NCS000020_COMPLIANCE_20160426

NORTH CAROLINA
F,
Department of Environmental Qua
II

STORMWi4TER DIVISION CODING SHEET
PERMIT NO.
R 05�YD 20
QOC TYPE
❑FINAL PERMIT
❑ MONITORING INFO
O APPLICATION
COMPLIANCE
OTHER
DOC DATE
❑ ID(IDOLJ"ZGj
YYYYMMDD

lt/C s 00 D 62 D
Pickle, Ken
From: Pickle, Ken
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 11:27 AM
To: 'Gardner, Melanie Samuels'
Cc: Bennett, Bradley; Georgoulias, Bethany
Subject: RE: McGuire Landfills
Thanks, Melanie,
I'll file your information in our working file for NCS000020, the individual stormwater permit for the whole McGuire
facility. We will refer to the file when Duke is ready to contact us again. See below my thoughts about the permitting
path we discussed together over the phone:
Summary of permitting status and our recent discussions about potential discharges from the landfill area:
• The three basins around the operating landfill receive area runoff, but site personnel have never observed a
discharge from any of them. The site report was that any collected liquid'in the basins 'attenuates', which
means it may infiltrate or evaporate or both, but does not discharge to surface waters.
• In our discussions I noted that the Charlotte area receives over 40" of rain per year on average, and as a very
broad generality the soils in that area of the state are usually not highly permeable, and so infiltration may be
limited as a disposal mechanism. Evaporation by itself is not typically a mechanism sufficient to prevent the
discharge of any substantial quantity of rainfall runoff into a basin. On these bases my normal expectation
would be that sediment basins in your area of the state would discharge. In my mind that leaves open the
possibility that the basins discharged, but still may not have been observed discharging by site personnel
depending on when the observations took place relative to the rainfall event and the size of the rainfall event.
The path selected by Duke for now is to expand the SPPP and monitoring regimen under NCS000020 to include
the discharge structures at the three basins for two years. After some period of time Duke may have
accumulated inspection and monitoring logs establishing that the basins have not discharged.
Concerning the two-year time period: As I think more about that, I note that we usually require twice per year
monitoring in most stormwater discharge permits. That could be as little as four normally scheduled
observations at the three discharge structures. I don't think that's necessarily enough to support the report that
the basins don't discharge. I'm thinking of four rainfall events of 0.1" - -such a data set would not be
persuasive, in my opinion.
o Consider that the 1-yr, 24-hr rainfall for the Charlotte area is "'3".
o For comparison, I note that the 25-year, 24-hour rainfall in the Charlotte area is —6". We already have
program implementation precedent to consider that a structure that does not discharge in the 25-yr
rainfall is a "non -discharging stormwater control measure", and is not required to be permitted. In my
opinion, and still giving some weight to the site report of never observing a discharge, I don't think it's
necessary to wait until you get a 25-yr rain (it might be another 25 years!) But I do think a data set of a
few relatively large rain events is the minimum necessary to support a conclusion that the basins don't
discharge. Whether that will occur in the next two years is uncertain, of course.
o So, maybe Duke would want to consider monitoring/inspections for lust these three outfalls not during
the 'first 30 minutes' of rainfall as per the permit requirements in most of our permits, but instead after
substantial heavy rainfall has been established. That provides the information that we are actually more
interested in for this particular set of circumstances._ It may not make sense to. conclude that the basins
don't discharge if all the observations are taken at the very beginning of the rainfall event.
For now, I think Duke has proposed a pretty low-cost approach on how to address the discharges from the
operating landfill.

o Initially we considered a separate permit for the landfill, but it appears that just 'stretching' NCS000020
is preferable for Duke. The iandfilled materials are not municipal solid waste, and so the need is not .
present for the fecal and COD monitoring contained in our landfill General Permit, NCG120000.
o Instead, Duke will expand the SPPP and the monitoring program in NCS000020 to include the three
outfalls at the landfill. Neither a new submittal nor permit modification of NCS000020 is required. This
approach does require additional Duke labor, but it does not require a new permit, or even a revised
permit.
o Upon collection of a data set satisfactory to Duke, DEQ will be glad to provide a courtesy review of the
accumulated monitoring and inspection logs for the three outfalls at the landfill, If Duke's prudent
consideration of the data set further substantiates the site report that the basins don't discharge, Duke
intends to discontinue monitoring at those points.
While I have offered my opinion on why I initially questioned the site report of no discharges, there are other
possible site conditions that would support the site report.
o It may be that despite my general expectation of relatively impermeable soils, the actual soils in the
basins may indeed infiltrate the stormwater volume effectively. Soil type distributions can be highly
variable over relatively small areas. Duke could run soil permeability testing (at some cost) to
investigate that possibility.
o It may be that the contributing drainage areas are heavily vegetated and relatively flat, in which case
there may be only a very little bit of runoff entering the sediment basins.
Thanks Melanie. Please contact me if any of my comments suggest a need to talk more now.
Best regards,
Ken
Ken Pickle
Stormwater Program Specialist
DEMLR Stormwater Permitting Program
Department of Environmental Quality
919 807 6376 office
[e-mail]
1612 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1612
512 N. Salisbury St, Raleigh, NC 27604
fc. /'Nothing Compares
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Gardner, Melanie Samuels [[e-mail]
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 7:59 AM
To: Pickle, Ken <[e-mail]>
Cc: Khan, Zahid <[e-mail]>
Subject: McGuire Landfills
Good morning! I wanted to let you know that I have mailed Stormwater Features drawings for the sediment and erosion
controls at our McGuire Nuclear Station landfill, along with a cover letter stating that we will cover the landfill via our

existing industrial NPDES stormwater permit (i.e., add it to the SWPPP and begin inspections). It has been a couple of
months but we discussed this approach as being viable — if you recall, the drainage from the landfill cell is captured and
routed to the wastewater treatment pond and the surrounding, grassy area flows to three sediment basins. These basins
have NOT been observed discharging but we will formally document this when we inspect our stormwater outfalls
moving forward. If no discharge is observed after two years, we will remove them from the SWPPP.
Do not hesitate to call or email me with questions. I look forward to hearing from you.
Thanks and have a great day!
Melanie
Melanie Gardner
Duke Energy I Permitting and Compliance, Carolinas
526 S. Church Street I Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
Office: [phone] 1 Cell: [phone]

Georgoulias, Bethany
From:
Georgoulias, Bethany
Sent:
Thursday, April 25, 2013 8:15 AM
To:
'Williamson, John C'
Cc:
Bennett, Bradley
Subject:
RE: New Outfall Discovery - Duke Energy, McGuire Nuclear Station Permit # NCS000020
Hi John,
I just wanted to give you an update. Michael Parker at the Mooresville Regional Office confirmed he has received this
request and will process it. You should receive correspondence directly from them.
Regards,
Bethany Georgoulias
Environmental Engineer
NCDENR I oWQ I Stormwater Permitting Unit
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-9617
512 N. Salisbury St, Raleigh, NC 27604
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
NEW Website: http:llportai,ncdenr.org/web/wq/ws/su
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public
Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Williamson, John C [ma ilto:John.Will [e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 1:35 PM
To: Georgoulias, Bethany
Subject: New Outfall Discovery - Duke Energy, McGuire Nuclear Station Permit # NCS000020
Bethany,
The email below is the one I sent Jennifer Jones on 12/17/2012. The new outfall is shown on the attached
drawing in Drainage Area 5 (green hatched area).
During our fall stormwater inspection, I discovered a new stormwater outfall. I have assigned number SW038
to it. It was created as part of the changes we identified to put in the two oil water separators for the
McGuire Switchyard SPCC compliance plan. The new outfall was originally part of outfall 014 which was
routed to one of the oil water separators.
The switchyard has two (2) types of stormwater discharges, (1) perimeter stormwater collection system
(primarily concrete trenches to funnel stormwater from the paved internal roads and the exterior gravel
areas) and (2) the internal drainage system which is where the transformers and other electrical equipment
containing coolant for the transformers (normally mineral oil). The internal drainage piping is what was
routed to the oil water separators. Outfall SWO14 had both types of drainage routed to it so when the
internal switchyard piping was routed to the oil water separator the other pipe which contained the external
stormwater system drainage was re-routed to the new outfall SW038.

Georgoulias, Bethany
From: Georgoulias, Bethany
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 8:13.AM
To: Parker, Michael
Subject: RE: New Outfall Discovery - Duke Energy, McGuire Nuclear Station Permit # NCS000020
Hi Mike,
No need to have the form. Please go ahead and process it, then just be sure to update RIMS / copy us on any
correspondence.
Thanks!
Bg
Bethany Georgoulias
Environmental Engineer
NCDENR I DWQ I Stormwater Permitting Unit
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
512 N. Salisbury St, Raleigh, NC 27604
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
NEW Website: http:llportal,ncdenr.org/web/wq/ws/su
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public
Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Parker, Michael
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 8:12 AM
To: Georgoulias, Bethany
Subject: FW: New Outfall Discovery - Duke Energy, McGuire Nuclear Station Permit # NCS000020
Bethany,
Typically, these come in as a Representative Outfall request using the standard RO form and we process them as such. If
it is acceptable for us to issue a RO approval without a form, we can go ahead and process this request down here.
Michael [e-mail]
Regional Supervisor, Surface Water Protection
North Carolina Dept. of Environment & Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
610 East Center Avenue
Suite 301
Mooresville, NC 28115
Direct Line: [phone] Fax: [phone]
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties unless the content is exempt by statute or other regulation.
From: Allocco, Marcia
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 12:49 PM
To: Georgoulias, Bethany
Cc: Parker, Michael
Subject: RE: New Outfall Discovery - Duke Energy, McGuire Nuclear Station Permit # NCS000020

Hey Bethany,
I forwarded the request to Parker to assign and I have not heard anything else about it. O
Marcia
From: Georgoulias, Bethany
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 11:55 AM
To: Allocco, Marcia
Subject: FW: New Outfall Discovery - Duke Energy, McGuire Nuclear Station Permit # NCS000020
Hi Marcia,
I think I forwarded this already, but I wanted to give John an update on the request. I forgot to ask you about it
yesterday — sorry! Should I tell him that the MRO will be reviewing it? I entered the request date it into RIMS for this
permit.
Thanks,
Bg
Bethany Georgoullas
Environmental Engineer
NCDENR I DWQ I Stormwater Permitting Unit
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
512 N. Salisbury St, Raleigh, NC 27604
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
NEW Website: http:llportal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ws/su
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public
Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Williamson, John C [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 1:35 PM
To: Georgoulias, Bethany
Subject: New Outfall Discovery - Duke Energy, McGuire Nuclear Station Permit # NCS000020
Bethany,
The email below is the one I sent Jennifer Jones on 12/17/2012. The new outfall is shown on the attached
drawing in Drainage Area 5 (green hatched area).
During our fall stormwater inspection, I discovered a new stormwater outfall. I have assigned number SW038
to it. It was created as part of the changes we identified to put in the two oil water separators for the
McGuire Switchyard SPCC compliance plan. The new outfall was originally part of outfall 014 which was
routed to one of the oil water separators.
The switchyard has two (2) types of stormwater discharges; (1) perimeter stormwater collection system
(primarily concrete trenches to funnel stormwater from the paved internal roads and the exterior gravel
areas) and (2) the internal drainage system which is where the transformers and other electrical equipment
containing coolant for the transformers (normally mineral oil). The internal drainage piping is what was

routed to the oil water separators. Outfall SW014 had both types of drainage routed to it so when the
internal switchyard piping was routed to the oil water separator the other pipe which contained the external
stormwater system drainage was re-routed to the new outfall SW038.
We would like to request substantially identical outfall status for SW038. It would be substantially identical to
Outfalls SW006, SW025, SW026, SW027, SW028, SW037, SW007, SW009, SW010, SW011, SW012, SWO13 and
SW023. We currently have substantially identical outfall status for all of these outfalls and sample Outfall
SWO06 as being representative for them.
I have updated the drawing and a copy of it is attached.
Please let me know if this request is acceptable to you ?
Thanks ! I
John C. Williamson
Duke Energy
McGuire Nuclear Station
Site Environmental Coordinator
Office: 980-875-5894
Cell: 828-312-6002
John C. Williamson
Duke Energy
McGuire Nuclear Station
Environmental Services
Office: 98o-875-5894
Cell: 828-312-6oO2
00t DUKE
ENERGY.

Georgoulias, Bethany
From: Williamson, John C [[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 1:35 PM
To: Georgoulias, Bethany
Subject: New Outfall Discovery - Duke Energy, McGuire Nuclear Station Permit # NCS000020
Attachments: Storm Water 2012.pdf
Bethany,
The email below is the one I sent Jennifer Jones on 12/17/2012. The new outfall is shown on the attached
drawing in Drainage Area 5 (green hatched area).
During our fall stormwater inspection, I discovered a new stormwater outfall. I have assigned number SW038
to it. It was created as part of the changes we identified to put in the two oil water separators for the
McGuire Switchyard SPCC compliance plan. The new outfall was originally part of outfall 014 which was
routed to one of the oil water separators.
The switchyard has two (2) types of stormwater discharges; (1) perimeter stormwater collection system
(primarily concrete trenches to funnel stormwater from the paved internal roads and the exterior gravel
areas) and (2) the internal drainage system which is where the transformers and other electrical equipment
containing coolant for the transformers (normally mineral oil). The internal drainage piping is what was
routed to the oil water separators. Outfall SWO14 had both types of drainage routed to it so when the
internal switchyard piping was routed to the oil water separator the other pipe which contained the external
stormwater system drainage was re-routed to the new outfall SW038.
We would like to request substantially identical outfall status for SW038. It would be substantially identical to
Outfalls SW006, SW025, SW026, SW027, SW028, SW037, SW007, SW009, SW010, SW011, SW012, SWO13 and
SW023. We currently have substantially identical outfall status for all of these outfalls and sample Outfall
SWO06 as being representative for them.
I have updated the drawing and a copy of it is attached.
Please let me know if this request is acceptable to you ?
Thanks H
John C. Williamson
Duke Energy
McGuire Nuclear Station
Site En,6ronmental Coordinator
Office: 980-875-5894
Cell: 828-312-6002
John C. Williamson

Duke Energy
McGuire Nuclear Station
Environmental Services
Office: 98o-875-5894
Cell: 828-312-6002
Cr9 ouxe
`� ENERGY.

Tr ,
uhn
H'.
NORTH —
LLJ
Kr Q z cc
CD
s¢L
X 'a Ir

PODuke
Ene
March 28, 2012
Ms. Jennifer Jones
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Stormwater and General Permits Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Duke Energy
McGuire Nuclear Station
12700 Hagers Ferry Road
Huntersville, NC 28078
Subject: Duke Energy/McGuire Nuclear Station Stormwater Permit #: NCS000020
Changes to McGuire Switchyard Outfalls Due To Addition of two Oil Water Separators
for SPCC Compliance D @ n
Certified Mail: 70110470 0000 9847 0228
FPR 3 20121
j ❑�NR - Y�EJ.�ITy
Dear S ones: L� WATFFt
Wellandp d 5tnrmw.t— a....._
The McGuire Switchyard is required to install Secondary Containment to achieve
compliance with the new SPCC regulations.
The McGuire Switchyard has a separate SPCC plan from McGuire but we cover them
under our Stormwater Permit.
Their plan consists of providing secondary containment for areas of the switchyard that
have potential to receive a large amount of oil in the event of a spill or equipment failure.
The switchyard has an internal drainage system consisting of catch basins and large
diameter corrugated metal pipe. This drainage system is present in the main switchyard
gravel covered yard area. Another somewhat isolated perimeter drainage system is
designed to collect primarily rain water from the roadways and perimeter yard areas.
Power Delivery is planning to have a contractor modify the stormwater drainage piping
for 3 outfalls to route them to 2 large oil water separators. The 3 outfalls were selected
based on their potential to receive large amounts of oil should a spill or equipment failure
occur. The outfalls affected are:
Outfall 25 currently has a pipe that combines with it that originates from the interior
switchyard area that will be removed and routed to the Oil Water Separator. Outfall 25
will only contain stormwater runoff from the perimeter of the switchyard after this re-
configuration and will discharge to its current location.
Stormwater Outfall 24 will be re-routed to the Oil Water Separator

Stormwater Outfall 14 will be re-routed to the Oil Water Separator
The 2 Oil Water Separators will discharge to an ephemeral stream which eventually
discharges to a wetland area approximately 500 yards downstream of the Oil Water
Separators. This is the same drainage pathway used for Outfall 24 currently.
Accompanying this letter is a copy of the drawing that shows the re-routing of the
Stormwater Outfalls to the Oil Water Separators and a current copy of our Stormwater
Drawing showing the affected outfalls. Per our conversation on 3/21/12,1 will have our
current Stormwater Drawing updated to reflect the new oil water separator configuration
within 2 months.
Should you have any questions concerning this change, please contact John Williamson
in our Environmental, Health & Safety Department at 980-875-5894 or e-mail at
[e-mail].
Sincerely,
Ross G. Perrigo
Environmental, Health & Safety Manager
Duke Energy
McGuire Nuclear Station
cc: Allen Stowe — EC 13K

Symbol
Definition
A
Value reported is the mean (average) of Iwo or more determinations. This code is to be used if the results of two or more discrete
and separate samples are averaged. These samples shall have been processed and analyzed independently (e.g„ field duplicates,
different dilutions of the same sample). This code is not required for HOD or coliform reporting since averaging multiple
dilutions for these parameters is fundamental to those methods.
B
Results based upon colony counts outside the acceptable range and should be used with caution. This code applies to
microbiological tests and specifically to membrane filter (NIF) colony counts. It is to be used if less than 100% sample was
analyzed and the colony count is generated from a plate in which the number of colonies exceeds the ideal ranges indicated by
the method. These ideal ranges are defined in the method as:
Fecal coliform or Enterococcus bacteria: 20-60 colonies Total coliform baclerio: 10-80 colonies
l . Countable membranes with less than 20 colonies. Reported value is estimated or is a total of the counts on all filters
reported per 100 ml.
2. Counts from all filters were zero. The value reported is based on the number of colonies per 100 ml that would have
been reported if there had been one colony on the filter representing the largest filtration volume (reported as a less
than "<" value).
3. Countable membranes with more than 60 or 80 colonies. The value repotted is calculated using the count from the
smallest volume filtered and reported as a greater than ">" value.
4. Filters have counts of both >60 or 80 and <20. Reported value is estimated or is a total of the counts on all filters
reported per 100 ml.
5. Too many colonies were present; too numerous to count (TNTC). TNTC is generally defined as > I50 colonies. The
numeric value represents the maximum number of counts typically accepted on a filter membrane (60 for fecal or
enterococcus and 80 for total), multiplied by 100 and then divided by the smallest filtration volume analyzed, This
number is reported as a greater than value.
6. Estimated Value. Blank contamination evident.
7, Many non-coliform or non-enterococcus colonies or interfering non-coliform or non-enterococcus growth present. In
this competitive situation, the reported value may under -represent actual density.
Note: A "B" value shall be accompanied by,justification for its use denoted by the numbers listed above (e.g., BI, B2, etc.).
Note: A ".12" should be used forspiking failures.
BB
This code applies to most probable number (MPN) microbiological tests.
I, No wells or tubes gave a positive reaction. Value based upon the appropriate MPN Index and reported as a less than
'`<" value.
2. All wells or tubes gave positive reactions. Value based upon the MPN Index and reported as a greater than ">" value.
Note: A "BB" value shall be accompanied b justification for its use denoted bX the numbers listed above (e.g., BB 1, BB2 etc. .
C
'Total residual chlorine was present in sample upon receipt in the laboratory; value is estimated. Generally applies to cyanide,
phenol, Nhi3 TKN, coliform, and organics.
G
A single quality control failure occurred during biochemical oxygen demand (HOD) analysis. The sample results should be used
with caution,
l . The dissolved oxygen (DO) depletion of the dilution water blank exceeded 0.2 mg/L.
2. The bacterial seed controls did not meet the requirement of a DO depletion of at least 2.0 mg/L and/or a DO residual of
at least 1.0 mg/L.
3. No sample dilution met the requirement of a DO depletion of at least 2.0 mg/L and/or a DO residual of at least 1.0
mg/L.
4. Evidence of toxicity was present. This is generally characterized by a significant increase in the HOD value as the
sample concentration decreases. The reported value is calculated from the highest dilution representing the maximum
loading potential and should be considered an estimated value.
S. The glucose/ glutamic acid standard exceeded the range of 198 f 30.5 mg/L.
6. The calculated seed correction exceeded the range of 0.6 to 1.0 mg/L.
7. Less than I mg/L DO remained for all dilutions set. The reported value is an estimated greater than value and is
calculated for the dilution using the least amount of sample.
8. Oxygen usage is less than 2 mgfL for all dilutions set. The reported value is an estimated less than value and is
calculated for the dilution using the most amount of sample.
9. The DO depletion of the dilution water blank produced a negative value,
Note: A "G" value shall be accompanied b justification for its use denoted by the numbers listed above (e.g., GI. G2, etc,).
�]
Estimated value; value may not be accurate. This code is to be used in the following Instances:
I. Surrogate recovery limits have been exceeded.
2. The reported value failed to meet the established quality control criteria for either precision or accuracy,
3. The sample matrix interfered with the ability to make any accurate determination,
4. The data is questionable because of improper laboratory or field protocols (e.g., composite sample was collected
instead of grab, plastic instead of glass container, etc.).
5. Temperature limits exceeded (samples frozen or >6°C) during transport or not verifiable (e.g., no temperature blank
provided): non -reportable for NPDES compliance monitoring.

5. The laboratory analysis was from an unpreserved or improperly chemically preserved sample. The data may not be
accurate.
7. This qualifier is used to identify analyte concentration exceeding the upper calibration range of the analytical
instrument/method. The reported value should be considered estimated.
8. Temperature limits exceeded (samples frozen or >M) during storage, the data may not be accurate,
9. The reported value is determined by a one -point estimation rather than against a regression equation. The estimated
concentration is less than the laboratory practical quantitation limit and greater than the laboratory method detection
limit.
10, Unidentified peak; estimated value.
11. The reported value is determined by a one -point estimation rather than against a regression equation. The estimated
Concentration is less than the laboratory practical quantization limit and greater than the instrument noise level. This
code is used when an AIDL has not been established for the analyte in question.
12. The calibration verification did not meet the calibration acceptance criterion for field parameters.
Note; A "J" value shall be accompanied by justification for its use denoted by the numbers listed above (e.g., Ji, J2, etc.). A "J"
value shall not be used if another code applies e.., N, V, M).
M
Sample and duplicate results are "out of control". The sample is non -homogenous (e,g., VOA soil). The reported value is the
low r value of du licate analyses of a sample.
N
Presumptive evidence of presence of material; estimated value. This code is to be used if:
I . The component has been tentatively identified based on mass spectral library search.
2. There is an indication that the analyte is present, but quality control requirements for confirmation were not met (i.e.,
presence of analyte was not confirmed by alternate procedures).
3. This code shall be used if the level is too low to permit accurate quantification, but the estimated concentration is less
than the laboratory practical quantitation limit and greater than the laboratory method detection limit. This code is not
routinely used for most analyses.
4. This code shall be used if the level is too low to permit accurate quantification, but the estimated concentration is less
than the laboratory practical quantitation limit and greater than the instrument noise level. This code is used when an
MDL has not been established for the analyte in question.
5, The component has been tentatively identified based on a retention time standard.
Q
Holding time exceeded. These codes shall be used if the value is derived from a sample that was received, prepared and/or
analyzed after the approved holding time restrictions for sample preparation and analysis. The value does not meet NPDES
requirements.
1. Holding time exceeded prior to receipt by lab.
2. Holding time exceeded following receipt by lab.
P
Elevated PQL* due to matrix interference and/or sample dilution.
S
Not enough sample provided to prepare and/or analyze a method -required matrix spike (MS) and/or matrix spike duplicate
MSD.
U
Indicates that the analyte was analyzed for but not detected above the reported practical quantitation limit*. The number value
reported with the "U" qualifier is equal to the laboratory's 2raclical quantitation limit*.
X
Sample not analyzed for this constituent. This code is to be used if:
. Sample not screened for this compound.
2. Sampled, but analysis lost or not performed -field error.
3. Sampled, but analysis lost or not performed -lab error.
Note: an "X" value shall be accompanied b 'ustification for its use by the numbers listed.
V
Indicates the analyte was detected in both the sample and the associated method blank. Note: The value in the blank shall not be
subtracted from the associated samples.
Y
Elevated PQL* due to insufficient sample size.
Z
The sample analysis/results are not reported due to:
I, Inability to analyze the sample.
2. Questions concerning data reliability.
The presence or absence of the analyte cannot be verified.
*PQL
The Practical Quantitation Limit (PQL) is defined and proposed as "the lowest level achievable among laboratories within
specified limits during routine laboratory operation". The PQL is about three to five times the calculated Method Detection Limit
(M DL) and represents a practical and routinely achievable detection limit with a relatively good certainty that any reported value
is reliable".
3/10/2011

vI
rn
A t
z
S •�
1 1
"A t1
~ J � �„r. ,,. ;" ���. `�+'` I f;�•t1111r �111'11 'f�as'+�'� �—'"
rD
cu
s.
♦ t
c4
)': r
Vr 't 4 ! I �L /� i�f 45 'All
QJ
r ��m \ N o �•
_ � (n
3
❑❑ ! e�i w __ t O
-.�• _ :.yam �ria� - - •I� 5 \tom _Z _�?'-r Q Q
0
_ a .3 its 1 OJ 4—i
NX
AL
G)1 '1
m a
WGUIRE SW IPCHING STATION *SHIELD
��• 01b°' '�""" REVISIONS
u3 mVV 73 °"e IEr. wvt caulens DP�EINSFG7'
HLKIERSYLU-HECKLE MMEOIINIT, pG1N. aaKNan�uuur lnsramacasaarAar-BCMQ
NORTHC ROLINA N vuC[ijgy[., EFUNQWC,nWC, nu8oaaacaN. eaaea
.wN M2 nm PLAN VEW � ,o.eiOV::� axT _ Tregeasau
\ � �7 � ��1VI A \�� 1� 1•
COD z
.� � � �� r.v' { - jy: ( � � _xl'\'\ \ j �♦ �•``�\ 1�51 111111+ ` -i
A�
W.
Ln
Z:'
CD
IN
".
m l nr
-
r-F
cn
(D i 4 /
Eli
�`
,
70
fD
�e
' a _, as
3
7✓ �� *�' C
CD m
AZ
_ 0
3
Firtl
♦1 �� t of
— �01115CA
r 1
V
McGUIRE SWITCHING STATION �HIEL� 1101�°^ '"" REVISIONS
usmCHING SHIELD
R�""`•m"
Hi1NTET6YR.LE, MEOY.E!<1lRG COUNTY, ap. MR CONY3R• Mll[B $j1'6iil3P
NORTH GROLINA CWG9MEER1�, FIG arsea: t>�J�lier-aR.e2
ae.*�wr6lffz�v Y++ ,tvc atlu
2 PLAH VIEW ® •••ora an _ Iny3rsasu
1
V
p I
a
>! m r r h
rD
n) rD
N —
w t• R a O
U'7 -
fD . fD
a _ rCr C
6-: II (D
u �_ .
_,
rD
m-
�' � _ \`\.- ' \ `� ''\ ' ♦ 'S ` I i 111'1 - _ � � '� t 'j• 1 'S ar---ail o' \ 1
03
Gi��� � ♦'l ` 'r 11111,, 5\1, I1},i- 1'`n'I v '� c�-� ram..
McGUIRE SWITCHING STATION [ HIED REVISIONS
i 7510 HYry 73 i.] lr�+Muvn. ma ww/FM19 nL�A1Y8lcY
HONTERSVI.LE. h1EC1LEFBIMCi COMM ENGFIEERIIYG, WG eara a:amag,p _Jmxw
NORTH GAId]LINA
taew+aari+� aa>o
®e ... vee.m _ �� IlRyaeawe

SW033, SWGA SW03S, SW036
DISCHARGE CANAL
MATERIALS STORED,
NONE
❑RAINAGE AREA,
APPRCXIMATELY 1.4 ACRES / NONE IMPERVIOUS
DRAINAGE STRUCTURE+
CORRUGATED METAL PIPE (SWO35 - 4` PVC PIPE)
ACTIVITIES,
DRAINS A STEEP RIP RAPPED EMBANKMENT BEHIND
THE DISCHARGE STRUCTURE, UNDER A GRAVEL ROAD TO THE
DISCHARGE CANAL. SW035, SWO33 DRAIN TWO VALVE
PITS LOCATED WITHIN THE FENCED SECURITY AREA OF THE PLANT
TO THE DISCHARGE CANAL.
POTENTIAL POLLUTANTS,
TOTAL SUSPE 020t SOLIDS FROM GRAVEL AND SOIL IN THE AREA, LAKE N 0 R M AN
DISCHARGE CANAL
SUBSTANCIALLY IDENTICAL OUTFALLS,
"3,"4,115,•IG,•I7,•18,•19,•20.121,•22,•29,•30,•31. & •32
MATERIALS STORED,
METAL AND CABLE STORAGE AREA
DRAINAGE AREA,
APPROXIMATELY 8 ACRES / 0.2 ACRES IMPERVIOUS
DRAINAGE STRUCTURE,
PLASTIC AND METAL CORRUGATED PIPE
ACTIVITIES,
NORMAL MATERIAL HANDLING ACTIVITIES, USE OF
FORKLIFTS, CUTTING OF STEEL WITH WELDING TORCHES
ADJACENT TO THIS AREA IS A LOADING DOC, PAINT
WAREHOUSE AND HAZARDOUS WASTE STORAGE BUILDING.
POTENTIAL POLLUTANTS,
IRON, COPPER, OIL, AND GREASE ARE POSSIBLE
POLLUTANTS FROM THE STORED MATERIALS IN THE AREA,
SOIL IN THE AREA,
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOILDS COME FROM THE GRAVEL AND
PUBLIC FISHING ACCESS ,•
Y fit''
MATERIAL STORAGE
ACCESS
•• �, LOW-LEVEL INTAKE \�
O' PUMPS
a• WAREHOUSE
LOADING/UNLOADING
INTAKE
•° • ® OO • '' � �� STRUCTURE
S W 0 0 2 `—
CATAWBA RIVER DISCHARGE
� W
MATERIALS STORED,
NONE LOW LEVEL
DRAINAGE AREA • STORAGE
7.5 ACRES / 5 ACRES OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE OFFICE y \
DRAINAGE STRUCTURE: FURNITURE \
2 4' C M P STORAGE 1
ACTIVITIES,
DRAINAGE IS FROM THE CONCRETE STRUCTURE AND CYCLONE l
SEPARATOR FOR THE LL1P, AND ACCESS ROADS SERVING S O 2 / •,
THE NORTHWEST AREA OF THE PLANT, DRAINAGE IS ALSO --_
FROM AN INACTIVE LAND FARM.
POTENTIAL POLLUTANTS,
FECAL COLIFORM 1S A POSSIBLE POLLUTANT FROM THE LAND
FARM. TOTAL SUSPENDED SOILDS CAN COME FROM THE
CYCLONE SEPARATOR AND RUNOFF FROM THE SOILS IN THE AREA.
TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE CAN ONLY BE PRESENT WHEN FIRE °�•� I� I
PROTECTION WATER IS USED FOR EMERGENCY SEAL WATER. - TRASH
LOW PH IS INDICATIVE OF GROUNDWATER IN THE AREA. °° �R`,RACTnrc r
� II � °•g�5o°�,
I
I nil ✓? WASTE WATER
S W 0 0 1 1'" r COLLECTION ;.I �•_
WAST[ WATER COLLECTION BASIN �• BASIN ••" %�
MATERIALS STORED, �� �:t•S
NONEti�a_�t• C
DRAINAGE AREA,
215 ACRES / 813 ACRES OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA
DRAINAGE STRUCTURE,
CONCRETE APRON
ACTIVITIES,
WAREHOUSE/CHEMICAL LOADING DOCK. CHEMICAL MIXING
STATION. OIL STORAGE HOUSE, SERVICE BUILDING LOADING
DOCK, TANKER UNLOADING AREA. OIESEL FUEL UNLOADING
AREA, SAFE SHUTDOWN FACILITY ISSFI 0/0 DIESEL FUEL
UNLOADING PAD, TRANSFORMERS, LOADING/UNLOADING
MCGUIRE OFFICE COMPLEX. SHOP OIL/WATER SEPARATOR, i
WAREHOUSE/MOC SHOP MATERIAL STORAGE AREA, CRANE
AND TRAILER STORAGE AREA, LOW LEVEL WASTE STORAGE'
FACILITY, DRY CASK STORAGE AREA.
POTENTIAL POLLUTANTS, ': •. //
THIS OUTFALL IS PERMITTED BY NPOES PERMIT NCO023492.
THEREFORE. REFER TO THAT PERMIT AND ASSOCIATED f
APPLICATION FOR A LISTING OF POTENTIAL POLLUTANTS. C AT AW B A II,
N RIVER
c � .
� y 1
a
/)J S
�J/ J 7
a
- - - - - - 'N. ..1
W-ROMME,
a
OFF
STANDBY NUCLEAR
SERVICE WATER POND
S_ WI CAYA
LAND f
FARM
�
f
1
r
VEHICLE WASHING
(UNDER ROOF) /
MA1SM��M' ~�� JINN
►.
//
MCGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION
MCGUIRE ISLAND
OFFICES
TRAINING FACILITY
BOATHOUSE & STORAGE
OLD CARPENTERS SHOP
RETIRED S/G STORAGE BLDG.
PAINT WAREHOUSE
DtSCARDE0 MATERIALS
STORAGE BUILDING
MAINTENANCE
TRAINING
• •I� FACILITY
.• •• I
• .I
• S NI
RIPRAP
MATERIAL STORAGE AREA
�^ t
r WAREHOUSE t0ADNNG/1UNLOA0ING AREA
i
ill
I
LANDS i
)'l
POOL CAR PARKING
! OFFICE FURNITURE
STORAGE AREA
(f
� r �
q
J _ G 4 ao • !
w
/r
PERMITTED SOIL
STORAGE/BORROW
AREA
-ACTIVE
LANDFILL
a EPA SITE BOUNDRY
i
.JG�
EPA SITE BOUNDRY
S W 0 0 8
MCGUIRE GARAGE
MATERIALS STORED,
THE GARAGE CONTAINS NUMEROUS MATERIALS SUCH
AS OILS. HYDRAULIC FLUIDS, BATTERIES, FUELS AND
DEGREASERS. SOME EQUIPMENT 15 STORED IN THE
YARD AND THERE ARE SEVERAL UNDERGROUND STORAGE
TANKS AND GASOLINE PUMPS ON THE EAST SIDE OF
THE GARAGE. POOL CARS ARE KEPT IN THE PARKING AREA.
DRAINAGE AREA+
3.5 ACRES / 2.4 ACRES OF IMPERVIOUS
DRAINAGE STRUCTURE,
15' RCP
ACTIVITIES,
SOME EQUIPMENT IS STORED IN THE YARD AND THERE ARE
SEVERAL UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS AND GASOLINE PUMPS
ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE GARAGE. POOL CARS ARE KEPT IN
THE PARKING AREA. HOWEVER. ALL VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 15
PERFORMED INDOORS. VEHICLE WASHING IS DONE UNDER ROOF.
POTENTIAL POLLUTANTSi
DIESEL FUEL. GASOLINE. OILS, GREASE AND ETHYLENE GLYCOL
ARE POSSIBLE POLLUTANTS BECAUSE OF THEIR USE IN THE
AREA. TOTAL SUSPENDED SOILDS ARE PRESENT DUE TO THE
SOIL AND GRAVEL IN THE AREA_
www �Wt'4C_� �qr
SWO06
McGIUIRE SWITCHYARD
SUBSTANCIALLY IDENTICAL OUTFALLS: 007, 009, 010, 011, 012, 013,
014, 023, 024, 025, 026, 027, 028, 037
MATERIALS STORED: Batteries and electricoleguipment
DRAINAGE AREA: 3G acres / HA acres of impervious
surf oces. DRAINAGE STRUCTURE: Concrete spillway and
corrugated metoipipe ACTIVITIES: Batteries containing
acid are kept in the operating building inside a
roam without a floor drain.

Jones, Jennifer
From: Allocco, Marcia
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 8:21 AM
To: Jones, Jennifer
Subject: RE: Stormwater Permit Mod - NCS000020
Hi Jen,
I guess I am tuned into wastewater permits as I thought you guys developed different limits by outfall but
guess not based on item 3 below.
Marcia
From: Jones, Jennifer
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 2:21 PM
To: John.Williamson(&duke-energy com
Cc: Allocco, Marcia; Jones, Jennifer
Subject: RE: Stormwater Permit Mod - NCS000020
Hi John,
It was nice to speak with you today. After speaking about your project, I don't believe you will need to do a modification
to your permit because:
1. You are not planning to change any of your industrial activities in this area
2. Your facility changes will not result in any changes to any representative outfalls
3. Your permit does not require separate monitoring or parameters based on outfall
4. An oil water separator will result in better environmental protection.
However, before starting construction, please submit
1. A letter describing in detail the changes you are making to the site and facility, and
2. Site plans showing how the site will change. If you cannot make changes to your large-scale site plans, please
submit smaller site plans before construction, and 24"06" site plans within two months. If this is not possible,
please contact me in writing to request additional time.
Please contact me if you have any further questions or concerns.
Thank you,
Jennifer Jones
Environmental Engineer
NCDENR j DWQ I Stormwater Permitting Unit
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
512 N. Salisbury St, Raleigh, NC 27604
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: jennifer.iones@ncdeno_v
Website: http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ws/su
** Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties unless the content is exempt by statute or other regulations.**

From: Williamson, John C [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 4:31 PM
To: Jones, Jennifer; Allocco, Marcia
Subject: Stormwater Permit Mod - NCS000020
iennlfer and Marc,a,
It has come to our attention that Power Delivery is planning to implement a some changes to the McGuire
Nuclear Station Switchyard to comply with the new SPCC requirements for secondary containment. During
the process of this project they will be re-routing several of the stormwater drains to 2 (two) large Oil Water
Separators.
Stormwater Outfall 25 currently has a pipe that combines with it that originates from the interior switchyard
area that will be removed and routed to the Oil Water Separator. Outfall 25 will only contain stormwater
runoff from the perimeter of the switchyard after this re -configuration.
Stormwater Outfall 24 will be routed to the Oil Water Separator
Stormwater Outfall 14 will be re-routed to the Oil Water Separator
The 2 Oil Water Separators will discharge to an ephemeral stream which eventually discharges to a wetland
area approximately SOO yards down stream.
They want to begin this work in April !
I will call to discuss.
John C. Williamson
Duke Energy
McGuire Nuclear Station
Environmental, Health & Safety
Office: 980-875-5894
Cell: 828-228-2733

e • - . `ti
Jones, Jennifer
From: Jones, Jennifer
Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 9:10 AM
To: Williamson, John C
Cc: Jones, Jennifer
Subject: RE: Comments on Storm Water Permit # NCS0000020
Hi John,
Thank you for the response. Please let me know if you have any further questions., .
Thank you,
Jennifer Jones
**kR*
Jennifer Jones
Environmental Engineer
NCDENR I DWQ I Stormwater Permitting Unit
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
512 N. Salisbury St, Raleigh, NC 27604
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Website: http:ZZportal.ncdenr.org/web/wglws/su
"E-mail correspondence to and From this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third
parties."
From: Williamson, John C [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 1:31 PM
To: Jones, Jennifer
Subject: RE: Comments on Storm Water Permit # NCS0000020
Thanks for your response and clarifying how benchmarks work. They are new to us. At least I know where the
limits come from now.
I am really not sure why the pH is low. We have not pulled pH at our other monitoring points previously so it
will be interesting to see what they are,
From: Jones, Jennifer[mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 11:45 AM
To: Williamson, John C
Cc: Jones, Jennifer
Subject: RE: Comments on Storm Water Permit # NCS0000020
Hi John,

Thank you for your comments. First I want to clear something up -your permit does not include limits for stormw rter—
only benchmarks for stormwater. That may seem like just a case of semantics, however the important difference is,'is
that if you violate a wastewater limit you can be fined and given an NOV, if you exceed a stormwater benchmark the
response is a management action. Failure to act or ignoring the required. response is a violation of permit terms, and the
permittee can be given an NOV, but if you continue to act in response to your permit, you will not receive a violation for
only exceeding benchmarks.
These benchmarks and the coordinating tier response has been in place for several years now and is standard for all of
our permittees across North Carolina.
The pH benchmark is based on -water quality standards for freshwater classes, which specify a pH range of 6.0 -- 9.0
standard units. Because knowledge of pH can be critical to interpreting monitoring data, and because pH is a surrogate
indicator for problems when other parameters are not monitored directly, DWQ SPU includes a pH monitoring
parameter whenever we include any analytical monitoring for other parameters.
Do you know why the stormwater pH is so low? Is there influence in the stormwater outfalls from groundwater? I'm a
bit unclear on what you are saying there. However, I can tell you that in the past what we have done with facilities is to
leave the benchmark in place and keep testing the facilities. Just so you know, we have had other permits where we
have had multiple exceedences-"en the facility was not able to change the outcome through management actions. In
those cases we have allowed th'e-permittee to stop monthly monitoring for that parameter.
The benchmark for TSS (100 mg/I) is derived from a median concentration from the NURP study. TSS at industrial sites
are expected to be from similar sources (parking lots, etc.) as those in the NURP study. In addition, an equivalent
secondary wastewater treatment level is established by the wastewater discharge limit of 90 mg/I for lagoon systems.
Additionally more stringent TSS effluent limitations for wastewater discharge are specified in the 2B .0200 rules for
discharges to High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) and Tr waters.
Thank you,
Jennifer Jones
Jennifer Jones
Environmental Engineer
NCDENR I DWQ I Stormwater Permitting Unit
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
512 N. Salisbury St, Raleigh, NC 27604
Phone: [phone]
Fax; [phone]
Email: Jennifer [e-mail]
Website: httl2:/fportal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/`­wslsu
"E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third
parties.-'

-.. I;zl - - __ _. — — .-- - -- — - --- - - - -- -- -- -_. - .�- - - - -. ._ _-
--- _-_--__ _ ­ .-,_.. ' _ - --
From: Williamson, John C [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 1:23 PM
To: Jones, Jennifer
Subject: RE: Comments on Storm Water Permit # NCS0000020
I received the letter on November 11, however it was received on site by November 4tn_ I was on vacation that
week so didn't get it until the 111n
Thanks II
From: Jones, Jennifer[mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 12:52 PM
To: Williamson, John C
Cc: Jones, Jennifer
Subject: RE: Comments on Storm Water Permit # NCS0000020
Hi John,
I have meetings for the rest of the day today so I just wanted to let you know I will respond to these comments in full
tomorrow. I had received these comments on Monday Dec 6"', 2010 but was in an all day meeting.
I want to snake sure you understand that the draft permit notice period ended December 1, 2010 and I had sent you a
letter on November 22, 2010 asking for comments within 30 days of receipt. When did you receive my letter and the
draft permit?
Thank you,
Jennifer Jones
AA it t
Jennifer Jones
Environmental Engineer
NCDENR I DWQ I Stormwater Permitting Unit
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
512 PI, Salisbury St, Raleigh, NC 27604
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Website: http:Z/portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ws/su
**E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third
parties.**
From: Williamson, John C [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 3:37 PM
3

.r
To: Jones, Jennifer
Subject: Comments on Storm Water Permit # NCS0000020
These are our comments on the Draft Storm Water Permit for Duke Energy, McGuire Nuclear Station, Permit #
NCS000020
The proposed Benchmark values for pH are generally above or right at the typical background values for pH
for the soils in this area of NC. Ground Water monitoring well pH values are in the range of 4.8 - 6.7. The
average is around 5.9.
The pH data we have from Storm Water discharges from Outfall 008 is an average of 53, As you can see from
the chart below, this data spans 9 years - .
We will have difficulty meeting this limit. What criteria is this limit based on (WQ Standard, etc) ? Do you
have the ability to adjust the limit ?
Sample
Dates
50050
Total Flow
00530
TSS
50061-
Oil and
Grease
00400
pH
New Motor Oil
Usages
mo/dd/yr
MG
mg/I
mg/L
unit
gal/mo
11/23/2001
1 0.01
29.0 ,
<5.0
6.2
191.4
10/28/2002
0.03
117.0
<5.0
6.4
180.00
10/14/2003
0.0004
172.0
< 5.0
5.4
729
10/13/2004
0.0425
35.6
<5.0
5.7
175
12/5/2005
1 3.3500
111.0
< 5.0
6.3
205.3
3/21/2006
0.113
44
<5.0
6
515
10/27/2006
7.508
28
<5,0
4.2
92
7/6/2006
3.1670
45.0
< 5.0
7.2
92
2/25/2007
8.4600
15.0
<5.0
4.3
110.71
11/26/2007
0.0182
20
<5.0
5.72
165
4/28/2008
0.2813
430
<5.0
5.37
637
6/4/2009
0.28
240
<5.0
S.27
142
Note: pH data from 2009 Landfill Ground Water monitoring data
The other comment I have is really just a question. How were the Benchmark Values determined ? It looks
like we may have difficulty meeting the TSS limit as well.
Thanks!!
John C. Williamson
Duke Energy
McGuire Nuclear Station
Environmental, Health & Safety
Office: 980-875-5894
Cell: 828.228.2733

gja
�CDEN�
North Carolina Department of environment and Natura
Beverly Eaves Perdue
Governor
Mr. John Williamson, Scientist, CI-IM)d
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC
12700 I -lagers Ferri, Road
Ivlailcode: MG02EM
Fluntersville, North Carolina 28078
Subject
Dear Mr. Williamson:
Division of Water Quality
Coleen H. Sullins
Director
November 4, 2010
FILE
Resources
Compliance Evaluation Inspection
McGuire Nuclear Station
NI'DES Storniwater Permit No. NCS000020
Mecklenburg Canty, NC
Dee Freeman
Secretary
Enclosed is a copy of the Compliance Evaluation Inspection (CI]l) report for the inspection
conducted at the subject facility on October 13, 2010, by Mr. lklichael L. Parker with this Office. Thank
you for your assistance and cooperation during the irtspeetion.
The enclosed report should be self-explanatory. Overall, your facility's Storniwater Pollution
Prevention flan (SPPP) was well developed and implemented, however, there were certain sections of
your SPPP that need to be addressed and/or updated. These areas were discussed during the inspection
and are also noted on the attached inspection report. As a reminder, please note that your SPPP should
be updated on an annual basis as required by Part 11, Section A, No, 7 of your permit.
If you have any questions, comments, or need assistance with understanding any aspect of your
perrnit, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Parker at [phone].
Since rely,
Robert B. Krebs
Regional Supervisor
Surface Water Protection Section
Enclosure
cc: Shelton Sullivan — NPS/ACO Unit
Mooresville Regional Office
Location: 510 East CenterAvenue. Suite 301, Mooresville, NC 28115 O11C
Phone: [phone] rax: [phone] 1 Customer Service: 1-877-623-6748 NUrthCaroi i na
Internet: http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq l y+
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affurnwive Action Employer- 50% Recycled110% Post Consumer paper Natill all y

It
Compliance Inspection Report
Permit: NCS000020 Effective: 02/14/03 Expiration: 01131108 Owner, {Juke Energy Carolinas LLC
SOc; Effective: Expiration: Facility: %IcGuire Nuclear Power Plant
County: Mecklenburg NC Hwy 73
Region: Mocresville
Hunlersviile NC 28078
Contact Person: John C Williamson Title: Phone: [phone]c5a
Directions to Facility:
System Classifications:
Primary ORC: Certification: Phone:
Secondary ORC{s):
On -Site Representative(s):
Related Permits:
Inspection Date: 10/13/2010 Entry Time: 09 00 AM Exit Time: 12.30 RM
Primary Inspector: Michael L Parker?'f 7 ' phone: Ext.21 3-1595
l=xf.2194
Secondary Inspector(s):
Reason for Inspection: Rouline
Permit Inspection Type: Stormwaler Discharge, Individual
Facility Status: ® Compliant ❑ Not Compliant
Question Areas:
® Storm Water
(See attachment summary)
inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
17
Page 1

Permit: NCS000020 Owner - Facility: Duke Energy Carolinas LLC
Inspection Date: 10/1312010 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation Reason for Visit: Routine
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
Yes No NA NE
Does the site have a Stormwater Polluticn Prevention Plan?
M ❑ n n
# Does the Plan inciude a General Location (USGS) map?
® n ❑ I!
# Does the Plan include a "Narrative Description of Practices"?
® n n n
# Does the Plan include a detailed site map including outfall locations and drainage areas?
® rl n n
# Does the Plan include a list of significant spills occurring during the past 3 years?
M n n n
# Has the facility evaluated feasible alternatives to current practices?
®n n n
# Does the facility provide all necessary secondary containment?
® n n n
# Does the Plan include a EIMP summary?
®❑ n n
# Does the Plan include a Spill Prevention and Response Plan (SPRP)?
® n n n
# Does the Plan include a Preventative Maintenance and Good Housekeeping Plan?
® n n n
# Does the facility provide and document Employee Training?
® n n n
# Does the Plan include a list of Responsible Party(s)?
® Cl ❑ ❑
# is the Plan reviewed and updated annually?
®n n n
# Does the Plan include a Stormwater Facility Inspection Program?
® ❑ ❑ ❑
Has the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan been implemented?
® n n ❑
Comment: The facility map detailed SW outialis and their locations, however, latitude
and longitude of each outfall needs to be listed as well as whether the outfalls drain to
an impaired water or TMDL established watershed.
The SPPP should inciude a reference to the inspections of the secondary containment
structures and where all inspection reports are maintained. These records were not
available during the inspection.
The SPRP should be updated to reflect the current SPPP administrator and responsible
parties.
Preventative maintenance records are being collected, however, they were not available
during the inspection. The SPPP should be amended to include these records and the
person responsible for conducting these inspections.
Qualitative Monitoring Yos No NA NE
Has the facility conducted its Qualitative Monitoring semi-annually? 00 n n
Comment: Qualitative monitoring data was available far review.
Analytical Monitoring Yes No NA NE
Has the facility conducted its Analytical monitoring? M n 171 n
Page: 4

w
t
Permit: NCS000020 Owner - Facility: Cuke Energy Carolinas LLC
inspection Date: 101102010 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation Reason for Visit: 'Routine
# Has the facility conducted its Analytical monitoring frcrn Vehicle Maintenance areas? ® n n n
Comment:
Permit and Outfalls Yes No NA NE
# Is a copy of the Permit and the Certif<caie of Coverage available at the site? M n ❑ F
#'!+Jere all eutfalls observed during the inspection? ® n
# If the facility has representative cutfali status, is it Properly documented by the Division? ® n n n
# Has the facility evaluated ail illicit (non siormwater) discharges? ® n n [1
Comment: All 37 outfalls were observed during the inspection. Only 4 of the 37
outfalls are being sampled at this time (representative outfall status has been obtained
for these 4 outfalls).
Page: 5

ri
Inspection Summary
Current NPDES SW permit expired on January 31, 2008. The last inspection of this faciliry was
conducted on June 27, 2007. This facility is in the business of producing electricity via nuclear power
generation. The various areas that were evaluated during the site visit included the Hazardous
Waste/Material Storage area, Transformer Switch Yard area, iMaintenance Shop area, an old onsite
Landfill, and the Firing Range.
Stormwater outfalls draining the Hazardous Waste/Material Storage area include outfalls 003 — 005, 015
— 019, 020 — 022, 029 — 032, and 033 - 036. Tile permittee has requested and received representative
outfall status in 1998 for all these outfalls except 004, which is the outfall where analytical testing in
being conducted. Representative outfall status for outfalls 003, 005, 015 — 022, and 033 — 036 is
appropriate. All these outfalls receive drainage from an area that is partially paved, but is mostly gravel.
The fines associated with the gravel are a likely source for the elevated TSS readings that have been
reported at this outfall. Unless a new SW sampling location is selected or the proposed benchmark values
are modified, this facility wit] likely continue to have difficulty in consistently complying with the
benchmark TSS levels proposed in the new SW permit, According to NIr. Williamson, there are no
immediate plans to pave this area, so the potential for more benchmark TSS exeeedances will exist, The
Hazardous Waste storage area is in an enclosed building, which is also recessed into the ground so there
is minimal, if any chance that a material could leak and make its way outside of the building and possibly
come into contact with stormwater. The area adjacent to the Hazardous Waste storage area is used for
material storage (mostly metal products), and is completely graveled.
Stormwater outfalls associated with the Transformer Switch Yard include outfalls 006, 007, 009, 010 —
014, 023 — 028, and 037. Representative outfall status was obtained for outfalls 007, 009, 010 — 014, 023
— 028, and 037 and is appropriate based on observation made during the site visit. The permittee is
conducting analytical testing at outfall 006. Existing, on -site transformers in this area do not contain PCB
contaminated cooling oils, so a source for the PCB detection found during analytical testing in 2005 could
not be determined. This area is entirely covered by gravel, which would offer an explanation as to the
occasional TSS benchmark exceedance this facility has recorded. The majority of these outfalls do not
discharge directly to surface waters or a drainage feature, but empty onto the ground and would have to
travel several hundred feet through heavy vegetative cover to reach surface waters. There was some
difficulty in locating some of these outfalls during the site visit due to heavy vegetative growth and
damage of the outfall marker signs by snowing equipment.
Stormwater outfalls) associated with the now closed Landfill include outfall 002. In recent years, the
area surrounding this outfall had experienced significant erosion due to sheet flow from several sources,
but primarily from an old land farm. Stabilization efforts in this area ]rave been successful and vegetation
has been reestablished. There were no sedimentation issues noted during the site visit to the area
surrounding this outfall-

Paue Two
There is one stormwater outfttll associated with theEquipment Maintenance facility (003). This outfall
also recorded a PCB hit back in 2003; however, the only transformer located onsite is,a non -PCB lader.
transformer that serves the building. Mr. Williamson had no idea where the PCB detection may have
come from given that there are no PCBs stored at this site. There have also been a number of pH
benchmark exceedances and a couple TSS eticeedances recorded at this outfall. The area around the
maintenance facility is partially paved, however; there is an area adjacent to the outfall that is gravel,
which might explain the occasional elevated TSS readings. There was no visual evidence as to why
slightly lower pH levels might be occurring at this outfall, however, tMr. Williamson indicated that in
absence of a direct link, one possible source tnav be low soil pH typical of the soils in the surrounding
area.
There are at least d stormwater outfalls associated with the facility's firing range. This range is used to
conduct onsite training of security personnel stationed at McGuire. The range, however; is on a separate
part of the company's property and is far removed from the industrial activities associated with this
Permit. The outfalls in this area discharge to a heavily vegetated area adjacent to the range and are well
removed front surface waters. Duke Power has chosen to not apply for coverage of these outfalls given
that they are not associated with the industrial activities of this site and do not combine with any other
permitted outfall prior to discharging.
The SPPP was for the most part complete and accurate «yith respect to the existing site and associated SW
outfalls. The facility has obtained representative outfall status for 3 out of the 37 SW outfalls located an
this site. One SW outfall (001) is covered by the facilities NPDLS permit (NIC0024392) and is regulated
as outfall 005 in this permit.
Overall, the site is well maintained and the permittee is updating the site's SPPP on an annual basis. A
review of the facility's SPPP found that the Plan is generally complete and accurate with respect to the
various SPPP components required by the subject permit.

Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross ir., Secretary
North Carolina Depanment of Environment and Natural Resources
Coleen H. Sullins Director
Division orwaterQuality
August 10, 2007
Lee N. Williams
Environmental, Health & Safety Manager
Duke Energy
McGuire Nuclear Station
12700 Hagers Ferry Road
Huntersville, NC 28078
Subject: Representative Stormwater Outfall Request
Duke Energy — McGuire Nuclear Station
NCS000020
Mecklenburg County
Dear Mr. Williams:
The Division of Water Quality received your request for changes in your monitoring obligations at Duke
Energy - McGuire Nuclear Station on July 26, 2007, and a current site plan with drainage area
descriptions on August 9, 2007. Based on our understanding of your representations of current site
drainage conditions as presented in your letter and site plan, we are granting the following revision to
your monitoring obligations under NCS000020. Please maintain a copy of this letter on file at the
facility.
1. No sampling is required at Outfall 001, which is also permitted under Wastewater Permit
NCO024392 as Outfall 005.
2. You reported that Outfalls 004 and 006 are representative of Outfalls 029 - 032, and 037.
(DWQ approved your. representative outfall request that 004 and 006 were representative of
003, 005, 007, and 009 — 028 previously in a letter dated August 28, 1998.) After review of
your letter and site plan, Duke Energy may conduct the required analytical sampling on
Outfalls 004 and 006 as representative for Outfalls 003, 005, 007, 009 — 032, and 037 and may
discontinue analytical monitoring of Outfalls 003, 005, 007, 009 -- 032, and 037. Please note
that Outfalls 003, 005, 007, 009 — 032, and 037 must still be included in the twice -yearly
qualitative monitoring event.
3. At Outfall 008, analytical and qualitative monitoring will be continued.
4. Since there is no stormwater runoff associated with an industrial activity as reported in your
request at Outfalls 002 and 033 — 036, no sampling is required. ,
If you change the industrial activity in the drainage areas or significantly change the operation of your
business from its current status, you must notify the Division of Water Quality.
Please contact me with any questions or concerns at [phone] ext. 360.
"o�y`
NhCarolina
✓Vaturally
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Phone [phone]
Internet: www,ncwnterqualitv.Org Location: 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, NC 27604 Fax [phone]
An Equal Opportun4lAffirrnadve Action Employer— 50% Recycled110% Post Consumer Paper
Customer Service
1-877.623-6748

Lee N. Williams
Duke Energy—NCS000020
August 10, 2007
011. 19
Sincerely,
Robert Patterson, PE
Environmental Engineer
cc: Mooresville Regional Office
Central Files
Stormwater Permitting Unit Files

NCS000020 - Duke Energy McGuire Nuclear Station, Representative...
Subject: NCS000020 - Duke Energy McGuire Nuclear Station, Representative Oufall Status Request
From: Robert Patterson <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 07:43:53 -0400
To: [e-mail]
Mr. Williamson,
We received your request for representative outfall status for the subject permit on
July 26, 2007. Before we can finish reviewing your request, please submit the
following additional information.
1. Site Plan showing the labeled outfalls, delineated drainage areas to the
outfalls, drainage patterns and conveyances
2. Description of the industrial activities in each of the drainage areas
(especially for Outfalls 29, 30, 31, & 32)
Please give me a call if you have any questions or concerns 919-733-5083 ext. 360.
Thanks.
Robert D. Patterson, PE
Environmental Engineer T
NCDENR I DW4 I Stormwater Permitting Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Phone: [phone] ext. 360
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Website: hLtp://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/su/storinwater.html
g 9 a� _ &,,-'vT> XVD
fWO. h") +
-b1=.See I P-rl a.✓s)
of 1 8/10/2007 6:41 AM

��FwAr ' t
FR p Michael F. Easley, Govcntor'�-'"�
O G W am G. toss Jr., sccrto ry
rNorth Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Colccn H_ Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
July 5, 2007
Ms. Lee Williams
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC
NC Hwy 73
Huntersville, North Carolina 28078
Subject: Compliance Evaluation Inspection
McGuire Nuclear Power Station
NC Hwy 73
Mecklenburg County, NC
NC.3 Gc:o Q
Dear Ms. Williams:
Enclosed is a copy of the Compliance. Evaluation Inspection (CEI) report for the
inspection conducted at the subject facility on June 27, 2007, by Ms. Marcia Allocco of this
Office. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation during the inspection.
'rhe enclosed report should be self-explanatory. Overall, the facility's Stormwater
program was well developed and implemented. Please ensure that any requested representative
outfall status under NCS000020 is discussed with and approved by the Stormwater Permitting
Unit and incorporated into the permit during the renewal process.
If you have any questions, comments, or need assistance with understanding any aspect
of your permit, please do not hesitate to contact Ms. Allocco at [phone].
Enclosure
cc:
��m
NCDENR
Sincerely,
for Robert B. Krebs
Rusty Rozzelle, MCWQP
Danny Smith — NPS-ACO Unit
Regional Supervisor
Surface Water Protection Section
Mooresville Regional Office
No thCaroiina
X41=1111
Mooresville Regional Office Division of Water Quality Phone [phone] Customer Service
Internet' �t'�su.nnrm riprilin_ rg 610 East Center Ave, Suite 301 Mooresville, NC 28115 Fax [phone]-623.67,18
An Equal Opportunity/Aftirmafive Action Employer— 50% Retydedh^ Post Consumer Paper

Compliance Inspection Report
Permit: NCS000020 Effective: 02/14/03 Expiration: 01131108 Owner: Duke Energy Carolinas LLC
SOC: Effective: Expiration: Facility: McGuire Nuciear Power Plant
County: Mecklenburg NC Hwy 73
Region: Mooresville
Huntersville NC 28078
Contact Person: Angela M Grooms Title: Phone: [phone]
Directions to Facility:
System Classifications:
Primary ORC:
Secondary ORC(s):
On -Site Representative(s):
Certification: Phone:
On -site representative John C Williamson Phone: [phone]
Related Permits:
Inspection Date: 06/27/2007 Entry Time: 09:30 AM Exit Time: 02:00 PM
Primary Inspector: Marcia Allocc6`1 Phone: [phone]
Secondary Inspector(s):
Reason for Inspection: Routine Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Permit Inspection Type: Stormwater Discharge, Individual
Facility Status: ■ Compliant Q Not Compliant
Question Areas:
13 Storm Water
(See attachment summary)
Page: 1

Permit: NCS000020 Owner - Facility: Duke Energy Carolinas LLC
Inspection Date: 06/27/2007 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation Reason for Visit: Routine
Inspection Summary:
Noteworthy practices:
1. There are spill kits in parking lots in case of an accidental discharge from Duke or personal cars. Employees are to
call Emergency number for formal clean-up assistance,
2. BMPs are in place for loading and unloading activities to ensure no incidental impacts to stormwater outfalls.
Summary:
Visited all 37 stormwater outfalls of which 3 are being sampled including 004, 006, and 008.
Outfall 004 is the representative outfall for the paint warehouse yard. There were no issues identified in this area.
Outfall 006 is the representative outfall for the switchyard area and receives dry weather discharge from the fire
suppression system. All transformers in this area have undergone PCB oil replacement. There were no issues identified
in this area.
Outfall 008 is the representative outfall for the maintenance yard. There is a trench around the garage and fueling areas,
which drains to an oillwater separator. There were no issues identified in this area.
Outfall 001 is covered as outfall 005 under the wastewater discharge permit for the facility.
Page: 2

6
Permit: NCS000020 Owner - Facility: Duke Energy Carolinas LLC
Inspection Date: 06/27/2007 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation Reason for Visit: Routine
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Yes No NA NE
Does the site have a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
# Does the Plan include a General Location (USGS) map?
® n n n
# Does the Plan include a "Narrative Description of Practices"?
®❑ ❑ ❑
# Does the Plan include a detailed site map including outfall locations and drainage areas?
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
# Does the Plan include a list of significant spills occurring during the past 3 years?
®❑ ❑ Q
# Has the facility evaluated feasible alternatives to current practices?
® n n n
# Does the facility provide all necessary secondary containment?
0 ❑ ❑ ■
# Does the Plan include a BMP summary?
a ❑ ❑
# Does the Plan include a Spill Prevention and Response Plan (SPRP)?
® ❑ ❑ ❑
# Does the Plan include a Preventative Maintenance and Good Housekeeping Plan?
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
# Does the facility provide and document Employee Training?
■ ❑ ❑ 0
# Does the Plan include a list of Responsible Party(s)?
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
# Is the Plan reviewed and updated annually?
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
# Does the Plan include a Stormwater Facility Inspection Program?
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Has the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan been implemented?
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: Facility had combined the general location and site maps - it did not
contain latitude and longitude of the discharge outfalls.
This initial inspection did not include a review of ASTs and secondary containment
requirements since there were numerous outfalls to visit.
SPPP needs to identify which group implements the stormwater training.
The SPPP contained references to inspections in the warehouse area but records were
not available during the inspection. Post -inspection follow-up by the permittee indicates
that a formal inspection sheet is not completed and the SPPP will be updated to reflect
this change.
Permit requires that the date and time be recorded when completing the required
semi-annual stormwater outfall inspections (date included but time missing).
SPPP signature page did not contain position title information of Duke Energy/McGuire
Nuclear Station personnel signing the plan.
Qualitative Monitoring Yes No NA NE
Has the facility conducted its Qualitative Monitoring semi-annually? W ❑ ❑ ❑
Page: 3

1
Permit: NCS000020 Owner - Facility: Duke Energy Carolinas LLC
Inspection Date: 06/27/2007 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation Reason for Visit: Routine
Comment: Qualitative monitoring is being completed at all outfalls as required by the
permit.
Analytical Monitoring
Yes No NA NE
Has the facility conducted its Analytical monitoring?
®❑ ❑ ❑
# Has the facility conducted its Analytical monitoring from Vehicle Maintenance areas?
®❑ ❑ Q
Comment: Permittee is only sampling at 4 of 37 outfalls (1 under wastewater permit)
since representative outfall status had been requested from DWQ.
Permit and Outfalls
Yes No NA NE
# Is a copy of the Permit and the Certificate of Coverage available at the site?
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
# Were all outfalls observed during the inspection?
®❑ ❑ ❑
# If the facility has representative outfall status, is it properly documented by the Division?
❑ M ❑ n
# Has the facility evaluated all illicit (non stormwater) discharges?
0 ❑ ❑
Comment: Permittee is only sampling at 4 of 37 outfalls (1 under wastewater permit)
since representative outfall status had been requested from DWQ, DWQ has not acted
on requests from permittee.
Permittee should follow-up with Stormwater permitting group during permit renewal to
ensure that the requested representative outfall status under NCS000020 is granted
and incorporated into the new permit.
Page: 4

Duke
(Power
A Duke Energy Company
January 30, 2002
Mr, Rex Gleason
NCDENR Mooresville Regional Office
919 North Main Street
Mooresville, NC 28115
Subject: Change of Address
NPDES Stormwater Permit No. NCS000020
Duke Power — McGuire Nuclear Station
Mecklenburg County
Certified Mail: 7000 1670 0003 43 [4'8437
Dear Mr. Gleason:
NC DEFT. OF ENVIRONMENT
AND NA T URAL RESOURCES
t OGRES,V!i.1u ' �I'ru :.►.. f!FFlCE
VY.;b'
E E B 0 1 2002
Please be advised that official correspondence associated with NPDES Stormwater
Permit NCS000020 should be addressed to:
Environmental, Health & Safety Manager
Mailcode: MG02EM
Duke Power - McGuire Nuclear Station
12700 Hagers Ferry Road
Huntersville, NC 28078
Should you have any questions concerning this letter, you may contact me by phone at
704-875-5894 or e-mail at [e-mail].
Sinc rciy, 11
0
John C. Williamson, Scientist, CHMM
McGuire Nuclear Station
McGuire Environmental, Health & Safety
cc: Bob Caccia

'iul;r' i';rr', f'"rrr� anti 11. I? if IA"o„y
Il, riu;r. 1'rr�'lrrn f�,rr, r;rlirur h, prrrRrr,yr( � ir" Pwsidoa
is/l .r i h%,r+,I!,lI(;,)/I'M (70I)S7.1-Ulml
(k; �r1, , ,, ,I,', •. 1 i _'ti17i,1':9',, lrl ! j11I187.i-l.S'rP1 l i 1 �
�T" I DUKE POWER
March 27, 1997
Ms. Coleen Sullins
Permits and Engineering Unit
Vic,
North Carolina Department of Environment,
-0
--4 r,.
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
P.O. Box 29535
3C
c)? r-
Raleigh, NC-27626-0535
SUBJECT: McGuire Nuclear Station NPDES NCS000020
Delegation of Authority
Record No. MN-005157
Certified: P 399 635 407
Dear Ms. Sullins:
Federal Regulation 40 CFR 122.26. as well as Part It of McGuire's Stormwater Permit, specifies
that all reports required by the stormwater permit and other information requested by the permit
issuing authority shall be signed by a principal executive officer of at least the level of Vice
President or duly authorized representative. I hereby authorize the following' positions or the
individual temporarily acting in these positions: the Manager of Water Protection (currently Mr.
David F. Mitchell), the Manager of Environmental Protection or the General Manager of
Environmental Division the authority to sign all reports and requested information related to the
NPDES Stormwater Permit.
In addition, please revise the State's database to reflect that all correspondence be addressed to
Mr. David F. Mitchell - MG03A5, Duke Power Company, 13339 Hagers Ferry Road, Huntersville,
NC 28078-7929. This will prevent delays of correspondence associated with this Permit.
If you have any questions or need additional information, you may contact Mr. David Mitchell at
[phone].
Sincerely yours, ^44
t_,►1a�c �
H. B. Barron
Vice President
McGuire Nuclear Station
HBBlphs
cc: Mr. Rex Gleason - NCDEHNR, Mooresville, NC
Mr. David Goodrich - NCDEHNR, Raleigh, NC
F" 40.401 Oh