NC0039586_Schedule of Compliance_20180827

Bentley K.Jones
itsglik DUKE Director,Organizational Effectiveness
ENERGY® Harris Nuclear Plant
5413 Shearon Harris Rd
New Hill,NC 27562-9300
AUG 2 7 2018
RECEBVED/DENR/DWR
Serial: RA-18-0152 AUG 3 0 2018
Ms. Linda Culpepper, Director Water Resources
NC DEQ Division of Water Resources WaterPermitResources
ources
Section
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604
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 (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.
In accordance with Part I A.(9) of the permit, Duke Energy Progress, LLC (Duke Energy),
submitted a Corrective Action Plan (CAP)to the DWR on September 1, 2017, summarizing the
actions to be taken to achieve the total copper and total zinc limits at Outfall 006 and the
implementation schedule. Additionally, a report is to be submitted after Year 2 of the permit that
summarizes the actions taken in accordance with the CAP. The purpose of this letter is to
provide the Year 2 Report in accordance with the requirements of NPDES Permit No.
NC0039586.
Duke Energy requests a meeting to discuss the CAP and the Year 2 Report as soon as
practical. In this way, we can update the Division on our activities and ensure we understand the
Division staff perspective on our efforts.
As described in the attached Year 2 Report, Duke Energy is conducting a Water Effect Ratio
study for copper and zinc, which is currently underway. Duke Energy anticipates submitting an
interim report on the results of this study to the Division in early 2019, at which point an
additional meeting with Division staff will be requested to review and discuss results.
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

NC DEQ Division of Water Resources - Page 2 of 2
Serial RA-18-0152
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,
ide,144.4.06
Bentley K. Jones
Enclosure—NPDES Permit No. NC0039586 Submittal of Year 2 Activities Report
cc: Mr. Danny Smith, NC DEQ DWR Raleigh Regional Office—Regional Supervisor
Ms. Julie Grzyb, NC DEQ DWR Complex Permitting Supervisor
Ms. Teresa Rodriguez, NC DEQ DWR Complex Permitting Branch
Ms. Cindy Moore, NC DEQ DWR Water Sciences Section/Aquatic Toxicology Branch

NC DEQ Division of Water Resources
Serial RA-18-0152
Enclosure
Harris Nuclear Plant
NPDES Permit No NC0039586
Submittal of Year 2 Activities Report
(28 pages including cover)

Final Technical Memorandum
Corrective Action Plan for topper
and Zinc for Harris Nuclear Plant
NPDES Permit
Year 2 Activities Report
Prepared for
Duke Energy Progress, LLC .
Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant
NPDES Permit No. NCO039586
•
. N CAR• August 2018
"..."0•o Fa 9..
•S
;,9 8o/I8
Alf,,\..,........." r
.....*,,ERI..93./
Cil I •
CH2M HILL North Carolina,Inc.
3120 Highwoods Blvd.Suite 214
Raleigh, NC 27604

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM C112444:
Corrective Action Plan for Copper and Zinc for Harris
Nuclear Plant NPDES Permit — Year 2 Activities Report
PREPARED FOR: Duke Energy
COPY TO: Bob Wilson/Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant (HNP)
Don Safrit/Duke Energy
PREPARED BY: CH2M HILL North Carolina, Inc. (CH2M)
DATE: August 17, 2018
PROJECT NUMBER: 680115
Executive Summary
The 2016 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for the Shearon Harris
Nuclear Plant(HNP) included effluent limits for copper and zinc for Outfall 006 and a compliance
schedule requiring development of a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) by September 1, 2017 (Year 1 of the
permit) and annual reports of progress towards compliance through 2020.Year 1 activities included
characterization of the Outfall 006 discharge which indicated that effluent hardness is higher than the
default 25 mg/L as CaCO3 value used to calculate the copper and zinc limits in the permit. HNP has not
exceeded the zinc limit since the beginning of the effluent characterization study, but additional efforts
are necessary to achieve compliance with copper limits.
Year 2 activities include continued characterization efforts,an ongoing Water Effect Ratio (WER) study,
and evaluation of water chemistry management. Upon completion of the WER study, HNP's ability to
achieve compliance with copper will be reassessed; results from the WER testing will be summarized in a
report and submitted to the State within 90 days of completion.
As part of the Year 3 activities, Duke Energy is requesting two meetings with North Carolina Division of
Water Resources (DWR).The first of these meetings will be to discuss the CAP activities to date and the
potential for acceptance of site-specific copper and zinc limits for HNP based on hardness data collected
during effluent characterization.A second meeting with DWR is proposed following completion of the
ongoing WER study to discuss the findings and the impact to the site-specific limits.
The CAP activities report for Year 3,to be submitted by September 1, 2019,will include a synopsis of
these WER results, recommended actions based on results of the WER testing, and continued water
chemistry management efforts.
Table ES.Summary of Compliance Activities for Permit Years 1-3
Year 1 Activities Year 2 Activities Year 3 Activities-Proposed
(9/1/16-8/31/17) (9/1/17-8/31/18) (9/1/18-8/31/19)
• CAP Development • Continuation of Effluent • Completion of WER Study
• Effluent Characterization Characterization • DWR Meetings
• WER Study • Water Chemistry Management
• Water Chemistry Management Alternatives Evaluation
Alternatives Evaluation • Potential Mixing Zone Analysis
PR0802171202CLT CH2M HILL NORTH CAROLINA,INC 1

CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN FOR COPPER AND ZINC FOR HARRIS NUCLEAR PLANT NPDES PERMIT-YEAR 2 ACTIVITIES REPORT
Year 2 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 August 31, 2017 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 PartI(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 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 NPDES Permit for HNP issued September 1,2016
Monthly Average Limit Daily Maximum Limit
Copper 7.9 p.g/L 10.5µg/L
Zinc 126µg/L 126 pg/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.
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.The WER study is in progress;the plan,
schedule, and preliminary results of this work are also summarized in this report. Finally, water
chemistry management efforts are discussed.
Effluent Characterization and Monitoring
Samples were collected at HNP's Outfall 006 weekly from April through June 2017 and 1-2 times
monthly since.The average effluent hardness during this period was 43.4 mg/L as CaCO3, as shown on
the following page.The low hardness values seen in April and May 2018 correspond to a routine
maintenance outage of the facility.
2 CH2M HILL NORTH CAROLINA,INC PR0802171202CLT

CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN FOR COPPER AND ZINC FOR HARRIS NUCLEAR PLANT NPDES PERMIT-YEAR 2 ACTIVITIES REPORT
0 006 Effluent —006 Effluent Average(43.4 mg/L)
70
EitHH
HEH
ii: TEEIH
o O_ _
an 8 iI
E 0 000L© l e 0�®_ i @9 ® d ' 0 0 0 e l I I
V
20 I I r --I---_t..__ 1_ .L__-1-- i I 8 i !
10 )-. ___._a ____ i_ 1_ .
0 i i I i i
i `ri `5> 6 i 6i `9i 10 1,j 1 1i ei �'i i si 6i i
1�c001,1�c) �10 7 <31 <3,1 '10 `3,9
�9<,0 ��<3 /26f.) /2 /� 3 2s<3 2 3 X6<3 26<3 �s<3 25<3
1) 1, 1j 15 1j 0.jj 0.jj 01j Id' 78 16 16 16 ld' 16
Figure 1.Outfall 006 effluent hardness observed during the effluent characterization
and continued monitoring showing the overall average of the data.
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 recalculated 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.tg/L 10.5µg/L 12.6µg/L 17.6µg/L
Zinc 126 p.g/L 126µg/L 201µg/L 201 p.g/L
Zinc Concentrations
Zinc concentrations during this period (Figure 2) did not exceed the monthly average or daily maximum
limits(both 126µg/L) as defined in the NPDES permit as written. If the median effluent hardness from
2017 to 2018 is considered when calculating the dissolved water quality criteria, a limit of 201 µg/L zinc
would be appropriate. Under current operational procedures, HNP has no trouble meeting either the
current or recalculated zinc limits.
–– – Limit(at default 25 mg/L hardness) Limit(at 43 1 mg/L hardness) 0 006 Effluent
250 __w_ __ _ __--_____�-- I___ __
1 S i 1 I I 1
200
I i i I I
�#
150 ( �i t i � — ( `
I i .4 I
c 100 --_ I .,A-__..___-'___-- �____.1 __®__ ( ®1 __
RI
l . 1 , i
50 __-__i -.-® ® _�_ v• _
c ® ® ®o ® �©0 � ® i ® ®
® 0 ,, © 0,0 ® ei°v IQoro I ® a ! I p
930 @ 90 8
0
St/ `5i `ri 6.> i 8i 9i 10 '7.j ',7 'li �i �'i `5i 6 --,s
N1/4) 1�-) 31— �0— st> 29�0 2620 ‹)6, 2 � 1�O `S��O �O 160 �O vS.- 2510
1j .lj 1j 1j 1> 01> 01, q1.> .ed, -I6, 'lcfl '78 16 16 16
Figure 2.Outfall 006 effluent zinc observed during the effluent characterization
and continued monitoring compared to current and recalculated limits.
PR0802171202CLT CH2M HILL NORTH CAROLINA,INC 3

CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN FOR COPPER AND ZINC FOR HARRIS NUCLEAR PLANT NPDES PERMIT-YEAR 2 ACTIVITIES REPORT
Copper Concentrations
Alternatively, copper concentrations during the characterization and monitoring period exceeded the
limits, both current and recalculated.The current daily maximum limit(10.5 µg/L)was exceeded on 36
of 45 sampling days and the recalculated acute limit(17.6 p.g/L) on 19 of these days(Figure 3). Monthly
average concentrations exceeded the current monthly average limit(7.9 µg/L) in all 16 months during
the characterization and monitoring and exceeded the recalculated chronic limit(12.6 pg/L) in 13 of
those months(Figure 4).
It is clear from these data that further evaluation will be necessary for HNP to achieve compliance with
respect to copper.Thus, HNP is proceeding with the WER study to reevaluate the limit itself and with
water chemistry evaluation to determine if there are ways of minimizing copper in the effluent, as
recommended in the CAP.Additionally, although HNP is currently able to achieve compliance with zinc
limits,this is the result of the facility moving away from using a zinc-based corrosion inhibitor in its
cooling towers as was the case in the past. However, HNP management intends to continue evaluating
zinc limits in case the current corrosion inhibitor becomes unavailable and the zinc-based product needs
to be used as a temporary solution.
Daily Max Limit(at default 25 mg/L hardness) -----Limit,Ac (at 43 4 mg/L hardness) 0 006 Effluent-Daily Value
50I i—i-- —T-- - - _— I_ -;- 1O1
45 i,-_-, ;- - - _ _
I I ( �.__o,- I I
35 - i J _i__ f I _ 1 _�_�1_0 i — 1
I ii , I
_____ - i{ -___1- i_ 1 + _--__-__I ®__ I____ _____if
o_I
10 _,
20 -_-------7-__I____ ___ _ _._- —_ -----_-�-__ ; _t______14_1
❑ 15 I ®r- ®- .' I ,
U i� , , , i i I ®_ 1 1 t
10 0„ 0l- , —, - I I I I I i - i (DI I -
0 , , 1
st 9 S 6> d2 9 10 1 1 1 2 2 9 S 6'
i?i2 i1i2 )'i .? �'5' �).9� /`) "28 1-S 2<3 /2G �25S /2i /2i /2G �25S /2`ri
01) 01) 2% 2% 1% 2% 2% 1201,101,1201, 201 201 201 201 2011 201 201
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 43.4 mg/L hardness) 0 006 Effluent-Monthly Ave
301
I 0 ' —
I O ,i 1 O
en 20 -i-- --H-- . 1---_-__-
I
I , I I 1 z
v 15 ____ _ __ ®.___9 __�___ - a _ I___ I ___I
0. I-CL 7
1
1 i 1 11 I i
I l __._m_ __ __,i___ _ __l_ _. __i( I I i IO
470s 47d t> ✓4/ s sr% 0„ 460, ✓d
-0,, ,-P6 470 "9,p, 2d ✓4� -<,/ s
201, 201,y2g1�201,201, e�01� 201, 201 201, 201, 201 20cp 18 201 201 `2cp 018 201 X018 204
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.
4 CH2M HILL NORTH CAROLINA,INC PR0802171202CLT

CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN FOR COPPER AND ZINC FOR HARRIS NUCLEAR PLANT NPDES PERMIT-YEAR 2 ACTIVITIES REPORT
WER Study
HNP is currently conducting WER studies for copper and zinc as part of the Year 2 activities associated
with the CAP.The full WER procedure involves three rounds of testing with a primary species and a
single round of testing with a secondary species.A synergistic study will follow the WER testing to
demonstrate that the toxicity of the combination of both metals at the proposed site-specific criteria is
acceptable.These tests are being performed by EU Environmental, Inc. laboratory(EU) in Greer,SC.
The testing protocol was sent to DWR in February 2018 and is included as Appendix 2 to this Year 2 CAP.
This protocol indicated that WER testing was being initiated for copper and zinc.
Methodology
Sampling for the WER studies began in July and will continue monthly through September.These
months include the warmest months of the year,which correspond to the highest cooling demand at
HNP. Composite effluent samples are collected by HNP personnel 24 hours prior to testing, packed on
ice, and transported to EU.
Upon receipt at the laboratory,samples are analyzed for total organic carbon (TOC), dissolved organic
carbon (DOC), conductivity,alkalinity, hardness,total suspended solids(TSS), residual chlorine,and total
and dissolved copper and zinc. Simulated downstream and laboratory water are prepared to achieve
desired hardness(i.e.the average hardness at Outfall 006 from the characterization study). Eight
concentrations of the aqueous metal and one control are prepared such that the middle concentration
is close to the expected threshold toxicity value in both simulated downstream and laboratory water.
The three tests with the primary species are being conducted using the test organism of a water flea
(Ceriodaphnia dubia) in both laboratory water and simulated downstream water in parallel.A single test
on the secondary species,the Fathead Minnow(Pimephales promelas),will be performed to confirm the
WER determined with the primary species.Acute toxicity tests are conducted according to EPA Method
2002.
Preliminary Results
The samples for the first copper WER tests were collected the week of July 16th. Preliminary results
indicate a copper WER value of about 6 for the first round of testing; however,the final results from this
test were not available as this CAP was being prepared.Samples for additional WER tests will be
collected the weeks of August 13th and September 10th during periods of heavy use of the HNP cooling
system.
Samples for the first zinc WER were collected the week of July 23rd; however additional tests are being
conducted on what is the appropriate inorganic salt to use for adding zinc to test samples.
Statistical Analyses
When tests with the primary and secondary species are complete and metal data are available,a water
effect ratio will be calculated using both total and dissolved copper concentrations. For the acute tests,
an LC50 for survival will be determined for both the laboratory water and the simulated downstream
water.A probit or spearman-karber analysis(depending on the number of concentrations with partial
mortality)will be used to determine the LC50. If the highest concentration in either test shows less than
50%mortality,or the lowest concentration shows greater than 50%mortality,the tests will need to be
repeated using adjusted test concentrations. Each LC50 value for the laboratory water will be adjusted
(normalized)to the same hardness as the simulated downstream water.
The individual WER for each round of testing will be calculated as the ratio of the LC50 in simulated
downstream water divided by the hardness-adjusted LC50 in laboratory water. Because all the WERs will
be Type I WER5(low flow),the final WER will be calculated as lowest of either all the WERs or the hWERs
PR0802171202CLT CH2M HILL NORTH CAROLINA,INC 5

CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN FOR COPPER AND ZINC FOR HARRIS NUCLEAR PLANT NPDES PERMIT-YEAR 2 ACTIVITIES REPORT
(according to the guidelines and formulas in the EPA Interim Procedure).The final WER is calculated
using only the three individual WERs from the primary species.The WER from the secondary species is
not used for the final WER but is merely checked to verify that it differs by no more than a factor of 5
from the primary species WERs.The final WER(EWER)will be calculated as the lowest Type I WER,for
both total recoverable and dissolved metal for both copper and zinc.
Once the fWERs are determined for each metal, dissolved copper and zinc criteria will be determined
using the equations for dissolved metals criteria in North Carolina. From there, default EPA chemical
translators will be used to determine total recoverable metals concentration limits.After calculation of
the proposed limits, a chronic pass/fail toxicity test with copper and zinc spiked at proposed limits will
be conducted to ensure that there are no synergistic toxicity effects of the two metals at the proposed
limits.
ETT will prepare a final report summarizing the entire process of developing a WER for Outfall 006,
including all field and laboratory back-up materials. It is anticipated that this report will be submitted
approximately ninety(90) days after the final sampling event.This report will then be amended to
include implications for the HNP compliance schedule and submitted to the State.
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.A zinc WER is only being done
in case HNP needs to resume use of a zinc-based anti-corrosion inhibitor.
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 ug/L and 30 ug/L(with a few results above this up to a maximum of 47 ug/L) and are
primarily a result of cooling tower cycling up of lake levels of copper.
Potential Year 3 Activities
These potential activities are planned for Year 3, contingent upon results of current studies.As required
by Part I(A)(9)of the NPDES Permit, all activities,conclusions, and any adjustments to the CAP will be
reported on by September 1, 2019.
WER Study Results
Upon completion of the WER study and recalculation of permit limits, a final WER report to be
submitted to DEQ. If HNP is not expected to be able to reach compliance with the newly calculated
permit limits, additional studies will be performed.
6 CH2M HILL NORTH CAROLINA,INC PR0802171202CLT

CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN FOR COPPER AND ZINC FOR HARRIS NUCLEAR PLANT NPDES PERMIT-YEAR 2 ACTIVITIES REPORT
Water Chemistry Management
Specific efforts to correlate copper levels with facility cycling is planned for Year 3 activities.This will
include examination of historical lake concentrations of copper and seeing if there is a relationship
between effluent concentrations and the number of cooling water cycles.
Mixing Zone Analysis
The current permit limitations were developed assuming no dilution for the discharge from Outfall 006.
While Harris Reservoir has a significant volume to provide dilution, no specific mixing zone studies or
modeling has been conducted.Justification for dilution in effluent limits development would likely
require a dilution model and, potentially, a broader water quality modeling evaluation to consider the
build-up of copper in the lake.Although this type of evaluation has not been undertaken previously in
North Carolina, use of a mixing zone analysis, as outlined in Chapter 5 of EPA's Water Quality Standards
Handbook(EPA, 1994b) may be pursued if necessary.
Effluent Treatment
After completion of the WER study and recalculation of permit limits, professional judgement will be
used to predict whether or not compliance will be achievable through site-specific permit limits alone. If
it is determined that compliance may not be possible, effluent treatment alternatives will be identified
and associated costs will be determined. HNP will begin considering its treatment options.
Coordination with DWR
As a follow-up to Year 2 activities, Duke Energy is requesting two meetings with DWR to discuss the
activities to date as summarized in this report as well as the results of the WER study upon its
completion.The focus of these meetings will be to discuss the appropriate path forward for acceptance
of site specific copper and zinc limits calculated based on the data collected under the CAP.
References
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA). 1985.Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Copper-1984.
Washington, DC: Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Criteria and Standards Division.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA). 1994a. Method 200.7—Determination of Metals and Trace
Elements in Water and Wastes by Inductively Coupled Plasma-Atomic Emission Spectrometry. Cincinnati,
OH: Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Office of Research and Development.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA). 1994b Water Quality Standards Handbook:Second Edition.
Washington, DC: Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology.Accessed July 2017.
http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguida nce/standards/handbook.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA). 1994c. 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.
PR0802171202CLT CH2M HILL NORTH CAROLINA,INC 7

Appendix 1
Results of Ongoing Effluent Characterization Efforts

Location Date Time Constituent Value Unit Duplicate? Rel.%Diff.
.-,0006 aNPDES Effluent _ :4/4/20178:20 " `Copper-,Total' -8.91: -" ug/L `" ,- , " ° ' _J
006-NPDES Effluent 4/11/2017 9:50 Copper-Total 8.41 ug/L
L 006=NPDES Effluent4/11/20179:50- Copper-Total, 7.61 ugh Yes 10%
006-NPDES Effluent 4/18/2017 9:05 Copper-Total 7.4 ug/L �
006-NPDES Effluent u 4/18/2017 3:06-.7 .Copper-Total• 7.54',ug/L i Yse2/
006-NPDES Effluent 4/25/2017 8:30 Copper-Total 10.1 ug/L _
g' 006,-NPDES Effluent a " "4/25/2017 8:30 ,,Copper,e Total-, 10.7, . ,ug/L; a,_ Nes- ,, ,, ,6% y
006-NPDES Effluent 5/9/2017 9:25 Copper-Total 14.4 ug/L
F-7:006"-NPDES Effluent - '-5/16/20178:15=' ;Copper-Total "14.6 •ug/La , - 1
006-NPDES Effluent 5/23/2017 8:48 Copper-Total 16.4 ug/L
7,006=NPDES - ,-'' -5/23/20178:48 - • -Copper-`Total, ', ``f'13.6- :_', ug/L,` F
,,., 'Yeses -=." " -`_ ' °19% ;71
006-NPDES Effluent 5/30/2017 11:11 Copper-Total 12.3 ug/L
r---- obi;NPDES Effluent- "' 6/6/x01714:06' Copper=Total ,"22.9 - ug/L , - .A
006-NPDES Effluent _6/13/2017 14:42 Copper-Total 30.7 ug/L
006-NPDES Effluent; 6/13/201714:42 - ,Copper-Total , 38.1 ug/L ' • 'Yes •- c ''22% j
• 006-NPDES Effluent 6/20/2017 11:30 Copper-Total 22 ug/L
€ 006,-,NPDES Effluent_ , . 6/27/20171039 , :•Copper-Total 18.2 '' ';.ug/L . s' - '` " '
-�
006-NPDES Effluent 7/5/2017 8:10 Copper-Total 14.4 ug/L
_ 006-NPDESEffluent2 , . 7/11/2017 0:00,, •Copper;Total _' _ 24 `_ ' do. ,,,,,LL -L
006-NPDES Effluent 7/25/2017 13:20 Copper-Total 18.4 ug/IT
rti 006--NPDES Effluent ;8/1/2017 8:57 Copper-Total 11.5 ',Lug/L _.1
006-NPDES Effluent 8/8/2017 6:00 Copper-Total 18.9 ug/L
006--NPDES Effluent,_•. •'8/22/2017-9:40 - Copper,Total, - ,, 14.9 : ugh
006-NPDES Effluent 8/22/2017 9:40 Copper-Total 16.3 ug/L Yes 9%
'006'-NPDES Effluent :"9/5/2017 9:20 , Copper"-Total ; 14.3• = ug/L
006-NPDES Effluent 9/5/2017 9:20 Copper-Total 17.4 ug/L Yes 20%
[1 006_NPDES Effluent ' "9/12/2017 9:45 ° Copper-Total ' ; 14.3 =- -` ug/L ° w - ; 1
006-NPDES Effluent 9/12/2017 9:45 Copper-Total 14.3 ug/L Yes 0%
000- Effluent, - -10/3/2017 8:45 ` =�Copper-Total 7 ' i07- ug/L " _ -
006-NPDES Effluent 10/3/2017 8:45 Copper-Total 7.9 ug/L Yes 23%
006-,NPDES Effluent - :10/17/201711:30 Copper:Total 29:8 " ug/l. ''' `
006-NPDES Effluent 10/17/2017 11:30 Copper-Total 38.4 ug/L Yes 25%
006--NPDES Effluent :. 10/31/2017 8:20, ,Copper-Total 22.7 . ugh - -
_ 006-NPDES Effluent 11/6/2017 9:52 Copper-Total 37.1 ug/L
006-NPDES Effluent ' . 11/14/2017 8:40 Copper-Total 20.6 ug/L - A I
006-NPDES Effluent 11/14/2017 8:40 Copper-Total 18.7 ug/L Yes 10%
006=NPDES_ Effluent - 11 28/2017 8:45• Copper /L-Total ., , "9.62 - ,u -- _--!
006-NPDES Effluent 12/5/2017 8:45 Copper-Total 11.8ug/L _
006=NODES -Effluent' '. 12/12/2017 9:20- Copper-Total " ,14.6 .--,-
,- ug/L° ., -.',-:, s- =
006-NPDES Effluent 12/12/2017 9:20 Copper-Total 14.2 ug/L Yes 3%
006-'NPDES Effluent ' - 1/9/20189:40 • ' Copper'-Total ' ' '9.46 =.`ug/L' - . - - 11
006-NPDES Effluent 1/9/2018 9:40 Copper-Total 9.35 ug/L Yes 1%
r------7 .-..",_lii S f--- - . ._ _.... - . ,* w 71
006_-NPDES Effluent 1/23/2018 8:30Copper"-Total 13:6 „` ug/L " -
006-NPDES Effluent 2/13/2018 8:00 Copper-Total 11.2 ug/L
1-1 006-NPDES Effluent , '-2/15/2018 9:45 _• Copper'0604,i-061 10.1 ` =ug/L `_ _ 1
006-NPDES Effluent 2/15/2018 9:45_.� Copper-Total 10.7 ug/L Yes 6%
,006-NPDES;Effluent - 2/27/201813:02 Copper-Total ,- 12:7 _ ugh. - - - _J
006-NPDES Effluent 3/6/2018 7:50 Copper-Total 12.4 ug/L
FT-. 006,-NPDES Effluent` 8 8
3/13/201 :30 "CopperTo
- tal _ 36.4 " 2.„..._-_' ug/l: ,171,-„,-12-__:'
006-NPDES Effluent 3/13/2018 8:30 Copper-Total 35.9 ug/L Yes 1%
006=NPDES Effluent- 3/20/20189:45,- Copper-Total 43A mug/L _ e
006-NPDES Effluent 4/4/2018 8:45 Copper-Total 15.4 ug/L

006-NPDES_EE_ffff_luent°° 4/10/201810:55 ', Copper Tot_al7 9.39 - `° ug/L- °" ' '
006-NPDES luent 4/10/2018 10:55 Copper-Total - 10.3 ug/L Yes 9%
006-NPDESEffluent 4/24/20188:20 ,Copper-Totaln '28:6_ ug/L- • , . '" 1
006-NPDES Effluent 5/1/2018_ 14:11 Copper-Total 47.3 ug/L
i 006 7.NPDES Effluent '_ .5/7/2018 8:38 Copper-Total- . :
17.1 ' , ug/L` „L"_°_-"7" :1
- 8.6
006 NPDES Effluent 5/7/2018 8:38 Copper-Total 1ug/L Yes 8%
€` ,,006--NPDES Effluent= . 5/22/201813:45 , „Copper-,,Total .. ,,,,24,3•Z ugh . „ _ i
006-NPDES Effluent 6/26/2018 9:10 Copper-Total 26.9 ug/L
006-NPDESEffluent , 7/2/2018 8:50 - ',Copper-Total-,,,24.4- ug/L,,Ww V ,�Me 71
006-NPDES Effluent 7/12/2018 13:53 Copper-Total 19.7 ug/L
L - 006=NPDES Effluent `X7/12/201813:53 -Copper-Total 21.9 _ . ug/L, .,,.Yes, .11%
006-NPDES Effluent Blank 4/25/2017 8:30 Copper-Total <1 ug/L
0061_NPDES Effluent Blank 5/9/2017 9:25 Copper Total " "<1�" .- ,ug/C"' -- " , '7771
006-NPDES Effluent Blank 6/20/2017 11:30 Copper-Total <5 ug/L _
L 006.:-NPDES Effluent Blank ✓ ,7/2S/20i7 13:20 'Copper-.Total ` "' `<1 ~mug/L _ ' - " 1
006-NPDES Effluent Blank 9/12/2017 9:45 Copper,,-.Total_ _ <1 ug/L
E 006-NPDES Effluent Blank 11/1_1/201_7 8:40Copper Total L. 1 ugh; , `° '- w -
006-NPDES Effluent Blank 12/12/2017 9:20 Copper-Total <1 ug/L
1 006-NPDES,Effluent Blank _ 1/9/2018 9:40 7 Copper-Total <1 _ug/L ° - '1
006-NPDES Effluent Blank 3/13/2018 8:30 Copper-Total <1 ug/L
006 NPDES:Effluent Blank, ,, 5/7/2018.8:38 ,',Copper-Total _ <,1_ 7_- ugh-, ,_ ___.__
006-NPDES Effluent Blank 7/12/2018 13:53 Copper-Total 3.88 ug/L
'006-NPDES Effluent Eq Blank - 5/9/2017 9:25 , -Copper,-,Total ' „1.68, ,,, ug/L- -.4 __ ,
006-NPDES Effluent Eq Blank 6/13/2017 14:30 Copper-Total <5 ug/L
L006-'NPDES Effluent Eq Blank '7/11/2017 0:00 Copper-Total -, '<1. '', , . ug/L . ro -
006-NPDES Effluent Eq Blank 8/22/2017 9:40 Copper-Total 1.56 ug/L
006-NPDES Effluent Eq Blank ` 11/14/2017 8:40 ''Copper.-Total 1.97- = ug/L ", - ,°
006-NPDES Effluent Eq Blank 12/18/2017_ 8:30 Copper-Total 1.04 ug/L
( 006-NPDESEffluent EqBlank -`2/15/2018 9:45 Copper.-Total `' -n'<11 M ° ; ug/L - -
006-NPDES Effluent Eq Blank 3/20/2018 9:45 _Copper-Total 1.78 ug/L
L 006-NPDES Effluent Eq Blank - S/7/20181:38 ` Copper-Total 5.93', 'ug/L w -- I
006-NPDES Effluent Eq Blank 6/26/20189:10 Copper-Total <1 ug/LL __
8- 006-NPDES Effluent 4/4/20178:20 . Hardness 38 Mel_ - �
006-NPDES Effluent 4/11/2017 9:50 Hardness 41 mg/L _ _
006-NPDES Effluent4/11/2017 9:50���Hardness �40 , rr�g/L������ Yes _ 2%
006-NPDES Effluent 4/18/2017 9:05 Hardness 46 _mg/L _ __
{_ _ 00_6-NPDES Effluent _4/18/20179:05 `, Hardness . 47 , - mg/L_M1 � Yes �lµ 2%_:�_.a
_ 006-NPDES Effluent 4/25/2017 8:30 Hardness 41 mg/L _
! ° '006-NPDES Effluent 4/25/2017 8:30, - .5 Hardness -42 ,,- ,mg/L '�� Yes°, :,2% :41
006-NPDES Effluent 5/9/2017 9:25 Hardness 41 mg/L
-0067:NPDES Effluent" ' = 5/16/2017 8:15 . Hardness `41 - • mg/L , - , - - -
006-NPDES Effluent 5/23/2017 8:48 Hardness 40 mg/L
- 006-NPDESEffluent
' 5%3/2017 8:48' s_Hardnes39- °' Img/L - : _ Yes es 3%_ -1
006-NPDES Effluent 5/30/2017 11:11 Hardness 45 mg/L
-006:NPDES Effluent 6/6/201714:06' i '' Hardness", ` '48.7 - mg/L----7 ` ° -
006-NPDES_ Effluent 6/13/2017_14:42 Hardness 46.2 mg/L
_ .,_ „---- ---,.,-- _._.
„006-NPDES Effluent 6/13%201714:42 Hardness m 57.8 'mg"/L . Yes- `` '----7-2-2-i77-711, i
006-NPDES Effluent 6/20/2017 11:30 Hardness 44.7 mg/L
,,006-,NPDES Effluents ;6/27/2017,10:39 ; Hardness 43.9 1 mg/L ,__
006-NPDES Effluent 7/5/2017 8:10 Hardness 40.9 _mg/L _
_
006-:NPDES Effluent7/11/2017 0:00 Hardness- 47.6 _ mg/L , ��
006-NPDES Effluent 7/25/2017 13:20 Hardness -,44.-11.:
42.7 mg/L _
- - d x" "°006-NPDESEffluent -8/8/20176:00;' -;- Hardness w>;44.1 -mg/l•-„ 2 -, ,

006-NPDES Effluent8/22/2017 9:40 Hardness 46.1 mg/L
l 006-NPDES Effluent°' _4 8/22/2017 9:40., -� Hardness '4 45.8 mg/L , Yes-1 %7 mm 1
006-NPDES Effluent 9/5/2017 9:20 Hardness 46.2 mg/L
006.=NPDES Effluent -9/12/2017 9:45°` > Hardness ;43.2« ,; .„ mg/L Ti
006-NPDES Effluent 9/12/2017 9:45 Hardness 42.1 mg/L Yes 3%
->006-NPDES Effluent, 10/3/21171:45 "=Hardness ' '42:7 - ` mg/L° , ' ' ,. °
006-NPDES Effluent 10/17/201711:30 Hardness 55.6 mg/L _
L .‘ 006=NPDES Effluent -,10/17/201711:30, ' Hardness .59.4. , mg/L- -, „:Yes 27%
006-NPDES Effluent 10/31/2017 8:20 Hardness 46 mg/L
_ 006-NPDES Effluent 77 11/14/2017 8:40 Hardness - __45.9` rn mg/L °'' ' - ° ' f,°' n i
006-NPDES Effluent 11/14/2017 8:40 Hardness 46.6 mg/L Yes 2%
€ 006-NPDES Effluent 11/28/2017 8:45 • `Hardness- • ,46.5 ,. „mg/L �
006-NPDES Effluent 12/12/2017 9:20 Hardness 44.5 mg/L
L 006-NPDES Effluent 12/ 12/2017 9:20-, �µy Hardness 464 ' mg/L Yes tl ` 4% - i
006-NPDES Effluent 1/9/2018 9:40 Hardness 42.6 mg/L
I,, 006-NPDES Effluent ° 77 1/9/2018 9:40 Hardness .. , . 44.7 , ,, .mg/L ;,Yes - . _;7_.,5% . A
006-NPDES Effluent m 1/23/2018 8:30 _ Hardness 43.4 mg/L
L , 006-NPDES Effluent 2/15/2018 9 :45 Hardness 40.7 ; 'mg/L-, ,' 1
006-NPDES Effluent 2/15/2018 9:45 Hardness 40.2 mg/L Yes 1%
1:7-- 006-'NPDES Effluent_ t 2/27/201813:02 u, °_,Hardness• 45.5 3- - .,.mg/L.7-_- 1
006-NPDES Effluent _3_/13/2018_8:30 Hardness 40.1 mg/L
re------:--0-66--- PD
NES.Effluent 3/13/2018 8:30 Hardness ri40 mg/L. Yes .. '0:2%
006-NPDES Effluent 3/20/2018 9:45 Hardness 43.3 mg/L_
006-='NPDES,Effluent , 4/10/201810:55. - °,Hardness - 25 ' mg/L , -
006-NPDES Effluent 4/10/2018 10:55 Hardness 25.2 mg/L Yes 1%
006-NPDES Effluent, °- _„4/24/2018 8:20 Hardness 'M 19.7 mg/L ' ' �A I
006-NPDES Effluent 5/7/2018 8:38 Hardness 23.4 mg/L _
- 006=NPDES-Effluent - 5/7/2018 838 2 -,Hardness 26.2 4, ^ mg/L 7 Yes , ', 11% _
006-NPDES Effluent 5/22/2018 13:45 Hardness 51.4 mg/L
i 006-NPDES Effluent ' ::6-/i9/018-6-:170 Hardness Li "`57:4` mg/L - , - - ',• " - x
006-NPDES Effluent 7/12/2018 13:53 Hardness 54.1 mg/L
- 006-NPDES Effluent,-'` - °7/12/201813:53. Hardness ., ..ro - 53.8, , mg/L- ,. Yes 1% 71
006-NPDES Effluent Blank 4/25/2017 8:30 Hardness <0 mg/L
006-NPDES Effluent Blank ,5/9/2017 9:25 Hardness ` . -<0.14* _ mg/L i , ,
006-NPDES Effluent Blank 6/20/2017 11:30 Hardness 0.046 mg/L _ _
006-NPDES Effluent Blank- X7/25/201713:20- Hardness ' - -. <0.046 mg/L . - W _ m^-
006-NPDES Effluent_Blank 9/12/2017 9:45 _Hardness_ 0.018 mg/L
i_006-NPDES Effluent Blank X11/11/2017 8:40 ' Hardness t 0.017 ` mg/L _ - --
006
006-NPDES Effluent Blank 12/12/20179:20 Hardness 0.021 mg/L
€ 006-NPDES Effluent Blank - 1/9/2018 9:40 ,. - Hardness « _ 7 0.012 Fmg/L
006-NPDES Effluent Blank 3/13/2018 8:30 Hardness <0.046 mg/L
( 006-NPDES Effluent Blank 5/7/2018 8:38 �_ Hardness <0.05- mg/L - ' :-
--
006-NPDES Effluent Blank 7/12/2018 13:53 Hardness <0.05 mg/L
006'-NPDES Effluent Eq-Blank _ 5/9/2017 9:25 �. - ,Hardness, 0.39 mg/L.�
006-NPDES Effluent Eq Blank 6/13/2017 14:30 Hardness 0.169 mg/L _
1006-NPDES Effluent Eq Blank Xv 7/11/2017 0:00°` 'Hardness ° '. '0:198 . mg/L r - -
006-NPDES Effluent Eq Blank 8/22/2017 9:40 Hardness m 0.545 mg/L
006,NPDES Effluent Eq Blank .11/14/20178:40 . Hardness-. , ' 0.406' , mg/LL-1,„L,_____ -_1
006-NPDES Effluent Eq Blank 12/18/2017 8:30 Hardness 0.188 mg/L
170 06-NPDES Effluent•Eq Blank 2/15/2018 9:45 -Hardness - . 0.312' ring/L--ring/L-- • ',,---77.
_ a , -1
006-NPDES Effluent Eq Blank 3/20/2018 9:45 Hardness 0.628 mg/L
1006-NPDES Effluent Eq-Blank -5/7/2018 8:38 . Hardness 1.28 ., ..mg/L , ` - _-_,
- - 006-NPDES Effluent Eq Blank 6/26/2018 9:10 Hardness 0.498 mg/L

006=NPDES Effluent . 4/4/2017 8.20_ Zinc-Total , <10 , ug/L
006-NPDES Effluent 4/11/2017 9:50 Zinc-Total 24.3 ug/L
' " 006-NPD_EEffluent 4/1i/2017'9:50-'- Zinc-Total 21 77 ug/L ".Yes'7' ' 1'6%7 m
006-NPDES Effluent 4/18/2017 9:05 Zinc-Total 12.9 ug/L
.._ '006',NPDES Effluent '4/18/2017 9:05 ` `.Zine-Total 12.8 '- ug/L Yes-'`3 :. O8%'�
006-NPDES Effluent 4/25/2017 8:30 Zinc-Total 16.8 ug/L
`006-NPDES Effluent 1 4/25%2017,8:30 iZinc-Total 21.1 ug/L " .Yes 23%
006-NPDES Effluent 5/3/2017 9:44 Zinc-Total 19.2 µg/L _
006-NPDES Effluent z :.5/9/2017 925 Zinc-Total " , ' 25.2 �
ug/L p°
006-NPDES Effluent 5/16/2017 8:15 Zinc-Total 22.2 ug/L
006=NPDES Effluent:: 523/2017 8:48_ Zinc-`Total ° 26.2 ug/L - ''. '1
006-NPDES Effluent 5/23/2017 8:48 Zinc-Total 17.5 ug/L Yes 40%
006 NPDES•Effluent 5/30/201711:11 °2inc-Total 11.9 ug/,L ' _ 7.1
-i1
006-NPDES Effluent 6/6/2017 14:06 Zinc-Total 16 ug/L
r 006-NPDES Effluent -" °6/13/2017'14:42 Zinc-Total 32.6 . ,ug/L , ' ° , rs w j
006-NPDES Effluent 6/13/2017 14:42 Zinc-Total 48.7 ug/L Yes 40%
: 006-NPDES Effluent .= 6/20/201711:30 ; Zinc-Total _ °°,22 ,,ug/L„ , 71
006-NPDES Effluent 6/27/2017 10:39 Zinc-Total 13.9 ug/L
-006-'NPDES Effluent" ,7/5/2017 8:10 ' Zinc-Total 9.54 ug/L ,l_ i
006-NPDES Effluent 7/11/2017 0:00 Zinc-Total 26.9 ug/L
1-- 006-NPDES Effluent . 7/25/201713:20 Zinc-Tote "_ -28.9 ' -ug/L- ` --7' F
006-NPDES Effluent 8/1/2017 8:57 Zinc-Total 9.28 ug/L
j 006 NPDES Effluent ` '43/812-017'6:00 Zinc-Total 28:9 ug/L '',---°.°
0_06-NPDES_ Effluent 8/22/2017_ 9:40 Zinc-Total 9.08 ug/L
` 7-006°-NPDES Effluent° -° :8/22/2017 9:40 ` Zinc-Total°- "15.9. .-� ,ug/L " ,Yes ,. 55%
006-NPDES Effluent 9/5/2017 9:20 Zinc-Total 10.4 ug/L
3 '006-NPDES_ Effluent._ , ..-9/5/2017 9:20'..° . Zinc--Total: __,. 12.6 - 'ug/L Yes 19%
006-NPDES Effluent 9/12/2017 9:45 Zinc-Total 18.3 ug/L
. X006-NPDES Effluent .9/122017 9:45 Zinc-Total 15.5 ug/L Yes �17% _
006-NPDES Effluent 10/3/2017Zinc-8:45 Total 12.8 ug/L Yes 19%
006-NPDES Effluent 10/3/20178:45 Zinc-Totaem.l - _ 5.94 ug/L°
_ 006-NPDES Effluent 10/17/2017 11:30 Zinc-Total 51.3 ug/L
006:NPDES Effluent 10/17/201711:30" "Zinc--Total ,.. . 80.5 ' ug/L- .'Yes ' - ' �44% ',---{
006-NPDES Effluent_ _ 10/31/2017 8:20 Zinc-Total 26.8 ug/L
[7-1°006-NPD°ES_Effluent"`�T 11/6/2017 9:52 :N Zinc-Total . . 763 ug/L�� ,T ,,, .,
006-NPDES Effluent 11/14/2017 8:40 Zinc-Total M 27.4 ug/L
�r 006-NPDES Effluent 11/14/2017 8:40 Zinc-Total " 263 ug/L Yes 4%_
006-NPDES Effluent 11/28/2017 8:45 Zinc-Total 10.1 ug/L
006-NPDES Effluent 12/5/2017 8:45 _Zinc=Total ms, 12" '-ug/L "
006-NPDES Effluent 12/12/2017 9:20 Zinc-Total 23 ug/L
006-NPDES Effluent 12/12/20179:20 Zinc=Total -° 24.6 � ug/L Yes "fir 7%��
00-6--NPDES Effluent 1/9/2018 9:40 Zinc-Total 15.7 ug/L
" 066-NPDES Effluent- - ,- 1/9/2018 9:40 ' _ Zinc-Total 16.4 '. - ug/L.' --,Yes ,°4% ;
006-NPDES Effluent 1/23/2018 8:30 Zinc-Total 99.9 ug/L
r. °, 006-NPDES Effluent ,•-,mag°2/13/2018 8:00 _ Zinc Total,. "r, >14.3 „ug/L _L _ ,,_;
006-NPDES Effluent 2/15/2018 9:45 Zinc-Total 13.6 ug/L
{- 006-NPDES Effluent 2/15/2018 9:45 L Zinc-Total -_ ''20:8 �„x ug/L Yes "42%
006-NPDES Effluent 2/27/201813:0 _L_,_
Zinc-Totalt29 ug/L
IL „„mow-.,�-.�,
006-NPDES Effluent .�-,-.�-..3/6/2018 7:50 Zinc=Total " , 23.1 'ug/L- -
006-NPDES Effluent 3/13/2018 8:30 Zinc-Total 91.5 ug/L
-- 006-N_PDES Effluent .- 3/13/2018 8:30 ` ,°Zinc=Total`. ° 76.2 3 ug/L"; ° Yes 7 ° - ,18%-
006-NPDES Effluent 3/20/2018 9:45 Zinc-Total 107 ug/L
`006='NPDES'Effluent` :45
4/4/2018'8 -' Zinc=Total S.;',:. x'20:4 _ -ug/L °"x°;i".=y= pY „" *A

006-NPDES Effluent 4/10/2018 10:55 Zinc-Total 11.8 ug/L
r------- - ' Effluent--- --m-'-ifillfiiii 11.-'55----- Zinc Total ' "'"'--26V ' W/17---------' i/res---7-- gR---1
006-NPDES , _,. .., , - . , ,
006-NPDES Effluent 4/24/2018 8:20 Zinc-Total 21.6 ug/L
L, _-,
L 006-WOES Effluent _ 5/1/2018 14137 "Zinc"-Total ° '- 121.3' ug/L ' ' ':*: . - -'• ",=° :'
006-NPDES Effluent 5/7/2018 8:38 Zinc-Total 14.8 ug/L
[7 - 99-6'=NPDES Effluent -'' ' ' 5/7/2018 8:487 lick-Total,' 7 13.2 l, :-, -ugh!,': -- , Yes -,', --, ,;- , 11%"-,,,,1
006-NPDES Effluent 5/22/2018 13:45 Zinc-Total 12 ug/L
!
006-NPDES Effluent,.' , -:- 6/26/2018,910,, - '.Zinc-Total ,,: ,-, 14.8 ,,, -.„ugh!.
006-NPDES Effluent 7/2/2018 8:50 Zinc-Total 14.8 ug/L
r '
006,NPDES Effluent 7 77/1272918 13:53 Zinc-Total 13.9 - „ug/,L-------,-_-------------1
,,,...—
006-NPDES Effluent 7/12/2018 13:53 Zinc-Total 19 ug/L Yes 31%
[006-,1iPDES Effluent BiaTik 01/1917 8i30 Zinc:Total : '<la -7:iiiii " -7--1' - 7 i
,......._— .
006-NPDES Effluent Blank 5/9/2017 9:25 Zinc-Total <10 ug/L
006=NPDES Effluent Blank ' 6/20/201711 30 ' Zinc-Total" -'<5' - ug/L '- - - • '' - '' "" ' 7.--''' ..,1
006-NPDES Effluent Blank 7/25/2017 13:20 Zinc-Total <5 ug/L
IL 006-NPDES Effluent Blank -.° 9/12/2017 9:45 - .Zinc,-Total , ,• <5,- .ughL - . , , ,; .-• ; ,- , -. ,:_{
006-NPDES Effluent Blank 11/11/2017 8:40 Zinc-Total <5 ug/L ... _ ,
1_,,006-NPDES Effluent-Blank . 12/12/2017 92,0 . . .Zinc.-Total ; <5, ug/.1. --_ .-, ,--,-,- : .anai
006-NPDES Effluent Blank 1/9/2018 9:40 Zinc-Total <5 ug/L
r 006-14PDES Effluent Blank 3/13/2018830 Zinc-Total 251 ` ukii"
006-NPDES Effluent Blank 5/7/2018 8:38 Zinc-Total <5 ug/L
006-NPDESiffltientliank 7/12/2019-13:53 ' 'Zinc-Total7-2 <57 ' "- ug/L 2 ' 1
006-NPDES Effluent Eq Blank 5/9/2017 9:25 Zinc-Total <10 ug/L
006-°NPDESifflicent Eq Blank 6/13/20171430'- 'ZinC;-Total '°— <5• -'' ug/L '', `-'. .' ., ,-' - , - ;.• 11
006-NPDES Effluent Eq Blank 7/11/2017 0:00 Zinc-Total <5 ug/L
1006-NODES Effluent Eq Blank 8/22/20179:40 , --Zinc--Total,•I--,,,-- 5.03 °: ,ug/L , ,„. - ,„ `, , ,,,, ,
006-NPDES Effluent Eq Blank 11/14/2017 8:40 Zinc-Total <5 ug/L
E,006--NPDES Efficient Eq Blank 12/18/2017 830 - Zinc-Total ., 6.34. , ugll. .- ; - _1
006-NPDES Effluent Eq Blank 2/15/2018 9:45 Zinc-Total 5.78 ug/L
006,NPDES Effluent Eq Blank 3/20/2018 945 'Zinc-Total ----9-.-3-9-----udi --:-
' 1-
006-NPDES Effluent Eq Blank 5/7/2018 8:38 Zinc-Total 33.2 ug/L
006-NPDES Effluent Eq Blank 6/26/2618 919 —Zinc 7 Total '" '<5' ' -Ugll. -r , -t .7" ' ::-1
1

Appendix 2
Sampling Protocol for Water Effects Ratio Study at Duke Energy's Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant

C112/Wk
Sampling Protocol for Water Effects Ratio Study at
Duke Energy's Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant
PREPARED FOR: Duke Energy
COPY TO: Bob Wilson/Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant(HNP)
Don Safrit/Duke Energy
PREPARED BY: CH2M HILL North Carolina, Inc. (CH2M)
DATE: June 15,2018
PROJECT NUMBER: 680115
REVISION NO.: Version 1
The purpose of this sampling protocol is to provide guidance for implementing the plan for a Water
Effects Ratio (WER)study at Duke Energy's Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant(HNP) presented to the North
Carolina Division of Water Resources(DWR) on February 28,2018 as a means to achieve compliance
with effluent limitations for copper and zinc for discharge through Outfall 006, as included in National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit NC0039586,effective September 1, 2016, per
the Corrective Action Plan (CAP)submitted to DWR on September 1, 2017.
A WER is a procedure to account for the difference in toxicity of a metal in laboratory water versus the
toxicity in water"at the site" (EPA, 1994).The HNP will conduct WER testing for copper and zinc at
Outfall 006 as part of the Year 2 activities associated with the CAP.
This full WER procedure will involve three rounds of testing with the primary species(Ceriodaphnia
dubia) and a single round of testing with the secondary species (Fathead minnow;Pimephales
promelas).Additionally,when WERs for more than one metal are being developed, it should be
demonstrated that the toxicity of the combination of all metals at their proposed new site-specific
criteria is acceptable.Therefore,a synergistic study will follow the WER testing.These tests will be
• performed by ETT Environmental, Inc. laboratory(ETT) in Greer, SC.
Sampling Logistics
Sample Collection and Handling -
Composite effluent samples will be collected by HNP personnel 24 hours prior to testing and
transported to ETT. It should be noted that upstream water does not need to be collected because the
regulatory basis for WER application is based on 100%effluent in HNP's NPDES permit.According to
EPA's guidance, samples must be collected during a period when the plant is operating normally with
respect to the discharge pattern. In the event of a shutdown,samples should be collected only after
sufficient time has passed to allow for reestablishment of steady-state conditions.Samples should not
be collected within 36 hours after a storm event(defined as>0.5 inch of rain). A sufficient volume
(around 2 gallons)should be obtained so that some can be stored for additional testing or analyses if an
unusual WER is obtained. Effluent samples will be packed in ice for maintaining sample temperature at
0-6°C during shipment.
CH2M HILL NORTH CAROLINA,INC. 1

SAMPLING PROTOCOL FOR WATER EFFECTS RATIO STUDY AT DUKE ENERGY'S SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR PLANT
Sample Preparation
Hardness,TSS,TOC, and total recoverable and dissolved metal will be measured in the effluent;
additionally,water quality characteristics that are monitored monthly or more often by the permittee
and reported in the Discharge Monitoring Report must also be measured.These measurements provide
information concerning the representativeness and variability of the samples. Because daphnids will be
used for toxicity tests and the sample of the site water may contain predators,the site water will be
examined by ETT to determine whether filtration through a 37-µm sieve or screen to remove predators
is necessary to avoid predation.
Field Parameter Tests
At the time of collection,the flow of the effluent must be either measured or estimated.The pH must be
measured and samples of effluent should be filtered for measurement of dissolved metals.
Chain-of-Custody
"Chain of custody" procedures(U.S. EPA, 1991b;see Attachment 2) should be used for all samples of
site water and effluent, especially if the data might be involved in a legal proceeding. Field records
should be completed at the time the sample is collected and should include the following:
• Name and signature of sample collector(s)
• Date and time of the collection
• Unique sample number
• Type of sample(i.e. grab or composite)
• Source of sample(facility name, location,and sample type)
• Preservative used (if preserved)
• Analyses required
• Pertinent field data (pH, DO, CI residual, etc.)
• Serial number on seals and transportation cases.
A blank Chain of Custody form has been provided by EU and should be used for recording all necessary
information (Attachment 3).
Sample Delivery
Samples must be stored at 0°to 4°C in the dark with no air space in the sample container. Sample
containers should be labeled and sealed.
Tests must be begun within 36 hours after the collection of the samples and should be shipped
overnight, preferably via FedEx,to ETT's Lab at the following address:
ETT Environmental
4 Craftsman Court
Greer, SC 29650
Schedule
The characterization information for copper shows that copper levels appeared to increase from April
through June, as water and air temperatures(and cooling requirements) increase. For this reason,one
sampling event will be targeted for this transition period, with two more sampling events in the summer
and early fall.These months also correspond to the highest cooling demand at HNP,and thus will be the
controlling months in terms of effluent quality.Samples should be collected at least three weeks apart.
Table 1 shows the suggested sampling schedule, including alternative dates in case of a rain event prior
to the planned sampling activity or issues with personnel availability.Target dates occur on Mondays
and Tuesdays during the last two weeks of the selected months at the request of EU.
2 CH2M HILL NORTH CAROLINA,INC

SAMPLING PROTOCOL FOR WATER EFFECTS RATIO STUDY AT DUKE ENERGY'S SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR PLANT
Test Target Sampling Date Alternative Sampling Date
Trial 1 July 9-10 July 23-24
Trial 2 August 13-14 August 27-28
Trial 3/Synergistic study September 10-11 September 24-25
Note:Samples need to be collected three weeks apart,if alternate date is used for trial 2,the target
sampling date for trial 3 will need to be adjusted
Path Forward
As required by Part A. (9) of the NPDES Permit, all actions taken based on the CAP including the WER
study will be reported to DWR by September 1, 2018.This report will summarize activities, conclusions,
and any adjustments to the CAP based on the Year 2 activities.
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). 1991. Manual for the Evaluation of Laboratories
Performing Aquatic Toxicity Tests. Springfield,VA: National Technical Information Service.
CH2M HILL NORTH CAROLINA,INC 3

Attachment 1
Excerpt from EPA, 1994:Sample Collection and Handling Guidelines
Note:Upstream water does not need to be collected for this study because the regulatory basis for WER application
at HNP is based on 100%effluent

SAMPLING PROTOCOL FOR WATER EFFECTS RATIO STUDY AT DUKE ENERGY'S SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR PLANT
E. Collecting and Handling Upstream Water and Effluent
1. Upstream water will usually be mixed with effluent to prepare simulated downstream water.
Upstream water may also be used as a site water if a WER is to be determined using upstream
water in addition to or instead of determining a WER using downstream water.The samples of
upstream water must be representative;they must not be unduly affected by recent runoff
events (or other erosion or resuspension events)that cause higher levels of TSS than would
normally be present, unless there is particular concern about such conditions.
2. The sample of effluent used in the determination of a WER must be representative; it must be
collected during a period when the discharger is operating normally.Selection of the date and
time of sampling of the effluent should take into account the discharge pattern of the
discharger. It might be appropriate to collect effluent samples during the middle of the week to
allow for reestablishment of steady-state conditions after shutdowns for weekends and
holidays;alternatively, if end-of-the week slug discharges are routine,they should probably be
evaluated.As mentioned above, because the variability of the effluent might contribute
substantially to the variability of the WERs, it might be desirable to obtain and store more than
one sample of the effluent when WERs are to be determined in case an unusual WER is obtained
with the first sample used.
3. When samples of site water and effluent are collected for the determination of the WERs with
the primary test,there must be at least three weeks between one sampling event and the next.
It is desirable to obtain samples in at least two different seasons and/or during times of
probable differences in the characteristics of the site water and/or effluent.
4. Samples of upstream water and effluent must be collected,transported, handled, and stored as
recommended by the U.S. EPA(1993a). For example,samples of effluent should usually be
composites, but grab samples are acceptable if the residence time of the effluent is sufficiently
long.A sufficient volume should be obtained so that some can be stored for additional testing or
analyses if an unusual WER is obtained. Samples must be stored at 0°to 4°C in the dark with no
air space in the sample container.
5. At the time of collection,the flow of both the upstream water and the effluent must be either
measured or estimated by means of correlation with a nearby, USGS gauge,the pH of both
upstream water and effluent must be measured, and'samples' of both upstream water and
effluent should be filtered for measurement of dissolved metals. Hardness,TSS,TOC, and total
recoverable and dissolved metal must be measured in both the effluent and the upstream
water.Any other water quality characteristics, such as total dissolved solids (TDS) and
conductivity,that are monitored monthly or more often by the permittee and reported in the
Discharge Monitoring Report must also be measured.These and the other measurements
provide information concerning the representativeness of the samples and the variability of the
upstream water and effluent.
6. "Chain of custody" procedures(U.S. EPA, 1991b)should be used for all samples of site water
and effluent, especially if the data might be involved in a legal proceeding.
7. Tests must be begun within 36 hours after the collection of the samples of the effluent and/or
the site water,except that tests may be begun more than 36 hours after the collection of the
samples if it would require an inordinate amount of resources to transport the samples to the
laboratory and begin the tests within 36 hours.
8. If acute and/or chronic tests are to be conducted with daphnids and if the sample of the site
water contains predators,the site water must be filtered through a 37-µm sieve or screen to
remove predators.
6 CH2M HILL NORTH CAROLINA,INC

SAMPLING PROTOCOL FOR WATER EFFECTS RATIO STUDY AT DUKE ENERGY'S SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR PLANT
Attachment 2
Excerpt from EPA, 1991: Chain-of-Custody Guidelines
CH2M HILL NORTH CAROLINA,INC 7

SAMPLING PROTOCOL FOR WATER EFFECTS RATIO STUDY AT DUKE ENERGY'S SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR PLANT
CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY GUIDELINES
1. Introduction
1.1. Written procedures for sample handling should be available and followed whenever samples
are collected,transferred,stored, analyzed, or destroyed. For the purposes of litigation, it is
necessary to have accurate records which can be used to trace the possession and handling of
samples from the moment of collection through analysis.Secure,computer based data
management systems may be appropriate.The procedures defined here represent a means to
satisfy this requirement.
1.1.1 A sample is in someone's custody if:
it is in one's actual physical possession;
it is in one's view, after being in one's physical possession;
it is in one's physical possession and then locked up so that no one can tamper with it,and it
is kept in a secured area, restricted to authorized personnel only.
2. Sampling Collection, Handling,and Identification
2.1. It is important that a minimum number of persons be involved in sample collection and
handling.Guidelines established in standard manuals for sample collection, preservation, and
handling should be used (e.g., USEPA, NPDES Compliance Inspection Manual EN-338(1988a);
Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents to Freshwater and Marine Organisms
(1985a)or latest edition, Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio. EPA/600-4-85-013.
2.2. Field records should be completed at the time the sample is collected and should be signed or
initialed, including the date and time, by the sample collector(s).
2.3. Field records should contain the following information:
d. unique sample number;
e. date and time;
f. type of sampler;
g. source of sample (facility name, location,and sample type);
h. preservative used (if preserved);
i. analyses required;
j. name of collector(s);
k. pertinent field data (pH, DO, CI residual,etc.);
I. serial number on seals and transportation cases.
2.4. Each sample is identified by affixing a pressure sensitive gummed label or standardized tag on
the container(s) (Figure I).This label should contain the sample number, source of sample,
preservative used,and the collector(s) initials.Analysis required should be identified.Where a
label is not available,the same information should be written on the sample container with an
indelible marking pen.
2.5. The sample container should then be placed in a transportation case along with the chain-of-
custody record form (Figure 2.), pertinent field records, and analysis request form.The
transportation case should then be sealed and labeled.All records should be filled out legibly in
pen.The use of locked or sealed chests will eliminate the need for close control of individual
sample containers. However,there will undoubtedly be occasions when the use of a chest will
8 CH2M HILL NORTH CAROLINA,INC

SAMPLING PROTOCOL FOR WATER EFFECTS RATIO STUDY AT DUKE ENERGY'S SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR PLANT
be inconvenient.On these occasions,the collector should place a seal around the cap of the
individual sample container which would indicate tampering if removed.
3. Transfer of Custody and Shipment
3.1. When transferring the possession of the samples,the transferee must sign and record the date
and time on the chain-of-custody record (Figure 2). Custody transfers, if made to a sample
custodian in the field,should account for each individual sample,although samples may be
transferred as a group. Every person who takes custody must fill in the appropriate section of
the chain-of-custody record.
3.2. The field custodian (or field collector if a custodian has not been assigned) is responsible for
properly packaging and dispatching samples to the appropriate laboratory for analysis.This
responsibility includes filling out, dating, and signing the appropriate portion of the chain-of-
custody record.
3.3. All packages sent to the laboratory should be accompanied by the chain-of-custody record and
other pertinent forms.A copy of these forms should be retained by the field custodian{either
carbon or photocopy).
3.4. Mailed packages can be registered with return receipt requested. If packages are sent by
common carrier, receipts should be retained as part of the permanent chain-of-custody
documentation.
3.5. Samples to be transported must be packed to prevent breakage. If samples are shipped by mail
or by other common carrier,the shipper must comply with any applicable Department of
Transportation regulations.The package must be sealed or locked to prevent tampering.Any
evidence of tampering should be readily detected if adequate sealing devices are used.
3.6. If the field collector delivers samples to the laboratory, custody may be relinquished to
laboratory personnel. If appropriate personnel are not present to receive the samples,the
samples shall be locked in a designated area of the laboratory to prevent tampering.Tampering
with field samples is prohibited.The person delivering the samples should make a log entry
stating where and how the samples were delivered and secured. Laboratory personnel may
then receive custody by noting in a log the absence of evidence of tampering, unlocking the
secured area, and signing the custody sheet.
4. Laboratory Sample Control Procedures
4.1. Sample control procedures are necessary in the laboratory from the time of sample receipt to
the time the sample is discarded.The following procedures are recommended for the
laboratory:
4.1.1.There must be a designated custodian and an alternate person to act in his or her
absence.All incoming samples must be received by the custodian,who must indicate
receipt by signing the accompanying custody/control forms and who must retain the
signed forms as permanent records.
4.1.2.The custodian must maintain a permanent log book to record for each sample,the person
delivering the sample,the person receiving the sample, date and time received,source of
sample,date the sample was taken,sample identification or log number, how transmitted
to the laboratory,and condition received (sealed, unsealed, broken container,or other
pertinent remarks).This log should also show the movement of each sample within the
laboratory; i.e.,who removed the sample from the custody area,when it was removed,
when it was returned, and when it was destroyed.A standardized format should be
established for log entries.
CH2M HILL NORTH CAROLINA,INC 9

SAMPLING PROTOCOL FOR WATER EFFECTS RATIO STUDY AT DUKE ENERGY'S SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR PLANT
4.1.3.A clean, dry, isolated room, building,and/or refrigerated space that can be securely
locked from the outside must be designated as a "custody room."
4.1.4.The custodian must ensure that heat-sensitive samples, light-sensitive samples,
radioactive samples, or other sample materials having unusual physical characteristics, or
requiring special handling, are properly stored and maintained prior to analysis.
4.1.5. Distribution of samples to the analyst performing the analysis must be made by the
custodian.
4.1.6.The laboratory area must be maintained as a secured area, restricted to authorized
personnel only.
4.1.7. Laboratory personnel are responsible for the care and custody of the sample once it is
received by them and must be prepared to testify that the sample was in their possession
and view or secured in the laboratory at all times from the moment it was received from
the custodian until the time the analyses are completed.
4.1.8. Once the sample analyses are completed,the unused portion of the sample,together
with all identifying labels, must be returned to the custodian.The returned tagged sample
must be retained in the custody room until permission to destroy the sample is received
by the custodian.
4.1.9. Samples will be destroyed only upon the order of the responsible laboratory official when
it is certain that the information is no longer required or the samples have deteriorated.
The same procedure is true for sample tags.The log should show when each sample was
discarded or if any sample tag was destroyed.
4.1.10. Procedures must be established for audits of sample control information. Records
should be examined to determine traceability, completeness, and accuracy
EPA
Station No. bate Time Sequence No.
Station Location Grab
Comp.
0 BOO Metals Romarks/Preservativa:
Solids CII and Grouse
COD D.O.
Nutrients _Sect.
Other
Samplers:
Figure 1. Example of Sample Identification Tag.
10 CH2M HILL NORTH CAROLINA,INC

SAMPLING PROTOCOL FOR WATER EFFECTS RATIO STUDY AT DUKE ENERGY'S SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR PLANT
�¢tY Collectors: Signature
Zt tica Station Location Date Time SEMI TTDe Seq.N0. No.of Analysis
Number Water Air Carrusinerm Requited
Comp. Gtee
.11111111111
1111111111111.111111111111
MEI MIME
111111111111.1111
1.111111111111
Relinquished by: Signature ;, , Date/Tim
Relinquished by: Styneture Received by: Signature Date/Time
Relinquished by: Signature Received* Signature Date/Timo
Relinquishedby Signature Received by Mobile LaboraWiy tor Field analysis: Data/Time
Signature
Dispatched by: Signature Date/Timo Received for l eh:ratory by: Dato/7ime
Maned of Shipment
D1aTribution: Orin..—Axamp1ny ShIpmam
1 Copy—Survey Coordinator Field Files
Figure 2. Example of Chain-of-Custody Record.
CH2M HILL NORTH CAROLINA,INC 11

SAMPLING PROTOCOL FOR WATER EFFECTS RATIO STUDY AT DUKE ENERGY'S SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR PLANT
Attachment 3
Blank Chain-of-Custody Form from ETT Environmental
12 CH2M HILL NORTH CAROLINA,INC

vv ; ,.•, CHAINOF CUSTODY RECORD
-- -_ ==== `-4, -_- Page - of
PO Box 16414,Greenville,SC 29606-7414
[phone], [phone] Fax_(854)877 6938
Shipping Address-4 Craftsman Ct,Greer,SC 29650
W W W_ETfeNVI ROMA ENTAL.CCM
Client: •
Program Containers 'Preservative Parameters
Facility:
Whole Effluent Tocicity
'State: NPDES#r: Acute Chronic Tesr Organisms —
(;