City of Raleigh revised Corrective Action Plan (Neuse River Waste Water Treatment Plant)

CITY OF RALEIGH
Neuse River Waste W ater Treatment Plant
Raleigh, North Carolina
Rev is ed Corre ct ive A c ti o n Plan
Prepared by:
/NTERNATIONAL
ENSR Consulting and Engineering (NC), Inc.
7041 Old Wake Forest Road, Suite 103
Raleigh, North Carolina 27616
December 2005
MEMORANDUM
TO: David Hance DATE:
FROM: Rick Bolich ~
THROUGH: Jay Zimmerman ~
SUBJECT: Variance Performance Monitoring Plan
City of Raleigh, NC
Variance from 15A NCAC 2L .0106(k)
2/12/2007
On November 14, 2006, the Aquifer Protection Section (APS) Raleigh Regional Office
(RRO) submitted a memorandum to you in support of the Variance Application submitted by the
City of Raleigh Public Utilities Dept. (CORPUD) for the land application fields at the Neuse River
Wastewater Treatment Plant. This office issued conditional approval of a corrective action plan for
part ·of this site on July 19, 2006. The "conditional" aspect of the approval is dependent upon
whether or not CORPUD receives a variance from 15A NCAC 2L .0106(k) for the portions of the
site that are not being actively remediated by the groundwater extraction system. The conditionally
approved corrective action plan consisted of a groundwater extraction system and associated
groundwater monitoring. The groundwater monitoring plan for the CAP is specified in the March
31, 2006 letter to Jay Zimmerman from Peter Thibodeau, and it consists of sampling a total of 61
wells that will be sampled and analyzed three times a year.
APS-RRO staff support granting the variance from 15A NCAC 2L .0106(k) on the condition
that the flux of Nitrate from contaminated groundwater entering the Neuse River from the land
application fields is offset by a similar reduction in Nitrate from the NPDES permitted effluent
entering the river. In this manner, the total amount of nitrate entering the Neuse River from the
NPDES outfall combined with the flux of nitrate contributed by groundwater discharge will be less
than or equal to CORPUD' s permitted nitrate discharge amount. We also support this variance since
the other receptors of the contaminated groundwater, private water supply wells, have been provided
with Raleigh City water.
CORPUD 2L Variance Memo
2/12/2007
Page 2 of 3
Data obtained from the Resource Evaluation Program monitoring wells at the site indicate
that the upper portion of the fractured bedrock, the "transition zone", can act as a preferred pathway
for groundwater flow. The highest groundwater nitrate concentrations ever measured at the site have
occurred in a "transition zone" monitoring well. We believe that additional groundwater monitoring
wells installed in the "transition zone" are warranted in order to evaluate nitrate concentrations in
this zone. The attached figure shows the locations of three recommended variance performance
monitoring wells. These wells should be installed to monitor groundwater quality in the transition
zone, and therefore should be screened from approximately 10 feet below the top of the weathered
rock to approximately 5 feet above the top of the fractured rock. The three variance performance
monitoring wells should be sampled for the same parameters and at the same frequency as the
existing permit compliance monitoring wells.
A key element to justify this variance is a groundwater flow and contaminant transport model
that was prepared by the City's consultant, Eagle Resources. The output of this model was provided
in graphic and tabular form dated September 19, 2006 in response tQ an August 25, 2006 letter to
Chonticha McDaniel with the APS Land Application Unit (attached). This groundwater model
provides an estimate of the Nitrate flux into the Neuse River via groundwater discharge. The
groundwater model predicts that the groundwater Nitrate flux into the river would be steadily
decreasing starting in the year 2006. Although we understand that the groundwater model is a gross
simplification of actual hydrogeologic conditions, we believe that assumptions in the model
represent conservative estimates in terms of predicting the Nitrate flux into the river. However, it is
necessary to verify the results of the groundwater model using an independent methodology to
estimate the Nitrate flux from the land application fields into the Neuse River.
The actual nitrate flux into the Neuse River from groundwater can be measured by measuring
the river flow rates and nitrate concentrations at points directly upstream and downstream of the
application fields. This is currently done NCSU researchers at two RiverNet monitoring stations at
Auburn-Knightdale and Clayton. River water nitrate measurements should be measured at time
intervals of 30 minutes or less. The nitrate flux into the river from the Neuse River Wastewater
Treatment Plant effluent outfall should be subtracted from the nitrate flux at the "downstream"
monitoring point in order to determine the actual groundwater nitrate flux from the land application
fields.
CORPUD 2L Variance Memo
2/12/2007
Page3 of 3
We recognize that the actual flux of Nitrate into the river will vary temporally in response to
climactic variations in groundwater recharge and that the actual nitrate flux is unlikely to assume the
smooth parabolic curve depicted in the September 19, 2006 model output graph. However, it is
imperative that the actual Nitrate flux into the river from groundwater discharge decreases over time
in general agreement with the model-predicted results. In the event that the actual Nitrate flux into
the river as determined by river monitoring methodology during the seven year NPDES permit cycle
is decreasing, but at a rate that is lower than predicted by the groundwater model, the groundwater
Nitrate flux "debit" that is to be subtracted from the NPDES outfall permit should be revised to
reflect the average actual Nitrate flux determined by river monitoring methodology. In the event that
the actual Nitrate flux into the river during the permit cycle is shown to be increasing instead of
decreasing over the length of the permit cycle, we recommend that a revised CAP be implemented
that would not require a variance from any existing water quality statute or rule.
cc: Ted Bush -APS Section Chief
Rick Rowe -Wake County Environmental Services, P.O. Box 550, Raleigh, NC 27602
Greg Bright -Wake County Environmental Services, P.O. Box 550, Raleigh, NC 27602
EN:R. HW ·&Q@WN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.1 ReportOrganization ................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Site Background and History .................................................................................................... 1-2
1.2.1 Site Description .............................................................................................................. 1-2
1.2.2 Site History ..................................................................................................................... 1-2
1.2.3 Site Physiography, Geology and Hydrogeology ........................................................... 1-3
1.3 ECS lnvestigation ...................................................................................................................... 1-4
1.4 Receptor and Risk lnforrnation .......... ; ............................................................................. , ........ 1-5
1.4.1 Human Health Risk Assessment. ............................................................................................. 1-5
1.5 CSA and SSA lnvestigations .... : ................................................................................................ 1-6
1.5.1 Soil Analytical Results .................................................................................................... 1-6
1.5.2 Groundwater Analytical Results .................................................................................... 1-7
1.5.3 Surface Water Results ................................................................................................... 1-7
1.5.4 Soil PAN Evaluation ....................................................................................................... 1-8
1.5.5 Groundwater Flow and Fate and Transport Modeling ................................................. 1-8
1.6 Active Remediation Area Field Investigation, Summer 2005 ................................................ 1-10
1.6.1 TestWell lnstallation .................................................................................................... 1-11
1.6.2 Aquifer ·Testing ....................................................................................................... : ...... 1-12
1.6.3 Groundwater Sampling and Analysis .......................................................................... 1-13
1.6.4 Aquifer Test Results .......................................................................... : ........................... 1-13
1. 7 Corrective Action Objectives .................................................................................................. 1-14
2.0 EVALUATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTION ALTERNATIVES ........................................................ 2-1
2.1 Evaluation of Corrective Action Altematives ..................................... ; ...................................... 2-1
2.1.1 Groundwater Corrective Action Alternatives ................................................................ 2-1
2.2 Rationale for Selection of Groundwater Corrective Action Alternative ................................... 2-7
3.0 PROPOSED CORRECTIVE ACTION ............................................................................................... 3-1
S:IPUBSIPROJECT\R\Ralelgh_City 01\CAP
Wor1(\Rll'Jised CAP _Nov05\CAP _Submittal_Report.doc
December. 2005
EN:ll
f@ti1N&-1#4fM
3.1 Design Criteria ............................................................................................................................ 3-1
3 .2 Groundwater Extraction System Implementation .................................................................... 3-1
3.2.1 Extraction Well and Monitoring Well Layout.. ............................................................... 3-2
3.2.2 Extraction Well and Monitoring WeU Installation .......................................................... 3-2
3.2.3 Collection Piping System Layout ................................................................................... 3-3
3.2.4 Recovery Pump Selection ............................................................................................. 3-3
3.2.5 Pump Station ....................... ; .......................................................................................... 3-4
3.3 Design Drawings and Technical Specifications ................................................. , ................ : ..... 3-4
3.4 Proposed Groundwater Monitoring and Reporting .................................................................. 3-4
3.5 Permitting .................................................................................................................................. 3-5
3.6 Notifications/Access Agreements ............................................................................................. 3-5
4.0 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................... : .......... 4-1
S:IPUBSIPROJECTIR\Raleigh_City 01\CAP
Wo!1(1Revised CAP _Nov05\CAP _Submittal_Report.doc:
ii
1\1 -
December. 2005
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1: Private Well Nitrate Nitrogen Results and Water Supply/Service Status
Table 1-2: Soil Analytical Results
Table 1-3: Groundwater Analytical Results -City Test Wells
Table 1-4: Groundwater Analytical Results -CSA-SSA Monitoring Wells
Table 1-5: Surface Water Analytical Results
EN:ll
hfli#Wt¾iii•Zfft◄
Table 2-1: Opinion of Probable Costs to Install and Operate a Groundwater Extraction and Enhanced
Denitrification System along the Site Compliance Boundary with Discharge to the
NR\1\/WTP for treatment (Alternative 1)
Table 2-2: Opinion of Probable Costs to Install and Operate a Groundwater Extraction System in Field
#50 and #500 with Discharge to the NR\1\/WTP and Long-term Monitoring in Other Areas
(Alternative 2)
Table 3-1: Proposed Performance Monitoring Requirements
S:\PUBS\PROJECT\R\Ralelgh_City 01\CAP
Worfl\Revtsed CAP _Nov05\CAP _Submittal_Report.doc
iii December, 2005
Etal
tzW?NU#iiM
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A: Human Health Risk Assessment
Appendix 8: Data Compilation, Active Remediation Area , Summer 2005 Field Investigation
Appendix C: Analysis of Groundwater Capture by Proposed Remedial Wellfields, City of Raleigh
Biosolids Application Fields
Appendix D: Pump Hydraulics Calculations
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 : Design Drawings
Attachment 2: Technical Specifications
S:IPUBSIPROJECTIR\Raleigh_ City of\CAP
Work\Revlsed CAP _Nov05\CAP _Submlttat._Report.doc
V December, 2005
Etal
ht&.-&ifi&MM
1.0 INTRODUCTION
ENSR Consulting and Engineering (NC), Inc. (ENSR) prepared this revised Corrective Action Plan
(CAP) Report on behalf of the City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department (CORPUD) to address nitrate
contamination in groundwater at the biosolids application fields serving the Neuse River Wastewater
Treatment Plant (NRWWTP). The NRWWTP (the Site) is located at 8500 Battle Bridge Road in
Raleigh, Wake County, North Carolina (Figure 1-1). The CAP has been prepared at the request of
Raleigh Regional Office (RRO) of the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (NCDENR), Division of Water Quality (DWQ), Aquifer Protection Section (APS). The CAP
was requested by the RRO in a letter to the CORPUD, dated August 11, 2004.
ENSR completed a Comprehensive Site Assessment (CSA) on behalf of the CORPUD and submitted
a CSA Report to NCDENR in December 2002. In January 2003, the NCDENR requested further
assessment to meet the requirements of Title 15A North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC)
Subchapter 2L Section .0106(d) relating to the conditions at the NRWWTP. A Supplemental Site
Assessment (SSA) was completed and the report was submitted in September 2003 (ENSR, 2003).
Data collected during the CSA and SSA were used to evaluate groundwater flow patterns, nitrate
concentrations in groundwater and soil nitrogen profiles at the Site. Results obtained during the CSA
and the SSA are summarized in Section 2.0. An additional site investigation was petformed during the
summer of 2005 to develop site-specific hydrogeologic information for the area where active
remediation is proposed. This work is summarized in Section 1.6.
Following review of the SSA Report, NCDENR requested preparation of a CAP (ENSR, 2005) to
address groundwater contamination and mitigate the hazards posed by the contamination in areas
where it has spread beyond the Site's compliance boundary. A CAP was prepared in accordance with
Title 15A NCAC Subchapter 2L Section .0106(d)(2) in February 2005. The primary objective of the
CAP was to evaluate groundwater corrective action alternatives and propose an appropriate remedy
for the Site. This revised CAP has been prepared to meet the requirements of 15A NCAC 2L.0106 (k),
which CORPUD feels is the most appropriate corrective action scenario under section .0106 of the 2L
rules for this site and includes design drawings and technical specifications for the proposed corrective
action. Section 1.7, below, addresses the specific criteria to be demonstrated under .0106(k). Site-
specific conditions and information and the .availability of public water supplies for the affected area are
provided below in the following sections.
1.1 Report Organization
The CAP Report is organized as follows:
• Section 1: Introduction and Site Investigation Summary
• Section 2: Evaluation of Corrective Action Alternatives
S:IPUBSIPROJECT\R\Raleigh_City of\CAP
Wo111\Revlsed CAP _Nov051CAP _SUbmltlal_Report.doc
1-1 December, 2005
EN:ll
HWWfhi&ZW+
The property containing former leased Fields 100, 101, 102, 522, 523, and 524 is currently owned by
Waste Corporation of America (YvCA). This property has been developed as a construction and
demolition (C&D) landfill.
1.2.3 Site Physiography, Geology and Hydrogeology
Regional Physiography
The Site is located within the eastern Piedmont Physiographic Province of North Carolina. Area
topography consists of rolling hills dissected by narrow v-shaped drainage ways and perennial streams
that drain into Neuse River. Localized steep bluffs exist to the south along Beddingfield Creek and
along the Neuse River to the east and north of the Site (May and Thomas, 1965). Localized bluffs in
this area plateau to narrow bench-cut alluvial floodplains that are nearly flat with incised drainage ways
to the Neuse River.
Site Geology
The Site is within the Raleigh Geologic Belt and the underlying bedrock consists of massive granitic
rock of the Rolesville series. The granitic bedrock is part of an intrusive series described as
megacrystic to equigranular and is dated between 270 and 320 million years old (Pennsylvanian to
Pennian in age) .. Mafic dikes have been identified regionally and generally have a northwest to
southeast alignment. According to published literature, these dike features may be up to 100 to 200 ft
wide. · Smaller dike splays may be 1 0 to 20 ft wide (Parker, 1979). Details regarding the dikes and
geologic maps can be found in the SSA (ENSR, 2003).
Lithologic units identified at the Site are typical of local piedmont geologies and include the following:
• Topsoil and weathered parent rock material, referred to as saprolite, tends to be moderately
thick in locations without visible rock outcropping . Site saprolite consists of yellow brown to
orange sandy silts (ML) to silty sands {SM) with the coarser material at depth. Regionally,
saprolite can vary in thickness from a few feet to up to hundreds of feet. Saprolite typically
contains relict structures and ftlbric from the parent rock from which it has weathered.
Saprolite thickness at the Site commonly ranges between 30 and 60 feet below surface
grade (bsg).
• Partially weathered rock (PWR), often referred to as the transition zone between saprolite
and the parent unweathered bedrock, typically exhibits the same properties as deeper
saprolitic soils (SM) but with higher occurrence of rock and rock fragments. PWR thickness
generally ranges from 0 to 1 0 ft thick on ridges and uplands to 1 0 to 20 ft thick along slopes
and low-lying areas (Wilson and Carpenter, 1981).
S:IPUBSIPROJECnR\Raleigh_Clty of\CAP
Work\Revlsed CAP _Nov05\CAP _submittal_Report.doc
1-3 December, 2005
EN:ll
fbW;XtiifdhiM
• Bedrock in this area typically consists of granitic rock with fractures near the interface of
PWR and bedrock. The number and size of the fractures generally dissipate with depth
while voids and vugs are common in shallow rock zones when weak exfoliation soil zones
are encountered near PWR.
Hydrogeology
Hydrogeologically, the Site is situated in a meta-igneous hydrostratigraphic unit of the eastern
Piedmont of North Carolina (Daniel and Payne, 1990). Two general hydrostratigraphic units (saprolite
and PWR/upper bedrock) characterize the regional hydrogeology. The upper saprolite unit is an
unconfined aquifer that transmits water downward to the lower semi-confined PWR and fractured
confined crystalline bedrock aquifer unit. Groundwater yields often range from 2 to 20 gallons per
minute (gpm) within the unit (Daniel and Payne, 1990). Groundwater occurs where saprolite and
localized sedimentary/alluvial deposits along the Neuse River overlie bedrock. Groundwater
movement in the saprolite is controlled by groundwater divides associated with ridges and streams.
The typical flow of groundwater occurs from upland areas (ridgelines) to perennial streams. The
underlying granitic rocks are known to have lower hydraulic conductivities than either saprolite or PWR
and controls deep groundwater or regional groundwater flow conditions. The PWR lies between
saprolite and bedrock units and groundwater movement flows both within the material matrix and
through fractures. Groundwater movement in bedrock is restricted to intersecting sets of water-bearing
fractures and joints (Hamed and Daniel, 1989).
Hydraulic properties of the saprolite and PWR zones were evaluated using rising and falling head slug
test methods. Hydraulic conductivity (K) values for the shallow aquifer ranged from 1.3 x 10-e to
6.4 x 10~ centimeters per second (cm/sec). K values for PWR wells ranged from 4.4 x 10-5 to
1.1 x10~ cm/sec. A transmissivity of 4.6 x 10-5 square centimeters per day (cm2/day) (1.3 square feet
per day [fr/day]) was obtained for well MW-126d (ENSR, 2003).
Quantification of groundwater flow directions and rates has been provided by a calibrated, three-
dimensional groundwater flow model. Quantification of the movement and discharge locations of
nitrogen originating from the biosolids application fields has been provided by a three-dimensional
. .
transport model that uses the flow model to compute groundwater flow velocities. Both of these
models are documented in the CSA (ENSR, 2002) and the SSA (ENSR, 2003)), and have been
reviewed and approved by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality's Aquifer Protection Section.
1.3 ECS Investigation
In April 2002, Engineering Consulting Services, Ltd. (ECS) was contracted by CORPUD to investigate
the occurrence of nitrate in groundwater at the Site. The findings of the ECS investigation are
summarized in the Report of Investigations (ECS, 2002a). The investigation focused on seven
biosolids land application areas (including Fields 4, 5, 11, 12, 17-22, 47, 48, 74, 75, 519, and 520).
Results of the soil analysis indicated that in general, ammonia, total organic carbon (TOC) and total
S:IPUBSIPROJECM\Ralelgh_City of\CAP
Work\Revised CAP _NovOS\CAP _Submittal_Report.doc
1-4 December, 2005
Etal
tl:?4~2¥\li/41 ■
Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) concentrations decreased with depth, while nitrate concentrations increased
with depth to the maximum sampling depth of 6.0 ft. In general, groundwater samples collected from
the investigation areas indicated nitrates exceeding the 2l groundwater standard at locations where
nitrate concentrations in soil increased in depth. EC$ concluded . that not all of the nitrogen being
applied to the Site is assimilated by cover · crop in the year of application and that a portion of the
unused nitrogen accumulates in the soil with each application to become plant available in subsequent
years. ECS concluded that plant available nitrogen (PAN) applications during the period from 1996 to
2000 exceeded the maximum annual permit limit of 250 pounds PAN/acre/year (lbs PAN/acre/yr) in
the older fields. The report noted that PAN applied in excess of crop needs is mobilized below the root
zone and migrates to the water table {ECS, 2002a).
1.4 Receptor and Risk Information
The key receptors of groundwater migrating from the Site are the Neuse River and its tributaries.
Water supply wells at nearby residences determined to be potential receptors in the CSA and SSA
have been replaced with public water supply and the former water supply wells have been abandoned.
In 2002, CORPUD sampled thirty-six private water supply wells located in the vicinity of the Site.
Analytical data indicated that seven wells had nitrate concentrations in excess of 10 milligrams per liter
(mg/l) (Table 1-1). CORPUD subsequently initiated a quarterly sampling program of private water
supply wells located within ½ mile of the biosolids application field boundaries. Forty-five private
and/or community water supply wells were identified and included in the sampling program. A
summary of the wells identified · within proximity of the Site and associated analytical results (from
CORPUD sampling program) are listed in Table 1-1. The locations of the water supply wells are
depicted on Figure 1-3. Thirty-nine of the forty-five properties included in the sampling program were
subsequently connected to the public water supply system. These thirty-nine properties were served
by thirty-eight water supply wells, of 'which thirty-seven wells have been decommissioned consistent
with the NCAC Subchapter 2L requirements. Per the information provided by CORPUD, the
residential property with the remaining private water supply well has been connected to the public
water supply system; however, the well will not be abandoned as requested by the property owner.
Based on the information provided by CORPUD, currently there are three private water supply wells
that are still in use (active) and remain in the CORPUD sampling program (Table 1-1). Nitrate
concentrations for these currently active water supply wells were below 10 mg/L during the 2005
sampling events (Table 1-1). Based on numerical modeling analysis and groundwater monitoring data .
collected over time , these wells are not likely receptors for nitrate impacted groundwater migrating from
the biosolids application fields. CORPUD will continue to monitor the three remaining wells as long as
required under the land application permit.
1.4.1 Human Health Risk Assessment
A baseline human health risk assessment (HHRA) was performed for nitrate in surface water and
groundwater at the site. Potential receptors were a child/teenage wader at Beddingfield Creek and the
S:IPUBSIPROJECTIR\Ralelgh_Ctty of\CAP
worlclRevised CAP _NCMlSICAP _SubmlllaLReportdoc
1-5 December, 2005
Etell
fi.94¼?-IWtiM
other Neuse River tributaries and a hypothetical future resident using site groundwater for potable
and/or non-potable uses. Exposure assumptions were selected in accordance with United States
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) guidance (USEPA, 1989; 1991; 1997; 2004b). Exposure
point concentrations for surface water were selected as the maximum detected concentration from the
last three sampling events and the average concentration (temporal and area). Noncarcinogenic
Hazard Indices (His) were calculated for the ingestion and dermal routes of exposure. There were no
unacceptable risks for exposure to surface water or for exposure to groundwater used for a non-
potable purpose (swimming pool), based on comparison of the His to the USEPA limit of 1.0.
However, the His for potable use of groundwater exceeded 1.0, indicating a potentially unacceptable
risk for site groundwater used as drinking water.
Detailed discussion of the Human Health Risk Assessment is presented in Appendix A.
1.5 CSA and SSA Investigations
A CSA was conducted between October and December 2002. · Additional assessment was conducted
following the CSA work and was summarized in the SSA Report. The focus of CSA and. SSA was to
provide data necessary for evaluating groundwater flow patterns, compliance boundary nitrate
concentrations in groundwater and soil nitrogen profiles at the Site.
The groundwater assessment included installation and sampling of twenty-two shallow temporary
monitoring wells, twenty-three shallow permanent monitoring wells constructed in saprolite zone, four
wells in partially weathered rock (PWR) zone and four permanent wells screened in the bedrock. In
addition, two private water supply wells (i.e., PW-8 and PW-39) were also sampled during the
groundwater assessment. Surface water samples were collected along · Beddingfield Creek, an
unnamed tributary to the Neuse River along the western boundary of the Site, and springs and seeps
within the application boundaries to assess surface water quality. In addition; three monitoring wells
(i.e., MW-1, MW-3, and MW-5) installed by Material Recovery for compliance monitoring of the C&D
landfill were also sampled. The groundwater monitoring wells, test wells sampled by CORPUD, and
soil and surface water sampling locations are depicted in Figure 1-3. In addition, as part of the SSA,
an incubation study was conducted to estimate the amount of residual PAN in topsoil for the 2003
growing season. A brief summary of the CSA and the SSA results is provided in the following
sections.
1.5.1 Soil Analytical Results
Results of the soil samples collected from Fields 3, 100, and 500, and additional fields sampled in fall
2005, are summarized on Table 1-2; Soil sample locations for Fields 3, 100, and 500 are also
illustrated on Figure 5 of the CSA. The data indicate concentrations of nitrate generally peak in the 4
to 8 ft depth interval (ENSR, 2002). · Soil profile nitrate concentrations are expected to change over
time, but the peak concentrations are likely to stay in approximately same depth interval. The
implication of this feature is that nitrates are accumulating at the 4 to 8 ft depth interval through
S:IPUBS\PROJECl'R\Raleigh_City ol\CAP
Work\Revlsed CAP _Nov05\CAP _Submlllal_Report.doc
1-6 Oeoember, 2005
EN:ll
1x,u1 ~&z1&&0+
and tributaries (ENSR, 2002). Nitrate concentrations in samples collected from Beddingfield Creek
and the Neuse River were lower and did not exceed 10 mg/L
1.5.4 Soil PAN Evaluation
An incubation study was conducted as part of the SSA to estimate the amount of PAN in soils from
fields at the NRWWTP and the residual PAN for the 2003-growing season. The details of PAN
evaluation were included in the SSA Report (ENSR, 2003). The 2003 soil PAN evaluation indicated
that many of the fields in the study area could supply adequate to excessive amounts of PAN for crop
production. Approximately 38 fields were estimated to be able to supply PAN in excess of the amount
required for anticipated crop production in 2003 (ENSR, 2003). ·
1.5.5 Groundwater Flow and Fate and Transport Modeling
Groundwater flow and transport models were constructed to assess the distribution of nitrate in
groundwater and the discharge of nitrogen from groundwater to the Neuse River. Design criteria,·
inputs, and results for the models are summarized · in the SSA Report (ENSR, 2003). The models were
constructed using the following four layers: Layer 1 -saprolite unit; Layer 2 -PWR unit; Layer 3 -
upper fractured bedrock zone; and Layer 4 -lower unfractured bedrock zone. Key conclusions derived
from the construction, testing, and application of the nitrate transport model include:
• Steady-state groundwater flow patterns and the historical location and rates of biosolids
application to CORPUD fields determine the distribution and magnitude of nitrate in
groundwater in the vicinity of the fields.
• The methodology used to estimate nitrate concentrations in recharge, used as inputs to
groundwater transport model, used available and pertinent records of PAN for the
NRVWVTP fields , includes the use of a mineralization rate for organic nitrogen of 30%, and
accounts for the build up of carryover PAN not removed by crop harvest and volatilization.
• The groundwater flow and transport models are consistent with the available data. The flow
model recreates the observed distribution of groundwater head. Importantly, the transport
model generally captures the temporal nitrate concentration distribution patterns. This
supports the ability of the model to appropriately simulate nitrate transport at the Site.
• The transport model simulates historical concentrations in monitoring wells that are
generally greater than observed values, particular1y for observed values that are greater
than 10 mg/L. Thus, the simulated extent of nitrates in groundwater and associated loading
to surface water are likely overestimated.
• The approximate nitrogen concentration in the Neuse River as a result of the simulated
peak groundwater to surface water loading from biosolids application computed using an
S:IPUBSIPROJECM\Raleigh_City of\CAP
Wo11(1Revlsed CAP _Nov05\CAP _Submittal_Repoit.doc
1-8 December, 2005
EN:R.
ti44-?.Z.l@f&M
average annual flow of 1,053 cubic feet per second (ft3/sec) is 0.12 mg/L. The peak
concentration is predicted to occur in 2006. Given the low predicted concentration and
contributing of nitrogen discharge to the Neuse River from the NRWVVTP as well as from
upstream and non-CORPUD sources, the impact of nitrogen discharge to the Neuse River
via groundwater discharge cannot reliably be monitored by sampling in the Neuse River,
using current technology.
• The simulated 1 0 mg/L nitrate iso-concentration line at the end of 2002 in the southeast
portion of the CORPUD Site, in the vicinity of Fields 200, 201, and 500 (along Shotwell
Road) extends approximately 500 ft south and east of the boundaries of CORPUD Fields.
The principal direction of migration in this area is south and east towards Beddingfield
Creek;
• Pre-CORPUD and non-CORPUD agricultural operations on upgradient fields likely
contributed to nitrate concentrations in groundwater and private water supply wells in the
area along Old Baucom Road and along Shotwell Road.
• Nitrates in private wells east of Mial Plantation and Shotwell Road in the vicinity of the
intersection with Old Baucom Road are the result of additional sources of nitrate such as
leaking septic systems. It is unlikely that private wells north of Fields 60 to 63 have been
impacted by nitrates from CORPUD fields because they are hydraulically upgradient.
• Assuming a maximum nitrate concentration in groundwater of 6 mg/L for CORPUD and
non-CORPUD agricultural fields during years 2003 through 2053, simulated concentrations
in model layers 1 and 2 are reduced to less than 1 O mg/L in the offsite area between Field
600 and Shotwell road after approximately 15 years. In approximately 23 years, under this
condition, nitrate concentrations beneath Field 500 are predicted to decrease to less than
10 mg/L.
• Intrusive diabase dikes have been mapped at the Site and in its vicil"!ity. Evidence of the
dikes was independently obtained as part of the SSA investigation. The hydraulic impact of
the dikes is not fully understood. To be conservatively protective in evaluating potential
nitrate . impacts, the groundwater flow model was modified to provide a · representation of the
dikes that would have the greatest potential impact on groundwater flow. Each dike was ·
simulated as a low conductivity vertical barrier, with zones of relatively high conductivity on
either side, to simulate country rock fracturing by intrusion of the dike material. Each dike
was assumed to fully penetrate all model layers. The net effect of this representation is that
groundwater flow and nitrate transport, will be impeded across the dike but will be
accelerated along the edges of the dike. Simulated nitrate transport was not greatly
affected across the model domain with this representation of the dikes. There were several
locations where the position and concentration magnitude of the nitrate plume was changed
slightly in the vicinity of a simulated dike, but the conclusions described above (i.e., nitrate
S:IPUBSIPROJECnRIRatelgh_City of\CAP
Work\Revlsed CAP _Nov05\CAP _Submittal_Report.doc
1-9 December, 2005
Etal .
fZW·ttti&iN
transport is limited to migration to surface waters located in valleys and that many private
wells are not greatly affected by CORPUD activities) remain unchanged by the presence of
the dikes.
The following are the key conclusions and recommendations provided in the CSA and SSA reports:
• Groundwater impacted with nitrates related to biosolids application is likely contained within
the area bordered by the major streams and Neuse River. The potential for nitrate· ·
impacted groundwater to migrate into areas of human water supply use of groundwater is
limited to the eastern boundary of the Site in the general vicinity of the intersection of Mial
Plantation, Shotwell, and Old Baucom Roads.
• Subsurface soil data suggested that the accumulation of nitrates that occurred during past
biosolids application was temporary. Within four to eight years, a significant reduction in soil
nitrate concentrations appears possible.
• The extent of nitrate contamination of water supply wells was limited to the vicinity of Old
Baucom Road and Mial Plantation Road .south of the Neuse River. The source of nitrates
detected in these wells is likely . a combination of septic systems, fertilization of upgradient
fields and biosolids application to upgradient fields and the properties containing the water
supply wells.
A recommendation was made that CORPUD revise its biosolids management program to include soil
sampling for residual top soil PAN, routine PAN measurements in biosolids and creation of a decision
model incorporating such measurements to better match biosolids application to expected crop
nitrogen uptake.
1.6 Active Remediation Area Field Investigation, Summer 2005
Additional field investigation was completed in August and September 2005, in an effort to collect
further information on site:-specific hydrogeologic behavior in and around the proposed active
remediation area. The focus of this field program was to develop new data that would be useful in
developing design criteria for active remediation. Monitoring wells and test wells were installed in ·
Fields 60 and 500, and aquifer tests were performed at these wells as part of this investigation.
Site selection for installation of the monitoring and extraction wells focused on areas where active
remediation is proposed. Performance of aquifer tests and review of those test data were used to
provide site-specific information on local hydrogeology. These data were then used to confirm the
appropriateness of hydraulic parameters used in the groundwater model for those locations, as well as
to provide guidance information for developing active remediation design plans. Field methods and
data analysis methods are described in the following subsections.
S:IPUBSIPROJECT\R\Raleigh_Clty of\CAP
Work\Revised CAP _Nov05\CAP _SUbmittal_Report.doc
1-10 December, 2005
EN:ll
Hiii·W&PWM
1.6.1 Test Well Installation
One six-inch diameter extraction well (EW-1) and two two-inch diameter monitoring wells (CMW-1 and
CMw...:2) were installed in Field 500 in August 2005. An additional grouping of wells, consisting of one
six-inch diameter extraction well (EW-2) and two two-inch diameter monitoring wells were installed in
Field 60 (CMW-3 and CMW-4) in August 2005. The two-inch diameter matching observation well pairs
(CMW-1 and CMW-2) (CMW-3, and CMW-4) were installed at approximately 5 feet away and 20 feet
away from wells EW-1 and EW-2 respectively, to monitor the effects of drawdown during the aquifer
pumping test.
The extraction and monitoring wells were installed using a Canterra CT-350 rig, equipped for air rotary
and hollow-stem auger drilling (HSA). The extraction wells were installed using a combination of air
rotary and 8.25-inch diameter augers. The augers were driven to approximately 50-feet bsg, and then
the borings were extended to 55-feet bsg using air rotary techniques. The augers were then replaced
and driven to 55-feet bsg to allow placement of a stable sand pack and to potentially reduce turbidity.
The extraction wells were constructed with 10-foot sections of 6-inch diameter polyvinyl chloride (PVC)
material with a 0.02-inch slot screen. Number 3 filter sand was installed in the annular space around
the screen to at least two feet above the top of the well screen, followed by a four foot thick bentonite
seal placed in the annular space on top of the sand pack. The remainder of the well annulus was filled
with grout to the grou_nd surface.
Monitoring wells were installed using similar methods; however, 6.25-inch diameter augers were used.
The monitoring wells were constructed with 10-foot sections of 2-inch diameter PVC material with a .
0.01-inch slot screen. Number 2 filter sand was installed in the annular space around the screen to at
least two feet above the top of the well screen, followed by a four foot thick bentonite seal placed in the
annular space on top of the sand pack. The remainder of the well annulus was filled with grout to the
ground surface. All wells were fitted with above-grade, locking steel well cases and 2-foot by 2-foot
concrete pads.
To obtain lithologic information, soil samples were collected by advancing a decontaminated two-foot
long split-spoon sampler ahead of the augers at five-foot intervals. Soil samples were described and
logged in the field by ENSR personnel. Boring logs and construction details for the wells are included
in Appendix B.
Surficial soils encountered during the subject investigation were generally clay and silt-rich ~nd
transitioned to coarser-grained, saprolitic, silty sand to sandy soils with depth. This saprolite was
characterized by an increase in grain size and the abundance of quartz and biotite mica. Relict soil
structuring also became more apparent with depth. Saprolite thickness generally ranged from
approximately 25 to 40 feet. PWR was encountered below the saprolite. PWR was typically 25 to 50
feet thick and was similar to saprolite in composition, but contained a greater abundance of rock and
rock fragments. Top of competent bedrock was encountered at depths of approximately 50 to 55 feet
in site borings. The maximum boring depth at the site was approximately 55 feet.
S:IPUBSIPROJECT\R\Raleigh_City 01\CAP
Work\Revised CAP _Nov05\CAP _Submlttal_Report.doc
1-11 December, 2005
EN:ll
bW-ZtfkhA¾M
however, enough data were collected during the test to perform hydraulic analysis of the data set
Following the drawdown test, recovery data were collected at each location with the pressure
transducers until the wells reached equilibrium conditions. Results of the · pumping tests and
groundwater analysis are included in Appendix Band are discussed .below.
1.6.3 Groundwater Sampling and Analysis
Groundwater samples EW-2A (collected on 9/1/2005) and CMW-1A (collected on 9/13/2005) were
both collected near the beginning of aquifer testing after at least three well volumes had been purged
from the wells and water quality parameters (temperature, pH, conductivity) were stabilized.
Groundwater sample EW-28 was collected near the end of the first 24-hour aquifer test at Field 60.
Pump failure resulted in a premature conclusion of the aquifer test at Field 500 and a post-test
groundwater sample was not collected. Groundwater samples from pumping wells were collected in
laboratory supplied containers and immediately placed on ice. Samples were then shipped under
chain of custody protocols to North Carolina · Certified Pace Analytical Laboratories in Huntersville,
North Carolina. The following analytes were evaluated: pH, total dissolved solids . (TDS), total
suspended solids (TSS), total metals (aluminum, calcium, iron, magnesium, manganese, potassium,
sodium), dissolved metals (iron, manganese), total hardness, alkalinity (carbonate, bicarbonate, and
total), total Kjeldhal nitrogen, nitrate as nitrogen, nitrite as nitrogen, chloride, ammonia,
orthophosphate, sulfate, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), chemical oxygen demand (COD), and
Langelier Saturation Index. These water quality parameters were collected to assist in the
groundwater remediation system design. Groundwater analytical results are presented in Appendix 8.
In general, analyte values for the three groundwater samples (EW-2A, EW-28, and CMW-1A) were
similar. Only two analytes (manganese and nitrate) had detectable concentrations in excess of the 2L
Standards, although no 2L Standards currently exist for the majority of analytes. Manganese (2L
standard of 0;05 mg/L) was detected in all three samples at concentrations ranging from 0.09 mg/L
(CMW-1A) to 0.22 mg/L (EW-2A). Nitrate (2L Standard of 10 mg/I) was detected in concentrations of
42 mg/L (EW-2A); 66 mg/L (EW-28), and 12 mg/L (CMW-1A).
1.6.4 Aquifer Test Results
Aquifer test results were determined by importing drawdown and pumping test data into AQTESOLV
(HydroSOLVE, Inc., 2002) and using the Cooper-Jacob (1946) solution. The AQTESOLV data
analyses are included in Appendix B. Computed hydraulic conductivity values for the wells show good
correlation, ranging from approximately 2.1 (well EW-2) to 3.4 (well EW-1) feet per ·day (ft/day) with an
average value of 2.9 ft/day. These hydraulic conductivity values are characteristic of unconsolidated
materials that are silty sand to sand-sized. These grain sizes are in agreement with the materials
observed during drilling operations at the site. Subsurface materials showed an abundance of medium
to coarse silty sand and some fine gravel at depths below the water table. Transmissivity values also
agreed well among the data, ranging from approximately 86 to 129 square feet per day (tt2/day)
(averaging 110 fr/day).
S:IPUBSIPROJECT\R\Ralalgh_City of\CAP
WQrk\Revlsad CAP~NovOSICAP _Submittal_Raport.doc
1-13 December, 2005
Etal
tzid44iii4tN
(3) Fate and transport modeling simulations indicated that contaminants Will not migrate onto
additional adjacent properties beyond those already mapped and depicted in this CAP; such
properties are served by an existing public water supply system that is hydraulically isolated
from the nitrate plume, or CORPUD is seeking written consent to this CAP from the owners of
such properties. A list of parcels and adjacent properties requiring public notification is shown
in the table on Figure 1-2.
(4) The spatial distribution of the plume has stabilized, as demonstrated by the fate and transport
modeling work described above and fully reported in the SSA (ENSR, 2003). There are no
existing or foreseeable receptors within one year's travel time of the plume.
(5) Groundwater contamination will not result in a violation of applicable surface water standards
at the Site beyond Beddingfield Creek (SSA, 2003) (please note that there are no applicable
standards for nitrate in surface water for most of the Site).
(6) Public notice of this proposed CAP will be provided in accordance with Rule .0114(b) of 15A
NCAC2L.
(7) The proposed CAP is consistent with other applicable environmental laws. Upon approval of
the CAP, appropriate .permits and other regulatory approvals will be obtained prior to field or
construction activities subject to those approvals.
S:\PUBS\PROJECTIR\Ralelgh_City of\CAP
Wott\Revised CAP _Nov05\CAP _Subniittal_Report.doc
1-15 December, 2005
Etal
t?2#ifiWf.i+
the plume from migrating either into off-site properties or into Neuse River or its tributaries. Extracted
groundwater would be pumped through a network of extraction. piping to the NRWWTP for treatment.
Based on hydrogeologic data and results of groundwater flow modeling, it is anticipated that
approximately 426 extraction wells (100-ft spacing) would be installed along the portions of the
compliance boundary where the nitrate groundwater standard has been exceeded and/or is estimated
to be exceeded based on groundwater modeling (Figure 2-1 ). The depth of extraction wells would be
expected to vary in different areas of the Site based on elevation and water table. For purposes of
developing probable costs, the average depth for the wells is assumed to be 70 ft bsg, and these . wells
would have an average groundwater yield of 2 gpm (1,226,880 gallons per day). Based on locations
of the current monitoring wells (installed by ENSR) and test wells (monitored by CORPUD), it is
anticipated that additional monitoring wells would be installed as part of the monitoring program. The
piping required to convey water to the NRWWTP is assumed to be installed underground, in trenches,
along the roads and fields.
Enhanced Denitrification System Process Description
The enhanced denitrification process involves injection (pressure or gravity feed) of biodegradable
carbon electron donor (e.g., com syrup or sodium lactate) via injection wells to create in situ anaerobic
zones that will denitrify nitrate-enriched groundwater in plumes situated beyond the compliance
boundary across the Site. The electron donor (food) injection allows the populations of native
microorganisms to multiply to the point where microbial respiration consumes the available dissolved
oxygen in groundwater. In the absence of dissolved oxygen the microbes would use nitrate as an
electron acceptor and produce nitrogen gas, a process referred to as denitrification. Nitrate-impacted
groundwater from the application fields that migrates into the anoxic zone would be exposed to the
denitrifying bacteria and pass through the anoxic zone with little to no nitrate remaining in the water. In
situ denitrification by injecting electron donor solution has been successfully demonstrated in the field.
Examples of field scale demonstration have been described by Interstate Technology Regulatory
Council (ITRC) in · their document on enhanced in-situ biodenitrification of nitrate contaminated
groundwater (ITRC, 2000).
Prior to implementing a full-scale in-situ denitrification system, a pilot test would be conducted to
evaluate the effectiveness at the Site and to collect data for full-scale design. Injection wells would be
constructed beyond the compliance boundaries of the above-referenced fields to reduce nitrate
concentrations in the impacted groundwater. It is estimated that approximately 6,026 injection wells
would be required to achieve this control. Injection wells will be properly spaced to allow establishment
of anaerobic zones to support denitrification. It is anticipated that the injection wells would be installed
to depths ranging from 65 to 85 ft using conventional drilling techniques. In addition, 50 monitoring
wells would be installed at various locations to monitor the program's · effectiveness. The monitoring
wells would be installed .to depths ranging fr.om 65 to 85 ft using conventional drilling techniques. The
injection process would involve preparing the electron donor solution by mixing the required amount of
electron donor (e.g., com syrup, sodium lactate) with appropriate amounts of potable water. The
S:IPUBSIPROJECT\R\Ralelgh_City of\CAP
Work\Revised CAP _NovOS\CAP _Submittal_Report.doc
2-2 Oeceml)er, 2005
EN:ll fAffe ~t.rtfk&ilM
acetate (electron donor source) and trimetaphosphate (nutrient) indicated significant nitrate reduction
(to near zero concentration in nearby monitoring well) due to in-situ biodenitrification (ITRC, 2000).
The construction activities required to install recovery and injection wells can be easily implemented.
The process of injecting the reagents is relatively simple and requires a trained technician. Availability
and scheduling of equipment and supplies are not anticipated to pose problems.
The extraction wells for this alternative can be installed utilizing standard drilling techniques. No
special equipment or specialists other than a driller and a construction contractor are anticipated during
implementation. . The periodic groundwater sampling associated with the groundwater extraction
system can be easily implemented.
Limitations
This alternative would require significant long-term maintenance of the extraction system. The quantity
of extracted water would be approximately 1,226,880 gallons per day (based on 426 recovery wells
and flow rate of 2 gpm per well) and would have to be treated at the NRWWTP. Use of currently
available capacity would reduce the plant's capability to accommodate projected growth. Due to
significant length of trenching and piping and number of extraction wells ·required, this option would be
very expensive. Large scale groundwater extraction along streams can deplete significant stream
base flow which could subsequently result in disrupting stream aquatic habitats.
Since denitrification processes are in-situ, subsurface biogeochemical conditions will control their
effectiveness. A pilot study would be required to evaluate field effectiveness and to collect site-specific
infonnation to develop design parameters (e.g., area influence, injection well spacing, electron donor
requirements, etc.) for full-scale application of this remedy. To allow installation of injection wells,
significant tree clearance would be required. It would be extremely expensive to perform an enhanced ·
denitrification program across the Site in areas beyond the compliance boundary with observed or
modeled exceedances of nitrate in groundwater. This alternative potentially requires new skills and
special training of CORPUD personnel for its operation and maintenance.
Probable Costs
The opinion of probable costs for this alternative is $79,881,460 and its present worth is $57,511,400.
The present worth value was calculated using a discount rate of 5.125 percent. Details of the opinion
of probable costs and key assumptions are included in Table 2-2. These costs include -costs for capital
and operational tasks .. It should be noted that costs to monitor compliance wells (test wells) required
under the biosolids permit are not included in this estimate. In addition, these probable costs are for
evaluation of alternatives and actual costs of implementation may vary (typically around -30 to +50
percent).
S:\PUBSIPROJECT\R\Raleigh_City of\CAP
WOlk\Revised CAP _Nov05'CAP _SubmHtal_Report.doc
2-4 December, 2005
Etal
GW-t,tfi/%◄
50 and 500 . In addition, the 29 recovery wells will be sampled and analyzed for nitrates annually for
the life of the project. Water quality data from the recovery wells, monitoring wells, and surface water
samples will be used to monitor the performance of this alternative. It should ·be noted that CORPUD
already samples the compliance wells three times a year as part of the compliance monitoring (for the
biosolids application permit) for the Site. Analytical data from these test wells would be used to
evaluate the effectiveness of this alternative. For the purpose of costing and comparison, it is
assumed that the project life of this alternative is 30 years. The costs to monitor compliance wells (test
wells) required under the biosolids permit are not included in this estimate.
Feasibility
Alternative 2 is expected to be effective at controlling groundwater containing nitrates in excess of
NCAC 2L groundwater standard from migrating beyond the compliance boundaries of Fields 50 and
500. As described above, groundwater extraction is a proven technology for plume containment in
unconsolidated and fractured rock aquifers. As long as the extraction system is operational, this
alternative can effectively contain the nitrate-impacted groundwater in Fields 50 and 500 from
migrating beyond the Site's compliance boundary at concentrations greater than 10 mg/L. While the
recovery system is operational, this alternative can effectively contain the nitrate impacted groundwater
in Fields 50 and 500 from migrating beyond the Site's compliance boundary at concentrations greater
than 10 mg/L. The extracted groundwater will be treated at the NRWVVTP, which is expected to be
effective in reducing nitrate concentration to discharge limits.
The recovery system for this alternative can be constructed utilizing standard drilling methods,
equipment and construction techniques. The periodic groundwater sampling associated with the
groundwater extraction system can be easily implemented .
Limitations
This alternative would require long-term maintenance of the recovery system. The extracted water,
estimated to be 83,520 gpd (based on 29 recovery wells and flow rate of 2 gpm per well), will be
treated at the NRWVVTP. Due to large length of trenching and piping (approximately 18,000 ft) to
convey water to the treatment plant, construction cost would be high. This alternative is dependent on
approval of a variance request, as described above. Due to groundwater withdrawal, this option could
reduce base flow to the Neuse River's tributaries nearest Fields 50 and 500. However, since the
extracted water will be treated at the NRWWTP, it will be discharged directly into. the Neuse River and
will thus not affect overall flow in the main river.
Probable Costs
The opinion of probable costs for this alternative is $8,887,820 and its present worth is $5,059,500.
The present worth was calculated using a discount rate pf 5.125 percent. Details of the probable cost
and key assumptions are included in Table 2-3. These costs include capital and operational tasks. It
S:IPUBSIPROJECT\R\Raleigh_City of\CAP
Work\Revised CAP _Nov05\CAP _Submittal_Report.doc
2-6 December, 2005
Etal
tkP#tlii4ZM
should be noted that costs to monitor compliance wells (test wells) required under the biosolids permit
are not included in this estimate. It should be noted that these probable costs are for evaluation of
alternatives and actual costs of implementation may vary (typically around -30 to +50 percent).
2.2 Rationale for Selection of Groundwater Corrective Action Alternative
Section 2.1 described two alternatives and discussed their feasibility, limitations and probable costs.
Alternatives 1 and 2 are expected to provide hydraulic containment of the dissolved nitrate plume, and
Alternative 1 is also expected to create in-situ treatment zones (reactive zones) to reduce dissolved
nitrates as the nitrate-impacted groundwater passes through those areas.
The alternatives evaluated above are expected to provide similar levels of protectiveness. The
potential for human exposure has been reduced through supply of public or bottled water to residences
and abandonment of water supply wells. The alternatives provide extra protection for residential areas
by containing or treating the nitrate impacted groundwater migrating toward those residential areas.
The primary environmental concern with the elevated nitrate in groundwater is the added loading of
nitrogen to the nutrient sensitive Neuse River. However, even with the additional loading of nitrogen
resulting from exceedances of nitrate standard at or beyond the compliance boundary, the Site is well
within the permit limit of 676,411 lbs/year. The alternatives evaluated are thus protective of human
health and the environment.
Alternative 1 provides containment of the nitrate plume along the portion of the compliance boundary
where nitrate levels exceed 10 mg/L. Alternative 1 also involves-a manual mixing and injection of
electron donors program that would require trained personnel (not skilled or certified). However, the
enhanced denitrification phase of Alternative · 1, as an in-situ method, would require a pilot test to
evaluate its effectiveness and development of design data prior to implementing a full-scale system.
This phase of Alternative 1 would require development of new, specialized skills and operating
procedures to maintain the in situ treatment zones. In addition, significant tree clearance would be
required to implement the denitrification system which would have adverse impact ori the habitats.
This alternative is also significantly more expensive than the Alternative 2 and does not provide
significant environmental benefits compared to Alternative 2. Indeed, extraction of water along the
compliance boundary would potentially result in degradatory baseflow impacts in streams situated near
the extraction wells, such as Beddingfield Creek. Therefore, this alternative is neither cost-effective
nor without potential adverse environmental impacts.
Alternative 2 involves active containment in specific areas (Fields 50 and 500) where exceedances of
the nitrate groundwater standard have occurred at or beyond the compliance boundary. This
alternative also involves.long-term monitoring and a request for variance in the remaining areas where
exceedances of the nitrate groundwater standard have occurred at or beyond the compliance
boundary. This approach is not expected to increase potential risks to human health and environment.
S:\PUBS\PROJECnR\Raleigh_Clty of\CAP .
Work\Revised CAP _Nov05\CAP _Submittal_Report.doc
2-7 December, 2005
Etal
h?&·ML·tbMtH
Alternative 1 has the highestprobable costs. Alternative 2 is substantially less expensive, with an
estimated present worth of $5,059,500, compared to $57,511,400 for Alternative 1.
Based on the discussion presented above, Alternative 2, Groundwater Containment in Fields 50 and
500, Discharge to NRWVVTP and Long-Term Monitoring in Other Areas appears to be the most
appropriate as well as economically reasonable groundwater corrective action alternative. This
alternative is expected to mitigate the dissolved nitrate plume at Fi~lds 50 and 500. It is most
consistent with the goal of implementing the irrigation best management practice and allows for
flexibility for treating the excess water at the NRWWTP. No new technology, special training or unique
treatment will be needed to implement this alternative.
S:\PUBSIPROJECT\R\Ralelgh_City of\CAP
Work\Revised CAP _Nov05\CAP _Subnittal_Reporldoc
2-8 December, 2005
EN:ll ww~,,tMitt+
3.0 PROPOSED CORRECTIVE ACTION
The proposed corrective action alternative for treatment of nitrate impacted groundwater at the Site is
Alternative 2, i.e., Groundwater Extraction in Fields 50 and 500, with Discharge to NRWWTP and
Long-term Monitoring. This alternative is expected to control migration of nitrate-impacted
groundwater to the off-site properties from the above-mentioned fields. . Under this alternative,
long-term monitoring only is proposed for those areas and CORPUD proposes to seek a variance from
the Environmental Management Commission to allow for such monitoring in those areas in lieu of
active remediation.
Groundwater extraction is a proven technology for plume containment in unconsolidated and fractured
rock aquifers. The recovered groundwater from Fields 50 and 500 will be pumped to the NRWWTP for
treatment. The key components of this remedy are a network of recovery wells and monitoring wells, a
pump station, and the associated piping/pump system for pumping the extracted wastewater to
NRWWTP for treatment. Details of the design criteria, groundwater recovery well network, and
monitoring program are described in the following sections, below.
3.1 Design Criteria
The groundwater recovery system proposed in this CAP is based on the following design criteria:
• Based on the information collected during CSA and SSA, the Site is located in the eastern
Piedmont of North Carolina. The nitrate contamination in groundwater appears to be limited
to the saprolite and partially weathered rock (PWR) zones and upper fractured bedrock
zone of the aquifer system at the Site. Therefore, the proposed recovery wells will be
instaUed to penetrate these two zones. The lower unfractured bedrock zone does not
appear to have been impacted with nitrates.
• The groundwater flow modeling used to estimate the capture zone and design the
extraction well network assumes that the groundwater flow rate from each extraction well is
2 gpm (Appendix C). In addition, aquifer tests performed in September 2005 indicated that
the recovery wells can sustain a flow rate of 2 gpm.
• The number and locations of the proposed recovery weils are based on the capture zones
estimated in the groundwater flow and transport modeling to provide proper . hydraulic
containment of nitrate impacted groundwater at Fields 50 and 500. The recovery well
spacing is estimated to be approximately 100 feet.
3.2 Groundwater Recovery System Implementation
As part of the groundwater recovery system, recovery wells will be installed in accordance with
applicable regulations of NCDENR in Fields 50 and 500 at or near their compliance boundaries to
S:IPUBSIPROJECTIR\Raleigh_City of\CAP
Wol1l\Revised CAP _Nol/05\CAP _SubmlttaJ_Repat .doc
3-1 December, 2005
EN:ll
HWtfrk&,ZM
provide hydraulic containment of the dissolved nitrates in these fields and mitigate their migration on to
the off-site areas. The extracted groundwater will be collected in a wet well at the pump station which
will be located near the northwest comer of Field 500. From the pump station, a force main will convey
the extracted water along Old Baucom and Brown Field · Roads and .discharge it into an existing 8-inch
diameter sewer line located north of Battle Bridge Road. The existing 8-inch sewer line will · then
convey the . extracted groundwater to an existing 72-inch gravity sewer which eventually discharges in
to the NRWWTP . The extracted water will be treated at the NRWWTP.
Existing groundwater monitoring wells in the two fields will be used for performance monitoring of the
recovery system . Analytical data from the compliance wells and selected existing monitoring wells
would be used for long-term monitoring of the groundwater recovery system as well as other areas that
are included under the variance request. Figure 2-2 presents a conceptual layout of the proposed
groundwater recovery wells and the associated piping/pump · system. Design drawings of the
groundwater recovery system are included in Attachment 1. Details of the proposed system are
outlined in the following sections.
3.2.1 Layout of Recovery Wells
The proposed recovery wells would be installed linearly and along the compliance boundaries in the
active treatment fields (i.e., Fields 50 and 500) (see Figure 2-2 and Attachment 1). As indicated in
Section 3.1, number and spacing of extraction wells are based on the groundwater flow modeling
analysis. The spacing between recovery wells is estimated to be approximately 100 ft. It is estimated
that 7 recovery wells would be installed in Field 50, and 22 extraction wells would be installed in Field
500. Actual number of recovery and monitoring wells, spacing, location, depth, and screened intervals
may be adjusted based on field conditions.
3.2.2 Extraction Well and Monitoring Well Installation
Recovery wells will be installed by a North Carolina licensed driller. The wells will be installed using
hollow stem auger or mud-rotary. It is estimated that the recovery wells .in Field 50 would be installed
to a depth of approximately 80 ft bsg · and recovery wells in Fields 500 would be installed to a depth of
approximately 55 ft bsg to penetrate layers 1 and 2 of the aquifer system, as depicted in the ENSR
(2003) groundwater model. Individual well depths will be determined based on actual Site conditions
(e.g., soil lithology) and depth to water.
The wells would be designed to minimize aquifer material (fines) from entering the well by properly
sizing the well screen and filter pack material. The recovery wells would be constructed of Schedule
80, 6-inch diameter PVC screen and casing. The recovery well screens will have a 0.020-inch slot
size. Actual screen size may be adjusted based on field conditions. The recovery wells will have an
approximately 30-foot screen. The annular space between the well screen and the borehole will be
backfilled with an appropriately sized silica sand filter pack to 5 feet above the screen. A 4-foot thick
bentonite seal will be installed above the filter pack. The balance of the annular space will then be
S:IPUBSIPROJECT\R\Raleigh_City 01\CAP
W01'k\Revised CAP _Nov05\CAP _Submittal_Report.doc:
3-2 December, 2005
EN:ll
tfoi#i?bi&&!bM
based on water level in the well and controlled by individual level sensors as shown on the Design
Drawings in Attachment 1.
3.2.5 Pump Station
Groundwater from the recovery wells will be collected in a pre-cast concrete wet well of the pump
station. The pump station is proposed to be located near the northwest comer of Field 500. The
proposed wet well will be 5 feet in diameter and approximately 12 feet deep, designed for a total
maximum influent flow rate of 87 gpm (29 wells at 3 gpm per well) from the recovery wells. Detailed
calculations for wet well sizing are included in Appendix D. A pump station package, consisting of two
non-clog self priming centrifugal pumps, control panel, and level controls will be set up on top of the
wet well. The pumps are designed to pump at the rate of 100 gpm under a TDH of 140 feet of water
column (we) through a 6-inch DI force main along Old Baucom Road and Brown Field Road. The
selected pumps will be Model No. 4C3B, manufactured by Smith and Loveless, Inc.. Appendix D
includes hydraulic calculations and estimation of TOH.
3.3 Design Drawings and Technical Specifications
Detailed Drawings and Technical Specifications for the Groundwater Remediation System were
prepared to assist in procuring bids and constructing the system. Attachment 1 provides Design
Drawings and Attachment 2 includes Technical Specifications.
3.4 Proposed Groundwater Monitoring and Reporting
A groundwater monitoring program will be implemented to evaluate performance of the extraction
system and the variance areas. The program will involve sampling groundwater from existing
monitoring wells used as .part .of the City's current land application permit compliance program as well
as the existing monitoring wells. The existing monitoring wells will be sampled three times per year
and the 29 recovery wells will be sampled annually. In addition, 2 surface water locations (SW-20 and
SW-22) will be included in the sampling program. The following section discusses the proposed
groundwater monitoring strategy including parameters to be monitored both in the field and in the
laboratory.
Monitoring and Reportin g Frequency
Prior to.start-up of the recovery system, a baseline monitoring well sampling event will be performed.
Performance monitoring will be performed on a periodic basis. As discussed earlier, existing selected
monitoring wells (e.g., MW-105 and MW-109) located in Field 50 and Field 500 will be used for
performance monitoring in these fields. In addition, 29 extraction wells and 2 surface water locations
will be sampled during the monitoring program. During the sampling events, field parameters (e.g.,
dissolved oxygen, pH, and temperature) would be collected from the sampled wells using a multi-
parameter meter. Groundwater and surface water samples collected during baseline and performance
S:\PUBS\PROJECM\Raleigh_Clty 01\CAP
Work\Revlsed CAP _NovOS\CAP _Submittal_Repolldoc
3-4 December, 2005
EN:ll
tkY<kXZid'1,ttM
monitoring events will be analyzed for nitrate. The sampling events will be perfonned three times a
year to coincide with the CORPUD groundwater compliance sampling program under land application
pennit (sampling of test wells). The recovery well sampling would be perfonned only once a year
(annually). Table 3-1 presents a summary of the proposed groundwater sampling program.
The field and laboratory data obtained during each sampling event will be compiled into groundwater
monitoring report that will be submitted to NCDENR three times a year. This report will include a
general description of the overall performance of the treatment system, and a description of any major
or proposed changes to improve the performance of treatment system.
3.6 Permitting
A groundwater recovery well installation permit will be obtained from NCDENR. An Erosion and
Sediment Control (E&SC) Plan will be submitted to NCDENR -Division of Land Resources for review
and approval. The corrective action would be initiated after receiving the recovery well permit and
approval of the E&SC plan.
3.6 Notifications/Access Agreements
A Right-of-Way Encroachment Agreement Fonn will be submitted to NCDOT for their approval of the
proposed collection piping system. The corrective action would be initiated after approval of the
notification. In addition, CORPUD may require access agreements to install portions of the piping
system.
S:IPUBSIPROJECM\Raleigh_Clly of\CAP
Work\Revlsed CAP _Nov05\CAP _Submitlal_Report.doc
3-5 December, 2005
EN:ll
ti?i¥ltt@Xit◄
USEPA. 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume I. Human Health Evaluation
Manual (Part A). Interim Final. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. EPA 540/1-89/002.
USEPA. 1.991 a. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume I. Human Health Evaluation
Manual (Part B, Development of Risk-Based Preliminary Remediation Goals). Interim. Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
9285.7-018, December.
USE PA. 1991 b. Human Health Exposure Manual, Supplemental Guidance; Standard Default
Exposure Factors. OSWER Directive No. 9285.6-03. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C.
USEPA. 1997. Exposure Factors Handbook, Volumes I, II and Ill. EPA/600/P-95/002F. Office of
Research and Development. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington; D.C.
USEPA. 2004. Risk Assessment Guidance For Superfund. Volume I: Human Health Evaluation
Manual (Part E, Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment) Final. EPA/540/R/99/005.
July 2004.
Wilson, W. F., and Carpenter, P. A, Ill, 1981. Region J Geology: A Guide to North Carolina Mineral
Resource Development and Land Use Planning. Regional Geology Series 1. North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, Geological Survey Section,
Raleigh; NC.
S:\PUBS\PROJECT\R\Ralelgh_City of\CAP
Wcrk\Revised CAP_Nov05\CAP _Submlttal_Reportdoc
4-2 December, 2005
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
j
30
31
PRIVATE WELLS SAMPLED IN VICINITY OF NRWWTP ON DATES NOTED TO RIGHT
OWNER'S NAME Home# Work# Address
Adams D.alton 772-6706 8401 Old Baucom Road
Adams Diane 772-2348 787-0125 8513 Old Baucom Road
Adams , Jimmv 772-6376 8428 Old Baucom Road
Adams, Shirley 772-5956 8404 Old Baucom Road
Baucom, Julian I Clifton 772-1647 3021 I 3005 Hickory Tree Pl
Baucom William 772-2242 -8004 7920 Old Baucom Road
Belvin Dann v 772-7898 6208 Mia/ Plantation Rd
Blowe, Bobby 779-1399 2853 Shotwell Rd
Brown S vbil 773-2467 8529 Old Baucom Road
Carroll Kathv 779-0683 8500 Old Baucom Road
Clark, John 662-5504 8416 Old Baucom Road
Ross, Clee 772-0428 2823 Shotwell Rd
CowinQ, Bettv 772-1226 8100 Old Baucom Road
Daniels Earl 266-3581 5716 Mia/ Plantation Rd
Debnam, Catherine 266-3616 5717 Mia/ Plantation Rd
Debnam Clarence 266-1923 5525 Mia/ Plantation Rd
Debnam Judson &Shirfe v 266-1708 5700 Mia/ Plantation Rd
Debnam, Rene/la 266-2387 5616 I 5620 Mia/ Plant Rd
Debnam, Retha 266-4548 5600 Mia/ Plantation Rd
Dunstan, Ollie 266-1829 5520 Mia/ Plantation Rd
Frison, Brenda 773-1171 546-4197 8549 Old Baucom Road
Hash, David 772-7049 6216 Mial Plantation Rd
Hookins John 772-0739 8321 Old Baucom Road
Howell, Kenny 661-5785 773-7184 2820 Brown Field
Hunter Teri 553-5667 1340 Pine Trail
McKinnon, Charles 266-3073 5708 Mia/ Plantation Rd
Ci ty of RaleiQh 553-5936 8208 Old Baucom Road
Perkins Marvin 771-0714 6200 Mia/ Plantati on Rd
Rhodes William 553-7008 553-7008 6205 Firecracker
" " " 6309 Mial Plantation
" " " 6317 Shotwell/ Mial Plant.
" " " 2862 Shotwell Road
1a o1 e_ ]-I .XIS
August815 DWQ8123
NO3mg/L NO3 mglL
3.8
1.5
1
4.4
2.6
4.1
20.9 21
2.1
0 .1
1.6
24 23
0.7
2.8
2.7
1.7
4.7
4.6
7.1
2.5
5.2
12.4 9.7
1.3
13
0 .3
4.7
6.3
4.1
15.4 18
7.6
" "
TABLE1-1
Private Well Nitrate Nitrogen Results and Water Supply/Service Status
Neuse River Waste Water Treatment Plant
Raleigh , North Carolina
Confirm 9111 January 118 Confirm 2/20 April July Oct Jan'04 April'04
NO 3 mg/L NO3 mg/L NO3 mg/L NO3 mg/L NO3 mglL NO3 mg/L NO3mg/L NO3 mg/L
6.3 3.4 NIA NIA NIA NIA
3 1.4 1.6 1.6 NIA NIA
0.9 1.0 NIA NIA NIA NIA
10.9 4 .3 4 .4 4 .8 NIA NIA NIA
0.1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
6 2.4 2.4 2.7 2.5 2.6
3.9 7.5 3.7 3.8 4.1 5.7 4.2
20 23.4 19.7 20.3 19.5 NIA NIA
2.1 5 2 .2 2.4 2.3 NIA NIA
0.5 0 .5 NIA NIA NIA NIA
1.7 1.4 NIA NIA NIA NIA
23.5 52.9 20.3 23.1 20.3 NIA NIA
0.5 0.5 0.9 NIA NIA NIA
5.9 2.5 3.1 3.2 3.5 3.2
6.4 3.1 3.3 3.9 3.9 3.7
2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.3 2
10.3 4.4 4.7 4.7 5.1 5.6 5.4
8.4 3.8 4.6 3.9 3.7 4.4 3.9
7 15 6.2 7.3 6.6 5.7 7.2 6.5
1.9 2 .9 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.9
5 .2 13.5 6.5 7.4 7 .7 6 .9 NIA NIA
11.6 16.2 15.2 14.4 18 .0 NIA NIA
7.4 2 .6 2.9 NIA NIA NIA
8 .9 20.5 6.9 8.5 8.7 8.7 7.8
0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5
9.6 5 4.3 5.5 5.5 5.4 5.4
0 .5 0 .5 0 .5 0 .5 0.5 0.5
5.8 13.3 10.8 11.2 12.5 13.8 14.2 12.1
4.1 8.7 4.1 4.2 5.0 5.5 5.9 6.6
17.2 37.4 18.4 21.3 NIA NIA NIA
7.8 13.9 7 4.8 8.5 NIA NIA NIA
" " " " NIA NIA NIA NIA
July'04 Oct'04 Jan/Feb '05 April '05 August '05 Bottle Water Bold indicates results greater GWQ std
Currentlv
NO3 mg/L NO3 mg/L NO3 mglL NO3 mglL NO3 mg/L STATUS
agreement rec 4/22, CONNECT 6/10/03, Well
NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA abandoned 11/2612003
agreement rec 7/17, CONNECT 10/14/03, Well
NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA abandoned 11 /1812003
agreement rec 4/25, CONNECT 6/10/03 , Well
NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA abandoned 11 /1712003
agreement rec 7/24, CONNECT 10/1/03, Well
NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NL abandoned 11/2612003
agreement rec 12129/03, CONNECT 6122104,
NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA Well abandoned 9/14/2004
2.5 1.3 NIA NIA NIA a Qreement rec 4/16104 CONNECT9/28/04
agreement rec 12120103, CONNECT611/04,
NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA Well abandoned 09/09/2004
agreement rec 7/24, CONNECT 10/21/03, Well
NIA N/A NIA NIA NIA NL abandoned 4/30/2004
agreement rec 10128, CONNECT 11/18/03,
NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA Well abandoned 01/2812005
agreement rec 4/25, CONNECT 5129/03, Well
NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA abandoned 11 /1812003
City property, CONNECT5/29/03, Well
NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA abandoned 11/1812003
agreement rec 7/24, CONNECT 10/21/03, Well
NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NL abandoned 4/29/2004
agreement rec 4/30, CONNECT 7/14/03, Well
NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA abandoned 11/26/2003
agreement rec 12131/03, CONNECT6/2/04,
NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA Well abandoned 9/13/2004
agreement rec 9/13104.,CONNECT 10/13104,
3.7 6.4 NIA NIA NIA Well abandoned 1127105
agreement rec 9/20/04,CONNECT10/19/04,
2.1 2.4 NIA NIA NIA Well abandoned 12106104
agreement rec 9/13/04,CONNECT10/12104,
4.5 2.1 NIA NIA NIA NL Well abandoned 1127105
agreement rec 9/20/04,CONNECT10/20/04,
2.9 1.0 NIA NIA NIA Well abandoned 1126105
agreement rec 9/13/04.,CONNECT10/12104,
7.4 7.3 NIA NIA NIA NL Well abandoned 1126105
agreement rec 11/29104, CONNECT, Well
4.9 4.1 0.5 NIA NIA abandoned 1126105
agreement rec 7124, CONNECT 10/22/03, Well
NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA abandoned 4/28/04
agreement rec 7/24, CONNECT 12/2/03, Well
NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NL abandoned 4128/04
agreement rec 5/14, CONNECT 8/13/03, Well
NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA abandoned 11/26103
agreement received 2005. Well abandoned
4 .4 6 .1 3.4 8 NIA X 4/18/05
0 .5 0.5 0 .7 0.7 <0.05 not a oolicable -water service not available
agreement rec 9/20I04,CONNECT11/16/04,
7.2 4.8 NIA NIA NIA Well abandoned 1/26105
0.5 0 .5 NIA NIA NIA Ci ty pro perty, Well abandoned
agreement rec 6110104, CONNECT9/16/04,
13.9 NIA NIA NIA NIA NL Well abandoned 1127105
agreement rec 12107/03,CONNECTS/28/04,
NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA Well abandoned 9/8104
agreement rec 6/9, CONNECT 814/03, Well
NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NL abandoned 11/17103
agreement rec 6/9, CONNECT 817/03, Well
NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NL abandoned 11/17103
NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA " served by 6317 , CONNECT 8/7/03
I 0 1 L
PRIVATE WELLS SAMPLED IN VICINITY OF NRWWTP ON DATES NOTED TO RIGHT
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
!)WNER'S NAME
"
Debman Marda
Seawell Vim inia
Wheeler. Pamela
Young, Evelyn
Belvin, Larrv
Ci ty of Ralei Qh
HEATER UTILITIES
Mattress Albert
Wood Wend v & Gerrv
Doremus Stanley & Joan
Mcfarlina . Mike & Beth
Norbera . Eric & Linda
Allemand , Carlton & Lisa
Henderson, Shanon
Coward Shirle v & Bill
Hiah, Johnnie
Watkins, Glenda
Kin a. Ronald
Debnam, Rene/la 45
NOTES:
Home# Work# Address
" . 4608 Roads Hill
5532 Mia/ Plantation
266-1823 5529 Mia/ Plantation Rd
219-2629 6029 Mia/ Plantation Rd
772-4762 8537 Old Baucom Road
553-7188 291-0520 2757 Shotwell Rd
553-5936 8232 Old Baucom Road
467-7854 St JAMES SUBDIVISION
119 Jamison Dr Ral
127 Jamison Dr Ral
143 Jamison Dr
165 Jamison Dr
546-3318 186 Jamison Dr
269 Jamison Dr
773-9843 2750 Shotwell Road
266-3935 5509 Mia/ Plantation Road
266-2496 5409 Mia/ Plantation Road
301-292-8221 5115 Mia/ Plantation Road
773-2303 2834 Shotwell Road
266-2387 5605 Mia/ Plantation Road
August 8/5
NO3 mglL
5.5
4.3
3.1
5.8
17.8
31.8
1.5
These test wells are sampled triennially by the City and these analytical results have been provided by the City.
NL
NO3 Nitrate
mg/L milligrams per liter
Private water supply wells currently active (not abandoned)
Table_1-1.xls
DWQ8/23
NO3mg/L
16
3 .2
TABLE 1-1
Private Well Nitrate Nitrogen Results and Water Supply/Service Status
Neuse River Waste Water Treatment Plant
Raleigh, North Carolina
Confirm 9/11 January 1/8 Confirm 2/20 April July Oct Jan'04 April'04
NO3 mg/L NO3 mg/L NO3 mglL NO3 mg/L NO3 mg/L NO3 mg/L NO3 mglL NO3 mg/L
5.3 14.1 4.8 5.3 5.7 6.3 5.9 5.1
10.8 4.1 5.4 4.8 4.4 5.3 5.0
6 3.7 3.3 3.0 3.1 3.7
5.2 15.1 7.7 8.5 11.5 11.9 14.5 15.0
15.1 38.5 12.5 18.4 18.5 N/A N/A
2.8 2 4.7 2.7 2 .2 NIA NIA
2 .2 2 1.8 0.5 1.1 1.0 0.6
16.7 8.1 8.0 N/A NIA N/A NIA
5.3 0.5 0.5 N/A NIA NIA
3.2 6.2 10.417.1 5.2 4.3
6.4 3.6 3.5 4.0 4.8
6.4 2.6 2 .6 3.2 3.3
5 5.6 5.0 5.6 5.9
4.4 NIA
July'04 Oct'04 Jan/Feb '05 April '05 August'05 Bottle Water Bold indicates results greater GWQ std
Currentl v
NO3 mg/L NO3 mg/L NO3mg/L NO3 mg/L NO3 mglL STATUS
agreement rec 12107I03,CONNECT5/25104,
NIA NIA N/A NIA NIA NL Well abandoned 919104
agreement rec 3111/04, CONNECT614/04, Well
NIA NIA NIA NIA N/A NL abandoned 1126105
agreement rec 7I8/04,CONNECT9/24/04, Well
4.1 0.6 NIA NIA N/A abandoned 1126105
agreement rec 12130/03, CONNECT6/9/04,
NIA NIA NIA NIA N/A NL Well abandoned 9ll/04
agreement rec 8/21, CONNECT 10/21/03, Well
N/A NIA NIA NIA N/A NL abandoned 11/26/03
agreement rec 8/14, CONNECT 10/22/03, Well
N/A NIA NIA NIA NIA NL abandoned 4/29/04
2.6 1.2 NIA NIA NIA Ci ty orooerty Well abandoned
NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NL agreement rec 4/12, CONNECT 4/25/03
NL see above
NL see above
NL see above
NL see above
NL see above
NL see above
agreement rec 5/9 , CONNECT 8/14/03, Well
NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA abandoned 11/18/03
agreement rec 12130/03, CONNECT619/04,
NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NL Well abandoned 9114104
7.5 3.7 NIA 1.8 4.3 Active Well
2.5 1.9 NIA 2.7 2.8 Active Well
agreement rec 1/21/04,CONNECT 9/2/04, Well
2.7 NIA NIA NIA NIA abandoned 12/06/04
agreement rec 9/20104, CONNECT10/21/04,
NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA Well abandoned1/26105
2of2
Sample ID/ Field Sample
Depth Location Date
SB-1 0-7" Field 3 12/12/02
SS-1 0-4' Field 3 11/14/02
SS-1 4-8' Field 3 11/14/02
SS-1 8-12' Field 3 11/14/02
SS-1 12-16' Field 3 11/14/02
SS-1 16-22' Field 3 11/14/02
SB-2 0-7" Field 3 12/12/02
SS-2 0-4' Field 3 11/14/02
SS-2 4-8' Field 3 11/14/02
SS-2 8-12' Field 3 11/14/02
SS-2 12-14' Field 3 11/14/02
SB-3 0-7" Field 100 12/12/02
S83 0-4' Field 100 11/15/02
S83 4-8' Field 100 11/15/02
S83 8-12' Field 100 11/15/02
S83 12-16' Field 100 11/15/02
S83 16-20' Field 100 11/15/02
S83 20-24' Field 100 11/15/02
SB-4 0-7" Field 100 12/12/02
S84 0-4' Field 100 11/15/02
S84 4-8' Field 100 11/15/02
S84 8-12' Field 100 11/15/02
S84 12-16' Field 100 11/15/02
SB4 16-20' Field 100 11/15/02
SB-5 0-7" Field 500 12/23/02
S85 0-4' Field 500 11/15/02
S85 4-8' Field 500 11/15/02
S85 8-12' Field 500 11/15/02
S85 12-16' Field 500 11/15/02
S8516-24' Field 500 11/15/02
SB-6 0-7" Field 500 12/12/02
SB6 0-4' Field 500 11/15/02
S86 4-8' Field 500 11/15/02
S86 8-12' Field 500 11/15/02
D-S86 8-12' Field 500 11/15/02
S86 12-16' Field 500 11/15/02
S86 16-20' Field 500 11/15/02
Field 17 Field 17 Fall 2005
Field 18 Field 18 Fall 2005
Field 19 Field 19 Fall 2005
Field 22 Field 22 Fall 2005
Field 27 Field 27 Fall 2005
Field 28 Field 28 Fall 2005
Field 33 Field 33 Fall 2005
Field 35 Field 35 Fall 2005
Field 36 Field 36 Fall 2005
Field 37 Field 37 Fall 2005
Field 38 Field 38 Fall 2005
Tables_ 1-2_through_ 1-5.xls\T1-2 Soil Results
TABLE 1-2
Soil Analytical Results
City of Raleigh, Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant
Raleigh, North Carolina
Ammonia Nitrate Nitrite Solids TKN
(mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (%) (mg/kg)
1.3 2.9 <1.0 82 1600
1.1 9 <1 80 920
<0.1 9.4 <1 82 14
0.14 16 <1 79 9.3
0.1 18 <1 90 5.1
<0.1 16 <1 89 2.2
1.1 4.1 <1.0 82 1800
0.6 7.9 <1 84 480
<0.1 24 <1 72 24
<0.1 8.1 <1 93 9.2
<0.1 5.9 <1 94 6.5
1.1 8.1 <1.0 81 1800
0.58 23 <1 81 80
0.43 58 <1 67 28
3.1 51 <1 77 27
0.32 24 <1 84 18
0.36 26 <1 86 8.8
0.29 17 <1 90 <0.06
2.2 5.6 <1.0 82 1600
1.1 26 <1 84 69
0.37 61 <1 75 32
0.94 30 <1 83 14
0.39 19 <1 72 9.2
<0.1 27 <1 84 3.1
2.5 <1.0 <2.0 83 1800
0.67 3.5 <1 78 460
<0.1 25 <1 84 37
<0.1 8.9 <1 84 9.6
<0.1 14 <1 85 <0.06
<0.1 9.4 <1 80 <0.06
0.98 2.4 <1.0 88 650
0.6 5 <1 88 670
<0.1 16 <1 82 51
0.6 J 10 <1 82 20
0.23 J 9.9 <1 83 16
<0.1 11 <1 83 31
<0.1 12 <1 79 <0.06
36.2 9.1 NA 99 1389.1
79.1 24.2 NA 97 2051.1
45.3 12.4 NA 97 2530.1
48.3 6.7 NA 98 3229.0
31.8 6.7 NA 97 1485.3
32.6 3.3 NA 97 1273.9
22.0 5.0 NA 97 678.5
36.5 9.3 NA 97 1469.5
46.1 22.3 NA 97 1839.1
30.4 3.0 NA 84 1193.0
17.5 2.0 NA 84 1598.4
TOC
(mg/kg)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
870
400
8530
400
383
296
NA
2260
209
522
3130
331
NA
6310
296
278
70
90
NA
3860
783
679
278
574
350
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Page 1 of2
Sample ID/ Field Sample
Depth Location Date
Field 39 Field 39 Fall 2005
Field 40 Field 40 Fall 2005
Field 42 Field 42 Fall 2005
Field 43 Field 43 Fall 2005
Field 45 Field 45 Fall 2005
Field 49 Field 49 Fall 2005
Field,50 Field 50 Fall 2005
Field 73 Field 73 Fall 2005
Field 511 Field 511 Fall 2005
Notes:
TKN -Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
TOC -Total Organic Carbon
mg/kg -Milligrams per kilogram
J -Estimated value
NA -Not Analyzed
Tables_1-2_through_1-5.xls\T1-2 Soil Results
TABLE 1-2
Soil Analytical Results
City of Raleigh, Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant
Raleigh, North Carolina
Ammonia Nitrate Nitrite Solids TKN
(mg/kg ) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (%) (mg/ka \
32.1 4.0 NA 86 905.7
28.6 3.3 NA 85 497.5
25.0 3.2 NA 84 1247.4
36.1 13.6 NA 84 1461.6
20.6 4.0 NA 83 578.3
28.9 4.1 NA 83 1264.0
33.5 10.4 NA 83 1194.6
28.0 4.6 NA 90 1101.2
29.1 6.9 NA 98 705.3
TOC
(mg/kg )
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Page 2 of2
Tables_ 1-2_through_ 1-5.x ls\T1-3 City Test Wells
Field
Sample ID ID
Test Well 1 Field 12
TestWell 2 Field 28/32
TestWell 3 Field 49
TestWell 4 Field 50
TestWell 9 Field 39
Test Well 11 Field 3
TestWell 13 Field42
TestWell 14 Field 33
Test Well 15 Field 16
TestWell 16 Field 35
TestWell 18 Field 27
TestWell 20 Field 20
TestWell 22 Field 16
TestWell 23 Plant
TestWell 24 Plant
TestWell 25 Field 44/45
TestWell 29 Field 29
TestWell 30 Field 602
Test Well 30 .1 Field 602
TestWell 31 Field 602
TestWell 32 Field 602
TestWell 33 Field 602
TestWell 34 Field 602
Test Well 35 NA
TestWell 36 Field 602
TestWell 37 Field 602
TestWell 41 Field 3
TestWell 42A Field 18/19
TestWell 43 Field 25
TestWell 44 Field 26
TestWell 45 Field 47
TestWell 46 Field 61
TestWell 47 Field 61
TestWell 48 Field 60
TestWell49 Field 74
TestWell 50 Field 75
Test Well 51 (1) Field 12
Test Well 52 (1) Field 41
Test Well 53 (1) Field 62
Test Well 54 (1) Field 503
Test Well 641 Field 602
TestWell 642 Field 602
TestWell 31A Field 602
TestWell 32A Field 602
TestWell 45A Field 47
Test Well 61B Field 61
TestWell 61C Field 61
15A NCAC 2L Standard
Notes:
TABLE 1-3
Groundwater Analytical Results -City Test Wells
City of Raleigh, Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant
Raleigh, North Carolina
Nitrate Concentration (m all )
March 2003 July 2003 November 2003 March 2004 July 2004
ns 32.0 13.0 ns ns
ns 16.7 9.8 ns ns
<0.01 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 ns
ns 0.6 ns ns ns
ns 168.6 ns ns ns
ns 9.5 9.9 ns ns
0.1 3.4 2.1 <0.1 4.7
ns 0.6 5.5 ns ns
ns 37.3 27.8 ns ns
ns 8.7 3.1 ns ns
ns 179.5 130.6 ns ns
1.9 2.2 8.3 2.5 3.4
0.1 0.2 0.2 ns 0.7
ns ns 12.8 ns ns
ns ns 5.8 ns ns
ns ns 0.1 ns ns
ns 21.8 ns ns ns
ns 5.8 7.5 ns ns
ns 5.8 ns ns ns
0.1 <0.1 0.2 0.2 ns
ns 3.8 4.8 ns ns
ns 5.8 6.1 ns ns
ns 49.6 ns ns ns
ns 26.6 ns ns ns
ns 4 .3 3.2 ns ns
ns 2.4 0.4 ns ns
0.6 87.8 15.5 82.7 87.1 / 84.9
107.8 87.2 2.3 114.7 120.8/ 111 .7
0.1 <0.1 3.5 ns ns
7.5 2.9 2.3 5.6 4.9
15.4 9.6 74 .8 9.6 17.7 / 24.7
15.2 1.8 1.6 1.7 4.0
30.9 31.2 32.2 35.3 36.353/34.743
50.6 43.0 51.9 56.8 57.3 / 55.7
0.5 0.4 0.7 1.4 4.2
5.6 37.7 7.5 31.2 34.9 / 34 .5
ns ns ns ns 107.8 / 101.4
ns ns ns ns 79.9 / 75.4
ns ns ns ns 92.3 /68.4
ns ns ns ns 67.7173.8
ns 62.8 ns ns ns
ns 79.4 ns ns ns
ns 33.6 ns ns ns
ns 15 .8 ns ns ns
ns 5.4 ns ns ns
ns 2.2 ns ns ns
ns 3.5 ns ns ns
10
1) Test Wells 51, 52, 53, 54 were previously identified as GP-2, GP-7, GP-11, and GP-20, respectively.
mg/L -Milligrams per Liter
na -not analyzed.
ns -not sampled.
NA -Information Not Available
November 2004 March 2005 July 2005
ns ns ns
ns ns ns
ns ns ns
ns ns ns
ns ns ns
ns ns ns
1.9 <0.10 3.82
ns ns ns
ns ns ns
ns ns ns
ns ns ns
9.3 1.74 3.70
<0.1 ns 0.14
ns ns ns
ns ns ns
ns ns ns
ns ns ns
ns ns ns
ns ns ns
ns ns ns
ns ns ns
ns ns ns
ns ns ns
ns ns ns
ns ns ns
ns ns ns
77.3 / 77.4 80.08 75.17
113.2 / 113.6 125.10 129.45
ns ns ns
5.0 6.32 6.03
34.4 / 24 .1 9.17 56.85
1.2 1.16 1.10
34.1 / 35.9 31.09 32.52
54.2 / 53. 41.00 37.25
1.4 2.21 4.06
28.7 / 28 .5 22.00 27.75
101.8 / 95.7 79.99 77.13
79.1 / 74 .5 93.12 76.41
78.6 /63 .3 59.40 51.86
56.1 / 60 .2 42.95 50.40
ns ns ns
ns ns ns
ns ns ns
ns ns ns
ns ns ns
ns ns ns
ns ns ns
Page 1 of 1
TABLE 1-4
Groundwater Analytical Results -CSA-SSA -Monitoring Wells
City of Raleigh, Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant
Raleigh, North Carolina
Nitrate (mg/L)
Well ID Location November/
December June 2003 July 2003
2002
MW-100 Field 18 12 15 NA
MW-101 Field 31 160 120 NA
MW-101D Field 31 100 J 97 NA
MW-102 Field 37 86 72 NA
MW-103 Field 46 49 36 NA
MW-104 Field 70 24 35 NA
MW-105 Field 50 11 17 NA
MW-105D Field 50 28J 23 NA
MW-106 Field 75 2.5 17 NA
MW-106 (Du o) Field 75 NA 18 NA
MW-107 Field 75 <0 .1 0.12 NA
MW-108 Field 75 4.4 18 NA
MW-109 Field 500 54 52 NA
MW-110 Field 500 33 29 NA
MW-111 Field 500 28 17 NA
MW-1110 Field 500 18 see packer test results below
MW-112 Field 201 15 11 NA
MW-113D Material Recov. 21 J 53 NA
MW-114 Field 63 NA 2.6 NA
MW-115 Field 62 NA 22 NA
MW-116 Field 62 NA 5.5 NA
MW-117 Belvin NA 0.26 NA
MW-118 St. James Sub. NA NA 4 .3
MW-119 St. James Sub . NA NA 0.65
MW-120 King NA <0.05 NA
MW-121 Field 600 NA 0.38 NA
MW-122 Field 70 NA 5 NA
MW-1220 Field 70 NA 1.7 NA
MW-123D Field 12 NA 120 NA
MW-124D Field 26 NA 0.29J NA
MW-124D (Du o) Field 26 NA 0.18 J NA
MW-125D Field 600 NA 12 NA
MW-126D Field 61 NA 6.5 NA
MW-127 Field 71 NA <0.05 NA
GP-1 Field 19 22 18 NA
GP-2 Field 12 77 110 NA
GP-2 (D up) Field 12 74 NA NA
GP-3 Field6 44 6.6 NA
GP-5 Fi eld 11 29 46 NA
GP-6 Field 6 54 35 NA
GP-7 Fi eld 41 58 70 NA
GP-8 Field 63 96 93 NA
GP-9 Field 43 6.7 NA NA
GP-10 Field 48 0.8 0.55 NA
GP-11 Field 63 40 78 NA
GP-12 Field 62 0.12 <0.05 NA
GP-16 (1) Field 500 60 NA NA
GP-17 Field 500 <0 .1 6 .8 NA
GP-18 (1) Field 500 0.87 NA NA
GP-19 (1) Field 500 <0.1 NA NA
Tables_1 -2_through_1-5.xls\T1-4GW -Nitrate
March/April
2004
15.1
164.1
NS
96.1
36.4
43.8
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
27.2
NS
31.8
16.7
NS
7.8
NS
2.4
32.1
7.9
NS
NS
3 .1
0.4
NS
NS
NS
70.0
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
84.2
NS
NS
55.5
NS
69.0
42.3
24.7
0.4
78.7
0.2
NS
NS
NS
NS
Page 1 of2
TABLE 1-4
Groundwater Analytical Results • CSA-SSA -Monitoring Wells
City of Raleigh, Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant
Raleigh, North Carolina
Nitrate (mg/L)
Well ID Location November/
December June 2003 July2003
2002
GP-20 Field 503 180 62 NA
GP-21 Field 75 2.2 1.9 NA
GP-22 Field 74 130 6.9 7.3
MW-1 (MAT REC ) Material NA NA 2.2
MW-3 Recovery NA 53 NA
MW-5 Property NA 0.1 NA
TW-1 Field 12 NS NS NS
TW-11 Field 3 NS NS NS
TW-18 Field 27 NS NS NS
TW-44 Field 26 NA 2 .3 NA
TW-48 Field 60 NA 47 NA
TW-30 Field 601-602 NS NS NS
TW-30.1 Field 601-602 NS NS NS
TW-31A Field 601-602 NS NS NS
TW-32 Field 601-602 NS NS NS
TW-32A Field 601-602 NS NS NS
TW-33 Field 601-602 NS NS NS
TW-34 Field 601-602 NS NS NS
TW-35 Field 601-602 NS NS NS
TW-36 Field 601-602 NS NS NS
TW-37 NS NS NS
PZ-1 Neuse River 0.43 NA NA
PZ-2 Neuse River <0.1 NA NA
PZ-3 Neuse River 22 NA NA
PZ-4 Neuse River 0 .12 NA NA
Packer Testing Results
MW-111 D-60-90FT Field 500 NS 19 NS
MW-111D-90-120FT Field 500 NS 20 NS
PW-39: HEATER-1-40-70Fl St. James Sub. NS 11 NS
=>W-39: HEATER-1-70-100F St. James Sub. NS 6.7 NS
PW-8: (53-72') B. Blowe Res. 20 NS NS
PW-8: (105-135) B. Blowe Res. 20 NS NS
PW-8: (230-290 ) B. Blowe Res. 20 NS NS
15A NCAC 2L Standard 10
Notes:
1) Well decommissioned.
March/April
2004
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
38.5
4.9
181.8
NS
NS
11.0
5.7
43.9
2.6
16.4
5.4
64.8
37.4
3.5
2.3
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
MW -monitoring well; TW -test well; GP -geoprobe point: PZ -piezometer; PW -private well.
J -Estimated value
□up -Field duplicate sample
NA -Not anal vzed I NS -Not sam pl ed
Tables_1-2_through_1-5.xls\T1-4GW-Nitrate Page 2 of 2
TABLE 1-5
Surface Water Analytical Results
City of Raleigh, Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant
Raleigh, North Carolina
Nitrate (m1; /L)
Location November 2002 June 2003 September 2005
SW-1 52 49 43
SW-2 0.39 13 NS
SW-3 52 50 d rv
SW-4 54 47 78
SW-5 0.69 2 NS
SW-6 54 46 70
SW-7 77 83 98
SW-8 1.2 1.6 NS
SW-9 34 36 NS
SW-10 48 19 NS
SW-11 19 47 33
SW-12 52 41 NS
SW-13 0.46 1.3 NS
SW-14 0.21 0.16 NS
SW-15 20 20 NS
SW-16 1.7 6.2 NS
SW-17 5.5 0.97 NS
SW-18 3 1.7 NS
SW-19 16 21 NS
SW-20 3.8 3.3 NS
SW-20 du p 3.5 NS NS
SW-21 0.15 0.18 NS
SW-22 0.25 1.5 NS
SW-23 0.72 NS NS
SW-24 0.53 0.52 NS
SW-25 NS 4.6 NS
SW-26 NS 9.8 d ry
SW-27 NS 14 d rv
SW-28 NS 46 NS
Notes:
mg/L -Milligrams per Liter
NS -Not Sampled
Dup. -Duplicate sample
Tables_1-2_through_1-5.xls\T1-5 SW -Nitrate
November 2005
41
5.6
55
58
0.45
53
80
0.8
49
67
26
59
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
Page 1 of 1
I.
II.
Table 2-1
Opinion of Probable Costs to Install and Operate a Groundwater Extraction System along the Site Compliance
Boundary with Discharge to the NRWWTP (Alternative 1)
Neuse River Wastewater Treabnent Plant (NRWWTP)
Raleigh, North Carolina
DESCRIPTION NOTES UNITS QTY UNIT COST
($)
Design Services
1. Project Management/Coordination al Is $28,300
2. Additional Groundwater Modeling (to finalize recovery wells) b/ Is $10,000
3. Engineering Design/Work Plan/Contract Docments Preparation/HASP cl Is $200,000
4. Regulatory Negotiations/Meetings Is $5,000
5. Access Agreements/Negotiations Is 1 $30,000
6. Pre-bid Meeting/Contractor Selection/Contracting Is 1 $10,000
Subtotal Design Services Costs
7. Contingency (20% of Design Services Costs) Is $56,700
Total Design Services Costs
PW of Total Design Services Costs di
(Distribution in Year 1)
Construction and Startup Costs
1. Construction Costs
1. Mobilization/Demobilization/Setup Is $25,000
2. Site Clearance/Temporary Road Construction el Is $75,980
3. Installation of GW Ews along Comp. Boundary (where required) ff ea 426 $5,950
4. IDW Disposal (drilling cuttings/non-hazardous) cy 979 $55
5. Extraction Well vaults (abovegrade) and guardposts ea 426 $1,210
6. Extraction Well pumps and Level Switches h/ ea 426 $2,320
7. Well Head Fittings, and Valves, and Instrumentation ii ea 426 $750
8. Trenching (for groundwater recovery pipe installation) j/ If 200000 $3
9. Backfilling trenches cy 29630 $2
10 . lift-stations/Booster Stations II Is 6 $50,000
11. GW Piping to Treatment Plant ml If 180000 $50
12. As-built survey Is $50,000
13. Site Cleanup/Restoration Is $10,000
14. Electrical hookup/wiring nl Is $270,000
15. Electrical Control Panel (groundwater extraction/discharge system) ac/ ea 10 $25,000
Subtotal Construction Costs
2. Engineering Services
1. Record Drawings/Construction Report/O&M Manual Is $60,000
2 . Engineering Oversight (labor and expenses) ol Is $171,000
3. System startup/shake down Is $50,000
4. Project Management/Coordination al Is $28,100
Subtotal Engineering Services Costs
3. Contingency (20% of Capital Costs)
Total Construction and Engineering Services Cost
PW of Conatruction and Engineering Services Cost d/
(Distribution in Year 2)
Probable Cost Estimates for GW Alternatives.xis
TOTAL COST
($)
$28,300
$10,000
$200,000
$5,000
$30,000
$10,000
$283,300
$56,700
$340,000
$323,400
$25,000
$75,980
$2,534,700
$53,850
$515,460
$988,320
$319,500
$582,430
$59,260
$300,000
$9,000,000
$50,000
$10,000
$270,000
$250,000
$15,034,500
$60,000
$171,000
$50,000
$28,100
$309,100
$3,068,700
$18,412,300
$16,660,800
Page 1 of9
Table 2-1
Opinion of Probable Costs to Install and Operate a Groundwater Extraction System along the Site Compliance
Boundary with Discharge to the NRWWTP (Alternative 1)
Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant (NRWWTP)
Raleigh, North Carolina
DESCRIPTION NOTES
Ill. Operation, Maintenance, and Monitoring (OMM)Costs
a. Annual O&M and Monitoring (30 years)
1. System O&M (Year 1 through 30)
a . Project Management/sub oversight al
b. System O&M Labor/expenses p/
C. Treatment of extracted water at NRWWTP ab/
d. Electrical Power q/
e . Equipment Repair/Replacement
f. Data review/engineering support
Subtotal Annual O&M Cost
2. Triennial Groundwater and Surface water Monitoring
a. Project Management/Coordination al
b. Labor -sampling (Monitoring wells and surface water monitoring) r/
C. Labor -sampling (Extraction wels annually) rl
d. Analyticals: 26 samples including QNQC samples per event r/
e. Analyticals: 88 EW samples + QNQC (annual) rl
f. Equipment rental/Reimbursable
g. Monitoring report to Agency
h . Regulatory Negotiations/Meetings
Subtotal Annual Monitoring Cost (annual)
3. Contingency (20% of Annual O&M and Monitoring Costs)
Total Annual OMM Cost
PW of Annual OMM for Years 1 thru' 30 d/
(Distribution in Years 3 through 32)
V, Decommissioning Costs
1. a . Project Management/Coordination al
b. Abandon Extraction Pumps/discharge piping s/
C. Abandon Extraction and Monitoring Wells s/
C. Labor/expenses
d . Regulatory Negotiations/Meetings
e. Closure Report
Subtotal Decommissioning Costs
2. Contingency (20% of Annual Decommissioning Costs)
Total Decommissioning Costs
PW of Decommissioning Costs (Year 31) d/
(Distribution in Year 33)
PW OF TOTAL PROBABLE COSTS d/
TOTAL PROBABLE COSTS FOR P& T (30 years; without present worth)
Notes/Kev Assu mpstions:
a/ Project management and coordinating all project related activitities.
b/ Requires additional capture zone & fate and transport modeling to design well locations.
c/ Detailed design of the remediation system for equipment selection and construction.
UNITS
Is
ea
MG
kw-hr
Is
ea
Is
ea
ea
ea
ea
ea
Is
Is
Is
Is
If
Is
Is
Is
QTY UNIT COST
($)
$75,400
28 $2,400
448 $750
2,813,258 $0.10
1 $25,000
12 3,740
$8,400
3 $B,000
1 $6,000
78 $15
100 $15
3 $2,500
3 $10,000
1 $5,000
$55,700
$100,000
34350 $6
1 $13,000
$5,000
$10,000
TOTAL COST
($)
$75,400
$67,200
$335,860
$281,330
$25,000
$44,880
$829,670
$8,400
$24,000
$6,000
$1,170
$1,500
$7,500
$30,000
$5,000
$84,000
$182,730
$1,096,400
$15,036, 100
$55,700
$100,000
$206,100
$13,000
$5,000
$10,000
$389,800
$77,960
$467,760
$89,900
$32,110,200
$52,112,060
d/ Present worth costs were estimated based on a net annual discount rate of 5.125% (provided by the City), assuming year-end distribution.
e/ Assume 10 acre of tree/shrub clearance for piping/well installation and 2500 feet of gravel road for access to drill rig.
f/ Assume 426 Extraction Wells (EW) in areas where nitrates exceeds 2L standards beyond the compliance boundary (100-ft spacing)
based on flow modeling. Wells are assumed to be constructed of 6-in dia PVC casing and screen.
The avg. depth of wells is considered to be 70 ft with 40-ft screen.
h/ Assume electric submersible pumps with level controls. Assume pumps to operate continuously at 0.5 BHP and 70% efficiency.
i/ Instrumentation includes gauges and totalizer for flow recording.
j/ Shallow trenching (2 ft deep) for recovery well piping and discharge piping (assumed to be a total of 60000 ft based on topography and accessible areas)
No pavement removal or site clearing assumed along trenching locations. Use excavated soil for backfilling.
V Assumes installation of 6 booster/lift stations between the extraction system and discharge to NRWWTP (effluent discharge).
These stations are assumed to include a small pre-fabricated fiberglass buidling, polyethylene tank w/pump and controls.
Probable Cost Estimates for GW Alternatives.xis Page 2 of 9
Table 2-1
Opinion of Probable Costs to Install and Operate a Groundwater Extraction System along the Site Compllance
Boundary with Discharge to the NRWWTP (Alternative 1)
Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant (NRWWTP)
Ralelgh, North Carollna
DESCRIPTION NOTES UNITS
m/ Assumes 6inch diameter ductile iron pipe to convey water to the treatment plant installed in trenches.
n/ Electrical hookup to extraction wells and control panels.
QTY UNIT COST
($)
TOTAL COST
($)
o/ Assumes 35 weeks for installation. Includes labor and expenses for a ful-time construction oversight and project management/coordination.
p/ Assumes three-day visits, twice a month plus 4 contingent visits by a qualified technician .
q/ Assumes 0.5 hp/extraction pump, 10 transfer/effluent pumps and 6-10 hp pumps in the lift/booster stations operating at 75% efficiency and $0.1/kw-hr ul
r/ Assume sampling of 12 MWs + 10 surface water locations three times a year. In addition 88 extraction wells will be sampled once a year.
Assume 4 days to sample by 2 technicians for the monitoring wells plus travel related expenses. Assumes additional 3 days for two
technicians to sample extraction wells. The samples wil be analyzed for nitrates.
s/ Assumes in-place abandonment of recovery & monitor wels and diseharge piping (no excavation/removal).
ab/ The extracted water will be treated at the NRWWTP along with the other wastewater. Assumes 2 gpm per·well with continuous operation.
The rate used is $750/MG as provided by the City personnel.
ac/ Assume 1 0 separate collection system with individual control panels to operate recovery wells in that system .
-The recovery system is assumed to be operated for approximately 30 years.
-Contingency used for each item varies and is based on infonmation available at the time of preparing these costs and previous with similar projects.
-Costs are based on vendor information, contractors' estimate, cost estimation manuals, and past experience. Actual costs can vary depending
upon the final design and project/site conditions .
-Abbreviations: ea = each; Is= lump sum; hr= hours; CY= cubic yards; LF = linear feet; gal -gallons; wk= week; MG = Million Gallons
-Total Costs are rounded to nearest $10 and the present worth costs are rounded to nearest $100.
Probable Cost Estimates for GW Alternatives .xis Page 3of9
Table 2-1
Opinion of Probable Costs for Enhanced Denltrlflcation (EON) In Proposed Variance Areas (Alternative 1)
Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant
Raleigh, North Carolina
DESCRIPTION NOTES UNITS QTY UNIT COST TOTAL COST
($) ($)
I. Design Services
1. Project ManagemenUCoordination al Is 1 $17,800 $17,800
2. Pilot Test of Enhanced Denitrification b/ Is 1 $100,000 $100,000
3. Engineering Design/Work Plan/Contract Docments/HASP for Full Scale cl Is 1 $30,000 $30,000
4. Regulatory Negotiations/Meetings Is 1 $5,000 $5,000
6. Underground Injection Control Permit s/ Is 1 $10,000 $10,000
7. Access Agreements/Negotiations el Is 1 $10,000 $10,000
8. Pre-bid Meeting/Contractor Selection/Contracting Is 1 $5,000 $5,000
Subtotal Design Services Costs $177,800
9. Contingency {20% of Design Services Costs) · $35 ,600
Total Design Services Costs $213,400
PW of Total Design Services Costs d/ $203,000
{Distribution in Year 1)
II. Construction and Startup Costs
1. Construction Costs
1 Mobilization/Demobilization Is $8,000 $8,000
2 Site Clearance/Temporary Road Construction fl Is $375,510 $375,510
3 Injection well installation {along Fields 50, 500 and 60) gt ea 195 $2,400 $468,000
4 Injection well installation {west, northwest areas, Old Baucom Rd) g/ ea 3477 $1,950 $6,780,150
5 Injection well installation {Mial Plant&Old Baucom) g/ ea 584 $1;950 $1,138,800
6 Injection well installation {beyond southernmost fields) g/ ea 895 $1,950 $1,745,250
7 Injection Well Installation {beyond East fields and Neuse River) gt ea 875 $1,950 $1,706,250
8 Injection System {portable mixing tank/storage/pumps/piping) h/ Is 1 $200,000 $200,000
9 Installation of GW monitoring wells (for performance monitoring) i/ ea 50 $1,950 $97,500
10 IDW disposal (spread on site) cy 5840 $10 $58,400
Subtotal Construction Costs $12,577,900
2. Engineering Services
1. Record Drawings/Construction Report/O&M Manual Is $40,000 $40,000
2. Engineering Oversight (labor and expenses) j/ Is $1,006,232 $1,006,230
3. Project ManagemenUCoordination Is $73,200 $73,200
Subtotal Engineering Services Costs $1,119,400
3. Contingency (20% of Construction and Engineering Costs) $2,739,500
Total Construction and Engineering Services Costs $16,436,800
PW of Construction and Engineering Services Cost d/ $15,635,500
(Distribution in Year 1)
Ill. Operation, Maintenance, and Monitoring (OMM) Costs
a. O&M and Monitoring {Years 1 and 2)
1. O&M -Enhanced Denitrication (quarterly injection)
a. Project ManagemenUsub oversighUtroubleshooting al Is 1 $74,100 $74,100
b. Carbon Source (assumes com syrup for pricing purposes) kl gal 964,160 $2.50 $2,410,400
c. Potable Water {for making reagent solution) k/ gal 4,820,800 $0.010 $48,200
d. O&M labor I/ hr 16990 $50 $849,500
e. Piping/Fittings/Mixing Tank/Pump Repair/Replacement Is 1 $4,000 $4,000
f . Truck Rental ea 12 $600 $7,200
g. Project Expenses (gasoline/per diem) ea 12 $600 $7,200
h. Engineering Support/Data Review ea 12 $3,080 $36,960
Probable Cost Estimates for GW Alternatives .xis 4 of9
Table 2-1
Opinion -of Probable Costs for Enhanced Denitriflcatlon (EON) In Proposed Variance Areas (Alternative 1)
Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant
Raleigh, North Carolina
DESCRIPTION NOTES UNITS QTY UNIT COST TOTAL COST
($) ($)
2. Triennial Monitoring (50 MWs + 50 lnj. wells+ 10 QNQC samples)
a. Project Management/Coordination al Is 1 $10,800 $10,800
b. Labor -sampling ml ea 3 $29,000 $87,000
C. Analytical: 100 samples plus 10 QNQC samples n/ ea 330 $15 $4,950
d. Analytical: Limited Biogeochemical Parameters of ea 20 $200 $4,000
e. Equipment rental/expenses (triennial) p/ ea 3 $4,500 $13,500
f. Monitoring report to Agency (triennial) Is 3 $10,000 $30,000
Subtotal Annual O&M and Monitoring Cost $3,587,800
3. Contingency (20% of Annual O&M and Monitoring Costs) $717,600
Total Annual O&M and Monitoring Cost $4,305,400
PW of O&M and Monitoring Costs d/ $7,601,800
(Distribution in Year 2 and 3)
b. Year 3 Monitoring
1. Triennial Groundwater and Su°rfacewater Monitoring (1 year)
a. Project Management/Coordination al Is 1 $10,800 $10,800
b. Labor -sampling (triennial) ml ea 3 $29,000 $87,000
c. Analytical: 60 samples including QNQC samples n/ ea 330 $15 $4,950
d. Analytical: Limited Biogeochemical Parameters o/ ea 20 $200 $4,000
e. Equipment rental/expenses p/ ea 3 $4,500 $13,500
f. Monitoring report to Agency Is 3 $10,000 $30,000
Subtotal Monitoring Cost $150,300
2. Contingency (20% of Annual Monitoring Costs) $30,100
Total Annual Monitoring Cost (1 year) $180,400
PW of Monitoring Costs (1 year) d/ $147,700
(Distribution in Year 4)
IV. Decommissioning Costs
1. a. Project Management/Coordination al Is 1 $62,600 $62,600
b. Abandon Injection and Monitoring Wells r/ If 458100 $4 $1,832,400
c. Labor/expenses Is 1 $20,000 $20,000
d. Regulatory Negotiations/Meetings Is 1 $5,000 $5,000
e. Closure Report Is 1 $20,000 $20,000
Subtotal Decommissioning Costs $1,940,000
2 . Contingency (20% of Annual Monitoring Costs) $388,000
Total Decommisioniong Costs $2,328,000
PW of Decommlsioning Costs $1,813,200
(Distribution in Year 5)
PW OF TOTAL PROBABLE COSTS d/ $25,401,200
TOTAL PROBABLE COSTS FOR EON (2 years; without present worth) $27,769,400
Notes/Key Assum pstions:
al Project management and coordinating all project related activities.
b/ Assumes 6 months pilot test including installation of 6 injection/monitoring wells, sampling and analysis and reporting. These wells will be used for
full-scale application.
cf Detailed design of the remediation system for equipment selection and HASP preparation.
d/ Present worth costs were estimated based on a net annual discount rate of 5.125% (provided by the City), assuming year-end distribution.
e/ Access agreement for well installation and injection permitting .
fl Assumes 100 acres of tree/shrub clearance for piping/well installation and 10000 feet of gravel road for access to drill rig and injection rig .
g/ Assumes installation of 2" PVC wells to an avg. depth of 80 ft in Field 50, 500 and 60 and 65 ft in other areas where the GW model predicts the
migration of nitrate impacted groundwater. Assumes 50 x 50 ft spacing will be required to establish reactive (denitrification) zones. Actual well
locations and spacing will be based on a pilot test.
h/ 6000-gallon storage tanks , 2000-gallon injection trailers , portable pumps and piping at a few locations to cover the injection wells.
i/ Assume 50 additional 2-inch dia. monitoring wells (MWs) will be required in areas to monitor denitrification performance.
j/ Assumes Engineering oversight cost is 8% of the Construction Costs.
k/ Assume injection of 100 gallons of 20% solution per well quarterly for the first 2 years;
Probable Cost Estimates for GW Alternatives.xis 5of9
Table 2-1
Opinion of Probable Costs for Enhanced Denltrlflcation (EDN) In Proposed Variance Areas·(Alternative 1)
Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant
Raleigh, North Carolina
DESCRIPTION NOTES UNITS QTY UNIT COST
($)
TOTAL COST
($)
Water is assumed to be available locally.
I/ Assumes 0.6 hr for mixing and injection of approximately 200 gallons of electron donor solution (20% strength) per injection event per well.
ml Assumes 3 weeks for 2 technicians to sample wells during each event plus travel related expenses .
n/ Analysis of 100 samples plus 10 QA/QC samples/event for nitrate. Sampling for compliance wells and other monitoring wells on-site are
included in the costs for pump and treat along the compliance boundary.
o/ Limited blogeochemical analysis: DO, ORP, nitrates, nitrite, ammonia, BOD, COD, alkalinity, methane and carbon dioxide.
r/ Assumes in-place abandonment of injection & monitor wells.
s/ UIC permit to install and operate injection wells.
-These costs are preliminary and are based on groundwater flow modeling.
-Total Project Life is assumed to be approximately 4years.
-Contingency used for each item varies and is based on information available at the time of preparing these costs and previous with similar projects.
-Costs are based on vendor information, contractors' estimate, cost estimation manuals, and past experience. Actual costs can vary depending
-upon the final design and project/site conditions.
-Abbreviations: ea= each ; Is ·= lump sum; hr= hours; CY= cubic yards; LF = linear feet; gal -gallons; wk= week; MG= Million Gallons
-Total Costs are rounded to hearest $10 and the present worth costs are rounded to nearest $100.
Probable Cost Estimates for GW Alternatives.xis 6 of9
Table 2-2
Preliminary Opinion of Probable Costs to Install and Operate a Groundwater Remediation System
in Field 50 and 500 with Discharge to the NRWWTP, and Long-term Monitoring in Other Areas (Alternative 2)
Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant (NRWWTP)
Raleigh, North Carolina
DESCRIPTION NOTES UNITS QTY UNIT COST TOTAL COST
($) ($)
I. Design Services
1. Project Management/Coordination al Is $6,100 $6,100
2. Engineering Design/Work Plan/Contract Documents Preparation/HASP b/ Is $30,000 $30,000
3. Regulatory Negotiations/Meetings Is 1 $5,000 $5,000
4. Access Agreements/Negotiations c/ Is 1 $20,000 $20,000
5 . Pre-bid Meeting/Contractor Selection/Contracting is 1 $5,000 $5,000
Subtotal Design Services Costs $66,100
6. Contingency (20% of Design Services Costs) $13,200
Total Design Services Costs $79,300
PW of Total Design Services Costs d/ $75,400
(Distribution in Year 1)
II. Construction and Startup Costs
1 . Construction Costs
1. Mobilization/Demobilization/Setup Is $10,000 $10,000
2. Site Clearance/Temporary Road Construction el Is $21,500 $21,500
3. Installation of GW Recovery Wells in Field #50 (7 wells) fl ea 7 $6,800 $47,600
4 . Installation of GW Recovery Wells in Field #500 (22 wells) fl ea 22 $5,100 $112,200
5. IDW Disposal (spread onsite) gt cy 62 $10 $620
6. Recovery Well vaults (abovegrade) and guardposts ea 29 $1,210 $35,090
7. Recovery Well pumps and Level Switches h/ ea 29 $2,320 $67,280
8. Well Head Fittings, and Valves, and Instrumentation i/ ea 29 $750 $21,750
9 . Trenching (for groundwater recovery pipe installation) j/ If 22000 $3 $66,420
10. Backfilling trenches j/ cy 3260 $2 $6,520
11. GW Piping to NRWWTP I/ If 22000 $50 $1,100,000
12. Jack-and-bore under Old Baucom, Brownfieid, and Battle bridge road of Is 1 $60,000 $60,000
13. Lift-station/Booster Station/Pump Station/Wet well r/ Is 1 $50,000 $50,000
14. As-built survey Is $20,000 $20,000
15. Electric hookup/Wiring/Power Drop p/ Is 1 $37,800 $37,800
16. Electrical Control Panel (groundwater extraction system) Is $40,000 $40,000
17. Site Cleanup/Restoration Is $5,000 $5,000
Subtotal Construction Costs $1,701,780
2 . Engineering Services
1. Record Drawings/Construction Report/O&M Manual Is $25,000 $25,000
2. Engineering Oversight (labor and expenses) q/ Is $77,000 $77,000
3. System startup/shake down Is $20,000 $20,000
4 . Project Management/Coordination al Is 1 $12,200 $12,200
Subtotal Engineering Services Costs $134,200
3. Contingency (20% of Construction and Engineering Services Costs) $367,200
Total Construction and Engineering Services Cost $2,203,180
PW of Construction and Engineering Services Cost d/ $1,993,600
(Distribution in Year 2)
Probable Cost Estimates for GW Alternatives .xis Page 7of9
Table 2-2
Preliminary Opinion of Probable Costs to Install and Operate a Groundwater Remediation System
in Field 50 and 500 with Discharge to the NRWWTP, and Long-term Monitoring in Other Areas (Alternative 2)
Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant (NRWWTP)
Raleigh, North Carolina
DESCRIPTION NOTES UNITS QTY UNIT COST TOTAL COST
Ill. Operation, Maintenance, and Monitoring (OMM) Costs
a .
V.
Annual O&M and Monitoring (30 years)
1. System O&M
a. Project Management/sub oversight al
b. System O&M Labor/expenses ti
C. Electrical Power u/
d . Equipment Repair/Replacement
e. Data review/engineering support
Subtotal Annual O&M Cost
2. Triennial Monitoring (10 MWs + 29 EWs + 2 surface water samples+ 4 QA/QC samples)
a . Project Management/Coordination
b . Labor -sampling (triennial)
C. Analyticals: 10 MWs + 2 surface water samples + 4 QA/QC samples
d. Analyticals: 29 EW samples + 4 QA/QC samples (annual)
e. Equipment rental (annual)/Reimbursable
f . Monitoring report to Agency (triennial)
g . Regulatory Negotiations/Meetings
Subtotal Annual Monitoring Cost (annual)
3 . Contingency (20% of Annual O&M and Monitoring Costs)
Total Annual OMM Cost
PW of Annual OMM for Years 1 -30
(Distribution in Years 3 through 32)
Decommissioning Costs
1. a . Project Management/Coordination
b . Abandon Extraction Pumps/discharge piping
C. Abandon Extraction and Monitoring Wells
d. Labor/expenses
e. Regulatory Negotiations/Meetings
f. Closure Report
Subtotal Decommissioning Costs
2. Contingency (20% of Annual Decommissioning Costs)
Total Decommissioning Costs
al
v/
xi
xi
di
al
zJ
zJ
PW of Decommissioning Costs (Year 31) d/
(Distribution in Year 33)
PW OF TOTAL PROBABLE COSTS di
TOTAL PROBABLE COSTS for Fields 50 and 500 (without present worth)
Probable Cost Estimates for GW Alternatives .xis
Is
ea 28
kw-hr 387,585
Is 1
ea 12
Is 1
ea 3
ea 48
ea 33
ea 3
Is 3
Is
Is 1
Is 1
If 4280
Is
Is
Is
($)
$10,600
$1,350
$0.10
$4 ,000
2,140
$6,400
$6,000
$15
$15
$1,000
$10,000
$5,000
$13,000
$20,000
$8
$9,000
$5,000
$10,000
($)
$10,600
$37,800
$38,760
$4,000
$25,680
$116,840
$6,400
$18,000
$720
$500
$3,000
$30,000
$5,000
$63,600
$36,090
$216,530
$2,969,500
$13,000
$20,000
$34,240
$9,000
$5,000
$10,000
$91 ,200
$18 ,240
$109,440
$21,000
$5,059,500
$8 ,887,820
Page 8of9
Table 2-2
Preliminary Opinion of Probable Costs to Install and Operate a Groundwater Remediation System
in Field 50 and 500 with Discharge to the NRWWTP, and Long-term Monitoring In Other Areas (Alternative 2)
Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant (NRWWTP)
Raleigh, North Carollna
DESCRIPTION NOTES UNITS
Notes/Key Assumpstions :
a/ Project management and coordinating all project related activitities.
b/ Detailed design of the remediation system for equipment selection and construction.
c/ Access agreement for piping installation;
QTY UNIT COST
($)
di Present worth costs were estimated based on a net annual discount rate of 5.125%, assuming year-end distribution .
el Assume 3 .0-acre of tree/shrub clearance for piping/well installation and 700 feet of gravel road for access to drill rig .
TOTAL COST
($)
f/ Based on groundwater modeling , 29 Extraction Wells (EW) is assumed to be required in Fields 50 and 500. Wells will be constructed
of 6-in dia PVC casing and screen. The depth of wells in Field 50 will be approx. 80 ft with 20-ft screen and depth of welts in Fields 500 will
be approx. 60 ft with 20-ft screen. In addition four 2-inch diameter MWs will be installed in select areas for long-term monitoring.
g/ Assume that the IDW can be sprayed onsite on the biosolids application fields .
h/ Assume electric submersible pumps with level controls. Assume pumps to operate continuously at 0.5 BHP and 70% efficiency.
i/ Instrumentation includes gauges and totalizer for flow recording .
j/ Shallow trenching (2 ft deep) for recovery well piping and collection piping all the way to the digesters (assumed to be ~22000 ft based
on topography and accessible areas. No pavement removal or site clearing assumed along trenching locations. Use excavated soil for backfilling .
I/ Groundwater piping to the NRWWTP (assumes 6-inch dia. Ductile iron pipe).
o/ Assumes jack and bore drilling for pipe crossing underneath the Old Baucom Road, Brown Field Road, and Battle Bridge Road.
p/ Electrical hookup to extraction welts and control panel.
q/ Assumes ?weeks for installation . Includes labor and expenses for a full-time construction oversight and project management/coordination.
r/ Assumes installation of 1 booster/lift station between the extraction system and discharge to Neuse River Treatment Plant (effluent discharge).
This station is assumed to be in accordance with City of Raleigh Pump station requirements.
ti Assumes two-day visits, twice a month plus 4 contingent visits by a qualified technician.
u/ Assumes 0.5 hp/extraction pump, 2 -15 hp pumps in the lift stations operating at 70% efficiency and $0.1/kw-hr utility cost.
v/ Assumes 3 days by 2 technicians for sampling of 12 monitoring wells and 29 extraction wells and system sampling triennially for the
life of the project plus! travel-related expenses .
xi Analysis of 12 GW samples + 10 surface water samples + 4 QNQC samples/event triennially for nitrate. Analysis of 29 EW samples annually for r
These costs do not include sampling compliance (test) wells required under the biosolids permit.
z/ Assumes in-place abandonment of recovery & monitor wells and discharge piping (no excavation/removal).
-The recovery system is assumed to be operated for approximately 30 years.
-Contingency used for each item varies and is based on information available at the time of preparing these costs and previous with similar project:
-Costs are based on vendor information, contractors' estimate, cost estimation manuals, and past experience. Actual costs can vary depending
upon the final design and project/site conditions.
-Abbreviations: ea = each; Is= lump sum; hr= hours; CY = cubic yards; LF = linear feet; gal -gallons; wk = week; MG = million gallons
-Total Costs are rounded to nearest $10 and the present worth costs are rounded to nearest $100 .
Probable Cost Estimates for GW Alternatives .xis Page 9 of9
Table 3-1
Proposed Performance Monitoring Requirements
Revised Corrective Action Plan
City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department (CORPUD)
Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant (NRWWTP)
Raleigh, North Carolina.
Analytical Requirememts Estimated Yearly Schedule of Full-Scale Operation•
Sampling Parameter Analytical Method Month Month Month Month Month Month Month Month Month Month Month
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Field Parameters
Dissolved Oxygen Horiba U-22 X X
Redox Horiba U-22 X X
pH Horiba U-22 X X
Temperature Horiba U-22 X X
Specific Conductance Horiba U-22 X X
Anal:tj ical Parameters
Nitrate USEPA 353.2/300.0 X X
NOTES:
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
SM Standard Methods
* = The yearly schedule is based on triennial sampling events and may be revised based on performance of the groundwater extraction system.
Performance monitoring includes 10 monitoring wells to be sampled three times a year. In addition, 29 extraction wells will be sampled annually.
Month 12
X
X
X
X
X
X
C ITY OF RALEI G H
Neuse River W aste W ater Treatment Plant
Raleigh, North Carolina
H uman Health R is k A ssessmen t
Prepared by:
INTERNATIONAL
ENSR Consulting and Engineering (NC), Inc.
7041 Old Wake Forest Road, Suite 103
Raleigh, North Carolina 27616
November 2005
Etal
NBiiiWIM
CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.1 Human Health Risk Assessment ........................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 .1 Data Evaluation and Hazard Assessment.. ................................................................ 1-2
1.1.2 Toxicity Assessment. ................................................................................................... 1-2
1.1.3 Exposure Assessment ................................................................................................ 1-3
1.1. 3. 1 Receptors and Exposure Routes ................................................................ 1-3
1.1.3.2 Potential Exposure Doses ........................................................................... 1-3
1.1.3.3 Exposure Point Concentrations .................................................................. 1-6
1.1.4 Risk Characterization .................................................................................................. 1-6
1.1.5 Uncertainties ................................................... , ............................................................ 1-7
1.1.6 Summary ..................................................................................................................... 1-8
1.1 . 7 References .................................................................................................................. 1-8
S:IPUBSIPROJECT'IR\Raleigh_City of\CAP
Work\Revised
CAP _NovOS\Risk_Assessmenl\111805-
November. 2005
Etell
t11l¥:P&W%H
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Chemical Specific Parameters
Table 2. Summary of Potential Exposure Assumptions -Child!Teenager, Wading in Surface Water
Table 3. Summary of Potential Exposure Assumptions -Resident
Table 4. Development of Exposure Point Concentrations for Nitrate in Groundwater
Table 5. Development of Exposure Point Concentrations fofNitrate in Surface Water
Table 6. Total Potential Hazard Index
S:IPUBSIPROJECT\R\Raleigh_City of\CAP
Work\Revised
CAP _NovOS\Risk_Assessment\111805-
ii November, 2005
Et.1l
ht4V.Z@◄M
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Executive Summary
A baseline human health risk assessment (HHRA) was conducted for nitrate in surface water and
groundwater at the City of Raleigh, North Carolina's Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant
(NRWWTP) site. Potential receptors were a child/teenage wader at Beddingfield Creek and the other
Neuse River tributaries and a hypothetical future resident using site groundwater for potable and/or
non-potable uses. Exposure assumptions were selected in accordance with USEPA guidance
(USEPA, 1989; 1991; 1997; 2004b). Exposure point concentrations for surface water were selected as
the maximum detected concentration from the last three sampling events and the average
concentration (temporal and area). Noncarcinogenic Hazard Indices (His) were calculated for the
ingestion and dermal routes of exposure. There were no unacceptable risks for exposure to surface
water or for exposure to groundwater used for a non-potable purpose (swimming pool), based on
comparison of the His to the USEPA limit of 1.0. However, the His for potable use of groundwater
exceeded 1.0, indicating a potentially unacceptable risk for site groundwater used as drinking water.
1.1 Human Health Risk Assessment
ENSR conducted this baseline HHRA to evaluate potential risks that may be posed by the
concentrations of nitrate in groundwater and surface water related to biosolids application at farm fields
located at the Neuse River Wastewater Treatment·Plant (NRWWTP) in Raleigh, North Carolina. The
application areas are bounded to the north and east by the Neuse River and to the south by
Beddingfield Creek. The area of interest and sampling locations are presented in Figure 1-2 of the
revised Corrective Action Plan (CAP) (ENSR, 2005). Groundwater quality studies conducted as part of
the Comprehensive Site Assessment (ENSR, 2002) and the Supplemental Site Assessment (ENSR,
2003) indicated that, in some groundwater and surface water samples, concentrations exceeded the
US EPA Maximum Contaminant Limit (MCL) of 10 milligrams per liter (mg/L (USE PA, 2002; 2004a).
The private water supply wells were later closed and the properties connected to the municipal water
supply.
The HHRA was conducted consistent with US EPA guidance, including, but not limited to, the following:
• Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS): Volume 1 -Human . Health Evaluation
Manual (Parts A, B, C) (USEPA, 1989; 1991a);
• USEPA Region 4 Human Health Risk Assessment Bulletins -Supplement to RAGS
(USEPA, 2000b);
• Human Health Evaluation Manual Supplemental Guidance; Standard Default Exposure
Factors. OSWER Directive 9285.6-03 (USEPA, 1991 b); and
S :IPUBSIPROJECT\R\Raleigh_City ol\CAP Wor11\Revised CAP _NovOS\Risk_Assessment\111805-Risk_Assessment.doc November, 2005
1-1
Etal
AWiZWM M
• Exposure Factors Handbook (USEPA, 1997);
The baseline HHRA has been conducted in accordance with the four-step paradigm for human health
risk assessments developed by USEPA (USEPA, 1989). These steps are:
• Data Evaluation and Hazard Identification
• Toxicity Assessment
• Exposure Assessment
• Risk Characterization
1.1.1 Data Evaluation and Hazard Assessment
Groundwater samples were collected in ten sampling events between November 2002 and July 2005
and surface water samples were collected in four sampling events between November 2002 and
September 2005. All samples were analyzed for nitrate, which was detected in the majority of samples
collected from the over 90 groundwater monitoring wells and from the 28 surface water sampling
stations. Groundwater data are summarized in Tables 1-3 and 1-4 and surface water data are
summarized in Tables 1-5 of the CAP (ENSR, 2005). Nitrate is the only compound of potential
concern (COPC) for this HHRA.
1.1.2 Toxicity Assessment
The purpose of the dose-response assessment is to identify the types of adverse health effects a
chemical may potentially cause, and to define the relationship between the dose of a chemical and the
likelihood or magnitude of an adverse effect (response) (USEPA, 1989). Adverse effects are classified
by USEPA as potentially carcinogenic or noncarcinogenic (i.e., potential effects other than cancer).
Dose-response relationships are defined by USEPA for oral exposure and for exposure by inhalation.
Oral toxicity values are also used to assess dermal exposures, with appropriate adjustments, because
USEPA has not yet developed values for this route of exposure. Combining the results of the toxicity
assessment with information on the magnitude of potential human exposure provides an estimate of
potential risk.
The preferred source for dose-response values is the USEPA Integrated Risk Information System
(IRIS) database (USEPA, 2005). Nitrate has not been evaluated by USEPA for carcinogenicity, and
no carcinogenic dose-response values have been developed. The noncarcinogenic oral dose
response value for nitrate, the Reference Dose (RID), is available on IRIS. The oral RID is based on
infant methemoglobinemia associated with exposure to nitrate in drinking water used to prepare
infants' formula. The oral RID for nitrate is also used without adjustment as the dermal RID. The
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR, 200x) reports that oral absorption of
S:IPUBSIPROJECT\R\Raleigh_City of\CAP W<rt\Revised CAP _NovOS\Risk_Assessmenl\111805-Risk_Assessment.dcx: November, 2005
1-2
Etal
twi¾ttcLl·Ht:I
nitrate is nearly 100%. Thus, it is not necessary to adjust the oral RfD to account for an absorbed dose.
The dose-response value for nitrate is presented in Table 1.
1.1.3 Exposure Assessment
The purpose of the exposure assessment is to predict the magnitude and frequency of potential
human exposure to the site COPCs. Potentially complete exposure pathways are based on an
evaluation of the physical conditions at the sit, the distribution of contaminants, and likely human
activity patterns.
1.1.3.1 Receptors and Exposure Routes
Nitrate was detected in Beddingfield Creek and in other tributaries to the Neuse River. The NRVVVVTP
site is partially fenced, which may reduce unauthorized access and use of the site. However, it is
possible that a trespasser or nearby resident might wade in one of the tributaries to the Neuse River,
located within the site or in Beddingfield Creek. For the purpose of the risk assessment, the receptor
was identified as a child or teenager (aged 7 to 16 years) wading in the surface water. For
noncarcinogenic effects (the only health effect evaluated for nitrate) a child is a more conservative
receptor than an adult, because estimated exposure doses are normalized over the lower body weight
for a child.
Potential exposure to groundwater is not complete at the site. The City of Raleigh has provided
municipal water to all landowners whose groundwater wells were impacted by, or potentially impacted
by, the nitrates contained in the biosolids applied at the site (ENSR, 2005; ENSR, 2003). To provide a
conservative estimate of potential risks, potential future use of site groundwater or downgradient
groundwater for potable or non-potable uses was evaluated. A hypothetical future resident potentially
exposed to nitrate in groundwater used as drinking water was considered. In addition, a hypothetical
future resident using groundwater for a swimming pool was also evaluated. The receptor evaluated is
a young child (aged 0-6 years). As stated for the child/teenage wader, a child is the most sensitive
receptor for noncarcinogenic effects.
The exposure assumptions used in this HHRA are derived mainly from USEPA guidance documents,
including USEPA Region 4 bulletins (USEPA, 2000), Exposure Factors Handbook (USEPA, 1997) and
Human Health Exposure Manual (USEPA, 1991b). These assumptions are presented in Table 2.
1.1.3.2 Potential Exposure Doses
To estimate the potential risk to human health that may be posed by the presence of COPCs in
environmental media in the study area, it is first necessary to estimate the potential exposure dose of
each COPC for each receptor. The exposure dose is estimated for each chemical via each exposure
route/pathway by which the receptor is assumed to be exposed. Exposure dose equations combine
S:IPUBS\PROJECnR\Raleigh_City ol\CAP Work\Revised CAP _NoV05\Risk_Assessmentl11180f>.Risk_Assessment.doc November, 2005
1-3
Etell '¥2/#2-f&Rt,.hti
the estimates of chemical concentration in the environmental medium of interest with assumptions
regarding the type and magnitude of each receptor's potential exposure to provide a numerical
estimate of the exposure dose. The exposure dose is defined as the amount of COPC taken into the
receptor and is expressed in units of milligrams of COPC per kilogram of body weight per day (mg/kg-
day). The exposure doses are combined with the toxicity values to estimate potential risks and
hazards for each receptor. Both potential ingestion and dermal exposures to nitrate in groundwater
and surface water were considered. The exposure dose equations are as follows:
Average Daily Dose (Lifetime and Chronic) Following Ingestion of Water (mg/kg-day):
where:
ADD =
cw =
IR =
EF =
ED =
AAF =
BW =
AT =
ADD CWx/RxEFxEDxAAF
BWxAT
Average Daily Dose (mg/kg-day)
Water concentration (mg/L)
Water ingestion rate (Uday)
Exposure frequency (days/year)
Exposure duration (year)
Absorption Adjustment Factor (unitless)
Body weight (kg)
Averaging time (days)
Average Daily Dose (Lifetime and Chronic) Following Dermal Contact with Water (mg/kg-day):
where:
ADD =
cw =
SA =
Kp =
AAF +
ET =
EF =
ED =
ADD= CWxSAxKp xAAFxETx EFxEDxCF
BWxAT
Average daily dose (mg/kg-day)
Water concentration (mg/L)
Exposed skin surface area (cm2 )
Dermal permeability constant (cm/hr)
Absorption Adjustment Factor (unitless)
Exposure time (hours/day)
Exposure frequency (day/year)
Exposure duration (year)
S:IPUBSIPROJECT\R\Raleigh_City of\CAP Wor1<\Revised CAP _Nov051Risk_Assessment\111805-Risk_Assessment.doc
1-4
November. 2005
EN.,t
tbfii&M1t?❖t4tl
1.1.3.3 Exposure Point Concentrations
Exposure points are located where potential receptors may contact COPCs at or from the Site. The
concentration of COPCs in the environmental medium that receptors may contact, referred to as
exposure point concentrations (EPCs), must be estimated in order to determine the magnitude of
potential exposure.
The November 2004, March 2005, and July 2005 groundwater data, representing three recent
sampling events, were used to develop exposure point concentrations (EPCs) for groundwater. In
order to estimate the EPCs, results for duplicate samples were averaged. The maximum detected
value over the three sampling events was then selected as the EPC representing "worst case"
conditions. In addition, a temporal average for each well over the three sampling events was
calculated; the temporal averages by well were then averaged to estimate an area average. The
temporal/area average is representative of chronic exposure to water from a future private supply well,
because concentrations may vary seasonally and because an actively pumping supply well would .
draw from a larger area than an individual monitoring well. Nitrate was detected in all of the wells used
for developing the average EPC; therefore, data for "non-impacted" wells were not used for calculating
averages. Selection of the EPCs for groundwater is presented in Table 3.
For surface water, the exposure point concentrations are the maximum detected concentrations in
Beddingfield Creek and in the other tributaries to the Neuse River. All of the surface water data
(November 2002 through September 2005) were used in order to provide a conservative estimate of
potential exposures. Selection of surface water EPCs is presented in Table 4.
1.1.4 Risk Characterization
The potential risk to human health associated with potential exposure to COPC in environmental
media at the site is evaluated in this step of the risk assessment process. Risk characterization is the
process in which the quantitative estimates of human exposure derived in the exposure assessment
are integrated with the dose-response information. The result is a quantitative estimate of the
likelihood that humans wiU experience any adverse health effects given the exposure assumptions
made.
The potential for exposure to a chemical to result in adverse -noncarcinogenic health effects is
estimated for each receptor by comparing the CADD for each COPC with the RID for that COPC. The
resulting ratio, which is unitless, is known as the Hazard Quotient (HQ) for that chemical. The HQ is
calculated using the following equation:
The potential for exposure to a chemical to result in adverse rioncarcinogenic health effects is
estimated for each receptor by comparing the ADD for each COPC with the RfD _for that COPC. The
S:\PUBS\PROJECT\R\Raleigh_City of\CAP WO!k\Revised CAP _NoV05\Risk_Assessment\111805-Risk_Assessment.doc November, 2005
1-6
Ital
Wi¥V,it4--&itl
resulting ratio, which is unitless, is known as the Hazard Quotient {HQ) for that chemical. The HQ is
calculated using the following equation:
HQ= ADD(mg/kg-day)
RjD(mg/ kg-day)
The target HQ is defined as an HQ of less than or equal to one (USEPA, 1989). When the HQ is less
than or equal to 1, the RfD has not been exceeded, and no adverse noncarcinogenic effects are
expected. If the HQ is greater than 1, there may be a potential for adverse noncarcinogenic health
effects to occur; however, the magnitude of the HQ cannot be directly equated to a probability or effect
level. The total HI is calculated for each exposure pathway by summing the HQs for each individual
chemical. In this HHRA, in which there is only one COPC, the HQ is equal to the HI.
A summary of the His for the receptors is presented in this section . and compared to the USEPA's
target HI of 1. The His are presented in Table 5.
• Child/Teenage Wader-the HI for the child/teenage wader in Beddingfield Creek is 0.0004 and
the HI for the child/teenage wader in the other tributaries to the Neuse River is 0.002. Neither
of these His exceed the HI limit of 1.0. Therefore, there are no unacceptable risks for this
receptor.
• Hypothetical Future Resident, Potable Water Use -The HI for the hypothetical future resident
using the maximum detected concentration as the EPC is 5.2 and the HI using the average
concentration as the EPC is 1.6. Because the His exceed 1, the potential risk for potable use
of groundwater by a hypothetical future resident is unacceptable.
• Hypothetical Future Resident, Non-potable Water Use {Swimming Pool) -The HI for the
hypothetical future resident is 0.02 using the maximum detected concentration as the EPC and
0.007 using the average concentr~tion as the EPC. Therefore, there are no unacceptable risks
for the hypothetical future resident by the non-potable water pathway .
1.1.5 Uncertainties
The His presented in this HHRA are estimates of potential risk that are useful in regulatory decision
making. It is improper to consider these values as representing actual risk to exposed individuals
because th.Elre is an unquantifiable uncertainty associated with them. Numerous assumptions must be
made in each step of the risk characterization process. Some of the assumptions have a firm scientific
S:IPUBSIPROJECT\R\Raleigh_City of\CAP Wor1<\Revised CAP _NoV05\Risk_Assessment\111805-Risk_Assessment.doc November, 2005
1-7
Etal
tL'@Ztf4UM
basis, while others do not. Some level of uncertainty is introduced into the risk characterization every
time an assumption is made.
In regulatory risk characterization, the methodology dictates that the analyst err on the side of
overestimating human risk whenever there is a question concerning the appropriate value to assume
for any given parameter. The effect of using numerous parameters that each overestimate the actual
or realistic value is that the risk characterization produces an exaggerated estimate of human risk.
Such an analysis is useful for regulatory decision making, but it does not provide a realistic estimate of
the potential health impacts at commercial or industrial sites. Any one person's potential exposure and
subsequent risk are influenced by many variable parameters, which differ for individuals and
compounds.
Although average concentrations better represent exposure potential over time, the maximum detected
concentration in surface water was used as the EPC. This has the effect of increasing the estimate of
potential risks. Both the maximum and average concentrations in groundwater were used for
evaluation of potential risks posed by groundwater.
The most recent groundwater data (2004 and 2005) were used to develop groundwater EPCs to
evaluate potential future risks from use of the groundwater as a potable or non-potable water source.
However, it is likely that the nitrate concentrations will diminish over time. Therefore, potential future
risks may be overestimated.
1.1.6 Summary
A baseline HHRA was conducted for nitrate in surface water and groundwater at the City of Raleigh
Wastewater Treatment Plant site. Potential receptors were a child/teenage wader at Beddingfield
Creek and the other Neuse River tributaries and a hypothetical future resident using site groundwater
for potable and/or non-potable uses. Exposure assumptions were selected in accordance with USEPA
guidance (USEPA, 1989; 1991; 1997; 2004b). EPCs for surface water were maximum detected
concentration from the last three sampling events and the average concentration (temporal and area).
Noncarcinogenic His were calculated for the ingestion and dermal routes of exposure. Based on
comparison of the His to the US EPA limit of f 0 , there were no unacceptable risks for exposure to
surface water or for exposure to groundwater used for a non-potable purpose (swimming pool).
However, the His for potable use of groundwater exceeded 1.0, indicating a potentially unacceptable
risk for site groundwater used as drinking water.
1.1.7 References
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2005. URL:
http://atsdr1 .atsdr.cdc.gov:8080/.
S:\PUBSIPROJECnRIReleigh_City of\CAP Wo11c\Revised CAP _Nov05\Rlsk_Assessmentl111805-Risk_Assessment.doc November, 2005
1-8
Etal
Gtlii:Z.tiktl·t◄
ENSR, 2005. Revised Corrective Action Plan, City of Raleigh, Neuse River Wastewater Treatment
Plant, Raleigh, North Carolina.
ENSR, 2003. Supplemental Site Assessment, City of Raleigh, Neuse River Wastewater Treatment
Plant, Raleigh, North Carolina.
ENSR, 2002. Comprehensive Site Assessment, City of Raleigh, Neuse River Wastewater Treatment
Plant, Raleigh, North Carolina.
USEPA. 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume I. Human Health Evaluation
Manual (Part A). Interim Final. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. EPA 540/1-89/002.
USEPA. 1991a. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume I. Human Health Evaluation
Manual (Part B, Development of Risk-Based Preliminary Remediation Goals). Interim. Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C .
9285. 7-01 B, December.
USEPA. 1991 b. Human Health Exposure Manual, Supplemental Guidance; Standard Default
Exposure Factors. OSWER Directive No . 9285.6-03. U .S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C.
USEPA. 1997. Exposure Factors Handbook, Volumes I, II and Ill. EPA/600/P-95/002F. Office of
Research and Development. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
USEPA. 2000. Supplemental Guidance to RAGS: Region 4 Bulletins, Human Health Risk
Assessment. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4. Waste Management
Division. Atlanta, GA. Update 05/01/2000. [URL:
http://www.e pa .g ov/reg ion4/waste/oftecser/healthbul.htm]
USEPA. 2002. National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. EPA-822-R-02-047. November 2002.
USEPA. 2004a. 2004 Edition of the Drinking Water Standards and Health Advisories. U .S .
Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. EPA 822-R-04-005. Winter 2004.
USEPA. 2004b. Risk Assessment Guidance For Superfund. Volume I: Human Health Evaluation
Manual (Part E, Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment) Final. EPA/540/R/99/005.
July 2004.
USEPA. 2005. Integrated Risk Information System. URL: http://www.epa.g ov/iris/index.html.
Accessed November 16, 2005.
S:IPUBSIPROJEC1'R\Raleigh_City of\CAP WOIII\Revised CAP _NoV05\Risk_Assessment\11180!>-Risk_Assessment.doc November, 2005
1-9
TABLE 1
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC PARAMETERS
NEUSE RIVER WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT, RALEIGH, NC
HUMAN HEAL TH RISK ASSESSMENT
CHEMICAL-SPECJFIC PARAMETERS FOR NITRATE VaJue
Reference Dose 1.6.E+00
Absorption Adjustment Factor (Oral and Dermal) 1.E+00
Permeability Coefficient 1.E-03
Notes:
Units REFERENCEINOTES
mg/kg-day USEPA. 2005. Integrated Risk Information Syst,
http://www.epa.gov/iris/subsUindex.html
unitless Assumed value. ASTDR (2005) indicates that or
absorption of nitrate is nearly 100%.
cm/hour USEPA. 2005. Risk Assessment Guidance for~
Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual. Pa
Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assess
Default value for inorganics. Exhibit 3-1 .
S:\PUBS\PROJECT\R\Raleigh_City of\CAP Work\Revised CAP _Nov05\Risk_Assessment\TABLES.xls
I
11/18/2005
TABLE2
SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL EXPOSURE ASSUMPTIONS -CHILD/TEENAGER, WADING IN SURFACE WATER
HUMAN HEAL TH RISK ASSESSMENT
NEUSE RIVER WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
Child/Teenager
Wading in Surface Water
Parameter (7 to 16 yrs)
Parameiers Used in the Surface Water Pathway -Wading
Exposure Frequency (EF) (days/year) 45
Exposure Duration (ED} (yr} 10
Surface water Ingestion Rate (IR) (I/hour) 0.01
Skin Contacting Medium (SA) (cm•2) 1975
Body Weight (BW) (kg) 45
Exposure Time (ET) (hr/day) 1
Notes:
(a) - 1 day per week for 39 weeks (9 warmest months) of the year, and 2 days per month for the 3 coldest months of the year.
This is also the USEPA Region 4 default for swimming.
(b) -wader is assumed to range in age from 7 to 16 (USEPA, 2000). Therefore, total exposure duration is 1 O years.
(c) -USEPA, 2000. USEPA Region 4 Human Health Risk Assessment Guidance. Default value.
(d) -USEPA, 1997. Exposure Factors Handbook. Average surface area of feet and one-quarter legs of males and females aged 7 to 16,
listed in EFH Tables 6-6 to 6-8 .
(e) -USEPA , 2000 . US EPA Region 4 Human Health Risk Assessment Gu idance. Default value.
(f) -Best professional judgment.
S:\PUBS\PROJECTIR\Raleigh_City of\CAP Work\Revised CAP _Nov05\Risk_Assessment\TABLES.xls
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
November , 2005
TABLE3
SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL EXPOSURE ASSUMPTIONS -RESIDENT
HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
NEUSE RIVERWASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
Parameter
Parameters Used in the Groundwater as Swimming Pool water Pathway
Exposure Frequency (EF) (days/year)
Exposure Duration (ED) (yr)
water Ingestion Rate (IR) (I/day)
Exposure Time Swimming (hour/event)
Skin Conta~ing Medium (cm2)
Body W~ight (BW) (kg)
Parameters Used in the Groundwater as Drinking water Pathway
Exposure Frequency (EF) (days/year}
Exposure Duration (ED) (yr}
Water Ingestion Rate (IR) (I/day)
Exposure Time Bathing (hour/event}
Skin Contacting Medium (cm2)
Body Weight (BW) lka)
Notes:
Resident
Child (0 to 6 yrs)
90
6
0.01
1
6600
15
350
6
1
1
6600
15
(a) -2 day per week for 39 weeks (9 warmest manths) of the year, and 4 days per month for the 3 coldest months of the year.
This Is also the USEPA Region 4 default value for a swimming pool.
(b) -USEPA, 1997. Exposure Factars Handbook. Recommended average for time residing in a household, Table 1-2 . (9 years total,
assuming 7 years as an adult and 2 as a child -assumes that the 2 years as a child can occur anywhere between the ages of
o to 6. Therefore, exposure factors for a Oto 6 year old child are employed).
{c) -USEPA, 2000 . USEPA Region 4 Human Health Risk Assessment Guidance. Default value.
(d) -Best professional judgment.
(e) -USEPA, 2004. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual. Part E.
Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment. Default Value. Bathing exposure time is Reasonable
Maximum Expasure value.
(f) -USEPA, 1991 . Standard Default Exposure Factors .
S:\PUBSIPROJECnR\Raleigh_City of\CAP Work\Revised CAP _Nov05\Risk_Assessment\TABLES.xls
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(f)
(b}
(f)
(e)
(e)
(f)
November , 2005
TABLE4
Development of Exposure Point Concentrations for Nitrate in Groundwater
City of Raleigh, Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant
Raleigh, North Carolina
Nitrate Concentration (m g/L
Average for
Each Well
Over Time
Sc:1m plelD Fiel(f ID Nov~mber 20Q4 March 2005 July 2005 {2004-2005)
Test Well 13 Field 42 1.9 0.05 U* 3.82 1.9
TestWell 20 Field 20 9.3 1.74 3.70 4.9
Test Well 22 Field 16 0.05 U* NS 0.14 0.10
Test Well 41 Field 3 77.4 D* 80.08 75.17 77.5
TestWell 42A Field 18/1 9 113.4 D* 125.10 129.45 122.7
TestWell 44 Field 26 5.0 6.32 6 .03 5.8
TestWell 45 Field 47 29.3 D* 9.17 56 .85 31.8
TestWell 46 Field 61 1.2 1.16 1.10 1.2
Test Well 47 Field 61 35 .0 D* 31.09 32 .52 32 .9
Test Well 48 Field 60 53.6 D* 41.00 37.25 44.0
Test Well 49 Field 74 1.4 2.21 4.06 2.6
TestWell 50 Field 75 28.6 D* 22.00 27.75 26.1
Test Well 51 (1) Field 12 98.8 D* 79.99 77.13 85.3
Test Well 52 (1) Field 41 76.8 D* 93.12 76.41 82.1
Test Well 53 (1) Field 62 71.0 D* 59.40 51.86 60.7
Test Well 54 (1) Field 503 58.2 D* 42.95 50.40 50.5
Maximum Detect, by Month 113.4 125.1 129.45
Maximum Detect, November 2004-July 2005 129.45 39.37
Notes:
1) Test Wells 51, 52, 53, 54 were previously identified as GP-2, GP-7, GP-11, and GP-20, respectively.
mg/L -Milligrams per Liter
NS -Not Sampled
U* -Reported as not detected . One-half the sample quantitation limit is shown.
D* -Concentration shown is the average of duplicates.
TABLES.xls\4
Average for All
Sampled Wells
Page 1 of 1
TABLE 5
Development of Exposure Point Concentrations for Nitrate in Surface Water
City of Raleigh, Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant
Raleigh, North Carolina
Nitrate (m 1/L)
Location November 2002 June 2003 May/June 2004 September 2005
Bettingfield Creek
SW-19 16 21 NS NS
SW-20 3.8 3.3 NS NS
SW-20 du p 3.5 NS NS NS
SW-20, du olicate averaoe 3.65 3.3 NS NS
SW-21 0.15 0.18 NS NS
SW-22 0.25 1.5 NS NS
SW-24 0.53 0.52 NS NS
Maximum Concentration, All Bettingfield Creek Sa mpling S tations
Other Tributaries, Neuse River
SW-1 52 49 NS 43
SW-2 0.39 13 NS NS
SW-3 52 50 NS drv
SW-4 54 47 NS 78
SW-5 0 .69 2 NS NS
SW-6 54 46 NS 70
SW-7 77 83 NS 98
SW-8 1.2 1.6 NS NS
SW-9 34 36 NS NS
SW-10 48 19 NS NS
SW-11 19 47 NS 33
SW-12 52 41 NS NS
SW-13 0 .46 1.3 NS NS
SW-14 0 .21 0.16 NS NS
SW-15 20 20 NS NS
SW-16 1.7 6.2 NS NS
SW-17 5.5 0.97 NS NS
SW-18 3 1.7 NS NS
SW-23 0.72 NS NS NS
SW-25 NS 4 .6 NS NS
SW-26 NS 9 .8 9.2 # d ry
SW-27 NS 14 22 .9 # d ry
SW-28 NS 46 NS NS
Maximum, Other Tributaries Sampliri ci Stations
Notes:
mg/L -Milligrams per Liter
NS -Not Sampled
Dup. -Duplicate sample
Maximum
Concentration
21
--
--
3.65
0.18
1.5
0.53
21
52
13
52
78
2
70
98
1.6
36
48
47
52
1.3
0.21
20
6.2
5.5
3
0.7
.4.6
9.8
22:9
46
98
# -Samples were collected May 9, 14, 18, 20, 24, and 26 and June 7 and 9, 2004 . The concentrations shown are ' -
avera ges of the concentrations reported for these multiple sampljng events.
TABLES.xls\5 Page 1 of 1
TABLES
TOTAL POTENTIAL. HAZARD INDEX
NEUSE RIVER WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
RALEIGH, NORTH.CAROLINA
Chemical
Nitrate
Notes:
lng/Derm • Ingestion/Dermal Contact.
EPC -Exposu~ Point Concentration
Surface Water -Child/Teenager
Other Neuse River
Belllngfield Creek Tributaries
lnglDerm. lng/Derm.
0.0004
I
0.002
Potable Water. l Maximum EPC
lng/Derm. l
II
5.2 I
S:\PUBS\PROJECnR\Raleigh_City of\CAP Work\Revised CAP _Nov05\Risk_Assessment\TABLES.xls/6
Groundwater• Resident (Young Child)
Potable Water • Swimming Pool • Swimming Pool •
Average EPC Maximum EPC Average EPC
lng/Derm. lng/Derm. lng/Derm.
1.6 I
0.02 0.007
January, 2005
AQTESOLV for Windows CORPUD 24-Hour Aquifer Test (CMW-3)
""Jata Set: S:\PUBS\PROJECT\R\Raleigh_City of\Design and A Test\Aquifer Test Data\9-1-05 24hr aquifer pumI
title: CORPUD 24-Hour Aquifer Test (CMW-3)
Date: 10/28/05
Time: 08:40:27
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: ENSR International
Client: CORPUD
Project: 10724-005-0002
Location: Raleigh, NC
Test Date: 9/1 to 9/2/2005
Test Well: EW-2
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 41. ft
Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 6.724
PUMPING WELL DATA
No. of pumping wells: 1
Pumping Well No. 1: EW-2
X Location: 0. ft
Y Location: 0. ft
Casing Radius: 0.5 ft
Wellbore Radius: 0.25 ft
Fully Penetrating Well
No. of pumping periods: 2
Pumping Period Data
Time (min)
0.8
Rate {gal/min) Time (min )
OBSERVATION WELL DATA
No. of observation wells: 1
Observation Well No. 1: CMW-3
X Location: 5. ft
Y Location: 0. ft
Radial distance from EW-2: 5. ft
Fully Penetrating Well
No. of Observations: 273
10/28/05
2. 1440.
l
Rate (gal/min)
0.
08:40:27
AQTESOLV for Windows CORPUD 24-Hour Aquifer Test (CMW-3)
Observation Data
Time (min ) Ois ~lacement (ft } Time (min ) Dis~lacement {ft }
0.005 0.015 89.05 0.662
0.01 0.011 94.33 0.662
0.015 0.007 99.92 0.662
0.02 0.005 105.8 0.662
0.025 0.004 112.1 0.662
0.03 0.004 118.8 0.664
0.035 0.001 125.8 0.663
0.04 0.001 133.3 0.666
0.045 0.001 141.2 0.663
0.05 · 0.001 149.5 0.661
0.055 0.002 158.4 0.661
0.06 0. 167.8 0.663
0.065 0. 177.7 0.66
0.07 o. 187.7 0.662
0.075 0. 197.7 0.662
0.08 0. 207.7 0.662
0.085 0. 217.7 0.663
0.09 -0.002 227.7 0.664
0.095 0. 237.7 0.66
0.1 0. 247.7 0.661
0.107 0. 257.7 0.651
0.112 0. 267.7 0.654
0.118 0. 277.7 0.656
0.125 0. 287.7 0.656
0.133 0. 297.7 0.654
0.14 0. 307.7 0.654
0.148 0.002 317.7 0.651
0.158 o. 327.7 0.654
0.167 0.011 337.7 0.654
0.177 0.015 347.7 0.653
0.188 0.017 357.7 0.655
0~198 0.017 367.7 0.655
0.21 0.019 3TT.7 0.654
0.223 0.022 387.7 0.656
0.237 0.021 397.7 0.65
0.25 0.023 407.7 0.651
0.265 0.023 417.7 0.647
0.28 0.025 427.7 0.647
0.297 0.025 437.7 0.645
0.315 0.025 447.7 0.645
0.333 0.027 457.7 0.644
0.353 0.027 467.7 0.644
0.373 0.027 477.7 0.644
0.397 0.029 487.7 0.646
0.42 0.027 497.7 0.646
0.445 0.029 507.7 0.647
0.47 0.029 517.7 0.645
0.497 0.029 527.7 0.645
0.525 0.029 537.7 0.647
0.555 0.031 547.7 0.649
0.587 0.031 557.7 0.646
0.622 0.031 567.7 0.646
10/28/05 2 '08:40:27
AQTESOLV for Windows CORPUD 24-Hour Aquifer Test (CMW-3)
Time (min) Dis ~lacement (ft} Time (min ) DisQlacement (_f!}
0.658 0.031 577.7 0.649
0.697 0.031 587.7 0.648
0.738 0.031 597.7 0.648
0.782 0.031 607.7 0.647
0.828 0.031 617.7 0.649
0.877 0.033 627.7 0.651
0.928 0.031 637.7 0.653
0.983 0.033 647.7 0.651
1.042 0.031 657.7 0.652
1.103 0.031 667.7 0.654
1.168 0.033 677.7 0.652
1.238 0.033 687.7 0.654
1.312 0.035 697.7 0.653
1.39 0.035 707.7 0.651
1.473 0.037 717.7 0.651
1.562 0.039 727.7 0.65
1.655 0.041 737.7 0.649
1.753 0.043 747.7 0.646
1.858 0.045 757.7 0.646
1.968 0.049 767.7 0.648
2.085 0.053 777.7 0.648
2.21 0.057 787.7 0.65
2.342 0.063 797.7 0.651
2.482 0.068 807.7 0.649
2.63 0.074 817.7 0.649
2.787 0.082 827.7 0.649
2.953 0.051 837.7 0.651
3.13 0.086 847.7 0.652
3.317 0.11 857.7 0.652
3.515 0.12 867.7 0.654
3.725 0.129 877.7 0.65
3.947 0.126 887.7 0.65
4.182 0.153 897.7 0.647
4.43 0.165 907.7 0.649
4.693 0.177 917.7 0.647
4.973 0.177 927.7 0.647
5.27 0.21 937.7 0.648
5.583 0.224 947.7 0.644
5.915 0.241 957.7 0.642
6.267 0.257 967.7 0.644
6.64 0.273 977.7 0.644
7.035 0.275 987.7 0.641
7.453 0.31 997.7 0.643
7.897 0.326 1007.7 0.645
8.367 0.344 1017.7 0.645
8.865 0.361 1027.7 0.645
9.392 0.381 1037.7 0.642
9.95 0.373 1047.7 0.642
10.54 0.414 1057.7 0.642
11.17 0.414 1067.7 0.642
11.83 0.446 1077.7 0.642
12.54 0.463 1087.7 0.641
13.28 0.479 1097.7 0.641
10/28/05 3 08:40:27
AQTESOLV for Windows
Time (min ).
14.07
14.91
15.79
16.73
17.72
18.78
19.89
21.07
22.32
23.65
25.06
26.54
28.12
29.79
31.56
33.43
35.41
37.51
39.74
42.1
44.6
47.24
50.05
53.02
56.16
59.49
63.02
66.76
70.72
74.91
79.36
84.06
SOLUTION
Displacement (ft)
0.493
0.491
0.518
0.53
0.542
0.55
0.548
0.573
0.581
0.591
0.598
0.604
0.612
0.618
0.625
0.629
0.633
0.637
0.641
0.645
0.647
0.649
0.651
0.655
0.657
0.657
0.659
0.659
0.659
0.66
0.66
0.664
Aquifer Model: Unconfined
Solution Method: Cooper-Jacob
VISUAL ESTIMATION RESULTS
Estimated Parameters
Parameter
T
s
K= T/b = 3.148 ft/day
10/28/05
Estimate
129 .1 tt 2Jday
0.01355
4
CORPUD 24-Hour Aquifer Test (C'MW-3)
Time (min)
1107.7
1117.7
1127.7
1137.7
1147.7
1157.7
1167.7
1177.7
1187.7
1197.7
1207.7
1217.7
1227.7
1237,7
1247.7
1257.7
1267.7
1277.7
1287.7
1297.7
1307.7
1317.7
1327.7
1337.7
1347.7
1357.7
1367.7
1377.7
1387.7
1397.7
1407.7
Disp lacement (ft)
0.643
0.629
0.643
0.644
0.644
0.646
0.646
0.645
0.645
0.647
0.647
0.647
0.644
0.63
0.642
0.646
0.649
0.648
0.648
0.648
0.648
0.648
0.644
0.644
0.644
0.642
0.642
0.641
0.65
0.648
0.643
08:40:27
AQTESOLV for Windows CORPUD 24-Hour Aquifer Test (EW-1)
Time (min)
4.97
5.27
5.58
5.92
6.27
6.64
7.04
7.45
7.9
8.37
8.87
9.39
9.95
10.54
11.17
11.83
12.54
13.28
14.07
14.91
15.79
16.73
17.72
18.78
19.89
21.07
22.33
23.65
25.06
26.54
28.12
29.79
31.56
33.43
35.41
37 .51
39.74
42.1
44.6
47.24
50.05
53.02
56.16
59.49
63.02
66.76
70.72
74.91
79.36
84.06
89.05
94.33
Observation Data
Displacemenf(ft)
0.
0.
0.01
0.01
0 .01
0.02
0.03
0.03
0 .04
0.05
0.05
0.06
0.08
0.09
0.1
0.11
0.12
0.13
0.15
0 .16
0.18
0.19
0.21
0.22
0.24
0.26
0.27
0.29
0.31
0.33
0.35
0.36
0.38
0.39
0.41
0.43
0.44
0.45
0.46
0.48
0 .49
0.5
0.51
0.52
0.53
0.54
0.55
0.55
0.56
0.56
0.57
0.57
Time (min)
347.7
357.7
367.7
377.7
387.7
397.7
407.7
417.7
427.7
437.7
447.7
457.7
467.7
477.7
487.7
497.7
507.7
517.7
527.7
537.7
547.7
557.7
567.7
577.7
587.7
597.7
607.7
617.7
627.7
637.7
647.7
657.7
667.7
677.7
687.7
697.7
707.7
717.7
727.7
737.7
747.7
757.7
767.7
777.7
787.7
797.7
807.7
817.7
827.7
837.7
847.7
857.7
·----··············-·······-···• ... •······----------10/28/05 2
Displacement (ft)
0.59
0.59
0.59
0.59
0.59
0.59
0.59
0.59
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.59
0.59
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.59
0.58
0.58
0.58
0.58
0.57
0.58
0.59
0.59
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.61
0.61
0.61
0.61
0.61
0.6
0.61
0.61
0.61
0.61
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.61
0.61
0.61
0.59
0.59
............................... ______ .................. , __ _
08:46:11
AQTESOLV for Windows
Time (min)
99.92
105.8
112.1
118.8
125.8
133.3
141.2
149.5
158.4
167.8
177.7
187.7
197.7
207.7
217.7
227.7
237.7
247.7
257.7
267.7
277.7
287.7
297.7
307.7
317.7
327.7
337.7
Dis lacement ml
0.57
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined
Solution Method: Cooper-Jacob
ViSUAL ESTIMATION 'RESULTS
Estimated Parameters
Parameter
T
s
K = T/b = 3.385 ft/day
Estimate
114.8
0.05619
0.58
0.58
0.58
0.59
0.58
0.59
0.59
0.59
0.59
0.59
0.58
0.58
0 .58
0.58
0.58
0.57
0 .57
0.58
0.58
0.58
0 .58
0.58
0.58
0.58
0.58
0.58
ft2/day
AUTOMATIC ESTIMATION RESULTS
Estimated Parameters
CORPUD 24-Hour Aquifer Test (EW-1)
Time (min}
867.7
877.7
887.7
897.7
907.7
917.7
927.7
937.7
947.7
957.7
967.7
977.7
987.7
997.7
1007.7
1017.7
1027.7
1037.7
1047.7
1057.7
1067.7
1077.7
1087.7
1097.7
1107.7
1117.7
Displacement (ft)
0.59
0.6
0.6
0.59
0.59
0.58
0.58
0.58
0.58
0.58
0.58
0.58
0.58
0.57
0 .57
0.57
0.57
0.56
0.57
0.56
0.55
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
Parameter
T
Estimate
-114.8
Std. Error
12.84 tt2/day
s 0.05619 0.00466
K = T/b = 3.385 ft/day
·····························-----................................................................ __ _
10/28/05 3 08:46:11
AQTESOLV for Windows CORPUD 24-Hour Aquifer Test (EW-1)
Parameter Correlations
T S
T 1:00 -0~2
S -0.92 1.00
Residual Statistics
for weighted residuals
Su~ of Squares ...... 1.12 tt2
2 Variance ............ 0.007227 ft
Std. Deviation ........ 0.08501 ft
Mean ............... 7.771E-07 ft
No. of Residuals ...... 157
No. of Estimates ...... 2
10/28/05 4 08:46:11
AQTESOLV for Windows CORPUD 24-HOUR AQUIFER TEST (EW-2)
'"Jata Set: S:\PUBS\PROJECTIR\Raleigh_City of\Design and A Test\Aquifer Test Data\9-1-05 24hr aquifer pumI
ritle: CORPUD 24-HOUR AQUIFER TEST (EW-2)
Date: 10/28/05
Time: 08:38:24
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: ENSR International
Client: CORPUD
Project: 10724-005-0002
Location: Raleigh, NC
Test Date: 9/1 to 9/2/2005
Test Well: EW-2
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 41. ft
Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 2689. 6
PUMPING WELL DATA
No. of pumping wells: 1
Pumping Well No. 1: PW 1
X Location: 0. ft
Y Location: 0. ft
Casing Radius: 0.5 ft
Wellbore Radius: 0.25 ft
Fully Penetrating Well
No. of pumping periods: 2
Pumping Period Data
Time (min)
0.8
Rate (gal/min) Time (min)
OBSERVATION WELL DATA
No. of observation wells: 1
Observation Well No. 1: PW 1
X Location: 0. ft .
Y Location: 0. fl
Radial distance from PW 1: 0. ft
Fully Penetrating Well
No. of Observations: 220
10/28/05
2. 1440.
1
Ra~e (gal/min)
0.
08:38:24
AQTESOLV for Windows CORPUD 24-HOUR AQUIFER TEST (EW-2}
Observation Data
Time (min) Dis~lacement {ft} Time {min) Dis Qlacement (ft }
0.828 0.038 347.7 2.026
0.877 0.039 357.7 2.028
0.928 0.053 367.7 2.029
0.983 0.087 377.7 2.029
1.042 0.132 387.7 2.031
1.103 0.181 397.7 2.035
1.168 0.238 407.7 2.037
1.238 0.304 417.7 2.028
1.312 0.37 427.7 2.026
1.39 0.436 437.7 2.024
1.473 0.498 447.7 2.02
1.562 0.559 457.7 2.021
1.655 0.619 467.7 2.021
1.753 0.676 477.7 2.023
1.858 0.733 487.7 2.023
1.968 0.786 497.7 2.025
2.085 0.839 507.7 2.022
2.21 0.89 517.7 2.02
2.342 0 .941 527.7 ~.026
2.482 0.988 537.7 2.022
2.63 1.033 547.7 2.026
2.787 1.079 557.7 2.025
2.953 1.118 567.7 2.023
3.13 1.163 577.7 2.027
3.317 1.201 587.7 2.027
3.515 1.239 597.7 2.023
3.725 1.277 607.7 2.02
3.947 1.311 617.7 2.026
4.182 1.345 627.7 2.026
4.43 .1.377 637.7 2.028
4.693 1.407 647.7 2.028
4.973 1.437 657.7 2.027
5.27 1.47 667.7 2.029
5.583 1.498 677.7 2.027
5.915 1.525 687.7 2.027
6.267 1.551 697.7 2.026
6.64 1.577 707.7 2.024
7.035 1.6 717.7 · 2.02
7.453 1.627 727.7 2.018
7.897 1.649 737.7 2.016
8.367 1.672 747.7 2.015
8.865 1.689 757.7 2.015
9.392 1.71 767.7 2.015
9.95 1.731 777.7 2.019
10.54 1.751 787.7 2.026
11.17 1.768 797.7 2.025
11.83 1.785 807.7 2.023
12.54 1.8 817.7 2.023
13.28 1.816 827.7 2.023
14.07 1.831 837.7 2.02
14.91 1.846 847.7 2.019
15.79 1.857 857.7 2.022
10/28/05 2 08:38:24
AQTESOLV for Windows CORPUD 24-HOUR AQUIFER TEST (EW-2)
Time (min) DisQlacement {ft} Time (min) DisQlacement {ft}
16.73 1.872 867.7 2.019
17.72 1.886 877.7 2.013
18.78 1.899 887.7 2.017
19.89 1.91 897.7 2.014
21.07 1.923 907.7 2.018
22.32 1.935 917.7 2.01
23.65 1.946 927.7 2.01
25.06 1.956 937.7 2.015
26.54 1.964 947.7 2.011
28.12 1.97 957.7 2.013
29.79 1.975 967.7 2.013
31.56 1.985 977.7 2.015
33.43 1.988 987.7 2.008
35.41 1.994 997.7 2.012
37.51 1.998 1007.7 2.021
39.74 2.002 1017.7 2.021
42.1 2.007 1027.7 2.021
44.6 2.011 1037.7 2.018
47.24 2.015 1047.7 2.016
50.05 2.022 1057.7 2.015
53.02 2.028 1067.7 2.016
56.16 2.026 1077.7 2.015
59.49 2.028 1087.7 2.014
63.02 2.028 1097.7 2.014
66.76 2.032 1107.7 2.017
70.72 2.033 1117.7 2.017
74.91 2.035 1127.7 2.015
79.36 2.034 1137.7 2.02
84.06 2.036 1147.7 2.02
89.05 2.034 1157.7 2.018
94.33 2.036 1167.7 2.016
99.92 2.038 1177.7 2.019
105.8 2.032 1187.7 2.019
112.1 2.032 1197.7 2.023
118.8 2.036 1207.7 2.025
125.8 2.035 1217.7 2.019
133.3 2.037 1227.7 2.016
141.2 2.035 1237.7 2.022
149.5 2.035 1247.7 2.02
158.4 2.037 1257.7 2.022
167.8 2.035 1267.7 2.024
177.7 2.034 1277.7 2.019
187.7 2.036 1287.7 2.021
197.7 2.036 1297.7 2.023
207.7 2.036 1307.7 2.023
217.7 2.036 1317.7 2.021
227.7 2.035 1327.7 2.018
237.7 2.036 1337.7 2.014
247.7 2.04 1347.7 2.012
257.7 2.036 1357.7 2.008
267.7 2.032 1367.7 2.014
2TT.7 2.031 1377.7 2.002
287.7 2.033 1387.7 2.007
10/28/05 3 08:38:24
AQTESOLV for Windows
Time (min)
297.7
307.7
317.7
327.7
337.7
SOLUTION
Displacement (ID
2.033
2.029
2.028
2.028
2.028
Aquifer Model: Unconfined
Solution Method: Cooper-Jacob
VISUAL ESTIMATION RESULTS
Estimated Parameters
Parameter
T
s
K = T/b = 2.092 ft/day
10/28/05
Estimate
85.78
0.1588
tt2/day
4
CORPUD 24-HOUR AQUIFER TEST (EW-2)
Time (min)
1397.7
1407.7
1417.7
1427.7
1437.7
Displacement (ft )
2.007
2.004
1.997
1.997
1.993
08:38:24
,?eAnalyticar f Jacj WMv.pacelabs.com
SAMPLE SUMMARY
Pace Analyllcal Ssrvlcss, Inc.
9800 Kincey Avenue, Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Lab Project Number: 92102301
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
2225 Riverside Drive
Asheville, NC 28804
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Client . Project ID: CORPUD Aquifer/10724-005-0002
Project Sample
Sample Number Number
92102301-001 926050949
92102301-002 926050956
Client Sample ID Ma t rix
Water
Water
ate ollected Date Rec e ived
09/01/05 11:20 09/02/05 09:20
09/01/05 11:20 09/02/05 09:20
EW-2A
EW-2A-DISSOLVED
Asheville Certjjjcatjon IDs
NC Wastewater 40
NC Drinking Water 37712
SC Environmental 99030
FL NELAP E87648
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced. except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
.... !<\~~.,.
!tHelaai
Charlotte Certification IDs
NC Wastewater 12
NC Drinking Water 37706
SC 99006
FL NELAP £87627
a Analywaf
· www.pecelabs.com
Pace Analytleal Service,, Int:.
9800 Kincey Avenue, Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Pac, Analytical Ssrrlcss, Inc.
2225 Riverside Drive
Ashevllle, NC 28804
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
SAMPLE ANALYTE COUNT
Project
Sampl e Number Sample No Client Sample I P
92102301-001 926050949 EW-2A
92102301-002 926050956 EW-2A-DISSOLVED
AsheviUeCertjfication IDs
NC Wastewater 40
NC Drinking Water 37712
SC Environmental 99030
FL NELAP E87648
Lab Project Number: 92102301
Client Project ID: CORPUD Aquifer/10724-005-0002
Analysis Analytes
Code Anali sia De s criptiQD l!,egorteg ..
1501 L92 pH l
1601 WL92 Total Dissolved Solids l
1602 WL92 Total Suspended Solids l
2007T WL92 Trace ICP Metals 9
3101B WEPA Alkalinity, Bicarbonate l
3101C WEPA Alkalinity, Carbonate 1
3.101T WEPA Alkalinity, Total l
3253 WL92 Chloride (Mercuric Nitrate) l
3503 WL92 Ammonia 1
3512 WL92 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen l
3532 WL93 48 Hour N03 / N02 / NOX 2
36510 WL92 Phosphate, Ortho 1
3752 WL92 Sulfate,Turbidilletric l
40515 WL93 Biochemical Oxygen Demand, 5 d l
4104 WL92 Che.mical Oxygen Demand l
LANG L92 Langelier Index l
207TD WL92 Dissolved Metals, ICP, Trace 3
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS Chartotte Certification IPs
NC Wastewater 12 . This report shall not be reproduced . except In full,
wtthout the written consent of Pace Analytical SeNlces, Inc.
~z_f-.1:}
f{l..tt:faL\!
NC Drinking Water 37706
s.c 99006
FL NELAP E87627
/2eAnalytEar
WMV.pacelabs.com
QC Batch: 136796
QC Batch Method:
Associated Lab Samples: 926050949
METHOD BLANK: 926058702
Associated Lab Samples: 926050949
fi!.[~!ilt!il[ Units
Alwainum mg/1
·Calcium mg/1
Iron mg/1
Magnesium mg/1
llanganese mg/1
Potassium mg/1
Sodium mg/1
Total Hardness mg/1
LABORATORY CONTROL SAXPLB: 926058710
Paramet u Units
AlWllinum mg/1
Calcium mg/1
Iron mg/1
Magnesium mg/1
Manganese mg/1
Potassium mg/1
Sodium ag/1
Total Hardness mg/1
Pac, Analfllt:al St1fllit:n, Inc.
9800 Kincey Avenue, Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
QUALITY CONTROL DATA
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Lab Project Number: 92102301
Pace Analytlt:al Sarvlcn, Inc.
2225 Riverside Drive
Asheville, NC 28804
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Client Project ID: CORPUD Aquifer/10724-005-0002
Analysis Method: BPA 200.7
Analysis Description: Trace ICP Metals
Blank Reporting
i!.H:Ylt Limit l!:QQtnQ!;H
ND 0.10
ND 0.10
ND 0.050
ND 0.10
ND 0.0050
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
ND 2.0
Spike LCS LCS % Rec
~ BH!.ll.t % Rec Limits fQQ!;nQ!;H
20.00 17.30 86 85-115
20.00 17.80 89 85-115
20.00 17.70 88 85-115
20.00 17.40 87 85-115
0.5000 0.4640 93 85-115
10.00 8.640 86 85-115
10.00 8.650 86 85-115
132.30 116.1 88 85-115
MATRIX SPIKB & MATRIX SPIKB DUPLICATE: 926058728 926058736
Parameter
Alwainum
Calcium
Iron
Date: 09/16/05
units
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
Asheville Certjfjcatjon ms
NC Wastewater 40
NC Drinking Water j7712
SC Environmentai° 99030
FL NELAP E87648
926050378 Spike MS MSD
Result Cone. RHYlt Result
3.260 20.00 22.00 23.50
542.0 20.00 553.0 582.0
0 20.00 16.30 17.00
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced. except in lull,
without the written consent-of Pace Analytical Seivlces, Inc.
rielac
._._9p~~~.,. .. ,
ff, ~1
IIS MSD % Rec Max
% Rec% Rec Limits RPO RPO Foot;Q!;!;lS
94 101 70-130 7 25
55 200 70-130 5 25 1,1
82 85 70-130 4 25
Page: 5 of 22
Charlotte certmca11on ms
NC Wastewater 12
NC Drinking Water :anos
SC 99006
FL NELAP €87627
aAnalyticar
-. www.pacelabs.com
QC Batch: 136898
QC Batch Method: EPA 200.7
Associated Lab Samples: 926050956
METHOD BLANK: 926064163
Associated Lab Samples: 926050956
fa:tl!!!!!lt!lr llllilil
Iron, Dissolved mg/l
Manganese, Dissolved mg/1
LABORATORY COMTROL SAMPLE: 926064171
Parameter J,Inits
Iron, Dissolved mg/1
Manganese, Dissolved 'tllfiJ/l
Pace Analytical Set11lces, Inc.
9800 Kincey Avenue, Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
QUALITY CONTROL DATA
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Lab Project Nlllllber: 92102301
Pace Analytlcal. Servlcss, Inc.
2225 Riverside Drive
Asheville, NC 28804
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Client Project IO: CORPUD Aquifer/10724-005-0002
Analysis Method: EPA 200.7
Analysis Description: Dissolved Metals, ICP, Trace
Blank Reporting
Re111lt Limit FootnQt!II
NO 0.050
NO 0.0050
Spike LCS LCS Ill Rec
~ Result ~ ...w.l!!lli Fog!;note11
20.00 19.30 96 85-115
0.5000 0.4710 94 85-115
MATRIX SPIKE & MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE: 926064189 926064197
f~rl!!!!et !l r Units
Iron, Dissolved mg/l
Manganese, Dissolved mg/1
Date: 09/16/05
Asheville Certjficatjon IDs
NC Wastewater 40
NC Drinking Water 37712
SC EnvironmentaL 9ffil30
FL NELAP E87648
926050956 Spike NS MSO
RH!.!l !. ~ Ruult B11111lt
0.2040 20.00 18.40 17.10
0.1610 0.5000 0,6100 0.6160
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
Tnls report shall not be reproduced, except In full,
without the writt1m consent of Pace Analytical Servlc:'3S, Inc,
,._,."µ~~ .... ~~-Ll-.J-ff[JJt:JaL\~-
MS MSO Ill Rec Max
,~ \_RM ~ ~ RPO fQQtnQtes
91 84 70-130 7 25
90 91 70-130 1 25
Page: 7 of 22
Charlotte Certificatjon IDs
NC Wastewater 12
NC Drinking Water 37706
SC 99006
FL NELAP £87627
~AnalyliaJ1-
. www.pacelabs.com
QC Batch: 136694
QC Batch Method: EPA 405.1
Associated Lab Samples: 926050949
METHOD BLANK: 926054420
Associated Lab Samples: 926050949
Pa r ame t er
BOD, 5 day
t1nit1
LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLE: 926054438
Parameter tJnits
BOD, 5 day mg/1
SAMPLE DUPLICATE: 926054446
Pir11Utu
BOD, 5 day
Data: 09/16/05
tJnits
mg/1
Asheville Certification IDs
NC Wastewater 40
NC Drinking Water 37712
SC Environmental 99030
FL NELAP EB7648
Pace Analytfcal s,rv1c11, Int:.
9800 Kincey Avenue, Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
Pai:e Analytical Ssrvli:11, Inc.
2225 Rrterside Drive
Asheville, NC 28804
QUALITY CONTROL DATA
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Lab Project Number: 92102301
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Client Project ID: CORPUD Aquifer/10724-005-0002
Analysis Method: EPA 405.1
Analysis Description: Biochemical Oxygen Demand, 5 d
Blank
Result
HD
Spike
Cone.
198.00
926046103
Re §ult
190.0
Reporting
Limit Footnotes
2.0
LCS LCS % Rec
Reul \ Rec Limits
220.0 111
DtJP Max
Resylt RPD RPD
180.0 2
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be raproduced. except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
ttJ:t~& ::il.lt2a.\..\;
Footnotes
f'o2t112 t 1111
Charlotte Certilicatioo ms
NC Wastewater 12
NC Drinking Water -37706
$C 99006
FL NELAP £87627
Page: 12 of 22
6ZeAnafytk;at
· www.pacelabs-.oom
QC Batch: 136779
QC Batch Method: EPA 160.2
Associated Lab Samples: 926050949
METHOD BLANK: 926058108
Associated Lab Samples: 926050949
Parameter Units
Total Suspended Solids mg/1
LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLB: 926058116
Pa r ame ter Units
Total Suspended Solids mg/1
SAMPLE DUPLICATE: 926058124
Parameter Units
Total Suspended Solids mg/1
Date: 09/16/05
Asheville Certjjjcatjon ms
NC Wastewater 40
NC Drinking Water 37712
SC Environmental 99030
Fl NELAP E87648
Pace Analyllcsl s,rvJ,:,s, Inc.
9800 Kincey Avenue, Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
Pace Ana/ytl,:a/ s,rvlt:ss, Inc.
2225 Riverside Drive
Asheville, NC 28804
QUALITY CONTROL DATA
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Lab Project Humber: 92102301
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Client Project ID: CORPUD Aquifer/10724-005-0002
Analysis Method: EPA 160.2
Analysis Description: Total Suspended Solids
Blank
Result
ND
Spike LCS
Reporting
Limit Footnotes
10.
LCS % Rec
Cone. Result
250.00 2U.O
% Rec ~ Footnotes
98 80-120
Max 926050949
Result
DUP
Result Rfl2 RPD Footnotes
14.00 16.00 11 25
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced. except In lull,
wtthout the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc. ,, ~cc,.,
~IS~ f{J~\1
Charlotte Certification ms
NC Wastewater 12
NC Drinking Water -3TT06
SC 99006
FL NELAP t:87627
Page: 14 of 22
aAna/yticar
·, www.pacelabs.com
QC Batch: 136679
QC Batch Method: EPA 353.2
Associated Lab Samples: 926050949
METHOD BLANK: 926053810
Associated Lab Samples: 926050949
Pnl!!!l•!a1r Unih
Nitrate as N mg/1
Nitrite as N mg/1
LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLE: 926053828
Parameter Units
Nitrate as N mg/1
SAMPLE DUPLICATE: 926053844
Parameter
Nitrate as N
Nitrite as N
Data: 09/16/05
Units
mg/1
mg/1
Asheville Certification IDs
NC Wastewater 40
NC DrinKing Water 37712
SC Environmental 99"030
FL NELAP E87648
Pace Anal,Ucal S1wic,1, Inc.
9800 Kincey Avenue, Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
Pace Ana/ytlcal Ssw/,:11, Inc.
2225 Riverside Drive
Asheville, NC 28804
QUALITY CONTROL DATA
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Lab Project Nlimber: 92102301
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Client Project ID: CORPUD Aquifer/10724-005-0002
Analysis Method: EPA 353.2
Analysis Description: 48 Hour N03 / N02 / NOX
Blank
R!i!l!Ult
ND
ND
Spike
~
10.00
926052721
Result
ND
ND
Reporting
Limit FootnotH
0.10
0.10
LCS
Result
9.920
LCS \ Rec
DUP
Result
ND
ND
1-.i& Limits Footnotes
99
Max
RPD RPD Footnotes
NC
NC
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS Charlotte Certification ms
NC WasteWi!W 12 This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
~1!cci~4!_~
1iieraai
NC Drinking Water . 37706 .
S.C . 99006
FL NELAP £87627
Paga: 16 of 22
a AnaJyOcar
. www.peoel8bs.com
QC Batch: 136805
QC Batch Method: EPA 410.4
Associated Lab Samples:
METHOD BLANK: 926058975
Associated Lab Samples:
Parame ter
Chemical Oxygen Demand
LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLE:
Parame t er
Chemical Oxygen Demand
MATRIX SPIKE: 926058991
P11,rameter
Chemical Oxygen Demand
SAMPLE DUPLICATE: 926059007
Parame t er
Cheaical Oxygen Demand
Date : 09/16/05
926050949
926050949
Uni ts
926058983
Units
mg/1
Un ;i.t a
IIQ'/1
I!nits
mg/1
Ashevme Certjfjcatjon IDs
NC Wastewater 40
NC Drinking Water 37712
SC Environmental 99030
FL NELAP E87648
Pace Ana/yl/cal Service,, Int:.
9800 Kincey Avenue, Suite 1(XJ
Huntersville, NC 28078
Pac, Analyl/cal s,rrlcn, Inc.
2225 Riverside Drive
Asheville, NC 28804
QUALITY CONTROL DATA
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Lab Project Nlllllber: 92102301
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Client Project ID: CORPTJD Aquifer/10724-005-0002
Analysis Method: EPA 410.4
Analysis Description: Chemical Oxygen Demand
Blank
Result
ND
Spike
~
750.00
LCS
Reporting
Limi t
LCS
Result % Rec
738.0 98
Fo ot notes
% Rec
Limits Footnotes
90-110
926052309 Spike MS MS \ Rec
Beaul t ~ Re lt %~~Foot no tes
774.0 1500.00 1484
926046574 DUP Max
Result Resyl!; RPD RPD
4500 4500 l 25
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except In fuH,
wtthout the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc. \, ~c,,,.
~z--6~
ff!llt2i1Ll\
47 75-125 2
Fo otnotes
Charlotte Certifjcallon IDs
NC Wastewater 12
NC Drinking Water 37706
SC 99006
FL NELAP £87627
Page: 18 of 22
~AnaJytJcaJ-
. . www.paoelebs.com
QC Batch: 136985
QC Batch Method: EPA 325.2
Associated Lab Samples: 926050949
METHOD BLJl!IK: 926070632
Associated Lab Samples: 926050949
Parameter units
Chloride mg/1
LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLE: 926070640
Parameter Units
Chloride mg/1
MATRIX SPIKE: 926070657
Parametar
Chloride
SAMPLE DUPLICATE:
Paramater
Chloride
Date: 09/16/05
Unit
mg/1
926070665
Units
mg/1
Asheville Gertjjjcatjon IDs
NC Wastewater 40
NC Drinking Water 37712
SC Environmental 99030
FL NELAP E87648
Pace Ana/yllcal Services, Inc.
9800 Kincey Avenue, Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
Pat:8 Analytlt:al s,rv1c,s, Inc.
2225 Riverside Drive
Asheville, NC 28804
QUALITY CONTROL DATA
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Lab Project Nlilllber: 92102301
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Client Project ID: CORPUD Aquifer/10724-005-0002
Analyaia Method: BPA 325.2
Analysis D ■acription: Chloride (Mercuric Nitrate)
Blank
Result
ND
Spike
Cone.
20.00
926037458
Re1n1lt
46.68
926060963
Result
180.0
Reporting
Limit Footnotes
5.0
LCS
Result
·20.20
Spike
~
20.00
DUP
Result
180.0
LCS % Rec
% Rec Limits Footnotes
101 90-110
MS MS % Rec
RH!.!lt % Rec -1J.mll Foo t notes
67,39 104 75-125
Max
RPD RPO Footnotes
0
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS Charlotte Certification IDs
NC Wastewater 12 This report shall not be reproduced, except In full,
wHhout the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
v '' ~ic:•-ta r~G'l ff/lJt:lclLi
NC OrinkingWater 37706
SC 99006
FL NELAP £87627
Paga: 20 of 22
~Analytical'
-www.pacel8bs-.com
SAMPLE SUMMARY
Project Sample
Sim!b Numb !i!r N!!l!lllU Client S l e ID
92102346-001 926052739 EW-2B
Pace Analytics/ Ssrvlces, Inc.
9800 Kincey Avenue, Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28018
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Pace Analytica/Serv/css, Inc.
2225 Riverside Drive
Asheville, NC 28804
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Lab Project Number: 92102346
Client Project ID: Corpud Aquifer Test
Mat;rix Date Coll!i!i;;Ug J;!l!!;li! Received
Water 09/02/05 09:45 09/02/05 16:00
92102346-002 926052747 EW-2B-DISSOLVED Water 09/02/05 09:45 09/02/05 16:00
Asheville Certjfjcatjon IDs
NC Wastewater 40
NC Drinking Water 37712
SC Environmental 99030
Fl NELAP E87648
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduCEd, except In full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
~z2}
ff/l..K:JdU1
Charlotte Certification ms
NC Wastewater 12
NC Drinking Water -37706
SC 99006
FL NELAP E87627
~AnalytKAJr
, www.pacelabs.oom
Lab Sample No: 926052739
Client Sample ID: EW-2B
Parameters
48 Hour N03 / N02 / NOX
Nitrate as N
Nitrite as N
Phosphate, Ortho
Orthophosphate as P
Sulfate,Turbidimetric
Sulfate
Re1ult1 Units
Method: EPA 353.2
66. mg/1
ND mg/1
Method: EPA 365.2
ND mg/1
Method: EPA 375,2
ND mg/1
Biochemical Oxygen Demand, 5 d Method: EPA 405.1
BOD, 5 day ND mg/1
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Langelier Index
Langelier Index
Date: 09/16/05
Method: EPA 410.4
52. mg/1
Method:
-2.54
Pace Analytical Services, Im:.
9800 Kincey Avenue, Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Pace Analytical Ssrvlces, Inc.
2225 Riverside Drive
Asheville, NC 28804
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Lab Project Nlllllber: 92102346
Client Project ID: Corpud Aquifer Test
Project Sample Nlllllber: 92102346-001
Matrix: Water
Date Collected: 09/02/05 09:45
Date Received: 09/02/05 16:00
Repo rt Limit -~An=a=-l y,_,z=e=d~~B.,y ___ C~M~-B-9~i _ gy_u_ ReqLmt
0.60
0.10
09/03/05 09:05 ARH
09/03/05 09:05 ARH
0.050 09/02/05 23:15 BMF
5.0 09/10/05 01:00 BMF
2.0 09/03/05 06:30 TMR
25. 09/07/05 05:15 BMF
09/16/05 EWS
Paga: 2 of 22
AsheviUeCertijjcation IDs
NC Wastewater 40 REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS Charlotte Certification IDs
NC Wastewater 12
NC DrinKlng Water 37712
SC Environmental 99030
FL NELAP EB7648
This report shall not be reproduced. except In full,
wtthout the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
•• ~c_,,., ~~-6~ ff{I.JtlaL)\
NC Drinking Water 37706
S.C 99006
FL NELAP £87627
~Analyticar
·. www.~bs.com
Lab Sample No: 926052747
Client Sample ID: EW-2B-DISSOLVED
Parameters Results
Metals
Pace Analytical S1rrlcn, Inc.
9800 Kincey Avenue, Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Pace Analytlt:al .Servlcss, Inc.
2225 Riverside Drive
Asheville, NC 28804
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Lab Project Number: 92102346
Client Project ID: Corpud Aquifer Test
Project Sample Number: 92102346-002
Matrix: Water
Date Collected: 09/02/05 09:45
Date Received: 09/02/05 16:00
Units Re port Limi t -~An-a=-l y..,z=e~4~~B..,y ___ C=A_S~HP-,~-Oual · ~
Dissolved Metals, ICP, Trace
Iron, Dissolved
Prep/Method: EPA 200.7 / EPA 200.7
ND mg/1 0.050 09/14/05 21:04 ALV 7439-89-6
Manganese, Dissolved 0.078 mg/1 0.0050 09/14/05 21:04 ALV 7439-96-5
Date Digested 09/08/05 05:00 09/08/05 05:00
Date : 09/16/05
Ashevme Gertjfjcauon IDs
NC Wastewater 40
NC Drinking Water 37712
SC Environmental 99030
FL NELAP E87648
REPORT OF WORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except In full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
..... ~~~~,~-:-".~"~
lneko1
Charlotte Certification ms
NC Wastewater 12
NC Drinking Water -37706
SC 99006
FL NELAP £87627
Pa!!9 : 3 of 22
~Ana/yUcat
. www.pacel8b$.com
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
9800 Kincey Avenue, Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
QUALITY CONTROL DATA
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Lab Project Nwnber: 92102346
Pat:a Analytical Serrlces. Inc.
2225 Riverside Drive
Asheville, NC 28804
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Client Project ID: Corpud Aquifer Test
MATRIX SPIKE & MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE: 926058728 926058736
Paramet Units
Magnesium mg/1
Manganese 1111J/l
Potassium IIJIJ/l
Sodium 1111J/l
Total Hardness 1111J/l
SAMPLE DUPLICATE: 926058744
P rame e
Aluminum
Calcium
Iron
Magnesium
Manganese
·Potassium
Sodium
Total Hardness
Date : 09/16/05
Unit11
mg/1
mg/1
IIJIJ/l
IIJIJ/l
IIJIJ/l
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
Asheville Certificatjo11 IDs
NC Wastewater 40
NC Drinking Water 37712
SC Environmental 99030
FL NELAP E87648
926050378 Spike MS MSD MS MSD \ Rec
Result Cone. Result Re11y,lt \Rec\~ Limits RPD
2.900 20.00 19 .20 19.90 82 85 70-130 4
0.00218 0.5000 0 .4470 0.4440 89 88 70-130 1
39.10 10.00 60.30 65.00 212 259 70-130 8
7196 10.00 7149 7700 0 5040 70-130 7
1365 132.30 1460 1535 72 128 70-130 5
926050014 DUP Max
R!i!!!!!,U R!i!!!Ult Rfl2 RPD t'.QQQQ tH
0.2000 0.2100 7 25
8.500 9.000 5 25
0.2100 0.2300 10 25
0.8700 0.9300 6 25
0.01300 0. 01400 7 25
19.00 21.00 10 25
1300 1400 10 25
25.00 26.00 6 25
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
Tnis report shall not be reproduced. except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc,.
,. u:e," ~ZJ:b~ ff(IJ.t2dL.l1
Charlotte Certification IDs
NO Wastewater 12
NC DrinkingWater -37706
SC 99006
FL NELAP £87627
Max
m Footnotes
25
25
25
25 1
25
Page: 6 of 22
;tZAnalyticat
. www.pacelabs.com
QC Batch: 136686
QC Batch Method: EPA 160.1
Associated Lab Samples: 926052739
METHOD BLANlt: 926054321
Associated Lab Samples: 926052739
Parameter :O:nit ■
Total Dissolved Solids mg/1
LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLE: 926054339
Parameter Units
Total Dissolved Solids mg/1
SAMPLE DUPLICATE: 926054347
Parameter :O:nit11
Total Dissolved Solids mg/1
Data: 09/16/05
Asheville Certification IDs
NC Wastewater 40
NC Drinking Water 37712
SC Environmental 99030
FL NELAP E87648
Paee Analytical S1rvir:1s, lnr:.
9800 Kincey Avenue, Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28018
Par;s Analytlt:al Ssrvfr:,s, lnr;.
2225 Riverside Drive
Asheville, NC 28804
QUALITY CONTROL DATA
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Lab Project Nlimber1 92102346
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Client Project ID: Corpud Aquifer Test
Analysis Method: EPA 160.1
Analysis Description: Total Dissolved Solids
Blank
Result
ND
Spike
Cone.
250.00
926040718
Result
780.0
Reporting
Limit Footnotes
20.
LCS LCS % Rec
Result \ Rec Limits
224.0 90 80-120
DUP Max
Result RPD RPD
770.0 2 25
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in lull,
wHhout the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
,.JC(Df
~f5:.~::t. ill_~\
Footnotes
FQOQUltH
Charlotte Certification ms
NC Wastewater 12
NC Drinking Water •37706
SC 99006
FL NELAP £87627
Paga, 8 of 22
'
a AnaMm.
· . www.pacel8bs.oom
QC Batch: 136687
QC Batch Method: EPA 310.1
Associated Lab Samples:
SAMPLE DUPLICATE: 926054354
Parame t er
Alkalinity.Bicarbonate (CaCO3)
Date: o,/16/05
926052739
units
mg/1
Asheville Certffjca)jon IDs
NC Wastewater 40
NC Drinking Water 37712
SC Environmental 99030
FL NELAP 1:87648
Pace Analyllt:al Service,, lne.
9800 Kincey Avenue, Suite 100
Huntersvi/Je, NC 28078
Pac, Analyt/,:a/ Ssrvlt:BB, Int:.
2225 Riverside Drive
Asheville, NC 28804
QUALITY CONTROL DATA
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Lab Project Number: 92102346
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Client Project ID: Corpud Aquifer Test
Analysis Method: EPA 310.1
Analysis Description: Alkalinity, Bicarbonate
926027996
Result
600.0
DUP
Result
600.0
RPl2
0
Max
RPO
25
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced. except In tu§,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc. •• ~c,,.., S:b~ frnaac11
Foo tnotes
Charlotte Certification IDs
NC Wastewater 12
NC Orinking Water -37706
SC 99006
FL NELAP £87627
Page: 9 of 22
a AflaMjcat
, www.paceJabs.com
QC Batch: 136695
QC Batch Method: BPA 405.1
Associated Lab Samples: 926052739
METHOD BLANK: 926054453
Associated Lab Samples: 926052739
Parame ter Uni ta
BOD, 5 day mg/1
LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLE: 926054461
Parameter Units
BOD, 5 day mg/1
SAMPLE DUPLICATE: 926054479
Pa r ame t er
BOD, 5 day
Date, 09/16/05
Units
Asheville Certification I Os
NC Wastewater 40
NC Drinking Water 37712
SC Environmental 99030
FL NELAP E87648
Pace Analyt/al Servic,s, Inc.
9800 Kincey Avenue, Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
2225 Riverside Drive
Asheville, NC 28804
QUALITY CONTROL DATA
Phone : [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Lab Project Number: 92102346
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Client Project ID: Corpud Aquifer Test
Analysis Method: BPA 405.1
Analysis Description: Biochemical Oxygen Demand, 5 d
Blank
Result
ND
Spike LCS
Reporting
Limit Footnotes
2.0
LCS % Rec
Cone. Result
198.00 207.0
~ Limits Footnote•
105
Max 926050964
Re ult
DUP
Result RPD RPD Footnotes
300.0 300.0 0 2
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except In full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc,
.t)°i~i:~
iznelaO\
Charlotte Certification IDs
NC Wastewater 12
NC Drinking Water 37706 s.c 99006
FL NELAP €87627
Page , 12 of 22
;!/aceAnalyticar
·. www.peoel8bs.oom
QC Batch: 136735
QC Batch Method: EPA 150.1
Associated Lab Samples:
SAMPLE DUPLICATE: 926055591
Parameter
pH
Date: 09/16/05
926052739
Units
Ullita
Asheville Certjficatjon IDs
NC Wastewater 40
NG Dlinking Water 37712
SC Environmentaf 99030
R. NELAP · E87648
Pac, Analytical S1rvicu, Inc.
9800 Kincey Avenue, Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
Pac, Analytical S1rvic11, Inc.
2225 Riverside Drive
Ashevllle, NC 28804
QUALITY CONTROL DATA
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Lab Project Number: 92102346
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Client Project ID: Corpud Aquifer Test
Analysis Method: EPA 150.1
Analysis Description: pH
Max 926043936
Result
DUP
Result Rm RPD Footnotes
7.600 7.600 0 1
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except In fuH,
whhout the written consent of Pace Analytical Seivlces, Inc. ,,z.::t~
ffll.lt2c1L\l
Charlotte Certiticatloa IDs
NC Wastewater 12
NC Drinking Water 37706
SC 99006
FL NELAP E87627
Page: 13 of 22
a Analyticar
· www.pacelabs.oom
QC Batch: 136779
QC Batch Method: EPA 160.2
Associated Lab Samples:
METHOD BLANK: 926058108
Associated Lab Samples:
Par &llleter
Total Suspended solids
LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLE:
Parl!,!!l!lt1 r
Total Suspended Solids
SAMPLE DUPLICATE: 926058124
P1u::111!1e tu
Total Suspended Solids
Date: 09/16/05
926052739
926052739
Unit s
926058116
Units
mg/1
J;!nit li!
mg/1
Ashevme certjjjcation tPs
NC Wastewater 40
NC Drinking Water 37712
SC Environmental 99030
FL NELAP E87648
Pace Analytical Ssrvit:ss, lne.
9800 Kincey Avenue, Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
Pat:e Analytit:al Ssrvlcn, Int:.
2225 Riverside Drive
Asheville, NC 28804
QUALITY CONTROL DATA
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Lab Project Number: 92102346
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Client Project ID: Corpud Aquifer Test
Analysis Method : EPA 160.2
Analysis Description: Total Suspended Solids
Blank
Re s ult
ND
Spike
Cone.
250.00
926050949
l!,esyl t
14.00
Reporting
Limit Footnotes
10.
LCS LCS % Rec
Result % Rec Limits
244.0 98 80-120
DUP llax
RHult RP!;! RPD
16.00 11 25
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
. This report shall not Ile reproduced, except In full,
without lhe written consent of Pac:e Anal)lllcal Services, Inc. ,.,c,,.,
·neac-::,;:-~•t,,
:: . -~ ~ \;;
Footnotes
Pooti!O tH
Charlotte Certification tPs
NC Wastewater 12
NC Drinking Water -37706
SC 99006
FL NELAP E87627
Page: H of 22
a Ana/ytUt
, www.pacel8bs.oom
QC Batch: 136802
QC Batch Method: EPA 350.1
Associated Lab Samples:
METHOD BLANK: 926058850
Associated Lab Samples:
Pa r amete r
Nitrogen, Ammonia
LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLE:
Parameter
Nitrogen, Ammonia
MATRIX SPIKE: 926058876
Pi[lllllltU
Nitrogen, Ammonia
SAMPLE DUPLICATE: 926058884
Par!!l!l e ter
Nitrogen, Ammonia
Date, 09/16/05
926052739
926052739
Units
mg/1
926058868
Uni t 11
mg/1
ni t
mg/1
Units
'1111]/l
Asheville Certifi cat ion IDs
NC Wastewater 40
NC Drinking Water 3TT12
SC Environmental 99030
FL NELAP EB7648
Pace Analytical Samcn, Inc.
9800 Kincey Avenue, Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
Pacs Analytinl Ssndc11, Inc.
2225 Riverside Drive
Asheville, NC 28804
QUALITY CONTROL DATA
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Lab Project Number: 92102346
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Client Project ID: Corpud Aquifer Test
Analysis Method: EPA 350.1
Analysis Description: Ammonia
Blank
Res ult
ND
Spike
Cone.
1.000
926056847
Reporting
Limit Footnotes
0 .10
LCS LCS % Rec
Re 11 ult !..h£ Limits
0.9600 96 90-110
Spike IIS
Footnot§I!
MS % Rec
Result Cone. Res y,lt % Rec~ Footnotes
1.469 1.000 3.103 163
926052721 DUP Max
Resu U R111ylt lll2 RPO
1.200 1.200 1 25
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
without the written corisent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
1.0{;'{~¼_~
fnei.oi
75-125 3
Fo otnot!ill!
Ghadotte Gertificatton ms
NC Wastewater 12
NC Drinking Water 3TT06
SC 99006
FL NELAP £87627
Paga, 11 of 22
a Analytlcat
. .. www.paoeJab.s.com
QC Batch: 136805
QC Batch Method: EPA 410.4
Associated Lab Sallples: 926052739
METHOD BLANK: 926058975
Associated Lab Samples: 926052739
Parameter Unit s
Chemical Oxygen Demand mg/1
LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLE: 926058983
Parameter ni
Chemical Oxygen Demand mg/1
MATRIX SPIKE : 926058991
Pl!,rame ter Unitli!
Cheaical Oxygen Demand 11YiJ/l
SAMPLE DUPLICATE: 926059007
Parameter :tmit11
Chemical Oxygen Demand mg/1
Date : 09/16/05
Ashevme Certification ms
NC Wastewater 40
NC Drinking Water 37712
SC Environmental 99030
FL NELAP E87648
Pace Analytical Servic,s, Inc.
9800 Kincey Avenue, Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
Pace Analytical Ssrvlcn, Inc.
2225 Riverside Drive
Asheville, NC 28804
QUALITY CONTROL DATA
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Lab Project NUmber: 92102346
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Client Project ID: Corpud Aquifer Test
Analysis ·Method: EPA 410.4
Analysis Description: Chemical Oxygen Demand
Blank
Result
ND
Spike
Cone.
750.00
LCS
Reporting
Limi t
25.
LCS
Result % Rec
738.0 98
Footnotes
% Rec
Limits Footnotes
90-110
926052309 Spike MS MS % Rec
Result .~ BH Yl.t %~~Footnote
774.0 1500.00 1484
926046574 DUP Max
Re sult Ruult m . RPD
4500 4500 l 25
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except In full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
"'"'••
' : ~
~ !~
47 75-125 3
Footnot!!S
Charlotte Certification I Ps
NG Wastewater . 12
NC Drinking Water 37706
SC 99006
FL NELAP £87627
Page: 18 of 22
aAnalyUa,J-
-www.pacelabs.com
QC Batch: 136979
QC Batch Method: EPA 351.2
Associated Lab Samples: 926052739
METHOD BLANK: 926070459
Asaociated Lab Samples: 926052739
Parameter Units
Nitrogen, Kjeldahl, Total mg/1
LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLE: 926070467
Parameter Units
Nitrogen, Kjeldahl, Total mg/1
MATRIX SPIKE: 926070491
Pa ter J;!nits
Nitrogen, Kjeldahl, Total mg/1
SAMPLE DUPLICATE: 926070509
fn!!!Mter J;!nits
Nitrogen, Kjeldahl, Total mg/1
Data: 09/16/05
Asheville Certjjjcatjon IPs
NC Wastewater 40
NC Drinking Water 37712
SC Environmental 99030
FL NELAP EB7648
Pace Analytical Servlcn, Inc.
9800 Kincey Avenue, Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
Pa~ Analytical Servlcss, Inc.
2225 Riverside Drive
Ashevi/18, NC 28804
QUALITY CONTROL DATA
Phone.· 704.875.9092
Fax: [phone]
Lab Project Number: 92102346
Phone : [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Client Project ID: Corpud Aquifer Test
Analysis Method: EPA 351.2
Analysis Description: Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Blank
Result
ND
Spike
Cone.
10.00
Reporting
Limit Fo otnotes
0.50
LCS LCS \ Rec
Re ult ~ Limits Footnotes
10.08 101 90-110
9260.42078 Spika MS MS % Rec
RHUlt ~ RHult , Rec~ Footnotes
1.290 10.00 10.10
926042086 DUP Max
Result Res :y lt Rm RPD
38.00 44.00 14 25
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except In full,
wHhout the written consent o1 Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
/i]j7i}.
,!llt1d\.\t
BB 75-125
Footnote!!
Charlotte CertiUcalioa ms
NC Wastewater 12
NC Drinking Water 37706
SC 99006
FL NELAP E87627
Page, 19 of 22
,?eAnalyticaf I __Jaci WWW.pecootbs.oom
QUALITY CONTROL DATA PARAMETER FOOTNOTES
Pace Ana/ytlcal Services, Inc.
9800 Kincey Avenue, Suite 100
Huntersville. NC 28078
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Lab Project Number: 92102346
Pai:e Ana/ytlcal Serr/en, Inc.
2225 Riverside Drive
Asheville, NC 28804
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Client Project ID: Corpud Aquifer Test
Consistent with .EPA guidelines, unrounded concentrations are displayed and have been used to calculate\ Rec and RPD values.
LCS(D) Laboratory Control Sample (Duplicate)
MS(D) Matrix Spike (Duplicate)
DUP Sample Duplicate
ND Not detected at or above adjusted reporting limit
NC Not Calculable
J Estimated concentration above the adjusted method detection limit and below the adjusted reporting limit
MDL Adjusted Method Detection Limit
RPO Relative Percent Difference
Ill Due to matrix interference the matrix spike and/or matrix spike duplicate do not provide reliable values.
Sa11ple results for this QC batch accepted based on LCS and/or LCSD \ Recovery and/or RPD values.
(2] Oxygen usage is less than 2.0 mg/L for all dilution ■ ■et. The reported value is .an estimated less thil,n
value and is calculated for the dilution using the most amount of sample.
[3] The spike recovery was outside acceptance limits for _the MS and /or MSD due to matrix interference. The LCS
and/or LCSD were within acceptance limits showing that the laboratory is in control and the data is
acceptable.
Date: D9/16/05
Asheville Certification IDs
NC Wastewater 40
NC Drinking Water 37712
SC Environmental 99030
FL NELAP E87648
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except In full,
wtthout the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
~£{~~ ff/JJt:JcL\\
Page: 22 of 22
Charlotte certification ms
NC _wastewater 12
NC Drinking Water -37706
SC 99006
Fl NELAP £87627
DRAFT
Analysis of Groundwater Capture by Proposed Remedial
Wellfields
City of Raleigh Biosolids Application Fields
January 25, 2005
Eric G. Lappala, P.E.
A dvocacy ➔So und Science ➔ lnnovatJ°on -11> Solutions
4005 Lake Springs Court
Raleigh, NC 27613
DRAFT
Contents
1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 3
1.1 Purpose and Objective ........................................................................................ 3
1.2 Approach ............................................................................................................. 3
1.3 Disclaimer ........................................................................................................... 3
2 Pumping Rate Estimation ........................................................................................... 4
3 Updated Groundwater Transport Model.. ................................................................... 6
4 Capture Analysis ......................................................................................................... 8
List of Figures
Figure 1.--Drawdown vs Pumping Rate ............................................................................ 5
Figure 2.--Water level calibration check of updated model. ............................................. 7
Figure 3.--Captured pathlines from fields 50, 60, and 500 .............................................. 10
Figure 4.--Captured pathlines from fields 74 and 75 ....................................................... 11
List of Tables
Table 1.--Location, depth, open intervals, and yield of simulated groundwater
interception wells ................................................................................................................ 9
11
DRAFT
2 Pumping Rate Estimation
The groundwater flow model used for this study (MODFLOW) computes the head in the
33 ft x 33 ft square grid cell in which the well is located, it does not extrapolate the head
to the radius of the well screen or gravel pack. Consequently the maximum sustainable
pumping rate, Q that would not produce drawdown, s greater than the depth of the well
screen was estimated using solutions to the Theis equation for a confined aquifer:
s =_Q_W(u)
41lT
Where: s = drawdown at distance, r and time, t ;
W(u) = The Theis Well function;
r 2 S
U=-·
4Tt'
S = Storage Coefficient, L0 ;
T= Transmissivity of the aquifer, L2/T =K*b
K = Hydraulic conductivity, LIT; and
b = Thickness of aquifer.
(1)
This equation was used to approximate the steady state drawdown because solutions for
drawdown in an unconfined aquifer approach the Theis solution for long pumping times
with S equal to the specific yield of the aquifer. A pumping time of 10,000 days was
used for the analysis.
The value of Tin equation 1 was taken as the sum of layers 2 and 3 from the CSA
groundwater flow model:
Where Ki = hydraulic conductivity oflayer i; and
bi = thickness of layer i.
To be conservative in well yield design a value ofT of 10 ft/day was also evaluated.
Figure 1 shows the drawdown vs distance solution to equation 1 for pumping rates of 1.5,
2, and 3 gallons per minute. From this analysis extraction well pumping rates to achieve
capture cannot likely exceed 3 gallons per minute without causing drawdown that may be
in excess of well depths.
4
DRAFT
4 Capture Analysis
The updated groundwater flow model was used to assess the likely spacing and minimum
steady state pumping rates necessary to capture groundwater flow in five areas. These
areas are those where nitrates have likely moved on to property not owned or controlled
by CORPUD before being discharged to the Neuse River or its major Beddingfield
Creek. The five areas are downgradient of fields 50, 60, 500, 74, and 75.
Capture of groundwater migrating from these fields was simulated by placing particles in
lines across each field, or in some cases by placing a particle in the center of every model
cell where a field was located. Particles were placed in all layers. Pathlines traced out by
each particle were then computed using the U.S. Geological Survey MODPATH code.
MODPATH computes pathlines based upon the hydraulic head distribution that is
determined with the U.S. Geological Survey MODFLOW code used for the CSA and
SSA. All model components were run with the commercial modeling shell, Visual
MODFLOW™.
Capture analyses runs with the updated model were made using extraction well spacing
of 100 and 200 feet, and pumping rates ranging from 1.5 to 3 gallons per minute each.
Adequate capture was achieved using a well spacing of generally 100 ft and pumping
rates of 2 to 3 gallons per minute. The close well spacing and low pumping rates are
required to achieve adequate capture and to keep all pathways on CORPUD property.
Table 1 shows the simulated depth, screened interval and pumping rates for each of the
extraction wells. The capture analysis results are shown on Figures 2 and 3.
The depths shown in Table 1 are based upon the layer depths and thicknesses in
conceptual and numerical groundwater flow model. The pumping rates were determined
to be he lowest amount to achieve adequate capture so as to minimize the amount of
water that the remedial program will have to dispose of. The design depths and pumping
rates should be based upon field-specific well logs and pumping tests.
8
Project Number:
Project Name:
Calculation By:
Subject:
Checked By:
Assum ptions:
Desig n Calculations:
APPENDIX D-1
10724-005-0004
Revised Corrective Action Plan
Amal Keskar
Recovery Well Pumps and Pump Station
Hydraulic Design
Nanjun V. Shetty
Page 2 of 14
Date: 11 /30/05
Date: 11 /30/05
to that pressure drop. The diameter of the pipe can then be determined as
follows:
where,
D = 2 x (QNp)°-5
D
Q
V
=
=
=
Diameter of Pipe (ft)
Volumetric Flow Rate in Pipe in cubic feet
per second (ft'/s)
Bulk Velocity of the Fluid in feet per second
(ft/s)
Once the pipe size is determined then the total head at the pump outlet can
be determined from . the Bernoulli equation. The pump can then be specified
from tables or pump design curves.
• The fluid being pumped is incompressible.
• Kinetic losses due to changes in velocity are negligible.
The design calculations for the recovery well pumps and the pump station
pumps were based on the following -design criteria:
• Based on the aquifer pumping tests (refer to Section 1.6 of the
revised corrective action plan [CAP]), a sustained yield from the
recovery wells is anticipated to be 2 gallons per minute (2 gpm).
The design is based on an average yield of 3 gpm per recovery well
(that includes a 50 percent factor of safety [FOS]).
• The depth of recovery well farthest from the pump station is
estimated to be 55 feet below ground surface (bgs);
• The friction losses -in the collection lines and in the force main were
calculated using the proposed layout of the recovery well system
and the force main (as depicted in Figure 2-2 of the revised CAP
and in the Design Drawings). The head loss through the piping was
estimated using Hazen William's Equation for 'Flow through Pipes'
(Hydraulic Analysis of Ductile Iron Pipe, Ductile Iron Pipe Research
Association [DIPRA]) as shown below:
Project Number:
Project Name:
Calculation By:
Subject:
Checked By:
APPENDIX D-1
1·012+005-0004 Page 3 of 14
Revised Corrective Action Plan
Amol Keskar Date: 11/30/05
Recovery Well Pumps and Pump Station
Hydraulic Design
Nanjun V. Shetty Date: 11/30/05
HL = 1 000*[(V/0.115*C*(d"0.63))"1.852]
Where,
HL = Head Loss {feet per 1,000 feet [ft/1000 ft])
V = Velocity of flow (feet per second)
C = Flow coefficient (C factor)
D = Actual inside diameter of the pipe {inches)
• Parallel pipe flow was assumed for lateral pipes from recovery
wells and the main collection pipe (trunk line). The recovery well
submersible pumps are designed for the highest Total Dynamic
Head (TDH) which will be for the pump in well RW-1.
• The change in elevation in the piping system was approximately
estimated using the Site topographic map and the proposed layout
of the piping system. A schematic of the proposed layout of the
piping system from the recovery wells is attached with this
Appendix.
The design calculations for the pump station pumps and the force main
were based on the following design criteria:
• The force main will be a 6-inch ductile iron (DI) pipe as required by
the City of Raleigh sanitary sewer requirements.
• The design influent (extracted groundwater) flow rate into the pump
station wet well is estimated to be 87 gpm (29 wells at 3 gpm per
well). The design discharge flow rate from the pump station will be
100 gpm. The pumps for the pump station are designed to pump at
a rate of 100 gpm (which includes 15 percent FOS).
• The wet well for the pump station will be a · pre-cast concrete
structure, 5 feet in inside diameter and approximately 12 feet deep.
• It is assumed that the two pumps of the pump station will typically
operate as lead and lag pumps and will be set on a timed
alternating cycle. The pumps will operate in parallel when required
as determined by the water level in the wet well.
Project Number:
Project Name:
Calculation By:
Subject:
Checked By:
Selection of Pum ps
APPENDIX D-1
10724-005-0004
Revised Corrective Action Plan
Arnot Keskar
Recovery Well Pumps and Pump Station
Hydraulic Design
Nanjun V. Shetty
Page 4 of 14
Date: 11 /30/05
Date: 11 /30/05
• The friction losses in the force main were calculated using the
proposed layout of the force main (as depicted in Figure 2-2 and in
the Design Drawings). The head loss through the piping was
estimated using Hazen William's Equation for 'Flow through Pipes'
• The changes in elevation in the force main were approximately
estimated using the Site topographic map and the proposed layout
of the force main. The elevation changes of the recovery well
collection lines and the force main are depicted in the Plan and
Profile Sheets No. 7 and 8 of the Design Drawings. A schematic of
the proposed layout of the force main from the pump station is
attached with this Appendix.
The equivalent length calculations that account for the various fittings (e.g.,
tees, 90 ° elbows etc.) were done using the coefficients as provided in the
book, Cameron Hydraulic Data, Edited by C. C. Heald. The attached
spreadsheets show the calculations for the friction losses for various
sections of the collection piping and TDH required for the recovery well
pumps and the pumps for the pump station. The pumps were specified for
the TOH using pump design curve and/or table or some similar information
supplied by the pump manufacturers.
Recovery Well Submersible Pumps
Based on the hydraulic design calculations, the recovery well pumps shall be capable of operating
at a flow rate of 3 gpm under a TDH of 169 feet of water column. Based on these design
parameters, a Grundfos electric submersible pump 5E12, with a 0.5 horsepower motor is selected
for the recovery wells. The performance curve for this pump is included in this Appendix.
Pump Station Centrifugal Pumps
Based on the hydraulic design calculations, the pumps for the pump station shall be capable of
operating at a discharge flow rate of 100 gpm under a TOH of 128 feet of water column. Based on
these design parameters, two non-clog centrifugal pumps (Model No. 4C3B) with a 20 horsepower
motor are selected for the pump station. These pumps were selected as recommended by
Smith & Loveless, Inc., who will provide the pump station package. The performance curve for this
pump is included in this Appendix. A conceptual layout of the pump station is including in this
Appendix and details of the pump stations are indicated in the Design Drawings.
' • ;-:
ii ;
!i'
!I ..
I
·.,~
170 ~==~~5::.i:i:i:H:P..:ttttt~~r.tttttttttttttt:tn::tt!:;~~ir.t:~:e:t:l~~~~
180 1~';~ .a. . ~~l1Lffim :. n: · ~: ~J J '." Y Ifl lfl' lif!··tt~ u-;itt !fg!JffLf 1tr!1
-~i6e1~03e
WET WE~~ PUMP STATION
. NON-:CLOG PUMP
CONSTANT SPEED PERFORMANCE ·
1760 RPM .
S4MJ2 IMPEll£R l Rll Hi! '9 I :;o J!l mu : · · i. . J ~ Ill i!!l u • • .:. ~,/ f!li.!'i ' t MAXIMUM souo -~ SPHERE ISO B::; • ·-•• . . . .. 50 -,11J , ' Hi mrtJ.H ;J -i;::.µ ~-~ 4'IJ ·I . .
i;:; :: :. h ~ f ff?'~, . . • H II -1a-. ~fl !Li Hjl" ( ..: ' -~J
• . 1-I 60 . ,Hflt ~.J ,. •i.; ,-lu.. ~ ;:.it , . .;. l+,co l!ll .;., . ....., . ~i:::11 ~-= ♦il:r.' ...... ~1~r-;1· -~ ~= ;: . ~ C ~rl• ' :-"11 63 ·.., II~ I( , ••. ir-. 0 ~= w,,.r , .•• ·; •• ..,;.,,,. Fi, ·111 ''" -... .... , •. -1U'l'I -...:;: ...... '• .... 1 t1: 11 ::.i--:.· ·--~ .• ·.1 • --J••·· 'i ..., ~, ... ,., ·-... ~ •. ',!~="' -·· . • -,-··~ 1
:~: :-:. : ~ . · · ~-. -l~I tm ~ :.~jl~~·"''Jlrnl' fril r-·~'C ~,-;ii LU".' m· . u::_ ~~-~ OU AL~CURVED VOLUTE =2~---~ . . ..... rl::. ::-,!!:!_Hl~'!L.l tr.: 1,5. ~ _C,,0 .-~, = . • · · · . . 1 .! •.r.• I' r 71 T=l"i'-,, • 11.1.:--_,_ ~ ~ 0 • J1 ''-'-•=•l"-'I t:I:m = ! ~~-;~ .. ~~----.~*. -•. 'i • laji'· ,:..:Fi i '1,' · ; ..,.. :-=; 1+-..=;;,;::"\f' ,:r-• -=. --:-.-• ...., ,-•,::::,-•,..;::; 1:---4.:J; ___ If.-~,[=~·~ ~• f 'i',•f1 ;~, 0 1 ~I~~--, f. . _~l.... . . .-_"'"rl •,-
1 ,,; ..._ . . ·... ..., . •· , ,-ffi"I ,;:;; •• •~ ~ 7; ~ ~ 1· _.,. .. . , . . . -.. . = r.T" J •. , ... ,..... '"" ~ ~ '"• ... . . . .P .... +-:'; . ~~~~•-. _.. --, J1 ·.S . • • ~ . ,.,, '-'~~ ' .
. .. +l+f ·.••~!::: ~ ··-~ t:; ,,--·-. . . i' ••. ,++1.,.11., tE-l' ·-: -. ..,, ' -• . : • . . . . . • ~ 120 ........ _ ----•-.... a~--~: ;JI• ~-,•:,,:Ill' :µ 1-11 ·l~P:112 r:,.·, ... ~~-:-:-r,,: .. "":,~ ~--:t•::~ .• lsl ·••.•'-• -· ... , ...... ~•• ~ ~--. , 1 •• -: .1. -i;: i:I l! •u,i.:~ ~, .. ..,_ 1-:r= ·i..:::s.· I!!"""•-;.:..:::, .. ,.. · :..-=1-, : . . !..,.,. . . . . . . . . , -II' ~--.cl' ' 1 • .t • • r.-• •••• 74 . ,, .. , • _;
.. .. . . .. :±! ~ . ·i;. I r.--:J:} .-·• · ._~ : , . . . · u,.,-. _ ii ? 11t. :: -:.:;:: . . ' . '"". ' . . . . ! ,'.j !1=; }r,f, .J. ---c:-'. . i:.-=='iJ.-,-i7"" • 110 -.:-· -,. · -~ 7 i:: 9 IE=Jr:14-1,. . -. ETL..~ ~I . . -I~
~ . . . ~ ....,.· -. '. ' . • . :~ 'i: . 'd~ FL . . _.I•-:--~-·· -.. '.'r::l :Z: 100 . . • . . · ; . . . : .. ~·' r,,,;.,. ~
• ~ "' • -·, •
1
~· ~ ,) fr. ~ll:."ii ~~ ~ !·~ • . . • ,; lii ,-
, b .ci ~ ~ -~--... '". R ~ .[ml
f-... ..;;;::;::i;;;:,; • -. , ·. ·~ '. 1:1~~ :t1
IOI~ ...
70
eo
50 .
L..'-'·
\'
--+
.,.
i1I,
~-"' --.:-.~ ~--'-·-
~~
~
·-~., ~·,-
+.-~~
~:~•
·•·;.~
=~~
61
65
-~'4~
~~-·
40 L:.:: :.:.:L:.:.lJF=,c::=::,:.:.:.:.:.;J,:.::::U!tlL~~~:.:.I.U.:.W!.l.:.~!!!:1!WU:.:W:.:.::.L::.1.:.:.:.:.:~!!!!i&:1!!!1!.
0 .. 1200
U.S. CALLONS PER MINUTE
:f €U5-c.-7&:J> f>v~ l-1'-'C'Jj~t,;_. ,s. 4~ .9 .6, :2o t,...p .,.
J,
~I
.. ½ ... '
~....,;.
SUCTION· PIPE
REQUIREMENTS
0-300 GPM: 4,•
Joo-soo GPM: . ft
600-800 CPM: t'
3J6 ,, v n., v .
~
ft
r---
~~ ...
·• ff :ri .
·J ~,--=_. ~ JII ~
L--,;,J
c::;:,.
I
·...r.ai::::.:
J GB
.. 0 .. ~~EJ )C en C .,.m.,_ • . ,...a,
UGI .
~"" ca-.
Ila .. .~ o,il
en=
~o -=--
"':-
•·
-•--~-••I ~ ~.:.;;:::.:~ 4: .••. --"'--. -o_ -. ~ ...... ,.,..
--...... ::!9• ,!"'~ •• • n • ... . ... -.............. _ ~ !• -. ..
• cA O •-·
; ;"'J ;: = ",. .
.. -·· .. A C ,_ ......
~ tp ~
c-,
5 o t
= ~ ~
!:
Project Number:
Project Name:
Calculation By:
Subject:
Checked By:
Assumptions:
Design Calculations:
APPENDIX D-1
10724-005-0004
Revised Corrective Action Plan
Amol Keskar
Recovery Well Pumps and Pump Station
Hydraulic Design
Nanjun V. Shetty
Page 2 of 14
Date: 11/30/05
Date: 11 /30/05
to that pressure drop. The diameter of the pipe can then be determined as
follows:
where,
D =2x(0Np)°-5
D
Q
V
=
=
=
Diameter of Pipe {ft)
Volumetric Flow Rate in Pipe in cubic feet
per second (fr/s)
Bulk Velocity of the Fluid in feet per second
(ft/s)
Once the pipe size is determined then the total head at the pump outlet can
be determined from .the Bernoulli equation. The pump can then be specified
from tables or pump design curves.
• The fluid being pumped is incompressible.
• Kinetic losses due to changes in velocity are negligible.
The design calculations for the recovery well pumps and the pump station
pumps were based on the following design criteria:
• Based on the aquifer pumping tests (refer to Section 1.6 of the
revised corrective action plan [CAP]), a sustained yield from the
recovery wells is anticipated to be 2 gallons per· minute {2 gpm).
The design is based on an average yield of 3 gpm per recovery well
(that includes a 50 percent factor of safety [FOS]). ·
• The depth of recovery well farthest from the pump station is
estimated to be 55 feet below ground surface (bgs);
• The friction losses ·in the collection lines and in the force main were
calculated using the proposed layout of the recovery well system
and the force main (as depicted in Figure 2-2 of the revised CAP
and in the Design Drawings). The head loss through the piping was
estimated using Hazen William's Equation for 'Flow through Pipes'
(Hydraulic Analysis of Ductile Iron Pipe, Ductile lrori Pipe Research
Association [DIPRA]) as shown below:
Project Number:
Project Name:
Calculation By:
Subject:
Checked By:
APPENDIX D-1
10724-005-0004 Page 3 of 14
Revised Corrective Action Plan
Amol Keskar Date: 11 /30/05
Recovery Well Pumps and Pump Station
Hydraulic Design
Nanjun V. Shetty Date: 11/30/05
HL = 1 000*[(V/0.115*C*(dA0.63))A1.852]
Where,
HL = Head Loss (feet per 1,000 feet [ft/1000 ft])
V = Velocity of flow (feet per second)
C = Flow coefficient (C factor)
D = Actual inside diameter of the pipe (inches)
• Parallel pipe flow was assumed for lateral pipes from recovery
wells and the main collection pipe (trunk line). The recovery well
submersible pumps are designed for the highest Total Dynamic
Head (TOH) which will be for the pump in well RW-1.
• The change in elevation in the piping system was approximately
estimated using the Site topographic map and the proposed layout
of the piping system. A schematic of the proposed layout of the
piping system from the recovery wells · is attached with this
Appendix.
The design calculations for the pump station pumps and the force main
were based on the following design criteria:
• The force main will be a 6-inch ductile iron (DI) pipe as required by
the City of Raleigh sanitary sewer requirements.
• The design influent (extracted groundwater) flow rate into the pump
station wet well is estimated to be 87 gpm (29 wells at 3 gpm per
well). The design discharge flow rate from the pump station will be
100 gpm. The pumps for the pump station are designed to pump at
a rate of 100 gpm (which includes 15 percent FOS).
• The wet well for the pump station will be a pre-cast concrete
structure, 5 feet in inside diameter and approximately .12 feet deep.
• It is assumed that the two pumps of the pump station will typically
operate as lead and lag pumps and will be set on a timed
alternating cycle. The pumps will operate in parallel when required
as determined by the water level in the wet well.
Project Number:
Project Name:
Calculation By:
Subject:
Checked By:
Selection of Pumps
APPENDIX D-1
10724-005-0004
Revised Corrective Action Plan
Amal Keskar
Recovery Well Pumps and Pump Station
Hydraulic Design
Nanjun V. Shetty
Page 4 of 14
Date: 11 /30/05
Date: 11 /30/05
• The friction losses in the force main were calculated using the
proposed layout of the force main (as depicted in Figure 2-2 and in
the Design Drawings). The head loss through the piping was
estimated using Hazen William's Equation for 'Flow through Pipes'
• The changes in elevation in the force main were approximately
estimated using the Site topographic map and the proposed layout
of the force main. The elevation changes of the recovery well
collection lines and the force main are depicted in the Plan and
Profile Sheets No. 7 and 8 of the Design Drawings. A schematic of
the proposed layout of the force main from the pump station is
attached with this Appendix.
The equivalent length calculations that account for the various fittings (e.g.,
tees, 90 ° elbows etc.) were done using the coefficients as provided in the
book, Cameron Hydraulic Data, Edited by C. C. Heald. The attached
spreadsheets show the calculations for the friction losses for various
sections of the collection piping and TOH required for the recovery well
pumps and the pumps for the pump station. The pumps were specified for
the TOH using pump design curve and/or table or some similar information
supplied by the pump manufacturers.
Recovery Well Submersible Pumps
Based on the hydraulic design calculations, the recovery well pumps shall be capable of operating
at a flow rate of 3 gpm under a TOH of 169 feet of water column. Based on these · design
parameters, a Grundfos electric submersible pump 5E12; with a 0.5 horsepower motor is selected
for the recovery wells. The performance curve for this pump is included in this Appendix.
Pump Station Centrifugal Pumps
Based on the hydraulic design calculations, the pumps for · the pump station shall be capable of
operating at a discharge flow rate of 100 gpm under a TOH of 128 feet of water column. Based on
these design parameters, two non-clog centrifugal pumps (Model No. 4C3B) with a 20 horsepower
motor are selected for the pump station. These pumps were selected as recommended by
Smith & Loveless, Inc., who will provide the pump station package. The performance curve for this
pump is included in this Appendix. A conceptual layout of the pump station is . including in this
Appendix and details of the pump stations are indicated in the Design Drawings.
t .. ,.
' .. ;r ;
J
i
. ,JI • • •
l7Q l~~~~~~~~~M+M#Ul4,..:;.*.l~~~~~~:..:+:,.l~~W,.:,:J,:.u.,
· · • t I , I u·· lfi• •,-•: It-..: m: iijt: ~ f!;• ·lj:·. ~tHfijf Fl'. · -tf.P 1~fF , . · . I. · -, , ,, l n I ' ;J ~.: !1,:_, h~: {OHJ~ : : ~
. . -r •,I! ~n=ru ··{m: Hil · ~. 1-'+J'._lo.j . · _.. · , . ' . . • · · l' : ;{. -•· • tt_ .(f!I] ' . . ll ,so,-r,~-s-=-~-. ·-·· . --. · , ~ ·. -· .· . 1:z; u,.:::i· _, mHr;, • tifl kt:t O ~ ,_ ,. . Lf:4 ~..: • .t 1 .1 1:1:n . _ _. _ . • ·~• m . ., _,
· . r,, . · 40 · · : 11.-:1J" •1• ~---..,. , · ·U ~.,i 4· · rn.Jts• ~ l"' f I" . •• -~ . l~._.,._ :• .
-~.4CJriJ~OJB
WET WE~'f.nil3' PUMP STATION
NON-CLOG PUMP
CONSTANT SPEED PERFORMANCE ·
1760 RPM · .
,-r. ,· . . .., I.I; . . . ,-f • • 1.lt ,-~1 [!°' --·--. • -~ .,. • . ....... 1 1 IUI I ' .. ,.,. ' I I ' I ., ' IUI .ti . •. ~-· ... . " ,., I _, 11i-J -•• . ".!C~ rs...:. """'' IJ, . I ,' 111} tt . 'J . . . ~ .:... .
IE : ~ 11 -frr.:.~e,i:,; • 11 ~~ r1 1n !!: -· • ..: •.
1
· ·-·. -· · ~~ _ _
liO, . 'rlf 't ,., .. ~ ,. ~:i.; -'"" ~ .,. ,., , .• •...--h.. i:,:r -:;., . ..,T -, .. ,.◄◄ ..,..,~~rr+r.=l' .. .,_Httr!I · :tB · -~-~ . 17
l,i:!.! . ....:. •I ). 14 :;j 63 :, •II I !t~ ~I ~ ~ :.---. ..... ~ .~~-j;:?:i;; 1.::~ at, r"• -•'-ln•-~Lr:".':l .-:;:.t~:~~:::.11J·~i~ ,-~~~·:·~_i7:i: "~: .... ~.--•· ~, ;J~ ~:£.S·1~l 11 :;;m1 ~1.,..~1/c _""··,_ ..... · •-<·,.-•.-! •••• --OUAL~CURVED. _ VO'':UTE = ~l :::,. : , . tw 11:;;i~~ u~as ::11tl L:-.:r." 1i;"":t+--... VCJ,,~ 'I ~~ ... ~ m . -L. __
S4MJ2 IMPELLER
MAXIM UM SOUO . -Y SPHERE
. -.,, 71 ...... ,;:..._. Ill .. :--.. oNIJI:> . ,. =--.. . s·EEI .-· ,..,. ,--• •• .... -·= ··~-..·· • . •~;1. ':r:. • 1-l '\.. ""?-•. • • .... ~::.: ~,:-'\f' ,-:;:.:.,, -~ . .__ ..:.=-~ • ....,.f.;:... ".. ;:;:::. I=: "' .Jj;;:_ °!~ • ,..... ::_ " • !i_in ~ . 1 i\11 ~ l, a t"~ ,. _ ·-. . . , · ' -· ... •-
·/ R.J JQ · -_·· · · ~ ,:;.;_ ·_ "1
" ~~ :i:Jr;-~1-fu: ~fl-~ ,i~~!'1• j,~~ . •·.. · ·.
--·--.l:,. -,.rr'!,~J.--·_., . •~
.... . . . : fj'"'.' ~ ·,-r ''~ -= ,.., = . . . . ' . . --w I t1 •iil:.i.: • • -r.-. •-tt! 120•=.: .. ;..._ __ •-..--~--.. · 11 ....t.! ::Ji, :IIJ· · :jJ t ;1~1:[ie r"r•~----=::1,.___;,,..::~.1·1.:.:.1.___t~ ;,,,.,,~e !!l:.,':.; -· •••1
•·!-._, ••"_...r-~• ... ·· • I.~. •. -,■ 1 •.1 • • "'•• ...,_ • ""~~•I~~•-•
';,--+;:'= ' ., ,Jn. ·l'I•~ ,._, ' .I'.•-•. · ··-74'-i;f.~• ~ .. · -.. '." •· 1!.~.tt.1:'h .":l: ,;.;=--•,_.,.....:,·.~: .. ~. -4u;:· -iii l?t1r.::: --::::: 'l't:I .,.,._ .• c.::' :,.,"i IJ~-,-.... .. {~"""""'i,J._ ·; ,--,.~.
~ .. t ,
ell
11 0 r..-,.... . . . -~ I' ~--. I ' . ;r.;-~ ~-... 71 ;P ~ =· •. "'· ' ,;.;:::-.I .,.
. . . -.:-' • ···~ "'l.'.a~::j " • ...,. ~ -· , l'll lil: -. 't! . 1 i:u::-.!:k ·. • •• : ·. . . • r.::; 1•:r _, ,,, 1 r.: ..... :r: 100 · · · · · · · · n · ·Fr. ~ ,~ ~ ----·-=-·· 7---=-
. -' •~ + -• ;. •~ a . • •~• •· ,: ..i ~ . •: . '.~I -•~ --:_..,..,,
:< . == . 0 IG ~ .~
... ~rt
eo c:i.~
70 1.:--i•.~i-
~,~
10 ffi-,,= ..
':"i!:t
I::=±::::-.=.=-=-=-=:, l
50 Fl..D# 19
• DISCH.~
:-: PIPINC :::t!I 40 .•.• ..-........ ··-
0 • 200 400
loo~rm
:I GUo-r6--..I)
t!t-
-~
c.L"l:.u;J\',l ~~.::.wc1,_ ..
'·•~'4•~
,.,,,:~l:':11,
IW(
~ DCS I
.,.. PIPIN
-·••!!lli•......,......,=:&!..!.
eoo IOO
~.;;•.;, .,~·-··-~~•.•:::.-_,_n,J,
~.•·-. __ .,,;~
·~-~ --· ~· ~:>·
••-'-=
., ... '!""!'
,--'-"'!t'-~-•llii' ~.,_,·-~ ....... -·.·.~=~
~~ ... -, ~·
68
65fiH
·~-ij~,
tu.~.
t
. :: .. !i~!'t1'1titlit: :; :~ .12m:iml.J.J.i.!H
1000 1ZOO
U.S. GAL.LONS PER · MINUTE
/vl""fJ /v'--0.0e--t..:.-,s. 4c .?6. .:2o4 .,
~--
~ ~E-:
~-I
':"""~rr----
~-~·
SUCTION · PIPE
REQUIREMENTS
0-300 GPM: 4•
300~600 GPtA: .ft
600-800 GPM: t'
3p_,; <,-n, (/.
,--.
~~ i .
.I r-~ cn =--l
f1I I ii' ::r
0119
Jlt t
.5' ,,
hr-J
E3
' '
• ,I ·-,,,,:;:
~~
rA CJCJ
~~EJ--= .. •°' DI j
:,,:-a:
11t Al ~.,, -.
Cit di
tit~ cnu at=: .
~c c:r.-cn:-
----ft--,; { ..... -.. -0 Cl .. n -M ._._, ■ t\ -•• •· o • .. .., .. v_
• t ~ tll t V ---~-,.... ~ ,... .... 11-.. • ,. • .......... ., ... ~' . -...... .. , c,11 e , •. --11 ........ = ~ • = 1. 1il 'C: I-a&., D ·
R lP ~ n
5 o t
.. "T) '
Ill ;__ f.3
.c
AK, Anchorage MA, Air Laboratory PA, Pittsburgh
[phone] [phone] [phone]
AK, Fairbanks MA, Sagamore Beach SC, Columbia
/NTERNAT/ONAL
[phone] [phone] [phone]
AL, Birmingham MA, Westford TX, Dallas
[phone] [phone] [phone]
AL, Florence MA, Woods Hole TX, Houston
[phone] [phone] [phone]
CA, Alameda MD, Columbia VA, Chesapeake
[phone] [phone] [phone]
CA, Camarillo ME, Portland WA, Redmond
[phone] [phone] [phone]
CA, Sacramento Ml, Detroit WI, Green Bay
[phone] [phone] [phone]
CA, Santa Ana MN, Minneapolis WI, Milwaukee
[phone] (952} 924-0117 [phone]
CO, Ft. Collins NC, Charlotte Headquarters
[phone] [phone] MA, Westford
Ft. Collins Tox Lab NC, Raleigh [phone]
[phone] (919} 872-6600 Azerbaijan
CT, Stamford NH, Gilford Belgium
[phone] [phone] Bolivia
CT, Willington NJ, Piscataway Brazil
Canada
[phone] [phone] China
FL, St. Petersburg NY, Albany France
[phone] [phone] Germany
FL, Tallahassee NY, Rochester Ireland
[phone] [phone] Italy
Japan
GA, Norcross NY, Syracuse Malaysia
[phone] [phone] Philippines
IL, Chicago NY, Syracuse Air Lab Thailand
[phone] [phone] Turkey
IL, Collinsville OH, Cincinnati United Kingdom
[phone] [phone] Venezuela
LA, Baton Rouge PA, Langhorne www.ensr.com
[phone] [phone]
Celebrating Over 35 Years of Excellence in Environmental Services
BKCVdom_06_05.qxd
•
APPENDIX D-1
PIPE Flow Rate PIPE
DIAMETER
SECTION GPM (inches)
Discharge· Hose-Top 3 1
Top of Well-A 3 1
A-B 3 2
B-C 6 2
C-D 9 2
D-E 12 2
E-F 15 2
F-G 18 2
G-H ·21 2
H-1 24 2
I-Manifold 24 2
Manifold -Wet Well 87 4
DISCHARGE HEAD
Friction losses 31
Elevation Head 5. 105
DISCHARGE HEAD = 136
SUCTION HEAD
Suction Lift 0
Friction losses 5
SUCTION HEAD 5
TOTAL DESIGN HEAD = 141
Factor of Safety (20%) 28
TOTAL DESIGN HEAD= 169
NOTES:
RECOVERY WELLS -PIPING HYDRAULICS ANO TOTAL DESIGN. HEAD CALCULATIONS
Groundwater Remediation
City of Raleigh PubJic Utilities Department {CORPUD)
Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant (NRWWTP)
Raleigh, North Carolina
PIPE NO. OF FITTINGS (FOR EQUIVALENT LENGTH CALC.)2 EQUIVALENT TOTALEQ. VELOCITY
LENGTH 1 (ft) Check Valve Globe Valve 45 EL 90EL "T'' RUN "T" SIDE LENGTH(ft) 1 LENGTH (ft) ft/sec
60.0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2.62 63 1.23
15.0 2 0 0 2 0 0 28.84 44 1.23
105.0 0 0 0 0 1 1 13.74 119 0.31
105.0 0 0 0 0 1 1 13.74 119 0.61
105.0 0 0 0 0 1 1 13.74 119 0.92
105.0 0 0 0 0 1 1 13.74 119 1.23
105.0 0 0 0 1 1 1 18.94 124 1.53
105.0 0 0 0 0 1 1 13.74 119 1.84
120.0 0 0 0 1 1 1 18.94 139 2.15
300.0 0 0 0 1 0 0 5.20 30 5 2.45
1200.0 2 0 0 4 0 0 67.20 1267 2.45
15.0 0 1 0 4 0 0 154.4 16 9.4 2.22
ft. of WC (includes a 10% factor of safety [FOS] in the Total Loss)
ft. of WC
ft. ofwc
ft. ofwc No suction lift since the pump is submersed.
ft. Of WC As recommended by the manufacturer with a FOS.
ft. ofwc
ft. ofwc (Total Design Head= Discharge Head+ Suction Head)
ft. Of WC
ft. of WC
1 = Pipe Lengths have been estimated by dividing the piping layout into separate sections for estimating friction losses.
ACTUAL
PIPE
DIAMETER4
(inches)
0.96
0.96
1.94
1.94
1.94
1.94
1.94
1.94
1.94
1.94
1.94
3.83
2 = Equivalent lengths for fittings and valves and unit friction loss were obtained from Cameron Hydraulic Data, Edited by C.C. Heald, 19th Edition, Flowserve.
3 = Friction Headloss Calculations are based on Hazen-Williams Equation for Flow through Pipes.
HL = 1000*(V/0.115*C*(d0 ·63))1·852 (Ductile Iron Pipe Research Association [DIPRA)).
HL = Head Loss; V = Velocity of Flow; d = Actual Inside Diameter; C = Flow Coefficient (C Factor}; For a PVC .pipe!, C Factor= 140.
4 = Actual Inside Diameter of the Pipe is for a Schedule 80 PVC Pipe.
5 = It is assumed that the submersible pump in the well RW-1 farthest away from the pump station will be set at approximately 55 ft below ground surface (bgs).
Based on the topographic map, the elevation of the well RW-1 is approximately 160 ft. The elevation of the wet well in the pump station is 21 O ft.
Therefore the elevation difference between the submersed pump in RW-1 and the wet well is 2'10-(160-55} = 105 ft.
GPM ~ gallons per minute
ft= feet
ft/sec = feet per second
wc = water column
Friction Loss 3 Total Loss
(ft per 1000 ft) per Section
8.938 0.56
8.938 0.39
0.301 0.04
1.086 0.13
2.302 0.27
3.921 0.47
5.928 0,73
8.309 0.99.
11.055 1.54
14.156 4.32
14.156 17.94
5.338 0.90
Total Loss = 28
Page 7 of 14
APPENDIX D-1
PIPE
SECTION
Pump at Pump
Station-A
A-8
8-C
C-D
D-E
E-F
F-G
G-H
H-1
1-J
J-K
K-L
L-M
M-N
N-O
O-P
P-Q
Q-R
R-S
S-T
T-U
U-V
V-W
W-X
X-Y
Y-Z
Z-AA
AA-AB
AB-AC
AC-AD
AD -8" Sewer Line
DISCHARGE HEAD
Friction losses
Elevation Head5
DISCHARGE HEAD =
SUCTION HEAD
Suction Lift6
Friction .losses
SUCTION HEAD
Flow Rate
GPM
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
TOT AL DESIGN HEAD =
Factor of Safety (20%)
TOTAL DESIGN HEAD =
PIPE PIPE
DIAMETER LENGTH 1
4 40.0
6 100.0
6 350.0
6 300.0
6 200.0
6 5o.o ·
6 250.0
6 500.0
6 800.0
6 450.0
6 250.0
6 450.0
6 100.0
6 300.0
6 500.0
6 200.0
6 200.0
6 100.0
6 400.0
6 500.0
6 250.0
6 650.0
6 1100.0
6 250.0
6 150.0
6 550.0
6 1850.0
6 600.0
6 300.0
6 400.0
6 450.0
16 ft. of WC
73 ft. of WC
89 ft. Of WC
13 ft. Of WC
5 ft. of WC
18 ft. of WC
106 ft. Of WC
21 ft. Of WC
128 ft. Of WC
FORCE MAIN -PIPING HYDRAULICS AND TOTAL DESIGN HEAD CALCULATIONS
Groundwater Remediation
City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department (CORPUD)
Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant (NRWWTP)
Raleigh, North Carolina
NO. OF FITTINGS (FOR EQUIVALENT LENGTH CALC.)2 EQUIVALE NT
Check Valve Globe Valve 45 EL 90EL "T"RUN "T''. SIDE LENGTH(ft)1
3 0 0 3 0 '.0 165.90
0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00
0 0 0 3 0 0 45.30
0 0 2 0 0 0 16.20
0 0 3 0 0 0 24.30
0 0 1 0 0 0 8.10
0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00
0 0 3 0 0 0 24.30
0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00
0 0 3 0 0 0 24.30
0 0 2 0 0 0 16.20
0 0 3 0 0 0 24.30
0 0 1 0 0 0 8.10
0 0 1 0 0 0 8.10
0 0 1 0 0 0 8.10
0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00
0 0 1 0 0 0 8.10
0 0 2 0 0 0 16.20
0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00
0 0 2 1 0 0 31.30
0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00
0 0 2 0 0 0 16.20
0 0 5 0 0 0 40.50
0 0 5 0 0 0 40.50
0 0 2 0 0 0 16.20
0 0 4 0 0 0 32.40
0 0 10 0 0 0 81.00
0 0 4 0 .0 0 32.40
0 0 1 2 0 0 38.30
0 0 4 0 0 0 32.40
0 0 2 3 0 0 61.50
(includes a 25% factor of safety [FOS] in the Total Loss)
As recommended by the manufacturer of pump station with a FOS.
(Total Design Head= Discharge Head+ Suction Head)
TOTALEQ.
LENGTH (ft)
206
100
395
316
224
58 .
250
524
800
474
266
474
108
308
508
200
208
116
400
531
250
666
1141
291
166.
582
1931
632
338
432
512
f>AGt E lo oF 14
ACTUAL
VELOCITY PIPE Friction Loss3 Total Loss
DIAMETER4
ft/sec (inches) (ft per 1 000 ft) oer Section
2.55 4.30 6.029 1.24
1.14 6.28 0.863 0.09
1.14 6.28 0.863 0.34
1.14 6.28 0.863 0.27
1.14 6.28 0.863 0.19
1.14 6.28 0.863 0.05
1.14 6.28 .0.863 0.22
1.14 6.28 0.863 0.45
1.14 6.28 0.863 0.69
1.14 6.28 0.863 0.41
1.14 6.28 0.863 0.23
1.14 6.28 0.863 0.41
1.14 6.28 0.863 0.09
1.14 6.28 0.863 0.27
1.14 6.28 0.863 0.44
1.14 6.28 0.863 0.17
1.14 6.28 0.863 0.18
1.14 6.28 0.863 0.10
1.14 6.28 0.863 0.35
1.14 6.28 0.863 0.46
1.14 6.28 0.863 0.22
1.14 6.28 0.863 0.57
1.14 6.28 0.863 0.98
1.14 6.28 0.863 0.25
1.14 6.28 0.863 0.14
1.14 6.28 0.863 0.50
1.14 6.28 0.863 1.67
1.14 6.28 0.863 0.55
1.14 6.28 0.863 0.29
1.14 6.28 0.863 0.37
1.14 6.28 0.863 0.44
Total Loss= 12.64
APPENDIX D-1
NOTES:
FORCE MAIN -PIPING HYDRAULICS AND TOTAL DESIGN HEAD CALCULATIONS
Groundwater Remediation
City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department (CORPUD)
Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant (NRWWTP)
Raleigh, North Carolina
1 = Pipe Lengths have been estimated by dividing the layout of the Force Main into sections
based on the changes in the profile for estimating friction losses.
2 = Equivalent lengths for fittings and valves and unit friction loss were obtained from
Cameron Hydraulic Data, Edited by C.C. Heald, 19th Edition, Flowserve ...
3 = Friction Headless Calculations are based on Hazen-Williams Equation for Flow through Pipes.
4 = Actual Inside Diameter of the Pipe is based on information available on the Ductile Iron Pipe Research Assocation website (www.dipra.org)
5 = Based on the topographic map, the elevation of the Pump station pump is approximately 21 O ft. The elevation of the highest point along the force main is 283 ft.
Therefore the elevation difference between the pump station pump and the highest point is 283-210 = 73 ft.
6 = The wet well of the pump station is approximately 12 feet deep. The low level pump tum off elevation is approximately 1.5 ft from the bottom.
Therefore, the suction lift for the pump is 12 -1.5 = 10.5 ft. With a 20% Factor of Safety (FOS), the design suction lift is approximately 13 ft.
GPM = gallons per minute ·
ft= feet
ft/sec = feet per second .
wc = water column
Design Discharge Flow rate through the Pump Station is 100 gpm.
P-A&t E 11 OF I 4