NC0038377_Comments on the Draft Permit_20170222

SOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER
Telephone [phone] 601 WEST ROSEMARY STREET,SUITE 220 Facsimile 919-929-9421
CHAPEL HILL,NC 27516-2356
February 22, 2017
VIA EMAIL AND U.S. MAIL o '
FEB 23 2017
Mr. S. Jay Zimmerman, Director
N.C. DEQ Division of Water Resources DIVISION OF
1617 Mail Service Center VvfiTER RESOURCES
DIRECTOR'S OFFICE
Raleigh,N.C., 27699-1617
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
.Re: 2017 Draft NPDES Wastewater Permit—Mayo Steam Station,#NC0038377
Dear Mr. Zimmerman:
On behalf of the Roanoke River Basin Association (the "Association"), we submit the
following comments on the 2017 draft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
•
("NPDES")permit noticed for public comment by the North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality ("DEQ"), Division of Water Resources ("DWR"), which purports for the
first time to allow Duke Energy Progress LLC ("Duke Energy") to discharge increased and
unlimited pollution into Mayo Lake, Crutchfield Branch, and waters of North Carolina and the` .
United States. We previously submitted comments on the 2016 draft NPDES permit for this site,
and those comments remain applicable, except as set out below.
This proposed permit tries to allow Duke Energy to dump the water out of its Mayo coal
ash lagoon into Mayo Lake without protective limits for toxic substances and heavy metals; to
legalize Duke Energy's longstanding violations of the Clean Water Act and North Carolina law;
and to allow Duke Energy leave its coal ash in an unlined pit which will pollute Person County
for decades to come.
Over 160 commenters submitted written comments on the draft NPDES permits for Duke
Energy's Mayo site along with the nearby Roxboro coal ash site, over 98% of which called for
stricter standards and more cleanup at these sites; these were in addition to the scores of citizens
who commented at the public hearing. DEQ should heed the clear message of these commenters
and the specific points raised in RRBA's comments on the 2016 and 2017 draft permits, to
require Duke Energy to remove its coal ash from the unlined, leaking pits at these sites and
impose stricter, technology-based limits on coal ash pollutants until all the ash can be removed.
Charlottesville • Chapel Hill • Atlanta • Asheville • Birmingham • Charleston • Nashville • Richmond • Washington,DC
100%recycled paper

I. Introduction
Duke Energy stores approximately 6.6 million tons of coal ash in an unlined pit on the
banks of Mayo Lake in Person County. This coal ash pollutes and sits 80 feet deep in
groundwater The coal ash lagoon is over 30 years old, and its waters are held back only by a
dike made of earth that leaks. The coal ash lagoon is authorized to discharge wastewater from
the lagoon only through a canal into Mayo Lake.
Mayo Lake is an important water, recreational, fishing, and economic resource for North
Carolina, the region, and Person County. Families live along the lake. Local residents, people
who live in surrounding communities, and visitors from other areas fish, swim, and boat in and
on the Lake. Over the years, Mayo Lake has been seriously harmed by the pollution from Duke
Energy's coal ash lagoon.
Crutchfield Branch is part of the Roanoke River Basin and is a water of the United States
and of North Carolina. It originates south of Duke Energy's Mayo coal ash lagoon, flows into
the lagoon, and flows out of the lagoon to the north, through North Carolina and into Virginia.
Its water becomes part of the Dan River and flows back into North Carolina. From the first
NPDES permit issued for Duke Energy's Mayo coal ash lagoon over 30 years ago to the present
day, Duke Energy has been forbidden to discharge from its Mayo coal ash lagoon into
Crutchfield Branch.
On August 16, 2013, DEQ filed a verified complaint with the Wake County Superior
Court which set out that Duke Energy had intentionally constructed engineered discharges from
the Mayo coal ash lagoon directly into Crutchfield Branch. These engineered discharges are not
authorized under the Mayo NPDES permit and, in fact, are expressly forbidden. Thus, Duke
Energy was and is openly and intentionally violating a clear provision of its Mayo NPDES
permit by polluting Crutchfield Branch with coal ash polluted water.
DEQ stated —under oath-that Duke Energy's unpermitted engineered discharges to
Crutchfield Branch violate state law and that"without . . . taking corrective action,"these seeps
"pose[] a serious danger to the health, safety and welfare of the people of the State of North
Carolina and serious harm to the water resources of the State." Verified Complaint& Motion for
Injunctive Relief,State of North Carolina ex rel. N.C. DENR, DWQ v. Duke Energy Progress,
LLC,No. 13 CVS 11032 (Wake Co., August 16, 2013) (Attachment 1), at¶204. As a result,
DEQ asked the court to enter a permanent injunction requiring Duke "to abate the violations of
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-215.1, [and]NPDES Permits" at Mayo. Id. Prayer for Relief¶2. Since
filing this complaint, however, DEQ has done nothing to require Duke Energy to stop violating
the law and its permit at Mayo.
Further, it has been discovered that Duke Energy's Mayo coal ash lagoon has other leaks
that are also illegally flowing into Crutchfield Branch, and otherwise.
2

Rather,than following through on its sworn statements and publicly-announced intention
to obtain injunctive relief and corrective action, DEQ is now proposing to grant Duke amnesty
for the numerous leaks emerging from its coal ash wastewater treatment lagoon.
Duke Energy has faced extensive public pressure and litigation by the Association and
other community organizations in North Carolina to force Duke Energy to address its primitive
unlined and leaking coal ash storage in North Carolina. In May of 2015, Duke Energy operating
companies, including the owner of the Mayo coal ash lagoon, pleaded guilty 18 times to 9 coal
ash crimes across North Carolina. These crimes included unpermitted coal ash lagoon
discharges very much like those flowing from the Mayo coal ash lagoon. Duke Energy operating
companies paid a$102 million fine, and they are under nationwide criminal probation. Under
court orders, the criminal plea agreement, statutes, regulatory requirements, and settlement
agreements with conservation groups, Duke Energy is now required to excavate all the coal ash
from unlined coal ash pits at 8 of its 14 coal ash storage sites in North Carolina, and all its sites
in South Carolina. In addition, in response to this intense public and legal pressure and stronger
regulatory requirements, Duke Energy has announced that it will empty the water from all its
coal ash lagoons in North Carolina.
Today, Duke Energy is required to excavate the coal ash from every North Carolina and
South Carolina site with 7 million tons or less of coal ash—except Mayo.
However, at Mayo and five other coal ash storage sites in North Carolina, Duke Energy
has refused to commit itself to remove the ash from its unlined, leaking, polluting, and dangerous
primitive coal ash pits. Instead, Duke Energy hopes to be able to pump the coal ash polluted
water out of its leaking lagoons into nearby lakes and rivers and then leave its polluting coal ash
in the groundwater in unlined pits near waterbodies where the coal ash will continue to pollute
the state's waters forever.
Duke Energy cannot leave its polluting coal ash in place at Mayo under the terms of its
existing NPDES permit. The Mayo coal ash pit leaks, and it pollutes Crutchfield Branch—all in
open violation of the Clean Water Act and the NPDES permit.
DEQ has allowed this illegal pollution to continue without taking any effective action to
stop it. Instead, DEQ now proposes to change Duke Energy's NPDES permit to legalize coal ash
pollution that has been illegal for 30 years. At the same time, DEQ fails to protect Mayo Lake
adequately when Duke Energy pumps its coal ash polluted water into Mayo Lake. The draft
permit provides that limits on many toxic pollutants will apply only after November 1, 2018,
AFTER Duke Energy has polluted Mayo Lake with millions of gallons of coal ash polluted
water, and then only when FGD basin is routed to Mayo Lake. For other coal ash pollutants,
there are no limits at all.
This proposed permit fails to protect the public and public waters and violates the Clean
Water Act. DEQ should put in place meaningful limits on coal ash pollutants to ensure that
Duke Energy adopts and properly operates the best available technology to treat the coal ash
polluted water before it is dumped into Mayo Lake, as DEQ has required at other coal ash sites
in Wilmington and Charlotte; should leave in place the important permit provisions that have
3

been in place at Mayo for 30 years; should require Duke Energy to stop the leaks and discharges
of polluted wastewater; and should require Duke Energy remove the coal ash and wastewater
from the lagoon, with adequate protections of Mayo Lake and Crutchfield Branch.
II. Permit Comments
A. The Proposed Permit Violates the Clean Water Act Because It Does Not Protect
Mayo Lake and Is Inconsistent with Other Permits Issued by DEQ
The proposed Mayo permit is written to allow Duke Energy to pump all its coal ash
polluted water from the Mayo coal ash lagoon into Mayo Lake. Part I, Sections A. (3.) & (4.).
The 2017 draft permit contains a significant improvement over the 2016 draft permit, in that it
requires Duke Energy to "treat the wastewater discharged from•the ash pond/ponds by the
physical-chemical treatment facilities."
However, the 2017 draft permit does not define what this treatment system must be, and
for many coal ash pollutants, there are no enforceable limits to protect Mayo Lake and ensure the
treatment system is functioning properly.
•
Millions of gallons of coal ash polluted water will be pumped into Mayo Lake during the
so-called"decanting"phase, over a period of weeks or months. Part I., Section A. (3.).
However, the permit provides no limits at all for the pumping of this water to control pollution
from Chromium, Copper, Zinc, Barium, Antimony, or Boron. In addition, there is not even a
mention of lead, and consequently also no protections of Mayo Lake for lead.
To make matters worse, the permit does appear to include limits for arsenic, mercury,
selenium, and nitrate/nitrite, toxic pollutants from Duke Energy coal ash that have harmed Mayo
Lake and other North Carolina water bodies in the past. But each of these apparent limits is
qualified by a footnote, footnote 8. Footnote 8 provides that these limits do not apply until
November 1, 2018—two years away. Even then,the limits apply only when overflow from the
FGD basin is routed into Mayo Lake through Outfall 002.
Duke Energy may well have completed its pumping of coal ash polluted water into Mayo
Lake by November 1, 2018, and there is no reason to think that FGD overflow will be routed
through Outfall 002 during this pumping. Thus, while the permit appears to include limits for
these substances during the "decanting"phase of pumping water out of the coal ash lagoon into
Mayo Lake, in fact there are no limits for arsenic, mercury, selenium, or nitrate/nitrite when
Duke Energy will be dumping millions of gallons of coal ash polluted water into Mayo Lake.
As a result, this proposed permit abandons Mayo Lake to unlimited quantities of a number of
coal ash pollutants by Duke Energy and its coal ash polluted water.
Moreover, it is nonsensical to impose limits on coal ash pollutants "only when the overflow
from the FGD basin is routed to Outfall 002." The purpose of the permit is to protect North
Carolina waters --here Mayo Lake --not to accommodate the way Duke Energy chooses to route
particular pollution streams. It does not matter to the quality and health of Mayo Lake whether
4

•
pollution from arsenic, mercury, selenium, and other coal ash contaminants occurs when Duke
Energy is routing its FGD overflow to Outfall 002 or not. These limits should apply, regardless
of what Duke Energy may be doing at the Mayo plant.
Since Duke Energy is required to treat the coal ash polluted water by "physical/chemical
treatment facilities,"presumably Duke Energy and DEQ believe that Mayo Lake does need
protection from the coal ash lagoon water, and that this treatment will remove coal ash pollution
to acceptable levels.
If so, then why does the draft permit not include express limits? The apparent reason is to
deny the citizens of North Carolina, and perhaps DEQ itself, the ability to enforce this permit
against Duke Energy if its undefined "physical/chemical treatment facilities" malfunction or do
not remove coal ash pollutants to acceptable levels. DEQ should not adopt a permit that is
transparently drafted to deny the rights of North Carolina citizens and to deny even DEQ
itself the ability to hold Duke Energy accountable for its pollution of Mayo Lake.
In addition, the mercury limits are ridiculously high, whenever they go into effect. They are
1000% to 1500%higher than comparable mercury limits for the NPDES permits recently issued
by DEQ for Duke Energy's Sutton plant in Wilmington and its Riverbend plant in Charlotte.
(Attachments 2 and 3). DEQ is simply not providing the same protections to Person County that
it is providing to the metropolitan communities of Charlotte and Wilmington. This permit for
this rural community should contain the same mercury limits as those permits for major cities.
Similar fatal defects are present in the section of the permit governing the "dewatering—
removing the interstitial water." Part I, Section A. (4.). This water is the nastiest and most
polluted—the water right above and mixed in with the coal ash at the bottom of the lagoon.. Yet,
the most protective arsenic limits, the selenium limits,the nitrate/nitrite limits and the mercury
limits are qualified by a footnote (this time footnote 9), which postpones those limits until
November 1, 2018 —AFTER this highly polluted water is pumped into Mayo Lake.
As before, even those delayed limits apply only when Duke Energy chooses to route the
overflow from its FGD basin to Outfall 002.
In other words, this permit would allow Duke Energy to pump the nastiest, most toxic,
and most polluted coal ash brew into Mayo Lake without meaningful limits on many toxic
pollutants.
This section of the permit does contain arsenic limits for this coal ash bottom water, but
the permit contains a nonsensically high daily limit for arsenic of 340 ppb. This limit is 3400%
higher than the 10 ppb standard for arsenic. It also is mathematically incomprehensible, because
at the same time the permit provides for a monthly average of 10 ppb and for weekly testing of
arsenic. If one week's sample was 340 ppb and even if all other weeks were zero, a weekly
average (340 divided by 4) would exceed 80 ppb.
Also, it makes no sense for the water quality of Mayo Lake for the draft permit to make a
distinction between arsenic limits when the FGD blowdown flows through this outfall and when
5

it does not. When the FGD blowdown is flowing through Outfall 002, the arsenic limits for this
outfall are 8 ug/L monthly average, and 11 ug/L daily maximum. When the FGD blowdown is
not flowing through the outfall, the arsenic monthly average limit goes from 8 to 10 ug/L, a 25%
increase. The daily maximum inexplicably increases by 30 times or 3000%, from 11 to 340
ug/L. There is no reason why Mayo Lake should suffer greater pollution and receive less
protection, only because Duke Energy is managing its pollution flows in different ways.
And, like the mercury limits for the"decanting" of the Mayo coal ash lagoon, the
mercury limits—even in November 2018 and thereafter and even when Duke Energy is sending
is FGD blowdown through this outfall—are astronomically high, 1000%to 1500%higher than
those for the Duke Energy facilities in Charlotte and Wilmington.
In short, this permit is written to make it appear at first glance that there are limits on
toxic pollutants when Duke Energy pumps its Mayo coal ash polluted water into Mayo Lake. In
fact,the permit is full of footnotes, loopholes, and exceptions --with the result that there are no
meaningful limits to protect Mayo Lake from Duke Energy's toxic coal ash pollution.
As with the "decanting" phase, the "dewatering—"removing the interstitial water"phase
requires Duke Energy to "treat the wastewater discharged from the ash pond/ponds by the
physical-chemical treatment facilities." Since Duke Energy is required also to treat this coal ash
polluted water by"physical/chemical treatment facilities," again Duke Energy and DEQ believe
that Mayo Lake does need protection from the heavily-polluted bottom coal ash lagoon water,
and, again, that this treatment will remove coal ash pollution to acceptable levels.
Once more, then why does the draft permit not include express limits? Again,the apparent
reason is to deny the citizens of North Carolina, and perhaps DEQ itself, the ability to enforce
this permit against Duke Energy if its undefined"physical/chemical treatment facilities"
malfunction or do not remove coal ash pollutants to acceptable levels. DEQ should not adopt a
permit that is transparently drafted to deny the rights of North Carolina citizens and to
deny even DEQ itself the ability to hold Duke Energy accountable for its pollution of Mayo
Lake.
These multiple failures not only betray the public's interests in Mayo Lake, they also
blatantly violate the Clean Water Act. Under the Clean Water Act, polluters must control their
discharges of pollutants using the best available technology economically achievable ("BAT"):
"such effluent limitations shall require the elimination of discharges of all pollutants if the
Administrator finds . . . that such elimination is technologically and economically achievable."
33 U.S.C. § 1311(b)(2)(A). The EPA requires that"[t]echnology-based effluent limitations shall
be established under this subpart for solids, sludges, filter backwash, and other pollutants
removed in the course of treatment or control of wastewaters in the same manner as for other
pollutants." 40 C.F.R. § 125.3(g).
In the absence of promulgated effluent limitation guidelines, the NPDES permit writer
must use best professional judgment("BPJ") to determine the BAT standard applicable.to the
coal ash discharges at Mayo. 33 U.S.C. § 1342(a)(1)(B); 40 C.F.R. § 125.3; 15A N.C. Admin.
Code 2H .0118. When applying BPJ, "[i]ndividual judgments []take the place of uniform
6

national guidelines, but the technology-based standard remains the same." Texas Oil & Gas
Ass'n v. U.S. E.P.A., 161 F.3d 923 (5th Cir. 1998). In other words, DEQ must operate within
strict limits when identifying BAT based on BPJ.
Thefirst step in identifying BAT is identifying available technologies. At a minimum,
technological availability is "based on the performance of the single best-performing plant in an
industrial field." Chem. Mfrs. Ass'n v. U.S. E.P.A., 870 F.2d 177, 226 (5th Cir.) decision
clarified on reh'g, 885 F.2d 253 (5th Cir. 1989);see Am. Paper Inst. v. Train, 543 F.2d 328, 346
(D.C. Cir. 1976) (BAT should"at a minimum, be established with reference to the best
performer in any industrial category"). In other words, if the technology is being applied by any
plant in the industry, it is achievable. See Kennecott v. U.S. E.P.A., 780 F.2d 445, 448 (4th Cir.
1985) ("In setting BAT, EPA uses not the average plant, but the optimally operating plant, the
pilot plant which acts as a beacon to show what is possible").
But determination of technological availability is not limited to a single industrial field.
"Congress contemplated that EPA might use technology from other industries to establish the
[BAT]." 780 F.2d at 453. International facilities can also be used to define BAT. Am. Frozen
Food Inst. v. Train, 539 F.2d 107, 132 (D.C. Cir. 1976). EPA's NPDES Permit Writers' Manual
states that"BAT limitations may be based on effluent reductions attainable through changes in a
facility's processes and operations. . . . even when those technologies are not common industry
practice."1 Even pilot studies and laboratory studies can be used to establish BAT; the
technology need not be in commercial use to be considered available. See American Paper Inst.
v. Train, 543 F.2d 328, 353 (D.C. Cir. 1976).
In sum, BAT requires "a commitment of the maximum resources economically possible
to the ultimate goal of eliminating all polluting discharges." EPA v. National Crushed Stone
Ass'n, 449 U.S. 64, 74 (1980) (emphasis added).
There can be no doubt that there are technologies available so that Duke Energy can
remove large amounts of pollutants from its coal ash polluted water before it is discharged into
Mayo Lake. In fact, DEQ has already imposed such limits for Duke Energy's "decanting" and
• "dewatering" of its Sutton(Wilmington) facility and its Riverbend (Charlotte) facility. Duke
Energy is using wastewater treatment technologies to achieve those limits at those locations.
These same limits and those same technologies can and should be used for Mayo.
As well, Dominion Energy in Virginia has in place wastewater treatment facilities at its
Bremo facility on the James River and its Possum Point facility on the Potomac, where it is
pumping out water from coal ash lagoons. These facilities are treating coal ash polluted water
and meeting tightened standards for coal ash pollutants. Duke Energy can use the same
technology here, and it may be planning to do so. But without enforceable limits, neither the
citizens of the state nor DEQ can be assured that Duke Energy will protect our waters from coal
ash pollution.
' EPA,NPDES Permit Writers' Manual(Sept.2010)at p. 5-16, available at:
http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/npdes/basics/upload/pwm_2010.pdf.
7

At Mayo, the same limits that protect the waters of Charlotte and Wilmington should be
in this permit to protect the waters of Person County.
B. The Proposed Permit Abandons Crutchfield Branch to Duke Energy's Coal Ash
Pollution, in Violation of the Clean Water Act.
The current NPDES permit for Duke Energy's Mayo facility—like every preceding permit
for the last 30 years since the Mayo coal ash lagoon came into existence—forbids Duke Energy
from polluting Crutchfield Branch by discharging from the lagoon into the Branch or by
contaminating the Branch otherwise:
Section A. (8) of the Mayo NPDES permit, entitled "Crutchfield Branch,"provides:
There shall be no direct discharge of wastewater from the ash pond to Crutchfield
Branch. There shall be no violation of water quality standards in Crutchfield
Branch due to any indirect discharge from the ash pond (emphases added).
Just like the 2016 draft permit, the 2017 draft permit erases these protections of
Crutchfield Branch entirely from the permit, and instead expressly provides that Duke Energy
can discharge from the coal ash lagoon into Crutchfield Branch. The draft permit legalizes Duke
Energy's intentional illegal pollution of Crutchfield Branch: The draft permit provides that Duke
Energy's two engineered "toe drains" from the coal ash pond may discharge directly into
Crutchfield Branch. Draft Permit at 2. The draft permit acknowledges that these toe drains are
"potentially contaminated"—an obvious conclusion since they leak coal ash polluted water from
the coal ash lagoon. The draft permit goes further to legalize the flow of five additional
"potentially contaminated" flows of water from the lagoons (seeps) into Crutchfield Branch.
Draft Permit at 3. And the draft permit contemplates that an unlimited number of other seeps
will be allowed to flow into Crutchfield Branch. Draft Permit at Section A. 31. Other than lead,
there are no limits for any toxic pollutants in these flows of water dumping into Crutchfield
Branch. Draft Permit Section A. (8)to (14).
This is as clear an example as possible of a proposed.permit that illegally eliminates or •
reduces the protections of the nation's waters from pollution. The Clean Water Act's NPDES
permitting program is structured around progressive improvements in pollution control over
time. The Clean Water Act permit is a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit
that is required to make progress towards Congress's "national goal" of eliminating discharges of
pollutants to waters of the United States. 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251(a)(1).
For this reason, the CWA includes anti-backsliding requirements to ensure that the limits
and conditions imposed new or modified NPDES permits for a facility are at least as stringent as
those in previous permits. 33 U.S.C. § 1342(o); 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(1)(1) ("[W]hen a permit is.
renewed or reissued, interim effluent limitations, standards.or conditions must be at least as
stringent as the final effluent limitations, standards, or conditions in the previous permit . . . .'').
The CWA's anti-backsliding requirements apply to all NPDES permit provisions, not just
effluent limits based on BPJ. 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(1)(1); In the Matter of Star-Kist Caribe, Inc.,
8

Petitioner, 2 E.A.D. 758 at *3 (E.P.A. Mar. 8, 1989). EPA,NPDES Permit Writers' Manual
Chapter 7, § 7.2.2, p. 7-4 (Sept. 2010), available at
http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/npdes/basics/upload/pwm_chapt_07.pdf.
The draft permit wrongly abandons Crutchfield Branch to Duke Energy's coal ash
pollution. The draft permit thus violates the anti-backsliding provisions of the Clean Water Act
by eliminating the longstanding protections of Crutchfield Branch.
This backsliding is even more egregious because Crutchfield Branch is part of the Dan
River and Roanoke River Basins. These waterways have suffered the most from Duke Energy's
coal ash pollution. The Dan River catastrophe dumped over 20 million gallons and 39,000 tons
of coal ash into these waterways. Bromide from Duke Energy's coal ash caused carcinogens to
enter drinking water systems in these watersheds. The Roanoke River Basin has more leaking
Duke Energy coal ash sites than any other part of North Carolina—Belew's Creek, Roxboro,
Mayo, and Dan River. It is inexcusable for DEQ to remove protections from the Dan River and
the Roanoke River Basin—protections that have been in place for 30 years.
Further, it is transparently obvious why DEQ and Duke Energy have gone so far as to
blatantly violate the Clean Water Act in drafting this permit. Duke Energy is currently violating
this provision of its Clean Water Act permit openly, and DEQ has done nothing to stop Duke
Energy from violating the law. Crutchfield Branch flows directly through the Mayo coal ash
lagoon. Duke Energy wants to leave its coal ash in this unlined pit next to Mayo Lake and in and
on top of Crutchfield Branch, burying the Branch forever. Further, Duke Energy's consultants
have determined that the Mayo coal ash will remain forever deep in Person County's
groundwater. It is predictable that Duke Energy's coal ash pit will continue to discharge into
Crutchfield Branch and also continue to indirectly harm the water quality of the Branch.
Duke Energy has a chance of leaving its coal ash in an unlined pit in Person County,
polluting Person County's waters, on if it finds a way to wipe out the provisions that have
protected Crutchfield Branch for three decades.
However, this scheme violates the Clean Water Act. The new Mayo permit must contain
the protections for Crutchfield Branch that have been contained in all earlier permits. These
provisions protect the Branch, the Dan River, and the Roanoke River Basin from Duke Energy's
Mayo coal ash pollution.
C. The Draft Permit Would Give Duke Energy Amnesty for Its Unlawful Activity and
Illegally Authorize the Mayo Waste Water Treatment Plant to Leak.
The Mayo coal.ash lagoon is permitted as a wastewater treatment facility. It is required
to contain and treat wastewater and to discharge the treated water (presumably with pollutants
removed) from a defined and designed outfall. A wastewater treatment facility that leaks of
course malfunctions and discharges untreated polluted wastewaterfrom undesigned holes in the
wastewater treatment plant.
9

These leaks violate thebasic purpose and basic provisions of the existing and all prior
permits, even provisions that remain in the draft permit. This draft permit authorizes the
operation of an"ash pond treatment system"that must be "properly operated and maintained."
Draft Permit at pp. 1-2; Section A. (22). Of course, a properly operated and maintained
wastewater treatment plant discharges only as designed and does not spring leaks from its sides
and bottom.
In other words, a wastewater treatment facility cannot operate properly or legally if it
receives wastewater and then spews it into the environment, and into the waters of the state and
the United States, outside the designed treatment system. By malfunctioning in that way, a
wastewater treatment facility would be a wastewater transmission facility, leaking and disposing
of dirty wastewater into the surrounding environment
But that is what this draft permit tries to allow. It tries to legalize defects in the
wastewater treatment facility—flows of untreated wastewater containing coal ash pollutants—
that have been illegal since the first NPDES permit was issued for this facility. Draft Permit
Sections A. (89.) to (14.). And it even proposes to legalize future failures in the wastewater
treatment facility, if it cracks or springs a leak in the future. Section A. (31.).
There is no justification for these changes. No aspect of Duke Energy's wastewater
treatment system requires new outfalls into Crutchfield Branch; on the contrary, its system is
leaking in the same way it has illegally for years. DEQ is simply attempting to legalize Duke
Energy's ongoing, illegal discharges.
As set out above, this attempt violates the anti-backsliding requirements of the Clean
Water Act.
As set out below, this attempt violates the Clean Water Act requirement that Duke
Energy use the best available technology to eliminate its pollution of United States and North
Carolina waters, because it does not require excavation of the coal ash. In addition, this
approach violates the BAT requirement, in that the draft permit would allow Duke Energy to
avoid using key components of even its existing, minimal treatment technology of settling out
pollutants in the lagoons,and skimming discharge water from the top via risers connected to the
permitted outfalls. This is an impermissible step backwards from using available treatment
technology, and accordingly it violates the CWA's BAT requirements.
Further, this attempt violates the basic requirements of the Clean Water Act and North
Carolina law, because it purports to issue a permit for a malfunctioning wastewater treatment
facility that leaks in undesigned ways and pollutes the surrounding environment with untreated
wastewater, rather than treating wastewater before discharge into the environment.
D. Permitting Waters of the United States as "Effluent Channels" Violates the Clean
Water Act and North Carolina Law
Even this draft permit cannot find a way to allow the Mayo facility to leak and pretend to
comply with the Clean Water Act and North Carolina law. Instead, the only way that DEQ can
10

allow Duke Energy to keep polluting Crutchfield Branch is to abandon streams that are waters of
North Carolina and the United States and illegally convert them into unprotected wastewater
ditches of Duke Energy.
At Mayo, DEQ has identified five flows of jurisdictional waters—streams, which the
Draft Permit calls "seeps"—which it proposes to permit as "effluent channels." 2017 Draft
Permit Section A. (31.). The 2016 draft permit acknowledged that these seeps are to be
considered jurisdictional waters. 2016 Draft Permit Section A. (32.). Without explanation,
justification, or acknowledgement, the 2017 draft permit drops this acknowledgement, but it
cannot erase what DEQ has already conceded.
As jurisdictional waters, these streams cannot be permitted as effluent channels. Without
any explanation or description of how this has been accomplished since the 2016 draft permit,
the 2017 draft permit summarily recites that these jurisdictional waters "discharge[] through an
effluent channel meeting the requirements in 15A NCAC 2B.0228." Apparently, Duke Energy
is attempting to have the channel or channels of these jurisdictional water to be designated"an
effluent channel."
DEQ has no legal authority to convert a stream—a water of the United States and of
North Carolina—or any part of it, into a Duke Energy wastewater ditch with no clean
water protections.
The Clean Water Act provides no mechanism to convert jurisdictional waters into point
source discharges. The Clean Water Act"requires permits for the discharge of`pollutants'from
any `point source' into `waters of the United States.' 40 C.F.R. § 122.1(b)(1)(emphasis added).
By definition, a"point source" cannot be a"water of the United States"; a point source conveys
pollutants to a water of the United States. Coal ash and coal ash wastewater are pollutants
regulated under the Clean Water Act. In theory, an"effluent channel" could be a type of point
source but only if that effluent channel is not a"water of the United States."See 33 U.S.C. §
1362(14)(defining point source as "any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance, including
but not limited to . . . [a] channel"). In sum,jurisdictional waters cannot be point sources.
Instead, water quality standards must be met in the jurisdictional waterbody—here, the streams
flowing into Crutchfield Branch.
North Carolina law incorporates the same foundational assumption that a point source
cannot be a stream, that is, a water of the United States or of North Carolina. "Effluent channel
means a discernable confined and discrete conveyance which is used for transporting treated
wastewater to a receiving stream or other body of water." 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2B.0202
(emphasis added). Restated, an effluent channel conveys wastewater to a receiving stream or
body of water; the effluent channel cannot itself be the receiving stream.
North Carolina law makes this point doubly clear by prohibiting designation of an
effluent channel if that channel "contain[s] natural waters except when such waters occur in
direct response to rainfall events by overland runoff." 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2B.0228(2).
"Natural waters" include ground and surface waters, as does the Clean Water Act. North
Carolina law prohibits designation of an effluent channel if that channel contains natural,
11

jurisdictional surface waters. North Carolina law also prohibits designation of an effluent
channel if that channel contains groundwater. In other words, an effluent channel can only be
designated if that channel would be dry except during rainfall events and as a result of
transporting waste water. The streams or seeps identified by Duke Energy and DEQ are both
jurisdictional surface water tributaries and are influenced by natural ground water,preventing
their designation as "effluent channels." This approach cannot be implemented consistent with
federal and state law.
There is no doubt that this attempt of the draft permit is clearly illegal under North
Carolina and United States law.
E. The Coal Ash Must Be Removed from the Mayo Unlined Pit to Prevent Illegal
Pollution.
DEQ is engaging in these illegal contortions in the draft permit in an attempt to dodge its
basic responsibility to require Duke Energy to stop its coal ash pollution of waters of North
Carolina and the United States. Instead of stopping that pollution, DEQ is engaging in awkward
and illegal permit drafting to avoid the obvious solution: to stop the ongoing illegal water
pollution from the Mayo unlined pit, Duke Energy must remove its coal ash to its very nearby
lined, modern landfill.
That is the solution that is being implemented at every utility-owned waterfront coal ash
storage site in South Carolina. That is the solution being implemented at eight other Duke
Energy coal ash storage sites in North Carolina. Indeed, the Mayo site is the only coal ash
storage site with 7 million tons of coal ash or less in both Carolinas that is not being excavated.
For over two years, Duke Energy has been required to excavate the coal ash at Sutton, which
contains more coal ash than at the Mayo site. At Sutton, Duke Energy is constructing a new
landfill to hold the Sutton ash and is transporting the ash by train to a second new landfill. At
Mayo, Duke Energy has an existing landfill whose planned capacity would hold the coal ash
without any separate landfill construction and with minimal transportation.
Any NPDES permit issued by DEQ for the Mayo facility must incorporate the Clean
Water Act's requirement of best available technology to eliminate discharges if the facility is
capable of achieving such elimination. In this case, all the other utilities in the Carolinas,
including Duke Energy itself, are already implementing a guaranteed approach to eliminating
their discharges: removal of their unlined coal ash to dry, lined landfill storage or recycling.
a. SCE&G
In South Carolina, SCE&G had unpermitted seeps and groundwater contamination at its
Wateree Station facility on the portion of the Catawba River called the Wateree River. Today,
SCE&G is in the midst of removing all its coal ash from unlined lagoons at Wateree Station to
safe, dry, lined storage in a landfill away from the Wateree River. SCE&G has already removed
over 1 million tons of coal ash from its Wateree facility. In filings with the South Carolina
Public Service Commission, SCE&G has publicly stated its commitment to clean up the coal ash
at its other facilities in South Carolina as well. Attachment 4, at 26. SCE&G has also stated
12

publicly that its cleanup has had no effect on customer rates. Eric Connor, "Coal ash cleanup:
Someone will pay; will it be customers?" Greenville News (Apr. 28, 2014). At the same time,
groundwater contamination has dropped by 60 to 90%.
b. Santee Cooper
South Carolina's Public Service Authority utility, known as Santee Cooper, has also
committed to excavate its coal ash from unlined lagoons and store it in dry, lined landfills or
recycle it for concrete. Santee Cooper's Executive Vice President of Corporate Services
described the removal and recycling of the unlined coal ash from the lagoons as "cost-effective"
and a"triple win" for the utility's customers,the environment, and the local economy.
Attachment 5. At last report, Santee Cooper has already removed over 700,000 tons from its
Grainger Generating Station in Conway, SC, where unlined coal ash had contaminated the
groundwater and adjacent wetlands with arsenic and other pollutants. Attachment 6. Santee
Cooper is also moving ahead with excavation from its Jefferies Generating Station in Moncks
Corner, SC. David Wren, "Coal ash removal at Santee Cooper's power plants years ahead of
schedule,"Post & Courier (Jan. 26, 2015). A concrete recycling facility has been built at its
Winyah facility to remove and reprocess ash, and a new modern lined landfill is being built to
hold ash that is not recycled. Id. Santee Cooper also states that its actions to eliminate the
unlined storage of-coal ash will have no effect on its rates. Jim Pierobon, "Smart Utilities Know
There Are Responsible Solutions for Their Coal Ash Waste," The Energy Fix (Jan. 12, 2015).
c. Duke Energy—South Carolina
In April 2015, conservation groups signed an agreement with Duke Energy for Duke to
remove all the coal ash from its W.S. Lee facility on the Saluda River in Anderson County,
South Carolina. Attachment 7. Duke will remove all the coal ash to dry, lined storage away
from the river, including the ash from two leaking lagoons and in an ash storage area near the
lagoons. In September 2014, the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental
Control entered into a consent enforcement agreement with Duke Energy in which Duke was
required to remove coal ash from two other storage areas on the Saluda River's banks at the Lee
facility. Attachment 8. Since then, Duke Energy has begun removing ash from the site and has
permitted anew, lined landfill for removed ash.
Duke Energy's other coal ash site in South Carolina is the H.B. Robinson facility on Lake
Robinson and Black Creek in Darlington County, SC. On April 30, 2015, after months of public
pressure from conservation groups calling for a cleanup, Duke publicly committed to excavating
all the coal ash at Robinson and storing it in a dry, lined landfill on site. Sammy Fretwell, "Duke
to clean up toxin-riddled waste pond in Hartsville," The State (Apr. 30, 2015). Duke Energy has
moved forward with permitting and constructing a lined landfill to hold the excavated ash.
d. Duke Energy—North Carolina -
Duke Energy is now required by court order to remove the ash from seven sites across the
state, including Sutton, which contains more ash than Mayo. Recently, after insisting that it had
to leave the coal ash in unlined pits at its Buck facility, Duke Energy entered into a settlement
13

agreement with conservation groups requiring it to excavate all the coal ash from the Buck site,
either to a lined landfill or to be recycled into concrete. Mayo is the only site in North and South
Carolina with less than 7 million tons of ash from which the utility is not required to remove the
ash.
Duke Energy's excavation of every site as large as Mayo in two states—and at least one
site larger than Mayo—is proof positive that dewatering and ash removal are achievable as BAT
to stop the ongoing discharges of coal ash pollutants from the Mayo lagoon. Indeed, ash removal
at Mayo is even easier than removal at other sites, because there is only one lagoon and Duke
Energy has a modern, lined landfill on site that can hold the ash. Accordingly, ash removal
should be required in the NPDES permit for Mayo in order to ensure the discharges are stopped.
In sum, excavation and dry, lined storage of coal ash formerly stored in unlined, leaking
lagoons is already standard practice among all the other major utilities in the Carolinas, and
Duke Energy is now required to excavate the ash from 10 of its coal ash sites in the Carolinas—
including every other one containing 7 million tons or less. Removal of the ash to dry, lined
storage is not only economically achievable but cost effective, according to the utilities putting it
into practice. And it eliminates the continuing seepage into groundwater and surface waters, as
well as the risk of a catastrophic dam failure or spill, such as Duke Energy's Dan River spill in
February 2014.
Accordingly, DEQ must incorporate into the NPDES permit provisions requiring the
dewatering and excavation of the unlined coal ash from the leaking unlined pit at Mayo, in
combination with a reasonable schedule of compliance to achieve the Clean Water Act's goal of
eliminating the discharge of pollutants to public waters.
F. DEQ Has Acknowledged That Zero Discharge Is Attainable For Seeps But Fails to
Require that Solution or to Impose Corresponding TBELS or Any Schedule of
Completion.
DEQ's fact sheet for another Duke Energy coal ash site, Riverbend, concedes a zero
discharge technological solution available to Duke Energy to.address coal ash seeps, but DEQ
has failed to impose TBELs based on that technology.
The Riverbend Fact Sheet acknowledges, with respect to seeps, that"[r]eleases of this
nature would typically be addressed through an enforcement action requiring their elimination . .
. ." Attachment 9. The draft permit originally proposed by DEQ for Riverbend further
recognized the availability of a zero discharge solution—collection and"rerouting the discharge"
and"discontinuing the discharge" are available solutions for meeting technology-based effluent
limits. Attachment 10, at Condition A(5) n.4. Nonetheless, DEQ requires no action from Duke
Energy at Mayo to address the seeps, but instead proposes in the draft permit simply to allow
them to continue. This complete disregard of an acknowledged solution to these uncontrolled
discharges does not satisfy the requirements of the federal Clean Water Act.
Indeed, DEQ must require compliance with the discharge limits achievable by the
implementation of the best available technology now,just as it has in the Sutton NPDES permit.
EPA defines a compliance schedule as "a schedule of remedial measures, . . . including an •
14 •

enforceable sequence of interim requirements (for example, actions, operations, or milestone
events) . . . ." 40 C.F.R. § 122.2. Under EPA regulations, DWQ may use compliance schedules
to achieve "compliance with CWA [Clean Water Act] and regulations . . . as soon as possible,
but not later than the applicable statutory deadline under the CWA." 40 C.F.R. §
122.47(a)(1)(emphasis added). The Clean Water Act requires dischargers of color pollution to
comply with BAT-based effluent limits by March 31, 1989. 33 U.S.C. §1311(b)(2)(A), (F).
Thus, "a permit writer may not establish a compliance schedule in a permit for TBELs
[technology-based effluent limits] because the statutory deadlines for meeting technology
standards . . . have passed." EPA Permit Writers Manual, Section p. 9-8 (2010); see also EPA
Permit Writers Manual, Section 9.1.3 p. 148 (1996).
G. DEQ Cannot Permit the Existing Seeps or Permit In Advance Unidentified and
Thus Unpermitted Discharges.
•
As set out above, not only does the draft permit attempt to authorize the existing seeps
and leaks from the coal ash lagoon, it also attempts to put in place in advance a procedure for
seeps that have not yet occurred and whose nature is unknown, what the draft permit calls "new
identified seeps." Draft Permit Section A. (31.). The draft permit states that the permit must be
modified to include the new seep, but it does not specify what public notice and comment
procedures, if any, will be used for such"modification." In other words,the draft permit tries to
give Duke Energy amnesty in advance for these malfunctions of its unlined Mayo coal ash
lagoon.
1. The Draft Permit Violates the CWA's Prohibition on Unpermitted Point
Source Discharges
Any non jurisdictional stream of contaminated water leaking from the Mayo coal ash
lagoon to surface waters of the United States is a point source discharge. The proposed permit
purports to authorize unspecified point source discharges, in violation of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. §
1311(a).
Under the CWA, "Every identifiable point that emits pollution is a point source which
must be authorized by a NPDES permit . . . ." U.S. v. Tom-Kat Dev., Inc., 614 F. Supp. 613, 614
(D. Alaska 1985) (citing 40 C.F.R. § 122.1(b) (1). Accord U.S. v. Earth Sciences, Inc., 599 F.2d
368, 373 (10th Cir. 1979);Legal Envtl Assistance Found., Inc. v. Hodel, 586 F. Supp. 1163, 1168
(E.D. Tenn. 1984); U.S. v. Saint Bernard Parish, 589 F. Supp. 617 (E.D. La. 1984)). The
"NPDES program requires permits for the discharge of`pollutants' from any `point source' into
`waters of the United States.' 40 C.F.R. § 122.1(b)(1) (emphasis added).
Rather than complying with this straightforward requirement of the CWA, the proposed
permit instead tries to legalize the existing illegal seeps and to legalize in advance now
nonexistent but future occurring unpermitted discharges.
Further,there are no limits on any toxic pollutants in these seeps, except for lead. Draft
Permit Sections A. (8.) to (14.). And, as set out above,Duke Energy and DEQ are illegally
15

attempting to convert all these jurisdictional waters to so-called "effluent channels" with no
clean water protections at all.
The draft permit's authorization of the seeps violates the most basic principles of the
Clean Water Act. DEQ itself acknowledges in the Riverbend Fact Sheet that"[t]he CWA
NPDES permitting program does not normally envision permitting of uncontrolled releases from
treatment systems" and "[r]eleases of this nature would typically be addressed through an
enforcement action requiring their elimination rather than permitting" Attachment 9 (emphasis
added).
Indeed, DEQ has pending an enforcement action against the two engineered toe drains at
Mayo—an enforcement action that DEQ has not diligently prosecuted. Yet, in this draft permit,
DEQ attempts to legalize what it has already stated, under oath, is illegal and a serious threat to
North Carolina's people and their water quality.
2. The Proposed Permit Attempts to Shield Duke from Further Legal
Violations
The seeps are prohibited under Duke Energy's current NPDES permit. These
"uncontrolled releases" of leaking wastewater should be the subject of an enforcement action
requiring their elimination. Indeed, DEQ has filed such an action in state Superior Court for the
two engineered toe drains. Duke Energy's operating companies have pleaded guilty to criminal
violations of the Clean Water Act for exactly such unpermitted discharges.
DEQ's proposed permit purports to legalize these previously illegal discharges with the
stroke of a pen, rather than requiring Duke Energy to take any action to remedy the violations.
Even more shockingly, DEQ is proposing to grant Duke amnesty for unknown numbers of future
violations of the Clean Water Act as well. This is nothing more than an attempt to shield Duke
Energy from having to comply with the laws it has been violating for years.
3. The Draft Permit's Authorization of Future Seeps Violates the CWA's Public
Participation Requirements
The draft permit would allow Duke to evade public notice and comment and the
opportunity for a public hearing and for judicial review, along with all the other requirements of
the state NPDES permitting program, 33 U.S.C. § 1342(b). While the draft permit vaguely
states that a new seep would require the permit to be "modified,"there is no indication that
public notice and comment would be required. Further, the draft permit purports to set out that
any new seep would be handled in the same way as the existing seeps—without knowledge as to
the nature or circumstances of the new seep.
It is beyond the authority of DEQ to authorize new point source discharges without the
full procedures of a modification of the NPDES permit with public comment and EPA oversight.
EPA's regulations authorize limited administrative changes to an active permit through minor
modifications, 40 U.S.C. § 122.63, none of which condone the administrative addition of a new
point source discharge, which must be permitted as an NPDES outfall. Nor can DEQ prejudge
16

the way a new point source discharge would be addressed, by simply adding the seep to a list to
be addressed in the same way as it proposes to address the existing seeps. This scheme is
inconsistent with the requirements of the Clean Water Act.
The existing permit and all prior ones are the result of the full agency process,public
review, public comment, and the procedures required by the Clean Water Act and North Carolina
law. These illegal flows of polluted water into Crutchfield Branch,expressly forbidden by the
existing permit, cannot be made legitimate by totally changing the permit to allow contaminated
water to pop out of this purported wastewater treatment facility andflow into the Branch. It is
inconceivable that a permitted wastewater treatment facility would be allowed to repeatedly open
up leaks and discharge polluted water from the supposed wastewater treatment lagoons into a
public waterway. This proposed option is not law enforcement or pollution elimination at all,
but instead an option for the law enforcement agency to try to find a way to make unlawful and
polluting activities "permitted" and avoid dealing with the risks to the public. This stratagem
should not be adopted by a state agency that has the responsibility of enforcing the law and
protecting the State's natural resources and the public interest.
Instead, this permit should require the implementation of the proven method of
eliminating seeps from these defective wastewater treatment systems—movement of the ash to
safe, dry lined storage and appropriate dewatering of the lagoons.
H. The Draft Permit is Inconsistent with the Removed Substances Provision.
For the same reasons,the proposed permit's attempt to authorize the seeps violates the
Clean Water Act's anti-backsliding provisions because it is inconsistent with the Removed
Substances provision of the current Mayo NPDES permit, which provides an important
limitation in the permit to prevent the entrance of pollutants removed in the course of settling
treatment from entering State and navigable waters.
The State of North Carolina has included an important standard condition in its NPDES
permits for waste treatment systems like the Mayo lagoon, known as the Removed Substances
provision. The Removed Substances provision of the Mayo permit, Part II.C.6, provides:
"Solids, sludges . . . or other pollutants removed in the course of treatment or
control of wastewaters shall be utilized/disposed of. . . in.a manner such as to
prevent any pollutant from such materials from entering waters of the State or
navigable waters of the United States." (emphasis added)
This is a common-sense provision to prevent pollutants removed by waste treatment
facilities from escaping out into the environment. Accordingly, it has been included in the Mayo
permit since the first permit in 1982. The Removed Substances provision is an important
component of the Clean Water Act's protections, and prevents waters of the United States from
being polluted by waste treatment facilities such as the Mayo coal ash settling lagoon. In the
Matter of 539 Alaska Placer Miners,Nos. 1085-06-14-402C & 1087-08-03-402C, 1990 WL
324284 at *8 (EPA 1990) (inclusion of Removed Substance provision"is based on the simple
proposition that there is no way one can protect the water quality of the waters of the U.S if the
17

[polluter] is allowed to redeposit the pollutants collected in his settling ponds"); 40 C.F.R. §
440.148(c) (Removed Substances provisions ensure that"measures shall be taken to assure that
pollutants materials removed from the process water and waste streams will be retained in
storage areas") (emphasis added).
•
In the context of the Mayo permit,the removed substances provision is also the
implementation of a required permit component under the implementing regulations of the Clean
Water Act. The implementing regulations for the Clean Water Act require that"[t]echnology-
based effluent limitations shall be established under this subpart for solids, sludges, filter
backwash, and other pollutants removed in the course of treatment or control of wastewaters in
the same manner as for other pollutants." 40 C.F.R. § 125.3(g). Under the existing permit issued
to Duke Energy for the Mayo plant, DEQ did not set individual TBELs for seeps from the ash
basin but rather took the only responsible step, of treating zero liquid discharge as the BAT for
contaminated seeps from a coal ash impoundment. That is, consistent with the requirement to
set TBELs for pollutants removed by the wastewater treatment ash ponds, the existing permit
prohibits any discharge of removed substances to waters of the United States or of North
Carolina.
DEQ itself has cited Duke Energy for violating the Removed Substances provision by
allowing pollutants to enter waters of the State and navigable waters due to uncontrolled releases
from Duke Energy's coal ash lagoons at its Dan River facility. In a February 28, 2014 Notice of
Violation, DEQ cites the discharge "of coal combustion residuals from the ash pond to the Dan
River, class C waters of the State" as violating the Removed Substances provision: "Failure to
utilize or dispose solids removed from the treatment process in such a manner as to prevent
pollutants from entering waters of the State (Part II, Section C. 6. of NPDES permit)." Part
II.C.6 of the Dan River NPDES.Permit contains the Removed Substances permit provision.
At Mayo,the draft permit purports to allow pollutants removed in the course of treatment
to enter waters of the State and United States via uncontrolled releases that have sprung and that
may spring out of the lagoon and start discharging to public waters at any time. As such, the
proposed permit violates the Clean Water Act's anti-backsliding requirements in this additional
way by attempting to authorize illegal discharges prohibited by the existing permit's Removed
Substances Provision.
Indeed, there is no indication that DEQ is eliminating the Removed Substances provision
from the draft permit; the Removed Substances provision is part of the standard conditions for all
NPDES permits in North Carolina. Consequently, this aspect of the draft permit is contrary to
this fundamental condition, applicable to all NPDES permits and all wastewater treatment
facilities in North Carolina.
I. The Draft Permit Threatens the Safety of the Mayo Dam. •
By allowing seeps to continue, DEQ is threatening the safety of the Mayo coal ash dam. DEQ
itself has previously acknowledged the danger of seeps for earthen dams at Mayo.
18

In 2010, DEQ issued a dam safety Notice of Inspection another earthen dam at Mayo and
warned:
"Two of the more common types of earth dam failures are caused or influenced
by excessive seepage. Excessive seepage can produce progressive internal
erosion of soil from the downstream slope of the dam or foundation toward the
upstream side to form an open conduit or `pipe.' Seepage pressures decrease the
strength characteristics of the embankment soil. The resulting reduction in
embankment stability can produce a slide failure of the downstream slope."
(emphasis added).
Attachment 11, at 2. The Mayo coal ash dam is a high hazard dam. DEQ is ignoring its own
warnings by trying to allow the Mayo seeps to continue and by purporting to allow future,
unknown seeps,without any knowledge of their future effects on the Mayo coal ash dam.
J. The Department Cannot Issue a Permit to a Facility that is Violating Surface Water.
Standards
DEQ cannot issue a permit that removes the ban on direct discharges to Crutchfield
Branch and the pollution caused by indirect discharges to Crutchfield Branch, because
discharges from the Mayo coal ash lagoon are contributing to violations of surface water quality
standards.
NPDES permits control pollution by setting (1)limits based on the technology available
to treat pollutants ("technology based effluent limits") and(2) any additional limits necessary to
protect water quality ("water quality-based effluent limits") on the wastewater dischargers. 33
U.S.C. §§ 1311(b), 1314(b); 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(a)(1), (d). An NPDES permit must assure
compliance with all statutory and regulatory requirements, including state water quality
standards. 33 U.S.C. § 1342(a)(1)(A); 40 C.F.R. § 122.43(a); 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2H .0118.
Similarly,North Carolina law provides that"[n]o permit may be issued when the
imposition of conditions cannot reasonably ensure compliance with applicable water quality
standards." 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2H.0112(c); see also N.C. Gen..Stat. §§ 143-215.6a-c
(authorizing civil and criminal penalties and injunctive relief for violations of surface water
standards).
At Mayo, Duke Energy is violating surface water criteria in Crutchfield Branch.
Corrective Action,Plan Part 1, at 4-14 ("the stream is primarily impacted by flow from the ash
basin"), Table 2-14; Comprehensive Site Assessment Supplement 1, Table 3-1. DEQ can
remedy an ongoing violation of surface water quality standards and"ensure compliance with
applicable water quality standards" in Crutchfield Branch only by requiring that the source of the
pollution, the coal ash, be removed from Crutchfield Branch; that the seeps of coal ash polluted
19

water into Crutchfield Branch be stopped; and that the coal ash be removed from the unlined pit,
where it contaminates groundwater and the seeps/streamsthat flow into Crutchfield Branch,
directly or indirectly. DEQ certainly cannot meet the standards of the Clear Water Act and
North Carolina law by eliminating the existing permit protections of Crutchfield Branch;
permitting the seeps; creating "effluent channels"; and allowing the coal ash to remain in place.
These discharges cannot be permitted as long as surface water quality standards are
violated in Crutchfield Branch.
K. The Draft Permit Fails to Account for Discharges of Wastewater Through
Hydrologically Connected Groundwater
The Clean Water Act is a strict liability statute prohibiting the discharge of any pollutant
to a water of the United States without a permit. 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a). The Mayo coal ash pond
discharges significant quantities of contaminated wastewater to Mayo Lake and Crutchfield
Branch through groundwater via a direct hydrologic connection to the Lake and the Branch.
That discharge is not included in the current permit and attempting to add it now would violate
the anti-backsliding provision of the Clean Water Act. 33 U.S.C. § 1342(o); 40 C.F.R. §
122.44(1)(1) ("[W]hen a permit is renewed or reissued, interim effluent limitations, standards or
conditions must be at least as stringent as the final effluent limitations, standards, or conditions
in the previous permit . . . .").
The United States Department of Justice ("DOJ") recently emphasized"EPA's
longstanding position [] that a discharge from a point source to jurisdictional surface waters that
moves through groundwater with a direct hydrological connection"comes under the purview of
the CWA. See Amicus Brief,Hawaii Wildlife Fund v. County of Maui (No. 15-17447, 9th Cir.),
5 (Attachment 12). As expressed by DOJ, "it would hardly make sense for the CWA to
encompass a polluter who discharges pollutants via a pipe running from the factory directly to
the riverbank, but not a polluter who dumps the same pollutants into a man-made settling basin
some distance short of the river and then allows the pollutants to seep into the river via the
groundwater." Id. at 16 (quoting N. Cal. River Watch v. Mercer Fraser Co.,No. 04-4620, 2005
WL 2122052, at *2 (N.D. Cal: Sept. 1, 2005)). The same reasoning applies here. As discharges
to Mayo Lake and Crutchfield Branch via hydrologically connected groundwater were not
authorized and therefore prohibited under the current permit(indeed these discharges to
Crutchfield Branch are expressly prohibited), they cannot be authorized in thedraft permit, and
they are not in the draft permit.
Consequently, DEQ must require Duke Energy to stop the discharge of contaminated
wastewater to Mayo Lake and Crutchfield Branch via hydrologically connected groundwater by
removing the source of contamination—Duke Energy's coal ash in the unlined Mayo pit.
20

L. The Draft Permit Has Inadequate Monitoring.
During decanting and dewatering, Duke Energy should be required to take daily samples.
These activities are not part of the normal operation of the plant because they are not part of its
wastewater treatment function. Special care needs to be taken to ensure the limits in the permit
are enforced. Some of the limits in the draft permit have only monthly sampling, and many have
only weekly sampling. During the dumping of millions of gallons of coal ash polluted water in
Mayo Lake—an important regional water resource—daily sampling is essential for limits to have
real meaning.
M. The Proposed Permit Violates North Carolina's Groundwater Rules.
Because of the groundwater contamination at and beyond the compliance boundary at
Mayo, the state groundwater rules prohibit DEQ from issuing the proposed NPDES permit for
the Mayo coal ash lagoon.
North Carolina's groundwater rules state that"the [Environmental Management]
Commission will not approve any disposal system subject to the provisions of G.S. 143-215.1
which would result in a violation of a groundwater quality standard beyond a designated
compliance boundary." 15A N.C.A.C. 2L .0103(b)(2). The draft permit states on its face that it
is issued under the authority of"North Carolina General State 143-215.1." The Mayo coal ash
lagoon is a disposal system for purposes of the 2L,groundwater rules, with compliance
boundaries set by the rules. 15A N.C.A.C. 2L .0107. Because DEQ issues this permit under
authority delegated by the Environmental Management Commission,this prohibition applies to
DEQ as well.
There is no question that the disposal system authorized by this permit will result in a
violation of a groundwater quality standard at a designated compliance boundary. It already has.
There is an extensive history of documented groundwater contamination at Mayo. Indeed,
DENR has ordered Duke Energy to undertake assessment activities and filed an enforcement
case in Superior Court seeking injunctive relief to abate groundwater contamination at the site.
Duke Energy's own studies confirm that it has contaminated the groundwater with elevated
levels of pollutants including pH, antimony, arsenic, barium, boron, chromium,cobalt, iron,
manganese, thallium, total dissolved solids, and vanadium, at levels above both state.
groundwater standards and Duke Energy's own proposed background concentrations. See, e.g.,
Corrective Action Plan Part 1, at ES-6.
The groundwater violations at and beyond the compliance boundary will only continue,
in violation of the state groundwater rules, if the ash is allowed to remain in the unlined lagoon
where it will continue leaching pollutants into the groundwater. Because this disposal system
has already resulted in violations of groundwater quality standards and will continue to do so,
DEQ cannot issue the proposed NPDES permit without imposing conditions sufficient to ensure
these violations will cease. A requirement for final closure of the Mayo coal ash impoundments
and removal of the ash to dry, lined storage is the only assured solution to stop ongoing
21

violations of quality standards at the compliance boundary. Accordingly, the permit should
require removal of the ash to safe, dry lined storage.
N. DEQ Fails to Exercise Its Best Professional Judgment to Establish BTA under
316(b).
DEQ is permitted to allow Mayo until the next permitting cycle to provide sufficient
information to establish final impingement mortality and entrainment BTA. 40 C.F.R. §
125.98(b)(6)However, DEQ must still "establish interim BTA requirements in the permit on a
site-specific basis based on the Director's best professional judgment."Id. (emphasis added).
There is no indication that DEQ has engaged in such analysis in this proceeding. Rather,the Fact
Sheet simply states: "The permittee shall comply with the Cooling Water Intake Structure Rule
per 40 C.F.R. § 125.95. The Division approved the facility request for an alternative schedule in
accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 125.95(a)(2). The permittee shall submit all the materials required
by the Rule with the next renewal application." Fact Sheet at 3. DEQ has had more than
sufficient time to assess at least interim BTA for Mayo. As such, any final permit must include,
at minimum, interim BTA standards based on DEQ's best professional judgment and
consideration of the factors and technologies specified at 40 C.F.R. §§ 125.94 and 125.98.
0. Duke Energy's New Treatment System Will Pollute Mayo Lake.
The draft permit sets up a new treatment system to address pollution from the Mayo
facility after the coal ash lagoon ceases to operate. A new retention basin will be constructed,
discharging into Mayo Lake.through new Outfall 002A. Section(A.) (5.)
This new retention basin will receive streams of highly polluted water, including leachate
from the Mayo coal ash landfill, coal pile runoff, and other industrial wastes. Yet,the draft
permit contains no meaningful limits for the coal ash pollutants that this retention basin will
dump into Mayo Lake.
As with the decanting and dewatering of the coal ash basin, the draft permit contains
limits for some coal ash pollutants (arsenic, mercury, selenium, and nitrate/nitrite). But, as
before, these limits apply only when Duke Energy routes overflow from the FGD basin through
this outfall.
As explained above, there is no reason to protect Mayo Lake from coal ash pollutants only
when Duke Energy decides to route certain flows of pollutants into this retention basin. Since
Mayo Lake needs these protections when Duke Energy is sending FGD overflow through this
basin, Mayo Lake needs the same protections from coal ash pollution when Duke Energy is
operating its pollution treatment system otherwise.
Also, these limits include the extraordinarily high mercury limits critiqued above.
This permit is an opportunity for Duke Energy and DEQ to set a new path for protecting
Mayo Lake from the continuing pollution of Mayo Lake from Duke Energy's coal ash and its
operation of the Mayo facility. But instead of putting in place protections for the public and
22

Mayo Lake, once more DEQ and Duke Energy propose to make Mayo Lake a dumping ground
for Duke Energy's coal ash'and other pollution, without protective limits for the Lake's waters.
For all the reasons given above, this disturbing approach violates the Clean Water Act and
North Carolina law.
P. Coal Ash Landfill Leachate.
The 2017 Draft Permit adds an internal outfall, 011, for leachate from Duke Energy's coal ash
landfill. This landfill is receiving and will receive all of Duke Energy's fly and bottom ash going
forward. It should be expected that the leachate from this landfill will be highly polluted with
toxins and heavy metals from coal ash.
The 2017 draft permit would allow this highly polluted leachate to go directly to Mayo
Lake through Outfall 002 as long as the coal ash lagoon is operating, and thereafter directly into
Mayo Lake after passing through only the newly-constructed and much smaller retention basin.
There is no requirement for any real treatment of this leachate. It will simply be dumped
into the retention basin, with a host of other industrial and coal ash wastes, and then discharged
into Mayo Lake. There is no requirement for any kind of physical or chemical treatment facility.
As set out above, there are no limits for coal ash pollutants discharged from the retention basin
into Mayo Lake.
This is a recipe for yet another coal ash scandal at Mayo. After all the failure of DEQ
and Duke Energy in their management of coal ash and coal ash pollution,the public has a right
to expect that going forward both DEQ and Duke Energy will make every effort to protect North
Carolina's waters from coal ash pollution. Instead, the 2017 draft permit would abdicate DEQ's
responsibility to put in place protective and meaningful pollution limits, and would also give the
public every reason not to trust Duke Energy's handling of this pollution.
This approach is also a missed opportunity to easily implement technology based limits
on Duke Energy's coal ash pollution, because the technology will be in place already to treat this
discharge, yet DEQ is failing to require treatment. The permit claims Duke Energy will be
installing and operating physical-chemical treatment for its dewatering activities, and the same
technology should be left in place and operated to treat the landfill leachate as well, with
corresponding limits reflecting the best available technology for treating this coal ash polluted
wastewater.
There must be meaningful and enforceable limits for the coal ash pollutants in Duke
Energy's coal ash landfill leachate, when it enters the retention.basin and when it leaves the
basin and flows into Mayo Lake.
Q. Stormwater Discharges Via Ash Basin.
The permit's Supplement to Permit Cover Sheet notes that stormwater is routed through
the Mayo ash basin, and apparently will also be routed through the landfill leachate retention
23

•
basin. These stormwater routing configurations should not be authorized by the permit. First,
routing stormwater through these basins inevitably will cause more and greater discharges of
coal ash pollution. Second, doing so allows Duke Energy to benefit from the dilution of these
coal ash pollutants by the stormwater, prior to monitoring. That is not an appropriate approach
to monitoring and limiting the discharge of pollutants under the Clean Water Act. The active
NPDES permit for Mayo states that ash basin discharge samples "shall be taken prior to mixing
with other waste streams." 2009 Mayo NPDES Permit at A(3)-(4) (emphasis added). The 2009
permit did note that stormwater was routed through the ash basin, seemingly contradicting this
sampling instruction,but that is no reason to allow such a situation to continue. Going forward,
stormwater should be kept separate from the coal ash wastewater basins.
R. New Stormwater Discharges.
The draft permit creates a number of new outfalls, permitting what:are described as former
stormwater outfalls, all of which discharge directly to Mayo Lake. Section (A.) 15 to 20.
Presumably, these are unpermitted discharges that have been discovered at Mayo Lake, and the
draft permit is designed to legalize them.
However, the 2017 draft permit indicates that DEQ does not have enough information to
include these outfalls in the permit. In each instance, Duke Energy is given 6 months to submit
EPA Form 2C, the essential form that lays out the pollutants in these outfalls. Thus, it appears
that DEQ does not understand these flows, which directly enter into Mayo Lake.
This information must be provided and evaluated by DEQ prior to these discharges being
included in any permit. It is particularly inappropriate to give advance approval to discharges
directly into Mayo Lake without the information that Duke Energy is required to provide in order
to obtain a permit.
There can be no doubt that Duke Energy has had plenty of time to collect this
information. The enforcement action as to Mayo has been pending three and a half years; the
Dan Riyer spill occurred three years ago; and the 2016 draft permit has been outstanding for six
months (the additional time period allowed in this draft permit for Duke Energy to submit this
data).
S. Additional Points.
Under the Clean Water Act, DEQ and Duke Energy cannot render a portion of a permit
unenforceable by citizens by inserting the phrase "State Enforceable Only," as has been done on.
Attachment 2 of the draft permit. That phrase should be deleted.
Section A. (34.) is titled to address requirements for Internal Outfall 011, but the text refers to
Internal Outfall 009. We believe the intent is to set out requirements for Internal Outfall 011.
24

Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
vr-
Frank S. Holleman III
Senior Attorney
icholas S. Torrey
Staff Attorney
•
25

EXHIBIT 1
Plaintiff State of North Carolina
Complaint and Motion for Injunctive Relief
August 16, 2013

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

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

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

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

•
purchased such property without knowledge or a reasonable basis for knowing that groundwater
contamination had occurred, or a person whose interest or ownership in the property is based or
derived from a security interest in the property, shall not be considered a responsible party."
15A NCAC 2L.0101(b).
15. The policy section of the 2L Rules provides that the 2L Rules "are intended to
maintain and preserve the quality of the groundwaters, prevent and abate pollution and
contamination of the waters of the state, protect public health, and permit management of the
groundwaters for their best usage by the citizens of North Carolina." 15A NCAC 2L.0103(a).
16. "Contaminant" is defined in the 2L Rules as "any substance occurring in
groundwater in concentrations which exceed the groundwater quality standards specified in Rule
.0202 of the Subchapter." 15A NCAC 2L.0102(4).
17. "Natural Conditions" are defined in the 2L Rules as "the physical, biological,
chemical and radiological conditions which occur naturally." 15A NCAC.2L.0102(16).
18. The policy section of the 2L Rules provides further that, "[i]t is the policy of the
Commission that the best usage of the groundwaters of the state is as a source of drinking water.
These groundwaters generally are a potable source of drinking water without the necessity of •
significant treatment. It is the intent of these Rules to protect the overall high quality of North
Carolina's groundwaters to the level established by the standards and to enhance and restore the
quality of degraded groundwaters where feasible and necessary to protect human health and the
environment, or to ensure their suitability as a future source of drinking water." 15A NCAC
2L.0103(a).
19. The policy section of the 2L Rules provides further that, "[n]o person shall conduct
or cause to be conducted, any activity which causes the concentration of any substance to exceed
5

that specified in Rule .0202 of this Subchapter, except as authorized by the rules of this
Subchapter." 15A NCAC 2L.0103(d).
20. The groundwater "Standards" are specified in 15A NCAC 2L.0202. See 15A
NCAC 2L.0102(23). Some groundwater standards and their concentrations are specifically
listed in 15A NCAC 2L.0202(g) and (h). If a substance is not specifically listed and if it is
naturally occurring, the standard is the naturally occurring concentration as determined by the
Director. 15A NCAC 2L.0202(c). If a substance is listed, if it is naturally occurring and the
substance exceeds the established standard, the standard shall be the naturally occurring
concentration as determined by the Director. 15A NCAC 2L .0202(b)(3). If a substance is not
specifically listed and it is not naturally occurring, the substance cannot be permitted in
concentrations at or above the practical quantitation limit in Class GA or Class GSA waters,
except that the Director may establish interim maximum allowable concentrations ("IMAC")
pursuant to 15A NCAC 2L.0202(c). These are Iisted in Appendix #1 of 15A NCAC 2L. The.
IMACs are the established standard until adopted by rule. See the last page of Plaintiff's Exhibit
No. 2.
21. The DWQ Director established the IMAC for Antimony on August 1, 2010 and •
for Thallium on October.1, 2010, substances for which standards had not been established under
the 2L Rules. A copy of the Public Notice establishing the IMACs and a copy of the Approved
IMACs are attached hereto as Plaintiff's Exhibit Nos. 3 and 4, respectively, and both exhibits are
incorporated herein by reference. The interim maximum allowable concentration for Thallium is
0.2 micrograms per liter ("µg/L") established pursuant to 15A NCAC 2L .0202(c). The interim
maximum allowable concentration for Antimony is 1 µg/L established pursuant to 15A NCAC
2L .0202(c). See the last page of Plaintiffs Exhibit No. 2.
6

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

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

(3) Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant—January 4, 2011; -
(4) Lee Steam Electric Plant—January 4, 2011;
(5) Weatherspoon Steam Electric Plant—November 1, 2010; and
(6) Sutton Electric Plant—March 17, 2011 and October 24, 2011.
34. Defendant constructed compliance monitoring wells at the compliance boundaries
of the Coal Ash Ponds at each of the 6 Facilities on the following dates:
(1) Mayo Steam Electric Plant-November 2010;
(2) Roxboro Steam Electric Plant—October and November 2010;
(3) Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant—September 2010;
(4) Lee Steam Electric Plant—July 2010 and September 2012;
(5), Weatherspoon Steam Electric Plant—August 2010; and
(6) Sutton Electric Plant— 1990 to 2012.
35. Each of the 6 Facilities has a specific set of parameters being monitored:
(1) Mayo Steam Electric Plant—Aluminum, Antimony,Arsenic,
Barium, Boron, Cadmium, Chromium, Chloride, Copper, Iron,
Lead, Manganese, Mercury,Nickel,Nitrate, pH, Selenium,
Sulfate, Thallium, Total Dissolved Solids,Water Level, and Zinc;
(2) Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Aluminum,Antimony,Arsenic,
Barium, Boron, Cadmium, Chromium, Chloride, Copper, Iron,
Lead,Manganese, Mercury,Nickel,Nitrate, pH, Selenium,
Sulfate, Thallium,Total Dissolved Solids, Water Level,and Zinc;
(3) Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant—Aluminum,Antimony,Arsenic,
Barium, Boron, Cadmium, Chromium, Chloride, Copper, Iron,
•
Lead,Manganese, Mercury, Nickel,Nitrate, pH, Selenium,
Sulfate, Thallium, Total Dissolved Solids, Water Level, and Zinc;
(4) Lee Steam Electric Plant—Antimony, Arsenic, Barium, Boron,
Cadmium, Chromium, Chloride, Copper, Iron, Lead, Manganese,
Mercury,Nickel, Nitrate, pH, Selenium, Sulfate, Thallium, Total
Dissolved Solids, Water Level, and Zinc;
(5) Weatherspoon Steam Electric-Plant -Antimony,Arsenic,
Barium; Boron, Cadmium, Chromium, Chloride, Copper, Iron,
f 9

•
Lead, Manganese, Mercury,Nickel,Nitrate, pH, Selenium,
Sulfate, Thallium, Total Dissolved Solids, Water Level, and Zinc;
and
(6) Sutton Electric Plant=Antimony, Arsenic, Barium, Boron,
Cadmium, Chromium, Chloride, Copper, Iron, Lead, Manganese,
Mercury,Nickel,Nitrate, pH, Selenium, Sulfate, Thallium, Total
Dissolved Solids, Water Level, and Zinc.
36. In 2010 and 2011, with the exception of the Sutton Electric Plant, Defendant
began submitting groundwater monitoring data to the DWQ from 5 of the 6 Facilities. Although
actual groundwater monitoring started in 1984, the Sutton Electric Plant NPDES Permit required
groundwater monitoring to begin in the spring of 1990.
37. On June 17, 2011, the DWQ adopted a Policy for Compliance Evaluation of
Long-Term Permitted Facilities with No Prior Groundwater Monitoring Requirements
(hereinafter the "Policy for Compliance Evaluation"). A copy of the Policy for Compliance
Evaluation is attached hereto as Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 5 and is incorporated herein by reference..
38. The Policy for Compliance Evaluation establishes an approach to evaluate
groundwater compliance at long-term permitted: facilities. Specifically, the Policy for
Compliance Evaluation requires staff and responsible parties to consider multiple factors before
determining if groundwater concentrations in samples taken at the permitted facility are a
violation of the groundwater standards, or if the concentration is naturally occurring. Such
• factors considered are well design, sample integrity, analytical methods, statistical testing, etc.
39. All 6 Facilities are subject to the Policy for Compliance Evaluation and Plaintiff
has been working with the Defendant to move through the evaluative process as described in the
policy. .
40. Plaintiffs Aquifer Protection staff compiled tables of the analytical results of
groundwater samples collected at the 6 Facilities. The 6 Facilities began submitting data in
-10

2010, and Plaintiff's Aquifer Protection staff prepared 6 charts of the Ash Pond Exceedances
from 2010 to July 16, 2013. The 6 charts are labeled by National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Permit number and facility name. Each chart is attached hereto
and labeled individually as Plaintiff's Exhibit: No. 6 (Mayo Steam Electric Plant Ash Pond
Exceedances Chart); No. 7 (Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Ash Pond Exceedances Chart); No. 8
(Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant Ash Pond Exceedances Chart); No. 9 (Lee Steam Electric Plant
Ash Pond Exceedances Chart); No. 10 (Weatherspoon Steam Electric Plant Ash Pond •
Exceedances Chart); and No. 11 (Sutton Electric Plant Ash Pond Exceedances Chart);
respectively, and are incorporated herein by reference.
41. Each of the 6 charts contains the following information: the well number, the
parameter sampled,the date of the sample,the 2L Groundwater Standard, the sampling result
and the unit of measurement.
Mayo Steam Electric Plant
42. On July 12, 1982, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-215.1, other lawful statutes
and regulations issued by the Commission, and the Clean Water Act, the DWQ issued NPDES
Permit No. NC0038377 to Progress Energy for the Mayo Steam Electric Plant ("Mayo Steam
Electric Plant NPDES Permit"), located in Person County,North Carolina.
43. The Mayo Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit has been renewed subsequently.
The current NPDES Permit was re-issued on October 14, 2009, with an expiration date of March
31, 2012. On September 28, 2011, Progress Energy submitted a renewal application to the
DWQ. Since the Defendant timely applied for re-issuance 180 days prior to the expiration date,
pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 150B-3, Defendant can continue to operate under the 2009 Mayo
Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit until a new permit has been issued. A copy of the 2009
' 11

Mayo Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit No. NC0038377 is attached hereto as Plaintiff's
Exhibit No. 12, and is incorporated herein by reference.
44. A Special Order by Consent was approved by the EMC for the Mayo Steam
Electric Plant on June 25, 2012 and transmitted to Progress Energy on June 26, 2012. A copy of
the transmittal letter and EMC SOC WQ S10-012 is attached hereto as Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 13
and is incorporated herein by reference. To the extent that the SOC modifies the terms of the
2009 NPDES Permit for the Mayo Steam Electric Plant, the SOC controls those terms of the
permit until a new NPDES permit is issued or a judicial order is issued.
45. The Mayo Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit authorizes the discharge of treated
wastewater to receiving waters designated as the Mayo Reservoir in the Roanoke River Basin in
accordance with the effluent limitations, monitoring requirements and other conditions set forth
in the Mayo Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit.
46. The Mayo Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit authorizes a cooling tower system
less than once per year when the cooling towers and circulating water system are drained by
gravity and discharges a wastestream directly into the Mayo Reservoir through Outfall 001.
47. The Mayo Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit authorizes a cooling tower
blowdown system that indirectly discharges to Mayo.Reservoir via Internal Outfall 008 to the
Ash Pond Treatment System at Outfall 002. Cooling tower blowdown is usually mixed with ash
sluice water prior to discharge to the ash pond.
48. The Mayo Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit authorizes an Ash Pond Treatment
System at Outfall 002 that discharges directly into the Mayo Reservoir. The Ash Pond receives
ash transport water, coal pile runoff, storm water runoff, cooling tower blowdown and various
low volume wastes such as boiler blowdown, oily waste treatment, wastes/backwash from the
12

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exceedances in Violation of 2L Groundwater Standards
at the Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant
113. Plaintiffs Aquifer Protection staff compiled a table of the analytical results of
groundwater samples collected at the Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant from December 2010
through July 16, 2013, and prepared a chart of the Ash Pond Exceedances which are listed in the
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant Ash Pond Exceedances Chart. See Plaintiff's Exhibit N . 8.
114. The Cape Fear Steam. Electric Plant Ash Pond Exceedances Chart shows
exceedances from the 2L Groundwater Standard for Boron(700 µg/L)in monitoring well CMW-
1 during eight samplingevents from December 2010 to March 2013, with concentrations ranging
from 1,790 µg/L to 2,950 µg/L; in monitoring well CMW-6 during six sampling events from
December 2010 to March 2013, with concentrations ranging from 704 µg/L to 1,010 µg/L; and
in monitoring well CMW-8 during eight sampling events from December 2010 to March
•
2013,with concentrations ranging from 1,070 µg/L to 1,340 µg/L. Although Boron is a naturally
occurring element, its presence in groundwater and specific occurrence at this site indicates
impacts to groundwater resulting from the waste water treatment and disposal associated with
coal burning activities.
115. . Monitoring well CMW-1 is located at the southwest corner of the compliance
boundary of the West Ash Pond Treatment System at the Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant. Well
CMW-1 is located immediately adjacent to the compliance boundary and the Cape Fear River.
Monitoring well CMW-6 is located at the southeast corner of the compliance boundary of the
East Ash Pond Treatment System at the Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant. The monitoring well is
located approximately 300 feet southeast of the East Ash Pond. Monitoring well CMW-8 is
located on the western side of the compliance boundary of the West Ash Pond Treatment System
27

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

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

northwest corner of the compliance boundary of the West Ash Pond Treatment System at the
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant, adjacent to the 1956 Semi-Active Ash Pond.
124. The Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant Ash Pond Exceedances Chart. consistently
shows exceedances from the 2L Groundwater Standard for Total Dissolved Solids (500 mg/L) in
compliance wells CMW-2, CMW-3, CMW-6, and CTMW-8, during eight sampling events from
December 2010 to March 2013, with concentrations ranging from 502 mg/L to 1,100 mg/L.
125. The Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant Ash PondExceedances Chart consistently
shows exceedances from the 2L Groundwater Standard for pH levels in monitoring well
BGTMW-4 during three sampling events from December 2010 to March 2013, with
concentrations-of 10.3, 9.4 and 9.1,. respectively. However, recent sampling events did not
identify pH outside the acceptable 2L Groundwater Standard range of 6.5 to 8.5.
126. The DWR staff is working with the Defendant to determine if these exceedances
are naturally occurring or if corrective action will be required.
Lee Steam Electric Plant
127. On June 30, 1977, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-215.1, other lawful statutes
and regulations issued by the Commission, and the Clean Water Act, the DWQ issued NPDES
Permit No. NC0003417 to the Progress Energy for the H.F. Lee Steam Electric Plant ("Lee
Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit"), located in Wayne County,North Carolina.
128. The. Lee Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit,has been renewed subsequently.
The current Lee Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit was re-issued on October 14, 2009, with an
effective date of November 1, 2009, and with an expiration date of May 31,2013. A copy of the
current Lee Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit No. NC0003417 is attached hereto as Plaintiff's
Exhibit No. 16,and is incorporated herein by reference.
30

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

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

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

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

•
March 2013, with maximum concentrations of 732 µg/L and 102 µg/L, respectively; in
compliance well BGMW-9 during six sampling events from December 2010 through October
2012, with a maximum concentration 322 µg/L; in compliance well CMW-5 during five
sampling events from December 2010 through March 2012, with a maximum concentration of
163 µg/L; in compliance wells CW-1, CW-2, CW-3, CW-4, and BW-1 during eight sampling
events from October 2011 through March 2013, with maximum concentrations of 494 µg/L, 205
µg/L, 3,080 µg/L, 1,260 µg/L and 1,130 µg/L, respectively; in compliance well CMW-8 during
two sampling events in March 2012 and March 2013, with concentrations of 51.1 µg/L and
2,340 µg/L, respectively; and in compliance well BGMW-10 during one sampling event in
March 2013, with a concentration.of 83 µg/L. •
146. The Lee Steam Electric Plant Ash Pond Exceedances Chart shows an exceedance
from the 2L Groundwater Standard for Total Dissolved Solids (500 mg/L) in CW-1 during one
• sampling event in March 2012, with a concentration of 1,900 mg/L.
147. The DWR staff is working with the Defendant to determine if these exceedances .
are naturally occurring or if corrective action will be required.
Weatherspoon Steam Electric Plant
148. On March 20, 1980,pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-215.1, other lawful statutes
and regulations issued by the Commission, and the Clean Water Act, the DWQ issued NPDES
Permit No. NC0005363 to Progress Energy for the Weatherspoon Steam Electric Plant
("Weatherspoon Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit"), located in Robeson County, North
Carolina.
149. The Weatherspoon Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit has been renewed
subsequently. The current Weatherspoon Steam.Electric Plant NPDES Permit was re-issued on
35

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

system) require sampling for the following parameters: Flow, Temperature, Total Residual
Chlorine, Time of Chlorine Addition and pH.
155. The effluent limitations and monitoring requirements in the Weatherspoon Steam
Electric Plant NPDES Permit for the Stormwater Discharge System require sampling for the
following parameters: 40 CFR Part 43 Appendix A 13 Priority Pollutant Metals, Aluminum,
Boron, Chemical Oxygen Demand, Total Suspended Solids, Sulfate, Oil and Grease, pH and
Total Rainfall. Stormwater from the Weatherspoon Plant must also be assessed for qualitative
monitoring requirements, including:' Color, Odor, Clarity, Floating Solids, Suspended Solids,
Foam, Oil Sheen, Erosion or deposition at the outfall and other obvious indicators of stormwater
pollution.
Exceedances in Violation of 2L Groundwater Standards•
at the Weatherspoon Steam Electric Plant
156. The Aquifer Protection staff of Plaintiffs predecessor division compiled a table
of the analytical results of groundwater samples collected at the Weatherspoon Steam Electric
Plant from November 2010 through July 16, 2013, and prepared a chart of the Ash Pond
Exceedances which are listed in in the Weatherspoon Steam Electric Plant Ash Pond
Exceedances Chart. See Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 10.
157. The Weatherspoon Steam Electric Plant Ash Pond Exceedances 'Chart shows
exceedances from the alternate 2L Groundwater Standard for Iron (above the naturally occurring
background concentration of 2,040 µg/L) in compliance wells CW-1 and CW-3 during eight
sampling events from November 2010 through March 2013, with concentrations ranging from
2,060 µg/L to 4,140 µg/L; and in monitoring well CW-3 during two sampling events in June
2011 and June 2012, with concentrations of 3,740 µg/L and 2,120 µg/L, respectively. Although
Iron is a naturally occurring element, its presence in groundwater and specific occurrence at this
37

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

Sutton Electric Plant
162 On June 30, 1977, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-215.1, other lawful statutes
and regulations issued by the Commission, and the Clean Water Act, the DWQ issued NPDES
Permit. No. NC0001422 to the Progress Energy for the L. V. Sutton Electric Plant ("Sutton
Electric Plant NPDES Permit"), located in New Hanover County,North Carolina.
163. The Sutton Electric Plant NPDES Permit has been renewed subsequently. The
current Sutton Steam Electric Plant NPDES Permit was re-issued on December 2, 2011,.with an
effective date of January 1, 2012, and with an expiration date of December 31, 2016. A copy of
the current Sutton Electric Plant NPDES Permit No. NC0001422 is attached hereto as Plaintiff's
Exhibit No. 18, and is incorporated herein by reference.
164. The Sutton Electric Plant NPDES Permit authorizes the discharge of wastewater
to receiving waters designated as the Cape Fear River in the Cape Fear River Basin in
accordance with the effluent limitations, monitoring requirements and other conditions set forth
in the Sutton Electric Plant NPDES Permit.
165. The Sutton Electric Plant NPDES Permit authorizes the discharge of cooling pond
blowdown, recirculation cooling water, non-contact cooling water and treated wastewater from
Internal Outfalls 002, Internal Outfall 003, and Internal Outfall 004 via Outfall 001, 'which
discharges directly into the Cape Fear River, Class C-Swamp waters in the Cape Fear River
Basin. •
166. The Sutton Electric Plant NPDES Permit authorizes the discharge of coal pile
runoff, low volume wastes, ash sluice water(including wastewater generated from the Rotomix
system), and stormwater through Internal Outfall 002.
39

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

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

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

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

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

798 µg/L, 348 µg/L, 1,150 µg/L, 805 µg/L, 2,360 µg/L, .367 µg/L and 1,800 µg/L, respectively.
Although Manganese is a naturally occurring element, its presence in groundwater and specific
occurrence at this site indicates impacts to groundwater resulting from the wastewater treatment
and disposal associated with coal burning activities.
186. The Sutton Electric Plant Ash Pond Exceedances Chart consistently shows
exceedances from the 2L Groundwater Standard for Iron (300 µg/L) in compliance well MW-11
during one sampling event in March.2011 with a concentration of 420 µg/L; in compliance well
MW-21C during two sampling events in October 2012 and March 2013, with a maximum
concentration of 7,680 µg/L; in compliance well MW-24C during one sampling event in October
2012, with a concentration of 2,860 µg/L;.and in compliance well MW-31C during,two sampling
events in October 2012 and March 2013, with a maximum concentration of 2,820 µg/L.
Although Iron is a naturally occurring element, its presence in groundwater and specific
occurrence at this site indicates impacts to groundwater resulting from the waste water treatment
and disposal associated with coal burning activities.
187. The Sutton EIectric Plant Ash Pond Exceedances Chart shows an exceedance
from the 2L Groundwater Standard for Lead (15 µg/L) in compliance well MW-12 during one
sampling event in March 2012, with a concentration of 17.3 µg/L. Although Lead is a naturally
occurring element, its presence in groundwater and specific occurrence at this site indicates
impacts to groundwater resulting from the wastewater treatment and disposal associated with
coal burning activities.
188. The Sutton Electric Plant Ash Pond Exceedances Chart shows an exceedance •
from the 2L Groundwater Standard for Arsenic (10 µg/L). in compliance well MW-21C during
one sampling event in March 2013, with a concentration of 15 µg/L. Although Arsenic is a
45

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

Other Exceedances of the 2L Groundwater Standards at the Sutton Electric Plant
192. The Sutton Electric Plant Ash Pond Exceedances Chart shows exceedances from
the 2L Groundwater Standard for Manganese (50 µg/L) in compliance well MW-10 during four
sampling events from October 2011 to June 2012, with a maximum concentration of 96.7 µg/L;
in compliance well MW-11 during four sampling events from March 2012 through March 2013,
with a maximum concentration of 99.6 µg/L; in compliance well MW-27B during two sampling
events in October 2012 and March 2013, with a maximum concentration of 229 µg/L; in
background well MW-4B during one sampling event in June 2012, with a concentration of 265
µg/L; and in background.well MW-5C during four sampling events from March 2012 to March
2013,with a maximum concentration of 447 µg/L.
193. The Sutton Electric Plant Ash Pond Exceedances Chart shows exceedances from
the 2L Groundwater Standard for Iron (300 µg/L) in compliance well MW-7C during two
sampling events in March 2012. and June 2012, with a maximum concentration of 707 p.g/L; in
compliance well MW-12 during four sampling events from March 2011 to October 2012, with a
maximum concentration of 1,490 µg/L; in compliance well MW-19 during one sampling event
in March 2010, with a concentration of 322 µg/L; in compliance well MW22-C during one
sampling event in March 2013, with a concentration of 431 µg/L; in background well MW-4B
during eight sampling events from March 2010 through March 2013, with a maximum
concentration of 1,650 µg/L.
194. The Sutton Electric Plant Ash Pond Exceedances Chart consistently shows
exceedances from the 2L Groundwater Standard for pH (6.5-8.5) in compliance wells MW-5C,
MW-7C, MW-10, MW-11, MW-12, MW-19, MW-22B, MW-22C, MW-23B, MW-23C, MW-
47

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

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

Assessment Needs", which is attached hereto as Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 19, and is incorporated
herein by reference;
4. That the Defendant be taxed with the costs of this action;
5. Any other and further relief that the Court deems to be just and proper.
Respectfully submitted, this the �/ day of August, 2013.
ROY COOPER
A erne Ge
Byl�/� 'I As
'ath J nes Cov per
Special -puty At orney e neral
NC State B •.. 12176
..per@ncdoj.:•
By _ . ! A ..
onald W. Laton
Assistant Attorney General
.tate Bar 'o. ;3 I
dl. 1. d.• !J.. .o
By V Z +
Anita LeVea v
Assistant Attorney General
NC State Bar No. 13667
[e-mail]
By 12€14"€1-1..
J e L. Oliver
ssistant Attorney General *A
NC State Bar No. 16771 U —
[e-mail]
N.C. Department of Justice
Environmental Division
Post Office Box 629
Raleigh,NC 27602-0629
[phone] phone
[phone] facsimile
Attorneys for the Plaintiff
State of North Carolina ex rel.
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
50

EXHIBIT 2
Sutton NPDES Permit NC0001422
December 7, 2015

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

Permit NC0001422
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
All previous NPDES Permits issued to this facility, whether for operation or discharge are hereby
revoked. As of this permit issuance, any previously issued permit bearing this number is no longer
effective. Therefore, the exclusive authority to operate and discharge from this facility arises under
the permit conditions, requirements, terms, and provisions included herein.
Duke Energy Progress, LLC is hereby authorized to:
1. Continue to discharge cooling water, low volume wastes, stormwater, and
treated wastewater from internal wastewater outfalls 005, 006, 007, and 009
to the Effluent Channel, and internal stormwater outfalls SW001, SW002,
SW003, SW004, SW005, SW006, and SW007 to the Effluent Channel (the
Effluent Channel discharges via external Outfall 008 to the Sutton Lake); ash
pond discharge, groundwater, treated wastewater, and stormwater runoff
(Outfall 001, Outfall 002 and Outfall 004); at a facility located at Sutton Steam
Electric Plant, 801 Sutton Steam Plant Road, Wilmington, New Hanover
County, and
2. Discharge wastewater (via Outfall 002, Outfall 004, and Outfall 008) from said
treatment works at the locations specified on the attached map into the Sutton
Lake which is classified C waters in the Cape Fear River Basin.
3. Discharge wastewater and groundwater (via Outfall 001) from said treatment
works at the location specified on the attached map into the Cape Fear River,
classified C-Swamp waters in the Cape Fear River Basin.
•
Page 2 of 19

Permit NC0001422
Part I
A. (1.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (Outfall 001-
normal operation)? [15A NCAC 02B .0400 et seq., 02B .0500 et seq.]
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge to the Cape Fear River from Outfall 001 - removing the free
water above the settled ash layer that does not involve mechanical disturbance of the ash
(recirculation cooling water, non-contact cooling water, and treated wastewater from outfalls
002, and 004). Such discharges shall be limited and monitored6 by the Permittee as specked
below:
EFFLUENT- . s LIMITS MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
CHARACTERISTICS
_
Montlily Daily Measurement Sample Sample
,Average.n Maximum. .:Frequency Type Location'
Flow, MGD Daily Estimate or Effluent
pump logs
Temperature1,2, °C Quarterly Grab U, D
Temperature2, 0C Daily Grab Effluent
pH 6.0 pH < 9.0 Weekly Grab Effluent
Oil and Grease 15.0 mg/L 20.0 mg/L Weekly Grab Effluent
Total Suspended Solids, 30.0 mg/L 100.0 mg/L Weekly Grab Effluent
mg/L
Total Nitrogen Weekly Grab Effluent
(NO2 + NO3 + TKN), mg/L
Total Phosphorus, mg/L Weekly Grab Effluent
Dissolved Oxygen, mg/L Weekly Grab Effluent
Acute Toxicity3 Monthly Grab Effluent
Total Mercury4 47.0 ng/L 47.0 ng/L Weekly Grab Effluent
Total Arsenic 10.0 µg/L 50.0 µg/L Weekly Grab Effluent
Total Selenium 5.0 µg/L 56.0 µg/L Weekly Grab Effluent
Total Iron 1.0 mg/L 1.0 mg/L Weekly Grab Effluent
Total Lead 25.0 µg /L 33.8 µg /L Weekly Grab Effluent
Total Cadmium 2.0 jug /L 15.0 µg /L Weekly Grab Effluent
Total Aluminum Weekly Grab Effluent
Total Copper, pg/L Weekly Grab Effluent
Total Zinc, pg/L Weekly Grab Effluent
Turbidity5 Weekly Grab Effluent
Notes:
1. U: Upstream, 2700 feet above outfall. D: Downstream, 1.25 miles below outfall.
2. The receiving water's temperature shall not be increased by more than 2.8°C above ambient
water temperature and in no case exceed 32°C, except in the mixing zone described as follows:
Extending from the eastern shore to the centerline of the river and extending not more than
1.25 miles downstream nor more than 2700 feet from the point of discharge. The cross-
sectional area of the mixing zone shall not exceed 9% of the total cross sectional area of the river
at the point of discharge nor 2.5% at the mouth of Toomer's Creek.
3. Acute Toxicity Limit (Fathead Minnow, 24 hour at 90%); Part I, Condition A. (10.).
4. The facility shall use EPA method 1631E.
5. The discharge from this facility shall not cause turbidity in the receiving stream to exceed 50
NTU. If the instream turbidity exceeds 50 NTU due to natural background conditions, the
discharge cannot cause turbidity to increase in the receiving stream.
6. No later than 270 days from the effective date of this permit, begin submitting discharge
monitoring reports electronically using NC DWR's eDMR application system. See Special
Condition A. (23.).
7. The drawdown rate shall not exceed 1 foot/week to maintain the integrity of the dams, unless
approved by the DEQ Dam Safety Program.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
Page 3of19

Permit NC0001422
•
A. (2.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (Outfall
001-dewatering phase)8 [15A NCAC 02B .0400 et seq., 02B .0500 et seq.]
During the period beginning on the commencement date of the dewatering operation and lasting
until expiration, the Permittee is authorized to discharge to the Cape Fear River from Outfall 001
Dewatering-removinq the interstitial water/ash pore water(recirculation cooling water, non-
contact cooling water, and treated wastewater from outfalls 002, and 004). Such discharges
shall be limited and monitored6 by the Pei wittee as specified below:
EFFLUENT - LIMITS MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
CHARACTERISTICS
Monthly Daily Measurement Sample Sample
Average Maximum Frequency Type, Location'
Flow 2.1 MGD Daily Estimate Effluent
(applies only to ash or pump
pond discharge) logs
Temperature1,2,°C Quarterly Grab U, D
Temperature2,°C Daily Grab Effluent
pH 6.0 <_ pH <_ 9.0 Daily Daily Effluent
Oil and Grease 15.0 mg/L 20.0 mg/L Weekly Grab Effluent
Total Suspended Solids 30.0 mg/L 100.0 mg/L Weekly Grab Effluent
mg/L7
Total Nitrogen Weekly Grab Effluent
(NO2 + NO3 + TKN), mg/L
Total Phosphorus, mg/L Weekly Grab Effluent
Dissolved Oxygen, mg/L Weekly Grab Effluent
Acute Toxicity3 Monthly Grab Effluent
Total Iron 1.0 mg/L 1.0 mg/L Weekly Grab Effluent
Total Cadmium 2.0 pg /L 15.0 pg /L Weekly Grab Effluent
Total Aluminum. Weekly Grab Effluent
Total Lead 25.0 pg /L 33.8 pg /L Weekly Grab Effluent
Total Arsenic 10.0 pg/L 50.0 pg/L Weekly Grab Effluent
Total Selenium 5.0 pg/L 56.0 pg/L Weekly Grab Effluent
Total Mercury4 47.0 ng/L 47.0 ng/L Weekly Grab Effluent
Total Copper, p.g/L • Weekly Grab Effluent
Total Zinc, pg/L Weekly Grab Effluent
Turbidity6 Weekly Grab Effluent
Notes:
1. U: Upstream, 2700 feet above outfall. D: Downstream, 1.25 miles below outfall.
2. The receiving water's temperature shall not be increased by more than 2.8°C above ambient
water temperature and in no case exceed 32°C, except in the mixing zone described as follows:
Extending from the eastern shore to the centerline of the river and extending not more than
1.25 miles downstream nor more than 2700 feet from the point of discharge. The cross-
sectional area of the mixing zone shall not exceed 9% of the total cross sectional area of the river
at the point of discharge nor 2.5% at the mouth of Toomer's Creek.
3. Acute Toxicity Limit (Fathead Minnow, 24 hour at 90%); Part I, Condition A. (10.).
4. The facility shall use EPA method 1631E.
5. The discharge from this facility shall not cause turbidity in the receiving stream to exceed 50
NTU. If the instream turbidity exceeds 50 NTU due to natural background conditions, the
discharge cannot cause turbidity to increase in the receiving stream.
6. No later than 270 days from the effective date of this permit, begin submitting discharge
monitoring reports electronically using NC DWR's eDMR application system. See Special
Condition A. (23.).
.7. The facility shall continuously monitor TSS concentration and the dewatering pump shall be
shutoff automatically when the limits are exceeded.
8. The drawdown rate shall not exceed 1 foot/week to maintain the integrity of the dams, unless
approved by the DEQ Dam Safety Program.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
Page 4 of 19

Permit NC0001422
A. (3.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (Outfall
002-normal operation)4,5
[15A NCAC 02B .0400 et seq., 02B .0500 et seq.]
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge to Sutton Lake and/or to the 1971 ash pond from Outfall 002 -
removing of free water above the settled ash layer that does not involve mechanical disturbance of
the ash (Old Ash Pond coal pile runoff, low volume wastes, ash sluice water, and stormwater
runoff). Such discharges to Sutton Lake shall be limited and monitored3 by the Permittee as specified
below:
EFFLUENT - LIMITS MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
CHARACTERISTICS
Monthly Daily Measurement Sample Sample Location
Average. _ Maximum Frequency Type
Flow, MGD Weekly Pump Logs Effluent
or similar
Oil and Grease 15.0 mg/L 20.0 mg/L Weekly Grab Effluent
Total Suspended 30.0 mg/L 100.0 mg/L Weekly Grab Effluent
Solids
pH 6.0 s pH s 9.0 Weekly Grab Effluent
Total Copper, µg/L Weekly Grab . Effluent
Total Zinc, µg/L Weekly Grab Effluent
Total Arsenic 10.0 µg/L 50.0 µg/L Weekly Grab Effluent
Total Selenium 5.0 µg/L 56.0 µg/L Weekly Grab Effluent
Total Mercury' , 47.0 ng/L 47.0 ng/L Weekly Grab Effluent
Total Iron 1.0 mg/L 1.0 mg/L Weekly Grab Effluent
Total Aluminum Weekly Grab Effluent
Chronic Toxicity 2 Quarterly Grab Effluent
Notes:
1. The facility shall use EPA method 1631E.
2. Chronic Toxicity Limit (Ceriodaphnia dubia at 90%); Part I, Condition A. (21.).
3. No later than 270 days from the effective date of this permit, begin submitting discharge
monitoring reports electronically using NC DWR's eDMR application system. See Special
Condition A. (23.).
4. The facility shall submit EPA Form 2C for Outfall 002 as soon as practicable, but no later than
180 days from the effective date of this permit.
5. The drawdown rate shall not exceed 1 foot/week to maintain the integrity of the dams, unless
approved by the DEQ Dam Safety Program.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
Page 5 of 19

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

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

Permit NC0001422
A. (7.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (Outfall
007)
[15A NCAC 02B .0400 et seq., 02B .0500 et seq.]
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge from Internal Outfall 007(stormwater flows from the closure
activities for coal-fired units, separate from stormwater outfalls.SW001 through SW007) to the
Effluent Channel. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored2 by the Permittee as specified
below:
EFFLUENT . LIMITS MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
CHARACTERISTICS
Monthly Daily Measurement Sample Sample
Average _u Maximum Frequency _.. Type. `Location
Flow, MGD Weekly Pump Logs Effluent
or similar
Oil'and Grease 15.0 mg/L 20.0 mg/L Monthly Grab Effluent
Total Suspended 30.0 mg/L 100.0 mg/L Monthly Grab Effluent
Solids
Total Arsenic, gg/L Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Selenium, itg/L. Quarterly Grab Effluent
Nitrate/nitrite as N, Quarterly Grab Effluent
mg/L
Total Mercury)' ng/L Quarterly Grab Effluent
Notes:
1. The facility shall use EPA method 1631E.
2. No later than 270 days from the effective date of this permit, begin submitting discharge
monitoring reports electronically using NC DWR's eDMR application system. See Special
Condition A. (23.).
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
A. (8.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (Outfall
009)
• [15A NCAC 02B .0400 et seq., 02B .0500 et seq.]
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge from Internal Outfall 009 (low volume wastes from a new
simple cycle combustion turbine) to the Effluent Channel. Such discharges shall be limited and
monitored) by the Permittee as specified below:
EFFLUENT LIMITS MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
CHARACTERISTICS.
MonthlyDaily _ Measurement Sample Sample
Average Maximum;> : Frequency Type Location
Flow, MGD Weekly Pump Logs Effluent
or similar
Oil and Grease 15.0 mg/L 20.0 mg/L Monthly Grab Effluent
Total Suspended 30.0 mg/L 100.0 mg/L Monthly Grab Effluent
Solids
pH 6.0 < pH < 9.0 2/Month Grab Effluent
Notes:
1. No later than 270 days from the effective date of this permit, begin submitting discharge
monitoring reports electronically using NC DWR's eDMR application system. See Special
Condition A. (23.).
There shall be no dischargeof floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
Page 8of19

Permit NC0001422
A. (9.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (Outfall
008)5,7
[15A NCAC 02B .0400 et seq., 02B .0500 et seq.]
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge to Sutton Lake from Outfall 008 (from internal wastewater
outfalls 005, 006, 007, and 009, and internal stormwater outfalls SW001 through SW007).
Such discharges shall be limited and monitored6 by the Permittee as specified below:
EFFLUENT LIMITS MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
CHARACTERISTICS
Monthly Daily Measurement Sample Sample
Average, Maximum •
Frequency Type Location'
Flow, MGD Daily Estimate Effluent
or pump
logs
Temperature 0C " Daily Grab Effluent
• Temperature 1,2, 0C Daily/Weekly Grab Instream
Oil and Grease 15.0 mg/L 20.0 mg/L Monthly Grab Effluent
Total Suspended Solids 30.0 mg/L 100.0 mg/L Monthly Grab Effluent
Total Nitrogen Monthly Grab Effluent
(NO2 + NO3 + TKN), mg/L
Dissolved Oxygen, mg/L Monthly Grab Effluent
pH 6.0 <_ pH <_ 9.0 Daily Grab Effluent
Total Phosphorus, mg/L Monthly Grab Effluent
Chronic Toxicity3 Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Mercury4, ng/L Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Arsenic, µg/L Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Selenium, µg/L Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Copper, µg/L Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Zinc, µg/L Quarterly Grab Effluent
Notes:
1. Instream: 1000 feet from outfall. The facility is allowed 12 months from the effective date of
the permit tobegin daily instream temperature monitoring. The time is allowed for the
facility to budget, design, and install the automatic monitoring station. In the interim, the
instream temperature monitoring shall be conducted on a weekly basis.
2. The receiving water's temperature shall not be increased by more than 2.8°C above ambient
water temperature and in no case exceed 32°C. The limit is not being implemented until
further notice (Please see A. (26.)).
3. Chronic Toxicity Limit (Ceriodaphnia dubia at 90%); Part I, Condition A. (21.).
4. The facility shall use EPA method 1631E.
5. The facility shall install a screen or a barrier at the end of the Effluent Channel to minimize
fish migration into the Channel. The design of the screen/barrier shall be submitted to the
Division for approval no later than 6 month from the effective date of the permit. The
screen/barrier shall be installed no later than 6 months after Division approval.
6. No later than 270 days from the effective date of this permit, begin submitting discharge
monitoring reports electronically using NC DWR's eDMR application system. See Special
Condition A. (23.).
7. The facility shall submit EPA Form 2C for Outfall 008 as soon as practicable, but no later
than 180 days from the effective date of this permit.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
Page 9 of 19

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

Permit NC0001422
and III of Appendix D to 40 CFR, Part 122, and shall maintain the Plan at the plant site and shall
be available for inspection by EPA and DWR personnel.
A. (14.) INTAKE SCREEN BACKWASH
Continued intake screen backwash discharge is peiniitted without limitations or monitoring
requirements.
A. (15.) NO DISCHARGE OF PCBs
As specified by 40 CFR 423.13 (a), there shall be no discharge of polychlorinated biphenyl
compounds such as those commonly used for transformer fluid.
A. (16.) BIOCIDE CONDITION
The permittee shall not use any biocides except those approved in conjunction with the permit
application. The permittee shall notify the Director in writing not later than ninety (90) days prior
to instituting use of any additional biocide used in cooling systems which may be toxic to aquatic
life other than those previously reported to the Division of Water Resources. Such notification shall
include completion of Biocide Worksheet Form 101 and a map locating the discharge point and
receiving stream. Completion of a Biocide Worksheet 101 is not necessary for the introduction of a
new biocide into an outfall currently being tested for toxicity.
A. (17.) FISH TISSUE MONITORING NEAR ASH POND DISCHARGE — OUTFALL
001, and OUTFALLS 002/004
The facility shall conduct fish tissue monitoring at two locations (Sutton Lake and Cape Fear River)
annually and submit the results with the NPDES permit renewal application. The objective of the
monitoring is to evaluate potential uptake of pollutants by fish tissue near the Ash Pond discharge.
The parameters analyzed in fish tissue shall be arsenic, selenium, and mercury. The monitoring shall
be conducted in accordance with the Sampling Plan approved by the Division. After the plan is
approved by the Division, it will become an enforceable part of the permit.
A. (18.) CLEAN WATER ACT SECTION 316(B)
The permittee shall comply with the Cooling Water Intake Structure Rule per 40 CFR 125.95. The
permittee shall submit all the materials required by the Rule with the next renewal
application.
A. (19.) ASH POND CLOSURE
The facility shall prepare an Ash Ponds Closure Plan in anticipation of the ash pond closure. This
Plan shall be submitted to the Division one month prior to the closure of the ash ponds.
A. (20.) LOWER CAPE FEAR MODELING
The permittee may elect to conduct a water quality model of the dilution factor for Outfall 001.
Contingent upon EPA approval of the Lower Cape Fear Modeling and its results, the Reasonable
Potential Analysis will be conducted again and the permit limits will be based on the new flow
numbers established by the model.
A. (21.) CHRONIC TOXICITY PASS/FAIL PERMIT LIMIT (QUARTERLY) — OUTFALLS
002, 004, 008
[15A NCAC 02B .0200 et seq.]
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit observable inhibition of reproduction or significant
mortality to Ceriodaphnia dubia at an effluent concentration of 90.0%.
The permit holder shall perfonu at a minimum, quarterly monitoring using test procedures outlined
in the "North Carolina Ceriodaphnia Chronic Effluent Bioassay Procedure," Revised December 2010,
or subsequent versions or "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure"
(Revised- December 2010) or subsequent versions. The tests will be perfoinied during the months
•
Page 11 of 19

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

Permit NC0001422
must submit DMRs electronically to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Division
anticipates that these regulations will be adopted and is beginning implementation in late 2013.
NOTE: This special condition supplements or supersedes the following sections within Part II of
this permit (Standard Conditions for NPDES Permits):
• Section B. (11.) Signatory Requirements
• Section D. (2.) Reporting
• Section D. (6.) Records Retention •
• Section E. (5.) Monitoring Reports
1. Reporting [Supersedes Section D. (2.) and Section E. (5.) (a)1
Beginning no later than 270 days from the effective date of this permit, the permittee shall begin
reporting discharge monitoring data electronically using the NC DWR's Electronic Discharge
Monitoring Report (eDMR) internet application.
Monitoring results obtained during the previous month(s) shall be summarized for each month
and submitted electronically using eDMR. The eDMR system allows permitted facilities to enter
monitoring data and submit DMRs electronically using the internet. Until such time that the
state's eDMR application is compliant with EPA's Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Regulation
(CROMERR), permittees will be required to submit all discharge monitoring data to the state
electronically using eDMR and will be required to complete the eDMR submission by printing,
signing, and submitting one signed original and a copy of the computer printed eDMR to the
following address:
NC DENR / DWR / Information Processing Unit
ATTENTION: Central Files / eDMR
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
If a permittee is unable to use the eDMR system due to a demonstrated hardship or due to the
facility being physically located in an area where less than 10 percent of the households have
broadband access, then a temporary waiver from the NPDES electronic reporting requirements
may be granted and discharge monitoring data may be submitted on paper DMR forms (MR 1,
1.1, 2, 3) or alternative forms approved by the Director. Duplicate signed copies shall be
submitted to the mailing address above.
Requests for temporary waivers from the NPDES electronic reporting requirements must be
submitted in writing to the Division for written approval at least sixty (60) days prior to the date
the facility would be required under this permit to begin using eDMR. Temporary waivers shall
be valid for twelve (12) months and shall thereupon expire. At such time, DMRs shall be
submitted electronically to the Division unless the permittee re-applies for and is granted a new
temporary waiver by the Division.
Information on eDMR and application for a temporary waiver from the NPDES electronic
•
reporting requirements is found on the following web page:
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/admin/bog/ipu/edmr
Regardless of the submission method, the first DMR is due on the last day of the month
following the issuance of the permit or in the case of a new facility, on the last day of the month
following the commencement of discharge.
Page 13 of.19 •

Permit NC0001422
2. Signatory Requirements [Supplements Section B. (11.) (b) and supersedes Section B. (11.1
!d)1
All eDMRs submitted to the permit issuing authority shall be signed by a person described in
Part II, Section B. (11.)(a) or by a duly authorized representative of that person as described in
Part II, Section B. (11.)(b). A person, and not a position; must be delegated signatory authority
for eDMR reporting purposes.
For eDMR submissions, the person signing and submitting the DMR must obtain an eDMR user
account and login credentials to access the eDMR system. For more information on North
Carolina's eDMR system, registering for eDMR and obtaining an eDMR user account, please
visit the following web page:
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/admin/bog/ipu/edmr
Certification. Any person submitting an electronic DMR using the state's eDMR system shall
make the following certification [40 CFR 122.22]. NO OTHER STATEMENTS OF
CERTIFICATION WILL BE ACCEPTED:
"I certify, under penalty of law, that this document and all attachments were prepared under my
direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel
properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or
persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the
information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief true, accurate,
and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information,
including the possibility of fines and imprisonment for knowing violations."
3. Records Retention [Supplements Section D. (6.)1
The permittee shall retain records of all Discharge Monitoring Reports, including eDMR
submissions. These records or copies shall be maintained for a period of at least 3 years from
the date of the report. This period may be extended by request of the Director at any time [40
CFR 122.41].
A. (24.) APPLICABLE STATE LAW (STATE ENFORCEABLE ONLY) [G.S. 143-215.1(b)]
This facility shall meet the requirements of Senate Bill 729 (Coal Ash Management Act). This permit
may be reopened to include new requirements imposed by Senate Bill 729.
A. (25.) STORIVIWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN
The permittee shall develop and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SPPP). The
SPPP shall be maintained on site unless exempted from thisrequirement by the Division. The SPPP
is public information. The SPPP should also specifically and separately address deconstruction,
demolition, coal, and/or coal ash hauling or disposal activities. The SPPP shall include, at a
minimum, the following items:
1. Site Overview. The Site Overview shall provide a description of the physical facility and the
potential pollutant sources that may be expected to contribute to contamination of stoimwater
discharges: The Site Overview shall contain the following:
(a) A general location map (USGS quadrangle map or appropriately drafted equivalent map),
showing the facility's location in relation to transportation routes and surface waters; the
name of the receiving waters to which the stormwater outfalls discharge, or if the discharge
is to a municipal separate storm sewer system, the name of the municipality and the
ultimate receiving waters; and accurate latitude and longitude of the points of stormwater
discharge associated with industrial activity. The general location map (or alternatively the
site map) shall identify whether any receiving waters are impaired (on the state's 303(d) list
Page 14 of 19

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

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

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

Permit NC0001422
milestones and the specific action items. After the plan is approved by the Division, it will become an
enforceable part of the permit.
A. (27.) ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS AND DEFINITIONS
1. EPA methods 200.7 or 200.8 (or the most current versions) shall be used for analyses of all
metals except for total mercury.
2. All effluent samples for all external outfalls shall be taken at the most accessible location
after the final treatment but prior to discharge to waters of the U.S. (40 CFR 122.41(j)).
3. The term low volume waste sources means wastewater from all sources except thouse for
which specific limitations are otherwise establishedin this part (40 CFR 423.11 (b)).
4. The term chemical metal cleaning waste means any wastewater resulting from cleaning any
metal process equipment with chemical compounds, including, but not limited to, boiler
tube cleaning (40 CFR 423.11 (c)).
5. The term metal cleaning waste means any wastewater resulting from cleaning [with or
without chemical cleaning compounds] any metal process equipment including, but not
limited to, boiler tube cleaning, boiler fireside cleaning, and air preheater cleaning (40 CFR
423.11 (d)).
6. For all outfalls where the flow measurement is to be "estimated" the estimate can be done by
using calibrated V-notch weir, stop-watch and graduated cylinder, or other method
approved by the Division.
7. During normal operations removing of the free water above the settled wet ash layer shall
not involve mechanical disturbance of the ash.
•
•
Page 18 of 19

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

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

EXHIBIT 3
Riverbend Final XPDES Permit NC0004961
February 12, 2016

• Monitoring frequency for all parameters was increased to Weekly for Outfall Q02 to address
the EPA comment.
• The specific date of December 31, 2019 replaced 4.5 years for Outfall 002. This change
was made to address EPA comment. Please see Special Condition A. (2.).
• • Clarifying language was added to define the discharge from the ash pond under normal
operating conditions to address the Hearing Officer recommendation and the comment
from the permittee:Please see Special Condition A. (2.).
• The definition of dewatering was added to Special Condition A. (3.). The definition was
added to address the Hearing Office recommendation and the comment from the
permittee.
• The effluent concentration for Whole Effluent Toxicity was changed to correct a typo,the
correct concentration is 2.7%.Please see footnote to Special Conditions A. (2.) and A. (3.).
• The footnote describing conditions for monitoring Total Copper and Total Iron was
removed (Outfall 011) to correct an error.
• Description of the wastewater sources for Outfall 001 and Outfall 002 was updated to
reflect the current status of the facility.
• Clarifying language was added to the Outfall 002 to define the conditions underwhich the
limits for Total Copper and Total Iron are applicable. This change was made to address
the Hearing Officer recommendation.
• A distinct outfall was created for each seep with the effluent limits equivalent to the water
quality standards, Technology-Based limits (TSS and Oil & Grease) were also added in
accordance with the 40 CFR 423.
• The monthly seep monitoring was extended to a 12 month period,after which the
monitoring will be reduced to quarterly.
• The following requirements were addedto the Condition A. (2.).—Outfall 001: flow limit;
use of a floating pump station with free water skimmed from the basin surface using an
adjustable weir; daily monitoring of flow; continuous monitoring of TSS with auto pump
shut-off if TSS concentration(15 minute average) exceeds half the maximum daily TSS limit
(pumping will be allowed to continue if interruption might result in a dam failure or
damage);real time pH monitoring with an auto shut-off if the 15-minute running average
pH falls below 6.1 standard units or rises above 8.9 standard units; drawdown to no less than
three feet above the ash; and monitoring for total chromium,total lead, total cadmium,and
total dissolved solids.
If any parts,measurement frequencies, or sampling requirements contained in this permit are
unacceptable to you,you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon written request within thirty
(30) days following receipt of this letter. This request must be in the form of a written petition,
conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes, and filed with the office of
Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center,Raleigh,North Carolina 27699-6714. Unless
such a demand is made,this permit shall be final and binding.
•
Please take notice that this permit is not transferable except after notice to the Division of Water
Resources. The Division may require modification or revocation and reissuance of the permit.This
permit does not affect the legal requirements to obtain other permits which may be required by the
Division of Water Resources, the Division of Energy,Mineral,and Land Resources,the Coastal
Area Management Act, or any other federal or local governmental permit.

7
•
If you have any questions on this permit,please contact Sergei.Chetnikov at 919-807-6386.
Sincerely,
S. 4.11117 Ierman,P.G.
Director,Division of Water Resources
•
Hardcopy: Central Files
NPDES Files
Mooresville Regional Office, SVC/PS
Email: US EPA,Region IV
Aquatic Toxicology Unit
David Merryman, Catawba Riverkeeper, [[e-mail]]

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

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

•
Permit NC0004961
Part I
A. (1.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (Outfall
001) [15A NCAC 02B .0400 et seq., 02B .0500 et seq.]
During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge plant chiller system from outfall 001. Such discharges shall be
limited and monitored3 by the Permittee as specified below:
;$0p-ommensgemLIMITS MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
CHARACTERISTICS
YMonthly Daily Measurement Sample Type ,.:**2:4!***xoqR
,Average Maximums Frequency'._. '. ,.:..: :.. :•. .oca ionl. ...t...
Flow, MGD Monthly Pump Logs Influent or
Effluent
Temperature (0F) Monthly Grab Effluent
Temperature(°F)2 89.6 (320C) Monthly Grab Downstream
Notes:
1. Downstream sampling point: downstream at Mountain Island Lake. If samples are collected
below the water surface, the Permittee will record the sample depth on the DMR form.
2. The ambient temperature shall not exceed 89.60F (32.00C) and is defined as the daily average
downstream water temperature. When the Riverbend Station effluent temperature is recorded
below 89.60F (32.00C), as a daily average, then monitoring and reporting of the downstream water
temperature is not required. In cases where the Permittee experiences equipment problems and
is unable to obtain daily temperatures from the existing temperature monitoring system, the
temperature monitoring must be reestablished within five working days.
3. No later than 270 days from the effective date of this permit, begin submitting discharge
monitoring reports electronically using NC DWR's eDMR application system. See Special
Condition A. (18.).
Chlorination of the once through condenser cooling water, discharged through outfall 001, is
not allowed under this permit. Should Duke Energy wish to chlorinate its condenser cooling
water, a Division permission must be requested and received prior to commencing
chlorination.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
•
Page 3 of 27 .

•
Permit NC0004961
A. (2.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (Outfall
002-normal operation) [15A NCAC 02B .0400 et seq., 02B .0500 et seq.]
During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge'from outfall 002-Ash Pond Discharge (removing the free
water above the settled ash layer that does not involve mechanical movement of the ash).
Such discharges shall be limited and monitored6 by the Permittee as specified below:
EFFLUENT LIMITS MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
• HARACTERISTICS '
a rr agaSga,
r Monthly Darly Measurement Sample Type Sample Locatron r;:
.Average..q3g •.:0.Frequenc1 ., . : , - t ,__ `r: .. .
Flow 5.74 MGD Daily Pump logs or Influent or Effluent
estimate
Total Suspended Solids8 23.0 mg/L 75.0 mg/L Weekly Grab Effluent
Oil and Grease 11.0 mg/L 15.0 mg/L Weekly Grab Effluent
Total Coppers 1.0 mg/L 1.0 mg/L Weekly Grab Effluent
Total lron1 1.0 mg/L 1.0 mg/L Weekly Grab Effluent •
Total Arsenic 52.5 pg/L 72.5 pg/L Weekly Grab Effluent
Total Selenium 68.0 pg/L 127.5 pg/L Weekly Grab Effluent
Nitrate/nitrite as N 0.65 mg/L 0.85 mg/L Weekly Grab Effluent
Total Arsenic 10.5 lag/L7 14.5 pg/Li Weekly Grab Effluent
Total Selenium 13.6 Ng/L7 25.5 lag/L7 Weekly Grab Effluent 1
Total Mercury 47.0 ng/L5 47.0 ng/L5 Weekly Grab Effluent
Nitrate/nitrite as N 0.13 mg/L7 0.17 mg/L7 Weekly. Grab Effluent
•
Total Phosphorus,mg/L .. Weekly Grab Effluent
Total Nitrogen(NO2+NO3+TKN), Weekly Grab Effluent
mg/L
pH2 Weekly Grab Effluent
Chronic Toxicity3 Monthly Grab Effluent
Turbidity4,NTU Weekly Grab Effluent
Total Chromium, pg/L Weekly Grab Effluent
Total Cadmium, pg/L Weekly Grab Effluent
Total Lead,pg/L Weekly Grab Effluent
TDS,mg/L Weekly Grab Effluent
Notes:
1. The limits for total copper and total iron only apply when chemical metal cleaning wastewaters
are being discharged.
2. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units. The facility
shall conduct a real time pH monitoring with an auto shut-off if the 15-minute running average
pH falls below 6.1 standard units or rises above 8.9 standard units.
3. Whole Effluent Toxicity shall be monitored by chronic toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F at 2.7%. Tests
shall be conducted in January, April, July and October (see Part A.(6.) for details).
4. The discharge from this facility shall not cause turbidity in the receiving stream to exceed 50
NTU. If the instream turbidity exceeds 50 NTU due to natural background conditions, the
discharge cannot cause turbidity to increase in the receiving stream.
NTU - Nephelometric Turbidity Unit.
5. The facility shall use EPA method 1631E.
6. No later than 270 days from the effective date of this permit, begin submitting discharge
monitoring reports electronically using NC DWR's eDMR application system. See Special
Condition A. (18.).
7. The TBEL limits shall be met no later than December 31, 2019. This time period is provided
in order for the facility to budget, design, and construct the treatment system. Permit might
be re-opened to implement the final EPA Effluent Guidelines and more stringent limits
might be added.
. 8. The facility shall continuously monitor TSS concentration and the dewatering pump shall be
shutoff automatically when the one half of the Daily Maximum limit (15 minutes average) is
Page 4 of 27 •

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

Permit NC0004961
A. (3.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (Outfall
002-dewatering phase) [15A NCAC 02B .0400 et seq., 02B .0500 et seq.]
During the period beginning on the commencement date of the dewatering operations and lasting
until expiration;the Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall 002 -Ash Pond Discharge
(Dewatering-removing the interstitial water). Such discharges shall be limited and monitored7 by
the Permittee as specified below:
EFFLUENT A ` t 'LIMITS MONITORING REQUIREMENTS;;
CHARACTERISTICS '
Monthly Datly Measurement S Sample Type Sample Location
. ...,,: .. Average Maxi►num .... .: Frequency '::. ..tat
Flow 1.45 MGD Weekly Pump logs or Influent or Effluent
estimate
Total Suspended Solids1 23.0 mg/L 75.0 mg/L Weekly Grab Effluent
Oil and Grease '11.0 mg/L 15.0 mg/L Weekly Grab Effluent
Total Copper2 1.0 mg1L 1.0 mg/L Weekly Grab Effluent
Total Iron2 1.0 mg/L 1.0 mg/L Weekly Grab Effluent
Total Arsenic 10.5 pg/L 14.5 pg/L Weekly Grab Effluent
Total Selenium 13.6 pg/L 25.5 pg/L Weekly Grab Effluent
Total Aluminum 3.18 mg/L 3.18 mg/L Weekly Grab Effluent
Total Mercury 47.0 ng/L6 47.0 ng/L6 Weekly Grab Effluent
Nitrate/nitrate as N 0.13 mg/L 0.17 mg/L Weekly Grab Effluent
Total Phosphorus,mg/L Weekly Grab Effluent
Total Nitrogen(NO2+NOa+TKN), Weekly Grab Effluent
mg/L
pH3 Weekly Grab Effluent
Chronic Toxicity4 Weekly Grab Effluent
Turbidity5,NTU. Weekly Grab Effluent
Notes:
1. The facility shall continuously monitor TSS concentration and the dewatering pump shall be
shutoff automatically when the limits are exceeded.
2. The limits for total copper and total iron only apply when chemical metal cleaning
wastewaters are being discharged.
3. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
4. Whole Effluent Toxicity shall be monitored by chronic toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F at 2.7%.
Tests shall be conducted in January, April, July and October (see Part A.(6.) for details).
5. The discharge from this facility shall not cause turbidity in the receiving stream to exceed 50
NTU. If the instream turbidity exceeds 50 NTU due to natural background conditions, the
discharge cannot cause turbidity to increase in the receiving stream.
NTU - Nephelometric Turbidity Unit. •
6. The facility shall use EPA method 1631E.
7. No later than 270 days from the effective date of this permit, begin submitting discharge
monitoring reports electronically using NC DWR's eDMR application system. See
Special Condition A. (18.).
The metal cleaning waste, coal pile runoff, ash transport water, domestic wastewater, •
and low volume waste shall be discharged into the ash settling pond.
No chemicals, cleaners, or other additives may be present in the vehicle wash water
to be discharged from this outfall. There shall be no discharge of floating solids or
visible foam in other than trace amounts.
The level of water in the pond should not be lowered more than 1 ft/week unless
approved by the DEQ Dam Safety Program.
Page 6 of 27

- Peiniit NC0004961
A. (4.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (Outfall
002A) [15A NCAC 02B .0400 et seq., 02B .0500 et seq.]
During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall 002A—Yard Sump.Overflows. Such discharges
shall be limited and monitored3 by the Permittee as specified below:
EFFLUENT LIMITS MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
CHARACTERISTICS
Monthly Daily Measurement Sample Type Sample Location1 f
::Average Maximum.
Flow,MGD Per discharge Estimate Effluent
event
Total Suspended Solids 23.0 mg/L 75.0 mg/L Per discharge Grab Effluent
event
Oil and Grease 11,0 mg/L 15.0 mg/L Per discharge Grab Effluent
event
Fecal Coliform,CPU/100 mL Per discharge Grab Effluent
event
Total Copper2 1.0 mg/L 1.0 mg/L Per discharge . Grab Effluent
event
Total Iron2 1.0 mg/L 1.0 mg/L Per discharge Grab Effluent
event
pH4 Per discharge Grab Effluent
event
Notes:
1. Effluent samples shall be collected prior to the discharge to the receiving stream.
2. The limits for total copper and total iron only apply when chemical metal cleaning
wastewaters are being discharged.
3. No later than 270 days from the effective date of this permit, begin submitting discharge
monitoring reports electronically using NC DWR's eDMR application system. See Special
• Condition A. (18.).
4. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace
amounts.
ALL FLOWS SHALL BE REPORTED ON MONTHLY DMRS. SHOULD NO FLOW OCCUR DURING A
GIVEN MONTH, THE WORDS "NO FLOW" SHOULD BE CLEARLY WRITEN ON THE FRONT OF
THE DMR. ALL SAMPLES SHALL BE OF A REPRESENTATIVE DISCHARGE.
•
Page 7 of 27

Permit NC0004961
A. (5.) CHRONIC TOXICITY PASS/FAIL PERMIT LIMIT (QUARTERLY) (Outfall
002) [15A NCAC 02B .0200 et seq.]
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit observable inhibition of reproduction or significant
mortality to Ceriodaphnia dubia at an effluent concentration of 2.7%.
The permit holder shall perform at a minimum, quarterlu monitoring using test procedures outlined
in the "North Carolina Ceriodaphnia Chronic Effluent Bioassay Procedure," Revised December 2010,
or subsequent versions or "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure"
(Revised- December 2010) or subsequent versions. Effluent sampling for this testing must be
obtained during representative effluent discharge and shall be performed at the NPDES permitted
final effluent discharge below all treatment processes.
If the test procedure performed as the first test of any single quarter results in a failure or
ChV below the permit limit, then multiple-concentration testing shall be performed at a
minimum, in each of the two following months as described in "North Carolina Phase II
Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised-December 2010) or subsequent
versions.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent
Discharge Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the months in which tests were performed, using the
parameter code TGP3B for the pass/fail results and THP3B for the Chronic Value. Additionally,
DWR Form AT-3 (original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention: North Carolina Division of Water Resources
• Water Sciences Section/Aquatic Toxicology Branch
1623 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1623
Completed Aquatic Toxicity Test Forms shall be filed with the Water Sciences Section no later than
30 days after the end of the reporting period for which the report is made.
Test data shall be complete, accurate, include all supporting chemical/physical measurements and
all concentration/response data, and be certified by laboratory supervisor and ORC or approved
designate signature. Total residual chlorine of the effluent toxicity sample must be measured and
reported if chlorine is employed for disinfection of the waste stream.
Should there be no discharge of flow from the facility during a month in which toxicity monitoring is
required, the permittee will complete the information located at the top'of the aquatic toxicity (AT)
test form indicating the facility name, permit number, pipe number, county, and the month/year of
the report with the notation of"No Flow"in the comment area of the form. The report shall be
submitted to the Water Sciences Section at the address cited above.
Should the permittee fail to monitor during a month in which toxicity monitoring is required,
monitoring will be required during the following month. Assessment of toxicity compliance is based
on the toxicity testing quarter, which is the three month time interval that begins on the first day of
the month in which toxicity testing is required by this permit and continues until the final day of the
third month.
Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina
Division of Water Resources indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this permit may be
re-opened and modified to include alternate monitoring requirements or limits.
•
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum
control organism survival, minimum control organism reproduction, and appropriate environmental
controls, shall constitute an invalid test and will require immediate follow-up testing to be
completed no later than the last day of the month following the month of the initial monitoring.
Page 8 of 27

Permit NC0004961
A. (6.) BIOCIDE CONDITION
The permittee shall not use any biocides except those approved in conjunction with the permit
application. The permittee shall notify the Director in writing not later than ninety (90) days prior to
instituting use of any additional biocide used in cooling systems which may be toxic to aquatic life
other than those previously reported to the Division of Water Resources. Such notification shall
include completion of Biocide Worksheet Form 101 and a map locating the discharge point and
receiving stream. Completion of a Biocide Worksheet 101 is not necessary for the introduction of a
new biocide into an outfall currently being tested for toxicity.
A. (7.) SPECIAL CONDITIONS
The following special conditions are applicable to all outfalls regulated by NC0004961:
G There shall be no discharge of polychlorinated biphenyl compounds.
o Discharge of any product registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
to any waste stream which may ultimately be released to lakes, rivers, streams or other waters of
the United States is prohibited unless specifically authorized elsewhere in this permit. Discharge
of chlorine from the use of chlorine gas, sodium hypochlorite, or other similar chlorination
compounds for disinfection in the plant potable and service water systems and in sewage
treatment is authorized. Use of restricted use pesticides for lake management purposes by
applicators licensed by the N.C. Pesticide Board is allowed.
o The Permittee shall report all visible discharges of floating materials, such as an oil sheen, to the
Director when submitting DMRs
A. (8.) PERMIT TERMS
The following are applicable to all outfalls regulated by NC0004961:
• It has been determined from information submitted that the plans and procedures in place at
Riverbend Steam Station are equivalent to that of a BMP.
A. (9.) ASH SETTLING BASIN
Beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting until expiration, there shall be no discharge
of plant wastewater to the ash pond unless the Permittee provides and maintains at all times a
minimum free water volume (between the top of the sediment level and the minimum discharge
elevation) equivalent to the sum of the maximum 24-hour plant discharges plus all direct rainfall and
all runoff flows to the pond resulting from a. 10-year, 24-hour rainfall event, when using a runoff
coefficient of 1.0. During the term of the permit, the Permittee shall remove settled material from the
ponds or otherwise enlarge the available storage capacities in order to maintain the required
minimum volumes at all times. The Permittee shall determine and report to the permit issuing
authority the following on an annual basis: •
1) the actual free water volume of the-ash pond,
2) physical measurements of the dimensions of the free water volume in sufficient detail to allow
validation of the calculated volume, and
3) a certification that the required volume is available with adequate safety factor to include all
solids expected to be deposited in the pond for the following year.
Present information indicates a needed volume of 86.2 acre-feet in addition to solids that will be
deposited to the ash pond; any change to plant operations affecting such certification shall be
reported to the Director within five days.
NOTE: In the event that adequate volume has been certified to exist for the term of the permit,
periodic certification is not needed.
•
Page 9 of 27

• Permit NC0004961
A.(10.) GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL CONSTRUCTION AND SAMPLING
The permittee shall conduct groundwater monitoring to determine the compliance of this NPDES
permitted facility with the current groundwater Standards found under 15A NCAC 2L .0200. The
monitoring shall be conducted in accordance with the Sampling Plan approved by the Division.
A.(11.) STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY INSPECTIONS OF ASH POND DAM
The facility shall meet the dam design and dam safety requirements per 15A NCAC 2K.
A.(12.) FISH TISSUE MONITORING NEAR ASH POND DISCHARGE
The facility shall conduct fish tissue monitoring annually and submit the results with the NPDES
permit renewal application.The objective of the monitoring is to evaluate potential uptake of pollutants
by fish tissue near the Ash Pond discharge. The parameters analyzed in fish tissue shall be arsenic,
selenium, and mercury. The monitoring shall be conducted in accordance with the Sampling Plan
approved by the Division.
A.(13.) INSTREAM MONITORING
The facility shall conduct semiannual instream monitoring (one upstream and one downstream of the
ash pond discharge) for arsenic, selenium, mercury (method 1631E), chromium, lead, cadmium,
copper, zinc, total hardness, and total dissolved solids (TDS). Instream monitoring should be
conducted at the stations that have already been established through the BIP monitoring program: B
(upstream of the Outfall 002) and C (downstream of the Outfall'002). The monitoring results shall be
• submitted with the NPDES peiuiit renewal application.
A.(14.) ASH POND CLOSURE
The facility shall prepare an Ash Pond Closure Plan in anticipation of the facility closure. This Plan
shall be submitted to the Division one month prior to the decommissioning of the ponds.
A.(15.) PRIORITY POLLUTANT ANALYSIS
The Permittee shall conduct a priority pollutant analysis (in accordance with 40 CFR Part 136) once
per permit cycle at outfall 002 and submit the results with the application for permit renewal.
A.(16.) SEEP POLLUTANT ANALYSIS
The facility identified 12 unpermitted seeps (all non-engineered) from the ash settling basin, of which
10 of the seeps have been classified as "jurisdictional waters" by the United States Army Corps of
Engineers.
Jurisdictional Water Seeps.
For the jurisdictional water seeps, the facility shall determine within 90 days from the effective date
of the permit if a seep meets the state water quality standards established in 15A NCAC 2B .0200
and submit the results of this determination to the Division. If the standards are not contravened,
the facility shall conduct monitoring for the parameters specified in A. (21.), A. (22.), A. (23.), A. (24.),
A. (25.), A. (26.), A. (27.), A. (28.), A. (29.), A. (30.), A. (31.), and A. (32.).
If any of the water quality standards are exceeded (with the exception of the Action Level standards),
the facility shall be considered in violation of the Clean Water Act until one of the options below is
fully implemented. The facility shall:
1) Submit a complete application for 404 Penult (within 30 days after determining that a water
• quality standards exceeded) to pump the seep discharge to one of the existing outfalls, install
a pipe to discharge the seep to the Catawba River, or install an in-situ treatment system.
After the 404 Permit is obtained, the facility shall complete the installation of the pump, pipe,
or treatment system within 180 days from the date of the 404 permit receipt and begin
pumping/discharging or treatment.
2) Demonstrate through modeling that the decanting and dewatering of the ash basin will result
in the elimination of the seep and submit the modeling results to the Division within 120 days
from the effective date of the permit. Within 180 days from the completion of the dewatering
Page 10 of 27 •

Permit NC0004961
the facility shall confirm that the seep flow ceased. If the seep flow continues, the facility
shall choose one of the other options in this Special Condition.
3) Demonstrate that the seep is discharging through the designated"Effluent Channel" and the
water quality standards in the receiving stream are not contravened. This demonstration
should be submitted to the Division no later than 180 days from the effective date of the •
permit. The "Effluent Channel" designation should be established by the DEQ Regional Office
personnel prior to the issuance of the permit and appropriate 404 permit shall be obtained.
All effluent limits, including water quality-based effluent limits, remain applicable notwithstanding
any action by the Permittee to address the violation through one of the identified options, so that any
discharge in exceedance of an applicable effluent limit is a violation of the Permit as long as the seep
remains flowing.
If jurisdictional water seeps contravene Action Level Standard, the facility shall conduct a Whole
Effluent Toxicity Test (WET test). If the WET result passes, the facility shall be considered in
compliance with the state water quality standards. If the WET test fails and the Toxicity Identification
Evaluation determines that the parameter contravening the water quality standard is responsible for
the failure the facility shall be considered in violation and, shall implement one of the 3 options
identified above.
Non-Jurisdictional Water Seeps
For the non jurisdictional water seeps the facility shall demonstrate that they will not violate water
quality standards in the receiving stream or that the seep does not discharge to jurisdictional waters
or that the seep does not carry pollutants indicating ash characteristics and submit this
demonstration to the Division within 90 days from the effective date of the permit. If such
demonstration is not possible or not approved by the Division, the facility shall choose one of the 3
options identified above.
New Identified Seeps
If new seeps are identified, the facility shall follow the procedures outlined above for either
' jurisdictional waters or non jurisdictional waters. The deadlines for new seeps shall be calculated
from the date of the seep discovery.
Table 1. List of Identified Seeps
The permittee has identified 12 potentially contaminated seeps in the areas adjacent to the Mountain
Island Lake. The locations of the seeps are identified on the map attached to the permit.
Seep Coordinates and Assigned Outfall Numbers
Seep ID Latitude Longitude Outfall number
S-1 35.365 -80.967 101
S-2 35.365 -80.966 102
S-3 36.369 -80.965 103
S-4 35.371 -80.963 104
S-5* 35.370 -80.963 105
S-6 35.367 _ -80.958 106
S-7 35.367 -80.957 107
S-8* 35.365 -80.956 108
S-9 35.371 -80.963 109
S-10 35.369 -80.960 110
S-11 35.369 -80.960 111
S-12 35.368 -80.959 112
*Non jurisdictional seeps
Page 11 of 27

Permit NC0004961
A. (17.) ELECTRONIC REPORTING OF DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORTS
(State Enforceable Only) [G.S. 143-215.1(b)]
•
Proposed federal regulations require electronic submittal of all discharge monitoring reports (DMRs)
and specify that, if a state does not establish a system to receive such submittals, then permittees
must submit DMRs electronically to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Division
anticipates that these regulations will be adopted and is beginning implementation in late 2013.
NOTE: This special condition supplements or supersedes the following sections within Part II of this
permit (Standard Conditions for NPDES Permits):
• Section B. (11.) Signatory Requirements
• Section D. (2.) Reporting
• Section D. (6.) Records Retention
• Section E. (5.) Monitoring Reports
1. Reporting [Supersedes Section D. (2.) and Section E. (5.) (a)1
Beginning no later than 270 days from the effective date of this permit, the permittee shall begin
reporting discharge monitoring data electronically using the NC DWR's Electronic Discharge
Monitoring Report (eDMR) internet application.
Monitoring results obtained during the previous month(s) shall be summarized for each month
and submitted electronically using eDMR. The eDMR system allows permitted facilities to enter
monitoring data and submit DMRs electronically using the Internet. Until such time that the
state's eDMR application is compliant with EPA's Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Regulation
(CROMERR), permittees will be required to submit all discharge monitoring data to the state
electronically using eDMR and will be required to complete the eDMR submission by printing,
signing, and submitting one signed original and a copy of the computer printed eDMR to the
following address:
NC DENR / DWR / Information Processing Unit
ATTENTION: Central Files / eDMR
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
If a permittee is unable to use the eDMR system due to a demonstrated hardship or due to the
facility being physically located in an area where less than 10 percent of the households have
broadband access, then a temporary waiver from the NPDES electronic reporting requirements
may be granted and discharge monitoring data may be submitted on paper DMR forms (MR 1,
1.1, 2, 3) or alternative forms approved by the Director. Duplicate signed copies shall be
submitted to the mailing address above.
Requests for temporary waivers from the NPDES electronic reporting requirements must be
submitted in writing to the Division for written approval at least sixty (60) days prior to the date
the facility would be required under this permit to begin using eDMR. Temporary waivers shall
be valid for twelve (12) months and shall thereupon expire. At such time, DMRs shall be
submitted electronically to the Division unless the permittee re-applies for and is granted a new
temporary waiver by the Division.
Information on eDMR and application for a temporary waiver from the NPDES electronic
reporting requirements is found on the following web page:
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wo/admin/bog/ipu/edmr
Page 12 of 27

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

Permit NC0004961
A. (19.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (Outfall
011) [15A NCAC 02B .0400 et seq., 02B .0500 et seq.]
During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall 011 —Former Stormwater Outfall 1. Such
discharges shall be limited and monitored3 by the Permittee as specified below:
CHARACTERISTICS
Monthly. Daily 4 Measurement Sample Type Sample Location
y`, ;, Average. Maximum .., �3Frequency „=.,
Flow,MGD Monthly Pump logs or Influent or Effluent
estimate
Total Suspended Solids 23.0 mg/L 75.0 mg/L Monthly Grab Effluent
Oil and Grease 11,0 mg/L 15.0 mg/L Annually Grab Effluent
Total Arsenic, pg/L Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Selenium,pg/L Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Mercury4,ng/L Quarterly Grab Effluent
Nitrate/nitrate as N,mg/L Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Phosphorus,mg/L Semi-annually Grab• Effluent
Total Nitrogen (NO2+NO3+TKN), Semi-annually Grab Effluent
mg/L
pH1 Monthly Grab Effluent
Turbidity2, NTU - Monthly Grab Effluent
Notes:
1. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
2. The discharge from this facility shall not cause turbidity iii the receiving stream to exceed 50
NTU. If the instream turbidity exceeds 50 NTU due to natural background conditions, the
discharge cannot cause turbidity to increase in the receiving stream.
•
NTU - Nephelometric Turbidity Unit.
•
3. No later than 270 days from the effective date of this permit, begin submitting discharge
monitoring reports electronically using NC DWR's eDMR application system. See
Special Condition A. (18.).
4. The facility shall use EPA method 1631E.
•
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace
amounts.
A. (20.) ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS AND DEFINITIONS •
1. EPA methods 200.7 or 200.8 (or the most current versions) shall be used for analyses of all
metals except for total mercury.
2. All effluent samples for all external outfalls shall be taken at the most accessible location after
the final treatment but prior to discharge to waters of the U.S. (40 CFR 122.41(j)).
3. The term low volume waste sources means wastewater from all sources except those for which
specific limitations are otherwise established in this part (40 CFR 423.11 (b)).
4. The term chemical metal cleaning waste means any wastewater resulting from cleaning any
metal process equipment with chemical compounds, including, but not limited to, boiler tube
cleaning (40 CFR 423.11 (c)).
5. The term metal cleaning waste means any wastewater resulting from cleaning [with or
without chemical cleaning compounds] any metal process equipment including, but not
limited to, boiler tube cleaning, boiler fireside cleaning, and air preheater cleaning (40 CFR
423.11 (d)).
6. For all outfalls where the flow measurement is to be "estimated" the estimate can be done by
using calibrated V-notch weir, stop-watch and graduated cylinder, or other method approved
by the Division.
Page 14 of 27

Permit N00004961 •
A. (21.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (Outfall
101) [15A NCAC 02B .0400 et seq., 02B .0500 et seq.]
During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall 101 -Seep Discharge. Such discharges shall be
limited and monitored) by the Permittee as specified below:
EFFLUENT = LIMITS MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
CHARACTERISTICS
yMonthl y Dail Measurement
y Sample Type Sample Location
.:Average. Maximum. Frequency?
Flow,MGD Monthly/Quarterly Estimate Effluent
pH3 Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Fluoride 1.8 mg/L 1.8 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Mercury4,ng/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Barium 1.0 mg/L 1.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Iron,mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Manganese, pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Zinc,pg/L Monthly/Quarterly • Grab Effluent
Total Arsenic 10,0 pg/L 50,0 pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Cadmium 2.0 pg/L 15.0 pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Chromium 50.0 pg/L 1,022,0 pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Copper, pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Lead, pg/L 25.0pg/L 33.8 pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Nickel 25.0 pg/L 25.0 pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Selenium 5.0 pg/L 56.0 pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Nitrate as N 10.0 mg/L 10.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Sulfates 250.0 mg/L 250,0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Chlorides 250.0 mg/L 250.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
TDS 500.0 mg/L 500.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Hardness,mg/L - 100.0 mg/L 100.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
TSS 30.0 mg/L 100.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Oil and Grease 15.0 mg/L 20.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Temperature,0C Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Specific Conductance, pmho/cm Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Notes:
1. No later than 270 days from the effective date of this permit, begin submitting discharge
monitoring reports electronically using NC DWR's eDMR application system. See Special
Condition A. (18.),
2. The facility shall conduct monthly sampling from the effective date of the permit. After one year
from the effective date of the permit the monitoring will be reduced to quarterly
3. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
4. The facility shall use EPA method 1631E.
If the facility is unable to obtain a seep sample due to the dry or low flow conditions
preventing the facility from obtaining a representative sample, the "no flow" should be
reported on the DMR. This requirement is established in the Section D of the Standard
Conditions and 40 CFR 122.41 (J).
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace
amounts. •
Page 15 of 27

•
Permit NC0004961
A. (22.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (Outfall
102) [15A NCAC 02B .0400 et seq., 02B .0500 et seq.]
During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall 102- Seep Discharge. Such discharges shall be
limited and monitored1 by the Permittee as specified below:
EFFLUENVONNERMIRM LIMITS MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
CHARACTERISTICS
Monthly Daily Measurement Sample Type $ample Locatton
;Average ylaxim.um. Frequencyz
Flow,MGD Monthly/Quarterly Estimate Effluent
pH3 Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent '
Fluoride 1.8 mg/L 1.8 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Mercury4,ng/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Barium 1.0 mg/L 1.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent •
Total Iron,mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Manganese,pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent ,
Total Zinc,pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Arsenic 10.0 pg/L 50.0 pg/L Monthly/Quarterly • Grab Effluent
Total Cadmium 2.0 pg/L 15.0 pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Chromium 50.0 pg/L 1,022.0 pg/L Monthly/Quarterly . Grab Effluent
Total Copper, pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Eluent
Total Lead, pg/L 25.0pg/L 33.8 pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Nickel 25,0 pg/L 25.0 pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Selenium 5.0 pg/L 56,0 pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Nitrate as N 10.0 mg/L _ 10.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Sulfates 250.0 mg/L 250.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Chlorides 250.0 mg/L 250.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
TDS• 500.0 mg/L 500.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Hardness,mg/L 100.0 mg/L' 100.0 mg/L • Monthly/Quarterly. Grab Effluent
TSS,mg/L 30.0 mg/L 100.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Oil and Grease 15.0 mg/L 20.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Temperature,OC Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Specific Conductance, pmho/cm Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Notes:
1. No later than 270 days from the effective date of this permit, begin submitting discharge
monitoring reports electronically using NC DWR's eDMR application system. See Special
Condition A. (18.).
2. Th&facility shall conduct monthly sampling from the effective date of the permit. After one year
from the effective date of the permit the monitoring will be reduced to quarterly
3. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
4. The facility shall use EPA method 1631E.
If the facility is unable to obtain a seep sample due to the dry or low flow conditions
preventing the facility from obtaining a representative sample, the "no flow" should be
reported on the DMR. This requirement is established in the Section D of the Standard
Conditions and 40 CFR 122.41 (j).
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace
amounts.
Page 16 of 27

Permit NC0004961 • •
A. (23.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (Outfall
103) [15A NCAC 02B .0400 et seq., 0213 .0500 et seq.]
During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall 103 -Seep Discharge. Such discharges shall be
limited and monitored' by the Permittee as specified below:'
EFFLUENT LIMITS MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
CHARACTERISTICS
MENSinesmantgaNggs
Monthly, t Daily Measurement Sam le T e i Sam Ie Location
egigagnagNin'i:VENS :Iinigegffigga
_ 2
Flow,MGD Monthly/Quarterly Estimate Effluent
pH3 Monthly/Quarterly ' Grab Effluent
Fluoride 1.8 mg/L 1.8 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Mercury4,ng/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Barium 1.0 mg/L_ 1.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Iron,mg/L . Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Manganese, pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Zinc, pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
• Total Arsenic 10.0 pg/L 50.0 pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Cadmium 2.0 pg/L 15.0 pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Chromium' 50.0 pg/L 1,022.0 pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Copper, pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Lead,pg/L 25.0pg/L ' 33.8 pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent •
Total Nickel 25.0 pg/L 25.0 pg/L Monthly/Quarterly . Grab Effluent
Total Selenium 5.0 pg/L 56.0 pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab • Effluent
Nitrate as N 10.0 mg/L 10.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Sulfates 250.0 mg/L 250.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Chlorides 250.0 mg/L 250.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab • Effluent
TDS 500.0 mg/L 500.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Hardness,mg/L 100.0 mg/L 100.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
TSS,mg/L 30.0 mg/L 100.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Oil and Grease 15.0 mg/L 20.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly • Grab Effluent
Temperature,°C Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Specific Conductance, pmho/cm Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Notes:
1. No later than 270 days from the effective date of this permit, begin submitting discharge
monitoring reports electronically using NC DWR's eDMR application system. See Special
Condition A. (18.).
2. The facility shall conduct monthly sampling from the effective date of the permit. After one year
from the effective date of the permit the monitoring will be reduced to quarterly
3. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
4. The facility shall use EPA method 1631E.
If the facility is unable to obtain a seep sample due to the dry or low flow conditions
preventing the facility from obtaining a representative sample, the "no flow" should be
reported on the DMR. This requirement is established in the Section D of the Standard
Conditions and 40 CFR 122.41 (j).
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace
amounts.
•
Page 17 of 27

Permit NC0004961
A. (24.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (Outfall
104) [15A NCAC 02B .0400 et seq., 02B .0500 et seq.]
During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall 104-Seep Discharge. Such discharges shall be
limited and monitored). by the Permittee as specified below:
LIMITS; MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
•
.EFFLUENT- x �, t.
CHARACTERISTICS
Monthly Daily Measurement' Sample Type Sample Location •
gverage. ` ;Maximum z,
_ ....
Flow, MGD Monthly/Quarterly Estimate Effluent
pH3 Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
• Fluoride 1.8 mg/L 1.8 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Mercury'',ng/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent _
Total Barium 1.0 mg/L 1.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Iron,mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Manganese, pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Zinc, pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Arsenic 10,0 pg/L _ 50.0 pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Cadmium 2.0 pg/L 15.0 pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Chromium 50.0 pg/L 1,022.0 pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Copper,pg/L • _ Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Lead, pg/L 25.0fpg/L 33,8 pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab • Effluent
Total Nickel 25.0 pg/L 25.0 pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Selenium 5.0 pg/L 56,0 pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab ,Effluent
Nitrate as N 10.0 mg/L 10.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Sulfates 250.0 mg/L 250.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Chlorides 250.0 mg/L 250.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
TDS 500.0 mg/L 500.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Hardness,mg/L 100.0 mg/L 100.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
TSS,mg/L 30.0 mg/L. 100.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Oil and Grease _ 15.0 mg/L 20.0 mg/L. Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Temperature,0C Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Specific Conductance, pmho/cm _ Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Notes:
1. No later than 270 days from the effective date of this permit, begin submitting discharge
monitoring reports electronically using NC DWR's eDMR application system. See Special
Condition A. (18.).
2. The facility shall conduct monthly sampling from the effective date of the permit. After one year
from the effective date of the permit the monitoring will be reduced to quarterly
3. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
4. The facility shall use EPA method 1631E.
If the facility is unable to obtain a seep sample due to the dry or low flow conditions
preventing the facility from obtaining a representative sample, the "no flow" should be
reported on the DMR. This requirement is established in the Section D of the Standard
Conditions and 40 CFR 122.41 (j).
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace
amounts.
Page 18 of 27

Permit NC0004961 •
A. (25.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (Outfall
105) [15A NCAC 02B .0400 et seq., 02B .0500 et seq.]
During the period beginning on the effective date of this peinuit and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall 105- Seep Discharge. Such discharges shall be
limited and monitored' by the Permittee as specified below:
EFFLUENT LIMITS: MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
CHARACTERISTICS=
Monthl '
y __Daily Measurement, Sample Type` 'Sample Location si�1''
Average Maximum. , .,Frequency2..
Flow,MGD Monthly/Quarterly Estimate Effluent
pH3 _ Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Fluoride 1.8 mg/L 1.8 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Mercury4,ng/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Barium 1.0 mg/L 1.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Iron,mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Manganese, pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Zinc, pg/L • Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Arsenic 10.0 pg/L 50,0 pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Cadmium 2.0 pg/L 15.0 pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Chromium 50.0 pg/L 1,022.0 pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Copper, pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Lead, pg/L 25.0pg/L 33.8 pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Nickel 25.0 pg/L 25.0 pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Selenium 5.0 pg/L 56,0 pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Nitrate as N 10.0 mg/L 10.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Sulfates 250.0 mg/L 250.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Chlorides 250.0 mg/L 250.0 mg/L _ Monthly/Quarterly Grab • Effluent
IDS 500.0 mg/L 500.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Hardness,mg/L 100.0 mg/L 100.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
TSS,mg/L 30.0 mg/L 100.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Oil and Grease 15.0 mg/L 20.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Temperature,0C Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Specific Conductance,pmho/cm Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Notes:
1. No later than 270 days from the effective date of this permit, begin submitting discharge
monitoring reports electronically using NC DWR's eDMR application system. See Special
• Condition A. (18.). .
2. The facility shall conduct monthly sampling from the effective date of the permit. After one year
from the effective date of the permit the monitoring will be reduced to quarterly
3. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
4. The facility shall use EPA method 1631E.
If the facility is unable to obtain a seep sample due to the dry or low flow conditions
preventing the facility from obtaining a representative sample, the "no flow" should be
reported on the DMR. This requirement is established in the Section D of the Standard
Conditions and 40 CFR 122.41 (j).
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace
amounts.
•
Page 19 of 27

•
•
Permit NC0004961
A. (26.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (Outfall
106) [15A NCAC 02B .0400 et seq., 02B .0500 et seq.]
During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall 106- Seep Discharge. Such discharges shall be
limited and monitored' by the Permittee as specified below:
EFFLUENT t, LIMITS MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
CHARACTERISTICS
Monthly` Daily Measurement Sample Type Sample Location
OIVI imun' ;.: Frequency? ..,.. .:. �r.:: ..... .
t 1:
Flow, MGD Monthly/Quarterly Estimate Effluent
pH3 Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Fluoride 1.8 mg/L 1.8 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Mercury4,ng/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Barium 1.0 mg/L 1.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Iron,mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Manganese,pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Zinc,pg/L Monthly/Quarterly • Grab Effluent
Total Arsenic 10.0 pg/L 50.0 pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Cadmium 2.0 pg/L 15.0 pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Chromium 50.0 pg/L 1,022.0 pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Copper, pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Lead, pg/L 25.0pg/L 33.8 pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Nickel 25.0 pg/L 25.0 pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Selenium 5.0 pg/L 56.0 pg/L. Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Nitrate as N 10.0 mg/L 10.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Sulfates 250.0 mg/L 250.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Chlorides 250.0 mg/L 250.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
IDS _ 500.0 mg/L 500.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Hardness,mg/L 100.0 mg/L 100.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly s Grab Effluent
TSS,mg/L 30.0 mg/L 100.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Oil and Grease 15.0 mg/L 20.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab . Effluent
Temperature,0C Monthly/Quarterly s Grab Effluent
Specific Conductance, pmho/cm _ Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Notes:
1. No later than 270 days from the effective date of this permit, begin submitting discharge
monitoring reports electronically using NC DWR's eDMR application system. See Special
Condition A. (18.).
2. The facility shall conduct monthly sampling from the effective date of the permit. After one year
from the effective date of the permit the monitoring will be reduced to quarterly
3. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
4. The facility shall use EPA method 1631E.
If the facility is unable to obtain a seep sample due to the dry or low flow conditions
preventing the facility from obtaining a representative sample, the "no flow" should be
reported on the DMR. This requirement is established in the Section D of the Standard
Conditions and 40 CFR 122.41 (j).
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace
amounts.
•
Page 20 of 27

Permit NC0004961 •
A. (27.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (Outfall
107) [15A NCAC 02B .0400 et seq., 02B .0500 et seq.] .
During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting until expiration, the .
Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall 107- Seep Discharge. Such discharges shall be
limited and monitored' by the Permittee as specified below:
1=FFLUENTgaNAIIMITSSAM.t Vi';W:CialaiRMONITORINGREQUIRtMENTSINVAggg
tilialaleggaiggeameNCHARACTERISTICS
Monthly Daily a Measurement , Sample Type j Sample Location
,vt., ..:Average,` ,`:Maximum:.. t,gtFrequeiacy2,
Flow,MGD Monthly/Quarterly Estimate Effluent
pH3 Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Fluoride 1.8 mg/L 1.8 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Mercury4,ng/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Barium 1.0 mg/L 1.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Iron,mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Manganese,pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
• Total Zinc,pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Arsenic 10.0 pg/L 50.0 pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab . Effluent
Total Cadmium 2.0 pg/L . 15.0 pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Chromium 50.0 pg/L 1,022.0 pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Copper, pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Lead,pg/L • 25.0pg/L 33.8 pg/L . Monthly/Quarterly , Grab Effluent
Total Nickel 25.0 pg/L 25.0 pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Selenium 5.0 pg/L 56.0 pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Nitrate as N 10.0 mg/L 10.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Sulfates 250.0 mg/L 250.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Chlorides 250.0 mg/L 250.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
TDS • 500.0 mg/L 500.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Hardness,mg/L 100.0 mg/L 100.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
TSS,mg/L 30.0 mg/L 100.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Oil and Grease 15.0 mg/L _ 20.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab _ Effluent
Temperature,oC Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Specific Conductance,pmho/cm Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Notes:
1. No later than 270 days from the effective date of this permit, begin submitting discharge
monitoring reports electronically using NC DWR's eDMR application system. See Special
Condition A. (18.).
2. The facility shall conduct monthly sampling from the effective date of the permit. After one year
from the effective date of the permit the monitoring will be reduced to quarterly
3. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
4. The facility shall use EPA method 1631E.
If the facility is unable to obtain a seep sample due to the dry or low flow conditions
preventing the facility from obtaining a representative sample, the "no flow's should be
reported on the DMR. This requirement is established in the Section D of the Standard • . .
•Conditions and 40 CFR 122.41 (j).
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace
amounts.
•
Page 21 of 27

Permit NC0004961
A. '(28.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (Outfall
108) [15A NCAC 02B .0400 et seq., 02B .0500 et seq.]
During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall 108=Seep Discharge. Such discharges shall be
limited and monitored' by the Permittee as specified below:
EFFLUENT` LIMITS MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
•CHARACTERISTICS
MopthlyM YM:';.DailkiON ViiiNeekkiiiiiiiMSample Type Sample Location 'c'`
- .. ,::Average: _ .v:Maximum- ,Frequency240 vig4i:i-ial;g:...,:.1 ,.•'`} .._
Flow, MGD Monthly/Quarterly Estimate Effluent
pH3 Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Fluoride 1.8 mg/L 1.8 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Mercury4,ng/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Barium 1.0 mg/L 1.0 mg/L ' Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Iron,mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
_ ' Total Manganese,pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Zinc, pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Arsenic 10.0 pg/L 50.0 pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Cadmium 2.0 pg/L 15.0 pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Chromium 50.0 pg/L 1,022.0 pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Copper,pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Lead, pg/L 25.0Ng/L 33.8 pg/L _ Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
' Total Nickel 25.0 pg/L 25.0 pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Selenium 5.0 pg/L 56.0 pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Nitrate as N •10.0 mg/L 10.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Sulfates 250.0 mg/L _ 250.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly .• Grab Effluent
Chlorides 250.0 mg/L 250.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
TDS. 500.0 mg/L 500.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab ' Effluent
Total Hardness,mg/L 100.0 mg/L 100.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
TSS,mg/L 30.0 mg/L 100.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Oil and Grease .15.0 mg/L 20.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Temperature,OC • Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Specific Conductance, pmho/cm • Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Notes: •
1. No later than 270 days from the effective date of this permit, begin submitting discharge
monitoring reports electronically using NC DWR's eDMR application system. See Special
Condition A. (18.).
2. The facility shall conduct monthly sampling from the effective date of the permit. After one year
from the effective date of the permit the monitoring will be reduced to quarterly
3. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
4. The facility shall use EPA method 1631E.
Ii'the facility is unable to,obtain a seep sample due to the dry or low flow conditions
preventing the facility from obtaining a representative sample, the "no flow" should be
reported on the DMR. This requirement is established in the Section D of the Standard
Conditions and 40 CFR 122.41 (j).
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other.than trace
amounts. ,
Page 22 of 27

Permit NC0004961 •
A. (29.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (Outfall
109) [15A NCAC 02B .0400 et seq., 02B .0500 et seq.]
During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall 109 -Seep Discharge. Such discharges shall be
limited and monitored' by the Pezmittee as specified below:
EFFLUENT LIMITS MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
CHARACTERISTICS
Y Monthly,` Daily Measurement }Sample Type Sample Location .j.
Average .. ..,Maximum Frequency2
Flow, MGD Monthly/Quarterly Estimate Effluent
pH3 Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Fluoride 1.8 mg/L 1.8 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Mercury4,ng/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Barium 1.0 mg/L 1.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Iron,mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Manganese, pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Zinc,pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Arsenic 10.0 pg/L 50.0 pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Cadmium 2.0 pg/L 15.0 pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Chromium 50.0 pg/L 1,022.0 pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Copper, pg/L Monthly/Quarterly .Grab Effluent
Total Lead, pg/L 25.0pg/L 33.8 pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Nickel 25.0 pg/L 25.0 pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Selenium 5.0 pg/L 56,0 pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Nitrate as N 10.0 mg/L 10.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab . Effluent
Sulfates 250.0 mg/L _ 250.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Chlorides 250.0 mg/L 250.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
TDS 500.0 mg/L. 500.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Hardness,mg/L 100.0 mg/L 100.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
TSS,mg/L 30.0 mg/L 100.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Oil and Grease 15.0 mg/L 20.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Temperature,0C Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Specific Conductance, pmho/cm Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Notes:
1. No later than 270 days from the effective date of this permit, begin submitting discharge
monitoring reports electronically using NC DWR's eDMR application system. See Special
Condition A. (18.).
2. The facility shall conduct monthly sampling from the effective date of the permit. After one year
from the effective date of the permit the monitoring will be•reduced to quarterly
3. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
4. The facility shall use EPA method 1631E.
If the facility is unable to obtain a seep sample due to the dry or low flow conditions
preventing the facility from obtaining a representative sample, the "no flow" should be
reported on the DMR. This requirement is established in the Section D of the Standard
Conditions and 40 CFR 122.41 (j).
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace
amounts.
Page 23 of 27

• Permit NC0004961
A. (30.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (Outfall
110) [15A NCAC 02B .0400 et seq., 02B .0500 et seq.]
During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall 110-Seep Discharge. Such discharges shall be
limited and monitored' by the Permittee as specified below:
gfE4VgnakealiniatNLIMITS MONITORINGrREQUIREMENTS -,
CHARACTERISTICS
Mopthfy Daily Measurement Sample Type Sample Location
;Average.. .:Maximum' . ;Frequency2...<:
Flow,MGD Monthly/Quarterly Estimate Effluent
pH3 Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Fluoride 1.8 mg/L _ 1.8 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Mercury4,ng/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Barium 1.0 mg/L 1.0 mg/L _ Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Iron,mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Manganese, pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Zinc, pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Arsenic 10.0 pg/L 50.0 pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Cadmium 2,0 pg/L • 15.0 pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Chromium 50.0 pg/L 1,022.0 pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Copper,pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent •
Total Lead, pg/L 25.0pg/L 33.8 pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Nickel 25.0 pg/L 25.0 pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Selenium . 5.0 pg/L 56.0 pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Nitrate as N 10.0 mg/L 10.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Sulfates 250.0 mg/L 250.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Chlorides 250.0 mg/L 250.0 mg/L _ Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
TDS 500.0 mg/L 500.0 mg/L_ Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent •
Total Hardness,mg/L 100.0 mg/L 100.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
TSS,mg/L 30.0 mg/L 100.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Oil and Grease 15.0 mg/L 20.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab , Effluent
Temperature,OC Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Specific Conductance, pmho/cm Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Notes: .
1. No later than 270 days from the effective date of this permit, begin submitting discharge
monitoring reports electronically using NC DWR's eDMR application system. See Special
Condition A. (18.).
2. The facility shall conduct monthly sampling from the effective date of the permit. After one year
from the effective date of the permit the monitoring will be reduced to quarterly
3. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
4. The facility shall use EPA method 1631E.
If the facility is unable to obtain a seep sample due to the dry or low flow conditions
preventing the facility from obtaining a representative sample, the "no flow" should be
reported on the DMR. This requirement is established in the Section D of the Standard
Conditions and 40 CFR 122.41 (j).
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace
amounts.
Page 24 of 27

Permit NC0004961 • •
A. (31.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (Outfall
111) [15A NCAC 02B .0400 et seq., 02B .0500 et seq.]
During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall 111 -Seep Discharge. Such discharges shall be
limited and monitored' by the Permittee as specified below:
FFLUENT LIMITS MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
CHARACTERISTICS
Month) Daily Measurement Sample Type ' Sample Location
Average. ;;Max)mum:: FreqOen cy2
Flow, MGD Monthly/Quarterly Estimate Effluent
pH3 Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent • I
Fluoride 1.8 mg/L 1.8 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Mercury4,ng/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Barium 1.0 mg/L 1.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Iron,mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Manganese, pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Zinc, pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Arsenic 10.0 pg/L 50.0 pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Cadmium 2.0 pg/L 15.0 pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab• Effluent
Total Chromium 50.0 pg/L 1,022.0 pg/L Monthly/Quarterly • Grab Effluent
Total Copper, pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Lead, pg/L 25.0pg/L 33.8 pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Nickel 25.0 pg/L 25.0 pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Selenium 5,0 pg/L 56.0 pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Nitrate as N 10.0 mg/L 10.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Sulfates 250.0 mg/L 250.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Chlorides 250.0 mg/L 250.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
TDS 500.0 mg/L 500.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Hardness,mg/L 100.0 mg/L 100,0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
TSS,mg/L 30.0 mg/L 100.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Oil and Grease 15,0 mg/L 20.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Temperature,0C Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Specific Conductance, pmho/cm Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Notes:
1. No later than 270 days from the effective date of this permit, begin submitting discharge
monitoring reports electronically using NC DWR's eDMR application system. See Special
Condition A. (18.).
2. The facility shall conduct monthly sampling from the effective date of the permit. After one year
from the effective date of the permit the monitoring will be reduced to quarterly
3. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
4. The facility shall use EPA method 1631E.
If the facility is unable to obtain a seep sample due to the dry or low flow conditions
preventing the facility from obtaining a representative sample, the "no flow" should be
reported on the DMR. This requirement is established in the Section D of the Standard
Conditions and 40 CFR 122.41 (j).
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace
amounts.
Page 25 of 27

Pe�niit NC0004961
A. (32.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND.MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (Outfall
112) [15A NCAC 02B .0400 et seq., 02B .0500 et seq.]
During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall 112-Seep Discharge. Such discharges shall be
limited and monitored) by the Permittee as specified below:
EFFLUENT bitinnageglepan -EMITS MO ITORING REQUIREMENTS ..
CHARACTERISTICS r
Monthly Daily Measuremente 4:1':§0014.00.11Sample Location .;:.
OnIOSSEDIedinen 0:404662ARtiMifen6OS
Flow, MGD Monthly/Quarterly Estimate Effluent
pH3 Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Fluoride 1.8 mg/L 1.8 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Mercury4,ng/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Barium 1.0 mg/L 1.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Iron,mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Manganese, pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Zinc, pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Arsenic 10.0 pg/L 50.0 pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Cadmium 2.0 pg/L 15.0 pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Chromium • 50:0 pg/L 1,022.0 pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Copper,.Hg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Lead, pg/L 25.0pg/L 33.8 pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Nickel 25.0 pg/L 25.0 pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Selenium 5.0 pg/L 56.0 pg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Nitrate as N 10.0 mg/L 10.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Sulfates 250.0 mg/L 250.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Chlorides 250.0 mg/L 250.0 mg/L _Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
TDS 500.0 mg/L 500.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Total Hardness,mg/L 100.0 mg/L 100.0 mg/L _ Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
ISS,mg/L 30.0 mg/L 100.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
. Oil and Grease 15.0 mg/L 20.0 mg/L Monthly/Quarterly Grab . Effluent
Temperature,0C Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Specific Conductance,pmho/cm Monthly/Quarterly Grab Effluent
Notes:
1. No later than 270 days from the effective date of this permit,.begin submitting discharge
monitoring reports electronically using NC DWR's eDMR application system. See Special
Condition A. (18.).
2, The facility shall conduct monthly sampling from the effective date of the permit. After one year
from the effective date of the permit the monitoring will be reduced to quarterly
3. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
4. The facility shall use EPA method 1631E.
If the facility is unable to obtain a seep sample due to the dry or low flow conditions
preventing the facility from obtaining a representative sample, the "no flow" should be
reported on the DMR. This requirement is established in the Section D of the Standard
Conditions and 40 CFR 122.41 (j). . -
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace
amounts.
Page 26 of 27

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

".C-)-k-. :,.c ''''k' . __..i ,691,0.- \ _) !fir.11 . ab,W r P .t
n a r w, em'_. f7a J i`�' z C t 1fi • ` • ;'-' V •
L
\ ,,
L
:'''r A.
Sar.- :\rP '.0lr�,;' "W;,,,0:'11.11 _� 1 �?„,..(
'',14).\'!•''b
Q$ 2 �3 ; t t F/ ‘1.6,
1. �` ,
:fltea AI* sx .„'. Ar„� . � !',! 1 , . a f'•;
It>v
`'c"S b1 (fie [■` '' It 'O
> � ,�`�t�tu R (�arti.nl too-dit �g A r�tio r � b Gtr �� / � �
tr,lteiy54.M:r,..„,':..
�p�, � � g i .:moo �" ^.6-,: -.4-14.4-''''''.4'
\Q�'•��' .,. �1�, `�'tY�'J �s� i `�t 1 t ��a A� +.'� y -^j t?. ..�-�'
t- nQ F-44 k 1�` lc„,, • : : r t . _,x.�' V ._,tA „arc' . ti -<`
"' fid[®i�� r S'4 , . 7 w ti ,• .F I 1-.
.� _ L'avvl6�� ►A J1i���,5 y j1� �t r <. x .ty!' 4 ';`' r ��'".,4%;;t1 }' '4 `{:- _lir s ,
R {iM#7I6 t 5 4 E
J lr„, a i � /�Bdd9e /` {�� -'�c :�. ai.,'� F' �'. ..e - t i V...,
®f�/�
sa �„\ R°'�FC � r ¢ 3� ``� r ' 'Sy e ( \ ti lk. l 4 f 1 v 5 r
:'y12\ �i, 1 tl - .` r (_'1,1 ' -.•
;si; ! � f *� J(1!`r4 � I :,,e
a 1 ( o „r, ti ,�rr Y-- ( .'
�` -: r � o��+l ' � t�(a�� r C,'.c cog;
y� lid �� � r ra:Mti.`i,L'" ''"��' p � L� `\,fit`l �(4 ®t` +"��fi 4r,=
`mg;;,:,•;_:57,4".. ,,-rA` t t,, .k..,4: ,„1„,/,‘,..:wt, e ,--1I,1^ 7.+....rC� .NI U�_\ kt,,0,411?:/"_,>� A
„, .r
\ ( c , SLk ;,;. ® �•% —” l,� ..---, ,€r.: ,'"..6 * r � -, 115{° 1'#i� l .. ..
' �+ � 1� moi` • { d0�' �� I i' \� y 11`Li °A✓�1 +Y� r
` z ti. �` i}iF✓\S Y cr . �.1..4.1,74,„,
4 4, • cJ".,, T a i,„„,,:
{ e '- 1fit,.. .��` V''%'7'1"e-.,:....W‘
R" >,,,o \;L
c . `c ,4: '°elf �)-r• ` ',"i � �_,,� :-,--------,,,--- -airF K r
' �+,C � �;a l �t `4 i s '`.. L - S. �.. o� ..�,- � h r '•
r a- ,�,k,�v`�i- y ct \ ;Croom��
,"N ' .'4 *J'','i4'';' 7.1 •
riff”,'NN,',a{4 .�'a,f�����:;:�'` 2��� �{ r q�d. 1.-\ttil
\��� { :::� -,r..y`,.', � � � - , y,t,� ' �-'r,�,�r,
` _ a\ t�� �;y�rt� '�� �ti Yom ; rr` '�z' 0 q Y �.? ,<+o�,,`V 3 \ y YZ� 4. 11,--i ' .,. s !1 i` r \t�
'�, n�':/ MT-'b-/ a y� d, / • 'rtçwiA
rjifi
f '3` •(1 . i .,„s, ,,,,,z„,„, 1=-.;' ,.Taa,w,:r,,,,,, . ,,.$ v,,,,,:v f...,e,,,. ,f1:\?„, x < rte_
•
....c.>
i9\
1. .� ,777 r�ri3 '1. , Rtitcwi '~`nt 4 '4ttzmi;1 ,, Z�f'� �t\\t ��,94. \t�1. r d * - _.
fy, 1p S� .l '., tr 1,-*`ofi"solo} ,,A1 �:¢ it �� r `4 y/ / /^�/nti, ..\,
6�.. }. IVt _63, 4� .c�� ..'A1.t `.r3t€< t y�A •����.. +�vl'�i � ;::...�\r� Y � �e ,`
e, N �VJT kY��,,[ 3 � r,, e4(.1���jjjj { }� ��f ij =\, '� �`, �P '4. i \�. :.'
' 1 �to ��. �`aA :P. *MAO'
5 7� Ytt.,k1.t ' ,.^ 1 4 ,.eb°` ' F.N.
a.
�i-r i^T(IS"` i 4 a.Yo- c 4-- 0 d ;A IP ('1 S n. •�irk!' e�' .0
.,��•,1 -r. ��CJp.-1� �-�t��} Ly ,i x 1r � - � �)�� >;:i. a �''�
44,1*-_,„ `.'. t's,�¢ xy�i,d �•i�� D ' i rs,l ./} ,` K �r ti„�P.J�� :
,d "\-
L�k- ;cr \ @�o.,'$�si�ffi. 'j •-•,, i � .. 1. 'l✓ a r 1,. ( 'n k `� \`S F
�4 'Y�j 4� ? , �: r §mow if it d � t(�` >_ .. \ ,4'i �t
j. ,
''c
I` k r t Y i R Pogo r• A X , lt
.... i L' tlC 3.,. ii {'xtE.t i{r.?j '`,t•F . vZ=2Sc l Z';S 4 �•R�Z t, `0, 3. �, . ,4,-).— /
, h<`��.'kT•�, h, F 'd hl a ,fnti` p 'moi r�.['(� pra �dr, � � '}.^„:GP 1�r'r4: ft.— • •• p� ,�,
e„,,,- 40,A,\` ,A4, ,,. '�3 � � ,,ztl� ) G1 ?'t i -- _ v.;t St'7FJw: 1'.r.Y{r .SrRF ��f 1"•L li ` FeHd�.141
•
• Duke Energy Corporation Map not to scale
,,
Riverbend Steam Station
State Grid/Quad: F15SW/Mt.Island Lake,NC
Receiving Streams:Catawba River Sub-Basin: 03-08 33 Facility �� y� y
Stream Class: WS-IV&B-CA Permitted Flow: Not limited '�,,� �r `�- �
Location
Drainage Basin: Catawba River Basin } �'
Latitude(001): 35°21'28" N Longitude(001): 80°58' 12 W ;
Latitude(002): 35°22'06" N Longitude(002): 80°57'31" W ..•
Latitude(002A): 35°21'51" N Longitude(002A):80°58' 11" W North
NPDES Permit No.NC0004961
Latitude(011): 35°21'38" N Longitude(011): 80°58'38" W 1 V ortt 6 Gaston County

ti
EXHIBIT 4
South Carolina Electric & Gas Company
Integrated Resource Plan (IRP)
February 28, 2014

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA )
) BEFORE THE
) PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
South Carolina Electric&Gas Company's Integrated ) OF SOUTH CAROLINA •
Resource Plan (IRP) )
COVER SHEET
)
)
) DOCKET
) NUMBER: 2014 - E
) •
).
)
(Please type or print) •
Submitted by: K. Chad Burgess SC Bar Number: 69456
Address: SCANA Corp. Telephone: [phone]
220 Operation Way MC C222 Fax: [phone]
Cayce;SC 29033-3701 Other:
Email: [e-mail] _
NOTE:The cover sheet and information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filing and service of pleadings or'otherpapers
as required by law. Thisform is required for use by the Public Service Commission of South Carolina for the purposeof docketing and must
be filled out completely.
DOCKETING INFORMATION(Check all that apply)
❑Emergency Relief demanded in petition ❑Request for item to be placed on Commission's Agenda expeditiously
❑ Other:
INDUSTRY(Check one) NATURE OF AACTION (Check all that apply)
Electric ❑ Affidavit ❑ Letter ❑ Request
❑ Electric/Gas ❑Agreement ❑ Memorandum '❑ 'Request for Certificatio
❑ Electric/Telecommunications. ❑Answer ❑ Motion ❑ Request for Investigatior
❑ Electfie/Water ❑Appellate Review ;❑ Objection ❑ Resale Agreement
❑ Electric/Water/Telecom. ❑Application ❑ Petition ❑ Resale Amendment.
❑ Electric/Water/Sewer ❑Brief ❑ Petition for Reconsideration ❑ Reservation Letter
❑ Gas ❑Certificate ❑ Petition forRuleniaking ❑ Response
❑ Railroad ❑Co►runents -❑ Petition for Rule-to-Show Cause—❑ Response-to-Discovery
❑ Sewer ❑'.Complaint ❑ Petition tolntervene ❑ Return to Petition
Telecommunications ❑Consent Order ❑ Petition to Intervene Out of Time ❑ Stipulation
❑, Transportation ❑Discovery ❑ Prefiled Testimony ❑ Subpoena
❑ Water ,❑Exhibit ❑ Promotion Q Other:
❑ Water/Sewer ,❑Expedited,Consideration ❑ Proposed Order Integrated Resource:Plan
❑ Administrative Matter ❑Interconnection Agreement ❑ Protest
'Other: ❑Inter"connection,Amendment ❑ Publisher's Affidavit
❑Late-Filed Exhibit 0 Report

•
CaffirdWi
ROWER Fon LIVING
K.Chad Burgess
'AssOciate General Counsel
Chacfburqesgcona.com
February 2014
VIA ELECTRONIC FILING •
The Honorable Jocelyn Boyd
Chief Clerk/Administrator .
Public Service ConlinissiCin of South Carolirip.
101 Executive Center Drive
Columbia; South Carolina 29210
'South CatOliria Electric 8L, Gas Company's 2014 Integrated Resource
Plan
Docket No. _ -E
Dear.3,4s: Boyd:
In accordance with S.C. Code Ann. § 58-37-40 (Supp 2013).and Order No, ps,
502en-closed you will find the 2014 Integrated Resource Plan of South Carolina
_ . . „ _
Electric & Gas .Company ("SCB&O 2014 IRP") This filing also serves to 'satisfy the
annual reporting requnements .of the Utility Facility Siting and Environmental
Protection Act, S.C: Code Ann.§ 58-3:3-340,
By copy of this letter, we. .are also •serving the South Carolina Office of
Regulatory Staff anti. the South Carolina gnergy. Office with a copy of the SCE&G
2014 IRP and attack a OrtifiQp.te Of service to that effect.
If you have any questions Or concerns; please:* not hesitate to contact us;
Very truly yours,
• - _
K.
- .
itZ2
Chad 4314. gess
KOB/kros
ot ,,Tolin W. Flitter
Jeffery M: Nelson;Esquire
Ashlie Lancaster
(all viaeleetronic ande 4, First.Class.Mail)

BEFORE
THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF
SOUTH CAROLINA
DOCKET NO. 2014- _ -E
IN RE:
South Carolina-Electric & Gas Company's )
Integrated Resource Plan ) CERTIFICATE OF
SERVICE
This is the certify that I have caused to be. served this day one (1) copy of the
2014 Integrated Resource Plan of South Carolina Electric & Gas Company via
electronic mail and V.S. First Class Mail to the persons named below at the address set
forth.:
Jeffrey Nelson,Esquire
Office of Regulatory Staff
1401 Main Street, Suite 900 •
Columbia; SC 29201
jnelson@reptaff sc.gov
John Flitter
Office of Regulatory Staff
1401 Main Street, Suite 900
Columbia, SC S29201
[e-mail].,gov
Ashlie Lancaster
SC Energy Office
1200 Senate Street
-408-Wade-Hampton-Builcling
Columbia.'SC 29201
alancaster@enermsc:gov
M, geruggs fi
'CAyee South.Carolina u
This 28th:day of February 2014

2014
Integrated
Resource
Plan
i),A 4
SCEG®
A SCANA COMPANY

Introduction
This document presents South Carolina Electric & Gas Company's ("SCE&G" or
"Company") Integrated Resource Plan("IRP") for meeting the energy needs of its customers
over the next fifteen years, 2014 through 2028. This document is filed with.the Public Service
Commission of South Carolina("Commission") in accordance with S.C. Code Ann. § 58-37-40
(Supp. 2013) and Order No. 98-502 and also serves to satisfy the annual reporting requirements
of the Utility Facility Siting and Environmental Protection Act, S.C. Code Ann. § 58-33-430
(Supp. 2013). The objective of the Company's IRP is to develop a resource plan that will
provide reliable and economically priced energy to its customers while complying with all
environmental laws and regulations.
I. Demand and Energy Forecast for the Fifteen-Year Period Ending 2028
Total territorial energy sales on SCE&G's system are expected to grow at an average rate
of 1.6%per year over the next 15 years, while firm territorial summer peak demand and winter
peak demand will increase at 1.6% and 1.7%per year, respectively, over this forecast horizon.
The table below contains these projected loads. By convention winter follows summer.
Summer Winter Energy
Peak Peak Sales
(MW) (MW) (GWH)
2014 4,786 4,496 22,648
2015 4,849 4,557 22,732
2016 4,968 4,632 22,944
2017 5,073 4,713 23,423
2018 5,166 4,814 23,765
2019 5,245 4,894 24,279
2020 5,319 4,967 24,683
2021 5,385 5,057 25,065
2022 5,458 5,152 25,533
2023 5,540 5,249 26,032
2024 5,623 5,349 26,514
2025 5,705 5,447 27,007
2026 5,789 5,541 27,481
2027 5,867 5,636 27,935
2028 5,943 5,731 28,397
1

The energy sales forecast for SCE&G is made for over 30 individual categories. The categories
are subgroups of our seven classes of customers. The three primary customer classes -
residential, commercial, and industrial - comprise just over 93% of our sales. The following bar
chart shows the relative contribution to territorial sales made by each class. The "other" class in
the chart below includes street lighting, other public authorities, municipalities and electric
cooperatives.
Percent Sales By Class 2014
•
0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0%
Residential I. 34.3%
Commercial 31.9%
Industrial '! 26.9%
Other 6.9:10
SCE&G's forecasting process is divided into two parts: development of the baseline
forecast, followed by adjustments for energy efficiency impacts. A detailed description of the
short-range baseline forecasting process and statistical models is contained in Appendix A of this
report. Short-range is defined as the next two years. Appendix B contains similar information
for the long-range methodology. Long range is defined as beyond two years. Sales projections
for each group are based on statistical and econometric models derived from historical
relationships.
1. System Peak Demand: Summer vs. Winter
SCE&G usually peaks in the summer as seen in the chart below. This is reasonable for
several reasons. First,the climate in SCE&G's service area is generally hotter in the summer
than colder in the winter relative to a given base temperature. Second,the penetration of air-
conditioners among SCE&G's customers approaches 100% since there are no real substitutes for
2

electric air-conditioners at present. Finally, a large number of residential and gas customers heat
their homes and businesses with natural gas. Results of the peak demand forecast methodology
used herein show that the general pattern of higher summer peaks relative to winter peaks will
continue.
The following charts shows SCE&G's experience with summer versus winter peaking.
By industry convention,the winter period is assumed to follow the summer period. In 19 of the
past 24 years, SCE&G peaked in the summer. One other notable feature of the peak demand
chart is the greater variability in winter peak demand.
Comparison of SCE&G Annual Summer and Winter Peak History
1990-2013
MW
5000 -
4500
000 -4500 — — — —
4000 =-- -- -- — -- —
3500 - — — — — —
3000 — — — --- — --- — —0—•—•0—•—• " --
2500 PLOT ® � summer __ '+ '0'-"�' winter
i I i i I
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3
Year
The forecast of summer peak demand is developed by combining the load profile
characteristics of each customer class collected in the Company's Load Research Program with
forecasted energy. The winter peak demand is projected through its correlation with annual
energy sales and winter degree-day departures from normal.
2. DSM Impact on Forecast
SCE&G expects its energy efficiency ("EE")programs to reduce retail sales in 2014 by
84,627 MWH or approximately 85 GWH. Retail sales after this EE impact are expected to be
22,035 GWH. Therefore, the EE programs are expected to reduce retail sales by 0.384%from
3

what they would have been. To gauge how its EE programs compared to other companies in the
Southeast, SCE&G analyzed the EE impacts filed with the U.S. Energy Information
Administration("EIA") in 2012,the latest year available. There were 47 companies filing from
the Southeast, in particular, from the NERC regions of SERC and FRCC. Two companies were
dropped from the analysis for bad data. The chart below shows graphically the distribution of
reported results. The median EE impact was 0.19%. Thus half the companies showed results
higher and half lower than this median value. SCE&G's expectation for 2014 is twice this
median value placing it in the top half of the distribution and almost into the top quartile.
Clearly SCE&G's EE programs compare favorably with other companies in the Southeast.
EIA 861 Reported Energy Efficiency Impacts for 2012
80 -
—Lognormal •
70 -
60 -
w
50
= Lower Quartile 0.03
60 40 - Median 0.19
a)
0- Upper Quartile 0.51
30 - •
20 -
0.075 0.225 0.375 0.525 0.675 0.825
eepct
As part of the forecast development, the 0.38% EE savings was divided into a residential and
commercial component. In addition, savings due to lighting efficiencies were removed from the
class numbers and combined with lighting efficiency effects due to federally mandated measures.
This was necessary to produce a consistent forecast of lighting efficiency effects. After this
adjustment,the annual EE percentages used to produce the forecast were determined to be 0.31%
and 0.13% for the residential and commercial sectors,respectively. The table below illustrates
the calculation of the EE reductions. The far right-hand column labeled"Cumulative
4

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

Energy Efficiency
SCE&G Total
Baseline DSM Federal EE Territorial
Sales Programs Mandates Impact Sales
(GWH) (GWH) (GWH) (GWH) (GWH)
2014 22,773 0 -125 -125 22,648
2015 22,919 0 -187 -187 22,732
2016 23,446 -35 -467 -502 22,944
2017 23,999 -70 -506 -576 23,423
2018 24,415 -106 -544 -650 23,765
2019 25,011 -143 -589 -732 24,279
2020 25,565 -180 -702 -882 24,683
2021 26,103 -219 -819 -1,038 25,065
2022 26,633 -259 -841 -1,100 25,533
2023 27,195 -299 -864 -1,163 26,032
2024 27,740 -340 -886 -1,226 26,514
2025 28,297 -382 -908 -1,290 27,007
2026 28,836 -425 -930 -1,355 27,481
2027 29,355 -469 -951 -1,420 27,935
2028 29,883 -514 -972 -1,486 28,397
Baseline sales are projected to grow at the rate of 2.0%per year. The impact of energy
efficiency, both from SCE&G's DSM programs and from federal mandates, causes the ultimate
territorial sales growth to fall to 1.6% per year as reported earlier.
Since the baseline forecast utilizes historical relationships between energy use and driver
variables such as weather, economics, and customer behavior, it embodies changes which have
occurred between them over time. For example, construction techniques which result in better
insulated houses have had a dampening effect on energy use. Because this process happens with
the addition of new houses and/or extensive home renovations, it occurs gradually. Over time
this factor and others are captured in the forecast methodology. However, when significant
events occur that impact energy use but are not captured in the historical relationships, they must
be accounted for outside the traditional model structure.
The first adjustment relates to federal mandates for air-conditioning units and heat
pumps. In 2006,the minimum Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio ("SEER") for newly
manufactured appliances was raised from 10 to 13, which means that cooling loads for a house
that replaced a 10 SEER unit with a 13 SEER unit would decrease by 30% assuming no change
6

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

customers and a standby generator program. These programs represent over 200 megawatts
("MW") on our system. The following table shows the impacts of EE from the Company's DSM
programs and from federal mandates as well as the impact from the Company's DR programs on
the firm peak demand projections.
•
Territorial Summer Peak Demands(MWs)
Energy Efficiency
System Firm
Baseline SCE&G Federal Total EE Peak Demand Peak
Year Trend Programs Mandates Impact Demand Response Demand
2014. 5,046 0 -3 -3 5,043 -257 4,786
2015 5,112 0 -4 -4 5,108 -260 . 4,848
2016 5,270 -11 -26 -37 5,233 -267 4,966
2017 5,406 -21 -38 -59 5,347 -275 5,072
2018 5,525 -33 -48 -81 5,444 -279 5,165
2019 5,631 -44 -59 -103 5,528 -283 5,245
2020 5,735 -55 -74 -129 5,606 -286 5,320
2021 5,829 • -67 -89 -156 5,673 =289 5,384
2022 5,920 -79 -92 -171 5,749 -292 5,457
2023 6,021 -91 ,-96 -187 5,834. -296 5,538
2024 6,125 -104 -100 -204 5,921 -299 5,622
2025 6,228 -116 -103 -219 6,009 -303 5,706
2026 6,331 -129 -107 -236 6,095 -306 5,789
2027 6,429 -143 -110 -253 6,176 -310 5,866
2028 6,525 -157 -113 -270 6,255 -313 5,942
•
8

II. SCE&G's Program for Meeting Its Demand and Energy Forecasts in an
Economic and Reliable Manner
A. Demand Side Management
Demand Side Management(DSM) can be broadly defined as the set of actions that can be taken
to influence the level and timing of the consumption of energy. There are two common subsets
of Demand Side Management: Energy Efficiency and Load Management(also known as
Demand Response). Energy Efficiency typically includes actions designed to increase efficiency
by maintaining the same level of production or comfort, but using less energy input in an
economically efficient way. Load Management typically includes actions specifically designed
to encourage customers to reduce usage during peak times or shift that usage to other times.
Energy Efficiency
SCE&G's Energy Efficiency programs include Customer Information Programs, Web-Based
Information and Services Programs, Energy Conservation and the Demand.Side Management
Programs. A description of each follows:
1. Customer Information Programs: SCE&G's customer information programs fall under
two headings: the Annual Energy Efficiency Campaigns and Web-based Information
Initiatives. The following is an overview of each.
Annual Energy Efficiency Campaigns
a. Customer Insights and Analysis: In 2013, SCE&G continued to proactively
educate its customers and create awareness on issues related to energy efficiency
and conservation. To help maximize the effectiveness of our campaigns, ongoing
customer feedback is used to ensure marketing and communications efforts are
consistent with what customers value most. Key insights gained through
SCE&G's Brand Health Study and Voice of the Customer Panels are integrated to
ensure we are communicating in a consistent manner that customers will
understand.
As a result, SCE&G continues to highlight programs/services that reflect three
main categories identified by our customers as offering the best opportunity to
9

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

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

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

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

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

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

B. Supply Side Management
Clean Energy at SCE&G
Clean energy includes energy efficiency and clean energy supply options like nuclear
power, hydro power, combined heat and power and renewable energy.
1. Existing Sources of Clean Energy
SCE&G is committed to generating more of its power from clean energy sources. This •
commitment is reflected: in the amount of current and projected generation coming from clean
sources, in the certified renewable energy credits that the Company generates each year, in the
Company's net metering program, and in the Company's support for Palmetto Clean Energy,
Inc. Below is a discussion of each of these topics.
a. Current Generation: SCE&G currently generates clean energy from hydro, nuclear, solar
and biomass. The following chart shows the current and expected amounts of clean energy in
GWH and as a percentage of retail sales.
SCE&G Clean Energy Plan
30,000 80%
®®®mo®oma - 70%
25,000 .....
..............................p........ - 60%
20,000 A
,,, B - 50%
® .•••••• 40
15,000 B °
10,000 – ©00�®4®� / - 30%
- 20%
5,000 - 10%
11111111111111 0
ti�yy tie „›. ti�ti� tie ,1> e ti61,
— -Clean Energy Retail Sales o00 %Clean Energy
011614
As seen in the chart above, SCE&G currently generates a little over 30% of its retail sales from
clean energy sources but by 2019 it expects to generate about 74% from clean energy.
According to the EIA, the U.S. as a nation currently generates about 33% of its retail sales as
clean energy and it expects this percentage to increase slightly over the next ten years or so. The
following chart graphs EIA's forecast for US clean energy.
16

US Clean Energy Forecast
EIA AEO2014
5,000 36.0%
o - 35.5%
p o q .........
, 4,000 - ®� �o�®oo - 35.0%
000 ®`��®neo - 34.5%
3
C7 - 34.0%
c
2 2,000 . � - 33.5%
- 33.0%
1,000 - 32.5%
- 32.0%
11111111111111 31.5%
010614 -Clean Energy Net Generation to the Grid ®�a %Clean Energy
SCE&G compares very favorably to the nation in its clean energy plans since by 2019 it should
be meeting about twice as much of its retail sales with clean energy on a relative basis compared
to the nation.
b. Renewable Energy Credits: The SCE&G-owned electric generator, located at the KapStone
Charleston Kraft LLC facility, generates electricity using a mixture of coal and biomass.
KapStone Charleston Kraft, LLC, produces black liquor through its Kraft pulping process and
produces and purchases biomass fuels. These fuels which are used to produce renewable energy
and the electricity generated qualify for Renewable Energy
Certificates ("REC") as approved by Green-e Energy, a Year MWh % of Retail Sales
2007 371,573 1.7%
leading national independent certification and verification 2008 369,780 1.7%
program for renewable energy administered by the Center 2009 351,614 1.7%
for Resource Solutions, a nonprofit company based in San 2010 346,190 1.5%
Francisco, California. The nearby table shows the MWHs 2011 336,604 1.5%
2012 414,047 1.9%
of renewable energy generated by the Kapstone generator, 2013 385,202 1.8%
formerly known as the Cogen South generator:
c. Boeing Solar Generator: In 2011, SCE&G installed approximately 10 acres of thin-film
laminate panels (18,095 individual panels) on the roof of Boeing's North Charleston assembly •
plant. The PV system, having an alternating current peak output of 2.35 MW, began generating
in October 2011. All RECs and energy generated by the roof top solar system are provided to
17

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

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

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

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

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

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