The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRoxboro GW Assessment Plan REV1_synTerra PROPOSED GROUNDWATER ASSESSMENT WORK PLAN FOR ROXBORO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT 1700 DUNNAWAY ROAD SEMORA, NORTH CAROLINA 27343 NPDES PERMIT ##NC0003425 N 36.484825/W-79.072315 PREPARED FOR DUKE ENERGY PROGRESSj, INC. 410 S. WILMINGTON STREET/NC14 RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27601 f > DUKE ENERGY.. r SUBMITTED: SEPTEMBER 2014 REVISION 1: DECEMBER 2014 PREPARED BY SYNTERRA 148 RIVER STREET GREENVILLEy SOUTH CAROLI (864) 421-9999 ►Z• ti 42 _ .. 1960"Arry W, OCFty SE t '� a p ath VI r ti i+P ;14q�PG 1425 ect Geologist C PG 1328 :t Manager Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014 Roxboro 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 Description............................................................................................... 5 2.3 Regulatory Requirements......................................................................................... 6 3.0 Receptor Information..................................................................................................... 8 4.0 Regional Geology And Hydrogeology.....................................................................10 5.0 Initial Conceptual Site Model....................................................................................12 5.1 Physical Site Characteristics...................................................................................12 5.2 Source Characteristics.............................................................................................13 5.3 Hydrogeologic Site Characteristics.......................................................................15 6.0 Environmental Monitoring.........................................................................................17 6.1 Compliance Monitoring Well Groundwater Analytical Results ......................17 6.2 Preliminary Statistical Evaluation Results...........................................................18 6.3 Landfill Monitoring Analytical Results................................................................19 6.4 Additional Site Data................................................................................................ 20 6.4.1 2014 Seep and Surface Water Sampling.......................................................... 20 6.4.2 Landfill Expansion Phase 7-9 Hydrogeologic Investigation ....................... 21 7.0 Assessment Work Plan................................................................................................. 22 7.1 Subsurface Exploration........................................................................................... 22 7.1.1 Ash and Soil Borings......................................................................................... 24 7.1.1.1 Borings Within The 1966 Semi -active and 1973 Active Ash Basins...................................................................................................... 24 7.1.1.2 Borings Outside Ash Basin.................................................................. 25 7.1.1.3 Index Property Sampling and Analysis ............................................. 27 7.1.2 Groundwater Monitoring Wells...................................................................... 29 7.1.2.1 Background Wells................................................................................ 31 7.1.2.2 Wells in 1973 Active Ash Basin.......................................................... 31 7.1.2.3 Wells in 1966 Active Ash Basin.......................................................... 31 7.1.2.4 Piezometers in 1966 Active Ash Basin ............................................... 32 7.1.2.5 Downgradient Assessment Areas ...................................................... 32 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ ALL NC SITES\ DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Roxboro\ Final\ Roxboro GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Roxboro Steam Electric Plant 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8 8.0 8.1 8.2 9.0 10.0 11.0 Revision 1: December 2014 SynTerra 7.1.3 Well Completion and Development............................................................... 34 7.1.4 Hydraulic Evaluation Testing.......................................................................... 35 Ash Pore Water and Groundwater Sampling and Analysis .............................. 37 Surface Water, Sediment, and Seep Sampling ..................................................... 39 7.3.1 Surface Water Samples...................................................................................... 39 7.3.2 Sediment Samples.............................................................................................. 40 7.3.3 Seep Samples...................................................................................................... 40 Field and Sampling Quality Assurance/Quality Control Procedures .............. 40 7.4.1 Field Logbooks................................................................................................... 40 7.4.2 Field Data Records............................................................................................. 41 7.4.3 Sample Identification......................................................................................... 41 7.4.4 Field Equipment Calibration............................................................................41 7.4.5 Sample Custody Requirements........................................................................ 42 7.4.6 Quality Assurance and Quality Control Samples ......................................... 44 7.4.7 Decontamination Procedures........................................................................... 45 7.4.8 Influence of Pumping Wells on Groundwater System ................................. 45 Site Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model................................................................. 46 Site -Specific Background Concentrations (SSBC)............................................... 47 Geologic Mapping/Fracture Trace and Lineament Analysis ............................. 47 Groundwater Fate and Transport Model............................................................. 48 7.8.1 MODFLOW/MT31) ............................................................................................ 49 7.8.2 Development of Kd Terms............................................................................... 50 7.8.3 MODFLOW/MT31) Modeling Process............................................................ 53 7.8.4 Hydrostratigraphic Layer Development........................................................ 54 7.8.5 Domain of Conceptual Groundwater Flow Model ....................................... 55 7.8.6 Potential Modeling of Groundwater Impacts to Surface Water ................. 55 RiskAssessment............................................................................................................ 58 Human Health Risk Assessment........................................................................... 58 8.1.1 Site -Specific Risk -Based Remediation Standards .......................................... 59 Ecological Risk Assessment.................................................................................... 61 CSAReport..................................................................................................................... 64 ProposedSchedule........................................................................................................ 66 References....................................................................................................................... 67 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ ALL NC SITES\ DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Roxboro \ Final \ Roxboro GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014 Roxboro Steam Electric Plant SynTerra List of Figures Figure 1- Site Location Map Figure 2 - Site Layout Map Figure 3 - Geology Map Figure 4 - Water Level Map - July 2014 Figure 5 - Proposed Monitoring Well and Sample Location Map List of Tables Table 1 - NPDES Groundwater Monitoring Requirements Table 2 - Landfill Groundwater and Leachate Monitoring Requirements Table 3 - Summary of Concentration Ranges for Constituents Detected Greater Than 2L Standards Table 4 - Groundwater Analytical Results Table 5 - Landfill Groundwater Analytical Results Table 6 - Landfill Analytical Results Table 7 - Seep Analytical Results Table 8 - Environmental Exploration and Sampling Plan Table 9 - Soil and Ash Parameters and Analytical Methods Table 10 - 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 - Available Data Blackrock Engineers, Inc. Phase 7-9 Hydrogeologic Investigation Data Appendix C - Preliminary Fracture Trace Analysis Maps P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment Plans\Roxboro\Final\Roxboro GW Assessment Plan REVI.docx Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014 Roxboro Steam Electric Plant EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SynTerra Duke Energy Progress, Inc. (Duke Energy) owns and operates the Roxboro Steam Electric Plant (Roxboro Plant) located near Semora, in Person County, North Carolina. The Roxboro Plant began operations in the 1960s and continued to add capacity through the 1980s. Currently, the Plant operates four coal-fired units. Coal combustion residuals (CCRs) have historically been managed at the Plant's on -site ash basins: the semi -active East Ash Basin (operated from the mid-1960s to present) and the active West Ash Basin (operated from the early 1970s to present). 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 National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit NC0003425. Duke Energy has performed groundwater monitoring at the facility since 2003 and the analytical results were submitted to DWR. Groundwater monitoring as required by the NPDES permit began in November 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 Requirements (NORR) letter dated August 13, 2014, the DWR requested that Duke Energy prepare a Groundwater Assessment Plan to identify the source and cause of contamination, any imminent hazards to public health and safety, all receptors and significant exposure pathways for the site. In addition, the plan should be designed to determine the horizontal and vertical extent of soil and groundwater contamination and all significant factors affecting contaminant transport and the geological and hydrogeological features influencing the movement, chemical, and physical character of the contaminants. The following assessment plan anticipates: • Implementation of a receptor survey to identify public and private water supply wells (including irrigation wells and unused or abandoned wells), surface water P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment Plans\Roxboro\ Final\Roxboro GW Assessment Plan REVI.docx Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014 Roxboro Steam Electric Plant SynTerra features, and wellhead protection areas (if present) within a 0.5 mile radius of the Roxboro Plant 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 samples from existing site wells and newly installed monitoring wells; • Collection and analysis of surface water and sediment samples; • Collection and analysis of seep samples; • Statistical evaluation of groundwater analytical data; and • Development of a groundwater model to evaluate the long term fate and transport of constituents of concern in groundwater associated with the ash management basins. • Conduct 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 Roxboro Plant including: • Installing one shallow and one deep well at a location approximately one thousand four hundred feet north of proposed wells AW-1 and AW-11) and approximately one thousand two hundred feet East of existing well set CW-2 and CW-2D. • Installing a vertical extent (bedrock) well at CW-5 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment Plans\Roxboro\ Final\Roxboro GW Assessment Plan REVI.docx Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014 Roxboro Steam Electric Plant SynTerra • Installing a well cluster approximately one thousand four hundred feet southeast of proposed well AW-5S and AW-51). • Installing a vertical extent well (bedrock) at CW-1. • Installing one shallow and one deep well at a location one thousand two hundred feet east-northeast of CW-5 and approximately one thousand two hundred feet north-northeast of proposed wells AW-2 and AW-21). • Installing one well approximately two thousand five hundred feet northeast of proposed well cluster BW-2S and BW-21). • Installing a well cluster approximately three thousand five hundred feet south of CW-1 and approximately one thousand two hundred feet east of proposed well cluster AW-5S and AW-51). • Installing an additional potential background well cluster approximately one thousand five hundred feet northeast of well CW-I. • Installing ash borings in the 1966 semi -active ash basin. P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment Plans\Roxboro\ Final\Roxboro GW Assessment Plan REVI.docx Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014 Roxboro Steam Electric Plant SynTerra 1.0 INTRODUCTION Duke Energy Progress, Inc. (Duke Energy) owns and operates the Roxboro Steam Electric Plant (Roxboro Plant) located near Semora, in Person County, North Carolina (Figure 1). The Roxboro Plant began operations in the 1960s and continued to add capacity through the 1980s. Currently, the Plant operates four coal-fired units. Coal combustion residuals (CCRs) have historically been managed at the Plant's on -site ash basins: the semi -active East Ash Basin (operated from the mid-1960s to present) and the active West Ash Basin (operated from the early 1970s to present; Figure 2). An unlined landfill was constructed on top of the semi -active East Ash Basin in the late 1980s for the placement of dry fly ash (DFA). A lined landfill was constructed over the unlined landfill around 2004. The 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). Duke Energy has performed groundwater monitoring at the facility since 2003 and the analytical results were submitted to DWR. Groundwater monitoring as required by the NPDES permit began in November 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 #NC0003425. The current groundwater compliance monitoring plan for the Roxboro Plant includes the sampling of eight (8) wells. These eight wells include one background well and seven (7) downgradient wells. In addition to the eight wells monitored as part of the NPDES permit, the Roxboro Plant samples six monitoring wells and collects landfill leachate samples from four locations associated with the lined DFA landfill in accordance with a permit issued by NCDENR's Solid Waste Section. In a Notice of Regulatory Requirements (NORR) letter dated August 13, 2014, the DWR of the NCDENR requested that Duke Energy prepare a Groundwater Assessment Plan Page 1 P: \Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ALL NC SITES \DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Roxboro \ Final \ Roxboro GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Revision 1: December 2014 SynTerra to conduct 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 21, groundwater quality standards at the compliance boundary. A copy of the DWR letter is provided in Appendix A. The Coal Ash Management Act 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. 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 Page 2 P: \Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ALL NC SITES \DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Roxboro \ Final \ Roxboro GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014 Roxboro Steam Electric Plant SynTerra Department. The Report shall describe all exceedances of groundwater quality standards associated with the impoundment. This work plan addresses the requirements of 130A-309.209(a)(1) (a) through (f) and the requirements of the NORR. On behalf of Duke Energy, SynTerra submitted to NCDENR a proposed Work Plan for the Roxboro Plant dated September 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 Roxboro 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 (f) 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. The purpose of the work plan is to provide the information sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the rule. 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; Page 3 P: \Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ALL NC SITES \DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Roxboro \ Final \ Roxboro GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014 Roxboro Steam Electric Plant SynTerra • The time frame mandated by the Coal Ash Management Act (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; and • 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 \ Roxboro \ Final \ Roxboro GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014 Roxboro Steam Electric Plant 2.0 SITE INFORMATION SynTerra 2.1 Plant Description Duke Energy Progress, Inc. owns and operates the Roxboro Plant located in north - central North Carolina near Semora, North Carolina. A large part of the Plant area encompasses Hyco Lake. The Roxboro Plant is located in Person County along the east bank of Hyco Lake north of Roxboro, NC and west of McGhees Mill Road. The site location is shown on Figure 1. The Roxboro Plant began operations in the 1960s and continued to add capacity through the 1980s. The Roxboro Plant uses coal-fired units to produce steam. Ash generated from coal combustion has been stored on -site in ash basins. The Plant is located on Dunnaway Road, approximately 10 miles northwest of the city of Roxboro, North Carolina. The Plant is situated on the east side of Hyco Lake, a lake formed from the impoundment of the Hyco River. The Plant property is roughly bounded by Hyco Lake to the north and west, NC Highway 57 (Semora Road) to the south and west, and State Highway 1336 (McGhees Mill Road) to the east. The overall topography of the Plant generally slopes toward the north (Hyco Lake). 2.2 Ash Basin Description Ash generated from coal combustion has been stored in on -site ash basins and a lined landfill. Ash has been sluiced to the ash basins or conveyed in its dry form to the lined landfill. Two ash basins areas have been used at the Roxboro Plant and are referenced using the date of construction and relative location: the 1966 semi -active East Ash Basin and the 1973 active West Ash Basin. The East Ash Basin is located southeast of the plant, and the West Ash Basin is located south of the plant. An unlined landfill was constructed on the East Ash Basin in the late 1980s. A lined landfill was subsequently constructed over the unlined landfill around 2004. The ash basins are impounded by earthen dams. Surface water runoff from the East Ash basin and the lined landfill are routed into the West Ash Basin to allow settling. A 500-foot compliance boundary encircles both ash basins. The approximate size of the combined ash basins is 495 acres with a total estimated ash inventory in both basins of 16,960,000 tons. The landfill ash inventory is estimated to be 10,540,000 tons. The total estimated ash at the Roxboro facility is approximately 27,500,000 tons. The ash basins and landfill (ash management areas) are illustrated on Figure 2. Currently, the East Ash Basin and lined landfill are covered with vegetation where the landfill is not active (grasses and shrubs). The West Ash Basin has some grass cover and ponded water, mostly along the southern and eastern edges of the basin. Page 5 P: \Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ALL NC SITES \DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Roxboro \ Final \ Roxboro GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014 Roxboro Steam Electric Plant SynTerra A Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) System is present within the 1973 Active Ash Basin. The FGD system directs flue gas into an absorber where limestone (calcium carbonate) slurry is sprayed. Sulfer dioxide in the flue gas reacts with the limestone slurry to produce calcium sulfate, or gypsum. The system reclaims the un-reacted limestone slurry to be reused in the absorber. A small blowdown stream is used to maintain the chloride concentration in the reaction tank. The blowdown stream is discharged to a gypsum settling pond where suspended solids are settled out prior to entering a bioreactor. The bioreactor utilizes microbes to reduce targeted soluble contaminants to insoluble forms that then precipitate from solution. The treated wastewater enters the ash basin effluent channel prior to outfall 002. Wastewater discharges from the facility are permitted by the NCDENR DWR under National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit NC0003425. 2.3 Regulatory Requirements The current groundwater compliance monitoring program for the Roxboro Plant includes the sampling of eight wells surrounding the compliance boundary three times per year. These eight wells include one background well and seven downgradient wells. The locations of the monitoring wells, the waste boundary, and the compliance boundary are shown on Figure 2. Wells CW-3D and CW-4D were installed in the upper bedrock and were paired with shallow wells CW-3 and CW-4, which were installed above the bedrock in either saprolite or transition zone (partially weathered rock) materials to monitor the vertical hydraulic gradients and groundwater quality in two hydrostratigraphic units. The remaining compliance boundary wells were installed in the saprolite or transition zone above bedrock. In addition to the eight wells monitored as part of the NPDES permit, the Roxboro Plant samples six monitoring wells and collects landfill leachate samples from four locations associated with the active lined landfill in accordance with a permit issued by NCDENR's solid waste section. Semi-annual groundwater monitoring is conducted for the landfill monitoring wells. Groundwater analytical results from these monitoring events will be reviewed and included in the assessment. The locations of landfill monitoring points are shown on Figure 2. In accordance with the current NPDES permit, the ash basin compliance monitoring wells are sampled three times per year in April, July, and November. The analytical results for the compliance monitoring program are compared to the 21, Standards and site -specific background concentrations. A summary of the detected concentration Page 6 P: \Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ALL NC SITES \DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Roxboro \ Final \ Roxboro GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014 Roxboro Steam Electric Plant SynTerra ranges through July 2014 for constituents detected at concentrations greater than the 2L Standards is provided in Table 2. Table 1 NPDES Groundwater Monitoring Requirements Well Identification Parameter Description Tri-Annual Frequency Aluminum Chloride Mercury TDS CW-1, CW-2, Antimony Chromium Nickel Thallium CW-2D, CW-3, Arsenic Copper Nitrate Zinc April, July, CW-3D, CW-4, Barium Iron pH November CW-5, BG-1 Boron Lead Selenium Cadmium Manganese Sulfate The landfill groundwater monitoring program includes sampling six monitoring wells and four leachate outfalls, and measuring water levels in the six wells plus piezometers P-12 and P-14 twice a year (April and November). GMW-8 is located hydraulically upgradient and sidegradient of the landfill and GMW-9 is located hydraulically upgradient of most of the landfill. Wells GMW-6, GMW-7, GMW-10 and GMW-11 are located downgradient of the landfill. Leachate monitoring points P-1, P-2, P-3 and P-4 are located along the northwest perimeter of the landfill at the 1966 semi -active ash basin. The six monitoring wells are sampled via the low flow method using either a peristaltic or submersible pump. Leachate samples are collected directly from the discharge pipes (Table 4). A summary of the landfill monitoring requirements is provided below. Table 2 Landfill Groundwater and Leachate Monitoring Requirements Well/Leachate Monitoring Point Parameter Description Bi-Annual Frequency GMW-6, GMW- 7, GMW-8, Aluminum Chloride Mercury TDS Antimony Chromium Nickel Thallium Arsenic Copper Nitrate Zinc GMW-9, GMW- April 10, GMW-11/ November Barium Iron pH COD P-1, P-2, P-3, P-4 Boron Lead Selenium TOC Cadmium Manganese Sulfate Page 7 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ ALL NC SITES \ DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Roxboro \ Final \ Roxboro GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014 Roxboro Steam Electric Plant 3.0 RECEPTOR INFORMATION The August 13, 2014 NORR states: SynTerra 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. In accordance with the requirements of the NORR, SynTerra has 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 Roxboro Plant compliance boundary. SynTerra presented the results of the receptor survey in two separate reports. The first report submitted in September 2014 (Drinking Water Well and Receptor Survey) included the results of a review of publicly available data from NCDENR Department of Environmental Health (DEH), NC OneMap GeoSpatial Portal, DWR Source Water Assessment Program (SWAP) online database, county GIS, Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) Records Review, the USGS National Hydrography Dataset (NHD), 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 \ Roxboro \ Final \ Roxboro GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014 Roxboro 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 listed in the NPDES permit and the approximate location of identified water supply wells. A table presented available information about identified wells including the owner's name, address of the well 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 \ Roxboro \ Final \ Roxboro GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014 Roxboro Steam Electric Plant SynTerra 4.0 REGIONAL GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY The Roxboro Plant is situated in the eastern Piedmont Region of north -central North Carolina. The Piedmont is characterized by well-rounded hills and rolling ridges cut by small streams and drainages. Elevations in the area of the Roxboro Plant range between 410 feet above mean sea level (msl) during full pool at Hyco Lake to 570 feet msl near the Dunnaway Road and McGhees Mill Road intersection southeast of the Plant. Geologically, the Plant is located near the contact of two regional geologic zones: the Inner Piedmont zone and the Carolina zone. Both zones are generally comprised of igneous and metamorphosed igneous and sedimentary rocks of Paleozoic age. In general, the rocks are highly fractured and folded and have been subjected to long periods of physical and chemical weathering. The origination, genesis, and characteristics of the rocks of the region have been the focus of detailed study by researchers for many years. These investigations have resulted in a number of interpretations and periodic refinements to the overall geological model of the region. Rocks of the region, except where exposed in road cuts, stream channels, and steep hillsides, are covered with unconsolidated material formed from the in -situ chemical and physical breakdown of the bedrock. This unconsolidated material is referred to as saprolite or residuum. Direct observations at the Roxboro Plant confirm the presence of residuum, developed above the bedrock, which is generally 10 to 30 feet thick. The residuum extends from the ground surface (soil zones) downward, transitioning through a zone comprised of unconsolidated silt and sand, downward through a transition zone of partially weathered rock in a silt/sand matrix, down to the contact with competent bedrock. The Geologic Map of North Carolina (1985) places the rocks of the Plant area in the Charlotte Terrane: a belt of metamorphic rock trending generally southwest to northeast characterized by strongly foliated felsic mica gneiss and schist and metamorphosed intrusive rocks (Figure 3). The rocks of the area near the Plant are described as biotite gneiss and schist with abundant potassic feldspar and garnet, and interlayered and gradational with calc-silicate rock, silliminite-mica schist and amphibolite. The gneiss contains small masses of granite rock. The felsic mica gneiss of the Charlotte Terrane is described as being interlayered with biotite and hornblende schist. Later mapping generally confirms these observations and places the Roxboro Plant near the contact between the Inner Piedmont zone, characterized by the presence of biotite gneiss and schist, and the Charlotte Belt (or Charlotte Terrane), characterized by felsic mica gneiss (USGS, 2007). Page 10 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ALL NC SITES \DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Roxboro \ Final \ Roxboro GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014 Roxboro Steam Electric Plant SynTerra Other researchers have conducted detailed investigations of the area and have provided additional description of the geology in detailed tectonic, structural, and litho- stratigraphic terms (Wilkins, Shell and Hibbard, 1995; Hibbard, et. al., 2002). One of the most important interpretations concerning the geologic nature of the region is the discovery and description of the Hyco shear zone, a tectonic boundary comprised of a ductile shear zone that sharply separates contrasting rocks of the Charlotte (Milton) and Carolina Terranes in north -central North Carolina and southern Virginia (Hibbard, et. al., 1998). The Hyco shear zone was mapped as directly underlying Hyco Lake. Groundwater within the area exists under unconfined, or water table, conditions within the residuum and/or saprolite zone and in fractures and joints of the underlying bedrock (Figure 4). The water table and bedrock aquifers are interconnected. The residuum acts as a reservoir for supplying groundwater to the fractures and joints in the bedrock. 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, and 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. Page 11 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ALL NC SITES \DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Roxboro \ Final \ Roxboro GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014 Roxboro Steam Electric Plant SynTerra 5.0 INITIAL CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL Information provided in this section forms the basis for the initial conceptual site model (ICSM). The ICSM has been developed based upon regional and site -specific data (e.g. site observations, topography, boring logs, well construction records, etc.). The regional geologic and hydrogeologic framework is discussed in Section 4.0. Existing information from routine compliance monitoring and voluntary monitoring is summarized in Section 6.0. The ICSM has been developed to identify data gaps and to optimize assessment data collection. The CSM will continue to be developed and refined as discussed in Section 7.0. The ICSM has been developed to identify data gaps and to 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 has been developed to collect and evaluate this information. 5.1 Physical Site Characteristics Elevations in the area of the Roxboro Plant range between 410 feet above msl during full pool at Hyco Lake to 570 feet msl near the Dunnaway Road and McGhees Mill Road intersection southeast of the Plant. The ash basins are impounded by earthen dikes. Topography generally slopes from the natural undisturbed areas along the perimeter of the site inward toward the active areas of the site. A northwest -southeast trending Page 12 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ALL NC SITES \DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Roxboro \ Final \ Roxboro GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014 Roxboro Steam Electric Plant SynTerra topographic ridge intersects the west 1973 Active Ash Basin and the east 1966 semi - active ash basin and lined landfill. The total combined size of both the 1973 West Active Ash Basin and 1966 East Semi - active Ash Basin is 495 acres and contains approximately 25,500,000 tons of CCRs (Duke Energy, October 31, 2014). No types of waste other than permitted low volume waste are believed to have been placed in the basins or landfill. Hyco Lake was constructed in the early 1960's by Carolina Power and Light Company (now Duke Energy Progress) as a cooling reservoir for their steam electric generating plant. The lake covers approximately 3,750 acres and has 3 main tributaries, North Hyco Creek, South Hyco Creek and Cobbs Creek. The elevation of Hyco Reservoir and drainage canals at the site is approximately 410 feet msl. Surface elevation of the 1966 semi -active ash basin and landfill ranges from 470-530 feet msl. Surface elevation in the 1973 active ash basin range from approximately 450-480 feet msl. 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 38 mm to 0.05 mm in diameter. 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 90 percent by weight) is generally 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, Page 13 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ALL NC SITES \DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Roxboro \ Final \ Roxboro GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014 Roxboro Steam Electric Plant SynTerra 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 (US EPA) Proposed Rules Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals From Electric Utilities, in Federal Register /Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010, the US EPA 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 TDS. In selecting the parameters for detection monitoring, US EPA 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 CCR 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 EPA 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, SynTerra believes that the effect of these processes are best considered by determination of site -specific, soil -water distribution coefficient, Kd, values as described in Section 7.8.2. 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. Page 14 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ALL NC SITES \DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Roxboro \ Final \ Roxboro GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014 Roxboro Steam Electric Plant SynTerra 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 samples collected from piezometers within the ash basins (near the base of the ash basin), 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 complex due to the complex nature of the 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. The 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 certainty 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 7.0. As described in Section 7.8.2, 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 Based on a review of soil boring data, monitoring well and piezometer installation logs provided by Duke Energy, subsurface stratigraphy consists of the following material types: topsoil, saprolite, partially weathered/fractured rock (PWR), and bedrock. Although not encountered by existing site borings, other material types expected at the Roxboro Plant include fill and ash. In general, saprolite, PWR, and bedrock were encountered on most areas of the site. The general stratigraphic units, in sequence from the ground surface down to boring termination, are defined as follows: • Fill - Although not directly encountered in existing soil borings at Roxboro Plant, fill material would be expected to consist of re -worked silts and clays that were borrowed from one area of the site and re -distributed to other areas. Fill was used in the construction of dikes and presumably as cover for the landfill. • Ash - Encountered in several piezometer soil borings at Roxboro Plant, CCR consists of fly ash and bottom ash produced from the combustion of coal. Page 15 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ALL NC SITES \DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Roxboro \ Final \ Roxboro GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014 Roxboro Steam Electric Plant SynTerra • 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. Partially Weathered Rock (PWR) - PWR occurs between the saprolite and bedrock and contains saprolite and rock remnants in a clayey matrix. In boring logs from previous site work, little distinction is made between saprolite and PWR. This is likely due to the nature of the underlying rocks. The saprolite extends from the ground surface (soil zones) downward, transitioning through a zone comprised of unconsolidated silt and sand, downward through a transition zone of PWR in a silt/sand matrix, down to the contact with competent bedrock. These changes in material type are gradational and oftentimes indistinguishable owing to the strongly foliated and compositionally layered nature of the rock. • Bedrock - Bedrock was encountered in borings completed around the plant area. Bedrock materials consist of biotite gneiss and schist [CZbg], felsic mica gneiss [CZfg] and metamorphosed granite rock [CZg]. Fractures and fracture zones were noted in bedrock borings. Groundwater beneath the Plant area occurs within the residuum/partially weathered rock or competent bedrock at depths ranging from three to 20 feet below land surface (bls) along the downgradient compliance boundary and greater than 35 feet bls upgradient of the ash basin. Routine water level measurements and corresponding elevations from the compliance monitoring well network indicate that groundwater generally flows from upland areas along the south, west, and eastern boundaries to the north and west towards Hyco Lake. Groundwater generally flows from the south to the north along the western portion of the property and from the east-southeast to the north-northwest across the remainder of the property. The approximate groundwater gradient along the western portion of the property using July 2014 data was 85.04 feet (vertical change) over 530 feet (horizontal distance) or 16 feet/100 feet as measured from upgradient background well BG-1 to downgradient well CW-2 (Figure 4). The approximate groundwater gradient along the northern compliance boundary for July 2014 was slightly less at 76.64 feet (vertical change) over 570 feet (horizontal distance) or 13.4 feet over 100 feet as measured from well CW-1 to downgradient well CW-2. Groundwater elevation data collected from the two well pairs indicate the vertical gradient tends to be upward or neutral between the transition zone and upper bedrock near surface water bodies. Page 16 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ALL NC SITES \DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Roxboro \ Final \ Roxboro GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014 Roxboro Steam Electric Plant SynTerra 6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING There are two separate monitoring programs that are currently ongoing at the Roxboro plant: 1) compliance monitoring well sampling program performed three times per year associated with the active ash basin, and 2) landfill groundwater and leachate monitoring program performed two times per year for the lined landfill. These programs were developed to monitor ash management activities at the plant. Table 3 summarizes the ranges of constituent concentrations that exceed 21, standards for compliance monitoring under the NPDES permit at the site through July 2014. Table 4 provides the historical groundwater data collected during the compliance monitoring well sampling program (plus non-compliance wells MW-1 and MW-2), Table 5 provides the historical groundwater data collected during the landfill monitoring well sampling program, and Table 6 summarizes leachate sampling data. 6.1 Compliance Monitoring Well Groundwater Analytical Results The July 2014 sampling event was the twelfth time the NPDES compliance monitoring wells at Roxboro have been sampled. The following observations were made based on the July 2014 sampling event data: Background Well BG-1: No constituent concentrations were greater than their respective groundwater standard (GWS). Typically, iron has been detected at concentrations greater than the GWS, but it was below the GWS for the July 2014 sampling event. Compliance Boundary Well CW-1: No constituents were detected at concentrations greater than the GWS. This is consistent with previous data for this well. Compliance Boundary Wells CW-2/CW-2D: For CW-2 iron was detected at a concentration greater than the GWS and the background well BG-1 iron concentration. This is similar to the November 2012, November 2013, and April 2014 sampling events. The concentration of Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) was also greater than the GWS in CW-2. For CW-2D, no constituents were detected at concentrations greater than the GWS, consistent with previous data. The vertical hydraulic gradient for well pair CW- 2/CW-2D was upward but negligible in July 2014. Compliance Boundary Wells CW-3/CW-3D: The only constituent detected at a concentration greater than the GWS for CW-3 was TDS which is consistent with historical concentrations of TDS in CW-3. For CW-3D, the concentration of manganese was greater than the GWS, consistent with previous data. There was a strong upward vertical hydraulic gradient at well pair CW-3/CW-3D in July 2014. Page 17 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ALL NC SITES \DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Roxboro \ Final \ Roxboro GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014 Roxboro Steam Electric Plant SynTerra Compliance Boundary Wells CW-4 and CW-5: For CW-4, no constituents were detected at concentrations greater than the GWS. This is consistent with previous data for this well. Sulfate and TDS concentrations continue to be greater than the GWS for CW-5. There may be a correlation between sulfate and TDS concentrations in CW-5. 6.2 Preliminary Statistical Evaluation Results As a preliminary evaluation tool, statistical analysis was conducted on the NPDES Compliance groundwater monitoring analytical data collected at the Roxboro Plant. The statistical analysis was conducted in accordance with US EPA, Statistical Training Course for Ground Water Monitoring Data Analysis, EPA530-R-93-003, 1992 and US EPA's Statistical Analysis of Groundwater Monitoring Data at RCRA Facilities; Unified Guidance EPA 530/R-09-007, March 2009. 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 the most recent sample date from compliance boundary wells. The compliance monitoring network includes one background monitoring well, BG-1, and seven downgradient compliance boundary monitoring wells designated CW-1, CW-2, CW-2D, CW-3, CW-3D, CW-4, and CW-5. Wells CW-3D and CW4D were installed in the upper bedrock and were paired with shallow wells CW-3 and CW-4, which were installed in the transition zone above the bedrock, to monitor the vertical hydraulic gradients in the area. The remaining compliance boundary wells were installed in the saprolite or transition zone, above bedrock. Statistical analysis was performed on the inorganic constituents with detectable concentrations for the July 2014 routine sampling event. The preliminary statistical analysis indicated statistically significant increases (SSIs) over background concentrations for the following: • CW-1 sulfate and TDS (sulfate is consistently less than the 2L Standard); • CW-2 barium, sulfate and TDS (barium and sulfate are consistently less than the 21, Standard); • CW-2D barium, sulfate and TDS (barium, sulfate and TDS are consistently less than the 21, Standard); • CW-3 barium, chloride, sulfate and TDS (barium, chloride, and sulfate are consistently less than the 21, Standard); Page 18 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ALL NC SITES \DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Roxboro \ Final \ Roxboro GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014 Roxboro Steam Electric Plant SynTerra • CW-3D chloride, manganese, sulfate and TDS (chloride and sulfate are consistently less than the 21, Standard); • CW-4 barium, chloride and sulfate (barium, and chloride are consistently less than the 21, Standard); and • CW-5 boron, chloride, sulfate and TDS (boron and chloride are consistently less than the 21, Standard). These results are preliminary and 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, the new 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 Landfill Monitoring Analytical Results Upgradient Wells GMW-8 and GMW-9: In April 2014, groundwater collected from GMW-8 contained boron, sulfate, and total dissolved solids (TDS) at concentrations greater than their respective 21, standards. The concentrations are, however, within the historical range for this well. During April 2014, no constituents were detected at concentrations greater than the groundwater 21, standard in upgradient well GMW-9, similar to historical data. Leachate Monitoring Points LP-1, LP-2, LP-3, and LP-4: Boron, cadmium, manganese, selenium, sulfate, and TDS are present in leachate samples. Iron, nickel and thallium are also present in the leachate. The data provides information on the leachate characteristics of the ash in the landfill area. Downgradient Wells GMW-6, GMW-7, GMW-10, and GMW-11: In April 2014, groundwater collected from GMW-6 contained boron, selenium, sulfate, and TDS at concentrations greater than 21, standards, consistent with historical data. Groundwater collected from GMW-7 and GMW-10 did not contain constituents at concentrations greater than 21, standards. Groundwater collected from GMW-11 contained boron, selenium, and TDS at concentrations greater than 21, standards during April 2014. Page 19 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ALL NC SITES \DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Roxboro \ Final \ Roxboro GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014 Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Boron in GMW-6 �i 4.5 4 z 3.5 0 3 a 2.5 2 LZ 1.5 U 1 Z 0 0.5 V 0 Z ° o°� o°� oti° oti° otiy otiy oti oti oti oti'' oti oti oti m\'�\y\y�\titi\tip\�\y\tio\ti ti ti ti ti DATE SAMPLED SynTerra The data trend of boron in groundwater collected from compliance well GMW-6 from May 2009 through November 2014 illustrates that concentrations are decreasing over time in that area of the site. General trends for other constituents appear to support this phenomenon and will be further analyzed in the CSA Report. The concentration reductions may be attributed to sluicing discontinued to the 1966 ash basin, the construction of the lined landfill, or a combination of both. The CSA will involve further analysis of the cause and effect of these activities on groundwater quality. 6.4 Additional Site Data In addition to the routine groundwater monitoring conducted in accordance with the approved NPDES permit and landfill permit, additional seep sampling activities have been conducted at the Roxboro Plant. Results are described briefly below. 6.4.1 2014 Seep and Surface Water Sampling On August 25 and 26, 2014, an evaluation of the Roxboro Plant seepage flow surrounding the ash basins toward Hyco Lake was performed. The evaluation included a site reconnaissance to identify potential seeps followed by the collection of flow measurements and representative water quality samples at select locations. The purpose of the evaluation was to identify additional potential outfalls for inclusion within the NPDES Permit NC0003425. Eleven seep locations were originally identified during wet weather conditions in early spring of 2014. However, of those 11 identified seeps, only six locations contained sufficient water for water quality sample collection in August 2014. Three additional seeps were sampled in August 2014. Eight of the seeps are located upstream of NPDES Outfall 003 to Hyco Lake. The remainder of the seeps are located upstream of the intake canal. Analytical data provided by Duke Energy from the split sampling conducted with NCDENR from the March 2014 sampling event and analytical data from the August 2014 seep evaluations are included in Table 7. The analytical data Page 20 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment Plans \ Roxboro \ Final \ Roxboro GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014 Roxboro Steam Electric Plant SynTerra collected by NCDENR from the March 2014 sampling event has not been provided to Duke Energy, and is not included in Table 7. 6.4.2 Landfill Expansion Phase 7-9 Hydrogeologic Investigation During 2013 and 2014, Blackrock Engineers, Inc. performed a Hydrogeologic Investigation test boring and piezometer installation program within the 1966 semi -active ash basin for the design and permitting of future landfill phases 7-9. Forty-one test borings were drilled and forty-one piezometers (designated P-101 through P-141) were installed across the area south of phases 1-6 to collect soil samples for geotechnical testing and evaluate hydrogeologic properties of the ash and regolith. Five piezometers have been installed within the ash basin to screen the bottom of the ash within the ash basin study area to monitor the level of the pore water. Appendix B includes a map illustrating piezometer locations and the Geotechnics laboratory test results from soil boring samples. Solid matrix samples were analyzed for moisture, ash content, organic matter content, specific gravity, unit weight with porosity, atterburg limits, sieve and hydrometer analysis, permeability testing and US Department of Agriculture (USDA) classification. These data will supplement the 2015 groundwater assessment data, be incorporated into the Site Conceptual Model (SCM), and used as input data for the groundwater flow and transport model. Page 21 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ALL NC SITES \DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Roxboro \ Final \ Roxboro GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014 Roxboro Steam Electric Plant SynTerra 7.0 ASSESSMENT WORK PLAN Solid and aqueous media sampling and analysis 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 assess the fate and transport mechanisms, such as the physical properties of the ash and soil. Based on readily available 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 both ash basins; • Bedrock lithology classification from borings within and beneath both ash basins; • Pore water samples from proposed monitoring wells within the 1973 active ash basin; • Soil samples from borings located outside the ash basins and landfill boundary; • Groundwater samples from monitoring wells screened in two flow zones outside the ash basins and landfill area boundary; 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 below. Existing groundwater quality data from compliance monitoring wells and landfill monitoring wells 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 6. The proposed sampling locations are shown on Figure 5. 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 sampling or investigations. 7.1 Subsurface Exploration Characterization of subsurface materials will be conducted using rotary -sonic (sonic) drilling (or similar methods) to provide continuous soil cores through ash and into the Page 22 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ALL NC SITES \DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Roxboro \ Final \ Roxboro GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014 Roxboro Steam Electric Plant SynTerra underlying native soil and bedrock within the basins, and through regolith and bedrock in areas surrounding the ash management area. 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, increased daily production, better sample recovery, and it allows the water bearing zones to stay open during well installation. A key benefit of sonic drilling is that high quality continuous cores through unconsolidated and consolidated material are obtained. The process of advancing a steel casing during drilling minimizes the possibly of pulling material down into or below confining units. 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 is preferable over hollow stem auger drilling when monitoring wells are to be installed substantially below the water table since the drill casing stabilizes the borehole during the placement of well construction materials. For these reasons, as well as to minimize groundwater sample turbidity, it is anticipated that the wells will be installed using sonic drilling methodology. As a contingency, it is anticipated that the borings for material sample collection may be conducted using Direct Push Technology (DPT). Water from the potable water source that may be used during drilling activities will be sampled and analyzed for the groundwater parameters list (Table 10). The data will be reviewed to determine if concentrations of target analytes are elevated and may pose a potential for cross -contamination or false positive detections in environmental samples. For clustered monitoring wells, the deep monitoring well borings will be utilized for characterization of subsurface materials and solid matrix sample collection for laboratory analysis. 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 Page 23 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ALL NC SITES \DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Roxboro \ Final \ Roxboro GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014 Roxboro Steam Electric Plant SynTerra final CSA Report. Well completion records will be submitted to NCDENR within 30 days of completion of field activities. 7.1.1 Ash and Soil Borings Characterization of ash and underlying soil will be accomplished through the completion and sampling of borings advanced within the ash basin. Analytical results from the soil boring samples will also be used to establish input parameters for the computer model. Field data collected during boring advancement in the ash basin will be used to evaluate: • the presence or absence of ash, • areal extent and depth/thickness of ash, and • groundwater flow and transport characteristics, if groundwater is encountered. 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 interval in parenthesis at the end of the sample location description (i.e., MW- 12SB (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 Within The 1966 Semi -active and 1973 Active Ash Basins Four borings will be installed within the 1966 Semi -active ash basin, and three borings will be installed within the 1973 Active ash basin (total 7) at the locations shown on Figure 5. Continuous soil cores will be collected through ash and into the underlying native soil and bedrock to determine the thickness of ash, verify the presence of pore -water in ash, collect solid phase samples for geochemical and geotechnical characterization of ash and the underlying soil, determine the depth to the transition zone and bedrock, and classify bedrock lithology. Drilling will be extended below the bottom of the ash to approximately 50 feet into competent bedrock beneath each basin. Page 24 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ALL NC SITES \DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Roxboro \ Final \ Roxboro GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014 Roxboro Steam Electric Plant SynTerra In areas where ash is encountered (i.e., AB- borings), solid phase samples will be collected for laboratory analysis from the following target depth intervals in each 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 deep sample intervals. The ash samples will be used to evaluate geochemical variations in ash located in the ash basin. Ash and soil samples will be analyzed for total inorganic constituents, as presented in Table 9. At each ash boring location (7 total), two vertical profile solid matrix samples will be collected for leachable inorganic constituents using the Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure (SPLP) to evaluate: 1) the potential for leaching of ash constituents into underlying soil, and 2) to evaluate soil quality directly beneath the ash. At each boring, one sample will be collected from the deepest ash sample interval (approximately 2 feet above the ash/soil interface) and one sample will be collected from the upper soil interval (approximately 2 feet below the ash/soil interface) for a total of 14 inorganic SPLP samples from both ash basins. 7.1.1.2 Borings Outside Ash Basin Sixteen borings will be located outside the ash basin to provide characterization of native soil conditions outside the ash basin and ash management areas. Solid phase samples will be collected for laboratory analysis from the following intervals in each boring: approximately 2-3 feet above the water table, and within the transition zone above bedrock. Soil boring locations and the rationale for each boring is summarized below: Boring BG-1BR will be clustered with transition zone background well BG-1 (screened 32.5-52 feet BGS) to evaluate lithology and geotechnical parameters in the transition zone and bedrock southeast and hydraulically Page 25 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ALL NC SITES \DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Roxboro \ Final \ Roxboro GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014 Roxboro Steam Electric Plant SynTerra up -gradient of 1973 Active Ash Basin; lithologic data will be used to develop the geologic cross section. • Boring MW-1BR will be installed to evaluate lithology and geotechnical parameters in the transition zone and bedrock at Compliance Well location CW-1. • Boring MW-2BR will be installed to evaluate lithology and geotechnical parameters in the transition zone and bedrock between the 1973 Active Ash Basin and the 1966 Semi -active ash basin; lithologic data will be used to develop the geologic cross section. • Boring MW-3BR will be installed to evaluate lithology and geotechnical parameters in transition zone and bedrock north of the landfill, northeast of the Gypsum Pad, and south of drainage canal; lithologic data will be used to develop the geologic cross section. • Boring MW-4BR will be clustered with transition zone well CW-4 (screened 24.2-39 feet BGS) to evaluate lithology and geotechnical parameters in the transition zone and bedrock south of the 1973 Active Ash Basin and southwest of the filter dike. • Boring MW-5BR will be clustered with saprolite/transition zone well CW-5 (screened 4.7-19.5 feet BGS) to evaluate lithology and geotechnical parameters in the transition zone and bedrock north of the 1973 Active Ash Basin and west of 1966 Semi -Active Ash Basin. • Boring MW-6BR will be installed to evaluate lithology in the transition zone and bedrock north of the 1973 Active Ash Basin and west of the 1966 Semi - Active Ash Basin. • Boring MW-7BR will be installed to evaluate lithology in the transition zone and bedrock west and hydraulically down -gradient of the 1973 Active Ash Basin and upgradient of Hyco Reservoir. • Boring MW-8BR will be installed to evaluate lithology in the transition zone and bedrock west and hydraulically down -gradient of the 1973 Active Ash Basin and well cluster MW-1D/1BR, and upgradient of Hyco Reservoir. • Boring MW-9BR will be installed to evaluate lithology and geotechnical parameters in transition zone and bedrock northwest of the 1973 Active Ash Basin, and upgradient of the Hyco Reservoir. • Boring MW-10BR will be installed to evaluate lithology in the transition zone and bedrock east of the 1973 Active Ash Basin and south of the landfill; potential background well location. Page 26 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ALL NC SITES \DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Roxboro \ Final \ Roxboro GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014 Roxboro Steam Electric Plant SynTerra • Boring MW-11BR will be installed to evaluate lithology in the transition zone and bedrock west of the 1966 Semi -active Ash Basin and the landfill. • Boring MW-12BR will be installed to evaluate lithology in the transition zone and bedrock west of the 1973 Active Ash Basin and wastewater treatment facilities. • Boring MW-13BR will be installed to evaluate lithology in the transition zone and bedrock southeast of the 1966 semi -active ash basin andsouth of the landfill. • Boring MW-14BR will be installed to evaluate lithology in the transition zone and bedrock northeast of the 1966 Semi -Active Ash Basin, landfill and Gypsum Pad; new potential background location. • Boring MW-15BR will be installed to evaluate lithology in the transition zone and bedrock southeast of the 1973 Active Ash Basin and co -located near surface water/sediment sample location SW-4; new potential background location. • Boring MW-16BR will be installed to evaluate lithology and geotechnical parameters in the transition zone and bedrock south of the 1966 Semi - Active Ash Basin, southwest of landfill and east of the1973 Active Ash Basin. Each of these borings will be used to construct bedrock groundwater monitoring wells. 7.1.1.3 Index Property Sampling and Analysis Physical properties of soil will be tested in the laboratory to provide input data for use in groundwater modeling. Due to the anticipated nature of subsurface materials, both grab (disturbed) samples and Shelby Tube (undisturbed) samples will be collected for geotechnical laboratory testing. The depth intervals of the selected samples will be determined in the field by the Lead Geologist. Disturbed solid matrix samples will be collected from the following subsurface materials: Soil Outside Ash Basins - samples surrounding ash management areas from the Biotite Gneiss and Schist [CZbg], the Felsic Mica Gneiss [CZfg] and from the metamorphosed Granite rock [CZg]. Page 27 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ALL NC SITES \DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Roxboro \ Final \ Roxboro GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014 Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Samples will be tested for: SynTerra Natural Moisture Content Determination, in accordance with ASTM D- 2216; and Grain size with hydrometer determination, in accordance with ASTM Standard D-422 Undisturbed thin -walled Shelby Tube samples will be collected from the following subsurface materials. Samples from 1966 Semi -Active Ash Basin and from 1973 Active Ash Basin (borings AB-1 through AB-7); Samples from 1966 Semi -Active Ash Basin and from 1973 Active Ash Basin (borings AB-1 through AB-7); and Samples surrounding ash management areas (from the Biotite Gneiss and Schist [CZbg], from the Felsic Mica Gneiss [CZfg] and from the metamorphosed Granite rock [CZg]. The Shelby Tubes 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; and • Specific Gravity of Soils, in accordance with ASTM Standard D-854. Ten soil core samples will also be selected from representative material of each hydrostratigraphic layer at the site for column tests to be performed in triplicate. Batch Kd tests, if performed, will be executed in triplicate as well. 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 and hydrostratigraphic layer relative to use in the groundwater model. Page 28 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ALL NC SITES \DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Roxboro \ Final \ Roxboro GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014 Roxboro Steam Electric Plant SynTerra 7.1.2 Groundwater Monitoring Wells Sixteen (16) monitoring wells, forty-three (43) piezometers, and four leachate monitoring points are present at the site that can be used to monitor subsurface conditions (Figure 5). These monitoring points will be supplemented with forty- three additional new wells installed during the CSA for a total monitoring network of one -hundred six (106) locations. Monitoring wells will be constructed by North Carolina -licensed well drillers and in accordance with 15A NCAC 02C (Section .0100 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 inside diameter (ID), National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) grade polyvinyl chloride (PVC) (ASTM 2012a,b) schedule 40 flush -joint threaded casing and pre -packed screens. Both the inner and outer well screen slot size will be 0.010-inch and 1A filter sand will be used for the filter pack between the inner and outer screens and the remainder of the borehole annulus around the pre -packed screen. The 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 methods. 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 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 Page 29 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ALL NC SITES \DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Roxboro \ Final \ Roxboro GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014 Roxboro Steam Electric Plant SynTerra with other Duke Energy sites located within the Piedmont physiographic province. Monitoring wells will be installed within the 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-1D or ABMW-1BR). If saturated saprolite is encountered, then saprolite 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-9S). If observation of cores during drilling at a monitoring well cluster indicates the presence of a transition zone of PWR between saprolite and competent bedrock of sufficient thickness for monitoring, and/or if discreet flow zones (i.e., "upper" and "lower" zones) are observed within the saprolite, then additional wells will be installed to monitor each discreet flow zone. Wells installed in this depth interval will be designated with a "D" at the end of the well name (i.e., MW-9D). Bedrock wells will be installed into the upper portion of the underlying 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-9BR). 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 PWR "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. 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 5. A summary of the details of the proposed and existing wells is provided in Table 5. Page 30 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ALL NC SITES \DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Roxboro \ Final \ Roxboro GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014 Roxboro Steam Electric Plant SynTerra A preliminary Fracture Trace Analysis was conducted to identify primary lineaments that may be indicative of subsurface bedrock fractures onsite and surrounding areas using ArcGIS. LiDAR data with twenty foot contours was obtained from the North Carolina Flood Risk Information System (http:Hfris.nc.gov/). LiDAR data was geoprocessed using the Hillshade software module which produces a hypothetical illumination of a topographic surface to visualize topographic lineament features. The light source was created at azimuths 225, 270, 315 and 360 degrees at an altitude of 45 degrees. Primary lineaments were identified using ArcGIS and were determined based on the topographic depressions generated by Hillshade (Appendix Q. This information will be used during the site reconnaissance to determine the final locations for bedrock wells in the vicinity of lineaments. 7.1.2.1 Background Wells Existing background well BG-1 screened in the transition zone will be paired with BG-1BR which will be screened in the bedrock. Three additional locations (Figure 5) have been selected as potential background locations hydraulically upgradient of the ash management areas and they include MW-10D/10BR, MW- 14D/14BR, and MW-15D/15BR. Actual background locations will determined after groundwater hydraulic and water quality data have been reviewed. 7.1.2.2 Wells in 1973 Active Ash Basin Six (6) monitoring wells will be installed within the 1973 Active ash basin. The southern portion of the basin is inundated with water and not accessible to drilling equipment. Three monitoring wells (designated ABMW-1 through ABMW-3) will be installed to screen the bottom of the ash at the ash boring locations designated AB-1 through AB-3 to monitor pore water hydraulics and evaluate pore water chemistry. Wells AB-1 and AB-2 are located along the longitudinal axis of the basin, and AB-3 is located east of the main basin and south of the wastewater treatment impoundments to evaluate the potential presence of ash in that area. Each well will be paired with a transition zone well (ABMW-11) through ABMW-31)) screened below the ash to monitor groundwater. 7.1.2.3 Wells in 1966 Active Ash Basin Eight (8) monitoring wells will be installed within the 1966 semi -active ash basin. Four monitoring wells (designated ABMW-4 through ABMW-7) will be installed to screen the bottom of the ash at the ash boring locations (designated AB4 through AB-7) to monitor pore water hydraulics and evaluate pore water Page 31 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ALL NC SITES \DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Roxboro \ Final \ Roxboro GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014 Roxboro Steam Electric Plant SynTerra chemistry. Each well will be paired with a transition zone well (ABMW-4D through ABMW-7D) screened below the ash to monitor groundwater. 7.1.2.4 Piezometers in 1966 Active Ash Basin A total of forty-one (41) piezometers have been installed within the 1966 semi - active ash basin during the hydrogeologic investigation to support the Landfill Phases 7-9 Development (Appendix Q. These piezometers are screened both within ash and in natural bedrock overburden subsurface material (i.e., transition zone) surrounding ash. All piezometers will be inspected for construction integrity and viability prior to use during the groundwater assessment. If feasible, the entire piezometers network will be used to collect water level measurements during the groundwater assessment. At least two comprehensive rounds of water levels will be collected with one synoptic round collected during a site -wide water level monitoring event. If it is determined that the piezometers may be used to collect water quality samples, six (6) piezometers (designated P-110, P-115, P-121, P-123, P-127 and P-130) installed within the ash basin will be sampled for constituents listed in Table 10. 7.1.2.5 Downgradient Assessment Areas Twenty-nine (29) wells will be installed in the two anticipated flow zones around the ash management areas to evaluate groundwater hydraulics and collect water quality samples. Water level measurements will be collected to determine the groundwater flow direction and horizontal gradients in the two flow zones, and determine the vertical hydraulic gradients at well pair locations. • Monitoring wells MW-2D/BR will be installed to assess groundwater in the transition zone and bedrock between the 1973 Active Ash Basin and the 1966 Semi -Active Ash Basin. • Monitoring wells MW-3D/BR will be installed to assess groundwater in the transition zone and bedrock north of the landfill and gypsum pad and south of the canal. • Bedrock monitoring well MW-4BR will be clustered with transition zone well CW-4 (screened 24.2-39 feet BGS) to assess groundwater in the bedrock west-southwest of the 1973 Active Ash Basin and filter dike. • Bedrock monitoring well MW-5BR will be clustered with Saprolite/transition zone Well CW-5 [screened 4.7-19.5 feet BGS] to assess groundwater in bedrock north of the 1973 Active Ash Basin and west of 1966 Semi -Active Ash Basin. Page 32 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ALL NC SITES \DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Roxboro \ Final \ Roxboro GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014 Roxboro Steam Electric Plant SynTerra • Monitoring wells MW-6D/BR will be installed to assess groundwater in the transition zone and bedrock north of the 1973 Active Ash Basin and west of the 1966 Semi -Active Ash Basin. • Monitoring wells MW-7D/BR will be installed to assess groundwater in the transition zone and bedrock west of the 1973 Active Ash Basin and upgradient of Hyco Reservoir. • Monitoring wells MW-8D/BR will be installed to assess groundwater in the transition zone and bedrock west of the 1973 Active Ash Basin and hydraulically upgradient of Hyco Reservoir. • Monitoring wells MW-9D/BR will be installed to assess groundwater in the transition zone and bedrock northwest of the 1973 Active Ash Basin, and hydraulically upgradient of Hyco Reservoir. • Monitoring wells MW-10D/BR will be installed to assess groundwater in the transition zone and bedrock east of the 1973 Active Ash Basin and south of the landfill; potential background well location. • Monitoring wells MW-11D/BR will be installed to assess groundwater in the transition zone and bedrock west of the 1966 Semi -active Ash Basin and the landfill. • Monitoring wells MW-12D/BR will be installed to assess groundwater in the transition zone and bedrock southeast of the 1966 semi -active ash basin and west of the 1973 Active Ash Basin and wastewater treatment facilities. • Monitoring wells MW-13D/BR will be installed to assess groundwater in the transition zone and bedrock southeast of the 1966 semi -active ash basin south of the landfill. • Monitoring wells MW-14D/BR will be installed to assess groundwater in the transition zone and bedrock northeast of the 1966 Semi -Active Ash Basin, landfill and Gypsum Pad; new potential background well pair location. • Monitoring wells MW-15D/BR will be installed to assess groundwater in the transition zone and bedrock southeast of the 1973 Active Ash Basin and is co -located near surface water/sediment sample location SW-4; new potential background well pair location. • Monitoring wells MW-16D/BR will be installed to assess groundwater in the transition zone and bedrock south of the 1966 Semi -Active Ash Basin, southwest of landfill and east of the 1973 Active Ash Basin. Page 33 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ALL NC SITES \DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Roxboro \ Final \ Roxboro GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014 Roxboro Steam Electric Plant SynTerra 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. 7.1.3 Well Completion and Development Well Completion The well screen intervals will be 5 feet in length for the transition zone and bedrock wells. Bedrock wells will be installed first. The outer casing will be installed using sonic drilling equipment with a 10-inch core barrel into the top of the bedrock, which will be determined based on observation of continuous soil cores recovered during drilling. The outer casing will then be set and will consist of 6-inch diameter schedule 40 PVC. Once the outer casing is installed, the annulus space will be pressure grouted from the bottom to the ground surface and allowed to set for approximately 24 hours. Following setup of the grout, boring will continue through the outer casing using a 6-inch diameter sonic core barrel and the boring will be advanced into the bedrock, which will be determined based on the continuous soil cores. The inner well casing will consist of two-inch diameter NSF PVC schedule 40 flush -joint threaded casing and pre -packed screens appropriately sized based on soil conditions identified during previous assessment activities. Each well will be constructed in accordance with 15A NCAC 02C (Well Construction Standards) and consist of 2-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 the pre -packed well screens for each of the wells will be filled with clean, well-rounded, washed, high grade 20/40 mesh silica sand. The sand pack will be placed to approximately 2 feet above the top of the pre -packed screen, and then an approximate 2-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. The 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 two -foot square concrete pad. Page 34 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment Plans \ Roxboro \ Final \ Roxboro GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014 Roxboro 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 to address possible other unforeseen factors. If a well cannot be developed to produce low turbidity (< 10 NTU) 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 Hydraulic 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 data at the site will be utilized as appropriate to better characterize hydrogeologic conditions and will be used for groundwater modeling. Page 35 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ALL NC SITES \DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Roxboro \ Final \ Roxboro GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014 Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Packer Tests SynTerra Up to ten (10) packer tests using a double packer system will be performed in bedrock well boreholes across fractures at locations based on site -specific conditions. Packer tests will utilize a double packer system and the interval (five feet or 10 feet based on field conditions) to be tested will be based on observation of the rock core and will be selected by the Lead Geologist/Engineer. Potential packer test locations will include beneath the 1966 Semi -active Ash Basin, the 1973 Active Ash Basin, and at locations surrounding the ash management areas within the three geologic terrains (Biotite Gneiss and Schist [CZbg], Felsic Mica Gneiss [CZfg] and metamorphosed Granite rock [CZg]. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation test method and calculation procedures as described in Chapter 17 of their Engineering Geology Field 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 installed above bedrock. 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 tests will be performed for no less than ten minutes, or until such time as the water level in the test well recovers 95 percent of its original pre -test level, whichever occurs first. Slug tests will be terminated after two hours even if the 95 percent pre -test level is not achieved. Page 36 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ALL NC SITES \DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Roxboro \ Final \ Roxboro GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014 Roxboro Steam Electric Plant SynTerra 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) and Groundwater Monitoring Program Sampling, Analysis and Reporting Plan, Roxboro Steam Generation 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 new monitoring wells will provide water quality data downgradient or sidegradient from the ash basins waste boundary 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 BG-1/1BR and potential background wells MW-14D/BR and MW-15D/BR 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 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. The low -flow purging technique has been selected as the most appropriate technique to minimize sample turbidity. During low -flow purging and sampling, groundwater is pumped using a peristaltic pump and 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, Page 37 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ALL NC SITES \DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Roxboro \ Final \ Roxboro GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014 Roxboro Steam Electric Plant SynTerra however turbidity levels of 10 NTU or less are targeted. Purging will be discontinued and groundwater samples will be obtained if turbidity levels of 10 NTU or less are not obtained after one hour of continuous purging. If the turbidity for a well increases over time, the well may be re -developed to restore conditions. Ash pore water and groundwater samples will be analyzed by a North Carolina certified laboratory for the parameters listed in Table 10. Total and dissolved metals analysis will be conducted. A summary of the proposed groundwater samples is included in Table 8. During groundwater sampling activities, water level measurements will be made at the existing site monitoring wells and piezometers, along with the new wells. The data will be used to generate potentiometric maps for each separate hydrogeologic zone (i.e., 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 Coal Combustion Products (CCPs) 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 in the vicinity of ash management areas for radium-266 and radium-228 (Ra226 and Ra228). Existing landfill monitoring wells GMW-6 and GMW-11 are proposed to be sampled for radium analysis, with NCDENR concurrence. Well GMW-6 groundwater contains concentrations of boron, selenium, sulfate, and TDS greater than the 21, Standards, and this trend has been observed historically at this well. Well GMW-11 groundwater contains concentrations of boron, selenium, and TDS greater than the 21, Standards, and this trend has also been observed Page 38 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ALL NC SITES \DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Roxboro \ Final \ Roxboro GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014 Roxboro Steam Electric Plant SynTerra historically at this well. Also, to evaluate the potential presence of naturally occurring radium in background groundwater, samples will be collected from existing background well BG-1 screened in the transition zone above bedrock, and new collocated background monitoring well BG-1BR that will be installed in bedrock. 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), 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 Duke Energy recently collected samples from seeps identified around the ash basin (SynTerra, December 2014). A summary of the analytical results are included in Table 7 and the sample locations are shown on Figure 5. The results of that work will be supplemented by the collection of surface water, seep, and sediment samples as part of this CSA. 7.3.1 Surface Water Samples To provide additional information on groundwater to surface water pathways and to identify potential background locations, a total of 6 surface water samples (designated SW-1 through SW-6) will be collected (Figure 5). Samples SW-1, SW-2 and SW-3 will be collected from surface water features east of ash management areas between the site and Hyco Reservoir. Potential background locations SW4 and SW-5 (Sargent's Creek), and SW-6 (pond east of the landfill) will be sampled to evaluate water quality at the headwaters (upstream) of these features upstream of ash management areas. Analytical method reporting limits will be at or below 15A NCAC 2L standards for groundwater or 15A NCAC 2B standards for Class WS-V surface water. The water samples will be analyzed for the parameters listed in Table 10. Analytical method reporting limits will be at or below 15A NCAC 2L standards for groundwater or 15A NCAC 2B standards for Class WS-V surface water. These data will be used to infer preferential pathways and migration from groundwater to surface water. Page 39 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ALL NC SITES \DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Roxboro \ Final \ Roxboro GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014 Roxboro Steam Electric Plant SynTerra 7.3.2 Sediment Samples Sediment samples will be collected from the bed surface at each of the surface water sample locations (SW-1 through SW-6) discussed above (Figure 5). The SW4, SW-5 and SW-6 locations are currently considered background sediment samples based on their proximity to natural undisturbed areas of the site upstream of ash management areas. The sediment samples will be analyzed for total inorganics, using the same constituents list proposed for the soil and ash samples (Table 9), and pH, cation exchange capacity, particle size distribution, percent solids, percent organic matter, and redox potential. 7.3.3 Seep Samples Duke Energy recently collected samples from seeps identified around the ash basins (SynTerra, October 2014). A summary of the analytical results are included in Table 7 and the sample locations are shown on Figure 5. Based on results of the 2014 sampling event, three 2014 seep water sample locations (designated 5-09, 5-13 and 5-14) will be resampled during the groundwater assessment. The collection of water samples from the previously sampled seep locations will provide information regarding variability in flow and water quality over time. 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 are 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. 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; Page 40 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ALL NC SITES \DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Roxboro \ Final \ Roxboro GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014 Roxboro Steam Electric Plant SynTerra • A summary of important tasks or subtasks completed during the day; • A description of field tests 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-1 (5-6')). Samples will be numbered in accordance with the proposed sample IDs shown on Figure 5. 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 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. Page 41 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ALL NC SITES \DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Roxboro \ Final \ Roxboro GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014 Roxboro Steam Electric Plant SynTerra • 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 • 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 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 Page 42 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ALL NC SITES \DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Roxboro \ Final \ Roxboro GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014 Roxboro Steam Electric Plant SynTerra 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 Sample 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); • 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; Page 43 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ALL NC SITES \DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Roxboro \ Final \ Roxboro GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014 Roxboro Steam Electric Plant • The dates and times of sample collection; SynTerra • 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. • Chain -of -custody records will be prepared by the individual field samplers. 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, resealable, air tight, plastic bag. A temperature blank provided by the laboratory will also be placed in each cooler prior to shipment if required for the type of samples collected and analyses requested. 7.4.6 Quality Assurance and Quality Control Samples The following Quality Assurance (QA)/Quality Control (QC) 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 equipment used between wells and from drilling equipment between soil samples. 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 bias (systematic errors) that could occur due to decontamination. 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. Page 44 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ALL NC SITES \DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Roxboro \ Final \ Roxboro GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014 Roxboro Steam Electric Plant SynTerra Field QA/QC samples will be analyzed for the same constituents as proposed for the primary samples, as identified on Tables 9 and 10, respectively. 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 Field sampling equipment will be 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. 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 the drill through tubs that are in place under the deck during drilling activities. There is a seal 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. 7.4.8 Influence of Pumping Wells on Groundwater System There are numerous water supply wells within a 1/2 mile radius of the facility's compliance boundary. The potential influence that the use of the water supply wells may have on the groundwater flow system will be evaluated as part of the assessment. Data loggers may be used at select locations, particularly in Page 45 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ALL NC SITES \DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Roxboro \ Final \ Roxboro GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014 Roxboro Steam Electric Plant SynTerra fractured bedrock monitoring wells, to monitor for water level variations potentially reflecting nearby well use. 7.5 Site Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model The ICSM for the Roxboro Plant has been developed using data discussed in Section 2.0 through 6.0 above and was used to develop this Groudwater Assessment Work Plan. The ICSM has provided sufficient detail to be able to understand the flow dynamics at the Roxboro Plant and to identify potential data gaps, such as areas where monitoring wells need to be installed and additional soil and groundwater analytical needs. Section 7.0 was 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 Site Conceptual Model (SCM). 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. The NCDENR document, "Hydrogeologic Investigation and Reporting Policy Memorandum," dated May 31, 2007, will be used as general guidance. In general, components of the SCM 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 SCM will describe how these aspects of the site affect the groundwater flow and fate and transport of the CCP constituents at the site. In addition, the SCM will: • describe the site and regional geology, • present longitudinal and transverse cross -sections showing the hydrostratigraphic layers, • develop the hydrostratigraphic layer properties required for the groundwater model, • present groundwater contour maps showing the potentiometric surfaces of the three hydrostratigraphic layers, and • present information on horizontal and vertical groundwater gradients. Additionally, iso-concentration maps, block diagrams, channel networks, and other illustrations may be created to illustrate the SCM. Figure 5 shows the proposed locations for geologic cross sections anticipated for the SCM. Page 46 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ALL NC SITES \DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Roxboro \ Final \ Roxboro GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014 Roxboro Steam Electric Plant SynTerra The SCM will serve as the basis for developing the groundwater flow, and fate and transport models. 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. 7.6 Site -Specific Background Concentrations (SSBC) Statistical analysis will be performed using methods outlined in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Unified Guidance (US EPA, 2009, EPA 530/R- 09-007) to develop 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 also be explored to determine 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 5 are found to not represent background conditions. 7.7 Geologic Mapping/Fracture Trace and Lineament Analysis As indicated in Sections 4.0 and 5.0, the geologic character in the region of the Roxboro Plant is complex and variable both from a petrologic and a structural perspective. Closer -scale geologic mapping and fracture trace/lineament analysis is proposed to provide a more detailed understanding of the geologic and geochemical nature of the soil and groundwater and the occurrence and movement of groundwater in the area. Geologic Mapping Field confirmation of the currently mapped rock types and geologic units will be accomplished through careful observation and examination of materials encountered during boring and well drilling activities. Readily accessible rock outcrops along stream beds or local road cuts may also be examined to provide additional confirmation of the geologic setting. Fracture Trace and Lineament Analysis Structural features in consolidated bedrock are often visible on remote sensing data as lineaments, traceable linear surface features which differ distinctly from the patterns of adjacent features and presumably reflect subsurface conditions. These features may be topographic (linear ridges and valleys), drainage (straight stream segments), or anomalous vegetative/soil features that may indicate vertical zones of fracture concentration. Fracture trace and lineament data will be examined to more accurately Page 47 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ALL NC SITES \DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Roxboro \ Final \ Roxboro GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014 Roxboro Steam Electric Plant SynTerra identify potential subsurface rock structures that influence recharge, migration, and discharge of groundwater. At Roxboro a preliminary surface lineament study was conducted to identify potential primary subsurface fractures onsite and surrounding the Duke Energy property using ArcGIS. LiDAR data with twenty foot contours was obtained from the North Carolina Flood Risk Information System (http://fris.nc.gov/). LiDAR data was geoprocessed using Hillshade which is a hypothetical illumination of a topographic surface to visualize primary surface lineaments. The light source was created at azimuths 225, 270, 315 and 360 at an altitude of 45 degrees. Lineaments were developed using ArcGIS and were determined based on the topographic depressions generated by Hillshade. Appendix C includes two maps that depict lineaments superimposed on the Remote Sensing LiDAR map with Hillshade elevation, and lineaments superimposed on the geologic map with geocodes. Final selected well locations may be slightly modified based on the preliminary lineament study results. 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 Constituents of Potential Concern (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 CSA report and 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 (NCDENR modeling guidelines). The groundwater model will be developed from the site hydrogeologic 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 ICSM is discussed in section 5.0 and the SCM discussed in Section 7.0. Page 48 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ALL NC SITES \DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Roxboro \ Final \ Roxboro GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014 Roxboro Steam Electric Plant SynTerra Although the site is anticipated to generally conform to the LeGrand conceptual groundwater model, due to the configuration of the ash basins and the hydrogeologic complexities at the site, a three-dimensional groundwater model will be more appropriate than performing two-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. 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 PHREEQC. 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 Page 49 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ALL NC SITES \DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Roxboro \ Final \ Roxboro GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014 Roxboro Steam Electric Plant SynTerra 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 modeled constituents as a single species in the dissolved, complexed, and solid phases is justified. The ratio of these two phases is prescribed by the sorption coefficient Kd which has dimensions of volume (L3) 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 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 constituents of potential concern 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 University of North Carolina Charlotte (UNCC) 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 Page 50 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ALL NC SITES \DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Roxboro \ Final \ Roxboro GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014 Roxboro Steam Electric Plant SynTerra 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 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 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 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 MT31), these Kd values will determine the extent to which COPC transport in groundwater flow Page 51 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ALL NC SITES \DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Roxboro \ Final \ Roxboro GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014 Roxboro Steam Electric Plant SynTerra is attenuated by sorption. In effect, simulated COPC concentrations will be reduced, as will their rate of movement in advecting groundwater. At a minimum, ten soil core samples will 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. It is anticipated that solid matrix samples to develop Kd values will be collected from the following locations: • AB-2 1973 active ash basin source area • AB-7 1966 semi -active ash basin source area • MW-11BR downgradient area • MW-12BR downgradient area • MW-14BR background 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 2L standards at the site will be specifically evaluated. The COPCs selected will be considered simultaneously in each test. Page 52 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment Plans \ Roxboro \ Final \ Roxboro GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014 Roxboro Steam Electric Plant SynTerra 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 basin will be estimated based on available information. Infiltration within the basin 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. 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. Since the ash within a basin has 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 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 surface water/seep sample locations outside of the ash basin, • Analytical results from monitoring wells installed in the ash basin pore - water (screened in ash), • Published or other data on sequential leaching tests performed on similar ash. Page 53 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ALL NC SITES \DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Roxboro \ Final \ Roxboro GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014 Roxboro Steam Electric Plant SynTerra 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. 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. Anticipated model layers may include ash management areas, Saprolite (where present), transition zone (a.k.a., partially weathered rock) and bedrock. 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. Page 54 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ALL NC SITES \DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Roxboro \ Final \ Roxboro GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014 Roxboro Steam Electric Plant SynTerra 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 packer tests. 7.8.5 Domain of Conceptual Groundwater Flow Model The Roxboro Plant model domain encompasses areas around the site where groundwater flow will be simulated to estimate the potential impacts of the ash management areas (plant, basins and landfill). By necessity, the conceptual model domain extends beyond the ash management areas 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, and lakes will be based on the CSM. As discussed in Section 5.0, Hyco Reservoir, cooling pond and canal act as groundwater discharge areas and will be used as model boundaries to the west, north and south. Artificial head boundaries will be established east of the ash management areas based on apparent flow conditions. The model layers will consist, at a minimum, of residual soil/saprolite (if saturated), ash basins, transition zone (PWR), and bedrock. 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 2L 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 Page 55 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ALL NC SITES \DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Roxboro \ Final \ Roxboro GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014 Roxboro Steam Electric Plant SynTerra 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) for ambient induced mixing that considers lateral dispersion coefficient, upstream flow and shear velocity. The results from this analysis will provide information constituent concentration 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 Page 56 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ALL NC SITES \DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Roxboro \ Final \ Roxboro GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014 Roxboro Steam Electric Plant SynTerra 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 57 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ALL NC SITES \DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Roxboro \ Final \ Roxboro GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014 Roxboro Steam Electric Plant SynTerra 8.0 RISK ASSESSMENT To support the groundwater assessment and inform corrective action decisions, 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, 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 determination of potential receptors and routes of exposure. Potential exposure pathways are determined to be complete when they contain the following aspects: 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, and inhalation). Completed exposure pathways identified in the CEM are then evaluated in the risk assessment. Incomplete exposure 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 preliminary 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 initial human health risk assessment (HHRA) 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 with analytical data collected as part of the CSA. Although groundwater appears to be Page 58 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ALL NC SITES \DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Roxboro \ Final \ Roxboro GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014 Roxboro Steam Electric Plant SynTerra 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 US EPA residential and industrial soil Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) (US EPA, 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 2B) and US EPA national recommended water quality criteria (NCDENR, 2007; US EPA, 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 US EPA residential soil RSLs (US EPA, November 2014 or latest update); and • Sediment, soil and groundwater 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 human health risk evaluation. 8.1.1 Site -Specific Risk -Based Remediation Standards If deemed necessary, site -specific 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 59 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ALL NC SITES \DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Roxboro \ Final \ Roxboro GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014 Roxboro 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. Page 60 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ALL NC SITES \DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Roxboro \ Final \ Roxboro GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014 Roxboro Steam Electric Plant SynTerra For systemic toxicants (non -carcinogens), site -specific remediation standards shall be set at levels to which the human population, including 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 (US EPA, 1997). 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, an 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 Page 61 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ALL NC SITES \DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Roxboro \ Final \ Roxboro GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014 Roxboro Steam Electric Plant SynTerra 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). 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: • US EPA Ecological Soil Screening Levels (ESV); • US EPA Region 4 Recommended Ecological Screening Values; and • US EPA 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 US EPA Region IV media -specific ESV for that contaminant. • Category 3 - Contaminants that have no US EPA 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 US EPA Region IV media -specific ESV. Page 62 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ALL NC SITES \DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Roxboro \ Final \ Roxboro GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014 Roxboro Steam Electric Plant SynTerra • Category 5 — Contaminants with a sample quantitation limit or maximum detection exceeds the North Carolina Surface Water Quality Standards. 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 63 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ALL NC SITES \DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Roxboro \ Final \ Roxboro GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014 Roxboro 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 64 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ALL NC SITES \DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Roxboro \ Final \ Roxboro GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014 Roxboro 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 each 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 and surface water/seep locations as separate symbols. • Correlation charts where applicable. • Orthophoto potentiometric maps for shallow, deep 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 65 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ALL NC SITES \DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Roxboro \ Final \ Roxboro GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014 Roxboro 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 110 days following Work Plan approval 1170 days Project Assumptions Include: Data from no more than one iterative assessment step will be included in the CSA report. Iterative assessment data may be provided in supplemental reports, if required; • 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 66 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ALL NC SITES \DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Roxboro \ Final \ Roxboro GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014 Roxboro Steam Electric Plant SynTerra 11.0 REFERENCES ASTM D4044-96 Standard Test Method (Field Procedure) for Instantaneous Change in Head (Slug) Tests for Determining Hydraulic Properties of Aquifers. Daniel, C.C., III, and Sharpless, N.B., 1983, Ground -water supply potential and procedures for well -site selection upper Cape Fear basin, Cape Fear basin study, 1981-1983: North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development and U.S. Water Resources Council in cooperation with the U.S. Geological Survey, 73 p. 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, http://www.duke-energy.com/pdfs/duke-energy-ash-metrics.pdf (Updated Oct. 31, 2014) Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), 2014. Assessment of Radioactive Elements in Coal Combustion Products, 2014 Technical Report 3002003774, Final Report August 2014. Horton, J. W. and Zullo, V. A., 1991, The Geology of the Carolinas, Carolina Geological Society Fiftieth Anniversary Volume, 406 pp. NCDENR Document, "Hydrogeologic Investigation and Reporting Policy Memorandum", dated May 31, 2007. NCDENR Document, "Groundwater Modeling Policy Memorandum", dated May 31, 2007. NCDENR Document, "Performance and Analysis of Aquifer Slug Tests and Pumping Test Policy", dated May 31, 2007. NCDENR Document, "Guidelines for Performing Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessments within North Carolina", dated 2003. North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, 1985, Geologic Map of North Carolina. Page 67 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ALL NC SITES \DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Roxboro \ Final \ Roxboro GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014 Roxboro 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. Stuckey, J.L., 1965, North Carolina: Its Geology and Mineral Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina Department of Conservation and Development, 550p. SynTerra, Seep Monitoring Report for Roxboro, October 2014. SynTerra, Drinking Water Well and Receptor Survey for Roxboro, September 2014. SynTerra, Supplement to Drinking Water Well and Receptor Survey -Roxboro, November 2014. SynTerra, Groundwater Monitoring Program Sampling, Analysis, and Reporting Plan for Roxboro, October 2014. 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 EPA, 1987. Batch -type procedures for estimating soil adsorption of chemicals Technical Resource Document 530/SW-87/006-F. US EPA, 1997. Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Process for Designing and Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments. US EPA, 2001. Region 4 Ecological Risk Assessment Bulletins —Supplement to RAGS. US EPA, 1998. Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. US Geological Survey (USGS). 1997. Radioactive elements in coal and fly ash: abundance, forms, and environmental significance. U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet FS-163-97. US EPA, 1998. Study of Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions from Electric Utility Steam Generating Units —Final Report to Congress. Volume 1. Office of Air Quality, Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, EPA-453/R-98- 004a. Page 68 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment Plans \ Roxboro \ Final \ Roxboro GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014 Roxboro Steam Electric Plant SynTerra US EPA, 1998. Report to Congress Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels, Volume 2 Methods, Findings, and Recommendations. Page 69 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ALL NC SITES \DENR Letter Deliverables \ GW Assessment Plans \ Roxboro \ Final \ Roxboro GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx FIGURES 0 SOURCE: o USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OBTAINED FROM THE NRCS GEOSPATIAL DATA GATEWAY AT ®I®®mOIDEEJld® a ROXBORO POWER PLANT o PERSON COUNTY A% GREENSBORO •RAL GF Terra ;� � CHARLOTTE • LAYETTE 148 RIVER STREET, SUITE 220 GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA PHONE 864-421-9999 www.synterracorp.com I , tlt,. ! i, \1 l h '(tE 14 . WASTE (� ' BOUNDARY 1 COMPLIANCE BOUNDARY 1 r 50 ��., �" III �•� `� 1( PROPERTY BOUNDARY FIGURE 1 SITE LOCATION MAP DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS ROXBORO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT 1700 DUNWAY RD SEMORA, NORTH CAROLINA OLIVE HILL, NC QUADRANGLE IINGTON DRAWNBV J-CHASTAIN DATE_12/07/2014 GRAPHICSCALE PROJECT MANAGER_ KATHY WEBB CONTOUR INTERVAL LOB 1000 0 1000 2000 LAYOUT_ FIG 1(USGS SITE LOCATION) MAP DATE_ 1994 IN FEET LEGEND FB G-11 BACKGROUND MONITORING WELL (SURVEYED) OCW-1 COMPLIANCE MONITORING WELL (SURVEYED) . I„' y'1 x i f.' [I y Dpa y'. `,, [ B CMWb LANDFILL MONITORING WELL (SURVEYED) RAILROAD DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS ROXBORO PLANT 500ft COMPLIANCE BOUNDARY i , L_ . t,' ` WASTE BOUNDARY LEACHATE MONITORING LOCATION GYPSUM PAD 3; e i PIN CMW-10 . - .. CW-1 i CMW-11 ir 1911 SEMAACTIVE r- ' ASH BASIN 5T 5y�iiF'�' LINED Imo' �.. t. - LANDFILL CW MD • t.' _ I } P_' •. "-fop _ CHIMNEY A. _+ DRAINS *r N. .',.r 7. "k} '_� FiS ,, r �. r'�{• i,t. .l�" ls,t9 CMW-8 CMW-9 LY', SOURCES: i 1. 2012 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF PERSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA WAS OBTAINED FROM THE USGS EARTH EXPLORER WEB SITE AT rv' mm�ou�o-.®mm � Y ,� k ' _�' - +' 2. WELL SURVEYSINFORMATION,BOUNDARIES ARE FROM, LANDFILL LIMITS AND BOUNDARIES ARE FROM ARCGIS } " � � • ,�' ' " s �' . �:' "+ FILES PROVIDED BY SffiME AND PROGRESS ENERGY. q 3. 2014 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH WAS OBTAINED FROM WSP FLOWN ON APRIL 17, 2014. ~- - 4. DRAWING HAS BEEN SET WITH A PROJECTION OF NORTH CAROLINA STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM FIPS 3200 NAD 83 . RD � ( ) 1973 ACTIVE - � k' ASH BASIN r r GRAPHIC SCALE + 500 0 500 1000 DUNNAWAYRD IN FEET n syn Terra - 148 River Street, Suite 220 Greenville, South Carolina 29601 ,. 54 864-421-9999 www.synte rraco rp. co m - l DRAWN BY: J.CHASTAIN DATE 2014-12-08 z I ' CHECKED BY: J. 14ARAMUT DATE 2014-12-08 3 ` _ PROJECT MANAGER- K. WEBB r , ' -4; `1 NAME FIG 2 (SITE LAYOUT MAP) DUKE {,ffl.i_ ENERGY PROGRESS ROXBORO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT WOODLAND 1700 DUNNAWAY RD ELEMENTARY - {'r ..^""^-'�� SEMORA, NORTH CAROLINA SCHOOL - FIGURE 2 SITE LAYOUT MAP CZbg CZbg CZbg I CZfg CZfg EGA LEGEND DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS ROXBORO PLANT 500 ft COMPLIANCE BOUNDARY WASTE BOUNDARY CWs COMPLIANCE WELL A CMW-6 LANDFILL MONITORING WELL LEGEND - UNIT NAME CZbg BIOTITE GNEISS AND SCHIST (INNER PIEDMONT) CZfg FELSIC MICA GNEISS (CHARLOTTEAND MILTON BELTS) CZg METAMORPHOSED GRANITIC ROCK( EASTERN SLATE BELT) PzZg METAMORPHOSED QUARTZ DIORITE (EASTERN SLATE BELT) GEOLOGY SOURCE NOTE: GEOLOGY SHAPEFILES OBTAINED FROM THE USGS Preliminary integrated geologic map databases forthe United States -Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, and South Carolina, DATED 2007 AT DISCLAIMER The information on this map was derived from digital databases at the NC Department of Transportation Website. Care was taken in the creation ofthis map. SYNTERRA cannot accept any responsibility foremors, omissions, orpositional accuracy. There are no warranties, expressed orimplied, including the warranty of merchantability orfitness fora particular purpose, accompanying this product. However, notification of any errors will be appreciated. GRAPHIC SCALE 1500 0 1500 3000 164V IN FEET 148 RIVER STREET, SUITE 220 GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA 29601 PHONE 864-421-9999 www.synte rraco rp. com Terra DRAWN BY 1 C WSTAIN DATE 20141207 PROJECT MANAGER KATHY WEBB LAYOUTFIG3 (GEOLOGY MAP) CZbg ,,lSUBSTATION ELECTRICAL CW-, 0 CMW-„ 0 CZfg CZbg CZfg CZbg CZg ROXBORO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT 1700 DUNNAWAY RD PERSON COUNTY SEMORA- NC CZg FIGURE 3 GEOLOGY MAP DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS ROXBORO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT 1700 DUNNAWAY RD SEMORA, NORTH CAROLINA r nalry hl-- Accaccmant Plan\Rn hnrn\nraft\Fir nF RnxnnRn Fir i trFrl nrV MAmd LEGEND CW-2 ASH POND COMPLIANCE MONITORING WELL 410.11 WATER LEVEL IN FEET (msl) BG-1 ASH POND BACKGROUND COMPLIANCE WELL LOCATION 495.15 WATER LEVEL IN FEET (msl) GMW-8 LANDFILL MONITORING WELL ® NM NOT MEASURED IN JULY 2014 PZ-12 PIEZOMETER NM NOT MEASURED IN JULY 2014 WATER LEVEL CONTOUR IN FEET (msl) GENERALIZED GROUNDWATER FLOW DIRECTION ♦ P-4 LEACHATE SAMPLE LOCATION (APPROXIMATE) PROPERTY LINE (APPROXIMATE) COMPLIANCE BOUNDARY - - ASH POND WASTE BOUNDARY UNLINED LANDFILL LIMITS --------- LINED LANDFILL LIMIT SOURCES: 1. 2010 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH WAS OBTAINED FROM THE NRCS GEOSPATIAL DATA GATEWAY AT ®1®®m=EI1111® 2. WELLSURVEY INFORMATION, PROPERTY LINE, LANDFILL LIMITSAND BOUNDARIESARE FROMARCGIS FILES PROVIDED BYS&ME AND PROGRESS ENERGY- 3- WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS TAKEN BYSYNTERRA ON JULY 15,2014. Well ID Easting Northing Top of Casing Elevation BG-01 1976145.85 987882.09 533.69 CW-01 1983011.60 994400.36 508.05 CW-02 1977461.87 993052.83 424.26 CW-02D 1977467.96 993048.53 424.33 CW-03 1977321.05 988904.17 451.69 CW-03D 1977313.12 988904.24 451.45 CW-04 1978597.13 987735.98 479.66 CW-05 1978359.59 993026.35 459.51 GMW 08 I9$2166.0❑ 991787.00 529.78 GMW-09 1983100.00 991691.00 537.46 GMW-10 1 1981349.79 1 994328.21 1 495.19 YL-1L 17O3VlcF.1V 2 L210. 7cF .31.3..3V PZ-14 I%O274.4I 9938IS.00 1 472,48 1 1 � JRD ROUSE 00 TORS GATE L 4 I, ..� FLYASH STRUCTURAL FILL �- �` c `' a POWER PLANT -' • 1 `ENVIRONMENTAL ` �`_00 SERVICES ,� _ lift ,` + NM G 11 1 u. ,GMW 1 _ I 'GMW-11 - NM cVV-1 '00 PICNIC AREA NM P-1 I-- 1966 SEMIACTIVE ASH CW-2D o ' � P-2' I 410.14 ^ I ' 1 CW-2 p ~.,: ,LINED LANDFILL GUARDHOUSE i - .. ,.;;.. ...: .,.- 410.11� , ,� .i `% ,`-,$��,.. P-.. MAIN GATE ' I- ' 00 447.371 GMW-7 .. �....7 1 CANAL , 1973 ACTIVE ASH POND ' r ` CW-3D 448.4A, . CW^3.. 1 ND ELEMENTARY SCHOOL V cMORA RD (N"'` C H/CHwAys�j Terra GRAPHIC SCALE 500 0 500 1000 148 RIVER STREET, SUITE 220 GREENVILLE. SOUTH CAROLINA 29601 PHONE 864-421-9999 www.synterracorp.com DRAWN BY J-CHASTAIN DATE: 12/23/2014 PROJECT MANAGER: KATHY WEBB LAYOUT: ROXBORO WATER LEVEL MAP 1-7 FIGURE 4 WATER LEVEL MAP - JULY 2014 DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS ROXBORO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT 1700 DUNNAWAY RD SEMORA, NORTH CAROLINA U O J W J d Q C7 J O co TABLES TABLE 3 SUMMARY OF CONCENTRATION RANGES FOR CONSTITUENTS DETECTED GREATER THAN 2L STANDARDS ROXBORO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC., SEMORA, NORTH CAROLINA PARAMETER CHROMIUM IRON MANGANESE SULFATE TDS pH 21-STANDARD eff. 4/1/2013 0.01 0.3 0.05 250 500 6.5 - 8.5 Units m l m l m l m l m l SU Well ID Well Location Relative to Compliance Boundary Concentration Range BG-1 Background .006 - .0427 .113 - .881 <2L <2L <2L 6.3 - 6.8 CW-1 CB <.005 - .0169 .030 - 2.29 .005 - .180 <2L <2L CW-2 CB <2L .0553 - 1.19 .005 - .0529 <2L 385 - 520 <2L CW-2D CB <.005 - .0186 .011 - .382 <2L <2L <2L <2L CW-3 CB <2L .026 - 1.03 <2L <2L 120 - 652 5.6 - 6.9 CW-3D CB <2L .0536 - .844 .048 - .416 <2L <2L <2L CW-4 CB .0189 - .0296 .015 - .391 B <2L <2L 323 B - 612 <2L CW-5 CB <2L <2L <2L 81.2 - 873 292 - 1510 6.4 - 6.7 Prepared by: RBI Checked by: BER Notes: B - Data flagged due to detection in field blank CB - Compliance Boundary <2L - Constituent has not been detected above 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\Roxboro\Final\Tables\Table 3 - Summary Concentration Ranges Roxboro.xlsx TABLE 4 GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS ROXBORO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC., SEMORA, NORTH CAROLINA Analytical Parameter Depth to Water PH Temp. Specific Conductance DO ORP Turbidity Eh Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Boron Cadmium Chloride Chromium Copper Units ft S.U. Deg C PS/cm mg/I my NTUs my 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 NA 0.001 0.01 0.7 0.7 0.002 250 0.01 1 Analytical Method Field Measurements 200.7 200.8 200.8 200.7 200.7 200.8 300 200.8 200.7 Sample ID Well Type Sample Date Constituent Concentrations BG-1* Background 11/30/2010 38.81 6.8 19 491 NM NM 8.56 NM 0.713 <0.0005 <0.005 0.0697 <0.05 0.00008 14.2 0.0111 0.0112 BG-1* Background 4/20/2011 38.42 6.4 20 460 4.42 57.8 9.92 262.8 0.33 <0.0005 <0.005 0.0731 <0.05 0.00008 13.4 0.015 0.0114 BG-1* Background 7/13/2011 38.48 6.4 22 459 6.8 -136.1 9.58 68.9 <0.1 <0.0005 <0.005 0.084 b <0.05 0.00008 12.7 b 0.0427 <0.005 BG-1* Background 11/2/2011 39.72 6.6 21 475 5.48 -82 9.42 123 0.201 <0.0005 <0.005 0.0756 <0.05 0.00008 13.4 0.0168 <0.005 BG-1* Background 4/2/2012 38.73 6.4 23 467 5.11 -72 9.8 133 0.301 <0.0005 <0.005 0.0723 <0.05 0.00008 15.5 0.0088 <0.005 BG-1* Background 7/11/2012 38.94 6.3 18 487 5.33 -50.9 8.57 154.1 0.734 <0.0005 <0.005 0.081 <0.05 0.00008 14.5 <0.005 0.0064 BG-1* Background 11/6/2012 40 6.4 15 468 6.36 139.8 7.91 344.8 0.438 <0.0005 <0.005 0.0842 <0.05 0.00008 15 0.0161 <0.005 BG-1* Background 4/8/2013 39.74 6.3 18 475 5.9 115.1 5.24 320.1 0.11 <0.001 <0.001 0.079 <0.05 <0.001 14 <0.005 <0.005 BG-1* Background 7/8/2013 39.31 6.3 19 482 6.79 9.8 6.79 214.8 0.3 <0.001 <0.001 0.083 <0.05 <0.001 15 0.01 <0.005 BG-1* Background 11/11/2013 39.73 6.4 18 488 5 182 9.8 387 0.438 <0.001 <0.001 0.083 <0.05 <0.001 14 0.007 <0.005 BG-1* Background 4/3/2014 39.1 6.4 18 506 6.8 253 6.6 458 0.311 <0.001 <0.001 0.086 <0.05 <0.001 17 0.006 <0.005 BG-1* Background 7/15/2014 38.54 6.3 18 496 5.37 179 4.4 384 0.205 <0.001 <0.001 0.081 <0.05 <0.001 16 <0.005 <0.005 CW-1* Compliance 11/30/2010 25.87 6.9 15 617 NM NM 104 NM 5.77 <0.0005 <0.005 0.438 <0.05 1 0.000097 53 0.0169 0.0208 CW-1* Compliance 4/18/2011 19.95 6.5 18 607 4.86 24.1 2.7 229.1 0.219 <0.0005 <0.005 0.212 <0.05 0.00008 51.7 <0.005 <0.005 CW-1* Compliance 7/13/2011 23.01 6.2 21 586 3.82 -113.6 1.34 91.4 <0.1 <0.0005 <0.005 0.21 b <0.05 0.00008 54 <0.005 <0.005 CW-1* Compliance 11/1/2011 25.55 6.7 18 533 4.66 -51.2 2.28 153.8 0.142 <0.0005 <0.005 0.187 <0.05 0.00008 50.6 <0.005 <0.005 CW-1* Compliance 4/3/2012 19.16 6.4 17 489 6.59 -70.6 3.12 134.4 0.131 <0.0005 <0.005 0.108 <0.05 0.00008 28.5 <0.005 <0.005 CW-1* Compliance 7/11/2012 23.37 6.4 20 507 4.66 -55.2 3.85 149.8 0.155 <0.0005 <0.005 0.0868 <0.05 0.00008 25.7 <0.005 <0.005 CW-1* Compliance 11/7/2012 26.5 6.5 16 512 5.53 155.4 2.87 360.4 0.121 <0.0005 <0.005 0.126 <0.05 0.00008 34.6 <0.005 <0.005 CW-1* Compliance 4/9/2013 23.37 6.5 20 616 5.78 -892.6 2.57 -687.6 0.054 <0.001 <0.001 0.08 <0.05 <0.001 12 <0.005 <0.005 CW-1* Compliance 7/8/2013 22.6 6.2 22 543 4.95 -447.2 2.12 -242.2 0.066 <0.001 <0.001 0.084 <0.05 <0.001 14 <0.005 <0.005 CW-1* Compliance 11/12/2013 24.32 6.3 15 506 4.8 292 3.3 497 0.185 <0.001 <0.001 0.079 <0.05 <0.001 15 <0.005 <0.005 CW-1* Compliance 4/3/2014 20.82 6.5 17 610 6.5 234 2.1 439 0.132 <0.001 <0.001 0.075 <0.05 <0.001 9.6 <0.005 <0.005 CW-1* Compliance 7/15/2014 21.3 6.4 21 510 5.44 175.1 5.6 380.1 0.185 <0.001 <0.001 0.073 <0.05 <0.001 13 <0.005 <0.005 CW-1* Compliance 11/29/2010 13.77 7.4 12 698 NM NM 2.12 NM <0.1 <0.0005 <0.005 0.0624 <0.05 0.00099 13.2 <0.005 <0.005 CW-1* Compliance 4/19/2011 12.67 6.9 16 619 4.54 -3.7 2.21 201.3 0.166 <0.0005 <0.005 0.0696 <0.05 0.00008 11.6 <0.005 <0.005 CW-1* Compliance 7/13/2011 14.28 6.9 21 666 4.26 -123.3 1.6 81.7 <0.1 <0.0005 <0.005 0.0752 b <0.05 0.00008 11.9 b <0.005 <0.005 CW-1* Compliance 11/2/2011 14.76 7.2 18 629 4.08 -67.2 2.15 137.8 <0.1 <0.0005 <0.005 0.0725 <0.05 0.00008 12.5 <0.005 <0.005 CW-1* Compliance 4/2/2012 12.92 7.2 17 647 5.8 -54.9 1.63 150.1 <0.1 <0.0005 <0.005 0.0825 <0.05 0.00008 13.3 <0.005 <0.005 CW-1* Compliance 7/11/2012 14.66 7.1 19 793 5.17 -38.3 0.85 166.7 <0.1 <0.0005 <0.005 0.0835 <0.05 0.00008 12.5 <0.005 <0.005 CW-1* Compliance 11/6/2012 14.41 6.9 13 574 2.23 127.8 24.5 332.8 1.33 <0.0005 <0.005 0.0771 <0.05 0.00008 13 <0.005 <0.005 CW-1* Compliance 4/8/2013 12.9 7.1 20 738 4.02 41.1 12.4 246.1 0.249 <0.001 <0.001 0.086 <0.05 <0.001 11 <0.005 <0.005 CW-1* Compliance 7/8/2013 13.3 7.0 20 833 4.06 143 3.56 348 0.224 <0.001 <0.001 0.098 <0.05 <0.001 12 <0.005 <0.005 CW-1* Compliance 11/11/2013 14.41 6.8 17 721 4.2 203 8 408 1.45 <0.001 <0.001 0.098 <0.05 <0.001 12 <0.005 <0.005 CW-1* Compliance 4/4/2014 12.94 7.1 16 725 5.7 298 22 503 1.5 <0.001 <0.001 0.097 <0.05 <0.001 14 <0.005 <0.005 CW-1* Compliance 7/15/2014 14.15 6.8 21 799 3.2 173.2 8.8 378.2 0.444 <0.001 <0.001 0.103 <0.05 <0.001 14 <0.005 <0.005 CW-2* Compliance 11/29/2010 13.77 7.4 12 698 NM NM 2.12 NM <0.1 <0.0005 <0.005 0.0624 <0.05 0.00099 13.2 <0.005 <0.005 CW-2* Compliance 4/19/2011 12.67 6.9 16 619 4.54 -3.7 2.21 201.3 0.166 <0.0005 <0.005 0.0696 <0.05 0.00008 11.6 <0.005 <0.005 CW-2* Compliance 7/13/2011 14.28 6.9 21 666 4.26 -123.3 1.6 81.7 <0.1 <0.0005 <0.005 0.0752 b <0.05 0.00008 11.9 b <0.005 <0.005 CW-2* Compliance 11/2/2011 14.76 7.2 18 629 4.08 -67.2 2.15 137.8 <0.1 <0.0005 <0.005 0.0725 <0.05 0.00008 12.5 <0.005 <0.005 CW-2* Compliance 4/2/2012 12.92 7.2 17 647 5.8 -54.9 1.63 150.1 <0.1 <0.0005 <0.005 0.0825 <0.05 0.00008 13.3 <0.005 <0.005 CW-2* Compliance 7/11/2012 14.66 7.1 19 793 5.17 -38.3 0.85 166.7 <0.1 <0.0005 <0.005 0.0835 <0.05 0.00008 12.5 <0.005 <0.005 CW-2* Compliance 11/6/2012 14.41 6.9 13 574 2.23 127.8 24.5 332.8 1.33 <0.0005 <0.005 0.0771 <0.05 0.00008 13 <0.005 <0.005 CW-2* Compliance 4/8/2013 12.90 7.1 20 738 4.02 41.1 12.4 246.1 0.249 <0.001 <0.001 0.086 <0.05 <0.001 11 <0.005 <0.005 CW-2* Compliance 7/8/2013 13.30 7.0 20 833 4.06 143 3.56 348 0.224 <0.001 <0.001 0.098 <0.05 <0.001 12 <0.005 <0.005 CW-2* Compliance 11/11/2013 14.41 6.8 17 721 4.2 203 8 408 1.45 <0.001 <0.001 0.098 <0.05 <0.001 12 <0.005 <0.005 CW-2* Compliance 4/4/2014 12.94 7.1 1 16 1 725 1 5.7 298 1 22 1 503 1.5 <0.001 I <0.001 1 0.097 <0.05 <0.001 1 14 1 <0.005 1 <0.005 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment Plans\Roxboro\Final\Tables\Roxboro GW Assessment Tables 4 - 7 .xlsx 1 of 8 TABLE 4 GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS ROXBORO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC., SEMORA, NORTH CAROLINA Analytical Parameter Depth to Water PH Temp. Specific Conductance DO ORP Turbidity Eh Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Boron Cadmium Chloride Chromium Copper Units ft S.U. Deg C PS/cm mg/I my NTUs my 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 NA 0.001 0.01 0.7 0.7 0.002 250 0.01 1 Analytical Method Field Measurements 11 200.7 200.8 200.8 200.7 200.7 200.8 300 200.8 200.7 Sample ID Well Type Sample Date Constituent Concentrations CW-2* Compliance 7/15/2014 14.15 6.8 21 799 3.2 173.2 8.8 378.2 0.444 <0.001 <0.001 0.103 <0.05 <0.001 14 <0.005 <0.005 CW-2D* Compliance 11/29/2010 13.78 7.0 18 577 NM NM 7.68 NM 0.138 <0.0005 <0.005 0.115 <0.05 0.00011 14.4 0.0186 0.0128 CW-2D* Compliance 4/19/2011 12.7 6.6 17 543 2.27 -30.2 9.66 174.8 0.43 <0.0005 <0.005 0.14 <0.05 0.00008 13.5 <0.005 <0.005 CW-2D* Compliance 7/13/2011 14.3 6.9 20 612 3.26 -102.3 2.19 102.7 <0.1 <0.0005 <0.005 0.156 b <0.05 0.00008 13.3 b <0.005 <0.005 CW-2D* Compliance 11/2/2011 14.78 7.1 17 581 1.34 -64.9 1.49 140.1 <0.1 <0.0005 <0.005 0.151 <0.05 0.00008 13.8 <0.005 <0.005 CW-2D* Compliance 4/2/2012 12.92 7.1 17 509 4.39 -77.6 1.38 127.4 <0.1 <0.0005 <0.005 0.141 <0.05 0.00008 15.2 <0.005 <0.005 CW-2D* Compliance 7/11/2012 14.69 6.9 19 560 3.11 -44.7 0.69 160.3 <0.1 <0.0005 <0.005 0.132 <0.05 0.00008 14.7 <0.005 <0.005 CW-2D* Compliance 11/6/2012 14.45 6.8 15 559 1.62 132.5 0.39 337.5 <0.1 <0.0005 <0.005 0.144 <0.05 0.00008 14.7 <0.005 <0.005 CW-2D* Compliance 4/8/2013 12.91 6.9 18 588 4.16 41.3 1.23 246.3 0.022 <0.001 <0.001 0.14 <0.05 <0.001 13 <0.005 <0.005 CW-2D* Compliance 7/8/2013 13.32 6.8 19 581 3.39 146.3 0.63 351.3 <0.005 <0.001 <0.001 0.14 <0.05 <0.001 15 <0.005 <0.005 CW-2D* Compliance 11/11/2013 14.44 6.6 17 571 1.9 175 1.8 380 0.011 <0.001 <0.001 0.139 <0.05 <0.001 14 <0.005 <0.005 CW-2D* Compliance 4/4/2014 12.95 7.0 17 546 5.2 291 0.7 496 0.011 b <0.001 <0.001 0.142 <0.05 <0.001 17 <0.005 <0.005 CW-2D* Compliance 7/15/2014 14.19 6.7 19 579 3.59 173.8 0.84 378.8 0.016 b <0.001 <0.001 0.147 <0.05 <0.001 16 <0.005 <0.005 CW-3* Compliance 11/30/2010 5.25 6.9 14 1075 NM NM 9.76 NM 0.276 <0.0005 <0.005 0.189 <0.05 0.00008 111 <0.005 <0.005 CW-3* Compliance 4/19/2011 4.01 5.9 17 308 0.63 -32.9 12.7 172.1 0.86 <0.0005 <0.005 0.0771 <0.05 0.00008 31.4 <0.005 <0.005 CW-3* Compliance 7/13/2011 5.22 6.4 22 1000 2.3 -106.9 1.03 98.1 <0.1 <0.0005 <0.005 0.17 b <0.05 0.00008 96.8 <0.005 <0.005 CW-3* Compliance 11/2/2011 5.16 6.8 18 980 2.41 -84.9 0.98 120.1 <0.1 <0.0005 <0.005 0.184 <0.05 0.00008 115 <0.005 <0.005 CW-3* Compliance 4/2/2012 4.57 6.3 15 287 0.34 -51.3 8.84 153.7 0.832 <0.0005 <0.005 0.0782 <0.05 0.00008 33.2 <0.005 <0.005 CW-3* Compliance 7/11/2012 5.55 6.5 18 955 2.78 -38.7 0.88 166.3 <0.1 <0.0005 <0.005 0.161 <0.05 0.00008 95.8 <0.005 <0.005 CW-3* Compliance 11/7/2012 5.17 6.6 15 990 2.86 67.6 0.39 272.6 <0.1 <0.0005 <0.005 0.178 <0.05 0.00008 108 <0.005 <0.005 CW-3* Compliance 4/8/2013 4.09 5.6 15 110 1.98 39.2 34.9 244.2 0.558 <0.001 <0.001 0.029 <0.05 <0.001 6.5 <0.005 <0.005 CW-3* Compliance 7/8/2013 5 6.5 21 958 2.99 164.6 1.51 369.6 0.031 <0.001 <0.001 0.16 <0.05 <0.001 84 <0.005 <0.005 CW-3* Compliance 11/11/2013 5.54 6.4 17 987 3.2 204 2.7 409 0.271 <0.001 <0.001 0.163 <0.05 <0.001 86 <0.005 <0.005 CW-3* Compliance 4/4/2014 4.85 6.0 12 220 0.6 259 15 464 1.35 <0.001 <0.001 0.051 <0.05 <0.001 21 <0.005 <0.005 CW-3* Compliance 7/15/2014 5.25 6.5 21 884 3.38 156.4 0.41 361.4 0.037 b <0.001 <0.001 0.147 <0.05 <0.001 74 <0.005 <0.005 CW-3D* Compliance 11/30/2010 3.63 7.8 16 588 NM NM 8.69 NM <0.1 <0.0005 <0.005 0.0332 <0.05 0.00008 28.6 <0.005 <0.005 CW-3D* Compliance 4/19/2011 1.11 7.5 19 510 2.68 -30.7 2.1 174.3 <0.1 0.00065 <0.005 0.0381 <0.05 0.00008 27.2 <0.005 <0.005 CW-3D* Compliance 7/13/2011 3 7.5 23 544 0.52 -149.9 0.92 55.1 <0.1 <0.0005 <0.005 0.0521 b <0.05 0.00008 26.4 b <0.005 <0.005 CW-3D* Compliance 11/2/2011 2.57 7.7 17 529 0.48 -211.2 3.69 -6.2 0.164 <0.0005 <0.005 0.0552 <0.05 0.00008 26.6 <0.005 <0.005 CW-3D* Compliance 4/2/2012 1.3 7.5 18 498 1.07 -151.7 6.98 53.3 0.248 <0.0005 <0.005 0.0461 <0.05 0.00008 27 <0.005 <0.005 CW-3D* Compliance 7/11/2012 3.2 7.5 20 524 2.19 -47.1 5.69 157.9 0.17 <0.0005 <0.005 0.0438 <0.05 0.00008 26.5 <0.005 <0.005 CW-3D* Compliance 11/7/2012 2.95 7.6 13 519 1.81 -100.6 2.64 104.4 0.143 <0.0005 <0.005 0.0511 <0.05 0.00008 26.1 <0.005 <0.005 CW-3D* Compliance 4/8/2013 1.4 7.3 19 550 1.89 -114.1 9.72 90.9 0.124 <0.001 0.00102 0.043 <0.05 <0.001 23 <0.005 <0.005 CW-3D* Compliance 7/8/2013 2.35 7.6 24 549 1.64 131.7 2.56 336.7 0.095 <0.001 <0.001 0.049 <0.05 <0.001 25 <0.005 <0.005 CW-3D* Compliance 11/11/2013 1.89 7.4 16 538 0.7 184 3.7 389 0.186 <0.001 <0.001 0.057 <0.05 <0.001 23 <0.005 <0.005 CW-3D* Compliance 4/4/2014 1.7 7.7 14 487 5.9 253 4.3 458 0.151 <0.001 <0.001 0.046 <0.05 <0.001 26 <0.005 <0.005 CW-3D* Compliance 7/15/2014 3.04 7.6 25 536 1.41 116.4 4.77 321.4 0.215 <0.001 <0.001 0.057 <0.05 <0.001 24 <0.005 <0.005 CW-4* Compliance 11/30/2010 28.97 7.1 20 599 NM NM 8.97 NM 0.232 <0.0005 <0.005 0.137 <0.05 1 0.00008 25.7 0.0296 0.0073 CW-4* Compliance 4/19/2011 28.63 6.6 20 567 2.46 -0.4 8.4 204.6 0.102 <0.0005 <0.005 0.143 <0.05 0.00008 25.8 0.0189 0.0067 CW-4* Compliance 7/13/2011 29.34 6.7 24 589 3.06 -133.1 8.66 71.9 0.306 <0.0005 <0.005 0.146 b <0.05 0.00008 25 b 0.0229 <0.005 CW-4* Compliance 11/2/2011 29.31 7.0 18 581 2.45 -41.4 9.31 163.6 <0.1 <0.0005 <0.005 0.136 <0.05 0.00008 25.9 <0.005 <0.005 CW-4* Compliance 4/2/2012 28.69 6.8 19 534 2.36 -76.2 2.22 128.8 <0.1 <0.0005 <0.005 0.139 <0.05 0.00008 27 <0.005 <0.005 CW-4* Compliance 7/11/2012 29.63 6.7 19 587 2.88 -41.3 2.34 163.7 <0.1 <0.0005 <0.005 0.135 <0.05 0.00008 26.8 <0.005 <0.005 CW-4* Compliance 11/7/2012 29.2 6.8 13 580 2.99 247.8 0.94 452.8 <0.1 <0.0005 <0.005 0.128 <0.05 0.00022 26.4 <0.005 <0.005 CW 4* Compliance 4/8/2013 28.82 6.6 19 615 2.02 39.8 2.77 244.8 0.033 <0.001 <0.001 0.128 <0.05 <0.001 25 <0.005 <0.005 CW-4* Compliance 7/8/2013 28.95 6.7 23 616 1.96 247.3 2.23 452.3 0.039 <0.001 <0.001 0.134 <0.05 <0.001 27 <0.005 <0.005 CW-4* Compliance 11/11/2013 29.28 6.6 17 612 1.9 199 0.9 404 0.009 <0.001 <0.001 1 0.135 <0.05 <0.001 26 <0.005 <0.005 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment Plans\Roxboro\Final\Tables\Roxboro GW Assessment Tables 4 - 7 .xlsx 2 of 8 TABLE 4 GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS ROXBORO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC., SEMORA, NORTH CAROLINA Analytical Parameter Depth to Water PH Temp. Specific Conductance DO ORP Turbidity Eh Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Boron Cadmium Chloride Chromium Copper Units ft S.U. Deg C PS/cm mg/I my NTUs my 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 NA 0.001 0.01 0.7 0.7 0.002 250 0.01 1 Analytical Method Field Measurements 200.7 200.8 200.8 200.7 200.7 200.8 300 200.8 200.7 Sample ID Well Type Sample Date Constituent Concentrations CW-4* Compliance 4/4/2014 28.61 6.6 15 572 2.1 248 6 453 0.269 <0.001 <0.001 0.137 <0.05 <0.001 30 <0.005 <0.005 CW-4* Compliance 7/15/2014 29.14 6.7 24 607 1.8 131.8 2.96 336.8 0.041 b <0.001 <0.001 0.138 <0.05 <0.001 27 <0.005 <0.005 CW-5* Compliance 11/29/2010 9.92 6.7 15 1655 NM NM 6.11 NM 0.122 <0.0005 0.007 0.044 0.413 0.00008 31.1 <0.005 <0.005 CW-5* Compliance 4/19/2011 8.77 6.5 17 299 7.72 5.8 5.06 210.8 <0.1 <0.0005 <0.005 0.0428 0.122 0.00008 12.3 0.0065 <0.005 CW-5* Compliance 7/13/2011 11.96 6.4 22 1066 2.69 -135.1 2.92 69.9 <0.1 <0.0005 <0.005 0.0203 b 0.424 0.00008 22.1 b <0.005 <0.005 CW-5* Compliance 11/2/2011 11.06 6.6 18 1132 4.38 -50 1.2 155 <0.1 <0.0005 <0.005 0.0315 0.467 0.00008 25.8 <0.005 <0.005 CW-5* Compliance 4/2/2012 9.28 6.6 15 343 8.14 -38.2 1.96 166.8 <0.1 <0.0005 <0.005 0.0382 0.207 0.00008 19.4 0.0052 <0.005 CW-5* Compliance 7/11/2012 13.15 6.6 19 828 3.05 -50.8 1.14 154.2 <0.1 <0.0005 <0.005 0.0143 0.543 0.00008 23.8 <0.005 <0.005 CW-5* Compliance 11/7/2012 10.94 6.5 17 1193 4.3 121.6 0.75 326.6 <0.1 <0.0005 <0.005 0.0286 0.477 0.00008 19.5 <0.005 <0.005 CW-5* Compliance 4/9/2013 9.52 6.4 19 999 5.43 23.1 4.26 228.1 0.056 <0.001 <0.001 0.031 0.295 <0.001 14 <0.005 <0.005 CW-5* Compliance 7/8/2013 9.69 6.4 20 1105 4.46 153.7 0.9 358.7 0.014 <0.001 <0.001 0.029 0.357 <0.001 14 <0.005 <0.005 CW-5* Compliance 11/11/2013 12.38 6.4 16 1377 5.5 210 2.4 415 0.067 <0.001 <0.001 0.026 0.497 <0.001 15 <0.005 <0.005 CW-5* Compliance 4/4/2014 9.36 6.5 15 387 8.3 293 1.2 498 0.013 b <0.001 <0.001 0.048 0.152 <0.001 13 <0.005 <0.005 CW-5* Compliance 7/15/2014 12.14 6.4 19 840 3.86 169.7 3.91 374.7 0.095 b <0.001 <0.001 0.018 0.476 <0.001 19 <0.005 <0.005 MW-1** Voluntary 3/8/2000 NA 6.3 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.004 0.12 NA NA NA <0.02 NA MW-1** Voluntary 7/12/2000 11.2 6.3 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.005 0.073 NA NA NA <0.01 NA MW-1** Voluntary 11/9/2000 11.5 6.4 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.005 0.075 NA NA NA <0.01 NA MW-1** Voluntary 3/14/2001 10.9 6.3 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.005 0.07 NA NA NA <0.01 NA MW-1** Voluntary 7/20/2001 11.9 6.3 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.005 0.067 NA NA NA <0.01 NA MW-1** Voluntary 11/14/2001 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.005 0.064 NA NA NA <0.01 NA MW-1** Voluntary 3/20/2002 11.42 6.9 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.005 0.068 NA NA NA <0.01 NA MW-1** Voluntary 7/24/2002 12.8 6.3 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA MW-1** Voluntary 11/14/2002 10.8 6.3 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.005 0.078 NA NA NA <0.005 NA MW-1** Voluntary 3/31/2004 12.6 6.4 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.005 0.065 NA NA NA <0.005 NA MW-1** Voluntary 7/28/2004 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.005 0.077 NA NA NA <0.01 NA MW-1** Voluntary 12/21/2004 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.005 0.072 NA NA NA <0.01 NA MW-1** Voluntary 3/10/2005 13.6 6 14.64 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.005 0.077 NA NA NA <0.01 NA MW-1** Voluntary 7/27/2005 11.9 6.3 16.36 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.005 0.018 NA NA NA <0.01 NA MW-1** Voluntary 11/16/2005 13.4 6.1 17.27 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <3 0.088 NA NA NA <0.005 NA MW-1** Voluntary 3/20/2006 11.3 6.2 15.21 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <3 0.233 NA NA NA <0.005 NA MW-1** Voluntary 7/27/2006 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <3 0.07 NA NA NA <0.005 NA MW-1** Voluntary 11/15/2006 10.57 6.3 16.85 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA MW-1** Voluntary 3/27/2007 11.1 6.3 15.67 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <3 0.662 NA NA NA 0.007 NA MW-1** Voluntary 7/10/2007 12.76 6.3 17.18 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <3 0.068 NA NA NA <0.005 NA MW-1** Voluntary 11/18/2007 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <3 0.072 NA NA NA <0.005 NA MW-1** Voluntary 3/25/2008 11.23 6.3 15.91 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.0022 0.0818 NA NA NA <0.002 NA MW-1** Voluntary 7/21/2008 12.71 6.3 16.54 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <2.8 0.0846 NA NA NA <0.001 NA MW-1** Voluntary 11/18/2008 13.16 6.4 16.48 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <2.8 0.0875 NA NA NA <0.001 NA MW-1** Voluntary 3/10/2009 13.31 6.6 16.11 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <2.8 0.0926 NA NA NA <0.0071 NA MW-2** Voluntary 3/8/2000 NA 6.6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <3 0.088 NA NA NA <0.02 NA MW-2** Voluntary 7/12/2000 12.66 6.2 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.005 0.172 NA NA NA <0.01 NA MW-2** Voluntary 11/9/2000 13.1 6.4 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.005 0.109 NA NA NA <0.01 NA MW-2** Voluntary 3/14/2001 12.7 6.2 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.005 0.122 NA NA NA <0.01 NA MW-2** Voluntary 7/20/2001 13.38 6.1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.005 0.128 NA NA NA <0.01 NA MW-2** Voluntary 11/14/2001 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.005 0.104 NA NA NA <0.01 NA MW-2** Voluntary 3/20/2002 13 7.1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.005 0.123 NA NA NA <0.01 NA MW-2** Voluntary 7/24/2002 14.2 6.4 1 NA I NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment Plans\Roxboro\Final\Tables\Roxboro GW Assessment Tables 4 - 7 .xlsx 3 of 8 TABLE 4 GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS ROXBORO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC., SEMORA, NORTH CAROLINA Analytical Parameter Depth to Water PH Temp. Specific Conductance DO ORP Turbidity Eh Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Boron Cadmium Chloride Chromium Copper Units ft S.U. Deg C PS/cm mg/I my NTUs my 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 NA 0.001 0.01 0.7 0.7 0.002 250 0.01 1 Analytical Method Field Measurements 200.7 200.8 200.8 200.7 200.7 200.8 300 200.8 200.7 Sample ID Well Type Sample Date Constituent Concentrations MW-2** Voluntary 11/14/2002 12.46 6.3 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.005 0.143 NA NA NA <0.005 NA MW-2** Voluntary 3/31/2004 10.61 6.4 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.005 0.118 NA NA NA <0.005 NA MW-2** Voluntary 7/28/2004 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.005 0.108 NA NA NA <0.01 NA MW-2** Voluntary 12/21/2004 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.005 0.113 NA NA NA <0.01 NA MW-2** Voluntary 3/10/2005 10.8 6.3 14.63 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.005 0.136 NA NA NA <0.01 NA MW-2** Voluntary 7/27/2005 13.4 1 6.1 15.18 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.005 0.112 NA NA NA <0.01 NA MW-2** Voluntary 11/16/2005 13.8 5.9 16.21 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <3 0.137 NA NA NA <0.005 NA MW-2** Voluntary 3/20/2006 13 5.4 14.75 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <3 0.288 NA NA NA <0.005 NA MW-2** Voluntary 7/27/2006 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <3 0.115 NA NA NA <0.005 NA MW-2** Voluntary 11/15/2006 12.37 6.1 16.1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA MW-2** Voluntary 3/27/2007 12.55 6.2 15.05 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <3 0.57 NA NA NA 0.008 NA MW-2** Voluntary 7/10/2007 13.72 6.1 15.97 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <3 0.111 NA NA NA <0.005 NA MW-2** Voluntary 11/18/2007 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <3 0.119 NA NA NA <0.005 NA MW-2** Voluntary 3/25/2008 13.05 6.2 15.14 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.0026 0.132 NA NA NA <0.002 NA MW-2** Voluntary 7/21/2008 14.1 6.2 15.38 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <2.8 0.141 NA NA NA <0.001 NA MW-2** Voluntary 11/18/2008 16.38 6.5 14.91 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <2.8 0.138 NA NA NA <0.001 NA MW-2** Voluntary 3/10/2009 16.04 6.6 15.15 NA NA NA NA NA L NA NA <2.8 0.136 NA NA NA <0.0071 NA 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 mV = millivolts pS/cm = microsiemens per centimeter NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Unit mg/I = milligrams per liter 3. NE = Not established 4. NS = Not sampled 5. NA = Not available 6. NM = Not measured 7 b = Data flagged due to detection in field blank 8. Highlighted values indicate values that exceed the 15 NCAC .02L .0202(g) Standard 9. Analytical results with "<" preceding the result indicates that the parameter was not detected at a concentration which attains or exceeds the laboratory reporting limit. * Sample data provided by SynTerra ** Sample data provided by Duke Prepared By: RG BER Checked By: JRH P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment Plans\Roxboro\Final\Tables\Roxboro GW Assessment Tables 4 - 7 .xlsx 4 of 8 TABLE 4 GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS ROXBORO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC., SEMORA, NORTH CAROLINA Analytical Parameter Iron Lead Manganese Mercury Nickel Nitrate Nitrite Selenium Sulfate TDS 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 15 NCAC .02L .0202(g) Groundwater Quality Standard 0.3 0.015 0.05 0.001 0.1 10 NE 0.02 250 500 0.0002 1 Analytical Method 200.7 200.8 200.8 245.1 200.7 300.0 NA 200.8 300 SM2540C 200.8 200.7 Sample ID Well Type Sample Date Constituent Concentrations BG-1* Background 11/30/2010 0.881 <0.005 0.0272 <0.0002 <0.005 1.3 NS <0.01 12.5 299 <0.0001 0.0123 BG-1* Background 4/20/2011 0.499 <0.005 0.0185 <0.0002 0.0174 1.4 NS <0.01 11.7 282 <0.0001 0.0189 BG-1* Background 7/13/2011 0.752 <0.005 0.0258 b <0.0002 0.0455 b 1.1 NS <0.01 11.6 b 248 b <0.0001 <0.01 BG-1* Background 11/2/2011 0.307 <0.005 0.0078 <0.0002 0.012 1.3 NS <0.01 12.4 263 b <0.0001 <0.01 BG-1* Background 4/2/2012 0.286 <0.005 0.0065 <0.0002 <0.005 1.6 NS <0.01 11.7 298 <0.0001 <0.01 BG-1* Background 7/11/2012 0.866 <0.005 0.0187 <0.0002 <0.005 1.5 NS <0.01 14.2 312 <0.0001 <0.01 BG-1* Background 11/6/2012 0.532 <0.005 0.0111 <0.0002 0.0062 1.5 NS <0.01 14.3 300 <0.0001 <0.01 BG-1* Background 4/8/2013 0.113 <0.001 0.005 <0.00005 <0.005 1.6 NS <0.001 11 310 <0.0002 <0.005 BG-1* Background 7/8/2013 0.368 <0.001 0.009 <0.00005 0.006 1.7 NS <0.001 12 330 <0.0002 <0.005 BG-1* Background 11/11/2013 0.507 <0.001 0.011 <0.00005 <0.005 1.7 NS <0.001 12 320 <0.0002 0.012 BG-1* Background 4/3/2014 0.37 <0.001 0.008 <0.00005 <0.005 1.9 NS <0.001 13 320 <0.0002 <0.005 BG-1* Background 7/15/2014 0.218 1 <0.001 0.006 <0.00005 <0.005 1 2 NS <0.001 14 1 330 <0.0002 <0.005 CW-1* Compliance 11/30/2010 2.29 <0.005 0.18 <0.0002 0.0104 0.19 NS <0.01 67.4 392 <0.0001 <0.01 CW-1* Compliance 4/18/2011 0.198 <0.005 0.0117 <0.0002 <0.005 0.44 NS <0.01 115 <25 <0.0001 <0.01 CW-1* Compliance 7/13/2011 0.0934 b <0.005 0.0097 b <0.0002 <0.005 0.21 NS <0.01 93.3 385 <0.0001 <0.01 CW-1* Compliance 11/1/2011 0.176 <0.005 0.0082 <0.0002 <0.005 0.23 NS <0.01 124 400 b <0.0001 <0.01 CW-1* Compliance 4/3/2012 0.0899 <0.005 <0.005 <0.0002 <0.005 0.39 NS <0.01 131 396 <0.0001 <0.01 CW-1* Compliance 7/11/2012 0.164 <0.005 0.0056 <0.0002 <0.005 1 0.37 NS <0.01 126 391 <0.0001 <0.01 CW-1* Compliance 11/7/2012 0.112 <0.005 <0.005 <0.0002 <0.005 0.34 NS <0.01 113 380 <0.0001 0.0103 CW-1* Compliance 4/9/2013 0.03 <0.001 <0.005 <0.00005 <0.005 0.7 NS 0.0105 200 480 <0.0002 <0.005 CW-1* Compliance 7/8/2013 0.067 <0.001 <0.005 <0.00005 <0.005 0.55 NS 0.00843 170 430 <0.0002 0.01 CW-1* Compliance 11/12/2013 0.187 <0.001 0.005 <0.00005 <0.005 0.42 NS 0.00884 150 390 <0.0002 <0.005 CW-1* Compliance 4/3/2014 0.125 <0.001 <0.005 <0.00005 <0.005 0.94 NS 0.00823 220 460 <0.0002 <0.005 CW-1* Compliance 7/15/2014 0.127 <0.001 <0.005 <0.00005 <0.005 0.6 NS 0.00841 170 410 <0.0002 <0.005 CW-1* Compliance 11/29/2010 0.0553 <0.005 0.0529 <0.0002 <0.005 0.17 NS <0.01 51.8 408 <0.0001 <0.01 CW-1* Compliance 4/19/2011 0.187 <0.005 0.0062 <0.0002 <0.005 0.23 NS <0.01 45.7 398 <0.0001 <0.01 CW-1* Compliance 7/13/2011 0.0911 b <0.005 <0.005 <0.0002 <0.005 <0.2 NS <0.01 51 419 <0.0001 <0.01 CW-1* Compliance 11/2/2011 0.0793 <0.005 <0.005 <0.0002 <0.005 <0.2 NS <0.01 52.2 395 b <0.0001 <0.01 CW-1* Compliance 4/2/2012 <0.05 <0.005 <0.005 <0.0002 <0.005 0.21 NS <0.01 48.2 464 <0.0001 <0.01 CW-1* Compliance 7/11/2012 <0.05 <0.005 <0.005 <0.0002 <0.005 0.28 NS <0.01 54 498 <0.0001 <0.01 CW-1* Compliance 11/6/2012 1.03 <0.005 0.0103 <0.0002 <0.005 0.25 NS <0.01 91.2 385 <0.0001 0.0241 CW-1* Compliance 4/8/2013 0.268 <0.001 0.005 <0.00005 <0.005 0.29 NS <0.001 51 450 <0.0002 <0.005 CW-1* Compliance 7/8/2013 0.173 <0.001 <0.005 <0.00005 <0.005 0.34 NS <0.001 47 520 <0.0002 0.008 CW-1* Compliance 11/11/2013 1.19 <0.001 0.014 <0.00005 <0.005 0.25 NS <0.001 57 460 <0.0002 0.006 CW-1* Compliance 4/4/2014 1.07 <0.001 0.013 <0.00005 <0.005 0.26 NS <0.001 57 490 <0.0002 0.005 CW-1* Compliance 7/15/2014 0.337 <0.001 <0.005 <0.00005 <0.005 0.26 NS <0.001 58 1 500 <0.0002 0.005 CW-2* Compliance 11/29/2010 0.0553 <0.005 0.0529 <0.0002 <0.005 0.17 NS <0.01 51.8 408 <0.0001 <0.01 CW-2* Compliance 4/19/2011 0.187 <0.005 0.0062 <0.0002 <0.005 0.23 NS <0.01 45.7 398 <0.0001 <0.01 CW-2* Compliance 7/13/2011 0.0911 b <0.005 <0.005 <0.0002 <0.005 <0.2 NS <0.01 51 419 <0.0001 <0.01 CW-2* Compliance 11/2/2011 0.0793 <0.005 <0.005 <0.0002 <0.005 <0.2 NS <0.01 52.2 395 b <0.0001 <0.01 CW-2* Compliance 4/2/2012 <0.05 <0.005 <0.005 <0.0002 <0.005 0.21 NS <0.01 48.2 464 <0.0001 <0.01 CW-2* Compliance 7/11/2012 <0.05 <0.005 <0.005 <0.0002 <0.005 0.28 NS <0.01 54 498 <0.0001 <0.01 CW-2* Compliance 11/6/2012 1.03 <0.005 0.0103 <0.0002 <0.005 0.25 NS <0.01 91.2 385 <0.0001 0.0241 CW-2* Compliance 4/8/2013 0.268 <0.001 0.005 <0.00005 <0.005 0.29 NS <0.001 51 450 <0.0002 <0.005 CW-2* Compliance 7/8/2013 0.173 <0.001 <0.005 <0.00005 <0.005 0.34 NS <0.001 47 520 <0.0002 0.008 CW-2* Compliance 11/11/2013 1.19 <0.001 0.014 <0.00005 1 <0.005 0.25 NS <0.001 1 57 460 <0.0002 0.006 CW-2* Compliance 4/4/2014 1.07 <0.001 0.013 <0.00005 <0.005 0.26 NS <0.001 57 490 <0.0002 0.005 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment Plans\Roxboro\Final\Tables\Roxboro GW Assessment Tables 4 - 7 .xlsx 5 of 8 TABLE 4 GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS ROXBORO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC., SEMORA, NORTH CAROLINA Analytical Parameter Iron Lead Manganese Mercury Nickel Nitrate Nitrite Selenium Sulfate TDS 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 15 NCAC .02L .0202(g) Groundwater Quality Standard 0.3 0.015 0.05 0.001 0.1 10 NE 0.02 250 500 0.0002 1 Analytical Method 200.7 200.8 200.8 245.1 200.7 300.0 NA 200.8 300 SM2540C 200.8 200.7 Sample ID Well Type Sample Date Constituent Concentrations CW-2* Compliance 7/15/2014 0.337 <0.001 <0.005 <0.00005 <0.005 0.26 NS <0.001 58 500 <0.0002 0.005 CW-2D* Compliance 11/29/2010 0.224 <0.005 0.0249 <0.0002 0.0108 0.18 NS <0.01 70.5 339 <0.0001 0.0343 CW-2D* Compliance 4/19/2011 0.382 <0.005 0.0147 <0.0002 <0.005 0.2 NS <0.01 62.2 343 <0.0001 <0.01 CW-2D* Compliance 7/13/2011 <0.05 <0.005 0.0083 b <0.0002 <0.005 0.3 NS <0.01 79 346 b <0.0001 <0.01 CW-2D* Compliance 11/2/2011 0.0714 <0.005 0.0061 <0.0002 <0.005 <0.2 NS <0.01 86.8 339 b <0.0001 <0.01 CW-2D* Compliance 4/2/2012 <0.05 <0.005 <0.005 <0.0002 <0.005 <0.2 NS <0.01 74.4 360 <0.0001 <0.01 CW-2D* Compliance 7/11/2012 <0.05 <0.005 <0.005 <0.0002 <0.005 0.22 NS <0.01 71.7 357 <0.0001 <0.01 CW-2D* Compliance 11/6/2012 <0.05 <0.005 <0.005 <0.0002 <0.005 0.22 b NS <0.01 89.3 351 <0.0001 0.0197 CW-2D* Compliance 4/8/2013 <0.01 <0.001 <0.005 <0.00005 <0.005 0.22 NS <0.001 76 370 <0.0002 <0.005 CW-2D* Compliance 7/8/2013 <0.01 <0.001 <0.005 <0.00005 <0.005 0.22 NS <0.001 78 380 <0.0002 <0.005 CW-2D* Compliance 11/11/2013 <0.01 <0.001 <0.005 <0.00005 <0.005 0.19 NS <0.001 76 370 <0.0002 <0.005 CW-2D* Compliance 4/4/2014 0.011 <0.001 <0.005 <0.00005 <0.005 0.2 NS <0.001 87 380 <0.0002 <0.005 CW-2D* Compliance 7/15/2014 <0.01 <0.001 <0.005 <0.00005 <0.005 0.22 NS <0.001 87 390 <0.0002 <0.005 CW-3* Compliance 11/30/2010 0.178 <0.005 0.0072 <0.0002 <0.005 0.58 NS <0.01 112 639 <0.0001 <0.01 CW-3* Compliance 4/19/2011 0.716 <0.005 0.0125 <0.0002 <0.005 <0.1 NS <0.01 38.4 210 <0.0001 <0.01 CW-3* Compliance 7/13/2011 <0.05 <0.005 <0.005 <0.0002 <0.005 0.59 NS <0.01 90.1 570 <0.0001 <0.01 CW-3* Compliance 11/2/2011 <0.05 <0.005 <0.005 <0.0002 <0.005 0.61 NS <0.01 91.9 644 <0.0001 <0.01 CW-3* Compliance 4/2/2012 0.481 <0.005 0.0117 <0.0002 <0.005 <0.2 NS <0.01 73.8 211 <0.0001 <0.01 CW-3* Compliance 7/11/2012 <0.05 <0.005 <0.005 <0.0002 <0.005 0.57 NS <0.01 104 614 <0.0001 <0.01 CW-3* Compliance 11/7/2012 <0.05 <0.005 <0.005 <0.0002 <0.005 0.67 NS <0.01 107 652 <0.0001 <0.01 CW-3* Compliance 4/8/2013 0.441 <0.001 0.006 <0.00005 <0.005 <0.023 NS <0.001 19 120 <0.0002 <0.005 CW-3* Compliance 7/8/2013 0.026 <0.001 <0.005 <0.00005 <0.005 0.62 NS <0.001 85 590 <0.0002 0.005 CW-3* Compliance 11/11/2013 0.213 <0.001 0.007 <0.00005 <0.005 0.53 NS <0.001 84 620 1 <0.0002 <0.005 CW-3* Compliance 4/4/2014 1.03 <0.001 <0.005 <0.00005 <0.005 0.03 NS <0.001 32 170 <0.0002 <0.005 CW-3* Compliance 7/15/2014 0.026 <0.001 <0.005 <0.00005 <0.005 0.54 NS <0.001 78 560 <0.0002 <0.005 CW-3D* Compliance 11/30/2010 0.0904 <0.005 0.116 <0.0002 <0.005 <0.1 NS <0.01 28.7 353 <0.0001 <0.01 CW-3D* Compliance 4/19/2011 0.0536 <0.005 0.0866 <0.0002 <0.005 <0.1 NS <0.01 31.2 237 <0.0001 <0.01 CW-3D* Compliance 7/13/2011 0.456 b <0.005 0.325 <0.0002 <0.005 <0.2 NS <0.01 29.5 b 329 b <0.0001 <0.01 CW-3D* Compliance 11/2/2011 0.844 <0.005 0.416 <0.0002 <0.005 <0.2 NS <0.01 27.2 1 400 b <0.0001 <0.01 CW-3D* Compliance 4/2/2012 0.71 <0.005 0.179 <0.0002 <0.005 <0.2 NS <0.01 26.1 328 <0.0001 <0.01 CW-3D* Compliance 7/11/2012 0.286 <0.005 0.0848 <0.0002 <0.005 0.086 b NS <0.01 29.6 332 <0.0001 <0.01 CW-3D* Compliance 11/7/2012 0.599 <0.005 0.159 <0.0002 <0.005 0.072 b NS <0.01 31.7 332 <0.0001 0.0515 CW-3D* Compliance 4/8/2013 0.291 <0.001 0.13 <0.00005 <0.005 0.11 NS <0.001 28 340 <0.0002 <0.005 CW-3D* Compliance 7/8/2013 0.132 <0.001 0.048 <0.00005 <0.005 0.07 NS <0.001 31 360 <0.0002 0.006 CW-3D* Compliance 11/11/2013 0.284 <0.001 0.118 <0.00005 <0.005 <0.023 NS <0.001 30 1 350 <0.0002 <0.005 CW-3D* Compliance 4/4/2014 0.215 <0.001 0.059 <0.00005 <0.005 0.09 NS <0.001 31 330 <0.0002 <0.005 CW-3D* Compliance 7/15/2014 0.275 <0.001 0.065 <0.00005 <0.005 0.06 NS <0.001 32 340 <0.0002 <0.005 CW-4* Compliance 11/30/2010 0.325 <0.005 0.0199 <0.0002 0.0169 0.43 NS <0.01 33.2 345 <0.0001 0.0214 CW-4* Compliance 4/19/2011 0.321 <0.005 0.0117 <0.0002 0.0341 0.59 NS <0.01 33.4 404 <0.0001 0.0235 CW-4* Compliance 7/13/2011 0.391 b <0.005 0.0119 b <0.0002 0.0215 b 0.46 NS <0.01 37.6 b 325 b <0.0001 <0.01 CW-4* Compliance 11/2/2011 <0.05 <0.005 <0.005 <0.0002 <0.005 0.4 NS <0.01 36.3 612 <0.0001 <0.01 CW-4* Compliance 4/2/2012 0.0639 <0.005 <0.005 <0.0002 <0.005 0.45 NS <0.01 34.5 350 <0.0001 <0.01 CW-4* Compliance 7/11/2012 0.0569 <0.005 <0.005 <0.0002 <0.005 0.45 NS <0.01 38.3 349 <0.0001 <0.01 CW 4* Compliance 11/7/2012 <0.05 <0.005 <0.005 <0.0002 <0.005 0.46 NS <0.01 39.9 348 <0.0001 0.0253 CW-4* Compliance 1 4/8/2013 0.015 <0.001 <0.005 <0.00005 <0.005 0.44 NS <0.001 36 370 <0.0002 <0.005 CW-4* Compliance 7/8/2013 0.042 <0.001 <0.005 <0.00005 <0.005 0.47 NS <0.001 38 380 <0.0002 <0.005 CW-4* Compliance 11/11/2013 <0.01 I <0.001 <0.005 <0.00005 <0.005 0.39 NS <0.001 36 370 <0.0002 <0.005 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment Plans\Roxboro\Final\Tables\Roxboro GW Assessment Tables 4 - 7 .xlsx 6 of 8 TABLE 4 GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS ROXBORO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC., SEMORA, NORTH CAROLINA Analytical Parameter Iron Lead Manganese Mercury Nickel Nitrate Nitrite Selenium Sulfate TDS 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 15 NCAC .02L .0202(g) Groundwater Quality Standard 0.3 0.015 0.05 0.001 0.1 10 NE 0.02 250 500 0.0002 1 Analytical Method 200.7 200.8 200.8 245.1 200.7 300.0 NA 200.8 300 SM2540C 200.8 200.7 Sample ID Well Type Sample Date Constituent Concentrations CW-4* Compliance 4/4/2014 0.251 <0.001 <0.005 <0.00005 <0.005 0.48 NS <0.001 39 370 <0.0002 <0.005 CW-4* Compliance 7/15/2014 0.038 <0.001 <0.005 <0.00005 <0.005 0.45 NS <0.001 38 370 <0.0002 <0.005 CW-5* Compliance 11/29/2010 0.0611 <0.005 0.0423 <0.0002 <0.005 <0.1 NS <0.01 873 1510 <0.0001 <0.01 CW-5* Compliance 4/19/2011 0.0958 <0.005 0.0106 <0.0002 <0.005 <0.1 NS <0.01 81.2 292 <0.0001 <0.01 CW-5* Compliance 7/13/2011 <0.05 <0.005 <0.005 <0.0002 <0.005 <0.2 NS <0.01 472 856 <0.0001 <0.01 CW-5* Compliance 11/2/2011 0.0602 <0.005 <0.005 <0.0002 <0.005 <0.2 NS <0.01 668 1150 <0.0001 <0.01 CW-5* Compliance 4/2/2012 0.127 <0.005 <0.005 <0.0002 <0.005 0.26 NS <0.01 296 616 <0.0001 <0.01 CW-5* Compliance 7/11/2012 0.0746 <0.005 <0.005 <0.0002 <0.005 0.34 NS <0.01 339 670 <0.0001 <0.01 CW-5* Compliance 11/7/2012 <0.05 <0.005 <0.005 <0.0002 <0.005 0.35 NS <0.01 662 1290 <0.0001 0.0129 CW-5* Compliance 4/9/2013 0.012 <0.001 <0.005 <0.00005 <0.005 0.16 NS <0.001 490 900 <0.0002 <0.005 CW-5* Compliance 7/8/2013 0.019 <0.001 <0.005 <0.00005 <0.005 1.8 NS <0.001 640 1000 <0.0002 0.007 CW-5* Compliance 11/11/2013 0.06 <0.001 <0.005 <0.00005 <0.005 0.21 NS <0.001 700 1200 <0.0002 <0.005 CW-5* Compliance 4/4/2014 <0.01 <0.001 <0.005 <0.00005 <0.005 0.7 NS <0.001 250 500 <0.0002 <0.005 CW-5* Compliance 7/15/2014 0.084 <0.001 <0.005 <0.00005 <0.005 0.31 NS <0.001 330 670 <0.0002 <0.005 MW-1** Voluntary 3/8/2000 1.8 NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.005 29 222 NA NA MW-1** Voluntary 7/12/2000 1.21 NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.002 6.5 298 NA NA MW-1** Voluntary 11/9/2000 1.44 NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.002 25.3 294 NA NA MW-1** Voluntary 3/14/2001 0.647 NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.002 27.1 212 NA NA MW-1** Voluntary 7/20/2001 0.184 NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.002 26.1 355 NA NA MW-1** Voluntary 11/14/2001 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.002 NA 299 NA NA MW-1** Voluntary 3/20/2002 0.232 NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.002 36.2 333 NA NA MW-1** Voluntary 7/24/2002 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA MW-1** Voluntary 11/14/2002 0.472 NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.002 66.1 336 NA NA MW-1** Voluntary 3/31/2004 0.116 NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.002 23.4 314 NA NA MW-1** Voluntary 7/28/2004 0.138 NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.002 39.9 361 NA NA MW-1** Voluntary 12/21/2004 0.234 NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.002 29.01 1 341 NA NA MW-1** Voluntary 3/10/2005 0.334 NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.002 27 315 NA NA MW-1** Voluntary 7/27/2005 0.108 NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.002 38.4 290 NA NA MW-1** Voluntary 11/16/2005 0.517 NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.002 48.1 266 NA NA MW-1** Voluntary 3/20/2006 0.173 NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.002 49.4 264 NA NA MW-1** Voluntary 7/27/2006 0.614 NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.003 39.7 354 NA NA MW-1** Voluntary 11/15/2006 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA MW-1** Voluntary 3/27/2007 0.298 NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.002 21.4 276 NA NA MW-1** Voluntary 7/10/2007 0.149 NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.002 24.5 280 NA NA MW-1** Voluntary 11/18/2007 0.227 NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.002 39.5 298 NA NA MW-1** Voluntary 3/25/2008 0.184 NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.002 39 330 NA NA MW-1** Voluntary 7/21/2008 <0.022 NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.0112 26 320 NA NA MW-1** Voluntary 11/18/2008 0.087 NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.0027 34 340 NA NA MW-1** Voluntary 3/10/2009 0.31 NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.034 38 330 NA NA MW-2** Voluntary 3/8/2000 1.5 NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.005 24 315 NA NA MW-2** Voluntary 7/12/2000 8.52 NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.002 36.5 233 NA NA MW-2** Voluntary 11/9/2000 2.68 NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.002 40.1 219 NA NA MW-2** Voluntary 3/14/2001 2.03 NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.002 40.7 205 NA NA MW-2** Voluntary 7/20/2001 3.33 NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.002 53.3 318 NA NA MW-2** Voluntary 11/14/2001 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.002 11.2 242 NA NA MW-2** Voluntary 3/20/2002 1.76 NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.002 49.4 260 NA NA MW-2** Voluntary 7/24/2002 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment Plans\Roxboro\Final\Tables\Roxboro GW Assessment Tables 4 - 7 .xlsx 7 of 8 TABLE 4 GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS ROXBORO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC., SEMORA, NORTH CAROLINA Analytical Parameter Iron Lead Manganese Mercury Nickel Nitrate Nitrite Selenium Sulfate TDS 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 15 NCAC .02L .0202(g) Groundwater Quality Standard 0.3 0.015 0.05 0.001 0.1 10 NE 0.02 250 500 0.0002 1 Analytical Method 200.7 200.8 200.8 245.1 200.7 300.0 NA 200.8 300 SM2540C 200.8 200.7 Sample ID Well Type Sample Date Constituent Concentrations MW-2** Voluntary 11/14/2002 3.45 NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.002 67 282 NA NA MW-2** Voluntary 3/31/2004 1.97 NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.002 45.3 262 NA NA MW-2** Voluntary 7/28/2004 0.216 NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.002 39.4 280 NA NA MW-2** Voluntary 12/21/2004 0.813 NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.002 52 294 NA NA MW-2** Voluntary 3/10/2005 0.993 NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.002 48.4 270 NA NA MW-2** Voluntary 7/27/2005 0.351 NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.002 36.2 272 NA NA MW-2** Voluntary 11/16/2005 1.01 NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.002 81.7 258 NA NA MW-2** Voluntary 3/20/2006 0.321 NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.002 68.2 227 NA NA MW-2** Voluntary 7/27/2006 1.53 NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.004 68.7 344 NA NA MW-2** Voluntary 11/15/2006 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA MW-2** Voluntary 3/27/2007 0.615 NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.003 51 280 NA NA MW-2** Voluntary 7/10/2007 0.176 NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.002 487 274 NA NA MW-2** Voluntary 11/18/2007 0.364 NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.002 57.3 246 NA NA MW-2** Voluntary 3/25/2008 2 NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.002 65 330 NA NA MW-2** Voluntary 7/21/2008 4 NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.00691 68 290 NA NA MW-2** Voluntary 11/18/2008 LO.252 NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.0027 65 300 NA NA MW-2** Voluntary 3/10/2009 NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.034 66 270 NA NA 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 mV = millivolts pS/cm = microsiemens per centimeter NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Unit mg/I = milligrams per liter 3. NE = Not established 4. NS = Not sampled 5. NA = Not available 6. NM = Not measured 7 b = Data flagged due to detection in field blank 8. Highlighted values indicate values that exceed the 15 NCAC .02L .0202(g) Standard 9. Analytical results with "<" preceding the result indicates that the parameter was not detected at a concentration which attains or exceeds the laboratory reporting limit. * Sample data provided by SynTerra ** Sample data provided by Duke Prepared By: RG BER Checked By: JRH P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment Plans\Roxboro\Final\Tables\Roxboro GW Assessment Tables 4 - 7 .xlsx 8 of 8 TABLE 5 LANDFILL GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS ROXBORO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC., SEMORA, NORTH CAROLINA Analytical Parameter Dept to PH Temp. Condu'Per*ance DO ORP Turbidity Eh Arsenic Barium BOO Boron Cadmium Chloride Chromium COD Copper Fluoride Iron Lead Manganese Mercury Nickel Nitrate Selenium Silver Sulfate TDS TOC TOX Thallium Zinc Units ft S.U. Deg C pS/cm mg/I mV NTUS 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 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 10 0.7 NE 0.7 0.002 250 0.01 NE 1 2 300 15 0.05 0.001 0.1 10 0.02 0.02 250 500 NE NE 0.0002 1 Analytical Method Field Measurements 200.8 200.7 5210B 200.7 200.8 300 200.8 8000 200.7 300 200.7 200.8 200.8 245.1 200.7 300.0 200.8 200.7 300 SM2540C 5310C 9020 200.8 200.7 Sample ID Well Type Sample Date GMW-6 Monitoring Well 12/19/2002 24.94 6.8 NM 1975 NM NM NM NM <0.005 0.074 <2 NS <0.002 70.6 0.01 <10 0.01 0.26 4.24 <0.005 1.66 <0.0002 NS 0.91 0.096 <0.005 1108 2050 3.07 0.034 NS 0.049 GMW-6 Monitoring Well 5/28/2003 21.34 6.5 NM 2040 NM NM NM NM <0.005 0.068 <2 NS <0.002 71.8 0.006 14 0.005 0.31 1.75 <0.005 0.609 <0.0002 NS 0.94 0.101 <0.005 830 1930 3.08 0.041 NS 0.017 GMW-6 Monitoring Well 11/12/2003 NM NM NM 1990 NM NM NM NM 0.007 0.355 36 NS <0.002 71.6 0.16 <10 0.111 0.49 59.1 0.015 2.33 <0.0002 NS 1.12 0.093 <0.005 859 1760 3.57 0.018 NS 0.248 GMW-6 Monitoring Well 5/20/2004 NM NM NM <10 NM NM NM NM 0.007 0.051 <2 NS <0.002 78.6 <0.005 <10 0.008 0.29 1.95 <0.005 0.169 <0.0002 NS 1.17 0.105 <0.005 586 1550 3.78 0.038 NS 0.016 GMW-6 Monitoring Well 11/17/2004 25.45 6.4 NM 1700 NM NM NM NM 0.006 0.106 <2 NS <0.002 96.2 0.028 15.4 0.027 0.35 13.1 <0.005 0.372 <0.0002 NS 1.53 0.094 <0.005 454 1420 4.94 0.673 NS 0.047 GMW-6 Monitoring Well 5/18/2005 23.16 6.4 NM 1620 NM NM NM NM 0.005 0.063 <2 NS <0.002 91.4 0.011 12.8 0.012 0.4 6.95 0.012 0.166 0.000241 NS 1.21 0.088 <0.005 589 1600 4.77 0.0529 NS 0.062 GMW-6 Monitoring Well 11/16/2005 27.10 6.2 NM 1550 NM NM NM NM <0.005 0.054 <2 NS <0.002 87.2 0.01 16.2 0.006 0.36 2.24 <0.003 0.081 <0.0002 NS 1.27 0.096 <0.002 554 1200 4.79 0.062 NS 0.01 GMW-6 Monitoring Well 5/22/2006 27.20 5.8 NM 1950 NM NM NM NM <0.003 0.309 <2 NS <0.002 77.2 0.005 16 0.003 0.35 1.6 <0.005 0.051 <0.0002 NS 1.04 0.086 <0.005 627 1400 4.2 <1 NS 0.216 GMW-6 Monitoring Well 11/15/2006 24.91 7.4 NM 2140 NM NM NM NM 0.003 0.07 <2 NS <0.002 64.7 0.01 <10 0.012 0.45 4.23 <0.005 0.236 <0.0002 NS 1.01 0.098 <0.005 438 1570 3.69 <1 NS 0.018 GMW-6 Monitoring Well 5/23/2007 27.40 6.4 NM 1440 NM NM NM NM <0.003 0.304 <2 NS <0.002 78.4 0.012 <10 0.007 0.321 1.87 <0.005 0.086 <0.0002 NS 1.15 0.081 <0.005 666 1600 3.72 <1 NS 0.232 GMW-6 Monitoring Well 11/6/2007 27.40 6.4 NM 1990 NM NM NM NM 0.004 0.845 <2 NS <0.002 64.3 0.01 <10 0.008 0.4 2.44 <0.005 0.06 <0.0002 NS 0.92 0.076 <0.005 587 1510 3.74 <1 NS 0.614 GMW-6 Monitoring Well 5/22/2008 27.10 6.4 NM 2000 NM NM NM NM <0.002 0.0592 <2 NS <0.0005 46 <0.002 28 0.0016 0.32 3.23 <0.002 0.0828 <0.00011 NS 0.84 0.0712 <0.002 830 1700 4.4 <0.06 NS 0.54 GMW-6 Monitoring Well 11/19/2008 27.94 6.5 NM 2100 NM NM NM NM <0.0028 0.0479 <2 NS <0.00036 43 <0.001 25 <0.0016 0.36 1.24 <0.0019 0.0464 <0.00011 NS 0.66 0.0744 <0.0019 880 1800 3.9 0.0822 NS <0.0038 GMW-6 Monitoring Well 5/7/2009 25.18 6.8 NM 2000 NM NM NM NM <0.0028 0.0559 38 3.82 0.00041 41 0.0055 35 <0.00081 0.46 2.22 0.0027 0.0556 <0.00011 0.0034 0.78 0.0681 0.0045 810 1800 2.7 0.123 0.0052 0.0078 GMW-6 Monitoring Well 11/10/2009 25.65 6.5 NM 1900 NM NM NM NM <0.0028 0.0337 <2 2.85 0.00101 40 0.0065 16 <0.0016 0.4 0.68 0.0026 0.0227 <0.000054 <0.0018 0.83 0.0566 0.0026 690 1606 3 0.0987 <0.0048 0.0057 GMW-6 Monitoring Well 5/26/2010 23.52 6.5 NM 1970 NM NM NM NM <0.0005 0.0394 <2 3.92 <0.00008 42.8 0.0026 30 4.7 0.4 0.861 0.00032 0.025 <0.0002 <0.0017 0.85 0.061 0.0036 709 1640 4.2 <0.1 <0.003 0.01 GMW-6 Monitoring Well 11/16/2010 23.04 7.1 17 1782 NM NM 19.3 NM <0.0005 0.0435 <2 2.62 0.00013 55.7 0.0056 <25 0.0039 <0.5 0.429 0.00044 0.0464 <0.0002 0.005 2.3 0.0732 <0.0005 624 1420 1.8 <0.1 <0.01 0.0323 GMW-6 Monitoring Well 4/19/2011 21.30 6.6 18 1603 4.97 22.2 3.59 227.2 <0.005 0.0497 <2 0.962 <0.00008 75.3 0.0062 <25 0.0012 <0.5 0.0649 <0.005 0.0044 <0.0002 <0.005 1.4 0.0599 0.001 473 1250 14 0.09 J <0.0001 0.0076 GMW-6 Monitoring Well 11/1/2011 23.86 6.7 1 13 1463 1.27 6.6 2.09 211.6 1 <0.005 0.0564 <2 0.762 <0.00008 55.8 1 <0.005 <25 11<0.005 <0.5 0.0629 <0.005 1 0.0066 <0.0002 <0.005 1 0.0604 1 <0.005 1 458 1240 13.7 <0.1 <0.0001 <0.01 GMW-6 Monitoring Well 4/3/2012 21.76 6.5 18 1173 2.96 -64.3 1.49 140.7 <0.005 0.0368 <2 2.38 <0.00008 47.6 0.0027 JB <25 0.0017 JB <0.5 <0.05 <0.005 0.0061 <0.0002 <0.005 0.86 0.085 0.0016 J <5 1400 6.3 0.053 JB 0.000061 JB 0.0057 JB GMW-6 Monitoring Well 11/7/2012 23.97 6.4 15 1375 1.47 168.3 1.5 373.3 <0.005 0.0485 <2 1.16 <0.00008 52.6 0.0021 JB <25 0.0014 JB <0.5 <0.05 <0.005 0.0049 JB <0.0002 <0.005 0.92 0.0628 0.0022 JB 580 1380 11.3 <0.1 <0.0001 0.01 JB GMW-6 Monitoring Well 4/9/2013 21.63 6.7 22 1652 4.14 11.4 1.26 216.4 <0.001 0.047 <2 1.26 <0.001 47 <0.005 <20 <0.005 <1 <0.01 <0.001 <0.005 <0.00005 <0.005 0.83 0.0773 <0.005 570 1200 4 <0.1 <0.0002 <0.005 GMW-6 Monitoring Well 11/12/2013 23.53 6.7 16 1578 0.8 283 2.7 488 <0.001 0.048 <2 1.42 <0.001 49 <0.005 <20 <0.005 <1 0.016 <0.001 <0.005 <0.00005 <0.005 0.89 0.0824 <0.005 560 1300 4.9 0.056 <0.0002 <0.005 GMW-6 Monitoring Well 4/3/2014 20.14 6.7 16 1593 5.2 299 0.6 504 <0.001 0.043 <2 1.45 <0.001 52 <0.005 <20 <0.005 <1 <0.01 <0.001 <0.005 <0.00005 <0.005 0.82 0.0821 <0.005 420 1400 3.6 <0.1 <0.0002 <0.005 GMW-6 Monitoring Well 11/10/2014 21.90 6.5 15 1318 0.73 110.5 1.35 315.5 <0.001 0.045 <2 1.16 <0.001 57 <0.005 <20 <0.005 <1 <0.01 <0.001 <0.005 <0.00005 <0.005 0.93 0.0773 <0.005 490 1100 4.2 0.1 <0.0002 <0.005 GMW-7 Monitoring Well 12/19/2002 30.64 6.7 NM 453 NM NM NM NM <0.005 0.58 <2 NS <0.002 66.7 <0.005 11 0.005 0.19 0.831 <0.005 0.154 <0.0002 NS 0.43 <0.002 <0.005 64 384 3.28 0.02 NS 0.029 GMW-7 Monitoring Well 5/29/2003 28.44 6.4 NM 544 NM NM NM NM <0.005 0.567 <2 NS <0.002 73.2 <0.005 10 <0.005 0.2 0.171 <0.005 0.02 <0.0002 NS 0.48 0.004 <0.005 30.6 404 2.63 0.016 NS <0.005 GMW-7 Monitoring Well 11/12/2003 NM NM NM 648 NM NM NM NM <0.005 0.43 <2 NS <0.002 67.9 <0.005 <10 0.003 0.28 0.271 <0.005 0.01 <0.0002 NS 0.67 0.004 <0.005 549 431 3.18 0.012 NS 0.006 GMW-7 Monitoring Well 5/25/2004 NM NM NM 623 NM NM NM NM <0.005 0.654 <2 NS <0.002 71.4 0.049 <10 0.005 0.2 0.983 <0.005 0.034 <0.0002 NS 0.44 0.004 <0.005 36.6 362 2.81 0.034 NS 0.008 GMW-7 Monitoring Well 11/17/2004 35.00 6.3 NM 612 NM NM NM NM <0.005 0.481 <2 NS <0.002 67 0.0473 12.7 0.008 0.22 0.693 <0.005 0.03 <0.0002 NS 0.54 0.004 <0.01 35.2 365 2.76 0.028 NS 0.008 GMW-7 Monitoring Well 5/18/2005 28.70 6.2 NM 1590 NM NM NM NM <0.003 0.489 <2 NS <0.002 110 0.824 <10 0.012 0.28 3.72 0.041 0.032 0.000218 NS 0.03 0.004 <0.005 31.9 426 3.27 0.0327 NS 0.027 GMW-7 Monitoring Well 11/16/2005 30.30 6.0 NM 482 NM NM NM NM <0.005 0.506 <2 NS <0.002 60.2 0.226 <10 0.044 0.27 1.36 <0.003 0.017 <0.0002 NS 0.6 <0.005 <0.002 27.7 354 3.28 0.0519 NS 0.005 GMW-7 Monitoring Well 5/22/2006 29.85 5.5 NM 601 NM NM NM NM 0.032 0.145 <2 NS 0.014 54.6 <0.005 11.5 0.009 0.27 6.62 <0.005 2.54 <0.0002 NS 0.56 0.37 <0.005 19.1 350 3.04 <1 NS 0.256 GMW-7 Monitoring Well 11/15/2006 28.00 7.6 NM 671 NM NM NM NM <0.003 0.515 <2 NS <0.002 46.6 0.038 <10 0.002 0.26 1.59 <0.005 0.015 <0.0002 NS 0.59 0.003 <0.005 28.6 340 3.48 <1 NS <0.01 GMW-7 Monitoring Well 5/23/2007 34.40 6.2 NM 486 NM NM NM NM <0.003 0.836 <2 NS <0.002 90.3 0.08 <10 0.005 0.193 0.398 2.005 <0.01 <0.0002 NS 0.6 0.008 <0.005 61.2 448 3.06 <1 NS 0.203 GMW-7 Monitoring Well 11/6/2007 34.40 6.2 NM 676 NM NM NM NM 0.003 1 <2 NS <0.002 82.4 0.079 <10 <0.002 0.26 0.486 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 NS 0.52 0.009 <0.005 33.8 418 2.85 <1 NS 0.376 GMW-7 Monitoring Well 5/22/2008 35.20 6.3 NM 660 NM NM NM NM <0.002 0.506 <2 NS <0.0005 62 0.143 <10 0.0015 0.24 2.26 <0.002 0.0141 <0.00011 NS 0.58 <0.002 <0.002 39 390 4 <0.06 NS 0.0016 GMW-7 Monitoring Well 11/19/2008 38.23 6.3 NM 650 NM NM NM NM <0.0028 0.525 <2 NS <0.00036 79 0.0086 23 <0.0016 0.21 0.164 <0.0019 0.0109 <0.00011 NS 0.36 <0.0027 <0.0019 43 410 3.6 <0.06 NS <0.0038 GMW-7 Monitoring Well 5/7/2009 33.80 6.4 NM 880 NM NM NM NM 0.0032 0.366 <2 1.25 0.00012 96 0.0434 35 <0.00081 0.28 0.466 0.0025 0.009 <0.00011 0.0521 0.4 <0.0034 0.0017 130 580 4.2 0.164 0.0052 0.0039 GMW-7 Monitoring Well 11/10/2009 34.15 6.1 NM 840 NM NM NM NM <0.0028 0.196 <2 1.43 <0.00036 92 0.0521 <3.1 <0.0016 0.23 0.444 0.0023 0.0106 <0.000054 0.0546 0.45 <0.0027 <0.0019 100 510 3.2 0.065 0.0052 0.0054 GMW-7 Monitoring Well 5/26/2010 31.61 6.0 NM 817 NM NM NM NM 0.0021 0.127 <2 1.56 <0.00002 106 0.0584 28 0.0017 0.17 0.274 <0.0005 0.0079 0.000089 0.0402 0.43 0.0077 <0.0005 93.5 527 4.4 <0.1 <0.003 0.0077 GMW-7 Monitoring Well 11/18/2010 26.26 7.3 17 1008 NM NM 23.9 NM <0.0005 0.252 <2 0.812 <0.00008 59.5 0.0174 <25 0.002 <0.5 0.593 0.00016 0.0272 <0.0002 0.0111 1.4 0.00073 <0.0005 60.9 563 11.5 <0.1 <0.01 <0.005 GMW-7 Monitoring Well 4/18/2011 25.20 7.0 21 511 4.45 3.7 4.27 208.7 <0.005 0.176 <2 0.0263 JB <0.00008 12.8 0.0047 JB <25 0.008 <0.5 0.25 <0.005 0.0078 <0.0002 <0.005 0.86 <0.01 0.00025 JB 22.9 394 B 6.7 0.02 J <0.0001 0.0184 GMW-7 Monitoring Well 11/2/2011 29.94 6.9 12 530 3.26 -88.8 3.86 116.2 <0.005 0.167 <2 <0.05 <0.00008 16.4 <0.005 <25 <0.005 <0.5 0.0977 <0.005 <0.005 <0.0002 <0.005 0.98 <0.01 <0.005 19 330 8.9 0.09 <0.0001 <0.01 GMW-7 Monitoring Well 4/3/2012 28.73 6.8 18 493 3.08 -91.4 2.66 113.6 <0.005 0.168 <2 0.0093 J <0.00008 9.5 0.0014 JB <25 0.00078 JB <0.5 0.046 JB <0.005 0.0017 JB <0.0002 <0.005 1.1 1 <0.01 <0.005 19 337 1 4.4 0.011 JB <0.0001 0.0055 JB GMW-7 Monitoring Well 11/8/2012 30.77 6.9 17 560 3.03 146.7 2.13 351.7 <0.005 0.216 <2 0.179 <0.00008 74.3 0.00183 <25 0.0011 JB <0.5 0.0592 B <0.005 0.0029 JB <0.0002 <0.005 0.76 <0.01 0.0009 JB 96.2 532 7.8 <0.1 <0.0001 0.0058 JB GMW-7 Monitoring Well 4/9/2013 28.38 6.8 19 568 2.54 -21.3 3.57 183.7 <0.001 0.156 <2 <0.05 <0.001 8.2 <0.005 <20 <0.005 0.4 0.014 <0.001 <0.005 <0.00005 <0.005 1.1 <0.001 <0.005 20 360 1.2 0.1 <0.0002 <0.005 GMW-7 Monitoring Well 11/12/2013 30.58 6.8 14 862 2.6 166 4.7 371 <0.001 0.184 <2 0.818 <0.001 71 0.008 <20 <0.005 <1 0.156 <0.001 0.006 <0.00005 <0.005 0.83 <0.001 <0.005 120 620 2.3 0.101 <0.0002 0.006 GMW-7 Monitoring Well 4/3/2014 28.00 6.8 18 475 3.5 197 4.8 402 <0.001 0.103 <2 <0.05 <0.001 5.8 <0.005 <20 <0.005 0.31 0.059 B <0.001 <0.005 <0.00005 <0.005 1.3 <0.001 <0.005 16 290 1.2 B <0.1 <0.0002 <0.005 GMW-7 Monitoring Well 11/10/2014 28.70 6.8 16 467 2.89 130.3 2.64 335.3 <0.001 0.16 <2 0.142 <0.001 13 <0.005 <20 <0.005 0.35 0.034 B <0.001 <0.005 <0.00005 <0.005 1.3 <0.001 <0.005 45 340 1.6 0.21 <0.0002 0.009 GMW-8 Monitoring Well 12/19/2002 49.69 7.0 NM 1260 NM NM NM NM <0.005 0.054 <2 NS <0.002 66.2 <0.005 18 0.002 0.2 0.187 <0.005 0.449 <0.0002 NS <0.02 <0.002 <0.005 231 995 2.59 0.032 NS 0.025 GMW-8 Monitoring Well 5/29/2003 46.22 7.0 NM 1340 NM NM NM NM <0.005 0.059 <2 NS <0.002 80.6 <0.005 13 <0.005 0.11 0.11 <0.005 0.122 <0.0002 NS 0.03 0.012 <0.005 329 1220 2.44 0.035 NS 0.006 GMW-8 Monitoring Well 11/12/2003 NM NM NM 1500 NM NM NM NM <0.005 0.053 <2 NS <0.002 85.9 <0.005 <10 0.003 0.14 0.068 <0.005 0.156 <0.0002 NS <0.02 0.015 <0.005 586 1300 3.17 0.025 NS 0.007 GMW-8 Monitoring Well 5/25/2004 NM NM NM 1760 NM NM NM NM 0.008 0.076 <2 NS <0.002 90.5 <0.005 <10 0.003 0.11 0.324 <0.005 0.29 <0.0002 NS <0.02 0.023 <0.005 625 1360 3.03 0.062 NS 0.006 GMW-8 Monitoring Well 11/17/2004 48.75 6.6 NM 1820 NM NM NM NM 0.006 0.061 <2 NS <0.002 99.1 <0.005 12 0.007 0.11 0.203 <0.005 0.263 <0.0002 NS <0.02 0.017 <0.005 529 1570 3.06 0.0716 NS 0.006 GMW-8 Monitoring Well 5/18/2005 43.35 6.6 NM 1600 NM NM NM NM 0.003 0.047 <2 NS <0.002 111 <0.005 11.2 0.004 0.15 0.847 0.126 0.128 <0.0002 NS 0.03 0.013 <0.005 430 1350 3.47 0.0687 NS 0.022 GMW-8 Monitoring Well 11/16/2005 45.40 6.3 NM 1300 NM NM NM NM <0.005 0.045 <2 NS <0.002 113 <0.005 11.2 0.004 0.17 0.05 <0.003 0.129 <0.0002 NS 0.09 <0.005 <0.002 359 1010 3.74 0.0821 NS 0.005 GMW-8 Monitoring Well 5/22/2006 45.85 6.0 NM 1560 NM NM NM NM <0.003 0.174 <2 NS <0.002 120 <0.005 20.8 <0.002 0.16 0.676 <0.005 0.082 <0.0002 NS 0.16 0.01 <0.005 400 1150 3.57 <1 NS 0.15 GMW-8 Monitoring Well 11/15/2006 45.56 6.5 NM 1740 NM NM NM NM 0.003 0.055 <2 NS <0.002 120 0.005 <10 <0.002 0.11 1.08 <0.005 0.103 <0.002 NS 0.14 0.013 <0.005 394 975 3.81 <1 NS <0.01 GMW-8 Monitoring Well 5/23/2007 50.00 6.6 NM 1500 NM NM NM NM <0.003 0.23 <2 NS <0.002 124 0.011 11.2 0.004 0.11 0.54 <0.005 0.058 <0.0002 NS 0.19 0.012 <0.005 375 1220 3.83 <1 NS 0.116 GMW-8 Monitoring Well 11/6/2007 50.00 6.6 NM 1810 NM NM NM NM 0.006 0.464 <2 NS <0.002 115 0.009 13.4 0.007 0.14 1.21 <0.005 0.057 <0.002 NS 0.15 0.016 <0.005 420 1180 3.58 <1 NS 0.304 GMW-8 Monitoring Well 5/22/2008 54.30 6.6 NM 1700 NM NM NM NM <0.002 0.0484 <2 NS <0.005 120 <0.002 22 0.0012 0.12 <0.02 <0.002 0.0484 <0.00011 NS 0.21 <0.002 <0.002 390 1200 5.4 0.06 NS 0.003 GMW-8 Monitoring Well 11/19/2008 52.91 6.7 NM 1700 NM NM NM NM <0.0028 0.0491 <2 NS <0.00036 100 <0.001 21 <0.0016 0.12 <0.022 <0.0019 0.0476 <0.00011 NS 0.17 <0.0027 <0.0019 380 1200 4.8 0.146 NS <0.0038 GMW-8 Monitoring Well 5/7/2009 52.12 6.9 NM 1700 NM NM NM NM <0.0028 0.0498 <2 2.75 0.0002 97 <0.0007 14 <0.00081 0.17 <0.031 0.0034 0.0363 <0.00011 0.0014 0.14 <0.0034 0.0041 410 1300 4 0.201 0.0068 0.0056 GMW-8 Monitoring Well 11/10/2009 52.45 6.7 NM 1800 NM NM NM NM <0.0028 0.0385 <2 2.36 <0.00036 87 0.002 6.9 <0.0016 0.18 <0.022 <0.0019 0.0288 <0.000054 <0.0018 0.16 <0.0027 0.0023 390 1300 4.4 0.194 <0.0048 0.007 GMW-8 Monitoring Well 5/24/2010 49.30 6.3 NM 1840 NM NM NM NM 0.00091 0.0483 <2 2.66 0.00008 73.8 <0.0005 46 3.7 0.1 <0.0045 <0.0001 0.036 <0.0002 <0.0017 <0.1 0.0027 <0.0005 472 1400 13.1 <0.1 <0.003 0.0078 GMW-8 Monitoring Well 11/17/2010 42.95 7.1 19 1782 NM NM 2.9 NM <0.0005 0.051 <2 2.59 <0.00008 71.9 0.0238 <25 0.0025 3.3 0.168 0.00011 0.0806 <0.0002 0.0144 1.7 <0.0005 <0.0005 499 1330 11.9 <0.1 <0.01 1 0.0096 GMW-8 Monitoring Well 4/19/2011 44.09 6.5 18 1572 2.24 -37.9 4.11 167.1 <0.005 0.0544 <2 1.87 0.000092 74.7 0.0086 <25 0.0192 <0.5 0.0713 <0.005 0.0305 <0.0002 0.0052 0.21 <0.01 0.00061 JB 348 1210 15.6 0.073 <0.0001 0.0493 GMW-8 Monitoring Well 11/1/2011 45.97 6.9 19 1368 0.52 -32.2 6.47 172.8 <0.005 0.0485 <2 1.97 <0.00008 80.1 0.0077 <25 <0.005 <0.5 0.166 <0.005 0.0339 <0.0002 0.0059 <0.2 <0.01 <0.005 387 1190 14.5 <0.1 <0.0001 <0.01 GMW-8 Monitoring Well 4/3/2012 46.26 6.4 18 1245 0.57 -55.2 6.91 149.8 <0.005 0.0434 <2 1.98 0.000071 J 82.1 0.0088 B <25 0.0034 JB <0.5 0.203 <0.005 0.0258 B <0.0002 0.0053 0.21 <0.01 0.0011 JB 279 1160 6.5 0.02 JB 0.000099 JB 0.0118 B GMW-8 Monitoring Well 11/8/2012 47.59 6.6 15 1423 1.83 188.8 8.22 393.8 <0.005 0.0486 <2 1.75 0.000033 J 76 0.0044 JB <25 0.0036 JB <0.5 0.126 B <0.005 0.0367 <0.0002 <0.005 0.25 B <0.01 0.0015 JB 316 1120 13.8 <0.1 <0.0001 0.0131 B GMW-8 Monitoring Well 4/9/2013 47.24 6.5 17 1590 0.52 124.8 2.06 329.8 <0.001 0.041 <2 1.68 <0.001 73 <0.005 <20 <0.005 <1 0.021 <0.001 0.03 <0.00005 <0.005 0.22 1 <0.001 <0.005 340 1100 3.2 0.14 <0.0002 0.029 B GMW-8 Monitoring Well 11/12/2013 46.12 6.6 14 1742 0.23 153 8.5 358 <0.001 0.053 <2 2.46 <0.001 67 <0.005 <20 <0.005 <1 0.23 <0.001 0.046 <0.00005 <0.005 0.26 <0.001 <0.005 460 1300 3 0.143 <0.0002 0.024 GMW-8 Monitoring Well 4/3/2014 45.78 6.6 19 1865 0.4 228 9.8 433 <0.001 0.051 <2 2.68 <0.001 78 <0.005 <20 <0.005 <1 0.195 B <0.001 0.041 <0.00005 <0.005 0.13 <0.001 <0.005 560 1400 3 <0.1 <0.0002 0.03 B GMW-8 Monitoring Well 11/10/2014 45.01 6.6 18 2014 0.2 135 6.25 340 <0.001 0.056 <2 3.06 <0.001 190 <0.005 <20 <0.005 <1 0.127 B <0.001 0.046 <0.00005 <0.005 0.13 <0.001 <0.005 670 1700 2.5 0.23 <0.0002 0.064 GMW-9 Monitoring Well 12/19/2002 28.19 6.9 NM 230 NM NM NM NM <0.005 0.126 <2 NS <0.002 18.3 <0.005 <10 0.009 0.11 7.89 <0.005 0.266 <0.0002 NS 0.13 <0.002 <0.005 18 166 0.7 <0.01 NS 0.048 GMW-9 Monitoring Well 5/28/2003 25.80 6.2 NM 1570 NM NM NM NM <0.005 0.066 <2 NS <0.002 17.1 <0.005 13 <0.005 0.11 0.311 <0.005 0.027 <0.0002 NS 0.14 <0.002 <0.005 25 200 <1 <0.01 NS <0.005 GMW-9 Monitoring Well 11/12/2003 NM NM NM 197 NM NM NM NM <0.005 0.085 <2 NS <0.002 14.3 0.034 <10 0.005 0.13 2.44 <0.005 0.144 <0.0002 NS 0.11 <0.002 <0.005 <5 199 0.57 <0.01 NS 0.018 GMW-9 Monitoring Well 5/25/2004 NM NM NM 196 NM NM NM NM <0.005 0.062 <2 NS <0.002 12.2 <0.005 <10 <0.002 0.1 0.171 <0.003 0.011 <0.0002 NS 0.01 <0.002 <0.005 7.37 164 0.57 0.012 NS <0.005 GMW-9 Monitoring Well 11/17/2004 23.60 6.1 NM 197 NM NM NM NM <0.005 0.058 <2 NS <0.002 15.5 <0.005 <10 0.005 0.1 0.136 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 NS 0.13 <0.002 <0.005 8.9 172 0.69 0.0147 NS <0.005 GMW-9 Monitoring Well 5/18/2005 23.35 6.0 NM 179 NM NM NM NM <0.003 0.054 <2 NS <0.002 13.4 <0.005 <10 0.002 0.12 0.197 <0.005 0.011 0.00024 NS 0.1 <0.002 <0.005 6.59 176 0.79 <0.01 NS 0.018 GMW-9 Monitoring Well 11/16/200' 24.80 5.7 NM 154 NM NM NM NM <0.005 0.061 <2 NS <0.002 13.2 <0.005 <10 <0.003 0.12 0.078 <0.003 0.007 <0.0002 NS 0.11 <0.005 <0.002 15.5 148 0.82 0.0507 NS <0.005 GMW-9 Monitoring Well 1/22/2006 26.15 5.4 NM 204 NM NM NM NM <0.003 0.223 <2 NS <0.002 14.6 <0.005 <10 <0.002 0.12 0.058 <0.005 0.011 <0.0002 NS 0.12 <0.002 <0.005 19.6 165 0.97 <1 NS 0.135 GMW-9 Monitoring Well 11/15/2006 25.71 6.6 NM 218 NM NM NM NM <0.003 0.072 <2 NS <0.002 9.59 0.006 <10 <0.002 <0.1 0.164 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 NS 0.12 <0.002 <0.005 20.9 148 1.1 <1 NS <0.01 GMW-9 Monitoring Well 5/23/2007 23.85 6.2 NM 167 NM NM NM NM <0.003 0.312 <2 NS <0.002 11.4 0.008 <10 <0.002 0.098 0.06 <0.005 <0.01 <0.0002 NS 0.44 <0.002 <0.005 8 86.5 1.14 <1 NS 0.202 P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment Plans\Roxboro\Final\Tables\Roxboro GW Assessment Tables 4 - 7.xlsx 1 of 2 TABLE 5 LANDFILL GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS ROXBORO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC., SEMORA, NORTH CAROLINA Analytical Parameter Depthtero PH Temp. Condu'Per*ance DO ORP Turbidity Eh Arsenic Barium BOO Boron Cadmium Chloride Chromium COD Copper Fluoride Iron Lead Manganese Mercury Nickel Nitrate Selenium Silver Sulfate TDS TOC TOX Thallium Zinc Units ft S.U. Deg C pS/cm mg/I mV NTUS 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 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 I NE NE 10 0.7 NE 0.7 0.002 250 0.01 NE 1 2 300 15 0.05 0.001 0.1 10 0.02 0.02 250 500 NE NE 0.0002 1 Analytical Method Field Measurements 200.8 200.7 5210B 200.7 200.8 300 200.8 8000 200.7 300 200.7 200.8 200.8 245.1 200.7 300.0 200.8 200.7 300 SM2540C 5310C 9020 200.8 200.7 Sample ID Well Type Sample Date GMW-9 Monitoring Well 11/6/2007 23.85 6.2 NM 188 NM NM NM NM <0.003 0.404 <2 NS <0.002 10.8 0.01 <10 <0.002 0.12 0.117 <0.005 <0.01 <0.002 NS 0.11 <0.002 <0.005 16.7 162 1.1 <1 NS 0.242 GMW-9 Monitoring Well 5/22/2008 26.15 6.1 NM 180 NM NM NM NM <0.002 0.0561 <2 NS <0.0005 7.2 <0.002 <10 <0.0006 0.1 0.094 <0.002 0.0019 <0.00011 NS 0.1 <0.002 <0.002 17 140 1.3 0.06 NS <0.001 GMW-9 Monitoring Well 11/19/2008 25.81 6.2 NM 170 NM NM NM NM <0.0028 0.0518 <2 NS <0.00036 7.2 <0.001 11 <0.0016 0.12 0.036 <0.0019 0.0013 <0.00011 NS 0.23 <0.0027 <0.0019 16 160 1.1 <0.06 NS 0.0166 GMW-9 Monitoring Well 5/7/2009 25.20 6.4 NM 210 NM NM NM NM <0.0033 0.0501 <2 0.0053 <0.00009 7.9 <0.0007 11 <0.00081 0.27 0.041 0.0031 0.0019 <0.00011 <0.0006 0.072 <0.0034 0.0014 15 130 1.1 <0.03 <0.0028 <0.0034 GMW-9 Monitoring Well 11/10/2009 24.90 6.3 NM 140 NM NM NM NM <0.0028 0.0382 <2 0.0434 <0.00036 6.6 <0.001 <3.1 <0.0016 0.18 0.042 <0.0019 0.0018 <0.000054 <0.0018 0.086 <0.0027 <0.0019 14 140 0.82 <0.03 <0.0048 <0.0038 GMW-9 Monitoring Well 5/24/2010 22.20 6.1 NM 147 NM NM NM NM <0.0005 0.0353 <2 0.0358 <0.00008 6.8 0.0014 <25 0.00078 0.12 0.144 0.00012 0.0076 <0.0002 <0.0017 <0.1 <0.0005 <0.0005 14.4 124 <1 <0.1 <0.003 0.0086 GMW-9 Monitoring Well 11/17/2010 23.02 6.7 16 153 NM NM 4.4 NM <0.0005 0.0305 <2 <0.05 <0.00008 5.8 0.0114 <25 0.00076 <0.5 0.102 <0.0001 0.0039 <0.0002 0.0084 <1 <0.0005 <0.0005 13.7 142 2.5 <0.1 <0.01 0.006 GMW-9 Monitoring Well 4/19/2011 22.82 6.1 15 129 7.32 -38.2 1.51 166.8 <0.005 0.0339 <2 0.0124 <0.00008 5.3 <0.005 <25 <0.005 <0.5 0.031 <0.005 0.00055 <0.0002 <0.005 <0.1 <0.01 0.00015 B 15.9 133 B 2.4 0.01 J <0.0001 <0.01 GMW-9 Monitoring Well 11/1/2011 24.84 6.8 17 143 7.52 -49.3 1.15 155.7 <0.005 0.0296 <2 <0.05 <0.00008 <5 <0.005 <25 <0.005 <0.5 0.0557 <0.005 <0.005 <0.0002 <0.005 <0.2 <0.01 <0.005 13.6 146 2.6 <0.1 <0.0001 <0.01 GMW-9 Monitoring Well 4/3/2012 24.38 6.6 17 120 8.41 -37.9 1.94 167.1 <0.005 0.0251 <2 <0.05 <0.00008 <5 0.00066 JB <25 0.00052 JB <0.5 0.0527 B <0.005 0.0013 JB <0.0002 <0.005 <0.2 <0.01 0.00041 JB 13.1 138 1.2 0.016 JB 0.00008 JB 0.008 JB GMW-9 Monitoring Well 11/8/2012 26.07 6.5 15 125 7.61 215.2 1.25 420.2 <0.005 0.0249 <2 0.0155 JB <0.00008 5 <0.005 <25 0.0012 JB <0.5 0.0421 JB <0.005 0.00074 JB <0.0002 <0.005 0.097 B <0.01 0.0011 JB 13.8 143 1.9 <0.1 <0.0001 0.0246 B GMW-9 Monitoring Well 4/9/2013 24.85 6.2 18 130 6.54 131 1.4 336 <0.001 0.027 <2 <0.05 <0.001 4.9 <0.005 <20 <0.005 0.21 0.021 <0.001 <0.005 <0.00005 <0.005 0.07 <0.001 <0.005 16 150 0.922 <0.1 <0.0002 <0.005 GMW-9 Monitoring Well 11/12/2013 25.60 6.1 13 137 8.1 267 2.3 472 <0.001 0.028 <2 <0.05 <0.001 4.5 <0.005 <20 <0.005 0.18 0.03 <0.001 <0.005 <0.00005 <0.005 0.08 <0.001 <0.005 16 140 0.941 <0.03 <0.0002 <0.005 GMW-9 Monitoring Well 4/3/2014 23.30 6.2 15 148 8.3 216 3.4 421 <0.001 0.031 <2 <0.05 <0.001 5 <0.005 <20 <0.005 0.17 0.04 <0.001 <0.005 <0.00005 <0.005 0.09 <0.001 <0.005 21 150 1.2 <0.1 <0.0002 <0.005 GMW-9 Monitoring Well 11/10/2014 24.10 6.2 17 160 7 191 1.9 396 <0.001 0.032 <2 <0.05 <0.001 4.5 <0.005 <20 <0.005 0.2 0.021 B <0.001 <0.005 <0.00005 <0.005 0.12 <0.001 <0.005 21 150 0.974 <0.1 <0.0002 <0.005 GMW-10 Monitoring Well 12/19/2002 34.88 6.8 NM 776 NM NM NM NM <0.005 0.227 <2 NS <0.002 28.2 0.011 <10 0.018 0.14 6.68 <0.005 0.264 <0.0002 NS 0.11 0.002 <0.005 1720 619 1.48 0.012 NS 0.076 GMW-10 Monitoring Well 5/28/2003 30.14 6.3 NM 208 NM NM NM NM <0.005 0.131 <2 NS <0.002 24.7 <0.005 1 12 <0.005 0.14 0.513 <0.005 0.098 <0.0002 NS 0.18 0.004 <0.005 256 622 1.21 <0.01 NS 0.007 GMW-10 Monitoring Well 11/12/2003 NM NM NM 548 NM NM NM NM <0.005 0.143 3.6 NS <0.002 22.9 0.006 <10 0.008 0.18 2.78 <0.005 0.148 <0.0002 NS 0.28 0.003 <0.005 132 380 1.22 <0.01 NS 0.029 GMW-10 Monitoring Well 5/25/2004 NM NM NM 510 NM NM NM NM <0.005 0.199 <2 NS 0.119 20 <0.005 <10 0.003 0.13 0.926 <0.005 0.079 <0.0002 NS 0.32 0.003 <0.005 147 388 1.03 0.016 NS 0.009 GMW-10 Monitoring Well 11/17/2004 36.75 6.1 NM 475 NM NM NM NM <0.005 0.0910 <2 NS <0.002 23.5 <0.005 <10 0.007 0.14 1.03 <0.005 0.071 <0.0002 NS 0.38 0.002 <0.005 95.2 338 0.94 0.013 NS 0.008 GMW-10 Monitoring Well 5/18/2005 32.86 6.0 NM 408 NM NM NM NM <0.003 0.0880 <2 NS <0.002 20 <0.005 <10 0.005 0.16 1.05 <0.005 0.071 0.0002 NS 0.3 <0.002 <0.005 86.2 338 1.01 0.0201 NS 0.034 GMW-10 Monitoring Well 11/16/2005 33.65 5.8 NM 289 NM NM NM NM <0.005 0.119 <2 NS <0.002 20.5 0.01 <10 0.006 0.17 2.82 <0.003 0.127 <0.0002 NS 0.36 <0.005 <0.002 76.4 251 1.47 0.0444 NS 0.035 GMW-10 Monitoring Well 5/22/2006 35.77 5.5 NM 248 NM NM NM NM <0.003 0.219 <2 NS <0.002 16.6 <0.005 <10 <0.002 0.17 0.793 <0.005 0.057 <0.0002 NS 0.34 <0.002 <0.005 46 218 0.95 <1 NS 0.139 GMW-10 Monitoring Well 11/15/2006 34.45 7.2 NM 333 NM NM NM NM <0.003 0.08 <2 NS <0.002 15.2 0.006 <10 <0.002 0.18 0.709 <0.005 0.063 <0.0002 NS 0.29 <0.002 <0.005 44.5 251 1.08 <1 NS <0.01 GMW-10 Monitoring Well 5/23/2007 37.60 6.1 NM 399 NM NM NM NM <0.003 0.318 <2 NS <0.002 18.9 0.008 <10 <0.002 0.127 0.284 <0.005 0.036 <0.0002 NS 0.14 0.002 <0.005 74.7 297 0.88 <1 NS 0.156 GMW-10 Monitoring Well 11/6/2007 37.60 6.1 NM 362 NM NM NM NM <0.003 0.482 <2 NS <0.002 15.4 0.016 <10 <0.002 0.15 0.799 <0.005 0.054 <0.002 NS 0.3 <0.002 <0.005 44.5 234 0.91 <1 NS 0.312 GMW-10 Monitoring Well 5/22/2008 36.95 6.1 NM 350 NM NM NM NM <0.002 0.0833 <2 NS <0.0005 11 <0.002 <10 0.0012 0.15 0.531 <0.002 0.0421 <0.00011 NS 0.38 <0.002 <0.002 53 240 1.7 <0.06 NS 0.0035 GMW-10 Monitoring Well 11/19/2008 38.18 6.2 NM 300 NM NM NM NM 0.0028 0.0649 <2 NS <0.00036 11 <0.001 <8 0.0018 0.17 0.283 <0.0019 0.0407 <0.00011 NS 0.28 <0.0027 <0.0019 39 220 0.56 <0.06 NS <0.0038 GMW-10 Monitoring Well 5/7/2009 36.42 6.5 NM 360 NM NM NM NM <0.0028 0.09 <2 0.412 0.00018 14 0.0008 6.7 <0.00081 0.24 0.477 <0.0016 0.0419 <0.00011 0.0023 0.34 <0.0034 0.0011 61 250 1.4 <0.03 <0.0028 0.0056 GMW-10 Monitoring Well 11/10/2009 37.40 6.2 NM 330 NM NM NM NM <0.0028 0.0782 <2 0.345 <0.00036 13 <0.001 6.9 <0.0016 0.2 0.317 <0.0019 0.0314 <0.000054 <0.0018 0.29 <0.0027 <0.0019 48 250 0.84 <0.03 <0.0048 0.0061 GMW-10 Monitoring Well 5/24/2010 33.13 6.1 NM 323 NM NM NM NM <0.0005 0.0762 <2 0.253 <0.00008 19.1 <0.0005 32 0.0008 0.14 0.177 <0.0001 0.0263 <0.0002 <0.0017 0.3 0.0012 <0.0005 35.3 198 <1 <0.1 <0.003 0.0062 GMW-10 Monitoring Well 11/16/2010 31.67 6.6 17 346 NM NM 9.1 NM <0.0005 0.0938 <2 0.301 0.00012 18 0.01 <25 0.0012 <0.5 0.198 0.00013 0.0069 <0.0002 0.0105 1.1 0.00084 <0.0005 48.2 222 6.5 <0.1 <0.01 0.0142 GMW-10 Monitoring Well 4/19/2011 29.03 5.9 18 207 6.22 15.5 4.13 220.5 <0.005 0.0669 <2 0.0599 B <0.00008 17.6 0.0146 <25 0.0078 <0.5 0.432 <0.005 0.0108 <0.0002 0.0215 0.35 <0.01 0.00016 B 16.8 176 B 3.7 0.06 J <0.0001 0.0245 GMW-10 Monitoring Well 11/1/2011 32.89 6.3 23 243 3.88 -32.8 9.92 172.2 <0.005 0.0765 <2 0.0932 0.00012 15 0.0205 <25 <0.005 <0.5 0.547 <0.005 0.0095 <0.0002 0.0137 0.27 <0.01 <0.005 15.1 223 5 <0.1 <0.0001 0.0118 GMW-10 Monitoring Well 4/3/2012 28.80 6.1 19 230 5.74 -101.1 1.96 103.9 0.00273 0.0601 <2 0.01453 <0.00008 18.6 0.0011 JB <25 0.0005 JB <0.5 0.0607 B <0.005 0.0015 JB <0.0002 <0.005 0.37 <0.01 <0.005 11.5 184 3.1 0.032 JB 0.000059 JB 0.0042 JB GMW-10 Monitoring Well 11/7/2012 32.70 6.0 16 240 4.45 170.5 4.47 375.5 <0.005 0.0644 <2 0.0247 JB 0.000034 J 18.1 0.0036 JB <25 0.0016 JB <0.5 0.173 B <0.005 0.0056 B <0.0002 <0.005 0.42 <0.01 0.001 JB 16.9 191 5 <0.1 <0.0001 0.0415 B GMW-10 Monitoring Well 4/9/2013 27.95 5.9 19 250 3.78 36.6 4.42 241.6 <0.001 0.071 <2 <0.05 <0.001 17 0.005 <20 <0.005 0.22 0.164 <0.001 0.007 <0.00005 <0.005 0.38 <0.001 <0.005 21 220 0.915 <0.1 <0.0002 <0.005 GMW-10 Monitoring Well 11/12/2013 30.90 6.0 17 252 4.5 256 7.4 461 <0.001 0.075 <2 0.057 <0.001 16 <0.005 <20 <0.005 0.19 0.326 <0.001 0.006 <0.00005 <0.005 0.41 <0.001 <0.005 26 200 0.947 <0.03 <0.0002 0.031 GMW-10 Monitoring Well 4/3/2014 24.17 5.8 16 247 5 261 3.7 466 <0.001 0.061 <2 <0.05 <0.001 19 <0.005 <20 <0.005 0.17 0.102 <0.001 <0.005 <0.00005 <0.005 0.43 <0.001 <0.005 21 200 1.1 <0.1 <0.0002 <0.005 GMW-10 Monitoring Well 11/11/2014 29.53 6.0 17 276 3.2 269.3 1.95 474.3 <0.001 0.074 <2 0.051 <0.001 18 <0.005 <20 <0.005 0.21 0.027 B <0.001 <0.005 <0.00005 <0.005 0.42 <0.001 <0.005 25 200 0.966 <0.1 <0.0002 0.009 GMW-11 Monitoring Well 12/19/2002 19.16 6.9 NM 1450 NM NM NM NM 0.000009 0.082 <2 NS <0.002 30.3 <0.005 11 0.004 0.15 0.624 <0.005 0.19 <0.0002 NS 0.04 0.231 <0.005 806 1270 1.51 <0.01 NS 0.032 GMW-11 Monitoring Well 5/28/2003 15.48 6.6 NM 758 NM NM NM NM 0.000009 0.073 <2 NS <0.002 33.7 <0.005 11 0.006 0.16 1.54 <0.005 0.044 <0.0002 NS 0.46 0.264 <0.005 686 1570 1.33 <0.01 NS 0.009 GMW-11 Monitoring Well 11/12/2003 NM NM NM 1470 NM NM NM NM 0.000009 0.031 3 NS <0.002 29.3 <0.005 <10 0.008 0.2 1.37 <0.005 0.055 <0.0002 NS 0.34 0.196 <0.005 76.1 1260 1.65 <0.01 NS 0.01 GMW-11 Monitoring Well 5/25/2004 NM NM NM 1230 NM NM NM NM 0.000009 0.054 <2 NS <0.002 27.1 <0.005 <10 0.006 0.14 2.31 <0.005 0.029 <0.0002 NS 0.36 0.155 <0.005 544 979 1.41 0.016 NS 0.007 GMW-11 Monitoring Well 11/17/2004 26.40 6.4 NM 420 NM NM NM NM <0.000005 0.08 <2 NS <0.002 12.4 0.01 16.4 0.02 0.12 7.6 <0.005 0.05 <0.0002 NS 0.44 0.021 <0.005 98.4 378 2.55 0.0148 NS 0.015 GMW-11 Monitoring Well 5/18/2005 21.80 6.6 NM 699 NM NM NM NM 0.000004 0.052 <2 NS <0.002 26 <0.005 <10 0.007 0.19 3.73 <0.005 0.04 0.000238 NS 0.34 0.067 <0.005 197 551 1.65 0.0193 NS 0.025 GMW-11 Monitoring Well 11/16/2005 22.50 6.4 NM 684 NM NM NM NM <0.000005 0.05 <2 NS <0.002 32.5 0.008 <10 0.005 0.21 2.45 <0.003 0.035 <0.0002 NS 0.3 0.06 <0.002 146 530 1.82 0.0394 NS <0.005 GMW-11 Monitoring Well 5/22/2006 24.20 6.0 NM 818 NM NM NM NM <0.000003 0.344 <2 NS <0.002 28.4 0.005 14.2 0.003 0.15 1.34 <0.005 0.048 <0.0002 NS 0.24 0.043 <0.005 187 484 1.43 <1 NS 0.209 GMW-11 Monitoring Well 11/15/2006 24.19 6.6 NM 345 NM NM NM NM <0.000003 0.085 <15 NS 1 <0.002 10.7 0.007 <10 0.005 0.13 0.677 <0.005 0.054 <0.0002 NS 0.04 0.019 <0.005 72.4 328 3.55 <1 NS <0.01 GMW-11 Monitoring Well 5/24/2007 30.40 6.5 NM 795 NM NM NM NM <0.000003 0.32 <2 NS <0.002 42.4 0.007 <10 0.006 0.136 0.349 <0.005 0.039 <0.0002 NS 0.27 0.041 <0.005 196 550 2.03 <1 NS 0.187 GMW-11 Monitoring Well 11/6/2007 30.40 6.5 NM 721 NM NM NM NM <0.000003 0.68 <2 NS <0.002 27.6 0.009 <10 0.002 0.14 0.848 <0.005 0.059 <0.002 NS 0.11 0.033 <0.005 146 446 2.6 <1 NS 0.388 GMW-11 Monitoring Well 5/22/2008 33.81 6.5 NM 770 NM NM NM NM <0.000002 0.05 <2 NS <0.0005 17 <0.002 <10 <0.0006 0.14 0.641 <0.002 0.0163 <0.00011 NS 0.22 0.0305 <0.002 210 550 2.4 <0.06 NS 0.0011 GMW-11 Monitoring Well 11/19/2008 35.67 6.7 NM 890 NM NM NM NM <0.0000028 0.0844 <2 NS <0.00036 24 0.0036 37 0.0123 0.16 11.2 0.0026 0.287 <0.00011 NS 0.23 0.0339 <0.0019 240 640 1.4 <0.06 NS 0.0162 GMW-11 Monitoring Well 5/8/2009 31.90 7.7 NM 810 NM NM NM NM <0.0000028 0.0995 <2 2.34 0.00019 21 0.0128 21 0.00694 0.25 8.52 0.0038 0.139 <0.00011 0.0088 0.21 0.0139 0.0019 170 560 5 <0.03 0.004 0.0153 GMW-11 Monitoring Well 1/5/2010 29.35 6.5 NM 640 NM NM NM NM <0.0000039 0.0562 <2 1.33 0.0003 16 0.0022 8.2 <0.0019 0.17 2.31 0.0022 0.0201 <0.000054 0.0033 0.23 0.0143 0.0007 150 420 2.3 <0.03 <0.0034 0.0055 GMW-11 Monitoring Well 5/26/2010 24.91 6.3 NM 1790 NM NM NM NM 0.00077 0.0647 <2 0.388 <0.00008 7.9 0.0026 48 0.0072 0.1 1.2 0.00065 0.0297 0.00007 0.0318 <0.1 0.0207 <0.0005 995 1660 19.7 <0.1 <0.003 16.8 GMW-11 Monitoring Well 11/16/2010 19.09 6.9 20 1534 NM NM 9.3 NM 0.00058 0.037 <2 0.943 <0.00008 19.6 0.0115 <25 0.0011 <0.5 0.205 <0.0001 0.0053 <0.0002 0.0189 2 0.0258 <0.0005 755 1300 3.5 <0.1 <0.01 0.0059 GMW-11 Monitoring Well 4/18/2011 19.39 6.8 21 736 2.89 -29.9 19.6 175.1 <0.005 0.0597 <2 0.625 <0.00008 44.2 0.0016 B <25 0.0037 JB <0.5 1.42 <0.005 0.0467 <0.0002 0.0018 0.23 0.0051 0.00031 JB 103 506 7.3 0.02 J <0.0001 0.0044 JB GMW-11 Monitoring Well 11/1/2011 21.73 6.9 17 713 2.94 -47.4 3.82 157.6 <0.005 0.0519 <2 0.996 <0.00008 37.8 <0.005 <25 <0.005 <0.5 0.393 <0.005 0.0139 <0.0002 <0.005 0.21 0.0211 <0.005 120 539 6.9 <0.1 <0.0001 <0.01 GMW-11 Monitoring Well 4/3/2012 19.27 6.7 18 661 3.64 -77.5 4.63 127.5 <0.005 0.0458 <2 0.615 <0.00008 45.4 0.0022 JB <25 0.001 JB <0.5 0.248 <0.005 0.0044 JB <0.0002 <0.005 0.21 0.0136 <0.005 114 510 5.2 0.028 JB <0.0001 0.0049 JB GMW-11 Monitoring Well 11/7/2012 22.04 6.5 15 752 2.53 147.8 6.61 352.8 <0.005 0.0534 <2 1.24 0.000051 J 39.4 0.0019 JB <25 0.002 JB <0.5 0.454 B <0.005 0.009 B <0.0002 <0.005 0.27 B 0.0201 0.0013 JB 171 556 7.6 <0.1 <0.0001 0.0114 B GMW-11 Monitoring Well 4/9/2013 19.87 6.5 18 827 2.73 43.1 4.69 248.1 <0.001 0.051 <2 0.514 <0.001 40 <0.005 <20 <0.005 0.24 0.15 <0.001 <0.005 <0.00005 <0.005 0.22 0.0199 <0.005 130 540 1.9 <0.1 <0.0002 <0.005 GMW-11 Monitoring Well 11/12/2013 20.73 6.6 15 854 2.1 285 5 490 <0.001 0.052 <2 1.69 <0.001 34 <0.005 <20 <0.005 0.2 0.234 <0.001 <0.005 <0.00205 <0.005 0.25 0.0342 <0.005 180 600 1.5 <0.03 <0.0002 <0.005 GMW-11 Monitoring Well 4/3/2014 18.72 6.6 15 860 3.3 290 3.9 495 <0.001 0.046 <2 0.919 <0.001 35 <0.005 <20 <0.005 0.16 0.031 <0.001 <0.005 <0.00005 <0.005 0.23 0.0204 <0.005 180 580 1.9 B 0.21 <0.0002 <0.005 GMW-11 MonitoringWell 11/11/2014 20.02 6.6 15 829 1.78 291 2.41 496 <0.001 0.043 <2 1.31 <0.001 32 <0.005 <20 <0.005 0.2 0.022 B <0.001 <0.005 <0.00005 0.006 0.24 0.0285 <0.005 210 590 1.3 <0.1 <0.0002 <0.005 Analytical parameter abbreviations: Temp. = TemperaWre DO = Diss l-d oxygen ORP = Oxidation reduction potential BOD = Biochemical oxygen demand COD = Chemical oxygen demand TDS = Tobl disrobed solids TOC = Tobl organic carbon TOX = Total organic halides Units: "C = Degrees Cddos SU = Sbndard Units my = millivolts pS/cm = miomsiemens per centimeter NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Unit mg/I = milligrams per liter NE = Not established NS = Not sampled NM = Not measured B = Dab Flagged due to dl txU.n in field blank J = Estimate value between MDL and PQL Highlighted values indicate values that exceed the 15 NCAC .02L .0202(g) Sbndard Analytical results with "<" preceding the result indicates that the parameter was not dl txted at a mncentiation which otbins or --ds the laboratory reporting limit. P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment Plans\Roxboro\Final\Tables\Roxboro GW Assessment Tables 4 - 7.xlsx 2 of 2 TABLE 6 LEACHATE ANALYTICAL RESULTS ROXBORO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC., SEMORA, NORTH CAROLINA Analytical Parameter Depth to Water PH Temp. SPeci is Conductance DO ORP Turbidity Eh Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Boron Cadmium Chloride Chromium Copper Iron Lead Manganese Mercury Nickel Nitrate Selenium Sulfate TDS Thallium Zinc Units ft S.U. Deg C pS/cm mg/I my NTUs my 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 Analytical Method Field Measurements 200.7 200.8 200.8 200.7 200.7 200.8 300 200.8 200.7 200.7 200.8 200.8 245.1 200.7 300.0 2009. 300 SM2540C 200.8 200.7 Sample ID Sample Date Constituent Concentrations LP-1 6/16/2004 38.81 6.8 19 491 NM NM 8.56 NM 0.713 <0.0005 <0.005 0.0697 <0.05 0.00008 14.2 0.0111 0.0112 0.881 <0.005 0.0272 <0.0002 <0.005 1.3 <0.01 12.5 299 <0.0001 0.0123 LP-1 5/24/2005 38.42 6.4 20 460 4.42 57.8 9.92 262.8 0.33 <0.0005 <0.005 0.0731 <0.05 0.00008 13.4 0.015 0.0114 0.499 <0.005 0.0185 <0.0002 0.0174 1.4 <0.01 11.7 282 <0.0001 0.0189 LP-1 11/16/2005 38.48 6.4 22 459 6.8 -136.1 9.58 68.9 <0.1 <0.0005 <0.005 0.084 b <0.05 0.00008 12.7 b 0.0427 <0.005 0.752 <0.005 0.0258 b <0.0002 0.0455 b 1.1 <0.01 11.6 b 248 b <0.0001 <0.01 LP-1 5/22/2006 39.72 6.6 21 475 5.48 -82 9.42 123 0.201 <0.0005 <0.005 0.0756 <0.05 0.00008 13.4 0.0168 <0.005 0.307 <0.005 0.0078 <0.0002 0.012 1.3 <0.01 12.4 263 b <0.0001 <0.01 LP-1 11/15/2006 38.73 6.4 23 467 5.11 -72 9.8 133 0.301 <0.0005 <0.005 0.0723 <0.05 0.00008 15.5 0.0088 <0.005 0.286 <0.005 0.0065 <0.0002 <0.005 1.6 <0.01 11.7 298 <0.0001 <0.01 LP-1 5/21/2007 38.94 6.3 18 487 5.33 -50.9 8.57 154.1 0.734 <0.0005 <0.005 0.081 <0.05 0.00008 14.5 <0.005 0.0064 0.866 <0.005 0.0187 <0.0002 <0.005 1.5 <0.01 14.2 312 <0.0001 <0.01 LP-1 11/6/2007 40 6.4 15 468 6.36 139.8 7.91 344.8 0.438 <0.0005 <0.005 0.0842 <0.05 0.00008 15 0.0161 <0.005 0.532 <0.005 0.0111 <0.0002 0.0062 1.5 <0.01 14.3 300 <0.0001 <0.01 LP-1 5/22/2008 39.74 6.3 18 475 5.9 115.1 5.24 320.1 0.11 <0.001 <0.001 0.079 <0.05 <0.001 14 <0.005 <0.005 0.113 <0.001 0.005 <0.00005 <0.005 1.6 <0.001 11 310 <0.0002 <0.005 LP-1 11/19/2008 39.31 6.3 19 482 6.79 9.8 6.79 214.8 0.3 <0.001 <0.001 0.083 <0.05 <0.001 15 0.01 <0.005 0.368 <0.001 0.009 <0.00005 0.006 1.7 <0.001 12 330 <0.0002 <0.005 LP-1 5/5/2009 39.73 6.4 18 488 5 182 9.8 387 0.438 <0.001 <0.001 0.083 <0.05 <0.001 14 0.007 <0.005 0.507 <0.001 0.011 <0.00005 <0.005 1.7 <0.001 12 320 <0.0002 0.012 LP-1 11/10/2009 39.1 6.4 18 506 6.8 253 6.6 458 0.311 <0.001 <0.001 0.086 <0.05 <0.001 17 0.006 <0.005 0.37 <0.001 0.008 <0.00005 <0.005 1.9 <0.001 13 320 <0.0002 <0.005 LP-1 5/11/2010 38.54 6.3 18 496 5.37 179 4.4 384 0.205 <0.001 <0.001 0.081 <0.05 <0.001 16 <0.005 <0.005 0.218 <0.001 0.006 <0.00005 <0.005 2 <0.001 14 330 <0.0002 <0.005 LP-1 11/30/2010 25.87 6.9 15 617 NM NM 104 NM 5.77 <0.0005 <0.005 0.438 <0.05 0.000097 53 0.0169 0.0208 2.29 <0.005 0.18 <0.0002 0.0104 0.19 <0.01 67.4 392 <0.0001 <0.01 LP-1 4/18/2011 19.95 6.5 18 607 4.86 24.1 2.7 229.1 0.219 <0.0005 <0.005 0.212 <0.05 0.00008 51.7 <0.005 <0.005 0.198 <0.005 0.0117 <0.0002 <0.005 0.44 <0.01 115 <25 <0.0001 <0.01 LP-1 11/2/2011 19.95 6.5 18 607 4.86 24.1 2.7 229.1 0.189 <0.0005 <0.005 0.209 <0.05 0.00008 52.5 <0.005 <0.005 0.163 <0.005 0.011 <0.0002 <0.005 0.4 <0.01 110 449 <0.0001 <0.01 LP-1 4/4/2012 23.01 6.2 21 586 3.82 -113.6 1.34 91.4 <0.1 <0.0005 <0.005 0.21 b <0.05 0.00008 54 <0.005 <0.005 0.0934 b <0.005 0.0097 b <0.0002 <0.005 0.21 <0.01 93.3 385 <0.0001 <0.01 LP-1 11/8/2012 25.55 6.7 18 533 4.66 -51.2 2.28 153.8 0.142 <0.0005 <0.005 0.187 <0.05 0.00008 50.6 <0.005 <0.005 0.176 <0.005 0.0082 <0.0002 <0.005 0.23 <0.01 124 400 b <0.0001 <0.01 LP-1 4/9/2013 24.32 6.3 15 506 4.8 292 3.3 497 0.193 <0.001 <0.001 0.077 <0.05 <0.001 15 <0.005 <0.005 0.181 <0.001 0.005 <0.00005 <0.005 0.44 0.00834 150 390 <0.0002 <0.005 LP-1 11/12/2013 19.16 6.4 17 489 6.59 -70.6 3.12 134.4 0.131 <0.0005 <0.005 0.108 <0.05 0.00008 28.5 <0.005 <0.005 0.0899 <0.005 <0.005 <0.0002 <0.005 1 0.39 <0.01 131 396 <0.0001 <0.01 LP-1 4/3/2014 23.37 6.4 20 507 4.66 -55.2 3.85 149.8 0.155 <0.0005 <0.005 0.0868 <0.05 0.00008 25.7 <0.005 <0.005 0.164 <0.005 0.0056 <0.0002 <0.005 0.37 <0.01 126 391 <0.0001 <0.01 LP-2 6/23/2004 26.5 6.5 16 512 5.53 155.4 2.87 360.4 0.121 <0.0005 <0.005 0.126 <0.05 0.00008 34.6 <0.005 <0.005 0.112 <0.005 <0.005 <0.0002 <0.005 0.34 <0.01 113 380 <0.0001 0.0103 LP-2 5/24/2005 23.37 6.5 20 616 5.78 -892.6 2.57 -687.6 0.054 <0.001 <0.001 0.08 <0.05 <0.001 12 <0.005 <0.005 0.03 <0.001 <0.005 <0.00005 <0.005 0.7 0.0105 200 480 <0.0002 <0.005 LP-2 11/16/2005 22.6 6.2 22 543 4.95 -447.2 2.12 -242.2 0.066 <0.001 <0.001 0.084 <0.05 <0.001 14 <0.005 <0.005 0.067 <0.001 <0.005 <0.00005 <0.005 0.55 0.00843 170 430 <0.0002 0.01 LP-2 5/22/2006 24.32 6.3 15 506 4.8 292 3.3 497 0.185 <0.001 <0.001 0.079 <0.05 <0.001 15 <0.005 <0.005 0.187 <0.001 0.005 <0.00005 <0.005 0.42 0.00884 150 390 <0.0002 <0.005 LP-2 11/15/2006 20.82 6.5 17 610 6.5 234 2.1 439 0.132 <0.001 <0.001 0.075 <0.05 <0.001 9.6 <0.005 <0.005 0.125 <0.001 <0.005 <0.00005 <0.005 0.94 0.00823 220 460 <0.0002 <0.005 LP-2 11/6/2007 21.3 6.4 21 510 5.44 175.1 5.6 380.1 0.185 <0.001 <0.001 0.073 <0.05 <0.001 13 <0.005 <0.005 0.127 <0.001 <0.005 <0.00005 <0.005 0.6 0.00841 170 410 <0.0002 <0.005 LP-2 5/22/2008 21.3 6.4 21 510 5.44 175.1 5.6 380.1 0.194 <0.001 <0.001 0.075 <0.05 <0.001 12 <0.005 <0.005 0.119 <0.001 <0.005 <0.00005 <0.005 0.6 0.00772 170 400 <0.0002 <0.005 LP-2 11/19/2008 13.77 7.4 12 698 NM NM 2.12 NM <0.1 <0.0005 <0.005 0.0624 <0.05 0.00099 13.2 <0.005 <0.005 0.0553 <0.005 0.0529 <0.0002 <0.005 0.17 <0.01 51.8 408 <0.0001 <0.01 LP-2 5/5/2009 12.67 6.9 16 619 4.54 -3.7 2.21 201.3 0.166 <0.0005 <0.005 0.0696 <0.05 0.00008 11.6 <0.005 <0.005 0.187 <0.005 0.0062 <0.0002 <0.005 0.23 <0.01 45.7 398 <0.0001 <0.01 LP-2 11/10/2009 14.28 6.9 21 666 4.26 -123.3 1.6 81.7 <0.1 <0.0005 <0.005 0.0752 b <0.05 0.00008 11.9 b <0.005 <0.005 0.0911 b <0.005 <0.005 <0.0002 <0.005 <0.2 <0.01 51 419 <0.0001 <0.01 LP-2 5/11/2010 14.76 7.2 18 629 4.08 -67.2 2.15 137.8 <0.1 <0.0005 <0.005 0.0725 <0.05 0.00008 12.5 <0.005 <0.005 0.0793 <0.005 <0.005 <0.0002 <0.005 <0.2 <0.01 52.2 395 b <0.0001 <0.01 LP-2 11/30/2010 12.92 7.2 17 647 5.8 -54.9 1.63 150.1 <0.1 <0.0005 <0.005 0.0825 <0.05 0.00008 13.3 <0.005 <0.005 <0.05 <0.005 <0.005 <0.0002 <0.005 0.21 <0.01 48.2 464 <0.0001 <0.01 LP-2 4/18/2011 14.66 7.1 19 793 5.17 -38.3 0.85 166.7 <0.1 <0.0005 <0.005 0.0835 <0.05 0.00008 12.5 <0.005 <0.005 <0.05 <0.005 <0.005 <0.0002 <0.005 0.28 <0.01 54 498 <0.0001 <0.01 LP-2 11/2/2011 14.41 6.9 13 574 2.23 127.8 24.5 332.8 1.33 <0.0005 <0.005 0.0771 <0.05 0.00008 13 <0.005 <0.005 1.03 <0.005 0.0103 <0.0002 <0.005 0.25 <0.01 91.2 385 <0.0001 0.0241 LP-2 4/4/2012 12.9 7.1 20 738 4.02 41.1 12.4 246.1 0.249 <0.001 <0.001 0.086 <0.05 <0.001 11 <0.005 <0.005 0.268 <0.001 0.005 <0.00005 <0.005 0.29 <0.001 51 450 <0.0002 <0.005 LP-2 11/8/2012 13.3 7.0 20 833 4.06 143 3.56 348 0.224 <0.001 <0.001 0.098 <0.05 <0.001 12 <0.005 <0.005 0.173 <0.001 <0.005 <0.00005 <0.005 0.34 <0.001 47 520 <0.0002 0.008 LP-2 4/9/2013 14.41 6.8 17 721 4.2 203 8 408 1.45 <0.001 <0.001 0.098 <0.05 <0.001 12 <0.005 <0.005 1.19 <0.001 0.014 <0.00005 <0.005 0.25 <0.001 57 460 <0.0002 0.006 LP-2 11/12/2013 12.94 7.1 16 725 5.7 298 22 503 1.5 <0.001 <0.001 0.097 <0.05 <0.001 14 <0.005 <0.005 1.07 <0.001 0.013 <0.00005 <0.005 0.26 <0.001 57 490 <0.0002 0.005 LP-2 4/3/2014 14.15 6.8 21 799 3.2 173.2 8.8 378.2 0.444 <0.001 <0.001 0.103 <0.05 <0.001 14 <0.005 <0.005 0.337 <0.001 <0.005 <0.00005 <0.005 0.26 <0.001 58 500 <0.0002 0.005 LP-3 5/22/2006 13.78 7.0 18 577 NM NM 7.68 NM 0.138 <0.0005 <0.005 0.115 <0.05 0.00011 14.4 0.0186 0.0128 0.224 <0.005 0.0249 <0.0002 0.0108 0.18 <0.01 70.5 339 <0.0001 0.0343 LP-3 11/15/2006 12.7 6.6 17 543 2.27 -30.2 9.66 174.8 0.43 <0.0005 <0.005 0.14 <0.05 0.00008 13.5 <0.005 <0.005 0.382 <0.005 0.0147 <0.0002 <0.005 0.2 <0.01 62.2 343 <0.0001 <0.01 LP-3 5/21/2007 14.3 6.9 20 612 3.26 -102.3 2.19 102.7 <0.1 <0.0005 <0.005 0.156 b <0.05 0.00008 13.3 b <0.005 <0.005 <0.05 <0.005 0.0083 b <0.0002 <0.005 0.3 <0.01 79 346 b <0.0001 <0.01 LP-3 11/6/2007 14.78 7.1 17 581 1.34 -64.9 1.49 140.1 <0.1 <0.0005 <0.005 0.151 <0.05 0.00008 13.8 <0.005 <0.005 0.0714 <0.005 0.0061 <0.0002 <0.005 <0.2 <0.01 86.8 339 b <0.0001 <0.01 LP-3 5/22/2008 12.92 7.1 17 509 4.39 -77.6 1.38 127.4 <0.1 <0.0005 <0.005 1 0.141 <0.05 0.00008 15.2 <0.005 <0.005 <0.05 1 <0.005 <0.005 <0.0002 <0.005 <0.2 <0.01 1 74.4 360 1 <0.0001 <0.01 LP-3 11/19/2008 12.92 7.1 17 509 4.39 -77.6 1.38 127.4 <0.1 <0.0005 <0.005 0.144 <0.05 0.00008 14.9 <0.005 <0.005 <0.05 <0.005 <0.005 <0.0002 <0.005 <0.2 <0.01 70 348 <0.0001 <0.01 LP-3 5/5/2009 14.69 6.9 19 560 3.11 -44.7 0.69 160.3 <0.1 <0.0005 <0.005 0.132 <0.05 0.00008 14.7 <0.005 <0.005 <0.05 <0.005 <0.005 <0.0002 <0.005 0.22 <0.01 71.7 357 <0.0001 <0.01 LP-3 11/10/2009 14.45 6.8 15 559 1.62 132.5 0.39 337.5 <0.1 <0.0005 <0.005 0.144 <0.05 0.00008 14.7 <0.005 <0.005 <0.05 <0.005 <0.005 <0.0002 <0.005 0.22 b <0.01 89.3 351 <0.0001 0.0197 LP-3 5/11/2010 14.45 6.8 15 559 1.62 132.5 0.39 337.5 <0.1 <0.0005 <0.005 0.134 <0.05 0.00008 14.9 <0.005 <0.005 <0.05 <0.005 <0.005 <0.0002 <0.005 0.22 b <0.01 86.2 352 <0.0001 <0.01 LP-3 11/30/2010 12.91 6.9 18 588 4.16 41.3 1.23 246.3 0.022 <0.001 <0.001 0.14 <0.05 <0.001 13 <0.005 <0.005 <0.01 <0.001 <0.005 <0.00005 <0.005 0.22 <0.001 76 370 <0.0002 <0.005 LP-3 4/18/2011 12.91 6.9 18 588 4.16 41.3 1.23 246.3 0.022 <0.001 <0.001 0.141 <0.05 <0.001 13 <0.005 <0.005 <0.01 <0.001 <0.005 <0.00005 <0.005 0.21 <0.001 77 370 1 <0.0002 <0.005 LP-3 11/2/2011 13.32 6.8 19 581 3.39 146.3 0.63 351.3 <0.005 <0.001 <0.001 1 0.14 <0.05 <0.001 15 <0.005 <0.005 <0.01 <0.001 <0.005 <0.00005 <0.005 0.22 <0.001 78 380 <0.0002 <0.005 LP-3 4/4/2012 14.44 6.6 17 571 1.9 175 1.8 380 0.011 <0.001 <0.001 0.139 <0.05 <0.001 14 <0.005 <0.005 <0.01 <0.001 <0.005 <0.00005 <0.005 0.19 <0.001 76 370 <0.0002 <0.005 LP-3 11/8/2012 12.95 7.0 17 546 5.2 291 0.7 496 0.011 b <0.001 <0.001 0.142 <0.05 <0.001 17 <0.005 <0.005 0.011 <0.001 <0.005 <0.00005 <0.005 0.2 <0.001 87 380 <0.0002 <0.005 LP-3 4/9/2013 14.19 6.7 19 579 3.59 173.8 0.84 378.8 0.016 b <0.001 <0.001 0.147 <0.05 <0.001 16 <0.005 <0.005 <0.01 <0.001 <0.005 <0.00005 <0.005 0.22 <0.001 87 390 <0.0002 <0.005 LP-3 11/12/2013 5.25 6.9 14 1075 NM NM 9.76 NM 0.276 <0.0005 <0.005 0.189 <0.05 0.00008 111 <0.005 <0.005 0.178 <0.005 0.0072 <0.0002 <0.005 0.58 <0.01 1 112 639 <0.0001 <0.01 LP-3 4/3/2014 4.01 5.9 17 308 0.63 -32.9 12.7 172.1 0.86 <0.0005 <0.005 0.0771 <0.05 0.00008 31.4 <0.005 <0.005 0.716 <0.005 0.0125 <0.0002 <0.005 <0.1 I <0.01 38.4 210 <0.0001 <0.01 LP-4 11/15/2006 5.22 6.4 22 1000 2.3 -106.9 1.03 98.1 <0.1 <0.0005 <0.005 0.17 b <0.05 0.00008 96.8 <0.005 <0.005 <0.05 <0.005 <0.005 <0.0002 <0.005 0.59 1 <0.01 90.1 570 <0.0001 <0.01 P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\4LL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment Plans\Roxboro\Final\Tables\Roxboro GW Assessment Tables 4 - 7 1 of 2 TABLE 6 LEACHATE ANALYTICAL RESULTS ROXBORO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC., SEMORA, NORTH CAROLINA Analytical Parameter Depth to Water PH Temp. SPeci is Conductance DO ORP Turbidity Eh Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Boron Cadmium Chloride Chromium Copper Iron Lead Manganese Mercury Nickel Nitrate Selenium Sulfate TDS Thallium Zinc Units ft S.U. Deg C pS/cm mg/I mV NTUS 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 mg/I mg/I mg/I mg/I mg/I mg/I Analytical Method Field Measurements 200.7 200.8 200.8 200.7 200.7 200.8 300 200.8 200.7 200.7 200.8 200.8 245.1 200.7 300.0 2009. 300 SM2540C 200.8 200.7 Sample ID Sample Date Constituent Concentrations LP-4 11/6/2007 5.22 6.4 22 1000 2.3 -106.9 1.03 98.1 <0.1 <0.0005 <0.005 0.172 b <0.05 0.00008 99.6 <0.005 <0.005 <0.05 <0.005 <0.005 <0.0005 <0.005 0.59 <0.01 89.5 548 <0.0001 <0.01 LP-4 5/22/2008 5.16 6.8 18 980 2.41 -84.9 0.98 120.1 <0.1 <0.0005 <0.005 0.184 <0.05 0.00008 115 <0.005 <0.005 <0.05 <0.005 <0.005 <0.0002 <0.005 0.61 <0.01 91.9 644 <0.0001 <0.01 LP-4 11/19/2008 4.57 6.3 15 287 0.34 -51.3 8.84 153.7 0.832 <0.0005 <0.005 0.0782 <0.05 0.00008 33.2 <0.005 <0.005 0.481 <0.005 0.0117 <0.0002 <0.005 <0.2 <0.01 73.8 211 <0.0001 <0.01 LP-4 5/5/2009 5.55 6.5 18 955 2.78 -38.7 0.88 166.3 <0.1 <0.0005 <0.005 0.161 <0.05 0.00008 95.8 <0.005 <0.005 <0.05 <0.005 <0.005 <0.0002 <0.005 0.57 <0.01 104 614 <0.0001 <0.01 LP-4 11/10/2009 5.55 6.5 18 955 2.78 -38.7 0.88 166.3 <0.1 <0.0005 <0.005 0.165 <0.05 0.00008 95.5 <0.005 <0.005 <0.05 <0.005 <0.005 <0.0002 <0.005 0.58 <0.01 89.1 614 <0.0001 <0.01 LP-4 5/11/2010 5.17 6.6 15 990 2.86 67.6 0.39 272.6 <0.1 <0.0005 <0.005 0.178 <0.05 0.00008 108 <0.005 <0.005 <0.05 <0.005 <0.005 <0.0002 <0.005 0.67 <0.01 107 652 <0.0001 <0.01 LP-4 11/30/2010 4.09 5.6 15 110 1.98 39.2 34.9 244.2 0.558 <0.001 <0.001 0.029 <0.05 <0.001 6.5 <0.005 <0.005 0.441 <0.001 0.006 <0.00005 <0.005 <0.023 <0.001 19 120 <0.0002 <0.005 LP-4 4/18/2011 5 6.5 21 958 2.99 164.6 1.51 369.6 0.031 <0.001 <0.001 0.16 <0.05 <0.001 84 <0.005 <0.005 0.026 <0.001 <0.005 <0.00005 <0.005 0.62 <0.001 85 590 <0.0002 0.005 LP-4 11/2/2011 5.54 6.4 17 987 3.2 204 2.7 409 0.271 <0.001 <0.001 0.163 <0.05 <0.001 86 <0.005 <0.005 0.213 <0.001 0.007 <0.00005 <0.005 0.53 <0.001 84 620 <0.0002 <0.005 LP-4 4/4/2012 4.85 6.0 12 220 0.6 259 15 464 1.35 <0.001 <0.001 0.051 <0.05 <0.001 21 <0.005 <0.005 1.03 <0.001 <0.005 <0.00005 <0.005 0.03 <0.001 32 170 <0.0002 <0.005 LP-4 11/8/2012 4.85 6.0 12 220 0.6 259 15 464 1.41 <0.001 <0.001 0.05 <0.05 <0.001 22 <0.005 <0.005 1.03 <0.001 <0.005 <0.00005 <0.005 0.03 <0.001 33 170 <0.0002 <0.005 LP-4 4/9/2013 5.25 6.5 21 884 3.38 156.4 0.41 36 . 1 0.037 b <0.001 <0.001 0.147 <0.05 <0.001 74 <0.005 <0.005 0.026 <0.001 <0.005 <0.00005 <0.005 0.54 <0.001 78 560 <0.0002 <0.005 LP-4 11/12/2013 3.63 7.8 16 588 NM NM 8.69 NM <0.1 <0.0005 <0.005 0.0332 <0.05 0.00008 28.6 <0.005 <0.005 0.0904 <0.005 0.116 <0.0002 <0.005 <0.1 <0.01 28.7 353 <0.0001 <0.01 LP-4 4/3/2014 1.11 7.5 19 510 2.68 -30.7 2.1 174.3 <0.1 0.00065 <0.005 0.0381 <0.05 0.00008 27.2 <0.005 <0.005 0.0536 <0.005 0.0866 <0.0002 <0.005 <0.1 <0.01 31.2 237 <0.0001 <0.01 Notes: 1. Analytical parameter abbreviations: Temp. = Temperature DO = Dissolved oxygen ORP = Oxidation reduction potential TDS = Total dissolved solids TSS = Total suspended solids TOC = Total organic carbon 2. Units: °C = Degrees Celcius SU = Standard Units my = millivolts pS/cm = microsiemens per centimeter NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Unit mg/I = milligrams per liter 3. NE = Not established 4. NA = Not available 5. NM = Not measured 6 b = Data flagged due to detection in field blank 7. Highlighted values indicate values that exceed the 15 NCAC .021 .0202(g) Standard 8. Analytical results with "<" preceding the result indicates that the parameter was not detected at a concentration which attains or exceeds the laboratory reporting limit. Prepared By: RG BER Checked By: JRH P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\4LL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment Plans\Roxboro\Final\Tables\Roxboro GW Assessment Tables 4 - 7 2 of 2 TABLE 7 SEEP ANALYTICAL RESULTS ROXBORO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC., SEMORA, NORTH CAROLINA Analytical Parameter y pH Temp. Specific Conductance DO ORP Flow Turbidity Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Boron Cadmium Calcium Chloride Chromium COD Copper Fluoride Hardness Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Units SU °C pS/cm mg/I I mV I MGD NTUs mg/I mg/I mg/I mg/I mg/I mg/I mg/I mg/I mg/I mg/I mg/I I mg/I mg/I (CaCO,) mg/I mg/I mg/I mg/I Analytical Method Field Measurements 200.7 200.8 200.8 200.7 200.7 200.8 200.7 300 200.8 HACH 8000 200.8 300 200.7 200.7 1 200.8 200.7 200.7 Sample ID Location Sample Collection Date Constituent Concentrations S-02* north of West Ash Basin Dam 8/25/2014 6.8 29 1786 4.71 184 0.00044 11.8 <0.005 <0.001 <0.001 0.146 4.49 <0.001 268 m' 130 <0.001 <20 <0.001 0.45 1050 1.29 <0.001 91.5 m' 4.17 S-03* north of West Ash Basin Dam 8/25/2014 7.6 29 1854 4.65 -63.2 0.00094 17.1 0.02 b' <0.001 0.00147 0.262 6.96 <0.001 275 260 <0.001 <20 <0.001 0.74 1050 9.27 <0.001 88.3 3.67 S-04* north of West Ash Basin Dam 8/25/2014 7.7 29 2437 4.75 -25.1 0.00051 6.8 0.027 V <0.001 0.00188 0.297 9.44 <0.001 338 460 <0.001 <20 <0.001 0.64 1320 12.7 <0.001 115 5.69 S-07* north of West Ash Basin Dam 8/25/2014 7.6 28 4612 4.77 -116 0.00063 25.5 0.009 V <0.001 <0.001 0.249 16.3 <0.001 718 1400 <0.001 <20 <0.001 <1 2680 4.7 <0.001 216 11.5 S-08* north of West Ash Basin Dam 8/25/2014 6.7 21 6240 4.02 -51 0.00107 34.8 0. 122 V <0.001 0.00286 0.243 29.3 <0.001 1190 2100 <0.001 27 <0.001 0.76 4260 52.7 <0.001 311 13.9 S-09* west of East Ash Basin 8/26/2014 6.8 26 274 4.1 175 NF 2.63 0.101 V <0.001 0.0157 0.044 1.38 <0.001 21.6 b' 5.8 <0.001 <20 <0.001 0.18 88.6 0.122 <0.001 8.43 0.114 S-13* north of gypsum pad 8/26/2014 7.0 18 652 6.06 99.7 0.01782 NM 0.044 V <0.001 0.00173 0.061 1.48 1 <0.001 61.9 b' 13 <0.001 <20 0.00134 <0.5 265 2.41 <0.001 26.9 1.53 S-14* west of Gypsum Pad 8/26/2014 7.1 23 1446 3.8 77.2 0.00808 6.17 1.49 b2 0.00174 0.0254 0.07 1.78 <0.001 248 b' 19 0.00257 b2 <20 0.00442 1 799 13.7 0.00209 43.5 3.11 S-15* Sargents Creek, south of Site 8/26/2014 7.5 22 93 4.78 104.4 0.12021 6.71 0.054 b2 <0.001 <0.001 0.021 <0.05 <0.001 5.48 b' 5.7 <0.001 <20 <0.001 0.1 21.1 1.23 <0.001 1.82 0.063 2014007621** SEEP WAP Toe Drain #7 3/14/2014 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.08 <0.001 0.0016 0.236 12.3 <0.001 NA 1000 <0.005 NA <0.005 <1 1990 15.8 <0.001 NA 9.54 2014007622** SEEP WAP Toe Drain #2 3/14/2014 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.015 <0.001 0.00138 0.176 4.43 <0.001 NA 120 <0.005 NA <0.005 <1 962 12.8 <0.001 NA 4.78 2014007623** SEEP Gypsum Pad Drain 3/14/2014 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.251 0.00108 0.00161 0.025 5.25 <0.001 NA 53 <0.005 NA <0.005 2.5 1750 0.489 <0.001 NA 2.38 2014007625** OutFall 002 3/14/2014 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1.61 <0.001 0.00789 0.084 2.05 <0.001 NA 97 0.00204 NA <0.005 <1 231 1.04 <0.001 NA 0.179 2014007626** OutFall 003 3/14/2014 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1.26 <0.001 0.00118 0.039 0.777 <0.001 NA 39 <0.001 NA <0.005 <1 99.1 0.937 <0.001 NA 0.066 2014007627** 006 Operational 3/14/2014 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.488 <0.001 <0.001 0.035 0.53 1 <0.001 NA 56 <0.001 NA <0.005 <1 460 1.01 <0.001 NA 0.427 2014008334** SEEP WAP #5 Toe Drain 3/20/2014 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.32 <0.001 <0.001 0.051 0.111 <0.001 NA 11.8 <0.005 NA 0.008 0.16 61.8 0.305 <0.001 NA <0.005 2014008335** SEEP West Toe Drain #7 3/20/2014 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.098 <0.001 0.00198 0.244 29.8 <0.001 NA 1910 <0.005 NA <0.005 0.57 3760 26 <0.001 NA 13.9 2014008336** SEEP East of DFA Landfill 3/20/2014 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1 <0.001 0.00324 0.057 4.65 <0.001 NA 13.5 <0.005 NA <0.005 0.14 250 0.958 <0.001 NA 0.174 2014008337** SEEP Cane Creek 3/21/2014 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.872 <0.001 0.00119 0.035 0.659 <0.001 NA 36.1 <0.005 NA <0.005 0.18 85.6 0.948 <0.001 NA 0.041 2014008338** SEEP Intake @ Shore Drive 3/21/2014 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.903 <0.001 0.00112 0.035 0.656 <0.001 NA 36.5 <0.005 NA <0.005 0.17 85.8 0.912 <0.001 NA 0.041 2014008339** SEEP Skimmer Wall 3/21/2014 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 8 0..9,9 <0.00001 0.0001102 0.0035 0648 <0001 NA 36 <0.01 0 NA <005 0.00 6 84.2 0.9278 0.00001 NA 0.0.41 2014008340** SEEP"B" Warehouse East End 3/21/2014 NA NA NA NA NA NA 091 <0 4 35 0. <0.001 NA 36.6 <005 < 0. 17 84.9 0647 0.9 <01 NA 0 04NA 2014008341** SEEP 4C4D 3/21/2014 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1.08 <1 0001 0.00135 0.04 0.748 <0.001 NA 36.3 <0.005 NA <0.005 0.17 95.6 1.05 1 <0.001 NA 0.055 Prepared By: RG BER Checked By: ]RH Notes: 1. Analytical parameter abbreviations: Temp. = Temperature DO = Dissolved oxygen ORP = Oxidation reduction potential 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/I = milligrams per liter CaCO, = calcium carbonate 3. NE = Not established 4. NF = No flow 5. NA = Not available 6. NM = Not measured 7. Highlighted values indicate values that exceed the 15A NCAC 2B Standard 8. Analytical results with '<" preceding the result indicate that the parameter was not detected at a concentration which attains or exceeds the laboratory reporting limit. 9. b' = Data flagged due to detection in field blank 10. b2 - Target analyte was detected in blank(s) at a concentration greater than Yz the reporting limit but less than the reporting limit. 11. m' - The spike recovery value was unusable since the analyte concentration in the sample was disproportionate to the spike level. * Sample data provided by SynTerra ** Split sample data analyzed by Duke Lab of NC DENR identified locations. P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment Plans\Roxboro\Final\Tables\Roxboro GW Assessment Tables 4 - 7 .xlsx Page 1 of 2 TABLE 7 SEEP ANALYTICAL RESULTS ROXBORO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC., SEMORA, NORTH CAROLINA Analytical Parameter Mercury Molybdenum Nickel Oil & Grease Selenium Sulfate Thallium TDS TSS Zinc Units mg/I mg/I mg/I mg/I mg/I mg/I mg/I g/I mg/I mg/I Analytical Method 245.1 200.8 200.8 1664B 200.8 300 200.8 kSMM540C SM2540D 200.7 Sample ID Location Sample Collection Date Constituent Concentrations S-02* north of West Ash Basin Dam 8/25/2014 <0.001 0.0131 0.00139 <5 <0.001 660 <0.0002 1400 <5 <0.005 S-03* north of West Ash Basin Dam 8/25/2014 <0.001 0.0322 0.00188 <5 <0.001 410 <0.0002 1300 22 <0.005 S-04* north of West Ash Basin Dam 8/25/2014 <0.001 0.0364 0.00164 <5 <0.001 480 <0.0002 2100 27 <0.005 S-07* north of West Ash Basin Dam 8/25/2014 <0.001 0.0254 0.00321 <5 <0.001 650 <0.0002 4600 9 <0.005 S-08* north of West Ash Basin Dam 8/25/2014 <0.001 0.0391 0.00498 <5 <0.001 730 <0.0002 7200 36 <0.005 S-09* west of East Ash Basin 8/26/2014 <0.001 0.11 <0.001 <5 0.00186 66 <0.0002 170 9 <0.005 S-13* north of gypsum pad 8/26/2014 <0.001 0.0381 <0.001 <5 <0.001 190 <0.0002 430 <5 <0.005 S-14* west of Gypsum Pad 8/26/2014 <0.001 0.106 0.00364 <5 0.0629 710 <0.0002 1200 97 0.005 S-15* Sargents Creek, south of Site 8/26/2014 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <5 <0.001 1.6 <0.0002 72 11 <0.005 2014007621** SEEP WAP Toe Drain #7 3/14/2014 NA 0.0214 0.007 NA <0.001 440 NA 2810 NA <0.005 2014007622** SEEP WAP Toe Drain #2 3/14/2014 NA 0.0113 <0.005 NA <0.001 600 NA 1340 NA <0.005 2014007623** SEEP Gypsum Pad Drain 3/14/2014 NA 0.268 <0.005 NA 0.249 1500 NA 2470 NA 0.02 2014007625** OutFall 002 3/14/2014 NA 0.0357 0.00402 NA 0.00474 64 NA NA NA 0.00763 2014007626** OutFall 003 3/14/2014 NA 0.00411 <0.001 NA 0.00122 24 NA NA NA 0.00149 2014007627** 006 Operational 3/14/2014 NA 0.00218 0.0206 NA 0.0047 400 NA NA NA 0.225 2014008334** SEEP WAP #5 Toe Drain 3/20/2014 NA <0.001 <0.005 NA <0.001 18.6 NA NA NA 0.007 2014008335** SEEP West Toe Drain #7 3/20/201 NA 0.0307 0.009 NA <0.001 596 NA NA NA <0.005 2014008336** SEEP East of DFA Landfill 3/20/2014 NA 0.0221 <0.005 NA 0.00211 227 NA NA NA <0.005 2014008337** SEEP Cane Creek 3/21/2014 NA 0.00331 <0.005 NA 0.00113 22.8 NA NA NA <0.005 2014008338** SEEP Intake @ Shore Drive 3/21/2014 NA 0.00317 <0.005 NA 0.0011 22.6 NA NA NA 0.007 2014008339** SEEP Skimmer Wall 3/21/2014 NA 0.00329 <0.005 NA <0.001 22.5 NA NA NA <0.005 2014008340** SEEP"B" Warehouse East End 3/21/2014 NA 0.00355 <0.005 NA 0.0012 22.7 NA NA NA <0.005 2014008341** SEEP 4C4D 3/21/20,4 NA 0.00357 <0.005 NA 0.00111 23.3 NA NA NA <0.005 Prepared By: RG BER Checked By: ]RH Notes: 1. Analytical parameter abbreviations: Temp. = Temperature DO = Dissolved oxygen ORP = Oxidation reduction potential 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/I = milligrams per liter CaCO, = calcium carbonate 3. NE = Not established 4. NF = No flow 5. NA = Not available 6. NM = Not measured 7. Highlighted values indicate values that exceed the 15A NCAC 2B Standard 8. Analytical results with '<" preceding the result indicate that the parameter was not detected at a concentration which attains or exceeds the laboratory reporting limit. 9. b' = Data flagged due to detection in field blank 10. b2 - Target analyte was detected in blank(s) at a concentration greater than Yz the reporting limit but less than the reporting limit. 11. m- The spike recovery value was unusable since the analyte concentration in the sample was disproportionate to the spike level. * Sample data provided by SynTerra ** Split sample data analyzed by Duke Lab of NC DENR identified locations. P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment Plans\Roxboro\Final\Tables\Roxboro GW Assessment Tables 4 - 7 .xlsx Page 2 of 2 TABLE 8 ENVIRONMENTAL EXPLORATION AND SAMPLING PLAN ROXBORO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC., SEMORA, NORTH CAROLINA Transition zone (PWR) Monitoring Exploration Ash Basin Monitoring Wells Saprolite Monitoring Wells Wells Bed Rock Monitoring Wells Area Soil Borings ("AB" Series) ("S" Series) ("D" Series) ("BR" Series) Seep Water Surface Water Sediment Existing Monitoring Wells (Single Cased) (Single Cased) (Single Cased) (Double Cased) O1 O z Estimated Screen Estimated Screen Estimated Screen Estimated Screen Quantity Quantity c D Quantity v Well IDs Quantity Well Depth Length Well IDs Quantity Well Length Well IDs Quantity Well Length Well IDs Quantity Well Length Sample of of Sample Quantity of Quantity of Sample Quantity of Quantity of Well IDs Quantity of Quantity of 0 , (fit bgs) (fit) Depth (ft) Depth (ft) Depth (ft) IDs Locations Samples IDs Locations Samples IDs Locations Samples Locations Samples w (ft bgs) (ft bgs) (ft bgs) 1973 Active AB-1 90 ABMW-1 ABMW-SD Ash Basin AB-2 3 90 ABMW-2 3 25 5 N/A 0 N/A N/A ABMW-2D 3 40 5 N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 N/A 0 0 N/A 0 0 N/A 0 0 AB-3 90 ABMW-3 ABMW-3D 1966 Semi- AB-4 90 ABMW-4 ABMW-4D Active Ash AB-5 4 90 ABMW-5 4 25 5 N/A 0 N/A N/A ABMW-SD 4 40 5 N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A o o N/A o o N/A 0 0 N/A 0 0 Basin AB-6 90 ABMW-6 ABMW-6D AB-7 90 ABMW-7 ABMW-7D VW-2BR VW-2D VW-3BR VW-3D VW-4BR MW-1, CW-1, VW-6D VW-5BR MW-2, CW-2, VW-7D VW-6BR SW-1 CW-2D, CW-3, Beyond VW -SD VW-7BR 5-09 SW-2 SW-1 CW-3D, CW-4, Waste N/A 0 N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A VW-9D 12 40 5 VW-SBR 14 90 5 3 3 SW-3 4 4 SW-3 4 4 CW-5, GMW-6, 15 15 Boundary MW-SOD VW-9BR 5-14 GMW-7, GMW- MW-11D MW-10BR 8, GMW-9, MW-12D MW-11BR GMW-10, and MW-13D MW-12BR GMW-11 MW-16D MW-13BR MW-16BR MW-14D BG-1BR SW-4 SW-4 Background N/A 0 N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A VW-15D 2 40 5 MW-14BR 3 90 5 N/A 0 0 SW-5 3 3 SW-5 3 3 BG-1 1 1 MW-15BR SW-6 SW-6 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, 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, downhole 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 in field by Field Engineer or Geologist in accordance with project specifications. P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment Plans\Roxboro\Final\Tables\Table S-Exploration and Sampling Plan.xlsx TABLE 9 SOIL, SEDIMENT, AND ASH PARAMETERS AND ANALYTICAL METHODS ROXBORO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC., SEMORA, 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 Nitrate as Nitrogen mg/kg EPA 9056A 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 % ASTM D422 Percent solids % ASTM D2216 Percent or anic matter % EPA/600/R-02/069 Redox potential I mV lFaulkneret 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 and soil 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\Roxboro\Final\Tables\Table 9-Soil and Ash Parameters.xlsx TABLE 10 GROUNDWATER, SURFACE WATER, AND SEEP PARAMETERS AND ANALYTICAL METHODS ROXBORO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC., SEMORA, NORTH CAROLINA PARAMETER I RL JUNITS IMETHOD FIELD PARAMETERS H NA SU Field Water Quality Meter Specific Conductance NAPS/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 jmq1L Field Test Kit INORGANICS Aluminum 0.005 m /L EPA 200.7 or 6010C Antimony 0.001 m /L EPA 200.8 or 6020A Arsenic 0.001 m /L EPA 200.8 or 6020A Barium 0.005 m /L EPA 200.7 or 6010C Beryllium 0.001 mq1L EPA 200.8 or 6020A Boron 0.05 m /L EPA 200.7 or 6010C Cadmium 0.001 m /L EPA 200.8 or 6020A Chromium 0.001 m /L EPA 200.7 or 6010C Cobalt 0.001 m /L EPA 200.8 or 6020A Copper 0.005 m /L EPA 200.7 or 6010C Iron 0.01 m /L EPA 200.7 or 6010C Lead 0.001 m /L EPA 200.8 or 6020A Manganese 0.005 m /L EPA 200.7 or 6010C Mercury low level 0.000012 m /L EPA 245.7 or 1631 Molybdenum 0.005 m /L EPA 200.7 or 6010C Nickel 0.005 m /L EPA 200.7 or 6010C Selenium 0.001 m /L EPA 200.8 or 6020A Strontium 0.005 m /L EPA 200.7 or 6010C Thallium low level 0.0002 m /L EPA 200.8 or 6020A Vanadium low level 0.0003 m /L EPA 200.8 or 6020A Zinc 10.005 jmq1L 1 EPA 200.7 or 6010C RADIONUCLIDES Total Combined Radium 15 Ci/L I EPA 903.0 ANIONS/CATIONS Alkalinity as CaCO3 20 m /L SM 2320B Bicarbonate 20 m /L SM 2320 Calcium 0.01 m /L EPA 200.7 Carbonate 20 m /L SM 2320 Chloride 0.1 m /L EPA 300.0 or 9056A Magnesium 0.005 m /L EPA 200.7 Methane 0.1 m /L RSK 175 Nitrate as Nitrogen 0.023 m -N/L EPA 300.0 or 9056A Potassium 0.1 m /L EPA 200.7 Sodium 0.05 m /L EPA 200.7 Sulfate 0.1 m /L 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 CONSTITUENTS Iron S eciation IVendor Specific m /L IC-ICP-CRC-MS Man anese S eciation IVendor Specific jmq1L IC-ICP-CRC-MS Notes: 1. Select constituents will be analyzed for total and dissolved concentrations. 2. RL is the laboratory analytical method reporting limit. NA indicates not applicable. P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment Plans\Roxboro\Final\Tables\Table 10- Groundwater_Surface Water_Seep Parameters.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: 919-807-64641 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 (919) 807-6351. 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 (919) 707-9083; • 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 ADDITIONAL SITE DATA ?000 IiLACKRC+CK ENGINEERS, INC. SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Duke Energy Progress - Roxboro Lined Ash Monof ill - Phase 7-9 Semora, North Carolina INDEX TESTING RESULTS PERMEABILITY, SPECIFIC GRAVITY AND POROSITY TEST RESULTS ATTERBERG LIMITS GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS CLASSIFICATION BORING SAMPLE LABORATORY MOISTURE Permeability DEPTH Specific Unit Weight NO. NO. SAMPLE DESCRIPTION N cm/sec POROSITY LL PL PI % Gravel % Sand % Silt/Clay U5C5 USDA Gravity D.D. @ %Mj (D.D. @ %M) SANDY 4.6x10-6 P-112 4'-5' ST-1 Tan Sandy Silty CLAY 11.4 20 16 4 0.40 44.75 54.85 CL-ML 2.72 102.7 pcf @ 11.4% 0.40 LOAM (102.7 pcf @ 11.4% Brown Lean CLAY TB-113 0'-2' S-1 29.1 35 19 16 0.30 28.09 71.62 CL LOA -- -- with Sand Jh AN P-137 0'-2' S-1 Brown Silty CLAY 13.3 24 20 4 .51 48.25 9.2 -S O P-109 0'-2' S-1 Brown Lean C 1. 34 20 14 41. 70 -- -- -- -- -- Silty Cl y P-138 2'-4' S-2 g0 34 17.64 32.88 49.48 SC-SM LOAM -- -- -- -- ve I NOTES: IR 1) All laboratory testing was performed by sub- sultant laboratory; Geotechnics. 2) "--" Indicates test not performed 3) USCS classification based on grain size analysis results, Atterberg limits results and/or visual observations. USDA classification based on grain size analysis results. 4) % SiIt/Clay indicates percent passing the no_ 200 sieve January 7, 2014 Project No. 2013-812-01 Gary W. Ahlberg, P.E. BlackRock Engineers, Inc. 51C2 Wrightsville Avenue Wilmington, NC 28403 910.232,6696 Cc: Bill Lupi eotechnics geotedlkaI & gMyflMC testing Transmittal Laboratory Test Results Roxboro Landfill — Phase 7-9 Please find attached the laboratory test results for the above referenced project. The tests were outlined on the Project Verification Form that was transmitted to your firm prior to the testing. The testing was performed in general accordance with the methods listed on the enclosed data sheets. The test results are believed to be representative of the samples that were submitted for testing and are indicative only of the specimens which were evaluated. We have no direct knowledge of the origin of the samples and imply no position with regard to the nature of the test results, i.e. pass/fail and no claims as to the suitability of the material for its intended use. The test data and all associated project information provided shall be held in strict confidence and disclosed to other parties only with authorization by our Client. The test data submitted herein Is considered integral with this report and is not to be reproduced except in whole and only with the authorization of the Client and Geotechnics. The remaining sample materials for this project will be retained for a minimum of 90 days as directed by the Geotechnics' Quality Program. We are pleased to provide these testing services. Should you have any questions or if we may be of further assistance, please contact our office. Respectively submitted, Geotechnics, Inc. X�L' 4, Michael P. Smith Regional Manager We understand that you have a choice in your laboratory services and we thank you for choosing Geotechnics. DCX� Dam 7ransnnlmrLefler L7urr. 1.128, 5 Rn.. 1 Client Client Reference Project No. Lab ID Boring No. ❑epth(ft) Sample No. Tare Number Wt. Tare & WS (g) Wt. Tare & DS (9) Wt. Tare (g) Wt. Water (g) Wt. ❑S (g) Moisture Content Moisture, Ash, and Organic Matter (Lass on Ignition) ASTM D 2974-07a BLACKROCK ENGINEERS ROXBORO LF - PH. 7-9 2013-812-01 Furnace Temperature ° C Wt. Tare & Ash (g) Wt. Volatiles (g) Wt. Ash (g) Ash Content Organic Matter technics INTEGRITY INTEGRITY tN TESTfNG Moisture Content ( Oven Dried, minus #10 Sieve Material ) 01 P-112 4-5 ST-1 A+12 101.28 99.05 38.12 2.23 60.93 3.7% 440 97.98 1.07 59.86 98.2% 1.8% Ash Content, Organic Matter Tested By BK Date 117114 Checked By KC Date 118114 ,Wage I of 1 ❑CND CT-S8 DATE: 1 I115110 REVISION4 C1i/serSiMil9L4pppetalLocal LscrnsolilVN'rdowslTempprary7nfernetFifestOLKj3C,7uV2073-ei2-89.xL,sjsheetf 2200 Westinghouse Boulevard ■ Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 ■ Phone (919) 876-0405 • Fax �919) 876-0460 • www.geotechnics.net SPECIFIC GRAVITY ASTM ❑ 854-10 Client BLACKRaCK ENGINEERS, INC. Boring No. Client Reference ROXBORO LF - PH. 7-9 Depth (ft) Project No. 2013-812-01 Sample No. Lab IU 2013-812-01-01 Visual Description Replicate Number "I eo schnics fMTfGFIrY 04 r0rNIG P-112 4-5 ST-1 TAN ( Minus NoA sieve material, airdried) 2 Pycnometer ID R 446 R 448 Weight of Pycnometer + Soil + Water (gm) 683.33 686.D9 Temperature, T ( 'Celsius ) 21.0 20.8 Weight of Pycnometer + Water (gm) 661.71 662.20 Tare Number 370 372 Weight of Tare + Dry Soil (gm) 145,67 141.46 Weight of Tare (gm) 111.57 103.65 Weight of Dry Soil (gm) 34,10 37,81 Specific Gravity of Soil @ T 2.733 2.71E Specific Gravity of Water @ T 0.9980 0.9981 Conversion Factor for Temperature T 0.9998 0.9999 Specific Gravity @ 20° Celsius 2,733 2.717 Average Specific Gravity @ 20' Celsius 2.72 Tested By SS Date 113114 Checked By C4aY1 Date - 3' A- DCA+; CT 55 Data, 03/24/05 RewTs7an: 10R T'.42012 PRAJEC75420f3.784 HLACKRQCKP6A A SHWO I 3-784-04.0 Frockr wHerxders.xis]Shse!] 220D Westinghouse Blvd. -Suite 103 -Raleigh, NC 27604 - Phone (919)876-0405 - Fax (919) 876-0460 - www.geotechnics.net UNIT WEIGHT WITH POROSITY ASTM D2937-10 Client BLACKROCK ENGINEERS, INC. Baring No. AP-112 Client Project ROXBORO LF - PH. 7-9 Depth (ft.) 4-5 Project No, 2013-812-01 Sample No. ST-1 Lab ID No. 2013-812-01-01 Specific Gravity 2.72 Visual Description: TAN SILTY SAND MOISTURE CONTENT: 814 Tare Number 294.35 Wt. of Tare & WS (gm.) 275.54 Wt. of Tare & DS (gm.) 111.16 Wt. of Tare (gm.) 18.81 Wt. of Water (gm.) 164.38 Wt. of DS (gm.) 11.4 Moisture Content SPECIMEN: Undisturbed 9!2� nics W rES"NO Measured Wt. of Mold/Tube & WS (gm.) 228.71 WL of MoldlTube (gm.) 0.00 Wt. of WS (gm.) 228.71 Length 1 (in.) 1.917 Length 2 (In.) 1.887 Length 3 (in.) 1.903 Top Diameter (in.) 2.308 Middle Diameter (in.) 2.255 Bottom Diameter (in.) 2.208 Average Length (in.) 1.90 Average Area (in.2) 4.00 Sample Volume (cm3 } 124.72 Unit Wet Wt. (gm./ cm3) 1.83 Unit Wet Wt. (pcf) 114.5 Unit Dry Wt. [pcf) 102.7 UnIt Dry Wt. (gm.1 cm3 } 1.65 Void Ratio, e 0.65 Porosity, n 0.40 Pore Volume (cm3) 49.3 Tested By: SFS Date: 12/30/14 Checked By: ' Date: -14- DM CT-S37A DATE: 2-20-04 REVISION71 T:Wata She etMl UnItWg 1. P DrU S1 ty wHeader.XLS]Sheet1 2200 Westinghouse Blvd. - Suite 103 - Raleigh, NC 27604 - Phone (919) 676-0405 - Fax (919) 876-0460 - www.geotechnics.net ATTERBERG LIMITS ASTM ❑ 4318-14 Client BLACKROCK ENGINEERS, INC. Boring No. Client Reference ROXBORO LF - PH. 7-9 Depth (ft) Project No, 2013-812-01 Sample No. Lab I❑ 2013-812-01-01 Soil Description Note. The 115C5 symbol used with this test refers only to the minus No. 40 9!�hnlcs , 1" "SnNG P-112 4-5 ST-1 TAN SILTY CLAY ( Minus No. 40 sieve material, Airdried s►eve mareriaF- Bee me -we►+e ano rryaromererHnatysis" graph page ror me compiere marerial description Liquid Limit Test 1 2 3 M Tare Number A-F 5M 2-4 U Wt. of Tare & WS (gm) 31.82 31.50 28.51 L Wt. of Tare & DS (gm) 29.16 28.82 26.22 T Wt. of Tare (gm) 15.47 15.66 15.62 1 Wt. of Water (gm) 2.7 2.7 2.3 P Wt. of DS (gm) 13.7 13.2 10.6 O 1 Moisture Content °I°j 19.4 20.4 21.6 N Number of Blows 33 24 15 T Plastic Limit Test 1 2 Range Test Results Tare Number 3 82 Liquid Limit [°I°} 20 Wt. of Tare & WS (gm) 24.07 23.02 Wt. 4f Tare & DS (gm) 22.88 21.98 Plastic Limit {°I°y 16 Wt. of Tare (gm) 15.45 15.43 Wt. of Water (gm) 1.2 1.0 Plasticity Index (%) 4 Wt. of DS (gm) 7.4 6.6 USCS Symbol CL-ML Moisture Content (%) 16.0 15.9 0.1 Note: The acceptable range of the two Moisture contents is ± 2.6 22 22 21 t� 1 3:20 20 19 flow [;urge CI 10 100 Number of Blows 60 50 �-E 40 x w 30 T 20 a 10 0 Qi CL- ML Plasticity Chart CL f i i' ' MH ML 20 40 60 so 100 Liquid Limit (%) Tested By BW Date 116114 Checked By 6bll/'1 Date page 1 of 7 DCN: CT-S46 DATE- 6124/10 REVISION: 4 TA2013PROJECtWf)13.6129LAC9ROCKROXPH?-9h12013-812-0f-0i PERAArfawwheadar.xlslsneetT 2200 Westinghouse Bfvd. -Suite 103 -Raleigh, NC 27604 -Phone (919) 876-0405 -Fax (919) 876-0460 - www.geotechn[cs.net SIEVE AND HYDROMETER ANALYSIS ASTM D 422-63 (2007) Client BLACKROCK ENGINEERS, INC. Baring No. P-112 Client Reference ROXBORO LF - PH. 7-9 Depth (ft) 4-5 Project No. 2013-812-01 Sample No. ST-1 Lab ID 2013-812-01-01 Soil Color TAN vtechnics lhrrE Glitrf UJ 7ESMNG SIEVE ANALYSIS HYDROMETER 3CS cobbles gravel sand silt and clay fraction SOA cobbles gravel sand silt F 12" 6" 3" 2" 1" 314" 318" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #140 #200 100 717 sa 80 70 I rn 6fl T 50 c I 40 L a 30 i 20 10 0 ' 1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 Particle Diameter (mm) Sieve Sixes (mm) USCS Summary Percentage Greater Than #4 Gravel 0.40 #4 To #200 Sand 44.75 Finer Than #200 Silt & Clay 54.85 USCS Symbol CL-ML, TESTED USCS Classification SANDYSILTY CLAY page 1 of 4 DOH: CTS30R DATE:2120108 REVISION: 5 Ti2013 PROJECTSLW13-812 SLACKRaCKROXPH 7-9V2013-812.01.01 SIEVEHYDI0 wHeader.Mj heeti 2200 Westinghouse Blvd. - Suite 103 - Raleigh, NC 27604 - Phone (919) 876-0405 - Fax (919) 876-0460 - www.geotechnics.net eo ethnics lNTEGRlTY fN TEiTlNG USDA CLASSIFICATION CHART Client BLACKROCK ENGINEERS, INC. Baring No. P-112 Client Reference ROXBORO LF - PK 7-9 Depth (ft) 4-5 Project No. 2013-812-01 Sample No. ST-1 Lab ID 2013-812-01-01 Sail Color TAN 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 E PERCENTSAND Particle Size (mm) Percent Finer USDA SUMMARY Actual Percentage Corrected % of Minus 2.0 mm material for USDA Classificat. Gravel 0.68 0.00 2 99.32 Sand 51.71 52.06 0.05 47.61 Silt 33.68 33.91 0.002 13.93 Clay 13.93 14.02 USDA Classification: SANDYLOAM page 2 of 4 OCN: CT-53DR DATE:2120/08 REVI$10N: 5 T.12013 PROJECT&2013-812 SLACKR OCK ROX PH 7-91t2073.872.07.01 SIEVEHYDf0 wHeader.x1SJShee12 2200 Westinghouse Blvd. - Suite 103 - Raleigh, NC 27604 - Phone (919) 876-0405 - Fax (919) 876-0460 - www.geotechnirs.net e technics irrrecxlrr iH rr=mxc WASH SIEVE ANALYSIS ASTM D 422-63 (2007) Client BLACKROCK ENGINEERS, INC. Client Reference ROXBORO LF - PH. 7-9 Project No. 2013-812-01 Lab I❑ 2013-812-01-01 M inus #10 for Hygroscopic Moisture Content Tare No. S-1 Wgt.Tare + Wet Soil (gm) 27.50 Wgt.Tare + Dry Soil (gm) 27.40 Weight of Tare (gm) 15.59 Weight of Water (gm) 0.10 Weight of Dry Soil (gm) 11.81 Boring No. P-112 Depth (ft) 4-5 Sample No. ST-1 Soil Color TAN Hydrometer Specimen Data Air Dried - #10 Hydrometer Material (gm) Corrected Dry Wt. of - #10 Material (gm) Weight of - 9200 Material (gm) Weight of - #10 ; + #200 Material (gm) Moisture Content _ 0.8 J-FACTOR (%FINER THAN #10 Soil Specimen Data -- Tare No. 151 Wgt.Tare + Air Dry Soil (gm) 573.59 Weight of Tare (gm) 240.64 Air Dried Wgt. Total Sample (gm) 332.95 Total Dry Sample Weight (gm) 330.17 Dry Weight of Material Retained on #10 (gm) Corrected Dry Sample Wt-#10 (gm) 5D.00 49.58 27.38 22.20 0.9932 2.23 327.94 Sieve Sieve Wgt.of Soil Percent Accumulated Percent Accumulated Size Opening Retained Retained Percent Finer Percent (mm) Retained Finer (gm) (°/D} (%) °/a} (%) 12" 300 0.00 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 6" 150 0.00 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 3" 75 0.00 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 2" 50 0.00 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 1112" 37.5 0.00 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 ill 25.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 314" 19.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 100-0 100.0 1/2" 12.5 0.00 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 318" 9.50 0,00 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 44 4.75 1.32 0.4 0.4 99.6 99.6 #10 2.00 0.91 0.3 0.7 99.3 99.3 #20 0.85 0.78 1.6 1.6 98.4 97.8 #40 0.425 2.64 5.3 6.9 93.1 92.5 #60 0.250 4.51 9.1 16.0 84.0 83.4 #140 0.106 10.28 20.7 36.7 63.3 62.8 #200 0.075 3.99 &0 44.8 55.2 54.9 Pan - 27.38 55.2 100.0 - - Notes ; _ yy, T_e_ stems AG_ Date 117114 Checked By _11r1 Date_ page .3 of 4 OCN: CT-530R DATE: 2=150 REVISION: 5 T: 2013 PROJE'CTSUV3-612 BLACKROCK ROXPH 7-9V20f3-812.01.01 SIEVEHYD10 wHeader, xlsjSheelI 2200 Westinghouse Blvd. - Suite 103 - Raleigh, NC 27604 - Phone (919) 876-0405 - Fax (919) 876-0460 - www.geotachnics.net eatechnics tNrEGRtry AN 7FsrtNG HYDROMETER ANALYSIS ASTM D 422-63 (2Q07) Client BLACKROCK ENGINEERS, INC. Client Reference ROXBORO LF - PH. 7-9 Project No. 2013-812-01 Lab ID 2013-812-01-01 Boring No. P-112 Depth (ft) 4-5 Sample No. ST-1 Soil Color TAN Elapsed Time (min) R Measured Temp. ° C } Composite Correction R Corrected N ( % } K Factor Diameter mm N' 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 25.5 20.7 5.29 20.2 40.4 0,01333 0.0328 40.1 5 23.0 20.7 5.29 17.7 35.4 0.01333 0.0211 35.1 15 20.0 20.8 5.26 14.7 29.4 0.01332 0.0124 29.2 30 18.5 20.7 5.29 13.2 26.4 0,01333 0.0089 26.2 68 16.5 20.8 5.26 11.2 22.4 0.01332 0.0060 22.3 250 14.5 21.0 5.22 9.3 18.5 0.01328 0.0031 18.4 1440 10.0 21.8 5.04 5.0 9.9 0.01316 0.0013 9.8 I - 7� Soil Specimen Data Other Corrections Wgt, of Dry Material (grn) 49.58 Hygroscopic Moisture Factor 0.992 Weight of Deflccculant (gm) 5.0 a - Factor 0.99 Percent Finer than A 10 99.32 Specific Gravity 2.70 Assumed Notes Tested By SS Date 113114 Checked By &L-)�l Date -(w(4 page 4 of 4 0CN: Gr.530R Dare: 212W03 REV isiaN: 5 T.W73 PRDrECTS120i3-a72 9LACKROCKROXPH 7-0112013-81e-01-01 SIEVEHYorp wHeaaer.x7sjst)eet7 2200 Westinghouse Blvd. - Suite 103 - Raleigh, NC 27804 - Phone (919) 876-0405 - Fax (919) 876-0460 - www.geotechnics.net echnic;s Client Client Project Project No, Lab I❑ No. n E U 0 J a N 4,5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2,5 2.o 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 PERMEABILITY TEST ASTM ❑ 5084-03 BLACKROCK ENGINEERS, INC. Boring No. AP-112 ROXBORO LF - PH. 7-9 Depth (ft.) 4-5 2013-812-01 Sample No. ST-1 2013-812-01-01 AVERAGE PERMEABILITY = 4.6E-06 emisec c9 20°C AVERAGE PERMEABILITY = 4.6E-08 misec @ 200C TOTAL FLOW vs. ELAPSED TIME 0.00 0.05 0,10 0.15 0-20 0.25 0.30 0.35 ELAPSED TIME, hrs T INFLOW OUTFLOW PORE VOLUMES EXCHANGED vs. PERMEABILITY 1.0E-03 1.0E-04 Vl E L7 110E-05 J_ m Q 1.0E-06 w w a 1.0E-07 0.000 0,020 0,040 0.060 01080 0.100 — 0,120 PORE VOLUMES EXCHANGED Tested By: SFS Date: 12/30/13 Checked By: Date'. Page 1 of 3 OCN: CT-22 DAT B: FDUXW9aBnMCM132 BLACKROCK ROX PH 7-OV2013-812-01-01 PERMflaww header. KISISheefl 2200 Westinghouse Blvd. - Suite 103 - Raleigh, NC 27504 - Phone (919) 876-0405 - Fax (919) 876-0460 - www.geotechnirs.net PERMEABILITY TEST ASTM D 5084-10 Client BLACKROCK ENGINEERS, INC. Boring No. AP-112 Client Project ROXBORO LF - PH. 7-9 Depth (ft.) 4-5 Project No. 2013-812-01 Sample No. ST-1 Lab ID No. 2013-812-01-01 Visual Description MOISTURE CONTENT: Tare Number Wt. of Tare & WS (gm.) Wt. of Tare & DS (gm.) Wt. of Tare (gm.) Wt. of Water (gm.) Wt. of DS (gm.) Moisture Content (%) SPECIMEN: TAN SILTY SAND Specific Gravity Sample Condition BEFORE TEST 814 294.35 275.54 111.16 18.81 164.38 11.4 BEFORE TEST 9®chnics !HT cITY $N TESPHU 2.72 Measured Undisturbed AFTER TEST 8010 371.35 335.33 132.90 36.02 202.43 17.8 AFTER TEST Wt. of Tube & WS (gm.) 228.71 NA Wt. of Tube (gm.) 0.00 NA Wt. of WS (calc.)(gm.) 228.71 241.74 Length 1 (in.) 1.917 1.904 Length 2 (in.) 1,887 1.882 Length 3 (in.) 1,903 1.847 Top Diameter (in.) 2.308 2.349 Middle Diameter (in.) 2.255 2.155 Bottom Diameter (in.) 2.208 2.067 Average Length (in.) 1.90 1.88 Average Area (in.2) 4.00 3.77 Sample Volume (cm3 ) 124.72 115.94 Unit Wet Wt. (gmJ Cm3 } 1.83 2.09 Unit Wet Wt. (pcf ] 114.5 130.2 Unit Dry Wt. (pcf) 102.7 110.5 Unit Dry Wt. (grn.l Cm3 } 1.65 1.77 Void Ratio, e 0.65 0.54 Porosity, n 0.40 0.35 Pore Volume (cm3 ] 49.3 40.5 Total Wgt. Of Sample After Test 238.67 Tested By: SFS Date: 12/30/13 Checked By: Date: 1-614 Page 2 of 3 DCM CT-22 DATE: 2121107RFM810R03EC`S12013-8`2 13LACKROCK ROX P-1 7-N2Dti3-a12-61.01 PERMnow w header.xls]Srseetl 2200 Westinghouse Blvd. - Suite 103 - Raleigh, IBC 27604 - Phone (919) 876-0405 - Fax (919) 876-0460-vwvw.geotechnics.net ethnics 1>�r,�nry w rPmrec PERMEABILITY TEST ASTM D 5084--03 Client BLACKROCK ENGINEERS, INC. Boring No. AP-112 Client Project ROXBORO LF - PH. 7-9 Depth (ft.) 4-6 Project No. 2013-812-01 Sample No. STA Lab ID No. 2013-812-01-01 Pressure Heads (Constant) Top Cap (psi) 48.5 Bottom Cap (psi) 50.0 Cell (psi) 55.0 Total Pressure Head (cm) 105.5 Hydraulic Gradient 22.11 AVERAGE PERMEABILITY = AVERAGE PERMEABILITY = Final Sample Dimensions Sample Length (cm), L 4.77 Sample Diameter (cm) 5.56 Sample Area (Cm2 ), A 24.31 Inflow Burette Area (cm 2 ), a -in 0.897 Outflow Burette Area (cm2 ), a -cut 0.894 B Parameter (%) 96 4.6E-06 cm/sec @ 20GC 4.6E-08 misec @ 20GC DATE TIME ELAPSED TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL FLOW TEMP. INCREMENTAL TIME INFLOW OUTFLOW HEAD PERMEABILITY t h (0 flow) @ 20°C (mmlddlyy) (hr) (min) (hr) (cm3y (cm (cm) (1 stop) (°C) (cm/sec) 113114 15 23 0.00 0.0 0.0 128.9 0 20.8 NA 113J14 15 27 0.07 0.8 0.8 127.2 0 20.8 4.7E-06 113114 15 32 0.15 1.7 1.7 125,1 0 20.8 4.8E-06 113114 15 36 0.22 2A 2.4 123.5 0 20.8 4.5E-06 113114 15 42 0.32 3.5 3.5 121.1 0 20.8 4,8E-06 113114 15 45 0.37 4.0 4D 120.0 1 20.8 4.4E-06 Tested By: SFS Date: 12/30/13 Checked By: [ �, Date: ('6 44 Page 3 of 3 DCN: CT-22 DATE: 212I10TRWS1 ECTSI2013-812 BLACKROCK ROX PH 7.ME2013-812.01-01 PERMflaww heaft-rds]Shee11 2200 Westinghouse Blvd. - Suite 103 - Ralelgh, NC 27604 - Phone (919) 876-0445 - Fax (919) 876-0460 - www.geotechnics.net April 23, 2014 Project No. 2014-666-01 Gary W. Ahlberg, P.E. BlackRock Engineers, Inc. 5102 Wrightsville Avenue Wilmington, NC 28403 910.232.6696 Cc: Bill Lupi e�technics geotechnical & geosynthetic testing Transmittal Laboratory Test Results Roxboro Landfill Phase 7-9 Please find attached the laboratory test results for the above referenced project. The tests were outlined on the Project Verification Form that was transmitted to your firm prior to the testing. The testing was performed in general accordance with the methods listed an the enclosed data sheets. The test results are believed to be representative of the samples that were submitted for testing and are indicative only of the specimens which were evaluated. We have no direct knowledge of the origin of the samples and imply no position with regard to the nature of the test results, i.e. pass/fail and no claims as to the suitability of the material for its intended use. The test data and all associated project information provided shall be held in strict confidence and disclosed to other parties only with authorization by our Client. The test data submitted herein is considered integral with this report and is not to be reproduced except in whole and only with the authorization of the Client and Geotechnics. The remaining sample materials for this project will be retained for a minimum of 90 days as directed by the Geotechnics' Quality Program. We are pleased to provide these testing services. Should you have any questions or if we may be of further assistance, please contact our office. Respectively submitted, Geotechnics, Inc. Michael P. Smith Regional Manager We understand that you have a choice in your laboratory services and we thank you for choosing Geotechnics. DCN- Data Tmxi ftfal Latter Date: I128105 R"-- I 2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone (919) 876-0405 • Fax (919) 876-0460 • www.geotechnics.net MOISTURE CONTENT ASTM D 2216-10 Client: BLACKROCK ENGINEERING Client Reference: ROXBORO LF PHASE 7-9 Project No.: 2014-666-01 Lab ID: Boring No.: Depth (ft): Sample No Tare Number Wt. of Tare & Wet Sample (g) Wt. of Tare & Dry Sample (g) Weight of Tare (g) Weight of Water (g) Weight of Dry Sample (g) Water Content (%) Lab ID Boring No. Depth (ft) Sample No Tare Number Wt. of Tare & Wet Sample (g) Wt. of Tare & Dry Sample (g) Weight of Tare (g) Weight of Water (g) Weight of Dry Sample (g) Water Content (%) Notes : eotechnics geotechnicaI & geosynthetic Testing 001 002 003 004 005 TB113 TB113 TB113 TB113 TB113 0-2 24 4-6 6-8 8-10 4/10/14 4/10114 4/10114 4/10114 4/10114 R-1 117 1010 444 6 78.49 141.06 181.56 93.37 106.76 65.76 124.07 175.75 89.37 104.06 22.00 37.75 36.39 37.98 37.22 12.73 16.99 5.81 4.00 2.70 43.76 86.32 139.36 51.39 66.84 29.1 006 TB113 13.4-13.5 4/10114 270 102.33 101.08 37.42 1.25 63.66 2.0 19.7 4.2 7.8 4.0 Tested By B W Date 4115114 Checked By GEM Date 4117114 page 1 of 1 DCN: CTS1 DATE: 3118113 REVISION: 4 2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone (919) 876-0405 • Fax (919) 876-0460 • www.geotechnics.net Geotechnics geotechnicaI & geosynthetic Testing ATTERBERG LIMITS ASTM D 4318-101 AASHTO T89-10 Client: BLACKROCK ENGINEERS, INC. Boring No.: TB113 Client Reference: ROXBORO LF PH. 7-9 Depth (ft): 0-2 Project No.: 2014-666-01 Sample No.: 4/10/14 Lab ID: 2014-666-01-01 Soil Description: BROWN LEAN CLAY Note: The USCS symbol used with this test refers only to the minus No. 40 { Minus No. 40 sieve material, Airdried} sieve marer►ai. see me -sreve ana r►yaromererRnarys►s- graph page ror me comp►ere marerrar aescripr►on Liquid Limit Test 1 2 3 M Tare Number B-B A-C I U Wt. of Tare & Wet Sample (g) 28.53 29.78 29.98 L Wt. of Tare & Dry Sample (g) 25.29 26.08 25.96 T Wt. of Tare (g) 15.52 15.61 15.25 1 Wt. of Water (g) 3.2 3.7 4.0 P Wt. of Dry Sample (g) 9.8 10.5 10.7 0 1 Moisture Content°I°} 33.2 35.3 37.5 N Number of Blows 35 25 15 T Plastic Limit Test 1 2 Range Test Results Tare Number U B1 Liquid Limit {°Ioj 35 Wt. of Tare & Wet Sample (g) 22.53 22.21 Wt. of Tare & Dry Sample (g) 21.38 21.13 Plastic Limit {°Ioj 19 Wt. of Tare (g) 15.20 15.64 Wt. of Water (g) 1.2 1.1 Plasticity Index°I°} 16 Wt. of Dry Sample (g) 6.2 5.5 USCS Symbol CL Moisture Content °I°j 18.6 19.7 -1.1 Note: The acceptable range of the two Moisture contents is ± 2.6 38 37 36 e 35 C e 34 0 233 32 31 3D Flow Curve 1 10 Number of Blows J Tested By B W Date 4121114 60 50 40 x 61 c 30 c) �c 20 a 10 0 Plasticity Chart CL i CH MH Alf_ 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 CL- ML Liquid Limit t%j Checked By GEM Date 4/22114 page 1 of 9 DCN: CT-S413 DATE: 3/13113 REVISION: 4 3pulimit.xls 2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone (919) 876-0405 • Fax (919) 876-0460 • www.geotechnics.net SIEVE AND HYDROMETER ANALYSIS eotechnics ASTM D 422-63 (2007) geotechnical & geosynthetic Testing Client BLACKROCK ENGINEERS, INC. Boring No. TB113 Client Reference ROXBOR❑ LF PHASE 7-9 Depth (ft) 0-2 Project No. 2014-666-01 Sample No. 4/10/14 Lab ID 2014-666-01-01 Soil Color BROWN SIEVE ANALYSIS HYDROMETER [USCS cobbles gravel sand silt and clay fraction [USDA cobbles gravel sand silt I clay 12" 6" 3" 2" 1" 314" 318" N #10 #20 #40 #60 9140 #200 100 90 80 70 t rn Z 60 T m `m 50 .E- LL w m 40 U Q a 30 20 10 0 1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 Particle Diameter (mm) Sieve Sizes (mm) USCS Summary Percentage Greater Than #4 Gravel 0.30 #4 To #200 Sand 28.09 Finer Than #200 Silt & Clay 71.62 USCS Symbol CL, TESTED USCS Classification LEAN CLAY WITH SAND page 1 of 4 DCN: CT-530R DATE: T26.13 REVISIONA T-12014 PROJECTS12014-666BL4CKROCK ROXBORO PH. 7-YV2014-666-01-01 SIEVEHYQ14.xfsjSheetl 2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone (919) 876-0405 • Fax (919) 876-0460 • www.geotechnics.net Geotechnics geotechnicaI & geosynthetic Testing USDA CLASSIFICATION CHART Client BLACKROCK ENGINEERS, INC. Boring No. TB113 Client Reference ROXBORO LF PHASE 7-9 Depth (ft) 0-2 Project No. 2014-666-01 Sample No. 4/10/14 Lab I ❑ 2014-666-01-01 Soil Color BROWN 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 FE PERCENT SAND Particle Size (mm) Percent Finer USDA SUMMARY Actual Percentage Corrected % of Minus 2.0 mm material for USDA Classificat. Gravel 1.48 0.00 2 98.52 Sand 33.84 34.35 0.05 64.68 Silt 39.55 40.15 0.002 25.13 Clay 25.13 25.51 USDA Classification: LOAM page 2 of 4 DCN: CT-S30R DATE:7126113 REVISION:8 T.U014 PROJECTS 0014-6fi6 S ACKROCK ROXBORO PH. 7-gV2014-666-01-01 SIEVEHYDf0.x1s)SheeH 2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone (919) 876-0405 • Fax (919) 876-0460 • www.geotechnics.net WASH SIEVE ANALYSIS ASTM D 422-63 (2007) Client BLACKROCK ENGINEERS, INC. Client Reference ROXBORO LF PHASE 7-9 Project No. 2014-666-01 Lab ID 2014-666-01-01 Minus #10 for Hygroscopic Moisture Content Tare No. R-1 Wgt.Tare + Wet Soil (g) 35.10 Wgt.Tare + Dry Soil (g) 33.81 Weight of Tare (g) 21.99 Weight of Water (g) 1.29 Weight of Dry Soil (g) 11.82 Moisture Content Geotechnics geotechnical & geosynthetic Testing Boring No. TB113 Depth (ft) 0-2 Sample No. 4/10/14 Soil Color BROWN Hydrometer Specimen Data Air Dried - #10 Hydrometer Material (g) Corrected Dry Wt. of - #10 Material (g) Weight of - #200 Material (g) Weight of - #10 ; + #200 Material (g) 10.9 J-FACTOR (%FINER THAN #1 Soil Specimen Data Tare No. 216 Wgt.Tare + Air Dry Soil (g) 748.08 Weight of Tare (g) 170.70 Air Dried Wgt. Total Sample (g) 577.38 Total Dry Sample Weight (g) 521.33 Dry Weight of Material Retained on #10 (g) Corrected Dry Sample Wt - #10 (g) 50.00 45.08 32.77 12.31 0.9852 7.72 513.61 Sieve Sieve Wgt.of Soil Percent Accumulated Percent Accumulated Size Opening Retained Retained Percent Finer Percent (mm) Retained Finer m °ID D/a °ID % 12" 300 0.00 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 6" 150 0.00 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 3" 75 0.00 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 2" 50 0.00 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 1112" 37.5 0.00 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 1" 25.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 314" 19.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 112" 12.5 0.00 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 318" 9.50 0.00 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 #4 4.75 1.54 0.3 0.3 99.7 99.7 #10 2.00 6.18 1.2 1.5 98.5 98.5 #20 0.85 0.63 1.4 1.4 98.6 97.1 #40 0.425 1.07 2.4 3.8 96.2 94.8 #60 0.250 1.96 4.3 8.1 91.9 90.5 #140 0.106 5.79 12.8 21.0 79.0 77.9 #200 0.075 2.86 6.3 27.3 72.7 71.6 Pan - 32.77 72.7 100.0 - - Notes : Tested By BW Date 4/23/14 Checked By GEM Date 4/23/14 page 3 of 4 DCN: CT-53OR DATE:7126113 REVISION:8 T.U014 PROJECTS 42014-666 SL4CKROCK ROXBORO PH. 7-gV2014-666-01-01 SIEVEHYDf0.xls)Shee11 2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone (919) 876-0405 • Fax (919) 876-0460 • www.geotechnics.net HYDROMETER ANALYSIS ASTM D 422-63 (2007) Client BLACKROCK ENGINEERS, INC. Client Reference ROXBORO LF PHASE 7-9 Project No. 2014-666-01 Lab ID 2014-666-01-01 Geotechnics geotechnicaI & geosynthetic Testing Boring No. TB113 Depth (ft) 0-2 Sample No. 4/10114 Soil Color BROWN Elapsed Time min R Measured Temp. (0 C ) Composite Correction R Corrected N { °I° y K Factor Diameter (mm ) N' 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 30.0 23.9 3.98 26.0 57.1 0.01284 0.0306 56.3 5 26.5 23.8 4.01 22.5 49.4 0.01285 0.0199 48.7 15 23.5 23.8 4.01 19.5 42.8 0.01285 0.0117 42.2 30 21.5 23.7 4.04 17.5 38.3 0.01287 0.0084 37.8 60 19.0 23.5 4.10 14.9 32.7 0.01290 0.0060 32.2 259 17.0 23.3 4.17 12.8 28.2 0.01293 0.0030 27.8 1440 14.5 22.9 4.29 10.2 22.4 0.01299 0.0013 22.1 Soil Specimen Data Other Corrections Wgt. of Dry Material (g) 45.08 Hygroscopic Moisture Factor 0.902 Weight of ❑eflocculant (g) 5.0 a - Factor 0.99 Percent Finer than # 10 98.52 Specific Gravity 2.70 Assumed Notes Tested By BW Date 4/18/14 Checked By GEM Date 4/23/14 page 4 of 4 DCH: CT-530R DATE:7126113 REVIMN:8 T.U014 PROJECTS 0014-666 SL4CKROCK ROXBORO PH. 7-YV2014-066-01-01 SIEVEHYQ10.x1sjSheetl 2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone (919) 876-0405 • Fax (919) 876-0460 • www.geotechnics.net June 16, 2014 Project No. 2014-666-03 Gary W. Ahlberg, P.E. BlackRock Engineers, Inc. 5102 Wrightsville Avenue Wilmington, NC 28403 910.232.6696 Cc: Bill Lupi e�technics geotechnical & geosynthetic testing Transmittal Laboratory Test Results Roxboro Landfill Phase 7-9 Please find attached the laboratory test results for the above referenced project. The tests were outlined on the Project Verification Form that was transmitted to your firm prior to the testing. The testing was performed in general accordance with the methods listed an the enclosed data sheets. The test results are believed to be representative of the samples that were submitted for testing and are indicative only of the specimens which were evaluated. We have no direct knowledge of the origin of the samples and imply no position with regard to the nature of the test results, i.e. pass/fail and no claims as to the suitability of the material for its intended use. The test data and all associated project information provided shall be held in strict confidence and disclosed to other parties only with authorization by our Client. The test data submitted herein is considered integral with this report and is not to be reproduced except in whole and only with the authorization of the Client and Geotechnics. The remaining sample materials for this project will be retained for a minimum of 90 days as directed by the Geotechnics' Quality Program. We are pleased to provide these testing services. Should you have any questions or if we may be of further assistance, please contact our office. Respectively submitted, Geotechnics, Inc. Michael P. Smith Regional Manager We understand that you have a choice in your laboratory services and we thank you for choosing Geotechnics. DCN- Data Tmxi ftfal Latter Date: I128105 R"-- I 2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone (919) 876-0405 • Fax (919) 876-0460 • www.geotechnics.net MOISTURE CONTENT ASTM D 2216-10 Client: BLACKROCK ENGINEERING, INC. Client Reference: ROXBORO LAM - PH. 7-9 Project No.: 2014-666-03 Lab ID: Boring No.: Depth (ft): Sample No Tare Number Wt. of Tare & Wet Sample (g) Wt. of Tare & Dry Sample (g) Weight of Tare (g) Weight of Water (g) Weight of Dry Sample (g) Water Content (%) Lab ID Boring No. Depth (ft) Sample No Tare Number Wt. of Tare & Wet Sample (g) Wt. of Tare & Dry Sample (g) Weight of Tare (g) Weight of Water (g) Weight of Dry Sample (g) Water Content (%) Notes : eotechnics geotechnicaI & geosynthetic Testing 001 002 003 004 005 P-137 P-137 P-137 P-137 P-137 0-2 24 4-6 6-8 8-10 S-1 S-2 S-3 S-4 S-5 E-20 A-5 B-1 S-1 V-1 46.65 66.93 66.70 57.26 67.52 43.74 60.94 63.13 54.66 63.87 21.92 21.78 15.78 15.68 22.07 2.91 5.99 3.57 2.60 3.65 21.82 39.16 47.35 38.98 41.80 13.3 006 P-137 14-15.8 S-6 E-2 63.50 60.81 22.10 2.69 38.71 6.9 15.3 7.5 6.7 8.7 Tested By B W Date 6111114 Checked By GEM Date 6112114 page 1 of 1 DCN: CTS1 DATE: 3118113 REVISION: 4 2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone (919) 876-0405 • Fax (919) 876-0460 • www.geotechnics.net Geotechnics geotechnicaI & geosynthetic Testing ATTERBERG LIMITS ASTM D 4318-101 AASHTO T89-10 Client: BLACKROCK ENGINEERS, INC. Boring No.: P-137 Client Reference: ROXBORO LAM - PH. 7-9 Depth (ft): 0-2 Project No.: 2014-666-03 Sample No.: S-1 Lab ID: 2014-666-03-01 Soil Description: BROWN SILTY CLAY Note: The USCS symbol used with this test refers only to the minus No. 40 { Minus No. 40 sieve material, Airdried} sieve marer►ai. see me -sreve ana r►yaromererRnarys►s- graph page ror me comp►ere marerrar aescripr►on Liquid Limit Test 1 2 3 M Tare Number U L I U Wt. of Tare & Wet Sample (g) 29.52 28.64 28.34 L Wt. of Tare & Dry Sample (g) 26.82 26.11 25.76 T Wt. of Tare (g) 15.19 15.28 15.28 1 Wt. of Water (g) 2.7 2.5 2.6 P Wt. of Dry Sample (g) 11.6 10.8 10.5 O 1 Moisture Content °I°} 23.2 23.4 24.6 N Number of Blows 35 25 15 T Plastic Limit Test 1 2 Range Test Results Tare Number A-C A-O Liquid Limit {°Ioj 24 Wt. of Tare & Wet Sample (g) 23.68 22.93 Wt. of Tare & Dry Sample (g) 22.31 21.66 Plastic Limit {°Ioj 20 Wt. of Tare (g) 15.59 15.49 Wt. of Water (g) 1.4 1.3 Plasticity Index°I°} 4 Wt. of Dry Sample (g) 6.7 6.2 USCS Symbol CL-ML Moisture Content°I°j 20.4 20.6 -0.2 Note: The acceptable range of the two Moisture contents is ± 2.6 25 25 24 24 23 e 23 0 22 22 21 21 2D Flow Curve 7 1 1❑ Number of Blows Tested By B W Date 6111114 Plasticity Chart CL CH MH ML 100 ❑ 20 40 6D 80 100 CL- ML Liquid Limit (%) Checked By GEM Date 6/12/14 page 1 of 9 DCN: CT-S413 DATE: 3/13113 REVISION: 4 3piimit.xls 2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone (919) 876-0405 • Fax (919) 876-0460 • www.geotechnics.net SIEVE AND HYDROMETER ANALYSIS eotechnics ASTM D 422-63 (2007) geotechnical & geosynthetic Testing Client BLACKROCK ENGINEERS, INC. Boring No. P-137 Client Reference ROXBORO LAM - PH. 7-9 Depth (ft) 0-2 Project No. 2014-666-03 Sample No. S-1 Lab ID 2014-666-03-01 Soil Color BROWN SIEVE ANALYSIS HYDROMETER [USCS cobbles gravel sand silt and clay fraction [USDA cobbles gravel sand silt I clay 12" 6" 3" 2" 1" 314" 318" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 9140 #200 100 90 80 70 t rn Z 60 T m `m 50 .E- LL w m 40 U Q a 30 20 10 0 1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 Particle Diameter (mm) Sieve Sizes (mm) USCS Summary Percentage Greater Than #4 Gravel 2.51 #4 To #200 Sand 48.25 Finer Than #200 Silt & Clay 49.24 USCS Symbol SC-SM, TESTED USCS Classification SILTY. CLAYEYSA►ro page 1 of 4 DCN: CT-530R DATE: h26.13 REVI510N:8 T-12014 PROJECTS12014-666BL4CKROCK ROXBORO PH. 7-YV2014-66"MI SIEVEHYQ14.xfsjSheetl 2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone (919) 876-0405 • Fax (919) 876-0460 • www.geotechnics.net Geotechnics geotechnicaI & geosynthetic Testing USDA CLASSIFICATION CHART Client BLACKROCK ENGINEERS, INC. Boring No. P-137 Client Reference ROXBORO LAM - PH. 7-9 Depth (ft) 0-2 Project No. 2014-666-03 Sample No. S-1 Lab I❑ 2014-666-03-01 Soil Color BROWN 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 FE PERCENT SAND Particle Size (mm) Percent Finer USDA SUMMARY Actual Percentage Corrected % of Minus 2.0 mm material for USDA Classificat. Gravel 3.58 0.00 2 96.42 Sand 57.25 59.38 0.05 39.17 Silt 28.96 30.03 0.002 10.21 Clay 10.21 10.59 USDA Classification: SANDY LOAM page 2 of 4 DCN: CT-S30R DATE:7126113 REVISION:3 T.U014 PROJECTS 0014-666 S ACKROCK ROXBORO PH. 7-gV2014-666-03-01 SIEVEHYDf0.x1s)SheeH 2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone (919) 876-0405 • Fax (919) 876-0460 • www.geotechnics.net WASH SIEVE ANALYSIS ASTM D 422-63 (2007) Client BLACKROCK ENGINEERS, INC. Client Reference ROXBORO LAM - PH. 7-9 Project No. 2014-666-03 Lab ID 2014-666-03-01 Minus #10 for Hygroscopic Moisture Content Tare No. V-1 Wgt.Tare + Wet Soil (g) 33.11 Wgt.Tare + Dry Soil (g) 31.70 Weight of Tare (g) 21.95 Weight of Water (g) 1.41 Weight of Dry Soil (g) 9.75 Moisture Content Geotechnics geotechnical & geosynthetic Testing Boring No. P-137 Depth (ft) 0-2 Sample No. S-1 Soil Color BROWN Hydrometer Specimen Data Air Dried - #10 Hydrometer Material (g) Corrected Dry Wt. of - #10 Material (g) Weight of - #200 Material (g) Weight of - #10 ; + #200 Material (g) 14.5 J-FACTOR (%FINER THAN #1 Soil Specimen Data Tare No. 153 Wgt.Tare + Air Dry Soil (g) 817.41 Weight of Tare (g) 240.82 Air Dried Wgt. Total Sample (g) 576.59 Total Dry Sample Weight (g) 506.03 Dry Weight of Material Retained on #10 (g) Corrected Dry Sample Wt - #10 (g) 51.54 45.03 23.00 22.03 0.9642 18.14 487.89 Sieve Sieve Wgt.of Soil Percent Accumulated Percent Accumulated Size Opening Retained Retained Percent Finer Percent (mm) Retained Finer m °ID D/a °ID % 12" 300 0.00 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 6" 150 0.00 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 3" 75 0.00 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 2" 50 0.00 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 1112" 37.5 0.00 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 1" 25.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 314" 19.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 112" 12.5 3.88 0.8 0.8 99.2 99.2 318" 9.50 2.11 0.4 1.2 98.8 98.8 #4 4.75 6.69 1.3 2.5 97.5 97.5 #10 2.00 5.46 1.1 3.6 96.4 96.4 #20 0.85 0.80 1.8 1.8 98.2 94.7 #40 0.425 2.69 6.0 7.8 92.2 88.9 #60 0.250 4.12 9.1 16.9 83.1 80.1 #140 0.106 10.08 22.4 39.3 60.7 58.5 #200 0.075 4.34 9.6 48.9 51.1 49.2 Pan - 23.00 51.1 100.0 - - Notes : Tested By BW Date 6/16/14 Checked By GEM Date 6/16/14 page 3 of 4 DCN: CT-53OR DATE:7126113 REVISION:8 T.U014 PROJECTS 42014-666 SL4CKROCK ROXBORO PH. 7-gV2014-666-03-01 SIEVEHYDf0mis)Sheell 2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone (919) 876-0405 • Fax (919) 876-0460 • www.geotechnics.net HYDROMETER ANALYSIS ASTM D 422-63 (2007) Client BLACKROCK ENGINEERS, INC. Client Reference ROXBORO LAM - PH. 7-9 Project No. 2014-666-03 Lab I ❑ 2014-666-03-01 Geotechnics geotechnicaI & geosynthetic Testing Boring No. P-137 Depth (ft) 0-2 Sample No. S-1 Soil Color BROWN Elapsed Time min R Measured Temp. (0 C ) Composite Correction R Corrected N { °I° y K Factor Diameter (mm ) N' 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 17.5 24.3 3.86 13.6 30.0 0.01278 0.0331 28.9 5 14.0 24.3 3.86 10.1 22.3 0.01278 0.0214 21.5 15 12.0 24.3 3.86 8.1 17.9 0.01278 0.0125 17.3 30 11.0 24.3 3.86 7.1 15.7 0.01278 0.0089 15.1 fig 10.5 24.2 3.89 6.6 14.5 0.01279 0.0063 14.0 250 9.5 24.3 3.86 5.6 12.4 0.01278 0.0031 12.0 1440 8.0 23.9 3.98 4.0 8.8 0.01284 0.0013 8.5 Soil Specimen Data Other Corrections Wgt. of Dry Material (g) 45.03 Hygroscopic Moisture Factor 0.874 Weight of ❑eflocculant (g) 5.0 a - Factor 0.99 Percent Finer than # 10 96.42 Specific Gravity 2.70 Assumed Notes Tested By SFSF Date 6/12/14 Checked By GEM Date 6/16/14 page 4 of 4 DCH: CT-530R DATE: 7126113 REVISM: 8 T.0014 PROJECTS12014-6fi6 SL4CKROCK ROXBORO PH. 7-YV2014-066-03-01 SIEVEHYQf0.x1s)Shee11 2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone (919) 876-0405 • Fax (919) 876-0460 • www.geotechnics.net June 12, 2014 Project No. 2014-666-02 Gary W. Ahlberg, P.E. BlackRock Engineers, Inc. 5102 Wrightsville Avenue Wilmington, NC 28403 910.232.6696 Cc: Bill Lupi e�technics geotechnical & geosynthetic testing Transmittal Laboratory Test Results Roxboro Landfill Phase 7-9 Please find attached the laboratory test results for the above referenced project. The tests were outlined on the Project Verification Form that was transmitted to your firm prior to the testing. The testing was performed in general accordance with the methods listed an the enclosed data sheets. The test results are believed to be representative of the samples that were submitted for testing and are indicative only of the specimens which were evaluated. We have no direct knowledge of the origin of the samples and imply no position with regard to the nature of the test results, i.e. pass/fail and no claims as to the suitability of the material for its intended use. The test data and all associated project information provided shall be held in strict confidence and disclosed to other parties only with authorization by our Client. The test data submitted herein is considered integral with this report and is not to be reproduced except in whole and only with the authorization of the Client and Geotechnics. The remaining sample materials for this project will be retained for a minimum of 90 days as directed by the Geotechnics' Quality Program. We are pleased to provide these testing services. Should you have any questions or if we may be of further assistance, please contact our office. Respectively submitted, Geotechnics, Inc. Michael P. Smith Regional Manager We understand that you have a choice in your laboratory services and we thank you for choosing Geotechnics. DCN- Data Tmxi ftfal Latter Date: I128105 R"-- I 2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone (919) 876-0405 • Fax (919) 876-0460 • www.geotechnics.net eotechnics geotechnicaI & geosynthetic Testing MOISTURE CONTENT ASTM D 2216-10 Client: BLACKROCK ENGINEERS, INC. Client Reference: ROXBORO LAM - PH. 7-9 Project No.: 2014-662-02 Lab ID: 001 002 003 004 005 Boring No.: P-109 P-109 P-109 P-109 P-109 Depth (ft): 0-2 24 4-6 6-6.8 8-10 Sample No.: S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 Tare Number N-1 R-1 M-1 P-1 C-2 Wt. of Tare & Wet Sample (g) 65.74 60.54 88.94 89.92 96.78 Wt. of Tare & Dry Sample (g) 56.76 55.25 82.83 86.48 93.35 Weight of Tare (g) 15.72 22.03 15.98 22.04 22.05 Weight of Water (g) 8.98 5.29 6.11 3.44 3.43 Weight of Dry Sample (g) 41.04 33.22 66.85 64.44 71.30 Water Content (%) 21.9 15.9 9.1 5.3 4.8 Lab ID 006 007 Boring No. P-109 P-109 Depth (ft) 14-15.4 17-17.4 Sample No. S6 S7 Tare Number B-1 V-1 Wt. of Tare & Wet Sample (g) 67.42 82.39 Wt. of Tare & Dry Sample (g) 63.90 79.12 Weight of Tare (g) 15.77 21.96 Weight of Water (g) 3.52 3.27 Weight of Dry Sample (g) 48.13 57.16 Water Content {°I°j 7.3 5.7 Notes : Tested By B W Date 616114 Checked By GEM Date 619114 page I of 1 DCN: CTS1 DATE: 3118113 REVISION: 4 2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone (919) 876-0405 • Fax (919) 876-0460 • www.geotechnics.net Geotechnics geotechnicaI & geosynthetic Testing ATTERBERG LIMITS ASTM D 4318-101 AASHTO T89-10 Client: BLACKROCK ENGINEERS, INC. Boring No.: P-109 Client Reference: ROXBORO LF PH. 7-9 Depth (ft): 0-2 Project No.: 2014-666-02 Sample No.: S1 Lab ID: 2014-666-02-01 Soil Description: BROWN LEAN CLAY Note: The USCS symbol used with this test refers only to the minus No. 40 { Minus No. 40 sieve material, Airdried} sieve marer►ar. see me -sreve ana r►yaromererRnarys►s- graph page nor me comp►ere marerrar aescripr►on Liquid Limit Test 1 2 3 M Tare Number A-0 L I U Wt. of Tare & Wet Sample (g) 29.37 29.76 30.73 L Wt. of Tare & Dry Sample (g) 26.05 26.05 26.53 T Wt. of Tare (g) 15.46 15.30 15.26 1 Wt. of Water (g) 3.3 3.7 4.2 P Wt. of Dry Sample (g) 10.6 10.8 11.3 O 1 Moisture Content {°I°} 31.4 34.5 37.3 N Number of Blows 35 25 15 T Plastic Limit Test 1 2 Range Test Results Tare Number A-C U Liquid Limit {°Ioj 34 Wt. of Tare & Wet Sample (g) 22.05 22.12 Wt. of Tare & Dry Sample (g) 20.99 20.99 Plastic Limit {°Ioj 20 Wt. of Tare (g) 15.59 15.19 Wt. of Water (g) 1.1 1.1 Plasticity Index°I°} 14 Wt. of Dry Sample (g) 5.4 5.8 USCS Symbol CL Moisture Content°I°j 19.6 19.5 0.1 Note: The acceptable range of the two Moisture contents is ± 2.6 3B 37 36 e 35 C e 34 0 233 32 31 30 Flow Curve J J 1 10 Number of Blows J Tested By B W Date 6110114 6❑ 50 40 x 61 c 30 A i6 20 a 10 0 Plasticity Chart CL i CH MH ML 100 p 20 40 60 80 100 CL- ML Liquid Limit (%) Checked By GEM Date 6/12/14 page 1 of 9 DCN: CT-S413 DATE: 3/13113 REVISION: 4 3piimit.xls 2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone (919) 876-0405 • Fax (919) 876-0460 • www.geotechnics.net Client Client Reference Project No. Lab ID SIEVE ANALYSIS ASTM ❑ 422-63 (2007) BLACKROCK ENGINEERS, INC. ROXBORO LAM - PH 7-9 2014-666-02 2014-666-02-01 Geotechnics geotechnicaI & geosynthetic Testing Boring No. P-109 Depth (ft) 0-2 Sample No. S1 Soil Color BROWN iuscs SIEVE ANALYSIS HYDROMETER I gravel sand I silt and clay 12" 6" 3" 314" 318" #4 #10 #20 #40 9140 4200 'I00 90 80 70 m 60 .m m c ii c 40 m a 30 20 i 10 0 1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 Particle Diameter (mm) USCS Symhoi CL, TESTED USCS Ciassificafion SANDYLEA N CLAY Tested By SD Date 6/10/14 Checked By GEM Date 6/12/14 page 1 of 2 I)CH: CT-SK DATE 6-2558 REVISIONM4 PROJECTSl2014-666 BL4CKROCK ROXBORO PH- 7-9M14-066-02-01 SIEVOH REV 4.x1sJSheet1 2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone (919) 876-0405 • Fax (919) 876-0460 • www.geotechnics.net WASH SIEVE ANALYSIS ASTM D 422-63 (2007) Client BLACKROCK ENGINEERS, INC. Boring No. Client Reference ROXBORO LAM - PH 7-9 Depth (ft) Project No. 2014-666-02 Sample No. Lab I❑ 2014-666-02-01 Soil Color Geotechnics geotechnical & geosynthetic Testing P-109 0-2 Si BROWN Moisture Content of Pass in g 314" Material Water Content of Retained 314" Material Tare No. 164 Tare No. NA Wgt.Tare + Wet Specimen (gm) 721.53 Wgt.Tare + Wet Specimen (gm) NA Wgt.Tare + Dry Specimen (gm) 635.22 Wgt.Tare + Dry Specimen (gm) NA Weight of Tare (gm) 241.67 Weight of Tare (gm) NA Weight of Water (gm) 86.31 Weight of Water (gm) NA Weight of Dry Soil (gm) 393.55 Weight of Dry Soil (gm) NA Moisture Content % 21.9 Moisture Content % NA Wet Weight -314" Sample (gm) NA Weight of the Dry Specimen (gm) 393.55 Dry Weight - 314" Sample (gm) 194.1 Weight of minus #200 material (gm) 199.43 Wet Weight +314" Sample (gm) NA Weight of plus #200 material (gm) 194.12 Dry Weight + 314" Sample (gm) 0.00 Total Dry Weight Sample (gm) NA Sieve Size Sieve Opening (mm) Wgt.of Soil Retained (gm) Percent Retained (%) Accumulated Percent Retained (%) Percent Finer (%) Accumulated Percent Finer (%) 12" 300 0.00 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 6" 150 0.00 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 3" 75 0.00 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 2" 50 0.00 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 1112" 37.5 0.00 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 1" 25.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 314" 19.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 112" 12.50 8.55 2.2 2.2 97.8 97.8 318" 9.50 4.52 1.1 3.3 96.7 96.7 #4 4.75 16.14 4.1 7.4 92.6 92.6 #10 2.00 26.18 6.7 14.1 85.9 85.9 #20 0.850 29.06 7.4 21.5 78.5 78.5 #40 0.425 20.41 5.2 26.6 73.4 73.4 #60 0.250 21.44 5.4 32.1 67.9 67.9 #140 0.106 48.54 12.3 44.4 55.6 55.6 #200 0.075 19.28 4.9 49.3 50.7 50.7 Pan - 199.43 50.7 100.0 - - Tested By S❑ Date 6/10114 Checked By GEM Date 6/12/14 page 2 of 2 DCN: USK DATE 6-25-98 REVISIONkMl4 PROJECTSl2014-666 BLRCKROCKROXBORO PH. 7-91j2014-666-02-01 SIEVON REV 4.xIsJSheet1 2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone (919) 876-0405 • Fax (919) 876-0460 • www.geotechnics.net June 18, 2014 Project No. 2014-666-04 Gary W. Ahlberg, P.E. BlackRock Engineers, Inc. 5102 Wrightsville Avenue Wilmington, NC 28403 910.232.6696 Cc: Bill Lupi e�technics geotechnical & geosynthetic testing Transmittal Laboratory Test Results Roxboro Landfill Phase 7-9 Please find attached the laboratory test results for the above referenced project. The tests were outlined on the Project Verification Form that was transmitted to your firm prior to the testing. The testing was performed in general accordance with the methods listed an the enclosed data sheets. The test results are believed to be representative of the samples that were submitted for testing and are indicative only of the specimens which were evaluated. We have no direct knowledge of the origin of the samples and imply no position with regard to the nature of the test results, i.e. pass/fail and no claims as to the suitability of the material for its intended use. The test data and all associated project information provided shall be held in strict confidence and disclosed to other parties only with authorization by our Client. The test data submitted herein is considered integral with this report and is not to be reproduced except in whole and only with the authorization of the Client and Geotechnics. The remaining sample materials for this project will be retained for a minimum of 90 days as directed by the Geotechnics' Quality Program. We are pleased to provide these testing services. Should you have any questions or if we may be of further assistance, please contact our office. Respectively submitted, Geotechnics, Inc. Michael P. Smith Regional Manager We understand that you have a choice in your laboratory services and we thank you for choosing Geotechnics. DCN- Data Tmxi ftfal Latter Date: I128105 R"-- I 2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone (919) 876-0405 • Fax (919) 876-0460 • www.geotechnics.net eotechnics geotechnicaI & geosynthetic Testing MOISTURE CONTENT ASTM D 2216-10 Client: BLACKROCK ENGINEERS, INC. Client Reference: ROXBORO LAM - PH. 7-9 Project No.: 2014-666-04 Lab ID: 001 002 003 004 005 Boring No.: P-138 P-138 P-138 P-138 P-138 Depth (ft): 0-2 24 4-6 6-8 8-10 Sample No.: S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 Tare Number B-2 C-2 P-1 M-1 R-1 Wt. of Tare & Wet Sample (g) 89.40 81.91 83.99 77.38 71.65 Wt. of Tare & Dry Sample (g) 79.91 71.58 75.50 69.09 65.31 Weight of Tare (g) 22.07 22.02 22.01 15.98 22.00 Weight of Water (g) 9.49 10.33 8.49 8.29 6.34 Weight of Dry Sample (g) 57.84 49.56 53.49 53.11 43.31 Water Content°Io) 16.4 20.8 15.9 15.6 14.6 Lab ID 006 007 008 009 010 Boring No. P-138 P-138 P-138 P-138 P-138 Depth (ft) 14-16 19-21 24-26 29-31 34-34.8 Sample No. S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 Tare Number N-1 V-1 B-1 A-5 E-20 Wt. of Tare & Wet Sample (g) 71.64 96.12 77.65 98.10 92.30 Wt. of Tare & Dry Sample (g) 67.36 91.94 68.90 91.36 85.57 Weight of Tare (g) 15.70 21.95 15.78 21.75 21.89 Weight of Water (g) 4.28 4.18 8.75 6.74 6.73 Weight of Dry Sample (g) 51.66 69.99 53.12 69.61 63.68 Water Content°/°j 8.3 6.0 16.5 9.7 10.6 Notes : Tested By SFS Date 6113114 Checked By GEM Date 6116114 page 1 of 1 DCN: CTS1 DATE: 3118113 REVISION: 4 2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone (919) 876-0405 • Fax (919) 876-0460 • www.geotechnics.net Geotechnics geotechnicaI & geosynthetic Testing ATTERBERG LIMITS ASTM D 4318-101 AASHTO T89-10 Client: BLACKROCK ENGINEERS, INC. Boring No.: P-138 Client Reference: ROXBORO LAM - PH. 7-9 Depth (ft): 2-4 Project No.: 2014-666-04 Sample No.: S2 Lab ID: 2014-666-04-02 Soil Description: TAN SILT Note: The USCS symbol used with this test refers only to the minus No. 40 { Minus No. 40 sieve material, Airdried} sieve marer►ai. see me -sreve ana r►yaromererRnarys►s- graph page ror me comp►ere marerrar aescripr►on Liquid Limit Test 1 2 3 M Tare Number A-L W A-N U Wt. of Tare & Wet Sample (g) 27.69 28.04 28.44 L Wt. of Tare & Dry Sample (g) 24.71 24.79 25.08 T Wt. of Tare (g) 15.56 15.19 15.47 1 Wt. of Water (g) 3.0 3.3 3.4 P Wt. of Dry Sample (g) 9.2 9.6 9.6 0 1 Moisture Content °I°} 32.6 33.9 35.0 N Number of Blows 35 26 16 T Plastic Limit Test 1 2 Range Test Results Tare Number B2 3M Liquid Limit {°Ioj 34 Wt. of Tare & Wet Sample (g) 22.52 22.85 Wt. of Tare & Dry Sample (g) 21.07 21.37 Plastic Limit {°Ioj 26 Wt. of Tare (g) 15.41 15.58 Wt. of Water (g) 1.5 1.5 Plasticity Index°I°} 8 Wt. of Dry Sample (g) 5.7 5.8 USCS Symbol ML Moisture Content °I°j 25.6 25.6 0.1 Note: The acceptable range of the two Moisture contents is ± 2.6 36 35 35 e C34 C 0 034 33 33 32 Flow Curve 1 10 Number of Blows J Tested By B W Date 6116114 6❑ 50 40 d c 30 a �c 20 a 10 Plasticity Chart CL CH MH ML 100 ❑ 20 40 60 80 100 CL- ML Liquid Limit t%j Checked By GEM Date 6/17114 page 1 of 9 DCN: CT-S413 DATE: 3/13113 REVISION: 4 3puimit.xls 2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone (919) 876-0405 • Fax (919) 876-0460 • www.geotechnics.net Client Client Reference Project No. Lab ID SIEVE AND HYDROMETER ANALYSIS ASTM D 422-63 (2607) BLACKROCK ENGINEERS, INC. Boring No. P-138 ROXBOR❑ LAM - PH. 7-9 Depth (ft) 2-4 2014-666-04 Sample No. S-2 2014-666-04-02 Soil Color TAN SIEVE ANALYSIS HYDROMETER [USCS cobbles gravel sand silt and clay fraction [USDA cobbles gravel sand silt I clay 12" 6" 3" 2" V. 314" 318" " #10 #20 #40 #60 9140 #200 100 90 80 70 t rn Z 60 T m 50 LL w m 40 U Q a 30 20 10 0 1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 Particle Diameter (mm) Sieve Sizes mm USCS Summary Percentage Greater Than #4 Gravel 17.64 #4 To #206 Sand 32.88 Finer Than #203 Silt & Clay 49.48 USCS Symbol SC-SM, TESTED USCS Classification SILTY. CLAYEYSAAID WITH GRAVEL page 1 of 4 DCN: CT-530R DATE: h26.13 REVI510N: 8 T-12014 PROJECTS12014-066BL4CKROCKROXBORO PH. 7-YV2014-666-0.3-01 SIEVEHYQ14.xfsjSheetl USDA CLASSIFICATION CHART Client BLACKROCK ENGINEERS, INC. Boring No. P-138 Client Reference ROXBORO LAM - PH. 7-9 Depth (ft) 2-4 Project No. 2014-666-04 Sample No. S-2 Lab I❑ 2014-666-04-02 Soil Color TAN 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 le PERCENT SAND Particle Size (mm) Percent Finer USDA SUMMARY Actual Percentage Corrected % of Minus 2.0 mm material for USDA Classificat. Gravel 19.32 0.00 2 80.68 Sand 37.73 46.77 0.05 42.94 Silt 30.07 37.27 0.002 12.88 Clay 12.88 15.96 USDA Classification: LOAM page 2 of 4 DCN: CT-S30R DATE:7126113 REVISION:8 T.U014 PROJECTS 0014-666 S ACKROCK ROXBORO PH. 7-gV2014-666-03-01 SIEVEHYDf0.x1s)SheeH WASH SIEVE ANALYSIS ASTM D 422-63 (2007) Client BLACKROCK ENGINEERS, INC. Client Reference ROXBORO LAM - PH. 7-9 Project No. 2014-666-04 Lab ID 2014-666-04-02 Minus #10 for Hygroscopic Moisture Content Tare No. S-1 Wgt.Tare + Wet Soil (g) 37.60 Wgt.Tare + Dry Soil (g) 34.08 Weight of Tare (g) 15.65 Weight of Water (g) 3.52 Weight of Dry Soil (g) 18.43 Moisture Content Boring No. P-138 Depth (ft) 2-4 Sample No. S-2 Soil Color TAN Hydrometer Specimen Data Air Dried - #10 Hydrometer Material (g) Corrected Dry Wt. of - #10 Material (g) Weight of - #200 Material (g) Weight of - #10 ; + #200 Material (g) 19.1 J-FACTOR (%FINER THAN #1 Soil Specimen Data Tare No. 153 Wgt.Tare + Air Dry Soil (g) 997.75 Weight of Tare (g) 240.76 Air Dried Wgt. Total Sample (g) 756.99 Total Dry Sample Weight (g) 655.92 Dry Weight of Material Retained on #10 (g) Corrected Dry Sample Wt - #10 (g) 58.61 49.21 30.18 19.03 0.8068 126.73 529.19 Sieve Sieve Wgt.of Soil Percent Accumulated Percent Accumulated Size Opening Retained Retained Percent Finer Percent (mm) Retained Finer m °ID % °ID % 12" 300 0.00 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 6" 150 0.00 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 3" 75 0.00 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 2" 50 0.00 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 1112" 37.5 0.00 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 1" 25.0 30.34 4.6 4.6 95.4 95.4 314" 19.0 31.33 4.8 9.4 90.6 90.6 112" 12.5 33.26 5.1 14.5 85.5 85.5 318" 9.50 8.70 1.3 15.8 84.2 84.2 #4 4.75 12.08 1.8 17.6 82.4 82.4 #10 2.00 11.02 1.7 19.3 80.7 80.7 #20 0.85 0.31 0.6 0.6 99.4 80.2 #40 0.425 1.99 4.0 4.7 95.3 76.9 #60 0.250 3.99 8.1 12.8 87.2 70.4 #140 0.106 8.90 18.1 30.9 69.1 55.8 #200 0.075 3.84 7.8 38.7 61.3 49.5 Pan - 30.18 61.3 100.0 - - Notes : Tested By BW Date 6/16/14 Checked By GEM Date 6/16/14 page 3 of 4 DCN: CT-53OR DATE:7126113 REVISION:8 T.U014 PROJECTS 42014-666 SL4CKROCK ROXBORO PH. 7-gV2014-666-03-01 SIEVEHYDf0.xls)Shee11 HYDROMETER ANALYSIS ASTM D 422-63 (2007) Client BLACKROCK ENGINEERS, INC. Client Reference ROXBORO LAM - PH. 7-9 Project No. 2014-666-04 Lab I ❑ 2014-666-04-02 Boring No. P-138 Depth (ft) 2-4 Sample No. S-2 Soil Color TAN Elapsed Time min R Measured Temp. t 0 C ] Composite Correction R Corrected N { °I° y K Factor Diameter (mm ) N' 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 25.5 24.8 3.70 21.8 43.9 0.01270 0.0313 35.4 5 21.5 24.7 3.73 17.8 35.7 0.01272 0.0203 28.8 15 18.0 24.7 3.73 14.3 28.7 0.01272 0.0120 23.2 30 16.0 24.7 3.73 12.3 24.7 0.01272 0.0086 19.9 60 14.0 24.8 3.70 10.3 20.7 0.01270 0.0061 16.7 250 12.0 25.6 3.46 8.5 17.2 0.01259 0.0030 13.9 1440 11.0 24.7 3.73 7.3 14.6 0.01272 0.0013 11.8 Soil Specimen Data Other Corrections Wgt. of Dry Material (g) 49.21 Hygroscopic Moisture Factor 0.840 Weight of ❑eflocculant (g) 5.0 a - Factor 0.99 Percent Finer than # 10 80.68 Specific Gravity 2.70 Assumed Notes Tested By SFSF Date 6/12/14 Checked By GEM Date 6/16/14 page 4 of 4 DCH: CT-530R DATE:7126113 REVI5R7R:8 T.0014 PROJECTS12014-6fi6 SL4CKROCN ROXBORO PH. 7-YV2014-066-03-01 SIEVEHYQ10.x1sjSheetl JI APPENDIX C FRACTURE TRACE ANALYSIS MAPS �aC�3 -Y f �� r o ryMfl W�'Ai�.L:IAI440 �1��Jf"�� f'�J�:,fr/��LLI+-f `�r4�_J♦ j ��,-��r'�= '� c ILA M, LA Jrr • � y � �Y f � � �� ri'� � � I �f Y •� •: Jf � r fF�� I , �'�!!'�' fjr��'f ��t F ��J •jam f r�+ 'f 'f;i 1%.FfG fi F ,}js-f! r.'"� ,(•-��,�1 f-! /�'G 1, �'?'ft/ L / ,.s .�rrt� j��j�, •J,�y` � A ! �r, l I�f,,, �• j' `•s' �+7 f.t/�fl,! j' i'A G ~ '7 Y i f r Ott " * �. ;► r{1�' +r ! JL {lVif' ' f'1 i �� 1 -.{/rF,1J�� /� G Yf FfRr ! }' Gnu. Jr'lff' t ,ff/# '7' 1 w 4' ' 1• - ► r � t � r. i I ,rjf• i� �� ! r'j �, / Y ;��, t � > 11f� � J• ` ! r f � '� r f JA �= rt '•% �'�t G ' 7`Y r�"`'I fi J�• �G '`''f �/,yfsr', f" �� i_ J t^ff r� J"f�l �� ! — 1 —� — 1 - \ � rt �f'?r1'y11� �' ��f�7,.�i1�t �r✓`j�rLy -' f,f/�r.�� r_ l�f�r,{,r.��a., �., � � c f � �; TJ± G r I , t f � ♦ L f k f f 9lrj'{, r/ t f�fi+✓7" ; �l�tG �`F■,}R sf• jGQ 7Y ffjJfs' +ff fit,- /�,��I. J� ��.Iw �ti.l /\ ��ti. 'I r !'' f'fff I✓1 r.{ , {;.��J/�� 1 �\ t� { y 1 �. l� { y 1 �\ f� J 11 �\ t� jjf'Yi.'?}�' I`�%' r,. �f,! J� f� , ♦ ti ti �I 4- ► � � 4-► 4 � 4- ► 4 � 4- ► '�� '•l,J�I�f'��r T till/,-! 1�}Gf s �,r�j'��' ��, /` G Y�` � f`Itfryfy�''�''• �� I. �!• Yrr')fl�.l�'f%r �J '.' llfl ~�_ i ti ; i ; ti ; i ; ti ; r f' +✓ r7 �.♦/�;. ��" (7�l,ff'� J%�Ys °f�`1fl ��./f`yJ ��a'•1 t �f! L ! 1 f! L f A ■ 1 f! ■ f t ! 1 f! L f A ■ t ff yf f, f jftfi /.flfy I tf7 F�J f f�F �, /L l� r i �flp�F % . } G I l I h �►� \ �1 { 1 1 { I \ { rt�iJ / G 'f�i ri �"tt f/j_\ ! • /�♦ ti `y : ' ti' _\ IN �\ ■ �y �\ ■ �y �\ I 't♦`'1 J ff 1 ,�i �� J 1 J ft�/F c 1—► �► l—► k 4 4—► 4 ► 4 ► \ �4—► 1 �4—► �4—► % A- A I I#f ,r { 'f � j ,c� t_ t s �� • L s � l � L s • ~ � 7�1 r a L r ~ � L r ~ � Lr t � { !f f .f �' F � l' 1 ��. r r - • ti I / ! 1 r ti f � / 1 � f ! f � / f � / f � ! ' J��' , Js/1 ffc r rat , /� _. r r r r • 1 . L' _ 1 _ . r \ _ 1 _ ti _ 1 _. ti r 1 G Y f J J f" j ff f ! — ! — f — — — — ! — / ! — — I f f 1 f.,j s� r}. f ,� ff �!_ J, f k f L f► I f L♦►! L - A f \ / r 1' r_ � �f 11 / � f r♦ L f 1 f L♦ A f t f r♦ t f 1 f r♦ t■ k f L �j! 7 �' f" ,�! ,,f ryf. � t ,, t. 1=_ r r � -1, iI. Y ti . ti . . � � Y ti . „ . - ti • . � • / . f ti • . - • • J '{ flG % r,r,�' 1' } 6 f FS+ i`' G j�? I} ,if • \% f 1 \! ^' 1 S 1 ` 1 I y I , /` ,r�, ��'I�tr �" ,r7�y1� J�.F✓ slr�,�ff jlirf/�,_ I y 1 �• ,� y 1 �♦ � I 1 �\Q may- �\ - I y 1 - J 1 1 �\ � : 1 J �• � { 1 J �\ � { 11 �\ t�vj�=flay jf `lf1}t f{f�l fi �t,f L 4- I 1 4' ► t4- r f- �, f �' f F � l� G f " �r. s r• / ► � 1� ► � f� � l � f 1t ► f 1 � r f �+✓`y��t, �j,�t fjf �{ f,,} •�j'/7 fjf ��f f?7J' r� I %,. " t�� t ! � ! r t ! r � 1fL ► ! Gr,ff :J-�`JIr7r' �!"T �,(tf'f7� Iff. �l: J ��+/!_��1�'fYfF! �l ► 1 / � 1 t � W ! t f F 3 � 1` � � ��ti 1 � � L � ti L � i L �T7J I�yf j f JJ _ � 1 � � � � r � y • r � � -��;-j��,j`lft r%��t �jt•ftjf -JirfT'�f ��.,.j fj,�'�7�j'/, }}G _} ,�5'lf�{yj�+f/jj��y _ � � ti 1 � \ 1 _� • . _� 1 � 1 _\ \► 11 till � � y � 11 � � ti � ! 1 ti r ti � 11 ff 'Y 7 _ L. +f' f"/FBI I17t/.. s ��lT { 'rt `%� y Is`{+ rL f Jt ! 1 y1 ' J• ► 1 y\ f JL ! ; f/► ! f 'ri f J► r r f l rlk ti 1 1 �i f JL ■ 1 X f JL ■ 1 1'� fJ► ■ J fl.�' r -' f�7%L/ Ir 1 I lcG ,df� 'J`I ram•.. r,l� 1 /-•. . 1 ♦-•r\1` ti`~{ter 1 {ter\1` 1 {Y \I` {Yl r.� \ {"r �l� {"r `1� {"r �lA \� /s Gf� f7�jyilyJi �_/ }�j>� t I r ♦ / 1 ti♦ � / 1 ti• / ti• � 1 � / 1 � y �\ 1 �♦ / 1 �\ / y �\ / y �\ f ! f `£ ' �fl. f �_Jf,7 ..i. rr�fY �•�i_ I ` ry��f'r�1. f�cr � � 1 � 1 � 1 � 1 � J k J 1 � � J � f � J rr/ 'T !-• � I:.��-f',rt! 9�F -t 4ti�� t i��4-t L-�4-t Mti�'-t ��4 ��1--► ��L-t 1��1-t ��L�► �f�ij�'r� f, �,y L f ► ! f! L f ! ,'! L / ! -f �i ! f! L f ! /iF / i /iF / ! /iF / f /iF / ! •f L f ! f L ! f! 7 J 1 t L L l�- L l L L L L L L L 1 L t t k t I �JNE„~rl~J\F„�rl�J~r tiJ y`r tiJ vtir tiJ ytir tiJ V�r tiJ y�r tiJ N .tiJ �.. J �. r-_Fy{ 1 ti\ r \ / 1 ti• r � / 1 ti\ r \1 / y \ ti• t \1 / 1 � ti• r \1 J i , ti• r \1 / 1 � ti• r �� / y � ti• r \1 / y � �I r 1 \\1 y ��I / y N ti\ r \1 J y , ti\ r �I { y , ti• �� w l- L 1• w 4- t �~ w l- t I� w 4- t k ti w 4- t � w 4- t k� w 4- ��` A 4- t i� I� w 4- L 4- t I� w 4- L 1 ti A 4- L 1 � A 4 f i 'o r o f 'o f!\1tflff\♦t■4ZiF /►flf!\!t!_4f!\/Ls 4f!\/►!lf!\!L■lf!\!►!lf!\!L■lf!\♦t■If!\/k■If!\fA■tf!\ft■lf!\f7■ fl _!\li.\.f`I�ti��.f•li.�F.!•liti~��!\liti��.f•Iiti�F�ftliti��.f•liti��.ttlJti\f�ftliti�F�ttIJ1`f�tt1J1�{�/\I