NC0003417_HF Lee Basis of Design Report_20161123

526 South Church Street
Charlotte, NC 28202
Mailing Address:
PO Box 1006
Mail Code EC13K
Charlotte, NC 28201-1006
980 373 2779
704 382 6240 fax November 23, 2016
Mr. David May
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Washington Regional Office
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, NC 27889
Subject: H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Interim Action Plan - Basis of Design Report - First Submittal
Dear Mr. May:
Enclosed is the first submittal of the Interim Action Plan Basis of Design Report for the H.F. Lee
Energy Complex. This submittal incorporates the 30% design drawings and supporting
documents. The next Basis of Design submittal is expected January 27, 2017.
If you have any questions on the enclosed information, please contact me at ryan.czop@duke-
energy.com or at 980-373-2779.
Respectfully submitted,
Ryan Czop
Engineer I
Waste and Groundwater Programs
Cc/enc: Mr. Steve Lanter, NCDEQ
1636 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 - 1636
ecc: Mr. Kevin Kirkley, Duke Energy
Mr. Mike Graham, Duke Energy
Mr. Ed Sullivan, Duke Energy
Mr. John Toepfer, Duke Energy
Mr. Will Hart, NCDEQ
4CT
synTerra
BASIS OF DESIGN REPORT
(30% SUBMITTAL)
H.F. LEE ENERGY COMPLEX
1199 BLACKJACK CHURCH ROAD
GOLDSBORO,, NORTH CAROLINA 27530
NOVEMBER 2016
PREPARED FOR
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS,, LLC.
410 S. WILMINGTON STREET/NCIS
RALEIGHj, NORTH CAROLINA 27601
�� DUKE
ENERGY
PROGRESS
William La tz, NC PE 44301
Senior Project Engineer
ts a,"
Justi Mahan, NC LG 2026
Project Manager
INNOVATE 148 River Street, Suite 220 Greenville, SC 29601 [phone] Fax [phone] www.synterracorp.com

Basis of Design Report – 30% Submittal November 2016
H.F. Lee Energy Complex SynTerra
Page i
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\04.LEE PLANT\22.Basis of Design Report\Design Report (30)\Report text\HF Lee Basis of Design Report.docx
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Gray highlights indicate work in progress)
SECTION PAGE
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND .............................................................. 1-1
1.1 Project Background ................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1.1 Settlement Agreement ........................................................................................ 1-1
1.1.2 Interim Action Plan ............................................................................................. 1-2
1.1.3 Purpose of Basis of Design ................................................................................ 1-2
1.1.4 Scope and Objectives of the Interim Action .................................................... 1-3
1.2 Interim Action Alternative Evaluation .................................................................. 1-3
1.3 Report Organization ................................................................................................. 1-4
2.0 REFINED SITE CONCEPTUAL MODEL ................................................................. 2-1
2.1 Geology and Hydrogeology .................................................................................... 2-2
2.2 Summary of Baseline Site Conditions .................................................................... 2-3
2.3 Summary of Aquifer Characteristics ...................................................................... 2-3
3.0 INTERIM ACTION DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS .............................................. 3-1
3.1 Preliminary Design Criteria and Layout ............................................................... 3-1
3.2 Groundwater Extraction System Design ............................................................... 3-1
3.3 Evaluation of Alternative Technologies ................................................................ 3-1
3.4 Groundwater Flow Modeling ................................................................................. 3-2
3.4.1 Groundwater Flow Model Conceptualization Design .................................. 3-2
3.4.2 Groundwater Flow Model Calibration ............................................................ 3-2
3.5 Groundwater Extraction System Design ............................................................... 3-2
3.5.1 Current Conditions ............................................................................................. 3-2
3.5.2 Post-Basin Closure Conditions .......................................................................... 3-3
3.6 Groundwater Fate and Transport Modeling ........................................................ 3-3
3.6.1 Groundwater Fate and Transport Model Calibration ................................... 3-3
3.6.2 Predictive Results ................................................................................................ 3-3
3.6.3 Implications of Remedy on Geochemical Conditions and Plume Stability 3-3
3.7 Groundwater Extraction System Design Limitations .......................................... 3-4
Basis of Design Report – 30% Submittal November 2016
H.F. Lee Energy Complex SynTerra
Page ii
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\04.LEE PLANT\22.Basis of Design Report\Design Report (30)\Report text\HF Lee Basis of Design Report.docx
4.0 WELL DESIGN .............................................................................................................. 4-1
4.1 Overview of Extraction Well Network .................................................................. 4-1
4.2 Well Construction ..................................................................................................... 4-1
4.3 Groundwater Extraction Rates ................................................................................ 4-2
5.0 GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION SYSTEM PIPELINE AND PUMP STATION
DESIGN ........................................................................................................................... 5-1
5.1 Overall Pipeline Design Basis ................................................................................. 5-1
5.1.1 Well Pumps .......................................................................................................... 5-1
5.1.2 Well Discharge Piping ........................................................................................ 5-1
5.1.3 Well Head Configuration................................................................................... 5-2
5.2 Extraction Well Pipeline ........................................................................................... 5-2
5.2.1 Pipe Pressure ....................................................................................................... 5-2
5.2.2 Pipe Flow .............................................................................................................. 5-3
5.2.3 Pipe Insulation ..................................................................................................... 5-4
5.2.4 Pipe Expansion/Contraction .............................................................................. 5-5
6.0 ELECTRICAL AND INSTRUMENTATION DESIGN .......................................... 6-1
6.1 Piping and Instrumentation Diagram .................................................................... 6-1
6.2 Pump Controls .......................................................................................................... 6-1
6.3 Emergency System Shutdown ................................................................................ 6-1
7.0 DESIGN DOCUMENTS .............................................................................................. 7-1
7.1 Design Drawings ....................................................................................................... 7-1
7.2 Specifications ............................................................................................................. 7-1
8.0 GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION SYSTEM OPERATION ................................ 8-1
8.1 System Performance Metrics ................................................................................... 8-1
8.2 Permits ........................................................................................................................ 8-1
8.3 Institutional Controls ................................................................................................ 8-1
8.4 Contingency Plans .................................................................................................... 8-1
8.5 Construction and Monitoring Schedules ............................................................... 8-1

Basis of Design Report – 30% Submittal November 2016
H.F. Lee Energy Complex SynTerra
Page iii
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\04.LEE PLANT\22.Basis of Design Report\Design Report (30)\Report text\HF Lee Basis of Design Report.docx
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1 Site Location Map
Figure 1-2 Conceptual Remediation System
Figure 4-1 Extraction Well Schematic
Figure 5-1 Well Head Enclosure

LIST OF TABLES
Table 4-1 Target Extraction Well Screen Intervals

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Pilot Test Report
Appendix B Evaluation of Alternative Remedial Technologies
Appendix C Groundwater Flow Model Report
Appendix D Geochemical Model Report
Appendix E Pipe and Pump Selection Package
Appendix F Design Drawings
Appendix G Technical Specifications
Appendix H Permits

Basis of Design Report – 30% Submittal November 2016
H.F. Lee Energy Complex SynTerra
Page iv
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\04.LEE PLANT\22.Basis of Design Report\Design Report (30)\Report text\HF Lee Basis of Design Report.docx
LIST OF ACRONYMS

BGS Below Existing Ground Surface
CAMA Coal Ash Management Act
CAP 1 Corrective Action Plan Part 1
CAP 2 Corrective Action Plan Part 2
Constituent Constituent of Interest
CSA Comprehensive Site Assessment
CSA SUP CSA Supplemental Report
CSM Conceptual Site Model
DEP Duke Energy Progress, LLC.
DEQ North Carolina Department of Environment Quality
Eh Reduction Potential
ft Feet
gpm Gallons per Minute
HDPE High-Density Polyethylene
HMI Human Machine Interface
Hp Horsepower
IAP Interim Action Plan
IMAC Interim Maximum Allowable Concentrations
MW Monitoring Well
NCAC North Carolina Administrative Code
NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
Plant H. F. Lee Energy Complex
psig Per Square Inch Gauge
ROI Radius of Influence
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
VFD Variable Frequency Drive
2L NCDEQ/DWR Title 15, Subchapter 2L. Groundwater Quality
Standards

Basis of Design Report – 30% Submittal November 2016
H.F. Lee Energy Complex SynTerra
Page 1-1
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\04.LEE PLANT\22.Basis of Design Report\Design Report (30)\Report text\HF Lee Basis of Design Report.docx
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
Duke Energy Progress, LLC (Duke Energy) owns and operates the H.F. Lee Energy
Complex (H.F. Lee, Lee Plant or Site) located at 1199 Black Jack Church Road,
Goldsboro, North Carolina. The property encompasses approximately 2,100 acres,
including the ash basins (171-acre inactive ash basins and 143-acre active ash basin),
cooling pond and plant operations area. A Site Location Map is included as Figure 1-1.
The Neuse River (a main stem river) flows through the property.
The Lee Plant began operation as a coal-fired electricity-generating facility in 1951.
From 1967 through 1971 four oil-fueled combustion turbine units were added. In 2000,
five simple-cycle dual fuel (oil and natural gas) units were built. The three coal-fired
units were retired in September 2012, followed by the four oil-fueled combustion
turbine units in October 2012. The new combined-cycle plant was brought on line in
2012.
1.1 Project Background
In order to satisfy requirements of the North Carolina Coal Ash Management Act (NC
CAMA), a Comprehensive Site Assessment (CSA), Corrective Action Plan (CAP) Parts 1
and 2, Interim Action Plan (IAP) and the CSA Supplemental Report (CSA SUP) were
prepared and submitted to the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
(DEQ). The most recent document, the CSA SUP, was submitted to DEQ on September
15, 2016.
The CAP (Parts 1 and 2) was designed to describe means to restore groundwater quality
to the level of the standards, or as close as is economically and technologically feasible
in accordance with T15A NCAC 02L.0106. Exceedances of numerical values contained
in Subchapter 2L and Appendix 1 Subchapter 02L (IMACs) at or beyond the compliance
boundary were determined to be the basis for corrective action with the exception of
parameters for which naturally occurring background concentrations are greater than
the standards.
1.1.1 Settlement Agreement
A Settlement Agreement between DEQ and Duke Energy signed on September
29, 2015, requires accelerated remediation to be implemented at sites that
demonstrate off-site groundwater impacts. Historical and CSA assessment
indicates the potential for off-site impact east of the active ash basin at H.F. Lee.
Figure 1-2 illustrates the general area to be addressed for accelerated
remediation. Arsenic and boron have been identified as constituents which
occur at levels above 2L and greater than proposed background concentrations.
Basis of Design Report – 30% Submittal November 2016
H.F. Lee Energy Complex SynTerra
Page 1-2
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\04.LEE PLANT\22.Basis of Design Report\Design Report (30)\Report text\HF Lee Basis of Design Report.docx
Arsenic and boron impact which has the potential to migrate beyond the
compliance boundary and off site, will be the focus of the accelerated
remediation plan.
Duke Energy provided an Accelerated Remediation Summary to DEQ on
February 17, 2016 which supplemented and updated information included with
the CAP Part 2. In correspondence dated March 28, 2016, DEQ acknowledged
receipt of the Remediation Summary and requested additional information.
DEQ conditionally approved the IAP(s) in a letter dated July 22, 2016 with the
condition (among others) that a Basis of Design Report be submitted for review.
1.1.2 Interim Action Plan
The IAP, submitted to DEQ in April 2016, provided an update on planned
additional assessment and remedial activities at the site. Interim action activities
conducted in 2016 which pertain to the east side of the active ash basin are
summarized as follows:
Background monitoring wells AMW-16BC, AMW-17S and AMW-17BC
were installed north of the active basin to increase the available
background data set.
Monitoring wells AMW-18S and AMW-18BC were installed to further
delineate potential ash basin influence east of the active basin (Figure
1-2).
A pilot test was conducted in the area proposed for accelerated
remediation. The pilot test included the installation of a six inch
diameter extraction well (PTW-1) and five observation wells (PTW-2
through PTW-6). Two step drawdown tests and one 36-hour constant
rate pumping test were completed in July and August 2016.
1.1.3 Purpose of Basis of Design
The purpose of this Basis of Design Report is to provide a system layout and
sizing of system components including wells, piping, pumps, and discharge
system. It also serves to provide control system capabilities and power
requirements. This report also includes evaluation of fate and transport of
constituents, potential changes to site geochemistry as a result of remedial efforts
and evaluation of remedial alternatives. Key elements include:
Refined site conceptual model which incorporates aquifer test results
Basis of Design Report – 30% Submittal November 2016
H.F. Lee Energy Complex SynTerra
Page 1-3
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\04.LEE PLANT\22.Basis of Design Report\Design Report (30)\Report text\HF Lee Basis of Design Report.docx
Groundwater extraction system design
Groundwater fate and transport modeling with an emphasis on boron
mobility through 2117
Geochemical modeling to address constituent mobility and potential
geochemical changes related to remediation
1.1.4 Scope and Objectives of the Interim Action
Constituents associated with coal ash pore water migration have been identified
within groundwater in the surficial flow zone at the compliance boundary east of
the active ash basin. Arsenic and boron are the primary constituents greater than
2L in groundwater. Results from monitoring wells northeast of the active basin
have not indicated arsenic and boron concentrations greater than 2L. This
indicates that constituent migration is east from the active ash basin and then
south and southeast toward the Neuse River. This is consistent with radial
groundwater flow for short distances away from the basin.
Groundwater monitoring wells indicating constituent concentrations above 2L
adjacent to the active basin are on Duke Energy property. The primary objective
of the groundwater extraction system is to accelerate the reduction of constituent
concentrations in groundwater to below 2L at and beyond the compliance
boundary and limit further migration of constituents.
1.2 Interim Action Alternative Evaluation
The CAP Part 2 and IAP evaluated groundwater extraction by (1) a network of
conventional vertical wells and, (2) an interceptor trench, as part of the remedy for the
active ash basin. The IAP proposed completion of a groundwater extraction pilot test to
determine expected flow rates and an effective radius of influence for extraction wells.
To conduct this test, United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) permitting for
installation of the test wells was necessary because the well locations are in potential
wetland areas. Through the permitting effort, it became clear that disturbance of
wetlands could be a significant issue in implementing the proposed interim actions.
Ground surface disturbance was determined to be less with a conventional extraction
well network than with installation of an interceptor trench. As a result, groundwater
extraction along the eastern edge of the active basin is proposed to be accomplished
with a network of conventional vertical wells. This approach was evaluated in the CAP
and determined to be feasible and effective.
Basis of Design Report – 30% Submittal November 2016
H.F. Lee Energy Complex SynTerra
Page 1-4
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\04.LEE PLANT\22.Basis of Design Report\Design Report (30)\Report text\HF Lee Basis of Design Report.docx
In addition to less surface disturbance, this approach will also provide more operational
flexibility. With a network of wells, spatial and temporal variations in the response of
the aquifer can be addressed through operational cycling and pumping rate adjustment
to individual wells, or by adding wells.
Details of alternative remediation technologies were presented in Section 6.0 of the CAP
Part 2 (SynTerra, February 2016). The pilot test conducted at H.F. Lee in August 2016
confirmed the feasibility of implementation of extraction wells east of the active ash
basin.
1.3 Report Organization
The initial 30% submittal provides enough detail of the groundwater extraction design
to conceptualize system components, performance, and initiate evaluation of site
specific considerations. Provided herein are conceptual layout drawings, preliminary
pump and piping specifications. Findings from the aquifer pumping test which
determined potential extraction system yield and area of influence are summarized in
Section 2.3 and the pilot test report is provided as Appendix A. Sections three through
eight will continue to be developed and incorporated into 60% and 90% design
packages prior to the final (100%) submittal. Appendices including Focused Evaluation
of Alternative Remedial Technologies, Updated Groundwater Fate and Transport
Modeling Report, and Updated Geochemical Modeling Report will be provided as
interim submittals at time of completion.
Basis of Design Report – 30% Submittal November 2016
H.F. Lee Energy Complex SynTerra
Page 2-1
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\04.LEE PLANT\22.Basis of Design Report\Design Report (30)\Report text\HF Lee Basis of Design Report.docx
2.0 REFINED SITE CONCEPTUAL MODEL
The site conceptual model (SCM) is an interpretation of processes and characteristics
associated with hydrogeologic conditions and constituent interactions at the Lee Plant
site. The purpose of the SCM is to evaluate areal distribution and flow pattern of
constituents with regard to site-specific geological/hydrogeological and geochemical
properties at the site relative to the source, potential receptors and natural control
mechanisms. The SCM was developed using data and analysis from the CSA
(SynTerra, August 2015) and was further refined in the Corrective Action Plan Part 2
(SynTerra, February 2016). This discussion incorporates additional assessment
conducted between June and August 2016.
Key components of the H.F. Lee SCM are as follows:
The ash basins, surficial deposits, the Black Creek and the Cape Fear deposits
make up distinct hydrogeologic layers at the H.F. Lee site. Unconsolidated
saprolite and/or metamorphic bedrock underlie the sedimentary deposits.
Where unconsolidated saprolitic material underlies or is laterally contiguous
with either Black Creek or Cape Fear deposits it is considered a component of
that hydrogeologic layer. Groundwater in the surficial deposits under the ash
basins flows horizontally to the east and south and discharges into the Neuse
River or Halfmile Branch.
Water within the active ash basin and inactive ash basin 1 is hydraulically higher
(upgradient) than the surrounding land surface. Pore water drains through the
underlying soil to the groundwater.
Groundwater flow is toward the Neuse River (south for the active basin, east to
southeast for the inactive basins). This flow direction is away from upgradient
receptors. The Neuse River is the hydraulic boundary for constituent migration.
Groundwater and seeps are the primary mechanisms for migration of ash-related
constituents to the environment. Both flow toward the Neuse River.
Boron and arsenic are constituents associated with the ash basins and generally
are not found at comparable levels in background wells.
Cobalt, iron, vanadium and manganese are ubiquitous in groundwater samples
including background locations. Provisional background values have been used
to interpret how much of each constituent is background or from basin influence.
Basis of Design Report – 30% Submittal November 2016
H.F. Lee Energy Complex SynTerra
Page 2-2
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\04.LEE PLANT\22.Basis of Design Report\Design Report (30)\Report text\HF Lee Basis of Design Report.docx
Results from sorption studies on site specific soils indicate that iron and
manganese leach from naturally occurring materials. While it is known that
these metals leach from coal ash, occurrences in background areas limit their use
as indicators of groundwater contamination.
The primary geochemical factors that affect groundwater quality in the surficial
aquifer in the vicinity of the active ash basin are variations in pH and redox
potential (Eh). In background areas upgradient from the active basin pH is
generally low (4.2 to 4.5) and Eh is high. In contrast, pH values are higher (6.0 to
6.5) and Eh values are lower in groundwater beneath and immediately
downgradient from the ash basin.
Flow rates observed during the August 2016 pumping test for the surficial
hydrogeologic unit at the east side of the active ash basin indicated higher
hydraulic conductivity (136 ft/day) than previously estimated based on slug tests
from assessment wells (geometric mean for surficial unit of 4.85 ft/day). The
duration of pumping tests is longer than slug tests and affects a larger formation
volume. Due to scale dependence, pumping tests often result in greater
estimates of hydraulic conductivity (Butler and Healey, 1998). The difference in
results illustrates the importance of pumping tests for extraction system design
purposes. Slug test results are useful data for comparison purposes but may be
heavily influenced by near-well conditions.
Field observations from well installations indicate the surficial deposits east of
the active basin are characterized by thick (15 feet or greater) layers of medium to
coarse grained sand which appear to be contiguous across the area.
Downward vertical migration of constituents is restricted due to the clay and silt
layers beneath the ash basins that act as confining layers over the deeper aquifers
in the area.
2.1 Geology and Hydrogeology
Assessment activities conducted as part of the CSA in 2015 indicate that the lithology
beneath the site generally consists of a layer of silty to clayey surficial deposits
underlain by interbedded clay and sand of the Cape Fear and Black Creek deposits.
The Cape Fear is present beneath surficial deposits in areas on the west side of the
active ash basin. The Black Creek deposits are present beneath the active basin and in
areas to the east. Field observations indicate that a confining clay layer at the top of the
Black Creek deposits is present under the active basin and to the east.
Basis of Design Report – 30% Submittal November 2016
H.F. Lee Energy Complex SynTerra
Page 2-3
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\04.LEE PLANT\22.Basis of Design Report\Design Report (30)\Report text\HF Lee Basis of Design Report.docx
Pertinent aspects of the hydrogeology east of the active basin are summarized as follow:
Boron and arsenic are present in the surficial hydrogeologic unit east of the
active basin at concentrations above 2L. Monitoring results from below the
underlying Black Creek confining clay do not indicate elevated boron and
arsenic concentrations.
Depth to groundwater varies from one to five feet in the area.
Surficial deposits in the area consist primarily of medium grained sand with
minor clay lenses. The surficial hydrogeologic unit thickens from the north (20
feet) to the south (40 feet) toward the Neuse River.
2.2 Summary of Baseline Site Conditions
Based on groundwater monitoring results from wells east of the active basin, arsenic
(AMW-18S, CMW-6 and CMW-6R) and boron (AMW-18S, CMW-6, CMW-6R and
CMW-5) are present at concentrations above 2L in the surficial aquifer. Constituent
concentrations at AMW-18S in July 2016 were greater than 2L standards for arsenic and
boron and were similar to June 2016 results from CMW-6R for those constituents.
Results from shallow monitoring wells to the north (AMW-17S and BGMW-10) and on
the northeastern side of the active basin (AMW-14S and AMW-15S) have not indicated
arsenic and boron exceedances. This is consistent with constituent migration towards
the CMW-6R and AMW-18S areas. Monitoring well CMW-6R is located at the
compliance boundary. Monitoring well AMW-18S is located southeast of CMW-6R, just
outside of the compliance boundary.
Preliminary groundwater fate and transport modeling included in the CAP Part 2
indicated that removing constituent mass from this area will accelerate reduction of
groundwater constituents at the compliance boundary.
2.3 Summary of Aquifer Characteristics
Aquifer testing east of the active basin consisted of two step-drawdown tests and a
pumping test in late July and early August 2016. Approximately 10,000 gallons of water
was extracted during the two step-drawdown tests. On August 2, 2016, a 36-hour
constant rate pumping test was initiated at pilot test well PTW-1. The volume of water
extracted during the 36-hour pumping test was approximately 63,500 gallons. The
extracted groundwater was pumped into the active ash basin.

Basis of Design Report – 30% Submittal November 2016
H.F. Lee Energy Complex SynTerra
Page 2-4
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\04.LEE PLANT\22.Basis of Design Report\Design Report (30)\Report text\HF Lee Basis of Design Report.docx
Results from step-drawdown tests and pumping test indicate the following:
Average sustainable yields (over the course of the test) were at least 30 gallons
per minute.
The radius of influence is approximately 300 feet from the extraction well.
Hydraulic conductivity of approximately 136 ft/day with an assumed average
aquifer thickness of about 20 feet.
Specific yield and hydraulic conductivity are constant throughout the target area,
confirming low heterogeneity of the unconfined aquifer flow system.
Hydraulic conductivity calculated from step-drawdown and pumping tests
exceeded predicted hydraulic conductivities from well development logs.
Using graphical calculation methods and AQTESOLV Pro.4.5, the geometric
mean of the transmissivity in the surficial unit is 2,970 ft2/day. This value is
representative of medium to coarse sand.
Aquifer data in the vicinity of PTW-1 indicate conditions at this location would
support viable extraction wells under current site conditions. There was no
measurable water level drawdown of the hydrogeologic unit below the Black
Creek clay unit from pumping the surficial aquifer system.
Basis of Design Report – 30% Submittal November 2016
H.F. Lee Energy Complex SynTerra
Page 3-1
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\04.LEE PLANT\22.Basis of Design Report\Design Report (30)\Report text\HF Lee Basis of Design Report.docx
3.0 INTERIM ACTION DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
This section addresses the identification and evaluation of possible corrective measures
applicable to the restoration of groundwater quality in the area of interest to the east of
the active basin.
3.1 Preliminary Design Criteria and Layout
Groundwater extraction along the eastern edge of the active basin is proposed to be
accomplished with a network of conventional extraction wells. Results from aquifer
testing indicate that groundwater extraction is feasible given site conditions.
3.2 Groundwater Extraction System Design
The groundwater extraction system design is based on effective and efficient capture
and conveyance of groundwater for treatment and discharge.
Groundwater extraction was evaluated in the CAP Part 2 (SynTerra, February 2016) and
IAP as part of the remedy for the area east of the active ash basin. The IAP proposed
completion of aquifer testing to evaluate the feasibility of groundwater extraction
within this area. Results of the aquifer testing indicated groundwater extraction could
be a viable remedial alternative. Criteria for the design of groundwater extraction at the
Lee Plant include:
Installation of extraction wells with sufficient capacity to efficiently extract
groundwater and constituent mass from the surficial hydrogeologic flow system;
Well placement within the area of highest concentrations (east of the active ash
basin) as determined by extensive groundwater sampling and assessment; and
Adequate treatment of extracted groundwater to meet potential limits required
by selected discharge option.
Extracted groundwater is anticipated to be pumped to a permitted National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) outfall, possibly with treatment prior to the
outfall. A conceptual layout of the remediation system is shown on Figure 1-2. The
system layout and the location of the treatment system and control panel will be further
evaluated through the 60% design submittal. The final location of the treatment system
and control panel will be coordinated with basin closure activities.
3.3 Evaluation of Alternative Technologies
Collection of groundwater can be accomplished with extraction wells or collection
trenches. For this facility, groundwater will be extracted primarily from the surficial
Basis of Design Report – 30% Submittal November 2016
H.F. Lee Energy Complex SynTerra
Page 3-2
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\04.LEE PLANT\22.Basis of Design Report\Design Report (30)\Report text\HF Lee Basis of Design Report.docx
groundwater zone. Conventional vertical extraction wells are an effective method of
groundwater capture and will provide much more operational flexibility and less
ground disturbance than a trench. With a series of wells, spatial and temporal
variations in the response of the aquifer can be addressed through operational cycling
and pumping rate adjustment to individual wells or by adding wells. For the purpose
of accelerated groundwater remediation in the area of interest, this is the most viable
approach for ease of design and implementation.
A focused evaluation of alternative remedial technologies will be provided in
Appendix B.
3.4 Groundwater Flow Modeling
An initial Groundwater Flow and Transport Modeling Report was developed and
submitted with the CAP Part 1 on November 2, 2015. This model will be updated with
information obtained from the installation of data gap wells and the recently completed
aquifer pumping test. The updated groundwater flow model will be included in
Appendix C and prepared to inform the 60% design level.
3.4.1 Groundwater Flow Model Conceptualization Design
Discussion of Groundwater Flow Model Conceptualization Design will be
included in the final Basis of Design Report submittal.
3.4.2 Groundwater Flow Model Calibration
Discussion of Groundwater Flow Model Calibration will be included in the final
Basis of Design Report submittal.
3.5 Groundwater Extraction System Design
The groundwater extraction system design is based on effective and efficient capture
and conveyance of groundwater for treatment and discharge.
3.5.1 Current Conditions
The step-drawdown test and extended pumping test data were used to calculate
a hydraulic conductivity of approximately 136 feet per day (ft/day) with an
assumed average aquifer thickness of about 20 feet for the surficial aquifer east of
the active basin.
Aquifer data in the vicinity of PTW-1 indicate conditions at this location could
support viable extraction wells under current site conditions. Radius of
Influence (ROI) was calculated to be at least 300 feet. Average sustainable yields
were at least 30 gallons per minute (gpm). The 30 gpm flow rate yielded a 3-foot
drawdown.
Basis of Design Report – 30% Submittal November 2016
H.F. Lee Energy Complex SynTerra
Page 3-3
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\04.LEE PLANT\22.Basis of Design Report\Design Report (30)\Report text\HF Lee Basis of Design Report.docx
3.5.2 Post-Basin Closure Conditions
Source control measures are being addressed separately but are assumed to
occur in addition to the groundwater corrective action alternatives discussed in
this submittal. The closure scenario at H.F. Lee is anticipated to involve
excavation to a lined solution. The hydraulic head currently associated with the
active basin is expected to be lowered in this closure scenario which will lessen
or remove the component of groundwater flow to the east of the basin.
3.6 Groundwater Fate and Transport Modeling
An initial Groundwater Flow and Transport Modeling Report was developed and
submitted with the CAP Part 1 on November 2, 2015. This model will be updated with
information obtained from the installation of data gap wells and the recently completed
aquifer pumping tests and groundwater analysis. The updated groundwater fate and
transport model will predict how long boron concentrations will remain above the 2L at
the offsite property boundary (compliance boundary), and at least through the year
2117. This model will be included in Appendix C and prepared to inform the 60%
design level.
3.6.1 Groundwater Fate and Transport Model Calibration
Discussion of Groundwater Fate and Transport Model Calibration will be
included in the final Basis of Design Report submittal.
3.6.2 Predictive Results
Discussion of predictive results will be included in the final Basis of Design
Report submittal.
3.6.3 Implications of Remedy on Geochemical Conditions and
Plume Stability
Implementation of the remedial strategy (groundwater extraction) is anticipated
to drive subsurface geochemical conditions toward more natural background
conditions. This is likely to result in a localized decrease in pH and increase in
Eh.
A decrease in pH will generally cause a decrease in the mobility of anions and an
increase in the mobility of cations. Anions will have a greater electrostatic
attraction and cations will have a lesser electrostatic attraction towards the
sorptive medium as mineral surfaces transition from a net negative to a net
positive surface charge. In general, the expected decrease in pH toward
background conditions may result in sustained concentrations of soluble
Basis of Design Report – 30% Submittal November 2016
H.F. Lee Energy Complex SynTerra
Page 3-4
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\04.LEE PLANT\22.Basis of Design Report\Design Report (30)\Report text\HF Lee Basis of Design Report.docx
groundwater cationic species such as manganese, and a decrease in groundwater
concentrations of anionic species such as arsenic.
Changes in geochemistry near the ash basin as a result of groundwater
extraction, such as a return to more natural Eh-pH conditions, are not expected
to change the mobility of boron.
3.7 Groundwater Extraction System Design Limitations
Discussion of groundwater extraction system design limitations will be included in the
final Basis of Design Report submittal.
Basis of Design Report – 30% Submittal November 2016
H.F. Lee Energy Complex SynTerra
Page 4-1
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\04.LEE PLANT\22.Basis of Design Report\Design Report (30)\Report text\HF Lee Basis of Design Report.docx
4.0 WELL DESIGN
The well system design is intended to provide drawdown and capture groundwater
flow to the east of the active basin.
4.1 Overview of Extraction Well Network
Based on this objective and results from the pumping test, design spacing between
extraction wells is estimated at 300 feet along the eastern edge of the basin. The
expected width of the plume at the base of the basin is approximately 2,700 feet so nine
wells are anticipated. At 30 gpm per well, the total flow rate for the proposed
extraction system would be 270 gpm. At some point greater pumping rates and
drawdown levels may be desirable so, for planning purposes, a maximum design flow
rate of 540 gpm is used.
The nine extraction wells will be located approximately adjacent to the existing
monitoring well access path to minimize disturbance of wetland areas during drilling
and installation and to provide access for operations and maintenance (O&M) of the
extraction system.
4.2 Well Construction
The extraction wells will be installed by a North Carolina licensed well driller in
accordance with North Carolina Administrative Code Title 15A, Subchapter 2C – Well
Construction Standards, Rule 108 Standards of Construction: Wells Other Than Water
Supply (15A NCAC 02C .0108). The wells are planned to be drilled using 12-inch
hollow stem auger drilling methods to allow for a 3-inch annular space around the 6-
inch casing and screen. The well casing will extend approximately one foot above
ground surface. The top of the sand pack (Gravel Pack #3) will extend to two feet above
the top of the well screen. The bentonite well seal will be at least one foot thick. Neat
cement grout with 5% bentonite will be placed to within three feet of the ground
surface. Concrete grout will be placed in the top three feet of the annular space. Due to
difficult access in some areas, well construction methods and specifications may be
modified for site specific conditions. All materials and installations will be in
accordance with 15A NCAC 02C. Groundwater modeling will aid in the determination
of minimum yield requirements to achieve the objective of accelerated remediation. A
schematic diagram of an extraction well is included as Figure 4-1.
The wells will be drilled and installed to approximate depths between 25 and 40 feet,
corresponding to the shallow aquifer thickness, to enable recovery through the entire
shallow aquifer water column. The depth of each well will correspond to the shallow
aquifer thickness at that location. The exact depths will be determined based on
Basis of Design Report – 30% Submittal November 2016
H.F. Lee Energy Complex SynTerra
Page 4-2
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\04.LEE PLANT\22.Basis of Design Report\Design Report (30)\Report text\HF Lee Basis of Design Report.docx
observations in the field during drilling. The expected depths, based on previous
drilling data, are provided in Table 4-1. The wells will not penetrate the underlying
clay layer. The well screens will be installed near the bottom of the permeable
formation to reduce premature oxidation of iron during extraction, which could cause
extraction and pumping system fouling and loss of efficiency. Wound wire screens will
be used to reduce loss of efficiency over time and to facilitate rehabilitation if necessary.
The extraction wells will be 6-inch diameter wells with Schedule 40 PVC casings. At a
maximum depth of 40 feet, the worst case scenario collapse pressure will be 17.3 psi.
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 (𝑝𝑝𝑃𝑃𝑝𝑝)=𝐷𝐷𝑃𝑃𝑝𝑝𝐷𝐷ℎ 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑃𝑃𝑝𝑝𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 (𝑜𝑜𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝐷𝐷) × 𝑊𝑊𝐶𝐶𝐷𝐷𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑊𝑊𝑃𝑃𝑝𝑝𝐶𝐶ℎ𝐷𝐷 (𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑃𝑃 𝑝𝑝𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑐𝑐𝑃𝑃𝑙𝑙𝑝𝑝𝑐𝑐 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝐷𝐷) 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 (𝑝𝑝𝑃𝑃𝑝𝑝)=40 𝑜𝑜𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝐷𝐷 × 62.4 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑃𝑃𝑜𝑜𝐷𝐷3 × 1 𝑜𝑜𝐷𝐷2144 𝑝𝑝𝐶𝐶2 =17.3 𝑝𝑝𝑃𝑃𝑝𝑝

The collapse pressure for 6-inch Schedule 40 PVC is 77 psi. Six-inch diameter PVC
casing installations are allowed to depths of 130 feet in accordance with 15A NCAC
02C.
The well screens will be 0.010-inch (10-slot) Johnson Screen® Free-Flow® 304 stainless
steel wound wedge (or comparable) wire screens. These screens have a collapse
pressure of 87 psi.
The well screens will be 10 feet long which will provide for a minimum flow capacity of
108 gpm which is significantly greater than the maximum design flow of 60 gpm.
𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑝𝑝𝐶𝐶𝑐𝑐𝑝𝑝𝐷𝐷𝐶𝐶 (𝐶𝐶𝑝𝑝𝑔𝑔)=𝑂𝑂𝑝𝑝𝑃𝑃𝐶𝐶 𝐴𝐴𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝐶𝐶 × 0.31 @ 0.1 𝑜𝑜𝐷𝐷/𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑐𝑐 × 𝑆𝑆𝑐𝑐𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝐶𝐶 𝐿𝐿𝑃𝑃𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐷𝐷ℎ (𝑜𝑜𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝐷𝐷) 𝑄𝑄=35 × 0.31 × 10 =108.5 𝐶𝐶𝑝𝑝𝑔𝑔

4.3 Groundwater Extraction Rates
Results of the pilot test activities in July and August 2016 indicate a hydraulic
conductivity of approximately 136 feet per day (ft/day) with an assumed average
aquifer thickness of about 20 feet for the surficial aquifer east of the active basin. Radius
of influence (ROI) was calculated to be at least 300 feet. Average sustainable yields
were at least 30 gallons per minute (gpm). The 30 gpm flow rate yielded a 3-foot
drawdown.
Basis of Design Report – 30% Submittal November 2016
H.F. Lee Energy Complex SynTerra
Page 5-1
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\04.LEE PLANT\22.Basis of Design Report\Design Report (30)\Report text\HF Lee Basis of Design Report.docx
5.0 GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION SYSTEM PIPELINE AND
PUMP STATION DESIGN
5.1 Overall Pipeline Design Basis
The anticipated flow rate for the system is 270 gpm. The pipeline design basis is 540 gpm
to allow for increased pumping rates if that becomes necessary. The piping system will be
constructed either aboveground or below grade with high density polyethylene (HDPE).
Above grade installation would be adequately insulated to protect from freezing
conditions.
5.1.1 Well Pumps
The extraction wells will be equipped with a Grundfos 62S75-14 (or equal)
submersible electric pumps. Each pump will be equipped with variable frequency
drive (VFD) motor control and electrical and thermal motor protection.
Assuming similar conditions and flow rates as indicated during the pumping test,
the pumps provide 285 feet of nominal head, operate on 230 or 460 volt 3-phase
power and have a 7.5 horsepower (Hp) motor. The pump diameter is four inches
with a 2-inch discharge. At 30 gpm, the pump provides 375 feet of head and
operates at 55% efficiency. At 60 gpm, the pump provides 305 feet of head and
operates at 70% efficiency. The minimum 305 feet of head is sufficient to provide the
necessary flow rates for the system.
The expected head requirement assumes 45 feet from the well water column, 195
feet for piping losses, 30 feet for fittings loss, and an estimated 20 feet to reach
treatment system headworks.
This pump provides the greatest efficiency over the design flow rate range. Use of a
VFD will provide the capability to operate the pump at lower flow rates, if
necessary, while not significantly sacrificing efficiency or subjecting the pump to
unnecessary working pressure. The control system will include water level and
flow monitoring and feedback to the VFD and will allow for efficient, timely and
effective operation of the pumps.
5.1.2 Well Discharge Piping
It is anticipated that the well pump will discharge through a 2-inch diameter
discharge pipe to the surface. The pipe will be secured in the center of the well with
Simmons (or equal) top guides.

Basis of Design Report – 30% Submittal November 2016
H.F. Lee Energy Complex SynTerra
Page 5-2
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\04.LEE PLANT\22.Basis of Design Report\Design Report (30)\Report text\HF Lee Basis of Design Report.docx
5.1.3 Well Head Configuration
Well boxes will be finished above or below grade and insulated to simplify O&M
(Figure 5-1 provides an above grade example). Well box piping and fittings may be
304 stainless steel to reduce risk of damage due to O&M. The piping will transition
to HDPE fusion-welded pipe.
The well seal will be Simmons Model 316 (or equal) cast solid plate, 4-bolt seal with
threaded openings for the pump power cable, level monitor and well vent.
The piping will be fitted with a Simmons Model 516SS (or equal) check valve.
Flow monitoring at the well head will be accomplished with a Sparling Tigermag EP
FM656 (or equal) electromagnetic flow meter with direct read and transmitter.
Well water level will be monitored with a Solinist Levelogger (or equal) transducer.
This feature will allow level control of the pumping system.
The piping will be fitted with a one-half inch sampling port ball valve.
The well head piping train will include a ball valve for isolation of the well head
from the header and pipe unions for maintenance access.
The well head will be enclosed within a Virtual Polymer Compounds (or equal) 6-
foot by 3-foot by 30-inch high insulated fiberglass aboveground vault with full top
access and locking cover. The vault will be attached to a poured-in-place concrete
foundation.
5.2 Extraction Well Pipeline
The extraction well header pipe will connect all of the well discharges to the treatment
system. It will be constructed of polyurethane pre-insulated 6-inch diameter DR-11 HDPE.
5.2.1 Pipe Pressure
The maximum pressure of the system will be less than 150 psi. Manufacturers’
pressure rating for DR-11 HDPE pipe is 200 psi. DR-11 pipe also meets long term
pressure performance criteria.

Basis of Design Report – 30% Submittal November 2016
H.F. Lee Energy Complex SynTerra
Page 5-3
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\04.LEE PLANT\22.Basis of Design Report\Design Report (30)\Report text\HF Lee Basis of Design Report.docx
PR =2(HDS) 𝑜𝑜𝐸𝐸 𝑜𝑜𝑇𝑇𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷−1

PR: pressure rating, psi
HDS: hydrostatic design stress, psi; 800 @ 73 degrees Fahrenheit (oF)
fE: environmental design factor; 1.00 for water
fT; operating temperature multiplier; 1.11 @ 73 oF
DR: pipe dimension ratio, DR=D/t; D: diameter, t: thickness
150 =2(800)(1.00)(1.11)𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷−1

DR = 11.8; 11.8 > 11, so DR-11 is acceptable
5.2.2 Pipe Flow
Flow velocities for the extraction well and header piping were estimated using the
Hazen Williams formula with US units. S = 𝑃𝑃𝑑𝑑𝐿𝐿=4.52 𝑄𝑄1.852 𝐶𝐶1.852 𝑑𝑑4.8704
where:
S = frictional resistance (pressure drop per foot of pipe) in psig/ft (psi gauge
pressure per foot)
Pd = pressure drop over the length of pipe in psig
L = length of pipe in feet
Q = flow, gpm
C = pipe roughness coefficient
d = inside pipe diameter, in

At the assumed header pipe operating flow rate of 270 gpm, the water velocity in
the pipe would be 3.85 feet per second (fps) and the head loss would be 0.010 feet of
water per foot of pipe length (ft/ft). At the design flow rate of 540 gpm the velocity
would be 7.71 fps and the head loss would be 0.036 ft/ft.
Basis of Design Report – 30% Submittal November 2016
H.F. Lee Energy Complex SynTerra
Page 5-4
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\04.LEE PLANT\22.Basis of Design Report\Design Report (30)\Report text\HF Lee Basis of Design Report.docx
Piping from the well boxes to the header is anticipated to be pre-insulated 2-inch
diameter DR-11 HDPE. At the expected well line operating flow rate of 30 gpm, the
water velocity in the pipe will be 3.32 fps and the head loss will be 0.025 ft/ft. At the
design flow rate of 60 gpm the velocity will be 6.65 fps and the head loss will be
0.089 ft/ft.
These fluid velocities and head losses are within acceptable ranges given the fluid
and piping material characteristics. Installation of the pipe will be completed with
heat fused joints and insulating collars will be installed over the joints after welding
and pressure testing.
5.2.3 Pipe Insulation
To prevent freezing, the header and well extraction piping will be factory-insulated
with 1-1/2 inches thick polyurethane foam and polyurethane polymer coating.
Temperature loss over the length of the header piping under average conditions is
estimated to be 0.13 oF. This assumes a groundwater extraction temperature of 60.8
oF and the historical lowest monthly average low ambient air temperature of 34 oF.
Conductive Heat Flow = Overall Temperature Difference /
Summation of Thermal Resistance's 𝑞𝑞=2𝜋𝜋𝐿𝐿 (𝑇𝑇1 −𝑇𝑇3 )�1k𝑎𝑎�ln 𝑃𝑃2𝑃𝑃1 +�1𝑘𝑘𝑏𝑏�ln 𝑃𝑃3𝑃𝑃2
𝑞𝑞=𝑐𝑐𝑜𝑜𝐶𝐶𝑑𝑑𝑃𝑃𝑐𝑐𝐷𝐷𝑝𝑝𝑜𝑜𝐶𝐶 𝐵𝐵𝑇𝑇𝐵𝐵ℎ𝑃𝑃= 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 ∙ ℉ℎ𝑃𝑃 𝐿𝐿=2700 𝑜𝑜𝐷𝐷 × 12 𝑝𝑝𝐶𝐶𝑜𝑜𝐷𝐷=32,400 𝑝𝑝𝐶𝐶 𝑇𝑇1 =𝐺𝐺𝑃𝑃𝑜𝑜𝑃𝑃𝐶𝐶𝑑𝑑𝐺𝐺𝐶𝐶𝐷𝐷𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝐷𝐷𝑃𝑃𝑔𝑔𝑝𝑝𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝐶𝐶𝐷𝐷𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃,𝐶𝐶𝑎𝑎𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑃𝑃 60.8 ℉; 𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑜𝐺𝐺𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝐷𝐷 46.4 ℉ (𝐶𝐶𝑆𝑆𝐴𝐴 𝑑𝑑𝐶𝐶𝐷𝐷𝐶𝐶)
𝑇𝑇3 =𝐴𝐴𝑔𝑔𝑙𝑙𝑝𝑝𝑃𝑃𝐶𝐶𝐷𝐷 𝐶𝐶𝑝𝑝𝑃𝑃 𝐷𝐷𝑃𝑃𝑔𝑔𝑝𝑝𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝐶𝐶𝐷𝐷𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃,𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑜𝐺𝐺𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝐷𝐷 𝑔𝑔𝑜𝑜𝐶𝐶𝐷𝐷ℎ𝑙𝑙𝐶𝐶 𝐶𝐶𝑎𝑎𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑃𝑃 𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑜𝐺𝐺 34 ℉; 𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑜𝐺𝐺 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑐𝑐𝑜𝑜𝑃𝑃𝑑𝑑𝑃𝑃𝑑𝑑−1 ℉
𝑘𝑘𝑎𝑎=𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑃𝑃 𝑐𝑐𝑜𝑜𝐶𝐶𝑑𝑑𝑃𝑃𝑐𝑐𝐷𝐷𝑝𝑝𝑎𝑎𝑝𝑝𝐷𝐷𝐶𝐶=2.86 𝐵𝐵𝑇𝑇𝐵𝐵∙𝑝𝑝𝐶𝐶𝑜𝑜𝐷𝐷2 ∙ℎ𝑃𝑃∙℉ × 1 𝑜𝑜𝐷𝐷2144 𝑝𝑝𝐶𝐶2=0.1986 𝐵𝐵𝑇𝑇𝐵𝐵𝑝𝑝𝐶𝐶∙ℎ𝑃𝑃∙℉

Basis of Design Report – 30% Submittal November 2016
H.F. Lee Energy Complex SynTerra
Page 5-5
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\04.LEE PLANT\22.Basis of Design Report\Design Report (30)\Report text\HF Lee Basis of Design Report.docx
𝑘𝑘𝑏𝑏=𝑝𝑝𝐶𝐶𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑙𝑙𝐶𝐶𝐷𝐷𝑝𝑝𝑜𝑜𝐶𝐶 𝑐𝑐𝑜𝑜𝐶𝐶𝑑𝑑𝑃𝑃𝑐𝑐𝐷𝐷𝑝𝑝𝑎𝑎𝑝𝑝𝐷𝐷𝐶𝐶=0.19 𝐵𝐵𝑇𝑇𝐵𝐵∙𝑝𝑝𝐶𝐶𝑜𝑜𝐷𝐷2 ∙ℎ𝑃𝑃∙℉ × 1 𝑜𝑜𝐷𝐷2144 𝑝𝑝𝐶𝐶2=0.0013 𝐵𝐵𝑇𝑇𝐵𝐵𝑝𝑝𝐶𝐶∙ℎ𝑃𝑃∙℉
𝑃𝑃1 =𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑃𝑃 𝑝𝑝𝐶𝐶𝑃𝑃𝑝𝑝𝑑𝑑𝑃𝑃 𝑃𝑃𝐶𝐶𝑑𝑑𝑝𝑝𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃=2.675 𝑝𝑝𝐶𝐶 𝑃𝑃2 =𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑃𝑃 𝑜𝑜𝑃𝑃𝐷𝐷𝑃𝑃𝑝𝑝𝑑𝑑𝑃𝑃 𝑃𝑃𝐶𝐶𝑑𝑑𝑝𝑝𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃=3.277 𝑝𝑝𝐶𝐶 𝑃𝑃3 =𝑝𝑝𝐶𝐶𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑙𝑙𝐶𝐶𝐷𝐷𝑝𝑝𝑜𝑜𝐶𝐶 𝑜𝑜𝑃𝑃𝐷𝐷𝑃𝑃𝑝𝑝𝑑𝑑𝑃𝑃 𝑃𝑃𝐶𝐶𝑑𝑑𝑝𝑝𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃=4.875 𝑝𝑝𝐶𝐶
𝑞𝑞=2𝜋𝜋(32400)(60.8 −34)�10.1986�ln 3.2772.675 +�10.0013�ln 4.8753.277
𝑞𝑞=1.78 × 104 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 ∙ ℉ℎ𝑃𝑃
∆𝑇𝑇=𝐷𝐷𝑃𝑃𝑔𝑔𝑝𝑝𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝐶𝐶𝐷𝐷𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑑𝑑𝑃𝑃𝑜𝑜𝑝𝑝= 1.78 × 104 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 ∙ ℉ℎ𝑃𝑃270 galmin ∙8.34 𝑙𝑙𝑏𝑏𝑙𝑙𝑔𝑔𝑎𝑎𝑙𝑙 ∙60 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚ℎ𝑟𝑟=0.13 ℉

The temperature drop using the more extreme temperature conditions and
assuming only one well is running at 30 gpm is 2.1 oF. This is also low heat loss.
Freezing should not occur under these conditions.
5.2.4 Pipe Expansion/Contraction
HDPE pipe has a thermal expansion coefficient of 67.0 × 10−6 in/in ℉. Using the
average groundwater temperature, 60.8 oF, as the starting point, the largest
dimension change would be during the record low temperature of -1 ℉. ∆𝑇𝑇=65.8 − −1 =66.8 ℉
∆𝐿𝐿=100 𝑜𝑜𝐷𝐷 × 12 𝑝𝑝𝐶𝐶𝑜𝑜𝐷𝐷× 67.0 × 10−6 in℉ in × 66.8 ℉.=5.4 𝑝𝑝𝐶𝐶

Pipe expansion loops or curvature will be included in the detailed pipe layout to
accommodate approximately 5.4 inches of expansion/contraction per 100 feet of
pipe. Due to the thermal capacity of the pipe contents and the pipe insulation, this
will be a conservative approach.
Basis of Design Report – 30% Submittal November 2016
H.F. Lee Energy Complex SynTerra
Page 5-6
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\04.LEE PLANT\22.Basis of Design Report\Design Report (30)\Report text\HF Lee Basis of Design Report.docx
To ensure that the piping will not float due to buoyancy during flood events if the
piping system is placed aboveground, the piping will be anchored with percussion
driven or drilled helical anchors installed 5 to 10 feet deep, spaced approximately 50
feet apart, and adjacent to connection points between the header pipe and individual
well discharge pipes.
The buoyancy force will be equal to the weight of the volume of water displaced by
the piping minus the weight of the pipe material. The 6-inch pipe has a 9.75-inch
OD and weighs 6.01 lbs/foot.
Buoyant Force = Water Weight – Pipe Weight 𝑃𝑃𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑃𝑃 𝑉𝑉𝑜𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑃𝑃𝑔𝑔𝑃𝑃=𝜋𝜋𝑃𝑃2 𝐿𝐿= 𝜋𝜋�9.75 𝑝𝑝𝐶𝐶2 �2 × 50 𝑜𝑜𝐷𝐷 × 1144 𝑜𝑜𝐷𝐷2𝑝𝑝𝐶𝐶2 =25.9 𝑜𝑜𝐷𝐷3
𝑊𝑊𝐶𝐶𝐷𝐷𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑊𝑊𝑃𝑃𝑝𝑝𝐶𝐶ℎ𝐷𝐷= 25.9 𝑜𝑜𝐷𝐷3 × 62.43 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑃𝑃𝑜𝑜𝐷𝐷3 =1618 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑃𝑃
𝑃𝑃𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑃𝑃 𝑊𝑊𝑃𝑃𝑝𝑝𝐶𝐶ℎ𝐷𝐷= 50 𝑜𝑜𝐷𝐷 × 6.01 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑃𝑃𝑜𝑜𝐷𝐷=301 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑃𝑃 𝐵𝐵𝑃𝑃𝑜𝑜𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐷𝐷 𝐹𝐹𝑜𝑜𝑃𝑃𝑐𝑐𝑃𝑃= 1618 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑃𝑃− 301 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑃𝑃=1317 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑃𝑃 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑃𝑃 50 𝑜𝑜𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝐷𝐷 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑃𝑃

The anchors will be installed to at least a factor of safety of two, or in excess of 2,600
lbs at each location.
Basis of Design Report – 30% Submittal November 2016
H.F. Lee Energy Complex SynTerra
Page 6-1
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\04.LEE PLANT\22.Basis of Design Report\Design Report (30)\Report text\HF Lee Basis of Design Report.docx
6.0 ELECTRICAL AND INSTRUMENTATION DESIGN
It is anticipated that three-phase, 460-Volt, 200-Amp electrical service will be provided to
the system from a power drop located near the system outfall. Planning at this stage
assumes the control panel for the system will be located near the proposed treatment
facility near the top of the active basin. Power to the well pumps, through the VFDs, as
well as the pumping system controls will be provided from this panel. The final location of
the system components will depend upon, and be coordinated with, basin closure
activities.
6.1 Piping and Instrumentation Diagram
The Piping and Instrumentation Diagram (P&ID) will be completed as part of the 60%
design package once the conceptual design and complete design objectives are determined.
6.2 Pump Controls
The pumps will be controlled with individual Grundfos CUE (or equal) VFDs which adjust
the power frequency to vary the motor speed to control the pumping rate. The pumping
rate can be adjusted manually or based on set points for flow rate or water level in the well
from flow or level sensor signals. The VFDs allow for soft starts of the motor and allow the
motors to operate efficiently by only drawing the necessary amperage to provide the
desired pumping rate. It is assumed that control of the system will be accomplished
through a Human Machine Interface (HMI) screen for ease of operation.
6.3 Emergency System Shutdown
The pump motors have internal shutdown systems if the motors start to draw excessive
power indicative of pump problems. The motors also have internal shutdown systems for
motor overheating. In addition to these safeguards, high pressure conditions or other
treatment system malfunctions will also trigger complete system shutdown. These
safeguards will be programmed into the pumping control system once the treatment
system design is completed.
The control system will also be equipped with an auto-dialer to notify operations staff
immediately of a system shutdown condition.
Basis of Design Report – 30% Submittal November 2016
H.F. Lee Energy Complex SynTerra
Page 7-1
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\04.LEE PLANT\22.Basis of Design Report\Design Report (30)\Report text\HF Lee Basis of Design Report.docx
7.0 DESIGN DOCUMENTS
This 30% design package includes preliminary site layout drawings and conceptual details
for the wells and well head configurations. Additional details and specifications will be
provided at the 60% design level and finalized for the 90% and 100% design packages.
7.1 Design Drawings
The complete design package will include site layout plans and profiles, process flow
diagrams, P&ID diagrams, construction details, electrical and control drawings, and
indices and notes.
7.2 Specifications
Complete equipment, materials and construction specifications will be incorporated into
the final design package. Supporting equipment performance data, calculations, and
significant equipment and materials cut-sheets will also be included. The P&ID will be
completed as part of the 60% design package once the conceptual design and complete
design objectives are determined.
Basis of Design Report – 30% Submittal November 2016
H.F. Lee Energy Complex SynTerra
Page 8-1
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\04.LEE PLANT\22.Basis of Design Report\Design Report (30)\Report text\HF Lee Basis of Design Report.docx
8.0 GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION SYSTEM OPERATION
The groundwater extraction system will be operated to achieve the objectives of this
accelerated remediation effort. An anticipated initial drawdown of three feet is
expected to meet this objective. Modeling may result in adjustments to this preliminary
system layout and assumptions. The system is designed to handle significantly lower
or higher pumping rates to achieve the desired results.
8.1 System Performance Metrics
System performance metrics will be addressed as part of the 60% design submittal.
8.2 Permits
8.3 Institutional Controls
8.4 Contingency Plans
8.5 Construction and Monitoring Schedules

Basis of Design Report – 30% Submittal November 2016
H.F. Lee Energy Complex SynTerra

P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\04.LEE PLANT\22.Basis of Design Report\Design Report (30)\Report text\HF Lee
Basis of Design Report.docx
Figures

P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\04.LEE PLANT\22.Basis Of Design Report\Design Report (30)\Figures\DE HF LEE FIG 1-1 (SITE LOCATION MAP).dwg
PR
O
J
E
C
T

M
A
N
A
G
E
R
:
LA
Y
O
U
T
:
DR
A
W
N

B
Y
:
JU
D
D

M
A
H
A
N
DA
T
E
:
J.

C
H
A
S
T
A
I
N
FI
G

1
-
1

(
S
I
T
E

L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N

M
A
P
)
FI
G
U
R
E

1
-
1
SI
T
E

L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N

M
A
P
H.
F
.

L
E
E

E
N
E
R
G
Y

C
O
M
P
L
E
X
11
9
9

B
L
A
C
K

J
A
C
K

C
H
U
R
C
H

R
O
A
D
GO
L
D
S
B
O
R
O
,

N
O
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A
SO
U
T
H
W
E
S
T

A
N
D

N
O
R
T
H
W
E
S
T
GO
L
D
S
B
O
R
O
,

N
C

Q
U
A
D
R
A
N
G
L
E
S
CO
N
T
O
U
R

I
N
T
E
R
V
A
L
:
MA
P

D
A
T
E
:
5 FEET
20
1
3
14
8

R
I
V
E
R

S
T
R
E
E
T
,

S
U
I
T
E

2
2
0
GR
E
E
N
V
I
L
L
E
,

S
O
U
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A
PH
O
N
E

8
6
4
-
4
2
1
-
9
9
9
9
ww
w
.
s
y
n
t
e
r
r
a
c
o
r
p
.
c
o
m
RA
L
E
I
G
H
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
GR
E
E
N
V
I
L
L
E
GR
E
E
N
S
B
O
R
O
AC
T
I
V
E

A
S
H

B
A
S
I
N
11
/
1
4
/
2
0
1
6
H.
F
.

L
E
E

E
N
E
R
G
Y

C
O
M
P
L
E
X
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y

B
O
U
N
D
A
R
Y
CC
R

S
U
R
F
A
C
E

I
M
P
O
U
N
D
M
E
N
T
CO
O
L
I
N
G

P
O
N
D
SO
U
R
C
E
:
US
G
S

T
O
P
O
G
R
A
P
H
I
C

M
A
P

O
B
T
A
I
N
E
D

F
R
O
M

T
H
E

U
S
G
S

S
T
O
R
E

A
T
ht
t
p
:
/
/
s
t
o
r
e
.
u
s
g
s
.
g
o
v
/
b
2
c
_
u
s
g
s
/
b
2
c
/
s
t
a
r
t
/
%
%
%
2
8
x
c
m
=
r
3
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
p
i
t
r
e
x
_
p
r
d
%
%
%
2
9
/
.
d
o
1000 0

1
0
0
0

2
0
0
0
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEETREMEDIATION SYSTEM
CM
W
-
6
R
AM
W
-
1
5
S
AM
W
-
1
5
B
C
AM
W
-
6
R
B
C
CM
W
-
6
CM
W
-
5
CT
M
W
-
1
PO
W
E
R

L
I
N
E

R
O
W
N
E
U
S
E

R
I
V
E
R
AC
T
I
V
E

A
S
H

B
A
S
I
N
FI
G
U
R
E

1
-
2
CO
N
C
E
P
T
U
A
L

R
E
M
E
D
I
A
T
I
O
N

S
Y
S
T
E
M
DU
K
E

E
N
E
R
G
Y

P
R
O
G
R
E
S
S
H.

F
.

L
E
E

E
N
E
R
G
Y

C
O
M
P
L
E
X
11
9
9

B
L
A
C
K

J
A
C
K

C
H
U
R
C
H

R
D
GO
L
D
S
B
O
R
O
,

N
O
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A
AM
W
-
1
8
B
C
PU
M
P

T
E
S
T

W
E
L
L
PT
W
-
6
PT
W
-
4
PT
W
-
3
PT
W
-
2
PT
W
-
1
PT
W
-
4
AM
W
-
1
8
S
SG
-
8
PT
W
-
5
AP
R
I
L

1
7
,

2
0
1
4

A
E
R
I
A
L

P
H
O
T
O
G
R
A
P
H

O
B
T
A
I
N
E
D

F
R
O
M

W
S
P
SO
U
R
C
E
:
14
8

R
I
V
E
R

S
T
R
E
E
T
,

S
U
I
T
E

2
2
0
GR
E
E
N
V
I
L
L
E
,

S
O
U
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A

2
9
6
0
1
PH
O
N
E

8
6
4
-
4
2
1
-
9
9
9
9
ww
w
.
s
y
n
t
e
r
r
a
c
o
r
p
.
c
o
m
PR
O
J
E
C
T

M
A
N
A
G
E
R
:
LA
Y
O
U
T
:
DR
A
W
N

B
Y
:
JU
D
D

M
A
H
A
N
DA
T
E
:
JO
H
N

C
H
A
S
T
A
I
N
FI
G

1
-
2

(
C
O
N
C
E
P

R
E
M
D

S
Y
S
T
E
M
)
11
/
0
9
/
2
0
1
6
11
/
1
4
/
2
0
1
6

1
1
:
2
4

A
M
P:
\
D
u
k
e

E
n
e
r
g
y

P
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
.
1
0
2
6
\
0
4
.
L
E
E

P
L
A
N
T
\
2
2
.
B
a
s
i
s

O
f

D
e
s
i
g
n

R
e
p
o
r
t
\
D
e
s
i
g
n

R
e
p
o
r
t

(
3
0
)
\
F
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
D
E

H
F

L
E
E

F
I
G

1
-
2

(
C
O
N
C
E
P

R
E
M

S
Y
ST
E
M
)
.
d
w
g
DA
T
E

P
R
I
N
T
E
D
:
CW
-
1
CO
M
P
L
I
A
N
C
E

M
O
N
I
T
O
R
I
N
G

W
E
L
L
(S
U
R
V
E
Y
E
D
)
AB
M
W
-
2
CS
A

M
O
N
I
T
O
R
I
N
G

W
E
L
L

(
S
U
R
V
E
Y
E
D
)
MW
-
2
MO
N
I
T
O
R
I
N
G

W
E
L
L

(
S
U
R
V
E
Y
E
D
)
CC
R

S
U
R
F
A
C
E

I
M
P
O
U
N
D
M
E
N
T
DU
K
E

E
N
E
R
G
Y

P
R
O
G
R
E
S
S

P
A
R
C
E
L

L
I
N
E
CC
R

S
U
R
F
A
C
E

I
M
P
O
U
N
D
M
E
N
T
CO
M
P
L
I
A
N
C
E

B
O
U
N
D
A
R
Y
10
0
0

1
0
0

2
0
0
GR
A
P
H
I
C

S
C
A
L
E
IN

F
E
E
T
FLOW
DITCH
F
L
O
W
FLOW
DITCH
CO
N
C
E
P
T
U
A
L

G
R
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R

E
X
T
R
A
C
T
I
O
N

S
Y
S
T
E
M
9
W
E
L
L
S

-

3
0
0

F
O
O
T

S
P
A
C
I
N
G
LE
G
E
N
D
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D

E
X
T
R
A
C
T
I
O
N

W
E
L
L
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
EL
E
C
T
R
I
C
A
L

S
E
R
V
I
C
E
CO
N
C
E
P
T
U
A
L

T
R
E
A
T
M
E
N
T

S
Y
S
T
E
M

A
N
D
CO
N
T
R
O
L

P
A
N
E
L

L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
.
FI
N
A
L

L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N

W
I
L
L

B
E

C
O
O
R
D
I
N
A
T
E
D
WI
T
H

B
A
S
I
N

C
L
O
S
U
R
E

A
C
T
I
V
I
T
I
E
S
.
DI
S
C
H
A
R
G
E

T
H
R
O
U
G
H
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G

O
U
T
F
A
L
L

S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
CO
O
L
I
N
G

P
O
N
D
EW
-
1
EW
-
2
EW
-
3
EW
-
4
EW
-
5
EW
-
6
EW
-
7
EW
-
8
EW
-
9
GRAVE
L

R
O
A
D
SAND
CEMENT WITH 5 % BENTONITE
12" BOREHOLE
&21&5(7(*5287723“)((7
BENTONITE SEAL (MINIMUM 1 FOOT THICK)
WELL PUMP 1 FOOT FROM BOTTOM OF BOREHOLEDEPTH OF OPEN BOREHOLE APPROXIMATELY
40' TO THE CONFINING LAYER
6" WELL CASING
DISCHARGE PIPE
SUBMERSIBLE WELL PUMP
HIGH LEVEL CONTROL SENSOR
WELL PUMP POWER CABLE
CASING CENTRALIZER
(MINIMUM OF 2)
WELL PIPE GUIDES
(MINIMUM OF 2)
WELL SEAL
LEVEL CONTROL SENSOR CABLES
CONFINING LAYER
FLOW
148 RIVER STREET, SUITE 220
GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA 29601
PHONE [phone]
www.synterracorp.com
PROJECT MANAGER:
LAYOUT:
DRAWN BY:
W. LANTZ
DATE:JOHN CHASTAIN
FIG 4-1 WELL SCHEMATIC
11/08/2016
11/10/2016 10:29 AM P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\04.LEE PLANT\22.Basis Of Design Report\Design Report (30)\Figures\DE HF LEE FIG 4-1 WELL SCHEMATIC.dwg
FIGURE 4-1
EXTRACTION WELL SCHEMATIC
H.F. LEE ENERGY COMPLEX
1199 BLACK JACK CHURCH RD
GOLDSBORO, NORTH CAROLINA
NOT TO SCALE
LOW LEVEL CONTROL SENSOR
APPROXIMATE WATER TABLE
WATER LEVEL PRESSURE TRANSDUCER
LEVEL CONTROL SENSOR CABLES
WELL PUMP POWER CABLE
PRESSURE TRANSDUCER CABLE
PRESSURE TRANSDUCER CABLE
6" WELL SREEN
T
H
R
E
A
D
E
D

U
N
I
O
N

(
T
Y
P
.
)
D
I
S
C
H
A
R
G
E

P
I
P
E
B
A
L
L

V
A
L
V
E
P
R
E
S
S
U
R
E

G
A
U
G
E
W
E
L
L

H
E
A
D

E
N
C
L
O
S
U
R
E
I
N
S
U
L
A
T
E
D

F
I
B
E
R
G
L
A
S
S

W
I
T
H
F
U
L
L
Y

L
O
C
K
I
N
G

E
N
C
L
O
S
U
R
E

D
O
O
R
S
E
L
E
C
T
R
O
M
A
G
N
E
T
I
C
F
L
O
W

M
E
T
E
R
S
A
M
P
L
E

P
O
R
T
CHE
C
K

V
A
L
V
E
WELL SEAL
W
E
L
L

P
U
M
P

P
O
W
E
R

C
A
B
L
E
C
O
N
T
R
O
L

S
E
N
S
O
R

C
A
B
L
E
S
WELL CASING
F
L
O
W
D
I
S
C
H
A
R
G
E

P
I
P
E
I
N
S
U
L
A
T
I
O
N
F
I
G
U
R
E

5
-
1
A
B
O
V
E

G
R
A
D
E
W
E
L
L

H
E
A
D

E
N
C
L
O
S
U
R
E

E
X
A
M
P
L
E
H
.

F
.

L
E
E

E
N
E
R
G
Y

C
O
M
P
L
E
X
1
1
9
9

B
L
A
C
K

J
A
C
K

C
H
U
R
C
H

R
D
G
O
L
D
S
B
O
R
O
,

N
O
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A
1
1
/
1
0
/
2
0
1
6

1
0
:
3
1

A
M
P
:
\
D
u
k
e

E
n
e
r
g
y

P
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
.
1
0
2
6
\
0
4
.
L
E
E

P
L
A
N
T
\
2
2
.
B
a
s
i
s

O
f

D
e
s
i
g
n

R
e
p
o
r
t
\
D
e
s
i
g
n

R
e
p
o
r
t

(
3
0
)
\
F
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
D
E

H
F

L
E
E

F
I
G

5
-
1

(
W
E
L
L

H
E
A
D
)
.
d
w
g
1
4
8

R
I
V
E
R

S
T
R
E
E
T
,

S
U
I
T
E

2
2
0
G
R
E
E
N
V
I
L
L
E
,

S
O
U
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A

2
9
6
0
1
P
H
O
N
E

8
6
4
-
4
2
1
-
9
9
9
9
w
w
w
.
s
y
n
t
e
r
r
a
c
o
r
p
.
c
o
m
P
R
O
J
E
C
T

M
A
N
A
G
E
R
:
L
A
Y
O
U
T
:
D
R
A
W
N

B
Y
:
W
.

L
A
N
T
Z
D
A
T
E
:
J
O
H
N

C
H
A
S
T
A
I
N
F
I
G

5
-
1

W
E
L
L

H
E
A
D

E
N
C
L
O
S
U
R
E
1
1
/
0
2
/
2
0
1
6
N
O
T

T
O

S
C
A
L
E
Basis of Design Report – 30% Submittal November 2016
H.F. Lee Energy Complex SynTerra

P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\04.LEE PLANT\22.Basis of Design Report\Design Report (30)\Report text\HF Lee
Basis of Design Report.docx
Tables
TABLE 4-1
TARGET EXTRACTION WELL SCREEN INTERVALS
H.F. LEE ENERGY COMPLEX
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, GOLDSBORO, NC
Well ID *Depth to Clay Unit
(feet)*Depth to Water Target Screen
Interval (feet)
EW-1 22 1.50 13 - 23
EW-2 22 1.50 13 - 23
EW-3 22 2.00 13 - 23
EW-4 20 4.00 11 - 21
EW-5 25 4.00 16 - 26
EW-6 38 5.00 29 - 39
EW-7 42 6.00 33 - 43
EW-8 42 4.00 33 - 43
EW-9 42 4.00 33 - 43
Prepared by: JDM Checked by: TCP
* Estimated based on observations from 2015 - 2016 groundwater
assessment data
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\04.LEE PLANT\22.Basis of Design Report\Design Report (30)\Tables\Target Extraction Well Screen Intervals.xlsx
Page 1 of 1
Basis of Design Report – 30% Submittal November 2016
H.F. Lee Energy Complex SynTerra

P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\04.LEE PLANT\22.Basis of Design Report\Design Report (30)\Report text\HF Lee
Basis of Design Report.docx
APPENDIX A
Pilot Test Report

tip
synTerra TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
CA
Date: August 22, 2016 File: 1026.'��°�rv'
To: Ryan Czop, Duke Energy Progress aP'
Cc: Kathy Webb,
From: Judd Mahan
Subject: Pilot Test Report — H.F. Lee Energy Complex �Z '-.
_1 z�
A groundwater extraction pilot test was conducted at the H.F. Lee Energy Complex
(Site) located in Goldsboro, North Carolina (Figure 1). Comprehensive Site Assessment
(CSA) and historical groundwater monitoring results indicate that areas to the east and
north of the active ash basin have potential to have constituent concentrations greater
than 2L beyond the compliance and property boundaries. The pilot test was conducted
in the area east of the active ash basin to determine aquifer characteristics needed to
evaluate and design a remedial action strategy in the area (Figure 2). This report
describes the activities, methods and findings for the pilot test which included step-
drawdown and pumping test components.
1.0 SITE GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY
The Site is located in the Atlantic Coastal plain. The Coastal Plain consists of a sequence
of stratified marine and non -marine sedimentary rocks deposited on crystalline
basement rocks. Surficial soils at the site are comprised of Quaternary alluvial deposits
associated with the adjacent Neuse River, consisting primarily of silty and clayey sands
with interbedded clay, which contain the surficial aquifer. Underlying these deposits,
at depths of around 20-feet below grade in the area of the active ash basin, is the Black
Creek Formation, the upper portion of which consists of a dark, carbonaceous -rich,
laterally continuous clay unit. The Black Creek clay unit confines the lower boundary
of the surficial aquifer. Depths to groundwater in the area of the active ash basin are
generally two to five feet below grade. Overall groundwater flow in the area of the
active ash basin is southerly toward the Neuse River.
2.0 PILOT TEST WELL INSTALLATION
Pilot test wells PTW-01 through PTW-06 were installed between July 12 and July 14,
2016 using a GeoprobeTM rig capable of both direct -push and hollow -stem auger
drilling. In order to characterize the local hydrogeology, continuous coring was
conducted at the locations of PTW-01, PTW-04, PTW-05 and PTW-06. Macro -core
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ 04.LEE PLANT\ 20. Accelerated Remediation \ Pilot Test \ PDF \ Tech Memo Pilot Test
August 2016.docx

Step-Drawdown and Pumping Test Findings August 22, 2016
HF Lee Energy Complex Page 2
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\04.LEE PLANT\20. Accelerated Remediation\Pilot Test\PDF\Tech Memo Pilot Test
August 2016.docx
samples were collected into 5-foot vinyl sleeves measuring approximately 1.5 inches in
diameter. Borings were advanced at each location until the upper portion of the Black
Creek clay unit was identified. The upper contact of the Black Creek clay varied from
approximately 19 feet below ground surface (bgs) at PTW-05 to 25 bgs at PTW-06. In
general, the soil profile encountered above the Black Creek clay unit consisted of a thin
sandy clay layer from ground surface to approximately 5 feet bgs followed by medium
to coarse grained sands to approximately 20 to 25 feet bgs. Cores were described and
photo-documented in the field. Boring logs and well construction records are provided
in Attachment 1.
Well PTW-01 was designed as a 6-inch diameter extraction well. PTW-02 through PTW-
06 were designed as 2-inch diameter observation wells. Wells PTW-01 through PTW-04
were installed with screen intervals from 10 to 20 feet bgs. Wells PTW-05 and PTW-06
were installed with screen intervals of 9 to 19 feet and 8 to 18 feet bgs, respectively.
Wells PTW-02 through PTW-06 were installed with 10-ft lengths of 0.010-inch slotted
PVC screens. Well PTW-01 was constructed with a 10-ft length of 0.010-inch slotted
stainless steel V-wire screen. As shown on Figure 1, the observation wells (PTW-02
through PTW-06) were installed at varying directions and distances which ranged from
15 feet to 150 feet from extraction well PTW-1. The extraction well permit is included
with Attachment 1.
Well development was conducted to establish communication with the surrounding
formation and until the water was generally free of turbidity. Wells were surveyed for
coordinates on the North Carolina State Plane NAD88 system and to determine top of
casing (TOC) elevations. A well construction table is provided as Table 1.
3.0 STEP DRAWDOWN TESTS
3.1 Procedure
Two step-drawdown tests were conducted, one on July 27, 2016 and one on July 28,
2016. The starting flow rate for the initial step-drawdown test was determined based on
results of slug tests from nearby assessment wells and pilot test well development
results. A Grundfos 10 Redi-Flo 3 pump with a maximum flow rate of about 15 gpm
was used for the initial step-drawdown test on July 27, 2016. Due to flow rates greater
than the predicted estimate, a second step-drawdown test was conducted on July 28,
2016 using a Grundfos 22 Redi-Flo 3 pump, which has a maximum flow rate of
approximately 34 gpm.
Prior to beginning the step-drawdown tests on July 27, 2016 and July 28, 2016, data level
loggers were installed in pilot test wells (PTW-1 and PTW-2) and water level
Step-Drawdown and Pumping Test Findings August 22, 2016
HF Lee Energy Complex Page 3
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\04.LEE PLANT\20. Accelerated Remediation\Pilot Test\PDF\Tech Memo Pilot Test
August 2016.docx
measurements were recorded prior to step-drawdown testing. Data loggers were
programed to collect water level measurements at a frequency of one per second.
Step-drawdown tests were conducted using pilot test well PTW-01 as the extraction
well. Water level measurements were collected prior to step-drawdown testing, during
the test and at the end of the test. Data for each step-drawdown test was recorded
using a Solinst Levelogger data logger, which was programmed to start before pumping
began. The data logger was lowered into both wells to approximately 0.5 feet from the
bottom of the well. A direct read cable was attached to the data logger installed in well
PTW-1, which allowed for real-time viewing of water level drawdown as the well was
being pumped. Once the data loggers were installed for the initial step-drawdown test,
the pump was installed into the well approximately one-foot above the data logger.
Once the water level stabilized based on the direct readings from the data logger, the
pump was started and the start time noted.
Flow rates were calculated by measuring the time to fill a 100 mL (milliliter) cylinder, a
1000 mL cylinder, or a 5 gallon bucket. Flow measurements were made several times
during a given step interval and adjustments were made to the flow valve to maintain a
steady flow rate. Periodic water level measurements were also collected to confirm the
water level data was being accurately measured and collected with the data logger. A
summary of the pumping rates and step intervals for the step-drawdown tests are
described below:
July 27th
Step-Drawdown Test @ PTW-1
initial 0.5 gpm
60 minutes 1 gpm
120 minutes 2.5 gpm
180 minutes 5 gpm
240 minutes 10 gpm
300 minutes 14 gpm

Step-Drawdown and Pumping Test Findings August 22, 2016
HF Lee Energy Complex Page 4
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\04.LEE PLANT\20. Accelerated Remediation\Pilot Test\PDF\Tech Memo Pilot Test
August 2016.docx
July 28th
Step-Drawdown Test @ PTW-1
initial 15 gpm
60 minutes 20 gpm
120 minutes 25 gpm
180 minutes 30 gpm
240 minutes 33 gpm

At the conclusion of each step-drawdown test, the pump was shut off and the data
logger was allowed to continue taking readings as the water level recovered in each
well. Recovery was measured for one hour and the pump and data logger were
removed from the well. Data from the data logger was downloaded to a computer for
data evaluation. The data logger was then reset to read data at one second intervals for
the next step-drawdown test.
3.2 Data Evaluation
Data from the data loggers was imported into AQTESOLV Pro.4.0. The Theis step-
drawdown solution was used to analyze the data from the step-drawdown tests. The
solution uses curve matching to determine the aquifer transmissivity (T) and storage
coefficient (S). Hydraulic conductivity was calculated using an aquifer thickness of
19.75 feet (Table 2). The outputs from the step-drawdown evaluation are included as
Attachment 2.
TABLE 2
SURFICIAL AQUIFER CHARACTERISTICS STEP-DRAWDOWN TEST
H.F. LEE ENERGY COMPLEX
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, GOLDSBORO, NC

Well ID
Transmissivity
(ft2/day)
Storativity
(unitless)
Hydraulic Conductivity
(ft/day)
PTW-1 2.68 x 10+03 1.76 x 10-05 1.36 x 10+02

Prepared by: RAG Checked by: HJF
Notes:
ft2 - square feet
ft - feet
*hydraulic conductivity was based on theoretical aquifer thickness of 20 feet.

Step-Drawdown and Pumping Test Findings August 22, 2016
HF Lee Energy Complex Page 5
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\04.LEE PLANT\20. Accelerated Remediation\Pilot Test\PDF\Tech Memo Pilot Test
August 2016.docx
4.0 PUMPING TEST
4.1 Procedure
On August 2, 2016, a 36-hour constant rate pumping test was conducted at PTW-1. Data
loggers were programmed and installed 0.5 feet from the bottom of wells PTW-1, PTW-
2, PTW-3, PTW-4, PTW-5, PTW-6, CMW-6, and CMW-6R; however, level loggers did
not read throughout the pumping test. Manual water levels were collected every hour
from wells with data loggers and water levels were collected periodically during the
test from monitoring wells AMW-06BC, AMW-14S, AMW-14BC, CCR-103S, AMW-18S,
and AMW-18BC to determine radial extent of drawdown influence (Table 3, Figure 2).
Note that “PMW”, “CMW”, and “S” wells are screened in surficial deposits
and “BC” wells are screened below a laterally continuous clay unit associated with the
Black Creek deposits.
Several weather systems passed through during the pumping test. The site gauged
about 1.13’’ of rain on Tuesday, August 2nd and 0.18’’ of rain on Wednesday, August 3rd.
The Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, which is about 4.75 miles east-southeast of the
site, had an average daily barometric pressure of 29.98 to 30.06 inches of mercury.
The submersible pump in pilot test well PMW-1 was operated at a constant rate of 30
gpm for 36 hours. A flow meter was used to determine the flow rate during the pump
test and was recorded every hour. The extracted water was transferred to the active
basin. The total volume of water extracted during the 36-hour pumping test was
approximately 63,500 gallons.
4.2 Data Evaluation
Depth-to-water measurements were recorded during every hour during the 36-hour
pumping test and were analyzed using the Cooper-Jacob (1946) straight line method
(Figures 3-7) for observation wells PTW-2, PTW-3, PTW-4, and PTW-5. Head levels
from extraction well PTW-1 were imported into AQTESOLV Pro.4.0 and analyzed using
the Moench solution for unconfined aquifers (Attachment 3). CMW-6 was not analyzed
because the well was influenced by the rain events and drawdown was minimal. In
addition, the water level differences were near the error tolerance for manual level
measurements.
The Cooper-Jacob method is a solution created for confined aquifers, however since the
surficial unconfined aquifer behaves similar to a confined aquifer by the head draining
as a result of dewatering and there were no delayed yield effects observed, the confined
solutions were applied towards the end of the drawdown data.
Step-Drawdown and Pumping Test Findings August 22, 2016
HF Lee Energy Complex Page 6
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\04.LEE PLANT\20. Accelerated Remediation\Pilot Test\PDF\Tech Memo Pilot Test
August 2016.docx
The assumptions for applying the Cooper-Jacob method are as follows:
The aquifer is homogenous, isotropic and of uniform thickness
All layers are horizontal and extend infinitely in the radial direction
Groundwater flow is horizontal and directed radially towards the well
Pumping rate is constant
Water is released instantaneously from storage with decline of hydraulic
head
Head losses through the well screen and pump intake are negligible
The Cooper-Jacob solution is plotted on a drawdown versus log time scale to calculate
transmissivity (T):
T = 2.3𝑄𝑄4𝜋𝜋∆(ℎ𝑜𝑜−ℎ)
Note:
Q is the flow rate ∆(ℎ𝑜𝑜−ℎ) is the slope of the fitted line

By using an estimated aquifer thickness (b) based on boring logs, hydraulic conductivity
can be calculated.
K = 𝑇𝑇𝑏𝑏
The Moench solution is plotted on a log drawdown versus log time scale to calculate
transmissivity (T), specific yield (Sy), and vertical hydraulic conductivity (𝐾𝐾𝑧𝑧). The
assumptions for applying the Moench solution are as followed:
The aquifer has infinite areal extent
Aquifer is homogeneous, isotropic, unconfined and of uniform thickness
Aquifer is unsteady

Step-Drawdown and Pumping Test Findings August 22, 2016
HF Lee Energy Complex Page 7
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\04.LEE PLANT\20. Accelerated Remediation\Pilot Test\PDF\Tech Memo Pilot Test
August 2016.docx
TABLE 4
PUMPING TEST RESULTS
H.F. LEE ENERGY COMPLEX
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, GOLDSBORO, NC
Well ID
Transmissivity
(ft2/day)
Hydraulic
Conductivity
(ft/day)
PTW-1 3.92 x 10+03 1.98 x 10+02
PTW-2 2.30 x 10+03 1.16 x 10+02
PTW-3 2.35 x 10+03 1.19 x 10+02
PTW-4 2.52 x 10+03 1.12 x 10+02
PTW-5 3.02 x 10+03 1.59 x 10+02
PTW-6 4.23 x 10+03 1.69 x 10+02
Geometric Mean 2.97 x 10+03 1.42 x 10+02
Prepared by: RAG Checked by: HJF
The radius of influence (ROI) was determined by graphing the drawdown versus
distance plots after pumping 2170 minutes; 𝑑𝑑𝑜𝑜 was estimated to be about 300 feet
(Figure 8).
5.0 RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Step-drawdown tests and the pumping test results conclude the surficial aquifer east of
the active basin was calculated to have a hydraulic conductivity of approximately 136
ft/day with an assumed average aquifer thickness of about 20 feet.
Aquifer data in the vicinity of PTW-1 indicate conditions at this location could support
a viable extraction well under current site conditions. A ROI calculation is shown on
Figure 8 with a result of 300 feet. In addition, there was no measurable water level
drawdown of the hydrogeologic unit below the Black Creek clay unit from pumping the
surficial aquifer system.
Using graphical calculation methods and AQTESOLV Pro.4.5, the geometric mean of the
transmissivity in the surficial unit is 2,970 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓2𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 . This value is representative of medium to
coarse sand.
Precipitation during the pump test had little effect on groundwater levels in the
surficial aquifer; however CMW-6 did see a 0.2 ft increase in head after the August 2nd
rain event which had about 1.12 inches of rain.
Step-Drawdown and Pumping Test Findings August 22, 2016
HF Lee Energy Complex Page 8
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\04.LEE PLANT\20. Accelerated Remediation\Pilot Test\PDF\Tech Memo Pilot Test
August 2016.docx
Recharge boundaries were not observed (positive or negative) and recovery occurred
faster than drawdown.
Results from step-drawdown tests and pumping test indicate the following:
Average sustainable yields (over the course of the test) were at least 30
gallons per minute.
The radius of influence is approximately 300 feet from the extraction well.
Specific yield and hydraulic conductivity are constant throughout the target
area, confirming low heterogeneity of the unconfined aquifer flow system.
Hydraulic conductivity calculated from step-drawdown and pumping tests
exceeded predicted hydraulic conductivities from well development logs.
SynTerra recommends initially installing a line of nine six-inch extraction wells along a
2,700 foot transect (Figure 9).

Step-Drawdown and Pumping Test Findings August 22, 2016
HF Lee Energy Complex Page 9
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\04.LEE PLANT\20. Accelerated Remediation\Pilot Test\PDF\Tech Memo Pilot Test
August 2016.docx
6.0 REFERENCES
Cooper, H. H., Jr. and C. E. Jacob. 1946. A Generalized Graphical Method for Evaluating
Formation Constants and Summarizing Well-Field History. Transaction,
American Geophysical Union, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp. 5226 – 534.
Duffield, G.M. 2007. AQTESOLV for Windows Version 4.5 User’s Guide. HydroSOLVE
Inc., Reston, VA.
Johnson, A.J., 1967, Specific yield, Compilation of specific yields for various materials.
U.S. Geologic Survey Water Supply Paper. 1662-D, pp. 74.
Kruseman, G.P. and N.A. de Ridder, 1994, Analysis and Evaluation of Pumping Test
Data. International Institute for Land Reclamation and Improvement.
Wageningen, The Netherlands, pp. 23 – 24.
Moench, A.F., 1997. Flow to a well of finite diameter in a homogeneous, anisotropic
water table aquifer, Water Resources Research, vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 1397-1407.

Step-Drawdown and Pumping Test Findings August 22, 2016
HF Lee Energy Complex SynTerra
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\04.LEE PLANT\20. Accelerated Remediation\Pilot Test\PDF\Tech Memo Pilot Test
August 2016.docx
FIGURES

PR
O
J
E
C
T

M
A
N
A
G
E
R
:
LA
Y
O
U
T
:
DR
A
W
N

B
Y
:
JU
D
D

M
A
H
A
N
DA
T
E
:
J.

C
H
A
S
T
A
I
N
FI
G

1

(
S
I
T
E

L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N

M
A
P
)
FI
G
U
R
E

1
SI
T
E

L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N

M
A
P
H.
F
.

L
E
E

E
N
E
R
G
Y

C
O
M
P
L
E
X
11
9
9

B
L
A
C
K

J
A
C
K

C
H
U
R
C
H

R
O
A
D
GO
L
D
S
B
O
R
O
,

N
O
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A
SO
U
T
H
W
E
S
T

A
N
D

N
O
R
T
H
W
E
S
T
GO
L
D
S
B
O
R
O
,

N
C

Q
U
A
D
R
A
N
G
L
E
S
CO
N
T
O
U
R

I
N
T
E
R
V
A
L
:
MA
P

D
A
T
E
:
5 FEET
20
1
3
14
8

R
I
V
E
R

S
T
R
E
E
T
,

S
U
I
T
E

2
2
0
GR
E
E
N
V
I
L
L
E
,

S
O
U
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A
PH
O
N
E

8
6
4
-
4
2
1
-
9
9
9
9
ww
w
.
s
y
n
t
e
r
r
a
c
o
r
p
.
c
o
m
RA
L
E
I
G
H
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
GR
E
E
N
V
I
L
L
E
GR
E
E
N
S
B
O
R
O
AC
T
I
V
E

A
S
H

B
A
S
I
N
08
/
1
8
/
2
0
1
6
H.
F
.

L
E
E

E
N
E
R
G
Y

C
O
M
P
L
E
X
PUMP TEST
IN
A
C
T
I
V
E
AS
H

B
A
S
I
N

2
IN
A
C
T
I
V
E
AS
H

B
A
S
I
N

1
IN
A
C
T
I
V
E
AS
H

B
A
S
I
N

3
LA
Y
D
O
W
N

A
R
E
A
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y

B
O
U
N
D
A
R
Y
CCR SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT COMPLIANCE BOUNDARY
CC
R

S
U
R
F
A
C
E
IM
P
O
U
N
D
M
E
N
T

B
O
U
N
D
A
R
Y
CC
R

S
U
R
F
A
C
E
IM
P
O
U
N
D
M
E
N
T
BO
U
N
D
A
R
Y
CO
O
L
I
N
G

P
O
N
D
CC
R

S
U
R
F
A
C
E
IM
P
O
U
N
D
M
E
N
T
CO
M
P
L
I
A
N
C
E
BO
U
N
D
A
R
Y
SO
U
R
C
E
:
US
G
S

T
O
P
O
G
R
A
P
H
I
C

M
A
P

O
B
T
A
I
N
E
D

F
R
O
M

T
H
E

U
S
G
S

S
T
O
R
E

A
T
ht
t
p
:
/
/
s
t
o
r
e
.
u
s
g
s
.
g
o
v
/
b
2
c
_
u
s
g
s
/
b
2
c
/
s
t
a
r
t
/
%
%
%
2
8
x
c
m
=
r
3
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
p
i
t
r
e
x
_
p
r
d
%
%
%
2
9
/
.
d
o
P
:
\
D
u
k
e

E
n
e
r
g
y

P
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
.
1
0
2
6
\
0
4
.
L
E
E

P
L
A
N
T
\
2
0
.

A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
e
d

R
e
m
e
d
i
a
t
i
o
n
\
P
i
l
o
t

T
e
s
t
\
D
W
G
\
D
E

H
F

L
E
E

F
I
G

1
-
1

(
S
I
T
E

L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N

M
A
P
)
.
d
w
g
1000 0

1
0
0
0

2
0
0
0
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
CM
W
-
6
R
AM
W
-
1
4
B
C
AM
W
-
1
4
S
AM
W
-
1
5
S
AM
W
-
1
5
B
C
AM
W
-
6
R
B
C
CM
W
-
6
CM
W
-
5
CT
M
W
-
1
PO
W
E
R

L
I
N
E

R
O
W
N
E
U
S
E

R
I
V
E
R
AC
T
I
V
E

A
S
H

B
A
S
I
N
FI
G
U
R
E

2
PU
M
P

T
E
S
T

W
E
L
L

L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N

M
A
P
DU
K
E

E
N
E
R
G
Y

P
R
O
G
R
E
S
S
H.

F
.

L
E
E

E
N
E
R
G
Y

C
O
M
P
L
E
X
11
9
9

B
L
A
C
K

J
A
C
K

C
H
U
R
C
H

R
D
GO
L
D
S
B
O
R
O
,

N
O
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A
AM
W
-
1
8
B
C
PU
M
P

T
E
S
T

W
E
L
L
PT
W
-
6
PT
W
-
4
PT
W
-
3
PT
W
-
2
PT
W
-
1
PT
W
-
4
AM
W
-
1
8
S
SG
-
6
SG
-
8
PT
W
-
5
GRAVE
L

R
O
A
D
AP
R
I
L

1
7
,

2
0
1
4

A
E
R
I
A
L

P
H
O
T
O
G
R
A
P
H

O
B
T
A
I
N
E
D

F
R
O
M

W
S
P
SO
U
R
C
E
:
14
8

R
I
V
E
R

S
T
R
E
E
T
,

S
U
I
T
E

2
2
0
GR
E
E
N
V
I
L
L
E
,

S
O
U
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A

2
9
6
0
1
PH
O
N
E

8
6
4
-
4
2
1
-
9
9
9
9
ww
w
.
s
y
n
t
e
r
r
a
c
o
r
p
.
c
o
m
PR
O
J
E
C
T

M
A
N
A
G
E
R
:
LA
Y
O
U
T
:
DR
A
W
N

B
Y
:
JU
D
D

M
A
H
A
N
DA
T
E
:
JO
H
N

C
H
A
S
T
A
I
N
FI
G

2

(
P
U
M
P

T
E
S
T

W
E
L
L

M
A
P
)
08
/
1
8
/
2
0
1
6
08
/
2
2
/
2
0
1
6

1
:
3
7

P
M
P:
\
D
u
k
e

E
n
e
r
g
y

P
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
.
1
0
2
6
\
0
4
.
L
E
E

P
L
A
N
T
\
2
0
.

A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
e
d

R
e
m
e
d
i
a
t
i
o
n
\
P
i
l
o
t

T
e
s
t
\
D
W
G
\
D
E

H
F

L
E
E

E
X
T
R
A
C
T
I
O
N

W
E
L
L
S
.
d
w
g
DA
T
E

P
R
I
N
T
E
D
:
CW
-
1
LE
G
E
N
D
CO
M
P
L
I
A
N
C
E

M
O
N
I
T
O
R
I
N
G

W
E
L
L
(S
U
R
V
E
Y
E
D
)
AB
M
W
-
2
CS
A

M
O
N
I
T
O
R
I
N
G

W
E
L
L

(
S
U
R
V
E
Y
E
D
)
MW
-
2
MO
N
I
T
O
R
I
N
G

W
E
L
L

(
S
U
R
V
E
Y
E
D
)
CC
R

S
U
R
F
A
C
E

I
M
P
O
U
N
D
M
E
N
T
DU
K
E

E
N
E
R
G
Y

P
R
O
G
R
E
S
S

P
A
R
C
E
L

L
I
N
E
CC
R

S
U
R
F
A
C
E

I
M
P
O
U
N
D
M
E
N
T
CO
M
P
L
I
A
N
C
E

B
O
U
N
D
A
R
Y
10
0
0

1
0
0

2
0
0
GR
A
P
H
I
C

S
C
A
L
E
IN

F
E
E
T
FLOW
F
L
O
W
DITCH
F
L
O
W
FLOW
DITCH
HI
G
H

P
O
I
N
T

I
N

D
I
T
C
H
D
I
T
C
H
14
8

R
I
V
E
R

S
T
R
E
E
T
,

S
U
I
T
E

2
2
0
GR
E
E
N
V
I
L
L
E
,

S
O
U
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A

2
9
6
0
1
PH
O
N
E

8
6
4
-
4
2
1
-
9
9
9
9
ww
w
.
s
y
n
t
e
r
r
a
c
o
r
p
.
c
o
m
DR
A
W
N

B
Y
:

J
.

G
I
L
M
E
R
PR
O
J
E
C
T

M
A
N
A
G
E
R
:

J

M
A
H
A
N
LA
Y
O
U
T
:

DA
T
E
:

J
U
N
E

2
0
1
5
FI
G
U
R
E

3
PT
W
-
2

D
R
A
W
D
O
W
N

V
S
.

L
O
G

T
I
M
E
H.
F
.

L
E
E

E
N
E
R
G
Y

C
O
M
P
L
E
X
GO
L
D
S
B
O
R
O
,

N
O
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A
P:
\
D
u
k
e

E
n
e
r
g
y

P
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
.
1
0
2
6
\
0
4
.
L
E
E

P
L
A
N
T
\
2
0
.

A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
e
d

R
e
m
e
d
i
at
i
o
n
\
P
i
l
o
t

T
e
s
t
\
P
i
l
o
t

T
e
s
t

R
e
p
o
r
t
_
A
u
g
2
0
1
6
\
G
r
a
p
h
s
14
8

R
I
V
E
R

S
T
R
E
E
T
,

S
U
I
T
E

2
2
0
GR
E
E
N
V
I
L
L
E
,

S
O
U
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A

2
9
6
0
1
PH
O
N
E

8
6
4
-
4
2
1
-
9
9
9
9
ww
w
.
s
y
n
t
e
r
r
a
c
o
r
p
.
c
o
m
DR
A
W
N

B
Y
:

J
.

G
I
L
M
E
R
PR
O
J
E
C
T

M
A
N
A
G
E
R
:

J

M
A
H
A
N
LA
Y
O
U
T
:

DA
T
E
:

J
U
N
E

2
0
1
5
FI
G
U
R
E

4
PT
W
-
3

D
R
A
W
D
O
W
N

V
S
.

L
O
G

T
I
M
E
H.
F
.

L
E
E

E
N
E
R
G
Y

C
O
M
P
L
E
X
GO
L
D
S
B
O
R
O
,

N
O
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A
P:
\
D
u
k
e

E
n
e
r
g
y

P
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
.
1
0
2
6
\
0
4
.
L
E
E

P
L
A
N
T
\
2
0
.

A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
e
d

R
e
m
e
d
i
at
i
o
n
\
P
i
l
o
t

T
e
s
t
\
P
i
l
o
t

T
e
s
t

R
e
p
o
r
t
_
A
u
g
2
0
1
6
\
G
r
a
p
h
s
14
8

R
I
V
E
R

S
T
R
E
E
T
,

S
U
I
T
E

2
2
0
GR
E
E
N
V
I
L
L
E
,

S
O
U
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A

2
9
6
0
1
PH
O
N
E

8
6
4
-
4
2
1
-
9
9
9
9
ww
w
.
s
y
n
t
e
r
r
a
c
o
r
p
.
c
o
m
DR
A
W
N

B
Y
:

J
.

G
I
L
M
E
R
PR
O
J
E
C
T

M
A
N
A
G
E
R
:

J

M
A
H
A
N
LA
Y
O
U
T
:

DA
T
E
:

J
U
N
E

2
0
1
5
FI
G
U
R
E

5
PT
W
-
4

D
R
A
W
D
O
W
N

V
S
.

L
O
G

T
I
M
E
H.
F
.

L
E
E

E
N
E
R
G
Y

C
O
M
P
L
E
X
GO
L
D
S
B
O
R
O
,

N
O
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A
P:
\
D
u
k
e

E
n
e
r
g
y

P
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
.
1
0
2
6
\
0
4
.
L
E
E

P
L
A
N
T
\
2
0
.

A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
e
d

R
e
m
e
d
i
at
i
o
n
\
P
i
l
o
t

T
e
s
t
\
P
i
l
o
t

T
e
s
t

R
e
p
o
r
t
_
A
u
g
2
0
1
6
\
G
r
a
p
h
s
14
8

R
I
V
E
R

S
T
R
E
E
T
,

S
U
I
T
E

2
2
0
GR
E
E
N
V
I
L
L
E
,

S
O
U
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A

2
9
6
0
1
PH
O
N
E

8
6
4
-
4
2
1
-
9
9
9
9
ww
w
.
s
y
n
t
e
r
r
a
c
o
r
p
.
c
o
m
DR
A
W
N

B
Y
:

J
.

G
I
L
M
E
R
PR
O
J
E
C
T

M
A
N
A
G
E
R
:

J

M
A
H
A
N
LA
Y
O
U
T
:

DA
T
E
:

J
U
N
E

2
0
1
5
FI
G
U
R
E

6
PT
W
-
5

D
R
A
W
D
O
W
N

V
S
.

L
O
G

T
I
M
E
H.
F
.

L
E
E

E
N
E
R
G
Y

C
O
M
P
L
E
X
GO
L
D
S
B
O
R
O
,

N
O
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A
P:
\
D
u
k
e

E
n
e
r
g
y

P
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
.
1
0
2
6
\
0
4
.
L
E
E

P
L
A
N
T
\
2
0
.

A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
e
d

R
e
m
e
d
i
at
i
o
n
\
P
i
l
o
t

T
e
s
t
\
P
i
l
o
t

T
e
s
t

R
e
p
o
r
t
_
A
u
g
2
0
1
6
\
G
r
a
p
h
s
14
8

R
I
V
E
R

S
T
R
E
E
T
,

S
U
I
T
E

2
2
0
GR
E
E
N
V
I
L
L
E
,

S
O
U
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A

2
9
6
0
1
PH
O
N
E

8
6
4
-
4
2
1
-
9
9
9
9
ww
w
.
s
y
n
t
e
r
r
a
c
o
r
p
.
c
o
m
DR
A
W
N

B
Y
:

J
.

G
I
L
M
E
R
PR
O
J
E
C
T

M
A
N
A
G
E
R
:

J

M
A
H
A
N
LA
Y
O
U
T
:

DA
T
E
:

J
U
N
E

2
0
1
5
FI
G
U
R
E

7
PT
W
-
6

D
R
A
W
D
O
W
N

V
S
.

L
O
G

T
I
M
E
H.
F
.

L
E
E

E
N
E
R
G
Y

C
O
M
P
L
E
X
GO
L
D
S
B
O
R
O
,

N
O
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A
P:
\
D
u
k
e

E
n
e
r
g
y

P
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
.
1
0
2
6
\
0
4
.
L
E
E

P
L
A
N
T
\
2
0
.

A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
e
d

R
e
m
e
d
i
at
i
o
n
\
P
i
l
o
t

T
e
s
t
\
P
i
l
o
t

T
e
s
t

R
e
p
o
r
t
_
A
u
g
2
0
1
6
\
G
r
a
p
h
s
14
8

R
I
V
E
R

S
T
R
E
E
T
,

S
U
I
T
E

2
2
0
GR
E
E
N
V
I
L
L
E
,

S
O
U
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A

2
9
6
0
1
PH
O
N
E

8
6
4
-
4
2
1
-
9
9
9
9
ww
w
.
s
y
n
t
e
r
r
a
c
o
r
p
.
c
o
m
DR
A
W
N

B
Y
:

J
.

G
I
L
M
E
R
PR
O
J
E
C
T

M
A
N
A
G
E
R
:

J

M
A
H
A
N
LA
Y
O
U
T
:

DA
T
E
:

J
U
N
E

2
0
1
5
FI
G
U
R
E

8
DR
A
W
D
O
W
N

V
S
.

L
O
G

DI
S
T
A
N
C
E

A
T

T
I
M
E

=

2
1
7
0

M
I
N
H.
F
.

L
E
E

E
N
E
R
G
Y

C
O
M
P
L
E
X
GO
L
D
S
B
O
R
O
,

N
O
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A
P:
\
D
u
k
e

E
n
e
r
g
y

P
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
.
1
0
2
6
\
0
4
.
L
E
E

P
L
A
N
T
\
2
0
.

A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
e
d

R
e
m
e
d
i
at
i
o
n
\
P
i
l
o
t

T
e
s
t
\
P
i
l
o
t

T
e
s
t

R
e
p
o
r
t
_
A
u
g
2
0
1
6
\
G
r
a
p
h
s
CM
W
-
6
R
AM
W
-
1
4
B
C
AM
W
-
1
4
S
AM
W
-
1
5
S
AM
W
-
1
5
B
C
AM
W
-
6
R
B
C
CM
W
-
6
CM
W
-
5
CT
M
W
-
1
PO
W
E
R

L
I
N
E

R
O
W
N
E
U
S
E

R
I
V
E
R
AC
T
I
V
E

A
S
H

B
A
S
I
N
FI
G
U
R
E

9
EX
T
R
A
C
T
I
O
N

W
E
L
L

L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N

M
A
P
DU
K
E

E
N
E
R
G
Y

P
R
O
G
R
E
S
S
H.

F
.

L
E
E

E
N
E
R
G
Y

C
O
M
P
L
E
X
11
9
9

B
L
A
C
K

J
A
C
K

C
H
U
R
C
H

R
D
GO
L
D
S
B
O
R
O
,

N
O
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A
AM
W
-
1
8
B
C
PU
M
P

T
E
S
T

W
E
L
L
PT
W
-
6
PT
W
-
4
PT
W
-
3
PT
W
-
2
PT
W
-
1
PT
W
-
4
AM
W
-
1
8
S
SG
-
6
SG
-
8
PT
W
-
5
GRAVE
L

R
O
A
D
AP
R
I
L

1
7
,

2
0
1
4

A
E
R
I
A
L

P
H
O
T
O
G
R
A
P
H

O
B
T
A
I
N
E
D

F
R
O
M

W
S
P
SO
U
R
C
E
:
14
8

R
I
V
E
R

S
T
R
E
E
T
,

S
U
I
T
E

2
2
0
GR
E
E
N
V
I
L
L
E
,

S
O
U
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A

2
9
6
0
1
PH
O
N
E

8
6
4
-
4
2
1
-
9
9
9
9
ww
w
.
s
y
n
t
e
r
r
a
c
o
r
p
.
c
o
m
PR
O
J
E
C
T

M
A
N
A
G
E
R
:
LA
Y
O
U
T
:
DR
A
W
N

B
Y
:
JU
D
D

M
A
H
A
N
DA
T
E
:
JO
H
N

C
H
A
S
T
A
I
N
FI
G

9

(
E
X
T
R
A
C
T
I
O
N

W
E
L
L
)
08
/
1
8
/
2
0
1
6
08
/
2
2
/
2
0
1
6

1
:
3
8

P
M
P:
\
D
u
k
e

E
n
e
r
g
y

P
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
.
1
0
2
6
\
0
4
.
L
E
E

P
L
A
N
T
\
2
0
.

A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
e
d

R
e
m
e
d
i
a
t
i
o
n
\
P
i
l
o
t

T
e
s
t
\
D
W
G
\
D
E

H
F

L
E
E

E
X
T
R
A
C
T
I
O
N

W
E
L
L
S
.
d
w
g
DA
T
E

P
R
I
N
T
E
D
:
CW
-
1
CO
M
P
L
I
A
N
C
E

M
O
N
I
T
O
R
I
N
G

W
E
L
L
(S
U
R
V
E
Y
E
D
)
AB
M
W
-
2
CS
A

M
O
N
I
T
O
R
I
N
G

W
E
L
L

(
S
U
R
V
E
Y
E
D
)
MW
-
2
MO
N
I
T
O
R
I
N
G

W
E
L
L

(
S
U
R
V
E
Y
E
D
)
CC
R

S
U
R
F
A
C
E

I
M
P
O
U
N
D
M
E
N
T
DU
K
E

E
N
E
R
G
Y

P
R
O
G
R
E
S
S

P
A
R
C
E
L

L
I
N
E
CC
R

S
U
R
F
A
C
E

I
M
P
O
U
N
D
M
E
N
T
CO
M
P
L
I
A
N
C
E

B
O
U
N
D
A
R
Y
10
0
0

1
0
0

2
0
0
GR
A
P
H
I
C

S
C
A
L
E
IN

F
E
E
T
FLOW
F
L
O
W
DITCH
F
L
O
W
FLOW
DITCH
HI
G
H

P
O
I
N
T

I
N

D
I
T
C
H
D
I
T
C
H
CO
N
C
E
P
T
U
A
L

G
R
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R

E
X
T
R
A
C
T
I
O
N

S
Y
S
T
E
M
9
W
E
L
L
S

-

3
0
0

F
O
O
T

S
P
A
C
I
N
G
LE
G
E
N
D
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D

E
X
T
R
A
C
T
I
O
N

W
E
L
L
Step-Drawdown and Pumping Test Findings August 22, 2016
HF Lee Energy Complex SynTerra
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\04.LEE PLANT\20. Accelerated Remediation\Pilot Test\PDF\Tech Memo Pilot Test
August 2016.docx
TABLES

TA
B
L
E

1
WE
L
L

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N

D
A
T
A
H.
F
.

L
E
E

E
N
E
R
G
Y

C
O
M
P
L
E
X
DU
K
E

E
N
E
R
G
Y

P
R
O
G
R
E
S
S
,

I
N
C
.
,

G
O
L
D
S
B
O
R
O
,

N
C
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
We
l
l

I
D
Da
t
e

In
s
t
a
l
l
e
d
Ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
Di
a
m
e
t
e
r
(i
n
c
h
e
s
)
Su
r
f
a
c
e

Ca
s
i
n
g
(F
e
e
t
-
B
G
S
)
La
t
i
t
u
d
e

L
o
n
g
i
t
u
d
e
Me
a
s
u
r
i
n
g

Po
i
n
t

T
O
C

El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(F
e
e
t
-

M
S
L
)
Gr
o
u
n
d

Su
r
f
a
c
e

El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(F
e
e
t
-

M
S
L
)
Total Well Depth (Feet-BGS)Screened Interval (Feet-BGS)
PT
W
-
0
1

0
7
/
1
4
/
1
6

S
S

6

N
A

3
5
.
3
8
3
1
9

7
8
.
0
6
9
4
1

7
6
.
2
4
9

7
3
.
1
8
8

2
0

1
0
-
2
0
PT
W
-
0
2

0
7
/
1
4
/
1
6

P
V
C

2

N
A

3
5
.
3
8
3
1
7

7
8
.
0
6
9
4
5

7
6
.
3
7

7
3
.
3
1
2

2
0

1
0
-
2
0
PT
W
-
0
3

0
7
/
1
3
/
1
6

P
V
C

2

N
A

3
5
.
3
8
3
2
7

7
8
.
0
6
9
4
4

7
6
.
1
4

7
3
.
0
2
1

2
0

1
0
-
2
0
PT
W
-
0
4

0
7
/
1
3
/
1
6

P
V
C

2

N
A

3
5
.
3
8
3
2
9

7
8
.
0
6
9
1
5

7
5
.
9
6
2

7
2
.
7
1
1

2
0

1
0
-
2
0
PT
W
-
0
5

0
7
/
1
3
/
1
6

P
V
C

2

N
A

3
5
.
3
8
3
2
4

7
8
.
0
6
9
7
1

7
6
.
4
1
1

7
3
.
2
3
3

1
9

9
-
1
9
PT
W
-
0
6

0
7
/
1
2
/
1
6

P
V
C

2

N
A

3
5
.
3
8
2
7
4

7
8
.
0
6
9
3
6

7
8
.
4
3
9

7
5
.
3
1
5

1
8

8
-
1
8
AM
W
-
1
4
S

0
4
/
2
8
/
1
5

P
V
C

2

N
A

3
5
.
3
8
7
1
6

7
8
.
0
7
0
6
9

7
8
.
0
8

7
5
.
2
1

2
1
.
4

1
1
.
4
-
2
1
.
4
AM
W
-
1
4
B
C

0
4
/
2
3
/
1
5

P
V
C

2

0
-
2
5

3
5
.
3
8
7
1
4

7
8
.
0
7
0
7
1

7
7
.
4
3

7
4
.
6
9

4
5

4
0
-
4
5
AM
W
-
1
8
S

0
5
/
2
5
/
1
6

P
V
C

2

N
A

3
5
.
3
8
2
0
5

7
8
.
0
6
7
2
0

7
8
.
2
8
74
.
1
4
31 21-31
AM
W
-
1
8
B
C

0
6
/
2
7
/
1
6

P
V
C

2
0-
4
3

3
5
.
3
8
2
0
4

7
8
.
0
6
7
2
0
77
.
5
4

7
3
.
3
8
66 56-66
CM
W
-
6

0
7
/
2
9
/
1
0

P
V
C

2
NA

3
5
.
3
8
3
2
0

7
8
.
0
6
9
8
0

7
6
.
2
5
NM
12 2-12
CM
W
-
6
R

0
9
/
1
1
/
1
2

P
V
C

2
NA

3
5
.
3
8
3
1
8

7
8
.
0
6
8
1
0

7
5
.
3
7
73
.
1
6
15 5-15
AM
W
-
0
6
R
B
C

0
5
/
0
1
/
1
5

P
V
C

2

0
-
2
2
.
5

3
5
.
3
8
3
1
9

7
8
.
0
6
8
1
7

7
6
.
1
0
73
.
0
3
50 45-50
No
t
e
s
:
Prepared by: TCP Checked by: JDM
BG
S

=

B
e
l
o
w

g
r
o
u
n
d

s
u
r
f
a
c
e
NF

=

N
o

F
l
o
w
MS
L

=

M
e
a
n

s
e
a

l
e
v
e
l
TO
C

=

T
o
p

o
f

c
a
s
i
n
g
NM

=

N
o
t

M
e
a
s
u
r
e
d
SS

=

S
t
a
i
n
l
e
s
s

S
t
e
e
l
P:
\
D
u
k
e

E
n
e
r
g
y

P
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
.
1
0
2
6
\
0
4
.
L
E
E

P
L
A
N
T
\
2
0
.

A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
e
d

R
e
m
e
d
i
a
t
i
o
n
\
P
i
l
o
t

T
e
s
t
\
P
i
l
o
t

T
e
s
t

R
e
p
o
r
t
_
A
u
g
2
0
1
6
\
T
a
b
l
e
s
\
P
i
l
o
t

T
e
s
t

W
e
ll

C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

D
e
t
a
i
l
s
.
x
l
s
x

P
a
g
e

1

o
f

1
TABLE 3
PILOT TEST WATER LEVEL DATA
H.F. LEE ENERGY COMPLEX
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, GOLDSBORO, NC
DATE TIME DTW DATE TIME DTW DATE TIME DTW
8/2/2016 8:45:00 7.07 8/2/2016 8:39:00 7.18 8/2/2016 8:37:00 6.93
8/2/2016 8:58:00 11.22 8/2/2016 9:31:00 8.14 8/2/2016 9:32:00 7.90
8/2/2016 9:02:00 11.35 8/2/2016 11:39:00 8.44 8/2/2016 10:28:00 7.95
8/2/2016 9:28:00 11.43 8/2/2016 12:17:00 8.45 8/2/2016 11:40:00 7.91
8/2/2016 9:48:00 11.45 8/2/2016 13:27:00 8.47 8/2/2016 12:21:00 7.92
8/2/2016 10:27:00 11.50 8/2/2016 14:27:00 8.49 8/2/2016 13:29:00 7.95
8/2/2016 11:37:00 11.47 8/2/2016 15:29:00 8.50 8/2/2016 14:29:00 8.01
8/2/2016 12:07:00 11.49 8/2/2016 16:19:00 8.53 8/2/2016 15:31:00 8.01
8/2/2016 13:27:00 11.50 8/2/2016 17:33:00 8.54 8/2/2016 16:20:00 8.02
8/2/2016 14:27:00 11.53 8/2/2016 20:01:00 8.53 8/2/2016 17:34:00 8.03
8/2/2016 15:29:00 11.55 8/2/2016 20:59:00 8.52 8/2/2016 20:02:00 8.00
8/2/2016 16:19:00 11.56 8/2/2016 21:58:00 8.52 8/2/2016 21:03:00 7.99
8/2/2016 17:32:00 11.59 8/2/2016 22:57:00 8.52 8/2/2016 21:59:00 8.00
8/2/2016 19:58:00 11.55 8/2/2016 23:58:00 8.52 8/2/2016 22:59:00 8.00
8/2/2016 21:05:00 11.56 8/3/2016 0:55:00 8.53 8/2/2016 23:59:00 8.02
8/2/2016 21:58:00 11.57 8/3/2016 1:57:00 8.54 8/3/2016 0:56:00 8.02
8/2/2016 22:58:00 11.58 8/3/2016 2:58:00 8.54 8/3/2016 1:59:00 8.02
8/2/2016 23:59:00 11.58 8/3/2016 3:58:00 8.55 8/3/2016 3:00:00 8.03
8/3/2016 0:55:00 11.58 8/3/2016 4:57:00 8.55 8/3/2016 4:00:00 8.03
8/3/2016 1:58:00 11.59 8/3/2016 5:56:00 8.56 8/3/2016 4:58:00 8.04
8/3/2016 2:59:00 11.60 8/3/2016 6:56:00 8.56 8/3/2016 5:57:00 8.05
8/3/2016 3:59:00 11.60 8/3/2016 7:56:00 8.56 8/3/2016 6:58:00 8.05
8/3/2016 4:58:00 11.60 8/3/2016 9:17:00 8.56 8/3/2016 7:57:00 8.06
8/3/2016 5:57:00 11.60 8/3/2016 10:05:00 8.56 8/3/2016 9:18:00 8.06
8/3/2016 6:57:00 11.61 8/3/2016 11:18:00 8.57 8/3/2016 10:07:00 8.06
8/3/2016 7:56:00 11.62 8/3/2016 12:06:00 8.59 8/3/2016 11:19:00 8.08
8/3/2016 9:15:00 11.62 8/3/2016 13:09:00 8.60 8/3/2016 12:08:00 8.08
8/3/2016 10:04:00 11.63 8/3/2016 14:04:00 8.60 8/3/2016 13:10:00 8.09
8/3/2016 11:17:00 11.64 8/3/2016 15:20:00 8.61 8/3/2016 14:05:00 8.10
8/3/2016 12:05:00 11.65 8/3/2016 16:08:00 8.62 8/3/2016 15:22:00 8.11
8/3/2016 13:08:00 11.66 8/3/2016 17:05:00 8.62 8/3/2016 16:08:00 8.12
8/3/2016 14:03:00 11.66 8/3/2016 18:10:00 8.62 8/3/2016 17:06:00 8.12
8/3/2016 15:19:00 11.67 8/3/2016 18:56:00 8.62 8/3/2016 18:11:00 8.13
8/3/2016 16:07:00 11.68 8/3/2016 19:59:00 8.63 8/3/2016 18:57:00 8.14
8/3/2016 17:04:00 11.69 8/3/2016 20:55:00 8.63 8/3/2016 19:59:00 8.14
8/3/2016 18:08:00 11.69 8/3/2016 20:56:00 8.14
8/3/2016 18:57:00 11.70
8/3/2016 19:58:00 11.70
8/3/2016 20:56:00 11.70
PTW-1 PTW-2 PTW-3
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\04.LEE PLANT\20. Accelerated Remediation\Pilot Test\Pilot Test Report_Aug2016\Tables\Pilot Test WL Data.xlsx Page 1 of 4
TABLE 3
PILOT TEST WATER LEVEL DATA
H.F. LEE ENERGY COMPLEX
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, GOLDSBORO, NC
DATE TIME DTW DATE TIME DTW DATE TIME DTW
8/2/2016 8:35:00 6.79 8/2/2016 8:15:00 7.06 8/2/2016 8:18:00 9.33
8/2/2016 9:32:00 7.24 8/2/2016 9:39:00 7.36 8/2/2016 9:36:00 9.44
8/2/2016 10:40:00 7.29 8/2/2016 10:21:00 7.40 8/2/2016 10:24:00 9.49
8/2/2016 11:42:00 7.24 8/2/2016 11:30:00 7.35 8/2/2016 11:30:00 9.50
8/2/2016 12:19:00 7.24 8/2/2016 12:12:00 7.35 8/2/2016 12:15:00 9.51
8/2/2016 13:31:00 7.27 8/2/2016 13:36:00 7.38 8/2/2016 13:38:00 9.53
8/2/2016 14:31:00 7.30 8/2/2016 14:36:00 7.41 8/2/2016 14:38:00 9.54
8/2/2016 15:32:00 7.33 8/2/2016 15:36:00 7.43 8/2/2016 15:38:00 9.55
8/2/2016 16:23:00 7.34 8/2/2016 16:25:00 7.44 8/2/2016 16:28:00 9.57
8/2/2016 17:35:00 7.36 8/2/2016 17:38:00 7.46 8/2/2016 17:40:00 9.58
8/2/2016 20:04:00 7.31 8/2/2016 20:05:00 7.43 8/2/2016 20:10:00 9.57
8/2/2016 21:04:00 7.30 8/2/2016 21:06:00 7.41 8/2/2016 21:10:00 9.58
8/2/2016 22:00:00 7.31 8/2/2016 22:01:00 7.42 8/2/2016 22:04:00 9.58
8/2/2016 23:00:00 7.32 8/2/2016 23:01:00 7.43 8/2/2016 23:04:00 9.58
8/3/2016 0:00:00 7.32 8/3/2016 0:01:00 7.43 8/3/2016 0:05:00 9.59
8/3/2016 0:57:00 7.33 8/3/2016 0:58:00 7.43 8/3/2016 1:01:00 9.59
8/3/2016 2:00:00 7.34 8/3/2016 2:01:00 7.44 8/3/2016 2:04:00 9.60
8/3/2016 3:01:00 7.34 8/3/2016 3:05:00 7.44 8/3/2016 3:04:00 9.59
8/3/2016 4:01:00 7.34 8/3/2016 4:02:00 7.45 8/3/2016 4:05:00 9.60
8/3/2016 4:59:00 7.35 8/3/2016 5:01:00 7.46 8/3/2016 5:03:00 9.60
8/3/2016 5:58:00 7.35 8/3/2016 6:00:00 7.46 8/3/2016 6:02:00 9.60
8/3/2016 6:59:00 7.36 8/3/2016 7:00:00 7.46 8/3/2016 7:03:00 9.60
8/3/2016 7:58:00 7.36 8/3/2016 7:59:00 7.47 8/3/2016 8:02:00 9.61
8/3/2016 9:21:00 7.38 8/3/2016 9:25:00 7.48 8/3/2016 9:28:00 9.61
8/3/2016 10:08:00 7.38 8/3/2016 10:12:00 7.48 8/3/2016 10:16:00 9.61
8/3/2016 11:21:00 7.39 8/3/2016 11:27:00 7.49 8/3/2016 11:29:00 9.62
8/3/2016 12:09:00 7.40 8/3/2016 12:11:00 7.49 8/3/2016 12:15:00 9.63
8/3/2016 13:11:00 7.41 8/3/2016 13:13:00 7.50 8/3/2016 13:17:00 9.63
8/3/2016 14:06:00 7.42 8/3/2016 14:08:00 7.51 8/3/2016 14:12:00 9.63
8/3/2016 15:22:00 7.43 8/3/2016 15:25:00 7.52 8/3/2016 15:28:00 9.64
8/3/2016 16:10:00 7.44 8/3/2016 16:12:00 7.53 8/3/2016 16:15:00 9.64
8/3/2016 17:06:00 7.44 8/3/2016 17:07:00 7.52 8/3/2016 17:10:00 9.64
8/3/2016 18:13:00 7.45 8/3/2016 18:16:00 7.53 8/3/2016 18:19:00 9.65
8/3/2016 18:59:00 7.45 8/3/2016 19:00:00 7.53 8/3/2016 19:02:00 9.65
8/3/2016 19:59:00 7.46 8/3/2016 20:00:00 7.53 8/3/2016 20:03:00 9.65
8/3/2016 20:58:00 7.45 8/3/2016 20:58:00 7.54 8/3/2016 21:02:00 9.65
PTW-6PTW-4 PTW-5
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\04.LEE PLANT\20. Accelerated Remediation\Pilot Test\Pilot Test Report_Aug2016\Tables\Pilot Test WL Data.xlsx Page 2 of 4
TABLE 3
PILOT TEST WATER LEVEL DATA
H.F. LEE ENERGY COMPLEX
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, GOLDSBORO, NC
DATE TIME DTW DATE TIME DTW
8/2/2016 8:13:00 5.93 8/2/2016 8:25:00 6.27
8/2/2016 9:42:00 6.02 8/2/2016 14:43:00 6.29
8/2/2016 10:13:00 6.02 8/2/2016 20:14:00 6.31
8/2/2016 11:27:00 5.85 8/3/2016 0:09:00 6.32
8/2/2016 12:11:00 5.82 8/3/2016 8:06:00 6.37
8/2/2016 13:33:00 5.87 8/3/2016 12:19:00 6.40
8/2/2016 14:33:00 5.90 8/3/2016 17:18:00 6.44
8/2/2016 15:34:00 5.94 8/3/2016 20:05:00 6.45
8/2/2016 16:24:00 5.96 8/4/2016 9:58:00 6.32
8/2/2016 17:36:00 5.98
8/2/2016 20:07:00 5.86
8/2/2016 21:13:00 5.86
8/2/2016 22:02:00 5.88
8/2/2016 23:02:00 5.89
8/3/2016 0:03:00 5.90
8/3/2016 1:00:00 5.90
8/3/2016 2:02:00 5.92
8/3/2016 3:06:00 5.93
8/3/2016 4:03:00 5.93
8/3/2016 5:02:00 5.95
8/3/2016 6:01:00 5.95
8/3/2016 7:01:00 5.96
8/3/2016 8:00:00 5.98
8/3/2016 9:23:00 5.99
8/3/2016 10:11:00 5.99
8/3/2016 11:24:00 6.00
8/3/2016 12:13:00 6.01
8/3/2016 13:15:00 6.02
8/3/2016 14:09:00 6.03
8/3/2016 15:26:00 6.06
8/3/2016 16:13:00 6.06
8/3/2016 17:08:00 6.06
8/3/2016 18:17:00 6.07
8/3/2016 19:01:00 6.07
8/3/2016 20:01:00 6.08
8/3/2016 21:02:00 6.09
CMW-6 CMW-6R
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\04.LEE PLANT\20. Accelerated Remediation\Pilot Test\Pilot Test Report_Aug2016\Tables\Pilot Test WL Data.xlsx Page 3 of 4
TABLE 3
PILOT TEST WATER LEVEL DATA
H.F. LEE ENERGY COMPLEX
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, GOLDSBORO, NC
DATE TIME DTW DATE TIME DTW
8/2/2016 8:23:00 6.36 8/2/2016 8:02:00 4.87
8/2/2016 14:41:00 6.34 8/2/2016 20:38:00 4.52
8/2/2016 20:13:00 6.31 8/3/2016 2:16:00 4.54
8/3/2016 0:09:00 6.31 8/3/2016 10:25:00 4.53
8/3/2016 8:05:00 6.31 8/3/2016 20:24:00 4.55
8/3/2016 12:18:00 6.32 8/4/2016 15:08:00 4.58
8/3/2016 17:20:00 6.31
8/3/2016 20:05:00 6.30
8/4/2016 9:57:00 6.31
DATE TIME DTW DATE TIME DTW
8/2/2016 8:03:00 5.89 8/2/2016 8:30:00 59.98
8/2/2016 20:39:00 5.83 8/2/2016 14:47:00 59.85
8/3/2016 2:17:00 5.83 8/2/2016 20:17:00 59.72
8/3/2016 10:26:00 5.82 8/3/2016 12:23:00 58.98
8/3/2016 20:25:00 5.81 8/3/2016 20:09:00 58.60
8/4/2016 15:10:00 5.82
DATE TIME DTW DATE TIME DTW
8/2/2016 8:09:00 8.25 8/2/2016 8:28:00 10.65
8/2/2016 20:45:00 8.19 8/2/2016 14:46:00 10.61
8/3/2016 2:23:00 8.18 8/2/2016 20:24:00 10.59
8/3/2016 10:32:00 8.18 8/3/2016 12:22:00 10.58
8/3/2016 20:18:00 8.20 8/3/2016 20:08:00 10.60
8/4/2016 10:00:00 10.59
Prepared by: RHJ Checked by: SRW
Notes:
DTW = Depth to Water
CCR-103S AMW-18S
AMW-6RBC AMW-14S
AMW-14BC AMW-18BC
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\04.LEE PLANT\20. Accelerated Remediation\Pilot Test\Pilot Test Report_Aug2016\Tables\Pilot Test WL Data.xlsx Page 4 of 4
Step-Drawdown and Pumping Test Findings August 22, 2016
HF Lee Energy Complex SynTerra
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\04.LEE PLANT\20. Accelerated Remediation\Pilot Test\PDF\Tech Memo Pilot Test
August 2016.docx
ATTACHMENT 1
BORING LOGS, WELL CONSTRUCTION
RECORDS, WELL PERMIT

CLAY, tan with orange mottling, sandy and silty, damp.
Upper 4" dark brown topsoil.
SAND, light gray, clayey and wet.
SAND, light gray, fine to medium with dm-scale bedding,
wet. Varies from clean to clayey and silty. Contains layers
of sand (coarse) with angular to subangular quartz gravel
(fine).
SAND, light gray, medium to coarse, clean. Coarsens
with depth.
SAND, light gray, gravelly (quartzose and angular to
rounded) with clay/ silt.
SAND, tan to light gray, predominantly medium to coarse
with varying silt/ clay and gravel content. Contains
cm-bedding 17.5'-20' bgs.
CLAY containing mm-scale lignite fragments.
CL
SP
SC
SP
SM
SP
SP
SP
SM
CH
6" Sch. 40 threaded PVC
riser
Grout
Bentonite
Sand Pack
6" stainless steel well
screen
90
60
50
90
SA
M
P
L
E
DESCRIPTION
BL
O
W
CO
U
N
T
S
PTW-01
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
GR
A
P
H
I
C
LO
G
US
C
S
DE
P
T
H
(f
t
)
PAGE 1 OF 1
7/14/16
DRILLING COMPANY:
DRILLING METHOD:
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
NOTES:
COMPLETED:7/14/16
CLIENT: Duke Progress Energy
PROJECT:
PROJECT NO:
PROJECT LOCATION: Goldsboro, NC
H. F. Lee Energy Complex
1026.04.20
WELL
CONSTRUCTIONPI
D
(p
p
m
)
WELL / BORING NO:
STARTED:
RE
C
O
V
.
(%
)
SynTerra
148 River Street, Suite 220
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
Phone: [phone]
Logged from 5' DPT sleeves.
2277368.622
76.249 ft MSL
20.0 ft BGS
J. Gilmer
595688.044
73.188 ft MSL
7.07 ft TOC
J. Mahan
Parratt - Wolff Inc.
Hollow Stem Augers
12 IN
NORTHING:
G.S. ELEV:
DEPTH TO WATER:
LOGGED BY:
EASTING:
M.P. ELEV:
TOTAL DEPTH:
CHECKED BY:
LO
G

A

E
W
N
N
0
4

D
E
P

L
E
E
.
G
P
J

G
I
N
T

S
T
D

A
4

A
S
T
M

L
A
B
.
G
D
T

8
/
1
7
/
1
6
CLAY, tan with orange mottling, sandy and silty, damp.
Upper 4" dark brown topsoil.
SAND, light gray, clayey and wet.
SAND, light gray, fine to medium with dm-scale bedding,
wet. Varies from clean to clayey and silty. Contains layers
of sand (coarse) with angular to subangular quartz gravel
(fine).
SAND, light gray, medium to coarse, clean. Coarsens
with depth.
SAND, light gray, gravelly (quartzose and angular to
rounded) with clay/ silt.
SAND, tan to light gray, predominantly medium to coarse
with varying silt/ clay and gravel content. Contains
cm-bedding 17.5'-20' bgs.
CLAY containing mm-scale lignite fragments.
CL
SP
SC
SP
SM
SP
SP
SP
SM
CH
2" Sch. 40 threaded PVC
riser
Bentonite
Sand Pack
2" pre-packed well screen
SA
M
P
L
E
DESCRIPTION
BL
O
W
CO
U
N
T
S
PTW-02
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
GR
A
P
H
I
C
LO
G
US
C
S
DE
P
T
H
(f
t
)
PAGE 1 OF 1
7/14/16
DRILLING COMPANY:
DRILLING METHOD:
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
NOTES:
COMPLETED:7/14/16
CLIENT: Duke Progress Energy
PROJECT:
PROJECT NO:
PROJECT LOCATION: Goldsboro, NC
H. F. Lee Energy Complex
1026.04.20
WELL
CONSTRUCTIONPI
D
(p
p
m
)
WELL / BORING NO:
STARTED:
RE
C
O
V
.
(%
)
SynTerra
148 River Street, Suite 220
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
Phone: [phone]
Logged from 5' DPT sleeves.
2277355.488
76.37 ft MSL
20.0 ft BGS
J. Gilmer
595681.105
73.312 ft MSL
7.18 ft TOC
J. Mahan
Parratt - Wolff Inc.
Hollow Stem Augers
12 IN
NORTHING:
G.S. ELEV:
DEPTH TO WATER:
LOGGED BY:
EASTING:
M.P. ELEV:
TOTAL DEPTH:
CHECKED BY:
LO
G

A

E
W
N
N
0
4

D
E
P

L
E
E
.
G
P
J

G
I
N
T

S
T
D

A
4

A
S
T
M

L
A
B
.
G
D
T

8
/
1
7
/
1
6
CLAY, tan with orange mottling, sandy and silty, damp.
Upper 4" dark brown topsoil.
SAND, light gray, clayey and wet.
SAND, light gray, fine to medium with dm-scale bedding,
wet. Varies from clean to clayey and silty. Contains layers
of sand (coarse) with angular to subangular quartz gravel
(fine).
SAND, light gray, medium to coarse, clean. Coarsens
with depth.
SAND, light gray, gravelly (quartzose and angular to
rounded) with clay/ silt.
SAND, tan to light gray, predominantly medium to coarse
with varying silt/ clay and gravel content. Contains
cm-bedding 17.5'-20' bgs.
CLAY containing mm-scale lignite fragments.
CL
SP
SC
SP
SM
SP
SP
SP
SM
CH
2" Sch. 40 threaded PVC
riser
Bentonite
Sand Pack
2" pre-packed well screen
SA
M
P
L
E
DESCRIPTION
BL
O
W
CO
U
N
T
S
PTW-03
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
GR
A
P
H
I
C
LO
G
US
C
S
DE
P
T
H
(f
t
)
PAGE 1 OF 1
7/13/16
DRILLING COMPANY:
DRILLING METHOD:
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
NOTES:
COMPLETED:7/13/16
CLIENT: Duke Progress Energy
PROJECT:
PROJECT NO:
PROJECT LOCATION: Goldsboro, NC
H. F. Lee Energy Complex
1026.04.20
WELL
CONSTRUCTIONPI
D
(p
p
m
)
WELL / BORING NO:
STARTED:
RE
C
O
V
.
(%
)
SynTerra
148 River Street, Suite 220
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
Phone: [phone]
Logged from 5' DPT sleeves.
2277358.902
76.14 ft MSL
20.0 ft BGS
J. Gilmer
595718.876
73.021 ft MSL
6.93 ft TOC
J. Mahan
Parratt - Wolff Inc.
Hollow Stem Augers
12 IN
NORTHING:
G.S. ELEV:
DEPTH TO WATER:
LOGGED BY:
EASTING:
M.P. ELEV:
TOTAL DEPTH:
CHECKED BY:
LO
G

A

E
W
N
N
0
4

D
E
P

L
E
E
.
G
P
J

G
I
N
T

S
T
D

A
4

A
S
T
M

L
A
B
.
G
D
T

8
/
1
7
/
1
6
CLAY, light gray to tan with orange mottling, sandy,
damp. Upper 6" rooted topsoil.
SAND, light gray, medium to coarse. 4" zone near
bottom of interval dominated by coarse grains.
SAND, tan to light gray and poorly sorted with angular to
subangular quartz gravel (fine) ~12.5' bgs.
SAND, medium to coarse and clean. Bottom 2"
subangular quartz gravel (fine).
SAND, medium to coarse with fines.
CLAY, dark to light gray, plastic with disseminated pyrite
often occurring as sub-vertical stringers at mm-scale
thickness.
CLS
SP
SW
SP
SP
SM
CH
Bentonite
2" Sch. 40 threaded PVC
riser
Sand Pack
2" pre-packed well screen
50
50
50
50
60
SA
M
P
L
E
DESCRIPTION
BL
O
W
CO
U
N
T
S
PTW-04
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
GR
A
P
H
I
C
LO
G
US
C
S
DE
P
T
H
(f
t
)
PAGE 1 OF 1
7/13/16
DRILLING COMPANY:
DRILLING METHOD:
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
NOTES:
COMPLETED:7/13/16
CLIENT: Duke Progress Energy
PROJECT:
PROJECT NO:
PROJECT LOCATION: Goldsboro, NC
H. F. Lee Energy Complex
1026.04.20
WELL
CONSTRUCTIONPI
D
(p
p
m
)
WELL / BORING NO:
STARTED:
RE
C
O
V
.
(%
)
SynTerra
148 River Street, Suite 220
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
Phone: [phone]
Logged from 5' DPT sleeves.
2277445.308
75.962 ft MSL
25.0 ft BGS
J. Gilmer
595727.013
72.711 ft MSL
6.79 ft TOC
J. Mahan
Parratt - Wolff Inc.
Hollow Stem Augers
8 IN
NORTHING:
G.S. ELEV:
DEPTH TO WATER:
LOGGED BY:
EASTING:
M.P. ELEV:
TOTAL DEPTH:
CHECKED BY:
LO
G

A

E
W
N
N
0
4

D
E
P

L
E
E
.
G
P
J

G
I
N
T

S
T
D

A
4

A
S
T
M

L
A
B
.
G
D
T

8
/
1
7
/
1
6
CLAY, tan with yellow-orange mottling, silty and sandy
(fine to coarse). Grades into sand ~4' bgs. Upper 4" dark
brown organic rich soil.
SAND, gray to tan, medium with some subrounded
quartz gravel (fine), wet. Fining to 10' bgs.
SAND, light gray with gravel (coarse).
SAND, light gray, fine, graded.
SAND, light gray, clayey, poorly sorted with 4" zone of
clean sand (fine to medium).
CLAY, silty, contains lignite fragments (<10 mm) and
sand (coarse).
CLAY, thinly bedded (mm-scale) with minor lenses of
light gray sand (fine).
CL
SPG
SPG
SP
SP
SC
CL
ML
CH
Bentonite
2" Sch. 40 threaded PVC
riser
Sand Pack
2" pre-packed well screen
90
30
50
100
SA
M
P
L
E
DESCRIPTION
BL
O
W
CO
U
N
T
S
PTW-05
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
GR
A
P
H
I
C
LO
G
US
C
S
DE
P
T
H
(f
t
)
PAGE 1 OF 1
7/13/16
DRILLING COMPANY:
DRILLING METHOD:
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
NOTES:
COMPLETED:7/13/16
CLIENT: Duke Progress Energy
PROJECT:
PROJECT NO:
PROJECT LOCATION: Goldsboro, NC
H. F. Lee Energy Complex
1026.04.20
WELL
CONSTRUCTIONPI
D
(p
p
m
)
WELL / BORING NO:
STARTED:
RE
C
O
V
.
(%
)
SynTerra
148 River Street, Suite 220
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
Phone: [phone]
Logged from 5' DPT sleeves.
2277280.518
76.411 ft MSL
20.0 ft BGS
J. Gilmer
595706.473
73.233 ft MSL
7.06 ft TOC
J. Mahan
Parratt - Wolff Inc.
Hollow Stem Augers
8 IN
NORTHING:
G.S. ELEV:
DEPTH TO WATER:
LOGGED BY:
EASTING:
M.P. ELEV:
TOTAL DEPTH:
CHECKED BY:
LO
G

A

E
W
N
N
0
4

D
E
P

L
E
E
.
G
P
J

G
I
N
T

S
T
D

A
4

A
S
T
M

L
A
B
.
G
D
T

8
/
1
7
/
1
6
SILT, yellow-orange, clayey. Upper portion of interval
rooted.
SAND, yellow-orange, fine to medium, contains cm-scale
lenses of sand (medium to coarse) mid-interval. Sand
coarsens towards 10' bgs with gravel (fine) in matrix of
sand (medium). Wet ~8' bgs.
SAND, light gray, medium-grained with sand (coarse)
and gravel (fine), wet.
SAND, light gray, medium-grained and wet. Contains
cm-scale repeating succession of sand (coarse) to gravel
(fine) to silty, clayey sand (fine).
SAND, light gray, clayey with dm-scale interbeds of sand
(medium)/ silts to olive gray clay, wet. cm-scale mud
nodules occur in light gray sand (fine) matrix. Mud
contains dark brown to black lignitic material. Transitions
to sand (coarse) in mud/ clay matrix with mud nodules
~24' bgs.
CLAY, olive gray, minor silt, plastic and wet. Contains
occasional mm-scale light gray sand (fine) lenses,
mm-scale fragments of dark organic material, and very
fine dissemenated pyrite(?) grains. Bedding massive to
lenticular.
ML
SW
SPG
SWG
SP
SC
CH
Bentonite
2" Sch. 40 threaded PVC
riser
Sand Pack
2" pre-packed well screen
100
100
30
50
100
100
SA
M
P
L
E
DESCRIPTION
BL
O
W
CO
U
N
T
S
PTW-06
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
GR
A
P
H
I
C
LO
G
US
C
S
DE
P
T
H
(f
t
)
PAGE 1 OF 1
7/12/16
DRILLING COMPANY:
DRILLING METHOD:
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
NOTES:
COMPLETED:7/12/16
CLIENT: Duke Progress Energy
PROJECT:
PROJECT NO:
PROJECT LOCATION: Goldsboro, NC
H. F. Lee Energy Complex
1026.04.20
WELL
CONSTRUCTIONPI
D
(p
p
m
)
WELL / BORING NO:
STARTED:
RE
C
O
V
.
(%
)
SynTerra
148 River Street, Suite 220
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
Phone: [phone]
Logged from 5' DPT sleeves.
2277386.3
78.439 ft MSL
30.0 ft BGS
J. Gilmer
595526.558
75.315 ft MSL
9.33 ft TOC
J. Mahan
Parratt - Wolff Inc.
Hollow Stem Augers
8 IN
NORTHING:
G.S. ELEV:
DEPTH TO WATER:
LOGGED BY:
EASTING:
M.P. ELEV:
TOTAL DEPTH:
CHECKED BY:
LO
G

A

E
W
N
N
0
4

D
E
P

L
E
E
.
G
P
J

G
I
N
T

S
T
D

A
4

A
S
T
M

L
A
B
.
G
D
T

8
/
1
7
/
1
6
WELL CONSTRUCTION RECORD
This loi an can be used for single or multiple %%ells
Fur IntemalI:se0\LY
I. Well Contractor Information:
Lewis LeFever
\\-ell Conuactor Came
2480-A
Nt Well Conuacloi Ceinlicauon Number
Parratt-Wolff
Ct n1pam \ame -.
2. Well Construction Permit#;:
Lm all ❑pplaahle hell pcnnils (i r Cahill, suNc, l inial,r, hryrcnon, en l
3. Well Use (check well use):
Water Supply Well:
❑Agricultural
❑Geothermal (Heating/Cooling Supply)
❑ Ind ustrial/Commerc I'll
❑Municipal/Public
❑Residential Water Supply (single)
[-]Residential Water Supply' (shared)
❑Irrigation
Non-Al'atet- Supply Well:
❑ Monitoring 0 RecoveiA
❑Aquirer Recharge
❑Aquifer Storage and Recovery
❑Aqua Fer Test
❑Experimental Technology
❑Geothermal (Closed Loop)
❑Geothermal (Heating/Cooling Return)
❑Groundwater Remediation
❑Salinity Barrier
❑S(ormw-ater Drainage
❑Subsidence Control
❑ Tracer
❑Other (explain under #21 1
4. Date Well(s) Completed: 71141201 Well ID# PTW-1
5a. Well Location:
Duke Energy HF Lee Station
Facility/Owner Name Ficdtly ID- (ifapplicable)
1622 Old Smithfield Rd.
Physical Address. City. and Zip
Wayne
Couuly Parcel Identification No (PIN)
5b, Latitude and Longitude in degrees/minutes/seconds or decimal degrees:
Iif %velI field, one laelong is sufficient)
35.384815 N-78.069778 N
6. Is (are) the well(s): OPermanent or ❑Temporary
7. Is this a repair to an existing well: ❑Ves or 7INo
tf this is a repair, fill out kit m n hell t onstr fie flan iolo Ovation and rsplain drr nanny
ul the
repair under "'I winca ks in lion or on fhc• hark o/ this /fri ar
S. Number of wells constructed: 1
For antlriple irliecfinn or eon -Water atppll' reel/s OVLY a ah the .came construction.
wit ,at
submit are /;trim
20.0
9. Total well depth below land surface:
(ft.)
For rrudliple a ells list all depths ildiherenf (ayample- 3p 200' arc/ 2'a /00')
8.0
10. Static water level below top of casing;
(ft.)
Il n lei• rail is abm•c Cavil;;, use '
12.0
11. Borehole diameter: (in.)
Ii. WATER ZONES - --
FRONT
TO
DESCRIPTION
8.0 fr.
15.0 rr.
Wet
15.0 rr•
20.0 fry
Moist
15. OUTER CASING (fur multi -cased weltsl OR LINER lif a ilicable)
FRONT
TO
I DIAMETER I
THR KNESS
NI ITERIAL
ft.
ft.
I
16. INNER
CASING OR TUBING € eothermal closed -too
FRONT
TO
DIAMETER
T€€R KNFSS
NI\TERIA1.
0 fr'
10.0 fry
6.0 in.
Sch.40
PVC
ft.
ft.
in-
1". of REEK
FROM
TO
DIAMETER
SLOT SIZE
THICKNESS
;MATERIAL
10.0 IT.
20.0 fry
6.0 in.
0.01"
SS
W
ft.
in.
IS. GROUT
FROM
0 ft.
TO
5.0 fr'
MATERIAI
Bent./Port.
EMPI.ACFMFNT METHOD & AAf OVNT
Tremied
5.0 fr.
7.0 ft.
Bentonite
Poured
ft.
ft.
19. SAND/GRAVEL PACK ifa iicable
FROM
I TO
MATERIAL
ENIPLACFNIEN'r METHOD
7.0 fry
20.0 rr•
#2 1
Poured
it.
I
20. DRILLING
LOG attach additional sheets if necessa
FROM
TO
DESCRIPTION lcolua.hacdaess, soiVrock. 1. e, raw.si-re.
0 fry
5.0 rr•
Brown, Moist, SILT and Clay
5.0 rr•
10.0 fry
Tan, Wet Fine SAND and Silt
10.0 fry
15.0 fr,
Tan, Wet Fine SAND and Silt
15.0 fry
20.0 fry
Dark Gray, Moist, CLAY and Silt
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
21. REMARKS
Installed 8" Stick -Up Cover
22. (Arti ealion:
8i9/2016
­'t1fi{,�.tt��.��
Si}nature of Crte4d 11e l i ctor r Date
B±-.ir\;i`to 1, this fare rhv tu•rtili' that the nell(s) nna (rrc're) cournrrctcd in acrordanr
n ith 1 i.4-\'C:aC 02C 0/00 of 1 iA AVAC02C.0'110 Well Construt rant Siandnrzlq and that it
c npr of this record has been provider/ to the hull oa neh.
23, Site diagram or additional well details:
You may use the back of this page to provide additional well site details of well
construction details You inay also attach additional pages if necessaR
SUBMITTAL INSTUCTIONS
24a. For .all Wells: Submit this rorm within all days of completion of well
construction to the Following
Division of Water Resources, Information Processing Unit,
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
24b. For Infection Wells ONLY: In addition to sending the form to the address in
2daabove. also submit a copy of this Fora within �0 days of completion of \\ell
12. Well construction method: Auger construction to the following
(r e auger, room, cable, direct push, etc I
Division of Water Resources, Underground Injection Control Program,
FOR WATER SUPPLY WELLS ONLA : 1636 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1636
13a. field (gpm) Method of test: 24c. Foryy'ater Supply & Injection Wells:
Also submit one copy (it form within 30 dacsofcompletionof
13b. Disinfection type: amount: well construction to the county health department or the count\ where
constl ucted
Foi nt G\\ - I Not th Carolina Depar orient of Envu tBtntenr and \attual Resoui ces - Dis ismn of \\ alei Resource., Res iced August '0 1",

WELL CONSTRUCTION RECORD
This trim can be used IN single ai nndI iple meils
Fur Inteinal ('se ONLY
I. Well Contractor Information:
Lewis LeFever
Well Contiactw Name
2480-A
NC Well C'ontiactoi Certtlication Number
Parratt-Wolff
Compam Aante
2. Well Construction Permit #:
Lau all applicable a 'Il pdrnnits (i e County, Slott. [ iu iunt Milt lion. ell 1
3. Well I -se (check well use):
Water Supply Well:
❑Agricultural
❑Munk Ipal/Public
❑Geothermal (Heating/Cooling Supply)
❑Residential Watei Supply (single)
❑Industrial/Commercial
❑Residential Water Supply (shared)
❑Irrigation
Non-11'ater Supply Well:
❑O Monitoring
❑ Recover
Injection N ell:
❑Ayuifel Recharge
❑Groundwater Remediation
❑Ayuifet Storage and Recovery
❑Salinity Barrier
❑Ayuifel Test
❑Stormwater Drainage
❑Experimental Technology
❑Subsidence Control
❑Geothermal (Closed Loop)
❑Tracer
❑Geotheinmal (Heating/Cooling Rewrn)
❑Other (ex lain under #21 Remarks)
4. Date Well(s) Completed: 7/14/2016Well ID# PTW-2
5a. Well Location:
Duke Energy
Facility/Owner Name
1622 Old Smithfield Rd.
Physical .Address. City and Zip
Wayne
County
HF Lee Station
Facthw ID-1 (if applicable)
Pai cel Identification No (PIN)
5b. Latitude and Longitude in degrees/minutes/seconds or decimal degrees:
(it well field, one lat'long is sufficient)
35.384789 N-78.069847 N
6. Is (are) the well(s): (OPermanent or ❑Temporary
7. Is this a repair to an existing well: ❑Yes or
ZINo
It' this is a repuir, Jill out know n hell ron.ctrmPin I inlnrnaaimp
and explain the name of tad
repair under �1I remarks wi,fion or on the hark o/(this loran
8. Number of wells constructed: 1
For midtiple inje, Lion or pion -water cupplr n ells OVLY a ith the
same construction, row c an
submit n,te log it,
20.0
9. Total well depth below land surface:
Ift.)
Fnr- rnultilrlr hells list all depths if dilleient (example- 3:ra 200
and 21ia /00')
8.0
10. Static water level below top of casing:
(ft.)
11 hater level is mho-e easing, arm° `�
11. Borehole diameter: 8.0 lin.1
la. WATER ZONES
FROM
TO
DESCRIPTION
8.0 fr•
20.0 ft•
wet
ft,
ft.
15.011'F;R CASING [fur
multi-m" welLe OR
[.1'F.R ifo
tieablc
FROM
Tir
Dl vo l"t'17
'f1f1f'tiNF�S
M m,TERL%t.
ft.
I ft.
I in.
I(,. INNER C tSING Olt TI'Rllf: trEa thermal elm ed-)tat r
FROM
TO
DI\METER I
inuk P:Ss
vi%,I rRI 11
0 ff
10.0 fL
2.0 In.
Sch.40
PVC
ft.
ft.
in.
_
17. SC'REEN
FROM
TO
DIAME'I ER
SLOT SIZE
THICKNESS
MATERIAL
10.0 f"
20.0 D.
2.0 in.
0.01"
Sch.40
PVC
ft.
ft,
in,
18. GROUT
FROM
TO
MATFRIAI
EMPI ACF,MENTNIF.THQDXANIOI'NT
0 fr.
4.0 ft-
Bent./Port.
Tremied
4-0 ft-
7.0 ft.
Bentonite
Poured
ft.
ft.
19. SANDLGRAVEL
PACK
if a iicalde
FROM
I TO
I MATERI tt. I FMPt %1CFVFNT MF.TIIOD
7.0 ft-
20.0 ft-
#2 Poured
ft.
fL
20. DRILLING LOG (attach additional sheets if necessary)
FROM
TO
DESCRIPTION Icolot. hardness. soil/rock Ivne. etain size. ergs
ft.
ft.
No Samples
ft.
ft.
fr.
ft.
fr.
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
fr.
21. RI NTARFiS
Installed 4" Stick -Up Cover
22. C` rti cation:
r�N
8/9/2016
SI-n I w Unliticcl TftrV/11
nnrlb(cn Date
Rr igning this lnrm, I co-li/i that the wc•ll(c) nos- (nerd/ conitruc•ted III I,, ordancc
,vita I ?A \'CAC 02C 0100 or 15A \'CAC 02C 0200 IYe// Copwort tiun ,Standmds and that a
cnpr of this record has been provided to the nrll mind•,
23. Site diagram or additional well details:
You may use the back of this page to pro%ide additional well site details of well
construction details You mayalso attach additional pages, ifnecessar
SUBMITTAL INSTUCTIONS
24a. For ,all Wells: Submit this form within 30 days of completion of well
construction to the following
Division of Water Resources, Information Processing Unit,
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
24b. For Infection Wells ONLY: In addition to sending the form to the address in
Auger 2daaboe- also submit a coPe of this form vSithrn 30 days of completion of vNell
12. Well construction method: construction to the following:
(i a sues, nxan•, gable, direct push, etc I
Division of Water Resources, Underground Injection Control Program,
FOR WATER SUPPLY WELLS ONLY: 1636 flail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1636
13a. Yield (gpm) Methud of test: lac. For N ater Supply & Injection Wells:
Also submit one copy of this form within 30 daNsofcompletionof
13b. Disinfection type: Amount: well construction to the county health department of the count) where
constructed
Foim G\S - I Notch Cmolina Department of Environment and \af ual Resouices- Di\ision of W;trei Resources Re\Ised -\ugusl'_01",

WELL CONSTRUCTION RECORD
TlLis form can be used for sin wle of multiple vcells
I. Well (-(infractor Information:
Lewis LeFever
Well Conuactol Name
2480-A
NC Well C uuoactor Coulicauon Number
Parratt-Wolff
( ompan Name
2. Well Construction Permit #:
Lwall applicahlc ndl penmitc (i (main, ,Stale Ilaiamre, Imjrcnon. ere I
3. Well t'se (check well use):
Water Supply Well:
❑Agricultural ❑Municipal/Public
❑Geothermal (Heating/Cooling Supply) ❑Residential Water Supply (single)
❑Industrial/Commercial ❑Residential Water SupPIN (shared)
❑ Itt i 4at man
Non -Water Supply Well:
❑O Monitol Ing ❑ Recover
❑Aquifer Recharge
❑Aquifer Storage and Recovery
❑ Aqul ter Test
❑Experimental Technology
❑Geothermal (Closed Loop)
❑Geothermal (Heat ill g/Cooling
❑Goundwater Remediation
❑Salinity Barrier
❑Stornl\cater Drainage
[-]Subsidence Control
❑Tracer
Return) ❑other (explain under 421
4. Date Well(s) Completed: 7/13/2016Well ID# PTW-3
5a. Well Location:
Duke Energy HF Lee Station
Facility/Ocvnei Name Facdiq, ID- (iFapplicable)
1622 Old Smithfield Rd.
Physical -\ddress City. and Zip
Wayne
county
Parcel Identification No (PIN)
5b. Latitude and Longitude in degrees/minutes/seconds or decimal degrees:
(iflcell field, one fat toms is sti icientl
35.384838 N-78.069786
6. is (are) the well(s): OPermanent or ❑Temporary
7. Is this a repair to an existing well: ❑l•es or DNo
1l lire, i, a repair-, /ill oa) knoua url/ cons) acliom folio rmfitiom find ecplaim der matra-r of the
wimih under 4_'1 remarks cretins wore the hot k o/ Ilni /dent
S. Number of wells constructed: 1
For matlriple Injection or mom-u (it", capplr n el/c OVLY n idr tire Conte ranstrodion, r ore r am
uthmrit rue limn
9. Total well depth below land surface: 20.0 (ft.)
Far multiple cells list all deplhc il-diperem (evample- 3'u 100' cord 1'd Wet')
10. Static water level below top of casing: 8.0 (ft.)
l/ water level is ahorr ,Icier,;,. it,,, ..-
11. Borehole diameter: 8.0 fill.)
Foi Inteinal Use ONLI
14. WATER ZONES
FROM
TO
DESCRIPTION
8.0
120.0 ft
wet
ft.
ft.
15. OUTER CASING (for multi -cased wells) OR LINER fif aoDlicahlel
FROM TO
I 111011F.TER
THICKNESS
I MATFRIAI.
Fr. fr.
I in,
16. INNER CASING OR
TUBING (geothermal closed-looDl
FROM
TO
mAMFTFR THUKNI'SS
MATFRI.\F
0 f6
10.0 ft-
2.0 in. Sch.40
PVC
ft.
ff.
In.
17.SCREEN
FROM
TO
DLIMFTFR
SLOT SIZF
THICKNESS
MATERIAL
10.0 "'
20.0 ft'
2.0 in.
0.01"
Sch.40
PVC
ft.
ft.
in,
19. GROUT
FROM
TO
MATERIAL
EMPLACEMENT ]IET IOD & AMOUNT
0 ft.
4.0 ft-
Bent./Port.
Tremied
4.0 ft.
7.0 ft-
Bentonite
Poured
I'L
ft.
19. SAND/GRAVEL PACK (if aoDlicahlel
FROM
TO
MATFRI aI
I'MPIAC-EMENTMETHOD
7.0 ft-
20.0 rt
#2
Poured
ft.
ft.
20. DRILLING LOG (attach additional sheets if necessary)
FROM
To
DFtii-HtP'rIl7N Imlru. Its rslnns,xuiLru.k lv n•, rain sine, rtr.I
ft.
fr.
No Samples
ft.
ft.
rr.
ft.
-
-
rt.
ft.
ft.
fr.
ft.
ft.
fr.
ft.
21. REMARKS
Installed 4" Stick -Up Cover
22. Cer If ation:
- r`18/9/2016
Signarum irI era}red \Nell Cr.. iraelnr Date
81 si;;rrin;; ilii.v jnrm, 1 /Jeer.• re,ii ji• that the ur//(c) nay mere) con.cu,uered Ili accordanu,
nilln 15A .\-CAC 03C.0100 or lSd \'C'a(' O1C 0200 If"ell Congrtwtiurr Stawlanele and that u
colt ,I the, rervl'd due hcem prorrelyd Io Ilrr well au net.
23. Site diagram or additional well details:
You may use the back or this page to provide additional well site details of well
construction details You ma\ also attach additional pages if necessan
SUBMITTAL INSTUCTIONS
24a. For .all Wells: Submit this Corm within 30 daNs or completion of Well
construction to the following
Division of Water Resources, Information Processing t nit,
1617 flail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
tab. For Infection Wells ONLY: In addition to sending the form to the address In
Auger ? la above, also submit a cop\ of this form within 3(1 days of completion of v\ell
12. Well construction method: construction to the following:
(i a auger, rota-\, cable, direct push. ere 1
Division of Rater Resources, Underground Injection Control Program,
FOR WATER SUPPLY WELLS ONL) : 1636 flail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1636
24c. For Water Supple & Injection Wells:
13a. field (gpm) Method of test: Also submit one copy of this roam within 30 days of completion of
13b. Disinfection type: _ Amount: well cans0u01011 to the county health department of the count\ where
constllicted
Foim G\\-I Nnuh Carolina Depaimtent ofEnvuonnrenl and Naum:d Resotuces- Division of\\atei Resnurca; Revised-\uausl 2011

WELL CONSTRUCTION RECORD
This Ibon can be used fur single of multiple shells
Rn Internal Use 0\I.l'
I. Well Contractor Information:
Lewis LeFever
VNell Cnnuactcn Name
2480-A
NC \VelI C•onuactor Cei tiicanon Number
Parratt-Wolff
Compam \amc
2. Well Construction Permit #t
Listallapplhahl, Oil, if., Cmrnh.State, lamnae.lnjretinn,rt,
3. Well Use (check well use):
Water Supply Well:
❑Agricultural ❑Municipal/Public
❑Geothenmal (Heating/Cooling Supply) ❑Residential Water Supply (single)
❑ Industrial/C•ommei vial ❑Residential Water Supply (shared)
❑ Irnuation
Non -Water Suppl} Well:
❑, Monitorma El Recover
❑Aquifer Recharge
❑Aquifer Storage and Recovery
❑Aqulter Test
❑Experimental Technology
❑Geothermal (Closed Loop)
❑Geothermal (Heating/Cooling
❑Gnutndwater Reinedlation
❑Salinity Barrier
❑Stormwater Drainage
❑Subsidence Control
❑Tracer
Return) ❑Other (explain under #21 Remarks
4. Date Well(s) Completed: 7/13/2016Well ID# PTW-4
5a. Well Location:
Duke Energy
Facdny/Owner Name
1622 Old Smithfield Rd,
Physical Address City_ and Zip
Wayne
HF Lee Station
Facility ID, (rfapplicable)
Count} Parcel Identification No (PIA)
5b. Latitude and Longitude in degrees/minutes/seconds or decimal degrees:
lif>sell field, one Iat.long is suflicientl
35.384895 N-78.069649 W.
6. Is (are) the well(s): OPermanent or ❑Temporary
7, Is this a repair to an existing well: ❑I es or 91No
If thk ie n repair•, lill ,in bmun uell cnrr.enuchnn inlbrrnurinn nerd explain fire nature of (Ile
repair rnr(rr #11 veonurkc vrcnirn nr (in the hark of this /area
S. Number of wells constructed: 1
For multiple injec rinn nr non -nee capph• a ells OVLY mith the sumoenn.struetion, i not can
vohnrit note In, no.
9. Total well depth below land surface: 20.0
Fnr undtiple r,el/s lisr all depth- ifdilloenr le.rample- 3yi,200'and 2si I00')
10. Static water level below top of casing: 8'0
11 tinter lerel i.c abm e casing, loci -
11. Borehole diameter: 8.0 (in.)
I;, WATER ZONES
FRO71,1
TO
DE.SL I[tl'I LOV
8.0 r`
20.0 ft•
Wet
20.0 f`
25.0 f`
Moist
15. OUTER LASING for vtellt) OR LINFR 1f a
licablc
FROM -
TO
T!glt-cased
DIAMETER 'rHCC':ii:NEtiS
NIATERIAL
ft.
.
16. INNER CASING OR TUBING t enthprTal clawd-lnn
FRONT
TO
M\NI FTFR
THI(KSFSS
M%TFRI\I
0 f`
10.0 f`•
2.0 In'
Sch.40
PVC
ft.
ft.
in,
17• SCR FEN
FROM
TO
D1VIIM- R
SI_f17 Silt: fit I( talcs
M Ct 1'RI %I
10.0 f`-
20.0 f`•
2.0 in.
0.01" Sch.40
PVC
ft.
ft.
in.
IS. GROUT
FROM
TO
MATERIAL
Bent./Port.
FMPI ACFM_FNT NILTHOD & _AMO1 NT
0 ft'
4.0 t•
Tremied
4.0 f`•
7.0 rt•
Bentonite
Poured
fr.
ff.
19. SAND/GRAVEL PACK lif aunlicablel
FROM
TO
MATERIAL
EMPLACENIFN'TMETHOD
7.0 f`•
25.0 f`•
#2
Poured
ft.
ft.
20. DRILLING LOG attach additional sheers if necessary)
FRONT
TO
DESCRIPTION trnlnry hardness, snillrnck rune. main Sip, rr r.l
0 ft-
5.0 ft.
Red/Brown, Moist, SILT and Clay
5.0 t•
10.0 0.
Tan, Wet Fine SAND and Silt
10.0 t•
15.0 f`•
Tan. Wet Fine SAND and Silt
15.0 f`•
20.0 f`•
20.0 t•
Tan, Wet, Course SAND and Gravel
Dark Gray, Moist, CLAY
25.0 f`•
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
21. REMARKS
Installed 4" Stick -Up Cover
22.I'c t1i alion:
rAt
8I9I2016
S qndlw:e ul tniliat ell Corl.u•tur - Date - .._ ...
t
Br cigring E Jnrnr, / hrrrlru rplr that 1/1e urll(s) nnc (rrre) CO11MUcfed in au'nrdanu•
airh / iA ACAC 02C-0100 nr 15/1 ,AVAC 02C 0200 It'eh' Cnnsu•urlinn Sfandaid.c and than a
ru/n• Of this rccnrd hue been /n mired on the ❑ell metier
23. Site diagram or additional iiell details:
You may use the back of this page to pioN ide additional well site details or well
construction details You may also attach additional pages ifnecessan
SUBMITTAL INSTUCTIONS
24a. For ,all Wells: Submit this form within 30 days of completion of well
construction to the following
DiNisiou of Water Resources, Information Processing Unit,
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
24b. For Infection Wells ONLI : In addition to sending the fo1Tn to the address In
Auger 24aabove, also submit a copy of this form v\ithin 30 days of completion of well
12. Well construction method: construction to the following:
0 a auger, rotary cable, direct push, etc I
Division of Water Resources, Underground injection Control Program,
FOR WATER SUPPLY WELLS ONLY: 1636 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1636
133. Yield (gpm) Method of test:. 24c. For Water Supply & Injection Wells:
Also submit one copy of this form within 30 da\ s of completion of
13b. Disinfection type: Amount: well construction to the County health department of the ctnlntV Where
constructed
Poi it CA\ - I \cu llr Cal olina Department of Envitonmenl and Vann at Resources- Division ot'W.uei Resum ces Re\ised \u�us12013

WELL CONSTRUCTION RECORD
This t6i nt can be used for single of out luple swells
For Internal UseONLY
I. Well Contractor Information:
Lewis LeFever
Well Colloacto, Name
2480-A
NC Well Contractor Ceintication \umbel
Parratt-Wolff
Compam Naive
2. Well Construction Permit #:
Lisl all applaahlc hell pennirs lie Countr, Stale, f aliancr, Injection, etc.)
3. Well Use (check well use):
Water Supply Well:
❑Agricultural ❑Municipal/Public
❑Geothermal (Heating/Cooling Supply) ❑Residential Water Supply (single)
❑industrial/Commercial ❑Residential Water Supplv (shared)
❑irrigation
Von-NN'atei- Supply Well:
M Monitorine ❑Recover
❑Aquifer Recharge
❑Aquifer Storage and Recovery
❑Aquifer Test
❑ENperinlcmal Technology
❑Geothermal (Closed Loop)
❑Gcothennal (Heating/Cooling Return
❑Groundwater Remediation
❑Salinity Barrier
❑Swrmwater Drainage
❑Subsidence Control
❑ Tracer
❑Other (explain under 421 1
4. Date Well(s) Completed: 7/1 3/201 6Well ID# PTW-5
5a. Well Location:
Duke Energy HF Lee Station
Facility/Owner Name Facility ID4 (ifapplicabhe)
1622 Old Smithfield Rd.
Physical Address City. and Zip
Wayne
County Paicel Identification No (PIN)
5b. Latitude and Longitude in degrees/minutes/seconds or decimal degrees:
(ifwell field. one lattong is sutlicient)
35.384659 N-78.07019 N
6. Is (are) the well(s): OPermanent or ❑Temporary
7. Is this a repair to An existing well: ON -es or E]No
1/ this is a repair, fill oul kmmn red/ construction information and explain the nanae of the
repair under 411 rernca•ks section or on the hack of this tone
S. Number of wells constructed; 1
Fob multiple injee lion or rron-u ater supply wells ONL 1' a-ith the same construction, ran can
❑rhmir one lorm
9. Total well depth below land surface: 19.0 (ft.)
For multiple hells list all depth• ifdifferent (evmnple- 3:11200' mid 21,u 100')
10. Static water level below top of casing: 8.0 (ft.)
/l n-ater- level is above casing. h(se ' +
I I. Borehole diameter: 8.0 (in.)
14. WATER ZONES
FROM
TO
DESCRIPTION
8.0 er.
15.0 e.
Wet
15.0 ft•
19.0 ft.
Moist
1S OUTER CASfNG Irar mnitFcased wells) OR LINER Ka t licablr
FROM
TII
Mi,,, ETER
'Pit'FNF,ti;i
MM:..AI-
ft.
ft.
in.
Ib, INNER f %NING OR I 'ItI\G(Stathertnnl
closed­hmpli
FROM
TO
m%MtJVR
II -lit KR'.Fti:S
M#TI'RI:M
0 ft.
9.0 ft.
2.0 'n' I
SCh.40
PVC
ft.
I
in.
17. SCREEN
FROM
TO
DIAMETER
5LOTSl211'
THICKNESS
MATERIAL
9.0 f`
19.0 ft.
2.0 '°'
0.01"
Sch.40
PVC
f[.
ft.
in.
19. GROUT- _
FROM
TO
3.0 et.
MATERIAL
Bent./Port.
_
EMPL %CE.MENT METHOD & AMOI'NT
Tremied
0 ft.
3.0 fr•
6.0 fr•
Bentonite
Poured
fr.
fr.
19. SANDlGRAF
Fl, P.#C'ii (If a Iiealde}
FROM
TO
MATERIAL
- FMPI I.t FMFNT it ETHOD
6.0 ft.
19.0 fr.
#2
Poured
ft.
ft.
20. DRILLING LOG lattach additional sheen • if necessary.)
FROM
TO
DFtiC-KIPTIUN cnln r. lrarslnr�s..+nit:'rvck t. - sYln.4im, Nc.t
0 ft.
5.0 fr•
Red/Brown, Moist, SILT and Clay
5.0 f`'
10.0 f`
Tan, Wet Fine SAND and Silt
MO ft.
15.0 f`
Tan, Moist Fine SAND and Silt
15.0 fr•
19.0 f`•
Dark Gray, Moist, CLAY
rt.
er.
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
2 L. RENO ARKS
Installed 4" Stick -Up Cover
22. crl fication:
n 8/9/2016
signatwe +f Merl+tied\let t.•OHIHAtIM - Date
B+ g"'11mg dui ("ro) �1fo, e.r L,rr that the urIlls) rims (mere) constructed in accordance
with 15.4 XCAC 02C 0/00 oh hA ,AVAC 02C'.0200 Well C'onsbmction Standards and that a
cope of this record has been provider/ to the cell ouner
23. Site diagram or additional well details:
You may use the back of this page to provide additional well site details or well
construction details You may also attach additional pages if necessar
SUBMITTAL INSTUCTIONS
24a. For All Wells: Submit this form within 30 days of completion of well
construction to the following
Division of Water Resources, Information Processing Unit,
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
24b. For Infection Wells ONLY: In addition to sending the form to the address in
Auger 24a above. also submit a copy of this fonn within 3D days of completion of well
12. Well construction method: construction to the following:
(i a auger, roiarv_ cable, ditect push, etc )
Division of Water Resources, Underground Injection Control Program,
FOR W aTER SUPPLY WELLS ONLY: 1636 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1636
13a. field (gpm) Method of test: 24c. For Water Supply & Injection Wells:
Also submit one copy of this form within 30 days of completion of
13b. Disinfection type: _ amount: Well construction to die county health department of the count) where
constructed
Foist Gw-I \'oath Carolina Department of Environment and Natutal Resources- Dkision of Water Resources Res ised August 1013

WELL CONSTRUCTION RECORD
This firm call be used for single or multiple e\clIs
For Internal Use ONLY:
I. Well Contractor Information:
Lewis LeFever
Aq ell ('untiactor Name
2480-A
NC AVell ( ontiactoi Certification Nuniher
Parratt-Wolff
Compare Nitric
2, Well Construction Permit #:
Lrcfall opplicuhk aell Iwo unit., (i e Counli, S'tul,% Iill iall, , bli-lion, "I")
3. Well Use (check well use):
Water Supply Well:
❑Agricultural
❑Geothermal (Heating/Cooling Supply)
❑Industrial/C•ommeicial
M
❑Municipal/Public
❑Residential Water Supply (single)
❑Residential Water Supply (shared)
Non -Water Supply Well:
❑✓ Monitoring ❑Recovere
❑Aquifer Recharge
❑Atluifer Storage and Recovery
El Aquifer Test
❑Experimental Technology
❑Geothermal (Closed Loop)
❑Geothermal (Heating/Cooling Return)
❑Groundwater Remedianon
❑Salinity Barrier
❑Stonnwater Drainage
❑Subsidence Control
❑Tracer
❑Other (explain under #21 1
4. Date Well(s) Completed: 7/12/2016Well ID# PTW-6
5a. Well Location:
Duke Energy
Facility/Owner Name
1622 Old Smithfield Rd.
Physical Address City and Zip
Wayne
County
HF Lee Station
Facility IDr (ifapplicable)
Parcel Identification No (PiN)
5b. Latitude and Longitude in degrees/minutes/seconds or decimal degrees:
(it %%ell lield_ onelat long is sufficient)
35.384228-78.069878 W
6. is (are) the w'ell(s): OPermanent or ❑Temporary
7. Is this a repair to an existing well: ❑Yes or ONo
/1 this is it rrpuir, fill out knann itch' consu trction inlnrrnanbn and cecphain the nawrr of the
repair under ri_'l rerwrks'ection or on Ille hack of this /o nr
8. Number of wells constructed: 1
h'or rnulliple inie'lion oI nun-w(jAli supph cell, ONLY with tire same construction, toil call
minprit one for"?
9. Total well depth below land surface: 18.0
Far nnrbiplr wills list all depths i/di/11 rrnr (cccnnrplr- 3'a 200' and 2:u l00')
10. Static water level below top of casing: 8•0
l/ uarrr level is shore casingn rise
11. Borehole diameter: 8.0 (i11.1
la. WATER ZONES
FROM
TO
DE-ScRiPTION
8.0 fr.
20.0 fr.
Wet
20.0 ft•
3C ft•
Moist
15. OUTER CASING Ifor multi -cased wells) OR LINER (if anolicablel
FROM
TO
DIAMETER TiIR KNESS I
\I STFRI At.
ft.
ff.
in.
16. INNER
(' VNING OR
TURING Igeothertrud
closed-Inapi
FRO\i
'1.41
Ot.%MF'7VIA i
111H K%F'Ss
\I ■I Fill\t
0 ff•
8.0 ft.
2.0 in.
Sch.40
PVC
ft.
ft.
in.
17. SCREEN
FROM
TO
OIA \tFTFR,_
SLOTS17F
THICKNESS
\I,\TFRI-11
8.0 ft-
18.0 ft.
2.0 in.
0.011,
Sch. 40
PVC
ft.
ft.
in,.
1R, C.ROTIT
FROM1fT
0 rt•
TO_ _
2.0 ft•
MATERIAL
Bent./Port.
F.11Pi�'10EM1lES"1 : ETI1011& %NTOtNI
Tremied
2.0 ft.
5.0 ft.
Bentonite
Poured
ft.
ft.
l'l, S.►N-W(:RAN'EL P-A(.:K (if a licablel
FROM
TO
\t:1TF.RL%I.
E\fPLUF\IENTMIET1101)
5.0 ft•
30.0 ff.
#2
Poured
ft.
ft.
20. URILLIN(G
LOG altaeh additional sheets ifneerssa
FROM
TO _
_ IIFSURIP-1 ION I-Ni. hardue6s.jAlJrvrk Ir U . rrnin siae. kml
0 ft.
5.0 ft.
Red/Brown, Moist, SILT and Clay
5.0 ft.
10.0 ft.
Tan, Wet Fine SAND and Silt
10.0 ft•
15.0 ft•
Tan, Wet Fine SAND and Silt
15.0 ft.
19.0 ft.
Tan, Wet Fine SAND and Silt
20.0 ft•
25.0 ft,
Gray, Moist, CLAY
25.0 ft.
30.0 ft.
Dark Gray, Moist, CLAY
ft.
ft.
21. REMARKS
Installed 4" Stick -Up Cover
22. Celcalion:
cl-
8/9/2016
Signature
ot erldied %Velj Ft itractm Date
RV slk'niri:_*clr[:c %nrnr, / hrV4n n' (L'Tih' that the err//(cl u'n., (inert) eoncnvete•d ill arcoodnncr
with 15A :AV4C 02C .0/00 or 15.A NC. -IC 02C0100 It'rlh Cnnslrvc lion Srandardl urrd that it
c opt of this record has been provided to Ill,, rvrll owner
23. Site diagram or additional well details:
You may use the back of this page to pro\ ide additional well site details or well
construction details You nlaA also attach additional pages ifnecessan
SUBMITTAL INSTUCTiONS
ft.) 24a. For ,all Wells: Submit this form within 30 days of completion of well
construction to the following
(ft.) Division of Water Resources, Information Processing Lnit,
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
24b. For Infection Wells ONLY: in addition to sending the form to the address in
Auger 24a above, also submit a cop} of this form wrthm 30 days of completion of ever)
12. Well construction method: construction to the following:
(r a auger, rotary, cable, direct push, ere )
Division of Wafer Resources, Underground injection Control Program,
FOR WATER SUPPLI WELLSONLY- 1636 Nlail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1636
13a. Yield (gpm) Method of test: 24c. For Water Supply & Injection Wells:
Also submit one copy or this form %vithin 30 dmsofcompleuonor
13b. Disinfection type: ,Amount: well construction to the county health department of the countN where
constructed
Form GAF -I North Carolina Department of Em ironment and Natural Resources- Die isimr or Water Resources Re\iced August '_011

I -Al 1VICCKOKY
Govemor
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
Water Resources
E. VIRORMENTAL OUAL17Y
May 2, 2U 16
Mr. Ryan Czop
Duke Energy Progress; LLC
526 South Church Street
Mail Code EL;-13K
Charlotte, North Carolina
SUBJECT: Well Con3ts uctiou Pus m;t No. NM0700820
H. V. Lee Energy Complex -- rormer Lee Steam Station
Wayne County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Clop:
S—�, ter..,—y
S. jAY ZIMMERMAN
Director
In accordance with your application received April zu, zu 16; we are forwarding herewith Well Construction
Permit No. WR0700820, dated May 2, 2016, issued to Duke Energy Progress, LLC (DEP), for the
construction of 1 recovery well located at on property owned by ijtF as indicated on the figures
accompanying the application, in Wayne County, North Carolina. Thin Pe111r11 will be etfecdve trom the
date of its issuance until May z, 2U17, and shall be subject to the conditions and limitations as specived
therein.
It any pans, requirements, or limitations contained in this Permit are unacceptable to you, you have the
right to an adjudicatory hearing before a healing office, upolr written demand to the Director within 30 days
following receipt of this Permit, identifying the specitied issues to be contended. unless such demand is
made, this Permit shall be final and binding.
A well Construction xecord (uw-1) must be filled out by the driller and submitted to Divijivlr of Water
Quality, Arm: Lrfo11ua1iou Management, 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 within 3U
days upon completion of the well construction. It additional intormation or clarification is required, please
contact will Hart at 252-948-3918.
Sincerely,
Robert Ta11ka1d, Assisian Regional Supervisor
Water Quality Regional uperations Section
Division of Water Resources, NCDEQ
cc: Cascade Drillurg, LLC 1393 CU1uWbia Hwy N, A1KCu, Sl; LYSU1
Duke Energy Progress, LLC 410 S. Wilmington St., Raleigh, NC 27601
wdRuS — Central uffice
WQROS - WaRO
State of North Carolina I Environmental tlualsy Water KoSOZ7—S war- Vcaacty K,.o.-.at 0t,.rax.ons-Wasmngton Regtonat C]mce
943 Wasn.ngto-. Sgz—mr i, w. Win.-gto.-., LNC Ztaay
252-946-6481

— NORTH UAKULINA
DEPARTMEx1' ur' ENVIRONMEIv i, AND NATURAL RESuujKuES
DIVISION OF WAXER QUALITY —AQuwta PROTECTION Sl UTIUN
.PERMIT FOR TnE UUNSTRUCTION Or' A F mcuVERY WELL
in accordan.,c with the provisions of Arti�lc 7, Chapter 87, North Caiulina General Statutes, aiid other
applii,ablc Laws, Rules and Regulations.
PERMnSluly 1S HEREBY GxAlv'1'Eju '1'O
Duke Energy Progress, LLC (DEr)
FOR l tth CONSTRUCTION ur A xhC;U VERY WELL S Y S I hNl consisting of mane well owned by
DEF located at the Fortner Lee Steam Station, ill Goldsboro, North Caiulilla. 1 fie well will be located
on the property owned by DEP lu%ated at 1 199 black Jack Church Road, in cioldsburu, NC in Wayne
County. This Permit is issued in accordance with the application received on April 2U, 2016 in
conformity with specifications and supporting data, aai of whi.;h are filed with the Department of
Envirotttnent and Natural Rz;soulucs aitd are considered integral parts of this Permit.
1 his -Permit is for w ell cunstruetiun only, and does not waive any provision or requiictnent of any other
applicable law of regulation. C;onstru.,tion of any well under this Pcltnit shall be in strict ,umpliaancu
with the North Carolina Wcll Construction Regulations and Standards (15A NCAC 02C .uIuu), and
other State and Leal Laws and regulations pertaining to well construction.
If any requirements or limitations speclfled in this Permit are unacceptable, you have a right to an
adj udicatory hcaiing upon written request within 3u days of receipt of this Permit. l he request must be
in the full,, of a written petition %,unfurming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes and
filed with the Offic;c of Administrative Hearings, 6714 mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina
27699-6714. Unless such a demand is trade, this -Permit is final Gild binding.
This Peltnit will be effective fur one year from the date of its issuance and shall be subject to other
spccifled conditions, limitations, or exceptions as follows:
1. Issuance of this Permit does not obligate reimbulsemcnt from State trust funds, ifthcse wells
are being installed as part of an investigation for contamination from an utldcrground storage
tank or dry cleaner incident.
2. lssuaill,c of this Permit does not superscdc any other agreameut, puiluit, or requirement
issued by another agency.
J. The well(s) shall be located and joust, uctcd as shown on the attachments submitted as part of
the Permit application.
4. Each well shNh have a Well Contractor ldentitication Plate in accordance with 15A NCAC
02C .0 I u8(o).
ttcvised July 2011

S. Well construction records ((iW-1) tor each well shall be submitted to the Division or Water
Quality's Infurrnatiun Processing Unit within 30 daps uf the wall c;umpletiun.
6. When the well is discontinued or abandoned. it shall be abandoned in accordance with 1 SA
NCAC 02C .0113 mda well abandonment reVord (GW-30) shall be submitted tu thu Division
or Water QuN ity7s infurinatlun Yruuessing Umt within iu days of the well abandonment.
7. Groundwater extracted dming the test shall be played into the Active Ash Basin, as &sciibcd
in the application.
Permit issued the Jeuond day or May, lu 15
FUR THE NUKI'H UAKULINA EN VIKUNAMNTAL MANAGEMENT UUMM1aalUN
Kober l ankard, Assistant egional Supervisor
Division of Water RGSVU1cGS
Water Quality Kegiunei Uperations Sectiun
Washington Regional Office
By Authority or the hnvironmentNI Management Commission
Permit No. # WR0700820
KLv6ed jury 2ui i

Step-Drawdown and Pumping Test Findings August 22, 2016
HF Lee Energy Complex SynTerra
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\04.LEE PLANT\20. Accelerated Remediation\Pilot Test\PDF\Tech Memo Pilot Test
August 2016.docx
ATTACHMENT 2
AQTESOLV OUTPUT FROM
STEP-DRAWDOWN TESTS

1. 10.100. 1000. 1.0E+4 1.0E+5
0.001
0.01
0.1
1.
10.
Time (sec)
Di
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
f
t
)
STEP-DRAW DOWN TEST PTW-1
Data Set: S:\...\Step-DrawdownTest_PTW-1.aqt
Date: 08/18/16 Time: 17:18:59
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: SynTerra Corp
Client: DEP HF Lee
Project: 1026.104
Test Well: PTW-1
Test Date: August 2016
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 19.75 ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 1.
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Confined Solution Method: Theis (Step Test)
T = 2679. ft2/day S = 1.759E-5
Sw = 0.C = 0. sec2/ft5
P = 2.
Step Test Model: Jacob-Rorabaugh
Time (t) = 1. sec Rate (Q) in cu. ft/sec
s(t) = 40.23Q + 0.Q2.
W.E. = 100.% (Q from last step)
Step-Drawdown and Pumping Test Findings August 22, 2016
HF Lee Energy Complex SynTerra
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\04.LEE PLANT\20. Accelerated Remediation\Pilot Test\PDF\Tech Memo Pilot Test
August 2016.docx
ATTACHMENT 3
AQTESOLV OUTPUT FROM
PUMPING TEST

1. 10.100. 1000. 1.0E+4 1.0E+5 1.0E+6
1.0E-4
0.001
0.01
0.1
1.
10.
Time (sec)
Di
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
f
t
)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: S:\...\PTW-1_PumpingTest_RealTime.aqt
Date: 08/18/16 Time: 17:20:21
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: SynTerra Corp
Client: DEP HF Lee
Project: 1026.104
Test Well: PTW-1
Test Date: August 2016
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 40. ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.256
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Moench
T = 3917.6 ft2/day S = 7.302E-23
Sy = 0.001 ß = 1.0E-5
Sw = 0.r(w) = 0.25 ft
r(c) = 0.25 ft alpha = 1.0E+30 sec-1
Basis of Design Report – 30% Submittal November 2016
H.F. Lee Energy Complex SynTerra

P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\04.LEE PLANT\22.Basis of Design Report\Design Report (30)\Report text\HF Lee
Basis of Design Report.docx
APPENDIX B
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE REMEDIAL
TECHNOLOGIES

Basis of Design Report – 30% Submittal November 2016
H.F. Lee Energy Complex SynTerra

P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\04.LEE PLANT\22.Basis of Design Report\Design Report (30)\Report text\HF Lee
Basis of Design Report.docx

APPENDIX C
GROUNDWATER FLOW MODEL REPORT

Basis of Design Report – 30% Submittal November 2016
H.F. Lee Energy Complex SynTerra

P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\04.LEE PLANT\22.Basis of Design Report\Design Report (30)\Report text\HF Lee
Basis of Design Report.docx
APPENDIX D
GEOCHEMICAL MODEL REPORT

Basis of Design Report – 30% Submittal November 2016
H.F. Lee Energy Complex SynTerra

P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\04.LEE PLANT\22.Basis of Design Report\Design Report (30)\Report text\HF Lee
Basis of Design Report.docx

APPENDIX E
PIPE AND PUMP SELECTION PACKAGE

Basis of Design Report – 30% Submittal November 2016
H.F. Lee Energy Complex SynTerra

P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\04.LEE PLANT\22.Basis of Design Report\Design Report (30)\Report text\HF Lee
Basis of Design Report.docx

APPENDIX F
DESIGN DRAWINGS

Basis of Design Report – 30% Submittal November 2016
H.F. Lee Energy Complex SynTerra

P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\04.LEE PLANT\22.Basis of Design Report\Design Report (30)\Report text\HF Lee
Basis of Design Report.docx

APPENDIX G
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS

Basis of Design Report – 30% Submittal November 2016
H.F. Lee Energy Complex SynTerra

P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\04.LEE PLANT\22.Basis of Design Report\Design Report (30)\Report text\HF Lee
Basis of Design Report.docx
APPENDIX H
PERMITS