NC0024406_Application_20190322

Belews Creek Steam Station: Effluent Guidelines Rule
Justification for Applicability Dates
A. Introduction
Duke Energy (Duke) is working diligently to develop and refine an optimized schedule for the
installation and upgrades to wastewater treatment systems to comply with the Steam Electric Power
Generating Effluent Limitation Guidelines (ELG) at seven coal-fired stations in North Carolina. Duke
submits the following information as a justification for appropriate applicability dates for compliance
with the new Effluent Guidelines Rule (ELG Rule) (80 Fed. Reg. 67,838 (Nov. 3, 2015)) at Belews
Creek Steam Station (BCSS), located in Belews Creek, North Carolina.
BCSS consists of two coal fired generating units with nameplate generating capacities of 1,110 MW
each for a total of capacity of 2,220 MW. The station currently discharges treated bottom ash
transport water, and FGD wastewater. Under normal plant operations, fly ash is collected dry and
either disposed in a permitted on -site landfill or transported offsite for beneficial reuse. If the dry fly
ash collection system is not operating, the fly ash is sluiced to the ash basin in which the transport
water is treated in the ash basin and subsequently discharged through outfall 003. Bottom ash from
the boilers is sluiced with transport water to the ash pond. The transport water is treated by the ash
pond system and is discharged through outfall 003. The FGD blowdown flows to a physical /
chemical treatment system followed by a biological treatment system and discharges through internal
outfall 002 to the ash basin.
The ELG Rule sets a range of possible applicability dates for compliance with the new BAT limits for
bottom ash transport water (zero discharge) and FGD wastewater (numeric limits for selenium,
arsenic, mercury, and nitrate/nitrite), as well for fly ash transport water (zero discharge). The
regulation provides that all permits issued after the effective date of the rule (January 4, 2016) should
contain applicability dates for compliance with the BAT limits, and that those dates should be "as
soon as possible" but not sooner than November 1, 2018 and not later than December 31, 2023.
For BOSS, since the plant's final NPDES permit will be issued after January 4, 2016, but before
November 1, 2018, EPA specifically instructs permit writers to "apply limitations based on the
previously promulgated BPT limitations or the plant's other applicable permit limitations until at
least November 1, 2018." 80 Fed. Reg. at 67,883, col. 1 (emphasis added). As the rule makes clear,
however, BAT limits may apply — depending on the individual circumstances of the facilities subject
to the rule — any time within the window of November 1, 2018 to December 31, 2023. In selecting an
appropriate applicability date for each waste stream subject to the new BAT limits, the permitting
authority is called upon to determine an "as soon as possible" date.
The ELG Rule provides a very specific definition for "as soon as possible." The permit writer — when
supplied with appropriate information by the permittee — must consider a range of factors that affect
the timing of compliance. Those factors are as follows:
(1) Time to expeditiously plan (including to raise capital), design, procure, and install
equipment to comply with the requirements of this part.
(2) Changes being made or planned at the plant in response to:

(i) New source performance standards for greenhouse gases from new fossil fuel -
fired electric generating units, under sections 111, 301, 302, and 307(d)(1)(C) of the
Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7411, 7601, 7602, 7607(d)(1)(C);
(ii) Emission guidelines for greenhouse gases from existing fossil fuel -fired electric
generating units, under sections 111, 301, 302, and 307(d) of the Clean Air Act, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. 7411, 7601, 7602, 7607(d); or
(iii) Regulations that address the disposal of coal combustion residuals as solid waste,
under sections 1006(b), 1008(a), 2002(a), 3001, 4004, and 4005(a) of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act of 1970, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
of 1976, as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984, 42
U.S.C. 6906(b), 6907(a), 6912(a), 6944, and 6945(a).
(3) For FGD wastewater requirements only, an initial commissioning period for the
treatment system to optimize the installed equipment.
(4) Other factors as appropriate.
40 C.F.R. § 423.11(t).
The wastewater treatment systems at BCSS will undergo significant modifications and in most cases
complete replacement to comply with the revisions to the ELG Rule. Duke would like sufficient time
to select, design and install the most cost effective technology at BCSS to comply with the ELG
limits and reduce the burden to the ratepayers. We have prepared a preliminary timeline for planning,
designing, procuring, constructing and optimizing the technology once it is selected, for each
applicable waste stream. Based on our preliminary analysis, we request the following applicability
dates:
Bottom Ash Transport Water: To convert the wet bottom ash transport system at BCSS to a
closed loop system, Duke plans to install a remote mechanical drag chain system (RMDS).
Duke would like to request May 31, 2021 as the applicability date for the no discharge of
bottom ash transport water, assuming a permit effective date of December 1, 2016. Duke
anticipates that equipment will be installed by December 31, 2019 to comply with the North
Carolina -Coal Ash Management Act (NC -LAMA) and the Coal Combustion Residual (CCR)
rule. These rules, however, only regulate the material, not the water. As discussed below,
Duke will need a 17 month window to optimize the system to operate as a zero discharge
system. This additional time is needed to account managing the installation and optimization
of four RMDS being installed in N. Carolina simultaneously. In addition, the extent and
complexity of the permits required are unknown at this time. Duke, therefore, allocated 6
months to account for potential permitting delays.
FGD wastewater: The FGD wastewater treatment system at BCSS contains the model
technology EPA used as the basis for the best available technology (BAT) limits for FGD
wastewater, physical / chemical treatment followed by biological treatment. However, the
BAT limits were based on data from BCSS and Allen Steam Station while the stations were
primarily using coal from the Central Appalachian region. Based on Duke's experience with
the treatment of FGD wastewater, the variability in the coal can affect the performance of the
biological treatment system. In a memorandum from EPA, Variability in Flue Gas
Desulfurization Wastewater: Monitoring and Response dated Sept. 30, 2015, EPA
2

acknowledges data from Allen and BCSS show selenium concentration can sometimes
become elevated. In addition, EPA stated "The coal characteristics could alter the
characteristics of the FGD purge stream...". EPA further stated plants should acquire
information on the variability of the system "over a long enough time that will included
variability in plant operations such as shutdowns, fuel switches (preferably for all fuel types
burned at the plant), variability in electricity generating loads, periods with high ORP, etc."
Given the fact BCSS may use a variety of fuels and recent data indicates the current system
would be challenged to meet the ELG limits for FGD wastewater, Duke would like to request
November 30, 2020 as the applicability date for the BAT limits for FGD wastewater. This
time is necessary to investigate the variability in the system, evaluate technologies needed to
provide additional treatment to consistently meeting the ELG limits and design, install and
commission the additional treatment components.
Fly Ash Transport Water: Fly ash is handled dry during normal operation; therefore, Duke is
not requesting an applicability date for the zero discharge of fly ash transport water beyond
November 1, 2018.
The following provides necessary information justifying the requested applicability dates provided
above.
B. Bottom Ash Transport Water
As stated above, significant portions of the bottom ash transport system at BCSS will need to be
replaced to comply with the no discharge limit of bottom ash transport water (BATW). The rule
identified dry handling or closed -loop systems as the BAT technology basis for control of pollutants
in bottom ash transport water. Specifically, a mechanical drag system (MDS) was identified as the
technology basis for a dry handling system, where as a RMDS was identified as the technology basis
for a closed -loop system. Duke is planning on installing a RMDS at BCSS to handle bottom ash dry.
The system will be designed to operate in a closed -loop mode to meet the zero discharge limits for
BATW. Duke anticipates 54 months from the effective date of the permit will be needed to design,
install and commission the RMDS as a zero discharge system based on the following preliminary
timeline. It is important to note Duke will be installing RMDS at four stations in N. Carolina;
therefore, additional time is needed compared to a single installation to account for managing
multiple projects simultaneously.
Remote Mechanical Drag System (RMDS)
Activity
Duration Months
Design'
6
• Siting
3
• Engineering
5
Procurement
12
Potential Permitting Delays
6
Construction/Tie-in
13
Optimization & Operational Experience 2
17
• Commissioning
2
• Start -Up
6
Total:
54
3

1) The design tasks has been initiated and Duke estimates an additional 6 months from the
permit effective (assuming Dec. 1, 2016) will be needed to complete the design.
2) Even though is it estimated that commissioning and start-up can occur in 8 months, Duke
anticipates needing a 17 month window to obtain the necessary operating time at full load and
account for commissioning / optimizing occurring at multiple facilities simultaneously.
Assuming a permit effective date of December 1, 2016, Duke estimates the system can be installed
and operated to comply with the zero discharge limit of BATW on or before May 31, 2021. To
design, procure, construct and optimize the RMDS at BCSS to operate as a closed -loop system, the
following steps must be taken:
Desi ng & Engineering
Duke has initiated the design phase, but, due to the simultaneous implementation of programs, such
as the CCR Rule and NC-CAMA across applicable sites in North Carolina, engineering and
technology resources are limited. Duke, therefore, estimates the design and engineering process will
take an additional 6 months from the permit effective date. Some of the activities within the water
balance and siting task will occur concurrently; however the design cannot be completed until the
siting task is completed. The permitting process, if necessary, will be initiated in the design and
engineering phase, but it is assumed permit receipt / approval will be conducted concurrently with the
design and procurement phase and will be completed prior to the construction phase. The following
tasks will need to be completed.
Water Balance
The first step in the design process of the RMDS is to develop a detailed water balance of the current
BATW. To operate the system as a zero discharge system, there is a balance between the inputs of
water into the system and the outputs of water through evaporation and bottom ash removal. This is
necessary to determine if any additional treatment of the BATW is needed to avoid increase in fines
and concentration of other constituents that could affect equipment operability.
In addition, several non-BATW waste streams are currently commingled and treated along with
BATW. The flow of these waste streams will be rerouted from the BATW system to a new
wastewater treatment system. This will require the streams to be characterized for both volumetric
flow and constituent make-up in order to size and design an appropriate treatment system. It is
important to note that not all waste streams discharge continuously or simultaneously. Some waste
streams discharge intermittently based on activity occurrence, such air preheater and precipitator
washes, while others may only discharge under certain rainfall events. In addition, many waste
streams do not discharge if the unit is not running. With most coal-fired units operating in an
infrequent mode, the opportunities to collect samples are limited and the operation schedule could
affect the schedule of this task.
Upon completion of the water balance, detailed engineering of the RMDS system and piping reroutes
of non-BATW can commence.
2

Siting
The RMDS will need to be sited appropriately to avoid any historical or current coal combustion
product disposal (CCP) sites and avoid construction areas that will be used to complete closure of the
ash basins at BOSS. In addition, Duke will attempt to site the system to avoid waters of the U.S.
(WOTUS). However, based on the final siting of the system, WOTUS may not be avoided, and
permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers may be required.
Permitting
If WOTUS cannot be avoided, then permitting from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) will
be needed. At this time, it is unknown whether a USACE permit will be required or the type of permit
that may be required (nationwide permit (NPW) or individual permit). Duke, therefore, has included
12 months in the schedule to prepare and obtain any necessary USACE permits.
Once the RMDS is commissioned, the permitted discharge flows will change drastically. The amount
of water discharged could be reduced by as much as 85%. In addition, these flows typically were
treated along with the BATW in the ash basin. Duke, therefore, will need to design, and construct a
new treatment system for these low volume wastes. The size and technology of the treatment system
will be determined based on the water characterization study discussed above. Additionally, based on
the final siting of the low volume wastewater treatment system, a new outfall may be needed for the
discharge of the effluent from this new wastewater treatment system. With significant changes to the
characteristics of the permitted discharge, Duke anticipates a NPDES permit modification will be
required to revise the permit to account for the changes in flow and constituent make-up.
Even though the permitting task will be initiated during the design and engineering phase, it is
expected to continue through the procurement phase and up to the construction phase. In addition, the
extent and complexity of the permits required are unknown at this time. The required permits will be
evaluated during the engineering and design phase. Since the time needed to prepare the permit
applications and the time needed to receive the permits is uncertain, Duke allocated 6 months to
account for potential permitting delays.
Procurement
After the design is complete, Duke will initiate the process to procure the necessary outside resources
to construct and install the new wastewater treatment systems. This process will involve the following
steps:
Evaluate potential vendors for proposal solicitation;
Develop and submit request for proposal (RFP) to selected vendors;
Conduct a review and vendor selection based on the received bids;
Develop required contract documents;
Acquire materials (potentially from overseas), which involves:
o Shipment, and
o Equipment Fabrication
— Fabrication and inspection of equipment.
5

RMDS have a fabrication queue that is dependent on total industry -wide demand. Duke, therefore,
has allocated 12 months to acquire the necessary materials.
Construction
Once all the necessary materials are procured, Duke estimates construction of the RMDS will take
approximately 13 months. In addition, the tie-in of the RMDS to each individual generating unit will
need to occur during outages, which are anticipated to occur between March to May and October to
November depending on generation demand.
Optimization and Operational Experience
As stated above, Duke is planning to have the equipment installed by December 31, 2019 at the latest
to meet the obligations under LAMA, in addition, to any CCR requirements. Again, these rules
regulate the bottom ash material, not the transport water. Given the system will continue to utilize
water to transport bottom ash, time will be needed to gain operational experience and optimize the
system to meet the zero discharge limit. Duke estimates a 17 month window will be required to gain
the necessary operational experience and fine-tune the system. The 17 month window is estimated
based on the potential that the station may only be operating at full load during the winter and
summer months and account for commissioning / optimizing occurring at multiple facilities
simultaneously. In addition, with NCDEQ approving the implementation date of January 31, 2021 for
Marshall Steam Station, Duke would like to stagger the commissioning / optimization activities for
BCSS by 4 months.
C. New Wastewater Treatment System
As discussed above, with the removal of several non-BATW waste streams from the bottom ash
transport system, a new wastewater treatment system will need to be designed and constructed for co -
treatment of low volume waste and other regulated process streams per the CCR rule, ELGs, and
NDPES permitting requirements. The activities associated with the new wastewater treatment system
will be conducted concurrently with the other design activities at the site. These waste streams are not
subject to the applicability date in the ELG rule, therefore, Duke is not requesting a compliance date,
but this task will need to be completed prior to the effective date of the zero discharge of BATW.
Duke anticipates 30 months will be needed to design, install and commission the new wastewater
treatment system, based on the following preliminary timeline.
New Wastewater Treatment System
Activity
Duration(Months)
Siting
3
Engineering
6
Procurement
3
Construction/Tie-in
9
Commissioning
3
Start -Up
6
Total:
30
6

D. FGD Wastewater
The FGD wastewater treatment system at BCSS contains the model technology EPA used as the basis
for the BAT limits for FGD wastewater, physical / chemical treatment followed by biological
treatment. However, the BAT limits were based on data from BCSS and Allen Steam Station while
the station was primarily using coal from the Central Appalachian region. Based on Duke's
experience with the treatment of FGD wastewater, variability in the coal can affect the performance
of the biological treatment system. This was evident based on data collected from the FGD
wastewater treatment systems at Allen and BCSS in 2014 and 2015 when the stations were using coal
from regions other than Central Appalachian. In a memorandum from EPA, Variability in Flue Gas
Desulfurization Wastewater: Monitoring and Response dated Sept. 30, 2015, EPA acknowledges data
from Allen and BCSS show the selenium concentration can sometimes become elevated. In addition,
EPA stated "The coal characteristics could alter the characteristics of the FGD purge stream...". EPA
further stated plants have between three to eight years to conduct the necessary studies to properly
design the treatment system and plants should investigate the variability of the FGD purge stream to
inform the design process. EPA went on to state plants should acquire information on the variability
of the system over a "long enough time that will included variability in plant operations such as
shutdowns, fuel switches (preferably for all fuel types burned at the plant), variability in electricity
generating loads, periods with high ORP, etc."
EPA further recognizes that designing, procuring, installing, and optimizing an FGD wastewater
treatment system is a complicated and time-consuming undertaking, involving much study and
careful planning. For example, EPA states:
"For plants that are planning to include fuel flexing in their operations, in the years
prior to the installation and operation of the FGD wastewater treatment system, the
plant should consider sampling the untreated FGD wastewater to evaluate the
wastewater characteristics that are present based on the differing fuel blends. Based
on those characteristics, the plant will be better able to design a system that can
properly treat its FGD wastewater given variability that might occur at the plant, and it
will be better prepared to adjust chemical dosages in the chemical precipitation system
to mitigate the variability in the wastewater that enters the biological treatment
system."
Response to Comments, p. 5-387.
EPA also states:
"While EPA has based the effluent limitations and standards for selenium and
nitrate/nitrite (as N) for FGD wastewater based on the performance of the Allen and
Belews Creek biological treatment systems, EPA does not contend that every plant in
the industry can simply take the design parameters from those two plants, install the
biological treatment system, and meet the effluent limitations. Each plant will need to
work with engineering and design firms to assess the wastewater characteristics
present at their plant to determine the most appropriate technologies and design the
system accordingly meet the effluent limitations. Therefore, some plants may need to
design the bioreactors to provide additional bed contact time (as provided by the
7

hydraulic residence time and volume of biomass and carbon substrate), while other
plants may find they need less."
Response to Comments, p. 5-389
Duke is requesting 48 months from the effective date of the permit to study the variability of the
system, evaluate additional treatment needs and design, install and commission additional treatment
components to meet the BAT limits based on the following preliminary timeline.
FGD WWT Upgrade
Activity
Duration (Months)
Design & Engineering
21
• Evaluate Variability in the
System
12
• Technology Evaluation
7
• Engineering
2
Procurement
8
Construction/Tie-in
7
Start-up & Optimization'
12
• Start -Up
2
• Commissioning
6
Total:
48
1) Duke is allocating a 12 month window to complete the commissioning and start-up under all
expected operating conditions from full load to partial load to periods of no load and under
varying fuel types.
Assuming a permit effective date of December 1, 2016, Duke estimates the system can be installed
and commissioned to meet the BAT limits on or before November 30, 2020. To design, procure,
construct and commission the FGD WWT system at BOSS, the following steps must be taken:
Design & Engineering
As with the RMDS, engineering and technology resources are limited due to regulatory requirements
for concurrent implementation of programs, such as the CCR Rule and NC-CAMA across applicable
sites in North Carolina. Duke is, therefore, estimating 21 months to complete the design and
engineering phase of the project.
Evaluate Variability in the System
As stated by EPA and with Duke's agreement, plants need to conduct studies of the variability of the
system over a long enough period of time that will include variability in plant operations such as
shutdowns, fuel switches (preferably for all fuel types burned at the plant), variability in electricity
generating loads, periods with high ORP, etc. to design an effective treatment system. With the need
to evaluate different fuel types to maintain economic viability of the station, Duke estimates at least
an additional 12 months after the permit effective date will be required to investigate variability in the
system.

Technology Evaluation
Duke has significant experience in the design, construction and operation of biological treatment
systems for selenium reduction. Based on Duke's experience, biological treatment alone may not be a
fool proof technology based on the characteristics of the coal. Duke, therefore, is obligate to evaluate
cost effective technology that ensures the FGD limits can be met under all conditions, including fuel
type, electricity load, etc. At a minimum, Duke will be evaluating the addition of ultrafiltration to the
backend of the treatment system. Duke will be working closely with utility organizations, such as the
EPRI, to identify other suitable technologies for the removal of selenium from FGD wastewater and
additional filtration steps that may be required to meet the limits. Duke estimates an additional 7
months after the completion of the investigation of variability in the system will be required to
complete the technology evaluation.
Engineering
Upon completion of the investigation of variability in the system and technology evaluation,
engineering and design of the system can be conducted and Duke has estimated two months for this
effort.
Procurement
After the design is complete, Duke will initiate the process to procure the necessary outside resources
to construct and install the new wastewater treatment systems. This process will involve the following
steps:
— Evaluate potential vendors for proposal solicitation;
— Develop and submit a request for proposal (RFP) to selected vendors;
— Conduct a review and vendor selection based on the received bids;
— Develop required contract documents;
— Acquire materials (potentially from overseas), which involves:
o Shipment, and
o Equipment Fabrication
Fabrication and inspection of equipment.
Duke has allocated 8 months to acquire the necessary materials.
Construction / Tie In
Once all the necessary materials are procured, Duke estimates construction of the FGD WWT will
take approximately 7 months to complete. In addition, the tie-in of the additional components to the
existing FGD WWT will need to occur during outages, which are anticipated to occur between March
to May and October to November depending on generation demand.
Commissioning & Start-up
Duke estimates that commissioning and start-up of the FGD WWT will take 8 months to complete, 2
months for startup and 6 months for commissioning. Duke, however, is allocating a 12 month
window to complete the commissioning and start-up under all expected operating conditions from full
I

load to partial load to periods of no load and under varying fuel and other operating conditions. This
will allow the identification of necessary actions that need to be completed and necessary
communications protocol in order to maintain and operate the system to comply with the limits.
E. EPA Provided A Range of Applicability Dates To Allow For Coordination Across Regulatory
Requirements and to Promote Orderly Decisions
The steam electric industry is in the midst of major transitions driven by new environmental
regulatory requirements in the air, waste, and water arenas. In the ELG Rule, EPA explicitly
acknowledged the complications of planning and executing ELG retrofits while developing and
executing compliance strategies under the other rules. EPA made it clear that the range of
applicability dates provided in the ELG Rule are supposed to be implemented in a manner that avoids
stranded costs and promotes orderly decision making. For instance, EPA states:
"From an environmental protection/coordination standpoint, with the increased use of
flue gas desulfurization scrubbers and flue gas mercury controls in response to air
pollution -related requirements, this rule makes sense from a holistic environmental
protection perspective and from the perspective of coordinating across rules affecting the
same sector. This final ELG controls the discharges associated with these particular
waste streams."
Response to Comments, p. 8-388.
EPA also states that the permitting authority may "account for time the facility needs to coordinate all
the requirements of this rule, along with other regulatory requirements, to make the correct planning
and financing decisions, and to implement the new requirements in an orderly and feasible way."
Response to Comments, p. 8-129.
At BCSS, we need to coordinate our ELG implementation strategy with CCR and NC -LAMA rules.
For both the CCR and CAMA rules, we are evaluating the current CCR ash pond to determine
whether the ponds meet the locational restrictions of 40 C.F.R. § 257.60 - .64. The future of the ash
pond under both of these rules will determine whether it is available or not to receive legacy
wastewaters (i.e., those wastewaters generated before the applicability date for bottom ash transport
water retrofits) and continue to receive non-BATW. In addition, as discussed above, the final
determination of the extent of the ash pond, as well as the closure method could have significant
ramifications for the siting of the RMDS.
F. ELG Implementation Should be Coordinated with the Clean Power Plan (CPP) to Avoid
Stranded Costs
The ELG Rule clearly contemplates that the compliance timelines for its requirements should account
for any applicable obligations under the CPP. However, the affected units at BCSS will not know
their individual obligations under the CPP until well after November 1, 2018. As promulgated by
EPA, the CPP's emission guidelines do not apply directly to units. Instead, states are responsible for
developing state plans setting forth requirements applicable to individual units that implement those
emission guidelines. These state plans are subject to review and approval by EPA. If EPA determines
that the state has not submitted an approvable plan, then EPA will promulgate a federal plan in its
10

place. The timeline the CPP provides for developing and reviewing these state plans involves
numerous steps.
The initial deadline for state plan submittal was September 6, 2016. 40 C.F.R. § 60.5760(a). The
vast majority of states were expected to seek and obtain a two-year extension for final state plan
submittal until September 6, 2018. See id. § 60.5760(b). However, the Supreme Court issued a stay
of the CPP on February 8, 2016. Thus, the timing of the requirements of the CPP is uncertain at this
time, as we wait further decisions by the Supreme Court. Duke would like to request the option to
revise the applicability dates for the ELG requirements if the stay of the CPP is lifted and the
operation of BCSS will be affected.
Statements in the Response to Comments regarding stranded costs apply to any rule, not just the CPP.
EPA explains in the Response to Comments that it provided flexibility in applicability dates so that
facilities could consider all new regulatory requirements and then have an adequate time to plan and
implement accordingly, and thus avoid stranded costs:
"EPA is sensitive to the need to provide sufficient time for steam electric power plants to
understand, plan for, and implement any changes to their operation to meet their
environmental responsibilities, and agrees with the commenter that transparency of
requirements is important for minimizing "stranded investments." ...Furthermore, as
described in the preamble, the final rule provides time for plant owners or operators to
implement changes to plant operations in order to meet the final limitations and
standards, as well as flexibility to permitting authorities in implementing the final rule.
The Agency specifically considered the timing of requirements of other environmental
regulations in establishing implementation requirements for the ELGs, in order to provide
steam electric power plants time to consider and implement their strategy for
compliance."
Response to Comments, p. 8-388.
Even though the implementation and effects of the CPP are uncertain, North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) is justified providing flexibility in the applicability dates from other
regulatory requirements such as the CCR and NC-CAMA, as discussed above.
G. The Proposed Schedules Help To Maintain BCSS's Availability to the Grid, Which Promotes
Grid Reliability
Duke developed the proposed BATW retrofit schedule and its applicability date with grid reliability
in mind. The dispatch of units at BCSS varies throughout the year. Typically at least one unit is
operating throughout the year and both units are typically dispatched from December to March and
June thru September. Therefore, the final tie-in schedule will avoid these months and more than likely
tie-ins will need to occur across more than one outage.
EPA explicitly notes that the permitting authority should consider grid reliability in setting
applicability dates: "EPA's decision is also designed to allow, more broadly, for the coordination of
generating unit outages in order to maintain grid reliability and prevent any potential impacts on
11

electricity availability, something that public commenters urged EPA to consider." 80 Fed. Reg. at
67,854, col. 2. See also Response to Comments, p. 8-138.
Also, EPA clearly anticipated that much of the new technology required for retrofits to bottom ash
transport water and FGD wastewater systems would be constructed in a manner that would not
interrupt routine facility operations, and then tied in during regularly scheduled plant or unit outages.
According to the preamble, the timing of the final rule "enables facilities to take advantage of planned
shutdown or maintenance periods to install new pollution control technologies." 80 Fed. Reg. at
67,854, col. 2.
EPA also recognizes that tie-ins of new equipment may need to occur across more than one outage.
EPA states: "the need to span installation of equipment over separate unit outages [is] a consideration
that can be incorporated into the permit writer's determination of the `as soon as possible' date,
assuming the plant provides documentation demonstrating such a need." Response to Comments, p.
8-54.
12

Attachment 6
Arsenic, Selenium & Mercury Monitoring in Fish
Muscle Tissue from the Dan River, NC
August 2016 NPDES application renewal
Belews Creek Steam Station
NCO024406

Belews Creek Steam Station
NPDES Permit No. NCO024406
Arsenic, Selenium, and Mercury Monitoring in Fish Muscle Tissue
from the Dan River, NC
Duke Energy
August 2016

Table of Contents
Page
1.0 Introduction....................................................................................................................... 1
2.0 Study Site Description and Sampling Locations............................................................... 1
3.0 Target Species................................................................................................................... 1
4.0 Field Sampling Methods................................................................................................... 1
5.0 Laboratory Processing and Selenium Analysis................................................................. 2
6.0 Data Analysis and Reporting............................................................................................ 2
7.0 References......................................................................................................................... 2
List of Tables
Page
Table
1 Arsenic, selenium, and mercury concentrations in axial muscle of fish from the
upper Cape Fear River during May 2014.......................................................................... 3
List of Figures
Figure
1 Upper Cape Fear River arsenic, selenium, and mercury monitoring locations............
Page
0
1

1.0 Introduction
Duke Energy owns and operates the Belews Creek Steam Station (BCSS) located on the upper Dan
River near Pine Hall in Stokes County, NC. The BCSS National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Permit (No. NC0024406 Section A 12) requires monitoring of trace elements
(arsenic, selenium, and mercury) in fish tissues near the ash pond discharge once per permit cycle. Fish
samples were collected in accordance to the Belews Creek Dan River annual monitoring program and
the resulting data are submitted in this report.
2.0 Study Site Description and Sampling Locations
Fish were collected from three locations on the Dan River (Figure 1). These locations were
upstream (A') and downstream (B and E) of the BCSS ash basin discharge to the Dan River.
3.0 Target Species
The target fish species were Golden Redhorse and Redbreast Sunfish. As recommended by the
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), an attempt was made to limit the smallest fish to
75% of the largest fish total length by species depending on availability (US EPA 2000).
4.0 Field Sampling Methods
Fish were collected using electrofishing procedures as specified in the DEP Biology Program
Procedures Manual (Procedure NR-00080, Rev. 1). DEP holds North Carolina Biological
Laboratory Certification # 006 from the North Carolina Division of Water Resources for its lab
located at New Hill, NC. Only live fish that showed little or no signs of deterioration were
retained for analysis. Retained fish were identified to species, measured for total length (mm),
weighted (g), individually tagged (Floy tags), placed on ice and transferred to a freezer within 24
hours of collection.
Surface water quality parameters consisting of temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, specific
conductance and turbidity were recorded during each sampling, at each sampling location. Other
noteworthy environmental conditions including river flow conditions and weather conditions were
recorded and are available upon request.
1

5.0 Laboratory Processing and Arsenic, Selenium and Mercury Analysis
All fish samples were processed in the New Hill Trace Element Laboratory according to
procedure NR-00107 (Rev. 4) Trace Element Monitoring Laboratory Procedure. The processed
samples (lyophilized left axial muscle; right muscle occasionally included when needed) were
analyzed for arsenic, selenium, and mercury by x-ray spectrophotometry. Quality control was
achieved by use of replicates and certified reference materials. The remaining fish carcasses were
archived and will be kept for at least two years in the event that re -analysis is needed.
6.0 Data Analysis and Reporting
Arsenic, selenium, and mercury concentrations (converted to µg/g fresh weight) in the fish muscle
tissue collected during 2014 are shown in Table 1. In addition to the length and weight of each
fish, the dry -to -fresh weight ratios are presented to convert the arsenic, selenium, and mercury
concentrations fresh weight values back to dry weight values. The arsenic, mercury, and selenium
concentrations in fish tissues were low and show no indication of bioaccumulation from
operations of the BCSS ash basin discharge to the Dan River. In addition, all fish collected during
2014 were well below the US EPA Screening Values for Recreational Fishermen of 1.2 µg/g
(fresh weight) for arsenic (US EPA 2000), and below the NC human consumption advisory level
of 10 µg/g (fresh weight) for selenium. One Golden Redhorse from location B (downstream) had
a mercury concentration of 0.40 µg/g fresh weight. The remaining fish were below the were
below the North Carolina Health Directors Action Advisory Level of 0.40 µg/g fresh weight
(NCDHHS 2006),
7.0 References
NCDHHS. 2006. Health effects of methylmercury and North Carolina's advice on eating fish.
North Carolina Occupational and Environmental Epidemiology Branch. Raleigh, NC.
U.S. EPA. 2000. Guidance for assessing chemical contaminant data for use in fish advisories. Vol. 1.
Fish sampling and analysis. Third edition. EPA 823-B-00-007. United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
F)

Table 1. Arsenic, selenium, and mercury concentrations (fresh weight) in axial muscle of
fish collected from the Dan River during August 2014 at locations upstream (A'),
near (B), and downstream (E) of the BCSS ash basin discharge to the Dan River
Fish Species
Location
Month
Length
(mm)
Weight
(g)
As
(µg/g)
Se
(µg/g)
Hg
(µg/g)
Dry -to -Fresh'
Weigh Ratio
Redbreast Sunfish
Upstream
Aug
146
53
0.18
0.33
0.15
0.205
Redbreast Sunfish
Upstream
Aug
149
58
0.16
0.31
0.18
0.203
Redbreast Sunfish
Upstream
Aug
137
38
0.16
0.29
0.20
0.220
Redbreast Sunfish
Upstream
Aug
131
33
0.14
0.25
0.09
0.206
Redbreast Sunfish
Upstream
Aug
147
56
0.13
0.27
<0.06
0.210
Redbreast Sunfish
Upstream
Aug
141
50
0.12
0.23
0.20
0.206
Golden Redhorse
Upstream
Aug
328
338
0.21
0.25
0.24
0.209
Golden Redhorse
Upstream
Aug
350
401
0.14
0.32
<0.06
0.212
Golden Redhorse
Upstream
Aug
349
410
0.17
0.21
0.17
0.209
Golden Redhorse
Upstream
Aug
347
391
0.12
0.26
0.21
0.201
Golden Redhorse
Upstream
Aug
341
380
0.11
0.19
0.12
0.186
Golden Redhorse
Upstream
Aug
345
390
0.12
0.24
0.11
0.202
Redbreast Sunfish
Downstream
Aug
145
54
0.20
0.60
0.22
0.200
Redbreast Sunfish
Downstream
Aug
141
46
0.13
0.72
0.06
0.205
Redbreast Sunfish
Downstream
Aug
141
50
0.15
0.61
0.08
0.197
Redbreast Sunfish
Downstream
Aug
153
66
0.14
0.41
0.14
0.196
Redbreast Sunfish
Downstream
Aug
152
58
0.14
0.96
0.24
0.199
Redbreast Sunfish
Downstream
Aug
151
57
0.12
0.53
0.09
0.203
Golden Redhorse
Downstream
Aug
378
522
0.17
0.67
0.39
0.191
Golden Redhorse
Downstream
Aug
346
435
0.17
0.78
0.40
0.200
Golden Redhorse
Downstream
Aug
368
471
0.15
0.64
0.37
0.213
Golden Redhorse
Downstream
Aug
344
390
0.12
0.51
0.26
0.197
Golden Redhorse
Downstream
Aug
362
460
0.16
0.78
0.24
0.200
Golden Redhorse
Downstream
Aug
366
456
0.13
0.68
0.25
0.199
Redbreast Sunfish
Downstream
Aug
147
54
0.20
0.86
0.21
0.201
Redbreast Sunfish
Downstream
Aug
157
69
0.15
0.67
<0.06
0.210
Redbreast Sunfish
Downstream
Aug
173
98
0.17
0.57
0.17
0.209
Redbreast Sunfish
Downstream
Aug
155
66
0.15
0.73
0.11
0.202
Redbreast Sunfish
Downstream
Aug
170
96
0.14
0.50
0.10
0.201
Redbreast Sunfish
Downstream
Aug
148
57
0.16
0.53
0.16
0.204
Golden Redhorse
Downstream
Aug
288
236
0.12
0.42
0.13
0.190
Golden Redhorse
Downstream
Aug
278
210
0.16
0.38
0.15
0.198
Golden Redhorse
Downstream
Aug
300
272
0.18
0.50
0.17
0.200
Golden Redhorse
Downstream
Aug
260
159
0.16
0.35
0.11
0.194
Golden Redhorse
Downstream
Aug
285
225
0.14
0.31
0.07
0.196
Golden Redhorse
Downstream
Aug
298
257
0.16
0.39
0.16
0.194
* To convert to a dry weight, divide the fresh weight concentrations by the dry -to -fresh weight ratio.
3

�*-
Virninin
Figure 1. Dan River arsenic, selenium, and mercury monitoring locations. Monitoring locations
A' , B, and E in the Dan River upstream and downstream of the ash basin discharge of BCSS, Stokes
County, NC.
4

Attachment 7
Assessment of Balanced and Indigenous Populations
in Belews Reservoir
August 2016 NPDES application renewal
Belews Creek Steam Station
NCO024406

ASSESSMENT OF BALANCED AND INDIGENOUS POPULATIONS
IN BELEWS RESERVOIR
For
Belews Creek Steam Station: NPDES No. NCO024406
Water Resources
DUKE ENERGY
Corporate EHS Services
McGuire Environmental Center
13339 Hagers Ferry Road
Huntersville, NC 28078
August 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................ iv
LIST OF TABLES.............................................................................................................
vii
LIST OF FIGURES..........................................................................................................
viii
LITERATURE CITED............................................................................L-1
CHAPTER 1- INTRODUCTION........................................................................................1-1
HISTORY AND PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION..................................................................
1-1
Historical Perspective......................................................................................................
1-1
StudyArea Description...................................................................................................
1-2
REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS.............................................................................
1-4
STATION OPERATION AND NPDES THERMAL COMPLIANCE .............................
1-4
CHAPTER 2- WATER QUALITY AND SEDIMENT CHEMISTRY ...........................
2-1
INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................
2-1
MATERIALS AND METHODS.......................................................................................
2-2
FieldMethods..................................................................................................................
2-2
Laboratory Analytical Methods......................................................................................
2-3
HydrologicData Methods...............................................................................................
2-4
Water Quality and Sediment Data Analysis Methods .....................................................
2-4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.........................................................................................
2-4
Regional Precipitation and Management of Belews Reservoir Surface Elevations........
2-4
Water Quality Monitoring Results..................................................................................
2-5
Sediment Arsenic and Selenium Concentrations..........................................................
2-10
SUMMARY.....................................................................................................................
2-12
CHAPTER 3- MACROINVERTEBRATES......................................................................
3-1
INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................
3-1
MATERIALS AND METHODS.......................................................................................
3-1
WaterQuality..................................................................................................................
3-1
Benthic Density and Diversity Monitoring.....................................................................
3-1
SeleniumMonitoring......................................................................................................
3-2
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.........................................................................................
3-3
Substrate..........................................................................................................................
3-3
11

WaterQuality..................................................................................................................
3-3
Benthic Diversity and Density Monitoring.....................................................................
3-3
Hexagenia.......................................................................................................................
3-5
SeleniumMonitoring......................................................................................................
3-5
SUMMARY.......................................................................................................................
3-7
CHAPTER 4- FISH..............................................................................................................
4-1
INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................
4-1
MATERIALS AND METHODS.......................................................................................
4-2
Spring Electrofishing Survey..........................................................................................
4-2
SeleniumMonitoring......................................................................................................
4-2
RESULTSAND DISCUSSION.........................................................................................
4-3
Spring Electrofishing Survey..........................................................................................
4-3
SeleniumMonitoring......................................................................................................
4-5
SUMMARY.......................................................................................................................
4-6
LITERATURE CITED........................................................................................................
I
iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Aquatic populations residing in Belews Reservoir were adversely impacted by selenium
contained in ash basin effluent from the Belews Creek Steam Station (BOSS) from 1976 —
1985. During 1984, BCSS began dry fly -ash collection to eliminate most selenium and other
trace element inputs to the ash basin. The ash basin discharge was rerouted from Belews
Reservoir to the Dan River in 1985. Since that time, aquatic populations in Belews Reservoir
have recovered, and both Duke Energy and North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (NCDENR) have acknowledged that balanced and indigenous populations
now reside in the reservoir. In addition to continued environmental monitoring in Belews
Reservoir, monitoring at locations uplake and downlake of the BCSS ash basin discharge in
the Dan River was initiated in 1984 and is ongoing. Duke Energy continues to monitor
aquatic populations per the approved monitoring program in both the Dan River and Belews
Reservoir. This report covers water quality, sediment chemistry, macroinvertebrate, and fish
community monitoring results from Belews Reservoir from 2011 — 2015.
The BCSS is typically operated as a baseload generating station and the yearly capacity
factor (actual generation divided by potential generation, expressed as a percentage) during
2011 — 2015 has ranged from 65.4 to 82.5 %. During this period BCSS has fully complied
with the thermal limits of the station's NPDES permit. As in previous years, Belews
Reservoir Dam spillage remained relatively infrequent throughout 2011 — 2015. Controlled
spillway releases primarily conformed to a seasonal pattern with spillage occurring during
periods when the reservoir was near full pond.
Virtually all former ash sluice -related trace elements have been removed from the water
column with concentrations in Belews Reservoir during 2011 — 2015 less than applicable
state water quality standards, action levels, and often less than current analytical reporting
limits. Minor and gradual increases reported prior to 2011 for Belews Reservoir pH, specific
conductance, alkalinity, and major dissolved ionic constituents (i.e., calcium, magnesium,
chloride, and to slightly lesser extent, sodium, potassium, and silica) were not as evident in
2011 — 2015. The minimal, or lack of, increase was in part due to the relatively normal
rainfall patterns and resulting inflows to Belews Reservoir as compared to the drought
conditions evident in recent prior years 1998 - 2002 and 2007 — 2008. Overall, Belews
Reservoir nutrient concentrations remain relatively low throughout most of the reservoir,
which continues to be classified as an oligotrophic waterbody. Watershed inputs contribute
to increased nutrient concentrations in the uplake region.
uv

Concentrations of arsenic and selenium in Belews Reservoir surficial fine sediments during
2011— 2015 were similar to levels reported since 2000. Arsenic and selenium concentrations
in the deeper sediments of Belews Reservoir remain elevated relative to reference sites.
However, recent sediment arsenic, and particularly selenium concentrations downlake in the
shallower littoral areas are approaching the concentrations long -observed in the relatively
unaffected uplake area of the reservoir.
Belews Reservoir continues to support a diverse macroinvertebrate community reservoir -
wide. Taxa numbers were somewhat lower during 2011 — 2015 than during the previous
five-year period, but were within historical ranges. All three macroinvertebrate sampling
locations periodically demonstrated higher densities than any recorded at these locations
since 1991.
Selenium concentrations in Belews Reservoir macroinvertebrates during 2011 — 2015
continued to indicate reduced levels and variability compared to results reported in the
1980's.. Comparable to historical trends, macroinvertebrates and plankton collected from the
uplake Location 405.0 generally had lower selenium concentrations than other locations.
Selenium concentrations in macroinvertebrates and plankton from downlake Locations 418.0
and 419.3 exceeded concentrations measured uplake, but showed the same decreasing trend
over time. The results of this ongoing monitoring program indicate that legacy selenium
concentrations in the lentic food web continue to decline, and the operation of BCSS is not
having a detrimental impact on the macroinvertebrate community of Belews Reservoir.
A total of 22 species represented bt seven families, dominated by sunfish (Centrarchidae)
were collected in the 2011 — 2015 fish community assessment. Fish survey metrics
associated with species composition, catch, and ecological function represent a self-
sustaining balanced and indigenous fish community in Belews Reservoir, were consistent
with previously reported data since 1994.
Uplake and midlake regions had the highest fish species diversity and catch, likely due to
higher relative concentrations of phosphorous, organic carbon, total suspended solids, and
turbidity from watershed inputs. Conversely, discharge and downlake regions had the lowest
fish species diversity and catch, reflective of oligotrophic conditions.
►v

Mean selenium concentrations in Redear Sunfish and Largemouth Bass remained well below
levels considered detrimental to fish reproduction and the 10-µg/g, wet weight, concentration
considered safe for human consumption.
Belews Reservoir continues to support a diverse fish and macroinvertebrate community
reservoir -wide. Results of long-term monitoring continue to indicate that a balanced and
indigenous aquatic community exists in Belews Reservoir.
k,Pjl

Table
LIST OF TABLES
Title
1-1 Belews Reservoir sampling locations and monitoring summary for 2011
Page
2015.............................................................................................................................1-6
1-1
BCSS average monthly and yearly capacity factors (percent) from January
2011 through December 2015.........................................................................................7
2-1
Analytical methods used to determine chemical and physical constituents in
Belews Reservoir during 2011 — 2015......................................................................
2-13
3-1
General descriptions of the substrate found at sampling locations in Belews
Reservoir during July of 2011 — 2015.........................................................................
3-8
3-2
Dissolved oxygen (mg/L) concentrations and temperatures (°C) recorded
from locations in Belews Reservoir at the times of macroinvertebrate
collections...................................................................................................................
3-9
3-3
Densities (No./m2) of macroinvertebrates collected from Location 405.1
from2006 — 2015......................................................................................................
3-10
3-4
Densities (No./m2) of macroinvertebrates collected from Location 410.2
from2006 — 2015......................................................................................................
3-13
3-5
Densities (No./m2) of macroinvertebrates collected from Location 418.1
from2006 — 2015......................................................................................................
3-16
4-1
Pollution tolerance rating, trophic guild of adults, and fish species collected
during studies of Belews Reservoir, 1994 — 2015......................................................
4-7
4-2
Species composition by number of electrofishing samples collected from
Belews Reservoir, 2011 — 2015..................................................................................
4-8
4-3
Species composition by biomass (kg) of electrofishing samples collected
from Belews Reservoir, 2011 — 2015..........................................................................
4-9
vii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Title
Page
1-1
Belews Reservoir sampling locations during 2011 —2015 ...........................................
1-8
1-2
Daily average dam spillage temperatures during 2011 — 2015, compared to
daily average near -surface water temperatures recorded in the Belews Creek
arm of the reservoir (Location 419.2).........................................................................
1-9
2-1
Annual cumulative precipitation at Greensboro, NC during 1996 — 2015
(2011 — 2015 data highlighted), and at the USGS Pine Hall, NC station
during2009 — 2015...................................................................................................
2-15
2-2
Monthly cumulative precipitation at Greensboro, NC during 2001 — 2015................
2-16
2-3
Monthly cumulative precipitation for the USGS Pine Hall station during 2011
— 2015 compared to Greensboro, NC airport precipitation .......................................
2-16
2-4
Belews Reservoir daily average surface elevations during 2001 — 2015. Full
pond elevation is 725 ft (approximately 221 m) above mean sea level (msl)...........
2-17
2-5
Hourly average BCSS CCW intake and flow -weighed discharge temperatures,
and CCW flow during 2011......................................................................................
2-17
2-6
Hourly average BCSS CCW intake and flow -weighed discharge temperatures,
and CCW flow during 2012......................................................................................
2-18
2-7
Hourly average BCSS CCW intake and flow -weighed discharge temperatures,
and CCW flow during 2013......................................................................................
2-18
2-8
Hourly average BCSS CCW intake and flow -weighed discharge temperatures,
and CCW flow during 2014......................................................................................
2-18
2-9
Hourly average BCSS CCW intake and flow -weighed discharge temperatures,
and CCW flow during 2015......................................................................................
2-19
2-10
Winter (w) and summer (s) thermal profiles at the Belews Reservoir Dam
forebay (Location 416.0) during 2011 — 2015..........................................................
2-19
2-11
Winter (w) and summer (s) thermal profiles near the BCSS CCW intake
(Location 418.0) during 2011 — 2015.......................................................................
2-19
2-12
Winter (w) and summer (s) thermal profiles at the main Reservoir
confluence with the BCSS CCW connecting canal (Location 410.0) during
2011-2015 ...............................................................................................................
2-20
2-13
Winter (w) and summer (s) thermal profiles at the confluence of Belews and
East Belews Creek (Location 419.3) during 2011 — 2015........................................
2-20
2-14
Historical trend for Belews Reservoir summer thermocline depth, measured
at the Belews Reservoir Dam forebay (Location 416.0)...........................................
2-21
2-15
Winter 2011 Belews Reservoir water temperature isotherms ...................................
2-21
2-16
Winter 2012 Belews Reservoir water temperature isotherms ...................................
2-22
2-17
Winter 2013 Belews Reservoir water temperature isotherms ...................................
2-22
2-18
Winter 2014 Belews Reservoir water temperature isotherms ...................................
2-23
2-19
Winter 2015 Belews Reservoir water temperature isotherms ...................................
2-23
2-20
Summer 2011 Belews Reservoir water temperature isotherms .................................
2-24
viii

Figure
LIST OF FIGURES
Title
Page
2-21
Summer 2013 Belews Reservoir water temperature isotherms .................................
2-24
2-22
Summer 2013 Belews Reservoir water temperature isotherms .................................
2-25
2-23
Summer 2014 Belews Reservoir water temperature isotherms .................................
2-25
2-24
Summer 2015 Belews Reservoir water temperature isotherms .................................
2-26
2-25
Winter (w) and summer (s) DO profiles at the Belews Reservoir Dam
forebay (Location 416.0) during 2011 — 2015..........................................................
2-26
2-26
Winter (w) and summer (s) DO profiles near the BCSS CCW intake
(Location 418.0) during 2011 — 2015.......................................................................
2-27
2-27
Winter (w) and summer (s) DO profiles at the main Reservoir confluence
with the BCSS CCW connecting canal (Location 410.0) during 2011 —
2015...........................................................................................................................
2-27
2-28
Winter (w) and summer (s) DO profiles at the confluence of Belews and
East Belews Creek (Location 419.3) during 2011 — 2015........................................
2-27
2-29
Winter 2011 Belews Reservoir DO isopleths............................................................
2-28
2-30
Winter 2012 Belews Reservoir DO isopleths............................................................
2-28
2-31
Winter 2013 Belews Reservoir DO isopleths............................................................
2-29
2-32
Winter 2014 Belews Reservoir DO isopleths............................................................
2-29
2-33
Winter 2015 Belews Reservoir DO isopleths............................................................
2-30
2-34
Summer 2011 Belews Reservoir DO isopleths.........................................................
2-30
2-35
Summer 2012 Belews Reservoir DO isopleths.........................................................
2-31
2-36
Summer 2013 Belews Reservoir DO isopleths.........................................................
2-31
2-37
Summer 2014 Belews Reservoir DO isopleths.........................................................
2-32
2-38
Summer 2015 Belews Reservoir DO isopleths.........................................................
2-32
2-39
Spatial -temporal distribution of Belews Reservoir pH, 1977 — 2015........................
2-33
2-40
Temporal trend in surface pH measured at Belews Reservoir Dam forebay,
1977-2015 ...............................................................................................................
2-33
2-41
Spatial -temporal distribution of Belews Reservoir specific conductance,
1977-2015 ...............................................................................................................
2-34
2-42
Temporal trend in surface specific conductance measured at Belews
Reservoir Dam forebay, 1977 — 2015.......................................................................
2-34
2-43
Spatial -temporal distribution of Belews Reservoir alkalinity (as mg
CaCO3/L), 1977 — 2015............................................................................................
2-35
2-44
Temporal trend in surface alkalinity concentrations measured at Belews
Reservoir Dam forebay, 1977 — 2015.......................................................................
2-35
2-45
Spatial -temporal distribution of Belews Reservoir calcium concentrations,
1977-2015 ...............................................................................................................
2-36
2-46
Temporal trend in surface calcium concentrations measured at Belews
Reservoir Dam forebay, 1977 — 2015.......................................................................
2-36
2-47 Spatial -temporal distribution of Belews Reservoir magnesium concentrations,
1977-2015 ...............................................................................................................
2-37
ix

LIST OF FIGURES, Continued
Figure Title
Page
2-48
Temporal trend in surface magnesium concentrations measured at Belews
Reservoir Dam forebay, 1977 — 2015.......................................................................
2-37
2-49
Spatial -temporal distribution of Belews Reservoir sodium concentrations,
1977 — 2015...............................................................................................................
2-38
2-50
Temporal trend in surface sodium concentrations measured at Belews
Reservoir Dam forebay, 1977 — 2015.......................................................................
2-38
2-51
Spatial -temporal distribution of Belews Reservoir potassium concentrations,
1977 — 2015...............................................................................................................
2-39
2-52
Temporal trend in surface potassium concentrations measured at Belews
Reservoir Dam forebay, 1977 — 2015.......................................................................
2-39
2-53
Spatial -temporal distribution of Belews Reservoir chloride concentrations,
1977 — 2015...............................................................................................................
2-40
2-54
Temporal trend in surface chloride concentrations measured at Belews
Reservoir Dam forebay, 1977 — 2015.......................................................................
2-40
2-55
Spatial -temporal distribution of Belews Reservoir sulfate concentrations,
1977 — 2015...............................................................................................................
2-41
2-56
Temporal trend in surface sulfate concentrations measured at Belews
Reservoir Dam forebay, 1977 — 2015.......................................................................
2-41
2-57
Spatial -temporal distribution of Belews Reservoir silica (as elemental Si)
concentrations, 1977 — 2015.....................................................................................
2-42
2-58
Temporal trend in surface silica (as elemental Si) concentrations measured
at Belews Reservoir Dam forebay, 1977 — 2015.......................................................
2-42
2-59
Spatial -temporal distribution of Belews Reservoir iron concentrations, 1977
— 2015........................................................................................................................
2-43
2-60
Spatial -temporal distribution of Belews Reservoir manganese
concentrations, 1977 — 2015.....................................................................................
2-43
2-61
Spatial -temporal distribution of Belews Reservoir aluminum concentrations,
1977 — 2015...............................................................................................................
2-44
2-62
Spatial -temporal distribution of Belews Reservoir ammonia -nitrogen
concentrations, 1977 — 2015.....................................................................................
2-44
2-63
Spatial -temporal distribution of Belews Reservoir nitrate+nitrite-nitrogen
concentrations, 1977 — 2015.....................................................................................
2-45
2-64
Spatial -temporal distribution of Belews Reservoir total nitrogen
concentrations concentrations, 1977 — 2015.............................................................
2-45
2-65
Spatial -temporal distribution of Belews Reservoir orthophosphate
concentrations, 1977 — 2015.....................................................................................
2-46
2-66
Spatial -temporal distribution of Belews Reservoir total phosphorus
concentrations, 1977 — 2015.....................................................................................
2-46
2-67
Spatial -temporal distribution of Belews Reservoir total organic carbon
concentrations, 1977 — 2015.....................................................................................
2-47
2-68
Spatial -temporal distribution of Belews Reservoir turbidity, 1977 — 2015...............
2-47
X

LIST OF FIGURES, Continued
Figure Title
Page
2-69
Spatial -temporal distribution of Belews Reservoir total suspended solids
concentrations, 1977 — 2015.....................................................................................
2-48
2-70
Spatial -temporal distribution of Belews Reservoir total recoverable arsenic
concentrations, 1977 — 2015.....................................................................................
2-48
2-71
Spatial -temporal distribution of Belews Reservoir total recoverable
cadmium concentrations, 1977 — 2015......................................................................
2-49
2-72
Spatial -temporal distribution of Belews Reservoir total recoverable copper
recoverable concentrations, 1977 — 2015..................................................................
2-49
2-73
Spatial -temporal distribution of Belews Reservoir total recoverable
selenium concentrations, 1977 — 2015......................................................................
2-50
2-74
Spatial -temporal distribution of Belews Reservoir total recoverable zinc
concentrations, 1977 — 2015.....................................................................................
2-50
2-75
Arsenic and selenium in surficial fine sediments collected from upper
Belews Reservoir, 1984 — 2015. (DL = concentration reported as below
detectionlimit)..........................................................................................................
2-51
2-76
Arsenic and selenium in shallow littoral surficial fine sediments collected
from lower Belews Reservoir, 1984 — 2015. (DL = concentration reported
as below detection limit)...........................................................................................
2-51
2-77
Arsenic and selenium in mid -depth surficial fine sediments collected from
lower Belews Reservoir, 1984 — 2015. (DL = concentration reported as
below detection limit)...............................................................................................
2-52
2-78
Arsenic and selenium in deep surficial fine sediments collected from lower
Belews Reservoir, 1984 — 2015. (DL = concentration reported as below
detectionlimit)..........................................................................................................
2-52
3-1
Total number of taxa collected annually from Locations 405.1, 410.2, and
418.1 from 2006 — 2015............................................................................................
3-21
3-2
Density (No./m2) of macroinvertebrates collected annually from Locations
405.1, 410.2, and 418.1 from 2006 — 2015...............................................................
3-22
3-3
Density (No./m2) of Oligochaeta, Diptera, Corbicula, and Others collected
annually from Location 405.1 (uplake) from 2006 — 2015.......................................
3-23
3-4
Density (No./m2) of Oligochaeta, Diptera, Corbicula, and Others collected
annually from Location 410.2 (downlake) during 2006 — 2015 ...............................
3-24
3-5
Density (No./m2) of Oligochaeta, Diptera, Corbicula, and Others collected
annually from Location 418.1 (downlake) during 2006 — 2015 ...............................
3-25
3-6
Hexagenia densities at locations in Belews Reservoir during summer and
spring periods of 2012 — 2015..................................................................................
3-26
3-7
Selenium concentrations (µg/g, wet weight) in Diptera collected from three
locations in Belews Reservoir during 1984 — 2015..................................................
3-27
3-8
Selenium concentrations (µg/g, wet weight) in Corbicula collected from
three locations in Belews Reservoir during 1984 — 2015.........................................
3-28
xi

LIST OF FIGURES, Continued
Figure Title Page
3-9 Selenium concentrations (µg/g, wet weight) in the plankton collected from
three locations in Belews Reservoir during 1985 — 2015.........................................
3-29
4-1
Number of fish collected during spring electrofishing, 1994 — 2015, at four
Belews Reservoir sampling regions..........................................................................
4-10
4-2
Weight (kg) of fish collected during spring electrofishing, 1994 — 2015, at
four Belews Reservoir sampling regions..................................................................
4-10
4-3
Number of fish species collected during spring electrofishing, 1994 — 2015,
at four Belews Reservoir sampling regions..............................................................
4-11
4-4
Mean relative weight (Wr), with 95% confidence interval, of Largemouth
Bass collected in Belews Reservoir 1994 — 2015.....................................................
4-11
4-5
Mean relative weight (Wr), with 95% confidence interval, of Largemouth
Bass by Belews Reservoir region, 1994 — 2015........................................................
4-12
4-6
Mean selenium concentrations (wet weight) in Redear Sunfish muscle tissue
collected annually from four locations in Belews Reservoir, 1995 — 2015..............
4-12
4-7
Mean selenium concentrations (wet weight) in Largemouth bass muscle
tissue collected annually from four locations in Belews Reservoir, 2007-
2015...........................................................................................................................
4-13
x1i

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
HISTORY AND PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
Historical Perspective
Belews Creek Steam Station (BCSS) is a two -unit, coal-fired electric generating plant located
on Belews Reservoir, in Stokes County, North Carolina. The reservoir, impounded primarily
to supply once -through condenser cooling water (CCW), first reached full pond in 1973,
followed by commercial operation of BCSS Unit I in August 1974, and Unit 2 in December
1975. Each 1, 11 0-megawatt' BCSS unit is cooled by CCW pumped at a maximum rate of
33.1 m3/s (1,170 cfs). As in the past, BCSS was operated as a baseload generating station
from 2011 - 2015.
In 1976 a sharp decline in the Belews Reservoir fishery was observed and eventually linked
with the discharge of BCSS ash basin effluent to the reservoir (Cumbie and Van Horn 1978;
Olmsted et al. 1986). A decline in the game fish population, documented reservoir -wide
except for a remote headwater area, was specifically attributed to reproductive impairment
and failure of recruitment caused by selenium. The impact of selenium on the Belews
Reservoir fishery was exacerbated by the lengthy retention time of the reservoir,
approximately 1,500 days under normal conditions. The extremely low rate of reservoir
outflow via dam spillage facilitated accumulation of selenium within the water column and
sediments, leading to selenium enrichment by the lowermost tier of the lentic food web, and
subsequent trophic transfer to sensitive receptor species (in particular, fish) via the food web.
By 1984, Duke Energy implemented dry fly -ash collection at BCSS to eliminate most wet
ash sluicing, and therefore reducing selenium and other trace element inputs to the ash basin.
To further facilitate the eventual recovery of the reservoir ecosystem, the ash basin discharge
to Belews Reservoir was rerouted to the Dan River in November 1985. Monitoring of water
and sediment chemistry, in addition to macroinvertebrate and fish populations, has been
1 Unit capacity ratings were reduced from a previous 1,120 megawatts in October 2008 following installation of
wet flue gas desulfurization (scrubber) systems.
1-1

ongoing since the termination of the ash basin discharge to the reservoir (Table 1-1 and
Figure 1-1).
Results of regular monitoring by Duke Energy have effectively documented the recovery of
the reservoir and its biological communities over time. Duke Energy and the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) have acknowledged that
macroinvertebrate and fish populations in Belews Reservoir have substantially recovered
from the selenium contamination episode and that a balanced and indigenous aquatic
community now exists in the reservoir. As required by the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit for BCSS (NCDENR 2005b, 2007a, 2009, 2012), this
report summarizes 2011 — 2015 results from the ongoing monitoring effort to assess water
and sediment chemistry, macroinvertebrates, and fish in Belews Reservoir.
In addition to continuing environmental monitoring in Belews Reservoir, monitoring by
Duke Energy at Dan River locations upstream and downstream of the re -located BCSS ash
basin discharge was initiated in 1984. Results of the Dan River monitoring program are in an
annual report submitted to NCDENR, and are not included in this report.
Study Area Description
Belews Reservoir was constructed principally as a cooling water source for BCSS, and has
no hydroelectric generation capability. The reservoir has a surface area of 1,563 hectares
(3,863 acres) at full pond elevation (221 in, or 725 ft msl). The upstream catchment is
relatively small, comprised of only an additional 1,630 hectares (4,028 acres; NCDENR
2010a).
Belews Reservoir is comprised of distinct regions, which in part relate to its principle
tributaries: the West Belews Creek arm; the Belews Creek arm; and the main body of the
reservoir, wherein their confluence lies (termed the "downlake" region in this and earlier
reports; Figure 1-1). The upper portion of the West Belews Creek arm of the reservoir
receives heated effluent from the BCSS once -through CCW system. The West Belews Creek
arm is physically separated from the remainder of Belews Reservoir, except for a 1.5-km,
man-made canal that facilitates the return of heated CCW effluent to the Belews Creek arm.
1-2

Within the downlake region of Belews Reservoir, a high degree of uniformity in water
quality is normally evident. This is principally due to a forced circulation pattern induced by
the operation of the combined 66.3-m3/s (2,340-cfs) capacity BCSS CCW pumps. The CCW
system flow rate significantly exceeds typical inflow rates from combined reservoir
tributaries (estimated to average 2.8 m3/s [98 cfs]; Cumbie 1978). Particularly during the
thermally stratified portion of the year, BCSS CCW pumping effectively maintains a
circulation pattern within the epilimnion of the downlake region. During the period of time
that ash basin effluent was discharged to Belews Reservoir in the 1970s and early 1980s, this
circulation pattern was instrumental in mixing diluted coal ash -associated trace elements
throughout the downlake region of Belews Reservoir.
Moving southward from the downlake region into the Belews Creek arm, beginning at about
1 km from the BCSS CCW discharge canal, one encounters a narrow portion of the reservoir
historically termed the "midlake" region. This region represents a transitional area, situated
between the reservoir's headwaters and the downlake region. In this portion of the reservoir,
the upper part of the water column typically reflects downlake water quality as influenced by
the edge of the BSCC thermal plume. However, the deeper portion of the midlake water
column typically reflects water quality more like that observed in the headwater portion of
the reservoir (i.e., cooler water, with greater concentrations of nutrients and suspended
solids). Following the fish population collapse that occurred in the 1970s and early 1980s,
this midlake region was considered a key indicator area in reservoir -wide assessments, and
was closely monitored to assess the early stages of recovery of the fish community.
The uppermost headwater section of the Belews Creek arm lies upstream and south of US
Highway 158, and has been termed the "uplake" region in this and other reports. Physical
restrictions to reservoir mixing attributable to the Highway 158 bridge and causeway, in
addition to two similar infrastructure "pinch points" (another road bridge and a former rail
crossing) located slightly downstream within the midlake region, serve to hydrologically
isolate the uplake from the downlake region. Because of these physical restrictions and the
nearby tributary inflow, the relatively shallow (i.e., < 5 m) uplake area was exceptional
compared to the balance of Belews Reservoir in retaining its indigenous fish community
throughout the 1970s and 1980s.
1-3

REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
Aside from the aforementioned requirement for ongoing environmental studies in both
Belews Reservoir and the Dan River, the BCSS NPDES permit establishes daily thermal
limits. Because Belews Reservoir was conceived and constructed as an industrial cooling
pond, however, regulatory thermal limits do not apply within the reservoir. The station's
NPDES permit establishes a discharge maximum thermal limit (32 °C, or 89.6 T) at the
Belews Reservoir spillway for the protection of downstream water quality. The limit applies
during actual spillway releases (NCDENR 2005b, 2007a, 2009, 2012). Duke Energy
continuously monitors Belews Reservoir forebay (at the spillway) and actual spillage
temperatures to assure compliance with the permitted thermal maximum limit. Reference
reservoir temperatures are also continuously recorded from near -surface at a midlake site
(Location 419.2).
STATION OPERATION AND NPDES THERMAL COMPLIANCE
BCSS effectively maintained its role as a base load generating station throughout the most
recent five-year period. Annual net capacity factors (actual generation divided by potential
generation, expressed as a percentage) for the station were 82.5, 71.7, 64.5, 69.2, and 64.4 %
for the years 2011 — 2015, respectively (Table 1-2). Routine maintenance outages of
generating units were evident as unit -specific reductions in the monthly capacity data,
occurring throughout the five-year period.
During 2011 — 2015, BCSS complied with the thermal maximum permitted for Belews
Reservoir Dam spillage, 32 T. As in previous years, Belews Reservoir Dam spillage
remained relatively infrequent throughout 2011 — 2015. Frequency of spillway operation
ranged from a minimum of 20 days per year in 2015 to a maximum of 102 days per year in
2011. Controlled spillway releases primarily conformed to a seasonal pattern with spillage
occurring during periods when the reservoir was near full pond, i.e., normally winter -spring,
with spillage requirements typically triggered by short-term local precipitation patterns
(Figure 1-2).
1-4

2011 — 2015 BELEWS LAKE MONITORING PROGRAM
The Duke Energy Belews Reservoir monitoring program remained unchanged following the
last reported results (Duke Energy 2011). The program encompasses water quality
monitoring, sediment, macroinvertebrate, and fish trace element screening,
macroinvertebrate and fish community assessments. The scope of annual monitoring
activities is provided in Table 1-1, with reference to sample locations identified on Figure 1-
1. The remainder of this report is dedicated to a summary and discussion of the 2011 — 2015
Belews Reservoir monitoring results.
1-5

Table 1-1. Belews Reservoir sampling locations and monitoring summary for 2011 — 2015.
Location
Water
Quality
Analyses
Sediment
Elemental
Analyses
Macroinvertebrate
Quantitative
Analyses
Macroinvertebrate
Elemental
Analyses
Fish
Community
/ Elemental
Analyses
405.0
•
•
•
405.1
•
410.0
•
•
410.2
•
•
416.0
•
417.1
•
417.2
•
418.0
•
•
418.1
•
•
418.3
•
419.1
•
419.2
•
•
419.3
•
419.4
•
422.0
•
1-6

Table 1-2. BCSS average monthly and yearly capacity factorsA (percent) from January 2011 through December 2015.
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Mont
h
Unit
1
Unit
2
Statio
n
Unit
1
Unit
2
Statio
n
Unit
1
Unit
2
Statio
n
Unit
1
Unit
2
Statio
n
Unit
1
Unit
2
Statio
n
Jan
96.93
89.55
93.24
68.91
87.64
78.27
82.11
61.71
71.91
93.46
89.49
91.47
70.97
78.14
74.56
Feb
92.68
96.00
94.34
52.38
88.41
70.39
84.63
79.93
82.28
92.54
94.85
93.70
93.49
90.91
92.20
Mar
72.18
74.40
73.29
59.74
43.54
51.64
91.32
43.32
67.32
88.42
88.45
88.44
89.32
73.96
81.64
Apr
29.87
81.19
55.53
90.88
16.10
53.49
36.27
41.05
38.66
90.24
38.32
64.28
10.15
61.17
35.66
May
86.95
75.44
81.20
89.46
83.97
86.71
46.07
83.51
64.79
61.98
75.37
68.67
30.46
65.51
47.99
Jun
92.98
93.73
93.35
87.74
84.35
86.05
85.45
81.38
83.42
82.96
86.29
84.62
78.34
77.53
77.94
J u l
94.14
88.93
91.53
94.79
90.42
92.60
87.09
84.15
85.62
70.23
81.18
75.71
86.97
85.86
86.42
Aug
94.22
95.62
94.92
87.46
80.48
83.97
84.21
59.32
71.76
83.00
80.96
81.98
72.36
68.50
70.43
Sep
89.24
80.60
84.92
69.48
46.37
57.93
84.76
34.68
59.72
71.78
65.37
68.57
73.33
62.98
68.15
OCt
90.94
62.93
76.93
74.18
5.12
39.65
10.50
88.89
49.69
90.54
0.00
45.11
81.61
33.19
57.40
Nov
87.76
85.47
86.61
86.51
70.98
78.74
0.00
93.23
46.08
94.75
0.00
47.21
23.17
67.36
45.26
DeC
55.80
72.21
64.01
83.18
78.79
80.99
20.63
85.44
53.04
19.85
22.37
21.11
31.36
39.42
35.39
Year
81.97
83.01
82.49
78.73
64.68
71.70
59.42
69.72
64.52
78.31
60.22
69.24
61.79
67.04
64.42
A Unit -specific capacity factors were obtained from the Duke Energy Microgads database (2011 - 2015 data).
1-7

Spillway
•
Bel.
Lake
Stokes County
North Carolina
417.2 i INK
2.00 17,..1
Tto&.
Duwnlake
EF Zone
8.0
BCSS ❑l 418.1
,"I 410.2
410.0
11� _�� Sampling Locations
(See Table 1-1)
❑❑ Electrofishing
41❑❑
9Zones
.1
41
Hwy 65
419.2 •
419.40 Hwy 158
405.0- / (�
405.1
0 0.5 1 2 Miles
0 0.75 1.5 3 Kilometers
Figure 1-1. Belews Reservoir sampling locations during 2011 2015.
1-8

40
35
30
U 25
W
D
20
aD
n
P_ 15
10
3
D
Jan-11
• Spillage Temperature
- Midlake Temperature
- - - Spillage Thermal Limit (32' C)
■
Jan-12 Jan-13 Jan-14 Jan-15 Jan-16
Date
Figure 1-2. Daily average dam spillage temperatures during 2011 — 2015, compared to daily
average near -surface water temperatures recorded in the Belews Creek arm of
the reservoir (Location 419.2).
1-9

CHAPTER 2
WATER QUALITY AND SEDIMENT CHEMISTRY
INTRODUCTION
This chapter summarizes the results of the continuing water quality and sediment chemistry
monitoring programs conducted at Belews Reservoir since 1977 and 1984, respectively. The
water quality and sediment chemistry portion of the Belews Reservoir monitoring program is
comprised of semi-annual (winter and summer) water quality sampling, and annual reservoir
sediment sampling. These programs have served to assess the effects of rerouting the BCSS
ash basin discharge away from Belews Reservoir. As discussed in Chapter 1, rerouting of
the ash basin effluent (and installation of a dry fly -ash collection system) was undertaken in
response to toxicity concerns caused by elevated concentrations of coal ash combustion trace
elements, principally selenium, in Belews Reservoir.
Previous research (Duke Power 1994, 1995, 1996, 1996b, 1997, 1998, 19995, 2000, 2001 a,
2001b, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005; Duke Energy 2006a, 2006b, 2007, 2008, 2009a, 2009b,
2010a, 2011b, 2012, 2013, 2014; Harden et al. 1988; Lewis et al. 1988) indicated that re-
routing the ash basin discharge has had minimal impact on the Dan River, but a distinct and
positive effect on Belews Reservoir water quality. Water column arsenic and selenium
concentrations in Belews Reservoir decreased substantially during the first year the ash pond
effluent was diverted to the river and have remained near or below detectable levels ever
since. Sediment trace element concentrations in the downlake areas of Belews Reservoir
continue to be elevated with respect to non -impacted uplake sites. However, data collected
over the past several years suggest that these downlake concentrations have substantially
declined in the littoral areas of the reservoir, while remaining elevated in the deepest regions.
2-1

MATERIALS AND METHODS
Field Methods
In -situ Belews Reservoir water quality was monitored at seven locations (Table 1-1 and
Figure 1-1) semiannually (summer and winter) during 2011 — 2015. Sample locations were
the same as those previously employed in past Belews Reservoir studies and comprise the
following: 405.0 (uplake); 419.2 and 419.3 (two midlake locations); 410.0 (BCSS condenser
cooling water [CCW] discharge confluence with the Belews Creek arm of the reservoir);
418.0 (BCSS CCW intake); 418.3 (former BCSS ash basin discharge); and 416.0 (forebay of
the Belews Reservoir Dam). In -situ analyses were performed by Duke Energy
Environmental Services personnel .2 Vertical profiles of in -situ parameters (temperature,
dissolved oxygen [DO], pH and specific conductance) were collected with a field -calibrated
Hydrolab DataSondeo. Profile sampling included surface (0.3 m) measurements, and, except
for the shallow cove Location 418.3, sequential measurements collected at one -meter
intervals, to within 0.5 in above bottom.
Water samples for laboratory analyses were collected with a Kemmerer bottle at surface (0.3
m) and approximately one meter above bottom, except for the cove location (418.3), where
only surface samples were obtained. Water samples for a wide array of analytes were
collected during 2011 — 2015 at all locations except Location 419.2, where only samples for
arsenic and selenium were collected. Samples for soluble nutrients (i.e., ammonia-N,
nitrite+nitrate-N, orthophosphate, and dissolved organic carbon) were filtered (0.45-µm) in
the field. All samples were preserved (acidified and / or iced) in the field immediately
following collection.
Sediment sampling for evaluation of selected trace element concentrations was conducted at
four Belews Reservoir locations during 2011 — 2015, and was similar to that described
previously (Duke Power 2001a; Duke Energy 2006a, 2011). In the main body of Belews
Reservoir, sediments were obtained from three sites corresponding to distinct bottom depths:
Location 417.1 (2 to 3 in deep); Location 417.2 (5 to 7 m); and Location 422.0 (25 to 30 m).
Uplake sediment samples (Location 405.0; 3 to 5 m) were also collected for comparative
purposes. Five replicate cores were obtained from each location. Cores were collected with
2 The Duke Energy Environmental Services organization is certified by the North Carolina Division of Water
Quality (DWQ) under the Field Parameter Certification program (certificate number 5193).
2-2

a 50.8-mm internal diameter Kajak-Brinkhurst gravity corer fitted with cellulose acetate
butyrate core liner tubes. Upon collection, sediment cores were sealed with polyethylene end
caps, with site water overlaying the intact water -sediment interface. Cores were maintained
in an upright position to preserve the sediment -water interface, stored on ice, and
subsequently refrigerated upon return to the laboratory.
Laboratory Analytical Methods
Water
Analytical methods and sample preservation techniques employed during 2011 — 2015 are
summarized in Table 2-1. The majority of laboratory water quality analyses were performed
by the Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC analytical laboratory, Huntersville, NC (NC Division of
Water Quality [DWQ] Laboratory Certification program, certificate number 248). Selected
parameters, however, were analyzed by alternate state -certified commercial laboratories.
Prism Laboratories, Inc., Charlotte, NC (NC DWQ certificate number 402) determined
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), and turbidity analyses for all 2011 through summer
2015 samples.
Since 2001, trace element concentrations of water samples have been analyzed as "total
recoverable" elemental concentration, which incorporates a dilute acidic digestion of the
sample (USEPA 1994). This technique was distinct from the analytical method for trace
elements employed during the period 1988 — 2000, when acid -preserved samples were
analyzed by atomic absorption spectroscopy direct injection, i.e., samples were not acid -
digested.
Sediment
Upon return to the laboratory, fine-suspendable sediments were siphoned from the top 2-3
mm of each core, sieved through a 63-µm plastic (Nitexo) screen, and then deposited onto a
pre -weighed 0.45-µm Millipore° acetate membrane filter. Filters were subsequently dried at
room temperature and analyzed by non-destructive neutron activation analysis at the Nuclear
Services Laboratory, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC. Quality assurance
measures for sediment trace element concentrations (expressed as µg element/g sediment)
employed internal standards and National Institute of Standards and Technology or
International Atomic Energy Agency reference materials for calibration.
2-3

Hydrologic Data Methods
Hydrologic data (i.e. rainfall) were retrieved from two local area monitoring stations, a
National Weather Service (NWS) monitoring site at Greensboro, NC and a United States
Geological Survey (USGS) station near Pine Hall, NC. Belews Reservoir elevation data
were retrieved from the Duke Energy Plant Information (PI) system. Annual and monthly
rainfall totals and daily Belews Reservoir pond elevations are depicted graphically for use in
discussions of trends in water quality.
Water Quality and Sediment Data Analysis Methods
Data analyses employed both statistical and graphical methods. Water quality and sediment
analyte concentrations reported as less than method reporting limits, were set to the limit
prior to graphical display or statistical analysis. Time series plots were used to assess
seasonal and inter -annual trends in CCW and reservoir temperatures. Reservoir -wide
temperature and DO data collected semi-annually were assessed using both vertical profile
and areal contour plots. Box and whisker plots (showing median, 25% and 75% quartiles,
and data range) were produced for water chemistry analytes, by sample location and pre-
defined year groupings (i.e., during ash basin inputs: 1977 — October 1985; initial ecosystem
recovery period: November 1985 — 1995; and successive 5-year reporting intervals: 1996 —
2000; 2001 — 2005; 2006 — 2010; and 2011 — 2015), to permit examination of spatial and
temporal trends. Graphical long-term temporal trending was used to facilitate examination of
hydrologic or other factors on selected water chemistry parameters.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Regional Precipitation and Management of Belews Reservoir Surface Elevations
The five-year monitoring period summarized in this report exhibited precipitation patterns
(2011 — 2015) that were near normal in comparison to the two previously reported periods
that experienced some prolonged drought periods in 2002 - 2003 and 2007 - 2008 (Figures 2-
1 through 2-3; NCDC 2007-2015; USGS 2016). Local precipitation, as measured by the
National Weather Service (NWS) at Greensboro, NC and the (USGS) station near Pine Hall,
NC was at, or slightly above, normal for calendar years 2011, 2012, and 2015. Precipitation
was just slightly below normal for calendar years 2012 and 2014.
2-4

Belews Reservoir elevations were maintained closer to full pool elevation in the 2011 - 2015
monitoring period in comparison to the previous monitoring periods (Figure 2-4). This was
largely a result of more normal precipitation patterns in 2011 - 2015 relative to the previous
reporting period (2006 - 2010) that experienced prolong drought conditions from 2007
through 2008. Supplemental pumping in 2011 - 2015 also aided in maintaining pool
elevations in Belews Reservoir.
Water Quality Monitoring Results
Water Temperature
Seasonal ranges in Belews Reservoir water temperatures during 2011 — 2015 were consistent
with previously monitored years, as evident from CCW records, temperature profiles, and
isotherm plots (Figures 2-5 through 2-9; 2-15 through 2-24). Furthermore, temperature
profiles from 2011 - 2015 exhibited similar winter and summer thermal patterns
characteristic of Belews Reservoir that have been observed and discussed in previous reports
(Duke Energy 2006a, 2011).
Winter vertical temperature profiles measured downlake at the Belews Reservoir Dam
forebay (416.0) and BCSS intake (418.0) locations indicated typical near -uniformity with
depth, ranging from about 10.5 to 13.5 °C (Figures 2-10 and 2-11) [Note that winter 2014
profiles were collected in March where other years' winter monitoring was completed in
February. The March 2014 profiles reflect slight warming in the upper water column that
would be consistent with collecting this data later in the calendar year.]. Temperature
profiles at Location 410.0 (CCW discharge; Figure 2-12), and to a lesser extent Location
419.3 (midlake; Figure 2-13), reflect warming of the upper water column by the buoyant
thermal plume from BCSS, in both winter and summer monitoring events. Over the five-
year period, 2011 — 2015, minimum winter temperatures occurred reservoir -wide during the
winter of 2015.
The ranges of summer profile temperatures during 2011 — 2015 were generally typical of
long-term trends for each monitoring location (Figures 2-10 through 2-13). Main reservoir
(Location 416.0) surface temperatures were between 29.0 and 33.0'C. The warmest summer
epilimnetic temperatures reservoir -wide were observed in August 2011 (38.6 °C) at the
confluence of the CCW connecting canal [i.e. Location 410.0 (Figure 2-12)]. Hypolimnetic
2-5

temperatures in mid -summer were indicative of preceding late winter water temperatures
(i.e., about 10 to 13.5 'Q.
As previously reported in BIP reports (Duke Power Company 1996; Duke Power 2001 a;
Duke Energy 2006a, 2011), changes in the summer physical -chemical structure of Belews
Reservoir were observed following installation of a hypolimnetic air injection system
designed to improve the efficiency of the BCSS CCW system. This air injection system,
installed in 1985 at a depth of 17 meters below full pond elevation, creates an up -welling of
cooler metalimnetic and hypolimnetic water for condenser cooling (Griggs 1985; Duke
Power Company 1996). In earlier years, summertime operation of the system effectively
deepened the late summer thermocline (i.e., region of maximum observed decline in
temperature per depth unit) depth by approximately seven to eight meters below that
observed previously (Figure 2-14). Similar thermal effects have been documented for other
waterbodies subjected to hypolimnetic aeration (Labaugh 1980; Schladow and Fisher 1995).
Significantly reduced operation of the hypolimnetic aeration system was reported previously
(Duke Energy 2011). Reservoir -wide summer temperatures and resulting thermocline depths
from 2011 - 2015 indicated limited, to non-existent, use of this system once again in the
current monitoring period. Reduced aeration system operation has allowed a relatively
greater reserve of cooler water to remain available (from depths down to 17 meters) for an
extended period throughout the summer.
Two-dimensional contour plots of water temperature isotherms illustrate the relative
consistency in thermal gradients in Belews Reservoir. Besides the CCW thermal plume itself
(in the immediate vicinity of Location 410.0), the most extreme thermal gradient occurring in
wintertime occurs between the Belews Reservoir headwaters to downlake approximately 2
km into the midlake region of the Belews Creek arm of the reservoir, just above the vicinity
of Location 419.3 (Figures 2-15 through 2-19). During the summer stratified period, a
maximal thermal gradient generally occurs reservoir -wide, encompassing a vertical
differential of about 15 to 16 °C across an approximate 8-m to 10-m layer of water centered
near elevation 210 m msl (Figures 2-20 through 2-24). Summer isotherm distributions
indicate that uplake temperatures are only marginally cooler with respect to the main portion
of Belews Reservoir.
2-6

Dissolved Oxygen
Belews Reservoir epilimnetic DO profiles (Figures 2-25 through 2-28) consistently exceeded
the state water quality standard of 5 mg/L (NCDENR 2007b) during 2011 — 2015. Periodic
monitoring, most recently in 2009 by the North Carolina DWQ (NCDENR 2010a), has also
indicated adequate summer DO concentrations in the surface waters of Belews Reservoir.
Summer DO profiles from 2011 - 2015 exhibited a metalimnetic depression in oxygen
concentrations coincident with the thermocline depth, as has been reported previously (Duke
Energy 2011). This phenomenon, which is characteristic of southeastern reservoirs that
undergo pronounced seasonal thermal stratification, is caused by the thermocline acting as a
density barrier. This density gradient at the thermocline impedes vertical settling to the
extent that overlying oxygen -consuming material settles to this depth and subsequently
depletes the DO. During 2011 — 2015, metalimnetic DO depression was most clearly
demonstrated at Location 410.0 (Figure 2-27).
Two-dimensional contour plots of DO isopleths further illustrate the seasonal distribution of
DO throughout the reservoir in 2011 - 2015. Very little spatial differentiation in DO
concentrations were evident in winter due to virtually complete mixing of the water column
with reservoir -wide DO concentrations of 6 mg/L and above (Figures 2-29 through 2-33).
Summer 2011 — 2015 DO isopleths depict consistent prevalence of adequate DO
concentrations reservoir -wide in the epilimnion (Figures 2-34 through 2-38), but also
variation year -by -year in the degree of DO depletion in the deeper regions of the reservoir.
Water Chemistry
Spatial -temporal depictions of water chemistry parameters are provided in Figures 2-39
through 2-74. Earlier reports (Harden et al. 1988; Lewis et al. 1988; Harden 1991; Duke
Power Company 1996) noted changes in Belews Reservoir water quality, particularly in
decreasing levels of alkalinity, calcium, sulfate, and specific conductance, coincident with
the termination of ash basin discharges to the reservoir in late 1985. Changes were most
noteworthy at Location 418.3, a cove that formerly received ash basin discharge. Downlake
locations, where concentrations of constituents associated with ash pond effluent (i.e.,
dissolved minerals and trace elements) had never risen to the incipient levels measured at
Location 418.3, and have shown less dramatic, but consistent, declines over the years.
During 1996 — 2000 many water quality indicators were measured at levels similar to those
2-7

observed a decade after termination of ash pond sluice inputs to the reservoir (Duke Power
2001a). However, specific conductance and concentrations of potassium and sulfate
continued to decline at downlake and midlake locations. Reservoir -wide monitoring of water
column concentrations since 2000 has confirmed that declining trends formerly noted for
selected conservative mineral constituents have abated, and in some instances, concentrations
have actually increased in recent years, as influenced by repeated occurrences of drought
conditions in the watershed.
Reservoir -wide in situ pH measurements were consistent with the previous reporting period
values. Reservoir -wide pH measurements from 2011 - 2015 as with the previous monitoring
period were elevated with respect to data collected since 2000 (Figure 2-39). These pH shifts
can be driven by changes in major ion concentrations, which in turn are further influenced by
watershed meteorology (e.g., drought; Figure 2-40). For example, gradual increases in
Belews Reservoir calcium and until recent years, decreases in sulfate concentrations, appear
consistent with the observed temporal pH trends.
Specific conductance (Figures 2-41 and 2-42), alkalinity (Figures 2-43 and 2-44), calcium
(Figures 2-45 and 2-46), magnesium (Figures 2-47 and 2-48), sodium (Figure 2-49 and 2-50),
potassium (Figure 2-51 and 2-52), chloride (Figures 2-53 and 2-54), and silica (Figure 2-57
and 2-58) were fairly consistent with the previous reporting period. Specific conductance,
calcium, and chloride showed signs of continued, but extremely minimal, increases in these
constituents. However, alkalinity, magnesium, potassium, and silica during 2011 — 2015
appeared to remain constant compared to the previous reporting period. Overall, trends in
these parameters indicated the inflows (and supplemental pumping) to the reservoir were
sufficient in 2011 - 2015 to offset some of the minor increasing trends in these parameters
reported in recent monitoring periods as a result of prolonged drought conditions.
Belews Reservoir sulfate concentrations (Figures 2-55 and 2-56) peaked in the early 1980s as
a result of the introduction of ash pond effluents. Concentrations of sulfate were in steady
decline after the 1985 termination of the effluent until 1998. Subsequently, sulfate
concentrations have remained relatively stable, including through the 2011 - 2015 reporting
period.
Iron (Figure 2-59), manganese (Figure 2-60), and aluminum (Figure 2-61) concentrations
demonstrated either no or negligible decrease compared to recent years. Maximum
concentrations of these cationic metals have historically been associated with either reduced
W,

redox conditions occurring seasonally in the hypolimnion, or samples containing higher
suspended solids concentrations, as typically collected uplake at Location 405.0, above the
Highway 158 bridge.
Concentrations of major nutrients (Figures 2-62 through 2-66) in Belews Reservoir have
historically been, and continue to be, consistently low and indicative of an oligotrophic
waterbody (Weiss and Kuenzler 1976; NCDEHNR 1992; NCDENR 2005a, 2010a).
Elevated and variable phosphorous, and to a lesser extent, organic nitrogen concentrations
are frequently encountered near the Belews Reservoir headwaters, in addition to deep
midlake samples typically influenced by headwater inflows. Watershed nutrient
contributions to Belews Creek are in part evidenced by water quality trends in Kernersville
Reservoir, located several kilometers southwest and uplake of Location 405.0 on the
uppermost reach of Belews Creek. That small water supply reservoir has exhibited increased
concentrations of phosphorus and total Kjeldahl nitrogen in recent years, spurring
undesirable algal blooms (NCDENR 2010a). Elevated phosphorus concentrations
encountered uplake, as influenced by Belews Reservoir headwaters, are consistent with
greater productivity, and higher number of fish species and biomass observed uplake
compared to further downlake regions (see Chapters 3 and 4). Similar uplake-to-downlake
differences were routinely observed for total organic carbon (Figure 2-67), turbidity (Figure
2-68), total suspended solids (Figure 2-69), and as mentioned previously, iron (Figure 2-59),
manganese (Figure 2-60), and aluminum (Figure 2-61).
Belews Reservoir aqueous trace element concentrations (Figures 2-70 through 2-74)
consistently remained below applicable state water quality standards and action levels
throughout 2011 — 2015 (NCDENR 2007b). Typical of previous monitoring, all aqueous
cadmium concentrations measured in Belews Reservoir during 2011 — 2015 were less than
the laboratory reporting limit (1 µg/L). Similarly, for lead, water column concentrations
were below reporting limits (1 µg/L). All total and dissolved copper concentrations
remained below 2 µg/L throughout the five-year period (with 81 % remaining below the
reporting limit of 1 µg/L).
Once -elevated aqueous arsenic and selenium concentrations measured at the cove formerly
receiving ash basin effluent (Location 418.3) dropped precipitously just two years after the
effluent was routed to the Dan River. Since the late 1980s, water column concentrations of
arsenic (Figure 2-70) and selenium (Figure 2-73) at all downlake and midlake locations have
declined to minimal levels, predominantly occurring below detectable quantities. During this
2-9

timeframe and inclusive of the 2011 — 2015 period, arsenic and selenium concentrations
measured in the water column downlake have remained undifferentiated from those
measured in the remote headwater portion of Belews Reservoir (Location 405.0). In fact,
during the 2011 - 2015 monitoring period 100% of the samples analyzed for selenium and 98
% of samples analyzed for arsenic were below analytical reporting limits (1 µg/L).
Sediment Arsenic and Selenium Concentrations
Distinct reservoir depth -dependent concentration differences in downlake Belews Reservoir
fine (< 63 µm) surficial sediments have been noted historically, with deeper locations
concentrating significantly (a < 0.001) more of either trace element than progressively
shallower locations (Figures 2-75 through 2-78; Duke Power Company 1996, 2001a).
Cumbie (1984) and Harden (1991) reported this depth -associated correlation for Belews
Reservoir and hypothesized differential mobilization and deposition of selenium and arsenic -
containing material from shallow to deep areas of the reservoir. This process, termed
"sediment focusing" by Likens and Davis (1975) has been observed in other waterbodies
(Davis and Ford 1982). The potential magnitude of this effect appears to be predominately
related to mean basin slope (Blais and Kalff 1995).
Graphical analysis of sediment selenium and arsenic concentrations suggests that following
significant reservoir -wide reductions from 1985 to 2000, concentrations have become
relatively stable in the last 15+ years (Figures 2-75 through 2-78). While deep (> 25 m)
sediment selenium concentrations are substantially reduced from those measured decades
earlier, as was true for arsenic, profundal sediment concentrations clearly remain the most
elevated in the system. Low sediment selenium concentrations at the uplake site (Location
405.0) are typical of "background" or unimpacted locations and have remained virtually
unchanged over time.
With the exception of the deepest profundal sediments (> 25 meters deep; Location 422.0),
over the years sediment trace element concentrations in the main body of Belews Reservoir
(particularly Location 417.1 and to a slightly less extent, Location 417.2) have been reduced
to a similar magnitude as observed uplake (Location 405.0). The similarity of downlake
littoral concentrations with uplake sediment results, coupled with the lack of a diminishing
trend in recent years for these sites, suggest that a relatively static level of "near background"
concentrations has been achieved reservoir -wide in the shallow zones. Given the overall
absence of decreasing trends in recent years, future reductions in Belews Reservoir sediment
2-10

trace element concentrations should be anticipated to occur very gradually (i.e., over a scale
of decades).
Correspondingly greater trace element concentrations measured at the deepest site also
appear to have stabilized over the past decade. Due to the relatively low productivity and
resultant low accumulation rate of organic sediment deposition in Belews Reservoir, higher
concentrations of selenium and arsenic in the deepest reservoir sediments are anticipated to
also remain unchanged in the near term. Fortunately, however, maximum concentrations still
found in the spatially limited deep zone represent a relatively minor fraction, and less
important component, of the reservoir habitat for potential Belews Reservoir receptor
organisms.
2-11

SUMMARY
Belews Reservoir water quality has improved measurably since the mid-1980s in relation to
the original selenium -induced biological population collapse and resulting diversion of ash
basin discharge from Belews Reservoir. Virtually all former ash sluice -related trace
elements have been removed from the water column with concentrations in Belews Reservoir
during 2011 — 2015 and once again were less than applicable state water quality standards,
action levels, and often less than current analytical reporting limits.
Water quality data from 2011 - 2015 indicate conditions in Belews Reservoir continue to be
amenable to the maintenance and propagation of a diverse warm water aquatic community
commensurate with the nutrients afforded by an oligotrophic waterbody. Belews Reservoir
nutrient concentrations continued to remain relatively low except for the uplake area of the
reservoir, where most nutrient inputs have occurred historically. The reservoir's thermal and
DO structure in 2011 - 2015, were again similar to years prior that have seen the continued
recovery of the Belews Reservoir fishery.
Minor and gradual increases reported in recent years (Duke Energy 2011) for Belews
Reservoir pH, specific conductance, alkalinity, and major dissolved ionic constituents (i.e.,
calcium, magnesium, chloride, and to slightly lesser extent, sodium, potassium, and silica)
were not as evident in 2011 - 2015. The minimal, or lack of, increase was in part due to the
relatively normal rainfall patterns and resulting inflows to Belews Reservoir as compared to
the drought conditions evident in recent prior years 1998 - 2002 and 2007 - 2008. These
increases, if continued in the future under drought conditions, are of no special significance
to the recovery of Belews Reservoir fishery.
Concentrations of arsenic and selenium in Belews Reservoir surficial fine sediments during
2011 — 2015 were similar to levels reported since 2000. Arsenic and selenium concentrations
in the deeper sediments of Belews Reservoir remain elevated relative to the reference site.
However, monitoring in the past 15+ years indicates that sediment arsenic and selenium
concentrations found downlake are fairly stabilized. Additionally, concentrations of arsenic
and selenium, but particularly selenium concentrations found downlake in shallower littoral
areas (i.e., ideal warm water fish and spawning habitat), are very near the low magnitude of
concentrations long -observed in the relatively unaffected uplake area of the reservoir.
2-12

Table 2-1. Analytical methods used to determine chemical and physical constituents in
Belews Reservoir during 2011 - 2015.
Parameter Method (EPA / APHA / ASTM)3
Preservation
Reporting Limit
Alkalinity, Total
Total inflection point titration
6 °C
0.01 meq/L as
EPA 310.1
CaCO3
Aluminum
Atomic emission/ICP
0.5% HNO3
0.05 mg/L
EPA 200.7
Arsenic, Total
ICP mass spectrometry
0.5% HNO3
2.0 pg/L4
Recoverable
EPA 200.8
1.0 pg/L5
Biochemical Oxygen
EPA 405.1
6 °C
2-3 mg/L6
Demand
Cadmium, Total ICP mass spectrometry 0.5% HNO3 0.5 pg/L7
Recoverable EPA 200.8 1.0 pg/L8
Calcium Atomic emission/ICP 0.5% HNO3 0.03 mg/L
EPA 200.7
Carbon, Dissolved
EPA 415.1
6 °C;
0.1 mg/L
Organic
0.5% H2SO4
Carbon, Total
EPA 415.1
6 °C;
0.1 mg/L
Organic
0.5% H2SO4
Chloride
Colorimetric
6 °C
1.0 mg/L
EPA 325.2
Conductance,
Temperature -compensated
in -situ
0.1 pS/cm9
Specific
nickel or graphite electrode
APHA 2510
Copper, Dissolved
ICP mass spectrometry
0.5% HNO3
2.0 pg/Ld
EPA 200.8
1.0 pg/Le
Copper, Total
ICP mass spectrometry
0.5% HNO3
2.0 pg/Ld
Recoverable
EPA 200.8
1.0 pg/Le
Iron, Total
Atomic emission/ICP
0.5% HNO3
0.01 mg/L
Recoverable
EPA 200.7
Lead, Total
ICP mass spectrometry
0.5% HNO3
2.0 pg/Ld
Recoverable
EPA 200.8
1.0 pg/Le
Magnesium
Atomic emission/ICP
0.5% HNO3
0.03 mg/L10
EPA 200.7
0.005 mg/Lh
Manganese, Total
ICP mass spectrometry
0.5% HNO3
1.0 pg/L
Recoverable
EPA 200.8
1. USEPA 1983 2. APHA et al.
1998 3. ASTM 2005, 2009
3 References:
4 2006 - 2008
5 2009 - 2010
6 Variable by sample run
8 2006 - February
2009
August 2009 - 2010
so
Instrument sensitivity
furnished in lieu of laboratory
reporting limit
2006 - 2009
2-13

Table 2-1. (Continued)
Parameter
Method (EPA / APHA / ASTM)
Preservation
Reporting Limit
Nitrogen, Ammonia
Colorimetric
6 °C
0.02 mg/L
EPA 350.1
0.5% H2SO4
Nitrogen, Nitrite+Nitrate
Colorimetric
6 °C
0.02 mg/L
EPA 353.2
0.5% H2SO4
Nitrogen, Total
Colorimetric
6 °C;
0.1 mg/L
Kjeldahl
EPA 351.2
0.5% H2SO4
Phosphorus,
Colorimetric
6 °C
0.005 mg/L
Orthophosphate
EPA 365.1
Phosphorus, Total
Colorimetric
6 °C
0.005 mg/L
EPA 365.1
Oxygen, Dissolved
Temperature -compensated
in -situ
0.01 mg/L
polarographic cell
APHA 4500-0 G 1
Luminescent (LDO) sensor
ASTM D888-0912
pH
Temperature -compensated
in -situ
0.01 unit'
glass electrode
APHA 4500-H
Potassium
Atomic emission/ICP
0.5% HNO3
0.25 mg/L
EPA 200.7
Selenium, Total
ICP mass spectrometry
0.5% HNO3
2.0 pg/Ld
Recoverable
EPA 200.8
1.0 pg/Le
Silica (as Si)
APHA 4500Si-F
6 °C
0.5 mg/L
Sodium
Atomic emission/ICP
0.5% HNO3
1.5 mg/L
EPA 200.7
Solids, Total
Gravimetric
6 °C
20 mg/L
APHA 2540 B
Solids, Total
Gravimetric
6 °C
0.10-5.0 mg/Lf
Suspended
APHA 2540 D
Sulfate
Ion chromatography
6 °C
1.0 mg/L
EPA 300.0
Temperature
NTC thermistor
in -situ
0.01 od
APHA 2550
Turbidity
Turbidimetric
6 °C
0.4 NTU
EPA 180.1
Zinc
ICP mass spectrometry
0.5% HNO3
1.0 pg/Lk
EPA 200.8
2.0 pg/L
11 2006 - February 2009
12 August 2009 - 2010
2-14

iRM
160
Mf
E 120
c
100
v 80
aD
► .1
20
0
Cfl ti CO M O N M 'r LO CO f-- CO M CD CD
c'� u7
M M M M CD0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
rn rn rn rn ID 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a a o
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N CV
Date
Figure 2-1. Annual cumulative precipitation at Greensboro, NC during 1996 — 2015 (2011 —
2015 data highlighted), and at the USGS Pine Hall, NC station during 2009 —
2015.
2-15

30
25
61
0
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Date
Figure 2-2. Monthly cumulative precipitation at Greensboro, NC during 2001 — 2015.
25
20
V15
c
0
co
Q
10
n
9
_ _ _ 7 { N N_ N_ N_ N N [2 C2 C2 M_ [2 [2 2m V V 12 �2 �21 'P
O O a O O d O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
Month 1 Year
Figure 2-3. Monthly cumulative precipitation for the USGS Pine Hall station during 2011 —
2015 compared to Greensboro, NC airport precipitation.
2-16

725
723
E 721
W
717
715
1
Mi sin
zr-
elevation data
S pple ental punning
from a ive
221
220 M
m
0
219
218
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Date
Figure 2-4. Belews Reservoir daily average surface elevations during 2001 — 2015. Full
pond elevation is 725 ft (approximately 221 m) above mean sea level (msl).
50
U 40
30
20
a�
10
0
75
N
5D --- —------------- --
25---------------------------------------------------- _CC�111-.1 ----
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dee
Figure 2-5. Hourly average BCSS CCW intake and flow -weighed discharge temperatures,
and CCW flow during 2011.
2-17

50
& 40
o
30
20
10
0
75 --------- — ------------------------------------------------------
50 .. . ...... ............. .......
W
25 cc
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Figure 2-6. Hourly average BCSS CCW intake and flow -weighed discharge temperatures,
and CCW flow during 2012.
50
40
30
20
10
0
75 - -- ------- ------- ----- ----- - ------- ----- - ----- ------- ------- ----- -- ----------
50 . ....
E25 . . . . . . ............... ....... ............. . cc W_ Flow
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Figure 2-7. Hourly average BCSS CCW intake and flow -weighed discharge temperatures,
and CCW flow during 2013.
50
40
30
20
10
0
75 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
50
25 - - -----------------
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Figure 2-8. Hourly average BCSS CCW intake and flow -weighed discharge temperatures,
and CCW flow during 2014.
2-18

50
U 40
o
30
20
10
0
75
5D - ----- ----
25 - CCW Foy --
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Figure 2-9. Hourly average BCSS CCW intake and flow -weighed discharge temperatures,
and CCW flow during 2015.
Temperature CC) Temperature CC)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 0 5. 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
0
5
10
15
E 20
r
Y
v 25
30
35
40
45
0
5
10
15
E 20
r
Y
m 25
0
30
35
40
45
Figure 2-10. Winter (w) and summer (s) thermal profiles at the Belews Reservoir Dam
forebay (Location 416.0) during 2011 — 2015.
Temperature CC) Temperature CC)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 0 5. 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
0
5
10
15
E 20
L
m 25
G
30
35
40
45
0
5
10
15
E 20
s
Y
iu 25
G
30
35
40
45
Figure 2-11. Winter (w) and summer (s) thermal profiles near the BCSS CCW intake
(Location 418.0) during 2011 — 2015.
2-19

0
5
10
15
E 20
L
m 25
0
30
35
40
45
Temperature (°C) Temperature ff)
0 5. 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 0 5. 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
0
5
10
I5
20
L
m 25
30
35
40
45
Figure 2-12. Winter (w) and summer (s) thermal profiles at the main Reservoir confluence
with the BCSS CCW connecting canal (Location 410.0) during 2011 — 2015.
Temperature (°C) Temperature (°C)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
0
5
to
is
20
L
v 25
0
30
35
40
45
0
5
10
15
20
L
m 25
a
30
35
40
45
Figure 2-13. Winter (w) and summer (s) thermal profiles at the confluence of Belews and
East Belews Creek (Location 419.3) during 2011 — 2015.
2-20

D
5
10
E
m 15
W
20
25
liil f pl n i
e
atibri systern
•
•
•
rMMCD "M V LOWrl—MMM "M V LOWr—WMM NC'7 V L!']COrOO O)O�NC] V L!7
rrrcocpoOCOcOMcOcOcOoOMMMMmMMMMMID
000 000 Or r
rnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrn2 g?g? rnrnrn0000000CDC3CD 000
r r r r r r N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
Date
Figure 2-14. Historical trend for Belews Reservoir summer thermocline depth, measured at
the Belews Reservoir Dam forebay (Location 416.0).
e
0
Co
0
W
8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Distance from Belews Dam (km)
Figure 2-15. Winter 2011 Belews Reservoir water temperature isotherms.
2-21

E
0
E
C
0
76
W
8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Distance from Belews Dam (km)
Figure 2-16. Winter 2012 Belews Reservoir water temperature isotherms.
E
0
0
1=
0
6
W
8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Distance from Belews Dam (km)
Figure 2-17. Winter 2013 Belews Reservoir water temperature isotherms.
2-22

8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Distance from Belews Dam (km)
Figure 2-18. Winter 2014 Belews Reservoir water temperature isotherms.
8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Distance from Belews Dam (km)
Figure 2-19. Winter 2015 Belews Reservoir water temperature isotherms.
2-23

;_
0
CO
CO
E
C
0
0
w
8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Distance from Belews Dam (km)
Figure 2-20. Summer 2011 Belews Reservoir water temperature isotherms.
8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Distance from Belews Dam (km)
Figure 2-21. Summer 2012 Belews Reservoir water temperature isotherms.
2-24

8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Distance from Belews Dam (km)
Figure 2-22. Summer 2013 Belews Reservoir water temperature isotherms.
8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Distance from Belews Dam (km)
Figure 2-23. Summer 2014 Belews Reservoir water temperature isotherms.
2-25

8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Distance from Belews Dam (km)
Figure 2-24. Summer 2015 Belews Reservoir water temperature isotherms.
DO (mg/1)
DO (mg/1)
0
2
4 6 S 10 12 0 2'
4 6 8 10 12
0
0
—F6-11
11
—Aug-11
5
—F6-12
5
—Aug-12
—Fetr13
—Aug-13
10
—M, 14 __
10
—Aug-14
—F6-15
—Aug-15
i5
15
E 20
E 20
L
L
a° 25
L
EL
m 25
in
O
30
30
35
35
40
40
I
W
-----___-
S
45........................
........................
.........................
.........................
...........
-..............
45-...........
.....
..........................................-
-
........................'
Figure
2-25.
Winter (w) and summer (s) DO profiles at the Belews Reservoir Dam forebay
(Location 416.0) during 2011 — 2015.
2-26

DO (mg/1) DO (mg/1)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
0
5
30
15
20
L
m 25
0
30
35
40
45
Figure 2-26. Winter (w) and summer (s) DO profiles near the BCSS CCW intake (Location
418.0) during 2011 — 2015.
DO (mg/1) DO (mg/1)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
0
5
10
15
20
L
F+
v 25
0
30
35
40
45
0
5
10
15
20
L
m 25
0
30
35
40
45
0
5
10
I5
20
L
m 25
30
35
40
45
Figure 2-27. Winter (w) and summer (s) DO profiles at the main Reservoir confluence with
the BCSS CCW connecting canal (Location 410.0) during 2011 — 2015.
DO (mg/1) DO (mg/1)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
0
5
10
15
20
L
m 25
0
30
35
40
45
0
5
10
15
20
L
w 25
30
35
40
45
Figure 2-28. Winter (w) and summer (s) DO profiles at the confluence of Belews and East
Belews Creek (Location 419.3) during 2011 — 2015.
2-27

;_
0
Co
Co
E
C
0
0
w
8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Distance from Belews Dam (km)
Figure 2-29. Winter 2011 Belews Reservoir DO isopleths.
E
0
0
0
0
0
W
8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Distance from Belews Dam (km)
Figure 2-30. Winter 2012 Belews Reservoir DO isopleths.
2-28

8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Distance from Belews Dam (km)
Figure 2-31. Winter 2013 Belews Reservoir DO isopleths.
8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Distance from Belews Dam (km)
Figure 2-32. Winter 2014 Belews Reservoir DO isopleths.
2-29

8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Distance from Belews Dam (km)
Figure 2-33. Winter 2015 Belews Reservoir DO isopleths.
8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Distance from Belews Dam (km)
Figure 2-34. Summer 2011 Belews Reservoir DO isopleths.
2-30

;_
0
E
0
w
8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Distance from Belews Dam (km)
Figure 2-35. Summer 2012 Belews Reservoir DO isopleths.
;_
0
Co
0
0
0
W
8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Distance from Belews Dam (km)
Figure 2-36. Summer 2013 Belews Reservoir DO isopleths.
2-31

8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Distance from Belews Dam (km)
Figure 2-37. Summer 2014 Belews Reservoir DO isopleths.
8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Distance from Belews Dam (km)
Figure 2-38. Summer 2015 Belews Reservoir DO isopleths.
2-32

10
9
8
D
U) 7
_
Q
4
ui ui o ui o u2 u) u) o un o u� LC) u) CD LC) u� uO ui CDui o ui ui u7 CD u) o u� uO u) CD r) o u� uO u) CD ui c
co m o o r r co m o o r r co m o o r r co m o o r r m m o o r r co m o o r r co m o o
m r
rn o 0 0 o rn rn o 0 0 o rn rn o 0 0 o rn rn o 0 0 o rn rn o 0 0 o rn rn o 0 0 o rn rn o o c
r r N N N N r r N N N N r r N N N N r r N N N N r r N N N N r r N N N N r r N N
I'— u7 Co r co r � u) CO r co r 1'- u7 co r co r r— u7 CO r CO r 1— u) CO r co r r- u7 CO r m r r— u7 CO r x
r~ m M o 0 o r­ m M o 0 o r­ m M o 0 o r­ co rn o 0 o r- oo rn o 0 o r­ m m o 0 o r- m rn o c
Of of of C� O N 61 61 61 Ci Q N of of of Ci Q N of of of C� O N of 61 O Q N of of of Q Q N of of of O C
r r r N N r r r N N r r r N N r r r N N r r r N N r r r N N r r r N F
418.0 418.3 416.0 410.0 419.3 419.2
Sample Dates/ Location
Figure 2-39. Spatial -temporal distribution of Belews Reservoir pH, 1977 — 2015.
10.0
9.5 -
9.0
8.5
8.0
U) 7.5
_
CL
7.0
6.5
6.0
5.5
5.0
r- 6 Q Ln r- m cO � r- m cO uy r- rn c2 L,n
ti i- m CO co CO CO rn rn rn m 0) o a a CD0
6Y 6i M 67 67 6i C 7 M 6] 67 67 rn O O Cl CD CD CD CD CD
r r r r r r r r r r r r N N N N N N N N
Sample Date
405.0
er
inat
on of
ash
basin
discharge
to
lake
1998
-
002
20
7 - 2008
rou
ht
d
oug
t
®
�
4
O 0
0
0
0
°°0°
°
°
o
o
0
0°0
0
00 0°0
°
o
°°
°
0
0
Figure 2-40. Temporal trend in surface pH measured at Belews Reservoir Dam forebay,
1977 — 2015.
2-33

500
400
CIS,
U
U)
i
200
100 11
i
I
0
U�UoUo2 �UuoUo�JJoUo2LnLnoLno�LnuouoL��ouo�LLOCDLn
cornoorrcornoorroornoorrmrnoorrcvrnoorrmrnoorrmrnoor
rn rn o 0 0 o rn rn o 0 0 o rn rn o 0 0 o rn rn o 0 0 o rn rn o 0 0 o rn rn o 0 0 o rn D o 0 0 0
r r N N N N r r N N N N r r N N N N r r N N N N r r N N N N r r N N N N r r N N N N
r+ M CO r CO r r+ � [O r CO r CO r [O r n L 7 CO r CO r n [O r [O r n ll") [O r f0 r n lf) [O r [O r
r`vo00or`vasvoor--mtovvvtiwa;vvvr+vMvvvti W tovoor.- aOt�vvo
O] 2 O] C7 cD N O] ! A (A C7 cD N (A 2 (A C7 cD N CA C 2 C 2 C7 cD N CA CA CA C7 cD N (A (A (A c— C7 N (A (A !M! (7 (7 N
r r r N N r r r N N r r r N N r r r N N r r r N N r r r N N r r r N N
418.0 418.3 416.0 410.0 419.3 419.2 405.0
Sample Dates/ Location
Figure 2-41. Spatial -temporal distribution of Belews Reservoir specific conductance, 1977
2015.
200
175
150
125
_ 100
U)
ZL
75
50
25
Tenr
inat
on of
as
ba
in dischE
rge
o lake
4
0
0
20C
7 - 2008
0
19
8 -
00
d
oug
t
rou
ht
0
°o°o®
®o
0
°o
oo°
•
•
00
0
0°
o0
Q
°�O
goo
®
o®
�o 0
a
r r m co CO 0 CO rn rn rn rn 0 0 0 0 0
0 o rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
r r r r r r r r r � r r N N N N N N N N
Sample Date
Figure 2-42. Temporal trend in surface specific conductance measured at Belews Reservoir
Dam forebay, 1977 — 2015.
2-34

50
!II
J
M
0
30
U
20
n
' o u' o u2 'MO o ui o u2 u' u� v u' a u2 u' u� o u' o ui ui ui o ui v u� u' u' o u' o u� u" u" o ui c
n rn CD 0 0 CDrn rn CD 0 0 o rn rn CD 0 0 CDrn rn CD 0 0 o rn rn o 0 0 CDrn rn CD 0 0 CDrn rn o o C
- r N N N N r r N N N N r r N N N N r r N N N N r r N N N N r r N N N N r r N N f�
u7 Co r Co r r'- u7 Co r Co r � u1 CO r CO r 1� u7 Co r CO r r- u7 CO r co r r- u1 CO r Co r r- u7 CO r CC
-Co Q CD r_.MM CDor_.aoG) CD r­CoM CD r__corn000r_.00 rn000r­Coa) c
9 0 0 Ci Q N d1 d1 d1 C� O N o) o) o) Ci O N o) d1 d1 Ci O N of of of C� O N 61 61 d1 Q Q N d1 of of C� C
- r r N N r r r N N r r r N N r r r N N r r r N N r r r N N r r r N F
418.0 1 418.3 1 416.0 410.0 1 419.3 419.2 405.0
Sample Dates / Location
Figure 2-43. Spatial -temporal distribution of Belews Reservoir alkalinity (as mg CaCO3/L),
1977 — 2015.
40
35
30
25
10
5
Tei-mination
of a
h b
sin
isc
arg
to lake
20
7 -
200S
19
8 -
002
rou
ht
drought
0
O
®-
0
0
T,
®
0 o
00
o
0 0
O
O
O
O
p
�
QO
o
©oo
000
O0>
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
00
I*
D
r__M r CO LO r__CD r CO U ti CD r CD
lf] r- Cr)
r- r- co e0 co CO CO rn rn M rn a a a a a
a2 o2 rn �2 w w o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CV N N N N . . N
Sample Date
Figure 2-44. Temporal trend in surface alkalinity concentrations measured at Belews
Reservoir Dam forebay, 1977 — 2015.
2-35

50
40
J
30
C
10
0 T. ; k. ; . 4 � -- T 4
ui u� o u� o u� u� u� v u� v u� u� u� v ui o ui u) ui o u) o a2 uO u0 o '0 o u� u0 u0 o u) v u2 u) u) v u) v u2
m rn o o r r co rn o o r r corn o o r r m M o o r r co m o o r r co m o o r r co m o o r
rn rn o 0 0 o rn rn o 0 0 o rn rn o 0 0 o rn rn o 0 0 o rn rn o 0 0 o rn rn o 0 0 o rn rn o 0 0 0
r - N N N N - r N N N N r r N N N N r r N N N N r r N N N N r r N N N N r r N N N N
1+ u7 co r co r I- u) CO r CO r r� u1 CO r CO r 1+ u7 CO r CO r 1� u7 CO r CO r 1� u7 CO r [O r
r� co m o 0 o r-- co rn o 0 o r-- co rn o 0 o r` m M o 0 o r-- co M o 0 o r-- co rn o 0 o r-- corn o 0 0
Of 6i 6i Q Q N 61 Q O N 61 61 61 O O N O) 07 07 O c3 N 6i 6i D Q Q N d5 d5 6i O O N 62 6) 61 O O N
r r r N N r r r N N r r r N N r r r N N r r r N N r r r N N r r r N N
418.0 418.3 416.0 410.0 419.3 419.2 405.0 4 5 0
Sample Dates/ Location
Figure 2-45. Spatial -temporal distribution of Belews Reservoir calcium concentrations, 1977
— 2015.
30
25
20
J
15
10
5
er
inat
on of
ash
bas
in discharge
to
lake
•
0
°O
199
-
002
2097
-
008
°
di
ht
•
•
•
�
o
o
°oo
°oo
0
00
000
0
0
0
0
0
r__ M r CO rn r-- rn CO rr, r` M CO rn r- M r, rn
r- rl- co ea co ca CO rn rn M rn o 0 0 0 0
a� o� CD a� rn � a� a) w a� w w o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N N N N CV N N N
Sample Date
Figure 2-46. Temporal trend in surface calcium concentrations measured at Belews
Reservoir Dam forebay, 1977 — 2015.
2-36

::t
1
0
uiuiouiou�uOuOvu�ou2u� no no nui�n ou�vu2u�u�ou�vu�u�u�vu�v u�uou�ouioui
aDMC.C. aornoorrao rnoorrcorn oorraornoorraornoor r'cornoor
rn rn o 0 0 o rn rn o 0 0 o rn rn o 0 0 o rn rn o 0 0 o rn rn o 0 0 o rn rn o 0 0 o rn rn o 0 0 0
r r N N N N r r N N N N r r N N N N r r N N N N r r N N N N r r N N N N r r N N N N
rl- u7 CO r CO r � u) [O r Co r 1'- u7 co r CO r 1+ u1 Co r Co r 1— u7 CO r CO r 1— u) CO r CO r r— u7 CO r CO r
r-ma) CDOr­oorn000r­ aorn000r__ao rn000r_.aorn000r_.00rnoo or-corn000
M Of Of 0 0 (V 6f 6f 07 Q Q N 6i 07 07 O O N Of 61 6i Q Q N 6i 6i 6i Q O N 61 61 61 O O N 6i Of Of O O N
r r r N N r r r N N r r r N N r r r N N r r r N N r r r N N r r r N N
418.0 418.3 416.0 410.0 419.3 419.2 405.0
Sample Dates/ Location
Figure 2-47. Spatial -temporal distribution of Belews Reservoir magnesium concentrations,
1977 — 2015.
5_D
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
J
M 2.5
E
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
00
Termination
of
ash 1pasin
dis
har
a to
lake
20
7 -
2 008
1998
-
2002
drought
rou
ht
0
♦°
°
o
0
0
00
00
00
00
ro
0
0
0
o
00
00
0
0
r__ M M rn r__ M M rr, r` rn M rn r-- M r, rn
r- rl- ca oo co ca CO rn rn M rn a a a a a
a� o� CD a� rn a� a� w a� w w o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N N N N CV N N N
Sample Date
Figure 2-48. Temporal trend in surface magnesium concentrations measured at Belews
Reservoir Dam forebay, 1977 — 2015.
2-37

16
14
12
10
8
4
2
0
ui u) v u) v u2 u� u� v LO v u� un u) v ui v u2 u) ui v ui v u2 LO LO v LO v u� LO LO v u) v u2 u� un v u� v u2
m M v o r r m M v o r r m M v v r r m M v v r r CO M v o r r m M v v r r Cn M v v r
rn rn v v o o rn rn v o v v rn rn v v v v 0 rn v v v v rn rn v v o o rn rn v v v v rn rn v v v o
r r N N N N r r N N N N r r N N N N r r N N N N r r N N N N r r N N N N r r N N N N
1+ u7 CO r CO r � � 1 CO r CO r P" �11 CO r CO r 1+ u7 CO r CO r r� U7 CO r CO r r� U7 CO r [O r 1- u 1 CO r CO r
r- ao rn v v v r` m rn v v v r` m rn v v v r` m rn v v v r~ m M v v v �r- ao M v v v �r- ao rn v v v
M M M Cl C7 N CA M M Cl C7 N CA M M C7 C D N CA (A M C7 C7 N CA CA CA C7 C7 N CA CA CA O C , N [A C D [A C7 C , N
r r r N N r r r N N r r r N N r r r N N r r r N N r r r N N r r r N N
418.0 418.3 416.0 410.0 419.3 419.2 405.0
Sample Dates/ Location
Figure 2-49. Spatial -temporal distribution of Belews Reservoir sodium concentrations, 1977
— 2015.
A
9
8
7
6
J
5
E
4
3
2
1
D
Tom
iinat
on of
ash
bas
in disch
r e to
lake
20D
-
008
199
-
002
di
ought
oug
o
0
°
0
00
00
0
0
00
°
®
•
o ®
o
oQo
4
®
+
0
•
•
r__ M r M rn r-- M M u, ti M � M rn r-- M r, rn
r- CO rn rn rl- co CO co ca M rn a a a a a
�2 �2 w w o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N N N N CV N N N
Sample Date
Figure 2-50. Temporal trend in surface sodium concentrations measured at Belews Reservoir
Dam forebay, 1977 — 2015.
2-3 8

i'!
J
07 4
E
3
2 1 1
1
0
u)u)ou)ou)u7u7ou7ou7u7u7ou7ou7u7u7vuOvuOuOu7vu ouOuOuOou7ou7u7u7ou7ou7
co m o o r r co m o o r r co m o o r r m m o o r r co m o o r r co m o o r r co m o o r
rn rn o 0 0 o rn rn o 0 0 o rn rn o 0 0 o rn rn o 0 0 o rn rn o 0 0 o rn rn o 0 0 o rn rn o 0 0 0
r r N N N N r r N N N N r r N N N N r r N N N N r r N N N N r r N N N N r r N N N N
ti u7 co r co r r'- u7 CO r CO r ti uJ CO r CO r ti U1 CO r CO r 1� U1 CO r CO r r- u7 CO r CO r I- u7 CO r CO r
r­ Co M o 0 o r­ ao M o 0 o r` co rn o 0 o r__ Co rn o 0 o r­ Co rn o 0 o r~ m M o 0 o r- m rn o 0 0
6i 6i 6i Q Q N 6i 6i 6i Q O N Of Of Of C O N Of l3) O O (V O Q N 6i 6i 6i Q Q N 6i Of Of O O N
r r r N N r r r N N r r r N N r r r N N r r r N N r r r N N r r r N N
418.0 418.3 416.0 410.0 419.3 419.2 405.0
Sample Dates/ Location
Figure 2-51. Spatial -temporal distribution of Belews Reservoir potassium concentrations,
1977 — 2015.
8
7
5
5
J
4
E
3
2
1
er
inat
on of
ash
basin
discharge
to
lake
19
8 -�002
ruht
20
7 - 2008
drought
®
Q
o
Q
�
o
oQ
©
o
o0
0
0
0°
00
0
0
0
o
o°
o0
00
0
0
D
r__ M r CO u7 r-- (Mr CO rr) r` M r CO rn r- M r, L
r- rl- co ea co ca CO a� rn rn M rn a a a a a
a� o� CD a) w w o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N N N N CV N N N
Sample Date
Figure 2-52. Temporal trend in surface potassium concentrations measured at Belews
Reservoir Dam forebay, 1977 — 2015.
2-39

10
8
J $
rM
E
Isl
i
0
ui u� o u) o u2 u� u7 v u) v u� uM uM v 8 o u2 uM ui o u� o ai u� u� o CD o u� u) M o CD v u� uD u) v CD v `2
m rn o o r r m rn o o r r m rn o o r r m rn o o r r m rn o o r r m rn o o r r m rn o o r
rn rn o 0 0 o rn rn o 0 0 o rn rn o 0 0 o rn rn o 0 0 o rn rn o 0 0 o rn rn o 0 0 o rn rn o 0 0 0
r r N N N N r r N N N N r r N N N N r r N N N N r r N N N N r r N N N N r r N N N N
1+ u7 CO r CO r � � 1 CO r CO r 1'- u 1 CO r CO r 1+ u7 CO r CO r 1'- u7 CO r CO r 1- u7 CO r (O r 1- u 1 CO r CO r
r__ m M o 0 o r­ m M o 0 o r­ m M o 0 o r__ M M o 0 o r­ m M o 0 o r­ m M o 0 o r- oo rn o 0 0
1A CA CA C7 C7 N [A [A [A CD O N [A [A [A C3 C7 N (A (A (A C3 C7 N CA CA CA Cl C7 N CA CA CA O O N [A CA [A O O N
r r r N N r r r N N r r r N N r r r N N r r r N N r r r N N r r r N N
418.0 418.3 416.0 1 410.0 1 419.3 1 419.2 1 405.0
Sample Dates/ Location
Figure 2-53. Spatial -temporal distribution of Belews Reservoir chloride concentrations, 1977
— 2015.
12
10
8
J
CD 6
E
4
2
er
inat
on of
ash.
basin
discharge
to
lake
200
- 2008
19
8 -
002
di
ought
drought
0
0
0
0
0
o
°
o
o
0
0
0
0
®
0
0 0
w
0
00
o
0
0
00
0 �
o00
g
00
s
a
D
r__ M r CO rn r__ rn CO rr, r` M CO rn r__ rn c+, rn
r- rl- co ea co ca CO rn rn M rn a a a a a
0) CD a� rn � a� � w � w w o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N N N N CV CV CA N
Sample Date
Figure 2-54. Temporal trend in surface chloride concentrations measured at Belews
Reservoir Dam forebay, 1977 — 2015.
2-40

180
( xi i
160
140
120
J 100
80
60
40
20
t_
0
uiunvu)ouiunu)vnjC
wMCDCD rcornoor
MI CDCDrnrnooC
r r N N N N r r N Ncl
1+u7 CO rEO rr'- n-)COr cc
r�MMo0or­MMoc
Of 6i 61 Ci O N 67 Ci C
r r r N N r r r N
418.0 418.3
ui u" v u", o ui LO u� o u7 v ui ui u� v u� v u� ui ui o u� v ui ui ui o u� v u�
W m o o r r ao m o o n co m o o r r M m o o r r M m o o r r
rn rn o o c:, c:, cD c:, cD cD cD c:, o o
r r N N N N r r N N N N r r N N N N r r N N N N r r N N N N
1+ u7 CO r CO r 1+ u7 co r [O r 1+ u7 CO r CO r ti Lo CO r CO r 1+ uJ Co r CO r
r__ M rn o 0 o r__ M M o 0 o r` m M o 0 o r__ M M o 0 o r__ M M o 0 0
Of 62 61 O O N Of 67 67 O O N Of 6i 61 Q O N Of Of 6i O O N Of Of 4 Cl CD N
r r r N N r r r N N r r r N N r r r N N r r r N N
416.0 1 410.0 1 419.3 1 419.2 1 405.0
Sample Dates/ Location
Figure 2-55. Spatial -temporal distribution of Belews Reservoir sulfate concentrations, 1977
— 2015.
50
40
30
J
E
20
10
a
ti w CO uO ti o) CO LO r a) M Ln r 0) c*� Ln
r- r- co m co co co rn m CO M rn o 0 0 0 0
rn a� rn rn rn a� rn 0) rn rn rn rn o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
r r r r• r r r r• r• !• r r N N N N N N N N
Samp#e Date
er
inat
on of
ash
basin
discharge
to
lake
0
0
0
0
000
0
•
O
O6�
O O
°
®
19
8 -2002
20
7 -
#08
oab
+
rou
ht
d
ou
ht
o
Q'o
O
O
6
Op
O
O
O
+
••
Figure 2-56. Temporal trend in surface sulfate concentrations measured at Belews Reservoir
Dam forebay, 1977 — 2015.
2-41

8
7
6
5
CO 4
0,
E
3
2
1
0
u7 u7 o u) o ui u7 u) o u) o u� u7 u7 o ui o u� u7 un o Lo o ui u7 u) o uo o u2 u7 u7 o uD o u� u7 u� o u) o u�
co m o o r r m m o o r r co m o o r r co rn o o r r m m o o r r oo m o o n co m o o r
m rn o 0 0 o rn rn o 0 0 o rn rn o 0 0 o rn rn o 0 0 o rn rn o 0 0 o rn rn o 0 0 o rn rn o 0 0 0
r r N N N N r r N N N N r r N N N N r r N N N N r r N N N N r r N N N N r r N N N N
r� u7 (o r co r 1+ u) CO r CO r r- u7 CO r (O r r- u) CO r m r r- u) Co r CO r r- u7 CO r m r r- ui) CO r CO r
r~ m M o 0 o r__ co M o 0 o r­ m M o 0 o r­ m M o 0 o r� m M o 0 o r­ co rn o 0 o r­ co rn o 0 0
6i Of 07 O Q N of 07 07 Q Q N of of Of O O (V of 61 Q Q N of of Q O 04 of of of O O N of 6) Q O N
r r r N N r r r N N r r r N N r r r N N r r r N N r r r N N r r r N N
418.0 418.3 416.0 410.0 419.3 419.2 405.0
Sample Dates Location
Figure 2-57. Spatial -temporal distribution of Belews Reservoir silica (as elemental Si)
concentrations, 1977 — 2015.
10
9
8
7
6
J
5
4
3
2
1
Terminat
on Of
aSh
basin
disch
r e to
lake
19
98 -
20022007
-
008
drought
®
®aa
m
o
®
o
0
ao
0
000�o
0
0
o
®
�
0
0
°0 8
4 4
0
a
r- r- co Co 00 00 co 6r rn M CD rn o 0 0 0 0
rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
r r r r• r r r r• r r r r N N N N N N N N
Sample Date
Figure 2-58. Temporal trend in surface silica (as elemental Si) concentrations measured at
Belews Reservoir Dam forebay, 1977 — 2015.
2-42

10
i
0.01
0.001
u7 v u� o ui u7 u7 v u� v u� u7 u7 o u� v u� u� u� o ui o u� u� u� o u� o ui u7 u7 v u� o ui u7 u7 o u0 v u�
0 rn v v r r m rn v o r r m rn o o r r m rn o o r r m rn o v r r m rn v v r r m rn o o r r
nrnvvoornrnvoCDCD CD CD CD CD oornrnvvoornrnoovv
- r N N N N r r N N N N r r N N N N r r N N N N r r N N N N r r N N N N r r N N N N
u7 CO rCC1 rr� u7 CO rCO rti u7 CO rO rr- u1 CO rto r1-u1 CO rEO r1� u7 CO rCO r1- �s7 CO rCO r
M rn v v v r__ M rn O O O r__ T M Q O O rh m rn 0 0 0 r` m rn v v v r­ m rn v v v r- M M Q O O
9 rn rn O 0 N rn rn rn Q O C 4 rn rn rn Q O C 4 rn rn rn 0 0 N rn rn rn 0 0 N rn rn rn O O N rn rn rn Q O N
- r r N N r r r N N r r r N N r r r N N r r r N N r r r N N r r r N N
418.0 1 418.3 1 416.0 1 410.0 419.3 1 419.2 1 405.0
Sample Dates/ Location
Figure 2-59. Spatial -temporal distribution of Belews Reservoir iron concentrations, 1977
2015.
10
1
0.001
In M O Lo O 42 47 M O Ln O Lo Lo O UJ O� tr) m O m O �iJ 47 U7 On O ccO Ln O U'7 47 m On O
m rn O O r r CO rn O O r r m rn 0 O r r m rn O O r r co rn 0 0 r r m rn O O r r m m 0 0 r
rn rn o 0 o O rn rn o 0 0 o rn rn o 0 0 o rn rn o 0 0 o rn rn o 0 0 o rn rn o 0 0 0 rn DRCCc
r r N N N N -r N N N (V r r N N N N r r N N N N -N (V N 04 r r N N N N r r N N N N
ru) (D r (p r r-. m (D r (p r r__ Lo (D r (p r r+ m Co r (p r r-. 47 O r O r r-. � (D r CO r r- 4) CO r (p r
n MM0CD r__W rn000n Co M0 CD 1'-0 rn00 Or__COM CD nmrn 00O r- co rn000
rn rn rn O O N rn rn rn O v N rn rn rn O O N rn rn rn v O N rn rn rn v O N rn rn rn O Co N rn rn rn v v N
r r r N N r r r N (V r r r N N r r r (V N r r r N N r r r N N r r N N
418.0 418.3 416.0 410.0 419.3 419.2 405.0
Sample Dates/ Location
Figure 2-60. Spatial -temporal distribution of Belews Reservoir manganese concentrations,
1977 — 2015.
2-43

14
12
10
8
J
E 6
ALI
,
----------- 4- 4
0
IT I
LO U.) O (n OU.) u-) O (D O (D (n O LO O (D LO O LO O LO LO O {A O Ui 0 O L O {A LO O L O
00 O O O 00 O O O w O O O 00 O O O w O O O 00 O O O 00 O O O
CF)o00 o0oa�a�o0oa� o0oa� o0oMMo00 a�CDo0
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
I- LO O CD r__ (D w CD 1- M (D (D r` LO (D (D r` 0 (D � (D r` M (D � (D r— M CD � (D
1- v a) O O r` 00 a) O O r` 00 O O O r._ 00 a) O O r` 00 M O O r` 00 d) O O � 00 d) O O
O W O O O W W d) O O O O O O O W O W O O W O W O O W O W O O O W W O O
� � � N N N N � � � N N � � � N N N N N N � � � N N
418.0 418.3 416.0 410.0 419.3 419.2 405.0
Sample Dates / Location
Figure 2-61. Spatial -temporal distribution of Belews Reservoir aluminum concentrations,
1977 — 2015.
A IC
J
z
r
C7
z 0.4
0)
E
0_2
0
u7�nvv�nu �nCDu�vu�
wMCDCD �aornvvr
rn rn v v v v rn rn vvv o
r r N N N N r r N N N N
r- UD (D r (D r n (1) (D r (D r
r-WM CD
Or-WMCDCD0
ai a7 a 0 0 04 a7 a7 a7 O O N
r r r N N r r r N N
418.0 418.3
lil�, 11� '
�n v u� v ui LO u� v u,
omcDcD comcDcD co
n rn v v v v rn rn v v v v rn rn v v c
- r N N N N r r N N N N r r N N a
r (D r 1� �f'J CD r [D r 1� �s7 CD r m
- o o M v v v r- M S) v v v r- M M v c
11 O a7 O O N a) O O O O N O a7 a7 O C
- r r N N r r r N N r r r N (\
416.0 1 410.0 1 419.3
Sample Dates/ Location
� � � � i � ��I I
7 U-) v 47 v u7 47 �L'1 v u7 v 1
0 M 0 0 r r M O CD CDr
n rn CD CDv v rn rn CD CD CD CD- r N N N N r r N N N N
- �f7 (D r [D r n 111 [D r CD r
-aosvvvr__MG) vv
11 O a7 O O N Of a) 6} O O N
- r r N N r r r N N
419.2 1 405.0
Figure 2-62. Spatial -temporal distribution of Belews Reservoir ammonia -nitrogen
concentrations, 1977 — 2015.
2-44

Imi
0.4
J
z 0.3
0.1
0
wMCD CD na�nwMCDC�C
rn rn v v v v rn rn v v C
r r N N N N r r N N (\
r� W M r C D r� T M r [C
r­(n(57000r­O)Q7OC
CTi (A (37 O O ( -20 C37 (02 O C
r r r N N r r r N C\
418.0 418.3
na nauigaCDu)C
7 M O O r r M M O O r r M M 0 0 r
n rn v v CD v rn rn v v CD CDrn rn v CDC
- r N N N N r r N N N N r r N N C\
111 [O r [O r 1+ li1 [O r [O r UJ CO r .
mrnvvvr__mrnvvvr­mrnvC
9 (3) !02 O O N (A (A (A O O N (A (7f (7f O C
- r r N N r r r N N r r r N C\
416.0 1 410.0 1 419.3
C,'0 '0'0C, �a
J M O CD r r M M O O r
n rn v v v v rn rn v v v
- r N N N N r r N N N
U) (O r CO r 1+ U) CO r [O
-000) CD r'a0rnvv
9 (3) (A C O N (7f (A 61 O O
- r r N N r r r N N
419.2 1 405.0
Sample Dates/ Location
Figure 2-63. Spatial -temporal distribution of Belews Reservoir nitrate+nitrite-nitrogen
concentrations, 1977 — 2015.
1.2
M xi r m __ 75
1.0
J
0.6
0.4
fflFrMEMENNEENUT
�ME������� I IMMENEEMI�������LJ���SSS!
0.0
LO � O U7 O U7 U7 U7 O U7 O U'7 U7 U7 O U) O U'7 U'7 O U'7 O U'7 U'7 U7 O U7 O �f7 U7 U7 O �iJ O �f7 U7 O C
I17 ih O O r r [17 ih O O r r [l7 CTi O O r r [7D CA O O r r [37 CA O O r r M M O O r r M M O O r
(A to 0 0 0 CD to to 0 0 0 0 CA CA O O O O iT CA O O CO CO CA CA O O CO CO CA CA O O CO CO CA CA O O C
r r N N N N r r N N N N r r N N N N r r N N N N r r N N N N r- N N N N r r N N n
ti U) CO r CO r ti U) CO r W r r'- U7 W r W r ti U7 W r W r r'- U7 W r CO r 1'- U7 CD r CO r ti U) CO r CC
r+ M M O O O r+ M M O O O r- w M O O O r+ w M O O O r- w M 0 0 0 n w M 0 0 0 n CA M O C
61 01 61 O O N 01 01 61 O O N CTi CTi CTi S O N (T1 (A (A S O N (A (A (A O O N CA CA CA O O N CA CA (T1 O C
r r r N N r r r CV CV r r r CV CV r r r CN CV r r r CN N r r r N N r r r N CC
418.0 1 418.3 1 416.0 1 410.0 1 419.3 1 419.2 1 405.0
Sample Dates/ Location
Figure 2-64. Spatial -temporal distribution of Belews Reservoir total nitrogen concentrations,
1977 — 2015.
2-45

1I0i1
��a
J 0.04
31ION
0.02
0.01
�_-
0
u0u)vu)vuiuiuiOL"ou�u.LOvu)vuiuiL.ouiou�u.L.vu�vL unu)ouiouiLOLOOu)ou�
m rn v v r r m rn o o r r co rn v v r r m rn o o r r m rn v v r r co rn o o r r Co rn o v r
rn rn v v v o rn rn o 0 o cm rn v v v o rn rn o 0 0 o rn rn v v v o rn rn o 0 0 o rn rn o v o 0
r r N N N N r r N N N N r r N N N N r r N N N N r r N N N N r r N N N N r r N N N N
h U7 O r O r h U7 O r O r h u7 O r O r h U7 O r O r h u7 O r O r h u1 O r O r h u7 O r O r
h TMCO h T M O O O r__ m rn O O O h Co 6] O O O -CO rn O O O h cD rn O O O h OO O] O O O
rn rn rn O O N rn rn rn O O N rn rn rn O O N rn rn rn O O N rn rn rn O O N rn rn rn O O N rn rn rn O O N
r r r N N r r r N N r r r N N r r r N N r r r N N r r r N N r r r N N
418.0 418.3 416.0 410.0 419.3 419.2 405.0
Sample Dates/ Location
Figure 2-65. Spatial -temporal distribution of Belews Reservoir orthophosphate
concentrations, 1977 — 2015.
0.16
(K lakirru 03 j ( A u )
0.14
0.12
0.10
a, 0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02 - T T 4
0.00
�unoLOoLOtotooinou!��oinoininMoinoD MCDMo�Minouno nMMotooM
CO rn CD CDr r COrn CD CDr r m rn CD CDr r m rn CD CDr r m rn CD CDr r m rn CD CDr r co rn CD CDr
rn rn CD CD0 o rn rn CD 0 o CD rn CD 0 0 o rn rn CD 0 0 CD rn o 0 0 Cs rn o 0 0 C1 rn rn o 0 0 0
N CV N N r r N N N N r r CV CV N N r r N N N N r CV CV N N r r N N N N r r N N N N
fM1 U7 CO r (D r h LO (D r (D r h U7 (D r (D r h M O r O r 1, M O r (D r h U7 CO r O r h U) CO r (D r
h O rn000h M rn000 h Q7rn 000 h MM CCD0O h00 rn 00O C. rnC, D7 rn000
rn rn rn v v N rn rn rn O O N rn rn rn v v N rn rn rn O O N rn rn rn v v N rn rn rn O O N rn rn rn v v N
r r r N N r r r CV N r r r (V (V r r r N r r r N N r r r N N r r r N N
418.0 418.3 416.0 410.0 419.3 419.2 405.0
Sample Dates/ Location
Figure 2-66. Spatial -temporal distribution of Belews Reservoir total phosphorus
concentrations, 1977 — 2015.
2-46

9
8
7
6
J 5
4
3
2
1
0
u-)u7 ou7vL'flu-)u7o u-) u7u7 u7ou7v�s7 u�uivu� our uiuiou�o uiuiu�v u�ou2 uiu� our oui
wm vvrrao rn0 yr rw rnvvrr aornvv rr wmcDcD rmmcD Orr mm 00 r
rn rn v v v v rn rn o v v O rn rn v v v v rn rn v v O O rn rn v v v v rn rn v o 0 0 rn rn o o v o
r r N N N N r r N N N N r r N N N N r r N N N N r r N N N N r r N N N N r r N N N N
r u) (O r (O r � u) (O r (O r r- u) (O r (O r r- u) (O r (O r r- uJ (O r (O r r- u 1 (D r CO r r- u 1 CO r CO r
r­ao rnvvvr_. TM vv ors TM CD v r­Co8) vo r__aomOO vr__aorn ovo r__M rnv vv
O 62 O2 O O 04 O 6i 6i O O N 6i Of Of O O (V 6i Of G O O N Of Of Of C O N Of O O O O N Of 6) 6i O O N
r r r N N r r r N N r r r N N r r r N N r r r N N r r r N N r r r N N
418.0 418.3 416.0 410.0 419.3 419.2 405.0
Sample Dates/ Location
Figure 2-67. Spatial -temporal distribution of Belews Reservoir total organic carbon
concentrations, 1977 — 2015.
150 _ _. •
125
100
F 75
z
50
25 T I
0 z
ui u) O u) O u2 u) u) O u) O u� u) ui O ui v u� ui ui O u) O u2 u) u) O u) o u� un un O ui O u2 ui uj O ui O u�
m rn o o r r ao rn v v r r CO rn v v r r co m y Orr oo rn v v r r co rn v C. r r m m C. C. r
rn rn o o O v rn rn v v v v m m v v v O m m v 0 0 0 rn rn v v O v rn rn v v v v rn rn v v v o
r r N N N N r r N N N N r r N N N N r r N N N N r r N N N N r r N N N N r r N N N N
n u) CO r (p r r+ u) (O r (p r n u) LD r (p r n u) LO r (p r n (p r (p r n u) (p r (p r n u) LO r (p r
tim 6] 000 ti m 61000 tic. m 000 r� D7 OfOOO rim 61000 ti m 61000 I- cc) m 000
m 6i 6i O O N 0 0 0 0 O N O m m O O N dD O7 O7 O O N O] O O O O N 0 0 0 0 O N m m M O O N
r r r N N r r r N N r r r N N r r r N N r r r N N r r r N N r r r N N
418.0 418.3 416.0 410.0 419.3 419.2 405.0
Sample Dates/ Location
Figure 2-68. Spatial -temporal distribution of Belews Reservoir turbidity, 1977 — 2015.
2-47

70
60
50
40
J
E 30
20
10
0
o 00002 m momo�o 0000w�moWo��0000�o �n0002
�n D000�
cornoor�mmcDcD mrnOO r�mrncD oom cDC) QDrnoor�mrnOOr
rn rn o 0 0 o rn rn O o 0 o rn rn o 0 0 o rn rn 0 0 0 0 rn rn o 0 0 o rn rn o 0 0 o rn rn o 0 0 0
r r N N N N r r N N N CV r r CV CV N N r r N N N N r r CV (V N N r r N N 44
r r CV CV CV CV
f� �!) L0 r (0 r t` Ln (0 r (0 f� 4") (0 r L0 r 1- u7 (0 r (0 r f- lI7 (0 r L0 r 1-41 C0 r L0 r f- L!') CO r CO r
r-m m 000 r-m rn OOO r-m m Q OO 1-w m OOO r-w m 0001-m rn 000 r-co m OOO
rn rn rn O O N rn rn rn O O N rn rn rn O O N rn rn rn O O N rn rn rn O O N rn rn rn O O N rn rn rn ScN
r r r N N r r r R N r r r N (V r r r 2 2 r r r N (V r r r N 21 r r r N N
418.0 418.3 416.0 410.0 419.3 419.2 405.0
Sample Dates/ Location
Figure 2-69. Spatial -temporal distribution of Belews Reservoir total suspended solids
concentrations, 1977 — 2015.
90
( ald u 3 0
80
70
60
J 50
�l
40
30
20
10 T 7 T
Ln In O uO O n Ln Ln O LO o 'Ln Ln M O a) O u� Ln Ln O Ln O n M M O Ln O �n Ln Ln O Ln O n to to O In O u2
m rn O O r r CO rn O o r r m rn O O r r m rn o o r r m rn O o r r 00 rn o Orr 03 rn O O r
rn rn 0 0 0 o rn rn o 0 0 0 rn rn O 0 0 o rn rn CRCCrn rn CCCCrn rn o 0 0 o rn rn O 0 0 0
r r N N N N r r N N N N r r N N N N r r N N N N r r N N N (V r r N N N N r r N N N N
r- M (0 r (0 r n U7 (0 r (0 r M1 M m r (0 r M1 W) m r (0 r n M (0 r (0 r n Wn (0 r (0 r n 4O W r (0 r
1__m rn 00011_m rn 00011_m rn 0001-m a) CD 1­ m rn0001-m rn0001­ m rn000
rn rn rn O O N rn rn rn O 0 N rn rn rn O O N rn rn rn 0 0 N rn rn rn O O N rn rn rn 0 0 N rn rn rn O O N
r r r N N r r r (V N r r r N N r r r N N r r r N " r r r N N r r r N N
418.0 418.3 416.0 410.0 419.3 419.2 405.0
Sample Dates/ Location
Figure 2-70. Spatial -temporal distribution of Belews Reservoir total recoverable arsenic
concentrations, 1977 — 2015.

J
0)
i
it.7
%A1]
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
u7 u7 O u) v u i u7 u7 O u O O u2 uO u7 o u) v �n '0 un v u i o u2 u7 un o u� o u i u7 u7 v u� o u i u7 a7 O Ln v u�
mrnoorrmrnoorrmrnoorrmrnvorrmrnovrrmrnvvrrmmcDcD
rnrnooc:,c:, ovrnrn000c:, cD(=, cDcD cDornrnoovv
r r N N N N r r N N N N r r N N N N r r N N N N r r N N N N r r N N N N r r N N N N
� uj m r m r r­ u) m r m r l� ui m r m r l� un m r m r r- u) m r co r r- uo m r m r r- ui m r m r
ti m M o v v ti m M o v v r_. m rn v v v r­ m rn v v o r­ m rn v v v r_. m am v v v r- m a; v v v
O2 O2 12 Q O N Of 6i 67 O O N O Of Of O O N 67 O O O O N 6i 61 Of C O N 6i 6i 67 O O N 6i Of 6i Q O N
r r r N N r r r N N r r r N N r r r N N r r r N N r r r N N r r r N N
418.0 418.3 416.0 410.0 419.3 419.2 405.0
Sample Dates/ Location
Figure 2-71. Spatial -temporal distribution of Belews Reservoir total recoverable cadmium
concentrations, 1977 — 2015.
30
,, 20
10
0
w)momommmomoLoLow)oLooLoLotootooLnLoLooLnou3LoLootootofLOoLOoL
m rn O O r r m rn 0 Orr ao rn o o r r m rn O O r r m rn o o r r ao a, O O r r m rn o o r
rn rn CC0 0 rn rn CC0 o rn rn o 0 0 o rn rn O 0 0 o rn rn o 0 0 o rn rn O 0 0 0 rn rn o 0 0 0
r r cV N N N r r cV N N N r r N N N N r r cV cV N N r r N N N N r r cV cV N N r r N N N N
r1 m m r mr r1 m m rm rn u)m r mr rn a)mr mr rn Ln m r m r r-. wn m r mr r-Lnmrmr
1­ m 0 0 0 0 n m 0 0 0 0 n m m 0 0 0 1­ m 0 0 0 0 r­ m M D 0 0 n m 07 0 0 0 1— m m 0 0 0
62 61 61 v v N 61 61 61 v 0 CO O O O O N m 61 01 v O N Oi Oi 6i DC
N O O 61 v v N 61 6D 6D O O N
r r r [V (V r r r N N r r r N N � r r N C' r r r CV CV r r r" 04 r r r N N
418.0 418.3 416.0 410.0 419.3 419.2 405.0
Sample Dates / Location
Figure 2-72. Spatial -temporal distribution of Belews Reservoir total recoverable copper
recoverable concentrations, 1977 — 2015.
2-49

140
120
100
80
J
60
40
20
ui u7 O u� O u2 u) u7 O ui O u2 ui um O S O u� u7 u7 O ui O u� u� u� O S O ui ui ui O S O u2 M ui O 8 O
m rn O o r r m rn o O r r m rn o o r r m rn O O r r m rn o o r r m rn o o r r m rn 0 0 r
rn rn 0 0 0 0 rn rn O 0 0 0 rn rn O 0 0 o rn rn O 0 0 0 rn rn O 0 0 0 rn rn O 0 0 0 rn rn 0 0 0
r r N N N N r r N N N N r r N N N N r r N N N N r r N N N N r r N N N N r r N N N
1+ uJ CO r CO r r'- u7 CO r CO r 1+ O CO r m r r- u7 CO r CO r r- u7 CO r CO r ti uJ CO r CO r r- u7 CO r CO
r__ m rn o C D o r­ m rn o 0 o r__ m rn o C D o r­ m rn o C D o r­ m rn o 0 o r__ m rn o 0 o r- m rn o 0
rn rn rn 0 O N rn rn rn O O N rn rn rn O O N rn rn rn 0 0 N rn rn rn O O N rn rn rn O O N rn rn rn 0 0
r - r N N r r r N R. r r r N N r r r N N r r r N N r r r N N r r r N N
418.0 1 418.3 1 416.0 1 410.0 1 419.3 1 419.2 1 405.0
Sample Dates/ Location
Figure 2-73. Spatial -temporal distribution of Belews Reservoir total recoverable selenium
concentrations, 1977 — 2015.
120
100
60
40
20
OOMM�Mt-D��20
CD MCD OCDc -D 0 rn Oo c
NN - N N C,
rl- M M r C D r r� M M r C{
n Q7rnO0Or�OCI'0 OC
rn rn rn O O N rn rn rn O C
r r r N N r r r N n
418.0 1 418.3
7 rn 0 O r r M rn O O r
n '0
rn 0 0 0 0 rn rn O O c
C,
u'7 CO r Cp r r+ u'7 CO r CC
M rn 0 0 0 n M rn O C
n rn rn O O N rn rn rn O C
- r r CV CV r r r N C%
416.0 1 410.0
u7 O u7 O �f'] u7 O u7 O u7 u'7 u7 O u7 O
m rn O O r r m rn O O r r m rn O O r
rn rn 0 0 CI rn rn O 0 0 Cs rn rn 0 CC
r r N N N N r � N N N N r r N N N
u7 LO r Cp r f� u7 LO r CO r f� u7 LO r CD
n C A rn 0 0 0 n C A rn 0 0 0 r__ C X1 rn 0 0
!r,,-, rn rn O O N rn rn rn O O N rn rn rn 0 0
r r N N r r r N N r r r N N
419.3 1 419.2 1 405.0
Sample Dates/ Location
Figure 2-74. Spatial -temporal distribution of Belews Reservoir total recoverable zinc
concentrations, 1977 — 2015.
2-50

200
150
c
N
E
=o
(n 100
.37
0
V LO C0 1� 00 m O N CO V LO m ti 00 m O N m V L!) C0 f+ cO m O � N Z2
m m 0 0 0 V �f]
o0 OD o0 COoD m m m m m m m m m m 0 0 0 0 0 o r
rn m m m m rn m m m m rn m rn m rn m o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
r r r r N N. N. N. N. N N N N N N N
Location 405.0
(Uplake, Depth = 5 m)
♦ As
o As (DL value)
■ Se
❑ Se (DL value)
Date
Figure 2-75. Arsenic and selenium in surficial fine sediments collected from upper Belews
Reservoir, 1984 — 2015. (DL = concentration reported as below detection
limit)
200
150
c
N
E
a
(n 100
-Tim
0
V LO C0 1� 00 m O N CO V LO m 1- CC) m O N CO ':I-LO C0 I-- oD m O � N CO V�
CD CD [O OD 00 00 rn m m m rn m rn m rn m o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0{
m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
r r r r r r r N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
.............
Location 417.1
(Downfake, Depth = 2 to 3 m)
♦ As
,>As (DL value)
■ Se
❑ Se (DL value)
ii
2
• lk
■
Date
Figure 2-76. Arsenic and selenium in shallow littoral surficial fine sediments collected from
lower Belews Reservoir, 1984 — 2015. (DL = concentration reported as below
detection limit)
2-51

200
150
c
N
E
=o
(n 100
-Tim
0
V LO (0 ti 00 M O N c'i V LO I� 4 N ['7 V �!'] CO ti ap m O N [*]
c0 c0 c0 OD c0 CO m 67 M M m M m M M M O O O O O CDC3 CD CD CDr
rn rn rn rn rn rn rn M rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
r r r r N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
Location 417.2
(Downlake, Depth = 5 to 7 m)
♦ As
oAs (DL value)
■ Se
❑ Se (DL value)
. s
i
,
Date
Figure 2-77. Arsenic and selenium in mid -depth surficial fine sediments collected from
lower Belews Reservoir, 1984 — 2015. (DL = concentration reported as below
detection limit)
200
150
c
N
E
(n 100
-Tim
0
V LO (0 ti 00 M (D N CO V LO (0 ti 00 6) O CV m V L!] CO f+ e0 m O c2 V u2
CD CD [O OD 00 CO rn 6rn rn rn rn 67 rn rn rn rn O O O O O O O O O O{
rn rn rn w w rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
r r r r r r r r N N" N" N""" N N N N N N N
Location 422.0
■
(Downlake, Depth = 25 to 30 m)
♦
♦As
'
+
oAs (DL value)
+
•
■ Se
+
i
.
❑ Se (DL value)
.
■
■
.
s
=
+
■
L7
Date
Figure 2-78. Arsenic and selenium in deep surficial fine sediments collected from lower
Belews Reservoir, 1984 — 2015. (DL = concentration reported as below
detection limit)
2-52

CHAPTER 3
MACROINVERTEBRATES
INTRODUCTION
A benthic macroinvertebrate and plankton monitoring program was implemented in 1984 to
monitor and quantify bioaccumulation of selenium in select benthic macroinvertebrates and
planktonic organisms in Belews Reservoir. This program was initiated as a result of
contamination caused by ash basin effluent from BCSS during the station's early operational
years. In 1985, the BCSS ash basin discharge was rerouted from Belews Reservoir to the Dan
River. Since that time, contaminant levels in macroinvertebrates and plankton have been used,
along with fish community, fish tissue contaminant levels, and Reservoir chemistry data, as
indicators of ecological recovery in the Reservoir. An additional aspect of the monitoring
program was implemented in 1991 and examined the density and diversity of selected Belews
Reservoir macroinvertebrates.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Water Quality
Beginning in 2005, in conjunction with each macroinvertebrate sampling event, water
temperature and dissolved oxygen (DO) were taken just above the sediment at each location
using a pre -calibrated YSI Model 55 handheld DO meter. Starting in 2008, DO values were
measured in situ using a pre -calibrated Hach®HQ40d water quality meter.
Benthic Density and Diversity Monitoring
Benthic macroinvertebrate sampling in Belews Reservoir was conducted annually in July of each
year from 2011 — 2015. Samples were collected from three locations in Belews Reservoir:
Location 405.1 (uplake); Location 410.2 (downlake near the BCSS condenser cooling water
discharge canal); and Location 418.1 (downlake in the vicinity of the old BCSS ash basin
discharge, Table 1-1 and Figure 1-1). A Ponar dredge was used to collect five replicate bottom
3-1

samples from each location. Samples were collected from two to three meters to bracket the
depth of peak benthic abundance (Brinkhurst 1974). Samples were washed in a 500-µm mesh
sieve, the retained material placed into jars, preserved individually with 70% ethanol containing
rose bengal stain, and returned to the laboratory for analyses. Substrate characterization at each
sampling location was based on visual assessment during the sieving process. Organisms were
sorted in the laboratory and identified to the lowest practical taxonm.
Macroinvertebrate densities (organisms per square meter of bottom area) were calculated
proportionally from the mean of the five replicate Ponar grab samples at each site. An
assessment of the balanced and indigenous nature of the benthic community was determined by
comparing macroinvertebrate densities and taxa abundance among the three sampling locations
and with historical data.
At the request of NCDENR, Duke Energy began spring monitoring of Hexagenia populations at
locations on Belews Reservoir in 2012 and continued that monitoring through 2015. Monitoring
was conducted in March or April at the same sampling locations listed above. Five replicates
were collected with a Ponar dredge and preserved in 70 % ethanol with rose bengal stain. All
Hexagenia were counted in each replicate and numbers among the five replicates were averaged
to give a density in No./m2 for each location.
Selenium Monitoring
Benthic macroinvertebrates (Corbicula and Diptera) were collected once each year in May,
while plankton samples were collected each year in September for trace element analyses.
Samples were collected from three locations in Belews Reservoir: Locations 405.0, 418.0, and
419.3 (Table 1-1 and Figure 1-1). Benthic macroinvertebrate samples were collected with a
1,000-µm mesh kick net at wadeable depths along the shoreline at each location. Sample sorting
was performed in the field. Individual organisms (Corbicula and Diptera) were removed from
the sample detritus, grouped as described above in containers, preserved on ice, and returned to
the laboratory. Plankton samples (consisting of both phytoplankton and zooplankton) were
collected at each location using an 80-µm mesh plankton net. The net was allowed to sink to a
depth of three to five meters, pulled to the surface, and towed slowly behind a boat until a
plankton sample of sufficient volume was collected. Collected plankton were sieved and blotted,
'From 2001 through 2015 oligochaetes were identified to the lowest possible taxa, whereas in
prior years they had been only identified to order (Oligochaeta).
3-2

placed in containers on ice, and transported back to the laboratory. Until 2013, all samples were
frozen upon return to the laboratory and remained frozen until their delivery to the Nuclear
Services Laboratory at North Carolina State University where they were analyzed for selenium
content by neutron activation analysis (NAA). Starting in 2014, whole organism composite
samples representing two replicates, whenever possible, were sent to Duke Energy's
Environmental Sciences laboratory at New Hill, NC for trace element analysis to determine
concentrations (µg/g dry weight) of selenium in selected macroinvertebrate target groups
collected in the summer (reference Procedure NR 00107). Selenium concentrations in target
organisms were expressed as µg/g wet weight. Selenium bioconcentration data were analyzed
graphically by taxon and region.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Substrate
Substrate composition was typically similar at all three locations and was comprised primarily of
varying proportions of silt, sand and organic matter (Table 3-1). Silt was the primary constituent
on most sampling dates at Locations 405.1 and 410.2, while organic matter was most commonly
predominant at Location 418.1. Substrate characteristics may influence benthic
macroinvertebrate density and diversity, but with the similarities observed among sampling
locations, substantial differences in benthic taxa diversity and density among sites attributable to
substrate variation would not be expected.
Water Quality
Water temperatures observed during sampling from 2011 — 2015 ranged from 27.9 to 34.1 °C
(Table 3-2). The lowest temperature each year occurred at Location 405.1, while maximum
temperatures were observed at Location 410.2, just below the BCSS discharge.
The DO concentrations observed from 2011 — 2015 ranged from 6.67 to 7.90 mg/L (Table 3-2).
The highest DOs were most often recorded at Location 405.1, while the lowest concentrations
were typically observed at Location 410.2.
Benthic Diversity and Density Monitoring
3-3

Benthic taxa abundance from 2011 - 2015 varied by year and location. Taxa numbers appeared
slightly less variable than density data (Tables 3-3 through 3-5 and Figure 3-1). Numbers ranged
from 17 at Location 405.1 in 2011 to 37 at Location 418.1 in 2012 (Tables 3-3 through 3-5 and
Figure 3-1). No clear patterns in taxa abundance were evident from year to year at Locations
410.2 and 418.1. At Location 405.1, taxa abundance increased each year from the five-year
minimum in 2011 to the five-year maximum in 2015 (Table 3-3 and Figure 3-1). At Locations
410.2 and 418.1 taxa numbers showed annual variations each year with the five-year maxima
observed in 2013 and 2012, respectively (Tables 3-4 and 3-5 and Figure 3-1). The highest
numbers of taxa among locations were observed at Location 405.1 from 2013 through 2015,
while maxima were observed at Location 418.1 in 2011 and 2012. During the previous five-year
study, total taxa numbers ranged from 21 to 39, thus indicating that overall taxa abundance
during 2011 - 2015 was somewhat lower than during the last five-year period.
Macroinvertebrate densities varied among replicates from 2011 - 2015 and mean densities varied
among years and locations. Mean annual densities ranged from 1,325/m2 in 2013 at Location
418.1 to 13,457/m2 in 2011 at Location 410.2 (Table 3-3 and Figure 3-2).
Graphical presentation of the last ten years of reported data indicated that mean
macroinvertebrate densities were variable and exhibited no clear trends (Figure 3-1).
Additionally, variability among replicates was as much as 100%. This type of variability is often
common among macroinvertebrate communities in lakes and reservoirs (Duke Energy 2009a,
2010).
Comparisons of year to year densities from 2011 - 2015 revealed that the highest mean annual
density from Location 405.1 (10,6097/m3) occurred in 2013, while maximum values at Locations
410.2 (13,457/m3) and 418.1 (10,071/m) were observed in 2011 (Tables 3-3 through 3-5 and
Figure 3-2). Spatially, densities were highest at Location 405.1 in 2012 and 2013, while
Location 410.2 demonstrated the maximum in 2011. Mean macroinvertebrate densities from
2011 - 2015 most often appeared to be higher than during the previous five-year period. Several
exceptionally high mean annual densities were reported: specifically at Location 405.1 in 2013,
and Locations 410.2 and 418.1 in 2011. These mean annual densities were higher than any
reported from these locations since 1991 (Duke Power Company 1996, 2001; Duke Energy
2006, 2011). The record high annual density at Location 405.1 in 2013 was comprised of a very
high number of nematodes, while Locations 410.2 and 418.1 in 2011 had exceptionally high
numbers of Diptera (Tables 3-3 through 3-5 and Figures 3-3 through 3-5). The causative factors
of these high densities and specific compositions is not known.
3-4

Since the substrate at the three Belews Reservoir regions are somewhat similar and past water
chemistry and chlorophyll data (Duke Energy 2006, 2011) show greater concentrations of major
nutrients and chlorophyll uplake versus downlake, the uplake location (405.1) might be expected
to support higher benthic macroinvertebrate densities than the downlake locations (410.2, 418.1).
Although Location 405.1 exhibited maximum spatial densities during four of the past five years,
macroinvertebrate densities in Belews Reservoir have most frequently exhibited no clear spatial
trend from the uplake region (more nutrients) to the oligotrophic downlake regions (Duke
Energy 2011).
During 2011 — 2015, macroinvertebrate samples were comprised primarily of Oligochaeta and
Diptera at all locations. "Others" (primarily nematodes) were dominant at Location 405.1 in
2013 and constituted high proportions of macroinvertebrate densities at Locations 410.2 and
418.1 in 2011 (Tables 3-3 through 3-5 and Figures 3-3 through 3-5). Comparatively high
numbers of Corbicula were observed at Location 410.2 in 2013 and Location 418.1 in 2011.
Annual mean densities for these groups of organisms varied from year to year, but oligochaetes
and dipterans collectively generally dominated collections at all three locations each year.
During years prior to 2001, oligochaetes were only identified to Order Oligochaeta. After 2001,
oligochaetes were identified to the lowest practicable taxon. Collectively, for the five years 2011
— 2015, the numbers of oligochaete taxa identified by location were: Location 405.1 - 14 taxa,
Location 410.2 - 11 taxa, and Location 418.1 - 12 taxa (Tables 3-3 through 3-5).
Hexagenia
Spring Hexagenia were typically found in comparatively low numbers from 2012 — 2015.
Numbers ranged from 0/m2 at Location 418.1 in 2012 to 809/m2 at Location 405.1 in 2015
(Figure 3-6). This represented variability consistent with total densities in Belews Reservoir, as
in most reservoirs. The annual average number of spring Hexagenia was highest in 2015 and
lowest in 2012. Spatially, Location 405.1 consistently yielded the highest numbers of spring
Hexagenia. A comparison of summer and spring Hexagenia populations at Belews Reservoir
locations showed that average summer densities were higher than spring densities at Locations
418.1 and 410.2, while spring densities at Location 405.1 were consistently higher than those of
the summer periods. This type of distribution clearly showed the considerable variability of both
spring and summer Hexagenia populations.
Selenium Monitoring
3-5

Selenium detection limits varied from year to year, as well as among sample organisms within a
given year. During 2001 — 2005, analyses of the Diptera had been hampered by collections of
smaller than optimal biomass, resulting in numerous elevated NAA detection limits (Figure 3-7
and Duke Energy 2006a). Extremely small sample biomass can lead to magnified errors due to
analytical interferences (including interferences from not -targeted elements) and result in
elevated detection limits (Scott Lassell, Manager of Nuclear Services, North Carolina State
University, personal communication). During the 2006 — 2010 reporting period, 16 of 102
sample results from analyses of Corbicula, Diptera, and plankton were reported below detection.
Of these, 14 were Diptera samples with two being composed of Corbicula. This was much
lower than during the previous report period when 52 dipteran samples were reported below
detection (Duke Energy 2011). During the 2011 — 2015 reporting period no samples were below
detection limits; however, at Location 405, insufficient biomass of Diptera and Corbicula were
collected to get analytical results (Figures 3-7 and 3-8).
Whole organism selenium concentrations in macroinvertebrates from the three locations in
Belews Reservoir from 2011 — 2015 most often continued to indicate similar or slightly variable
concentrations compared to previously reported data (Figures 3-7 through 3-9). Based on data
from 1985 to 2004, recent selenium levels appear to have dropped to near background levels.
Comparable to historical trends, organisms collected from Location 405.0 generally had the
lowest selenium concentrations. Macroinvertebrate selenium concentrations from the Diptera
and Corbicula at all locations showed little variability over the past five years as compared to
previous data and concentrations at all locations were in the mid to low historical ranges. During
2012 and 2013, Corbicula showed slight increases at Locations 405.0 (2013) and 419.3 (2012 —
2013). Dipterans showed a slight increase in selenium concentrations at Location 419.3 in 2012
and 2013, and at Location 418.0 during 2011 — 2013 (Figures 3-7 through 3-9).
Selenium concentrations in plankton during 2011 — 2015 showed some similar spatial trends as
Corbicula and Diptera with higher concentrations at Locations 418.0 and 419.3 compared to
Location 405 (Figure 3-9). At Location 405.0, concentrations remained very low, while a sharp
increase was noted among plankton at Location 419.3 in 2012. At Location 418.0, a less notable
increase was also observed in 2012. Compared to 2006 — 2010, overall selenium concentrations
in plankton were generally similar.
3-6

QTTAfAfAD17
Belews Reservoir continues to support a diverse macroinvertebrate community Reservoir -wide.
Taxa numbers were somewhat lower during 2011 — 2015 than during the previous five-year
period, but were within historical ranges. No clear spatial patterns in taxa abundance were
evident; however, taxa numbers during 2011 — 2015 were somewhat lower than during the
previous five-year period. Total numbers of taxa at Location 405.1 showed annual increases
from 2011 through 2015, while annual taxa numbers at Locations 410.2 and 418.1 varied from
year to year. Benthic macroinvertebrate densities demonstrated typical spatial and temporal
variability. Mean annual densities during 2011 — 2015 were most often higher than during the
previous five-year period and several exceptionally high mean densities were reported. All three
locations periodically demonstrated higher densities than any recorded at these locations since
1991. Notably high numbers of nematodes (Location 405.1) and dipterans (Locations 410.2 and
418.1) were reported. Macroinvertebrates were comprised primarily of Oligochaeta and Diptera
at all locations. "Others", primarily Nematoda, were dominant at Location 405.1 in 2013 and
constituted high proportions of densities at other locations. Corbicula were occasionally
abundant. Low numbers of Hexagenia were observed during both spring and summer sampling
periods.
Selenium concentrations in Belews Reservoir macroinvertebrates during 2011 — 2015 continued
to indicate low concentrations and variability when compared to results reported much earlier in
the study. This would appear to indicate that current levels are at near background
concentrations. Comparable to historical trends, macroinvertebrates and plankton collected from
Location 405.0 generally had lower selenium concentrations than other locations likely due to its
being the far afield from the initial ash basin discharge. Selenium concentrations in
macroinvertebrates and plankton from Locations 418.0 and 419.3 showed similar trends, with
some fluctuations in the low range during 2011 —2015. The results of this ongoing monitoring
program indicate that legacy selenium concentrations in the lentic food web continue to decline
or remain stable over time, and that the operation of BCSS is not having a detrimental impact on
the macroinvertebrate community of Belews Reservoir.
3-7

Table 3-1. General descriptions of the substrate found at sampling locations in Belews Reservoir
during July of 2011 — 2015. Substrates are listed with the most prevalent type first.
Organic matter is typically composed of small sticks, leaf and / or grass fragments.
Date
405.1
410.2
418.1
silt
silt
organic
sand
organic
matter
7/21/11
organic
matter
silt
matter
sand
sand
silt
silt
organic
sand
sand
matter
7/18/12
organic
organic
silt
matter
matter
sand
sand
silt
organic
silt
organic
matter
7/24/13
organic
matter
sand
matter
sand
silt
sand
organic
sand
silt
matter
7/24/14
organic
silt
matter
sand
silt
sand
sand
sand
organic
organic
7/29/15
organic
matter
matter
matter
silt
silt

Table 3-2. Dissolved oxygen (mg/L) concentrations and temperatures (°C) recorded from
locations in Belews Reservoir at the times of macroinvertebrate collections.
Locations
Parameter
Date
405.1
410.2
418.1
7/21 /11
27.9
34.1
31.7
7/18/12
30.0
34.1
31.9
Temp. (°C)
7/24/13
27.9
33.5
31.0
7/24/14
28.0
32.5
30.1
7/29/15
30.0
33.5
31.8
7/21 /11
7.90
7.02
7.32
Dissolved
7/19/07
7.78
7.45
7.65
oxygen (mg/L)
7/24/13
7.80
6.96
7.40
7/24/14
6.67
7.31
7.24
7/29/15
7.23
7.01
7.38
3-9

Table 3-3. Densities (No./m2) of macroinvertebrates collected from Location 405.1 from 2006 —
2015.
Taxa
2006
2401
2008
2409
MO
2011
2D12
2U13
2014
2015
Annelida
Hirundinea
Glossi honidae
1-lelobdella sta nalis
465
Oli ochaeta
Tubificida
Naididae
171
1
1
91
26
Rrcteonais lomondi
17
9
9
Bratislavia bilon ate
17
Hero spp.
43
17
Vero di itata
129
654
198
26
Bero obtuse
17
Hero trifrda
17
9
Was Spp.
9
Was behni ni
9
Nais communis
155
17
9
Nais variabilis
77
207
215
77
Prishna brevisel-a
9
Pnslina phimaseta
9
Fnstirra sima
112
9
9
FWShnella Spp.
9
Prislinella osbomi
43
Stoalia laeustris
103
Tubificidae
740
103
1721
155
198
1533
52
215
Aulodnlus limnnhius
267
808
77
34
26
387
474
}lulodnlus pigueff
293
1,326
370
3,453
611
1033
3039
336
241
8ranchima sowerbyi
52
43
26
52
43
52
103
9
11dribs tem letont
146
umnodrilus hoffineisteri
17
9
9
Potamothrix vejdovs4i
77
Tubifex tubAx
86
34
26
379
Pol chaeta.
Sabellida
Sabellidae
Marrayunlca specxkw
17
9
Arthro oda
Insecta
Arachnoidea
Arrenunrs spp.
9
Col eo era
G rinidae
Dineutus spp.
9
Diptera
Cerato 0 onidae
Pal om a-Bezzia cam lex
171
34
261
17
601
103
215
95
60
Chaoboridae
Chaoborus Vp.
26
232
26
129
181
77
Chooborus punclipenis
69
Chi ran amid ae-Ch i ron omi n ae
Table 3-3. (Continued).
3-10

Taxa
2OOfi
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Chironomus spp.
121
77
17
43
129
129
172
17
77
293
Clado elms Vp.
129
276
17
224
34
52
86
9
172
77
Oadotanytarsus spp.
95
608
34
26
207
775
301
319
Gncoto us bicinctus
9
Cfypfochironoinus spp.
60
43
26
34
17
34
52
77
69
cfyptotendipes WP.
310
17
17
43
52
52
146
Cicrotendi es spp.
9
Glyptotendipes spp.
241
1093
Hamischia
9
17
ANcrochironomus Vp.
9
172
9
ANothauma spp.
95
9
26
17
M)othauma bicome
17
Pa astiella spp.
1,877
189
9
439
34
26
129
1257
732
585
Paraclado elms Udine
26
Paralauterbomiella -
ni rohalteralis
198
189
34
34
60
9
polypedilum spp.
9
PolypeaYlum halterale
69
482
26
95
164
284
405
69
258
121
PO)yPelfflum scalaenum
17
1641
69
Pseudochironomus spp.
9
17
stem ellina 3pp.
26
9
9
34
17
stictochironomus spp.
43
9
155
60
stictochironomus QrMnctus
17
Tianytarsus spp.
861
947
17
276
1031
26
353
293
207
112
Chironamidae-Orthoc adiinae
oicocladius spp.
17
E oicocladius Havens
9
Paraiaiettenella spp.
9
Paraelnocnemus spp.
69
Chironomidae-Tanypodinae
Ablabesinyie annulata
121
103
52
9
2151
181
198
43
164
Ablabesmyn2janta
9
Ablabesm a mallochi
26
9
Ablaboamyiia rham he
26
Oinotanypus pinguis
9
codotanypus spp.
121
60
1641
189
267
852
250
26
284
207
Dialmabatrsta pulchra
9
Procladius
629
181
43
387
60
284
568
603
542
250
Tan us Wp.
95
60
17
1343
146
EphemerDpLera
Baetidae
Centro Blum spp.
9
Caenis yp.
17
E hemerellidae
E hemeridae
Hexa ema spp.
86
26
26
26
86
121
43
60
129
MegalDptera
Sialidae
sialis spp.
34
95
146
86
112
491
52
17
95
95
3-11

Table 3-3. (Continued).
Taxa
2006
2001
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Odonata-Aniso era
Gam hidae
Gom huS spp.
9
Trichoptera
H dro s chidae
Gerald s the spp.
95
Hydroptilidae
Orthotrichfa spp.
9
LepLoceridae
Oecelis spp.
9
17
9
17
26
17
Triaenodes spp.
43
Mollusca
Pelecypoda
Heterodontida
Corbiculidae
Gorbicula tiumfma
594
232
121
91
26
9
164
155
34
Unionidae
Afeumanfa spp.
34
Veneroida
5 haeriidae
sphagnum spp.
9
86
103
60
9
Nematoda
138
1,429
69
267
784
3814
60
Total Density for Year No.fm)
7,588
7,723
1,491
6,174
3,270
5,604
7,913
10,697
4,192
4,704
Total Taxa for Year
39
351
22
31
27
111
291
331
341
35
3-12

Table 3-4. Densities (No./m2) of macroinvertebrates collected from Location 410.2 from 2006 —
2015.
Taxa
2i}46
2i}47
2008
2009
201D
2D11
2012
2013
2D14
2015
Annelida
Hirudines
Glossi homidae
Helobdella sta nalis
9
9
Oli ochaeta
Branchiobdellida
Branchiobdellidae
34
Tubificida
Naididae
1T
Monais pechnata
26
34
Dero spp.
17
9
9
26
Dero di itata
517
69
Dero tlabdfi er
155
26
Dero Inhda
1989
Dero va a
362
Nais bretscheri
9
Naffs commUnis
9
9
Nais venabilis
112
103
387
17
Pristina ae uiseta
9
Pristina lima
9
9
9
FWstinella osbomi
26
9
Tubificidae
164
250
276
293
138
1369
69
112
60
172
Aulodrilus limnabius
17
52
155
258
Aulodrilus piguati
52
43
341
77
9
Aulodrilus plunsete
1
17
Branchirua sowerb i
129
129
103
60
43
129
172
34
Umnodnlus hottmeisten
9
Pol chaets
Sabellida
Sabellidae
khnayunfda Speciosa
17
43
Arthra oda
Acan
Insecta
Di era
Cerato 0 onidae
Di9syhelee spp.
34
Pal om ia-Bezzia complex
129
301
1,050
387
7T
3461
52
396
60
Chaoboridae
Chaoborus
Chi ran amid ae-Gh i ran omi n ae
ChironomUs Spp.
9
Clado elrnu
164
60
95
232
9
1188
Ciadotanytersus Spp.
9
9
258
9.
9
3-13

Table 3-4. (Continued).
Taxe
2a46
2a47
2448
2D49
2010
2411
2012
2013
2014
2015
DyPtochimnomus spp.
9
69
17
9
86
129
26
60
17
Dyptotendipes spp.
52
86
430
654
52
9
878
69
Dicrotendi es rreomodestus
9
69
43
34
Nilothauma Spp.
9
9
34
f+lilothauma bicome
9
Pa astiella spp.
34
26
138
448
138
17
Paralauterbomiella -
ni mholterale
17
17
paratanytarsus
Poiypedilurn haltemie
112
26
95
86
439
207
224
17
77
PseudachirorromusVp.
34
26
112
60
250
121
198
Stem ellina spp.
17
52
34
9
34
Stenochirommus
Stictochirorromus spp.
26
52
9
103
34
198
Stictochironomus cattranius
9
261
77
Tanytarsus spp.
52
52
17
60
9
9
60
Chi ron amid ae-Orth oc I ad i i n a e
cdcoto us spp.
9
Crtcoto us bicinctus
26
Paraiaietteriella 5pp.
26
17
207
26
9
Chi ronomidae-Tan odinae
Ablabeamyra Vp.
17
138
43
Ablabesm -a annulata
26
43
17
Ablabesm a janta
17
121
Ablabesmyia mallochi
9
9
9
146
Ablabeamyra ram he gp.
1
341
138
517
77
GOG)Otanypus spp.
86
103
43
121
26
146
232
396
Dialmabatista pulchra
241
34
396
620
594
680
232
52
Labrundinia
Procladius yp.
181
267
706
155
%dadius bellus
17
164
121
189
95
Ephemeroptera
Baetidae
Pseudocentro trloides spp
Pseudodoeon spp.
232
69
Caenidae
Caerris app.
9
1,455
26
E hemeridae
Hexa enia spp.
121
34
164
293
129
654
637
26
301
Megalaptera
Sialidae
Sialis spp.
9
17
17
Odonata-AnisGptera
Corduliidae
Neurocorduha
Didympps tmnsversa
3-14

Table 3-4. (Continued).
Taxe
2a46
2a47
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
kbcromia SPP.
17
Go-m hidae
Gom hus Vp.
9
Odc)nata-ZydDpLera
Coena rionidae
tschfrrrra spp.
9
Tricha era
Hydropblidae
ceratopsyche spp.
310
H ro fr)a
crthotrrchta spp.
9
Leptoceridae
Oecefis spp.
34
9
43
9
62
9
Mollusca
Gasta oda
Anc cldae
Fefrissra spp.
17
P'h sidae
Ph se spp.
9
Pelecypoda
Hetero-dontids
Corbiculidae
Corbicule flumirrea
60
611
17
3,702
207
387
1016
732
26
Veneroida
5 haerlldae
S heenu.m soe.
26
Nematoda
60
999
17
1,266
2299
77
34
17
Total De nsity for Year No.fm'
1,430
2,507
4,410
7,715
4,067
13,457
2,161
5,312
2,576
3,459
Total Taxa for Year
22
3D
31
27
21
25
15
29
21
26
3-15

Table 3-5. Densities (No./m2) of macroinvertebrates collected from Location 418.1 from 2006 —
2015.
Taxes
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Annelida
17
Hirudines
Rh nchobdellida
Glossi honiidae
Gloiobdells elon ata
9
Hdobdella spp.
9
g
Hdobdella sta nabs
7
43
Oli ochaeta
Branchiabdellida
Branchiobdellidae
112
43
Tubificida
14C
Naididae
17
9
Monais pechnata
208
Sratislavia unidentata
Dero Spp.
62
27C
Dero di itata
Dero tlabelli er
189
293
232
g
Dero tritida
207
Dero va a
17
91.
Naffs eommunis
9
Nais vanuMis
258
129
9
F shm lima
17
26
34
9
F stinella jenfcnae
9
F stinella osbomi
9
Slimna uppendiculata
9
g
S aria laeustris
17
Ve-dovs lla somata
17
Tubifiddae
43
771
1211
284
413
1886
362
112
Aulodnlus limnobius
9
Aulodnlus pigueli
9
146
52
568
9
Aulodnlus lurida
0
9
Sothnoneurum veldovskyanuir
9
Sranchinra sowerb
20-1i
155
241
293
215
103
164
138
26
Urnnodrilus hottmeisten
9
9
Tubitex harmani
Tubitex tubitex
9
Lumbriculida
Lumbriculidae
S odnlus herin ianus
Pd chaeta
5abellida
5abellidae
Uanuyunfau Weciosa
9
26
Arthro oda
Crustacea
3-16

Table 3-5. (Continued).
Taxa
2aa8
20a7
2aa8
ZDD9
2a1a
2a11
2012
2013
2D14
2a15
Annelida
17
Hirudinea
Rh nchobdellida
Glossi honiidae
Gloiobdells elon eta
9
f {elobdella spp.
9
9
Helobdelle sta nabs
77
43
Oli ochaeta
Branchiobdellida
Branchiobdellidae
112
43
Tubiflcida
146
Naididae
17
9
Monais pecknate
258
Bratislavia unidentata
Dora spp.
52
276
Dero di itata
9
Dero tlabelll er
189
293
232
9
Dero hitida
207
Dero va a
17
9
Nuis communis
9
Nigis venaMis
258
129
9
Pristina lima
17
26
34
9
Pristineha jenpanae
9
FWstrneha osbomi
9
5lavima a endiculata
9
9
aria lecustnz
17
Veidovskyella somata
17
Tubificidae
43
77
121
284
413
1886
362
112
Aulodrilus limnobius
9
Aulodrilus pigueti
9
146
62
668
9
Aulodrilus phifista
0
9
Bothrioneurum voidovskyanum
9
Branchima sowerbyi
250
156
241
293
216
103
164
138
26
Urnnodrilus hot{rneisteri
9
9
Tubitex hammani
Tubitex tubitex
Lumbriculida
Lumbriculidae
S odrilus herin ianris
Pol chaeta
Babellida
5abellidae
kfangyunida vociose
9
26
ArthropcFda
Cru stare a
3-17

Table 3-5. (Continued).
Taxa
2U06
20U7
2DDS
20M
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Am hi oda
Talitridae
Hyalehe arteca
9
103
Insecta
Di era
Coleoptera
Elmidae
Cerato 0 onidae
Allucaudom is spp.
Dasyhelea &pp.
26
P,al om ia-Sezzie complex
198
232
396
336
181
1317
C37
''
103
Chaoboridae
Chaoborus spp.
Chiron omid ae-Ch iron omi n a e
Chironomus &pp.
60
17
Clado elms
9
9
103
232
26
17
Cladotanytarsus Vp.
9
103
Cricoto us bicinctus
17
clyptochironomus yp.
9
91
17
52
26
77
43
26
9
9
cfyPtotendipas 3pp.
17
601
379
379
112
413
758
17
52
Dicrotendti es spp.
17
Cicrotendti es neomodestus
kilothauma spp.
9
26
9
26
pa estiella spp.
172
69
103
96
Paralauterbomiella -
ni rohalterale
Poiypediium flavum
9
Poiypedilum halterale
77
69
201
52
17
103
198
103
34
polypediium illinoiense
26
Polypedilum walaenum
Pseudochirorromus spp.
43
95
17
9
26
stem ellina spp.
17
9
17
17
stictochironomus spp.
69
stictochironomus catfranius
121
207
69
129
stictochironomus spp.
9
Tanytarsus spp.
17
270
9
77
9
52
52
60
77
3f-
Trrbelos spp.
Chironomidae-Orthocladiinae
oicocladius flavens
17
N317ocladius spp.
Orthocladius &pp.
paraiaiefferiella spp.
17
17
9
ry2
9
9
Chiron omidae-Tan odinae
Ablabesm -a Vp.
17
17
Abligbesmyie anmlata
26
1'
A blabesmyia janta
224
f;113
34
77
3-18

Figure 3-5. (Continued).
Taxa
20D6
2DO7
2DO8
2DO9
2D1D
2D11
2D12
2013
2D14
2D15
Ablabesm a mallochi
103
189
60
60
43
77
103
129
146
9
A blabesmyia ram he gp.
52
491
465
387
694
86
coe)otanypus
17
69
156
172
672
9
Dialmabatista pulchna
9
17
52
34
17
Procladius spp.
267
207
293
181
129
568
1,490
138
387
439
Focladius bellus
Ti ulidae
Antocha spp.
9
EphemeropteFa
Baetidae
Pseudocloeon spp.
129
215
Caenidae
Caenis spp.
17
26
17
E hemeridae
Hexa ema spp.
43
77
43
103
620
482
9
34
Megaloptera
5ialidae
Sialis spp.
17
26
9
Odonata-Anisoptera
Corduliidae
Neumcordulia spp.
17
Macmmiidae
9
Macromia spp-
Odonata-ZygopfLera
Coena rionidae
Argia
9
9
17
17
1=nalla ma spp.
9
Trichoptera
H dra s chidae
ceratopsyche yp.
189
cheymatopsyche spp
f l dro s the venularis
Leptaceridae
Necto s the spp.
9
Oecetis spp.
34
17
9
43
9
77
129
9
Trianenodes s
Pal centro odidae
PO)yGentropus spp.
241
17
77
43
f-n
Mallusca
Gastro Oda
Ph sidae
Ph sa dpp.
17
26
43
Pulmonata
Planorbidae
Pelecvlloda
Hetero-dontida
Corbiculidae
Gorbicula fluminea
241
52
1,352
1,197
482
1,162
551
17
3-19

Table 3-5. (Continued).
Tam
2DD6
2007
2DD8
2009
2D1D
2D11
2012
2013
2014
2D15
Unionidae
9
Veneroida
5 haeridae
5 haerium spp.
9
Nematoda
138
112
60
336
189
620
77
43
Nemertea
Eno la
Ha lonemertea
Tetra stemmatidae
prostoma gfeecens
26
26
77
17
9
Plat helminthes
Turbellaria
Trcladida
Planerdiae
Du esfs spp
60
Total Density for Year No.1m
1,834
2,569
4,514
4,582
2,688
10,071
6,322
1,325
1,842
1,618
Total Taxa for Year
22
28
34
34
2-6
28
37
18
26
18
3-20

40
35
30
- 25
0
CO 20
r
75
�2 15
10
5
0
��#I#I=��#I#����#I#Yid[#I#lti���#7�[#��#�ifi���+�if�►�#7�K��#�i���#�iE�
Year/Location
Figure 3-1. Total number of taxa collected annually from Locations 405.1, 410.2, and 418.1 from 2006 — 2015.
3-21

12,000
11,000
10.000
9.000
8.000
7,000
6,000
c
5,000
4.000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
ON
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Sample Dates/Locations
Figure 3-2. Density (No./m2) of macroinvertebrates collected annually from Locations 405.1, 410.2, and 418.1 from 2006 — 2015.
3-22

y f�f
4,500
4.000
3.500
3.000
O
Z
2. 500
D
2, 000
O
1,500
1,000
500
0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
m0figochaeta mDiptera ■Corbicufa o0ther
Figure 3-3. Density (No./m2) of Oligochaeta, Diptera, Corbicula, and Others collected annually from Location 405.1 (uplake) from
2006 — 2015.
3-23

5, 000
4,500
4,000
3,500
r
3, 000
tis
2,500
AD
2,000
1,600
1,000
500
0
1�
2006 2007 2008 23�-D 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
❑Oligachaeta ❑Diptera ■Corbicula ❑Other
Figure 3-4. Density (No./m2) of Oligochaeta, Diptera, Corbicula, and Others collected annually from Location 410.2 (downlake)
during 2006 - 2015.
3-24

5,000
4,500
3,500
N
E 3, 000
O
z
�1
2,500
LD
.75
2, 000
O
1,500
1,000
500
0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
❑ Oligoc haeta ■ ❑i ptera ■ Corbicuia ❑ Other
Figure 3-5. Density (No./m2) of Oligochaeta, Diptera, Corbicula, and Others collected annually from Location 418.1 (downlake)
during 2006 — 2015.
3-25

9001 -------------------------------------
S00
700
E
6 600
z
a�
- 500
c
a�
a
400
a
}c
a,
z 300
Mol*i*]
100
r7
2012 2013 2014 2015
■405-1 (Summer) ©405.1 (spring) ❑ 410.2 (Summer ❑ 410.2 (Spring) ■ 418-1 (Summer) 0418.1 (Spring)
Figure 3-6. Hexagenia densities at locations in Belews Reservoir during summer and spring periods of 2012 — 2015.
3-26

25
20
Location 405
•
•
•
. i. ♦� . x
-CT LO m r-- m M O r" M 4 4] m r— m M O r" M-;T L. m r- m C l O r C, M L.
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmaaaaCDCDC3aaa�
OY 0Y O} O} 0Y O} 0Y O} O} 0Y 0Y O} O} 0Y O} O} CD CD d d CD CD d CD CD d d d d d d d
25
20
Location 418
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.♦!� mot• � # * �!! _+!
0
IZrLO mr-- mMCD M�LO ca r-- mM f=3 c��Li co`mmcD' o2'j 2
o� ai rn ai o2 rn rn rn rn rn of o� os ai o� oD d d d d d d d d d d d O 0 0 Q o
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r c W r c. r c. r r W c. i c. r r W r. i c. r c. i c w c v
25
20
Location 419.3
� � t
a
V Ln CO r-- m M d- N M V LO CO r-- m M d " M V Ln (O rx m M d LY M V r C
rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn o o m o 0 0 0 0 0 CD.
0 0 0 C.
0 0
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r n... n.. n... n.. n
Figure 3-7. Selenium concentrations (µg/g, wet weight) in Diptera collected from three
locations in Belews Reservoir during 1984 — 2015. (Red symbols represent
value below the indicated detection limit).
3-27

s
5
4
m
3
2
1
Location 405
ff
ul SO r— m M O CA CO y 47 SO r- m M CD, CA m 'ET 47 CO r- CDQ] O (V m y 4D
m m m m m m rn m m m m m m m m o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn o 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 0 o a o o a o
cv cw cv cv cv cv cw cv cv cv ri cv cw cv cv cv
Location 418
25
24
5
0
v it m M m M o M M v M M o CD cn v Sri m r~ m rn— —— c2 v a.
��mmmmmmmmmmmmmmaoaaaaaaaa�
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmaoaaaa..........
Location 419.3
25
20
:44
=ss
ff
v a. m m rn a n cn v ri m r m rn a n cn v ri m r m rn a n n2 v
m m m m m m rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD-
. .. n n n n n n n n n n . cv cv
Figure 3-8. Selenium concentrations (µg/g, wet weight) in Corbicula collected from three
locations in Belews Reservoir during 1984 — 2015. (Red symbols represent
values below the indicated detection limit).
3-28

5
4
Location 405
♦
♦
�[} CO M1 CU C31 C7 N CT1 41 SO M1 DO M CC7 DI
DO DO CU CU CU C3] 4] 4] Ol C31 C31 C31 4] 4] 4] 7 C7 C7 O CD C7 C3 C3 C3 CD.4] 4] Ql F! C 2 CA 42 42 O2 C31 C31 C31 4] 4] 4] C7 C7 C7 O O O C3 C3 C3 O O O O C3 C3 C7
� � � � � Cam! Cam! Cam! N N N N N N N N N N N N N
Location 418
5
4
♦
47 CO M1 m mm C7 ; CY mm -A 4l SO M1 W CR C7 � CN! C�7 � LN CO M1 m 4� O N C2 � 4}
Loon Coon m m m rn R rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn o c- 0 0 - 0 0 c o o t
Cn Cn Cn rn rn ar Cn Cn CT, rn rn rn Cn Cn Cn c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N
Location 419.3
5
♦
♦
s # Z ♦ ♦ ♦ + + + s +
4
0
rn CO M1 m M a r n m V rn CO M1 M M a r n c r V rn CO M1 M rn D r n rn V rn
MMMMMM rn M M M M M M M M C� o Cj Cj Cj Cj Cj Cj C� C� r
C7Y C7Y C7Y C7Y C7Y C7Y C7Y C7Y C7Y C7Y C7Y C7Y C7Y C7Y C7Y CD 4 C7 C3 C3 C7 C3 C3 C D O CD C- C- C- O C7
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r CV CV " CN CN .... CV CV CV CV CV CV CN
Figure 3-9. Selenium concentrations (µg/g, wet weight) in the plankton collected from three
locations in Belews Reservoir during 1985 — 2015. (Red symbols represent
values below the indicated detection limit).
3-29
47 CO M1 m mm C7 ; CY mm -A 4l SO M1 W CR C7 � CN! C�7 � LN CO M1 m 4� O N C2 � 4}
Loon Coon m m m rn R rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn o c- 0 0 - 0 0 c o o t
Cn Cn Cn rn rn ar Cn Cn CT, rn rn rn Cn Cn Cn c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N
Location 419.3
5
♦
♦
s # Z ♦ ♦ ♦ + + + s +
4
0
rn CO M1 m M a r n m V rn CO M1 M M a r n c r V rn CO M1 M rn D r n rn V rn
MMMMMM rn M M M M M M M M C� o Cj Cj Cj Cj Cj Cj C� C� r
C7Y C7Y C7Y C7Y C7Y C7Y C7Y C7Y C7Y C7Y C7Y C7Y C7Y C7Y C7Y CD 4 C7 C3 C3 C7 C3 C3 C D O CD C- C- C- O C7
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r CV CV " CN CN .... CV CV CV CV CV CV CN
Figure 3-9. Selenium concentrations (µg/g, wet weight) in the plankton collected from three
locations in Belews Reservoir during 1985 — 2015. (Red symbols represent
values below the indicated detection limit).
3-29

CHAPTER 4
FISH
INTRODUCTION
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) and Duke Energy have
monitored the fish community in Belews Reservoir since 1972. From 1972 through 1994,
taxa diversity and relative abundance were estimated using cove rotenone surveys (Van Horn
1978; Barwick and Harrell 1997). This monitoring was related to a significant decline in fish
populations attributed to selenium contamination from the Belews Creek Steam Station
(BCSS) ash basin from 1976 through 1985 (Cumbie and Van Horn 1978; Olmsted et al.
1986). Once selenium inputs into the reservoir were eliminated, trace element concentrations
in fish tissue gradually declined and the fish community slowly recovered (Barwick and
Harrell 1997). Due to this recovery and its associated sport -fish potential, the NCWRC and
Duke Energy decided to alter sampling methodology in Belews Reservoir to collect data that
were more specific to fish management objectives (and phase out the use of toxicants to
sample fish). Thus, spring electrofishing surveys of the reservoir were initiated in 1994,
along with a final cove rotenone survey (Duke Power Company 1996). Routine annual
monitoring of trace elements in the muscle tissue of multiple fish species was initiated in
1994 with the advent of the spring electrofishing program.
This chapter summarizes diversity and relative abundance of littoral fish and selenium
concentrations in fish muscle tissue from 1994 through 2015. Collection, analysis, and
reporting of contaminant concentrations in fish muscle tissue from the Dan River (receiving
water from the rerouted BCSS ash basin discharge) are reported annually elsewhere (Duke
Power 2001a, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005; Duke Energy 2006b, 2007, 2008, 2009b, 2010a,
2011, 2012, 2013, 2014).
4-1

MATERIALS AND METHODS
Spring Electrofishing SurveX
Electrofishing surveys were conducted in Belews Reservoir in March or April, 2011 — 2015.
Five 300-m shoreline transects, identical to transects historically surveyed since 1994, were
surveyed at four regions (Figure 1-1): uplake above the Highway 158 bridge in the vicinity of
Location 405.0, midlake between the Highway 65 and 158 bridges in the vicinity of Location
419.2, discharge below Highway 65 in the vicinity of the BCSS thermal discharge and
Location 410.2, and downlake in the vicinity of the former BCSS ash basin discharge to
Belews Reservoir and Location 418.1. Between 2011 and 2013 all four regions were
sampled. Because the Uplake and Midlake regions were very similar in habitat, productivity,
and fish metrics (i.e., species composition and biomass) only three of the regions (Midlake,
Discharge, and Downlake) were sampled in 2014 and 2015. Transects included habitats
representative of those found in Belews Reservoir. Shallow flats where the boat could not
access within 3 to 4 m of the shoreline were excluded.
All sampling was conducted during daylight, when water temperatures were expected to be
between 15 and 20 'C. Surface water temperature (°C) was measured with a calibrated
thermistor at each transect. Stunned fish were collected by two netters and identified to
species. Fish were enumerated and weighed in aggregate by taxon, except for black basses,
where total length (mm) and weight (g) were obtained for each individual collected. Catch
per unit effort (number of individuals/1,500 m) and the number of species were calculated for
each region. Condition (Wr) based on relative weight was calculated for Largemouth Bass
Micropterus salmoides >150 mm long, using the formula Wr = (W/WS) x 100, where W =
weight of the individual fish (g) and Ws = length -specific mean weight (g) for a fish as
predicted by a weight -length equation for that species (Neumann et. al. 2012). Condition
was compared among years and among regions with analysis of covariance (ANCOVA, a =
0.05) and Tukey's pairwise comparison (Analytical Software 2008; SAS 2010).
Selenium Monitoring
Selenium concentrations were measured in skeletal muscle tissue of Redear Sunfish Lepomis
microlophus and Largemouth Bass collected during spring electrofishing at each of four
locations, listed from midlake to downlake: 419.4, 419.1, 410.2, and 418.1 (Figure 1-1).
Uplake collections at 419.4 were discontinued in 2014 because of similarity to the other
Cyd

uplake area 419.1. Following the standard operating procedures for fish tissue assessments
(NCDENR 2013b), three composite samples (each with three individuals) in 2011, 2012, and
2013 were collected per species at each location such that the total length of the shortest fish
was >75% of the total length of the longest fish within each composite. In 2014 and 2015,
the same collection procedures above were followed, except for that six fish per species per
site were collected. Fish were placed in labeled polyethylene bags and remained on ice until
returned to the lab. Once at the lab, they were frozen until processed.
Epaxial muscle tissue was extracted from each fish within each composite and placed in an
acid -washed polyethylene vial. From 2011 to 2013, Selenium concentration (µg/g, wet
weight) was determined from composite samples by neutron activation analysis at the North
Carolina State University Nuclear Services Laboratory in Raleigh, NC. From 2014 to 2015,
individual fish tissue samples were sent to the Duke Energy's Environmental Sciences
laboratory at New Hill, NC for trace elements analyses to determine concentrations (µg/g,
dry weight) of selenium. Graphical methods were used to examine temporal and spatial
trends of selenium concentration in fish skeletal muscle.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Spring Electrofishin Sg urveX
Potential effects of BCSS on Belews Reservoir fish populations were assessed through
annual spring surveys during March or April, 2011 — 2015. A diverse fish community was
present from 2011 to 2015 representing 22 species (excluding two hybrid centrarchid
species) and 8 families, totaling 16,677 individuals (Tables 4-1 and 4-2). Sunfishes
(Centrarchidae = 77.8%), shad (Clupeidae = 11.7%), and minnows (Cyprinidae = 5.6%)
numerically dominated catches. The remaining fish families each contributed less than 4%
of the total catch as follows: temperate bass (Moronidae = 1.2%), catfish (Ictaluridae =
1.1 %), darters and perch (Percidae = 2.7%), and livebearers (Poeciliidae 0.01 %). A total of
1,267 kg of fish were collected, primarily consisting of minnows (41.0%) and sunfishes
(47.2%) (Table 4-3). Catfishes contributed 7.6%, while the remaining fish families each
contributed less than 5% of the total biomass as follows: shad (3.4%), temperate bass (1.0%),
darters and perch (0.6%), and livebearers (< 0.01%). Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus and
Spotted bass Micropterus punctulatus were collected for the first time during the 2011 to
4-3

2015 fish surveys. No threatened or endangered species have been collected during the
studies.
Mean numbers of fish/1,500 in collected in March or April (2011 — 2015) varied with the
highest value observed at the uplake region (2,318), intermediate at the midlake (1,135), and
downlake (549) regions, and lowest at the discharge (356) region (Figures 4-1). Mean
biomass (kg) of fish/1,500 in collected in March or April (2011 — 2015) varied with the
highest value observed at the uplake region (219.2), intermediate at the midlake (64.6) and
discharge (32.3) regions, and lowest at the downlake region (25.1) (Figure 4-2). Mean
number of species of fish/1,500 in collected in March or April (2011 — 2015) varied with the
highest mean value observed at the uplake region (15), intermediate at the midlake (14) and
lowest at the downlake (9) and discharge (9) region (Figure 4-3). Fish community metrics
were similar at the discharge and downlake regions principally due to BCSS pumping
maintaining a circulation pattern within the epilimnion of the two regions (Chapter 1).
Data were generally similar to those collected during past study periods (Duke Power
Company 1996; Duke Power 2001a; Duke Energy 2006a; Duke Energy 2011). A total of 32
species and two hybrid centrarchid species have been recorded from electrofishing surveys in
Belews Reservoir since 1994 (Table 4-1). Variation in the abundance of individual species
has long been noted (Van Horn 1978; Duke Power Company 1996; Barwick and Harrell
1997; Duke Power 200lb; Duke Energy 2006a; Duke Energy 2011). Analysis of Belews
Reservoir fish collected by Duke Energy since 1994 (77,082 individuals captured from 1994
to 2015) indicates that the three most abundant species are Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus
(51.6%), Threadfin Shad Dorosoma petenense (11.7%), and Redbreast Sunfish Lepomis
auritus (8.7%). Multiple species (n = 23) constituted less than 1.0% of the total number
collected from 1994 to 2015. Once the fish population recovered from selenium
contamination, Bluegill were gravimetrically dominant in rotenone surveys from 1991 to
1994 (Barwick and Harrell 1997). Bluegill were also numerically dominant from trammel
net and electrofishing surveys from 1974 to 1976 (Van Horn 1978), and in electrofishing
surveys since 1994 (Duke Power Company 1996; Duke Power 2001 a; Duke Energy 2006a,
2011).
Largemouth Bass condition by year (1994 — 2015) differed significantly (P < 0.0001) with
Wr means ranging from 79.8 (1994) to 92.7 (2006) (Figure 4-4). Relative weight means were
between 80.0 and 90.0 in most years, 1994 — 1995 and 2004 — 2006 were similarly low (79.7-
79.3) and high (91.0 — 92.7), respectively. Largemouth Bass condition by region also
MI

differed significantly (P < 0.0001) with means ranging from 81.4 (discharge) to 87.9 (uplake)
(Figure 4-5). Although statistically significant, the mean largemouth bass Wr between
regions (between 80 and 90) suggest that on average, largemouth bass throughout Belews
Reservoir generally exhibit the same body condition.
In addition to Largemouth Bass condition values, the number, biomass, and number of
species of fish were generally higher uplake relative to downlake. Similar uplake-to-
downlake differences were observed for nutrient concentrations of total nitrogen (Figure 2-
64), total phosphorus (Figure 2-66), total organic carbon (Figure 2-67), and total suspended
solids (Figure 2-69). These data are consistent with the greater productivity observed uplake
relative to downlake, which is more oligotrophic.
The observed spatial heterogeneity in fish community metrics in Belews Reservoir is similar
to that of other Piedmont reservoirs in North and South Carolina (Duke Energy 2009a,
2010b) and supports the spatial heterogeneity noted by Siler et al. (1986). The authors
reported that the number and biomass of fish were higher uplake than downlake due to higher
levels of nutrients and resulting higher productivity uplake versus downlake. Other factors
that shape the longitudinal heterogeneity pattern (from uplake to downlake) in fish
communities in reservoirs are increasing reservoir depth, changing physical habitat,
increasing amount of open water, increasing wind exposure, and different species preferences
to these patterns (Gido et al 2002).
Selenium Monitoring
Annual mean selenium concentrations in the muscle tissue of Redear Sunfish (2011 — 2015)
and Largemouth Bass (2011 — 2015) collected from Belews Reservoir ranged from 0.83 to
2.96 µg/g (wet weight) and from 0.92 to 2.73 µg/g, respectively (Figures 4-6 and 4-7). Mean
selenium concentrations in Redear Sunfish and Largemouth bass were typically lower at
locations furthest from the former ash basin discharge (419.4 or 419.1) and highest at
locations influenced by the operations of the former ash basin discharge during the early
years of BCSS (410.2 or 418.1).
Mean selenium concentrations in Redear Sunfish have declined at areas sampled since 1995
and remained consistent in Largemouth Bass since 2007. Concentrations are below levels
considered detrimental to fish reproduction (Cumbie and Van Horn 1978; Gillespie and
4-5

Baumann 1986) and well below the 10-µg/g, wet weight, concentration considered safe for
human consumption (NCDHH 2O07).
SUMMARY
Fish survey metrics associated with species composition, catch (number of individuals and
species/ 1,500m), and fish heath (Wr's and Se concentrations) represent a self-sustaining
balanced and indigenous fish community in Belews Reservoir (2011 — 2015), consistent with
previous data since 1994. A total of 22 species, two centrarchid hybrid species, and seven
families, dominated by sunfish (Centrarchidae) were collected from 2011-2015. Two new
species were collected since 2011. The fish metrics represent sufficient food web organisms
and are similar to that of other Piedmont reservoirs in North and South Carolina (Duke
Energy 2009a, 2010b)
The spatial heterogeneity of Belews Reservoir water quality and fish community metrics is
similar to that noted by Siler et al. (1986). Uplake and midlake regions had the highest fish
species diversity and catch, likely due to higher relative concentrations of phosphorous,
organic carbon, and total suspended solids from watershed inputs (Chapter 2). Conversely,
discharge and downlake regions had the lowest fish species diversity and catch, reflective of
oligotrophic conditions.
Mean selenium concentrations in Redear Sunfish and Largemouth Bass remained below
levels considered detrimental to fish reproduction (Cumbie and Van Horn 1978; Gillespie
and Baumann 1986) and well below the 10-µg/g, wet weight, concentration considered safe
for human consumption (NCDHH 2O07). Belews Reservoir continues to maintain multiple
trophic levels of fish, including necessary food web organisms, for a self-sustaining balanced
and indigenous fish population.

Table 4-1. Pollution tolerance rating, trophic guild of adults, and fish species collected
during studies of Belews Reservoir, 1994 — 2015. Total number of species
excludes hybrid fishes.
Tolerance Troohic guild Duke Power Co. Duke Power Duke Fnemv Duke Fnemv Duke Fnemv
Alosa pseudoharengus
Alewife
Intermediate
Insectiwre
X
Dorosoma cepedianum
Gizzard shad
Intermediate
Insectiwre
X
X
X
X
X
Dorosoma petenense
Threadfin shad
Intermediate
Omniwre
X
X
X
X
X
Cyprinidae
Ctenopharyngodon idella
Grass carp
Tolerant
Herbivore
X
X
Cypdnella labrosa
Satinfn shiner
Tolerant
Insectivore
X
X
X
X
X
Cypdnus carpio
Common carp
Tolerant
Omnivore
X
X
X
X
X
Hybognathus regius
Eastern silvery minnow
Intermediate
Herbivore
X
Lythums ardens
Rosefin shiner
Intermediate
Insectiwre
X
Notemigonus crysoleucas
Golden shiner
Tolerant
Omnivore
X
X
X
X
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow
Tolerant
Omniwre
X
Catostomidae
Catostomus commersonii
White sucker
Tolerant
Omnivore
X
X
x
X
Moxostoma collapsum
Notchlip redhorse
Intermediate
Insectivore
X
X
X
Moxostoma erythrurum
Golden redhorse
Intermediate
Insectivore
X
X
Ictaluridae
Ameiurus brunneus
Snail bullhead
Intermediate
Insectivore
X
Ameiurus catus
White catfish
Tolerant
Omnivore
X
X
X
X
X
Ameiurus nebulosus
Brown bullhead
Tolerant
Omnivore
X
X
X
Ameiurus platycephalus
Flat bullhead
Tolerant
Insectiwre
X
X
X
X
Ictalurus punctatus
Channel catfish
Intermediate
Omniwre
X
X
X
X
X
Pybdictis olivans
Flathead catfish
Intermediate
Pisciwre
X
X
Poeciliidae
Gambusia holbrooki
Eastern mosquitofish
Tolerant
Insectiwre
X
X
X
Moronidae
Moron americans
White perch
Intermediate
Pisciwre
X
X
X
X
X
Centrarchidae
Lepomis auritus
Redbreast sunfish
Tolerant
Insectiwre
X
X
X
X
X
Lepomis cyanellus
Green sunfish
Tolerant
Insectiwre
X
X
X
X
X
Lepomis gibbosus
Pumpkinseed
Intermediate
Insectiwre
X
X
X
Lepomis gulosus
Warmouth
Intermediate
Insectiwre
X
X
X
X
X
Lepomis macrochirus
Bluegill
Intermediate
Insectiwre
X
X
X
X
X
Lepomis microlophus
Redearsunfish
Intermediate
Insectiwre
X
X
X
X
X
Lepomis hybrid
Hybrid sunfish
Tolerant
Insectiwre
X
X
X
X
X
Micropterus punctulatus
Spotted bass
Intermediate
Pisciwre
X
Micropterus salmoides
Largemouth bass
Intermediate
Pisciwre
X
X
X
X
X
Micropterus hybrid
Hybrid black bass
Intermediate
Pisciwre
X
Pomoxis annularis
White crappie
Intermediate
Pisciwre
X
X
X
X
X
Pomoxis nigromaculatus
Black crappie
Intermediate
Pisciwre
X
X
X
X
X
Percidae
Pema flavescens
Yellow perch
Intermediate
Pisciwre
X
X
X
X
X
Total number of species
23
24
24
23
22
4-7

Table 4-2. Species composition by number of electrofishing samples collected from Belews
Reservoir, 2011 — 2015.
Upstream
Downstream
Percent
Common name
Uplake
Midlake
Discharge
Downlake
Total
composition
Clupeidae
Alewife
20
20
0.12%
Gizzard shad
55
24
4
7
90
0.54%
Threadfin shad
1387
451
1,838
11.02%
Cyprinidae
Grass carp
3
1
4
0.02%
Satinfin shiner
360
227
3
148
738
4.43%
Common carp
129
32
19
10
190
1.14%
Catostomidae
White sucker
1
1
0.01%
Ictaluridae
White catfish
1
1
0.01%
Channel catfish
84
78
8
2
172
1.03%
Flathead catfish
1
1
2
1
5
0.03%
Poeciliidae
Eastern mosquitofish
1
1
0.01%
Moronidae
White perch
189
10
199
1.19%
Centrarchidae
Redbreast sunfish
2
334
200
477
1,013
6.07%
Green sunfish
35
222
19
36
312
1.87%
Warmouth
7
14
7
38
66
0.40%
Bluegill
3750
3079
878
1536
9,243
55.42%
Redear sunfish
100
208
309
103
720
4.32%
Hybrid sunfish
4
92
111
199
406
2.43%
Spotted bass
1
4
10
15
0.09%
Largemouth bass
269
322
186
186
963
5.77%
Hybrid black bass
2
2
0.01%
White crappie
161
18
179
1.07%
Black crappie
37
16
1
54
0.32%
Percidae
Yellow perch
377
68
445
2.67%
Total number of individuals
6,954
5,202
1,778
2,743
16,677
100.00%
Total number of soecies
19
19
15
11
22
4-8

Table 4-3. Species composition by biomass (kg) of electrofishing samples collected from
Belews Reservoir, 2011 - 2015.
Common name
Upstream
Uplake Midlake
Downstream
Discharge Downlake
Total (kg)
Percent
composition
Clupeidae
Alewife
0.15
25.75
2.03%
Gizzard shad
13.31
7.40
1.32
3.71
8.51
0.67%
Threadfin shad
6.57
1.95
8.51
0.67%
Cyprinidae
Grass carp
9.94
4.70
14.64
1.16%
Satinfin shiner
1.07
0.85
0.01
0.38
2.32
0.18%
Common carp
342.97
85.88
48.76
23.56
501.17
39.54%
Catostomidae
White sucker
0.15
0.15
0.01%
Ictaluridae
White catfish
1.21
1.21
0.10%
Channel catfish
35.90
33.60
7.67
0.88
78.05
6.16%
Flathead catfish
16.68
0.21
0.12
0.09
17.10
1.35%
Poeciliidae
Eastern mosquitofish
0.00
0.00
0.00%
Moronidae
White perch
11.60
1.14
12.73
1.00%
Centrarchidae
Redbreast sunfish
0.01
8.89
3.87
8.61
21.38
1.69%
Green sunfish
0.42
4.50
0.28
0.55
5.75
0.45%
Warmouth
0.05
0.14
0.10
0.56
0.86
0.07%
Bluegill
60.76
34.08
6.98
12.94
114.75
9.05%
Redear sunfish
10.64
22.49
15.25
6.87
55.24
4.36%
Hybrid sunfish
0.07
3.31
3.39
6.95
13.73
1.08%
Spotted bass
0.01
1.63
1.19
2.82
0.22%
Largemouth bass
105.69
103.38
72.19
60.18
341.44
26.94%
Hybrid black bass
0.27
0.27
0.02%
White crappie
29.91
3.70
33.60
2.65%
Black crappie
4.85
2.68
0.25
7.78
0.61%
Percidae
Yellow perch
6.85
1.11
7.96
0.63%
Total biomass of individuals
657.69
322.85
161.52
125.28
1,267.35
100.00%
Total number of species
19
19
15
11
22

4,000
3,500
3,000
E
0 2,500
L
a 2,000
z
� 1,500
2
LL 1,000
500
0
Year
Figure 4-1. Number of fish collected during spring electrofishing, 1994 — 2015, at four
Belews Reservoir sampling regions.
400
350
300
E
0 250
�n
r 200
Y
150
LL 100
50
0
Year
Figure 4-2. Weight (kg) of fish collected during spring electrofishing, 1994 — 2015, at four
Belews Reservoir sampling regions.
4-10

25
E 20
0
0
LO
r
0 15
z
0
N� o���o� �oaA Q CNo`1�� �Nrb Nl�k`ti��h
Year
Figure 4-3. Number of fish species collected during spring electrofishing, 1994 — 2015, at
four Belews Reservoir sampling regions.
100
95
90
85
80
75
1
9h1 'y000 'l�'LOVE 160h e Ile ILe 11P Ile Ile -01, -0
> -601 'LOP -e .6,h
Year
Figure 4-4. Mean relative weight (W), with 95% confidence interval, of Largemouth Bass
collected in Belews Reservoir 1994 — 2015. Numbers of fish by year are listed
above value.
4-11

90
88
86
84
82
80
Uplake Midlake Discharge Downlake
Region
Figure 4-5. Mean relative weight (Wr), with 95% confidence interval, of Largemouth Bass
by Belews Reservoir region, 1994 — 2015. Numbers of fish by region are listed
above value.
6.0
419.4 419.1 410.2 418.1
5.0-k------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.D 4-----
0 0 t• 00 M a r N M It 0 C0 t< Ca 07 a r N M It 0
M M M M M O O O O O O O O O O r r r r r r
r r r r r N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
Year
Figure 4-6. Mean selenium concentrations (wet weight) in Redear Sunfish muscle tissue
collected annually from four locations in Belews Reservoir, 1995 — 2015.
4-12

3.5 -----------------------------------------------------------
419.4 419.1 410.2 —418.1
3.0 -- --------------------------------------------------------
2.5------- - ---------------------------- ----------
a'2.0 ----- ----- ----------- ------ - ---- ------
1.5------------------------------- ----------------
1.0------------------------- ---------------------------
0.5 +
M
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Year
Figure 4-7. Mean selenium concentrations (wet weight) in Largemouth bass muscle tissue
collected annually from four locations in Belews Reservoir, 2007— 2015.
4-13

LITERATURE CITED
American Public Health Association (APHA); American Water Works Association; Water
Environment Federation. 1998. Standard methods for the examination of water and
wastewater. 20th Edition. APHA, Washington, DC.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. D888-05, Standard test methods
for dissolved oxygen in water. August 2005. ASTM. West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. 2009. D888-09, Standard test methods for dissolved oxygen in water. December
2009. ASTM. West Conshohocken, PA.
Analytical Software. 2008. Statistix 9. Analytical Software. Tallahassee, FL.
Barwick, DH and RD Harrell. 1997. Recovery of fish populations in Belews Reservoir
following selenium contamination. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the
Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 51:209-216.
Blais, JM and J Kalff. 1995. The influence of lake morphometry on sediment focusing.
Limnology and Oceanography 40(3): 582-588.
Brinkhurst, RO. 1974. The benthos of lakes. The MacMillan Press. London. 190 pp.
Corrigan, P. 2009. The 2007-2009 drought. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, East Regional Headquarters. Web site:
http://www. erh.noaa. gov/mk/Newsletter/Spring_2009/drought/drought_07_09.html
(Accessed August 12, 2009).
Crowder LB and WE Cooper. 1982. Habitat structural complexity and the interaction
between bluegills and their prey. Ecology 63: 1802-1813.
Cumbie, PM. 1978. Belews lake environmental report: Selenium and arsenic accumulation.
Duke Power/78-04. Duke Power Company. Charlotte, NC
Cumbie, PM. 1984. Deposition of selenium and arsenic in sediments of Belews Reservoir,
North Carolina. Pages 1-27 in B. J. Ward (ed). Workshop proceedings: The effects
of trace elements on aquatic ecosystems. Report EA-3329. Electric Power Research
Institute, Palo Alto, CA.
Cumbie, PM and SL Van Horn. 1978. Selenium accumulation associated with fish mortality
and reproductive failure. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeastern
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 32:612-624.
Davis, MB and MS Ford. 1982. Sediment focusing in Mirror Reservoir, New Hampshire.
Limnology and Oceanography 27: 137-150.
L-1

Diehl S. 1992. Fish predation and benthic community structure: The role of omnivory and
habitat complexity. Ecology 73: 1646-1661.
Duke Energy. 2006a. Assessment of balanced and indigenous populations in Belews
Reservoir for Belews Creek Steam Station: NPDES No. NC0024406. August 2006.
Duke Energy Corporate EHS Services. Huntersville, NC.
Duke Energy. 2006b. Belews Creek Steam Station 2005 Dan River summary. Duke Energy
Corporate EHS Services. Huntersville, NC.
Duke Energy. 2007. Belews Creek Steam Station 2006 Dan River summary. Duke Energy
Corporate EHS Services. Huntersville, NC.
Duke Energy. 2008. Belews Creek Steam Station 2007 Dan River summary. Duke Energy
Corporate EHS Services. Huntersville, NC.
Duke Energy. 2009a. Assessment of balanced and indigenous populations in Reservoir
Wylie near Allen Steam Station. NPDES No. NC0004979. November 2009. Duke
Energy Corporation. Charlotte, NC.
Duke Energy. 2009b. Belews Creek Steam Station 2008 Dan River summary. Duke Energy
Corporate EHS Services. Huntersville, NC.
Duke Energy. 2010a. Belews Creek Steam Station 2009 Dan River summary. Duke Energy
Corporate EHS Services. Huntersville, NC.
Duke Energy. 2010b. Reservoir Norman maintenance monitoring program: 2009 summary.
Duke Energy Corporation. Charlotte, NC.
Duke Energy. 2011. Assessment of balanced and indigenous populations in Belews
Reservoir for Belews Creek Steam Station: NPDES No. NC0024406. August 2011.
Duke Energy Corporate EHS Services. Huntersville, NC.
Duke Energy. 20011b. Belews Creek Steam Station 2010 Dan River summary. Duke
Energy Corporate EHS Services. Huntersville, NC.
Duke Energy. 2012. Belews Creek Steam Station 2011 Dan River summary. Duke Energy
Corporate EHS Services. Huntersville, NC.
Duke Energy. 2013. Belews Creek Steam Station 2012 Dan River summary. Duke Energy
Corporate EHS Services. Huntersville, NC.
Duke Energy. 2014. Belews Creek Steam Station 2013 Dan River summary. Duke Energy
Corporate EHS Services. Huntersville, NC.
L-2

Duke Power. 1994. Belews Creek Steam Station 1993 Dan River summary. Duke Power.
Charlotte, NC.
Duke Power. 1995. Belews Creek Steam Station 1994 Dan River summary. Duke Power.
Charlotte, NC.
Duke Power. 1996. Belews Creek Steam Station 1995 Dan River summary. Duke Power.
Charlotte, NC.
Duke Power. 1997. Belews Creek Steam Station 1996 Dan River summary. Duke Power.
Charlotte, NC.
Duke Power. 1998. Belews Creek Steam Station 1997 Dan River summary. Duke Power.
Charlotte, NC.
Duke Power. 1999. Belews Creek Steam Station 1998 Dan River summary. Duke Power.
Charlotte, NC.
Duke Power. 2000. Belews Creek Steam Station 1999 Dan River summary. Duke Power.
Charlotte, NC.
Duke Power. 2001 a. Assessment of balanced and indigenous populations in Belews
Reservoir for Belews Creek Steam Station: NPDES No. NC0024406. September
2001. Duke Power. Charlotte, NC.
Duke Power. 2001b. Belews Creek Steam Station 2000 Dan River summary. Duke Power.
Charlotte, NC.
Duke Power. 2002. Belews Creek Steam Station 2001 Dan River summary. Duke Power.
Charlotte, NC.
Duke Power. 2003. Belews Creek Steam Station 2002 Dan River summary. Duke Power.
Charlotte, NC.
Duke Power. 2004. Belews Creek Steam Station 2003 Dan River summary. Duke Power.
Charlotte, NC.
Duke Power. 2005. Belews Creek Steam Station 2004 Dan River summary. Duke Power.
Charlotte, NC.
Duke Power Company. 1990. Reservoir Norman maintenance monitoring program: 1989
summary. Duke Power Company. Charlotte, NC.
Duke Power Company. 1996. Assessment of balanced and indigenous populations in
Belews Reservoir for Belews Creek Steam Station: NPDES No. NC0024406.
August 1996. Duke Power. Charlotte, NC.
L-3

Finley, KA. 2003. Water quality impacts of pumping Dan River water to augment Belews
Reservoir level, Winter 2002 — 2003. Duke Power. Huntersville, NC.
Finley, KA. 2008. Belews Reservoir water during pumping from the Dan River to augment
Belews Reservoir level, January — March 2008. Duke Energy Corporate EHS
Services. Huntersville, NC.
Gillespie, RB and PC Baumann. 1986. Effects of high tissue concentrations of selenium on
reproduction by bluegills. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 115:208-
213.
Gilliam, JF, DF Fraser, and AM Sabat. 1989. Strong effects of foraging minnows on a
stream benthic community. Ecology 70: 445-452.
Griggs, MC. 1985. Air injection in Belews Reservoir to improve power station
performance. Duke Power Research Report PES/85-10. Huntersville, NC.
Gido, K. B., Hargrave, C. W., Matthews, W. J., Schnell, G. D., Pogue, D. W., & Sewell, G.
W. 2002. Structure of littoral -zone fish communities in relation to habitat, physical,
and chemical gradients in a southern reservoir. Environmental Biology of
Fishes,63(3), 253-263.
Hamilton, SJ. 2003. Review of residue -based selenium toxicity thresholds for freshwater
fish. Exotoxicology and Environmental Safety. 56:201-210.
Harden, CW, RE Lewis, TJ Wilda, and WT Horton. 1988. Belews Creek Steam Station
NPDES Dan River phase II report. Duke Power Research Report PES/88-04.
Huntersville, NC.
Harden, CW. 1991. Water and sediment chemistry of Belews Reservoir. Duke Power,
Huntersville, NC.
Labaugh, JW. 1980. Water chemistry changes during artificial aeration of Spruce Knob
Reservoir, West Virginia. Hydrobiologia 70: 201-216.
Lewis, RE, KA Finley, CW Harden, WT Horton, and TJ Wilda. 1988. Characterization of
water chemistry and biota of Belews Reservoir two years after installation of a dry
fly -ash collection system at Belews Creek Steam Station. Duke Power Research
Report PES/88-09. Huntersville, NC.
Likens, GE and MB Davis. 1975. Post -glacial history of Mirror Reservoir and its watershed
in New Hampshire, U.S.A. International Association of Theoretical and Applied
Limnology 19: 982-993.
Mittlebach GG. 1988. Competition among refuging sunfishes and effects of fish density on
littoral zone invertebrates. Ecology 69: 614-623.
L-4

Morin, PJ. 1984. The impact of fish exclusion on the abundance and species composition of
larval odonates: Results of short-term experiments in a North Carolina farm pond.
Ecology 65: 53-60.
National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). 2007. 2006 Local climatological data: Annual
summary with comparative data: Greensboro, North Carolina (KGSO). NCDC,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Asheville, NC.
NCDC. 2008. 2007 Local climatological data: Annual summary with comparative data:
Greensboro, North Carolina (KGSO). NCDC, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. Asheville, NC.
NCDC. 2009. 2008 Local climatological data: Annual summary with comparative data:
Greensboro, North Carolina (KGSO). NCDC, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. Asheville, NC.
NCDC. 2010. 2009 Local climatological data: Annual summary with comparative data:
Greensboro, North Carolina (KGSO). NCDC, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. Asheville, NC.
NCDC. 2011. 2010 Local climatological data: Annual summary with comparative data:
Greensboro, North Carolina (KGSO). NCDC, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. Asheville, NC.
NCDC. 2012. 2011 Local climatological data: Annual summary with comparative data:
Greensboro, North Carolina (KGSO). NCDC, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. Asheville, NC.
NCDC. 2013. 2012 Local climatological data: Annual summary with comparative data:
Greensboro, North Carolina (KGSO). NCDC, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. Asheville, NC.
NCDC. 2014. 2013 Local climatological data: Annual summary with comparative data:
Greensboro, North Carolina (KGSO). NCDC, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. Asheville, NC.
NCDC. 2015. 2014 Local climatological data: Annual summary with comparative data:
Greensboro, North Carolina (KGSO). NCDC, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. Asheville, NC.
Neumann, RM, CS Guy, and DW Willis. 2012. Length, weight, and associated indices.
Pages 637-676 in AV Zale, DL Parrish and TM Sutton, editors. Fisheries
Techniques, 3rd edition. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR),
1992. NCDEHNR Division of Environmental Management, Water Quality Section.
North Carolina lake assessment report. Report No. 92-02. Raleigh, NC.
L-5

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR). 2005a.
Basinwide assessment report: Roanoke River Basin. April 2005. NCDENR,
Division of Water Quality. Raleigh, NC.
NCDENR. 2005b. National Pollutant Elimination System Permit: Belews Creek Steam
Station (Permit No. NC0024406). NCDENR, Division of Water Quality. Raleigh,
NC.
NCDENR. 2007a. National Pollutant Elimination System Permit: Belews Creek Steam
Station (Permit No. NC0024406). NCDENR, Division of Water Quality. Raleigh,
NC.
NCDENR. 2007b. "Redbook" Surface waters and wetlands standards. NC Administrative
Code 15A NCAC 02B .0100, .0200 & .0300, Amended effective May 1, 2007.
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality. Raleigh, NC.
NCDENR. 2009. National Pollutant Elimination System Permit: Belews Creek Steam
Station (Permit No. NC0024406). NCDENR, Division of Water Quality. Raleigh,
NC.
NCDENR. 2010a. Reservoir & reservoir assessments: Roanoke Basin. Intensive Survey
Unit, Division of Water Quality, NCDENR. Raleigh, NC.
NCDENR. 2010b. Letter to Ronald E. Lewis, March 9, 2010. NPDES Permit Modification,
Permit No. NC0024406, Belews Creek Steam Station, Stokes County.
NCDENR. 2012. National Pollutant Elimination System Permit: Belews Creek Steam
Station (Permit No. NC0024406). NCDENR, Division of Water Quality. Raleigh,
NC.
NCDENR 2013a. Standard operating procedure biological monitoring: stream fish
community assessment program. North Carolina Department Natural Resources,
Division of Water Resources. Raleigh, NC.
NCDENR. 2013b. Standard operating procedures fish tissue assessments. North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Resources,
Environmental Services Section, Intensive Survey Branch. December 2013, Version
1.2. Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services (NCDHH). 2007. NC Fish
advisory action levels for DDT, DDE, DDD, dioxins, mercury, PCBs, PBDEs, and
selenium. April 2007. NCDHH NC Occupational and Environmental Epidemiology
Branch. Raleigh, NC.
W

Olmsted, LL, DJ Degan, JS Carter, and PM Cumbie. 1986. Ash basin effluents as a concern
of fisheries managers: A case history and perspective. Pages 261-269 in Hall GE,
Van Den Avyle MJ, editors. Reservoir Fisheries Management: Strategies for the
80's. Reservoir Committee, Southern Division American Fisheries Society.
Bethesda, MD.
SAS Institute Inc. 2010. SAS OnlineDoc89.3. SAS Institute Inc. Cary, NC.
Schladow, DG and IH Fisher. 1995. The physical response of temperate lakes to artificial
destratification. Limnology and Oceanography 40(2): 359-373.
Siler, JR, WJ Foris, and MC Mclnerny. 1986. Spatial heterogeneity in fish parameters
within a reservoir. Pages 122-136 in GE Hall and MJ Van Den Avyle, editors.
Reservoir Fisheries Management: Strategies for the 80's. Reservoir Committee,
Southern Division American Fisheries Society. Bethesda, MD.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1983. Methods for the chemical
analysis of water and wastes. Environmental Monitoring and Support Lab, Office of
Research and Development. Cincinnati, OH.
USEPA. 1994. Methods for the determination of metals in environmental samples.
Supplement I. EPA/600/R-94/111. Office of Research and Development,
Washington, DC.
United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2016. Water resources data, National Water
Information System web site: USGS water for North Carolina. (Accessed: 7/5/2016)
Web address: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nc/nwis
Van Horn, SL. 1978. Development of the sport fish potential of an industrial cooling lake.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. Federal aid in sport fish restoration,
final report, Project F-23. Raleigh, NC.
Weiss, CM and EJ Kuenzler. 1976. The trophic state of North Carolina lakes. Department
of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, School of Public Health, University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Report No. 119.
Weiss, CM and TP Anderson. 1978. Belews Reservoir, a summary of a seven year study
(Aug 1970 — June 1977) to assess environmental effects of a coal-fired power plant
on a cooling pond. Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, School
of Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Report No. 475.
L-7

Attachment 8
Aerial Photo Future Retention Basin Location
August 2016 NPDES application renewal
Belews Creek Steam Station
NCO024406

�m
C—A
Z m
E—A
i i 1 1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
` h �� a(♦ l; � A, tit \ x�`i ,y*,,. F '+J = %�"�• �*� '7�t ����y�
4
s„ s
PIPE CORRIDOR TO OUTFALL
1,
HOLDING BASIN °
HOLDING AND RETENTION BASIN
CHEMICAL TREATMENT AREA
PINE HALL ASH POND
CAP UNDERFLOW SUMP
r
PIPE CORRIDOR FROM PINE HALL
ASH POND CAP UNDERFLOW SUMP
A 08/23/16 SBP ISSUED FOR OWNER REVIEW
o no. I date I by I ckd I description no. I date I by I ckd
U
4
Z:\CLIENTS\ENR\DUKEENR\WTRREDIRPROG\88673_BELEWSCREEK\DESIGN\MECH\CADD\SITE LAYOUTS\88673-SKM-173.DWG 8/23/2016 11:12 AM SBPOWERS i
RETENTION BASIN
fw
PIPE CORRIDOR TO HOLDING
AND RETENTION BASIN AREA
A _ WATER REDIRECTION SUM
COAL PILE RUNOFF
DISCHARGE PIPING
COAL PILE RUNC
r �\\✓Jf
description
5 6 7 8
Em
BURNS
N&MMONNELL
9400 WARD PARKWAY
KANSAS CITY, MO 64114
816-333-9400
FIRM LICENSE NO. C-1435
9
t—A--�
m
t—C__�
[—D--�
TITLE WATER REDIRECTION PROGRAM F
SITE LAYOUT
GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
FOR BELEWS CREEK STEAM STATION U1 &2
DUKE DWG TYPE: DFOTR: SBP
ENEnK%.7Y® JOB NO: 88673 CHKD:
STOKES COUNTY, NC DATE: 08/23/16 ENGR:
FILENAME: 88673-SKM-173.dwg APPD:
DWG SIZE DRAWING NO. REVISION
ARCH E1
30.0"x42.0" SKM-173 A
10

Attachment 9
Ash Basin Free Water Volume Calculation
August 2016 NPDES application renewal
Belews Creek Steam Station
NCO024406

AECOM
Memorandum
AECOM 704 522 0330 tel
6000 Fairview Road 704 522 0663 fax
Suite 200
Charlotte, NC 28210
www.aecom.com
Joyce Dishmon, Sr. Environmental Specialist, CCP
To Permitting Page
cc
Duke Energy— Belews Creek Steam Station
Subject NPDES Renewal Support —Ash Basin Capacity
Devin Secore, EIT
From R. Kula Kulasingam, PhD., PE
Date August 17, 2016
Dear Ms. Dishmon,
Duke Energy (Duke) requested AECOM to assist in supporting the NPDES Permit renewal for the
Belews Creek Steam Station by performing available free water volume estimates for the Active
Ash Basin (ash basin). The current NPDES Permit has a requirement at all times a free water volume
(FWV) equivalent to the sum of the maximum 24-hour plant discharges plus all stormwater to the
pond resulting from a 10-year, 24-hour storm, when using a runoff coefficient of 1.0, be maintained.
This report includes required calculations to demonstrate there will be sufficient FWV capacity in
the ash basin for ash volume and stormwater runoff for the next 5 years at a water surface
elevation of 749.0 ft, which is the lowest water elevation the ash basin currently operates at. To
calculate the FWV capacity of the ash basin, Duke provided AECOM with yearly and monthly ash
tonnage deposited into the ash basin from 2011- July 2016. AECOM converted this tonnage to
volume using a density of 55 Ibs per cubic foot, which is the density used in the previous NPDES
permit renewal provided by Duke. Duke also provided the 24-hour plant discharge volume in the
dry weather detention of a maximum of 17.9 MGD. Duke added 10% to this flow and converted to
acre-feet to get an estimated 24-hour discharge volume of 60.42 acre-feet.
The 10-year, 24-hour stormwater runoff volume is calculated by multiplying the ash basin drainage
area of 742.6 acres, used in the previous NPDES update, by the 10-year, 24-hour rainfall depth of
5.1 inches. This yields a total stormater runoff of 324.91 acre-feet. The total required FWV was
calculated as the sum of the maximum 24-hour plant discharge volume and the 10-year, 24-hour
runoff volume, to equal 385.33 acre-feet.
The water volume was calculated as 2,972 acre-feet by comparing the 2014 bathymetric surface to
a water surface at elevation 749.0 ft in AutoCAD Civil 3D . Figure 1 attached provides this
comparison by showing the depth of water in the ash pond.

AECOM
The table below shows the actual and estimated volume consumed by ash deposited from 2014
through 2021. The reason AECOM chose to start at 2014 was because that is the year when the
latest bathymetry was provided. Using data provided by Duke on ash consumption, AECOM was
able to estimate the total bottom ash, 730,940 tons, which will be sluiced to the ash basin by
December 2021. Fly ash is being handled dry and disposed in a landfill. AECOM understands the
FGD waste stream is handled separately in the FGD waste water treatment system. This treated
water is assumed to be included in the 17.9 MGD. The coal consumed was estimated from August
2016- December 2021 by averaging the previous years and adding 10% to be conservative.
Estimated
Actual or Estimated
Estimated Total
Bottom Ash to
Time Period
Coal Consumption
% Ash'
Ash Production
Ash Basin
(1000's tons)
(1000s's tons)
(1000's tons)'
2014
4887.66
9.54%
466.28
93.26
2015
4593.14
8.73%
400.98
80.20
Jan 2016 -July 2016
2139.86
10.44%
223.40
44.68
August 2016 -Dec.
1681.32
2016
10.44%
175.53
35.11
2017
4203.29
9.79%
411.40
82.28
2018
4813.95
9.79%
471.17
94.23
2019
5086.96
9.79%
497.89
99.58
2020
5188.70
9.79%
507.84
101.57
2021
5275.18
9.79%
516.31
103.26
TOTAL
37870.05
9.79%
3670.80
734.16
1 Ash production estimated by Duke .
' Duke estimates that 20% of total ash production is bottom ash and sluiced
to ash basin .
3 Calculation assumes an in -place density of 55 lbs. per cubic foot to be
consistent with previous NPDES permit.
Estimated Total Storage Volume Required through 2021 =
Ash Basin Storage @ Pond Elevation 749.0' =
Estimated Solids to Ash Basin from 2014 - December 2021
Available Storage =
Available Storage > Required Storage
385.3 acre-feet
2,972.00 acre-feet
613.00 acre-feet
2,359.22 acre-feet
Sufficient Capacity through 2021
Although there are uncertainties in the amount of ash produced/disposed in the ash basin, AECOM
believes based on the information provdued by Duke and the calculations presented herein, that
adequate FWV can be maintained at the Ash Basin at Belews Creek Steam Station till the end of
2021.

AECOM
AECOM appreciates this opportunity to be of continued service to Duke Energy, and we ask that
you contact us at 704-522-0330 if you have any questions or require additional information.
Sincerely,
AECOM
Kula Kulasingam, PE
Project Manager
Attachments:
Figure 1 Free Water Volume Diagram
�L Aw6t,�-
Devin Secore, EIT
Civil Engineer

2 4 7 8 FIGURE 1 REV. A
� � -� \ \\ � NLEGEND
)))ASH BASIN WASTE BOUNDARY (APPROXIMATE)
EXISTING SITE FEATURE (APPROXIMATE)
DUKE ENERGY PROPERTY BOUNDARY
\ \ \ 11(i, sue\ ` IMPACT BASIN OUTLET STRUCTURE
(OUTFACE 003) � ASH BASIN COMPLIANCE BOUNDARY
>\`\ \�Y �- --`I1 �'l EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR (S FT)
\ \ll y/'/ '�\ /ll// I/ EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR (25 FT)
• • WETLANDS HDR, 2015
I I / 1 I I �STREAM
/l\ I I I 1 \ I / _`\\ \ ° SUITABLE HABITAT NORTHERN LONG-EARED
1 1 /
BAT. SMALL WHORLED POGONIA (HDR, 2015)
Cj
I,/ //1%JI 1 1/ll l Il� 1 i/// /// /�'// j-- -�\1 1 I I \ 1 \ \ - AREAS UNDER WATER DURING THE 2014 BATHYMETRY
///11 l/ \\ �/// 1 ` \
SPILLWAY OUTLET /(
// / 1\ \ �� - ////// / / / / •/ • NO BATHYMETRY AVAILABLE A—
CONDUIT I / f ul 1°
IJI%%ii�\�\ �
/ / / I,l l\�j�_"!I/(l/�//✓/%/I111 `o//,�h/i// i l // 6-/\�\a\ry\ \ �! / ////-
-,`/,or/I/ f \ �ti/�_�-�`�
I�IIII
\\ \ \\ 1 // / /o
I
III /J11\ \\1 ll��\\\\ I II
'/�
p / // I % //� ` �/ /III ♦///�5- ' \.�/j — // / ^\`� \\ •75— / /�/ . \ r1 I I 11 I
// / 15 "/ ////
///\olf«J
�/ \\_
\\\\\\�\\\)�. ♦ ==s75 _ _= %/ //%'i/// / l
/ 1 1 ) \\� \ \� \\Q _ 700-- /�I�'//'/I/r %/ /'1/ ! �^\\
'�` �\1`\I \`_ it/ I I\`-'% 1 ^\\ 1 It
\\\r, \ ° /
750rr� ♦\- 1 I `�-/� /� \�----- / /1\\ �`\\\\ \�' \
ACTIVE SPILLWAY RISER INTAKEf'/�/r _---_ - __ 11\ '/ / - \ \\ 1 1 FREE WATER DEPTH
STRUCTURE �I /' I I!_/ _,- 7zs \�;��/ `\_ _ --_' - _ _
„•/ �� ACTIVE ASH BASIN l/-- _ _ _ OFT WATER DEPTH
/— 0 FT TO 10 FT WATER DEPTH B—
/i MAIN DAM (STOKE-116) ' _ _ _ r
// ' � ' \ 775 yy 10 FT TO 25 FT WATER DEPTH
— \� AAA
/ / I � h^h 125 / /' ~ \ _ \ �oS i l\ �\ i /�' / / / •8 `.... _ ^ \ \ I( 25 FT TO 50 FT WATER DEPTH
50 FT TO 100 FT WATER DEPTH
I If
745
1 I 1
\\v
ASH BASIN \ 1 lip// 1 /i
(APPROX. WATER ELEVATION = 749 FT.)
r \ \\�\` \`/ /• I \ 1�v/// y il/ � � 11//•
y�/ 1 l /j ii REFERENCE
I \ � \ ' -- � — � _ � \ \ � � `/I�" • • Il l / 1/�//� � I % 1. BASIS OF BEARINGS: NC GRID NAD83/2011. ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON NAV088.
/' �V I / / II l I I I 2. THE DUKE ENERGY PROPERTY BOUNDARY, ASH BASIN BOUNDARY, AND ASH
/ // ryy �35 r�'i'/ l \� \ / ,• II/// ) / j//,// j1 I BASIN COMPLIANCE BOUNDARY PRESENTED IN THIS DRAWING ARE TAKEN FROM
"COMPREHENSIVE SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT- BELEWS CREEK STATION ASH C
BASIN" PREPARED BY HDR FOR DUKE ENERGY AND SUBMITTED TO NCDEQ
PERMIT NO. NCO024406) SEPTEMBER 9, 2015.
,1
3. TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY WAS PERFORMED BY WSP IN APRIL 2014 AND SUBMITTED
I �• ' — _ _ _ 1 I 1 / •� _._..- — -- _ / // ` \ \ \ \ TO DUKE ENERGY IN JULY 2015. THE PLANIMETRIC LOCATION ON THIS MAP IS C
ON
(/ / / p/ I \ \ \\ \ \ ) ) 20 4EDHE IMAGERY CAPTURED IS MAPPING
UPTABLE TO CREATE 1O'LLE00'ESCALE MAPPING m
AND CONTOURS D AN INTERVAL 10 ' S AND MEETS THE NATIONAL MAP y
ACCURACY STANDARDS FOR 1' = 100' SCALE MAPPING. DATA PROVIDED WHERE
1 1 �/ CLEAR AND VISIBLE ON THE IMAGERY IS WITHIN T OF ITS TRUE POSITION.
p 11 r� \/dl �Q / • I / 1 I 111111
—��—__ / r, / /// �—' {1/ / ''• • \ 4. BY ONTOURS SHOWN
JUNE 01UNDERWATER ARE FROM BATHMETRIC SURVEY CONDUCTED
/ l h '� f 1 \� /I / / I \ \\\\ �
I)\
If
I
doll ,
\ / %%ice' �/ba• _ ( �� / / / / / �'��' / I/
° / - _ �� / /�l jr / /// // 1 .1./ .If 0 500 1000
If J 1 1 l c ^ I 1 i i ===I Feet
TITLE
FREE WATER VOLUME DIAGRAM
/
\ / I j c /// / f / \\ `♦ ��� STOKES COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
F-034z FOR ISSUED FOR REVIEW
\ N.C. ENGINEERING LICENSE NO.
SEAL SCALE: 1"=500' DES: DMS
—� �� DUKE DWG TYPE:.DWG DFTR: DMS
JOB NO: 60432132 CHKD: AW
A \ ` ENERGY., DATE: 7-7-16 ENGR: KK
l /\ \ \ FILENAME: EXISTING CONDITIONS HEAT DIAGRAM.DWG APPD: KK
cbo
\\\\\\\ / / \_ I 1 I ///� // ° 1;\1\\11�\\\ DWG DRAWING NO. REVISION
zzNSID FIGURE1
\ A
a 1 2 3 2 TENTHS 10 20 30 3 4 5 6 1 8

DUKE
ENERGY,
August 29, 2016
Mr. Jeff Poupart
NC Division of Water Resources
NPDES Wastewater Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Subject: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.
Belews Creek Steam Station
NPDES Permit No. NCO024406
Stokes County
Permit Renewal and Amendment to Pending Major Modification Application
Dear Mr. Poupart:
13e1ews Creek Steam Station
Duke Energy Carolinas
3195 Pine Hall Road
Belews Creek, NC 27009
Duke Energy Carolinas (Duke) requests the subject permit be renewed and reissued. The above referenced permit
expires on February 28, 2017. This request is in addition to the currently pending request for modification of the
subject NPDES permit dated July 29, 2014. As mandated by North Carolina Administrative Code 15A NCAC
21-1.0105(e), this permit application is being submitted at least 180 days prior to expiration of the current permit.
Please find enclosed one signed original and two copies of the NPDES renewal application, which includes the
following items:
• EPA Form 1;
• EPA Form 2C;
• Attachment 1 - Site Map showing the location of all Qutfalls (internal and final);
• Attachment 2 - Current and Future Waste Flow chart and description of waste Flows through the facility in
accordance with EPA Form 2C Item II -A;
• Attachment 3 - Narrative description of sources of pollution and treatment technologies in accordance with
EPA Form 2C Item II-B;
• Attachment 4 - Alternate Schedule Request for 316(b);
• Attachment 5 - Alternate Steam Electric Effluent Guidelines (ELG) Schedule Justification;
• Attachment 6 - Arsenic, Selenium & Mercury Monitoring in Fish Muscle Tissue from the Dan River, NC:
• Attachment 7 - Assessment of Balanced and Indigenous Populations in Belews Reservoir;
• Attachment 8 - Aerial Photo Future Retention Basin Location
• Attachment 9 - Ash Basin Free Water Volume Calculation
Condition A(9) of the current permit requires that Belews Creek Steam Station (BCSS) comply with the Cooling
Tower Intake Structure Rule per 40 CFR 125.95- As allowed under 1125.95(ax2), Duke requests an alternate
schedule for the submission of the applicable 316(b) information for Belews Creek (Attachment 4 — Alternate
Schedule Request for 316(b)).

Belews Creek Steam Station NPDES Renewal Application
NC0024406
Stokes County
August 2016
Page 2 of 5
Condition (12) of the current permit requires BCSS to conduct fish tissue monitoring near ash pond discharge
(Outfall 003) once during the permit term and submit the results with the NPDES permit renewal application. The
attached report, Attachment 6 Arsenic, Selenium, and Mercury Monitoring in Fish Muscle Tissue from the
Dan River, NC, contains fish tissue sampling data collected in 2014.
Condition A(15) of the current permit for BCSS requires that Duke request a continuation of the 316(A) thermal
variance in accordance with 40 CFR Part 125, Subpart H and Section 122.21(1)(6). The reapplication shall include
a basis for continuation such as:
1. The permittee must request the variance be continued.
Response: Duke hereby request continuation of the 316(a) variance reflected in the reissued Permit
for the Belews Creek Steam Station.
2. Plant operating conditions and load factors are unchanged and are expected to remain so for the term of
the reissued permit.
Response: BCSS operating conditions and load factors are unchanged and are expected to remain so
for the term of the reissued permit.
3. There are no changes to the plant discharges or other discharges in the plant site which could interact with
the thermal discharges.
Response: There have been no changes to BCSS discharges since the current NPDES permit
issuance in 2012.
4. There are no changes to the biotic community of the receiving waterbody which would impact the
previous 316 (a) variance determination.
Response: As determined by Duke's environmental monitoring, since issuance of the current
NPDES permit there have been no changes to the biotic community of Belews Lake
which would impact the previous 316(a) determination.
The attached report, Attachment 7 - Assessment of Balanced and Indigenous Populations in Belews Reservoir,
indicates the continued existence of a healthy aquatic population in Belews Reservoir. Therefore, this report also
supports renewal of the current alternate thermal monitoring requirements of Outfall 001.
This permit renewal request includes modifications to the treatment system and discharges that will be necessary to
comply with recently enacted Iaws and regulations including the Federal Steam Electric Effluent Guidelines (ELG),
Federal Coal Combustion Residual (CCR) rule, the North Carolina Coal Ash Management Act of 2014 (LAMA)
and HB 630 of 2016. With reissuance of this permit, Duke Energy requests that NCDEQ staff incorporate the
following changes in the renewed NPDES permit:
I. Duke requests an alternate compliance date for compliance with Steam Electric Effluent Guidelines in
accordance with the request found in Attachment 5 - Alternate Steam Electric Guidelines (ELG) Schedule
Justification.
2. Duke intends to construct a new, lined retention basin to treat flows currently directed to the active ash
basin with the exception of ash sluice wastewater. CAMA and CCR rule will prohibit continued ash
sluice wastewater flows to the existing ash basin at BCSS. Projects are underway to convert ash handling
of all ash (both bottom and fly ash) to 100% dry handling and disposal systems at BCSS. The newly

Belews Creek Steam Station NPDES Renewal Application
NCO024406
Stokes County
August 2016
Page 3 of 5
constructed retention basin will discharge through Gutfall 003. Duke has included a process flow diagram
of the future wastewater flow on the site to help with visualizing these changes (Attachment 2 — Current
and Future Flow chart and description of waste flows through the facility).
The lined retention basin will be approximately 1 l acres in area and have the capability to have addition
of flocculent and pH adjustment chemicals. The retention basin will consist of two basins: primary and
secondary. The primary basin is where the majority of any solids settling will occur, while the secondary
basin provides adequate retention period for settling of fine particles. Additionally, the retention basin
will have a cell where various vacuumed sediments and solids can be decanted prior to disposal of
materials into onsite landfill.
A holding basin will be constructed for high volume flows such as air heater washes, process washes, etc.
The holding basin will be designed for batch processing and will be approximately 7 acres in area. The
holding basin will have a chemical feed system for adjusting pH and adding polymer to enhance settling.
Treated wastewater wil I be transferred to the primary basin of the retention basin.
An emergency overflow will be constructed in the retention basin as a structural safety measure to allow
for controlled release in the event of meteorological event in excess of a design storm. It is anticipated
that any release from this basin would be very infrequent. Duke requests that the emergency overflow
to the existing effluent channel be listed as a contributing flow to outfall 003 as part of the renewal.
An aerial photo with planned location of the basin can be found in Attachment S.
3. To comply with Federal ELGs for the bottom ash system, there is an allowance to route the bottom ash
sluice water to the FGD system. BCSS will reroute the bottom ash sluice water to the FGD system at a
future timeframe. Bottom ash from the boilers will be sluiced to submerged flight conveyors and
dewatered, and the ash solids will be Iandfilled. Ash sluicing water will be recirculated in a closed loop
system with make-up provided from service water for evaporation and water loss through trucked
transport ash moisture.
4. Duke intends to add an ultrafiltration system to the existing FGD wastewater treatment system at a future
timeframe to comply with Federal ELGs for FGD wastewater,
5. Duke requests specific authorization that upon ceasing flows to the ash basin, decanting and dewatering of
the basin through existing NPDES Outfall 003 can occur. Specific authorization for decanting and
dewatering is a condition currently in the NPDES permit at Sutton and Marshall. Duke requests specific
authorization that the ash basin may be decanted and dewatered and an explicit statement of the permit
limits associated with that activity. A characterization of the ash basin interstitial water has been
previously provided July 22, 2015. Decanting and dewatering will ultimately flow to Dan River.
6. BCSS uses an anhydrous ammonia vapor suppression system in case of unintended release of anhydrous
ammonia from the six 60,000 gallon anhydrous ammonia tanks. In the event of an emergency operation
of the system due to a release of anhydrous ammonia flow from the vapor suppression system will flow to
the coal yard sump where it will be pumped to the ash basin and will potentially contain significant
concentrations of ammonia. Upon completion of the retention basin, test flows and emergency operation
flows will be directed to the retention basin as described in item #2. Vapor suppression system tests are
conducted quarterly. Flow rate for Vapor Suppression system maintenance testing will be approximately
172 gallons per minute. Actual flow rate for emergency operation of the vapor suppression will be
determined by emergency. Duke requests concurrence in the permit that any impacts associated with
the emergency operation of this system do not constitute a violation of the permit. Duke request

Belews Creek Steam Station NPDES Renewal Application
NCO024406
Stokes County
August 2016
Page 4 ofs
this flow be added to the list of flows tributary to Outfall 003 and, upon completion, the new
retention basin described in item #2 if this submittal.
7. Duke Energy is currently designing an extraction well system to provide accelerated groundwater
remediation. The extracted groundwater will be treated prior to discharge through outfall 003. Treatment
of the discharge may be provided by introducing the groundwater as a waste stream to the ash
basin/retention basin or a new direct groundwater treatment system.
8. Area of Wetness (AOW) Permit coverage Disposition — Duke has previously notified DEQ of, and/or
requested permit coverage for AOWs at BCSS, as set out in the following table.
Date of Notification/Permit Re uest
Affected AOWs
July 29, 2014
S-1 to S-1 l
October 31, 2014
A to 1, HD-01 to HD-27, Parshall Flume, TF-01 to
TF-03
Januag 8, 2106
S-12 to S-14
June 1, 2016
S-14, S-l5
AOWs designated as A to 1, HD-01 to HD-27, TF-01 to TF-03, and the Parshall Flume have been
eliminated or consolidated as part of an engineered weighted filter overlay project which flows to outfall
003 via the existing effluent channel (from the point of origin to the point of discharge) established in
I984 when the ash basin discharge was rerouted from Belews Reservoir to the Dan River. Duke requests
that the conveyances carrying these flows also be deemed effluent channels from their point of origin to
the point where they flow into the main effluent channel to the Dan River.
Based upon further review, Duke withdraws requests for coverage from areas previously identified
at S-01, S-03, S-04 and S-05. This request is based on location of the respective AOW's and/or
review of sampling data that confirms the lack of pollutants associated with plant activities being
released to Waters of the State from these points. Duke requests that DEQ provide concurrence or
acknowledgement of this request in the NPDES Fact Sheet for the permit.
Duke requests permit coverage for the remaining AOWs as follows:
S-10, S-11 and S-15. All of these points commingle below the ash basin dam at the point
identified as S-15. Duke requests effluent channel designation from the point of origin of
each of these flows to the point identified as "S-15" on our AOW map where these flows
enter the preexisting effluent channel to the Dan River. Consequently, Duke requests that
all flows contributing to S-10, S-11 and S-15 be identified in the permit or fact sheet as
contributing flows to NPDES Outfall 003.
• S-06 and S-12. These two points commingle at the point identified as "S-6". Consequently,
Duke requests effluent channel designation from the point of origin of these flows to point
where they enter Belews Reservoir.
• S-13 and S-14. These two points commingle at the point identified as "S-14". Consequently,
Duke requests effluent channel designation from the point of origin of these flows to point
where they enter Belews Reservoir.
• S-02, S-07, S-08, and S-09. Duke requests effluent channel designation for S-02 from the
point of origin to the point where this flow enters the Dan River. Duke requests effluent

Belews Creek Steam Station NPDES Pcneaal Application
NCO024406
Stokes County
August 2016
Page 5 of 5
channel designation for S-07 from the point of origin to the point where this flow enters
waters of the State. Duke requests effluent channel designation for S-08 and S-09 from the
point of origin to the point where these flows enter Belews Reservoir.
Finally, Duke requests notification that this application is complete.
Should you have any questions regarding this submittal or require additional information, please contact Joyce
Dishmon at 336-623-0238 or email Joyce. D ishmon-d duke-ener=v.com.
I certify under penalty of lrnv, 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 submittingfalse information, including the possibility of fines and imprisonment for knowing violations.
Sincerely,
Reginald D. Anderson
General Manager 111, Regulated Stations
Belews Creek Steam Station
Power Generating Carolinas East
Attachments
Cc: NCDEQ cc: Sergei Chernikov
Joyce Dishmon, Sr Env Specialist
Keeley McCormick, EHS Field Support 11

Please print or type in the unshaded areas only
!)ill -in areas are spaced for elite tvoe. Le.. 12 characterslnch). For Approved OMB No. 2040-0086. Approval expires 5-31-92
FORM
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
I. EPA I.D. NUMBER
GENERAL INFORMATION
S PA
NCDOQ0856591 T1A J
F
Consolidated Permits Program
GENERAL
(Read the "General 1namcdons" before starting.)
1
2 13 14 is
LABEL ITEMS
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
I. EPA I.D. NUMBER
If a printed label has been provided,
affix ilIn the des�r�led race. Review the
Information
carB-ha noted
il�any of it is
through
rotted clai m tt fill-in area
III. FACILITY NAME
ropriate
below. Also, if any of �r a ted data is
absent area to the to of the label
V. FACILITY PLEASE PLACE LABEL
space the Mforrrfatlon that shoulld
IN THIS SPACE appear] provide It In the proper
MAILING LIST LIST
In area js . If the label Is taro� to
and , you need not ate Rems
I, III, V, and VI(except VI-B whkh must be
completed ragarrilessp). all items
VI. FACILITY
�Complete
ns�trtflabel Refer tohe
esrp
LOCATION
for detailed ricer t
and for the legal authorization under which
this data is colet:led.
IL POLLUTANT CHARACTERISTICS IIIIIIIII
Complete A " J to determine whether you need to s any permit applicatlan to the A i you answer yes" to at
questions, you must submit this form and the supplemental from listed In the fallowing the Mark W In the box in the third column if
"no"
parenttresis question.
"no"
the supplemental form Is attached. If you answer to each question, you
need not submit a of these forms. You may answer If your activity is
excluded from permit irements see Section C of the Instructions See also
Section D of the Ensbuct(ons for definitions of bold-faced terms.
SPECIFIC QUESTIONS
SPECIFIC QUESTIONS
X
MNO K"XFORM
FORM
YES
NO
ATTACHED
YE
ATTACHED
A. s this c a pu c y awns
which rasu in a discharge to waters of the
U.S.? 2A)
❑
®
❑
s or i ex erg or
a
J include a concentrated nimal
❑
®
❑
(FORM
reeding oppeeration or aquatic animal
a discharge
on faellii y wof
the ?hkh
(FORM 2B)
1a
17
t9
t9
20
21
s this facility which cuffenOy results n
discharges to waters of the U.S. other than
s this Proposal faciiii aMar 60-00—se
In A or S above) wh wIH result in a discharge
those desrlibad in A or 8 above? FORM 2C
22
23
24
to waters of the U.S.? FORM 201
25
20
27
s or will this facillity teat. store, or pose
hazardous wastes? (FORM 3)
❑
®
❑
F Do you or will you Inpa at this faclity industrialor
municipal effluent below the lowermost stratum
❑
®
❑
containingwithin one quarter mile of the well
bore underground sources of drinking water?
M 4
29
29
30(FOR
31
32
33
you or you it this facility any
produced water other ffu which are brought to
h Doyou or you at u
I processes such as m1hirrg suffer by the
the surface In connection with conventional oil or
❑
®
❑
rasclt process solution mining of minerals, In
❑
®
❑
natural gas production. Injed fluids used for
situ combustion of fossil fuel, or recovery of
Auld nced ve ry of for storage oil of quidnatural gas or inject
hydrocarbons?
geathemud energy? (FORM 4)
FORM 4
34
35
38
37 1
39
39
s fts facility a 5roposed stationary source
which is the 28 Industrial listed
j Is this facilSyr a pro eta nary aourca
is NOT the 28 Industrial
one of categories
In the Instructions and will emit ❑ ® ❑
which one of categories
listed In the instructions ❑ ® ❑
which potentially
100 tons per year of any air po0ulant reguleted
and which will potentially
emit 250 tons per year of any air pollutant
under Iha Clean Air Act and may affect or be
regulated under" Clean Air Act and may affect
located in an attainment area? FORM 5) 1-40-1 41 1 42
or be located 1n an attainment an? FORM 43 44 45
Ill. NAME OF FACILITY
SKIP I Belews Creek Steam Station
1
15 1 15--9 1 30
a9
IV. FACILITY CONTACT
A. NAME & TITLE(last, first & tide
B. PHONE laree code & no.
Keeley McCormick, EHS Professional 1!
336 445 0204
2
15 16
45 4a 49 1 1 49 51 1 1 52 55
V. FACILITY MAILING ADDRESS
A. STREET OR P.O. BOX
9 3195 Pine Hall Road
15 18
45
B. CITY OR TOWN I
C STATE D ZIP CODE
Belews Creek
NC 27009
a
15 1a � -- 40 1
41 42 1 47 51
Vl. FACILITY LOCATION
A. STREET ROUTE NO. OR OTHER SPECIFIC IDENTIFIER
3195 Pine Hall Road
s
is 1a
45
B. COUNTY NAME
Stokes
46 70
C. CITY OR TOWN
D STATE E. ZIP CODE I F. CQUINTY CODE
Belews Creek
NC 27009 034
147
$
15 18 40 1
51 1 a 54
EPA FORI13510.1 (8-90) CONTINUED ON REVERSE

CONTINUED FROM THE FRONT
VII. SIC CODES 4-di ' in orderof ri
A. FIRST B. SECOND
c
4911
(specify)
Electric Services
7
s
(specify)
s
16 17
16 to
C THIRD D. FOURTH
c (specify) (specify)
15 16 17 1 15 1 15 Ta
Vlll. OPERATOR INFORMATION
A. NAME I B. Is the name [Wed In Item
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC VIII-A also the owner?
S
® YES [:]NO
1 to 55
C. STATUS OF OPERATOR EnW ft approodate btterinto the enswerbox
if "Other"
D. PHONE area code & no.
F = FEDERAL M = PUBLIC (other than federal orstate)
P
(specify)
336
0204
S = STATE O = OTHER (specify)
Electric Utility
A
�flg�21
122
Sd
16 18
25
P = PRIVATE
t5
E STREET OR PO BOX
3195 Pine Hall Road
26 56
F. CITY OR TOWN
G STATE H ZIP CODE
IX. INDIAN LAND
Belews Creek
NC 27009 Is the facility located an Indian lands?
1 42 42 47 st ❑ YES ® NO
B
is t6 40
X. EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS
A NPDES Oischa s to Surface Wated
D PSD Air Emissions from Prolmed Sources
9 ° 01983T25, Non-PSD, Air
9
N
'
NCO024406
1s t6 1 17 1 1a 30
,5
,e
n
19 30
B.
IC Unde round Inischlion ofRulds
E OTHER s (Specify)
° 85-03,85-04,85-05 Industrial Landfill
9
1 16 17 t8 30
TU
'
9
15
16
1T
t8 30
C. RCRA Hazardous Wastes E OTHER s (Specify)
9 ' NCDO00856591 T ° WQ0000452 Distribution of residual
9
15 16 17 t8 30 15 16 17 13 30 Solids
XI. MAP
Attach to this application a topographic map of the area extending to at least one mile beyond property boundaries. The map must
show the outline of the facility, the location of each of its existing and proposed intake and discharge structures, each of Its
hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facilities, and each well where it injects fluids underground Include all springs.
rivers and other surface water bodles in the map area. See instructions for precise requirements.
Xli. NATURE OF BUSINESS(provide a brief descri tfon
Coal Fired Electric Generation
XIII. CERTIFICATION see instnictions
l certify under penalty of law that l have personally examined and am familiar with the (nfomration submitted in this application and
all attachments and that based on my inquiry of those persons immediately responsible far obtaining the information contained in
the application, l believe that the information is true, accurate and eamplete I r aware that there are significant penalties for
submitting false information, including the ssibof fine and imprisonmente
A. NAME & OFFICIAL TITLE (type or print) B. SIG IkTORE
C. DATE SIGNED
Reginald D. Anderson, GM-111, Regulated
Stations
p
COMMENTS FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
C
15
16 55
EPA FORM 3510-1 18-90)

EPA I D NUMBER (rnpyfrom Item 1 of Form 1) Form Approved.
NCDO00856591 OMB No 2040-0086.
Please print or type in the unshaded areas only Approval expires 3-31-98
FORM U S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FOR PERMIT TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER
2C EPA EXISTING MANUFACTURING,"
IS/COMMERCIAL, MINING AND SILVICULTURE OPERATIONS
NPOES Consolidated Permits Program
i. OUTFALL LOCATION
For each outfall, list the latitude and longitude of its location to the nearest 15 seconds and the name of the receiving water.
A. OUTFALL NUMBER
(list)
B LATITUDE
C. LONGITUDE
0. RECEIVING WATER (name)
t DEG.
2. MIN.
3. SEC.
1. DEG
22 M:N.
3, SEC
C01
36
16
49.5
80
03
39.8
Belews Lake
CO3
36
18
22.0
80
04
50.7
Dan River via Effluent Channel
CO2
36
17
8.0
80
03
53.8
Ash Basin (Internal Outfall)
:I. FLOWS. SOURCES OF POLLUTION. AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
A. Attach a line drawing showing the water flow through the facility Indicate sources of Intake water operations contributing wastewater to the effluent, and treatment units
labeled to cotsespand to the more detailed descriptions in Item B Construct a water balance on the line drawing by showing average flows between .ntakes. operations
treatment units, and outfalls. If a water balance cannot be determined (e.g. lbr certain mining acbWhes), provide a pictorial description of the nature and amount of any
sources of water and any collection or treatment measures.
B. For each outfall, provide a description of- (1) All operations contributing wastewater to the effluent Indud ng process wastewater, sanitary wastewater, cooling water
and storm water runoff, (2) The average flow contributed by each operation and (3) The treatment received by the wastewater Continue on additional sheets if
necessary.
1. OUT-
2. OPERATION(S) CONTRIBUTING FLOW
3. TREATMENT
FALL
NO. (list)
a. OPERATION (L.u)
b AVERAGE FLOW
(include units)
a. DESCRIPTION
b. LIST CODES FROM
TABLE 2C-1
J4 l
Once Through Cooling Water
Discharge to %urf"e water
4A
Miscellaneous Equipment
127E MM
Non -Contact Cooling Water
003
Asti Settling Pond
9 MOD
Coagulation, Sedimentation, Neutralization,
2D
1U
Discharge from Storm Drain
Ion Exchange, Surface water Dischazrge
2A
ZJ
Retention Basin (Future Usel
9A
002
Flue Gas Desulfurization Wastewater
D 7 MGD
Sedimentation
to
2rC
fInternal outfall)
Coagulation. Chemical Precipitation
2L
Reduction, Neutralization
3C
Belt Filtration, Landfill
sc
s0
Ultrafiltration (Future)
OFFICIAL USE ONLY(effluent gWtdelmessub-categenes)
EPA Form 3510-2C (8-90) PAGE 1 of 4 CONTINUE ON REVERSE

CONTINUED FROM THE FRONT
C Except for storm runoff, leaks. or spills are any of the discharges described in Items Il-A or 8 intermittent or seasonal?
❑ YES (rnmplere the fallvwtng table) m NO (b to s wa.111)
3 FREQUENCY
4. FLOW
a DAYS PER
B. TOTAL VOLUME
2 OPERATION(S
WEEK
b. MONTHS
a. FLOW RATE (in mg!)
(1peri). with meat)
1 OUTFALL
CONTRIBUTING FLOW
(rpeeh
PER YEAR
C DURATION
1 LONGTERM
2, MAXIMUM
1 LONGTERM
2 MAXIMUM
NUMBER (hit)
(het)
amrmgc)
(ipecifymemgri
AVERAGE
DAILY
AVERAGE
DAILY
(Ind. 3)
III PRODUCTION
A. Does an effluent guideline limitation promulgated by EPA under Section 304 of the Clean Water Act apply to your facility?
® YES (complete Item Ill.0) ❑ NO (ga to Section 1l1)
8 Are the limitations in the applicable effluent guideline expressed in terms of production (or other measure of operatioon)?
❑ YES (complete Item I/1-0 ® NO (V to Section III)
C If you answered "yes' to Item III-B, list the quantity which represents an actual measurement of your level of production, expressed in the terms and units used in the
applicable effluent guideline and indicate the affected outfalls
1 AVERAGE DAILY PRODUCTION
2. AFFECTED OUTFACES
lint out all number. )
( f
a QUANTITY PER DAY
b. UNITS OF MEASURE
c. OPERATION. PRODUCT. MATERIAL, ETC.
(rl -tfy)
IV IMPROVEMENTS
A. Are you now requited by any Federal, State or local authority to meet any implementation schedule for the construction, upgrading or operations of wastewater
treatment equipment or practices or any other environmental programs which may affect the discharges described in this apppication? This includes, but is not limited to,
permit conditions, administrative or enforcement orders enforcement compliance schedule letters, stipulations court orders, and grant or loan conditions,
® YES (complete the follrnreng table) ❑ NO (Xu la !fern IV-B)
1. IDENTIFICATION OF CONDITION,
2. AFFECTED OUTFALLS
3 BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
4• FINAL COMPLIANCE DATE
AGREEMENT, ETC
a NO
b, SOURCE OF DISCHARGE
a. REQUIRED
b, PROJECTED
North Carolina Coal Ash
003
Ash Sluice
The act requires closure of ash basin.
5/17123
5/17/23
Management Act of 2014
B. OPTIONAL: You may attach additional sheets describing any additional water pollution control programs (or other environmental projects which may affect your
discharges) you now have underway or which you plan. Indicate whether each program Is now underway or planned, and indicate your actual or planned schedules for
construction.
❑ MARK -X' IF DESCRIPTION OF ADDITIONAL CONTROL PROGRAMS IS ATTACHED
EPA Form 3510-2C (8-90) PAGE 2 of 4 CONTINUE ON PAGE 3

EPA I D NUMBER {copy -from Item 1 ofxorm I)
CONTINUED FROM PAGE 2 Nct)000856591
V INTAKE AND EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS
A, B, & C See -nstructions before proceeding —Complete one set of tables for each outfall —Annotate the outfall number In the spare provided
NOTE Tables VA V-B and V-C are included on separate sheets numbered V-1 through V-9
D. Use the space below to lost any of the pollutants listed In Table 2r-3 of the Instructions which you know or have reason to believe is discharged or may be discharged
from any outfall For every pollutant you list. briefly describe the reasons you believe it to be present and report any analytical data in your possession
1 POLLUTANT
2 SOURCE
1 POLLUTANT
2 SOURCE
Asbestos Trace amount in insulation,
wire coatings, and harnesses.
Trace amounts may be washed
down drains in plant area
during maintenance activities.
Str nt um Trace elements occasionally
Ura ium found in coal.
Van ..ium
Zir on um
VI POTENTIAL DISCHARGES NOT COVERED BY ANALYSIS
Is any pollutant listed in hem V-C a substance or a component of a substance which you
currently use or manufacture as an intermediate
or final product or byproduct?
® YES (list.11.ruch pulbremu /Wou, ) ❑
NO (Inv m lean V1 B)
The following substances may be contained in c-al:
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
EPA Form 3510-2C (8-90) PAGE 3 of 4 CONTINUE ON REVERSE

CONTINUED FROM THE FRONT
VII BIOLOGICAL TOXICITY TESTING DATA
Do you have any knowledge or reason to believe that any biological test for acute or chronic toxicity has been made on any of your discharges or on a receiving water in
relation to your discharge within the last 3 years?
© YES {tdrm the resr(i) a.Jde:cnbe rhetrputpases be",) ❑ NO (ga ro Section Vill)
Toxicity testing is performed as required by the station's current NPDES permit. The acute toxicity test is
conducted and reported quarterly for the ash basin discharge (Outfall 003).
VIII CONTRACT ANALYSIS INFORMATION
Were any of the analyses reported in Item V performed by a contract laboratory or consulting firm?
® YES (tilt the name address, and teleph,me number r f and pollutants analyzed by El NO (Sat ra Section LI)
each such laharruary ar firm below)
A. NAME
B.AODRE55
C TELEPHONE
D. POLLUTANTS ANALYZED
(ana code R n,,.)
(Est)
Ct:ke Energy Analytical Lab 13339 Hagers Ferry Road 990-675-5245 Metasls, COD, TKN,
KCJ 248 Hunteraville, NC 28078 Nitrate -nitrite, TP, Oil
Grease, TSS, TOC, Bromide,
Sulfate, Flouride
11,ealy Lab 106 Vantage Point Dirve 003-701-9700 BOD, Fecal ColiEormColor,
u 329 West Columbia, SC 29172 Sulifide, Sulfite,
Surfactanta, Cyanide,
Phenol, Volatiles,
Semi-volatiles Acid
compounds, PCBs, Mercury
u£,, Inc. 2040 Savage Road 84]-g56-e171 Radiology
NCR 233 Charleston, SC 29417
Pace Analytical 9800 Kincey Avenue, Suite 100 :4 8-s 9092 Aawonia Nitrogen
NCR 633 Hunteraville, NC 28078
Dioxins and Furan
Cape Fear Analytical 3306 Kitty Hawk Road, Suite 120 91n.- ' 0421
an affiliate of The GEL Group Wilmington, NC 28405
NCR 065-1519-1
IX CERTIFICATION
1 car* 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
quaEBed personnel property 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 inthnnation, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate and complete. 1 am aware that there
are signfiicantpenalties far submitting false information, including the possibility of line and imprisonment for knowing violations.
A. NAME 6 OFFICIAL TITLE (type ar print)
B PHONE NO. (area code & no.)
ft=inal D. Anderson, GM III - 'lated Stati.;ns
!336) 445-0501
C SIGNATURE
D DATE SIGNED 91,2 -06
EPA Form 3510-2C. (6-96) PAGE 4 of 4

PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE IN THE UNSHADED AREAS ONLY. You may report some or all of this Information EPA I.D. NUMBER (cop),fry,nr liens I r fl'nrm !)
on separate sheets (use the same formal] instead of completing these pages. NCDO008 565 91
SEE INSTRUCTIONS.
OUTFALL NO.
V. INTAKE AND EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS (continued from page 3 of Form 2-C) Doi
PART A —You must provide the results of at least one analysis for every pollutant in this table. Complete one table for each outfall. See instructions for additional details.
3. UNITS
4, INTAKE
2. EFFLUENT
(.apecifyifblank)
(oprnrrral)
b. MAXIMUM 30 DAY VALUE
c. LONG TERM AVRG. VALUE
a. LONG TERM
a. MAXIMUM DAILY VALUE
(ifarwilahle)
(ifaladable)
AVERAGE VALUE
d. NO. OF
a. CONCEN-
Is. NO. OF
�
1. POLLUTANT
CONCENTRATION
(2) MASS
CONCENTRATION
(2) MASS
(1) CONCENTRATION
(2) MASS
ANALYSES
TRATION
b. MASS
CONCENTRATION
(2) MASS
ANALYSES
a. Biochemical Oxygen
<2
<24336
1
mg/1
lbs/d
Demand (Hilt))
b. Chemical Oxygen
<20
<243361
1
mg/1
lbs/d
Demand (COD)
c. Total Organic Carbon
3.6
43805.0
1
mg/1
lbs/d
(TOO
d. Total Suspended
<5
<60840
1
mg/1
lbs/d
Solids(7;L1j
Solids
e.Ammonia (ay M)
<0.1
<1216.8
1
mg/1
lbs/d
VALUE
VALUE
VALUE
VALUE
(,Flow
1459
1459
1459
365
MGD
N/A
g. Temperature
VALUE
VALUE
VALUE
�C
VALUE
(uiefer)
h. Temperature IVALUE
VALUE
VALUE
�C
VALUE
(srrnrnscr)
31
MINIMUM
IMUM
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
I. pH
'7 .37
r
STANDARD UNITS
PART B — Mack'X' in column 2-a for each pollutant you know or have reason to believe is present. Mark 'X" in column 2•b for each pollutant you believe to be absent. If you mark column 2a for any pollutant which is limited either
directly, or indirectly but expressly, in an effluent limitations guideline, you must provide the results of at least one analysis for that pollutant. For other pollutants for which you mark column 2a, you must provide
quantitative data or an explanation of their presence In your discharge. Complete one table for each outfall. See the instructions for additional details and requirements
2. MARK'X'
3. EFFLUENT
4. UNITS
5. INTAKE (nprrona4
1 POLLUTANT
b. MAXIMUM 30 DAY VALUE
c. LONG TERM AVRG. VALUE
a. LONG TERM AVERAGE
AND
a
b.
a. MAXIMUM DAILY VALUE
(rfaywrluhlc)
(ifaynilahlc)
VALUE
CAS NO.
BELIEVED
BELIEVED
d. NO. OF
a. CONCEN•
b. NO. OF
f I
It)
tll
It)
(�furulluhlc)
PRESENT
ABSENT
CONCENTRATION
(2) MASS
CONCENTRATION
(2) MASS
CONCENTRATION
(2) MASS
ANALYSES
TRATION
b. MASS
CONCENTRATION
(2) MASS
ANALYSES
a. Bromide
0.11
1338.5
1
Mg/1
lbs/d
(24959-67-9)
Is. Chlorine, Total
<0 . 05
<608 .4
mg/1
lbs/d
Residual
c. Color
x
<5
N/A
N/A
N/A
Std Unit
N/A
d. Fecal Coliform
X
36
N/A
N/A
N/A
CFU/100
N/A
e.Fruortda
(ts9sa-as-B)
X
0.15
1825.2
1
mg/1
lbs/d
1.Nivate-Nitrile
X
I
0.01
121.7
1
mg/1
i
lbs/d
(as M
EPA Form 3510-2C (8-90) PAGE V-1 CONTINUE ON REVERSE

ITEM V-8 CONTINUED FROM FRONT
2. MARK'X'
3. EFFLUENT
4. UNITS
5. INTAKE (optic rat)
1 POLLUTANT
b. MAXIMUM 30 DAY VALUE
c. LONG TERM AVRG. VALUE
a. LONG TERM
AND
a
b.
a. MAXIMUM DAILY VALUE
(faradahle)
(rfavadahle)
AVERAGE VALUE
CAS NO,
BELIEVED
BELIEVED
d. NO. OF
a. CONCEN-
b. NO. OF
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
fifalwrlahle)
PRESENT
ABSENT
CONCENTRATION
(2) MASS
CONCENTRATION
(2) MASS
CONCENTRATION
(2) MASS
ANALYSES
TRATION
b. MASS
CONCENTRATION
(2) MASS
ANALYSES
g. Nitrogen,
` /
Total Organic(as
X
Cl. 31
3772.1
1
mg/1
Zbs/d
N)
Grasse h. Oil and
G
Grease
X
<5
<60840
1
mg/1
Zbs/d
I Phosphorus
(as P), Total
0.014
170.4
1
mg/1
lbs/d
(T723-14.0)
J. Radioactivity
(1) Alpha, Total
x
<0.00476
N/A
NIA
N/A
1
pCi/L
N/A
(2) Beta. Total
x
<1.68
N/A
N/A
N/A
1
pCi/1
N/A
(3)Radurm,
Total
x
<0.0934
N/A
N/A
N/A
1
pCi/1
N/A
(4) Radium 226.
x
0.978
N/A
N/A
N/A
1
pCi/1
N/A
Total
k. Sulfate
9.5
115597
1
mg/1
lbs/d
(14808.79A)
1. S s'de
V
/�
<1
<12168
1
mg/1
lbs/d
m_ Sulfde
(aTyo.)
X
<2
<24336
1
mg/1
lbs/d
(1426545-3)
n. Surfactants
x
0.093
1131.6
1
mg/1
Zbs/d
o. Aluminum.
Total
X
0.102
1241.1
1
mg/1
lbs/d
(7429-90.5)
p. Barium, Total
(7440-39-3)
`
n
0.019
231.2
Z
Mg/1
lbs/d
q. Boron, Total
(7440-42-8)
X
0.072
1
mg/1
lbs/d
(7 "G-484)
r
x
<1
<12.2
1
ug/1
lbs/d
al
(7a 9-,8")
X
0.120
1460.2
1
mg/1
lbs/d
t. Magnesium,
Total
X
3.28
39911.2
1
mg/1
lbs/d
(7439.954)
u. Molybdenum,
Total
X
1.38
16.8
1
Ug/1
lbs/d
(7439-98.7)
v. Manganese,
Total
(7439.96.5)
X
0.011
133.8
1
mg/1
lbs/d
w Tin, Total
(7440.315)
x<0
. f1
<121 . 7
1
mg/1
lb5/d
x. Titanium,
Total
X
<6 .8
1
mg/1
lbs/d
(7440.32.5)
EPA Form 3510-2C (8-90) PAGE V-2 CONTINUE ON PAGE V-3

EPA I.D. NUMBER (cupyjmni keno l oft orm I) OUTFALL NUMBER
CONTINUED FROM PAGE 3 OF FORM 2-C NCDO00856591 001
PART C - If you are a primary industry and this outfall contains process wastewater, refer to Table 2c-2 in the instructions to determine which of the GCIMS fractions you must lest for Mark in column 2-a for all such GCIMS
fractions that apply to your industry and for ALL toxic metals, cyanides, and total phenols. If you are not required to mark column 2-a (secondary industries, nonprocess wastewater oultalls, and nonrequired GGMS
hactions), mark 'X' in column 2-b for each pollutant you know or have reason to believe is present. Mark 'X' in column 2-c for each pollutant you believe is absent. If you mark column 2a for any pollutant, you must
provide the results of at least one analysis for that pollutant. If you mark column 2b for any pollutant, you must provide the results of at least one analysis for that pollutant if you know or have reason to believe it will be
discharged in concentrations of 10 ppb or greater. If you mark column 2b for acrolein, acrylonitrile, 2,4 dinitrophenol, or 2-methyl-4, 6 dinitrophenol, you must provide the results of at least one analysis for each of these
pollutants which you know or have reason to believe that you discharge in concentrations of 100 ppb or greater Otherwise, for pollutants for which you mark column 2b, you must either submit at least one analysis or
briefly describe the reasons the pollutant is expected to be discharged. Note that there are 7 pages to this part; please review each carefully Complete one table (all 7 pages) for each outfall. See instructions for
additional details and requirements.
2. MARK'X'
3. EFFLUENT
4 UNITS
5. INTAKE (rip emal)
1. POLLUTANT
to. MAXIMUM 30 DAY VALUE
c. LONG TERM AVRG.
a. LONG TERM
AND
a_
q_
a. MAXIMUM DAILY VALUE
(Tar-dahle)
VALUE (rfamitahle)
AVERAGE VALUE
CAS NUMBER
TESTING
BELIEVED
BELIEVED
d. NO. OF
a. CONCEN-
b. NO. OF
{tl
(1)
{sI
fly
(rfa, dable)
REQUIRED
PRESENT
ABSENT
CONCENTRATION
(2) MASS
CONCENTRATION
(2) MASS
CONCENTRATION
(2) MASS
ANALYSES
TRATION
b. MASS
CONCENTRATION
(2) MASS
NALYSES
METALS, CYANIDE, AND TOTAL PHENOLS
I M. Antimony, Total
X
<1
<12.2
1
ug/1
lbs/d
(7440.38-0)
2M. Arsenic, Total
<1
<12.2
1
Ug/1
lbs/d
(7440-38-2)
3M. Beryllium, Total
<1
<12.2
1
Ug/1
Zbs/d
(7440-41-7)
4M. Cadmium, Total
�/
X
<p 1
<1.2
1
Ug/1
lbs/d
(7440-43-9)
SM. Chromium,
<1
<12.2
1
Ug/1
Zbs/d
Total (744047-3)
6M. Copper, Total
\/
X
<0.005
<60.8
1
mg/1
lbs/d
(7440-50-B)
7M. Lead, Total
<1
<12.2
1
ug/1
lbs/d
(7439.92-1 J
SM. Mercury. Total
<0.5
<0.006
1
rig/1
lbs/d
(7439.97-0)
9M. Nickel, Total
<1
<12.2
1
Ug/1
lbs/d
(7440-02-0)
10M.Selenium,
c1
<12.2
1
Ug/1
lbs/d
Total (778249-2)
11M. Silver, Total
<1
<12.2
1
ug/1
lbs/d
(7440-22.4)
12M.Thallium,
c0.2
<2.4
1
Ug/1
lbs/d
Total (7440-26-D)
13M. Zinc. Total
(744D-66-6)
v
0.008
97.3
1
mg/1
1bs/d
14M. Cyanide,
Total (57-12-5)
�/
/�
<0.01
121.7
1
mg/1
lbs/d
ISM. Phenols,
�/
0.0072
87.6
1
mg/1
bs/d
Total
/\
DIOXIN
2,3,7,3-Tetra-
DESCRIBE RESULTS Result- cio pgli. - Procedure for preparation, analyaia and reporting of analytical data are controleed by Cape Fear Analytical LLC
thlorodibenzo-P-
X
4CFA1 as Standard operating Procedure (SOP). The data discussed has been analyzed with CR-OA-F-002 RM 14. Flaw data reports areprxessed and
4-0 Dioxin(176")
reviewed by analyst using the TargetLynx software package.
EPA Form 3510-2C (8.90) PAGE V-3 CONTINUE ON REVERSE

CONTINUED FROM THE FRONT
2. MARK W
3. EFFLUENT
4. UNITS
5. INTAKE (oprrruraq
1 POLLUTANT
b. MAXIMUM 30 DAY VALUE
c. LONG TERM AVRG.
a. LONG TERM
AND
a
b
a
a. MAXIMUM DAILY VALUE
(farailahle)
VALUE (rfaearlahle)
AVERAGE VALUE
CAS NUMBER
TESTING
BELIEVED
BELIEVED
d. NO. OF
a. CONCEN-
{t}
(11
(1j
(1)
(rfatiaflohlc)
REOUIRED
PRESENT
ABSENT
CONCENTRATION (2) MASS
CONCENTRATION
(2) MAS5
CONCENTRATION
f2) MASS
ANALYSES
TRATION
b. MASS
CONCENTRATION
121 MASS
NALYSES
GC1MS FRACTION - VOLATILE COMPOUNDS
1V Accroiein
(107-02-8)
<5.0
<60.8
1
ug/l
lbs/d
(1071� 1e
x
<5.0
<60.8
1
ug/l
lbs/d
3V. Benzene
(71-43-2)
�/
/�
c2.0
c24.3
1
ug/1
lbs/d
4V. Bis ((
\
Ether
(542.88-1)
/X\
5V Bromoform
(75-25.2)
<2.0
<24 .3
1
ug/l
lbs/d
6V Carbon
'
Tetrachloride
X
<2.0
<24.3
1
ug/l
lbs/d
(56-23-5)
TV. Chlorobenzene
�/
c2.0
c24.3
1
ug/1
lbs/d
(108-W7)
/�
8V. Chbrodl-
\ /
bromornethane
X
<2.0
<24.3
1
ug/l
lbs/d
(124-48-1)
9V. Chloroethane
(75A0.3)
/�
x
<2.0
<24.3
i
ug/1
lbs/d
10V 2-Chloro-
- I
ethylvinylEther
X
<5.0
<60.8
1
ug/l
lbs/d
(110-75-8)
11 V. Chloroform
(67-66.3)
�/
/�
<2.0
<24.3
1
ug/l
lbs/d
12V Dichloro-
hromorneMane
<2.0
<24.3
1
ug/l
lbs/d
(75-27.4)
13V Dichloro-
difluoromethane
<2.0
<24.3
1
ug/l
lbs/d
(75-71-8)
14V.1,1-Dichloro-
ethane(75,34.3)
�/
x
<2.0
<24.3
1
ug/l
lbs/d
15V 1,2-Dichloro-
ethane (107.)6.2)
<2.0
<24.3
1
u /l
g
lbs/d
X
<2.0
<24.3
1
ug/l
lbs/d
eth lens 5.35.4
Y f 1
Prop ne (7"7 5
x
<2 . 0
<24.3
1
ug/1
lbs/d
18V 1,3.Dichloro-
\ /
propylene
X
<2.0
<24.3
1
ug/l
lbs/d
(542-75.6)
19V Ethybenzene
<2.0
<24.3
1
ug/l
lbs/d
(100.41-4)
Methyl
X
c2.0
<24.3
1
ug/l
lbs/d
Bromide (74-83-9)
Bro
21V. Methyl
<2.0
<24.3
1
ug/l
lbs/d
Chloride (74-87-3)
EPA Form 3510-2C (8-90) PAGE V4 CONTINUE ON PAGE V-5

r`nrJTINI wn mnm PAr.P V_A
2. MARK'X'
3. EFFLUENT
4. UNITS
5. INTAKE (opli nral)
1 POLLUTANT
b. MAXIMUM 30 DAY VALUE
c. LONG TERM AVRG.
a. LONG TERM
AND
a.
b.
r:
a. MAXIMUM DAILY VALUE
(rfaradahle)
VALUE (rfaradahle)
AVERAGE VALUE
CAB NUMBER
TESTING
BELIEVED
BELIEVED
d. NO. OF
a. CONCEN-
b. NO. OF
III
01
(tl
{ll
(rfararlahlr)
REQUIRED
PRESENT
ABSENT
CONCENTRATION
(21 MASS
CONCENTRATION
(21 MASS
CONCENTRATION (2►MASS
ANALYSES
TRATION
b. MASS
CONCENTRATION
(2)MASS
NALYSES
GClMS FRACTION - VOLATILE COMPOUNDS (c arramcd
22V Methylene
<2.0
<24.3
1
ug/1
lbs/d
Chloride (75-09-2)
23V 1,1.2,2-
Tetrachbmethane
x
<2.0
<24.3
1
ug/1
lbs/d
79.34-5
24V Tetrachbro-
<2.0
<24.3
1
ug/1
lbs/d
ethylene (127-18-4)
25V Toluene
<2.0
<24.3
1
ug/1
lbs/d
4108-68-3)
26V 1,2-Trans-
Dichlomethylene
x
<2.0
<24.3
1
ug/1
lbs/d
156 60 5
27V 11,1-Trichlaro-
c2.0
<24.3
1
ug/1
lbs/d
ethane (71-55-6)
28V 1.1,2-Trirhbro-
X
<2.0
<24.3
Z
ug/1
lbs/d
ethane (79-a0-5)
29V Trichbro-
<2.0
<24.3
1
ug/1
lbs/d
ethylene (79-01-6)
30V Trichloro-
` ,
euoromethene
X
<2.0
<24.3
1
ug/1
lbs/d
7"9-4
' `
31V Vinyl Chloride
<2.0
<24.3
1
ug/1
lbs/d
(75-01-4)
GCIMS FRACTION -ACID COMPOUNDS
IA.2-Chlamphenol
<1 , 6
<19 . 5
1
ug/1
lbs/d
(95-57-8)
2A.2.4-Dichloro-
<1.6
<19.5
1
ug/1
lbs/d
phenol(120.83-2)
3A.2,4-Dimethyl-
<1.6
<19.5
1
ug/1
lbs/d
phenol(105.67-9)
4A. 4 6-Dinftro-0-
X
<8.0
<97.3
1
ug/1
lbs/d
Cresol (534-62-1)
SA.2,4-Dinkro-
x
<8.0
<97.3
1
ug/1
ibs/d
phenol151-28-5}
6A.2-Nitmphenol
c3.2
c38.9
1
ug/1
lbs/d
(88-75.5)
7A.4-Nitrophenol
<8 , 0
<97.3
1
ug/1
1bs/d
(100.02-7)
BA.P-Chbro-M-
<1.6
<19.5
1
ug/1
lbs/d
Cresol(59-50-7)
9A. Pentachloro-
X
< 8 . 0
<97.3
1
ug/1
lbs/d
phenol (87-86-5)
10A l
x
<1.6
<19.5
1
ug/1
lbs/d
(1ae-95-2)
95•z�
/�
I1A.2,4,6-Trirhbm-
X
<1.6
<19.5
1
ug/1
lbs/d
r
phenol (88-05-2)1
EPA Form 3510-2C (8-90) PAGE V-5 CONTINUE ON REVERSE

CONTINUED FROM THE FRONT
2. MARK'X'
3. EFFLUENT
4. UNITS
5. INTAKE (aptumal)
1 POLLUTANT
b. MAXIMUM 30 DAY VALUE
c. LONG TERM AVRG.
a. LONG TERM
AND
a
b
a MAXIMUM DAILY VALUE
(If-wilahle)
VALUE (faimrlahle)
AVERAGE VALUE
CAS NUMBER
TESTING
BELIEVED
BEI IEVED
d. NO. OF
a. CONCEN-
b. NO OF
(1)
(1)
(1)
j11
(rfavarlahle)
REOUIRED
PRESENT
ABSENT
CONCENTRATION
(2) MASS
CONCENTRATION
(2) MASS
CONCENTRATION (21 MASS
ANALYSES
TRATION
b. MASS
CONCENTRATION
(2) MASS
ANALYSES
GC/MS FRACTION - BASE(NI=UTRAL COMPOUNDS
IB.Acenaphthene
<1,6
<19.5
1
ug/1
lbs/d
(83-32-9)
2B. Acenaphtylene
�/
<1.6
<19.5
1
ug/1
lbs/d
(20a-Va-a)
/�
(z Anth7`cene
<1.6
<19 , 5
1
ug/i
lbs/d
2-87 $zidine
c8.0
<97.3
1
ug/1
lbs/d
5B. Benzo (a)
Anthracene
X
<1.6
<19.5
1
ug/1
lbs/d
(66-55-3)
X
c? .6
<19-5
1
ug/1
lbs/d
5D-3zo
Pyrene60.
Pyrene (StY32-B)
7B. 3.4-Senzo-
fluoranlhens
: 1 . G
<19. 5
1
ug/1
lbs/d
(zo5 99 z1
BB. Benzo (ghri
Perylene (191-24-2)
c 1.5
c 19.5
1
u 1
g/
lbs d
/
9B. Benzo (1)
Fluoranthene
X
<1.6
<19.5
1
ug/1
lbs/d
{207-08-9}
10B. Bis {Id'Jth,n}
rr1Ha7)Methane
�(
<1.6
<19.5
1
ug/1
lbs/d
(111-91-11
, `
118, Sis (24'hlun�
esh).4Ether
X
<1.6
19.5
1
ug/1
lbs/d
4111-44-4)
12B Bis (2-
Cidomi vipn.-;�) e^
Ether (1024M-1)
13B. Bis (24 rinf-
Oiwrj•nPhlhalate
X
<1.6
<19.6
1
ug/1
lbsid
(117-81-7)
148.4-Bromophenyl
Phenyl Ether
<1.6
<19.5
1
ug/1
lbs/d
(101-55-3)
15B. Bu4i Benzyl
<1 . 6
<19 . 5
1
u 1
g/
lbs/d
Phthalate (85.68-7)
16B.2-ChWo-
naphthalene
X
c1.6
<19.5
1
ug/1
lbs/d
(91-53-7)
17B. 4-Chbro-
phenyl Phenyl Ether
<1.6
<19.5
1
ug/1
lbs/d
(7005-72-3)
18B.Chrymne
(218-01-9)
<1.6
<19.5
1
ug/1
lbs/d
19B. Dibenzo (a.h)
Anlhracene
<1.6
<19.5
1
ug/1
lbs/d
(53-70-3)
208.1.2-Dichiaro-
benzene195.50-1)
<1.6
<19.5
1
u 1
g/
lbs d
/
21B.1,3-Dkbloro
benzene (541-73-1)
c.
16
<.
195
1
u 1
g/
lbs d /
EPA Form 3510.2C (8.90) PAGE V-6 CONTINUE ON PAGE V-7

- 2. MARK W
3. EFFLUENT
4 UNITS
5. INTAKE (olnomwl)
1 POLLUTANT
b. MAXIMUM 30 DAY VALUE
c. LONG TERM AVRG.
a. LONGTERM
AND
a.
b.
a
a. MAXIMUM DAILY VALUE
(rjarwrluhle)
VALUE (ifaraduhle)
d. NO. OF
a CONCEN-
AVERAGE VALUE
b NO OF
(1y
CONCENTRATION
(21 MASS
(1)
CONCENTRATION
(2) MASS
(1)
CONCENTRATION
121 MASS
{11
CONCENTRATION
(2} h1A55
CAS NUMBER
{rfurwiluhlc)
TESTING
REQUIRED
BELIEVED
PRESENT
BELIEVED
ABSENT
ANALYSES
TRATION
b, MASS
ANALYSES
GC/MS FRACTION - BASEINEUTRAL COMPOUNDS (corrunncA
228.1.4-Dlchloro-
<1.6
<19.5
1
ug/1
lbs/d
benzene(106-46-7)
23B.3,3-Dichloro•
<8.0
<97.3
1
ug/1
lbs/d
benzidine (91.94-1)
248,Diethyl
Phthalate (B4.66-2)
v
el.6
<19.5
1
ug/1
lbs/d
258. pimethyl
Phthalate
<1.6
c19.5
ug/1
lbs/d
(131 -11-3)
268,DI-N-Butyl
�/
x
<1.6
<19.5
ug/1
lbs/d
Phthalate (64-74.2j
278.2,4-Dinitro-
<3.2
<38.9
1
ug/1
lbs/d
toluene (121-14-2)
28B.2,6-Dinitro-
<3.2
<38.9
1
ug/1
lbs/d
toluene (606-20.2)
29B.DI-N-Odyl
\/
x
<1.6
<19.5
1
ug/1
Zbs/d
Phthalate (117-8")
308. 1,2-Diphenyt-
hydrazine (asAza-
X
<1 , 6
<19.5
Z
ug/1
lbs/d
benzene)(122-66.7)
3 18, Fluoranthene
v
<1.6
<19.5
1
ug/1
Zbs/d
(206-44-0)
32B. Fluorene
<1
<19.5
1
ug/1
Zbs/d
(66.73-7)
.6
338, achkmD-
x
c1.6
<19.5
1
ug/1
Zbs/d
benzen (118-74
benzene (1 i 6-741)
/\
348 kexachWo-
v
<1.6
<19.5
1
ug/1
lbs/d
butadiene (87.66-3)
35B. Hexachloro-
cyclopentadlene
<1.6
<19.5
1
ug/1
Zbs/d
(77-47.4)
36BHexachlom-
<8.0
<97.3
1
ug/1
lbs/d
ethane (67-72-1)
(1,2,3-coPyrene
c1.6
t19.5
1
ug/1
lbs/d
(193-39.5)
38B.Isophorone
v
<1.6
<19.5
1
ug/1
lbs/d
(7B 5s t)
39B. Naphthalene
�/
x
<1.6
<19 5
1
ug/1
lbs/d
(91-�)
45-95-3) robenzene
x
c1.6
<19.5
1
ug/1
Zbs/d
(96-95-
418. N•Nilro
sodimethylamine
- I
<1.6
<19.5
1
ug/1
lbs/d
(62a5 9)
,�(`
423, N-Nitrosodi
N-Propylamine
X
<1.6
<19.5
1
ug/1
lbs/d
(621-64-7)
EPA Farm 3510.2C (8-90) PAGE V-7 CONTINUE ON REVERSE

CONTINUED FROM THE FRONT
2. MARK'X'
3. EFFLUENT
4. UNITS
5. INTAKE (optional)
1. POLLUTANT
b. MAXIMUM 30 DAY VALUE
c. LONG TERM AVRG.
a. LONGTERM
AND
a.
b.
a
a. MAXIMUM DAILY VALUE
(+furuNuble)
VALUE (rfarurlable)
AVERAGE VALUE
CAS NUMBER
TESTtNG
BELIEVED
BELIEVED
d. NO OF
a. CONCEN-
b. NO OF
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(rfmwilahlc)
REQUIRED
PRESENT
ABSENT
CONCENTRATION
(2) MASS
CONCENTRATION
(2J MASS
CONCENTRATION
(2} MASS
ANALYSES
TRATION
b. MASS
CONCENTRATION
(2) MA55ANALYSES
GC/MS FRACTION — BASEINEUTRAL COMPOUNDS {ernninned)
438. N-Nitro-
sodiphenylamehe
<1.6
<19.5
1
ug/l
lbs/d
186.30.6)
a.Phenenthrene
<1,6
<19.5
1
ug/l
lbs/d
�12 9*M)e
X
1 <1.6
<19.5
1
ug/l
lbs/d
B. 1,2,4-Tri-
4(120-
chk46
benzene
<1. 5
<19 . 5
1
ug/1
lbs/d
120-82-1)
GCIMS FRACTION —PESTICIDES
1P. Aldrin
(309-00-2)
2P. a-BHC
(319.84.6)
3P I)-BHC
(319.85-7)
4P. r-BHC
(SB-89.9}
5P. &BHC
(319.86-8)
6P. Chlordane
(57-74.9)
7P 4,4'-DDT
(50-29-3)
OP 4,4'-DDE
(72.55-9)
9P 4,4'-DDD
(72-54-8)
10P. DfeNdn
(60.57-1)
11P. a-Enosulfan
(115-29-7)
12P. p-Endosuflan
(115-29-7}
13P. Endosulfan
Sulfate
(1031.07-8)
14P Endrin
(72-20-8)
15P Endrin
Aldehyde
(7421-93-4)
16P Heptachlor
(76.44.8)
EPA Form 3510-2C (8-90) PAGE V-8 CONTINUE ON PAGE V-9

EPA I.D. NUMBER (cfjp),f+*)m llem l iflvrm 1) OUTFALL NUMBER
CONTINUED FROM PAGE V-8 NCDO00856591 001
2. MARK *X'
3. EFFLUENT
4. UNITS
S. INTAKE (oprmnul)
1. POLLUTANT
b. MAXIMUM 30 DAY VALUE
c. LONG TERM AVRG.
a. LONG TERM
AND
a.
b.
c
a. MAXIMUM DAILY VALUE
(facw+lahle)
VALUE (fa+wdahle)
IANALYSES
AVERAGE VALUE
CAS NUMBER
TESTING
BELIEVED
BELIEVED
d. NO. OF
a. CONCEN-
(1)
{,�
(1)
(faswrlahle)
REQUIRED
PRESENT
ABSENT
CONCENTRATION
(2) MASS
CONCENTRA7ION (2) MASS
CONCENTRATION
(2) MASS
TRATION
b. MASS
CONCENTRATION (2) MASS
NALYSES
GC1MS FRACTION — PESTICIDES (ranuuued)
17P. Heptachlor
Epoxide
(1024-57-31
18P PCB•1242
X
<0.4
<4.9
1
ug/l
lbs/d
(53469.21-9)
P-69.1) 4
x
<0.4
<4.9
1
ug/l
lbs/d
11
20P PCB-1221
<0.4
<4
1
ug/l
lbs/d
(11104-25-2)
.9
21P PCB-1232
{11141-16.5)
<0.4
<4.9
1
u 1
J/
lbs/d
22P PCB-1248
(12672-29-6)
X
eO.4
<4.9
1
u 1
g/
lbS/d
23P PCB-1260
(11096-82-5)
a0.4
<4.9
1
ug/l
lbs/d
24P. PCB-1016
(12674-11-2)
<0,4
<4.9
Z
ug/1
lbs/d
25P.Toxaphene
(8001-35.2)
EPA Farm 3510-2C (8-90) PAGE V-9

PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE IN THE UNSHADED AREAS ONLY You may report some or all of this information EPA I.D. NUMBER (cop)-fnmi Item I rfFornr 1)
on separate sheets (use the same formal) instead of completing these pages. NCD0008565 91
SEE INSTRUCTIONS, I i
OUTFALL NO.
V INTAKE AND EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS (continued from page 3 of Form 2-C)
003
PART A —You must provide the results of at least one analysis for every pollutant in this table. Complete one table for each outran. See instructions for additional details.
3. UNITS
4. INTAKE
2. EFFLUENT
(ywof•tfblank)
(upetmal)
b. MAXIMUM 30 DAY VALUE
c. LONG TERM AVRG. VALUE
a. LONG TERM
a. MAXIMUM DAILY VALUE
(furwilable)
(fuinilnhlc)
AVERAGE VALUE
d. NO. OF
a. CONCEN-
b. NO. OF
tt)
1 POLLUTANT
CONCENTRATION
(2) MASS
CONCENTRATION
RATION
(2) MASS
(1) CONCENTRATION
(2) MASS
ANALYSES
TRATION
b. MASS
CONCENTRATION
(2) MASS
ANALYSES
a. Biochemical Oxygen
<2 .0
<58
1
mg/1
lbs/d
Demand (Rot))
b. Chemical Oxygen
Demand (C711))
<20
<584
1
m 1
9/
lbs/d
c. TotalOrganic Carbon
3.4
99.2
1
mg/1
lbs/d
d. Total Suspended
Solids (NN)
<5
<146
1
m 1
g/
lb5 d
/
e. Ammonia (ay N)
<0.1
<2.9
1
mg/1
lbs/d
VALUE
VALUE
VALUE
VALUE
i. Flow
3.5
9.69
5
MGD
N/A
g. Temperature
VALUE
VALUE
VALUE
VALUE
(to -tiller)
h. h. Temperature
VALUE
VALUE
VALUE
VALUE
(summer)
24
'C
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
I. pH
7.69
STANDARD UNITS
PART B — Mark'X' in column 2-a for each pollutant you know or have reason to believe is present. Mark 'X" in column 2-b for each pollutant you believe to be absent. If you mark column 2a for any pollutant which is limited either
directly, or indirectly but expressly, in an effluent limitations guideline, you must provide the results of at least one analysis for that pollutant. For other pollutants for which you mark column 2a, you must provide
quantitative data or an explanation of their presence in your discharge. Complete one table for each outfall. See the instructions for additional details and requirements.
2. MARK'X'
3. EFFLUENT
4. UNITS
5. INTAKE (oprrnnul)
1 POLLUTANT
b. MAXIMUM 30 DAY VALUE
c. LONG TERM AVRG. VALUE
a. LONG TERM AVERAGE
AND
a
b.
s. MAXIMUM DAILY VALUE
(ifamiluhlc)
(rfuiwiluhle)
VALUE
CAS NO.
BELIEVED
BELIEVED
d. NO. OF
a. CONCEN-
b. NO. OF
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(furwilablc)
PRESENT
ABSENT
CONCENTRATION
(2) MASS
CONCENTRATION
(2) MASS
CONCENTRATION
12) MASS
ANALYSES
TRATION
b. MASS
CONCENTRATION
(2) MASS
ANALYSES
a. Bromide
(24959.67-9)
4.9
143
1
mg/1
lbs/d
bb.esidChlorine, Total
�/
<0 .05
<1 . 5
1
mg/1
lbs/d
c. Color
X
<5 .0
N/A
N/A
N/A
1
Std Unit
N/A
d. Fecal Coliform
X
1
N/A
N/A
N/A
1
CFU/ 100
N/A
e. Fluoride
{16984-4a8)
0.63
18.4
1
mg/1
lbs/d
IgsteNitrile
X
<0.01
<0.29
1
mg/1
lbs/d
EPA Form 3510-2C (8-90) PAGE V-1 CONTINUE ON REVERSE

ITFIU V-R rt IMIJI IFn FRnRA FRnIJT
2. MARK'X'
3. EFFLUENT
4. UNITS
5. INTAKE (apmuural)
1. POLLUTANT
b. MAXIMUM 30 DAY VALUE
c. LONG TERM AVRG. VALUE
a. LONG TERM
AND
a
b
a. MAXIMUM DAILY VALUE
(farwmlahle)
(favailahle)
AVERAGE VALUE
CAS NO.
BELIEVED
BELIEVED
d. NO. OF
a. CONCEN-
b. NO. OF
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(farwrlahle)
PRESENT
ABSENT
CONCENTRATION
(2) MASS
CONCENTRATION
(2) MASS
CONCENTRATION
(2) MASS
ANALYSES
TRATION
b. MASS
CONCENTRATION
(2) MASS
ANALYSES
g.
Total Organic
0.42
12.3
1
mg/1
lbs/d
M
h. Oil
<5
<146
1
mg/1
lbs/d
Grease ease
G
i Phosphorus
`
(as P), Total
X
0.022
0.64
1
mg/1
lbs/d
(7723.14 0)
J. Radioactivity
(1) Alpha, Total
x
cO.702
N/A
N/A
N/A
1
pCi/L
N/A
(2)Bela, Total
x
I(].0
N/A
N/A
N/A
Z
pCi/L
N/A
(3) Radium,
X
0,639
N/A
N/A
N/A
1
pCi/L
N/A
Total
(4) Radium 226.
x
0.491
N/A
N/A
N/A
1
pCi/L
N/A
Total
k.
S
(a`.sO.) o,)
x
160
4670
1
mg/1
lbs/d
(14803-79.8)
I.Sulf-ide
(ar S)
X
c1.
<29.2
1
mg/1
lbs/d
m. Sull'iX
(aiW.Srl))
c2.
c58.4
1
mg/1
lbs/d
(14265.45.3)
n. surfactants
x
0.068
1.98
1
mg/1
lbs/d
o. Aluminum,
Toler
x
-55
1.6
1
mg/1
lbs/d
(7429.90.5)
p. Barium Total
(7440-39-3)
`
n
0.102
2.98
1
mg/1
lbs/d
(744r��otal
x
256.6
1
mg/1
lbs/d
r.Cobah.Total
x
1.62
0.047
1
ug/1
Zbs/d
17440-484)
s. Iron. Total
0.032
0.93
1
mg/1
lbs/d
(7439-89-8)
t, Magnesium,
Total
X
46.5
1357.3
1
mg/1
lbs/d
(7439.95-4)
u. Molybdenum.
Total
x
94
1.28
Z
ug/1
lbs/d
(7439.98-7)
v. Manganese,
Total
X
0.236
6.9
1
mg/1
lbs/d
(7439.96-5)
w Tin, Total
(7440-31.5)
<0 .O1
<0 .3
1
mg/1
lbs/d
x. Titanium,
Total
X
c0.005
c0.15
1
mg/1
lbs/d
(744tx32.6)
EPA Form 3510-2C (8-90) PAGE V-2 CONTINUE ON PAGE V-3

EPA I.D. NUMBER (rapyfrt)m item I off-orm 1) OUTFALL NUMBER
CONTINUED FROM PAGE 3 OF FORM 2-C NCDO00856591 003
PART C - If you are a primary Industry and this outfall contains process wastewater, refer to Table 2o-2 in the instructions to determine which of the GCIMS fractions you must test for. Mark *X' in column 2-a for all such GCIMS
fractions that apply to your industry and for ALL toxic metals, cyanides, and total phenols. If you are not required to mark column 2-a (secondary industries, nonprocess wastewater outtatls, and nonrequired GC/MS
fractions), mark 'X' in column 2-b for each pollutant you know or have reason to believe is present. Mark 'X' in column 2-c for each pollutant you believe is absent. It you mark column 2a for any pollutant, you must
provide the results of at least one analysis for that pollutant. If you mark column 2b for any pollutant, you must provide the results of at least one analysis for that pollutant if you know or have reason to believe it wilt be
discharged in concentrations of 10 ppb or greater. If you mark column 2b for acrolem, acrylonitrde, 2.4 dinitrophenol, or 2-methyl4, 6 dinitrophenot, you must provide the results of at least one analysis for each of these
pollutants which you know or have reason to believe that you discharge in concentrations of 100 ppb or greater Otherwise, for pollutants for which you mark column 2b, you must either submit at least one analysis or
briefly describe the reasons the pollutant is expected to be discharged Note that there are 7 pages to this part; please review each carefully Complete one table (all 7 pages) for each outfall See instructions for
additional details and requirements
2. MARK 'X'
3 EFFLUENT
4. UNITS
5. INTAKE (nptional)
1 POLLUTANT
b MAXIMUM 30 DAY VALUE
c. LONG TERM AVRG.
a. LONGTERM
AND
a
b
c
a. MAXIMUM DAILY VALUE
(rfurailahle-)
VALUE (rfarvnlahle)
AVERAGE VALUE
CAS NUMBER
TESTING
BELIEVED
BELIEVER
d. NO, OF
a CONCEN-
b, NO OF
0)
fit)
4t]
11]
( at-adahle)
REQUIRED
PRESENT
ABSENT
CONCENTRATION
12 MASS
CONCENTRATION
(21 MASS
CONCENTRATION
{26 MA55
ANALYSES
TRATION
b. MASS
CONCENTRATION
{21 MASS
ANALYSES
METALS, CYANIDE, AND TOTAL PHENOLS
I Antxnony,Total
X
<1
<0.03
1
Ug/1
lbs/d
(7440.36-0)
2M. Arsenic, Total
2.95
0.086
1
ug/1
lbs /d
(7440.38.2)
3M. Beryllium, Total
<1
<0.03
1
ug/1
lbs/d
(7440.41-7)
4M. Cadmium, Total
0.309
0.009
1
ug/1
lbs/d
(7440-43-9)
5M. Chromium,
<1
<0.03
1
u 1
g/
lbs/d
Total (70"M 7-3)
6M.CCor.Total
<0.005
<0.001
1
mg/1
lbs/d
7Lead, Total
X
<1
<0.03
1
ug/1
lbs/d
(7439-92439.92-1)
8M. Mercury. Total
0.938
.00003
1
ng/1
lbs/d
(7439-97-6)
9M. Nickel, Total
9.89
0.289
1
ug/1
1bs/d
(7440-02-0)
10M. Selenium,
9.47
0 . 276
1
ug/1
lbs/ d
Total (7782-49.2)
11 M. Silver, Total
�/
X
<1
<0.03
1
ug/1
lbs/d
(7440-22-4)
12M. Thallium,
1.24
0.036
1
u 1
g/
lbs d
/
Total (7440-28-0)
(7440.886.6) Total
X0.013
0.38
1
Mg/1
lbs/d
14M. Cyanide,
Total (57-12-5)
X
<0.01
<0.29
1
m 1
g/
lbs d
/
Total Phenols,
0.0073
0.21
1
mg/1
lbs/d
DIOXIN
2,3,7,8-Tetra-
DESCRIBE RESULTS Result- <10 pg/L - Procedure for preparation, analysis and reporting of analytical data are controleed by Cape Fear Analytical LWchlorodibenzo-P-
X
(CFAr as Standard Operating Procedure {SOP). The data discussed has been analyzed with CR-oA-F-002 REV* 14 Raw data reports areprocessed and
Dioxin (1764.01-6)
reviewed by analyst using the TargetLynx software package
EPA Form 3510.2C (8-90) PAGE V-3 CONTINUE ON REVERSE

CONTINUED FROM THE FRONT
2. MARK'X'
3. EFFLUENT
4. UNITS
5. INTAKE (quaural)
1 POLLUTANT
b. MAXIMUM 30 DAY VALUE
c. LONG TERM AVRG.
a. LONGTERM
AND
a_
b.
C.
a. MAXIMUM DAILY VALUE
(rfavarlahle)
VALUE (rfavarlahle)
AVERAGE VALUE
CAS NUMBER
TESTING
BELIEVED
BELIEVED
d. NO. OF
a. CONCEN-
b. NO. OF
(1)
(1)
{i)
(1)
(rfaradahle)
REQUIRED
PRESENT
ASSENT
CONCENTRATION (2) MASS
CONCENTRATION
(2) MASS
CONCENTRATION
(2) MASS
ANALYSES
TRATION
b. MASS
CONCENTRATION
(2) MASS
ANALYSES
GClMS FRACTION - VOLATILE COMPOUNDS
1V Accaolsin
<5.0
<0.15
1
ug/1
lbs/d
(107-02.8)
2V AcrAmibile
<5.0
<0.15
1
ug/1
lbs/d
(107-13-1)
3V. Benzene
(71-43-2)
<2.0
<0.06
1
ug/1
lbs/d
4V. Sis (Cldarw
` ,
mrdlnf) Ether
X
1
(542.88.1)
5V Bromoform
<2.0
<0.06
1
ug/1
lbs/d
(75-25-2}
Carbon
Tet
TeVadrloride
X
<2.0
<a . as
1
ug/1
lbs/a
(56.23.5)
Chlorobenzene
X
<2.0
<0.06
1
ug/1
lbs/d
(1
8V Chlorodi-
\ /
bromomethane
x
<2.0
<0.06
1
ug/1
lbs/d
(124-48-1)
9V Chlorcethane
�/
<2.0
<0.06
1
ug/1
lbs/d
(75.00-3)
/�
10V. 2-Chloro-
ethylvinylEther
X
<5.0
<0.15
1
ug/1
lbs/d
(110-75.8)
Chloroform
67-
(67-6fr3)
j� V
<2.0
<0.06
1
ug/1
lbs/d
12V. Dichloro-
bromarnethane
<2.0
<0.06
1
ug/1
lbs/d
(75.27-4)
13V. Dichkwo-
'
dilluoromelhane
X
<2.0
<0.06
1
ug/1
lbs/d
(75-71.8)
14V.1,1-Oichloro-
<2.0
<0.06
1
ug/1
lbs/d
ethane (75-34-3}
15V.1,2-Dichloro
�/
<2 0
<0.06
Z
ug/1
lbs/d
ethane (107-06-2)
/�
•
16V 1,1-Dichtoro-
<2.0
<0.06
1
ug/1
lbs/d
ethylene (75-35a1)
1,loro-
X
<2.0
<0.06
1
ug/1
lbs/d
pro(78-67-5)
propane (7&
i8V 1,3-0ichtaro-
pmpylene
X
<2.0
<0.06
1
ug/1
lbs/d
(542-75-6)
19V. Elhylbenzene
X
<2.0
<0.06
1
ug/1
lbs/d
(100-41-4)
20V. Methyl
x
<2 0
<0.06
1
ug/1
lbs/d
Bromide (74.83-9)
21V. Methyl
<2.0
<0.06
1
ug/1
lbs/d
Chloride (74-a7-3)
EPA Form 3510-2C (8-9D) PAGE V4 CONTINUE ON PAGE V-5

CONTINUED FROM PAGE V4
2. MARK •X'
3, EFFLUENT
4. UNITS
5. INTAKE (oplitmal)
1 POLLUTANT
b. MAXIMUM 30 DAY VALUE
c. LONG TERM AVRG.
a. LONG TERM
AND
a.
b.
C.
a. MAXIMUM DAILY VALUE
(ifamlahle)
VALUE (+farTNlahle)
AVERAGE VALUE
CAS NUMBER
TESTING
BELIEVED
BELIEVED
d. NO OF
a. CDNCEN-
b NO, OF
JANALYSES
(jarurlahlc)
REQUIRED
PRESENT
ABSENT
CONCENTRATION
{2) MASS
CONCENTRATION
{2) MASS
CONCENTRATION
(2) MASS
ANALYSES
TRATION
b. MASS
CONCENITRATION (2) MASS
GC/MS FRACTION - VOLATILE COMPOUNDS (rrmrmr+e+n
22V Methylene
<2.0
<0.06
1
ug/1
lbs/d
Chloride (7549.2)
23V 1,1,2,2-
Tetrachlo thane
X
<2.0
<0.06
1
ug/1
lbs/d
79-34-5
24V. Tetrachtaro-
i
<2.0
<0.06
1
ug/1
lbs/d
ethylene (127-18-d)
25V Toluene
X
<2.0
<0.06
1
ug/1
lbs/d
(10"a 3)
26V 1,2-Trans-
Dichlomethylene
X
<2.0
<0.06
1
ug 1
lbsld
15B GO S
2thane(1-Trk)
x
<2.0
<0.06
1
ug/1
lbs/d
elhena {71-55�8y
/�
28V 1,1,2-Trichbro-
<2.0
<0.06
1
ug/1
lbs/d
ethane (79-00-5)
29VTrk:hloro-
ethylene (79-01-6)
<2.0
<0.06
1
u 1
g/
lbs d
/
30V Trichbra
nuoromethane
X
<2.0
<0.06
1
ug/1
lbs/d
75 69 4
31V VinylChbride
x
<2.0
<0.06
1
ug/1
lbs/d
(75A1-4)
/\
GC1MS FRACTION - ACID COMPOUNDS
IA. 2- hllomphenol
<1.6
<0.05
1
ug/1
lbs/d
X
a1.6
<0.05
1
ug/1
lbs/d
pheno (120.8)
3A.2,4-Dtmethyl-
<1.6
<0.05
1
ug/1
lbs/d
phenol (105-67-9)
4A.4 6-Dmitro-0-
<B , 0
<0.23
1
u 1
g/
lbs d
/
Cresol(534-52-1)
5A.2,4-Dinitro-
<8,0
<0.23
1
ug/1
lbs/d
phenol151-28-5)
6A.2-Nitmphenol
<3.2
<0.09
1
ug/1
lbs/d
(88-75.5)
7100-02-7) trophenol
V
<g , 0
<0.23
1
ug/1
lbs/d
(100.02
BA.
X
<1.6
<0.05
1
ug/1
lbs/d
oll(5950-7)
Cresol (59.50-7J
9A.Pentachloro-
�(
<8.0
<0.23
1
ug/1
lbs/d
phenol (87.86.5)
10A.Phenol
(108-95.2)
X
<1.6
<0.05
1
ug/1
lbs/d
11A,2,4,6-Tridrlaro-
�/
<1.6
<0.05
1
ug/1
lbs/d
phenol (68-OS2)
/�
EPA Form 3510-2C (8-90) PAGE V-5 CONTINUE ON REVERSE

MNTIN"m FRn U T14F FRnNT
2. MARK'X'
3. EFFLUENT
4. UNITS
5. INTAKE (ulmanul)
1. POLLUTANT
b. MAXIMUM 30 DAY VALUE
c. LONG TERM AVRG.
a. LONG TERM
AND
a
b
a. MAXIMUM DAILY VALUE
(ifavarlahle)
VALUE (Ifara+lahle)
AVERAGE VALUE
CAS NUMBER
TESTING
BELIEVED
BELIEVED
d. NO. OF
a. CONCEN-
b. NO. OF
(t)
It}
{1)
{1}
(iforailahle)
REQUIRED
PRESENT
ABSENT
CONCENTRATION
{2) MASS
CONCENTRATION
(2) MASS
CONCENTRATION
(2) MASS
ANALYSES
TRATION
b_ MASS
CONCENTRATION
(2) MASS
NALYSES
GC1MS FRACTION - BASEINEUTRAL COMPOUNDS
18,Acenaphthene
<1.6
<0.05
1
ug/l
lbs/d
(83.32-9)
28,Acenaphtylene
<1.6
<0.05
1
ug/l
lbs/d
(2W96-B)
3B.Anthracene
v
<1.6
<0.05
1
ug/l
lbs/d
(120-12-7)
4B. Benzidine
X
<8
<0
1
ug/l
lbs/d
(92-87-5)
.0
.23
50, Senzo (a)
Anthracene
<1.6
<0.05
1
ug/l
lbs/d
(56-55-3)
6B.Benzo(a)
<1.6
<0.05
1
ug/l
lbs/d
Pyrene (50.32-e)
78. 3,4-Senzo-
0uoranthene
<1.6
<0.05
1
ug/l
lbs/d
(205.99.2)
BB. Benzo(ghr)
<1.6
<0.05
1
ug/l
lbs/d
Perylene (191-24-2)
98. Benzo (1)
Flumanthene
X
<1.6
<0.05
1
ug/l
ibs/d
(207-)B-g)
10B. 813 (24'hlarrr
rrhim))Methane
<1.6
<0.05
1
ug/l
lbs/d
(111-91-1J
11B. Bis (2-Chlnh�
edg!)Ether
<1.6
<0.05
1
ug/l
lbs/d
(111 44 4)
12B. Bis (7-
CljlanrnanmP3'l)
Ether(1o2.80.1}
13B. Bis (2411p)f-
lwxyl)Phthalate
�(
<1.6
<0.05
1
ug/l
lbs/d
(117-81-7)
' `
14B. 4-Bromophenyl
Phenyl Ether
<1.6
<0.05
1
ug l
lbs/d
(101-55-3)
15B. Butyl Benzyl
V
<1.6
<0.05
1
ug/l
ibs/d
Phthalate (85.68-7)
168. 2-Chlaro-
naphthalene
<1.6
<0.05
1
ug/l
lbs/d
(91-58-7)
178. 4-Chloro-
phenyl Phenyl Ether
<1.6
<0.05
1
ug/l
lbs'd
(7005-72-3)
18B. Chrysene
<1.6
<0.05
1
ug/l
lbs/d
(218-01-9)
198, Dibenzo (µh)
Anthracene
<1.6
<0.05
1
ug/1
lbs/d
(53.70-3)
20B.1.2-13ichbru-
<1.6
<0.05
1
ug/l
lbs/d
benzene (95-50-1)
218.1.3-DkAlaro-
<1.6
<0.05
1
ug/1
lbs/d
benzene (541-73 1)
EPA Form 3510-2C (8-90) PAGE V-6 CONTINUE ON PAGE V-7

CONTINUED FROM PAGE V-6
2. MARK W
3, EFFLUENT
4. UNITS
5 INTAKE (upumrol)
1 POLLUTANT
b. MAXIMUM 30 DAY VALUE
c. LONG TERM AVRG.
a. LONG TERM
AND
a
b,
c,
a. MAXIMUM DAILY VALUE
(rfarwilahlej
VALUE (efamoduble)
AVERAGE VALUE
CAS NUMBER
TESTING
BELIEVED
0WEVED
d. NO. OF
a. CONCEN-
b NO OF
(1}
{�]
(1)
{w)
(rfrnwrlahlc)
REQUIRED
PRESENT
ABSENT
CONCENTRATION
(2► MASS
CONCENTRATION
(2] MASS
COMCENTRATION
{2] MASS
ANALYSES
TRATION
b. MASS
CONCENTRATION
(2) MASS
NALYSES
GC/MS FRACTION - BASEINEUTRAL COMPOUNDS (crHrrrnrrcA
X
<1.6
<0.05
1
ug/1
lbs/d
benzene
benzene (106-48-7}
/�
23B.3,3-DichMv-
<8.0
<0.23
1
ug/1
lbs/d
benMine (91-94-1 )
240.DIethyl
Phthalate (54-66-2)
<1.6
<0.05
1
u g/ 1
lbs/d
ethyl
al
Phthalate
hth
Phthalatt e
<1.6
<0.05
1
ug/1
lbs/d
(131 -1 1-3)
26B. DI-N-Butyl
�/
x
<1.6
<0.05
1
ug/1
lbs/d
Phthalate (84-74-2)
278 2."tnKro-
<3.2
<0.09
1
ug/1
lbs/d
toluene (121-14-2)
288 2,6-Din-Vo-
v
<3
<0.09
1
ug/1
lbs/d
to4uene (606.20.2)
.2
29B Di-N-Octyl
\/
x
<1.6
<0.05
1
ug/1
lbs/d
Phthalate (117-84-0)
30B.1,2-Diphenyl-
hydrazine(asAza-
<1.6
<0.05
1
ug/1
lbs/d
benzene)(122.65.7)
319. Fkroranthene
<1.6
<0 05
1
ug/1
lbs/d
(205 44-0)
.
328.
x/
<1.6
<0.05
1
ug/1
lbs/d
6_73.7)
(86-73.7j
/�
33B. Hexachlaro
<1.6
<0.05
I
ug/1
lbs/d
benzenejll&74-1)
345. Hexachloro-
<1.6
<0.05
1
ug/1
lbs/d
butadlene (87-68-3)
358. Hexachkxo-
cyclopentediene
<8.0
<0.23
1
ug/1
lbs/d
(77.47.4)
36ans(67-72-1) hloro-
X
<1.6
<0.05
1
ug/1
lbs/d
ethane (67
37B.Indeno
(i,2,3-cMPyrene
<1.6
<0.05
1
ug/1
lbs/d
(193.39-5)
36B.Isophorone
<1.6
<0.05
1
ug/1
lbs/d
(78-59-1)
39B.Naphthalene
<1.6
<0.05
1
ug/1
lbs/d
(91-20-3)
40B.NItmbenzene
<1.6
<0.05
1
ug/i
lbs/d
(96-95-3)
swim N-Nethyo
sodimethylamine
<1.6
<0.05
1
ug/1
lbs/d
(62-75-9)
42B. N-Nitrosod]-
N-Propylamine
c1.6
<0.05
Z
ug/1
lbs/d
(621-64.7)
EPA Form 3510-2C (8-90) PAGE V-7 CONTINUE ON REVERSE

CONTINUED FROM THE FRONT
2. MARK'X'
3. EFFLUENT
4. UNITS
5. INTAKE (npurman
1 POLLUTANT
b. MAXIMUM 30 DAY VALUE
C. LONG TERM AVRG.
a. LONG TERM
AND
a.
b.
C
a, MAXIMUM DAILY VALUE
(rfarnduhle)
VALUE (ifurrrrluhlr)
AVERAGE VALUE
CAS NUMBER
TESTING
BELIEVED
BELIEVED
d. NO. OF
a. CONCEN-
b NO OF
(1)
(1)
{i1
III
(rfumluhlc)
REQUIRED
PRESENT
ABSENT
CONCENTRATION
(2) MASS
CONCENTRATION
(2) MASS
CONCENTRATION (21 MASS
ANALYSES
TRATION
b. MASS
CONCENTRATION
(2) MASS
NALYSES
GCIMS FRACTION — BASEINEUTRAL COMPOUNDS (cruuinuet4
43B. N-Nitro-
sodiphenylamine
X
<1.6
<0.05
1
ug/l
1bs/d
(86 30-6)
44B. Phenanthrene
(85.01-8)
�/
^
<1.6
c0.05
1
ugjl
lbsfd
� 12s m)
X
c1.6
<0.05
3
ug/l
lbs/d
466. 1,2,4-Tri-
chlobenz
X
<1. 6
<0.05
1
ugf 1
lbs d
(120- 2-11ene
f 120.82-1 }
GCIMS FRACTION — PESTICIDES
1P Aldrin
(309-00-2)
2P u-BHC
(319-84-6)
3P, p-BHC
(319.85.7)
4P, 1-BHC
158-89-9)
SP b-BHC
(319-86-8)
6P Chlordane
(57-74-9)
7P. 4,4'-DDT
(50.29-3)
8P 4,4'-ODE
(72.55.9)
9P 4,4'-DDD
(72-54-8)
1013 Dieldrin
(60.57-1)
11P n-Enosulfan
(115.29 7)
12P. (1•Endosultan
(115-29-7)
13P.Endosulfan
Sulfala
(103"7-6)
14P Endrin
(72-2D-8)
15P. Endnn
Aldehyde
(7421-934)
16P. Heptachlor
(7644-8)
EPA Form 3510-2C (8-90) PAGE V-B CONTINUE ON PAGE V-9

EPA I D. NUMBER (caprfrrrm lrem ! ifFarer I) OUTFALL NUMBER
NCD000856591 003
rnuTwl IFn FRn1u aar,F V.R
2. MARK'X'
3. EFFLUENT
4. UNITS
5. INTAKE (nprnsrul)
I. POLLUTANT
b. MAXIMUM 30 DAY VALUE
c. LONG TERM AVRG.
a. LONG TERM
AND
8.
b
c.
a. MAXIMUM DAILY VALUE
(rfatwrlahle)
VALUE (i/availahlc)
AVERAGE VALUE
CAS NUMBER
TESTING
BELIEVED
BELIEVED
{1j d. NO. OF
a. CONCEN-
b. NO. OF
111
f1)
(1)
(rf ulull(Ah)
REQUIRED
PRESENT
ABSENT
CONCENTRATION
R 1 MASS
CONCENTRATION
(R) MASS
CONCENTRATION (2) MASS ANALYSE$
TRATION
b MASS
CONCENTRATION
(2) MASS
NALYSES
GCIM$ FRACTION — PESTICIDES (zvnuraecal)
17P Heptachlor
EpoYrde
(1024-57-3)
18P. PCB-1242
<0.40
<0.12
1
ug/l
lbs/d
(SM69-21-9)
19P. PCB-1254
<0.40
<0. 12
1
ug/l
lbs/d
(11097-69-1)
20P PCs-1221
x
<0.40
<0.12
1
ug/l
lbs/d
(11104.28.2)
21P PCB-1232
\/
x
<0.40
<0.12
1
ug/l
lbs/d
(11141-16-5)
22P. PCB-1248
(12672-29-6)
\�
x
<0.40
<0.12
1
ug/l
lbs/d
23P..PPCB-15260
I
^
<0.40
<0.12
i
ug/l
lbs/d
24P. PCB-1016
(12674-11-2)
X
<0.40
<0.12
1
u /l
g
lbs{d
25P Toxaphene
7
(8001-35-2)
EPA Form 3510-2C (8-90) PAGE V-9

Attachment 1
Site Map
August 2016 NPDES application renewal
Belews Creek Steam Station

er
rA
(i
w
'
GOP `
t
�,�' 1 • L, r `s� k
41
Basin36*1
:� !
r
002
M /A V r l
K } ,I G -n ✓ i
1
t
1) USGS7,5MimAeSeries TopogralAwOuaftNb. Bebwelake(NC)
DISCHARGE LOCATION MAP
FIGURE
I$O1OB° aPjmp ap,-- 6ti�-,dwddro+l
NPDES Permit No: NC002"06
Z) Property line i t.. ation provided by Duke Energy wW its app vxmu te.
• hidcates epprmdmWe location of home ass rued to be supplied by private d"ng wager well.
(Sowm Stakes CauAy GISAonal (zone))
DUKE ENERGY
— —
BELEWS CREEK STEAM STATION
Drawn By: Chad Hearn
SCALE
STOKES COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Pr'ojed Manage►: Big Meer
ClIent Duke Energy
0 0.125 0.25 0b
Date: 05I291Y011

Attachment 2
Current and Future Waste Flow Charts
August 2016 NPDES application renewal
Belews Creek Steam Station
NCO024406

I Intake Area I
I Water Treatment I
I Ash Sluice I
Attachment 2
Form 2C — Item II -A Description of Current Waste Flows Through Facility
Station Equipment
Cooling Water
Low & High Pressure
Service Water
Condenser Cooling Water
I RCW Cooler I
aIntake Screen Backwash
3.85
Power House Sump MGD Yard Holding Sump
12
MGD
0.03
Condenser Feedwater I Chemical Holding Pond MG[
2.7
0.a5
MGD
Storm Water
Hydrogen & Oil Cooler
Belews Reservoir
System
0.08 Outfal 1001
!T
Storm Water
MGD 1218 MGD
0)
m
m
a
to
Coal Yard Sumps
Consolidated Sump
system
0.7
< 0.19
MGD
MGD
Seepage
Seepage
Ash Basin
O AUI 003 Dan
>
9 MGD River
0.019
MGD
West Holding Pump
0.7
MGD
FGD Treated
Belews Creek Steam Station
August 2016-Current Flow Condition

Attachment 2
Form 2C — Item II -A Description of Future Waste Flows Through Facility
Storm Water
0.08
MGD
0.35 urn or 0.867 Station Equipment Low & High Pressure Hydrogen & Oil Cooler
Cooling Water Service Water System Belews Reservoir
Condenser Cooling Water Outfall 001
1278 MGD
RCW Cooler Storm Water
0.47
0.02 MGD
Intake Area M D Intake Screen Backwash Seepage
Existing Ash Basin
3.85 Closure
Power House Sump MGD Yard Holding Sump Consolidated Sump FGD Treated Wastewater Wastewater
system
Flows
° 14.2 Outfall 002
MGD MGD 0.7 MGD
WaterTreatment CondenserFeedwater
Water Relocate Sump I > Retention Basin
Outfall 003
6.3 MGD
Ammonia, Ash & Fuel
Coal Yard Runoff West Holding Sump Storage Runoff
0.019
0.08 MGD 0.014
MGD MGD
Coal Yard Runoff Basin Holding Basin
I Dan River I
Belews Creek Steam Station
August 2016-Future Flow Condition

Attachment 3
Narrative Description of Sources of Pollution and
Treatment Technologies
August 2016 NPDES application renewal
Belews Creek Steam Station
NCO024406

Belews Creek Steam Station, Stokes County
NPDES Permit Renewal and Reissuance
Attachment 3 — Supplemental Information
Permit #NC0024406
August 2016
Page 1 of 9
Introduction
Belews Creek Steam Station (BCSS) located in Stokes County, North Carolina, is a two -unit coal-
fired electric generating plant with a capacity of 2,220 megawatts (MW). The station began
commercial operations in 1974 with Unit 1 (1,110 MW) followed by Unit 2 (1,110 MW) in 1975.
Cooling water for BCSS is provided by Belews Reservoir, a man-made reservoir formed when Duke
Energy built the facility.
Chemical constituents contained in the discharge from the permitted outfalls will, in part, be
representative of the naturally -occurring chemical quality and quantity of the intake water and will
also have chemical constituents of such quality associated with similar discharges for fossil generating
facilities of the size, type, and in this geographical location. Either all or part of the elements in the
Periodic Table, either singularly on in any combination, may from time to time be contained in the
discharge. Plant waste streams are directly or indirectly discharged to either Belews Reservoir
(Outfall 001) or Dan River via effluent channel (Outfall 003). Each component of the discharges are
described below.
Outfall 001— Condenser Cooling Water System (CCWS)
Outfall 001 is the discharge from the Condenser Cooling Water System (CCWS) to Belews Reservoir.
Various wastewater streams combine in the CCWS prior to discharge. These flows consist of
Condenser Cooling Water (CCW), Intake Screen Backwash, Recirculated Cooling Water (RCW),
Hydrogen and Oil Coolers and Station equipment cooling water.
Condenser Cooling Water
Raw water from Belews Reservoir is passed through condensers and auxiliary equipment on a
"once -through" basis to cool equipment and condense exhaust steam from the turbines.
Cooling water passes through a network of tubes in the condenser and selected heat exchangers
(e.g. turbine lube oil coolers, condensate coolers, miscellaneous closed system coolers). Raw
water in the condenser tubes absorbs heat from a closed system of highly purified exhaust
steam from the turbines and converts it back to water. The condensed exhaust steam is returned
to the boilers and recycled in this loop a number of times. The raw cooling water is returned to
the reservoir. No chemicals are added and only heat rejected from the condensers and
auxiliary equipment is absorbed, hence the term "once through, non -contact cooling water" is
applied.
The condensers at BCSS are cleaned mechanically. Normally, amertap balls clean the tubes on
a continuous basis while the plant is operating. Periodically, metal scrapers, plastic scrapers or
rubber plugs are forced through the tubes to rid them of scale or other deposits.
Each unit at BCSS has four condenser cooling water (CCW) pumps. Normal plant operation
of the CCW pumps is based on intake and discharge temperatures and unit loads. To avoid a
system trip that would suddenly reduce the discharge flow at Outfall 001, each unit is on an
independent system. This practice leads to higher reliability factor for the units and protection
of aquatic life taking refuge in the discharge canal during cold weather.

Belews Creek Steam Station, Stokes County
NPDES Permit Renewal and Reissuance
Attachment 3 — Supplemental Information
Permit #NC0024406
August 2016
Page 2 of 9
Intake Screen Backwash
Each unit has four stationary intake screens (18 ft x 23 ft) which are removed for cleaning.
The intake screens are backwashed as needed at a rate of 500 gpm for approximately five
minutes each. The total volume of water used is 0.02 MGD. Intake screen backwash is
discharged back into the station intake. The debris removed is collected within a cleaning
basin and consists of twigs, leaves, and other material indigenous to Belews Reservoir.
Recirculated Coolinz Water (RCW) System
The RCW system is a closed loop cooling water system. Depending on the temperature of the
raw reservoir water and the operation of BCSS, once through non -contact CCW is passed
through the RCW coolers to maintain the closed loop cooling water within the RCW system at
<95°F. RCW system supplies cooling water to various equipment and is composed of a storage
tank, three 50% capacity RCW pumps, two 100% capacity heat exchangers (RCW coolers), and
associated piping and valves for the two units. Recirculated cooling water is supplied from the
CCW system to the RCW storage tank (capacity of 19,000 gallons) and makeup water is added,
as required per tank level and temperature controls. The maximum flow of CCW through each
of the two RCW coolers is 5360 gpm or 7.72 MGD. Non -contact cooling water discharged from
the RCW coolers combines with the condenser cooling water and is discharged through Outfall
001.
RCW System contains maintenance chemicals in order to prevent corrosion. The primary
chemical used in the RCW system is sodium nitrite. Microbiocides are also used at very low
concentrations. The potential exists for the RCW system to have minor tube leaks, due to
material corrosion. Tube leaks from the RCW system discharge into the CCW system, which
discharges into Belews Reservoir through Outfall 001. Routine monitoring of the RCW system
for nitrite concentrations and the inventory of make-up water provides input that assists in
determining a tube leak. Once a leak is identified, corrective measures are implemented to
minimize and repair the leak. During routine maintenance the process water from the RCW
system drains to floor drains where it is pumped to the ash basin/retention basin (Outfall 003).
During a leak and/or routine maintenance, the concentration of the maintenance chemical will
not exceed the No Observed Effect Concentrations (NOEL) at either Outfall 001 or 003.
Hydrogen and Oil Coolers
Once through non -contact cooling water is supplied from the Low Pressure Service Water
(LPSW) System that draws water from the CCW system to hydrogen and oil coolers. The
system consists of two High Pressure Generator Hydrogen Coolers (maximum combined flow
of 3,900 gpm), four Low Pressure Generator Hydrogen Coolers (maximum combined flow of
3,520 gpm), and two Turbine Lube Oil Coolers (maximum combined flow of 7,400 gpm) for
each unit. A maximum of 43 MGD of cooling water can flow through these coolers when
both BCSS units are operated at full load. Discharge from these coolers combines with the
condenser cooling water flow and discharges through Outfall 001.
Station Equipment Cooling Water
Once through non -contact cooling water is supplied from the Low and High Pressure Service
Water System to the bearings of the induced draft (ID) fans to remove excess heat. No

Belews Creek Steam Station, Stokes County
NPDES Permit Renewal and Reissuance
Attachment 3 — Supplemental Information
Permit #NC0024406
August 2016
Page 3 of 9
chemicals are added to the once through raw reservoir water discharged to Belews Reservoir.
The rate of flow through the control equipment is approximately 0.86 MGD when both BCSS
units are operated at full load. This effluent also includes chiller once through water.
Containment Flushinz/Wash Waters
Infrequently, service water (raw water from Belews Reservoir) will be used to test the integrity
of onsite containment structures and for wash water in water trucks at the landfill site. There
are no chemicals added to the service water. The water is routed back to Belews Reservoir
through some stormwater drains.
Internal Outfall 002—Treated FGD Wet Scrubber Wastewater
The Wet Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) system was installed at Belews Creek in 2008 for the
reduction of Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) from the stack gas. The FGD system follows the electrostatic
precipitators (which removes fly ash) and also the Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) systems
(which uses anhydrous ammonia for nitrogen oxide (NOx) control). The use of this equipment
entails the use of or production of: calcium sulfite, vanadium pentoxide, calcium carbonate, and
sulfur.
Sulfur Dioxide is produced from the coal combustion process. The FGD system removes SO2 by a
reaction using a limestone -water slurry. The FGD system will collect the flue gas after it passes
through the electrostatic precipitator and route the gas to the absorber tank. As the gas rises
through the tank to the outlet at the top, the gas passes through a spray header. An atomized slurry
of water and limestone droplets is continually sprayed through this header into the stream of flue
gas. The SO2 in the flue gas reacts with the calcium in the limestone and produces calcium sulfite
(CaSO3). This CaSO3 slurry falls to the bottom of the tank where a stream of air is injected to
oxidize the slurry to form gypsum (CaSO4•H20). The gypsum slurry is drawn off the absorber tank
and pumped to a hydrocyclone where solids are removed and part of the slurry is sent to a vacuum
belt filter for dewatering.
Part of the slurry is blown down primarily to keep the FGD chloride concentration below 12,000 ppm.
This waste is sent to a wastewater treatment system in order to remove solids, metals and reduce the
temperature. Initially, the wastewater is sent to an equalization tank to allow for a more constant flow
and solid loading to the next treatment steps. The wastewater from the equalization tank is pumped
through three reaction tanks where pH is adjusted, metal treatment and coagulation occurs. In the event
of a maintenance issue with the reaction tanks a bypass line will be installed to route the flow around
the reaction tanks to continue treatment further downstream of the reaction tanks. After the treatment
occurs in the reaction tanks, the wastewater is sent to two clarifiers in order to reduce the solid loading.
Once the wastewater leaves the clarifiers the pH is readjusted and the wastewater is cooled by a heat
exchanger. The treated wastewater is then pumped to a two stage biological treatment system in order
to reduce the metal concentrations. The treated wastewater is mixed with the cooling water from the
heat exchanger in order to reduce the chloride concentration. This treated wastewater is then
discharged to the ash basin/retention basin via Internal Outfall 002.
The following chemicals are utilized in the FGD wastewater treatment system: hydrated lime, ferric
chloride, polymer, hydrochloric acid, and nutrients.

Belews Creek Steam Station, Stokes County
NPDES Permit Renewal and Reissuance
Attachment 3 — Supplemental Information
Permit #NC0024406
August 2016
Page 4 of 9
To comply with Federal Steam Electric Effluent Guidelines (ELG) for FGD wastewater, an
ultrafiltation system will be added to the existing FDG wastewater system at a future timeframe.
To comply with Federal ELG guidelines for bottom ash system, there is an allowance to route the
bottom ash sluice water to FGD system. BCSS will route the bottom ash sluice water to the FGD
system at a future timeframe. Bottom ash from the boilers will be sluiced to submerged flight
conveyors, dewatered, and the ash solids will be landfilled. Ash sluicing water will be recirculated in a
closed loop system with make-up provided from service water for evaporation and water loss through
trucked transport ash moisture.
More detail on these two projects and projected timeframes can be found in attached Attachment 5 -
Alternate Steam Electric guidelines (ELG) Schedule Justification.
To comply with CAMA 2014 and Federal CCR rule, BCSS will reroute the FGD treated wastewater to
future retention basin at a future timeframe.
Outfall 003 — Ash Basin and Future Retention Basin
The ash basin accommodates flows from the power house sumps, yard holding sump, ash sluice lines,
consolidated sump, coal yard runoff basins and sumps, occasional minor hydrated lime and/or
limestone slurry system leakage, and rainfall run-off from the watershed of the basin. Seepage from the
engineered toe drains and through the dam flow to the Dan River via the existing effluent channel to
Outfall 003. This includes seepage identified in permit application amendments in July 2014, October
2014, and December 2014.
The retention basin, upon completion will accommodates flows from the power house sumps, yard
holding sump, consolidated sump, coal yard runoff basins and sumps, miscellaneous low volume
wastestreams, occasional minor hydrated lime and/or limestone slurry system leakage, and rainfall run-
off from the watershed of the basin.
Yard Holdinz Sump
Wastewater can accumulate in the yard holding sump from the power house sumps.
Power House Sumps
The Power House Sumps discharge to the yard holding sump and include wastewater from
water treatment equipment, floor wash water, equipment cooling water, low volume waste, and
miscellaneous leaks.
❖ Water Treatment System
The water treatment system consist of one retention tank, three pressure filter, two activated
carbon filters, one Reverse Osmosis (RO) system, and one set of makeup demineralizers. The
pressure filters each have a capacity of 250 gpm. The pressure filter media is composed of rock
and sand, therefore all backwash discharge to organic buildup from service water.
Makeup demineralizers are operated in sequence (one cell at a time). Regeneration of these
cells is required approximately every 40 days. Each regeneration requires 120 gallons of 66' Be
sulfuric acid and 600 gallons of 50% sodium hydroxide. As average dilute waste chemical and

Belews Creek Steam Station, Stokes County
NPDES Permit Renewal and Reissuance
Attachment 3 — Supplemental Information
Permit #NC0024406
August 2016
Page 5 of 9
rinse flow of 0.34 MGD is realized (for two hours per regeneration). The diluted acid and
caustic are discharged to the yard holding sump and then pumped to the ash basin/retention
basin. The useful life of the resin varies and when replacement is needed the spent resin is
sluiced to the basin.
The RO system is cleaned on an as needed basis using Osmonics AD-20 (275-lbs), Biomate
MBC 781 (2.5 gallons), sodium laurylsulfate (10 lbs) and sodium hydroxide (4L).
❖ Condensate Feedwater System
The condensate feedwater system provides continuous flow -through boiler feedwater to BCSS
supercritical pressure boilers. Condensate polishing demineralizers of the powdered resin type
are used to filter feedwater. The mixed anion -cation powdered resin provides filtering and ion
exchange. Spent resins and associated wastes are pumped to the ash basin/retention basin for
treatment and disposal.
❖ Evaporative Losses, Soot Blowing
Exhaust steam from the turbine is used periodically to blow soot off the outside of the boiler
tubes. Thus, some of the condensate feedwater is evaporated in the boiler.
❖ Turbine and Boiler Room Drain System
Turbine and boiler room drains receive flow from once through non -contact cooling water of the
Station air conditioning system, fire protection system, washdown, and miscellaneous Station
uses.
Station Air Conditioning
Once through non -contact cooling water is supplied from the Low Pressure Service Water
System to cool the Station air conditioning equipment. A maximum combined flow of 3.46
MGD of cooling water can flow through two chiller units. No chemicals are added to the once
through raw reservoir waste that drains to the Station sumps where it is pumped to the ash
basin/retention basin.
❖ Fire Protection, Wash down, and Miscellaneous Station Uses
The fire protection system, washdown, and miscellaneous station uses from closed system
drainage, cleaning, and testing can contain:
• Corrosion inhibitors, e.g. Calgon CS and Betz, Powerline 3201
• Biocides, e.g. Calgon H-300 and H-510
• Laboratory wastes
• Cleanings (e.g. small heat exchangers) Dispersant, e.g. polyacrylamide
• Wetting agent, e.g. disodium fluorescing dye
• Detergent, e.g. tri-sodium phosphate
• Leak testing, e.g. disodium fluorescing dye
• Miscellaneous system leakage's (small leaks from pump packing and seals, valve seals, pipe
connections)
• Moisture separators on air compressor precipitators
• Floor wash water

Belews Creek Steam Station, Stokes County
NPDES Permit Renewal and Reissuance
Attachment 3 — Supplemental Information
Permit #NC0024406
August 2016
Page 6 of 9
• Emergency firefighting water
• Ash sluice system overflow
• Low volume Wastewater
❖ Groundwater (GW) Remediation
A GW remediation system was used to recover free petroleum product that leaked from a
underground storage tank. A total fluids recovery system was used to recover contaminated
groundwater and free product from the site. Remediation system equipment was used to
remove the petroleum from the recovered groundwater, and the reclaimed petroleum was
transported off -site for treatment while the treated wastewater was discharged to the ash
basin/retention basin via the Power House sump. A maximum flow rate of approximately 0.03
MGD was discharged to the ash basin/retention basin from the groundwater remediation system.
Remediation is complete and BCSS has closed out the system under UST Requirements.
❖ Fly and Bottom Ash Sluicing
Electrostatic precipitators are used to remove fly ash from the stack gases. The ash is treated in
the flue gas ductwork with SO3 conditioning to improve removal efficiency. Typically, the dry
flyash captured in these precipitators is collected in temporary storage silos for subsequent
disposal in a permitted on -site landfill or for recycling in off -site ash utilization projects. If the
system that collect the dry -fly ash is not operating, then the fly ash can be sluiced to the ash
basin. Bottom ash form the boilers is usually water sluiced to holding cells for recycling
activities per reuse permit #WQ0007211. In the case of equipment failure or immediately
following an outage, service water is used to sluice the ash to the ash basin.
Electrostatic precipitators are normally cleaned by mechanically rapping the wires and plates
inside the precipitator. Before major precipitator work is performed they are cleaned by a wash
down. The wash water is pumped to the ash basin from the yard drain sumps.
As a contingency measure, if the levels of regulated parameters are increasing one option that
may be periodically implemented is to sluice service water (from Belews Reservoir) to the ash
basin to co -manage the various waste streams that are discharging to the ash basin.
To comply with Federal ELG guidelines for bottom ash system, there is an allowance to route
the bottom ash sluice water to FGD system. BCSS will route the bottom ash sluice water to the
FGD system at a future timeframe.
Bottom ash from the boilers will be sluiced to submerged flight conveyors, dewatered, and the
ash solids will be landfilled. Ash sluicing water will be recirculated in a closed loop system
with make-up provided from service water for evaporation and water loss through trucked
transport ash moisture.
Coal Yard Runoff Basin and Sumps
The coal yard covers approximately 51.5 acres. The average rainfall run-off is 0.08 MGD. This
run-off is based on 40 inches of rain per year with 50% run-off. During winter, freeze
conditioning agents (i.e. diethylene glycol) may be added to coal by a vendor prior to shipment
or sprayed on the coal pile to prevent freezing. Based on an application rate of two pints of 50
ppm diethylene glycol per ton of coal and 10,000 tons of coal per train load, the addition of

Belews Creek Steam Station, Stokes County
NPDES Permit Renewal and Reissuance
Attachment 3 — Supplemental Information
Permit #NC0024406
August 2016
Page 7 of 9
freezing agents will not significantly alter the coal pile run-off waste stream and the discharge
of the ash basin/retention basin at Outfall 003.
Floor wash water from equipment in the coal handling area and the remaining drainage from the
coal yard flows to the coal yard sumps where it is then pumped to the ash basin/retention basin.
An anhydrous ammonia vapor suppression system is used in case of emergency release from the
anhydrous ammonia tanks. The system is set to activate at a concentration of 300 ppm of
ammonia. During normal operations intermittent low volume discharges of ammoniated water
generated during product delivery and quarterly system testing offloading of anhydrous
ammonia is collected in two aboveground collection tanks. These tanks are refreshed by adding
water and draining tanks simultaneously until conductivity is lowered. For an emergency
situations the water is collected in the tank farm containment and then drained through the sump
into the North coal yard sump where it is pumped to the ash basin/retention basin. Service water
is pumped from Belews Reservoir.
Consolidated Sump
The consolidated sump includes wastewater from the sanitary waste system, the stormwater
collection pond, the limestone unloading facility sump and leachate from the dry fly ash and
gypsum landfills. The wastewater is pumped to a two train 18 acre Constructed Wetland
Treatment System (CWTS) prior to discharge to the ash basin/retention basin.
The sanitary waste for the plant received primary treatment in a 600,000 gallon capacity aerated
lagoon. The lagoon discharges to a concrete chlorine contact chamber. To polish the effluent,
the sanitary waste system routes a circuit of water treated with chlorine to the consolidated
sump which is routed to the ash basin/retention basin. The expected flow from the sanitary
treatment system is less than 10,000 gallons per day.
The stormwater collection pond collects stormwater run-off form the gypsum and limestone
stockpiles as well as some of the limestone track area around the unloading facility. If the
pumps for the sump fail, there is an overflow to Belews Reservoir, possibly resulting in
intermittent discharge.
There are two on -site landfills at Belews Creek, the FGD Residue landfill and the Craig Road
Ash landfill. These landfills are located southeast of the power station. The leachate and the
contact stormwater from these landfills is collected and pumped to the ash basin/retention basin.
The FGD Residue landfill accepts gypsum. The Craig Road Ash landfill stores flyash, gypsum,
that is not suitable for beneficial use and clarifier sludge from FGD wastewater treatment
system. This material is filter pressed before it is placed in the landfill. Both landfills began
operation in 2008.
Ash Basin Run-off
Natural drainage area of Ash Basin is 655 acres. Station yard drainage area pumped to the Ash
Basin is 87.6 acres. Based on forty inches of rain per year with fifty percent run-off and the
watershed area of the ash basin, the yearly average rainfall run-off to the ash basin is
approximately 0.47 MGD.

Belews Creek Steam Station, Stokes County
NPDES Permit Renewal and Reissuance
Attachment 3 — Supplemental Information
Permit #NC0024406
August 2016
Page 8 of 9
Groundwater Extraction Well System
Duke Energy is currently designing an extraction well system to provide accelerated
groundwater remediation. The extracted groundwater will be treated prior to discharge through
outfall 003. Treatment of the discharge may be provided by introducing the groundwater as a
waste stream to the ash basin/retention basin or a new direct groundwater treatment system.
Boiler and Filter Cleaninz Wastes
BCSS has two supercritical boilers that are cleaned on an as needed basis. Tube inspections are
done during outages to determine when cleaning is needed. The chemical cleaning wastes are
collected for off -site disposal by third party vendor. The chemicals and approximate amounts
for one boiler cleaning are as follows:
Chemical Amount
Hydroxyacetic Acid 50,312 lbs
Formic Acid* 20,598 lbs
Ammonium Hydroxide*(26°Bd") 2,063 lbs
Ammonium BiFlouride* 4,249 lbs
Hydrazine 718 lbs
Corrosion Inhibitor (Proprietary) 500 lbs
The Reverse Osmosis (RO) system is used to treat raw water from Belews Reservoir. The RO
system is cleaned approximately 4-6 times per year. The RO cleaning wastes are pumped to the
ash basin/retention basin. Chemical and approximate quantities for one RO cleaning are listed
below:
Chemical
Amount
Osmonics AD-20
275 lbs
Biomate MBC 781
2.5 gal
Sodium Laurylsulfate
10 lbs
Sodium Hydroxide*
15 gal
The condensate polisher filters are cleaned with sodium hydrosulfite approximately once every
five years. The chemicals and approximate quantity used per year for this cleaning is listed
below:
Chemical
Amount

Sodium Hydrosulfate
3,000 lbs
Belews Creek Steam Station, Stokes County
NPDES Permit Renewal and Reissuance
Attachment 3 — Supplemental Information
Permit #NC0024406
August 2016
Page 9 of 9
*These chemicals are present in amounts greater than the reportable quantity as identified under
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). If
a spill of any of these chemicals were to occur, in most cases, the spill would be routed to the
ash basin/retention basin for treatment. These chemicals are being identified to qualify for the
spill responsibility exemption under 40 CFR 117 and CERCLA. \
Hazardous and Toxic Substances Table 2c-3:
At BCSS, the potential for toxic and hazardous substances being discharged is very low. In reference
to Item V-D of Form 2-C, the substances identified under Table 2c-3 that may be in the discharge are as
follows:
Acetaldehyde, Asbestos, Benzoyl Chloride, Butyl Acetate, Cresol, Cyclohexane,
Cyclohexanone, Epichlorohydrin, Fornaldehyde, Furfural, Monoethyamine, Naphthenic Acid,
Pyethrins, Styrene, Triethanolamine, Vanadium, Vinyl acetate, Xylene, and Zirconimum and
also during the course of the year products such as commercial cleaners and laboratory reagents
may be purchased which contain very low levels of a substance found in Table 2c-3. It is not
anticipated that these products will impact the ash basin/retentions basin's capacity to comply
with its toxicity limits, since their concentrations are extremely low.
40 CFR 117 and CERCLA Hazardous Substances:
The table below identifies hazardous substances located on -site that may be released to the ash
basin/retention basin during a spill in quantities equal to or greater than the reportable quantity
(RQ) levels as referenced in 40 CFR 117, 302 and 355. This list is being provided in order to
qualify for the spill report ability exemption provided under 40 CFR 117 and the Comprehensive
Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). These values below
represent the maximum quantities on -site that could be released at one time and sent to the ash
basin/retention basin. They do not reflect quantities that are discharged through typical use.
CHEMICAL AMOUNT OW SOURCE
Ammonia 4,055,000 General Site
Sodium 10 Warehouse
Sodium Hydroxide 25,520 Water Treatment Room
Sulfuric Acid 61,228 Water Treatment Room
Ash Basin Capacity
Part III Section R of the existing NPDES permit for BCSS requires the permittee to provide and
maintain at all times a minimum free water volume (between the top of the sediment level and the
minimum discharge elevation) equivalent to the sum of the maximum 24 hour plant discharge plus all
direct rainfall and all run-off flows to the ash basin resulting from a 10 year, 24 hour rainfall event,
when using a run-off coefficient of 1.0, see Attachment 9 - Ash Basin Free Water Volume Calculation.

Attachment 4
Alternate Schedule Request for 316(b)
August 2016 NPDES application renewal
Belews Creek Steam Station
NCO024406

Attachment 4 - Alternate Schedule Request §316(b) of the Clean Water Act
Belews Creek Steam Station
Final regulations to establish requirements for cooling water intake structures at existing facilities
were published in the Federal Register on August 15, 2014 (i.e. regulations implementing §316(b) of the
Clean Water Act) with an effective date of October 14, 2014. Per §125.91(a)(1)-(3) Applicability, the
Belews Creek Steam Station (BCSS) is subject to the requirements at §125.94 through §125.99 (316(b)
requirements) based on the following:
The facility is defined as an existing facility (i.e. commenced construction prior to January 17,
2002);
— The facility is a point source discharge;
The facility uses a cooling water intake with a design intake flow (DIF) of greater than 2 million
gallons (MGD) to withdraw water from waters of the U.S.; and
Twenty-five percent or more of the water withdraws on an actual intake flow basis are
exclusively used for cooling purposes.
Per §125.98(b) Permitting requirements, 316(b) requirements are implemented through the NPDES
permit. Facilities subject to the final rule are required to develop and submit application materials
identified at §122.21(r). The actual intake flow (AIF) of the facility determines which submittals will be
required. Facilities with an AIF of 125 MGD or less are required to submit material identified at
§122.21(r)(2)-(8), whereas, facilities with an AIF greater than or equal to 125 MGD are required to
submit materials presented in §122.21(r)(9)-(13), in addition to information identified at §122.21(r)(2)-
(8). The AIF withdrawn by the station from Belews Creek Reservoir is above the 125 MGD threshold;
therefore, Duke Energy is planning on completing the following 316(b) submittals:
• §122.21(r)(2) Source Water Physical Data
• §122.21(r)(3) Cooling Water Intake Structure Data
• §122.21(r)(4) Source Water Baseline Biological Characterization Data
• §122.21(r)(5) Cooling Water System Data
• §122.21(r)(6) Chosen Method(s) of Compliance with Impingement Mortality Standard
• §122.21(r)(7) Entrainment Performance Studies
• §122.21(r)(8) Operational Status
• §122.21(r)(9) Entrainment Characterization Study
• §122.21(r)(10) Comprehensive Technical Feasibility and Cost Evaluation Study
• §122.21(r)(11) Benefits Valuation Study
• §122.21(r)(12) Non -water Quality and Other Environmental Impacts Study
• §122.21(r)(13) Peer Review

The regulation states the owner of a facility whose current effective permit expires after July 14,
2018, must submit the above information when applying for a subsequent permit and the owner of a
facility whose current effective permit expires on or before July 14, 2018 may request an alternate
schedule for the submission of the above information. As allowed under §125.95(a)(2), Duke Energy
would like to request an alternate schedule for the submittals listed above. Duke Energy would like to
request the 316(b) submittals, with the exception of §122.21(r)(6) Chosen Method(s) of Compliance with
Impingement Mortality Standard, for BCSS be required with the subsequent permit renewal application
due after July 14, 2018. Since BCSS is subject to the entrainment best technology available (BTA)
determination, a compliance schedule to complete §122.21(r)(6) Chosen Method(s) of Compliance with
Impingement Mortality Standard will be requested to be included in the permit upon issuance of the
entrainment BTA determination. The alternate schedule request is justified based on the following:
Information requested in §122.21(r)(2), (3), and (5) were completed under the remanded
rule; however, this information must be updated to reflect current operations and
information requested in §122.21(r)(4) is substantially different from the remanded rule.
Information requested in §122.21(r)(6) — r(12) are new provisions and these submittals must
be developed.
For the §122.21(r)(13) Peer Review, Duke Energy estimates this could take up to 12 months
to complete. This, also, takes into account the other six Duke Energy stations in N. Carolina
and two stations in S. Carolina that will be undergoing the peer review process concurrently.
Additionally, the United States Environmental Projection Agency (USEPA) — Headquarters
(HQ) have indicated guidance is being prepared to assist in interpreting and implementing
the rule requirements, however, this guidance is not expected to be issued until the 316(b)
litigation is completed, which is not expected to occur until 2017.
1 Refer to §125.95(a)(1) and (2)

Attachment 5
Alternate Steam Electric Effluent Guidelines (ELG)
Schedule Justification
August 2016 NPDES application renewal
Belews Creek Steam Station
NCO024406

Dishmon, Joyce Martin
From: Craig, Nathan D
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2016 3:27 PM
To: Dishmon, Joyce Martin
Cc: Kennedy, William; Henderson, Derek L; Langley, Shannon; Baker, Richard E Jr
Subject: BC ELG Applicability Justification
Attachments: BCSS Extension Justification 8 15 16.docx
Please find attached the Belews Creek ELG applicability date justification. We are requesting the following applicability
dates:
Bottom Ash Transport Water: May 31, 2021 (based on 54 months from an effective permit date of Dec.
1, 2016)
FGD Wastewater: November 30, 2020 (based on 48 months from an effective permit date of Dec. 1,
2016)
Fly Ash Transport Water: November 1, 2018
Breakdown of the schedule for BATW and FGD wastewater is provided below.
Please let me know if you have any comments or concerns.
Nathan Craig
Lead Environmental Specialist, Environmental Programs
Duke Energy Corporation 1 526 South Church St. I Charlotte, NC 28202
0: 704-382-9622 1 [e-mail]
Remote Mechanical Drag System (RMDS)
Activity
Duration (Months)
Design'
6
• Siting
3
• Engineering
5
Procurement
12
Potential Permitting Delays
6
Construction/Tie-in
13
Optimization & Operational Experience
17
• Commissioning
2
• Start -Up
6
Total:
54
1) The design tasks has been initiated and Duke estimates an additional 6 months from the
permit effective (assuming Dec. 1, 2016) will be needed to complete the design.
2) Even though is it estimated that commissioning and start-up can occur in 8 months, Duke
anticipates needing a 17 month window to obtain the necessary operating time at full load
and account for commissioning / optimizing occurring at multiple facilities simultaneously.

FGD WWT Upgrade
Activity
Duration (Months)
Design & Engineering
21
• Evaluate Variability in the
System
12
• Technology Evaluation
7
• Engineering
2
Procurement
8
Construction/Tie-in
7
Start-up & Optimization'
12
• Start -Up
2
• Commissioning
6
Total:
48
1) Duke is allocating a 12 month window to complete the commissioning and start-up under
all expected operating conditions from full load to partial load to periods of no load and
under varying fuel types.