WQ0000020_Annual Report_20160223

DUKE
ENERGY®
PROGRESS
February 17, 2016
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Attn: Division of Water Resources - Information Processing Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Subject: Duke Energy Progress, LLC (DEP)
2015 Annual Report for Ash Reuse Permit WQ0000020
Dear Sir or Madam:
Duke Energy Progress, LLC
410 S. Wilmington StreeVNC15
Raleigh, NC 27601
FES 23 2016
rM�.:rue,�irmru
RECEIVEDI NCDEWWR
FEB 2 3 2016
As specified in the Ash Reuse Permit WQ0000020, dated February 17, 2006 and extended byl4w%charge
Law 2009-406 and 2010-177, records of ash utilization and representative ash analyses are tillIkIfknitting Unit
submitted annually to the Division of Water Resources. During 2015, the Asheville and Roxboro Plants
distributed ash for reuse purposes and were subject to the applicable permit requirements. No ash
distribution projects were conducted during 2015 at the other sources listed in Condition 11.3.a., of the
permit, i.e. Cape Fear, Lee, Mayo, Sutton and Weatherspoon Steam Electric Plants during the time the
permit was applicable.
Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
Enclosed are three copies of: (1) analytical data from representative ash samples for Roxboro, and (2)
ash distribution forms for Roxboro which was subject to the 2006 permit through August 2015. Annual
Toxicity Characteristics Leaching Procedure (TCLP) data can be found in the enclosed table.
Asheville Steam Electric Plant
The Asheville Steam Electric Plant provided ash for fill projects at the Asheville Airport which have
groundwater monitoring wells associated with them.
Enclosed are three copies of: (1) analytical data from representative ash samples for Asheville, and (2)
ash distribution forms for Asheville which was subject to the 2006 permit through August 2015. Annual
Toxicity Characteristics Leaching Procedure (TCLP) data can be found in the enclosed table.
Groundwater results for calendar year 2015 at the Area I background well and review boundary wells
showed the following:
• The background well (MW -4A) and all three review boundary wells had pH values below the
range of 6.5 to 8.5 SU for both monitoring events (April and November 2015);
• MW -4A had iron and manganese values above the standard for both events.
e MW -5 had a manganese value above the standard for the April and November events.
Groundwater results for calendar year 2015 at the Area III background well and review boundary wells
showed the following:

WQ0000020—Annual Submittal
February 17, 2016
• The traditional background well (MW1A) produced values for the April event and was replaced
with background well MW1AR-A4 which produced values for the November event. MW1A had
a pH value below the range of 6.5 to 8.5 SU for the April event. For November, MW1AR-A4 had
a manganese value greater than the standard.
• All review boundary wells had pH values below the range of 6.5 to 8.5 SU for both monitoring
events (April and November).
• MW -1 had iron and manganese values above the standard for both events.
• MW -2 had manganese values above the standard for both events
• MW -3 had an iron value above the standard for April and manganese values above the standard
for both events
• MW -4 had an iron value above the standard for April and manganese values above the standard
for both events
• MW -5 and MW -6 had no parameters above the standards
• MW -7 had iron and manganese values above the standard for the April event
Groundwater results for calendar year 2015 at the Area IV background well and review boundary wells
showed the following:
The traditional background well (MW1A) produced values for the April event and was replaced
with background well MW1AR-A4 which produced values for the November event. MW1A had
a pH value below the range of 6.5 to 8.5 SU for the April event. For November, MW1AR-A4 had
a manganese value greater than the standard.
• For all six review boundary wells, only one, MW -5 had any values above a standard. MW5 had
manganese values above the standard for the April and November events.
The form 'DMSDF' for the Asheville Steam Plant has been marked as 'compliant' during calendar year
2015 with all conditions of the permit as DEP does not believe that a contravention of the groundwater
standards occurred at these fill sites.
Roxboro and Sutton — Post September 2015
As the subject reuse permit expired on September 2, 2015 and was replaced by a permit applicable only
to the Asheville Airport structural fill, ash reuse information after August 2015 from the Roxboro Steam
Electric Plant and the Sutton Steam Electric Plant is enclosed as a courtesy.

WQ0000020—Annual Submittal
February 17, 2016
As DEP no longer holds a reuse permit for these sites, this will be the final annual submittal as DEP is not
subject to 15A NCAC 02T.1209. DEP will provide ash basin ash reuse information to DEQ if requested by
DEQ in the future.
Please contact me at [e-mail] or 919-546-7863 if you have any questions
concerning the above.
Since
J
Lead Engineer
Attachments
1T/jt
rA„ ?i1 i vo

WQ0000020—Annual Submittal
February 17, 2016
February 17, 2016
Duke Energy Progress, LLC
Annual coal ash TCLP test required per
Permit WQ0000020 Dated February 17, 2006
Results in (mg/L)
Parameter (limit —
mg/L)
Asheville Plant
Coal Ash
Sample Dated
01/06/2015
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
Roxboro Plant
Bottom Ash
Sample Dated
07/10/2015
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
Arsenic (5.0)
0.14
< 0.050
Barium (100.0)
2.9
< 0.25
Cadmium (1.0)
< 0.0050
< 0.0050
Chromium (5.0)
< 0.025
< 0.025
Lead (5.0)
< 0.025
< 0.025
Mercury (0.2)
< 0.00020
< 0.00020
Selenium (1.0)
< 0.10
< 0.10
Silver (5.0)
< 0.025
< 0.025
4

WQ0000020—Annual Submittal
February 17, 2016
cc/att: Mr. Sean DeNeale — EC13K
Mr. Robert Howard — Roxboro Plant
Mr. E. Shannon Langley — NC15
Mr. Herbert Lea — Mayo Plant
Mr. Tony Mathis - ECO2F
Mr. Mike Graham — Lee Plant
Ms. Teresa Williams — Asheville Plant
Ms. Toya Ogallo — NC15
Ms. Dulcie F. Phillips — Mayo Plant
Mr. Tim Smart - ECO2F
Mr. Jon Stamas — Cape Fear Plant
Mr. Ed Sullivan - EC13K
Mr. R. Kent Tyndall — Sutton and Weatherspoon Plants
5