NC0003433_Cape Fear GW Assessment Plan Rev1_20241231

Lip
synTerra
PROPOSED GROUNDWATER
ASSESSMENT WORK PLAN
FOR
CAPE FEAR STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
500 CP&L ROAD
MONCURE, NORTH CAROLINA 27559
NPDES PERMIT #NC0003433
N 35.593970/W-79.048827
PREPARED FOR
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESSf INC.
410 S. WILMINGTON STREET/NC14
RALEIGHi, NORTH CAROLINA 27601
(� DUKE
ENERGY,
SUBMITTED: SEPTEMBER 2014
REVISION 1: DECEMBER 2014 `` -tV' CARp''•,
PREPARED BY — as"ERZ
SYNTERRA 1425
148 RIVER STREET +'• �'
,r ,5
GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA �r� ,Q .;�C�.••'y�`
864 421- 9999
■ta,ti9a p,)er Wyli N PG 25
.t►� �. a. '., Project ogist
{ Y
J
Webb, NC PG 1328
'y{flf 7.:='' •,:' Project Manager
,+'Fj-�'k+ac;•u''-tiled : ��.

Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant SynTerra
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
Executive Summary
1.0
Introduction.....................................................................................................................1
2.0
Site Information.............................................................................................................. 5
2.1
Plant Description........................................................................................................ 5
2.2
Ash Basin Descriptions............................................................................................. 5
2.3
Regulatory Requirements......................................................................................... 6
3.0
Receptor Information..................................................................................................... 8
4.0
Regional Geology and Hydrogeology......................................................................10
5.0
Initial Conceptual Site Model....................................................................................14
5.1
Physical Site Characteristics...................................................................................15
5.2
Source Characteristics.............................................................................................16
5.3
Hydrogeologic Site Characteristics.......................................................................18
6.0
Environmental Monitoring.........................................................................................
23
6.1
Compliance Monitoring Well Groundwater Analytical Results ......................
23
6.2
Preliminary Statistical Evaluation Results...........................................................
23
6.3
Additional Site Data................................................................................................
25
7.0
Assessment Work Plan.................................................................................................
28
7.1
Subsurface Exploration...........................................................................................
29
7.1.1 Proposed Boring Locations...............................................................................
30
7.1.1.1 Borings Inside Ash Basins........................................................................
31
7.1.1.2 Borings Outside Ash Basins.....................................................................
32
7.1.1.3 Index Property Sampling and Analysis .................................................
36
7.1.2 Groundwater Monitoring Wells......................................................................
37
7.1.2.1 Proposed Wells Upgradient of the Ash Basins .....................................
40
7.1.2.2 Proposed Monitoring Wells within Ash Basins ....................................
41
7.1.2.3 Proposed Monitoring Wells Downgradient of the Ash Basins .........
41
7.1.3 Well Completion and Development...............................................................
43
7.1.4 Hydrogeologic Evaluation Testing..................................................................
44
7.2
Ash Pore Water and Groundwater Sampling and Analysis ..............................
45
7.3
Surface Water, Sediment, and Seep Sampling .....................................................
48
7.3.1 Surface Water and Seep Samples.....................................................................
48
Page
P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026 \ ALL NC SITES \DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \Cape Fear \ 2014-
12-31 GAP Revised\Cape Fear GW Assessment Plan Revl.docx

Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant SynTerra
7.3.2 Sediment Samples..............................................................................................
50
7.3.3 Seep Samples......................................................................................................
50
7.4
Field and Sampling Quality Assurance/Quality Control Procedures ..............
50
7.4.1 Field Logbooks...................................................................................................
51
7.4.2 Field Data Records.............................................................................................
51
7.4.3 Sample Identification.........................................................................................
51
7.4.4 Field Equipment Calibration............................................................................
51
7.4.5 Sample Custody Requirements........................................................................
53
7.4.6 Quality Assurance and Quality Control Samples .........................................
55
7.4.7 Decontamination Procedures...........................................................................
55
7.5
Influence of Pumping Wells on Groundwater System .......................................
56
7.6
Site Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model.................................................................
56
7.7
Site -Specific Background Concentrations.............................................................
57
7.8
Groundwater Fate and Transport Model.............................................................
58
7.8.1 MODFLOW/MT3D............................................................................................
58
7.8.2 Development of Kd Terms...............................................................................
60
7.8.3 MODFLOW/MT3D Modeling Process............................................................
62
7.8.4 Hydrostratigraphic Layer Development........................................................
64
7.8.5 Domain of Conceptual Groundwater Flow Model .......................................
64
7.8.6 Potential Modeling of Groundwater Impacts to Surface Water .................
65
8.0
Risk Assessment............................................................................................................
67
8.1
Human Health Risk Assessment...........................................................................
67
8.1.1 Site -Specific Risk -Based Remediation Standards ..........................................
68
8.2
Ecological Risk Assessment....................................................................................
70
9.0
CSA Report.....................................................................................................................
73
10.0
Proposed Schedule........................................................................................................
75
11.0
References.......................................................................................................................76
Page ii
P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026 \ ALL NC SITES \DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \Cape Fear \ 2014-
12-31 GAP Revised\Cape Fear GW Assessment Plan Revl.docx

Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant
List of Figures
Figure 1-
Site Location Map
Figure 2
- Site Layout Map
Figure 3
- Geology Map
Figure 4
- Proposed Monitoring Well and Sample Location Map
List of Tables
Table 1 - Groundwater Monitoring Requirements
Table 2 - Exceedances of 2L Standards
Table 3 - SPLP Leaching Analytical Results
Table 4 - Groundwater Analytical Results
Table 5 - Soil and Ash Analytical Results
Table 6 - Surface Water Analytical Results
SynTerra
Table 7 - Ash Basin Pore Water Analytical Results
Table 8 - Seep Analytical Results
Table 9 - Environmental Exploration and Sampling Plan
Table 10 - Soil, Sediment, and Ash Parameters and Analytical Methods
Table 11 - Ash Pore Water, Groundwater, Surface Water, and Seep Parameters and
Analytical Methods
List of Appendices
Appendix A - NCDENR Letter of August 13, 2014
Appendix B - Excerpts from Prior Assessment Documentation
Page iii
P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ ALL NC SITES \ DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Cape Fear \ 2014-
12-31 GAP Revised\Cape Fear GW Assessment Plan Revl.docx

Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SynTerra
Duke Energy Progress, Inc. (Duke Energy) owns and operates the Cape Fear Steam
Electric Plant (Cape Fear Plant) located on approximately 900 acres in central North
Carolina near Moncure, North Carolina. Ash generated from coal combustion was
stored on -site in ash basins. Operations were terminated at the Cape Fear Plant in
October 2012 and demolition activities are currently underway.
Wastewater discharges from the ash basins are permitted by the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) Division of Water
Resources (DWR) under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit
#NC0003433.
Duke Energy has performed voluntary groundwater monitoring around the active ash
basin from March 2007 until April 2010. The voluntary groundwater monitoring wells
were sampled two times each year and the analytical results were submitted to DWR.
Groundwater monitoring as required by the NPDES permit began in October 2010. The
system of compliance groundwater monitoring wells required for the NPDES permit is
sampled three times a year and the analytical results are submitted to the DWR. The
compliance groundwater monitoring is performed in addition to the normal NPDES
monitoring of the discharge flows.
It is Duke Energy's intention that the assessment will collect additional data to validate
and expand the knowledge of the groundwater system at the ash basin. The proposed
assessment plan will provide the basis for a data -driven approach to additional actions
related to groundwater conditions if required by the results of the assessment and for
closure.
In a Notice of Regulatory Requirement (NORR) letter dated August 13, 2014, the
Division of Water Resources (DWR) of the NCDENR requested that Duke Energy
prepare a Groundwater Assessment Plan to identify the source and cause of possible
contamination, any imminent hazards to public health and safety and actions taken to
mitigate them, and all receptors and complete exposure pathways. In addition, the
NORR directed Duke Energy to determine the horizontal and vertical extent of possible
soil and groundwater contamination and factors affecting contaminant transport and
the geological and hydrogeological features influencing the movement, chemical, and
physical character of the contaminants.
The following plan includes:
P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ ALL NC SITES \ DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Cape Fear \ 2014-
12-31 GAP Revised\Cape Fear GW Assessment Plan Revl.dooc

Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant
SynTerra
• Implementation of a receptor survey to identify public and private water supply
wells (including irrigation well and unused or abandoned wells), surface water
features, and wellhead protection areas (if present) within a 0.5 mile radius of the
Cape Fear Plant ash basins compliance boundary;
• Installation of borings within the ash basins for chemical and geotechnical
analysis of residuals and in -place soils;
• Installation of soil borings;
• Installation of monitoring wells;
• Collection and analysis of groundwater and ash pore water samples from
existing and newly installed monitoring wells and piezometers;
• Collection and analysis of surface water and sediment samples;
• Statistical evaluation of the groundwater analytical data;
• Development of a groundwater computer model to evaluate the long term fate
and transport of constituents of concern in groundwater beneath the ash basins;
and
• Conduct of a screening level human health and ecological risk assessment. This
assessment will include the preparation of a conceptual exposure model
illustrating potential pathways from the source to possible receptors.
The information obtained through this Work Plan will be utilized to prepare a
Comprehensive Site Assessment (CSA) report in accordance with the requirements of
the NORR and the Coal Ash Management Act (CAMA).
During the CSA process if additional investigations are required, NCDENR will be
notified.
This Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1 was prepared in response to
comments provided to Duke Energy by the NCDENR in a letter dated November 4,
2014, in regards to the Groundwater Assessment Work Plan submitted to NCDENR
September, 2014, and subsequent meetings among Duke Energy, SynTerra and
NCDENR. The revised work plan addresses the general and site specific comments for
the Cape Fear Plant including:
• Installing an additional upgradient well cluster west of existing well cluster
BGMW-4 to be farther from possible interference from industrial activity across
P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ ALL NC SITES \ DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Cape Fear \ 2014-
12-31 GAP Revised\Cape Fear GW Assessment Plan Revl.dooc

Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant SynTerra
from Corinth Road. This upgradient location is intended to be considered as a
potential background location.
• Moving an originally proposed (September 2014) background well cluster
further east at a location where the wells are not anticipated to be hydraulically
downgradient of the former plant and 1985 ash basin with consideration of
potential mounding from previous ash basin water levels.
• Moving a well cluster originally proposed (September 2014) along the Cape Fear
River near the 1963 ash basin so that it is closer to the seep sample NCDENR
collected on October 1, 2014 (approximate coordinates of 35.5898 x 79.0516).
• Adding a well cluster south of the 1978 ash basin near the compliance boundary
to monitor groundwater at the compliance boundary for potential radial flow
from the 1978 and 1970 ash basins and potential influences historical clay mining
trenches have on groundwater flow in the area.
• Adding a well cluster near the guard station west of Corinth Rd near the
intersection of CP&L Drive to monitor potential radial groundwater flow from
the 1985 ash basin toward Shaddox Creek.
• Adding a deep/bedrock well paired with existing well CMW-5.
• Adding an ash/soil boring and monitoring well in the 1963 ash basin.
• Collecting surface water and sediment samples on the north side of the 1985 ash
basin in vicinity of CMW-5 and in the wetland area on the east side of the 1985
ash basin in the general vicinity of CMW-6.
P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ ALL NC SITES \ DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Cape Fear \ 2014-
12-31 GAP Revised\Cape Fear GW Assessment Plan Revl.dooc

Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant
1.0 INTRODUCTION
SynTerra
Duke Energy Progress, Inc. (Duke Energy) owns and operates the Cape Fear Steam
Electric Plant (Cape Fear Plant) located on approximately 900 acres in central North
Carolina near Moncure, North Carolina. The Cape Fear Plant is located in Chatham
County along the east bank of the Cape Fear River southeast of Moncure and west of
Corinth Road. The site location is shown on Figure 1.
The Cape Fear Plant began operations in 1923 and additional units were added in the
following years. In the most current configuration, the Cape Fear Plant employed two
coal-fired units along with four oil -fueled combustion turbine units. Ash generated
from coal combustion was stored on -site in ash basins. Operations were terminated at
the Cape Fear Plant in October 2012 and demolition activities are currently underway.
Wastewater discharges from the ash basins are permitted by the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) Division of Water
Resources (DWR) under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Permit #NC0003433.
Duke Energy has performed voluntary groundwater monitoring around the active ash
basin from March 2007 until April 2010. The voluntary groundwater monitoring wells
were sampled two times each year and the analytical results were submitted to DWR.
Groundwater monitoring as required by the NPDES permit began in October 2010. The
system of compliance groundwater monitoring wells required for the NPDES permit is
sampled three times a year and the analytical results are submitted to the DWR. The
compliance groundwater monitoring is performed in addition to the normal NPDES
monitoring of the discharge flows.
It is Duke Energy's intention that the assessment will collect additional data to validate
and expand the knowledge of the groundwater system at the ash basin. The proposed
assessment plan will provide the basis for a data -driven approach to additional actions
related to groundwater conditions if required by the results of the assessment and for
closure.
Groundwater monitoring has been performed in accordance with the conditions in the
NPDES Permit beginning in December 2010. Elevated values appear to be greater than
the North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC) Title 15A Chapter 02L.0202
groundwater quality standards (21, Standards) have been measured in groundwater
samples from some Plant monitoring wells.
Page 1
P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ ALL NC SITES \ DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Cape Fear \ 2014-
12-31 GAP Revised \ Cape Fear GW Assessment Plan Revl.dooc

Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant
SynTerra
The compliance boundary for groundwater quality for the Cape Fear ash basins are
defined in accordance with NCAC Title 15A Chapter 02L.0107(a) (T15 A NCAC 02L
.0107(a)) as being established at either 500 feet from the waste boundary or at the
property boundary, whichever is closest. The compliance monitoring network includes
two upgradient monitoring wells, BGMW-4 and BGTMW-4 (intended to represent
background conditions), plus 11 monitoring wells located along the compliance
boundary. The locations of the monitoring wells are shown on Figure 2. Analytical
results from sampling these wells are submitted to NCDENR by the end of the month
following sampling.
In a Notice of Regulatory Requirement (NORR) letter dated August 13, 2014, the
Division of Water Resources (DWR) of NCDENR requested that Duke Energy prepare a
Comprehensive Site Assessment (CSA) in accordance with 15A NCAC 02L .0106(g) to
address those groundwater constituents that appear to have elevated values greater
than the 21, groundwater quality standards at the compliance boundary. A summary of
the elevated constituent values is provided in Table 2 and a copy of the DWR letter is
provided in Appendix A.
The Coal Ash Management Act (CAMA) 2014 — General Assembly of North Carolina
Senate Bill 729 Ratified Bill (Session 2013) (SB 729) revised North Carolina General
Statute 130A-309.209(a) to require the following:
(a) Groundwater Assessment of Coal Combustion Residuals Surface Impoundments.
— The owner of a coal combustion residuals surface impoundment shall conduct
groundwater monitoring and assessment as provided in this subsection. The
requirements for groundwater monitoring and assessment set out in this subsection are
in addition to any other groundwater monitoring and assessment requirements
applicable to the owners of coal combustion residuals surface impoundments.
(1) No later than December 31, 2014, the owner of a coal combustion residuals
surface impoundment shall submit a proposed Groundwater Assessment Plan for
the impoundment to the Department for its review and approval. The
Groundwater Assessment Plan shall, at a minimum, provide for all of the
following:
a. A description of all receptors and significant exposure pathways.
b. An assessment of the horizontal and vertical extent of soil and
groundwater contamination for all contaminants confirmed to be present
in groundwater in exceedance of groundwater quality standards.
c. A description of all significant factors affecting movement and transport
of contaminants.
Page 2
P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ ALL NC SITES \ DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Cape Fear \ 2014-
12-31 GAP Revised \ Cape Fear GW Assessment Plan Revl.dooc

Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant SynTerra
d. A description of the geological and hydrogeological features influencing
the chemical and physical character of the contaminants.
e. A schedule for continued groundwater monitoring.
f. Any other information related to groundwater assessment required by the
Department.
(2) The Department shall approve the Groundwater Assessment Plan if it determines
that the Plan complies with the requirements of this subsection and will be
sufficient to protect public health, safety, and welfare; the environment; and
natural resources.
(3) No later than 10 days from approval of the Groundwater Assessment Plan, the
owner shall begin implementation of the Plan.
(4) No later than 180 days from approval of the Groundwater Assessment Plan, the
owner shall submit a Groundwater Assessment Report to the Department. The
Report shall describe all exceedances of groundwater quality standards associated
with the impoundment.
On behalf of Duke Energy, SynTerra submitted to NCDENR a proposed Work Plan for
the Cape Fear Plant dated September 2014 (SynTerra, 2014). Subsequently, NCDENR
issued a comment letter dated November 4, 2014 containing both general comments
applicable to the Duke Energy ash basin facilities and site -specific comments for the
Cape Fear Plant. In response to these comments, SynTerra has prepared this Proposed
Groundwater Assessment Work Plan (Revision 1) on behalf of Duke Energy for
performing the groundwater assessment as prescribed in the NORR and NC Senate Bill
729 as ratified August 2014, and to address the NCDENR review of the work plan dated
November 4, 2014 and subsequent meetings among Duke Energy, SynTerra, and
NCDENR. The work plan contains a description of the activities proposed to meet the
requirements of 15A NCAC 02L .0106(g). This rule requires:
(g) The site assessment conducted pursuant to the requirements of
Paragraph (c) of this Rule, shall include:
(1) The source and cause of contamination;
(2) Any imminent hazards to public health and safety and actions taken
to mitigate them in accordance with Paragraph (� of this Rule;
(3) All receptors and significant exposure pathways;
(4) The horizontal and vertical extent of soil and groundwater
contamination and all significant factors affecting contaminant
transport; and
(5) Geological and hydrogeological features influencing the movement, chemical, and
physical character of the contaminants.
Page 3
P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ ALL NC SITES \ DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Cape Fear \ 2014-
12-31 GAP Revised \ Cape Fear GW Assessment Plan Revl.dooc

Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant
SynTerra
The work proposed in this plan will provide the information sufficient to satisfy the
requirements of the CAMA and the NORR. However, uncertainties may still exist due
to the following factors:
The natural variations and the complex nature of the geological and
hydrogeological characteristics involved with understanding the movement,
chemical, and physical character of the contaminants;
• The size of the site; and
The time frame mandated by the CAMA. Site assessments are most effectively
performed in a multi -phase approach where data obtained in a particular phase
of the investigation can be reviewed and used to refine the subsequent phases of
investigation. The mandated 180-day time frame may prevent this approach
from being utilized.
• The 180-day time frame will limit the number of sampling events that can be
performed after well installation and prior to report production.
The information obtained through this Work Plan will be utilized to prepare a CSA
report in accordance with the requirements of the NORR and CAMA. In addition to the
components listed above, a human health and ecological risk assessment will be
conducted. This assessment will include the preparation of a conceptual exposure
model illustrating potential pathways from the source to possible receptors.
During the CSA process if additional investigations are required, NCDENR will be
notified.
Page 4
P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ ALL NC SITES \ DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Cape Fear \ 2014-
12-31 GAP Revised \ Cape Fear GW Assessment Plan Revl.dooc

Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant SynTerra
2.0 SITE INFORMATION
2.1 Plant Description
Duke Energy owns and operates the Cape Fear Plant located on approximately 900
acres in central North Carolina near Moncure, North Carolina. The Cape Fear Plant is
located in Chatham County along the east bank of the Cape Fear River southeast of
Moncure and west of Corinth Road. The site location is shown on Figure 1.
The Cape Fear Plant began power producing operations in 1923. Additional power
producing units were added from 1924 to 1969. In the most current configuration, the
Cape Fear Plant employed two coal-fired units along with four oil -fueled combustion
turbine units. Ash generated from coal combustion was transported by sluicing to and
stored on -site in ash basins. Power producing operations were terminated at the Cape
Fear Plant in October 2012 and demolition activities are currently underway.
A cooling water effluent channel is present in the central portion of the plant. The
effluent channel extends to an unnamed tributary to the Cape Fear River which
continues on Duke Energy property approximately seven miles before flowing towards
the Cape Fear River downstream of Buckhorn Dam.
2.2 Ash Basin Descriptions
Five ash basins have historically been used to retain and settle ash sluice water
generated from coal combustion at the Cape Fear Plant and are referenced using the
date of construction: 1956, 1963, 1970, 1978, and 1985. The 1956 ash basin is located
north of the former Plant, and the remaining ash basins are located south of the power
production area. The 1963 and 1970 ash basins were constructed on the west side of the
Plant property adjacent to the Cape Fear River. The 1978 ash basin was constructed east
of and abutting the 1963 and 1970 ash basins. The 1985 ash basin was constructed east
of the existing ash basins between the discharge effluent channel and Corinth Road.
The ash basin locations are indicated on Figure 2.
Ash historically generated from coal combustion was stored on -site in the ash basins.
The ash basins are impounded by earthen dikes. Collectively, the ash basins consist of
approximately 173 acres and contain approximately 5,670,000 tons of ash (Duke Energy
October 31, 2014). Ash is no longer generated at this site and Duke Energy is in the
process of evaluating closure options for the ash basins. A 500 foot compliance
boundary circles the ash basins. Un-usable coal was placed in a mill reject pile area
north of the 1963 ash basin. This area is included within the compliance boundary.
According to Duke Energy, ash has not been stored or placed elsewhere on or near the
site other than possible de minimus quantities at unknown locations.
Page 5
P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ ALL NC SITES \ DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Cape Fear \ 2014-
12-31 GAP Revised \ Cape Fear GW Assessment Plan Revl.dooc

Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant
SynTerra
Currently, the 1956, 1963, and 1970 ash basins are dry and entirely covered with
vegetation (both hardwood and pine trees). A small area near the southern end of the
1970 ash basin is seasonally wet. The 1978 ash basin is partially vegetation -covered
(both trees and scrub), and a portion of the southern end of the ash basin retains water.
The 1985 ash basin has some grass cover and ponded water in the southwest corner of
the ash basin. The permitted outfalls of the 1978 and 1985 ash basins flow toward the
cooling water effluent channel and ultimately to an unnamed tributary to the south.
2.3 Regulatory Requirements
The NPDES program regulates wastewater discharges to surface waters to determine if
surface water quality standards are being maintained. The Cape Fear Plant is permitted
to discharge wastewater under NPDES Permit NC0003433, which authorizes discharge
into an unnamed tributary to the Cape Fear River classified WS-IV waters in the Cape
Fear River Basin in accordance with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and
other conditions set forth in the permit. The ash basins are referred to as "ash ponds" in
the Plant's NPDES permit.
The NPDES permitting program requires that permits be renewed every five years. The
most recent NPDES permit renewal for the Cape Fear Plant became effective on
September 1, 2011, and expires July 31, 2016. The NPDES permit requires groundwater
monitoring. These monitoring requirements are provided in Table 1.
The compliance boundary for groundwater quality associated with the Cape Fear ash
basins is defined in accordance with Title15A NCAC 02L .0107(a) as being established at
either 500 feet from the waste boundary or at the property boundary, whichever is
closer to the waste. The locations of the compliance monitoring wells, waste boundary,
and compliance boundary are shown on Figure 2.
The compliance monitoring network includes two upgradient monitoring wells,
BGMW-4 and BGTMW-4 (intended to represent background conditions), plus 11
monitoring wells located along the compliance boundary. The locations for the
compliance groundwater monitoring wells were approved by the NCDENR DWR
Aquifer Protection Section (APS).
Monitoring wells BGMW-4 and BGTMW-4 have been used to represent background
groundwater quality northeast of the ash basins. CMW-5 is the compliance boundary
well for the northeast side of the compliance boundary. Monitoring well CMW-3 is the
compliance boundary well for the north side of the ash basins. Monitoring wells CMW-
2, CTMW-2, CMW-8, CTMW-8, CMW-1, CTMW-1, CMW-7, and CTMW-7 are
compliance boundary wells to the west and southwest of the ash basins. Monitoring
well CMW-6 is the compliance boundary well for the southeast side of the ash basins.
Page 6
P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ ALL NC SITES \ DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Cape Fear \ 2014-
12-31 GAP Revised \ Cape Fear GW Assessment Plan Revl.dooc

Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant
SynTerra
Wells BGTMW-4, CTMW-1, CTMW-2, CTMW-7, and CTMW-8 were installed in the
upper bedrock and were clustered with shallow wells BGMW-4, CMW-1, CMW-2,
CMW-7, and CMW-8, which were installed above the bedrock in saprolite to monitor
the vertical hydraulic gradient in the area and aquifer conditions within the shallow
bedrock. The remainder of the compliance boundary wells, CMW-3, CMW-5, and
CMW-6, were installed in the saprolite, above bedrock.
The compliance monitoring wells included in Table 1 are sampled three times per year
(in March, June, and October). The analytical results for the monitoring program are
compared to the 2L Standards or the site -specific background concentrations. A
summary of the concentration ranges through June 2014 for constituents detected
greater than 2L Standards is provided in Table 2.
TABLE 1 NPDES Groundwater Monitoring Requirements
Well Nomenclature
Parameter Description
Frequency
Monitoring Wells CMW-1
CTMW-1, CMW-2, CTMW, -
2, CMW-3, CMW-5, CMW-
6, CMW-7, CTMW-7,
CMW-8, CTMW-8, BGMW-
4, BGTMW-4
Aluminum
Chloride
Mercury
TDS
March, June,
and October
Antimony
Chromium
Nickel
Thallium
Arsenic
Copper
Nitrate
Zinc
Barium
Iron
pH
Boron
Lead
Selenium
Cadmium
Manganese
Sulfate
Page 7
P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026 \ ALL NC SITES \DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \Cape Fear \ 2014-
12-31 GAP Revised\Cape Fear GW Assessment Plan Revl.docx

Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant
3.0 RECEPTOR INFORMATION
The August 13, 2014 NORR states:
No later than October 14th, 2014 as authorized pursuant to 15A NCAC 02L
.0106(g), the DWR is requesting that Duke perform a receptor survey at each of
the subject facilities and submitted to the DWR. The receptor survey is required
by 15A NCAC 02L .0106(g) and shall include identification of all receptors within
a radius of 2,640 feet (one-half mile) from the established compliance boundary
identified in the respective National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permits. Receptors shall include, but shall not be limited to, public and
private water supply wells (including irrigation wells and unused or abandoned
wells) and surface water features within one-half mile of the facility compliance
boundary. For those facilities for which Duke has already submitted a receptor
survey, please update your submittals to ensure they meet the requirements
stated in this letter and referenced attachments and submit them with the others.
If they do not meet these requirements, you must modify and resubmit the plans.
The results of the receptor survey shall be presented on a sufficiently scaled
map. The map shall show the coal ash facility location, the facility property
boundary, the waste and compliance boundaries, and all monitoring wells listed
in the respective NPDES permits. Any identified water supply wells shall be
located on the map and shall have the well owner's name and location address
listed on a separate table that can be matched to its location on the map.
SynTerra
In accordance with the requirements of the NORR, SynTerra conducted a receptor
survey to identify potential receptors including public and private water supply wells
(including irrigation wells and unused or abandoned wells) and surface water features
within a 0.5-mile radius of the Cape Fear Plant compliance boundary.
SynTerra presented the results of the receptor survey in two separate reports. The first
report submitted in September 2014 titled Drinking Water Well and Receptor Survey
included the results of a review of publicly available data from NCDENR Department
of Environmental Health, NC OneMap GeoSpatial Portal, DWR Source Water
Assessment Program online database, county geographic information system,
Environmental Data Resources, Inc. Records Review, the United States Geological
Survey (USGS) National Hydrography Dataset, as well as a vehicular survey along
public roads located within 0.5 mile radius of the compliance boundary.
Page 8
P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ ALL NC SITES \ DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Cape Fear \ 2014-
12-31 GAP Revised \ Cape Fear GW Assessment Plan Revl.dooc

Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant
SynTerra
The second report submitted in October 2014 titled Supplement to Drinking Water Well
and Receptor Survey supplemented the initial report with additional information
obtained from questionnaires completed by property owners who own property within
the 0.5 mile radius of the compliance boundary. The report included a sufficiently
scaled map showing the coal ash facility location, the facility property boundary, the
waste and compliance boundaries, all monitoring wells, and the approximate location
of identified water supply wells. A table presented information about identified wells
including the owner's name, address for the well location with parcel number,
construction and usage data, and the approximate distance from the compliance
boundary.
During the groundwater assessment, it is anticipated that additional information will
become available regarding potential receptors. SynTerra will update the receptor
information as necessary, in accordance with the CSA receptor survey requirements. If
necessary, an updated receptor survey will be submitted with the CSA report.
Page 9
P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ ALL NC SITES \ DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Cape Fear \ 2014-
12-31 GAP Revised \ Cape Fear GW Assessment Plan Revl.dooc

Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant SynTerra
4.0 REGIONAL GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY
North Carolina is divided into distinct regions by portions of three physiographic
provinces: the Atlantic Coastal Plain, Piedmont, and Blue Ridge (Fenneman, 1938).
Geographically, the Cape Fear Plant is situated in the Piedmont plateau region of
central North Carolina, a few miles north and west of the contact between the Piedmont
and the North Carolina Coastal Plain. The Piedmont is characterized by well-rounded
hills and rolling ridges. Stream valley to ridge relief in most areas ranges from 75 to 200
feet. Along the Coastal Plain boundary, the Piedmont region rises from an elevation of
300 feet above mean sea level, to the base of the Blue Ridge Mountains at an elevation of
1,500 feet (LeGrand, 2004). Elevations in the area of the Cape Fear Plant are between
150 and 200 feet above mean sea level.
Geologically, the Plant is located within the Deep River Basin (specifically the northern
portion of the Sanford Sub -basin), an irregular, half -graben structural feature of Triassic
age associated with the Newark Supergroup. In the area of the Plant, the basin is
surrounded by and presumably underlain by igneous and metamorphic rocks of the
Carolina Terrane (formerly Carolina Slate Belt) rocks. Over time, continental sediments
filled the basin to great thicknesses and have subsequently been cut by numerous
diabase dikes. The stratigraphy of the basin, consistent with other basins in North
Carolina and Virginia, is represented by a lower sequence of coarse -grained arkosic
sandstone and conglomerate; a middle sequence of siltstone, shale, and thin coal
deposits; and an upper sequence of sandstone, mudstone, siltstone, and conglomerate.
In general, the strata of the Deep River Basin dip gently to the east (Horton and Zullo,
1991).
According to the Geologic Map of North Carolina (North Carolina Geological Survey,
1985), the Cape Fear Plant is situated atop rocks of the Pekin, Cumnock, and Sanford
Formations and the Chatham Group Undivided, each a part of the Chatham Group,
which is part of the Newark Supergroup (Figure 3). According to this map, nearly all of
the ash basins are atop the Pekin Formation, with the exception of a small and southern
portion of the 1985 Ash Basin being atop the Cumnock Formation. The Geologic Map of
North Carolina describes each of these units as being comprised of fluvial sedimentary
rocks such as conglomerate, sandstone, and mudstone. The Pekin Formation is
described to contain a distinctive gray, quartz -rich conglomerate known as the
"millstone grit" at its base with the remainder of the formation dominated by red,
brown, and maroon cross -stratified sandstone, silt -stone, and mudstone with minor
conglomerate and shale (Reinemund, 1955). The Cumnock is dominated by black and
gray shale, with associated gray sandstone and coal (Reinemund, 1955). The lower part
of the Cumnock is dominated by gray siltstone and fine sandstone with minor shale and
Page 10
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ ALL NC SITES \ DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Cape Fear \ 2014-
12-31 GAP Revised \ Cape Fear GW Assessment Plan Revl.dooc

Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant
SynTerra
claystone. These beds are in part laterally equivalent to the upper Pekin Formation and
probably represent a deltaic complex (Gore, 1986; Olsen and Huber, 1997).
The upper portion of these rocks are typically fractured and weathered and, except
where exposed in road cuts, stream channels, and steep hillsides, are covered with
unconsolidated material known as regolith. The regolith includes residual soil and
saprolite zones and, where present, alluvium. Saprolite is typically composed of clay
and coarser granular material and reflects the texture and structure of the rock from
which it was formed as a result of in -situ chemical weathering. The weathering
products of granitic rocks are quartz -rich and sandy textured. Rocks poor in quartz and
rich in feldspar and ferro-magnesium minerals, like those at the Cape Fear Plant, form a
more clayey saprolite. The degree of weathering decreases with depth and partially
weathered rock (PWR) is commonly present near the top of the bedrock surface.
The groundwater system in the Piedmont Province, in most cases, is comprised of two
interconnected layers, or mediums: 1) residual soil/saprolite and weathered fractured
rock (regolith) overlying 2) fractured crystalline bedrock (Heath 1980; Harned and
Daniel 1992). As discussed above and in Section 5.3, bedrock in the vicinity of the Cape
Fear Plant is not crystalline and therefore has different properties than what is typically
encountered within the Piedmont. However, some conditions are similar and worth
further discussion here in the outline of the regional hydrogeologic framework.
The regolith layer is a thoroughly weathered and structureless residual soil that occurs
near the ground surface with the degree of weathering decreasing with depth. The
residual soil grades into saprolite, typically a coarser grained material that retains the
structure of the parent bedrock. Beneath the saprolite, partially weathered/fractured
bedrock occurs with depth until competent bedrock is encountered. This mantle of
residual soil, saprolite, and weathered/fractured rock (transition zone) is a
hydrogeologic unit that covers and crosses various types of rock (LeGrand 1988). This
layer serves as the principal storage reservoir and provides an intergranular medium
through which the recharge and discharge of water from the underlying fractured rock
occurs. Within the fractured crystalline bedrock layer, the fractures control both the
hydraulic conductivity and storage capacity of the rock mass. A transition zone at the
base of the regolith is present in many areas of the Piedmont. The zone consists of
partially weathered/fractured bedrock and lesser amounts of saprolite that grades into
competent bedrock and has been described as "being the most permeable part of the
system, even slightly more permeable than the soil zone" (Harped and Daniel 1992).
The zone thins and thickens within short distances and its boundaries may be difficult
to distinguish. Where present, the zone may serve as a conduit of rapid flow and
transport of contaminated groundwater (Harned and Daniel 1992).
Page 11
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ ALL NC SITES \ DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Cape Fear \ 2014-
12-31 GAP Revised \ Cape Fear GW Assessment Plan Revl.dooc

Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant
SynTerra
LeGrand's (1988; 1989) conceptual model of the groundwater setting in the Piedmont
incorporates the above two -medium system into an entity that is useful for the
description of groundwater conditions. That entity is the surface drainage basin that
contains a perennial stream (LeGrand 1988). Each basin is similar to adjacent basins
and the conditions are generally repetitive from basin to basin. Within a basin,
movement of groundwater is generally restricted to the area extending from the
drainage divides to a perennial stream (Slope -Aquifer System; LeGrand 1988; 1989).
Rarely does groundwater move beneath a perennial stream to another more distant
stream or across drainage divides (LeGrand 1989). The crests of the water table
undulations represent natural groundwater divides within a slope -aquifer system and
may limit the area of influence of wells or contaminant plumes located within their
boundaries. The concave topographic areas between the topographic divides may be
considered as flow compartments that are open-ended down slope.
Therefore, in most cases in the Piedmont, the groundwater system is a two -medium
system (LeGrand 1988) restricted to the local drainage basin. Groundwater within the
area exists under unconfined, also known as water table, conditions within the
saprolite, PWR/transition zone, and in the fractures and joints of the underlying
bedrock. The water table and bedrock aquifers are often interconnected. Typically, the
residual soil/saprolite is partially saturated and the water table fluctuates within it. The
saprolite and PWR/transition zone acts as a reservoir for water supply to the fractures
and joints in the underlying bedrock. The near -surface fractured rocks can form
extensive aquifers. The character of such aquifers results from the combined effects of
the rock type, fracture system, topography, and weathering. Topography exerts an
influence on both weathering and the opening of fractures, while the weathering of the
bedrock modifies both transmissive and storage characteristics.
Groundwater flow paths in the Piedmont are almost invariably restricted to the zone
underlying the topographic slope extending from a topographic divide to an adjacent
stream. Under natural conditions, the general direction of groundwater flow can be
approximated from the surface topography (LeGrand 2004). As such, shallow
groundwater generally flows from local recharge zones in topographically high areas,
such as ridges, toward groundwater discharge zones, such as stream valleys. Ridge and
topographic high areas serve as groundwater recharge zones. Groundwater flow
patterns in recharge areas tend to develop a somewhat radial pattern from the center of
the recharge area outward toward the discharge areas and are expected to mimic
surface topography. The closest surface water discharge for the subject property occurs
to the west as small, perennial and intermittent streams and creeks that flow toward the
Cape Fear River, a large regional river.
Page 12
P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ ALL NC SITES \ DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Cape Fear \ 2014-
12-31 GAP Revised \ Cape Fear GW Assessment Plan Revl.dooc

Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant
SynTerra
Groundwater recharge in the Piedmont is derived entirely from infiltration of local
precipitation. Groundwater recharge occurs in areas of higher topography (i.e.,
hilltops) and groundwater discharge occurs in lowland areas bordering surface water
bodies, wetlands, and floodplains (LeGrand 2004). Average annual precipitation in the
Piedmont ranges from 42-46 inches. Mean annual recharge in the Piedmont ranges
from 4.0 to 9.7 inches per year (Daniel 2001).
Page 13
P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ ALL NC SITES \ DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Cape Fear \ 2014-
12-31 GAP Revised \ Cape Fear GW Assessment Plan Revl.dooc

Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant SynTerra
5.0 INITIAL CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL
Information provided in this section forms the basis for the Initial Site Conceptual
Model (ICSM) and has been developed based on ash source information (Section 2.2),
existing information from routine permit compliance monitoring, voluntary
sampling/monitoring and other site -specific data (e.g. site observations, topography,
boring logs, well construction records, etc.) summarized in Section 6.0, and the geologic
and hydrogeologic framework discussed in Section 4.0. Site data on the physical
transport characteristics such as porosity and hydraulic conductivity of the site exists
from the Preliminary Site Investigation Data Report, Conceptual Closure Plan, Cape Fear
Plant, (Geosyntec, Draft 2013a) and Data Interpretation and Analysis Report, Conceptual
Closure Plan, Cape Fear Plant, (Geosyntec, Draft 2013b). Both of these documents have
yet to be finalized. The sampling and testing proposed in Section 7.0 will provide
additional information on the fate and transport characteristics of the ash basin
materials in groundwater at the site.
The ICSM has been used to identify data gaps and optimize assessment data collection
presented in Section 7.0. The ICSM will be refined as needed as additional site -specific
information is obtained during the site assessment process.
The ICSM serves as the basis for understanding the hydrogeologic characteristics of the
site, as well as the characteristics of the ash sources, and will serve as the basis for the
Site Conceptual Model (SCM) discussed in Section 7.6.
In general, the ICSM identified the need for the following additional information
concerning the site and ash:
• Delineation of the extent of possible soil and groundwater contamination;
• Additional information concerning the direction and velocity of groundwater
flow;
• Information on the constituents and concentrations found in the site ash;
• Properties of site materials influencing fate and transport of constituents found
in ash; and
• Information on possible impacts to seeps and surface water from the constituents
found in the ash.
The assessment work plan found in Section 7.0 was developed in order to collect and to
perform the analyses to provide this information.
Page 14
P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ ALL NC SITES \ DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Cape Fear \ 2014-
12-31 GAP Revised \ Cape Fear GW Assessment Plan Revl.dooc

Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant SynTerra
5.1 Physical Site Characteristics
Topography at the Cape Fear Plant ranges from an approximate high elevation of 195
feet just north of the 1963 Ash Basin to an approximate low elevation of 160 feet at the
interface with the Cape Fear River at the western extent of the site. Elevations are as
high as approximately 250 feet on properties immediately adjacent and east of the plant.
Topography generally slopes from the east to the west toward the Cape Fear River. The
northern portion of the site slopes from south to north toward Shaddox Creek.
The cooling water discharge effluent channel divides the plant topographically. The
effluent channel originates south of the former power production area and trends south
between the 1985 ash basin and the 1978 ash basin. The effluent channel flows into an
unnamed tributary which continues on Duke Energy property for an approximate
distance of seven miles to below the Buckhorn Dam on the Cape Fear River.
Ash Basins
As discussed in Section 2.2, the Cape Fear Plant's contains five separate ash basins
constructed at various times during the plants operational history. The ash basins are
operated as an integral part of the plant's wastewater treatment system to manage ash
via treatment of the sluiced ash transport water. The ash basins are impounded by
earthen dikes. Collectively, the ash basins encompass approximately 173 acres.
The basins have irregular trapezoidal depressions which impound ash within the
basins. The approximate elevations for the five ash basins are: 1956 ash basin -182 feet;
1963 ash basin -190 feet; 1970 ash basin -185 feet; 1978 ash basin -190 feet; and 1985
ash basin -185 feet. Currently, the 1956, 1963, and 1970 ash basins are solid and
covered with vegetation (both hardwood and pine trees). A small area near the
southern end of the 1970 ash basin retains water at an approximate elevation of 177 feet.
The 1978 ash basin is partially vegetation -covered (both trees and scrub), and a portion
of the southern end of the ash basin retains water at an approximate elevation of 189
feet. The 1985 ash basin has some grass cover and ponded water in the southwest
corner of the ash basin at an approximate elevation of 183 feet. Use of the 1985 ash
basin was discontinued in 2013. The 1978 ash basin receives storm water from the plant
site, however, use of the 1978 ash basin is anticipated to be discontinued in the
immediate future.
When the plant was producing power, fly ash precipitated from flue gas and bottom
ash collected in the bottom of the boilers were sluiced to the ash basin using conveyance
water withdrawn from the Cape Fear River. Sluice lines discharged the water/ash
slurry into the southwest portion of the 1956 ash basin and northwest portions of each
of the other basins. Since the plant is no longer used to generate power, the only inflow
Page 15
P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ ALL NC SITES \ DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Cape Fear \ 2014-
12-31 GAP Revised \ Cape Fear GW Assessment Plan Revl.dooc

Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant
SynTerra
into the basins is directly from precipitation. Residual water within the basins no
longer discharges through outfall structures. Currently, Duke Energy is evaluating
alternatives to close the ash basins.
Discharges from the ash basins are permitted by the NCDENR DWR under NPDES
Permit NC0003433.
5.2 Source Characteristics
Ash in the basins consists of fly ash and bottom ash produced from the combustion of
coal. The physical and chemical properties of coal ash are determined by reactions that
occur during the combustion of the coal and subsequent cooling of the flue gas. In
general, coal is dried, pulverized, and conveyed to the burner area of a boiler for
combustion. Material that forms larger particles of ash and falls to the bottom of the
boiler is referred to as bottom ash. Smaller particles of ash, fly ash, are carried upward
in the flue gas and are captured by an air pollution control device. Approximately 70
percent to 80 percent of the ash produced during coal combustion is fly ash. (EPRI 1993)
Typically 65 percent to 90 percent of fly ash has particle sizes that are less than 0.010
millimeter (mm) in diameter. Bottom ash particle diameters can vary from
approximately 0.05 mm to 38 mm.
The chemical composition of coal ash is determined based on many factors including
the source of the coal, the type of boiler where the combustion occurs (the
thermodynamics of the boiler), and air pollution control technologies employed. The
major elemental composition of fly ash (approximately 90percent by weight) is
composed of mineral oxides of silicon, aluminum, iron, and calcium. Minor
constituents such as magnesium, potassium, titanium and sulfur comprise
approximately 8 percent of the mineral component, while trace constituents such as
arsenic, cadmium, lead, mercury, and selenium make up less than approximately 1
percent of the total composition (EPRI, 2009). Other trace constituents in coal ash (fly
ash and bottom ash) consist of antimony, barium, beryllium, boron, chromium, copper,
lead, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, selenium, strontium, thallium, vanadium, and zinc
(EPRI, 2009).
In addition to these constituents, coal ash leachate can contain chloride, fluoride,
sulfate, and sulfide. In the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA's)
Proposed Rules Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals From Electric Utilities Federal
Register /Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010, 35206, USEPA proposed that the
following constituents be used as indicators of groundwater contamination in the
detection monitoring program for coal combustion residual landfills and surface
impoundments: boron, chloride, conductivity, fluoride, pH, sulfate, sulfide, and total
Page 16
P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ ALL NC SITES \ DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Cape Fear \ 2014-
12-31 GAP Revised \ Cape Fear GW Assessment Plan Revl.dooc

Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant
SynTerra
dissolved solids (TDS). In selecting the parameters for detection monitoring, USEPA
selected constituents that are present in coal combustion residual, and would rapidly
move through the subsurface and provide an early detection as to whether
contaminants were migrating from the landfill or ash basin.
In the Report to Congress Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels (USEPA, 1998),
USEPA presented waste characterization data for ash wastes in impoundments and in
landfills. The constituents listed were: arsenic, barium, beryllium, boron, cadmium,
chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, manganese, nickel, selenium, silver, thallium,
strontium, vanadium, and zinc. In this report, the USEPA reviewed radionuclide
concentrations in coal and ash and ultimately, eliminated radionuclides from further
consideration due to the low risks associated with the radionuclides.
The geochemical factors controlling the reactions associated with leaching of ash and
the movement and transport of the constituents leached from ash is complicated. The
mechanisms that affect movement and transport vary by constituent, but, in general, are
mineral equilibrium, solubility, and adsorption onto inorganic soil particles. Due to the
complexity associated with understanding or identifying the specific mechanism
controlling these processes, it is believed that the effect of these processes are best
considered by determination of site -specific, soil -water distribution coefficient, Kd,
values as described in Section 7.8.
The oxidation -reductions and precipitation -dissolution reactions that occur in a
complex environment, such as an ash basin, are poorly understood. In addition to the
variability that might be seen in the mineralogical composition of the ash, based on
different coal types, different age of ash in the basin, etc., it would be anticipated that
the chemical environment of the ash basin would vary over time and over distance and
depth, increasing the difficulty of making specific predictions related to concentrations
of specific constituents. Duke Energy has performed limited leaching analysis on fly
ash and bottom ash. Available data is presented in Table 3.
Due to the complex nature of the geochemical environment and process in the ash
basin, SynTerra believes that the most useful representation of the potential impacts to
groundwater will be obtained from the sampling and analyses of ash in the basin, seep
samples from around the basins, pore -water within the ash basins (near the base of the
ash basins), and groundwater samples collected from monitoring wells as proposed in
Section 7.0 of this work plan.
Understanding the factors controlling the mobility, retention, and transport of the
constituents that may leach from ash are also complicated by the complex nature of the
Page 17
P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ ALL NC SITES \ DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Cape Fear \ 2014-
12-31 GAP Revised \ Cape Fear GW Assessment Plan Revl.dooc

Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant SynTerra
geochemical environment of the ash basin combined with the complex geochemical
processes occurring in the soils beneath the ash basin and along groundwater flow
paths. Mobility, retention, and transport of the constituents will vary by constituent.
As these processes are complex and are highly dependent on the mineral composition
of the soils, it may not be possible to determine with absolute clarity the specific
mechanisms that control the mobility and retention of the constituents; however, the
effect of these processes will be represented by the determination of the site -specific
soil -water distribution coefficient, Kd, values as described in Section 7.8. As described
in Section 7.8, samples will be collected to develop Kd terms for the various
hydrostratigraphic units encountered at the site. These Kd terms will be used in the
groundwater modeling, to predict concentrations of constituents at the compliance
boundary. In addition, physical material properties related to aquifer geochemistry and
fate and transport modeling will be collected as discussed in Section 7.0 to support the
Kd information.
5.3 Hydrogeologic Site Characteristics
As the site is located in the Piedmont it is anticipated that the groundwater flow at the
site will be primarily in the saprolite and the transition zone material with flow also
occurring in the fractured or weathered zones in bedrock. However, the hydrogeologic
nuances presented by the Triassic Basin must be considered, as typical Piedmont sites
(which the LeGrand Model is based upon) consist of crystalline bedrock commonly
overlain by partially weathered rock (PWR), saprolite, and then soil. Rocks beneath the
plant are sedimentary, so those rocks and the overlying regolith have different
properties than the crystalline rocks and related regolith commonly associated with the
Piedmont. For example, fine grain material (mudstones and shales) commonly
encountered within the Cumnock and Pekin Formations may fracture and/or weather in
a manner that results in fractured, PWR, and saprolite zones that may have different
(likely lower) hydraulic conductivities than more typical Piedmont sites where
crystalline rocks are present. These differences will be carefully considered as the CSM
is refined throughout the assessment and specific sampling will be conducted, as
discussed in Section 7.0, to gain an understanding of the hydrogeologic characteristics
at the Cape Fear Plant.
Based on a review of soil boring and monitoring well installation logs (voluntary and
compliance wells) provided by Duke Energy, subsurface stratigraphy consists of the
following material types: fill, ash, alluvium, residual soil, saprolite, partially
weathered/fractured rock (PWR), and bedrock. In general, saprolite, PWR, and bedrock
were encountered on most areas of the site. Bedrock was encountered across the site
ranging in depth below ground surface from nine feet at eastern portion of the plant
and 15 feet near the 1956 ash basin to 45 feet south at the southern portion of the plant
Page 18
P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ ALL NC SITES \ DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Cape Fear \ 2014-
12-31 GAP Revised \ Cape Fear GW Assessment Plan Revl.dooc

Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant
SynTerra
south of the 1970 ash basin. The general stratigraphic units, in sequence from the
ground surface down to boring termination, are defined as follows:
• Fill - Fill material generally consisted of re -worked silts and clays that were
borrowed from one area of the site and re -distributed to other areas.
• Ash - Ash was encountered in borings advanced within the ash basins. Ash was
generally described as gray to black with a silty to sandy texture, consistent with fly
ash and bottom ash.
• Alluvium - Alluvium is unconsolidated soil and sediment that has been eroded and
re -deposited by streams and rivers. Geosyntec noted that alluvium soil is typically
present at ground surface in a thin layer above the saprolite. Alluvium is also
expected to be present where streams likely existed and flowed toward the major
rivers and streams prior to the development of the site.
Residual Soil- The soil that develops in -place and generally consists of red, brown,
gray, or black sandy clay to silty sand. This unit was encountered in various
thicknesses across the site. The residual soil horizon grades into saprolite at depth.
Saprolite - Saprolite develops by the in -place chemical weathering of igneous and
metamorphic rocks. Saprolite is characterized by the preservation of structures that
were present in the unweathered parent bedrock. Saprolite has been observed at
thicknesses less than 10 to greater than 30 feet. This unit has been described as very
stiff brown/gray silty clay that varies to silty sand. Clay lenses have also been
reported, particularly near the Cape Fear River.
• Partially Weathered Rock (PWR) - PWR occurs between the saprolite and bedrock
and contains saprolite and rock remnants in a clayey matrix. This unit was
described as brown, gray black, gray, and green medium to very fine sand and
sandy silty clay, to clay with some rock fragments. Some of the logs prepared by
Catlin describe "gravel sized pieces of granite/gneiss/quartz grains". Granite and
gneiss are not expected to be present in this area, however, they may indicate the
presence of an intrusive dike.
• Bedrock - Bedrock was encountered in borings completed around the ash basins.
Depth to top of bedrock ranged from approximately 9 feet to 45 feet below ground
surface. Bedrock was described as dark gray, reddish -brown and purple shale,
mudstone and siltstone.
Two preliminary cross -sections prepared by Geosyntec Consultants, Inc. present a
generalized and conceptual depiction of the geologic and hydrogeologic conditions at
the Cape Fear Plant (Appendix B, Geosyntec 2013a). The cross -sections show the
relative position of the bottom of the ash basins with the water table and
Page 19
P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ ALL NC SITES \ DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Cape Fear \ 2014-
12-31 GAP Revised \ Cape Fear GW Assessment Plan Revl.dooc

Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant
SynTerra
hydrogeographic zones beneath the plant. The cross -sections indicate the presence of a
layer of PWR of varying thickness across the plant. The cross -sections also indicate the
presence of discontinuous clay layers within the saprolite. Additional and updated
cross -sections and other illustrations will be generated based on the CSA activities, as
discussed in Section 7.0.
Groundwater beneath the plant area occurs within the saprolite at depths ranging from
about 10 feet to about 20 feet below the ground surface. Analysis of groundwater level
data collected by SynTerra over a number of years from compliance monitoring wells as
part of routine NPDES permit compliance monitoring confirms that groundwater flows
from upland areas located east of the Plant towards the west and west-southwest
toward the Cape Fear River. The groundwater surface map based on data collected by
Geosyntec in 2013 is presented Appendix B.
Depths to groundwater in wells completed in the shallow bedrock are similar.
Groundwater elevations from clustered wells typically show slight downward vertical
gradients in upland areas and an upward gradient near the Cape Fear River, typical of
gaining streams. Analysis of water level data for Plant wells confirms that groundwater
flows from upland areas located east of the Plant towards the west-southwest toward
the Cape Fear River. The approximate groundwater gradient for June 2014 data was
10.55 feet (vertical change) over 4,200 feet (horizontal distance) or 2.5 feet/1,000 feet as
measured from well CMW-5 to well CMW-1. The relationship of groundwater
elevations between wells installed in the saprolite and shallow bedrock indicate
connected flow paths.
Hydraulic conductivity has been calculated based on aquifer tests (slug tests) within site
monitoring wells. Calculated average hydraulic conductivity values from existing
monitoring wells were in the range of approximately 0.1 to 1 feet per day for most
wells, with an outlier at MW-12, a shallow well near the effluent channel, at over 10 feet
per day. Hydraulic conductivity values appear to be slightly higher in the deeper wells
compared to collocated shallow wells (i.e., CTMW-8 and CMW-8) (Geosyntec 2013a).
Perched groundwater has been inferred to be present at piezometers PZ-8 and PZ-10. A
clay lens has been noted beneath the ash at both PZ-8 and PZ-10 which may contribute
to the presence of perched water in these areas (Geosyntec 2013b). Perched
groundwater may occur in other areas of the plant.
Since groundwater migrates toward and discharges into gaining streams such as the
Haw River and Cape Fear River, these rivers act as discharge boundaries for
groundwater flow and groundwater is not likely to cross from one side of the river to
Page 20
P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ ALL NC SITES \ DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Cape Fear \ 2014-
12-31 GAP Revised \ Cape Fear GW Assessment Plan Revl.dooc

Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant
SynTerra
the other without a very substantial influence from a pumping well or multiple wells.
Based on SynTerra's recent (November 2014) Supplement to Drinking Water Well and
Receptor Survey, it appears unlikely that the few wells identified on the opposite side of
the Cape Fear River would create such a substantial influence on the natural
groundwater flow regime to change the boundary conditions.
Shaddox Creek trends across the north side of the Cape Fear Plant property and may
also be a discharge boundary, particularly for shallow groundwater within the saprolite
and the PWR, if present. Groundwater in the central portion of the property is also
influenced locally by the presence of the effluent channel. The effluent channel is likely
a localized groundwater discharge feature, particularly for shallow groundwater.
Background conditions will continue to be established as part of this CSA. The
previously designated background monitoring location BGMW-4 and BGTMW-4 is
downgradient of an adjoining industrial area. Therefore, additional wells located
farther upgradient of the ash basins are proposed for possible use as background
monitoring locations as discussed in Section 7.1. The new upgradient wells are
proposed be located atop the Pekin and Cumnock Formations.
The site residual soils were formed by in -place weathering of sandstone, siltstone,
and mudstone, with minor conglomerate and shale. The naturally occurring clay
phyllosilicate minerals common in these primarily fine-grain rocks such as aluminum
(Al), iron (Fe), and manganese (Mn), are present in a number of wells at the site. In the
Piedmont, manganese oxides can occur as thin coatings along bedrock fractures (as well
as iron oxides) and as thin -coatings along relict discontinuities in saprolite.
Approximately 50 percent of wells in North Carolina have manganese concentrations
exceeding the state standard of 0.05 mg/L (Gillispie 2014). Manganese in water wells at
ten NC DWR groundwater research stations studied by Gillispie (2014) is naturally
derived and concentrations are spatially variable ranging from <0.01 to >2 mg/L.
A recent USGS study (Chapman, et al., 2014) identified baseline groundwater quality
from samples collected from 305 water supply wells installed within the Triassic Basin
in Chatham and Lee Counties. Results indicated that 35 percent of samples exceeded
the NCAC 2L Standard for manganese of 0.05 mg/L. Concentrations exceeded the
NCAC 2L Standards for several other constituents in a number of samples including
boron (9 percent), chloride (2 percent), total dissolved solids (5 percent), iron (5
percent), nitrate (3 percent) and sulfate (4 percent). The concentration ranges for the
samples collected as part of this USGS study were similar to concentrations typically
detected in groundwater samples collected at the site.
Page 21
P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ ALL NC SITES \ DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Cape Fear \ 2014-
12-31 GAP Revised \ Cape Fear GW Assessment Plan Revl.dooc

Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant SynTerra
Arsenic, another constituent routinely detected in groundwater samples collected from
the Cape Fear Plant, may also be a common naturally occurring element within the
rocks and residual soils beneath the plant. Rocks beneath the plant have been described
as shale and mudstones. Published research indicates that black shale horizons can be
rich in arsenic far above their average crustal abundance and are susceptible to
weathering eventually leaching high arsenic contents to the surrounding environment
causing arsenic enrichment in soil and water (Paikaray, 2012). Other published research
on groundwater quality within aquifers of the Newark Supergroup have identified
arsenic concentrations greater than 0.2 mg/L (Sefres, et al, 2005).
Information obtained as part of this assessment will support the development of the
CSM and boundary conditions to be used in groundwater modeling of the plant, as
discussed in Section 7.0.
Page 22
P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ ALL NC SITES \ DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Cape Fear \ 2014-
12-31 GAP Revised \ Cape Fear GW Assessment Plan Revl.dooc

Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant SynTerra
6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING
6.1 Compliance Monitoring Well Groundwater Analytical Results
June 2014 was the twelfth compliance monitoring event conducted in accordance with
the NPDES Permit. The routine analytical data indicates that boron, iron, manganese,
sulfate, selenium, total dissolved solids (TDS) and pH have been elevated relative to 21,
Standards. Antimony has been detected at concentrations slightly greater the 21,
Standard once at background well BGTMW-4 and at compliance well CTMW-8. Boron
tends to be detected near or greater than the 21, Standard in compliance boundary wells
CMW-1, CMW-3, CMW-6, and CMW-8. Iron tends to be detected greater than the 21,
Standard in compliance boundary wells CMW-1, CTMW-1, CMW-2, CMW-5, CMW-7,
CMW-8, and CTMW-8. Infrequent detections of iron at concentrations above the 21,
Standard have occurred in background wells BGMW-4 and BGTMW-4 and compliance
boundary wells CTMW-2, CMW-3, CMW-6, and CTMW-7. Manganese tends to be
detected greater than the 21, Standard in background well BGTMW-4 and in compliance
boundary wells CMW-1, CTMW-1, CMW-2, CMW-3, CMW-7, CTMW-7, CMW-8, and
CTMW-8. Infrequent detections of manganese at concentrations above the 21, Standard
have occurred at background well BGMW-4 and compliance boundary wells CMW-5
and CMW-6. Sulfate tends to be infrequently detected above the 21, Standard at CMW-
3. Selenium tends to be detected above the 21, Standard at compliance boundary well
CMW-3. TDS tends to be similar to or greater than the 21, Standard in compliance
boundary wells CMW-2, CMW-3, CMW-6, and CTMW-8. In general, the groundwater
pH tends to be slightly less than or within the 21, Standard range. The concentration
ranges for the constituents which have elevated values greater than 21, Standards are
provided in Table 2.
Arsenic and cadmium have each been detected in at least one compliance boundary
well at concentrations greater than the 21, Standard. However, these constituents have
not been detected at elevated concentrations with regularity and are believed to be
related to naturally occurring conditions, sample turbidity or represent data outliers.
6.2 Preliminary Statistical Evaluation Results
As a preliminary evaluation tool, statistical analysis was conducted on the groundwater
analytical data collected between December 2010 and June 2014 at the Cape Fear Plant.
The statistical analysis was conducted in accordance with USEPA, Statistical Training
Course for Ground Water Monitoring Data Analysis, EPA530-R-93-003, 1992 and USEPA's
Statistical Analysis of Groundwater Monitoring Data at RCRA Facilities; Unified Guidance
EPA 530/R-09-007, March 2009.
Page 23
P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ ALL NC SITES \ DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Cape Fear \ 2014-
12-31 GAP Revised \ Cape Fear GW Assessment Plan Revl.dooc

Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant
SynTerra
An inter -well prediction interval statistical analysis was utilized to evaluate the
groundwater data. The inter -well prediction interval statistical evaluation involves
comparing background well data to the results for a recent sample date from
compliance boundary wells. Monitoring wells BGMW-4 and BGTMW-4 were used as
background wells (the use of BGMW-4 and BGTMW-4 as background wells will be
evaluated during the assessment. However, the preliminary data comparison is a
useful planning tool to determine potential constituents of concern and data gaps).
Monitoring wells CMW-1, CTMW-1, CMW-2, CTMW-2, CMW-3, CMW-5, CMW-6,
CMW-7, CTMW-7, CMW-8, and CTMW-8 are considered compliance boundary wells.
Statistical analysis was performed on the inorganic constituents with detectable
concentrations for the June 2014 routine sampling event.
The statistical analysis indicated statistically significant increases (SSIs) over
background concentrations for the following:
• CMW-1 barium, boron, iron, manganese, and TDS (however, barium and TDS
are consistently less than the 2L Standard);
• CTMW-1 boron, chloride, manganese, sulfate, and TDS (boron, chloride, sulfate,
and TDS concentrations are consistently less than the 2L Standard);
• CMW-2 boron, chloride, iron, manganese, nickel, sulfate, and TDS (boron,
chloride, and nickel are consistently less than the 2L Standard);
• CTMW-2 arsenic and barium (concentrations for both constituents are
consistently less than the 2L Standard);
• CMW-3 boron, chloride, manganese, selenium, sulfate, and TDS (chloride,
sulfate, and TDS are consistently less than the 2L Standard);
• CMW-5 aluminum, boron, and iron (no 2L Standard exists for aluminum and
boron is consistently less than the 2L Standard);
• CMW-6 boron, chloride, sulfate, and TDS (chloride, sulfate, and TDS are
consistently less than the 2L Standard);
• CMW-7 manganese and zinc (zinc is consistently less than the 2L Standard);
• CTMW-7 chloride, manganese, and TDS (chloride and TDS are consistently less
than the 2L Standard);
• CMW-8 barium, boron, iron, manganese, nickel, sulfate, and TDS (barium,
nickel, sulfate, and TDS are consistently less than the 2L Standard); and
• CTMW-8 barium, boron, manganese, sulfate, and TDS (barium, boron, and
sulfate are consistently less than the 2L Standard).
Page 24
P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ ALL NC SITES \ DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Cape Fear \ 2014-
12-31 GAP Revised \ Cape Fear GW Assessment Plan Revl.dooc

Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant SynTerra
A more robust statistical analysis will be completed as part of the CSA using data from
additional background wells. It is understood that the designation of "background"
well is subject to periodic review based upon increased understanding of site chemistry
and groundwater flow direction. In the event a well is determined to not represent
background conditions, it will no longer be used as such for statistical evaluations. At
least four sampling events will be required for new background well data to be used for
independent, stand-alone statistical analysis. In the interim, new wells installed
upgradient of the ash basins (beyond the extent of potential historical groundwater
mounding from the ash basins) and intended to be background well data will be pooled
with other existing background well data representative of the site conditions for
statistical analysis. The use of background wells for statistical analysis will be approved
by DWR. Site -specific background constituent concentration determinations will be
made by the DWR Director.
6.3 Additional Site Data
In addition to the required groundwater monitoring, additional sampling activities
have been conducted at the Cape Fear Plant. Additional groundwater, surface water,
ash basin water, ash pore water, seeps, soil, and ash solids data are summarized in
Tables 3 through Table 8. Results are described briefly below.
2007 Piezometer Installation (Golder Associates) and Subseauent Samvlin2
In 2007, Golder Associates (Golder) installed six piezometers around the 1985 ash basin
to monitor groundwater in the vicinity of the basin. Five of the six piezometers (PZ-1
through PZ-5) were shallow with total depths of 13 or 15 feet. One piezometer PZ-3D
was installed deeper, 65 feet, to monitor conditions in bedrock.
Groundwater data from these piezometers is summarized in Table 4. COPCs have
been detected at concentrations above NCAC 21, Standards in each of the piezometers.
Manganese was the only COPC detected at concentrations greater than the NCAC 21,
Standard in the deeper piezometer (PZ-3D).
2010 Monitoring Well Installation (Catlin)
Catlin Engineers and Scientists (Catlin) installed the 13 compliance monitoring wells in
2010. At some locations, wells were installed as well clusters (pairs) with one well set to
monitor conditions at the water table and an adjacent well set deeper to monitor
conditions in the transition zone and/or bedrock. The wells are routinely sampled as
discussed above. Boring logs were used to evaluate lithologic conditions as part of
Geosyntec's work (discussed below) and SynTerra's development of the scope of work
presented in Section 7.0 of this Work Plan.
Page 25
P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ ALL NC SITES \ DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Cape Fear \ 2014-
12-31 GAP Revised \ Cape Fear GW Assessment Plan Revl.dooc

Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant SynTerra
2013 Closure Evaluation Data (Geosyntec)
During 2013, Geosyntec collected additional groundwater, soil, ash, and surface water
data. That work included the installation and groundwater sampling and analysis of
six monitoring wells (MW-9 to MW-13 installed to 20 feet and MW-14 installed to 80
feet) around the ash basins. Soil samples were collected from the well boreholes during
the installation process. Five piezometers (PZ-6 through PZ-10) were also installed; one
within each ash basin. Four were screened at the base of the ash in the basins. At PZ-9,
visible ash was observed to depth of four feet below ground surface (bgs) and the
piezometer was screened beneath the ash, at 12-22 feet bgs. Preliminary results of that
work were provided in a report titled Preliminary Site Investigation Data Report,
Conceptual Closure Plan, Cape Fear Plant. Excerpts from that report are provided in
Appendix B.
Several inorganic constituents were detected at concentrations above NCAC 21,
Standards in groundwater sampled collected from several of the monitoring wells and
piezometer PZ-9. Fewer inorganic constituents were detected in groundwater collected
from the background location BGMW-4 and BGTMW-4 than from samples collected
downgradient of the ash basins. Similarly, concentrations of COPCs that are typically
used as indicator parameters for constituents derived from coal ash, such as arsenic and
boron, typically decreased with depth. Groundwater analytical results are summarized
on Table 4. Inorganic constituents were also detected in the ash pore water samples
collected from piezometers PZ-6, PZ-7, and PZ-8. Ash pore water sample analytical
results are summarized on Table 7 and sample locations are shown Figure 4. Excerpts
from Geosyntec's report are included in Appendix B.
Geosyntec's work was extensive and also included a geotechnical, geophysical, and
vegetative cover investigations. Additionally, Geosyntec preliminarily prepared a
second report titled Data Interpretation and Analysis Report, Conceptual Closure Plan, Cape
Fear Plant that included a more detailed analysis of the data (Geosyntec 2013b). The
interpretation and analysis report included a surface water flow model, a groundwater
flow model, a geochemical model, a geotechnical model, a vegetative cover model, and
an environmental risk analysis. Duke Energy is in the process of evaluating these
reports and SynTerra has preliminarily reviewed this information. The results of this
work have been considered in the development of this Work Plan and will also be more
fully evaluated as part of the CSA.
2014 Seep and Surface Water Sampling (SynTerra)
NCDENR collected seep data in March 2014 followed by additional seep sample
collection by SynTerra from 17 locations around the ash basins as part of the NPDES
Permit renewal for the Cape Fear Plant. The evaluation included a site reconnaissance
Page 26
P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ ALL NC SITES \ DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Cape Fear \ 2014-
12-31 GAP Revised \ Cape Fear GW Assessment Plan Revl.dooc

Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant
SynTerra
in February 2014 to identify potential seeps followed by the collection of flow
measurements and representative water quality samples at select locations June
through October 2014. NCDENR collected a sample from a single seep on October 1,
2014. Seep analytical results were summarized in a report titled Seep Monitoring Report
June -July and October 2014 submitted in October 2014 (SynTerra, October 2014). Water
from the ash basins, where present, was also collected in 2014. The seep sampling
locations are shown on Figure 4 and available analytical results are included in Table 8.
Duke Energy has not received the NCDENR data from these sampling events.
Other Investigations
Several other consultants have performed geotechnical investigations at various times
at the Cape Fear Plant. Several cone penetration test borings and other geotechnical
borings have been advanced at the Cape Fear Plant. The locations of some of those
additional borings are shown on a figure included in Geosyntec's report which is
included in this Work Plan as an excerpt from their report in Appendix B. Additional
investigations are also ongoing at the plant. SynTerra has not yet reviewed the details
of these geotechnical and geophysical investigations, but will consider this data as part
of the CSA.
Data gaps resultant from these investigations are discussed and considered in the
proposed scope of work included below in Section 7.0.
Page 27
P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ ALL NC SITES \ DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Cape Fear \ 2014-
12-31 GAP Revised \ Cape Fear GW Assessment Plan Revl.dooc

Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant SynTerra
7.0 ASSESSMENT WORK PLAN
The scope of work discussed in this plan is designed to meet the requirements of 15A
NCAC 02L .0106(g). Solid and aqueous media sampling will be performed to fill data
gaps associated with the source and vertical and horizontal extent, in soil and
groundwater, for the constituents that have exceeded the 21, Standards. Data will also
be collected to obtain a better understanding of the heterogeneity of groundwater flow
zones by assessing the fate and transport mechanisms, such as the physical properties
of the ash and soil. From this information a groundwater fate and transport model will
be created and the risk assessment performed. Based on readily available national,
regional, local and site -specific site background information, and dependent upon
accessibility, SynTerra anticipates collecting the following additional samples as part of
the subsurface exploration plan:
• Ash and soil samples from borings within and beneath the ash basins to assess
source conditions;
• Soil samples from borings located outside the ash basin boundaries to assess
background and downgradient conditions;
• Groundwater and ash pore water from monitoring wells to assess the source area
and the horizontal and vertical extent of COPCs; and
• Surface water, seep, and sediment samples from select locations to support the
risk assessment.
In addition, hydrogeologic evaluation testing will be conducted during and following
monitoring well installation activities as described later in this Section. Existing
environmental quality data from compliance monitoring wells, voluntary monitoring
wells, and soil borings will be used to supplement data obtained from this assessment
work.
A summary of the proposed exploration plan, including estimated sample quantities
and estimated depths of soil borings and monitoring wells is presented in Table 9. The
proposed sampling locations are shown on Figure 4. Samples collected will be
analyzed for the constituents listed in Table 10 and 11. Analytical method reporting
limits will be at or below 15A NCAC 21, standards for groundwater or 15A NCAC 2B
standards for Class WS-IV surface water
If it is determined that additional investigations are required during the review of
existing data or data developed from this assessment, Duke Energy will notify the
NCDENR regional office prior to initiating additional investigations.
Page 28
P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ ALL NC SITES \ DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Cape Fear \ 2014-
12-31 GAP Revised \ Cape Fear GW Assessment Plan Revl.dooc

Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant
SynTerra
Based on SynTerra's current understanding of the CSM discussed in Section 5.0,
sampling locations off of Duke Energy property do not appear warranted as the Cape
Fear Plant is immediately upgradient of a major groundwater discharge boundary
(Haw and Cape Fear Rivers) with surrounding properties hydraulically upgradient of
the plant. If investigations and monitoring present evidence to the contrary, sampling
off of the Cape Fear Plant will be reevaluated. If NCDENR determines offsite sampling
is necessary, Duke Energy will contact property owners to obtain access to their
respective property(s). Duke Energy will request liaison assistance from NCDENR if
Duke Energy is unable to obtain access to a specific property where sampling is deemed
necessary. The liaison request will include available property owner contact
information and details of prior discussions with the property owner(s) regarding
access to the property(s) for site assessment purposes.
7.1 Subsurface Exploration
Characterization of subsurface materials will be conducted through the completion of
borings, and monitoring wells as shown on Figure 4. Installation details for soil borings
and monitoring wells, as well as estimated sample quantities and depths, are described
below and presented in Table 9.
Soil borings and monitoring wells will be installed using sonic drilling (or similar
methods), to provide continuous soil cores through ash and into the underlying native
soil and/or rock. Cores will be described/logged, photographed, and maintained.
At the conclusion of well installation activities, well construction details - including
casing depth; total well depth; and well screen length, slot size, and placement within
specific hydrostratigraphic units - will be presented in tabular form for inclusion into
the final CSA Report. Well completion records will be submitted to NCDENR within 30
days of completion.
Rotary -sonic (sonic) drilling is a drilling method that improves drilling production,
placement of well materials and minimizes formation and borehole disturbance. Sonic
drilling relies on high frequency vibrations that are applied to the drill rod, casing, or
sampling devices relieving the skin friction on the outer walls of the steel tubing. This
effect helps to free up the formation out a couple of millimeters thus reducing the side -
wall friction. Using a slow rotation rate, there is less smearing and compaction of the
borehole wall than occurs with augers or direct push methods. Sonic drilling thus
allows for rapid penetration of the borehole, increasing daily production, better sample
recovery and allows the water bearing zones to stay open during well installation. The
benefits of sonic drilling include high quality continuous cores through unconsolidated
and consolidated material. The high quality continuous cores will allow complete
Page 29
P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ ALL NC SITES \ DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Cape Fear \ 2014-
12-31 GAP Revised \ Cape Fear GW Assessment Plan Revl.dooc

Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant SynTerra
observation of the saprolite, transition zone and upper bedrock. Split -spoon samples
are often not retrievable at the transition zone contact. It is also difficult to collect good
cores from the transition zone using split -spoons. Therefore, sonic drilling is an optimal
method to completely characterize the nature and thickness of the transition zone. The
process of advancing an outer steel casing during drilling minimizes the possibly of
pulling material down into or below the transition zone. Well construction materials
(the screen, sand filter pack and bentonite seal) are installed within the steel drill casing
as it is withdrawn. Placement of the sand pack within the clean, stable casing (annulus)
provides for a complete sand pack with less likelihood for turbidity challenges from
sand pack bridges.
Sonic drilling is preferable over mud rotary drilling in flowing sands (less cuttings are
generated and less development required to remove the residual drilling mud). Sonic
drilling is also preferable over hollow stem auger drilling when monitoring wells are to
be installed substantially below the water table due to the drill casing providing a stable
borehole during the placement of well materials and the sand pack. Sonic drilling is
also preferable over coring or air rotary within the transition zone. To minimize
groundwater sample turbidity, the wells will be installed using sonic drilling. Borings
for material samples only may be installed using direct push technology (DPT).
Water from the potable water source to be used during drilling activities will be
sampled and analyzed for the groundwater parameter list (Table 8). The data will be
reviewed to determine if concentrations of target analytes are elevated and may pose a
potential for cross -contamination, false positive detections, etc.
For clustered monitoring wells, the bedrock monitoring well boring will be utilized for
characterization of subsurface materials and sample collection for laboratory analysis
and therefore will be drilled first. Monitoring well borings will be logged in the field as
described below.
At the conclusion of well installation activities, well construction details including
casing depth, total well depth, and well screen length, slot size, and placement within
specific hydrostratigraphic units will be presented in tabular form for inclusion into the
final CSA Report.
7.1.1 Proposed Boring Locations
Characterization of ash and underlying soil will be accomplished through the
completion and sampling of borings within each ash basin. In addition, soil
borings will be completed outside of the ash basins at locations where
monitoring wells are to be installed to provide additional soil quality data.
Page 30
P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ ALL NC SITES \ DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Cape Fear \ 2014-
12-31 GAP Revised \ Cape Fear GW Assessment Plan Revl.dooc

Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant
SynTerra
Analytical results of the soil boring samples will also be used to establish input
parameters for the computer model.
Field data collected during boring advancement will be used to evaluate:
the presence or absence of ash,
areal extent and depth/thickness of ash, and
groundwater flow and transport characteristics.
Borings will be logged and ash/soil samples will be photographed, described,
and visually classified in the field for origin, consistency/relative density, color,
and soil type in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM
D2487/D2488). Soil boring samples will be assigned with an "SB" and a sample
depth interval in parenthesis at the end of the sample location description [i.e.,
MW-21SB (0-2)].
Following collection of the soil samples, the borings will be converted to
monitoring wells. Monitoring wells will be constructed as discussed below.
7.1.1.1 Borings Inside Ash Basins
Borings are proposed within the ash basins to characterize source COPCs,
determine the thickness of ash present in the basin, and to determine the
current residual saturation of the ash. One boring is proposed to be
installed within each of the five ash basins. The locations for each boring
are shown on Figure 4 and are targeted to be placed at either the deepest
portion of the basin (based upon site historical information) or at a
location that provides spatial variation across the basin. Borings are not
anticipated in areas with free standing water or where the ash stability
presents access safety concerns. Each boring is anticipated to extend to a
depth of approximately 20 feet below the bottom of the ash to characterize
the native soil below the ash basins.
At the request of NCDENR, select borings will be advanced to at least 50
feet into bedrock. Borings will be advanced through outer surface casing
set to the top of the bedrock as discussed below. SynTerra anticipates
these deeper borings will be advanced within the 1956 ash basin, the 1970
ash basin, and the 1985 ash basin at borings associated with monitoring
wells ABMW-5, ABMW-3, and ABMW-1, respectively. These locations
were selected to provide information at locations that represent a broad
spatial distribution across the plant. At these locations, the boreholes will
Page 31
P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ ALL NC SITES \ DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Cape Fear \ 2014-
12-31 GAP Revised \ Cape Fear GW Assessment Plan Revl.dooc

Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant
SynTerra
be grouted using the "tremie method" to the targeted depth (to the bottom
elevation of the monitoring well).
The borings associated with the proposed monitoring wells in each ash
basin will be designated as ABMW-1 to ABMW-5. To characterize the
geochemical ash composition, the vertical extent of COPCs in soil, and
evaluate risk, solid phase samples will be collected for laboratory analysis
from the following intervals in each ash basin boring:
• Shallow Ash - approximately 3-5 feet bgs
• Deeper Ash - approximately 2 feet above the ash/soil interface
• Upper Soil - approximately 2 feet below the ash/soil interface
• Deeper Soil - approximately 8-10 feet below the ash/soil interface
If ash is observed to be greater than 30 feet thick, a third ash sample will
be collected from the approximate mid -point depth between the shallow
and deeper samples. The ash samples will be used to evaluate
geochemical variations in ash located in the ash basin. The soil samples
will be used to delineate the vertical extent of potential soil impacts
beneath the ash basin.
Ash and soil samples will be analyzed for total inorganic constituents,
SPLP analysis, and geotechnical parameters, as presented in Table 10.
Select ash and soil samples will be analyzed for leachable inorganic
constituents using the Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure (SPLP)
to evaluate the potential for leaching of constituents from ash into
underlying soil.
A summary of the proposed boring details is provided in Table 9. The
depths at which the samples are collected will be noted on sample IDs.
Following collection of the soil samples, the borings will be converted to
monitoring wells as discussed below. Due to safety concerns, borings will
not be completed where ponded water is present within the ash basin.
7.1.1.2 Borings Outside Ash Basins
Soil samples will be collected during installation of monitoring wells to
provide characterization of soil conditions outside the ash basins.
Groundwater monitoring wells will be placed at each soil boring located
outside of the ash basins. Borings will be advanced to the targeted
Page 32
P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ ALL NC SITES \ DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Cape Fear \ 2014-
12-31 GAP Revised \ Cape Fear GW Assessment Plan Revl.dooc

Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant
SynTerra
interval of the monitoring well. The locations for each boring are shown
on Figure 4.
Proposed Soil Borings Upgradient of the Ash Basins
Soil borings will be advanced at locations upgradient of the ash basins to
collect soil geochemical data at locations that likely represent naturally
occurring background concentrations.
The boring associated with monitoring well cluster MW-15 will be
advanced at a location north of Shaddox Creek and downgradient from a
wood panel manufacturing facility and is intended to be used as an
upgradient background sampling location on the other side of Shaddox
Creek from the 1956 ash basin. According to the geologic map of North
Carolina, the boring will be advanced into the Pekin Formation.
The boring associated with monitoring well cluster MW-16 will be
advanced at a location east of the intersection of CP&L Drive and Corinth
Road near the eastern property boundary at a similar latitude as the
intersection of Corinth Road and CP&L Drive. The purpose of this boring
is to collect samples that are likely to represent background soil
geochemical quality northeast and upgradient of the ash basins.
Topographically, this location [at an approximate elevation of 166 ft above
mean sea level (msl)] is downgradient of the 1985 ash basin
(approximately 186 feet msl). However, it is close to a hill with relatively
steep topography as high as nearly 200 feet msl. This hillside is likely to
have more of an influence on groundwater flow direction at the proposed
location than mounding from the 1985 ash basin and if so, the ash basin is
not likely to have affected groundwater quality in this area. According to
the geologic map of North Carolina, the boring will be also be advanced
into the Pekin Formation.
The boring associated with monitoring well cluster MW-9 will be
advanced to collect soil samples at a location that is upgradient and
unlikely affected by mounding from the 1985 ash basin. This proposed
location is also separate by an unnamed tributary (shown on the Figure 4
as Branch A) that should provide a hydraulic barrier. According to the
geologic map of North Carolina, the boring will be advanced into the
Cumnock Formation. Therefore, samples collected from this boring are
likely to provide representative background geochemistry from a different
geologic unit which will be useful to natural variances in geochemistry.
Page 33
P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ ALL NC SITES \ DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Cape Fear \ 2014-
12-31 GAP Revised \ Cape Fear GW Assessment Plan Revl.dooc

Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant
SynTerra
Proposed Soil Borings Downgradient of the Ash Basins
Soil borings will be installed at locations downgradient of the ash basins
to provide information of horizontal and vertical distribution of COPCs
resultant from the ash basins and to provide data for input into the
hydrogeologic 3D computer model of the Cape Fear Plant. Each boring is
discussed below in a clockwise order as shown on the map.
The boring associated with monitoring well cluster MW-10 will be located
north of the 1956 ash basin to investigate soil conditions where COPCs
have been detected in groundwater samples collected from MW-10 at
concentrations greater than 21, standards.
The boring associated with monitoring well cluster MW-17 will be located
north of the 1985 ash basin to investigate soil conditions where there are
currently no monitoring points to assess radial flow from the 1985 ash
basin.
The boring associated with monitoring well cluster MW-5 will be located
adjacent to CMW-5 northwest of the 1985 ash basin to investigate soil
conditions potentially affected by radial flow from the 1985 ash basin.
The boring associated with monitoring well cluster MW-6 will be located
adjacent to CMW-6 south of the 1985 ash basin to delineate potential
COPCs in soil in the area.
The boring associated with monitoring well MW-18S will be located
south-southeast of the 1985 ash basin to delineate potential COPCs in soil
beyond monitoring well CMW-6.
The boring associated with monitoring well cluster MW-12 will be located
southwest of the 1985 ash basin to assess COPCs in soil in the area.
The boring associated with monitoring well cluster MW-20 will be located
south of the 1970 ash basin to delineate COPCs detected in soil samples
collected during previous investigations at the nearby sampling location
MW-13.
The boring associated with monitoring well MW-19S will be located south
of the 1978 ash basin to investigate soil conditions where there are
currently no monitoring points near the compliance boundary. Samples
Page 34
P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ ALL NC SITES \ DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Cape Fear \ 2014-
12-31 GAP Revised \ Cape Fear GW Assessment Plan Revl.dooc

Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant SynTerra
collected from this boring will also provide information about the
potential effects of historical clay excavation trenches in the area.
The boring associated with monitoring well cluster MW-21 will be located
northwest of the 1963 ash basin to investigate soil conditions where there
are currently no monitoring points and assess potential radial flow from
the 1963 ash basin. Seep samples collected from this area have a different
geochemical signature than other seep and groundwater samples collected
at the Cape Fear Plant. Therefore, another purpose of this boring is to
evaluate the potential source of these constituents detected in the seeps.
Boring SB-N1963 will be located within the mill reject pile where un-
usable coal was placed north of the 1963 ash basin to determine if ash is
present below the mill reject pile, to determine the thickness of the mill
reject pile and ash, and to evaluate potential COPCs in the area. Samples
will be collected from the mill reject pile matrix, ash (if present), and
native soil beneath the mill reject pile or ash. This boring is not intended
to extend into the water table and become a monitoring well.
Groundwater in this area will be assessed by the proposed monitoring
well cluster MW-21, located downgradient of this proposed boring.
Additionally, at the request of NCDENR, select borings will be advanced
to at least 50 feet into bedrock. Borings will be advanced through surface
casings set into the top of bedrock as discussed below. SynTerra
anticipates these deeper borings will be advanced at two proposed
upgradient locations MW-15 and MW-16; and at proposed downgradient
locations MW-12 and MW-21. These locations were selected to provide
information at locations that represent a broad spatial distribution across
the plant. At these locations, the boreholes will be grouted using the
"tremie method" to the targeted depth (to the bottom elevation of the well
to be installed in the borehole).
Solid phase samples will be collected for laboratory analysis from the
following intervals in each boring:
approximately 0-2 feet bgs for (risk assessment purposes)
approximately 2-3 feet above the water table
approximately 2-3 feet below the water table
Page 35
P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ ALL NC SITES \ DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Cape Fear \ 2014-
12-31 GAP Revised \ Cape Fear GW Assessment Plan Revl.dooc

Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant
SynTerra
within the saturated upper transition zone material (if not already
included in the two sample intervals above)
from a primary, open, stained fracture within fresh bedrock, if
existent (bedrock core locations only)
One or more of the above listed sampling intervals may be combined if
field conditions indicate they are in close proximity to each other (i.e.one
sample will be obtained that will be applicable to more than one interval).
Soil samples will be analyzed for total inorganic compounds discussed
above and as presented in Table 10. Results will be used for modeling
and risk assessment.
7.1.1.3 Index Property Sampling and Analysis
Physical properties of ash and soil will be tested in the laboratory to
provide data for use in groundwater modeling. Samples will be collected
at selected locations, with the number of samples collected from the
material types as follows:
• Fill (if present) - 5 samples
• Ash - 5 Samples
• Alluvium - 5 samples
• Soil/Saprolite - 5 samples
• Soil/Saprolite - immediately above refusal 5 samples
Select samples will be tested for:
Natural Moisture Content Determination, in accordance with
ASTM D-2216
Grain size with hydrometer determination, in accordance with
ASTM Standard D-422
The proposed select sample locations presented below were chosen to
represent a wide special variation across the plant.
Fill (if present) - MW-10, MW-12, MW-17, MW-20, and MW-21;
Ash - One from each ash basin at ABMW-1, ABMW-2, ABMW-3,
ABMW-4, and ABMW-5;
Page 36
P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ ALL NC SITES \ DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Cape Fear \ 2014-
12-31 GAP Revised \ Cape Fear GW Assessment Plan Revl.dooc

Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant SynTerra
• Alluvium (if present) - MW-10, MW-12, MW-15, MW-20, and MW-
21;
• Soil/Saprolite - MW-10, MW-12, MW-17, MW-20, and MW-21;
The depth intervals of the select samples will be determined in the field by
the Lead Geologist/Engineer. Sampling will also include a minimum of
five thin -walled undisturbed tubes ("Shelby' Tubes) in fill, ash, and
soil/saprolite layers and will be advanced and collected at the same
locations as shown above for the select samples at depths specified by the
Lead Geologist/Engineer in the field. The Shelby Tubes will be
transported to a soil testing laboratory and each tube will be tested for the
following:
• Natural Moisture Content Determination, in accordance with
ASTM D-2216
• Grain size with hydrometer determination, in accordance with
ASTM Standard D-422
• Hydraulic Conductivity Determination, in accordance with ASTM
Standard D-5084
• Specific Gravity of Soils, in accordance with ASTM Standard D-854
Ten soil core samples will also be selected from representative material at
the site for column tests to be performed in triplicate. Batch Kd tests, if
performed, will be executed in triplicate as well. This is discussed in more
detail in Section 7.8.
The results of the laboratory soil and ash property determination will be
used to determine additional soil properties such as porosity,
transmissivity, and specific storativity. The results from these tests will be
used in the groundwater fate and transport modeling. The specific
borings where these samples are collected from will be determined based
on field conditions, with consideration given to their location relative to
use in the groundwater model.
7.1.2 Groundwater Monitoring Wells
Additional groundwater monitoring wells will be installed to provide additional
aquifer and geochemistry data to supplement information obtained from the
approximate 19 existing monitoring wells and approximate 11 piezometers.
Additional wells will be used to monitor conditions within the aquifer
Page 37
P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ ALL NC SITES \ DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Cape Fear \ 2014-
12-31 GAP Revised \ Cape Fear GW Assessment Plan Revl.dooc

Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant
SynTerra
horizontally and vertically. Data obtained from the existing and newly installed
monitoring wells will be used for the fate and transport modeling of the plant
and to support the risk assessment.
Monitoring wells will be constructed by North Carolina -licensed well drillers in
accordance with 15A NCAC 02C (Well Construction Standards). Drilling
equipment will be decontaminated prior to use at each location using a high
pressure steam cleaner.
Monitoring wells will be constructed of 2-inch ID, National Sanitation
Foundation (NSF) grade polyvinyl chloride (PVC) (ASTM D-1785-12) schedule
40 flush -joint threaded casing and 0.010-inch machine -slotted pre -packed
screens.
Existing compliance monitoring wells at the site generally produce groundwater
samples with turbidities of less than 10 NTU's. Therefore, the assessment well
design will be similar with improvements in the drilling method and pre -packed
screens. To improve on well installation, the assessment wells will be installed
using sonic drilling and the well construction will include pre -packed screens,
plus additional sand in the annular space, to minimize the turbidity of samples.
The sonic drilling method disturbs the formation much less than traditional
hollow stem or rotary drilling. The slow rotation rate and vibration allows for the
minimum impact on the formation resulting in better water quality and flow. As
previously discussed, the placement of the sand pack within the sonic casing also
improves the overall quality and uniformity of the sand pack. One way this is
evident is that the amount of time required for development of a sonic well tends
to be less than half the time associated with other drilling methods. Also with
sonic drilling there is very little smearing effect to the borehole wall allowing
quicker aquifer stabilization.
Where access to a drilling location is not possible, shallow wells will be installed
using a hand -auger and constructed with pre -packed screens.
Where monitoring of different hydrogeologic zones or depth intervals is
appropriate, monitoring wells will be installed as well clusters; single wells
located within approximately 10 feet of another well designed to monitor a
different depth interval. Well designations for the new wells will be consistent
with other Duke Energy sites located within the Piedmont physiographic
provmce.
Page 38
P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ ALL NC SITES \ DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Cape Fear \ 2014-
12-31 GAP Revised \ Cape Fear GW Assessment Plan Revl.dooc

Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant
SynTerra
Monitoring wells will be installed within each ash basin at the base of the ash.
These locations will be designated with an "AB" at the beginning of the location
name (i.e., ABMW-1). Wells installed beneath an ash basin will be named with
the appropriate designation discussed below (i.e., ABMW-1S, ABMW-11), or
ABMW-1BR).
Saprolite/regolith wells will be installed with the top of the well screen
approximately five feet below the water table. Wells installed at this depth
interval will be designated with an "S" at the end of the well name (i.e., MW-
15S). In the event that the regolith zone is found to be relatively thick at a
particular well location and that more than one discreet flow zone is observed
during drilling (e.g., presence of confining unit), a second shallow monitoring
well will be installed to provide groundwater flow and quality data for upper
and lower flow zones. In these instances, the wells will be designated as "SU"
and "SU to differentiate between the upper and lower shallow wells located in
the regolith zone.
If observation of cores during drilling at a monitoring well cluster indicates the
presence of a transition zone of PWR between saprolite and competent mudstone
bedrock of sufficient thickness for monitoring, and/or if discreet flow zones (i.e.,
"upper" and "lower" zones) are observed within the transition zone and the
transition zone is greater than 30 feet thick, then additional wells will be
considered based on site -specific conditions. Wells installed in this depth
interval will be designated with a "D" at the end of the well name (i.e., MW-
15D).
Bedrock wells will be installed into the upper portion of the underlying
mudstone (shallow bedrock) to an approximate depth, based on specific
conditions, of at least 10 feet below the saprolite/bedrock transition zone. This
will provide information on the vertical distribution of aquifer characteristics
between the zones (chemistry and aquifer parameters) as well was determining
the magnitude of vertical hydraulic gradients. Wells installed at this depth
interval will be designated with a 'BR" at the end of the well name (i.e., MW-
15BR). For planning purposes, well clusters only consist of two wells; a single
saprolite well and a bedrock well. If a PWR zone or discreet flow zone in lower
portions of the saprolite is observed in the field, an additional deeper saprolite
"D" well will be installed. If bedrock fractures are not encountered or do not
yield sufficient water for monitoring within 50 feet of the bedrock surface at a
drilling location, bedrock wells will not be installed at that location.
Page 39
P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ ALL NC SITES \ DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Cape Fear \ 2014-
12-31 GAP Revised \ Cape Fear GW Assessment Plan Revl.dooc

Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant
SynTerra
Packer testing will be performed on select fractures observed in the rock cores.
See Section 7.1.4 for details regarding packer test implementation.
The locations of the proposed wells are shown on Figure 4. A summary of the
details of the proposed and existing wells is provided in Table 9.
7.1.2.1 Proposed Wells Upgradient of the Ash Basins
Five additional wells in three separate locations will be installed
upgradient of the ash basins to further evaluate water quality in different
hydrogeologic settings a sufficient distance from the ash basins to avoid
possible effects of groundwater mounding. These updgradient wells are
intended to be used in the future as background wells for statistical
comparison once evaluated and agreed upon by NCDENR. As discussed
in Section 6.2, it is understood that the designation of "background" well
is subject to periodic review based upon increased understanding of site
chemistry and groundwater flow direction.
The proposed wells are located in areas presumed to be atop two different
geologic formations, the Pekin and the Cumnock Formations (based on
the geologic map of North Carolina, Figure 3), which may yield
groundwater with different geochemical signatures.
An existing upgradient well cluster BGMW-4 and BGTMW-4 is located to
the north of Shaddox Creek and downgradient from a wood panel
manufacturing facility. Due to this well cluster being downgradient of an
adjoining area with industrial activity NCDENR has requested an
additional well cluster be installed to the west. The new well cluster
(MW-15S and MW-15BR) will be installed upgradient of the 1956 Ash
Basin. Presumably groundwater in this area is in contact with the Pekin
Formation (based on the geologic map of North Carolina, Figure 3).
Monitoring wells MW-16S and MW-16BR will be installed at a location
east of the intersection of CP&L Drive and Corinth Road near the eastern
property boundary at a similar latitude as the intersection of Corinth Road
and CP&L Drive. The purpose is to develop background groundwater
quality in an area beyond the potential effects of groundwater mounding.
Presumably groundwater in this area is in contact with the Pekin
Formation (based on the geologic map of North Carolina, Figure 3).
Monitoring well MW-9BR will be installed adjacent to existing well MW-9.
The purpose of this well is to provide upgradient (background)
Page 40
P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ ALL NC SITES \ DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Cape Fear \ 2014-
12-31 GAP Revised \ Cape Fear GW Assessment Plan Revl.dooc

Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant SynTerra
groundwater quality from bedrock a sufficient distance beyond potential
mounding. According to the geologic map of North Carolina, the well
will be advanced into the Cumnock Formation, similar to MW-6BR.
The location for each of these wells is shown on Figure 4. A summary of
proposed boring and well construction details is provided in Table 9.
7.1.2.2 Proposed Monitoring Wells within Ash Basins
During previous assessment activities conducted at the Cape Fear Plant, a
piezometer was installed within each of the ash basins (Figure 4).
Additional monitoring wells will be installed as clusters at the proposed
boring locations within each ash basin to collect ash pore water samples
from within the ash and groundwater samples beneath the ash, to
measure pore water and groundwater elevations, and residual saturation
within the basins to gain a better understanding of the groundwater
quality and flow conditions within and beneath the ash basins. The
borings and monitoring wells are targeted to be placed at either the
deepest portion of the basin or at a location that provides spatial variation
across the basin. The data will be used for source area modeling.
At each cluster within the ash basin, a monitoring well will be set with the
base of the screen set near the base of the ash. A monitoring well will also
be installed into native material beneath the ash. Monitoring wells
installed within an ash basin will be designated with an "AB" at the
beginning of the location name (i.e., ABMW-1). Wells installed beneath an
ash basin will be named with the appropriate designation discussed above
(i.e., ABMW-1S, ABMW-1D, or ABMW-1BR).
7.1.2.3 Proposed Monitoring Wells Downgradient of
the Ash Basins
The Cape Fear and Haw Rivers, and Shaddox Creek are anticipated to be
hydrogeologic boundaries for downgradient COPC migration. However,
14 additional monitoring wells will be installed at nine separate locations
downgradient of the ash basins delineate the distribution of COPCs in
groundwater both horizontally and vertically beyond the waste and
boundaries. The locations of the proposed wells are shown on Figure 4.
A summary of the anticipated well construction details are provided in
Table 9. Each proposed well is discussed below in a clockwise order as
shown on the map.
Page 41
P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ ALL NC SITES \ DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Cape Fear \ 2014-
12-31 GAP Revised \ Cape Fear GW Assessment Plan Revl.dooc

Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant
SynTerra
Monitoring well MW-10BR will be installed in bedrock adjacent to
existing well MW-10 north of the 1956 ash basin to delineate the vertical
extent of COPCs that have been detected in groundwater samples
collected from MW-10 (shallow well).
Monitoring wells MW-17S and MW-17BR will be installed north of the
1985 ash basin where there are no monitoring points to assess radial flow
from the 1985 ash basin.
Bedrock well MW-5BR will be installed adjacent to existing well CMW-5
northwest of the 1985 ash basin to delineate the vertical extent of COPCs
potentially related to previous groundwater mounding associated with
the 1985 ash basin.
Bedrock well MW-6BR will be installed adjacent to existing well CMW-6
located south of the 1985 ash basin to delineate the vertical extent of
COPCs in groundwater.
Monitoring well MW-18S will be installed south-southeast of the 1985 ash
basin to delineate potential COPCs beyond CMW-6. Access to this well
with a drill rig is not reasonable, so the well will be installed using a hand -
auger.
Bedrock well MW-12BR will be installed adjacent to existing well MW-12
(shallow well) southwest of the 1985 ash basin to delineate the vertical
extent of COPCs detected in groundwater samples collected from MW-12.
Monitoring wells MW-20S and MW-20BR will be installed south of the
1970 ash basin to delineate COPCs detected in groundwater samples
collected from CMW-1, and CTMW-1.
Monitoring well MW-19S will be installed south of the 1978 ash basin to
assess groundwater conditions where there are currently no monitoring
points, evaluate the potential effects of historical soil excavation trenches
in the area, and groundwater quality at the compliance boundary. Access
to this well with a drill rig is not reasonable, so the well will be installed
using a hand -auger.
Monitoring wells MW-21S and MW-21BR will be installed north of the
1963 ash basin to investigate groundwater conditions where there are
currently no monitoring points and evaluate the area where COPCs were
Page 42
P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ ALL NC SITES \ DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Cape Fear \ 2014-
12-31 GAP Revised \ Cape Fear GW Assessment Plan Revl.dooc

Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant
SynTerra
detected in seep samples 5-16 and 5-17, which have a different
geochemical signature than other seep and groundwater samples collected
at the Cape Fear Plant.
7.1.3 Well Completion and Development
Well Completion
The shallowest wells will be installed with screen intervals 10 feet in length.
Deeper wells will be installed with screen intervals five feet in length. Where
well clusters are proposed, bedrock wells will be installed first. Although
groundwater with the saprolite, PWR, and shallow bedrock appears to be
interconnected, as discussed in Section 5.3, bedrock wells will be installed as
double -cased wells as an additional measure to prevent potential COPCs within
overlying material from migrating along the annular space of the borehole and
into bedrock. To accomplish this, an outer casing will be installed using sonic
drilling equipment with a 10-inch core barrel just into the top of competent
bedrock which will be determined based on observation of continuous cores
recovered during drilling. A permanent six-inch diameter schedule 40 PVC
outer casing will be installed and grouted in -place. After the grout has had
sufficient time to set (approximately 24 hours), drilling will advance through the
casing using a smaller diameter drilling core barrel and into bedrock to the depth
of the first water -bearing zone (determined based on observation of continuous
cores) at least 10 feet below the depth of the surface casing.
Each well will be constructed in accordance with 15A NCAC 02C (Well
Construction Standards) and consist of two-inch diameter NSF schedule 40 PVC
flush -joint threaded casings and pre -packed screens appropriately sized based on
soil conditions identified during previous assessment activities. The annular
space between the borehole wall/inner casing and pre -packed well screens for
each of the wells will be filled with clean, well-rounded, washed high grade No.
1 or 2 silica sand determined by the field geologist. The sand pack will be placed
to approximately two feet above the top of the pre -packed screen and then an
approximate two -foot pelletized bentonite seal will be placed above the filter
pack. The remainder of the annular space will be filled with a neat cement grout
from the top of the upper bentonite seal to near ground surface.
Monitoring wells will be completed with either steel above ground protective
casings with locking caps or steel flush -mount manholes with locking expansion
caps, and well tags. The protective covers will be secured and completed in a
concrete collar and a minimum two -foot square concrete pad.
Page 43
P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ ALL NC SITES \ DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Cape Fear \ 2014-
12-31 GAP Revised \ Cape Fear GW Assessment Plan Revl.dooc

Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant
SynTerra
Well Development
Following installation, the monitoring wells will be developed in order to
remove drill fluids, clay, silt, sand, and other fines which may have been
introduced into the formation or sand pack during drilling and well installation,
and to establish communication of the well with the aquifer. Well development
will be performed using a portable submersible pump, which will be repeatedly
moved up and down the well screen interval until the water obtained is
relatively clear. Development will be continued by sustained pumping until
monitoring parameters (e.g., conductivity, pH, temperature) are generally
stabilized; estimated quantities of drilling fluids, if used, are removed; and,
turbidity decreases to acceptable levels (10 NTUs). The wells will be developed
as installed (but no sooner than 24 hours after installation to allow for grout cure
time). The ongoing well development information will be used to make
adjustments as needed to the well construction design to minimize turbidity and
possible other unforeseen factors.
If a well cannot be developed to produce low turbidity groundwater samples,
NCDENR will be notified and supplied with the well completion and
development measures that have been employed to make a determination if the
turbidity is an artifact of the geologic materials in which the well is screened.
Following development, sounding the bottom of the well with a water level
meter should indicate a "hard" (sediment -free) bottom. Development records
will be prepared under the direction of the Project Scientist/Engineer and will
include development method(s), water volume removed, and field
measurements of temperature, pH, conductivity, and turbidity.
7.1.4 Hydrogeologic Evaluation Testing
In order to better characterize hydrogeologic conditions at the site, packer tests
and slug tests will be performed as described below. Data obtained from these
tests will be used in groundwater modeling. In addition, historical soil boring
and hydraulic conductivity data at the site will be utilized as appropriate to
better characterize hydrogeologic conditions and will be used for groundwater
modeling.
Packer Tests
Packer tests using a double packer system will be performed in bedrock borings
at locations based on site -specific conditions, with a minimum of one (1) packer
test in each rock core well boring. Packer tests will utilize a double packer
system and the interval (5 feet or 10 feet based on field conditions) to be tested
Page 44
P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ ALL NC SITES \ DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Cape Fear \ 2014-
12-31 GAP Revised \ Cape Fear GW Assessment Plan Revl.dooc

Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant
SynTerra
will be based on observation of the rock core and will be selected by the Lead
Geologist/Engineer. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation test method and calculation
procedures as described in Chapter 17 of their Engineering Geology Manual (2nd
Edition, 2001) will be used.
Slug Tests
After the wells have been developed, hydraulic conductivity tests (rising head
slug tests) will be conducted on each of the new wells. The slug tests will be
performed in accordance with ASTM D4044-96 Standard Test Method (Field
Procedure) for Instantaneous Change in Head (Slug) Tests for Determining
Hydraulic Properties of Aquifers and NCDENR Performance and Analysis of
Aquifer Slug Test and Pumping Test Policy, dated May 31, 2007.
Prior to performing each slug test, the static water level will be determined and
recorded and a Solinst Model 3001 Levelogger® Edge electronic pressure
transducer/data logger, or equivalent, will be placed in the well at a depth of
approximately six -inches above the bottom of the well. The Levelogger® will be
connected to a field laptop and programmed with the well identification,
approximate elevation of the well, date, and time.
The slug tests will be conducted by lowering a PVC "slug" into the well casing.
The water level within the well is then allowed to equilibrate to a static level.
After equilibrium, the slug is rapidly withdrawn from the well, thereby
decreasing the water level in the well instantaneously. During the recovery of
the well, the water level is measured and recorded electronically using the
pressure transducer/data logger. Two separate slug tests will be conducted for
each well.
The slug test will be performed for no less than ten minutes, or until such time as
the water level in the test well recovers 95% of its original pre -test level,
whichever occurs first. Slug tests will be terminated after two hours even if the
95% pre -test level is not achieved.
The data obtained during the slug tests will be reduced and analyzed using
AQTESOLVTM for Windows, version 4.5, software to determine the hydraulic
conductivity of the soils in the vicinity of wells.
7.2 Ash Pore Water and Groundwater Sampling and Analysis
New and existing wells will be sampled using low -flow sampling techniques in
accordance with USEPA Region 1 Low Stress (low flow) Purging and Sampling Procedure
for the Collection of Groundwater Samples from Monitoring Wells (revised January 19, 2010)
Page 45
P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ ALL NC SITES \ DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Cape Fear \ 2014-
12-31 GAP Revised \ Cape Fear GW Assessment Plan Revl.dooc

Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant SynTerra
and Groundwater Monitoring Program Sampling, Analysis and Reporting Plan, Cape Fear
Steam Electric Plant (SynTerra, October 2014). Each new well will be sampled after
development, and at the completion of drilling activities (two sampling events) for
inclusion in CSA reports. The sampling event following completion of drilling activities
will be a site -wide sampling event including previously installed monitoring wells and
piezometers.
Groundwater and ash pore water samples will be collected from the monitoring wells
and piezometers to provide water quality data within, beneath, upgradient,
downgradient and sidegradient of the ash basins for use in groundwater modeling (i.e.,
to evaluate the horizontal and vertical extent of potentially impacted groundwater
outside the ash basin waste boundary). Background wells and potential background
wells will be used to provide information on background water quality. The
background well locations were selected to provide additional physical separation from
possible influence of the ash basin on groundwater. These wells will also be useful in
the statistical analysis to determine the site -specific background water quality
concentrations (SSBCs).
Subsequent to the two new well sampling events, quarterly sampling of new
anticipated background wells will be performed to develop a background data set. A
site -wide groundwater monitoring schedule will be developed following review of
initial data sets collected during the groundwater assessment.
At the Cape Fear Plant, a low -flow purging technique has been selected as the most
appropriate technique to minimize sample turbidity. During low -flow purging and
sampling, ash pore water or groundwater is pumped using a peristaltic pump with new
tubing into a flow -through chamber at flow rates that minimize or stabilize water level
drawdown within the well. The intake for the tubing is lowered to the mid -point of the
screened interval. A multi -parameter water quality monitoring instrument is used to
measure field indicator parameters within the flow -through chamber during purging.
Measurements include pH, specific conductance, and temperature.
Indicator parameters are measured over time (usually at 3-5 minute intervals). When
parameters have stabilized within ±0.2 pH units and ±10 percent for temperature and
specific conductivity over three consecutive readings, representative groundwater has
been achieved for sampling. Turbidity is not a required stabilization parameter,
however turbidity levels of 10 NTU or less are targeted. Purging will be discontinued
and ash pore water or groundwater samples will be obtained if turbidity levels of 10
NTU or less are not obtained after 1 hour of continuous purging. If the turbidity for a
well increases over time, the well may be re -developed to restore conditions.
Page 46
P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ ALL NC SITES \ DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Cape Fear \ 2014-
12-31 GAP Revised \ Cape Fear GW Assessment Plan Revl.dooc

Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant
SynTerra
Ash pore water and groundwater samples will be analyzed by a North Carolina
certified laboratory for the parameters listed in Table 11. Total and dissolved metals
analysis will be conducted. Speciation of iron and manganese will be conducted on
pore water samples and select groundwater monitoring well samples.
During groundwater sampling activities, water level measurements will be made at the
existing site monitoring wells, observation wells, and piezometers, along with the new
wells. The data will be used to generate potentiometric maps for each separate
hydrogeologic zone (i.e., saprolite, transition zone, and bedrock) as well as to determine
the degree of residual saturation beneath the ash basin. The water levels used for
preparation of flow maps will be collected during a single 24-hour period.
In 2014, the Electric Power Research Institute published the results of a critical review
that presented the current state -of -knowledge concerning radioactive elements in ash
and the potential radiological impacts associated with management and disposal. The
review found:
Despite the enrichment of radionuclides from coal to ash, this critical review did not
locate any published studies that suggested typical CCPs [coal combustion products]
posed any significant radiological risks above background in the disposal scenarios
considered, and when used in concrete products. These conclusions are consistent with
previous assessments. The USGS (1997) concluded that "Radioactive elements in coal
and fly ash should not be sources of alarm. The vast majority of coal and the majority of
fly ash are not significantly enriched in radioactive elements, or in associated
radioactivity, compared to common soils or rocks."A year later, the U.S. EPA (1998)
concluded that the risks of exposure to radionuclide emissions from electric utilities are
"substantially lower than the risks due to exposure to background radiation."
To confirm these general findings, Duke Energy proposes to analyze potentially worst -
case groundwater samples collected from the ash basins for radium-266 and radium-228
(Ra226 and Ra228). Existing monitoring well CMW-1, which is screened in saprolite
immediately downgradient of the 1970 ash basin, and proposed monitoring well MW-
16S, located upgradient of the ash basins, are proposed to be sampled for radium
analysis, with NCDENR concurrence.
Groundwater sample results will be compared to Class GA Standards as found in 15A
NCAC 02L .0202 Groundwater Quality Standards, last amended on April 1, 2013.
In addition to total analytes, speciation of inorganics will be conducted for select sample
locations to characterize the aqueous chemistry and geochemistry in locations and
depths of concern. Inorganic speciation of iron (Fe(II), Fe(III)) and manganese (Mn(II),
Page 47
P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ ALL NC SITES \ DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Cape Fear \ 2014-
12-31 GAP Revised \ Cape Fear GW Assessment Plan Revl.dooc

Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant
SynTerra
Mn(IV)) will be conducted at the following locations. Representative samples of ash
pore water within each basin, groundwater below each basin, from a potential
background location, and from a downgradient location will be collected. Laboratory
analyses will be performed in accordance with the methods provided in Table 10.
7.3 Surface Water, Sediment, and Seep Sampling
As part of the NPDES permit renewal for the Cape Fear Plant, Duke Energy recently
collected samples of surface water and seeps identified around the ash basins
(SynTerra, October 2014). A summary of the analytical results are included in Table 6
and the sample locations are shown on Figure 4. The results of that work will be
supplemented by the collection of surface water and sediment samples as part of this
CSA.
7.3.1 Surface Water and Seep Samples
Surface water samples will be collected to evaluate the groundwater to surface
water pathway and support the human health and ecological risk assessment
discussed in Section 8.0. Each proposed surface water sampling location is
discussed below in a clockwise order as shown on the map.
Within Ash Basins
Samples were recently collected (in 2014) from the open water within the ash
basins, where present. The pore water within the ash basins more likely
represents the highest concentrations of COPCs for source area modeling,
therefore, additional open water samples are not anticipated as part of this
assessment. However, if it is decided in the future that additional sampling is
necessary, samples will be collected using the procedure described below.
At each location, two water samples will be collected - one sample close to the
surface (i.e., 0 to 1 foot from surface) and one sample at a depth just above the
ash surface (i.e., 1 foot to 2 feet above the ash to avoid suspending the ash within
the sample). Prior to sampling, the depth to ash will be measured by slowly
lowering a measuring stick or tape until the ash surface is encountered, being
careful to avoid suspending the ash. The depth to ash will be noted, and a
sample thief (or similar device) will be slowly lowered to the desired depth to
collect the sample. The sample thief and sample will be retrieved and the sample
will be transferred to the appropriate sample containers provided by the
laboratory. In areas where the water body is less than 5 feet deep, one water
sample will be collected from the location at a depth just above the ash surface.
Ash basin surface water samples will be analyzed for the same constituents as
Page 48
P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ ALL NC SITES \ DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Cape Fear \ 2014-
12-31 GAP Revised \ Cape Fear GW Assessment Plan Revl.dooc

Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant
SynTerra
groundwater samples (Table 11). Select constituents will be analyzed for total
and dissolved concentrations.
Outside the Ash Basins
Surface water samples will be collected from the Deep and Haw Rivers (SW-
DEEPR and SW -HAW, respectively) upgradient of the confluence of the these
two rivers and upgradient of the Cape Fear Plant.
Three surface water samples will be collected from Shaddox Creek. One (SW-
SHD-56) will be collected from Shaddox Creek near the confluence with the Haw
River to evaluate potential effects from the 1956 ash basin, a second (SW-SHD-
PLANT) from the approximate midpoint from the confluence with the Haw
River and where the third sample will be collected (SW-SHD-REF) which will be
a reference location to establish water quality in the creek where it enters Duke
Energy property.
Two surface water samples will be collected from the ditch or wet areas
surrounding 1985 ash basin. One (SW-85DN) will be collected in the vicinity of
well CMW-5; the other, in the vicinity of well CMW-6 (Figure 4). These samples
will be used to evaluate the potential effects to surface water and ecology in the
vicinity of the 1985 ash basin. The proposed sample location in the vicinity of
CMW-5 may correspond with the seep sample location 5-04 and proposed
sample location in the vicinity of CMW-6 may correspond with seep sample
location 5-10. The exact locations for these samples will be determined in the
field with direct input from NCDENR.
Three surface water samples will be collected from two unnamed streams
(referred to in this CSA as Branch A and Branch B) that flow onto Duke Energy
property east of the 1985 ash basin. A sample will be collected from each branch
(SW-BA1 and SW-BB1) where the streams enter Duke Energy property and will
be used for reference to determine water quality flowing onto Duke Energy
property. The third (SW-BA2) will be collected after the confluence of Branch A
and Branch B where Branch A crosses under the railroad track to evaluate
potential effects from the 1985 ash basin.
A surface water sample (SW-UNT) will be collected from the unnamed tributary
downgradient of the NPDES Outfall 007 to evaluate potential effects from the ash
basins.
Page 49
P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ ALL NC SITES \ DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Cape Fear \ 2014-
12-31 GAP Revised \ Cape Fear GW Assessment Plan Revl.dooc

Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant
SynTerra
A surface water sample (SW-CFDG) will be collected from the Cape Fear River
downgradient of the 1970 ash basin to evaluate potential effects from the 1956,
1963, 1970, and 1978 ash basins.
The surface water and seep samples will be analyzed for the parameters listed on
Table 11. Analytical results for surface water samples collected from outside the
ash basin will be compared to 15A NCAC 2B .0200 Classifications and Water
Quality Standards Applicable to Surface Waters and Wetlands of North Carolina
(213 Standards), from the DWR, and EPA Criteria Table, last amended on May 15,
2013.
7.3.2 Sediment Samples
To evaluate sediment quality and provide data to be used in the risk assessment,
sediment samples will be collected from the bed surface and co -located with the
surface water samples (Figure 4). Sediment samples will be designated as "SD-
_" followed by a dash "-" and the identifier used with the associated surface
water or seep location. The sediment samples will be analyzed for total
inorganics constituents proposed for the soil and ash samples. The samples will
be analyzed for the parameters listed on Table 10.
7.3.3 Seep Samples
SynTerra does not anticipate resampling the identified seeps that were sampled
in 2014. However, SynTerra will consider the 2014 sampling results in the CSA
evaluation to support the risk assessment, fate and transport groundwater
model, and corrective action plan.
In March 2014, DENR conducted sampling of seeps and surface water locations
at the site. SynTerra does not have the analytical results from this sampling
event at this time; however, once data is received, SynTerra will review the data
and determine if changes in the proposed seep or surface water locations are
needed.
7.4 Field and Sampling Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Procedures
Documentation of field activities will be completed using a combination of logbooks,
field data records (FDRs), sample tracking systems, and sample custody records. Site
and field logbooks shall be completed to provide a general record of activities and
events that occur during each field task. FDRs have been designated for each
exploration and sample collection task to provide a complete record of data obtained
during the activity.
Page 50
P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ ALL NC SITES \ DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Cape Fear \ 2014-
12-31 GAP Revised \ Cape Fear GW Assessment Plan Revl.dooc

Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant SynTerra
7.4.1 Field Logbooks
The field logbooks provide a daily hand written account of field activities.
Logbooks are hardcover books that are permanently bound. All entries are made
in indelible ink and corrections are made with a single line with the author
initials and date. Each page of the logbook will be dated and initialed by the
person completing the log. Partially completed pages will have a line drawn
through the unused portion at the end of each day with the author's initials. The
following information is generally entered into the field logbooks:
• The date and time of each entry. The daily log generally begins with the
Pre -Job Safety Brief;
• A summary of important tasks or subtasks completed during the day;
• A description of field test completed in association with the daily task;
• A description of samples collected including documentation of any
quality control samples that were prepared (rinse blanks, duplicates,
matrix spike, split samples, etc.);
• Documentation of equipment maintenance and calibration activities;
• Documentation of equipment decontamination activities; and,
• Descriptions of deviations from the work plan.
7.4.2 Field Data Records
Sample FDRs contain sample collection and/or exploration details. A FDR is
completed each time a field sample is collected. The goal of the FDR is to
document exploration and sample collection methods, materials, dates and
times, and sample locations and identifiers. Field measurements and
observations associated with a given exploration or sample collection task are
recorded on the FDRs. FDRs are maintained throughout the field program in
files that become a permanent record of field program activities.
7.4.3 Sample Identification
In order to ensure that each number for every field sample collected is unique,
samples will be identified by the sample location and depth interval, if applicable
(e.g., MW-11S (5-6'). Samples will be numbered in accordance with the proposed
sample IDs shown on Figure 4.
7.4.4 Field Equipment Calibration
Field sampling equipment (e.g., water quality meter) will be properly maintained
and calibrated prior to and during continued use to assure that measurements
Page 51
P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ ALL NC SITES \ DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Cape Fear \ 2014-
12-31 GAP Revised \ Cape Fear GW Assessment Plan Revl.dooc

Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant
SynTerra
are accurate within the limitations of the equipment. Personnel will follow the
manufacturers' instructions to determine if the instruments are functioning
within their established operation ranges. The calibration data will be recorded
on a FDR.
To be acceptable, a field test must be bracketed between acceptable calibration
results.
• The first check may be an initial calibration, but the second check must be
a continuing verification check.
• Each field instrument must be calibrated prior to use.
• Verify the calibration at no more than 24-hour intervals during use and at
the end of the use if the instrument will not be used the next day or time
periods greater than 24 hours.
• Initial calibration and verification checks must meet the acceptance criteria
listed in the table below.
• If an initial calibration or verification check fails to meet the acceptance
criteria, immediately recalibrate the instrument or remove it from service.
• If a calibration check fails to meet the acceptance criteria and it is not
possible to reanalyze the samples, the following actions must be taken:
Report results between the last acceptable calibration check and the
failed calibration check as estimated (qualified with a "J");
Include a narrative of the problem; and
Shorten the time period between verification checks or
repair/replace the instrument.
If historically generated data demonstrate that a specific instrument
remains stable for extended periods of time, the interval between initial
calibration and calibration checks may be increased.
Acceptable field data must be bracketed by acceptable checks. Data
that are not bracketed by acceptable checks must be qualified.
Base the selected time interval on the shortest interval that the
instrument maintains stability.
If an extended time interval is used and the instrument consistently
fails to meet the final calibration check, then the instrument may
Page 52
P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ ALL NC SITES \ DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Cape Fear \ 2014-
12-31 GAP Revised \ Cape Fear GW Assessment Plan Revl.dooc

Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant SynTerra
require maintenance to repair the problem or the time period is too
long and must be shortened.
• For continuous monitoring equipment, acceptable field data must be
bracketed by acceptable checks or the data must be qualified.
Sampling or field measurement instrument determined to be malfunctioning will
be repaired or will be replaced with a new piece of equipment.
7.4.5 Sample Custody Requirements
A program of sample custody will be followed during sample handling activities
in both field and laboratory operations. This program is designed to assure that
each sample is accounted for at all times. The appropriate sampling and
laboratory personnel will complete sample FDRs, chain -of -custody records, and
laboratory receipt sheets.
The primary objective of sample custody procedures is to obtain an accurate
written record that can trace the handling of all samples during the sample
collection process, through analysis, until final disposition.
Field Sample Custody
Custody for samples collected during each sampling event will be maintained by
the personnel collecting the samples. Each sampler is responsible for
documenting each sample transfer, maintaining sample custody until the
samples are shipped off -site and sample shipment. The sample custody protocol
followed by the sampling personnel involves:
• Documenting procedures and amounts of reagents or supplies (e.g.,
filters) which become an integral part of the sample from sample
preparation and preservation;
• Recording sample locations, sample bottle identification, and specific
sample acquisition measures on appropriate forms;
• Using sample labels to document all information necessary for effective
sample tracking; and,
• Completing sample FDR forms to establish sample custody in the field
before sample shipment.
Prepared labels are normally developed for each sample prior to sample
collection. At a minimum, each label will contain:
Sample location and depth (if applicable);
Page 53
P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ ALL NC SITES \ DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Cape Fear \ 2014-
12-31 GAP Revised \ Cape Fear GW Assessment Plan Revl.dooc

Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant SynTerra
• Date and time collected;
• Sampler identification; and,
• Analyses requested and applicable preservative.
A manually -prepared chain -of -custody record will be initiated at the time of
sample collection. The chain -of -custody record documents:
• Sample handling procedures including sample location, sample number
and number of containers corresponding to each sample number;
• The requested analysis and applicable preservative;
• The dates and times of sample collection;
• The names of the sampler(s) and the person shipping the samples (if
applicable);
• The date and time that samples were delivered for shipping (if
applicable);
• Shipping information (e.g., FedEx Air Bill); and,
• The names of those responsible for receiving the samples at the
laboratory.
The sampler will complete a chain -of -custody form provided by the laboratory.
The sampler will sign where indicated and record the site identification, sample
number, date and time of sampling, matrix code, sample type, sample location
(in remarks field), bottle/preservative type, and the analyses requested. When
the custody of samples is transferred, the persons relinquishing and receiving
custody will sign, date, and record the time of transfer on the chain -of -custody.
If the samples are shipped using a commercial courier, the bill of lading will
become part of the chain -of -custody and will serve as the signature of the person
receiving the samples. Upon receipt of the samples at the laboratory, a sample
custodian will accept custody of the sample and verify that the chain -of -custody
is still intact. The laboratory shall maintain the chain -of -custody throughout the
analytical and reporting processes.
Sample Container Packing
Sample containers will be packed in plastic coolers for shipment or pick up by
the laboratory. Bottles will be packed tightly to reduce movement of bottles
during transport. Ice will be placed in the cooler along with the chain -of -custody
record in a separate, re -sealable, air tight, plastic bag.
Page 54
P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ ALL NC SITES \ DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Cape Fear \ 2014-
12-31 GAP Revised \ Cape Fear GW Assessment Plan Revl.dooc

Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant
SynTerra
7.4.6 Quality Assurance and Quality Control Samples
The following Quality Assurance/Quality Control samples will be collected
during the proposed field activities:
Equipment rinse blanks (one per day);
Field Duplicates (one per 20 samples per sample medium)
Equipment rinse blanks will be collected from non -dedicated well sampling
equipment and from drilling equipment. The field equipment is cleaned
following documented cleaning procedures. An aliquot of the final control rinse
water is passed over the cleaned equipment directly into a sample container and
submitted for analysis. The equipment rinse blanks enable evaluation of the
decontamination procedures.
A field duplicate is a replicate sample prepared at the sampling locations from
equal portions of all sample aliquots combined to make the sample. Both the
field duplicate and the sample are collected at the same time, in the same
container type, preserved in the same way, and analyzed by the same laboratory
as a measure of sampling and analytical precision.
Field QA/QC samples will be analyzed for the same constituents as proposed for
the soil and groundwater samples, as identified on Tables 10 and 11.
7.4.7 Decontamination Procedures
Proper decontamination of sampling equipment is essential to minimize the
possibility of cross contamination of samples. Previously used sampling
equipment will be decontaminated before sampling and between the collection
of each sample. New, disposable sampling equipment will be used for sampling
activities where possible.
Decontamination of Field Sampling Equipment
Groundwater and soil/ash sampling equipment will be disposable or
decontaminated between sample locations using potable water and phosphate
and borax -free detergent solution and a brush, if necessary, to remove particulate
matter and surface films. Equipment will then be rinsed thoroughly with tap
water to remove detergent solution prior to use at the next sample location. For
surface water and sediment samples, disposable, non-metallic equipment will be
used.
Page 55
P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ ALL NC SITES \ DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Cape Fear \ 2014-
12-31 GAP Revised \ Cape Fear GW Assessment Plan Revl.dooc

Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant
SynTerra
Decontamination of Drilling Equipment
Decontamination of drilling equipment (drill rods, cutting heads, etc.) will be
completed at each well or boring location following completion of the well or
boring. The decontamination procedures area as follows;
• After completion of well or boring a hot water pressure cleaner will be
used to decontaminate tooling as it is extracted from the bore hole.
• The decontamination water will be collected in tubs that will be in place
under the drill deck. A seal will be installed between the tub and land
surface to ensure decontamination water does not migrate back down the
bore hole before last tool joint is removed.
• Recovered water is then pumped from tub into drums, other IDW
containers, or directly onto the ground, away from the drilling location.
• The tooling is then loaded directly back on support equipment ready for
the next location.
7.5 Influence of Pumping Wells on Groundwater System
Based on the results of the receptor survey, Supplement to Drinking Water Well and
Receptor Survey (SynTerra, November 2014) performed for the Cape Fear Plant,
approximately 18 private water supply wells have been confirmed to be located within
or close to a 0.5-mile radius of the compliance boundary for the ash basins. Ten
potential water supply wells may also be located within 0.5 miles of the compliance
boundary. Based on the established distances and possible limited withdrawal rates,
the area of influence of the off -site wells is not expected to be large enough to
substantially affect the groundwater system near the ash basins.
7.6 Site Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model
The ICSM for the Cape Fear Plant has been developed based on existing information
discussed in Sections 2.0 through 6.3 above and was used to develop this Assessment
Work Plan. The ICSM has provided sufficient detail to understand the flow dynamics
at the Cape Fear Plant and to identify potential data gaps, such as areas where
monitoring wells need to be installed and additional soil and groundwater analytical
needs. Sections 7.1 through 7.5 were prepared to address these data gaps.
The data obtained during the proposed assessment will be supplemented by available
reports and data on site geotechnical, geologic, and hydrologic conditions to develop
the hydrogeologic CSM. A fracture trace analysis may be performed for the site as well
as onsite/near-site geologic mapping to better understand site geology and to confirm
and support the CSM. The scope of these efforts will depend upon site conditions and
Page 56
P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ ALL NC SITES \ DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Cape Fear \ 2014-
12-31 GAP Revised \ Cape Fear GW Assessment Plan Revl.dooc

Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant
SynTerra
existing geologic information for the site. The hydrogeologic CSM is a conceptual
interpretation of the processes and characteristics of a site with respect to the
groundwater flow and other hydrologic processes at the site.
The NCDENR document, "Hydrogeologic Investigation and Reporting Policy
Memorandum," dated May 31, 2007 (Reference 9), will be used as general guidance. In
general, components of the CSM will consist of developing and describing the following
aspects of the site: geologic/soil framework, hydrologic framework, and the hydraulic
properties of site materials. More specifically the CSM will describe how these aspects
of the site affect the groundwater flow and the fate and transport of the coal ash
constituents at the site. In addition, the CSM will:
• describe the site and regional geology,
• present longitudinal and transverse cross -sections showing the
hydrostratigraphic layers through the deepest sections of the ash basins;
• develop the hydrostratigraphic layer properties required for the groundwater
model,
• present groundwater contour maps showing the potentiometric surfaces of
hydrostratigraphic layers and the residual saturation within the ash basins,
and
• present information on horizontal and vertical groundwater gradients.
The historic site groundwater elevations and ash basin water elevations will be used to
develop an historic estimated seasonal high groundwater contour map for the site.
Additionally, iso-concentration maps, block diagrams, channel networks, and other
illustrations may be created to illustrate the CSM. Figure 4 shows the proposed
locations for geologic cross sections anticipated for the CSM.
The CSM will serve as the basis for developing the groundwater flow, fate and
transport model.
7.7 Site -Specific Background Concentrations
Statistical analysis will be performed using methods outlined in the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Unified Guidance (USEPA, 2009, EPA 530/R-
09-007) to develop site -specific background concentrations (SSBCs). The SSBCs will be
determined to assess whether or not downgradient exceedances can be attributed to
naturally occurring background concentrations or attributed to potential contamination.
The relationship between exceedances and turbidity will be explored to determine
Page 57
P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ ALL NC SITES \ DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Cape Fear \ 2014-
12-31 GAP Revised \ Cape Fear GW Assessment Plan Revl.dooc

Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant
SynTerra
whether or not there is a possible correlation due to naturally occurring conditions
and/or well construction. Alternative background boring locations will be proposed to
NCDENR if the background wells shown on Figure 4 are found to not represent
background conditions.
7.8 Groundwater Fate and Transport Model
Data from existing and new monitoring wells will be used to develop a groundwater
fate and transport model of the system. A 3-dimensional groundwater fate and
transport model will be developed for the ash basins. The objective of the model
process will be to:
predict concentrations of the COPC at the facility's compliance boundary or
other locations of interest over time,
• estimate the groundwater flow and loading to surface water discharge areas, and
• support the development of the groundwater corrective action plan, if required.
The model and model report will be developed in general accordance with the
guidelines found in the memorandum Groundwater Modeling Policy, NCDENR DWQ,
May 31, 2007 (DENR modeling guidelines).
The groundwater model will be developed from the SCM, from existing wells and
boring information provided by Duke Energy and information developed from the site
investigation. The SCM is a conceptual interpretation of the processes and
characteristics of a site with respect to the groundwater flow and other hydrologic
processes at the site. Development of the ISCM is discussed in Section 5.0 and the SCM
discussed in Section 7.6.
Due to the hydrogeologic complexities at the site, SynTerra believes that a 3-
dimensional groundwater model would be more appropriate than performing 2-
dimensional modeling. The modeling process, the development of the model
hydrostratigraphic layers, the model extent (or domain), and the proposed model
boundary conditions are presented below.
7.8.1 MODFLOW/MT3D
The groundwater modeling will be performed under the direction of Dr. Ron
Falta, Jr., Professor, Department of Environmental Engineering and Earth
Sciences, Clemson University. Groundwater flow and constituent fate and
transport will be modeled using MODFLOW and MT3DMS via the GMS v. 10
MODFLOW III Software Package.
Page 58
P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ ALL NC SITES \ DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Cape Fear \ 2014-
12-31 GAP Revised \ Cape Fear GW Assessment Plan Revl.dooc

Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant
SynTerra
Duke Energy, SynTerra, and Dr. Falta considered the appropriateness of using
MODFLOW and MT3D as compared to the use of MODFLOW coupled with a
geochemical reaction code such as the PH REdox EQuilibrium (PHREEQC)
model. The decision to use MODFLOW and MT3D was based on the intensive
data requirements of PHREEQC, the complexity of developing an appropriate
geochemical model given the heterogeneous nature of Piedmont geology, and
the general acceptance of MODLFOW and MT3D. However, batch simulations
of PHREEQC may be used to perform sensitivity analyses of the proposed
sorption constants used with MODFLOW/MT3D, as described below, if
geochemistry varies significantly across the site.
Additional factors that were considered in the decision to use MT3D as
compared to a reaction based code utilizing geochemical modeling were as
follows:
1. Modeling the complete geochemical fate and transport of trace, minor, or
major constituents would require simultaneous modeling of the following in
addition to groundwater flow:
• All major, minor, and trace constituents (in their respective species forms)
in aqueous, equilibrium (solid), and complexed phases
• Solution pH, oxidation/reduction potential, alkalinity, dissolved oxygen,
and temperature
• Reactions including oxidation/reduction, complexation,
precipitation/dissolution, and ion exchange
2. Transient versus steady-state reaction kinetics may need to be considered. In
general, equilibrium phases for trace constituents cannot be identified by
mineralogical analysis. In this case, speciation geochemical modeling is
required to identify postulated solid phases by their respective saturation
indices.
3. If geochemical conditions across the site are not widely variable, an approach
that considers each modeled COPC as a single species in the dissolved and
complexed, or sorbed, phases is justified. The ratio of these two phases is
prescribed by the sorption coefficient Kd which has dimensions of volume
(U) per unit mass (M). The variation in geochemical conditions can be
considered, if needed, by examining pH, oxidation/reduction potential,
alkalinity, and dissolved oxygen, perhaps combined with geochemical
modeling, to justify the Kd approach utilized by MT3DMS. Geochemical
Page 59
P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ ALL NC SITES \ DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Cape Fear \ 2014-
12-31 GAP Revised \ Cape Fear GW Assessment Plan Revl.dooc

Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant
SynTerra
modeling using PHREEQC (Parkhurst et al. 2013) running in the batch mode
can be used to indicate the extent to which a COPC is subject to solubility
constraints, a variable Kd, or other processes.
The groundwater model will be developed in general accordance with the
guidelines found in the Groundwater Modeling Policy, NCDENR DWQ, May 31,
2007.
7.8.2 Development of Kd Terms
It is critical to determine the ability of the site soils to attenuate, adsorb, or
through other processes, reduce the concentrations of COPCs that may impact
groundwater. To determine the capacity of the site soils to attenuate a
constituent, the site specific soil adsorption coefficients, Kd terms will be
developed by the University of North Carolina Charlotte utilizing soil samples
collected during the site investigation. The soil -water distribution coefficient,
Kd, is defined as the ratio of the adsorbed mass of a constituent to its
concentration in solution and is used to quantify the equilibrium relationship
between chemical constituents in the dissolved phase and adsorbed phase.
Experiments to quantify sorption can be conducted using batch or column
procedures (Daniels and Das 2014). A batch sorption procedure generally
consists of combining soil samples and solutions across a range of soil -to -
solution ratios, followed by shaking until chemical equilibrium is achieved.
Initial and final concentrations of chemicals in the solution determine the
adsorbed amount of chemical, and provide data for developing plots of adsorbed
versus dissolved chemical and the resultant partition coefficient Kd with units of
volume per unit mass. If the plot, or isotherm, is linear, the single -valued
coefficient Kd is considered linear as well. Depending on the chemical
constituent and soil characteristics, non -linear isotherms may also result (EPRI
2004).
The column sorption procedure consists of passing a solution of known chemical
concentration through a cylindrical column packed with the soil sample. Batch
and column methods for estimating sorption were considered in development of
the Kd terms. UNCC recommends an adaption of the column method (Daniels
and Das, 2014) to develop Kd estimates that are more conservative and
representative of in -situ conditions, especially with regards to soil- to -liquid
ratios.
Soil samples with measured dry density and maximum particle size will be
placed in lab -scale columns configured to operate in the upflow mode. A
Page 60
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES \DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment Plans\Cape Fear\2014-
12-31 GAP Revised \ Cape Fear GW Assessment Plan Revl.dooc

Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant
SynTerra
solution with measured concentrations of the COPCs will be pumped through
each column, effluent samples will be collected at regular intervals over time.
When constituent breakthroughs are verified, a "clean" solution (no COPCs) will
be pumped through the columns and effluent samples will be collected as well.
Samples will be analyzed by inductively coupled plasma -mass spectroscopy
(ICP-MS) and ion chromatography (IC) in the Civil & Environmental
Engineering laboratories at EPIC building, UNC Charlotte. COPCs measured in
the column effluent as a function of cumulative pore volumes displaced will be
analyzed using CXTFIT (Tang et al. 2010) to select the appropriate model and
associated parameters of the sorption coefficient Kd, either linear, Freundlich, or
Langmuir. This allows use of a nonlinear coefficient in the event that a linear one
is not suitable for the modeled input concentration range.
It is noted that some COPCs may have indeterminate Kd values by the column
method due to solubility constraints and background conditions. In this case,
batch sorption tests will be conducted in accordance with USEPA Technical
Resource Document EPA/530/SW-87/006-F, Batch -type Procedures for Estimating
Soil Adsorption of Chemicals. COPC-specific solutions will be used to prepare a
range of soil -to -solution ratios. After mixing, supernatant samples will be drawn
and analyzed as described above. Plots of sorbed versus dissolved COPC mass
will be used to develop Kd values.
When applied in the fate and transport modeling performed by MT3D, these Kd
values will determine the extent to which COPC transport in groundwater flow
is attenuated by sorption. In effect, simulated COPC concentrations will be
reduced, as will their rate of movement in advecting groundwater.
Approximately ten soil core samples will be selected to represent a wide special
variation across the plant site. Specifically, the following Kd test media and
locations are anticipated:
• Ash: soil from the borings associated with monitoring wells ABMW-1 and
ABMW-5,
• Alluvium: soil from the boring associated with monitoring well MW-
10BR,
• Saprolite: soil from the borings associated with monitoring wells MW-
12BR, MW-17BR, MW-20BR, and MW-21BR,
• PWR: soil from the borings associated with monitoring wells MW-12BR,
MW-20BR, and MW-21BR.
Page 61
P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ ALL NC SITES \ DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Cape Fear \ 2014-
12-31 GAP Revised \ Cape Fear GW Assessment Plan Revl.dooc

Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant
SynTerra
These Kd terms will apply to the selected soil core samples and background
geochemistry of the test solution, including pH and oxidation-reduction
potential. In order to make these results transferable to other soils and
geochemical conditions at the site where Kd terms have not been derived, UNCC
recommends that the core samples with derived Kds and 20 to 25 additional core
samples be analyzed for hydrous ferrous oxides (HFO) content, which is
considered to the primary determinant of COPC sorption capacity of soils at the
site. In the groundwater modeling study, the correlation between derived Kds
and HFO content can be used to estimate Kd at other site locations where HFO
and background water geochemistry, especially pH and oxidation-reduction
potential, are known. If significant differences in water geochemistry are
observed, geochemical modeling can be used to refine the Kd estimate. UNCC
recommends that core samples for Kd and HFO tests be taken from locations that
are in the path of groundwater flowing from the ash impoundments.
Determination of which COPCs will have Kd developed will be determined after
review of the analyses on the site total ash and SPLP concentrations, pore water
data and review of the site groundwater analyses results. SynTerra anticipates
that the constituents which have exceeded the 21, Standards at the site will be
specifically evaluated.
7.8.3 MODFLOW/MT3D Modeling Process
The MODFLOW groundwater model will be developed using the
hydrostratigraphic layer geometry and properties of the site described in the
following section. After the geometry and properties of the model layers are
input, the model will be calibrated to existing water levels observed in the
monitoring wells and in the ash basin. Infiltration into the areas outside of the
ash basins will be estimated based on available information. Infiltration within
the basins area will be estimated based on available water balance information
and pond elevation data.
The MT3D portion of the model will utilize the Kd terms and the input
concentrations of constituents found in the ash, ash SPLP leachate and pore
water. The leaching characteristics of ash are complex and are expected to vary
with time and as changes occur in the geochemical environment of the ash basin.
Due to factors such as the quantity of a particular constituent found in ash, and
to other factors such as the mineral complex, solubility, and geochemical
conditions, the rate of leaching and the leached concentrations of constituents
will vary with time and with respect to each other.
Page 62
P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ ALL NC SITES \ DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Cape Fear \ 2014-
12-31 GAP Revised \ Cape Fear GW Assessment Plan Revl.dooc

Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant
SynTerra
Since the ash within the basins have been placed over a number of years, the
analytical results from an ash sample is unlikely to represent the concentrations
that are present in the hydrologic pathway between the ash basin and a
particular groundwater monitoring well or other downgradient location.
As a result of these factors and due to the time period involved in groundwater
flow, concentrations after closure may vary over time and peak concentrations
may not yet have arrived at compliance wells. Therefore, the selection of the
initial concentrations and the predictions of the concentrations for constituents
with respect to time will be developed with consideration of the following:
• Site specific analytical results from leach tests (SPLP) and from total digestion
of ash samples taken at varying locations and depths within the ash basin,
• Analytical results from groundwater monitoring wells or seep samples
locations outside of the ash basin,
• Analytical results from monitoring wells and piezometers installed in the ash
basin pore -water (screened in ash),
• Published or other data on sequential leaching tests performed on similar ash.
The information above will be used with constituent concentrations measured at
the compliance boundary to calibrate the fate and transport model and to
develop a representation of the concentration with respect to time for a particular
constituent. The starting time of the model will correspond to the date that the
ash basin was placed in service. The resulting model, which will be consistent
with the calibration targets mentioned above, can then be used to predict
concentrations over space and time. It is noted that SPLP and total digestion
results from ash samples will be considered as an upper bound of the total
CPOCs available for leaching.
The model calibration process will consist of varying hydraulic conductivity and
retardation within and between hydrostratigraphic units in a manner that is
consistent with measured values of hydraulic conductivity, sorption terms,
groundwater levels, and COPC concentrations.
A sensitivity analysis will be performed for the fate and transport analyses.
The model report will contain the information required by Section II of the
NCDENR modeling guidelines, as applicable.
Page 63
P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ ALL NC SITES \ DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Cape Fear \ 2014-
12-31 GAP Revised \ Cape Fear GW Assessment Plan Revl.dooc

Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant
SynTerra
7.8.4 Hydrostratigraphic Layer Development
The 3-dimensional configuration of the groundwater model hydrostratigraphic
layers will be developed from information obtained during the site investigation
process and from the CSM. The thickness and extent for the various layers will
be represented by a 3-dimensional surface model for each hydrostratigraphic
layer.
The boring data from the site investigation and from existing boring data, as
available and provided by Duke Energy, will be entered into the GMS program.
The program, along with site specific and regional knowledge of Piedmont
hydrogeology will be used to interpret and develop the layer thickness and
extent across areas of the site where boring data is not available. The material
layers will be categorized based on properties such as visual soil identification
and previous data from the site. The material properties required for the model
such as total porosity, effective porosity, hydraulic conductivity, and specific
storage will be developed from the data obtained in the site investigation and
from previously collected data for the site.
To further define heterogeneities, a 2-D scatter point set will be used to define
specified hydraulic values within vertical and/or horizontal zones. Specified
hydraulic values will be given set ranges that reflect field conditions from core
measurements, slug tests, and pump tests (if available).
7.8.5 Domain of Conceptual Groundwater Flow Model
The Cape Fear Plant ash basins model domain encompasses areas where
groundwater flow will be simulated to estimate the impacts of ash basin
currently and due to historical mounding. By necessity, the conceptual model
domain extends beyond the basin limits to physical or artificial hydraulic
boundaries such that groundwater flow through the area is accurately simulated.
Physical hydraulic boundary types may include specified head, head dependent
flux, no -flow, and recharge at ground surface or water surface. Artificial
boundaries, which are developed based on information from the site
investigation, may include the specified head and no -flow types.
Model sources and sinks such as drains, springs, rivers, lakes, and pumping
wells will be based on the CSM. As discussed in Section 5.0, the Haw and Cape
Fear Rivers and Shaddox Creek are anticipated to act as groundwater discharge
areas and may be used as model boundaries to the west and north, respectively.
Additionally, the effluent channel likely affects groundwater flow and may be, at
least a partial, groundwater discharge area especially for shallow groundwater in
Page 64
P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ ALL NC SITES \ DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Cape Fear \ 2014-
12-31 GAP Revised \ Cape Fear GW Assessment Plan Revl.dooc

Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant
SynTerra
central portions of the property and will be considered in the model. Artificial
head boundaries will be established south and east of the basins based on
apparent flow conditions. The model layers will consist, at a minimum, of the
surficial/saprolite aquifer and the bedrock aquifer. If intermediate flow zones,
such as a transition zone are identified during the assessment, an additional
layer(s) will be created in the model, as appropriate.
The lower limit of the model domain coincides with the maximum depth of
water yielding fractures in bedrock. The upper limit coincides with the upper
surface of soil, fill, ash, or ash basin water surface, where present.
If site conditions are encountered that warrant changes to the proposed extent of
model, NCDENR will be notified.
7.8.6 Potential Modeling of Groundwater Impacts to Surface
Water
If the groundwater modeling predicts exceedances of the 21, Standards at or
beyond the compliance boundary where the plume containing the exceedances
would intercept surface waters, the groundwater model results will be coupled
with modeling of surface waters to predict contaminant concentrations in the
surface waters.
Model output from the fate and transport modeling (i.e. groundwater volume
flux and concentrations of constituents with exceedances of the 21, Standards)
will be used as input for surface water modeling in the adjacent water bodies
(i.e., streams or reservoirs). The level of surface water modeling will be
determined based on the potential for water quality impacts in the adjacent
water body. That is, if the available mixing and dilution of the groundwater
plume in the water body is sufficient enough that surface water quality
standards are expected to be attained within a short distance a simple modeling
approach will be used. If potential water quality impacts are expected to be
greater or the water body type requires a more complex analysis, then a more
detailed modeling approach will be used. A brief description of the proposed
simple and detailed modeling approaches is presented below.
• Simple Modeling Approach - This approach will include the effects of
upstream flow on dilution of the groundwater plume within allowable
mixing zone limitations along with analytical solutions to the lateral
spreading and mixing of the groundwater plume in the adjacent water
body. This approach will be similar to that presented in EPA's Technical
Support Document for Water Quality based Toxics Control (EPA/505/2-90-001)
Page 65
P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ ALL NC SITES \ DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Cape Fear \ 2014-
12-31 GAP Revised \ Cape Fear GW Assessment Plan Revl.dooc

Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant
SynTerra
for ambient induced mixing that considers lateral dispersion coefficient,
upstream flow and shear velocity. The results from this analysis will
provide constituent concentrations as a function of the spatial distance
from the groundwater input to the adjacent water body.
• Detailed Modeling Approach - This approach will involve the use of
water quality modeling that is capable of representing multi -dimensional
analysis of the groundwater plume mixing and dilution in the adjacent
water body. This method involves segmenting the water body into model
segments (lateral, longitudinal and/or vertical) for calculating the
resulting constituent concentrations spatially in the water body either in a
steady-state or time -variable mode. The potential water quality models
that could be used for this approach include: QUAL2K; CE-QUAL-W2;
EFDC/WASP; ECOMSED/RCA; or other applicable models.
In either approach, the model output from the groundwater model will be
coupled with the surface water model to determine the resulting constituent
concentrations in the adjacent water body spatially from the point of input.
These surface water modeling results can be used for comparison to applicable
surface water quality standards to complete determine compliance.
The development of the model inputs would require additional data for flow and
chemical characterization of the surface water that would potentially be
impacted. The specific type of data required (i.e. flow, chemical characterization,
etc.) and the locations where this data would be collected would depend on the
surface water body and the modeling approach selected. If modeling
groundwater impacts to surface water is required, SynTerra and Duke Energy
will consult with the DWR regional office to present those specific data
requirements and modeling approach.
Page 66
P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ ALL NC SITES \ DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Cape Fear \ 2014-
12-31 GAP Revised \ Cape Fear GW Assessment Plan Revl.dooc

Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant
8.0 RISK ASSESSMENT
SynTerra
To support the groundwater assessment and inform corrective action decisions based
on current and future land use, potential risks to human health and the environment
will be assessed in accordance with applicable federal and state guidance. Initially,
screening level human health and ecological risk assessments will be conducted that
include development of conceptual exposure models (CEM) to serve as the foundation
for evaluating potential risks to human and ecological receptors at the site. Consistent
with standard risk assessment practice for developing conceptual models, separate
CEMs will be developed for the human health and ecological risk evaluations.
The purpose of the CEM is to identify potentially complete exposure pathways to
environmental media associated with the site and to specify the types of exposure
scenarios relevant to include in the risk analysis. The first step in constructing a CEM is
to characterize the site and surrounding area. Source areas and potential transport
mechanisms are then identified, followed by identification of potential receptors and
routes of exposure. Potential exposure pathways are determined to be complete when
they contain the following elements: 1) a constituent source, 2) a mechanism of
constituent release and transport from the source area to an environmental medium, 3)
a feasible route of potential exposure at the point of contact (e.g., ingestion, dermal
contact, inhalation). A complete exposure pathway is one in which constituents can be
traced or are expected to travel from the source to a receptor (USEPA, 1997). Completed
exposure pathways identified in the CEM are then evaluated in the risk assessment.
Incomplete pathways are characterized by some gaps in the links between site sources
and exposure. Based on this lack of potential exposure, incomplete pathways are not
included in the estimation or characterization of potential risks, since no exposure can
occur via these pathways.
Preliminary COPCs for inclusion in the screening level risk assessments will be
identified based on the evaluations performed at the site. Both screening level risk
assessments will compare maximum constituent concentrations to appropriate risk -
based screening values as a preliminary step in evaluating potential for risks to
receptors. Based on results of the screening level risk assessments, a refinement of
COPCs will be conducted and more definitive risk characterization will be performed
as part of the corrective action process if needed.
8.1 Human Health Risk Assessment
As noted above, the first steps of the human health risk assessment will include the
preparation of a CEM, illustrating potential exposure pathways from the source area to
possible receptors. The information gathered in the CEM will be used in conjunction
Page 67
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES \DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment Plans\Cape Fear\2014-
12-31 GAP Revised \ Cape Fear GW Assessment Plan Revl.dooc

Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant
SynTerra
with analytical data collected as part of the CSA. Although groundwater appears to be
the primary exposure pathway for human receptors, a screening level evaluation will be
performed to determine if other potential exposure routes exist.
The human health risk assessment for the site will include an initial comparison of
constituent concentrations in various media to risk -based screening levels. The data will
be screened against the following criteria:
• Soil analytical results collected from the 0 to 2 foot depth interval will be
compared to USEPA residential and industrial soil Regional Screening Levels
(RSLs) (USEPA, November 2014 or latest update);
• Groundwater results will be compared to NCDENR Title 15A, Subchapter 2L
Standards (NCDENR, 2006);
• Surface water analytical results will be compared to North Carolina surface
water standards (Subchapter 213) and USEPA national recommended water
quality criteria (NCDENR, 2007; USEPA, 2006);
• The surface water classification as it pertains to drinking water supply, aquatic
life, high/exceptional quality designations and other requirements for other
activities (e.g., landfill permits, NPDES wastewater discharges) shall be noted;
• Sediment results will be compared to USEPA residential and industrial soil RSLs
(USEPA, November 2014 or latest update); and
• Sediment, soil and ground water data will also be compared to available local,
regional and national background sediment, soil and ground water data, as
available.
The results of this comparison will be presented in a table, along with recommendations
for further evaluation.
8.1.1 Site -Specific Risk -Based Remediation Standards
If deemed necessary, based on the human health risk assessment, site -and media -
specific risk -based remediation standards will be calculated in accordance with
the Eligibility Requirements and Procedures for Risk -Based Remediation of
Industrial Sites Pursuant to N.C.G.S. 130A-310.65 to 310.77, North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Waste
Management, 29 July 2011. In accordance with this guidance document, it is
anticipated that the calculations will include an evaluation of the following,
based on site -specific activities and conditions:
Page 68
P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ ALL NC SITES \ DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Cape Fear \ 2014-
12-31 GAP Revised \ Cape Fear GW Assessment Plan Revl.dooc

Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant
SynTerra
• Remediation methods and technologies resulting in emissions of air
pollutants are to comply with applicable air quality standards adopted by
the Environmental Management Commission (Commission).
• Site -specific remediation standards for surface waters are to be the water
quality standards adopted by the Commission.
• The current and probable future use of groundwater shall be identified
and protected. Site -specific sources of contaminants and potential
receptors are to be identified, protected, controlled, or eliminated whether
on or off the site of the contaminant source.
• Natural environmental conditions affecting the fate and transport of
contaminants (e.g., natural attenuation) shall be determined by
appropriate scientific methods.
• Permits for facilities subject to the programs or requirements of G.S. 130A-
310.67(a) shall include conditions to avoid exceedances of applicable
groundwater standards pursuant to Article 21 of Chapter 143 of the
General Statutes; permitted facilities shall be designed to avoid
exceedances of the North Carolina ground or surface water standards.
• Soil shall be remediated to levels that no longer constitute a continuing
source of groundwater contamination in excess of the site -specific
groundwater remediation standards approved for the site.
• The potential for human inhalation of contaminants from the outdoor air
and other site -specific indoor air exposure pathways shall be considered,
if applicable.
• The site -specific remediation standard shall protect against human
exposure to contamination through the consumption of contaminated fish
or wildlife and through the ingestion of contaminants in surface water or
groundwater supplies.
• For known or suspected carcinogens, site -specific remediation standards
shall be established at levels not to exceed an excess lifetime cancer risk of
one in a million. The site -specific remediation standard may depart from
this level based on the criteria set out in 40 Code of Federal Regulations §
300.430(e)(9) (July 1, 2003). The cumulative excess lifetime cancer risk to
an exposed individual shall not be greater than one in 10,000 based on the
sum of carcinogenic risk posed by each contaminant present.
• For systemic toxicants (non -carcinogens), site -specific remediation
standards shall be set at levels to which the human population, including
Page 69
P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ ALL NC SITES \ DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Cape Fear \ 2014-
12-31 GAP Revised \ Cape Fear GW Assessment Plan Revl.dooc

Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant
SynTerra
sensitive subgroups, may be exposed without any adverse health effect
during a lifetime or part of a lifetime. Site -specific remediation standards
for systemic toxicants shall incorporate an adequate margin of safety and
shall take into account cases where two or more systemic toxicants affect
the same organ or organ system.
The site -specific remediation standards for each medium shall be adequate to
avoid foreseeable adverse effects to other media or the environment that are
inconsistent with the state's risk -based approach.
8.2 Ecological Risk Assessment
The screening level ecological risk assessment (SLERA) for the site will include a
description of the ecological setting and development of the ecological CEM specific to
the ecological communities and receptors that may be exposed to COPCs. This scope is
equivalent to Step 1: preliminary problem formulation and ecological effects evaluation
(USEPA, 1998). The objective of the SLERA is to evaluate the likelihood that adverse
ecological effects may result from exposure to environmental stressors associated with
conditions at the site.
The screening level evaluation will include compilation of a list of potential ecological
receptors (e.g., plants, benthic invertebrates, fish, mammals, birds, etc.). Additionally,
an evaluation of sensitive ecological populations will be performed. Preliminary
information on listed rare animal species at or near the site will be compiled from the
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program database and U.S. Fish and Wildlife county
list to evaluate the potential for presence of rare or endangered animal and plant
species. Existing ecological studies publically available for the site will be reviewed and
incorporated as appropriate to support the SLERA.
Appropriate state and federal natural resource agencies will be contacted to determine
the potential presence (or lack thereof) of sensitive species or their critical habitat at the
time the SLERA is performed. If sensitive species or critical habitats are present or
potentially present, a survey of the appropriate area will be performed. If sensitive
species are utilizing the site, and evaluation of the potential for adverse effects due to
site -related constituents in groundwater will be developed and presented to the
appropriate agencies.
The SLERA will include, as the basis for the CEM, a description of the known fate and
transport mechanisms for site -related constituents and potentially complete pathways
from assumed source to receptor. An ecological checklist will be completed for the site
as required by Guidelines for Performing Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
within North Carolina (NCDENR, 2003).
Page 70
P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ ALL NC SITES \ DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Cape Fear \ 2014-
12-31 GAP Revised \ Cape Fear GW Assessment Plan Revl.dooc

Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant SynTerra
Following completion of Step 1, the screening level exposure estimate and risk
calculations (Step 2), will be performed in accordance with the Guidelines for
Performing Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment within North Carolina
(NCDENR, 2003). Step 2 estimates the level of a constituent a plant or animal is
exposed to at the site and compares the maximum constituent concentrations to
Ecological Screening Values (ESVs).
Maximum detected concentrations or the maximum detection limit for non -detected
constituents of potential concern (those metals or other chemicals present in site media
that may result in risk to ecological receptors) will be compared to applicable ecological
screening values intended to be protective of ecological receptors (including those
sensitive species and communities noted above, where available) to derive a hazard
quotient (HQ). An HQ greater than 1 indicates potential ecological impacts cannot be
ruled out.
Ecological screening values will be taken from the following and other appropriate
sources:
• USEPA Ecological Soil Screening Levels;
• USEPA Region 4 Recommended Ecological Screening Values; and
• USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria and North Carolina
Standards.
North Carolina's SLERA guidance (NCDENR, 2003) requires that constituents be
identified as a Step 2 COPC as follows:
• Category 1- Contaminants whose maximum detection exceeding the media
specific ESV included in the COPC tables.
• Category 2 - Contaminants that generated a laboratory sample quantitation limit
that exceeds the USEPA Region IV media -specific ESV for that contaminant.
• Category 3 - Contaminants that have no USEPA Region IV media -specific ESV
but were detected above the laboratory sample quantitation limit.
• Category 4 - Contaminants that were not detected above the laboratory sample
quantitation limit and have no USEPA Region IV media -specific ESV
• Category 5 - Contaminants with a sample quantitation limit or maximum
detection exceeds the North Carolina Surface Water Quality Standards.
Page 71
P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ ALL NC SITES \ DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Cape Fear \ 2014-
12-31 GAP Revised \ Cape Fear GW Assessment Plan Revl.dooc

Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant SynTerra
Exceedances of the ESVs indicate the potential need for further evaluation of ecological
risks at the site. The frequency, magnitude, pattern and basis of any exceedances will be
considered as part of the refinement of COPCs.
The risk assessment process identifies a Scientific -Management Decision Point (SMDP)
to evaluate whether the potential for adverse ecological effects are absent and no further
assessment is needed or if further assessment should be performed to evaluate the
potential for ecological effects. If additional evaluation of potential ecological effects is
required, a baseline ecological risk and/or habitat assessment will be developed.
Page 72
P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ ALL NC SITES \ DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Cape Fear \ 2014-
12-31 GAP Revised \ Cape Fear GW Assessment Plan Revl.dooc

Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant SynTerra
9.0 CSA REPORT
The CSA report will be developed in the format required by the NORR, which include
the following components:
• Executive Summary
• Site History and Source Characterization
• Receptor Information
• Regional Geology and Hydrogeology
• Site Geology and Hydrogeology
• Soil Sampling Results
• Groundwater Sampling Results
• Hydrogeological Investigation
• Groundwater Modeling results
• Risk Assessment
• Discussion
• Conclusions and Recommendations
• Figures
• Tables
• Appendices
The CSA report may provide the results of one iterative assessment phase.
The CSA will be prepared to include the items contained in the Guidelines for
Comprehensive Site Assessment (guidelines), included as attachment to the NORR, as
applicable. SynTerra will provide the applicable figures, tables, and appendices as
listed in the guidelines. For summary statistics tables, "average" value(s) will be
avoided unless the constituent(s) at the location in question is (are) normally
distributed, in which case a mean and standard deviation will be used. For non -normal
data, the median value will be used and maximum values will be noted, as appropriate.
As part of CSA deliverables, a minimum the following tables, graphs, and maps will be
provided:
Page 73
P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ ALL NC SITES \ DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Cape Fear \ 2014-
12-31 GAP Revised \ Cape Fear GW Assessment Plan Revl.dooc

Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant
SynTerra
• Box (whisker) plots for locations sampled on four or more events showing the
quartiles of the data along with minimum and maximum. Plots will be aligned
with multiple locations on one chart. Similar charts will be provided for select
COPC,
• Stacked time -series plots will be provided for select COPC. Multiple
wells/locations will be stacked using the same x-axis to discern seasonal trends.
Turbidity, dissolved oxygen, ORP, or other constituents will be shown on the
plots where appropriate to demonstrate influence.
• Piper and/or stiff diagrams showing selected monitoring wells, seep, and surface
water locations as separate symbols.
• Correlation charts where applicable.
• Orthophoto potentiometric maps for shallow, deep (if present), and bedrock
wells.
• Orthophoto potentiometric difference maps showing the difference in vertical
heads between selected flow zones.
• Orthophoto iso-concentration maps for selected COPCs and flow zones.
• Orthophoto map showing the relationship between groundwater and surface
water samples for selected COPCs.
• Geologic cross sections that include the relative position of the bottom of the ash
basins and the water table.
• Photographs of cores from each boring location.
• Others as appropriate.
Page 74
P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ ALL NC SITES \ DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Cape Fear \ 2014-
12-31 GAP Revised \ Cape Fear GW Assessment Plan Revl.dooc

Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant SynTerra
10.0 PROPOSED SCHEDULE
Duke Energy will submit the CSA Report within 180 days of NCDENR approval of this
Work Plan. The anticipated schedule for implementation of field work, evaluation of
data, and preparation of the Work Plan is presented in the table below.
Activity
Start Date
Duration to Complete
Field Exploration Program
10 days following Work Plan approval
75 days
Receive Laboratory Data
14 days following end of Exploration Program
15 days
Evaluate Lab/Field Data, Develop CSM
5 days following receipt of Lab Data
30 days
Prepare and Submit CSA
10 days following Work Plan approval
170 days
Project Assumptions Include:
• Data from no more than one iterative assessment step may be included in the
CSA report. Iterative assessment data may be provided in supplemental reports,
if required;
• No special permitting is anticipated;
• Data will not reflect all seasonal or extreme hydrologic conditions;
• During the CSA process if additional investigations are required, NCDENR will
be notified immediately with a description of the proposed work and a timeline
for completion.
Page 75
P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ ALL NC SITES \ DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Cape Fear \ 2014-
12-31 GAP Revised \ Cape Fear GW Assessment Plan Revl.docx

Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant SynTerra
11.0 REFERENCES
ASTM, D1785 - 12, Standard Specification for Poly(Vinyl Chloride) (PVC) Plastic Pipe,
Schedules 40, 80, and 120.
ASTM, D2216-10, Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture)
Content of Soil and Rock by Mass.
ASTM, D2487-11, Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes
(Unified Soil Classification System).
ASTM, D2488-09a, Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual -
Manual Procedure).
ASTM, D4044-96, Standard Test Method (Field Procedure) for Instantaneous Change in Head
(Slug) Tests for Determining Hydraulic Properties of Aquifers.
ASTM D422 - 63(2007), Standard Test Method for Particle -Size Analysis of Soils.
ASTM D5084 —10, Standard Test Methods for Measurement of Hydraulic Conductivity of
Saturated Porous Materials Using a Flexible Wall Permeameter.
ASTM D854-14 Standard Test Methods for Specific Gravity of Soil Solids by Water
Pycnometer.
Chapman, M.J., Gurley, L.N., and Fitzgerald, S.A., 2014, Baseline Well Inventory and
Groundwater Quality Data from a Potential Shale Gas Resource Area in Parts of Lee and
Chatham Counties, North Carolina, October 2011 August 2012, United States
Geological Survey, Data Series 861, 22 p. htty://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ds861
Daniel, C.C., III, 2001, Estimating ground -water recharge in the North Carolina Piedmont for
land use planning [abs.], in 2001 Abstracts with Programs, 50th Annual Meeting,
Southeastern Section, April 5-6, 2001: Raleigh, N.C., The Geological Society of
America, v. 33, no. 2, p. A-80.
Daniels, John L. and Das, Gautam P. 2014. Practical Leachability and Sorption
Considerations for Ash Management, Geo-Congress 2014 Technical Papers: Geo-
characterization and Modeling for Sustainability. Wentworth Institute of
technology, Boston, MA.
Duke Energy, October 31, 2014 (update), Duke Energy Coal Plants and Ash Management,
httl2://www.duke-energy.com/12dfs/duke-energy-ash-metrics.12d .
Page 76
P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ ALL NC SITES \ DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Cape Fear \ 2014-
12-31 GAP Revised \ Cape Fear GW Assessment Plan Revl.dooc

Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant
SynTerra
EPRI, August 1993, Fly Ash Exposure in Coal -Fired Power Plants. Electric Power Research
Institute - EPRI TR-102576. Radian Corporation - Sacramento, California.
EPRI, December 2004, Chemical Attenuation Coefficients for Arsenic Species Using Soil
Samples Collected from Selected Power Plant Sites: Laboratory Studies, EPRI, Palo
Alto, CA, and U.S. Department of Energy: 2004. 1005505.
EPRI, September 2009, Coal Ash: Characteristics, Management and Environmental Issues.
Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, California.
Fenneman, Nevin Melancthon, 1938. Physiography of eastern United States, McGraw-Hill.
1938.
Geosyntec, 2013a, Data Interpretation and Analysis Report, Conceptual Closure Plan, Cape
Fear Plant, December 2013, unpublished manuscript.
Geosyntec, 2013b, Preliminary Site Investigation Data Report, Conceptual Closure Plan, Cape
Fear Plant, November 2013, unpublished manuscript.
Gore, P.J.W., 1986a, Depositional Framework of a Triassic Rift Basin; The Durham and
Sanford sub -basins of the Deep River Basin, North Carolina, in Textoris, D.A., ed.,
Society of Economic Paliontologists and Mineralogists Field Guidebook, Third
Annual Midyear Meeting, Raleigh, North Carolina, p.53-115.
Gore, P.J.W., 1986b, Facies Relationships of Fluvial and Lacustrine Deposits, Durham sub -
basin, Deep River Basin, North Carolina; Society of Economic Paleontologists and
Mineralogists Annual Meeting, v.3, p.45.
Harned, D. A. and Daniel, C. C., III, 1992, The transition zone between bedrock and regolith:
Conduit for contamination?, p. 336-348, in Daniel, C. C., III, White, R. K., and Stone,
P. A., eds., Groundwater in the Piedmont: Proceedings of a Conference on
Ground Water in the Piedmont of the Eastern United States, October 16-18, 1989,
Clemson University, 693p.
Heath, R.C., 1980. Basic elements of groundwater hydrology with reference to conditions in
North Carolina. United States Geological Survey Open -File Report 80-44, 86 p.
Horton, J. W. and Zullo, V. A., 1991, The Geology of the Carolinas, Carolina Geological
Society Fiftieth Anniversary Volume, 406 pp.
Page 77
P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ ALL NC SITES \ DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Cape Fear \ 2014-
12-31 GAP Revised \ Cape Fear GW Assessment Plan Revl.dooc

Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant
SynTerra
LeGrand, H.E., 1988. Region 21. Piedmont and Blue Ridge, in Hydrogeology: The Geology
of North America, v. 0-2, ed. W.B. Black, J.S. Rosenshein, and P.R. Seaber, 201-
207. Geological Society of America, Boulder, CO.
LeGrand, H.E., 1989. A conceptual model of ground water settings in the Piedmont region, in
Ground Water in the Piedmont, ed. C.C. Daniel III, R. K. White, and P.A. Stone,
693. Proceedings of a Conference on Ground Water in the Piedmont of the
Eastern United States, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina.
LeGrand, Harry E., 2004. A Master Conceptual Model for Hydrogeological Site
Characterization in the Piedmont and Mountain Region of North Carolina, A Guidance
Manual, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality, Groundwater Section.
North Carolina Geological Survey, 1985, Geologic map of North Carolina: North Carolina
Geological Survey, General Geologic Map, scale 1:500000.
NCDENR, October 2003. Guidelines for performing screening level ecological risk assessments
within the North Carolina Division of Waste Management.
NCDENR, May 31, 2007, Groundwater Modeling Policy.
NCDENR, May 31, 2007, Hydrogeologic Investigation and Reporting Policy.
NCDENR, May 31, 2007, Performance and Analysis of Aquifer Slug Tests and Pumping Test
Policy.
NCDENR DWR, November 4, 2014, Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Cape Fear Steam Electric
Plant, NPDES Permit No. NC0003433 — Chatham County, Review of Groundwater
Assessment Work Plan.
Olsen, P.E., and Huber, P., 1997, Field Trip Stop 3 — Triangle Brick Quarry, in Clark, T.W.,
ed., TRIBI: Triassic Basin Initiative: Abstracts with Programs and Field Trip
Guidebook: Duke University, March 21-23, 1997, Field Trip Guidebook, p. 22-29.
Paikaray, S. A., September 2012, Environmental hazards of arsenic associated with black
shales: a review on geochemistry, enrichment and leaching mechanism,
httl2://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11157-012-9281-z, Journal Article, Reviews in
Environmental Science and Bio/Technology, V 11, Issue 3, I, Springer
Netherlands, P 289-303
Page 78
P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ ALL NC SITES \ DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Cape Fear \ 2014-
12-31 GAP Revised \ Cape Fear GW Assessment Plan Revl.dooc

Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant SynTerra
Parkhurst, D.L., and Appelo, C.A.J., 2013, Description of input and examples for PHREEQC
version 3 —A computer program for speciation, batch -reaction, one-dimensional
transport, and inverse geochemical calculations: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and
Methods, book 6, chap. A43, 497 p.
Reinemund, J.A., 1955, Geology of the Deep River Coal Field, North Carolina U.S. Geological
Survey Professional Paper 246, 159 p.
Sefres, M. E.; Spayd S. E.; Herman, G. C.; 2005, Arsenic occurrence, sources, mobilization,
and transport in groundwater in the Newark Basin of New Jersey, ACS symposium
series ISSN 0097-6156 CODEN ACSMC8 vol. 915,pp.175-190 (article) Oxford
University Press, Cary, NC
SynTerra, September 2014, Groundwater Assessment Work Plan for Cape Fear Steam Electric
Plant, 500 CP&L Road, Moncure, NC NPDES Permit# NC0003433.
SynTerra, September 2014, Drinking Water Well and Receptor Survey for Cape Fear Steam
Electric Plant, NPDES Permit# NC0003433.
SynTerra, October 2014, Groundwater Monitoring Program Sampling, Analysis, and
Reporting Plan for Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant, NPDES Permit# NC0003433.
SynTerra, October 2014, Seep Monitoring Report — June -July and October 2014 for Cape Fear
Steam Electric Plant, NPDES Permit# NC0003433.
SynTerra, November 2014, Supplement to Drinking Water Well and Receptor Survey- Cape
Fear Steam Electric Plant, NPDES Permit# NC0003433.
Tang, G., Mayes, M. A., Parker, J. C., & Jardine, P. M. (2010). CXTFIT/Excel A modular
adaptable code for parameter estimation, sensitivity analysis and uncertainty analysis for
laboratory or field tracer experiments, Computers & Geosciences, 36(9), 1200-1209.
US Bureau of Reclamation, 2001. Engineering Geology Field Manual, 2nd Edition, Volume 2,
US Department of the Interior.
USEPA, 1992. Statistical Training Course for Ground Water Monitoring Data Analysis,
EPA530-R-93-003.
USEPA, June 1997, Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Process for
Designing and Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments, Interim Final. EPA 540-R-
97-006.
Page 79
P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ ALL NC SITES \ DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Cape Fear \ 2014-
12-31 GAP Revised \ Cape Fear GW Assessment Plan Revl.dooc

Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant
SynTerra
USEPA, 1998. Report to Congress Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels, Volume 2
Methods, Findings, and Recommendations.
USEPA, 1998, Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment, Office of Research and
Development, Washington, D.C. EPA/630/R-95/002Fa, Federal Register
63FR26846, Volume 63. May 14
USEPA, 2006, National Recommended Water Quality Criteria.
USEPA, March 2009. Statistical Analysis of Groundwater Monitoring Data at RCRA
Facilities; Unified Guidance USEPA 530/R-09-007.
USEPA, January 19, 2010. Low Stress (low flow) Purging and Sampling Procedure for the
Collection of Groundwater Samples from Monitoring Wells. USEPA Region 1.
EQASOP-GW-001.
USEPA, June 21, 2010.40 CFR Parts 257, 261, 264 et al. Hazardous and Solid Waste
Management System; Identification and Listing of Special Wastes; Disposal of Coal
Combustion Residuals From Electric Utilities; Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals
From Electric Utilities; Proposed Rule, in Federal Register /Vol. 75, No. 118.
USEPA, November 2014 (last update). USEPA Regional Screening Levels (RSLs), available
at http://www.el2a. og v/region9/sul2erfund/prg/.
Page 80
P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ ALL NC SITES \ DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Cape Fear \ 2014-
12-31 GAP Revised \ Cape Fear GW Assessment Plan Revl.dooc

FIGURES

Cl0
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
! 500' COMPLIANCE
BOUNDARY
rr
\ ' b WASTE
I BOUNDARY
I
�'
` \�
1
I r - ckhaven
1
z
• Lim 2na
-
/ /
8 �.APtn1 1�-� - � r
af%j
—._
oo
7-7
�0 i
N
�h
2 •
I
�` ��•
If`
252 n
xjv.. l
I^-1
V
SOURCE:
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OBTAINED FROM THE NRCS GEOSPATIAL DATA
GATEWAY AT httpl/datagatewaynres.usda.gov/
i;
1
FIGURE 1
14A%
SITE LOCATION MAP
REENSBORO
CAPE FEAR STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
'RA`"G"
500 CP&L ROAD
���
MONCURE, NORTH CAROLINA
CAPE FEAR STEAM
MONCURE, NC QUADRANGLE
ELECTRIC PLANT
CRATHAM CO777U'N{T�Y�
148 RIVER STREET, SUITE 220
GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA
� �r -L-NGTON
\�1.i�8N
DRAWN BY sARLEDGE Dgie zolaos-zs
GRAPHIC SCALE
PHONE [phone]
www.synterracorp.com
PROJECT MANAGER: KATHY WEBB CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET
LAYOUT_ FIG 1(USGS SITE LOCATION) MAP DATE_ 1993
15500 0 15500 3000
IN FEET

z
z
CMW-3
CTMW-2
TRcp CMW-2
CMW-8
CTM W- I
CTMW-8
CMW-
CMW-1
CTM W-1
CAPE FEAR RIVER
TRcp
i
BGTMW-4
TRcc
LEGEND
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS CAPE FEAR PLANT
500 ft COMPLIANCE BOUNDARY
WASTE BOUNDARY
A CMW-3 COMPLIANCE WELL
LEGEND - UNIT NAME
TRc NEWARK SUPERGROUP, CHATHAM GROUP, CHATHAM GROUP, UNDIVIDED
TRcs NEWARK SUPERGROUP, CHATHAM GROUP, SANFORD FORMATION
TRcc NEWARK SUPERGROUP, CHATHAM GROUP, CUMNOCK FORMATION
TRcp NEWARK SUPERGROUP, CHATHAM GROUP, PEKIN FORMATION
GEOLOGY SOURCE NOTE:
GEOLOGY SHAPEFILES OBTAINED FROM THE USGS Preliminary integrated geologic map databases forthe United
States -Alabama, Flonda, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, and South Carolina, DATED 2007 AT
httpYIpubs.usgs.gov/of2005113231
GRAPHIC SCALE
1000 0 1000 2000
IN FEET
148 RIVER STREET, SUITE 220
GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA 29601
PHONE [phone]
www.synte rraco rp. com
DRAWN BY SARLEDGE DATE 20141121
ROJEC
,` Terra LAYOUTT FIG
3 (GEOLOGY
KATHY WEBB..,...._�... ��.....
LAYOUT_ FIG 3 (GEOLOGY MAP)
CAPE FEAR STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
500 CP&L ROAD
/ CHATHAM COUNTY
NEAR MONCURE, INC
x
z
TRcs
TRcs
FIGURE 3
GEOLOGY MAP
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS
CAPE FEAR STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
500 CP&L ROAD
MONCURE, NORTH CAROLINA
.sment Plans\Cape Fear\2014-12-31 GAP Revlsetl\Figures\DE CAPE FEAR FIG 3 (GEOLOGY MAP) dwg
TRc I

sw-3sDNJ S�
S.0 ABMW-1
ABMW-1N
� I
I
� I
UrcnLLoc�. ♦ .I .
BASM
LEGEND
PROPOSED SOIL BORING AND MONITORING
WELL LOCATION
\ �' ®ABMW-1 GROUNDWATER
BORING, PORE WATER, AND
„y, ice •" ABMW-iS PROPOSED
HBO RING, ING PORE WA ERCATION
® SB-N1963 PROPOSED SOIL BORING LOCATION
- - SW-2 PROPOSED SURFACE WATER AND
SEDIMENT LOCATION
-- A— —A' PROPOSED GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION
\'\I „ ��BW MW4 BACKGROUND MONITORING WELL (SURVEYED)
CMW-5 COMPLIANCE MONITORING WELL (SURvEVED)
B Q� MONITORING WELL (APPROXIMATE)
Pz-r PIEZOMETER (APPROXIMATE)
1I`(�l(((�(((������,,, O S 14 SEEP LOCATION
/ \ Im.e�i ♦ VE-1 NPDES OUTFALL
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS
c 500 R COMPLIANCE BOUNDARY
� �-- �.•� WASTE BOUNDARY
PARCLINES
TFLOW DI
FLOW DIRECTION
•� -.\, �' GENERALIZED GROUNDWATER FLOW
DI RECTI ONR
Evnnory
Po N-ORTOPOGRAPnconTA DATA
1. 2013 HIGH RESOLUTION AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OBTAINED
RO
If FROM CHATHAM COUNTY GIN WEBSITE AT
rIttAT httvxnvema ty c. roM AND LEE COUNTY icS WEBSITE
AT htlp//leerountync go departments/GISSlategicServices.aspx
■r1/ 2. 2014 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH WAS OBTAINED FROM WSP
FLOWN ON APRIL 17,2014.
3. DRAWING HAS BEEN SET WITH A PROJECTION OF NORTH
CAROUNA STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM RIPS 3200
4. 10R CONTOUR INTERVALS FROM NCDOT LIDAR DATED 2007
https.l nnect.ncdot.govhwourceslgi"agesl nt-elev_v2.aspx
1 r.- NOTE.,
SW-BBi i1 1. CONTOUR LINES ARE USED FOR REPRESENTATIVE
L.—. PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT TO BE USED FOR DESIGN
OR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES.
GRAPHIC SCALE
Y (IN FEFo
ED
i L -
^:�'synTerra
148 River Street, Suite 220
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
64-4
1I'I //�i www.sya nter corpc om
DUKE
ENERGY
X7 PROGRESS
• /I1 (11 j1'/`II'�/ CAPE FEAR STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
L ROAD
MONCUR E, NORTH CAROLINA
�— FIGURE 4
L __—__�__� — _ _ — — PROPOSED MONITORING WELL
J --i AND SAMPLE LOCATION MAP

n
I-
��u
r .� arrr�rw.
Two
I Wei MA
(h
HD -PLANT
AB 2
ABMW-2S \�
1963 ASH
BASIN \\ �� 1978 ASH \`
\ BASIN S-1
� NP[
PZ- 9e
1
ABMW-4 \ TIM
ABMW_-4S r' II \
1
L PZ 7 Il'
m I D �
m I 1970 ASH /
A , BASIN�
I
rl \,
1 � S-13
MW-19S
`\ ABMW-3 80
ABMW-3S L
MW-13 S-14 r -"
\ MW-20S `
W-20
HD -REF
SW-85DN
M
'ABMW-1
S ABMW-1
1985 AS.
BASIN
I rc-aa
5 I PZ-3D
c I
I
=S OUTFALL 005\ \ _ / SW-85DS
S 09 PZ-4 , AIIILMW-6BR
CMW-6
S-10
- MW-18S
n MW-12R t'y�
MW-12 �0 GAP.
►7
SW-LINTT
�. nsw-BA2
SW-BA1
. 1
LEGEND
f
MW-17S PROPOSED SOIL BORING AND MONITORING
MW 178R r r WELL LOCATION
"�- ®ABMW-1 PROPOSED ASH BORING, PORE WATER, AND
i '` rce of t.' , _ - '� •
r( ABMW-1S GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL LOCATION
I SB-N1963 PROPOSED SOIL BORING LOCATION
7 l
.' �; ✓ � PROPOSED SURFACE WATER AND
_ji t-- SW-2 SEDIMENT LOCATION
A — — A' PROPOSED GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION
L� ��r BGMW-4 BACKGROUND MONITORING WELL (SURVEYED)
�"i\j CMW-5 COMPLIANCE MONITORING WELL (SURVEYED)
MONITORING WELL (APPROXIMATE)
- (APPROXIMATE)
f
e Pz PIEZOMETER (A E)
O S-14 SEEP LOCATION
n
, r' NPDEs NPDES OUTFACE
ckhav n
i "� ^ ® OUTFACE 005
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS
'23 I 500 ft COMPLIANCE BOUNDARY
WASTE BOUNDARY
PARCEL LINES
"k ,A _ s '• .:�9i6/, _.�� 6 �ri�_ FLOW DIRECTION
GENERALIZED GROUNDWATER FLOW
DIRECTION
SUPPORTED BY GROUNDWATER ELEVATION DATA
POINTS OR TOPOGRAPHIC DATA
r
r
l ��'
(so✓� o� am
� <
�. BUCKH°RN DAM �\" _
'�
i
r? I,
�i
4
� ' SOURCE: GRAPHIC SCALE
JJJ USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OBTAINED FROM THE NRCS GEOSPATIAL DATA 1500 0 1500 3000
—�� GATEWAYAT http://datagateway.nres.usda.gou/
'•r
u x i
r.,
SOURCES:
R n 1. 2013 HIGH RESOLUTION AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OBTAINED
FROM CHATHAM COUNTY GIS WEBSITE AT
http://www.chathamgis.com/ AND LEE COUNTY GIS WEBSITE
r AT http://leecountync.gov/Departments/GISStrategicServices.aspx
�r 2. 2014 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH WAS OBTAINED FROM WSP
FLOWN ON APRIL 17, 2014.
3. DRAWING HAS BEEN SET WITH A PROJECTION OF NORTH
CAROLI NA STATE PLAN E COORDI NATE SYSTEM FI PS 3200
(NAD 83).
4. 10ft CONTOUR INTERVALS FROM NCDOT LIDAR DATED 2007
https://connect. ncdot.gov/resources/gis/pages/cont-elev_v2.aspx
NOTE:
+r` I 1. CONTOUR LINES ARE USED FOR REPRESENTATIVE
- PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT TO BE USED FOR DESIGN
OR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES.
GRAPHIC SCALE
600 0 300 600 1200
(IN FEET)
syn erra
148 River Street, Suite 220
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
864-421-9999
www.synterracorp.com
DRAWN BY: J. CHASTAIN DATE: 2014-12-19
-- CHECKED BY: C. SUTTELL DATE: 2014-12-19
PROJECT MANAGER: KATHY WEBB
LAYOUT NAME: FIG 5 (MW & SAMP LOC)
..s
EL
DUKE
ENERGY
PROGRESS
CAPE FEAR STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
500 CP & L ROAD
MONCURE, NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE 4
PROPOSED MONITORING WELL
AND SAMPLE LOCATION MAP

TABLES

TABLE 2
EXCEEDANCES OF 2L STANDARDS
CAPE FEAR STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC., MONCURE, NORTH CAROLINA
PARAMETER
ANTIMONY
ARSENIC
BORON
CADMIUM
IRON
MANGANESE
SELENIUM
SULFATE
TDS
pH
2L STANDARD
eff. 4/1/2013
0.001
0.01
0.7
0.002
0.3
0.05
0.02
250
Soo
6.5 - 8.5
Units
m l
m l
m l
m l
m l
m l
m l
m l
m l
SU
Well ID
Well Location
Relative to
Compliance
Boundary
Concentration Range
BGMW-4
Background
< 2L
< 2L
< 2L
< 2L
112 - 3130
.005 - .083
< 2L
< 2L
< 2L
5.4 - 5.7
BGTMW-4
Background
0.0006 - .0011
< 2L
< 2L
< 2L
53 - 406 B
.0108 - .161
< 2L
< 2L
< 2L
7.5 - 10.3
CMW-1
CB
< 2L
< 2L
1.02 - 2.95
0.00015 - .00241
28.1 - 60.9
1.0 - 2.75
< 2L
< 2L
< 2L
6.0 - 6.5
CTMW-1
CB
< 2L
< 2L
< 2L
< 2L
.416 - 1.48 B
.303 - 1.46
< 2L
< 2L
< 2L
< 2L
CMW-2
CB
< 2L
< 2L
< 2L
< 2L
.231 - 5.95
2.28 - 8.3
< 2L
8.9 - 790
687 - 1300
5.2 -6.0
CTMW-2
CB
< 2L
< 2L
< 2L
< 2L
.016 - 1.34
.0052 - .0519
< 2L
< 2L
< 2L
7.3 - 8.8
CMW-3
CB
< 2L
< 2L
.678 - 1.32
0.000089 - .00239
.027 - 1.91
.257 - 9.75
.0121 - .0666
64 - 388
221 - 729
6.0 - 6.3
CMW-5
CB
< 2L
< 2L
< 2L
< 2L
.0878 - 3.36
.005 - .232
< 2L
< 2L
< 2L
5.9 - 6.6
CMW-6
CB
< 2L
< 2L
.492 - 1.39
< 2L
.024 - .696
.0176 - .362
< 2L
< 2L
370 - 511
< 2L
CMW-7
CB
< 2L
< 2L
< 2L
< 2L
.817 - 19.2
.655 - 9.04
< 2L
< 2L
< 2L
5.1 - 6.8
CTMW-7
CB
< 2L
< 2L
< 2L
< 2L
.019 - .673
.0282 - .758
< 2L
< 2L
< 2L
7.1 - 9.0
CMW-8
CB
< 2L
< 2L
1.07 - 1.35
j < 2L
22.7 - 52.7
j 9.77 - 18.0
j < 2L
j < 2L
j < 2L
6.1 - 6.5
CTMW-8
CB
<0.0005 - .0017
.00432 - .0105
< 2L
< 2L
.434 - 2.17
.269 - .947
1 < 2L
I < 2L
476 - 616
< 2L
Notes:
B - Data flagged due to detection in field blank
CB - Compliance Boundary
< 2L - Constituent has not been detected above the 2L Standard or beyond range for pH
Shown concentration ranges only include concentrations detected above the laboratory's reporting limit
Page 1of1
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment Plans\Cape Fear\2014-12-31 GAP Revised\Tables\Table 2 Exceedances of 2L
Standards Cape Fear.xlsx

TABLE 3
SPLP LEACHING ANALYTICAL RESULTS
CAPE FEAR STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC., MONCURE, NORTH CAROLINA
Analytical Parameter
Aluminum
Arsenic
Lead
Antimony
Boron
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Thallium
Zinc
Units
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
Sample Name and
Depth ft-bls
Location
Sample Date
Constituent
Concentrations
BG-1 (2.0-2.5)
East of 1956 Ash Basin
8/20/2013
0.337
<0.00042
0.0013
<0.00034
0.0309 j
0.00055
<0.0016
<0.0027
0.173
<0.00006
0.0016 j
<0.0005
<0.00015
<0.002
BG-4 (2.0-2.5)
East of 1956 Ash Basin
8/20/2013
19.5
0.0005 j
0.0013
<0.00034
0.0368 j
<0.00023
0.0132 j
0.0105
0.218
<0.00006
0.0077 j
<0.0005
<0.00015
0.0284
PZ-6 (30.0-31.5)
1985 Ash Basin
8/21/2013
<0.0828
0.0486
0.00051 j
0.0148
0.12
<0.00023
0.0017 j
0.0037 j
0.002 j
<0.00006
<0.0015
0.0162
<0.00015
<0.002
PZ-7 (17.0-19.0)
1970 Ash Basin
8/16/2013
3.14
0.0641
0.0179
<0.00034
0.131
0.0015
0.0022 j
0.0437
4.6
<0.00006
0.0997
<0.0005
0.0028
0.184
PZ-8 (17.0-18.0)
1963 Ash Basin
8/15/2013
<0.00006
0.0014
<0.00015
<0.0828
0.0029
<0.00023
0.0011
0.0075
<0.0016
0.0078 j
0.073
0.0018 j
<0.002
0.0217 j
PZ-10 (15.0-17.0)
1956 Ash Basin
j 8/19/2013
0.343
0.0366
j <0.000085
j 0.016
j 0.0481 j
j <0.00023
j <0.0016
j 0.0036 j
j <0.00083
j <0.00006
j <0.0015
j 0.053
j <0.00015
<0.002
Notes:
1. Units:
mg/I = milligrams per liter
2. Includes data through June 2014
3. Analytical results with "<" preceeding the result indicate that the
parameter was not detected at a concentration which attains or
exceeds the laboratory reporting limit.
j - indicates result is an estimated value.
4. Sample data was obtained from the Geosyntec, 2013 Preliminary Site
Investigation Data Report, Conceptual Closure Plan, Cape Fear Plant,
November 2013, unpublished manuscript.
P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\ALL NC SrrES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment Plans\Cape Pear\2014-12-31 GAP Revised\Tables\Tables 3 - 8 Cape Eear.xlsx 1 of 1

TABLE 4
GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
CAPE FEAR STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC., MONCURE, NORTH CAROLINA
Analytical Parameter
Wat to
pH
Temp.
Conductance
DO
ORP
Turbidity
Drawdown
Eh
Alkalinity
Aluminum
Arsenic
Antimony
Barium
Beryllium
BOD
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Chloride
Chromium
COD
Copper
Units
ft (BTOC)
S.U.
Deg C
PS/cm
mg/I
mV
NTUS
feet
mV
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
15 NCAC .02L .0202(g) Groundwater Quality Standard
NE
6.5-8.5
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
0.01
0.001
0.7
0.004
NE
0.7
0.002
NE
250
0.01
NE
1
Analytical Method
Field Parameters
NA
NA
200.8
200.8
200.7
NA
NA
200.7
200.8
NA
300
200.7
NA
200.7
Sample ID
Hydrostratgraphic Unit
Well Type
Sample Date
Constituent Concentrations
BGMW-4*
Saprolite
Compliance
12/15/2010
17.76
5.7
15
164
NM
NM
4.6
NM
NM
NA
NA
<.005
<0.0005
0.0368
NA
NA
<0.05
<0.00008
NA
17.2
<0.005
NA
<0.005
BGMW-4*
Saprolite
Compliance
3/7/2011
17.29
5.7
14
201
3.05
77
0.74
NM
282
NA
0.129
<.005
<0.0005
0.0494 b
NA
NA
<0.05
<0.00008
NA
13.4 b
<0.005
NA
<0.005
BGMW-4*
Saprolite
Compliance
6/1/2011
16.72
5.7
21
229
2.44
-54.9
8.05
NM
150.1
NA
0.198
<.005
<0.0005
0.0376
NA
NA
<0.05
0.00026
NA
15.2
<0.005
NA
<0.005
BGMW-4*
Saprolite
Compliance
10/10/2011
17.89
5.6
19
202
2.4
-11.7
3.61
NM
193.3
NA
0.196
<.005
<0.0005
0.0329
NA
NA
<0.05
<0.00008
NA
14.2
<0.005
NA
<0.005
BGMW-4*
Saprolite
Compliance
3/12/2012
16.76
5.4
18
327
5.93
-31.8
2.17
NM
173.2
NA
0.141
<.005
<0.0005
0.069
NA
NA
<0.05
9.70E-05
NA
10.5
<0.005
NA
<0.005
BGMW-4*
Saprolite
Compliance
6/11/2012
17.16
5.6
18
221
2.13
-48
4.23
NM
157
NA
0.357
<.005
<0.0005
0.0337
NA
NA
<0.05
<0.00008
NA
16.1
<0.005
NA
<0.005
BGMW-4*
Saprolite
Compliance
10/15/2012
18.38
5.5
18
182
2.4
198.9
5.61
NM
403.9
NA
2.96
<.005
<0.0005
0.0465
NA
NA
<0.05
<0.00008
NA
11
<0.005
NA
<0.005
BGMW-4*
Saprolite
Compliance
3/5/2013
17.35
5.5
14
191.4
3.48
162.9
5.89
NM
367.9
NA
0.206
<.001
<0.001
0.028
NA
NA
<0.05
<0.001
NA
9.1
<0.005
NA
<0.005
BGMW-4*
Saprolite
Compliance
6/3/2013
16.68
5.4
18
250.6
3.58
231.1
4.16
NM
436.1
NA
0.151
<.001
<0.001
0.039
NA
NA
<0.05
<0.001
NA
12
<0.005
NA
<0.005
BGMW-4***
Saprolite
Compliance
9/3/2013
16.7
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<.001
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
BGMW-4***
Saprolite
Compliance
9/4/2013
NA
4.6
19.01
67
1.3
167.9
3.09
0.13
NA
36.8
0.245
<.001
<0.00034
0.0287
NA
NA
0.0084 j
<0.00023
2.65
13
0.0033 j
NA
<0.0027
BGMW-4*
Saprolite
Compliance
10/8/2013
17.29
5.7
17
194
2.03
250.2
6.85
NM
455.2
NA
0.289
<.001
<0.001
0.03
NA
NA
<0.05
<0.001
NA
9.9
<0.005
NA
<0.005
BGMW-4*
Saprolite
Compliance
3/11/2014
13.34
5.7
16
213
2.5
219
8.7
NM
424
NA
0.837
NA
<0.001
0.033
NA
NA
<0.05
<0.001
NA
9.9
<0.005
NA
<0.005
BGMW-4*
Saprolite
Compliance
6/9/2014
15.61
5.7
19
248
NM
197
5.6
NM
402
NA
0.158
<0.00042
<0.001
0.035
NA
NA
<0.05
<0.001
NA
12
<0.005
NA
<0.005
BGTMW-4*
Transition Zone
Compliance
12/15/2010
18.38
10.3
13
149
NM
NM
6.2
NM
NM
NA
NA
0.0067
0.0011
0.0206
NA
NA
<0.05
<0.00008
NA
14.2
<0.005
NA
<0.005
BGTMW-4*
Transition Zone
Compliance
3/7/2011
17.87
9.4
15
217
1.2
-55
4.01
NM
150
NA
0.184
<.005
0.00065
0.0495 b
NA
NA
<0.05
<0.00008
NA
12.1 b
<0.005
NA
0.0068
BGTMW-4*
Transition Zone
Compliance
6/1/2011
17.3
9.1
22
235
1.18
-94
9.82
NM
111
NA
0.22
0.0082
0.0006
0.0656
NA
NA
<0.05
<0.00008
1 NA
12.3
<0.005
I NA
<0.005
BGTMW-4*
Transition Zone
Compliance
10/10/2011
18.45
8.0
20
271
0.55
-11.2
3
NM
193.8
NA
0.108
<.005
<0.0005
0.106
NA
NA
<0.05
<0.00008
NA
11.8
<0.005
NA
<0.005
BGTMW-4*
Transition Zone
Compliance
3/12/2012
17.35
7.8
17
275
0.93
-50.9
6.77
NM
154.1
NA
0.203
<.005
<0.0005
0.109
NA
NA
<0.05
<0.00008
NA
12.5
<0.005
NA
<0.005
BGTMW-4*
Transition Zone
Compliance
6/11/2012
17.73
7.5
19
289
2.23
-43.2
5.86
NM
161.8
NA
0.166
<.005
<0.0005
0.108
NA
NA
<0.05
<0.00008
NA
13.4
<0.005
NA
<0.005
BGTMW-4*
Transition Zone
Compliance
10/15/2012
18.95
8.0
18
289
0.67
58.1
3.89
NM
263.1
NA
0.102
<.005
<0.0005
0.122
NA
NA
<0.05
<0.00008
NA
13.6
<0.005
NA
<0.005
BGTMW-4*
Transition Zone
Compliance
3/5/2013
17.97
7.8
13
301
0.39
19.3
9.05
NM
224.3
NA
0.088
0.00134
<0.001
0.112
NA
NA
<0.05
<0.001
NA
11
<0.005
NA
<0.005
BGTMW-4*
Transition Zone
Compliance
6/3/2013
17.25
8.0
21
298.8
2.67
154.8
4.85
NM
359.8
NA
0.129
0.00256
<0.001
0.117
NA
NA
<0.05
<0.001
NA
13
<0.005
NA
<0.005
BGTMW-4***
Transition Zone
Compliance
9/3/2013
17.24
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.00216
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
BGTMW-4***
Transition Zone
Compliance
9/4/2013
NA
7.4
18.21
160
0.72
48.6
0.79
1 0.38
NA
129
<0.0828
0.00117
<0.00034
0.118
NA
NA
0.0212 j
<0.00023
29.9
14
<0.0016
NA
<0.0027
BGTMW-4*
Transition Zone
Compliance
10/8/2013
17.88
7.9
17
308.9
0.54
204.1
3.99
NM
409.1
NA
0.094
0.00333
<0.001
0.121
NA
NA
<0.05
<0.001
NA
14
<0.005
NA
<0.005
BGTMW-4*
Transition Zone
Compliance
3/11/2014
14.04
8.0
17
305
3.4
146
0.6
NM
351
NA
0.032
NA
<0.001
0.121
NA
NA
<0.05
<0.001
NA
16
<0.005
NA
<0.005
BGTMW-4*
Transition Zone
Compliance
6/9/2014
16.2
8.0
21
301
2.7
138
3.1
NM
343
NA
0.039 b
0.0029
<0.001
0.119
NA
NA
<0.05
<0.001
NA
15
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CMW-1*
Saprolite
Compliance
12/17/2010
8.01
6.3
15
426
NM
NM
5.07
NM
NM
NA
NA
<.005
<0.0005
0.209
NA
NA
1.81
<0.00008
NA
16.8
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CMW-1*
Saprolite
Compliance
3/8/2011
7.3
6.5
14
Soo
0.68
-87
13.7
NM
118
NA
0.218
<.005
<0.0005
0.208
NA
NA
1.79
<0.00008
NA
18.2 b
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CMW-1*
Saprolite
Compliance
6/3/2011
8.12
6.1
17
445
0.89
-99.3
6.66
NM
105.7
NA
<0.1
<.005
<0.0005
0.192
NA
NA
1.84
<0.00008
NA
17
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CMW-1*
Saprolite
Compliance
10/11/2011 1
8.77
6.3
19
499
NM
NM
8.72
NM
NM
NA
<0.1
<.005
<0.0005
0.208
NA
NA
2.91
<0.00008
NA
13.6
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CMW-1*
Saprolite
Compliance
3/12/2012
7.42
6.4
17
438
0.41
-92.4
27.1
NM
112.6
NA
<0.1
<.005
<0.0005
0.157
NA
NA
2.03
<0.00008
NA
14.9
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CMW-1*
Saprolite
Compliance
6/12/2012
8.32
6.2
19
497
1.12
-107.8
1 14
NM
97.2
NA
<0.1
<.005
<0.0005
0.203
NA
NA
2.3
<0.00008
NA
1.8
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CMW-1*
Saprolite
Compliance
10/15/2012
8.45
6.3
21
508
0.39
-86
8.87
NM
119
NA
<0.1
<.005
<0.0005
0.201
NA
NA
2.95
0.00015
NA
13.3
<0.005
NA
0.0083
CMW-1*
Saprolite
Compliance
3/4/2013
6.51
6.2
13
429.5
0.29
-53.1
24
NM
151.9
NA
0.018
<.001
<0.001
0.153
NA
NA
1.88
<0.001
NA
28
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CMW-1*
Saprolite
Compliance
6/4/2013
7.85
6.2
18
527
0.3
-40.4
10
NM
164.6
NA
0.023
<.001
<0.001
0.205
NA
NA
2.16
<0.001
NA
17
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CMW-1*
Saprolite
Compliance
10/9/2013
8.51
6.3
19
514
0.18
-83.1
22.8
NM
121.9
NA
0.036
0.00105
<0.001
0.217
NA
NA
2.55
0.00241
NA
13
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CMW-1*
Saprolite
Compliance
3/12/2014
4.99
6.0
13
398
0.7
23
9
NM
228
NA
0.118
<.001
<0.001
0.174
NA
NA
1.02
<0.001
NA
31
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CMW-1*
Saprolite
Compliance
6/9/2014
8.21
6.2
22
528
0.2
-77
9.7
NM
128
NA
0.137
<.001
<0.001
0.225
NA
NA
1.6
<0.001
NA
15
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CMW-2*
Saprolite
Compliance
12/16/2010
10.71
5.5
14
782
NM
NM
2.7
NM
NM
NA
NA
<.005
<0.0005
0.041
NA
NA
0.107
0.00015
NA
12.6
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CMW-2*
Saprolite
Compliance
3/7/2011
10.29
5.6
13
933
2.5
88
3.02
NM
293
NA
<0.1
<.005
<0.0005
0.0332 b
NA
NA
0.0965
0.0002
NA
13.6 b
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CMW-2*
Saprolite
Compliance
6/2/2011
11.03
5.4
18
888
0.43
-69
3.35
NM
136
NA
<0.1
<.005
<0.0005
0.0271
NA
NA
0.0972
0.00024
NA
13.6
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CMW-2*
Saprolite
Compliance
10/11/2011
12.2
5.4
18
880
0.83
-64.3
2.66
NM
140.7
NA
0.105
<.005
<0.0005
0.0333
NA
NA
0.114
0.0002
NA
14.8
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CMW-2*
Saprolite
Compliance
3/13/2012
10.38
5.5
15
904
0.99
-43.3
0.71
NM
161.7
NA
<0.1
<.005
<0.0005
0.0283
NA
NA
0.122
<0.00008
NA
17.5
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CMW-2*
Saprolite
Compliance
6/12/2012
11.13
5.2
18
1056
1.65
-52.4
3.93
NM
152.6
NA
<0.1
<.005
<0.0005
0.0304
NA
NA
0.112
<0.00008
NA
20.8
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CMW-2*
Saprolite
Compliance
10/16/2012
12.45
6.0
17
1088
0.97
-42.4
2.03
NM
162.6
NA
<0.1
<.005
<0.0005
0.0328
NA
NA
0.117
<0.00008
NA
21.2
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CMW-2*
Saprolite
Compliance
3/5/2013
10.12
5.1
13
1278
1.03
172.4
1.48
NM
377.4
NA
0.015
<.001
<0.001
0.027
NA
NA
0.093
<0.001
NA
18
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CMW-2*
Saprolite
Compliance
6/4/2013
10.45
5.3
19
1289
0.6
123.4
9.87
NM
328.4
NA
0.02
<.001
<0.001
0.031
NA
NA
0.093
<0.001
NA
20
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CMW-2*
Saprolite
Compliance
10/8/2013
11.3
5.3
17
1113
0.53
134
6.38
NM
339
NA
0.063
<.001
<0.001
0.024
NA
NA
0.098
<0.001
NA
19
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CMW-2*
Saprolite
Compliance
3/12/2014
7.01
5.3
14
1575
2.5
1 285
5.1
NM
490
NA
0.036
<.001
<0.001
0.026
NA
NA
0.115
<0.001
NA
49
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CMW-2*
Saprolite
Compliance
6/10/2014
10.2
5.4
19
1179
0.23
126
20
NM
331
NA
0.087
<.001
<0.001
0.023
NA
NA
0.09
<0.001
NA
33
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CMW-3*
Saprolite
Compliance
12/15/2010
15.66
6.2
14.46
298
NM
NM
8.1
NM
NM
NA
NA
<.005
<0.0005
0.0477
NA
NA
0.714
<0.00008
NA
11.9
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CMW-3*
Saprolite
Compliance
3/7/2011
15.52
6.1
1 13.17
1 341
3.52
107
0.75
NM
312
NA
<0.1
<.005
<0.0005
0.0517 b
NA
NA
0.678
<0.00008
NA
10.1 b
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CMW-3*
Saprolite
Compliance
6/2/2011
15.64
6.0
17.41
352
0.84
-71
6.3
NM
134
NA
<0.1
<.005
<0.0005
0.0499
NA
NA
0.761
0.00025
NA
9.3
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CMW-3*
Saprolite
Compliance
10/10/2011
16.63
6.0
18.27
709
0.97
7.5
2.3
NM
212.5
NA
0.204
<.005
<0.0005
0.0549
NA
NA
1.23
<0.00008
NA
12.1
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CMW-3*
Saprolite
Compliance
3/13/2012
15.66
6.3
14.8
515
1.29
-79.8
4.91
NM
125.2
NA
0.173
<.005
<0.0005
0.0574
NA
NA
1.03
<0.00008
NA
11.6
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CMW-3*
Saprolite
Compliance
6/11/2012
16.06
6.1
17.18
757
1.3
-100.1
4.44
NM
104.9
NA
1.16
<.005
<0.0005
0.0597
NA
NA
1.07
0.000089
NA
12.6
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CMW-3*
Saprolite
Compliance
10/16/2012
16.83
6.1
16.46
1047
1.09
9.9
8.93
NM
214.9
NA
0.273
<.005
<0.0005
0.0464
NA
NA
1.26
0.0001
NA
17.7
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CMW-3*
Saprolite
Compliance
3/5/2013
16.01
6.0
13.5
1172
0.78
20.4
1.62
NM
225.4
NA
0.007
<.001
<0.001
0.0610
NA
NA
1.18
<0.001
NA
15
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CMW-3*
Saprolite
Compliance
6/4/2013
15.7
6.1
16.9
1446
0.7
55.4
3.7
NM
260.4
NA
0.056
<.001
<0.001
0.0840
NA
NA
1.32
0.00239
NA
16
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CMW-3*
Saprolite
Compliance
10/8/2013
16.05
6.2
17.2
779
0.91
123.6
1.17
NM
328.6
NA
0.044
<.001
<0.001
0.0650
NA
NA
1.3
<0.001
NA
17
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CMW-3*
Saprolite
Compliance
3/12/2014
13.64
6.0
14
693
2.7
194
0.9
NM
399
NA
0.028
<.001
<0.001
0.066
NA
NA
1.02
<0.001
NA
20
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CMW-3*
Saprolite
Compliance
6/10/2014
14.66
6.1
18
481
4.3
186
5.1
NM
391
NA
0.027b
<.001
<0.001
0.051
NA
NA
0.815
<0.001
NA
19
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CMW-5*
Saprolite
Compliance
12/16/2010
14.35
5.9
11.59
130
NM
NM
42.7
NM
NM
NA
NA
<.005
<0.0005
0.0691
NA
NA
0.169
<0.00008
NA
10.6
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CMW-5*
Saprolite
Compliance
3/7/2011
12.67
6.4
13.15
209
3.6
83.5
3.77
NM
288.5
NA
<0.1
<.005
<0.0005
0.0532 b
NA
NA
0.152
<0.00008
NA
10 b
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CMW-5*
Saprolite
Compliance
6/3/2011
13.21
6.1
16.72
204
1.91
-54.5
53.1
NM
150.5
NA
4.39
<.005
<0.0005
0.0659
NA
NA
0.142
<0.00008
NA
10
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CMW-5*
Saprolite
Compliance
10/10/2011
16.08
6.3
20.39
242
1.51
-0.9
18
NM
204.1
NA
2.98
<.005
<0.0005
0.0633
NA
NA
0.12
<0.00008
NA
10.7
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CMW-5*
Saprolite
Compliance
3/12/2012
12.15
6.6
17.2
226
3.47
-59.2
93.9
NM
145.8
NA
2.8
<.005
<0.0005
0.0652
NA
NA
0.187
<0.00008
NA
10
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CMW-5*
Saprolite
Compliance
6/11/2012
14.14
6.4
18.79
260
2.63
-28.7
20.4
NM
176.3
NA
0.884
<.005
<0.0005
0.059
NA
NA
0.18
<0.00008
NA
10.7
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CMW-5*
Saprolite
Compliance
10/15/2012
16.73
6.3
18.79
239
2.11
131.3
13.5
NM
336.3
NA
1.72
<.005
<0.0005
0.0587
NA
NA
0.143
0.0001
NA
10
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CMW-5*
Saprolite
Compliance
3/5/2013
13.04
6.1
11.8
220.9
4.03
138.8
9.07
NM
343.8
NA
0.445
<.001
<0.001
0.055
NA
NA
0.246
<0.001
NA
8.1
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CMW-5*
Saprolite
Compliance
6/3/2013
13.38
6.0
18.9
250.9
2.85
200.9
8.55
NM
405.9
NA
0.371
<.001
<0.001
0.064
NA
NA
0.249
<0.001
NA
10
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CMW-5*
Saprolite
Compliance
10/8/2013
15.25
6.3
16.4
280.7
0.97
246.4
46.3
NM
451.4
NA
3.16
<.001
<0.001
0.07
NA
NA
0.151
<0.001
NA
11
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CMW-5*
Saprolite
Compliance
3/11/2014
11.34
6.3
17
263
4.7
184
5.5
NM
389
NA
0.339
<.001
<0.001
0.052
NA
NA
0.186
<0.001
NA
13
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CMW-5*
Saprolite
Compliance
6/9/2014
14.43
6.2
19
193
2.2
186
52
NM
391
NA
2.57
<.001
<0.001
0.054
NA
NA
0.165
<0.001
NA
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CMW-6*
Saprolite
Compliance
12/15/2010
3.95
6.7
12.82
529
NM
NM
8.91
NM
NM
NA
NA
<.005
<0.0005
0.0181
NA
NA
0.704
<0.00008
NA
3<0.005
NA
<0.005
CMW-6*
Saprolite
Compliance
3/8/2011
3.78
6.9
9.05
774
1.97
87
1.35
NM
292
NA
<0.1
<.005
<0.0005
0.0176 b
NA
NA
0.492
0.00058
NA
3<0.005
NA
<0.005
CMW-6*
Saprolite
Compliance
6/2/2011
3.92
6.9
18.63
700
0.39
-72.3
1.93
NM
132.7
NA
<0.1
<.005
<0.0005
0.0151
NA
NA
0.624
<0.00008
NA
3<0.005
NA
<0.005
CMW-6*
Saprolite
Compliance
10/11/2011
4.19
7.0
18.6
586
2.06
45.2
1.46
NM
250.2
NA
<0.1
<.005
<0.0005
0.0144
NA
NA
0.874
<0.00008
NA
A
<0.005
NA
0.066
CMW-6*
Saprolite
Compliance
3/13/2012
3.99
7.1
15.3
582
1.25
-60.6
1.75
NM
144.4
NA
<0.1
<.005
<0.0005
0.0148
NA
NA
0.78
<0.00008
NA
3<0.005
NA
<0.005
CMW-6*
Saprolite
Compliance
6/12/2012
4.44
6.7
19
800
0.92
-36.8
2.46
NM
168.2
NA
<0.1
<.005
<0.0005
0.0218
NA
NA
0.722
<0.00008
NA
4<0.005
NA
<0.005
CMW-6*
Saprolite
Compliance
10/15/2012
4.65
7.0
18.72
628
0.57
53.1
4.9
NM
258.1
NA
0.215
<.005
<0.0005
0.0145
NA
NA
1.01
<0.00008
NA
3<0.005
NA
<0.005
CMW-6*
Saprolite
Compliance
3/4/2013
3.66
7.0
12.3
645.9
1.55
99.5
1.75
NM
304.5
NA
0.07
<.001
<0.001
0.014
NA
NA
0.825
<0.001
NA
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CMW-fi*
Saprolite
Compliance
6/3/2013
3.99
6.7
17.9
615
0.7
182.5
2.26
NM
387.5
NA
0.078
<.001
<0.001
0.016
NA
NA
1.04
<0.001
NA
31
<0.005
NA
<0.005
r:\�er+�'gy rmgress.1026\aee NC m'Es\�r�r��'�GvemNes\cwassessre.arlar�s\�per�'\p1412sl care "sed\7aH�\7aH�3-aczpe eeaz.dR

TABLE 4
GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
CAPE FEAR STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC., MONCURE, NORTH CAROLINA
Analytical Parameter
Depth
t r
PH PH
Temp.
cif
Conde tance
DO
ORP
Turbidity
Drawdown
Eh
Alkalinity
Aluminum
Arsenic
Antimony
Barium
Beryllium
BOD
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Chloride
Chromium
COD
Copper
Units
ft (BTOC)
S.U.
Deg C
pS/cm
mg/I
mV
NW.
feet
mV
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
15 NCAC .02L .0202(g) Groundwater Quality Standard
NE
6.5-8.5
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
0.01
0.001
0.7
0.004
NE
0.7
0.002
NE
250
0..
NE
1
Analytical Method
Field Parameters
NA
NA
200.8
200.8
200.7
NA
NA
200.7
200.8
NA
300
200.7
NA
200.7
Sample ID
Hydrostratgraphic Unit
Well Type
Sample Date
Constituent Concentrations
CMW-6*
Saprolite
Compliance
10/8/2013
4.17
7.1
17.7
627
0.38
191
2.87
NM
396
NA
0.058
<.001
<0.001
0.013
NA
NA
1.1
<0.001
NA
30
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CMW-6*
Saprolite
Compliance
3/13/2014
3.78
6.9
11
581
0.7
48
0.5
NM
253
NA
0.008
<.001
<0.001
0.012
NA
NA
1.32
<0.001
NA
30
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CMW-6*
Saprolite
Compliance
6/10/2014
4.76
6.8
17
578
0.2
6.5
4.2
NM
211.5
NA
0.058lo
<.001
<0.001
0.012
NA
NA
1.39
<0.001
NA
27
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CMW-7*
Saprolite
Compliance
12/17/2010
21.25
6.6
13
445
NM
NM
1.63
NM
NM
NA
NA
<.005
<0.0005
0.0558
NA
NA
0.375
<0.00008
NA
34.7
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CMW-7*
Saprolite
Compliance
3/8/2011
21.21
6.6
15
527
0.86
-3.4
7.44
NM
201.6
NA
<0.1
<.005
<0.0005
0.0539 b
NA
NA
0.397
<0.00008
NA
35.5 b
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CMW-7*
Saprolite
Compliance
6/2/2011
21.08
6.6
17
494
0.55
-74.5
7.01
NM
130.5
NA
<0.1
<.005
<0.0005
0.0407
NA
NA
0.321
<0.00008
NA
32.8
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CMW-7*
Saprolite
Compliance
10/11/2011
23.43
6.6
18
491
0.87
-69.6
4.48
NM
135.4
NA
<0.1
<.005
<0.0005
0.0458
NA
NA
0.38
<0.00008
NA
35.3
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CMW-7*
Saprolite
Compliance
3/13/2012
22.99
6.6
18
463
0.48
-67.7
8
NM
137.3
NA
<0.1
<.005
<0.0005
0.0444
NA
NA
0.403
<0.00008
NA
37.1
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CMW-7*
Saprolite
Compliance
6/12/2012
22.54
6.7
18
566
1.03
-73.7
18.2
NM
131.3
NA
<0.1
<.005
<0.0005
0.053
NA
NA
0.361
<0.00008
NA
38.7
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CMW-7*
Saprolite
Compliance
10/15/2012
22.92
6.7
18
581
0.5
-90.4
8.97
NM
114.6
NA
<0.1
<.005
<0.0005
0.0609
NA
NA
0.412
<0.00008
NA
45.2
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CMW-7*
Saprolite
Compliance
3/4/2013
22.18
6.6
14
569.3
0.27
-60.6
22.8
NM
144.4
NA
0.064
0.00169
<0.001
0.055
NA
NA
0.37
<0.001
NA
39
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CMW-7*
Saprolite
Compliance
6/3/2013
22.64
6.5
19
578
0.73
-102.8
47.9
NM
102.2
NA
0.052
0.00188
<0.001
0.057
NA
NA
0.369
<0.001
NA
45
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CMW-7*
Saprolite
Compliance
10/9/2013
23.15
6.8
17
742
0.2
-63.3
17.5
NM
141.7
NA
0.055
0.00147
<0.001
0.077
NA
NA
0.404
<0.001
NA
46
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CMW-7*
Saprolite
Compliance
3/13/2014
21.43
5.1
10
72
1.4
309
14
NM
514
NA
1.09
<.001
<0.001
0.058
NA
NA
<0.05
<0.001
NA
4.9
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CMW-8*
Saprolite
Compliance
12/17/2010
7.71
6.5
14
532
NM
NM
38
NM
NM
NA
NA
<.005
<0.0005
0.198
NA
NA
1.07
0.00026
NA
15.8
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CMW-8*
Saprolite
Compliance
3/8/2011
7.05
6.5
15
702
0.7
-112
8.4
NM
93
NA
<0.1
<.005
<0.0005
0.195
NA
NA
1.3
<0.00008
NA
14.6 b
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CMW-8*
Saprolite
Compliance
6/2/2011
8.69
6.3
21
597
0.92
-76.3
11.6
NM
128.7
NA
0.317
<.005
<0.0005
0.165
NA
NA
1.21
<0.00008
NA
14.2
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CMW-8*
Saprolite
Compliance
10/10/2011
9.12
6.2
20
593
1.1
-46.9
17.9
NM
158.1
NA
<0.1
<.005
<0.0005
0.153
NA
NA
1.25
<0.00008
NA
14.8
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CMW-8*
Saprolite
Compliance
3/13/2012
7.14
6.4
17
589
0.37
-113.4
23.9
NM
91.6
NA
<0.1
<.005
<0.0005
0.203
NA
NA
1.32
<0.00008
NA
13.8
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CMW-8*
Saprolite
Compliance
6/12/2012
8.99
6.3
19
674
1.36
-94.6
17.2
NM
110.4
NA
<0.1
<.005
<0.0005
0.192
NA
NA
1.3
<0.00008
NA
14.6
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CMW-8*
Saprolite
Compliance
10/16/2012
9.37
6.4
19
662
0.6
-90.3
16.1
NM
114.7
NA
<0.1
<.005
<0.0005
0.188
NA
NA
1.34
<0.00008
NA
14.6
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CMW-8*
Saprolite
Compliance
3/5/2013
7.6
6.1
13
744
0.26
-99
23.2
NM
106
NA
0.048
<.001
<0.001
0.227
NA
NA
1.24
<0.001
NA
11
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CMW-8*
Saprolite
Compliance
6/4/2013
8.98
6.3
19
731
0.46
-78.6
7.8
NM
126.4
NA
0.026
<.001
<0.001
0.225
NA
NA
1.35
<0.001
NA
12
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CMW-8*
Saprolite
Compliance
10/8/2013
9.3
6.3
18
649
0.23
-52
9.85
NM
153
NA
0.071
<.001
<0.001
0.151
NA
NA
1.21
<0.001
NA
14
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CMW-8*
Saprolite
Compliance
3/12/2014
6.24
6.4
14
728
0.5
-65
18
NM
140
NA
0.484
<.001
<0.001
0.224
NA
NA
1.26
<0.001
NA
13
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CMW-8*
Saprolite
Compliance
6/10/2014
8.82
6.3
18
674
0.4
-69
9
NM
136
NA
0.278
<.001
<0.001
0.201
NA
NA
1.16
<0.001
NA
13
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CRMW-1*
Bedrock
Compliance
12/17/2010
7.51
7.0
15
516
NM
NM
5.71
NM
NM
NA
NA
<.005
<0.0005
0.161
NA
NA
0.309
<0.00008
NA
36.7
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CRMW-1*
Bedrock
Compliance
3/8/2011
6.62
7.1
15
678
0.45
-92
1.33
NM
113
NA
<0.1
<.005
<0.0005
0.181
NA
NA
0.367
<0.00008
NA
37.8 b
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CRMW-1*
Bedrock
Compliance
6/2/2011
7.28
7.1
19
618
3.45
-101.7
8.5
NM
103.3
NA
0.233
<.005
<0.0005
0.144
NA
NA
0.256
0.00028
NA
35.9
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CRMW-1*
Bedrock
Compliance
10/11/2011
7.74
6.9
18
632
N
N
7.4
NM
N
NA
0.135
<.005
<0.0005
0.187
NA
NA
0.348
9.70E-05
NA
35
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CRMW-1*
Bedrock
Compliance
3/12/2012
7.35
6.9
17
593
0.6
-66
9.44
NM
139
NA
0.381
<.005
<0.0005
0.134
NA
NA
0.295
<0.00008
NA
36.3
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CRMW-1*
Bedrock
Compliance
6/12/2012
7.48
6.9
20
670
1.4
-49.3
3.88
NM
155.7
NA
0.189
<.005
<0.0005
0.157
NA
NA
0.363
<0.00008
NA
37.7
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CRMW-1*
Bedrock
Compliance
10/15/2012
7.82
7.1
20
656
0.72
-70
3.11
NM
135
NA
<0.1
<.005
<0.0005
0.153
NA
NA
0.364
<0.00008
NA
36.5
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CRMW-1*
Bedrock
Compliance
3/4/2013
6.72
7.0
15
680
0.4
-45.6
3.12
NM
159.4
NA
0.011
<.001
<0.001
0.144
NA
NA
0.347
<0.001
NA
31
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CRMW-1*
Bedrock
Compliance
6/3/2013
7.52
7.0
19
685
1.72
-69.2
2.44
NM
135.8
NA
0.056
<.001
<0.001
0.152
NA
NA
0.364
<0.001
NA
36
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CRMW-1*
Bedrock
Compliance
10/9/2013
7.48
7.2
18
691
2.44
-14.1
6.58
NM
190.9
NA
0.066
<.001
<0.001
11 0.167
NA
NA
0.347
<0.001
NA
33
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CRMW-1*
Bedrock
Compliance
3/12/2014
4.44
7.0
15
706
0.6
22
1.2
NM
227
NA
0.02
<.001
<0.001
0.176
NA
NA
0.379
<0.001
NA
34
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CRMW-1*
Bedrock
Compliance
6/9/2014
7.21
7.1
20
686
1.9
37
4.1
NM
242
NA
0.032lo
<.001
<0.001
0.158
NA
NA
0.349
<0.001
NA
31
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CRMW-2*
Bedrock
Compliance
12/16/2010
11.56
8.8
13.54
199
NM
NM
9.4
NM
NM
NA
NA
0.0067
<0.0005
0.08
NA
NA
<0.05
<0.00008
NA
5.8
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CRMW-2*
Bedrock
Compliance
3/8/2011
11.36
8.4
14.45
274
0.84
-164
8.67
NM
41
NA
0.229
<.005
<0.0005
0.144
NA
NA
0.0542
<0.00008
NA
<5
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CRMW-2*
Bedrock
Compliance
6/9/2011
11.35
7.8
18.57
285
1.02
-88.5
110
NM
116.5
NA
1.83
<.005
<0.0005
0.249
NA
NA
<0.05
<0.00008
NA
<5
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CRMW-2*
Bedrock
Compliance
10/11/2011
11.67
8.1
17.4
280
0.73
-219.8
16.3
NM
-14.8
NA
0.703
<.005
<0.0005
0.206
NA
NA
<0.05
<0.00008
NA
<5
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CRMW-2*
Bedrock
Compliance
3/13/2012
11.31
7.3
15.8
286
1.02
-55.5
7.18
NM
149.5
NA
0.101
<.005
<0.0005
0.204
NA
NA
0.0571
<0.00008
NA
<5
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CRMW-2*
Bedrock
Compliance
6/11/2012
11.51
7.6
19.66
308
1.69
-43.7
3.38
NM
161.3
NA
0.138
0.0057
<0.0005
0.214
NA
NA
<0.05
<0.00008
NA
4.5
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CRMW-2*
Bedrock
Compliance
10/16/2012
11.53
7.9
16.27
313
0.95
-60.3
7.75
NM
144.7
NA
<0.1
<.005
<0.0005
0.221
NA
NA
<0.05
<0.00008
NA
4.1
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CRMW-2*
Bedrock
Compliance
3/5/2013
10.97
7.5
13.1
313.4
2.55
57.7
3.31
NM
262.7
NA
0.018
0.00368
<0.001
0.226
NA
NA
<0.05
<0.001
NA
3.5
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CRMW-2*
Bedrock
Compliance
6/4/2013
10.95
7.7
18.4
314.4
2.6
166.4
2.35
NM
371.4
NA
0.075
0.00498
<0.001
0.246
NA
NA
<0.05
<0.001
NA
3.7
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CRMW-2*
Bedrock
Compliance
10/8/2013
11.42
8.0
17.1
314
0.6
174.8
4.1
NM
379.8
NA
0.072
0.00468
<0.001
0.253
NA
NA
<0.05
<0.001
NA
3.8
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CRMW-2*
Bedrock
Compliance
3/12/2014
8.23
7.9
15
310
3.4
178
1.7
NM
383
NA
0.054
0.00473
<0.001
0.248
NA
NA
<0.05
<0.001
NA
3.8
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CRMW-2*
Bedrock
Compliance
6/10/2014
11.59
8.0
20
303
2.1
101
2.1
NM
306
NA
0.033 b
0.00756
<0.001
0.238
NA
NA
<0.05
<0.001
NA
3.4
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CRMW-7*
Bedrock
Compliance
12/21/2010
21.84
9.0
9
477
NM
NM
128
NM
NM
NA
NA
<.005
<0.0005
0.0374
NA
NA
<0.05
<0.00008
NA
34.3
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CRMW-7*
Bedrock
Compliance
3/8/2011
22.16
7.8
13
572
1.96
46
31.8
NM
251
NA
0.603
<.005
<0.0005
0.0368 b
NA
NA
<0.05
<0.00008
NA
35 b
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CRMW-7*
Bedrock
Compliance
6/3/2011
21.92
7.5
20
562
5.2
-57.2
7.33
NM
147.8
NA
0.172
<.005
<0.0005
0.0415
NA
NA
<0.05
<0.00008
NA
33.1
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CRMW-7*
Bedrock
Compliance
10/11/2011
24.31
7.5
17
525
1.44
1 -14
5.1
NM
191
NA
0.195
<.005
1 <0.0005
0.0435
NA
NA
<0.05
<0.00008
NA
32.2
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CRMW-7*
Bedrock
Compliance
3/13/2012
23.87
1 7.3
18
471
2.32
-43
8
NM
162
NA
0.203
<.005
<0.0005
0.034
NA
NA
<0.05
<0.00008
NA
31
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CRMW-7*
Bedrock
Compliance
6/12/2012
23.4
7.3
19
551
2.18
-59.1
3.31
NM
145.9
NA
0.107
<.005
<0.0005
0.0383
NA
NA
<0.05
<0.00008
NA
33.2
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CRMW-7*
Bedrock
Compliance
10/15/2012
23.75
7.5
19
551
1.02
-31.3
4.67
NM
173.7
NA
<0.1
<.005
<0.0005
0.0405
NA
NA
<0.05
<0.00008
NA
31.1
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CRMW-7*
Bedrock
Compliance
3/4/2013
22.89
7.4
14
569.8
1.18
97.8
4.08
NM
302.8
NA
0.011
0.002
<0.001
0.034
NA
NA
<0.05
<0.001
NA
28
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CRMW-7*
Bedrock
Compliance
6/3/2013
23.49
7.3
20
576
2.17
115.9
2.46
NM
320.9
NA
0.046
0.00224
<0.001
0.043
NA
NA
<0.05
<0.001
NA
32
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CRMW-7*
Bedrock
Compliance
10/9/2013
24.11
7.4
17
597
0.58
34.7
7.02
NM
239.7
NA
0.065
0.00155
<0.001
0.045
NA
NA
<0.05
<0.001
NA
30
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CRMW-7*
Bedrock
Compliance
3/13/2014
22.34
7.1
12
553
2.8
154
2.9
NM
359
NA
0.034
0.00127
<0.001
0.037
NA
NA
0.051
<0.001
NA
31
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CRMW-7*
Bedrock
Compliance
6/10/2014
24.13
7.3
20
584
1.6
1 112
2.3
NM
317
NA
0.019 b
0.00173
1 <0.001
0.045
NA
NA
<0.05
<0.001
NA
30
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CRMW-8*
Bedrock
Compliance
12/16/2010
11.72
7.5
14
830
NM
NM
3.4
NM
NM
NA
NA
<.005
0.0017
0.143
NA
NA
0.228
<0.00008
NA
22.7
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CRMW-8*
Bedrock
Compliance
3/8/2011
11.02
7.4
16
917
0.6
-127
9.67
NM
78
NA
0.34
0.006
<0.0005
0.255
NA
NA
0.275
<0.00008
NA
21.1 b
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CRMW-8*
Bedrock
Compliance
6/1/2011
11.58
7.4
20
861
0.29
-110.6
5.26
NM
94.4
NA
0.136
<.005
<0.0005
0.218
NA
NA
0.187
<0.00008
NA
21.6
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CRMW-8*
Bedrock
Compliance
10/10/2011
11.92
7.4
18
811
0.56
-87.7
4.7
NM
117.3
NA
0.191
<.005
<0.0005
0.241
NA
NA
0.244
<0.00008
NA
20.3
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CRMW-8*
Bedrock
Compliance
3/13/2012
11.4
7.3
18
747
0.56
-125.2
8.4
NM
79.8
NA
<0.1
0.0058
<0.0005
0.242
NA
NA
0.317
<0.00008
NA
18.6
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CRMW-8*
Bedrock
Compliance
6/12/2012
11.68
7.2
18
805
2.14
-92.7
4.26
NM
112.3
NA
0.163
0.0105
<0.0005
0.262
NA
NA
0.253
<0.00008
NA
19.4
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CRMW-8*
Bedrock
Compliance
10/16/2012
11.97
7.5
17
788
0.59
-27.6
3.78
NM
177.4
NA
<0.1
<.005
<0.0005
0.215
NA
NA
0.233
<0.00008
NA
18.5
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CRMW-8*
Bedrock
Compliance
3/5/2013
11.05
7.2
14
798
0.37
-30.8
5.11
NM
174.2
NA
0.025
0.00492
<0.001
0.205
NA
NA
0.274
<0.001
NA
16
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CRMW-8*
Bedrock
Compliance
6/4/2013
11.43
7.3
18
793
0.78
1 -14.4
4.08
NM
190.6
NA
0.033
0.00601
<0.001
0.213
NA
NA
0.27
<0.001
NA
17
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CRMW-8*
Bedrock
Compliance
10/8/2013
11.83
7.4
17
773
0.8
-11.7
6.56
NM
193.3
NA
0.082
0.00432
<0.001
0.2
NA
NA
0.267
<0.001
NA
16
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CRMW-8*
Bedrock
Compliance
3/12/2014
8.68
7.3
15
772
0.7
-12
4.2
NM
193
NA
0.089
0.00669
<0.001
0.207
NA
NA
0.345
<0.001
NA
16
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CRMW-8*
Bedrock
Compliance
6/10/2014
11.53
7.2
19
753
1
-53
2.3
NM
152
NA
0.025 b
0.00446
<0.001
0.194
NA
NA
0.328
<0.001
NA
15
<0.005
NA
<0.005
MW-10***
Transition Zone
Voluntary
9/3/2013
13.59
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
MW-SO***
Transition Zone
Voluntary
9/6/2013
NA
5.6
18.25
872
0.24
19.3
80.73
1.64
NA
120
1.01
0.00064j
<0.00034
0.0754
NA
NA
0.978
<0.00023
157
21.2
0.0026j
NA
0.0035j
MW-11***
Saprolite
Voluntary
9/3/2013
13.76
6.1
20.41
389
0.31
-3
8.36
0.62
NA
129
0.251
0.00091j
<0.00034
0.104
NA
NA
0.0213j
<0.00023
54.4
24.4
0.0019j
NA
0.0027j
MW-12***
Saprolite
Voluntary
9/3/2013
12.03
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
MW-12***
Saprolite
Voluntary
9/4/2013
NA
6.6
20.95
546
0.12
-51.5
34.64
0.01
NA
175
0.472
.0017j
0.00034j
0.0665
NA
NA
0.568
<0.00023
36.5
53.4
<0.0016
NA
<0.0027
MW-13***
Saprolite
Voluntary
9/3/2013
11.54
5.7
19.66
157
0.09
71.3
4.13
0.32
NA
35.5
0.0912j
<0.00042
<0.00034
0.086
NA
NA
0.171
<0.00023
19.9
31.6
<0.0016
NA
<0.0027
MW-14***
Bedrock
Voluntary
9/3/2013
12.18
8.9
22.29
180
0.27
-388
699
6
NA
124
10.2
0.0033
0.00044j
0.132
NA
NA
0.123
<0.00023
19.8
49.6
0.0128j
NA
0.0093j
MW-9***
Saprolite
Voluntary
9/3/2013
13.09
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
MW-9***
Sa route
Voluntar
9/9/2013
NA
6.2
19.5
549
0.35
50.2
14.9
0.51
NA
111
0.546
0.0007'
<0.00034
0.0747
NA
NA
0.0135
0.00061
44.2
145
<0.0016
NA
<0.0027
r:\�er+�'gy rmgress.1026\aee NC m'Es\�r�r�ttft'�GvemNes\cwassessrent rlar�s\�per�'\p1412sl care "sed\7ad�\7ad�3-aczpe eeaz.dR

TABLE 4
GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
CAPE FEAR STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC., MONCURE, NORTH CAROLINA
Analytical Parameter
Depth
t r
PH PH
Temp.
cif
Conde tance
DO
ORP
Turbidity
Drawdown
Eh
Alkalinity
Aluminum
Arsenic
Antimony
Barium
Beryllium
BOD
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Chloride
Chromium
COD
Copper
Units
ft (BTOC)
S.U.
Deg C
pS/cm
mg/I
mV
NW.
feet
mV
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
15 NCAC .02L .0202(g) Groundwater Quality Standard
NE
6.5-8.5
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
0.01
0.001
0.7
0.004
NE
0.7
0.002
NE
250
0..
NE
1
Analytical Method
Field Parameters
NA
NA
200.8
200.8
200.7
NA
NA
200.7
200.8
NA
300
200.7
NA
200.7
Sample ID
Hydrostratgraphic Unit
Well Type
Sample Date
Constituent Concentrations
PZ-1***
Saprolite
Voluntary
9/10/2013
4.25
6.2
20.81
708
0.1
-22.7
17
1.29
NA
176
0.18 j
<.002
<0.00034
0.031
NA
NA
0.657
0100097
63.5
21.7
<0.0016
NA
<0.0027
PZ-1**
Saprolite
Voluntary
3/7/2007
1.71
6.3
62.42
1280
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0011
70.00058
0.0386
<0.0007
<2
0.394
<0.0005
NA
18
<0.002
24
<0.0006
PZ-1**
Saprolite
Voluntary
12/19/2007
3.56
6.2
63.32
997
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.00096
0.00055
0.0336
0.000062
<2
0.381
0.000066
NA
21.2
0.00011
19
0.0011
PZ-1**
Saprolite
Voluntary
4/30/2008
3.05
6.4
61
952
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0016
0.00083
0.0661
0.00034
<2
0.473
0.00012
NA
23.9
0.0036
20
0.0028
PZ-1**
Saprolite
Voluntary
12/8/2008
3.01
6.3
59.54
619
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<.001
0.00017
0.0579
0.00021
<2
0.576
0.0001
NA
22
0.003
21
0.0027
PZ-1**
Saprolite
Voluntary
6/3/2009
3.76
5.4
64.58
779
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<.001
0.0021
0.039
<0.001
<2
0.586
<0.001
NA
25
0.0087
21
0.0021
PZ-1**
Saprolite
Voluntary
10/19/2009
3.8
6.0
65.3
905
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<.010
0.0037
0.0317
<0.001
<2
0.66
<0.001
NA
20
<0.002
21
<0.002
PZ-1**
Saprolite
Voluntary
4/22/2010
3.45
6.4
59.54
799
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.00046 j
<0.01
0.042
<0.004
2.5
0.59
<0.002
NA
21
<0.005
<10
<0.005
PZ-2***
Saprolite
Voluntary
9/3/2013
4.66
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<.002
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
PZ-2***
Saprolite
Voluntary
9/4/2013
NA
6.4
19.3
472
0.36
-54.2
897
2.26
NA
86.7
<0.0828
0.00077
<0.00034
0.0263
NA
NA
3.81
<0.00023
30.7
21.1
0.0016 j
NA
<0.0027
PZ-2**
Saprolite
Voluntary
3/7/2007
4.85
7.4
59.54
940
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0021
<0.00058
0.034
<0.0007
<2
5.24
<0.0005
NA
18
<0.002
27
<0.0006
PZ-2**
Saprolite
Voluntary
12/19/2007
4.53
6.4
60.26
662
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0016
<0.0003
0.0279
<0.000051
<2
4.62
0.000081
NA
20.2
<0.000059
<10
0.0008
PZ-2**
Saprolite
Voluntary
4/30/2008
4.76
7.7
58.1
629
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<.001
<0.0004
0.032
0.00012
<2
4.38
0.000073
NA
25.3
0.00049
13
<0.00064
PZ-2**
Saprolite
Voluntary
12/8/2008
4.53
6.7
59.9
508
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<.001
<0.000017
0.0279
<0.000051
<2
4.74
<0.000028
NA
22
0.0005
11
0.0026
PZ-2**
Saprolite
Voluntary
6/3/2009
5.13
5.6
65.66
671
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<.010
<0.002
0.0257
<0.001
<2
4.61
<0.001
NA
24
<0.002
21
<0.002
PZ-2**
Saprolite
Voluntary
10/19/2009
4.9
6.3
64.76
605
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<0.002
0.0257
<0.001
<2
4.56
<0.001
NA
21
<0.002
16
<0.002
PZ-2**
Saprolite
Voluntary
4/22/2010
5.05
6.6
59
540
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.00051 j
<0.01
1 <0.025
<0.004
<2
1 4.3
<0.002
NA
1 22
<0.005
<10
<0.005
PZ-3D***
Bedrock
Voluntary
9/3/2013
3.45
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0023
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
PZ-3D***
Bedrock
Voluntary
9/4/2013
NA
8.1
22.45
470
5.82
-27.8
0.33
0.44
NA
150
<0.0828
0.0052
<0.00034
0.175
NA
NA
0.053
<0.00023
51.6
59.4
<0.0016
NA
<0.0027
PZ-3D**
Bedrock
Voluntary
3/7/2007
2.11
7.8
56.48
814
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0043
<0.00058
0.313
<0.0007
<2
0.0427
<0.0005
NA
77
0.0368
41
0.0017
PZ-3D**
Bedrock
Voluntary
12/19/2007
2.83
7.7
59.54
575
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0,0049
<0.0003
0,338
<0.000051
<2
0,0418
0,000034
NA
67.9
<0.000059
<10
0,00016
PZ-3D**
Bedrock
Voluntary
4/30/2008
2.2
7.8
60.6
566
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0033
0.00057
0.295
<0.000086
<2
0.0398
0.00024
NA
77.5
0.00047
<10
0.001
PZ-3D**
Bedrock
Voluntary
12/8/2008
2.39
7.6
58.28
442
NA
NA
NA
NA
9NA
NA
NA
0.0042
<0.000017
0.334
<0.000051
<2
0.0474
<0.000028
NA
60
0.00027
<8
0.0012
PZ-3D**
Bedrock
Voluntary
6/3/2009
2.81
7.0
70.7
658
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<.010
<0.002
0.296
<0.001
<2
<0.2
<0.001
NA
66
<0.002
14
<0.002
PZ-3D**
Bedrock
Voluntary
10/19/2009
3.22
7.5
64.58
565
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<0.002
0.269
<0.001
1 <2
<0.2
<0.001
I NA
60
0.0021
12
<0.002
PZ-3D**
Bedrock
Voluntary
4/22/2010
2.35
7.8
60.8
516
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.004
<0.01
0.23
<0.004
<2
<0.05
<0.002
NA
57
<0.005
<10
<0.005
PZ-3S***
Saprolite
Voluntary
9/3/2013
3.69
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<.002
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
PZ-3S***
Saprolite
Voluntary
9/4/2013
NA
7.6
21.51
1 609
0.08
-56.3
3
0.46
NA
159
0.108i
0.00088
<0.00034
0.0111
NA
NA
2.43
<0.00023
19.2
53.2
<0.0016
NA
<0.0027
PZ-3S**
Saprolite
Voluntary
3/7/2007
2.68
7.9
54.68
799
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.00082
<0.00058
0.0277
<0.0007
<2
1.35
<0.0005
NA
45
<0.002
20
0.0016
PZ-3S**
Saprolite
Voluntary
12/19/2007
3.15
7.7
59.54
676
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0018
<0.0003
0.0134
<0.000051
<2
1.28
0.00011
NA
54.8
<0.000059
<10
0.00075
PZ-3S**
Saprolite
Voluntary
4/30/2008
2.76
7.8
58.1
657
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<.001
<0.0004
0.0117
<0.000086
<2
1.16
0.000026
NA
55.2
0.00018
<10
<0.00064
PZ-3S**
Saprolite
Voluntary
12/8/2008
2.82
7.8
57.56
521
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<.001
<0.000017
0.0137
<0.000051
<2
1.42
<0.000028
NA
45
0.00048
<8
0.0021
PZ-3S**
Saprolite
Voluntary
6/3/2009
3.16
7.0
69.8
789
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<.010
<0.002
0.0109
1001
<2
1.36
<0.001
NA
56
<0.002
<3.1
<0.002
PZ-3S**
Saprolite
Voluntary
10/19/2009
3.53
7.6
67.46
708
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<0.002
0.0113
<0.001
<2
1.51
<0.001
NA
52
<0.002
14
<0.002
PZ-3S**
Saprolite
Voluntary
4/22/2010
2.8
7.8
57.56
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<0.00042
<0.01
<0.025
<0.004
<2
1.4
<0.002
NA
54
<0.005
<10
<0.005
PZ-4***
Saprolite
Voluntary
9/3/2013
8.42
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<.002
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
PZ-4***
Saprolite
Voluntary
9/6/2013
NA
6.7
19.22
544
0.16
-2.3
1.86
0.15
NA
148
<0.0828
0.00076
<0.00034
0.0211
NA
NA
2.08
<0.00023
35.9
57
<0.0016
NA
<0.0027
PZ-4**
Saprolite
Voluntary
3/7/2007
7.81
7.2
57.56
1350
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.00085
<0.00058
0.0275
<0.0007
<2
0.0708
<0.0005
NA
110
<0.002
66
<0.0006
PZ-4**
Saprolite
Voluntary
12/19/2007
8.16
7.0
61.16
871
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0022
<0.0003
0.0191
<0.000051
<2
0.254
0.00012
NA
86.1
<0.000059
94
0.00075
PZ-4**
Saprolite
Voluntary
4/30/2008
8.12
7.6
57.9
724
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<.001
<0.0004
0.0193
<0.000086
<2
1.09
0.000051
NA
72.6
0.00041
<10
<0.00064
PZ-4**
Saprolite
Voluntary
12/8/2008
8.14
6.9
57.74
548
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<.001
<0.000017
0.0245
<0.000051
<2
1.28
<0.000028
NA
68
0.00058
11
0.002
PZ-4**
Saprolite
Voluntary
6/3/2009
8.51
5.8
63.32
788
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<.010
<0.002
0.0319
<0.001
<2
1.51
0.0014
NA
68
0.0023
18
0.0033
PZ-4**
Saprolite
Voluntary
10/19/2009
8.69
6.7
62.24
743
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<0.002
0.0227
<0.001
<2
1.5
<0.001
NA
70
0.0025
12
<0.002
PZ-4**
Saprolite
Voluntary
4/22/2010
8.31
7.0
1 56.3
606
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<0.00042
1 <0.01
<0.025
<0.004
<2
1.8
<0.002
NA
54
<0.005
1 <10
<0.005
PZ-5***
Saprolite
Voluntary
9/10/2013
1.24
5.8
23.27
511
0.03
70.2
6.4
0.56
NA
28.8
0.204
<.002
<0.00034
0.0236
NA
NA
4.86
0.00023 j
34.6
33
<0.0016
NA
0.0032 j
PZ-5**
Saprolite
Voluntary
3/7/2007
0.72
6.2
56.3
769
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.00081
<0.00058
0.777
0.0009
<2
3.5
<0.0005
NA
24
0.101
<10
0.0489
PZ-5**
Saprolite
Voluntary
12/19/2007
0.5
5.8
59.18
612
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.00081
<0.0003
0.0271
<0.000051
<2
3.66
0.00023
NA
25.1
<0.000059
<10
0.00059
PZ-5**
Saprolite
Voluntary
4/30/2008
0.32
6.9
59.9
628
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002
<0.0004
0.0261
<0.000086
<2
3.6
0.000057
NA
28.3
0.00016
13
<0.00064
PZ-5**
Saprolite
Voluntary
12/8/2008
0.21
6.1
56.12
479
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<.001
<0.000017
0.0288
0.00006
<2
4.34
0.000082
NA
26
0.00061
11
0.0017
PZ-5**
Saprolite
Voluntary
6/3/2009
0.2
5.4
68.18
721
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<.001
<0.002
0.0242
<0.001
<2
4.54
<0.001
NA
29
<0.002
<3.1
0.002
PZ-5**
Saprolite
Voluntary
10/19/2009
0.4
6.0
67.28
663
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<.010
<0.002
0.0258
<0.001
<2
4.86
<0.001
NA
24
0.0023
<10
<0.002
PZ-5**
Saprolite
Voluntary
4/22/2010
0.5
6.1
58.82
564
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<0.00042
<0.01
<0.025
<0.004
<2
4.1
<0.002
NA
25
<0.005
<10
<0.005
PZ-9***
Saprolite
Voluntary
9/5/2013
8.22
2.1
17.54
NA
0.33
127.6
4.52
1.69
NA
2.8
1.07
0.00065 j
<0.00034
0.16
NA
NA
<0.0084
<0.00023
2.64
32.5
<0.0016
NA
0.006 j
Notes:
1. Analytical parameter abbreviations:
Temp. = TemperaW,.
DO = Dissolved oxygen
ORP = Oxidation reduction potential
TDS = Tobl dissoHed solids
TSS = Tobl suspended solids
TOC = Tobl organic carbon
2. Units:
'C = Degrees Cekios
SU = Sbndard Units
mV = millivolts
PS/cm = microsiemens per centimeter
NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Unit
mg/L =milligrams per liter
BTOC = Below top of casing
3. NE = Not esbblished
4. NA = Not available
5. NM = Not measured
6 Highlighted values indicate values that exceed the 15 NCAC .02L .0202(g) Sbndard
7. Analytical results with "<" preceeding the result indicate thatthe parameter was not dl txted at a
concentration which atbins or exceeds be laboratory reporting limit.
* Sample data by SynTerra
** Sample data provided by Duke
*** Sample data was obbined fiom be Geosyntec, 2013 Preliminary Site Investigation Dab Report,
Conceptual Closure pan, Cape Fear pant, November 2013, unpublished manuscript.
8. Indudes dab through My 2014
r:\ake r+�'gy rmgress.1026\aee NC m'Es\�rNRt�uea�GvemNes\cwassessrent rlar�s\ape reaz'\p1412sl care "sed\7aNes\7aNes 3-aczpe eeaz.dR

TABLE 4
GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
CAPE FEAR STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC., MONCURE, NORTH CAROLINA
Analytical Parameter
Fluoride
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Nitrate
Nitrite
Potassium
Selenium
Sil-r
Sodium
Sulfate
Thallium
TDS
TOC
TOX
Zinc
Units
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
15 NCAC .02L .0202(g) Groundwater Quality Standard
NE
0.3
0.015
NE
0.05
0.001
0.1
10
NE
NE
0.02
0.02
NE
250
0.0002
500
NE
NE
1
Analytical Method
NA
200.7
200.8
200.8
NA
245.1
200.7
300
NA
NA
200.8
NA
NA
300
200.8
NA
NA
NA
200.7
Sample ID
Hydrostratgraphic Unit
Well Type
Sample Date
Constituent Concentrations
BGMW-4*
Saprolite
Compliance
12/15/2010
NA
0.112
<.005
NA
0.0289
<0.0002
<0.005
6.2
NA
NA
<0.01
NA
NA
26.1
<0.0001
163
NA
NA
<0.01
BGMW-4*
Saprolite
Compliance
3/7/2011
NA
0.178
<.005
NA
0.0106
<0.0002
<0.005
6.3
NA
NA
<0.01
NA
NA
25.5 b
<0.0001
164 b
NA
NA
<0.01
BGMW-4*
Saprolite
Compliance
6/1/2011
NA
.162 b
<.005
NA
0.0169
<0.0002
<0.005
6
NA
NA
<0.01
NA
NA
36.2
<0.0001
183
NA
NA
0.0109
BGMW-4*
Saprolite
Compliance
10/10/2011
NA
0.124
<.005
NA
0.0134
<0.0002
<0.005
6.2
NA
NA
<0.01
NA
NA
24.3
<0.0001
165
NA
NA
<0.01
BGMW-4*
Saprolite
Compliance
3/12/2012
NA
.150 b
<.005
NA
0.083
<0.0002
<0.005
3.5
NA
NA
<0.01
NA
NA
92.5
<0.0001
229
NA
NA
0.012
BGMW-4*
Saprolite
Compliance
6/11/2012
NA
0.287
<.005
NA
0.0089
<0.0002
<0.005
4.7
NA
NA
<0.01
NA
NA
28.9
<0.0001
172
NA
NA
<0.01
BGMW-4*
Saprolite
Compliance
10/15/2012
NA
3.13
<.005
NA
0.0612
<0.0002
<0.005
4.8
NA
NA
<0.01
NA
NA
24.2
<0.0001
89
NA
NA
<0.01
BGMW-4*
Saprolite
Compliance
3/5/2013
NA
0.12
<.001
NA
<0.005
<0.00005
<0.005
4
NA
NA
<0.001
NA
NA
23
<0.0002
160
NA
NA
<0.005
BGMW-4*
Saprolite
Compliance
6/3/2013
NA
0.129
<.001
NA
0.005
<0.00005
<0.005
4.4
NA
NA
<0.001
NA
NA
49
<0.0002
200
NA
NA
<0.005
BGMW-4***
Saprolite
Compliance
9/3/2013
NA
0.265
<.001
NA
AN
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
BGMW-4***
Saprolite
Compliance
9/4/2013
NA
0.494
<.001
0.98
0.003 j
<0.00006
<0.0015
4400 j
NA
0. 172 j
<0.0005
NA
39.2
30.5
<0.00015
176
NA
NA
<0.002
BGMW-4*
Saprolite
Compliance
10/8/2013
NA
0.156
<.001
NA
0.008
<0.00005
<0.005
4.1
NA
NA
<0.001
NA
NA
25
<0.0002
160
NA
NA
<0.005
BGMW-4*
Saprolite
Compliance
3/11/2014
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.009
<0.00005
<0.005
4.3
NA
NA
<0.001
NA
NA
29
<0.0002
170
NA
NA
<0.005
BGMW-4*
Saprolite
Compliance
6/9/2014
NA
.140 j
<0.085
NA
<0.005
<0.00005
<0.005
3.6
NA
NA
<0.001
NA
NA
37
<0.0002
170
NA
NA
<0.005
BGTMW-4*
Transition Zone
Compliance
12/15/2010
NA
0.148
<.005
NA
<0.005
<0.0002
<0.005
<0.1
NA
NA
<0.01
NA
NA
17.2
<0.0001
107
NA
NA
<0.01
BGTMW-4*
Transition Zone
Compliance
3/7/2011
NA
0.176
<.005
NA
0.0108
<0.0002
<0.005
<0.1
NA
NA
<0.01
NA
NA
18.1 b
<0.0001
156 b
NA
NA
<0.01
BGTMW-4*
Transition Zone
Compliance
6/1/2011
NA
.223 b
<.005
NA
0.0271
<0.0002
<0.005
<0.1
NA
NA
<0.01
NA
NA
22.8
<0.0001
178
NA
NA
<0.01
BGTMW-4*
Transition Zone
Compliance
10/10/2011
NA
0.0933
<.005
NA
0.0957
<0.0002
<0.005
<0.2
NA
NA
<0.01
NA
NA
11.8
<0.0001
149
NA
NA
<0.01
BGTMW-4*
Transition Zone
Compliance
3/12/2012
NA
.406 b
<.005
NA
0.13
<0.0002
<0.005
<0.2
NA
NA
<0.01
NA
NA
10.6
<0.0001
168
NA
NA
<0.01
BGTMW-4*
Transition Zone
Compliance
6/11/2012
NA
0.213
<.005
NA
0.0995
<0.0002
<0.005
0.024 b
NA
NA
<0.01
NA
NA
11
<0.0001
159
NA
NA
<0.01
BGTMW-4*
Transition Zone
Compliance
10/15/2012
NA
0.234
<.005
NA
0.161
<0.0002
<0.005
<0.02
NA
NA
<0.01
NA
NA
11.3
<0.0001
156
NA
NA
<0.01
BGTMW-4*
Transition Zone
Compliance
3/5/2013
NA
0.188
<.001
NA
0.136
<0.00005
<0.005
<0.023
NA
NA
<0.001
NA
NA
7.3
<0.0002
180
NA
NA
0.008
BGTMW-4*
Transition Zone
Compliance
6/3/2013
NA
0.2
<.001
NA
0.072
<0.00005
<0.005
0.07
NA
NA
<0.001
NA
NA
9.9
<0.0002
180
NA
NA
<0.005
BGTMW-4***
Transition Zone
Compliance
9/3/2013
NA
0.148
<.001
NA
AN
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
BGTMW-4***
Transition Zone
Compliance
9/4/2013
NA
0.09
<.001
7.95
0.0519
<0.00006
<0.0015
<250
NA
1.42
<0.0005
NA
21.2
9.4
<0.00015
185
NA
NA
<0.002
BGTMW-4*
Transition Zone
Compliance
10/8/2013
NA
0.053
<.001
NA
0.091
<0.00005
<0.005
<0.023
NA
NA
<0.001
NA
NA
7.8
<0.0002
190
NA
NA
<0.005
BGTMW-4*
Transition Zone
Compliance
3/11/2014
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.142
<0.00005
<0.005
<0.023
NA
NA
<0.001
NA
NA
8
<0.0002
190
NA
NA
<0.005
BGTMW-4*
Transition Zone
Compliance
6/9/2014
NA
<.043
<0.000085
NA
0.043
<0.00005
<0.005
0.03
NA
NA
<0.001
NA
NA
9.1
<0.0002
190
NA
NA
<0.005
CMW-1*
Saprolite
Compliance
12/17/2010
NA
51.1
<.005
NA
1.37
<0.0002
<0.005
<0.1
NA
NA
<0.01
NA
NA
<5
<0.0001
209
NA
NA
0.0191
CMW-1*
Saprolite
Compliance
3/8/2011
NA
50.3
<.005
NA
1.79
<0.0002
<0.005
<0.1
NA
NA
<0.01
NA
NA
<5
<0.0001
232 b
NA
NA
<0.01
CMW-1*
Saprolite
Compliance
6/3/2011
NA
51.5
<.005
NA
1.35
<0.0002
<0.005
<0.1
NA
NA
<0.01
NA
NA
<5
<0.0001
188
NA
NA
<0.01
CMW-1*
Saprolite
Compliance
10/11/2011
NA
46.3
<.005
NA
1.18
<0.0002
<0.005
<0.2
NA
NA
<0.01
NA
NA
23.1
<0.0001
259
NA
NA
<0.01
CMW-1*
Saprolite
Compliance
3/12/2012
NA
41.7
<.005
NA
1.05
<0.0002
<0.005
<0.2
NA
NA
<0.01
NA
NA
<5
<0.0001
188
NA
NA
<0.01
CMW-1*
Saprolite
Compliance
6/12/2012
NA
54.6
<.005
NA
1.16
<0.0002
<0.005
<0.02
NA
NA
<0.01
NA
NA
<2
<0.0001
205
NA
NA
<0.01
CMW-1*
Saprolite
Compliance
10/15/2012
NA
42.2
<.005
NA
1
<0.0002
<0.005
<0.02
NA
NA
<0.01
NA
NA
36.3
<0.0001
242
NA
NA
0.0106
CMW-1*
Saprolite
Compliance
3/4/2013
NA
28.1
<.001
NA
1.61
<0.00005
0.006
<0.023
NA
NA
<0.001
NA
NA
10
<0.0002
240
NA
NA
0.005
CMW-1*
Saprolite
Compliance
6/4/2013
NA
50
<.001
NA
1.25
<0.00005
<0.005
<0.023
NA
NA
<0.001
NA
NA
<0.1
<0.0002
270
NA
NA
0.007
CMW-1*
Saprolite
Compliance
10/9/2013
NA
54.2
<.001
NA
1.19
<0.00005
<0.005
<0.023
NA
NA
<0.001
NA
NA
0.11
<0.0002
220
NA
NA
<0.005
CMW-1*
Saprolite
Compliance
3/12/2014
NA
34.1
<.001
NA
2.75
<0.00005
0.006
<0.023
NA
NA
<0.001
NA
NA
11
<0.0002
200
NA
NA
<0.005
CMW-1*
Saprolite
Compliance
6/9/2014
NA
59.6
<.001
NA
1.3
<0.00005
0.005
<0.023
NA
NA
<0.001
NA
NA
<0.1
<0.0002
280
NA
NA
<0.005
CMW-2*
Saprolite
Compliance
12/16/2010
NA
2.29
<.005
NA
5.48
<0.0002
0.0249
<0.1
NA
NA
<0.01
NA
NA
449
<0.0001
735
NA
NA
<0.01
CMW-2*
Saprolite
Compliance
3/7/2011
NA
0.231
<.005
NA
5.16
<0.0002
0.0318
<0.1
NA
NA
<0.01
NA
NA
571
<0.0001
797
NA
NA
<0.01
CMW-2*
Saprolite
Compliance
6/2/2011
NA
.429 b
<.005
NA
5.24
<0.0002
0.0364
<0.1
NA
NA
<0.01
NA
NA
463
<0.0001
747
NA
NA
0.0103
CMW-2*
Saprolite
Compliance
10/11/2011
NA
1.83
<.005
NA
5.64
<0.0002
0.0379
<0.2
NA
NA
<0.01
NA
NA
8.9
<0.0001
687
NA
NA
<0.01
CMW-2*
Saprolite
Compliance
3/13/2012
NA
.609 b
<.005
NA
3.11
<0.0002
0.0313
<0.2
NA
NA
<0.01
NA
NA
455
<0.0001
803
NA
NA
0.0142
CMW-2*
Saprolite
Compliance
6/12/2012
NA
1.73
<.005
NA
4.12
<0.0002
0.0455
<0.02
NA
NA
<0.01
NA
NA
260
<0.0001
877
NA
NA
<0.01
CMW-2*
Saprolite
Compliance
10/16/2012
NA
5.95
<.005
NA
8.3
<0.0002
0.0372
0.052 b
NA
NA
<0.01
NA
NA
591
<0.0001
898
NA
NA
0.0126
CMW-2*
Saprolite
Compliance
3/5/2013
NA
0.422
<.001
NA
3.18
<0.00005
0.042
<0.023
NA
NA
<0.001
NA
NA
630
<0.0002
1100
NA
NA
0.016
CMW-2*
Saprolite
Compliance
6/4/2013
NA
3.91
<.001
NA
5.58
<0.00005
0.05
<0.023
NA
NA
<0.001
NA
NA
630
<0.0002
1100
NA
NA
0.014
CMW-2*
Saprolite
Compliance
10/8/2013
NA
1.96
<.001
NA
2.28
<0.00005
0.057
<0.023
NA
NA
<0.001
NA
NA
550
<0.0002
930
NA
NA
0.014
CMW-2*
Saprolite
Compliance
3/12/2014
NA
0.32
<.001
NA
3.69
<0.00005
0.059
0.02
NA
NA
<0.001
NA
NA
790
<0.0002
1300
NA
NA
0.015
CMW-2*
Saprolite
Compliance
6/10/2014
NA
2.23
<.001
NA
4.44
<0.00005
0.052
<0.023
NA
NA
<0.001
NA
NA
530
<0.0002
960
NA
NA
0.01
CMW-3*
Saprolite
Compliance
12/15/2010
NA
<.050
<.005
NA
1.22
1 <0.0002
<0.005
<0.1
NA
NA
0.0226
NA
NA
114
<0.0001
223
NA
NA
<0.01
CMW-3*
Saprolite
Compliance
3/7/2011
NA
<.050
<.005
NA
0.257
<0.0002
<0.005
<0.1
NA
NA
0.0412
NA
NA
64
<0.0001
231 b
NA
NA
<0.01
CMW-3*
Saprolite
Compliance
6/2/2011
NA
<.050
<.005
NA
0.282
<0.0002
<0.005
<0.1
NA
NA
0.039
NA
NA
72.3
<0.0001
221
NA
NA
<0.01
CMW-3*
Saprolite
Compliance
10/10/2011
NA
0.153
<.005
NA
6.16
<0.0002
<0.005
<0.2
NA
NA
0.0377
NA
NA
182
<0.0001
472
NA
NA
<0.01
CMW-3*
Saprolite
Compliance
3/13/2012
NA
.602 b
<.005
NA
1.5
<0.0002
<0.005
<0.2
NA
NA
0.0368
NA
NA
112
<0.0001
304
NA
NA
<0.01
CMW-3*
Saprolite
Compliance
6/11/2012
NA
1.91
<.005
NA
3.12
<0.0002
<0.005
<0.02
NA
NA
0.0276
NA
NA
153
<0.0001
396
NA
NA
<0.01
CMW-3*
Saprolite
Compliance
10/16/2012
NA
0.453
<.005
NA
9.75
<0.0002
<0.005
<0.02
NA
NA
0.0206
NA
NA
388
<0.0001
729
NA
NA
<0.01
CMW-3*
Saprolite
Compliance
3/5/2013
NA
0.124
<.001
NA
4.67
<0.00005
<0.005
<0.023
NA
NA
0.0407
NA
NA
250
<0.0002
630
NA
NA
<0.005
CMW-3*
Saprolite
Compliance
6/4/2013
NA
0.21
<.001
NA
3.67
<0.00005
<0.005
0.04
NA
NA
0.0121
NA
NA
250
<0.0002
600
NA
NA
0.006
CMW-3*
Saprolite
Compliance
10/8/2013
NA
0.095
<.001
NA
2.36
1 <0.00005
<0.005
<0.023
NA
NA
0.0345
NA
NA
220
<0.0002
520
NA
NA
<0.005
CMW-3*
Saprolite
Compliance
3/12/2014
NA
0.055
<.001
NA
1.65
<0.00005
<0.005
<0.023
NA
NA
0.0666
NA
NA
170
<0.0002
380
NA
NA
0.01
CMW-3*
Saprolite
Compliance
6/10/2014
NA
0.027
<.001
NA
0.959
<0.00005
<0.005
<0.023
NA
NA
0.0554
NA
NA
130
<0.0002
330
NA
NA
<0.005
CMW-5*
Saprolite
Compliance
12/16/2010
NA
1.86
<.005
NA
0.217
<0.0002
<0.005
<0.1
NA
NA
<0.01
NA
NA
29.8
<0.0001
193
NA
NA
<0.01
CMW-5*
Saprolite
Compliance
3/7/2011
NA
0.0878
<.005
NA
0.232
<0.0002
<0.005
<0.1
NA
NA
<0.01
NA
NA
33.6 b
<0.0001
216 b
NA
NA
<0.01
CMW-5*
Saprolite
Compliance
6/3/2011
NA
2.75
<.005
NA
0.211
<0.0002
<0.005
<0.1
NA
NA
<0.01
NA
NA
32.7
<0.0001
190
NA
NA
<0.01
CMW-5*
Saprolite
Compliance
10/10/2011
NA
1.96
<.005
NA
0.182
<0.0002
<0.005
<0.2
NA
NA
<0.01
NA
NA
25.9
<0.0001
200
NA
NA
<0.01
CMW-5*
Saprolite
Compliance
3/12/2012
NA
3.36
<.005
NA
0.094
<0.0002
<0.005
<0.2
NA
NA
<0.01
NA
NA
30.6
<0.0001
181
NA
NA
<0.01
CMW-5*
Saprolite
Compliance
6/11/2012
NA
0.834
<.005
NA
0.0574
<0.0002
<0.005
0.048 b
NA
NA
<0.01
NA
NA
35.2
<0.0001
197
NA
NA
<0.01
CMW-5*
Saprolite
Compliance
10/15/2012
NA
1.53
<.005
NA
0.0418
<0.0002
<0.005
<0.02
NA
NA
<0.01
NA
NA
32.5
<0.0001
218
NA
NA
<0.01
CMW-5*
Saprolite
Compliance
3/5/2013
NA
0.316
<.001
NA
0.015
<0.00005
<0.005
0.03
NA
NA
<0.001
NA
NA
32
<0.0002
200
NA
NA
0.005
CMW-5*
Saprolite
Compliance
6/3/2013
NA
0.362
<.001
NA
0.021
<0.00005
<0.005
0.09
NA
NA
<0.001
NA
NA
38
<0.0002
210
NA
NA
0.02
CMW-5*
Saprolite
Compliance
10/8/2013
NA
2.91
1 0.00122
NA
0.046
<0.00005
<0.005
0.08
NA
NA
<0.001
NA
NA
34
<0.0002
330
NA
NA
<0.005
CMW-5*
Saprolite
Compliance
3/11/2014
NA
0.273
<.001
NA
0.005
<0.00005
<0.005
0.1
NA
NA
<0.001
NA
NA
38
<0.0002
210
NA
NA
<0.005
CMW-5*
Saprolite
Compliance
6/9/2014
NA
2.8
0.00122
NA
0.04
<0.00005
<0.005
0.03
NA
NA
<0.001
NA
NA
29
<0.0002
210
NA
NA
0.005
CMW-6*
Saprolite
Compliance
12/15/2010
NA
0.696
<.005
NA
0.178
<0.0002
<0.005
<0.1
NA
NA
<0.01
NA
NA
181
<0.0001
419
NA
NA
<0.01
CMW-6*
Saprolite
Compliance
3/8/2011
NA
<.050
<.005
NA
0.195
<0.0002
<0.005
<0.1
NA
NA
<0.01
NA
NA
169
<0.0001
508
NA
NA
<0.01
CMW-6*
Saprolite
Compliance
6/2/2011
NA
<.050
<.005
NA
0.179
<0.0002
<0.005
<0.1
NA
NA
<0.01
NA
NA
194
<0.0001
424
NA
NA
<0.01
CMW-6*
Saprolite
Compliance
10/11/2011
NA
0.0988
<.005
NA
1 0.135
<0.0002
<0.005
<0.2
NA
NA
<0.01
NA
NA
14.9
<0.0001
396
NA
NA
0.0402
CMW-6*
Saprolite
Compliance
3/13/2012
NA
.095 b
<.005
NA
0.0176
<0.0002
<0.005
<0.2
NA
NA
<0.01
NA
NA
181
<0.0001
411
NA
NA
<0.01
CMW-6*
Saprolite
Compliance
6/12/2012
NA
0.0919
<.005
NA
0.362
<0.0002
<0.005
0.043 b
NA
NA
<0.01
NA
NA
210
<0.0001
509
NA
NA
<0.01
CMW-6*
Saprolite
Compliance
10/15/2012
NA
0.202
<.005
NA
0.0467
<0.0002
<0.005
<0.02
NA
NA
<0.01
NA
NA
139
<0.0001
375
NA
NA
<0.01
CMW-fi*
Saprolite
Compliance
3/4/2013
NA
0.054
<.001
NA
0.029
<0.00005
<0.005
<0.023
NA
NA
<0.001
NA
NA
160
<0.0002
410
NA
NA
<0.005
CMW-fi*
Saprolite
Compliance
6/3/2013
NA
0.084
<.001
NA
0.058
<0.00005
<0.005
<0.023
NA
NA
<0.001
NA
NA
170
<0.0002
390
NA
NA
<0.005
r:\�er+�'gy rmgress.1026\aee NC m'Es\�r�r��'�GvemNes\cwassessre.arlar�s\�per�'\p1412sl care "sed\7ad�\7ad�3-aczpe eeaz.dR

TABLE 4
GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
CAPE FEAR STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC., MONCURE, NORTH CAROLINA
Analytical Parameter
Fluoride
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Nitrate
Nitrite
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Sulfate
Thallium
TDS
TOC
TOX
Zinc
Units
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
15 NCAC .02L .0202(g) Groundwater Quality Standard
NE
0.3
0.015
NE
0.05
0.001
0.1
10
NE
NE
0.02
0.02
NE
250
0.0002
500
NE
NE
I
Analytical Method
NA
200.7
200.8
200.8
NA
245.1
200.7
300
NA
NA
200.8
NA
NA
300
200.8
NA
NA
NA
200.7
Sample ID
Hydrostratgraphic Unit
Well Type
Sample Date
Constituent Concentrations
CMW-6*
Saprolite
Compliance
10/8/2013
NA
0.069
<.001
NA
0.029
<0.00005
<0.005
<0.023
NA
NA
<0.001
NA
NA
160
<0.0002
410
NA
NA
<0.005
CMW-6*
Saprolite
Compliance
3/13/2014
NA
0.024
<.001
NA
0.027
<0.00005
<0.005
<0.023
NA
NA
<0.001
NA
NA
150
<0.0002
380
NA
NA
<0.005
CMW-6*
Saprolite
Compliance
6/10/2014
NA
0.104
<.001
NA
0.037
<0.00005
<0.005
<0.023
NA
NA
<0.001
NA
NA
140
<0.0002
370
NA
NA
<0.005
CMW-7*
Saprolite
Compliance
12/17/2010
NA
8.47
<.005
NA
5.48
<0.0002
<0.005
<0.1
NA
NA
<0.01
NA
NA
103
<0.0001
303
NA
NA
<0.01
CMW-7*
Saprolite
Compliance
3/8/2011
NA
1.84
<.005
NA
4.85
<0.0002
<0.005
<0.1
NA
NA
<0.01
NA
NA
96.2
<0.0001
364 b
NA
NA
<0.01
CMW-7*
Saprolite
Compliance
6/2/2011
NA
9.25
<.005
NA
5.27
<0.0002
<0.005
<0.1
NA
NA
<0.01
NA
NA
87.9
<0.0001
282
NA
NA
<0.01
CMW-7*
Saprolite
Compliance
10/11/2011
NA
9.92
<.005
NA
5.6
<0.0002
<0.005
<0.2
NA
NA
<0.01
NA
NA
16.4
<0.0001
285
NA
NA
<0.01
CMW-7*
Saprolite
Compliance
3/13/2012
NA
8.73
<.005
NA
4.55
<0.0002
<0.005
0.23
NA
NA
<0.01
NA
NA
73.4
<0.0001
255
NA
NA
<0.01
CMW-7*
Saprolite
Compliance
6/12/2012
NA
13.2
<.005
NA
6.03
<0.0002
<0.005
<0.02
NA
NA
<0.01
NA
NA
99.2
<0.0001
327
NA
NA
<0.01
CMW-7*
Saprolite
Compliance
10/15/2012
NA
12.5
<.005
NA
6.3
1 <0.0002
<0.005
<0.02
1 NA
NA
<0.01
NA
NA
117
1 <0.0001
333
NA
NA
<0.01
CMW-7*
Saprolite
Compliance
3/4/2013
NA
12.4
<.001
NA
5.8
<0.00005
<0.005
0.035
NA
NA
<0.001
NA
NA
88
<0.0002
340
NA
NA
<0.005
CMW-7*
Saprolite
Compliance
6/3/2013
NA
16
<.001
NA
6.38
<0.00005
<0.005
<0.023
NA
NA
<0.001
NA
NA
110
<0.0002
330
NA
NA
<0.005
CMW-7*
Saprolite
Compliance
10/9/2013
NA
19.2
<.001
NA
9.04
<0.00005
<0.005
<0.023
NA
NA
<0.001
NA
NA
170
<0.0002
440
NA
NA
<0.005
CMW-7*
Saprolite
Compliance
3/13/2014
NA
0.817
<.001
NA
0.655
<0.00005
<0.005
0.03
NA
NA
<0.001
NA
NA
10
<0.0002
79
NA
NA
0.011
CMW-8*
Saprolite
Compliance
12/17/2010
NA
35.2
<.005
NA
9.77
<0.0002
<0.005
<0.1
NA
NA
<0.01
NA
NA
129
<0.0001
381
NA
NA
<0.01
CMW-8*
Saprolite
Compliance
3/8/2011
NA
41.3
<.005
NA
18
<0.0002
<0.005
<0.1
NA
NA
<0.01
NA
NA
109
<0.0001
435 b
NA
NA
<0.01
CMW-8*
Saprolite
Compliance
6/2/2011
NA
22.7
<.005
NA
12.6
<0.0002
<0.005
<0.1
NA
NA
<0.01
NA
NA
128
<0.0001
366
NA
NA
<0.01
CMW-8*
Saprolite
Compliance
10/10/2011
NA
27.9
<.005
NA
9.91
<0.0002
<0.005
<0.2
NA
NA
<0.01
NA
NA
28
<0.0001
365
NA
NA
<0.01
CMW-8*
Saprolite
Compliance
3/13/2012
NA
38.6
<.005
NA
15.3
<0.0002
<0.005
<0.2
NA
NA
<0.01
NA
NA
102
<0.0001
408
NA
NA
<0.01
CMW-8*
Saprolite
Compliance
6/12/2012
NA
42.4
<.005
NA
12.7
<0.0002
<0.005
<0.02
NA
NA
<0.01
NA
NA
124
<0.0001
418
NA
NA
<0.01
CMW-8*
Saprolite
Compliance
10/16/2012
NA
39
<.005
NA
9.82
<0.0002
<0.005
<0.02
NA
NA
<0.01
NA
NA
166
<0.0001
401
NA
NA
<0.01
CMW-8*
Saprolite
Compliance
3/5/2013
NA
52.7
<.001
NA
14.4
<0.00005
0.006
<0.023
NA
NA
<0.001
NA
NA
110
<0.0002
440
NA
NA
<0.005
CMW-8*
Saprolite
Compliance
6/4/2013
NA
49.9
<.001
NA
14.4
<0.00005
<0.005
0.03
NA
NA
<0.001
NA
NA
120
<0.0002
470
NA
NA
<0.005
CMW-8*
Saprolite
Compliance
10/8/2013
NA
26.1
<.001
NA
10.1
<0.00005
<0.005
<0.023
NA
NA
<0.001
NA
NA
130
<0.0002
410
NA
NA
<0.005
CMW-8*
Saprolite
Compliance
3/12/2014
NA
50.4
<.001
NA
15.7
<0.00005
0.007
<0.023
NA
NA
<0.001
NA
NA
130
<0.0002
430
NA
NA
<0.005
CMW-8*
Saprolite
Compliance
6/10/2014
NA
41.8
<.001
NA
12.5
<0.00005
0.006
<0.023
NA
NA
<0.001
NA
NA
130
<0.0002
470
NA
NA
<0.005
CRMW-1*
Bedrock
Compliance
12/17/2010
NA
0.723
<.005
NA
1.22
<0.0002
<0.005
<0.1
NA
NA
<0.01
NA
NA
97.7
<0.0001
412
NA
NA
<0.01
CRMW-1*
Bedrock
Compliance
3/8/2011
NA
0.822
<.005
NA
1.22
<0.0002
<0.005
<0.1
NA
NA
<0.01
NA
NA
96.4
<0.0001
491
NA
NA
<0.01
CRMW-1*
Bedrock
Compliance
6/2/2011
NA
.416 b
<.005
NA
0.303
<0.0002
<0.005
<0.1
NA
NA
<0.01
NA
NA
89.1
<0.0001
412
NA
NA
<0.01
CRMW-1*
Bedrock
Compliance
10/11/2011
NA
0.886
<.005
NA
1.25
<0.0002
<0.005
<0.2
NA
NA
<0.01
NA
NA
17.8
<0.0001
431
NA
NA
<0.01
CRMW-1*
Bedrock
Compliance
3/12/2012
NA
1.480 b
<.005
NA
1.16
<0.0002
<0.005
<0.2
NA
NA
<0.01
NA
NA
121
<0.0001
436
NA
NA
<0.01
CRMW-1*
Bedrock
Compliance
6/12/2012
NA
1.21
<.005
NA
1.46
<0.0002
<0.005
<0.02
NA
NA
<0.01
NA
NA
89
<0.0001
445
NA
NA
<0.01
CRMW-1*
Bedrock
Compliance
10/15/2012
NA
0.951
<.005
NA
1.26
<0.0002
<0.005
<0.02
NA
NA
<0.01
NA
NA
79.7
<0.0001
429
NA
NA
<0.01
CRMW-1*
Bedrock
Compliance
3/4/2013
NA
0.887
<.001
NA
1.46
<0.00005
<0.005
<0.023
NA
NA
<0.001
NA
NA
97
<0.0002
450
NA
NA
<0.005
CRMW-1*
Bedrock
Compliance
6/3/2013
NA
0.899
<.001
NA
1.26
<0.00005
<0.005
0.04
NA
NA
<0.001
NA
NA
110
<0.0002
460
NA
NA
0.006
CRMW-1*
Bedrock
Compliance
10/9/2013
NA
0.823
<.001
NA
1.25
<0.00005
<0.005
0.03
NA
NA
<0.001
NA
NA
100
<0.0002
460
NA
NA
<0.005
CRMW-1*
Bedrock
Compliance
3/12/2014
NA
0.798
<.001
NA
1.44
<0.00005
<0.005
<0.023
NA
NA
<0.001
NA
NA
110
<0.0002
460
NA
NA
<0.005
CRMW-1*
Bedrock
Compliance
6/9/2014
NA
0.54
<.001
NA
0.979
<0.00005
<0.005
<0.023
NA
NA
<0.001
NA
NA
100
<0.0002
460
NA
NA
<0.005
CRMW-2*
Bedrock
Compliance
12/16/2010
NA
0.268
<.005
NA
0.0291
<0.0002
<0.005
<0.1
NA
NA
<0.01
NA
NA
9.2
<0.0001
147
NA
NA
<0.01
CRMW-2*
Bedrock
Compliance
3/8/2011
NA
0.194
<.005
NA
0.0519
<0.0002
<0.005
<0.1
NA
NA
<0.01
NA
NA
5.7 b
<0.0001
213 b
NA
NA
<0.01
CRMW-2*
Bedrock
Compliance
6/9/2011
NA
1.34
<.005
NA
0.0349
<0.0002
<0.005
<0.1
NA
NA
<0.01
NA
NA
<5
<0.0001
182
NA
NA
<0.01
CRMW-2*
Bedrock
Compliance
10/11/2011
NA
0.402
<.005
NA
0.0461
<0.0002
<0.005
<0.2
NA
NA
<0.01
NA
NA
<5
<0.0001
175
NA
NA
<0.01
CRMW-2*
Bedrock
Compliance
3/13/2012
NA
.0647 b
<.005
NA
0.0052
<0.0002
<0.005
0.37
NA
NA
<0.01
NA
NA
14.2
<0.0001
179
NA
NA
<0.01
CRMW-2*
Bedrock
Compliance
6/11/2012
NA
0.136
<.005
NA
0.0125
<0.0002
<0.005
0.44 b
NA
NA
<0.01
NA
NA
15.1
<0.0001
165
NA
NA
<0.01
CRMW-2*
Bedrock
Compliance
10/16/2012
NA
0.0916
<.005
NA
0.046
<0.0002
<0.005
<0.02
1 NA
NA
<0.01
NA
NA
19
1 <0.0001
160
NA
NA
<0.01
CRMW-2*
Bedrock
Compliance
3/5/2013
NA
0.016
<.001
NA
0.006
<0.00005
<0.005
0.17
NA
NA
<0.001
NA
NA
13
<0.0002
190
NA
NA
0.006
CRMW-2*
Bedrock
Compliance
6/4/2013
NA
0.097
<.001
NA
0.015
<0.00005
<0.005
0.28
NA
NA
<0.001
NA
NA
14
<0.0002
190
NA
NA
0.006
CRMW-2*
Bedrock
Compliance
10/8/2013
NA
0.083
<.001
NA
0.01
<0.00005
<0.005
0.13
NA
NA
<0.001
NA
NA
12
<0.0002
190
NA
NA
<0.005
CRMW-2*
Bedrock
Compliance
3/12/2014
NA
0.06
<.001
NA
0.007
<0.00005
<0.005
0.1
NA
NA
<0.001
NA
NA
8.9
<0.0002
200
NA
NA
<0.005
CRMW-2*
Bedrock
Compliance
6/10/2014
NA
0.039
<.001
NA
0.009
<0.00005
<0.005
0.12
NA
NA
<0.001
NA
NA
9.6
<0.0002
190
NA
NA
<0.005
CRMW-7*
Bedrock
Compliance
12/21/2010
NA
0.165
<.005
NA
0.105
<0.0002
<0.005
<0.1
NA
NA
<0.01
NA
NA
98.3
<0.0001
365
NA
NA
<0.01
CRMW-7*
Bedrock
Compliance
3/8/2011
NA
0.673
<.005
NA
0.0892
<0.0002
<0.005
<0.1
NA
NA
<0.01
NA
NA
73
<0.0001
373 b
NA
NA
<0.01
CRMW-7*
Bedrock
Compliance
6/3/2011
NA
.179 b
<.005
NA
0.148
<0.0002
0.0067
<0.1
NA
NA
<0.01
NA
NA
89.3
<0.0001
361
NA
NA
<0.01
CRMW-7*
Bedrock
Compliance
10/11/2011
NA
0.19
<.005
NA
0.0282
<0.0002
<0.005
<0.2
NA
NA
<0.01
NA
NA
15.7
<0.0001
343
NA
NA
<0.01
CRMW-7*
Bedrock
Compliance
3/13/2012
NA
.303 b
<.005
NA
0.053
<0.0002
<0.005
<0.2
NA
NA
<0.01
NA
NA
67.3
<0.0001
353
NA
NA
<0.01
CRMW-7*
Bedrock
Compliance
6/12/2012
NA
0.15
<.005
NA
0.0477
1 <0.0002
<0.005
0.048 b
NA
NA
<0.01
NA
NA
76.1
<0.0001
333
NA
NA
<0.01
CRMW-7*
Bedrock
Compliance
10/15/2012
NA
0.0666
<.005
NA
0.0805
<0.0002
<0.005
0.049 b
NA
NA
<0.01
NA
NA
87.6
<0.0001
319
NA
NA
<0.01
CRMW-7*
Bedrock
Compliance
3/4/2013
NA
0.019
<.001
NA
0.371
<0.00005
<0.005
<0.023
NA
NA
<0.001
NA
NA
76
<0.0002
360
NA
NA
<0.005
CRMW-7*
Bedrock
Compliance
6/3/2013
NA
0.068
<.001
NA
0.291
<0.00005
<0.005
0.04
NA
NA
<0.001
NA
NA
87
<0.0002
370
NA
NA
<0.005
CRMW-7*
Bedrock
Compliance
10/9/2013
NA
0.099
<.001
NA
0.634
<0.00005
<0.005
<0.023
NA
NA
<0.001
NA
NA
89
<0.0002
390
NA
NA
<0.005
CRMW-7*
Bedrock
Compliance
3/13/2014
NA
0.064
<.001
NA
0.758
<0.00005
<0.005
0.04
NA
NA
<0.001
NA
NA
91
<0.0002
360
NA
NA
<0.005
CRMW-7*
Bedrock
Compliance
6/10/2014
NA
0.03
<.001
NA
0.276
<0.00005
<0.005
<0.023
NA
NA
<0.001
NA
NA
85
<0.0002
390
NA
NA
<0.005
CRMW-8*
Bedrock
Compliance
12/16/2010
NA
1.24
<.005
NA
0.409
<0.0002
<0.005
<0.1
NA
NA
<0.01
NA
NA
99.3
<0.0001
608
NA
NA
<0.01
CRMW-8*
Bedrock
Compliance
3/8/2011
NA
2.17
<.005
NA
0.568
<0.0002
<0.005
<0.1
NA
NA
<0.01
NA
NA
108
<0.0001
616
NA
NA
<0.01
CRMW-8*
Bedrock
Compliance
6/1/2011
NA
1.180 b
<.005
NA
0.475
1 <0.0002
<0.005
<0.1
NA
NA
<0.01
NA
NA
95.2
<0.0001
561
NA
NA
<0.01
CRMW-8*
Bedrock
Compliance
10/10/2011
NA
1.23
<.005
NA
0.586
<0.0002
<0.005
<0.2
NA
NA
<0.01
NA
NA
16.4
<0.0001
480
NA
NA
<0.01
CRMW-8*
Bedrock
Compliance
3/13/2012
NA
1.540 b
<.005
NA
0.709
<0.0002
<0.005
<0.2
NA
NA
<0.01
NA
NA
95.3
<0.0001
503
NA
NA
<0.01
CRMW-8*
Bedrock
Compliance
6/12/2012
NA
1.68
<.005
NA
0.658
<0.0002
<0.005
0.025 b
NA
NA
<0.01
NA
NA
90.6
<0.0001
502
NA
NA
<0.01
CRMW-8*
Bedrock
Compliance
10/16/2012
NA
0.434
<.005
NA
0.269
<0.0002
<0.005
0.44
NA
NA
<0.01
NA
NA
151
<0.0001
476
NA
NA
<0.01
CRMW-8*
Bedrock
Compliance
3/5/2013
NA
1.19
<.001
NA
0.733
<0.00005
<0.005
<0.023
NA
NA
<0.001
NA
NA
87
<0.0002
500
NA
NA
<0.005
CRMW-8*
Bedrock
Compliance
6/4/2013
NA
0.958
<.001
NA
0.737
<0.00005
<0.005
0.02
NA
NA
<0.001
NA
NA
91
<0.0002
480
NA
NA
<0.005
CRMW-8*
Bedrock
Compliance
10/8/2013
NA
0.68
<.001
NA
0.642
<0.00005
<0.005
0.06
NA
NA
<0.001
NA
NA
99
<0.0002
480
NA
NA
<0.005
CRMW-8*
Bedrock
Compliance
3/12/2014
NA
1.85
<.001
NA
0.947
<0.00005
<0.005
<0.023
NA
NA
<0.001
NA
NA
110
<0.0002
510
NA
NA
<0.005
CRMW-8*
Bedrock
Compliance
6/10/2014
NA
1.09
<.001
NA
0.814
<0.00005
<0.005
0.03
NA
NA
<0.001
NA
NA
100
<0.0002
500
NA
NA
<0.005
MW-10***
Transition Zone
Voluntary
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
MW-SO***
Transition Zone
Voluntary
3
NA
3.23
0.00073 j
50.5
9.68
<0.00006
0.0055 j
<250
NA
2.3
<0.0005
NA
33.6
590
<0.00015
944
NA
NA
0.0448
MW-11***
Saprolite
Voluntary
3
NA
1.76
0.00013j
34
2.41
<0.00006
0.0066j
<250
NA
1.06
<0.0005
NA
46
215
<0.00015
517
NA
NA
0.0315
MW-12***
Saprolite
Voluntary
3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
MW-12***
Saprolite
Voluntary
3
M9/3/2013NA
NA
1.57
0.00021j
26.9
2.69
<0.00006
<0.0015
<250
NA
0.543
<0.0005
NA
130
268
<0.00015
671
NA
NA
0.009j
MW-13***
Saprolite
Voluntary
3
NA
.154j
<0.000085
12.7
0.582
<0.00006
0.0052j
<250
NA
0.212j
<0.0005
NA
29.6
94
<0.00015
234
NA
NA
0.0213
MW-14***
Bedrock
Voluntary
3
NA
7.37
0.002
4.91
0.525
<0.00006
0.0127
Q50
NA
7.32
<0.000!
NA
83.6
30.9
<0.00015
266
NA
NA
0.0371
MW-9***Saprolite
Voluntary
3
NA
NANANANA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
MW-9***
Sa route
Voluntar
3
NA
1.06
0.00024'
22.4
0.678
<0.00006
0.0036'
<250
1 NA
1.4
<0.0005
NA
55.7
22
<0.00015
393
NA
NA
0.0206
r:\�er+�'gy rmgress.1026\aee NC m'Es\�r�r�ttft'�GvemNes\cwassessrent rlar�s\�per�'\p1412sl care "sed\7ad�\7ad�3-aczpe eeaz.dR

TABLE 4
GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
CAPE FEAR STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC., MONCURE, NORTH CAROLINA
Analytical Parameter
Fluoride
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Nitrate
Nitrite
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Sulfate
Thallium
TDS
TOC
TOX
Zinc
Units
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
15 NCAC .02L .0202(g) Groundwater Quality Standard
NE
0.3
0.015
NE
0.05
0.001
0.1
10
NE
NE
0.02
0.02
NE
250
0.0002
500
NE
NE
I
Analytical Method
NA
200.7
200.8
200.8
NA
245.1
200.7
300
NA
NA
200.5
NA
NA
300
200.8
NA
NA
NA
200.7
Sample ID
Hydrostratgraphic Unit
Well Type
Sample Date
Constituent Concentrations
PZ-1***
Saprolite
Voluntary
9/10/2013
NA
14.5
<.002
41.5
4.27
<0.00006
0.0054j
<250
NA
0.536
<0.0005
NA
66.3
290
<0.00015
659
NA
NA
0.00213
PZ-1**
Saprolite
Voluntary
3/7/2007
<0.05
23.5
0.00038
65.8
9.55
<0.00011
0.0096
0.01
<0.0059
0.87
<0.002
<0.002
97.9
420
<0.000044
890
2.4
<0.01
0.0047
PZ-1**
Saprolite
Voluntary
12/19/2007
<0.2
46.6
0.0027
NA
5.35
<0.0001
0.0071
<0.05
<0.05
NA
0.00066
0.000041
NA
448
0.00012
815
<5
<0.03
0.0069
PZ-1**
Saprolite
Voluntary
4/30/2008
<0.2
42.4
0.002
NA
4.3
<0.0001
0.0064
<0.05
<0.05
NA
0.0018
<0.000054
NA
434
<0.000068
960
<5
0.0513
0.012
PZ-1**
Saprolite
Voluntary
12/8/2008
<0.5
30.2
<.001
NA
4.88
0.00022
0.0082
<0.05
<0.05
NA
0.0032
<0.000011
NA
360
0.000027
787
1.42
<0.03
0.0093
PZ-1**
Saprolite
Voluntary
6/3/2009
<0.5
27.1
<.001
NA
3.05
<0.0002
0.0094
<0.05
<0.05
NA
<0.005
<0.001
NA
390
<0.001
920
3.08
<0.03
0.0172
PZ-1**
Saprolite
Voluntary
10/19/2009
<0.25
28
0.014
NA
4.25
<0.0002
0.0044
<0.05
<0.25
NA
<0.005
<0.001
NA
320
<0.001
787
2.64
<0.03
0.012
PZ-1**
Saprolite
Voluntary
4/22/2010
<0.1
17.2
0.000098 j
NA
4.1
<0.0001
<0.04
<0.02
<0.02
NA
<0.01
0.0064
NA
350
<0.05
360
2.6
0.0079
<0.02
PI-2***
Saprolite
Voluntary
9/3/2013
NA
0.411
<.002
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
PZ-2***
Saprolite
Voluntary
9/4/2013
NA
0.555
0.000048
17.1
2.58
<0.00006
0.0036j
<250
NA
0.95
<0.0005
NA
68.6
187
<0.00015
426
NA
NA
<0.002
PZ-2"
Saprolite
Voluntary
3/7/2007
<0.05
10.2
0.0014
24.4
4.44
<0.00011
0.0031
0.01
<0.0059
0.09
<0.002
<0.002
111
290
<0.000044
600
2
0.0173
0.0018
PZ-2"
Saprolite
Voluntary
12/19/2007
<0.2
0.954
0.000082
NA
3.31
<0.0001
0.0042
<0.05
<0.05
NA
0.0007
<0.000022
NA
267
0.000046
550
<5
0.0636
0.0036
PZ-2"
Saprolite
Voluntary
4/30/2008
<0.2
1.51
<.001
NA
3.18
<0.0001
0.004
<0.05
<0.05
NA
0.0026
<0.000054
NA
289
<0.000068
685
<5
0.145
0.0036
PZ-2"
Saprolite
Voluntary
12/8/2008
<0.5
1.33
<.001
NA
2.74
0.0001
0.0049
<0.05
<0.05
NA
0.0049
<0.000011
NA
230
<0.000011
534
1.9
<0.03
0.0073
PZ-2"
Saprolite
Voluntary
6/3/2009
<0.5
1.1
<.010
NA
2.52
<0.0002
0.004
<0.05
<0.05
NA
<0.005
<0.001
NA
240
<0.001
663
2.38
<0.03
0.0107
PZ-2"
Saprolite
Voluntary
10/19/2009
0.31
NA
NA
NA
2.46
<0.0002
0.004
<0.05
<0.25
NA
<0.005
<0.001
NA
210
<0.001
528
1.77
0.0318
0.019
PZ-2"
Saprolite
Voluntary
4/22/2010
0.19
0.881
<0.000085
NA
2.4
0.00013
<0.04
0.065
<0.02
NA
<0.01
<0.005
NA
220
<0.05
53
2.9
0.0101
<0.02
PZ-3D***
Bedrock
Voluntary
9/3/2013
NA
<.020
<.002
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
PZ-3D***
Bedrock
Voluntary
9/4/2013
NA
0.161
0.00012
9.45
0.0138
<0.00006
<0.0015
<250
NA
2.46
<0.0005
NA
67.8
93.6
<0.00015
392
NA
NA
<0.002
PZ-3D"
Bedrock
Voluntary
3/7/2007
<0.05
<0.0085
0.000052
13.6
0.518
<0.00011
<0.002
<0.007
<0.0059
7.95
<0.002
<0.002
83.9
68
<0.000044
440
1
0.0144
0.0014
PZ-3D"
Bedrock
Voluntary
12/19/2007
<0.2
0.0346
<0.000013
NA
0.54
<0.0001
0.00083
<0.05
<0.05
NA
0.0006
<0.000022
NA
75.9
0.000013
410
<5
0.0782
0.0044
PZ-3D"
Bedrock
Voluntary
4/30/2008
<0.2
<.100
<.001
NA
0.0983
<0.0001
0.001
<0.05
<0.05
NA
0.0015
<0.000054
NA
82.8
<0.000068
445
2.88
<0.03
0.0043
PZ-3D"
Bedrock
Voluntary
12/8/2008
0.32
<.100
<.001
NA
0.0412
<0.0001
0.0026
<0.05
<0.05
NA
0.0034
<0.000011
NA
80
<0.000011
421
<5
<0.03
0.0017
PZ-3D"
Bedrock
Voluntary
6/3/2009
<0.5
<.100
<.010
NA
0.0707
<0.0002
0.0013
<0.05
<0.05
NA
<0.005
<0.001
NA
87
<0.001
472
1.49
<0.03
0.0071
PZ-3D"
Bedrock
Voluntary
10/19/2009
0.35
NA
NA
NA
0.133
<0.0002
0.0014
0.47
<0.25
NA
<0.005
<0.001
NA
80
<0.001
419
<1
0.0339
0.0104
PZ-3D"
Bedrock
Voluntary
4/22/2010
0.19
<.043
<0.000085
NA
0.021
<0.0001
<0.04
0.17
<0.02
NA
<0.01
<0.005
NA
89
<0.05
<10
2.6
0.041
<0.02
PZ-3S"'
Saprolite
Voluntary
9/3/2013
NA
2.63
<.002
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
PZ-3S***
Saprolite
Voluntary
9/4/2013
NA
0.0872
0.00009
15.5
0.0328
<0.00006
<0.0015
<250
NA
0.105j
<0.0005
NA
130
182
<0.00015
547
NA
NA
<0.002
PZ-3S"
Saprolite
Voluntary
3/7/2007
0.51
0.0702
0.000074
12.9
0.114
<0.00011
<0.002
<0.007
<0.0059
1.36
<0.002
<0.002
158
170
<0.000044
510
2.8
0.0145
0.0083
PZ-3S"
Saprolite
Voluntary
12/19/2007
0.75
0.331
0.00017
NA
0.0601
<0.0001
0.0039
<0.05
<0.05
NA
0.00084
<0.000022
NA
177
0.000011
510
<5
<0.03
0.0028
PZ-3S"
Saprolite
Voluntary
4/30/2008
1.16
<.100
<.001
NA
0.0952
<0.0001
0.00059
<0.05
<0.05
NA
0.0031
<0.000054
NA
183
<0.000068
515
<5
<0.03
0.0016
PZ-3S"
Saprolite
Voluntary
12/8/2008
1.1
<.100
<.001
NA
0.046
0.0002
0.0013
<0.05
<0.05
NA
0.0058
<0.000011
NA
160
<0.000011
502
1.01
<0.03
0.0057
PZ-3S"
Saprolite
Voluntary
6/3/2009
1.1
0.18
<.010
NA
0.0495
<0.0002
<0.001
0.57
<0.05
NA
0.005
<0.001
NA
180
<0.001
519
1.03
<0.03
0.007
PZ-3S"
Saprolite
Voluntary
10/19/2009
1.2
NA
NA
NA
0.0332
<0.0002
0.0011
<0.25
<0.05
NA
<0.005
<0.001
NA
170
<0.001
510
1.14
<0.03
0.0157
PZ-3S"
Saprolite
Voluntary
4/22/2010
0.83
.107 j
<0.000085
NA
0.056
<0.0001
<0.04
0.071
<0.02
NA
<0.01
<0.005
NA
180
<0.05
32
2.2
0.0268
<0.02
PZ-4***
Saprolite
Voluntary
9/3/2013
NA
0.881
<.002
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
PZ-4***
Saprolite
Voluntary
9/6/2013
NA
0.274
0.000071
23.8
0.111
<0.00006
<0.0015
<250
NA
0.137j
<0.0005
NA
91.4
170
<0.00015
475
NA
NA
<0.002
PZ-4"
Saprolite
Voluntary
3/7/2007
0.27
0.677
0.00022
34.4
0.117
1 <0.00011
<0.002
<0.007
1 <0.0059
0.29
0.0031
<0.002
212
260
<0.000044
840
1.8
0.0149
<0.001
PZ-4"
Saprolite
Voluntary
12/19/2007
0.67
0.fi95
0.00027
NA
0.0573
<0.0001
0.001
<0.05
<0.05
NA
0.00093
<0.000022
NA
218
0.000009
643
<5
0.103
0.0548
PZ-4"
Saprolite
Voluntary
4/30/2008
0.54
1.45
0.0016
NA
0.0335
<0.0001
0.0011
<0.05
<0.05
NA
0.0044
<0.000054
NA
207
<0.000068
584
<5
<0.03
0.0031
PZ-4"
Saprolite
Voluntary
12/8/2008
0.74
0.566
<.001
NA
0.0463
0.00013
0.0023
<0.05
<0.05
NA
0.0078
<0.000011
NA
180
<0.000011
574
<5
<0.03
0.0035
PZ-4"
Saprolite
Voluntary
6/3/2009
0.58
0.41
<.010
NA
0.0714
<0.0002
0.0025
<0.05
<0.05
NA
0.0058
<0.001
NA
190
<0.001
670
<1
<0.03
0.0151
PZ-4"
Saprolite
Voluntary
10/19/2009
0.79
NA
NA
NA
0.0617
<0.0002
0.0017
<0.05
<0.25
NA
<0.005
<0.001
NA
190
<0.001
598
<1
0.0334
0.0095
PZ-4"
Saprolite
Voluntary
4/22/2010
0.44
.0464j
<0.000085
NA
0.075
0.00011
<0.04
0.098
<0.02
NA
<0.01
<0.005
NA
180
<0.05
56
1.5
0.0177
<0.02
PZ-5***
Saprolite
Voluntary
9/10/2013
NA
114
0.0533
26.4
2.39
<0.00006
0.0074j
<250
NA
0.331j
<0.0005
NA
54.7
269
<0.00015
493
NA
NA
<0.002
PZ-5**
Saprolite
Voluntary
3/7/2007
<0.05
0.144
0.000076
69.1
5.14
0.0003
0.0848
<0.007
<0.0059
8.47
<0.002
<0.002
74.3
280
0.000478
570
2.7
0.0796
0.36
PZ-5**
Saprolite
Voluntary
12/19/2007
<0.2
0.1
0.000079
NA
1.64
<0.0001
0.0087
<0.05
<0.05
NA
0.0011
<0.000022
NA
288
0.000014
514
<5
<0.03
0.0079
PZ-5**
Saprolite
Voluntary
4/30/2008
<0.2
0.354
0.00026
NA
1.92
<0.0001
0.0089
<0.05
<0.05
NA
0.0037
<0.000054
NA
318
<0.000068
743
<5
<0.03
0.0074
PZ-5**
Saprolite
Voluntary
12/8/2008
0.37
<.100
<.001
NA
2.14
0.00011
0.0104
<0.05
<0.05
NA
0.0071
<0.000011
NA
300
<0.000011
550
<5
<0.03
0.0088
PZ-5**
Saprolite
Voluntary
6/3/2009
<0.5
<.100
<.001
NA
2.16
<0.0002
0.0073
<0.05
<0.05
NA
0.0059
<0.001
NA
340
<0.001
757
1.83
<0.03
0.0139
PZ-5**
Saprolite
Voluntary
10/19/2009
0.3
<.100
<.010
NA
2.28
<0.0002
0.0078
<0.05
<0.25
NA
<0.005
<0.001
NA
290
<0.001
615
<1
<0.03
0.499
PZ-5**
Saprolite
Voluntary
4/22/2010
0.25
0.227
0.00012 j
NA
2.6
<0.0001
<0.04
0.061
<0.02
NA
<0.01
<0.005
NA
290
<0.05
32
1.6
<0.0033
<0.02
PZ-9***
Saprolite
Voluntary
9/5/2013
NA
0.92
0.0014
4.21
0.217
<0.00006
0.0219
1200
NA
0.996
<0.0005
NA
12.2
5.4
<0.00015
87
NA
NA
0.0572
Notes:
1. Analytical parameter abbreviations:
Temp. = TemperaWre
DO = Dissolved oxygen
ORP = Oxidation reduction potential
TDS = Tobl dissoHed solids
TSS = Tobl suspended solids
TOC = Tobl organic carbon
2. Units:
'C = Degrees Cekios
SU = Sbndard Units
mV =millivolts
pS/cm = microsiemens per centimeter
NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Unit
mg/L =milligrams per liter
BTOC = Below top of casing
3. NE = Not esbblished
4. NA = Not available
5. NM = Not measured
6 Highlighted values indicate values that exceed the 15 NCAC .02L .0202(g) Sbndard
7. Analytical results with "<" pmo-ding the result indicate thatthe parameter was not dl txted at a
concentration which otbins or exceeds be laboratory reporting limit.
* Sample data by SynTerra
** Sample data provided by Duke
*** Sample data was obtuined fiom be Geosyntec, 2013 Preliminary Site Investigation Dab Report,
Conceptual Closure pan, Cape Fear pant, November 2013, unpublished manuscript.
8. Indudes dab through ]uly 2014
r:\ake r+�'gy rmgress.1026\aee NC m'Es\�rNRt�uea�GvemNes\cwassessrent rlar�s\ape reaz'\p1412sl care "sed\7aNes\7aNes 3-aczpe eeaz.dR

TABLE 5
SOIL AND ASH ANALYTICAL RESULTS
CAPE FEAR STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC., MONCURE, NORTH CAROLINA
Analytical Parameter
Aluminum
Arsenic
Lead
Antimony
Boron
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Thallium
Zinc
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
Sample Name and
Depth (ft-bls)
Source
Location
Sample Date
Constituent Concentrations
BG-1 (2.0-2.5)
Soil
East of 1956 Ash Basin
8/20/2013
25600
1.61
19.2
<0.0992
5.26 j
<0.053
27.2
7.95
234
0.0387 j
4.95
0.414 j
0.349
19.8
BG-2 (2.0-2.5)
Soil
East of 1956 Ash Basin
8/20/2013
44400
3.32
16.8
<0.117
9 j
<0.0625
40.4
16.8
134
0.113 j
9.2
0.795 j
0.347
33
BG-3 (2.0-2.5)
Soil
East of 1956 Ash Basin
8/20/2013
17600
2.16
12.9
<0.104
6.54 j
<0.0554
26.9
8.06
155
0.0536 j
3.44
0.638 j
0.159 j
16.6
BG-4 (2.0-2.5)
Soil
South of 1985 Ash Basin
8/22/2013
21100
1.83
15.3
<0.118
5.89 j
<0.0631
30.8
18.2
3830
0.0592 j
11.2
0.399 j
0.224 j
47.3
BG-5 (2.0-2.5)
Soil
South of 1985 Ash Basin
8/22/2013
21300
2.09
13.6
<0.108
5.93 j
<0.0579
30.6
19.1
2330
0.0514 j
11.8
0.511 j
0.182 j
47.1
MW-10 (9.0-9.5)
Soil
1956 Ash Basin
8/22/2013
14300
1.37
6.11
<0.107
5.86 j
<0.0572
17.5
14
491
<0.012
6.98
0.305 j
0.0948 j
25.7
MW-11 (8.5-9.0)
Soil
North of 1985 Ash Basin
8/19/2013
20100
2.41
15.8
0.124 j
7.28 j
<0.0598
25.3
17.6
3020
0.0529 j
9.05
0.517 j
0.236 j
42.5
MW-11 (11.0-11.5)
Soil
North of 1985 Ash Basin
8/19/2013
15400
2.08
8.96
<0.105
5.78 j
<0.056
19.6
14.6
353
0.0142 j
10.2
<0.122
0.127 j
35.7
MW-12 (7.0-7.5)
Soil
South of 1985 Ash Basin
8/23/2013
24500
2.58
13.7
<0.102
3.08 j
<0.057
26.5
20.4
1000
<0.012
12
0.153 j
0.135 j
42.7
MW-13 (8.5-9.0)
Soil
South of 1970 Ash Basin
8/23/2013
25100
2.04
11.4
<0.118
6.56 j
<0.0553
30.7
24.1
930
0.0134 j
12.2
0.228 j
0.15 j
45.5
MW-14 (7.0-7.5)
Soil
East of 1963 Ash Basin
8/20/2013
8060
<0.0999
0.398 j
<0.102
6.84 j
<0.0547
13.3
10.5
1660
0.0151 j
4.52
<0.119
<0.0357
16.9
MW-14 (9.5-10.0)
Soil
East of 1963 Ash Basin
8/20/2013
15300
1.93
10
<0.108
8.51 j
<0.0579
20.3
14.7
281
0.0279 j
7.67
0.542 j
0.154 j
28.2
MW-9 (9.0-9.5)
Soil
Southeast of 1985 Ash Basin
8/26/2013
17100
4.1
23
0.145 j
8.89 j
0.242
8.72
27
454
0.0349 j
6.62
0.155 j
0.175 j
143
PZ-10 (15.0-17.0)
Ash
1956 Ash Basin
8/19/2013
15600
99.7
42.3
4.23
28.2
0.558
30.2
74.3
59.5
0.159 j
35
80.7
3.52
40.1
PZ-10 (23.0-25.0)
Soil
1956 Ash Basin
8/19/2013
15500
1.64
6.13
<0.106
7.85j
<0.0564
17.9
12.2
416
<0.0118
8.01
0.158j
0.114j
29
PZ-6 (30.0-31.5)
Ash
1985 Ash Basin
8/21/2013
13800
62.1
33.7
2.71
56.8
0.282j
29.2
59.3
34.9
0.145j
44.2
25.1
1.53
46.5
PZ-6 (41.0-43.0)
Soil
1985 Ash Basin
8/21/2013
7540
1.1
5.28
<0.0994
5.32j
<0.0532
8.03
5.11
222
<0.011
4.18
<0.116
0.0693j
15.9
PZ-7 (17.0-19.0)
Ash
1970 Ash Basin
8/16/2013
14000
56
16.6
0.813
16.5
0.105j
20.6
28.5
158
0.114j
13.6
7.22
0.791
25
PZ-7 (21.0-23.0)
Soil
1970 Ash Basin
8/16/2013
16700
1.33
8.85
<0.104
4.48j
<0.0558
16.8
8.14
57.8
<0.0117
3.98
0.228j
0.183j
17.3
PZ-8 (17.0-18.0)
Ash
1963 Ash Basin
8/15/2013
15000
51.4
17.8
1.29
17.4
0.24 j
23.2
41.3
103
0.0703 j
23.9
10.6
1.3
20.2
PZ-8 (22.0-23.0)
Soil
1963 Ash Basin
8/15/2013
16800
24.5
21.3
0.684
6.46j
<0.0515
18.7
52.9
96.6
0.0425j
17.7
0.4j
0.263
70.8
PZ 9 (9.0 11.0)
Soil
1978 Ash Basin
8/15/2013
20700
5.59
10.2
0.136 j
5.82 j
<0.0544
23.4
10.4
56.6
0.0187 j
4.8
0.607 j
0.102 j
14.9
Notes:
1. Units:
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram
2. NA = Not available
3. Analytical results with "<" preceeding the result indicate that the parameter was not
detected at a concentration which attains or exceeds the laboratory reporting limit.
j - indicates result is an estimated value
4. Sample data was obtained from the Geosyntec, 2013 Preliminary Site Investigation Data
Report, Conceptual Closure Plan, Cape Fear Plant, November 2013, unpublished manuscript.
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NCSITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment Plans\Cape Fear\2014-12-31 GAP Revised \Tables\Tables3-8 Cape Feaz 1- 1of1

TABLE 6
SURFACE WATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
CAPE FEAR STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC., MONCURE, NORTH CAROLINA
Analytical Parameter
y
pH
Temp.
DO
Specific
Conductance
Turbidity
ORP
Alkalinity
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Chloride
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Nitrate
(as N)
Potassium
Selenium
Sodium
Sulfate
TDS
Thallium
Zinc
Units
S.U.
Deg C
mg/I
pS/cm
NTUs
nW
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
15A NCAC 02B .0216 Surface Water Quality Standard (WS-IV)
6.0-9.0
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
0.087
0.0056
0.01
1
NE
NE
NE
230
0.05
0.007
1000
1 25
0.2
0.000012
0.025
10
NE
0.005
NE
250
500
0.00024
0.05
Sample ID
T Location
Sample Date
Field
Parameters
Constituent
Concentrations
SW-1
North of 1956 Ash Basin
8/19/2013
7.2
24.69
5.56
242
8.23
113.3
38.9
0.0958 j
0.0008 j
0.00053 j
0.0234
0.036 j
<0.00023
8.45
12.2
0.0018 j
<0.0027
0.273
0.16 j
0.135
<0.00006
<0.0015
NA
3.48
<0.0005
13
10.1
95
<0.00015
0.003 j
SW-1
North of 1956 Ash Basin
9/9/2013
7.4
28.46
4.74
149
13.8
133.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
.430 j
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
SW-2
South of 1956 Ash Basin
8/19/2013
6.4
24.97
5.93
104
9.95
186.7
36.5
0.156 j
0.00051 j
0.00062 j
0.0237
0.0357 j
<0.00023
8.3
12.8
<0.0016
<0.0027
0.361
0.22 j
0.142
<0.00006
<0.0015
NA
3.47
<0.0005
12.6
9.8
24.5 j
<0.00015
0.0026 j
SW-2
South of 1956 Ash Basin
9/9/2013
7.2
30.67
4.52
131
18.6
88.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
.440 j
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
SW-3
West of 1963 Ash Basin
8/19/2013
7.2
24.69
5.56
242
8.23
113.3
37.4
0.155 j
0.00036 j
0.0006 j
0.0243
0.0363 j
<0.00023
8.47
11.9
0.0016 j
<0.0027
0.479
0.23 j
0.148
<0.00006
<0.0015
NA
3.59
<0.0005
12.4
9.3
90
<0.00015
0.0027 j
SW-3
West of 1963 Ash Basin
9/9/2013
7.1
28.79
5.2
121
12.2
85.2
NA
I NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
I NA
NA
NA
NA
.440 j
NA
NA
NA
I NA
NA
NA
NA
SW-4
West of 1970 Ash Basin
8/19/2013
6.6
25.36
5.91
150
8.56
180.1
38.3
0.268
0.00048 j
0.00089 j
0.0255
0.0353 j
<0.00023
8.58
11.4
0.0018 j
<0.0027
0.586
0.34 j
0.154
<0.00006
<0.0015
NA
3.65
<0.0005
12.7
9.1
92.5
<0.00015
0.0037 j
SW-4
West of 1970 Ash Basin
9/9/2013
7.3
29.94
5.33
123
6.3
67.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
420 j
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
SW-5
North of 1978 Ash Basin
8/19/2013
6.4
25.11
5.05
68
11.16
178.1
36.5
0.228
0.00041 j
.0012 j
0.0246
0.0322 j
<0.00023
8.34
12.5
0.0018 j
0.0033 j
0.784
0.42 j
0.152
<0.00006
<0.0015
NA
3.79
<0.0005
11.9
8.5
91
<0.00015
0.0035 j
SW-5
North of 1978 Ash Basin
9/10/2013
7.6
33.06
5.68
162
6.96
91.7
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
.420 j
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
SW-6
East of 1978 Ash Basin
8/19/2013
7.2
26.92
5.7
363
0.3
171.7
11
<0.0828
0.00042 j
0.006
0.0569
0.172
<0.00023
13.1
39.3
<0.0016
<0.0027
<.043
<0.085
0.0299
<0.00006
0.0027 j
NA
7.420001
0.0012 j
40.8
81.4
203
0.00041 j
0.0035 j
SW-6
East of 1978 Ash Basin
9/10/2013
7.5
34.38
5.74
283
4
91.8
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<.205
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
SW-7
South of 1970 Ash Basin
8/19/2013
6.8
24.16
4.17
410
2.91
177.2
73.4
<0.0828
0.00066 j
0.0044
0.0928
0.373
<0.00023
60.9
2.1
0.0021 j
<0.0027
.179 j
<0.85
0.0171
<0.00006
0.0018 j
NA
11.8
0.0044
2.12
132
296
<0.00015
0.0062 j
SW-7
South of 1970 Ash Basin
9/9/2013
7.6
30.31
8.13
333
4.39
84.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<250
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
SW-8
1985 Ash Basin
8/19/2013
7.8
26.94
5.4
352
0.55
163.2
36
0. 121 j
0.0116
0.0463
0.213
1.02
<0.00023
31
19.3
0.0022 j
<0.0027
<.043
<0.085
0.0124
<0.00006
0.0029 j
NA
9.21
0.07
20.2
97.1
208
0.0016
<0.002
SW-8
1985 Ash Basin
9/6/2013
8.2
30.08
5.67
267
1.03
87.7
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<.250
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
SW-9
South comer of 1990 Ash Basi
8/19/2013
6A
24.6
4.77
156
8.84
201.1
38.1
0.214
0.00059 j
0.00087 j
0.0239
0.0347 j
<0.00023
8.29
12.8
0.0018 j
<0.0027
0.547
0.32 j
0.146
<0.00006
<0.0015
NA
3.52
<0.0005
12.2
9.3
90.5
<0.00015
0.0036 j
SW-9
South comer of 1990 Ash Basi
9/9/2013
7.4
30.54
7.14
121
6.39
74.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
I NA
NA
I NA
NA
NA
.400 j
I NA
NA
NA
NA
I NA
NA
NA
Notes:
1. Analytical parameter abbreviations:
Temp. = Temperature
DO = Dissolved oxygen
ORP = Oxidation reduction potential
TDS = Total dissolved solids
2. Units:
mg/L = milligrams per liter
3. NE = Not established
4. NA = Not available
S. Highlighted values indicate values that exceed the 15 NCAC 2B Standard for Class
B Water
6. Analytical results with "<" preceeding the result indicate that the parameter was
not detected at a concentration which attains or exceeds the laboratory reporting
limit.
j - indicates result is an estimated value
7. Sample data was obtained from the Geosyntec, 2013 Preliminary Site Investigation
Data Report, Conceptual Closure Plan, Cape Fear Plant, November 2013,
unpublished manuscript.
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC 9TE5\DENR Le[[er Deliverables\GW Assessment Plans\Cape Feaz\201412-31 GAPRevised\Tables\Tables 3- 8 Cape Feaz.xlsx

TABLE 7
ASH BASIN PORE WATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
CAPE FEAR STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC., MONCURE, NORTH CAROLINA
Analytical Parameter
Depth to Water
pH
Temp.
Specific
Conductance
DO
ORP
Turbidity
Drawdown
Alkalinity
Aluminum
Arsenic
Antimony
Barium
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Chloride
Units
I ft (BTOC)
SU
°C
PS/cm
mg/I
my
NTUs
feet
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
Analytical Method
Field Parameters
NA
NA
200.8
200.8
200.7
200.7
200.8
NA
300
Sample ID
Location
Sample Date
Constituent
Concentrations
PZ-6***
Within 1985 Ash Basin
9/6/2013
14.15
7.9
22.11
398
1.84
155.8
11.2
0.15
102
0.312
0.356
0.0055
0.33
3.1
<0.00023
68.7
20.1
PZ-7***
Within 1970 Ash Basin
9/5/2013
15.8
4.8
23.31
2396
1.45
88.3
35.91
NA
3
16.6
0.193
0.00039j
0.145
0.543
0.0011
146
20.8
PZ-8***
Within 1963 Ash Basin
9/5/2013
17.04
6.7
19.68
665
0.84
92.3
89.2
0.36
190
6.29
0.0617
0.007
0.37
0.476
0.00049j
48.7
32.8
Analytical Parameter
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Nitrate
Potassium
Selenium
Sodium
Sulfate
Thallium
TDS
Zinc
Units
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
Analytical Method
200.7
200.7
200.7
200.8
200.8
NA
245.1
200.7
300
NA
200.8
NA
300
200.8
NA
200.7
Sample ID
Location
Sample DateF
Constituent Concentrations
PZ-6***
Within 1985 Ash Basin
9/6/2013
<0.0016
<0.0027
.115j
0.00062j
9.03
0.188
<0.00006
0.0056j
<250
9.96
0.0042
18.3
136
0.00071
344
<0.002
PZ-7***
Within 1970 Ash Basin
9/5/2013
0. 0118j
<0.0135
586
0.0099
45.4
9.52
0.000077j
0.316
<250
35.7
0.0023
146
2150
0.0037
3320
0.566
PZ-8***
Within 1963 Ash Basin
9/5/2013
0. 0071j
0.0163
3.14
0.0059
9.21
0.358
<0.00006
0.0086j
<250
8.31
0.0261
106
192
0.0012
529
0.0113j
Notes:
1. Analytical parameter abbreviations:
Temp. = Temperature
DO = Dissolved oxygen
ORP = Oxidation reduction potential
TDS = Total dissolved solids
2. Units:
°C = Degrees Celcius
SU = Standard Units
my = millivolts
pS/cm = microsiemens per centimeter
NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Unit
mg/L = milligrams per liter
BTOC = Below top of casing
3. NE = Not established
4. NA = Not available
5. NM = Not measured
6. Analytical results with "<" preceeding the result indicate that the
parameter was not detected at a concentration which attains or
exceeds the laboratory reporting limit.
*** Sample data was obtained from the Geosyntec, 2013 Preliminary Site
Investigation Data Report, Conceptual Closure Plan, Cape Fear Plant,
November 2013, unpublished manuscript.
P.\Duke F.egy Pmg-s.1026\ALLNCSIIES\DENRIet Deliverables\GW Asse,-tF1-,\Cape Hear\201412-31GAPR-i-d\Tables\Tab1e 3-8Cppe Heax'h. 1of1

TABLE 8
SEEP ANALYTICAL RESULTS
CAPE FEAR STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC., MONCURE, NORTH CAROLINA
Analytical Parameter
y
pH
Temp.
Specific
Conductance
Flow
Turbidity
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Chloride
Chromium
COD
Copper
Units
S.U.
Deg C
PS/cm
MGD
NTUs
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
Analytical Method
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
EPA 200.7
EPA 200.8
EPA 200.8
EPA 200.7
EPA 200.7
EPA 200.8
EPA 200.7
EPA 300.0
EPA 200.8
HACH 8000
EPA 200.8
Sample ID
Location
Sample Date
Field Parameters
Constituent
Concentrations
2014007219**
OUTFALL 001
3/11/2014
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.042
<0.001
0.00326
0.065
0.162
<0.001
NA
34
<0.001
NA
<0.005
2014007220**
Outfall005
3/11/2014
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.291
0.0145
0.259
0.191
1.1
<0.001
NA
18
<0.001
NA
<0.005
2014007221**
Outfall007
3/11/2014
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.55
<0.001
0.0263
0.055
0.453
<0.001
NA
15
0.00164
NA
<0.005
2014007222**
Outfall008
3/11/2014
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.44
<0.001
<0.01
0.019
3.41
<0.001
NA
20
<0.001
NA
<0.005
2014007223**
Outfall 008 to Shaddux Creek
3/11/2014
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.53
<0.001
0.0108
0.069
0.166
<0.001
NA
11
0.00223
NA
<0.005
2014007251**
1978 South Standing Water
3/11/2014
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.6
<0.001
<0.01
0.028
<0.05
<0.001
NA
9.7
<0.005
NA
<0.005
2014007257**
Standing Water West of RR
3/11/2014
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.436
<0.001
0.0107
0.034
2.96
<0.001
NA
19
<0.005
NA
<0.005
2014007258**
85 East of RR
3/11/2014
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.77
<0.001
<0.01
0.03
0.64
<0.001
NA
21
<0.005
NA
<0.005
2014008015**
SEEP 1956 Pond SW-1
3/18/2014
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.35
<0.001
0.0444
0.531
0.053
<0.001
NA
17
0.006
NA
0.013
2014008016**
SEEP 1963 Ash Pond S
3/18/2014
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.077
<0.001
0.394
0.078
1.38
<0.001
NA
35
<0.005
NA
<0.005
2014008017**
SEEP South End of 70 AP
3/18/2014
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.35
<0.001
<0.01
0.052
0.412
<0.001
NA
14
<0.005
NA
<0.005
2014008018**
SEEP 78 Ash Pond Down Gradient
3/18/2014
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.52
<0.001
<0.01
0.03
0.13
<0.001
NA
22
<0.005
NA
0.007
2014008019**
SEEP Corner of 78 & Cooling Tower
3/18/2014
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.153
<0.001
<0.01
0.021
0.221
<0.001
NA
33
<0.005
NA
<0.005
CF-85 AshPond *
Southeast portion of 1985 Ash Basin
6/30/2014
7.7
30.1
376
NM
1.28
0.165
0.0141
0.0344
0.179
1.24
<0.001
34.9 B2
17
<0.001
<20
<0.001
S-05*
6/30/2014
5.7
24
615
0.001016
0.23
0.05
<0.001
<.001
0.023
0.309
<0.001
41.8 B2
29
<0.001
<20
<0.001
S-07*
West side of 1985 Ash Basin
6/30/2014
6.4
24
908
NF
29.1
0.075
<0.001
0.00477
0.068
5.86
<0.001
71 B2
18
<0.001
<20
<0.001
S-08*
S-SW sides of 1985 Ash Basin
6/30/2014
7.7
28
626
0.00323
10.9
0.324
<0.001
<.001
0.031
5.69
<0.001
55.9 B2
19
<0.001
<20
0.00104
S-09*
Bewtween RR tracks and power line
right of way
6/30/2014
6.8
26
632
NF
30.1
0.028
<0.001
<.001
0.071
4.67
<0.001
55.8 B2
21
<0.001
36
<0.001
S-15*
West side of 1963 Ash Basin
7/1/2014
7
19
907
0.000902
3.66
0.141
<0.001
0.0387
0.078
1.35
<0.001
89.1 B2
33
<0.001
<20
<0.001
CF-78 AshPond *
Southeast portion of 1978 Ash Basin
7/1/2014
NM
32
384
NM
1.5
0.052
<0.001
0.00585
0.076
0.196
<0.001
16.4 B2
33
<0.001
<20
0.00129
CF-Downl *
CF Riverdownstream of
plant/upstream of plant discharge
7/1/2014
7.23
29.4
195
NM
7.48
0.141
<0.001
<.001
0.025
<0.05
<0.001
9.08 B2
19
<0.001
<20
0.0012
CF-Down2 *
CF River upstream of plant intake near
Hwy. 42 bridge
7/1/2014
8.23
29.3
190.6
NM
6.5
0.092
0.00108
<.001
0.022
<0.05
<0.001
9.22 B2
19
<0.001
<20
0.00126
CF-HAW *
Haw River upstream of confluences w/
Shaddox Creek andnd Deep River
7/1/2014
7.1
26.6
232.6
NM
9.09
0.115
<0.001
<.001
0.03
<0.05
<0.001
9.23 B2
18
<0.001
<20
0.00101
CF-SHCK-Up *
Shaddox Creek north of Corinth Rd.
7/1/2014
7.44
33.2
447
0.19388
9.49
0.19
<0.001
0.00128
0.113
0.076
<0.001
22.6 B2
43
<0.001
81
0.00201
S-04*
North side of 1985 Ash Basin
7/1/2014
6.7
28
717
NM
24.6
0.082
<0.001
0.00239
0.072
5.37
<0.001
57.7 B2
20
<0.001
<20
<0.001
S-16*
North of 1963 Ash Basin
10/1/2014
3.3
25
2730
0.00167
NM
4.02
<0.001
0.0456
0.023
0.618
<0.001
341
15
<0.001
27
<0.001
S-17*
100 ft north of S-16
10/22/2014
4.2
15
1742
0.00015
0.75
0.253
<0.001
<.001
0.018
0.588
<0.001
288
17
<0.001
<20
<0.001
Notes:
1. Analytical parameter abbreviations
Temp.
= Temperature
COD
= Chemical oxygen demand
TDS =
Total dissolved solids
TSS =
Total suspended solids
2. Units:
°C =
Degrees Celcius
SU =
Standard Units
pS/cm
= microsiemens per centimeter
MGD
= millions of gallons per day
mg/L
= milligrams per liter
4. NA = Not available
5. NM = Not measured
6. NF = No flow
7. Analytical results with "<" preceeding the result indicate that the parameter
was not detected at a concentration which attains or exceeds the laboratory
reporting limit.
* Samples collected by SynTerra
** Split sample data analyzed by Duke Lab of NCDENR identified locations.
P:\Duke Energy Progess1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Leff-Deliverables\GW As smelt Plans\Cape Fear\201412-31 GAP RAsed\Tables\Tables3-8 Cape Fear.,J- lc_^
-

TABLE 8
SEEP ANALYTICAL RESULTS
CAPE FEAR STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC., MONCURE, NORTH CAROLINA
Analytical Parameter
Fluoride
Hardness
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Oil and
grease
Selenium
Sulfate
TDS
TSS
Thallium
Zinc
Units
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
Analytical Method
EPA 300.0
EPA 200.7
EPA 200.7
EPA 200.8
EPA 200.7
EPA 200.7
EPA 245.1
EPA 200.8
EPA 200.8
EPA 1664B
EPA 200.8
EPA 300.0
SM2540C
SM2450D
EPA 200.8
EPA 200.7
Sample ID
Location
Sample Date
Constituent Concentrations
2014007219**
OUTFALL 001
3/11/2014
<1
55.5
0.185
<0.01
NA
0.109
NA
0.00143
0.00881
NA
0.0014
80
199
NA
NA
0.0468
2014007220**
Outfall005
3/11/2014
<1
102
0.199
<0.01
NA
0.099
NA
0.186
0.00877
NA
0.0628
92
219
NA
NA
0.0033
2014007221**
Outfall007
3/11/2014
<1
59.2
2.58
0.00107
NA
0.865
NA
0.00999
0.00472
NA
0.00344
55
159
NA
NA
0.0221
2014007222**
Outfall008
3/11/2014
<1
247
4.92
<0.01
NA
4.43
NA
<0.001
0.0146
NA
<0.001
400
580
NA
NA
0.0327
2014007223**
Outfall 008 to Shaddux Creek
3/11/2014
<1
145
2.86
<0.01
NA
0.795
NA
<0.001
0.00391
NA
<0.001
120
301
NA
NA
0.0196
2014007251**
1978 South Standing Water
3/11/2014
<1
19.6
2.68
<0.01
NA
0.4
NA
<0.001
<0.005
NA
<0.001
20
99
NA
NA
0.013
2014007257**
Standing Water West of RR
3/11/2014
<1
192
2.33
<0.01
NA
2.46
NA
<0.001
0.005
NA
<0.001
160
311
NA
NA
0.005
2014007258**
85 East of RR
3/11/2014
<1
120
1.99
<0.01
NA
1.95
NA
<0.001
<0.005
NA
<0.001
110
249
NA
NA
0.014
2014008015**
SEEP 1956 Pond SW-1
3/18/2014
<1
290
1.54
0.00148
NA
6.62
NA
<0.001
0.006
NA
0.00123
240
NA
NA
NA
0.079
2014008016**
SEEP 1963 Ash Pond S
3/18/2014
<1
340
2.05
<0.01
NA
1.73
NA
0.101
<0.005
NA
<0.001
180
NA
NA
NA
<0.005
2014008017**
SEEP South End of 70 AP
3/18/2014
<1
55.5
3.43
<0.01
NA
2.65
NA
<0.001
<0.005
NA
<0.001
73
NA
NA
NA
0.016
2014008018**
SEEP 78 Ash Pond Down Gradient
3/18/2014
<1
103
0.418
<0.01
NA
3.79
NA
<0.001
0.026
NA
<0.001
160
NA
NA
NA
0.065
2014008019**
SEEP Corner of 78 & Cooling Tower
3/18/2014
<1
146
17.9
<0.01
NA
6.38
NA
<0.001
<0.017
NA
<0.001
220
NA
NA
NA
0.016
CF-85 AshPond *
Southeast portion of 1985 Ash Basin
6/30/2014
<1
108
0.021
<.001
4.96
<0.005
<0.001
0.192
0.00192
<5
0.0657
90
230
<5
0.00115
<0.005
S-05*
6/30/2014
<1
137
15300
<.001
7.97
5.3
<0.001
<0.001
0.00937
<5
<0.001
200
400
5
0.000254
0.007
S-07*
West side of 1985 Ash Basin
6/30/2014
<1
351
23.7
<.001
42.2
11.3
<0.001
<0.001
0.00465
<5
<0.001
330
690
53
<0.0002
<0.005
S-08*
S-SW sides of 1985 Ash Basin
6/30/2014
<1
259
0.449
<.001
29
5.15
<0.001
0.0648
0.00532
<5
<0.001
170
460
12
<0.0002
<0.005
S-09*
Bewtween RR tracks and power line
right of way
6/30/2014
<1
260
0.116
<.001
29.3
1.52
<0.001
<0.001
0.00416
<5
<0.001
160
450
<12.5
<0.0002
<0.005
S-15*
West side of 1963 Ash Basin
7/1/2014
<1
333
1.41
<.001
26.8
1.89
<0.001
0.108
0.00426
<5
<0.001
180
600
8
<0.0002
<0.005
CF-78 AshPond *
Southeast portion of 1978 Ash Basin
7/1/2014
<1
66.4
0.022
<.001
6.17
0.05
<0.001
0.00569
0.00367
<5
0.00239
91
220
<5
0.000644
<0.005
CF-Downl *
CF Riverdownstream of
plant/upstream of plant discharge
7/1/2014
<1
37.4
0.297
<.001
3.58
0.211
<0.001
0.00192
0.00132
<5
<0.001
13
110
7
<0.0002
0.02
CF-Down2 *
CF River upstream of plant intake near
Hwy. 42 bridge
7/1/2014
<1
37.9
0.21
<.001
3.62
0.129
<0.001
0.00216
0.0012
<5
<0.001
14
120
7
<0.0002
0.006
CF-HAW *
Haw River upstream of confluences w/
Shaddox Creek and Deep River
7/1/2014
<1
37.3
0.694
<.001
3.45
0.517
<0.001
0.00197
0.0011
<5
<0.001
12
110
6
<0.0002
<0.005
CF-SHCK-Up *
Shaddox Creek north of Corinth Rd.
7/1/2014
<1
82.6
2.23
<.001
6.36
0.886
<0.001
0.00626
0.00176
<5
<0.001
23
320
8
<0.0002
0.012
S-04*
North side of 1985 Ash Basin
7/1/2014
<1
295
9.22
<.001
36.7
1.62
<0.001
<0.001
0.00352
<5
<0.001
160
510
23
<0.0002
<0.005
S-16*
North of 1963 Ash Basin
10/1/2014
2.1
1170
238
<.001
77.7
21.2
<0.00005
<0.001
0.207
<0.001
1700
2700
<10
1 0.000275
0.525
S-17*
100 ft north of S-16
10/22/2014
<1
1030
163
0.00379
74.8
22.1
<0.00005
<0.001
0.0239
<5
<0.001
1400
2000
<5
<0.0002
0.098
Notes:
1. Analytical parameter abbreviations:
Temp. = Temperature
COD = Chemical oxygen demand
TDS = Total dissolved solids
TSS = Total suspended solids
2. Units:
°C = Degrees Celcius
SU = Standard Units
pS/cm = microsiemens per centimeter
MGD = millions of gallons per day
mg/L = milligrams per liter
4. NA = Not available
5. NM = Not measured
6. NF = No flow
7. Analytical results with "<" preceeding the result indicate that the parameter
was not detected at a concentration which attains or exceeds the laboratory
reporting limit.
* Samples collected by SynTerra
** Split sample data analyzed by Duke Lab of NCDENR identified locations.
P:\Duke Energy Progess1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Leff-Deliverables\GW As smelt Plans\Cape Fear\201412-31 GAP Revised\Tables\Tables3-8CapeFear.,J-

TABLE 9
ENVIRONMENTAL EXPLORATION SAMPLING PLAN
CAPE FEAR STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC., MONCURE, NORTH CAROLINA
Transition one (PWR) Monitoring
Ash Basin Monitoring Wells
Saprolite Monitoring Wells
Wells
Bedrock Monitoring Wells
Exploration
Soil Borings
("AB" Series)
("S" Series)
("D" Series)
("BR" Series)
Seeps
Surface Water
Sediment
Existing Monitoring Wells and Piezometer
Area
For Ash Pore Water Sampling
For Groundwater Sampling
For Groundwater Sampling
For Groundwater Sampling
(Single Cased)
(Single Cased)
(Single Cased)
(Double Cased)
Estimate
Estimated
Screen
Estimated
Screen
Estimated
Screen
Estimated
Screen
Boring ID
Quantity
d Depth
Well IDs
Quantity
Well Depth
Length
Well IDs
Quantity
Well Depth
Length
Well
Quantity
Well Depth
Length
Well IDs
Quantity
Well Depth
Length
Sample
p
uantit of
Quantity
Quantity
uantit of
Sample IDs
uantit of
Quantity
Quantity
uantit of
Sample IDs
uantit of
Quantity
Quantity
uantit of
Well IDs
Quantity
uantit of
uantit of
Quantity
(ft bgs)
(ft bgs)
(ft)
(ft bgs)
(ft)
IDs
(ft bgs)
(ft)
(ft bgs)
(ft)
IDs
Locations
Samples
Locations
Samples
Locations
Samples
Locations
Samples
ABMW-1SB
110
ABMW-1
35
ABMW-IS
50
ABMW-2SB
30
ABMW-2
15
ABMW-2S
30
Ash Basin
ABMW-3SB
5
90
ABMW-3
5
25
5
ABMW-3S
5
30
10
N/A
0
N/A
N/A
N/A
0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
ABMW-4SB
40
ABMW-4
20
ABMW-4S
25
ABMW-5SB
80
ABMW-5
20
ABMW-5S
25
No wells
CMW-1, CTMW-2,
MW-5SB
50
planned,
CMW-2, CTMW-2,
MW-6SB
50
but will be
MW-5BR
50
CMW-3, CTMW-3,
MW_10SB
35
MW-175
30
installed if
MW-6BR
50
SW-SHD-56
SD-SHD-56
CMW-4, CTMW-4,
Beyond
MW-125B
100
MW-185
20
a
MW-SOBR
35
S-OS
SW-SHD-PLANT
SD-SHD-PLANT
CMW-5, CMW-6,
Waste
MW-17SB
10
50
N/A
0
N/A
N/A
MW-20S
5
20
10
transition
TBD
TBD
5
MW-17BR
7
50
5
through
17
17
SW-85DN
7
7
SD-85DN
7
7
MW-10, MW-11,
25
25
Boundary
MW-18SB
45
MW-205
40
Zone is
MW-20BR
50
5-17
SW-85DS
SD-85DS
MW-12, MW-13,
MW-19SB
40
MW-21S
40
present.
MW-20BR
40
SW -BAT
SD -BAT
MW-14, PZ-1, PZ-2,
MW-20SB
40
Example
MW-21BR
40
S
S
PZ-3, PZ-4, PZ-5,
90
well name
SW-CFDG
-CFD
SD-CFDG
-CFD
PZ-6 PZ-7 PZ-8
B-N1963
SB-N1963
30
-
PZ-9,PZ-10
MW-17D
SW -DEEP R
SD -DEEP R
Upgradient /
MW-9SB
25
MW-155
20
MW-9BR
25
SW -HAW
SD -HAW
BGMW-4
Background
MW-155B
3
90
N/A
0
N/A
N/A
MW-165
2
20
10
See above
TBD
TBD
5
MW-15BR
3
40
5
N/A
0
0
SW-SHD-REF
5
5
SD-SHD-REF
5
5
BGTMW-4
3
3
MW-165B
95
MW-16BR
45
SW-BAS
SD-BAS
MW-9
SW-13131
SD-BB1
Notes:
1. Estimated boring and well depths based on data available at the time of work plan preparation and subject to change based on site -specific conditions in the field.
2. Laboratory analyses of soil, ash, groundwater, ash pore water, and surface water samples will be performed in accordance with the constituents and methods identified in Tables 10 and 11.
3. Additionally, soils will be tested in the laboratory to determine grain size (with hydrometer), specific gravity, and permeability.
4. During drilling operations, down hole testing will be conducted to determine in -situ soil properties such as horizontal and vertical hydraulic conductivity.
5. Actual number of field and laboratory tests will be determined infield by Field Engineer or Geologist in accordance with project specifications.
R9i1

TABLE 10
SOIL, SEDIMENT, AND ASH PARAMETERS AND ANALYTICAL METHODS
CAPE FEAR STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC., MONCURE, NORTH CAROLINA
INORGANIC COMPOUNDS
UNITS
METHOD
Aluminum
mg/kg
EPA 6010C
Antimony
mg/kg
EPA 6020A
Arsenic
mg/kg
EPA 6020A
Barium
mg/kg
EPA 6010C
Beryllium
mg/kg
EPA 6020A
Boron
mg/kg
EPA 6010C
Cadmium
mg/kg
EPA 6020A
Calcium
mg/kg
EPA 6010C
Chloride
mg/kg
EPA 9056A
Chromium
mg/kg
EPA 6010C
Cobalt
mg/kg
EPA 6020A
Copper
mg/kg
EPA 6010C
Iron
mg/kg
EPA 6010C
Lead
mg/kg
EPA 6020A
Magnesium
mg/kg
EPA 6010C
Manganese
mg/kg
EPA 6010C
Mercury
mg/kg
EPA Method 7470A/7471B
Molybdenum
mg/kg
EPA 6010C
Nickel
mg/kg
EPA 6010C
pH
SU
EPA 9045D
Potassium
mg/kg
EPA 6010C
Selenium
mg/kg
EPA 6020A
Sodium
mg/kg
EPA 6010C
Strontium
mg/kg
EPA 6010C
Sulfate
mg/kg
EPA 9056A
Thallium (low level) (SPLP Extract only)
mg/kg
EPA 6020A
Vanadium
mg/kg
EPA 6020A
Zinc
mg/kg
EPA 6010C
Sediment Specific Samples
Cation exchange capacity
meg/100g
EPA 9081
Particle size distribution
%
Percent solids
%
Percent organic matter
%
EPA/600/R-02/069
Redox potential
I mV
Faulkner et al. 1898
Notes:
1. Soil samples to be analyzed for Total Inorganics using USEPA Methods 6010/6020 and pH using USEPA
Method 9045, as noted above.
2. Ash samples to be analyzed for Total Inorganics using USEPA Methods 6010/6020 and pH using USEPA
Method 9045; select ash samples will also be analyzed for leaching potential using SPLP Extraction Method
1312 in conjunction with USEPA Methods 6010/6020.
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment Plans\Cape Fear\2014-12-31 GAP
Revised\Tables\Table 10 Soil and Ash Parameters Cape Fear.xlsx

TABLE 11
GROUNDWATER, ASH PORE WATER, SURFACE WATER, AND SEEP
PARAMETERS AND ANALYTICAL METHODS
CAPE FEAR STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC., MONCURE, NORTH CAROLINA
PARAMETER
I RL
JUNITS
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 Water Quality Meter
Oxidation Reduction Potential
NA
mV
Field Water Quality Meter
Turbidity
NA
I NTU
1 Field Water Quality Meter
Ferrous Iron
INA
m /L
IField Test Kit
INORGANICS
Aluminum
5
/L
EPA 200.7 or 6010C
Antimony
1
/L
EPA 200.8 or 6020A
Arsenic
1
/L
EPA 200.8 or 6020A
Barium
5
L
EPA 200.7 or 6010C
Beryllium
1
/L
EPA 200.8 or 6020A
Boron
50
/L
EPA 200.7 or 6010C
Cadmium
1
/L
EPA 200.8 or 6020A
Chromium
1
L
EPA 200.7 or 6010C
Cobalt
1
/L
EPA 200.8 or 6020A
Copper
0.005
m /L
EPA 200.7 or 6010C
Iron
10
ji q/L
EPA 200.7 or 6010C
Lead
1
/L
EPA 200.8 or 6020A
Manganese
5
/L
EPA 200.7 or 6010C
Mercury low level
0.012
/L
EPA 245.7 or 1631
Molybdenum
5
/L
EPA 200.7 or 6010C
Nickel
5
/L
EPA 200.7 or 6010C
Selenium
1
/L
EPA 200.8 or 6020A
Strontium
5
/L
EPA 200.7 or 6010C
Thallium low level
0.2
/L
EPA 200.8 or 6020A
Vanadium low level
0.3
m /L
EPA 200.8 or 6020A
Zinc
15
/L
IEPA 200.7 or 6010C
RADIONUCLIDES
Total Combined Radium 15 Ci L I EPA 903.0
ANIONS CATIONS
Alkalinity as CaCO3
20
rnq1L
SM 2320B
Bicarbonate
20
rnq1L
SM 2320
Calcium
0.01
rnq1L
EPA 200.7
Carbonate
20
rnq1L
SM 2320
Chloride
0.1
rnq1L
EPA 300.0 or 9056A
Magnesium
0.005
mcilL
EPA 200.7
Methane
0.1
rnq1L
RSK 175
Nitrate as Nitrogen
0.023
m -N L
EPA 300.0 or 9056A
Potassium
0.1
rnq1L
EPA 200.7
Sodium
0.05
rnq1L
EPA 200.7
Sulfate
0.1
rnq1L
EPA 300.0 or 9056A
Sulfide
0.05
m /L
SM450OS-D
Total Dissolved Solids
25
m /L
SM 2540C
Total Organic Carbon
0.1
m /L
SM 5310
Total Suspended Solids
2
m /L
SM 2450D
ADDITIONAL GROUNDWATER CONSTITUENTS
Iron S eciation
IVendor Specific
/L
IC-ICP-CRC-MS
Man anese S eciation
IVenqgL S ecific
L
IC-ICP-CRC-MS
Notes:
1. Select constituents will be analyzed for total and dissolved concentrations.
NA indicates not applicable.
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment Plans\Cape Fear\2014-12-31 GAP
Revised\Tables\Table 11 Groundwater -Surface Water_Seep Parameters Cape Fear.xlsx

APPENDIX A
NCDENR LETTER of AUGUST 13, 2014

A
7j2p
�
NEWENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Pat McCrory John E. Skvarla, III
Governor Secretary
August 13, 2014
CERTIFIED MAIL 7004 2510 0000 3651 1168
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Paul Newton
Duke Energy
526 South Church Street
Charlotte, NC 28202
Subject: Notice of Regulatory Requirements
Title 15A North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC) 02L .0106
14 Coal Ash Facilities in North Carolina
Dear Mr. Newton:
Chapter 143, North Carolina General Statutes, authorizes and directs the Environmental
Management Commission of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources to protect
and preserve the water and air resources of the State. The Division of Water Resources (DWR)
has the delegated authority to enforce adopted pollution control rules.
Rule 15A NCAC 02L .0103(d) states that no person shall conduct or cause to be conducted any
activity which causes the concentration of any substance to exceed that specified in 15A NCAC
02L .0202. As of the date of this letter, exceedances of the groundwater quality standards at 15A
NCAC 02L .0200 Classifications and Water Quality Standards Applicable to the Groundwaters
of North Carolina have been reported at each of the subject coal ash facilities owned and
operated by Duke Energy (herein referred to as Duke).
Groundwater Assessment Plans
No later than September, 26 2014 Duke Energy shall submit to the Division of Water Resources
plans establishing proposed site assessment activities and schedules for the implementation,
completion, and submission of a comprehensive site assessment (CSA) report for each of the
following facilities in accordance with 15A NCAC 02L .0106(g):
Asheville Steam Electric Generating Plant
Belews Creek Steam Station
Buck Steam Station
Cape Fear Steam Electric Generating Plant
Cliffside Steam Station
1636 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1636
Phone: [phone] Internet: www.nodenr.gov
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affimnative Action Employer— Made in part by recycled paper

Mr. Paul Newton
August 12, 2014
Page 2 of 3
Dan River Combined Cycle Station
H.F. Lee Steam Electric Plant
Marshall Steam Station
Mayo Steam Electric Generating Plant
Plant Allen Steam Station
Riverbend Steam Station
Roxboro Steam Electric Generating Plant
L.V. Sutton Electric Plant
Weatherspoon Steam Electric Plant
The site assessment plans shall include a description of the activities proposed to be completed
by Duke that are necessary to meet the requirements of 15A NCAC 02L .0106(g) and to provide
information concerning the following:
(1) the source and cause of contamination;
(2) any imminent hazards to public health and safety and actions taken to mitigate
them in accordance to 15A NCAC 02L .0106(f);
(3) all receptors,and significant exposure pathways;
(4) the horizontal and vertical extent of soil and groundwater contamination and all
significant factors affecting contaminant transport; and
(5) geological and hydrogeological features influencing the movement,. chemical, and
physical character of the contaminants.
For your convenience, we have attached guidelines detailing the information necessary for the
preparation of a CSA report. The DWR will review the plans and provide Duke with review
comments, either approving the plans or noting any deficiencies to be corrected, and a date by
which a corrected plan is to be submitted for further review and comment or approval. For those
facilities for which Duke has already submitted groundwater assessment plans, please update
your submittals to ensure they meet the requirements stated in this letter and referenced
attachments and submit them with the others.
Receptor Survey
No later than October 14'h, 2104 as authorized pursuant to 15A NCAC 02L .0106(g), the DWR is
requesting that Duke perform a receptor survey at each of the subject facilities and submitted to
the DWR. The receptor survey is required by 15A NCAC 02L .0106(g) and shall include
identification of all receptors within a radius of 2,640 feet (one-half mile) from the established
compliance boundary identified in the respective National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permits. Receptors shall include, but shall not be limited to, public and private
water supply wells (including irrigation wells and unused or abandoned wells) and surface water
features within one-half mile of the facility compliance boundary. For those facilities for which
Duke has already submitted a receptor survey, please update your submittals to ensure they meet
the requirements stated in this letter and referenced attachments and submit them with the others.
If they do not meet these requirements, you must modify and resubmit the plans.

Mr. Paul Newton
August 12, 2014
Page 3 of 3
The results of the receptor survey shall be presented on a sufficiently scaled map. The map shall
show the coal ash facility location, the facility property boundary, the waste and compliance
boundaries, and all monitoring wells listed in the respective NPDES permits. Any identified
water supply wells shall be located on the map and shall have the well owner's name and
location address listed on a separate table that can be matched to its location on the map.
Failure to comply with the State's rules in the manner and time specified may result in the
assessment of civil penalties and/or the use of other enforcement mechanisms available to the
State.
We appreciate your attention and prompt response in this matter. If you have any questions,
please feel free to contact S. Jay Zimmerman, Water Quality Regional Operations Section Chief,
at [phone].
Sincerely,
hn E. Skvarla, III
Attachment enclosed
cc: Thomas A. Reeder, Director, Division of Water Resources
Regional Offices — WQROS
File Copy

August 12, 2014
GUIDELINES FOR COMPREHENSIVE SITE ASSESSMENT
This document provides guidelines for those involved in the investigation of
contaminated soil and/or groundwater, where the source of contamination is from:
■ Incidents caused by activities subject to permitting under G.S. 143-215.1
■ Incidents caused by activities subject to permitting under G.S. 87-88
■ Incidents arising from agricultural operations, including application of
agricultural chemicals, but not including unlawful discharges, spills or
disposal of such chemicals
Comprehensive Site Assessment (CSA)
NOTE: Regional Offices may request additional information in support of the CSA to aid
in their review and will not approve the CSA if any of the elements specified below have
not been included or have not been sufficiently addressed
Minimum Elements of the Comprehensive Site Assessment Report:
A. Title Page
• Site name, location and Groundwater Incident number (if
assigned) and Permit Number;
• Date of report;
• Responsible Party and/or permiee, including address and
phone number;
• Current property owner including address and phone
number;
• Consultant/contractor information including address and
phone number;
• Latitude and longitude of the facility; and
• Seal and signature of certifying P.E. or P.G., as appropriate.
B. Executive Summary
The Executive Summary should provide a brief overview of the pertinent
site information (i.e., provide sufficient information to acquaint the reader
with the who, what, when, where, why and how for site activities to date).
1. Source information:
Type of contaminants
2. Initial abatement/emergency response information.
1

August 12, 2014
3. Receptor information:
• Water supply wells;
• Public water supplies (wells, surface water intakes);
• Surface water bodies;
• Wellhead protection areas;
• Deep aquifers in the Coastal Plain physiographic region;
• Subsurface structures; and
Land use.
4. Sampling/investigation results:
• Nature and extent of contamination;
Maximum contaminant concentrations;
• Site hydrogeology.
5. Conclusions and recommendations.
C. Table of Contents
• First page number for each section listed.
• List of figures (all referenced by number and placed in a
single section following contents text).
• List of tables (all referenced by number and placed in a single
section following contents text).
• List of appendices.
D. Site History and Source Characterization
• Provide a history of property ownership and use. Indicate
dates of ownership, uses of the site, and potential sources of
contaminants.
• Discuss the source(s) of contamination, including primary
and secondary sources.
• For permitted activities, describe nature of activity, permitted
waste, application of all instances of
aver-application/irrigation of wastes or water
• Summarize assessment activities and corrective actions
performed to date including emergency response, initial
abatement, primary and secondary source removal.
• Discuss geographical setting and present/future surrounding
land uses.
E. Receptor Information
• Provide a site map showing labeled well locations within a
N

August 12, 2014
minimum of 1500 feet of the known extent of contamination.
Key to the table and maps described.
NOTE: As the known extent of contamination changes, the
receptor survey must be updated to reflect the change. This
applies throughout the Receptor Information section.
• In table format, list all water supply wells, public or private,
including irrigation wells and unused wells, (omit those that
have been properly abandoned in accordance with 15A
NCAC 2C .0100) within a minimum of 1500 feet of the known
extent of contamination. Note whether well users are also
served by a municipal water supply.
• For each well, include well number, well owner and user
names, addresses and telephone numbers, use of the well,
well depth, well casing depth, well screen interval, and
distance from source of contamination;
NOTE: It will often be necessary to conduct any or all of the
following in order to ensure reliability in a water supply well
survey.
o Call the citylcounty water department to inquire about
city water connections,
o Visit door-to-door (make sure that you introduce
yourself and state your purpose to residents prior to
examining their property) to obtain accurate
description of water usage, and if some residents are
not at home, ask surrounding neighbors who are
home about the water usage at those residences.
Even if a public water line is available, some
residents still use their well water and are not
connected to the public water system, and
o Search for water meters and well houses.
• Site map showing location of subsurface structures (e.g.,
sewers, utility lines, conduits, basements, septic tanks,
drain fields, etc.) within a minimum of 1,500 feet of the known
extent of contamination;
• Table of surrounding property owner addresses;
• Discuss the availability of public water supplies within a
minimum of 1,500 feet of the source area, including the
distance and location to the nearest public water lines and
the source(s) of the public water supply;
3

August 12, 2014
• Identify all surface water bodies (e.g., ditch, pond, stream,
lake, river) within a minimum of 1,500 feet of the source of
contamination;
Determine the location of any designated wellhead protection
areas as defined in 42 USC 300h-7(e) within a minimum of
1,500 feet of the source of contamination. Identify and
discuss the location of the water supply well(s) for which the
area was designated a wellhead protection area, and the
extent of the protected area. Include information about the
well owner, well -construction specifications (especially at
screened intervals), pumping rate and pumping schedule.
Information regarding designated wellhead.protection areas
may be obtained by contacting the Public Water Supply
Section at [phone];
• Discuss the uses and activities (involving possible human
exposure to contamination) that could occur at the site and
adjacent properties. Examples of such activities and uses
include but are not limited to use of a property for an office,
manufacturing operation, residence, store, school, gardening
or farming activities, recreational activities, or undeveloped
land;
• Determine whether the contaminated area is located in an
area where there is recharge to an unconfined or
semi -confined deeper aquifer that is being used or may be
used as a source of drinking water. Based on a review of
scientific literature on the regional hydrogeology and well
construction records and lithological logs for deeper wells in
the area, identify and describe the deep aquifers underlying
the source of contamination. Include information on the depth
of the deep aquifer in relation to the surficial saturated zone,
the lithology and hydraulic conductivity of the strata between
the surficial aquifer and the deeper aquifer, and the
difference in groundwater head between the surficial aquifer
and the deeper aquifer. Discuss the local and regional usage
of the deep aquifer and the draw down from major pumping
influences. Also, specify the distance from the source of
contamination to major discharge areas such as streams and
rivers. Cite all sources and references used for this
discussion.
NOTE: This requirement (last bullet) only pertains to
4

August 12, 2014
contamination sources in the Coastal Plain physiographic region
as designated on a map entitled "Geology of North Carolina"
published by the Department in 1985. However,
rechargeldischarge, hydraulic conductivity, lithology, head
difference, etc. is also important information at mountains
and piedmont sites.
F. Regional Geology and Hydrogeology
Provide a brief description of the regional geology and hydrogeology. Cite
all references.
G. Site Geology and Hydrogeology
Describe the soil and geology encountered at the site. Use
the information obtained during assessment activities (e.g.,
lithological descriptions made during drilling, probe surveys,
etc.). This information should correspond to the geologic
cross sections required in N. below; and
• Based on the results of the groundwater investigation,
describe the site hydrogeology, including a discussion of
groundwater flow direction, hydraulic gradient, hydraulic
conductivity and groundwater velocity. Discuss the effects of
the geologic and hydrogeological characteristics on the
migration, retardation, and attenuation of contaminants.
H. Soil Sampling Results
Using figures and tables to the extent possible, describe all soil sampling
performed to date and provide the rationale for sample locations, number
of samples collected, etc. Include the following information:
• Location of soil samples;
• Date of sampling;
• Type of soil samples (from excavation, borehole, Geoprobe,
etc.);
• Soil sample collection procedures (split spoon, grab, hand
auger, etc.)
• Depth of soil samples below land surface;
• Soil sample identification
• Soil sample analyses;
• Soil sample analytical results (list any contaminant detected
above the method detection limit); and

August 12, 2014
• Identify any sample analytical results that exceed the
applicable cleanup levels.
NOTE: Information related to H. above should correspond to the
sampling location and sampling results maps required in N. below.
I . Groundwater Sampling Results
Using figures and tables to the extent possible describe the groundwater
sampling performed to date and provide the rationale for sample locations
(based on source and contaminant type), number of samples collected,
etc. Include the following information:
• Location of groundwater samples and monitoring wells;
• Date of sampling;
• Groundwater sample collection procedures (bailer, pump,
etc.);
• Groundwater sample identification and whether samples
were collected during initial abatement, CSA, etc.;
• Groundwater sample analyses;
• Groundwater sample analytical results (list any contaminant
detected above the method detection limit; and
• Identify all sample analytical results that exceed 15A NCAC
2L or interim standards.
NOTE: Information related to I. above should correspond to the
sampling location and sampling results maps required in N. below.
J. Hydrogeological Investigation
Describe the hydrogeological investigation performed including all
methods, procedures and calculations used to characterize site
hydrogeological conditions. The following information should be discussed
and should correspond to the maps and figures required below:
• Groundwater flow direction;
• Hydraulic gradient (horizontal and vertical);
• Hydraulic conductivity;
• Groundwater velocity;
• Contaminant velocity;
• Slug test results; *
• Aquifer test results;
• Plume's physical and chemical characterization; and
• Fracture trace study if groundwater in bedrock is impacted.

August 12, 2014
* Check with the Regional Office prior to performing these tests
and study to see if necessary for the site.
K. Groundwater Modeling Results
Groundwater modeling or predictive calculations may be necessary at
some sites (source area proximate to surface water, source area located
within wellhead protection area or source area overlying semi -confined or
unconfined deeper Coastal Plain aquifer) to verify, based on site specific
hydrogeological conditions, whether groundwater contamination poses a
risk to receptors. For contamination shown to pose a risk to receptors,
groundwater modeling may be necessary to determine an appropriate
cleanup level for contaminated groundwater. Modeling should illustrate the
input data used to complete the model and will generally be required for
natural attenuation proposals (see Groundwater Modeling Policy at
hfp://portal. ncdenr.o[g/web/wa/aps/gwgro/policy).
NOTE: Input data for models should be derived from site specific
information with limited assumptions or estimates. All assumptions and
estimated values including biodegradation rates must be conservative
(predict reasonable worst -case scenarios) and must be weft documented.
L. Discussion
• Nature and extent of contamination, including primary and
secondary source areas, and impacted groundwater and
surface water resources;
• Maximum contaminant concentrations;
• Contaminant migration and potentially affected receptors
M. Conclusions and Recommendations
If corrective action will be necessary, provide a preliminary evaluation of
remediation alternatives appropriate for the site. Discuss the remediation
alternatives likely to be selected. Note that for impacts to groundwater
associated with permitted activities, corrective action pursuant to 15A
NCAC 2L .0106(k), (1) and (m) is not applicable, unless provided for
pursuant to 15A NCAC 2L .0106(c) and (e) or through a variance from the
Environmental Management Commission (EMC).
N. Figures
■ 71/2 minute USGS topographic quadrangle map showing an area

August 12, 2014
within a minimum of a 1,500-foot radius of the source of
contamination and depicting the site location, all water supply wells,
public water supplies, surface water intakes, surface water bodies,
designated well head protection areas, and areas of recharge to
deeper aquifers in the Coastal Plain that are or may be used as a
source for drinking water;
Site map locating source areas, site boundaries, buildings, all water
supply wells within a minimum of 1,500 feet, named
roads/easements/right-of-ways, subsurface utilities, product or
chemical storage areas, basements and adjacent properties, scale
and north arrow;
At least two geologic cross sections through the saturated and
unsaturated zones intersecting at or near right angles through the
contaminated area using a reasonable vertical exaggeration.
Indicate monitoring well/sample boring/sample locations and
analytical results for soil samples. Identify the depth to the water
table. Provide a site plan showing the locations of the cross
sections;
■ Site map(s) showing the results of all soil sampling conducted.
Indicate sampling identifications, sampling depths, locations and
analytical results;
■ Site map(s) showing the results of all groundwater sampling
conducted. Indicate sampling locations, monitoring well
identifications, sample identifications, and analytical results;
Separate groundwater contaminant iso-concentration contour maps
showing total volatile organic compound concentrations, total
semi -volatile organic compound concentrations and concentrations
for the most extensive contaminant. Maps should depict the
horizontal and vertical extent. Contour line for applicable 2L
standard should be shown in bold;
Site map(s) showing the elevation of groundwater in the monitoring
wells and the direction of groundwater flow. Contour the
groundwater elevations. Identify and locate the datum (arbitrary

August 12, 2014
100', USGS, NGVD) or benchmark. Indicate the dates that water
level measurements were made. There should be one map for each
series of water level measurements obtained;
■ Groundwater contaminant iso-concentration contour cross-section;
and
■ Site map(s) showing the monitoring wells.
NDTE: If possible, use a single base map to prepare site maps using a
map scale of 1 inch = 40 feet (or a smaller scale for large sites, if
necessary). Maps and figures should include conventional symbols,
notations, labeling, legends, scales, and north arrows and should
confom7 to generally accepted practices of map presentation such as
those enumerated in the US Geological Survey pamphlet, "Topographic
Maps".
■ List all water supply wells, public or private, including irrigation wells
and unused wells, (omit those that have been properly abandoned
in accordance with 15A NCAC 2C .0100) within a minimum of 1500
feet of the known extent of contamination For each well, include the
well number (may use the tax map number), well owner and user
names, addresses and telephone numbers, use of the well, well
depth, well casing depth, well screen interval and distance from the
source of contamination;
List the names and addresses of property owners and occupants
within or contiguous to the area containing contamination and all
property owners and occupants within or contiguous to the area
where the contamination is expected to migrate;
List the results for groundwater samples collected including sample
location; date of sampling; sample collection procedures (bailer,
pump, etc.); sample identifications; sample analyses; and sample
analytical results (list any contaminant detected above the method
detection limit in bold); and
List for each monitoring well, the monitoring well identification

August 12, 2014
numbers, date water levels were obtained, elevations of the water
levels, the land surface, top of the well casing, screened interval
and bottom of the well.
P Appendices
• Boring logs and lithological descriptions;
• Well construction records;
• Standard procedures used at site for sampling, field equipment
decontamination, field screening, etc.;
• Laboratory reports and chain -of -custody documents;
• Copies of any permits or certificates obtained, permit number,
permitting agency, and
• Modeling data and results;
• Slug/pumping test data; and
• Certification form for CSA
10

August 12, 2014
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
Certification for the Submittal of a Comprehensive Site Assessment
Responsible Party and/or Permittee:
Contact Person:
Address:
City: State: Zip Code:
Site Name:
Address:
City: State: Zip Code:
Groundwater Incident Number (applicable):
I, , a Professional Engineer/Professional Geologist
(circle one) for (firm or
company of employment) do hereby certify that the information indicated below is
enclosed as part of the required Comprehensive Site Assessment (CSA) and that
to the best of my knowledge the data, assessments, conclusions,
recommendations and other associated materials are correct, complete and
accurate.
(Each item must be initialed by the certifying licensed professional)
1. The source of the contamination has been identified. A list of all
potential
sources of the contamination are attached.
2. Imminent hazards to public health and safety have been identified.
3. Potential receptors and significant exposure pathways have been
identified.
4. Geological and hydrogeological features influencing the movement
of groundwater have been identified. The chemical and physical character of the
contaminants have been identified.
5. The CSA sufficiently characterizes the cause, significance and
extent of groundwater and soil contamination such that a Corrective Action Plan
can be developed. If any of the above statements have been altered or items not
initialed, provide a detailed explanation. Failure to initial any item or to provide
written justification for the lack thereof will result in immediate return of the CSA to
the responsible party.
(Please Affix Seal and Signature)
11

APPENDIX B
EXCERPTS FROM PRIOR ASSESSMENT
DOCUMENTATION

3
Legend
Oee
A 9�yer
V
-
_4do Newly Installed Monitoring Well Location
showing (Groundwater Elevation ft, NAVD88)
Existing Monitoring Well Location
showing (Groundwater Elevation ft, NAVD88)
at locations where measured
10 Newly Installed Piezometer Location
Q Existing Piezometer Location
showing (Groundwater Elevation ft, NAVD88)
Newly Installed Staff Guage Location
showing (Surface Water Elevation ft, NAVD88)
_ - - - - Water-rable Elevation (ft, NAVD88)
Approximate Groundwater Flow Direction
Pond Locations
Property Boundary
Notes:
1. Isocontours estimated from water level readings collected on 2, 4, and 5
September 2013. If no elevation data is presented water level was
not measured at that location.
2. A indicates groundwater elevation was not used to determine contours.
3. + indicates groundwater elevation value is an estimate due to estimated
TOC elevation.
4. New monitoring well and piezometer locations were installed by
Geosyntec in August 2013.
5. Existing monitoring well and piezometer locations were
determined from northings and eastings reported on boring logs by
Golder Associates.
6. Groundwater and surface water elevations noted in feet above sea
= level [North American Vertical Datum of 988 (NAVD88)].
7. Pond boundaries provided on survey drawing by WSP Sells dated
10 October 2013.
8. Horizontal coordinate system US State Plane 1983 North
Carolina, US survey feet.
r 9.2011 World Imagery - Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed,
USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and
the GIS User Community.
Qmmggm6)
1956
m '• •
Z
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
W
'N
'. MW-14 (158.21)
CTMW-8
CMW-'8
4-
a
Pj BGTMW-4 (163.61)
BGMW-4 (164.04) �
me�—
- ♦i ..„ _. oezm
-''.
1A 1985
SIPondp
N! ♦ �`.� ♦ 11�
� 111
. • 1978
1
Ponoil
d
1 II
I♦ I
♦♦ e
i
i
SG-3 (172.13)
'. MW-13 (158.83)
,1�
750 375 0 750 Feet
Groundwater Elevation Isocontour Map
Duke Cape Fear
500 C P and L Rd.
Geosyntec
Consultants of NC, PC Figure
NC license No.: C-3500
2.F1
Raleigh, NC December 2013

1
1
1
1
/ T
R
ca
m
L
N
CL
ca
0
N
IL
Legend
V Groundwater Elevation (NAVD88)
Monitoring Well Location
Water Q
= CCR
Fill Material
Screen
Saprolite (SM)
U ® Clay (CH/CL)
Partially Weathered Rock in Clayey Sand Matrix
Mudstone
o
Notes:
1. CCR designates coal combustion residual.
2. Water levels collected during the September and October 2013 sampling events.
3. Water depth in 1978 Coal Combustion Residuals Pond is estimated based on WSP
p survey drawing.
d 4. Depth of CCR material below water in 1978 Coal Combustion Residuals Pond is esti
5. Depth to base of fill in berms and dikes is estimated.
6. NAVD88 indicates North American Vertical Datum of 1988.
CZ
U
Legend
Ak---* Transect
Newly Installed Monitoring Well Location
Existing Monitoring Well Location
Q Newly Installed Piezometer Location
Q Existing Piezometer Location
Pond Locations
Property Boundary
Notes:
1. New monitoring well and piezometer locations
installed by Geosyntec in August 2013.
2. New staff gauge locations installed by Geosyntec
in August and September 2013.
3. Existing monitoring well and piezometer locations
determined from northings and eastings reported
on boring logs by Golder Associates and Catlin
Engineers and Scientists.
4. Pond boundaries provided on survey drawing by WSP
Sells dated 10 October 2013.
5. Horizontal coordinate system US State Plane 1983
North Carolina, US survey feet.
5.2011 World Imagery - Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe,
GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping,
Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User
Communitv.
T
N
a
CTMW-2
CMW'2 �.
i9k. I
co
N
G
T
N
a
:. MW-11
PZ-2
PZ-6
PZ-5 PZ-3D
PZ-3S
g CTMW-7 r,
�. CMW- A•
PZ-4
J-1:1
2,000 1,000 0 2,000
Feet
450 225 0 450
Feet
Vertical Exaggeration = 20
Lithologic Cross Section A to A'
Duke Cape Fear
500 C P and L Rd.
Moncure, NC
Geosyntec
Consultants of NC, PC'
NC License No.: C-3500
Raleigh, NC I December 2013
140 D
Co
130 OD
e--F
120
110
FA
Figure
2.F2

200 O C? O
Go
N
N N
?� 200
a
a a
U a
190
U
1963
i 1978 /; �
U
190
.
,Ash Pond
Ash.Pond
�
JJJJ/ LL f
31
��� ��/Oj.-
1 a , a a ` a L a L a ` a L a ` a L a ` a ,
170
yr � R v♦ � R � ' i` w R v♦ • � yr � � yr w R v♦ � R '.► � R
� 1 f f f f f f f f f f r f
1 ` • J 1 1 J J J J J J J J J J 1 1` J J
'�J ��/�%���q�1�/����'�`.• + +J * ;J R �� * *J *J + *J + *J + *J + *� + *l + *' + *l + *J + }J + *� + }l + *' + * +
• 1
■ .1.i/% �hJ■�t/,�N/Ii �_ • 4 a 4 T �1 * 4 * a a w * w �1 4 4
/���� a a a R a r a a te.
—160
• r r I f `+
1 �j 1� y rNO
0
Legend
yIGroundwater Elevation (NAVD88)
Monitoring Well Location
CCR
Fill Material
Saprolite (SM)
Screen
® Clay (CH/CL)
® Partially Weathered Rock in a Clayey Sand Matrix
Mudstone
Notes:
1. CCR designates coal combustion residual.
2. Water levels collected during the September and October 2013 sampling events.
3. Depth to base of fill in berms and dikes is estimated.
4. NAVD88 indicates North American Vertical Datum of 1988.
Legend
k
N
e Newly Installed Monitoring Well Location
MEMO
Q� Existing Monitoring Well Location
G Newly Installed Piezometer Location
G Existing Piezometer Location
D----&Transect
``'
Pond Locations
Property Boundary
• .�
Notes:"
1. New monitoring well and piezometer locations
installed by Geosyntec in August 2013.
2. New staff gauge locations installed by Geosyntec
in August and September 2013.
3. Existing monitoring well and piezometer locations
determined from northings and eastings reported
on boring logs by Golder Associates and Catlin
Engineers and Scientists.
i .,
4. Horizontal coordinate system US State Plane 1983
North Carolina, US survey feet.
S. 2011 World Imagery- Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe,��'
-.
sae.
GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping,
Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User
2,000 1,000 0 2,000
Community.
Feet
A

3 BGTM7.
e
1
�.MW-11 v k4l
PZ-1 ♦♦ '�s�PZ-2
+ 41'� ,� '.CMW-5
1� (D e 1
�, 1 �PZ-8
_PZ-5 �R -3S yam%
1 , PZ-3D
1 SG 4
` CTMW�8;�MW-14 �PZ-9 ,I
CMW=8 t 1 SG-5
r Legend
10
Newly Installed Monitoring Well
Existing Monitoring Well
Newly Installed Piezometer
Q
Existing Piezometer
Newly Installed Staff Guage
y Pond Location
Property Boundary
Notes:
1. New monitoring well and piezometer locations installed by Geosyntec
in August 2013.
2. New staff gauge locations installed by WSP Sells under direction of
Geosyntec in August and September 2013.
3. Existing monitoring well and piezometer locations determined from
northings and eastings reported on boring logs by Golder Associates
and Catlin Engineers and Scientists.
4. Horizontal coordinate system US State Plane 1983 North Carolina, US
surveyfeet.
5.2011 World Imagery - Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA,
' USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User
Community.
K
FL!
."- '.1
d
750 375 0 750 Feet
Newly Installed Well and Staff Gauge Locations
Duke Cape Fear
500CPand LRd.
Moncure NC
Geosyntec°
Consultants of NC, PC Figure
NC License No.: C-3500
2.F3
Raleigh, NC November 2013
N

Le
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
•U
.0
•U
•U
.0
•�"%
•U
•U
•�"%
•U
•U
U
coo
'b
b
b
b
b
b
U
.0
U
U
U
U
�r
L7
Li
Li
L7
Li
Li
Li
L7
Li
Li
L7
Li
O
O
O
O
O
O
U
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
(7
C7
C7
C7
C7
C7
•Y
•Y
•Y
•Y
•Y
•Y
•Y
•Y
•Y
•Y
•Y
•Y
•Y
U
U
U
U
U
U
u
u
u
u
u
U
U
y C7
W)
m
�
`"
vi
O
�
`"
Oo
kf)
`"
00
rn
Oo
cn
v)
cn
o
cn
cn
O 6> isa
F A W
^'
v�
�
N
N
7
7
�p
y4"
l-
7
0
l-
�O
7C�
00
�O
N
7
V1
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
7
-I
7
00
W)
�O
N
m
l�
00
O
O
O
01
N
00
�c
0;
01
N
01
7
7
0
0
0
O
m
vi
M
c+i
0�
0 W
oN
N
00
1)
m
rn
00
m
W)
m
m
cn
cj
V1
7
N
'A
O
7
�
00
V1
�
01
00
M
'A
M
M
M
O
A
N
01
'o'o
01
V1
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
n
00
n
00
l'�
00
Wi
N
lD
m
00
l—
cn
l—
Wn
O
7
�O
7
W
cn
01
N
n
,-�
O
�O
m
�O
�O
l—
o
l—
o
N
O
00
O
O
l�
rn
l�
oc
7
7
00
01
�c
01
00
00
00
v-
�n
v
v
o0
m
00
0
0
o
0
o
r
Oo
ao
0o
r
00
00
Oo
00
00
Oo
00
00
00
Oo
00
00
Oo
00
00
00
Oo
00
00
W
rn
rn
a
rn
rn
a
rn
rn
rn
a
rn
rn
a
rn
rn
o,
a
rn
rn
N
N
V1
l—
�O
V
00
l—
v)
00
In
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
V1
O
l-
l-�
OO
n
Cl!
00
N
00
--i
00
00
n
m
�O
O
m
7
01
�
01
N
kn
7
m
01
N
ll-
00
01
Vl
j�
N
01
m
01
m
cn
l—
r-
ZO
kf)
-~-i
l�
7
l—
zt
V1
00
7
00
Z
'o
�
l0
W�
�
(01
'o
00
N
n
N
m
7
N
00
00
00
00
N
N
O
O
01
01
00
01
Q
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
00
0
o
0
0
0
o
O
N
N
N
O
O
N_
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
7
�O
CD
-
N�
O
O
A y
N
N
m
-�
N
N
m
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
►O'i
00
00
00
��
N
�\
M
M
M
M
M
M
N
�
c+�
I?
�
CF
N
v
u
u
u
N
v
a
a
a,
N
p
a
a
a
U
v
v�
O
z
W
q
FS
cn
00
W
0
A
O
z
O
O
'O
w
9
aoo
W
bOp
0
z
m
z
7
w
0
0
W) �o
P-�

W,
y C7
O �'Q
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
00
M
00
N
N
N
00
y
H A W
M
ILI
U
o
n
rn
y
m
.
oc
00
M
�..W
C•i
�+ O
l�
O
a1
V
O
•--
•--�
U R
C Hwy.+
D1
O
N
N
O
oo
D1
OO
h
00
vi
OO
N
00
O
M
cYi
O y
00
h
h
�O
�O
�O
01
00
01
01
00
U W
O
O
O
O
O
O
00
M
M
N
N
N
V
/�
00
00
N
00
kn
O>
V1
01
00
W
01
00
01
O
00
.Mr
00
l—
�O
O
N
R
o,
00
00
00
00
00
Oo
00
00
00
W
—
(0
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
m
o
5
M
o
vo
m
�
N
rn
M
y„ w�
m
ID
�O
m
m
"O
M
d
00
M
w
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
R y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
ih
v)
O�
�"�
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
yO
N
m
7
O
A
ci
N
a
t�
N
a
Co
N
a
rn
N
w
a
a
pop

Table 2.T9. Slug Test Results Summary
Cape Fear Steam Plant Hydrogeologic Site Assessment
Well Name
Date
Hydraulic Conductivity (ft/d)
Average
Conductivity
(ft/d)
Test 1(Rising Head)
Test 2 (Falling
Head)
Bouwer and Rice
Hvorslev
Bouwer and Rice
Hvorslev
BGMW-4
9/17/2013
0.51
0.67
0.52
0.62
0.58
BGTMW-4
9/17/2013
0.98
1.23
0.95
1.20
1.09
CMW-2
9/18/2013
0.31
0.52
0.15
0.25
0.31
CTMW-2
9/18/2013
0.21
0.25
0.21
0.24
0.23
CMW-8
9/18/2013
0.20
0.28
0.07
0.13
0.17
CTMW-8
9/18/2013
1.20
1.50
1.20
1.45
1.34
MW-11
9/17/2013
0.21
0.33
0.26
0.40
0.30
MW-12
9/17/2013
7.50
12.00
10.50
10.50
10.13
MW-14
9/18/2013
0.06
0.07
0.19
0.21
0.13
PZ-3D
9/17/2013
1.10
1.42
1.10
1.40
1.26
PZ-3S
9/17/2013
0.69
1 1.02
1 0.69
1 1.02
0.86
Notes:
1. ft/d indicates feet per day.
Page 1 of 1

r-
SS-MW,10,(9.0�9.5)
MW109'(9:0'9:5)
n
v
-1 �s
•s.
J Legend
Background Soil Sample Location showing
(Sample Interval (ft BGS))
Soil Sample Location collected during Monitoring Well
y Installation showing (Sample Interval (ft BGS))
Sample location collected during Piezometer installation
Q showing (Sample Interval (ft BGS)).
Shallower sample collected in CCR material.
Deeper sample collected in native material below CCR
material.
Pond Location
L�
Property Boundary
Notes:
1. CCR designates Coal Combustion Residual.
2. Horizontal coordinate system US State Plane 1983 North Carolina, US
surveyfeet.
3.2011 World Imagery - Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA,
s USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User
Community.
SS-PZ9 (9.0-11.0)
SS-PZ7 (210 2+3 0)
r J
.-.
w
k f lot
�{ 750 375 0 750 Feet
Soil and CCR Sampling Locations
F
Duke Cape Fear
500CPand LRd.
Moncure NC
Geosyntec° Figure
Consultants of NC, PC
NC License No.: C-3500
2.F7
Raleigh, NC November 2013
N

V)
Z
0
a
U
0
J
0
r
w
Cr
Q
w
a-
U
U
Z
0
a
0
J
d
w
0
J
w
i
a
U
z
U
0
w
0
/
a
L,
w
a
U
/
w
0
Z
a
a
w
w
a-
0
U
1
V)
Cr
co
0
U
0
Z
0
M
0
N
w
Y
0
0
M
e CMW-3 BGMW-4
CPT-1 eBGTMW-4
BH-2/PZ-10 CPT-2
SCPT-1
-Q�C PT-3
SCPT-2
C!Vhw2
t
j 1 PZ-1
= 4 WW-B3 "AP-1 1 PZ-2
WR-Cl2 -, WR-B1 e
BH-9ww-64
"^-W-B2-6 PT-8 WR-B4 WW-B5
wR-PT-14
r AP-8 BH-12
WWR-C8*
W-61
O.CPT-9
EM-B1
CD-CPT10 SCPT-6
SCPT-3
BH-6A/PZ-8 BH-6
*MAC-78-2
BH-3 131-1-7/P2
' SCPT-7
BH-8
CPT-4
BH-5/PZ-7 CPT-6
WR-B2 *WW-B20
WW-B19* #MAC-85-1
MAC-85-2 SCPT-9
WW-B1 WR C11
CMW-5
e
*WR-C13
CPT-13
� W R-C6
W W-B7
WWBH-11
CPT-10 ii R-05 WR-C4�#W -C912
MAC-85-IA BH-10
EM-B2 SCPT-8
I-AP-21
WB3*�9t-78-1
oi Wv"*
,
�7
W-B9
W
WW_617 *AP-9 PZ-6 SCPT-11
W R-C 1
SCPT-10 Z PZ-3S
�W R-C2
PZ-5e WW-B10 PZ-3D
CPT-7
M-f35
CD-CPT2ACD-CPT2
-eM-36
SCPT-5 AP-22
CD-CPT3A AP-23
CD-CPT3
*EM-B7
AP-19 AP-20
CD-CPT4ACD-CPT4
AP-13 BH-4 CD-CPT6 *CD-CPT9
*CD-CPT7
CD-CPT5A C -CPT5
SCPT-4 Z
CTMW-1
® CMW-1 CD-CPT8 CPT-5
{WR-C3
W R-C 10 ,$.
WR-B3 WW-B15
*W W-B 11
CPT-11 -Q�*WW-B14 *AP-10 -Q� CPT-12
*WW-B12 CMW-6
OPZ-4 e
CAPE FEAR
EXISTING AND
CONCEPTUAL
CLOSURE
GEOTECHNICAL
INVESTIGATION
LEGEND
*BH-14 Geosyntec boring
CPT-5 Geosyntec CPT
SCPT-2 Geosyntec seismic CPT
Z
4 CMW-5 Existing monitoring well
*WR—B4 Existing boring or CPT
Property boundary line
(approximate)
Notes:
1) All existing points are shown at approximate
locations.
2) Property boundary as shown is approximate
and based on available data.
3) Piezometers were installed in BH-2, BH-5,
BH-6A, and 131-1-7.
4) A prefix was added to existing boring and CPT
designations to indicate the source of the
information, i.e., WR = Withers & Ravenel, WW =
William Wells, EM = Ezra Meir, MAC = MACTEC,
CD = Carolina Drilling.
5) Borings labeled EM, WW, and AP-8 through
AP-12 are predevelopment and do not include
dike stratigraphy.
0 600' 1200'
SCALE IN FEET
Geosyntec'%
consultants
DATE:
PROJECT NO.
DOCUMENT NO
Oct-13 SCALE:
GC5369 FILE NO.
FIGURE NO.
CHARLOTTE, NC
AS SHOWN
AS SHOWN
3.F1

cn
W
0
0
0
0
a
0
N
r
cr
rr
W
0
/
/
\\\Lb Z U S C'
CAPE FEAR
o GM -44W N w a q
SELECTED
CROSS -SECTIONS
LEGEND
Y
BH-14 Geosyntec boring
CPT-5 Geosyntec CPT
0
SCPT-2 Geosyntec seismic CPT
Q'
GP-1 Geosyntec geoprobe
CMW-5 Existing monitoring well
m
Q 0 � � ww-Bz _ c w-s O
WR—B4
Existing boring or CPT
Property boundary line
d R-B (approximate)
WR-05 _ AP-12
° ° `Uj�p • p �o� CPT a ,((n/ �� V ^ Section Location
°O v C
M T-11 Existing Ground Contour Line
6 Oo O CCD-CPT1 CPT-6 GP-.,. GP- p- ®G ° O ... :� AP- P H 0
Q SCPT-3
-62
BH-6H- Z-8 GP_g 8 T-10
l G - O Notes:
GP-22 ®GP-8 / R- ° . 1) All existing points are shown at approximate locations.
2) Property boundary as shown is approximate and
based on available data.
H-3 B-,/PZ-g m 3) A prefix was added to existing boring and CPT
cTMw e SCPT_, Q \ \ _B designations to indicate the source of the information,
O EM .;a `v �O i.e., WR = Withers & Ravenel, WW = William Wells, EM
0 = Ezra Meir, MAC = MACTEC, CD = Carolina Drilling.
1g0 4) Borings labeled EM, WW, and AP-8 through AP-12
• `� 9 e are predevelopment and do not include dike
B.� strati ra h
y.
t� g 0 ° o ,2 5) Geosyntec geoprobe coordinates were measured by
handheld GPS and surface elevations were estimated
CP _ CMW-6
from topographic contours.
s 0 600' 1200'
\;
� �'-CPT3
o�
° a0 od SCALE IN FEET
8 a
Geosyntec'= CHARLOTTE, NC
Q� o o. ` T_ 18o p L) consultants
o o ° DATE: Dec-13 SCALE: AS SHOWN
PROJECT NO. GC5369 FILE NO. AS SHOWN
OQ� DOCUMENT NO. FIGURE No. 6.F1

M.t.W Home
Color
Dike Fill (Sandy)
Foundation Soils - Silty Sand
Residual Soils
❑
CCR
Figure 6.172a. Cross Section A -A (1956 Inactive Pond)
Notes:
1. The height of the 1956 Pond dike was estimated to be approximately 20 ft.
2. The thickness of the Foundations Soils was estimated to range from 15 to 25 ft under the 1956 Pond.
3. The inner and outer slopes of the 1956 Pond dike were estimated to vary from 3H:1 V to 1H:IV.
4. The layer referred to as residual soils is part of the geologic unit described as PWR in Section 2 of this Report.

Figure 6.F2b. Cross Section B-B (1963 and 1970 Inactive Ponds)
Notes:
1. The height of the 1963 and 1970 Pond dikes was estimated to be approximately 25 ft.
2. The thickness of the Foundations Soils was estimated to range from 20 to 25 ft under the 1963 and 1970 Ponds.
3. The inner and outer slopes of the 1963 and 1970 Pond dikes were estimated to be approximately 2H:IV. The outer slope is
found to be steeper than 21-1:1 V at some locations.
4. The layer referred to as residual soils is part of the geologic unit described as PWR in Section 2 of this Report.

Figure 6.F2c. Cross Section C-C (1978 Active Pond)
Notes:
1. The height of the 1978 Pond dike was estimated to be 25 ft to 30 ft.
2. The thickness of the Foundations Soils was estimated to range from 20 to 25 ft under the 1978 Pond.
3. The inner and outer slopes of the 1978 Pond dike were estimated to be approximately 2H:1 V.
4. The layer referred to as residual soils is part of the geologic unit described as PWR in Section 2 of this Report.

Figure 6.F2d. Cross Section D-D (1985 Active Pond)
Notes:
1. The height of the 1985 Pond dike was estimated to be 25 ft to 30 ft.
2. The thickness of the Foundation Soils was estimated to range from 20 to 25 ft under the 1985 Pond.
3. The inner slopes of the 1985 Pond dike were estimated to be approximately 2H:IV. The outer slopes were estimated to vary
from approximately 4H:1 V to 2H:IV.
4. The layer referred to as residual soils is part of the geologic unit described as PWR in Section 2 of this Report.

Figure 6.F2e. Cross Section E-E (within the 1985 Active Pond)
Note:
1. The dotted line in the CCRs shown above represents the proposed excavation slope (4H:1 V) to build anew soil berm as one of
the conceptual closure options.
2. The layer referred to as residual soils is part of the geologic unit described as PWR in Section 2 of this Report.

]?
\/
j\
\
\ \
�
m �
♦
('IS" m ©7Aa[ 3
/\ l
_
%/
°°�\
v ,
/
» ®) /
\
y
's -
m
/o
®
m
*35�
8 .»
m
■
\0{
.c
_
=§Ry
/.
\
(_
ƒ
_
= 8
% j
•e t �
b
§�
]=S$
/
m
§ �
to%
k /
/
\\
� .e
2§20
) \
\
( / \
}/
/
22\\
§
g/e=
\
2
) e
§
/ 0
bi)
\
e ®•0
\
'0 ƒ
\Ao
<
® � �
&
0

i
�
�
�
�
i
�
�
i
« �
�
�
i
i
\ \ \ \ \ \
GSK m ©I 3
■
ƒ
�
k
*33\
\
©�Qq
% «
8` / §
)•` ° _
_
[_
®®—B5
%
5\a\'\
5
ou
3
/ a o r E
� � o
/
�i
Q
/

\\0
�
�
�
�
�
i
i
,
\
o \
�
�
i
♦ �
�
�
�
■
\ \_ j_ _/ \ \ ■ �
- ,
GSK m UOI 3
0
o j
«
#0 2
°°2\
- /
/
�
\\\\\
0
\
�\\\�
2
% A 8 / (
00
)•®®33
§G#o
_
�)
\
[_
%-QE§
\ %
l
k / /
\
\
k)
3
-0©e *e %
)
5\a\'\
§
§\e=7
/ a \ k E
2
/ §
)
§ / /
°
o
�o
\
2
-0•� § 0
a
/\§/v
/
§'�em2
&
0

k
A,
� o
_
o a
O O
0
F�
N
('ISIV 33) uoi;enaia
■
°
Y
O N
cr �+ "'' m .� U
U�3c°'0
or',�33C7•�
o
c O M
Wc)
y
N U
m ,C
o
a3 0 on 3 0
°
.Y
� 3 mal
al °
W
C',
¢ p
o o
N U •�
C4
U +C� 2 'O
a� ' • Q" v0, W
al
° n r
w
> � 0 � 0 m
°
�n
w
°
z

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
♦
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
■
o C� C) o) C) o ♦ 1
N
('ISN a3) UOIIUAaia
°
cd, ¢ P..al
g
m
° --
• -o
O °f�+°U Q"
al
ON 0^O'
m
cq 3
09L,
y cyG
O y00
0
O
O Q N :G' �
3
al_
w
0°=
87J0 °
W G4
acd N 3
o
y .y.r
+O+
Q
O
O 7J
m
p
Q
° bi)
N
al
O t y
w
Q
0,04
p �
W
M+ y
b o O
P. O N �, Op
y al
u.�
°°.,=
w pL - o
�onF o
w >>r�
a�30C4.c
° O
>
GM
,.z0.' .� = O
N —C, y cd
0 '
0 o0
[=—� 0w� �
w
O
Z

&2
/ \
% 'q
0
\ \
A �
hSw m U0149Aala
\

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
U
�
��U
�
o
'x
�
I
I
I
I
I
I
o
o
�
a
�
"
o �
I
('ISW J3) UOIJUAai:l
.r

I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
o
I
o a
o �
I
I
I
I
I
('ISNi 33) UOIIUAal:4

I
T
U
'k
p
O
O
�
O � �
('ISW a3) UOIIVAaig
M
w
a
w

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
in
I
I
loll
U
,
I
o
o
�
I
I
I
I
I
PP
o � �
('ISIV IJ) U0149Aaia
M
w