ROAD,
GOLDSBORO, N.C., WAYNE COUNTY
I, History / Background
The H.F. Lee Energy Complex is located along the Neuse River in Wayne County. It began
operation in 1951 and was operated as a three -unit pulverized coal fired steam electric
generating facility until 2012 when the coal units, as well as four oil -fueled combustion turbines
were retired. The original facility had a capacity of 382 megawatts. The current facility, which
began operation in 2012, consists of three combined cycle combustion turbines with a
generating capacity of 920 megawatts. Also located on the site is the Wayne County
Combustion Turbine Plant which consists of five simple cycle combustion turbines with a
generating capacity of 863 megawatts. The H.F. Lee Energy Complex is permitted to discharge
wastewater under NPDES Permit No. NC0003417 to the Neuse River. At this location the Neuse
River is classified WS-IV, NSW.
The facility's ash basins consist of three inactive basins located to the west of the power plant
and an active ash basin located northeast of the power plant. The ash basins have a total area
of approximately 314 acres. Fly and bottom ash sluicing was discontinued when the coal fired
units were shut down in 2012. Currently no process wastewaters are sent to the active ash
basin.
The facility has three active NPDES wastewater outfalls (001, 002 and 003). Outfall 001(Ash
Pond) has only discharged sporadically since the closure of the coal fired units in 2012 and the
volume of the discharge has dropped substantially. Outfall 002 (Closed Cycle Cooling Pond)
discharges only during extreme weather events and consists of the following: recirculating
condenser cooling and process water, cooling tower blowdown from the wet surface air cooler
and the combined cycle heat recovery steam generator, the Wayne County Combustion
Turbine Site wastewater, reverse osmosis reject wastewater from the water treatment plant,
Lee combined Cycle Plant Site wastewaters, as well as domestic wastewater treated in a septic
tank followed by sand bed filtration, and low volume wastewaters regulated under 40 CFR 423.
Outfall 003 was permitted in 2010 to prepare for the shut -down of the coal fired units and
would receive filter plant wastewaters, equipment and containment drains, reverse osmosis
reject and filter backwash, and quenched heat recovery steam generator blowdown. Discharge
to Outfall 003 was discontinued in 2013 due to operational concerns with total suspended
solids and wastewaters were rerouted to the cooling pond.
Page 2 of 15

§ 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 Discharge Assessment Plan for the unpermitted discharges at the H.F.
Lee Energy Complex was submitted by Duke Energy to the department on December 30, 2014,
and a revision to the Discharge Assessment Plan was submitted on April 29, 2016.
Duke Energy identified 21 unpermitted seeps in the area surrounding the cooling pond. Three
of the seeps were disregarded as seeps by DWR Washington Regional Office Staff. 15 non -
engineered discharges from the 18 remaining seeps located around the cooling pond were
identified. Total flow for the cooling pond seeps was estimated to be 7.3 MGD. Duke Energy
identified 24 unpermitted seeps around the active ash basin. Five of the seeps were not
considered point source discharges to waters of the state due to low concentrations of coal ash
constituents and/or absence of a discharge to waters of the state. The Division identified nine
non -engineered discharges from the 19 remaining seeps located around the active ash basin.
Total flow for the ash basin seeps was estimated to be 0.784 MGD.
A summary of the proposed changes to the NPDES permit can be found on the Fact Sheet for
NPDES Permit Development in Attachment B.
II. December 15, 2016, Public Hearing and Comments Summary
A public hearing was held on December 15, 2016, at 6:00 pm, at the Wayne County Center, 208
West Chestnut Street, Goldsboro, NC. The purpose of the public hearing was to allow the
public to comment on the draft NPDES wastewater permit for Duke Energy Progress, LLC's H.F.
Lee Energy Complex.
Notice of the hearing (Attachment E.) was published in the Goldsboro News-Argus on
November 11, 2016. Additionally, a news release of the Notice was issued on November 23,
2016, a media advisory was issued on December 14, 2016, and publication of this notice was
posted on the DEQ and DWR websites. The public comment period closed on December 15,
2016.
Approximately 38 people attended the public hearing including eight staff members of the
Division of Water Resources and the hearing officer. A total of 29 individuals signed the
attendance sign in sheets at the hearing (Attachment F. and G.). The hearing officer provided
opening comments and Sergei Chernikov, Ph.D., with the Division of Water Resources' Complex
Permitting Unit, gave a brief overview of the draft NPDES wastewater permit. Twelve
Page 3 of 15

individuals registered in advance of the hearing to provide oral comments. Speakers were
allowed three minutes to comment. Additional time was provided after everyone that
registered to speak was finished. Three individuals who did not register to speak also spoke.
The list of speakers is included as Attachment F.
ORAL COMMENTS
All speakers but one were generally opposed to the NPDES permit draft. The following is a
summary by major topic area of oral comments received at the public hearing:
• Concerns about well contamination and/or cancer. (Speakers 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 13, and 14)
Response — Groundwater monitoring is conducted to determine compliance with
current groundwater standards found under 15A NCAC 02L .0200. In accordance with
15A NCAC 02L .0107, monitoring wells shall be in place within the compliance
boundary, such that the groundwater within the designated area is sufficiently
monitored. Groundwater standard violations would be investigated and regulated
according to 15A NCAC 02L and the Coal Ash Management Act of 2014.
• Concerns about the release of coal ash water. (Speakers 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, and 12)
Response - To eliminate pollutant discharges from the Duke Energy sites, the facilities
need NPDES wastewater permits that establish conditions for ash pond dewatering.
The dewatering is the first step in the ash pond decommissioning required under the
Coal Ash Management Act of 2014. Ash Pond decommissioning should significantly
decrease pollutant loading to the Neuse River. To begin the decommissioning
process, ash basin water will be decanted from the active ash pond through outfall
001. All decant water will pass through the wastewater treatment system prior to
discharge. A reasonable potential (RPA) analysis was performed for arsenic, antimony,
barium, cadmium, chlorides, chromium, copper, fluoride, lead, mercury, molybdenum,
nickel, phenols, selenium, sulfate, thallium, and zinc. The state conducts a Reasonable
Potential Analysis to determine the need for a monitoring or limit for a particular
constituent. RPA is the statistical analysis of the effluent data that was approved by
EPA. The RPA is conducted on the parameters that are above detection level and have
appropriate state water quality standard/EPA criteria. Based on the reasonable
potential analysis it was determined that there were no parameters that had a
reasonable potential to exceed water quality standards/criteria.
The draft permit is not based on sound science. The permit would allow unlimited
amounts of pollutants to be discharged into Neuse River. (Speakers 3, 5, and 7)
Response - The sampling requirements in the draft NPDES permit are based on the
state and federal rules, regulations, and policies. The RPA is conducted on the 126
parameters in the renewal/modification application. The state conducts a Reasonable
Page 4 of 15

Potential Analysis (RPA) to determine the need for a monitoring or limit for a
particular constituent. The RPA is the statistical analysis of the effluent data that was
approved by EPA. The RPA is conducted on the parameters that are above detection
level and have appropriate state water quality standard/EPA criteria. The majority of
the parameters in the renewal application are below detection level.
Permit should have technology based effluent limits. Should have same protection as
Sutton Permit. (Speaker 7)
Response — Both the H.F. Lee facility and the Sutton facility are subject to EPA effluent
guideline limits per 40 CFR 423 for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source
Category as amended November 3, 2015.
Landfill discharge needs to be removed from permit because Duke has stated landfill
will not be constructed. (Speaker 7)
Response — Duke informed the Division that they will not construct the ash landfill at
the site. The outfall for the landfill leachate was removed from the permit.
0 Permit is non-specific on how water will be treated. (Speaker 11)
Response - When the facility commences the ash pond/ponds
decanting/dewatering, treatment will be installed if necessary to meet the water
quality standards. The Division does not specify the specific treatment technology
required to meet the permit limits, this decision is made by the permittee.
Seeps need to be monitored and tested independently. (Speaker 12)
Response — Seeps will be monitored under SOC 518-006.
• Concern about radioactivity. (Speaker 12)
Response — Radioactive substances are not a pollutant of concern for this facility.
Priority Pollutant Analysis have shown non -detectable levels or low levels that are
below the potential regulatory levels.
The public hearing transcript including oral comments is included as Attachment D.
In addition to the public hearing, DWR received 20 written comments during the public
comment period. Those comments are included as Attachment C.
Five of the email comments were received using the following form letter email:
Please do not allow Duke Energy to pollute our waterways with toxic coal ash. Our
community has already been devastated by Hurricane Matthew, and these permits
Page 5 of 15

would only put us in even more jeopardy. The permit would allow contaminated
wastewater to flow into the Neuse River and nearby wetlands, with no limits on many
coal ash pollutants and an unacceptably weak arsenic limit of over 600 times the
standard. DEQ should require Duke Energy to stop its pollution by promptly removing the
coal ash to dry, lined storage away from public waters.
The current permit as written would do little to protect our waterways. Please
strengthen the draft NPDES permit.
Response - The permit's Water Quality Based Effluent limits are established in
accordance with the EPA Guidance entitled "Technical Support Document for Water
Quality -based Toxics Control." The limits are established only when the particular
parameter demonstrates a Reasonable Potential to exceed the state water quality
standard or EPA criterion. The state conducts a Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA) to
determine the need for a limit for a particular constituent. RPA is the statistical
analysis of the effluent data that was approved by EPA and is based on the
conservative assumption of the low flow and the highest detected value in the
monitoring data set during the last 5 years of the facility operation. The RPA is
conducted on the 126 parameters (if the parameter is detected) in the renewal/major
modification application submitted by Duke Energy.
§130A-309.213 of the Act required the department to develop a proposed
classification system for all coal combustion residuals surface impoundments,
including active and retired sites. §130A-309.214 requires owners of coal combustion
residual surface impoundments to submit a proposed closure plan for the
Departments approval. High -risk impoundments shall be closed no later than
December 31, 2019, intermediate -risk impoundments shall be closed no later than
December 31, 2024, and low -risk impoundments shall be closed no later than
December 31, 2029. To eliminate ash lagoons, the facilities need NPDES wastewater
permits that establish conditions for ash pond dewatering. The dewatering is the first
step in the ash pond decommissioning.
Eight comments were received using the following form letter email:
The current draft permit for H.F. Lee is unacceptably weak. It contains no limits on coal
ash pollutants for wastewater pumped from the coal ash lagoon into the Neuse River
and does not define what "wastewater treatment" is. The permit also allows Duke
Energy to pump its polluted groundwater into the Neuse River with only very weak limits
on coal ash pollutants and no limit at all for mercury.
Please strengthen the proposed NPDES permits and require a strict limit on the
discharges allowed in our waterways. Daily pollutant monitoring to protect our
communities should also be required.
Page 6 of 15

Response - The need for toxicant limits is based upon a demonstration of reasonable
potential to exceed water quality standards, a statistical evaluation that is conducted
during every permit renewal utilizing the most recent effluent data for each outfall.
The Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA) is conducted in accordance with 40 CFR
122.44 (d) (i).
Annual average discharge limitations for mercury at Outfall 001 are based on a
Technology Based Effluent Limitation (TBEL) of 47 ng/L and a Water Quality Based
Effluent Limitation (WQBEL) of 955 ng/L. The TBEL was established in the 2012 NPDES
Mercury TMDL Implementation Strategy and the WQBEL is based on the Water
Quality Standard of 12 ng/L divided by the IWC. Data show Duke Energy can comply
with the TBEL during Ash Basin decanting, however, mercury monitoring will be added
to the permit since it is a pollutant of concern. No limits are required for mercury.
Two comments were received using the following form letter email:
l am very concerned about the unacceptably weak draft permit at the H. F. Lee Steam
Station. As written, the current permit for Lee would allow Duke Energy to construct a
coal ash landfill in the existing coal ash basin on the banks of the Neuse River. The basin
is in the floodway of the Neuse River and in the middle of wetlands. The recent dam
breach at the H.F. Lee site due to flooding from Hurricane Matthew demonstrates that
this is not a safe location to permanently store coal ash.
Please strengthen the draft permit by requiring coal ash to be stored safely away from
our waterways.
Response - Duke informed the Division that they will not construct the ash landfill at
the site. A coal ash beneficiation plant will be constructed at the site. To eliminate
pollutant discharges from the Duke Energy sites, the facilities need NPDES wastewater
permits that establish conditions for ash pond dewatering. The dewatering is the first
step in the ash pond decommissioning required under the Coal Ash Management Act
of 2014. Ash Pond decommissioning should significantly decrease pollutant loading to
the Neuse River.
Other comments received expressed issues that have already been addressed above or are
comments from specific organizations as listed below.
The following is a summary of comments received from Duke Energy:
• Pages 4, 6, 8, 14 and 15 of 53, the draft permit proposes sampling requirements for
turbidity. These pages also incorporate limits on Total Suspended Solids (TSS). It is our
understanding that the EPA recommended turbidity sampling for facilities discharging
into waters impaired for turbidity and this requirement has been imposed arbitrarily on
all Duke Energy facilities. There is no basis in the record or permit development
documents to suggest this requirement is imposed for any other reason or that it is
necessary to assure the protection of water quality in the Neuse River. The turbidity
Page 7 of 15

sampling requirements instream associated with, at times weekly, effluent turbidity
sampling impose an overly burdensome requirement on the facility without providing
additional benefit to the environment or merit. TSS is a parameter that is sufficient to
show that the wastewater treatment system is properly operating. The potential exists
for significant interferences in the analysis for turbidity. Interferences from sources such
as air bubbles and/or light absorbing materials can impact the readings. Turbidity is not
a direct measurement of the total suspended materials in water. Instead, as a measure
of relative clarity, turbidity is often used to indicate changes in the total suspended
solids concentration in water without providing an exact measurement of solids. Duke
Energy requests that since these outfalls are limited by TSS that the monitoring
requirement for turbidity be eliminated.
Response — The turbidity limit is imposed to assure the compliance with the state
turbidity standard.
• On the Supplement to Permit Cover Sheet, page 2 of 53, Duke Energy Progress is
incorrectly identified as Duke Energy Progress, Inc. Duke Energy requests the name be
changed to Duke Energy Progress, LLC.
Response — The correction will be made in the final permit.
• On pages 4 and 6 of 53, there is a composite sampling requirement for TSS. Note #4 on
these pages requires that the facility is required to continuously monitor TSS with an
automatic shutoff when one half of the daily max limit is reached. Duke Energy requests
the sampling type for TSS be changed to "grab" since there is a continuous inline
process control monitoring requirement for TSS at Outfall 001.
Response — The change will be made in the final permit.
• On pages 4 and 6 of 53, Note #3 and Note #4 requires an automatic shut off if pH is
above or below a certain range (6.0 to 9.0 standard units), or if one half the daily max
for TSS is exceeded. However, there is no mechanism in the note for Duke to resume
pumping other than if interruption might result in dam failure or damage. Duke Energy
requests that language such as "pumping can continue after the pH and/or TSS issue has
been resolved or pumping can continue if interruption might result in dam failure or
damage."
Response — The change will be made in the final permit.
• On page 6 of 53, the description of Internal Outfall 001 only considers wastewater from
ash pond dewatering or the removal of interstitial water and ground water extraction
from remediation wells. There are is a high likelihood that we would be discharging
interstitial water from the basin without adding the ground water extraction
remediation wells. Duke Energy requests that the language in the description be
Page 8of15

changed to allow for the discharge of only interstitial water from this outfall. Duke
Energy suggests language such as "ash pond dewatering only or ash pond dewatering
and ground water extraction from remediation wells.
Response — The change will be made in the final permit.
• On page 6 of 53, the sample type for dewatering for parameters other than oil and
grease, pH and turbidity are listed as composite. Duke Energy requests, consistent with
other Duke Energy Permits for the dewatering phase of ash basin closure, that the
sample type for all parameters be listed as "grab". Duke will be utilizing additional
physical/chemical treatment beyond the ash basin's treatment and utilizing inline
monitoring with automatic shutoff of flow if certain indicator parameters' set points are
exceeded. With these safeguards in place, a sample type of "Grab" is sufficient and
consistent with other Duke Energy permits.
Response — The change will be made in the final permit.
• On page 6 and 8 of 53, the sample type for Chronic Toxicity is listed as composite. A
Chronic Toxicity composite sampling would be a hardship for the plant. The current
permit requires a "Grab" sample for toxicity. Composite samples would be collected on
Tuesday and Thursday, therefore you would need to start the collection on Monday and
Wednesday. The plant would need to make sure that the Toxicity lab has received each
days sampling within 36 hours of the completion of the composite. This compositing of
the ash basin discharge is not required in any of the final permits for Dan River,
Marshall, Riverbend or Draft permits for Belews or Allen Stations. The time required to
take this sample coupled with the fact that the sampling frequency is proposed to
increase from "Quarterly" to "Monthly" makes this requirement overly burdensome.
Duke Energy request that the Chronic Toxicity sample type be changed to "grab" to be
consistent with other Duke Energy NPDES permits or that the sampling frequency be
changed back to quarterly.
Response — The change will be made in the final permit.
• On page 8 of 53, the sample type for groundwater remediation parameters other than
oil and grease, pH and turbidity are listed as composite. Duke Energy requests that the
sample type for all parameters be listed as "grab".
Response —The change will be made in the final permit.
• On pages 10, 12, and 14 of 53 Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements Outfall
002 and Outfall 003 has a monitoring requirement for molybdenum. Duke Energy
requests that the limits for molybdenum be removed from the permit as there is no
properly adopted numeric water quality criterion for molybdenum in North Carolina.
The Division's management has previously indicated no limits for metals would be
Page 9 of 15

included in permits for constituents without an adopted numeric criteria and the
Division recently acknowledged this in issuance of the company's Sutton permit in which
NC DWR proposed to include an effluent limit for aluminum but withdrew that limit in
the final permit "because ...North Carolina does not have [an] Al standard..." North
Carolina just completed an update to its standards through the triennial review process
but did not propose any standards for molybdenum. Additionally, there is no record of a
determination that any limit on these parameters is necessary to protect narrative
criteria. To the contrary, the record indicates that the receiving water currently meets
narrative criteria, despite a long history of similar discharges, indicating that effluent
limits are not necessary to protect narrative criteria or designated uses. Duke Energy has
provided an Attachment which has an evaluation of the toxicity of molybdenum as
additional support for this request.
Response- The limit will remain in the permit. In the absence of approved state water
quality standards under the provisions of 15A NCAC 02B the Division can develop
criteria for the protection of aquatic life and human health for specific pollutants.
• On page 14 of 53, the sample type for several parameters, mostly metals and Acute
Toxicity, at Outfall 003 are listed as composite. In particular composite samples for
acute toxicity are not required in any the final permits for Dan River, Marshall,
Riverbend or Draft permits for Belews or Allen Stations. Composite sampling requires
special sampling equipment and may mean that the station cannot perform this
sampling and must subcontract that effort. It also requires
more planning as the sampler must be set up 24 hours prior to collecting the final
samples. Duke Energy requests that the sample type for all parameters, particularly
Acute Toxicity, at outfall 003 be listed as "grab".
Response — The change will be made in the final permit.
• On page 14 and 15 of 53, there are two parameters in the effluent limitations and
monitoring requirements that reference note #5. Note #5 reflects the note that
corresponds to toxicity. There is no note that corresponds to turbidity.
Response —The footnote will be added to the permit.
• On page 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, and 22 of 53, the effluent limitations and monitoring
requirements pages have a monthly/quarterly sampling requirement for iron,
manganese and aluminum. Duke Energy requests that the sampling requirement be
removed for these parameters since these parameters are ubiquitous throughout the
state and there is no numeric water quality criteria for any of these parameters.
Response — Monitoring will not be removed, these parameters are pollutants of
concern for coal ash and the requirement is consistent with other Duke permits.
Page 10 of 15

• On page 18 of 53, an outfall is listed that has now been determined by DWR's
Washington Regional Office to be within a jurisdictional stream. The outfall was further
investigated and determined to be a sampling point and not a seep, therefore Duke
Energy requests that Outfall 102 be removed from the NPDES permit.
Response — Seep outfalls were removed from the permit and are considered in SOC
WQ S18-006.
On page 23 of 53, an outfall is listed that has now been determined by DWR's
Washington Regional Office to be within a jurisdictional stream. The outfall was further
investigated and determined to be a sampling point and not a seep, therefore Duke
Energy requests that Outfall 103A be removed from the NPDES permit.
Response — Seep outfalls were removed from the permit and are considered in SOC
WQ S18-006.
On pages 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31 of 53, the effluent limitations and monitoring
requirements pages have a monthly/quarterly sampling requirement for iron and
manganese. Duke Energy requests that the sampling requirement be removed for these
parameters since these parameters are ubiquitous throughout the state and there is no
numeric water quality criteria for any of these parameters.
Response — Seep outfalls were removed from the permit and are considered in SOC
WQ S18-006.
On pages 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, and 38, the effluent limitations page has water quality
standards limits for several parameters. Duke Energy contends that these seeps
discharge directly to the Neuse River, not a tributary to the Neuse River, and therefore
are afforded less stringent limits due to a direct discharge to the Neuse River. Duke
Energy requests that the RPA for these outfalls be reevaluated using the Neuse River as
the receiving water for these outfalls as
confirmed by the Washington Regional office staff.
Response — Seep outfalls were removed from the permit and are considered in SOC
WQ S18-006.
• On page 45 of 53, Condition A. (44) requires semi-annual instream monitoring. The HF
Lee Energy Complex is a member of the Lower Neuse River Basin Association and
therefore is not required to perform instream monitoring. The monitoring coalition has
a binding MOU with the DEQ that states its members are not required to have instream
monitoring as part of their NPDES permits. This monitoring requirement was removed
from Duke Energy's Sutton Plant's NPDES permit for similar reasons. Duke Energy
Page 11 of 15

requests that, consistent with the MOU and with our Sutton NPDES permit
(NC0001422), the instream monitoring requirement be removed from the permit.
Response — Instream monitoring is waived for parameters that are monitored by the
coalition. When the coalition does not monitor for parameters listed in the permit it is
the permittee responsibility to monitor and report or to negotiate with the coalition
for adding the required parameters.
The following is a summary of comments received from the Southern Environmental Law
Center on behalf of Sound Rivers.
• The permit lacks the required technology -based limits on pollution. The permit includes
no limits at all on toxic coal ash pollutants for decanting. The draft permit lacks any coal
as pollutant limits for the mechanical removal of the most toxic water that saturates the
ash at the bottom of the basin, except for an absurdly high limit for arsenic. The draft
permit would allow Duke Energy to pump its polluted groundwater into the Neuse River
with no limits, or only weak limits, on coal as pollutants. The draft permit imposes
almost no limits on coal ash pollution for leaking streams of wastewater.
Response — The effluent limitations in the permit are established in accordance with
the existing federal and state rules and regulations. EPA has recently updated 40 CFR
423 and after reviewing parameters of concern established TBELs for several of these
parameters. The EPA decided that TBELs for all parameters of concern are not
necessary because "Effluent limits and monitoring for all pollutants of concern is not
necessary to ensure that the pollutants are adequately controlled because many of
the pollutants originate from similar sources, have similar treatabilities, and are
removed by similar mechanisms. Because of this, it may be sufficient to establish
effluent limits for one pollutant as a surrogate or indicator pollutant that ensures the
removal of other pollutants of concern." The need for toxicant limits is based upon a
demonstration of reasonable potential to exceed water quality standards, a statistical
evaluation that is conducted during every permit renewal utilizing the most recent
effluent data for each outfall. The Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA) is conducted in
accordance with 40 CFR 122.44 (d) (i).
• Permitting the seeps violates the Clean Water Act. The draft permit impermissibly seeks
to legalize previously illegal leaks and other unauthorized discharges from the Lee ash
basin. This approach violates the anti -backsliding requirements of the Clean Water Act
and the BAT requirement.
Response — Seep outfalls were removed from the permit and are considered in SOC
WQ 518-006.
• DEQ cannot authorize the use of jurisdictional waters as a private wastewater system
for Duke Energy. Some seeps are blue -line streams that are waters of the State and of
the United States.
Page 12 of 15

Response — Of the 24 seeps identified in areas surrounding the active ash basin, five of
the seeps (5-01, 5-05, 5-19, 5-20, and 5-21) do not need coverage under the permit
based on the low concentration of the constituents associated with coal ash and/or
absence of a discharge to "Waters of the State". These five seeps are not considered
point -source wastewater discharges under the Clean Water Act. An effluent channel
determination was completed by the Division on August 23, 2016. Outfalls 101A LOLA,
101E LOLA, 102, 109, 118, 125, and 126 discharge to the Neuse River. Outfalls 103A
and 128 discharge to unnamed tributaries.
The following is a summary of comments received from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission.
• The proposed permit states that the highest measured concentration of a parameter
from the Mayo Landfill leachate and the groundwater monitoring wells was utilized for
the potential analysis of contamination. However, it is unknown if these values will be
applicable to the HF Lee site due to variabilities in the substances and site processes. As
such, the NCWRC recommends that the leachate from HF Lee be tested for heavy
metals in order to determine potential discharge contaminants and specific
concentrations. Values should be below the thresholds for these heavy metals as stated
in the Redbook.
Response —The outfall authorizing the landfill leachate was removed from the permit
as Duke will not construct the landfill at the site.
• Unless data are already available, the NCWRC recommends sampling fish species both
upstream and downstream of HF Lee, prior to Phase I of the proposed permit, in order
to establish a baseline and potential for existing compounds in living tissue material, i.e.
arsenic, selenium and mercury. Suggested distances include % mile upstream as well as
mile and 1 mile downstream. In addition, collecting tissue samples of fish species
likely to bioaccumulate heavy metals, e.g. largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides),
flathead catfish (Pylodictis olivaris), blue catfish (lctalurus furcatus) and common carp
(Cyprinus carpio) should be conducted annually after the permit has been issued. If
exceedances are noted, please contact Sarah McRae, Aquatic Ecologist with the US Fish
& Wildlife Service (USFWS), [phone], and Tyler Black, Eastern Region Aquatic
Wildlife Diversity Research Coordinator with NCWRC, [phone]. The NCWRC also
recommends further consideration of deposition and accumulation of heavy metals in
sediment, both in the immediate vicinity of HF Lee and further downstream.
Response —The permit requires annual fish tissue monitoring.
• However, as seen from other projects in the vicinity, lack of data does not reflect lack of
species presence. Unless data are already available, the NCWRC recommends mussel
sampling in suitable habitat both at and downstream of the
Page 13 of 15

outfalls prior to coal ash decanting. In addition, because of the sedentary nature of
mussels and their inability to move away from discharge locations, there is greater
concern for bioaccumulation of heavy metals. As such, the NCWRC recommends
collecting tissue samples on an annual basis from Eastern elliptios (Elliptio complanata)
found approximately % kilometer and 1 kilometer downstream of the outfalls after coal
ash decanting has commenced. As stated above, if exceedances are noted, please
contact Sarah McRae (USFWS) and Tyler Black (NCWRC).
Response — Duke Energy completed the decanting of the wastewater by the end of
2018 to meet the requirements of the SOC between the Duke Energy and the EMC. In
addition, the instream waste concentration for this facility in only 1.3% even during
the drought. Therefore, concentration of the metals is the receiving stream is
predicted to be extremely low.
• The NCWRC is concerned with the continued storage of coal ash near the Neuse River
and the potential impacts on the aquatic environment if the area containing the coal ash
is compromised, as demonstrated by Hurricane Matthew in October 2016. If coal ash
remains near the Neuse River, it should be contained in a way that prevents
contamination of the Neuse River and the surrounding environment for as long as the
coal ash remains in place.
Response — To eliminate pollutant discharges from the Duke Energy sites, the facilities
need NPDES wastewater permits that establish conditions for ash pond dewatering.
The dewatering is the first step in the ash pond decommissioning required under the
Coal Ash Management Act of 2014. Ash Pond decommissioning should significantly
decrease pollutant loading to the Neuse River.
III. 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, and discussions with other DWR staff, I recommend to the Division Director that
the draft NPDES permit for the H.F. Lee Energy Complex be modified and issued with the
following modifications:
1. The Supplement to Permit Cover Sheet, Page 2 of 53 should modified to correctly identify
the permittee as Duke Energy Progress, LLC.
2. On Page 4 and 6 of 53, the sampling type for TSS should be changed to "grab" since there is
a continuous inline process control monitoring requirement for TSS.
3. Language should be incorporated into the permit to clarify when pumping can continue
following an automatic shut off as a result of a pH excursion or when one half the daily may
for TSS is exceeded.
Page 14 of 15

4. Page 6 of 53 should be modified to allow the discharge of interstitial water from ash pond
dewatering only or combined with ground water extraction from remediation wells at
O utfa I l 001.
5. Page 6 of 53 should be modified to list the sample type for all dewatering phase parameters
as "grab" to be consistent with other Duke permits.
6. Page 6 of 53 should be modified to change the Chronic Toxicity sample type as "grab" to be
consistent with other Duke permits.
7. Page 8 of 53 should be modified to list the sample type for groundwater remediation
parameters as "grab".
8. Page 14 of 53 should be modified to list the sample type for metals and acute toxicity at
Outfall 003 as "grab".
9. Page 14 of 53 should be modified to correct the Note #5 reference for turbidity.
10. Pursuant to 50C WQ S18-006 seep outfalls and associated monitoring should be removed
from the final permit.
11. The outfall authorizing the discharge of landfill leachate should be removed from the permit
as Duke has indicated they will not construct the landfill at the site.
IV. Attachments
A. NPDES Application
B. Draft Permit and Fact Sheet
C. Written Comments Received During Public Comment Period
D. Public Hearing Transcript, Including Oral Comments
E. Notice of Public Hearing
F. Speaker Sign -in Sheets
G. Non -speaker Sign -in Sheets
Page 15of15