NC0039586_Schedule Compliance Outfall 006_20190829

dr� Tanya M Hamiltonent
DUKE Vice President
ENERGENERGY. Harris Nuclear Plant
Y:C t� I 5413 Shearon Harris Rd
New Hill,NC 27562-9300
AUG 2 9 2019
Serial: RA-19-0348 i5i E D W [ECertified Mail Number: 7014 2120 0003 3196 5770
Return Receipt Requested _ SEP - 3 2019
Ms. Linda Culpepper, Director DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
NC DEQ Division of Water Resources DIRECTOR'S OFFICE
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Subject: Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant (HNP)
NPDES Permit No. NC0039586
Part I (A)(9) - Schedule of Compliance (Outfall 006), Wake County
Dear Ms. Culpepper:
On August 29, 2016, NC DEQ DWR issued NPDES Permit NC0039586 with an effective date
of September 1, 2016. Contained within this permit were new effluent limit requirements for
copper and zinc for Outfall 006 (Combined Outfall for Internal Outfalls 001-005) serving HNP.
Part I (A)(9)1 of the permit requires Duke Energy Progress, LLC (Duke Energy), submit to the
Division of Water Resources a Corrective Action Plan(CAP) which summarizes the actions to
be taken to achieve the total copper and total zinc limits at Outfall 006 and a schedule of actions
to be taken to implement the plan. The CAP was submitted to the Division on September 1,
2017. Part I (A)(9)2 requires and annual report summarizing activities in Year 2 of the permit
and the Year 2 report was submitted on August 27, 2018. This Year 3 report is being submitted
in accordance with Part I (A)(9)3 of the permit which requires reporting to the Division
summarizing actions taken in accordance with the CAP.
As described in the attached report, we have conducted a Water Effect Ratio Study for copper,
met with DWR staff and received comments. DWR staff have requested further dilution studies
and additional WER testing and Duke Energy will work out detailed approaches to these studies
with DWR staff as we move forward to address these comments. Duke Energy will be
contacting DWR permitting staff future to set up a meeting to review and discuss these
comments and our path forward.
If you have any questions regarding this matter or wish to discuss in further detail, please do not
hesitate to contact Mr. Bob Wilson, HNP Site Environmental Professional, at [phone].
L

Division of Water Resources
Serial: RA-19-0348 / Page 12
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.
Sincerely,
G U
Tanya M. Hamilton
Enclosure: Technical Memorandum — NC0039586 Compliance Update
Water Effect Ratio (WER) Study— Copper Report
Reasonable Potential Analysis — Spreadsheet Calculations
cc: Ms. Julie Grzyb, Supervisor, NPDES Complex Permitting Supervisor,
Certified Mail Number: 7014 2120 0003 3196 5787
Mr. Rick Bolich, Interim Water Resources Regional Supervisor,
NC DEQ DWR Raleigh Regional Office
Certified Mail Number: 7014 2120 0003 3196 5794
Ms. Cyndi Karoly, Chief, Water Sciences Section, NC DEQ DWR
Certified Mail Number: 7014 2120 0003 3196 5800
NC DEQ DWR Central Files
Certified Mail Number: 7014 2120 0003 3196 5817

1.
Division of Water Resources
Serial: RA-19-0348
Enclosure
Harris Nuclear Plant and Harris Energy and Environmental Center
NPDES Permit Number NC0039586
Technical Memorandum — NC0039586 Compliance Update
(167 pages including cover)

hni Final Technical Memorandum
Corrective Action Plan for Copper
and Zinc for Harris Nuclear Plant
NPDES Permit
Year 3 Activities Report
Prepared for
Duke Energy Progress, LLC
Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant
NPDES Permit No. NC0039586
August 2019
-.o Q�H GA..A04...
4 EISS/p 1
i SEA
"Rr-----r/
f:,--.--•\;.. ./. JA '
ArER L.9 /9//9
JACOBS
....„
CH2M HILL North Carolina, Inc.
111 Corning Rd, Suite 116
Cary, NC 27518
0

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM JACOBS
Corrective Action Plan for Copper and Zinc for
Harris Nuclear Plant NPDES Permit —
Year 3 Activities Report
PREPARED FOR: Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant(HNP)
Duke Energy-Progress LLC(Duke Energy)
COPY TO: Bob Wilson/Duke Energy-HNP
Don Safrit, PE/Duke Energy
PREPARED BY: Jennifer Bell, PE/CH2M HILL North Carolina, Inc. (Jacobs)
DATE: August 19, 2019
REVISION NO.: Version 01- Final
Executive Summary
The 2016 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for the Shearon Harris
Nuclear Plant(HNP) included effluent limits—effective September 30, 2021—for copper and zinc for
Outfall 006 and a compliance schedule requiring development of a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) and
reports on annual progress towards compliance through September 1, 2020.The CAP was submitted on
September 1, 2017 (Year 1 of the permit)and the Year 2 Report was submitted to North Carolina
Division of Water Resources(DWR)on August 27, 2018.
Year 3 activities proposed in the Year 2 Report included: 1)continued characterization efforts,
2)completion of a Water Effect Ratio(WER)study,3)meeting with DWR to discuss the WER study, and
4)potential initiation of a mixing zone study. All activities have been accomplished except for initiation
of a mixing zone study,which is proposed for completion in Year 4.Table ES-1 below summarizes
activities completed in Years 1-3, as well as proposed activities for Year 4.
Table ES-1.Summary of Compliance Activities for NPDES Permit Years 1-4
Year 1 Activities Year 2 Activities Year 3 Activities Year 4 Activities-Proposed
(9/1/16-8/31/17) (9/1/17-8/31/18) (9/1/18-8/31/19) (9/1/19-8/31/20)
• CAP Development • Effluent • Completion of WER • DWR Meetings
• Effluent Characterization, Study • Dilution studies using a
Characterization Continued • DWR Meetings mixing zone model
• WER Study • Effluent Characterization, • Additional WER testing,
• Water Chemistry Continued as needed
Management • Water Chemistry • Effluent Characterization,
Management, Continued
Continued • Water Chemistry
Management,Continued
On June 5, 2019, Duke Energy representatives met with DWR to discuss the results of the effluent
characterization results and WER study for copper submitted on May 5, 2019.The report indicated that
water chemistry management activities had reduced zinc levels so that compliance was no longer an
issue at the limits included in the current NPDES permit or at recalculated limits based on effluent
CH2M HILL NORTH CAROLINA,INC. 1

CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN FOR COPPER AND ZINC FOR
HARRIS NUCLEAR PLANT NPDES PERMIT-YEAR 3 ACTIVITIES REPORT
hardness. Copper compliance could be attained if the permit limits were adjusted based on the effluent
characterization of hardness and the final WER developed through the study.
DWR provided comments on the WER Study on July 16, 2019 requesting that a dilution study be
conducted,as well as additional WER testing. Based on this feedback and discussions from June 5th,
Duke Energy anticipates Year 4 activities to include:
• Planning efforts and meeting with DWR on detailed approaches and procedures for dilution
studies and additional WER testing
• Dilution studies involving use of a mixing zone model
• Additional WER testing, if necessary
• Further meetings with DWR to discuss results and determine a path forward to NPDES permit
compliance
Year 3 CAP Activities Report
The purpose of this report is to present to DWR the actions that have be taken by HNP in accordance
with the CAP submitted September 1, 2017, and the Year 2 Report submitted on August 27, 2018,to
achieve compliance with effluent limitations for copper and zinc for discharge through Outfall 006, as
included in NPDES Permit NC0039586.The requirement for yearly progress reports is included in Part
I(A)(9) of the NPDES Permit.
Background
The NPDES Permit issued to HNP, effective September 1, 2016, includes limits for total recoverable
copper and total recoverable zinc from Outfall 006 based on dissolved copper and zinc criteria that were
calculated using default a hardness concentration of 25 milligrams per liter(mg/L) as calcium carbonate
(CaCO3) and default WER of 1 due to a lack of historical data available for Outfall 006 discharges when
the permit was developed.
Table 1.Total recoverable copper and zinc limits included in HNP NPDES Permit issued September 1,2016
Metal Monthly Average Limit Daily Maximum Limit
Copper 7.9 µg/L 10.5 µg/L
Zinc 126 µg/L 126 µg/L
The 2016 permit included a schedule of compliance for the effluent limits for copper and zinc, as
specified in Part I(A)(9).The schedule includes the following milestones:
1. Within 1 year from the effective day of the permit,the permittee will submit to DWR a CAP
summarizing the actions to be taken to achieve compliance with the total copper and total zinc
limits at Outfall 006 and a schedule of activities to implement the plan.The CAP may include
mixing zone studies and site-specific studies. Methods for conducting site-specific studies must
be approved by DWR.
2. Within 2 years from the effective date of the permit, submit a report to DWR summarizing
actions taken in accordance with the CAP.
3. Within 3 years from the effective date of the permit, submit a report to DWR summarizing
actions taken in accordance with the CAP.
2 CH2M HILL NORTH CAROLINA,INC.

CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN FOR COPPER AND ZINC FOR
HARRIS NUCLEAR PLANT NPDES PERMIT-YEAR 3 ACTIVITIES REPORT
4. Within 4 years from the effective date of the permit, submit a report to DWR summarizing
actions taken in accordance with the CAP.
5. Achieve compliance with total copper and total zinc limits by September 30, 2021.
The CAP was developed and submitted to DWR August 31, 2017; it included results of the effluent
characterization that began in April 2017 and is ongoing, as well as a recommendation to complete a
WER study and to evaluate potential water chemistry management options. Results of the ongoing
effluent characterization are summarized in this report as well as continuing water chemistry
management activities.The WER study was completed in early 2019 and submitted to DWR on May 5,
2019.A meeting was held with DWR on June 5, 2019 and comments were received on July 16 requesting
additional studies. Planned Year 4 activities are listed based on the comments received.
Effluent Characterization and Monitoring
Monthly effluent characterization efforts continue to focus on hardness,copper,and zinc. Results
through June 2019 are included in Attachment 1.
Hardness Characterization
Effluent hardness data were collected since permit limits are based water quality criteria that vary based
on hardness.They were also developed based on 100%effluent with no dilution. For the sampling
period beginning in 2017 the average hardness is 43.6 mg/L as CaCO3,which is above the default value
of 25 mg/L.With average effluent hardness concentration greater than the default 25 mg/L hardness
used to calculate the limits in the NPDES permit, recalculation of the zinc and copper limits is
appropriate. Potential limits are shown below.
Table 2.Current vs. Potential Recalculated Limits based on Site-specific Effluent Hardness data
Current NPDES Limits Potential Recalculated Limits
Monthly Average Daily Maximum Monthly Average Daily Maximum
Copper 7.9 µg/L 10.5 µg/L 12.7 µg/L 17.7 µg/L
Zinc 126 µg/L 126 µg/L 203 µg/L 201 µg/L
Zinc Concentrations
Zinc concentrations during this period did not exceed the monthly average or daily maximum limits
(both 126 µg/L) as defined in the NPDES permit as written. If the median effluent hardness from 2017 to
2019 is considered when calculating the dissolved water quality criteria, a limit of 201 µg/L zinc would
be appropriate. Under current operational procedures, HNP will remain in compliance with either the
current or recalculated zinc limits.
HNP is continues to achieve compliance with zinc limits as a result of the facility eliminating use of a
zinc-based corrosion inhibitor in its cooling tower.
Copper Concentrations
Copper concentrations during the characterization and monitoring period exceeded the limits, both
current and recalculated based on effluent hardness.The current daily maximum limit (10.5 µg/L)was
exceeded on 49 of 76 sampling days and the recalculated daily maximum limit(17.7 µg/L)on 26 of these
days (see Attachment 1, Figure 3). Since mid-November 2018,the current daily maximum was exceeded
on 3 of 23 sampling days and the recalculated daily maximum limit was exceeded only once. Monthly
average concentrations exceeded the current monthly average limit (7.9 µg/L) in 24 of 28 months during
the characterization and monitoring and exceeded the recalculated monthly average limit(12.7 µg/L) in
19 of those months(see Attachment 1, Figure 4). Starting from December 2018,the current monthly
CH2M HILL NORTH CAROLINA,INC. 3

CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN FOR COPPER AND ZINC FOR
HARRIS NUCLEAR PLANT NPDES PERMIT-YEAR 3 ACTIVITIES REPORT
average limit was exceeded in 4 of those months,and the recalculated copper limit was exceeded in 2 of
those months.
HNP has continued water chemistry evaluations to determine if there are ways of minimizing copper in
the effluent, as recommended in the CAP as well as proceeding with a WER study for copper.
Water Chemistry Management
In addition to the WER study,water chemistry management within the facilities at HNP are being
considered as a complimentary means of achieving compliance.One of the reasons that compliance
with the zinc effluent limits is no longer an issue is because of the use of an alternative anticorrosion
agent that does not include zinc. Use of this alternative agent began in January 2017,and zinc levels
have been dramatically reduced since that time. It is believed that zinc levels that are measured in the
effluent are either residual zinc in the system, corrosion of zinc from galvanized materials, and zinc that
is in the lake water that is cycled up(concentrated) in the cooling process.
Copper was not an initial focus of the water chemistry management efforts; HNP does not believe
copper is being added from any water treatment additives. Concentration of the intake water by cooling
tower cycling has been identified as a contributor to elevated levels. Corrosion of plant components
that contain copper is also a potential issue. HNP has been working with chemical suppliers to evaluate
the potential sources of copper and determine whether copper levels can be reduced through further
management of water chemistry.
The current view is that neither water chemicals nor system corrosion are significant sources of copper
in the Outfall 006 discharge. Rather, it is believed that observed copper levels,which predominantly
between 10 µg/L and 30 µg/L(with a few results above this up to a maximum of 47 µg/L) and are
primarily a result of cooling tower cycling up of lake levels of copper. Beginning in mid-November 2018
all samples fell within a range of 5 µg/L to 20 µg/L.
The 2017 Environmental Monitoring Report(Duke Energy, 2018) submitted to DWR in December 2018
showed that lake levels for total copper averaged less than 1.0 ug/L at all stations and that maximum
values were 1.1 to 1.3 ug/L.These values are all below the dissolved criterion for copper of 2.7 ug/L
based on a hardness of 25 ug/L.Average lake hardness in 2017 ranged from 22 to 26 ug/L at the lake
stations.
WER Study
A WER study was completed from July through September 2018 with three rounds using a primary
species(Ceriodaphnia dubia) and a fourth round using a secondary species (Pimephales promelas)for
both total recoverable and dissolved copper according to the US EPA's Interim Guidance on
Determination and Use of Water Effect Ratios for Metals(EPA, 1994).A copy of the submittal to DWR is
included as Attachment 2.
The North Carolina Water Quality Standard for copper is based on dissolved copper, although WER
values were determined both for dissolved and total recoverable copper.The final WER for dissolved
copper(fWER=4.9996)was applied when calculating potential water quality criteria and effluent limits.
Additionally,the fWER for total recoverable copper(5.9789)was found to be higher than the dissolved
fWER, so use of the dissolved fWER is appropriately conservative.
DWR Meeting and Comment Letter
Duke Energy met with DWR on June 5, 2019,to discuss the results of the WER.A meeting summary and
presentation materials are included as Attachment 3.Copper was the focus of the conversation.
Discussion centered on the type of WER completed and the application of both a WER and site-specific
hardness values into the limit calculation.All WER tests were Type 1 tests conducted using 100%
4 CH2M HILL NORTH CAROLINA,INC.

CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN FOR COPPER AND ZINC FOR
HARRIS NUCLEAR PLANT NPDES PERMIT—YEAR 3 ACTIVITIES REPORT
effluent and, as such,the resulting final WER was determined using the lowest WER calculated from the
three tests and represents a 'worst case scenario.' Including a Type 2 test in the calculation of the WER
would likely result in a higher value than currently calculated.
There was also some discussion of the use of the secondary test results and when they confirmed the
primary tests. DWR pointed out that the interim guidance indicated that the ratio of WER values from
secondary and primary tests should be 3 based on the EPA Interim Guidance and some of the ratios
exceeded this value (EPA, 1994). Review of this issue indicated that the ratio of the WER values for
primary and secondary species tests should not exceed 3 for simultaneous tests. In that comparison,the
ratio was 8.20(Ceriodaphnia WER)/2.66 (Fish WER) =3.08.A value of 3.08 is statistically equivalent to
3, and therefore does not exceed the recommended value.
Also,the ratio of the fish WER to the fWER (about 5) is less than 2. During discussion of the application
of the WER and hardness results, DWR indicated that some type of mixing zone analysis may be
necessary.
DWR provided a July 10,2019 letter response to the items discussed at the meeting,also included in
Attachment 3.This substance of this letter is as follows:
• DWR requests that a dye dispersion study or dilution model study be conducted so that the WER
Study can be conducted in accordance with Appendix F of the EPA Interim Guidance for flowing-
water situations
• DWR requested that the primary species used for the WER study be fathead minnows since this
provides more conservative results than the primary species used in the 2018 tests.
• DWR also noted that Appendix A of the EPA Interim Guidance(EPA, 1994) allowed WER values
to consider dilution provided in the mixing zone but this dilution could not be considered for the
criteria
Duke Energy has developed planned Year 4 activities based on these comments and will work with DWR
to assure there is a consensus before proceeding with activities.We do believe the request to use
fathead minnows as the primary species is inconsistent with the EPA Interim Guidance (page 147)to use
an appropriate sensitive species(EPA, 1994). Ceriodaphnia dubia is the 2"d most sensitive species in the
list of species mean acute values (SMAV) in the 2007 EPA Copper Criteria Document(EPA, 2007).
Fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas) is 19th in the list with an LC/EC50 value, more than 10 times
that of Ceriodaphnia.This was also reflected in our tests, where the LC50 values for Ceriodaphnia(in lab
water) ranged from 10 to 23 µg/L and for fathead minnows was about 170 µg/L.While it provides a
lower WER value,fathead minnows do not qualify as a sensitive species. Bob Kelley with ETT discussed
the use of fathead minnows with Joel Hansel of EPA Region 4 on July 26, 2019. He is aware of only one
case in Region IV where fathead minnows were used as a primary species for WER testing and did not
remember which pollutant was evaluated.This issue will be resolved with DWR during plan
development and discussions for Year 4 activities discussed below.
Year 4 Activities
In addition to continued water chemistry management efforts, Duke Energy anticipates Year 4 activities
to include continued WER studies and dilution studies.These planning efforts will be coordinated with
DWR to ensure consensus before progressing.These Year 4 actions are to include:
• Planning efforts and meeting with DWR on detailed approaches and procedures for dilution
studies and additional WER testing
• Dilution studies involving use of a mixing zone model (based on mixing zone study results)
CH2M HILL NORTH CAROLINA,INC. 5

CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN FOR COPPER AND ZINC FOR
HARRIS NUCLEAR PLANT NPDES PERMIT-YEAR 3 ACTIVITIES REPORT
• Additional WER testing if necessary
• Further meetings with DWR to discuss results and determine a path forward to permit
compliance
Duke Energy is continuing on the path for NPDES permit compliance for Outfall 006 and is actively
planning for Year 4 efforts as part of that progress.
References
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA). 1994. Interim Guidance on Determination and Use of
Water-Effect Ratios for Metals. Washington, DC:Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA). 2007.Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Copper—2007
Revision. Washington, DC:Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology.
6 CH2M HILL NORTH CAROLINA,INC.

Attachment 1
Results of Ongoing Effluent Characterization Efforts

CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN FOR COPPER AND ZINC FOR HARRIS NUCLEAR PLANT NPDES PERMIT-YEAR 3 ACTIVITIES REPORT
This page is intentionally left blank.
CH2M HILL NORTH CAROLINA,INC.

CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN FOR COPPER AND ZINC FOR HARRIS NUCLEAR PLANT NPDES PERMIT—YEAR 3 ACTIVITIES REPORT
• 006 Effluent -006 Effluent Average(43.6 mg/L)
70
60
50 • •• •• • •
E 40 •• MN� 0.0•••�
30
= 20 •�
10
0 — —
Q fi i 9i J,l Ji u'i > >i `9i It Ji ''i `ri >i
J��O J��0 �0�20 ��� �� 16��0 ��0 �`�O ��O 1��20 ���1 1J�0 1T��0 1�0 �O��O
J> J> J> CO, J� J� J 1 J� 01� J9 19 1,,9 J9
Figure 1.Outfall 006 effluent hardness observed during the effluent characterization
and continued monitoring showing the overall average of the data.
Limit(at default 25 mg/L hardness) -----Limit(at 43.6 mg/L hardness) • 006 Effluent
250
200
150
CIO
C 100 • •
•
N •• •
50 • • •
6.0
• • Sift m •
QO sJ1 >0�1 9/�6>� J/ JC5 tic>?131 S�.� �s� 9��1 JJ/��i ��1 ��1 ��� ;30
Jj OJ> J OJ> 0 OJcpJ9 OJ OJT OJc 1OJ� OJ9 Oj9 O, 0
,9
Figure 2.Outfall 006 effluent zinc observed during the effluent characterization
and continued monitoring compared to current and recalculated limits.
CH2M HILL NORTH CAROLINA,INC.

CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN FOR COPPER AND ZINC FOR HARRIS NUCLEAR PLANT NPDES PERMIT—YEAR 3 ACTIVITIES REPORT
Daily Max Limit(at default 25 mg/L hardness) -----Limit,Ac.(at 43.6 mg/L hardness) • 006 Effluent-Daily Value
50
45 •
•
40 '
J 35 • •• •
30 • • •
v 25 ••• • • % • •
a •
20 !
o 15 ♦� ___� • _ ;_______i_--I.
/ • go
•
i `ri
i `99 'lj Ji `)i `Si i i •l J Ji �'i ri i
*e-- J '10 56›, C511j� 16�, �, 1'0,, iy ''J�, 1� c�O �OOvO �OOsO -,Oc/ .O � O12O0�OJ) JT J., J,, OJj '18J .4 .44 �04j9 19 19 J9
Figure 3.Outfall 006 effluent copper observed during the effluent characterization and continued
monitoring compared to current daily maximum and recalculated acute limits.
Monthly Ave Limit(at default 25 mg/L hardness) -----Limit,Chr.(at 43.6 mg/L hardness) • 006 Effluent-Monthly Ave
35
30 •
25 • •
ao 20 •
• • •
•
vir
15 • • •
a - - __.
0 10 if. -
v • I . • • I .5
0 - ---.._ ---------- - -
lo
44
4?;?^.O^�d`�O OJT J�O Oct OOG pc O `30 6 OJ^�O~`'"od`10`OJT 1�`-OJ TOJ Jo`vbc`�2 '30 6 OJ~.O^,bdy�0?OJ')O.T9
Jj J> > J> 'I� J� ,I>J, 8 8 1� 8 J� 8 6, 8 8 '78 8 9 9 J9 9 J9 9
Figure 4.Outfall 006 monthly average effluent copper observed during the effluent characterization
and continued monitoring compared to current monthly average and recalculated chronic limits.
CH2M HILL NORTH CAROLINA,INC.

CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN FOR COPPER AND ZINC FOR HARRIS NUCLEAR PLANT NPDES PERMIT-YEAR 3 ACTIVITIES REPORT
Attachment 2
WER study Submittal to DWR on May 3, 2019
CH2M HILL NORTH CAROLINA,INC.

CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN FOR COPPER AND ZINC FOR HARRIS NUCLEAR PLANT NPDES PERMIT-YEAR 3 ACTIVITIES REPORT
This page is intentionally left blank.
CH2M HILL NORTH CAROLINA,INC.

�., DUKE Tanya M.Hamilton
Vice President
`C ENERGY Harris Nuclear Plant
5413 Shearon Harris Rd
New Hill,NC 27562-9300
MAY 0 3 2019
Serial: RA-19-0161
Certified Mail Number: 7006 0100 0006 4208 4774
Return Receipt Requested
Ms. Linda Culpepper, Director
NC DEQ Division of Water Resources
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Subject: Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant(HNP)
NPDES Permit No. NC0039586
Part I (A)(9) - Schedule of Compliance (Outfall 006), Wake County
Dear Ms. Culpepper:
On August 29, 2016, NC Department of Environmental Quality(NC DEQ) Division of Water
Resources (DWR) issued NPDES Permit NC0039586 with an effective date of September 1,
2016. Contained within this permit were new effluent limit requirements for copper and zinc for
Outfall 006 (Combined Outfall for internal outfalls 001-005) serving HNP. The permit included a
schedule for meeting the new limits for copper and zinc, as well as milestones.
In accordance with permit requirements, Duke Energy Progress, LLC (Duke Energy), prepared
a plan summarizing the proposed actions to meet the new metal limits at Outfall 006 and a
timeline to implement this approach. The plan, submitted on August 31, 2017 (Letter HNP-17-
071), included steps consistent with EPA guidance for the new limits:
1. Conduct a detailed characterization of the effluent to understand the variability in metals
concentrations as well hardness.
2. Examine issues associated with water treatment chemicals.
3. Initiate studies to determine site specific characteristics of the effluent which influence
the toxicity of metals.
4. Identify additional studies and steps to take to address the new limits.
In addition to the plan, Duke Energy submitted the second annual progress update to DWR on
August 27, 2018 (Letter RA-18-0152). That progress update indicated that zinc can meet the
zinc limit based on changes that the HNP staff had implemented regarding water treatment
chemicals, and hardness evaluations conducted at the site.
The purpose of this letter is to provide results of the finalized Water Effects Ratio (WER) study
and updated effluent characterization results for both zinc and copper through January 2019.
These are presented in the attached technical memorandum (TM). The report documenting the
Water Effects Ratio (WER) study for copper is included as an attachment.

Division of Water Resources
Serial: RA-19-0161 /page 2
The TM summarizes effluent data and shows there is a reasonable potential to meet effluent
limits for zinc in the HNP Outfall 006 discharge. For copper, the WER study supports a final
WER(EWER)for dissolved copper of 5.0. The data also indicates that there is a reasonable
potential to meet copper criteria at Outfall 006 discharge using recalculated permit limits based
on the actual effluent hardness and the dissolved fWER value.
Duke Energy will be contacting Ms. Julie Grzyb, of your NPDES permitting staff, to set up a
meeting to discuss the effluent characterization results and WER study.
If you have any questions regarding this matter or wish to discuss in further detail, please do
not hesitate to contact Mr. Bob Wilson, HNP Site Environmental Professional, at(919) 362-
2444.
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.
Sincerely,
C:14141/1L"
/74(7.f,
Tanya M. Hamilton
Enclosure: Technical Memorandum — NC0039586 Compliance Update
Water Effect Ratio (WER) Study—Copper Report
Reasonable Potential Analysis— Spreadsheet Calculations
cc: Ms. Julie Grzyb, Supervisor, NPDES Complex Permitting Supervisor,
Certified Mail Number: 7006 0100 0006 4208 4750
Mr. Rick Bolich, Interim Water Resources Regional Supervisor,
NC DEQ DWR Raleigh Regional Office
Certified Mail Number: 7006 0100 0006 4208 4767
Ms. Cyndi Karoly, Chief, Water Sciences Section, NC DEQ DWR
Certified Mail Number: 7006 0100 0006 4208 4743
NC DEQ DWR Central Files
Certified Mail Number: 7014 2102 0003 3197 7087

Division of Water Resources
Serial: RA-19-0161 /page 2
bcc: Della Allen
Jim Eayres
Kyle Kelly
Don Safrit
John Williamson
Bob Wilson
Darlene Wallace
Nuclear Records

Division of Water Resources
Serial: RA-19-0161
Enclosure
Harris Nuclear Plant and Harris Energy and Environmental Center
NPDES Permit Number NC0039586
Technical Memorandum —NC0039586 Compliance Update
(124 pages plus cover)

JI%COBS Technical Memorandum
14120 Ballantyne Corporate Place
Suite 200
Charlotte, North Carolina 28277
+1.704.544.4040
+1.704.544.4041
www.jacobs.com
Subject Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant-Permit NC0039586 :..• "'C •.,,
Copper and Zinc Evaluation ;
Date March 18,2019 t1:1.;�OFE89/04 .•�!•'9
Prepared for Duke Energy
L
Prepared by Bill Kreutzberger—Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. (Jacobs) Ili 7925 11
Muriel Steele,PhD, PE—Jacobs
Project Name Shearon Hams Nuclear Plant NPDES Permit Assistance '•.
'••F�GINEE ' �4
Project No. 680115 R . •
. .. 3 I?C11
Executive Summary
Additional characterization of the effluent for Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant's (HNP)Outfall 006 for
hardness, copper and zinc were conducted as described in the Corrective Action Plan (CAP)and Year 2
Reports submitted to the Division of Water Resources (DWR)on or before the NPDES permit anniversary
date in September 2017 and 2018, respectively. The purpose of this technical memorandum (TM) is to
summarize the sampling results and progress towards achieving compliance.
Hardness data indicated that applicable metals criteria should be calculated based on a hardness of
about 43.8 milligrams per liter(mg/L) as calcium carbonate (CaCO3). Zinc data collected after elimination
of a zinc-based corrosion control inhibitor indicated there is no longer a reasonable potential to exceed
either the zinc limits in the NPDES permit or higher limits based on the effluent hardness. Copper data
indicated that levels still exceeded limits calculated using the effluent hardness of 43.8 mg/L.
A Water Effect Ratio (WER) study was conducted as laid out in the reports submitted to DWR.A final
dissolved WER of 5.0 was determined based on these studies. There is no reasonable potential to
exceed permit limits based on copper criteria adjusted based on effluent hardness and the final WER.
1. Background
The NPDES Permit for the HNP, effective September 1, 2016, includes limits for total recoverable copper
and total recoverable zinc from Outfall 006 (Table 1). These limits were based on the North Carolina
water quality standards regulations (15A NCAC 2B .0211(c))that included the equations to calculate
acute and chronic criteria based on hardness and a WER.
For the HNP permit, the dissolved copper and
Table 1. Copper&Zinc limits on HNP Outfall 006 zinc criteria that were calculated using default
Metal Monthly Average Daily Maximum hardness concentration of 25 milligrams per liter
(mg/L)as calcium carbonate (CaCO3)and default
Total Copper 7.9 pg/L 10.5 pg/L WER of 1 due to a lack of historical data available
for Outfall 006 discharges when the permit was
Total Zinc 126 Ng/L 126 Ng/L developed. The dissolved criteria were translated

JI COBS® Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant-Permit NC0039586
Copper and Zinc Evaluation
to total recoverable permit limits using approved EPA procedures and were also applied to the Outfall 006
discharge with no credit for dilution (meeting limits in 100%effluent).
A CAP was developed and submitted to DWR August 31, 2017 in accordance with the schedule of
compliance laid out in the permit. The CAP included effluent characterization for hardness, copper, and
zinc that began in April 2017 and is ongoing, as well as a recommendation to complete a WER study. A
Year 2 report was submitted to DWR on August 31, 2018 that included preliminary results. The WER
study was completed ETT Environmental, Inc. in Greenville, South Carolina in 2018; the report from ETT
is included as Attachment 1 and is summarized in this TM.
2. Effluent Characterization
Starting in April 2017, composite samples were collected from Outfall 006 weekly for three months and
has continued twice per month through the present; samples are analyzed for hardness (by calculation
method)and total recoverable zinc and copper. Raw water samples were also collected from the intake at
HNP and analyzed according to the same timeline as Outfall 006 in order to distinguish impacts of influent
characteristics on the effluent(raw water data is not presented in this TM).
The average and median hardness of Outfall 006 samples (n=48 for April 2017 through January 2019)
are 43.8 and 44.0 mg/L as CaCO3, respectively(Figure 1). Values are consistently within the range of 35
to 60 mg/L as CaCO3; the only exception to this range is during a scheduled shutdown of HNP during
April and May of 2018 when the hardness in the effluent fell to the 20 to 30 mg/L as CaCO3 range.
• 006 Effluent —006 Effluent Average(43.8 mg/L)
70
e60 • $ • •® •®
50 A •• •®®•a • •®•® •• ® • •
40 • •
IP 0000 •
on
E 30
u3 20 ®•
10
ro
= 0
S, � , 1 1, '1< sty 6, c - 1 c'
1‹).o 1j�� 1-) 16�� 1i11/� 6‹)e) >'- �'/�O 1'',<�0 1d,/� Oi�/� �idk)o ��)01
01, 8 15 1c 1d, 01� .9
Figure 1. Outfall 006 Effluent Hardness in mglL as CaCO3
Sampling values during characterization (April 2017 to January 2019)
Notes: HNP experienced a scheduled shutdown during April/May 2018 resulting in lower than normal hardness
2.1 Zinc Limits
The results of the hardness evaluation from the effluent characterization were used to calculate water
quality criteria (WQC)for dissolved zinc(Equations 1 and 2). The default US EPA translator for zinc
(0.288)was then used to determine the corresponding total recoverable zinc limit for Outfall 006 (Table
2), similar to how DWR calculated the
permit limit for the NPDES permit. Zinc
results from the effluent characterization Zinc,Acute = WER x 0.978 X e°8473(ln hardness)+0.884
efforts, as well as NPDES-required Zinc,Chronic = WER x 0.986 X eo.a473(In hardness)+0.884
monitoring, were compared against the zinc
limits in HNP's permit as well as the Equations 1 and 2
calculated limit based on site-specific --ariness-tlecererr Neter 7uaiity standards dalculaticr*"or z:nc
hardness (Figure 2).
'cr'r �d-

Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant-Permit NC0039586
Copper and Zinc Evaluation
JACOBS
Table 2. Calculated Zinc Limits
Calculated acute and chronic dissolved zinc WQC and corresponding total recoverable zinc effluent limits
at the default and site-specific hardness concentrations
Default hardness HNP Outfall 006 Average Hardness
(25 mg/L as CaCO3) (43.8 mg/L as CaCO3)
Water Quality Criterion for Acute 36.2 µg/L 58.2 µg/L
Dissolved Zinc Chronic 36.5 µg/L 58.7 µg/L
Calculated Effluent Limit for Acute 126 µg/L 202 µg/L
Total Recoverable Zinc Chronic 126 µg/L 203 µg/L
Limit(at default 25 mg/L hardness) Limit(at 43.8 mg/L hardness) • 006 Effluent
250
200
150
c 100 • •
IV • •
50 • • •
•®••. • "SIP • .� '/0• as tA� • ®sass •
Si i `9i 11 1i �'i i 6i ci 10 1�
�Ol �O ���0 1 �O /11�� 6/01 �/ 7 ��i�0 ����0 1���0 �1 �O iv.)
1, 1> 1> 01, 8 8 1cP 1d, dd O� lc 9
Figure 2. Outfall 006 Effluent Total Recoverable Zinc, in pg/L
9
Sampling values during characterization (April 2017 to January 2019)
Notes:Calculated zinc limits at default and site-specific hardness concentrations are shown;acute and chronic limits for zinc are
effectively equal,thus only the greater limit is shown
2.2 Copper Limits
Similarly, hardness results from the effluent characterization were used to calculate WQC for dissolved
copper(Equations 3 and 4)and the default US EPA translator for copper(0.348)was then used to
determine the corresponding total
recoverable copper limit for Outfall 006
(Table 3). Copper results from the effluent Copper,Acute = WER x 0.960 x eo.9422(In Hardness)-1.700
characterization efforts, as well as NPDES- Copper,Chronic= WER x 0.960 x e0.8545(I❑hardness)-1.7o2
required monitoring, were compared
against the copper limits in HNP's permit as Equations 3 and 4
well as the calculated limit based on site- -caress- eperaert Nater _cur/ starcaras calculation or copper
specific hardness (Figure 3).
Table 3. Calculated Copper Limits
Calculated acute and chronic dissolved copper WQC and corresponding total recoverable copper effluent
limits at the default and site-specific hardness concentrations
Default Hardness HNP Outfall 006 Average Hardness
(25 mg/L as CaCO3) (43.8 mg/L as CaCO3)
Water Quality Criterion for Acute 3.6 µg/L 6.2 µg/L
Dissolved Copper Chronic 2.7 µg/L 4.4 µg/L

JACOBS Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant-Permit NC0039586
Copper and Zinc Evaluation
Table 3. Calculated Copper Limits
Calculated acute and chronic dissolved copper WQC and corresponding total recoverable copper effluent
limits at the default and site-specific hardness concentrations
Default Hardness HNP Outfall 006 Average Hardness
(25 mg/L as CaCO3) (43.8 mg/L as CaCO3)
Calculated Effluent Limit for Acute 10.5 µg/L 17.8 µg/L
Total Recoverable Copper Chronic 7.9 µg/L 12.8 µg/L
Daily Max Limit(at default 25 mg/L hardness) -----Limit,Ac.(at 43.8 mg/L hardness) • 006 Effluent-Daily Value
50
45 •
•
40 • •
J 35
30 • • •
a 25 •• • • • % • •
n 20
015 --- lb
10 — --•— i�-----3 • �IR=-•
•
0
Si i `9i 1,j 1i `??, i 6i �i 10 1�
v}?1. ,�0 j�0 1 2 �1/ 6,01 st:)0 ��j�0 ,�0 1dj<04
<10/� <2‹, �01
1> 1j dj 01, d' 8 .4 .4 1� 01� 1� 9
Figure 3. Outfall 006 effluent total recoverable copper daily maximum, in pg/L
Sampling values during characterization (April 2017 to January 2019), compared to effluent limits as
written and adjusted for site-specific hardness
Monthly Ave Limit(at default 25 mg/L hardness) -----Limit,Chr.(at 43.8 mg/L hardness) • 006 Effluent-Monthly Ave
35
30 • • •
25 •
•
• •
20 • • •
•
u 15 • • • ® • -
10 • •
• • •
5
0
9di 470 G4 ✓G� �, stOO c` �G O(c ✓d7 06 470 p^ 470 'G,) '0/ •t, S�Ob for 20� c ✓d�
10;)0 j0;0�10 �0 �01,1010;p1 �01�0. .16,�0�icp °��0 �p1�0cp 4101�0 �p19
Figure 4. Outfall 006 effluent total recoverable copper monthly averages, in pg/L,
Sampling values during characterization (April 2017 to January 2019), compared to effluent limits as
written and adjusted for site-specific hardness

Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant-Permit NC0039586 JACOBS
Copper and Zinc Evaluation
3. Metals Compliance at Outfall 006
3.1 Zinc
Results from the effluent characterization showed no values greater than the monthly average or daily
maximum limits for total zinc(Figure 2), thus demonstrating compliance. Reasonable potential analysis
was performed using the results of the characterization (see Attachment 2), including hardness and zinc
calculations, and concluded that there is no reasonable potential to exceed the limits as included in the
current NPDES permit or as calculated using the monitoring data for hardness.
3.2 Copper
Results from the effluent characterization for copper, on the other hand, showed non-compliance in most
cases with respect to both monthly average and daily maximum limits (Figures 3 and 4) as included in the
current NPDES permit and as calculated using the monitoring data for hardness. A WER study was
proposed to determine applicable dissolved copper criteria and corresponding total recoverable copper
limits.
WER Study
A WER study was completed in 2018 from July through September with three rounds using a primary
species (Ceriodaphnia dubia)and a fourth round using a secondary species (Pimephales promelas)for
both total recoverable and dissolved copper according to the US EPA's Interim Guidance on
Determination and Use of Water Effect Ratios for Metals. The report for this study is included as
Attachment 1. Because the North Carolina Water Quality Standard for copper is based on dissolved
copper, the final WER for dissolved copper(fWER =4.9996)was applied when calculating WQC and
effluent limits. Additionally, the fWER for total recoverable copper(5.9789)was found to be higher than
the dissolved fWER so use of the dissolved fWER is appropriately conservative.
Again, results of the hardness
Table 4. Calculated Copper Limits Adjusted for WER evaluation from the effluent
Calculated acute and chronic dissolved copper WQC and characterization were used to
corresponding total recoverable copper effluent limits at the calculate WQC for dissolved copper
default and site-specific hardness concentrations and the default US EPA translator for
HNP Outfall 006 copper was used to determine the
Hardness=43 8 mg/L as CaCO, corresponding total recoverable zinc
WER=5.0 limit for Outfall 006, this time including
Water Quality Criterion for
Acute 30.9 pg/L the determined WER(Table 4).
Dissolved Copper Chronic 22.1 µg/L Results from the effluent
characterization showed no values
Calculated Effluent Limit for Acute 88.8 µ9/L greater than the calculated acute and
Total Recoverable Copper Chronic 63.6 µg/L chronic effluent limits for total copper
(Figures 5 and 6) based on effluent
hardness and WER. Reasonable potential analysis was performed using the results of the
characterization and WER study(see Attachment 2)and concluded that there is no reasonable potential
to exceed the limits with adjustments based on hardness and WER.
4. Conclusions
Analysis showed that there is no reasonable potential to exceed zinc WQC based on recent effluent data
(since substitution of a zinc-based anti-corrosion inhibitor), therefore it is appropriate to remove the
numerical zinc limits from HNP's NPDES permit and instead add a monitor and report requirement.
A revised total recoverable copper limit was determined according to US EPA guidance using effluent
hardness data and a WER, and analysis showed that there is no reasonable potential to exceed these
limits. Therefore, the revised limits on copper should be adopted into HNP's NPDES permit or removed in
lieu of a monitor and report requirement.

JACOBS' Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant-Permit NC0039586
Copper and Zinc Evaluation
-----Limit,Ac.(at 43.8 mg/L hardness and WER=5.0) • 006 Effluent-Daily Value
100
80
J
cin 60
•
Cr) 40 • • •
• •
•
0
S> • 8i 10 1, 1i
1> 1, j l8 �1� 01� 01� �o, �1� j9
Figure 5. Outfall 006 Effluent Total Recoverable Copper—Daily Maximum
Sampling values during characterization (April 2017 to January 2019), compared to effluent limits
adjusted for site-specific hardness and WER
-----Limit,Chr.(at 43.8 mg/L hardness and WER=5.0) • 006 Effluent-Monthly Ave
100
80
J
to 60
L
a 40
a- • •
u 20 • • • • • • • •• ® ® • • • •
• • • •
0
10 tea`•/<, % ao,roo Oar Zoe 0 �o , tea,-yo tea`mac, %s j, °c 20�0 �d�
Oj,1) 1>�01�01 01,�p1,01 349 N" 1,p��01�101��1cQ01 �01 v}) IB 1 b1 19
Figure 6. Outfall 006 Effluent Total Recoverable Copper—Monthly Average
Sampling values during characterization (April 2017 to January 2019), compared to effluent limits
adjusted for site-specific hardness and WER

Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant-Permit NC0039586 JACOBS
Copper and Zinc Evaluation
Attachment 1
Water Effect Ratio Study, Copper— Report
ETT Environmental, Inc.— December 2018
• CH2NI HILL North Caroiina. Inc

Elron'iJinc. [phone] . FAX[phone]
P.O. Box 16414,Greenville, SC 29606 4 Craftsman Court,Greer,SC 29650
WATER EFFECT RATIO STUDY
Duke Energy: Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant
NPDES Permit # NC0039586
Metal: Copper
Issued: December 2018
Test Reviewed and Approved By:
Robert W.Kelley,Ph.D.:QA/QC Farhad Rostampour: Lab Manager
n e l a C FL Certification#E87819 SCDHEC Certification#23104
Test results presented in this report conform to all
requirements of NELAC,conducted under NELAC
Certification#E87819 Florida Dept.of Health. NC DENR Certification#022
Included results pertain only to provided samples.
Page 1 of 110

1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Duke Energy Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant (SHNPP) discharges effluent to Harris Lake in
Wake County,North Carolina. ETT Environmental has been retained to conduct a Water Effect Ratio for
the facility to determine if permitted copper limits for the effluent discharge are unnecessarily
overprotective of aquatic life. This is to be accomplished through the calculation of a water effect ratio
(WER), comparing the acute effects of copper upon surrogate aquatic test organisms (the water flea
Ceriodaphnia dubia and the Fathead Minnow Pimephales promelas)living in laboratory dilution
water to the acute effects of copper to the same test species in simulated downstream receiving water.
The SHNPP discharges effluent to Harris Lake under NPDES permit#NC 0039586.
At sites with very low metal limits, a permittee may conduct a site-specific study to determine if the
permit limit for copper should be modified to account for the unique characteristics of the receiving
stream. This is done by determining a Water Effect Ratio(WER),which is multiplied against the state
water quality criterion to calculate a site-specific criterion. Methodology for determining a WER is
provided in the Interim Guidance on Determination and Use of Water-Effect Ratios for Metals (EPA-823-
B-94-001).
This report presents the results of three rounds of WER primary test determinations using acute tests with
the invertebrate Ceriodaphnia dubia and a single round of WER secondary test determinations using
acute tests with the vertebrate Pimephales promelas (Fathead Minnow). Using the Interim Guidance, a
Final WER is determined and the site specific criterion is calculated.
Duke Harris WER Study-Cu ETT Environmental,Inc.; 12/18
Page 2 of 1.10

2.0 METHODS
2.1 Overview
As delineated in the EPA Interim Guidance, a minimum of three rounds of side-by-side tests with the
primary test organism (Ceriodaphnia dubia)are required. Each round includes a 48 Hour acute definitive
test in which copper is spiked into laboratory dilution water(DMW: Diluted Mineral Water)alongside a
test where copper is spiked into simulated downstream water. A 48 Hour LC50 is calculated for each test,
and a WER is determined based upon the ratio of the LC50 in simulated downstream water divided by the
LC50 in laboratory dilution water. A final WER (EWER) is determined based upon all three individual
WER values. A WER is also determined for a secondary species, which in this case is the Fathead
Minnow - Pimephales promelas. Acute definitive tests (48 Hour) with the secondary species also are
conducted as acute tests,with the endpoint being an LCso•
2.2 Simulated Downstream Water
Simulated downstream water was prepared using 100% effluent.
2.3 Measured Concentrations
All calculations were based upon measured concentrations of copper in the laboratory water and
downstream water. In acute tests with Ceriodaphnia dubia and Pimephales promelas measured
concentrations of total copper were conducted for each test concentration at test initiation and at test
termination. Dissolved copper also was measured at test initiation and test termination.
2.4 Laboratory Water
Due to the relatively low hardness of the receiving stream and effluent, 13% DMW(diluted mineral water
at—50 mg/L hardness)was used as the laboratory water into which copper was spiked. Using dilution water
with a hardness of 50 mg/L minimizes the hardness adjustment required to normalize the LC50 results to
the site hardness.
Duke Harris WER Study-Cu ETT Environmental,Inc.; 12/18
Page 3 of 110

2.5 Determination of Final Water Effect Ratio
Type I WERslmost accurately simulate design-flow conditions, so these values are used directly in
determination of the fWER.
Type II WERs are not representative of the design flow conditions, but can be used in two ways. First, a
Type II WER can be considered a conservative estimate of the WER at design flow conditions, since the
WER will typically be lower for higher stream flows. Type II WERs are also used to calculate the highest
WER (hWER) that would provide adequate protection under design flow conditions. The hWER
incorporates the highest concentration of metal in the effluent (HCME) which will not cause the site
specific criterion to be exceeded downstream. The HCME is then used to predict the hWER at design
flow conditions. The HCME is calculated as follows;
HCME= [CCC x WER x(eFLOW+uFLOW)] - uCONC uFLOW
eFLOW
where; CCC= criterion continuous concentration
WER= the Type II WER which is experimentally determined
eFLOW= effluent flow at time of sampling
uFLOW= upstream flow at time of sampling
uCONC= copper concentration upstream at time of sampling
The hWER is calculated as follows;
hWER= (HCME) x (eFLOWdf) + (uCONCdf) x (uFLOWdf)
(CCC)x(eFLOWdf+uFLOWdf)
where df indicates the value under design flow conditions.
In this study all three of the primary WERs were Type I WERs. According to the Interim Guidance,
when all WERs are Type I, the final water effect ratio (fWER) is the lowest Type I WER or the lowest
hWER. Method 1 (determining WERs for areas in or near plumes),was used. The WERs were defined as
Type 1 because the SHNPP effluent NPDES permit limitation for copper assumes and instream wastewater
concentration of 100%.
IA Type I WER is defined as a WER conducted when flow is<2 times the effluent design flow+7Q10 upstream flow(low
flow)and a Type II WER is defined as a WER conducted when flow is 2-10 times the same value.
Duke Harris WER Study-Cu ETT Environmental,Inc.; 12/18
Page 4 of 110

3.0 RESULTS
3.1 Determination of Type 1 vs. Type 2 Conditions
In as much as all tests were conducted using 100%effluent,all tests were Type I tests.
3.2 Water Effect Ratios for Each Round of Tests
The experimentally derived (hardness adjusted) WERs for total recoverable copper for acute
testing with Ceriodaphnia dubia are summarized as follows;
Total Cu Dis.Cu
Date Species WER WER
Round 1. 7/12/18 primary 5.9789 4.9996
Round 2 8/15/18 primary 10.8966 10.3127
Round 3 9/26/18 primary 8.2006 7.4639
Round 4 9/27/18 secondary 2.6644 2.8330
Because the WER for the secondary test was within a factor of five of the values in the primary
test,the secondary test is considered to confirm the primary test results.
3.3 Calculation of Highest Concentration of Metal in Effluent(HCME)Values
Calculations of HCME values are provided in Tables 1 and 2. HCME (total recoverable) values
ranged from a low value of 32.625 ug/L in Round 1 to a high value of 61.269 µg/L in Round 2.
Duke Harris WER Study-Cu ETT Environmental,Inc.; 12/18
Page 5 of 110

3.4 Calculation of hWER Values
The experimentally derived (hardness adjusted) hWERs for total recoverable copper for acute
testing with Ceriodaphnia dubia are summarized as follows;
Total Cu Dis.Cu
Date Species hWER hWER
Round 1. 7/12/18 primary 5.9789 4.9996
Round 2 8/15/18 primary 10.8966 10.3127
Round 3 9/26/18 primary 8.2006 7.4639
Round 4 9/27/18 secondary 2.6644 2.8330
3.5 Calculation of Final Water Effect Ratio(fWER)
As noted above,the Interim Guidance requires that the fWER be calculated as the lowest of a)the
the lowest Type 1 WER or b) the lowest hWER. Calculations of the geometric means of the
WERs were not needed.The results are summarized as follows;
Lowest
Type 1 WER Lowest hWER fWER
Total Rec.Cu 5.9789 5.9789 5.9789
Dissolved Cu 4.9996 4.9996 4.9996
The WER values for acute tests with fathead minnows were not used in the calculations.According
to the EPA Interim Guidance the secondary species WER(fathead minnow)is not incorporated in
the fWER calculations but is used only to confirm the magnitude of the primary species WERs.
Duke Harris WER Study-Cu ETT Environmental, Inc.; 12/18
Page 6 of 110

3.6 Calculation of Site Specific Continuous Concentration Criterion for Copper(CCC)
The continuous concentration criterion(ccc)limit(average limit)for the proposed NPDES permit
for the SHNPP effluent should be adjusted using the EWER as follows;
Site Specific CCC = [(ccc)x(fWER)x(downstream flow)] -(upstr. Cu conc x upstr.flow)
(Effluent flow)
[5.4564A x 5.9789B x 7.9 mgd]—(0.0cx 0.0)
(7.9 mgd)
A:recalculated CCC(ug/L)at site hardness(average for the 3 rounds)
B:lowest WER
C:assigned upstream copper concentration
=32.6 µg/L (using Total Recoverable Copper fVVER)
[5.4564A x 4.9996B x 7.9 mgd]c(0.0 x 0.0)
(7.9 mgd)
t
A:recalculated CCC(ug/L)at site hardness(average for the 3 rounds)
B:lowest WER
C:assigned upstream copper concentration
=27.3 µg/L(using Dissolved Copper fWER)
The CCC is calculated as 0.960 x[e^{0.8545(In ay.site hardness)-1.702}]
Duke Harris WER Study-Cu ETT Environmental,Inc.; 12/18
Page 7 of 110

3.7 Calculation of Site Specific Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) for Copper
The criterion maximum concentration (cmc) limit (maximum limit) for the proposed NPDES
permit for the SHNPP effluent should be adjusted using the fWER as follows;
Site Specific CMC =[(cmc)x(fWER)x(downstream flow)] -(upstr.Cu conc x upstr.flow)
(Effluent flow)
[7.7822A x 5.9789B x 7.9 mgd] —(0.0c x 0.0)
(7.9 mgd)
A:recalculated CMCI(ug/L)at site hardness(average for the 3 rounds)
B:lowest WER
C:assigned upstream copper concentration
=46.5 µg/L (using Total Recoverable Copper fWER)
[7.7822A x 4.9996B x 7.9 mgd] (0.0 x 0.0)
(7.9 mgd)
A:recalculated CMC at site hardness
B:lowest WER
C:assigned upstream copper concentration
=38.9 µg/L (using Dissolved Copper fWER)
The CMC is calculated as 0.960 x[e^(0.9422(ln ay.site hardness)-1.700}]
Duke Harris WER Study-Cu ETT Environmental,Inc.; 12/18
Page 8 of 110

TABLE 1.
DERIVATION OF TOTAL COPPER fWERS WITH HARDNESS ADJUSTMENT(Using Acute Tests)
Facility: Harris Nuclear T-Cu
nCMC= e(0.9422[In(hardness)]-1.700)x 0.96
nCCC= e(0.8545[In(hardness)]-1.702)x 0.96 Upstream Design Flow: 0 mgd 0.00%
adj EC50= e(0.9422[In(site water hard-In(lab water hard)]) Effluent Design Flow: 7.9 mgd 100.00%
Design hardness Upstream Design Conc.. 0 ppb
Streamlined Interim
WER Lab Water Site Water SMAV Hard.Adj. CMC @ CCC @ Upstream Effluent Upstream Effluent
WER# Type Hardness LC50 Adj LC50 Hardness EC50 Adj EC50 WER WER site hard site hard Flow(mgd) Flow(mgd) Hardness Hardness HCME hWER ,
1:7/12/18 Design flow 50.0000 23.2080 25.8233__ 56.0000 154.3950 NA 11.1091 5.9789 7.7824 5.4567 0.0000 7.9000 0.0000 56.0000 32.6250 5.9789
2:8/15/18 Design flow 50.0000 10.2360 11.7723 58.0000 128.2780 NA 8.9297 10.8966 8.0440 5.6228 0.0000 7.9000 0.0000 58.0000 61.2690 10.8966
3:9/26/18 Design flow 50.0000 20.3580 21.8891 54.0000 179.5040 NA 13.3660 8.2006 7.5202 5.2897_ 0.0000 7.9000 0.0000 54.0000 43.3790 8.2006
average average
Lowest Type I WER 5.978914 7.7822 5.4564
Limits per Interim Guidance
EWER 5.9789
nCCC= 5.4564
IWC= 1.0000
CCC Eff Criterion= 32.6233
EWER 5.9789
nCMC= 7.7822
IWC= 1.0000
CMC Eff Criterion= 46.5292
Page 9 of 110

TABLE 2.
DERIVATION OF DISSOLVED COPPER fWERS WITH HARDNESS ADJUSTMENT(Using Acute Tests)
Facility: Harris Nuclear Dis-Cu
nCMC= e(0.9422[In(hardness)]-1.700)x 0.96
nCCC= e(0.8545[In(hardness)]-1.702)x 0.96 Upstream Design Flow: 0 mgd 0.00%
adj EC50= e(0.9422[In(site water hard-In(lab water hard)]) Effluent Design Flow: 7,9 mgd 100.00%
Design hardness Upstream Design Conc.: 0 ppb
Streamlined Interim
WER Lab Water Site Water SMAV Hard.Adj. CMC @ CCC @ Upstream Effluent Upstream Effluent
WER# Type Hardness LC50 Adj LC50 Hardness EC50 Adj EC50 WER WER site hard site hard Flow(mgd) Flow(mgd) Hardness Hardness HCME hWER
1:7/12/18 Design flow 50.0000 21.1090 23.4877 56.0000 117.4290 NA 8.4493 4.9996 7.7824 5.4567 0.0000 7.9000 0.0000 56.0000 27.2812 4.9996
2:8/15/18 Design flow 50.0000 9.4020 10.8132 58.0000 111.5130 NA 7.7627 10.3127 8.0440 5.6228 0.0000_ 7.9000 0.0000 58.0000 57.9861 10.3127
3:9/26/18 Design flow 50.0000 19.7480 21.2332 54.0000 158.4830 NA _ 11.8008 7.4639 7.5202 5.2897 0.0000 7.9000 0.0000 54.0000 39.4821_ 7.4639
average average
Lowest Type I WER 4.9996 7.7822 5.4564
Limits per Interim Guidance
tWER 4.9996
nCCC= 5.4564
IWC= 1.0000
CCC Eff Criterion= 27.2797
fWER 4.9996
nCMC= 7.7822
IWC= 1.0000
CMC Eff Criterion= 38.9079
•
F • 1 f i

ETT
environmental,Inc. [phone] . FAX[phone]
P.O. Box 16414, Greenville. SC 29606 Craftsman Court, Greer, SC 29650
APPENDIX A
WATER EFFECT RATIO STUDY (Interim Guidance)
Duke Energy Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant
Primary Species - Round 1
Metal: Copper
July 2018
Duke Harris-WER 1 Cu ETT Environmental;07/18
Page 11 of 110

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
2.0 METHODS
2.1 Experimental Design
2.2 Laboratory Dilution Water
2.3 Upstream and Effluent Sample Collection
2.4 Chemical Analyses
2.5 Preparation of Test Solutions
2.6 Test Organisms
3.0 RESULTS
3.1 Laboratory Water
3.2 Simulated Downstream Water
3.3 Upstream Waters
4.0 CALCULATION OF WATER EFFECT RATIO
5.0 DISCUSSION
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix Al. Reference Toxicant Quality Control Chart for Ceriodaphnia dubia
Appendix A2. Survival Data for Acute Definitive Tests
Appendix A3. Measured Concentrations of Total Recoverable Copper in Test Solutions
Appendix A4. Water Chemistry Measurements for Acute Definitive Tests
Appendix A5. Chain of Custody Records
Appendix A6. Statistical Analysis Results
Duke Harris-WER 1 Cu ETT Environmental;07/18
Page 12 of 110

1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Duke Energy Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant (SHNPP) discharges effluent into Harris Lake
under NPDES Permit NC0039586. In cooperation with Jacobs Engineering, ETT Environmental has been
retained to conduct a "site specific study" to determine if permitted copper limits for each effluent
discharge are unnecessarily overprotective of aquatic life. This is to be accomplished through the
calculation of a water effect ratio (WER), comparing the acute effects of copper upon the surrogate
aquatic test organism Ceriodaphnia dubia living in laboratory dilution water to the acute effects of copper
to the same test species in simulated downstream receiving water. The study used the methodology
provided in the Streamlined Water-Effect Ratio Procedure for Discharges of Copper (EPA-822-R-01-
005).
On July 10-11, 2018, SHNPP personnel collected a composite effluent water sample. Acute toxicity tests
for the Water Effect Ratio study were initiated on July 12th ,2018.
Laboratory Location: ETT Environmental, Inc.
4 Craftsman Court
Greer, SC 29650
SCDHEC Certification # 23104
Study Director: Robert W. Kelley, Ph.D.
Study Scientist: Amy McMahon
Study Technicians: Jennifer Christian
Jonathon Gillespie
Forrest Jackson
Study Dates: July 12-14,2018
Duke Harris-WER 1 Cu ETT Environmental;07/18
Page 13 of 110

2.0 METHODS
2.1 Experimental Design
The design of the study involved spiking copper into test solutions and assessing the
acute toxicity of the test solutions with 48 Hour Acute Definitive tests using the surrogate
test organism Ceriodaphnia dubia. The two test solutions assessed were 1) laboratory
dilution water, and 2) simulated downstream water at measured conditions on the day of
sampling(100% effluent). Acute toxicity tests were set according to U.S. EPA protocols
(EPA 821-R-02-012 Method 2002),modified according to the following parameters;
Test type: Acute Static
Temperature: 25°C±1
Light: 100 ft.-candles; 16 hr light/8 hr dark
Test Chambers: 30 mL plastic cups
Test Solution Volume: 25 mL
Renewal of Test Solutions: None
Test Organism Age: <24 hr
#Neonates/Cup: 5
#Replicates/Concentration: 4
Feeding Regime: None
Aeration: None
Dilution Factor: 0.7
Test Duration: 48 Hours
Endpoints: Survival
2.2 Laboratory Dilution Water
The laboratory dilution water used in all tests was diluted mineral water(DMW). In this
first round of tests the DMW was prepared at a hardness of 50.0 mg/L. This dilution
water was prepared by adding Perrier water to ultra-pure water to obtain the desired final
hardness. The procedure for the preparation of this water may be found in the EPA
manual Short Term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and
Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms(EPA 821-R-02-013).
* Dilution water during the period of testing was prepared as follows;
Amount Hardness Conductivity Alkalinity pH
20 L 50.0 mg/L 117 µmhos/cm 42.3 mg/L 8.0
Duke Harris-WER 1 Cu ETT Environmental;07/18
Page 14 of 110

2.3 Sample Collection
Sampling Locations
The effluent discharges into Harris Lake. The effluent samples were collected as
composite samples. As received the effluent was measured to have oxidizers (measured
by the DPD method) of 0.90 mg/L. Although the DPD method is used to measure
residual chlorine, in this effluent it is believed that manganate was the oxidizer which
was measured.
All samples were collected in halfgallonplastic jugs and preserved in coolers at 0-6°C.
P Jg
Samples were shipped to ETT by overnight delivery.
2.4 Chemical Analyses
Dissolved oxygen and pH were measured in one surrogate of each test concentration at
the beginning and end of the test.Temperature was monitored in three surrogate test cups
in the incubator daily. Dissolved Oxygen and pH were measured with the use of a Orion
4 Star meter.The meter is calibrated daily.
Alkalinity, hardness, total suspended solids (TSS), total organic carbon (TOC), and
specific conductance were measured on each laboratory water and effluent sample
collected.
Total recoverable copper was measured on each test solution at the beginning and end of
the test. Dissolved copper also was measured for each test concentration at the beginning
and end of the test. Copper analyses were conducted by ETT Environmental of Greer,
SC using Standard Methods 18th Edition Method 3111 B (flame atomic absorption), and
concentrated to achieve a detection limit of 10 ug/L(or lower with concentration).
2.5 Preparation of Test Solutions
2.5.1 Simulated Downstream Water
A simulated downstream sample was prepared using 100%effluent.
Duke Harris-WER 1 Cu ETT Environmental;07/18
Page 15 of 110

2.5.2 Copper Spiking
Copper was spiked as copper sulfate (CuSO4.5H2O) into laboratory water and the
simulated downstream water. Prior to spiking the total recoverable copper in each
effluent sample was measured. Each day a batch of simulated downstream water was
prepared. An 12.72 mg/L stock solution of copper sulfate was prepared by adding 0.05 g
of CuSO4.5H2O to one liter of demineralized water. A microliter syringe was used to add
the correct volumes of the stock solution to each simulated effluent or control
concentration to achieve the desired nominal concentration of copper.
2.6 Test Organisms
The test organism used for this study was the daphnid Ceriodaphnia dubia. Test
organisms were neonates of less than 24 hours in age which were obtained from
individual cultures at ETT Environmental, Inc. These cultures are set weekly with
reproduction of the first three broods tracked for all culture organisms. Only neonates
from broods of eight or larger, produced by culture trays demonstrating less than 10%
mortality and greater than a mean of 15 young per female(3 broods)are used for testing.
Culture sensitivity is monitored through the use of semi-monthly reference toxicant
testing. Voucher specimens from the culture are set aside on a monthly basis and
taxonomically verified by a staff macroinvertebrate taxonomist. Culture organisms are
subject to the same light,temperature,and feeding regimes as used for testing.
Duke Harris-WER 1 Cu ETT Environmental;07/18
Page 16 of 110

3.0 RESULTS
3.1 Laboratory Water
3.1.1 Acute Toxicity Testing Results
The acute definitive test with Ceriodaphnia dubia in laboratory water spiked with copper
showed a 48 Hour LC50 of 23.208 ug/L Total Recoverable Copper and a 48 Hour
LC50 of 21.109 ug/L Dissolved Copper. Due to the pattern of the data! the values were
calculated using the probit method. The survival data at each concentration are
summarized as follows;
Nominal Concentration Mean Measured Conc. 48 Hour
of Total Recoverable Cu of Total Recoverable Cu Mortality
and(Dissolved Cu)
0 ug/L <1.0 ug/L (<1.0) 0%
4.2 ug/L 7.0 ug/L (5.7) 0%
6.0 ug/L 8.2 ug/L (6.8) 0%
8.6 ug/L 11.0 ug/L (7.4) 0%
12.3 ug/L 13.0 ug/L (9.9) 0%
17.5 ug/L 17.1 ug/L(15.7) 5%
25 ug/L 33.0 ug/L (30.0) 100%
35 ug/L 38.5 ug/L (38.5) 100%
Survival data for the test may be found in Appendix A2. Results of measured
concentrations of total recoverable and dissolved copper are provided in Appendix A3.
Statistical analysis results are found in Appendix A6.
3.1.2 Chemical Analyses
The pH in the spiked dilution water test ranged from a minimum of 7.9 to a maximum of
8.0. Dissolved oxygen was generally at the saturation point in all treatments throughout
the test.
The probit method is used when there is only a single concentration with partial mortality.
Duke Harris-WER 1 Cu ETT Environmental;07/18
Page 17 of 1 10

3.2 Simulated Downstream Water
3.2.1 Acute Toxicity Testing Results
The acute definitive test with Ceriodaphnia dubia in downstream water spiked with
copper showed a 48 Hour LC50 of 154.395 ug/L Total Recoverable Copper and a 48
Hour LC50 of 117.429 ug/L of Dissolved Copper. Due to the pattern of the data, the
value was calculated using the Trimmed Spearman Karber method.The survival data at each
concentration are summarized as follows;
Nominal Concentration Mean Measured Conc. 48 Hour
of Total Recoverable Cu of Total Recoverable Cu Mortality
and(Dissolved Cu)
0 ug/L 19.5 ug/L(11.5) 0%
25 ug/L 43.5 ug/L(29) 0%
•
35 ug/L 58 ug/L(43) 0%
50 ug/L 70.5 ug/L(51) 0%
71.4 ug/L 91.5 ug/L(60) 0%
102 ug/L 121 ug/L(85) 20%
143 ug/L 157.5 ug/L(113) 40%
204 ug/L 193 ug/L(166) 95%
Measured concentrations were generally higher than nominal concentrations.A
significant suppression in survival was noted at a nominal concentration of 143 ug/L of
total copper.
Survival data for the test may be found in Appendix A2.Results of measured
concentrations of total recoverable and dissolved copper are provided in Appendix A3.
Statistical analysis results are found in Appendix A6.
1
The Spearman Karber Method is used when there are at least two concentrations with partial mortality.
Duke Harris-WER 1 Cu ETT Environmental;07/18
Page 18 of 110

3.2.2 Chemical Analyses
The pH in the simulated downstream water ranged from a minimum of 7.9 to a maximum
of 8.6. Dissolved oxygen was generally near the saturation point in all treatments
throughout the test.Other water chemistry parameters are summarized as follows;
Parameter Effluent
Total Recoverable Copper(ug/L) 19.5
Dissolved Copper(ug/L) 11.5
Alkalinity(mg/L) 56.3
Conductivity(umhos/cm) 397
Hardness(mg/L) 56.0
Total Organic Carbon(mg/L) 21.1
Total Suspended Solids(mg/L) 23.1
It may be seen that the effluent water was characterized by moderate alkalinity, hardness,
TOC and TSS.
3.3 Upstream Waters
0
applicable when downstream water is defined as 100/o effluent;
Not ,
Parameter Result
Total Recoverable Copper(µg/L) NA
Dissolved Copper(µg/L) NA
Total Organic Carbon(mg/L) NA
Alkalinity(mg/L) NA
Hardness(mg/L) NA
Conductivity(µmhos/cm) NA
Total Suspended Solids(mg/L) NA
Duke Harris-WER 1 Cu ETT Environmental;07/18
Page 19 of 110

4.0 CALCULATION OF WATER EFFECT RATIO
As noted in the results section,acute testing indicated an LC50 of 23.208 ug/L of total recoverable
copper in laboratory dilution water and an LC50 of 154.3950 ug/L of total recoverable copper in
100% SHNPP effluent.The laboratory dilution water LC50 values must be adjusted to
downstream water hardness in order to calculate the Water Effect Ratio,using the EPA formula,
as follows;
LC50 x (downstream hardness/laboratory water hardness)0.9422
T-Cu: 23.208 ug/L x(56/50)0'9422= 25.8233 ug/L
Dis-Cu: 21.109 ug/L x(56/50)0'9422= 23.4877 ug/L
The Water Effect Ratio can thus be calculated as follows;
Water Effect Ratio(WER) = LC50 in Effluent = 154.395 ug/L = 5.9789
(Total Recoverable Copper) LC50 in Lab Water 25.8233 ug/L
Water Effect Ratio(WER) = LCsn in Effluent = 117.429 ug/L = 4.9996
(Dissolved Copper) LC50 in Lab Water 23.4877 ug/L
A final water effect ratio(FWER)will be calculated using the individual WERs from three
rounds of testing.
Duke Harris-WER 1 Cu ETT Environmental;07/18
Page 20 of 110

ROUND 1 -APPENDIX Al
Reference Toxicant Quality Control Chart
Ceriodaphnia dubia
See Round 3 Appendix C l.
Duke Harris-WER 1 Cu ETT Environmental;07/18
Page 21 of 110

ROUND 1 -APPENDIX A2
Survival Data for Acute Definitive Tests
Duke Harris-WER Round 1 Cu ETT Environmental,Inc.;07/18
Page 22 of 110

1 r
Page 60 of ie'
l
Nominal nitial# Mortality MeasuredConcentra!ion WER 48 Hour Acute Toxicity Test N
l�eIC.)\.k"( nnetalcone Rep Organisms 24 hr 48 hr initial Final Mean FF)Cillty L,� f/
l L
A U Talal Taiai ,oral Sample ID: I1G.rYl5 f_.Cttl 1 -_.,`
0% B �) Stalt Date: �'��� C� Time: , J� BY - ` -__
C _ (_, Dis ors on. End Date: Time: By:
D 5 i Effluent Luc! it J .O( � Upstream Log tl.. --,.
JG- TEST ORGANISMS
A 0total 1ou,l total _ --
B S 0 Test Organism. " -'1
7-Pt
\/I C 5 6 Dls DIN Dis for Ceriodaphnia dubia Sorg e�, r_11 " ,`
D _ l I Date Removed; �- 11-(5 1� 5
,l i l T; i17J "r, ._,
A 5 —_ �J Total Total Total Between I ! 1 (Time)and ;,ung
B S 0 for fathead minnows or mysids:
IP C 5 a Dis Dis Dis Source: Ape:
j
D V Temperature 24-26 C. Light 16 hr It/8 hr kd;50-100 ft candles
I
A 5 5 Total Total Total Laboratory Water DMW/SSF @ 50 mcq/L hardness
B 5 O Downstream Water Preparation
,56
C
C 5 0 DIs Dis Dis % effluent volume mL Prep.Date:
D 5 6 % upstream _volume mL Prep.by:
0 A 5 Total Total Total
50 B 5 U Test Solution Preparation: Metal Salt: 0100i
C S. O Dis DIs Dis Date: By: Stock. SoIn:IZ-7Z-013IL
D Nominal Conc mL Stock/� Soln. Volume prepared
l !;;
A O Total Total Total D 5.W rni.—
B 0 I1'5
�J i i
1 `- 1 c 5 0 Dis Dis Dls G 9Q
D 0 5 1 ,3� 1 L
A 5 1 Total Total Total ✓O t
'fl -I
`off B 5 2 -7 �j 1 ,
C 5 d Dis Dls Dis I v v "0 1
D S. d I.1,3 5. 62 -- —
A 5 3 Total Total Total A Total Total Tutal
B 5 I B
I5C 5 1Dis DIs Ds C Dis Ole Dis
D 5 3 D
\ A 5 Total Total Total A Total Total Total
ls€
), n C 5 Dis Dis Dls C DIs Dis Dis
D iii
D i
3St.
Test solution volume:25 mL. Test vessels 1 oz.plastic cups.Transfer volume 0.05 rot_ Test Method: per EPA Interim Guidance
sy Z o U1 \ 8 .N 2.--r4b 51)O M I.
Page 23 of 110 \

e 60 of 1.
Page 61 of 100
` i Nominal Initial# Mortality Measured Concentration WER 48 Hour Acute Toxicity Test
Facility:Cone Organisms 24 hr 48hr nilial Final Mean 12/ \t ilJ Metai:,�
A t) (,) i Sample ID: ( �
l ntnt 7ol°I total
0% B (9 Start Dale: 7-12- i Time: %55O BY
C J 0 ois Da Dis End Dale: Time: By:
-mom-
D ; ? 17fflunnf Loci II: Upstream Log t?:
A IIN I. I lot, TEST ORGANISMS
B Test Organism: 51 .-2G1
II C oa Dir for Ceriodaphnia dubia Source:
Date Removed: —7 I H C 7
-/TIn�2t A i Totoi iotai local metweetl( i t J k I trite)and �. --(}j (Time)
/
OB for fathead minnows or mysids:
C 0Dls ois ois Source: Age:
D 5 0 Temperature 24-26 C. Light 16 hr it/8 hr kd;50-100 ft candles
A O Total Total Total Laboratory Water DMW/SSF @ 50 mg/L hardness 7 S I
B 5 0 Downstream Water Preparation
j. 6 (e C y ois Ols Ors effluent volume mL Prep.Date:
D 5 %0 % upstream volume mL Prep.by:
_ A 6 0 Total Total Total
i3B 5 Test Solution Preparation: Metal Salt: e'.u/' 1
C 0 DIn ois Ds ❑ate: By: Stock.Soln:I2-7Z1110t ii,
D 5. 0 Nominal Conc mL Stock Soln. Volume prepared J
A '5 0 Total Total Total 6 0 ✓7)hn t
(15 �� . ti
C S. 0 Ds Dis GIs (/� .21
D 5 0 a, 6, ,3t�
3 A J Total Total Total I(- J .1
Z. B S 11.5 ,6-1
C 5 s Ols Ds ois 5 . g g
_ D S. .S. :55 I .3�S
Nat A 5 Total Total Total A Total Total Total ,
B 5 -5 B
1s 5 C 5 S Ols Ors Din C Dis Dis Ols
D . s D
tat A Total Total Total A Total Total Total
B B
5 C DIn ois Dls C • DIn Ols Ols
..,.. ' D D
Test solution volume:25 mL. Test vessels 1 oz.plastic cups.Transfer volume 0.05 mL. Test Method: per EPA Interim Guidance
Page 24 of 110

ROUND 1 - APPENDIX A3
Measured Concentrations of Total Recoverable Copper in Test Solutions
Duke Harris-WER Round 1 Cu ETT Environmental,Inc.;07/18
Page 25 of 110

Measured Total Recoverable and Dissolved Copper
Duke Harris Plant-Primary Species Site Specific Study
July 2018
Sample:S iked Dilution Water(Diluted Mill Initial Date:07/12/18
Nominal Measured Total Recoverable Copper(µg/L) %of Measured Dis.Cu(µg/L) %
Total Cu Initial Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7 Mean Nominal Initial Day 2 Mean Dissolved
0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
4.2 6.0 8.0 7.0 167% 8.0 3.3 5.7 81%
6.0 9.3 7.1 8.2 137% 7.7 6.0 6.8 83%
8.6 10.2 11.7 11.0 128% 11.7 3.1 7.4 67%
12.3 15.2 10.8 13.0 106% 15.6 4.2 9.9 76%
17.5 18.2 16.0 17.1 98% 23.0 8.4 15.7 92%
25.0 34.0 32.0 33.0 132% 28.0 32.0 30.0 91% _
35.0 39.0 38.0 38.5 110% 39.0 38.0 38.5 100%
Sample:Simulated Downstream-Duke Harris Initial Date:7/12/18
Nominal Measured Total Recoverable Copper(µg/L) %of Measured Dis.Cu(µg/L)
Total Cu Initial Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7 Mean Nominal Initial Day 2 Mean Dissolved
0.0 19.7 19.2 19.5 8.2 14.8 11.5
25.0 40.0 47.0 43.5 174% 29.0 29.0 29.0 67%
35.0 58.0 58.0 166% 43.0 31.0 43.0 74%
50.0 76.0 65.0 70.5 141% 51.0 34.0 51.0 72%
71.4 94.0 89.0 91.5 128% 60.0 54.0 60.0 66% _
102.0 123.0 119.0 121.0 119% 85.0 67.0 85.0 70%
143.0 156.0 159.0 157.5 110% 113.0 81.0 113.0 72%
204.0 198.0 188.0 193.0 95% 168.0 164.0 166.0 86%
In the DMW test there was some indication of a substantial decrease in dissolved copper in the mid range concentrations at 48 hours,
however,the decrease was not noted in the total copper concentrations and thus the data was deemed acceptable.
Page 26 of 110

ROUND 1 - APPENDIX A4
Water Chemistry Measurements for Acute Definitive Tests
Duke Harris-WER Round 1 Cu ETT Environmental,Inc.;07/18
Page 27 of 110

I k.
;
ACUTE TOXICITY TEST - CH Pf\lISTPY
i I&{lour l�
2 flour Rcad;nps IS flour Rrod� hn1_`__------ fdro
� 11 flour Rradrnf�.t ,----- r,r„ —'\
Initial Old old ^rt
old ultl Of, nr„
Candurir,�u, IlrSsu l��<0.
1,, oax,!.•rd Omolvrd
IPmIm�?ml or Ch:fot.al llry
(7:synivri{ PII Ilrr' Ph
pll lit pH Oryrrn
pH or ',Al,nal (aryrr, ny,iL
E(Il rrcut U�yl•,rr. I -
Lnn[rntuon mr!
�- { !. lVM! illrfg
—
- r11
7
I,I
fill, l
ta,I
II 7 ry-Iv
Dale. I�L
135
��:.- Time I' F7
Initials:
I
i,
II, 72 Hour Readings 72 Hour Readings 9G Hour Readings
If old old ��`' new
old old
IlIl.Ili ' Dissolved Dissolved 1.
I i Dissolved Effluent Oxygen PH Oxygen PH Oxygen PH
i l
Cooeentntioo mg/l mgn mg/I
II
I , I
i
j f
I i f
';I
I j
( Date: —
II,
II' Timc:
I� f
III
Initials:
Ill ,1
I Lab ID#:
I ,
Client ' I Dk
�iJ:j11
I
I
i;Il;
{, C0115 .
,,,,.
u ' Page 28 of 110 '"°}

ROUND I - APPENDIX A5
Chain of Custody Documentation
Duke Harris-WER Round I Cu ETT Environmental,Inc.;07/18
Page 29 of 110

ETrii
CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD _.
J
@E
!����LrakB � -- I
i p .-�i13� 'aoriSTi tr3'itc{l 'Page _J—of__
PO Box 16414,Greenville,SC 29606-7414
[phone], [phone] Fax:[phone]
Shipping Address:4 Craftsman Cl,Greer,SC 29650
W W W.ETTEN V IRONM CNTAL.COM
Client: I.\ Caro. -
t ke--, Conh- eked - buy, CHiM Hill (�1o.t-L � ItpAt Program Containers Preservative Parameters
Facility: ►� tt
Sh �
e�r� �I nS Nuclear- �� 'y�.� Incne Whole rsCltuentToxicity
State: NC NIQ\FOES n: Acute :r0;
TesEOrganisms
tl.Com ositzonly C z
( P ) (Grab or Composite) O m _ V ,_ o = Z z
( - 12 - ^ 1=H2SO4 4 G • = -z .E y. _
Sign,and Print below 5 3 a- m o . 2-HC a ' _ ,:o 4 ? ;2 -
1 the dotted line c E q 0 •2 °, E s-HN NaOH 2 2 2 r, 2 " - E-
8. of u o n 1 0 m 4• „, -. - w o ti c .e .y > 4 o C:7
SAMPLE ID C.' Composite Start Date Time Sample Collection Date Time Collected by U c 01 Z -;e C. 0 > 0 6.Od,er < < U' U U Ci 2 :q = D i- 5 2 Chemical Analysis&Other
uW-4OQIP C "I-:o.-ra oioo 7-n-il 0 5- 41 asa. C{ot $ Zin
5J(3
w
0
O
1
Special Instructions: Qt1-Ler " 5 arr;Ved 0,7 t 18
�e�o� re s ul-}� -b Nl,�.ri�1•S-�ea.l e @ Ja.ec.bs,ccnrl �it3 5 a r ri v e el o(,ke. -al) � t 1 l i 8
( — — ' ctk 12-s0, o.q°C -6D
Sample Custody Transfer Record Secure Receipt Sample
Date Time Relinquished By I Organization Received By/Organization Area Temp`C Preserved?
7-it-N .0%a L n pY,(u,__7C(9,t.( .,, ' I
71+-& ig I1-o UPS &y E-t- - 3I.(
I ►
COMPOSITE SAMPLING PROCEDURES TEMPERATURE MONITORING PROCEDURES HOLD TIME PROCEDURES
Composite samples must be collected over a 24 hour period. Sample temperature during collection and transport must be between For toxicity testing the sample must first be used within 36 hours
Time Proportional: I sample each hour for 24 hours.Equal volts 0.0 and 6.0°C.Samples must not be frozen.Use water ice in sealed bags. of sample collection(completion of composite sample).
or at minimum I sample every 4 hours o+ier 24 hours. Sample may not be used after 72 hours from sample collection.
Flow Pronortional- Asher instructions in NPDFS n{rmit .
I

ROUND 1 -APPENDIX A6
Statistical Analysis Results
Duke Harris-WER Round 1 Cu ETT Environmental,Inc.;07/18
Page 31 of 110

ETT Environmental, Inc.
SPEARMAN KARBER
Test Conc. #dead Out of client: ETT
0.1 0 20 Sample ID: DMW Dis Cu
7.4 0 20 Sample#: WER
9.9 0 20 Test Length: 48 hr acute def.
15.7 1 20 Test Organism: C dubia
30 20 20 Test Date: 7-12-18
38.5 20 20
LC50= 21.109
ucl 22.312
Icl 19.971
A value of>0 must be entered for the control concentration,thus a nominal value of 0.1 is used.This does not impact the
result.
Lower test concentrations with no mortality are not necessary to determine the Spearman Karber LC50 value.
Page 32 of 110

• PROBIT
RAW DATA
Test Percent Number of Log of
Conc. Mortality Organisms Test Conc Probit
0.1 0 20 -1.0000 0.5
51 0 20 1.7076 0.5
60 0 20 1.7782 0.5
85 20 20 1.9294 4,16
113 40 20 2.0531 4.75
166 95 20 2.2201 6.64
1. Enter data in yellow boxes
Test Type: WER
Species: C dubia
Sample ID Harris DisCu LC50 =
Date: 7/12/18 117.429
A value of>0 must be entered for the control concentration,thus a nominal value of 0.1 is used.This does not impact the
result. Lower test concentrations with no mortality are not necessary to determine the Probit LC50 value.
Page 33 of 110

ET
environmenta,Inc. [phone] . FAX[phone]
P.O. Box 16414, Greenville, SC 29606 Craftsman Court, Greer, SC 29650
APPENDIX B
WATER EFFECT RATIO STUDY (Interim Guidance)
Duke Energy Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant
Primary Species - Round 2
Metal: Copper
August 2018
Duke Harris-WER 2 Cu ETT Environmental;08/18
Page 34 of 1 10

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
2.0 METHODS
2.1 Experimental Design
2.2 Laboratory Dilution Water
2.3 Upstream and Effluent Sample Collection
2.4 Chemical Analyses
2.5 Preparation of Test Solutions
2.6 Test Organisms
3.0 RESULTS
1 Laborator
y ry Water
3.2 Simulated Downstream Water
3.3 Upstream Waters
4.0 CALCULATION OF WATER EFFECT RATIO
5.0 DISCUSSION
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix B 1. Reference Toxicant Quality Control Chart for Ceriodaphnia dubia
Appendix B2. Survival Data for Acute Definitive Tests
Appendix B3. Measured Concentrations of Total Recoverable Copper in Test Solutions
Appendix B4. Water Chemistry Measurements for Acute Definitive Tests
Appendix B5. Chain of Custody Records
Appendix B6. Statistical Analysis Results
Duke Harris-WER 2 Cu ETT Environmental;08/18
Page 35 of 110

1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Duke Energy Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant (SHNPP) discharges effluent into Harris Lake
under NPDES Permit NC0039586. In cooperation with Jacobs Engineering, ETT Environmental has been
retained to conduct a "site specific study" to determine if permitted copper limits for each effluent
discharge are unnecessarily overprotective of aquatic life. This is to be accomplished through the
calculation of a water effect ratio (WER), comparing the acute effects of copper upon the surrogate
aquatic test organism Ceriodaphnia dubia living in laboratory dilution water to the acute effects of copper
to the same test species in simulated downstream receiving water. The study used the methodology
provided in the Streamlined Water-Effect Ratio Procedure for Discharges of Copper (EPA-822-R-01-
005).
On August 13-14, 2018, SHNPPpersonnel collected a composite effluent water sample. Acute toxicity
P P
tests for the Water Effect Ratio study were initiated on August 15th,2018.
Laboratory Location: ETT Environmental,Inc.
4 Craftsman Court
Greer,SC 29650
SCDHEC Certification# 23104
Study Director: Robert W.Kelley,Ph.D.
Study Scientist: Amy McMahon
Study Technicians: Jennifer Christian
Jonathon Gillespie
Forrest Jackson
Study Dates: August 15-17,2018
Duke Harris-WER 2 Cu ETT Environmental;08/18
Page 36 of 110

2.0 METHODS
2.1 Experimental Design
The design of the study involved spiking copper into test solutions and assessing the
acute toxicity of the test solutions with 48 Hour Acute Definitive tests using the surrogate
test organism Ceriodaphnia dubia. The two test solutions assessed were 1) laboratory
dilution water, and 2) simulated downstream water at measured conditions on the day of
sampling(100% effluent). Acute toxicity tests were set according to U.S. EPA protocols
(EPA 821-R-02-012 Method 2002),modified according to the following parameters;
Test type: Acute Static
Temperature: 25°C±1
Light: 100 ft.-candles; 16 hr light/8 hr dark
Test Chambers: 30 mL plastic cups
Test Solution Volume: 25 mL
Renewal of Test Solutions: None
Test Organism Age: <24 hr
#Neonates/Cup: 5
#Replicates/Concentration: 4
Feeding Regime: None
Aeration: None
Dilution Factor: 0.7
Test Duration: 48 Hours
Endpoints: Survival
2.2 Laboratory Dilution Water
The laboratory dilution water used in all tests was diluted mineral water (DMW). In this
first round of tests the DMW was prepared at a hardness of 50.0 mg/L. This dilution
water was prepared by adding Perrier water to ultra-pure water to obtain the desired final
hardness. The procedure for the preparation of this water may be found in the EPA
manual Short Term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and
Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms(EPA 821-R-02-013).
* Dilution water during the period of testing was prepared as follows;
Amount Hardness Conductivity Alkalinity pit
20 L 50.0 mg/L 107 µmhos/cm 42.9 mg/L 7.8
Duke Harris-WER 2 Cu ETT Environmental;08/18
Page 37 of 110

2.3 Sample Collection
Sampling Locations
The effluent discharges into Harris Lake. The effluent samples were collected as
composite samples. As received the effluent was measured to have oxidizers (measured
by the DPD method) of 0.20 mg/L. Although the DPD method is used to measure
residual chlorine, in this effluent it is believed that manganate was the oxidizer which
was measured.
All samples were collected in half gallon plastic jugs and preserved in coolers at 0-6°C.
Samples were shipped to ETT by overnight delivery.
2.4 Chemical Analyses
Dissolved oxygen and pH were measured in one surrogate of each test concentration at
the beginning and end of the test.Temperature was monitored in three surrogate test cups
in the incubator daily. Dissolved Oxygen and pH were measured with the use of a Orion
4 Star meter.The meter is calibrated daily.
Alkalinity, hardness, total suspended solids (TSS), total organic carbon (TOC), and
specific conductance were measured on each laboratory water and effluent sample
collected.
Total recoverable copper was measured on each test solution at the beginning and end of
the test. Dissolved copper also was measured for each test concentration at the beginning
and end of the test. Copper analyses were conducted by ETT Environmental of Greer,
SC using Standard Methods 18th Edition Method 3111 B (flame atomic absorption), and
concentrated to achieve a detection limit of 10 ug/L(or lower with concentration).
2.5 Preparation of Test Solutions
2.5.1 Simulated Downstream Water
A simulated downstream sample was prepared using 100%effluent.
Duke Harris-WER 2 Cu ETT Environmental;08/18
Page 38 of 110

2.5.2 Copper Spiking
Copper was spiked as copper sulfate (CuSO4.5H20) into laboratory water and the
simulated downstream water. Prior to spiking the total recoverable copper in each
effluent sample was measured. Each day a batch of simulated downstream water was
prepared. An 12.72 mg/L stock solution of copper sulfate was prepared by adding 0.05 g
of CuSO4.5H20 to one liter of demineralized water. A microliter syringe was used to add
the correct volumes of the stock solution to each simulated effluent or control
concentration to achieve the desired nominal concentration of copper.
2.6 Test Organisms
The test organism used for this study was the daphnid Ceriodaphnia dubia. Test
organisms were neonates of less than 24 hours in age which were obtained from
individual cultures at ETT Environmental, Inc. These cultures are set weekly with
reproduction of the first three broods tracked for all culture organisms. Only neonates
from broods of eight or larger, produced by culture trays demonstrating less than 10%
mortality and greater than a mean of 15 young per female(3 broods) are used for testing.
Culture sensitivity is monitored through the use of semi-monthly reference toxicant
testing. Voucher specimens from the culture are set aside on a monthly basis and
taxonomically verified by a staff macroinvertebrate taxonomist. Culture organisms are
subject to the same light,temperature, and feeding regimes as used for testing.
Duke Harris-WER 2 Cu ETT Environmental;08/18
Page 39 of 1 I

3.0 RESULTS
3.1 Laboratory Water
3.1.1 Acute Toxicity Testing Results
The acute definitive test with Ceriodaphnia dubia in laboratory water spiked with copper
showed a 48 Hour LC50 of 10.236 ug/L Total Recoverable Copper and a 48 Hour LC50
of 9.402 ug/L Dissolved Copper. Due to the pattern of the data! the values were
calculated using the Probit method.The survival data at each concentration are
summarized as follows;
Nominal Concentration Mean Measured Conc. 48 Hour
of Total Recoverable Cu of Total Recoverable Cu Mortality
and(Dissolved Cu)
0 ug/L <1.0 ug/L(<1.0) 0%
4.2 ug/L 5.0 ug/L(5.1) 0%
6.0 ug/L 6.0 ug/L(5.8) 0%
8.6 ug/L 6.3 ug/L(7.3) 45%
12.3 ug/L 14.4 ug/L(11.6) 95%
17.5 ug/L 18.3 ug/L(15.7) 100%
25 ug/L 24.5 ug/L(23.0) 100%
35 ug/L 34.0 ug/L(23.5) 100%
Survival data for the test may be found in Appendix B2.Results of measured
concentrations of total recoverable and dissolved copper are provided in Appendix B3.
Statistical analysis results are found in Appendix B6.
3.1.2 Chemical Analyses
The pH in the spiked dilution water test ranged from a minimum of 7.8 to a maximum of
8.1. Dissolved oxygen was generally at the saturation point in all treatments throughout
the test.
1 The Probit Method is used when there are at least two test concentrations with partial mortality.
Duke Harris-WER 2 Cu ETT Environmental;08/18
Page 40 of 110

3.2 Simulated Downstream Water
3.2.1 Acute Toxicity Testing Results
The acute definitive test with Ceriodaphnia dubia in downstream water spiked with
copper showed a 48 Hour LC50 of 128.278 ug/L Total Recoverable Copper and a 48
Hour LC50 of 111.513 ug/L of Dissolved Copper. Due to the pattern of the data the
value was calculated using the Trimmed Spearman Karber method. The survival data at each
concentration are summarized as follows;
Nominal Concentration Mean Measured Conc. 48 Hour
of Total Recoverable Cu of Total Recoverable Cu Mortality
and(Dissolved Cu)
0 ug/L 29.3 ug/L(22.7) 0%
25 ug/L 50 ug/L(32.5) 0%
35 ug/L 55 ug/L(40) 0%
50 ug/L 67.5 ug/L(64) 5%
71.4 ug/L 87.5 ug/L(77) 20%
102 ug/L 123.5 ug/L(109.5) 45%
143 ug/L 163 ug/L(136.5) 75%
204 ug/L 216.5 ug/L(186) 90%
Measured concentrations were generally higher than nominal concentrations. A
significant suppression in survival was noted at a nominal concentration of 143 ug/L of
total copper.
Survival data for the test may be found in Appendix B2. Results of measured
concentrations of total recoverable and dissolved copper are provided in Appendix B3.
Statistical analysis results are found in Appendix B6.
1 The Probit method is used when there are at least two test concentrations with partial mortality.
Duke Harris-WER 2 Cu ETT Environmental;08/18
Page 41 of 110

3.2.2 Chemical Analyses
The pH in the simulated downstream water ranged from a minimum of 7.9 to a maximum
of 8.6. Dissolved oxygen was generally near the saturation point in all treatments
throughout the test. Other water chemistry parameters are summarized as follows;
Parameter Effluent
Total Recoverable Copper(ug/L) 29.3
Dissolved Copper(ug/L) 22.7
Alkalinity(mg/L) 58.1
Conductivity(umhos/cm) 402
Hardness(mg/L) 58.0
Total Organic Carbon(mg/L) 25.1
Total Suspended Solids(mg/L) 54.4
It may be seen that the effluent water was characterized by moderate alkalinity, hardness,
and TOC and elevated TSS.
3.3 Upstream Waters
Not applicable when downstream concentration is defined as 100%effluent;
Parameter Result
Total Recoverable Copper(µg/L) NA
Dissolved Copper(µg/L) NA
Total Organic Carbon(mg/L) NA
Alkalinity(mg/L) NA
Hardness(mg/L) NA
Conductivity(µmhos/cm) NA
Total Suspended Solids(mg/L) NA
Duke Harris-WER 2 Cu ETT Environmental;08/18
Page 42 of 110

4.0 CALCULATION OF WATER EFFECT RATIO
As noted in the results section,acute testing indicated an LC50 of 9.5500 ug/L of total recoverable
copper in laboratory dilution water and an LC50 of 144.544 ug/L of total recoverable copper in
100% SHNPP effluent.The laboratory dilution water LC50 values must be adjusted to
downstream water hardness in order to calculate the Water Effect Ratio,using the EPA formula,
as follows;
LC50 x (downstream hardness/laboratory water hardness)o.9422
T-Cu: 10.236 ug/L x(58/50)0.9422= 11.7723 ug/L
Dis-Cu: 9.402 ug/L x(58/50) 0.9422= 10.8132 ug/L
The Water Effect Ratio can thus be calculated as follows;
Water Effect Ratio(WER) = LC50 in Effluent = 128.278 ug/L = 10.8966
(Total Recoverable Copper) LC50 in Lab Water 11.7723 ug/L
Water Effect Ratio(WER) = LC50 in Effluent = 111.513 ug/L = 10.3127
(Dissolved Copper) LC50 in Lab Water 10.8132 ug/L
ER will be calculated usingthe individual WERs from three
A final water effect ratio(FWER)
rounds of testing.
Duke Harris-WER 2 Cu ETT Environmental;08/18
Page 43 of 110

ROUND 2 -APPENDIX B1
Reference Toxicant Quality Control Chart
Ceriodaphnia dubia
See Round 3 Appendix Cl
Duke Harris-WER 2 Cu ETT Environmental;08/18
Page 44 of 110

ROUND 2 - APPENDIX B2
Survival Data for Acute Definitive Tests
Duke Harris-WER Round 2 Cu ETT Environmental,Inc.;08/18
1 Page 45 of 1 10

Page 64 of
WER 48 Hour Acute Toxicity Test ,,,
Nominal Initial# MortalityMeasured Concentration
Conc Rep Organisms 24 hr 48 hr Initial Final Mean Facility: 1)(Y1U0 Metal: itt
A 5- 0 Total Total Total Sample ID: it
0% B 5 0 Start Date: $ k5 IS Time: 113co By: AM II
C J 0 Dls ols Dls End Date: j )7 bi Time:J5 Z5 By: ,AIM .
D 5" 0 Effluent Log ##: _Upstream Log#: ill
A Total total rota TEST ORGANISMS I,
Z B 6- 0 Test Organism: A•F 8'101G L 8�i/
.4011
!V
C b 0 Dls Dis DIs for Ceriodaphnia dubia Source: —n g Iq t X8'1'0
D 0 Date Removed; E. N•IY iii
-
r _ r l n t7..1.......n 1-"I n'(l (Time and 7 Z-!7 (Tim
{ B l Q for fathead minnows or mysids: a
III
,. C 6- p , Dls Dls 01s Source: Age: JI
,1)111
t: D £ l l Temperature 24-26 C. Light 16 hr It/8 hr kd;50-100 ft candles i
.; l
I'I!, A 6- 2- Total Total Total Laboratory Water MW/SSF© 50 mg/L hardness
ill B 5 ,�j Downstream Water Preparation `,
Ii Iij C 6- 2 Dls Dls Dls % effluent volume mL Prep.Date:
0D !i % upstream volume mL Prep.by:
ill A �/' 1 Total Total Total
1i ( 1
1 B J 5 Test Solution Preparation: Metal Salt: sb •5f�y0 i
ii 1:irl `�� C s 5- Dls Dls Dls Date: /ItS1lb' By:•�I ` Stock.Solo: 12 :72 L
li i i;
!� Nominal Conc mL Stock Soln. Volume prepared
'I 114, D re 1
l I P' T y.2 .]7 Sid rv,L
I Ac/ ` Total Total Total I �y/
till B J 5 la •2. I
8.� .3Y
C � ,� Dls Ols Dis i
H 1!11 D 4 5 �z.3 . La
1 I b
I � bi 11 ,��
i 41 tl A � Total Total Total
5 ,s ZS .7�
,� ,1I �� B 3p
;I C 5 ,� Ols Dis Dis "] '" (/
D
l u r Total Total Tol
1 A 6 Total Total Total A
itIIii
i) B � D,5- B
y C , Dis Dis Dis C Dls Dis D I) .51 D
w l
A • Total Total Total A Total Total Toi
B B
:j C Dls Dls Dls C Dis Dis DI
q� D
f Test solution volume:25 mL. Test vessels 1 oz.plastic cups.Transfer volume 0.05 mL. Test Method: per EPA Interim Guidance
is
11
`t Page 46 of 110

64 of Iv Page 65 of 100
.nt N�ntinal Initial# Mortality Measured Concentration WER 48 Hour Acute Toxicity Test
0� Rep Organisms 24 hr 48 hr Initial Final Moan Facility: 1 v, N
- �rl'3 Metal:a /
t A A Total Total Tote Sample ID: Q _c Oa ,
------. 0% B ,5 0 Start Date: cf-/5T f J Time: 13 00 By: A/14
_ C 5- 0 DIs Dle DIs End Date: g 1 t?Jt 27Time: /3Z By: 4/1/-A
D 5 •Q Effluent Log#: 7-1-1 1 Upstream Log#:
t A s O Total Total Total TEST ORGANISMS
r-1 B S 0 Test Organism: A'F ,'f°, 6 L14
" i0 Zb C 0 DIs Ols DIs for Ceriodaphnia dubia Source: M-t? b'• q S-k e/6
D Date Removed; j•(y(a,
l
3- -% • - TU.; • .omi . iU. - - DeivveCI i i 7,06 (t i ne)and G!.(jp (1 ime)
'35- B -S 0. for fathead minnows or mysids:
C j 0 DIs Dls DIs Source: Age:
D 5- 0 Temperature 24-26 C. Light 16 hr It/8 hr kd;50-100 ft candles
A 5- 0 Total Total Total Laboratory Water DMW/SSF @ 50 mg/L hardness
i 5D B - / Downstream Water Preparation
_ C 50 DIs DIS DIs %effluent JaoO volume 11000 mL Prep.Date:8iry
D 5 0 % upstream volume mL_Prep.by: A?ti.
A Z. Total Total Total
LI B 5- / Test Solution Preparation: Metal Salt: CU,S 0 y•5§2,Z)
C ,, •g_1S I.� By: Ate-► I 7Zw► (�
Dta DIs DIs Date: t Stock.Soln: Z,
f
D / Nominal Conccn mL Stock Soln. Volume prepared,
-. A 5- Z Total Total Total 25 r"Is sto v»v
(07_
B 5 / 35 1.3X
C 5- 3 Dls Dls Dts. 51) ),9 7
D 5- 3 --)1.y 2. 8)
A s 5--. 10-� Li. o
Total Total Total
ti-t) B S y 3 :62
C 5" 3.. Dls Dls Dls - vVk1 eft pl,
g
D 5-- 3
--• �h AS• Total Total Total A Total Tale Total
(JV� B J B
- ) C ! Dls Dls Dis CAB
Dls Dis Dis
D 5:(
! D
A Total Total Total A Total Total Total
B B
I
C Dis Dls Dls C Dls Dls Os
D D
4
Test solution volume:25 mL. Test vessels 1 oz.plastic cups.Transfer volume 0.05 mL. Test Method: per EPA Interim Guidance
Page 47 of 110

ROUND 2 - APPENDIX B3
Measured Concentrations of Total Recoverable Copper in Test Solutions
Duke Harris-WER Round 2 Cu ETT Environmental,Inc.;08/10
Page 48 of 1 I

Measured Total Recoverable and Dissolved Copper
Duke Harris Plant-Primary Species Site Specific Study
August 2018
Sample:Spiked Dilution Water(Diluted DMR Initial Date:08/15/18
ominal Measured Total Recoverable Copper(µg/L) %of Measured Dis.Cu(µg/L) %
Total Cu Initial Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7 Mean Nominal Initial Day.2 Mean Dissolved
0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
4.2 4.6 5.3 5.0 119% 4.9 5.2 5.1 102% _
6.0 no data 6.0 6.0 100% 5.8 no data 5.8 97%
8.6 7.3 5.3 6.3 73% 9.6 5.0 7.3 116%
12.3 14.7 14.1 14.4 117% 15.4 7.7 11.6 81%
17.5 20.1 16.4 18.3 105% 17.4 14.0 15.7 86%
25.0 25.0 24.0 24.5 98% 23.0 23.0 23.0 94%
35.0 39.0 29.0 34.0 97% 23.0 28.0 23.5 69%
Sample:Simulated Downstream-Duke Harris Initial Date:8/15/18
ominal Measured Total Recoverable Copper(µg/L) „f Measured Dis.Cu(µg/L) %
Total Cu Initial Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7 Mean Nominal Initial Day 2 Mean Dissolved
0.0 27.7 30.8 29.3 21.5 23.8 22.7
25.0 50.0 no data 50.0 200% 24.0 41.0 32.5 65%
35.0 55.0 no data 55.0 157% 43.0 37.0`_ 40.0 73%
50.0 60.0 75.0 67.5 135% 59.0 69.0 64.0 95%
71.4 85.0 90.0 87.5 123% 76.0 78.0 77.0 88%
102.0 121.0 126.0 123.5 121% 110.0 109.0_ 109.5 89%
143.0 161.0 165.0 163.0 114% 137.0 136.0 136.5 84%
204.0 218.0 215.0 216.5 106% 185.0 187.0 186.0 86%
1 Page 49 of 110

ROUND 2 -APPENDIX B4
Water Chemistry Measurements for Acute Definitive Tests
1
1
1
1
Duke Harris-WER Round 2 Cu ETT Environmental,Inc.;08/18
Page 50 of 110

~
m� &[UTLT0%|C�TYTL3T CH�� |STRY
^
'- " ``
— ^~-
/"*"/xc"u°E` -- -�"m ,'^
we w "
, o.n`. '" u',r" pit u'�'^ ," o',,,, "
*~.'
/
""'~""^ ~�' Ulf")'
c.^ -
� -�---' __m.��--- - --- ---`
_---------- -' ! ____
u^ ' - ------------- `
mry -
| ------- ,�
'
|mm ^�
| ' ----- -
mo
� _ ---
e /376
mm� ''^~ ` '-
Aim
DmN; / mo
� __
72 Hour RcDdi ES
DissoNcd pit
|
�
mmm
~~~
mmm
uatc
mws -
-Initials:
amm
Will
_ La»Iuw
m�m ' J{�cu� - � ^ >
-,, - /` ' - -
m�m / \ ^^\
--- '
mmm �
~�1�M � Y
" v� � ^
Page 5|v[U0

ROUND 2 -APPENDIX B5
Chain of Custody Documentation
Duke Harris-WER Round 2 Cu ETT Environmental,Inc.;08/18
Page 52 of 110

CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD
>r
PO Box 16414,Greenville,SC 29606-7414 "'
[phone], [phone] Far.[phone]
Shipping Address:4 Craftsman Ct,Greer,SC 29650
W W W.ETTENV IRONMENTAL.GOM
Client: (( jy�
(.�.l 7.,,7 L.f) t''17-�4/ C// Program Containers Preservative Parameters
Facility: ! t �°'. J - - - - -
- •;-`i- ,
t + Whole Ef luent Toxicity --
Staff: pit t`, , NPDES#: Acute Chronic Test Organisms
= -
d _ o o
•
U (Composite only) (Grab or Composite) < p ci = U I`� V o — 8 z
o ^ = 1=H2S0.' •:n I - : • ._ :n
Sign,and Print below •�„' - : y, e ?=Hct L= 'Z _ r —,', _ - _
the dotted line e U y = � " _ _ _ '
:� O ? O O - '- G j a=ZnAe 'J V I.� — V _ ._
SAMPLE ID U Composite Start Date Time Sample Collection Date Time Collected by C.i ='n cn z c. U > 6=other < < ;U U Ci 0 z n. = Ci E- 3 Chemical Analysis a Other
/ ✓ 6tal t/ V CGt f ZA €5a0.-a(1
phi 06e,') , <',')r%...-"e 0e0,37 ,.3 A n.1a1✓'-.la
�i
w'
,©
,
Special Instructions:
Sample Custody Transfer Record Secure Receipt Sample
Date Time Relinquished By/Oreanizati n Received By/Oraanizatipst Area Temp`C Preserved?
- 7">s-4 1`1* It .3tt D.Q/ ��` s _(/'-----__ E pp/ r (^
j eo1(tl( l1•%
$/i f fR' (L° t -,e ) oZ c Q.t
I
r COMPOSITE SAMPLING PROCEDURES TEMPERATURE MONITORING PROCEDURES HOLD TIA-E PROCEDURES
Composite samples must be collected over a 24 hour period. Sample temperature during collection and transport must be between For toxicity testing the sample must first be used within 36 hours
Time Proportional:1 sample each hour for 24 hours.Equal voles 0.0 and 6.0'C.Samples must not be frozen.Use water ice in sealed bags. of sample collection(completion of composite sample).
or at minimum I sample even 4 hours over 24 hours. Sample may not be used after 72 hours from sample collection.
Flow Proportional:As per instructions in NPDES permit.

ROUND 2 - APPENDIX B6
Statistical Analysis Results
Duke Harris-WER Round 2 Cu ETT Environmental,Inc.;08/18
Page 54 of 110

PROBIT
RAW DATA
Test Percent Number of Log of
Conc. Mortality Organisms Test Conc Probit
0.1 0 20 -1.0000 0.5
5 0 20 0.6990 0.5
6 0 20 0.7782 0.5
6.3 45 20 0.7993 4.87
14.4 95 20 1.1584 6.64
18.3 100 20 1.2625 8.09
1. Enter data in yellow boxes
Test Type: Acute Definitive 48 Hour
Species: C dubia
Sample ID DMW T Cu LC50 =
Date: 8/15/18 10.236
A value of>0 must be entered for the control concentration,thus a nominal value of 0.1 is used.This does not impact the result.
Lower test concentrations with no mortality are not necessary to determine the Probit LC50 value
Page 55 of 110

PROBIT
RAW DATA
Test Percent Number of Log of
Conc. Mortality Organisms Test Conc Probit
0.1 0 20 -1.0000 0.5
5.1 0 20 0.7076 0.5
5.8 0 20 0.7634 0.5
7.3 45 20 0.8633 4.87
11.6 95 20 1.0645 6.64
15.7 100 20 1.1959 8.09
1. Enter data in yellow boxes
Test Type: Acute Definitive 48 Hour
Species: C dubia
Sample ID DMW Dis Cu LC50
Date: 8/15/18 9.402
A value of>0 must be entered for the control concentration,thus a nominal value of 0.1 is used.This does not impact the result.
Lower test concentrations with no mortality are not necessary to determine the Probit LC50 value
Page 56 of 110

PROB T
RAW DATA
Test Percent Number of Log of
Conc. Mortality Organisms Test Conc Probit
0.1 0 20 -1.0000 0.5
67.5 5 20 1.8293 3.36
87.5 20 20 1.9420 4.16
123.5 45 20 2.0917 4.87
163 75 20 2.2122 5.67
216.5 90 20 2.3355 6.28
1. Enter data in yellow boxes
Test Type: Acute Definitive 48 Hour
Species: C dubia
Sample ID Duke Harris T Cu LC50=
Date: 8/15/18 . 128.278
A value of>0 must be entered for the control concentration,thus a nominal value of 0.1 is used.This does not impact the result.
Lower test concentrations with no mortality are not necessary to determine the Probit LC50 value
Page 57 of 110

PROBIT
RAW DATA
Test Percent Number of Log of
Conc. Mortality Organisms Test Conc Probit
0.1 0 20 -1.0000 0.5
64 5 20 1.8062 3.36
77 20 20 1.8865 4.16
109.5 45 20 2.0394 4.87
136.5 75 20 2.1351 5.67
186 90 20 2.2695 6.28
1. Enter data in yellow boxes
Test Type: Acute Definitive 48 Hour
Species: C dubia
Sample ID Duke Harris Dis Cu LC50
Date: 8/15/18 111.513
A value of>0 must be entered for the control concentration,thus a nominal value of 0.1 is used.This does not impact the
result. Lower test concentrations with no mortality are not necessary to determine the Probit LC50 value
Page 58 of 110

ETT
environmental,Inc. [phone] . FAX[phone]
P.O. Box 16414, Greenville, SC 29606 Craftsman Court,Greer, SC 29650
APPENDIX C
WATER EFFECT RATIO STUDY (Interim Guidance)
Duke Energy Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant
Primary Species - Round 3
Metal: Copper
September 2018
Duke Harris-WER 3 Cu ETT Environmental;09/18
Page 59 of 110

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
2.0 METHODS
2.1 Experimental Design
2.2 Laboratory Dilution Water
2.3 Upstream and Effluent Sample Collection
2.4 Chemical Analyses
2.5 Preparation of Test Solutions
2.6 Test Organisms
3.0 RESULTS
3.1 Laboratory Water
3.2 Simulated Downstream Water
3.3 Upstream Waters
4.0 CALCULATION OF WATER EFFECT RATIO
5.0 DISCUSSION
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix Cl. Reference Toxicant Quality Control Chart for Ceriodaphnia dubia
Appendix C2. Survival Data for Acute Definitive Tests
Appendix C3. Measured Concentrations of Total Recoverable Copper in Test Solutions
Appendix C4. Water Chemistry Measurements for Acute Definitive Tests
Appendix C5. Chain of Custody Records
Appendix C6. Statistical Analysis Results
Duke Harris-WER 3 Cu ETT Environmental;09/18
Page 60 of 110

1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Duke Energy Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant (SHNPP) discharges effluent into Harris Lake
under NPDES Permit NC0039586. In cooperation with Jacobs Engineering, ETT Environmental has been
retained to conduct a "site specific study" to determine if permitted copper limits for each effluent
discharge are unnecessarily overprotective of aquatic life. This is to be accomplished through the
calculation of a water effect ratio (WER), comparing the acute effects of copper upon the surrogate
aquatic test organism Ceriodaphnia dubia living in laboratory dilution water to the acute effects of copper
to the same test species in simulated downstream receiving water. The study used the methodology
provided in the Streamlined Water-Effect Ratio Procedure for Discharges of Copper (EPA-822-R-01-
005).
On September 24-25, 2018, SHNPP personnel collected a composite effluent water sample. Acute
toxicity tests for the Water Effect Ratio study were initiated on September 26th,2018.
Laboratory Location: ETT Environmental, Inc.
4 Craftsman Court
Greer, SC 29650
SCDHEC Certification# 23104
Study Director: Robert W.Kelley, Ph.D.
Study Scientist: Amy McMahon
Study Technicians: Jennifer Christian
Jonathon Gillespie
Forrest Jackson
Study Dates: September 26-28, 2018
Duke Harris-WER 3 Cu ETT Environmental;09/18
Page 61 of 110

2.0 METHODS
2.1 Experimental Design
The design of the study involved spiking copper into test solutions and assessing the
acute toxicity of the test solutions with 48 Hour Acute Definitive tests using the surrogate
test organism Ceriodaphnia dubia. The two test solutions assessed were 1) laboratory
dilution water, and 2) simulated downstream water at measured conditions on the day of
sampling(100% effluent). Acute toxicity tests were set according to U.S. EPA protocols
(EPA 821-R-02-012 Method 2002),modified according to the following parameters;
Test type: Acute Static
Temperature: 25°C±1
Light: 100 ft.-candles; 16 hr light/8 hr dark
Test Chambers: 30 mL plastic cups
Test Solution Volume: 25 mL
Renewal of Test Solutions: None
Test Organism Age: <24 hr
#Neonates/Cup: 5
#Replicates/Concentration: 4
Feeding Regime: None
Aeration: None
Dilution Factor: 0.7
Test Duration: 48 Hours
Endpoints: Survival
2.2 Laboratory Dilution Water
The laboratory dilution water used in all tests was diluted mineral water (DMW). In this
first round of tests the DMW was reared at a hardness of 50.0 mg/L.P This dilution
water was prepared by adding Perrier water to ultra-pure water to obtain the desired final
hardness. The procedure for the preparation of this water may be found in the EPA
manual Short Term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and
Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms (EPA 821-R-02-013).
* Dilution water during the period of testing was prepared as follows;
Amount Hardness Conductivity Alkalinity
20 L 50.0 mg/L 108 µmhos/cm 44.3 mg/L 7.8
Duke Harris-WER 3 Cu ETT Environmental;09/18
Page 62 of 110

2.3 Sample Collection
Sampling Locations
The effluent discharges into Harris Lake. The effluent samples were collected as
composite samples. As received the effluent was measured to have oxidizers (measured
by the DPD method) of 0.19 mg/L. Although the DPD method is used to measure
residual chlorine, in this effluent it is believed that manganate was the oxidizer which
was measured.
All samples were collected in half gallon plastic jugs and preserved in coolers at 0-6°C.
Samples were shipped to ETT by overnight delivery.
2.4 Chemical Analyses
Dissolved oxygen and pH were measured in one surrogate of each test concentration at
the beginning and end of the test.Temperature was monitored in three surrogate test cups
in the incubator daily. Dissolved Oxygen and pH were measured with the use of a Orion
4 Star meter.The meter is calibrated daily.
Alkalinity, hardness, total suspended solids (TSS), total organic carbon (TOC), and
specific conductance were measured on each laboratory water and effluent sample
collected.
Total recoverable copper was measured on each test solution at the beginning and end of
the test. Dissolved copper also was measured for each test concentration at the beginning
and end of the test. Copper analyses were conducted by ETT Environmental of Greer,
SC using Standard Methods 18th Edition Method 3111 B (flame atomic absorption), and
concentrated to achieve a detection limit of 10 ug/L(or lower with concentration).
2.5 Preparation of Test Solutions
2.5.1 Simulated Downstream Water
A simulated downstream sample was prepared using 100%effluent.
Duke Harris-WER 3 Cu ETT Environmental;09/18
Page 63 of 110

2.5.2 Copper Spiking
Copper was spiked as copper sulfate (CuSO4.5H2O) into laboratory water and the
simulated downstream water. Prior to spiking the total recoverable copper in each
effluent sample was measured. Each day a batch of simulated downstream water was
prepared. An 12.72 mg/L stock solution of copper sulfate was prepared by adding 0.05 g
of CuSO4.5H20 to one liter of demineralized water. A microliter syringe was used to add
the correct volumes of the stock solution to each simulated effluent or control
concentration to achieve the desired nominal concentration of copper.
2.6 Test Organisms
The test organism used for this study was the daphnid Ceriodaphnia dubia. Test
organisms were neonates of less than 24 hours in age which were obtained from
individual cultures at ETT Environmental, Inc. These cultures are set weekly with
reproduction of the first three broods tracked for all culture organisms. Only neonates
from broods of eight or larger, produced by culture trays demonstrating less than 10%
mortality and greater than a mean of 15 young per female(3 broods) are used for testing.
Culture sensitivity is monitored through the use of semi-monthly reference toxicant
testing. Voucher specimens from the culture are set aside on a monthly basis and
taxonomically verified by a staff macroinvertebrate taxonomist. Culture organisms are
subject to the same light,temperature, and feeding regimes as used for testing.
Duke Harris-WER 3 Cu ETT Environmental;09/18
Page 64 of 110

3.0 RESULTS
3.1 Laboratory Water
3.1.1 Acute Toxicity Testing Results
The acute definitive test with Ceriodaphnia dubia in laboratory water spiked with copper
showed a 48 Hour LC50 of 20.358 ug/L Total Recoverable Copper and a 48 Hour
LC50 of 19.748 ug/L Dissolved Copper. Due to the pattern of the data the values were
calculated using the probit method. The survival data at each concentration are
summarized as follows;
Nominal Concentration Mean Measured Conc. 48 Hour
of Total Recoverable Cu of Total Recoverable Cu Mortality
and(Dissolved Cu)
0 ug/L <1.0 ug/L(<1.0) 0%
4.2 ug/L 3.6 ug/L(3.3) 0%
6.0 ug/L 6.7 ug/L (6.6) 0%
8.6 ug/L 8.4 ug/L (7.1) 0%
12.3 ug/L 11.3 ug/L (10.6) 0%
17.5 ug/L 15.3 ug/L(15.5) 5%
25 ug/L 22.5 ug/L(26.0) 75%
35 ug/L 33.5 ug/L(27.5) 100%
Survival data for the test may be found in Appendix C2. Results of measured
concentrations of total recoverable and dissolved copper are provided in Appendix C3.
Statistical analysis results are found in Appendix C6.
3.1.2 Chemical Analyses
The pH in the spiked dilution water test ranged from a minimum of 7.6 to a maximum of
7.8. Dissolved oxygen was generally at the saturation point in all treatments throughout
the test.
1
The Probit method is used when there are at least two test concentrations with partial mortality.
Duke Harris-WER 3 Cu ETT Environmental;09/18
Page 65 of 110

3.2 Simulated Downstream Water
3.2.1 Acute Toxicity Testing Results
The acute definitive test with Ceriodaphnia dubia in downstream water spiked with
copper showed a 48 Hour LC50 of 179.504 ug/L Total Recoverable Copper and a 48
Hour LC50 of 158.483 ug/L of Dissolved Copper. Due to the pattern of the data the
value was calculated using the probit method. The survival data at each concentration are
summarized as follows;
Nominal Concentration Mean Measured Concs. 48 Hour
of Total Recoverable Cu of Total Recoverable Cu Mortality
and(Dissolved Cu)
0 ug/L 22.9 ug/L (20.2) 0%
25 ug/L 50 ug/L (32) 0%
35 ug/L 63.5 ug/L(40) 0%
50ug/L 68 ug/L(51.5) 0%
71.4 ug/L 85.5 ug/L (72.5) 0%
102 ug/L 113 ug/L(103) 5%
143 ug/L 152 ug/L(140) 20%
204 ug/L 224 ug/L (189) 55%
Measured concentrations were generally higher than nominal concentrations. A
significant suppression in survival was noted at a nominal concentration of 204 ug/L of
total copper.
Survival data for the test may be found in Appendix C2. Results of measured
concentrations of total recoverable and dissolved copper are provided in Appendix C3.
Statistical analysis results are found in Appendix C6.
1
The Probit method is used when there are at least two test concentrations with partial mortality.
Duke Harris-WER 3 Cu ETT Environmental;09/18
Page 66 of 110

3.2.2 Chemical Analyses
The pH in the simulated downstream water ranged from a minimum of 7.9 to a maximum
of 8.6. Dissolved oxygen was generally near the saturation point in all treatments
throughout the test. Other water chemistry parameters are summarized as follows;
Parameter Effluent
Total Recoverable Copper(ug/L) 22.9
Dissolved Copper(ug/L) 20.2
Alkalinity(mg/L) 50.6
Conductivity(umhos/cm) 347
Hardness(mg/L) 54.0
Total Organic Carbon(mg/L) 26.0
Total Suspended Solids(mg/L) 13.3
It may be seen that the effluent water was characterized by moderate alkalinity, hardness,
TOC and TSS.
3.3 Upstream Waters
Not applicable when effluent is 100%of downstream flow.
Parameter Result
Total Recoverable Copper(µg/L) NA
Dissolved Copper(µg/L) NA
Total Organic Carbon(mg/L) NA
Alkalinity(mg/L) NA
Hardness(mg/L) NA
Conductivity(µmhos/cm) NA
Total Suspended Solids(mg/L) NA
Duke Harris-WER 3 Cu ETT Environmental;09/18
Page 67 of 110

4.0 CALCULATION OF WATER EFFECT RATIO
As noted in the results section,acute testing indicated an LC50 of 20.358 ug/L of total recoverable
copper in laboratory dilution water and an LC50 of 179.504 ug/L of total recoverable copper in
100% SHNPP effluent.The laboratory dilution water LC50 values must be adjusted to
downstream water hardness in order to calculate the Water Effect Ratio,using the EPA formula,
as follows;
LC50 x (downstream hardness/laboratory water hardness)°9422
T-Cu: 20.358 ug/L x(54/50)0.9422= 21.8891 ug/L
Dis-Cu: 19.748 ug/L x(54/50)°'9422= 21.2332 ug/L
The Water Effect Ratio can thus be calculated as follows;
Water Effect Ratio(WER) = LC50 in Effluent = 179.504 ug/L = 8.2006
(Total Recoverable Copper) LC50 in Lab Water 21.8891 ug/L
Water Effect Ratio(WER) = LC50 in Effluent = 158.483 ug/L = 7.4639
(Dissolved Copper) LC50 in Lab Water 21.2332 ug/L
A final water effect ratio(EWER)will be calculated using the individual WERs from three
rounds of testing.
Duke Harris-WER 3 Cu ETT Environmental;09/18
Page 68of110

ROUND 3 -APPENDIX Cl
Reference Toxicant Quality Control Chart
Ceriodaphnia dubia
Reference Toxicant Chart 2017/18
Acute /NaCI / Ceriodaphnia dubia
2.75 -- — -- -- — — -- -- — -- -- — -- -- -- — -- -- — -- -- — --
2. • 2. 2.t 2.`. 2. 2. 2. 7 .
2. 2. 2. F 2.'� 2. 2. 2 2.'2 2. 2.'3
2. �
CO 2.2 �.L - — -- -- — -- -- — -- -- — — — — - —
2.00` - - , - `.`--. { Z-
--
1.75 -- - - - - - -'r _. ;-
1. 5 4 1. 4 4. 4 _ 5 . _ '.,:
1.50
Des'9t7 Jar.39"18 Feb2 18 Mar2818 Apr2413 14ay3Q'18 Jrxr25"18 Jul30"18 Aug29'18 Sep2418
• Feb'218 Mae.1B Apr2'8 May818 Jtm5"18 Jtd3'18 Aug6.18 Sep1018 0ct218
Upper Lower
tLC 50 is-Mean fiControl -A-Control
Limit Limit
lid &LCL are+1-2 standard deviations from mean(respectively)
Duke Harris-WER 3 Cu ETT Environmental;09/18
Page 69 of 110

ROUND 3 -APPENDIX C2
Survival Data for Acute Definitive Tests
Duke Harris-WER 3 Cu ETT Environmental;09/18
Page 70 of 110

Page 70 of too
Nominal Initial# Mortality Measured Concentration WER 48 Hour Acute Toxicity Test ....---
I Nor
Cone Rep Organisms 24 hr 48 hr Initial ` Final Mean Facility: Tj` (),...) Metal:
A `- t' � �, l t.,. �� Sample ID. (..LA.
GI
0`%, B L> _O_ Start Date:('1 (-('1 Time: -1(Y) By: �.:--.
C 5 O Din Din DinEnd Date: °(-2 j Time: 13I0 By: . —
D r_� �.! Effluent Log h: Upstream Locftl:
r
A � („1 inn.' i��u i total TEST ORGANISMS
%.,--)
G B 5 0 Test Organism: A lq H, -K-q-13 , S—}�q-il
C 0 Din Din DO f "r Ceriodaphnia dubia . ) Source:
D 5 0 -Date Removed; j_ ,1 ,
r-
A 0 iota) Tot:ai Imat - Between ;7L i (runey and ��00 (Title\
B J lJ for fathead minnows or mysids: i
C 5 () Din Din Dis Source: Age: 3'
D 5 0 Temperature 24-26 C. Light 16 hr It 18 hr kd;50-100 ft candles
A 1 (`) Total Total Total Laboratory Water DMW/SSF cr 50 mg;L hardness
V
/� ( B (� Downstream Water Preparation 1
Fj
C 0 % mL Prep.Din Dis effluent volume Date: ;t
p 5 0 % upstream volume mL Prep.by:
A 5 () Total Total Total
12 3 B 5 O Test Solution Preparation: Metal Salt: C))501-51-1-3-0
C 5 O Ole Die Din Date: By: Stock.Soin: /2.72-nIL- , 11
D S 0 Nominal Cone mL Stock Soln. Volume prepared
A 5 1 Total Total Total 0 0) 5CO iv L
1 5 B ° ` . 7-- + II K
c 5 Dis Dis Die 6 I2-
D 5 0 8,�n .34l
✓A 5 Total Total Total 12-- .list
Z, B 5 1-.5 6/ 9.
5
C t Dis Din Dls 7---5 1 t g
11
D 5 1•3
A 5 Total Total Total A Total Total Total
3-5 B 5 5 B
C 5 5 Dis Din Dis C Din Die Dis
D 5 5 D ,
A Total Total Total A Total Total Total
B B
C DIs Dis Dis C Die Us DIs
D _ D - - . -
iii
Test solution volume:25 mt.. Test vessels 1 oz.plastic cups.Transfer volume 0.05 mL. Test Method:per EPA Interim Guidance Test soi
iiP
Page 71 of 110

ge 70°F 14;r Page 71 of 100
t initial it Mortality Measured Concentration
WER 48 Hour Acute Toxicity Test
Organisms 24 hr 48 hr Initial Final Mean Facility e 1 0 Y t '3 Metal: 1
coin ,
A fnea 1,1, iota . Sample ID. �)
I
0% B Ell Start Date: C(-2.(e--1 `.:, Time: ,, ) By: Y`_
C 1=11 Dis DIs oh End Date: VI•':( Time: 1 ) BY: - Y`-
I
D — a! • E=ffluent Log I: si 7_L/1 Upstream Log#l:
III A IIIEI tee:, teat lot a TEST ORGANISMS
lI /
Test Organism: Al l a 1A
-11 C Dts Dr, Dis for(eriodaphnia duyn.-- Source:
D Date Removed; t .J?.. —IS'
"Timat A
V I
L !\ Tc;ai To;a! Bet ee n 1'7r,0 (Time)and 2Z00 (Time)
B O for fathead minnows or mysids:
135 c S 0 Die Die Dis Source: Age:
D / lemperalure 24-26 C. Light 16 hr li/8 hr kd;50-100 h candles
A5
5
() Total Total Total Laboratory Water DMW/SSF @ 50 mg/L hardness
OB O Downstream Water Preparationo
I J C DIs DIe Die
D %effluent �( volumaG mL Prep.Date:
V %/° upstream volume mL Prep.by:
A 5 0 Total Total Total
B S 0 Test Solution Preparation: Metal Salt:
7 - C 5 Q Die Dis Dis Date: By: Stock.Soln:
D 5 0 Nominal Conc mL Stock Soln. Volume prepared
`r7
A �/ `e on� 0
/ � �
1 Total Total Total �VV
5 0 zs
lo� c nil-
5 -38'
� Ole Dis Die 35
D 5 O 50 I.611
A 2 � 1• `� 2-7�
Total Total Total
f`3 B 5✓I' Ins- oI .
C �/ D DIs Dls DIs 113,3 ,6 2—
D r. I $.0� `j
A 3 Total Total Total A Total Total Total
B 5 7— B
C 5 3 Ols Dis DIs C Die Die Die
- � 5 3 D
A Total Total Total A Total Total Total
B B
C DIs Dis Dis C Ole DIs Die
__D _ D
Test solution volume:25 mL. Test vessels 1 oz.plastic cups.Transfer volume 0.05 mL. Test Method: per EPA Interim Guidance
Page 72 of 110 •

ROUND 3 -APPENDIX C3
Measured Concentrations of Total Recoverable Copper in Test Solutions
Duke Harris-WER 3 Cu ETT Environmental;09/18
Page 73 of 110

Measured Total Recoverable and Dissolved Copper
Duke Harris Plant-Primary Species Site Specific Study
September 2018
Sample:Spiked Dilution Water(Diluted DMWInitial Date:09/26/18
Nominal Measured Total Recoverable Copper(µg/L) %of Measured Dis.Cu(µg/L) %
Total Cu Initial Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7 Mean Nominal Initial Day 2 Mean Dissolved
0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 1.6 <1.0 <1.0
4.2 2.2 4.8 3.6 86% 3.6 3.0 3.3 92%
6.0 4.6 8.8 6.7 112% 7.6 5.5 6.6 99%
8.6 7.4 9.4 8.4 98% 8.0 6.3 7.1 85%
12.3 8.1 14.4 11.3 92% 11.2 9.9 10.6 94%
17.5 14.8 15.7 15.3 87% 15.4 15.7 15.5 101%
25.0 18.0 27.0 22.5 90% 23.0 29.0 26.0 116%
35.0 32.0 35.0 33.5 96% 26.0 29.0 27.5 82%
Sample:Simulated Downstream-Duke Harris Initial Date:9/26/18
Nominal Measured Total Recoverable Copper(µg/L) %of Measured Dis.Cu(µg/L) %
Total Cu Initial Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7 Mean Nominal Initial Day 2 Mean Dissolved
0.0 23.4 22.4 22.9 20.2 20.2
25.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 200% 41.0 23.0 32.0 64%
35.0 64.0 63.0 63.5 181% 48.0 32.0 40.0 63%
50.0 66.0 70.0 68.0 136% 54.0 49.0 51.5 76%
71.4 85.0 86.0 85.5 120% 76.0 69.0 72.5 85%
102.0 116.0 109.0 113.0 111% 108.0 98.0 103.0 91%
143.0 151.0 152.0 152.0 106% 152.0 127.0 140.0 92%
204.0 228.0 221.0 224.0 110% 208.0 169.0 189.0 84%
It is not known why measured concentrations of copper in DMW were higher on Day 2 than at start of test,
however,the mean values used for statistical analysis were close to the nominal values.
Page 74 of 110

ROUND 3 - APPENDIX C4
Water Chemistry Measurements for Acute Definitive Tests
Duke Harris-WER 3 Cu ETT Environmental;09/18
Page 75 of 110

!;-
1,
•
..i.)
T
. , ,.. i )
ACUTE TOXICITY TEST - CI-IF:ivIISTRY
1 codm
' n, niiial Readings 24 Hour Reading3 24 Hour ReadIngs 46 Hour Readings _46 Hour Readings
1 Condort.vii) old old or,. no. old old ors^
PH psis ols.rd. liA/ohosic nil or DeSsols rd Omolvcd Oussoivrd Olisolv:cd
, Olio col U/aro pli or S.11.oli) Oiitro pll Dinco pit Chytco MI 0-.yr co pit
Cooccn 1 ry tuo o mt/L (ppll mt/L mt/L _________4 ID ril mt/L
1------ i
f -a--S--------iP. -
.1 E g.
.i.
__.
• .
, . ....111011001
Datc. °- 11 • '- I— 4;
Timc:
Initials.
, .
72 Hour Readings 72 Hour Readings 96 Hour Readings
: old old new ocw old old
Dissolved Dissolved Dissolved
• Efflocad Oxygen pH Osygco pH Oxygca pH
Coo ceo trot or mg,fL sog/L imr/L
. .,
Datc:
, Timc:
Initials:
Client: . t Lab Ipt4:
• 00120
Page 76 of 110

ROUND 3 - APPENDIX CS
Chain of Custody Documentation
Duke Harris-WER3 Cu ETT Environmental;09/18
Page 77 of 110

iI CHAIN OF CUSTO II N RECORD
4., mac
PO Sox 16414,Greenville SC 29606-7414
[phone], [phone] Fax:[phone]
Shipping Address:4 Craftsman Ct,Greer,SC 29650
W W W.ETTENV I RCNMENTAL.CCM
Client: j 11
��6 ITV' ,i t) _ I'rescn'ative Parameters
Facility -
Whole Effluent Toxicity F
State: LI NPDES Y: TI { Acute .Chronic Test Organisms n.
(Composite only) (Grab or Composite) < — i= i_ `; _ — Z
t-' - l\ r _ — - — _ —�
Sign,and Print below —P — 5 cr, — 2=act. = - a =' — - —
the dotted line S - H �_ `-u •`—' a=NaoH ' = o '_ _ — —o = S N _
1-Ao '
SAMPLE ID Composite Start Date Time Sample C°itecion Dnte Time Collected by U s '13 Z _ v > < - 0 - 2 (.),- i a i Chemical Analysis&Other
co 1________
ac
J ..
. .
,,,
_ ,
, _ _____. ._____________
Special Instructions:
Sample Custody Transfer Record Secure Receipt I Sample
Date Time Relinquished By/Organization /"�) Received B erganization ,e° Area Temp°C ; Preser,ed'?
1 45 /030 /� c.,-,,s "- /'�' � �'' , !',fir
9/2 11 g y~'53° '' �`'Z� `z O ,. e--i Q.i I
v ,
l COMPOSITE SAMPLING PROCEDURES TEMPERATURE MONITORING PROCEDURES HOLD TIAfE PROCEDURES
Composite samples must be collected over a 24 hour period. Sample temperature during collection and transport must be between For toxicity testing the sample must first be used within 36 hours
Time Proportional: 1 sample each hour for 24 hours.Equal volut 0.0 and 6.0°C.Samples must not be frozen.Use water ice in sealed bags. of sample collection(completion of composite sample).
or at minimum I sample every 4 hours over 24 hours. Sample may not be used after 72 hours from sample collection.
Flow Proportional:Asper instructions in NPDES permit.

ROUND 3 -APPENDIX C6
Statistical Analysis Results
Duke Harris-WER 3 Cu ETT Environmental;09/18
Page 79 of 110

PROBIT
RAW DATA
Test Percent Number of Log of
Conc. Mortality Organisms Test Conc Probit
0.1 0 20 -1.0000 0.5
8.4 0 20 0.9243 0.5
11.3 0 20 1.0531 0.5
15.3 5 20 1.1847 3.36
22.5 75 20 '1.3522 5.67
33.5 100 20 1.5250 8.09
1. Enter data in yellow boxes
Test Type: WER Acute
Species: C dubia
Sample ID DMW T-Cu LC50 =
Date: 9/26/18 . 20.358
A value of>0 must be entered for the control concentration,thus a nominal value of 0.1 is used.This does not impact the result. Lower
test concentrations with no mortality are not necessary to determine the Probit LC50 value
•
Page 80 of 110

PROBIT
RAW DATA
Test Percent Number of Log of
Conc. Mortality Organisms Test Conc Probit
0.1 0 20 -1.0000 0.5
7.1 0 20 0.8513 0.5
10.6 0 20 1.0253 0.5
15.5 5 20 1.1903 3.36
26 75 20 1.4150 5.67
27.5 100 20 1.4393 8.09
1. Enter data in yellow boxes
Test Type: WER Acute
Species: C dubia
Sample ID DMW Dis-Cu LC50 =
Date: 9/26/18 19.748
A value of>0 must be entered for the control concentration,thus a nominal value of 0.1 is used.This does not impact the result.
Lower test concentrations with no mortality are not necessary to determine the Probit LC50 value
Page 81 of 110

PROBIT
RAW DATA
Test Percent Number of Log of
Conc. Mortality Organisms Test Conc Probit
0.1 0 20 -1.0000 0.5
85.5 0 20 1.9320 0.5
113 5 20 2.0531 3.36
152 20 20 2.1818 4.16
224 55 20 2.3502 5.13
320 100 20 2.5051 8.09
1. Enter data in yellow boxes
Test Type: WER Acute
Species: C dubia
Sample ID Harris T-Cu 1_C50
Date: 9/26/18 179.504
A value of>0 must be entered for the control concentration,thus a nominal value of 0.1 is used.This does not impact the result.
Lower test concentrations with no mortality are not necessary to determine the Probit LC50 value
The highest concentration run showed only 55%mortality.The concentration factor used in the test was 0.7.Therefore it was
assumed that had the next higer concentration been run(which would have been 224/0.7=320 ug/L),that all the test organisms
would have died(most conservative-worst case scenario).
Page 82 of 110

PROB1T
RAW DATA
Test Percent Number of Log of
Conc. Mortality Organisms Test Conc Probit
0.1 0 20 -1.0000 0.5
72.5 0 20 1.8603 0.5
103 5 20 2.0128 3.36
140 20 20 2.1461 4.16
189 55 20 2.2765 5,13
270 100 20 2.4314 8.09
1. Enter data in yellow boxes
Test Type: WER Acute
Species: C dubia
Sample ID Harris Dis-Cu `LC50 =
Date: 9/26/18 s 158.483
A value of>0 must be entered for the control concentration,thus a nominal value of 0.1 is used.This does not impact the result.
Lower test concentrations with no mortality are not necessary to determine the Probit LC50 value.
Low dissolved copper values as compared to higher total zinc values may reflect adherence of copper ions to particulates in the
effluent.
The highest concentration run showed only 55%mortality.The concentration factor used in the test was 0.7.Therefore it was
assumed that had the next higer concentration been run(which would have been 189/0.7=270 ug/L),that all the test organisms
would have died(most conservative-worst case scenario).
Page 83 of 110

ETT
environmental,Inc. [phone] . FAX[phone]
P.O. Box 16414, Greenville, SC 29606 Craftsman Court, Greer, SC 29650
APPENDIX D
WATER EFFECT RATIO STUDY (Interim Guidance)
Duke Energy Shearon Harris Plant
Secondary Species - Round 4
Metal: Copper
September 2018
Duke Harris-WER 4 Fish Cu ETT Environmental;9/18
Page 84 of 110

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
2.0 METHODS
2.1 Experimental Design
2.2 Laboratory Dilution Water
2.3 Upstream and Effluent Sample Collection
2.4 Chemical Analyses
2.5 Preparation of Test Solutions
2.6 Test Organisms
3.0 RESULTS
3.1 Laboratory Water
3.2 Simulated Downstream Water
3.3 Upstream Waters
4.0 CALCULATION OF WATER EFFECT RATIO
5.0 DISCUSSION
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix Dl. Reference Toxicant Quality Control Chart for Pimephales promelas
Appendix D2. Survival Data for Acute Definitive Tests
Appendix D3. Measured Concentrations of Total Recoverable Copper in Test Solutions
Appendix D4. Water Chemistry Measurements for Acute Definitive Tests
Appendix D5. Chain of Custody Records
Duke Harris-WER 4 Fish Cu ETT Environmental;9/18
Page 85 of 110

1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Duke Energy Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant (SHNPP) discharges effluent into Harris Lake
under NPDES Permit NC0039586.In cooperation with Jacobs Engineering,ETT Environmental has been
retained to conduct a "site specific study" to determine if permitted copper limits for each effluent
discharge are unnecessarily overprotective of aquatic life. This is to be accomplished through the
calculation of a water effect ratio (WER), comparing the acute toxicity of copper upon the surrogate
aquatic test organisms Ceriodaphnia dubia and Pimephales promelas in laboratory dilution water to the
acute toxicity of copper to the same test species in simulated downstream receiving water.The study used
the methodology provided in the Streamlined Water-Effect Ratio Procedure for Discharges of Copper
(EPA-822-R-01-005). This round of testing was conducted using the secondary test organism Pimephales
promelas(fathead minnow).
On September 24-25, 2018, SHNPP personnel collected a composite effluent water sample. Acute
toxicity tests for the Water Effect Ratio study were initiated on September 27th,2018.
Laboratory Location: ETT Environmental,Inc.
4 Craftsman Court
Greer,SC 29650
SCDHEC Certification# 23104
Study Director: Robert W.Kelley,Ph.D.
Study Scientist: Amy McMahon
Study Technicians: Jennifer Christian
Jonathon Gillespie
Forrest Jackson
Study Dates: September 27-29,2018
Duke Harris-WER 4 Fish Cu ETT Environmental; 9/18
Page 86of110

2.0 METHODS
2.1 Experimental Design
The design of the study involved spiking copper into test solutions and assessing the
acute toxicity of the test solutions with 48 Hour Acute Definitive tests using the surrogate
test organism Pimephales promelas. The two test solutions assessed were I) laboratory
dilution water, and 2) simulated downstream water at 100% concentration. Acute
toxicity tests were set according to U.S. EPA protocols (EPA 821-R-02-012 Method
2000),modified according to the following parameters;
Test type: Acute Static
Temperature: 25°C+1
Light: 100 ft.-candles; 16 hr light/8 hr dark
Test Chambers: 300 mL plastic cups
Test Solution Volume: 200 mL
Renewal of Test Solutions: None
Test Organism Age: <24 hr
#Organisms/Cup: 10
#Replicates/Concentration: 2
Feeding Regime: None
Aeration: None
Dilution Factor: 0.7
Test Duration: 48 Hours
Endpoints: Survival
2.2 Laboratory Dilution Water
The laboratory dilution water used in all tests was diluted mineral water (DMW). In this
first round of tests the DMW was prepared at a hardness of 50.0 mg/L. This dilution
water was prepared by adding Perrier water to ultra-pure water to obtain the desired final
hardness. The procedure for the preparation of this water may be found in the EPA
manual Short Term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and
Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms(EPA 821-R-02-013).
Duke Harris-WER 4 Fish Cu ETT Environmental;9/18
Page 87 of 110

*Dilution water during the period of testing was prepared as follows;
Amount Hardness Conductivity Alkalinity
20 L 50.0 mg/L 108 µmhos/cm 44.3 mg/L 7.8
2.3 Upstream and Sample Collection
Sampling Locations
The effluent discharges into Harris Lake. The effluent samples were collected as
composite samples. As received the effluent was measured to have a oxidizer
concentration of 0.19 mg/L(likely permanganate rather than chlorine).
All samples were collected in half gallon plastic jugs and preserved in coolers at 0-6°C.
Samples were transported to ETT by overnight delivery.
2.4 Chemical Analyses
Dissolved oxygen and pH were measured in one surrogate of each test concentration at
the beginning and end of the test.Temperature was monitored in three surrogate test cups
in the incubator daily. Dissolved Oxygen and pH were measured with the use of a Orion
4 Star meter.The meter is calibrated daily.
Alkalinity, hardness, total suspended solids (TSS), total organic carbon (TOC), and
specific conductance were measured on each laboratory water and effluent sample
collected.
Total recoverable copper was measured on each test solution at the beginning and end of
the test. Dissolved copper also was measured for each test concentration at the beginning
and end of the test. Copper analyses were conducted by ETT Environmental of Greer,
SC using Standard Methods 18th Edition Method 3111B (flame atomic absorption), and
concentrated to achieve a detection limit of 10 ug/L(or lower with concentration).
2.5 Preparation of Test Solutions
Duke Harris-WER 4 Fish Cu ETT Environmental;9/18
Page 88 of 110

2.5.1 Simulated Downstream Water
A simulated downstream sample was prepared using 100%effluent.
2.5.2 Copper Spiking
Copper was spiked as copper sulfate (CuSO4.5H20) into laboratory water and the
simulated downstream water. Prior to spiking the total recoverable copper in each
effluent sample was measured. Each day a batch of simulated downstream water was
prepared. A 12.72 mg/L stock solution of copper sulfate was prepared by adding 0.05 g
of CuSO4.5H20 to one liter of demineralized water. A microliter syringe was used to add
the correct volumes of the stock solution to each simulated effluent or control
concentration to achieve the desired nominal concentration of copper.
2.6 Test Organisms
The test organism used for this study was the fathead minnow Pimephales promelas.Test
organisms were fish larvae of less than 24 hours in age which were obtained as eggs from
Aquatic Biosytems and then hatched and acclimated to laboratory dilution water for 24
hours. Culture sensitivity is monitored through the use of semi-monthly reference
toxicant testing. Voucher specimens from every purchased batch of organisms are set
aside and taxonomically verified by a staff taxonomist. Culture organisms are subject to
the same light, temperature,and feeding regimes as used for testing.
Duke Harris-WER 4 Fish Cu ETT Environmental;9/18
Page 89 of 110

3.0 RESULTS
3.1 Laboratory Water
3.1.1 Acute Toxicity Testing Results
The acute definitive test with Pimephales promelas in laboratory water spiked with
copper showed a 48 Hour LC50 of 169.265 ug/L Total Recoverable Copper and a 48
Hour LC50 of 157.883 g/L Dissolved Copper. Due to the pattern of the data the values
were calculated using the probit method. The survival data at each concentration are
summarized as follows;
Nominal Concentration Mean Measured Conc. 48 Hour
of Total Recoverable Cu of Total Recoverable Cu Mortality
and(Dissolved Cu)
0 ug/L <1.0 ug/L (<1.0) 0%
50.0 ug/L 51.0 ug/L (59.5)2 0%
71.4 ug/L 72.0 ug/L(72.0) 0%
102 ug/L 106.5 ug/L(98.5) 5%
143 ug/L 145 ug/L (131) 20%
204 ug/L 200 ug/L(192) 30%
292 ug/L 271 ug/L (256) 100%
416 ug/L 366 ug/L (359) 100%
Survival data for the test may be found in Appendix D2. Results of measured
concentrations of total recoverable and dissolved copper are provided in Appendix D3.
3.1.2 Chemical Analyses
The pH in the spiked dilution water test ranged from a minimum of 7.4 to a maximum of
7.7. Dissolved oxygen was generally at the saturation point in all treatments throughout
the test.
The probit method is used when at least two test concentrations show partial mortality.
2 Theoretically the dissolved metal concentration cannot be higher than the total metal concentration,however,the
value shown is the value measured.
Duke Harris-WER 4 Fish Cu ETT Environmental;9/18
Page 90 of 110

3.2 Simulated Downstream Water
3.2.1 Acute Toxicity Testing Results
The acute definitive test with Pimephales promelas in downstream water spiked with
copper showed a 48 Hour LC50 of 484.901 ug/L Total Recoverable Copper and a 48
Hour LC50 of 447.288 ug/L of Dissolved Copper. Due to the pattern of the data)the
value was calculated using the probit method. The survival data at each concentration are
summarized as follows;
Nominal Concentration Mean Measured Conc. 48 Hour
of Total Recoverable Cu of Total Recoverable Cu Mortality
and(Dissolved Cu)
0 ug/L <1.0 ug/L (<1.0) 0%
71.4 ug/L 86.5 ug/L(75.0) 0%
102 ug/L 116.5 ug/L(100.5) 0%
143 ug/L 159 ug/L (131) 0%
204 ug/L 211.5 ug/L(189) 0%
292 ug/L 260 ug/L(253) 0%
416 ug/L 401 ug/L (356) 5%
594 ug/L 585 ug/L(537) 45%
Measured concentrations were generally higher than nominal concentrations. A
significant suppression in survival was noted at a nominal concentration of 594 ug/L of
total copper.
Survival data for the test may be found in Appendix D2. Results of measured
concentrations of total recoverable and dissolved copper are provided in Appendix D3.
The probit method is used when at least two test concentrations show partial mortality.
Duke Harris-WER 4 Fish Cu ETT Environmental;9/18
Page 91 of 110

3.2.2 Chemical Analyses
The pH in the simulated downstream water ranged from a minimum of 7.3 to a maximum
of 7.7. Dissolved oxygen was generally near the saturation point in all treatments
throughout the test.Other water chemistry parameters are summarized as follows;
Parameter Effluent
Total Recoverable Copper(ug/L) 22.9
Dissolved Copper(ug/L) 20.2
Alkalinity(mg/L) 50.6
Conductivity(umhos/cm) 347
Hardness(mg/L) 54
Total Organic Carbon(mg/L) 26.0
Total Suspended Solids(mg/L) 13.3
It may be seen that the effluent water was characterized by moderate alkalinity, hardness,
TOC and TSS.
3.3 Upstream Waters
Not applicable when downstream water is comprised of 100%effluent.
Parameter Result
Total Recoverable Copper(µg/L) NA
Dissolved Copper(µg/L) NA
Total Organic Carbon(mg/L) NA
Alkalinity(mg/L) NA
Hardness(mg/L) NA
Conductivity(µmhos/cm) NA
Total Suspended Solids(mg/L) NA
Duke Harris-WER 4 Fish Cu ETT Environmental;9/18
Page 92 of 110

4.0 CALCULATION OF WATER EFFECT RATIO
As noted in the results section,acute testing indicated an LC50 of 169.265 ug/L of total
recoverable copper in laboratory dilution water and an LC50 of 484.901 ug/L of total recoverable
copper in 100%Duke Harris effluent.The laboratory dilution water LC50 values must be adjusted
to downstream water hardness in order to calculate the Water Effect Ratio,using the EPA
formula, as follows;
LC50 x (downstream hardness/laboratory water hardness)°9422
T-Cu: 169.265 ug/L x(54/52)°.9422= 181.9948 ug/L
Dis-Cu: 157.883 ug/L x(54/52)0.9422= 169.7568 ug/L
The Water Effect Ratio can thus be calculated as follows;
Water Effect Ratio(WER) = LC50 in Effluent = 484.901 ug/L = 2.6644
(Total Recoverable Copper) LC50 in Lab Water 181.9948 ug/L
Water Effect Ratio(WER) = LC50 in Effluent = 447.288 ug/L = 2.8330
(Dissolved Copper) LC50 in Lab Water 169.7568 ug/L
A final water effect ratio(FWER)will be calculated using the individual WERs only from the
three rounds of testing with the primary test organism.
Duke Harris-WER 4 Fish Cu ETT Environmental;9/18
Page 93 of 110

ROUND 4-APPENDIX DI
Reference Toxicant Quality Control Chart
Pimephales promelas
Duke Harris-WER 4 Fish Cu ETT Environmental;9/18
Page 94 of 110

ACUTE REFTOX - 2018
c'athead Minnow; Toxicant NaCI
10.0
9.0 -
J 8.84 8.81 8.63 8.85 8.61 8.64 8.69 8.84 8.65 8.65 8.62
`8
8.54 8.52 . 8.53
01 8.44 8.45 8.42 8.42 8.52 8.39
8. 8.29
© 8.18
() 7 - -
7.77 7.77 7.77
J
1 A Ati 7.-: •:
= 7.36 7.38
7.38 7. 7.39 _ 7 7.44 r. : .4 ' 7.50 7.46 .47 7.47 7.4e
7.0
- - - -
6.34 6.33 6.39 6.41 6.32 6.30 6.30 6. •
6.0
''- 7,6•7',6.24,e 21,6.;516 7eIR 0.11R P•77. P41,673. , ,6•;5, , . , , , ,677, , , ,
Mar21 18 Ap 1118 Apr2518 May1518 Jun1318 Jul10 18 Aug718 Aug21 18 Sep1218 Oct218 owe 1 a
Mtar28'18 Apr1T18 May8"18 May22.18 Jun19'18 Jul2T18 Aug14.18 Aug29'18 Sep18°18 Oct10°18
Date UCi_s L.CI.ARE•,•,•2 STD 0 FROM MEAN
1 -f MEAN f LC50 fi UPPER f LOWER
Duke Harris-WER 4 Fish Cu ETT Environmental;9/18
Page 95 of 110

ROUND 4-APPENDIX D2
Toxicity Bench Sheets
Duke Harris-WER 4 Fish Cu ETT Environmental;9/18
Page 96 of 110

-7
se Page 74 oflG
WER 48 Hour Acute Toxicity Test
Nominal Initial# Mortality Moasured Concentration i
`j�)N A �t Metal:
Conc Rep Organisms 24 hr 48 hr Initial Final Mean Facility: Y I iy _ ,
0 ��(
A ,ate,l Taal 'Iona Sample ID:
No" Start Date: 1 '� �� B `T
0% B 0 (� Time: i Imo' y:
=, By. �_
C Dls Dis Dis End Date: R-a%t� 5,-. Time: �ZCUC� ' ,,,4
D Effluent Log If: Upstream Log#:
'rl (� TEST ORGANISMS
A total Total Total �,
�i' t 0 Test Organism:
L1 B l�'' for Ceriodaphnia dubia Source: ;:
C Dis Dls Dls '
D
Date Removed;
...,, I -'.. /Time
A `� u I Total I Total Total _ Betweerl (Time)imel and ' it 1;
Tor fathead n nows cX mysids:
B 10 0 f mi 1\135 R-2 1 A 'e: Z. $14�5
C _ Dis Dls Dis Source: g
Temperature 24-26 C. Light 16 hr It/6 hr kd;50-100 ft candles
MI A 1 n (0 Total Total Total Laboratory Water DMW/SSF @ 50 mg/L hardness 23-a
50 B I 0 Downstream Water Preparation
II
C Dls Dis Dis %effluent volume mL Prep.Date:
D
upstream volume mL Prep.by:
1 • A 10 f) Total Total Total r 6 , �1
,,[ : Solution Preparation: Metal Salt: rt,►SQ'(
; ; B (� Test p
lllI t� 1 I Dis ols Dls Date: By: Stock.Solo 1l72 I V
'il;P i C
dliI'r I l D
i Nominal Conc mL Stock Soln. Volume prepared
k
k 0 '0 0 1000ML
l is Total Total Total
i 'i '" 25 J. l`F'
I
,I i C Ds Dis Dis
z-14
'
D 50 3,Ci9
1,i i q,, A J Total Total Total ' -1 IA� 5."� 2_
t,I (ip B I 1 I 02 g 02—
1: 1 A C Dis Dis ols
113 I1 .21
ri, 20L )IIQl
r l II A Total Total Total
'ill l A O A Total Total Total
II t
II'I 2 B (0 1 B
, ; . C - Dls Dls Dis
l C Dis Dls Dis
I+ �I I i.
I!
ll II
�ii .I D D
Ili
HI A
; A Total Total Total Total Total Total
.iI ' '' B B
lit II
tI C Dis Dts Dts C Dls its Dis
III1' D D
111 ,1 Test Method: per EPA Interim Guidance
i+Ii I; Test solution volume:25 mL. Test vessels 1 oz.plastic cups.Transfer volume 0.05 mL.
+ I•
li
1
ri It
sl II Page 97 oft 10

Page 76 of I0,I
Nominal Initial It Mortality Measured Concentration WER 48 Hour Acute Toxicity Test
'1
Conc Rep Organisms 24 hr 48 hr Initial Final Mean Facility: ny(,C) Metal: ri
A lot1 iota Total Sample ID: ,L(
0% B IBIE Start Date: lo-70 Tirne: 0 By:4-Al
C . DIs DIs oh End Date: I0-I(H(S' Time: (bl5 By:
D Effluent Log It: Upstream Log It:
A Q 0 Total Total Total TEST ORGANISMS
Zq2.. B b ,b Test Organism:
C _-� DIs DIs DIs for Ceriodaphnia dubia Source:
D _.. Date Removed; 1
n '1 1)- IC) Iota; .at, Total Bet° /Timp1 and (Timo\
U B CO (� for fathead minnows or mysids: ABS �6�a �9 r
CSour
ce: {}PjS Age:11
�ay�1u
If!i ❑ Temperature 24-26 C. Light 16 hr It I8 hr kd;50-100 ft candles •
',,.,: A Total Total - Total Laboratory Water DMW/SSF @ 50 mg/L hardness
l .
i B Downstream Water Preparation
it;4I C DIs Ds DIs %effluent volume mL_Prep.Date:
II .i D % upstream volume mL Prep.by:
1 .
II I A Total Total Total
III Ii
l II B Test Solution Preparation: Metal Salt: CUJD y
Il if
II C his Ells his Date:61-2-t (g By: LTC- Stock.Soln: I Z 72 nj/ _,
I L D Nominal Conc mL Stock Soln. Volume prepared
till i
l A Total Total Total Z9Z 13.7/' ‘oom Iill '
II,I' B `I11 17,t3
;I j,,l I'. C DIs DIs DIs
l
C, D
'ill' A Total Total Total
1
ti B
il C Dls DIs his
xl'
D '
i�. .,:i' A Total Total Total A Total Total Total
,,I 'I
!I; B B
!II I
J� Ili C DIs DIs DIs C DIs DIs DIs i
It I' I'
II , LLj D D
it I A Total Total Total A Total Total Total '.
t' B B
+IS
t C Die DIs Die C _ DIs Ole DIs
fj
i' D D _ _
i., Test solution volume:25 mL..Test vessels 1 oz.plastic cups.Transfar volume 0.05 mL. Test Method: per EPA Interim Guidance
l
i
,I.
is Page 98 of 110

74 of1tkt Page 75 of 100
'L Nominal Initial# Mortality Measured Concentration VVER 48 Hour Acute Toxicity Test
0onc Rep Organisms 24 hr 48 hr Initial Final Mean Facility: IAA kr {_t/((,5 Metal:
A MN la Tote IolaI Total Sample ID: C-1A.
0a/0 B 0 Start Date:CI-z71% Time: )J 5-
6) _By:_ S
q-7-1�' ._f) y' �'
C DIs Die DI5 End Date. Time: B
1
D NM Effluent Log i : ,52,140 Upstream Log#:
A ME � Total Total Tout TEST ORGANISMS
B .=.� Test Organism:
C DI., Os Dis for Ceriodaphnia dubia Source:
D .� Date Removed;
I lrliQ' A l u "Fatal Total Tine; -Bei;V: ei I (Time)and I inie�
35 B 10 b f r fathead minnows o mysids:
C . Ols DIs Dis Source: A�s Age: <<{Z
D Temperature 24-26 C. Light 16 hr It/8 hr kd;50-100 ft candles
-.l-I2 A 1 0 0 Total Total Total Laboratory Water DMW/SSF @ 50 mg/L hardness
B )0 0Downstream Water Preparation
5OC Die Dis DIs % effluent 1oO°( volume mL Prep.Date:
D % upstream volume mL Prep.by:
R
( A S O 0 Total Total Total
B 10 0 Test Solution Preparation: Metal Salt: C1601 - 5
II. . C Ole Die DIs Date: By: Stock.Soln: 11-7 __r k\1 tL/
D Nominal Conc mL Stock Soln. Volume prepared
A 0 J - Total Total Total O 0 1 t�tM
B 10 0 25 I •etCo p.
111
C Die Die Die
D 5 3.141
A NI 0 Total Total Total I I I-r -
�6 2
/'�) B 10 _ 0 IO -t i 0�
` `� C Dis Die DIs 1 1-3 1(-21
D 204 ILp.oet
A 1D V Total Total Total A Total Total Total
i WI
B to f1 B
1 C Dis Die DIs C DIs Die DIs
1 D D
A Total Total Total A Total Total Total
B B
C Ols Die DIs C Dis DIs DIs
D D
Test solution volume:25 mL. Test vessels 1 az.plastic cups.Transfer volume 0.05 mL. Test Method: per EPA Interim Guidance
2 9 Z� tH61 -59i
--- Page 99 of 110

V.
3e 76 of trr; Page 77 of 100
t1IniNome final
tials Mortally Measured Concentration WER 48 Hour Acute Toxicity Test
I Go Rep Organisms 24 hr 48 hr Initial Final Mean Facility: f'�`�, r--Via
Metal:
A j�� total -Fold Total Sample ID: ��
0% B {Q Start Date: (Qq-(d' Time: ) Q BY: AM
C Dln Die Die End Date: 1'cr(( (f2 Time: �(5 By: /-�'1�
D Effluent Log#: 5ZYI� Upstream Lop#:
A 10 0 Total Total Total TEST ORGANISMS
a2 B kD (0 Test Organism:
C Din Die Ds for Ceriodaphnia dubia Source:
D Date Removed;
f
Ti fie A V I Turf T ini Tutu; Bet-Weer, (Ti •l and I '(Tillie)
_t .. • B , 10 for fathead minnows or mysids: FCGt� a�yS1 io ' xv/�/�
C Din Din Din Source:t�Qi5 Age:/'{�l)(S
D Temperature 24-26 C. Light 16 hr It/8 hr kd;50-100 ft candles
j •
A V 51 Total Total Total Laboratory Water DMW /SSF a©.50.mgiL_hardness
519 B [ ,� Downstream Water Preparation
C Din DIs DIs % effluent god volume tibd mL Prep.Date: /0-91cp
D % upstream volume mL Prep.by: Aill
A Total Total Total
B Test Solution Preparation: Metal Salt: CU S 6
• a C . DIs Din Din Date:Ct2L-T By: W Stock.Soln: 1 Z.72- 5/t--
D Nominal Conc mL Stock Soln. Volumee prepared
A Total Total Total Z92- 13'7 VO mL
B 40. l7C/7.z 3
C Ms DIs ois . i t._( 2- .63
D
A Total Total Total
B
C DIs DIs DIs
D
otal A Total Total Total A Total Total Total
B B
As C DIs DIs DIs C DIs DIs DIs
D D
dal A Total Total Total A Total Total Total
B B
is C DIs DIs Din C DIs DIn DIs
-
D D
Test solution volume:25 mL. Test vessels 1.oz.plastic cups.Transfer volume 0.05 mL. Test Method: per EPA Interim Guidance
G Page 100 of 110

ROUND 4 - APPENDIX D3
Measured Concentrations of Total Recoverable Copper in Test Solutions
Duke Harris-WER 4 Fish Cu ETT Environmental;9/18
Page 101 of 110

Measured Total Recoverable and Dissolved Copper
Duke Harris Plant-Secondary Species Site Specific Study
September 2018
Sample:S iked Dilution Water(Diluted DMV1 Initial Date:09/27/18
Nominal Measured Total Recoverable Copper(µg/L) %of Measured Dis.Cu(µg/L) %
Total Cu nitial Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7 Mean Nominal Initial Day 2 Mean Dissolved
0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
50.0 47.0 55.0 51.0 102% 56.0 63.0 59.5 117%
71.4 70.0 74.0 72.0 101% 64.0 80.0 72.0 100%
102.0 106.0 107.0 106.5 104% 95.0 102.0 98.5 92%
143.0 138.0 151.0 145.0 101% 132.0 129.0 131.0 90%
204.0 192.0 207.0 200.0 98% 190.0 194.0 192.0 96%
292.0 271.0 271.0 93% 256.0 256.0 94%
416.0 366.0 366.0 88% 359.0 359.0 98%
Sample:Simulated Downstream-Duke Harris Initial Date:9/27/18
Nominal Measured Total Recoverable Copper(µg/L) %of Measured Dis.Cu(µg/L) %
Total Cu Initial Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7 Mean Nominal Initial Day 2 Mean Dissolved
0.0 23.4 22.4 22.9 20.2 20.2
71.4 82.0 93.0 86.5 121% 70.0 80.0 75.0 87%
102.0 109.0 124.0 116.5 114% 99.0 102.0 100.5 86%
143.0 148.0 170.0 159.0 111% 133.0 129.0 131.0 82%
204.0 203.0 230.0 211.5 104% 184.0 194.0 189.0 89%
292.0 260.0 260.0 89% 253.0 253.0 97%
416.0 401.0 401.0 96% 356.0 356.0 89%
594.0 585.0 585.0 98% 537.0 537.0 92%
Page 102 of 110

ROUND 4 -APPENDIX D4
Water Chemistry Measurements for Acute Definitive Tests
Duke Harris-WER 4 Fish Cu ETT Environmental;9/18
Page 103 of 110

ACUTE TOXICITY TEST - CI-IEMISTRY
r Re0diR dfi 1lau licadirrg dbnHour Rradin(s
p Id Hour Readings 1d Hour Readtn(;s
lniria(lieading) old n<�•
of orr, old
old old no.ConJur[�,�,n Dfxxolr•<d Disxuh..�.
r ihoxirrnl of Dsslnls rd D0solr•cd Qiolvra. pli
O�rxnly<J (L^ Ox cn pit PIi I I O r y r' pl l y!:
r l Ur)'j:rn pl1 or(pp1 l irsp/Lo P mg/L rng/L
�fQoc� mg/L mg/I.
__________,___
s
___________,„______
______
______ __________
______________
____
,,,cm
___________________
. _______ .
_._.--__-_—_
C2- I
Dale. --t9n�,
Time. SU V
Initials.
71 Hour Readings 71 Hour Readings 96 old Hour Readings
old °cam new old
Dissolved Dissolved
Dissolved
Oxygen pH Ozygca pH
Effluent Oxygen pH YL •-
Co°ccorntioo mg1L
mp�L 131.0-
Date: —
•
Time:
Initials:
P1lAtP1-1Ft Fizomeli 5
Lab UM: Q�j
Client: �� l l0t •
0 •
0122
Page 104 of 110

ROUND 4-APPENDIX D5
Chain of Custody Documentation
Duke Harris-WER 4 Fish Cu ETT Environmental;9/18
Page 105 of 110

CHAIN OF CIJSTII DY RECORD
enq jron ent I- Page _:
PO Box 16414,Greenville SC 29606-7414
[phone], [phone] Fax:[phone]
Shipping Address:4 Craftsman Ct,Greer,SC 29650
W W W.ETT EN VI RON MENTAL.COM
Client: � �. ---- _ ----
{ " d I h;yr` i `' Program ram Containers Preservative Parameters
Facility: )
Whole Effluent Toxicity F
;State: j,- ,! NPDES 7: Ch:on•ic Test Organisms _
J r--. t
(Composite only) (Grab or Composite) - •
— `, Z N
c- c> U 1=H�50 .. _ _ Ei t
__ Sign,and Print below 5 = 5 o 2=HCi o Z al = _ _ s
the dotted line4. U - =Itno z o x " -
E.SAIvIPLE ID U Composite Stan Date Time Sample Collection Date Time Collected by O Z C C rJ 7 �-0d, J , , )
�— us OdI- < < V �% � e r � J �' � Chemical Analysis�Other 7' 006 iimilicl.'2'Lt-i'€ J.':-e'''Dc-"a- ,oniect_fi.A iie_r .., v\I ----R Cm Z n 5al-F-fr3
ii
,, !
II II IEIIIIIII
Special Instructions:
Sample Custody Transfer Record Secure Receipt Sample I
Date Time Relin uished By/Organization Received B,k%;Organization f Area Temp=C Preserved?
7 / '
1 COMPOSITE SAMPLING PROCEDURES TEMPERATURE MONITORING PROCEDURES HOLD TlrtlE PROCEDURES I
'Composite samples must be collected over a 24 hour period. Sample temperature during collection and transport must be between For toxicity testing the sample must first be used within 36 hours
Time Proportional:I sample each hour for 24 hours.Equal volul 0.0 and 6.0°C.Samples must not be frozen.Use water ice in sealed bags.Lor at minimum I sample every 4 hours over 24 hours.
of sample collection(completion of composite sample).
Sample may not be used after 72 hours from sample collection.
FlowProportional:Aster instructions in NPDES permit.

APPENDIX D6: Statistical Analysis PROBIT
RAW DATA
Test Percent Number of Log of
Conc. Mortality Organisms Test Conc Probit
0.1 0 20 -1.0000 0.5
189 0 20 2.2765 0.5
253 5 20 2.4031 3.36
356 5 20 2.5514 3.36
537 45 20 2.7300 4.87
767 100 20 2.8848 8.09
1. Enter data in yellow boxes
Test Type: WER
Species: C dubia
Sample ID Harris DisCu Fish LC50 =
Date: 9/27/18 447.288
A value of>0 must be entered for the control concentration,thus a nominal value of 0.1 is used.This does not impact the
result. Lower test concentrations with no mortality are not necessary to determine the Probit LC50 value.
Page 107 of 110

PROBIT
RAW DATA
Test Percent Number of Log of
Conc. Mortality Organisms Test Conc Probit
0.1 0 20 -1.0000 0.5
72 0 20 '1.8573 0.5
106.5 5 20 2.0273 3.36
145 20 20 2.1614 4.16
200 30 20 2.3010 4.48
271 100 20 2.4330 8.09
1. Enter data in yellow boxes
Test Type: WER
Species: C dubia
Sample ID DMW TCu Fish LC50 =
Date: 9/27/18 169.265
A value of>0 must be entered for the control concentration,thus a nominal value of 0.1 is used.This does not impact the
result. Lower test concentrations with no mortality are not necessary to determine the Probit LC50 value.
Page 108 of 110

PROBIT
RAW DATA
Test Percent Number of Log of
Conc. Mortality Organisms Test Conc Probit
0.1 0 20 -1.0000 0.5
72 0 20 1.8573 0.5
98.5 5 20 1.9934 3.36
131 20 20 2.1173 4.16
192 30 20 2.2833 4.48
256 100 20 2.4082 8.09
1. Enter data in yellow boxes
Test Type: WER
Species: C dubia
Sample ID DMW DisCu Fish LC50=
Date: 9/27/18 157.883
A value of>0 must be entered for the control concentration,thus a nominal value of 0.1 is used.This does not impact the
result. Lower test concentrations with no mortality are not necessary to determine the Probit LC50 value.
Page 109 of 110

PROBIT
RAW DATA
Test Percent Number of Log of
Conc. Mortality Organisms Test Conc Probit
0.1 0 20 -1.0000 0.5
211.5 0 20 2.3253 0.5
260 _ 5 20 2.4150 3.36
401 5 20 2.6031 3.36
585 45 20 2.7672 4.87
836 100 20 2.9222 8.09
1. Enter data in yellow boxes
Test Type: WER
Species: C dubia
Sample ID Harris TCu Fish LC50
Date: 9/27/18 484.901
A value of>0 must be entered for the control concentration,thus a nominal value of 0.1 is used.This does not impact the
result. Lower test concentrations with no mortality are not necessary to determine the Probit LC50 value.
Page 110 of 110

Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant-Permit NC0039586 JACOBS•
Copper and Zinc Evaluation
Attachment 2
Reasonable Potential Analysis — Spreadsheet Calculations
February 25, 2019

Freshwater RPA- 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS=58
REQUIRED DATA ENTRY CHECK WQS
Table 1. Project Information Table 2. Parameters of Concern
❑CHECK IF HQW OR ORW WQS Name WQS Type Chronic wlodiro Acute POL Units
Facility Name I Shearon Harris Par01 Arsenic Aquactic Life C 150 FW 340 ug/L
Human Health
WWTP/WTP Class Class II Facility Par02 Arsenic Water Supply C 10 HH/WS N/A ug/L
NPDES Permit NC0039586 Par03 Beryllium Aquatic Life NC 6.5 FW 65 ug/L
Outfall 006 Par04 Cadmium Trout NC 0.8987 TR 3.2753 ug/L
Flow,Ow(MGD) 7.900 Par05 Chlorides water supply NC 250 WS mg/t.
Receiving Stream Harris Reservoir Par et* Chlorinated Phenolic Compounds Water Supply NC 1 A ug/L
HUC Number Par07 4 Total Phenolic Compounds Aquatic Life NC 300 A ug/L
Stream Class Parse Chromium Ill Aquatic Life NC 185.7637 FW 1428.0791 ug/L
❑Apply WS Hardness WQC WS V Par09 Chromium VI Aquatic Life NC 11 FW 16 pg/L
7Q10s(cfs) 0.00 Parts Chromium,Total Aquatic Life NC N/A FW N/A pg/L
7Q10w(cfs) 0.00 Par11 Copper Aquatic Life NC 63.4083 FW 88.4756 ug/L
30Q2(cfs) 0.00 Par12 Cyanide Aquatic Life NC 5 FW 22 10 ug/L
QA(cfs) 0.00 Par13 Fluoride Aquatic Life NC 1,800 FW ug/L
1Q10s(cfs) 0.00 Par14 Lead Aquatic Life NC 5.4881 FW 140.8349 ug/L
Effluent Hardness(Median) 43.6291666666667 mg/L Par15 Mercury Aquatic Life NC 12 FW 0.5 ng/L
Upstream Hardness f fault 25 mg/L(Hard Aveage=20.8819858421678 mg/L) Par16 Molybdenum Human Health NC 2000 HH ug/L
Combined Hardness Chronic 43.63 mg/L Par17 Nickel Aquatic Lite NC 59.6352 FW 536.9197 pg/L
Combined Hardness Acute I 43.63 mg/L _ Par18 Nickel Water Supply NC 25.0000 WS N/A pg/L
Data Source(s) Par19 Selenium Aquatic Life NC 5 FW 56 ug/L
❑CHECK TO APPLY MODEL Par20 Silver Aquatic Life NC 0.06 FW 0.7724 ug/L
Par21 Zinc Aquatic Life NC 203.1420 FW 201.4938 ug/L
Par22 Zinc Aquatic Life NC 8 3 FW 8.3 Ibld
Par23
Par24
Follow directions for data entry.In some cases a Par25
comment menu list the available choices or a
dropdown menu will provide a list you may select
from.Error message occur if data entry does not
meet input criteria.
RPA Harris 006.xlsm,input
1/24/2019

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
H1
Use"PASTE SPECIAL
Effluent Hardness(monthly average) Values"imum then"CIPY"
MaxataO
points=58
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 1/1/2016 45.5 45.5 Std Dev. 7.3196
2 2/1/2016 50.5 50.5 Mean 43.1766
3 3/1/2016 45.8 45.8 C.V. 0.1695
4 4/1/2016 41.0 41 n 36
5 5/1/2016 50.0 50 10th Per value 35.05 mg/L
6 6/1/2016 48.4 48.4 Median Value: 43.63 mg/L
7 7/1/2016 35.5 35.5 Max.Value 57.40 mg/L
8 8/1/2016 412 41.2
9 9/1/2016 43.5 43.5
10 10/1/2016 27.7 27.6666667
11 11/1/2016 30.0 30
12 12/1/2016 38.5 38.5
13 1/1/2017 34.6 34.6
14 2/1/2017 40.5 40.5
15 4/1/2017 41.6 41.625
16 5/1/2017 44.5 44.475
17 6/1/2017 47.3 47.325
18 7/1/2017 43.7 43.7333333
19 8/1/2017 45.0 45.025
20 9/1/2017 44.4 44.425
21 10/1/2017 48.7 48.7333333
22 11/1/2017 46.4 46.375
23 12/1/2017 45.5 45.45
24 1/1/2018 43.5 43.525
25 2/1/2018 43.0 42.975
26 3/1/2018 41.7 41.675
27 4/1/2018 22.4 22.4
28 5/1/2018 38.1 38.1
29 6/1/2018 57.4 57.4
30 7/1/2018 54.0 53.95
31 8/1/2018 52.6 52.6
32 9/1/2018 53.0 52.975
33 10/1/2018 51.1 51.1
34 11/1/2018 41.38 41.375
35 12/1/2018 38.2 38.2
36 1/1/2019 38.25 38.25
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
RPA Harris 006.xlsm,data
-1 - 1/24/2019

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Paf11 Par21
Use"PASTE SPECIAL Use"PASTE SPECIAL
Copper Values"then"COPY" Zinc Values"then"COPY"
.Maximum data .Maximum data
points=58 points=58
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 4/18/2017 7_47 7.47 Std Dev. 10552 1 4/25/2017 18.95 18.95 Std Dev. 21 5028
2 4/25/2017 10_4 10.4 Mean 17.9473 2 5/3/2017 19.2 19.2 Mean 22.9560
3 5/9/2017 14.4 14.4 C.V. 0.5045 3 5/9/2017 25.2 25.2 C.V. 0.9411
4 5/16/2017 14.6 14.6 n 58 4 5/16/2017 22.2 22.2 n 58
5 5/23/2017 15 15 5 5/23/2017 21.85 21.85
6 5/30/2017 12.3 12.3 Mult Factor= 1.00 6 5/30/2017 11.9 11.9 Mult Factor= 1.00
7 6/6/2017 22.9 22.9 Max.Value 47.30 ug/L 7 6/6/2017 16 16 Max.Value 107.0 ug/L
8 6/13/2017 34.4 34.4 Max.Pred Cw 47.30 ug/L 8 6/13/2017 40.65 40.65 Max.Pred Cw 107.0 ug/L
9 6/20/2017 22 22 9 6/20/2017 22 22
10 6/27/2017 18.2 18.2 10 6/27/2017 13.9 13.9
11 7/5/2017 14.4 14.4 11 7/5/2017 9.54 9.54
12 7/11/2017 24 24 12 7/11/2017 26.9 26.9
13 7/25/2017 18.4 18.4 13 7/25/2017 28.9 28.9
14 8/1/2017 11.5 11.5 14 8/1/2017 9.28 9.28
15 8/8/2017 18.9 18.9 15 8/8/2017 28.3 28.3
16 8/22/2017 15.6 15.6 16 8/22/2017 12.49 12.49
17 9/5/2017 15.85 15.85 17 9/5/2017 11.5 11.5
18 9/12/2017 14.3 14.3 18 9/12/2017 16.9 16.9
19 10/3/2017 8.95 8.95 19 10/3/2017 9.37 9.37
20 10/17/2017 34.1 34.1 20 10/17/2017 65.9 65.9
21 10/31/2017 22.7 22.7 21 10/31/2017 26.8 26.8
22 11/6/2017 37.1 37.1 22 11/6/2017 76.3 76.3
23 11/14/2017 19.65 19.65 23 11/14/2017 26.85 26.85
24 11/28/2017 9.62 9.62 24 11/28/2017 10.1 10.1
25 12/5/2017 11.8 11.8 25 12/5/2017 12 12
26 12/12/2017 14.4 14.4 26 12/12/2017 23.8 23.8
27 1/9/2018 9.405 9.405 27 1/9/2018 16.05 16.05
28 1/23/2018 13.6 13.6 28 1/23/2018 99.9 99.9
29 2/13/2018 11.2 11.2 29 2/13/2018 14.3 14.3
30 2/15/2018 10.4 10.4 30 2/15/2018 17.2 17.2
31 2/27/2018 12.7 12.7 31 2/27/2018 29 29
32 3/6/2018 12.4 12.4 32 3/6/2018 23.1 23.1
33 3/13/2018 36.15 36.15 33 3/13/2018 83.85 83.85
34 3/20/2018 43.4 43.4 34 3/20/2018 107 107
35 4/4/2018 15.4 15.4 35 4/4/2018 20.4 20.4
36 4/10/2018 9.845 9.845 36 4/10/2018 16.1 16.1
37 4/24/2018 28.6 28.6 37 4/24/2018 21.6 21.6
38 5/1/2018 47.3 47.3 38 5/1/2018 11.3 11.3
39 5/7/2018 17.85 17.85 39 5/7/2018 14 14
40 5/22/2018 24.3 24.3 40 5/22/2018 12 12
41 6/26/2018 26.9 26.9 41 6/26/2018 14.8 14.8
42 7/2/2018 24.4 24.4 42 7/2/2018 14.8 14.8
43 7/12/2018 20.8 20.8 43 7/12/2018 16.45 16.45
44 8/21/2018 20.9 20.9 44 8/21/2018 13.8 13.8
45 8/28/2018 17.4 17.4 45 8/28/2018 6.26 6.26
46 9/4/2018 19.4 19.4 46 9/4/2018 11.3 11.3
47 9/11/2018 14 14 47 9/11/2018 12.6 12.6
48 9/26/2018 17.4 17.4 48 9/26/2018 7.9 7.9
49 10/3/2018 22.3 22.3 49 10/3/2018 19.6 19.6
50 10/24/2018 18.1 18.1 50 10/24/2018 15.6 15.6
51 11/6/2018 23.8 23.8 51 11/6/2018 41.2 41.2
52 11/13/2018 12.2 12.2 52 11/13/2018 17.4 17.4
53 11/27/2018 8.41 8.41 53 11/27/2018 9.02 9.02
54 12/5/2018 8.89 8.89 54 12/5/2018 7.31 7.31
55 12/11/2018 7.325 7.325 55 12/11/2018 7.16 7.16
56 12/26/2018 8.4 8.4 56 12/26/2018 7.05 7.05
57 1/2/2019 7.95 7.95 57 1/2/2019 8.47 8.47
58 1/8/2019 6.88 6.88 58 1/8/2019 8.15 8.15
RPA Harris 006.xlsm,data
-2- 1/24/2019

Date: 1/24/2019
FACILITY:Shearon Harris
NPDES PERMIT:NC0039586 Dissolved to Total Metal Calculator
In accordance with Federal Regulations,permit limitations must be written as Total Metals per 40 CFR 122.45(c)
Receiving Receiving Rec.Stream NPDES Total Suspended Combined Combined Instream instream Effluent
Stream Stream Solids Hardness Hardness wastewater Wastewater Upstream Hardness
summer summer 7Q10 1Q10 Flow Limit -Fixed Value- chronic Acute Concentration Concentration Hardness(mg/L) Median
7Q10(CFS) (MGM [MOD) [MOD) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (Chronic) (Acute) (mg/L)
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7.9000 10 I 43.629 II 43.629 II 100.0000 I 100.0000 25 43.62917
Upstream Hard Average(mg/L)= 20.88199
Cu WER'I 4 9990 I EFF Hard Med(mg/L)= 43.62917
US EPA Ma,anwm Allowable Effluent Concentration COMMENTS(identify parameters to PERCS Branch to maintain in facility's LTMP/STMP):
Dissolved Metals Translators-using (MAEC)as a Total Metal 'Note-Updated dissolved copper criteria to include WER in calculation(Muriel Steele,2019-01-24)
PARAMETER Default Partition =Dissolved Metal-Translator
Chronic Acute Coefficients Chronic Acute
[ug/I] [ug/I] (streams) [ug/I] [ug/I]
Cadmium(d) 0.23 1.33 0.252 0.90 5.27
Cd-Trout streams 0.23 0.83 0.252 0.90 3.28
Chromium Ill(d)(h) 38 289 0.202 185.76 1428.08
Chromium VI(d) 11 16 1.000 11.00 16.00
Chromium,Total(t) N/A N/A
Copper(d)(h)` 22.0 30.8 0.348 63.41 88.48
Lead(d)(h) 1.01 26 0.184 5.49 140.83
Nickel(d)(h) 26 232 0.432 59.64 536.92
25 N/A
Silver(d)(h,acute) 0.06 0.77 1.000 0.061 0.77
Zinc(d)(h) 59 58 0.288 203.14 201.49
Beryllium 6.5 65 1.000 65
Arsenic(d) 150 340 1.000 i i';u 340
(d)=dissolved metal standard.See 15A NCAC 02B.0211 for more information.
(h)=hardness-dependent dissolved metal standard.See 15A NCAC 02B.0211 for more information.
(t)=based upon measurement of total recoveable metal.See 15A NCAC 026.0211 for more information.
The Human Health standard for Nickel in Water Supply Streams is 25 mg/L which is Total Recoverable metal standard.
The Human Health standard for Arsenic is 10 µg/L which is Total Recoverable metal standard.

Shearon Harris Outfall 006
NC0039586 Freshwater RPA- 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators Qw = 7.9 MGD
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58
Qw(MGD)= 7.90 WWTP/WTP Class:Class II Facility COMBINED HARDNESS(ma/L)
IQIOS(cfs)= 0.00 lWC% @ IQIOS = 100 Acute=43.63 mg/L
7Q10S(cfs)= 0.00 IWC% @7Q10S= 100 Chromic=43.63 mg/L
7Q1 OW(cfs)= 0.00 IWC%@ 7Q1OW= 100 YOU HAVE DESIGNATED THIS RECEIVING
30Q2(cfs)= 0.00 IWC%@ 30Q2= 100 STREAM AS WATER SUPPLY
Avg.Stream Flow,QA(cfs)= 0.00 l W%C @ QA= 100 Effluent Hard:0 val>100 mg/L 1 val<25 mg/L
Receiving Stream: NO HUC NUMBER Stream Class:WS-V Effluent Hard Med=43.6291666666667 mg/L
PARAMETER STANDARDS&CRITERIA(2) Cn REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS RECOMMENDED ACTION
TYPE 1-
( ) NC WQS/ Applied Yz FAV/ g! z
Chronic Standard Acute n #Det. Max Pred Cw Allowable Cw
Acute: 88.48
Copper NC 63.4083 FW 88.4756 ug/L 58 58 47.30
Chronic: ----63.41 --•-----------------------------
No value Allowable Cw
Acute: 201.5
Zinc NC 203.1420 FW 201.4938 ug/I, 58 58 107.0
Chronic: 203.1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
No value>Allowable Cw
Acute:
0 0 N/A
---Chronic: '---------•-----------------------------
Acute:
0 0 N/A
---Chronic: ----------------------------------------
Acute:
0 0 N/A
---Chronic: ----------•-----------------------------
RPA Harris 006.xlsm,rpa
Page 1 of 1 1/24/2019

Attachment 3
Meeting Summary and Slides for June 5, 2019 Meeting
DWR Response,July 10, 2019

CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN FOR COPPER AND ZINC FOR HARRIS NUCLEAR PLANT NPDES PERMIT-YEAR 3 ACTIVITIES REPORT
This page is intentionally left blank.
I
I
I
1
I
CH2M HILL NORTH CAROLINA,INC. '
1

JACOBS Meeting Minutes
111 Corning Road, Suite 200
Cary, North Carolina 27518
United States
T+1.919.859.5000
F+1.919.859.5151
www.jacobs.com
Subject Presentation to DWR Regarding Water Effect Ratio Studies
Project Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant-Permit NC0039586 Copper&Zinc Study
Project No. BL0115CH File
Prepared by Jacobs Phone No. 919-859-5768
Location Archdale Buildling 1106Z South Date/Time June 5,2019 @13:30
Participants see below
Attendees:
Bill Kreutzberger, CH2M/Jacobs Julie Grzyb, NCDEQ
William Bromby, CH2M/Jacobs Connie Brower, NCDEQ
Don Safrit, Duke Energy Chris Ventalaro, NCDEQ
Bob Wilson, Duke Energy Nick Coco, NCDEQ
Della Allen, Duke Energy Carol Hollenkamp, NCDEQ, via conference call
Jim Eayres, Duke Energy Cindy Moore, NCDEQ, via conference call
Bob Kelley, ETT David Hill, NCDEQ, via conference call
Overview
A PowerPoint presentation was used to facilitate the discussion at the meeting. A copy of the slides used is
included as an attachment to these minutes.
- Don Safrit opened meeting with a safety moment, introductions, and background on the Harris Nuclear
Plant(HNP) NPDES permit
- Bill Kreutzberger presented majority of content in ppt slides
- The majority of the discussion was about how the WER was performed; focus was on dilution percent for
testing, instream vs effluent, and ultimate application of WER to established formulae
- Bob Kelley was able to address many DEQ comments by pointing to precedent or EPA's Interim
Guidance details
- Since DWR has never incorporated the use of a WER in a permit, there were several key points/policy
considerations were left for further review
Detailed Summary
The first half of the presentation went without comment from DEQ: Intro, Permit Overview, Schedule of
Compliance, and Effluent Characterization.
CH2M HILL. Inc. (a wnoily-owned subsidiary of Jacobs)

JACOBS Meeting Minutes
June 5,2019 @13:30
Majority of comments came during WER Studies slides and did not necessary follow with slide deck order. Below,
the topics discussed are highlighted and specific comments detailed. Order is roughly chronological but primary
organized by topic.
Hardness
- Julie stated that they typically applied hardness to permits limits development based on a mass-balance
approach.
o Bill K and Bob K both indicated that our studies and analysis based it on effluent hardness since
permit limits were based on 100% effluent with no dilution
Dilution (in-stream vs 100% effluent)
- Connie asked why we were not using in-stream water for at least one of the tests (implying that one of the
WER tests would then be a Type 2 test)
o Bill K indicated that we conducted only Type 1 tests (at 100% effluent)—similarly to how we
approached the situation for similar facilities in SC.
- Julie stated that they had wanted us to use dilution for the lab tests, saying this was what they expected.
- Carol (or Cindy) pointed to a 4/16/18 email sent from DEQ to Don Safrit in which they suggest lab tests
performed with 90% dilution
o Bill asked to clarify what exactly was meant by 90% dilution (diluted with stream water or lab
water)
o Bob K pointed out that our method already represents a `worst case scenario'. Because we
performed Type I tests (no or low dilution), the resulting final WER is the lowest WER calculated
from the three tests. If we would have conducted one WER using dilution as a Type II test, our
resulting final WER is calculated as a geometric mean of three WER results. He was confident
that if included dilution through a Type 2 test the resulting WER would likely be higher than what
we currently have calculated.
Type I versus Type II
- The Type I versus Type II is based on in-stream flow conditions.
- Nick suggested that if sampling were done during drought period then dilution could be incorporated
without moving into Type II regime.
o Bill responded with a few points
• This would mean we would still do 2 Type l's and 1 Type II in accordance with the EPA
Interim Guidance
• One of the reasons that the permit limits are based on 100% effluent is that while there is
a lot of water in Harris Lake, the 7Q10 flow of the watershed is near 0.0 cfs

JACOBS Meeting Minutes
June 5,2019 @13:30
• And, regardless of stream flow rate, the near-field dilution would be basically the same
Application of WER and hardness results to metals criteria calculation
Example formula: Copper,Acute = WER *0.960 *e[0.9422.0n hardness)-1.700]
- Connie and Chris were concerned that applying both the increased WER and the increased hardness into
the equation would be `double dipping'. They assumed if a higher WER were granted, then the hardness
input would still be 25 (mg/L as CaCO3)
Bob indicated that in his opinion it would not be `double dipping', and furthermore would be
O ob p
inconsistent from the Interim Guidance
o Bill K indicated that in his experience, effluent hardness was used when the water quality criteria
were being applied directly to the effluent with no consideration of effluent hardness
- Julie indicated that some type of mixing zone analysis may be necessary to determine conditions to
calculate permit limits-dilution and thus appropriate hardness
Secondary Species Test
- When looking at slide 24 Carol (or Cindy)asked why it indicated that the Secondary Species test
confirmed the Primary Species test if the WER values were within a factor of of five. She indicted that her
review of the Interim guidance indicated that it needed to be within a factor of three.
o Bob K said he thought it was five but would look into it. He also indicated that the Interim
Guidance was not completely clear as to whether this was all WER tests of the final WER.
Zinc
There was little or no discussion concerning Zinc. When asked by Bill whether they had any questions regarding
zinc criteria, Julie stated "zinc will work out".
Wrap Up/Action Items
The meeting concluded with DWR indicating that the discussion was very useful, and they had several policy
questions to consider as they moved forward to consider their comments on our submitted reports. Julie indicated
they would be getting back to us soon with comments or requests for more information. Don and Bill thanked
DWR for the meeting. The meeting concluded approximately 2:30 PM.

JACOBS Meeting Minutes
June 5,2019©13:30
Attachment
Meeting PowerPoint Slides

HNP NPDES Permit Copper& Zinc Study 6/5/2019
Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant—
Permit NC0039586 Copper & Zinc Study
June 5,2019
JACOBS
www Jacobs corn worldwide
HNP Meeting Agenda
• Safety Moment
• Introductions
• Overview of Permit Obligations &Compliance Strategy
• Effluent Characterization
• Water Effect Ratio Studies
• Discussion
• Path Forward with NCDEQ-DWR
JACOBS
2
JACOBS Engineering Group 1

HNP NPDES Permit Copper & Zinc Study 6/5/2019
Introductions — Permittee Representatives
Duke Energy Consultants
• Bob Wilson • Bill Kreutzberger
Environmental Coordinator— Senior Technical Consultant-
Harris Nuclear Plant Jacobs
• James Eayres • William Bromby
Supervising Scientist—Harris Project Engineer—Jacobs
Nuclear Plant
• Bob Kelly
• Don Safrit Vice President-ETT
Senior Environmental Specialist
—Duke Energy
JACOBS
3
NPDES Permit Overview
• Permit issued August 29,2016;effective ?
September 1,2016 and expires August —� '
31,2021 7, [ia„r;,NuLlem
t Plant „Li
• Permit limits include for five internal n'"?
outfalls and 2 outfalls to surface waters
as follows:
a c
Internal Outfalls
001 -cooling tower blowdown
r 4
002-wastewater treatment plant tj ? ,. ,,..•°^
003-metal cleaning waste treatment
system r
004-low volume waste treatment
system ,$ E Oat nor
"
005-radwaste treatment system i
Outfalls to Surface Waters
006—combined discharge from 001 r r^ w
to 005
007—wastewater system forte
environmental center
JACOBS
4
JACOBS Engineering Group 2

HNP NPDES Permit Copper& Zinc Study 6/5/2019
HNP Copper & Zinc —
Permit Obligations & Compliance
• HNP Discharge Point into Harris Reservoir(Class WS-V)
• Surface Water Standards for Copper&Zinc
• New NPDES Permit Limits in Outfall 006
(September 2021 compliance deadline)
- Limited monitoring data at time of permit issuance
- Copper and Zinc Limits based upon
• No dilution(100%effluent)
• Hardness of 25 mg/L(as CaCO3)
• Water Effect Ratio(WER)of 1.0
• EPA default chemical translator(0.348)
Daily Max Monthly Average
(Acute) (Chronic)
Copper 10.5 Ng/L 7.9 pglL
Zinc 126 pg/L 126 pg/L
5
Schedule of Compliance — HNP Approach
September 1,2016 September 1,2017 September 1,2018 September 1,2019 September 1,2020 September 1,2021
NPDES Corrective Year 2 Report Year 3 Year 4 Deadline to
Permit Issued Action Plan -Further Effluent Report Report Achieve
Limes on copper and zinc. Effluent Characterization Characterization Compliance
based on default values a Proposed approaches •Preliminary WER Results
•Plan for completing WER
A a
Effluent ess>25 Characterizationmg,
•Zinc- hardness mye
•Clo compliancen- issues
ie
•Copper-addaional stories rep a
WERStudy WERReport
nnumq report su characterization ! Submitted
•AnnualloatWER resubmitted
•Final report to be submitted
1 �
_ Mining Zone I
Analysis
Add'I Water
• • Chemistry
Management
Only Proceed • I Add'l Physical
if Necessary 4's Management, 4,
t Treatment
•
Request for I
rir„.i Variance
Process
6
JACOBS Engineering Group 3

HNP NPDES Permit Copper& Zinc Study 6/5/2019
Schedule of Compliance - HNP Approach
September 1,2016 September 1,2017 September 1,2018 September 1,2019 September 1,2020 September 1,2021
NPDES Corrective Year 2 Report Year 3 Year 4 Deadline to
MI
Permit Issued Action Plan •Further EffluentReport Report Achieve
Limds on copper and zinc. Effluent Characterization Charactenzation — �.� Compliance
based on default values 8 Proposed approaches •Prelvninary WER Results
•Plan for competing WER
Effluent Characterization
•Effluent hardness>25 myl
•Zinc compliance issus•Copper-addtional studiesreq d
WER Study WER Report
•Ongoing effluent characterization
•Annual report submoted
•Final WER report to be subrnAted
I �
_ t Mixing Zone
t Analysis
i Add'I Water i
Chemistry 4=ar .,f-,.'.
Management,
Only Proceed Add'I Physical
if Necessary �',i ManagemetK, �•ri-•s�� .r
t Treatment
Request for i
, Variance
Process i 7
Calculating Water Quality Criteria with
Site-Specific Information
Acute WER*[0.960•e^{0.9422[In Hardness]-1.700}1
Copper
Chronic WER*[0.960•e^{0.8545[In Hardness]-1.702}]
Acute WER*[0.978•e^{0.8473[In Hardness]+0.884}]
Zinc
Chronic WER*[0.986•e^{0.8473[In Hardness]+0.884}]
• Basis of NPDES Permit Limits
- Hardness-25 mg/L
- Water Effect Ratio(WER)-1.0
- EPA default translator of 0.348 for dissolved to total recoverable metal
JACOBS
8
JACOBS Engineering Group 4

HNP NPDES Permit Copper & Zinc Study 6/5/2019
Effluent Characterization
NPDES Permit NC0039586 Copper&Zinc Study
JACOBS"
www.jacobs.corn I worldwide
9
Schedule of Compliance - HNP Approach
September 1,2016 September 1,2017 September 1,2018 }September 1,2019 September 1,2020 September 1,2021
t i
NPOES Corrective Year 2 Report Year 3 Year 4 Deadline to
MN
Action Plan •Further Effluent Report Report Achieve
Permit copper and
Effluent Characlenzaeon Charapenzabon Compliance
Limed on Inc. •Preliminary WER Results
based on default values y &Proposed approaches .Plan for competing WER
A sA
N
Effluent Characterization
•Effluent hardness>25 ng&L .I
•Zinc-no canpliance¢sues
•Copper-addhonal studies req'd
WER StudyWER fitted
•Ongoing port st characterisation ® Submitted 111111111111111
• n WEpon submitted
•Final WER report to be submitted
I
Mixingysis Zone Anal
I Add'i Water
._.,..»a.j Chemistry r •>
t Management
Only Proceed i I Addl Physical I
if Necessary 4vN, "_;j Management, r _,:,, ,�_ ,.•.
Treatment
I `
I Request for j
Variance I"
k Process
10
JACOBS Engineering Group 5

HNP NPDES Permit Copper& Zinc Study 6/5/2019
Hardness Characterization
• Limits hardness dependent
• Default (25 mg/L) used in calculating HNP original limits
• Actual hardness >25 mg/L
- Effluent average was 43.8 mg/L as calcium carbonate(CaCO3)
® 006 Effluent —006 Effluent Average(43.8 mg/L)
70
O 60 • at •
°
U 50 • • , • •
• ■•�• •••• •• e • • •
40 f•� • • ',De • ••
•••• •
30
4100~Scheduled shutdown of HNP
20
`5 10
2
0
`Low hardness in April 2018 due to scheduled outage JACOBS
,iCO�c
11 W
Zinc Characterization —
Maximum Daily Values
• Zinc values substantially lower after change of corrosion inhibitors
• In compliance without permit modification
250
200
1.7 150
126 p.g/L
Hardness=25.0 mg/L
®
c 100 • (default value)
N •
• • •
50 • •
•
® 0 60:s .0 $ 6906 • Se. stets sot s• ° °sass®
°
`ri i `fli 'rJ Ji "'i i 6 8i t
�0.? '7i 20 0 lam? �� JB� �J"'i 1pJ O
Jj OJ) OJl lOJ, 'r6 J� pJe 0J pJ ?OJ8 ,j9
JACOBS
12
JACOBS Engineering Group 6

HNP NPDES Permit Copper& Zinc Study 6/5/2019
Zinc Characterization —
Maximum Daily Values
• No reasonable potential to exceed hardness modified limit
250
202 µg/L
200 Hardness=43.8 mg/L
150
126 µg/L
® Hardness=25.0 mg/L
c 100 • ° (default value)
N
50 • • •
sielge°•• •°8 g ••�• ° 1S Z•d°• • ••a so •
0
l� l/6 "'/3 s/? Bl 4O
/10l �O 1/10 10 Jl/2 10l /10J 010 3/10 810 J3/1 10 0J
d JB J8 Je O8 J8 S
JACOBS
13
Copper Characterization —
Maximurn Daily Values
100
90
80
70
60
50 OF Scheduled shutdown of HNP
•
0 40 • • •
•
30 • • •
•
• • • • • •
20
• • ••. g ° • g g S• ° •
10 •'°I► J .° •'• • g • 10.5 ug/L
g •�% • Hardness=25.0 mg/L
0 (default value)
i i i 98 ,t i "'i i E B/ 't0
J/101, 1j/10l 1/10J 1- 'til- 6;,-, % ?8='Q ,/10J JB/10J /l�/10 /8/10J 1/10J9
> > . J, 8 8 A 4 8
JACOBS
14
JACOBS Engineering Group 7

HNP NPDES Permit Copper& Zinc Study 6/5/2019
Copper Characterization -
Maximum Daily Values
100
90
80
70
60
i SO OF Scheduled shutdown of HNP
•
o.
40
• •
•
30 • • •
•• • • • it _ • • 17.8 µg/L
20I
• • ••®•� • _. .-f yf• •..• Hardness=43.8 mg/L
10 be f .• • • _ ° 10.5µg/L
K • Hardness=25.0 mg/L
0 (default value)
9 i 9 .T l a' i 6 d 7 .7 i
�� �i jl �'l6 jam? �. �''i 18 �l.P 'r pl ��A i
?1T, ?0. �7j i2o,7j �or, 2% 1C'r8 �'04 'kb,
10f6 �+ . 08 5%
JACOBS
15
Copper Characterization -
Monthly Average
70
60
50
40
no
30 ° ° •
u° •
• •
20 • • •
• •
• ° ° •
• • •
30 • s • 7.9 µg/L
Hardness=25.0 mg/L
0 (default value)
9,0 14 1,1 ✓p✓�4 i> 4 o`Oc✓0 4;6 44 qo 14 ✓'* ✓�✓ q� .�,4 04 yo`OPC✓,,'
pf8
JACOBS
16
JACOBS Engineering Group 8

HNP NPDES Permit Copper& Zinc Study6/5/2019
Copper Characterization —
Monthly Average
70
60
50
40
a 30 ® ® •
n •
v • •
•
20 • ® • •
12.8 µg/L
• • • • • Hardness=43.8 mg/L
10 • •
• Ak • 7.9 µg/L
Hardness=25.0 mg/L
0 (default value)
S,0 44y�0'��J 'TO I)l�J) y 4.��j ^j01 �`10J `� gc). yo`��C��`t
JACOBS
17
Characterization Results
• Hardness
- Effluent hardness is 43.8 mg/L versus the 25 mg/L used as the basis of permitting
• Zinc levels
- In compliance with current permit limits and less than half recalculated values
based on effluent hardness
- No Reasonable Potential to exceed Zinc criteria
• Copper levels
- Exceed both monthly average and daily maximum current permit limits
- Recalculating based on actual hardness not sufficient to achieve compliance
• EPA and State rules allow adjustment of criteria based on site specific
conditions
- NC rules include WER as part of calculation of dissolved criterion
- WER = Toxicity End Point(effluent+natural water)
Toxicity End Point(lab water)
• WER studies appropriate for copper
JACOBS
18
JACOBS Engineering Group 9

HNP NPDES Permit Copper& Zinc Study 6/5/2019
Harris Outfall 006 — Compliance Plan
Described in CAP (8/2017) and Year 2 Report (8/2018)
• Characterization plan- Hardness and metals (copper and zinc)
Weekly for 3 months
- Twice per month after 3 months
- QA/QC samples
• Options for permit modifications
- Mixing zone analysis
- Biotic ligand model
- Water effect ratio(WER)-Selected
• WER Study-Ongoing
- Plans and procedure
- Preliminary results
• Potential future studies
JACOBS
Water Effect Ratio Studies
NPDES Permit NC0039586 Copper&Zinc Study
JACOBS
www.jacobs.corn I worldwide
20
JACOBS Engineering Group 10

HNP NPDES Permit Copper& Zinc Study 6/5/2019
Schedule of Compliance — HNP Approach
September 1,2016 September 1,2017 September 1,2018 September 1,2019 September 1,2020 September 1,2021
NPDES Corrective Year 2 Report Year 3 J Year 4 Deadline to
Permit Issued Action •Furt�r Effluent '—I Report MI Achieve
Limas on copper and zinc. Effluent Charactenzatlon Cnarectenzation ® I Compliance
based on default values 8 Proposed approaches •Preliminary WER Results
•Plan for completing WER
Effluent Characterization
•Effluent hardness u25 mgh —11.1 .4tk
•Zinc— complian
•Coppe no additional compliance
WER Study WER Report
•Ongoing effluent characferization Submitted ��
•Annual report ea
•Final WER reportort to to be submitted
1 �
Mixing Zone
Analysis
Add Water 1
rd,Cdrdri Chemistry t
t Management i
Only Proceed / I Add'I Physical i
if Necessary ,'s Management,
•
t Treatment p
r Request for 1
Variance
Process
21
WER Study Details
• WER studies conducted between July and September
2018
• WER procedures based on EPA Interim Guidance
(1994)
- All WER tests conducted based on 100°/0 effluent(Type 1)
using 24-hour composite samples
- Three tests with a primary species- Ceriodaphnia dubia
- One test with a secondary species-Pimephales promelas
• Measured concentration of dissolved and total
recoverable copper plus other required parameters
JACOBS
22
JACOBS Engineering Group 11

HNP NPDES Permit Copper& Zinc Study 6/5/2019
WER Results
WER Results for HNP Samples for Outfall 006
Total Cu Dis.Cu
Date Species WER NITER
Round 1. 7 12/18 primary 5.9789 4.9996
Round 2 8/15/18 primary 10.8966 10.3127
Round 3 9/26/18 primary 8.2006 7.4639
Round 4 9/27/18 secondary 2.6644 2.8330
• All WER Values were Type 1 since effluent limits are based on 100%effluent
• Final WER is calculated as lowest value since all were Type 1 WER
JACOBS
23
WER Study — Copper Results
• Total Copper WER of 6
• Dissolved Copper WER of 5 180
• Tests with secondary 160
species confirmed WER 140
from primary species .. 120
- Values are within a factor of 100
5 of those with the primary --
species ci so
60
40
20 I 1 U
Round 1 Round 2 Round 3
006 Effluent ■Lab Water
JACOBS
24
JACOBS Engineering Group 12

HNP NPDES Permit Copper& Zinc Study 6/5/2019
Recalculated Criteria and Effluent Limits
HNP Outfa11006
(Average hardness 43.8 mg/L as CaCO3,
WER of 5.0)
Water Quality Acute 30.9 pg/L
Criterion for
Dissolved Copper Chronic 22.1 pg/L
Calculated Effluent
Limit for Total Acute 88.8 pg/L
Recoverable Chronic 63.6 pg/L
Copper
JACOBS
25
Copper Characterization —
Maximum Daily Values
100
90
88.8 µg/L
Hardness=43.8 mg/L
80 WER=5.0
70
60
? 50 04—Scheduled shutdown of HNP
o_ •
o 40
• • • •U
30 • • •
•
•• • • • • • • 17.8 LTA20 •• s•.. t • • • ® • • • Hardness=43.8 mg/L
10 • O . • s 10.5 µg/L
•Hardness=25.0 mg/L
0
(default value)
i1 sal ? 9�j '.1< �6 8= T�i jai jam?
"0.T j0,5
, vb.,. ,r��0 �04 /�0'rd 30 3/te; �i�l ;O fist k %
> > 7) 8 8 c 8 JB 8
JACOBS
26
JACOBS Engineering Group 13

HNP NPDES Permit Copper& Zinc Study - 6/5/20149-
Copper Characterization —
Monthly Average
70
.63.6 µg/L
60 Hardness=43.8 mg/L
WER=5.0
50
40
na
• 30 • • o
o. • o
° •
• •
20 ® ® •
• • 12.8 µg/L
• • • •
• • • Hardness=43.8 mg/L
10 n
• 7.9 µg/L
Hardness=25.0 mg/L
0 (default value)
44, ooi?'968�'r`°,ol�}�16,6,1..✓eon a6 4i, 16 24y�oO��o�2 9�B s`O.o 04 46,�Pc Sao
J, D,r)Jj�lj �Jj�Jj�Jj��J)j�Jj�J�?OJ81�J810J8�OJ��J8�JA 10J�1pj8<'pJ��D,r��01%
JACOBS
27
Conclusions based on WER Study Results
• Copper limits for out fall 006 should be based on site specific
information related to hardness and WER
• The Acute and Chronic water quality criteria for copper are based on
the following formulas in the 15A NCAC 2B .0211(11)(c):
Copper,Acute = WER x 0.960 x e0.9422(ln hardness)-1..700
Copper,Chronic = WER x 0.960 x e0.8548(ln hardness)-1.702
• Acute and Chronic dissolved criteria for copper based on average
effluent hardness and the WER results are:
Copper, Acute =30.9 ug/L
Copper, Chronic =22.1 ug/L
• Using EPA's default metal translator of 0.348 for dissolved to total
recoverable copper, calculated effluents limits in 100% effluent are:
Copper, Acute =88.8 ug/L
Copper, Chronic = 63.6 ug/L
JACOBS
28
JACOBS Engineering Group 14

HNP NPDES Permit Copper& Zinc Study 6/5/2019
Proposed Modified Limits
Total Recoverable Metals Limits for Outfall 006
Original Permit Modified for Modified by WER
Limits Hardness and Hardness
Daily Max 10.5 pg/L 17.8 pg/L 89.1 pg/L
Copper
Monthly Avg 7.9 pg/L 12.8 pg/L 63.8 pg/L
Zinc 126 pg/L 202 Ng/L -
JACOBS
29
Discussion
NPDES Permit NC0039586 Copper&Zinc Study
JACOBS
www.000E39.�/©A BS
30 L�..L�JJ
JACOBS Engineering Group 15

t-#f�tP NPDES Permit Copper & Zinc Study = 6/5/2019
Path Forward
NPDES Permit NC0039586 Copper&Zinc Study
JACOBS
www.Jacobs.corn worldwide
31
Next Steps with NCDEQ-DWR
• Get feedback on study results from DWR
• Revise submittals as appropriate
• Determine whether other investigations are necessary
• Incorporate path forward in Year 3 Compliance Report
• Submit a request to modify the NPDES permit when
appropriate
JACOBS
32
JACOBS Engineering Group 16

StAIE
Received by PRH
ROY COOPER •
c. JUL 1 6 2019
Governor
MICHAEL S.REGAN
Secretary 04wa °"•
UNDA CULPEPPER NORTH CAROLINA
Director Environmental Quality
July 10,2019
Bentley K.Jones
Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant
5412 Shearon Harris Road
New Hill,North Carolina 27562-9300
Response: DWR Review of Duke Energy Progress, LLC Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant
(NPDES Permit NC0039586): 2018 Water Effects Ratio Study
Dear Mr.Jones:
On May 9, 2019, the Division received the results of a Water Effects Ratio study for the Shearon Harris
Nuclear Plant from Duke Energy Progress, LLC. On June 5t11, a meeting was held with Duke and its
consultants to discuss the results. Based on the discussions and the Division's review of the study methods
and results,the Division provides the following comments:
• The Division requests the WER study be conducted in accordance with Appendix F of EPA's 1994
Interim Guidance on Determination and Use of Water-Effect Ratios for Metals which specifies utilizing
either a dye dispersion study or dilution model to incorporate the near-field effects of a facility's
discharge when developing a WER for Special Flowing-Water Situations.
• The Division requests that, as it is the more conservative species in the stream when determining
WERs, the primary organism used in the WER study be the fathead minnow to insure adequate
protection of the receiving stream.
Additionally, the Division wishes to inform the Permittee that,per Appendix A Part B of EPA's 1994
Interim Guidance on Determination and Use of Water-Effect Ratios for Metals,dilution will be taken into
consideration when determining the WER but will not be included again in calculation of the dissolved
standard.
The process associated with the WER will be continually developed,as the process is fairly new to the
Division. In this case,the more protective WER of the two Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant WER studies
shall be applied to copper limits in NPDES permit NC0039586. Future WER verifications shall be
conducted using the most updated Division-approved procedure.
If you have questions concerning these comments,please call me at(919)707-3609 or by email
at [e-mail].
Sincerely,
Nick Coco, Engineer
NPDES Complex Permitting Unit
CC: Julie Grzyb, DWR NPDES Complex Permitting Unit
Cyndi Karoly,DWR Water Sciences Section
Connie Brower, DWR Classifications and Standards Branch
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Water Resources
�p/( SI2 North Salisbury Street 1 1617 Mall Service Center I Raklgh.North Carolina 27699-1617
•+� e." 919.707.9000