The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutNC0003433_Cape Fear Tables_20160229TABLE 2-1 JANUARY 2016 WATER LEVEL DATA CAPE FEAR STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, MONCURE, NC Well Identification Measuring Point TOC Elevation (feet MSL) Depth to Water (feet BTOC) Groundwater Elevation (feet MSL) ABMW-01 201.60 17.22 184.38 ABMW-01S 201.83 26.47 175.36 ABM W-01BR 201.442 27.16 174.28 ABM W-02SL 193.64 5.45 188.19 ABMW-02SU 193.66 4.35 189.31 ABMW-03 187.23 11.60 175.63 ABMW-03S 187.17 15.45 171.72 ABM W-03BR 187.24 20.80 166.44 ABM W-04 193.94 17.10 176.84 ABMW-04S 193.88 19.25 174.63 ABMW-05S 186.39 22.41 163.98 ABM W-05BR 186.56 22.60 163.96 BGMW-04 180.74 13.40 167.34 BGTMW-04 180.85 14.00 166.85 CMW-01 165.67 5.30 160.37 CTM W -01 166.04 4.60 161.44 CMW-02 169.40 7.51 161.89 CTMW-02 169.17 8.48 160.69 CMW-03 175.96 12.52 163.44 CMW-05 182.44 12.24 170.20 CMW-06 169.89 3.90 165.99 CMW-07 184.58 20.00 164.58 CTM W -07 184.66 22.40 162.26 CMW-08 170.21 6.75 163.46 CTMW-08 170.32 9.10 161.22 MW-05BR 181.44 11.38 170.06 MW-06BR 170.24 4.17 166.07 MW-09 191.78 11.90 179.88 MW-09BR 192.06 15.15 176.91 MW-10 173.82 10.27 163.55 M W-10D 174.29 12.27 162.02 MW-10BR 174.22 12.46 161.76 MW-11 175.02 10.32 164.70 MW-12 171.12 10.34 160.78 MW-12BR 170.76 9.10 161.66 MW-13 171.95 5.00 166.95 MW-15SU 172.73 5.57 167.16 MW-15SL 172.69 6.92 165.77 MW-15BR 172.92 5.80 167.12 MW-16S 168.05 0.61 167.44 MW-16BR 168.55 1.84 166.71 MW-17SU 172.18 7.68 164.50 MW-17SL 172.66 6.62 166.04 MW-17BR 173.49 5.70 167.79 MW-18S 169.26 2.83 166.43 MW-19S 176.91 4.50 172.41 MW-20S 170.77 6.20 164.57 MW-20BR 171.23 10.65 160.58 MW-21SU 176.92 9.30 167.62 MW-21SL 176.96 8.35 168.61 MW-21BR 177.14 16.75 160.39 PZ-01 168.00 1.04 166.96 PZ-02 175.00 4.61 170.39 PZ-03S 174.00 3.92 170.08 PZ-03D 173.90 3.66 170.24 PZ-04 173.72 8.04 165.68 PZ-06 198.03 16.43 181.60 PZ-07 189.74 11.35 178.39 PZ-08 193.31 16.40 176.91 CHATH-075-P100 175.08 12.18 162.90 CHATH-075-P101 184.11 19.92 164.19 CHATH-075-P102 186.66 22.99 163.67 CHATH-076-P100 168.85 1.49 167.36 CHATH-076-P101 194.56 23.40 171.16 CHATH-076-P102 195.04 26.72 168.32 CHATH-076-P103 166.72 0.48 166.24 CHATH-077-P100 194.93 27.62 167.31 CHATH-077-P102 185.72 21.30 164.42 CHATH-077-P103 180.31 11.59 168.72 CHATH-079-P100 193.03 18.39 174.64 CHATH-079-P101 192.94 26.75 166.19 CHATH-079-P102 173.41 7.43 165.98 CHATH-079-P103 193.67 27.11 166.56 CHATH-079-P105 173.08 1.72 171.36 Prepared by: RKD Checked by: CJS Notes: All water levels were taken on January 8th, 2016 TOC = Top of Casing BTOC = Below Top of Casing MSL = Mean Sea Level P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\103. Cape Fear Ash Basin GW Assessment\20.EG_CAP\CAP Part 2\Tables\Final\Table 2-1 - January 2016 Water Level Data_2016-01-29.xlsx Page 1 of 1 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 TABLE 6-6 REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION SUMMARY CAPE FEAR STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, MONCURE, NC Alternatives Effectiveness Implementability/ Environmental Estimated Groundwater Community Feasibility Sustainability Remediation Cost Acceptance Monitored Natural Yes, groundwater High Sound technical Attenuation (MNA) Yes monitoring wells are (lowest carbon $3.6M basis for common footprint) approach Yes (assuming Moderate Positive due to Groundwater adequate space (energy active nature, Extraction Yes between dike along consumption of $7.OM additional (Interceptor Trench) the southwest portion collection and permitting of the 1985 ash basin treatment required and railroad ROW) system) Moderate to $9.9M, assuming High (Passive zero valent iron Yes, but two Yes (assuming system and treats boron and Positive due to In -Situ Chemical different reactive adequate space reactive other constituents. active nature, Permeable Reactive media may be between dike along material However, a second additional Barrier required to treat the southwest portion potentially has reactive media (not permitting boron and other of the 1985 ash basin a decade(s) included in this required constituents and railroad ROW) long cost) may be effectiveness required to treat duration boron. Prepared By: RKD Checked By: CJS Assumptions: 1. Source control measures are implemented to accomplish groundwater restoration 2. Costs for groundwater remedy include implementation and 30 years monitoring and maintenance P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\103. Cape Fear Ash Basin GW Assessment\20.EG_CAP\CAP Part 2\Tables\Final\Table 6-6 Remediate Alternative Feasibility Summary Cape Fear.docx Page 1 of 1 TABLE 6-7 INPUT PARAMETERS AND VALUES FOR CONVECTIVE -DISPERSIVE FLOW EQUATION BASED UPON CAPE FEAR DATA CAPE FEAR STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, MONCURE, NC Value 1956, 1963, 1985° Ash Parameter Nomenclature Source of Value 1970 Ash Basin Basins Began Sluicing Ash - 1956 1985 CSA Ceased Sluicing - 1977 2012 CSA Duration of Source Term t° 22 28 Calculated Mean values from Ash Source Concentration c ° 3,783 boron, 3,330 boron Pore Wells (pg/L) 5.77 thallium (Exceedances Only) 2015 Lowest Provisional Background Background Concentration c; 52 boron, Concentrations or (pg/L) 0.1 thallium Detection Limits for Not Detected Values Seepage Velocity (ft/yr) vs=ki/ne 16 Calculated average across the site Dispersivity (ft) a 20 0.1*2000 Dispersion (ft2/yr) D = ays 320 Calculated Distribution Coefficient Kd 0.5v- boron, 26 thallium Graziano et a/.,2015 (ml/g) Time from Introduction t Varies To capture the length of Constituent (years) of plume Distance from Boundary x 250 1000/600* Measured (ash basin of Ash Basin (feet) to body of water) Calculated Concentration c(x,t) As shown pg/L Calculated. Prepared by: KDB Checked by: DGN Notes: 'Three models were considered for the 1985 ash basin: groundwater moving radially toward three discharge locations: Branch A, Shaddox Creek, and Cooling Water Effluent Channel. *250 (toward Cape Fear River), 1000 (toward Shaddox Creek and Cooling Water Effluent Channel), 600 (Branch A) Graziano et al., 2015 used 1.0 for boron. In order to more accurately demonstrate the movement of Boron and align with field data, the value for Kd was changed to 0.5. The 1978 ash basin was not considered for this model due to insufficient input values. P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\103. Cape Fear Ash Basin GW Assessment\20.EG_CAP\CAP Part 2\Tables\Final\Table 6-7 Input Parameters and Values for CD Flow Equation NEW.docx Page 1 of 1 TABLE 6-8 DUKE ENERGY BACKGROUND PRIVATE WELL HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM DATA CAPE FEAR STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, MONCURE, NC Sample ID Sample Data Hexavalent Chromium (pg/L) 2015013743 5/23/2015 < 0.6 2015022411 7/10/2015 < 0.03 2015022412 7/10/2015 < 0.3 2015022413 7/10/2015 < 0.03 2015022414 7/10/2015 < 0.03 2015022871 7/10/2015 0.9 2015022872 7/10/2015 0.071 2015022873 7/10/2015 < 0.03 2015022875 7/10/2015 0.15 2015023960 7/24/2015 < 0.03 2015023961 7/24/2015 < 0.03 2015023962 7/24/2015 < 0.03 2015023963 7/24/2015 0.034 2015023973 7/24/2015 < 0.03 2015023974 7/24/2015 < 0.03 2015023975 7/24/2015 0.043 2015023976 7/24/2015 0.19 2015023977 7/24/2015 0.047 Geometric Mean 0.103 Prepared By: KDB Checked By: WJW Notes• Data collected by Pace Analytical P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\103. Cape Fear Ash Basin GW Assess ment\20.EG_CAP\CAP Part 2\Tables\Final\Table 6-8 private well hex chrom data.xlsx Page 1 of 1 TABLE 6-9 REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE OPINION OF PROBABLE COSTS CAPE FEAR STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, MONCURE, NC Monitored Natural Attenuation Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Source Basis for Cost Direct Capital Costs Pre -design Field Assessment 1 LS $50,000 $50,000 Similar project Ash Basin closure in place (Cost not included) Mobilization / Demobilization 8 LS $5,000 $40,000 Similar project 10 day work week Upgrade Roads/ Accessibility 10 LS $30,000 $300,000 Similar project Equipment Decontamination 10 EA $570 $5,700 Similar project Drilling and Materials (Single Casing) 322 LF $84 $27,100 Similar project Installation of 18 additional/replacement wells for MNA Drilling and Materials (Double Casing) 352 LF $125 $44,000 Similar project Well Development 160 HR $120 $19,200 Similar project 8 hours development per well Installation Oversight (Geologist) 80 Day $2,000 $160,000 Similar project Average 4 days per well Indirect Capital Costs Health & Safety 5% % DCC $29,800 Similar project Bonds & Insurance 5% % DCC $29,800 Similar project Contingency 20% % DCC $119,200 Similar project Construction Management & Engineering Services 15% % DCC $89,400 Similar project Groundwater Sampling and Reporting - Years 1 - 5 Semi-annual Well Sampling - Labor and Supplies 2 6 Mo $44,000 $88,000 Similar project 2 people, 8 days, 7 nights, equipment (33 well locations and 9 surface water locations, at apprx. 5 locations per day) Semi-annual Well Sampling - Laboratory Analysis 2 6 Mo $19,000 $38,000 Similar project 47 samples (including QA/QC samples) Validation and Report Preparation 2 6 Mo $20,000 $40,000 Similar project Semi-annual report preparation Present Worth $733,800 Similar project n=5 yrs, i=4.25%, PWF=4.42 Groundwater Sampling and Reporting - Years 6 - 30 Annual Well Sampling - Labor and Supplies 1 YR $66,000 $66,000 Similar project 2 people, 8 days, 7 nights, equipment (33 well locations and 9 surface water locations, at apprx. 5 locations per day) Annual Well Sampling - Laboratory Analysis 1 YR $25,900 $25,900 Similar project 47 samples (including QA/QC samples) Validation and Report Preparation 1 YR $12,000 $12,000 Similar project Annual report preparation Present Worth $1,581,400 Similar project n=6-30, i=4.25%, PWF=15.22 Remedy Review 6 EA $100,000 $600,000 Similar project Completed every five years Present Worth $308,000 Similar project n=5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, i=4.25%, PWF=3.08 Total Direct Capital Costs $646,000 Total Indirect Capital Costs $268,200 Total 30 Year O&M Costs (Present Worth) $2,623,200 TOTAL COST $3,537,400 Prepared by: RKD Checked by:CJS Notes: LS = Lump Sum, EA = Each, LF = Linear Foot, HR = Hour, Mo = Month, YR = Year, O&M = Operation and Maintenance, DCC = Direct Capital Cost, PWF = Present Worth Factor , n = Time, I = Interest rate (Provided by Duke Energy Progress, LLC) Present Worth was calcualted using the Uniform Series Present Worth Factor at: http://www.ajdesigner.com/phpdiscountfactors/uniform_series_Present_worth_equation.php P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\103. Cape Fear Ash Basin GW Assessment\20.EG_CAP\CAP Part 2\Tables\Final\Table 6-9 to 6-11 OPCs for MNA, Trench, & PRB.xlsx Page 1 of 1 TABLE 6-10 REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE COST SUMMARY CAPE FEAR STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, MONCURE, NORTH CAROLINA Interceptor Trench Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Source Basis for Cost Direct Capital Costs Interceptor Trench Installation Pre -design Field Assessment 1 LS $75,000 $75,000 Similar project Ash Basin closure in place (Cost not included) Mobilization / Demobilization 2 LS $5,000 $10,000 Similar project 10 day work week Upgrade Roads/ Accessibility 1 LS $20,000.00 $20,000 Similar project Gravel 9,260 CY $43.96 $407,070 RS Means 3/4"to 1-1/2" Trench Box Rental 2 Mo $2,900.00 $5,800 RS Means Pump 5 EA $1,046.55 $5,233 RS Means 22 GPM, 1/3 HP Underground Electric 3,500 LF $10.00 $35,000 Similar project Trench Excavation 9,260 CY $3.94 $36,500 RS Means bulk, dragline, excavate and load on truck Trench Backfill and Compaction 9,260 Cy $3.60 $33,400 RS Means Structural Excavation 45 CY $86.44 $3,900 RS Means Dewatering (8 hrs per day) 60 Day $150.68 $9,100 RS Means Cycle Hauling (wait, load, travel, unload or dump & return) 9,260 LCY $16.52 $153,000 RS Means Geotextile Subsurface Drainage 15,000 SY $1.95 $29,300 RS Means filtration fabric laid in trench, polypropylene Public Sanitary Utility Sewerage Piping 500 LF $2.30 $1,200 RS Means HOPE Corrugated Type S, 4" diameter Subdrainage Piping - Perforated Plastic 2,500 LF $1.11 $2,800 RS Means HOPE Perforated, 4" Pump Station Manhole Extensions (6' diameter, up to 25' deep) 85 VLF $634.92 $53,968 RS Means Manhole = 8', extensions 17' @ 5 locations = 85' Storm Drain Manhole (6' diameter x 8' depth) 5 Ea $4,727.78 $23,639 RS Means precast concrete, for outfall, one at each of the 5 pump stations Installation Oversight (Geologist/Engineer and Equipment) 30 Days $1,000.00 $30,000 Similar project Treatment System - Holding Tank Mobilization / Demobilization 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000 Similar project Upgrade Roads/ Accessibility 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000 Similar project Site Prep, Foundation, Electrical, Security 1,600 SF $80.00 $128,000 Similar project 40' x 40' area for site prep Instrumentation and Controls, Equilization Tank, Piping, and Valves 1 LS $40,000.00 $40,000 Similar project P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\103. Cape Fear Ash Basin GW Assessment\20.EG_CAP\CAP Part 2\Tables\Final\Table 6-9 to 6-11 OPCs for MNA, Trench, & PRB.xlsx Page 1 of 2 TABLE 6-10 REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE COST SUMMARY CAPE FEAR STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, MONCURE, NORTH CAROLINA Interceptor Trench Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Source Basis for Cost Discharge System - Surface Water Obtain or Modify Existing NPDES Permit 1 LS $40,000.00 $40,000 Similar project Mobilization / Demobilization 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000 Similar project Effluent Pipe (Trenching, backfilling, and surface restoration) 1,000 FT $18.00 $18,000 Similar project Transfer Pumps 2 LS $10,000.00 $20,000 Similar project Casing Pipe for Road Crossings 3 EA $3,000.00 $9,000 Similar project Road and Driveway Restoration 150 SY $20.00 $3,000 Similar project Indirect Capital Costs Remedial Design 1 LS $150,000 $150,000 Health & Safety 5 % % DCC $57,400 Similar project Bonds & Insurance 5% % DCC $57,400 Similar project Contingency 20% % DCC $229,600 Similar project Construction Management & Engineering Services 15% % DCC $172,200 Similar project Annual Operating and Maintenance Operator 12 Mo $4,400.00 $52,800 Similar project 80 hours per month Treatment System Sampling 52 WK $300.00 $15,600 Similar project Analysis Miscellaneous Repairs 1 YR $3,000.00 $3,000 Similar project Present Worth $1,198,100 Similar project n=30 yrs, i=4.25%, PWF=16.78 New Equipment (Years 10 & 20) Replacement Pump 5 LS $7,600 $38,000 RS Means Present Worth $41,500 Similar project n=10&20, i=4.25%, PWF=1.09 Remedy Review 6 EA $100,000 $600,000 Similar project Completed every five years Present Worth $308,000 Similar project n=5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, i=4.25%, PWF=3.08 Total Direct Capital Costs $1,223,000 Total Indirect Capital Costs $666,600 Total 30 Year O&M Costs (Present Worth) $1,547,600 Effectiveness Monitoring 30 Years (Table 6-9) $3,537,400 TOTAL COST $6,974,600 Prepared by: TOP Checked by: CIS Notes: LS = Lump Sum, EA = Each, FT = Foot, LF = Linear Foot, SF = Square Foot, SY = Square Yard, HR = Hour, WK = Week, Me = Month, YR = Year, O&M = Operation and Maintenance, DCC = Direct Captial Cost, PWF = Present Worth Factor, n = Time, I = Interest rate (Provided by Duke Progress, LLC) Present Worth was calcualted using the Uniform Series Present Worth Factor at: http://www.ajdesigner.com/phpdiscountfactors/uniform_series_present_worth_equation.php P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\103. Cape Fear Ash Basin GW Assessment\20.EG_CAP\CAP Part 2\Tables\Final\Table 6-9 to 6-11 OPCs for MNA, Trench, & PRB.xlsx Page 2 of 2 TABLE 6-11 REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE COST SUMMARY CAPE FEAR STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, MONCURE, NC Permeable Reactive Barrier Item Quantity Unit I Unit Cost Total Cost Source Basis for Cost Direct Capital Costs Funnel and Gate System Pre -design Field Assessment 1 LS $75,000 $75,000 Similar project Ash Basin closure in place (Cost not included) Mobilization / Demobilization 5 LS $5,000 $25,000 Similar project 10 day work week Upgrade Roads/ Accessibility 1 LS $20,000 $20,000 Similar project Sheet Piling (Funnels) 39,000 SF $24.85 $969,150 RS Means 38 psf, 25' excavation, extract and salvage, excludes wales (1,550 linear feet) Trench Excavation (Gates) 6,000 Cy $3.61 $21,700 RS Means bulk, dragline, excavate and load on truck Geotextile Subsurface Drainage (Gates) 10,000 SY $1.95 $19,500 RS Means filtration fabric laid in trench, polypropylene Installation Oversight (Geologist and Equipment) 50 Days $1,000.00 $50,000 Similar project Reagent Zero Valent Iron (Gates) 2,900 Ton $1,000.00 $2,900,000 Similar project 7 Gates (each gate 100 ft long X 5 ft wide x 20 ft deep) requires 400 tons per gate, when mixed approximately 50 percent ZVI and 50 soil. Indirect Capital Costs Remedial Design 1 LS $150,000 $150,000 Health & Safety 5% % DCC $200,300 Similar project Bonds & Insurance 5% % DCC $200,300 Similar project Contingency 20% % DCC $801,100 Similar project Construction Management & Engineering Services 15% % DCC $600,900 Similar project Annual Operating and Maintenance Operator 0 Mo $4,400.00 $0 Similar project 80 hours per month Treatment System Sampling 0 WK $300.00 $0 Similar project Analysis Miscellaneous Repairs 0 YR $3,000.00 $0 Similar project Present Worth $0 Similar project n=30 yrs, 1=4.250/., PWF=16.78 New Equipment (Years 10 & 20) Replacement Pump 0 LS $7,600 $0 RS Means Present Worth $0 Similar project n=10&20, i=4.25%, PWF=1.09 Remedy Review 0 EA $100,000 $0 Similar project Completed every five years Present Worth $308,000 Similar project n=5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 1=4.25%, PWF=3.08 Total Direct Capital Costs $4,080,400 Total Indirect Capital Costs $1,952,600 Total 30 Year O&M Costs (Present Worth) $308,000 Effectiveness Monitoring 30 Years (Table 6-9) $3,537,400 TOTAL COST $9,878,400 Prepared by: TDP Checked by: CJS Notes: LS = Lump Sum, EA = Each, FT = Foot, LF = Linear Foot, SF = Square Foot, SY = Square Yard, HR = Hour, WK = Week, Mo = Month, YR = Year, O&M = Operation and Maintenance, DCC = Direct Captial Cost, PWF = Present Worth Factor , n = Time, I = Interest rate (Provided by Duke Progress, LLC), CY = cubic yard Present Worth was calcualted using the Uniform Series Present Worth Factor at: http://www.ajdesigner.com/phpdiscountfactore/uniform_series_present_worth_equation.php P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\103. Cape Fear Ash Basin GW Assessment\20.EG_CAP\CAP Part 2\Tables\Final\Table 6-9 to 6-11 OPCs for MNA, Trench, & PRB.xlsx Page 1 of 1 TABLE 9-1 RECOMMENDED GROUNDWATER MONITORING PARAMETERS CAPE FEAR STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, MONCURE, NC PARAMETER I RL JUNITS IMETHOD FIELD PARAMETERS pH NA SU Field Water Quality Meter Specific Conductance NA µS/cm Field Water Quality Meter Temperature NA 0C Field Water Quality Meter Dissolved Oxygen NA mg/L Field Water Quality Meter Oxidation Reduction Potential NA mV Field Water Quality Meter Turbidity NA NTU Field Water Quality Meter INORGANICS Antimony 1 µg/L EPA 200.8 or 6020A Arsenic 1 µg/L EPA 200.8 or 6020A Barium 5 µg/L EPA 200.7 or 6010C Beryllium 1 µg/L EPA 200.8 or 6020A Boron 50 µg/L EPA 200.7 or 6010C Chromium 1 µg/L EPA 200.7 or 6010C Cobalt 1 µg/L EPA 200.8 or 6020A Hexavalent Chromium 0.03 µg/L EPA 218.7 Iron 10 µg/L EPA 200.7 or 6010C Manganese 5 µg/L EPA 200.8 or 6020A Nickel 1 µg/L EPA 200.7 or 6010C Selenium 1 µg/L EPA 200.8 or 6020A Thallium (low level) 0.2 µg/L EPA 200.8 or 6020A Vanadium 0.3 µg/L EPA 200.8 or 6020A Zinc 5 µg/L EPA 200.7 or 6010C RADIONUCLIDES Radium 226 1 pCi/L EPA 903.1 Modified Radium 228 3 pCi/L EPA 904.0/SW846 9320 Modified Uranium (233, 234, 236, 238) Varies by isotope µg/L SW846 3010A/6020A ANIONS/CATIONS Alkalinity (as CaCO3) 20 mg/L SM 2320B Bicarbonate 20 mg/L SM 2320 Calcium 0.01 mg/L EPA 200.7 Carbonate 20 mg/L SM 2320 Chloride 0.1 mg/L EPA 300.0 or 9056A Potassium 0.1 mg/L EPA 200.7 Sodium 0.05 mg/L EPA 200.7 Sulfate 0.1 mq/L EPA 300.0 or 9056A Total Dissolved Solids 25 mg/L ISM 2540C Total Suspended Solids 2 m L ISM 2450D Prepared by: RKD Checked by: CJS Notes• 1. Select constituents will be analyzed for total and dissolved concentrations. NA indicates not applicable. P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\103. Cape Fear Ash Basin GW Assess ment\20.EG_CAP\CAP Part 2\Tables\Final\Table 9-1 Recommended Groundwater Monitoring Parameters.xlsx Page 1 of 1