HomeMy WebLinkAboutNC0001422_LVSuttonSARP_Rev0_Narrative_signed_20161201SITE ANALYSIS AND REMOVAL PLAN
L.V. SUTTON ENERGY COMPLEX
December 2016
Revision 0
Prepared for
Duke Energy Progress, LLC
526 South Church Street
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
Prepared by
Geosyntec Consultants of NC, PC
1300 South Mint Street, Suite 300
Charlotte, North Carolina 28203
License No. C-3500
Geosyntec Consultants of North Carolina, PC
Duke Energy Coal Combustion Residuals Management Program
L.V. Sutton Energy Complex Site Analysis and Removal Plan
Revision 0
December 2016
ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Geosyntec Consultants of North Carolina PC (Geosyntec) has prepared this Site Analysis and
Removal Plan (Removal Plan) in support of the proposed closure of the Coal Combustion
Residuals (CCR) Basins at the L.V. Sutton Energy Complex (Sutton) located near Wilmington,
North Carolina (NC). The purpose of this Removal Plan is to seek the North Carolina
Department of Environmental Quality’s (NCDEQ – formerly the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, NCDENR) concurrence with the Duke Energy Progress,
LLC (DEP) plan for closure of the CCR basins located at Sutton The work to be performed in
support of the closure of the basins is summarized in this document, which is consistent with the
requirements of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System: Disposal of Coal
Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities Rule (CCR Rule) [EPA, 2015] and the NC Coal Ash
Management Act (CAMA). This Removal Plan is based on engineering and environmental
factors minimizing the impacts to communities and managing cost. The Drawing Set presented
herein is accurate at the time of preparing this Removal Plan and is subject to change pending
further discussion with DEP. The closure option entails excavation of CCR within the basins
and placement in an on-site engineered landfill. While permitting on the landfill is completed
and the landfill is constructed, CCR will be transported off-site (via truck and/or rail) to a
permitted landfill. Approximately 2 million tons of CCR are anticipated to be transported off-site
prior to operation of the on-site landfill for beneficial reuse as lined, structural fill at the
Brickhaven Clay Mine, located in Chatham County, NC.
Sutton is owned by DEP and includes the electricity generating plant and CCR basins
associated with historical coal-fired electricity generation. Sutton was formerly operated as a
coal-fired plant from 1954 to November 2013 and currently operates a gas-fired combined-cycle
unit. The two CCR basins located at Sutton include: (i) the 1971 Basin; and (ii) the 1984 Basin.
Other notable features at Sutton include: (i) the Lay of Land Area (LOLA), located to the south
of the 1971 Basin; (ii) the Cooling Pond; and (iii) a Discharge Canal that conveys water from the
plant to the Cooling Pond. The total estimated CCR volume in the basins is approximately 5.5
million cubic yards (cy) (approximately 6.7 million tons – assuming a density of approximately
1.2 tons/cy), while LOLA contains an additional CCR volume of approximately 0.6 million cy
(approximately 0.7 million tons), resulting in a total CCR volume of approximately 6 million cy
(approximately 7.3 million tons).
This Removal Plan discusses analytical results for CCR, background soil, soil collected during
the installation of monitoring wells outside of the CCR basins, and soil from locations below the
CCR. Analytical results obtained for groundwater and CCR interstitial water are also discussed.
Results from background soil samples at Sutton indicate that soils are naturally acidic.
Additionally, CCR exhibited concentrations for most analyzed constituents of interest (COIs) at
levels greater than background soil levels. Background groundwater results indicated naturally
acidic groundwater conditions and naturally elevated levels of iron, and to a lesser degree,
manganese. Constituents in the groundwater in the immediate vicinity of the 1971 Basin
appears to be influenced by CCR contained within this basin while monitoring points further
away (e.g., the northern portion of the site) show a diminishing impact, suggesting that the clay
liner within the 1984 Basin provides some protection of the surrounding groundwater.
Geosyntec Consultants of North Carolina, PC
Duke Energy Coal Combustion Residuals Management Program
L.V. Sutton Energy Complex Site Analysis and Removal Plan
Revision 0
December 2016
iii
Furthermore, elevated arsenic concentrations in groundwater attenuated to below the
groundwater standard in all but one of the compliance wells.
A geochemical Conceptual Site Model (CSM) was developed to evaluate the distribution of the
analyzed COIs in soil and groundwater. The CSM suggested that metals mobility was limited
under the given geochemical conditions, especially in certain areas away from the basins where
groundwater conditions became more aerobic and the mobility of redox-affected constituents
such as iron, manganese, arsenic, and selenium decreased.
A preliminary geotechnical evaluation was performed and is presented in this Removal Plan.
The results of the investigations indicate that the subsurface materials primarily consist of, from
top to bottom, CCR (within the basins) or Dike Fill (at the perimeters of the basins), and
Foundation Soils (consisting primarily of sand with varying amounts of silt at the top and Peedee
Formation clayey soils at the bottom).
The closure of the CCR basins will entail the following activities. CCR will be excavated and
placed in an off-site landfill while the on-site landfill is constructed. Once the on-site landfill is
operational, CCR will be placed in the on-site landfill for final disposal. The excavated surfaces
will either be left as open water (1971 Basin) and allowed to connect to the Cooling Pond or left
as green areas (1984 Basin), graded to drain towards the Cooling Pond. This Removal Plan
also presents a summary of the engineering evaluation and analyses performed, as well as
technical specifications and Construction Quality Assurance (CQA) Plan.
The Wastewater and Stormwater Plans, including a plan for obtaining the required permits, are
described in a preliminary manner in this Removal Plan. These plans will be developed and
submitted under a separate cover. Applicable permits required for closure of the basins,
including modifications to existing permits and applications for new permits, are identified.
A Post-Closure Care Plan is provided, including the groundwater monitoring program currently
under evaluation by NCDEQ. This Removal Plan discusses the estimated schedule for
milestones related to basin closure and post-closure activities.
Geosyntec Consultants of North Carolina, PC
Duke Energy Coal Combustion Residuals Management Program
L.V. Sutton Energy Complex Site Analysis and Removal Plan
Revision 0
December 2016
iv
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Acronym/Abbreviation Definition
3D Three Dimensional
AST Aboveground Storage Tank
BBL Blasland, Bouck, and Lee, Inc.
bgs Below Ground Surface
CAMA Coal Ash Management Act
CAP Corrective Action Plan
CCR Coal Combustion Residuals
CFD Computational Fluid Dynamics
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
cm/s Centimeters Per Second
COI Constituent of Interest
CPT Cone Penetration Test
CQA Construction Quality Assurance
CSA Comprehensive Site Assessment
CSM Conceptual Site Model
cy Cubic Yards
DEP Duke Energy Progress, LLC
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
E&SC Erosion and Sediment Control
FGD Flue Gas Desulfurization
FS Factor of Safety
ft Feet
gpm Gallons Per Minute
H&H Hydrology and Hydraulic
HSA Hollow Stem Auger
ICA Interior Containment Area
IMAC Interim Maximum Allowable Concentrations
in Inch
LOLA Lay of Land Area
MDE Maximum Design Earthquake
MGD Million Gallons Per Day
µg/L Micrograms Per Liter
mV millivolts
mg/kg Milligram Per Kilogram
NAVD88 North American Datum of 1988
NC North Carolina
NCAC North Carolina Administrative Code
NCDENR North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources
NCDEQ North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
NCDOT North Carolina Department of Transportation
Geosyntec Consultants of North Carolina, PC
Duke Energy Coal Combustion Residuals Management Program
L.V. Sutton Energy Complex Site Analysis and Removal Plan
Revision 0
December 2016
v
Acronym/Abbreviation Definition
NCGS North Carolina General Statute
NEHRP National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
ORP Oxidation-Reduction Potential
PGA Peak Ground Acceleration
PQL Practical Quantification Limit
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
REC Registered Environmental Consultant
SCPT Seismic Cone Penetration Test
SOP Standard Operating Procedure
SPLP Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure
SPT Standard Penetration Test
s.u. Standard Units
TDS Total Dissolved Solids
tsf Tons Per Square Foot
TSS Total Suspended Solids
USACE United States Army Corp. of Engineers
USGS United States Geologic Survey
WQMP Water Quality Management Plan
Geosyntec Consultants of North Carolina, PC
Duke Energy Coal Combustion Residuals Management Program
L.V. Sutton Energy Complex Site Analysis and Removal Plan
Revision 0
December 2016
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Site Analysis and Removal Plan Objectives .......................................................................... 1
1.2 Selected Final Closure Option ............................................................................................... 1
1.3 Report Organization ............................................................................................................... 2
2. GOVERNING REQUIREMENTS ...................................................................................... 4
2.1 Federal CCR Rule .................................................................................................................. 4
2.2 North Carolina Rules .............................................................................................................. 4
3. FACILITY DESCRIPTION AND EXISTING SITE FEATURES ......................................... 7
3.1 Surface Impoundment Description ......................................................................................... 7
3.1.1 Site History and Operations ..................................................................................... 7
3.1.2 Estimated Volume of CCR in Impoundments .......................................................... 7
3.1.3 Description of Surface Impoundment Structural Integrity ........................................ 7
3.1.4 Sources of Discharge into Surface Impoundments ............................................... 10
3.1.5 Existing Liner System ............................................................................................ 11
3.1.6 Inspection and Monitoring Summary ..................................................................... 11
3.2 Site Maps ............................................................................................................................. 12
3.2.1 Summary of Existing CCR Impoundment Related Structures ............................... 12
3.2.2 Receptor Survey .................................................................................................... 12
3.2.3 Existing On-Site Landfills ....................................................................................... 12
3.3 Monitoring and Sampling Location Plan .............................................................................. 12
4. RESULTS OF HYDROGEOLOGIC, GEOLOGIC, AND GEOTECHNICAL
INVESTIGATIONS .......................................................................................................... 14
4.1 Regional Geology and Hydrogeology .................................................................................. 14
4.1.1 Geology .................................................................................................................. 14
4.1.2 Hydrogeology ......................................................................................................... 14
4.2 Stratigraphy of the Geologic Units Underlying Surface Impoundments .............................. 15
4.3 Hydraulic Conductivity Information ...................................................................................... 17
4.4 Geotechnical Properties ....................................................................................................... 17
4.4.1 Summary of Boring and Sampling Frequency and Methods ................................. 17
4.4.2 Summary of Laboratory Testing and Geotechnical Properties .............................. 17
4.5 Chemical Analysis of Impoundment Water, CCR and CCR-Affected Soil ........................... 18
4.5.1 Overview ................................................................................................................ 18
Geosyntec Consultants of North Carolina, PC
Duke Energy Coal Combustion Residuals Management Program
L.V. Sutton Energy Complex Site Analysis and Removal Plan
Revision 0
December 2016
vii
4.5.2 Coal Combustion Residuals .................................................................................. 19
4.5.3 Soils ....................................................................................................................... 21
4.5.4 Soil and CCR Mixtures at the LOLA ...................................................................... 21
4.5.5 CCR Interstitial Water ............................................................................................ 23
4.6 Historical Groundwater Sampling Results ........................................................................... 24
4.6.1 Overview ................................................................................................................ 24
4.6.2 Historical Investigations and NPDES Sampling Results ....................................... 24
4.6.3 Supplemental Groundwater Monitoring ................................................................. 26
4.6.4 Groundwater Monitoring at the LOLA .................................................................... 29
4.7 Groundwater Potentiometric Contour Maps ......................................................................... 29
4.8 Figures: Cross Section Vertical and Horizontal Extent of CCR within the Basins ............... 30
5. GROUNDWATER MODELING ANALYSIS.................................................................... 32
6. BENEFICIAL REUSE AND FUTURE USE..................................................................... 33
6.1 CCR Material Reuse ............................................................................................................ 33
6.2 Site Future Use .................................................................................................................... 33
7. CLOSURE DESIGN DOCUMENTS ................................................................................ 34
7.1 Engineering Evaluations and Analyses ................................................................................ 34
7.2 Removal Plan Drawings ....................................................................................................... 34
7.3 Specifications ....................................................................................................................... 35
7.4 Construction Quality Assurance Plan .................................................................................. 35
8. MANAGEMENT OF WASTEWATER AND STORMWATER ......................................... 36
8.1 Stormwater Management ..................................................................................................... 36
8.1.1 Existing Surface Water Runoff and Stormwater Management Features ............... 36
8.1.2 Soils ....................................................................................................................... 36
8.1.3 Current NPDES Permit .......................................................................................... 37
8.1.4 Conceptual Basin Closure Stormwater Management ............................................ 38
8.1.5 Erosion and Sediment Control ............................................................................... 38
8.2 Wastewater: Overview ......................................................................................................... 39
8.2.1 NPDES Permit Limits ............................................................................................. 39
8.2.2 Treatment Methods Evaluation .............................................................................. 40
8.2.3 Meeting Water Quality Limits ................................................................................. 41
8.2.4 Treatment Implementation Timing ......................................................................... 41
9. DESCRIPTION OF FINAL DISPOSITION OF CCR ....................................................... 42
Geosyntec Consultants of North Carolina, PC
Duke Energy Coal Combustion Residuals Management Program
L.V. Sutton Energy Complex Site Analysis and Removal Plan
Revision 0
December 2016
viii
10. APPLICABLE PERMITS FOR CLOSURE ..................................................................... 43
11. POST-CLOSURE MONITORING AND CARE ............................................................... 44
11.1 Groundwater Monitoring Program ........................................................................................ 44
12. PROJECT MILESTONES AND COST ESTIMATES...................................................... 45
12.1 Project Schedule .................................................................................................................. 45
12.2 Closure and Post-Closure Cost Estimate ............................................................................ 45
13. REFERENCED DOCUMENTS ....................................................................................... 46
Tables
Table 1. Federal CCR Rule [EPA, 2015] Removal Plan Requirements Cross Reference
Summary
Table 2. North Carolina CAMA Removal Plan Requirements
Table 3. Estimated Quantities and Types of CCR for CCR Basins and Other Areas at Sutton
Table 4. Summary of Available Inspection Reports
Table 5. Historical Monitoring Well and Piezometer Construction Details
Table 6. Slug Test Results Summary
Table 7. Effluent Limits and Monitoring Requirements, Bulk Water Removal, Outfall 001
Table 8. Effluent Limits and Monitoring Requirements, Interstitial Water Removal, Outfall 001
Table 9. Effluent Limits and Monitoring Requirements, Bulk Water Removal, Outfall 004
Figures
Figure 1. L.V. Sutton Site Map
Figure 2. Existing Monitoring Well Locations
Figure 3. Physiographic Provinces of North Carolina
Figure 4. Physiographic Provinces in the Atlantic Coastal Plain [after Campbell and Coes,
2011]
Figure 5. Generalized Summary of Regional Geologic and Hydrogeologic Units in the Region
[after McSwain et al., 2014]
Figure 6. Thickness of the Surficial Aquifer in the Atlantic Coastal Plain [after Campbell and
Coes, 2010]
Geosyntec Consultants of North Carolina, PC
Duke Energy Coal Combustion Residuals Management Program
L.V. Sutton Energy Complex Site Analysis and Removal Plan
Revision 0
December 2016
ix
Figure 7. Elevation of Top of Castle Hayne Confining Unit in New Hanover County, North
Carolina [after McSwain et al., 2014]
Figure 8. Elevation of Top of Castle Hayne Aquifer in New Hanover County, North Carolina
[after McSwain et al., 2014]
Figure 9. Thickness of Peedee Confining Unit in the Atlantic Coastal Plain [after Campbell and
Coes, 2010]
Figure 10. Elevation of Top of Peedee Confining Unit in New Hanover County, North Carolina
[after McSwain et al., 2014]
Figure 11. Elevation of Top of Peedee Aquifer in New Hanover County, North Carolina [after
McSwain et al., 2014]
Figure 12. Thickness of Peedee Aquifer in the Atlantic Coastal Plain [after Campbell and Coes,
2010]
Figure 13. Areal Extent of Black Creek Confining Unit in the Atlantic Coastal Plain [after
Campbell and Coes, 2010]
Figure 14. Existing Site Features
Figure 15. Shallow Groundwater Elevation Isocontour Map
Figure 16. Field Investigation and Cross Sections Locations
Figure 17. Subsurface Sections – A through C
Figure 18. Subsurface Sections – D through F
Drawings
Drawing 1 Title Page
Drawing 2 Existing Conditions
Drawing 3 Interpreted Bottom of CCR
Drawing 4 Volume Isopach of CCR
Drawing 5 Final Grading – Plan View
Drawing 6 Final Grading – Sections I
Drawing 7 Final Grading – Sections II
Drawing 8 Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
Drawing 9 Erosion and Sediment Control Details
Geosyntec Consultants of North Carolina, PC
Duke Energy Coal Combustion Residuals Management Program
L.V. Sutton Energy Complex Site Analysis and Removal Plan
Revision 0
December 2016
x
Appendices
Appendix A Water Supply Well Survey Report of Findings
Appendix B Boring Logs
Appendix C Geotechnical Subsurface Stratigraphy and Material Properties Package
Appendix D Slug Test Calculations
Appendix E Aquifer Pumping Test Memo
Appendix F Chemical Characterization Report
Appendix G Technical Specifications
Appendix H CQA Plan
Appendix I Post-Closure Care Plan
Appendix J Volume Calculations
Geosyntec Consultants of North Carolina, PC
Duke Energy Coal Combustion Residuals Management Program
L.V. Sutton Energy Complex Site Analysis and Removal Plan
Revision 0
December 2016
1
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Site Analysis and Removal Plan Objectives
Geosyntec Consultants of North Carolina PC (Geosyntec) has prepared this Site Analysis and
Removal Plan (Removal Plan) in support of the proposed closure of the Coal Combustion
Residuals (CCR) Basins at the L.V. Sutton Energy Complex (Sutton) located near Wilmington,
North Carolina (NC). The purpose of this Removal Plan is to seek the North Carolina
Department of Environmental Quality’s (NCDEQ – formerly the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, NCDENR) concurrence with the Duke Energy Progress,
LLC (DEP) plan for closure of the CCR basins located at Sutton. The work to be performed in
support of the closure of the basins is summarized in this document, which is consistent with the
requirements of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System: Disposal of Coal
Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities Rule (CCR Rule) [EPA, 2015] and the NC Coal Ash
Management Act (CAMA).
Sutton is owned by DEP and is located at 801 Sutton Steam Plan Road, Wilmington, North
Carolina, 28401. Sutton includes the electricity generating plant and CCR basins associated
with the historical coal-fired plant. Sutton formerly operated as a coal-fired plant from 1954 to
November 2013 and currently operates a gas-fired combined-cycle unit. The two CCR basins
located at Sutton include: (i) the 1971 Basin; and (ii) the 1984 Basin. Other notable features at
Sutton include: (i) the Lay of Land Area (LOLA), located south of the 1971 Basin; (ii) the Cooling
Pond, west of the CCR basins; and (iii) a Discharge Canal that conveys water from the plant to
the Cooling Pond. Figure 1 presents a site map depicting the above-referenced features.
This Removal Plan was prepared under the responsible charge of Dr. Victor M. Damasceno,
Ph.D., P.E. and reviewed by Dr. Majdi Othman, Ph.D., P.E., both of Geosyntec.
1.2 Selected Final Closure Option
The Drawing Set titled “Permit Application Drawings, 1971 and 1984 Basins, and LOLA
Closure” is an integral part of this Removal Plan and is referred to hereafter as the Drawing Set.
The final closure option, presented in the Drawing Set, was selected based on an evaluation of
environmental, financial, and social impacts of the options considered. The Drawing Set
presented herein is accurate at the time of preparing this Removal Plan and is subject to
change pending further discussion with DEP. Approximately 2 million tons of CCR are
anticipated to be transported off-site prior to operation of the on-site landfill. The landfill will be
located east and adjacent to the 1984 Basin. A Site Application and Onsite CCR Landfill
Construction Application Report were prepared by Geosyntec on behalf of DEP as part of the
landfill construction application submitted to NCDEQ in May 2015 and August 2015,
respectively. The Site Application and Construction Application were approved by NCDEQ in
July 2015 and September 2016, respectively. Drawing 5, Drawing 6, and Drawing 7 show the
anticipated grading of the basins and the LOLA after they have been excavated and
decommissioned. The following activities are planned as part of the closure of the 1971 and
1984 Basins:
Geosyntec Consultants of North Carolina, PC
Duke Energy Coal Combustion Residuals Management Program
L.V. Sutton Energy Complex Site Analysis and Removal Plan
Revision 0
December 2016
2
• excavate CCR to approximately elevation 10 feet (ft) North American Vertical Datum of
1988 (NAVD88), or until native soil is encountered, to expose the dams;
• excavate the Dam on the northern and eastern sides of the 1984 Basin down to
elevation 20 ft-NAVD88;
• excavate the dam on the northern and eastern sides of the 1971 Basin down to
approximately elevation 14 ft-NAVD88;
• excavate the southern 1971 Basin dike (adjacent to the Discharge Canal) and
reconstruct a dike on a portion of the southern side of the 1971 Basin at elevation 12 ft-
NAVD88;
• excavate the western 1971 Basin dike to allow the Cooling Pond to combine with the
1971 Basin;
• excavate the 1984 Basin dam to match surrounding existing elevations;
• grade soils within the 1984 Basin footprint to promote stormwater runoff towards the
Cooling Pond.
The CCR impoundments will be excavated by utilizing technically sound and cost-effective
measures with the goal of meeting the 31 August 2019 deadline set forth in CAMA and the
closure time frame set forth in Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 257.102(f). The
schedule presented in the “Coal Ash Excavation Plan” (prepared by DEP and submitted to
NCDEQ in 2015) called for completing excavation in March 2019. This date reasonably
assumed that DEP would receive a landfill construction permit by June 2016. (DEP applied for
the landfill construction permit in August 2015.) However, on 7 April 2016, NCDEQ initiated an
environmental justice review for the landfill construction permit and, upon completion,
transmitted it to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for review and
comment; EPA did not act on the environmental justice review. Although the permit was
ultimately issued by NCDEQ on 21 September 2016, as a result of the delay, DEP will be forced
to operate with little to no margin to achieve the 1 August 2019 CCR surface impoundment
closure date. Additional CCR-related structures (e.g., dikes) and CCR potentially encountered
outside of the basin footprint (e.g., LOLA) will also be mitigated; however, mitigation of these
materials will be pursued to meet the 1 January 2026 date, following excavation of the CCR
impoundments.
1.3 Report Organization
Although the Sutton CCR surface impoundments are specifically subject to the closure
requirements set out in Part II, Sections 3.(b) and 3.(c) of Coal Ash Management Act (CAMA)
(and not North Carolina General Statute (NCGS) §130A-309.214), for purposes of consistency
with the closure plans for those non-high-priority DEP facilities to which NCGS § 130A-309.214
applies, this Removal Plan is structured to follow generally the Closure Plan elements set forth
in NCGS § 130A-309.214(a)(4), as follows:
Geosyntec Consultants of North Carolina, PC
Duke Energy Coal Combustion Residuals Management Program
L.V. Sutton Energy Complex Site Analysis and Removal Plan
Revision 0
December 2016
3
• Section 2 – Governing Regulations: This section identifies and lists applicable Federal
and State regulations, requirements, and guidelines pertaining to CCR basin closure.
• Section 3 – Facility Description and Existing Site Features: This section presents an
overview of the facility, including a summary of the operational history and a description
of the basins.
• Section 4 – Results of Hydrogeologic, Geologic, and Geotechnical Investigations: This
section summarizes the hydrogeological and geotechnical investigations performed at
Sutton and reports the results of laboratory analyses.
• Section 5 – Groundwater Modeling Analyses: A site groundwater flow and contaminant
transport model is being prepared by an independent consultant and will be submitted
under a separate cover at a later date. Therefore, the requirements of this section are
omitted from this Removal Plan.
• Section 6 – Beneficial Reuse and Future Use: This section presents plans for beneficial
reuses and describes the anticipated future use of Sutton following the closure of the
basins.
• Section 7 – Closure Design Documents: This section presents a summary of the
engineering evaluation and preliminary analyses performed in support of the CCR basin
closure at Sutton, as well as technical specifications and Construction Quality Assurance
(CQA) Plan.
• Section 8 – Management of Wastewater and Stormwater: This section describes the
provisions for disposal of anticipated wastewater and stormwater, including a plan for
obtaining the required permits.
• Section 9 – Description of Final Disposition of CCR: This section describes the
anticipated final disposition of the CCR.
• Section 10 – Applicable Permits for Closure: This section identifies the applicable
permits required for closure of the basins, including modifications to existing permits and
applications for new permits.
• Section 11 – Post-Closure Monitoring and Care: This section presents the post-closure
care plan and groundwater monitoring program.
• Section 12 – Project Milestones and Cost Estimates: This section discusses the
estimated schedule for milestones related to basin closure and post-closure activities.
This section also presents projected costs of closure and post-closure care.
• Section 13 – Referenced Documents: This section summarizes the documents cited as
part of this Removal Plan.
Geosyntec Consultants of North Carolina, PC
Duke Energy Coal Combustion Residuals Management Program
L.V. Sutton Energy Complex Site Analysis and Removal Plan
Revision 0
December 2016
4
2. GOVERNING REQUIREMENTS
2.1 Federal CCR Rule
The Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System: Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals
from Electric Utilities, referred to herein as the CCR Rule, was published in the Federal Register
on 17 April 2015 and codified in 40 CFR Parts 257 and 261, with an effective date of 19 October
2015 [EPA, 2015]. This rule regulates CCR as a nonhazardous waste under Subtitle D of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Most of the regulatory deadlines are set
from the date the rule was published.
Written closure requirements are defined in 40 CFR § 257.102(b)(1)(i-vi) and are summarized in
Table 1. These requirements and related information are addressed in subsequent sections
within this Removal Plan. Table 1 provides a cross-reference between each requirement and
the corresponding Removal Plan section(s).
A History of Construction Report is required to be developed for each CCR unit as described in
40 CFR § 257.73(c)(1). Recordkeeping, as described in 40 CFR § 257.105, requires the History
of Construction Report be maintained in a written operating record and be made available on a
publicly accessible internet site.
2.2 North Carolina Rules
In August 2014, the NC General Assembly passed Senate Bill 729 known as the Coal Ash
Management Act, CAMA, which lists specific requirements for CCR surface impoundment
closure. For Sutton, “coal combustion residuals surface impoundment”, as defined in CAMA §
130A-309.201(6), is interpreted to include the 1971 and 1984 Basins. The CAMA requirements
are summarized in Table 2. Part II, Section 3.(b) of CAMA classifies Sutton as a ‘high-priority’
site and specifically requires closure by removal, which is defined as:
• dewatering to the maximum extent possible;
• removing and transferring CCR from basins to a permitted landfill or structural fill; and
• providing corrective action to restore groundwater quality if needed, as provided in
NCGS §130A-309.204.
CAMA requires the 1971 and 1984 Basins at Sutton to be closed by 31 August 2019. In July
2016, the NC General Assembly passed H.B. 630, Session Law 2016-95, which provides that
impoundments shall be classified as “low-risk” if, by certain deadlines, the owner has
established permanent alternative water supplies, as required, and has rectified any deficiencies
identified by, and has otherwise complied with requirements of, any dam safety order. This
Removal Plan is based on engineering and environmental factors minimizing the impacts to
communities and managing costs. Closure Plan requirements for non-high-priority sites were
codified at NCGS § 130A-309.214(a)(4) which requires plans for such sites to include the
elements listed below. Although NCGS § 130A-309.214 is not specifically applicable to Sutton,
which is a high-priority site required to close pursuant to Part II, Sections 3.(b) and 3.(c) of
Geosyntec Consultants of North Carolina, PC
Duke Energy Coal Combustion Residuals Management Program
L.V. Sutton Energy Complex Site Analysis and Removal Plan
Revision 0
December 2016
5
CAMA, this Removal Plan relies on subsection (a)(4) of § 130A-309.214 solely to inform its
organization.
Specifically, this Removal Plan addresses the following:
• facility description;
• site maps;
• hydrogeologic, geologic, geotechnical characterization results;
• groundwater potentiometric maps and extent of contaminants of concern;
• groundwater modeling;
• description of beneficial reuse plans;
• Removal Plan drawings, design documents, and specifications;
• description of the CQA Plan;
• description of waste water disposal and stormwater management provisions;
• description of how the final disposition of CCR will be provided;
• list of applicable permits to complete closure;
• description of post-closure monitoring and care plans;
• estimated closure and post-closure milestone dates;
• estimated costs of assessment, corrective action, closure and post-closure care; and
• future site use description.
In addition to the closure pathway, CAMA outlines groundwater assessment and corrective
action requirements summarized as follows:
• submit proposed Groundwater Assessment Plans by 31 December 2014;
• complete groundwater assessment and submit a Groundwater Assessment Report
within 180 days of Groundwater Assessment Plan approval; and
• provide a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) (if required) within 90 days (and no later than
180 days, subject to department approval) of Groundwater Assessment Report
completion.
The groundwater assessment and corrective action activities for Sutton were performed by
SynTerra Corp. (SynTerra). The Comprehensive Site Assessment (CSA) Report for Sutton was
submitted on 5 August 2015 [SynTerra, 2015a]. The CSA Supplement 1 was submitted 31
August 2016 [SynTerra, 2016b]. Information from the CSA has been incorporated into this
Removal Plan. DEP has been in correspondence with the NCDEQ and received permission to
submit a CAP in two phases. The first phase of the CAP was submitted on 2 November 2015
[SynTerra, 2015b] and includes background information, a brief summary of the CSA findings, a
Geosyntec Consultants of North Carolina, PC
Duke Energy Coal Combustion Residuals Management Program
L.V. Sutton Energy Complex Site Analysis and Removal Plan
Revision 0
December 2016
6
brief description of site geology and hydrogeology, a summary of the previously completed
receptor survey, a description of the North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC) Title 15A
Subchapter 2L groundwater standard (2L Standard) and Subchapter 2B surface water (2B
Standard) exceedances, proposed site-specific groundwater background concentrations, a
detailed description of the site conceptual model, and groundwater flow and transport modeling.
The second phase of the CAP was submitted on 1 February 2016 [SynTerra, 2016a] and
includes the risk assessment, alternative methods for achieving restoration, conceptual plans for
recommended corrective actions, implementation schedule, and a plan for future monitoring and
reporting.
Geosyntec Consultants of North Carolina, PC
Duke Energy Coal Combustion Residuals Management Program
L.V. Sutton Energy Complex Site Analysis and Removal Plan
Revision 0
December 2016
7
3. FACILITY DESCRIPTION AND EXISTING SITE FEATURES
3.1 Surface Impoundment Description
3.1.1 Site History and Operations
A comprehensive summary of the site history and operations is presented in the History of
Construction Report that was prepared by Geosyntec and posted to the Sutton operating
record. A summary of the History of Construction Report is presented herein. The Sutton plant
began operations in 1954 as a three-unit, 575-megawatt coal-fired plant until retirement in
November 2013, when a new 625-megawatt gas-fired combined-cycle unit began operations.
The CCR generated at Sutton was disposed within basins located on plant property. The CCR
basins located at Sutton include the 1971 Basin and the 1984 Basin, as shown on Figure 1.
The 1971 Basin covers an area of approximately 54 acres. In 1983, the dikes of the 1971 Basin
were raised by approximately eight ft (to elevation 26 ft NAVD88). The 1971 Basin operated
from 1971 to 2013 for CCR disposal and currently only receives stormwater. The 1984 Basin
covers an area of approximately 82 acres. In 2006, an Interior Containment Area (ICA) was
constructed within the footprint of the 1984 Basin. The 1984 Basin was operated from 1984 to
2013. The LOLA contains CCR generated from plant operations between approximately 1954
and 1972.
The CCR basins at Sutton contain sluiced fly ash and bottom ash. In addition to the CCR, the
basins also contain boiler slag, stormwater, ash sluice water, coal pile runoff, and low volume
wastewater [Dewberry & Davis, 2011]. Scrubbers were not installed at Sutton; as such, Flue
Gas Desulfurization (FGD) residuals are not known to be impounded in the CCR basins.
3.1.2 Estimated Volume of CCR in Impoundments
Table 3 presents quantities and types of CCR at each basin and the LOLA. Details and
assumptions for the calculations are discussed in Section 12.2. Based on these calculations,
the total estimated CCR volume in the basins is approximately 5.5 million cubic yards (cy)
(approximately 6.7 million tons – assuming an average density of approximately 1.2 tons/cy),
while the LOLA contains an additional CCR volume of approximately 0.6 million cy
(approximately 0.7 million tons). This results in a total CCR volume of approximately 6 million
cy (approximately 7.3 million tons). The LOLA is comprised mainly of bottom ash and soil while
the other areas contain fly ash and bottom ash.
3.1.3 Description of Surface Impoundment Structural Integrity
The structural integrity of the 1971 and 1984 Basin dikes has been evaluated by Geosyntec as
part of a dewatering design prepared for Sutton in 2014. The evaluation performed by
Geosyntec is supplemented by additional analyses performed by Amec Foster Wheeler
Environment and Infrastructure, Inc. (Amec) as part of the Phase 2 Reconstitution of Ash Pond
Designs Final Report (Phase 2 Report) [Amec, 2015]. Amec evaluated the structural stability of
the 1971 and 1984 Basin dikes, performed Hydrology and Hydraulic (H&H) analysis, and
Geosyntec Consultants of North Carolina, PC
Duke Energy Coal Combustion Residuals Management Program
L.V. Sutton Energy Complex Site Analysis and Removal Plan
Revision 0
December 2016
8
evaluated the structural stability of the spillway as part of the Phase 2 Report. A summary of
the findings of the evaluations is presented below.
3.1.3.1 Seepage Analysis
The 1971 and 1984 Basins are both inactive and have been since November 2013. The head
difference between the water level observed along the dikes and the free field is generally small
(approximately 5 ft or less). Seepage concerns were not identified during annual and five-year
inspections. Therefore, seepage was not considered to be an issue at Sutton and was not
performed at the time of preparing this Removal Plan.
3.1.3.2 Slope Stability Analysis
3.1.3.2.1 Normal Operating and Maximum Surcharge Pool Conditions
Geosyntec performed static slope stability analyses on several cross sections along the 1971
and 1984 Basin dikes under existing normal operating conditions [Geosyntec, 2014a]. The
calculated factors of safety (FS) for global dike stability were found to meet and/or exceed the
minimum required FS under operating (i.e. FS ≥ 1.50) and surcharge conditions (i.e. FS ≥ 1.40),
respectively, as defined in 40 CFR § 257.73 (e)(1)(i-ii). This is consistent with the analyses
presented in the Phase 2 Report. In both sets of analyses, the potential for surficial sloughing
was identified. However, such sloughs are not considered critical and can typically be
addressed through routine maintenance. Amec also performed slope stability analyses for
maximum surcharge pool conditions. The calculated FS were also found to meet the minimum
required FS.
3.1.3.2.2 Drawdown Conditions
Removal of bulk water from the northern area within the 1984 Basin was proposed as part of the
Sutton Dewatering Plan. It is desirable to pump water at the maximum safe rate possible.
Geosyntec performed rapid drawdown analyses for a cross section on the 1984 Basin dike to
evaluate slope stability conditions that would require capping the maximum drawdown rate.
This condition is equivalent to instantaneous removal of water within the basin. Such a
condition could arise as a result of rapid pumping or loss of containment (e.g., a dike breach).
NCDEQ requires a minimum FS of 1.25 for rapid drawdown conditions [NCDENR, 1980]. The
United States Army Corp. of Engineers (USACE) recommends a minimum FS of 1.1 to 1.3 for
rapid drawdown, dependent on site-specific conditions [USACE, 2003]. The minimum FS was
conservatively selected to be 1.3. The slope stability analysis performed by Geosyntec found
the calculated FS to meet the minimum required FS (i.e. FS ≥ 1.3).
3.1.3.2.3 Seismic (Pseudo-Static) Conditions
Pseudo-static slope stability analysis has not explicitly been performed for the dikes at Sutton.
However, Geosyntec evaluated the estimated permanent seismic deformation under the
anticipated seismic hazard as discussed below in Section 3.1.3.3. Geosyntec calculated the
estimated permanent seismic deformation to be zero.
Geosyntec Consultants of North Carolina, PC
Duke Energy Coal Combustion Residuals Management Program
L.V. Sutton Energy Complex Site Analysis and Removal Plan
Revision 0
December 2016
9
Post-liquefaction static slope stability analyses were performed as part of the Phase 2 Report.
The calculated FS varied from 0.3 to 1.7. However, this may be a conservative analysis and as
discussed in Section 3.1.3.3, liquefaction is not considered to pose a significant risk at Sutton.
3.1.3.3 Liquefaction Potential
Geosyntec performed a preliminary screening level liquefaction potential evaluation at selected
locations as part of the Sutton Dewatering Plan. The appropriate seismic hazard is typically
expressed in probabilistic terms as a specific hazard level that has a certain probability of
exceedance within a given time period. The liquefaction potential was evaluated using seismic
design parameters consistent with a 2 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years. These
parameters include moment magnitude and Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) with a return
period of 2,475 years, typically referred to as a 2,500-year event. Parameters corresponding to
a 2,500-year event were obtained using the United States Geological Survey (USGS) 2008
deaggregation tool (2008) [USGS, 2008]. The PGA and moment magnitude obtained from the
USGS deaggregation tool were 0.114g and 7.30, respectively. Review of available subsurface
information indicated that site effects would be insignificant. This assumption was considered
acceptable for a screening level evaluation. Therefore, the design PGA (PGAdesign) was
selected to be equal 0.114g. The FS against liquefaction was calculated using the Standard
Penetration Test (SPT)-based simplified procedure presented by Idriss and Boulanger [2008].
The minimum required FS against liquefaction is 1.20, as defined in 40 CFR § 257.73 (e)(1)(iv).
The cross sections evaluated as part of the preliminary screening level liquefaction potential
analysis were found to meet the minimum required FS, indicating that the soils have a low
liquefaction potential under the evaluated seismic hazard.
Liquefaction triggering evaluation using a similar approach was also performed as part of the
Phase 2 Report and found that the FS against liquefaction is less than 1.0 at various locations
within the dike fill, foundation soils below the dike, and/or foundation soils at the toe area. The
selected PGArock for Site Class B and moment magnitude were 0.105g and 7.36, respectively,
based on data from the USGS 2008 seismic hazard maps. Because of the manner in which the
PGArock was calculated, Geosyntec notes that it is less than the PGA with a 2% probability of
exceedance in 50 years.
In addition, in the analyses presented in the Phase 2 Report, local site effects were accounted
for via the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) [2009] site coefficients.
Based on a review of subsurface information, Amec assigned Site Class D, resulting in a site
coefficient (Fpga) of 1.59 and a resulting PGAdesign of 0.167g. The selected site coefficient is
considered conservative given the deep Coastal Plain soil conditions at the site differ
significantly from the soil conditions represented by the NEHRP site coefficients.
Furthermore, “embankment effects” were accounted for in the Phase 2 Report using results
presented by Harder [1998] and the PGAcrest at the dike crest was selected to be 0.485g.
However, the figure used (i.e., the figure developed by Harder [1998]) presents an upper bound
estimation developed for dams approximately 50 to 300 ft high, which may not be applicable for
the dikes at Sutton (e.g., the maximum height of perimeter dikes is equal to approximately 24 ft).
Geosyntec Consultants of North Carolina, PC
Duke Energy Coal Combustion Residuals Management Program
L.V. Sutton Energy Complex Site Analysis and Removal Plan
Revision 0
December 2016
10
Therefore, the methods employed in the Phase 2 Report to account for the local site and
embankment effects in the liquefaction triggering evaluation are considered conservative.
However, the analyses presented above were both performed using the USGS 2008 tools. The
most recent USGS 2014 seismic hazard map indicates that the PGA for a 2,500-year event has
been revised to be lower than that considered in 2008. According to the USGS 2014 seismic
hazard map, the PGA at Sutton is estimated to be approximately 0.08g. Therefore, the previous
analyses are also conservative based on this observation and liquefaction potential is not
considered to pose a significant hazard at Sutton.
3.1.3.4 Hydrology and Hydraulics Capacity Analysis
H&H analyses were performed for the basins at Sutton as part of the Phase 2 Report. As
compared to requirements as defined in 40 CFR § 257.82, findings presented in the Phase 2
Report indicate that the 1971 and 1984 Basins could effectively contain and pass the design
storm event. However, analysis and assumptions presented in the Phase 2 Report indicate that
the 2006 ICA does not have enough hydraulic capacity to contain and pass the design storm
event.
3.1.3.5 Spillway Structural Stability
Structural stability analyses for the primary riser of the 1971 Basin and the internal riser of the
1984 Basin were performed as part of the Phase 2 Report. Analysis of the internal riser of the
1971 Basin was not performed due to lack of available information, and analysis of the primary
riser of the 1984 Basin was not performed since the information from the available construction
drawings was inconsistent with existing conditions of the riser documented in the field.
The risers were evaluated for: (i) moment equilibrium stability; (ii) sliding stability; (iii) floatation
stability; (iv) bearing capacity; (v) separation at joint sections; and (vi) structural strength, under
usual, unusual and extreme loads in general accordance with USACE EM 1110-2-2400.
Findings presented in the Phase 2 Report indicate that 1971 and 1984 Basin risers did not meet
the stability criteria for bearing capacity and joint separation under the extreme loading
condition, which was defined as the Maximum Design Earthquake (MDE) or the 2,475 year
return period earthquake (i.e. 2 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years).
3.1.4 Sources of Discharge into Surface Impoundments
The Sutton Plant was a three-unit, 575-megawatt coal-fired power plant and operated from 1954
until the retirement of the coal-fired units in November 2013. Dewberry and Davis [2011]
indicates that the 1971 and 1984 Basins contain fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag, stormwater,
ash sluice water, coal pile runoff, and low-volume wastewater, and, as previously discussed,
since scrubbers were not installed at the Sutton Plant, FGD residuals are not expected in the
basins. The estimated CCR volume in the basins is presented in Section 3.1.2. Information
related to the quantity of each CCR constituent were not available at the time of preparing this
Removal Plan.
Dewberry and Davis [2011] presented the Sutton CCR handling system as follows:
Geosyntec Consultants of North Carolina, PC
Duke Energy Coal Combustion Residuals Management Program
L.V. Sutton Energy Complex Site Analysis and Removal Plan
Revision 0
December 2016
11
• fly ash was collected by an electrostatic precipitator;
• collected ash was stored in hoppers and conveyed pneumatically to a silo;
• ash was hydraulically conveyed from the silo to the ash basins;
• bottom ash was collected from the bottom of the boiler and conveyed through the same
transport system as the fly ash into the ash basins; and
• boiler slag was also collected from the boiler and conveyed to the basins.
3.1.5 Existing Liner System
The 1971 Basin is unlined; however, the 1984 Basin was constructed with an approximately 12-
inch (in) thick compacted clay liner, as shown in historical as-built drawings included as part of
the 1987 five-year inspection report. The liner extends into the upstream side of the dikes to
elevation 32 ft and is protected on the side slopes by a 2-ft thick sand layer. Technical
specifications included in the 1987 five-year inspection report indicate that liner was specified to
be 1-ft thick, placed in two lifts and compacted to a minimum density of 95% of standard Proctor
maximum density. The liner was specified to have permeability equal to or less than 10-7
centimeters per second (cm/s). Laboratory testing conducted on a sample collected from the
borrow material indicated that the clay has a permeability of 1.06 × 10-8 cm/s and 2.02 × 10-8
when compacted to 92% and 95% of standard Proctor maximum density, respectively. A letter
dated 24 September 1985 written by William Wells, a consulting engineer for the construction of
the 1984 Basin, addressed to L.B. Wilson of the Carolina Power and Light, Fossil Engineering
and Construction Department stated that the clay liner was compacted to the “specified density
of 85 percent of standard Proctor” and that “Al [sic] permeability tests of the clay were
satisfactory.” It is not clear from a review of the available information if the level of compaction
required was relaxed. Daily and weekly reports detailing field density testing were provided and
attached to the letter; however, tests conducted on the clay liner are not clearly identified.
In April 2006, Withers and Ravenel performed a subsurface investigation in support of the
design of the 2006 ICA within the 1984 Basin. The investigation consisted of borings with SPTs
and Cone Penetration Test (CPT) soundings advanced from the dike crest and within the 1984
Basin. In selected CPT soundings and borings within the basin, a casing was installed into or
through the clay liner to prevent migration of CCR below the clay liner. Based on the boring
logs from this investigation and one sample collected during the investigation, the clay liner was
observed to be fine sandy clay to clay with a thickness of 4.5 to 7-in.
3.1.6 Inspection and Monitoring Summary
Several inspections have been conducted over the lifetime of the basins. The first five-year
inspection was conducted in 1987 and was triggered by the raising of the 1971 Basin dikes in
1983. Inspections were not conducted prior to the 1983 modifications due to the low height (i.e.
less than 15 ft) of the dikes, which made them exempt from the Dam Safety rules (15A NCAC
2K) at the time. A complete set of inspection reports, both five-year and annual, was not
available for review; however, annual inspections from 2009 to 2013, and the 1987, 2007 and
2012 five-year inspection reports were reviewed and indicate that the dikes were typically found
Geosyntec Consultants of North Carolina, PC
Duke Energy Coal Combustion Residuals Management Program
L.V. Sutton Energy Complex Site Analysis and Removal Plan
Revision 0
December 2016
12
to be in generally good condition with only routine maintenance required. A breach of part of
the 1984 Basin dike did occur in 2010; however, permanent repairs were made and later
inspections have found no further issues. A summary of the inspection report findings is
presented in Table 4.
3.2 Site Maps
3.2.1 Summary of Existing CCR Impoundment Related Structures
As discussed in Section 3.1, the 1971 and 1984 Basins were used for CCR disposal at Sutton.
Drawing 2 of the drawing set presents information pertinent to the basins, including:
• property boundary;
• location of the power generating units;
• CCR basin outlines and compliance boundaries;
• CCR basin outlet structures; and
• topographic contours of the basins and surrounding areas.
3.2.2 Receptor Survey
SynTerra conducted a survey of potential water supply wells for an area within an approximately
0.5 miles of the compliance boundary, which is located 500 ft from the Basin boundaries. This
receptor survey was submitted to NCDEQ in September 2014. An updated water supply well
survey was later submitted to NCDEQ in November 2014. The receptor survey was included in
the CSA Report prepared by SynTerra and submitted to NCDEQ on 5 August 2015 [SynTerra,
2015a, 2016b]. A copy of the receptor survey is included in Appendix A.
3.2.3 Existing On-Site Landfills
There are no existing active or closed on-site landfill facilities at Sutton. Therefore, the
requirements of this section are not addressed as part of this Removal Plan.
3.3 Monitoring and Sampling Location Plan
Groundwater conditions at Sutton have been monitored according to specifications outlined in
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit NC0001422 since 1990.
The monitoring network presently consists of 17 monitoring wells and six surface
water/discharge sampling locations and is summarized on Figure 2. The CSA Report prepared
by SynTerra addressed CAMA § 130A-309.209(a)(4) and § 130A-309.209(d) [SynTerra, 2015a,
2106b]. The CSA provided an update of site conditions, which included the delineation of the
horizontal and vertical extent of constituents of interest in the soil, surface water, and
groundwater. The CSA concluded with a proposed groundwater monitoring network consisting
of 36 wells; however, several of the proposed groundwater monitoring wells are located within
the proposed onsite landfill footprint. Consequently, the proposed monitoring network submitted
by SynTerra will need to be re-evaluated to take into account the proposed onsite landfill and
Geosyntec Consultants of North Carolina, PC
Duke Energy Coal Combustion Residuals Management Program
L.V. Sutton Energy Complex Site Analysis and Removal Plan
Revision 0
December 2016
13
other relocated site features, and consider the comments (if any) provided by NCDEQ on the
CSA prior to implementation.
Geosyntec Consultants of North Carolina, PC
Duke Energy Coal Combustion Residuals Management Program
L.V. Sutton Energy Complex Site Analysis and Removal Plan
Revision 0
December 2016
14
4. RESULTS OF HYDROGEOLOGIC, GEOLOGIC, AND GEOTECHNICAL
INVESTIGATIONS
4.1 Regional Geology and Hydrogeology
4.1.1 Geology
As shown on Figure 3, Sutton is located within the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province of NC.
The Coastal Plain Physiographic Province is characterized by a southeastward thickening
wedge of late Cretaceous to Holocene age sediments that overlie a Paleozoic age crystalline
basement. These overlying sediments generally thicken and gently dip southeastwards from
the Fall Line towards the Atlantic Ocean and exceed a total thickness of 1,515 ft in New
Hanover County. The depositional history of these sediments begins with continental
fragmentation and rifting of the Pangea Super Continent in the early Mesozoic Era followed by
the opening of the modern Atlantic Ocean in the late Mesozoic and Cenozoic Eras. Extensive
tectonic forces during rifting and post-rifting lead to the formation of major rift-basins which are
areas of low elevation and arches (uplifted geologic structures). Examples of these in the vicinity
of the study region include the Albemarle embayment in southern Virginia and northern North
Carolina and the Cape Fear Arch, located roughly parallel to the Cape Fear River and
southwest of the study area as presented on Figure 4. The long and complex depositional
history of the Coastal Plain sediments resulted in successive geologic and hydrogeologic
stratigraphic units. A correlation chart of the various geologic and hydrogeologic units is
presented on Figure 5 and discussed in the following subsections.
4.1.2 Hydrogeology
Successive deposition of permeable and impermeable sediments in this region has resulted in
aquifers that are separated by confining units, as shown on Figure 5. The various regional
geologic and hydrogeologic stratigraphic units are discussed below sequentially from shallow to
deep formations.
• Surficial Aquifer: The surficial aquifer is the uppermost unconfined hydrostratigraphic
unit at Sutton and comprises the water table, which generally follows the surface
topography. This aquifer is composed of undifferentiated sands of late Tertiary age and
Quaternary surficial deposits, typical of what was encountered at the proposed landfill
site during site investigations. These surficial sediments are well drained and consist of
terraced and barrier-beach deposits, sandy coquinas, fossil sand dunes and stream
channel deposits. The sediments are typically characterized as light gray to light yellow
sand and silts [McSwain et al., 2014]. Regionally, the surficial aquifer varies in thickness
between approximately 10 and 100 ft [Campbell and Coes, 2010] (Figure 6). The high
hydraulic conductivity of the surficial sands (10-4 to 10-2 cm/s) makes the upper aquifer a
prolific water producer for domestic, industrial and public water supply. The 1970
publication of “Geology and Ground-Water of New Hanover County” [Bain, 1970] reports
that one of the industrial supply wells owned by DEP on Sutton Steam Plant Road was
installed to a depth of 53 ft and yields 480 gallons per minute (gpm). Well yields over
Geosyntec Consultants of North Carolina, PC
Duke Energy Coal Combustion Residuals Management Program
L.V. Sutton Energy Complex Site Analysis and Removal Plan
Revision 0
December 2016
15
100 gpm are typical in the upper 55 ft of undifferentiated Tertiary and Quaternary sand
deposits in the local area.
• Castle Hayne Aquifer: Tertiary-age deposits that constitute the Castle Hayne confining
unit generally separate the overlying Surficial Aquifer from the underlying Castle Hayne
aquifer. However, isopach maps that show the elevation of the top of the Castle Hayne
confining unit and aquifer (Figure 8 and Figure 9) indicate that the Castle Hayne
formation is absent underneath the proposed landfill site, consistent with observations
from previous and current site investigations.
• Peedee Aquifer: The Cretaceous age Peedee Formation directly underlies the surficial
deposits in the local area. The Peedee Formation consists of the Peedee confining unit
and the Peedee Aquifer. The Peedee confining unit generally consists of black clay
mixed with some silt, is discontinuous at Sutton, and generally dips and increases in
thickness towards the southeast with thickness varying between 0 and 50 ft (Figure 9
and Figure 10). The Peedee aquifer typically consists of unconsolidated green to dark-
gray silt, olive-green to gray sand, with trace quantities of glauconite, phosphorite, and
pyrite [Campbell and Coes, 2010; McSwain et al., 2014]. In southeastern Brunswick and
north central New Hanover Counties, the Peedee Formation may also consist of
unconsolidated calcareous sandstone and impure limestone [McSwain et al., 2014]. The
top of the Peedee aquifer in this region is at an elevation of approximately -10 to -20 ft
(NAVD88) (Figure 11) and gently dips towards the southeast, varying in thickness from
200 to 300 ft in this part of New Hanover County (Figure 12).
• Black Creek Confining Unit: The Black Creek confining unit underlies the entire site
and is laterally continuous throughout the region [McSwain et al., 2014]. This unit
typically consists of sandy clay, silty clay, and clay beds of the upper Black Creek
Formation. The Black Creek confining unit dips to the southeast ranging in thickness
from approximately 50 to 100 ft in the vicinity of the site (Figure 13).
4.2 Stratigraphy of the Geologic Units Underlying Surface Impoundments
A number of field investigations have been conducted at Sutton. Monitoring well and
piezometer locations are shown on Figure 14. The boring logs associated with these monitoring
wells and piezometers are included in Appendix B and construction details summarized in Table
5. Field investigations conducted at Sutton are discussed in Appendix C. The findings from
these investigations indicate that the subsurface soils primarily comprise, from top to bottom:
• CCR: The CCR consists predominantly of gray/black/dark tan silt-sized particles with
varying amounts of sand-sized particles and exhibit no to low plasticity. CCR were
generally reported to be very loose to loose and occasional pockets of medium dense
CCR were encountered. In general, the thicknesses of CCR or CCR/soil mixtures
were found to be approximately 18 to 84 ft within the 1971 Basin, 18 to 19 ft within the
southern part of the 1984 Basin, up to 13 ft in the northern part of the 1984 Basin, 26
Geosyntec Consultants of North Carolina, PC
Duke Energy Coal Combustion Residuals Management Program
L.V. Sutton Energy Complex Site Analysis and Removal Plan
Revision 0
December 2016
16
to 38 ft within the 2006 ICA, and up to 15 ft thick in the LOLA. SPT and CPT results
are available only within the basin areas (i.e., no in-situ test results for within the
LOLA). The reported SPT N-values typically range between 0 (i.e., weight of hammer)
and 10. The tip resistance and sleeve friction measured from CPTs range typically
between 10 and 50 tons per square foot (tsf) and between 0.1 and 0.7 tsf, respectively.
• Dike fill: The dike fill for the 1971 and 1984 Basins is predominantly sand with varying
amounts of fines content generally reported to be loose to dense. The reported SPT
N-values typically range between 10 and 46. The tip resistance and sleeve friction
measured from CPTs range typically between 150 and 300 tsf and between 1 and 3
tsf, respectively. The LOLA dike is approximately 10 ft high, although the vertical
extent of the dike is not clear based on the borings. Six LOLA dike borings indicate
that the LOLA dike consists of sand and/or CCR/sand mixture. The reported SPT
N-values for the LOLA dike typically range between 3 and 18. The MACTEC
Engineering and Consulting, Inc. (MACTEC) [2011] and Geosyntec field investigations
[Geosyntec, 2014a; Geosyntec 2015] found CCR and/or CCR/soil mixture below the
southern portion of the 1971 perimeter dike. The thickness of this material is up to 15
ft along the dike centerline. Hand-augers advanced at the mid-slope and dike toe
found this material to be 10-ft and 5.5-ft thick, respectively.
• Clay liner: As previously discussed in Section 3.1.5, the 1984 Basin was constructed
with a 1-ft thick clay liner at the basin bottom and side slopes. The side slopes were
protected by a 2-ft thick sand layer. Based on the boring logs from the Withers and
Ravenel (2006) investigation and one sample collected during the investigation, the
clay liner was observed to be fine sandy clay to clay with a thickness of 4.5 to 7
inches.
• Foundation soils: The foundation soils consist primarily of sand with varying
amounts of fines content. The foundation soils at Sutton can be classified into two
geologic units [USGS, 2014]: Surficial Aquifer and Peedee Aquifer. The
discontinuous Peedee Confining Unit, which consists of silt or clay, has a thickness of
10 ft or less and separates the two aquifer units. The foundation soils are reported to
be very loose to very dense with reported SPT N-values ranging between 2 and 80.
The tip resistance and sleeve friction measured from CPTs typically range between 50
and 300 tsf and between 0.2 and 2.5 tsf, respectively.
The USGS regional geologic study referenced above indicates the Peedee Aquifer extends to a
depth of approximately 400 ft below ground surface (bgs), underlain by the Black Creek
Confining Unit. Characterization of geotechnical properties for the Black Creek Confining Unit
was not considered relevant for the closure design of the basins and LOLA presented herein
because of the thickness of the Peedee Aquifer.
Six cross sections of the basin areas and LOLA were developed based on the subsurface
stratigraphy described above and the results of the topographic survey provided by DEP in 2014
Geosyntec Consultants of North Carolina, PC
Duke Energy Coal Combustion Residuals Management Program
L.V. Sutton Energy Complex Site Analysis and Removal Plan
Revision 0
December 2016
17
(the topographic survey performed by WSP USA Corp. in 2015 shows similar results; as such
the cross sections were not updated with the 2015 survey results). The locations of these cross
sections are shown on Figure 16. The cross sections are presented on Figure 17 and Figure
18.
4.3 Hydraulic Conductivity Information
Slug testing was performed following installation of the monitoring wells and piezometers. Slug
testing was performed in piezometer PZ-Int with the objective of evaluating the hydraulic
conductivity of the CCR within the Basin. The calculations associated with the slug testing are
included in Appendix D. The calculated hydraulic conductivities are summarized in Table 6.
A 46-hour aquifer pumping and recovery test was also performed by Geosyntec in the surficial
aquifer, beneath the 1971 Basin in March 2015. The aquifer pumping test is described in
Appendix E and shows that the hydraulic conductivity of the surficial aquifer ranges from 220 to
614 ft/day (0.08 to 0.22 cm/s) with a geometric mean of 339 ft/day (0.12 cm/s). Slug tests
conducted in the same wells indicated a hydraulic conductivity of the surficial aquifer ranged
from 23 to 190 ft/day (0.008 to 0.07 cm/s) with a geometric mean of 67.9 ft/day (0.02 cm/s). It is
not uncommon for the hydraulic conductivity of a slug test to be an order of magnitude or more,
less than that of an aquifer pumping test due to larger stresses being placed on the aquifer
during an aquifer pumping test.
4.4 Geotechnical Properties
4.4.1 Summary of Boring and Sampling Frequency and Methods
A number of field investigations have been conducted by various consultants (including
Geosyntec) in both the basins and LOLA areas between 2005 and 2015. The investigations
consisted of borings advanced using both Hollow Stem Auger (HSA) and mud rotary methods.
Borings typically included SPTs generally conducted at intervals of approximately 2.5 to 5 ft.
Representative disturbed samples were collected using a split spoon sampler as part of the
SPTs and samples were classified in the field by an engineer/geologist and shipped to a
geotechnical laboratory for testing. CPTs were also conducted, and in some cases, CPTs
included pore water dissipation tests and Seismic CPT (SCPT) shear wave velocity
measurements. A detailed discussion of the field investigations can be found in the
Geotechnical Subsurface Stratigraphy and Material Properties Package presented in Appendix
C.
4.4.2 Summary of Laboratory Testing and Geotechnical Properties
Laboratory testing conducted on samples collected during the investigations described above
included: (i) index testing (e.g. particle size, Atterberg limits, and unified soil classification
system classification), (ii) unit weight and moisture content, (iii) specific gravity, (iv) shear
strength, (v) compaction and (vi) hydraulic conductivity. A detailed discussion of the laboratory
testing and interpretation of the results is presented in Appendix C.
Geosyntec Consultants of North Carolina, PC
Duke Energy Coal Combustion Residuals Management Program
L.V. Sutton Energy Complex Site Analysis and Removal Plan
Revision 0
December 2016
18
4.5 Chemical Analysis of Impoundment Water, CCR and CCR-Affected Soil
4.5.1 Overview
A detailed description of the sampling approach and the results are provided in the Chemical
Characterization Report prepared by Geosyntec, included as Appendix F. Soil and CCR
samples were collected to evaluate background concentrations of constituents of interest (COI),
COI concentrations within the CCR Basins and LOLA, and concentrations of COIs in vadose
zone soils located outside of the CCR Basins.
The term COI has been used in this report to include all constituents analyzed during
Geosyntec’s preliminary site investigation, while SynTerra [2015a, 2015b, 2016a] subsequently
defined the term to only include constituents detected in CCR interstitial water in excess of a
North Carolina Groundwater Quality Standard found in the NCAC Title 15A Subchapter 2L.0202
(2L or 2L Standards) and the Interim Maximum Allowable Concentrations (IMAC) established by
the NCDEQ pursuant to 15A NCAC 02L.0202(c). CCR interstitial water within a basin may not
be representative of groundwater conditions outside of a basin and the results were compared
to 2L Standards solely to provide a frame of reference.
Additional data were collected by SynTerra during 2015, which were summarized and
interpreted in the CSA [2015a, 2016b] and the CAP, Part 1 [2015b], but were not included in this
data summary. These additional data were consistent with historical data and the data collected
during Geosyntec’s preliminary site investigation and did not change the overall conclusions
presented in this Removal Plan.
Soil and CCR samples were collected according to the EPA Region 4 Soil Sampling Standard
Operating Procedure (SOP) [EPA, 2011a]. Samples were properly preserved, labeled, logged
onto a chain-of-custody form, and placed into an iced cooler prior to shipment. The samples
were submitted to Lancaster Laboratories located in Lancaster, PA, for analysis of:
• the NC Hazardous Substance List metals (antimony [Sb], arsenic [As], beryllium [Be],
cadmium [Cd], chromium [Cr], copper [Cu], lead [Pb], manganese [Mn], mercury [Hg],
nickel [Ni], selenium [Se], silver [Ag], thallium [Tl], and zinc [Zn]) using Method SW 846-
7471B (Hg) and Method SW 846-6010C (all other metals);
• major cations (calcium [Ca], magnesium [Mg], sodium [Na], and potassium [K]) using
Method SW 846-6010C;
• major anions (chloride [Cl], bromide [Br], and sulfate [SO4] using EPA Method 300.0;
• strontium [Sr], boron [B], barium [Ba], molybdenum [Mo], and iron [Fe] using Method SW
846-6010C; and
• pH using Method SW 846-9045D modified.
Leachability of metals was also evaluated using the Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure
(SPLP; EPA Method 1312) for CCR and background soils.
Geosyntec Consultants of North Carolina, PC
Duke Energy Coal Combustion Residuals Management Program
L.V. Sutton Energy Complex Site Analysis and Removal Plan
Revision 0
December 2016
19
Investigation of CCR within and the soils around and below the CCR basins and LOLA was
conducted to supplement the historical investigation data, delineate the vertical boundaries of
the CCR and collect groundwater quality information in the area.
Geosyntec also performed groundwater and CCR interstitial water investigation activities to
supplement historical groundwater assessment data collected by other consultants and to fill
certain data gaps. Groundwater results are discussed in Section 4.6. Two CCR piezometers
(PZ-1971 and PZ-Int) were installed to monitor water elevations within the CCR Basins and
collect interstitial water samples for laboratory analyses to evaluate CCR interstitial water
conditions. Samples were sent under chain-of-custody protocol to Lancaster Laboratories for
analysis of:
• the NC Hazardous Substance List metals (Sb, As, Be, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Mn, Hg, Ni, Se,
Ag, Tl, and Zn) using Method SW 846-7471B (Hg) and Method SW 846-6010C (all other
metals);
• major cations (Ca, Mg, Na, and K) using Method SW 846-6010C;
• major anions (Cl, Br, SO4, alkalinity [HCO3], and nitrate/ nitrite [NO3/NO2]) using EPA
Method 300.0 (Cl, Br, SO4, NO3/NO2) and EPA Method 310.1 (HCO3);
• Sr, B, Ba, Mo, Fe, and vanadium [V] using Method SW 846-6010C; and
• total dissolved solids (TDS) using Standard Method 2540 C-1997.
SynTerra installed additional wells and collected additional CCR interstitial water as well as
groundwater samples during the 2015 investigation. A summary of these results in provided in
the CSA [SynTerra, 2015a, 2016b] and CAP [SynTerra, 2015b, 2016a].
4.5.2 Coal Combustion Residuals
Two CCR samples were collected from representative locations within the 1984 Basin at varying
depth increments [SS-SPT9(12.0-14.0 ft) from PZ-Int, and SS-SPT7(4.0-6.0) from the southern
portion of the 1984 Basin]. Two CCR samples were also collected within the 1971 Basin from
locations SS-SPT3(10.0-12.0), which is the same location as PZ-1971, and SS-GP3(24.0-28.0).
Furthermore, samples were collected from materials where uncertainty existed in the field
whether they should be classified as CCR or soil [SS-GP3(32.0-36.0), SS-G3(76.0-80.0), SS-
GP3(80.0-84.0), SS-GP3(72.0-76.0), SS-GP2(72.0-76.0), and SS-GP2(52.0-56.0)]. The CCR
and soil sampling locations are presented on Figure 1 of the Chemical Characterization Report
(Appendix F).
An additional investigation was implemented within the boundaries of the 1971 Basin, but below
the design bottom elevation of the 1971 Basin due to uncertainty related to the bottom of the
CCR within portions of the 1971 Basin. This deeper area has been termed the 1971 Borrow
Area. The additional investigation consisted of Geoprobe® borings and laboratory tests to
Geosyntec Consultants of North Carolina, PC
Duke Energy Coal Combustion Residuals Management Program
L.V. Sutton Energy Complex Site Analysis and Removal Plan
Revision 0
December 2016
20
delineate the horizontal and vertical extent of CCR within the 1971 Borrow Area. Samples were
continuously collected during the Geoprobe® borings. Selected samples were transported for
laboratory testing to characterize geotechnical and environmental properties. These laboratory
testing results were used to verify the bottom of CCR estimated based on a visual assessment
in the field. Figure 2 of the Chemical Characterization Report (Appendix F) presents the boring
locations together with historical boring locations advanced within the CCR Basins.
Table 1 of the Chemical Characterization Report (Appendix F) summarizes the analytical results
for CCR and soil samples. SPLP results are summarized in Table 2 (Appendix F).
As presented in Table 1 (Appendix F), with the exception of antimony, cadmium, mercury,
molybdenum, silver, and thallium (which were all at or near non-detect concentrations non-
detect), all metallic COIs were higher in CCR compared to soil samples. Furthermore, sulfate
concentration and pH were also higher in CCR as compared to soil. COI concentrations
appeared to be higher in CCR samples from the 1971 Basin as compared to CCR samples from
the 1984 Basin.
This apparent trend generally holds true for leachable concentrations of COIs as measured by
SPLP. Arsenic still appeared to be leaching at elevated concentrations from CCR, while boron,
iron, manganese, and selenium concentrations were low to non-detect (Table 2 - Appendix F).
A follow-up investigation was conducted within the limits of the 1971 Basin. In order to
supplement the visual and geotechnical characterization of the CCR within the 1971 Borrow
Area, samples were collected for chemical analysis. Both total concentrations of COIs and
SPLP concentrations were analyzed in nine CCR samples and the results are summarized in
Table 3 (total concentrations) and Table 4 (SPLP) of the Chemical Characterization Report
(Appendix F).
Total concentrations of many COIs indicate that the tested samples are CCR, consistent with
the visual and geotechnical characterization of these samples. Consistent with the results of the
earlier investigation, the samples exhibited elevated concentrations of arsenic and iron, which
appear to be the most important “CCR indicator parameters” of the materials found within the
1971 Borrow Area. Arsenic concentrations ranged up to 155 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg), a
result obtained from the deepest sample submitted (MB2 at 76-80 ft bgs), and iron
concentrations ranged up to 43,400 mg/kg. In comparison, site-specific soil samples exhibited
non-detect results for arsenic (less than 1 mg/kg) and iron concentrations that were generally
less than 1,000 mg/kg.
Leaching tests using the SPLP method indicate that the CCR located within the 1971 Borrow
Area have the potential to leach arsenic at elevated concentrations. Arsenic concentrations of
up to 316 micrograms per liter (µg/L) were measured in SPLP extracts, and total arsenic and
SPLP arsenic concentrations appear to be correlated. Other CCR indicator parameters such as
boron, iron, chromium, manganese, and selenium did not leach at elevated concentrations from
the CCR submitted for analysis.
Geosyntec Consultants of North Carolina, PC
Duke Energy Coal Combustion Residuals Management Program
L.V. Sutton Energy Complex Site Analysis and Removal Plan
Revision 0
December 2016
21
4.5.3 Soils
4.5.3.1 Background Soils
Background soil samples were collected from areas at Sutton that have not received CCR, to
establish metals concentrations naturally occurring in Sutton soils. Two discrete background
soil samples were collected using a hand auger from 2.5 ft to 3.0 ft bgs to avoid sampling soils
that could potentially be affected by surface deposition of CCR-related dust.
Table 1 (Appendix F) summarizes the soil and CCR analytical data, including the results from
the background soil samples, and Table 2 (Appendix F) summarizes the SPLP leaching data.
Background soils indicated low to non-detect levels of most constituents analyzed. However,
iron was detected at a slightly elevated level at location SB-2, which is located close to
monitoring well MW-7. Both background soil samples exhibited acidic pH at 4.6 to 4.7 standard
units (s.u.), indicating naturally acidic soil conditions at Sutton.
SPLP results showed leachable iron and calcium, and, to a lesser extent, barium, silver and
thallium at background soil location SB-2. All other COIs were not detected above the practical
quantitation limit (PQL).
4.5.3.2 Site Soils
Soil samples were collected during the installation of monitoring wells MW-34C and MW-36C
and from the soil below the CCR in the 1971 Basin based on visual observations from borings
GP-5 and GP-6 (SS-GP5(20.0-24.0) and SS-GP6(24.0-28.0)). As presented in Table 1
(Appendix F), results were generally consistent with background soil conditions, except for
location GP-5, which exhibited elevated concentrations of most COIs that may indicate leaching
from the overlying CCR and/or a mix of soil and CCR at the sampled depth (20-24 ft bgs).
Furthermore, pH was higher than background conditions (i.e., circumneutral to slightly alkaline),
but lower than in CCR.
SPLP results summarized in Table 2 (Appendix F) indicate leachable barium, calcium,
magnesium, and sodium above background in soil samples collected from below the CCR in the
1971 Basin. However, the concentrations were lower than leachable results from CCR.
4.5.4 Soil and CCR Mixtures at the LOLA
4.5.4.1 Previous Investigation of the LOLA
Environmental assessments were conducted periodically in the LOLA from 2001 through 2012
to assess potential CCR impacts. In June 2001, Law Environmental, subsequently Blasland,
Bouck, and Lee, Inc. (BBL), conducted soil and groundwater assessments following the release
of white liquor from one of the above ground storage tanks leased to International Paper. The
release was remediated, but additional investigations were conducted by BBL when DEP
entered the NC Registered Environmental Consultant (REC) voluntary remediation program
under the Inactive Hazardous Sites Branch of the NCDEQ to assess potential impacts from
CCR and petroleum in soil and groundwater. A Remedial Investigation report was submitted to
Geosyntec Consultants of North Carolina, PC
Duke Energy Coal Combustion Residuals Management Program
L.V. Sutton Energy Complex Site Analysis and Removal Plan
Revision 0
December 2016
22
NCDEQ in May 2005 [BBL, 2005]. Soil borings using hand augers and larger test pits were
used to delineate the extent of CCR in soil within the LOLA to determine the soil impacts.
Groundwater monitoring wells were also installed as part of these investigations to assess
groundwater quality in the LOLA. In many cases, the test pits and soil borings were terminated
near the top of the water table, before reaching the native soil. A Remedial Action Plan was
submitted by BBL in March 2006 [BBL, 2006]. The proposed remedy was monitored natural
attenuation of arsenic in groundwater along with administrative controls and land use
restrictions to address soil and CCR impacts above unrestricted use remedial goals. Limited
groundwater sampling was performed within the LOLA during the Phase II Groundwater Quality
Assessment conducted by Catlin [2012].
4.5.4.2 Supplemental Investigation of the LOLA
Geosyntec implemented a screening-level assessment of the soils and CCR in the LOLA using
Geoprobe® investigation techniques to (i) visually assess materials to evaluate composition as
either soil, CCR, or a mixture, (ii) verify native soil had been reached and (iii) collect soil and/or
CCR samples from impacted locations [Geosyntec, 2014b]. The sample locations are shown on
Figure 3 of the Chemical Characterization Report (Appendix F).
A subset of soil and/or CCR samples was collected from the borings. Following visual
assessment, twelve soil samples from six locations deemed representative of CCR and
CCR/soil mixtures were selected along with two additional samples for native soil verification.
The selected samples were submitted to Lancaster Laboratories for analysis of:
• the NC Hazardous Substance List metals (Sb, As, Be, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Mn, Hg, Ni, Se,
Ag, Tl, andZn using Method SW 846-7471B (Hg) and Method SW 846-6010C (all other
metals);
• Sr, B, Ba, Mo, and Fe using Method SW 846-6010C;
• pH using Method SW 846-9045D modified; and
• leachability of metals using SPLP (EPA Method 1312).
The analytical results are presented in Table 5 (total metals, pH, and % moisture) and Table 6
(SPLP) of the Chemical Characterization Report (Appendix F). The analytical results were used
to evaluate levels of COI, assess the current leachability potential, and supplement the visual
identification of CCR to confirm that the vertical extent of CCR has been reached.
Figure 3 (Appendix F) includes descriptions of the depth increments that appeared to contain
CCR. Based on the visual identification, the observed CCR appeared to include a range of
grain sizes, which might indicate a minor presence of fly ash mixed in with mostly bottom ash
within the LOLA.
The main purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the vertical extent of CCR. The
elevations (NAVD88) for the bottom of CCR are presented on Figure 4, while Figure 5 of the
Chemical Characterization Report (Appendix F) depicts isopach contours of the thickness of
Geosyntec Consultants of North Carolina, PC
Duke Energy Coal Combustion Residuals Management Program
L.V. Sutton Energy Complex Site Analysis and Removal Plan
Revision 0
December 2016
23
CCR within the LOLA. The horizontal extent of the LOLA has changed from previously depicted
delineations and may be subject to further adjustments pending additional investigations within
this area. SynTerra’s depiction of the waste boundary of the LOLA in the CSA [2015a, 2016b]
accounts for the updated delineation based on Geosyntec’s and SynTerra’s 2014 and 2015
investigation results. As shown on Figure 5, the thickness of CCR varies considerably across
the LOLA but appears to be thickest within the northwestern corner of the LOLA and thinnest
within the southeastern corner.
The chemical characterization summarized in Table 5 (Appendix F) indicate relatively low
concentrations of arsenic (up to a maximum of 42 mg/kg), boron (up to 25 mg/kg), chromium
(up to 25 mg/kg), and iron (up to 16,200 mg/kg) compared to CCR characterized in the 1971
and 1984 Basins. The chemical signatures did indicate a contribution of CCR when arsenic,
iron, and chromium were detected at elevated concentrations compared to native soils. The
concentrations were more consistent with a CCR/soil mixture than pure CCR.
The SPLP data summarized in Table 6 (Appendix F) indicate that this CCR/soil mixture within
the LOLA did not leach COIs at elevated concentrations. Again, this is in contrast to the CCR
characterized within the 1971 and 1984 Basins, and it may be another indication that the CCR
present within the LOLA is mostly bottom ash.
4.5.5 CCR Interstitial Water
Two CCR piezometers (PZ-1971 and PZ-Int) were installed to monitor water elevations within
the CCR Basins and collect interstitial water samples for laboratory analyses. Figure 6 of the
Chemical Characterization Report (Appendix F) shows the locations of the piezometers.
A CCR interstitial water sample was collected from piezometer PZ-Int, but no sample could be
collected from PZ-1971 since the piezometer was dry. Field parameters were collected during
the purging of the piezometer. Table 9 of the Chemical Characterization Report (Appendix F)
presents the final measured field parameters, and Table 10 (Appendix F) presents the analytical
results. Tables 7 and 8 (Appendix F) summarize historical groundwater results discussed in
Section 4.6. The table numbering was kept unchanged to be consistent with the Chemical
Characterization Report.
As presented in Table 9 and Table 10 (Appendix F), CCR interstitial water conditions were
anaerobic, with oxidation-reduction potential (ORP) of -267 millivolts (mV), and pH conditions
were circumneutral (pH 7.43 s.u.). Additionally, elevated concentrations of arsenic, boron, iron,
and manganese were detected in CCR interstitial water at this location (i.e., PZ-Int) compared to
groundwater outside the basins. The elevated concentrations of various constituents detected
in groundwater well MW-2C are discussed in Section 4.6.3. In general, these interstitial water
results were consistent with the interstitial water results from the 1971 Basin reported in the
Phase II Groundwater Quality Assessment Report [Catlin, 2012], although PZ-Int exhibited
higher boron concentrations and lower manganese concentrations compared to the two
temporary piezometers sampled during the Phase II Groundwater Quality Assessment.
Geosyntec Consultants of North Carolina, PC
Duke Energy Coal Combustion Residuals Management Program
L.V. Sutton Energy Complex Site Analysis and Removal Plan
Revision 0
December 2016
24
4.6 Historical Groundwater Sampling Results
4.6.1 Overview
Geosyntec performed groundwater investigation activities to supplement historical groundwater
assessment data collected by other consultants and to fill data gaps as part of the evaluation of
closure options for the CCR Basins. The field work was implemented in May 2014.
Geosyntec performed the following groundwater investigation activities as part of the
supplemental investigation to fill data gaps identified during the review of historical information
to evaluate potentially applicable CCR Basin closure options:
• piezometers were installed around the toe of the dike surrounding the CCR Basins;
• intermediate-depth (22-27 ft bgs), and deeper depth monitoring wells (40-45 ft bgs),
intervals consistent with the depths of existing monitoring wells designated as “B-” and
“C-” wells, were installed to supplement existing information on potential impacts to
ground water in the surficial aquifer at Sutton;
• groundwater samples were collected from some existing and newly installed monitoring
wells and piezometers located throughout Sutton, but not included in the NPDES
compliance sampling plan; and
• a supplemental groundwater sampling event was implemented using existing
groundwater monitoring wells located within the LOLA.
SynTerra installed additional wells and collected additional groundwater samples during the
2015 investigation as summarized in the CSA [SynTerra, 2015a, 2016b] and CAP [SynTerra,
2015b, 2016a].
4.6.2 Historical Investigations and NPDES Sampling Results
Historical and current groundwater analytical data and field parameters are provided in Table 7
(metals) and Table 8 (non-metals and field parameters) of the Chemical Characterization Report
(Appendix F) for sampling events through June 2015. These sampling events are conducted
under the requirements of the Sutton NPDES permit. Hard copies of laboratory analytical
reports will be submitted under separate cover consistent with the requirements of the NPDES
permit. New permit parameters may be included for upcoming compliance sampling. However,
Tables 7 and 8 (Appendix F) do not include any new parameters and the discussion in this
report is limited to the parameters routinely monitored until recently.
Figure 6 and Figure 7 of the Chemical Characterization Report (Appendix F) depict the
monitoring well network at Sutton. Only existing NPDES monitoring wells that were relevant to
the supplemental investigation are labeled on these two figures.
Background well MW-4B on the southeastern side of the Plant has exhibited consistent
exceedances of the iron groundwater standard [NCDENR, 2013] of 300 µg/L (1,280 µg/L in
June 2015) and occasional exceedances of the 50 µg/L manganese standard (59 µg/L in June
2015), while background well MW-5C on the northeastern side of the property has shown
Geosyntec Consultants of North Carolina, PC
Duke Energy Coal Combustion Residuals Management Program
L.V. Sutton Energy Complex Site Analysis and Removal Plan
Revision 0
December 2016
25
exceedances of the manganese standard (441 µg/L in June 2015) and naturally acidic pH
conditions (pH 5.5 s.u. versus the pH groundwater standard of 6.5 s.u to 8.5 s.u.). This
indicates that background geochemical conditions are likely contributing to the increased
solubility of iron and manganese. The negative ORP measured in MW-4B likely contributes to
the higher solubility of iron, while manganese is expected to be soluble under the acidic
groundwater conditions in MW-5C.
Monitoring wells within the vicinity of the eastern and southeastern side of the 1971 Basin,
including MW-2C, MW-17, and MW-18, have historically exhibited elevated concentrations of
arsenic, boron, iron, and manganese. Occasionally, other metals and TDS were detected at
slightly elevated concentrations and the groundwater pH was slightly acidic. While elevated
manganese and iron concentrations and acidic groundwater conditions can be partially
explained by background conditions, arsenic and boron concentrations are likely attributable to
the presence of the CCR basins. Monitoring well MW-6C, located to the east of the ICA within
the 1984 Basin, has historically shown elevated concentrations of boron, iron, and manganese
as well as acidic groundwater conditions, but only the boron concentrations appear to have
been elevated when compared to background conditions. This suggests that the clay liner
within the 1984 Basin may provide increased groundwater protection and that arsenic has either
been contained within the 1984 Basin or attenuates within a relatively short distance from the
basin boundary.
Attenuation of arsenic has also been observed within the area outside of the 1971 Basin. A
compliance monitoring well within this area (MW-21C) is the only well at or beyond the
compliance boundary that has shown occasional exceedances of the 10 µg/L arsenic
groundwater standard. However, arsenic concentrations appear to be increasing in this well
with a current concentration of 53.8 µg/L measured during the June 2015 sampling event.
Nevertheless, given that MW-21C is the only well in this area exceeding the arsenic standard,
this suggests that arsenic is not very mobile in groundwater and is expected to be present as
the less mobile arsenate (i.e., As5+) form as opposed to the more mobile arsenite (i.e., As3+)
form in groundwater away from the Basins. This has been confirmed using Eh-pH stability
diagrams for arsenic under site-specific conditions presented in the Data Interpretation and
Analysis Report [Geosyntec, 2014c]. Similarly, selenium has not been consistently detected
above its groundwater standard of 20 µg/L with the exception of monitoring well MW-27B along
the northern side of the 1984 Basin, which had a detection of 28.4 µg/L during the June 2015
sampling event. Monitoring well MW-24B located along the eastern compliance boundary
outside of the ICA within the 1984 Basin had historically shown detections above the selenium
groundwater standard but has been non-detect during the past nine sampling events.
However, boron, which acts as a conservative ion that does not get attenuated via sorption, has
historically shown concentrations above its groundwater standard of 700 µg/L in multiple
monitoring wells at or beyond the compliance boundary. This includes compliance boundary
wells MW-21C (2,120 µg/L in June 2015), MW-22C (2,560 µg/L in June 2015), MW-23B
(currently at 137 µg/L and therefore, below the standard), MW-23C (2,050 µg/L in June 2015),
MW-24B (currently at 409 µg/L and therefore, below the standard), and MW-24C (1,040 µg/L in
Geosyntec Consultants of North Carolina, PC
Duke Energy Coal Combustion Residuals Management Program
L.V. Sutton Energy Complex Site Analysis and Removal Plan
Revision 0
December 2016
26
June 2015). Furthermore, several wells beyond the compliance boundary have historically
shown exceedances of the boron groundwater standard. These wells include MW-12 (along the
property boundary next to S.T. Wooten Corporation; 1,470 µg/L in June 2015), MW-19
(downgradient of MW-21C; 2,080 µg/L in June 2015), and MW-31C (along the property
boundary next to S.T. Wooten Corporation; currently at 381 µg/L and therefore, below the
standard).
Given that MW-12 and MW-31C are approximately 1,300 ft and 1,200 ft, respectively, east of
the waste boundary suggests that groundwater extraction at the S.T. Wooten Site may influence
groundwater flow pattern at Sutton. Furthermore, it is noted that the deeper C-wells (screened
at about 40 ft to 45 ft bgs) generally exhibit higher concentrations of most COIs as compared to
the B-wells, which are screened around 22 ft to 27 ft bgs.
Two temporary piezometers were installed during the Phase II Groundwater Quality
Assessment [Catlin, 2012] within the CCR along the western end of the 1971 Basin. Results
indicated elevated levels of arsenic, iron, and manganese, and slightly elevated levels of boron.
These concentrations were generally consistent with the results reported in groundwater
immediately outside the eastern and southeastern side of the 1971 Basin discussed above.
4.6.3 Supplemental Groundwater Monitoring
4.6.3.1 Overview
Three intermediate-depth monitoring wells (MW-34B, MW-35B, and MW-36B) and four deep
monitoring wells (MW-27C, MW-34C, MW-35C, and MW-36C) were installed at Sutton as part
of this supplementary investigation. Additionally, eight groundwater piezometers (GWPZ-1A/B
through GWPZ-4A/B) were installed to monitor groundwater elevation at the toe of the dike
around the CCR Basins. These piezometers were not sampled for chemical characterization
and, therefore, are not further discussed in this section. However, some of the borings for these
piezometers were used to construct cross-sections discussed below. These wells and
piezometers are depicted on Figure 6 of the Chemical Characterization Report (Appendix F).
Depth-to-water measurements and groundwater samples were collected from the newly
installed monitoring wells and piezometers after they had been allowed to stabilize for
approximately one week after installation. Unfiltered groundwater samples were collected using
low-flow sampling methods as described in EPA Region 4 Groundwater Sampling SOP [EPA,
2011b].
As indicated above, SynTerra installed additional wells and collected additional groundwater
and CCR interstitial water samples during the 2015 investigation as summarized in the CSA
[SynTerra, 2015a, 2016b] and CAP [SynTerra, 2015b, 2016a].
Geosyntec Consultants of North Carolina, PC
Duke Energy Coal Combustion Residuals Management Program
L.V. Sutton Energy Complex Site Analysis and Removal Plan
Revision 0
December 2016
27
4.6.3.2 Groundwater Sampling and Testing
Groundwater samples were collected from monitoring wells installed by Geosyntec and from
select existing monitoring wells and piezometers. Samples were sent under chain-of-custody
protocol to Lancaster Laboratories for analysis of:
• the NC Hazardous Substance List metals (Sb, As, Be, Cd Cr, Cu, Pb, Mn, Hg, Ni, Se,
Ag, Tl, and Zn) using Method SW 846-7471B (Hg) and Method SW 846-6010C (all other
metals);
• major cations (Ca, Mg, Na, and K) using Method SW 846-6010C;
• major anions (Cl, Br, SO4, alkalinity (as HCO3), and nitrate/nitrite [NO3/NO2]) using EPA
Method 300.0 (Cl, Br, SO4, NO3/NO2) and EPA Method 310.1 (HCO3);
• Sr, B, Ba, Mo Fe, and V using Method SW 846-6010C; and
• TDS using Standard Method 2540 C-1997.
The newly installed wells discussed above were used to supplement the existing monitoring
network, especially with respect to the areas northeast and north of the 1984 Basin. Select
monitoring wells that do not serve as routine compliance monitoring wells were sampled to
evaluate groundwater quality conditions along several transects away from the CCR Basins.
These transects included MW-2B/2C and MW-3B (near the 1971 Basin), MW-6B/6C and PZ-25
(near the ICA within the 1984 Basin), MW-34B/34C and MW-35B/35C (northeast of the 1984
Basin), and MW-36B/36C and MW-27C to the north of the 1984 Basin. Well MW-5B was
included as a background well.
These wells and transects are shown on Figure 7 and the results are summarized in Table 9
(Field Parameters) and Table 10 (Analytical Results) of the Chemical Characterization Report
(Appendix F).
4.6.3.2.1 Background Conditions
Background well MW-5B indicated low to non-detect results for most COIs, consistent with
results from historical sampling events of other background wells (i.e., MW-4B and MW-5C).
However, iron was detected at 700 µg/L, which is above its groundwater standard (300 µg/L),
indicating that geochemical background conditions contribute to elevated levels of iron in
groundwater. Manganese was not detected above its groundwater standard of 50 µg/L despite
fairly acidic conditions within this well (pH 3.94), while the deeper compliance background well
(MW-5C) has historically exhibited elevated concentrations of manganese (but not iron).
Both the historical investigations including background wells MW-4B and MW-5C as well as the
supplemental investigation including background well MW-5B have indicated that the
groundwater at the Site has exhibited naturally acidic conditions. Furthermore, the historical
data for MW-4B and MW-5C have also established naturally elevated concentrations of iron and
manganese above their respective groundwater standards. It is noted, however, that the
Geosyntec Consultants of North Carolina, PC
Duke Energy Coal Combustion Residuals Management Program
L.V. Sutton Energy Complex Site Analysis and Removal Plan
Revision 0
December 2016
28
shallower background well MW-5B sampled during the supplemental investigation did not
exhibit elevated concentrations of these constituents above groundwater standards.
4.6.3.2.2 Site Groundwater Conditions
Well MW-2B exhibited low concentrations of COIs; however, the deeper well MW-2C indicated
elevated concentrations of several COIs, including arsenic (278 µg/L), boron (3,020 µg/L), iron
(9,510 µg/L), manganese (375 µg/L), and TDS (542 mg/L). The levels were consistent with
historical results from this well. Well MW-3B downgradient of the MW-2B/2C well pair exhibited
low COI concentrations. However, it is likely that this well is screened too shallow to evaluate
whether the elevated concentrations found in MW-2C were attenuated along the groundwater
flow path.
With the exception of boron and manganese, the well pair MW-6B/6C exhibited low
concentrations of COIs. The boron concentrations were approximately consistent with each
other, while manganese concentrations were higher in MW-6C as compared to MW-6B.
Overall, these concentrations were lower than the levels detected in MW-2C, indicating that the
clay liner within the 1984 Basin provides a level of groundwater protection that is not found
within the unlined 1971 Basin. The downgradient piezometer PZ-25, which is screened at the
same depth as MW-6B but is located beyond the compliance boundary, did exhibit low
concentrations of COIs and indicated attenuation of these constituents away from the basins.
Similarly, the newly installed well pair MW-34B/34C indicated low levels of COIs. However, the
deeper well MW-34C exhibited somewhat elevated concentrations of manganese (303 µg/L)
and iron (613 µg/L), even though these concentrations were consistent with background
conditions. The downgradient newly installed well pair MW-35B/35C (located approximately
coinciding with the compliance boundary) exhibited similar concentrations of COIs as wells MW-
34B/34C, even though iron (2,810 µg/L) and manganese (345 µg/L) concentrations were
somewhat higher in MW-35C and were above their respective groundwater standards. This can
also likely be attributed to background conditions, and other CCR indicator parameters such as
arsenic and boron were non-detect or low at these locations. This finding is further evidence
that the clay liner is fairly effective in protecting groundwater from CCR leaching. However, well
MW-35C did exhibit a selenium detection of 55 µg/L, which is above its groundwater standard of
20 µg/L. The wells closer to the basin boundary (i.e., MW-34B/34C) exhibited concentrations
below the PQL of 40 µg/L, suggesting that the 1984 Basin is unlikely to be a continuing source
of selenium and that this elevated detection in MW-35C may be the result of historical leaching.
The northern transect formed by the newly installed well pair MW-36B/36C and the newly
installed well MW-27C indicated a very similar pattern of generally low concentrations of COIs,
but elevated levels of iron and manganese in the deeper wells MW-36C and MW-27C. Again,
well MW-27C indicated an elevated selenium concentration of 55 µg/L, while the well pair closer
to the basin boundary (i.e. MW-36B/36C) exhibited levels below the PQL.
One well (MW-31B) was sampled along the property boundary with the S.T. Wooten Site.
Elevated concentrations of iron (1,390 µg/L) were detected in this well, but this is likely
Geosyntec Consultants of North Carolina, PC
Duke Energy Coal Combustion Residuals Management Program
L.V. Sutton Energy Complex Site Analysis and Removal Plan
Revision 0
December 2016
29
attributable to background conditions. The deeper compliance well MW-31C (not sampled for
this investigation) has historically shown elevated concentrations of iron (about twice the levels
found in MW-31B), manganese, and boron.
4.6.4 Groundwater Monitoring at the LOLA
Unfiltered water samples were collected from the nine existing wells within the LOLA and
analyzed for the same parameters as outlined in previous subsections for the wells and
piezometers around the CCR Basins.
Figure 3 of the Chemical Characterization Report (Appendix F) depicts the monitoring well
locations (as well as the boring locations for the soil and CCR samples described in Section
4.5.4.2 above).
Water quality samples were collected from all existing monitoring wells within the LOLA,
including MW-13, MW-13D, MW-14, MW-15, MW-15D, MW-16, MW-16D, MW-20 and MW-20D.
During purging of the wells, field parameters were collected and the readings are summarized in
Table 11 of the Chemical Characterization Report (Appendix F). As shown in Table 11
(Appendix F), pH conditions were relatively uniform and circumneutral to slightly acidic and
redox conditions were generally mildly reducing. This is consistent with other monitoring
locations throughout the Site (including background conditions), even though many locations
across Sutton appear to have more oxidizing conditions. The difference might be related to the
input from natural organic matter (e.g., decaying leaf litter within the densely vegetated areas in
the northern part of the LOLA) and/or potential historical impacts of petroleum hydrocarbons
around the former aboveground storage tank (AST) area within the southern part of the LOLA.
The analytical results are presented in Table 12 of the Chemical Characterization Report
(Appendix F). Consistent with historical sampling results, the arsenic concentration in MW-13
(shallow well) was elevated (218 µg/L); however, boron concentration was only slightly elevated
(935 µg/L). On the other hand, the deep well at this location (MW-13D) indicated a low arsenic
concentration (9.6 µg/L), but an elevated boron concentration (2,350 µg/L), which likely did not
originate within the LOLA, but from the upgradient deeper zones within the 1971 Borrow Area.
Note that the MW-13 well cluster is located within the compliance boundary. Shallow monitoring
well MW-15, which appears to be located at the previously established compliance boundary
around the LOLA, indicated an arsenic concentration of 31.2 µg/L, exceeding the groundwater
standard of 10 µg/L. Manganese and iron concentrations were elevated throughout the LOLA,
which is generally consistent with conditions across Sutton (including background conditions).
4.7 Groundwater Potentiometric Contour Maps
As described in Section 4.1, the general vicinity around Sutton is within the Tidewater sub-
region of the Coastal Plain where many rivers and streams are affected by oceanic tides.
Sutton itself is underlain by three hydrogeological units which dip and thicken toward the east.
The uppermost unit is the Surficial Aquifer which is made up of Quaternary age near shore to
shore deposits (e.g. stream, terrace, and barrier shore deposits), composed typically of sand,
with some clay [Bain, 1970]. The second unit is a confining layer that is part of the Peedee
formation, which ranges from a clay, silty clay, sandy clay, to clayey sand [Winner & Coble,
Geosyntec Consultants of North Carolina, PC
Duke Energy Coal Combustion Residuals Management Program
L.V. Sutton Energy Complex Site Analysis and Removal Plan
Revision 0
December 2016
30
1996]. This confining unit is discontinuous near Sutton and can range in thickness from 0 to 89
ft [McSwain et al., 2014]. Data from the USGS [McSwain et al., 2014] and Geosyntec’s
investigations confirm that the confining layer is laterally discontinuous and, when present,
varies in thickness between 0.5 to 5-ft thick [Geosyntec, 2015a]. Below the confining layer,
where present, is the Cretaceous age Peedee Aquifer. The Peedee Aquifer consists of marine
environment deposits, which typically consist of silt, sand, clay, and some consolidated
sandstone and limestone [Winner & Coble, 1996]. Zones of the middle Peedee Aquifer often
contain increased clay and silt content, which can create local confined to semiconfined
conditions [Harden et al., 2003]. Water level measurements collected by Geosyntec on 19 May
2014 and shown on Figure 15 indicate the presence of a groundwater divide in the general
vicinity of Sutton. To the west of Sutton, groundwater flows in a westward direction, towards the
Cape Fear River. To the east of Sutton, groundwater flows in an eastward direction, towards
the Northeast Cape Fear River. Additional updated information is provided in the CSA and CAP
[SynTerra, 2015a, 2015b, 2016a, 2016b].
As such, Sutton is conceptualized as located in a sedimentary basin with two distinct
hydrogeological units: (i) an overlying sand unit representing the Surficial Aquifer (which
includes the dike fills and CCR); and (ii) the Peedee aquifer comprised of a discontinuous upper
confining unit, an upper sandy portion, a middle portion which contains semi-confining zones of
increased silt, clay and silty sand content, and a lower sandy zone. Hydraulic conductivity for
the sand portions of the Surficial and Peedee Aquifers are assumed to be similar, given their
similarity in geological composition. Hydraulic conductivity for the discontinuous confining layer
and for the zones of semi-confining clays to silty sands is conceptualized to have a hydraulic
conductivity lower than the Surficial and Peedee Aquifers. Both the discontinuous Peedee
confining unit and the semi-confining zones are also assumed to be leaky, allowing for vertical
flow between the Surficial and Peedee Aquifers at Sutton. This is supported and confirmed by
borings at the Site which showed that the Peedee confining unit was sparsely present. A
groundwater divide is estimated to exist within the center of the Site, causing groundwater to
flow both to the east and to the west, discharging into either the Northeast Cape Fear River or
Cape Fear River. Rivers and the Surficial Aquifer are assumed to be tidally influenced. The
Peedee aquifer is assumed to not be influenced by the tides, given its depth.
4.8 Figures: Cross Section Vertical and Horizontal Extent of CCR within the Basins
Cross-sections were developed to summarize and graphically depict groundwater impacts at the
Site. These cross-sections are depicted on Figures 8 through 10 of the Chemical
Characterization Report (Appendix F). Figure 8 shows the locations of the cross-sections.
Figure 9 depicts cross-section A-A’, which was cut from west to east along the northern
boundary of the 1984 Basin, and cross-section B-B’, which was cut from west to east along the
southern end of the 1971 Basin, including a small part of the northwestern corner of the LOLA
and across the Discharge Canal. Figure 10 depicts cross-section C-C’, which was cut from
north to south across both the 1971 and 1984 Basins and towards the southern extent of the
LOLA. Note that the cross-sections were limited to the areas within the compliance boundaries
of the 1971 and 1984 Basins as well as the LOLA. Therefore, they do not delineate the
horizontal or vertical extent of groundwater exceedances across Sutton, which would be
Geosyntec Consultants of North Carolina, PC
Duke Energy Coal Combustion Residuals Management Program
L.V. Sutton Energy Complex Site Analysis and Removal Plan
Revision 0
December 2016
31
impractical to delineate given the widespread occurrences of elevated levels of iron,
manganese, and acidic pH conditions, much of which can be attributed to natural background
conditions. Furthermore, boron concentrations are elevated at multiple monitoring locations
outside the compliance boundary. Additional cross-sections, including monitoring wells showing
exceedances of groundwater standards, can be found in the CSA [SynTerra, 2015a, 2016b].
These cross-sections include the monitoring wells, piezometers, and other borings used to
construct them. Where applicable, wells and piezometers indicate groundwater detections
found to be in excess of groundwater standards. Note that CCR interstitial water concentrations
are not depicted given that these results do not represent groundwater conditions. These CCR
interstitial water results are discussed in Section 4.5.5.
As can be seen on cross-section A-A’, the shallower B-wells do not indicate exceedances of
groundwater standards, while the deeper C-wells do indicate exceedances of groundwater
standards for iron, manganese, and in the case of MW-35C, for selenium. Given the relative
protectiveness of the clay liner within the 1984 Basin as well as the naturally elevated
concentrations of iron and manganese, the iron and manganese exceedances are partially
attributable to background conditions. The selenium exceedance is likely attributable to
historical leaching from CCR.
Cross-section B-B’ illustrates exceedances of the groundwater standards within the
northwestern corner of the LOLA (the MW-13 well cluster) and outside the southeastern corner
of the 1971 Basin. These exceedances include iron, manganese, boron, and arsenic. As
previously discussed, the exceedances of iron and manganese are partially attributable to
background conditions, while the boron and arsenic exceedances are linked to the CCR within
the 1971 Basin.
Cross-section C-C’ depicts conditions from the compliance boundary north of the 1984 Basin to
the southern extent of the LOLA. Review of Cross-section C-C’ indicates groundwater
standards for iron, manganese and arsenic are exceeded at the southern extent of the
compliance boundary for the LOLA (i.e, MW-15 well cluster), while groundwater standards for
manganese and selenium are exceeded within the shallow and deep wells of the MW-27 cluster
and standards for iron are exceeded within the deeper well of the MW-27 well cluster at the
northern compliance boundary.
Geosyntec Consultants of North Carolina, PC
Duke Energy Coal Combustion Residuals Management Program
L.V. Sutton Energy Complex Site Analysis and Removal Plan
Revision 0
December 2016
32
5. GROUNDWATER MODELING ANALYSIS
Initial groundwater modeling was performed as part of the first phase of the CAP [SynTerra,
2015b]. The groundwater flow model was developed using the three-dimensional finite
difference model MODFLOW. The modelling included groundwater fate and transport,
geochemistry and other supporting studies. The model matched observed conditions and was
used to predict the distribution of selected constituents over 5, 15, and 30 year periods for
scenarios assuming existing conditions, CCR cap in place, and CCR removal. The groundwater
modeling was further refined as part of the second phase of the CAP [SynTerra, 2016a].
Background information is provided in the CSA [SynTerra, 2015a, 2016b]. Further discussion of
the modeling analysis and results are provided in the CAP [SynTerra, 2015b, 2016a]. Post-
closure groundwater modeling is under development by SynTerra.
Geosyntec Consultants of North Carolina, PC
Duke Energy Coal Combustion Residuals Management Program
L.V. Sutton Energy Complex Site Analysis and Removal Plan
Revision 0
December 2016
33
6. BENEFICIAL REUSE AND FUTURE USE
6.1 CCR Material Reuse
DEP considers CCR beneficial use in an environmentally responsible manner for CCR that is
produced at its plants or is removed from existing basins. CCR basin closure by removal
presents the opportunity for CCR beneficial reuse. DEP has a team dedicated to identifying
beneficial use opportunities and evaluating their feasibility. Consistent with CAMA
requirements, Part III, Section 4.(e), DEP issued a request for proposals to conduct a beneficial
use market analysis, study the feasibility and advisability of installing existing beneficiation
technologies, and examine innovative technologies.
Approximately 2 million tons of CCR are anticipated to be transported off-site prior to operation
of the on-site landfill for beneficial reuse as lined, structural fill at the Brickhaven Clay Mine,
located in Chatham County, NC. Section 9 discusses the final disposition of the remaining CCR
at Sutton.
At this time, no additional CCR beneficial use opportunities have been identified. Findings
indicate that large-scale beneficiation technologies are not feasible to install at this time in light
of the 1 August 2019 CAMA closure deadline and the large investment that would be required,
beneficiation is unsupportable on the basis of economic and business criteria. However, the
final closure design does consider long-term reclamation of CCR should feasible beneficial uses
be identified in the future. This does not necessarily change the general design but considers
reclamation as part of the overall site planning and permitting.
6.2 Site Future Use
The primary land use after closure will be open green space in the 1984 Basin and open water
for the 1971 Basin. Both land uses will promote the creation of wetland areas and wildlife
habitats. The 1971 Basin will effectively become an extension of the Cooling Pond and may be
used accordingly.
Given that all the CCR will be removed, there is no containment system that the post-closure
use of the property could affect. Post-closure conditions will not affect future land use at Sutton
The post-closure use shall not affect the integrity of the function of the monitoring systems.
Geosyntec Consultants of North Carolina, PC
Duke Energy Coal Combustion Residuals Management Program
L.V. Sutton Energy Complex Site Analysis and Removal Plan
Revision 0
December 2016
34
7. CLOSURE DESIGN DOCUMENTS
7.1 Engineering Evaluations and Analyses
Additional engineering evaluations and analyses are planned in support of the selected final
closure option presented in Section 1.2. The proposed analyses and evaluations include, but
are not limited to, the following:
• slope stability (local, global, and pseudo-static as appropriate);
• erosion and sediment control (E&SC); and
• stormwater management.
In addition, a Confirmatory Sampling and Testing Plan to identify the bottom of CCR will be
implemented. The details of this plan will be included in the 2016 Update Coal Ash Excavation
Plan to be submitted to NCDEQ December 2016.
Engineering analyses and evaluations associated with the on-site CCR landfill are presented in
the On-site CCR Landfill Construction Application Report [Geosyntec, 2015b].
7.2 Removal Plan Drawings
WSP Sells, Inc. (WSP) of Cary, NC provided a survey map and performed a limited bathymetry
survey within the 1984 Basin (secondary basin with water) and near shore areas of the Cooling
Pond and Discharge Canal. Geosyntec supplemented the contours for the areas outside the
basins, not covered by these survey maps, using the NC Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) LIDAR survey map dated May 2007 for the purposes of developing the Removal Plan.
The Removal Plan Drawing Set developed by Geosyntec includes the following drawings:
Drawing 1 Title Page
Drawing 2 Existing Conditions
Drawing 3 Interpreted Bottom of CCR
Drawing 4 Volume Isopach of CCR
Drawing 5 Final Grading – Plan View
Drawing 6 Final Grading – Sections I
Drawing 7 Final Grading – Sections II
Drawing 8 Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
Drawing 9 Erosion and Sediment Control Details
The Drawing Set presented herein is accurate at the time of preparing the Removal Plan and is
subject to change pending further discussion with DEP.
Geosyntec Consultants of North Carolina, PC
Duke Energy Coal Combustion Residuals Management Program
L.V. Sutton Energy Complex Site Analysis and Removal Plan
Revision 0
December 2016
35
7.3 Specifications
The proposed closure at Sutton is assumed to be implemented and constructed with quality
materials. The technical specifications for all construction materials are presented in Appendix
G.
7.4 Construction Quality Assurance Plan
The proposed closure at Sutton is assumed to be implemented and constructed using good
construction practices, and that a good CQA program will be implemented. The CQA Plan for
construction activities is presented in Appendix H.
Geosyntec Consultants of North Carolina, PC
Duke Energy Coal Combustion Residuals Management Program
L.V. Sutton Energy Complex Site Analysis and Removal Plan
Revision 0
December 2016
36
8. MANAGEMENT OF WASTEWATER AND STORMWATER
8.1 Stormwater Management
This section describes the existing surface water runoff patterns and stormwater management
features at Sutton, including general site topography, soils, and stormwater control structures.
As described in Section 3.3, Sutton has a single NPDES permit and the sections related to
stormwater are described below. This section also describes conceptual basin closure
stormwater management plans and provisions for E&SC.
8.1.1 Existing Surface Water Runoff and Stormwater Management Features
The primary stormwater management features at Sutton include the 1971 Basin, the 1984
Basin, and a Discharge Canal that conveys water from the plant to the Cooling Pond. Figure 1
presents a site map depicting these features, including the relative proximity of the LOLA and
existing plant operations.
The 1971 Basin covers an area of approximately 54 acres. Stormwater runoff is directed toward
a surface water impoundment located along the west side of the basin, adjacent to the Cooling
Pond. In 1983, the dikes of the 1971 Basin were raised by approximately eight ft. The 1971
Basin operated from 1971 to 2013 for CCR disposal and currently only receives stormwater.
Stormwater discharge from the 1971 Basin is regulated by an existing riser structure and
discharge pipe. Stormwater discharge from the 1971 Basin to the Cooling Pond is limited to
infrequent and high-intensity storm events due to the relatively low normal water surface
elevation within the impoundment area, the height of the riser structure control elevation, and
resulting storage capacity.
The 1984 Basin covers an area of approximately 82 acres and was operated from 1984 to 2013.
In 2006, an ICA was constructed within the footprint of the 1984 Basin. Stormwater runoff is
directed toward a surface water impoundment located at the north side of the basin and
adjacent to the Cooling Pond. Similar to the 1971 Basin, the 1984 Basin currently only receives
stormwater, with discharge regulated by an existing riser structure and discharge pipe.
Stormwater discharge from the 1984 Basin to the Cooling Pond is limited to infrequent and high-
intensity storm events due to the relatively low normal water surface elevation within the
impoundment area, the height of the riser structure control elevation, and resulting storage
capacity.
8.1.2 Soils
Native soil types in the basin areas are generally characterized as well-drained (Type A) soils.
As a result of the soil types present and the hydraulic conductivity previously documented in this
report infiltration of stormwater into the underlying soils is relatively efficient (with the exception
of the lined 1984 Basin). For areas exhibiting well-draining soils, peak stormwater discharge
rates generated from the site are more readily managed, and erosion and sedimentation
potential is reduced.
Geosyntec Consultants of North Carolina, PC
Duke Energy Coal Combustion Residuals Management Program
L.V. Sutton Energy Complex Site Analysis and Removal Plan
Revision 0
December 2016
37
8.1.3 Current NPDES Permit
Sutton’s NPDES Permit NC0001422 includes eight wastewater outfalls, four of which are
internal outfalls that discharge to the effluent channel and four external outfalls that discharge to
water bodies. The permit also includes seven internal stormwater outfalls that discharge to the
effluent channel. The two receiving waterbodies are Sutton Lake (Cooling Pond) and the Cape
Fear River. Outfall 001 is located at the southwest corner of the Intake Canal discharges into
the Cape Fear River. Outfall 002 is located at the west side of the 1971 Basin and discharges
into the Cooling Pond. Outfall 004 is located at the northwest side of the 1984 Basin and also
discharges into the Cooling Pond or is routed to Outfall 001. Outfall 008 is located at the end of
the effluent channel and conveys primarily recirculating cooling water, as well as stormwater
and wastewater from internal outfalls, to the Cooling Pond. These outfalls are monitored in
accordance with the following permit conditions:
• Outfall 001: Released Cooling Pond discharge, recirculation cooling water, non-contact
water, and treated wastewater from the 1971 and 1984 Basins. Weekly and monthly
monitoring screen the waters from the basin treatment system for various common
pollutants attributed to the CCR generated in the processes at the plant. Additionally,
since this is a direct discharge to the river, Outfall 001 has a toxicity testing requirement.
• Outfall 002: Discharges waters from the 1971 Basin, which is released to the Cooling
Pond; parameters of concern for testing are arsenic, selenium, mercury, iron, aluminum,
copper and zinc. This outfall also has a toxicity testing requirement. The plant has not
discharged from this outfall since power generation ceased in November 2013.
• Outfall 004: Releases waters from the 1984 Basin; it consists of CCR sluice water, coal
pile runoff, low volume wastes, and stormwater runoff. This wastewater can directly
discharge into the Cape Fear River via Outfall 001, or to the Cooling Pond. The
monitoring requirements at this outfall are identical to those at Outfall 002. Similar to
Outfall 002, the plant has not discharged from this outfall to the Cooling Pond since
November 2013. Discharges from the 1984 Basin are currently directed to the Cape
Fear River via Outfall 001.
• Outfall 008: This outfall was newly created in 2015 after NCDEQ reclassified the Cooling
Pond as waters of the state (Sutton Lake). Cooling water and wastewater from the
combined cycle facility are currently conveyed to the Cooling Pond through this outfall.
Stormwater from Internal Outfalls SW001 through SW007 are also directed to this
outfall. Parameters limited in the NPDES permit are similar to those described for the
other outfalls, in addition to temperature as described below.
NCDEQ historically has permitted a temperature mixing zone in the Cape Fear River to account
for the discharge of heated water from the plant through the Cooling Pond into the Cape Fear
River via Outfall 001. The mixing zone extends from 2,700 feet upstream of the Outfall 001
discharge gate to 6,600 feet downstream. The NCDEQ Fact Sheet associated with NPDES
Permit NC0001422 states that Sutton has to develop a strategy to meet the state temperature
standard in the Cooling Pond. NPDES Permit NC0001422 states that the instream temperature
Geosyntec Consultants of North Carolina, PC
Duke Energy Coal Combustion Residuals Management Program
L.V. Sutton Energy Complex Site Analysis and Removal Plan
Revision 0
December 2016
38
1000 feet from Outfall 008 shall be monitored weekly but that the temperature limit of the
receiving water (the Cooling Pond), which shall not be increased by more than 2.8°C above
ambient water temperature and in no case exceed 32°C, is not being implemented until further
notice.
8.1.4 Conceptual Basin Closure Stormwater Management
This section presents a conceptual level discussion of the anticipated work associated with one
possible stormwater management solution. A final stormwater management plan for the basins
will be prepared at a later date and submitted under a separate cover.
The final grading plan for the basin closure design is shown on Drawing 5. During excavation
and removal of CCR deposits from the 1971 Basin, 1984 Basin, and the LOLA stormwater
runoff will be managed and contained within the limits of each individual basin or work area.
Thus, no off-site stormwater discharge will take place from the active excavation areas during
construction.
Once the CCR deposits are removed, the excavation side slopes will be graded to 3:1
(horizontal to vertical) slopes and stabilized using erosion control matting and permanent
seeding. The dikes separating the 1971 Basin from the Discharge Canal and Cooling Pond will
then be breached in the areas designated on the drawings, establishing a hydraulic connection
between the 1971 Basin, the Discharge Canal, and the Cooling Pond.
For the 1984 Basin, the Removal Plan includes establishing a gentle surface slope from east to
west, directing surface runoff toward the Cooling Pond. During grading operations, the surface
flow will be directed toward a temporary sediment basin through a combination of surface
channels and diversion berms. The sediment basin will be sized for capturing sediment
generated from the effective disturbed drainage area, and to treat total suspended solids (TSS)
loading to NCDEQ standards.
8.1.5 Erosion and Sediment Control
Stormwater management and E&SC will be provided throughout each phase of basin closure
construction through the design, installation, and maintenance of numerous E&SC measures
(i.e. sediment fence, check dams, sediment basins, temporary and permanent vegetation) and
open channels, stormwater pipes, and overflow structures. A site-wide E&SC permit for
clearing and grading activities ancillary to the basin closure work was received from the Division
of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources on 18 March 2016. A phased approach will be used to
identify and design appropriate stormwater management and E&SC features necessary for
each specific phase of construction, modifying the permitted features and controls as
construction progresses.
Although design and discussion of the phased construction features are beyond the scope of
this document, a preliminary, final conditions E&SC plan and details are provided in Drawings 8
and 9, respectively.
Geosyntec Consultants of North Carolina, PC
Duke Energy Coal Combustion Residuals Management Program
L.V. Sutton Energy Complex Site Analysis and Removal Plan
Revision 0
December 2016
39
8.2 Wastewater: Overview
This section presents a conceptual level discussion of the anticipated work associated with one
possible wastewater management solution. A final wastewater management plan for the basins
will be prepared at a later time and submitted under a separate cover.
CAMA calls for a description of wastewater disposal provisions in the Removal Plan. In October
2014, DEP provided a Work Plan document to NCDEQ which outlined a plan that included
wastewater handling and treatment based on the current NPDES permit limits. Since then,
Sutton has received a new NPDES permit that prescribes limits for CCR basin wastewater
discharges through both bulk and interstitial dewatering activities. Treated CCR basin water will
be discharged through the North 1984 Basin tower at existing permitted Outfall 001 to the Cape
Fear River, with numerical limits for arsenic, selenium, mercury, copper, and iron. During
interstitial dewatering, flow rates will be limited to be consistent with historic rates (2.1 million
gallons per day [MGD]). As previously stated, a toxicity test is also required for this outfall.
The current CCR removal plan calls for the removal of CCR from the 1971 Basin through
different methods than from the 1984 Basin and LOLA. Complete dewatering of the 1971 Basin
to then allow for heavy excavation equipment to operate directly on top of the CCR in the basin
has been deemed impractical due to the high groundwater recharge rates (e.g., the dewatering
rate could likely not keep up with the recharge rate under practical scenarios). Therefore, the
planned removal of CCR from the 1971 Basin incorporates hydraulic dredging and dewatering
of the resulting dredged material.
The wastewater generated during CCR removal will be directed back to the 1971 Basin. As
shown in Drawing 5, DEP plans to remove portions of the dike separating the 1971 Basin from
the Cooling Pond to combine them into one water body. As such, the 1971 Basin will require
water treatment for COI prior to dike removal to create the larger Basin. The wastewater
management plan has not yet been finalized. However, the discharge procedure could include
monitoring the discharge from the 1971 Basin to the Cooling Pond for a specific time period
and/or a sampling program for the 1971 Basin prior to/and or during dike removal to ensure that
the water in the 1971 Basin as a whole meets NPDES discharge limits.
Regardless of current and future NPDES permit requirements, wastewater is anticipated to
require onsite treatment for TSS, metals, and other COI before discharge to the Cape Fear
River or the Cooling Pond.
8.2.1 NPDES Permit Limits
Both the Cape Fear River and Sutton Lake (Cooling Pond) are classified as Class C-Swamp
waters in the Cape Fear River Basin. As described above, NPDES Permit NC0001422 as it
pertains to CCR basin water authorizes the facility to discharge from Outfalls 004 (to Cooling
Pond) and 001 (to Cape Fear) as described below. Additional NPDES Permit limits are
described in Section 8.1.3.
Geosyntec Consultants of North Carolina, PC
Duke Energy Coal Combustion Residuals Management Program
L.V. Sutton Energy Complex Site Analysis and Removal Plan
Revision 0
December 2016
40
• Outfall 001: Cooling Pond blowdown, recirculation cooling water, non-contact
cooling water, and treated wastewater from the 1971 and 1984 Basins. This outfall
discharges to the Cape Fear River.
• Outfall 004: CCR sluice water, coal pile runoff, low volume wastes, and stormwater
runoff. This internal outfall discharges to either the Cooling Pond or via Outfall 001 to
the Cape Fear River.
The NPDES permit for Sutton contains discharge limits and monitoring requirements for CCR
basin wastewater, which makes a distinction for treatment limits for (1) bulk water above the
settled CCR layer that does not involve mechanical disturbance from the CCR and (2) interstitial
water. Currently, treated wastewater from the 1984 Basin is discharged through Outfall 001 to
the Cape Fear River. Numerical limits for bulk and interstitial water discharge through Outfall
001 are provided in Table 7 and Table 8, respectively. Limits for Outfall 004 to the Cooling
Pond for bulk water are provided in Table 9.
8.2.2 Treatment Methods Evaluation
Water quality sampling and analysis of bulk water from the 1971 and 1984 Basins and
entrapped water from the 1971 Basin have been conducted as part of CCR basin dewatering
design at Sutton to help evaluate water quality with respect to NPDES Permit discharge limits
and monitored parameters, and serve as a basis of design for water treatment. Based on these
results, bulk water characteristics are consistent with historical water discharged at the plant
and therefore does not require additional treatment. Interstitial water will require treatment
before discharge.
Bulk dewatering from the 1984 Basin is currently underway. The treatment system to meet
NPDES permit limits for interstitial water has been designed, evaluated, and installed.
However, the treatment methodology for water from the 1971 Basin generated during hydraulic
dredging has yet to be finalized. For that water, a treatment method evaluation using the Basis
of Design Report will be performed. The treatment system will also account for requirements for
the breach of the dike between the Cooling Pond (Sutton Lake) and the 1971 Basin dike and
has yet to be finalized.
8.2.2.1 Equipment Evaluation
Relevant treatment technologies (unit processes) that can achieve the treatment goals set forth
in the Basis of Design Report for the 1971 Basin dredge water will be identified. The
technologies will be screened as to their potential ability to treat the targeted constituents based
upon published literature and vendor information. The evaluation will include a qualitative
analysis of the cost of the technologies from both a capital and operations standpoint. In
addition, this evaluation will include a constructability analysis to determine if land area is
available and the infrastructure (electric, water, etc.) improvements that would be required for
implementation of the technology.
Geosyntec Consultants of North Carolina, PC
Duke Energy Coal Combustion Residuals Management Program
L.V. Sutton Energy Complex Site Analysis and Removal Plan
Revision 0
December 2016
41
8.2.2.2 Bench and Pilot Testing Plan Development
Depending on the water quality requirements for the combined Cooling Pond/1971 Basin water
body, bench and/or pilot testing of the selected technologies may be required to ensure that the
treatment system can meet the discharge goals for COI. The limits for these COI, if similar to
those for the Outfall 004 discharge, for example, would be at low concentrations that will require
assurances if the removal is achievable by the technologies. As part of this task, a bench,
and/or pilot testing plan may be developed to evaluate the technologies and develop data
required for the detailed design of the treatment system.
8.2.2.3 Calculations Packages
Technology evaluation and (if required) bench and/or pilot testing, and engineering calculations
will be prepared for the treatment system using data collected and developed from the Basis of
Design Report. These calculations will be utilized for the equipment sizing in the detailed
design of the treatment system.
8.2.2.4 Wastewater Treatment System Evaluation Report
A wastewater treatment system evaluation report that will incorporate the feasibility of
alternative treatment options, schedule, cost, and dewatering approach must be provided.
Geosyntec will evaluate equipment and treatment methods based upon the work conducted in
the previous subtasks to prepare a design document package moving forward. A
constructability analysis will also be performed to identify potential obstacles during construction
for the recommended option. Technical memos, calculation packages, and similar items will
also be prepared as part of the Wastewater Treatment System Evaluation Report.
8.2.3 Meeting Water Quality Limits
Demonstration of water quality limits for the 1971 Basin required to breach the dike and mixing
1971 Basin water with Cooling Pond water will need to be verified through sampling strategies,
to be established. A sampling method and standard must be developed and approved in order
to define the water quality. Water quality sampling protocols will need to be developed to
include a number of sampling points, location and depth of water in the 1971 Basin.
8.2.4 Treatment Implementation Timing
The CCR excavation process in the 1971 Basin could increase the concentration of TSS and
other COI in the water in the immediate vicinity of the dredging location. Computational fluid
dynamics (CFD) has been used by DEP and others to model TSS in basins as a function of
distance from disturbances and could guide placement of floating weirs and other wastewater
handling equipment to remove water from the basin to limit the concentration of TSS and other
COI at the wastewater treatment system intake. CFD (or similar alternative) will be used to
determine how and when to begin wastewater treatment in the 1971 Basin to reduce overall
wastewater treatment time by showing, for example, where the impacts of dredging are
insignificant to the wastewater treatment process.
Geosyntec Consultants of North Carolina, PC
Duke Energy Coal Combustion Residuals Management Program
L.V. Sutton Energy Complex Site Analysis and Removal Plan
Revision 0
December 2016
42
9. DESCRIPTION OF FINAL DISPOSITION OF CCR
As part of the closure activities, CCR will be excavated and transported from the basins to on-
site landfill or off-site structural fill using trucks and rail cars. CCR from Sutton is being
transported by truck and/or rail to the Brickhaven Clay Mine, located in Chatham County, NC.
CCR is being placed in a fully lined structural fill to reclaim the former clay mine back to the
natural topography. To date, approximately 1.2 M tons have been excavated and transported
off-site.
CCR will also be excavated and placed in an on-site CCR landfill designed to comply with all
state and federal requirements. CCR will be placed at a ±5 percent of optimum moisture
content and compacted (e.g., 95% standard Proctor) to provide structural stability during
operations and post-closure. An engineered cover will be placed to provide separation and
stormwater management following completion of filling activities. A Site Application and Onsite
CCR Landfill Construction Application Report were prepared by Geosyntec on behalf of DEP as
part of the landfill construction application submitted to NCDEQ in May 2015 and August 2015,
respectively. The Site Application and Construction Application were approved by NCDEQ in
July 2015 and September 2016, respectively.
Geosyntec Consultants of North Carolina, PC
Duke Energy Coal Combustion Residuals Management Program
L.V. Sutton Energy Complex Site Analysis and Removal Plan
Revision 0
December 2016
43
10. APPLICABLE PERMITS FOR CLOSURE
New permits and modifications to existing permits will be required to support Removal Plan
implementation. A list of applicable permits and permit modifications includes but is not limited
to:
• E&SC plans;
• Possible NPDES permit modification;
• Section 401/404 permits;
• Dam decommissioning/modification of existing dams; and
• Solid waste permits for the landfill.
A Site Application and Onsite CCR Landfill Construction Application Report were prepared by
Geosyntec on behalf of DEP as part of the landfill construction application submitted to NCDEQ
in May 2015 and August 2015, respectively. The Site Application and Construction Application
were approved by NCDEQ in July 2015 and September 2016, respectively.
Geosyntec Consultants of North Carolina, PC
Duke Energy Coal Combustion Residuals Management Program
L.V. Sutton Energy Complex Site Analysis and Removal Plan
Revision 0
December 2016
44
11. POST-CLOSURE MONITORING AND CARE
Post-closure activities will be conducted at Sutton in accordance with all applicable statutory
and regulatory requirements. Monitoring will include sampling of groundwater three times per
year, and monthly inspection of the final cover systems. Maintenance will include mowing as
necessary to promote a healthy vegetative cover. Maintenance activities will be initiated no
later than 60 days after the discovery or within 24 hours if a danger or imminent threat to human
health or the environment is indicated. A Post-Closure Care Plan is presented in Appendix I.
11.1 Groundwater Monitoring Program
As indicated in Section 3.3, the CSA Report and CSA Supplement 1 [SynTerra, 2015a, 2016b]
were submitted to NCDEQ on 5 August 2015 and 31 August 2016, respectively, and addressed
CAMA regulations § 130A-309.209(a)(4) and § 130A-309.209(d). The CSA provided an update
of site conditions which included the delineation of the horizontal and vertical extent of
constituents of interest in the soil, surface water, and groundwater. The CSA concluded with a
proposed groundwater monitoring network consisting of 36 wells, however, several of the
proposed groundwater monitoring wells are located within the proposed onsite landfill footprint.
Consequently, the proposed monitoring network submitted by SynTerra will likely need to be re-
evaluated to take into account the landfill and other recently constructed site features (e.g.,
scale house) and consider the comments (if any) provided by NCDEQ on the CSA. Once
NCDEQ has provided comment on the CSA, Geosyntec will submit a revised Water Quality
Monitoring Plan (WQMP).
Geosyntec Consultants of North Carolina, PC
Duke Energy Coal Combustion Residuals Management Program
L.V. Sutton Energy Complex Site Analysis and Removal Plan
Revision 0
December 2016
45
12. PROJECT MILESTONES AND COST ESTIMATES
12.1 Project Schedule
DEP is currently developing a list of milestone activities and anticipated completion dates. This
information will be included in the 2016 Update Coal Ash Excavation Plan to be submitted to
NCDEQ December 2016.
12.2 Closure and Post-Closure Cost Estimate
Volume calculations were performed between pertinent surfaces (existing topography, the
bottom of CCR contours, top of grade to drain surface, etc.) using Autodesk Civil 3D 2014 (Civil
3D). Civil 3D creates three-dimensional (3D) surfaces (triangular irregular network surfaces)
using topographical survey information and elevation data and uses these surfaces to calculate
the volume and thickness of the fill. The thicknesses are then graphed as isopachs (contours
connecting points of equal thickness).
As-built drawings for the bottom of CCR grades were not available for the 1971 CCR Basin;
however, as-built drawings for the 1984 CCR Basin area are available. The data sources used
to develop the bottom of CCR grades for the 1971 and 1984 Basins are provided in Appendix J.
The lateral extents of the 1971 Borrow Area were interpreted based on historical aerial
photographs provided in Appendix J. This information was supplemented by the field
investigation performed by Geosyntec on April 2015. The volume of CCR to be removed from
each basin is presented in Table 3 and isopachs for existing CCR in place and various
construction quantities are presented in Appendix J.
DEP is currently developing closure and post-closure care cost estimates. Cost estimates will
be developed at a level of detail and from the perspective that sufficient funding could be set
aside in a financial assurance mechanism for a third-party (other than the owner) to complete
the scope of work. The cost estimate will be submitted under a separate cover and issued as a
Removal Plan revision when they become available.
Geosyntec Consultants of North Carolina, PC
Duke Energy Coal Combustion Residuals Management Program
L.V. Sutton Energy Complex Site Analysis and Removal Plan
Revision 0
December 2016
46
13. REFERENCED DOCUMENTS
Amec Foster Wheeler Environment and Infrastructure, Inc. (2015), “Phase 2 Reconstitution of
Ash Pond Designs, Final Report Submittal, Revision 0, L.V. Sutton Energy Complex”.
Bain, G.L. (1970). Geology and Groundwater Resources of New Hanover County, North
Carolina. Groundwater Bulletin No. 17, United States Geological Survey, p. 90.
Blasland, Bouck, and Lee, Inc. (BBL) (2005). Phase II Remedial Investigation Report for the
Former Ash Disposal Area, L.V. Sutton Steam Electric Plant, Wilmington, NC. May 2005.
Blasland, Bouck, and Lee, Inc. (BBL) (2006). Remedial Action Plan, L.V. Sutton Steam Electric
Plant, Wilmington, NC. March 2006.
Campbell, B.G., and Coes, A.L., eds., (2010), “Groundwater availability in the Atlantic Coastal
Plain of North and South Carolina”, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1773, 241
p., 7 pls.
Catlin (2012). Phase II Groundwater Quality Assessment for Ash Pond Impacts at the L.V.
Sutton Electric Plant, Wilmington, North Carolina; July 2012.
Dewberry & Davis, LLC (2011). Coal Combustion Residue Impoundment Round 9 – Dam
Assessment Report – L.V. Sutton Stream Electric Plant Ash Basins, Progress Energy
Carolinas, Inc., Wilmington, North Carolina.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4 (2011a). Soil Sampling Operating Procedure.
Science and Ecosystem Support Division. Athens, Georgia.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4 (2011b). Groundwater Sampling Operating
Procedure. Science and Ecosystem Support Division. Athens, Georgia.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2015), “40 CFR Parts 257 and 261, Hazardous and
Solid CCR Management System; Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals From Electric
Utilities; Final Rule”
Geosyntec Consultants, Inc. (2014a). Data Interpretation and Analysis Report – Conceptual
Closure Plan – L.V. Sutton Plant, September 2014.
Geosyntec Consultants, Inc. (2014b), “Preliminary Site Investigation Data Report Addendum
No. 1, Conceptual Closure Plan, L.V. Sutton Plant.”
Geosyntec Consultants, Inc. (2014c), “Data Interpretation and Analysis Report, Conceptual
Closure Plan, L.V. Sutton Plant.”
Geosyntec Consultants, Inc. (2015a), Site Suitability Report – Volume II – Hydrogeologic
Report. May 2015.
Geosyntec Consultants of North Carolina, PC
Duke Energy Coal Combustion Residuals Management Program
L.V. Sutton Energy Complex Site Analysis and Removal Plan
Revision 0
December 2016
47
Geosyntec Consultants, Inc. (2015b), Onsite CCR Landfill Construction Application Report,
August 2015.
Harden, S.L., Fine, J.M, & Spruill, T.B. (2003). Hydrogeology and Groundwater Quality of
Brunswick County, North Carolina. Water Resources Investigation Report 03-4051, United
States Geological Survey, p. 98.
Harder Jr., L.F., Bray, J.D., Volpe, R.L., and Rodda, H.V. (1998), “The Loma Prieta, California,
Earthquake of October 17, 1989 - Performance of Earth Dams During the Loma Prieta
Earthquake”, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1552-D.
Idriss, I. M., and Boulanger, R. W., (2008) “Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes”, Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute, EERI Publication MNO-12.
MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. (2011), “Ash Pond Dike Stability Analysis, Progress
Energy – Sutton Plant, New Hanover County, North Carolina”
McSwain, K.B., Gurley, L.N., and Antolonio, D.J. (2014), “Hydrogeology, hydraulic
characteristics, and water-quality conditions in the surficial, Castle Hayne and Peedee
aquifers of the greater New Hanover County area, North Carolina”, 2012-13: U.S.
Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2014-5169, 52 p.,
http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/sir21045169
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) (2009), “NEHRP Recommended
Seismic Provisions for New Buildings and Other Structures (FEMA P-750), 2009 Edition”.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) (1980), “North
Carolina Administrative Code – Title 15A, Subchapter 2K – Dam Safety”
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) (2013), “North
Carolina Administrative Code – Title 15A, Subchapter 2L – Classifications and Water Quality
Standards Applicable to the Groundwaters of North Carolina”
SynTerra Corporation (2015a), “Comprehensive Site Assessment Report, Duke Energy L.V.
Sutton Energy Complex”, August 5, 2015.
SynTerra Corporation (2015b), “Corrective Action Plan, Part 1, Duke Energy L.V. Sutton Energy
Complex, New Hannover County North Carolina”, November 2, 2015.
SynTerra Corporation (2016a), “Corrective Action Plan, Part 2, Duke Energy L.V. Sutton Energy
Complex, New Hannover County North Carolina”, February 1, 2016.
SynTerra Corporation (2016b), “Comprehensive Site Assessment Report, Supplement 1, Duke
Energy L.V. Sutton Energy Complex”, August 31, 2016.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) (2003), “Engineering and Design – Slope
Stability”, Engineering Manual EM 1110-2-1902, October 2003.
Geosyntec Consultants of North Carolina, PC
Duke Energy Coal Combustion Residuals Management Program
L.V. Sutton Energy Complex Site Analysis and Removal Plan
Revision 0
December 2016
48
United States Geological Survey (USGS) (2008), “2008 Interactive Deaggregations”.
http://geohazards.usgs.gov/deaggint/2008/
United States Geological Survey (USGS) (2014), “2014 National Seismic Hazard Maps”.
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/products/conterminous/
Winner & Coble. (1996). Hydrogeologic Framework of the North Carolina Coastal Plain.
Professional Paper 1404-I, United States Geological Survey, p. 119.
TABLES
1 of 1
Table 1. Federal CCR Rule [EPA, 2015] Removal Plan Requirements Cross Reference Summary
Federal Register Vol. 80 No. 74 Part 2 (April 17, 2015)/40 CFR Part 257: Environmental Protection, Beneficial Use, Coal
Combustion Products, CCR, Coal Combustion Waste, Disposal, Hazardous Waste, Landfill, Surface Impoundments, 40 CFR
§257.102 (b)(1) (i. - vi) Removal Plans for all impoundments shall include all of following:
No. Description
Corresponding
Removal Plan
Section
i. Narrative description of how CCR unit will be closed (in accordance with this section) All Sections
ii. If closure is through the removal of CCR from the unit, description of procedures to remove CCR and
decontaminate CCR unit (in accordance with (c)) 7
iii.
If closure by leaving CCR in place, description of final cover system (in accordance with (d)), methods &
procedures used to install final cover, and also discussion of how final cover will achieve performance
standards (in accordance with (d))
N/A
iv. Estimate of maximum inventory of CCR ever on site over active life of CCR unit 3.1.2 &12.2
v. Estimate of largest area of CCR unit ever requiring a final cover (in accordance with (d)) at any time during
active life of CCR unit 7.1
vi. Schedule for completion of all activities necessary to satisfy closure, including estimate of year in which all
closure activities will be completed. Sufficient information to describe sequential steps of closure, including: 12.1
a. Obtaining approvals and permits 10
b. Dewatering and stabilization phases 8
c. Installation of final cover system 11
d. Estimated timeframes to complete each step/phase 12.1
1 of 2
Table 2. North Carolina CAMA Removal Plan Requirements
Part II. Provisions for Comprehensive Management of Coal Combustion Residuals § 130A-309.214(a)(4) Removal Plans for all impoundments shall include all of the following:
No. Description
Corresponding
Removal Plan
Section
a. Facility and coal combustion residuals surface impoundment description. – A description of the operation of the site that shall include, at a minimum, all of the following:
1 Site history and history of site operations, including details on the manner in which coal combustion residuals have been stored and disposed of historically. 3.1.1
2 Estimated volume of material contained in the impoundment. 3.1.2 & 12.2
3 Analysis of the structural integrity of dikes or dams associated with impoundment. 3.1.3
4 All sources of discharge into the impoundment, including volume and characteristics of each discharge. 3.1.4
5 Whether the impoundment is lined, and, if so, the composition thereof. 3.1.5
6 A summary of all information available concerning the impoundment as a result of inspections and monitoring conducted pursuant to this Part and otherwise available. 3.1.6
b. Site maps, which, at a minimum, illustrate all of the following:
1 All structures associated with the operation of any coal combustion residuals surface impoundment located on the site. For purposes of this sub-subdivision, the term "site" means the land or waters
within the property boundary of the applicable electric generating station. 3.2.1
2 All current and former coal combustion residuals disposal and storage areas on the site, including details concerning coal combustion residuals produced historically by the electric generating
station and disposed of through transfer to structural fills. 3.3
3 The property boundary for the applicable site, including established compliance boundaries within the site. 3.3
4 All potential receptors within 2,640 feet from established compliance boundaries. 3.2.2
5 Topographic contour intervals of the site shall be selected to enable an accurate representation of site features and terrain and in most cases should be less than 20-foot intervals. 3.3
6 Locations of all sanitary landfills permitted pursuant to this Article on the site that are actively receiving waste or are closed, as well as the established compliance boundaries and components of
associated groundwater and surface water monitoring systems. 3.2.3
7 All existing and proposed groundwater monitoring wells associated with any coal combustion residuals surface impoundment on the site. 3.3
8 All existing and proposed surface water sample collection locations associated with any coal combustion residuals surface impoundment on the site. 3.3
c. The results of a hydrogeologic, geologic, and geotechnical investigation of the site, including, at a minimum, all of the following:
1 A description of the hydrogeology and geology of the site. 4.1
2 A description of the stratigraphy of the geologic units underlying each coal combustion residuals surface impoundment located on the site. 4.2
3 The saturated hydraulic conductivity for (i) the coal combustion residuals within any coal combustion residuals surface impoundment located on the site and (ii) the saturated hydraulic conductivity
of any existing liner installed at an impoundment, if any. 4.3
4
The geotechnical properties for (i) the coal combustion residuals within any coal combustion residuals surface impoundment located on the site, (ii) the geotechnical properties of any existing liner
installed at an impoundment, if any, and (iii) the uppermost identified stratigraphic unit underlying the impoundment, including the soil classification based upon the Unified Soil Classification
System, in-place moisture content, particle size distribution, Atterberg limits, specific gravity, effective friction angle, maximum dry density, optimum moisture content, and permeability.
4.4
5 A chemical analysis of the coal combustion residuals surface impoundment, including water, coal combustion residuals, and coal combustion residuals-affected soil. 4.5
6 Identification of all substances with concentrations determined to be in excess of the groundwater quality standards for the substance established by Subchapter L of Chapter 2 of Title 15A of the
North Carolina Administrative Code, including all laboratory results for these analyses. 4.6
7 Summary tables of historical records of groundwater sampling results. 4.6
8 A map that illustrates the potentiometric contours and flow directions for all identified aquifers underlying impoundments (shallow, intermediate, and deep) and the horizontal extent of areas where
groundwater quality standards established by Subchapter L of Chapter 2 of Title 15A of the North Carolina Administrative Code for a substance are exceeded. 4.7
9 Cross-sections that illustrate the following: the vertical and horizontal extent of the coal combustion residuals within an impoundment; stratigraphy of the geologic units underlying an impoundment;
and the vertical extent of areas where groundwater quality standards established by Subchapter L of Chapter 2 of Title 15A of the North Carolina Administrative Code for a substance are exceeded. 4.8
d. The results of groundwater modeling of the site that shall include, at a minimum, all of the following:
1
An account of the design of the proposed Removal Plan that is based on the site hydrogeologic conceptual model developed and includes (i) predictions on post-closure groundwater elevations and
groundwater flow directions and velocities, including the effects on and from the potential receptors and
(ii) predictions at the compliance boundary for substances with concentrations determined to be in excess of the groundwater quality standards for the substance established by Subchapter L of
Chapter 2 of Title 15A of the North Carolina Administrative Code.
5
Table 2. North Carolina CAMA Removal Plan Requirements (Continued)
2 of 2
Part II. Provisions for Comprehensive Management of Coal Combustion Residuals § 130A-309.214(a)(4) Removal Plans for all impoundments shall include all of the following:
No. Description
Corresponding
Removal Plan
Section
2
Predictions that include the effects on the groundwater chemistry and should describe migration, concentration, mobilization, and fate for substances with concentrations determined to be in excess
of the groundwater quality standards for the substance established by Subchapter L of Chapter 2 of Title 15A of the North Carolina Administrative Code pre- and post-closure, including the effects
on and from potential receptors.
5
3
A description of the groundwater trend analysis methods used to demonstrate compliance with groundwater quality standards for the substance established by Subchapter L of Chapter 2 of Title
15A of the North Carolina Administrative Code and requirements for corrective action of groundwater contamination established by Subchapter L of Chapter 2 of Title 15A of the North Carolina
Administrative Code.
5
e.
A description of any plans for beneficial use of the coal combustion residuals in compliance with the requirements of Section .1700 of Subchapter B of Chapter 13 of Title 15A of the
North Carolina Administrative Code (Requirements for Beneficial Use of Coal Combustion By-Products) and Section .1205 of Subchapter T of Chapter 2 of Title 15A of the North
Carolina Administrative Code (Coal Combustion Products Management).
6.1
f. All engineering drawings, schematics, and specifications for the proposed Removal Plan. If required by Chapter 89C of the General Statutes, engineering design documents should be
prepared, signed, and sealed by a professional engineer. 7.1, 7.2, 7.3
g. A description of the construction quality assurance and quality control program to be implemented in conjunction with the Removal Plan, including the responsibilities and authorities
for monitoring and testing activities, sampling strategies, and reporting requirements. 7.4
h. A description of the provisions for disposal of wastewater and management of stormwater and the plan for obtaining all required permits. 8
i.
A description of the provisions for the final disposition of the coal combustion residuals. If the coal combustion residuals are to be removed, the owner must identify (i) the location
and permit number for the coal combustion residuals landfills, industrial landfills, or municipal solid waste landfills in which the coal combustion residuals will be disposed and (ii) in
the case where the coal combustion residuals are planned for beneficial use, the location and manner in which the residuals will be temporarily stored. If the coal combustion
residuals are to be left in the impoundment, the owner must (i) in the case of closure pursuant to sub-subdivision (a)(1)a. of this section, provide a description of how the ash will be
stabilized prior to completion of closure in accordance with closure and post-closure requirements established by Section .1627 of Subchapter B of Chapter 13 of Title 15A of the
North Carolina Administrative Code and (ii) in the case of closure pursuant to sub-subdivision (a)(1)b. of this section, provide a description of how the ash will be stabilized pre- and
post-closure. If the coal combustion residuals are to be left in the impoundment, the owner must provide an estimate of the volume of coal combustion residuals remaining.
9
j. A list of all permits that will need to be acquired or modified to complete closure activities. 10
k.
A description of the plan for post-closure monitoring and care for an impoundment for a minimum of 30 years. The length of the post-closure care period may be (i) proposed to be
decreased or the frequency and parameter list modified if the owner demonstrates that the reduced period or modifications are sufficient to protect public health, safety, and welfare;
the environment; and natural resources and (ii) increased by the Department at the end of the post-closure monitoring and care period if there are statistically significant increasing
groundwater quality trends or if contaminant concentrations have not decreased to a level protective of public health, safety, and welfare; the environment; and natural resources. If
the owner determines that the post-closure care monitoring and care period is no longer needed and the Department agrees, the owner shall provide a certification, signed and sealed
by a professional engineer, verifying that post-closure monitoring and care has been completed in accordance with the post-closure plan. If required by Chapter 89C of the General
Statutes, the proposed plan for post-closure monitoring and care should be signed and sealed by a professional engineer. The plan shall include, at a minimum, all of the following:
11
1 A demonstration of the long-term control of all leachate, affected groundwater, and stormwater. 11
2 A description of a groundwater monitoring program that includes (i) post-closure groundwater monitoring, including parameters to be sampled and sampling schedules; (ii) any additional monitoring
well installations, including a map with the proposed locations and well construction details; and (iii) the actions proposed to mitigate statistically significant increasing groundwater quality trends. 11
l. An estimate of the milestone dates for all activities related to closure and post-closure. 12.1
m. Projected costs of assessment, corrective action, closure, and post-closure care for each coal combustion residuals surface impoundment. 12.2
n. A description of the anticipated future use of the site and the necessity for the implementation of institutional controls following closure, including property use restrictions, and
requirements for recordation of notices documenting the presence of contamination, if applicable, or historical site use. 6.2
§ 130A-309.214(b)(3) No later than 60 days after receipt of a proposed Removal Plan, the Department shall conduct a public meeting in the county or counties proposed Removal Plan and
alternatives to the public.
§ 130A-309.214(d) Within 30 days of its approval of a Coal Combustion Residuals Surface Impoundment Removal Plan, the Department shall submit the Removal Plan to the Coal Ash
Management Commission.
1 of 1
Table 3. Estimated Quantities and Types of CCR for CCR Basins and Other Areas at
Sutton
Basin Volume (cy) Type CCR[1]
1971 Basin 3,184,000 (3,820,800 tons) Bottom ash and fly ash
1984 Basin 2,362,000 (2,834,400 tons) Bottom ash and fly ash
Lay of Land Area (LOLA) 572,000 (686,400 tons) Mostly bottom ash and soil
Total 6,118,000 (7,341,600 tons)
Note(s):
[1] Tons calculated assuming a density of approximately 1.2 tons/cy.
[2] Sutton did not have FGD removal systems, and therefore FGD residuals are not expected within
the CCR Basins.
1 of 3
Table 4. Summary of Available Inspection Reports
Year Type Consultant General Conditions Slope Stability Hydrology and
Hydraulics Field Observations Monitoring Information
Conclusions and
Recommendations (from
inspection or monitoring
report)
Impoundment
Modifications Performed
as a Result of Inspection
or Monitoring Activities
1987 Five Year
Inspection
Law
Engineering
Dikes found to be in
generally good condition.
No external, visible signs of
serious conditons.
Discharge structures found
to be in generally good
condition (1971 Basin
discharge structure was not
visible)
N/A N/A Items Inspected
1971 Basin - Dikes
1971 Basin - Discharge
Structures
1984 Basin - Dikes
1984 Basin - Discharge
Structures
N/A Maintenance crews should
monitor and repair any
areas of erosion, including
the sand cover of the 1984
Basin liner.
Monitor the 1971 Basin
discharge pipe and remove
any accumulated soil.
N/A
2007 Five Year
Inspection
MACTEC Dikes found to be in
generally good condition.
Discharge structures found
to be in generally good
condition (1971 Basin
discharge structure not
inspected)
N/A N/A Items Inspected
1971 Basin - Dikes
1971 Basin - Discharge
Structures
1984 Basin - Dikes
1984 Basin - Discharge
Structures
2006 Interior Containment
Area - Dikes
Plant staff were conducting
monthly inspections
following a checklist and
the recommended
inspection practices.
Clear dense vegetation.
Continue to cut large trees.
Continue monitoring
vegetation growth.
N/A
2009 Annual
Inspection
MACTEC Dikes found to generally
appear to be in stable and
satisfactory condition.
Discharge structures found
to be in generally good
condition (1971 Basin
discharge structure not
inspected)
N/A N/A Items Inspected
1971 Basin - Dikes
1971 Basin - Discharge
Structures
1984 Basin - Dikes
1984 Basin - Discharge
Structures
2006 Interior Containment
Area - Dikes
N/A Clear dense vegetation.
Continue to cut large trees.
Continue monitoring
vegetation growth.
Monitor for signs of
seepage.
N/A
Table 4. Summary of Available Inspection Reports (Continued)
2 of 3
Year Type Consultant General Conditions Slope Stability Hydrology and
Hydraulics Field Observations Monitoring Information
Conclusions and
Recommendations (from
inspection or monitoring
report)
Impoundment
Modifications Performed
as a Result of Inspection
or Monitoring Activities
2010 Annual
Inspection
MACTEC Dikes found to generally
appear to be in stable and
satisfactory condition.
Discharge structures found
to be in generally good
condition (1971 Basin
discharge structure not
inspected)
N/A N/A Items Inspected
1971 Basin - Dikes
1971 Basin - Discharge
Structures
1984 Basin - Dikes
1984 Basin - Discharge
Structures
2006 Interior Containment
Area - Dikes
Plant staff were conducting
monthly inspections
following a checklist and
the recommended
inspection practices.
Clear dense vegetation.
Continue to cut large trees.
Continue monitoring
vegetation growth.
Monitor for signs of
seepage.
Repair local riprap slip
around discharge structure
in 2006 Interior
Containment Area.
Recommended that
updated stability analysis
be performed for 1971
Basin.
Recommended that
updated hydraulic analysis
be performed for discharge
structure in the 1971 Basin.
18 piezometers were
installed on the 1984 Basin
to investigate possible
seepage. No evidence of
seepage found.
A breach on the east side
of the 1984 Basin dike
occurred on 27 September
2010. MACTEC providing
support at time of
inspection report.
2011 Annual
Inspection
- 1984
Basin
Amec Dikes found to generally
appear to be in stable and
satisfactory condition.
Discharge structures found
to be in generally good
condition.
Analysis was performed in
2011 for 1984 Basin.
Calculated Factors of
Safety found to be
satisfactory.
N/A Items Inspected
1984 Basin - Dikes
1984 Basin - Discharge
Structures
2006 Interior Containment
Area - Dikes
Plant staff were conducting
monthly inspections
following a checklist and
the recommended
inspection practices.
Undocumented daily
inspections also conducted
during active CCR sluicing.
Clear dense vegetation.
Continue to cut large trees.
Continue monitoring
vegetation growth.
Survey and verify dike crest
elevation.
Repair animal burrows.
Permanent repair to breach
of 1984 dike initiated on 11
February 2011 and
completed 13 February
2011. Completion
Report/Certification
submitted 16 February
2011.
2012 Five Year
Inspection
- 1971
Basin
Amec Dikes found to be in a
generally stable and
satisfactory condition.
Discharge structures
appeared to be operated
and maintained in a
satisfactory manner.
N/A N/A Items Inspected
1971 Basin - Dikes
1971 Basin - Discharge
Structures
Plant staff were conducting
monthly inspections
following a checklist and
the recommended
inspection practices.
Recommended that any
changes or repairs be fully
described in the inspection
reports.
Continue to cut large trees.
Continue monitoring
vegetation growth.
N/A
Table 4. Summary of Available Inspection Reports (Continued)
3 of 3
Year Type Consultant General Conditions Slope Stability Hydrology and
Hydraulics Field Observations Monitoring Information
Conclusions and
Recommendations (from
inspection or monitoring
report)
Impoundment
Modifications Performed
as a Result of Inspection
or Monitoring Activities
2013 Annual
Inspection
- 1971
Basin
Amec Dikes found to be generally
stable and in fair condition.
Soil-cement liner of intake
canal in need of repair.
Discharge riser found to be
in generally good condition.
Discharge pipe was not
inspected.
N/A N/A Items Inspected
1971 Basin - Dikes
1971 Basin - Discharge
Structures
Plant staff were conducting
monthly inspections
following a checklist and
the recommended
inspection practices.
Undocumented daily
inspections also conducted
during active CCR sluicing.
Determine if piezometers
should be abandoned.
Inspect discharge pipe and
determine if blocked. If pipe
is blocked it should be
cleared.
Survey and verify dike crest
elevation.
N/A
2013 Annual
Inspection
- 1984
Basin
Amec Dikes found to generally
appear to be in stable and
satisfactory condition.
Discharge structures found
to be in satisfactory
condition.
N/A N/A Items Inspected
1984 Basin - Dikes
1984 Basin - Discharge
Structures
2006 Interior Containment
Area - Dikes
Plant staff were conducting
monthly inspections
following a checklist and
the recommended
inspection practices.
Undocumented daily
inspections also conducted
during active CCR sluicing.
Continue monitoring
vegetation growth.
Determine if piezometers
should be abandoned.
Inspect and repair animal
burrows.
Repair areas of erosion
around splash pad of
discharge structure.
Clear vegetation and
inspect discharge pipe.
Survey and verify dike crest
elevation.
N/A
1 of 5
Table 5. Historical Monitoring Well and Piezometer Construction Details
Location ID Date Installed Northing (ft) Easting (ft) Well Diameter
(inches)
Screened
Interval
(ft bgs)
TOC (inner) Elevation
Corrected to NAVD88
(ft)
Total Depth
(ft bgs) Constructed By
MW-1A** 12/4/1984 198312.98 2306558.21 2 12-17 20.46 17 Unknown
MW-1B 12/12/1984 - - 2 22-27 20.61 27 Unknown
MW-2A 12/5/1984 - - 2 12-17 23.86 17 Unknown
MW-2BG 12/12/1984 - - 2 22-27 23.68 27 Unknown
MW-2CG 12/15/1986 - - 2 40-45 24.59 45 Unknown
MW-3A 12/10/1984 - - 2 12-17 16.92 17 Unknown
MW-3B 12/11/1984 - - 2 22-27 16.86 27 Unknown
MW-4 12/13/1984 - - 2 22-27 - 27 Unknown
MW-4AG 12/16/1986 - - 2 12-17 - 17 Unknown
MW-4BN 12/12/1986 - - 2 40-45 - 45 Unknown
MW-5AT 12/16/1986 - - 2 12-17 - 17 Unknown
MW-5BG 12/15/1986 - - 2 22-27 - 27 Unknown
MW-5CN 12/15/1986 - - 2 40-45 - 45 Unknown
MW-6A** 12/16/1986 200371.81 2306083.31 2 12-17 15.69 17 Unknown
MW-6BG 12/16/1986 - - 2 22-27 15.48 27 Unknown
MW-6CG 12/16/1986 - - 2 40-45 15.65 45 Unknown
MW-7A 12/14/1986 - - 2 12-17 - 17 Unknown
MW-7B 12/14/1986 - - 2 22-27 - 27 Unknown
MW-7CN,T 12/14/1986 - - 2 40-45 15.68 45 Unknown
MW-8T 2/8/1990 - - 2 40-50 16.19 50 Unknown
MW-9 2/7/1990 - - 2 40-50 26.49 50 Unknown
MW-10 2/8/1990 203192.17 2304857.67 2 40-50 26.58 50 Unknown
MW-11N 2/6/1990 - - 2 40-50 24.40 50 Unknown
MW-12N 2/6/1990 - - 2 40-50 19.86 50 Unknown
MW-13 5/25/2004 197946.82 2305021.78 2 3-13 16.91 13 Blasland, Bolick & Lee
MW-13D 1/28/2005 197963.95 2305018.78 2 33.5-38.5 16.86 39 Blasland, Bolick & Lee
MW-14** 5/25/2004 197250.99 2306180.30 2 1-11 12.97 11 Blasland, Bolick & Lee
MW-15 5/25/2004 196475.65 2306044.01 2 1-11 10.17 11 Blasland, Bolick & Lee
MW-15D 1/31/2005 196476.98 2306061.06 2 40-45 9.91 45 Blasland, Bolick & Lee
MW-16 6/7/2004 196974.53 2306754.58 2 2-12 15.61 12 Blasland, Bolick & Lee
MW-16D 6/7/2004 196961.33 2306759.71 2 42-47 15.13 47 Blasland, Bolick & Lee
MW-17 6/14/2004 - - 2 45-50 29.79 50 Blasland, Bolick & Lee
MW-18 6/10/2004 - - 2 45-50 21.03 50 Blasland, Bolick & Lee
MW-19N 6/15/2004 - - 2 45-50 30.52 50 Blasland, Bolick & Lee
MW-20 2/2/2005 196257.98 2305318.10 2 4-14 12.4 14 Blasland, Bolick & Lee
Table 5. Historical Monitoring Well and Piezometer Construction Details (Continued)
2 of 5
Location ID Date Installed Northing (ft) Easting (ft) Well Diameter
(inches)
Screened
Interval
(ft bgs)
TOC (inner) Elevation
Corrected to NAVD88
(ft)
Total Depth
(ft bgs) Constructed By
MW-20D 2/1/2005 196256.89 2305326.09 2 43-48 12.14 48 Blasland, Bolick & Lee
MW-21CN 9/16/2011 197773.53 2306913.73 2 40-45 30.17 45 Catlin Engineers and Scientists
MW-22BN 9/15/2011 198349.05 2307016.96 2 23-27 19.04 27 Catlin Engineers and Scientists
MW-22CN 9/15/2011 198349.48 2307023.29 2 39.5-44.5 19.10 45 Catlin Engineers and Scientists
MW-23BN 9/6/2011 198967.44 2306901.76 2 21.5-26.5 16.20 27 Catlin Engineers and Scientists
MW-23CN 9/7/2011 198972.10 2306903.52 2 40-45 16.64 45 Catlin Engineers and Scientists
MW-24BN 9/9/2011 200712.12 2306251.09 2 23-27 15.37 27 Catlin Engineers and Scientists
MW-24CN 9/12/2011 200716.55 2306263.90 2 40-45 15.02 45 Catlin Engineers and Scientists
MW-27BN 9/8/2011 202585.56 2304679.81 2 22-27 31.77 27 Catlin Engineers and Scientists
MW-28BN 9/28/2011 197368.43 2307359.97 2 25-30 31.77 30 Catlin Engineers and Scientists
MW-28CN 9/21/2011 197356.57 2307354.09 2 40-45 30.93 45 Catlin Engineers and Scientists
MW-28T 9/22/2011 197370.11 2307352.85 2 55-60 32.14 60 Catlin Engineers and Scientists
MW-31BG 9/13/2011 201045.10 2306851.42 2 22-27 17.50 27 Catlin Engineers and Scientists
MW-31CG,T 9/14/2011 201046.82 2306858.17 2 40-45 17.51 45 Catlin Engineers and Scientists
MW-32C 11/14/2013 2 45-50 34.60 50 SynTerra
MW-34B 5/12/2014 2 22-27 20.37 27 Geosyntec
MW-34C 5/13/2014 2 40-45 20.19 45 Geosyntec
MW-35B 5/13/2014 2 22-27 27.37 27 Geosyntec
MW-35C 5/13/2014 2 40-45 27.37 45 Geosyntec
OAP-1 9/26/2011 - - 2 5-15 - 15 Catlin Engineers and Scientists
OAP-2 9/26/2011 - - 2 4-14 - 14 Catlin Engineers and Scientists
MW-32CG 11/14/2013 197686.22 2307879.04 2 45-50 34.60 50 SynTerra
MW-33C**G,T 11/13/2013 197598.47 2308274.92 2 40-45 24.66 45 SynTerra
PZ-1** 11/24/2008 201341.19 2305414.88 2 10-20 32.72 20 Golder Associates
PZ-1A** - 201335.81 2305416.92 - - 32.97 - Unknown
PZ-1B - - - - - - - Unknown
PZ-2** 11/24/2008 201705.61 2305277.86 2 10-20 32.55 20 Golder Associates
PZ-2A** - 201700.70 2305280.10 - - 32.54 - Unknown
PZ-2B - - - - - - - Unknown
PZ-3** 11/25/2008 202048.09 2304944.55 2 6-16 32.44 16 Golder Associates
PZ-3A** - 202050.72 2304950.36 - - 32.24 - Unknown
PZ-3B - - - - - - - Unknown
PZ-4** 11/24/2008 201880.06 2304528.29 2 11-21 32.94 21 Golder Associates
PZ-4A** - 201882.28 2304533.10 - - 32.78 - Unknown
PZ-4B - - - - - - - Unknown
PZ-5** 11/24/2008 201592.95 2304324.08 2 15-25 32.50 25 Golder Associates
Table 5. Historical Monitoring Well and Piezometer Construction Details (Continued)
3 of 5
Location ID Date Installed Northing (ft) Easting (ft) Well Diameter
(inches)
Screened
Interval
(ft bgs)
TOC (inner) Elevation
Corrected to NAVD88
(ft)
Total Depth
(ft bgs) Constructed By
PZ-5A** - 201598.93 2304324.89 - - 32.82 - Unknown
PZ-5B - - - - - - - Unknown
PZ-6** - 200985.53 2304343.62 - - 33.03 - Unknown
PZ-6A** - 200991.36 2304343.40 - - 33.25 - Unknown
PZ-6B - - - - - - - Unknown
PZ-6D 12/6/2008 204200.00 2305620.40 2 80-100 29.61 100 Golder Associates
PZ-6S 11/25/2008 204191.30 2305618.60 2 16-26 29.85 26 Golder Associates
PZ-7 11/21/2008 203633.60 2305138.60 2 9-19 21.98 19 Golder Associates
PZ-8 11/25/2008 203942.50 2305532.20 2 20-30 35.08 30 Golder Associates
PZ-9 11/21/2008 203533.80 2305359.50 2 15-25 34.13 25 Golder Associates
PZ-10 5/25/2004 - - 2 1-11 11.52 - Unknown
PZ-10D 12/2/2008 203124.80 2305120.60 2 80-100 25.33 102 Golder Associates
PZ-10S 11/21/2008 203140.10 2305116.40 2 13-23 25.50 23 Golder Associates
PZ-11 11/20/2008 203258.90 2305266.00 2 9-19 22.77 19 Golder Associates
PZ-12 11/25/2008 203476.90 2305691.60 2 15-25 30.42 25 Golder Associates
PZ-13 11/20/2008 202946.00 2305558.80 2 15-25 28.53 25 Golder Associates
PZ-14 11/25/2008 203358.70 2305963.30 2 8-18 19.55 18 Golder Associates
PZ-15 11/20/2008 202702.70 2305482.10 2 9-19 21.02 19 Golder Associates
PZ-16 11/25/2008 202898.00 2305907.60 2 7-17 17.06 17 Golder Associates
PZ-17 11/20/2008 202570.20 2305697.40 2 4-14 17.30 14 Golder Associates
PZ-18 11/25/2008 202605.90 2306030.80 2 8-18 18.56 18 Golder Associates
PZ-19 11/20/2008 202207.80 2305730.00 2 7-17 16.64 17 Golder Associates
PZ-20 11/20/2008 201925.00 2305525.40 2 10-20 22.52 20 Golder Associates
PZ-21 12/1/2008 202152.60 2306342.40 2 14-24 27.67 24 Golder Associates
PZ-22 11/19/2008 201073.40 2305978.00 2 4-14 18.24 14 Golder Associates
PZ-23 11/26/2008 201410.80 2306536.90 2 3-13 14.17 13 Golder Associates
PZ-24 11/19/2008 200735.40 2305940.70 2 13-23 25.47 23 Golder Associates
PZ-25 11/26/2008 200416.50 2306852.90 2 17-27 30.21 27 Golder Associates
PZ-26 11/19/2008 199799.60 2306415.20 2 4-14 17.00 14 Golder Associates
PZ-27 11/19/2008 199451.70 2306844.80 2 20-30 35.30 30 Golder Associates
PZ-28 11/18/2008 199049.40 2306560.40 2 7-17 19.04 17 Golder Associates
PZ-29 11/18/2008 198828.80 2307625.60 2 12-22 24.92 22 Golder Associates
PZ-INT 5/7/2014 200420.50 2304536.30 2 13-18 42.58 18 Geosyntec
PZ-1971 5/9/2014 198492.38 2305987.63 2 17-22 47.98 22 Geosyntec
GWPZ-1A 5/8/2014 202183.51 2304953.21 1 10-15 15.00 15 Geosyntec
GWPZ-1B 5/8/2014 202181.71 2304948.23 1 22-27 27.00 27 Geosyntec
GWPZ-2A 5/8/2014 201760.44 2305335.14 1 10-15 15.00 15 Geosyntec
Table 5. Historical Monitoring Well and Piezometer Construction Details (Continued)
4 of 5
Location ID Date Installed Northing (ft) Easting (ft) Well Diameter
(inches)
Screened
Interval
(ft bgs)
TOC (inner) Elevation
Corrected to NAVD88
(ft)
Total Depth
(ft bgs) Constructed By
GWPZ-2B 5/8/2014 201755.59 2305337.34 1 22-27 27.00 27 Geosyntec
GWPZ-3A 5/7/2014 200404.04 2305825.52 2 10-15 22.00 15 Geosyntec
GWPZ-3B 5/7/2014 200405.32 2305829.62 2 22-27 21.99 27 Geosyntec
GWPZ-4A 5/7/2014 199057.58 2306398.82 2 10-15 21.24 15 Geosyntec
GWPZ-4B 5/7/2014 199058.85 2306403.64 2 22-27 21.20 27 Geosyntec
LA-PZ-1 2/10/2015 202897.98 2305358.04 2 40-50 22.95 50 Geosyntec
LA-PZ-2 2/11/2015 201637.48 2306475.92 2 35-45 29.28 50 Geosyntec
LA-PZ-3 2/13/2015 200553.67 2306698.53 2 36.5-46.5 25.75 50 Geosyntec
LA-PZ-4 2/16/2015 199963.74 2306964.30 2 40-50 21.48 50 Geosyntec
LA-PZ-5 2/12/2015 198148.10 2307616.62 2 39.5-49.5 25.04 50 Geosyntec
PZ-101 10/29/2014 200675.44 2304779.79 2 17-22 41.81 22 Geosyntec
PZ-102 10/29/2014 200868.15 2305186.86 2 17-22 41.32 22 Geosyntec
PZ-103 10/30/2014 200329.16 2305784.76 2 25-30 34.03 30 Geosyntec
PZ-104 11/4/2014 200008.41 2304134.25 2 25-30 32.79 30 Geosyntec
PZ-105 11/3/2014 198085.02 2305518.66 2 20.5-25.5 27.42 25 Geosyntec
PZ-106 11/3/2014 198414.87 2304821.39 2 20-25 27.04 25 Geosyntec
PZ-107 10/31/2014 198966.56 2304088.68 2 19.5-24.5 26.94 25 Geosyntec
PZ-108S 10/28/2014 198487.71 2304871.17 2 13-18 37.42 18 Geosyntec
PZ-108D 10/28/2014 198492.19 2304861.07 2 25-30 37.50 30 Geosyntec
ABMW-01D 3/28/2015 198964.17 2305386.78 2 103-108 45.71 108 SynTerra
ABMW-01S 3/29/2015 198968.22 2305388.87 2 71-76 45.75 76 SynTerra
ABMW-02D 3/27/2015 197177.19 2305583.43 2 41-45 10.10 45 SynTerra
ABMW-02S 3/27/2015 197177.71 2305589.13 2 3-8 9.98 8 SynTerra
AW-01B 1/31/2015 203061.57 2306091.71 2 20-25 16.61 25 SynTerra
AW-01C 1/31/2015 203064.20 2306090.72 2 40-45 16.55 45 SynTerra
AW-02B 1/31/2015 202156.49 2306450.12 2 20-25 27.08 25 SynTerra
AW-02C 1/31/2015 202160.58 2306445.96 2 42.4-47.4 27.20 48 SynTerra
AW-02D 5/10/2015 202147.28 2306457.78 2 92-97 26.62 97 SynTerra
AW-03B 2/2/2015 201583.66 2306678.86 2 20-25 18.23 25 SynTerra
AW-03C 2/2/2015 201584.81 2306673.94 2 40-45 18.20 48 SynTerra
AW-04B 1/30/2015 198812.83 2307820.78 2 20.4-25.4 18.62 25 SynTerra
AW-04C 1/29/2015 198803.25 2307818.27 2 40-45 18.43 48 SynTerra
AW-05B 2/2/2015 198021.26 2308134.95 2 20-25 23.70 25 SynTerra
AW-05C 2/2/2015 198024.46 2308133.35 2 40-45 23.69 47 SynTerra
AW-05D 6/10/2015 198024.76 2308125.18 2 90-100 23.78 100 SynTerra
AW-05E 5/8/2015 198018.09 2308127.63 2 140-150 23.50 150 SynTerra
AW-06B 1/31/2015 199639.95 2307503.39 2 20-25 17.34 27 SynTerra
Table 5. Historical Monitoring Well and Piezometer Construction Details (Continued)
5 of 5
Location ID Date Installed Northing (ft) Easting (ft) Well Diameter
(inches)
Screened
Interval
(ft bgs)
TOC (inner) Elevation
Corrected to NAVD88
(ft)
Total Depth
(ft bgs) Constructed By
AW-06D 1/31/2015 199642.47 2307502.47 2 104-109 17.48 127 SynTerra
AW-06E 5/12/2015 199648.93 2307507.34 2 140-150 17.43 150 SynTerra
AW-07D 1/31/2015 201037.19 2306853.91 2 93-98 14.80 98 SynTerra
AW-08B 2/5/2015 203420.00 2304212.85 2 20-25 13.47 25 SynTerra
AW-08C 2/4/2015 203419.38 2304205.34 2 40-45 13.40 48 SynTerra
AW-09B 5/7/2015 196083.31 2307795.83 2 18-23 14.26 27 SynTerra
AW-09C 4/14/2015 196081.45 2307793.85 2 40-45 17.36 45 SynTerra
AW-09D 5/7/2015 196076.31 2307788.10 2 20-25 14.59 97 SynTerra
SMW-01B 4/14/2015 199292.01 2308712.96 2 18.9-23.9 13.91 23.9 SynTerra
SMW-01C 4/14/2015 199295.12 2308717.75 2 41-46 13.99 48 SynTerra
SMW-02B 3/24/2015 198396.18 2308908.42 2 18.4-25.4 17.38 25 SynTerra
SMW-02C 3/24/2015 198403.45 2308904.84 2 40-45 17.50 48 SynTerra
SMW-03B 3/25/2015 197748.56 2309459.02 2 19.9-24.9 15.43 24.9 SynTerra
SMW-03C 3/25/2015 197745.03 2309453.18 2 41.5-46.5 15.33 53 SynTerra
SMW-04B 1/30/2015 202569.12 2307663.93 2 20-25 16.34 25 SynTerra
SMW-04C 4/13/2015 202565.07 2307665.57 2 40-45 13.03 45 SynTerra
SMW-05B 4/13/2015 201027.58 2308551.36 2 19.8-24.8 12.69 24.8 SynTerra
SMW-05C 4/13/2015 201027.18 2308554.63 2 38.8-43.8 13.49 43.8 SynTerra
SMW-06B 4/10/2015 200222.83 2309008.69 2 19.4-24.4 13.87 24.4 SynTerra
SMW-06C 4/10/2015 200222.29 2309012.80 2 39-44 13.03 44 SynTerra
SMW-06D 4/8/2015 200221.20 2309017.66 2 103-108 12.80 108 SynTerra
MW-23E 5/12/2015 198979.66 2306894.64 2 140-150 13.79 150 SynTerra
MW-37B 2/4/2015 193820.03 2308956.68 2 20-25 20.88 27 SynTerra
MW-37C 2/4/2015 193819.39 2308959.44 2 38-43 20.94 47 SynTerra
Note(s):
[1] ft indicates feet; bgs indicates below ground surface; ** indicates no datum specified for elevation except as otherwise indicated; * indicates elevation referenced to Mean Sea Level (MSL); NM indicates not
measured; TOC indicates top of casing; ~ indicates elevations referenced to a North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88) unless indicated otherwise; '+ RAP 2006 indicates these PZs have been
abandoned; N indicates NPDES well; G indicates Geosyntec sampled location in May 2014; and T indicates Geosyntec installed a transducer in the well for short period prior to SynTerra groundwater sampling
event.
[2] Table does not include wells installed around White Liquor Storage Tank (2001 SAR): MW1-MW10.
[3] Elevations were converted from MSL to NAVD88 by subtracting 1.3. A comparison of locations at the site that were referenced to both datums were compared to determine that MSL at the site was 1.3 ft higher than
NAVD88.
1 of 1
Table 6. Slug Test Results Summary
Well Name Date
Hydraulic Conductivity (ft/d) Geometric
Mean
(ft/d)
(Rising Head) (Falling Head)
Bouwer and Rice Hvorslev Bouwer and Rice Hvorslev
PZ-INT (Test 1) 5/29/2014 1.70 2.03 1.71 2.09 2.42 PZ-INT (Test 2) 5/29/2014 4.53 5.07 1.76 2.37
Note(s):
[1] ft/d indicates feet per day.
1 of 1
Table 7. Effluent Limits and Monitoring Requirements, Bulk Water Removal, Outfall 001
Parameter
Discharge Limitations Monitoring Requirements
Units
Monthly
Average
Daily
Maximum
Measurement
Frequency Sample Type Sample Location
Flow MGD Daily Pump logs Effluent
Temperature °C Quarterly Grab Up/downstream
Temperature °C Daily Grab Effluent
pH standard 6.0 9.0 Weekly Grab Effluent
Oil and Grease mg/L 15.0 20.0 Weekly Grab Effluent
TSS mg/L 30.0 100.0 Weekly Grab Effluent
Total Nitrogen
(NO2+NO3+TKN) mg/L Weekly Grab Effluent
Total Phosphorus mg/L Weekly Grab Effluent
Dissolved Oxygen mg/L Weekly Grab Effluent
Acute Toxicity Monthly Grab Effluent
Total Mercury ng/L1 47.0 47.0 Weekly Grab Effluent
Total Arsenic µg/L 10.0 50.0 Weekly Grab Effluent
Total Selenium µg/L 5.0 56.0 Weekly Grab Effluent
Total Iron mg/L 1.0 1.0 Weekly Grab Effluent
Total Lead µg/L 25.0 33.8 Weekly Grab Effluent
Total Cadmium µg/L 2.0 15.0 Weekly Grab Effluent
Total Aluminum Weekly Grab Effluent
Total Copper µg/L Weekly Grab Effluent
Total Zinc µg/L Weekly Grab Effluent
Turbidity Weekly Grab Effluent
1 of 1
Table 8. Effluent Limits and Monitoring Requirements, Interstitial Water Removal, Outfall 001
Parameter
Discharge Limitations Monitoring Requirements
Units
Monthly
Average
Daily
Maximum
Measurement
Frequency Sample Type Sample Location
Flow MGD 2.1 Daily Pump logs Effluent
Temperature °C Quarterly Grab Up/downstream
Temperature °C Daily Grab Effluent
pH standard 6.0 9.0 Weekly Grab Effluent
Oil and Grease mg/L 15.0 20.0 Weekly Grab Effluent
TSS mg/L 30.0 100.0 Weekly Grab Effluent
Total Nitrogen
(NO2+NO3+TKN) mg/L Weekly Grab Effluent
Total Phosphorus mg/L Weekly Grab Effluent
Dissolved Oxygen mg/L Weekly Grab Effluent
Acute Toxicity Monthly Grab Effluent
Total Iron mg/L 1.0 1.0 Weekly Grab Effluent
Total Cadmium µg/L 2.0 15.0 Weekly Grab Effluent
Total Aluminum Weekly Grab Effluent
Total Lead µg/L 25.0 33.8 Weekly Grab Effluent
Total Arsenic µg/L 10.0 50.0 Weekly Grab Effluent
Total Selenium µg/L 5.0 56.0 Weekly Grab Effluent
Total Mercury ng/L 47.0 47.0 Weekly Grab Effluent
Total Copper µg/L Weekly Grab Effluent
Total Zinc µg/L Weekly Grab Effluent
Turbidity Weekly Grab Effluent
1 of 1
Table 9. Effluent Limits and Monitoring Requirements, Bulk Water Removal, Outfall 004
Parameter
Discharge Limitations Monitoring Requirements
Units
Monthly
Average
Daily
Maximum
Measurement
Frequency Sample Type Sample Location
Flow MGD Weekly Pump logs Effluent
Oil and Grease mg/L 15.0 20.0 Weekly Grab Effluent
TSS mg/L 30.0 100.0 Weekly Grab Effluent
pH standard 6.0 9.0 Weekly Grab Effluent
Total Copper µg/L Weekly Grab Effluent
Total Zinc µg/L Weekly Grab Effluent
Total Arsenic µg/L 10.0 50.0 Weekly Grab Effluent
Total Selenium µg/L 5.0 56.0 Weekly Grab Effluent
Total Mercury ng/L 47.0 47.0 Weekly Grab Effluent
Total Iron mg/L 1.0 1.0 Weekly Grab Effluent
Total Aluminum Weekly Grab Effluent
Chronic Toxicity Quarterly Grab Effluent
FIGURES
Cooling Pond
DischargeCanal
1984 Bas in
1971 Bas in
Lay of Land Area(LOLA)
L.V. SUTTON SITE MAP
L.V. Sutton Energy ComplexWilmington, North Carolina
Figure
1
P :\G I S \P r o j e c t s \D \
D u k e \L V S u t t o n - C l o s u r e P l a
n \m x d s ; A M
A R T O
R A N
A
CHARLOTTE, NC DECEMBER 2016
2,000 0 2,000 4,0001,000 Feet
³
Notes:1. Ser vice Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye,Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS,AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community.2. Property boundary compiled from publically available date fromNew Hanover County.
Legend
Prop erty Boundary
Ba sin Bo undary
C
a
p
e
F
e
a
r
R
i
v
e
r
Cape Fe ar River
B r u n s w i c k R i v e r
D
DD
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D D
D
D
D
Cooling Pond
DischargeCanal
MW-7C
MW-5C
MW-4B
MW-19
MW-11
MW-33CMW-32C
MW-31C
MW-28CMW-28B
MW-27B
MW-24CMW-24B
MW-23C
MW-23B
MW-22C
MW-21C
1984 Bas in
1971 Bas in
Lay of Land Area(LOLA)
EXISTING MONITORING WELL NETWORK
L.V. Sutton Energy ComplexWilmington, North Carolina
Figure
2
P :\G I S \P r o j e c t s \D \
D u k e \L V S u t t o n - C l o s u r e P l a
n \m x d s ; A M
A R T O
R A N
A
CHARLOTTE, NC DECEMBER 2016
1,000 0 1,000 2,000500 Feet
³
Notes:1. Ser vice Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye,Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS,AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community.2. Property boundary compiled from publically available date fromNew Hanover County.3. New wells will be added to the monitoring netwok once theComprehensive Site Assessment and Corrective Action Plan isapproved by NCDEQ.
Legend
D Mon itoring Well/Piezometer
Prop erty Boundary
Ba sin Bo undary
Cape Fear River
PHYSIOGRAPHIC PROVINCESOF NORTH CAROLINA
L.V. Sutton Energy ComplexNew Hanover County, North Carolina
Figure
3
P :\G I S \P r o j e c t s \D \D u k e \L V S u t t o n - C l o s u r e P l a n \m x d s ; A M A R T O R A N A
CHARLOTTE, NC DECEMBER 2016
Approximate Location ofL.V. Sutton Energy Complex
^_
PHYSIOGRAPHIC PROVINCES IN THE ATLANTIC COASTAL PLAIN [AFTER CAMPBELL AND COES, 2011]L.V. Sutton Steam Electric PlantWilmington, North Carolina
Figure
4
P :\G I S \P r o j e c t s \D \D u k e \L V S u t t o n - C l o s u r e P l a n \m x d s ; A M
A R T O
R A N
A
CHARLOTTE, NC DECEMBER 2016
Location of the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain
GENERALIZED SUMMARY OF REGIONAL GEOLOGIC AND HYDROG EOLOG IC UNITS IN THE REG IO N [A FTER MCSWAIN ET AL., 2 015]L.V. Sutton Steam Electric PlantWilmington, North Carolina
Figure
5
P :\G I S \P r o j e c t s \D \D u k e \L V S u t t o n - C l o s u r e P l a n \m x d s ; A M A R T O R A N A
CHARLOTTE, NC DECEMBER 2016
THICKNESS OF THE SURFICIAL AQUIFER IN THE ATLANTIC COASTAL PLAIN [AFTER CAMPBELL AND COES, 2010]L.V. Sutton Steam Electric PlantWilmington, North Carolina
Figure
6
P :\G I S \P r o j e c t s \D \D u k e \L V S u t t o n - C l o s u r e P l a n \m x d s ; A M
A R T O
R A N
A
CHARLOTTE, NC DECEMBER 2016
ELEVATION OF TOP OF CASTLE HAYNE CONFINING UNIT IN NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA [AFTER MCSWAIN ET AL., 2014]L.V. Sutton Steam Electric PlantWilmington, North Carolina
Figure
7
P :\G I S \P r o j e c t s \D \D u k e \L V S u t t o n - C l o s u r e P l a n \m x d s ; A M
A R T O
R A N
A
CHARLOTTE, NC DECEMBER 2016
ELEVATION OF TOP OF CASTLE HAYNE AQUIFER IN NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA [AFTER MCSWAIN ET AL., 2014]L.V. Sutton Steam Electric PlantWilmington, North Carolina
Figure
8
P :\G I S \P r o j e c t s \D \D u k e \L V S u t t o n - C l o s u r e P l a n \m x d s ; A M
A R T O
R A N
A
CHARLOTTE, NC DECEMBER 2016
THICKNESS OF PEEDEE CONFINING UNIT IN THE ATLANTIC COASTAL PLAIN [AFTER CAMPBELL AND COES, 2010]L.V. Sutton Steam Electric PlantWilmington, North Carolina
Figure
9
P :\G I S \P r o j e c t s \D \D u k e \L V S u t t o n - C l o s u r e P l a n \m x d s ; A M
A R T O
R A N
A
CHARLOTTE, NC DECEMBER 2016
ELEVATION OF TOP OF PEEDEE CONFINING UNIT IN NEW HANOVER, NORTH CAROLINA [AFTER MCSWAIN ET AL., 2014]
L.V. Sutton Steam Electric PlantWilmington, North Carolina
Figure
10
P :\G I S \P r o j e c t s \D \D u k e \L V S u t t o n - C l o s u r e P l a n \m x d s ; A M
A R T O
R A N
A
CHARLOTTE, NC DECEMBER 2016
ELEVATION OF TOP OF PEEDEE AQUIFER INNEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA [AFTER MCSWAIN ET AL., 2014]
L.V. Sutton Steam Electric PlantWilmington, North Carolina
Figure
11
P :\G I S \P r o j e c t s \D \D u k e \L V S u t t o n - C l o s u r e P l a n \m x d s ; A M
A R T O
R A N
A
CHARLOTTE, NC DECEMBER 2016
THICKNESS OF PEEDEE AQUIFER IN THE ATLANTIC COASTAL PLAIN [AFTER CAMPBELL AND COES, 2010]L.V. Sutton Steam Electric PlantWilmington, North Carolina
Figure
12
P :\G I S \P r o j e c t s \D \D u k e \L V S u t t o n - C l o s u r e P l a n \m x d s ; A M
A R T O
R A N
A
CHARLOTTE, NC DECEMBER 2016
AREAL EXTENT OF BLACK CREEK CONFINING UNIT IN THE ATLANTIC COASTAL PLAIN [AFTER CAMPBELL AND COES, 2010]L.V. Sutton Steam Electric PlantWilmington, North Carolina
Figure
13
P :\G I S \P r o j e c t s \D \D u k e \L V S u t t o n - C l o s u r e P l a n \m x d s ; A M
A R T O
R A N
A
CHARLOTTE, NC DECEMBER 2016
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
!
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
DD
DD
DD
DDD
DDD
D
D
D
D
D
D
DD
DD
DD
DD
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D D
DD
DD
DD
D
D
D
D
D
D
DD
D
D
D
D
D
DD
D
DD
DD
DD
D
D
D
DD
D
D
D
D
D
D
D D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
DD
DD
D
DD
DD
D D
D
!
!!
!
D
D
D
DD
DD
DD
DDD
DD
DD
DDDD
DDD
D
DD
DDD
DD
DD
DD
DD
DD
DDD
D
DD
Cooling Pond
1984 Bas in
1971 Bas in
Lay of Land Area(LOLA)DischargeCanal
SG-4
SG-3 SG-3
SG-2
PZ-9PZ-7
PZ-6
PZ-4
PZ-3
PZ-1
PZ-5 PZ-2
MW-8
MW-4
MW-9
SG-1
MW-3B
PZ-6SPZ-6D
PZ-6A
PZ-5A
PZ-4A PZ-3A
PZ-2A
PZ-29
PZ-28
PZ-27
PZ-26
PZ-25
PZ-24
PZ-23
PZ-22
PZ-21
PZ-20
PZ-1A
PZ-19
PZ-18PZ-17
PZ-16
PZ-15
PZ-14
PZ-13
PZ-12
PZ-11
MW-12
MW-6CMW-6C
MW-2C
MW-5A
MW-20
MW-1A
MW-18
MW-17
MW-16
MW-15
MW-14
MW-13
MW-10
MW-7CMW-7B
MW-7A
MW-6C MW-6B
MW-6A
MW-5C MW-5B
MW-4B MW-4A
MW-2B
MW-2A
MW-1B
MW-19
MW-11
PZ-6B
PZ-5B
PZ-3B
PZ-2B
PZ-1B
MW-37CMW-37B
MW-23E
AW-09DAW-09C
AW-09B
AW-08CAW-08B
AW-07D
AW-06E
AW-06D
AW-06B
AW-05EAW-05D
AW-05CAW-05B
AW-04C AW-04B
AW-03CAW-03B
AW-02D
AW-02C
AW-02B
AW-01CAW-01B
MW-31C
PZ-INT
PZ-10S PZ-10D
MW-23B
MW-24B
MW-24C
MW-23B
MW-23C
MW-27B
PZ-107
PZ-106
PZ-105
PZ-104
PZ-102
PZ-101
MW-28B
MW-36C MW-36B
MW-35C MW-35BMW-34C MW-34B
MW-33C
MW-28B
MW-27C
MW-20D
MW-16D
MW-15D
MW-13D
MW-32C
PZ1971
PZ-103
MW-28C
MW-21C
SMW-06DSMW-06C
SMW-06B
SMW-05CSMW-05B
SMW-04CSMW-04B
SMW-03CSMW-03B
SMW-02CSMW-02B
SMW-01CSMW-01B
PZ-108D
PZ-108S
GWPZ-4B
GWPZ-1B
ABMW-02SABMW-02D
ABMW-01SABMW-01D
EXISTING SITE FEATUR ES
L.V. Sutton Energy ComplexWilmington, North Carolina
Figure
14
P :\G I S \P r o j e c t s \D \
D u k e \L V S u t t o n - C l o s u r e P l a
n \m x d s _A M
A R T O
R A N
A
CHARLOTTE, NC DECEMBER 2016
1,000 0 1,000 2,000500 Feet
³
Notes:1. Ser vice Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye,Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS,AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community.2. Property boundary compiled from publically available date fromNew Hanover County.3. PZ-INT, PZ-1971, and PT-series were abandonded in March/April2015.4. HA-series, THB-series, and PZ-B series are shown atapproximate locations.
Legend
D Mon itoring Well/Piezometer
!Staff G auge
Prop erty Boundary
Ba sin Bo undary
Cape Fe ar River
D
D
D
D
D
D
!
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
DD
DD
DD
DD
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
DD
DD
DD
D
D
D
D
D
D
DD
DD
D
DD
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
DD
DD
D
DD
D
!
!
!
D
D
D
Cooling Pond
9.0 '
9.5 '
9
.
0
'
9
.
5
'
1
0
.
0
'
10.0'
Cape Fear River
1984 Basin
1971 Bas in
Lay of Land Area(LOLA)
DischargeCanal
SG-4
SG-3
SG-2
PZ-6
PZ-4
PZ-3
PZ-1
PZ-5
PZ-2
SG-1
MW-3B
PZ-6A
PZ-5A
PZ-4A
PZ-3A
PZ-29
PZ-28
PZ-27
PZ-26
PZ-25
PZ-24
PZ-23
PZ-22
PZ-21
PZ-20
PZ-1A
MW-12
MW-6C
MW-2C
MW-18
MW-17
MW-16
MW-15
MW-14
MW-13
MW-7C
MW-1B
MW-19
MW-11
PZ-6B
PZ-5B
PZ-4B
PZ-2B
PZ-1B
MW-31C
MW-22C
PZ-INT
MW-24BMW-24C
MW-23BMW-23C
MW-27B
MW-28B
MW-36CMW-36B
MW-35CMW-35B
MW-34CMW-34B
MW-33C
MW-27C
MW-16D
MW-15D
MW-13D
MW-32C
MW-22B
PZ1971
MW-28C
MW-21C
GWPZ-4BGWPZ-4A
GWPZ-3BGWPZ-3A
GWPZ-2BGWPZ-2A
GWPZ-1BGWPZ-1A
SHALLOW GROUNDWATER ELEVATION ISOC ONTOU R MAP
L.V. Sutton Energy ComplexWilmington, North Carolina
Figure
15
P :\G I S \P r o j e c t s \D \
D u k e \L V S u t t o n - C l o s u r e P l a
n \m x d s ; A M
A R T O
R A N
A
CHARLOTTE, NC DECEMBER 2016
500 0 500 1,000250 Feet
³
Notes:1. Ser vice Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye,Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS,AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community.2. Property boundary compiled from publically available date fromNew Hanover County.3. Contours were developed based on water levels collected on 19May 2014. Water levels measured at PZ-INT, PZ-1971, SG-1, andSG-2 indicated perched water at those locations. As such, thesedata were not used in the development of the contours.4. Elevations are based on North American Vertical Datum of 1988.5. PZ-INT, PZ-1971, and PT-series were abandonded in March/April2015
Legend
D Mon itoring Well/Piezometer
!Staff G auge
Groun d Water Elevation Contours
Prop erty Boundary
Ba sin Bo undary
U
U U
?
??
??
?
?
D
D
D
D
D
D
A
D
D
D
D
D
?
DDDD
>
>
>
>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
D
D
D
D
D
DD
?
?
A
A
A
A
A A
A
A
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
A
A
A
A
A A
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
D
D
D
D
DD
D
D
D
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A A
A
A
A
A
A
AA
A
A
D
D
D
D
DD
DD
D
DD
DD
DD
U
U
U
U
U
U
Discharge Canal
A
B
C
D
E
F
A
B
C
D
E
F
1984 Bas in
1971 Bas in
Lay of Land Area(LOLA)
B-3
B-2
B-1
PZ-5
PZ-3
WR-7
WR-6
WR-8
WR-6
WR-4
WR-3
WR-2
WR-1
MB-2
MB-1
GP-9
GP-8
GP-7
GP-6
GP-5
GP-4
GP-3
GP-2
GP-1
PZ-6
PZ-4
PZ-2
PZ-1
PT-4
PT-3 PT-2
WR-4
MW-20
MW-16
MW-15
MW-14
MW-13
PZ-5A
PZ-4A
PZ-2A
PZ-1A
WR-5B
WR-5A
WR-16
WR-15
WR-14
WR-13
WR-12
WR-11WR-10
WR-5B
SPT-7
SPT-6
SPT-5
SPT-4
SPT-3
SPT-2
SPT-1
GP-17
GP-16
GP-15
GP-14
GP-13
GP-12GP-11
GP-10
CPT-8
CPT-5
CPT-4
CPT-3
CPT-2
THB-3
THB-1
PZ-6A
PZ-3A
PZ-6B
PZ-5B
PZ-4B PZ-3B
PZ-2B
PZ-1B
THB-4
THB-2
MW-20D
MW-16D
MW-15D
MW-13D
PZ-104
PZ-103
PZ-102
PZ-101
SPT- 8 SCPT-6
SCPT-4
SCPT-2
SCPT-1
GP-16A
CPT-7A
CPT-6A
HA-1-1
PZ-107
PZ-106
PZ-105
PZ-INT
HA-3-2
HA-3-1
HA-2-2
HA-2-1
SPT-14SPT-13
SPT-12
PZ-108D
SCPT-5A
F-DPT-9
F-DPT-8
F-DPT-7
F-DPT-6 F-DPT-5
F-DPT-4
F-DPT-3 F-DPT-2
F-DPT-1
LO-SPT-6
LO-SPT-5
LO-SPT-4
LO-SPT-3
LO-SPT-2
LO-SPT-1
F-DPT-15
F-DPT-14
F-DPT-13
F-DPT-12
F-DPT-11
F-DPT-10
SU BSURFACE SEC TIONS
L.V. Sutton Energy ComplexWilmington, North Carolina
Figure
16
P :\G I S \P r o j e c t s \D \
D u k e \L V S u t t o n - C l o s u r e P l a
n \m x d s _A M
A R T O
R A N
A
CHARLOTTE, NC DECEMBER 2016
500 0 500 1,000250 Feet
³
Notes:1. Ser vice Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye,Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS,AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community.2. Property boundary compiled from publically available date fromNew Hanover County.3. PZ-INT, PZ-1971, and PT-series were abandonded in March/April2015.4. HA-series, THB-series, and PZ-B series are shown atapproximate locations.
Legend
A CPT
>Geop robe
?Hand Au ger
D Mon itoring Well/Piezometer
U SPT
Prop erty Boundary
Ba sin Bo undary Cape Fe ar River
SUBSURFACE SECTIONS - A THROUGH C
L.V. Sutton Energy ComplexWilmington, North Carolina
Figure
17
P :\G I S \P r o j e c t s \D \D u k e \L V S u t t o n - C l o s u r e P l a n \m x d s _A M A R T O R A N A
CHARLOTTE, NC DECEMBER 2016
SUBSURFACE SECTIONS - D THROUGH F
L.V. Sutton Energy ComplexWilmington, North Carolina
Figure
18
P :\G I S \P r o j e c t s \D \D u k e \L V S u t t o n - C l o s u r e P l a n \m x d s _A M A R T O R A N A
CHARLOTTE, NC DECEMBER 2016
DRAWINGS
CAPE FEAR RIVER
COOLING
POND
(LAKE
SUTTON)
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
BASINS
NORTHEAST
CAPE FEAR RIVER
CAPE FEAR RIVER
COOLINGPOND(LAKESUTTON)
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
BASINS
NORTHEASTCAPE FEAR RIVER
F
1
E
D
C
2 3
B
A
1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8
54 6 7 8
F
E
D
C
B
A
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
L.V. SUTTON ENERGY COMPLEX
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
PROJECT:
SITE:
TITLE:
APPROVED BY:
REVIEWED BY:DRAWING NO.:
OF
DRAWN BY:
DESIGN BY:
CHECKED BY:FILE:
PROJECT NO.:
DATE:DECEMBER 2016
GC6005
DATEREV APPDESCRIPTIONDRN
1300 SOUTH MINT STREET, SUITE 300
CHARLOTTE, NC 28203 USA
PHONE: 704.227.0840
NC LICENSE NO.:C-3500
MF
A
B
R
I
Z
I
O
-
14
-
D
e
c
-
1
6
K:
\
_
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
D
\
D
U
K
E
E
N
E
R
G
Y
\
S
U
T
T
O
N
\
S
I
T
E
A
S
S
E
S
S
M
E
N
T
&
R
E
M
O
V
A
L
P
L
A
N
(
G
C
6
0
0
5
.
0
2
)
\
D
W
G
\
G
C
6
0
0
5
.
0
2
C
0
0
1
0
OF NC, PC
JC
MAF
JC
WS
VMD
GC6005.02C0010
SITE ASSESSMENT AND REMOVAL PLAN 1971 AND 1984 BASINS
9
TITLE SHEET
1
4
6
4
3
DETAIL
TITLE OF DETAIL
SCALE: 1"=2'
PREPARED FOR:
PREPARED BY:
SITE ASSESSMENT AND REMOVAL PLAN
1971 AND 1984 BASINS
L.V. SUTTON ENERGY COMPLEX
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
PROJECT NO. GC6005
DECEMBER 2016
DETAIL IDENTIFICATION LEGEND
DRAWING ON WHICH ABOVE
DETAIL IS PRESENTED
DETAIL NUMBER
DETAIL NUMBER
DRAWING ON WHICH
ABOVE DETAIL WAS
FIRST REFERENCED
EXAMPLE: DETAIL NUMBER 4 PRESENTED ON
DRAWING NO. 6 WAS REFERENCED FOR
THE FIRST TIME ON DRAWING NO. 3.
ABOVE SYSTEM ALSO APPLIES TO SECTION IDENTIFICATIONS.
L.V. SUTTON ENERGY COMPLEX
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC
801 SUTTON STEAM PLANT ROAD
WILMINGTON, NC 28401
1300 SOUTH MINT STREET, SUITE 300
CHARLOTTE, NC 28203 USA
PHONE: 704.227.0840
VICINITY MAP
SOURCE: ESRI ARCGIS 10.2.1, STREETS
SCALE: 1" = 50 MILES
LOCATION MAP
SOURCE: ESRI ARCGIS 10.2.1, TOPOGRAPHICS
SCALE: 1" = 4,000'
N N
SITE
DRAWING LIST
NUMBER TITLE
1 TITLE SHEET
2 EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN
3 INTERPRETED BOTTOM OF CCR
4 VOLUME ISOPACH OF CCR
5 FINAL GRADING PLAN
6 FINAL GRADING SECTIONS I
7 FINAL GRADING SECTIONS II
8 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN
9 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL DETAILS
SITE
^
RO
C
K
DIR
T
20
.
5
(e
s
t
.
)
19
.
6
(e
s
t
.
)
25
.
9
(e
s
t
.
)
26
.
8
(e
s
t
.
)
PIL
E
PIL
E
3
0
"
C
M
P
3
0
30
30
30
2
0
20
20
2
0
2
0
20
2
0
20
20
20
20
2
0
2
0
10
10
50
40
4
0
4
0
40
40
40
30
3
0
30
30
3
0
30
20
2
0
2
0
30
30
3
0
30
30
30
30
3
0
30
3
0
10
3030
30
3
0
10
1
0
20
20
20
2
0
2
0
20
20
2
0
2020
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
2
0 20
2
0
2
0
20
20
20
20
20
20
2
0
20
20
20
2
0
30
20
20
20
2
0
20
2
0
2
0
3
0
20
20
20
20
10
2
0
10
10
10
10
0
50
40
2
0
40
40
40
40
40
4
0
40
40
4
0
40
40
2
0
40
40
2
0
3
0
30
30
3
0
10
30
3
0
30
30
1
0
3
0
30
10
3
0
3030
30
3
0
20
2
0
2
0
50
20
20
20
40
20
20
2
0
2
0
2
0
20
3
0
3
0
3
0
3
0
30 30
30
40
30
30
40
3030
30
30
10
1
0
40
20
2
0
2
0
4
0
20
20
40
2
0
2
0
20
2
0
2020
4
0
20
2
0
2
0
20
20
40
2
0
20
20
20
3
0
2
0
2
0
20
2
0
2
0
2
0
3
0
20
2
0
2
0
1
0
10
30
10
10
0
5
0
50
4
0
3
0
4
0
40
40
2
0
40
40
40
40
40
4
0
40
4
0
40
40
40
20
4
0
4
0
4
0
40
40
20
30
30
30
30
3
0
2
0
30
30
30
3
0
3
0
30
20
20
20
20
2
0
20
10
2
0
20
20
2
0
20
20
10
20
20
0
1
0
0
10
10
1
0
1
0
1
0
10
10
1010
1
0
1
0
1
0
10
10
10
10
1
0
11
.
2
10
.
6
12
.
6
12
.
4
8.4
8.8
13
.
1
13.7
1
0
.
8
1
2
.
8
-0
.
3
-0
.
2
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.1
-0
.
5
-0
.
5
0.5
30
.
6
28
.
9
27
.
6
27
.
5
27
.
8
27
.
8
27
.
9
26
.
8
26
.
6
27
.
0
27
.
6
27
.
5
27
.
7
34
.
3
33
.
5
32
.
4
32
.
8
33
.
7
33
.
3
33
.
7
33
.
7
33
.
1
3
5
.
0
3
5
.
8
29
.
0
28
.
5
27
.
2
3
1
.
4
28
.
9
34
.
7
27
.
5
27
.
329
.
7
34
.
4
33
.
8
33
.
7
33
.
4
33
.
0
33
.
4
33
.
5
33
.
5
33
.
2
33
.
0
34
.
1
33
.
5
33
.
4
33
.
8
34
.
8
34
.
6
33
.
534
.
2
34
.
9
34
.
9
34
.
8
38
.
8
34
.
3
34
.
1
32.9
34
.
4
34
.
2
34
.
1
31
.
9
32
.
5
26
.
9
25
.
8
32
.
6
33
.
0
32
.
7
33
.
0
33
.
3
33
.
4
33
.
1
33
.
6
33
.
7
33
.
8
33
.
5
33
.
3
33
.
7
33
.
7
45
.
0
45
.
3
45
.
8
46
.
6
47
.
4
46
.
6
40
.
6
38
.
4
39
.
3
31
.
7
31
.
8
40
.
9
43
.
0
33
.
5
33
.
2
27
.
6
30
.
6
26
.
6
27
.
0 26
.
5
25
.
3
25
.
1
28
.
7
29
.
3
22
.
9
21
.
6
31
.
4
32
.
6
33
.
1
33
.
4
32
.
5
34
.
5
35
.
1
35
.
2
35
.
4
44
.
9
45
.
2
33
.
533
.
2
33
.
6
33
.
7
33
.
8
34
.
3
34
.
7
34
.
6
34
.
6
33
.
7
33
.
7
34
.
8
42
.
5
42
.
7
42
.
5
42
.
7
28
.
4
16
.
7
17
.
3
17
.
7
18
.
5
14
.
9
14
.
5
14
.
6
19
.
3
13
.
5
13
.
4
13
.
5
13
.
5
13
.
3
13
.
5
13
.
2
13
.
2
13
.
6
13
.
1
13
.
4
13
.
4
13
.
7
18
.
7
13
.
3
36
.
9
36
.
7
40
.
0
38
.
8
38
.
8
40
.
4
40
.
5
38
.
1
44
.
9
43
.
1
41
.
4
41
.
1
40
.
9
40
.
7
40
.
5
40
.
8
40
.
4
40
.
3
40
.
4
42
.
7
42
.
4
42
.
7
42
.
3
43
.
0
43
.
3
52
.
8
52
.
5
52
.
6
53
.
0
52
.
2
52
.
2
51
.
2
51
.
5
51
.
4
51
.
5
51
.
6
51
.
5
51
.
0
50
.
7
50
.
9
51
.
6
40
.
8
41
.
1
41
.
0
40
.
8
41
.
2
40
.
9
42
.
7
32
.
8
41
.
2
19
.
1
18
.
6
42
.
7
42
.
4
45
.
5
36
.
0
8.8
9.5
8.2
8.5
8.4
8.5
8.5
11
.
5
0.7
19
.
0
18.919.018.718.218.418.9
19
.
0
19
.
5
19
.
2
11
.
4
12
.
9
11
.
3
9.0
48
.
7
28
.
8
26
.
9
21
.
8
12
.
9
15
.
5
14
.
7
14
.
314
.
7
19
.
3
19
.
1
14
.
7
18
.
5
12
.
4
17
.
1
2
3
.
4
2
0
.
8
21
.
1
22
.
6
2
1
.
3
12.7
14.3
23
.
0
22.9
12
.
6
13.3 13.0
12
.
5
29
.
0
24
.
8
33
.
8
19
.
0
23
.
0
27.5
17.616.7
17.116.9
21
.
0
16
.
9
19
.
0
16
.
8
19
.
5
21
.
1
32
.
6
21
.
4
22
.
1
16.3 14
.
6
13
.
9
23
.
0
24
.
1
23
.
4
22
.
6
18
.
2
13
.
2
24.6
16
.
4
20
.
4
20
.
4
17
.
2
17
.
4
14
.
3
15.5
16.7
27
.
4
24
.
5
20
.
8
20
.
3 23
.
0
23
.
2
28
.
7
17.217.6
19.3
20
.
8
24.7
25.4
31
.
6
28
.
6
15.2
14.8
27
.
1
24
.
7
24
.
8
23
.
825
.
1
15
.
6
15
.
5
25
.
7
18
.
9
30
.
3
29
.
0
22
.
9
19
.
3
26
.
1
16.6 24
.
8
29
.
1
15
.
3
17
.
2
15
.
2
15
.
0
14
.
6
14
.
2
15
.
0
14
.
5
15
.
2
15
.
0
15
.
3
16.4
16.5
15
.
3
16.2
14
.
9
15
.
0
24
.
2
13
.
7
17
.
4
13
.
9
23
.
0
23
.
1
22
.
9
24
.
9 17
.
819
.
4
19.4 18
.
5
19
.
1
21
.
6
21
.
0
15
.
3
26
.
2
23
.
4
15
.
1
14
.
3
19
.
0
18
.
7
14
.
4
8.7
10
.
1
16
.
9
17
.
3
16
.
5
14
.
8
19
.
1
23
.
020
.
7
20
.
9
21
.
2
22
.
6
19
.
5
19
.
7
20
.
5
22
.
3
15.4
18
.
4
38
.
5
37
.
6
39
.
1
38
.
9
38
.
5
25
.
3
24
.
4
24
.
4
32
.
4
31
.
5
24
.
3
39
.
3
36
.
9
3
3
.
3
35
.
2
33
.
0
34
.
6
25
.
5
34
.
6
19
.
3
16
.
9
16
.
5
19
.
5
23
.
5
24
.
3
21
.
3
18
.
5
17
.
6
17
.
5
17
.
6
17
.
1
17
.
0
17
.
3
17
.
2
17
.
4
17
.
0
16
.
8
17
.
0
14
.
3
14
.
4
15.8
14
.
9
14
.
7
14
.
8
22
.
5
15
.
4
13
.
6
13
.
9
13
.
6
13
.
6
13
.
6
1
5
.
5
14
.
1
14
.
4
28
.
5
17
.
8
17
.
2
16
.
8
17
.
4
17
.
8
18
.
4
18
.
4
18
.
3
18
.
8
18
.
9
18
.
6
19
.
0
18
.
6
18
.
718
.
3
18
.
8
19
.
1
18
.
9
21
.
1
20
.
7
22
.
5
22
.
9
19
.
4
18
.
7
18
.
5
16
.
6
19
.
2
31
.
0
31
.
0
28
.
8
27
.
5
27
.
0
23
.
8
30
.
3
28
.
8
21
.
3
17.2
22
.
4
23
.
0
32
.
6
17
.
3
19
.
4
19
.
4
21
.
2
23
.
3
24.
5
20
.
2
18
.
2
20
.
9
17
.
3
17
.
5
17
.
1
17
.
0
17
.
7
16
.
5
21
.
3
16
.
8 31
.
3
34
.
4
37
.
2
34
.
7
33
.
1
22
.
5
23
.
6
23
.
219
.
3
18
.
7
22
.
2
21
.
8
19
.
8
21
.
4
20.6
29
.
3
28
.
6
29
.
2
21
.
2
21.2 25
.
1
21
.
6
19
.
5
21
.
4
20.819.3 18.9
15
.
4
14.8 17.6
16
.
9
14.7
24
.
4
18
.
8 22
.
3
14
.
8
27
.
1
17
.
0
15.8 33
.
7
14
.
6
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.3
1.1 1.1
1.7
29
.
0
29
.
5
27
.
1
27
.
1
21
.
0
21.0
14
.
6
13
.
2
15.4
19.2
19.5
11
.
3
11
.
5
11
.
0
11
.
8
11
.
8
11
.
9
12
.
1
12
.
8
12
.
7
15
.
1
14
.
4
18
.
6
19
.
2 13
.
1
12
.
5
12
.
8
13
.
0
12
.
8
13
.
2
12
.
6
12
.
5
15.1
10
.
9
24
.
6
17
.
6
23
.
0
24
.
9
12
.
3
12
.
4
12
.
5
23
.
0
18
.
4
34
.
4
17
.
5
12
.
7
12
.
4
12
.
7
12
.
6
12
.
8
14
.
9
12
.
3
25.7
15.7
22
.
3
16
.
6
14
.
8
16
.
7
11
.
2 10
.
2
9.3
9.2
9.1
9.7
11
.
5
11
.
5
11
.
3
11
.
7
7.6
7.8
14
.
9
12
.
3
12
.
5
12
.
7
12
.
6
13
.
0
12
.
9
13
.
3
13
.
1
13
.
3
13
.
3
11
.
0
9.7
9.2
9.7
9.6
8.4
11
.
3
11
.
4
11
.
6
10
.
7
10
.
6
9.3
9.7
7.5
8.3
10
.
6
14
.
6
10
.
6
8.9
10
.
5
13
.
1
11
.
5
11
.
0
11
.
0
11
.
0
9.8
9.0
9.2
8.6
10
.
4
9.39.1
9.3
9.4
9.5
9.6
9.4
19
.
7
14
.
0
28
.
7
14
.
3
OE
OE
OE
O
E
O
E
OEOEOEOEOEOEOEOE
O
E
O
E
OE
OE
OE
OE
OEOEOEOEOE
OEOEOEOEOE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OEOEOEOE
OEOEOEOEOE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OEOEOEOEOEOEOEOE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OEOEOEOEOEOEOEOE
OE
OE OE
OE OE
O
E
OE
O
E
20
20
10
10
15
2
5
35
10
1
0
15
1
0
10
15
15
20
15
25
3
0
15
20
1
5
1
5
20
10
15
20
2
5
15
20
10
30
15
20
25
20
25
30
25
2
5
2
0
2
5
1
5
20
1
5
15
10
2
0
10
10
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
WWW
W
W
W
W
W
W
W W W W
W
WWWW
W
W W
W
W
W
W W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
xx
x
x
x
x
x
xx
x
x x
x
x
xxxx
x
x
x
xxxx
x x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x x
x
x
x x x
x xxxx
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
xxxxx
x
x
x
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
x
x
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x x x
x x x
x x x x x x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x x x x x x x x
x
x
x
x
x x x x x x x x x x
x x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x x x x xxxxxxxx
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
xxxxx
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
x
x x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
x
DIS
C
H
A
R
G
E
C
A
N
A
L
COOLING POND
N 1
9
7
,
0
0
0
E 2,
3
0
4
,
0
0
0
N 1
9
9
,
0
0
0
N 2
0
1
,
0
0
0
N 2
0
3
,
0
0
0
N 2
0
5
,
0
0
5
E 2,
3
0
2
,
0
0
0
E 2,
3
0
6
,
0
0
0
APPROXIMATE LOCATION
EXISTING PIPELINE TO
OUTFALL 001 (NOTE 17)
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
(NOTE 10)
AERIAL MAPPING LIMIT
(NOTE 6)
SITE ENTRANCE
1984 BASIN
BOUNDARY
1971 BASIN
BOUNDARY
BOAT RAMP
ACCESS ROAD
(NOTE 12)
EXISTING 1984
BASIN RAMP
(NOTE 13)
EXISTING GRAVEL
PAD (NOTE 14)
LAY OF LAND AREA
(LOLA) BOUNDARY
SP-GP-01
SP-SPT-01
SP-SPT-02
SP-SPT-03
SP-SPT-04
SP-SPT-05
SP-SPT-06
SP-SPT-07
SP-SPT-08
SP-SPT-09
SP-SPT-10
SP-SPT-11
SP-SPT-12
SP-SPT-13
SP-SPT-14
SP-SPT-15 SP-SPT-16
SP-SPT-17 SP-SPT-18
SP-SPT-19 SP-SPT-20
B-1
B-2
B-3
CPT-1
CPT-2
CPT-3
CPT-4
CPT-5
CPT-6A
CPT-7A
CPT-8
EW-1
F-DPT-1
F-DPT-10
F-DPT-11
F-DPT-12
F-DPT-13
F-DPT-14
F-DPT-15
F-DPT-2
F-DPT-3
F-DPT-4
F-DPT-5
F-DPT-6
F-DPT-7
F-DPT-8
F-DPT-9
GP-1
GP-10GP-11
GP-12 GP-13
GP-14 GP-15
GP-16
GP-16A
GP-17
GP-2
GP-3
GP-4
GP-5
GP-6 GP-7
GP-8
GP-9
HA-1-1
HA-1-2
HA-2-1
HA-2-2
HA-3-1
HA-3-2
LO-SPT-1
LO-SPT-2
LO-SPT-3
LO-SPT-4
LO-SPT-5
LO-SPT-6
MB-1
MB-2
MW-13
MW-13D
MW-14
MW-15
MW-15D
MW-16
MW-16D
MW-20
MW-20D
NEWHA-005-PZ-103
NEWHA-005-PZ-105
NEWHA-005-PZ-106
NEWHA-005-PZ-107
PT-1
PT-2
PT-3
PT-4
PZ-1
PZ-101
PZ-102
PZ-108D
PZ-108S
PZ1971
PZ-1A
PZ-1B
PZ-2
PZ-2A
PZ-2B
PZ-3
PZ-3A
PZ-3B
PZ-4
PZ-4A
PZ-4B
PZ-5PZ-5A
PZ-5B
PZ-6
PZ-6A
PZ-6B
PZ-INT
SCPT-1
SCPT-2
SCPT-3A
SCPT-4
SCPT-5A
SCPT-6
SPT- 8
SPT-1
SPT-12
SPT-13
SPT-14
SPT-2
SPT-3
SPT-4
SPT-5
SPT-6
SPT-7
THB-1
THB-2
THB-3
THB-4
WR-1
WR-10
WR-11WR-12
WR-13WR-14
WR-15WR-16
WR-2
WR-3
WR-4
WR-5A
WR-5B
WR-6
WR-7
WR-8
NEWHA-005-PZ-104
F
1
E
D
C
2 3
B
A
1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8
54 6 7 8
F
E
D
C
B
A
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
L.V. SUTTON ENERGY COMPLEX
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
PROJECT:
SITE:
TITLE:
APPROVED BY:
REVIEWED BY:DRAWING NO.:
OF
DRAWN BY:
DESIGN BY:
CHECKED BY:FILE:
PROJECT NO.:
DATE:DECEMBER 2016
GC6005
DATEREV APPDESCRIPTIONDRN
1300 SOUTH MINT STREET, SUITE 300
CHARLOTTE, NC 28203 USA
PHONE: 704.227.0840
NC LICENSE NO.:C-3500
MF
A
B
R
I
Z
I
O
-
14
-
D
e
c
-
1
6
K:
\
_
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
D
\
D
U
K
E
E
N
E
R
G
Y
\
S
U
T
T
O
N
\
S
I
T
E
A
S
S
E
S
S
M
E
N
T
&
R
E
M
O
V
A
L
P
L
A
N
(
G
C
6
0
0
5
.
0
2
)
\
D
W
G
\
G
C
6
0
0
5
.
0
2
C
0
0
2
0
OF NC, PC
JC
MAF
JC
WS
VMD
GC6005.02C0020
SITE ASSESSMENT AND REMOVAL PLAN 1971 AND 1984 BASINS
9
EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN
2
0 300'600'
SCALE IN FEET
N
193.4
(est.)
191.1
PROPERTY BOUNDARY (NOTE 10)
EXISTING GROUND ELEVATION
CONTOURS IN OBSCURED AREAS (NOTES 1, 2, AND 4)
EXISTING GROUND ELEVATION
CONTOURS IN OPEN AREAS (NOTES 1 AND 2)
AERIAL MAPPING LIMIT (NOTE 6)
FENCE LINE (NOTES 2 AND 16)
GRAVEL / DIRT PATH (NOTE 2)
SPOT ELEVATION (NOTES 1, 2, AND 4)
SPOT ELEVATION ESTIMATED
IN OBSCURED AREAS (NOTES 1, 2, 4, AND 5)
TREE / BRUSH LINE (NOTE 2)
UNIDENTIFIED UTILITIES / STRUCTURES / OBJECTS
(NOTES 2 AND 3)
UTILITY POLE (NOTES 2 AND 3)
OVERHEAD ELECTRICAL TRANSMISSION LINE (NOTE 11)
ELECTRICAL TRANSMISSION STRUCTURES (NOTES 3 AND 11)
WATER (NOTE 5)
CCR BASIN (APPROXIMATE) (NOTE 2)
COOLING POND BOUNDARY (APPROXIMATE) (NOTES 2 AND 10) /
LOLA BOUNDARY (APPROXIMATE) (NOTE 2)
RAIL LINE (NOTES 2 AND 15)
EXISTING OUTFALL 001 PIPELINE (NOTE 17)
X X X X X X X X
LEGEND
NOTES:
1.COORDINATES ARE BASED ON NORTH CAROLINA STATE PLANE GRID
SYSTEM, NORTH AMERICAN DATUM OF 1983 (NAD83). ELEVATIONS
ARE BASED ON NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988
(NAVD88).
2.THE PLANIMETRIC LOCATION ON THIS MAP IS BASED ON
PHOTOGRAMMETRIC MAPPING OF IMAGERY COLLECTED ON 17 APRIL
2014 AND INTERPRETED BY WSP OF CARY, NC, DATED MARCH 2015.
DATA PROVIDED WHERE CLEAR AND VISIBLE ON THE IMAGERY ARE
WITHIN 2' OF ITS TRUE POSITION.
3.THE LOCATION OF ANY AND ALL UTILITIES SHOWN HEREON WHETHER
PUBLIC OR PRIVATE, IS BASED ON PHOTOGRAMMETRIC MAPPING AND
IS APPROXIMATE. IT IS THE USERS RESPONSIBILITY TO VERIFY
LOCATION PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF ANY CONSTRUCTION.
4.DASHED CONTOURS AND ESTIMATED SPOT ELEVATIONS SHOWN IN
OBSCURED AREAS ARE COMPILED FROM LIMITED
PHOTOGRAMMETRIC DATA DUE TO CONDITIONS DURING THE 17
APRIL 2014 FLIGHT. INFORMATION SHOWN IN OBSCURED AREAS ARE
FOR REFERENCE ONLY AND SHOULD BE CONFIRMED PRIOR TO
CONSTRUCTION
5.CONTOURS AND SPOT ELEVATIONS SHOWN UNDERWATER ARE FROM
BATHYMETRIC SURVEYS CONDUCTED BY WSP OF CARY, NC IN JUNE
2014.
6.CONTOURS SHOWN OUTSIDE THE AERIAL MAPPING LIMIT ARE FROM
A LIDAR SURVEY DATED APRIL 2007 OBTAINED FROM THE NORTH
CAROLINA DOT GIS WEBSITE. CONTOURS AND TOPOGRAPHY WITHIN
THE AERIAL MAPPING LIMIT WERE OBTAINED FROM AN AERIAL
SURVEY DATED MARCH 2015 (FLOWN 17 APRIL 2014) AND WERE
OBTAINED FROM WSP OF CARY, NC.
7.FLOOD ZONE INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM NEW HANOVER COUNTY
GIS WEBSITE AND ARE SHOWN IN REFERENCE TO FEMA FIRM MAP
PANELS 3109 AND 3200, LAST REVISED 2 JUNE 2006.
8.NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY INFORMATION SHOWN WAS
OBTAINED FROM THE US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE WEBSITE.
9.WETLANDS WERE OBTAINED FROM FIELD DELINEATION BY
GEOSYNTEC AND PROVIDED IN A DRAWING DATED 4 MARCH 2015
BASED ON FIELD SURVEY BY WSP OF CARY, NC.
10.APPROXIMATE PROPERTY LINE BOUNDARY AND COOLING POND
OUTLINE WERE OBTAINED FROM THE NORTH CAROLINA NEW
HANOVER COUNTY GIS WEBSITE:
HTTP://WWW.NHCGOV.COM/GIS-DATA-AVAILABLE-FOR-DOWNLOAD/,
PARCEL SHAPE FILE DATA AND MISC PROPERTY LINES
RESPECTIVELY, LAST UPDATED ON 10 AUGUST 2005.
11.OVERHEAD ELECTRICAL TRANSMISSION LINE PROVIDED BY DUKE
ENERGY TRANSMISSION ON JANUARY 2016. ADDITIONAL UTILITY LINE
AND STUCTURE INFORMATION FROM SURVEY INFORMATION
PROVIDED BY CAPE FEAR ENGINEERING OF BELVILLE, NC ON 12
AUGUST 2016.
12.AS BUILT INFORMATION FOR THE EXISTING BOAT RAMP ACCESS
ROAD FROM FIELD SURVEY DATA AND DRAWINGS BY CAPE FEAR
ENGINEERING OF BELVILLE, NC OBTAINED 25 AUGUST 2016.
13.AS BUILT INFORMATION FOR THE 1984 BASIN RAMP FROM JUNE 2016
SURVEY INFORMATION BY CAPE FEAR ENGINEERING OBTAINED 26
JULY 2016 FROM DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC.
14.EXISTING STORM WATER TREATMENT CONCRETE PAD FROM PLANS
BY GEOSYNTEC DATED DECEMBER 2015. GRAVEL PAD LAYOUT
PROVIDED BY DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC IN JULY 2016 AND IS
APPROXIMATE.
15.RAIL LINE ALIGNMENT UPDATES OBTAINED FROM SKEEN RAILROAD
ENGINEERING OF KENNESAW, GA, DECEMBER 2015.
16.INFORMATION FOR THE EXISTING FENCE LINES OBTAINED FROM
VARIOUS AS-BUILT FIELD SURVEY COLLECTIONS AND DRAWINGS BY
CAPE FEAR ENGINEERING OF BELVILLE, NC OBTAINED 9 AND 12
AUGUST 2016, 8 SEPTEMBER 2016, AND 4 OCTOBER 2016. ADDITIONAL
FENCE DATA FROM PLANS BY WSP OF CARY, NC, DATED MARCH 2015,
LOCATION BASED ON PHOTOGRAMMETRIC MAPPING AND IS
APPROXIMATE.
17.ALIGNMENT OF EXISTING PIPELINE TO OUTFALL 001 PROVIDED BY
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC AND IS APPROXIMATE.
FEMA FLOOD ZONE AE (NOTE 7)
FEMA FLOOD ZONE X (NOTE 7)
WETLANDS - NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY
(NOTE 8)
WETLANDS - SURVEYED (NOTE 9)
HAND AUGER
CONE PENETRATION TEST
SEISMIC CONE PENETRATION TEST
GEO-PROBE
BORING
PIEZOMETER
W W
20
OE
^
RO
C
K
DIR
T
20
.
5
(e
s
t
.
)
19
.
6
(e
s
t
.
)
25
.
9
(e
s
t
.
)
26
.
8
(e
s
t
.
)
CH
A
N
N
E
L
W
.
E
.
=
36
.
1
4
/
1
7
/
1
4
PIL
E
PIL
E
W.E
.
=
1
7
.
8
'
5/2
9
/
1
4
W.E
.
=
2
5
.
4
'
5/2
9
/
1
4
3
0
"
C
M
P
3
0
30
30
30
2
0
20
20
2
0
2
0
20
2
0
20
20
20
20
2
0
2
0
10
10
50
40
4
0
4
0
40
40
40
30
3
0
30
30
3
0
30
20
2
0
2
0
30
30
3
0
30
30
30
30
3
0
30
3
0
10
3030
30
3
0
10
1
0
20
20
20
2
0
2
0
20
20
2
0
2020
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
2
0
20
2
0
2
0
20
20
20
20
20
20
2
0
20
20
20
2
0
30
20
20
20
2
0
20
2
0
2
0
3
0
20
20
20
20
10
2
0
10
10
10
10
0
50
40
2
0
40
40
40
40
40
4
0
40
40
4
0
40
40
2
0
40
40
2
0
3
0
30
30
3
0
10
30
3
0
30
30
1
0
3
0
30
10
3
0
3030
30
3
0
20
2
0
2
0
50
20
20
20
40
20
20
2
0
2
0
2
0
20
3
0
3
0
3
0
3
0
30 30
30
40
30
30
40
3030
30
30
10
1
0
40
20
2
0
2
0
4
0
20
20
40
2
0
2
0
20
2
0
2020
40
20
2
0
2
0
20
2
0
40
2
0
20
20
20
3
0
2
0
2
0
20
2
0
2
0
2
0
3
0
20
2
0
2
0
1
0
10
30
10
10
0
5
0
50
4
0
3
0
4
0
40
40
2
0
40
40
40
40
40
4
0
40
4
0
40
40
40
20
4
0
4
0
4
0
40
40
20
30
30
30
30
3
0
2
0
30
30
30
3
0
3
0
30
20
20
20
20
2
0
20
10
2
0
20
20
2
0
20
20
10
20
20
0
1
0
0
10
10
1
0
1
0
1
0
10
10
1010
10
1
0
1
0
10
10
10
10
1
0
11
.
2
10
.
6
12
.
6
12
.
4
8.4
8.8
13
.
1
13.7
1
0
.
8
1
2
.
8
-0
.
3
-0
.
2
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.1
-0
.
5
-0
.
5
0.5
30
.
6
28
.
9
27
.
6
27
.
5
27
.
8
27
.
8
27
.
9
26
.
8
26
.
6
27
.
0
27
.
6
27
.
5
27
.
7
34
.
3
33
.
5
32
.
4
32
.
8
33
.
7
33
.
3
33
.
7
33
.
7
33
.
1
3
5
.
0
3
5
.
8
29
.
0
28
.
5
27
.
2
3
1
.
4
28
.
9
34
.
7
27
.
5
27
.
329
.
7
34
.
4
33
.
8
33
.
7
33
.
4
33
.
0
33
.
4
33
.
5
33
.
5
33
.
2
33
.
0
34
.
1
33
.
5
33
.
4
33
.
8
34
.
8
34
.
6
33
.
534
.
2
34
.
9
34
.
9
34
.
8
38
.
8
34
.
3
34
.
1
32.9
34
.
4
34
.
2
34
.
1
31
.
9
32
.
5
26
.
9
25
.
8
32
.
6
33
.
0
32
.
7
33
.
0
33
.
3
33
.
4
33
.
1
33
.
6
33
.
7
33
.
8
33
.
5
33
.
3
33
.
7
33
.
7
45
.
0
45
.
3
45
.
8
46
.
6
47
.
4
46
.
6
40
.
6
38
.
4
39
.
3
31
.
7
31
.
8
40
.
9
43
.
0
33
.
5
33
.
2
27
.
6
30
.
6
26
.
6
27
.
0 26
.
5
25
.
3
25
.
1
28
.
7
29
.
3
22
.
9
21
.
6
31
.
4
32
.
6
33
.
1
33
.
4
32
.
5
34
.
5
35
.
1
35
.
2
35
.
4
44
.
9
45
.
2
33
.
533
.
2
33
.
6
33
.
7
33
.
8
34
.
3
34
.
7
34
.
6
34
.
6
33
.
7
33
.
7
34
.
8
42
.
5
42
.
7
42
.
5
42
.
7
28
.
4
16
.
7
17
.
3
17
.
7
18
.
5
14
.
9
14
.
5
14
.
6
19
.
3
13
.
5
13
.
4
13
.
5
13
.
5
13
.
3
13
.
5
13
.
2
13
.
2
13
.
6
13
.
1
13
.
4
13
.
4
13
.
7
18
.
7
13
.
3
36
.
9
36
.
7
40
.
0
38
.
8
38
.
8
40
.
4
40
.
5
38
.
1
44
.
9
43
.
1
41
.
4
41
.
1
40
.
9
40
.
7
40
.
5
40
.
8
40
.
4
40
.
3
40
.
4
42
.
7
42
.
4
42
.
7
42
.
3
43
.
0
43
.
3
52
.
8
52
.
5
52
.
6
53
.
0
52
.
2
52
.
2
51
.
2
51
.
5
51
.
4
51
.
5
51
.
6
51
.
5
51
.
0
50
.
7
50
.
9
51
.
6
40
.
8
41
.
1
41
.
0
40
.
8
41
.
2
40
.
9
42
.
7
32
.
8
41
.
2
19
.
1
18
.
6
42
.
7
42
.
4
45
.
5
36
.
0
8.8
9.5
8.2
8.5
8.4
8.5
8.5
11
.
5
0.7
19
.
0
18.919.018.718.218.418.9
19
.
0
19
.
5
19
.
2
11
.
4
12
.
9
11
.
3
9.0
48
.
7
28
.
8
26
.
9
21
.
8
12
.
9
15
.
5
14
.
7
14
.
314
.
7
19
.
3
19
.
1
14
.
7
18
.
5
12
.
4
17
.
1
2
3
.
4
2
0
.
8
21
.
1
22
.
6
2
1
.
3
12.7
14.3
23
.
0
22.9
12
.
6
13.3 13.0
12
.
5
29
.
0
24
.
8
33
.
8
19
.
0
23
.
0
27.5
17.616.7
17.116.9
21
.
0
16
.
9
19
.
0
16
.
8
19
.
5
21
.
1
32
.
6
21
.
4
22
.
1
16.3 14
.
6
13
.
9
23
.
0
24
.
1
23
.
4
22
.
6
18
.
2
13
.
2
24.6
16
.
4
20
.
4
20
.
4
17
.
2
17
.
4
14
.
3
15.5
16.7
27
.
4
24
.
5
20
.
8
20
.
3 23
.
0
23
.
2
28
.
7
17.217.6
19.3
20
.
8
24.7
25.4
31
.
6
28
.
6
15.2
14.8
27
.
1
24
.
7
24
.
8
23
.
825
.
1
15
.
6
15
.
5
25
.
7
18
.
9
30
.
3
29
.
0
22
.
9
19
.
3
26
.
1
16.6 24
.
8
29
.
1
15
.
3
17
.
2
15
.
2
15
.
0
14
.
6
14
.
2
15
.
0
14
.
5
15
.
2
15
.
0
15
.
3
16.4
16.5
15
.
3
16.2
14
.
9
15
.
0
24
.
2
13
.
7
17
.
4
13
.
9
23
.
0
23
.
1
22
.
9
24
.
9 17
.
819
.
4
19.4 18
.
5
19
.
1
21
.
6
21
.
0
15
.
3
26
.
2
23
.
4
15
.
1
14
.
3
19
.
0
18
.
7
14
.
4
8.7
10
.
1
16
.
9
17
.
3
16
.
5
14
.
8
19
.
1
23
.
020
.
7
20
.
9
21
.
2
22
.
6
19
.
5
19
.
7
20
.
5
22
.
3
15.4
18
.
4
38
.
5
37
.
6
39
.
1
38
.
9
38
.
5
25
.
3
24
.
4
24
.
4
32
.
4
31
.
5
24
.
3
39
.
3
36
.
9
3
3
.
3
35
.
2
33
.
0
34
.
6
25
.
5
34
.
6
19
.
3
16
.
9
16
.
5
19
.
5
23
.
5
24
.
3
21
.
3
18
.
5
17
.
6
17
.
5
17
.
6
17
.
1
17
.
0
17
.
3
17
.
2
17
.
4
17
.
0
16
.
8
17
.
0
14
.
3
14
.
4
15.8
14
.
9
14
.
7
14
.
8
22
.
5
15
.
4
13
.
6
13
.
9
13
.
6
13
.
6
13
.
6
1
5
.
5
14
.
1
14
.
4
28
.
5
17
.
8
17
.
2
16
.
8
17
.
4
17
.
8
18
.
4
18
.
4
18
.
3
18
.
8
18
.
9
18
.
6
19
.
0
18
.
6
18
.
718
.
3
18
.
8
19
.
1
18
.
9
21
.
1
20
.
7
22
.
5
22
.
9
19
.
4
18
.
7
18
.
5
16
.
6
19
.
2
31
.
0
31
.
0
28
.
8
27
.
5
27
.
0
23
.
8
30
.
3
28
.
8
21
.
3
17.2
22
.
4
23
.
0
32
.
6
17
.
3
19
.
4
19
.
4
21
.
2
23
.
3
24.
5
20
.
2
18
.
2
20
.
9
17
.
3
17
.
5
17
.
1
17
.
0
17
.
7
16
.
5
21
.
3
16
.
8 31
.
3
34
.
4
37
.
2
34
.
7
33
.
1
22
.
5
23
.
6
23
.
219
.
3
18
.
7
22
.
2
21
.
8
19
.
8
21
.
4
20.6
29
.
3
28
.
6
29
.
2
21
.
2
21.2 25
.
1
21
.
6
19
.
5
21
.
4
20.819.3 18.9
15
.
4
14.8 17.6
16
.
9
14.7
24
.
4
18
.
8 22
.
3
14
.
8
27
.
1
17
.
0
15.8 33
.
7
14
.
6
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.3
1.1 1.1
1.7
29
.
0
29
.
5
27
.
1
27
.
1
21
.
0
21.0
14
.
6
13
.
2
15.4
19.2
19.5
11
.
3
11
.
5
11
.
0
11
.
8
11
.
8
11
.
9
12
.
1
12
.
8
12
.
7
15
.
1
14
.
4
18
.
6
19
.
2 13
.
1
12
.
5
12
.
8
13
.
0
12
.
8
13
.
2
12
.
6
12
.
5
15.1
10
.
9
24
.
6
17
.
6
23
.
0
24
.
9
12
.
3
12
.
4
12
.
5
23
.
0
18
.
4
34
.
4
17
.
5
12
.
7
12
.
4
12
.
7
12
.
6
12
.
8
14
.
9
12
.
3
25.7
15.7
22
.
3
16
.
6
14
.
8
16
.
7
11
.
2 10
.
2
9.3
9.2
9.1
9.7
11
.
5
11
.
5
11
.
3
11
.
7
7.6
7.8
14
.
9
12
.
3
12
.
5
12
.
7
12
.
6
13
.
0
12
.
9
13
.
3
13
.
1
13
.
3
13
.
3
11
.
0
9.7
9.2
9.7
9.6
8.4
11
.
3
11
.
4
11
.
6
10
.
7
10
.
6
9.3
9.7
7.5
8.3
10
.
6
14
.
6
10
.
6
8.9
10
.
5
13
.
1
11
.
5
11
.
0
11
.
0
11
.
0
9.8
9.0
9.2
8.6
10
.
4
9.39.1
9.3
9.4
9.5
9.6
9.4
19
.
7
14
.
0
28
.
7
14
.
3
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
20
20
10
10
15
2
5
35
10
1
0
15
1
0
10
15
15
20
15
25
3
0
15
20
1
5
1
5
20
10
15
20
2
5
15
20
10
30
15
20
25
20
25
30
25
2
5
2
0
2
5
1
5
20
1
5
15
10
2
0
10
10
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
WWW
W
W
W
W
W
W
W W W W
W
WWWW
W
W W
W
W
W
W W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
xx
x
x
x
x
x
xx
x
x x
x
x
xxxx
x
x
x
xxxx
x x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x x
x
x
x x x
x xxxx
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
xxxxx
x
x
x
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
x
x
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x x x
x x x
x x x x x x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x x x x x x x x
x
x
x
x
x x x x x x x x x x
x x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x x x x xxxxxxxx
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
xxxxx
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
x
x x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
x
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
OEOE OE
O
E
OE
O
E
O
E
O
E
OE
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
OE
OE
O
E
OE
O
E
OE
O
E
O
E
O
E
OE
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
20 30
20
30
20
30
20 30
20
30
2
0
2
0
2
0
30
02030
20
30
-30
-20
-10
0
-30
-20
-10
0
0
20
2
4
6
8
12
1
4
16
18
-3
8
-3
6
-3
4
-3
2
-34
2
4
4
6
6
8
8
6
8
12
4
12
14
-
3
0
-
2
0
-10
0
N 2
0
5
,
0
0
0
N 2
0
3
,
0
0
0
N 2
0
1
,
0
0
0
N 1
9
9
,
0
0
0
N 1
9
7
,
0
0
0
E 2,
3
0
4
,
0
0
0
E 2,
3
0
2
,
0
0
0
E 2,
3
0
6
,
0
0
0
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
(NOTE 10)
AERIAL MAPPING LIMIT
(NOTE 6)
SITE ENTRANCE
1984 BASIN
BOUNDARY
(NOTE 19)
1971 BASIN
BOUNDARY
(NOTE 18)
BOAT RAMP
ACCESS ROAD
(NOTE 12)
EXISTING 1984
BASIN RAMP
(NOTE 13)
EXISTING GRAVEL
PAD (NOTE 14)
LAY OF LAND AREA
(LOLA) BOUNDARY
DIS
C
H
A
R
G
E
C
A
N
A
L
COOLING POND
INTERPRETED
BOTTOM OF CCR
EL. 14.0 FT INTERPRETED
BOTTOM OF
CCR
3H:1V
3H:1V
3H:1V
3H:1V
AERIAL MAPPING LIMIT
(NOTE 6)
APPROXIMATE LOCATION
EXISTING PIPELINE TO
OUTFALL 001 (NOTE 17)
F
1
E
D
C
2 3
B
A
1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8
54 6 7 8
F
E
D
C
B
A
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
L.V. SUTTON ENERGY COMPLEX
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
PROJECT:
SITE:
TITLE:
APPROVED BY:
REVIEWED BY:DRAWING NO.:
OF
DRAWN BY:
DESIGN BY:
CHECKED BY:FILE:
PROJECT NO.:
DATE:DECEMBER 2016
GC6005
DATEREV APPDESCRIPTIONDRN
1300 SOUTH MINT STREET, SUITE 300
CHARLOTTE, NC 28203 USA
PHONE: 704.227.0840
NC LICENSE NO.:C-3500
MF
A
B
R
I
Z
I
O
-
14
-
D
e
c
-
1
6
K:
\
_
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
D
\
D
U
K
E
E
N
E
R
G
Y
\
S
U
T
T
O
N
\
S
I
T
E
A
S
S
E
S
S
M
E
N
T
&
R
E
M
O
V
A
L
P
L
A
N
(
G
C
6
0
0
5
.
0
2
)
\
D
W
G
\
G
C
6
0
0
5
.
0
2
C
0
0
3
0
OF NC, PC
JC
MAF
JC
WS
VMD
GC6005.02C0030
SITE ASSESSMENT AND REMOVAL PLAN 1971 AND 1984 BASINS
9
INTERPRETED BOTTOM OF CCR
3
0 300'600'
SCALE IN FEET
N
NOTES:
1.COORDINATES ARE BASED ON NORTH CAROLINA STATE PLANE GRID
SYSTEM, NORTH AMERICAN DATUM OF 1983 (NAD83). ELEVATIONS
ARE BASED ON NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988
(NAVD88).
2.THE PLANIMETRIC LOCATION ON THIS MAP IS BASED ON
PHOTOGRAMMETRIC MAPPING OF IMAGERY COLLECTED ON 17 APRIL
2014 AND INTERPRETED BY WSP OF CARY, NC, DATED MARCH 2015.
DATA PROVIDED WHERE CLEAR AND VISIBLE ON THE IMAGERY ARE
WITHIN 2' OF ITS TRUE POSITION.
3.THE LOCATION OF ANY AND ALL UTILITIES SHOWN HEREON WHETHER
PUBLIC OR PRIVATE, IS BASED ON PHOTOGRAMMETRIC MAPPING AND
IS APPROXIMATE. IT IS THE USERS RESPONSIBILITY TO VERIFY
LOCATION PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF ANY CONSTRUCTION.
4.DCCRED CONTOURS AND ESTIMATED SPOT ELEVATIONS SHOWN IN
OBSCURED AREAS ARE COMPILED FROM LIMITED
PHOTOGRAMMETRIC DATA DUE TO CONDITIONS DURING THE 17
APRIL 2014 FLIGHT. INFORMATION SHOWN IN OBSCURED AREAS ARE
FOR REFERENCE ONLY AND SHOULD BE CONFIRMED PRIOR TO
CONSTRUCTION
5.CONTOURS AND SPOT ELEVATIONS SHOWN UNDERWATER ARE FROM
BATHYMETRIC SURVEYS CONDUCTED BY WSP OF CARY, NC IN JUNE
2014.
6.CONTOURS SHOWN OUTSIDE THE AERIAL MAPPING LIMIT ARE FROM
A LIDAR SURVEY DATED APRIL 2007 OBTAINED FROM THE NORTH
CAROLINA DOT GIS WEBSITE. CONTOURS AND TOPOGRAPHY WITHIN
THE AERIAL MAPPING LIMIT WERE OBTAINED FROM AN AERIAL
SURVEY DATED MARCH 2015 (FLOWN 17 APRIL 2014) AND WERE
OBTAINED FROM WSP OF CARY, NC.
7.FLOOD ZONE INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM NEW HANOVER COUNTY
GIS WEBSITE AND ARE SHOWN IN REFERENCE TO FEMA FIRM MAP
PANELS 3109 AND 3200, LAST REVISED 2 JUNE 2006.
8.NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY INFORMATION SHOWN WAS
OBTAINED FROM THE US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE WEBSITE.
9.WETLANDS WERE OBTAINED FROM FIELD DELINEATION BY
GEOSYNTEC AND PROVIDED IN A DRAWING DATED 4 MARCH 2015
BASED ON FIELD SURVEY BY WSP OF CARY, NC.
10.APPROXIMATE PROPERTY LINE BOUNDARY AND COOLING POND
OUTLINE WERE OBTAINED FROM THE NORTH CAROLINA NEW
HANOVER COUNTY GIS WEBSITE:
HTTP://WWW.NHCGOV.COM/GIS-DATA-AVAILABLE-FOR-DOWNLOAD/,
PARCEL SHAPE FILE DATA AND MISC PROPERTY LINES
RESPECTIVELY, LAST UPDATED ON 10 AUGUST 2005.
11.OVERHEAD ELECTRICAL TRANSMISSION LINE PROVIDED BY DUKE
ENERGY TRANSMISSION ON JANUARY 2016. ADDITIONAL UTILITY LINE
AND STUCTURE INFORMATION FROM SURVEY INFORMATION
PROVIDED BY CAPE FEAR ENGINEERING OF BELVILLE, NC ON 12
AUGUST 2016.
12.AS BUILT INFORMATION FOR THE EXISTING BOAT RAMP ACCESS
ROAD FROM FIELD SURVEY DATA AND DRAWINGS BY CAPE FEAR
ENGINEERING OF BELVILLE, NC OBTAINED 25 AUGUST 2016.
13.AS BUILT INFORMATION FOR THE 1984 BASIN RAMP FROM JUNE 2016
SURVEY INFORMATION BY CAPE FEAR ENGINEERING OBTAINED 26
JULY 2016 FROM DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC.
14.EXISTING STORM WATER TREATMENT CONCRETE PAD FROM PLANS
BY GEOSYNTEC DATED DECEMBER 2015. GRAVEL PAD LAYOUT
PROVIDED BY DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC IN JULY 2016 AND IS
APPROXIMATE.
15.RAIL LINE ALIGNMENT UPDATES OBTAINED FROM SKEEN RAILROAD
ENGINEERING OF KENNESAW, GA, DECEMBER 2015.
16.INFORMATION FOR THE EXISTING FENCE LINES OBTAINED FROM
VARIOUS AS-BUILT FIELD SURVEY COLLECTIONS AND DRAWINGS BY
CAPE FEAR ENGINEERING OF BELVILLE, NC OBTAINED 9 AND 12
AUGUST 2016, 8 SEPTEMBER 2016, AND 4 OCTOBER 2016. ADDITIONAL
FENCE DATA FROM PLANS BY WSP OF CARY, NC, DATED MARCH 2015,
LOCATION BASED ON PHOTOGRAMMETRIC MAPPING AND IS
APPROXIMATE.
17.ALIGNMENT OF EXISTING PIPELINE TO OUTFALL 001 PROVIDED BY
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC AND IS APPROXIMATE.
18.INTERPRETED HISTORICAL BOTTOM OF CCR GRADES WITHIN THE
1971 BASIN WERE INTERPRETED BASED ON FIELD INVESTIGATIONS
PERFORMED IN MAY, JUNE, AND JULY 2014 BY GEOSYNTEC,
HISTORICAL AERIAL PHOTO, AND CURRENT DIKE TOE ELEVATION.
19.BOTTOM OF CCR CONTOURS WITHIN THE 1984 BASIN WERE
INTERPRETED FROM DRAWING NO. D-3252 BY CAROLINA POWER &
LIGHT COMPANY DATED 10 OCTOBER 1985.
193.4
(est.)
191.1
PROPERTY BOUNDARY (NOTE 10)
EXISTING GROUND ELEVATION
CONTOURS IN OBSCURED AREAS (NOTES 1, 2, AND 4)
EXISTING GROUND ELEVATION
CONTOURS IN OPEN AREAS (NOTES 1 AND 2)
AERIAL MAPPING LIMIT (NOTE 6)
FENCE LINE (NOTES 2 AND 16)
GRAVEL / DIRT PATH (NOTE 2)
SPOT ELEVATION (NOTES 1, 2, AND 4)
SPOT ELEVATION ESTIMATED
IN OBSCURED AREAS (NOTES 1, 2, 4, AND 5)
TREE / BRUSH LINE (NOTE 2)
UNIDENTIFIED UTILITIES / STRUCTURES / OBJECTS
(NOTES 2 AND 3)
UTILITY POLE (NOTES 2 AND 3)
OVERHEAD ELECTRICAL TRANSMISSION LINE (NOTE 11)
ELECTRICAL TRANSMISSION STRUCTURES (NOTES 3 AND 11)
WATER (NOTE 5)
CCR BASIN (APPROXIMATE) (NOTE 2)
COOLING POND BOUNDARY (APPROXIMATE) (NOTES 2 AND 10) /
LOLA BOUNDARY (APPROXIMATE) (NOTE 2)
RAIL LINE (NOTES 2 AND 15)
EXISTING OUTFALL 001 PIPELINE (NOTE 17)
X X X X X X X X
LEGEND
FEMA FLOOD ZONE AE (NOTE 7)
FEMA FLOOD ZONE X (NOTE 7)
WETLANDS - NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY
(NOTE 8)
WETLANDS - SURVEYED (NOTE 9)
INTERPRETED BOTTOM OF CCR ELEVATION
CONTOUR (NOTES 18 AND 19)
W W
20
OE
20
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
^
RO
C
K
DIR
T
20
.
5
(e
s
t
.
)
19
.
6
(e
s
t
.
)
25
.
9
(e
s
t
.
)
26
.
8
(e
s
t
.
)
CH
A
N
N
E
L
W
.
E
.
=
36
.
1
4
/
1
7
/
1
4
PIL
E
PIL
E
W.E
.
=
1
7
.
8
'
5/2
9
/
1
4
W.E
.
=
2
5
.
4
'
5/2
9
/
1
4
3
0
"
C
M
P
3
0
30
30
30
2
0
20
20
2
0
2
0
20
2
0
20
20
20
20
2
0
2
0
10
10
50
40
4
0
4
0
40
40
40
30
3
0
30
30
3
0
30
20
2
0
2
0
30
30
3
0
30
30
30
30
3
0
30
3
0
10
3030
30
3
0
10
1
0
20
20
20
2
0
2
0
20
20
2
0
2020
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
2
0
20
2
0
2
0
20
20
20
20
20
20
2
0
20
20
20
2
0
30
20
20
20
2
0
20
2
0
2
0
3
0
20
20
20
20
10
2
0
10
10
10
10
0
50
40
2
0
40
40
40
40
40
4
0
40
40
4
0
40
40
2
0
40
40
2
0
3
0
30
30
3
0
10
30
3
0
30
30
1
0
3
0
30
10
3
0
3030
30
3
0
20
2
0
2
0
50
20
20
20
40
20
20
2
0
2
0
2
0
20
3
0
3
0
3
0
3
0
30 30
30
40
30
30
40
3030
30
30
10
1
0
40
20
2
0
2
0
4
0
20
20
40
2
0
2
0
20
2
0
2020
40
20
2
0
2
0
20
2
0
40
2
0
20
20
20
3
0
2
0
2
0
20
2
0
2
0
2
0
3
0
20
2
0
2
0
1
0
10
30
10
10
0
5
0
50
4
0
3
0
4
0
40
40
2
0
40
40
40
40
40
4
0
40
4
0
40
40
40
20
4
0
4
0
4
0
40
40
20
30
30
30
30
3
0
2
0
30
30
30
3
0
3
0
30
20
20
20
20
2
0
20
10
2
0
20
20
2
0
20
20
10
20
20
0
1
0
0
10
10
1
0
1
0
1
0
10
10
1010
1
0
1
0
1
0
10
10
10
10
1
0
11
.
2
10
.
6
12
.
6
12
.
4
8.4
8.8
13
.
1
13.7
1
0
.
8
1
2
.
8
-0
.
3
-0
.
2
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.1
-0
.
5
-0
.
5
0.5
30
.
6
28
.
9
27
.
6
27
.
5
27
.
8
27
.
8
27
.
9
26
.
8
26
.
6
27
.
0
27
.
6
27
.
5
27
.
7
34
.
3
33
.
5
32
.
4
32
.
8
33
.
7
33
.
3
33
.
7
33
.
7
33
.
1
3
5
.
0
3
5
.
8
29
.
0
28
.
5
27
.
2
3
1
.
4
28
.
9
34
.
7
27
.
5
27
.
329
.
7
34
.
4
33
.
8
33
.
7
33
.
4
33
.
0
33
.
4
33
.
5
33
.
5
33
.
2
33
.
0
34
.
1
33
.
5
33
.
4
33
.
8
34
.
8
34
.
6
33
.
534
.
2
34
.
9
34
.
9
34
.
8
38
.
8
34
.
3
34
.
1
32.9
34
.
4
34
.
2
34
.
1
31
.
9
32
.
5
26
.
9
25
.
8
32
.
6
33
.
0
32
.
7
33
.
0
33
.
3
33
.
4
33
.
1
33
.
6
33
.
7
33
.
8
33
.
5
33
.
3
33
.
7
33
.
7
45
.
0
45
.
3
45
.
8
46
.
6
47
.
4
46
.
6
40
.
6
38
.
4
39
.
3
31
.
7
31
.
8
40
.
9
43
.
0
33
.
5
33
.
2
27
.
6
30
.
6
26
.
6
27
.
0 26
.
5
25
.
3
25
.
1
28
.
7
29
.
3
22
.
9
21
.
6
31
.
4
32
.
6
33
.
1
33
.
4
32
.
5
34
.
5
35
.
1
35
.
2
35
.
4
44
.
9
45
.
2
33
.
533
.
2
33
.
6
33
.
7
33
.
8
34
.
3
34
.
7
34
.
6
34
.
6
33
.
7
33
.
7
34
.
8
42
.
5
42
.
7
42
.
5
42
.
7
28
.
4
16
.
7
17
.
3
17
.
7
18
.
5
14
.
9
14
.
5
14
.
6
19
.
3
13
.
5
13
.
4
13
.
5
13
.
5
13
.
3
13
.
5
13
.
2
13
.
2
13
.
6
13
.
1
13
.
4
13
.
4
13
.
7
18
.
7
13
.
3
36
.
9
36
.
7
40
.
0
38
.
8
38
.
8
40
.
4
40
.
5
38
.
1
44
.
9
43
.
1
41
.
4
41
.
1
40
.
9
40
.
7
40
.
5
40
.
8
40
.
4
40
.
3
40
.
4
42
.
7
42
.
4
42
.
7
42
.
3
43
.
0
43
.
3
52
.
8
52
.
5
52
.
6
53
.
0
52
.
2
52
.
2
51
.
2
51
.
5
51
.
4
51
.
5
51
.
6
51
.
5
51
.
0
50
.
7
50
.
9
51
.
6
40
.
8
41
.
1
41
.
0
40
.
8
41
.
2
40
.
9
42
.
7
32
.
8
41
.
2
19
.
1
18
.
6
42
.
7
42
.
4
45
.
5
36
.
0
8.8
9.5
8.2
8.5
8.4
8.5
8.5
11
.
5
0.7
19
.
0
18.919.018.718.218.418.9
19
.
0
19
.
5
19
.
2
11
.
4
12
.
9
11
.
3
9.0
48
.
7
28
.
8
26
.
9
21
.
8
12
.
9
15
.
5
14
.
7
14
.
314
.
7
19
.
3
19
.
1
14
.
7
18
.
5
12
.
4
17
.
1
2
3
.
4
2
0
.
8
21
.
1
22
.
6
2
1
.
3
12.7
14.3
23
.
0
22.9
12
.
6
13.3 13.0
12
.
5
29
.
0
24
.
8
33
.
8
19
.
0
23
.
0
27.5
17.616.7
17.116.9
21
.
0
16
.
9
19
.
0
16
.
8
19
.
5
21
.
1
32
.
6
21
.
4
22
.
1
16.3 14
.
6
13
.
9
23
.
0
24
.
1
23
.
4
22
.
6
18
.
2
13
.
2
24.6
16
.
4
20
.
4
20
.
4
17
.
2
17
.
4
14
.
3
15.5
16.7
27
.
4
24
.
5
20
.
8
20
.
3 23
.
0
23
.
2
28
.
7
17.217.6
19.3
20
.
8
24.7
25.4
31
.
6
28
.
6
15.2
14.8
27
.
1
24
.
7
24
.
8
23
.
825
.
1
15
.
6
15
.
5
25
.
7
18
.
9
30
.
3
29
.
0
22
.
9
19
.
3
26
.
1
16.6 24
.
8
29
.
1
15
.
3
17
.
2
15
.
2
15
.
0
14
.
6
14
.
2
15
.
0
14
.
5
15
.
2
15
.
0
15
.
3
16.4
16.5
15
.
3
16.2
14
.
9
15
.
0
24
.
2
13
.
7
17
.
4
13
.
9
23
.
0
23
.
1
22
.
9
24
.
9 17
.
819
.
4
19.4 18
.
5
19
.
1
21
.
6
21
.
0
15
.
3
26
.
2
23
.
4
15
.
1
14
.
3
19
.
0
18
.
7
14
.
4
8.7
10
.
1
16
.
9
17
.
3
16
.
5
14
.
8
19
.
1
23
.
020
.
7
20
.
9
21
.
2
22
.
6
19
.
5
19
.
7
20
.
5
22
.
3
15.4
18
.
4
38
.
5
37
.
6
39
.
1
38
.
9
38
.
5
25
.
3
24
.
4
24
.
4
32
.
4
31
.
5
24
.
3
39
.
3
36
.
9
3
3
.
3
35
.
2
33
.
0
34
.
6
25
.
5
34
.
6
19
.
3
16
.
9
16
.
5
19
.
5
23
.
5
24
.
3
21
.
3
18
.
5
17
.
6
17
.
5
17
.
6
17
.
1
17
.
0
17
.
3
17
.
2
17
.
4
17
.
0
16
.
8
17
.
0
14
.
3
14
.
4
15.8
14
.
9
14
.
7
14
.
8
22
.
5
15
.
4
13
.
6
13
.
9
13
.
6
13
.
6
13
.
6
1
5
.
5
14
.
1
14
.
4
28
.
5
17
.
8
17
.
2
16
.
8
17
.
4
17
.
8
18
.
4
18
.
4
18
.
3
18
.
8
18
.
9
18
.
6
19
.
0
18
.
6
18
.
718
.
3
18
.
8
19
.
1
18
.
9
21
.
1
20
.
7
22
.
5
22
.
9
19
.
4
18
.
7
18
.
5
16
.
6
19
.
2
31
.
0
31
.
0
28
.
8
27
.
5
27
.
0
23
.
8
30
.
3
28
.
8
21
.
3
17.2
22
.
4
23
.
0
32
.
6
17
.
3
19
.
4
19
.
4
21
.
2
23
.
3
24.
5
20
.
2
18
.
2
20
.
9
17
.
3
17
.
5
17
.
1
17
.
0
17
.
7
16
.
5
21
.
3
16
.
8 31
.
3
34
.
4
37
.
2
34
.
7
33
.
1
22
.
5
23
.
6
23
.
219
.
3
18
.
7
22
.
2
21
.
8
19
.
8
21
.
4
20.6
29
.
3
28
.
6
29
.
2
21
.
2
21.2 25
.
1
21
.
6
19
.
5
21
.
4
20.819.3 18.9
15
.
4
14.8 17.6
16
.
9
14.7
24
.
4
18
.
8 22
.
3
14
.
8
27
.
1
17
.
0
15.8 33
.
7
14
.
6
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.3
1.1 1.1
1.7
29
.
0
29
.
5
27
.
1
27
.
1
21
.
0
21.0
14
.
6
13
.
2
15.4
19.2
19.5
11
.
3
11
.
5
11
.
0
11
.
8
11
.
8
11
.
9
12
.
1
12
.
8
12
.
7
15
.
1
14
.
4
18
.
6
19
.
2 13
.
1
12
.
5
12
.
8
13
.
0
12
.
8
13
.
2
12
.
6
12
.
5
15.1
10
.
9
24
.
6
17
.
6
23
.
0
24
.
9
12
.
3
12
.
4
12
.
5
23
.
0
18
.
4
34
.
4
17
.
5
12
.
7
12
.
4
12
.
7
12
.
6
12
.
8
14
.
9
12
.
3
25.7
15.7
22
.
3
16
.
6
14
.
8
16
.
7
11
.
2 10
.
2
9.3
9.2
9.1
9.7
11
.
5
11
.
5
11
.
3
11
.
7
7.6
7.8
14
.
9
12
.
3
12
.
5
12
.
7
12
.
6
13
.
0
12
.
9
13
.
3
13
.
1
13
.
3
13
.
3
11
.
0
9.7
9.2
9.7
9.6
8.4
11
.
3
11
.
4
11
.
6
10
.
7
10
.
6
9.3
9.7
7.5
8.3
10
.
6
14
.
6
10
.
6
8.9
10
.
5
13
.
1
11
.
5
11
.
0
11
.
0
11
.
0
9.8
9.0
9.2
8.6
10
.
4
9.39.1
9.3
9.4
9.5
9.6
9.4
19
.
7
14
.
0
28
.
7
14
.
3
20
20
10
10
15
2
5
35
10
1
0
15
1
0
10
15
15
20
15
25
3
0
15
20
1
5
1
5
20
10
15
20
2
5
15
20
10
30
15
20
25
20
25
30
25
2
5
2
0
2
5
1
5
20
1
5
15
10
2
0
10
10
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
WWW
W
W
W
W
W
W
W W W W
W
WWWW
W
W W
W
W
W
W W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
x
x
X
x
x
xxxx
x
x
x
xxxx
x x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x x
x
x
x x x
x xxxx
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
X
x
x
xxxxx
x
x
x
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
x
x
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x x x
x x x
x x x x x x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x x x x x x x x
x
x
x
x
x x x x x x x x x x
x x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x x x x xxxxxxxx
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
xxxxx
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
x
x x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
x
OE
OE
OE
O
E
O
E
OEOEOEOEOEOEOEOE
O
E
O
E
OE
OE
OE
OE
OEOEOEOEOE
OEOEOEOEOE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OEOEOEOE
OEOEOEOEOE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OEOEOEOEOEOEOEOE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OEOEOEOEOEOEOEOE
OEOE OE
O
E
OE
O
E
G
G
E 2,
3
0
6
,
0
0
0
-2
0
0
-
1
0
0
-8
-
6
-
4
-2
-1
4
-2
-4
-4
-4
-2
-
2
-4
-10
-2
-2
-1
0
-2
0
0
-
3
8
-38
-28
-26
-24
-
2
6
-2
6
-
2
8
-
2
8
-3
0
-28
-
3
0
-28
-28
-26
-3
0
-30
-
2
6
-20
-2
0
-2
0
-1
0
-2
0
-10
-2-20
-
1
0
-2
8
-20
-20
-1
8
-2
0
-10 -2
-
2
-2
-10-2
-10
-10
-10
-2
0
-20
-22
-18
-
1
8
-20
-32
-
1
6
-3
4
-3
0
-1
4
-1
2
-
2
0
-
8
2
-7
8
-76
-8
4
-2
0
-
2
0
0
-1
0
-2
0
-2
8
-
1
0
-30 -30
-8
0
-68
-70
-8
0
-7
0
-6
8
-70-76-74-72
-68
-7
2
-2
4
-24
-40
-30
-50
-60
-7
4
-60
-30 -8
0
-
7
0
-30
-24
-20
-2
0
-18
-2
0
-20 0
0
-20
-60
-24
-28
-30
-66
-30
-2
-
2
-18
-3
0
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
(NOTE 10)
AERIAL MAPPING LIMIT
(NOTE 6)
SITE ENTRANCE
1984 BASIN
BOUNDARY
1971 BASIN
BOUNDARY
BOAT RAMP
ACCESS ROAD
(NOTE 12)
EXISTING 1984
BASIN RAMP
(NOTE 13)
EXISTING GRAVEL
PAD (NOTE 14)
LAY OF LAND AREA
(LOLA) BOUNDARY
DIS
C
H
A
R
G
E
C
A
N
A
L
COOLING POND
APPROXIMATE
OUTLINE OF COOLING
POND (NOTE 10)
AERIAL MAPPING LIMIT
(NOTE 6)
N 2
0
5
,
0
0
0
N 2
0
3
,
0
0
0
N 2
0
1
,
0
0
0
N 1
9
9
,
0
0
0
N 1
9
7
,
0
0
0
E 2,
3
0
4
,
0
0
0
E 2,
3
0
2
,
0
0
0
APPROXIMATE LOCATION
EXISTING PIPELINE TO
OUTFALL 001 (NOTE 17)
F
1
E
D
C
2 3
B
A
1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8
54 6 7 8
F
E
D
C
B
A
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
L.V. SUTTON ENERGY COMPLEX
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
PROJECT:
SITE:
TITLE:
APPROVED BY:
REVIEWED BY:DRAWING NO.:
OF
DRAWN BY:
DESIGN BY:
CHECKED BY:FILE:
PROJECT NO.:
DATE:DECEMBER 2016
GC6005
DATEREV APPDESCRIPTIONDRN
1300 SOUTH MINT STREET, SUITE 300
CHARLOTTE, NC 28203 USA
PHONE: 704.227.0840
NC LICENSE NO.:C-3500
MF
A
B
R
I
Z
I
O
-
14
-
D
e
c
-
1
6
K:
\
_
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
D
\
D
U
K
E
E
N
E
R
G
Y
\
S
U
T
T
O
N
\
S
I
T
E
A
S
S
E
S
S
M
E
N
T
&
R
E
M
O
V
A
L
P
L
A
N
(
G
C
6
0
0
5
.
0
2
)
\
D
W
G
\
G
C
6
0
0
5
.
0
2
C
0
0
4
0
OF NC, PC
JC
MAF
JC
WS
VMD
GC6005.02C0040
SITE ASSESSMENT AND REMOVAL PLAN 1971 AND 1984 BASINS
9
VOLUME ISOPACH OF CCR
4
0 300'600'
SCALE IN FEET
N
NOTES:
1.COORDINATES ARE BASED ON NORTH CAROLINA STATE PLANE GRID
SYSTEM, NORTH AMERICAN DATUM OF 1983 (NAD83). ELEVATIONS
ARE BASED ON NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988
(NAVD88).
2.THE PLANIMETRIC LOCATION ON THIS MAP IS BASED ON
PHOTOGRAMMETRIC MAPPING OF IMAGERY COLLECTED ON 17 APRIL
2014 AND INTERPRETED BY WSP OF CARY, NC, DATED MARCH 2015.
DATA PROVIDED WHERE CLEAR AND VISIBLE ON THE IMAGERY ARE
WITHIN 2' OF ITS TRUE POSITION.
3.THE LOCATION OF ANY AND ALL UTILITIES SHOWN HEREON WHETHER
PUBLIC OR PRIVATE, IS BASED ON PHOTOGRAMMETRIC MAPPING AND
IS APPROXIMATE. IT IS THE USERS RESPONSIBILITY TO VERIFY
LOCATION PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF ANY CONSTRUCTION.
4.DASHED CONTOURS AND ESTIMATED SPOT ELEVATIONS SHOWN IN
OBSCURED AREAS ARE COMPILED FROM LIMITED
PHOTOGRAMMETRIC DATA DUE TO CONDITIONS DURING THE 17
APRIL 2014 FLIGHT. INFORMATION SHOWN IN OBSCURED AREAS ARE
FOR REFERENCE ONLY AND SHOULD BE CONFIRMED PRIOR TO
CONSTRUCTION
5.CONTOURS AND SPOT ELEVATIONS SHOWN UNDERWATER ARE FROM
BATHYMETRIC SURVEYS CONDUCTED BY WSP OF CARY, NC IN JUNE
2014.
6.CONTOURS SHOWN OUTSIDE THE AERIAL MAPPING LIMIT ARE FROM
A LIDAR SURVEY DATED APRIL 2007 OBTAINED FROM THE NORTH
CAROLINA DOT GIS WEBSITE. CONTOURS AND TOPOGRAPHY WITHIN
THE AERIAL MAPPING LIMIT WERE OBTAINED FROM AN AERIAL
SURVEY DATED MARCH 2015 (FLOWN 17 APRIL 2014) AND WERE
OBTAINED FROM WSP OF CARY, NC.
7.FLOOD ZONE INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM NEW HANOVER COUNTY
GIS WEBSITE AND ARE SHOWN IN REFERENCE TO FEMA FIRM MAP
PANELS 3109 AND 3200, LAST REVISED 2 JUNE 2006.
8.NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY INFORMATION SHOWN WAS
OBTAINED FROM THE US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE WEBSITE.
9.WETLANDS WERE OBTAINED FROM FIELD DELINEATION BY
GEOSYNTEC AND PROVIDED IN A DRAWING DATED 4 MARCH 2015
BASED ON FIELD SURVEY BY WSP OF CARY, NC.
10.APPROXIMATE PROPERTY LINE BOUNDARY AND COOLING POND
OUTLINE WERE OBTAINED FROM THE NORTH CAROLINA NEW
HANOVER COUNTY GIS WEBSITE:
HTTP://WWW.NHCGOV.COM/GIS-DATA-AVAILABLE-FOR-DOWNLOAD/,
PARCEL SHAPE FILE DATA AND MISC PROPERTY LINES
RESPECTIVELY, LAST UPDATED ON 10 AUGUST 2005.
11.OVERHEAD ELECTRICAL TRANSMISSION LINE PROVIDED BY DUKE
ENERGY TRANSMISSION ON JANUARY 2016. ADDITIONAL UTILITY LINE
AND STUCTURE INFORMATION FROM SURVEY INFORMATION
PROVIDED BY CAPE FEAR ENGINEERING OF BELVILLE, NC ON 12
AUGUST 2016.
12.AS BUILT INFORMATION FOR THE EXISTING BOAT RAMP ACCESS
ROAD FROM FIELD SURVEY DATA AND DRAWINGS BY CAPE FEAR
ENGINEERING OF BELVILLE, NC OBTAINED 25 AUGUST 2016.
13.AS BUILT INFORMATION FOR THE 1984 BASIN RAMP FROM JUNE 2016
SURVEY INFORMATION BY CAPE FEAR ENGINEERING OBTAINED 26
JULY 2016 FROM DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC.
14.EXISTING STORM WATER TREATMENT CONCRETE PAD FROM PLANS
BY GEOSYNTEC DATED DECEMBER 2015. GRAVEL PAD LAYOUT
PROVIDED BY DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC IN JULY 2016 AND IS
APPROXIMATE.
15.RAIL LINE ALIGNMENT UPDATES OBTAINED FROM SKEEN RAILROAD
ENGINEERING OF KENNESAW, GA, DECEMBER 2015.
16.INFORMATION FOR THE EXISTING FENCE LINES OBTAINED FROM
VARIOUS AS-BUILT FIELD SURVEY COLLECTIONS AND DRAWINGS BY
CAPE FEAR ENGINEERING OF BELVILLE, NC OBTAINED 9 AND 12
AUGUST 2016, 8 SEPTEMBER 2016, AND 4 OCTOBER 2016. ADDITIONAL
FENCE DATA FROM PLANS BY WSP OF CARY, NC, DATED MARCH 2015,
LOCATION BASED ON PHOTOGRAMMETRIC MAPPING AND IS
APPROXIMATE.
17.ALIGNMENT OF EXISTING PIPELINE TO OUTFALL 001 PROVIDED BY
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC AND IS APPROXIMATE.
193.4
(est.)
191.1
PROPERTY BOUNDARY (NOTE 10)
EXISTING GROUND ELEVATION
CONTOURS IN OBSCURED AREAS (NOTES 1, 2, AND 4)
EXISTING GROUND ELEVATION
CONTOURS IN OPEN AREAS (NOTES 1 AND 2)
AERIAL MAPPING LIMIT (NOTE 6)
FENCE LINE (NOTES 2 AND 16)
GRAVEL / DIRT PATH (NOTE 2)
SPOT ELEVATION (NOTES 1, 2, AND 4)
SPOT ELEVATION ESTIMATED
IN OBSCURED AREAS (NOTES 1, 2, 4, AND 5)
TREE / BRUSH LINE (NOTE 2)
UNIDENTIFIED UTILITIES / STRUCTURES / OBJECTS
(NOTES 2 AND 3)
UTILITY POLE (NOTES 2 AND 3)
OVERHEAD ELECTRICAL TRANSMISSION LINE (NOTE 11)
ELECTRICAL TRANSMISSION STRUCTURES (NOTES 3 AND 11)
WATER (NOTE 5)
CCR BASIN (APPROXIMATE) (NOTE 2)
COOLING POND BOUNDARY (APPROXIMATE) (NOTES 2 AND 10) /
LOLA BOUNDARY (APPROXIMATE) (NOTE 2)
RAIL LINE (NOTES 2 AND 15)
EXISTING OUTFALL 001 PIPELINE (NOTE 17)
X X X X X X X X
LEGEND
FEMA FLOOD ZONE AE (NOTE 7)
FEMA FLOOD ZONE X (NOTE 7)
WETLANDS - NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY
(NOTE 8)
WETLANDS - SURVEYED (NOTE 9)
ISOPACH CONTOUR ELEVATION
W W
20
OE
-38
20
20
10
10
15
2
5
35
10
1
0
15
1
0
10
15
15
20
15
25
3
0
15
20
1
5
1
5
20
10
15
20
2
5
15
20
10
30
15
20
25
20
25
30
25
2
5
2
0
2
5
1
5
20
1
5
15
10
2
0
10
10
^
RO
C
K
DIR
T
20
.
5
(e
s
t
.
)
19
.
6
(e
s
t
.
)
25
.
9
(e
s
t
.
)
26
.
8
(e
s
t
.
)
CH
A
N
N
E
L
W
.
E
.
=
36
.
1
4
/
1
7
/
1
4
PIL
E
PIL
E
W.E
.
=
1
7
.
8
'
5/2
9
/
1
4
W.E
.
=
2
5
.
4
'
5/2
9
/
1
4
3
0
"
C
M
P
3
0
30
30
30
2
0
20
20
2
0
2
0
20
2
0
20
20
20
20
2
0
2
0
10
10
50
40
4
0
4
0
40
40
40
30
3
0
30
30
3
0
30
20
2
0
2
0
30
30
3
0
30
30
30
30
3
0
30
3
0
10
3030
30
3
0
10
1
0
20
20
20
2
0
2
0
20
20
2
0
2020
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
2
0 20
2
0
2
0
20
20
20
20
20
20
2
0
20
20
20
2
0
30
20
20
20
2
0
20
2
0
2
0
3
0
20
20
20
20
10
2
0
10
10
10
10
0
50
40
2
0
40
40
40
40
40
4
0
40
40
4
0
40
40
2
0
40
40
2
0
3
0
30
30
3
0
10
30
3
0
30
30
1
0
3
0
30
10
3
0
3030
30
3
0
20
2
0
2
0
50
20
20
20
40
20
20
2
0
2
0
2
0
2
0
3
0
3
0
3
0
3
0
30 30
30
40
30
30
40
3030
30
30
10
1
0
40
20
2
0
2
0
4
0
20
20
40
2
0
2
0
20
2
0
2020
40
20
2
0
2
0
20
20
40
2
0
20
20
20
3
0
2
0
2
0
20
2
0
2
0
2
0
3
0
20
2
0
2
0
1
0
10
30
10
10
0
5
0
50
4
0
3
0
4
0
40
40
2
0
40
40
40
40
40
4
0
40
4
0
40
40
40
20
4
0
4
0
4
0
40
40
20
30
30
30
30
3
0
2
0
30
30
30
3
0
3
0
30
20
20
20
20
2
0
20
10
2
0
20
20
2
0
2
0
20
10
20
20
0
1
0
0
10
10
1
0
1
0
1
0
10
10
1010
1
0
1
0
1
0
10
10
10
10
1
0
11
.
2
10
.
6
12
.
6
12
.
4
8.4
8.8
13
.
1
13.7
1
0
.
8
1
2
.
8
-0
.
3
-0
.
2
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.1
-0
.
5
-0
.
5
0.5
30
.
6
28
.
9
27
.
6
27
.
5
27
.
8
27
.
8
27
.
9
26
.
8
26
.
6
27
.
0
27
.
6
27
.
5
27
.
7
34
.
3
33
.
5
32
.
4
32
.
8
33
.
7
33
.
3
33
.
7
33
.
7
33
.
1
3
5
.
0
3
5
.
8
29
.
0
28
.
5
27
.
2
3
1
.
4
28
.
9
34
.
7
27
.
5
27
.
329
.
7
34
.
4
33
.
8
33
.
7
33
.
4
33
.
0
33
.
4
33
.
5
33
.
5
33
.
2
33
.
0
34
.
1
33
.
5
33
.
4
33
.
8
34
.
8
34
.
6
33
.
534
.
2
34
.
9
34
.
9
34
.
8
38
.
8
34
.
3
34
.
1
32.9
34
.
4
34
.
2
34
.
1
31
.
9
32
.
5
26
.
9
25
.
8
32
.
6
33
.
0
32
.
7
33
.
0
33
.
3
33
.
4
33
.
1
33
.
6
33
.
7
33
.
8
33
.
5
33
.
3
33
.
7
33
.
7
45
.
0
45
.
3
45
.
8
46
.
6
47
.
4
46
.
6
40
.
6
38
.
4
39
.
3
31
.
7
31
.
8
40
.
9
43
.
0
33
.
5
33
.
2
27
.
6
30
.
6
26
.
6
27
.
0 26
.
5
25
.
3
25
.
1
28
.
7
29
.
3
22
.
9
21
.
6
31
.
4
32
.
6
33
.
1
33
.
4
32
.
5
34
.
5
35
.
1
35
.
2
35
.
4
44
.
9
45
.
2
33
.
533
.
2
33
.
6
33
.
7
33
.
8
34
.
3
34
.
7
34
.
6
34
.
6
33
.
7
33
.
7
34
.
8
42
.
5
42
.
7
42
.
5
42
.
7
28
.
4
16
.
7
17
.
3
17
.
7
18
.
5
14
.
9
14
.
5
14
.
6
19
.
3
13
.
5
13
.
4
13
.
5
13
.
5
13
.
3
13
.
5
13
.
2
13
.
2
13
.
613
.
1
13
.
4
13
.
4
13
.
7
18
.
7
13
.
3
36
.
9
36
.
7
40
.
0
38
.
8
38
.
8
40
.
4
40
.
5
38
.
1
44
.
9
43
.
1
41
.
4
41
.
1
40
.
9
40
.
7
40
.
5
40
.
8
40
.
4
40
.
3
40
.
4
42
.
7
42
.
4
42
.
7
42
.
3
43
.
0
43
.
3
52
.
8
52
.
5
52
.
6
53
.
0
52
.
2
52
.
2
51
.
2
51
.
5
51
.
4
51
.
5
51
.
6
51
.
5
51
.
0
50
.
7
50
.
9
51
.
6
40
.
8
41
.
1
41
.
0
40
.
8
41
.
2
40
.
9
42
.
7
32
.
8
41
.
2
19
.
1
18
.
6
42
.
7
42
.
4
45
.
5
36
.
0
8.8
9.5
8.2
8.5
8.4
8.5
8.5
11
.
5
0.7
19
.
0
18.919.018.718.218.418.9
19
.
0
19
.
5
19
.
2
11
.
4
12
.
9
11
.
3
9.0
48
.
7
28
.
8
26
.
9
21
.
8
12
.
9
15
.
5
14
.
7
14
.
314
.
7
19
.
3
19
.
1
14
.
7
18
.
5
12
.
4
17
.
1
2
3
.
4
2
0
.
8
21
.
1
22
.
6
2
1
.
3
12.7
14.3
23
.
0
22.9
12
.
6
13.3 13.0
12
.
5
29
.
0
24
.
8
33
.
8
19
.
0
23
.
0
27.5
17.616.7
17.116.9
21
.
0
16
.
9
19
.
0
16
.
8
19
.
5
21
.
1
32
.
6
21
.
4
22
.
1
16.3 14
.
6
13
.
9
23
.
0
24
.
1
23
.
4
22
.
6
18
.
2
13
.
2
24.6
16
.
4
20
.
4
20
.
4
17
.
2
17
.
4
14
.
3
15.5
16.7
27
.
4
24
.
5
20
.
8
20
.
3 23
.
0
23
.
2
28
.
7
17.217.6
19.3
20
.
8
24.7
25.4
31
.
6
28
.
6
15.2
14.8
27
.
1
24
.
7
24
.
8
23
.
825
.
1
15
.
6
15
.
5
25
.
7
18
.
9
30
.
3
29
.
0
22
.
9
19
.
3
26
.
1
16.6 24
.
8
29
.
1
15
.
3
17
.
2
15
.
2
15
.
0
14
.
6
14
.
2
15
.
0
14
.
5
15
.
2
15
.
0
15
.
3
16.4
16.5
15
.
3
16.2
14
.
9
15
.
0
24
.
2
13
.
7
17
.
4
13
.
9
23
.
0
23
.
1
22
.
9
24
.
9 17
.
819
.
4
19.4 18
.
5
19
.
1
21
.
6
21
.
0
15
.
3
26
.
2
23
.
4
15
.
1
14
.
3
19
.
0
18
.
7
14
.
4
8.7
10
.
1
16
.
9
17
.
3
16
.
5
14
.
8
19
.
1
23
.
020
.
7
20
.
9
21
.
2
22
.
6
19
.
5
19
.
7
20
.
5
22
.
3
15.4
18
.
4
38
.
5
37
.
6
39
.
1
38
.
9
38
.
5
25
.
3
24
.
4
24
.
4
32
.
4
31
.
5
24
.
3
39
.
3
36
.
9
3
3
.
3
35
.
2
33
.
0
34
.
6
25
.
5
34
.
6
19
.
3
16
.
9
16
.
5
19
.
5
23
.
5
24
.
3
21
.
3
18
.
5
17
.
6
17
.
5
17
.
6
17
.
1
17
.
0
17
.
3
17
.
2
17
.
4
17
.
0
16
.
8
17
.
0
14
.
3
14
.
4
15.8
14
.
9
14
.
7
14
.
8
22
.
5
15
.
4
13
.
6
13
.
9
13
.
6
13
.
6
13
.
6
1
5
.
5
14
.
1
14
.
4
28
.
5
17
.
8
17
.
2
16
.
8
17
.
4
17
.
8
18
.
4
18
.
4
18
.
3
18
.
8
18
.
9
18
.
6
19
.
0
18
.
6
18
.
718
.
3
18
.
8
19
.
1
18
.
9
21
.
1
20
.
7
22
.
5
22
.
9
19
.
4
18
.
7
18
.
5
16
.
6
19
.
2
31
.
0
31
.
0
28
.
8
27
.
5
27
.
0
23
.
8
30
.
3
28
.
8
21
.
3
17.2
22
.
4
23
.
0
32
.
6
17
.
3
19
.
4
19
.
4
21
.
2
23
.
3
24.
5
20
.
2
18
.
2
20
.
9
17
.
3
17
.
5
17
.
1
17
.
0
17
.
7
16
.
5
21
.
3
16
.
8 31
.
3
34
.
4
37
.
2
34
.
7
33
.
1
22
.
5
23
.
6
23
.
219
.
3
18
.
7
22
.
2
21
.
8
19
.
8
21
.
4
20.6
29
.
3
28
.
6
29
.
2
21
.
2
21.2 25
.
1
21
.
6
19
.
5
21
.
4
20.819.3 18.9
15
.
4
14.8 17.6
16
.
9
14.7
24
.
4
18
.
8 22
.
3
14
.
8
27
.
1
17
.
0
15.8 33
.
7
14
.
6
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.3
1.1 1.1
1.7
29
.
0
29
.
5
27
.
1
27
.
1
21
.
0
21.0
14
.
6
13
.
2
15.4
19.2
19.5
11
.
3
11
.
5
11
.
0
11
.
8
11
.
8
11
.
9
12
.
1
12
.
8
12
.
7
15
.
1
14
.
4
18
.
6
19
.
2 13
.
1
12
.
5
12
.
8
13
.
0
12
.
8
13
.
2
12
.
6
12
.
5
15.1
10
.
9
24
.
6
17
.
6
23
.
0
24
.
9
12
.
3
12
.
4
12
.
5
23
.
0
18
.
4
34
.
4
17
.
5
12
.
7
12
.
4
12
.
7
12
.
6
12
.
8
14
.
9
12
.
3
25.7
15.7
22
.
3
16
.
6
14
.
8
16
.
7
11
.
2 10
.
2
9.3
9.2
9.1
9.7
11
.
5
11
.
5
11
.
3
11
.
7
7.6
7.8
14
.
9
12
.
3
12
.
5
12
.
7
12
.
6
13
.
0
12
.
9
13
.
3
13
.
1
13
.
3
13
.
3
11
.
0
9.7
9.2
9.7
9.6
8.4
11
.
3
11
.
4
11
.
6
10
.
7
10
.
6
9.3
9.7
7.5
8.3
10
.
6
14
.
6
10
.
6
8.9
10
.
5
13
.
1
11
.
5
11
.
0
11
.
0
11
.
0
9.8
9.0
9.2
8.6
10
.
4
9.39.1
9.3
9.4
9.5
9.6
9.4
19
.
7
14
.
0
28
.
7
14
.
3
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
WWW
W
W
W
W
W
W
W W W W
W
WWWW
W
W W
W
W
W
W W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
40 50 60 70
80 90 100
110
40506070
8090100
30 40 50 60 70
80 90 100
110
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
40 50 60 70 80 90 100
40506070
8090100
11
0
x
x
X
x
x
xxxx
x
x
x
xxxx
x x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x x
x
x
x x x
x xxxx
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
X
x
x
xxxxx
x
x
x
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
x
x
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x x x
x x x
x x x x x x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x x x x x x x x
x
x
x
x
x x x x x x x x x x
x x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x x x x xxxxxxxx
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
xxxxx
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
x
x x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
x
OE
OE
OE
O
E
O
E
OEOEOEOEOEOEOEOE
O
E
O
E
OE
OE
OE
OE
OEOEOEOEOE
OEOEOEOEOE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OEOEOEOE
OEOEOEOEOE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OEOEOEOEOEOEOEOE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OEOEOEOEOEOEOEOE
OE
OE OE
OE OE
O
E
O
E
O
E
N 2
0
5
,
0
0
0
N 2
0
3
,
0
0
0
N 2
0
1
,
0
0
0
N 1
9
9
,
0
0
0
N 1
9
7
,
0
0
0
E 2,
3
0
4
,
0
0
0
E 2,
3
0
2
,
0
0
0
E 2,
3
0
6
,
0
0
0
V
A
R
I
E
S
VA
R
I
E
S
VA
R
I
E
S
12
1
4
16
1
8 2022
1
2
16
16
14
14
16
12
1
4
12
18
20
2
0
2
8 20
14
14
2
14
DIS
C
H
A
R
G
E
C
A
N
A
L
COOLING POND
1984 BASIN 1971 BASIN
B
6
B
6
6
8
0
2
4
4
6
8
0
-
2
2
0
-4
-
4
-2
2
8
6
4
18
18
D
6
D
6
E
6
E
6
F
7
F
7
G
7
G
7
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
(NOTE 10)
AERIAL MAPPING LIMIT
(NOTE 6)
SITE ENTRANCE
1984 BASIN
BOUNDARY
1971 BASIN
BOUNDARY
BOAT RAMP
ACCESS ROAD
(NOTE 12)
EXISTING 1984
BASIN RAMP
(NOTE 13)
EXISTING GRAVEL
PAD (NOTE 14)
LAY OF LAND AREA
(LOLA) BOUNDARY
(NOTE 19)
VEHICLE TURN
AROUND AREA
3H:1V
3H:1V 3H:1V
12' WIDE
ACCESS ROAD
3H:1V
C
6
C
6
PROPOSED LANDFILL
(PERMITTED AND DESIGNED UNDER
SEPARATE COVER)
A
6
A
6
F
1
E
D
C
2 3
B
A
1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8
54 6 7 8
F
E
D
C
B
A
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
L.V. SUTTON ENERGY COMPLEX
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
PROJECT:
SITE:
TITLE:
APPROVED BY:
REVIEWED BY:DRAWING NO.:
OF
DRAWN BY:
DESIGN BY:
CHECKED BY:FILE:
PROJECT NO.:
DATE:DECEMBER 2016
GC6005
DATEREV APPDESCRIPTIONDRN
1300 SOUTH MINT STREET, SUITE 300
CHARLOTTE, NC 28203 USA
PHONE: 704.227.0840
NC LICENSE NO.:C-3500
MF
A
B
R
I
Z
I
O
-
14
-
D
e
c
-
1
6
K:
\
_
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
D
\
D
U
K
E
E
N
E
R
G
Y
\
S
U
T
T
O
N
\
S
I
T
E
A
S
S
E
S
S
M
E
N
T
&
R
E
M
O
V
A
L
P
L
A
N
(
G
C
6
0
0
5
.
0
2
)
\
D
W
G
\
G
C
6
0
0
5
.
0
2
C
0
0
5
0
OF NC, PC
JC
MAF
JC
WS
VMD
GC6005.02C0050
SITE ASSESSMENT AND REMOVAL PLAN 1971 AND 1984 BASINS
9
FINAL GRADING PLAN
5
0 300'600'
SCALE IN FEET
N
NOTES:
1.COORDINATES ARE BASED ON NORTH CAROLINA STATE PLANE GRID
SYSTEM, NORTH AMERICAN DATUM OF 1983 (NAD83). ELEVATIONS
ARE BASED ON NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988
(NAVD88).
2.THE PLANIMETRIC LOCATION ON THIS MAP IS BASED ON
PHOTOGRAMMETRIC MAPPING OF IMAGERY COLLECTED ON 17 APRIL
2014 AND INTERPRETED BY WSP OF CARY, NC, DATED MARCH 2015.
DATA PROVIDED WHERE CLEAR AND VISIBLE ON THE IMAGERY ARE
WITHIN 2' OF ITS TRUE POSITION.
3.THE LOCATION OF ANY AND ALL UTILITIES SHOWN HEREON WHETHER
PUBLIC OR PRIVATE, IS BASED ON PHOTOGRAMMETRIC MAPPING AND
IS APPROXIMATE. IT IS THE USERS RESPONSIBILITY TO VERIFY
LOCATION PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF ANY CONSTRUCTION.
4.DASHED CONTOURS AND ESTIMATED SPOT ELEVATIONS SHOWN IN
OBSCURED AREAS ARE COMPILED FROM LIMITED
PHOTOGRAMMETRIC DATA DUE TO CONDITIONS DURING THE 17
APRIL 2014 FLIGHT. INFORMATION SHOWN IN OBSCURED AREAS ARE
FOR REFERENCE ONLY AND SHOULD BE CONFIRMED PRIOR TO
CONSTRUCTION
5.CONTOURS AND SPOT ELEVATIONS SHOWN UNDERWATER ARE FROM
BATHYMETRIC SURVEYS CONDUCTED BY WSP OF CARY, NC IN JUNE
2014.
6.CONTOURS SHOWN OUTSIDE THE AERIAL MAPPING LIMIT ARE FROM
A LIDAR SURVEY DATED APRIL 2007 OBTAINED FROM THE NORTH
CAROLINA DOT GIS WEBSITE. CONTOURS AND TOPOGRAPHY WITHIN
THE AERIAL MAPPING LIMIT WERE OBTAINED FROM AN AERIAL
SURVEY DATED MARCH 2015 (FLOWN 17 APRIL 2014) AND WERE
OBTAINED FROM WSP OF CARY, NC.
7.FLOOD ZONE INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM NEW HANOVER COUNTY
GIS WEBSITE AND ARE SHOWN IN REFERENCE TO FEMA FIRM MAP
PANELS 3109 AND 3200, LAST REVISED 2 JUNE 2006.
8.NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY INFORMATION SHOWN WAS
OBTAINED FROM THE US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE WEBSITE.
9.WETLANDS WERE OBTAINED FROM FIELD DELINEATION BY
GEOSYNTEC AND PROVIDED IN A DRAWING DATED 4 MARCH 2015
BASED ON FIELD SURVEY BY WSP OF CARY, NC.
10.APPROXIMATE PROPERTY LINE BOUNDARY AND COOLING POND
OUTLINE WERE OBTAINED FROM THE NORTH CAROLINA NEW
HANOVER COUNTY GIS WEBSITE:
HTTP://WWW.NHCGOV.COM/GIS-DATA-AVAILABLE-FOR-DOWNLOAD/,
PARCEL SHAPE FILE DATA AND MISC PROPERTY LINES
RESPECTIVELY, LAST UPDATED ON 10 AUGUST 2005.
11.OVERHEAD ELECTRICAL TRANSMISSION LINE PROVIDED BY DUKE
ENERGY TRANSMISSION ON JANUARY 2016. ADDITIONAL UTILITY LINE
AND STUCTURE INFORMATION FROM SURVEY INFORMATION
PROVIDED BY CAPE FEAR ENGINEERING OF BELVILLE, NC ON 12
AUGUST 2016.
12.AS BUILT INFORMATION FOR THE EXISTING BOAT RAMP ACCESS
ROAD FROM FIELD SURVEY DATA AND DRAWINGS BY CAPE FEAR
ENGINEERING OF BELVILLE, NC OBTAINED 25 AUGUST 2016.
13.AS BUILT INFORMATION FOR THE 1984 BASIN RAMP FROM JUNE 2016
SURVEY INFORMATION BY CAPE FEAR ENGINEERING OBTAINED 26
JULY 2016 FROM DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC.
14.EXISTING STORM WATER TREATMENT CONCRETE PAD FROM PLANS
BY GEOSYNTEC DATED DECEMBER 2015. GRAVEL PAD LAYOUT
PROVIDED BY DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC IN JULY 2016 AND IS
APPROXIMATE.
15.RAIL LINE ALIGNMENT UPDATES OBTAINED FROM SKEEN RAILROAD
ENGINEERING OF KENNESAW, GA, DECEMBER 2015.
16.INFORMATION FOR THE EXISTING FENCE LINES OBTAINED FROM
VARIOUS AS-BUILT FIELD SURVEY COLLECTIONS AND DRAWINGS BY
CAPE FEAR ENGINEERING OF BELVILLE, NC OBTAINED 9 AND 12
AUGUST 2016, 8 SEPTEMBER 2016, AND 4 OCTOBER 2016. ADDITIONAL
FENCE DATA FROM PLANS BY WSP OF CARY, NC, DATED MARCH 2015,
LOCATION BASED ON PHOTOGRAMMETRIC MAPPING AND IS
APPROXIMATE.
17.ALIGNMENT OF EXISTING PIPELINE TO OUTFALL 001 PROVIDED BY
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC AND IS APPROXIMATE.
18.COOLING POND WILL BE ALLOWED TO EXPAND INTO THE 1971 BASIN
AND THE 1984 BASIN WILL BE GRADED TO CONVEY STORM WATER
RUNOFF TO COOLING POND.
19.FINAL CONDITIONS OF LAY OF LAND AREA (LOLA) TO BE DETERMINED
AT A LATER DATE.
193.4
(est.)
191.1
PROPERTY BOUNDARY (NOTE 10)
EXISTING GROUND ELEVATION
CONTOURS IN OBSCURED AREAS (NOTES 1, 2, AND 4)
EXISTING GROUND ELEVATION
CONTOURS IN OPEN AREAS (NOTES 1 AND 2)
AERIAL MAPPING LIMIT (NOTE 6)
FENCE LINE (NOTES 2 AND 16)
GRAVEL / DIRT PATH (NOTE 2)
SPOT ELEVATION (NOTES 1, 2, AND 4)
SPOT ELEVATION ESTIMATED
IN OBSCURED AREAS (NOTES 1, 2, 4, AND 5)
TREE / BRUSH LINE (NOTE 2)
UNIDENTIFIED UTILITIES / STRUCTURES / OBJECTS
(NOTES 2 AND 3)
UTILITY POLE (NOTES 2 AND 3)
OVERHEAD ELECTRICAL TRANSMISSION LINE (NOTE 11)
ELECTRICAL TRANSMISSION STRUCTURES (NOTES 3 AND 11)
WATER (NOTE 5)
CCR BASIN (APPROXIMATE) (NOTE 2)
COOLING POND BOUNDARY (APPROXIMATE) (NOTES 2 AND 10) /
LOLA BOUNDARY (APPROXIMATE) (NOTE 2)
RAIL LINE (NOTES 2 AND 15)
EXISTING OUTFALL 001 PIPELINE (NOTE 17)
X X X X X X X X
LEGEND
FEMA FLOOD ZONE AE (NOTE 7)
FEMA FLOOD ZONE X (NOTE 7)
WETLANDS - NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY
(NOTE 8)
FINAL GRADE ELEVATION CONTOUR
SURFACE WATER FLOW DIRECTION
COOLING POND WATER
W W
20
OE
18
EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
(
F
E
E
T
)
EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
(
F
E
E
T
)
DISTANCE (FEET)
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00
1984 BASIN
FINAL GRADE
VARIES
EXISTING
GROUND
COOLING POND
TIE-IN AT
DIKE BASE
EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
(
F
E
E
T
)
EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
(
F
E
E
T
)
DISTANCE (FEET)
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00 10+00 11+00 12+00
1971 BASIN
1984 BASIN
EXISTING GROUND
FINAL GRADE VARIES
GRADE TRANSITION
BETWEEN BASINS
3H:1V
TIE-IN ELEVATION VARIES (TYP)
TIE-IN AT DIKE BASE
EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
(
F
E
E
T
)
EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
(
F
E
E
T
)
DISTANCE (FEET)
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00
1971 BASIN
EXISTING GROUND
FINAL GRADE
(INTERPRETED
BOTTOM OF CCR)
VARIES
FINAL GRADE
3H:1V
3H:1V
TIE-IN AT DIKE BASE
EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
(
F
E
E
T
)
EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
(
F
E
E
T
)
DISTANCE (FEET)
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00
LOLA 1971 BASIN
DISCHARGE
CANAL
EXISTING GROUND
FINAL GRADE
(INTERPRETED
BOTTOM OF CCR)
RECONSTRUCTED
DIKE
VARIES
3H:1V
EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
(
F
E
E
T
)
EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
(
F
E
E
T
)
DISTANCE (FEET)
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00 10+00 11+00 12+00
1971 BASIN
EXISTING GROUND
COOLING POND
VARIES
FINAL GRADE
3H:1V
F
1
E
D
C
2 3
B
A
1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8
54 6 7 8
F
E
D
C
B
A
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
L.V. SUTTON ENERGY COMPLEX
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
PROJECT:
SITE:
TITLE:
APPROVED BY:
REVIEWED BY:DRAWING NO.:
OF
DRAWN BY:
DESIGN BY:
CHECKED BY:FILE:
PROJECT NO.:
DATE:DECEMBER 2016
GC6005
DATEREV APPDESCRIPTIONDRN
1300 SOUTH MINT STREET, SUITE 300
CHARLOTTE, NC 28203 USA
PHONE: 704.227.0840
NC LICENSE NO.:C-3500
MF
A
B
R
I
Z
I
O
-
14
-
D
e
c
-
1
6
K:
\
_
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
D
\
D
U
K
E
E
N
E
R
G
Y
\
S
U
T
T
O
N
\
S
I
T
E
A
S
S
E
S
S
M
E
N
T
&
R
E
M
O
V
A
L
P
L
A
N
(
G
C
6
0
0
5
.
0
2
)
\
D
W
G
\
G
C
6
0
0
5
.
0
2
C
0
0
6
0
OF NC, PC
JC
MAF
JC
WS
VMD
GC6005.02C0060
SITE ASSESSMENT AND REMOVAL PLAN 1971 AND 1984 BASINS
9
FINAL GRADING SECTIONS I
6
A
SCALE: 1" = 100' HORIZONAL
1" = 10' VERTICAL
SECTION
CROSS SECTION A-A5
B
SCALE: 1" = 100' HORIZONAL
1" = 10' VERTICAL
SECTION
CROSS SECTION B-B5
C
SCALE: 1" = 100' HORIZONAL
1" = 10' VERTICAL
SECTION
CROSS SECTION C-C5
D
SCALE: 1" = 100' HORIZONAL
1" = 10' VERTICAL
SECTION
CROSS SECTION D-D5
E
SCALE: 1" = 100' HORIZONAL
1" = 10' VERTICAL
SECTION
CROSS SECTION E-E5
0 100'200'
HORIZONTAL SCALE IN FEET
0 10'20'
VERTICAL SCALE IN FEET
EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
(
F
E
E
T
)
EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
(
F
E
E
T
)
DISTANCE (FEET)
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00
1971 BASIN
EXISTING GROUND
FINAL GRADE
VARIES
DISCHARGE
CANAL
FINAL GRADE
3H:1V
EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
(
F
E
E
T
)
EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
(
F
E
E
T
)
DISTANCE (FEET)
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00 19+00 20+00 21+00
EXISTING GROUND
FINAL GRADE
VARIES
VARIES
VARIES
F
1
E
D
C
2 3
B
A
1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8
54 6 7 8
F
E
D
C
B
A
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
L.V. SUTTON ENERGY COMPLEX
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
PROJECT:
SITE:
TITLE:
APPROVED BY:
REVIEWED BY:DRAWING NO.:
OF
DRAWN BY:
DESIGN BY:
CHECKED BY:FILE:
PROJECT NO.:
DATE:DECEMBER 2016
GC6005
DATEREV APPDESCRIPTIONDRN
1300 SOUTH MINT STREET, SUITE 300
CHARLOTTE, NC 28203 USA
PHONE: 704.227.0840
NC LICENSE NO.:C-3500
MF
A
B
R
I
Z
I
O
-
14
-
D
e
c
-
1
6
K:
\
_
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
D
\
D
U
K
E
E
N
E
R
G
Y
\
S
U
T
T
O
N
\
S
I
T
E
A
S
S
E
S
S
M
E
N
T
&
R
E
M
O
V
A
L
P
L
A
N
(
G
C
6
0
0
5
.
0
2
)
\
D
W
G
\
G
C
6
0
0
5
.
0
2
C
0
0
7
0
OF NC, PC
JC
MAF
JC
WS
VMD
GC6005.02C0070
SITE ASSESSMENT AND REMOVAL PLAN 1971 AND 1984 BASINS
9
FINAL GRADING SECTIONS II
7
G
SCALE: 1" = 100' HORIZONAL
1" = 10' VERTICAL
SECTION
CROSS SECTION G-G5
F
SCALE: 1" = 100' HORIZONAL
1" = 10' VERTICAL
SECTION
CROSS SECTION F-F5
0 100'200'
HORIZONTAL SCALE IN FEET
0 10'20'
VERTICAL SCALE IN FEET
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
^
PIL
E
PIL
E
3
0
"
C
M
P
3
0
2
0
20
20
2
0
2
0
2
0
20
2
0
2
0
30
3
0 20
2
0
10
10
1
0
20
20
20
2
0
2
0
20
20
2
0
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
2
0
20
20
20
2
0
30
20
20
20
2
0
20
2
0
2
0
3
0
20
20
20
20
2
0
10
0
2
0
20
2
0
30
30
30
3
0
10
30
3
0
30
30
1
0
10
20
2
0
2
0
20
20
20
10
1
0
20
2
0
2
0
20
20
2
0
2
0
20
2
0
20
2
0
20
20
20
3
0
2
0
2
0
20
2
0
2
0
2
0
3
0
20
2
0
2
0
1
0
10
10
4
0
2
0
20
30
30
30
30
3
0
30
30
20
20
20
20
2
0
20
10
20
10
20
0
1
0
0
10
10
1
0
1
0
1
0
10
10
1010
1
0
1
0
1
0
10
10
10
10
1
0
11
.
2
10
.
6
12
.
6
12
.
4
8.4
8.8
13
.
1
13.7
1
0
.
8
1
2
.
8
-
0 .
0 .
0 .
0 .
-0 .
-0
.
5
7 7 8 19
.
1
18
.
6
8.8
9.5
8.2
8.5
8.4
8.5
8.5
11
.
5
0
19
.
0
18.919.018.718.218.418.9
19
.
0
19
.
5
11
.
4
12
.
9
1
9 .
21
.
8
12
.
9
15
.
5
14
.
7
14
.
314
.
7
19
.
3
19
.
1
14
.
7
18
.
5
12
.
4
17
.
1
2
3
.
4
2
0
.
8
21
.
1
22
.
6
2
1
.
3
12.7
14.3
23
.
0
22.9
12
.
6
13.3 13.0
12
.
5
29
.
0
24
.
8
33
.
8
19
.
0
23
.
0
27.5
17.616.7
17.116.9
21
.
0
16
.
9
19
.
0
16
.
8
19
.
5
21
.
1
32
.
6
21
.
4
22
.
1
16.3 14
.
6
13
.
9
23
.
0
24
.
1
23
.
4
22
.
6
18
.
2
13
.
2
24.6
16
.
4
20
.
4
20
.
4
17
.
2
17
.
4
14
.
3
15.5
16.7
27
.
4
24
.
5
20
.
8
20
.
3 23
.
0
23
.
2
28
.
7
17.217.6
19.3
20
.
8
24.7
25.4
31
.
6
28
.
6
15.2
14.8
27
.
1
24
.
7
24
.
8
23
.
825
.
1
15
.
6
15
.
5
25
.
7
18
.
9
30
.
3
29
.
0
22
.
9
19
.
3
26
.
1
16.6 24
.
8
29
.
1
15
.
3
17
.
2
15
.
2
15
.
0
14
.
6
14
.
2
15
.
0
14
.
5
15
.
2
15
.
0
15
.
3
16.4
16.5
15
.
3
16.2
14
.
9
15
.
0
24
.
2
13
.
7
17
.
4
13
.
9
23
.
0
23
.
122
.
9
24
.
9 17
.
819
.
4
19.4 18
.
5
19
.
1
21
.
6
21
.
0
15
.
3
26
.
2
23
.
4
15
.
1
14
.
3
19
.
018
.
7
14
.
4
8.7
10
.
1
16
.
9
17
.
3
16
.
5
14
.
8
19
.
1
23
.
020
.
7
20
.
9
21
.
2
22
.
6
19
.
5
19
.
7
20
.
5
22
.
3
15.4
18
.
4
38
.
5
37
.
6
39
.
1
38
.
9
38
.
5
25
.
3
24
.
4
24
.
4
32
.
4
31
.
5
24
.
3
39
.
3
36
.
9
3
3
.
3
35
.
2
33
.
0
34
.
6
25
.
5
34
.
6
19
.
3
16
.
9
16
.
5
19
.
5
23
.
5
24
.
3
21
.
3
18
.
5
17
.
6
17
.
5
17
.
6
17
.
1
17
.
0
17
.
3
17
.
2
17
.
4
17
.
0
16
.
8
17
.
0
14
.
3
14
.
4
15.8
14
.
9
14
.
7
14
.
8
22
.
5
15
.
4
13
.
6
13
.
9
13
.
6
13
.
6
13
.
6
1
5
.
5
14
.
1
14
.
4
28
.
5
17
.
8
17
.
2
16
.
8
17
.
4
17
.
8
18
.
4
18
.
4
18
.
3
18
.
8
18
.
9
18
.
6
19
.
0
18
.
6
18
.
718
.
3
18
.
8
19
.
1
18
.
9
21
.
1
20
.
7
22
.
5
22
.
9
19
.
4
18
.
7
18
.
5
16
.
6
19
.
2
31
.
0
31
.
0
28
.
8
27
.
5
27
.
0
23
.
8
30
.
3
28
.
8
21
.
3
17.2
22
.
4
23
.
0
32
.
6
17
.
3
19
.
4
19
.
4
21
.
2
23
.
3
24.
5
20
.
2
18
.
2
20
.
9
17
.
3
17
.
5
17
.
1
17
.
0
17
.
7
16
.
5
21
.
3
16
.
8 31
.
3
34
.
4
37
.
2
34
.
7
33
.
1
22
.
5
23
.
6
23
.
219
.
3
18
.
7
22
.
2
21
.
8
19
.
8
21
.
4
20.6
29
.
3
28
.
6
29
.
2
21
.
2
21.2 25
.
1
21
.
6
19
.
5
21
.
4
20.819.3 18.9
15
.
4
14.8 17.6
16
.
9
14.7
24
.
4
18
.
8 22
.
3
14
.
8
27
.
1
17
.
0
15.8 33
.
7
14
.
6
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.3
1.1 1.1
1.7
29
.
0
29
.
5
27
.
1
27
.
1
21
.
0
21.0
14
.
6
13
.
2
15.4
19.2
19.5
11
.
3
11
.
5
11
.
0
11
.
8
11
.
8
11
.
9
12
.
1
12
.
8
12
.
7
15
.
1
14
.
4
18
.
6
19
.
2 13
.
1
12
.
5
12
.
8
13
.
0
12
.
8
13
.
2
12
.
6
12
.
5
15.1
10
.
9
24
.
6
17
.
6
23
.
0
24
.
9
12
.
3
12
.
4
12
.
5
23
.
0
18
.
4
34
.
4
17
.
5
12
.
7
12
.
4
12
.
7
12
.
6
12
.
8
14
.
9
12
.
3
25.7
15.7
22
.
3
16
.
6
14
.
8
16
.
7
11
.
2 10
.
2
9.3
9.2
9.1
9.7
11
.
5
11
.
5
11
.
3
11
.
7
7.6
7.8
14
.
9
12
.
3
12
.
5
12
.
7
12
.
6
13
.
0
12
.
9
13
.
3
13
.
1
13
.
3
13
.
3
11
.
0
9.7
9.2
9.7
9.6
8.4
11
.
3
11
.
4
11
.
6
10
.
7
10
.
6
9.3
9.7
7.5
8.3
10
.
6
14
.
6
10
.
6
8.9
10
.
5
13
.
1
11
.
5
11
.
0
11
.
0
11
.
0
9.8
9.0
9.2
8.6
10
.
4
9.39.1
9.3
9.4
9.5
9.6
9.4
19
.
7
14
.
0
28
.
7
14
.
3
20
20
10
10
15
2
5
35
10
1
0
15
1
0
10
15
15
20
15
25
3
0
15
20
1
5
1
5
20
10
15
20
2
5
15
20
10
30
15
20
25
20
25
30
25
2
5
2
0
2
5
1
5
20
1
5
15
10
2
0
10
5
10
10
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
WWW
W
W
W
W
W
W
W W W W
W
WWWW
W
W W
W
W
W
W W W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
x
x
X
x
x
xxxx
x
x
x
xxxx
x x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x x
x
x
x x x
x xxxx
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
X
x
x
xxxxx
x
x
x
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
x
x
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x x x x x x x x
x
x
x
x
x x x x x x x x x x
x x x
x
x x
x
x x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x x x x xxxxxxxx
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
xxxxx
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
x
x x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
x
OE
OE
OE
O
E
O
E
OEOEOEOEOEOEOEOE
O
E
O
E
OE
OE
OE
OE
OEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OEOEOEOEOEOEOEOE
OEOE OE
OE
OE
OE
SU
T
T
O
N
P
L
A
N
T
-
D
E
L
C
O
2
3
0
K
V
(
O
L
1
1
9
)
x
x
G
G
N 2
0
5
,
0
0
0
N 2
0
3
,
0
0
0
N 2
0
1
,
0
0
0
N 1
9
9
,
0
0
0
N 1
9
7
,
0
0
0
E 2,
3
0
4
,
0
0
0
E 2,
3
0
2
,
0
0
0
E 2,
3
0
6
,
0
0
0
COOLING POND
6
8
12
14
16
18
16
14
6
DIS
C
H
A
R
G
E
C
A
N
A
L
4
9
5
9
6
9
PSTS MU
2
9
2
9
4
9
5
9
6
9
PSTS MU
1
9
18
2022
2
4
6
8
0
0
-4
-
4
-2
-
2
2
4
6
8
1
2
16
8
4
8
4
6
8
2
4
-3
4
-3
6
-3
8
-
3
4
-3
2
-
3
6
TEMPORARY/PERMANENT
SEEDING AND MULCHING
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
(NOTE 10)
AERIAL MAPPING LIMIT
(NOTE 6)
SITE ENTRANCE
BOAT RAMP
ACCESS ROAD
(NOTE 12)
EXISTING GRAVEL
PAD (NOTE 14)
VEHICLE TURN
AROUND AREA
APPROXIMATE
OUTLINE OF
COOLING BASIN
1984 BASIN
BOUNDARY
1971 BASIN
BOUNDARY
EXISTING 1984
BASIN RAMP
(NOTE 13)
LAY OF LAND AREA
(LOLA) BOUNDARY
(NOTE 19)
ROLLED EROSION
CONTROL
PRODUCT
ROLLED EROSION
CONTROL PRODUCT
TEMPORARY/PERMANENT
SEEDING AND MULCHING
LIMIT OF
DISTURBANCE TEMPORARY GRAVEL
CONSTRUCTION
ENTRANCE_EXIT
AERIAL MAPPING
LIMIT
40 50 60 70
80 90 100
110
40506070
8090100
30 40 50 60 70
80 90 100
110
30
405060
70
8090
100
40 50 60 70 80 90 100
40506070
8090100
11
0
PROPOSED LANDFILL
(PERMITTED AND DESIGNED UNDER
SEPARATE COVER)
F
1
E
D
C
2 3
B
A
1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8
54 6 7 8
F
E
D
C
B
A
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
L.V. SUTTON ENERGY COMPLEX
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
PROJECT:
SITE:
TITLE:
APPROVED BY:
REVIEWED BY:DRAWING NO.:
OF
DRAWN BY:
DESIGN BY:
CHECKED BY:FILE:
PROJECT NO.:
DATE:DECEMBER 2016
GC6005
DATEREV APPDESCRIPTIONDRN
1300 SOUTH MINT STREET, SUITE 300
CHARLOTTE, NC 28203 USA
PHONE: 704.227.0840
NC LICENSE NO.:C-3500
MF
A
B
R
I
Z
I
O
-
14
-
D
e
c
-
1
6
K:
\
_
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
D
\
D
U
K
E
E
N
E
R
G
Y
\
S
U
T
T
O
N
\
S
I
T
E
A
S
S
E
S
S
M
E
N
T
&
R
E
M
O
V
A
L
P
L
A
N
(
G
C
6
0
0
5
.
0
2
)
\
D
W
G
\
G
C
6
0
0
5
.
0
2
C
0
0
8
0
OF NC, PC
JC
MAF
JC
WS
VMD
GC6005.02C0080
SITE ASSESSMENT AND REMOVAL PLAN 1971 AND 1984 BASINS
9
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN
8
0 300'600'
SCALE IN FEET
N
NOTES:
1.COORDINATES ARE BASED ON NORTH CAROLINA STATE PLANE GRID
SYSTEM, NORTH AMERICAN DATUM OF 1983 (NAD83). ELEVATIONS
ARE BASED ON NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988
(NAVD88).
2.THE PLANIMETRIC LOCATION ON THIS MAP IS BASED ON
PHOTOGRAMMETRIC MAPPING OF IMAGERY COLLECTED ON 17 APRIL
2014 AND INTERPRETED BY WSP OF CARY, NC, DATED MARCH 2015.
DATA PROVIDED WHERE CLEAR AND VISIBLE ON THE IMAGERY ARE
WITHIN 2' OF ITS TRUE POSITION.
3.THE LOCATION OF ANY AND ALL UTILITIES SHOWN HEREON WHETHER
PUBLIC OR PRIVATE, IS BASED ON PHOTOGRAMMETRIC MAPPING AND
IS APPROXIMATE. IT IS THE USERS RESPONSIBILITY TO VERIFY
LOCATION PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF ANY CONSTRUCTION.
4.DASHED CONTOURS AND ESTIMATED SPOT ELEVATIONS SHOWN IN
OBSCURED AREAS ARE COMPILED FROM LIMITED
PHOTOGRAMMETRIC DATA DUE TO CONDITIONS DURING THE 17
APRIL 2014 FLIGHT. INFORMATION SHOWN IN OBSCURED AREAS ARE
FOR REFERENCE ONLY AND SHOULD BE CONFIRMED PRIOR TO
CONSTRUCTION
5.CONTOURS AND SPOT ELEVATIONS SHOWN UNDERWATER ARE FROM
BATHYMETRIC SURVEYS CONDUCTED BY WSP OF CARY, NC IN JUNE
2014.
6.CONTOURS SHOWN OUTSIDE THE AERIAL MAPPING LIMIT ARE FROM
A LIDAR SURVEY DATED APRIL 2007 OBTAINED FROM THE NORTH
CAROLINA DOT GIS WEBSITE. CONTOURS AND TOPOGRAPHY WITHIN
THE AERIAL MAPPING LIMIT WERE OBTAINED FROM AN AERIAL
SURVEY DATED MARCH 2015 (FLOWN 17 APRIL 2014) AND WERE
OBTAINED FROM WSP OF CARY, NC.
7.FLOOD ZONE INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM NEW HANOVER COUNTY
GIS WEBSITE AND ARE SHOWN IN REFERENCE TO FEMA FIRM MAP
PANELS 3109 AND 3200, LAST REVISED 2 JUNE 2006.
8.NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY INFORMATION SHOWN WAS
OBTAINED FROM THE US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE WEBSITE.
9.WETLANDS WERE OBTAINED FROM FIELD DELINEATION BY
GEOSYNTEC AND PROVIDED IN A DRAWING DATED 4 MARCH 2015
BASED ON FIELD SURVEY BY WSP OF CARY, NC.
10.APPROXIMATE PROPERTY LINE BOUNDARY AND COOLING POND
OUTLINE WERE OBTAINED FROM THE NORTH CAROLINA NEW
HANOVER COUNTY GIS WEBSITE:
HTTP://WWW.NHCGOV.COM/GIS-DATA-AVAILABLE-FOR-DOWNLOAD/,
PARCEL SHAPE FILE DATA AND MISC PROPERTY LINES
RESPECTIVELY, LAST UPDATED ON 10 AUGUST 2005.
11.OVERHEAD ELECTRICAL TRANSMISSION LINE PROVIDED BY DUKE
ENERGY TRANSMISSION ON JANUARY 2016. ADDITIONAL UTILITY LINE
AND STUCTURE INFORMATION FROM SURVEY INFORMATION
PROVIDED BY CAPE FEAR ENGINEERING OF BELVILLE, NC ON 12
AUGUST 2016.
12.AS BUILT INFORMATION FOR THE EXISTING BOAT RAMP ACCESS
ROAD FROM FIELD SURVEY DATA AND DRAWINGS BY CAPE FEAR
ENGINEERING OF BELVILLE, NC OBTAINED 25 AUGUST 2016.
13.AS BUILT INFORMATION FOR THE 1984 BASIN RAMP FROM JUNE 2016
SURVEY INFORMATION BY CAPE FEAR ENGINEERING OBTAINED 26
JULY 2016 FROM DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC.
14.EXISTING STORM WATER TREATMENT CONCRETE PAD FROM PLANS
BY GEOSYNTEC DATED DECEMBER 2015. GRAVEL PAD LAYOUT
PROVIDED BY DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC IN JULY 2016 AND IS
APPROXIMATE.
15.RAIL LINE ALIGNMENT UPDATES OBTAINED FROM SKEEN RAILROAD
ENGINEERING OF KENNESAW, GA, DECEMBER 2015.
16.INFORMATION FOR THE EXISTING FENCE LINES OBTAINED FROM
VARIOUS AS-BUILT FIELD SURVEY COLLECTIONS AND DRAWINGS BY
CAPE FEAR ENGINEERING OF BELVILLE, NC OBTAINED 9 AND 12
AUGUST 2016, 8 SEPTEMBER 2016, AND 4 OCTOBER 2016. ADDITIONAL
FENCE DATA FROM PLANS BY WSP OF CARY, NC, DATED MARCH 2015,
LOCATION BASED ON PHOTOGRAMMETRIC MAPPING AND IS
APPROXIMATE.
17.ALIGNMENT OF EXISTING PIPELINE TO OUTFALL 001 PROVIDED BY
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC AND IS APPROXIMATE.
18.COOLING POND WILL BE ALLOWED TO EXPAND INTO THE 1971 BASIN
AND THE 1984 BASIN WILL BE GRADED TO CONVEY STORM WATER
RUNOFF TO COOLING POND.
19.FINAL CONDITIONS OF LAY OF LAND AREA (LOLA) TO BE DETERMINED
AT A LATER DATE.
SYMBOL
PS
DESCRIPTION
TEMPORARY GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE_EXIT
ROCK PIPE INLET PROTECTION
TEMPORARY SEEDING
PERMANENT SEEDING
ROLLED EROSION CONTROL PRODUCT
MULCHING
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL SYMBOLOGY
TS
RECP RECPRECP
3
9
1
9
MU
4
9
5
9
2
9
6
9
STABILIZATION NOTES:
1.SOIL STABILIZATION SHALL BE ACHIEVED ON ANY AREA OF A
SITE WHERE LAND-DISTURBING ACTIVITIES HAVE
TEMPORARILY OR PERMANENTLY CEASED ACCORDING TO
THE FOLLOWING SCHEDULE:
a.ALL PERIMETER DRAINAGE CHANNELS AND SLOPES
STEEPER THAN 3 HORIZONTAL TO 1 VERTICAL (3H:1V)
SHALL BE PROVIDED TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT
STABILIZATION WITH GROUND COVER AS SOON AS
PRACTICABLE BUT IN ANY EVENT WITHIN 7 CALENDAR
DAYS FROM THE LAST LAND-DISTURBING ACTIVITY.
b.ALL OTHER DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE PROVIDED
TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT STABILIZATION WITH
GROUND COVER AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE BUT IN ANY
EVENT WITHIN 14 CALENDAR DAYS FROM THE LAST
LAND-DISTURBING ACTIVITY.
2.THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED IN THE CAPE FEAR RIVER
BASIN.
3.SITE ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR
MAINTENANCE AND CAN BE CONTACTED AT 910-520-9642.
4.SOILS WERE CONSERVATIVELY ASSUMED TO BE HSG TYPE A
SOILS.
5.TOTAL DISTURBED AREA IS 164 ACRES.
6.TOTAL AREA TO BE STABILIZED WITH VEGETATION IS 89
ACRES.
7.RECEIVING WATER IS DISCHARGE CANAL TO THE COOLING
POND.
8.PROJECT ENTRANCES IS LOCATED AT 34° 17' 17" NORTH, 77°
59' 05" WEST.
9.ROLLED EROSION CONTROL PRODUCT SHALL BE PLACED ON
3H:1V SIDE SLOPES OF THE CELLS.
10.ALL DISTURBED AREAS NOT PART OF THE EXPANDED
COOLING POND ARE TO BE STABILIZED WITH MULCHING,
TEMPORARY SEEDING, AND PERMANENT SEEDING.
193.4
(est.)
191.1
PROPERTY BOUNDARY (NOTE 10)
EXISTING GROUND ELEVATION
CONTOURS IN OBSCURED AREAS (NOTES 1, 2, AND 4)
EXISTING GROUND ELEVATION
CONTOURS IN OPEN AREAS (NOTES 1 AND 2)
AERIAL MAPPING LIMIT (NOTE 6)
FENCE LINE (NOTES 2 AND 16)
GRAVEL / DIRT PATH (NOTE 2)
SPOT ELEVATION (NOTES 1, 2, AND 4)
SPOT ELEVATION ESTIMATED
IN OBSCURED AREAS (NOTES 1, 2, 4, AND 5)
TREE / BRUSH LINE (NOTE 2)
UNIDENTIFIED UTILITIES / STRUCTURES / OBJECTS
(NOTES 2 AND 3)
UTILITY POLE (NOTES 2 AND 3)
OVERHEAD ELECTRICAL TRANSMISSION LINE (NOTE 11)
ELECTRICAL TRANSMISSION STRUCTURES (NOTES 3 AND 11)
WATER (NOTE 5)
CCR BASIN (APPROXIMATE) (NOTE 2)
COOLING POND BOUNDARY (APPROXIMATE) (NOTES 2 AND 10)
/ LOLA BOUNDARY (APPROXIMATE) (NOTE 2)
RAIL LINE (NOTES 2 AND 15)
FEMA FLOOD ZONE AE (NOTE 7)
FEMA FLOOD ZONE X (NOTE 7)
WETLANDS - NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY
(NOTE 8)
WETLANDS - SURVEYED (NOTE 9)
FINAL GRADE ELEVATION CONTOUR
SURFACE WATER FLOW DIRECTION
COOLING POND WATER
X X X X X X X X
LEGEND
W W
20
OE
18
MAINTENANCE NOTES:
1.MAINTAIN THE GRAVEL PAD IN A CONDITION TO PREVENT MUD OR SEDIMENT FROM LEAVING THE CONSTRUCTION
SITE. THIS MAY REQUIRE PERIODIC TOP DRESSING WITH 2-INCH STONE.
2.AFTER EACH RAINFALL, INSPECT ANY STRUCTURE USED TO TRAP SEDIMENT AND CLEAN IT OUT AS NECESSARY.
3.IMMEDIATELY REMOVE ALL OBJECTIONABLE MATERIALS SPILLED, WASHED, OR TRACKED ONTO PUBLIC ROADWAYS.
SEEDING MIXTURE AND RATE SEEDING DATES SOIL AMENDMENTS MULCH MAINTENANCE
· RYE (GRAIN) 120 LB/ACRE
· ANNUAL LESPEDEZA (KOBE) 50 LB/ACRE
DECEMBER 1 - APRIL 15
BY SOIL TEST OR:
· 2000 LB/ACRE AGRICULTURAL LIMESTONE
· 750 LB/ACRE 10-10-10 FERTILIZER
APPLY 4000 LB/ACRE STRAW.
ANCHOR STRAW WITH TACKIFIER
OR NETTING.
REFERTILIZE IF GROWTH
INADEQUATE. RESEED, REFERTILIZE,
AND MULCH IMMEDIATELY
FOLLOWING EROSION OR OTHER
DAMAGE
· GERMAN MILLET 40 LB/ACRE APRIL 15 - AUGUST 15
BY SOIL TEST OR:
· 2000 LB/ACRE AGRICULTURAL LIMESTONE
· 750 LB/ACRE 10-10-10 FERTILIZER
APPLY 4000 LB/ACRE STRAW.
ANCHOR STRAW WITH TACKIFIER
OR NETTING.
REFERTILIZE IF GROWTH
INADEQUATE. RESEED, REFERTILIZE,
AND MULCH IMMEDIATELY
FOLLOWING EROSION OR OTHER
DAMAGE
· RYE (GRAIN) 120 LB/ACRE AUGUSTS 15 - DECEMBER 30
BY SOIL TEST OR:
· 2000 LB/ACRE AGRICULTURAL LIMESTONE
· 750 LB/ACRE 10-10-10 FERTILIZER
APPLY 4000 LB/ACRE STRAW.
ANCHOR STRAW WITH TACKIFIER
OR NETTING.
REFERTILIZE IF GROWTH
INADEQUATE. RESEED, REFERTILIZE,
AND MULCH IMMEDIATELY
FOLLOWING EROSION OR OTHER
DAMAGE
COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME RATE (LB/AC)PURPOSE OPTIMAL PLANTING DATES
WARM SEASON
GERMAN MILLET SETARIA ITALICA 10 NURSE CROP 4/15 - 8/15
COOL SEASON
RYE GRAIN SECALE CEREALE 10 NURSE CROP 8/15 - 4/15
BIG BLUESTEM ANDROPGON GERADII / EARL 7 PRIMARY STABILIZATION 12/1 - 5/1
SWITCHGRASS PANICUM VIRGATUM / BLACKWELL, SHELTER, OR CARTHAGE 3.5 PRIMARY STABILIZATION 12/1 - 4/1
VIRGINIA WILD RYE ELYMUS VIRGINICUS 6 PRIMARY STABILIZATION 2/15 - 3/20 AND 9/1 - 11/1
INDIAN WOODOATS CHASMANTHIUM LATIFOLIUM 2.5 PRIMARY STABILIZATION 2/15 - 3/20 AND 9/1 - 11/1
1.
2.
3.
MAINTENANCE NOTES:
MAINTENANCE NOTES:
1.INSPECT ALL MULCHES PERIODICALLY, AND AFTER RAINSTORMS TO CHECK FOR RILL
EROSION, DISLOCATION OR FAILURE. WHERE EROSION IS OBSERVED, APPLY ADDITIONAL
MULCH.
2.IF WASHOUT OCCURS, REPAIR THE SLOPE GRADE, RESEED AND REINSTALL MULCH.
3.CONTINUE INSPECTIONS UNTIL VEGETATION IS FIRMLY ESTABLISHED.
MAINTENANCE NOTES:
F
1
E
D
C
2 3
B
A
1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8
54 6 7 8
F
E
D
C
B
A
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
L.V. SUTTON ENERGY COMPLEX
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
PROJECT:
SITE:
TITLE:
APPROVED BY:
REVIEWED BY:DRAWING NO.:
OF
DRAWN BY:
DESIGN BY:
CHECKED BY:FILE:
PROJECT NO.:
DATE:DECEMBER 2016
GC6005
DATEREV APPDESCRIPTIONDRN
1300 SOUTH MINT STREET, SUITE 300
CHARLOTTE, NC 28203 USA
PHONE: 704.227.0840
NC LICENSE NO.:C-3500
MF
A
B
R
I
Z
I
O
-
14
-
D
e
c
-
1
6
K:
\
_
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
D
\
D
U
K
E
E
N
E
R
G
Y
\
S
U
T
T
O
N
\
S
I
T
E
A
S
S
E
S
S
M
E
N
T
&
R
E
M
O
V
A
L
P
L
A
N
(
G
C
6
0
0
5
.
0
2
)
\
D
W
G
\
G
C
6
0
0
5
.
0
2
C
0
0
9
0
OF NC, PC
JC
MAF
JC
WS
VMD
GC6005.02C0090
SITE ASSESSMENT AND REMOVAL PLAN 1971 AND 1984 BASINS
9
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL DETAILS
9
1
SCALE: NTS
XREF: GC6005.02X030
DETAIL
TEMPORARY GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE_EXIT8
3
SCALE: NTS
XREF: GC6005.02X034
DETAIL
ROCK PIPE INLET PROTECTION8
4
SCALE: NTS
XREF: GC6005.02X040
DETAIL
TEMPORARY SEEDING8
5
SCALE: NTS
XREF: GC6005.02X041
DETAIL
PERMANENT SEEDING8
6
SOURCE: NCDEQ
SCALE: NTS
XREF: GC6005.02X043
DETAIL
MULCHING8
2
SCALE: NTS
XREF: GC6005.02X032
DETAIL
ROLLED EROSION CONTROL PRODUCT8
APPENDICES
Appendix A
Water Supply Well Survey Report of
Findings
Appendix B
Boring Logs
Appendix C
Geotechnical Subsurface Stratigraphy and
Material Properties Package
Appendix D
Slug Test Calculations
Appendix E
Aquifer Pumping Test Memo
Appendix F
Chemical Characterization Report
Appendix G
Technical Specifications
Appendix H
CQA Plan
Appendix I
Post-Closure Care Plan
Appendix J
Volume Calculations