NC0038377_Mayo Tables_20160229

TABLE 2-1
WATER LEVEL DATA - DECEMBER 2015
MAYO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, ROXBORO, NC
Well Identification
Date
Measured
Measured
Well Depth
(Feet TOC)
Measured
Depth to Water
(Feet TOC)
Water Level
(Feet MSL)
BG-1
12/3/2015
56.35
30.30
509.81
BG-2
12/3/2015
48.08
31.88
510.78
CW-1
12/3/2015
28.84
18.05
471.83
CW-1D
12/3/2015
43.67
19.36
471.60
CW-2
12/3/2015
20.48
12.35
376.65
CW-2D
12/3/2015
58.86
12.78
376.75
CW-3
12/3/2015
NM
17.20
420.48
CW-4
12/3/2015
43.08
22.35
428.96
CW-5
12/3/2015
NM
7.78
501.82
CW-6
12/3/2015
80.50
13.84
448.99
MW-2
12/3/2015
50.17
27.11
434.12
MW-3
12/3/2015
20.26
6.41
377.59
MW-4
12/3/2015
59.06
28.23
494.54
MW-03BR
12/3/2015
76.53
17.14
421.10
MW-05BR
12/3/2015
65.72
9.62
501.78
MW-06BR (piezometer)
12/3/2015
100.34
13.89
450.10
MW-07D
12/3/2015
62.67
11.36
442.58
MW-07BR
12/3/2015
79.46
9.72
443.78
MW-08S (piezometer)
12/3/2015
30.16
29.86
437.01
MW-08D (piezometer)
12/3/2015
38.24
34.60
432.29
MW-08BR
12/3/2015
67.00
36.06
430.93
MW-09BR
12/3/2015
60.63
26.57
468.82
MW-10BR
12/3/2015
57.55
13.30
500.09
MW-11BR
12/3/2015
98.80
36.70
490.66
MW-12S
12/3/2015
50.40
32.15
555.23
MW-12D
12/3/2015
96.55
32.50
555.52
M W-13BR
12/3/2015
100.95
31.55
497.28
MW-14BR
12/3/2015
37.07
16.87
503.88
MW-15BR (piezometer)
12/4/2015
62.90
54.40
406.52
M W-16S
12/4/2015
10.81
3.34
367.77
MW-16D
12/4/2015
41.74
3.26
367.95
MW-16BR
12/4/2015
62.49
3.46
367.84
ABMW-01
12/3/2015
15.65
2.58
481.23
ABMW-02
12/3/2015
42.48
10.83
483.07
ABMW-02BR
12/3/2015
107.64
11.26
482.59
ABMW-03
12/3/2015
43.50
16.96
483.21
ABMW-03S
12/3/2015
63.16
17.18
483.12
ABMW-04
12/3/2015
56.10
6.13
485.31
ABMW-04D
12/3/2015
65.75
6.26
485.24
ABMW-04BR
12/3/2015
111.50
6.15
485.46
Prepared by: EMB Checked by: JAW
Notes:
nm = Not measured
TOC= Top of Casing
MSL = Mean Sea Level
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\105. Mayo Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\20.EG_CAP\CAP Part 2\Tables\Table 2-
1 Water Level Data Dec 2015.xlsx Page 1 of 1

TABLE 6-1
GROUNDWATER REMEDIATION ALTERNATIVE SCREENING
EFFECTIVENESS
MAYO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, ROXBORO, NC
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Alternative 4
Monitored Natural
Groundwater
Groundwater Recovery
In -Situ Chemical
Effectiveness
Attenuation
Recovery Wells
Wells with Enhanced
Immobilization with
(MNA)
Fracture Technology
Enhanced Fracture
Technolo
Will remedial alternative be
protective of human health?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
When will remedial alternative be
Current
Current
Current
Current
protective of human health?
When will remedial alternative be
Current
Current
Current
Current
protective of the environment?
Has the potential remedial
alternative been demonstrated
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
effective at any similar sites?
Will remedial alternative
permanently remove contaminant
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
from site?
Will remedial alternative reduce
the toxicity of contaminants?
Yes
No
No
Yes
Will remedial alternative reduce
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
the mobility of contaminants?
Can the effectiveness of a
potential remedial alternative be
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
monitored, measured, and
validated?
Prepared by: RKD Checked by: JAW
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\105. Mayo Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\20.EG_CAP\CAP Part 2\Tables\Revised Final Tables\Table 6-16-5 evaluation tables_FINAL.docx
Page 1 of 1

TABLE 6-2
GROUNDWATER REMEDIATION ALTERNATIVE SCREENING
IMPLEMENTABILITY
MAYO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, ROXBORO, NC
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Alternative 4
Monitored Natural
Groundwater
Groundwater Recovery
In -Situ Chemical
Implementability
Attenuation
Recovery Wells
Wells with Enhanced
Immobilization with
(MNA)
Fracture Technology
Enhanced Fracture
Technology
Are the material resources and
manpower readily available to fully
implement the remedial alternative
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
in a timely manner?
Does the remedial alternative
require highly specialized resources
No
No
Yes
Yes
and/or equipment?
Is there sufficient onsite and offsite
area to fully implement the
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
remedy?
Will waste materials be managed
efficiently?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Does the remedial alternative
require any permits and can the
NA
Yes
Yes
Yes
permits be acquired in a timely
manner?
Can the remedial alternative be
implemented safely?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Can existing infrastructure support
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
remedial alternative?
Can the remedial alternative
achieve all applicable or reasonable
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
and appropriate requirements
(ARARs)?
Prepared by: RKD Checked by: JAW
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\105. Mayo Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\20.EG_CAP\CAP Part 2\Tables\Revised Final Tables\Table 6-16-5 evaluation tables_FINAL.docx
Page 1 of 1

TABLE 6-3
GROUNDWATER REMEDIATION ALTERNATIVE SCREENING
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
MAYO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, ROXBORO, NC
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Alternative 4
Monitored Natural
Groundwater
Groundwater Recovery
In -Situ Chemical
Environmental Sustainability
Attenuation
Recovery Wells
Wells with Enhanced
Immobilization with
(MNA)
Fracture Technology
Enhanced Fracture
Technology
Will treatment permanently
Yes, will remove
No, will immobilize
remove target constituents?
constituents over a
constituents over a
Yes, will eventually
Yes, with discharge
broader area and at a
broader area and
discharge to surface
through NPDES
greater rate than
reduce downgradient
water regime
Outfall.
Alternative 2 prior to
migration of
discharge through NPDES
constituents.
Outfall.
Will treatment permanently reduce
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
target constituent toxicity?
Will treatment reduce the mobility
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
of target constituents?
Will treatment transfer target
constituents from one media to
Yes
Yes
No
No
another?
Rank alternatives*: carbon
1
3
4
2
footprint
Rank alternatives*: waste
1
3
4
2
generated
List opportunities for recycling or
Use existing wells
Not Anticipated
Not Anticipated
Not Anticipated
beneficial reuse
List opportunities where renewable
Uses all natural
Not Anticipated
Not Anticipated
Not Anticipated
sources of energy will be used.
processes
List opportunities for habitat
restoration, enhancement, or
Habitats not affected
Not Anticipated
Not Anticipated
Not Anticipated
replacement.
*Rank order is assumed that least=1 and most=4
Prepared by: RKD Checked by: JAW
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\105. Mayo Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\20.EG_CAP\CAP Part 2\Tables\Revised Final Tables\Table 6-1_6-5 evaluation tables_FINAL.docx Page 1 of 1

TABLE 6-4
GROUNDWATER REMEDIATION ALTERNATIVE SCREENING
ESTIMATED COST
MAYO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, ROXBORO, NC
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Alternative 4
Estimated
Monitored
Groundwater
Groundwater
In -Situ Chemical
Groundwater
Natural
Recovery
Recovery Wells
Immobilization
Remediation
Attenuation
Wells
with Enhanced
with Enhanced
Cost
(MNA)
Fracture
Fracture
Technology
Technology
Capital Cost
$818 K
$1.6 M
$2.2 M
$1.0 M
30 year
Operation and
$4.3 M
$7.1 M
$7.1 M
$5.1 M
Maintenance
Cost/Monitoring
Total Cost
$5.1 M
$8.7 M
$9.3 M
$6.1 M
Prepared by: RKD Checked by: JAW
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\105. Mayo Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\20.EG_CAP\CAP Part 2\Tables\Revised Final Tables\Table 6-16-5
evaluation tables_FINAL.docx Page 1 of 1

TABLE 6-5
GROUNDWATER REMEDIATION ALTERNATIVE SCREENING
COMMUNITY ACCEPTANCE
MAYO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, ROXBORO, NC
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Alternative 4
Monitored
Groundwater
Groundwater
In -Situ Chemical
Stakeholder
Natural
Recovery Wells
Recovery Wells with
Immobilization
Acceptance
Attenuation
Enhanced Fracture
with Enhanced
(M NA)
Technology
Fracture
Technology
Moderately High;
Moderately High;
Public
Moderate
proactive approach
proactive approach
Moderate; long
acceptance
but generates
but generates
time frame
discharge
discharge
Moderately High;
Moderately High;
Moderate;
Regulatory
Moderate
proactive approach
proactive approach
challenges with
acceptance
but generates
but generates
implementation
discharge
discharge
Prepared by: RKD Checked by: JAW
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\105. Mayo Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\20.EG_CAP\CAP Part 2\Tables\Revised Final Tables\Table 6-16-5
evaluation tables_FINAL.docx Page 1 of 1

TABLE 6-6
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION SUMMARY
MAYO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, ROXBORO, NC
Alternatives
Effectiveness
Implementability/
Environmental
Estimated
Groundwater
Stakeholder
Feasibility
Sustainability
Remediation Cost
Acceptance
Monitored Natural
Yes, groundwater
High
Sound technical
Attenuation (MNA)
Yes
monitoring wells are
(lowest carbon
$5.1 M
basis for
common
footprint)
approach
Moderate
Groundwater
Limited
Yes
(energy
$$'� M
Positive due to
Recovery Wells
consumption of
active nature
pump system)
Moderate
Positive due to
Groundwater
(energy
active nature,
Recovery Wells with
Yes
Yes
consumption
$9.3 M
additional
Fracture Technology
pump system))
permitting
required
Positive due to
In -Situ Chemical
active nature,
Immobilization with
Yes
Yes
High
$6.1 M
additional
Fracture Technology
permitting
required
Prepared By: RKD Checked By: JAW
Assumptions: 1. Source control measures are implemented to accomplish groundwater restoration
2. Costs for groundwater remedy include implementation and 30 years O&M
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\105. Mayo Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\20.EG_CAP\CAP Part 2\Tables\Revised Final Tables\Table 6-6 Remediate
Alternative Feasibility Summary Mayo FINAL.docx Page 1 of 1

TABLE 6-7
INPUT PARAMETERS AND VALUES FOR CONVECTIVE -DISPERSIVE
FLOW EQUATION BASED UPON MAYO DATA
MAYO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, ROXBORO, NC
Parameter
Nomenclature
Value
Source of Value
Began Sluicing Ash
-
1983
CSA
Ceased Sluicing
-
2016*
CSA
Duration of Source
t°
34
Calculated
Term
3.45 arsenic,
Max value from
Source Concentration
c°
1870 boron
Seepage Data in
(Ng/L)
3370 manganese
2015 Table - ,
CAP Part 1
Background
1 arsenic
Lowest Provisional
Concentration
c;
50 boron,
Background or
(pg/L)62
manganese
Detection Limit
Geometric Means of
Hydraulic Conductivity
Surficial, Transition,
(ft/yr)
k
72.8
and Bedrock
Table 3-2,
CAP Part 1
Average
Hydraulic Gradient
i
0.026
of gradients
Table 3-3,
CAP Part 1
Effective Porosity
n,
0.1
CSA
Seepage Velocity
vs=ki/ne
18.7
Calculated
ft/ r
Dis ersivit ft
a
20
0.1*2000
Dispersion ft2/ r
D = ays
375
Calculated
Distribution Coefficient
50 arsenic,
W/O
Kd
0.12 boron,
Murdoch et a/.,2015
0.1 manganese
Time from Introduction
t
Varies
To capture the
of Constituent ears
length of plume
Distance from
Measured (basin to
Boundary of Ash Basin
x
500
Crutchfield Branch
(feet)
at compliance
boundary)
Calculated
c(x,t)
As shown in pg/L
Calculated
Concentration
Prepared By: KDB Checked By: DGN
* Assume that sluicing is terminated in 2016. The Mayo ash basin has been proposed as "low risk" and the
basin closure date is December 31, 2029.
** Groundwater entering Crutchfield Branch is primarily affected by the northern section of the basin. The max
observed seepage concentration for Boron and Arsenic from Round 1 and 2 sampling events is more
representative than the ash pore water values measured from the southern portion of the basin for this
model. Selecting the maximum concentration is a conservative approach. For manganese, the second
highest value was selected because the highest value was recorded from a sample with very high turbidity.
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\105. Mayo Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\20.EG_CAP\CAP Part 2\ Tables\ Table 6-7 Input Parameters and Values
for CD Flow Equation.docx Page 1 of 1

TABLE 6-8
2015 HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM ANALYTICAL RESULTS
MAYO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, ROXBORO, NC
Analytical Parameter
Chromium (Hexavalent)
Cr(VI)
Analytical Method
US EPA 218.7
Brooks Rand IC-ICP-DRC-MS
Reporting Units
ug/1
ug/1
NC DHHS Health Screening Level
0.07
0.07
Sample ID
Sample Collection Date
Analytical Results
ASH PORE WATER
ABM W-01
09/10/2015
NA
<0.007
ABMW-01
12/03/2015
<0.03
NA
ABMW-02
06/23/2015
NA
0.017
ABMW-02
12/01/2015
<0.03
NA
ABMW-03
06/23/2015
NA
<0.005
ABMW-03
12/01/2015
<0.03
NA
ABM W-04
06/22/2015
NA
<0.005
ABMW-04
12/01/2015
<0.03
NA
ALLUVIAL
MW-03
06/23/2015
NA
0.155
MW-03
12/03/2015
NA
MW-16S
06/23/2015
NA
0.011
MW-16S
09/09/2015
NA
<0.007
MW-16S
12/04/2015
<0.03
NA
SAPROLITE
ABMW-03S
06/22/2015
NA
<0.005
ABMW-03S
12/01/2015
<0.03
NA
MW-12S
12/02/2015
0.043
NA
TRANSITION ZONE
ABMW-04D
06/22/2015
NA
<0.005
ABMW-04D
12/01/2015
<0.03
NA
BG-02
07/07/2015
NA
<0.021
BG-02
12/09/2015
<0.03
NA
CW-02
07/07/2015
NA
0.1
CW-02
12/02/2015
0.12
NA
MW-07D
12/02/2015
<0.03
NA
MW-12D
06/25/2015
NA
0.334
MW-12D
09/10/2015
NA
0.357
MW-12D
12/02/2015
0.55
NA
MW-12D DUP
12/02/2015
0.64
NA
MW-12D
12/04/2015
0.64 M1
NA
MW-16D
06/23/2015
NA
0.051
MW-16D DUP
06/23/2015
NA
0.061
MW-16D
09/09/2015
NA
0.066
MW-16D DUP
09/09/2015
NA
0.069
MW-16D
12/04/2015
0.097
NA
MW-16D DUP
12/04/2015
0.095
NA
BEDROCK
ABMW-02BR
06/22/2015
NA
0.007
ABMW-02BR
12/01/2015
<0.03 M1
NA
ABMW-04BR
06/23/2015
NA
0.005
ABMW-04BR
12/01/2015
0.043
NA
BG-01
12/05/2015
0.31
NA
CW-02D
07/07/2015
NA
CW-02D
12/02/2015
0.061
NA
MW-02
12/01/2015
<0.03
NA
MW-03BR
12/02/2015
<0.03
NA
MW-04
12/01/2015
0.038
NA
MW-05BR
12/02/2015
<0.03
NA
MW-07BR
12/02/2015
<0.03
NA
M W-08 BR
12/02/2015
<0.03
NA
MW-09BR
12/02/2015
0.045
NA
MW-10BR
12/03/2015
<0.03
NA
M W-11 BR
12/03/2015
13.6
NA
MW-13BR
06/23/2015
NA
0.005
MW-13BR
12/02/2015
<0.03
NA
MW-14BR
12/02/2015
<0.03
NA
MW-16BR
06/23/2015
NA
0.017
MW-16BR
09/09/2015
NA
0.013 j
MW-16BR
12/04/2015
<0.03
NA
ASH BASIN WASTEWATER
S-05 07/07/2015 NA 0.612
Prepared by: BER Checked by: TDP
Notes:
- - Bold highlighted concentration indicates exceedance of the North Carolina Department
of Health and Human Services from North Carolina Department of Environmental
Quality Memorandum, November 4, 2015.
DUP = Duplicate
S.U. = Standard Unit
ug/I = microgram per liter
NA = Not Available
< = concentration not detected at or above the reporting limit
M1 = Matrix spike recovery was high; the associated laboratory control spike was acceptable
j = indicates concentration reported below Practical Quantitation Limit (PQL), but above Method Detection Limit (MDL) and therefore concentration is estimated
P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\105. Mayo Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\20.EG_CAP\CAP Part 2\Tables\Table 6-8 2015 Hexavalent Chromium Analytical Results_2016-02-05.xlsx Page 1 of 1

TABLE 6-9
MONITORED NATURAL ATTENUATION OPINION OF PROBABLE COSTS
MAYO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
DUKE ENERY PROGRESS, LLC, ROXBORO, NC
Monitored Natural Attenuation - 61 Wells Sampled
Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Source Basis for Cost
Direct Capital Costs
Pre -design Field Assessment
1
LS
$50,000
$50,000
Similar project
Mobilization / Demobilization
12
LS
$5,000
$60,000
Similar project
10 day work week
Upgrade Roads/ Accessibility
1
LS
$100,000
$100,000
Similar project
Equipment Decontamination
11
EA
$570
$6,270
Similar project
Drilling and Materials (20 wells, average 60' well depth)
1,000
LF
$84
$84,000
Similar project
Installation of 20 additional wells for MNA, effective as monitoring wells
Drilling and Materials (6" outer surface casing for double -cased
wells)
160
LF
$125
$20,000
Similar project
Installation of 8 wells that need surface casing, assuming about 20' of
casing per well
Well Development
160
HR
$120
$19,200
Similar project
8 hours development per well
Installation Oversight (Geologist)
120
Day
$2,000
$240,000
Similar project
Approximately 6 days per well
Indirect Capital Costs
Health & Safety
5%
% DCC
26,474
Similar project
Bonds & Insurance
5%
% DCC
26,474
Similar project
Contingency
20%
% DCC
105,894
Similar project
Construction Management & Engineering Services
15%
% DCC
79,421
Similar project
Groundwater Sampling and Reporting - Years 1 - 5
Semiannual Well Sampling - Labor and Supplies
2
1 6 Mo
1 $92,800
$129,900
Similar project
2 people,. 7 days, 5 nights, equipment (35 wells, apprx. 5 wells per day)
Semiannual Well Sampling - Laboratory Analysis
2
1 6 Mo
1 $22,000
$44,000
Similar project
50 groundwater samples
Validation and Report Preparation
2
1 6 Mo
1 $20,000
$40,000
Similar project
Semiannual report preparation and initial evaluations
Present Worth $945,500
Similar project
n=5 yrs, 1=4.25%, PWF=4.42
Groundwater Sampling and Reporting - Years 6 - 30
Semiannual Well Sampling - Labor and Supplies
1 2
1 YR
1 $92,800
$129,900
Similar project
2 people, 10 days, 8 nights, equipment (50 wells, apprx. 5 wells per day)
Semiannual Well Sampling - Laboratory Analysis
1 2
1 YR
1 $22,000
$44,000
Similar project
50 groundwater samples
Validation and Report Preparation
1 2
1 YR
1 $12,000
$24,000
Similar project
Semiannual report preparation
Present Worth $3,012,100
Similar project
n=6-30, 1=4.25%, PWF=15.22
Remedy Review 1 1 EA 1 $100,000 $100,000
Similar project
Completed every five years
Present Worth $308,000
Similar project
n=5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 1=4.25%, PWF=3.08
Total Direct Capital Costs $579,470
Total Indirect Capital Costs $238,262
Total 30 Year O&M Costs (Present Worth) $4,265,600
TOTAL COST $5,083,332
Prepared By: RKD Checked By: JAW
Notes:
LS = Lump Sum, EA = Each, LF = Linear Foot, HR = Hour, Mo = Month, YR = Year, DCC = Direct Capital Cost, O&M = Operation and Maintenance, PWF = Present Worth Factor , n = Time, I = Interest rate (provided by
Duke Progress, LLC)
Present Worth was calcualted using the Uniform Series Present Worth Factor at: http://www.ajdesigner.com/phpdiscountfactors/uniform_series_present_worth_equation.php
Assumptions:
10 additional wells are needed.
P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\105. Mayo Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\20.EG_CAP\CAP Part 2\Tables\Tables 6-9_6-106-11 Cost Summary Tables 2 9 16.xlsx Page 1 of 1

TABLE 6-10
RECOVERY WELLS OPINION OF PROBABLE COSTS
MAYO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
DUKE ENERY PROGRESS, LLC, ROXBORO NC
Extraction Well System - 7
Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Source Basis for Cost
Direct Capital Costs
Extraction System
Pre -design Field Assessment
1
LS
$136,500
$136,500
Similar project
Includes borehole geophysics at 7locations
Mobilization / Demobilization
5
LS
$5,000
$25,000
Similar project
10 day work week
Upgrade Roads/ Accessibility
1
LS
$35,000
$35,000
Similar project
Effluent Pipe and Underground Electrical (Materials and
trench ing/backfi I I i ng )
12,000
FT
$23.76
$285,120
Similar project
Pumps and Well Head Equipment
7
EA
$13,170
$92,190
Similar project
Submersible pump; controller, valves, electrical,
etc., installed
Equipment Decontamination (Including decontamination pad)
j 7
j EA
1 $7101
$4,970
Similar project
Includes cost for 3 hrs per well
Drilling and Materials (7 wells, 10" diameter, 100' depth)
700
LF
$174
$121,800
Similar project
Air hammer drilling
Well Development
56
HR
$120
$6,720
Similar project
8 hours development per well
Installation Oversight (Geologist and Equipment)
42
EA
$2,000
$84,000
Similar project
Approximately 6 days per well
Treatment System - Holding Tank
Mobilization / Demobilization
1
LS
$10,000
$10,000
Similar project
Upgrade Roads/ Accessibility
1
LS
$15,000
$15,000
Similar project
Site Prep, Foundation, Electrical, Security
1,600
SF
$80
$128,000
Similar project
40' x 40' area for site prep
Instrumentation and Controls, Equilization Tank, Piping, and Valves
1
LS
$40,000
$40,000
Similar project
Discharge System - Surface Water
Obtain NPDES Permit
1
LS
$20,000
$20,000
Similar project
Obtain new permit
Mobilization / Demobilization
1
LS
$10,000
$10,000
Similar project
Effluent Pipe (Trenching, backfilling, and surface restoration)
750
FT
$16
$13,500
Similar project
Transfer Pumps
2
LS
$10,000
$20,000
Similar project
Casing Pipe for Road Crossings
0
EA
$3,000
$0
Similar project
Road and Driveway Restoration
0
SY
$20
$0
Similar project
Indirect Capital Costs
Remedial Design
1
LS
$150,000
$150,000
Similar project
Health & Safety
5%
% DCC
45,600
Similar project
Bonds & Insurance
5%
% DCC
45,600
Similar project
Contingency
20%
% DCC
182,300
Similar project
Construction Management & Engineering Services
15%
% DCC
136,700
Similar project
Annual Operating and Maintenance
Operator
12
Mo
$4,400
$52,800
Similar project
80 hours per month
Treatment System Sampling
1 52
WK
$300
$15,600
Similar project
Analysis
Miscellaneous Repairs
1
YR.
$30,000
$30,000
Similar project
Present Worth $1,651,200
Similar project
n=30 yrs, i=4.25%, PWF=16.78
New Equipment (Years 30 & 20)
Extraction Well Pumps
7
LS
$1,500
$10,500
Similar project
Well Replacements
1
LS
$20,000
$20,000
Similar project
Transfer Pumps
1 4
1 EA
1 $10,000
$40,000
Similar project
Present Worth $76,900
Similar project
n=10&20, 1=4.25%, PWF=1.09
Remedy Review 1 1 EA 1 $100,000 $100,000
Similar project
Completed every five years
Present Worth $308,000
Similar project
n=5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, i=4.25%, PWF=3.08
Total Direct Capital Costs $1,047,800
Total Indirect Capital Costs $560,200
Total 30 Year O&M Costs (Present Worth) $2,036,100
Effectiveness Monitoring 30 Years (See Table 6-9) $5,083,332
TOTAL COST $8,727432
Prepared By: RKD Checked By: JAW
Notes;
LS = Lump Sum, EA = Each, FT = Foot, LF = Linear Foot, SY = Square Yard, HR = Hour, Mo = Month, WK = Week, YR = Year, DCC = Direct Capital Cost, O&M = Operation and Maintenance, PWF = Present Worth
Factor , n = Time, I = Interest rate (provided by Duke Progress, LLC)
Present Worth was calcualted using the Uniform Series Present Worth Factor at: http://www.ajdesigner.com/phpolscountfactors/uniform_series_present_worth_equation.php
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\105. Mayo Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\20.EG_CAP\CAP Part 2\Tables\Tables 6-9_6-10_6-11 Cost Summary Tables 2 9 16.xlsx Page 1 of 1

TABLE 6-11
IN -SITU CHEMICAL IMMOBILIZATION WITH FRACTURE TECHNOLOGY OPINION OF PROBABLE COSTS
MAYO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
DUKE ENERY PROGRESS, LLC, ROXBORO, NC
In -Situ Chemical Immobilization with Fracture Technology (7 Borings)
Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost I Total Cost Source Basis for Cost
Direct Capital Costs
Pre -design Field Assessment
1
LS
$75,000
$75,000
Similar project
Mobilization / Demobilization
2
LS
$5,000
$10,000
Similar project
driller mob/demob, reagent placement mob/demob
Upgrade Roads/ Accessibility
1
LS
$35,000
$35,000
Similar project
Equipment Decontamination
7
EA
$570
$3,990
Similar project
Drilling and Materials
700
LF
$84
$58,800
Similar project
7 borings at 100 feet each
Drilling and Materials (6" outer surface casing for double -cased wells)
0
LF
$125
$0
Similar project
Zero-Valent Iron Reagent
100
Ton
$400
$40,000
Similar project
TBD Pending volume estimate
Emplacement of reagent by hydraulic fracturing
1 21
1 EA
1 $8,500
$178,500
Similar project
3 fractures per boring at 7 borings
Well Development
1 0
1 HR
1 $120
$0
Similar project
Installation Oversight (Geologist)
1 4
1 Day
1 $2,000
$8,000
Similar project
5 borings per day, 5 injections per day
Reagent Application
Mobilization / Demobilization
2
LS
$5,000
$10,000
Similar project
reagent placement mob/demob
Zero-Valent Iron Reagent
100
Ton
$400
$40,000
Similar project
Emplacement of reagent by hydraulic fracturing
21
EA
$8,500
$178,500
Similar project
3 fractures per boring at 7 borings
Installation Oversight (Geologist)
2
Day
$2,000
$4,000
Similar project
5 injections per day
Present Worth $437,100
Similar project
n=2, 10, 20 1=4.25%, PWF=1.88
Indirect Capital Costs
Health & Safety
5 %
% DCC
16,715
Similar project
Bonds & Insurance
5 %
% DCC
16,715
Similar project
Contingency
20%
% DCC
66,858
Similar project
Construction Management & Engineering Services
15%
N. DCC
50,144
Similar project
Groundwater Sampling and Reporting - Years 1 - 5
Semi-annual Well Sampling - Labor and Supplies
2
6 Mo
$92,800
$129,900
Similar project
2 people, 7 days, 5 nights, equipment (35 wells, apprx. 5 wells per day)
Semi-annual Well Sampling - Laboratory Analysis
2
611.
$22,000
$44,000
Similar project
61 groundwater samples
Validation and Report Preparation
2
6 Mo
$20,000
$40,000
Similar project
Semi-annual report preparation
Present Worth $945,500
Similar project
n=5 yrs, 1=4.25%, PWF=4.42
Groundwater Sampling and Reporting - Years 6 - 30
Annual Well Sampling - Labor and Supplies
1
I YR
1 $92,800
$129,900
Similar project
2 people, 7 days, 5 nights, equipment (35 wells, appm. 5 wells per day)
Annual Well Sampling - Laboratory Analysis
1
I YR
1 $22,000
$22,000
Similar project
61 groundwater samples
Validation and Report Preparation
1
I YR
1 $12,000
$12,000
Similar project
Annual report preparation
Present Worth $2,494,600
Similar project
n=6-30, i=4.25%, PWF=15.22
Remedy Review 1 I EA 1 $100,000 $100,000
Similar project
Completed every five years
Present Worth $308,000
Similar project
n=5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, i=4.25%, PWF=3.08
Total Direct Capital Costs $409,290
Total Indirect Capital Costs $150,431
Total 30 Year Reagent Application (Present Worth) $437,100
Effectiveness Monitoring 30 Years (See Table 6-8) $5,083,332
TOTAL COST $5,080,152
Prepared By:RKD Checked By:JAW
Notes:
LS = Lump Sum, EA = Each, LF = Linear Foot, HR = Hour, Mo = Month, YR = Year, DCC = Direct Capital Cost, O&M = Operation and Maintenance, PWF = Present Worth Factor , n = Time, I = Interest rate (provided by Duke Progress, LLC)
Present Worth was calcualted using the Uniform Series Present Worth Factor at: http://www.ajdesigner.com/phpdismuntfactors/uniform_series_present_worth_equation.php
Assumptions:
No additional wells are needed due to basin closure.
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\105. Mayo Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\20.EG_CAP\CAP Part 2\Tables\Tables 6-9_6-10_6-11 Cost Summary Tables 2 9 16.xlsx Page 1 of 1

TABLE 9-1
PROPOSED GROUNDWATER MONITORING PARAMETERS
MAYO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC
PARAMETER I RL IUNITS IMETHOD
FIELD PARAMETERS
H
NA
SU
Field Water Quality Meter
Specific Conductance
NA
µS/cm
Field Water Quality Meter
Temperature
NA
oC
Field Water Quality Meter
Dissolved Oxygen
NA
m L
Field WaterQuality Meter
Oxidation Reduction Potential
INA
1mv
lField Water Quality Meter
Turbidity
NA
I NTU
Field Water Quality Meter
INORGANICS
Antimony
1
L
EPA 200.8 or 6020A
Arsenic
0.001
m L
EPA 200.8 or 6020A
Barium
0.005
m L
EPA 200.7 or 6010C
Boron
0.05
m L
EPA 200.7 or 6010C
Chromium
0.001
m L
EPA 200.7 or 6010C
Cobalt
0.001
m L
EPA 200.8 or 6020A
Hexavalent Chromium
0.00003
m L
EPA 218.7
Iron
0.01
m L
EPA 200.7 or 6010C
Lead
0.001
m L
EPA 200.8 or 6020A
Manganese
0.005
m L
EPA 200.7 or 6010C
Thallium low level
0.0002
m L
EPA 200.8 or 6020A
Vanadium low level
0.0003
m L
EPA 200.8 or 6020A
Zinc
0.005
m L
1EPA 200.7 or 6010C
RADIONUCLIDES
Radium 226
1
Ci L
EPA 903.1 Modified
Radium 228
3
Ci L
EPA 904.0 SW846 9320 Modified
Uranium 233 234 236 238
Varies by isotope
µ /L
ISW846 3010A/6020A
ANIONS/CATIONS
Alkalinity as CaCO3
20
m L
SM 2320B
Bicarbonate
20
m L
SM 2320
Calcium
0.01
m L
EPA 200.7
Carbonate
20
m L
SM 2320
Chloride
0.1
m L
EPA 300.0 or 9056A
Hardness
NA
mg/L as
CaCO3
EPA 130.1
Potassium
0.1
m L
EPA 200.7
Sodium
0.05
m L
EPA 200.7
Sulfate
10.1
m L
I EPA 300.0 or 9056A
Total Dissolved Solids
125
1 m L
ISM 2540C
Total Suspended Solids
12
1 m L
ISM 2450D
Prepared by: RKD Checked by: JAW
Notes•
1. Select constituents will be analyzed for total and dissolved concentrations.
NA indicates not applicable.
P \Duke Energy Progress.1026\105. Mayo Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\20.EG_CAP\CAP Part 2\Tables\Table 9-1 Proposed Groundwater Monitoring
Parameters Mayo Page 1 of 1