HomeMy WebLinkAbout8504_DukeBelewsCreek_GWMonitoringWellEvaluation_DIN27023_20161031Belews Creek Steam Station 3195 Pine Hall Road Belews Creek, NC 27009
336-445-0610
336-669-2994
www.duke-energy.com Page 1 of 2
August 26, 2016
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Division of Waste Management
Solid Waste Section
1646 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 28778
Attn: Ms. Elizabeth Werner
Re: Groundwater Monitoring Well Evaluation
Belews Creek Craig Road Ash Landfill, Phase 1 and 2
Permit No.: 8504-INDUS-
Belews Creek Steam Station Stokes County
Belews Creek, North Carolina 27009
Dear Ms. Werner,
Attached you will find the Groundwater Monitoring Well Evaluation for the Belews Creek Craig
Road Ash Landfill. This evaluation provides recommendations for replacement and/or
redevelpment of wells with elevated turbidity. Duke Energy is submitting this package to the
Division for approval.
Duke Energy is committed to excellent environmental stewardship and cooperation with the
Division regarding the operation, maintenance, safety, and integrity of all of its facilities. We
look forward to continuing to work with you regarding environmental concerns.
If there are any questions regarding this request, please contact me at (336) 445-0610.
Respectfully submitted,
Melonie Martin
Environmental Services
Attachments: Groundwater Monitoring Well Evaluation, Belews Creek Steam Station Craig Road Ash Landfill, Phase 1 and 2, Permit No. 8504,
cc (via e-mail): Ed Mussler, NCDEQ
Shawn McKee, NCDEQ
www.duke-energy.com Page 2 of 2
Evan Andrews, Duke Energy
Will Harrison, Duke Energy
Kimberlee Witt, Duke Energy
Ed Sullivan, Duke Energy
Belews Creek Steam Station
Groundwater Monitoring Well Evaluation
Craig Road Ash Landfill, Phase 1 and 2
Permit No. 8504
October 31, 2016
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC | Groundwater Monitoring Well Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station, Craig Road Ash Landfill Phase 1 and 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS
ii
Table of Contents
Page
Report Verification ....................................................................................................................... i
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................ ii
Section 1 - Background .............................................................................................................. 1
Section 2 – Site Description ....................................................................................................... 2
Section 3 - Methodology ............................................................................................................ 4
Section 4 – Results and Recommendations ............................................................................... 0
4.1 CRW-1 ......................................................................................................................... 0
4.2 CRW-2 ......................................................................................................................... 0
4.3 CRW-3 ......................................................................................................................... 1
4.4 CRW-4 ......................................................................................................................... 1
4.5 CRW-5 ......................................................................................................................... 2
4.6 CRW-6 ......................................................................................................................... 3
4.7 CRW-7 ......................................................................................................................... 3
4.8 CRW-8 ......................................................................................................................... 4
4.9 CRW-8R ...................................................................................................................... 4
4.10 CRW-9 ......................................................................................................................... 5
4.11 CRW-10 ....................................................................................................................... 5
4.12 CRW-11 ....................................................................................................................... 6
4.13 CRW-12 ....................................................................................................................... 6
4.14 CRW-13 ....................................................................................................................... 7
4.15 CRW-14 ....................................................................................................................... 8
4.16 CRW-15 ....................................................................................................................... 8
4.17 CRW-16 ....................................................................................................................... 9
4.18 CRW-17 ....................................................................................................................... 9
Section 5 – Summary ................................................................................................................11
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC | Groundwater Monitoring Well Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station, Craig Road Ash Landfill Phase 1 and 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS
iii
FIGURES
1. Site Location Map
2. Sample Locations
3. Monitoring Wells Recommended for Redevelopment or Replacement
TABLES
1. Well Construction Information (Phases 1 and 2)
2. Historical Turbidity Measurements, and Purge Volumes, and Purge Techniques for
Monitoring Well CRW-2
3. Historical Turbidity Measurements, and Purge Volumes, and Purge Techniques for
Monitoring Well CRW-3
4. Historical Turbidity Measurements, and Purge Volumes, and Purge Techniques for
Monitoring Well CRW-4
5. Historical Turbidity Measurements, and Purge Volumes, and Purge Techniques for
Monitoring Well CRW-5
6. Historical Turbidity Measurements, and Purge Volumes, and Purge Techniques for
Monitoring Well CRW-6
7. Historical Turbidity Measurements, and Purge Volumes, and Purge Techniques for
Monitoring Well CRW-7
8. Historical Turbidity Measurements, and Purge Volumes, and Purge Techniques for
Monitoring Well CRW-8R
9. Historical Turbidity Measurements, and Purge Volumes, and Purge Techniques for
Monitoring Well CRW-9
10. Historical Turbidity Measurements, and Purge Volumes, and Purge Techniques for
Monitoring Well CRW-10
11. Historical Turbidity Measurements, and Purge Volumes, and Purge Techniques for
Monitoring Well CRW-11
12. Historical Turbidity Measurements, and Purge Volumes, and Purge Techniques for
Monitoring Well CRW-12
13. Historical Turbidity Measurements, and Purge Volumes, and Purge Techniques for
Monitoring Well CRW-13
14. Historical Turbidity Measurements, and Purge Volumes, and Purge Techniques for
Monitoring Well CRW-14
15. Historical Turbidity Measurements, and Purge Volumes, and Purge Techniques for
Monitoring Well CRW-15
16. Historical Turbidity Measurements, and Purge Volumes, and Purge Techniques for
Monitoring Well CRW-16
17. Historical Turbidity Measurements, and Purge Volumes, and Purge Techniques for
Monitoring Well CRW-17
18. Summary of Monitoring Wells Recommended for Redevelopment or Replacement
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC | Groundwater Monitoring Well Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station, Craig Road Ash Landfill Phase 1 and 2 SECTION 1 – BACKGROUND
1
Section 1 – Background
Belews Creek Steam Station is located on Belews Lake in southwestern Stokes County near
Pine Hall, North Carolina. The station is owned and operated by Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC
(Duke Energy) and generates electricity by combustion of coal. The Craig Road Ash Landfill is
owned by Duke Energy and is permitted to receive coal ash, wastewater treatment sludge, and
off-spec flue gas desulfurization (FGD) residue (gypsum) generated at the Belews Creek Steam
Station under North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) Solid Waste
Permit No. 8504.
Phase 1 of the landfill was constructed with an engineered liner system and the waste boundary
contains an area of approximately 32.4 acres. Phase 1 began accepting waste in
February 2008. Phase 2 of the landfill was also constructed with an engineered liner system and
the waste boundary contains an area of approximately 34.7 acres. Placement of a protective
cover layer of approximately 137,000 tons of bottom ash on top of the Phase 2 liner system
began on June 11, 2013. Phase 2 of the landfill received a Permit to Operate January 16, 2014,
and started receiving waste on June 13, 2014.
Prior to filling of the Phase 2 cell, exceedances of applicable groundwater and surface water
standards, as defined in T15A NCAC .0202L (2L Standards) and T15A NCAC .0202B (2B
Standards) were identified in samples collected from monitoring wells and surface water sample
locations in the vicinity of the landfill. HDR prepared and submitted an assessment report to
NCDEQ evaluating exceedances of the 2L and 2B Standards at Phase 1 of this landfill
(Groundwater Assessment, Belews Creek Steam Station, Craig Road Ash Landfill, December
21, 2012).
The report assessed 2L Standard exceedances for:
• Chromium at CRW-2 and CRW-9
• Iron at CRW-2, CRW-3, CRW-5, CRW-6, CRW-7, CRW-8, CRW-9, CRS-4, and CRS-5
• Manganese at CRW-2, CRW-3, CRW-5, CRW-6, CRW-7, CRW-9, CRS-4, and CRS-5
The report assessed 2B Standard exceedances for:
• Iron at CRS-2 and CRS-3
The 2012 assessment report concluded that at the time of the assessment, the exceedances
were naturally occurring and were not related to impacts from the Craig Road landfill. As
described within this report, Duke Energy has redeveloped select monitoring wells and modified
purging and sampling techniques; however, turbidity remains elevated in several monitoring
wells.
This report presents the evaluation of the Craig Road landfill well construction records,
development, sampling methods, and turbidity results, and provides recommendations for
replacement and/or redevelopment of wells with elevated turbidity.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC | Groundwater Monitoring Well Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station, Craig Road Ash Landfill Phase 1 and 2 SECTION 2 – SITE DESCRIPTION
2
Section 2 – Site Description
Phase 1 and 2 of the Craig Road Ash Landfill and adjoining area are shown on Figure 1. The
highest elevation of the landfill site is at the center portion of the landfill along its southern
boundary. The predominant groundwater discharge areas are expected to be the adjacent
areas of Belews Lake located to the west, north, and east of the landfill.
As described in the Water Quality Monitoring Plan1, the monitoring system for the landfill
consists of the following:
Monitoring Wells
CRW-12 CRW-7 CRW-13 CRW-2 CRW-83 CRW-14
CRW-3 CRW-9 CRW-15 CRW-4 CRW-10 CRW-16
CRW-5 CRW-11 CRW-17 CRW-6 CRW-12
Surface Water Sample Locations
CRS-1 CRS-4
CRS-2 CRS-5 CRS-3 CRS-6
Leachate Sample Locations4
CWB-1
CWB-2 CWB-3
The sampling locations and topography are depicted on Figure 2. A summary of monitoring well
construction information is presented in Table 1. According to the Water Quality Monitoring
Plan, monitoring well CRW-10 serves as a background water quality monitoring well. All of the
monitoring wells are equipped with dedicated bladder pumps and tubing; and sampling is
conducted by Duke Energy personnel twice annually. The wells have been sampled in
accordance with the Water Quality Monitoring Plan with either conventional or low flow sampling
techniques.
Monitoring wells CRHS-9 and CRHS-31 were installed as part of the site suitability study for
Phase 2 and were left in place during the January 2013 sampling event with the intent that they
would become part of the permanent groundwater monitoring network for the landfill. Due to
poor recharge, these wells were replaced in April 2013 with monitoring wells CRW-12 and
CRW-13, respectively.
1 Water Quality Monitoring Plan – Phase1/Phase 2 Craig Road Landfill Expansion Duke Energy – Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, North Carolina, S&ME Project No. 1356-10-041, Revised November 13, 2013. 2 Monitoring well CRW-1 was abandoned on July 13, 2012, due to construction of Phase 2 of the landfill. 3 Monitoring well CRW-8 was damaged and subsequently replaced by CRW-8R on April 11, 2013. 4 The leachate sample locations are not described in the Water Quality Monitoring Plan but monitoring the leachate in
conjunction with the groundwater monitoring event is a requirement of the Permit to Operate. Leachate sample locations CWB-1 and CWB-2 were formerly referred to as E-WWBLeachate and W-WWBLeachate, respectively.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC | Groundwater Monitoring Well Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station, Craig Road Ash Landfill Phase 1 and 2 SECTION 2 – SITE DESCRIPTION
3
Monitoring wells CRW-3, CRW-8R, CRW-11, CRW-12, and CRW-17 have historically had high
field turbidity measurements. On May 2, 2015, Duke Energy redeveloped these monitoring
wells, but turbidity readings were not reduced. On June 29, 2015, Duke Energy purged
additional well volumes from these wells using each well’s dedicated pump in an effort to reduce
the turbidity in the wells. During the July 11, 2016 sampling event, the turbidity measurements in
these wells were reported at 73.5, 32.7, 13.2, 500, and 37.7 Nephelometric Turbidity Units
(NTU), respectively. Due to these continued elevated turbidity measurements, Duke Energy has
been considering the replacement of CRW-3, CRW-8R, CRW-11, CRW-12, and CRW-17.
Moreover, due to the elevated field turbidity measurements at these wells and observed in other
wells in the landfill groundwater monitoring system, HDR has reviewed the turbidity results at
landfill monitoring wells and made recommendations to Duke Energy concerning
redevelopment, changes in sampling purging techniques, and/or replacement of monitoring
wells as discussed in Section 4.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC | Groundwater Monitoring Well Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station, Craig Road Ash Landfill Phase 1 and 2 SECTION 3 – METHODOLOGY
4
Section 3 – Methodology
The groundwater monitoring well evaluation consisted of a review of historical turbidity readings
to identify trends (if present) in each of the monitoring wells, review of historical and current field
sampling methods, and review of well construction, well development and redevelopment data.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommends that when possible,
especially when sampling for constituents that may be biased by turbidity (e.g., metals), turbidity
values of groundwater samples should be less than 10 NTU.5 Based on this recommendation,
turbidity values greater than 10 NTU were considered to be a basis for redevelopment or cause
for well replacement.
5 Ground-Water Sampling Guidelines for Superfund and RCRA Project Managers, Ground Water Forum Issue Paper,
Douglas Yeskis and Bernard Zavala, EPA 542-S-02-001, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, May
2002.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC | Groundwater Monitoring Well Evaluation
Belews Creek Steam Station, Craig Road Ash Landfill Phase 1 and 2 SECTION 4 – EVALUATION RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Section 4 – Evaluation Results and
Recommendations
4.1 CRW-1
Monitoring well CRW-1 was abandoned on July 13, 2012 to facilitate construction of Phase 2 of
the landfill.
4.2 CRW-2
Well Construction – Monitoring well CRW-2 was installed on December 13, 2006, using 4.25-
inch hollow stem augers (HSA). The well is screened from 25 to 35 feet below land surface (bls)
in silty, coarse to fine sand (partially weathered rock (PWR)) with 2-inch 0.010 slotted schedule
40 PVC. The well installation record indicates that #2 sand was used for the sand/gravel pack.
Well Development – Approximately 20 gallons (approximately 8 well volumes) were purged
during the initial well development after installation. Turbidity after well development was
reported at 89.0 NTU.
Well Redevelopment – May and June 2015 – The well was redeveloped on May 2, 2015. The
details regarding this redevelopment effort are not available. On June 29, 2015, Duke Energy
purged additional well volumes from this well using the well’s dedicated pump in an effort to
reduce the turbidity in the well. A total of 16.4 gallons (approximately 7 well volumes) were
purged from the monitoring well. Turbidity after well redevelopment was reported at 66.2 NTU.
Sampling Methods – The well was initially sampled using conventional purging techniques and
then changed to the low flow purging technique in April 2013. Monitoring well purging
techniques are described in the Water Quality Monitoring Plan. Turbidities were generally lower
using the low flow purging technique but still greater than 10 NTU. Historical purge techniques
for CRW-2 are provided on Table 2.
Turbidity – CRW-2 has been sampled 22 times. Other than the first sampling event where a
turbidity reading is not available, the turbidity measured in the monitoring well has been greater
than 10 NTU during each sampling event. Turbidities have ranged from 12.9 to 287 NTU with a
mean turbidity reading of 78.3 NTU. Historical turbidity readings for CRW-2 are provided on
Table 2.
Recommendation – Due to the turbidity being consistently greater than 10 NTU, a
redevelopment effort that did not reduce turbidity readings, and the change from conventional
purging techniques to low flow purging technique that did not reduce turbidity, monitoring well
CRW-2 is recommended for replacement.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC | Groundwater Monitoring Well Evaluation
Belews Creek Steam Station, Craig Road Ash Landfill Phase 1 and 2 SECTION 4 – EVALUATION RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
4.3 CRW-3
Well Construction – Monitoring well CRW-3 was installed on December 12, 2006, using 4.25-
inch HSA. The well is screened from 5 to 15 feet bls in silty, coarse to fine sand (saprolite) with
2-inch 0.010 slotted schedule 40 PVC. The well installation record indicates that #2 sand was
used for the sand/gravel pack.
Well Development – Approximately 15 gallons (approximately 9 well volumes) were purged
during the initial well development after installation. Turbidity after well development was not
measured.
Well Redevelopment – February 2015 – The well was redeveloped on February 5, 2015. After
purging 5 well volumes (approximately 8 gallons) with a development pump, a sampling pump
was placed into the well and an additional 8.75 gallons (approximately 5 well volumes) were
removed. The turbidity after well redevelopment was reported at 21.6 NTU.
Well Redevelopment – May and June 2015 – The well was redeveloped on May 2, 2015. The
details regarding this redevelopment effort are not available. On June 29, 2015, Duke Energy
purged additional well volumes from this well using the well’s dedicated pump in an effort to
reduce the turbidity in the well. A total of 5.75 gallons (approximately 3.5 well volumes) were
purged from the monitoring well. The turbidity after well redevelopment was reported at
35.3 NTU.
Sampling Methods – The monitoring well has historically been purged using the conventional
purge technique with the exception of three sampling events in which the low flow purging
technique was used. The low flow purging technique was not successful in reducing turbidity
readings to less than 10 NTU. Historical purge techniques for CRW-3 are provided on Table 3.
Turbidity – CRW-3 has been sampled 22 times. Other than the July 27, 2015, sampling, the
turbidity measured in the monitoring well has been greater than 10 NTU during each sampling
event. Turbidities have ranged from 8.74 to 127 NTU with a mean reading of 53 NTU. Historical
turbidity readings for CRW-3 are provided on Table 3.
Recommendation – Due to the turbidity being consistently greater than 10 NTU, two
redevelopment efforts that did not reduce turbidity readings, and the attempt to change from
conventional purging techniques to low flow purging technique that did not reduce turbidity,
monitoring well CRW-3 is recommended for replacement.
4.4 CRW-4
Well Construction – Monitoring well CRW-4 was installed on December 12, 2006, using 4.25-
inch HSA. The well is screened from 17 to 27 feet bls in fine sandy silt (PWR) with 2-inch 0.010
slotted schedule 40 PVC. The well installation record indicates that #2 sand was used for the
sand/gravel pack.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC | Groundwater Monitoring Well Evaluation
Belews Creek Steam Station, Craig Road Ash Landfill Phase 1 and 2 SECTION 4 – EVALUATION RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Well Development – Approximately 90 gallons (approximately 75 well volumes) were purged
during the initial well development after installation. Turbidity after well development was
reported at 748 NTU.
Sampling Methods – The monitoring well has historically been purged using the conventional
purge technique during each sampling event. Historical purge techniques for CRW-4 are
provided on Table 4.
Turbidity – CRW-4 has been sampled 21 times. Other than during five sampling events
(including the first three), the turbidity measured in the monitoring well has been less than
10 NTU, including the last five sampling events. Turbidities have ranged from 2.31 to 24.8 NTU
with a mean reading of 9.20 NTU. Historical turbidity readings for CRW-4 are provided on
Table 4.
Recommendation – Due to the low turbidities reported during recent sampling events in CRW-4,
it is recommended that redevelopment or replacement not be implemented and the conventional
purge technique continue to be utilized for groundwater sample collection. If turbidities increase
greater than 10 NTU, the low flow sampling purge technique should be used.
4.5 CRW-5
Well Construction – Observation well OW-1B-54 was installed on February 8, 2006, using 2.25-
inch HSA as part of the landfill Site Suitability Study. Observation well OW-1B-54 was
converted to landfill monitoring well CRW-5. The well is screened from 10 to 20 feet bls in silty,
medium to fine sand (PWR) with 2-inch 0.010 slotted schedule 40 PVC. The well installation
record indicates that #2 sand was used for the sand/gravel pack.
Well Development – A minimum of 5 well volumes (at least 5 gallons) were purged during the
initial well development after installation as observation well OW-1B-54 during the Site
Suitability Study. The well was redeveloped after conversion to monitoring well CRW-5 and
15 gallons (approximately 14 well volumes) were purged from the monitoring well on
December 20, 2006. The turbidity after well conversion and redevelopment was not measured.
Sampling Methods – The monitoring well has historically been purged using the conventional
purge technique during each sampling event. Historical purge techniques for CRW-5 are
provided on Table 5.
Turbidity – CRW-5 has been sampled 21 times. During 11 of the sampling events, the turbidity
measured in the monitoring well has been greater than 10 NTU. However, during 10 of the last
11 sampling events, the turbidity measured in the well has been less than 10 NTU (July 28,
2014, sampling event was 11 NTU). Turbidities have ranged from 3.05 to 280 NTU with a mean
reading of 30.3 NTU. Historical turbidity readings for CRW-5 are provided on Table 5.
Recommendation – Due to the low turbidities reported during recent sampling events in CRW-5,
it is recommended that redevelopment or replacement not be implemented and the conventional
purge technique continue to be utilized for groundwater sample collection. If turbidities increase
greater than 10 NTU, the low flow purge technique should be used.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC | Groundwater Monitoring Well Evaluation
Belews Creek Steam Station, Craig Road Ash Landfill Phase 1 and 2 SECTION 4 – EVALUATION RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
4.6 CRW-6
Well Construction – Monitoring well CRW-6 was installed on December 14, 2006, using 4.25-
inch HSA. The well is screened from 17.5 to 27.5 feet bls in silty, medium to fine sand (PWR)
with 2-inch 0.010 slotted schedule 40 PVC. The well installation record indicates that #2 sand
was used for the sand/gravel pack.
Well Development – Approximately 10 gallons (approximately 9 well volumes) were purged
during the initial well development after installation. Turbidity after well development was not
measured.
Sampling Methods – The monitoring well has historically been purged using the conventional
purge technique during each sampling event. Historical purge techniques for CRW-6 are
provided on Table 6.
Turbidity – CRW-6 has been sampled 22 times. Other than the January 13, 2013, sampling
event (5.9 NTU) the turbidity measured in the monitoring well has been greater than 10 NTU
during each sampling event. Turbidities have ranged from 5.86 to 280 NTU with a mean reading
of 90.6 NTU. Historical turbidity readings for CRW-6 are provided on Table 6.
Recommendation – Monitoring well CRW-6 should be redeveloped and sampled using the low
flow purge technique. If the redevelopment and the modified purge technique are not successful
in reducing turbidity less than 10 NTU, the monitoring well should be considered for
replacement.
4.7 CRW-7
Well Construction – Observation well OW-1B-57 was installed on February 8, 2006, using 2.25-
inch HSA as part of the landfill Site Suitability Study. Observation well OW-1B-57 was
converted to landfill monitoring well CRW-7. The well is screened from 17 to 27 feet bls in silty,
very fine sand (PWR) with 2-inch 0.010 slotted schedule 40 PVC. The well installation record
indicates that #2 sand was used for the sand/gravel pack.
Well Development – A minimum of 5 well volumes (at least 3 gallons) were purged during the
initial well development after installation as observation well OW-1B-57. The well was
redeveloped after conversion to monitoring well CRW-7 and 5 gallons (approximately 8 well
volumes) were purged from the monitoring well on December 20, 2006. Turbidity after well
conversion and redevelopment was not measured.
Sampling Methods – The monitoring well has historically been purged using the conventional
purge technique during each sampling event with the exception of April and August 2013 when
an equipment only purge was used. Historical purge techniques for CRW-7 are provided on
Table 7.
Turbidity – CRW-7 has been sampled 21 times. Turbidity readings are not available for three of
the sampling events. For the 18 events where turbidity data is available, the turbidity measured
in the monitoring well has been greater than 10 NTU during each sampling event with the
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC | Groundwater Monitoring Well Evaluation
Belews Creek Steam Station, Craig Road Ash Landfill Phase 1 and 2 SECTION 4 – EVALUATION RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
exception of the March 29, 2010, sampling event. Turbidities have ranged from 7.93 to 598
NTU with a mean reading of 90.3 NTU. Historical turbidity readings for CRW-7 are provided on
Table 7.
Recommendation – Monitoring well CRW-7 should be redeveloped and sampled using the low
flow purge technique. If the redevelopment and the modified purge technique are not successful
in reducing turbidity less than 10 NTU, the monitoring well should be considered for
replacement.
4.8 CRW-8
Monitoring well CRW-8 was damaged and subsequently replaced by CRW-8R on April 11,
2013.
4.9 CRW-8R
Well Construction – Monitoring well CRW-8R was installed on April 11, 2013, using 3.25-inch
HSA. The well is screened from 27 to 37 feet bls in micaceous slightly clayey silty coarse to fine
sand (saprolite) and micaceous slightly clayey silty fine sand (PWR) with 2-inch 0.010 slotted
schedule 40 PVC. The well installation record indicates that #2 sand was used for the
sand/gravel pack.
Well Development – Approximately 5 well volumes (9.5 gallons) were purged during the initial
well development after installation. Turbidity after well development was not reported.
Well Redevelopment – February 2015 – The well was redeveloped on February 5, 2015. After
purging 5 well volumes (approximately 8 gallons) with a development pump, a sampling pump
was placed back into the well and an additional 8.75 gallons (5 well volumes) were removed.
Turbidity after well redevelopment was reported at 281 NTU.
Well Redevelopment – May and June 2015 – The well was redeveloped on May 2, 2015. The
details regarding this redevelopment effort are not available. On June 29, 2015, Duke Energy
purged additional well volumes from this well using the well’s dedicated pump in an effort to
reduce the turbidity in the well. A total of 7.05 gallons (approximately 4 well volumes) were
purged from the monitoring well. Turbidity after well redevelopment was reported at 28.1 NTU.
Sampling Methods – Monitoring well has historically been purged using the low flow purge
technique during each sampling event with the exception of the first sampling event in which the
conventional purge technique was used. Historical purge techniques for CRW-8R are provided
on Table 8.
Turbidity – CRW-8R has been sampled nine times. Other than the August 28, 2015, sampling
event, the turbidity measured in the monitoring well has been greater than 10 NTU during each
sampling event. Turbidities have ranged from 9.51 to 104 NTU with a mean reading of 37.0
NTU. Historical turbidity readings for CRW-8R are provided on Table 8.
Recommendation – Due to the turbidity being consistently greater than 10 NTU, two
redevelopment efforts that did not reduce turbidity readings, and the use of the low flow purge
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC | Groundwater Monitoring Well Evaluation
Belews Creek Steam Station, Craig Road Ash Landfill Phase 1 and 2 SECTION 4 – EVALUATION RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
technique not being successful in reducing turbidity to less than 10 NTU, monitoring well CRW-
8R is recommended for replacement.
4.10 CRW-9
Well Construction – Monitoring well CRW-9 was installed on December 13, 2006, using 4.25-
inch HSA. The well is screened from 26 to 36 feet bls in micaceous silt (saprolite) with 2-inch
0.010 slotted schedule 40 PVC. The well installation record indicates that #2 sand was used for
the sand/gravel pack.
Well Development – Approximately 12 gallons (approximately 6 well volumes) were purged
during the initial well development after installation. Turbidity after well development was
reported at 328 NTU.
Sampling Methods – The well initially was sampled using conventional purging technique and
then changed to the low flow purging technique in April 2013. Historical purge techniques for
CRW-9 are provided on Table 9.
Turbidity – CRW-9 has been sampled 23 times. The turbidity measured in the monitoring well
has been greater than 10 NTU during 20 of the 23 sampling events. Turbidities have ranged
from 5.94 to 516 NTU with a mean reading of 87.0 NTU. Historical turbidity readings for CRW-9
are provided on Table 9.
Recommendation – Monitoring well CRW-9 should be redeveloped and continue to be sampled
using the low flow purge technique. If the redevelopment is not successful in reducing turbidity
less than 10 NTU, the monitoring well should be considered for replacement.
4.11 CRW-10
Well Construction – Monitoring well CRW-10 was installed on December 18, 2006, using 4.25-
inch HSA. The well is screened from 18 to 28 feet bls in fine sandy silt (PWR) with 2-inch 0.010
slotted schedule 40 PVC. The well installation record indicates that #2 sand was used for the
sand/gravel pack.
Well Development – Approximately 20 gallons (approximately 18 well volumes) were purged
during the initial well development after installation. Turbidity after well development was
reported at 280 NTU.
Sampling Methods – Monitoring well has historically been purged using the conventional purge
technique during each sampling event. Historical purge techniques for CRW-10 are provided on
Table 10.
Turbidity – CRW-10 has been sampled 22 times. The turbidity measured in the monitoring well
has been greater than 10 NTU during 16 of the 22 sampling events. Turbidities have ranged
from 3.41 to 539 NTU with a mean reading of 137 NTU. During the most recent sampling event
(July 2016) the turbidity measured in the well was 5.43 NTU. Historical turbidity readings for
CRW-10 are provided on Table 10.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC | Groundwater Monitoring Well Evaluation
Belews Creek Steam Station, Craig Road Ash Landfill Phase 1 and 2 SECTION 4 – EVALUATION RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation – Monitoring well CRW-10 should be redeveloped and sampled using the low
flow purge technique. If the redevelopment and modified purge technique are not successful in
reducing turbidity less than 10 NTU, the monitoring well should be considered for replacement.
4.12 CRW-11
Well Construction – Monitoring well CRW-11 was installed on December 18, 2012, using 3.25-
inch HSA. The well is screened from 25.3 to 35.3 feet bls in micaceous silty coarse to fine sand
with quartz fragments (PWR) with 2-inch 0.010 slotted schedule 40 PVC. The well installation
record indicates that #2 sand was used for the sand/gravel pack.
Well Development – Approximately 5 well volumes (6.5 gallons) were purged during the initial
well development after installation. Turbidity after well development was not reported.
Well Redevelopment – February 2015 – The well was redeveloped on February 5, 2015. After
purging 6.5 gallons (approximately 5 well volumes) with a development pump, a sampling pump
was placed into the well and an additional 7.5 gallons (approximately 6 well volumes) were
removed. Turbidity after well redevelopment was reported at 94 NTU.
Well Redevelopment – May and June 2015 – The well was redeveloped on May 2, 2015. The
details regarding this redevelopment effort are not available. On June 29, 2015, Duke Energy
purged additional well volumes from this well using the well’s dedicated pump in an effort to
reduce the turbidity in the well. A total of 6.25 gallons (approximately 5 well volumes) were
purged from the monitoring well. Turbidity after well redevelopment was reported at 63.0 NTU.
Sampling Methods – The well was initially sampled using the low flow purging technique and
then changed to the conventional purging technique in January 2015. Historical purge
techniques for CRW-11 are provided on Table 11.
Turbidity – CRW-11 has been sampled 10 times. The turbidity measured in the monitoring well
has been greater than 10 NTU during 8 of the 10 sampling event. Turbidities have ranged from
6.00 to 266 NTU with a mean reading of 74.1 NTU. Historical turbidity readings for CRW-11 are
provided on Table 11.
Recommendation – Due to the turbidity being consistently greater than 10 NTU, two
redevelopment efforts that did not reduce turbidity readings, and the modification of the purge
technique not being successful in reducing turbidity to less than 10 NTU, monitoring well CRW-
11 is recommended for replacement.
4.13 CRW-12
Well Construction – Monitoring well CRW-12 was installed on April 10, 2013, using 3.25-inch
HSA. The well is screened from 31.7 to 41.7 feet bls in silty coarse to fine sand with quartz
fragments (saprolite) and micaceous silty medium to fine sand (PWR) with 2-inch 0.010 slotted
schedule 40 PVC. The well installation record indicates that #2 sand was used for the
sand/gravel pack.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC | Groundwater Monitoring Well Evaluation
Belews Creek Steam Station, Craig Road Ash Landfill Phase 1 and 2 SECTION 4 – EVALUATION RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Well Development – Approximately 5 well volumes (7 gallons) were purged during the initial well
development after installation. Turbidity after well development was not reported.
Well Redevelopment – February 2015 – The well was redeveloped on February 5, 2015. After
purging approximately 9 well volumes (11.25 gallons) with a development pump, a sampling
pump was placed into the well and an additional 3.75 gallons (approximately 3 well volumes)
were removed. Turbidity after well redevelopment was reported at 24.3 NTU.
Well Redevelopment – May and June 2015 – The well was redeveloped on May 2, 2015. The
details regarding this redevelopment effort are not available. On June 29, 2015, Duke Energy
purged additional well volumes from this well using the well’s dedicated pump in an effort to
reduce the turbidity in the well. A total of 6.15 gallons (approximately 5.5 well volumes) were
purged from the monitoring well. Turbidity after well redevelopment was reported at 6.2 NTU.
Sampling Methods – The monitoring well has historically been purged using the low flow purge
technique during each sampling event with the exception of the first sampling event in which the
conventional purge technique was used. Historical purge techniques for CRW-12 are provided
on Table 12.
Turbidity – CRW-12 has been sampled nine times. Turbidity measured in the monitoring well
has been greater than 10 NTU during four of the nine events (when turbidity was measured)
with the last sampling event having the highest historical turbidity reading (500 NTU) reported in
the well. Turbidities have ranged from 5.60 to 500 NTU with a mean reading of 84.7 NTU.
Historical turbidity readings for CRW-12 are provided on Table 12.
Recommendation – Monitoring well CRW-12 should be redeveloped and continue to be
sampled using the low flow purge technique. Due to two previous redevelopment efforts, if the
third redevelopment is not successful in reducing turbidity less than 10 NTU, the monitoring well
should be replaced.
4.14 CRW-13
Well Construction – Monitoring well CRW-13 was installed on April 10, 2013, using 3.25-inch
HSA. The well is screened from 26 to 36 feet bls in micaceous silty medium to fine sand with
manganese (saprolite and PWR) with 2-inch 0.010 slotted schedule 40 PVC. The well
installation record indicates that #2 sand was used for the sand/gravel pack.
Well Development – Approximately 5 well volumes (6 gallons) were purged during the initial well
development after installation. Turbidity after well development was not reported.
Sampling Methods – The monitoring well has historically been purged using the conventional
purge technique during each sampling event. Historical purge techniques for CRW-13 are
provided on Table 13.
Turbidity – CRW-13 has been sampled eight times. The turbidity measured in the monitoring
well has been greater than 10 NTU during five of the eight events with the last sampling event
having the highest historical turbidity reading (186 NTU) reported in the well. Turbidities have
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC | Groundwater Monitoring Well Evaluation
Belews Creek Steam Station, Craig Road Ash Landfill Phase 1 and 2 SECTION 4 – EVALUATION RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
ranged from 5.15 to 186 NTU with a mean reading of 46.6 NTU. Historical turbidity readings for
CRW-13 are provided on Table 13.
Recommendation – Monitoring well CRW-13 should be redeveloped and sampled using the low
flow purge technique. If the redevelopment and modified purge technique are not successful in
reducing turbidity less than 10 NTU, the monitoring well should be considered for replacement.
4.15 CRW-14
Well Construction – Monitoring well CRW-14 was installed on December 18, 2012, using 3.25-
inch HSA and NQ-sized rock coring equipment. The well is screened from 23.2 to 38.2 feet bls
in augen gneiss (sound rock) with 2-inch 0.010 slotted schedule 40 PVC. The screened interval
was not backfilled with sand/gravel pack.
Well Development – Approximately 5 well volumes (14 gallons) were purged during the initial
well development after installation. Turbidity after well development was not measured.
Sampling Methods – The monitoring well has historically been purged using the low flow purge
technique during each sampling event with the exception of the first two sampling events in
which the conventional purge technique was used. Historical purge techniques for CRW-14 are
provided on Table 14.
Turbidity – CRW-14 has been sampled nine times. Other than the first sampling event, the
turbidity measured in the monitoring well has been less than 10 NTU during each sampling
event. Turbidities have ranged from 2.90 to 11.2 NTU with a mean reading of 6.51 NTU.
Historical turbidity readings for CRW-14 are provided on Table 14.
Recommendation – Due to the low turbidities reported in CRW-14, it is recommended that
redevelopment or replacement not be implemented, and the low flow purge technique continue
to be utilized for groundwater sample collection.
4.16 CRW-15
Well Construction – Monitoring well CRW-15 was installed on April 9, 2013, using 3.25-inch
HSA and NQ-sized rock coring equipment. The well is screened from 25.8 to 35.8 feet bls
augen gneiss (PWR) with 2-inch 0.010 slotted schedule 40 PVC. The screened interval was not
filled with sand/gravel pack.
Well Development – Approximately 5 well volumes (4 gallons) were purged during the initial well
development after installation. Turbidity after well development was not measured.
Sampling Methods – The monitoring well has historically been purged using the low flow purge
technique during each sampling event with the exception of the first sampling event in which the
conventional purge technique was used. Historical purge techniques for CRW-15 are provided
on Table 15.
Turbidity – CRW-15 has been sampled eight times. Other than the first sampling event, the
turbidity measured in the monitoring has been less than 10 NTU during each sampling event.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC | Groundwater Monitoring Well Evaluation
Belews Creek Steam Station, Craig Road Ash Landfill Phase 1 and 2 SECTION 4 – EVALUATION RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Turbidities have ranged from 1.45 to 14.5 NTU with a mean reading of 4.27 NTU. Historical
turbidity readings for CRW-15 are provided on Table 15.
Recommendation – Due to the low turbidities reported in CRW-15, it is recommended that
redevelopment or replacement not be implemented, and the low flow purge technique continue
to be utilized for groundwater sample collection.
4.17 CRW-16
Well Construction – Monitoring well CRW-16 was installed on April 9, 2013, using 3.25-inch
HSA. The well is screened from 37 to 47 feet bls in very micaceous silty medium to fine sand
(saprolite) and silty coarse to fine sand (PWR) with 2-inch 0.010 slotted schedule 40 PVC. The
well installation record indicates that #2 sand was used for the sand/gravel pack.
Well Development – Approximately 5 well volumes (6.5 gallons) were purged during the initial
well development after installation. Turbidity after well development was not measured.
Well Redevelopment – May and June 2015 – The well was redeveloped on May 2, 2015. The
details regarding this redevelopment effort are not available. On June 29, 2015, Duke Energy
purged additional well volumes from this well using the well’s dedicated pump in an effort to
reduce the turbidity in the well. A total of 7.5 gallons (approximately 6 well volumes) were
purged from the monitoring well. Turbidity after well redevelopment was reported at 81.4 NTU.
Sampling Methods – The well was initially sampled using the conventional purging technique
and then changed to the low flow purging technique in July 2015. Historical purge techniques for
CRW-16 are provided on Table 16.
Turbidity – CRW-16 has been sampled eight times. During three of the sampling events, the
turbidity measured in the monitoring well has been greater than 10 NTU. However, during the
last four sampling events, the turbidity measured in the well has been less than 10 NTU.
Turbidities have ranged from 7.82 to 42.2 NTU with a mean reading of 15.9 NTU. Historical
turbidity readings for CRW-16 are provided on Table 16.
Recommendation – Due to the low turbidities reported during recent sampling events in CRW-
16, it is recommended that redevelopment or replacement not be implemented, and the low flow
purge technique continue to be utilized for groundwater sample collection.
4.18 CRW-17
Well Construction – The monitoring well was installed on January 6, 2011, using 3.25-inch HSA.
CRW-17 was converted to a landfill monitoring well from observation well CRHS-44 that was
installed as part of the landfill Phase 2 Site Suitability Study. The well is screened from 29 to
39 feet bls in slightly clayey fine sandy silt and very micaceous silty, medium to fine sand
(saprolite) with 2-inch 0.010 slotted schedule 40 PVC. The well installation record indicates that
#2 sand was used for the sand/gravel pack.
Well Development – Approximately 5 well volumes (5 gallons) were purged during the initial well
development after installation. Turbidity after well development was not measured.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC | Groundwater Monitoring Well Evaluation
Belews Creek Steam Station, Craig Road Ash Landfill Phase 1 and 2 SECTION 4 – EVALUATION RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Well Redevelopment – February 2015 – The well was redeveloped on February 5, 2015. After
purging 5.5 gallons (approximately 6 well volumes) with a development pump, a sampling pump
was placed into the well and an additional 6 gallons (approximately 7 well volumes) were
removed. Turbidity after well redevelopment was reported at 63.2 NTU.
Well Redevelopment – May and June 2015 – The well was redeveloped on May 2, 2015. The
details regarding this redevelopment effort are not available. On June 29, 2015, Duke Energy
purged additional well volumes from this well using the well’s dedicated pump in an effort to
reduce the turbidity in the well. A total of 5.75 gallons (approximately 6.5 well volumes) were
purged from the monitoring well. Turbidity after well redevelopment was reported at 129 NTU.
Sampling Methods – The well was initially sampled using the conventional purging technique,
changed to the low flow purging technique in April 2013, and then back to the conventional
purge technique in February 2015. Historical purge techniques for CRW-17 are provided on
Table 17.
Turbidity – CRW-17 has been sampled nine times. The turbidity measured in the monitoring well
has been greater than 10 NTU during all nine of the sampling events. Turbidities have ranged
from 12.4 to 595 NTU with a mean reading of 98.0 NTU. Historical turbidity readings for CRW-
17 are provided on Table 17.
Recommendation – Due to the turbidity being consistently greater than 10 NTU, two
redevelopment efforts that did not reduce turbidity readings, and the modification of the purge
technique not being successful in reducing turbidity to less than 10 NTU, monitoring well CRW-
17 is recommended for replacement.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC | Groundwater Monitoring Well Evaluation
Belews Creek Steam Station, Craig Road Ash Landfill Phase 1 and 2 SECTION 5 – SUMMARY
Section 5 – Summary
Based on the monitoring well evaluation, the following BCSS Craig Road Landfill monitoring
wells are recommended for replacement:
• CRW-2
• CRW-3
• CRW-8R
• CRW-11
• CRW-17
In an effort to install monitoring wells with low turbidity, replacement wells will be constructed
using a minimum 4.25-inch-inner-diameter (ID) HSA and pre-packed well screens. The wells will
be constructed with a 2-inch ID, Schedule 40 flush-joint-threaded PVC pipe fitted with a pre-
packed (sand) 10 to 15 foot PVC 0.010-slot screen, and a 2-inch ID Schedule 40 PVC casing to
the ground surface. The sand pre-pack will be determined based on a review of the grain size
analysis performed during the initial monitoring well installations. The monitoring well screens
will be installed to bracket the water table encountered in unconsolidated material (i.e., regolith
or overburden) at the time of drilling. An additional fine sand (#1 sand) filter pack will be placed
to at least 2 feet above the screen with a minimum of 1-foot to 2-foot bentonite seal placed
above the filter pack. The bentonite seal will be allowed to hydrate prior to grouting the well. The
remaining annular space will be grouted with a low pH (e.g., Aquaguard®) grout to the ground
surface using positive displacement (i.e., tremie grout method). The monitoring well will be fitted
with a lockable well cap. Each monitoring well will be developed prior to commencing
groundwater sampling activities following the procedures outlined below.
Based on the monitoring well evaluation, the following BCSS Craig Road Landfill monitoring
wells are recommended for redevelopment and to be sampled using the low flow purge
technique. If the redevelopment and modified purging technique are not successful in reducing
turbidity less than 10 NTU, the monitoring wells should be considered for replacement:
• CRW-6
• CRW-7
• CRW-9
• CRW-10
• CRW-12
• CRW-13
Monitoring well development and redevelopment will be performed in general accordance with
the following procedures. Deviations from these procedures will be verified by the Project
Manager prior to implementation.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC | Groundwater Monitoring Well Evaluation
Belews Creek Steam Station, Craig Road Ash Landfill Phase 1 and 2 SECTION 5 – SUMMARY
1. Monitoring well development will not be performed until 24 hours have passed after well
completion to allow for grout/cement curing (new well installations only).
2. The duration of development, initial water level, well depth, development method (i.e.,
bailing, surging, pumping), and field parameter measurements (listed in item #3 below)
will be documented on a Well Development Record.
3. Monitoring wells will be developed using pumping and surging techniques. The wells will
be pumped using a centrifuge or submersible pump (Wahl, Monsoon, or equivalent) to
remove suspended particles and induce flow into the well to prevent clogging of the filter
pack. Wells that cannot be developed utilizing a pump due to insufficient volume may be
developed using a bailer to evacuate the well. If it is determined by the developers that
there is a significant sediment slug at the bottom of the well, it can be removed using a
foot valve pump or bailer in lieu of the centrifugal or submersible pump. Once removed,
well development will continue with the centrifugal or submersible pump.
4. Field parameter measurements of dissolved oxygen (DO), oxidation-reduction potential
(ORP), pH, temperature, specific conductivity, and turbidity will be recorded for every
5 gallons of discharge. A 5-gallon bucket can be used for purge water volume
measurements. For wells with slow recovery, field parameters will be checked every
2 gallons of discharge.
5. Pumping should begin at the top of the well screen with low pumping rates and
incrementally work down the screen. The well will be surged periodically by raising and
lowering the pump within the water column three to five times in succession, being
careful not to touch the bottom of the well with the pump. If turbidity values remain over
10 NTU, the well will be allowed to equilibrate (90 percent or greater of the original static
water level) and the process repeated.
6. Development will continue for a minimum of 1 hour or three well volumes (whichever
duration is longer) until turbidity is less than 10 NTU and until monitoring parameters of
pH, temperature, conductivity, and turbidity are generally stabilized.
7. If development has continued longer than 3 hours and turbidity values remain in excess
of 10 NTU, the well should be allowed to equilibrate for 24 hours or 90 percent of the
original static water level, and the development process will be repeated until turbidity is
less than 10 NTU. If turbidity readings do not decrease after multiple developments, the
development team will consult the Project Manager to discuss other options, including
replacement of the well.
8. Following development, sounding of the bottom of the well with a water level meter
should indicate a “hard” (sediment-free) bottom.
The following table provides a summary of the monitoring wells recommended for
redevelopment or replacement. The locations of these wells are presented on Figure 3.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC | Groundwater Monitoring Well Evaluation
Belews Creek Steam Station, Craig Road Ash Landfill Phase 1 and 2
Table 18 – Summary of Monitoring Wells Recommended for Redevelopment or Replacement
Redevelopment Replacement
CRW-6 CRW-2
CRW-7 CRW-3
CRW-9 CRW-8R
CRW-10 CRW-11
CRW-12 CRW-17
CRW-13
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC | Groundwater Monitoring Well Evaluation
Belews Creek Steam Station, Craig Road Ash Landfill Phase 1 and 2 FIGURES
Figures
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC | Groundwater Monitoring Well Evaluation
Belews Creek Steam Station, Craig Road Ash Landfill Phase 1 and 2 TABLES
Tables
Ta
b
l
e
1 ‐
We
l
l
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
In
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
(P
h
a
s
e
s
I an
d
II
)
We
l
l
ID
We
l
l
In
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
Da
t
e
La
t
i
t
u
d
e
L
o
n
g
i
t
u
d
e
We
l
l
TO
C
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(f
t
.
)
Gr
o
u
n
d
Su
r
f
a
c
e
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(f
t
.
)
We
l
l
St
i
c
k
‐up
He
i
g
h
t
Ab
o
v
e
Gr
o
u
n
d
Su
r
f
a
c
e
(f
t
.
)
To
t
a
l
We
l
l
De
p
t
h
be
l
o
w
TO
C
(f
t
.
)
De
p
t
h
to
To
p
of
Sc
r
e
e
n
fr
o
m
TO
C
(f
t
.
)
Sc
r
e
e
n
e
d
In
t
e
r
v
a
l
be
l
o
w
TO
C
(f
t
.
)
Ge
o
l
o
g
y
of
Sc
r
e
e
n
e
d
In
t
e
r
v
a
l
Well Diameter (in.)Casing Type
CR
W
‐2
1
2
/
1
3
/
2
0
0
6
3
6
.
2
6
9
0
9
9
1
‐80
.
0
7
1
0
2
6
3
7
6
1
.
4
6
7
5
8
.
1
6
3
.
3
3
8
.
3
2
8
.
3
3
8
.
3
0
‐28
.
3
0
S
a
p
r
o
l
i
t
e
/
P
W
R
2
P
V
C
CR
W
‐3
1
2
/
1
2
/
2
0
0
6
3
6
.
2
7
0
0
0
7
8
‐80
.
0
7
0
0
5
8
3
7
4
6
.
3
9
7
4
3
.
0
1
3
.
3
8
1
8
.
3
8
8
.
3
8
1
8
.
3
8
‐08
.
3
8
S
a
p
r
o
l
i
t
e
2
P
V
C
CR
W
‐4
1
2
/
1
2
/
2
0
0
6
3
6
.
2
7
0
5
3
4
8
‐80
.
0
6
8
0
9
8
5
7
7
3
.
5
3
7
7
0
.
7
3
2
.
8
2
9
.
8
1
9
.
8
2
9
.
8
0
‐19
.
8
0
P
W
R
2
P
V
C
CR
W
‐5
2
/
8
/
2
0
0
6
3
6
.
2
7
0
6
7
0
5
‐80
.
0
6
6
3
4
4
6
7
6
4
.
7
4
7
6
1
.
4
4
3
.
3
2
3
.
3
1
3
.
3
2
3
.
3
0
‐13
.
3
0
P
W
R
2
P
V
C
CR
W
‐6
1
2
/
1
4
/
2
0
0
6
3
6
.
2
7
0
6
6
4
9
‐80
.
0
6
4
8
4
6
6
7
8
3
.
1
7
8
0
.
3
2
2
.
7
8
3
0
.
2
8
2
0
.
2
8
3
0
.
2
8
‐20
.
2
8
S
a
p
r
o
l
i
t
e
/
P
W
R
2
P
V
C
CR
W
‐7
2
/
8
/
2
0
0
6
3
6
.
2
7
0
2
9
1
‐80
.
0
6
4
6
0
0
7
7
8
5
.
0
8
7
8
1
.
0
9
3
.
9
9
3
0
.
9
9
2
0
.
9
9
3
0
.
9
9
‐20
.
9
9
P
W
R
2
P
V
C
CR
W
‐8R
4/
1
1
/
2
0
1
3
3
6
.
2
6
9
1
8
5
6
‐80
.
0
6
4
7
7
3
9
7
7
6
.
3
9
7
7
3
.
6
8
2
.
7
1
3
9
.
7
1
2
9
.
7
1
3
9
.
7
1
‐29
.
7
1
S
a
p
r
o
l
i
t
e
/
P
W
R
2
P
V
C
CR
W
‐9
1
2
/
1
4
/
2
0
0
6
3
6
.
2
6
7
6
7
6
1
‐80
.
0
6
5
5
0
5
7
6
9
.
6
7
7
6
6
.
6
3
3
.
0
4
3
9
.
0
4
2
9
.
0
4
3
9
.
0
4
‐29
.
0
4
S
a
p
r
o
l
i
t
e
2
P
V
C
CR
W
‐10
1
2
/
1
8
/
2
0
0
6
3
6
.
2
6
5
6
7
8
8
‐80
.
0
6
6
1
8
4
9
7
7
7
.
2
3
7
7
3
.
9
4
3
.
2
9
3
1
.
2
9
2
1
.
2
9
3
1
.
2
9
‐21
.
2
9
S
a
p
r
o
l
i
t
e
/
P
W
R
2
P
V
C
CR
W
‐11
1
2
/
1
8
/
2
0
1
2
3
6
.
2
6
3
7
6
3
4
‐80
.
0
6
6
8
4
8
1
8
1
6
.
1
2
8
1
3
.
3
8
2
.
7
4
3
8
.
0
4
2
8
.
0
4
3
8
.
0
4
‐28
.
0
4
P
W
R
2
P
V
C
CR
W
‐12
4
/
1
0
/
2
0
1
3
3
6
.
2
6
3
8
7
4
1
‐80
.
0
6
8
5
8
3
1
8
3
7
.
9
3
8
3
5
2
.
9
3
4
4
.
6
3
3
4
.
6
3
4
4
.
6
3
‐34
.
6
3
S
a
p
r
o
l
i
t
e
/
P
W
R
2
P
V
C
CR
W
‐13
4
/
1
0
/
2
0
1
3
3
6
.
2
6
5
1
7
3
‐80
.
0
7
1
4
2
6
8
8
2
2
.
4
9
8
1
9
.
4
4
3
.
0
5
3
9
.
0
5
2
9
.
0
5
3
9
.
0
5
‐29
.
0
5
S
a
p
r
o
l
i
t
e
/
P
W
R
2
P
V
C
CR
W
‐14
1
2
/
1
8
/
2
0
1
2
3
6
.
2
6
5
8
3
7
6
‐80
.
0
7
2
9
3
0
5
7
9
4
.
8
7
7
9
2
.
2
3
2
.
6
4
4
0
.
8
4
2
5
.
8
4
4
0
.
8
4
‐25
.
8
4
B
e
d
r
o
c
k
2
P
V
C
CR
W
‐15
4
/
9
/
2
0
1
3
3
6
.
2
6
6
9
8
2
7
‐80
.
0
7
2
1
0
9
5
7
6
8
.
4
3
7
6
5
.
6
9
2
.
7
4
3
8
.
4
4
2
8
.
4
4
3
8
.
4
4
‐28
.
4
4
P
W
R
2
P
V
C
CR
W
‐16
4
/
9
/
2
0
1
3
3
6
.
2
6
8
4
7
7
5
‐80
.
0
7
1
7
8
0
5
7
7
3
.
5
9
7
7
0
.
5
8
3
.
0
1
5
0
.
0
1
4
0
.
0
1
5
0
.
0
1
‐40
.
0
1
S
a
p
r
o
l
i
t
e
/
P
W
R
2
P
V
C
CR
W
‐17
1
/
6
/
2
0
1
1
3
6
.
2
6
2
7
8
5
4
‐80
.
0
6
7
1
9
8
8
3
4
.
5
6
8
3
1
.
6
2
2
.
9
4
4
1
.
9
4
3
1
.
9
4
4
1
.
9
4
‐31
.
9
4
S
a
p
r
o
l
i
t
e
2
P
V
C
1.2.3.4.
.5 6.7.8.
Ho
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l
da
t
u
m
NA
D
8
3
Ve
r
t
i
c
a
l
da
t
u
m
is
NA
V
D
88
In
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
pr
o
v
i
d
e
d
by
Du
k
e
En
e
r
g
y
TO
C
in
d
i
c
a
t
e
s
to
p
of
ca
s
i
n
g
ft
.
in
d
i
c
a
t
e
s
fe
e
t
in
.
in
d
i
c
a
t
e
s
in
c
h
e
s
no
m
i
n
a
l
di
a
m
e
t
e
r
PV
C
in
d
i
c
a
t
e
s
po
l
y
v
i
n
y
l
ch
l
o
r
i
d
e
PW
R
in
d
i
c
a
t
e
s
pa
r
t
i
a
l
l
y
we
a
t
h
e
r
e
d
ro
c
k
Craig Road Landfill Monitoring Well Evaluation
Table 2 - Historical Turbidity Measurements, Purge Volumes, and Purge Techniques for Monitoring Well CRW-2
Craig Road Landfill
Monitoring Well Evaluation
Well ID Sample Date Turbidity (NTU)Single Well Volume (gal.)Total Purge Volume (gal.)Purge Technique
CRW-2 1/31/2007 NR NR NR Conventional
CRW-2 7/16/2007 76.7 NR NR Conventional
CRW-2 1/22/2008 163 NR NR Conventional
CRW-2 7/1/2008 82.2 NR NR Conventional
CRW-2 1/5/2009 287 NR NR Conventional
CRW-2 7/13/2009 191 NR NR Conventional
CRW-2 1/5/2010 243 NR NR Conventional
CRW-2 3/29/2010 65.5 NR NR NR
CRW-2 7/26/2010 27.5 NR NR Conventional
CRW-2 1/19/2011 64.9 NR NR Conventional
CRW-2 7/19/2011 126 NR NR Conventional
CRW-2 1/10/2012 23 NR NR Conventional
CRW-2 7/30/2012 12.9 2.29 12.5 NR
CRW-2 1/31/2013 76.4 2.27 7.5 Conventional
CRW-2 4/24/2013 40.7 2.40 1.1 Low Flow
CRW-2 7/31/2013 20.3 2.47 0.9 Low Flow
CRW-2 1/27/2014 16.3 2.36 1.45 Low Flow
CRW-2 7/28/2014 27.8 2.43 7.2 Low Flow
CRW-2 1/26/2015 15.7 2.32 7.05 Low Flow
CRW-2 7/27/2015 29.9 2.36 5.1 Low Flow
CRW-2 1/11/2016 23 2.44 4.75 Low Flow
CRW-2 7/11/2016 31.4 2.52 4.5 Low Flow
Min:12.9
Max:287
Mean:78.3 2.39
1.
2.
3.
4.
"NR" means "not reported"
Turbidities over 10 are noted in bold
NTU stands for Nephelometric Turbidity Unit
Data provided by Duke Energy
Table 3 - Historical Turbidity Measurements, Purge Volumes, and Purge Techniques for Monitoring Well CRW-3
Craig Road Landfill
Monitoring Well Evaluation
Well ID Sample Date Turbidity (NTU)Single Well Volume (gal.)Total Purge Volume (gal.)Purge Technique
CRW-3 1/30/2007 127 NR NR Conventional
CRW-3 7/16/2007 110 NR NR Conventional
CRW-3 1/22/2008 114 NR NR Conventional
CRW-3 7/1/2008 72.6 NR NR Conventional
CRW-3 1/5/2009 111 NR NR Conventional
CRW-3 7/13/2009 99.7 NR NR Conventional
CRW-3 1/5/2010 37.1 NR NR Conventional
CRW-3 7/26/2010 27.5 NR NR Conventional
CRW-3 1/19/2011 31.1 NR NR Conventional
CRW-3 7/19/2011 31.7 NR NR Conventional
CRW-3 1/10/2012 14.9 NR NR Conventional
CRW-3 7/30/2012 11.0 1.63 8.75 NR
CRW-3 1/31/2013 79.8 1.78 10 Conventional
CRW-3 4/24/2013 51.9 1.72 5.5 Low Flow
CRW-3 7/30/2013 26.8 1.70 0.45 Low Flow
CRW-3 1/28/2014 18.3 1.70 11 Conventional
CRW-3 7/28/2014 16.8 1.62 7 Conventional
CRW-3 1/26/2015 21.9 1.70 12.25 Conventional
CRW-3 2/10/2015 29.6 1.72 13.7 Low Flow
CRW-3 7/27/2015 8.74 1.59 8.75 Conventional
CRW-3 1/11/2016 46.4 1.78 13 Conventional
CRW-3 7/11/2016 73.5 1.70 10 Conventional
Min:8.74
Max:127
Mean:52.8 1.69
1.
2.
3.
4.
"NR" means "not reported"
Turbidities over 10 are noted in bold
NTU stands for Nephelometric Turbidity Unit
Data provided by Duke Energy
Table 4 - Historical Turbidity Measurements, Purge Volumes, and Purge Techniques for Monitoring Well CRW-4
Craig Road Landfill
Monitoring Well Evaluation
Well ID Sample Date Turbidity (NTU)Single Well Volume (gal.)Total Purge Volume (gal.)Purge Technique
CRW-4 1/30/2007 24.8 NR NR Conventional
CRW-4 7/16/2007 23.0 NR NR Conventional
CRW-4 1/22/2008 18.4 NR NR Conventional
CRW-4 7/1/2008 4.42 NR NR Conventional
CRW-4 1/5/2009 9.09 NR NR Conventional
CRW-4 7/13/2009 9.54 NR NR Conventional
CRW-4 1/5/2010 22.8 NR NR Conventional
CRW-4 7/26/2010 9.20 NR NR Conventional
CRW-4 1/19/2011 7.05 NR NR Conventional
CRW-4 7/19/2011 5.92 NR NR Conventional
CRW-4 1/10/2012 5.19 NR NR Conventional
CRW-4 7/30/2012 4.47 1.09 3.75 NR
CRW-4 1/30/2013 9.49 1.28 3.75 Conventional
CRW-4 4/24/2013 4.38 1.23 6.25 Conventional
CRW-4 7/30/2013 7.34 1.19 4.5 Conventional
CRW-4 1/30/2014 10.0 1.26 6 Conventional
CRW-4 7/28/2014 2.31 1.09 3.75 Conventional
CRW-4 1/26/2015 4.91 1.33 4.5 Conventional
CRW-4 7/27/2015 2.38 1.09 3.75 Conventional
CRW-4 1/11/2016 4.13 1.62 5.25 Conventional
CRW-4 7/11/2016 4.29 1.18 3.75 Conventional
Min:2.31
Max:24.8
Mean:9.20 1.24
1.
2.
3.
4.
"NR" means "not reported"
Turbidities over 10 are noted in bold
NTU stands for Nephelometric Turbidity Unit
Data provided by Duke Energy
Table 5 - Historical Turbidity Measurements, Purge Volumes, and Purge Techniques for Monitoring Well CRW-5
Craig Road Landfill
Monitoring Well Evaluation
Well ID Sample Date Turbidity (NTU)Single Well Volume (gal.)Total Purge Volume (gal.)Purge Technique
CRW-5 1/30/2007 280 NR NR Conventional
CRW-5 7/16/2007 41.4 NR NR Conventional
CRW-5 1/22/2008 46.7 NR NR Conventional
CRW-5 7/1/2008 60.2 NR NR Conventional
CRW-5 1/5/2009 13.8 NR NR Conventional
CRW-5 7/13/2009 32.3 NR NR Conventional
CRW-5 1/5/2010 16.8 NR NR Conventional
CRW-5 7/26/2010 28.4 NR NR Conventional
CRW-5 1/19/2011 19.2 NR NR Conventional
CRW-5 7/19/2011 30.5 NR NR Conventional
CRW-5 1/10/2012 8.95 NR NR Conventional
CRW-5 7/30/2012 7.80 1.04 2.75 NR
CRW-5 1/30/2013 3.88 1.05 2.75 Conventional
CRW-5 4/24/2013 7.69 1.12 3 Conventional
CRW-5 7/29/2013 5.07 1.10 3 Conventional
CRW-5 1/27/2014 3.05 1.08 3 Conventional
CRW-5 7/28/2014 11.0 1.06 2.5 Conventional
CRW-5 1/27/2015 8.84 0.98 2.5 Conventional
CRW-5 7/27/2015 3.36 1.01 3.25 Conventional
CRW-5 1/12/2016 3.62 1.14 3.75 Conventional
CRW-5 7/12/2016 3.50 1.08 3.75 Conventional
Min:3.05
Max:280
Mean:30.3 1.07
1.
2.
3.
4.
"NR" means "not reported"
Turbidities over 10 are noted in bold
NTU stands for Nephelometric Turbidity Unit
Data provided by Duke Energy
Table 6 - Historical Turbidity Measurements, Purge Volumes, and Purge Techniques for Monitoring Well CRW-6
Craig Road Landfill
Monitoring Well Evaluation
Well ID Sample Date Turbidity (NTU)Single Well Volume (gal.)Total Purge Volume (gal.)Purge Technique
CRW-6 1/30/2007 232 NR NR Conventional
CRW-6 7/17/2007 280 NR NR Conventional
CRW-6 1/22/2008 112 NR NR Conventional
CRW-6 7/1/2008 30.2 NR NR Conventional
CRW-6 1/5/2009 18.9 NR NR Conventional
CRW-6 7/14/2009 86.1 NR NR Conventional
CRW-6 1/5/2010 168 NR NR Conventional
CRW-6 3/29/2010 12.6 NR NR NR
CRW-6 7/26/2010 12.2 NR NR Conventional
CRW-6 1/19/2011 22.8 NR NR Conventional
CRW-6 7/20/2011 48.4 NR NR Conventional
CRW-6 1/10/2012 188 NR NR Conventional
CRW-6 7/30/2012 56.2 1.01 1.5 NR
CRW-6 1/30/2013 5.86 0.85 1.25 Conventional
CRW-6 4/25/2013 15.7 1.09 2.75 Conventional
CRW-6 7/29/2013 22.3 1.14 2.75 Conventional
CRW-6 1/30/2014 109 1.01 2.5 Conventional
CRW-6 7/29/2014 50.6 1.10 2 Conventional
CRW-6 1/27/2015 107 1.04 2 Conventional
CRW-6 7/28/2015 216 1.11 2.25 Conventional
CRW-6 1/12/2016 143 1.43 3.5 Conventional
CRW-6 7/12/2016 57 1.04 2.25 Conventional
Min:5.86
Max:280
Mean:90.6 1.08
1.
2.
3.
4.
"NR" means "not reported"
Turbidities over 10 are noted in bold
NTU stands for Nephelometric Turbidity Unit
Data provided by Duke Energy
Table 7 - Historical Turbidity Measurements, Purge Volumes, and Purge Techniques for Monitoring Well CRW-7
Craig Road Landfill
Monitoring Well Evaluation
Well ID Sample Date Turbidity (NTU)Single Well Volume (gal.)Total Purge Volume (gal.)Purge Technique
CRW-7 1/30/2007 51.4 NR NR Conventional
CRW-7 7/17/2007 31.1 NR NR Conventional
CRW-7 1/22/2008 NR NR NR Conventional
CRW-7 7/1/2008 11.4 NR NR Conventional
CRW-7 7/14/2009 598 NR NR Conventional
CRW-7 1/6/2010 NR NR NR Conventional
CRW-7 3/29/2010 7.93 NR NR NR
CRW-7 7/26/2010 15.9 NR NR Conventional
CRW-7 1/19/2011 23.1 NR NR Conventional
CRW-7 7/19/2011 14.1 NR NR Conventional
CRW-7 1/10/2012 27.1 NR NR Conventional
CRW-7 7/30/2012 11.9 0.42 0.45 NR
CRW-7 1/30/2013 NR 0.16 NR Conventional
CRW-7 4/25/2013 90.0 0.64 0.3 Equip. Only Purge
CRW-7 7/29/2013 84.3 0.64 0.3 Equip. Only Purge
CRW-7 1/30/2014 76.2 0.41 0.5 Conventional
CRW-7 7/29/2014 107 0.60 0.75 Conventional
CRW-7 1/27/2015 40.3 0.50 0.5 Conventional
CRW-7 7/28/2015 109 0.59 0.75 Conventional
CRW-7 1/12/2016 292 1.22 1.25 Conventional
CRW-7 7/12/2016 33.9 0.78 0.75 Conventional
Min:7.93
Max:598
Mean:90.3 0.60
1.
2.
3.
4.
"NR" means "not reported"
Turbidities over 10 are noted in bold
NTU stands for Nephelometric Turbidity Unit
Data provided by Duke Energy
Table 8 - Historical Turbidity Measurements, Purge Volumes, and Purge Techniques for Monitoring Well CRW-8R
Craig Road Landfill
Monitoring Well Evaluation
Well ID Sample Date Turbidity (NTU)Single Well Volume (gal.)Total Purge Volume (gal.)Purge Technique
CRW-8R 4/25/2013 22.7 1.75 5.25 Conventional
CRW-8R 7/29/2013 15.6 1.97 1.1 Low Flow
CRW-8R 1/27/2014 39.8 1.73 2.2 Low Flow
CRW-8R 7/29/2014 104 2.11 2.25 Low Flow
CRW-8R 1/27/2015 26.2 1.67 3.95 Low Flow
CRW-8R 2/10/2015 69.2 1.66 1.95 Low Flow
CRW-8R 7/28/2015 9.51 1.73 3.3 Low Flow
CRW-8R 1/12/2016 13.2 2.00 3.1 Low Flow
CRW-8R 7/12/2016 32.7 2.44 2.4 Low Flow
Min:9.51
Max:104
Mean:37.0 1.90
1.
2.
3.
4.
"NR" means "not reported"
Turbidities over 10 are noted in bold
NTU stands for Nephelometric Turbidity Unit
Data provided by Duke Energy
Table 9 - Historical Turbidity Measurements, Purge Volumes, and Purge Techniques for Monitoring Well CRW-9
Craig Road Landfill
Monitoring Well Evaluation
Well ID Sample Date Turbidity (NTU)Single Well Volume (gal.)Total Purge Volume (gal.)Purge Technique
CRW-9 1/30/2007 52.9 NR NR Conventional
CRW-9 7/16/2007 158 NR NR Conventional
CRW-9 1/23/2008 132 NR NR Conventional
CRW-9 7/1/2008 106 NR NR Conventional
CRW-9 1/5/2009 88.3 NR NR Conventional
CRW-9 7/13/2009 136 NR NR Conventional
CRW-9 1/5/2010 516 NR NR Conventional
CRW-9 3/29/2010 130 NR NR NR
CRW-9 7/26/2010 40.0 NR NR Conventional
CRW-9 1/19/2011 48.4 NR NR Conventional
CRW-9 7/20/2011 171 NR NR Conventional
CRW-9 1/10/2012 73.8 NR NR Conventional
CRW-9 7/30/2012 74.3 1.96 10 Conventional
CRW-9 11/8/2012 5.94 1.80 10 NR
CRW-9 1/31/2013 10.5 2.01 8 Conventional
CRW-9 4/24/2013 6.75 2.10 0.65 Low Flow
CRW-9 7/29/2013 9.80 2.06 0.95 Low Flow
CRW-9 1/30/2014 16.9 2.06 1.15 Low Flow
CRW-9 7/29/2014 11.5 2.00 2.9 Low Flow
CRW-9 1/27/2015 14.4 2.03 2.45 Low Flow
CRW-9 7/28/2015 160 1.82 6.1 Low Flow
CRW-9 1/12/2016 21.0 2.26 5.1 Low Flow
CRW-9 7/12/2016 16.5 2.13 2.2 Low Flow
Min:5.94
Max:516
Mean:87.0 2.02
1.
2.
3.
4.
"NR" means "not reported"
Turbidities over 10 are noted in bold
NTU stands for Nephelometric Turbidity Unit
Data provided by Duke Energy
Table 10 - Historical Turbidity Measurements, Purge Volumes, and Purge Techniques for Monitoring Well CRW-10
Craig Road Landfill
Monitoring Well Evaluation
Well ID Sample Date Turbidity (NTU)Single Well Volume (gal.)Total Purge Volume (gal.)Purge Technique
CRW-10 1/31/2007 225 NR NR Conventional
CRW-10 7/17/2007 365 NR NR Conventional
CRW-10 1/22/2008 379 NR NR Conventional
CRW-10 7/1/2008 434 NR NR Conventional
CRW-10 1/5/2009 377 NR NR Conventional
CRW-10 7/13/2009 308 NR NR Conventional
CRW-10 8/26/2009 45.0 NR NR NR
CRW-10 1/5/2010 539 NR NR Conventional
CRW-10 7/26/2010 48.0 NR NR Conventional
CRW-10 1/19/2011 31.0 NR NR Conventional
CRW-10 7/19/2011 52.1 NR NR Conventional
CRW-10 1/10/2012 51.2 NR NR Conventional
CRW-10 7/30/2012 4.17 0.98 2 NR
CRW-10 1/31/2013 6.14 1.22 3.75 Conventional
CRW-10 4/24/2013 7.69 1.23 4.5 Conventional
CRW-10 7/29/2013 4.03 1.09 5 Conventional
CRW-10 1/27/2014 3.41 1.20 6.25 Conventional
CRW-10 7/28/2014 36.8 0.88 1.75 Conventional
CRW-10 1/27/2015 22.2 0.97 1.5 Conventional
CRW-10 7/28/2015 48.1 0.71 1 Conventional
CRW-10 1/12/2016 28.4 1.33 4.25 Conventional
CRW-10 7/12/2016 5.43 1.07 4.75 Conventional
Min:3.41
Max:539
Mean:137 1
1.
2.
3.
4.
"NR" means "not reported"
Turbidities over 10 are noted in bold
NTU stands for Nephelometric Turbidity Unit
Data provided by Duke Energy
Table 11 - Historical Turbidity Measurements, Purge Volumes, and Purge Techniques for Monitoring Well CRW-11
Craig Road Landfill
Monitoring Well Evaluation
Well ID Sample Date Turbidity (NTU)Single Well Volume (gal.)Total Purge Volume (gal.)Purge Technique
CRW-11 1/31/2013 94.6 1.20 6.25 Conventional
CRW-11 4/23/2013 9.27 1.27 0.6 Low Flow
CRW-11 7/31/2013 6.00 1.28 0.65 Low Flow
CRW-11 1/30/2014 75.4 1.28 1.65 Low Flow
CRW-11 7/28/2014 11.1 1.29 0.55 Low Flow
CRW-11 1/27/2015 266 1.28 10 Conventional
CRW-11 2/10/2015 174 1.25 7.5 Conventional
CRW-11 7/28/2015 35.1 1.18 6.25 Conventional
CRW-11 1/12/2016 56.7 1.37 9 Conventional
CRW-11 7/12/2016 13.2 1.33 8 Conventional
Min:6.00
Max:266
Mean:74.1 1.27
1.
2.
3.
4.
"NR" means "not reported"
Turbidities over 10 are noted in bold
NTU stands for Nephelometric Turbidity Unit
Data provided by Duke Energy
Table 12 - Historical Turbidity Measurements, Purge Volumes, and Purge Techniques for Monitoring Well CRW-12
Craig Road Landfill
Monitoring Well Evaluation
Well ID Sample Date Turbidity (NTU)Single Well Volume (gal.)Total Purge Volume (gal.)Purge Technique
CRW-12 4/23/2013 7.43 1.41 4.5 Conventional
CRW-12 7/30/2013 8.84 1.52 2 Low Flow
CRW-12 1/27/2014 5.60 1.47 1.85 Low Flow
CRW-12 7/28/2014 8.83 1.49 1.95 Low Flow
CRW-12 1/26/2015 190 1.17 4.8 Low Flow
CRW-12 2/10/2015 8.89 1.15 3.4 Low Flow
CRW-12 7/27/2015 19.6 1.08 1.8 Low Flow
CRW-12 1/11/2016 13.4 1.54 5.55 Low Flow
CRW-12 7/11/2016 500 1.76 4.45 Low Flow
Min:5.60
Max:500
Mean:84.7 1.40
1.
2.
3.
4.
"NR" means "not reported"
Turbidities over 10 are noted in bold
NTU stands for Nephelometric Turbidity Unit
Data provided by Duke Energy
Table 13 - Historical Turbidity Measurements, Purge Volumes, and Purge Techniques for Monitoring Well CRW-13
Craig Road Landfill
Monitoring Well Evaluation
Well ID Sample Date Turbidity (NTU)Single Well Volume (gal.)Total Purge Volume (gal.)Purge Technique
CRW-13 4/23/2013 113 1.17 8.75 Conventional
CRW-13 7/30/2013 16.1 1.49 10 Conventional
CRW-13 1/27/2014 19.0 1.06 7.5 Conventional
CRW-13 7/28/2014 17.1 1.34 11.5 Conventional
CRW-13 1/26/2015 9.48 0.79 5 Conventional
CRW-13 7/27/2015 5.15 0.92 3 Conventional
CRW-13 1/11/2016 7.31 1.26 6 Conventional
CRW-13 7/11/2016 186 1.60 8.75 Conventional
Min:5.15
Max:186
Mean:46.6 1.20
1.
2.
3.
4.
"NR" means "not reported"
Turbidities over 10 are noted in bold
NTU stands for Nephelometric Turbidity Unit
Data provided by Duke Energy
Table 14 - Historical Turbidity Measurements, Purge Volumes, and Purge Techniques for Monitoring Well CRW-14
Craig Road Landfill
Monitoring Well Evaluation
Well ID Sample Date Turbidity (NTU)Single Well Volume (gal.)Total Purge Volume (gal.)Purge Technique
CRW-14 1/29/2013 11.2 2.93 15 Conventional
CRW-14 4/23/2013 5.81 3.01 16.25 Conventional
CRW-14 7/30/2013 8.63 2.65 2.2 Low Flow
CRW-14 1/27/2014 5.76 3.12 4.6 Low Flow
CRW-14 7/29/2014 6.59 2.43 2.5 Low Flow
CRW-14 1/26/2015 8.80 2.79 4.8 Low Flow
CRW-14 7/27/2015 3.13 2.45 2.25 Low Flow
CRW-14 1/11/2016 2.90 3.25 5.45 Low Flow
CRW-14 7/11/2016 5.77 2.67 1.85 Low Flow
Min:2.90
Max:11.2
Mean:6.51 2.81
1.
2.
3.
4.
"NR" means "not reported"
Turbidities over 10 are noted in bold
NTU stands for Nephelometric Turbidity Unit
Data provided by Duke Energy
Table 15 - Historical Turbidity Measurements, Purge Volumes, and Purge Techniques for Monitoring Well CRW-15
Craig Road Landfill
Monitoring Well Evaluation
Well ID Sample Date Turbidity (NTU)Single Well Volume (gal.)Total Purge Volume (gal.)Purge Technique
CRW-15 4/23/2013 14.5 1.17 7 Conventional
CRW-15 7/30/2013 2.15 0.99 1.1 Low Flow
CRW-15 1/27/2014 3.01 0.72 1.1 Low Flow
CRW-15 7/28/2014 4.44 0.67 1.1 Low Flow
CRW-15 1/26/2015 3.11 0.54 1.1 Low Flow
CRW-15 7/27/2015 1.45 0.59 1.15 Low Flow
CRW-15 1/11/2016 2.46 0.74 1.35 Low Flow
CRW-15 7/11/2016 3.06 0.62 1 Low Flow
Min:1.45
Max:14.5
Mean:4.27 0.76
1.
2.
3.
4.
"NR" means "not reported"
Turbidities over 10 are noted in bold
NTU stands for Nephelometric Turbidity Unit
Data provided by Duke Energy
Table 16 - Historical Turbidity Measurements, Purge Volumes, and Purge Techniques for Monitoring Well CRW-16
Craig Road Landfill
Monitoring Well Evaluation
Well ID Sample Date Turbidity (NTU)Single Well Volume (gal.)Total Purge Volume (gal.)Purge Technique
CRW-16 4/23/2013 7.82 1.46 6 Conventional
CRW-16 7/31/2013 29.4 1.46 9 Conventional
CRW-16 1/30/2014 42.2 1.30 7.5 Conventional
CRW-16 7/28/2014 11.4 1.27 7.5 Conventional
CRW-16 1/26/2015 8.18 1.22 6.5 Conventional
CRW-16 7/27/2015 8.85 1.19 2.2 Low Flow
CRW-16 1/11/2016 9.91 1.32 1.8 Low Flow
CRW-16 7/11/2016 9.32 1.29 2.95 Low Flow
Min:7.82
Max:42.2
Mean:15.9 1.31
1.
2.
3.
4.
"NR" means "not reported"
Turbidities over 10 are noted in bold
NTU stands for Nephelometric Turbidity Unit
Data provided by Duke Energy
Table 17 - Historical Turbidity Measurements, Purge Volumes, and Purge Techniques for Monitoring Well CRW-17
Craig Road Landfill
Monitoring Well Evaluation
Well ID Sample Date Turbidity (NTU)Single Well Volume (gal.)Total Purge Volume (gal.)Purge Technique
CRW-17 1/31/2013 NR 0.84 5 Conventional
CRW-17 4/23/2013 34.5 0.95 1.7 Low Flow
CRW-17 7/31/2013 49.6 1.04 4.7 Low Flow
CRW-17 1/30/2014 25.0 0.94 1.2 Low Flow
CRW-17 7/28/2014 12.4 1.07 1.2 Low Flow
CRW-17 1/27/2015 595 0.88 1.45 Low Flow
CRW-17 2/10/2015 47.5 0.86 6 Conventional
CRW-17 7/28/2015 33.0 0.83 4 Conventional
CRW-17 1/12/2016 47.5 0.95 5 Conventional
CRW-17 7/12/2016 37.7 1.20 7 Conventional
Min:12.4
Max:595
Mean:98.0 0.96
1.
2.
3.
4.
"NR" means "not reported"
Turbidities over 10 are noted in bold
NTU stands for Nephelometric Turbidity Unit
Data provided by Duke Energy