NC0003425_Modification_20210625 (3)

ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretory
S. DANIEL SMITH
Director
Duke Energy Progress, LLC.
Attn: Tom Copolo, General Manager
10660 Boston Road
Roxboro, NC 27574
Subject: Permit Modification
Application No. NC0003425
Roxboro Steam Electric Power Plant
Person County
Dear Applicant:
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
January 04, 2021
The Water Quality Permitting Section acknowledges the December 31, 2020 receipt of your permit modification application
and supporting documentation. Your application will be assigned to a permit writer within the Section's NPDES WW
permitting branch. Per G.S. 150B-3 your current permit does not expire until permit decision on the application is made.
Continuation of the current permit is contingent on timely and sufficient application for renewal of the current permit. The
permit writer will contact you if additional information is required to complete your permit renewal. Please respond in a
timely manner to requests for additional information necessary to allow a complete review of the application and renewal
of the permit.
Information regarding the status of your renewal application can be found online using the Department of Environmental
Quality's Environmental Application Tracker at:
https://deq.nc.gov/permits-regulations/permit-guidance/environmental-application-tracker
If you have any additional questions about the permit, please contact the primary reviewer of the application using the
links available within the Application Tracker.
ec: WQPS Laserfiche File w/application
GRE
Sincerely,
KOJA
Wren Thedford
Administrative Assistant
Water Quality Permitting Section
North Ca rosins Department of Enylon rr.er•.ta, Qua ty I DAvsson of Water Resou roes
Ra a gh Begone Off:oe 13800 Barrett Dry* I Rae gh, North Carona 27609
919-791-4200

(' DUKE
ENERGY®
12520-B
Sergei Chernikov, PhD,
Industrial Permitting Branch
NC Division of Water Resources
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Subject: NPDES Permit Modification Request
Roxboro Steam Station
NC0003425
Person County
Dear Dr. Chernikov,
Roxboro Steam Station
1700 Dunnaway Roaa
Semora, NC 27343
December 10, 2020
RECEIVED
DEC 31 2020
NCDEQ/DWR/NPDES
Duke Energy Progress, LLC (Duke Energy) hereby requests modification of the subject NPDES permit
to make the following changes:
1. Duke Energy requests incorporation of updated provisions and technology based effluent
limits (TBEL) provided in 40 CFR part 423. Specifically, Duke Energy requests that the FGD
TBELs be updated to the values in the recently promulgated steam electric effluent limitations
guidelines and that terms related to the release of bottom ash transport water be clarified to align
with updates to 40 CFR Part 423. The revised rule was signed by the US Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) on August 31, 2020 and published in the Federal Register on October
13, 2020 with a December 13, 2020 effective date. The rule states that "Where permits with the
2015 rule limitations have already been issued, EPA expects that the final rule requirements will
be incorporated through permit modifications in most cases."
Those promulgated limits are as follows with changes from current permit limits
highlighted:
Pollutant
Existing monthly average and
daily max
Requested 2020 monthly
average and daily max
Arsenic
8 ug/I and 11/ug/I
8 ug/I and 18 ug/I
Mercury
356 ng/I and 788 ng/I
34 ng/I and 103 ng/I
Selenium
12 ug/I and 23 ug/I
19 ug/I and 70 ug/I
Nitrate/Nitrite
4.4 mg/I and 17 mg/I
3 mg/I and 4 mg/I
If necessary, Duke Energy will work with the Department to develop a narrative permit requirement to
assure that treatment components in place continue to be properly operated and maintained to provide
optimum treatment. The permit currently contains such a requirement stating "the facility shall continue
to operate the FGD treatment system until all coal-fired units are retired" as a footnote in condition
A. (10).
www.duke-energy.com

2. With the update to the FGD TBEL's, Duke Energy also requests phased limits for outfall
011 based on the attached combined waste formula calculations. Duke Energy intends to
redirect landfill leachate to the FGD wastewater system to promote increased pollutant removal.
Given the amount of work necessary to redirect this flow, the redirection of landfill leachate
cannot occur until 2022 at the earliest. Duke Energy requests that phased limits for FGD
wastewater be included in the permit with limits at outfall 011 for "FGD wastewater
without landfill leachate" and "FGD wastewater with landfill leachate". Supporting
information with the calculations for the combined flow limits were performed by Stantec
engineering and can be found in Attachment 1 to this submittal.
3. Duke Energy requests an increase in the flow limit and reporting clarification on flow at
internal Outfall 002 during dewatering activities. The daily maximum flow limit from the
dewatering system currently is 2.0 MGD daily maximum. However, the flow at outfall 002 is
influenced by a large drainage area during rain events. Duke Energy requests that the flow limit
be increased to 3.0 MGD and expressed as a monthly average similar to the flow requirement at
our Belews Creek facility. Additionally, the permit currently clearly states that this flow limit is
applicable to interstitial water only but does not provide a mechanism to report that data and
demonstrate compliance. Duke Energy requests , since the interstitial water flow is only a
portion of the flows measured at internal outfall 002, that a requirement to provide interstitial
water flow rates be included in the permit. This flow information could be input in the eDMR
with a different identifying internal outfall number for flow only or through some other reporting
mechanism.
4. Duke Energy requests "bottom ash purge water" be added as a contributing waste stream
to the lined retention basin. The bottom ash purge water is produced by the blow down from
the submerged flight conveyors (SFC) bottom ash handling system. Based on our operating
experience, intermittent releases from the high recycle bottom ash system are necessary to ensure
proper water chemistry and water balance are managed according to best engineering practices.
The bottom ash purge flow would be no more than 10% of SFC water volume and routine purge
would be directed to the FGD makeup system when available. In accordance with the federal
effluent guideline rule, a 30-day rolling average SFC purge water flow volume of 0.099 MGD is
requested to be added to the permit based on a calculated bottom ash system volume of 0.995
million gallons. Duke Energy requests that this be added as a special condition.
5. Duke Energy requests removal of the phrase that reads "During the period beginning on the
effective date of this permit and lasting until the completion of the removal of coal combustion
residuals from the East Ash Basin Extension, but no later than December 31, 2021, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge from Outfall 001" in permit condition A.(1). This
appears to be a remnant from a much earlier DRAFT of the permit. Given that the permit was
issued in 2020, the remaining ash will not be fully excavated from the east ash basin remnant by
the end of 2021. Additionally, industrial stormwater from the landfill will continue to be
released through the channel for outfall 001 as that is the only way water can drain based on
topography. Required ash excavation from this area is currently planned to be completed in
2022. Duke Energy requests that this note be removed.

6. Duke Energy requests condition A.(18) be modified to change the Monthly Instream
Monitoring location name be from 6B to F2. The sampling location is the same with the
naming convention being updated.
A check in the amount of $1,030 is included with this submittal to cover the required permit
modification fee. Should you have any questions about this request please feel free to contact Ms. Lori
Tollie at [phone].
Tom Copolo
Roxboro General Manager
Cc: Shannon Langley via email
Robert Howard
Lori Tollie/FileNet — via email

® Stantec
Roxboro Leachate Treatment
Assessment Report
Revision 1
November 20, 2020
Prepared for:
Duke Energy Corporation
Prepared by:
Stantec Consulting Services Inc.

Revision
Description
Author
Quality Check
Independent Review
A
Draft
MAG
6/18/20
AS/WMK
6/22/20
MN/RR
6/23/20
0
Final
Revision
MAG
7/15/20
AS/WMK
7/17/20
MN/JP
7/17/20
1
ELG Update
WMK
11/17/20
AS
11/18/20
MN
11/18/20

ROXBORO LEACHATE TREATMENT ASSESSMENT REPORT
This document entitled Roxboro Leachate Treatment Assessment Report was prepared by Stantec
Consulting Services Inc. ("Stantec") for the account of Duke Energy (the "Client"). Any reliance on this
document by any third party is strictly prohibited. The material in it reflects Stantec's professional judgment in
light of the scope, schedule and other limitations stated in the document and in the contract between Stantec
and the Client. The opinions in the document are based on conditions and information existing at the time the
document was published and do not take into account any subsequent changes. In preparing the document,
Stantec did not verify information supplied to it by others. Any use which a third party makes of this document
is the responsibility of such third party. Such third party agrees that Stantec shall not be responsible for costs
or damages of any kind, if any, suffered by it or any other third party as a result of decisions made or actions
taken based on this document.
Prepared by
Mayra A. Giraldo
Reviewed by
(signature)
Bill Kennedy, PE
I)ij_Approved by
(signature)
Matt Newhart, PE

ROXBORO LEACHATE TREATMENT ASSESSMENT REPORT
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ABBREVIATIONS II
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1
2.0 LANDFILL LEACHATE SYSTEM REVIEW 2.1
2.1 LEACHATE DATA REVIEW AND WATER CHARACTERIZATION 2.1
2.2 LEACHATE SYSTEM HYDRAULICS REVIEW 2.3
3.0 FGD WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM REVIEW 3.5
3.1 FGD WASTEWATER TREATMENT CHARACTERIZATION 3.5
3.2 FGD WASTEWATER TREATMENT CAPACITY ANALYSIS 3.6
4.0 NPDES PERMIT REVIEW 4.8
4.1 LEACHATE 4.10
4.2 DEWATERING 4.10
4.3 VARIABLE FGD FLOW 4.11
5.0 ASH BASIN WATER CONVEYANCE REVIEW 5.12
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6.14
7.0 REFERENCES 7.15
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1 Leachate Tanks Effluent Summary 2.2
Table 2-2 Leachate Analytical Data Summary 2.3
Table 3-1 FGD Wastewater Treatment Sampling Results - Average 3.6
Table 3-2 Operating Scenarios 3.6
Table 3-3 FGD WWT Capacity Analysis 3.7
Table 4-1 2015 ELG Limits 4.9
Table 4-2 CWF Results 700 gpm FGD + 65 gpm Leachate 4.10
Table 4-3 CWF Results 700 gpm FGD + 65 gpm Leachate + 110 gpm Dewatering 4.10
Table 4-4 CWF Results 700 gpm FGD + 65 gpm Leachate + 360 gpm Dewatering 4.11
Table 4-5 CWF Results 700 gpm FGD + 65 gpm Leachate + 900 gpm Dewatering 4.11
Table 5-1 Class 5 Opinion of Probable Total Installed Cost 5.14
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1 Existing Landfill Leachate Flow 2.1
Figure 2-2 Leachate and FGD Blowdown Piping 2.4
Figure 3-1 Wastewater Treatment Simplified Process Flow Diagram 3.7
Figure 5-1 Ash Basin Dewatering to Leachate Tanks 5.13
csi

ROXBORO LEACHATE TREATMENT ASSESSMENT REPORT
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A FGD Wastewater Treatement Analytical Results A.1
Appendix B FGD Wastewater Treatment System Process Units Details B.2
cs,

ROXBORO LEACHATE TREATMENT ASSESSMENT REPORT
Executive Summary
This report assessed the opportunity to use the existing Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) Wastewater
Treatment System (WWTS) at the Duke Energy Roxboro Facility to treat the recovered leachate from coal
the site landfill. Additionally, this report evaluated the option of conveying dewatered flows from the West
and East Ash Basin through the FGD WWTS and the effects to the existing National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Permit NC0003425 for the Roxboro Plant. Revision 1 of this document
incorporates the Best Available Technology (BAT) limits included in the 2020 Revision of the Steam
Electric Generating Effluent Limitation Guidelines.
The FGD WWTS capacity analysis to the physical -chemical and biological system was performed to
evaluate the capacity of the system to treat FGD purge and additional flows such as leachate and
dewatered flows. The flow capacity was developed using the original design basis of 900 gallons per
minute (gpm) up to 1,800 gpm to include FGD purge, leachate, dewatered flows, and internal WWTS
recycled flows. The main conclusions from the capacity analysis were:
• The clarifiers do not present any issues and have enough capacity to handle combined flows
while maintaining redundancy.
• The 1st stage of the biological treatment system is the bottleneck of the system with flows higher
than 1,050 gpm unable to be treated without utilizing all available redundancy or adding additional
units.
• Continuous backwash gravity filters and the 2"d stage of the biological treatment system can
handle combined flows up to 1,350 gpm with all units online resulting in zero redundancy.
Stantec recommends using the existing 8-inch piping from the leachate tanks to the Water Redirect Sump
to convey leachate flows and connect to the old FGD blowdown line to the FGD wastewater settling pond.
Based on the leachate wastewater quality data, flows, and loads, the FGD WWTS can treat the leachate
flows without major modifications to the existing system. Stantec recommends the following:
• Conduct a sampling effort to further validate that the constituents of concern are within the FGD
WWTS basis of design.
• Conduct a sampling effort to collect FGD WWTS quality data to confirm system performance,
including ultrafiltration effluent.
• Control leachate tank effluent as close to the average flow of 65 gpm as possible using a flow
control valve.
The evaluation of treating the dewatered wastewater from the East and West ash basin through the FGD
WWTS suggest that major adjustments and additions to the systems are required in order to treat the
expected flow of 900 gpm. However, some of the changes/additions are subject to change based on
Duke's desire to maintain N+1 redundancy and NPDES permit limitations.

ROXBORO LEACHATE TREATMENT ASSESSMENT REPORT
Abbreviations
CBGF Continuous Backwash Gravity Filters
CCR Coal Combustion Residuals
CWF Combined Wastestream Formula
ELG Effluent Limitation Guidelines
EQ Tanks Equalization Tanks
FGD Flue Gas Desulfurization
FRP Fiberglass Reinforced Plastic
gpm Gallons per Minute
HDPE High -density Polyethylene
hp Horsepower
kVA Kilo -Volt -Ampere
Landfill Leachate Leachate
Max Maximum
MGD Million Gallons per Day
mg/L Milligrams per Liter
NCDEQ North Carolina Division of Water Resources
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
O&G Oil & Grease
Phys-Chem Physical Chemical
RDL Reporting Detection Limit
RO Reverse Osmosis
TDS Total Dissolved Solids
TSS Total Suspended Solids
OF Ultrafiltration
WWTS Wastewater Treatment System
pg/L Micrograms per Liter
ii

ROXBORO LEACHATE TREATMENT ASSESSMENT REPORT
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Duke Energy (Duke) currently owns and operates a 2,400-megawatt power generation facility located
near Semora, (Person County), North Carolina. The plant consists of four coal-fired units and began
operation in 1966 with major expansions taking place from 1973 to 1980. Coal combustion residuals
(CCR) have been managed on -site and include the operation of a landfill leachate recovery system. CCR
materials placed within the existing landfill include fly ash, bottom ash, and gypsum.
The Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) wastewater treatment system (WWTS) was recently constructed as
an upgrade from the previous system to comply with the CCR rule and new permit requirements. Since
construction, the FGD WWTS has had limited operations since start up in early 2020. The FGD WWTS
consists of physical -chemical (phys-chem) treatment and biological treatment followed by ultrafiltration
(UF). Duke has identified an opportunity to use the existing FGD WWTS as a possible treatment system
for both exiting FGD flows and recovered leachate from combustion residuals management.
This report presents the results of the evaluation, reviewing the capacity and capability of the FGD WWTS
to treat the leachate flows. In addition, this report includes an evaluation of conveying dewatered flows
from the West and East Ash Basins for treatment through the FGD WWTS.
2.0 LANDFILL LEACHATE SYSTEM REVIEW
Landfill leachate (leachate) is collected in the leachate pump station and conveyed to two 370,000-gallon
leachate equalization tanks. The equalized flow is then pumped, via two 10 horsepower (hp) pumps (one
standby), through a forced main to the Water Redirect Sump before it is sent to the Lined Retention Basin
and discharge through Outfall 12B as shown in Error! Reference source not found..
Leachate
Leachate Equalization
Tanks
370,000 gal
2 Tanks
Leachate Tanks
Discharge
Figure 2-1 Existing Landfill Leachate Flow
Water Redirect Sump
Lined Retention
Basin
Outfall 126
2.1 LEACHATE DATA REVIEW AND WATER CHARACTERIZATION
Leachate data provided by Duke was reviewed to assess the preliminary loads and flows that will be sent
to the existing FGD WWTS. The leachate flows and loads were used to develop a FGD WWTS capacity
analysis discussed in Section 3.0 and used in the combined wastestream formula (CWF) for the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit discussion in Section 4.0. The data used to
analyze the leachate were:
dt \\us0582-ppfss0l\shared_projects\172679121\05_report_deliv\draft_doc\duke roxboro leachate treatment report revl final.docx 2.1

ROXBORO LEACHATE TREATMENT ASSESSMENT REPORT
• Leachate flow data from September 2019 to April 2020
• Leachate analytical data for two sampling events: April and November 2019
• Leachate system P&IDs
The leachate effluent tank data set was analyzed using an 8, 12, and 24-hour moving average for the
flows with and without (only when the pumps are running) instances of zero flow to review the system
trends over the different time periods. Based on the flow analysis, shown in Table 2-1, 50 gallons per
minute (gpm) is the average effluent flow; however, from Duke's input, 65 gpm will be the expected
average leachate flow to be sent to the FGD VWVrS.
Table 2-1 Leachate Tanks Effluent Summary
Date
April-19
May-19
June-19
July-19
August-19
September-19
October-19
November-19
December-19
January-20
February-20
March-20
April-20
Tank Flow Discharge (GPM)
8-hr average
Average Max
56.2 356
49.9 240
47.4 231
40.0 235
45.4 240
54.1 255
53.0 230
53.0 240
12-hr average
Average Max
55.9 238
50.1 160
47.2 154
40.2 157
45.7 160
54.2 170
52.8 154
52.4 160
Average 49.9 253 49.8 169
1. Table represents averages including instances of zero flow
24-hr average
Average Max
55.8 119
50.6 80.0
46.9 77.0
40.7 78.5
45.9 80.3
54.2 129
52.7 76.8
51.4 116
49.8 94.6
The analytical data provided on Table 2-2 shows the constituents of concern. The analytical results
appear to be within the design basis of the FGD VVVVTS as shown in Section 3.0Table 2-2. However, this
conclusion is based on only two sampling events; therefore, it is recommended to conduct further
sampling to more accurately characterize the leachate.
dt \\us0582-ppfss0l\shared_projects\172679121\05_report_deliv\draft_doc\duke roxboro leachate treatment report revl final.docx 2.2

ROXBORO LEACHATE TREATMENT ASSESSMENT REPORT
Table 2-2 Leachate Analytical Data Summary
Parameter
Unit
Average
Max
Min
Sulfate
mg/L
2,100
2,200
2,000
Nitrate as N
mg/L
6.95
11.0
2.90
Nitrate
mg/L
30.0
47.0
13.0
Fluoride
mg/L
3.15
5.00
1.30
Chloride
mg/L
460
480
440
Mercury (Hg)
pg/L
0.05001
0.05001
0.05001
Total Zinc (Zn)
mg/L
0.0380
0.0420
0.0340
Total Nickel (Ni)
mg/L
0.0650
0.0670
0.0630
Total Manganese (Mn)
mg/L
1.405
1.44
1.37
Total Iron (Fe)
mg/L
0.307
0.466
0.148
Total Copper (Cu)
mg/L
0.005001
0.005001
0.005001
Total Chromium (Cr)
mg/L
0.0215
0.0300
0.0130
Total Boron (B)
mg/L
41.4
43.5
39.3
Total Barium (Ba)
mg/L
0.0380
0.0380
0.0380
Total Thallium (TI) Low Level
Ng/L
0.4515
0.703
0.2
Total Silver (Ag)
pg/L
1.00
1.00
1.00
Total Selenium (Se)
pg/L
573
666
479
Total Lead (Pb)
pg/L
1.001
1.001
1.001
Total Cadmium (Cd)
pg/L
1.925
2.06
1.79
Total Arsenic (As)
pg/L
5.33
5.46
5.19
TDS
mg/L
2731
4970
492
1. Reporting detection limit (RDL)
2.2 LEACHATE SYSTEM HYDRAULICS REVIEW
Stantec has evaluated two options for the conveyance of recovered leachate. Initially, it was considered
to send the leachate flow directly to the FGD VWVTS sump; however, this option would require the
installation of new pipe to convey the leachate; potentially increasing capital cost. The option
recommended is to use the existing 8-inch pipe, originally used to convey FGD blowdown to the FGD
settling ponds to transfer the leachate to the FGD blowdown tanks.
Prior to the installation of the new FGD VWVTS, the FGD blowdown was conveyed to the FGD wastewater
settling pond through an 8-inch fiberglass reinforced plastic (FRP) pipe. Currently, leachate tank effluent
is conveyed through an 8-inch high -density polyethylene (HDPE) pipe to the water redirect sump, which is
in close proximity to the old FGD blowdown pipe, as shown in Error! Reference source not found.2.
The proximity of the pipes provides an opportunity to tie both lines together to convey leachate to the
FGD blowdown tanks.
dt \1us0582-ppfss01\shared_projects\172679121\05_report_deliv\draft_doc\duke roxboro leachate treatment report revt final.docx 2.3

ROXBORO LEACHATE TREATMENT ASSESSMENT REPORT
Figure 2-2 Leachate and FGD Blowdown Piping
To confirm hydraulic capacity to convey leachate from the leachate tanks to the FGD blowdown tanks, a
preliminary hydraulic analysis was conducted using AFT Fathom 10 modeling software. A summary of
inputs and assumptions for the hydraulic model are shown in Table 2-3.
dt \1us0582-ppfss0l\shared_projects\172679121\05_report_deliv\draft_doc\duke roxboro leachate treatment report revt final.docx 2.4

ROXBORO LEACHATE TREATMENT ASSESSMENT REPORT
Table 2-3 Leachate Pump Hydraulic Analysis Assumptions
Input
Assumption
Leachate Tank and Effluent Pumps Base Elevation
490 feet
FGD Blowdown Top of Tank Elevation
471 feet
Pipe Size and Material
8" Stainless Steel (pump station), 8" double -
walled fusion -bonded HDPE (from pump station
to water redirect sump), 8" FRP (from water
redirect sump to FGD blowdown tanks)
Because of the drop in elevation, the hydraulic model indicates that gravity flow will be possible between
the leachate tanks and the FGD blowdown tanks. Depending on the liquid level in the leachate tanks,
flow rates will vary from 500 gpm to 750 gpm if uncontrolled. The addition of a flow control valve on the
leachate pump bypass and upstream of the existing leachate flow meter (FE-2002) would be required to
control the flow of leachate into the FGD blowdown tanks.
If additional hydraulic capacity is required to convey ash pond dewatering flows, the existing leachate
tank effluent pumps would need to be utilized. Depending on tank level and pump speed, the pump
capacity ranges from 500 gpm to 950 gpm when utilizing the existing 8-inch piping.
3.0 FGD WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM REVIEW
3.1 FGD WASTEWATER TREATMENT CHARACTERIZATION
The FGD VVVVTS phys-chem, biological, and ultrafiltration treatment units began commissioning early
2020. Duke provided analytical data from four sampling events (February 13, 26, March 10, 24, 2020) to
evaluate the overall system performance. Table 3-1 presents a summary of the primary constituents of
concern. A detailed data tabulation may be found in Appendix A. Based on the data shown in Table 3-1,
the system has not achieved the guaranteed selenium concentration in the effluent; however, only three
data points were provided, and the most recent data point shows a 2 parts per billion (ppb) selenium
concentration.
The influent constituent concentrations are within the limits of the FGD VVVVTS basis of design. Based on
the leachate analytical data presented in Section 2.2, the concentration of the constituents of concern are
not a concern to FGD VVVVTS performance. Therefore, co -mingling leachate wastewater is not anticipated
to have negative effects on the quality of the influent to the FGD VVVVTS. Due to the FGD VVVVTS limited
dt 1\us0582-ppfss0l\shared_projects\172679121\05_report_del iv\draft_doc\duke roxboro leachate treatment report revl final.docx 3.5

ROXBORO LEACHATE TREATMENT ASSESSMENT REPORT
data set, it is recommended to continue sampling when the plant is continuously running and the OF
system is online.
Table 3-1 FGD Wastewater Treatment Sampling Results - Average
Design
Influent
Per GE
Purge
EQ Tank
Phys-
Chem
Effluent
Sys Bio
Effluent
Nitrate -Nitrite as N
mg/L
50
21.7
16.4
14.2
0.334
Arsenic
pg/L
1,300
443
266
2.52
2.08
Mercury
pg/L
1,000
44.1
25.7
11.1
0.577
TDS
mg/L
30,000
7,664
N/A
N/A
N/A
TSS
mg/L
7,500
N/A
N/A
N/A
5.00
Selenium, Total
pg/L
5,500
595
415
216
52.0
Selenium, Dissolved
pg/L
5,500
461
226
186
58.0
MeSe(IV)
pg/L
N/A
7.00
1.75
1.75
1.75
Se(IV)
pg/L
5,500
22.2
12.5
12.7
9.57
Se(VI)
pg/L
5,500
273
211
221
26.1
COD
mg/L i
600-1,100
N/A
664
154
285
3.2 FGD WASTEWATER TREATMENT CAPACITY ANALYSIS
A capacity analysis performed of the FGD WWTS unit operations to evaluate the capability to process
additional wastewater. The various flow scenarios used for this analysis are shown in Table 3-2 and the
block diagram depicting the flow through the overall process is shown in Figure 3-1 Wastewater
Treatment Simplified Process Flow Diagram
Table 3-2 Operating Scenarios
Operating Scenarios
Flow (gpm)
Leachate Effluent
65
FGD Purge
700
Ash Pond Dewatering
900
Recycle Flows to EQ
125
FGD + Leachate+ Recycle Flows
890
FGD + Leachate + Dewatering + Recycle Flows
1,790
dt 1\us0582-ppfss0l\shared_projects1172679121\05_report_deliv\draft_doc\duke roxboro leachate treatment report revl final.docx 3.6

ROXBORO LEACHATE TREATMENT ASSESSMENT REPORT
Scrubber Purge
Leachate
- - _
Dewatering
Slowdown Tank
142,600 gal
2 Tanks
EQ Tanks Int
Leachate Tank
370,000 gal
2 Tanks
EQ Tanks
650,000 gal
2 Tanks
Ran Tanks A-C
Other Flows
2-Clarifiers
892,000 gal
22-Stage 1 ABMet
22-29k gal Working Volume
4-Sam/Filters
1.8-4.9gpm/ft2
Figure 3-1 Wastewater Treatment Simplified Process Flow Diagram
I4-Stage 2 ABMet
22-29k gal Working Volume
4-Uf Membrane
0.02Micron
Potential Flow
The capacity analysis conducted on the main FGD VVVVTS units: clarifiers, continuous backwash gravity
filters (CBGF), and biological system considering the maximum flow they can treat per surface area
available (flux, gpm/ft2). As shown in Table 3-2, the combined average FGD and leachate flow are within
the treatment capacity of the VVVVTS. However, if the dewatering flow is combined with the FGD purge
and leachate, it results in a flow greater than the FGD VVVVTS can effectively process.
To determine a maximum theoretical flow rate for the VVVVTS, different flow rates were evaluated to
confirm the maximum treatment capacity of each primary FGD WVVTS unit operation. The analysis was
performed both maintaining N+1 redundancy and utilizing the redundant capacity of the system. A
summary of findings is shown in Table 3-3. Refer to Appendix B for detailed information regarding
technical specifications for each of the units.
Table 3-3 FGD WWT Capacity Analysis
Treatment Units
Max Flux 1
(gpm/ft2)
Flows (gpm)
9002
1050
1100
1125
1250
1300
1350
1650
1800
Clarifier (1)
0.50
0.25
0.29
0.30
0.31
0.34
0.36
0.37
0.45
0.49
Clarifier (2)3
0.50
0.13
0.15
0.15
0.16
0.17
0.18
0.19
0.23
0.25
CBGF (3)
4.5
4.0
4.6
4.9
4.9
5.5
5.7
6.0
7.3
7.9
CBGF (4)3
4.5
3.0
3.5
3.7
3.7
4.1
4.3
4.5
5.5
5.9
1st Stage Bio (21)
0.75
0.65
0.76
0.79
0.81
0.90
0.94
0.97
1.19
1.30
1st Stage Bio (22)3
0.75
0.62
0.72
0.76
0.77
0.86
0.90
0.93
1.14
1.24
2nd Stage Bio (13)
1.46
1.05
1.22
1.28
1.31
1.46
1.52
1.57
1.92
2.10
2nd Stage Bio (14)3
1.46
0.97
1.14
1.19
1.22
1.35
1.41
1.46
1.79
1.95
1. Max flux was calculated from technical specs provided in the FGD VVVVTS P&IDs
2. Max design flow for FGD VVVVTS
3. No redundancy
4. Highlighted values are above the maximum calculated flux
The main conclusions from the capacity analysis are:
5
dt 11us0582-ppfss011shared_projects1172679121105_report_delivldraft_doclduke roxboro leachate treatment report revl final.docx 3 7

ROXBORO LEACHATE TREATMENT ASSESSMENT REPORT
• The clarifiers do not present any issues and have enough capacity to handle the combined flows
while maintaining the N+1 redundancy.
• The CBGF can handle up to 1,350 gpm with all units online resulting in zero redundancy. To
maintain an N+1 redundancy with the number of existing units, a max flow of 1,050 gpm is
acceptable. However, the CBGF can operate with a flux of up to 4.9 gpm/ft2.
• The 1st stage of the biological treatment system is the bottleneck for increasing flow. Depending
on nitrate levels coming from the leachate and other flows, the 1st stage biological system may be
able to handle a higher flux to an approximate flow of 1250 gpm; however, it will result in zero
redundancy.
• The 2nd stage biological can process a flow of up to 1,350 gpm with all units online and zero
redundancy.
• Chemical consumption is expected to linearly increase with the flow through the WWTS.
4.0 NPDES PERMIT REVIEW
On 29 May 2020, the North Carolina Division of Water Resources, Department of Environmental Quality
(NCDEQ), issued the Final NPDES Permit Renewal, NC0003425, for Roxboro Station. The permit has
three outfalls relevant to this study: Internal Outfall 002 (Ash Pond Treatment System); Internal Outfall
011 (New FGD Treatment System); and Internal Outfall 012B (Lined Retention Basin).
Outfall 002 covers the dewatering of the ash ponds in two phases. The first, decanting of the free water
above the settled ash layer that does not involve mechanical disturbance of the ash, is treated as a
typical low volume wastestream, with limits only for oil & grease (O&G) and total suspended solids (TSS),
along with monitor and reporting requirements for flow, As, Mo, Se and pH. The second phase, removal
of interstitial water, is flow limited to 2.0 million gallons per day (MGD, -1389 gpm) with the same low
volume wastestream limits and expanded monitor and report requirements for Se, As, Hg, Mo, Sb, Cu,
and pH.
Outfall 011 covers the newly installed FGD WWT system. The permit limits TSS and O&G as a low
volume wastestream. As, Hg, Se and nitrate/nitrite are treated in compliance with the 2015 revision to the
Steam Electric Generation Effluent Limitation Guidelines (ELG). The permit, in Note 2 for Outfall 011,
indicates that compliance sampling shall occur following the bioreactor, apparently discounting the
presence of the UF system. It is assumed that this is an artifact from the previous permit and not picked
up by NCDEQ during the review cycles. It is recommended that this note be clarified with NCDEQ to
definitively include UF operations as part of the treatment system. Note 3 indicates that limits for As, Hg,
Se and nitrate/nitrite do not become effective until December 31, 2021.
Outfall 012E covers the newly installed Lined Retention Basin. The permit limits TSS and O&G as a low
volume wastestream along with monitor and report for ammonia, As, Se, Hg and pH.
dt\\us0582-pptss0l\shared_projects\172679121\05_report_deliv\draft_doc\duke roxboro leachate treatment report revl final.docx 4.8

ROXBORO LEACHATE TREATMENT ASSESSMENT REPORT
The design basis for the new FGD WWT is to achieve 80 percent of the 2015 ELG monthly average limits
for As, Hg, Se and nitrate/nitrite as shown in Table 4-1. When evaluating the addition of unregulated
non-FGD wastestreams to the treatment system, the ELGs mandate the use of the CWF to calculate
modified limits for the various regulated constituents. The CWF is simply a mass balance, defining the
new concentration -based limits on the allowable mass loading of the regulated stream divided by the
combined flow of the streams. Flows are generally defined as the average daily flow, of at least a 30-day
average. For the purpose of this study, 700 gpm (1.01 MGD) is used as the long-term average daily flow
of the FGD purge stream.
Table 4-1 2015 ELG Limits and FGD WWT Design Basis
2015 ELG Limit
80% of 2015
Limit
Design Basis
GE/Suez FGD WWT
Requirements
Units
Monthly
Average
Daily
Maximum
Monthly
Average
Expected Value
TSS1
mg/L
30
100
30
<_ 20.0
Oil and Grease'
mg/L
15
20
15
-
Total Arsenic
pg/L
8
11
6.4
<_ 6.0
Total Mercury
ng/L
356
788
285
<_ 95
Total Selenium
pg/L
12
23
9.6
<_ 10
Nitrate/Nitrite as N
mg/L
4.4
17
3.5
<_ 3.5
1. Not included in the 2015 ELG limits
On 13 October 2020, EPA revised the ELG BAT limits for FGD, 40 CFR Part 423. These revised limits
are reflected in Table 4-2. Arsenic and selenium monthly limits remain within the design basis of the FGD
WWTS.
Table 4-2 2020 ELG Limits and FGD WWT Design Basis
2020 ELG Limit
80% of 2015
Limit
Design Basis
GE/Suez FGD WWT
Requirements
Units
Monthly
Average
Daily
Maximum
Monthly
Average
Expected Value
TSS1
mg/L
30
100
30
<_ 20.0
Oil and Grease'
mg/L
15
20
15
-
Total Arsenic
pg/L
8
18
6.4
<_ 6.0
Total Mercury
ng/L
34
103
285
<_ 95
Total Selenium
pg/L
29
70
9.6
<_ 10
Nitrate/Nitrite as N
mg/L
3
4
3.5
<_ 3.5
1. Not included in the 2020 ELG limits
dt \\us0582-ppiss0l\shared_projects1172679121\05_report_deliv\draft_doc\duke roxboro leachate treatment report revl fnal.docx 4.9

ROXBORO LEACHATE TREATMENT ASSESSMENT REPORT
4.1 LEACHATE
The CWF was used to calculate likely permit limits for the combined regulated FGD wastestream
(700 gpm) and the unregulated leachate stream (65 gpm). Daily average flows were used to calculate the
limits for the monthly average and daily maximum based of the 2020 FGD limits. The CWF results are
shown in Table 4-3.
Table 4-3 CWF Results 700 gpm FGD + 65 gpm Leachate
Units
Monthly
Average
Daily
Maximum
TSS
mg/L
30
100
Oil and Grease
mg/L
15
20
Total Arsenic
µg/L
7.3
16.5
Total Mercury
ng/L
31
94
Total Selenium
µg/L
26.5
64.1
Nitrate/Nitrite as N
mg/L
2.8
3.7
4.2 DEWATERING
The CWF was used to calculate likely permit limits when adding the unregulated Ash Basin Dewatering
flow to the combined regulated FGD wastestream (700 gpm) and the unregulated leachate stream (65
gpm). Daily average flows were used to calculate the limits for the monthly average and daily maximum
based of the 2020 FGD limits, Table 4-4. Using the CWF to determine how much dewatering flow would
be allowed to maintain 23.2 ppb Se (target of 80% of 2020 ELG limit) concentration in the effluent yields
110 gpm.
Table 4-4 CWF Results 700 gpm FGD + 65 gpm Leachate + 110 gpm Dewatering
Units
Monthly
Average
Daily
Maximum
TSS
mg/L
30
100
Oil and Grease
mg/L
15
20
Total Arsenic
µg/L
6.4
14.4
Total Mercury
ng/L
27
82
Total Selenium
µg/L
23.2
56.0
Nitrate/Nitrite as N
mg/L
2.4
3.2
A 110 gpm dewatering flow rate is well below the anticipated 900 gpm flow targeted for ash basin
dewatering requirements. Reviewing the equipment capacity bottlenecks in Table 3-3, yields a net
potential available capacity of 1250 gpm gross internal flow, 1125 gpm net flow, with 360 gpm available
for dewatering. Table 4-5 shows the likely limits for the maximum flow before additional equipment would
need to be added to debottleneck the WWTS.
dt\\us0582-ppfss0l\shared_projects1172679121 \05_report_deliv\draft_doc\duke roxboro leachate treatment report revl final.docx 4.10

ROXBORO LEACHATE TREATMENT ASSESSMENT REPORT
Table 4-5 CWF Results 700 gpm FGD + 65 gpm Leachate + 360 gpm Dewatering
Units
Monthly
Average
Daily
Maximum
TSS
mg/L
30
100
Oil and Grease
mg/L
15
20
Total Arsenic
µg/L
5.0
11.2
Total Mercury
ng/L
21
64
Total Selenium
µg/L
18.0
43.6
Nitrate/Nitrite as N
mg/L
1.9
2.5
Assuming all flow needs from ash basin dewatering could be accommodated, 900 gpm, by FGD WWTS,
in addition to leachate, the CWF results in the limits show in Table 4-6
Table 4-6 CWF Results 700 gpm FGD + 65 gpm Leachate + 900 gpm Dewatering
Units
Monthly
Average
Daily
Maximum
TSS
mg/L
30
100
Oil and Grease
mg/L
15
20
Total Arsenic
µg/L
3.4
7.6
Total Mercury
ng/L
14
43
Total Selenium
µg/L
12.2
29.4
Nitrate/Nitrite as N
mg/L
1.3
1.7
4.3 VARIABLE FGD FLOW
The highly variable nature of FGD purge flow due to low utilization of the generating units and seasonal
demand, raises the question of what actually is the appropriate regulated flow to use in a concentration
based calculation using the CWF. What limits would be imposed and would they be impractically onerous
so as to preclude the treatment of the unregulated wastestreams of leachate and ash basin dewatering
flows need to be considered.
The assumed intent of adding these unregulated wastestreams to the influent of FGD WWTS is to further
reduce the mass loading of Se to Hyco Lake. Although Se is not specifically limited in the leachate and
dewatering flows, the additional reduction in Se mass load to Hyco Lake can only be of benefit. As such,
the use of mass -based limits, rather than concentration -based limits may be more appropriate for Outfall
011. Using the 900 gpm design basis flow for FGD WWTS and the 2020 ELG based Se limit of 29 pg/L,
would yield a monthly mass loading limit of 4.28 kilograms.
dt \\us0582-ppfss0l\shared_projects\172679121\05_report_deliv\draft_doc\duke roxboro leachate treatment report revl final.docx 4.11

ROXBORO LEACHATE TREATMENT ASSESSMENT REPORT
Duke is considering the possible redirection of dewatering flow from the East and West basin to the
leachate tanks and from there to the existing FGD WWTS. The flows considered by Duke for these
scenarios are an average flow of 650 gpm and peak flow of 900 gpm. Water characterization data for the
dewatered flow was not provided; therefore, the analysis performed was only based of the hydraulic
capacity of the existing process equipment. Based on the capacity analysis of the existing FGD WWTS
process shown in Section 3.2, the treatment system can operate with flows as high as 1,050 gpm (160
gpm of dewatering flow) while maintaining the N+1 redundancy. However, to properly process flows up to
1,350 gpm (460 gpm of dewatering flow) the spare units will need to operate without redundancy. To
process the full average dewatering flow, additional FGD WWTS process equipment would need to be
installed. To make treatment of the dewatering flow more feasible, a volume reduction technology, such
as reverse osmosis (RO), could be evaluated.
The proposed pipe routing and electrical tie-in for a conveyance system from the ash basin to the
leachate tanks is shown in Error! Reference source not found..
dt \\us0582-ppfss0l\shared_projects\172679121105_report _delivldraft_doc\duke roxboro leachate treatment report revl final.docx 5.12

ROXBORO LEACHATE TREATMENT ASSESSMENT REPORT
Figure 5-1 Ash Basin Dewatering to Leachate Tanks
A Class 5 (-50% to +100%) opinion of probable total installed cost for the dewatering conveyance system
was generated using Aspen In -Plant Cost Estimator v10.1 and is summarized in Table 5-1. No
contingency has been added to the opinion of probable cost.
For the basis, it is assumed that two electric motor driven self -priming pumps will be installed on a
concrete foundation next to the ash pond for dewatering. They will be powered by a local 150 kilo -volt-
ampere (kVA) transformer, powered via aboveground cabling and conduit. The 8-inch double -walled and
fusion -bonded HDPE to the leachate tanks would be run laying on the ground and unsupported.
dt \\us0582-ppfss0l\shared projects\172679121105_report_deliv\draft_doc\duke roxboro leachate treatment report revl final.docx 5.13

ROXBORO LEACHATE TREATMENT ASSESSMENT REPORT
Table 5-1 Class 5 Opinion of Probable Total Installed Cost
Item
Quantity
Opinion of Probable Installed
Cost
75 HP Dewatering Pumps, Concrete Pump
Foundation
2 Pumps
$131,000
8-inch aboveground Double -Walled Fusion
Bonded DR17 HDPE Pipe, Leachate Tank tie-in
9,228 feet
$420,000
Electrical Cable, Ground Cable, Aboveground
Galvanized Conduit
4,275 feet
$178,000
150 kVA 480V Transformer, Disconnect Switch
1 Transformer
$32,000
Underground Concrete Duct Bank
4,275 feet
$227,000
Total
$868,000
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on findings of this evaluation and discussions with Duke, the FGD WWTS can likely treat the
leachate flows without modifications to the existing FGD WWTS and minor modifications to the leachate
system. This evaluation recommends the following efforts to be executed:
• Conduct sampling to collect leachate quality data to validate that the constituents of concern are
within the FGD WWTS basis of design.
• Conduct sampling to collect FGD WWTS quality data to confirm system performance, including
OF effluent.
• Control leachate tank effluent as close to the average flow of 65 gpm as practical using a flow
control valve.
The evaluation of treating the dewatered wastewater from the East and West ash basin through the FGD
WWTS suggest that major adjustments and additions to the systems are required in order to treat the
expected flow of 900 gpm. However, some of the changes/additions are subject to change based on
Duke's desired to maintain N+1 redundancy and NPDES permit limitations. Based on our evaluation,
1,350 gpm through the FGD WWTS can be treated with additional units of operation to maintain N+1
redundancy with the increased flow. Some of the adjustments recommended to the FGD WWTS to
maintain the N+1 redundancy and increase the capability of treat dewatered flows are:
• Conduct sampling to collect quality data for the dewatered flows.
dt 11us0582-ppfss011shared_projects1172679121105_report_delivldraft_doclduke roxboro leachate treatment report revl final.docx 6.14

ROXBORO LEACHATE TREATMENT ASSESSMENT REPORT
• Addition of one (1) CBGF.
• Addition of five (5) biocell reactors to the 1st stage biological system to meet the design flux rate
and keep N+1 redundancy.
• Addition of one (1) biocell reactors to the 2nd stage biological system to maintain the N+1
redundancy.
• Use of volume reduction technology for dewatering flows such as RO.
• Add nutrient to filtrate sump to increase de -nitrification in physical -chemical process and reduce
load on the 1st stage biological treatment.
7.0 REFERENCES
1. NPDES Permit: NC003425 dated 5/29/2020
dt 1\us0582-ppfss0l\shared_projects1172679121\05_report_deliv\draft_doclduke roxboro leachate treatment report revl final.docx 7.15

ROXBORO LEACHATE TREATMENT ASSESSMENT REPORT
Appendix A FGD Wastewater Treatement Analytical Results
APPENDICES

ROXBORO LEACHATE TREATMENT ASSESSMENT REPORT
Appendix A FGD Wastewater Treatement Analytical Results
Appendix A FGD WASTEWATER TREATEMENT ANALYTICAL
RESULTS
A.1

Duke FGD WWTS Analytical Data Results
Report#
/20020317
/20020317
/20020317
/20020317
/20020317
/20020317
/20020317
Date
2/26/2020
2/26/2020
2/26/2020
2/26/2020
2/26/2020
2/26/2020
2/26/2020
Time
8:00am
8:00am
8:00am
8:OOam
8:00am
8:OOam
8:00am
Sample ID
2020004273
2020004274
2020004275
2020004277
2020004278
2020004279
2020004280
Type
Constituent
Site
Units
FGD Purge
EQTank Eff
PC Eff-Bio 1 Inf
Bio 2 Inf
Bio Sys Eff
Service Water
Filter Blank
Nitrite+Nitrate
Colorimetric EPA353.2
mg-N/L
11
7.3
6.8
na
0.962
0.225
na
Mercury
Cold vapor EPA 245.1
µg/L
23
15.6
na
na
na
na
na
Total
Aluminum
ICP EPA 200.7
mg/L
81.1
46.8
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.846
na
Total
Barium
ICP EPA 200.7
mg/L
0.892
0.570
0.109
0.125
0.138
0.024
na
Total
Boron
ICP EPA 200.7
mg/L
53.4
33.9
26.7
26.9
5.11
0.356
na
Total
Calcium
ICP EPA 200.7
mg/L
3220
2230
1250
1160
1160
11.0
na
Total
Iron
ICP EPA 200.7
mg/L
104
54.9
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
1.11
na
Total
Magnesium
ICP EPA 200.7
mg/L
429
416
379
372
370
5.07
na
Total
Manganese
ICP EPA 200.7
mg/L
4.10
2.46
0.373
0.331
0.114
0.034
na
Total
Potassium
ICP EPA 200.7
mg/L
28.9
163
214
203
257
2.32
na
Total
Silica
ICP EPA 200.7
µg/L
149000
116000
20600
21200
27100
14500
na
Total
Silicon
ICP EPA 200.7
mg/L
69.8
54.3
9.6
9.90
12.6
6.78
na
Total
Sodium
ICP EPA 200.7
mg/L
27.8
31.4
32.3
54.4
100
4.83
na
Total
Strontium
ICP EPA 200.7
mg/L
5.65
4.65
3.35
3.26
3.13
0.083
na
Dissolved?
Selenium
Filter House Digested EPA 200.8
µg/L
170
135
110
na
94.5
na
na
Dissolved
Selenium
Dissolved
µg/L
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
Total
Arsenic
EPA 200.8
µg/L
203
128
<2
<2
2.24
<1
na
Total
Cadmium
EPA 200.8
µg/L
<10
<10
<2
<2
<2
<1
na
Total
Chromium
EPA 200.8
µg/L
346
191
<2
<2
<2
<1
na
Total
Copper
EPA 200.8
µg/L
210
119
<2
<2
<2
2.08
na
Total
Nickel
EPA 200.8
µg/L
213
120
<2
<2
<2
<1
na
Total
Selenium
EPA 200.8
µg/L
339
271
108
9 7. 5
92.6
<1
na
Total
Zinc
EPA 200.8
µg/L
272
166
‘-10
.=-10
<10
<5
na
Total
Antimony
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
Total
Beryllium
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
Total
Silver
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
Total
Vanadium (V)
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
Inorganic Ions
Fluoride
EPA 300.0
mg/L
<10
<10
<10
na
<10
<10
na
Inorganic Ions
Chloride
EPA 300.0
mg/L
2064
2028
2004
na
1941
11.00
na
Inorganic Ions
Bromide
EPA 300.0
mg/L
17.80
16.50
15.00
na
14.50
<10
na
Inorganic Ions
Phosphate
EPA 300.0
mg/L
<10
<10
<10
na
<10
<10
na
Inorganic Ions
Sulfate
EPA 300.0
mg/L
1400
1405
1398
na
1385
11.00
na
TDS
SM2540C
mg/L
293
na
na
na
na
na
na
TSS
5M2540D
mg/L
na
na
na
na
<5
na
na
Total Alkalinity CaCO3
SM 2320B-2011
mg/L
na
294
36.9
na
na
na
na
Alkalinity, Carbonate
SM 2320B-2011
mg/L
na
<5
<5
na
na
na
na
Alkalinity, Bicarbonate
SM 2320B-2011
mg/L
na
294
36.9
na
na
na
na
Total Hardness
mg/L CaCO3
na
7290
na
na
na
na
na
Chemical Oxygen Demand
SM 5220D
mg/L
na
175
270
na
446
na
na
Dissolved
MeSe(IV)
µg/L
<=7.0 HU
<=1.75HU
<=1.75HU
<= 1.75
<= 1.75
na
Dissolved
Se(IV)
µg/L
14.71
23.6H
16.2 H
2O.3 H
25.2
na
Dissolved
Se(VI)
µg/L
138 H
105H
84.6
83.9 H
75.4
na
Dissolved
SeCN
µg/L
<=5.00 HU
<=1.25 HU
<= 1.25 HU
<= 1.25 HU
<= 1.25 HU
na
Dissolved
SeMet
µg/L
<=7.00 HU
<= 1.75 HU
<= 1.75 HU
<= 1.75 HU
<= 1.75 HU
na
Dissolved
Unk Se Sp
µg/L
<=7.0 HU
<= 1.75 HU
<= 1.75 HU
<= 1.75 HU
<= 1.75 HU
na
Dissolved
Unk Sep Count
count
0
0
0
0
0
na
Total
Mercury
ng/L
na
9.72
<= 0.13
<= 0.13
2.29
na
H
Result between the MDL and MRL, result consider an estimate
Holding time/ or preservation time was not met
Holding time/preservation not estaiblished for this method, BAL recommendations were not followed

Duke FGD WWTS Analytical Data Results
Report St
/20020317
/20020317
J20020341
J20020341
/20020341
/20020341
/20020341
/20020341
Date
2/26/2020
2/26/2020
2/13/2020
2/13/2020
2/13/2020
2/13/2020
2/13/2020
2/13/2020
Time
8:00am
8:00am
8:00am
8:00am
8:OOam
8:00am
8:00am
8:00am
Sample ID
2020004281
2020004283
202004394
2020004395
202004398
202004404
202004400
202004402
Type
Constituent
Site
Units
Trip Blk
Filed Blank
EQ Tank Eff
PC Efll Bio 1 Infl
Service Water
Bioreader Influent
Trip Blank
Field Blank
Nitrite+Nitrate
Colorimetric EPA353.2
mg-N/L
na
na
na
10
0.192
na
na
na
Mercury
Cold vapor EPA 245.1
µg/L
na
na
15.7
na
na
<0.05
na
na
Total
Aluminum
ICP EPA 200.7
mg/L
na
na
na
<0.2
na
na
na
na
Total
Barium
ICP EPA 200.7
mg/L
na
na
na
<0.1
na
na
na
na
Total
Boron
ICP EPA 200.7
mg/L
na
na
31.6
52.6
0.594
na
na
na
Total
Calcium
ICP EPA 200.7
mg/L
na
na
1940
1310
na
na
na
na
Total
Iron
ICP EPA 200.7
mg/L
na
na
na
19.8
na
na
na
na
Total
Magnesium
ICP EPA 200.7
mg/L
na
na
413
426
na
na
na
na
Total
Manganese
ICP EPA 200.7
mg/L
na
na
na
1.31
na
na
na
na
Total
Potassium
ICP EPA 200.7
mg/L
na
na
na
169
na
na
na
na
Total
Silica
ICP EPA 200.7
pg/L
na
na
na
23500
na
na
na
na
Total
Silicon
ICP EPA 200.7
mg/L
na
na
na
11.0
na
na
na
na
Total
Sodium
ICP EPA 200.7
mg/L
na
na
na
35.7
na
na
na
na
Total
Strontium
ICP EPA 200.7
mg/L
na
na
na
3.20
na
na
na
na
Dissolved?
Selenium
Filter House Digested EPA 200.8
pg/L
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
Dissolved
Selenium
Dissolved
pg/L
na
na
164
115
na
na
na
na
Total
Arsenic
EPA 200.8
pg/L
na
na
116
2.82
<1
na
na
na
Total
Cadmium
EPA 200.8
pg/L
na
na
<10
<2
<1
na
na
na
Total
Chromium
EPA 200.8
pg/L
na
na
135
<2
<1
na
na
na
Total
Copper
EPA 200.8
µg/L
na
na
85.3
<2
1.68
na
na
na
Total
Nickel
EPA 200.8
pg/L
na
na
95.9
<2
<1
na
na
na
Total
Selenium
EPA 200.8
µg/L
na
na
284
116
<1
132
na
na
Total
Zinc
EPA 200.8
pg/L
na
na
136
<10
<5
na
na
na
Total
Antimony
na
na
na
na
na
3.69
na
na
Total
Beryllium
na
na
na
na
na
<2
na
na
Total
Silver
na
na
na
na
na
<2
na
na
Total
Vanadium (V)
na
na
na
na
na
3.81
na
na
Inorganic Ions
Fluoride
EPA 300.0
mg/L
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
Inorganic Ions
Chloride
EPA 300.0
mg/L
na
na
na
na
21.0
na
na
na
Inorganic Ions
Bromide
EPA 300.0
mg/L
na
na
na
na
0.233
na
na
na
Inorganic Ions
Phosphate
EPA 300.0
mg/L
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
Inorganic Ions
Sulfate
EPA 300.0
mg/L
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
TDS
SM2540C
mg/L
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
TSS
SM2540D
mg/L
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
Total Alkalinity CaCO3
SM 2320B-2011
mg/L
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
Alkalinity, Carbonate
SM 2320B-2011
mg/L
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
Alkalinity, Bicarbonate
SM 2320B-2011
mg/L
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
Total Hardness
mg/L CaCO3
na
na
6530
na
na
na
na
na
Chemical Oxygen Demand
SM 5220D
mg/L
na
na
na
102
na
na
na
na
Dissolved
MeSe(IV)
pg/L
na
na
na
<=1.75HU
na
na
<=0.350HU
na
Dissolved
Se(IV)
pg/L
na
na
na
18.2H
na
na
<=0.350HU
na
Dissolved
Se(VI)
pg/L
na
na
na
71.2H
na
na
<=0.350HU
na
Dissolved
SeCN
pg/L
na
na
na
<=1.25HU
na
na
<=0.350HU
na
Dissolved
SeMet
pg/L
na
na
na
<=1.75HU
na
na
<=0.350HU
na
Dissolved
Unk Se Sp
pg/L
na
na
na
<=1.75HU
na
na
<=0.350HU
na
Dissolved
Unk Sep Count
count
na
na
na
0
na
na
0
na
Total
Mercury
ng/L
<=0.13U
<=0.13U
na
16.4
1.43
na
<=0.13
<=0.13
H
Result between the MDL and MRL, result consider an estimate
Holding time/ or preservation time was not met
Holding time/preservation not estaiblished for this method, BAL recommendations

Duke FGD WWTS Analytical Data Results
Report#
/20020323
/20020323
/20020323
/20020323
J20020323
/20020323
Date
3/10/2020
3/10/2020
3/10/2020
3/10/2020
3/10/2020
3/10/2020
Time
8:00am
8:00am
8:00am
8:OOam
8:00am
8:00am
Sample ID
2020004301
2020004302
202004303
202004304
2020004305
202004306
Type
Constituent
Site
Units FGD Purge
EQ Tank Effi
PC effl Bio 1 inf
Bio 2 Inf
Bio Sys Eff
Servce Water
Nitrite+Nitrate
Colorimetric EPA353.2
mg-N/L 23
23
21
na
<0.01
0.27
Mercury
Cold vapor EPA 245.1
pg/L 64.2
44.3
na
na
na
na
Total
Aluminum
ICP EPA 200.7
mg/L 201
152
<1
<1
<1
0.702
Total
Barium
ICP EPA 200.7
mg/L 0.925
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
0.022
Total
Boron
ICP EPA 200.7
mg/L 117
104
87.4
41.1
32.5
0.34
Total
Calcium
ICP EPA 200.7
mg/L 3760
4630
1610
1520
1410
11.1
Total
Iron
ICP EPA 200.7
mg/L 286
214
<1
<1
<1
0.783
Total
Magnesium
ICP EPA 200.7
mg/L 922
863
696
613
523
5.11
Total
Manganese
ICP EPA 200.7
mg/L 10.6
8.25
1.09
1.78
1.68
0.014
Total
Potassium
ICP EPA 200.7
mg/L 61.7
76.9
67.2
106
121
2.29
Total
Silica
ICP EPA 200.7
pg/L 206000
193000
41.1
20000
25200
14900
Total
Silicon
ICP EPA 200.7
mg/L 96.2
90.1
5.13
9.35
11.8
6.94
Total
Sodium
ICP EPA 200.7
mg/L 52.5
45.9
41.1
38.9
41.1
4.70
Total
Strontium
ICP EPA 200.7
mg/L 8.62
8.41
5.13
4.7
4.17
0.079
Dissolved?
Selenium
Filter House Digested EPA 200.8
pg/L na
na
na
na
na
na
Dissolved
Selenium
Dissolved
pg/L 374
238
192
na
58.0
na
Total
Arsenic
EPA 200.8
pg/L 677
481
<2
<2
<2
<1
Total
Cadmium
EPA 200.8
pg/L <10
<10
<2
<2
<2
<1
Total
Chromium
EPA 200.8
pg/L 829
636
<2
<2
<2
<1
Total
Copper
EPA 200.8
pg/L 538
407
<2
<2
<2
1.98
Total
Nickel
EPA 200.8
pg/L 545
426
<2
<2
<2
<1
Total
Selenium
EPA 200.8
pg/L 818
695
205
112
61.3
<1
Total
Zinc
EPA 200.8
pg/L 1950
1210
<10
<10
<10
7.62
Total
Antimony
na
na
na
na
na
na
Total
Beryllium
na
na
na
na
na
na
Total
Silver
na
na
na
na
na
na
Total
Vanadium (V)
na
na
na
na
na
na
Inorganic Ions
Fluoride
EPA 300.0
mg/L <10
<10
12.20
na
<10
<1
Inorganic Ions
Chloride
EPA 300.0
mg/L 3385
3271
3148
na
2412
13.10
Inorganic lons
Bromide
EPA 300.0
mg/L 30.60
29.80
27.20
na
19.70
<1
Inorganic Ions
Phosphate
EPA 300.0
mg/L <0.1
<0.1
<0.1
na
<0.1
<0.1
Inorganic Ions
Sulfate
EPA 300.0
mg/L 1422
1363
1451
na
1432
12.42
TDS
SM2540C
mg/L 11300
na
na
na
na
na
TSS
SM2540D
mg/L na
na
na
na
5
na
Total Alkalinity CaCO3
SM 2320B-2011
mg/L na
738
19.2
na
na
na
Alkalinity, Carbonate
SM 2320B-2011
mg/L na
<5
<5
na
na
na
Alkalinity, Bicarbonate
SM 2320B-2011
mg/L na
738
19.2
na
na
na
Total Hardness
mg/L CaCO3 na
238
na
na
na
na
Chemical Oxygen Demand
SM 5220D
mg/L na
1290
129
na
232
na
Dissolved
MeSe(IV)
pg/L <=7.00 HU
<=1.75 HU
<=1.75 HU
<=1.75 HU
<=1.75 HU
na
Dissolved
Se(IV)
pg/L 43.2H
6.52 H
11.3H
104
<=1.75 HU
na
Dissolved
Se(VI)
pg/L 66.1H
234H
459H
<=1.50 HU
<=1.50 HU
na
Dissolved
SeCN
pg/L <=5.00HU
<=1.25HU
<=1.25HU
<=1.25HU
<=1.25HU
na
Dissolved
SeMet
pg/L <=7.00HU
<=1.75HU
<=1.75HU
<=1.75HU
<=1.75HU
na
Dissolved
Unk Se Sp
pg/L <=7.00HU
<=1.75HU
<=1.75HU
<=1.75HU
<=1.75HU
na
Dissolved
Unk Sep Count
count 0
0
0
0
0
na
Total
Mercury
ng/L <=0.13U
-
5.891
<=3.32U
<=0.66U
na
H
Result between the MDL and MRL, result consider an estimate
Holding time/ or preservation time was not met
Holding time/preservation not estaiblished for this method, BAL recommendations

Duke FGD WWTS Analytical Data Results
Report St
/20020323
/20020323
/20020322
/20020322
/20020322
/20020322
/20020322
Date
3/10/2020
3/10/2020
3/24/2020
3/24/2020
3/24/2020
3/24/2020
3/24/2020
Time
8:00am
8:OOam
7:30AM
7:30AM
7:30AM
7:30AM
7:30AM
Sample ID
2020004307
2020004308
202004290
2020004291
2020004292
2020004293
202004294
Type
Constituent
Site
Units
Filter Blank
Trip Blank
FGD Purge
EQ Tank
PC Eff Bio 1 Inf
Bio 2 Inf
Bio Sys Eff
Nitrite+Nitrate
Colorimetric EPA353.2
mg-N/L
na
na
31
19.0
19
na
0.029
Mercury
Cold vapor EPA 245.1
PTA
na
na
45.1
27.2
na
na
na
Total
Aluminum
ICP EPA 200.7
mg/L
na
na
137
90.1
<0.1
0.283
0.574
Total
Barium
ICP EPA 200.7
mg/L
na
na
0.914
1.05
0.115
0.151
0.185
Total
Boron
ICP EPA 200.7
mg/L
na
na
83.4
63.5
64.2
77.9
92.8
Total
Calcium
ICP EPA 200.7
mg/L
na
na
3970
3010
260
1310
1320
Total
Iron
ICP EPA 200.7
mg/L
na
na
185
122
1260
1.10
2.53
Total
Magnesium
ICP EPA 200.7
mg/L
na
na
732
526
498
525
537
Total
Manganese
ICP EPA 200.7
mg/L
na
na
5.05
3.89
0.414
0.712
0.886
Total
Potassium
ICP EPA 200.7
mg/L
na
na
55.2
39.7
20.8
25.4
29.7
Total
Silica
ICP EPA 200.7
µg/L
na
na
155000
146000
17700
18800
18800
Total
Silicon
ICP EPA 200.7
mg/L
na
na
72.3
68.1
8.26
8.76
8.79
Total
Sodium
ICP EPA 200.7
mg/L
na
na
90.7
48.7
44.1
46.6
49.2
Total
Strontium
ICP EPA 200.7
mg/L
na
na
7.83
5.8
3.86
4.23
4.47
Dissolved?
Selenium
Filter House Digested EPA 200.8
µg/L
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
Dissolved
Selenium
Dissolved
pg/L
<1
na
547
276
252
na
<2
Total
Arsenic
EPA 200.8
µg/L
na
na
448
339
3.24
<2
<2
Total
Cadmium
EPA 200.8
µg/L
na
na
<10
<10
<2
<2
<2
Total
Chromium
EPA 200.8
pg/L
na
na
538
420
<2
<2
<2
Total
Copper
EPA 200.8
µg/L
na
na
394
289
<2
2.02
<2
Total
Nickel
EPA 200.8
µg/L
na
na
395
281
<2
2.42
2.63
Total
Selenium
EPA 200.8
µg/L
na
na
627
409
272
<2
<2
Total
Zinc
EPA 200.8
µg/L
na
na
1260
803
<10
<10
<10
Total
Antimony
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
Total
Beryllium
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
Total
Silver
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
Total
Vanadium (V)
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
Inorganic Ions
Fluoride
EPA 300.0
mg/L
na
na
29.70
12.00
11.90
na
11.50
Inorganic Ions
Chloride
EPA 300.0
mg/L
na
na
2461
1989
2227
na
2587
Inorganic Ions
Bromide
EPA 300.0
mg/L
na
na
20.60
17.00
18.50
na
24.20
Inorganic Ions
Phosphate
EPA 300.0
mg/L
na
na
<10
<10
<10
na
<10
Inorganic Ions
Sulfate
EPA 300.0
mg/L
na
na
1771
1715
1733
na
1698.00
TDS
SM2540C
mg/L
na
na
11400
na
na
na
na
TSS
SM2540D
mg/L
na
na
na
na
na
na
<5
Total Alkalinity CaCO3
SM 2320B-2011
mg/L
na
na
na
95.0
22.7
na
na
Alkalinity, Carbonate
SM 2320B-2011
mg/L
na
na
na
<5
<5
na
na
Alkalinity, Bicarbonate
SM 23208-2011
mg/L
na
na
na
95.0
22.7
na
na
Total Hardness
mg/L CaCO3
na
na
na
9690
na
na
na
Chemical Oxygen Demand
SM 5220D
mg/L
na
na
na
528
115
na
178
Dissolved
MeSe(IV)
µg/L
na
<=0.350 HU
<=7.00 ZU
<=1.75 ZU
<=1.75 ZU
<=1.75 ZU
<=1.75 ZU
Dissolved
Se(IV)
µg/L
na
<=0.350 HU
8.83 Z1
7.31Z
5.04ZJ
2.34 ZU
<=1.75 ZU
Dissolved
Se(VI)
µg/L
na
<=0.350 HU
616 Z
293Z
271
<=1.50 ZU
<=1.50 ZU
Dissolved
SeCN
µg/L
na
<=0.350 HU
<=5.00 UZ
<=1.25ZU
<=1.25ZU
<=1.25ZU
<=1.25ZU
Dissolved
SeMet
pg/L
na
<=0.350 HU
<=7.00 UZ
<=1.75ZU
<=1.75ZU
<=1.75ZU
<=1.75 ZU
Dissolved
Unk Se Sp
µg/L
na
<=0.350 HU
<=7.00 UZ
<=1.75ZU
<=1.75ZU
<=1.75ZU
<=1.75 ZU
Dissolved
Unk Sep Count
count
na
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
Mercury
ng/L
<=0.13U
<=0.13U
na
na
12.2
1.66
0.94
H
Result between the MDL and MRL, result consider an estimate
Holding time/ or preservation time was not met
Holding time/preservation not estaiblished for this method, BAL recommendations

Duke FGD WWTS Analytical Data Results
Report #
/20020322
/20020322
/20020322
/20020322
Date
3/24/2020
3/24/2020
3/24/2020
3/24/2020
Time
7:30AM
7:30AM
7:30AM
7:30AM
Sample ID
2020004295
2020004296
2020004297
2020004298
Type
Constituent
Site
Units
Service Water
Filter Blank
Trip Blank
hg Trip Blank
Nitrite+Nitrate
Colorimetric EPA353.2
mg-N/L
0.216
na
na
na
Mercury
Cold vapor EPA 245.1
µg/L
na
na
na
na
Total
Aluminum
ICP EPA 200.7
mg/L
0.533
na
na
na
Total
Barium
ICP EPA 200.7
mg/L
0.023
na
na
na
Total
Boron
ICP EPA 200.7
mg/L
0.332
na
na
na
Total
Calcium
ICP EPA 200.7
mg/L
11.1
na
na
na
Total
Iron
ICP EPA 200.7
mg/L
0.799
na
na
na
Total
Magnesium
ICP EPA 200.7
mg/L
4.96
na
na
na
Total
Manganese
ICP EPA 200.7
mg/L
0.015
na
na
na
Total
Potassium
ICP EPA 200.7
mg/L
2.22
na
na
na
Total
Silica
ICP EPA 200.7
µg/L
13000
na
na
na
Total
Silicon
ICP EPA 200.7
mg/L
6.10
na
na
na
Total
Sodium
ICP EPA 200.7
mg/L
4.68
na
na
na
Total
Strontium
ICP EPA 200.7
mg/L
0.084
na
na
na
Dissolved?
Selenium
Filter House Digested EPA 200.8
µg/L
na
na
na
na
Dissolved
Selenium
Dissolved
µg/L
na
<1
na
na
Total
Arsenic
EPA 200.8
µg/L
<1
na
na
na
Total
Cadmium
EPA 200.8
µg/L
<1
na
na
na
Total
Chromium
EPA 200.8
µg/L
<1
na
na
na
Total
Copper
EPA 200.8
µg/L
2.48
na
na
na
Total
Nickel
EPA 200.8
µg/L
<1
na
na
na
Total
Selenium
EPA 200.8
µg/L
<1
na
na
na
Total
Zinc
EPA 200.8
µg/L
<5
na
na
na
Total
Antimony
na
na
na
na
Total
Beryllium
na
na
na
na
Total
Silver
na
na
na
na
Total
Vanadium (V)
na
na
na
na
Inorganic Ions
Fluoride
EPA 300.0
mg/L
<0.1
na
na
na
Inorganic Ions
Chloride
EPA 300.0
mg/L
13.30
na
na
na
Inorganic Ions
Bromide
EPA 300.0
mg/L
0.12
na
na
na
Inorganic Ions
Phosphate
EPA 300.0
mg/L
<0.1
na
na
na
Inorganic Ions
Sulfate
EPA 300.0
mg/L
16.93
na
na
na
TDS
SM2540C
mg/L
na
na
na
na
TSS
SM2540D
mg/L
na
na
na
na
Total Alkalinity CaCO3
SM 2320B-2011
mg/L
na
na
na
na
Alkalinity, Carbonate
SM 2320B-2011
mg/L
na
na
na
na
Alkalinity, Bicarbonate
SM 2320B-2011
mg/L
na
na
na
na
Total Hardness
mg/L CaCO3
na
na
na
na
Chemical Oxygen Demand
SM 5220D
mg/L
na
na
na
na
Dissolved
MeSe(IV)
µg/L
na
na
<=0.350ZU
na
Dissolved
Se(IV)
µg/L
na
na
<=0.350ZU
na
Dissolved
Se(VI)
µg/L
na
na
<=0.350ZU
na
Dissolved
SeCN
µg/L
na
na
<=0.350ZU
na
Dissolved
SeMet
µg/L
na
na
<=0.350ZU
na
Dissolved
Unk Se Sp
µg/L
na
na
<=0.350ZU
na
Dissolved
Unk Sep Count
count
na
na
0
na
Total
Mercury
ng/L
1.94
na
na
<=0.13U
H
Result between the MDL and MRL, result consider an estimate
Holding time/ or preservation time was not met
Holding time/preservation not estaiblished for this method, BAL recommendations

Duke FGD WWTS Analytical Data Results
Organized Data
Remove <sign
1 qualifier
U qualifier
H & Zonly
Type
Constituent
Report
Date
Time
Sample ID
Site
Units
/20020317
/20020323
/20020322
FGD PURGE
/20020341
/20020317
/20020323
/20020322
EQ TANK EFF
2/26/2020
3/10/2020
3/24/2020
AVERAGE
MAX
2/13/2020
2/26/2020
3/10/2020
3/24/2020
AVERAGE
MAX
8:00am
8:00am
7:30AM
8:00am
8:00am
8:00am
7:30AM
2020004273
2020004301
202004290
202004394
2020004274
2020034302
2020004291
FGD Purge
FGD Purge
FGD Purge
EQTank Eff
EQ Tank Eff
EQ Tank Effl
EQTank
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Inorganic Ions
Inorganic Ions
Inorganic Ions
Inorganic Ions
Inorganic Ions
Total
Total
Dissolved
Dissolved
Dissolved
Dissolved
Dissolved
Dissolved
Dissolved
Dissolved
Nitrite+Nitrate
Mercury
Arsenic
Aluminum
Barium
Boron
Calcium
Iron
Magnesium
Manganese
Potassium
Silica
Silicon
Sodium
Strontium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Nickel
Zinc
Antimony
Beryllium
Silver
Vanadium (V)
Fluoride
Chloride
Bromide
Phosphate
Sulfate
TDS
TSS
Total Alkalinity CaCO3
Alkalinity, Carbonate
Alkalinity, Bicarbonate
Total Hardness
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Selenium
Selenium
Selenium
MeSe(IV)
Se(M)
Se(VI)
SeCN
SeMet
Unk Se Sp
Unk Sep Count
Coksrimetric EPA353.2
245.1 (influent) & 1613 (effluent)
EPA200.8
ICP EPA 200.7
ICP EPA 200.7
ICP EPA 200.7
ICP EPA 200.7
ICP EPA 200.7
ICP EPA 200.7
ICP EPA 200.7
ICP EPA 200.7
ICP EPA 200.7
ICP EPA 200.7
ICP EPA 200.7
ICP EPA200.7
EPA 200.8
EPA200.8
EPA200.8
EPA200.8
EPA200.8
EPA200.8
EPA200.8
EPA 200.8
EPA 200.8
EPA 300.0
EPA 300.0
EPA300.0
EPA300.0
EPA 300.0
SM2540C
5M25400
SM 2320B-2011
SM 2320B-2011
SM 2320B-2011
SM 5220D
EPA200.8
Filter House Digested EPA 200.8
Dissolved
mg-N/L
µg/L
pg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
pg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
pg/L
43/1
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
mil
pg/L
pg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/LCaCO3
mg/L
pg/L
pg/L
µg/L
µg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
µg/L
count
11.0
23.0
31.0
21.7
31.0
na
7.3
23.0
19.0
16.4
23.0
23
64.2
45.1
44.1
64.2
15.7
15.6
44.3
27.2
25.7
44.3
203
677
448
442.7
677
116
128
481
339
266
481
81.0
201
137
140
201
na
46.8
152
90.1
96.3
152.0
0.892
0.925
0.914
0.9
0.925
na
0.570
1.05
0.8
1.1
53.4
117
83.4
84.6
117
31.6
33.9
104
63.5
58.3
104.0
3220
3760
3970
3650
3970
1940
2230
4630
3010
2953
4630
104
286
185
192
286
na
54.9
214
122
130.3
214.0
429
922
732
694
922
413
416
863
526
554.5
863.0
4.10
10.6
5.05
6.6
10.6
na
2.46
8.25
3.89
4.9
8.3
28.9
61.7
55.2
48.6
61.7
na
163
76.9
39.7
93.2
163.0
149000
206000
155000
170000
206000
na
116000
193000
146000
151667
193000
69.8
96.2
72.3
79.4
96.2
na
54.3
90.1
68.1
70.8
90.1
27.8
52.5
90.7
57.0
90.7
na
31.4
45.9
48.7
42.0
48.7
5.65
8.62
7.83
7.4
8.62
na
4.65
8.41
5.8
6.3
8.4
10
10
10
10.0
10
10
10
10
10
10.0
10.0
346
829
538
571
829
135
191
636
420
346
636
210
538
394
381
538
85.3
119
407
289
225
407
213
545
395
384
545
95.9
120
426
281
231
426
272
1950
1260
1161
1950
136
166
1210
803
579
1210
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
ne
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
10
10
29.70
16.6
29.7
na
10
10
12.00
10.7
12.0
2064
3385
2461
2637
3385
na
2028
3271
1989
2429
3271
17.80
30.60
20.60
23.0
30.6
na
16.50
29.80
17.00
21.1
29.8
10.00
0.1
10
6.7
10
na
10
0.1
10
6.7
10.0
1400
1422
1771
1531
1771
na
1405
1363
1715
1494.3
1715.0
293
11300
11400
7664
11400
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
294
738
95.0
376
738
ne
na
na
na
na
na
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
na
na
na
na
na
294
738
95.0
376
738
na
na
na
na
na
6530
7294
238
9690
5938
9690
na
na
ne
na
na
na
175
1290
528
664
1290
339
818
627
595
818
284
271
695
409
415
695
170
170
170
na
135
135
135
374
547
461
547
164
238
276
226
276
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.00
7
na
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.8
1.8
14.7
43.2
8.83
22.2
43.2
na
23.6
6.53
7.31
12.5
23.6
138
66.1
616
273.4
616
na
105
234
293
211
293
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5
na
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.3
1.3
7.00
7.00
7.00
7.00
7
na
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.8
1.8
7.00
7.00
7.00
7.00
7
na
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.8
1.8
0
0
0
0.00
0
na
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
H
U
Result between the MDL and MRL, result consider an estimate
Holding time/ or preservation time was not met
Holding time/preservation not estaiblished for this method, BAL recommendations were not followed
Results is <- MDL, result reported as MDL or CRRL

Duke FGD WWTS Analytical Data Results
Organized Data
Remove < sign
1 qualifier
U qualifier
H & Zonly
Type
Constituent
Report B
Date
Time
Sample ID
Site
Units
/20020341
/20020317
/20320323
/20020322
Phys-Chem Effluent / Biol influent
/20020317
120020322
/20020323
Bio 1 Effluent/ Bio 2 Influent
2/13/2020
2/26/2020
3/10/2020
3/24/2020
AVERAGE
MAX
2/26/2020
3/24/2020
3/10/2020
AVERAGE
MAX
8:OOam
8:00am
8:00am
7:30AM
8:00am
7:30AM
8:00am
2020004395
2020004275
202004303
2020004292
2020004277
2020004293
202004304
PC Efll Bio 1 Infl
PC Eff-Rio 1 Int
PC effl Bio 1 int
PC Eff Bio 11nt
Bio 21nt
Bio 2 Int
Bio 2 Int
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Inorgank Ions
Inorganic Ions
Inorganic Ions
Inorganic Ions
Inorganic Ions
Total
Total
Dissolved
Dissolved
Dissolved
Dissolved
Dissolved
Dissolved
Dissolved
Dissolved
Nitrite+Nitrate
Mercury
Arsenic
Aluminum
Barium
Boron
Calcium
Iron
Magnesium
Manganese
Potassium
Silica
Silicon
Sodium
Strontium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Nickel
Zinc
Antimony
Beryllium
Silver
Vanadium (V)
Fluoride
Chloride
Bromide
Phosphate
Sulfate
TDS
T55
Total Alkalinity CaCO3
Alkalinity, Carbonate
Alkalinity, Bicarbonate
Total Hardness
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Selenium
Selenium
Selenium
MCSe(IV)
Se(M)
Se(VI)
SeCN
SeMet
Unk Se Sp
Unk Sep Count
Colorimetric EPA353.2
245.1 (influent) & 1613 (effluent)
EPA200.8
ICP EPA 200.7
ICP EPA 200.7
ICP EPA 200.7
ICP EPA 200.7
ICP EPA 200.7
ICP EPA 200.7
ICP EPA 200.7
ICP EPA 200.7
ICP EPA 200.7
ICP EPA 200.7
ICP EPA 200.7
ICP EPA 200.7
EPA200.8
EPA200.8
EPA200.8
EPA200.8
EPA200.8
EPA200.8
EPA200.8
EPA200.8
EPA200.8
EPA300.0
EPA300.0
EPA300.0
EPA 300.0
EPA300.0
SM2540C
SM2540D
5M 23208-2011
SM 2320E-2011
SM 232013-2011
SM 5220D
EPA 200.8
Filter House Digested EPA 200.8
Dissolved
mg-N/L
pg/L
pg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
pg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
µg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/LCaCO3
mg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
count
10.0
6.8
21.0
19.0
14.2
21.0
na
na
na
na
na
16.4
9.72
5.89
12.2
11.1
16.4
0.13
1.66
3.32
1.70
3.32
2.82
2
2
3.24
2.515
3.24
2
2
2
2.00
2
0.2
0.1
1
0,1
0.35
1.00
0.1
0.283
1
0.46
1
0.1
0.109
0.5
0.115
0.206
0.5
0.125
0.151
0.5
0.26
0.5
52.6
26.7
87.4
64.2
58
87.4
26.9
77.9
41.1
48.63
77.9
1310
1250
1610
260
1108
1610
1160
1310
1520
1330
1520
19.8
0.1
1
1260
320
1260
0.1
1.10
1
0.73
1.1
426
379
696
498
500
696
372
525
613
503
613
1 31
0.373
1.09
0.414
0.80
1.31
0.331
0.712
1.78
0.94
1.78
169
214
67.2
20.8
118
214
203
25.4
106
111
203
23500
20600
41.1
17700
15460
23500
21200
18800
20000
20000
21200
11.0
9.6
5.13
8.26
8.5
11
9.9
8.76
9.35
9.34
9.9
35.7
32.3
41.1
44.1
38
44.1
54.4
46.6
38.9
46.6
54.4
3.20
3.35
5.13
3.86
3.89
5.13
3.26
4.23
4.7
4.06
4.7
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2.00
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2.00
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2.02
2
2.01
2.02
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2.42
2
2.14
2.42
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
Fla
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
10
12.20
11.90
11.4
12.2
na
na
na
na
na
na
2004
3148
2227
2460
3148
na
na
na
na
na
na
15.00
27.20
18.50
20.2
27.2
na
na
na
na
na
na
10
0.1
10
6.7
10
na
na
na
na
na
na
1398
1451
1733
1527
1733
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
36.9
19.2
22.7
26.3
36.9
na
na
na
na
na
na
5
5
5
5
5
na
na
na
na
na
na
36.9
19.2
22.7
26.3
36.9
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
Fla
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
102
270
129
115
154
270
n
n
na
na
116
272
205
272
216
272
2
2
112
38.7
112
110
na
na
110
110
na
na
na
na
na
115
na
192
252
186
252
na
na
na
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
18.2
16.2
11.3
5.04
12.7
18.2
20.3
2.34
104
42
104
71.2
84.6
459
271
221
459
83.9
1.50
1.5
29
83.9
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Result between the MDL and MRL, result consider an estimate
Holding time/ or preservation time was not met
Holding time/preservation not estaiblished for this method, BAL recommendatir
Results is <- MDL, result reported as MDL or CRRL

Duke FGD WWTS Analytical Data Results
Organized Data
Remove < sign
1 qualifier
U qualifier
H & Zonly
Type
Constituent
Report R
Date
Time
Sample ID
Site
Units
/20020317
120020323
/20020322
Final Effluent from Bio System
2/26/2020
3/10/2020
3/24/2020
AVERAGE
MAX
8:000m
8:00am
7:30AM
2020004278
2020004305
202004294
Bio Sys Eff
Bio Sys Eff
Bio Sys Eff
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Inorganic Ions
Inorganic Ions
Inorganic Ions
Inorganic Ions
Inorganic Ions
Total
Total
Dissolved
Dissolved
Dissolved
Dissolved
Dissolved
Dissolved
Dissolved
Dissolved
NitriterNitrate
Mercury
Arsenic
Aluminum
Barium
Boron
Calcium
Iron
Magnesium
Manganese
Potassium
Silica
Silicon
Sodium
Strontium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Nickel
Zinc
Antimony
Beryllium
Silver
Vanadium (V)
Fluoride
Chloride
Bromide
Phosphate
Sulfate
TDS
TSS
Total Alkalinity CaCO3
Alkalinity, Carbonate
Alkalinity, Bicarbonate
Total Hardness
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Selenium
Selenium
Selenium
MeSe(IV)
Se(IV)
Se(VI)
SeCN
SeMet
Unk Se Sp
Unk Sep Count
Colorimetric EPA353.2
245.1 (influent) & 1613 (effluent)
EPA 200.8
ICP EPA 200.7
ICP EPA 200.7
ICP EPA 200.7
ICP EPA 200.7
ICP EPA 200.7
ICP EPA 200.7
ICP EPA 200.7
ICP EPA 200.7
ICP EPA 200.7
ICP EPA 200.7
ICP EPA 200.7
ICP EPA 200.7
EPA200.8
EPA 200.8
EPA 200.8
EPA200.8
EPA 200.8
EPA200.8
EPA200.8
EPA200.8
EPA200.8
EPA 300.0
EPA 300.0
EPA300.0
EPA300.0
EPA300.0
SM2540C
SM2540D
SM 23208-2011
SM 23208-2011
5M 2320B-2011
SM 5220D
EPA 200.8
Filter House Digested EPA 200.8
Dissolved
mg-N/L
pg/L
pg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
pg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
µg/L
µg/L
pg/L
pg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/1 CaCO3
mg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
count
0.962
0.01
0.029
0.33
0.962
0.13
0.66
0,94
0.58
0.94
2,24
2
2
2.08
2.24
0.1
1
0.574
0.56
1.0
0.138
0.5
0.185
0.27
0.50
5.11
32.5
92.8
43.5
92.8
1160
1410
1320
1297
1410
0.1
1
2.53
1.21
2.53
370
523
537
477
537
0.114
1.68
0.886
0.893
1.68
257
121
29.7
136
257
27100
25200
18800
23700
27100
12.6
11.8
8.79
11.1
12.6
100
41.1
49.2
63.433
100
3.13
4.17
4.47
3.923
4.47
2
2
2
2.000
2
2
2
2
2000
2
2
2
2
2.000
2
2
2
2.63
2.210
2.63
10
10
10
10.000
10
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
10
10
11.50
10.50
11.5
1941
2412
2587
2313
2587
14.5
19.7
24.2
19
24.2
10
0.1
10
6.7
10
1385
1432
1698.00
1505
1698
na
na
n
na
na
5
5
5
5.000
5
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
446
232
178
285.3
446
92.6
61.3
2
52.0
92.6
94.5
94.5
94.5
58.0
58.0
58
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.8
1.75
25.2
1.75
1.75
9.6
25.2
75.4
1.50
1.50
26.1
75.4
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.3
1.25
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.8
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.8
1.75
0
0
0
0.0
0
H
Result between the MDL and MRL, result consider an estimate
Holding time/ or preservation time was not met
Holding time/preservation not estaiblished for this method, BAL recommendatis
Results is <- MDL, result reported as MDL or CRRL

ROXBORO LEACHATE TREATMENT ASSESSMENT REPORT
Appendix B FGD Wastewater Treatment System Process Units Details
Appendix B FGD WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM PROCESS
UNITS DETAILS
B.2

FGD Wastewater Treatment System Process Units Details
Clarifier A&B
Sand Filter A,B,C,D
BioReactor 1 - Tank A-X
BioReactor 2 - Tank A-P
Number of Units
2
4
22
14
Max - Min Flow (gpm)
-
49.8-19.0
96.3-30.8
Total Capacity (gal)
892,000
6,100
31,000
31,000
Working Capacity (gal)
-
9.8
22000-29000 (max 26ft)
22000-29000
Diameter (ft)
70
21
13
13
Side Wall (ft)
31
-
31
31
Center Well (ft) - Diameter
16
-
-
-
Surface Area (ft2)
3,647
75.4
66.4
66
Filtration Rate (gpm/ft2)
-
1.8-4.9
0.75
1.45
Information in bold from FGW W WTS P&IDs