HomeMy WebLinkAboutNC0003433_Cape Fear Tables_20160229TABLE 2-1
JANUARY 2016 WATER LEVEL DATA
CAPE FEAR STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, MONCURE, NC
Well Identification
Measuring Point TOC Elevation
(feet MSL)
Depth to Water
(feet BTOC)
Groundwater
Elevation
(feet MSL)
ABMW-01
201.60
17.22
184.38
ABMW-01S
201.83
26.47
175.36
ABM W-01BR
201.442
27.16
174.28
ABM W-02SL
193.64
5.45
188.19
ABMW-02SU
193.66
4.35
189.31
ABMW-03
187.23
11.60
175.63
ABMW-03S
187.17
15.45
171.72
ABM W-03BR
187.24
20.80
166.44
ABM W-04
193.94
17.10
176.84
ABMW-04S
193.88
19.25
174.63
ABMW-05S
186.39
22.41
163.98
ABM W-05BR
186.56
22.60
163.96
BGMW-04
180.74
13.40
167.34
BGTMW-04
180.85
14.00
166.85
CMW-01
165.67
5.30
160.37
CTM W -01
166.04
4.60
161.44
CMW-02
169.40
7.51
161.89
CTMW-02
169.17
8.48
160.69
CMW-03
175.96
12.52
163.44
CMW-05
182.44
12.24
170.20
CMW-06
169.89
3.90
165.99
CMW-07
184.58
20.00
164.58
CTM W -07
184.66
22.40
162.26
CMW-08
170.21
6.75
163.46
CTMW-08
170.32
9.10
161.22
MW-05BR
181.44
11.38
170.06
MW-06BR
170.24
4.17
166.07
MW-09
191.78
11.90
179.88
MW-09BR
192.06
15.15
176.91
MW-10
173.82
10.27
163.55
M W-10D
174.29
12.27
162.02
MW-10BR
174.22
12.46
161.76
MW-11
175.02
10.32
164.70
MW-12
171.12
10.34
160.78
MW-12BR
170.76
9.10
161.66
MW-13
171.95
5.00
166.95
MW-15SU
172.73
5.57
167.16
MW-15SL
172.69
6.92
165.77
MW-15BR
172.92
5.80
167.12
MW-16S
168.05
0.61
167.44
MW-16BR
168.55
1.84
166.71
MW-17SU
172.18
7.68
164.50
MW-17SL
172.66
6.62
166.04
MW-17BR
173.49
5.70
167.79
MW-18S
169.26
2.83
166.43
MW-19S
176.91
4.50
172.41
MW-20S
170.77
6.20
164.57
MW-20BR
171.23
10.65
160.58
MW-21SU
176.92
9.30
167.62
MW-21SL
176.96
8.35
168.61
MW-21BR
177.14
16.75
160.39
PZ-01
168.00
1.04
166.96
PZ-02
175.00
4.61
170.39
PZ-03S
174.00
3.92
170.08
PZ-03D
173.90
3.66
170.24
PZ-04
173.72
8.04
165.68
PZ-06
198.03
16.43
181.60
PZ-07
189.74
11.35
178.39
PZ-08
193.31
16.40
176.91
CHATH-075-P100
175.08
12.18
162.90
CHATH-075-P101
184.11
19.92
164.19
CHATH-075-P102
186.66
22.99
163.67
CHATH-076-P100
168.85
1.49
167.36
CHATH-076-P101
194.56
23.40
171.16
CHATH-076-P102
195.04
26.72
168.32
CHATH-076-P103
166.72
0.48
166.24
CHATH-077-P100
194.93
27.62
167.31
CHATH-077-P102
185.72
21.30
164.42
CHATH-077-P103
180.31
11.59
168.72
CHATH-079-P100
193.03
18.39
174.64
CHATH-079-P101
192.94
26.75
166.19
CHATH-079-P102
173.41
7.43
165.98
CHATH-079-P103
193.67
27.11
166.56
CHATH-079-P105
173.08
1.72
171.36
Prepared by: RKD Checked by: CJS
Notes:
All water levels were taken on January 8th, 2016
TOC = Top of Casing
BTOC = Below Top of Casing
MSL = Mean Sea Level
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\103. Cape Fear Ash Basin GW Assessment\20.EG_CAP\CAP Part 2\Tables\Final\Table 2-1 - January 2016 Water Level
Data_2016-01-29.xlsx Page 1 of 1
TABLE 6-1
GROUNDWATER REMEDIATION ALTERNATIVE SCREENING
EFFECTIVENESS
CAPE FEAR STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, MONCURE, NC
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Effectiveness
Monitored Natural
Groundwater Recovery
In -Situ Chemical
Immobilization
Attenuation
(Interceptor Trench)
(Permeable Reactive
(MNA)
and MNA
Barrier) and MNA
Will remedial alternative be protective of
Yes
Yes
Yes
human health?
When will remedial alternative be protective
Current conditions are
Current conditions are
Current conditions are
of human health?
protective
protective
protective
When will remedial alternative be protective
Current conditions are
Current conditions are
Current conditions are
of the environment?
protective
protective
protective
Has the potential remedial alternative been
Yes
Yes
Yes
demonstrated effective at any similar sites?
Will remedial alternative permanently remove
Yes
Yes
Yes
contaminant from site?
Will remedial alternative reduce the toxicity of
Yes
Yes
Yes
contaminants?
Will remedial alternative reduce the mobility
Yes - source control and
Yes - source control
of contaminants?
Yes - source control
downgradient (of the 1985
measures to alter site
measures to alter site
ash basin) measures to
hydrology and PRB
hydrology will reduce
alter site hydrology will
system (downgradient of
mobility
reduce mobility
the 1985 ash basin) will
reduce mobility
Can the effectiveness of a potential remedial
alternative be monitored, measured, and
Yes
Yes
Yes
validated?
Prepared by: TCP Checked by: CJS
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\103. Cape Fear Ash Basin GW Assessment\20.EG_CAP\CAP Part 2\Tables\Final\Table 6-1_6-5 evaluation tables.docx Page 1 of 1
TABLE 6-2
GROUNDWATER REMEDIATION ALTERNATIVE SCREENING
IMPLEMENTABILITY
CAPE FEAR STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, MONCURE, NC
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Implementability
Monitored Natural
Groundwater Recovery
In -Situ Chemical
Attenuation
(Interceptor Trench)
Immobilization (Permeable
(MNA)
and MNA
Reactive Barrier) and MNA
Are the material resources and
manpower readily available to fully
Yes
Yes
Yes
implement the remedial alternative in a
timely manner?
Does the remedial alternative require
highly specialized resources and/or
No
No
Yes
equipment?
Is there sufficient onsite and offsite area
Yes
Yes
Yes
to fully implement the remedy?
Will waste materials be managed
Yes
Yes
Yes
efficiently?
Does the remedial alternative require any
permits and can the permits be acquired
NA
Yes
Yes
in a timely manner?
Can the remedial alternative be
Yes
Yes
Yes
implemented safely?
Can existing infrastructure support
Yes
Yes
Yes
remedial alternative?
Can the remedial alternative achieve all
applicable or reasonable and appropriate
Yes
Yes
Yes
requirements (ARARs)?
Prepared by: TCP Checked by: CJS
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\103. Cape Fear Ash Basin GW Assessment\20.EG_CAP\CAP Part 2\Tables\Final\Table 6-1_6-5 evaluation tables.docx Page 1 of 1
TABLE 6-3
GROUNDWATER REMEDIATION ALTERNATIVE SCREENING
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
CAPE FEAR STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, MONCURE, NC
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Environmental Sustainability
Monitored Natural
Groundwater Recovery
In -Situ Chemical
Immobilization
Attenuation
(Interceptor Trench)
(Permeable Reactive
(MNA)
and MNA
Barrier) and MNA
Will treatment permanently remove target
constituents?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Will treatment permanently reduce target
Yes
Yes
Yes
constituent toxicity?
Will treatment reduce the mobility of target
Yes, for constituents
constituents?
with high distribution
Yes
Yes
coefficients
Will treatment transfer target constituents from
Yes
Yes
Yes
one media to another?
Rank alternatives*: carbon footprint
1
3
2
Rank alternatives*: waste generated
1
3
2
List opportunities for recycling or beneficial reuse
Use existing wells
Not Anticipated
Not Anticipated
List opportunities where renewable sources of
Uses all natural
Solar power to run pumps
Not Anticipated
energy will be used.
processes
and panels
List opportunities for habitat restoration,
Habitats not affected
Not Anticipated
Not Anticipated
enhancement, or replacement.
Rank order is assumed that least=1 and most=3
Prepared by: TCP Checked by: CIS
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\103. Cape Fear Ash Basin GW Assessment\20.EG_CAP\CAP Part 2\Tables\Final\Table 6-1_6-5 evaluation tables.docx Page 1 of 1
TABLE 6-4
GROUNDWATER REMEDIATION ALTERNATIVE SCREENING
ESTIMATED COST
CAPE FEAR STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, MONCURE, NC
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Estimated
Monitored
Groundwater
In -Situ Chemical
Groundwater
Natural
Recovery
Immobilization
Remediation
(Interceptor
(Permeable
Cost
Attenuation
Trench)
Reactive Barrier)
(MNA)
and MNA
and MNA
Capital Cost
$1M
$1.9M
$6.1M
30 year
Operation and
$2.6M
$5.1M
$3.8M
Maintenance
Cost
Total Cost
$3.6M
$7.OM
$9.9M
Prepared by: TCP Checked by: CJS
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\103. Cape Fear Ash Basin GW Assessment\20.EG_CAP\CAP Part 2\Tables\Final\Table 6-1_6-5
evaluation tables.docx Page 1 of 1
TABLE 6-5
GROUNDWATER REMEDIATION ALTERNATIVE SCREENING
COMMUNITY ACCEPTANCE
CAPE FEAR STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, MONCURE, NC
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Groundwater
In -Situ Chemical
Stakeholder
Monitored Natural
Recovery
Immobilization
Acceptance
Attenuation
(Interceptor
(Permeable
(MNA)
Trench)
Reactive Barrier)
and MNA
and MNA
Public acceptance
Moderate
High
High
Regulatory
Moderate
High
High
acceptance
Prepared by: TCP Checked by: CIS
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\103. Cape Fear Ash Basin GW Assessment\20.EG_CAP\CAP Part 2\Tables\Final\Table 6-1_6-5
evaluation tables.docx Page 1 of 1
TABLE 6-6
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION SUMMARY
CAPE FEAR STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, MONCURE, NC
Alternatives
Effectiveness
Implementability/
Environmental
Estimated
Groundwater
Community
Feasibility
Sustainability
Remediation Cost
Acceptance
Monitored Natural
Yes, groundwater
High
Sound technical
Attenuation (MNA)
Yes
monitoring wells are
(lowest carbon
$3.6M
basis for
common
footprint)
approach
Yes (assuming
Moderate
Positive due to
Groundwater
adequate space
(energy
active nature,
Extraction
Yes
between dike along
consumption of
$7.OM
additional
(Interceptor Trench)
the southwest portion
collection and
permitting
of the 1985 ash basin
treatment
required
and railroad ROW)
system)
Moderate to
$9.9M, assuming
High (Passive
zero valent iron
Yes, but two
Yes (assuming
system and
treats boron and
Positive due to
In -Situ Chemical
different reactive
adequate space
reactive
other constituents.
active nature,
Permeable Reactive
media may be
between dike along
material
However, a second
additional
Barrier
required to treat
the southwest portion
potentially has
reactive media (not
permitting
boron and other
of the 1985 ash basin
a decade(s)
included in this
required
constituents
and railroad ROW)
long
cost) may be
effectiveness
required to treat
duration
boron.
Prepared By: RKD Checked By: CJS
Assumptions: 1. Source control measures are implemented to accomplish groundwater restoration
2. Costs for groundwater remedy include implementation and 30 years monitoring and maintenance
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\103. Cape Fear Ash Basin GW Assessment\20.EG_CAP\CAP Part 2\Tables\Final\Table 6-6 Remediate Alternative Feasibility Summary Cape
Fear.docx Page 1 of 1
TABLE 6-7
INPUT PARAMETERS AND VALUES FOR CONVECTIVE -DISPERSIVE
FLOW EQUATION BASED UPON CAPE FEAR DATA
CAPE FEAR STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, MONCURE, NC
Value
1956, 1963,
1985° Ash
Parameter
Nomenclature
Source of Value
1970 Ash
Basin
Basins
Began Sluicing Ash
-
1956
1985
CSA
Ceased Sluicing
-
1977
2012
CSA
Duration of Source Term
t°
22
28
Calculated
Mean values from Ash
Source Concentration
c °
3,783 boron,
3,330 boron
Pore Wells
(pg/L)
5.77 thallium
(Exceedances Only)
2015
Lowest Provisional
Background
Background
Concentration
c;
52 boron,
Concentrations or
(pg/L)
0.1 thallium
Detection Limits for
Not Detected Values
Seepage Velocity (ft/yr)
vs=ki/ne
16
Calculated average
across the site
Dispersivity (ft)
a
20
0.1*2000
Dispersion (ft2/yr)
D = ays
320
Calculated
Distribution Coefficient
Kd
0.5v- boron, 26 thallium
Graziano et a/.,2015
(ml/g)
Time from Introduction
t
Varies
To capture the length
of Constituent (years)
of plume
Distance from Boundary
x
250
1000/600*
Measured (ash basin
of Ash Basin (feet)
to body of water)
Calculated Concentration
c(x,t)
As shown pg/L
Calculated.
Prepared by: KDB Checked by: DGN
Notes:
'Three models were considered for the 1985 ash basin: groundwater moving radially toward three discharge
locations: Branch A, Shaddox Creek, and Cooling Water Effluent Channel.
*250 (toward Cape Fear River), 1000 (toward Shaddox Creek and Cooling Water Effluent Channel), 600 (Branch A)
Graziano et al., 2015 used 1.0 for boron. In order to more accurately demonstrate the movement of Boron and align
with field data, the value for Kd was changed to 0.5.
The 1978 ash basin was not considered for this model due to insufficient input values.
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\103. Cape Fear Ash Basin GW Assessment\20.EG_CAP\CAP Part
2\Tables\Final\Table 6-7 Input Parameters and Values for CD Flow Equation NEW.docx Page 1 of 1
TABLE 6-8
DUKE ENERGY BACKGROUND PRIVATE WELL HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM
DATA
CAPE FEAR STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, MONCURE, NC
Sample ID
Sample Data
Hexavalent
Chromium
(pg/L)
2015013743
5/23/2015
< 0.6
2015022411
7/10/2015
< 0.03
2015022412
7/10/2015
< 0.3
2015022413
7/10/2015
< 0.03
2015022414
7/10/2015
< 0.03
2015022871
7/10/2015
0.9
2015022872
7/10/2015
0.071
2015022873
7/10/2015
< 0.03
2015022875
7/10/2015
0.15
2015023960
7/24/2015
< 0.03
2015023961
7/24/2015
< 0.03
2015023962
7/24/2015
< 0.03
2015023963
7/24/2015
0.034
2015023973
7/24/2015
< 0.03
2015023974
7/24/2015
< 0.03
2015023975
7/24/2015
0.043
2015023976
7/24/2015
0.19
2015023977
7/24/2015
0.047
Geometric Mean
0.103
Prepared By: KDB Checked By: WJW
Notes•
Data collected by Pace Analytical
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\103. Cape Fear Ash Basin GW Assess ment\20.EG_CAP\CAP Part
2\Tables\Final\Table 6-8 private well hex chrom data.xlsx Page 1 of 1
TABLE 6-9
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE OPINION OF PROBABLE COSTS
CAPE FEAR STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, MONCURE, NC
Monitored Natural Attenuation
Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Source Basis for Cost
Direct Capital Costs
Pre -design Field Assessment
1
LS
$50,000
$50,000
Similar project
Ash Basin closure in place (Cost not included)
Mobilization / Demobilization
8
LS
$5,000
$40,000
Similar project
10 day work week
Upgrade Roads/ Accessibility
10
LS
$30,000
$300,000
Similar project
Equipment Decontamination
10
EA
$570
$5,700
Similar project
Drilling and Materials (Single Casing)
322
LF
$84
$27,100
Similar project
Installation of 18 additional/replacement wells for MNA
Drilling and Materials (Double Casing)
352
LF
$125
$44,000
Similar project
Well Development
160
HR
$120
$19,200
Similar project
8 hours development per well
Installation Oversight (Geologist)
80
Day
$2,000
$160,000
Similar project
Average 4 days per well
Indirect Capital Costs
Health & Safety
5%
% DCC
$29,800
Similar project
Bonds & Insurance
5%
% DCC
$29,800
Similar project
Contingency
20%
% DCC
$119,200
Similar project
Construction Management & Engineering Services
15%
% DCC
$89,400
Similar project
Groundwater Sampling and Reporting - Years 1 - 5
Semi-annual Well Sampling - Labor and Supplies
2
6 Mo
$44,000
$88,000
Similar project
2 people, 8 days, 7 nights, equipment (33 well locations and 9 surface
water locations, at apprx. 5 locations per day)
Semi-annual Well Sampling - Laboratory Analysis
2
6 Mo
$19,000
$38,000
Similar project
47 samples (including QA/QC samples)
Validation and Report Preparation
2
6 Mo
$20,000
$40,000
Similar project
Semi-annual report preparation
Present Worth $733,800
Similar project
n=5 yrs, i=4.25%, PWF=4.42
Groundwater Sampling and Reporting - Years 6 - 30
Annual Well Sampling - Labor and Supplies
1
YR
$66,000
$66,000
Similar project
2 people, 8 days, 7 nights, equipment (33 well locations and 9 surface
water locations, at apprx. 5 locations per day)
Annual Well Sampling - Laboratory Analysis
1
YR
$25,900
$25,900
Similar project
47 samples (including QA/QC samples)
Validation and Report Preparation
1
YR
$12,000
$12,000
Similar project
Annual report preparation
Present Worth $1,581,400
Similar project
n=6-30, i=4.25%, PWF=15.22
Remedy Review 6 EA $100,000 $600,000
Similar project
Completed every five years
Present Worth $308,000
Similar project
n=5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, i=4.25%, PWF=3.08
Total Direct Capital Costs $646,000
Total Indirect Capital Costs $268,200
Total 30 Year O&M Costs (Present Worth) $2,623,200
TOTAL COST $3,537,400
Prepared by: RKD Checked by:CJS
Notes:
LS = Lump Sum, EA = Each, LF = Linear Foot, HR = Hour, Mo = Month, YR = Year, O&M = Operation and Maintenance, DCC = Direct Capital Cost, PWF = Present Worth Factor , n = Time, I = Interest rate (Provided by Duke Energy Progress, LLC)
Present Worth was calcualted using the Uniform Series Present Worth Factor at: http://www.ajdesigner.com/phpdiscountfactors/uniform_series_Present_worth_equation.php
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\103. Cape Fear Ash Basin GW Assessment\20.EG_CAP\CAP Part 2\Tables\Final\Table 6-9 to 6-11 OPCs for MNA, Trench, & PRB.xlsx Page 1 of 1
TABLE 6-10
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE COST SUMMARY
CAPE FEAR STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, MONCURE, NORTH CAROLINA
Interceptor Trench
Item
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Total Cost
Source
Basis for Cost
Direct Capital Costs
Interceptor Trench Installation
Pre -design Field Assessment
1
LS
$75,000
$75,000
Similar project
Ash Basin closure in place (Cost not included)
Mobilization / Demobilization
2
LS
$5,000
$10,000
Similar project
10 day work week
Upgrade Roads/ Accessibility
1
LS
$20,000.00
$20,000
Similar project
Gravel
9,260
CY
$43.96
$407,070
RS Means
3/4"to 1-1/2"
Trench Box Rental
2
Mo
$2,900.00
$5,800
RS Means
Pump
5
EA
$1,046.55
$5,233
RS Means
22 GPM, 1/3 HP
Underground Electric
3,500
LF
$10.00
$35,000
Similar project
Trench Excavation
9,260
CY
$3.94
$36,500
RS Means
bulk, dragline, excavate and load on truck
Trench Backfill and Compaction
9,260
Cy
$3.60
$33,400
RS Means
Structural Excavation
45
CY
$86.44
$3,900
RS Means
Dewatering (8 hrs per day)
60
Day
$150.68
$9,100
RS Means
Cycle Hauling (wait, load, travel, unload or dump & return)
9,260
LCY
$16.52
$153,000
RS Means
Geotextile Subsurface Drainage
15,000
SY
$1.95
$29,300
RS Means
filtration fabric laid in trench, polypropylene
Public Sanitary Utility Sewerage Piping
500
LF
$2.30
$1,200
RS Means
HOPE Corrugated Type S, 4" diameter
Subdrainage Piping - Perforated Plastic
2,500
LF
$1.11
$2,800
RS Means
HOPE Perforated, 4"
Pump Station Manhole Extensions (6' diameter, up to 25' deep)
85
VLF
$634.92
$53,968
RS Means
Manhole = 8', extensions 17' @ 5 locations = 85'
Storm Drain Manhole (6' diameter x 8' depth)
5
Ea
$4,727.78
$23,639
RS Means
precast concrete, for outfall, one at each of the 5 pump stations
Installation Oversight (Geologist/Engineer and Equipment)
30
Days
$1,000.00
$30,000
Similar project
Treatment System - Holding Tank
Mobilization / Demobilization
1
LS
$10,000.00
$10,000
Similar project
Upgrade Roads/ Accessibility
1
LS
$10,000.00
$10,000
Similar project
Site Prep, Foundation, Electrical, Security
1,600
SF
$80.00
$128,000
Similar project
40' x 40' area for site prep
Instrumentation and Controls, Equilization Tank, Piping, and Valves
1
LS
$40,000.00
$40,000
Similar project
P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\103. Cape Fear Ash Basin GW Assessment\20.EG_CAP\CAP Part 2\Tables\Final\Table 6-9 to 6-11 OPCs for MNA, Trench, & PRB.xlsx Page 1 of 2
TABLE 6-10
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE COST SUMMARY
CAPE FEAR STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, MONCURE, NORTH CAROLINA
Interceptor Trench
Item
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Total Cost
Source
Basis for Cost
Discharge System - Surface Water
Obtain or Modify Existing NPDES Permit
1
LS
$40,000.00
$40,000
Similar project
Mobilization / Demobilization
1
LS
$10,000.00
$10,000
Similar project
Effluent Pipe (Trenching, backfilling, and surface restoration)
1,000
FT
$18.00
$18,000
Similar project
Transfer Pumps
2
LS
$10,000.00
$20,000
Similar project
Casing Pipe for Road Crossings
3
EA
$3,000.00
$9,000
Similar project
Road and Driveway Restoration
150
SY
$20.00
$3,000
Similar project
Indirect Capital Costs
Remedial Design
1
LS
$150,000
$150,000
Health & Safety
5 %
% DCC
$57,400
Similar project
Bonds & Insurance
5%
% DCC
$57,400
Similar project
Contingency
20%
% DCC
$229,600
Similar project
Construction Management & Engineering Services
15%
% DCC
$172,200
Similar project
Annual Operating and Maintenance
Operator
12
Mo
$4,400.00
$52,800
Similar project
80 hours per month
Treatment System Sampling
52
WK
$300.00
$15,600
Similar project
Analysis
Miscellaneous Repairs
1
YR
$3,000.00
$3,000
Similar project
Present Worth
$1,198,100
Similar project
n=30 yrs, i=4.25%, PWF=16.78
New Equipment (Years 10 & 20)
Replacement Pump
5
LS
$7,600
$38,000
RS Means
Present Worth
$41,500
Similar project
n=10&20, i=4.25%, PWF=1.09
Remedy Review
6
EA
$100,000
$600,000
Similar project
Completed every five years
Present Worth
$308,000
Similar project
n=5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, i=4.25%, PWF=3.08
Total Direct Capital Costs
$1,223,000
Total Indirect Capital Costs
$666,600
Total 30 Year O&M Costs (Present Worth)
$1,547,600
Effectiveness Monitoring 30 Years (Table 6-9)
$3,537,400
TOTAL COST
$6,974,600
Prepared by: TOP Checked by: CIS
Notes:
LS = Lump Sum, EA = Each, FT = Foot, LF = Linear Foot, SF = Square Foot, SY = Square Yard, HR = Hour, WK = Week, Me = Month, YR = Year, O&M = Operation and Maintenance, DCC = Direct Captial Cost, PWF = Present Worth
Factor, n = Time, I = Interest rate (Provided by Duke Progress, LLC)
Present Worth was calcualted using the Uniform Series Present Worth Factor at: http://www.ajdesigner.com/phpdiscountfactors/uniform_series_present_worth_equation.php
P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\103. Cape Fear Ash Basin GW Assessment\20.EG_CAP\CAP Part 2\Tables\Final\Table 6-9 to 6-11 OPCs for MNA, Trench, & PRB.xlsx Page 2 of 2
TABLE 6-11
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE COST SUMMARY
CAPE FEAR STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, MONCURE, NC
Permeable Reactive Barrier
Item
Quantity
Unit
I Unit Cost
Total Cost
Source
Basis for Cost
Direct Capital Costs
Funnel and Gate System
Pre -design Field Assessment
1
LS
$75,000
$75,000
Similar project
Ash Basin closure in place (Cost not included)
Mobilization / Demobilization
5
LS
$5,000
$25,000
Similar project
10 day work week
Upgrade Roads/ Accessibility
1
LS
$20,000
$20,000
Similar project
Sheet Piling (Funnels)
39,000
SF
$24.85
$969,150
RS Means
38 psf, 25' excavation, extract and salvage, excludes wales (1,550 linear feet)
Trench Excavation (Gates)
6,000
Cy
$3.61
$21,700
RS Means
bulk, dragline, excavate and load on truck
Geotextile Subsurface Drainage (Gates)
10,000
SY
$1.95
$19,500
RS Means
filtration fabric laid in trench, polypropylene
Installation Oversight (Geologist and Equipment)
50
Days
$1,000.00
$50,000
Similar project
Reagent
Zero Valent Iron (Gates)
2,900
Ton
$1,000.00
$2,900,000
Similar project
7 Gates (each gate 100 ft long X 5 ft wide x 20 ft deep) requires 400 tons per gate,
when mixed approximately 50 percent ZVI and 50 soil.
Indirect Capital Costs
Remedial Design
1
LS
$150,000
$150,000
Health & Safety
5%
% DCC
$200,300
Similar project
Bonds & Insurance
5%
% DCC
$200,300
Similar project
Contingency
20%
% DCC
$801,100
Similar project
Construction Management & Engineering Services
15%
% DCC
$600,900
Similar project
Annual Operating and Maintenance
Operator
0
Mo
$4,400.00
$0
Similar project
80 hours per month
Treatment System Sampling
0
WK
$300.00
$0
Similar project
Analysis
Miscellaneous Repairs
0
YR
$3,000.00
$0
Similar project
Present Worth
$0
Similar project
n=30 yrs, 1=4.250/., PWF=16.78
New Equipment (Years 10 & 20)
Replacement Pump
0
LS
$7,600
$0
RS Means
Present Worth
$0
Similar project
n=10&20, i=4.25%, PWF=1.09
Remedy Review
0
EA
$100,000
$0
Similar project
Completed every five years
Present Worth
$308,000
Similar project
n=5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 1=4.25%, PWF=3.08
Total Direct Capital Costs
$4,080,400
Total Indirect Capital Costs
$1,952,600
Total 30 Year O&M Costs (Present Worth)
$308,000
Effectiveness Monitoring 30 Years (Table 6-9)
$3,537,400
TOTAL COST
$9,878,400
Prepared by: TDP Checked by: CJS
Notes:
LS = Lump Sum, EA = Each, FT = Foot, LF = Linear Foot, SF = Square Foot, SY = Square Yard, HR = Hour, WK = Week, Mo = Month, YR = Year, O&M = Operation and Maintenance, DCC = Direct Captial Cost, PWF = Present Worth Factor , n = Time, I =
Interest rate (Provided by Duke Progress, LLC), CY = cubic yard
Present Worth was calcualted using the Uniform Series Present Worth Factor at: http://www.ajdesigner.com/phpdiscountfactore/uniform_series_present_worth_equation.php
P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\103. Cape Fear Ash Basin GW Assessment\20.EG_CAP\CAP Part 2\Tables\Final\Table 6-9 to 6-11 OPCs for MNA, Trench, & PRB.xlsx Page 1 of 1
TABLE 9-1
RECOMMENDED GROUNDWATER MONITORING PARAMETERS
CAPE FEAR STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, MONCURE, NC
PARAMETER
I RL
JUNITS
IMETHOD
FIELD PARAMETERS
pH
NA
SU
Field Water Quality Meter
Specific Conductance
NA
µS/cm
Field Water Quality Meter
Temperature
NA
0C
Field Water Quality Meter
Dissolved Oxygen
NA
mg/L
Field Water Quality Meter
Oxidation Reduction Potential
NA
mV
Field Water Quality Meter
Turbidity
NA
NTU
Field Water Quality Meter
INORGANICS
Antimony
1
µg/L
EPA 200.8 or 6020A
Arsenic
1
µg/L
EPA 200.8 or 6020A
Barium
5
µg/L
EPA 200.7 or 6010C
Beryllium
1
µg/L
EPA 200.8 or 6020A
Boron
50
µg/L
EPA 200.7 or 6010C
Chromium
1
µg/L
EPA 200.7 or 6010C
Cobalt
1
µg/L
EPA 200.8 or 6020A
Hexavalent Chromium
0.03
µg/L
EPA 218.7
Iron
10
µg/L
EPA 200.7 or 6010C
Manganese
5
µg/L
EPA 200.8 or 6020A
Nickel
1
µg/L
EPA 200.7 or 6010C
Selenium
1
µg/L
EPA 200.8 or 6020A
Thallium (low level)
0.2
µg/L
EPA 200.8 or 6020A
Vanadium
0.3
µg/L
EPA 200.8 or 6020A
Zinc
5
µg/L
EPA 200.7 or 6010C
RADIONUCLIDES
Radium 226
1
pCi/L
EPA 903.1 Modified
Radium 228
3
pCi/L
EPA 904.0/SW846 9320 Modified
Uranium (233, 234, 236, 238)
Varies
by
isotope
µg/L
SW846 3010A/6020A
ANIONS/CATIONS
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
20
mg/L
SM 2320B
Bicarbonate
20
mg/L
SM 2320
Calcium
0.01
mg/L
EPA 200.7
Carbonate
20
mg/L
SM 2320
Chloride
0.1
mg/L
EPA 300.0 or 9056A
Potassium
0.1
mg/L
EPA 200.7
Sodium
0.05
mg/L
EPA 200.7
Sulfate
0.1
mq/L
EPA 300.0 or 9056A
Total Dissolved Solids
25
mg/L
ISM 2540C
Total Suspended Solids
2
m L
ISM 2450D
Prepared by: RKD Checked by: CJS
Notes•
1. Select constituents will be analyzed for total and dissolved concentrations.
NA indicates not applicable.
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\103. Cape Fear Ash Basin GW Assess ment\20.EG_CAP\CAP Part 2\Tables\Final\Table 9-1 Recommended Groundwater Monitoring
Parameters.xlsx Page 1 of 1