NC0039586_Corrective Action Plan_20190829

1,
4., DUKE Tanya M.Hamilton
Vice President
ENERGY Harris Nuclear Plant
5413 Shearon Harris Rd
New Hill, NC 27562-9300
AUG 2 9 2019
Serial: RA-19-0348
Certified Mail Number: 7014 2120 0003 3196 5770 RECEIVED/NQ/DWR
Return Receipt Requested
SEP 0 3 2019
Ms. Linda Culpepper, Director WaterQuali
NC DEQ Division of Water Resources Permitting Section
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Subject: Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant (HNP)
NPDES Permit No. NC0039586
Part I (A)(9) - Schedule of Compliance (Outfall 006), Wake County
Dear Ms. Culpepper:
On August 29, 2016, NC DEQ DWR issued NPDES Permit NC0039586 with an effective date
of September 1, 2016. Contained within this permit were new effluent limit requirements for
copper and zinc for Outfall 006 (Combined Outfall for Internal Outfalls 001-005) serving HNP.
Part I (A)(9)1 of the permit requires Duke Energy Progress, LLC (Duke Energy), submit to the
Division of Water Resources a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) which summarizes the actions to
be taken to achieve the total copper and total zinc limits at Outfall 006 and a schedule of actions
to be taken to implement the plan. The CAP was submitted to the Division on September 1,
2017. Part I (A)(9)2 requires and annual report summarizing activities in Year 2 of the permit
and the Year 2 report was submitted on August 27, 2018. This Year 3 report is being submitted
in accordance with Part I (A)(9)3 of the permit which requires reporting to the Division
summarizing actions taken in accordance with the CAP.
As described in the attached report, we have conducted a Water Effect Ratio Study for copper,
met with DWR staff and received comments. DWR staff have requested further dilution studies
and additional WER testing and Duke Energy will work out detailed approaches to these studies
with DWR staff as we move forward to address these comments. Duke Energy will be
contacting DWR permitting staff future to set up a meeting to review and discuss these
comments and our path forward.
If you have any questions regarding this matter or wish to discuss in further detail, please do not
hesitate to contact Mr. Bob Wilson, HNP Site Environmental Professional, at(919) 362-2444.

Division of Water Resources
Serial: RA-19-0348 / Page 12
l certify, under penalty of law, that this document and all attachments were prepared under my
direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified
personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the
person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering
the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true,
accurate, and complete. l am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false
information, including the possibility of fines and imprisonment for knowing violations.
Sincerely,
v) trK -
Tanya M. Hamilton
Enclosure: Technical Memorandum — NC0039586 Compliance Update
Water Effect Ratio (WER) Study— Copper Report
Reasonable Potential Analysis — Spreadsheet Calculations
cc: Ms. Julie Grzyb, Supervisor, NPDES Complex Permitting Supervisor,
Certified Mail Number: 7014 2120 0003 3196 5787
Mr. Rick Bolich, Interim Water Resources Regional Supervisor,
NC DEQ DWR Raleigh Regional Office
Certified Mail Number: 7014 2120 0003 3196 5794
Ms. Cyndi Karoly, Chief, Water Sciences Section, NC DEQ DWR
Certified Mail Number: 7014 2120 0003 3196 5800
NC DEQ DWR Central Files
Certified Mail Number: 7014 2120 0003 3196 5817

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

Final Technical Memorandum
Corrective Action Plan for Copper
and Zinc for Harris Nuclear Plant
NPDES Permit
Year 3 Activities Report
RECE VED/NCDEQ/DWR
SEP 0 3 2019
Water Quality
Permitting Section
Prepared for
Duke Energy Progress, LLC
Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant
NPDES Permit No. NC0039586
August 2019
CARQ�� .
t1.:Q�0FES3lp�:9
•
JACOBS
R,,,,,,,,,,,
CH2M HILL North Carolina, Inc.
111 Corning Rd, Suite 116
Cary, NC 27518

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM JACOBS
Corrective Action Plan for Copper and Zinc for
Harris Nuclear Plant NPDES Permit —
Year 3 Activities Report
RECEIVED/NCDEQ/DWR
PREPARED FOR: Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant(HNP)
Duke Energy-Progress LLC(Duke Energy) SEP 0 3 2019
COPY TO: Bob Wilson/Duke Energy-HNP
Don Safrit, PE/Duke Energy Water Quality
Permitting Section
PREPARED BY: Jennifer Bell, PE/CH2M HILL North Carolina, Inc. (Jacobs)
DATE: August 19, 2019
REVISION NO.: Version 01- Final
Executive Summary
The 2016 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for the Shearon Harris
Nuclear Plant(HNP) included effluent limits—effective September 30, 2021—for copper and zinc for
Outfall 006 and a compliance schedule requiring development of a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) and
reports on annual progress towards compliance through September 1, 2020.The CAP was submitted on
September 1, 2017 (Year 1 of the permit) and the Year 2 Report was submitted to North Carolina
Division of Water Resources (DWR) on August 27, 2018.
Year 3 activities proposed in the Year 2 Report included: 1)continued characterization efforts,
2)completion of a Water Effect Ratio(WER)study, 3)meeting with DWR to discuss the WER study, and
4)potential initiation of a mixing zone study. All activities have been accomplished except for initiation
of a mixing zone study,which is proposed for completion in Year 4.Table ES-1 below summarizes
activities completed in Years 1-3, as well as proposed activities for Year 4.
Table ES-1.Summary of Compliance Activities for NPDES Permit Years 1-4
Year 1 Activities Year 2 Activities Year 3 Activities Year 4 Activities-Proposed
(9/1/16-8/31/17) (9/1/17-8/31/18) (9/1/18-8/31/19) (9/1/19-8/31/20)
• CAP Development • Effluent • Completion of WER • DWR Meetings
• Effluent Characterization, Study • Dilution studies using a
Characterization Continued • DWR Meetings mixing zone model
• WER Study • Effluent Characterization, • Additional WER testing,
• Water Chemistry Continued as needed
Management • Water Chemistry • Effluent Characterization,
Management, Continued
Continued • Water Chemistry
Management, Continued
On June 5, 2019, Duke Energy representatives met with DWR to discuss the results of the effluent
characterization results and WER study for copper submitted on May 5, 2019.The report indicated that
water chemistry management activities had reduced zinc levels so that compliance was no longer an
issue at the limits included in the current NPDES permit or at recalculated limits based on effluent
CH2M HILL NORTH CAROLINA,INC. 1

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

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

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

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

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

Attachment 1
Results of Ongoing Effluent Characterization Efforts

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

CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN FOR COPPER AND ZINC FOR HARRIS NUCLEAR PLANT NPDES PERMIT-YEAR 3 ACTIVITIES REPORT
• 006 Effluent -006 Effluent Average(43.6 mg/L)
70
60 • $ •
50 I • • •• • • • • •
40 • • IN •
NOS• �••
U,
2 30
•
= 20 •
10
0
r p1 `rri i `9 � s.
i� �p1‹ i'1/ i1�� � i6� i6 is% ��� 1i cp cp cpNpNp jNpcp
c0,
1j 1> 1j 01, 1 1cp 16, 16, 16, 04 19 19 19 19
Figure 1.Outfall 006 effluent hardness observed during the effluent characterization
and continued monitoring showing the overall average of the data.
Limit(at default 25 mg/L hardness) -----Limit(at 43.6 mg/L hardness) • 006 Effluent
250
200
150
c 100 • •
•
N •• •
50 • • •
0 1104k11.401 ~1 •. $ in,. Me•'••w Iftsegybig
i ri i 9i 11 ji `i Si i `2- 1.l 1i a'i `:i -i
1, '�p �'p_� 1�p i 1� 1 16��p �s��p ��,�-p ii� �1_�p 1cp 1 1p_�p
1, 1j 1j 01, Id, Id) 1d, 16) Id) 01cp 79 19 19 19
Figure 2.Outfall 006 effluent zinc observed during the effluent characterization
and continued monitoring compared to current and recalculated limits.
CH2M HILL NORTH CAROLINA,INC.

CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN FOR COPPER AND ZINC FOR HARRIS NUCLEAR PLANT NPDES PERMIT—YEAR 3 ACTIVITIES REPORT
Daily Max Limit(at default 25 mg/L hardness) -----Limit,Ac.(at 43.6 mg/L hardness) • 006 Effluent-Daily Value
50
45 0
•
40 • 0 0
J 35 0
= 30 0 0 0 p
a`, Z5 000 pO 0 O� 0 O
0 20 ----•—� ••----� 0 O4 4
15 i®l.,• 0 �t•' ,Q 0 0 e 8 -o__-16 ti6
Gb
5 �`
0 ---
s, `ri i 9i 11 'li �'i si i `5i 1,i 1i `ci `ri
1--,3si1i �Oi �8i -2j 76' 2)i CS" `�`S' T),.? 1.) cl1 ')i `)11 20i
1j 1- 1> 01, 1� 1� 1CP 1CP 1d, 018 19 19 19 1y
Figure 3.Outfall 006 effluent copper observed during the effluent characterization and continued
monitoring compared to current daily maximum and recalculated acute limits.
Monthly Ave Limit(at default 25 mg/L hardness) -----Limit,Chr.(at 43.6 mg/L hardness) • 006 Effluent-Monthly Ave
35
30 0
0
25 •
-72 6.0 20 0 0 0 0 0
a 15 Q Q__1J
•
•
U 10 3 O
5
?4 9 410 �` �� -9 s O 2 O ✓d P 4 1 17 r4 .<' 1 4. O 1/ O .mod P 470
7 y 410
1 ✓4 �G
d�. 'Oi� ` 7 �� Gbo �°b �'!` �L PC '� 6 d,. 'br dy '� �v Gao P.O ('l` OL Nc` � 6 dam. '�i� dy � ��
'�1 jp1,1-1 jp1 Ol,�'p1 j p1').0 1.-> 1 j p1 j01�'p1,—1�plc p qed,1�01c�p1cp�p4 p1��'p1d,p1,01�pj.��19 p19�019p1,9 .2
Figure 4.Outfall 006 monthly average effluent copper observed during the effluent characterization
and continued monitoring compared to current monthly average and recalculated chronic limits.
CH2M HILL NORTH CAROLINA,INC.

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

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

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

Division of Water Resources
Serial: RA-19-0161 /page 2
The TM summarizes effluent data and shows there is a reasonable potential to meet effluent
limits for zinc in the HNP Outfall 006 discharge. For copper, the WER study supports a final
WER(EWER)for dissolved copper of 5.0. The data also indicates that there is a reasonable
potential to meet copper criteria at Outfall 006 discharge using recalculated permit limits based
on the actual effluent hardness and the dissolved fWER value.
Duke Energy will be contacting Ms. Julie Grzyb, of your NPDES permitting staff, to set up a
meeting to discuss the effluent characterization results and WER study.
If you have any questions regarding this matter or wish to discuss in further detail, please do
not hesitate to contact Mr. Bob Wilson, HNP Site Environmental Professional, at(919) 362-
2444.
I certify, under penalty of law, that this document and all attachments were prepared under my
direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified
personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the
person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering
the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true,
accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false
information, including the possibility of fines and imprisonment for knowing violations.
Sincerely,
C:14) /74(1,
e-
•
Tanya M. Hamilton
Enclosure: Technical Memorandum - NC0039586 Compliance Update
Water Effect Ratio (WER) Study- Copper Report
Reasonable Potential -Analysis Spreadsheet Calculations
Y P
cc: Ms. Julie Grzyb, Supervisor, NPDES Complex Permitting Supervisor,
Certified Mail Number: 7006 0100 0006 4208 4750
Mr. Rick Bolich, Interim Water Resources Regional Supervisor,
NC DEQ DWR Raleigh Regional Office
Certified Mail Number: 7006 0100 0006 4208 4767
Ms. Cyndi Karoly, Chief, Water Sciences Section, NC DEQ DWR
Certified Mail Number: 7006 0100 0006 4208 4743
NC DEQ DWR Central Files
Certified Mail Number: 7014 2102 0003 3197 7087

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

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

JI%COBS Technical Memorandum
14120 Ballantyne Corporate Place
Suite 200
Charlotte, North Carolina 28277
+1.704.544.4040
+1.704.544.4041
www.jacobs.com
Subject Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant-Permit NC0039586 ••..• """ ""'• •.,_
Copper and Zinc Evaluation oOkl. ......
Date March 18, 2019 4—• O*E8$jp"
Prepared for Duke Energy
Prepared by Bill Kreutzberger—Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. (Jacobs) / 7925
Muriel Steele,PhD, PE—Jacobs
Project Name Shearon Hams Nuclear Plant NPDES Permit Assistance F�GME '
Project No. 680115 ,! : '
Executive Summary
Additional characterization of the effluent for Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant's (HNP) Outfall 006 for
hardness, copper and zinc were conducted as described in the Corrective Action Plan (CAP)and Year 2
Reports submitted to the Division of Water Resources (DWR)on or before the NPDES permit anniversary
date in September 2017 and 2018, respectively. The purpose of this technical memorandum (TM) is to
summarize the sampling results and progress towards achieving compliance.
Hardness data indicated that applicable metals criteria should be calculated based on a hardness of
about 43.8 milligrams per liter(mg/L)as calcium carbonate (CaCO3). Zinc data collected after elimination
of a zinc-based corrosion control inhibitor indicated there is no longer a reasonable potential to exceed
either the zinc limits in the NPDES permit or higher limits based on the effluent hardness. Copper data
indicated that levels still exceeded limits calculated using the effluent hardness of 43.8 mg/L.
A Water Effect Ratio (WER) study was conducted as laid out in the reports submitted to DWR. A final
dissolved WER of 5.0 was determined based on these studies. There is no reasonable potential to
exceed permit limits based on copper criteria adjusted based on effluent hardness and the final WER.
1. Background
The NPDES Permit for the HNP, effective September 1, 2016, includes limits for total recoverable copper
and total recoverable zinc from Outfall 006 (Table 1). These limits were based on the North Carolina
water quality standards regulations (15A NCAC 2B .0211(c))that included the equations to calculate
acute and chronic criteria based on hardness and a WER.
For the HNP permit, the dissolved copper and
Table 1. Copper&Zinc limits on HNP Outfall 006 zinc criteria that were calculated using default
Metal Monthly Average Daily Maximum hardness concentration of 25 milligrams per liter
(mg/L) as calcium carbonate (CaCO3)and default
Total Copper 7.9 pg/L 10.5 pg/L WER of 1 due to a lack of historical data available
Total Zinc 126 pg/L 126 Ng/L for Outfall 006 discharges when the permit was
developed. The dissolved criteria were translated

JACOBS® Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant-Permit NC0039586
Copper and Zinc Evaluation
to total recoverable permit limits using approved EPA procedures and were also applied to the Outfall 006
discharge with no credit for dilution (meeting limits in 100% effluent).
A CAP was developed and submitted to DWR August 31, 2017 in accordance with the schedule of
compliance laid out in the permit.The CAP included effluent characterization for hardness, copper, and
zinc that began in April 2017 and is ongoing, as well as a recommendation to complete a WER study. A
Year 2 report was submitted to DWR on August 31, 2018 that included preliminary results. The WER
study was completed ETT Environmental, Inc. in Greenville, South Carolina in 2018; the report from ETT
is included as Attachment 1 and is summarized in this TM.
2. Effluent Characterization
Starting in April 2017, composite samples were collected from Outfall 006 weekly for three months and
has continued twice per month through the present; samples are analyzed for hardness (by calculation
method)and total recoverable zinc and copper. Raw water samples were also collected from the intake at
HNP and analyzed according to the same timeline as Outfall 006 in order to distinguish impacts of influent
characteristics on the effluent(raw water data is not presented in this TM).
The average and median hardness of Outfall 006 samples (n=48 for April 2017 through January 2019)
are 43.8 and 44.0 mg/L as CaCO3, respectively(Figure 1). Values are consistently within the range of 35
to 60 mg/L as CaCO3; the only exception to this range is during a scheduled shutdown of HNP during
April and May of 2018 when the hardness in the effluent fell to the 20 to 30 mg/L as CaCO3 range.
• 006 Effluent —006 Effluent Average(43.8 mg/L)
70
0 60 • •. ®®
CO 40 fs�® :sit
® *woo4. f ® ® ® ® s9900
30
a 20
E 10
CO
= 0
�i 9i 1,j 1i �'i i �i �i 10 1N)
01> �O `�O <)O �1 OT 01 �O `-O �O >1 ) 1
dj 1, 1j 01, cQ 8 Id, 1� d(p 04 1d 9
Figure 1. Outfall 006 Effluent Hardness in mg/L as CaCO3
Sampling values during characterization (April 2017 to January 2019)
Notes: HNP experienced a scheduled shutdown during April/May 2018 resulting in lower than normal hardness
2.1 Zinc Limits
The results of the hardness evaluation from the effluent characterization were used to calculate water
quality criteria (WQC)for dissolved zinc(Equations 1 and 2). The default US EPA translator for zinc
(0.288)was then used to determine the corresponding total recoverable zinc limit for Outfall 006 (Table
2), similar to how DWR calculated the
permit limit for the NPDES permit. Zinc
results from the effluent characterization Zinc,Acute = WER x 0.978 x eo.8473On hardness)+0.884
efforts, as well as NPDES-required Zinc,Chronic = WER x 0.986 x eo.8473(ln hardness)+0.884
monitoring, were compared against the zinc
limits in HNP's permit as well as the
calculated limit based on site-specific
hardness (Figure 2).

Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant-Permit NC0039586 JACOBS
Copper and Zinc Evaluation
Table 2. Calculated Zinc Limits
Calculated acute and chronic dissolved zinc WQC and corresponding total recoverable zinc effluent limits
at the default and site-specific hardness concentrations
Default hardness HNP Outfall 006 Average Hardness
(25 mg/L as CaCO3) (43.8 mg/L as CaCO3)
Water Quality Criterion for Acute 36.2 µg/L 58.2 µg/L
Dissolved Zinc Chronic 36.5 µg/L 58.7 µg/L
Calculated Effluent Limit for Acute 126 µg/L 202 µg/L
Total Recoverable Zinc Chronic 126 µg/L 203 µg/L
Limit(at default 25 mg/L hardness) Limit(at 43.8 mg/L hardness) • 006 Effluent
250
200
150
c 100 • Z
• •
50 • • •
o Ni�••, i •••, • qi•• i/!� • •sem •
i `ri i 9i 1,j 1i `i - 6 di 10 1)
1,"(2 ��0 1�O ij1/., 6�`301 s'i•- 1p<) c'��0 19��0 il�ii, i���0 r01
•1j 1, 01, 8 1� 13 18 01� j8
Figure 2. Outfall 006 Effluent Total Recoverable Zinc, in pg/L
Sampling values during characterization (April 2017 to January 2019)
Notes:Calculated zinc limits at default and site-specific hardness concentrations are shown;acute and chronic limits for zinc are
effectively equal,thus only the greater limit is shown
2.2 Copper Limits
Similarly, hardness results from the effluent characterization were used to calculate WQC for dissolved
copper(Equations 3 and 4)and the default US EPA translator for copper(0.348)was then used to
determine the corresponding total
recoverable copper limit for Outfall 006
(Table 3). Copper results from the effluent Copper,Acute = WER x 0.960 x e0.9422(tn hardness)-1.700
characterization efforts, as well as NPDES- Copper,Chronic = WER x 0.960 x e0.8545(In hardness)-1.702
required monitoring, were compared
against the copper limits in HNP's permit as Equations 3 and 4
well as the calculated limit based on site- -,araress-1ependent water quality starcards calc.aation or ccpcer
specific hardness(Figure 3).
Table 3. Calculated Copper Limits
Calculated acute and chronic dissolved copper WQC and corresponding total recoverable copper effluent
limits at the default and site-specific hardness concentrations
Default Hardness HNP Outfall 006 Average Hardness
(25 mg/L as CaCO3) (43.8 mg/L as CaCO3)
Water Quality Criterion for Acute 3.6 p.g/L 6.2 µg/L
Dissolved Copper Chronic 2.7 µg/L 4.4 µg/L

JACOBS Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant-Permit NC0039586
Copper and Zinc Evaluation
Table 3. Calculated Copper Limits
Calculated acute and chronic dissolved copper WQC and corresponding total recoverable copper effluent
limits at the default and site-specific hardness concentrations
Default Hardness HNP Outfall 006 Average Hardness
(25 mg/L as CaCO3) (43.8 mg/L as CaCO3)
Calculated Effluent Limit for Acute 10.5 µg/L 17.8 µg/L
Total Recoverable Copper Chronic 7.9 µg/L 12.8 µg/L
Daily Max Limit(at default 25 mg/L hardness) -----Limit,Ac.(at 43.8 mg/L hardness) • 006 Effluent-Daily Value
50
45 •
•
40 • • • •
35
cuo
30 • • •
a 25 •• • • • • •
0 105 ---- --•- �•-----� • ♦ %Zy-;
10Q ® ® _ ®® ®" • ••,li
ts
5 •
0
i `> i 49i 1,j ji ai i 6i 10 •
1 �j/`O ��`O 10 /11�1 6/`)01 �i�>0 ���O ��<-) 1��0 /s)i /�i-) 1
1, j 0 •d' ' c c c 1� 1� 9
Figure 3. Outfall 006 effluent total recoverable copper daily maximum, in pg/L
Sampling values during characterization (April 2017 to January 2019), compared to effluent limits as
written and adjusted for site-specific hardness
Monthly Ave Limit(at default 25 mg/L hardness) -----Limit,Chr.(at 43.8 mg/L hardness) • 006 Effluent-Monthly Ave
35
30 • • •
'LT
25 • •
• •
u`, 20 • • • •
•
0 15 • • • • •
v -S • •
10
—JR----- •
5 •
0
10 'Lid G� ✓4/ yG 4r,0 pce oG pPc.)0
✓d' so6 47 to 47 ✓G, ✓4/ yG ,ew pc� 4LoL°c0 ✓0
10;�0;01;01��0 101.�01 �0 �01�01�10��01�01��01�01�01�.�0. �01�01 �01�01�019
Figure 4. Outfall 006 effluent total recoverable copper monthly averages, in pg/L,
Sampling values during characterization (April 2017 to January 2019), compared to effluent limits as
written and adjusted for site-specific hardness

Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant-Permit NC0039586 JACOBS•
Copper and Zinc Evaluation
3. Metals Compliance at Outfall 006
3.1 Zinc
Results from the effluent characterization showed no values greater than the monthly average or daily
maximum limits for total zinc(Figure 2), thus demonstrating compliance. Reasonable potential analysis
was performed using the results of the characterization (see Attachment 2), including hardness and zinc
calculations, and concluded that there is no reasonable potential to exceed the limits as included in the
current NPDES permit or as calculated using the monitoring data for hardness.
3.2 Copper
Results from the effluent characterization for copper, on the other hand, showed non-compliance in most
cases with respect to both monthly average and daily maximum limits (Figures 3 and 4)as included in the
current NPDES permit and as calculated using the monitoring data for hardness. A WER study was
proposed to determine applicable dissolved copper criteria and corresponding total recoverable copper
limits.
WER Study
A WER study was completed in 2018 from July through September with three rounds using a primary
species (Ceriodaphnia dubia)and a fourth round using a secondary species (Pimephales promelas)for
both total recoverable and dissolved copper according to the US EPA's Interim Guidance on
Determination and Use of Water Effect Ratios for Metals. The report for this study is included as
Attachment 1. Because the North Carolina Water Quality Standard for copper is based on dissolved
copper, the final WER for dissolved copper(fWER =4.9996)was applied when calculating WQC and
effluent limits. Additionally, the fWER for total recoverable copper(5.9789)was found to be higher than
the dissolved fWER so use of the dissolved fWER is appropriately conservative.
Again, results of the hardness
Table 4. Calculated Copper Limits Adjusted for WER evaluation from the effluent
Calculated acute and chronic dissolved copper WQC and characterization were used to
corresponding total recoverable copper effluent limits at the calculate WQC for dissolved copper
default and site-specific hardness concentrations and the default US EPA translator for
HNP Outfall 006 copper was used to determine the
Hardness=as 8 mgiL as CaCO corresponding total recoverable zinc
WER=5.0 limit for Outfall 006, this time including
Acute 30.9 /L the determined WER (Table 4).
Water Quality Criterion for pg
Dissolved Copper Chronic 22.E µg/L Results from the effluent
characterization showed no values
Calculated Effluent Limit for Acute 88.8 µ9/L greater than the calculated acute and
Total Recoverable Copper Chronic 63.6 µg/L chronic effluent limits for total copper
(Figures 5 and 6) based on effluent
hardness and WER. Reasonable potential analysis was performed using the results of the
characterization and WER study(see Attachment 2)and concluded that there is no reasonable potential
to exceed the limits with adjustments based on hardness and WER.
4. Conclusions
Analysis showed that there is no reasonable potential to exceed zinc WQC based on recent effluent data
(since substitution of a zinc-based anti-corrosion inhibitor), therefore it is appropriate to remove the
numerical zinc limits from HNP's NPDES permit and instead add a monitor and report requirement.
A revised total recoverable copper limit was determined according to US EPA guidance using effluent
hardness data and a WER, and analysis showed that there is no reasonable potential to exceed these
limits. Therefore, the revised limits on copper should be adopted into HNP's NPDES permit or removed in
lieu of a monitor and report requirement.

JI COBS Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant-Permit NC0039586
Copper and Zinc Evaluation
-----Limit,Ac.(at 43.8 mg/L hardness and WER=5.0) • 006 Effluent-Daily Value
100
80
J
0 60
• •
Q 40 ® ® ® •
v 20 •�®••fib ®•® • ®®® %s- ••
0 �� • • •� •N•D •
i ri i 9, 11 1i `�'i i 6 8i 10
1<.)0 �j<3 � n3 1<3 1'7/ 6/V01 �i�01 �i3 ��<3 <3 1 C%3 V01
1> 1, dj 01) •8 8 1, 1cp 1� 015 1C 9
Figure 5. Outfall 006 Effluent Total Recoverable Copper—Daily Maximum
Sampling values during characterization (April 2017 to January 2019), compared to effluent limits
adjusted for site-specific hardness and WER
-----Limit,Chr.(at 43.8 mg/L hardness and WER=5.0) • 006 Effluent-Monthly Ave
100
80
J
60
- 40
o • • • • •
20 • • ® •• • • • ® • ® ® ® ® • •
0
14. 44 ✓Gif7 ✓<'/ 9G j04, % +0 60c✓d7 c°6�d, 90.• 47d G7 ✓G/ 9G je °fie +0L 66' ✓dui
101�c0 j0;01°'10 �0 �01,�010;p1,101 201�01c�01d016,01��0.e�0.42 4 01101, •<9
Figure 6. Outfall 006 Effluent Total Recoverable Copper—Monthly Average
Sampling values during characterization (April 2017 to January 2019), compared to effluent limits
adjusted for site-specific hardness and WER

Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant-Permit NC0039586 f,/■ACOBS
Copper and Zinc Evaluation
Attachment 1
Water Effect Ratio Study, Copper— Report
ETT Environmental, Inc.—December 2018

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

1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Duke Energy Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant (SHNPP) discharges effluent to Harris Lake in
Wake County,North Carolina. ETT Environmental has been retained to conduct a Water Effect Ratio for
the facility to determine if permitted copper limits for the effluent discharge are unnecessarily
overprotective of aquatic life. This is to be accomplished through the calculation of a water effect ratio
(WER), comparing the acute effects of copper upon surrogate aquatic test organisms (the water flea
Ceriodaphnia dubia and the Fathead Minnow Pimephales promelas)living in laboratory dilution
water to the acute effects of copper to the same test species in simulated downstream receiving water.
The SHNPP discharges effluent to Harris Lake under NPDES permit#NC 0039586.
At sites with very low metal limits, a permittee may conduct a site-specific study to determine if the
permit limit for copper should be modified to account for the unique characteristics of the receiving
stream. This is done by determining a Water Effect Ratio(WER),which is multiplied against the state
water quality criterion to calculate a site-specific criterion. Methodology for determining a WER is
provided in the Interim Guidance on Determination and Use of Water-Effect Ratios for Metals (EPA-823-
B-94-001).
This report presents the results of three rounds of WER primary test determinations using acute tests with
the invertebrate Ceriodaphnia dubia and a single round of WER secondary test determinations using
acute tests with the vertebrate Pimephales promelas (Fathead Minnow). Using the Interim Guidance, a
Final WER is determined and the site specific criterion is calculated.
Duke Harris WER Study-Cu ETT Environmental,Inc.; 12/18
Page 2 of 110

2.0 METHODS
2.1 Overview
As delineated in the EPA Interim Guidance, a minimum of three rounds of side-by-side tests with the
primary test organism(Ceriodaphnia dubia)are required. Each round includes a 48 Hour acute definitive
test in which copper is spiked into laboratory dilution water(DMW: Diluted Mineral Water)alongside a
test where copper is spiked into simulated downstream water. A 48 Hour LC50 is calculated for each test,
and a WER is determined based upon the ratio of the LC50 in simulated downstream water divided by the
LC50 in laboratory dilution water. A final WER (EWER) is determined based upon all three individual
WER values. A WER is also determined for a secondary species, which in this case is the Fathead
Minnow - Pimephales promelas. Acute definitive tests (48 Hour) with the secondary species also are
conducted as acute tests,with the endpoint being an LC5o•
2.2 Simulated Downstream Water
Simulated downstream water was prepared using 100%effluent.
2.3 Measured Concentrations
All calculations were based upon measured concentrations of copper in the laboratory water and
downstream water. In acute tests with Ceriodaphnia dubia and Pimephales promelas measured
concentrations of total copper were conducted for each test concentration at test initiation and at test
termination. Dissolved copper also was measured at test initiation and test termination.
2.4 Laboratory Water
Due to the relatively low hardness of the receiving stream and effluent, 13%DMW(diluted mineral water
at—50 mg/L hardness)was used as the laboratory water into which copper was spiked.Using dilution water
with a hardness of 50 mg/L minimizes the hardness adjustment required to normalize the LC50 results to
the site hardness.
Duke Harris WER Study-Cu ETT Environmental, Inc.; 12/18
Page 3 of 110

2.5 Determination of Final Water Effect Ratio
Type I WERs1 most accurately simulate design-flow conditions, so these values are used directlyin
gn
determination of the fWER.
Type II WERs are not representative of the design flow conditions, but can be used in two ways. First, a
Type II WER can be considered a conservative estimate of the WER at design flow conditions, since the
WER will typically be lower for higher stream flows. Type II WERs are also used to calculate the highest
WER (hWER) that would provide adequate protection under design flow conditions. The hWER
incorporates the highest concentration of metal in the effluent (HCME) which will not cause the site
specific criterion to be exceeded downstream. The HCME is then used to predict the hWER at design
flow conditions. The HCME is calculated as follows;
HCME= [CCC x WER x(eFLOW+uFLOW)] -[(uCONC)(uFLOW)]
eFLOW
where; CCC= criterion continuous concentration
WER= the Type II WER which is experimentally determined
eFLOW= effluent flow at time of sampling
uFLOW= upstream flow at time of sampling
uCONC= copper concentration upstream at time of sampling
The hWER is calculated as follows;
hWER= (HCME) x (eFLOWdf) + (uCONCdf) x (uFLOWdf)
(CCC)x(eFLOWdf+uFLOWdf)
where df indicates the value under design flow conditions.
In this study all three of the primary WERs were Type I WERs. According to the Interim Guidance,
when all WERs are Type I, the final water effect ratio (fWER) is the lowest Type I WER or the lowest
hWER. Method 1 (determining WERs for areas in or near plumes),was used. The WERs were defined as
Type 1 because the SHNPP effluent NPDES permit limitation for copper assumes and instream wastewater
concentration of 100%.
IA Type I WER is defined as a WER conducted when flow is<2 times the effluent design flow+7Q10 upstream flow(low
flow)and a Type II WER is defined as a WER conducted when flow is 2-10 times the same value.
Duke Harris WER Study-Cu ETT Environmental,Inc.; 12/18
Page 4 of 110

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

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

3.6 Calculation of Site Specific Continuous Concentration Criterion for Copper(CCC)
The continuous concentration criterion(ccc)limit(average limit)for the proposed NPDES permit
for the SHNPP effluent should be adjusted using the fWER as follows;
Site Specific CCC =[(ccc)x(fWER)x(downstream flow)] -(upstr. Cu conc x upstr.flow)
(Effluent flow)
[5.4564A x 5.9789B x 7.9 mgd]—(0.0cx 0.0)
(7.9 mgd)
A:recalculated CCC 1(ug/L)at site hardness(average for the 3 rounds)
B:lowest WER
C:assigned upstream copper concentration
=32.6 µg/L (using Total Recoverable Copper fWER)
[5.4564A x 4.9996B x 7.9 mgd]c(0.0 x 0.0)
(7.9 mgd)
A:recalculated CCC1(ug/L)at site hardness(average for the 3 rounds)
B:lowest WER
C:assigned upstream copper concentration
=27.3 µg/L(using Dissolved Copper EWER)
1
The CCC is calculated as 0.960 x[e^{0.8545(ln ay.site hardness)-1.702}]
Duke Harris WER Study-Cu ETT Environmental,Inc.; 12/18
Page 7 of 1 10

3.7 Calculation of Site Specific Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC)for Copper
The criterion maximum concentration (cmc) limit (maximum limit) for the proposed NPDES
permit for the SHNPP effluent should be adjusted using the EWER as follows;
Site Specific CMC = [(cmc)x(fWER)x(downstream flow)] -(upstr.Cu conc x upstr.flovti)
(Effluent flow)
[7.7822A x 5.9789B x 7.9 mgd] —(0.0c x 0.0)
(7.9 mgd)
A:recalculated CMC1(ug/L)at site hardness(average for the 3 rounds)
B:lowest WER
C:assigned upstream copper concentration
=46.5 µg/L(using Total Recoverable Copper fWER)
[7.7822A x 4.9996B x 7.9 mgd]S(0.0 x 0.0)
(7.9 mgd)
A:recalculated CMC1at site hardness
B:lowest WER
C:assigned upstream copper concentration
=38.9 µg/L (using Dissolved Copper fWER)
The CMC is calculated as 0.960 x[e^(0.9422(ln ay.site hardness)-1.700}]
Duke Harris WER Study-Cu ETT Environmental,Inc.; 12/18
Page 8 of 110

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

TABLE 2.
DERIVATION OF DISSOLVED COPPER fWERS WITH HARDNESS ADJUSTMENT(Using Acute Tests)
Facility: Harris Nuclear Dis-Cu
nCMC= e(0.9422[In(hardness)1-1.700)x 0.96
nCCC= e(0.8545[In(hardness)1-1.702)x 0.96 Upstream Design Flow: 0 mgd 0.00%
adj EC50= e(0.9422[In(site water hard-In(lab water hard)j) Effluent Design Flow: 7.9 mgd 100.00%
Design hardness Upstream Design Conc.: 0 ppb
Streamlined Interim
WER Lab Water Site Water SMAV Hard.Adj. CMC @ CCC @ Upstream Effluent Upstream Effluent •
WER# Type Hardness LC50 Adj LC50 Hardness EC50 Adj EC50 WER WER site hard site hard Flow(mgd) Flow(mgd) Hardness Hardness HCME hWER II
1:7/12/18 Design flow 50.0000 21.1090 23.4877 56.0000 117.4290 NA - 8.4493 4.9996 7.7824 5.4567 0.0000 7.9000 0.0000 56.0000 27.2812 4.9996
2:8/15/18 Design flow 50.0000 9.4020 10.8132 58.0000 111.5130 NA 7.7627. 10.3127 8.0440 5.6228 0.0000 7.9000 0.0000 58.0000 57.9861 10.3127
3:9/26/18 Design flow 50.0000 19.7480 21.2332 54.0000 158.4830 NA 11.8008 7.4639 7.5202 5.2897 0.0000 7.9000 0.0000 54.0000 39.4821 7.4639
average average
Lowest Type I WER 4.9996 7.7822 5.4564
Limits per Interim Guidance
EWER 4.9996
nCCC= 5.4564
IWC= 1.0000
CCC Eff Criterion= 27.2797
EWER 4.9996
nCMC= 7.7822
IWC= 1.0000
CMC Eff Criterion= 38.9079
PI

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

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

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

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

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

2.5.2 Copper Spiking
Copper was spiked as copper sulfate (CuSO4.5H2O) into laboratory water and the
simulated downstream water. Prior to spiking the total recoverable copper in each
effluent sample was measured. Each day a batch of simulated downstream water was
prepared. An 12.72 mg/L stock solution of copper sulfate was prepared by adding 0.05 g
of CuSO4.5H2O to one liter of demineralized water. A microliter syringe was used to add
the correct volumes of the stock solution to each simulated effluent or control
concentration to achieve the desired nominal concentration of copper.
2.6 Test Organisms
The test organism used for this study was the daphnid Ceriodaphnia dubia. Test
organisms were neonates of less than 24 hours in age which were obtained from
individual cultures at ETT Environmental, Inc. These cultures are set weekly with
reproduction of the first three broods tracked for all culture organisms. Only neonates
from broods of eight or larger, produced by culture trays demonstrating less than 10%
mortality and greater than a mean of 15 young per female(3 broods)are used for testing.
Culture sensitivity is monitored through the use of semi-monthly reference toxicant
testing. Voucher specimens from the culture are set aside on a monthly basis and
taxonomically verified by a staff macroinvertebrate taxonomist. Culture organisms are
subject to the same light,temperature, and feeding regimes as used for testing.
Duke Harris-WER 1 Cu ETT Environmental;07/18
Page 16 of 1 l0

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

3.2 Simulated Downstream Water
3.2.1 Acute Toxicity Testing Results
The acute definitive test with Ceriodaphnia dubia in downstream water spiked with
copper showed a 48 Hour LC50 of 154.395 ug/L Total Recoverable Copper and a 48
Hour LC50 of 117.429 ug/L of Dissolved Copper. Due to the pattern of the data, the
value was calculated using the Trimmed Spearman Karber method.The survival data at each
concentration are summarized as follows;
Nominal Concentration Mean Measured Conc. 48 Hour
of Total Recoverable Cu of Total Recoverable Cu Mortality
and(Dissolved Cu)
0 ug/L 19.5 ug/L(11.5) 0%
25 ug/L 43.5 ug/L (29) 0%
35 ug/L 58 ug/L(43) 0%
50 ug/L 70.5 ug/L(51) 0%
71.4 ug/L 91.5 ug/L(60) 0%
102 ug/L 121 ug/L(85) 20%
143 ug/L 157.5 ug/L(113) 40%
204 ug/L 193 ug/L(166) 95%
Measured concentrations were generally higher than nominal concentrations. A
significant suppression in survival was noted at a nominal concentration of 143 ug/L of
total copper.
Survival data for the test may be found in Appendix A2. Results of measured
concentrations of total recoverable and dissolved copper are provided in Appendix A3.
Statistical analysis results are found in Appendix A6.
1
The Spearman Karber Method is used when there are at least two concentrations with partial mortality.
Duke Harris-WER 1 Cu ETT Environmental;07/18
Page 18 of 1 10

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

4.0 CALCULATION OF WATER EFFECT RATIO
As noted in the results section,acute testing indicated an LC50 of 23.208 ug/L of total recoverable
copper in laboratory dilution water and an LC50 of 154.3950 ug/L of total recoverable copper in
100% SHNPP effluent.The laboratory dilution water LC50 values must be adjusted to
downstream water hardness in order to calculate the Water Effect Ratio,using the EPA formula,
as follows;
LC50 x (downstream hardness/laboratory water hardness)o.9422
T-Cu: 23.208 ug/L x(56/50)0'9422= 25.8233 ug/L
Dis-Cu: 21.109 ug/L x(56/50)0.9422= 23.4877 ug/L
The Water Effect Ratio can thus be calculated as follows;
Water Effect Ratio(WER) = LC50 in Effluent = 154.395 ug/L = 5.9789
(Total Recoverable Copper) LC50 in Lab Water 25.8233 ug/L
Water Effect Ratio(WER) = LC10 in Effluent = 117.429 ug/L = 4.9996
(Dissolved Copper) LC50 in Lab Water 23.4877 ug/L
A final water effect ratio(FWER)will be calculated using the individual WERs from three
rounds of testing.
Duke Harris-WER 1 Cu ETT Environmental;07/18
Page 20 of 110

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

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

r
Page 6p ofttr
WER 48 Hour Acute Toxicity Test �'�
Nominal I Initial# bloflality Measured Concentration I ( � N
r I /� 1 fVl2tal
Conc Pep Organisms 24 hi 48 hr initial Final Mean Facility: a A. `,\'t tr'.i _ i;
AC� °lal t,,i,l lolul Sam Sample ID. r jS .
0% B J 0 Start Date: 7- I •ro Time: j,:3;J0 By: „Y
c <)
Dis Diii Di, End Date: Time: By
D 0 Effluent Log tl: J --O( ''2 _ Upstream Log ft.
A _) TEST ORGANISMS
0 I olal l 0161 l ula�
B t ' Test Organism: 3-2( Y--k9
A-
�� C 0 Die Di:: Dis fol Ceriodaphnia dubia) Source. r / i
'� 75
D Date Removed; /- )1-1 6� I
A _ 0 (alai To
alai Betweent t c)and , incl
B ....D. 0 for fathead minnows or mysids:
1---
C 5 6 Dis Dis Dis Source: Age:
D 5 CJ Temperature 24-26 C. Light 16 hr It/8 hr kd;50-100 ft candles
r..
A 5 0 Total Total Total Laboratory Water DMW/SSF ' , 50 mg/L hardness
B 5 0 Downstream Water Preparation
,56
C .J 0 Dis Dis Dis % effluent volume mL Prep.Date: _
D 5 6 % upstream volume mL_Prep.by:
A 5 0 1
Total Total Total
5oB 9 U Test Solution Preparation: Metal Salt: 0,1S01.
C S. 0 Dis Die Dis Date: By: Stock.Soln:I2--12-013 II—
I
D 5 o Nominal Conc mL Stock Soln. Volume prepared
A a) Total Total Total D 0 �93 rn�
B 0 I'1.5 . 0 i 1{ 0/� �Jy -
"1 l•1 C ✓ Dis Dis Dis 25 9 t-/
A 5 2 Total Total Total ✓O I•q
lviq C 6 d Die Dls Dig I V 1 -l 11 i
liil ill D S. C.) 11\5 • Cow- IL
lilt;{' A 5 3 Total Total Total A Total Total Total
irii V B 5 I B
Iil5 C 5 fC Die Die Die
';Fr`:, Die Die Die
a,,, D 5 3 D
or. '01 \V A 5 .5--
Total Total Total A Total Total Total
1i , B 3' 5- B
I �0
NI M C 5 51 Dis Dis Die C Die Dis Die
Dit iir! 5LI D
Ma
•,., Test solution volume:25 mL. Test vessels 1 oz.plastic cups.Transfer volume 0.05 mL. U Test Method: per (EPA Interim l Guidance
Zo t \ 8 r"Q l .Al'I 5"oM`"
Page 23 of 110 i 1

le 60 of-i
Page 61 of 100
Nominal Initial# Mortality Measured Concentration WER 48 HourAcute Toxicity Test
Conc Rep Organisms 24 hr 48 hr Initial Final Mean , Facility: ___J7Aki)J Metal:
,f
AJ
,,.,,,_ .. f� otal TotalSample ID
0% B —�) ? • Start DtIe -1 2-1 Time: G�`(:) By ..Y
C J 0} Dos Dls End Date: Time: By:
-.__ D �� f(fluent Log // Upstream Log t?:
A � fatal iat,, TEST ORGANISMS
B_ . 0 Test Organism: �j X -Z /
�'
Z C lJ1 as Dis for Ceriodaphnia dubia Source: ►-FVt— 6.--_
Dall Li Date Removed; J_ 1 _1 b� C--L— 7-J�
rn;e` �; Gi j I J (Time) �- LA ) (Time)
! � / Total iotai total BCIWCeII I I(ilC' and Z
B 1 0 for fathead minnows or mysids:
6,0 C 5 0 Die Die Die Source: Age:
..-..,�.. 0 Temperature 24-26 C. Light 16 hr It/8 hr kd;50-100 ft candles
INIMINNEMMNI G
A 0 Total Total Total Laboratory Water DMW/SSF A 50 mg/L hardness 7 �j-)
B 1 0 Downstrea m Water Pre oration
6 n P
I J 0 Dis Ds Dis effluent volume mL Prep.Date:
D 5 0 % upstream volume mL Prep.by:
r A ✓ b Total Total Total
1/- 2 B 5 0 Test Solution Preparation: Metal Salt: �i:�s\
J C � �l Die Die Dis Date: By: Stock.Soln:J 7_ 72_ rtq!/i
D 5 00 Nominal Conc mL Stock
kkk Soln. Volume prepared
J
A r5 Total Total Total Q /f ` J! Y' 1 ryi I,
C S.. `-' Dis Dis Dis (e 6 Zi
5 ° a l 3{{ q
A 5 S Total Total Total 11 5 . g
il
7-1 B S 11.5 , 61
C .L--�DIs Dis Dis f t 9 g
5 s :3.5 1 .35
]tat A 5 5 Total Total Total A Total Total Total
B 5 5 B
'Is C 5 S DIs Dis Die C DIs Die Dis
D S D
tal A Total Total Total A Total Total Total
B B
s C DIs DIs Ds C Die Die Die
D D
Test solution volume:25 mL- Test vessels 1 oz.plastic cups.Transfer volume 0.05 mL. Test Method: per EPA Interim Guidance
Page 24 of 1 10

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

Measured Total Recoverable and Dissolved Copper
Duke Harris Plant-Primary Species Site Specific Study
July 2018
Sample:S iked Dilution Water(Diluted DMW Initial Date:07/12/18
ominal Measured Total Recoverable Copper(µg/L) %of Measured Dis.Cu(µg/L)
Total Cu Initial Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7 Mean
0 <1.0
Nominal Initial Day 2 Mean Dissolved
<1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
4.2 6.0
6.0 9.3
8.0 7.0 167% 8.0 3.3 5.7 81%
7.1 8.2 137% 7.7 6.0 6.8 83%
8.6 10.2
12.3 15.2
11.7 11.0 128% 11.7 3.1 7.4 67%
10.8 13.0 106% 15.6 4.2 9.9 76%
17.5 18.2 16.0 17.1 98% 23.0 8.4 15.7 92%
25.0 34.0 32.0 33.0 132% 28.0 32.0 30.0 91%
35.0 39.0 38.0 38.5 110% 39.0 38.0 38.5 100%
Sample:Simulated Downstream-Duke Harris Initial Date:7/12/18
Nominal Measured Total Recoverable Copper(µg/L) %of Measured Dis.Cu(µg/L)
Total Cu Initial Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7 Mean Nominal Initial Day 2 Mean Dissolved
0.0 19.7 I9.2 19.5 8.2 14.8 11.5
25.0 40.0 47.0 43.5 174% 29.0 29.0 29.0 67%
35.0 58.0 58.0 166% 43.0 31.0 43.0 74%
50.0 76.0 65.0 70.5 141% 51.0 34.0 51.0 72%
71.4 94.0 89.0 91.5 128% 60.0 54.0 60.0 66%
•
102.0 123.0 119.0 121.0 119% 85.0 67.0 85.0 70%
143.0 156.0 159.0 157.5 110% 113.0 81.0 113.0 72%
204.0 198.0 188.0 193.0 95% 168.0 164.0 166.0 86%
In the DMW test there was some indication of a substantial decrease in dissolved copper in the mid range concentrations at 48 hours,
however,the decrease was not noted in the total copper concentrations and thus the data was deemed acceptable.
Page 26 of 110

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

,
1
I
ACUTE TOXICITY TEST - CHE�MISTR\'
P 46 Hour R
16 Hour Rendinj;s eo
Inilinl Readings 2a Hour Readings 24 Hour Readings ----n----�
old o nr+•. nr�•
nip
CO nduru+�rn old old old
Do so lr+Q
DruoIs rd Drssols•rd
Drssntvrd (Prn6asrtm)nr Dresalrrd cu P11 Clr1'f.rn rN
n Otyr.
Os pli or tirluurl U+Yrr„ pll U,)'fcn f mr(L
. Efltr,nrI lPn I rn /L tngiL, mI:/L --�
uno mg/L. t ra.
Contcntn
���)�i�O .,„ ___Eii
,„ ....6_-_ _.
__ _..
.. _________ _._.
...
__________ ....
-.1,„, ________ ______„
1.,„ ____________ . ,
_____
i.. i�`'5 7— iti-1� . f
_______
Datc,
q Time:
I350 13t,z
I,• Initials: -r/ F I
1, f
72 Hour Readings 72 Hour Readings 96 Hour Readings
I old old new old old
new �
IL! Dissolved Dissolved Dissolved
Ii ' H Ony cr pH
' !,;f Effluent Oxygen PH Oxygca P I
1 Cooceutntion mg/L mg/L -
1
i,
I
.
toi
I
;Ili
Date: —
1.0
} lit: Time:
1I ' Initials:
llr t
Ili ill
r:PLab ID#;
,
Client:
{I,y '/,,
'VIA C 0 5
7 d AF—Fn J 52013—t3 i
1�
I.<
ilk. --1.
'k �
,iliBI Page 28 of 110 i'

ROUND 1 - APPENDIX A5
Chain of Custody Documentation
S
Duke Harris-WER Round 1 Cu ETT Environmental,Inc.;07/18
Page 29 of 110

.._.....
ETri 4 I
CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD
i Fwito �'en o13er'itt
PO Box 16414 Greenville,SC 29606-7414
Page —of_�
[phone], [phone] Fex:[phone]
Shipping Address:4 Craftsman Ct,Greer,SC 29850
W W W.ETTENV IRONM_NTAL.COM
Client: 1' p /f — -
Vt,Ji�L Conir-c,r�ed t�►-ill lrHM HIII N0�., ,„,„,IllAt Program Containers Preservative Parameters
Facility: 1� J
1-
�/12�1dR71'\• f Iaril-S MU C-1 eQr I rIC Whole Ernuent Taxiciry
State: NC NPD]sue: NC003g5R1a Q
Acute Chronic Test Organisms ,
1
U O U _
'o (Composite only) (Grab or Campos ht) _ U ,� U E .^
Sign,and Print b'zlow = '-HCL = °- _ < 5i E ='
rj the dotted line U ,o • ; HNos = z �' .2 - . = i-
o C ^ L.. h _ 4=NaOH c o 2 c = •y o O- ` ,.i 2
° b o o n O U s=za4c u o _ = W Ci SAty(PLE ID Con,i;co;ic Sion Iron Time Simple Cntk I on al, Time Collected by U Co CO Z F. t7 > 6;Oilier < < U U ono. 2 .J, U = 5 .e Chemical Analysis&Other —
:•o-; o O1 7-/I-;= o1 5 6, I ae►k, Cl� * 52 (3*
ne
co
a
0
Special Instructions:
t -h e t- 5 a-rri veal ay..'7
efor,r resul-tS -b Mu.riel- S'__ e@ 1_ ,cul * B+jrGgs arrived IOt.Ae. —ar, 11}03 � I ail$
Sample Custody Transfer Record Secure Receipt Sample
Date`) Time Relinquished By/Organization Received By/Organization Area Temp`C Preserved?
7Jii, ig H- t y UPS F•rr-- 3{.‘1
COMPOSITE SAMPLING PROCEDURES TEMPERATURE MONITORING PROCEDURES HOLD TIME PROCEDURES
Composite samples must be collected over a 24 hour period. Sample temperature during collection and transport must be between For toxicity testing the sample must first be used within 36 hours
Time Proportional: I sample each hour for 24 hours.Equal volui 0.0 and 6.0'C.Samples must not be frozen.Use water ice in sealed bags. of sample collection(completion of composite sample).
or at minimum I sample every 4 hours over 24 hours. Sample may not be used after 72 hours from sample collection.
Flow Proportional:As 1aer instructions in NPDES oermit.

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

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

PROBIT
RAW DATA
Test Percent Number of Log of
Conc. Mortality Organisms Test Conc Probit
0.1 0 20 -1.0000 0.5
51 0 20 1.7076 0.5
60 0 20 1.7782 0.5
85 20 20 1.9294 4.16
113 40 20 2.0531 4.75
166 95 20 2.2201 6.64
1. Enter data in yellow boxes
Test Type: WER
Species: C dubia
Sample ID Harris DisCu LC50 =
Date: 7/12/18 117.429
•
> entered for the control concentration,thus a nominal value of 0.1 is used.This does not impact A value of 0 must be e e the
result. Lower test concentrations with no mortality are not necessary to determine the Probit LC50 value.
Page 33 of 110

ETT
environmental,Inc. [phone] . FAX[phone]
P.O. Box 16414, Greenville, SC 29606 Craftsman Court, Greer, SC 29650
APPENDIX B
WATER EFFECT RATIO STUDY (Interim Guidance)
Duke Energy Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant
Primary Species - Round 2
Metal: Copper
August 2018
Duke Harris-WER 2 Cu ETT Environmental;08/18
Page 34 of 110

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
2.0 METHODS
2.1 Experimental Design
2.2 Laboratory Dilution Water
2.3 Upstream and Effluent Sample Collection
2.4 Chemical Analyses
2.5 Preparation of Test Solutions
2.6 Test Organisms
3.0 RESULTS
3.1 Laboratory Water
3.2 Simulated Downstream Water
3.3 Upstream Waters
4.0 CALCULATION OF WATER EFFECT RATIO
5.0 DISCUSSION
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix B1. Reference Toxicant Quality Control Chart for Ceriodaphnia dubia
Appendix B2. Survival Data for Acute Definitive Tests
Appendix B3. Measured Concentrations of Total Recoverable Copper in Test Solutions
Appendix B4. Water Chemistry Measurements for Acute Definitive Tests
Appendix B5. Chain of Custody Records
Appendix B6. Statistical Analysis Results
Duke Harris-WER 2 Cu ETT Environmental;08/18
Page 35 of 110

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

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

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

1
1
1
1
1 2.5.2 Copper Spiking
1 Copper was spiked as copper sulfate (CuSO4.5H2O) into laboratory water and the
1 simulated downstream water. Prior to spiking the total recoverable copper in each
1 effluent sample was measured. Each day a batch of simulated downstream water was
prepared. An 12.72 mg/L stock solution of copper sulfate was prepared by adding 0.05 g
of CuSO4.5H2O to one liter of demineralized water. A microliter syringe was used to add
the correct volumes of the stock solution to each simulated effluent or control
concentration to achieve the desired nominal concentration of copper.
2.6 Test Organisms
The test organism used for this study was the daphnid Ceriodaphnia dubia. Test
organisms were neonates of less than 24 hours in age which were obtained from
individual cultures at ETT Environmental, Inc. These cultures are set weekly with
reproduction of the first three broods tracked for all culture organisms. Only neonates
from broods of eight or larger, produced by culture trays demonstrating less than 10%
mortality and greater than a mean of 15 young per female (3 broods) are used for testing.
Culture sensitivity is monitored through the use of semi-monthly reference toxicant
testing. Voucher specimens from the culture are set aside on a monthly basis and
taxonomically verified by a staff macroinvertebrate taxonomist. Culture organisms are
subject to the same light,temperature,and feeding regimes as used for testing.
Duke Harris-WER 2 Cu ETT Environmental;08/18
Page 39 of 110

3.0 RESULTS
3.1 Laboratory Water
3.1.1 Acute Toxicity Testing Results
The acute definitive test with Ceriodaphnia dubia in laboratory water spiked with copper
showed a 48 Hour LC50 of 10.236 ug/L Total Recoverable Copper and a 48 Hour LC50
of 9.402 ug/L Dissolved Copper. Due to the pattern of the data the values were
calculated using the Probit method. The survival data at each concentration are
summarized as follows;
Nominal Concentration Mean Measured Conc. 48 Hour
of Total Recoverable Cu of Total Recoverable Cu Mortality
and(Dissolved Cu)
0 ug/L <1.0 ug/L (<1.0) 0%
4.2 ug/L 5.0 ug/L(5.1) 0%
6.0 ug/L 6.0 ug/L(5.8) 0%
8.6 ug/L 6.3 ug/L (7.3) 45%
12.3 ug/L 14.4 ug/L(11.6) 95%
17.5 ug/L 18.3 ug/L(15.7) 100%
25 ug/L 24.5 ug/L(23.0) 100%
35 ug/L 34.0 ug/L (23.5) 100%
Survival data for the test may be found in Appendix B2. Results of measured
concentrations of total recoverable and dissolved copper are provided in Appendix B3.
Statistical analysis results are found in Appendix B6.
3.1.2 Chemical Analyses
The pH in the spiked dilution water test ranged from a minimum of 7.8 to a maximum of
8.1. Dissolved oxygen was generally at the saturation point in all treatments throughout
the test.
1 The Probit Method is used when there are at least two test concentrations with partial mortality.
Duke Harris-WER 2 Cu ETT Environmental;08/18
Page 40 of 1 10

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

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

1
4.0 CALCULATION OF WATER EFFECT RATIO
As noted in the results section,acute testing indicated an LC50 of 9.5500 ug/L of total recoverable
copper in laboratory dilution water and an LC50 of 144.544 ug/L of total recoverable copper in
1 100% SHNPP effluent.The laboratory dilution water LC50 values must be adjusted to
downstream water hardness in order to calculate the Water Effect Ratio,using the EPA formula,
1 as follows;
1 0 9a22
LC50 x (downstream hardness/laboratory water hardness)
T-Cu: 10.236 ug/L x(58/50)0.9422= 11.7723 ug/L
Dis-Cu: 9.402 ug/L x(58/50) 0.9422= 10.8132 ug/L
The Water Effect Ratio can thus be calculated as follows;
Water Effect Ratio(WER) = LC50 in Effluent = 128.278 ug/L = 10.8966
(Total Recoverable Copper) LC50 in Lab Water 11.7723 ug/L
Water Effect Ratio(WER) = LC50 in Effluent = 111.513 ug/L = 10.3127
(Dissolved Copper) LC50 in Lab Water 10.8132 ug/L
A final water effect ratio(FWER)will be calculated using the individual WERs from three
rounds of testing.
1
Duke Harris-WER 2 Cu ETT Environmental;08/18
Page 43 of 110

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

ROUND 2 - APPENDIX B2
Survival Data for Acute Definitive Tests
Duke Harris-WER Round 2 Cu ETT Environmental,Inc.;08/I8
Page 45 of 110

IP
Page 64 c.tat
Nominal Initial# Mortality Measured Concentration WER 48 Hour Acute Toxicity Test
Conc Rep Organisms 24 hr 48 hr_Initial Final Mean Facility: 3: (1\UL) Metal:
cAk --7.!
A r? 0 Total Total Total Sample ID:
, , 0% B 5 0 Start Date: 8 15 i g Time: 1300 By: /1M 110
C 5 0 Dis Die Die End Date: j 17 a Time:.13 Z— BY: rtM III
D 5— 0 Effluent Log it: _Upstream Log#: tit
r A 5- Q Total Total rota, TEST ORGANISMS it
Z B 6- n Test Organism: A.F 8.10 1 G".�, t+t
, C ( 0 DIG DIs eta for Ceriodaphnia dubia Source: fVr g cj, 8 r0 tft
D
Date Removed; 8 t{ 1 HI
- • • n -
-
-
P...1t.,...... !--Inc) (Time and '27.9J) /"rim,....
b B y Q for fathead minnows or mysids: u
C 0 , Die Die Dis Source: Age: if
D 1 n Temperature 24-26 C. Light 16 hr If/8 hr kd;50-100 ft candles I
A S Z Total Total Total Laboratory Water MW/SSF @ 50 mg/L hardness ,:
i
B 5 3 Downstream Water Preparationtl t
C 6. 2 DI5 ot5 Ole %effluent volume mL Prep.Date: t
D 6 .� % upstream volume mL Prep.by: ,
',
A y Total Total Total
ion: Metal Salt: 'S
e aratt I�
Solution Pr LD
Test �t,t�
�1 B � p y
12� C S DIG Dis Dis Date: 1 is lb' BY Stock. Soln: 12--72 L
4 I D Nominal Conc mL Stock Saki. Volume prepared
6%1 A Total Total Total L\•2" '/7 . 'P O „l i
B s zy
9 I t
,lj \� C V , Die Ds Ole 0 •3y
i i4 l A 6 6- Total Total Total I f•7 '401
li il l B 6 .s Z •Id,
;
j C -� b3pC D 4js
i,l;
ID 6I '!{t A 6 5 Total Total Total A Total Total Tot
11 I i i]
'0l 3 B t 5 B
ih Ij
.1i C ,") Dls DIG Die C Ole Ole DI:
D D
r,ii •i
r'r ,ri
{II A Total Total Total A Total Total Tot
I �l B B
1
:l C Die Dis Dls C Dis Dis Di:
t.I. D
D
Test solution volume:25 mL. Test vessels 1 oz.plastic cups.Transfer volume 0.05 mL. Test Method: per EPA Interim Guidance
5
i.
ill. Page 46of110

V64Qt1
Page 65 of 100
t No Initial# Mortality Measured Concentration
WER 48 Hour Acute Toxicity Test
Cent Rep Organisms 24 hr 48 hr Initial Final Mean Facility: 1 u - kto.4-(�('S/ Metal:ctiu
A A Total Total Total Sample ID: Q(A-A-"I O C
-
I
0% B ,� 0 Start Date: ?-I5'18 Time: 13 00 By: AM
1 _ C 5 0 DIs DID Ols End Date: Sl171f1 Time: /3Z5" By: 4/17
ire D S Effluent Log It: 2 t Z l Upstream Log#:
1
.—„ t A 5- 0 Total Total Total TEST ORGANISMS
--1 B .S 0 Test Organism: A-F 4'•!o, 6 Li d f)
�.r� 2 5 C 0 DIs Ols DIs M`P tl• / .s-k p vo
- 5- for Ceriodaphnia dubia Source:
D , 4- 0 Date Removed; J'•/y.«
rr L
F' w• ,al - - beiweel I j 7ot (Time)and -—64:1p- (Time)
(
3 B .S t!`)., for fathead minnows or mysids:
-�.1•
C 5 ��0ll Ols Us Dis Source: Age:
I D 5- V Temperature 24-26 C. Light 16 hr It/8 hr kd;50-100 ft candles
A 5- 0 Total Total Total Laboratory Water DMW/SSF @ 50 mg/L hardness
1 j 5D B - / Downstream Water Preparation
C 5 0 Dis DIs DIs % effluent 1000 volume 1/000 mL Prep.Date:8IS'/j
i D o
i % upstream volume , mL Prep.by: AM
�/ .—}T
, t�
A 7 z Total Total Total
B S / . Test Solution Preparation: Metal Salt: Cu SO Y•5//
22)
i I 0 Dis Ells DIs Date: '8-��tr By: AYE Stock.Soln: 1 Z,7Zn'ij/
D Nominal Conc mL Stock Soln. Volume prepared
A S Total Total Total 25 Q}� `�� v»
I t7
(OZ..
B 5- 1 35 I-38
c 3
( �1
'._ Ols DIs DIs. 5-1) �,�
D 3 ?)-
A loz 11. ,
5 Total Total Total
( 143 B s 1y3 S,62
C 5- 3.. Ols DIs DIs vVL1 1.v7.,
I 1 D 5- 3
�— A 5-- ,5--* Total Total Total A Total Total Total
I �t B s B
C / Dis DIs DIs C Ols DIs DIs I
p 51 Y D
t A Total Total Total
A Total Total Total
I ii ii B B
1 a C Dis DIs DIs C DIs DIs DIs
I
. D D
O•Test solution volume:zsmL. Test vessels,oz.plastic cups.Transfer volume 0.osmL. Test Method: per EPA Interim Guidance
.
I
I Page 47 of 110
I

r -
ROUND 2 -APPENDIX B3
Measured Concentrations of Total Recoverable Copper in Test Solutions
Duke Harris-WER Round 2 Cu ETT Environmental, Inc.;08/10
Page 48 of 110

I
1
1
1
I
I
Measured Total Recoverable and Dissolved Copper
Duke Harris Plant-Primary Species Site Specific Study
I August 2018
1
I Sample:S iked Dilution Water(Diluted DMV1 Initial Date:08/15/18
ominal Measured Total Recoverable Copper(µg/L) %of Measured Dis.Cu(µg/L) %
I Total Cu Initial Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7 Mean Nominal Initial Day 2 Mean Dissolved
1 0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
4.2 4.6 5.3 5.0 119% 4.9 5.2 5.1 102%
6.0 no data 6.0 6.0 100% 5.8 no data 5.8 97% _
8.6 7.3 5.3 6.3 73% 9.6 5.0 7.3 116%
12.3 14.7 14.1 14.4 117% 15.4 7.7 11.6 81%
1 17.5 20.1 16.4 18.3 105%" 17.4 14.0 15.7 86%
25.0 25.0 24.0 24.5 98% 23.0 23.0 23.0 94%
1 35.0 39.0 29.0 34.0 97% 23.0 28.0 d 23.5 69%
1
I Sample:Simulated Downstream-Duke Harris Initial Date:8/15/18
Nominal Measured Total Recoverable Copper(µg/L) %of Measured Dis.Cu(µg/L) %
1 Total Cu Initial Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7 Mean Nominal Initial Day 2 Mean Dissolved
1 0.0 27.7 30.8 29.3 21.5 23.8 22.7
25.0 50.0 no data 50.0 200% 24.0 41.0 32.5 65%
1 35.0 55.0 no data 55.0 157% 43.0 37.0 40.0 73%
1 50.0 60.0 75.0 67.5 135% 59.0 69.0 64.0 95%
71.4 85.0 90.0 _ 87.5 123% 76.0 78.0 77.0 88%
1 102.0 121.0 126.0 _ 123.5 121% 110.0 109.0 109.5- 89%
143.0 161.0 165.0 _ 163.0 114% 137.0 136.0 136.5 84%
1 204.0 218.0 215.0 216.5 106% 185.0 187.01 186.0 86%
Page 49 of 110

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

(l
EV
Er 4
AC>rl`i.iJ -TTIXIC("1-l' TCS�� - Ci-1I"q\'I l;Till'
N„r —_____ ___ "— 4b'hour�c
?J Hour Rradrngi Jb'Hour fiendin!s it
Initial Initial Readings 14!lour 11 rn riinlr) nr"
iCI�:' old old ^,:.
old nld nr" nr"
Cnodon, nDusoly.d
OwnI,cd l)r snlvr<I
IkIlil (7itsul•,rtl (runhnslrmlo� U�ad•rd ,II Orygrn
n, ill C1ryt�n P
II Oryl•,rn t PII
IJ PII <,r 1, n�ii Orll: mt./I.
(Cfl_ nl rl't:r' ml./I. rat'./L __ `\
Cone—`_ __e 1— ------.
_-
oo 1p 8lD-31
II iu,l. Date p' " "lb �3�
tYi'rlHI, Time. ` )�
III ly l,l. Initials.
tillfilli
72 Hour Readings 71 Hour Readings 96 Hour Readings
11171'f.!ILi old o{d nc"' nc>+'
old old
Dissolved
Dissolved Dissolved
I€LIIIII'I
Elilucnt Oxygen pH Oxygen pHOxygen p31
�t-
IkL+El.INI Cooccotrrtioo mg/L m�'
I1C11Bilu
12illllllii
91ilttlf k,
I1111illlll
--
MHO,
Mtu:altII ,
IH111111 IP .
➢KIWI,
ilIHIIIII.I Date:
win Time:
NI1111liII initials:
tlllti111EI
E IJIIIIII
Lab 1D#:
ullaul!rl Client: 1/4A \\�l1, (/+ 1�7�'L2 1
Ililg11lu 3 �f
IIITIllli.. V 01 1 1
BUlllliv
Page 51 of 110

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

se
ET, 7 i
CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD
sI,::. .en ViTOIl unri,`i Page 0I
PO Box 16414,Greenville,SC 29606-7414
f
[phone], [phone] Fax:[phone]
Shipping Address:4 Craftsman Ct,Greer,SC 29650
W W W.ETTE NvI RO NM ENTAL.COM
Client: ,f <_� -..
tJ
bi.s� L._.fl' t�"i `' � Program Containers Preservative Parameters
Facility: L,/ _ .
a r%r J Whole Effluent Toxicir
State: A l `' , NPDES f:
acute Chronic Test Organisms i
tj ci
d p o
U (Composite only) (Grab or Composite) o _ _ i j V o_ — t+ Z
•
' U = U = _ 1=H2SO4 •:n = � E. = •E _ �"
Sign,and Print below > 8 =o ?=t-a. 2 — 2 _ SI — —', _ _ _ > I
the dotted line _ E E v o a= on ' ' o = s y r p I
c _ f .o _ n - o c = o. —_
o c 6 o,•o = = 6 8 i=zn.4c v c) — _ - > w
SAMPLE ID EE Composite Start Date lime SampleCotlection Date Time Collected In u rn :n z T. a U > e=rj . < < v U u Ir Z n = v - 3 Chemical Analysis&Other
C e { �n aaa(1w On(2) ^1,u ��0,3� a r)rt,rn t ay
aLA i
w!
0
-,i;
0
Special Instructions:
Sample Custody Transfer Record Secure Receipt I Sample
Date Time Relinquished By I Organizati n Received By/Organizatig / Area Temp`C Preserved?
U'�K It dV..3Ll di iL4 fili
�/ii/i ' Imo° - , �(� 0.i
COMPOSITE SAMPLING PROCEDURES TEMPERATURE MONITORING PROCEDURES HOLD TIME PROCEDURES
Composite samples must be collected over a 24 hour period. Sample temperature during collection and transport must be between For toxicity testing the sample must first be used within 36 hours
Time Proportional:I sample each hour for 24 hours.Equal volut 0.0 and 6.0'C.Samples must not be frozen.Use water ice in sealed bags. of sample collection(completion of composite sample).
or at minimum I sample every 4 hours over 24 hours. Sample may not be used after 72 hours from sample collection.
Flow Proportional:As per instructions in NPDES permit.

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

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

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

PROBIT
RAW DATA
Test Percent Number of Log of
Conc. Mortality Organisms Test Conc Probit
0.1 0 20 -1.0000 0.5
67.5 5 20 1.8293 3.36
87.5 20 20 1.9420 4.16
123.5 45 20 2,0917 4,87
163 75 20 2.2'122 5.67
216.5 90 20 2.3355 6.28
1. Enter data in yellow boxes
Test Type: Acute Definitive 48 Hour
Species: C dubia
Sample ID Duke Harris T Cu LC50 =
Date: 8/15/18 128.278
A value of>0 must be entered for the control concentration,thus a nominal value of 0.1 is used.This does not impact the result.
Lower test concentrations with no mortality are not necessary to determine the Probit LC50 value
Page 57 of 110

PROBIT
RAW DATA
Test Percent Number of Log of
Conc. Mortality Organisms Test Conc Probit
0.1 0 20 -1.0000 0.5
64 5 20 1.8062 3.36
77 20 20 1.8865 4.16
109.5 45 20 2.0394 4.87
136.5 75 20 2.1351 5.67
186 90 20 2.2695 6.28
1. Enter data in yellow boxes
Test Type: Acute Definitive 48 Hour
Species: C dubia
Sample ID Duke Harris Dis Cu LC50 =
Date: 8/15/18 111.513
A value of>0 must be entered for the control concentration,thus a nominal value of 0.l is used.This does not impact the
result. Lower test concentrations with no mortality are not necessary to determine the Probit LC50 value
Page 58 of l l0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.0 CALCULATION OF WATER EFFECT RATIO
As noted in the results section,acute testing indicated an LC50 of 20.358 ug/L of total recoverable
copper in laboratory dilution water and an LC50 of 179.504 ug/L of total recoverable copper in
100% SHNPP effluent.The laboratory dilution water LC50 values must be adjusted to
downstream water hardness in order to calculate the Water Effect Ratio,using the EPA formula,
as follows;
LC50 x (downstream hardness/laboratory water hardness)°.9422
T-Cu: 20.358 ug/L x(54/50)°9422= 21.8891 ug/L
Dis-Cu: 19.748 ug/L x(54/50)°.9422= 21.2332 ug/L
The Water Effect Ratio can thus be calculated as follows;
Water Effect Ratio(WER) = LC50 in Effluent = 179.504 ug/L = 8.2006
(Total Recoverable Copper) LC50 in Lab Water 21.8891 ug/L
Water Effect Ratio(WER) = LCs0 in Effluent = 158.483 ug/L = 7.4639
(Dissolved Copper) LC50 in Lab Water 21.2332 ug/L
A final water effect ratio(FWER)will be calculated using the individual WERs from three
rounds of testing.
Duke Harris-WER 3 Cu ETT Environmental;09/18
Page 68 of 110

ROUND 3 -APPENDIX Cl
Reference Toxicant Quality Control Chart
Ceriodaphnia dubia
Reference Toxicant Chart 2017/18
Acute /NaCI / Ceriodaphnia dubia
2.75- __ —_ _— __ __ __ -- __ -_. _— __ __ _— __ __ __ __ __ ._. __ __ __ __
2.50 - - -2. •
2. - - - - — — — - -- -- - -
�.?�2. L. 2. 9 2.t 2. 2. 2. 3
2. — . 2. 7 2. t 2.' 2.'S
U 2. 2 2.
ca2.2 - - -- -- - -- -- - -- -- - — - -- - -- -- —
C- 1. 1.4 -1 1.-e
1.75 -- - - - - - -� ' - t :t
• 1, 1. 1.,4 1.
1.50
Dec1917 Ja' '18 Feb27 18 Faar222`18 Apr2418 May3O 8 Jun25`48 JLtM`18 Aug.29 18 Sep24�8
Jan318 Feb1718 Mart18 Apr218 May8.18 Jart518 Jut3"18 Auge'18 Sep1O18 0ct298
Upper Lower
-LC 50 *Mean - -Control -A-Control
Limit Limit
'JCL&LCL are+1-2 standard deviations from mean(respec ivey)
Duke Harris-WER 3 Cu ETT Environmental;09/18
Page 69 of 110

ROUND 3 -APPENDIX C2
Survival Data for Acute Definitive Tests
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Duke Harris-WER 3 Cu ETT Environmental;09/18 1
1
1
Page 70 of 110 1
1

Page 70 of 1pp
Nominal Initial It Mortality Measured Concentration WER 48 Hour Acute Toxicity Test a1 j----
r Nor
Cone Reit Organisms 24 hr 48 hr Initial Pinal Mean Facility: 1IA.V. Metal:
%t Ct
A t ,„,„, ,,," iota Sample: ID.
cz 1
0% B _ 0 Start Date: t 6, !.� Time: \.-71(,Y) By: J(i
C 5 () DIO Diu Ds End Date: 1-2`(1-n' Time: 150 By d:
D r� () Effluent Log#: Upstream Loc:tl:
... ,1
A 5 ,,,,,,, ,,,,,,: Ini,„ TEST ORGANISMS I r
B 5 0 Test Organism: I- 11-H, Cif �61 0 , `_) Cr 1 1
fk_2 Z
C 0) Dls Coi Dis f "i.Cenoclaphnia dubia 1 Source:
l
D J 0 -bate Removed; - (s,
A H 0 Mal Total Total - Between ;-71Y) (-rime)and Z (Time)
B _I 0 for fathead minnows or mysids:
C 5 r) Dis Dls Dis Source: Age: '3
D
5 0
Temperature 24-26 C. Light 16 hr It/8 hr kd;50-100 ft candles 1
, I
A n Total Total Total Laboratory Water DMW / SSF © 50 mg/L hardness
/ B 5 0Downstream Water Preparation
g (tn 1 G
C O ols Dls Ds % effluent volume mL Prep.Date: i L.
D 5 0 % upstream volume mL Prep.by:
A ' ) 0 Total Total Total
fZ 3 B 5 0 Test Solution Preparation: Metal Salt: C.)501-51-0
C 5 0 Dls ots Dis Date: By: Stock.Soln: 12.72-011:k It-
(
D 5 0 Nominal Conc mL Stock Soln. Volume prepared
A 5 1 Total Total Total 0 0 5C0 ovt L I
C 5 O Dts Dis Die 0 ,z9
D ////5 0 Z.' .3ry 1
A 5 Total Total Total (�-3 O
ZS B 5 �Al 1/5 '(/p g 11
C 5 �t Dis Dls Dis ��► 1
D 5 3 ) I. Z
A 5 5 Total Total Total A Total Total Total
5 B 5j 5 B
C ✓ 5 Os Dis Dis C Dls Dis Dis
D5 5 D .......
A Total Total Total A Total Total Total
B B
I
C Dls Dis Dls C Dis DIs DIs
D D
Test solution volume:25 mL. Test vessels 1 oz.plastic cups.Transfer volume 0.05 mL. Test Method:per EPA Interim Guidance Test soy
ii,
„i
Page 71 of 110

I
r
3e)Q Page 71 of 100 I
t N°ttittnl
1 Initial it VILER Mortality Measured Concentration ER 48 Hour Acute Toxicity Test
Rep Organisms 24 hr 48 hr Initial Fins! Mean , Facility / �/a ( jo
c°„t: Yl�Y t t� .Y i �� Metal L l
A (-5 i i,,,, 1,..,„ 1 Sample. ID ,��'�.
1
B `) _1) Start Date: (-(-�(r_�j : Time: . By: Y .
c 1
C " J () Dr Ols Dis End Date c
�� '(R" Time: ;510 BY
Effluent Log . ✓ 1,1 1L"�kt m; Upstrea Log#t.
A \-') ( ) ,ut.,, im,,l lula, TEST ORGANISMS
1 I L
B 5 (-- Test Orgattisnm: _13,0. S_
. , (. Os Dis Dis for(eriodaphnia dubi�t .- Source:
I D C 0 \ Date Removed; (4 -2 '1�
TimA1 >� TirnPl anCl , 6�)(i (Time)
A` �� �` R�t nic.an I /'y l
B J
JO for fathead minnows or mysids:
35 C (_� Dis Dio Dis Source; Ache
ri 0
D 0Temperature 24-26 C. Light 16 hr It/8 fir kd;50-100 h candles
I
i A 5 �n1 Total Total Total Laboratory Water DMW I SSF @ 50 rng/L hardness
IB 5 t f Downstream Water Preparation '
l
1 O C GS 0 ols Din Dln %effluent I o volume( mL Prep.Date:
D J 0 % upstream volume mL Prep.by:
A 5 0 Total Total Total '
.
B S 0 Test Solution Preparation: Metal Salt:
T''A C 5
Os DIs Ols Date: By: Stock. Soln:
D S 0 Nominal Conc mL Stock Spin. Volume prepared
A ✓ 1 Tvtai Total Total ( t 0
500
I /�o� r)5 0 25 .15
C ✓ 6 Ols ols DIs 35 I-38'
D 5 0 50 I -q1
A 5 i 27�
Total Total Total 11
B 5 , i Inz 1.....o1
C 5 O DIs Ms DIs 115 ,6 2/'
D I ' OZ ��
1 i A / 3 Total Total Total A
Total Total Total
B B
j5C3 Ms Dis DIs C Ols Dls Dis
, D D
A Total Total Total A Total Total Total
B B
1 C DIs Os DIs C Dis DIs DIs
D D
Test solution volume:25 mL. Test vessels 1 oz.plastic cups.Transfer volume 0.05 mL. Test Method: per EPA Interim Guidance
Page 72 of 110

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

Measured Total Recoverable and Dissolved Copper
Duke Harris Plant-Primary Species Site Specific.Study
September 2018
Sample:Spiked Dilution Water(Diluted DMWlnitial Date:09/26/18
Nominal Measured Total Recoverable Copper(AWL) „r Measured Dis.Cu(µg/L) %
Total Cu Initial Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7 Mean \„,„,,,.,i Initial Day 2 Mean Dissolved
0 <1.0 <1.0 I 1.6 I.(1 <1.0
4.2 2.2 4.8 3.6 86% 3.6 3.0 3.3 92%
6.0 4.6 8.8 6.7 112% 7.6 5.5 6.6 99%
8.6 7.4 9.4 8.4 98% 8.0 6.3 7.1 85%
12.3 8.1 14.4 11.3 92% 11.2 9.9 10.6 94%
17.5 14.8 15.7 15.3 87% 15.4 15.7 15.5 101%
25.0 18.0 27.0 22.5 90% 23.0 29.0 26.0 116%
35.0 32.0 35.0 ;3 5 96% 26.0 29.0 27.5 82%
Sample:Simulated Downstream-Duke Harris Initial Date:9/26/18
Nominal Measured Total Recoverable Copper(µg/L) %of Measured Dis.Cu(µg/L)
Total Cu Initial Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7 Mean Nominal Initial Day 2 Mean Dissolved
0.0 23.4 22.4 22.9 20.2 20.2
25.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 200% 41.0 23.0 32.0 64%
3'5.0 64.0 63.0 63.5 181% 48.0 32.0 40.0 63%
50.0 66.0 70.0 68.0 136% 54.0 49.0 51.5 76%_
71.4 85.0 86.0 85.5 120% 76.0_ 69.0 72.5 85% _
102.0 116.0 109.0 113.0 111% 108.0 98.0 103.0 91%
143.0 151.0 152.0 152.0 106% 152.0 127.0 140.0 92%
204.0 228.0 221.0 224.0 110% 208.0 169.0 189.0 84%
It is not known why measured concentrations of copper in DMW were higher on Day 2 than at start of test,
however,the mean values used for statistical analysis were close to the nominal values.
Page 74 of 110

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

1 i •
• - , .
A C LIT I TOXICITY TEST - CH E-IN 4 1 STR 1.)
,
• Initial Reading:i 24 Hour Readingi 24 Hour Readings ._ 4ii Hour Read:tr dig.t _____•48,1-,,luur Readings
Coorloriom old old) old onv or»
Pll 131olvrtl. 1 D
Ipmh rn
oOr )01 essol%rd Olcolvrd Cltsl,olvcd DI s sol y•atj. v!
C010011 01 rtc-ri p 1 01 S11001) 01 Irr0 pl I Olytco p I I Oxyu. pll Oltytco pll
corcou,lmo nwL (PI) mt/L mt/l. "'IA mt/L
•
!--------, 00/ ------
; -;• 2-^ • 061.---
F ----•---------_
- C1'111-:
•'--.7 — -----
--------------------------6— g•
-------, '
____---
-._
I _
___---•_ ——-----
----•---------
Datc. _
Initials. .
•
72 Hour Readings 72 Hour Readings 96 Hour Readings
' old old new new old cid
Dissolved Dissolved Dissolved
Elnuent Oxygen pH Osygco pH Oxygen p14
Concentration ang/L tog/L eng/L
....
.
•
Date:
Time:
Initials:
Client: ,
'--120t 115- cu, Lab IDt4:
.: .
• 0 0 1. 2.0
. .. Page 76 of 110

ROUND 3 -APPENDIX C5
Chain of Custody Documentation
Duke Harris-WER 3 Cu ETT Environmental;09/18
Page 77 of 110

i'Ll ,...:,' :
k CHAIN I F CUSTODY RECORD
PO Sox 16414,Greenville,SC 29606-7414
[phone], [phone] Fax:[phone]
Shipping Address:4 Craftsman Ct,Greer,SC 29650
W W W.ETTEN V IRONMENTAL.COM
Cltent: JJ I, --------
}" `r accs Program • Containers 'Preservative l' i�i� J.� 6 a-amctcrs ,
Facility: �__ - —
__-- l' ° whole Effluent Tonicity -
State ,i r. NPDES 4:
___________. _I Acute Chronic Test Organisms \
J — C ; {{ —
(Composite only) (Grab or Composite) . - - ; ? - `� _ _ Z
Sign,and Print below 5 _ al = ?=IKCL n = 1- a _ ca ' - _ _ _ j
_ the dotted line -F. " = & U o E s=HNo:; ' = ' - _ = s r 'o -
El' `� C ej O O t: ^ P., 3=Zaie o o i T _
SAMPLE IDComposite Stan Dote Time Sample Collection Date Time Collected by U CA Z E v > 6=otter < < i v t j C ^ 5 7. T. U _ 5 G Chemical Analysis&Other
CC U-+ O_ii ' -:i1-t-d4 , _ `i-. -rl � �_ L0 t?19) 1(, ✓ 5 /
j ficet� [L mil•-lie Ail(,_r- I �F� tt Zn �5��}�3
J
O
O
i
i q
t
k
Special Instructions:
a
Sample Custody Transfer Record - Secure Receipt Sample
Date Time Relinquished By/Organization Received gvtOrganization ,e. Area 1 Temp°C ! Preserved?
1 Z5-A 1030 f }� �� () era- ,3 r "�y" °j,J, 'c =-'' � f 1 �''
9/ 6118 3° '-- o'' \ �f- 04.1,-,. en" I O.
COMPOSITE SAMPLING PROCEDURES TEMPERATURE MOArITORIAJC PROCEDURES HOLD TIME PROCEDURES
Composite samples must be collected over a 24 hour period. Sample temperature during.collection and transport must be between For toxicity resting the sample must first be used within 36 hours
Time Proportional: I sample each hour for 24 hours.Equal volut 0.0 and 6.0°C.Samples must not be frozen.Use water ice in sealed bags. of sample collection(completion of composite sample).
or at minimum I sample every 4 hours over-24 hours. Sample may not be used after 72 hours from sample collection.
Flow Proportional:As per instructions in NPDES permit.

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

PROBIT
RAW DATA
Test Percent Number of Log of
Conc. Mortality Organisms Test Conc Probit
0.1 0 20 -1.0000 0.5
8.4 0 20 0.9243 0.5
11.3 0 20 1.0531 0.5
15.3 5 20 1.1847 3.36
22.5 75 20 '1.3522 5.67
33.5 100 20 1.5250 8.09
1. Enter data in yellow boxes
Test Type: WER Acute
Species: C dubia
Sample ID DMW T-Cu LC50=
Date: 9/26/18 20.358
A value of>0 must be entered for the control concentration,thus a nominal value of 0.1 is used.This does not impact the result. Lower
test concentrations with no mortality are not necessary to determine the Probit LC50 value
Page 80of110

PROBIT
RAW DATA
Test Percent Number of Log of
Conc. Mortality Organisms Test Conc Probit
0.1 0 20 -1.0000 0.5
7.1 0 20 0.8513 0.5
10.6 0 20 '1.0253 0.5
15.5 5 20 '1.1903 3,36
26 75 20 1.4150 5.67
27.5 100 20 1.4393 8.09
1. Enter data in yellow boxes
Test Type: WER Acute
Species: C dubia
Sample ID DMW Dis-Cu LC50=
Date: 9/26/18 19.748
A value of>0 must be entered for the control concentration,thus a nominal value of 0.1 is used.This does not impact the result.
Lower test concentrations with no mortality are not necessary to determine the Probit LC50 value
Page 81 of 110

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

P
RAW DATA
Test Percent Number of Log of
Conc. Mortality Organisms Test Conc Probit
0.1 0 20 -1.0000 0.5
72.5 0 20 1.8603 0.5
103 5 20 2.0128 3.36
140 20 20 2.1461 4.16
'189 55 20 2.2765 5.13
270 100 20 2.4314 8.09
1. Enter data in yellow boxes
Test Type: WER Acute
Species: C dubia
Sample ID Harris Dis-Cu LC50=
Date: 9/26/18 158.483
A value of>0 must be entered for the control concentration,thus a nominal value of 0.1 is used.This does not impact the result.
Lower test concentrations with no mortality are not necessary to determine the Probit LC50 value.
Low dissolved copper values as compared to higher total zinc values may reflect adherence of copper ions to particulates in the
effluent.
The highest concentration run showed only 55%mortality.The concentration factor used in the test was 0.7.Therefore it was
assumed that had the next higer concentration been run(which would have been 189/0.7=270 ug/L),that all the test organisms
would have died(most conservative-worst case scenario).
Page 83 of 110

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

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

1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Duke Energy Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant (SHNPP) discharges effluent into Harris Lake
under NPDES Permit NC0039586. In cooperation with Jacobs Engineering,ETT Environmental has been
retained to conduct a "site specific study" to determine if permitted copper limits for each effluent
discharge are unnecessarily overprotective of aquatic life. This is to be accomplished through the
calculation of a water effect ratio (WER), comparing the acute toxicity of copper upon the surrogate
aquatic test organisms Ceriodaphnia dubia and Pimephales promelas in laboratory dilution water to the
acute toxicity of copper to the same test species in simulated downstream receiving water.The study used
the methodology provided in the Streamlined Water-Effect Ratio Procedure for Discharges of Copper
(EPA-822-R-01-005). This round of testing was conducted using the secondary test organism Pimephales
promelas (fathead minnow).
On September 24-25, 2018, SHNPP personnel collected a composite effluent water sample. Acute
toxicity tests for the Water Effect Ratio study were initiated on September 27th,2018.
Laboratory Location: ETT Environmental,Inc.
4 Craftsman Court
Greer, SC 29650
SCDHEC Certification# 23104
Study Director: Robert W.Kelley,Ph.D.
Study Scientist: Amy McMahon
Study Technicians: Jennifer Christian
Jonathon Gillespie
Forrest Jackson
Study Dates: September 27-29,2018
Duke Harris-WER 4 Fish Cu ETT Environmental;9/18
Page 86 of 110

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

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

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

3.0 RESULTS
3.1 Laboratory Water
3.1.1 Acute Toxicity Testing Results
The acute definitive test with Pimephales promelas in laboratory water spiked with
copper showed a 48 Hour LC50 of 169.265 ug/L Total Recoverable Copper and a 48
Hour LC50 of 157.883 g/L Dissolved Copper. Due to the pattern of the data, the values
were calculated using the probit method. The survival data at each concentration are
summarized as follows;
Nominal Concentration Mean Measured Conc. 48 Hour
of Total Recoverable Cu of Total Recoverable Cu Mortality
and(Dissolved Cu)
0 ug/L <1.0 ug/L(<1.0) 0%
50.0 ug/L 51.0 ug/L(59.5)2 0%
71.4 ug/L 72.0 ug/L(72.0) 0%
102 ug/L 106.5 ug/L(98.5) 5%
143 ug/L 145 ug/L(131) 20%
204 ug/L 200 ug/L(192) 30%
292 ug/L 271 ug/L(256) 100%
416 ug/L 366 ug/L(359) 100%
Survival data for the test may be found in Appendix D2.Results of measured
concentrations of total recoverable and dissolved copper are provided in Appendix D3.
3.1.2 Chemical Analyses
The pH in the spiked dilution water test ranged from a minimum of 7.4 to a maximum of
7.7. Dissolved oxygen was generally at the saturation point in all treatments throughout
the test.
1
The probit method is used when at least two test concentrations show partial mortality.
2 Theoretically the dissolved metal concentration cannot be higher than the total metal concentration,however,the
value shown is the value measured.
Duke Harris-WER 4 Fish Cu ETT Environmental;9/18
Page 90 of 110

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

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

4.0 CALCULATION OF WATER EFFECT RATIO
As noted in the results section,acute testing indicated an LC50 of 169.265 ug/L of total
recoverable copper in laboratory dilution water and an LC50 of 484.901 ug/L of total recoverable
copper in 100%Duke Harris effluent.The laboratory dilution water LC50 values must be adjusted
to downstream water hardness in order to calculate the Water Effect Ratio,using the EPA
formula, as follows;
LC50 x (downstream hardness/laboratory water hardness)0.9422
T-Cu: 169.265 ug/L x(54/52)9'9422= 181.9948 ug/L
Dis-Cu: 157.883 ug/L x(54/52)119422= 169.7568 ug/L
The Water Effect Ratio can thus be calculated as follows;
Water Effect Ratio(WER) = LC50 in Effluent = 484.901 ug/L = 2.6644
(Total Recoverable Copper) LC50 in Lab Water 181.9948 ug/L
Water Effect Ratio(WER) = LCgo in Effluent = 447.288 ug/L = 2.8330
(Dissolved Copper) LCS0 in Lab Water 169.7568 ug/L
A final water effect ratio(EWER)will be calculated using the individual WERs only from the
three rounds of testing with the primary test organism.
Duke Harris-WER 4 Fish Cu ETT Environmental;9/18
Page 93 of 110

ROUND 4-APPENDIX D1
Reference Toxicant Quality Control Chart
Pimephales promelas
•
•
Duke Harris-WER 4 Fish Cu ETT Environmental;9/18
Page 94 of 110

ACUTE REFTOX - 2018
cathead Minnow; Toxicant NaCI
10.0
9.0 -
J 8.84 8.81 8.63 8.85 8.81 8.84 8.89 8.84 8.85 8.85 8.82
8.52 8.548.528.`5e8.53 :.
03 8.44 8.45 8.42 8.42 r ♦ 8.39
8lJ�� I 8.29
0 8.18
t17 8.0- 1 -
V . 77 - - - - 7.-7 7.77 7.77
--I
O 7.44 . .4. ' - ' 7.50 7.48 .47 7.47 7.48
7.38 7. 7.39 _ 7
= 7.3f' '.38 -
•Y i
8.34 8.33 8.39 8.41 8.32 8.30 8.30 8.29
£.?7,$. 7,e24,R 85E�. a1 P1, . , ,ft ,,3 77,RPTtI,$ 'e.75, . . , , , ,.23, . , le. t, ,
80
Misr2118 Apr11"'18 Apr2518 May1518 Jun1318 Ju110'18 Aug718 Aug21"18 S€p1218 Oct218 Oct18'18 1
M&28'18 Apr1T18 Mtay8°18 May22'18 Jun1918 Ju127'18 Aug14"18 Aug29'18 Sep18`1S 01110''18
Date .)ct a Lct ARE_.2 rO D FROM>AN
1 -f MEAN f LC50 ,F UPPER f LOWER
Duke Harris-WER 4 Fish Cu ETT Environmental;9/18
Page 95 of 110

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

Page 740(1G,
Nominal Initial# Mortality Measured Concentration WER 48 Hour Acute Toxicity Test
...-**** i
Cone Rep Organisms 24 hr 48 hr Initial e Facility: YM IA Final Mean , Metal:c_Lk ,
A lowToi,i Total Sample ID: .�
�'` � � +G Time: ' BY: �.S
0% B I0 0 Start Date: ���'I (1 I I � `i
C End Date: .A.- - Time: -200 By: _'
DIs DIs (Ss
D Effluent Log# Upstream Log#:
A 0 0 Total Total Total TEST ORGANISMSWI , _i
B I 0 0 Test Organism:
mu
C Dis Dis Dis for Ceriodaphnia dubia Source:
Mk
D Date Removed;
EL; n,t /Time •
A \h\ u U Total Total Total Beiwee (Time)and L',
MII v
0 for fathead minnows mysids:
B / pp
ni55 Ae: �0�{ 5
c � � 1 �
C DIs DIs DIs Source: ��JcJ R g `,;
D Temperature 24-26 C. Light 16 hr It/6 hr kd;50-100 ft candles 1 1
:
MIA 1(� I� Total Total Total Laboratory Water DMW/SSF @ 50 mg/L hardnessq•Z3-Ig
® !.; I B I O 0 Downstream Water Preparation
1 En I50I o volume mL Prep.Date
C Ols Ds DIs /o effluent
l % upstream volume mL Prep.by:
I.
A 10
0 Total Total Total
-l i B I Q D Test Solution Preparation: Metal Salt:
SQ/
.i'll I ' C DIs DIs Dis Date: By: Stock.Soln:1Z72 I t/
II I
I,pvI
i u D Nominal Cone mL Stock Soln. Volume prepared
,
I loll'I 0 0 )OCO bt L
II
l+I A 10
I Total Total Total c � l4'I 2_ B 7S/ I�qf,,
0
i� 'I' 10 (o ir: li qq �j
C DIs Dis Ds
III] D 50 3.6"t 9
,I 'l A `O .5 Total Total Total '' 1 1-4 5.6 2—
i I I
Ills DIs -Dis
1,,'1,1 ! rip B I 0 1 ' I 0'2— 4i5,02-
113 I► I
D 2-04 OM
II III A O Total Total Total A Total Total Total
, -l/�f B
mmili I !r
mil!i I Dls DIs DIs - C DIs DIs DIs
Ili 'l;I C
�, r11;1 D D
, t I
II A Total Total Total A Total Total Total
7 I I
!I' B
l;; B
II C Dis Dis DIs
l ji C Dis DIs DIs
old t
D D
I is Test Method:per EPA Interim Guidance
t I.�•i Test solution volume:25 mL. Test vessels 1 oz.plastic cups.Transfer volume 0.05 mL.
h 11 ,i1�'
1ti
tillll Page 97 of 110

Page 76 a(io
Nominal Initial II Mortality Measured Concentration WER 48 Hour Acute Toxicity Test '..3/4''
Conc Rep Organisms 24 hr 48 hr Initial Final Mean Facility: {) t L ) Metal:C
A Total total total Sample ID: ��
0% B EMStart Date: io-`fi•IP Time: f,s-30 By:4_41
C DIs DI5 Dis End Date: 1 o-I I-((' Time:h l 5 By:
D �® Effluent Loc It: Upstream Log#:
A 0 0 Total Total Total TEST ORGANISMS
ZqZ
B b MI Test Organism: `
C _-� DIs Din Din for Ceriodaphnia dubia Source:
D �.� Date Removed; I
A I(l 10 Total Total Tr.tai Between fTimm\ and (Timal
` B h c" for fathead minnows or mysids: 483 lid a `/���'J
Li IL chit Oit /0 9/4r
C DIs DIn DIn Source: 4,65 Age: <Zy'tcs
D Temperature 24-26 C. Light 16 hr It/8 hr kd;50-100 ft candles
.r.
' A Total Total Total Laboratory Water DMW!SSF @ 50 mg(L hardness > I
i!i; B Downstream Water Preparation
i
I !li C Din Dis Us %effluent volume mL Prep.Date: 1
I '1 D % upstream volume mL Prep.by:
'L,i
A Total Total Total
B Test Solution Preparation: Metal Salt: J0 y
ill ,i
-F.j C Din Dis Din Date;q-U-(g By: SC Stock. Soln: I Z 72 p1f/ _.
IL: D Nominal Conc mL Stock Solo. Volume prepared
d4; q7 tt'f[ A Total Total Total � /2. I3.7� p 00m e-
i
B y,.L i c 3 1
.:i, C Din Dis Dis
l,i D
g4i it 4,
4"ill, A Total Total Totalr".
i
sl> B
i li,
Ill i
41.1 C Dis Dis Dis
ill l?I
t l i
ll D ,
III lii
ii. I!. A Total Total Total A Total Total Total
-C! i B B
l C DIs Din DIs C Dis DIn DIs r
i
�� 1
D D
,j
A Total Total Total A Total Total Total `,,
n s
4
B B
t:
C DIs DIs DIs C Din DIs Din
ll
tii D D
T
i Test solution volume:25 mL..Test vessels 1 oz.plastic cups.Transfer volume 0.05 ml. Test Method: per EPA Interim Guidance
Page 98 of 110

r
74 ofii, Page 75 of 100
p
till- Nominal Initial# Mortality Measured Concentration WER 48 Hour Acute Toxicity Test
gonc Rep Organisms 24 hr 48 hr Initial Final Mean Facility: jAA V t. 1-6.i/( 5 Metal://��
A Tnlal 1.0 Total Sample ID: (_.J•
0% B __ 10 _ Start Date:01-2_1-1% Time: )/ Sc, By: S
j C DIs DIs DIs End Date:- -I5' Time: .00 By: _.�j
D ��� Effluent Log tf: „z��}l� Upstream Log#:
A M-11111 Total Tote lot al TEST ORGANISMS
B Mill.11 lest Organism:
C _.� Dis Din Din for Ceriodaphnia dubia Source:
D IIIIII Date Removed;
to -:.. ,
rT_IIT A t ll -iule Total Toth) ��- BC4A:Qer I ,I rote)and (Time)
ime`
35 B I D 6 f r fathead minnows or ysids: Q
C Din DIs Din Source: Af35 "- 'H e: L
g 98
D Temperature 24-26 C. Light 16 hr It/8 hr kd;50-100 ft candles
ti Ig A 10 O Total Total Total Laboratory Water DMW/SSF @ 50 mg/L hardness
B 100 Downstream Water Preparation
50 C Din Din Dis %effluent 100% volume mL Prep.Date:
D % upstream volume mL Prep,by:
1 A [0 0 Total Total Total
i
B 10 0 Test Solution Preparation: Metal Salt: ( 30 5
1 1.\ C DIs Dis ols Date: By: Stock.Soln: 12--7�ri1q I L
D Nominal Conc mL Stock Soln. Volume prepared
\]
A 1 O L) Total Total Total 0 0 1 t notL
B [n 0 25 I •q(p III
O i � C Ds DIs Din . 5- 2., !
D 50 3.11
A 1 O 0 Total Total Total 1 ,.i J.6 2—
B 10 0 ICa- . 2.0,2r}-
t 13 C DIs Dis Din I13 I I•ZI
D 204 1(0.0i \
s
I A 10 0 Total Total Total A Total Total Total
/��
►,/yA�► B ID n B
.. '. - - 4 C Dis Din DIs C Dis Din Dis
t
D
D
A Total Total Total A Total Total Total
B B
C — DIs Dis Din C Dis DIs DIs
D D
i Test solution volume:25 mL. Test vassals 1 oz.plastic cups.Transfer volume 0.05 mL. Test Method: per EPA Interim Guidance -
29z1 y/ , s9y
Page 99 of 1 10

de 76 of trn Page 77 of 100
f ,,i0m Initial# Mortality eMeasuredConcentration WER 48 Hour Acute Toxicity Test
r Rep Organisms 24 hr 413 hr Initial Final Mean Facility: ` IIda tS
Cn, ���t �C. F Metal:/���
A �O oted Total Real Sample ID: ut�,_
Th
0% B iiQ, Start Date: !Dim Time: I5,jo BY: A-Mt
C DIs Din DIs End Date: I`(r((-IT Time: it,/S By: i i
D Effluent Log#: 52.(N Upstream Log#:
0---
1 A 10 0 Total Total Total TEST ORGANISMS.............
\� Test Organism:
a2 B
C ohs Den Dis for Ceriodaphnia dubia Source:
D Date Removed;
(Tin 0' I ( I r� +...t, (T:..- 1 r d (T:me)
c A 1V Total --Trial -rota GCLvV�:bli uil�;/G�iu t nilc)
. B' i (D 0 for fathead minnows or mysids: rtc 0 a_S-eysl -{o
C Din Din DIS Source: _ Age:4''hv-5
`ems D Temperature 24-26 C. Light 16 hr It/8 hr kd;50-100 ft candles
A IC 9 Total Total Total Laboratory Water DMW /SSF a@ 50 mg/L.hardness
B it ,6/ Downstream Water Preparation
5q`1
C Dis Des Ols % effluent tool- volume kftiO mL Prep.Date: /O-4•(p
I D % upstream volume mL Prep.by: ]
A Total Total Total
t B Test Solution Preparation: Metal Salt: Cu S 0y
C . Din Din Dis Date:q-21•� By: Stock.Soin: 12,,72-015/(--
D Nominal Conc mL Stock Soln. VolumeLI prepared
A Total Total Total Z9z 13.71) bo 1 L
IC Din DIs Dis l L( Ze.03
11 D
I
A Total Total Total
B
C DIs Din Dis
D
otal A Total Total Total A Total Total Total
B B
Ns C Dis DIs Din C Dis DIs Dls
D D
dal A Total Total Total A Total Total Total
B B
.s C Des Dis Dis C Din Dis Din
D D
Test solution volume:25 mL. Test vessels 1 oz.plastic cups.Transfer volume 0.05 ml. Test Method: per EPA Interim Guidance
Page 100 of 110

ROUND 4 -APPENDIX D3
Measured Concentrations of Total Recoverable Copper in Test Solutions
Duke Harris-WER 4 Fish Cu ETT Environmental;9/18
Page 101 of 1 10

Measured Total Recoverable and Dissolved Copper
Duke Harris Plant-Secondary Species Site Specific Study
September 2018
`S.ample:Spiked Dilution Water(Diluted DMR Initial Date:09/27/18
Nominal Measured Total Recoverable Copper(µg/L) %of Measured Dis.Cu(µg/L) %
Total Cu Initial Day l Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7 Mean Nominal Initial Day 2 Mean Dissolved
0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 I I <1.0
50.0 47.0 55.0 51.0 102% 56.0 63.0 59.5 117%
71.4 70.0 74.0 72.0 101% 64.0 80.0 72.0 100%
102.0 106.0 107.0 106.5 104% 95.0 102.0 98.5 92%
143.0 138.0 151.0 145.0 101% 132.0 129.0 131.0 90%
204.0 192.0 207.0 200.0 98% 190.0 194.0 192.0 96%
292.0 271.0 271.0 93% 256.0 256.0 94%
416.0 366.0 366.0 88% 359.0 359.0 98%
Sample:Simulated Downstream-Duke Harris Initial Date:9/27/18
Nominal Measured Total Recoverable Copper(µg/L) %of Measured Dis.Cu(µg/L) %
Total Cu Initial Day I Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7 Mean Nominal Initial Day 2 Mean Dissolved
0.0' 23.4 _ 22.4 22.9 20.2 20.2 _
71.4 82.0 93.0 86.5 121% 70.0 80.0 75.0 87%
102.0 109.0 124.0 116.5 114% 99.0 102.0 100.5 86%
143.0, 148.0, 170.0 159.0 111% 133.0 129.0 131.0 82%_
204.0_203.0 230.0 211.5 104% 184.0 194.0_ 189.0 89%
292.0 260.0 260.0 89% 253.0 253.0 97%
416.0_401.0 401.0 96% 356.0 356.0 89%_
594.0 585.0 585.0 98% 537.0 ' 537.0 92%
Page 102 of 110

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

. .
ACUTE TOX 1 c ri- y TEST - C1-1E-M ISTI- '
------- --_. -------- -----------
o, Initial Readingl: )4 Hour Readings 24 Hour Readings 48 Hour Readings 48 Hour Readings
Co•ii.(1,,i, old old nrw old old OCW
1,11 D‘ssolvrd (poll‘mirro,)Of D.s‘ol,rtl fht;olvcd Drtsol,rd Olsoly:.4.
LITIocM C) yErn p li or Sxlind C) 1,.,1 III I 01 ytcri MI Or yrn pl I Ox yEco pl I
Calico,'r•Ito il mEil. (PP,I mr/L /1
mt. . mr/L mr/L
---
_____:____________ _ _____
__, ...,,
___ ____p_.____________
II
--=------,
Date -- —
Time. 0
. -
Initials. e.../ .
..
96 HourRings
72 Hour Readings 72 Hour Readings ead .
old old nov nov old old
Dissolved Dissolved Dissolved
Eillucnt Oxygen PH Osygen pH Oxygen. pH
Concentration roga. cog/L tariL
. 1.
• 1
• , .
.. .
Datc: .
Timc:
Initials:
• —Client: PiKtf)-1Pti-e5 ?Rom t_6.5
Lab ID#: 1
- -TAte • airip- CR c=4
1
. . .
. , o 0 1 2 2
Page 104 of 1 10

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

enn otith entail aaae -_
PO Box 16414,Greenville,SC 29606-7414
[phone], [phone] Fax:[phone]
Shipping Address:4 Craftsman Ct,Greer,SC 29550
W W W.ETTEN VIRO N NO NTAL.CON:
lient:
t4 ) ': ° l
A Program Containers Preservative;
�TT
FFacility: _ Parameters t -• t s-,
__ Whole Effluent Toxicity
State: k�4 (1 ' NPDES 3 -icntc Chronic Test Organisms —
I I i
° I .J . /`
7:3J
v (Composite only) (Grab or Composite) j- I o: = u c . _ 4
5
= Sign,and Print below <' ?i Sn T 2=11r. s = a s _ ' E. - € rc
_ J = so _ .
F. t o :=Hno- = .& _ _ •_ _
a the dotted line :_ _ _ it H • s=a,oH ° ' ' E •_ - - ' - - .
SAMPLE ID �? o C O o c _ E a . o` ' r - _ - = — -Composite Sort Dote Time Sample Collection Due Time Collected by U ✓+ rr Z C i — .. r I ^ ` -
- --.. . - v: ,� J t^_ — r _ J — r <t Chemical 0natyntsã Other
7 0 0 4,-). `L'L `a r c tit d l N' j I WAR Cat t Z n 5a4�3
CD
O
t
Special Instructions:
a
Sample Custody Transfer Record Secure Receipt Sample
rm)Date Time Relinquished By/Organization , Received B 1'„erzanization Area Temp°C Preserved?
9—as—�8► 3o f �, z�'t-/P.. - I I �iii i iillN` I
�,�/ Oh , cam ' 2 I
lE ‘151/1271141X°:)-°-'0, ..,_.-1-c- 0.,,2 ,
COMPOSITE SAMPLING PROCEDURES TEMPERATURE MONITORING PROCEDURES HOLD TIME PROCEDURES
Composite samples must be collected over a 24 hour period. Sample temperature during collection and transport must be between For toxicity testing the sample must first be used within 36 hours
Time Proportional: I sample each hour for 24 hours.Equal volut 0.0 and 6.0°C.Samples must not be frozen.Use water ice in sealed bags. of sample collection(completion of composite sample).
or at minimum I sample every 4 hours over 24 hours. Sample may not be used after 72 hours from sample collection.
Flow Proportional:As aer instructions in NPDES permit.
I

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

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

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

PROBIT
RAW DATA
Test Percent Number of Log of
Conc. Mortality Organisms Test Conc Probit
0.1 0 20 -1.0000 0.5
211.5 0 20 2.3253 0.5
260 5 20 2.4150 3.36
401 5 20 2.6031 3.36
585 45 20 2.7672 4.87
836 100 20 2.9222 8.09
1. Enter data in yellow boxes
Test Type: WER
Species: C dubia
Sample ID Harris TCu Fish LC50
Date: 9/27/18 484.901
A value of>0 must be entered for the control concentration,thus a nominal value of 0.1 is used.This does not impact the
result. Lower test concentrations with no mortality are not necessary to determine the Probit LC50 value.
Page 1 I 0 of 1 10

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

Freshwater RPA- 95% Probability/95%Confidence Using Metal Translators
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS=58
REQUIRED DATA ENTRY CHECK WQS
Table 1. Project Information Table 2. Parameters of Concern
0 CHECK IF HQW OR ORW WQS Name WOS Type Chronic wolf. Acute PQL Units
Facility Name Shearon Harris Par01 Arsenic Aquactic Life C 150 FW 340 ug/L
WWTP/WTP Class Class II Facility Pare2 Arsenic Human Health Water Supply C 10 HH/WS N/A ug/L
NPDES Permit NC0039586 Par03 Beryllium Aquatic Life NC 6.5 FW 65 ug/L
Outfall 006 Par04 Cadmium Trout NC 0.8987 TR 3.2753 ug/L
Flow,Qw(MOD) 7.900 ParO5 Chlorides Water Supply NC 250 WS ni p/f
Receiving Stream Harris Reservoir Paros* Chlorinated Phenolic Compounds Water Supply NC 1 A ug/L
HUC Number Par07 ♦ Total Phenolic Compounds Aquatic Life NC 300 A ug/L
Stream Class Paros Chromium Ill Aquatic Life NC 185.7637 FW 1428.0791 ug/L
WS-V
❑Apply WS Hardness WQC Par09 Chromium VI Aquatic Life NC 11 FW 16 pg/L
7Q10s(cfs) 0.00 Par10 Chromium,Total Aquatic Life NC N/A FW N/A pg/L
7Q10w(cfs) 0.00 Peril Copper Aquatic Life NC 63.4083 FW 88.4756 ug/L
30Q2(cfs) 0.00 Par12 Cyanide Aquatic Life NC 5 FW 22 10 ug/L
QA(cfs) 0.00 Par13 Fluoride Aquatic Life NC 1,800 FW .ug/L
1Q10s(cfs) 0.00 Par14 Lead Aquatic Life NC 5.4881 FW 140.8349 ug/L
Effluent Hardness(Median) 43.6291666666667 mg/L Par15 Mercury Aquatic Life NC 12 FW 0.5 ng/L
Upstream Hardness fault 25 mg/L(Hard Aveage=20.8819858421678 mg/L) Part6 Molybdenum Human Health NC 2000 HH ug/L
Combined Hardness Chronic 43.63 mg/L ' Par17 Nickel Aquatic Life NC 59.6352 FW 536.9197 pg/L
Combined Hardness Acute 43.63 mg/L Par18 Nickel Water Supply NC 25.0000 WS N/A pg/L
Data Source(s) Part9 Selenium Aquatic Life NC 5 FW 56 ug/L
❑CHECK TO APPLY MODEL Par20 Silver Aquatic Life NC 0.06 FW 0.7724 ug/L
Par21 Zinc Aquatic Life NC 203.1420 FW 201.4938 ug/L
Par22 Zinc Aquatic Life NC 8 3 FW 8.3 Ib/d
Par23
Par24
Follow directions for data entry.In some cases a Par25
comment menu list the available choices or a
dropdown menu will provide a list you may select
from.Error message occur if data entry does not
meet input criteria.
RPA Harris 006.xlsm,input
1/24/2019

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

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par11 Par21
Use"PASTE SPECIAL Use"PASTE SPECIAL
Copper Values"then"COPY" Zinc Values"then"COPY"
.Maximum data .Maximum data
points=58 points=58
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 4/18/2017 7,47 7.47 Std Dev. 9 0552 1 4/25/2017 18.95 18.95 Std Dev. 21 6028
2 4/25/2017 10.4 10.4 Mean 17.9473 2 5/3/2017 19.2 19.2 Mean 22.9560
3 5/9/2017 t4_4 14.4 C.V. 0.5045 3 5/9/2017 25.2 25.2 C.V. 0.9411
4 5/16/2017 14.6 14.6 n 58 4 5/16/2017 22.2 22.2 n 58
5 5/23/2017 15 15 5 5/23/2017 21.85 21.85
6 5/30/2017 12.3 12.3 Mull Factor= 1.00 6 5/30/2017 11.9 11.9 Mult Factor= 1.00
7 6/6/2017 22.9 22.9 Max.Value 47.30 ug/L 7 6/6/2017 16 16 Max.Value 107.0 ug/L
8 6/13/2017 34.4 34.4 Max.Pred Cw 47.30 ug/L 8 6/13/2017 40.65 40.65 Max.Pred Cw 107.0 ug/L
9 6/20/2017 22 22 9 6/20/2017 22 22
10 6/27/2017 18.2 18.2 10 6/27/2017 13.9 13.9
11 7/5/2017 14.4 14.4 11 7/5/2017 9.54 9.54
12 7/11/2017 24 24 12 7/11/2017 26.9 26.9
13 7/25/2017 18.4 18.4 13 7/25/2017 28.9 28.9
14 8/1/2017 11.5 11.5 14 8/1/2017 9.28 9.28
15 8/8/2017 18.9 18.9 15 8/8/2017 28.3 28.3
16 8/22/2017 15.6 15.6 16 8/22/2017 12.49 12.49
17 9/5/2017 15.85 15.85 17 9/5/2017 11.5 11.5
18 9/12/2017 14.3 14.3 18 9/12/2017 16.9 16.9
19 10/3/2017 8.95 8.95 19 10/3/2017 9.37 9.37
20 10/17/2017 34.1 34.1 20 10/17/2017 65.9 65.9
21 10/31/2017 22.7 22.7 21 10/31/2017 26.8 26.8
22 11/6/2017 37.1 37.1 22 11/6/2017 76.3 76.3
23 11/14/2017 19.65 19.65 23 11/14/2017 26.85 26.85
24 11/28/2017 9.62 9.62 24 11/28/2017 10.1 10.1
25 12/5/2017 11.8 11.8 25 12/5/2017 12 12
26 12/12/2017 14.4 14.4 26 12/12/2017 23.8 23.8
27 1/9/2018 9.405 9.405 27 1/9/2018 16.05 16.05
28 1/23/2018 13.6 13.6 28 1/23/2018 99.9 99.9
29 2/13/2018 11.2 11.2 29 2/13/2018 14.3 14.3
30 2/15/2018 10.4 10.4 30 2/15/2018 17.2 17.2
31 2/27/2018 12.7 12.7 31 2/27/2018 29 29
32 3/6/2018 12.4 12.4 32 3/6/2018 23.1 23.1
33 3/13/2018 36.15 36.15 33 3/13/2018 83.85 83.85
34 3/20/2018 43.4 43.4 34 3/20/2018 107 107
35 4/4/2018 15.4 15.4 35 4/4/2018 20.4 20.4
36 4/10/2018 9.845 9.845 36 4/10/2018 16.1 16.1
37 4/24/2018 28.6 28.6 37 4/24/2018 21.6 21.6
38 5/1/2018 47.3 47.3 38 5/1/2018 11.3 11.3
39 5/7/2018 17.85 17.85 39 5/7/2018 14 14
40 5/22/2018 24.3 24.3 40 5/22/2018 12 12
41 6/26/2018 26.9 26.9 41 6/26/2018 14.8 14.8
42 7/2/2018 24.4 24.4 42 7/2/2018 14.8 14.8
43 7/12/2018 20.8 20.8 43 7/12/2018 16.45 16.45
44 8/21/2018 20.9 20.9 44 8/21/2018 13.8 13.8
45 8/28/2018 17.4 17.4 45 8/28/2018 6.26 6.26
46 9/4/2018 19.4 19.4 46 9/4/2018 11.3 11.3
47 9/11/2018 14 14 47 9/11/2018 12.6 12.6
48 9/26/2018 17.4 17.4 48 9/26/2018 7.9 7.9
49 10/3/2018 22.3 22.3 49 10/3/2018 19.6 19.6
50 10/24/2018 18.1 18.1 50 10/24/2018 15.6 15.6
51 11/6/2018 23.8 23.8 51 11/6/2018 41.2 41.2
52 11/13/2018 12.2 12.2 52 11/13/2018 17.4 17.4
53 11/27/2018 8.41 8.41 53 11/27/2018 9.02 9.02
54 12/5/2018 8.89 8.89 54 12/5/2018 7.31 7.31
55 12/11/2018 7.325 7.325 55 12/11/2018 7.16 7.16
56 12/26/2018 8.4 8.4 56 12/26/2018 7.05 7.05
57 1/2/2019 7.95 7.95 57 1/2/2019 8.47 8.47
58 1/8/2019 6.88 6.88 58 1/8/2019 8.15 8.15
RPA Harris 006.xlsm,data
-2- 1/24/2019

Date: 1/24/2019
FACILITY:Shearon Harris
NPDES PERMIT:NC0039586 Dissolved to Total Metal Calculator
In accordance with Federal Regulations,permit limitations must be written as Total Metals per 40 CFR 122.45(c)
Receiving Receiving Rec.Stream NPDES Total Suspended Combined Combined Instream Instream Effluent
Stream Stream 1Q10 Flow Limit Solids Hardness Hardness Wastewater Wastewater Upstream Hardness
summer summer 7Q10 -Fixed Value- chronic Acute Concentration Concentration Hardness(mg/L) Median
7010(CFS) (MOD) [MGD] MGD (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (Chronic) (Acute) (mg/L)
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7.9000 10 [ 43.629 II 43.629 II 100.0000 I 100.0000 25 43.62917
Upstream Hard Average(mg/L)= 20.88199
Cu WER I ,1'u ,6 I EFF Hard Med(mg/L)= 43.62917
US EPA Maximum Allowable Effluent Concentration COMMENTS(identify parameters to PERCS Branch to maintain in facility's LTMP/STMP):
Dissolved Metals Translators-using (MAEC)as a Total Metal 'Note-Updated dissolved copper criteria to include WER in calculation(Muriel Steele,2019-01-24)
PARAMETER Default Partition .Dissolved Metal_Translator
Chronic Acute Coefficients Chronic Acute
[ug/I] [ug/I] (streams) lug/I) [ug/1)
Cadmium(d) 0.23 1.33 0.252 0.90 5.27
Cd-Trout streams 0.23 0.83 0.252 0.90 3.28
Chromium III(d)(h) 38 289 0.202 185.76 1428.08
Chromium VI(d) 11 16 1.000 11.00 16.00
Chromium,Total(t) N/A N/A
Copper(d)(h)* 22.0 30.8 0.348 63.41 88.48
Lead(d)(h) 1.01 26 0.184 5.49 140.83
Nickel(d)(h) 26 232 0.432 59.64 536.92
Ni-WS streams(t) 25
Silver(d)(h,acute) 0.06 0.77 1.000 0.06L 0.77
Zinc(d)(h) 59 58 0.288 203.14 201.49
Beryllium 6.5 65 1.000 6.5 65
Arsenic(d) 150 340 1.000 150 340
(d)=dissolved metal standard.See 15A NCAC 028.0211 for more information.
(h)=hardness-dependent dissolved metal standard.See 15A NCAC 02B.0211 for more information.
(t)=based upon measurement of total recoveable metal.See 15A NCAC 02B.0211 for more information.
The Human Health standard for Nickel in Water Supply Streams is 25 mg/L which is Total Recoverable metal standard.
The Human Health standard for Arsenic is 10 µg/L which is Total Recoverable metal standard.

Shearon Harris Outfall 006
NC0039586 Freshwater RPA- 95% Probability/95% Confidence Using Metal Translators Qw = 7.9 MGD
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58
Qw(MGD)= 7.90 WWTP/WTP Class:Class II Facility COMBINED HARDNESS(me/L)
IQIOS(cfs)= 0.00 IWC% @1Q1OS = 100 Acute=43.63 mg/L
7Q1OS(cfs)= 0.00 IWC% @ 7Q1OS= 100 Chromic=43.63 mg/L
7Q1OW(cfs)= 0.00 IWC%@ 7Q1OW= 100 YOU HAVE DESIGNATED THIS RECEIVING
30Q2(cfs)= 0.00 IWC%@ 30Q2= 100 STREAM AS WATER SUPPLY
Avg.Stream Flow,QA(cfs)= 0.00 IW%C @ QA= 100 Effluent Hard:0 val>100 mg/L 1 val<25 mg/L
Receiving Stream:NO HUC NUMBER Stream Class:WS-V Effluent Hard Med=43.6291666666667 mg/L
PARAMETER TYPE STANDARDS&CRITERIA(2) cr) REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS RECOMMENDED ACTION
(1) NC WQS/ Applied Y2 FAV/ a E
n #Det. Max Pred Cw Allowable Cw
Chronic Standard Acute
Acute: 88.48
Copper NC 63.4083 FW 88.4756 ug/1. 58 58 47.30
Chronic-----63.41 --•-------------------•---------
No value>Allowable Cw
Acute: 201.5
Zinc NC 203.1420 FW 201.4938 ug/L 58 58 107.0
Chronic: ----203.1 --•-----------------------------
No value>Allowable Cw
Acute:
0 0 N/A — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Chronic:
Acute:
0 0 N/A
---Chronic: ----------•-----------------------------
Acute:
0 0 N/A
Chronic: ----------------------------------
RPA Harris 006.xlsm,rpa
Page 1 of 1 1/24/2019

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

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

JACOBS Meeting Minutes
111 Corning Road,Suite 200
Cary, North Carolina 27518
United States
T+1.919.859.5000
F+1.919.859.5151
www.jacobs.com
Subject Presentation to DWR Regarding Water Effect Ratio Studies
Project Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant-Permit NC0039586 Copper&Zinc Study
Project No. BL0115CH File
Prepared by Jacobs Phone No. 919-859-5768
Location Archdale Buildling 1106Z South Date/Time June 5,2019 @13:30
Participants see below
Attendees:
Bill Kreutzberger, CH2M/Jacobs Julie Grzyb, NCDEQ
William Bromby, CH2M/Jacobs Connie Brower, NCDEQ
Don Safrit, Duke Energy Chris Ventalaro, NCDEQ
Bob Wilson, Duke Energy Nick Coco, NCDEQ
Della Allen, Duke Energy Carol Hollenkamp, NCDEQ, via conference call
Jim Eayres, Duke Energy Cindy Moore, NCDEQ, via conference call
Bob Kelley, ETT David Hill, NCDEQ, via conference call
Overview
A PowerPoint presentation was used to facilitate the discussion at the meeting. A copy of the slides used is
included as an attachment to these minutes.
- Don Safrit opened meeting with a safety moment, introductions, and background on the Harris Nuclear
Plant(HNP) NPDES permit
- Bill Kreutzberger presented majority of content in ppt slides
- The majority of the discussion was about how the WER was performed; focus was on dilution percent for
testing, instream vs effluent, and ultimate application of WER to established formulae
- Bob Kelley was able to address many DEQ comments by pointing to precedent or EPA's Interim
Guidance details
- Since DWR has never incorporated the use of a WER in a permit, there were several key points/policy
considerations were left for further review
Detailed Summary
The first half of the presentation went without comment from DEQ: Intro, Permit Overview, Schedule of
Compliance, and Effluent Characterization.
1-12M HILL. Inc. is wnolly-owred subsidiary of Jacobs)

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

JACOBS
Meeting Minutes
June 5,2019 @13:30
• And, regardless of stream flow rate, the near-field dilution would be basically the same
Application of WER and hardness results to metals criteria calculation
Example formula: Copper,Acute = WER *0.960*e[0.9422*(Inhardness)-1.700]
- Connie and Chris were concerned that applying both the increased WER and the increased hardness into
the equation would be `double dipping'. They assumed if a higher WER were granted, then the hardness
input would still be 25 (mg/L as CaCO3)
o Bob K indicated that in his opinion it would not be `double dipping', and furthermore would be
inconsistent from the Interim Guidance
o Bill K indicated that in his experience, effluent hardness was used when the water quality criteria
were being applied directly to the effluent with no consideration of effluent hardness
- Julie indicated that some type of mixing zone analysis may be necessary to determine conditions to
calculate permit limits-dilution and thus appropriate hardness
Secondary Species Test
- When looking at slide 24 Carol (or Cindy)asked why it indicated that the Secondary Species test
confirmed the Primary Species test if the WER values were within a factor of of five. She indicted that her
] review of the Interim guidance indicated that it needed to be within a factor of three.
o Bob K said he thought it was five but would look into it. He also indicated that the Interim
Guidance was not completely clear as to whether this was all WER tests of the final WER.
Zinc
There was little or no discussion concerning Zinc. When asked by Bill whether they had any questions regarding
zinc criteria, Julie stated "zinc will work out".
Wrap Up/Action Items
The meeting concluded with DWR indicating that the discussion was very useful, and they had several policy
questions to consider as they moved forward to consider their comments on our submitted reports. Julie indicated
they would be getting back to us soon with comments or requests for more information. Don and Bill thanked
DWR for the meeting. The meeting concluded approximately 2:30 PM.
I I

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

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

HNP NPDES Permit Copper& Zinc Study 6/5/2019
Introductions — Permittee Representatives
Duke Energy Consultants
• Bob Wilson • Bill Kreutzberger
Environmental Coordinator— Senior Technical Consultant-
Harris Nuclear Plant Jacobs
• James Eayres • William Bromby
Supervising Scientist—Harris Project Engineer—Jacobs
Nuclear Plant
• Bob Kelly
• Don Safrit Vice President-ETT
Senior Environmental Specialist
—Duke Energy
•
JACOBS
3
NPDES Permit Overview
• Permit issued August 29,2016:effective
September 1,2016 and expires August
31,2021
pi
• Permit limits include for five internal y.`
outfalls and 2 outfalls to surface waters
as follows:
Internal Outfalls
001 -cooling tower blowdown
002-wastewater treatment plant
003-metal cleaning waste treatment
system
004-low volume waste treatment
system ow,
005-radwaste treatment system
Outfalls to Surface Waters
006—combined discharge from 001
to 005
007—wastewater system for
environmental center
JACOBS
4
JACOBS Engineering Group 2

HNP NPDES Permit Copper& Zinc Study 6/5/2019
HNP Copper & Zinc -
Permit Obligations & Compliance
• HNP Discharge Point into Harris Reservoir (Class WS-V)
• Surface Water Standards for Copper&Zinc
• New NPDES Permit Limits in Outfall 006
(September 2021 compliance deadline)
- Limited monitoring data at time of permit issuance
- Copper and Zinc Limits based upon
• No dilution(100%effluent)
• Hardness of 25 mg/L(as CaCO3)
• Water Effect Ratio(WER)of 1.0
• EPA default chemical translator(0.348)
Daily Max Monthly Average
(Acute) (Chronic)
Copper 10.5 pg/L 7.9 pg/L
Zinc 126 pg/L 126 pg/L
5
Schedule of Compliance - HNP Approach
September 1,2016 September 1,2017 September 1,2018 September 1,2019 September 1,2020 September 1,2021
t t
NPDES Corrective Year 2 Report Year 3 Year 4 Deadline to
Permit Issued - Action Plan - •Further Effluent - Report Report - Achieve
Gmds on copper and zmc Effluent characterization charaderaation _ _ Compliance
based on default values A.Proposed approaches •Prelvninary WER Results
pg •Plan for completing WER
Effluent Characterization f `
•Effluent hardness s25 mg/L "` - ''
•zinc-no compliance issues
•Copper addnonat stud.reo d
WER Study WER Report
•angonq eoluem characrenzation ® Submitted
•Fnal WER report
to
•Final WER report to be subndled
1
Mixing Zone 1
Analysis
I Add'1 Water
Chemistry ..
t Management i
Only Proceed el I Add'I Physical i
if Necessary % Management, 44,
1 t Treatment i
i Request for i
Variance
t Process i
6
JACOBS Engineering Group 3

HNP NPDES Permit Copper& Zinc Study 6/5/2019
Schedule of Compliance - HNP Approach
September 1,2016 September 1,2017 September 1,2018 p September 1,2019 September 1,2020 September 1,2021
NPDES Corrective Year 2 Report Year 3 Year 4 Deadline to
Permit Issued WI Action Plan - •Further Effluent Report - Report - Achieve
Limes on copper and zinc Effluent Characterzation characterization Compliance
based on default values &Proposed approaches 'Prelrninary WER Results
•Plan for competing WER
Effluent Characterization
•Effluent hardness>25 mg/L
•Zinc—no compliance issues•Copper—addaional studies read
WER Study WER Report
•Ongoing emuent Fharaaerization ® Submitted
•Annual report submitted
•Final WER report to be submitted
_ 1 Mixing Zone
`
•
t Add'1 Water i
...._.� Chemistry ! r ,sr..,.:-•,�
Management
Only Proceed i t Add'l Physical i
if Necessary iuNV .*,`q Management, I...,.,...::. �.,„„,
t Treatment
•
1 Request for I
jVariance t
t Process i
7
Calculating Water Quality Criteria with
Site-Specific Information
Acute WER*[0.960•e^{0.9422[In Hardness]-1.700}]
Copper
Chronic WER*[0.960•e^{0.8545[In Hardness1-1.7021]
Acute WER*[0.978•e^{0.8473[In Hardness]+0.884}]
Zinc
Chronic WER*[0.986•e^{0.8473[In Hardness1+0.884}1
• Basis of NPDES Permit Limits
- Hardness-25 mg/L
- Water Effect Ratio(WER)-1.0
-- EPA default translator of 0.348 for dissolved to total recoverable metal
JACOBS
8
JACOBS Engineering Group 4

HNP NPDES Permit Copper & Zinc Study 6/5/2019
Effluent Characterization
NPDES Permit NC0039586 Copper&Zinc Study ¢!
JACOBS
www Jacobs corn worldwide
9
Schedule of Compliance - HNP Approach
September 1,2016 September 1,2017 September 1,2018 September 1.2019 September 1,2020 September 1,2021
t t
NPDES Corrective Year 2 Report Year 3 Year 4 Deadline to
Action Plan Eunher Effwenl Report Report Achieve
Permit copper
and
Effluent charaaenzahon charaaerzabon Compliance
Limits on capper an0 iinc. •Preliminary WER Results
based on default values &Proposed approaches yy,Plan for completing WER
T r
Effluent Characterization
•Effluent M1ardness>25 mg/L �'^" ••""""•""""'—"
Zinc compla s
u •`
•Copper�atldihonalai studies reqd
WER Study WER Report
•ongoing effluent characterization . Submitted
•Annual repo,sub rated
•Final WER report to be submitted
_ I Mixing Zone r ..
Analysis r
Add'I Water i
,tittAry Chemistry
IL Management I
Only Proceed I t Add'I Physical i
if Necessary pp`•, . , j Management, i.�_"'"" e„,..._...
t Treatment
Request for i
Variance
t Process i
10
JACOBS Engineering Group 5

HNP NPDES Permit Copper& Zinc Study 6/5/2019
Hardness Characterization
• Limits hardness dependent
• Default(25 mg/L)used in calculating HNP original limits
• Actual hardness >25 mg/L
- Effluent average was 43.8 mg/L as calcium carbonate(CaCO3)
• 006 Effluent -006 Effluent Average(43.8 mg/L)
70
O 60 • ® • •
•
"50 s•r°••••• • •••• I. • • • ° • • • •
40 �••I • ` • • •••• •
rn
E 30
a OD 4—Scheduled shutdown of HNP
m 20
`h 10
S
0
, ', %oi� 7.� ' ice ��� '6 e �76, �i6 �%i6. Q 7e ie
'Low hardness in April 2018 due to scheduled outage
JACOBS
11
Zinc Characterization —
Maximum Daily Values
• Zinc values substantially lower after change of corrosion inhibitors
• In compliance without permit modification
250
200
150
126 µg/L
Hardness=25.0 mg/L
c 100 • (default value)
N •
• •
50 • •
• °
0 • •b • S� a• • 8 I809• ®® RA a ° •e••o •
, `ri i .9 7 v' . 6 6 6, l 1 d
T6 'tij �iJ 2i6 i,
�O 2 C is ji �O �O ? 2 �?
,Tj Oj) Oj) Or) 2 !8 't6 p.78 p't6 O'TB 20� pJ8 r'y
8
JACOBS
12
JACOBS Engineering Group 6

HNP NPDES Permit Copper& Zinc Study 6/5/2019
Zinc Characterization —
Maximum Daily Values
• No reasonable potential to exceed hardness modified limit
250
202 µg/L
200 Hardness=43.8 mg/L
150
00 126 µg/L
Hardness=25.0 mg/L
100 • s (default value)
• • •
50 • •
•
s •s• 780 ••l • e• •=•d• •,*s so: • °snow •
0
i TT Ji „'i 4/ 6 8i JO Tl 2j
JO � T � i/ 61;0 ''54,
<a jam? 4 ir/ - 0
�0 0 Jl<' ?J T J �O O O 3� 0 ?J
OJ) d 8 J8 J8 l� OT8 J8
JACOBS
13
Copper Characterization —
Maximum Daily Values
100
90
80
70
60
a0
? 50 O~Scheduled shutdown of HNP
•
40 • • •
•
30 • • •
•
•• • • • • • •
20
•
•
30 •—Ili ✓ �• �•° • _ • 10.5µel
' _ '�°♦ •Hardness=25.0 mg/L
0 (default value)
3� 18 J,D 'r �l i0 Ti
jaTB �Ol8
' Tj Tj Tj OJ) 4 TO Ty OT8 l0 9
JACOBS
14
I
I
I
JACOBS Engineering Group 7

HNP NPDES Permit Copper& Zinc Study 6/5/2019
Copper Characterization —
Maximum Daily Values
100
90
80
70
60
nn
50 04—Scheduled shutdown of HNP
•
° 40 • • •
•
30 • • •
•
•• • • • • • a 17.8 µg/L
20 • •• • _ • _r._•__..____._. Hardness 43.8 mg/L
•
10 �•� • • 3 ' •• • • _ •� 10.5µg/L
• Hardness=25.0 mg/L
0 (default value)
i S i rrir a' S 9 r r 2
rs - -- ? - fir i� i2
�o � l�
o �a 1 2
r� ors ors ors lore r8 r8 ore ore orb 2or ora ry
JACOBS
15
Copper Characterization —
Monthly Average
70
60
50
m
40
a v 30 • • a
a •
u° •
• •
20 • • •
• • •
• • • a
• • a
10 • • • 7.9 µg/L
Hardness=25.0 mg/L
0 (default value)
JACOBS
16
JACOBS Engineering Group 8

HNP NPDES Permit Copper& Zinc Study 6/5/2019
1 Copper Characterization —
1 Monthly Average
70
60
50
4a
30 • • •
•
I V
•
• •
20 • • •
• • 12.8 µg/L
• • • Hardness=43.8 mg/L
• •
•
10 • • 7.9 µg/L
Hardness=25.0 mg/L
0 (default value)
9q 2O14 '0117 jOq) ?,44. jo1'6�0;�je j18`v,%jOf jO�4�j �O �oti�j4p2Oje jor9
I JACOBS
17
Characterization Results
• Hardness
- Effluent hardness is 43.8 mg/L versus the 25 mg/L used as the basis of permitting
• Zinc levels
- In compliance with current permit limits and less than half recalculated values
based on effluent hardness
- No Reasonable Potential to exceed Zinc criteria
• Copper levels
- Exceed both monthly average and daily maximum current permit limits
- Recalculating based on actual hardness not sufficient to achieve compliance
• EPA and State rules allow adjustment of criteria based on site specific
conditions
- NC rules include WER as part of calculation of dissolved criterion
- WER = Toxicity End Point(effluent+natural water)
Toxicity End Point(lab water)
• WER studies appropriate for copper
JACOBS
18
I JACOBS Engineering Group 9
1

HNP NPDES Permit Copper & Zinc Study 6/5/2019
Harris Outfall 006 — Compliance Plan
Described in CAP (8/2017) and Year 2 Report (8/2018)
• Characterization plan—Hardness and metals (copper and zinc)
- Weekly for 3 months
- Twice per month after 3 months
- QA/QC samples
• Options for permit modifications
- Mixing zone analysis
- Biotic ligand model
- Water effect ratio(WER)-Selected
• WER Study-Ongoing
- Plans and procedure
- Preliminary results
• Potential future studies
JACOBS
19
Water Effect Ratio Studies
NPDES Permit NC0039586 Copper&Zinc Study
JACOBS
www.jacobs com I worldwide
20
JACOBS Engineering Group 10

HNP NPDES Permit Copper& Zinc Study 6/5/2019
Schedule of Compliance — HNP Approach
September 1,2016 September 1,2017 September 1,2018 September 1,2019 September 1,2020 September 1,2021
I t f
NPDES Corrective Year 2 Report Year 3 Year 4 Deadline to
Permit Issued Action Plan •Further Effluent Report Report
I. IM Achieve
Limits on copper and zinc. Effluent Characterization Characterization -_ Compliance
based on defaut values &Proposed approaches ••Preliminary WER Results
•Plan for completing WER
a
Effluent Characterization
•Emuent hardness c25 yL ;s}. v . .._. «..;,- „e+.,.. ...w. ;.
•Zinc-no compliance issues yy
•copper-addthenal studies rood
WER Study WER Report
•Ongoing effluent characterization 22 Submitted
1 •Annual report submmed
•Final WER report to be submitted
•
_ Mixing Zone u,
Analysis f """" ' ✓
•
Add'!Water k
Chemistry 1'
�t Management
Only Proceed i 1 Add'I Physical i
if Necessary % =„ysa4 Management,
Treatment
I Request for i
��{ 1 Variance i
Process
21
WER Study Details
• WER studies conducted between July and September
2018
• WER procedures based on EPA Interim Guidance
(1994)
- All WER tests conducted based on 100% effluent(Type 1)
using 24-hour composite samples
- Three tests with a primary species- Ceriodaphnia dubia
- One test with a secondary species-Pimephales promelas
• Measured concentration of dissolved and total
recoverable copper plus other required parameters
1 JACOBS
22
jl
JACOBS Engineering Group 11

HNP NPDES Permit Copper& Zinc Study 6/5/2019
WER Results
WER Results for HNP Samples for Outfall 006
Total Cu Dia.Cu
Date Species \VER WER
Round 1. 7/12/18 primary 5.9789 4.9996
Round 2 8/15 18 primary 10.8966 10.3127
Round 3 9/26/18 primary 8.2006 7.4639
Round 4 9/27/18 secondary 2.6644 2.8330
• All WER Values were Type 1 since effluent limits are based on 100%effluent
• Final WER is calculated as lowest value since all were Type 1 WER
JACOBS
23
WER Study — Copper Results
• Total Copper WER of 6
• Dissolved Copper WER of 5 1a°
• Tests with secondary 160
species confirmed WER 140
from primary species 120
- Values are within a factor of ) 100
5 of those with the primary --
species 0 so
—1 60
40
20 I 11111
,
Round 1 Round 2 Round 3
■006 Effluent •Lab Water
JACOBS
24
JACOBS Engineering Group 12

1
HNP NPDES Permit Copper& Zinc Study 6/5/2019
4
1
1
1 Recalculated Criteria and Effluent Limits
1
1
1 HNP Outfall 006
(Average hardness 43.8 mg/L as CaCO3,
1 WER of 5.0)
Water Quality Acute 30.9 pg/L
Criterion for
1 Dissolved Copper Chronic 22.1 pg/L
Calculated Effluent
Limit for Total Acute 88.8 pg/L
1 Recoverable Chronic 63.6 pg/L
1 Copper
1
1 JACOBS
25
1
1
1
1
I Copper Characterization —
1 Maximum Daily Values
1
ioo
1 88.8 µg/L
90 Hardness=43.8 mg/L
1 80 WER=5.0
1 70
1 60
Y 50 Ow—Scheduled shutdown of HNP
1 `m s
0 Et 40 ° 0
1 30 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 17.8 µg/L
1 20 0 0 00.. 8 8 ®0 ® o Hardness=43.8 mg/L
c% o •® • • ° •
io 9 1 . • • 10.5 µg/L
1 • • Hardness=25.0 mg/L
0 (default value)
1 i i i `9i 'r7 'ti i i 6 B 49 72 i
�i 1 �1 �s �� s�2 <'" �6 �"'� �8 �'t�'i
,Tj OJ) Oj) O�j 1pr, .rR 78 Oj8 Oj8 Oj� 20r8 Oj8 7y
1
1 JACOBS
26
1
1
1
1 JACOBS Engineering Group 13
1
1

HNP NPDES Permit Copper& Zinc Study 6/5/2019
Copper Characterization —
Monthly Average
70
.63.6 µg/L
60 Hardness=43.8 mg/L
WER=5.0
50
40
cu
1
a 30 • • •
v •
® •
20 • • • •
• • • 12.8 µg/L
• • ® ® • Hardness=43.8 mg/L
10 • s • 7.9 Rg/L
Hardness=25.0 mg/L
0 (default value)
le,
24`j�l��l j� 0,��o� .41)j�r j8 170,jj8�kektl 0 �BG?•�8����y8`V0.4 j0r9
JACOBS
27
Conclusions based on WER Study Results
• Copper limits for out fall 006 should be based on site specific
information related to hardness and WER
• The Acute and Chronic water quality criteria for copper are based on
the following formulas in the 15A NCAC 2B .0211(11)(c):
Copper,Acute = WER x 0.960 x e0.9422()n hardness)-1..700
Copper,Chronic = WER x 0.960 x e0.8545(tn hardness)-1.702
• Acute and Chronic dissolved criteria for copper based on average
effluent hardness and the WER results are:
Copper, Acute =30.9 ug/L
Copper, Chronic =22.1 ug/L
• Using EPA's default metal translator of 0.348 for dissolved to total
recoverable copper, calculated effluents limits in 100% effluent are:
Copper, Acute =88.8 ug/L
Copper, Chronic =63.6 ug/L
JACOBS 4
28
I
I
JACOBS Engineering Group 14

1
1
1 HNP NPDES Permit Copper & Zinc Study 6/5/2019
1
1
I
1
Proposed Modified Limits
1
Total Recoverable Metals Limits for Outfall 006
Original Permit Modified for Modified by WER
Limits Hardness and Hardness
Daily Max 10.5 pg/L 17.8 pg/L 89.1 pg/L
Copper
Monthly Avg 7.9 pg/L 12.8 pglL 63.8 pg/L
Zinc 126 pg/L 202 pg/L -
1
1
JACOBS
29
1 i
Discussion
NPDES Permit NC0039586 Copper&Zinc Study
•
JACOBS'
www,acobs coActo
30
�// t�..IIJJ
1
JACOBS Engineering Group 15

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

1 ,16 StArE
J'� 4 y Received by PRH
ROY COOPER 41
JUL 1 6 2019
Governor
MICHAEL S.REGAN ` ,14:74 vsoo•
Secretory
LINDA CULPEPPER NORTH CAROLINA
Director Enviratunenfal Quality
July 10,2019
Bentley K.Jones
Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant
5412 Shearon Harris Road
New Hill,North Carolina 27562-9300
Response: DWR Review of Duke Energy Progress, LLC Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant
(NPDES Permit NC0039586): 2018 Water Effects Ratio Study
Dear Mr.Jones:
On May 9, 2019, the Division received the results of a Water Effects Ratio study for the Shearon Harris
Nuclear Plant from Duke Energy Progress, LLC. On June 5t11, a meeting was held with Duke and its
1 consultants to discuss the results. Based on the discussions and the Division's review of the study methods
and results,the Division provides the following comments:
• The Division requests the WER study be conducted in accordance with Appendix F of EPA's 1994
Interim Guidance on Determination and Use of Water-Effect Ratios for Metals which specifies utilizing
either a dye dispersion study or dilution model to incorporate the near-field effects of a facility's
1 discharge when developing a WER for Special Flowing-Water Situations.
• The Division requests that, as it is the more conservative species in the stream when determining
WERs, the primary organism used in the WER study be the fathead minnow to insure adequate
protection of the receiving stream.
Additionally, the Division wishes to inform the Permittee that,per Appendix A Part B of EPA's 1994
1 Interim Guidance on Determination and Use of Water-Effect Ratios for Metals,dilution will be taken into
consideration when determining the WER but will not be included again in calculation of the dissolved
standard.
1 The process associated with the WER will be continually developed,as the process is fairly new to the
Division. In this case,the more protective WER of the two Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant WER studies
shall be applied to copper limits in NPDES permit NC0039586. Future WER verifications shall be
1 conducted using the most updated Division-approved procedure.
I If you have questions concerning these comments, please call me at(919)707-3609 or by email
at ncdenr.nick.coco@ g ov.
Sincerely,
777";._
Nick Coco, Engineer
NPDES Complex Permitting Unit
1 CC: Julie Grzyb, DWR NPDES Complex Permitting Unit
Cyndi Karoly, DWR Water Sciences Section
Connie Brower, DWR Classifications and Standards Branch
1 D North512North Carolina Department olf Env Q I rc
ISalisbury
Street 11617 Mali Serviceironmental Center
I Raleigh.Division Northof CarolinaWaterResou 27699es -1617
w•�V/e`' 919.707.9000