NC0003433_Table 6-1_6-5 evaluation tables_20160229

TABLE 6-1
GROUNDWATER REMEDIATION ALTERNATIVE SCREENING
EFFECTIVENESS
CAPE FEAR STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, MONCURE, NC
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Effectiveness
Monitored Natural
Groundwater Recovery
In -Situ Chemical
Immobilization
Attenuation
(Interceptor Trench)
(Permeable Reactive
(MNA)
and MNA
Barrier) and MNA
Will remedial alternative be protective of
Yes
Yes
Yes
human health?
When will remedial alternative be protective
Current conditions are
Current conditions are
Current conditions are
of human health?
protective
protective
protective
When will remedial alternative be protective
Current conditions are
Current conditions are
Current conditions are
of the environment?
protective
protective
protective
Has the potential remedial alternative been
Yes
Yes
Yes
demonstrated effective at any similar sites?
Will remedial alternative permanently remove
Yes
Yes
Yes
contaminant from site?
Will remedial alternative reduce the toxicity of
Yes
Yes
Yes
contaminants?
Will remedial alternative reduce the mobility
Yes - source control and
Yes - source control
of contaminants?
Yes - source control
downgradient (of the 1985
measures to alter site
measures to alter site
ash basin) measures to
hydrology and PRB
hydrology will reduce
alter site hydrology will
system (downgradient of
mobility
reduce mobility
the 1985 ash basin) will
reduce mobility
Can the effectiveness of a potential remedial
alternative be monitored, measured, and
Yes
Yes
Yes
validated?
Prepared by: TCP Checked by: CJS
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\103. Cape Fear Ash Basin GW Assessment\20.EG_CAP\CAP Part 2\Tables\Final\Table 6-1_6-5 evaluation tables.docx Page 1 of 1

TABLE 6-2
GROUNDWATER REMEDIATION ALTERNATIVE SCREENING
IMPLEMENTABILITY
CAPE FEAR STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, MONCURE, NC
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Implementability
Monitored Natural
Groundwater Recovery
In -Situ Chemical
Attenuation
(Interceptor Trench)
Immobilization (Permeable
(MNA)
and MNA
Reactive Barrier) and MNA
Are the material resources and
manpower readily available to fully
Yes
Yes
Yes
implement the remedial alternative in a
timely manner?
Does the remedial alternative require
highly specialized resources and/or
No
No
Yes
equipment?
Is there sufficient onsite and offsite area
Yes
Yes
Yes
to fully implement the remedy?
Will waste materials be managed
Yes
Yes
Yes
efficiently?
Does the remedial alternative require any
permits and can the permits be acquired
NA
Yes
Yes
in a timely manner?
Can the remedial alternative be
Yes
Yes
Yes
implemented safely?
Can existing infrastructure support
Yes
Yes
Yes
remedial alternative?
Can the remedial alternative achieve all
applicable or reasonable and appropriate
Yes
Yes
Yes
requirements (ARARs)?
Prepared by: TCP Checked by: CJS
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\103. Cape Fear Ash Basin GW Assessment\20.EG_CAP\CAP Part 2\Tables\Final\Table 6-1_6-5 evaluation tables.docx Page 1 of 1

TABLE 6-3
GROUNDWATER REMEDIATION ALTERNATIVE SCREENING
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
CAPE FEAR STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, MONCURE, NC
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Environmental Sustainability
Monitored Natural
Groundwater Recovery
In -Situ Chemical
Immobilization
Attenuation
(Interceptor Trench)
(Permeable Reactive
(MNA)
and MNA
Barrier) and MNA
Will treatment permanently remove target
constituents?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Will treatment permanently reduce target
Yes
Yes
Yes
constituent toxicity?
Will treatment reduce the mobility of target
Yes, for constituents
constituents?
with high distribution
Yes
Yes
coefficients
Will treatment transfer target constituents from
Yes
Yes
Yes
one media to another?
Rank alternatives*: carbon footprint
1
3
2
Rank alternatives*: waste generated
1
3
2
List opportunities for recycling or beneficial reuse
Use existing wells
Not Anticipated
Not Anticipated
List opportunities where renewable sources of
Uses all natural
Solar power to run pumps
Not Anticipated
energy will be used.
processes
and panels
List opportunities for habitat restoration,
Habitats not affected
Not Anticipated
Not Anticipated
enhancement, or replacement.
Rank order is assumed that least=1 and most=3
Prepared by: TCP Checked by: CIS
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\103. Cape Fear Ash Basin GW Assessment\20.EG_CAP\CAP Part 2\Tables\Final\Table 6-1_6-5 evaluation tables.docx Page 1 of 1

TABLE 6-4
GROUNDWATER REMEDIATION ALTERNATIVE SCREENING
ESTIMATED COST
CAPE FEAR STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, MONCURE, NC
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Estimated
Monitored
Groundwater
In -Situ Chemical
Groundwater
Natural
Recovery
Immobilization
Remediation
(Interceptor
(Permeable
Cost
Attenuation
Trench)
Reactive Barrier)
(MNA)
and MNA
and MNA
Capital Cost
$1M
$1.9M
$6.1M
30 year
Operation and
$2.6M
$5.1M
$3.8M
Maintenance
Cost
Total Cost
$3.6M
$7.OM
$9.9M
Prepared by: TCP Checked by: CJS
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\103. Cape Fear Ash Basin GW Assessment\20.EG_CAP\CAP Part 2\Tables\Final\Table 6-1_6-5
evaluation tables.docx Page 1 of 1

TABLE 6-5
GROUNDWATER REMEDIATION ALTERNATIVE SCREENING
COMMUNITY ACCEPTANCE
CAPE FEAR STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, MONCURE, NC
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Groundwater
In -Situ Chemical
Stakeholder
Monitored Natural
Recovery
Immobilization
Acceptance
Attenuation
(Interceptor
(Permeable
(MNA)
Trench)
Reactive Barrier)
and MNA
and MNA
Public acceptance
Moderate
High
High
Regulatory
Moderate
High
High
acceptance
Prepared by: TCP Checked by: CIS
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\103. Cape Fear Ash Basin GW Assessment\20.EG_CAP\CAP Part 2\Tables\Final\Table 6-1_6-5
evaluation tables.docx Page 1 of 1