Weatherspoon GW Assessment Plan REV1

Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
W.H. Weatherspoon Power 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 ......................................................................................... 18
6.1 Compliance Monitoring Well Groundwater Analytical Results ...................... 18
6.2 Preliminary Statistical Evaluation Results ........................................................... 19
6.3 Additional Site Data ................................................................................................ 20
7.0 Assessment Work Plan................................................................................................. 22
7.1 Subsurface Exploration ........................................................................................... 23
Ash and Soil Borings ......................................................................................... 24 7.1.1
Groundwater Monitoring Wells ...................................................................... 27 7.1.2
7.1.2.1 Background Wells ..................................................................................... 29
7.1.2.2 Ash Basin .................................................................................................... 29
7.1.2.3 Downgradient Assessment Areas ........................................................... 29
Well Completion and Development ............................................................... 30 7.1.3
Hydraulic Evaluation Testing .......................................................................... 32 7.1.4
7.2 Ash Pore Water and Groundwater Sampling and Analysis.............................. 33
7.3 Surface Water, Sediment, and Seep Sampling ..................................................... 36
Surface Water Samples ...................................................................................... 36 7.3.1
Sediment Samples .............................................................................................. 37 7.3.2
Seep Samples ...................................................................................................... 37 7.3.3
7.4 Field and Sampling Quality Assurance/Quality Control Procedures .............. 37
Page i
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment
Plans\Weatherspoon\Weatherspoon GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx
Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra

Field Logbooks ................................................................................................... 38 7.4.1
Field Data Records ............................................................................................. 38 7.4.2
Sample Identification ......................................................................................... 38 7.4.3
Field Equipment Calibration ............................................................................ 38 7.4.4
Sample Custody Requirements ........................................................................ 40 7.4.5
Quality Assurance and Quality Control Samples ......................................... 41 7.4.6
Decontamination Procedures ........................................................................... 42 7.4.7
7.5 Influence of Pumping Wells on Groundwater System ....................................... 43
7.6 Site Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model ................................................................. 43
7.7 Site-Specific Background Concentrations............................................................. 44
7.8 Groundwater Fate and Transport Model ............................................................. 45
MODFLOW/MT3D Model ................................................................................ 45 7.8.1
Development of Kd Terms ............................................................................... 47 7.8.2
MODFLOW/MT3D Modeling Process ............................................................ 49 7.8.3
Hydrostratigraphic Layer Development ........................................................ 50 7.8.4
Domain of Conceptual Groundwater Flow Model ....................................... 51 7.8.5
Potential Modeling of Groundwater Impacts to Surface Water ................. 52 7.8.6
8.0 Risk Assessment ............................................................................................................ 54
8.1 Human Health Risk Assessment ........................................................................... 54
Site-Specific Risk-Based Remediation Standards .......................................... 55 8.1.1
8.2 Ecological Risk Assessment .................................................................................... 57
9.0 CSA Report ..................................................................................................................... 60
10.0 Proposed Schedule........................................................................................................ 62
11.0 References ....................................................................................................................... 63

List of Figures
Figure 1 - Site Location Map
Figure 2 - Site Layout Map
Figure 3 - Geology Map
Figure 4 - Water Level Map - June 2014
Figure 5 - Proposed Monitoring Well and Sample Location Map

Page ii
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment
Plans\Weatherspoon\Weatherspoon GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx
Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra

List of Tables
Table 1 - Groundwater Monitoring Requirements
Table 2 - Exceedances of 2L Standards
Table 3 - SPLP Leaching Analytical Results
Table 4 - Groundwater Analytical Results
Table 5 - Soil and Ash Analytical Results
Table 6 - Surface Water Analytical Results
Table 7 - Ash Basin Pore Water Analytical Results
Table 8 - Seep Analytical Results
Table 9 - Environmental Exploration and Sampling Plan
Table 10 - Soil, Sediment, and Ash Parameters and Analytical Methods
Table 11 - Ash Pore Water, Groundwater, Surface Water, and Seep Parameters and
Analytical Methods

List of Appendices
Appendix A - NCDENR Letter of August 13, 2014
Appendix B - Excerpts from S&ME Field Exploration Data Report-Progress Energy-
Weatherspoon Plant Ash Pond (June 11, 2012)

Page iii
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment
Plans\Weatherspoon\Weatherspoon GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx
Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Duke Energy Progress, Inc. (Duke Energy), owns and operates the W.H. Weatherspoon
Power plant (Weatherspoon Plant), located near Lumberton, in Robeson County, North
Carolina. The coal ash residue from the coal combustion process was placed in the
Plant’s ash basin, which is 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 voluntary groundwater monitoring around the ash basins
from December 2006 until March 2010. The voluntary groundwater monitoring wells
were sampled two times each year and the analytical results were submitted to DWR.
Groundwater monitoring as required by the NPDES permit began in 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 from the ash basin.
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
Division of Water Resources (DWR) requested that Duke Energy prepare a
Groundwater Assessment Plan to identify the source and cause of possible
contamination, any potential hazards to public health and safety and actions taken to
mitigate them, and all receptors and complete exposure pathways. In addition, the plan
should determine the horizontal and vertical extent of possible 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. This work plan has also been prepared to fulfill
the requirements stipulated in Coal Ash Management Act 2014 – North Carolina Senate
Bill 729 (August, 2014).
The following plan includes;
• Implementation of a receptor survey to identify public and private water supply
wells (including irrigation well and unused or abandoned wells), surface water
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment
Plans\Weatherspoon\Weatherspoon GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx

Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra

features, and wellhead protection areas (if present) within a 0.5 mile radius of the
Weatherspoon Plant ash basins compliance boundary;
• Installation of borings within the ash basins for chemical and geotechnical
analysis of residuals and in-place soils;
• Installation of soil borings;
• Installation of monitoring wells;
• Collection and analysis of groundwater and ash pore water samples from
existing site monitoring wells and newly installed monitoring wells;
• Collection and analysis of surface water, seep, and sediment samples;
• Statistical evaluation of groundwater analytical data;
• Development of a groundwater computer model to evaluate the long term fate
and transport of constituents of concern in groundwater associated with the ash
basin; and
• 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 Weatherspoon Plant including;
• The detection of arsenic in well CW-3 during the June 2014 sampling event.
• Additional borings are proposed in the ash basin.
• Additional wells are proposed that will be screened at the base of the surficial
aquifer to characterize the vertical extent of possible contamination.
• Water and sediment samples will be collected from the ditch bordering the north
and east sides of the ash basin.
• An additional well cluster will be located to the east of the ash basin.
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment
Plans\Weatherspoon\Weatherspoon GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx

Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Duke Energy Progress, Inc. (Duke Energy), owns and operates the W.H. Weatherspoon
Power plant (Weatherspoon Plant), located near Lumberton, in Robeson County, North
Carolina (Figure 1). The operations included coal-fired electricity-generating units until
they were retired in October 2011. The coal ash residue from the coal combustion
process was placed in the Plant’s ash basin. The discharge from the ash basin to the
Lumber River is permitted by the North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (NCDENR) Division of Water Resources (DWR) under the National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System.
Duke Energy has performed voluntary groundwater monitoring around the ash basins
from December 2006 until March 2010. The voluntary groundwater monitoring wells
were sampled two times each year and the analytical results were submitted to DWR.
Groundwater monitoring as required by the NPDES permit began in 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 from the ash basin.
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 stated
in NPDES Permit #NC0005363 beginning in November 2010. Elevated concentrations of
iron, cadmium, thallium, and manganese have been measured in groundwater samples
collected at monitoring wells BW-1, CW-1, CW-2, and CW-3, when compared to the
North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC) Title 15A Chapter 02L.0202 groundwater
quality standards (2L Standards).
The compliance boundary for groundwater quality for the Weatherspoon ash basin is
defined in accordance with NCAC Title 15A Chapter 02L.0107(a) (T15 A NCAC 02L
.0107(a)) as being established at either 500 feet from the waste boundary or at the
property boundary, whichever is closest to the waste. Monitoring wells CW-1, CW-2,
and CW-3 are located at or near the downgradient compliance boundary. The location
of the monitoring wells is shown on Figure 2. Well BW-1 is located northwest of the
ash basin and is currently considered the upgradient background well. Analytical
Page 1
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment
Plans\Weatherspoon\Weatherspoon GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx

Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra

results from sampling these wells are submitted to NCDENR no later than the last
working day of the month following the sampling month.
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
to conduct a Comprehensive Site Assessment (CSA) in accordance with 15A NCAC 02L
.0106(g) to address groundwater constituents that appear to have elevated values
greater than 2L groundwater quality standards at the compliance boundary. A copy of
the DWR letter is provided in Appendix A.
The Coal Ash Management Act (CAMA) 2014 – General Assembly of North Carolina
Senate Bill 729 Ratified Bill (Session 2013) (SB 729) revised North Carolina General
Statute 130A-309.209(a) to require the following:
(a) Groundwater Assessment of Coal Combustion Residuals Surface Impoundments.
– The owner of a coal combustion residuals surface impoundment shall conduct
groundwater monitoring and assessment as provided in this subsection. The
requirements for groundwater monitoring and assessment set out in this subsection are
in addition to any other groundwater monitoring and assessment requirements
applicable to the owners of coal combustion residuals surface impoundments.
(1) No later than December 31, 2014, the owner of a coal combustion residuals
surface impoundment shall submit a proposed Groundwater Assessment Plan for
the impoundment to the Department for its review and approval. The
Groundwater Assessment Plan shall, at a minimum, provide for all of the
following:
a. A description of all receptors and significant exposure pathways.
b. An assessment of the horizontal and vertical extent of soil and
groundwater contamination for all contaminants confirmed to be present
in groundwater in exceedance of groundwater quality standards.
c. A description of all significant factors affecting movement and transport
of contaminants.
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.
Page 2
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment
Plans\Weatherspoon\Weatherspoon GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx

Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra

(2) The Department shall approve the Groundwater Assessment Plan if it determines
that the Plan complies with the requirements of this subsection and will be
sufficient to protect public health, safety, and welfare; the environment; and
natural resources.
(3) No later than 10 days from approval of the Groundwater Assessment Plan, the
owner shall begin implementation of the Plan.
(4) No later than 180 days from approval of the Groundwater Assessment Plan, the
owner shall submit a Groundwater Assessment Report to the Department. The
Report shall describe all exceedances of groundwater quality standards associated
with the impoundment.
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 Weatherspoon 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 Weatherspoon
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 purpose is to provide 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.
Page 3
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment
Plans\Weatherspoon\Weatherspoon GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx

Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra

The work proposed in this plan will provide the information sufficient to satisfy the
requirements of the CAMA and the NORR. However, uncertainties may still exist due
to the following factors:
• The natural variations and the complex nature of the geological and
hydrogeological characteristics involved with understanding the movement,
chemical, and physical character of the contaminants;
• The size of the site;
• The time frame mandated by the CAMA. Site assessments are most effectively
performed in a multi-phase approach where data obtained in a particular phase
of the investigation can be reviewed and used to refine the subsequent phases of
investigation. The mandated 180-day time frame may prevent this approach
from being utilized; 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\Weatherspoon\Weatherspoon GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx

Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra

2.0 SITE INFORMATION
2.1 Plant Description
The Weatherspoon Plant is a former coal-fired electricity-generating facility located in
Robeson County, North Carolina, near the city of Lumberton. The location of the Plant
is shown on Figure 1. The Weatherspoon Plant started operations in 1949. Two
additional coal-fired units were added in the 1950s. Four oil and natural gas fueled
combustion turbines were added in the 1970s.
As of October 2011, all of the coal-fired units were retired. The four oil and natural gas
fueled units continue to operate to meet peak demand. The facility is located southeast
of Lumberton on the east side of North Carolina Highway 72. The topography around
the property generally slopes downward toward the Lumber River.
The Weatherspoon Plant utilizes an approximate 225-acre cooling pond located adjacent
to the Lumber River. The ash basin is located north of the cooling pond, northeast of
the Plant (Figure 2).
2.2 Ash Basin Description
The Plant, cooling pond, and ash basin are located on the east side of the Lumber River.
There is a single ash basin present at the site, which is located north of the cooling pond,
northeast of the Plant, as shown on Figure 2. The ash basin consists of approximately
55 acres and contains approximately 1,700,000 tons of ash (Duke Energy, October 31,
2014). Ash is no longer generated at the site and Duke Energy is in the process of
evaluating closure options for the ash basin. The 500 foot compliance boundary circles
the ash basin.
Circa 1949 to 1955, ash was sluiced to a low area that was eventually encompassed by the
existing ash basin. Therefore, no other areas of ash exist at the Plant. The ash basin was
constructed in phases using a combination of basin excavation and earthen dike
construction beginning in 1955. Additional excavation and earthen dikes were
constructed to the south of the original basin as the Plant expanded and ash volume
increased. The last of the perimeter earthen dikes was constructed in 1979. The basin
was also expanded vertically in the northern portion of the basin by the use of interior
dikes constructed of ash. Interior ash dike construction began in 2001 (S&ME, 2012).
Ash historically generated from coal combustion was stored on-site in the ash basin or
ash basin area via sluicing. No other types of waste are believed to have been placed in
the ash basin other than permitted infrequent low volume wastes. Overflow from the
ash basin occurred at the northeast corner of the cooling pond, which is within the 500
foot compliance boundary. According to Duke, ash has not been stored or placed
Page 5
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment
Plans\Weatherspoon\Weatherspoon GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx

Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra

elsewhere on or near the site other than possible de minimis quantities at unknown
locations.
The Weatherspoon Plant NPDES permit (NC005363) authorizes the discharge of
recirculated cooling water, ash sluice water (from the ash basin), domestic wastewater,
chemical metal cleaning water, and categorical low volume wastewater from the
cooling pond via NPDES Outfall 001 to the Lumber River under severe weather
conditions and cooling pond maintenance.
2.3 Regulatory Requirements
The NPDES program regulates wastewater discharges to surface waters. The
Weatherspoon Plant is permitted to discharge wastewater under NPDES Permit
NC0005363. The permit authorizes the discharge of recirculated cooling water, ash
sluice water, domestic wastewater, chemical metal cleaning water, and categorical low
volume wastewater from the cooling pond via NPDES Outfall 001 to the Lumber River
under severe weather conditions and pond maintenance in accordance with effluent
limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions set forth in the permit.
The NPDES permitting program requires that permits be renewed every five years. The
most recent NPDES permit renewal for the Weatherspoon Plant became effective on
January 1, 2010. In accordance with the NPDES program, groundwater monitoring is
also required. These monitoring requirements are provided in Table 1.
The compliance boundary for groundwater quality at the Weatherspoon Plant ash basin
is defined in accordance with Title15A NCAC 02L .0107(a) as being established at either
500 feet from the waste boundary or at the property boundary, whichever is closer to
the waste. The location of the ash basin compliance monitoring wells, the ash basin
waste boundary, and the compliance boundary are shown on Figure 2.
Four wells comprise the compliance monitoring well network at the Weatherspoon
Plant. These wells include one background well (BW-1) and three compliance wells
(CW-1, CW-2, and CW-3). The locations of the compliance monitoring wells, the waste
boundary, and the compliance boundary are shown on Figure 2.
Monitoring well BW-1 currently represents background groundwater quality, north of
the ash basin. The compliance boundary well for the east side of the ash basin is CW-3.
Monitoring well CW-1 is the compliance boundary well for the south side of the ash
basin, and monitoring well CW-2 is the downgradient compliance boundary well to the
southeast of the ash basin.
Page 6
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment
Plans\Weatherspoon\Weatherspoon GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx

Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra

The monitoring wells are sampled three times per year in March, June, and October for
the parameters listed below (Table 1). The analytical results for the monitoring
program are compared to the 2L Standards and the site-specific background
concentrations. A summary of the detected concentration ranges for constituents
detected at concentrations greater than the 2L Standards through June 2014 is provided
in Table 2.
TABLE 1 Groundwater Monitoring Requirements
Well
Nomenclature Parameter Description Frequency
Monitoring
Wells BW-1,
CW-1, CW-2,
CW-3
Antimony Chromium Nickel Thallium
March, June,
and October
Arsenic Copper Nitrate Water Level
Barium Iron pH Zinc
Boron Lead Selenium
Cadmium Manganese Sulfate
Chloride Mercury TDS
Page 7
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment
Plans\Weatherspoon\Weatherspoon GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx

Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra

3.0 RECEPTOR INFORMATION
The August 13, 2014 NORR states:
No later than October 14th, 2014 as authorized pursuant to 15A NCAC 02L.0106(g),
the DWR is requesting that Duke perform a receptor survey at each of the subject
facilities and submitted to the DWR. The receptor survey is required by 15A NCAC 02L
.0106(g) and shall include identification of all receptors within a radius of 2,640 feet
(one-half mile) from the established compliance boundary identified in the respective
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. Receptors shall
include, but shall not be limited to, public and private water supply wells (including
irrigation wells and unused or abandoned wells) and surface water features within one-
half mile of the facility compliance boundary. For those facilities for which Duke has
already submitted a receptor survey, please update your submittals to ensure they meet
the requirements stated in this letter and referenced attachments and submit them with
the others. If they do not meet these requirements, you must modify and resubmit the
plans.
The results of the receptor survey shall be presented on a sufficiently scaled map. The
map shall show the coal ash facility location, the facility property boundary, the waste
and compliance boundaries, and all monitoring wells listed in the respective NPDES
permits. Any identified water supply wells shall be located on the map and shall have the
well owner's name and location address listed on a separate Table that can be matched to
its location on the map.
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 Weatherspoon 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, NC OneMap GeoSpatial Portal, DWR Source Water Assessment
Program (SWAP) online database, county geographic information system,
Environmental Data Resources, Inc. Records Review, the United States Geological
Survey 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\Weatherspoon\Weatherspoon GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx

Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra

The second report submitted in November 2014 (Supplement to Drinking Water Well and
Receptor Survey) supplemented the initial report with additional information obtained
from questionnaires sent to owners of property within the 0.5 mile radius of the
compliance boundary. The report included a sufficiently scaled map showing the ash
basin location, the facility property boundary, the waste and compliance boundaries, all
monitoring wells, and the approximate location of identified water supply wells. A
table presented available information about identified wells including the owner's
name, address of well location with parcel number, construction and usage data, and
the approximate distance from the compliance boundary.
During the groundwater assessment, it is anticipated that additional information will
become available regarding potential receptors. SynTerra will update the receptor
information as necessary, in general 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\Weatherspoon\Weatherspoon GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx

Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra

4.0 REGIONAL GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY
Geographically, the Weatherspoon Plant lies within the Coastal Plain Physiographic
Province (North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development, 1985).
The North Carolina Coastal Plain is approximately 90 to 150 miles wide from the
Atlantic Ocean westward to its boundary with the Piedmont province (Winner and
Coble, 1989). Two natural subdivisions of the Coastal Plain were described by Stuckey
(1965): the Tidewater region and the Inner Coastal Plain. The Weatherspoon Plant is
located within the Inner Coastal Plain, which consists of the gently rolling land surface
between the Tidewater region and the Fall Line (Winner and Coble, 1989). The
Weatherspoon Plant is located within a subdivision of the Inner Coastal Plain that is
typified by swampy areas in the flat uplands between major river systems. The
Weatherspoon Plant is located on the east side of the Lumber River. Jacob Creek flows
toward the Lumber River along the eastern edge of the cooling pond.
The Coastal Plain comprises a wedge shaped sequence of stratified marine and non-
marine sedimentary rocks deposited on crystalline basement. The sedimentary
sequences range in age from recent to lower Cretaceous (Winner and Coble, 1989). In
this region, units of confined aquifers divided by confining layers overlay the crystalline
bedrock. These confined aquifers consist of laterally continuous silt and clay rich
layers. The Lower Cape Fear and Upper Cape Fear aquifers are depicted as the lower-
most marine sediment units in the Robeson County area (USGS 1989). The Upper Cape
Fear aquifer is overlain by a semi-confining unit that separates the Upper Cape Fear
aquifer from the overlying Black Creek aquifer. A semi-confining unit over the Black
Creek aquifer separates the Black Creek aquifer from the overlying Peedee aquifer. In
this region, the semi-confining unit between the Peedee aquifer and the overlying
Yorktown and/or Coastal Plain deposits that comprise the surficial aquifer is
discontinuous. A portion of the regional geologic map is included as Figure 3 to
provide general geologic conditions at for the Weatherspoon site. A site-specific
geologic map will be prepared as part of the final CSA report incorporating data
obtained from investigation activities.
The surficial aquifer is Quaternary in age and primarily composed of sands with inter-
bedded silts and clays. The Yorktown Formation is of the Tertiary Era and generally
consists of fine-grained sands, shell material, and bluish gray silts and clays. The
contact between the Yorktown and the underlying Peedee may represent an erosion
unconformity. Cretaceous in age, the Peedee formation generally consists of gray or
light brown, silty, fine to very fine grained quartz sand with traces of glauconite,
Page 10
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment
Plans\Weatherspoon\Weatherspoon GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx

Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra

phosphorite, oyster shells, and pyrite. The Black Creek Formation is also considered
Cretaceous in age and generally consists of clay, gray to black, lignitic; contains thin
beds and laminae of fine-grained micaceous sand and thick lenses of cross-bedded
sand. Glauconitic, fossiliferous clayey sand lenses are also reported to exist in the
upper part of the Black Creek Formation. The surficial aquifer is the saturated zone that
underlies the land surface and is generally shallow in the region. It is the first aquifer to
receive recharge from precipitation. This recharge water is stored in the surface aquifer
as the groundwater migrates toward local discharge points (lakes, rivers, streams, etc.).
A portion of the groundwater in the surficial aquifer migrates vertically to recharge
confined to semi-confined aquifers. On average, only a fraction of the surficial aquifer
recharge reaches the confined to semi-confined aquifers (Giese et al., 1997). This finding
is thought to reflect the influence of confining and semi-confining layers and the
substantial amount of time it takes for groundwater to reach these units.
Underlying the surficial aquifer, which has an average thickness of 60 feet in the area, is
the Peedee confining unit, with an average thickness of 25 feet (Giese et al., 1997). The
Peedee aquifer is composed of fine to medium grained sand interbedded with gray to
black marine clay and silt (Giese et al., 1997). Shells are common throughout the
aquifer. The thickness of the aquifer ranges from 10 feet at its eastern edge to greater
than 300 feet thick (Giese et al., 1997).
In the Robeson County part of the North Carolina Coastal Plain, groundwater is
obtained from the surficial, Peedee, Yorktown, and Black Creek aquifers. The Coastal
Plain groundwater system consists of aquifers comprised of permeable sands, gravels,
and limestone separated by confining units of less permeable sediment.
According to Winner and Coble (1989), the surficial aquifer consists primarily of fine
sands, clays, shells, peat beds, and scattered deposits of coarse-grained material in the
form of relic beach ridges and floodplain alluvium. The areal extent of the surficial
aquifer in the Coastal Plain is approximately 25,000 square miles with an average
thickness of 35 feet. Average recharge to the surficial aquifer is between 12 and 20
inches per year. The average estimated hydraulic conductivity is 29 feet per day
(Winner and Coble, 1989).
Page 11
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment
Plans\Weatherspoon\Weatherspoon GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx

Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra

5.0 INITIAL CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL
Information provided in this section forms the basis for the initial conceptual site model
(ICSM and has been developed based on ash source information (Section 2.0), existing
information from routine permit compliance monitoring, voluntary
sampling/monitoring and other site-specific data (e.g. site observations, topography,
boring logs, well construction records, etc.) summarized in Section 6.0, and the geologic
and hydrogeologic framework discussed in Section 4.0. Site data on the physical
transport characteristics such as porosity and hydraulic conductivity of the site exists
from the Field Exploration Data Report-Progress Energy-Weatherspoon Plant Ash Pond
(S&ME, June 11, 2012). The sampling and testing proposed in Section 7.0 will provide
additional information on the fate and transport characteristics of the ash basin
materials in groundwater at the site.
The ICSM has been 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
The Plant, cooling pond, and ash basin are located on the east side of the Lumber River.
There is a single ash basin present at the site, which is located north of the cooling pond,
northeast of the Plant, as shown on Figure 2. The ash basin is impounded by an earthen
Page 12
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment
Plans\Weatherspoon\Weatherspoon GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx

Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra

embankment system approximately 6,600 feet long, with a dam height of 28 feet and a
crest height of 12 feet (143 foot elevation) (Dewberry & Davis, 2011). The basin area is
approximately 55 acres and contains approximately 1,700,000 tons of ash (Duke Energy,
October 31, 2014). The basin surface area is approximately 17 acres.
Ash is no longer generated at the site and Duke Energy is in the process of evaluating
closure options for the ash basin. The 500 foot compliance boundary circles the ash
basin.
Circa 1949 to 1955, ash was sluiced to a low area that was eventually encompassed by the
existing ash basin. Therefore, no other areas of ash exist at the Plant. The ash basin was
constructed in phases using a combination of basin excavation and earthen dike
construction beginning in 1955. Additional excavation and earthen dikes were
constructed to the south of the original basin as the Plant expanded and ash volume
increased. The last of the perimeter earthen dikes was constructed in 1979. The basin
was also expanded vertically in the northern portion of the basin by the use of interior
dikes constructed of ash. Interior ash dike construction began in 2001 (S&ME, 2012).
Ash historically generated from coal combustion was stored on-site in the ash basin or
ash basin area via sluicing. No other types of waste are believed to have been placed in
the ash basin other than permitted infrequent low volume wastes. Overflow from the
ash basin occurred at the northeast corner of the cooling pond, which is within the 500
foot compliance boundary. According to Duke, ash has not been stored or placed
elsewhere on or near the site other than possible de minimis quantities at unknown
locations.
The Weatherspoon Plant NPDES permit (NC005363) authorizes the discharge of
recirculated cooling water, ash sluice water (from the ash basin), domestic wastewater,
chemical metal cleaning water, and low volume wastewater from the cooling pond via
NPDES Outfall 001 to the Lumber River under severe weather conditions and cooling
pond maintenance.
5.2 Source Characteristics
Ash in the basin 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
Page 13
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment
Plans\Weatherspoon\Weatherspoon GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx

Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra

1993). Typically 65 percent to 90 percent of fly ash has particle sizes that are less than
0.010 millimeter (mm) in diameter. Bottom ash particle diameters can vary from
approximately 0.05 mm to 38 mm.
The chemical composition of coal ash is determined based on many factors including
the source of the coal, the type of boiler where the combustion occurs (the
thermodynamics of the boiler), and air pollution control technologies employed. The
major elemental composition of fly ash (approximately 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,
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 Stated Environmental Protection Agency’s (US
EPA’s) Proposed Rules Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals From Electric Utilities Federal
Register /Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010, 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 total dissolved solids
(TDS). In selecting the parameters for detection monitoring, US EPA selected
constituents that are present in coal combustion residuals, and would rapidly move
through the subsurface and provide an early detection as to whether contaminants were
migrating from the ash basin.
In the Report to Congress Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels (US EPA 1998),
US EPA presented waste characterization data for CCP 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 US 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 complex. The
mechanisms that affect movement and transport vary by constituent, but, in general, are
Page 14
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment
Plans\Weatherspoon\Weatherspoon GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx

Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra

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. Duke Energy has performed limited leaching analysis on ash
from the basin. This data is presented in Table 3.
Due to the complex nature of the geochemical environment and process in the ash
basin, SynTerra believes that the most useful representation of the potential impacts to
groundwater will be obtained from the sampling and analyses of ash in the basin, from
ash basin pore-water, groundwater, and seep samples 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 nature of the
geochemical environment of the ash basin combined with the geochemical processes
occurring in the soils beneath the ash basin and along the 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 7.8.2. As described
in that section, samples will be collected to develop Kd terms for the various materials
encountered at the site. These Kd terms will be used in the groundwater modeling to
predict concentrations of constituents at the compliance boundary. In addition,
physical material properties related to aquifer geochemistry and fate and transport
modeling will be collected as discussed in Section 7.0 to support the Kd information.
5.3 Hydrogeologic Site Characteristics
As discussed in Section 4.0, the Weatherspoon Plant lies within the Inner subdivision of
the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province of North Carolina, which consists of the
Page 15
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment
Plans\Weatherspoon\Weatherspoon GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx

Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra

gently rolling land surface between the Tidewater region and the Fall Line.
Topography at the site ranges from approximately 140 feet above mean sea level (MSL)
north of the site to approximately 110 feet MSL at the cooling pond to the south and the
Lumber River to the west, both of which act as discharge areas, with respect to
groundwater flow. Jacob Creek flows south, toward the Lumber River, along the east
side of the cooling pond.
Based on previous activities at the site, the first major hydrostratigraphic unit at the site
is the surficial unconfined aquifer. The upper portion of this aquifer consists of thin
isolated deposits of sub-angular to well-rounded gravel alluvium or Coastal Plain
Surficial Deposits that consist of black, gray, brown, light red tan or white silty fine
sand, sandy silt, clayey silt or sandy clay. These deposits vary in thickness from
approximately 3 to 30 feet. The lower portion of the surficial aquifer consists of
Yorktown deposits (identified based on the characteristic color and content described
for the formation) approximately 14 to 35 feet thick. The Yorktown deposits at the
Weatherspoon Plant consist of blue, green, gray, and white fossiliferous sand and sandy
silty clay. Separating the Yorktown deposits from the underlying Peedee sediments is a
clay rich semi-confining unit, which appears to be continuous across the site. Peedee
sediments at Weatherspoon are gray, dark green, olive, brown, and light gray silty clay,
sandy clay and silty fine to medium sand. The thickness of the Peedee Formation
ranges from approximately 22 to 42 feet. Below the Peedee sediments are sediments
identified as the Black Creek Formation with characteristic dark gray to black
micaceous clay and sand seams with abundant mica.
The first occurrence of groundwater at the Weatherspoon Plant is in the surficial aquifer
at depths ranging from three to ten feet below land surface. The water level
measurements and corresponding elevations from the June 2014 routine groundwater
monitoring event indicated the groundwater flow direction in the upper portion of the
surficial aquifer is to the southeast towards the cooling pond, following the site
topography (Figure 4). Water level data collected by S&ME from the lower portion of
the surficial aquifer (Yorktown) and Peedee aquifers indicate a similar flow direction
with some localized mounding under the basin (Appendix B).
Groundwater gradients from the surficial aquifer vary from 0.005 feet per foot (ft/ft)
(northeast of and exterior to the ash basin) to 0.125 ft/ft (across the southern dike). In a
very broad sense, overall groundwater gradients average 0.012 ft/ft west of the ash
basin; 0.012 ft/ft in the ash basin; 0.006 ft/ft east of the ash basin; and, 0.05 ft/ft across the
southern dike to the cooling pond.
Page 16
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment
Plans\Weatherspoon\Weatherspoon GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx

Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra

The surface of groundwater at the Weatherspoon Plant is typically located at depths of
4 to 8 feet below ground surface, depending on antecedent precipitation and
topography. An average transmissivity value of 3,000 square feet per day (ft2/day) was
estimated by Giese et al. (1997) for the surficial sand aquifer in the region.
Following completion of the groundwater assessment work, a site conceptual model
will be developed, as described in Section 7.6.
Page 17
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment
Plans\Weatherspoon\Weatherspoon GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx

Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra

6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING
6.1 Compliance Monitoring Well Groundwater Analytical Results
In June 2014 SynTerra conducted the twelfth groundwater sampling event in
accordance with required monitoring. The analytical data indicates that cadmium and
thallium have only been detected above the 2L Standard at well BW-1. Cadmium has
only been detected above the 2L Standard once, during the March 2013 sampling event
and thallium has only been detected above the 2L Standard during the June 2012 event.
A summary of the detected concentration ranges for constituents detected at
concentrations greater than the 2L Standards through June 2014 is provided in Table 2
and a summary of historical groundwater results through June 2014 is provided in
Table 4.
Arsenic has been detected sporadically at background well BW-1 and compliance wells
CW-1 and CW-3 at concentrations below the 2L Standard (10 µg/L). The highest
concentration of arsenic was detected at CW-1 during the March 2011 sampling event
(5.4 µg/L). It was also detected at CW-1 during the June 2013 and October 2013
sampling events (1.84 µg/L and 1.34 µg/L, respectively) and at CW-3 during the June
2013 sampling event (1.26 µg/L). With the exception of the March 2011 result for CW-1,
these concentrations are consistent with arsenic detections at the background well (BW-
1) during the October 2013 and June 2014 sampling events (1.05 µg/L and 1.18 µg/L,
respectively). Based on the similarity in concentrations between the background and
compliance wells, arsenic appears to be related to naturally occurring conditions.
Additional background and compliance well monitoring and statistical analysis will be
used to further assess this potential constituent of concern.
Iron has been detected above the 2L Standard in BW-1 and in the three compliance
wells during multiple sampling events. The maximum detected concentration of iron in
BW-1 was detected during the June 2014 sampling event.
Manganese has been detected at concentrations slightly greater than the 2L Standard at
compliance wells CW-1 and CW-3. The elevated concentrations of manganese at well
CW-1 occurred in November 2010 and June of 2011. The single elevated concentration
of manganese at well CW-3 occurred in March 2013.
The measured groundwater pH tends to be lower than the 2L Standard range in the
four routinely sampled monitoring wells.
A preliminary assessment of the available groundwater data indicates the regional
groundwater pH is less than the 2L Standard range. The elevated concentrations of
cadmium and thallium detected in well BW-1 appear to be data outliers.
Page 18
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment
Plans\Weatherspoon\Weatherspoon GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx

Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra

The regional aquifer has iron concentrations greater than the 2L Standard. An alternate
2L Standard for iron of 2,040 µg/L has been suggested by the NCDENR based upon
data available through March 2013.
In addition to the routine groundwater samples, groundwater samples were collected
by S&ME as part of their evaluation of closure options for the ash basin (S&ME, June 11,
2012). A summary of this data, along with the historical results from the routine
monitoring, is provided in Table 4.
6.2 Preliminary Statistical Evaluation Results
As a preliminary evaluation tool, statistical analysis was conducted on the groundwater
analytical data collected between November 2010 and June 2014 at the Weatherspoon
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 from the Weatherspoon Plant. The inter-well prediction interval
statistical evaluation involves comparing current background well data to the results for
a recent sample date from compliance wells. As discussed in Section 2.0, monitoring
well BW-1 is currently considered the upgradient background well for the ash basin
and monitoring wells CW-1, CW-2, and CW-3 are considered downgradient compliance
wells. Statistical analysis was performed on inorganic constituents in samples from
wells with detectable concentrations in the compliance monitoring wells for the June
2014 routine sampling event.
Samples with detected inorganic constituents in compliance monitoring wells during
the June 2014 sampling event were analyzed, using the appropriate prediction interval
procedure. Preliminary results indicated that there were no confirmed statistically
significant increases (SSIs) identified in the June 2014 data set.
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. At least four sampling events
will be required for new background well data to be used for 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
Page 19
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment
Plans\Weatherspoon\Weatherspoon GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx

Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra

background wells for statistical analysis will be approved by DWR. Site-specific
background determinations will be made by the DWR Director.
6.3 Additional Site Data
In addition to the required groundwater monitoring conducted, voluntary groundwater
monitoring and seep data collection have been conducted at the Weatherspoon Plant.
As part of Duke Energy’s ongoing plans to address closure options for the ash basin at
the Weatherspoon Plant, S&ME conducted environmental assessment activities in 2011
and 2012. These activities were documented in the Field Exploration Data Report-Progress
Energy-Weatherspoon Plant Ash Pond (June 11, 2012). Site characterization activities
included:
• The installation of monitoring wells, piezometers, and soil borings within and
around the ash basin;
• Water level measurements, well slug tests, and an aquifer pump test;
• Sampling and geotechnical laboratory testing of metals in soil and ash;
• Sampling and analytical laboratory testing of metals in ash, soil, groundwater,
surface water; and
• Data evaluation and reporting.
Excerpts from this report are included in Appendix B. Available groundwater quality
data for compliance monitoring wells, voluntary monitoring wells, and conceptual
closure monitoring wells (as mentioned above) are summarized on Table 4. In
addition, soil and ash quality data from the S&ME report are provided in Table 5.
Surface water quality data from the S&ME report are provided in Table 6. Ash basin
pore water data from the S&ME report are provided in Table 7. Seep analytical results
are provided in Table 8.
NCDENR and Duke Energy collected split samples of seeps, surface water, wastewater,
and engineered outfalls at the Weatherspoon Plant on March 12, 2014. The samples
were analyzed for select anions, metals, and total dissolved solids (TDS). As part of the
NPDES Permit renewal for the Weatherspoon Plant, SynTerra also conducted a surface
water and seep evaluation (SynTerra, October 2014). SynTerra performed a detailed
site reconnaissance to identify potential seeps followed by the collection of flow
measurements and representative water quality samples at select locations. SynTerra
conducted the site reconnaissance during late winter (February) of 2014. Representative
seep locations were evaluated for water quality and flow rates on August 18 and 19,
2014. Analytical data provided by Duke Energy from the split sampling they conducted
Page 20
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment
Plans\Weatherspoon\Weatherspoon GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx

Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra

with NCDENR from the March sampling event and analytical data from the August
2014 seep evaluations are included in Table 8. The analytical data collected by
NCDENR from the March sampling event has not been provided to Duke Energy, so
has not been included in Table 8.

Page 21
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment
Plans\Weatherspoon\Weatherspoon GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx

Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra

7.0 ASSESSMENT WORK PLAN
The scope of work discussed in this plan is designed to meet the requirements of 15A
NCAC 02L .0106(g). Solid and aqueous media sampling will be performed to fill data
gaps associated with the source and vertical and horizontal extent, in soil and
groundwater, for the constituents that have exceeded the 2L Standards. Data will also
be collected to obtain a better understanding of the heterogeneity of groundwater flow
zones by assessing the fate and transport mechanisms, such as the physical properties
of the ash and soil. From this information a groundwater fate and transport model will
be created and the risk assessment performed. Based on readily available national,
regional, local and site-specific site background information, and dependent upon
accessibility, SynTerra anticipates collecting the following additional samples as part of
the subsurface exploration plan:
• Ash and soil samples from borings within and beneath the ash basin to assess
source conditions;
• Soil samples from borings located outside the ash basin boundary to assess
background and downgradient conditions;
• Groundwater and pore water samples from proposed monitoring wells to assess
the source area and the horizontal and vertical extent of COPCs;
• Surface water and sediment samples from surface water locations potentially
impacted by the ash basin due to their proximity to or downgradient locations
from the basin ; and
• Seep samples from locations identified as part of Duke Energy’s NPDES permit
renewal application (from July and August 2014).
In addition, hydrogeologic evaluation testing will be conducted during and following
monitoring well installation activities as described in Section 7.1.2. Existing
groundwater quality data from compliance monitoring wells, voluntary monitoring
wells, and ash basin closure 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 9. The
proposed sampling locations are shown on Figure 5. Samples collected will be
analyzed for the constituents listed in Table 10 and 11. Analytical method reporting
limits will be at or below 15A NCAC 2L standards for groundwater or 15A NCAC 2B
standards for Class C surface water.
Page 22
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment
Plans\Weatherspoon\Weatherspoon GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx

Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra

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 through the completion of
soil borings and borings performed for installation of monitoring wells as shown on
Figure 5. Installation details for soil borings and monitoring wells, as well as estimated
sample quantities and depths, are described below and presented in Table 9.
The borings and monitoring wells will be installed using sonic drilling (or similar
methods) to provide continuous soil cores through ash and into the underlying native
soil. Cores will be described/logged, photographed, and maintained.
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 an
outer 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 due to the drill casing providing a stable borehole
during the placement of well materials and the sand pack. For these reasons, as well as
to minimize groundwater sample turbidity, it is anticipated that the wells will be
installed using sonic drilling methodology.
Water from the potable water source that may be used during drilling activities will be
sampled and analyzed for the groundwater parameter list (Table 11). The data will be
reviewed to determine if concentrations of target analytes are elevated and may pose a
potential for cross-contamination, false positive detections, etc.
Page 23
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment
Plans\Weatherspoon\Weatherspoon GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx

Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra

For clustered monitoring wells, the deep monitoring well boring will be utilized for
characterization of subsurface materials and sample collection for laboratory analysis.
All subsurface borings will be logged in the field as described below.
At the conclusion of well installation activities, well construction details including
casing depth, total well depth, and well screen length, slot size, and placement within
specific hydrostratigraphic units will be presented in tabular form for inclusion into the
final CSA Report. Well completion records will be submitted to NCDENR within 30
days of completion of field activities.
Ash and Soil Borings 7.1.1
Characterization of ash and underlying soil will be accomplished through the
completion and sampling of borings advanced at four locations within the ash
basin. Four soil borings will be completed outside of ash management areas to
provide additional soil quality data.
Field data collected during boring advancement will be used to evaluate:
• the presence or absence of ash,
• areal extent and depth/thickness of ash, and
• groundwater flow and transport characteristics.
Borings will be logged and ash/soil samples will be photographed, described,
and visually classified in the field for origin, consistency/relative density, color,
and soil type in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM
D2487/D2488).
Borings Within The Ash Basin
Approximately 40 borings and 14 existing monitoring and observations wells
were previously installed in and around the ash basin as part of a preliminary
ash basin assessment conducted by S&ME (S&ME, June 11, 2012). Excerpts from
the report are provided in Appendix B and analytical data are provided in
Tables 3 through 8.
Four additional borings will be installed in the ash basin at the locations shown
on Figure 5 to supplement existing site data. The borings completed within the
ash basin will be used to determine the thickness of ash present, the current
residual saturation of the ash, the chemical and geotechnical characteristics of the
ash and the underlying soil.
Page 24
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment
Plans\Weatherspoon\Weatherspoon GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx

Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra

The borings and monitoring wells will be installed using sonic drilling (or similar
methods), to provide continuous soil cores through ash and into the underlying
native soil. Drilling will be extended to approximately 20 feet below the bottom
of the ash to allow for characterization of the underlying native soil.
In areas where ash is known or suspected to be present (i.e., AB- borings), solid
phase samples will be collected for laboratory analysis from the following depth
intervals at 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 deeper
samples. The ash samples will be used to evaluate geochemical variations in ash
located in the ash basin. The soil samples will be used to delineate the vertical
extent of potential soil impacts beneath the ash basin.
Ash and soil samples will be analyzed for total inorganic constituents, as
presented in Table 10
Select ash samples will be analyzed for leachable inorganic constituents using the
Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure (SPLP) to evaluate the potential for
leaching of constituents from ash into underlying soil.
A summary of the boring details is provided in Table 9. The depths at which the
samples are collected will be noted on sample IDs. Monitoring wells have been
installed in the ash basin to monitor the presence of ash pore water quality
vertical gradients beneath the basin. Therefore, following collection of the soil
samples, the borings will be abandoned by filling with a bentonite-grout mixture.
After abandonment, GW-30 forms will be submitted.
Borings Outside Ash Basin
Four borings will be located outside the ash basin to provide characterization of
native soil conditions outside the ash basin. Solid phase samples will be
collected for laboratory analysis from the following intervals in each boring:
• approximately 0-2 feet bgs for (risk assessment purposes),
Page 25
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment
Plans\Weatherspoon\Weatherspoon GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx

Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra

• approximately 2-3 feet above the water table.
The laboratory analyses performed on these samples will depend on the nature
and quantity of material collected.
One or more of the above listed sampling intervals may be combined if field
conditions indicate they are in close proximity to each other (i.e., one sample will
be obtained that will be applicable to more than one interval).
Index Property Sampling and Analysis
In addition, physical properties of ash and soil will be tested in the laboratory to
provide data for use in groundwater modeling. Samples will be collected at
selected locations, with the number of samples collected from the material types
as follows:
• Ash - 5 Samples
• Soil below ash - 4 Samples
• Soil Outside Basin - 5 samples
Select samples will be tested for:
• Natural Moisture Content Determination, in accordance with ASTM D-
2216
• Grain size with hydrometer determination, in accordance with ASTM
Standard D-422
The select soil samples are anticipated to be collected from the following boring
locations:
• Ash – AB-1, AB-2, AB-3, AB-4, ABMW-1
• Soil below ash - AB-1, AB-2, AB-3, AB-4
• Soil Outside Basin – BG-2S/I/D, BG-3/I/D, AW-1 S/I/D, AW-2 S/I/D, and
AW-3 S/I/D
The depth intervals of the selected samples will be determined in the field by the
Lead Geologist/Engineer. A summary of the boring details is provided in Table
9.
In addition to ash and soil sampling, a minimum of four thin-walled undisturbed
tubes (“Shelby” Tubes) in ash and soil will be advanced and collected at the
locations specified by the Lead Geologist/Engineer in the field. The Shelby Tubes
Page 26
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment
Plans\Weatherspoon\Weatherspoon GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx

Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra

will be transported to a soil testing laboratory and each tube will be tested for the
following:
• Natural Moisture Content Determination, in accordance with ASTM D-
2216
• Grain size with hydrometer determination, in accordance with ASTM
Standard D-422
• Hydraulic Conductivity Determination, in accordance with ASTM
Standard D-5084
• Specific Gravity of Soils, in accordance with ASTM Standard D-854
Eight 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 a Kd core sample will be
collected from the ash within the basin, shallow aquifer material below the ash
basin, from the aquifer above and below the confining layer, from the confining
layer, and from areas where there is apparent variations in lithology.
The results of the laboratory soil and ash property determination will be used to
determine properties such as porosity, transmissivity, and specific storativity.
The results from these tests will be used in the groundwater fate and transport
modeling. The specific borings where these samples are collected from will be
determined based on field conditions, with consideration given to their location
relative to use in the groundwater model.
The depths at which the samples are collected will be noted on sample IDs. Since
each of the soil borings will be located near existing site monitoring wells,
following collection of the soil samples, the borings will be abandoned by filling
with a bentonite-grout mixture.
Groundwater Monitoring Wells 7.1.2
Approximately 40 monitoring wells, piezometers, and observation wells are
present at the site that can be used to monitor conditions within the surficial and
confined aquifer zones, horizontally and vertically across the site (Figure 5).
These existing wells will be supplemented with additional wells to complete the
CSA. Soil samples will be collected for laboratory analysis in accordance with
the parameters listed in Table 10 and the sampling plan summarized in Table 9.
The depths at which the samples are collected will be noted on sample IDs.
Page 27
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment
Plans\Weatherspoon\Weatherspoon GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx

Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra

Monitoring wells will be constructed by North Carolina-licensed well drillers
and in accordance with 15A NCAC 02C (Well Construction Standards). Drilling
equipment will be decontaminated prior to use at each location using a high
pressure steam cleaner as discussed below.
Monitoring wells will be constructed of 2-inch ID, National Sanitation
Foundation (NSF) grade polyvinyl chloride (PVC) (ASTM 2012a,b) schedule 40
flush-joint threaded casing and 0.010-inch machine-slotted pre-packed screens.
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. 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 assessment of different hydrogeologic zones or depth intervals is needed,
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. During the environmental site characterization activities completed by
S&ME (S&ME, June 11, 2012), new monitoring wells were designated as either
shallow surficial aquifer (“S”), intermediate surficial aquifer (“I”), or deeper
confined aquifer (“D”). For consistency, SynTerra will utilize the same naming
approach for monitoring wells installed as part of this Work Plan.
Shallow wells will be installed with the top of the well screen approximately 5
feet below the water table in the upper portion of the surficial aquifer. The
shallow well screens will be placed sufficiently below the water table
(approximately 5 feet) to minimize the effects of oxidation reactions prior to
collection of groundwater samples for metals analysis. Intermediate wells will
be installed in the lower portion of the surficial aquifer, at the depth of the first
Page 28
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment
Plans\Weatherspoon\Weatherspoon GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx

Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra

apparent confining layer. Deep monitoring wells installed below the confining
layer within the Peedee aquifer will be installed as double-cased wells to prevent
migration between the surficial and confined aquifers. These wells will provide
information on the vertical distribution of aquifer characteristics above and
below the confining layers (chemistry and aquifer parameters) as well was
determining the magnitude of vertical hydraulic gradients between these units
and apparent thickness of the confining unit.
7.1.2.1 Background Wells
Current background well BW-1 is located adjacent to and downgradient from a
used auto parts junkyard. Based on the proximity to the junk yard and possible
metals that may be migrating into the groundwater from this yard, BW-1 may
not be representative of naturally occurring background conditions. Therefore,
two new background well clusters (BW-2S/I/D and BW-3S/I/D) will be installed
beyond the compliance boundary at the locations shown on Figure 5. A
summary of the boring details is provided in Table 9.
As discussed in Section 6.2, it is understood that the designation of
“background” well is subject to periodic review based upon increased
understanding of site chemistry and groundwater flow direction.
7.1.2.2 Ash Basin
During previous assessment activities conducted at the Weatherspoon , 14
monitoring and observation wells have been installed within the ash basin
(Figure 5). Therefore, only one new well (ABMW-1) is proposed to be installed.
The monitoring well will be installed adjacent to existing well cluster MW-44,
located at the apparent deepest point in the ash basin based on data from S&ME
(Appendix B). ABMW-1 will be installed to the base of the ash, at a depth of
approximately 30 feet bgs, based on boring logs. ABMW-1 will be used to
monitor pore water at the base of the ash.
7.1.2.3 Downgradient Assessment Areas
There are approximately 40 monitoring/observation wells and piezometers on
the Weatherspoon. A preliminary review of the data from these
wells/piezometers indicate that there is sufficient horizontal and vertical
coverage of the ash basin and compliance boundary to complete a CSA of the
Weatherspoon site and generate a groundwater computer model, with the
exception of the area southwest of the ash basin, between the ash basin and the
Lumber River, and the area beyond the compliance boundary, east of CW-3.
Therefore, two monitoring wells clusters (AW-1S/I/D and AW-2S/I/D will be
Page 29
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment
Plans\Weatherspoon\Weatherspoon GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx

Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra

installed southwest of the ash basin and one monitoring well cluster (AW-3S/I/D)
will be installed east of the ash basin. The locations of the proposed monitoring
wells, along with existing site wells, are shown on Figure 5. A summary of the
boring details is provided in Table 9.
Based on SynTerra’s current understanding of the ICSM discussed in Section 5,
sampling locations off of Duke Energy property are not warranted at this time.
Duke Energy owns sufficient property beyond the compliance boundary for the
anticipated assessment activities. The ICSM indicates that groundwater flow
beneath the ash basin is to the southeast, toward the cooling pond. The cooling
pond acts as a discharge area for groundwater flow in the surficial aquifer.
Therefore, no off-site wells are anticipated at this time.
If assessment data presents evidence to the contrary, off-site sampling will be
reevaluated. If NCDENR determines offsite sampling is necessary, Duke Energy
will contact property owners to obtain access to their respective property(s).
Duke Energy will request liaison assistance from NCDENR if Duke Energy is
unable to obtain access to a specific property where sampling is deemed
necessary. The liaison request will include available property owner contact
information and details of prior discussions with the property owner(s)
regarding access to the property(s) for site assessment purposes.
Well Completion and Development 7.1.3
Well Completion
The well screen intervals will typically be a 10 foot length for the shallow wells
and a 5 foot length for the intermediate and deep wells.
The deep well will be installed first. The outer casing will be installed using
sonic drilling equipment with a 10-inch core barrel just into the top of the first
confining unit, 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
confined aquifer, which will be determined based on the continuous soil cores.
The inner well casing will consist of two-inch diameter NSF PVC schedule 40
Page 30
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment
Plans\Weatherspoon\Weatherspoon GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx

Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra

flush-joint threaded casing and pre-packed screens appropriately sized based on
soil conditions identified during previous assessment activities.
The shallow and intermediate wells will also be installed using sonic drilling
methods, but will be installed without outer casing.
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 2-foot square concrete pad.
Well Development
Following installation, the monitoring wells will be developed in order to
remove drill fluids, clay, silt, sand, and other fines which may have been
introduced into the formation or sand pack during drilling and well installation,
and to establish communication of the well with the aquifer. Well development
will be performed using a portable submersible pump, which will be repeatedly
moved up and down the well screen interval until the water obtained is
relatively clear. Development will be continued by sustained pumping until
monitoring parameters (e.g., conductivity, pH, temperature) are generally
stabilized; estimated quantities of drilling fluids, if used, are removed; and,
turbidity decreases to acceptable levels (10 NTUs). The wells will be developed
as installed (but no sooner than 24 hours after installation to allow for grout cure
time). The ongoing well development information will be used to make
adjustments as needed to the well construction design to minimize turbidity and
possible other unforeseen factors.
If a well cannot be developed to produce low turbidity (< 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.
Page 31
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment
Plans\Weatherspoon\Weatherspoon GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx

Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra

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.
Hydraulic Evaluation Testing 7.1.4
In order to better characterize hydrogeologic conditions at the site, falling and/or
constant head tests and slug tests will be performed as described below. Data
obtained from these tests will be used in groundwater modeling. This data will
be supplemented with hydraulic conductivity data collected as part of the S&ME
report (Appendix B).
Falling Head/Constant Head Tests
In-situ permeability tests, will be performed at five ash boring locations using a
Guelph Permeameter. Guelph permeameter tests will be conducted to measure
in-situ saturated hydraulic conductivity (𝐾𝐾𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓) in the unsaturated zone of the ash
basins. The Guelph permeameter field test uses a Marriotte bubbler device that
creates a flow of water (Q) into an auger hole (radius) held at a constant head of
water (h). The Guelph permeameter has a calibrated set of reservoirs used to
measure the rate that water is added to the auger hole to hold the head constant.
Up to 2.5 liters of water would be used per test.
Measurements will be made in the range of 15 centimeters (cm) to 3 meters
below the ground surface. Access borings for the Guelph Permeameter will be
made with a hand auger. Cuttings will be described in the field and used to
backfill the hole after the test is complete. Details of the testing procedure will
follow the Guelph permeameter manual
(http://www.soilmoisture.com/pdf/82800k1.pdf). The procedure involves
infiltrating up to several liters of water from the bottom of an augered hole.
Potable water from a local source will be used for the tests. The locations and
depths of the measurements will be determined based on access, depth to water,
variability of material, and other factors that will be considered on a site by site
basis.
In addition, vertical hydraulic conductivities in upper and lower surficial aquifer
and deep confined aquifer will be determined in accordance with ASTM
Standard D-5084 for from the collection of Shelby tube samples for geotechnical
analysis. The Shelby tubes will be collected at locations based on site-specific
conditions at the time of assessment work.
Page 32
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment
Plans\Weatherspoon\Weatherspoon GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx

Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra

Slug Tests
After the wells have been developed, hydraulic conductivity tests (rising head
slug tests) will be conducted on each of the new wells. The slug tests will be
performed in general accordance with NCDENR Memorandum titled,
“Performance and Analysis of Aquifer Slug Tests and Pumping Tests Policy,”
dated May 31, 2007 and ASTM D4044-96 Standard Test Method (Field
Procedure) for Instantaneous Change in Head (Slug) Tests for Determining
Hydraulic Properties of Aquifers.
Prior to performing each slug test, the static water level will be determined and
recorded and a Solinst Model 3001 Levelogger® Edge electronic pressure
transducer/data logger, or equivalent, will be placed in the well at a depth of
approximately six-inches above the bottom of the well. The Levelogger® will be
connected to a field laptop and programmed with the well identification,
approximate elevation of the well, date, and time.
The slug tests will be conducted by lowering a PVC “slug” into the well casing.
The water level within the well is then allowed to equilibrate to a static level.
After equilibrium, the slug is rapidly withdrawn from the well, thereby
decreasing the water level in the well instantaneously. During the recovery of
the well, the water level is measured and recorded electronically using the
pressure transducer/data logger. Two separate slug tests will be conducted for
each well.
The slug test will be performed for no less than ten minutes, or until such time as
the water level in the test well recovers 95 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.
The data obtained during the slug tests will be reduced and analyzed using
AQTESOLV™ 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
Subsequent to monitoring well installation and development, each newly installed well
will be sampled twice using low-flow sampling techniques in accordance with US EPA
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, W.H.
Weatherspoon Power Plant (SynTerra, October 2014). Each new well will be sampled after
Page 33
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment
Plans\Weatherspoon\Weatherspoon GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx

Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra

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 BW-1 and potential
background wells BW-2S/I/D and BW-3S/I/D 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 purposes of the proposed monitoring wells are as follows:
• ABMW-series Wells – The ABMW-series well location was selected to provide
pore water quality data from the base of the ash basin at the deepest point in the
basin, based on boring log information.
• AW-series Wells – The AW-series well locations were selected to provide water
quality data downgradient or sidegradient from the ash basin for use in
groundwater modeling (i.e., to evaluate the horizontal and vertical extent of
potentially impacted groundwater outside the ash basin).
• BW-series Wells – These wells will be used to provide information on
background water quality. The background well locations were selected to
provide additional physical separation from possible influence of the ash basin
on groundwater. These wells will also be useful in the statistical analysis to
determine the site-specific background water quality concentrations (SSBCs).
At the Weatherspoon Plant, a 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 into a flow-through
chamber at flow rates that minimize or stabilize water level drawdown within the well.
At the Weatherspoon Plant, low-flow sampling is conducted using a peristaltic pump
with new tubing. The intake for the tubing is lowered to the mid-point of the screened
Page 34
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment
Plans\Weatherspoon\Weatherspoon GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx

Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra

interval. A multi-parameter water quality monitoring instrument is used to measure
field indicator parameters within the flow-through chamber during purging.
Measurements include pH, specific conductance, and temperature.
Indicator parameters are measured over time (usually at 3-5 minute intervals). When
parameters have stabilized within ±0.2 pH units and ±10 percent for temperature and
specific conductivity over three consecutive readings, representative groundwater has
been achieved for sampling. Turbidity is not a required stabilization parameter,
however turbidity levels of 10 NTU or less are targeted. Purging will be discontinued
and groundwater samples will be obtained if turbidity levels of 10 NTU or less are not
obtained after 1 hour of continuous purging. If the turbidity for a well increases over
time, the well may be re-developed to restore conditions.
In addition to the groundwater samples collected from the new monitoring wells,
groundwater samples will be collected from one or more of the existing site monitoring
wells, as well as from the two existing site water supply wells. Groundwater samples
will be collected from the existing onsite water supply well using the pumping system
installed in the well. Water supply wells will be purged for a minimum of 15 minutes
prior to collection of a sample. Water samples will be collected prior to any filtration
system. A summary of the anticipated groundwater samples are included in Table 9.
During groundwater sampling activities, water level measurements will be made at the
existing site monitoring wells, observation wells, and piezometers, along with the new
wells. The data will be used to generate potentiometric maps of the upper and lower
portions of the surficial aquifer (above the first confining unit) and the semi-confined
Peedee aquifer, 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.
Ash pore water and groundwater samples will be analyzed by a North Carolina
certified laboratory for the parameters listed in Table 11. Total and dissolved metals
analysis will be conducted. Speciation of iron, manganese and arsenic will be
conducted on pore water samples and select groundwater monitoring well samples.
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 coal
combustion products (CCPs) and the potential radiological impacts associated with
management and disposal. The review found:
Despite the enrichment of radionuclides from coal to ash, this critical review did not
locate any published studies that suggested typical CCPs posed any significant
Page 35
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment
Plans\Weatherspoon\Weatherspoon GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx

Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra

radiological risks above background in the disposal scenarios considered, and when used
in concrete products. These conclusions are consistent with previous assessments. The
USGS (1997) concluded that “Radioactive elements in coal and fly ash should not be
sources of alarm. The vast majority of coal and the majority of fly ash are not
significantly enriched in radioactive elements, or in associated radioactivity, compared to
common soils or rocks.” A year later, the U.S. EPA (1998) concluded that the risks of
exposure to radionuclide emissions from electric utilities are “substantially lower than
the risks due to exposure to background radiation.”
To confirm these general findings, Duke Energy proposes to analyze potentially worst-
case groundwater samples collected from the ash basin for radium-266 and radium-228
(Ra226 and Ra228). Existing monitoring well MW-44SA, which is screened in the
shallow surficial aquifer immediately below the ash basin, and new monitoring well
BW-2S, located upgradient of the ash basin, are proposed to be sampled for radium
analysis, with NCDENR concurrence.
Groundwater sample results will be compared to Class GA Standards as found in 15A
NCAC 02L .0202 Groundwater Quality Standards, last amended on April 1, 2013 (2L
Standards).
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)), manganese (Mn(II),
Mn(IV)), and arsenic (As(III), As(V)) will be conducted at the following locations.
Representative samples of ash pore water within the basin, groundwater below the
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 11.
7.3 Surface Water, Sediment, and Seep Sampling
As part of the NPDES permit renewal for the Weatherspoon Plant, Duke Energy
recently collected samples from surface water and seeps identified around the ash basin
(SynTerra, October 2014). A summary of the analytical results are included in Table 8
and the sample locations are shown on Figure 5. To provide additional information on
groundwater to surface water pathways, seven water and sediment samples will be
collected. The samples will consist of two surface water sample locations and five seep
sample locations.
Surface Water Samples 7.3.1
One surface water sample (SW-1) will be collected from Jacob Creek on the east
side of the cooling pond and one surface water sample (SW-2) will be collected
Page 36
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment
Plans\Weatherspoon\Weatherspoon GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx

Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra

from a tributary to Jacob Creek located just beyond the compliance boundary
(Figure 5). These two locations have been chosen to assist with the risk
assessment (Section 8.0). The water samples will be analyzed for the parameters
listed in Table 11.
Analytical results for surface water samples collected from outside the ash basin
will be compared to 15A NCAC 2B .0200 Classifications and Water Quality
Standards Applicable to Surface Waters and Wetlands of North Carolina (2B
Standards Class C Water).
This data will be used to infer preferential pathways and migration from
groundwater to surface water.
Sediment Samples 7.3.2
Sediment samples will be collected from the bed surface at each of the water
sample locations discussed above (Figure 5). The S-20 location will be
considered a background sediment sample. The sediment samples will be
analyzed for total inorganics, using the same constituents list proposed for the
soil and ash samples (Table 10), and pH, cation exchange capacity, particle size
distribution, percent solids, percent organic matter, and redox potential.
Seep Samples 7.3.3
Four of the seep samples, (S-01, S-02, S-03, S-05), will be collected from the ditch
bordering the north and east sides of the basin (Figure 5), if sufficient flow is
present. A background location (S-20) will be collected where Jacob Creek
crosses Old Whiteville Road northeast of the Plant. Locations S-01, S-02, S-03, S-
05, and S-20 correspond to identified seep sample locations. The collection of
water samples from the previously sampled seep locations will provide
information regarding variability in flow and water quality over time. The water
samples will be analyzed for the parameters listed in Table 11.
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.
Page 37
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment
Plans\Weatherspoon\Weatherspoon GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx

Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra

Field Logbooks 7.4.1
The field logbooks provide a daily hand written account of field activities.
Logbooks are hardcover books that are permanently bound. All entries are made
in indelible ink, and corrections are made with a single line with the author
initials and date. Each page of the logbook will be dated and initialed by the
person completing the log. Partially completed pages will have a line drawn
through the unused portion at the end of each day with the author’s initials. The
following information is generally entered into the field logbooks:
• The date and time of each entry. The daily log generally begins with the
Pre-Job Safety Brief;
• A summary of important tasks or subtasks completed during the day;
• A description of field 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.
Field Data Records 7.4.2
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.
Sample Identification 7.4.3
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., AW-1B (5-6’)). Samples will be numbered in accordance with the proposed
sample IDs shown on Figure 5.
Field Equipment Calibration 7.4.4
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
Page 38
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment
Plans\Weatherspoon\Weatherspoon GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx

Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra

manufacturers’ instructions to determine if the instruments are functioning
within their established operation ranges. The calibration data will be recorded
on a FDR.
To be acceptable, a field test must be bracketed between acceptable calibration
results.
• The first check may be an initial calibration, but the second check must be
a continuing verification check.
• Each field instrument must be calibrated prior to use.
• Verify the calibration at no more than 24-hour intervals during use and at
the end of the use if the instrument will not be used the next day or time
periods greater than 24 hours.
• Initial calibration and verification checks must meet the acceptance criteria
listed in the table below.
• If an initial calibration or verification check fails to meet the acceptance
criteria, immediately recalibrate the instrument or remove it from service.
• If a calibration check fails to meet the acceptance criteria and it is not
possible to reanalyze the samples, the following actions must be taken:
- Report results between the last acceptable calibration check and the
failed calibration check as estimated (qualified with a “J”);
- Include a narrative of the problem; and
- Shorten the time period between verification checks or repair/replace
the instrument.
• If historically generated data demonstrate that a specific instrument
remains stable for extended periods of time, the interval between initial
calibration and calibration checks may be increased.
- Acceptable field data must be bracketed by acceptable checks. Data
that are not bracketed by acceptable checks must be qualified.
- Base the selected time interval on the shortest interval that the
instrument maintains stability.
- If an extended time interval is used and the instrument consistently
fails to meet the final calibration check, then the instrument may
require maintenance to repair the problem or the time period is too
long and must be shortened.
Page 39
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment
Plans\Weatherspoon\Weatherspoon GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx

Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra

• 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.
Sample Custody Requirements 7.4.5
A program of sample custody will be followed during sample handling activities
in both field and laboratory operations. This program is designed to assure that
each sample is accounted for at all times. The appropriate sampling and
laboratory personnel will complete sample FDRs, chain-of-custody records, and
laboratory receipt sheets.
The primary objective of sample custody procedures is to obtain an accurate
written record that can trace the handling of all samples during the sample
collection process, through analysis, until final disposition.
Field Sample Custody
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;
Page 40
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment
Plans\Weatherspoon\Weatherspoon GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx

Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra

• Sampler identification; and,
• Analyses requested and applicable preservative.
A manually-prepared chain-of-custody record will be initiated at the time of
sample collection. The chain-of-custody record documents:
• Sample handling procedures including sample location, sample number
and number of containers corresponding to each sample number;
• The requested analysis and applicable preservative;
• The dates and times of sample collection;
• The names of the sampler(s) and the person shipping the samples (if
applicable);
• The date and time that samples were delivered for shipping (if
applicable);
• Shipping information (e.g., FedEx Air Bill);
• The names of those responsible for receiving the samples at the
laboratory; and,
• 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.
Quality Assurance and Quality Control Samples 7.4.6
The following Quality Assurance/Quality Control samples will be collected
during the proposed field activities:
• Equipment rinse blanks (one per day);
• Field Duplicates (one per 20 samples per sample medium)
Equipment rinse blanks will be collected from non-dedicated equipment used
between wells and from drilling equipment between soil samples. The field
Page 41
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment
Plans\Weatherspoon\Weatherspoon GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx

Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra

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.
Field QA/QC samples will be analyzed for the same constituents as proposed for
the soil and groundwater samples, as identified on Tables 10 and 11,
respectively.
Decontamination Procedures 7.4.7
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
Page 42
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment
Plans\Weatherspoon\Weatherspoon GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx

Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra

water does not migrate back down the bore hole before last tool joint is
removed.
• Recovered water is then pumped from tub into drums, other IDW
containers, or directly onto the ground, away from the drilling location.
• The tooling is then loaded directly back on support equipment ready for
the next location.
7.5 Influence of Pumping Wells on Groundwater System
There are two water supply wells owned and operated by Duke Energy (DEP-1 and
DEP-2) located approximately 1,000 feet southwest of the ash basin.
In addition to the Duke Energy wells, 21 potential water supply wells appear to be
located within 0.5 mile of the compliance boundary. Based on the established distances,
possible limited withdrawal rates, and relatively high transmissivity values discussed
in Section 5.0, the area of influence of the off-site wells is not expected to be large
enough to substantially affect the groundwater system near the ash basin.
7.6 Site Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model
The ICSM for the Weatherspoon Plant has been developed using data discussed in
Section 2.0 through 6.0 above and was used to develop the Assessment Work Plan in
Section 7.1 through 7.5. The ICSM has provided sufficient detail to be able to
understand the flow dynamics at the Weatherspoon Plant and to identify potential data
gaps, such as areas where monitoring wells need to be installed and additional soil and
groundwater analytical needs. Sections 7.1 through 7.5 were prepared to address these
data gaps.
The data obtained during the proposed assessment will be supplemented by available
reports and data on site geotechnical, geologic, and hydrologic conditions to develop
the hydrogeologic 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 ash constituents at
the site. In addition, the SCM will:
Page 43
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment
Plans\Weatherspoon\Weatherspoon GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx

Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra

• 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.
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.
7.7 Site-Specific Background Concentrations
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 Site-Specific Background Concentrations (SSBCs). The SSBCs will be
determined to assess whether or not exceedances can be attributed to naturally
occurring background concentrations or attributed to potential contamination.
As discussed in Section 6.1, iron and manganese are the primary constituents of concern
at the Weatherspoon Plant. It is acknowledged that the regional aquifer has iron
concentrations greater than the 2L Standard. An alternate 2L Standard for iron of 2,040
µg/L has been suggested by the NCDENR based upon data available through March
2013.
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.
Page 44
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment
Plans\Weatherspoon\Weatherspoon GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx

Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra

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 basin site. 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 7.6.
Due to the hydrogeologic complexities at the site, SynTerra believes that a 3-
dimensional groundwater model would be more appropriate than performing 2-
dimensional modeling. The modeling process, the development of the model
hydrostratigraphic layers, the model extent (or domain), and the proposed model
boundary conditions are presented below.
MODFLOW/MT3D Model 7.8.1
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 the PH REdox EQuilibrium (PHREEQC)
model. The decision to use MODFLOW and MT3D was based on the intensive
Page 45
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment
Plans\Weatherspoon\Weatherspoon GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx

Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra

data requirements of PHREEQC, the complexity of developing an appropriate
geochemical model given the heterogeneous nature of site geology, and the
general acceptance of MODLFOW and MT3D. However, batch simulations of
PHREEQC may be used to perform sensitivity analyses of the proposed sorption
constants used with MODFLOW/MT3D, as described below, if geochemistry
varies significantly across the site.
Additional factors that were considered in the decision to use MT3D as
compared to a reaction based code utilizing geochemical modeling were as
follows:
1. Modeling the complete geochemical fate and transport of trace, minor, or
major constituents would require simultaneous modeling of the following in
addition to groundwater flow:
• All major, minor, and trace constituents (in their respective species forms)
in aqueous, equilibrium (solid), and complexed phases
• Solution pH, oxidation/reduction potential, alkalinity, dissolved oxygen,
and temperature
• Reactions including oxidation/reduction, complexation,
precipitation/dissolution, and ion exchange
2. Transient versus steady-state reaction kinetics may need to be considered. In
general, equilibrium phases for trace constituents cannot be identified by
mineralogical analysis. In this case, speciation geochemical modeling is
required to identify postulated solid phases by their respective saturation
indices.
3. If geochemical conditions across the site are not widely variable, an approach
that considers each modeled COPC as a single species in the dissolved and
complexed, or sorbed, phases is justified. The ratio of these two phases is
prescribed by the sorption coefficient Kd which has dimensions of volume
(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.
Page 46
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment
Plans\Weatherspoon\Weatherspoon GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx

Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra

The groundwater model will be developed in general accordance with the
guidelines found in the Groundwater Modeling Policy, NCDENR DWQ, May 31,
2007.
Development of Kd Terms 7.8.2
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
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.
Page 47
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment
Plans\Weatherspoon\Weatherspoon GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx

Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra

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 US EPA Technical
Resource Document EPA/530/SW-87/006-F, Batch-type Procedures for Estimating
Soil Adsorption of Chemicals. COPC-specific solutions will be used to prepare a
range of soil-to-solution ratios. After mixing, supernatant samples will be drawn
and analyzed as described above. Plots of sorbed versus dissolved COPC mass
will be used to develop Kd values.
When applied in the fate and transport modeling performed by MT3D, these Kd
values will determine the extent to which COPC transport in groundwater flow
is attenuated by sorption. In effect, simulated COPC concentrations will be
reduced, as will their rate of movement in advecting groundwater.
Eight 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 a Kd core sample will be
collected from the ash within the basin, shallow aquifer material below the ash
basin, from the aquifer above and below the confining layer, from the confining
layer, and from areas where there is apparent variations in lithology.
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
Page 48
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment
Plans\Weatherspoon\Weatherspoon GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx

Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra

and HFO content can be used to estimate Kd at other site locations where HFO
and background water geochemistry, especially pH and oxidation-reduction
potential, are known. If significant differences in water geochemistry are
observed, geochemical modeling can be used to refine the Kd estimate. UNCC
recommends that core samples for Kd and HFO tests be taken from locations that
are in the path of groundwater flowing from the ash impoundments.
Determination of which COPCs will have Kd developed will be determined after
review of the analyses on the site total ash and SPLP concentrations, pore water
data and review of the site groundwater analyses results. SynTerra anticipates
that the constituents which have exceeded the 2L Standards at the site will be
specifically evaluated.
MODFLOW/MT3D Modeling Process 7.8.3
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, ash SPLP leachate and pore
water. The leaching characteristics of ash are complex and are expected to vary
with time and as changes occur in the geochemical environment of the ash basin.
Due to factors such as the quantity of a particular constituent found in ash, and
to other factors such as the mineral complex, solubility, and geochemical
conditions, the rate of leaching and the leached concentrations of constituents
will vary with time and with respect to each other.
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 after closure may vary over time and peak concentrations
may not yet have arrived at compliance wells. Therefore, the selection of the
Page 49
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment
Plans\Weatherspoon\Weatherspoon GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx

Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra

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 management area (note that the total digestion concentrations, if used,
would be considered an upper bound to concentrations and that the
actual concentrations would be lower that the results from the total
digestion),
• 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.
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.
Hydrostratigraphic Layer Development 7.8.4
The 3-dimensional configuration of the groundwater model hydrostratigraphic
layers will be developed from information obtained during the site investigation
process and from the SCM. The thickness and extent for the various layers will
Page 50
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment
Plans\Weatherspoon\Weatherspoon GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx

Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra

be represented by a 3-dimensional surface model for each hydrostratigraphic
layer.
The boring data from the site investigation and from existing boring data, as
available and provided by Duke Energy, will be entered into the GMS program.
The program, along with site specific and regional knowledge of Coastal Plain
hydrogeology will be used to interpret and develop the layer thickness and
extent across areas of the site where boring data is not available. The material
layers will be categorized based on properties such as visual soil identification
and previous data from the site. The material properties required for the model
such as total porosity, effective porosity, hydraulic conductivity, and specific
storage will be developed from the data obtained in the site investigation and
from previously collected data for the site.
To further define heterogeneities, a 2-D scatter point set will be used to define
specified hydraulic values within vertical and/or horizontal zones. Specified
hydraulic values will be given set ranges that reflect field conditions from core
measurements, slug tests, and pump tests (if available).
Domain of Conceptual Groundwater Flow Model 7.8.5
The Weatherspoon Plant ash basin model domain encompasses areas where
groundwater flow will be simulated to estimate the impacts of the ash basin. By
necessity, the conceptual model domain extends beyond the ash basin limits to
physical or artificial hydraulic boundaries such that groundwater flow through
the area is accurately simulated. Physical hydraulic boundary types may include
specified head, head dependent flux, no-flow, and recharge at ground surface or
water surface. Artificial boundaries, which are developed based on information
from the site investigation, may include the specified head and no-flow types.
Model sources and sinks such as drains, springs, rivers, lakes, and pumping
wells will be based on the SCM. As discussed in Section 5.0, the Lumber River
and the cooling pond act as groundwater discharge areas and will be used as
model boundaries to the west and south. Artificial head boundaries will be
established north and east of the basin based on apparent flow conditions. The
model layers will consist, at a minimum, of the surficial aquifer, the Yorktown
Formation, the Peedee Formation, and the upper portion of the Black Creek
Formation. If site conditions are encountered that warrant changes to the
proposed extent of model, NCDENR will be notified.

Page 51
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment
Plans\Weatherspoon\Weatherspoon GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx

Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra

Potential Modeling of Groundwater Impacts to Surface 7.8.6
Water
If the groundwater modeling predicts exceedances of the 2L 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
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
Page 52
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment
Plans\Weatherspoon\Weatherspoon GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx

Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra

that could be used for this approach include: QUAL2K; CE-QUAL-W2;
EFDC/WASP; ECOMSED/RCA; or other applicable models.
In either approach, the model output from the groundwater model will be
coupled with the surface water model to determine the resulting constituent
concentrations in the adjacent water body spatially from the point of input.
These surface water modeling results can be used for comparison to applicable
surface water quality standards to complete determine compliance.
The development of the model inputs would require additional data for flow and
chemical characterization of the surface water that would potentially be
impacted. The specific type of data required (i.e. flow, chemical characterization,
etc.) and the locations where this data would be collected would depend on the
surface water body and the modeling approach selected. If modeling
groundwater impacts to surface water is required, SynTerra and Duke Energy
will consult with the DWR regional office to present those specific data
requirements and modeling approach.

Page 53
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment
Plans\Weatherspoon\Weatherspoon GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx

Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra

8.0 RISK ASSESSMENT
To support the groundwater assessment and inform corrective action decisions based
on current and future land use, potential risks to human health and the environment
will be assessed in accordance with applicable federal and state guidance. Initially,
screening level human health and ecological risk assessments will be conducted that
include development of conceptual exposure models (CEM) to serve as the foundation
for evaluating potential risks to human and ecological receptors at the site. Consistent
with standard risk assessment practice for developing conceptual models, separate
CEMs will be developed for the human health and ecological risk evaluations.
The purpose of the CEM is to identify potentially complete exposure pathways to
environmental media associated with the site and to specify the types of exposure
scenarios relevant to include in the risk analysis. The first step in constructing a CEM is
to characterize the site and surrounding area. Source areas and potential transport
mechanisms are then identified, followed by identification of potential receptors and
routes of exposure. Potential exposure pathways are determined to be complete when
they contain the following elements: 1) a constituent source, 2) a mechanism of
constituent release and transport from the source area to an environmental medium, 3)
a feasible route of potential exposure at the point of contact (e.g., ingestion, dermal
contact, inhalation). A complete exposure pathway is one in which constituents can be
traced or are expected to travel from the source to a receptor (US EPA 1997). Completed
exposure pathways identified in the CEM are then evaluated in the risk assessment.
Incomplete pathways are characterized by some gaps in the links between site sources
and exposure. Based on this lack of potential exposure, incomplete pathways are not
included in the estimation or characterization of potential risks, since no exposure can
occur via these pathways.
Preliminary COPCs for inclusion in the screening level risk assessments will be
identified based on the 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 first steps of the human health risk assessment will include the
preparation of a CEM, illustrating potential exposure pathways from the source area to
possible receptors. The information gathered in the CEM will be used in conjunction
Page 54
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment
Plans\Weatherspoon\Weatherspoon GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx

Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra

with analytical data collected as part of the CSA. Although groundwater appears to be
the primary exposure pathway for human receptors, a screening level evaluation will be
performed to determine if other potential exposure routes exist.
The human health risk assessment for the site will include an initial comparison of
constituent concentrations in various media to risk-based screening levels. The data will
be screened against the following criteria:
• Soil analytical results collected from the 0 to 2 foot depth interval will be
compared to 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 and industrial soil RSLs
(US EPA, October 2014 or latest update); and
• Sediment, soil and ground water data will also be compared to available local,
regional and national background sediment, soil and ground water data, as
available.
The results of this comparison will be presented in a table, along with recommendations
for further evaluation.
Site-Specific Risk-Based Remediation Standards 8.1.1
If deemed necessary, based on the human health risk assessment, site-and media-
specific risk-based remediation standards will be calculated in accordance with
the Eligibility Requirements and Procedures for Risk-Based Remediation of
Industrial Sites Pursuant to N.C.G.S. 130A-310.65 to 310.77, North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Waste
Management, 29 July 2011. In accordance with this guidance document, it is
anticipated that the calculations will include an evaluation of the following,
based on site-specific activities and conditions:
Page 55
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment
Plans\Weatherspoon\Weatherspoon GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx

Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
W.H. Weatherspoon Power 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 56
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment
Plans\Weatherspoon\Weatherspoon GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx

Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
W.H. Weatherspoon Power 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, 1998). The objective of the SLERA is to evaluate the likelihood that adverse
ecological effects may result from exposure to environmental stressors associated with
conditions at the site.
The screening level evaluation will include compilation of a list of potential ecological
receptors (e.g., plants, benthic invertebrates, fish, mammals, birds, etc.). Additionally,
an evaluation of sensitive ecological populations will be performed. Preliminary
information on listed rare animal species at or near the site will be compiled from the
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program database and U.S. Fish and Wildlife county
list to evaluate the potential for presence of rare or endangered animal and plant
species. Existing ecological studies publically available for the site will be reviewed and
incorporated as appropriate to support the SLERA.
Appropriate state and federal natural resource agencies will be contacted to determine
the potential presence (or lack thereof) of sensitive species or their critical habitat at the
time the SLERA is performed. If sensitive species or critical habitats are present or
potentially present, a survey of the appropriate area will be performed. If sensitive
species are utilizing the site, an evaluation of the potential for adverse effects due to
site-related constituent or activities will be developed and presented to the appropriate
agencies.
The SLERA will include, as the basis for the CEM, a description of the known fate and
transport mechanisms for site-related constituents and potentially complete pathways
from assumed source to receptor. An ecological checklist will be completed for the site
Page 57
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment
Plans\Weatherspoon\Weatherspoon GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx

Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra

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;
• 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 58
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment
Plans\Weatherspoon\Weatherspoon GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx

Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
W.H. Weatherspoon Power 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 59
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment
Plans\Weatherspoon\Weatherspoon GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx

Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
W.H. Weatherspoon Power 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 60
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment
Plans\Weatherspoon\Weatherspoon GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx

Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra

• Box (whisker) plots for locations sampled on four or more events showing the
quartiles of the data along with minimum and maximum. Plots will be aligned
with multiple locations on one chart. Similar charts will be provided for select
COPCs,
• Stacked time-series plots will be provided for select COPCs. 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, intermediate, and deep 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 soil cores for each boring location.
• Others as appropriate.

Page 61
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment
Plans\Weatherspoon\Weatherspoon GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx

Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra

10.0 PROPOSED SCHEDULE
Duke Energy will submit the CSA Report within 180 days of NCDENR approval of this
Work Plan. The anticipated schedule for implementation of field work, evaluation of
data, and preparation of the Work Plan is presented in the table below.
Activity Start Date Duration to Complete
Field Exploration Program 10 days following Work Plan approval 75 days
Receive Laboratory Data 14 days following end of Exploration Program 15 days
Evaluate Lab/Field Data, Develop CSM 5 days following receipt of Lab Data 30 days
Prepare and Submit CSA 10 days following Work Plan approval 170 days

Project Assumptions Include:
• Data from no more than one iterative assessment step may be included in the
CSA report. Iterative assessment data may be provided in supplemental reports,
if required;
• No special permitting is anticipated;
• Data will not reflect all seasonal or extreme hydrologic conditions;
• During the CSA process if additional investigations are required, NCDENR will
be notified immediately with a description of the proposed work and a timeline
for completion.

Page 62
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment
Plans\Weatherspoon\Weatherspoon GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx

Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
W.H. Weatherspoon Power 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.
Dewberry & Davis, LLC, Final Report Coal Combustion Residue Impoundment Round 9 -
Dam Assessment Report Weatherspoon Steam Electric Plant Ash Pond Embankment
Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. Robeson County, North Carolina, Under Contract
Number EP-09W001727, December 2011.
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.
EPRI 2004 Electric Power Research Institute, “Chemical Attenuation Coefficients for
Arsenic Species Using Soil Samples Collected from Selected Power Plant Sites:
Laboratory Studies”, Product ID:1005505, December 2004.
Giese, G.L. Eimers, J.L., and Coble, R.W., 1997 Simulation of Ground-Water Flow in the
Coastal Plain Aquifer System of North Carolina, United States Geological Survey
Professional Paper 1404-M.
Horton, J. W. and Zullo, V. A., 1991, The Geology of the Carolinas, Carolina Geological
Society Fiftieth Anniversary Volume, 406 pp.
Page 63
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment
Plans\Weatherspoon\Weatherspoon GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx

Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra

Narkunas, J., 1980, Groundwater Evaluation in the Central Coastal Plain of North
Carolina, North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development, 119 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.
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.
S&ME, Field Exploration Data Report, Progress Energy – Weatherspoon Plant Ash Pond,
Lumberton, North Carolina, S&ME Project No. 1054-12-062, June 11, 2012.
SynTerra, Seep Monitoring Report for W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant, NPDES Permit#
NC0005363, October 2014.
SynTerra, Drinking Water Well and Receptor Survey for W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant,
NPDES Permit# NC0005363, September 2014.
SynTerra, Supplement to Drinking Water Well and Receptor Survey-W.H. Weatherspoon
Power Plant, NPDES Permit# NC0005363, November 2014.
SynTerra, Groundwater Monitoring Program Sampling, Analysis, and Reporting Plan for
W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant, NPDES Permit# NC0005363, October 2014.
Page 64
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment
Plans\Weatherspoon\Weatherspoon GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx

Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra

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 Document, “Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Process for
Designing and Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments”, Interim Final. EPA
540-R-97-006, dated June 1997.
US EPA Document, “Amended Guidance on Ecological Risk Assessment at Military
Bases: Process Considerations, Timing of Activities, and Inclusion of
Stakeholders”, Memorandum from Simon, Ted. W., Ph.D., Office of Technical
Services, dated 2000.
US EPA Document, “Generic Ecological Assessment Endpoints for Ecological Risk
Assessment”, EPA/630/P-02-004F, dated 2004.
http://www.epa.gov/raf/publications/geae.htm.
US EPA Document “National Recommended Water Quality Criteria,” EPA 822-R-02-
047, dated 2004, available at www.epa.gov/waterscience/pc/revcom.pdf.
US EPA Document, “US EPA Regional Screening Levels (RSLs)”, available at
http://www.epa.gov/region9/superfund/prg/. dated, November 2014 (last
update).
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.
US EPA, 1998. Report to Congress Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels, Volume
2 Methods, Findings, and Recommendations.
Page 65
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment
Plans\Weatherspoon\Weatherspoon GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx

Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan Revision 1: December 2014
W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra

Winner, M.D., Jr., and Coble, R.W., 1989, Hydrogeologic Framework of the North
Carolina Coastal Plain Aquifer System: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File
Report.
Page 66
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment
Plans\Weatherspoon\Weatherspoon GW Assessment Plan REV1.docx

FIGURES

PROJECT MANAGER:
LAYOUT:
DRAWN BY:
KATHY WEBB
DATE:S. ARLEDGE
FIG 1 (USGS SITE LOCATION)
2014-09-25
FIGURE 1
SITE LOCATION MAP
WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT
491 POWER PLANT RD
LUMBERTON, NORTH CAROLINA
SOUTH EAST LUMBERTON, NC QUADRANGLE
2000
GRAPHIC SCALE
1000
IN FEET
10000CONTOUR INTERVAL:
MAP DATE:
10 FEET
1993
148 RIVER STREET, SUITE 220
GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA
PHONE [phone]
www.synterracorp.com
SOURCE:
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OBTAINED FROM THE NRCS GEOSPATIAL DATA
GATEWAY AT http://datagateway.nrcs.usda.gov/
RALEIGH
WILMINGTON
GREENVILLE
GREENSBORO
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
500' COMPLIANCE
BOUNDARY
WASTE
BOUNDARY
WEATHERSPOON
POWER PLANT
ROBESON
COUNTY
12/30/2014 2:42 PMP:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment Plans\Weatherspoon\Figures\DE WEATHERSPOON FIG 1 (SITE LOCATION MAP).dwg
4000400800GRAPHIC SCALEIN FEETFIG 2 (SITE LAYOUT MAP)2014-11-21H. FRANKJ. CHASTAINPROJECT MANAGER:LAYOUT NAME:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:K. WEBBDATE:DATE:FIGURE 2SITE LAYOUT MAPwww.synterracorp.com148 River Street, Suite 220Greenville, South Carolina 29601864-421-9999LEGEND2014-11-21500 ft COMPLIANCE BOUNDARYDUKE ENERGY PROGRESS WEATHERSPOONPLANTWASTE BOUNDARYBACKGROUND MONITORING WELL (SURVEYED)COMPLIANCE MONITORING WELL (SURVEYED)CW-1BW-1SOURCES:1.2010 HIGH RESOLUTION AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS AND 1997WATER LINES OBTAINED FROM NC ONE MAP AThttp://data.nconemap.com/geoportal/catalog/raster/download.page2.2014 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH WAS OBTAINED FROM WSPFLOWN ON APRIL 17, 2014.3.DRAWING HAS BEEN SET WITH A PROJECTION OF NORTHCAROLINA STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM FIPS 3200(NAD 83).WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT491 POWER PLANT RDLUMBERTON, NORTH CAROLINAB
E
U
L
A
H

C
H
U
R
C
H

R
DBERRY STTOMMY DRB
E
U
L
A
H

C
H
U
R
C
H

R
D
OLD WHITEVILLE RDOLD WHITEVILLE RDOLD WHITEVILLE RDRAI
LROAD
R
A
I
L
R
O
A
D
ASH BASINLUMBER RIVERCOOLING PONDLUMBER RIVERPOWER PLANT RDS ROBERTS AVES ROBERTS AVE (NC HWY 72)RAILROADTP
R
D
PHILLIPS DRTP
RDLUMBER RIVERHAVALIH DRCREEKWOOD RDTA
Y
L
O
R

R
DLEXIE LOOPRYAN STBW-1CW-3CW-2CW-112/30/2014 2:45 PM P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment Plans\Weatherspoon\Figures\DE WEATHERSPOON FIG 2 (SITE LAYOUT).dwg
WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT
491 POWER PLANT RD
ROBESON COUNTY
LUMBERTON, NC
148 RIVER STREET, SUITE 220
GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA 29601
PHONE [phone]
www.synterracorp.com
PROJECT MANAGER:
LAYOUT:
DRAWN BY:
KATHY WEBB
DATE:S. ARLEDGE
FIG 3 (GEOLOGY MAP)
2014-09-25
12/30/2014 2:46 PMP:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment Plans\Weatherspoon\Figures\DE WEATHERSPOON FIG 3 (GEOLOGY MAP).dwgFIGURE 3
GEOLOGY MAP
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS
WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT
491 POWER PLANT RD
LUMBERTON, NORTH CAROLINA
LUMBER RIVER
DISCLAIMER AND SOURCE NOTE:
The information on this map was derived from digital databases at the NC Department of Transportation Website. Care was
taken in the creation of this map. SYNTERRA cannot accept any responsibility for errors, omissions, or positional accuracy.
There are no warranties, expressed or implied, including the warranty of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose,
accompanying this product. However, notification of any errors will be appreciated.
LEGEND - UNIT NAME
Kb BLACK CREEK FORMATION
Tpy YORKTOWN FORMATION & DUPLIN FORMATION, UNDIVIDED
GEOLOGY SOURCE NOTE:
GEOLOGY SHAPEFILES OBTAINED FROM THE USGS Preliminary integrated geologic map databases for the United
States - Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, and South Carolina, DATED 2007 AT
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1323/
Kb
Kb
Tpy
Tpy
CW-1
CW-2
CW-3
BW-1
OLD
W
H
I
T
E
V
I
L
L
E

R
D
BEULAH CHURCH RDTpy
S ROBERTS AVE1000 0 1000 2000
GRAPHIC SCALE
IN FEET
CW-3 COMPLIANCE WELL
LEGEND
500 ft COMPLIANCE BOUNDARY
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS WEATHERSPOON PLANT
WASTE BOUNDARY
SOURCE:2010 HIGH RESOLUTION AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS OBTAINED FROM NC ONE MAP AThttp://data.nconemap.com/geoportal/catalog/raster/download.pageFIG 4 (WATER LEVEL MAP)2014-11-212014-11-21HOWARD FRANKJ. CHASTAINPROJECT MANAGER:LAYOUT NAME:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:KATHY WEBBDATE:DATE:800GRAPHIC SCALE(IN FEET)0400150400www.synterracorp.com148 River Street, Suite 220Greenville, South Carolina 29601864-421-9999NOTE:CONTOUR LINES ARE USED FOR REPRESENTATIVE PURPOSES ONLY ANDARE NOT TO BE USED FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES.FIGURE 4WATER LEVEL MAPJUNE 2014WEATHERSPOON ENERGY COMPLEX491 POWER PLANT RDLUMBERTON, NORTH CAROLINAB
E
U
L
A
H

C
H
U
R
C
H

R
DBERRY STTOMMY DRB
E
U
L
A
H

C
H
U
R
C
H

R
D
OLD WHITEVILLE RDOLD WHITEVILLE RDOLD WHITEVILLE RDRA
I
LRO
AD
R
A
I
L
R
O
A
D
ASH BASINLUMBER RIVERCOOLING PONDLUMBER RIVERPOWER PLANT RDS ROBERTS AVES ROBERTS AVE (NC HWY 72)RAILROADRAILROADTP
R
D
PHILLIPS DRT
P
RDLUMBER RIVERHAVALIH DRCREEKWOOD RDTAY
L
O
R

R
D
MO
S
E
S

R
D LEXIE LOOPRYAN

S
T
WASTE BOUNDARY500 ft COMPLIANCE BOUNDARYDUKE ENERGY PROGRESS WEATHERSPOON PLANTLEGENDBACKGROUND COMPLIANCE MONITORING WELL (SURVEYED)WATER LEVEL IN FEET (msl.)COMPLIANCE MONITORING WELL (SURVEYED)WATER LEVEL IN FEET (msl.)BW-01137.02CW-01111.15#1DUKE ENRGY PROGRESS PRODUCTION WELL (APPROXIMATE)CW-01111.15#1#2BW-01137.02142.82306927.892207479.08139.46BW-01MEASURING PTFEET (msl.)NORTHINGEASTINGWELL IDGROUND SURFACEFEET (msl.)116.84304511.222008942.11113.71CW-01113.41305762.292010618.15110.69CW-02119.08306399.732010228.16115.96CW-031
3
5
CW-02108.07CW-03112.541
3
0
1
2
5
1
2
0
1
1
5
1
1
0
1
3
5
1
3
0
1
2
5
1
2
0
1
1
5
1
1
0
WATER LEVEL CONTOUR IN FEET (msl.)WATER LEVELS:WATER LEVELS WERE MEASURED BY SYNTERRA ON JUNE 4, 2014.
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWB-20FIG 5 (PROP MW & SAMP LOC MAP)2014-12-242014-12-24H. FRANKJ. CHASTAINPROJECT MANAGER:LAYOUT NAME:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:K. WEBBDATE:DATE:FIGURE 5PROPOSED MONITORING WELLAND SAMPLE LOCATION MAP600GRAPHIC SCALE(IN FEET)0300150300www.synterracorp.com148 River Street, Suite 220Greenville, South Carolina 29601864-421-9999WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT491 POWER PLANT RDLUMBERTON, NORTH CAROLINALEGENDSOURCES:1.2010 HIGH RESOLUTION AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHSOBTAINED FROM NC ONE MAP AThttp://data.nconemap.com/geoportal/catalog/raster/download.page2.2014 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH WAS OBTAINED FROM WSPFLOWN ON APRIL 17, 2014.3.2ft CONTOUR INTERVALS FROM NCDOT LIDAR DATED2007https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/gis/pages/cont-elev_v2.aspx4.DRAWING HAS BEEN SET WITH A PROJECTION OFNORTH CAROLINA STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEMFIPS 3200 (NAD 83).NOTE:1.CONTOUR LINES ARE USED FOR REPRESENTATIVEPURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT TO BE USED FORDESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES.DEP 1B
E
U
L
A
H

C
H
U
R
C
H

R
D
BERRY STTOMMY DROLD WHITEVILLE RDRAI
LROAD
R
A
I
L
R
O
A
D
ASH BASINLUMBER RIVERCOOLING PONDLUMBER RIVERPOWER PLANT RDS ROBERTS AVE (NC HWY 72)HAVALIH DRCREEKWOOD RDMOS
E
S

R
D
J
A
C
O
B

C
R
E
E
KDEP 2BW-1CW-3CW-2CW-1MW-1PZ-1OW-3OW-1MW-8MW-8IMW-8DOW-8MW-44SMW-44SAMW-44IOW-44DOW-9MW-33SMW-33IMW-33DPZ-2PZ-3OW-17MW-49IMW-49DMW-2MW-3MW-53IMW-53DMW-6MW-7MW-54DMW-5MW-4OB-2MW-52OB-1MW-55DMW-41IMW-41DB'AA'SB-2PROPOSED SOIL BORING LOCATIONSOURCE:USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OBTAINED FROM THE NRCS GEOSPATIAL DATAGATEWAY AT http://datagateway.nrcs.usda.gov/2000GRAPHIC SCALE1000IN FEET10000S-20S-19S-17S-18S-21S-15S-14S-13S-12S-11S-10S-09S-02S-06S-08S-07S-18S-22S-17S-16S-03S-05S-01S-04BB-40CPT-40CPT-10B-39B-36B-37B-38CPT-14CPT-47B-16B-13CPT-13B-48B-51CPT-56CPT-18CPT-50B-12CPT-12B-46B-11B-42CPT-42B-43B-27B-28CPT-57B-4CPT-4B-30B-29B-32B-31B-7CPT-7B-26CPT-26B-23CPT-23B-21B-22CPT-22B-58CPT-58B-5CPT-5B-19ACPT-19B-6B-25B-35CPT-35B-34CPT-34B-2CPT-2S-20MW-8500 ft COMPLIANCE BOUNDARYDUKE ENERGY PROGRESS WEATHERSPOONPLANTWASTE BOUNDARYBACKGROUND MONITORING WELL (SURVEYED)COMPLIANCE MONITORING WELL (SURVEYED)CMW-5BGMW-4GENERALIZED GROUNDWATER FLOWDIRECTIONxSUPPORTED BY GROUNDWATER ELEVATION DATAPOINTS OR TOPOGRAPHIC DATAFLOW DIRECTIONAB-4PROPOSED ASH/SOIL BORING LOCATIONPROPOSED GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTIONMONITORING WELL OR PIEZOMETER(SURVEYED)PROPOSED MONITORING WELL LOCATIONS-01SEEP LOCATIONNPDESOUTFALL 001NPDES OUTFALLDUKE ENERGY PROGRESSPRODUCTION WELL (APPROXIMATE)DEP 1BORING LOCATION (APPROXIMATE)CONE PENETROMETER (APPROXIMATE)B-13CPT-40SW-2PROPOSED SURFACE WATER ANDSEDIMENT LOCATIONSW-2SW-1SW-4SW-3SW-2SW-1SW-5SW-4SURFACE WATER SAMPLE LOCATION(S&ME JUNE 11, 2012) APPROXIMATE

TABLES

TABLE 2 EXCEEDANCES OF 2L STANDARDSW.H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC., LUMBERTON, NORTH CAROLINAPARAMETER CADMIUM IRON MANGANESE THALLIUM pH2L STANDARD (eff. 4/1/2013)0.002 0.3 0.05 0.0002 6.5 - 8.5Units(mg/l)(mg/l)(mg/l)(mg/l)SUBW-1 Background 0.00022 - 0.0052 0.043 - 2.140 <2L 0.0001 - 0.00066 3.9 - 4.6CW-1 CB <2L 2.060 - 4.140 0.0297 - 0.0535 <2L 5.2 - 6.3CW-2 CB <2L 0.150 -0.453 <2L <2L <2LCW-3 CB <2L 0.551 - 3.740 0.0178 - 0.0550 <2L 5.5 - 6.8Notes:Prepared by: RBI Checked by: MCM CB - Compliance Boundary< 2L - Constituent has not been detected above the 2L Standard or beyond range for pHWell IDWell Location Relative to Compliance BoundaryConcentration RangeShown concentration ranges only include concentrations detected above the laboratory's reporting limit through June 2014.Page 1 of 1P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment Plans\Weatherspoon\Tables\Table 2-Summary Concentration Ranges Weatherspoon.xlsx
TABLE 3SPLP LEACHING ANALYTICAL RESULTSH.F. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC., LUMBERTON, NORTH CAROLINAAnalytical Parameter Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Boron Cadmium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Manganese Mercury Molybdenum Nickel Selenium Silver Strontium Thallium Vanadium Zincmg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L200.8 200.8 200.7 200.7 200.7 200.8 200.7 200.8 200.7 200.7 200.8 200.8 245.1 200.7 200.7 200.8 NA 200.7 200.8 200.8 200.7Location Sample Datewithin ash basin 10/13/20110.0022 0.0392 0.276 0.0011 0.0639 <0.0001 0.0041 0.0034 0.0109 1.16 0.0086 0.0072 <0.0002 0.0098 0.0064 0.0269 <0.0001 0.281 <0.001 0.0587 0.0075within ash basin 10/13/20110.0036 0.037 0.069 <0.0001 0.107 <0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.0318 <0.0001 0.0012 <0.0002 0.232 <0.001 0.0046 <0.0001 0.202 <0.001 0.0149 <0.005within ash basin 10/13/20110.022 0.0525 0.17 <0.0001 0.204 <0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.001 <0.0002 0.0175 <0.001 0.0212 <0.0001 0.603 <0.001 0.138 <0.005Prepared by: BER/RBI Checked by: RGNotes:1 Units:mg/L = milligrams per liter2 ft-bls = feet below land surface (land surface comprised at the top of ash in the basin)3 NE = Not established4 SPLP = Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure, USEPA Method 1312567Sample data was obtained from the Field Exploration Data Report, Progress Energy – Weatherspoon Plant Ash Pond, Lumberton, North Carolina, S&ME Project No. 1054-12-062, June 11, 2012.j = Analyte detected is between the Method Detection Limit and the Reporting LimitConstituent ConcentrationsUnitsAnalytical MethodAnalytical results with "<" preceeding the result indicate that the parameter was not detected at a concentration which attains or exceeds the laboratory reporting limit.Sample Name and Depth (ft-bls)B-5 (1 - 2.5)B-5 (18.5 - 20)B-13 (1 - 2.5)P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment Plans\Weatherspoon\Tables\Tables 3 - 8 12_17_2014.xlsx1 of 1
TABLE 4GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTSH.F. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC., LUMBERTON, NORTH CAROLINADepth to WaterpH Temp.Specific ConductanceDO ORP Turbidity Eh Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium BOD Boron COD Cadmium Chloride Chromium Cobalt Copper Fluoride Iron Leadft (TOC) S.U. Deg C µS/cm mg/l mV NTUs mV mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/lNE 6.5 - 8.5 NE NE NE NE NE NE 0.001 0.01 0.7 0.004 NE 0.7 NE 0.002 250 0.01 0.001 1 2 0.3 0.015200.8 200.8 200.7 NA NA 200.7 NA 200.8 300 200.7 NA 200.7 NA 200.7 200.8Hydrostratigraphic UnitWell Type Sample DateShallow Compliance 11/16/2010 8.35 4.5 18 0.202 NM NM 4.5 NM <0.0005 <0.005 0.114 NA NA NA NA 0.00022 21 <0.005 NA <0.005 NA 1.39 <0.005Shallow Compliance 3/1/2011 6.8 4.2 14 289 0.4 -13.1 6.28 191.9 <0.0005 <0.005 0.1 b NA NA <0.05 NA 0.00026 36.4 b <0.005 NA <0.005 NA 2.04 <0.005Shallow Compliance 6/7/2011 7.99 4.3 18 162 0.52 -58.6 1.25 146.4 <0.0005 <0.005 0.109 NA NA 0.0599 NA 0.00039 6.2 <0.005 NA <0.005 NA 0.0879 <0.005Shallow Compliance 10/3/2011 7.31 4.6 19 164 0.5 -149.4 0.58 55.6 <0.0005 <0.005 0.0848 NA NA 0.0868 NA 0.00023 13.5 <0.005 NA <0.005 NA 0.643 <0.005Shallow Compliance 3/5/2012 5.63 4.2 16 241 0.45 -38.4 0.58 166.6 <0.0005 <0.005 0.0963 NA NA <0.05 NA 0.00032 30 <0.005 NA <0.005 NA 0.591 <0.005Shallow Compliance 6/4/2012 7.38 4.1 18 151 4.2 -55.8 2.2 149.2 <0.0005 <0.005 0.0684 NA NA 0.0526 NA 0.00008 8.7 <0.005 NA <0.005 NA <0.05 <0.005Shallow Compliance 10/1/2012 8.43 4.3 20 155 0.5 213.7 0.53 418.7 <0.0005 <0.005 0.0606 NA NA 0.0583 NA 0.00031 7.9 <0.005 NA <0.005 NA <0.05 <0.005Shallow Compliance 3/11/2013 6.32 3.9 17 226.9 1.29 288.9 2.78 493.9 <0.001 <0.001 0.081 NA NA <0.05 NA <0.001 19 <0.005 NA <0.005 NA 0.143 0.0014Shallow Compliance 6/11/2013 6.62 4.0 19 152.2 0.59 318.2 1.72 523.2 <0.001 <0.001 0.061 NA NA 0.069 NA <0.001 7.1 <0.005 NA <0.005 NA 0.044 <0.001Shallow Compliance 10/1/2013 5.94 4.2 20 187.2 0.24 101.3 9.9 306.3 <0.001 0.00105 0.083 NA NA <0.05 NA <0.001 16 <0.005 NA <0.005 NA 0.392 <0.001Shallow Compliance 3/6/2014 5.23 3.9 12 256 1 380.8 0.52 585.8 <0.001 <0.001 0.086 NA NA <0.05 NA 0.0052 34 <0.005 NA <0.005 NA 0.657 0.00135Shallow Compliance 6/4/2014 5.8 4.0 18 122.6 NM 345 1.1 550 <0.001 0.00118 0.081 NA NA <0.05 NA <0.001 33 <0.005 NA <0.005 NA 2.14 0.00156Shallow Compliance 11/16/2010 4.73 5.9 18 0.152 NM NM 9.6 NM <0.0005 <0.005 0.046 NA NA 0.0536 NA 0.00008 <0.005 <0.005 NA <0.005 NA 2.81 <0.005Shallow Compliance 3/1/2011 3.89 6.0 13 147 0.53 -139 11.3 66 <0.0005 0.0054 0.0437 b NA NA <0.05 NA 0.00008 <0.005 <0.005 NA <0.005 NA 3.32 <0.005Shallow Compliance 6/7/2011 5.42 5.6 21 126 0.57 -159 9.05 46 <0.0005 <0.005 0.039 NA NA <0.05 NA 0.00008 <0.005 <0.005 NA <0.005 NA 4.14 <0.005Shallow Compliance 10/3/2011 4.17 5.7 19 132 0.92 -172.9 5.32 32.1 <0.0005 <0.005 0.0401 NA NA <0.05 NA 0.00016 <0.005 <0.005 NA <0.005 NA 2.58 <0.005Shallow Compliance 10/31/2011 4.21 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAShallow Compliance 11/23/2011 3.67 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAShallow Compliance 12/20/2011 4.03 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAShallow Compliance 1/26/2012 3.89 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAShallow Compliance 2/27/2012 3.86 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAShallow Compliance 3/5/2012 3.62 6.2 14 150 0.46 -88.2 28.4 116.8 <0.0005 <0.005 0.0438 NA NA <0.05 NA 0.00008 <5 <0.005 NA <0.005 NA 2.06 <0.005Shallow Compliance 3/20/2012 4.16 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAShallow Compliance 6/4/2012 4.53 6.3 19 167 2.83 -120.1 3.43 84.9 <0.0005 <0.005 0.0418 NA NA <0.05 NA 0.00008 4.7 <0.005 NA <0.005 NA 2.39 <0.005Shallow Compliance 10/1/2012 4.33 5.4 21 97 0.46 -115.2 28.9 89.8 <0.0005 <0.005 0.032 NA NA <0.05 NA 0.00008 4.6 <0.005 NA <0.005 NA 2.59 <0.005Shallow Compliance 3/11/2013 4.12 6.0 15 138.9 0.25 -9.2 12.7 195.8 <0.001 <0.001 0.034 NA NA <0.05 NA <0.001 4 <0.005 NA <0.005 NA 2.75 <0.001Shallow Compliance 6/11/2013 3.65 5.2 21 94 0.32 49.6 18.1 254.6 <0.001 0.00184 0.026 NA NA <0.05 NA <0.001 3.8 <0.005 NA <0.005 NA 2.43 <0.001Shallow Compliance 10/1/2013 5.7 5.2 21 93.9 0.49 -28.4 10 176.6 <0.001 0.00134 0.024 NA NA <0.05 NA 0.00106 3.6 <0.005 NA <0.005 NA 2.13 <0.001Shallow Compliance 3/6/2014 3.76 5.8 10 140.4 0.45 23.7 6.66 228.7 <0.001 <0.001 0.033 NA NA <0.05 NA 0.00118 4 <0.005 NA <0.005 NA 3.68 <0.001Shallow Compliance 6/4/2014 5.69 5.4 19 88.4 NM -63.2 7.3 141.8 <0.001 <0.001 0.035 NA NA <0.05 NA <0.001 4.1 <0.005 NA <0.005 NA 2.25 <0.001Shallow Compliance 11/16/2010 6.37 7.4 19 0.268 NM NM 1.1 NM <0.0005 <0.005 0.0204 NA NA <0.05 NA 0.00008 6.4 <0.005 NA <0.005 NA 0.453 <0.005Shallow Compliance 3/1/2011 4.76 7.5 13 266 0.21 -129 0.5 76 <0.0005 <0.005 0.0199 b NA NA <0.05 NA 0.00008 <5 <0.005 NA <0.005 NA 0.321 <0.005Shallow Compliance 6/7/2011 5.58 7.4 19 258 0.35 -166.5 0.66 38.5 <0.0005 <0.005 0.0209 NA NA <0.05 NA 0.00008 <5 <0.005 NA <0.005 NA 0.236 <0.005Shallow Compliance 10/3/2011 5.39 7.4 20 270 0.33 -217 0.84 -12 <0.0005 <0.005 0.0215 NA NA <0.05 NA 0.00008 <5 <0.005 NA <0.005 NA 0.222 <0.005Shallow Compliance 10/31/2011 5.79 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAShallow Compliance 11/23/2011 5.09 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAShallow Compliance 12/20/2011 5.06 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAShallow Compliance 1/26/2012 4.66 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAShallow Compliance 2/27/2012 4.55 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAShallow Compliance 3/5/2012 4.28 6.9 14 261 0.37 -60.1 1.07 144.9 <0.0005 <0.005 0.0203 NA NA <0.05 NA 0.00008 <5 <0.005 NA <0.005 NA 0.399 <0.005Shallow Compliance 3/19/2012 4.73 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAShallow Compliance 3/20/2012 4.74 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAShallow Compliance 6/4/2012 5.1 7.1 18 266 2.26 -175.2 0.55 29.8 <0.0005 <0.005 0.0204 NA NA <0.05 NA 0.00008 5.3 <0.005 NA <0.005 NA 0.192 <0.005Shallow Compliance 10/1/2012 5.45 7.5 21 275 0.31 -90.8 0.86 114.2 <0.0005 <0.005 0.0221 NA NA <0.05 NA 0.00008 5.6 <0.005 NA <0.005 NA 0.194 <0.005Shallow Compliance 3/11/2013 4.77 7.1 15 265.4 0.22 -11.5 1.39 193.5 <0.001 <0.001 0.019 NA NA <0.05 NA <0.001 4.2 <0.005 NA <0.005 NA 0.165 <0.001Shallow Compliance 6/11/2013 3.9 7.2 18 286.2 0.28 -80.1 0.54 124.9 <0.001 <0.001 0.021 NA NA <0.05 NA <0.001 4.3 <0.005 NA <0.005 NA 0.371 <0.001Shallow Compliance 10/1/2013 5.83 7.4 21 278.3 0.85 -72.9 2.25 132.1 <0.001 <0.001 0.021 NA NA <0.05 NA <0.001 4 <0.005 NA <0.005 NA 0.235 <0.001Shallow Compliance 3/6/2014 4.67 7.1 11 284.3 1.42 15.7 2.61 220.7 <0.001 <0.001 0.022 NA NA <0.05 NA <0.001 4.4 <0.005 NA <0.005 NA 0.182 <0.001Shallow Compliance 6/4/2014 5.34 7.5 18 222.4 NM -132.8 1.6 72.2 <0.001 <0.001 0.02 NA NA <0.05 NA <0.001 4.1 <0.005 NA <0.005 NA 0.388 <0.001Shallow Compliance 11/16/2010 8.55 6.8 19 0.189 NM NM 10 NM <0.0005 <0.005 0.0295 NA NA <0.05 NA 0.00008 <5 <0.005 NA <0.005 NA 1.16 <0.005Shallow Compliance 3/1/2011 3.73 6.0 14 402 0.86 51 28.9 256 <0.0005 <0.005 0.101 b NA NA <0.05 NA 0.00008 69.9 <0.005 NA <0.005 NA 0.919 <0.005Shallow Compliance 6/7/2011 5.96 6.5 21 231 1.7 -51.4 47.7 153.6 <0.0005 <0.005 0.0577 NA NA <0.05 NA 0.0002 27.8 0.008 NA <0.005 NA 3.74 <0.005Shallow Compliance 10/3/2011 5.49 6.6 21 195 1.6 -162.2 1.88 42.8 <0.0005 <0.005 0.0294 NA NA <0.05 NA 0.00012 <5 <0.005 NA <0.005 NA 1.07 <0.005Shallow Compliance 3/5/2012 3.62 5.5 15 444 1.77 -58.3 7.38 146.7 <0.0005 <0.005 0.121 NA NA <0.05 NA 0.00008 86.3 <0.005 NA <0.005 NA 0.822 <0.005Shallow Compliance 6/4/2012 5.53 6.3 19 231 3.45 -79.2 7.59 125.8 <0.0005 <0.005 0.0373 NA NA <0.05 NA 0.000080 16 <0.005 NA <0.005 NA 2.12 <0.005Shallow Compliance 10/1/2012 6.05 6.7 21 198 0.7 -102 1 103 <0.0005 <0.005 0.0349 NA NA <0.05 NA 0.00028 6.4 <0.005 NA <0.005 NA 0.959 <0.005Shallow Compliance 3/11/2013 4.56 5.5 15 626 1.48 101 8.3 306 <0.001 <0.001 0.163 NA NA 0.143 NA <0.001 97 <0.005 NA <0.005 NA 1.61 <0.001Shallow Compliance 6/11/2013 3.55 6.1 20 400.9 0.35 39.5 7.04 244.5 <0.001 0.00126 0.087 NA NA 0.096 NA <0.001 47 <0.005 NA <0.005 NA 3.29 <0.001Shallow Compliance 10/1/2013 6.63 6.5 21 237.3 0.44 -50.2 7.62 154.8 <0.001 <0.001 0.038 NA NA <0.05 NA <0.001 11 <0.005 NA <0.005 NA 1.54 <0.001Shallow Compliance 10/31/2011 6.21 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAShallow Compliance 11/23/2011 4.92 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAShallow Compliance 12/20/2011 4.89 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAShallow Compliance 1/26/2012 4.05 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAShallow Compliance 2/27/2012 3.88 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAShallow Compliance 3/19/2012 4.51 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAShallow Compliance 3/20/2012 4.94 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAShallow Compliance 3/6/2014 4.18 6.2 11 552.8 2.68 59.3 9.77 264.3 <0.001 <0.001 0.137 NA NA 0.17 NA <0.001 71 <0.005 NA <0.005 NA 0.551 <0.001Shallow Compliance 6/4/2014 6.54 6.5 20 245.4 NM -3 8.5 202 <0.001 <0.001 0.054 NA NA 0.05 NA <0.001 22 <0.005 NA <0.005 NA 1.58 <0.001Constituent ConcentrationsField Measurements15 NCAC .02L .0202(g) Groundwater Quality StandardCW-1*CW-1*CW-1*CW-1*CW-3*CW-2*CW-2*CW-2*CW-2*CW-2*CW-2*CW-2*CW-1*CW-1*CW-1*CW-1*CW-1*Analytical ParameterAnalytical MethodUnitsCW-3*CW-3*CW-3*CW-3*CW-3*CW-3*CW-3*CW-3***CW-3***Sample IDBW-1*BW-1*BW-1*BW-1*BW-1*BW-1*BW-1*BW-1*BW-1*BW-1*BW-1*BW-1*CW-1*CW-1*CW-1*CW-2*CW-2*CW-2*CW-2*CW-2*CW-3*CW-3*CW-3*CW-3*CW-1***CW-1***CW-2***CW-2***CW-2***CW-2***CW-2***CW-1***CW-1***CW-1***CW-1***CW-2***CW-3***CW-3***CW-3***CW-2***CW-3***CW-3***P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment Plans\Weatherspoon\Tables\Tables 3 - 8 12_17_2014.xlsx1 of 12
TABLE 4GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTSH.F. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC., LUMBERTON, NORTH CAROLINADepth to WaterpH Temp.Specific ConductanceDO ORP Turbidity Eh Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium BOD Boron COD Cadmium Chloride Chromium Cobalt Copper Fluoride Iron Leadft (TOC) S.U. Deg C µS/cm mg/l mV NTUs mV mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/lNE 6.5 - 8.5 NE NE NE NE NE NE 0.001 0.01 0.7 0.004 NE 0.7 NE 0.002 250 0.01 0.001 1 2 0.3 0.015200.8 200.8 200.7 NA NA 200.7 NA 200.8 300 200.7 NA 200.7 NA 200.7 200.8Hydrostratigraphic UnitWell Type Sample DateConstituent ConcentrationsField Measurements15 NCAC .02L .0202(g) Groundwater Quality StandardAnalytical ParameterAnalytical MethodUnitsSample IDShallow Voluntary 10/31/2011 25.44 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAShallow Voluntary 11/23/2011 24.49 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAShallow Voluntary 12/20/2011 24.98 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAShallow Voluntary 1/26/2012 26.72 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAShallow Voluntary 2/27/2012 27.03 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAShallow Voluntary 3/19/2012 27.08 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAShallow Voluntary 3/20/2012 27.03 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAShallow Voluntary 10/31/2011 22.24 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAShallow Voluntary 11/1/2011 22.08 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAShallow Voluntary 11/23/2011 21.01 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAShallow Voluntary 12/20/2011 22.31 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAShallow Voluntary 1/26/2012 24.09 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAShallow Voluntary 2/27/2012 24.86 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAShallow Voluntary 3/19/2012 25.02 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAShallow Voluntary 3/20/2012 27.98 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAShallow Voluntary 10/31/2011 23.96 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAShallow Voluntary 11/1/2011 23.96 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAShallow Voluntary 11/23/2011 23.54 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAShallow Voluntary 12/20/2011 23.67 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAShallow Voluntary 1/26/2012 23.39 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAShallow Voluntary 2/27/2012 23.58 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAShallow Voluntary 3/19/2012 23.34 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAShallow Voluntary 10/31/2011 22.04 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAShallow Voluntary 11/23/2011 21.73 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAShallow Voluntary 12/20/2011 22.13 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAShallow Voluntary 1/26/2012 21.95 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAShallow Voluntary 2/27/2012 21.89 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAShallow Voluntary 3/19/2012 21.51 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAShallow Voluntary 3/20/2012 21.52 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAShallow Voluntary 10/31/2011 8.25 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAShallow Voluntary 11/23/2011 8.25 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAShallow Voluntary 12/20/2011 7.64 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAShallow Voluntary 1/26/2012 6.98 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAShallow Voluntary 2/27/2012 6.55 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAShallow Voluntary 3/20/2012 6.4 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAShallow NPDES 3/19/1990 NA 6.4 NM NM NM NM NM NM NA ND 0.01 NA NA NA NA ND NA NA NA NA NA 0.18 NDShallow NPDES 7/5/1990 NA 6.3 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ND 0.01 NA NA NA NA ND NA NA NA NA NA 0.14 NDShallow NPDES 11/5/1990 NA 7.0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ND ND NA NA NA NA ND NA NA NA NA NA 0.09 NDShallow NPDES 3/6/1991 NA 7.4 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ND ND NA NA NA NA 0.0001 NA NA NA NA NA 0.3 0.0014Shallow NPDES 7/1/1991 NA 5.8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.001 ND NA NA NA NA ND NA NA NA NA NA 0.5 NDShallow NPDES 11/6/1991 NA 6.0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ND ND NA NA NA NA 0.0004 NA NA NA NA NA 0.36 0.0039Shallow NPDES 3/2/1992 NA 7.2 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.001 0.0106 NA NA NA NA 0.0008 NA NA NA NA NA ND NDShallow NPDES 7/7/1992 NA 4.9 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ND 0.007 NA NA NA NA 0.0003 NA NA NA NA NA 0.23 NDShallow NPDES 11/4/1992 NA 5.6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.001 <0.005 NA NA NA NA <0.0001 NA NA NA NA NA <0.05 <0.001Shallow NPDES 3/10/1993 NA 5.0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.001 0.013 NA NA NA NA <0.0001 NA NA NA NA NA 2.3 <0.001Shallow NPDES 7/12/1993 NA 7.5 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.001 0.0126 NA NA NA NA <0.0001 NA NA NA NA NA 3 <0.001Shallow NPDES 11/8/1993 NA 5.1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.001 0.011 NA NA NA NA <0.0001 NA NA NA NA NA 0.8 <0.001Shallow NPDES 3/7/1994 NA 4.5 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.001 0.02 NA NA NA NA 0.0002 NA NA NA NA NA 1.1 <0.001Shallow NPDES 7/12/1994 NA 7.1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.001 <0.02 NA NA NA NA <0.0001 NA NA NA NA NA 4.7 <0.001Shallow NPDES 10/31/1994 NA 4.8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.001 0.013 NA NA NA NA <0.0001 NA NA NA NA NA 17 <0.001Shallow NPDES 3/7/1995 NA 5.7 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.001 <0.01 NA NA NA NA <0.0001 NA NA NA NA NA 6.7 <0.005Shallow NPDES 7/11/1995 NA 5.9 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.004 0.017 NA NA NA NA <0.0001 NA NA NA NA NA 18 <0.001Shallow NPDES 3/5/1996 NA 5.8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.0024 NA NA NA NA NA 0.0008 NA NA NA NA NA 1.9 0.004Shallow NPDES 3/18/1997 NA 5.6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.0018 NA NA NA NA NA <0.0005 NA NA NA NA NA 9.8 0.002Shallow NPDES 3/9/1998 NA 5.0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.003 NA NA NA NA NA <0.0005 NA NA NA NA NA 3.7 <2Shallow NPDES 12/13/2006 16.81 4.5 64.87 0.034 NA NA NA NA 0.00069 0.00012 0.0144 <0.000051 2 0.0164 10 0.000024 2.1 0.00023 NA 0.0008 0.155 0.536 0.00016Shallow NPDES 3/14/2007 16.8 4.5 62.24 NA NA NA NA NA <0.003 <0.002 0.011 <0.001 <2 0.011 6 <0.001 3 <0.005 NA <0.005 <0.1 1.27 <3Shallow NPDES 11/13/2007 21.69 4.5 66.74 102.4 NA NA NA NA <0.0025 <0.002 0.014 <0.001 <2 0.022 17 <0.001 7 <0.005 NA <0.005 <0.1 0.401 <0.005Shallow NPDES 3/18/2008 17.12 3.8 62.24 54.3 NA NA NA NA 0.002 <0.005 0.013 <0.001 <2 0.02 5 <0.002 5 0.005 NA <0.003 0.1 0.313 <3Shallow NPDES 11/11/2008 18.15 4.7 67.1 39.4 NA NA NA NA <0.0025 <0.002 0.013 <0.001 <2 0.008 <5 <0.001 3 <0.005 NA <0.005 0.1 0.414 <2Shallow NPDES 3/24/2009 17.15 4.0 61.88 35.9 NA NA NA NA <0.001 <0.001 0.009 <0.001 <2 0.045 15 <0.001 4 0.005 NA 0.001 <0.1 0.408 2Shallow NPDES 10/15/2009 19.35 4.1 67.28 48.1 NA NA NA NA <0.001 <0.001 0.01 <0.001 <2 0.0172 <5 <0.001 7 0.004 NA 0.002 <0.1 1.52 2Shallow NPDES 3/17/2010 16.74 3.8 60.62 41.3 NA NA NA NA <0.001 <0.001 0.007 <0.001 <2 0.013 <5 <0.001 <5 0.004 NA <0.001 <0.1 1.4 <0.001Shallow Voluntary 10/31/2011 18.22 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAShallow Voluntary 11/23/2011 18.31 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAShallow Voluntary 12/20/2011 18.1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAShallow Voluntary 1/26/2012 18.13 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAShallow Voluntary 2/27/2012 18.04 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAB-03/OW-3***B-03/OW-3***B-03/OW-3***B-03/OW-3***B-03/OW-3***B-01/OW-1***B-01/OW-1***B-03/OW-3***B-03/OW-3***B-03/OW-3***B-01/OW-1***B-01/OW-1***B-01/OW-1***B-01/OW-1***B-01/OW-1***B-17/OW-17***B-17/OW-17***B-15/OW-15***B-15/OW-15***B-15/OW-15***B-17/OW-17***B-15/OW-15***B-15/OW-15***B-15/OW-15***B-15/OW-15***BW-01***B-17/OW-17***BW-01***BW-01***BW-01***B-17/OW-17***B-17/OW-17***B-17/OW-17***MW-1**MW-1**MW-1**MW-1**MW-1**MW-1**MW-1**MW-1**MW-1**MW-1**MW-1**MW-1**MW-1**MW-1**MW-1**BW-01***BW-01***MW-1**MW-1**MW-1**MW-1**MW-1**MW-1**MW-1**MW-1**MW-1**MW-1**MW-1**MW-1**MW-1**MW-01***MW-01***MW-01***MW-01***MW-01***P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment Plans\Weatherspoon\Tables\Tables 3 - 8 12_17_2014.xlsx2 of 12
TABLE 4GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTSH.F. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC., LUMBERTON, NORTH CAROLINADepth to WaterpH Temp.Specific ConductanceDO ORP Turbidity Eh Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium BOD Boron COD Cadmium Chloride Chromium Cobalt Copper Fluoride Iron Leadft (TOC) S.U. Deg C µS/cm mg/l mV NTUs mV mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/lNE 6.5 - 8.5 NE NE NE NE NE NE 0.001 0.01 0.7 0.004 NE 0.7 NE 0.002 250 0.01 0.001 1 2 0.3 0.015200.8 200.8 200.7 NA NA 200.7 NA 200.8 300 200.7 NA 200.7 NA 200.7 200.8Hydrostratigraphic UnitWell Type Sample DateConstituent ConcentrationsField Measurements15 NCAC .02L .0202(g) Groundwater Quality StandardAnalytical ParameterAnalytical MethodUnitsSample IDShallow Voluntary 3/20/2012 17.48 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAIntermediate NPDES 3/19/1990 NA 8.2 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ND 0.036 NA NA NA NA ND NA NA NA NA NA 0.06 NDIntermediate NPDES 7/5/1990 NA 6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.03 NA NA NA NA ND NA NA NA NA NA 0.18 NDIntermediate NPDES 11/5/1990 NA 5.6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ND NA NA NA NA ND NA NA NA NA NA ND NDIntermediate NPDES 3/6/1991 NA 6.6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.037 NA NA NA NA ND NA NA NA NA NA 0.11 0.002Intermediate NPDES 7/1/1991 NA 5.5 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.03 NA NA NA NA ND NA NA NA NA NA ND NDIntermediate NPDES 11/6/1991 NA 6.5 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.03 NA NA NA NA 0.0004 NA NA NA NA NA 0.4 0.017Intermediate NPDES 3/2/1992 NA 6.4 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.0339 NA NA NA NA ND NA NA NA NA NA ND NDIntermediate NPDES 7/7/1992 NA 5.3 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ND 0.034 NA NA NA NA ND NA NA NA NA NA 0.13 1Intermediate NPDES 11/4/1992 NA 7.4 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.001 0.033 NA NA NA NA <0.0001 NA NA NA NA NA <0.05 <0.001Intermediate NPDES 3/10/1993 NA 6.6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.001 0.042 NA NA NA NA <0.0001 NA NA NA NA NA 0.34 0.0013Intermediate NPDES 7/12/1993 NA 7.3 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.001 0.043 NA NA NA NA <0.0001 NA NA NA NA NA 0.33 <0.001Intermediate NPDES 11/8/1993 NA 6.6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.001 0.032 NA NA NA NA <0.0001 NA NA NA NA NA 0.06 <0.001Intermediate NPDES 3/7/1994 NA 7.2 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.001 0.04 NA NA NA NA <0.0001 NA NA NA NA NA 0.05 0.001Intermediate NPDES 7/12/1994 NA 6.3 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.001 0.03 NA NA NA NA <0.0001 NA NA NA NA NA 0.43 0.0018Intermediate NPDES 10/31/1994 NA 6.5 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.001 0.041 NA NA NA NA <0.0001 NA NA NA NA NA 0.13 <0.001Intermediate NPDES 3/7/1995 NA 6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.001 0.05 NA NA NA NA 0.0001 NA NA NA NA NA 0.84 <0.005Intermediate NPDES 7/11/1995 NA 6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.001 0.17 NA NA NA NA 0.0002 NA NA NA NA NA 7.8 <0.001Intermediate NPDES 3/18/1997 NA 5.8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.001 0.17 NA NA NA NA <0.0005 NA NA NA NA NA 0.56 0.003Intermediate NPDES 12/13/2006 4.4 7.36 65.03 0.224 NA NA NA NA 0.00027 0.00011 0.0393 <0.000051 2 0.0111 10 <0.000024 2.81 0.0004 NA 0.0013 0.14 0.452 0.00023Intermediate NPDES 3/14/2007 1.88 7.16 64.22 NA NA NA NA NA <0.003 ND 0.051 <0.001 <2 <0.005 5 <0.001 4 <0.005 NA 0.006 0.1 2.04 <3Intermediate NPDES 11/13/2007 6.25 7.08 68.18 267 NA NA NA NA <0.0025 ND 0.039 <0.001 <2 0.018 14 <0.001 5 <0.005 NA <0.005 <0.1 0.673 <0.005Intermediate NPDES 3/18/2008 3.79 7.04 64.04 263 NA NA NA NA <0.002 ND 0.051 <0.001 <2 0.021 5 <0.002 5 0.005 NA 0.006 0.1 3.18 <3Intermediate NPDES 11/11/2008 4.65 7.66 67.28 263 NA NA NA NA <0.0025 ND 0.044 <0.001 <2 0.034 6 <0.001 4 <0.005 NA <0.005 0.1 0.674 0.005Intermediate NPDES 3/24/2009 3.55 7.5 62.96 269 NA NA NA NA <0.001 ND 0.044 <0.001 <2 0.052 13 <0.001 6 0.004 NA <0.001 <0.1 1.34 <0.001Intermediate NPDES 10/15/2009 4.02 7.58 67.46 266 NA NA NA NA <0.001 ND 0.032 <0.001 <2 0.0116 <5 <0.001 6 0.003 NA <0.001 <0.1 0.699 <0.001Intermediate NPDES 3/17/2010 4.1 7.42 62.42 268 NA NA NA NA <0.001 ND 0.035 <0.001 <2 <0.01 <5 <0.001 <5 0.004 NA <0.001 <0.1 1.11 <0.001Intermediate Voluntary 10/31/2011 2.27 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAIntermediate Voluntary 11/23/2011 1.91 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAIntermediate Voluntary 12/20/2011 2.06 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAIntermediate Voluntary 1/26/2012 1.77 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAIntermediate Voluntary 2/27/2012 1.71 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAIntermediate Voluntary 3/20/2012 1.29 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAShallow NPDES 3/19/1990 NA 7.8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ND 0.09 NA NA NA NA ND NA NA NA NA NA 0.17 NDShallow NPDES 7/5/1990 NA 5.6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.002 0.073 NA NA NA NA ND NA NA NA NA NA 1.5 NDShallow NPDES 11/5/1990 NA 5.7 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.002 0.048 NA NA NA NA ND NA NA NA NA NA 0.06 NDShallow NPDES 3/6/1991 NA 5.7 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.001 0.06 NA NA NA NA ND NA NA NA NA NA 1.1 NDShallow NPDES 7/1/1991 NA 5.1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.001 0.06 NA NA NA NA ND NA NA NA NA NA NA NDShallow NPDES 11/6/1991 NA 5.7 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.002 0.08 NA NA NA NA ND NA NA NA NA NA 5.8 0.0014Shallow NPDES 3/2/1992 NA 5.5 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.001 0.0618 NA NA NA NA ND NA NA NA NA NA 1.7 NDShallow NPDES 7/7/1992 NA 5.5 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ND 0.068 NA NA NA NA ND NA NA NA NA NA 4.4 0.0036Shallow NPDES 11/4/1992 NA 6.4 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.001 0.071 NA NA NA NA <0.0001 NA NA NA NA NA <0.05 <0.001Shallow NPDES 3/10/1993 NA 6.7 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.001 0.063 NA NA NA NA <0.0001 NA NA NA NA NA 1.5 <0.001Shallow NPDES 7/12/1993 NA 7.0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.002 0.08 NA NA NA NA <0.0001 NA NA NA NA NA 5.5 <0.001Shallow NPDES 11/8/1993 NA 6.7 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.001 0.058 NA NA NA NA <0.0001 NA NA NA NA NA 0.4 <0.001Shallow NPDES 3/7/1994 NA 6.4 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.001 0.06 NA NA NA NA <0.0001 NA NA NA NA NA 0.83 <0.001Shallow NPDES 7/12/1994 NA 6.3 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.001 0.06 NA NA NA NA <0.0001 NA NA NA NA NA 2.9 <0.001Shallow NPDES 10/31/1994 NA 6.6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.001 0.083 NA NA NA NA <0.0001 NA NA NA NA NA 0.77 <0.001Shallow NPDES 3/7/1995 NA 5.9 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.001 0.07 NA NA NA NA <0.0001 NA NA NA NA NA 0.9 <0.005Shallow NPDES 7/11/1995 NA 5.7 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.001 0.11 NA NA NA NA 0.0003 NA NA NA NA NA 1.7 <0.001Shallow NPDES 3/5/1996 NA 6.6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.0024 NA NA NA NA NA <0.0005 NA NA NA NA NA 9 0.001Shallow NPDES 3/9/1998 NA 6.6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.003 NA NA NA NA NA <0.0005 NA NA NA NA NA 0.28 <2Shallow NPDES 12/13/2006 3.9 6.9 63.61 0.34 NA NA NA NA 0.00026 0.0012 0.0816 0.00034 2 0.213 10 0.00023 14 0.0063 NA 0.0032 0.105 2.26 0.0012Shallow NPDES 3/14/2007 3.44 6.7 59.72 NA NA NA NA NA <0.003 <0.002 0.093 <0.001 <2 0.169 6 <0.001 18.6 <0.005 NA <0.005 <0.1 3.96 <3Shallow NPDES 11/13/2007 4.69 7.0 70.7 503 NA NA NA NA <0.0025 <0.002 0.086 <0.001 <2 0.484 11 <0.001 27 0.006 NA <0.005 <0.1 1.56 <0.005Shallow NPDES 3/18/2008 3.82 6.8 61.52 436 NA NA NA NA 0.013 <0.005 0.061 <0.001 <2 0.136 9 <0.002 18 0.005 NA <0.003 0.1 2.04 <3Shallow NPDES 11/11/2008 4.26 6.8 67.82 491 NA NA NA NA <0.0025 <0.002 0.071 <0.001 <2 0.477 7 <0.001 25 <0.005 NA <0.005 0.1 1.84 <2Shallow NPDES 3/24/2009 4.59 7.0 59.18 462 NA NA NA NA <0.001 <0.001 0.071 <0.001 <2 0.393 12 <0.001 20 0.004 NA 0.001 <0.1 1.16 <0.001Shallow NPDES 10/15/2009 3.8 6.8 71.78 487 NA NA NA NA <0.001 0.001 0.073 <0.001 <2 0.458 <5 <0.001 24 0.004 NA 0.002 <0.1 1.58 <0.001Shallow NPDES 3/17/2010 4.41 7.0 57.2 443 NA NA NA NA <0.001 <0.001 0.064 <0.001 <2 0.142 <5 <0.001 14 0.004 NA <0.001 <0.1 1.8 <0.001Shallow Voluntary 10/31/2011 3.7 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAShallow Voluntary 11/23/2011 2.66 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAShallow Voluntary 12/20/2011 3.49 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAShallow Voluntary 1/26/2012 2.93 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAShallow Voluntary 2/27/2012 2.93 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAShallow Voluntary 3/20/2012 3.29 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAIntermediate NPDES 3/19/1990 NA 7.6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ND 0.05 NA NA NA NA 0.00012 NA NA NA NA NA ND <0.015Intermediate NPDES 7/5/1990 NA 5.8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ND 0.034 NA NA NA NA 0.0001 NA NA NA NA NA 0.07 <0.015MW-02***MW-02***MW-2**MW-2**MW-2**MW-2**MW-2**MW-2**MW-2**MW-2**MW-2**MW-2**MW-2**MW-3**MW-2**MW-2**MW-2**MW-2**MW-2**MW-2**MW-3**MW-3**MW-3**MW-2**MW-2**MW-2**MW-2**MW-3**MW-02***MW-2**MW-01***MW-02***MW-02***MW-02***MW-2**MW-2**MW-2**MW-2**MW-3**MW-3**MW-3**MW-3**MW-3**MW-3**MW-3**MW-3**MW-3**MW-3**MW-3**MW-3**MW-3**MW-3**MW-3**MW-3**MW-3**MW-3**MW-03***MW-03***MW-03***MW-03***MW-03***MW-3**MW-3**MW-3**MW-03***MW-3**MW-4**MW-4**P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment Plans\Weatherspoon\Tables\Tables 3 - 8 12_17_2014.xlsx3 of 12
TABLE 4GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTSH.F. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC., LUMBERTON, NORTH CAROLINADepth to WaterpH Temp.Specific ConductanceDO ORP Turbidity Eh Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium BOD Boron COD Cadmium Chloride Chromium Cobalt Copper Fluoride Iron Leadft (TOC) S.U. Deg C µS/cm mg/l mV NTUs mV mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/lNE 6.5 - 8.5 NE NE NE NE NE NE 0.001 0.01 0.7 0.004 NE 0.7 NE 0.002 250 0.01 0.001 1 2 0.3 0.015200.8 200.8 200.7 NA NA 200.7 NA 200.8 300 200.7 NA 200.7 NA 200.7 200.8Hydrostratigraphic UnitWell Type Sample DateConstituent ConcentrationsField Measurements15 NCAC .02L .0202(g) Groundwater Quality StandardAnalytical ParameterAnalytical MethodUnitsSample IDIntermediate NPDES 11/5/1990 NA 6.0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ND 0.033 NA NA NA NA ND NA NA NA NA NA 0.05 0.0027Intermediate NPDES 3/6/1991 NA 5.7 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ND 0.035 NA NA NA NA ND NA NA NA NA NA ND <0.015Intermediate NPDES 7/1/1991 NA 5.4 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ND 0.03 NA NA NA NA ND NA NA NA NA NA ND <0.015Intermediate NPDES 11/6/1991 NA 5.9 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ND 0.03 NA NA NA NA 0.0002 NA NA NA NA NA 0.05 0.001Intermediate NPDES 3/2/1992 NA 5.6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ND 0.0399 NA NA NA NA ND NA NA NA NA NA 0.05 <0.015Intermediate NPDES 7/7/1992 NA 5.6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.037 NA NA NA NA ND NA NA NA NA NA 0.23 <0.015Intermediate NPDES 11/4/1992 NA 6.2 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.001 0.045 NA NA NA NA <0.0001 NA NA NA NA NA 0.05 <0.015Intermediate NPDES 3/10/1993 NA 6.5 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.001 0.045 NA NA NA NA 0.0001 NA NA NA NA NA 0.2 <0.015Intermediate NPDES 7/12/1993 NA 7.0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.001 0.0495 NA NA NA NA <0.0001 NA NA NA NA NA 0.22 <0.015Intermediate NPDES 11/8/1993 NA 6.2 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.001 0.04 NA NA NA NA 0.0001 NA NA NA NA NA 0.24 <0.015Intermediate NPDES 3/7/1994 NA 5.9 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.001 0.05 NA NA NA NA 0.0001 NA NA NA NA NA 0.13 <0.015Intermediate NPDES 7/12/1994 NA 6.0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.001 0.034 NA NA NA NA 0.0001 NA NA NA NA NA 0.14 <0.015Intermediate NPDES 10/31/1994 NA 6.0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.001 0.05 NA NA NA NA <0.0001 NA NA NA NA NA 0.44 <0.015Intermediate NPDES 3/7/1995 NA 5.7 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.001 0.04 NA NA NA NA 0.0001 NA NA NA NA NA 0.41 <0.015Intermediate NPDES 7/11/1995 NA 5.9 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.001 0.069 NA NA NA NA 0.0004 NA NA NA NA NA 0.84 <0.015Intermediate NPDES 3/18/1997 NA 5.6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.001 NA NA NA NA NA <0.0005 NA NA NA NA NA <0.1 <0.015Intermediate NPDES 12/13/2006 3.85 6.3 65.3 0.631 NA NA NA NA 0.00021 0.0004 0.0507 <0.000051 2 1.34 16 0.000057 63.1 0.00032 NA 0.0016 0.035 0.0862 0.00011Intermediate NPDES 3/14/2007 3.95 5.7 64.76 NA NA NA NA NA <0.003 <0.002 0.06 <0.001 <2 1.15 5 <0.001 72 <0.005 NA <0.005 <0.1 0.096 <0.015Intermediate NPDES 11/13/2007 4.38 5.9 67.64 705 NA NA NA NA <0.0025 <0.002 0.06 <0.001 <2 1.67 16 <0.001 65 <0.005 NA <0.005 <0.1 0.04 <0.015Intermediate NPDES 3/18/2008 3.86 5.9 64.04 691 NA NA NA NA 0.003 <0.005 0.049 <0.001 <2 1.09 12 <0.002 65 0.005 NA 0.003 <0.1 0.039 <0.015Intermediate NPDES 11/11/2008 4.2 6.2 67.28 662 NA NA NA NA <0.0025 <0.002 0.052 <0.001 <2 1.22 <5 <0.001 70 <0.005 NA <0.005 <0.1 0.101 <0.015Intermediate NPDES 3/24/2009 4.13 6.1 63.14 694 NA NA NA NA <0.001 0.002 0.06 <0.001 <2 1.42 11 <0.001 74 0.002 NA 0.002 <0.1 0.097 <0.015Intermediate NPDES 10/15/2009 4.45 6.1 67.82 691 NA NA NA NA <0.001 <0.001 0.062 <0.001 <2 1.25 <5 <0.001 72 0.004 NA 0.001 <0.1 0.081 <0.015Intermediate NPDES 3/17/2010 4.04 5.9 62.24 675 NA NA NA NA <0.001 <0.001 0.05 <0.001 <2 1.17 8 <0.001 65 0.003 NA <0.001 0.2 0.02 <0.015Intermediate Voluntary 10/31/2011 4.31 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAIntermediate Voluntary 11/23/2011 3.99 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAIntermediate Voluntary 12/20/2011 4.12 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAIntermediate Voluntary 1/26/2012 3.9 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAIntermediate Voluntary 2/27/2012 3.89 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAIntermediate Voluntary 3/20/2012 4.03 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAShallow NPDES 3/19/1990 NA 3.7 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ND 0.021 NA NA NA NA 0.00016 NA NA NA NA NA 7.7 NDShallow NPDES 7/5/1990 NA 6.0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ND ND NA NA NA NA 0.0002 NA NA NA NA NA 0.12 NDShallow NPDES 11/5/1990 NA 6.0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ND ND NA NA NA NA 0.0002 NA NA NA NA NA 1.4 0.0013Shallow NPDES 3/6/1991 NA 5.6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ND 0.017 NA NA NA NA 0.0002 NA NA NA NA NA 16 0.0012Shallow NPDES 7/1/1991 NA 5.9 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ND ND NA NA NA NA ND NA NA NA NA NA 0.73 NDShallow NPDES 11/6/1991 NA 6.1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ND ND NA NA NA NA 0.0001 NA NA NA NA NA 0.6 0.0022Shallow NPDES 3/2/1992 NA 5.4 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.001 0.019 NA NA NA NA ND NA NA NA NA NA 14 NDShallow NPDES 7/7/1992 NA 4.6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ND 0.009 NA NA NA NA 0.0002 NA NA NA NA NA 1.2 NDShallow NPDES 11/4/1992 NA 5.6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.001 0.013 NA NA NA NA 0.0002 NA NA NA NA NA 4 <0.001Shallow NPDES 3/10/1993 NA 5.2 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.001 0.017 NA NA NA NA <0.0001 NA NA NA NA NA 14 <0.001Shallow NPDES 7/12/1993 NA 7.5 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.001 0.0145 NA NA NA NA <0.0001 NA NA NA NA NA 0.96 <0.001Shallow NPDES 11/8/1993 NA 4.7 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.001 0.015 NA NA NA NA 0.0002 NA NA NA NA NA 5.3 <0.001Shallow NPDES 3/7/1994 NA 4.2 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.001 0.02 NA NA NA NA 0.0001 NA NA NA NA NA 13 <0.001Shallow NPDES 7/12/1994 NA 5.0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.001 <0.02 NA NA NA NA 0.0001 NA NA NA NA NA 1.6 <0.001Shallow NPDES 10/31/1994 NA 5.3 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.001 0.017 NA NA NA NA <0.0001 NA NA NA NA NA 0.1 <0.001Shallow NPDES 3/7/1995 NA 5.0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.0026 <0.01 NA NA NA NA <0.0001 NA NA NA NA NA 16 <0.005Shallow NPDES 7/11/1995 NA 5.4 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.002 0.041 NA NA NA NA <0.0001 NA NA NA NA NA 7.2 <0.001Shallow NPDES 3/5/1996 NA 5.0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.0037 NA NA NA NA NA <0.0005 NA NA NA NA NA 16 0.001Shallow NPDES 3/9/1998 NA 4.8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.003 NA NA NA NA NA <0.0005 NA NA NA NA NA 15 <2Shallow NPDES 12/13/2006 3.49 5.2 63.7 0.24 NA NA NA NA 0.00019 0.0034 0.0136 <0.000051 2 0.193 10 <0.000024 49 0.00075 NA 0.002 0.31 11.3 0.00027Shallow NPDES 3/14/2007 3.45 4.8 58.28 NA NA NA NA NA <0.003 <0.002 0.016 <0.001 NA 0.132 11 <0.001 62.9 <0.005 NA <0.005 <0.1 16 <3Shallow NPDES 11/13/2007 4.12 4.7 69.26 282 NA NA NA NA <0.0025 <0.002 0.013 <0.001 NA 0.217 11 <0.001 62 <0.005 NA <0.005 <0.1 2.56 <0.005Shallow NPDES 3/18/2008 3.49 4.7 58.46 196 NA NA NA NA 0.002 <0.005 0.016 <0.001 NA 0.089 20 0.003 26 <0.005 NA <0.003 <0.1 14.6 <3Shallow NPDES 11/11/2008 3.93 5.0 68.36 299 NA NA NA NA <0.0025 <0.002 0.017 <0.001 NA 0.261 9 <0.001 62 0.012 NA <0.005 <0.1 4.76 <2Shallow NPDES 3/24/2009 3.88 5.0 57.56 269 NA NA NA NA <0.001 0.002 0.028 <0.001 2 0.176 16 <0.001 47 0.006 NA 0.004 <0.1 30.8 0.002Shallow NPDES 10/15/2009 3.98 4.9 71.06 287 NA NA NA NA <0.001 0.001 0.1 <0.001 <2 0.187 <5 <0.001 49 0.003 NA 0.002 <0.1 4.89 <0.001Shallow NPDES 3/17/2010 3.74 5.0 54.5 214 NA NA NA NA <0.001 0.002 0.013 <0.001 <2 0.047 11 <0.001 16 0.003 NA 0.001 <0.1 21.7 <0.001Shallow Voluntary 10/31/2011 3.79 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAShallow Voluntary 11/23/2011 3.15 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAShallow Voluntary 12/20/2011 3.6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAShallow Voluntary 1/26/2012 3.24 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAShallow Voluntary 2/27/2012 3.2 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAShallow Voluntary 3/20/2012 3.47 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAShallow Voluntary 10/31/2011 3.68 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAShallow Voluntary 11/23/2011 3.18 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAShallow Voluntary 12/20/2011 3.4 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAShallow Voluntary 1/26/2012 3.14 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAShallow Voluntary 2/27/2012 3.12 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAMW-5**MW-5**MW-5**MW-5**MW-5**MW-5**MW-5**MW-5**MW-5**MW-05***MW-06***MW-06***MW-06***MW-05***MW-05***MW-05***MW-05***MW-05***MW-06***MW-06***MW-4**MW-4**MW-4**MW-4**MW-4**MW-4**MW-4**MW-4**MW-4**MW-4**MW-4**MW-4**MW-4**MW-4**MW-4**MW-4**MW-4**MW-4**MW-4**MW-5**MW-5**MW-5**MW-4**MW-4**MW-4**MW-4**MW-4**MW-04***MW-04***MW-04***MW-04***MW-04***MW-04***MW-5**MW-5**MW-5**MW-5**MW-5**MW-5**MW-5**MW-5**MW-5**MW-5**MW-5**MW-5**MW-5**MW-5**MW-5**P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment Plans\Weatherspoon\Tables\Tables 3 - 8 12_17_2014.xlsx4 of 12
TABLE 4GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTSH.F. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC., LUMBERTON, NORTH CAROLINADepth to WaterpH Temp.Specific ConductanceDO ORP Turbidity Eh Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium BOD Boron COD Cadmium Chloride Chromium Cobalt Copper Fluoride Iron Leadft (TOC) S.U. Deg C µS/cm mg/l mV NTUs mV mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/lNE 6.5 - 8.5 NE NE NE NE NE NE 0.001 0.01 0.7 0.004 NE 0.7 NE 0.002 250 0.01 0.001 1 2 0.3 0.015200.8 200.8 200.7 NA NA 200.7 NA 200.8 300 200.7 NA 200.7 NA 200.7 200.8Hydrostratigraphic UnitWell Type Sample DateConstituent ConcentrationsField Measurements15 NCAC .02L .0202(g) Groundwater Quality StandardAnalytical ParameterAnalytical MethodUnitsSample IDShallow Voluntary 3/20/2012 3.39 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAShallow Voluntary 3/21/2012 NM 7.0 20.54 366.2 0.16 68 81.8 NA <0.001 0.0025 0.0592 NA NA 7.65E-02 NA <0.0001 12.8 <0.001 NA <0.001 NA 12.6 <0.001Intermediate Voluntary 10/31/2011 2.32 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAIntermediate Voluntary 11/23/2011 2.19 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAIntermediate Voluntary 12/20/2011 2.28 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAIntermediate Voluntary 1/26/2012 2.37 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAIntermediate Voluntary 2/27/2012 2.44 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAIntermediate Voluntary 3/20/2012 3.05 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAIntermediate Voluntary 3/21/2012 NM 7.5 21.26 329.4 0.57 74 23.9 NA <0.001 <0.001 0.0588 NA NA <0.05 NA <0.0001 <5 0.0164 NA 0.0051 NA 1.44 <0.001Deep Voluntary 2/29/2012 NM 1.2 20.41 260.6 0.17 70 3.1 NA <0.001 <0.001 0.0464 NA NA 0.689 NA <0.0001 <5 <0.001 NA <0.001 NA 0.583 <0.001Deep Voluntary 3/20/2012 51.42 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NADeep Voluntary 5/7/2012 NM 6.8 21.1 200 0.19 -90 3.73 NA <0.001 <0.001 0.0476 NA NA <0.05 NA <0.0001 <5 0.0011 NA 0.0048 NA 1.39 <0.001Intermediate Voluntary 2/29/2012 NM 6.6 22.34 1239 0.17 1.17 1.73 NA <0.001 0.0016 0.0927 NA NA 1.1 NA <0.0001 43.6 0.0029 NA 0.0122 NA 1.92 <0.001Intermediate Voluntary 3/20/2012 26.41 NM NM NM NM NM NM NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAIntermediate Voluntary 5/7/2012 NM 5.9 21.91 1135 0.1 -105.1 4.18 NA <0.001 0.0035 0.051 NA NA 1.04 NA <0.0001 41.8 0.0062 NA 0.0012 NA 2.17 <0.001Deep Voluntary 3/9/2012 NM 7.2 19.79 806.9 0.12 -255 3.1 NA <0.001 <0.001 0.0886 NA NA 0.138 NA <0.0001 14.5 0.0031 NA <0.001 NA 9.58 <0.001Deep Voluntary 3/20/2012 20.65 NM NM NM NM NM NM NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NADeep Voluntary 5/8/2012 NM 6.7 19.22 700 0.23 -110 33.3 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <5 NA NA NA NA NA NAIntermediate Voluntary 3/9/2012 NM 6.9 18.9 1218 0.08 25 2.55 NA <0.001 <0.001 9.95E-02 NA NA <0.05 NA <0.0001 9.3 <0.001 NA <0.001 NA 12.4 <0.001Intermediate Voluntary 3/20/2012 5.83 NM NM NM NM NM NM NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAIntermediate Voluntary 5/8/2012 NM 6.4 18.99 1089 0.32 -88.1 1.48 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 9.4 NA NA NA NA NA NAShallow Voluntary 3/1/2012 NM 5.2 15.05 156.3 0.21 142 5.9 NA <0.001 <0.001 0.0392 NA NA <0.05 NA <0.0001 <5 <0.001 NA <0.001 NA 4.97 <0.001Shallow Voluntary 3/20/2012 6.04 NM NM NM NM NM NM NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAShallow Voluntary 3/21/2012 NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAShallow Voluntary 5/8/2012 NM 4.9 18.33 286 0.33 5.4 4.01 NA <0.001 0.0015 0.0752 NA NA <0.05 NA <0.0001 <5 <0.001 NA <0.001 NA 26.3 <0.001Deep Voluntary 3/20/2012 16.61 7.1 18.57 293.6 0.06 41 1.47 NA <0.015 <0.01 0.0467 NA NA 0.0524 NA <0.001 <5 <0.005 NA <0.005 NA 2.97 <0.01Deep Voluntary 5/7/2012 NM 6.8 18.73 278 0.21 -98.4 3.25 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <5 NA NA NA NA NA NAIntermediate Voluntary 3/20/2012 5.75 7.6 18.82 294.4 0.06 -35 8.01 NA <0.015 <0.01 0.0332 NA NA <0.05 NA <0.001 7.8 <0.005 NA <0.005 NA 0.966 <0.01Intermediate Voluntary 5/7/2012 NM 7.1 18.37 297 0.16 -96 2.08 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 7.4 NA NA NA NA NA NADeep Voluntary 3/2/2012 NM 7.0 24 259.9 0 -36 1.27 NA <0.001 <0.001 0.0359 NA NA <0.05 NA <0.0001 <5 0.0024 NA <0.001 NA 1.1 <0.001Deep Voluntary 3/20/2012 46.21 NM NM NM NM NM NM NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NADeep Voluntary 5/7/2012 NM 6.9 20.7 300 0.15 -103.7 0.95 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <5 NA NA NA NA NA NAIntermediate Voluntary 3/5/2012 NM 9.5 23.76 275.2 0.06 -65 9.7 NA <0.001 0.0012 0.026 NA NA 0.0759 NA <0.0001 11.2 0.0015 NA 0.0054 NA 0.0481 <0.001Intermediate Voluntary 3/20/2012 20.35 NM NM NM NM NM NM NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAIntermediate Voluntary 5/7/2012 NM 6.8 20.85 351 0.16 -161.5 7.5 NA <0.001 <0.001 0.0368 NA NA <0.05 <0.0001 10.3 <0.001 NA <0.001 NA 0.218 <0.001Deep Voluntary 3/19/2012 NM 7.2 22.09 291.7 0 75 9.2 NA <0.015 <0.01 0.0439 NA NA 6.29E-02 NA <0.001 <5 <0.005 NA <0.005 NA 0.314 <0.01Deep Voluntary 3/20/2012 36.06 NM NM NM NM NM NM NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NADeep Voluntary 5/7/2012 NM 6.8 20.47 302 0.2 -129.3 1.89 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5.2 NA NA NA NA NA NAIntermediate Voluntary 3/20/2012 20.83 6.9 21.57 1021 0 37 7.64 NA <0.015 <0.01 0.0897 NA NA 2.86 NA <0.001 67.2 <0.005 NA <0.005 NA 9.94 <0.01Intermediate Voluntary 5/7/2012 NM 6.7 19.72 937 0.11 -124.1 3.56 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 82.1 NA NA NA NA NA NAShallow/Intermediate Voluntary 3/21/2012 NM 5.1 17.41 341.8 0.69 438 0.98 NA <0.015 <0.01 0.0537 NA NA 0.354 NA <0.001 58.9 <0.005 NA <0.005 NA <0.04 <0.01Shallow/Intermediate Voluntary 5/8/2012 NM 4.3 17.75 313 0.32 205 0.31 NA <0.001 <0.001 0.0483 NA NA 0.444 NA <0.0001 47.9 <0.001 NA <0.001 NA 0.199 <0.001Deep Voluntary 3/6/2012 NM 7.0 17.67 242.5 0.05 -85 1.13 NA <0.001 <0.001 0.0547 NA NA <0.05 NA <0.0001 <5 <0.001 NA <0.001 NA 0.3 <0.001Deep Voluntary 3/20/2012 9.14 NM NM NM NM NM NM NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NADeep Voluntary 5/8/2012 NM 9.7 17.71 394 0.27 -124.9 4.08 NA <0.001 <0.001 0.0652 NA NA <0.05 NA <0.0001 5.5 <0.001 NA <0.001 NA 1.71 <0.001Intermediate Voluntary 3/7/2012 NM 9.0 18.65 4359 0.32 -85 9.8 NA 0.0013 0.0022 0.0484 NA NA <0.05 NA <0.0001 8.1 0.0022 NA 0.0012 NA 0.349 <0.001Intermediate Voluntary 3/20/2012 3.98 NM NM NM NM NM NM NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAIntermediate Voluntary 5/8/2012 NM 10.0 17.74 374 0.2 -142.2 0 NA <0.001 <0.001 0.0435 NA NA <0.05 NA <0.0001 5.9 <0.001 NA <0.001 NA 1.62 <0.001Deep Voluntary 3/1/2012 NM 7.3 18.9 272.3 0.05 -234 1.55 NA <0.001 <0.001 0.0508 NA NA <0.05 NA <0.0001 NA <0.001 NA <0.001 NA 0.711 <0.001Deep Voluntary 3/20/2012 9.85 NM NM NM NM NM NM NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NADeep Voluntary 3/21/2012 NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <5 NA NA NA NA NA NADeep Voluntary 5/8/2012 NM 8.8 18.24 260 0.19 -76.4 0 NA <0.001 <0.001 0.0472 NA NA <0.05 NA <0.0001 <5 <0.001 NA <0.001 NA 0.497 <0.001Deep Voluntary 2/29/2012 NM 7.3 18.34 256.2 0.07 -247 2.38 NA <0.001 <0.001 0.0429 NA NA <0.05 NA <0.0001 <5 <0.001 NA <0.001 NA 1.45 <0.001Deep Voluntary 3/9/2012 NM 7.6 17.49 303.5 0.2 40 10.1 NA <0.001 0.0015 0.0496 NA NA 0.151 NA <0.0001 8.2 0.0012 NA 0.0036 NA 1.32 <0.001Deep Voluntary 3/20/2012 6.94 NM NM NM NM NM NM NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NADeep Voluntary 5/8/2012 NM 7.2 17.93 251 0.31 -160 0.36 NA <0.001 <0.001 4.19E-02 NA NA <0.05 NA <0.0001 <5 <0.001 NA <0.001 NA 4.03 <0.001Intermediate Voluntary 2/29/2012 NM 6.9 18.02 554.3 0 70 3.55 NA <0.001 <0.001 0.0615 NA NA <0.05 NA <0.0001 53.6 0.0018 NA <0.001 NA 0.376 <0.001Intermediate Voluntary 3/9/2012 NM 6.6 17 637.5 0.16 228 9.1 NA <0.001 0.001 0.0727 NA NA 1.04 NA <0.0001 48 0.0045 NA 0.0015 NA 1.23 <0.001Intermediate Voluntary 3/20/2012 2.58 NM NM NM NM NM NM NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAIntermediate Voluntary 5/8/2012 NM 6.3 18 590 0.38 -1.6 0.34 NA <0.001 <0.001 0.0672 NA NA 0.744 NA <0.0001 48.6 <0.001 NA <0.001 NA 0.426 <0.001Shallow/Intermediate Voluntary 3/20/2012 2.12 NM NM NM NM NM NM NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAShallow/Intermediate Voluntary 3/20/2012 2.12 NM NM NM NM NM NM NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAShallow Voluntary 3/8/2012 NM 6.6 18.49 481.5 0.3 127 4.91 NA <0.001 0.0124 0.0846 NA NA 0.855 NA <0.0001 10.6 <0.001 NA <0.001 NA 4.76 <0.001Shallow Voluntary 3/20/2012 4.24 NM NM NM NM NM NM NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAShallow Voluntary 5/8/2012 NM 6.0 19.54 431 0.25 -44.6 0.82 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 18.7 NA NA NA NA NA NAShallow Voluntary 3/8/2012 NM 5.3 17.7 648 0.13 106 6.22 NA <0.001 0.355 0.0754 NA NA 1.48 NA <0.0001 34.6 0.001 NA <0.001 NA 2.52 <0.001Shallow Voluntary 3/20/2012 3.43 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAShallow Voluntary 5/8/2012 NM 6.5 19.33 600 0.29 -3.9 2.7 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 34.6 NA NA NA NA NA NAMW-07***MW-07***MW-07***MW-07***MW-07***MW-06***MW-06***MW-33D***MW-33D***MW-33D***MW-08D***MW-08I***MW-08I***MW-08I***MW-07***MW-07***MW-08D***MW-08D***MW-41D***MW-41I***MW-41I***MW-33S***MW-33S***MW-33S***MW-41D***MW-33I***MW-33I***MW-33I***MW-33S***MW-49D***MW-49D***MW-49D***MW-49I***MW-44I***MW-44I***MW-44D***MW-44D***MW-44D***MW-44I***MW-53I***MW-53I***MW-54D***MW-54D***MW-53D***MW-53D***MW-53D***MW-53I***MW-49I***MW-52***MW-52***MW-55I***MW-55I***OB-1***MW-55D***MW-55D***MW-55I***MW-55I***MW-54D***MW-54D***MW-55D***MW-55D***PZ-02***PZ-02***PZ-02***OB-2***PZ-01***PZ-01***PZ-01***P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment Plans\Weatherspoon\Tables\Tables 3 - 8 12_17_2014.xlsx5 of 12
TABLE 4GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTSH.F. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC., LUMBERTON, NORTH CAROLINADepth to WaterpH Temp.Specific ConductanceDO ORP Turbidity Eh Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium BOD Boron COD Cadmium Chloride Chromium Cobalt Copper Fluoride Iron Leadft (TOC) S.U. Deg C µS/cm mg/l mV NTUs mV mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/lNE 6.5 - 8.5 NE NE NE NE NE NE 0.001 0.01 0.7 0.004 NE 0.7 NE 0.002 250 0.01 0.001 1 2 0.3 0.015200.8 200.8 200.7 NA NA 200.7 NA 200.8 300 200.7 NA 200.7 NA 200.7 200.8Hydrostratigraphic UnitWell Type Sample DateConstituent ConcentrationsField Measurements15 NCAC .02L .0202(g) Groundwater Quality StandardAnalytical ParameterAnalytical MethodUnitsSample IDShallow Voluntary 3/9/2012 NM 5.8 16.01 844 3.22 161 28.8 NA <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 NA NA 1.42 NA <0.0001 105 <0.001 NA <0.001 NA <0.01 <0.001Shallow Voluntary 3/20/2012 5.38 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAShallow Voluntary 5/8/2012 NM 6.7 22.5 1160 7.89 -95.8 4.72 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 69.3 NA NA NA NA NA NANotes:1 Analytical parameter abbreviations:Temp. = TemperatureDO = Dissolved oxygenCond. = Specific conductanceORP = Oxidation reduction potentialTDS = Total dissolved solidsTSS = Total suspended solidsTOC = Total organic carbon2 Units:˚C = Degrees CelciusSU = Standard UnitsmV = millivoltsµS/cm = microsiemens per centimeterNTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Unitmg/L = milligrams per liter3 NE = Not established4 NA = Not available5 ND = Not detected6 NM = Not measured7 Highlighted values indicate values that exceed the 15 NCAC .02L .0202(g) Standard8*** Sample data provided by Duke***b - Data flagged due to detection in field blankSample data was obtained from the Field Exploration Data Report, Progress Energy – Weatherspoon Plant Ash Pond, Lumberton, North Carolina, S&ME Project No. 1054-12-062, June 11, 2012.Sample data by SynTerraAnalytical results with "<" preceeding the result indicate that the parameter was not detected at a concentration which attains or exceeds the laboratory reporting limit.PZ-03***PZ-03***PZ-03***P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment Plans\Weatherspoon\Tables\Tables 3 - 8 12_17_2014.xlsx6 of 12
TABLE 4GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTSH.F. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC., LUMBERTON, NORTH CAROLINAHydrostratigraphic UnitWell Type Sample DateShallow Compliance 11/16/2010Shallow Compliance 3/1/2011Shallow Compliance 6/7/2011Shallow Compliance 10/3/2011Shallow Compliance 3/5/2012Shallow Compliance 6/4/2012Shallow Compliance 10/1/2012Shallow Compliance 3/11/2013Shallow Compliance 6/11/2013Shallow Compliance 10/1/2013Shallow Compliance 3/6/2014Shallow Compliance 6/4/2014Shallow Compliance 11/16/2010Shallow Compliance 3/1/2011Shallow Compliance 6/7/2011Shallow Compliance 10/3/2011Shallow Compliance 10/31/2011Shallow Compliance 11/23/2011Shallow Compliance 12/20/2011Shallow Compliance 1/26/2012Shallow Compliance 2/27/2012Shallow Compliance 3/5/2012Shallow Compliance 3/20/2012Shallow Compliance 6/4/2012Shallow Compliance 10/1/2012Shallow Compliance 3/11/2013Shallow Compliance 6/11/2013Shallow Compliance 10/1/2013Shallow Compliance 3/6/2014Shallow Compliance 6/4/2014Shallow Compliance 11/16/2010Shallow Compliance 3/1/2011Shallow Compliance 6/7/2011Shallow Compliance 10/3/2011Shallow Compliance 10/31/2011Shallow Compliance 11/23/2011Shallow Compliance 12/20/2011Shallow Compliance 1/26/2012Shallow Compliance 2/27/2012Shallow Compliance 3/5/2012Shallow Compliance 3/19/2012Shallow Compliance 3/20/2012Shallow Compliance 6/4/2012Shallow Compliance 10/1/2012Shallow Compliance 3/11/2013Shallow Compliance 6/11/2013Shallow Compliance 10/1/2013Shallow Compliance 3/6/2014Shallow Compliance 6/4/2014Shallow Compliance 11/16/2010Shallow Compliance 3/1/2011Shallow Compliance 6/7/2011Shallow Compliance 10/3/2011Shallow Compliance 3/5/2012Shallow Compliance 6/4/2012Shallow Compliance 10/1/2012Shallow Compliance 3/11/2013Shallow Compliance 6/11/2013Shallow Compliance 10/1/2013Shallow Compliance 10/31/2011Shallow Compliance 11/23/2011Shallow Compliance 12/20/2011Shallow Compliance 1/26/2012Shallow Compliance 2/27/2012Shallow Compliance 3/19/2012Shallow Compliance 3/20/2012Shallow Compliance 3/6/2014Shallow Compliance 6/4/201415 NCAC .02L .0202(g) Groundwater Quality StandardCW-1*CW-1*CW-1*CW-1*CW-3*CW-2*CW-2*CW-2*CW-2*CW-2*CW-2*CW-2*CW-1*CW-1*CW-1*CW-1*CW-1*Analytical ParameterAnalytical MethodUnitsCW-3*CW-3*CW-3*CW-3*CW-3*CW-3*CW-3*CW-3***CW-3***Sample IDBW-1*BW-1*BW-1*BW-1*BW-1*BW-1*BW-1*BW-1*BW-1*BW-1*BW-1*BW-1*CW-1*CW-1*CW-1*CW-2*CW-2*CW-2*CW-2*CW-2*CW-3*CW-3*CW-3*CW-3*CW-1***CW-1***CW-2***CW-2***CW-2***CW-2***CW-2***CW-1***CW-1***CW-1***CW-1***CW-2***CW-3***CW-3***CW-3***CW-2***CW-3***CW-3***Manganese Mercury Molybdenum Nickel Nitrate Nitrite Selenium Silver Strontium Sulfate TDS Thallium TOC TOX Vanadium Zincmg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l0.05 0.001 NE 0.1 10 NE 0.02 0.02 NE 250 500 0.0002 NE NE 0.0003 1200.8 245.1 NA 200.7 300.0 NA 200.8 NA NA 300 SM2540C 200.8 NA NA NA 200.70.038 <0.0002 NA <0.005 0.8 NA <0.01 NA NA 42.6 113 0.00011 NA NA NA <0.010.0207 <0.0002 NA <0.005 <0.1 NA <0.01 NA NA 56.3 222 b <0.0001 NA NA NA 0.0212 b0.0334 <0.0002 NA <0.005 4.4 NA <0.01 NA NA 17.6 96 0.00014 NA NA NA <0.010.0266 <0.0002 NA <0.005 <0.2 NA <0.01 NA NA 35.5 92 0.00012 NA NA NA <0.010.0178 <0.0002 NA <0.005 <0.2 NA <0.01 NA NA 56.5 209 0.0001 NA NA NA 0.01770.0295 <0.0002 NA <0.005 1.4 NA <0.01 NA NA 38.8 92 0.00066 NA NA NA <0.010.0282 <0.0002 NA <0.005 1.7 NA <0.01 NA NA 35.9 86 0.00014 NA NA NA <0.010.014 <0.00005 NA <0.005 0.03 NA 0.00115 NA NA 56 150 <0.0002 NA NA NA 0.0230.029 <0.00005 NA <0.005 1.1 NA 0.00207 NA NA 37 85 <0.0002 NA NA NA 0.0080.027 <0.00005 NA <0.005 <0.023 NA 0.00106 NA NA 40 110 <0.0002 NA NA NA <0.0050.016 <0.00005 NA <0.005 <0.023 NA <0.001 NA NA 58 170 <0.0002 NA NA NA 0.0130.013 <0.00005 NA <0.005 <0.023 NA <0.001 NA NA 56 170 <0.0002 NA NA NA 0.0150.0534 <0.0002 NA <0.005 <0.1 NA <0.01 NA NA 30.5 93 <0.0001 NA NA NA <0.010.0487 <0.0002 NA <0.005 <0.1 NA <0.01 NA NA 29.1 b 110 b <0.0001 NA NA NA <0.010.0535 <0.0002 NA <0.005 <0.1 NA <0.01 NA NA 12.5 91 <0.0001 NA NA NA <0.010.0392 <0.0002 NA <0.005 <0.2 NA <0.01 NA NA 15.6 59 <0.0001 NA NA NA <0.01NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA0.0374 <0.0002 NA <0.005 <0.2 NA <0.01 NA NA 11.6 85 <0.0001 NA NA NA <0.01NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA0.0355 <0.0002 NA <0.005 <0.02 NA <0.01 NA NA 12.2 97 <0.0001 NA NA NA <0.010.0297 <0.0002 NA <0.005 <0.02 NA <0.01 NA NA 12.1 78 <0.0001 NA NA NA <0.010.035 <0.00005 NA <0.005 <0.023 NA <0.001 NA NA 11 85 <0.0002 NA NA NA <0.0050.039 <0.00005 NA <0.005 <0.023 NA <0.001 NA NA 12 84 <0.0002 NA NA NA <0.0050.033 <0.00005 NA <0.005 <0.023 NA <0.001 NA NA 11 72 <0.0002 NA NA NA <0.0050.045 <0.00005 NA <0.005 <0.023 NA <0.001 NA NA 20 88 <0.0002 NA NA NA 0.0070.042 <0.00005 NA <0.005 <0.023 NA <0.001 NA NA 17 81 <0.0002 NA NA NA <0.0050.0303 <0.0002 NA <0.005 0.9 NA <0.01 NA NA 7.4 141 <0.0001 NA NA NA <0.010.014 <0.0002 NA <0.005 <0.1 NA <0.01 NA NA 9.2 b 144 b <0.0001 NA NA NA <0.010.0087 <0.0002 NA <0.005 0.14 NA <0.01 NA NA 9.3 152 <0.0001 NA NA NA 0.010.0081 <0.0002 NA <0.005 <0.2 NA <0.01 NA NA 8.3 136 <0.0001 NA NA NA <0.01NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA0.0073 <0.0002 NA <0.005 <0.2 NA <0.01 NA NA 8.8 152 <0.0001 NA NA NA <0.01NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA0.0069 <0.0002 NA <0.005 0.29 b NA <0.01 NA NA 8.5 165 <0.0001 NA NA NA <0.010.0067 <0.0002 NA <0.005 0.42 NA <0.01 NA NA 8.9 147 <0.0001 NA NA NA <0.010.007 <0.00005 NA <0.005 0.23 NA <0.001 NA NA 9.6 150 <0.0002 NA NA NA <0.0050.012 <0.00005 NA <0.005 0.07 NA <0.001 NA NA 9.3 160 <0.0002 NA NA NA <0.0050.007 <0.00005 NA <0.005 <0.023 NA <0.001 NA NA 9.9 150 <0.0002 NA NA NA <0.0050.009 <0.00005 NA <0.005 0.88 NA <0.001 NA NA 11 160 <0.0002 NA NA NA <0.0050.007 <0.00005 NA <0.005 0.04 NA <0.001 NA NA 10 150 <0.0002 NA NA NA <0.0050.0259 <0.0002 NA <0.005 <0.1 NA <0.01 NA NA <5 107 <0.0001 NA NA NA <0.010.0495 <0.0002 NA <0.005 0.21 NA <0.01 NA NA 76.1 280 b <0.0001 NA NA NA <0.010.0395 <0.0002 NA <0.005 <0.1 NA <0.01 NA NA 10.9 171 <0.0001 NA NA NA 0.01260.0287 <0.0002 NA <0.005 <0.2 NA <0.01 NA NA 7.2 103 <0.0001 NA NA NA <0.010.0435 <0.0002 NA <0.005 0.7 NA <0.01 NA NA 58.6 265 <0.0001 NA NA NA <0.010.028 <0.0002 NA <0.005 <0.02 NA <0.01 NA NA 12.8 148 <0.0001 NA NA NA <0.010.0178 <0.0002 NA <0.005 <0.02 NA <0.01 NA NA 3.8 107 <0.0001 NA NA NA <0.010.055 <0.00005 NA <0.005 0.03 NA <0.001 NA NA 120 380 <0.0002 NA NA NA <0.0050.042 <0.00005 NA <0.005 <0.023 NA <0.001 NA NA 64 260 <0.0002 NA NA NA 0.0060.025 <0.00005 NA <0.005 0.04 NA <0.001 NA NA 12 130 <0.0002 NA NA NA 0.007NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA0.045 <0.00005 NA <0.005 0.56 NA <0.001 NA NA 100 330 <0.0002 NA NA NA 0.0070.031 <0.00005 NA <0.005 <0.023 NA <0.001 NA NA 33 180 <0.0002 NA NA NA <0.005Constituent ConcentrationsP:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment Plans\Weatherspoon\Tables\Tables 3 - 8 12_17_2014.xlsx7 of 12
TABLE 4GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTSH.F. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC., LUMBERTON, NORTH CAROLINAHydrostratigraphic UnitWell Type Sample Date15 NCAC .02L .0202(g) Groundwater Quality StandardAnalytical ParameterAnalytical MethodUnitsSample IDShallow Voluntary 10/31/2011Shallow Voluntary 11/23/2011Shallow Voluntary 12/20/2011Shallow Voluntary 1/26/2012Shallow Voluntary 2/27/2012Shallow Voluntary 3/19/2012Shallow Voluntary 3/20/2012Shallow Voluntary 10/31/2011Shallow Voluntary 11/1/2011Shallow Voluntary 11/23/2011Shallow Voluntary 12/20/2011Shallow Voluntary 1/26/2012Shallow Voluntary 2/27/2012Shallow Voluntary 3/19/2012Shallow Voluntary 3/20/2012Shallow Voluntary 10/31/2011Shallow Voluntary 11/1/2011Shallow Voluntary 11/23/2011Shallow Voluntary 12/20/2011Shallow Voluntary 1/26/2012Shallow Voluntary 2/27/2012Shallow Voluntary 3/19/2012Shallow Voluntary 10/31/2011Shallow Voluntary 11/23/2011Shallow Voluntary 12/20/2011Shallow Voluntary 1/26/2012Shallow Voluntary 2/27/2012Shallow Voluntary 3/19/2012Shallow Voluntary 3/20/2012Shallow Voluntary 10/31/2011Shallow Voluntary 11/23/2011Shallow Voluntary 12/20/2011Shallow Voluntary 1/26/2012Shallow Voluntary 2/27/2012Shallow Voluntary 3/20/2012Shallow NPDES 3/19/1990Shallow NPDES 7/5/1990Shallow NPDES 11/5/1990Shallow NPDES 3/6/1991Shallow NPDES 7/1/1991Shallow NPDES 11/6/1991Shallow NPDES 3/2/1992Shallow NPDES 7/7/1992Shallow NPDES 11/4/1992Shallow NPDES 3/10/1993Shallow NPDES 7/12/1993Shallow NPDES 11/8/1993Shallow NPDES 3/7/1994Shallow NPDES 7/12/1994Shallow NPDES 10/31/1994Shallow NPDES 3/7/1995Shallow NPDES 7/11/1995Shallow NPDES 3/5/1996Shallow NPDES 3/18/1997Shallow NPDES 3/9/1998Shallow NPDES 12/13/2006Shallow NPDES 3/14/2007Shallow NPDES 11/13/2007Shallow NPDES 3/18/2008Shallow NPDES 11/11/2008Shallow NPDES 3/24/2009Shallow NPDES 10/15/2009Shallow NPDES 3/17/2010Shallow Voluntary 10/31/2011Shallow Voluntary 11/23/2011Shallow Voluntary 12/20/2011Shallow Voluntary 1/26/2012Shallow Voluntary 2/27/2012B-03/OW-3***B-03/OW-3***B-03/OW-3***B-03/OW-3***B-03/OW-3***B-01/OW-1***B-01/OW-1***B-03/OW-3***B-03/OW-3***B-03/OW-3***B-01/OW-1***B-01/OW-1***B-01/OW-1***B-01/OW-1***B-01/OW-1***B-17/OW-17***B-17/OW-17***B-15/OW-15***B-15/OW-15***B-15/OW-15***B-17/OW-17***B-15/OW-15***B-15/OW-15***B-15/OW-15***B-15/OW-15***BW-01***B-17/OW-17***BW-01***BW-01***BW-01***B-17/OW-17***B-17/OW-17***B-17/OW-17***MW-1**MW-1**MW-1**MW-1**MW-1**MW-1**MW-1**MW-1**MW-1**MW-1**MW-1**MW-1**MW-1**MW-1**MW-1**BW-01***BW-01***MW-1**MW-1**MW-1**MW-1**MW-1**MW-1**MW-1**MW-1**MW-1**MW-1**MW-1**MW-1**MW-1**MW-01***MW-01***MW-01***MW-01***MW-01***Manganese Mercury Molybdenum Nickel Nitrate Nitrite Selenium Silver Strontium Sulfate TDS Thallium TOC TOX Vanadium Zincmg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l0.05 0.001 NE 0.1 10 NE 0.02 0.02 NE 250 500 0.0002 NE NE 0.0003 1200.8 245.1 NA 200.7 300.0 NA 200.8 NA NA 300 SM2540C 200.8 NA NA NA 200.7Constituent ConcentrationsNA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA ND NA NA 13 10 NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA ND NA NA 9.2 56 NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA ND NA NA 15 44 NA NA ND NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA ND NA NA 17 130 NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA ND NA NA 10 110 NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA ND NA NA 7.3 60 NA NA 0.0111 NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA ND NA NA 11 58 NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA ND NA NA 10 40 NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA <0.001 NA NA 6.7 64 NA NA <0.005 NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA <0.001 NA NA 10 38 NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA 0.001 NA NA 15 39 NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA <0.001 NA NA 8.7 44 NA NA <0.01 NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA <0.001 NA NA 12 36 NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA <0.001 NA NA 7.8 32 NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA <0.001 NA NA 7.9 35 NA NA 0.141 NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA <0.001 NA NA 8.1 32 NA NA 1.6 NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA <0.001 NA NA 11 56 NA NA <0.01 NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA <0.001 NA NA NA 523 NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA <0.001 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA <0.003 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA0.0077 <0.0001 NA 0.00043 0.215 0.05 0.00017 <0.000017 NA 3.36 10 0.000051 5 <0.01 0.0014 NA0.008 <0.0002 NA <0.005 0.03 <0.02 <0.005 <0.005 NA 5 22 <0.001 4.3 <0.01 <0.005 NA<0.005 <0.0002 NA <0.005 0.04 <0.02 <0.005 <0.005 NA 24 52 <0.001 3.1 0.0141 0.03 NA<0.005 <0.0002 NA <0.005 0.25 <0.02 <0.005 <0.002 NA 8 33 <0.005 1.1 <0.03 0.012 NA0.007 <0.0002 NA <0.005 0.25 <0.02 <0.001 <0.005 NA <10 63 <0.001 0.7 <0.03 0.025 NA0.006 <0.0002 NA 0.001 <0.02 <0.02 <0.001 <0.001 NA <5 35 <0.001 0.5 <0.03 0.023 NA0.006 <0.0002 NA 0.002 0.34 <0.02 <0.001 <0.001 NA 7 25 <0.001 0.6 <0.03 0.009 NA0.004 <0.0002 NA <0.001 0.27 <0.02 <0.001 <0.001 NA 6 9 <0.001 0.6 <0.03 <0.001 NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAP:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment Plans\Weatherspoon\Tables\Tables 3 - 8 12_17_2014.xlsx8 of 12
TABLE 4GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTSH.F. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC., LUMBERTON, NORTH CAROLINAHydrostratigraphic UnitWell Type Sample Date15 NCAC .02L .0202(g) Groundwater Quality StandardAnalytical ParameterAnalytical MethodUnitsSample IDShallow Voluntary 3/20/2012Intermediate NPDES 3/19/1990Intermediate NPDES 7/5/1990Intermediate NPDES 11/5/1990Intermediate NPDES 3/6/1991Intermediate NPDES 7/1/1991Intermediate NPDES 11/6/1991Intermediate NPDES 3/2/1992Intermediate NPDES 7/7/1992Intermediate NPDES 11/4/1992Intermediate NPDES 3/10/1993Intermediate NPDES 7/12/1993Intermediate NPDES 11/8/1993Intermediate NPDES 3/7/1994Intermediate NPDES 7/12/1994Intermediate NPDES 10/31/1994Intermediate NPDES 3/7/1995Intermediate NPDES 7/11/1995Intermediate NPDES 3/18/1997Intermediate NPDES 12/13/2006Intermediate NPDES 3/14/2007Intermediate NPDES 11/13/2007Intermediate NPDES 3/18/2008Intermediate NPDES 11/11/2008Intermediate NPDES 3/24/2009Intermediate NPDES 10/15/2009Intermediate NPDES 3/17/2010Intermediate Voluntary 10/31/2011Intermediate Voluntary 11/23/2011Intermediate Voluntary 12/20/2011Intermediate Voluntary 1/26/2012Intermediate Voluntary 2/27/2012Intermediate Voluntary 3/20/2012Shallow NPDES 3/19/1990Shallow NPDES 7/5/1990Shallow NPDES 11/5/1990Shallow NPDES 3/6/1991Shallow NPDES 7/1/1991Shallow NPDES 11/6/1991Shallow NPDES 3/2/1992Shallow NPDES 7/7/1992Shallow NPDES 11/4/1992Shallow NPDES 3/10/1993Shallow NPDES 7/12/1993Shallow NPDES 11/8/1993Shallow NPDES 3/7/1994Shallow NPDES 7/12/1994Shallow NPDES 10/31/1994Shallow NPDES 3/7/1995Shallow NPDES 7/11/1995Shallow NPDES 3/5/1996Shallow NPDES 3/9/1998Shallow NPDES 12/13/2006Shallow NPDES 3/14/2007Shallow NPDES 11/13/2007Shallow NPDES 3/18/2008Shallow NPDES 11/11/2008Shallow NPDES 3/24/2009Shallow NPDES 10/15/2009Shallow NPDES 3/17/2010Shallow Voluntary 10/31/2011Shallow Voluntary 11/23/2011Shallow Voluntary 12/20/2011Shallow Voluntary 1/26/2012Shallow Voluntary 2/27/2012Shallow Voluntary 3/20/2012Intermediate NPDES 3/19/1990Intermediate NPDES 7/5/1990MW-02***MW-02***MW-2**MW-2**MW-2**MW-2**MW-2**MW-2**MW-2**MW-2**MW-2**MW-2**MW-2**MW-3**MW-2**MW-2**MW-2**MW-2**MW-2**MW-2**MW-3**MW-3**MW-3**MW-2**MW-2**MW-2**MW-2**MW-3**MW-02***MW-2**MW-01***MW-02***MW-02***MW-02***MW-2**MW-2**MW-2**MW-2**MW-3**MW-3**MW-3**MW-3**MW-3**MW-3**MW-3**MW-3**MW-3**MW-3**MW-3**MW-3**MW-3**MW-3**MW-3**MW-3**MW-3**MW-3**MW-03***MW-03***MW-03***MW-03***MW-03***MW-3**MW-3**MW-3**MW-03***MW-3**MW-4**MW-4**Manganese Mercury Molybdenum Nickel Nitrate Nitrite Selenium Silver Strontium Sulfate TDS Thallium TOC TOX Vanadium Zincmg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l0.05 0.001 NE 0.1 10 NE 0.02 0.02 NE 250 500 0.0002 NE NE 0.0003 1200.8 245.1 NA 200.7 300.0 NA 200.8 NA NA 300 SM2540C 200.8 NA NA NA 200.7Constituent ConcentrationsNA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA ND NA NA 6.7 100 NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA ND NA NA 6.6 160 NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA ND NA NA 4.1 150 NA NA ND NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA ND NA NA 5.6 200 NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA ND NA NA 4.2 640 NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA ND NA NA 4.1 190 NA NA ND NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA ND NA NA 4.8 120 NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA ND NA NA 4.4 140 NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA <0.001 NA NA 4 190 NA NA <0.05 NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA <0.001 NA NA 4.8 230 NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA <0.001 NA NA 3.6 160 NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA 0.001 NA NA 4.5 140 NA NA <0.01 NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA <0.001 NA NA 4.5 153 NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA <0.001 NA NA 3.5 190 NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA <0.001 NA NA 3.9 206 NA NA 0.884 NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA <0.001 NA NA 4.1 225 NA NA 1.03 NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA <0.001 NA NA 4 142 NA NA 0.02 NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA <0.001 NA NA 4 142 NA NA 0.02 NA NA0.0206 0.00011 NA 0.00022 0.05 0.05 <0.00014 <0.000017 NA 9.62 127 0.000018 5 <0.01 0.0018 NA0.026 <0.0002 NA <0.005 0.03 <0.02 <0.005 <0.005 NA 10 144 <0.001 5 <0.01 <0.005 NA0.021 <0.0002 NA <0.005 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.005 NA 16 144 <0.001 <0.5 <0.01 <0.005 NA0.021 <0.0002 NA <0.005 <0.08 <0.02 <0.005 <0.002 NA 13 103 <0.005 0.6 <0.03 0.014 NA0.019 <0.0002 NA <0.005 <0.02 <0.02 <0.001 <0.005 NA 11 149 <0.001 <0.5 <0.03 0.034 NA0.018 <0.0002 NA 0.002 <0.02 <0.02 <0.001 <0.001 NA 13 167 <0.001 <0.5 0.049 0.028 NA0.018 <0.0002 NA 0.002 <0.02 <0.02 <0.001 0.002 NA 14 151 <0.001 <0.5 <0.03 0.008 NA0.018 <0.0002 NA 0.002 <0.02 <0.02 <0.001 0.003 NA 15 147 <0.001 0.5 <0.03 <0.001 NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA ND NA NA 69 260 NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA ND NA NA 45 300 NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA ND NA NA 27 220 NA NA 0.0279 NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA ND NA NA 50 50 NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA ND NA NA 56 420 NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA ND NA NA 71 320 NA NA 0.0342 NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA ND NA NA 49 230 NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA ND NA NA 48 270 NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA <0.001 NA NA 54 300 NA NA 0.0097 NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA <0.001 NA NA 33 250 NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA 0.001 NA NA 62 290 NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA <0.001 NA NA 20 220 NA NA <0.1 NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA <0.001 NA NA 37 217 NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA <0.001 NA NA 48 258 NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA <0.001 NA NA 41 280 NA NA 0.514 NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA <0.001 NA NA 31 288 NA NA 1.02 NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA <0.001 NA NA 32 240 NA NA 0.02 NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA <0.001 NA NA NA 134 NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA <0.003 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA0.0508 <0.0001 NA 0.0021 0.05 0.05 0.0006 <0.000017 NA 38.9 257 0.000039 5 <0.1 0.0117 NA0.049 <0.0002 NA 0.009 0.03 <0.02 <0.005 <0.005 NA 50 264 <0.001 5.1 0.0121 0.015 NA0.044 <0.0002 NA <0.005 0.05 <0.02 <0.005 <0.005 NA 77 281 <0.001 2 0.0604 <0.005 NA0.035 <0.0002 NA <0.005 <0.08 <0.02 <0.005 <0.002 NA 55 256 <0.005 1.3 <0.03 0.011 NA0.041 <0.0002 NA <0.005 <0.02 <0.02 <0.001 <0.005 NA 42 305 <0.001 2.1 <0.03 0.033 NA0.029 <0.0002 NA 0.003 <0.02 <0.02 0.002 <0.001 NA 47 286 <0.001 1.5 <0.03 0.033 NA0.036 <0.0002 NA 0.003 <0.02 <0.02 0.002 <0.001 NA 48 284 <0.001 2 0.0485 0.008 NA0.026 <0.0002 NA 0.004 <0.02 <0.02 0.003 <0.001 NA 48 259 <0.001 1.3 <0.03 0.003 NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA <0.05 NA NA 19 140 NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA <0.05 NA NA 22 210 NA NA NA NA NAP:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment Plans\Weatherspoon\Tables\Tables 3 - 8 12_17_2014.xlsx9 of 12
TABLE 4GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTSH.F. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC., LUMBERTON, NORTH CAROLINAHydrostratigraphic UnitWell Type Sample Date15 NCAC .02L .0202(g) Groundwater Quality StandardAnalytical ParameterAnalytical MethodUnitsSample IDIntermediate NPDES 11/5/1990Intermediate NPDES 3/6/1991Intermediate NPDES 7/1/1991Intermediate NPDES 11/6/1991Intermediate NPDES 3/2/1992Intermediate NPDES 7/7/1992Intermediate NPDES 11/4/1992Intermediate NPDES 3/10/1993Intermediate NPDES 7/12/1993Intermediate NPDES 11/8/1993Intermediate NPDES 3/7/1994Intermediate NPDES 7/12/1994Intermediate NPDES 10/31/1994Intermediate NPDES 3/7/1995Intermediate NPDES 7/11/1995Intermediate NPDES 3/18/1997Intermediate NPDES 12/13/2006Intermediate NPDES 3/14/2007Intermediate NPDES 11/13/2007Intermediate NPDES 3/18/2008Intermediate NPDES 11/11/2008Intermediate NPDES 3/24/2009Intermediate NPDES 10/15/2009Intermediate NPDES 3/17/2010Intermediate Voluntary 10/31/2011Intermediate Voluntary 11/23/2011Intermediate Voluntary 12/20/2011Intermediate Voluntary 1/26/2012Intermediate Voluntary 2/27/2012Intermediate Voluntary 3/20/2012Shallow NPDES 3/19/1990Shallow NPDES 7/5/1990Shallow NPDES 11/5/1990Shallow NPDES 3/6/1991Shallow NPDES 7/1/1991Shallow NPDES 11/6/1991Shallow NPDES 3/2/1992Shallow NPDES 7/7/1992Shallow NPDES 11/4/1992Shallow NPDES 3/10/1993Shallow NPDES 7/12/1993Shallow NPDES 11/8/1993Shallow NPDES 3/7/1994Shallow NPDES 7/12/1994Shallow NPDES 10/31/1994Shallow NPDES 3/7/1995Shallow NPDES 7/11/1995Shallow NPDES 3/5/1996Shallow NPDES 3/9/1998Shallow NPDES 12/13/2006Shallow NPDES 3/14/2007Shallow NPDES 11/13/2007Shallow NPDES 3/18/2008Shallow NPDES 11/11/2008Shallow NPDES 3/24/2009Shallow NPDES 10/15/2009Shallow NPDES 3/17/2010Shallow Voluntary 10/31/2011Shallow Voluntary 11/23/2011Shallow Voluntary 12/20/2011Shallow Voluntary 1/26/2012Shallow Voluntary 2/27/2012Shallow Voluntary 3/20/2012Shallow Voluntary 10/31/2011Shallow Voluntary 11/23/2011Shallow Voluntary 12/20/2011Shallow Voluntary 1/26/2012Shallow Voluntary 2/27/2012MW-5**MW-5**MW-5**MW-5**MW-5**MW-5**MW-5**MW-5**MW-5**MW-05***MW-06***MW-06***MW-06***MW-05***MW-05***MW-05***MW-05***MW-05***MW-06***MW-06***MW-4**MW-4**MW-4**MW-4**MW-4**MW-4**MW-4**MW-4**MW-4**MW-4**MW-4**MW-4**MW-4**MW-4**MW-4**MW-4**MW-4**MW-4**MW-4**MW-5**MW-5**MW-5**MW-4**MW-4**MW-4**MW-4**MW-4**MW-04***MW-04***MW-04***MW-04***MW-04***MW-04***MW-5**MW-5**MW-5**MW-5**MW-5**MW-5**MW-5**MW-5**MW-5**MW-5**MW-5**MW-5**MW-5**MW-5**MW-5**Manganese Mercury Molybdenum Nickel Nitrate Nitrite Selenium Silver Strontium Sulfate TDS Thallium TOC TOX Vanadium Zincmg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l0.05 0.001 NE 0.1 10 NE 0.02 0.02 NE 250 500 0.0002 NE NE 0.0003 1200.8 245.1 NA 200.7 300.0 NA 200.8 NA NA 300 SM2540C 200.8 NA NA NA 200.7Constituent ConcentrationsNA NA NA NA NA NA <0.05 NA NA 34 250 NA NA 0.0379 NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA <0.05 NA NA 19 260 NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA <0.05 NA NA 22 230 NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA <0.05 NA NA 25 200 NA NA 0.0259 NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA <0.05 NA NA 21 170 NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA <0.05 NA NA 25 200 NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA <0.05 NA NA 29 220 NA NA 0.011 NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA <0.05 NA NA 30 200 NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA <0.05 NA NA 28 210 NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA <0.05 NA NA 28 200 NA NA <0.03 NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA <0.05 NA NA 32 189 NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA <0.05 NA NA 34 200 NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA <0.05 NA NA 42 214 NA NA 0.65 NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA <0.05 NA NA 36 213 NA NA 0.822 NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA <0.05 NA NA 34 196 NA NA 0.02 NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA <0.05 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA0.223 0.00035 NA 0.0014 0.05 0.05 0.00035 <0.0175 NA 93.3 339 0.00019 5 0.0254 0.0041 NA0.174 <0.00105 NA <0.1 0.03 0.03 <0.05 <0.0175 NA 98 341 <0.002 5.3 0.0355 <1.05 NA0.168 <0.00105 NA <0.1 <10 <1 <0.05 <0.0175 NA 175 383 <0.002 1.1 0.0867 <1.05 NA0.129 0.0006 NA <0.1 <10 <1 <0.05 <0.0175 NA 125 390 <0.002 1.1 0.119 0.008 NA0.157 <0.00105 NA <0.1 <10 <1 <0.05 <0.0175 NA 106 374 <0.002 0.9 0.11 0.014 NA0.177 <0.00105 NA 0.003 <10 <1 0.006 <0.0175 NA 118 365 <0.002 0.9 0.0655 0.013 NA0.199 0.0002 NA 0.004 <10 <1 0.005 <0.0175 NA 133 403 <0.002 0.8 0.0686 0.011 NA0.182 <0.00105 NA 0.004 <10 <1 0.007 <0.0175 NA 129 388 <0.002 1 0.0537 0.002 NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA ND NA NA 41 120 NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA ND NA NA 1.5 51 NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA ND NA NA 6 54 NA NA 0.012 NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA ND NA NA 44 60 NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA ND NA NA 3.2 80 NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA ND NA NA 1.9 200 NA NA 0.034 NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA ND NA NA 37 58 NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA ND NA NA 4 50 NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA <0.001 NA NA 15 87 NA NA 0.0068 NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA <0.001 NA NA 31 90 NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA <0.001 NA NA 3.7 66 NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA <0.001 NA NA 14 69 NA NA <0.1 NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA <0.001 NA NA 38 75 NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA <0.001 NA NA 5.6 59 NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA <0.001 NA NA 21 68 NA NA <0.1 NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA <0.001 NA NA 41 109 NA NA 1.4 NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA <0.001 NA NA 18 70 NA NA <0.1 NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA <0.001 NA NA NA 113 NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA <0.003 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA0.021 <0.0001 NA 0.00038 0.05 0.05 0.00054 <0.000017 NA 21.9 122 0.000023 5 0.851 0.0019 NA0.033 <0.0002 NA <0.005 0.03 <0.02 <0.005 <0.005 NA 34 128 <0.001 5.5 0.0112 <0.005 NA0.006 <0.0002 NA <0.005 <0.02 <0.02 <0.005 <0.005 NA 22 147 <0.001 0.9 0.175 0.007 NA0.031 <0.0002 NA <0.005 <0.08 <0.02 <0.005 <0.002 NA 37 90 <0.005 1.1 <0.03 0.013 NA0.009 <0.0002 NA <0.005 0.03 <0.2 <0.001 <0.005 NA 16 157 <0.001 0.8 <0.03 0.023 NA0.044 <0.0002 NA 0.002 <0.02 <0.02 0.002 <0.001 NA 37 157 <0.001 1 <0.03 0.014 NA0.011 <0.0002 NA 0.002 0.04 <0.02 0.002 <0.001 NA 34 147 <0.001 0.8 0.111 0.006 NA0.035 <0.0002 NA <0.001 0.07 <0.02 0.002 <0.001 NA 53 76 <0.001 1.1 0.0535 0.028 NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAP:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment Plans\Weatherspoon\Tables\Tables 3 - 8 12_17_2014.xlsx10 of 12
TABLE 4GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTSH.F. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC., LUMBERTON, NORTH CAROLINAHydrostratigraphic UnitWell Type Sample Date15 NCAC .02L .0202(g) Groundwater Quality StandardAnalytical ParameterAnalytical MethodUnitsSample IDShallow Voluntary 3/20/2012Shallow Voluntary 3/21/2012Intermediate Voluntary 10/31/2011Intermediate Voluntary 11/23/2011Intermediate Voluntary 12/20/2011Intermediate Voluntary 1/26/2012Intermediate Voluntary 2/27/2012Intermediate Voluntary 3/20/2012Intermediate Voluntary 3/21/2012Deep Voluntary 2/29/2012Deep Voluntary 3/20/2012Deep Voluntary 5/7/2012Intermediate Voluntary 2/29/2012Intermediate Voluntary 3/20/2012Intermediate Voluntary 5/7/2012Deep Voluntary 3/9/2012Deep Voluntary 3/20/2012Deep Voluntary 5/8/2012Intermediate Voluntary 3/9/2012Intermediate Voluntary 3/20/2012Intermediate Voluntary 5/8/2012Shallow Voluntary 3/1/2012Shallow Voluntary 3/20/2012Shallow Voluntary 3/21/2012Shallow Voluntary 5/8/2012Deep Voluntary 3/20/2012Deep Voluntary 5/7/2012Intermediate Voluntary 3/20/2012Intermediate Voluntary 5/7/2012Deep Voluntary 3/2/2012Deep Voluntary 3/20/2012Deep Voluntary 5/7/2012Intermediate Voluntary 3/5/2012Intermediate Voluntary 3/20/2012Intermediate Voluntary 5/7/2012Deep Voluntary 3/19/2012Deep Voluntary 3/20/2012Deep Voluntary 5/7/2012Intermediate Voluntary 3/20/2012Intermediate Voluntary 5/7/2012Shallow/Intermediate Voluntary 3/21/2012Shallow/Intermediate Voluntary 5/8/2012Deep Voluntary 3/6/2012Deep Voluntary 3/20/2012Deep Voluntary 5/8/2012Intermediate Voluntary 3/7/2012Intermediate Voluntary 3/20/2012Intermediate Voluntary 5/8/2012Deep Voluntary 3/1/2012Deep Voluntary 3/20/2012Deep Voluntary 3/21/2012Deep Voluntary 5/8/2012Deep Voluntary 2/29/2012Deep Voluntary 3/9/2012Deep Voluntary 3/20/2012Deep Voluntary 5/8/2012Intermediate Voluntary 2/29/2012Intermediate Voluntary 3/9/2012Intermediate Voluntary 3/20/2012Intermediate Voluntary 5/8/2012Shallow/Intermediate Voluntary 3/20/2012Shallow/Intermediate Voluntary 3/20/2012Shallow Voluntary 3/8/2012Shallow Voluntary 3/20/2012Shallow Voluntary 5/8/2012Shallow Voluntary 3/8/2012Shallow Voluntary 3/20/2012Shallow Voluntary 5/8/2012MW-07***MW-07***MW-07***MW-07***MW-07***MW-06***MW-06***MW-33D***MW-33D***MW-33D***MW-08D***MW-08I***MW-08I***MW-08I***MW-07***MW-07***MW-08D***MW-08D***MW-41D***MW-41I***MW-41I***MW-33S***MW-33S***MW-33S***MW-41D***MW-33I***MW-33I***MW-33I***MW-33S***MW-49D***MW-49D***MW-49D***MW-49I***MW-44I***MW-44I***MW-44D***MW-44D***MW-44D***MW-44I***MW-53I***MW-53I***MW-54D***MW-54D***MW-53D***MW-53D***MW-53D***MW-53I***MW-49I***MW-52***MW-52***MW-55I***MW-55I***OB-1***MW-55D***MW-55D***MW-55I***MW-55I***MW-54D***MW-54D***MW-55D***MW-55D***PZ-02***PZ-02***PZ-02***OB-2***PZ-01***PZ-01***PZ-01***Manganese Mercury Molybdenum Nickel Nitrate Nitrite Selenium Silver Strontium Sulfate TDS Thallium TOC TOX Vanadium Zincmg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l0.05 0.001 NE 0.1 10 NE 0.02 0.02 NE 250 500 0.0002 NE NE 0.0003 1200.8 245.1 NA 200.7 300.0 NA 200.8 NA NA 300 SM2540C 200.8 NA NA NA 200.7Constituent ConcentrationsNA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA0.0361 <0.0002 NA <0.001 <0.05 NA <0.001 NA NA 37.7 223 <0.001 NA NA NA <0.005NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA6.50E-02 <0.0002 NA 0.0107 11.1 NA <0.001 NA NA 20.9 202 <0.001 NA NA NA 0.00690.0337 <0.0002 NA <0.001 <0.05 NA <0.001 NA NA <5 176 <0.001 NA NA NA <0.005NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA0.0481 <0.0002 NA 0.0014 <0.05 NA <0.001 NA NA 8.5 160 <0.001 NA NA NA <0.0050.139 <0.0002 NA <0.001 <0.1 NA <0.001 NA NA 242 826 <0.001 NA NA NA <0.005NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA0.18 <0.0002 NA 0.0024 <0.1 NA <0.001 NA NA 310 788 <0.001 NA NA NA <0.0050.165 <0.0002 NA 0.0014 <0.05 NA <0.001 NA NA 232 520 <0.001 NA NA NA <0.005NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA 0.087 NA NA NA NA 192 530 NA NA NA NA NA0.144 <0.0002 NA <0.001 <0.1 NA <0.001 NA NA 481 974 <0.001 NA NA NA <0.005NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA <0.1 NA NA NA NA 585 962 NA NA NA NA NA0.17 <0.0002 NA 0.0026 <0.05 NA <0.001 NA NA NA NA <0.001 NA NA NA 0.0177NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 20.4 85 NA NA NA NA NA0.263 <0.0002 NA 4.30E-03 0.076 NA <0.001 NA NA 107 213 NA NA NA NA 0.0080.0706 <0.0002 NA <0.005 <0.05 NA <0.015 NA NA 5.2 173 <0.015 NA NA NA <0.02NA NA NA NA 0.06 NA NA NA NA <5 163 NA NA NA NA NA0.0294 <0.0002 NA <0.005 <0.05 NA <0.015 NA NA 11.5 477 <0.015 NA NA NA <0.02NA NA NA NA 0.056 NA NA NA NA 12.6 192 NA NA NA NA NA0.0348 <0.0002 NA 0.0012 2.2 <0.001 NA NA <5 176 <0.001 NA NA NA <0.005NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA <0.05 NA NA NA NA <5 161 NA NA NA NA NA0.0025 <0.0002 NA <0.001 0.19 NA <0.001 NA NA 36.9 149 <0.001 NA NA NA <0.005NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA0.0201 <0.0002 NA <0.001 <0.05 NA <0.001 NA NA 35.7 217 <0.001 NA NA NA <0.0050.0506 <0.0002 NA <0.005 <0.05 NA <0.015 NA NA 13 184 <0.015 NA NA NA <0.02NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA <0.05 NA NA NA NA 23.2 192 NA NA NA NA NA0.128 <0.0002 NA <0.005 <0.25 NA <0.015 NA NA 60.5 619 <0.015 NA NA NA <0.02NA NA NA NA 0.089 NA NA NA NA 89.8 619 NA NA NA NA NA0.0832 <0.0002 NA <0.005 <0.05 NA <0.015 NA NA 32.5 181 <0.015 NA NA NA <0.020.0633 <0.0002 NA <0.001 0.056 NA <0.001 NA NA 66.4 192 NA NA NA NA <0.0050.0243 <0.0002 NA <0.001 1.5 NA <0.001 NA NA <5 150 <0.001 NA NA NA <0.005NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA7.13E-02 <0.0002 NA <0.001 0.086 NA <0.001 NA NA 65.4 268 NA NA NA NA <0.0050.032 <0.0002 NA <0.001 <0.05 NA 0.0011 NA NA 77.9 297 <0.001 NA NA NA 0.0061NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA0.0497 <0.0002 NA <0.001 0.23 NA <0.001 NA NA 58.9 240 NA NA NA NA <0.0050.0286 <0.0002 NA <0.001 NA NA <0.001 NA NA NA NA <0.001 NA NA NA <0.005NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA <0.05 NA NA NA NA <5 466 NA NA NA NA NA0.0265 <0.0002 NA <0.001 0.056 NA <0.001 NA NA <5 170 NA NA NA NA <0.0050.0583 <0.0002 NA <0.001 0.19 NA <0.001 NA NA <5 141 <0.001 NA NA NA <0.0050.112 <0.0002 NA 0.0012 <0.05 NA <0.001 NA NA 26.1 177 <0.001 NA NA NA <0.005NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA0.119 <0.0002 NA <0.001 0.064 NA <0.001 NA NA <5 160 NA NA NA NA <0.0050.161 <0.0002 NA 0.0011 1.5 NA <0.001 NA NA 36.8 <5 <0.001 NA NA NA <0.0050.304 <0.0002 NA 0.0034 <0.05 NA <0.001 NA NA 44.4 420 <0.001 NA NA NA <0.005NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA0.144 <0.0002 NA 0.0015 0.054 NA <0.001 NA NA 36.2 366 NA NA NA NA <0.005NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA0.155 <0.0002 NA <0.001 <0.05 NA <0.001 NA NA 67.5 271 <0.001 NA NA NA 0.0051NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA 0.095 NA NA NA NA 43.6 273 NA NA NA NA NA0.175 <0.0002 NA 0.0314 <0.05 NA <0.001 NA NA 164 425 <0.001 NA NA NA <0.005NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA 0.09 NA NA NA NA 150 429 NA NA NA NA NAP:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment Plans\Weatherspoon\Tables\Tables 3 - 8 12_17_2014.xlsx11 of 12
TABLE 4GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTSH.F. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC., LUMBERTON, NORTH CAROLINAHydrostratigraphic UnitWell Type Sample Date15 NCAC .02L .0202(g) Groundwater Quality StandardAnalytical ParameterAnalytical MethodUnitsSample IDShallow Voluntary 3/9/2012Shallow Voluntary 3/20/2012Shallow Voluntary 5/8/2012Notes:1 Analytical parameter abbreviations:Temp. = TemperatureDO = Dissolved oxygenCond. = Specific conductanceORP = Oxidation reduction potentialTDS = Total dissolved solidsTSS = Total suspended solidsTOC = Total organic carbon2 Units:˚C = Degrees CelciusSU = Standard UnitsmV = millivoltsµS/cm = microsiemens per centimeterNTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Unitmg/L = milligrams per liter3 NE = Not established4 NA = Not available5 ND = Not detected6 NM = Not measured7 Highlighted values indicate values that exceed the 15 NCAC .02L .0202(g) Standard8*** Sample data provided by Duke***b - Data flagged due to detection in field blankSample data was obtained from the Field Exploration Data Report, Progress Energy – Weatherspoon Plant Ash Pond, Lumberton, North Carolina, S&ME Project No. 1054-12-062, June 11, 2012.Sample data by SynTerraAnalytical results with "<" preceeding the result indicate that the parameter was not detected at a concentration which attains or exceeds the laboratory reporting limit.PZ-03***PZ-03***PZ-03***Manganese Mercury Molybdenum Nickel Nitrate Nitrite Selenium Silver Strontium Sulfate TDS Thallium TOC TOX Vanadium Zincmg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l0.05 0.001 NE 0.1 10 NE 0.02 0.02 NE 250 500 0.0002 NE NE 0.0003 1200.8 245.1 NA 200.7 300.0 NA 200.8 NA NA 300 SM2540C 200.8 NA NA NA 200.7Constituent Concentrations<0.001 <0.0002 NA <0.001 <0.1 NA <0.001 NA NA 706 888 <0.001 NA NA NA <0.005NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA <0.1 NA NA NA NA 236 700 NA NA NA NA NAP:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment Plans\Weatherspoon\Tables\Tables 3 - 8 12_17_2014.xlsx12 of 12
TABLE 5SOIL AND ASH ANALYTICAL RESULTSH.F. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC., LUMBERTON, NORTH CAROLINAAnalytical Parameter Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Boron Cadmium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Manganese Mercury Molybdenum Nickel Selenium Silver Strontium Thallium Vanadium Zincmg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kgNA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NASource Location Sample DateAsh within ash basin 10/13/2011 0.97 30.1 294 1.9 11.5 <0.091 7.8 4 20.1 4370 7 32.1 0.12 1.5 9.2 9.3 0.25 j 176 0.44 j 32.9 9.4Ash within ash basin 10/13/2011 0.76 82.4 356 1.9 7.8 <0.085 7.2 3.6 21.6 4680 6.5 24.7 0.047 25.8 7.2 4.3 0.26 j 172 0.37 j 25.8 6.8Ash within ash basin 9/21/2011 <0.73 2.8 44.1 NA 14.4 <0.12 5.6 NA 2.2 2140 8.2 34.4 <0.27 NA 1.9 <0.73 NA NA <0.15 NA <7.3Soil within ash basin 9/21/2011 <0.59 3.2 15.5 NA <5.9 <0.095 13.3 NA 3 545 5.1 4.6 0.049 NA 2.8 2.2 NA NA <0.12 NA <5.9Ash within ash basin 10/13/2011 1.7 37.5 158 4.1 16.9 <0.096 11.2 8 40.5 4210 15.1 26.5 0.19 1.1 17.8 6 0.34 j 215 <0.096 46.9 23.2Ash within ash basin 9/21/2011 1.9 60.7 1150 NA 34.8 0.35 29.2 NA 80 17800 28.4 127 0.29 NA 54.8 22.2 NA NA 1.6 NA 42.3Soil within ash basin 9/21/2011 <0.49 0.63 19.2 NA <4.9 <0.078 5.5 NA 2.8 506 6.1 4.8 0.032 NA 1.1 0.54 NA NA <0.097 NA <4.9Ash within ash basin 9/21/2011 2.2 92.8 476 NA 40.7 0.43 32.7 NA 82 12800 35.3 54.4 0.32 NA 36.2 26.2 NA NA 2.4 NA 49.3Soil within ash basin 9/21/2011 <0.59 3.6 16 NA <11.9 <0.95 25.5 NA 2.4 15100 8.1 9.1 0.025 NA 4.9 0.71 NA NA <0.12 NA 6.6Ash within ash basin 9/21/2011 1.3 38.5 1240 NA 22.3 <0.16 21.7 NA 63.7 16300 16 72.6 0.14 NA 24.8 14.6 NA NA 1 NA 25.6Soil within ash basin 9/21/2011 <0.53 4.8 13.2 NA <5.3 <0.085 7.2 NA 0.59 1300 1.5 5.9 <0.02 NA 0.99 <0.53 NA NA <0.11 NA <5.3Ash within ash basin 9/21/2011 2.5 74.9 916 NA 61.1 0.53 33.8 NA 90.4 18700 31.5 123 0.27 NA 42.5 19.1 NA NA 2.6 NA 72.4Soil within ash basin 9/21/2011 <0.55 0.64 7.3 NA <5.5 <0.087 4.4 NA 0.89 3780 2.9 4.5 <0.024 NA 1.2 <0.55 NA NA <0.11 NA <5.5Ash within ash basin 9/21/2011 1.4 117 492 NA 50.9 0.44 28.6 NA 54.8 13900 23 67.5 0.49 NA 27.4 14.3 NA NA 3.4 NA 39.8Soil within ash basin 9/21/2011 <0.56 4.1 10.6 NA <5.6 <0.09 5.8 NA 2.1 574 3.7 2.3 <0.023 NA 1.5 <0.56 NA NA <0.11 NA <5.6Notes:1 Units:mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram2 NA = Not available3 NE = Not established45UnitsConstituent ConcentrationsB-38 (13.5 - 15)B-38 (18.5 - 20)Analytical MethodSample Name and Depth (ft-bls)B-22 (18.5 - 20)B-22 (24 - 25)B-23 (8.5 - 10)B-23 (13.5 - 15)B-24 (18.5 - 20)B-5 (1 - 2.5)B-5 (18.5 - 20)B-8A (28.5 - 29)B-8A (29 - 30)B-13 (1 - 2.5)Sample data was obtained from the Field Exploration Data Report, Progress Energy – Weatherspoon Plant Ash Pond, Lumberton, North Carolina, S&ME Project No. 1054-12-062, June 11, 2012.MW-44SA (28.5 - 29.5)MW-44SA (33.5 - 34.5)Analytical results with "<" preceeding the result indicate that the parameter was not detected at a concentration which attains or exceeds the laboratory reporting limit.B-24 (23.5 - 25)P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment Plans\Weatherspoon\Tables\Tables 3 - 8 12_17_2014.xlsx1 of 1
TABLE 6SURFACE WATER ANALYTICAL RESULTSH.F. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC., LUMBERTON, NORTH CAROLINApH Temp.Specific ConductanceDO ORP Antimony Arsenic Barium Boron Cadmium Chloride Copper Iron Lead Manganese Mercury Nickel Nitrate Selenium Sulfate TDS Thallium ZincS.U.˚C µS/cm mg/l mV mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l6.0 - 9.0 NE NE NE NE 0.64 0.01 200 NE 0.002 230 0.007 1 0.025 NE 0.000012 0.088 NE 0.005 NE NE 0.00047 0.05NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA -- --Sample ID LocationSample Collection DateSW-1 NE corner of Ash Bsin South of MW-1 3/21/2012 NA NA NA NA NA <0.001 0.0025 0.0416 0.27 0.00026 28 <0.001 1.6 <0.001 0.096 <0.0002 0.0058 <0.1 <0.001 143 453 <0.001 0.0112SW-1 NE corner of Ash Bsin South of MW-1 8/5/2012 7.7 18 10 7.78 -46.7 NA NA NA NA NA 11.7 NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.14 NA 19 111 NA NASW-2 At PZ-1 3/21/2012 NA NA NA NA NA <0.001 0.0018 0.0592 1.68 <0.0001 26.2 <0.001 0.155 <0.001 0.0564 <0.0002 <0.001 <0.1 <0.001 193 500 <0.001 <0.005SW-2 At PZ-1 8/5/2012 7.4 18.2 700 7.47 -48.6 NA NA NA NA NA 30.5 NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.16 NA 167 483 NA NASW-3 At PZ-2 3/21/2012 NA NA NA NA NA <0.001 0.266 0.0806 1.74 <0.0001 33.6 <0.001 2.74 <0.001 0.0912 <0.0002 0.0298 0.5 <0.001 135 465 <0.001 <0.005SW-3 At PZ-2 8/5/2012 7.4 18.1 720 7.67 -62.1 NA NA NA NA NA 36.8 NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.36 NA 146 460 NA NASW-4 At PZ-3 3/21/2012 NA NA NA NA NA <0.001 0.0159 0.0808 2.07 <0.0001 36.5 <0.001 1.06 <0.001 0.0614 <0.0002 0.0246 0.49 <0.001 129 478 <0.001 <0.005SW-4 At PZ-3 8/5/2012 7.5 19 720 6.14 -28.4 NA NA NA NA NA 42.1 NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.3 NA 143 473 NA NASW-5SE Corner of Ash Basin 300 ft South of PZ-33/21/2012 NA NA NA NA NA <0.001 0.0356 8.54E-02 2.06 <0.0001 40.7 <0.001 2.18 <0.001 0.0808 <0.0002 0.0247 0.51 <0.001 145 478 <0.001 <0.005SW-5SE Corner of Ash Basin 300 ft South of PZ-38/5/2012 7.8 19.4 720 7.1 -92.7 NA NA NA NA NA 42.8 NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.29 NA 139 476 NA NAPrepared by: BER/RBI Checked by: RGNotes:1 Analytical parameter abbreviations:Temp. = TemperatureDO = Dissolved oxygenORP = Oxidation reduction potentialTDS = Total dissolved solids2 Units:˚C = Degrees CelciusSU = Standard UnitsmV = millivoltsµS/cm = microsiemens per centimetermg/L = milligrams per liter3 NA = Not available4 NE = Not established5 Highlighted values indicate values that exceed the 15A NCAC 2B Standard for Class C Water67Sample data was obtained from the Field Exploration Data Report, Progress Energy – Weatherspoon Plant Ash Pond, Lumberton, North Carolina, S&ME Project No. 1054-12-Constituent ConcentrationsField MeasurementsAnalytical results with "<" preceeding the result indicate that the parameter was not detected at a concentration which attains or exceeds the laboratory reporting limit.Parameter15A NCAC 02B 0.200 Surface Water Quality Standard (C Water)Analytical MethodUnitsP:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment Plans\Weatherspoon\Tables\Tables 3 - 8 12_17_2014.xlsx1 of 1
TABLE 7ASH BASIN PORE WATER ANALYTICAL RESULTSH.F. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC., LUMBERTON, NORTH CAROLINApH Temp.Specific ConductanceDO ORP Turbidity Antimony Arsenic Barium Boron Cadmium Chloride Chromium Copper Iron Lead Manganese Mercury Nickel Nitrate Selenium Sulfate TDS Thallium ZincS.U. Deg C uS/cm mg/l mV NTUs mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/lNA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NASample ID Location Sample DateB-08/OW-8) MW-8S within ash basin 2/29/2012 7.0 23.06 1087 0.16 110 8.56 <0.001 0.0481 0.0695 2.4 <0.0001 30.1 0.0209 0.0015 3.68 <0.001 0.626 <0.0002 0.0186 <0.10 0.0013 244 748 <0.001 <0.005B-08/OW-8) MW-8S within ash basin 5/7/2012 6.6 21.25 1001 0.17 -79.9 4.76 <0.001 0.0089 0.0473 2.26 <0.0001 28.3 <0.001 <0.001 1.91 <0.001 0.384 <0.0002 0.02 <0.10 <0.001 230 688 <0.001 0.0051MW-44S within ash basin 2/28/2012 6.7 21.04 1039 0.89 102 5.1 <0.001 0.318 2.26 2.64 <0.0001 39.1 0.0049 <0.001 2.43 <0.001 1.45 <0.0002 0.0609 <0.25<0.001 <5.0 608 <0.001 <0.005MW-44S within ash basin 3/21/2012 NM NM NM NM NM NM NA NA NA NA NA 39.1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 608 NA NAMW-44S within ash basin 3/9/2012 6.8 23.12 1034 0.47 127 32.3 <0.001 0.733 0.268 1.17 <0.0002 30 0.0138 0.0058 7.26 0.0036 0.273 <0.0002 0.0116 <0.1 <0.002 186 677 <0.001 0.0105MW-44S within ash basin 5/7/2012 6.5 21.78 1241 0.43 -104 4.11 NA NA NA NA NA 49.8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.1 NA 257 890 NA NAMW-44S within ash basin 5/7/2012 7.7 25.9 1106 5.51 -66 8.58 <0.001 0.448 2.1 2.26 <0.0001 45.4 <0.001 <0.001 4.58 <0.001 0.866 <0.0002 0.0105 <0.05 <0.001 <5.0 578 NA <0.005Prepared by: BER/RBI Checked by: RGNotes:1Analytical parameter abbreviations:Temp. = TemperatureDO = Dissolved oxygenORP = Oxidation reduction potentialTDS = Total dissolved solidsTSS = Total suspended solidsTOC = Total organic carbon2Units:˚C = Degrees CelciusSU = Standard UnitsmV = millivoltsµS = microsiemensNTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Unitmg/L = milligrams per literug/L = micrograms per literCaCO3 = calcium carbonate3 NA = Not available4 NE = Not established56Field ParmetersConstituent ConcentrationsSample data was obtained from the Field Exploration Data Report, Progress Energy – Weatherspoon Plant Ash Pond, Lumberton, North Carolina, S&ME Project No. 1054-12-062, June 11, 2012.Analytical results with "<" preceeding the result indicate that the parameter was not detected at a concentration which attains or exceeds the laboratory reporting limit.Analytical ParameterUnitsAnalytical MethodP:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment Plans\Weatherspoon\Tables\Tables 3 - 8 12_17_2014.xlsx1 of 1
TABLE 8SEEP ANALYTICAL RESULTSH.F. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC., LUMBERTON, NORTH CAROLINApH Temp.Specific ConductanceDO ORP Flow Turbidity Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Boron Cadmium Calcium Chloride Chromium COD Copper Fluoride Hardness Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Molybdenum NickelOil & GreaseSelenium Sulfate Thallium TDS TSS ZincSU °C µS/cm mg/l mV MGD NTUs mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/lmg/l (CaCO3)mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l200.7 200.8 200.8 200.7 200.7 200.8 200.7 300 200.8 HACH 8000 200.8 300 200.7 200.7 200.8 200.7 200.7 245.1 200.8 200.8 1664B 200.8 300 200.8 SM2540C SM2540D 200.7LocationSample Collection DateNorth of ash basin 8/18/2014 6.5 25 388 3.34 -4.2 NM 35.3 0.108 <0.001 0.00741 0.072 0.799 <0.001 40.2 b 16 <0.001 <20 <0.001 <0.1 132 3.14 <0.001 7.62 b 0.156 <0.001 0.00204 <0.001 <5 <0.001 57 <0.0002 240 18 <0.005Northeast of site of ash basin 8/18/2014 NM NM NM 3.34 -4.2 NM NM 0.141 <0.001 0.00756 0.073 0.785 <0.001 39.7 b 16 <0.001 <20 <0.001 <0.1 130 3.34 <0.001 7.52 b 0.162 <0.001 0.00182 0.00101 <5 <0.001 57 <0.0002 230 18 <0.005east side of the ash basin 8/18/2014 7.3 25 817 3.18 -60 0.06172 6.88 0.011 <0.001 0.292 0.139 2.06 <0.001 105 b 29 <0.001 <20 <0.001 0.19 325 1.28 <0.001 15.3 b 0.461 <0.001 0.0322 0.0256 <5 <0.001 110 <0.0002 520 <5 <0.005southeast face of ash basin dike8/18/2014 7.3 25 816 1.5 -75.2 0.01987 10.5 0.031 <0.001 0.0438 0.108 2.15 <0.001 98.4 b 35 <0.001 20 <0.001 0.23 305 2.12 <0.001 14.4 b 0.274 <0.001 0.0938 0.018 <5 <0.001 110 <0.0002 480 <5 <0.005east side of the ash basin 8/18/2014 6.6 28 132 1.6 -30 NM 27.3 4.05 <0.001 0.0061 0.068 0.06 <0.001 7.31 b 8.6 0.00172 120 0.00247 <0.1 27.7 19.1 0.00239 2.29 b 0.066 <0.001 <0.001 0.00673 <5 <0.001 27 <0.0002 86 200 0.026north side of ash basin 8/19/2014 6.7 25 38.3 5.51 53.5 0.01267 5.98 0.055 <0.001 <0.001 0.038 <0.05 <0.001 1.99 b 3.6 <0.001 <20 <0.001 <0.1 8.53 1.03 <0.001 0.865 b 0.014 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <5 <0.001 3.3 <0.0002 28 <5 <0.005concrete pad underneath Power Plant Road8/19/2014 NM NM NM 5.51 53.5 NM NM 0.043 <0.001 <0.001 0.036 <0.05 <0.001 1.96 b 3.6 <0.001 <20 <0.001 <0.1 8.42 1.01 <0.001 0.857 b 0.014 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <5 <0.001 3.3 <0.0002 27 <5 <0.005concrete pad underneath Power Plant Road8/19/2014 6.6 24 22.9 5.56 81 0.00141 2.94 0.031 <0.001 <0.001 0.023 <0.05 <0.001 1.62 b 2.2 <0.001 <20 <0.001 <0.1 5.56 0.373 <0.001 0.37 b <0.005 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <5 <0.001 1.6 <0.0002 <25 <5 <0.005west side of ash basin 8/18/2014 7 29 479 7.45 -23.8 0.03016 11.2 0.12 <0.001 0.00159 0.087 0.828 <0.001 56.6 b 17 <0.001 <20 <0.001 <0.1 178 1.74 <0.001 8.82 b 0.137 <0.001 0.00289 0.00222 <5 <0.001 78 <0.0002 300 <5 <0.005eastern engineered outfall of ash basin8/19/2014 6.5 24 590 1.95 -69 0.00061 125 0.332 <0.001 0.00374 0.102 2.37 <0.001 52.7 b 36 <0.001 40 <0.001 0.12 162 58.8 <0.001 7.38 b 0.213 <0.001 <0.001 0.00206 <5 <0.001 57 <0.0002 340 130 <0.005south edge of ash basin 8/18/2014 7 26 701 2.38 -94.9 0.08781 162 0.069 <0.001 0.0121 0.337 1.94 <0.001 80.2 b 35 <0.001 <20 <0.001 0.35 246 12 <0.00111.1 b 0.803 <0.001 0.0168 0.006130 <5 <0.001 9 <0.0002 410 27 <0.005downstream of S-09 8/18/2014 7.4 28 520 7.29 113.1 0.0202 3.77 0.279 <0.001 0.0016 0.154 0.959 <0.001 62 b 20 <0.001 <20 0.00122 <0.1 189 1.25 <0.001 8.35 b 0.231 <0.001 0.00147 0.00793 <5 <0.001 140 <0.0002 340 36 0.008Lumbar River upstream of power plant8/19/2014 5.9 26 92.4 5.51 158.3 NM 2.92 0.507 0.00225 <0.001 0.031 <0.05 <0.001 3.33 b 13 <0.001 52 0.00193 <0.1 13.6 0.867 <0.001 1.29 b 0.079 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <5 <0.001 7.3 <0.0002 98 7 0.041concrete pipe underneath old dike into Lumber River8/19/2014 6 24 38.3 3.4 81.3 0.01372 1.89 0.039 <0.001 <0.001 0.036 <0.05 <0.001 1.99 b 3.4 <0.001 <20 <0.001 <0.1 8.2 1.01 <0.001 0.786 b 0.019 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <5 <0.001 2.8 <0.0002 27 <5 <0.005500 feet south of cooling pond 8/19/2014 5.8 26 86.9 5.66 204 NM 1.8 0.443 0.00202 <0.001 0.03 <0.05 <0.001 3.3 b 12 <0.001 53 0.00186 <0.1 13.4 0.782 <0.001 1.26 b 0.056 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <5 <0.001 7.1 <0.0002 95 <5 0.039upstream of plant at Old Whiteville Road8/19/2014 5.9 24 154 1.53 83.3 NM 7.41 0.128 <0.001 <0.001 0.06 <0.05 <0.001 15.7 b 12 <0.001 56 <0.001 <0.1 57.2 2.77 <0.001 4.38 b 0.122 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <5 <0.001 3.2 <0.0002 130 11 <0.005southwest corner of ash basin 8/18/2014 9 34 294 6.32 -2.8 NM 4.62 0.737 0.00365 0.0868 0.13 0.556 <0.001 29.4 b 6.2 <0.001 24 0.00288 0.4 89.9 0.07 <0.001 4.01 b 0.018 <0.001 0.0327 0.00291 <5 0.0115 79 0.000398 190 <5 <0.005OUTFALL Sample Pt 3, outflow sec basin3/12/2014 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.023 <0.001 0.0252 0.095 0.847 <0.001 NA 23 <0.001 NA <0.005 <1 154 7.35 <0.001 NA 0.179 NA 0.0311 0.018 NA <0.001 120 NA 328 NA0.00227OUTFALL Sample Pt6, outfall 0013/12/2014 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.047 0.00415 0.00214 0.093 0.319 <0.001 NA 15 <0.001 NA <0.005 <1 73.9 0.057 <0.001 NA 0.01 NA 0.0224 0.00501 NA 0.00365 78 NA157 NA 0.00842SEEP Sample Pt 1, ditch SE Ash Pond3/12/2014 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.062 <0.001 0.0129 0.092 1.95 <0.001 NA 39 <0.005 NA <0.005 <1 278 0.745 <0.001 NA 0.052 NA 0.045 0.016 NA <0.001 130 NA 422 NA <0.005SEEP Sample Pt 2, 1979 ash pond3/12/2014 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.087 0.00526 0.0149 0.34 0.158 <0.001 NA 4 <0.005 NA <0.005 <1 63.3 0.036 <0.001 NA <0.005 NA 0.0414 <0.005 NA 0.0449 27 NA 99 NA <0.005SEEP Sample Pt 4, toe drain ditch3/12/2014 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.016 <0.001 0.00148 0.088 1.43 <0.001 NA 30 <0.005 NA <0.005 <1 246 0.519 <0.001 NA 0.03 NA 0.0087 0.005 NA <0.001 81 NA 389 NA <0.005SEEP Sample Pt 5, combine ditch flow3/12/2014 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.026 <0.001 0.00272 0.088 1.46 <0.001 NA 30 <0.005 NA <0.005 <1 250 0.716 <0.001 NA 0.024 NA 0.00807 <0.005 NA <0.001 80 NA 396NA <0.005SEEP Sample Pt 7, Jacob Swamp3/12/2014 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.161 <0.001 <0.001 0.031 <0.05 <0.001 NA 15 <0.005 NA <0.005 <1 37.9 0.273 <0.001 NA 0.006 NA <0.001 <0.005 NA <0.001 14 NA 102NA 0.005SEEP Sample Pt 8, Jacob Swamp upstream3/12/2014 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.319 <0.001 0.00788 0.037 <0.05 <0.001 NA 14 <0.005 NA <0.005 <1 36.1 0.733 <0.001 NA 0.024 NA 0.00101 <0.005 NA <0.001 13 NA 76 NA 0.01SEEP Sample Pt 9, SE Toe Drain3/12/2014 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.047 <0.001 <0.001 0.077 1.51 <0.001 NA 34 <0.005 NA <0.005 <1 160 27.9 <0.001 NA 0.216 NA <0.001 <0.006 NA <0.001 86 NA 300 NA <0.005SEEP Sample Pt 11, 3rd Toe Drain SE3/12/2014 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.059 <0.001 <0.001 0.046 0.286 <0.001 NA 16 <0.005 NA <0.005 <1 40.3 6.96 <0.001 NA 0.061 NA <0.001 <0.005 NA <0.001 22 NA 104 NA <0.005SEEP Sample Pt 13, Ditch NE Ash Pond3/12/2014 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.27 <0.001 0.00117 0.045 0.278 <0.001 NA 14 <0.005 NA <0.005 <1 71.7 2.35 <0.001 NA 0.092 NA 0.00295 <0.005 NA <0.001 54 NA 148NA 0.016SEEP Sample Pt 14, Internal RR Area3/12/2014 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.013 <0.001 <0.001 0.042 <0.05 <0.001 NA 3.2 <0.005 NA <0.005 <1 73.9 0.093 <0.001 NA <0.005 NA <0.001 <0.005 NA <0.001 8.8 NA117 NA <0.005SEEP Sample Pt 15, 2nd Internal RR Area3/12/2014 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.073 <0.001 0.00172 0.085 <0.05 <0.001 NA 3.6 <0.005 NA <0.005 <1 87.8 0.605 <0.001 NA 0.009 NA <0.001 <0.005 NA <0.001 17 NA 141 NA <0.005SEEP Sample Pt 16, Left Pipe Entrance Gate3/12/2014 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.044 <0.001 <0.001 0.048 <0.05 <0.001 NA 4.3 <0.005 NA <0.005 <1 11 0.107 <0.001 NA 0.011 NA <0.001 <0.005 NA <0.001 10 NA 36 NA0.007SEEP Sample Pt 17, Right Pipe Entrance Gate3/12/2014 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.062 <0.001 <0.001 0.029 <0.05 <0.001 NA 2.6 <0.005 NA <0.005 <1 6.17 0.171 <0.001 NA 0.006 NA <0.001 <0.005 NA <0.001 3.5 NA 34 NA <0.005SEEP Sample Pt 18, NE Side Ditch3/12/2014 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.005 <0.001 0.00124 <0.005 <0.05 <0.001 NA 13 <0.005 NA <0.005 <1 31 <10 <0.001 NA <0.005 NA <0.001 <0.005 NA <0.001 17 NA 82 NA <0.005Prepared by: BER/RBI Checked by: RGNotes:1 Analytical parameter abbreviations: 3 NE = Not establishedTemp. = Temperature 4 NA = Not availableCond. = Specific conductivity 5 NM = Not measuredCOD = Chemical oxygen demand 6 b = Target analyte detected in method blank at or above the reporting limit.TDS = Total dissolved solids7TSS = Total suspended solids*2 Units:** Split sample data analyzed by Duke Lab of NC DENR identified locations.˚C = Degrees CelciusSU = Standard UnitsµS/cm = microsiemens per centimeterMGD = millions of gallons per daymg/L = milligrams per literµg/l = micrograms per literS-03*Constituent ConcentrationsUnitsAnalytical ParameterS-01*S -01 Dup.*Analytical MethodField MeasurementsSample ID2014007440**S-18*S-19*S-20*S-21*2014007428**S-17*S-05*S-06*S-07*S-07 Dup.*S-08*S-09*S-14*S-15*S-16*2014007441**Analytical results with "<" preceeding the result indicate that the parameter was not detected at a concentration which attains or exceeds the laboratory reporting li itSamples collected by SynTerra at locations as described (SynTerra, October 2014)2014007429**2014007430**2014007431**2014007432**2014007433**2014007434**2014007435**2014007436**2014007442**2014007443**2014007437**2014007438**2014007439**P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment Plans\Weatherspoon\Tables\Tables 3 - 8 12_17_2014.xlsxPage 1 of 1
TABLE 9ENVIRONMENTAL EXPLORATION AND SAMPLING PLANW.H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC., LUMBERTON, NORTH CAROLINAExploration AreaBoring IDQuantityEstimated Boring Depth(ft bgs)Well IDs QuantityEstimated Well Depth(ft bgs)Screen Length (ft)Well IDsQuantityEstimated Well Depth(ft bgs)Screen Length (ft)Well IDs QuantityEstimated Casing Depth(ft bgs)Estimated Well Depth(ft bgs)Screen Length (ft)Sample IDsQuantity of LocationsQuantity of SamplesSample IDsQuantity of LocationsQuantity of SamplesSample IDsQuantity of LocationsQuantity of SamplesWell IDsQuantity of LocationsQuantity of SamplesAsh BasinAB-1throughAB-44 40 ABMW-1 1 30 5 N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AMW-8 Cluster,MW44 Cluster,andMW-49 Cluster10 10Beyond Waste BoundarySB-1throughSB-4420AW-1SAW-2SandAW-3S32010AW-1IAW-2IandAW-3I3405AW-1DAW-2DandAW-3D350605S-01,S-02,S-03,S-05,44SW-1,andSW-222S-01,S-02,S-03,S-05,SW-1,andSW-266MW-1,CW-1 *,CW-2 *,CW-3 *,MW-33 Cluster,MW-41 Cluster,and Production WellsDEP-1 and DEP-211 11BackgroundN/A 0 N/ABW-2SandBW-3S22010BW-2IandBW-3I2405BW-2DandBW-3D2 50 60 5 S-20 1 1 N/A 0 0 S-20 1 1 BW-1 * 1 1Notes: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. Actual number of field and laboratory tests will be determined in field by Field Engineer or Geologist in accordance with project specifications.5. * = Compliance monitoring well will be sampled during routing compliance montoring event in March 2015.Existing Monitoring WellsShallow Monitoring Wells(Single Cased)Soil BoringsSedimentSurface WaterDeep Monitoring Wells(Double Cased)Intermediate Monitoring Wells(Single Cased)SeepsP:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment Plans\Weatherspoon\Tables\Table 9‐Exploration and Sampling Plan.xlsx
TABLE 10
SOIL, SEDIMENT, AND ASH PARAMETERS AND ANALYTICAL METHODS
W.H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC., LUMBERTON, 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 %
Percent solids %
Percent organic matter %EPA/600/R-02/069
Redox potential mV Faulkner et al. 1898
Notes:
1. Soil samples to be analyzed for Total Inorganics using USEPA Methods 6010/6020 and pH using USEPA
Method 9045, as noted above.
2. Ash samples to be analyzed for Total Inorganics using USEPA Methods 6010/6020 and pH using USEPA
Method 9045; select ash samples will also be analyzed for leaching potential using SPLP Extraction Method
1312 in conjunction with USEPA Methods 6010/6020.
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment Plans\Weatherspoon\Tables\Table 10-Soil
and Ash Parameters.xlsx
TABLE 11
ASH PORE WATER, GROUNDWATER, SURFACE WATER, AND SEEP PARAMETERS AND
ANALYTICAL METHODS
W.H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, INC., LUMBERTON, NORTH CAROLINA
PARAMETER RL UNITS METHOD
pH NA SU Field Water Quality Meter
Specific Conductance NA µS/cm Field Water Quality Meter
Temperature NA ºC Field Water Quality Meter
Dissolved Oxygen NA mg/L Field Water Quality Meter
Oxidation Reduction Potential NA mV Field Water Quality Meter
Turbidity NA NTU Field Water Quality Meter
Ferrous Iron NA mg/L Field Test Kit
Aluminum 0.005 mg/L EPA 200.7 or 6010C
Antimony 0.001 mg/L EPA 200.8 or 6020A
Arsenic 0.001 mg/L EPA 200.8 or 6020A
Barium 0.005 mg/L EPA 200.7 or 6010C
Beryllium 0.001 mg/L EPA 200.8 or 6020A
Boron 0.05 mg/L EPA 200.7 or 6010C
Cadmium 0.001 mg/L EPA 200.8 or 6020A
Chromium 0.001 mg/L EPA 200.7 or 6010C
Cobalt 0.001 mg/L EPA 200.8 or 6020A
Copper 0.005 mg/L EPA 200.7 or 6010C
Iron 0.01 mg/L EPA 200.7 or 6010C
Lead 0.001 mg/L EPA 200.8 or 6020A
Manganese 0.005 mg/L EPA 200.7 or 6010C
Mercury (low level)0.000012 mg/L EPA 245.7 or 1631
Molybdenum 0.005 mg/L EPA 200.7 or 6010C
Nickel 0.005 mg/L EPA 200.7 or 6010C
Selenium 0.001 mg/L EPA 200.8 or 6020A
Strontium 0.005 mg/L EPA 200.7 or 6010C
Thallium (low level)0.0002 mg/L EPA 200.8 or 6020A
Vanadium (low level)0.0003 mg/L EPA 200.8 or 6020A
Zinc 0.005 mg/L EPA 200.7 or 6010C
Total Combined Radium 5 pCi/L EPA 903.0
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)20 mg/L SM 2320B
Bicarbonate 20 mg/L SM 2320
Calcium 0.01 mg/L EPA 200.7
Carbonate 20 mg/L SM 2320
Chloride 0.1 mg/L EPA 300.0 or 9056A
Magnesium 0.005 mg/L EPA 200.7
Methane 0.1 mg/L RSK 175
Nitrate as Nitrogen 0.023 mg-N/L EPA 300.0 or 9056A
Potassium 0.1 mg/L EPA 200.7
Sodium 0.05 mg/L EPA 200.7
Sulfate 0.1 mg/L EPA 300.0 or 9056A
Sulfide 0.05 mg/L SM4500S-D
Total Dissolved Solids 25 mg/L SM 2540C
Total Organic Carbon 0.1 mg/L SM 5310
Total Suspended Solids 2 mg/L SM 2450D
Arsenic Speciation Vendor Specific mg/L IC-ICP-CRC-MS
Iron Speciation Vendor Specific mg/L IC-ICP-CRC-MS
Manganese Speciation Vendor Specific mg/L IC-ICP-CRC-MS
Notes:
INORGANICS
FIELD PARAMETERS
NA indicates not applicable.
ADDITIONAL GROUNDWATER CONSTITUENTS
1. Select constituents will be analyzed for total and dissolved concentrations.
ANIONS/CATIONS
RADIONUCLIDES
P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\ALL NC SITES\DENR Letter Deliverables\GW Assessment Plans\Weatherspoon\Tables\Table 11‐
Groundwater_Surface Water_Seep Parameters.xlsx

APPENDIX A

NCDENR LETTER OF AUGUST 13, 2014

APPENDIX B

EXCERPTS FROM
S&ME FIELD EXPLORATION DATA REPORT
(JUNE 11, 2012)

TABLE 1
BORING AND WELL SUMMARY
Field Exploration Data Report
Progress Energy - Weatherspoon Plant Ash Pond
S&ME Project No: 1054-12-062
Auger
Borings
Hand
Auger
Limited
Assessment
Geo/Env
Investigation
Hollow
Stem
Augers
Mud
Rotary
No Split
Spoon
Sampling
Shear
Wave
Testing
Pore
Pressure
Dissipation
Continous
Sampling
No Soil
Sampling
No Soil
Sampling No Well Monitoring
Well
Observation
Well Piezometer
B-1/OW-1 x x x
CPT-1 x x x x
B-2 x x x
CPT-2 x x x x
B-3/OW-3 x x x
B-4 x x x
CPT-4 x x x x
B-5 x x x
CPT-5 x x x x
B-6 x x x
B-7 x x x
CPT-7 x x x x
B-8/OW-8 (MW-8S)x x x
B-8A x x x
MW-8I x x x
MW-8D x x x
B-9/OW-9 x x x
CPT-9 x x x x
CPT-10 x x x x
B-11 x x x
B-12 x x x
CPT-12 x x x x
B-13 x x x
CPT-13 x x x x
CPT-14 x x x x
Location ID
Well InstallationPhase of Work SPT Borings CPT Borings Roto-Sonic
Method of Boring Advancement
Page 1 of 4
TABLE 1
BORING AND WELL SUMMARY
Field Exploration Data Report
Progress Energy - Weatherspoon Plant Ash Pond
S&ME Project No: 1054-12-062
Auger
Borings
Hand
Auger
Limited
Assessment
Geo/Env
Investigation
Hollow
Stem
Augers
Mud
Rotary
No Split
Spoon
Sampling
Shear
Wave
Testing
Pore
Pressure
Dissipation
Continous
Sampling
No Soil
Sampling
No Soil
Sampling No Well Monitoring
Well
Observation
Well Piezometer
Location ID
Well InstallationPhase of Work SPT Borings CPT Borings Roto-Sonic
Method of Boring Advancement
B-15/OW-15 x x x
B-15A x x x
B-16 x x x
B-17/OW-17 x x x
B-17A x x x
CPT-18 x x x x
CPT-19 x x x x
B-19A x x x
B-20 x x x
B-21 x x x
B-22 x x x
CPT-22 x x x x
B-23 x x x
CPT-23 x x x x
B-24 x x x
B-24A x x x
B-24B x x x
B-24C x x x
CPT-24 x x x x
B-25 x x x
B-26 x x x
CPT-26 x x x x
B-27 x x x
B-27A x x x
B-28 x x x
Page 2 of 4
TABLE 1
BORING AND WELL SUMMARY
Field Exploration Data Report
Progress Energy - Weatherspoon Plant Ash Pond
S&ME Project No: 1054-12-062
Auger
Borings
Hand
Auger
Limited
Assessment
Geo/Env
Investigation
Hollow
Stem
Augers
Mud
Rotary
No Split
Spoon
Sampling
Shear
Wave
Testing
Pore
Pressure
Dissipation
Continous
Sampling
No Soil
Sampling
No Soil
Sampling No Well Monitoring
Well
Observation
Well Piezometer
Location ID
Well InstallationPhase of Work SPT Borings CPT Borings Roto-Sonic
Method of Boring Advancement
B-29 x x x
B-30 x x x
B-31 x x x
B-32 x x x
CPT-32 x x x x
MW-33S x x x
MW-33I/D Nest x x x
B-34 x x x
CPT-34 x x x x
B-35 x x x
CPT-35 x x x x
B-36 x x x
B-37 x x x
B-38 x x x
B-39 x x x
B-40 x x x
CPT-40 x x x x
MW-41I/D Nest x x x
B-42 x x x
CPT-42 x x x x
B-43 x x x
MW-44S x x x
MW-44SA x x x
MW-44I x x x
MW-44D x x x
Page 3 of 4
TABLE 1
BORING AND WELL SUMMARY
Field Exploration Data Report
Progress Energy - Weatherspoon Plant Ash Pond
S&ME Project No: 1054-12-062
Auger
Borings
Hand
Auger
Limited
Assessment
Geo/Env
Investigation
Hollow
Stem
Augers
Mud
Rotary
No Split
Spoon
Sampling
Shear
Wave
Testing
Pore
Pressure
Dissipation
Continous
Sampling
No Soil
Sampling
No Soil
Sampling No Well Monitoring
Well
Observation
Well Piezometer
Location ID
Well InstallationPhase of Work SPT Borings CPT Borings Roto-Sonic
Method of Boring Advancement
B-45 x
B-46 x x x
CPT-47 x x x x
B-48 x x x
MW-49I/D Nest x x x
CPT-50 x x x x
B-51 x x x
B-51A x x x
MW-52 x x x
MW-53I/D Nest x x x
MW-54D x x x
MW-55I/D Nest x x x
CPT-56 x x x x
CPT-57 x x x x
B-58 x x x
CPT-58 x x x x
PZ-1 x x x
PZ-2 x x x
PZ-3 x x x
OB-1 x x x
OB-2 x x x
Notes:
Geo/Env Geotechnical and Environmental
SPT Standard Penetration Test
CPT Cone Penetration Test
Boring Location Omitted Due To Inaccessability
Page 4 of 4
TABLE 2
WELL CONSTRUCTION SUMMARY
Field Exploration Data Report
Progress Energy - Weatherspoon Plant Ash Pond
S&ME Project No: 1054-12-062
CASING SCREEN
NORTH EAST GROUND TOC STICK-UP DIA.DIA.
(ft) (ft) (ft-MSL) (ft-MSL) (ft-als)(in)(in)(ft-bls)
0.0 to 42.0 8
0.0 to 50.0 2
0.0 to 43.0 8
0.0 to 85.6 2
305430.66 2008114.13 129.93 132.84 Type II 2.91 0.0 to 5.0 2 5.0 to 15.0 2 0.0 to 3.0 3.0 to 4.0 4.0 to 15 15.0
MW-33I 305434.56 2008108.90 129.64 132.72 Type II 3.08 0.0 to 40.0 2 40.0 to 50.0 2 36.0 to 38.0 38.0 to 62.0
62.0 to 64.0
78.0 to 90.0
MW-41I 306536.96 2009938.35 123.26 126.33 Type II 3.07 0.0 to 21.0 2 21.0 to 31.0 2 16.0 to 18.0 18.0 to 32.0
MW-41D 306536.90 2009937.99 123.26 126.34 Type II 3.08 0.0 to 75.0 2 75.0 to 85.0 2 32.0 to 73.0 73.0 to 91.0
305850.27 2009216.25 151.50 154.60 Type II 3.1 0.0 to 11.0 2 11.0 to 21.0 2 0.0 to 6.0 6.0 to 9.0 9.0 to 21.5 21.5
305846.24 2009217.31 151.44 154.57 Type II 3.13 0.0 to 37.0 2 37.0 to 42.0 2 0.0 to 32.0 32.0 to 35.0 35.0 to 42.5 42.5
0.0 to 38.0 8
0.0 to 46.0 2
0.0 to 39.0 8 73.0 to 75.0
0.0 to 77.0 2 89.0 to 100.0
MW-49I 305547.11 2009944.54 142.76 145.57 Type II 2.81 0.0 to 41.5 2 41.5 to 51.5 2 37.5 to 39.5 39.5 to 52.5
52.5 to 72.0
85.0 to 87.0
305488.60 2010343.91 112.16 111.85 Type II -0.31 0.31 to 10.0 4 10.0 to 30.0 4 1.0 to 4.0 4.0 to 6.0 6.0 to 30.0 30.0
MW-44SA
MW-44D 100.0
56.0
2009220.98
to2Type III 2.90 46.0 to 56.0
to151.32 153.94 87.0toType III 2
85.0
2.62 77.0
74.0 2 74.0 to72.0to
75.0
to
to 56.0
161.30
2008666.65306225.80
MW-33S
87.0
89.0
91.0
NEST305547.35 2009945.03 142.76 145.40 84.0
0.0
0.0 to 37.5
20.0Type II 2.64
MW-44S
306230.30 2008672.42 158.62
to0.0305857.10 2009217.69 151.50 154.40
158.67 161.65
Type III 2.68 0.0 to
Type III 2.98
MW-8I
MW-33D NESTSEAL INTERVAL
GEOTECHNICAL & ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATION (Installed February 21, 2012 through March 8, 2012)
WELL ID
FILTER PACK
INTERVAL
BENTONITE
TOTAL
BORING
DEPTH
SCREEN INTERVALN.C. COORDINATES SURVEY ELEVATIONS
(ft-bls)(ft-bls)(ft-bls)
Stabilized
Water
(ft-bls)#2 FILTER SAND
(ft-bls)
0.010 SLOT, PVCCASING INTERVAL
GROUT INTERVAL
(ft-bls)
NEAT CEMENTWell Type
NESTMW-8D
305850.72
MW-44I
MW-52
MW-49D
305434.32
100.085.6 to
to 60.048.0
to 73.0
42.0 42.0
to
44.0 48.0to44.0 60.0
80.0
2to 60.050.0
to
44.0 44.0
66.0 2 66.0
0.0
80.0 to
90.0
to
to 16.0
100.0
to 36.0
64.0 78.0
95.6 2 0.0 to 78.0 78.0
76.0 2
0.0
2008109.08 129.67 132.72 Type II 3.05 to0.0
Page 1 of 2
TABLE 2
WELL CONSTRUCTION SUMMARY
Field Exploration Data Report
Progress Energy - Weatherspoon Plant Ash Pond
S&ME Project No: 1054-12-062
CASING SCREEN
NORTH EAST GROUND TOC STICK-UP DIA.DIA.
(ft) (ft) (ft-MSL) (ft-MSL) (ft-als)(in)(in)(ft-bls)
SEAL INTERVAL
WELL ID
FILTER PACK
INTERVAL
BENTONITE
TOTAL
BORING
DEPTH
SCREEN INTERVALN.C. COORDINATES SURVEY ELEVATIONS
(ft-bls)(ft-bls)(ft-bls)
Stabilized
Water
(ft-bls)#2 FILTER SAND
(ft-bls)
0.010 SLOT, PVCCASING INTERVAL
GROUT INTERVAL
(ft-bls)
NEAT CEMENTWell Type
MW-53I 304524.20 2008933.86 113.68 117.02 Type II 3.34 0.0 to 21.0 2 21.0 to 31.0 2 18.0 to 20.0 20.0 to 32.0
32.0 to 44.0
58.0 to 77.0
55.0 to 57.0
70.0 to 76.0
MW-55I 305407.12 2010402.37 112.04 111.88 Type II -0.16 0.16 to 16.0 2 16.0 to 26.0 2 12.0 to 14.0 14.0 to 30.0
MW-55D 305406.81 2010402.37 112.04 111.86 Type II -0.18 0.18 to 65.0 2 65.0 to 70.0 2 30.0 to 63.0 63.0 to 70.0
305472.65 2010355.40 112.04 111.76 Type II -0.28 0.28 to 5.0 2 5.0 to 30.0 2 0.5 to 3.0 3.0 to 4.5 4.5 to 30.0 30.0
305483.42 2010324.84 112.14 111.85 Type II -0.29 0.30 to 5.0 2 5.0 to 30.0 2 0.5 to 3.0 3.0 to 4.5 4.5 to 30.0 30.0
307000.27 2009075.74 127.64 130.63 Type II 2.99 0.0 to 4.0 2 4.0 to 5.0 2 0.0 to 3.0 3.0 to 3.5 3.5 to 5.0 5.0
306353.92 2009640.41 123.40 126.46 Type II 3.06 0.0 to 4.0 2 4.0 to 5.0 2 0.0 to 3.0 3.0 to 3.5 3.5 to 5.0 5.0
305783.45 2010128.65 119.52 122.51 Type II 2.99 0.0 to 4.0 2 4.0 to 5.0 2 0.0 to 3.0 3.0 to 3.5 3.5 to 5.0 5.0
306358.46 2007896.76 160.70 163.44 20.81 Type II 2.74 0.0 to 16.0 2 16.0 to 26.0 2 0.0 to 10.5 10.5 to 14.0 14.0 to 29.0 50.0
306708.63 2008199.53 161.15 163.75 18.70 Type II 2.60 0.0 to 16.0 2 16.0 to 26.0 2 0.0 to 12.0 12.0 to 14.0 14.0 to 30.0 75.0
306224.25 2008671.51 158.92 162.07 13.20 Type II 3.15 0.0 to 11.0 2 11.0 to 21.0 2 0.0 to 7.0 7.0 to 9.0 9.0 to 22.0 75.0
305342.10 2008830.32 142.54 145.55 14.95 Type II 3.01 0.0 to 13.0 2 13.0 to 23.0 2 0.0 to 9.0 9.0 to 11.0 11.0 to 26.5 35.0
305220.40 2009502.89 143.38 146.30 19.65 Type II 2.92 0.0 to 16.0 2 16.0 to 26.0 2 0.0 to 12.0 12.0 to 14.0 14.0 to 30.0 45.0
305629.52 2010074.26 142.47 145.41 18.31 Type II 2.95 0.0 to 19.0 2 19.0 to 29.0 2 0.0 to 14.5 14.5 to 17.0 17.0 to 30.0 40.0
Notes:
(ft-MSL)Feet - Mean Sea Level TOC Top of Casing 0.010 Slot 0.010-Inch Machine-Slotted Pipe
(ft-bls)Feet - Below Land Surface Stabilized Water Stabilized (24+ hour) Water Level Neat Cement Cement Mixture without Bentonite
(ft-als)Feet - Above Land Surface Stick-up Well Casing Stick-Up #2 Filter Sand Medium to Fine Grained Silica Sand
North Northing Sch. 40 Schedule 40 Pipe Bentonite Bentonite Pellets
East Easting DIA.Diameter Type II Standard groundwater well construction
Ground Ground Surface Type III Groundwater well constructed within a larger diameter outer casing
OW-9
OW-15
OW-17
OW-1
OW-3
OW-8 (MW-8S)
PZ-1
PZ-2
LIMITED ASSESSMENT (Installed September 19, 2011 through October 5, 2011)
PZ-3
OB-2
70.0
58.0
77.018.0
56.0
1.0
304524.17 2008933.87
to 12.0
to2 46.0 2
0.0 to
Type II2010010.77 110.62 113.71
113.68 117.02 Type II 3.34 0.0 to 46.0 44.0 to
NESTOB-1
MW-53D NESTMW-54D 305165.94 76.069.0to57.059.0 to 69.0 2 0.0 to 55.03.09 0.0 to 59.0 2
Page 2 of 2
TABLE 3SOIL CLASSIFICATION LABORATORY DATA SUMMARYField Exploration Data ReportProgress Energy - Weatherspoon Plant Ash PondS&ME Project No: 1054-12-062PermeabilityGRAVEL SANDSILT CLAYPassing #2003Ave. K(ft-bls)(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) LL PI (no units) (KSF) (deg) (PCF) (%) (cm/sec)B-15A 0-10 Bulk Fill SC13.50.0 69.8 12.2 18.0 30.2 34 17 - - - - - - - - - 119.8 11.89.18E-05B-15A 16-18 UD Fill SC18.40.0 65.1 11.9 23.0 34.9 39 22 - - - 0 29.1 - - - - - -- - -B-17A 0-10 Bulk Fill SM14.60.0 85.8 7.2 7.0 14.2 NP NP - - - - - - - - - 111.7 12.24.97E-06B-17A 14-16 UD Fill SM15.72.0 76.5 8.5 13.0 21.5 19 2 2.650 0 30.1 - - - - - -- - -B-19A 17.5-19.5 UD Natural Soils SP-SM 142.5 0.0 88.9 10.6 0.5 11.1 61 18 2.325 0 31.0 - - - - - - - - -B-27A 10-12 UD Fill SM 11.4 0.0 73.6 13.4 13.0 26.4 NP NP - - - 0.24 27.7 - - - - - -- - -B-32 0-10 Bulk Fill SC 14.0 0.0 74.7 6.8 18.5 18.5 NP NP - - - - - - - - - 106.4 13.8 1.08E-03B-34 0-10 Bulk Fill SC 9.7 0.0 90.7 2.8 6.5 9.3 27 9 - - - - - - - - - 117.8 12.2 8.80E-05B-40 0-10 Bulk Fill SC 12.2 0.0 78.1 7.9 14.0 21.9 23 8 - - - - - - - - - 118.0 11.8 1.79E-04MW-44D 41-45 Soil Core Natural Soils SW-SM - - - 18.0 74.84.7 2.5 7.2 27 NP - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -MW-44D 80-84 Soil Core Natural Soils SC - - - 1.3 81.9 12.04.8 16.8 34 19 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B-46 0-10 Bulk Ash ML 39.3 0.0 25.5 60.3 14.0 74.3 NP NP 2.200 - - - - - - 76.9 28.3 - - -B-51A 27-29 UD Natural Soils SC 18.7 10.7 66.3 10.0 13.0 23.023 11 - - - 0 31.6 - - - - - - - - -MW-52 11.5-13.5 Soil Core Natural Soils SW - - - 23.2 72.01.0 3.8 4.8 17 NP - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -MW-52 23-27 Soil Core Natural Soils SM - - - 0.0 86.1 4.1 9.8 13.9 23 NP - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -MW-53I/D 20-22 Soil Core Natural Soils SW-SM - - - 0.1 91.8 2.9 5.2 8.1 18 NP - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -MW-53I/D 46-50 Soil Core Natural Soils SW-SM - - - 0.3 89.9 8.0 1.8 9.8 26 NP - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B-1 18.5 - 20 SS Ash ML39.4 0.9 35.1 50.5 13.5 64.0NP NP 2.295 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B-2 1 - 2.5 SS Fill - - -5.3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B-2 3.5 - 5 SS Fill - - -10.6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B-2 6 - 7.5 SS Fill - - -2.9- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B-2 8.5 - 10 SS Possible Fill - - - 12.7 - - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B-2 13.5 - 15 SS Natural Soils - - - 24.3 - - -- - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B-2 18.5 - 20 SS Natural Soils SM 65.7 0.0 81.1 13.4 5.5 18.9NP NP 2.493 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B-2 33.5 - 35 SS Natural Soils SM 30.5 0.0 80.0 5.0 15.0 20.0NP NP 2.656 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B-3 23.5 - 25 SS Ash ML 65.6 0.0 14.9 75.6 9.5 85.1 NP NP 2.166 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B-3 28.5 - 30 SS Fill SM 16.7 0.0 81.3 13.2 5.5 18.7 NP NP 2.666- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B-4 18.5 - 20 SS Ash ML 95.8 0.0 37.6 59.4 3.0 62.4 NP NP 2.052 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B-5 1 - 2.5 SS Ash - - - 37.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B-5 3.5 - 5 SS Ash - - - 50.4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -SPECIFIC GRAVITYATTERBERG LIMITS4USCS SYMBOL2NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENTSAMPLE TYPE1STRATUMGRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTIONSAMPLE DEPTH LIMITED ASSESSMENT (Borings Performed September 19 to October 5, 2011)Effective Friction AngleMaximum Dry DensityOptimum Moisture ContentBORING NUMBERGEOTECHNICAL & ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATION (Borings Performed February 21 to March 8, 2012 )Effective CohesionPage 1 of 3
TABLE 3SOIL CLASSIFICATION LABORATORY DATA SUMMARYField Exploration Data ReportProgress Energy - Weatherspoon Plant Ash PondS&ME Project No: 1054-12-062PermeabilityGRAVEL SANDSILT CLAYPassing #2003Ave. K(ft-bls)(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) LL PI (no units) (KSF) (deg) (PCF) (%) (cm/sec)SPECIFIC GRAVITYATTERBERG LIMITS4USCS SYMBOL2NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENTSAMPLE TYPE1STRATUMGRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTIONSAMPLE DEPTH Effective Friction AngleMaximum Dry DensityOptimum Moisture ContentBORING NUMBEREffective CohesionB-5 6 - 7.5 SS Ash ML 61.0 0.0 20.3 65.2 14.5 79.7 NP NP 2.138 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B-5 8.5 - 10 SS Ash - - - 60.1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B-5 13.5 - 15 SS Ash - - - 68.2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B-5 18.5 - 20 SS Ash - - - 62.6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B-5 23.5 - 25 SS Natural Soils - - - 42.5 - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B-5 28.5 - 30 SS Natural Soils SP-SM 25.6 0.0 90.4 8.1 1.5 9.6 NP NP 2.551 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B-5 33.5 - 35 SS Natural Soils - - - 27.7 - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B-7 28.5 - 30 SS Natural Soils SM 27.2 0.0 81.6 3.9 14.5 18.422 20 2.635 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B-8 1 - 2.5 SS Ash - - - 24.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B-8 3.5 - 5 SS Ash - - - 18.4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B-8 6 - 7.5 SS Ash - - - 23.3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B-8 8.5 - 10 SS Ash - - - 27.2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B-8 13.5 - 15 SS Fill - - - 26.2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B-8 18.5 - 20 SS Ash - - - 88.4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B-8 23.5 - 25 SS Ash SM 54.5 2.5 64.5 28.5 4.5 33.0 NP NP 2.387 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B-8 28.5 - 30 SS Possible Fill SM 22.1 0.7 86.5 9.8 3.0 12.8 NP NP QNS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B-8 33.5 - 35 SS Natural Soils - - - 26.4 - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B-13 3.5 - 5 SS Fill - - - 16.3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B-13 6 - 7.5 SS Fill - - - 6.3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B-13 8.5 - 10 SS Fill - - - 11.4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B-13 13.5 - 15 SS Fill - - - 24.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B-13 18.5 - 20 SS Natural Soils - - - 24.8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B-13 23.5 - 25 SS Natural Soils - - - 18.2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B-13 28.5 - 30 SS Natural Soils SM 25.7 10.0 77.4 6.6 6.0 12.6 NP NP 2.738 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B-13 33.5 - 35 SS Natural Soils - - - 21.8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B-15 13.5 - 15 SS Fill SC 10.2 0.0 73.5 7.5 19.0 26.5 14 13 2.611 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B-16 1 - 2.5 SS Fill - - - 12.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B-16 3.5 - 5 SS Fill - - - 14.3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B-16 6 - 7.5 SS Fill - - - 8.8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B-16 8.5 - 10 SS Fill - - - 10.8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B-16 13.5 - 15 SS Fill - - - 14.7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B-16 18.5 - 20 SS Fill SC 18.7 0.0 69.4 11.1 19.5 30.6 13 15 2.643 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Page 2 of 3
TABLE 3SOIL CLASSIFICATION LABORATORY DATA SUMMARYField Exploration Data ReportProgress Energy - Weatherspoon Plant Ash PondS&ME Project No: 1054-12-062PermeabilityGRAVEL SANDSILT CLAYPassing #2003Ave. K(ft-bls)(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) LL PI (no units) (KSF) (deg) (PCF) (%) (cm/sec)SPECIFIC GRAVITYATTERBERG LIMITS4USCS SYMBOL2NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENTSAMPLE TYPE1STRATUMGRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTIONSAMPLE DEPTH Effective Friction AngleMaximum Dry DensityOptimum Moisture ContentBORING NUMBEREffective CohesionB-16 23.5 - 25 SS Fill - - - 13.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B-16 28.5 - 30 SS Natural Soils - - - 14.2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B-16 33.5 - 35 SS Natural Soils - - - 19.1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B-17 33.5 - 35 SS Natural Soils SC 17.9 0.0 74.3 6.2 19.5 25.7 14 14 2.630 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Notes:1 Sample type: SS = split spoon sample; Bulk = bulk sample; UD = Undisturbed (Shelby Tube).23 Passing #200: Percentage of fines, i.e. silt and clay-sized soil particles, that pass the #200 sieve. The #200 sieve has 200, 0.0029-inch openings per linear inch.4Atterberg Limits: LL = Liquid Limit; PI = Plasticity Index; NP = Non Plasticft-bls = feet below land surface- - - = not testedQNS = quantity not sufficientKSF = kilopascals per square footPCF = pounds per cubic footdeg = degreecm/sec = centimeters per secondUnified Soil Classification System (USCS) symbol: MH = inorganic silts with plasticity; ML = inorganic silts with slight plasticity; SC = clayey sand; SM = silty sand; GM = silty gravel; CH = inorganic clay with plasticity; CL = inorganic clay with slight plasticity. Page 3 of 3
TABLE 8
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY DATA SUMMARY
Field Exploration Data Report
Progress Energy - Weatherspoon Plant Ash Pond
S&ME Project No: 1054-12-062
RISING HEAD TESTS (SLUG TESTS)
WELL ID
WATER LEVEL
AT TIME OF
TEST
Top Bottom
(ft-bls)(ft-bls)(ft-bls)
OW-1 16.0 26.0 20.8 FILL - Ash
OW-3 16.0 26.0 18.8 FILL - Ash
OW-8 (MW-8S)11.0 21.0 13.8 FILL - Ash
OW-9 13.0 23.0 15.0 CPSD - Silty Sand
OW-15 16.0 26.0 19.7 CPSD - Silty Sand
OW-17 19.0 29.0 18.3 CPSD - Silty Sand
MW-44SA 37.0 42.0 20.49 YORK - Silty Sand
MW-44I 46.0 56.0 16.72 YORK - Silty Sand
MW-44D 77.0 87.0 43.68 PD - Clayey Sand
MW-52 10.0 30.0 2.10 CPSD - Silty Sand
MW-53I 21.0 31.0 0.66 YORK - Sandy Clay
MW-53D 46.0 56.0 5.85 PD - Silty Sand
MW-55I 16.0 26.0 3.03 CPSD - Silty Sand
MW-55D 65.0 70.0 7.10 PD - Silty Sand
1.7E-03
1.9E-03
2.0E-03
8.4E-04
1.2E-03
1.1E-04
2.2E-03
4.4E-04
8.1E-05
3.6E-04
2.6E-04
2.8E-03
7.4E-03
5.1E-03
SCREEN INTERVAL PREDOMINANT STRATUM IN
SATURATED SCREEN INTERVAL
EST. HYDRAULIC
CONDUCTIVITY (K)
(cm/sec)
Page 1 of 4
TABLE 8
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY DATA SUMMARY
Field Exploration Data Report
Progress Energy - Weatherspoon Plant Ash Pond
S&ME Project No: 1054-12-062
ESTIMATES BASED ON PORE WATER DISSIPATION TESTING
TEST ESTIMATED ESTIMATED
DEPTH t50 kh
(ft-bls)(sec)(cm/sec)
CPT-1 28 6 1.1E-04 CPSD - Clayey Sand
CPT-1 37.8 3 2.5E-04 CPSD - Silty Sand
CPT-1 39.8 4 1.8E-04 CPSD - Silty Sand
CPT-1 46.7 30 1.4E-05 CPSD - Clayey Sand
CPT-2 27.5 30 1.4E-05 CPSD -Silty Sand
CPT-2 35.8 400 5.6E-07 YORK - Silty Sand with Clay
CPT-4 5.3 5 1.3E-04 FILL - Ash
CPT-4 11.7 3 2.5E-04 FILL - Ash
CPT-4 18.1 3 2.5E-04 FILL - Ash
CPT-4 24.8 3 2.5E-04 CPSD - Clayey Sand
CPT-4 30.8 3 2.5E-04 CPSD - Silty Sand
CPT-4 36.8 1300 1.3E-07 YORK - Clayey Sand
CPT-5 6.1 3 2.5E-04 FILL - Ash
CPT-5 11.9 3 2.5E-04 FILL - Ash
CPT-5 18.3 3 2.5E-04 FILL - Ash
CPT-5 24.7 3 2.5E-04 CPSD - Silty Sand
CPT-5 31 3 2.5E-04 CPSD - Silty Sand
CPT-5 37.4 300 8.0E-07 CPSD - Silty Clay*
CPT-5 50.3 3 2.5E-04 YORK - Fossiliferous Sand
CPT-5 56.6 3 2.5E-04 YORK - Fossiliferous Sand
CPT-5 63 8 7.4E-05 YORK - Clayey Sand
CPT-7 5.5 3 2.5E-04 FILL - Ash
CPT-7 10.9 3 2.5E-04 FILL - Ash
CPT-7 23.7 3 2.5E-04 CPSD - Silty Sand
CPT-7 30 20 2.4E-05 CPSD - Silty Sand
CPT-7 36.5 3 2.5E-04 YORK - Fossiliferous Sand
CPT-7 40 3 2.5E-04 YORK - Fossiliferous Sand
CPT-10 5.9 4 1.8E-04 FILL - Ash
CPT-10 11.5 5 1.3E-04 FILL - Ash
CPT-10 17.8 5 1.3E-04 CPSD - Sand
CPT-10 27.4 7 8.8E-05 CPSD - Sand
CPT-10 30 50 7.5E-06 YORK - Clay
BORING ID STRATUM
Page 2 of 4
TABLE 8
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY DATA SUMMARY
Field Exploration Data Report
Progress Energy - Weatherspoon Plant Ash Pond
S&ME Project No: 1054-12-062
ESTIMATES BASED ON PORE WATER DISSIPATION TESTING (CONTINUED)
TEST ESTIMATED ESTIMATED
DEPTH t50 kh
(ft-bls)(sec)(cm/sec)
CPT-12 7.1 3 2.5E-04 FILL - Ash
CPT-12 11.9 3 2.5E-04 FILL - Ash
CPT-12 18.3 3 2.5E-04 FILL - Ash
CPT-12 24.2 5 1.3E-04 CPSD - Silty Sand
CPT-12 30.8 100 3.2E-06 CPSD - Clayey Sand
CPT-12 38.6 2 4.2E-04 YORK - Fossiliferous Sand
CPT-12 45.1 5 1.3E-04 YORK - Clayey Sand
CPT-13 11.9 10 5.6E-05 FILL - Sand
CPT-13 18.3 3 2.5E-04 CPSD - Sand
CPT-13 24.6 6 1.1E-04 CPSD - Sand
CPT-13 27.9 30 1.4E-05 YORK - Fossiliferous Sand
CPT-13 40.2 6 1.1E-04 YORK - Fossiliferous Sand
CPT-13 46.8 70 4.9E-06 YORK - Sandy Clay
CPT-14 5.7 3 2.5E-04 FILL - Ash
CPT-14 12 3 2.5E-04 FILL - Ash
CPT-14 18.4 3 2.5E-04 FILL - Ash
CPT-14 23.9 5 1.3E-04 FILL - Ash
CPT-14 29.9 50 7.5E-06 YORK - Silty Clay
CPT-14 35.7 10 5.6E-05 YORK - Clayey Sand
CPT-14 40.1 2 4.2E-04 YORK - Silty Sand
CPT-15 14.9 3 2.5E-04 FILL - Clayey Sand
CPT-18 8.8 15 3.4E-05 CPSD - Sand
CPT-18 15.9 5 1.3E-04 CPSD - Sand
CPT-18 20.6 40 1.0E-05 CPSD - Sand
CPT-19 7.6 30 1.4E-05 FILL - Silty Sand
CPT-19 14.9 12 4.5E-05 FILL - Silty Sand
CPT-19 18.1 50 7.5E-06 FILL - Silty Sand
CPT-19 25 3 2.5E-04 CPSD - Silty Clay
CPT-22 23.8 70 4.9E-06 CPSD - Organic Silty Sand
CPT-23 36.9 18 2.7E-05 CPSD - Silty Sand
CPT-26 36.7 20 2.4E-05 CPSD - Silty Sand
CPT-42 24.4 800 2.4E-07 YORK - Clayey Sand
CPT-47 34.5 45 8.6E-06 Clayey Silt*
CPT-57 14.1 650 3.0E-07 Silty Clay*
BORING ID STRATUM
Page 3 of 4
TABLE 8
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY DATA SUMMARY
Field Exploration Data Report
Progress Energy - Weatherspoon Plant Ash Pond
S&ME Project No: 1054-12-062
kh based on NHRP Synthesis 368 (2007) Figure 59 after Leroueil and Jamiolkowski (1991)
Notes:
(ft-bls)Feet below land surface
(cm/sec)Centimeters per second
t50 Dissipation time
kh Horizontal permeability
CPSD Coastal Plain Surficial Deposit
YORK Yorktown Formation
PD Pee Dee Formations
*Estimated based on CPT soil behavior profiles.
Slug Testing was conducted on September 23 and 28, 2011 for limited assessment locations
Slug Testing was conducted on March 9, 2012 for geotechnical/environmental investigation locations
Page 4 of 4
TABLE 9
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SUMMARY
Field Exploration Data Report
Progress Energy - Weatherspoon Plant Ash Pond
S&ME Project No: 1054-12-062
Top Bottom Thick Top Bottom Thick Top Bottom Thick
(ft-bls) (ft-bls) (ft) (ft-bls) (ft-bls) (ft) (ft-bls) (ft-bls) (ft)
B-1/OW-1 - - - - - - - - - 0.1 27.0 26.9 27.0 50.0 > 23.0
B-2 0.1 12 11.9 - - - - - - - - - 12 50 > 38.0
B-3/OW-3 27 39.5 12.5 0.2 27 26.8 39.5 75 > 35.5
B-4 - - - - - - - - - 0 22 22 22 45 > 23.0
B-5 - - - - - - - - - 0 19.5 19.5 19.5 70 > 50.5
B-6 - - - - - - - - - 0.1 32 31.9 32 50 > 18.0
B-7 - - - - - - - - - 0 19.5 19.5 19.5 40 > 20.5
B-8/8A/OW-8 (MW-8S)27 32 5 0.2 27 26.8 32 75 > 43.0
*MW-8I/8D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 43 100 > 57.0
B-9/OW-9 0.2 14.5 14.3 5.5 9 3.5 14.5 35 > 20.5
B-11 0.4 17 16.6 - - - - - - - - - 17 50 > 33.0
B-12 - - -- - - - - -0 22 22 22 45 > 23.0
B-13 3 17 14 0.5 3 2.5 17 70 > 53.0
B-15/15A/OW-15 0.3 22 21.7 - - - - - - - - - 22 45 > 23.0
B-16 0.3 27 26.7 - - - - - - - - - 27 75 > 48.0
B-17/17A/OW-17 0.3 22 21.7 - - - - - - - - - 22 40 > 18.0
B-20 0.2 14 13.8 - - - - - - - - - 14 50 > 36.0
B-21 - - - - - - - - - 0.2 28 27.8 28 55 > 27.0
B-22 - - - - - - - - - 0 20 20 20 60 > 40.0
B-23 12 22 10 0 12 12 22 50 > 28.0
B-24/A/B/C - - - - - - - - - 0 22 22 22 60 > 38.0
B-25 0.2 1.5 1.3 1.5 27 25.5 27 60 > 33.0
B-26 27 32 5 0.2 27 26.8 32 55 > 23.0
B-27/27A 4.5 14 9.5 0.3 4.5 4.2 14 40 > 26.0
B-28 - - - - - - - - - 0.3 26 25.7 26 55 > 29.0
B-29 - - - - - - - - - 0.2 31 30.8 31 65 > 34.0
B-30 - - - - - - - - - 0.3 32 31.7 32 65 > 33.0
B-31 14 17 3 0.3 14 13.7 17 50 > 33.0
B-32 0.4 14.8 14.4 - - - - - - - - - 14.8 50 > 35.2
MW-33S/I/D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 90 > 89.5
B-34 1 9.5 8.5 0.2 1 0.8 9.5 50 > 40.5
B-35 - - - - - - - - - 0.2 28 27.8 28 70 > 42.0
B-36 0.5 8 7.5 - - - - - - - - - 8 55 > 47.0
B-37 - - - - - - - - - 0.2 22 21.8 22 55 > 33.0
LOCATION
ID
NATURAL SOILSEARTHEN FILL
(NON ASH)ASH
Page 1 of 2
TABLE 9
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SUMMARY
Field Exploration Data Report
Progress Energy - Weatherspoon Plant Ash Pond
S&ME Project No: 1054-12-062
Top Bottom Thick Top Bottom Thick Top Bottom Thick
(ft-bls) (ft-bls) (ft) (ft-bls) (ft-bls) (ft) (ft-bls) (ft-bls) (ft)
LOCATION
ID
NATURAL SOILSEARTHEN FILL
(NON ASH)ASH
B-38 17 22 5 0 17 17 22 55 > 33.0
B-39 17 27 10 0.2 17 16.8 27 50 > 23.0
B-40 0.2 14 13.8 - - - - - - - - - 14 45 > 31.0
MW-41I/D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 91 > 91.0
B-42 0.2 3 2.8 - - - - - - - - - 3 35 > 32.0
B-43 - - - - - - - - - 0.2 32 31.8 32 55 > 23.0
*MW-44I/D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 39 100 > 61.0
MW-44S/SA - - - - - - - - - 0 29.5 29.5 29.5 45 >15.5
B-46 - - - - - - - - - 0.2 37 36.8 37 55 > 18.0
B-48 0.2 23 22.8 - - - - - - - - - 23 50 > 27.0
MW-49I/D 0 29 29 - - - - - - - - - 29 87 > 58.0
B-51 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 45 > 45.0
MW-52/OB-1/OB-2 0 10 10 - - - - - - - - - 10 30 > 20.0
MW-53I/D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 77 > 77.0
MW-54D 0 1 1 - - - - - - - - - 1 76 > 75.0
MW-55I/D 0 7.5 7.5 - - - - - - - - - 7.5 70 > 62.5
B-58 0.3 4.5 4.2 - - - - - - - - - 4.5 30 > 25.5
Notes:
(ft-bls)Feet below land surface
Earthen Fill Soil material that has been used to form the exterior dikes
Ash Coal combustion by-product that has either been compacted to form dikes or sluiced into the ash pond.
Natural Soils Coastal plain deposits.
- - -Not Encountered
Subsurface was not sampled from ground surface to bottom of outer well casing, so although earthen fill and ash were not
encountered in the intervals sampled, they could be present above sampled interval at the location
*
Page 2 of 2
TABLE 10
GROUNDWATER LEVEL SUMMARY
Field Exploration Data Report
Progress Energy - Weatherspoon Plant Ash Pond
S&ME Project No: 1054-12-062
GROUND
(ft-MSL)
TOC
(ft-MSL)
DTW - TOC
(ft)
DTW
GROUND
(ft)1
WL Elev.
(ft-MSL)
DTW - TOC
(ft)
DTW
GROUND
(ft)1
WL Elev.
(ft-MSL)
DTW - TOC
(ft)
DTW
GROUND
(ft)1
WL Elev.
(ft-MSL)
DTW - TOC
(ft)
DTW
GROUND
(ft)1
WL Elev.
(ft-MSL)
OW-1 160.70 163.44 25.44 22.70 138.00 NM NM NM 24.49 21.75 138.95 24.98 22.24 138.46
OW-3 161.15 163.75 22.24 19.64 141.51 22.08 19.48 141.67 21.01 18.41 142.74 22.31 19.71 141.44
OW-8 (MW-8S)158.92 162.07 19.29 16.14 142.78 19.19 16.04 142.88 17.84 14.69 144.23 18.79 15.64 143.28
OW-9 142.54 145.55 18.46 15.45 127.09 18.44 15.43 127.11 18.21 15.20 127.34 18.52 15.51 127.03
OW-15 143.38 146.30 23.96 21.04 122.34 23.96 21.04 122.34 23.54 20.62 122.76 23.67 20.75 122.63
OW-17 142.47 145.41 22.04 19.09 123.37 NM NM NM 21.73 18.78 123.68 22.13 19.18 123.28
MW-1 147.97 149.19 18.22 17.00 130.97 NM NM NM 18.31 17.09 130.88 18.10 16.88 131.09
MW-2 112.97 115.22 2.27 0.02 112.95 NM NM NM 1.91 -0.34 113.31 2.06 -0.19 113.16
MW-3 113.34 115.52 3.70 1.52 111.82 NM NM NM 2.66 0.48 112.86 3.49 1.31 112.03
MW-4 111.04 113.90 4.31 1.45 109.59 NM NM NM 3.99 1.13 109.91 4.12 1.26 109.78
MW-5 111.40 113.32 3.79 1.87 109.53 NM NM NM 3.15 1.23 110.17 3.60 1.68 109.72
MW-6 109.72 112.02 3.68 1.38 108.34 NM NM NM 3.18 0.88 108.84 3.40 1.10 108.62
MW-7 109.57 112.61 2.32 -0.72 110.29 NM NM NM 2.19 -0.85 110.42 2.28 -0.76 110.33
CW-1 113.71 116.84 4.21 1.08 112.63 NM NM NM 3.67 0.54 113.17 4.03 0.90 112.81
CW-2 110.69 113.41 5.79 3.07 107.62 NM NM NM 5.09 2.37 108.32 5.06 2.34 108.35
CW-3 115.96 119.08 6.21 3.09 112.87 NM NM NM 4.92 1.80 114.16 4.89 1.77 114.19
BW-1 139.46 142.82 8.25 4.89 134.57 NM NM NM 8.25 4.89 134.57 7.64 4.28 135.18
MW-8I 158.62 161.30 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
MW-8D 158.67 161.65 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
MW-33S 129.93 132.84 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
MW-33I 129.64 132.72 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
MW-33D 129.67 132.72 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
MW-41I 123.26 126.33 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
MW-41D 123.26 126.34 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
MW-44S 151.50 154.60 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
MW-44SA 151.44 154.57 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
MW-44I 151.50 154.40 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
MW-44D 151.32 153.94 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
MW-49I 142.76 145.57 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
MW-49D 142.76 145.40 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
MW-52 112.16 111.85 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
MW-53I 113.68 117.02 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
MW-53D 113.68 117.02 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
MW-54D 110.62 113.71 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
MW-55I 112.04 111.88 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
MW-55D 112.04 111.86 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
OB-1 112.04 111.76 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
OB-2 112.14 111.85 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
PZ-1 127.64 130.63 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
PZ-2 123.40 126.46 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
PZ-3 119.52 122.51 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Notes:
(ft-MSL)Feet - Mean Sea Level
(ft)Feet
TOC Top of Casing
WL Elev Water Level Elevation
Ground Ground Surface
DTW Depth to Water
1 Negative values in the DTW Ground column
indicate an above-ground water level
NM Not Measured
---Well Not Installed as of Measurement Date
*MW-52 Water level was measured on 3/9/2012
prior to well survey. TOC was flush with
ground at time of measurement.
Well ID
October 31, 2011SURVEY ELEVATIONS November 1, 2011 November 23, 2011 December 20, 2011
Page 1 of 2
TABLE 10
GROUNDWATER LEVEL SUMMARY
Field Exploration Data Report
Progress Energy - Weatherspoon Plant Ash Pond
S&ME Project No: 1054-12-062
GROUND
(ft-MSL)
TOC
(ft-MSL)
OW-1 160.70 163.44
OW-3 161.15 163.75
OW-8 (MW-8S)158.92 162.07
OW-9 142.54 145.55
OW-15 143.38 146.30
OW-17 142.47 145.41
MW-1 147.97 149.19
MW-2 112.97 115.22
MW-3 113.34 115.52
MW-4 111.04 113.90
MW-5 111.40 113.32
MW-6 109.72 112.02
MW-7 109.57 112.61
CW-1 113.71 116.84
CW-2 110.69 113.41
CW-3 115.96 119.08
BW-1 139.46 142.82
MW-8I 158.62 161.30
MW-8D 158.67 161.65
MW-33S 129.93 132.84
MW-33I 129.64 132.72
MW-33D 129.67 132.72
MW-41I 123.26 126.33
MW-41D 123.26 126.34
MW-44S 151.50 154.60
MW-44SA 151.44 154.57
MW-44I 151.50 154.40
MW-44D 151.32 153.94
MW-49I 142.76 145.57
MW-49D 142.76 145.40
MW-52 112.16 111.85
MW-53I 113.68 117.02
MW-53D 113.68 117.02
MW-54D 110.62 113.71
MW-55I 112.04 111.88
MW-55D 112.04 111.86
OB-1 112.04 111.76
OB-2 112.14 111.85
PZ-1 127.64 130.63
PZ-2 123.40 126.46
PZ-3 119.52 122.51
Notes:
(ft-MSL)Feet - Mean Sea Level
(ft)Feet
TOC Top of Casing
WL Elev Water Level Elevation
Ground Ground Surface
DTW Depth to Water
1 Negative values in the DTW Ground column
indicate an above-ground water level
NM Not Measured
---Well Not Installed as of Measurement Date
*MW-52 Water level was measured on 3/9/2012
prior to well survey. TOC was flush with
ground at time of measurement.
Well ID
SURVEY ELEVATIONS
DTW - TOC
(ft)
DTW
GROUND
(ft)1
WL Elev.
(ft-MSL)
DTW - TOC
(ft)
DTW
GROUND
(ft)1
WL Elev.
(ft-MSL)
DTW - TOC
(ft)
DTW
GROUND
(ft)1
WL Elev.
(ft-MSL)
DTW - TOC
(ft)
DTW
GROUND
(ft)1
WL Elev.
(ft-MSL)
26.72 23.98 136.72 27.03 24.29 136.41 27.08 24.34 136.36 27.03 24.29 136.41
24.09 21.49 139.66 24.86 22.26 138.89 25.02 22.42 138.73 27.98 25.38 135.77
20.15 17.00 141.92 20.74 17.59 141.33 20.94 17.79 141.13 NM NM NM
18.30 15.29 127.25 18.32 15.31 127.23 18.31 15.30 127.24 18.33 15.32 127.22
23.39 20.47 122.91 23.58 20.66 122.72 23.34 20.42 122.96 NM NM NM
21.95 19.00 123.46 21.89 18.94 123.52 21.51 18.56 123.90 21.52 18.57 123.89
18.13 16.91 131.06 18.04 16.82 131.15 NM NM NM 17.48 16.26 131.71
1.77 -0.48 113.45 1.71 -0.54 113.51 NM NM NM 1.29 -0.96 113.93
2.93 0.75 112.59 2.93 0.75 112.59 NM NM NM 3.29 1.11 112.23
3.90 1.04 110.00 3.89 1.03 110.01 NM NM NM 4.03 1.17 109.87
3.24 1.32 110.08 3.20 1.28 110.12 NM NM NM 3.47 1.55 109.85
3.14 0.84 108.88 3.12 0.82 108.90 NM NM NM 3.39 1.09 108.63
2.37 -0.67 110.24 2.44 -0.60 110.17 NM NM NM 3.05 0.01 109.56
3.89 0.76 112.95 3.86 0.73 112.98 NM NM NM 4.16 1.03 112.68
4.66 1.94 108.75 4.55 1.83 108.86 4.73 2.01 108.68 4.74 2.02 108.67
4.05 0.93 115.03 3.88 0.76 115.20 4.51 1.39 114.57 4.94 1.82 114.14
6.98 3.62 135.84 6.55 3.19 136.27 NM NM NM 6.40 3.04 136.42
--- --- --- --- --- --- NM NM NM 26.41 23.73 134.89
--- --- --- --- --- --- NM NM NM 51.42 48.44 110.23
--- --- --- NM NM NM NM NM NM 6.04 3.13 126.80
--- --- --- --- --- --- NM NM NM 5.83 2.75 126.89
--- --- --- --- --- --- NM NM NM 20.65 17.60 112.07
--- --- --- --- --- --- NM NM NM 5.75 2.68 120.58
--- --- --- --- --- --- NM NM NM 16.61 13.53 109.73
--- --- --- NM NM NM NM NM NM 16.37 13.27 138.23
--- --- --- --- --- --- NM NM NM 20.21 17.08 134.36
--- --- --- --- --- --- NM NM NM 20.35 17.45 134.05
--- --- --- --- --- --- NM NM NM 46.21 43.59 107.73
--- --- --- --- --- --- NM NM NM 36.06 33.25 109.51
--- --- --- --- --- --- NM NM NM 20.83 18.19 124.57
--- --- --- --- --- --- 2.10* 2.10* 110.06* NM NM NM
--- --- --- --- --- --- NM NM NM 3.98 0.64 113.04
--- --- --- --- --- --- NM NM NM 9.14 5.80 107.88
--- --- --- --- --- --- NM NM NM 9.85 6.76 103.86
--- --- --- NM NM NM NM NM NM 2.58 2.74 109.30
--- --- --- NM NM NM NM NM NM 6.94 7.12 104.92
--- --- --- --- --- --- NM NM NM 2.12 2.40 109.64
--- --- --- --- --- --- NM NM NM 2.12 2.41 109.73
--- --- --- --- --- --- NM NM NM 4.24 1.25 126.39
--- --- --- --- --- --- NM NM NM 3.43 0.37 123.03
--- --- --- --- --- --- NM NM NM 5.38 2.39 117.13
March 20, 2012March 19, 2012February 27, 2012January 26, 2012
Page 2 of 2