Cosler_Expert_Report_Allen_FINAL w Tables

Expert Report of
Douglas J. Cosler, Ph.D., P.E.
Chemical Hydrogeologist
Adaptive Groundwater Solutions LLC
Charlotte, North Carolina
Allen Steam Station Ash Basins
Belmont, North Carolina
February 29, 2016

Introduction
Site Backqround
The Allen Steam Station is a five -unit, coal-fired generating station owned by Duke Energy and located on
a 1,009-acre site near Belmont in Gaston County, North Carolina, adjacent to the west bank of the
Catawba River (Lake Wylie). Coal combustion residuals ("coal ash") has been disposed since 1957 in an
ash basin system located south of the station, consisting of an unlined active ash basin (formed in 1973)
and an inactive ash basin. The ash basin system is generally located in historical depressions formed
from tributaries that flowed toward the Catawba River. For example, HDR notes in CSA Section
12.2.2.15 that the southern portion of the active ash basin was constructed over two streams. The
inactive ash basin consists of: two unlined dry ash storage areas (1996); two unlined structural fill units
(2003-2009); and a double -lined dry ash landfill (2009), commonly referred to as the Retired Ash Basin
(RAB) Ash Landfill. The RAB is located on top of the inactive ash basin immediately northeast of the
active ash basin. The ash storage areas and structural fill units overlie the western part of the inactive
ash basin.
Duke Energy performed biannual voluntary groundwater monitoring at the site from May 2004 to
November 2010 and NPDES permit -required monitoring starting in March 2011. Groundwater sampling
results at Allen indicate exceedances of 15A NCAC 02L.0202 Groundwater Quality Standards (2L
Standards). In response to this, the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NC DEQ)
required Duke Energy to perform a groundwater assessment at the site and prepare a
Comprehensive Site Assessment (CSA) report. The Coal Ash Management Act of 2014 (CAMA) also
required owners of surface impoundments containing coal combustion residuals (CCR) to conduct
groundwater monitoring and assessment and prepare a CSA report. The August 2015 CSA prepared by
HDR Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinas (HDR) for the Allen site determined that ash handling and storage
at the Allen site have impacted soil and groundwater beneath and downgradient from the ash basin
system. The CSA report identified Constituents of Interest (COI) considered to be associated with
potential impacts to soil and groundwater from the ash basin and assessed COI concentration
distributions in soil, groundwater, and seeps.
CAMA also requires the submittal of a Corrective Action Plan (CAP); the CAP for the Allen site consists
of two parts. CAP Part 1 (submitted to DEQ in November 2015) provides a summary of CSA findings,
further evaluation and selection of COI, a site conceptual model (SCM), the development of groundwater
flow and chemical transport models of the site, presentation and analysis of the results of the modeling,
and a quantitative analysis of groundwater and surface water interactions. The CAP Part 2 (recently
completed and not available for meaningful review) will contain proposed remedial methods for achieving
2

groundwater quality restoration, conceptual plans for recommended corrective action, proposed future
monitoring plans, and a risk assessment
Information Reviewed
My opinions are based upon an analysis and technical review of (i) hydrogeologic and chemical data
collected at the Allen site; (ii) the analyses, interpretations, and conclusions presented in site -related
technical documents and reports; (iii) the groundwater flow and chemical transport models constructed
for the site (including model development, calibration, and simulations of remedial alternatives); (iv) the
effectiveness of proposed remedial alternatives to achieve groundwater quality restoration; and (v)
proposed future site monitoring. These opinions are subject to change as new information becomes
available.
As a basis for forming my opinions I reviewed the following documents and associated appendices:
(1) Comprehensive Site Assessment Report, Allen Steam Station Ash Basin (August 23, 2015);
(2) Corrective Action Plan, Part 1, Allen Steam Station Ash Basin (November 20, 2015);
(3) Miscellaneous historical groundwater and soil concentration data for the Allen site collected prior to
the CSA; and
(4) Specific references cited in and listed at the end of this report.
Professional Qualifications
I have advanced graduate degrees in Hydrogeology (Ph.D. Degree from The Ohio State University) and
Civil and Environmental Engineering (Civil Engineer Degree from the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology), and M.S. and B.S. degrees from Ohio State in Civil and Environmental Engineering. I have
36 years of experience as a chemical hydrogeologist and environmental engineer investigating and
performing data analyses and computer modeling for a wide variety of projects. These projects include:
investigation, remediation, and regulation of Superfund, RCRA, and other hazardous waste sites involving
overburden and bedrock aquifers; ground water flow and chemical transport model development; natural
attenuation/biodegradation assessments for chlorinated solvent and petroleum contamination sites;
volatile organic compound vapor migration and exposure assessment; exposure modeling for health risk
assessments; hydrologic impact assessment for minerals and coal mining; leachate collection system
modeling and design for mine tailings disposal impoundments; and expert witness testimony and
litigation support. I also develop commercial groundwater flow and chemical transport modeling software
for the environmental industry.
The types of sites I have investigated include: landfills, mining operations, manufactured gas plants,
wood -treating facilities, chemical plants, water supply well fields, gasoline and fuel oil storage/delivery
3

facilities, nuclear waste disposal sites, hazardous waste incinerators, and various industrial facilities. I
have investigated the following dissolved, nonaqueous-phase (LNAPL/DNAPL), and vapor -phase
contaminants: chlorinated solvents, various metals, gasoline and fuel oil constituents, wood -treating
products, coal tars, polychlorinated biphenyls, pesticides, dioxins and furans, phenolic compounds, flame
retardants (PBDE), phthalates, radionuclides, and biological constituents.
Summary of Opinions
The following is a brief summary of the opinions developed in my report:
• A total of 44 Compliance Boundary groundwater samples exceeded North Carolina groundwater
standards for these COI: boron, chromium, cobalt, iron, manganese, sulfate, total dissolved
solids, and vanadium. Of these 44 exceedances, 29 were greater than the proposed provisional
background concentrations by HDR, which exaggerate background levels;
• Most of the background wells are either likely to be downgradient from coal -ash source areas, or
appear to be downgradient from coal ash, and data from these wells overestimate actual site
background concentrations;
• The statistical analyses of background groundwater concentrations at the Allen site (well AB-1 R)
are invalid due to the characteristically slow rate of COI migration in groundwater;
• There is a significant risk of chemical migration from the ash basin to neighboring private and
public water supply wells in fractured bedrock;
• Major limitations of the CAP groundwater flow and chemical transport models prevent simulation
and analysis of off -site migration;
• The CAP Closure Scenario simulations greatly underestimate (by factors of 10 or more) the time
frames required to achieve meaningful groundwater concentration reductions in response to
remedial actions;
• For either the Existing Condition or Cap -in -Place Scenario groundwater concentrations of coal -
ash constituents much higher than background levels will continue to exceed North Carolina
groundwater standards at the Compliance Boundary because saturated coal -ash material and
secondary sources will remain in place;
• Source -area mass removal included in the Excavation Scenario results in COI concentration
reductions at the Compliance Boundary that are generally two to four times greater compared to
Cap -in -Place, best reduces impacts to surface water, and reduces cleanup times by a factor of
2.5-5. Additional excavation of secondary sources would further accelerate concentration
reductions;
• CSA data show multiple exceedances of groundwater standards in bedrock not only at the
compliance boundary but also inside the CB. However, the CAP Closure Scenarios do not
4

address either concentration reduction or off -site chemical migration control in the fractured
bedrock aquifer; and
• Future Compliance Monitoring at the Allen site should include much more closely -spaced
Compliance Wells to provide more accurate detection, and groundwater sampling frequency
should be re-evaluated to allow valid statistical analyses of concentration variations.
Hydrogeology of the Allen Site
Introduction
The groundwater system at the Allen site is an unconfined, connected system consisting of three basic
flow layers: shallow, deep, and fractured bedrock. The shallow and deep layers consist of residual soil,
saprolite (clay and coarser granular material formed by chemical weathering of bedrock), and weathered
fractured rock (regolith). A transition zone at the base of the regolith is also present and consists of
partially-weathered/fractured bedrock and lesser amounts of saprolite. The ash basins overlie native soil
and was constructed in historical drainage features formed from tributaries that flowed toward the
Catawba River using earthen embankment dams and dikes. HDR notes in CSA Section 12.2.2.15 that
the southern portion of the active ash basin was constructed over two streams. A large percentage of the
coal ash lies below the groundwater table and is saturated. Groundwater flow through saturated coal ash
and downward infiltration of rainwater through unsaturated coal ash leach COI into the subsurface
beneath the basin and via seeps through the embankments.
As described by HDR, groundwater flow in all three layers within the site boundary is generally from west
to east toward the Catawba River (Lake Wylie). Vertical groundwater flow between the three layers also
occurs, and surface water ponding in the active ash basin effects flow directions locally. Near the
western limits of the ash basin system is a groundwater "divide" where the flow direction changes from
west to east to a general westerly flow direction. The location of this divide and the nature of groundwater
flow west of the ash basin system were data gaps in the CSA and CAP Part 1 investigations; the CAP
Part 2 work plan recommended more investigation of these and other issues. On the eastern site
boundary the CSA and CAP investigations assumed that all groundwater at the Allen site (overburden
and bedrock aquifers) discharges into the Catawba River. However, these studies did not collect
hydrogeologic data or perform data analyses or groundwater flow modeling to support this assumption.
The CSA and CAP Part 1 also did not analyze potential changes to site groundwater flow directions, or
the risk of off -site migration of COI in the overburden or bedrock aquifers, caused by groundwater
extraction from numerous private and public water supply wells located close to the site boundaries and
near the eastern shore of the river.
5

My report begins with a discussion of significant errors in CSA data analysis and conceptual model
development that contradict HDR's interpretation of three-dimensional groundwater flow patterns at the
Allen site. This is followed by a presentation and discussion of measured exceedances of North Carolina
groundwater standards at multiple locations on the ash basin compliance boundary. I then address
several limitations of the CAP groundwater flow and chemical transport models and identify various model
input data errors. Finally, I present my evaluations of the CAP Closure Scenario simulations and provide
my opinions regarding the effectiveness of various remedial alternatives for restoring groundwater quality
to North Carolina standards.
Errors in Hydraulic Conductivity Test Analyses
Throughout the CSA and CAP reports HDR provides interpretations and conclusions regarding the
horizontal and vertical variations of groundwater flow directions and rates, and the fate and transport of
COI dissolved in groundwater. The most important site -specific parameter that controls these time -
dependent flow and transport mechanisms is the hydraulic conductivity (also referred to as "permeability")
of the underlying soils and fractured bedrock (Bear, 1979). Hydraulic conductivity (length/time) is a
media -specific measure of the rate at which water can flow through a porous (soil) or fractured (bedrock)
porous medium. Groundwater flow and chemical transport rates are directly proportional to the product of
hydraulic conductivity and the hydraulic gradient (hydraulic head difference between two points divided by
the separation distance; e.g., the water table elevation slope at the Allen site). Therefore, accurate
measurement of hydraulic conductivity is critical for understanding the current future distributions of COI
in soil and groundwater and for evaluating the effectiveness (e.g., cleanup times) of alternative remedial
measures.
In addition, the contrast in hydraulic conductivity between adjacent hydrogeologic units is the key factor in
determining three-dimensional groundwater flow directions and the ultimate fate of dissolved COI. For
example, at the Allen site accurate measurement of hydraulic conductivity is critical in evaluating the
potential for: downward chemical migration into the fractured bedrock unit, off -site COI migration in the
overburden (soil) or fractured bedrock aquifers, groundwater flow and COI transport into or beneath the
Catawba River.
A slug test is one of the standard field methods for measuring hydraulic conductivity (f) using a soil
boring or installed monitoring well. Slug tests were performed in most of the overburden and bedrock
wells at the Allen site. In this test the static water level in the open hole (boring) or well casing is
suddenly increased or decreased and the resulting transient change in water level is recorded. Two
commonly -used techniques for quickly changing the water level are the introduction (increases the water
level) and removal (decreases the water level) of a solid rod, or "slug" into the boring or well casing.
These tests are called "falling -head" and "rising -head" tests, respectively. Higher rates of water -level
N.

recovery correspond to higher values of K. The measurements of water level versus time are analyzed
using mathematical models of the groundwater flow hydraulics and information regarding the well
installation (e.g., length of the slotted monitoring well screen and well casing diameter) to compute an
estimate of K.
As discussed below, HDR made significant errors in all of their analyses of field slug test data. Their
analysis errors caused the reported (CSA report) slug test hydraulic conductivity values to be as great as
a factor of 50 smaller than the correct K values. I discuss the impacts of these major errors on HDR's
groundwater flow and chemical transport assessments and the CAP modeling throughout the remainder
of my report.
Bedrock Slug Tests
HDR made major mistakes in computing the bedrock hydraulic conductivity values using the field
monitoring -well slug -test results (CSA Appendix H). The Barker and Black (1983) slug test analysis
method used by HDR for bedrock wells was misapplied in all cases. The Barker -Black method is an
analytical solution that simulates water level changes in a well that fully penetrates a fractured isotropic
aquifer. The Barker -Black solution does not incorporate the well screen length as a parameter, as the
Bouwer-Rice (1976) method does (see following section). However, the screen length (length of the
slotted, or open, portion of the monitoring well) largely controls the hydraulic head changes in a partially -
penetrating (i.e., monitoring) well, along with the horizontal and vertical hydraulic conductivities of the
aquifer (Hantush, 1964; Bear, 1979). The ratio of the aquifer thickness to screen length is also
important.
As an illustration, in bedrock monitoring well GWA-3BR HDR used a well screen length of 248 feet
("saturated thickness" in their Appendix H Barker -Black analysis), but the true screen length in this well is
only five feet. Therefore, the Barker -Black model "thinks" a 248-foot thick aquifer is causing the water -
level change during the slug test, but the actual effective saturated thickness is about a factor of 50
smaller (i.e., on the order of the five-foot screen length). Using five feet for the saturated thickness in the
GWA-3BR slug test analysis would yield a true K estimate that is about a factor of 50 higher (— 248/5).
More accurate analyses of the bedrock slug tests also need to account for partial -penetration effects (i.e.,
the hydraulic effects of a pumping well with a "short" well screen located in a thicker aquifer).
Due to these errors the bedrock slug test results presented in the CSA are on the order of a factor of 50
too low. In the CAP flow model the bedrock is assumed to be factors of 40 to 4,000 lower than the
overburden aquifer in different areas (CAP Appendix C, Table 2). When these errors are corrected the
overall mean hydraulic conductivity for the bedrock unit is similar in magnitude to the overburden soils
and transition zone (CSA Table 11-10). If the mean bedrock permeability was actually 50-100 times
7

lower than the overburden aquifer there would be significant resistance to overlying groundwater and
dissolved COI migrating into the bedrock unit and flow and transport would tend to preferentially flow in
the overburden aquifer in a more predominantly horizontal direction (e.g., parallel to the bedrock surface).
However, that is not the case at the Allen site because the bedrock and overburden permeabilities are
similar in magnitude and downward groundwater flow in the upper portion of the bedrock unit is not
restricted. Moreover, the Allen site conceptual hydrogeologic model, the CSA field investigation and data
analyses, and the CAP flow and transport models were based on this incorrect bedrock hydraulic
conductivity assessment. I discuss these issues further in the "groundwater flow" section of my report.
Overburden Slug Tests
HDR analyzed all of the CSA overburden slug tests in shallow and deep wells with the Bouwer-Rice
(1976) method using a vertical anisotropy, Av = KnorizonraiIKverticat , that is a factor of five lower than the
values presented in the CSA report (e.g., compare geometric mean values in CSA Tables 11-10 and 11-
11) and used in the CAP modeling (CAP report Appendix C, Table 2). The values of Av in the CSA and
CAP modeling are generally on the order of ten for overburden soils, whereas the Bouwer-Rice slug test
analyses assumed Av = 2 (CSA Appendix H). Using the correct vertical anisotropy, Av = 10, increases all
of the measured overburden hydraulic conductivity values (CSA Table 11-4) by about 25 percent,
depending on how the slug -test radius of influence was computed.
Since every reported overburden K value in the CSA report (at least for new shallow and deep wells) is
approximately 25 percent too low, the actual average chemical transport rates in overburden soils are
about 25 percent greater than reported. This site -wide data reduction error also affects the CAP flow and
transport model calibrations. For example, the transport model developers significantly reduced
laboratory measurements of the soil -water partition coefficient, Kd, for various COI during the transport
model calibration based on comparisons of observed and simulated chemical migration rates. However,
if the correct (i.e., higher) overburden K values had been used in the model calibration the Kd values
would not have been reduced as much (compared to laboratory values). The reason for this is, assuming
linear equilibrium partitioning of COI with soil, the chemical migration rate is proportional to K/Kd (except
for Kd << 1). The CAP transport model history matching indicated that the simulated transport rate was
too low, so the model developers reduced the model Kd. In other words, the reductions in calibrated Kd
values would not have been as great if the correct (higher) K values were used in the first place. This is
important because, as discussed below, aquifer cleanup times (i.e., chemical flushing rates) are generally
proportional to the chemical retardation factor, which is directly proportional to Kd, except when Kd << 1
(Zheng et al., 1991).
R1

Groundwater Flow
Throughout the CSA and CAP reports HDR made several critical assumptions, not supported by data,
regarding the horizontal and vertical groundwater flow directions near the boundaries of the Allen site
which impacted their conclusions regarding the ultimate discharge locations for site groundwater and
dissolved COI. Two examples discussed in this section are (i) the relationship between site groundwater
and the Catawba River and (ii) groundwater flow directions and the potential for offsite migration of COI.
Catawba River and the LeGrand Conceptual Model
All groundwater at the Allen site was apparently assumed to discharge into the Catawba River according
to a generalized conceptual model (LeGrand, 2004) before actual site -specific hydrogeologic data were
analyzed. Statements to this effect were made at numerous points in the CSA and CAP reports.
However, HDR did not present any site -specific data analyses or groundwater flow modeling that would
support this assumption in either report. In fact, as discussed below, the CAP flow model boundary
conditions effectively forced site groundwater to discharge into the river at the downgradient model
boundary.
The LeGrand (2004) guidance document presents a general discussion of groundwater flow patterns that
may occur near streams in the Piedmont and Mountain Region of North Carolina based on ground
surface elevations (i.e., site topography and surface watershed boundaries). However, surface water and
groundwater watersheds commonly do not coincide (Winter et al., 2003). Further, groundwater flow
patterns and rates in bedrock have been found to be poorly related to topographic characteristics (Yin
and Brook, 1992). LeGrand does not present or derive any mathematical equations or quantitative
relationships for groundwater flow near rivers or streams. The author emphasizes that site -specific data
must be collected in order to correctly evaluate river inflow or outflow. In strong contrast to the LeGrand
generalizations, numerous detailed and sophisticated mathematical (analytical and numerical) river -
aquifer models and highly -monitored field studies have been published in the scientific and engineering
literature in the past several decades. What these investigations and applied hydraulic models show is
that the water flow rate into or out of a river or stream and the depth of hydraulic influence within an
underlying aquifer are highly sensitive to several factors, including: the transient river water surface
elevation and slope; river bed topography; bed permeability and thickness; horizontal and vertical
permeability (and thickness) of the different hydrogeologic units underlying the river; transient horizontal
and vertical hydraulic head variations in groundwater beneath and near the river; and groundwater
extraction rates and screen elevations for neighboring pumping wells (e.g., Simon et al. 2015; McDonald
and Harbaugh, 1988; Bear, 1979; Hantush, 1964).
The CSA investigation did not: measure river bed permeability or thickness; characterize the river
bathymetry; monitor transient water surface elevation variations at more than one location (one average
M

value was used); collect river bed hydraulic gradient data; measure horizontal or vertical overburden or
bedrock permeability beneath or on the east side of the river; characterize the geology beneath or east of
the river; measure hydraulic heads in the overburden or bedrock beneath or east of the river; or consider
the hydraulic effects of groundwater extraction from nearby water supply wells (e.g., the numerous private
homes located on the east bank of the Catawba River, near the southeast corner of the site, and west of
the property boundary). Much of the data that were collected in the CSA contradict the LeGrand
hypothesis at the Allen site. For example, strong downward flow components from deep to bedrock wells
were measured at each deep/bedrock monitoring cluster (GWA-5, GWA-3, and GWA-1) next to the
Catawba River (compare CSA Figures 6-6 and 6-7), and the following shallow -deep well clusters on the
west river bank: GWA-4, AB-9, and AB-10 (CSA Figures 6-5/6-6). Downward groundwater flow was also
measured at several other locations across the site (CSA Table 11-14). Maps of vertical hydraulic
gradient variations (e.g., contour maps) were not generated for the CSA, and HDR did not discuss the
significance of downward hydraulic gradients next to the river. These downward groundwater flow
measurements are consistent with the hydraulic conductivities of the bedrock and overburden being of
similar magnitude, as discussed above.
The strong measured downward groundwater flow components right next to the Catawba River indicate
that site groundwater is entering the deep fractured bedrock unit at the downgradient property boundary
and that not all of the site groundwater discharges into the river as the site Conceptual Model and the
CAP flow and transport models assume. The downward flow into bedrock at the downgradient property
boundary may also be due in part to groundwater extraction from private bedrock water supply wells
located along the eastern shore of the river, but in the CSA and CAP investigations HDR assumed these
factors related to the potential for off -site COI migration beneath the river were not important and did not
evaluate them. The assumption that all site groundwater discharges into the Catawba River may also be
related to the sparse number of bedrock monitoring wells (two) that were installed along the entire
downgradient property boundary.
Groundwater Flow Directions
The CSA assumptions and analysis errors discussed above have had a strong effect on: the Conceptual
Model development; the site hydrogeologic and COI transport assessment; the construction/calibration
of the CAP flow and transport models; and the simulations of CAP Close Scenarios. The hydrogeologic
assumptions should have been carefully evaluated and tested during the performance of the CSA and as
part of the CAP groundwater flow model construction and calibration to determine whether they were
valid. Instead, the hypotheses appear to have effectively guided the model development and led to
inaccurate interpretations.
10

As an illustration, the slug -test analysis mistakes have resulted in several inaccurate hydrogeologic
interpretations and conclusions in the Allen CSA with regard to groundwater flow and chemical transport
rates and directions (horizontal and vertical). Because the permeability of the weathered bedrock is
similar to the overlying soils the CSA and CAP interpretations that the bedrock acts as a lower confining
layer for groundwater flow and chemical transport is incorrect. As further discussed below in the model
review section, the much higher (after correction for errors) bedrock permeability also generally increases
the potential for off -site COI migration toward private and public water supply wells. Therefore, the CSA
and CAP conclusions that (i) all site groundwater discharges into the Catawba River and (ii) groundwater
and dissolved coal -ash constituents are restricted from migrating to the west toward the residential and
water supply wells are not consistent with the data.
Exceedances of Groundwater Standards
In this section I compare measured groundwater concentrations in shallow, deep, and bedrock
groundwater samples to North Carolina 2L and IMAC standards and show the following: (i) 34 measured
exceedances for several COI at multiple locations on the Compliance Boundary (CB); (ii) an additional 10
exceedances at CB locations beneath the Catawba River based on chemical transport modeling I
performed; (iii) 29 of the 44 Compliance Boundary exceedances were greater than the proposed
provisional background concentrations (PPBC) by HDR; (iv) 20 of the 44 Compliance Boundary
exceedances were greater than the maximum background concentration in the same hydrogeologic unit
(e.g., shallow, deep, or bedrock); (v) 13 additional exceedances were measured in wells located on the
Duke Energy property boundary (PB) in areas where the CB and PB do not coincide, as drawn by HDR;
(vi) 12 additional exceedances were observed in wells screened in the highly -permeable fractured
bedrock unit underlying the ash basin and located inside the CB; (vii) several background wells are likely
downgradient from coal ash and cannot be relied upon to provide accurate COI background levels; (viii)
excluding these questionable background wells which I believe to be downgradient from coal ash, 32 of
the 44 Compliance Boundary exceedances were greater than the maximum background concentration in
the same hydrogeologic unit; and (ix) the statistical analyses of groundwater concentrations at well AB-
1 R for purposes of defining background levels were performed incorrectly [HDR also believes AB-1 R may
be downgradient from COI discharging from the inactive ash basin (CSA Report Section 10.2)].
Throughout this report I reference the ash basin compliance boundary and the Duke Energy property
boundary for the Allen site as drawn on maps developed by HDR (e.g., CSA Figure 6-2). My reference to
the "compliance boundary" is only for identification purposes and not an opinion that this boundary as
drawn by HDR is accurate or legally correct.
11

Summary of Exceedances
Table 1 summarizes exceedances of 2L or IMAC standards in shallow, deep, and bedrock groundwater
samples obtained from monitoring wells located: (i) on the Ash Basin Compliance Boundary (CB) as
drawn by HDR; (ii) on the Duke Energy property boundary (PB), where the CB and PB do not coincide;
(iii) bedrock wells (BR) located inside the CB; and (iv) modeled Compliance Boundary concentrations
(CBM), using modeling techniques described below. The proposed provisional background
concentrations (PPBC) by HDR are also listed in Table 1.
A total of 34 Compliance Boundary groundwater samples exceeded North Carolina groundwater
standards for these COI: boron, chromium, cobalt, iron, manganese, sulfate, total dissolved solids, and
vanadium. I estimated an additional 10 exceedances at CB locations beneath the Catawba River based
on chemical transport modeling and measured upgradient concentrations (CBM). In addition, 12
exceedances were observed in wells screened in the highly fractured bedrock unit located inside the CB.
Thirteen more exceedances were measured in wells located on the Property Boundary in areas where
the CB and PB do not coincide, according to maps provided with the CSA and CAP.
Excluding questionable background wells which may be downgradient from coal ash, (footnote "g" in
Table 1; refer to discussion below), 32 of the 44 (measured plus modeled) Compliance Boundary
exceedances were greater than background levels (from the same hydrogeologic unit) for a particular
constituent. Nine of the 13 PB exceedances were greater than background levels. Because the bedrock
background well BG-2BR may be downgradient from coal ash, it appears that all of the 12 bedrock
exceedances were greater than BR background levels.
Ignoring the potential problems with background well (BG) locations (i.e., using all background wells), 20
of the 44 Compliance Boundary exceedances were greater than any BG concentration (from the same
hydrogeologic unit) for a particular constituent. Five of the 13 PB exceedances were greater than
maximum background levels. The concentrations for 10 of the 12 bedrock exceedances were greater
than any BR background level.
A total of 29 of the 44 Compliance Boundary exceedances were greater than the proposed provisional
background concentrations (PPBC) by HDR, which exaggerate background levels due to their reliance on
data from monitoring wells that I believe are downgradient from coal ash. Seven of the 13 property
boundary exceedances were greater than the PPBC.
Note that the iso-concentration contours in all of the CSA Section 10 figures and Figure ES-3 are not
consistent, and are in many cases misleading, with regard to chemical transport mechanisms in the
subsurface. For example, the iso-concentration contours in Section 10 generally closely encircle a
12

monitoring well and infer no subsequent transport downgradient from the well location. This contouring
problem is especially prevalent near the downgradient Duke Energy property boundary which coincides
with the western shore of the Catawba River. Figure ES-3 is a good example of this practice. These
closed contours at the downgradient property boundary suggest that COI transport beyond the farthest
downgradient line of monitoring wells does not occur and that no COI reach the Compliance Boundary
located beneath the river (where there are no monitoring wells). This is not the case, of course, for
several COI as demonstrated in the following section, where COI exceedances at the Catawba River
section of the Compliance Boundary are demonstrated by modeling, and illustrated by most of the CAP
model simulated "existing conditions" plume maps in CSA Appendix C which contain 'open contours" at
the river shoreline. If the CAP model grid did not stop short of the Compliance Boundary (CB) the
Appendix C existing condition COI plumes would reach the CB in most cases.
Modeled Compliance Boundary Exceedances
I computed Compliance Boundary (CB) concentrations labeled "CBM" with footnote "e" in Table 1 using a
calibrated one-dimensional, analytical chemical transport model (van Genuchten and Alves, 1982;
Equation C5) because the CB at these locations was up to 500 feet offshore beneath the Catawba River.
The CAP transport model grid did not extend to this downgradient portion of the CB, and HDR did not
evaluate COI concentrations at this location. I calibrated the analytical model to chemical -specific site
conditions (i.e., determined model input parameter values) using CAP transport model simulated
concentration versus time curves for "Existing Conditions" (CAP report Appendix C). The analytical
model input parameters in my model were: groundwater pore velocity, chemical retardation factor, and
longitudinal dispersivity.
Figures 1 a and 1 b show the close agreement between the analytical model simulation results (solid lines)
for Boron (Well GWA-4S) and Cobalt (Well GWA-5S), respectively, and the CAP model predictions from
Appendix C (solid circles). For each constituent, I used the calibrated analytical model to compute the
concentration versus time curve immediately downgradient at the Compliance Boundary (dashed lines).
The modeled CBM concentrations in Table 1 are equal to the product of the measured monitoring well
concentration and the ratio of the simulated CB and simulated monitoring well concentrations for 2015
(Figure 1).
Exceedances of Groundwater and Surface Water Standards in Seep Samples
Concentrations in several seep water samples exceeded relevant NCAC 2B, 2L and/or IMAC standards
for various COI (e.g., CSA Table 7-8, CSA Appendix F, CSA Figure 2-2, CAP Table 2-5.1 and 2-5.2). As
discussed in the introduction, the active ash basin at the Allen site is constructed above two historical
streams that are tributaries of the Catawba River (e.g., CSA Figure 2-3). Seeps S-3 and S-4, located
downgradient of the ash basin between the toe of dams and the Catawba River, coincide with the
13

downgradient portions of the historical streams visible on topographic maps (CAP Figure 2-2). Recent
surveys identified streams at these locations and at locations coinciding with seep locations S-1 and S-2,
as well as a wetland complex (CAP Figure 1-5). HDR describes seep locations S-1 through S-4 as
tributaries flowing toward the river (Lake Wylie) with well-defined stream channels of varying widths (2014
Seep Water and Monitoring Plan; Table 1).
Referring to my Table 1, 14 of the seep samples exceeded North Carolina groundwater standards (CSA
Table 7-8) for these COI: boron, iron, manganese, and vanadium. These samples are from seep
locations S-3, S-4, ANWW-002, ANWW-004, ANSW-001, and ANSW-015. The CAP report describes
seep locations S-1 and S-2 as "dry" and does not report sampling results, although other reports describe
streams with continuous flow at these locations. North Carolina surface water (213) standards have been
exceeded in seeps samples for these constituents (locations not specified): aluminum, copper, lead,
manganese, mercury, and total dissolved solids (CAP Table 2-5.2). CSA Appendix F notes that previous
seep sampling at locations S-1 through S-9 detected 2B exceedances for iron, manganese, zinc, and
thallium.
Determination of Background Concentrations
Background Well Locations
Most of the background wells at the Allen site have not been installed in locations that are clearly
upgradient from site -related coal -ash materials. For example, designated background well AB-1 R is likely
downgradient from the Inactive Ash Basin and Ash Storage Areas based on the hydraulic head
measurements at wells AB-38S and AB-1 R (e.g., the 622-, 623-, and 624-foot contours). In this regard,
Section 10.2 of the CSA report discusses the fact that a recent trend of increasing coal -ash constituent
concentrations has been observed at this location and acknowledges that AB-1 R may be downgradient
from the Inactive Ash Basin. The CSA report further recommends that data from this well needs to be
carefully evaluated to determine whether it can continue to be used for background monitoring.
In addition, well BG-1 S is directly downgradient from the western half of the Active Ash Basin based on
the 636- and 637-foot hydraulic head contours in CSA Figure 6-5 (HDR did not draw these specific
contours). The light -blue "approximate groundwater flow direction" arrows in this area are incorrectly
drawn. Well BG-2S may be downgradient from the Inactive Ash Basin and the Ash Storage Areas
according to hydraulic head measurements in these areas.
Deep background well BG-1 D is likely downgradient from the western half of the Active Ash Basin based
on hydraulic head measurements in this area [e.g., the 636-foot hydraulic head contour in CSA Figure 6-6
(not drawn by HDR)]. The light -blue "approximate groundwater flow direction" arrows in this area are
14

incorrectly drawn. Well BG-21D may be downgradient from the Inactive Ash Basin and Ash Storage
Areas.
Bedrock background well BG-2BR may be downgradient from site -related coal -ash materials based on
the bedrock hydraulic head map (CSA Figure 6-7) and due to groundwater extraction from private and
public water supply wells located immediately west of the Allen site. As discussed throughout my report,
the CSA and CAP modeling failed to analyze the effects of off -site groundwater extraction.
Statistical Analyses of Background Concentrations
Appendix G of the CSA report presents statistical analyses of historical concentrations from shallow
Monitoring Well AB-1 R, which HDR described as following methods specified by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA, 2009), in an attempt to establish background groundwater concentrations for the
Allen site. As outlined in Sections 3.2.1 and 5.5.2 of the EPA guidance document these data must be
checked to ensure that they are statistically independent and exhibit no pairwise correlation.
Groundwater sampling data can be non -independent (i.e., autocorrelated) if the sampling frequency is too
high (i.e., time interval between sampling events is too small) compared to the chemical migration rate in
the aquifer (groundwater pore velocity divided by chemical retardation factor). Section 14 of the EPA
guidance presents methods for ensuring that the AB-1 R background data are not autocorrelated, but the
analyses in CSA Appendix G did not include evaluations for statistical independence.
As an illustration, "slow -moving" groundwater combined with high chemical retardation (i.e., large soil -
water partition coefficients, Kd), which is the case at the Allen site, can lead to the same general volume
of the chemical plume being repeatedly sampled when the monitoring events are closely spaced. For
example, the groundwater pore velocity (Vp) near well AB-1 R is on the order of 8 feet per year based on
the measured hydraulic conductivity (slug test results in CSA Table 11-5) and the horizontal hydraulic
gradients in this area (CSA Figure 6-5). Note that shallow pore velocities are generally a factor of 200
greater in many areas downgradient of the ash basin system due to much greater hydraulic gradients (-
20x larger) and larger hydraulic conductivity (— 10x greater) in this area. In addition, groundwater pore
velocities in deep overburden and in fractured bedrock are generally more than a factor of 1,000 greater
than velocities in the shallow overburden (CSA Table 11-13).
The retardation factors, Rd, based on laboratory Kd measurements (Kd — 10 cm3/g, or greater) are on the
order of 100 (or greater) for many of the COI (except conservative parameters such as sulfate and
boron). Accordingly, based on measured sorption values and average permeability values for the aquifer
the mean chemical migration rate (Vp /Rd) near background well AB-1 R is on the order of 0.1 ft/yr for
several of the non -conservative COI, assuming linear equilibrium sorption (refer to discussion below). For
the AB-1 R quarterly sampling, the non -conservative chemical migration distance between AB-1 R
15

sampling rounds (3 months) is less than 0.1 feet for some COI, which is approximately equal to the
sandpack diameter for the monitoring wells. Therefore, the AB-1 R background samples are basically
representative of the same volume of the plume (i.e., the vicinity of the sandpack, depending on the well
purge volume) for many COI, and the measured sample concentration changes analyzed in the CSA are
not due to actual chemical transport effects in the overburden aquifer. This means that the groundwater
samples are non -independent and that the statistical analyses of background concentrations at AB-1 R do
not satisfy the key requirements of the analysis method.
CAP Groundwater Flow Model Underestimates Potential for Off -Site Chemical Migration
My discussions in this section focus on limitations of the CAP groundwater flow model. I focus specifically
on model boundary conditions representing the Catawba River; the overall size of the model grid and no -
flow boundary conditions on the western, southern, and northern grid boundaries; the misrepresentation
of groundwater flow in the fractured bedrock aquifer; and the potential for off -site groundwater flow in
relation to groundwater extraction from numerous private and public water supply wells located close to
the model boundaries, but not incorporated into the flow model.
Catawba River Boundary Condition
The CAP groundwater flow model forces all groundwater at the downgradient property boundary to
discharge directly into the Catawba River and significantly underestimates the potential for off -site flow
and chemical migration in fractured bedrock. [The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) model review
letter (October 20, 2015) refers to the use of drain (i.e., 'leaky type") boundary conditions in the flow
model, through which 17 percent of the site groundwater discharges from the model, but the CAP report
does not show their location or clearly discuss their hydraulic effect on the flow regime.] No -flow
boundary conditions defined along the entire western, northern, and southern model boundaries and the
bottom two layers (i.e., bedrock) of the eastern boundary prevent any off -site flow and chemical transport
in these areas (refer to Figures 1 and 4 in Appendix C of the CAP Report). The bottom surface (bedrock)
of the flow model is also assumed to be a no -flow boundary even though the hydraulic conductivity data
and measured downward hydraulic gradients at several monitoring well clusters do not support this
assumption. The only locations where groundwater and dissolved constituents are allowed to leave the
model (other than the unexplained drain leakage at the top of the model) are the vertical array of cells
located above the bedrock unit along the eastern grid boundary, which are assumed to represent the
Catawba River; these cells are specified as constant -head boundary conditions in which the head is
uniform with depth.
16

This hydraulic representation of the Catawba River in the flow model is inaccurate for many reasons.
First, the river bottom is assumed to extend all the way through the overburden aquifer to the bedrock
surface, which is not the case. Second, groundwater flow beneath and adjacent to the river is assumed
to be horizontal with zero vertical flow component. Because this boundary condition does not allow
groundwater to flow vertically in areas beneath and near the river, the CAP model does not represent
actual site hydrologic conditions. Groundwater flow at the Allen site is not strictly horizontal and, as
discussed above, many of the vertical hydraulic gradient measurements (including next to the river) are
downward. Third, as represented in the CAP model, neither the lower -permeability river bed sediments
nor the smaller vertically hydraulic conductivity of underlying soils restricts the potential flow rate into or
out of the river (i.e., in the CAP model a perfect hydraulic connection exists between the aquifer and the
Catawba River). The actual degree of aquifer -river hydraulic connection was not evaluated in the CSA or
CAP. In summary, due to all of these factors the potential for site groundwater and dissolved constituents
to migrate off -site eastward beyond the Catawba River or southward as underflow beneath the river
cannot be evaluated with the model. As I discuss in this report, the consistent measured downward
groundwater flow components from deep overburden into the highly -permeable bedrock aquifer next to
the Catawba River indicates that COI may be migrating off -site beneath the river, which is a major
contradiction of the Allen site conceptual model.
The CAP model should have represented the Catawba River using a "leaky -type" (i.e., river) boundary
condition in the top model layer (McDonald and Harbaugh, 1988), and the model grid should have
extended farther east so that the above factors could have been evaluated during model calibration and
sensitivity analyses. The model also should have included groundwater extraction from the private water
supply wells installed at many points close to the eastern river bank. The Electric Power Research
Institute technical review committee, which included the developer of the MT3D transport code used in
the CAP modeling, made the same comment (October 20, 2015 memorandum entitled "Allen Model
Review", which was submitted with the CAP report). A river boundary condition incorporates the bed
permeability and thickness, the river water surface elevation, and the simulated hydraulic head in the
aquifer (at the base of the river bed) to dynamically specify a flux (flow rate per unit bed area) into or out
of the groundwater model depending on the head difference between the river and aquifer. Typically,
permeability and vertical hydraulic gradient measurements for the river bed (not collected in the CSA) and
flow model calibration (three-dimensional matching of simulated and measured hydraulic head
measurements in the aquifer) are used to determine a best -fit estimate of river bed conductance
(permeability divided by thickness) in the model. Again, this routine analysis was not performed.
Limitations of No -Flow Boundary Conditions and Small Model Domain Size
The limited areal extent and depth of the CAP flow and transport model grids prevent the use of the
models as unbiased computational tools that can be used to evaluate off -site migration of coal -ash
17

constituents. For example, the model grids should have extended farther west to include the South Fork
Catawba River and also incorporated groundwater extraction from off -site private -home and public water -
supply wells. The western no -flow boundary in the current CAP models artificially prevents any off -site
flow or transport to the west in either the bedrock or overburden aquifers. The same is true for the entire
northern and southern model boundaries despite the fact that several private homes are also located
south of the Active Ash Basin and shallow, deep, and bedrock hydraulic head maps exhibit southeasterly
flow components in this area. Artificial limitations created by the eastern Catawba River boundary
condition are outlined above. In addition, the downgradient boundaries of the CAP flow and transport
models do not extend to the Compliance Boundary (except for a small interval near Well GWA-3), which
prevents their use for estimating Compliance Boundary concentrations for various remedial alternatives.
The bottom boundaries of the CAP models should extend much deeper because the hydraulic
conductivity of the fractured bedrock zone is of the same order of magnitude as the overburden soils
when corrected for slug test analysis errors. In the present configuration the lower boundary of the model
grids is only about 50 feet below the bedrock surface. Because several bedrock wells were screened to
this depth the bedrock hydraulic conductivity data collected for the CSA demonstrate that imposing an
impermeable model boundary at this depth is incorrect. As discussed above, the strong measured
downward hydraulic gradients between deep and bedrock wells (e.g., Wells GWA-5, GWA-3, GWA-1 next
to the Catawba River, and Well BG-2) demonstrate that vertical and horizontal groundwater flow in
bedrock is important, and these transport mechanisms need to be accurately simulated in the CAP
models in order to accurately assess the potential for off -site chemical migration.
Off -Site Groundwater Extraction
The CSA and CAP fail to examine the strong potential for coal -ash constituents from the Allen site to
migrate with groundwater to private and public bedrock water supply wells located immediately west,
south, and east (near the eastern bank of the Catawba River) of the Duke Energy property boundary.
CSA Figure 4-2 shows the locations of private and public water supply wells near the site. The basis of
my opinion includes the following: hydraulic conductivity measurements for the overburden and bedrock
formations, including my corrections to the bedrock slug test analyses; three-dimensional variations in
measured hydraulic head in the bedrock and overburden units; groundwater concentration data; and
calculations of potential hydraulic head reductions (i.e., drawdown) that could be caused by off -site
groundwater extraction. As discussed throughout my report, neither the CSA nor CAP investigations
addressed the potential for off -site migration.
COI's were detected in several water supply well samples (CSA Appendix B), but the CSA report did not
plot these detections on a map and did not discuss their possible relationship to the Allen site. Appendix
B also did not present the well construction details (e.g., well diameter and elevation range of the well
18

screen or open bedrock interval) so that well dilution effects and potential chemical transport pathways in
the bedrock unit could be evaluated. In addition, the CSA investigations and CAP modeling did not
include these areas west of the Allen site. The additional hydrogeologic and chemical data collection that
CAP Part 1 recommended may address some of these data gaps; however, the model grid size
changes, the boundary condition limitations, and the model input data errors that I have outlined would
need to be corrected in the CAP 2 model before it could be used to accurately analyze the potential for
off -site chemical transport.
One of the major input data errors is the bedrock hydraulic conductivity, which is assumed in the CAP
flow model to be factors of 40 to 4,000 lower than the overburden aquifer in different areas (CAP
Appendix C, Table 2). The corrected bedrock slug test results show that the mean bedrock permeability
is approximately the same as the overburden permeability. Therefore, downward groundwater flow from
the overburden aquifer into the upper portion of the bedrock unit is not restricted, as the CAP model
represents, and the potential for off -site chemical migration is underestimated by the model.
CAP Chemical Transport Modeling
Due to model calibration, model construction, and boundary -condition and input -data errors the CAP
models significantly underestimate remediation time frames. As discussed in this section, reasons for this
include significant underestimation of the chemical mass sorbed to soil, failure to account for slow
chemical desorption rates, inaccurate analyses of water -table lowering due to capping, and flaws in the
transport model calibration.
Soil -Water Partition Coefficients and Model Calibration
The fraction of chemical mass sorbed to soil can be represented by the soil -water partition coefficient, Kd
(Lyman et al., 1982). Kd is an especially important parameter at the Allen site because for most of the
COI the bulk of the chemical mass in the soil is associated with the solid phase (i.e., sorbed to soil grains
rather than dissolved in pore water). In effect, the solid fraction of the soil matrix acts as a large "storage
reservoir" for chemical mass when Kd is large [e.g., metals, many chlorinated solvents, and highly -
chlorinated polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) compounds associated with coal tars and wood -
treating fluids]. Kd is also a very important chemical transport parameter which is used to compute the
chemical retardation factor, Rd, assuming linear equilibrium partitioning of mass between the soil (solid)
and pore -water phases (Hemond and Fechner, 1994):
Rd = 1 + PbKd In,
19

where p,, is the soil matrix bulk dry density and ne is the effective soil porosity. For example, the
chemical migration rate is directly proportional to hydraulic conductivity and inversely proportional to Rd .
The total contaminant mass in an aquifer is also directly proportional to Rd, as well as aquifer cleanup
times once the source is removed (e.g., Zheng et al., 1991).
Accordingly, it is very important to use accurate Kd values in the CAP Closure Scenario modeling.
Specifically, the CAP transport modeling used Kd values that were typically factors of 10 - 100 (i.e., one
to two orders of magnitude) smaller than the measured site -specific Kd's reported in CAP Appendix D.
Note that the Kd values in Appendix D are also similar in magnitude to EPA measurements at the Allen
Site (EPA, 1985, Table 5.4). Further, the CAP model soil -water partition coefficients are significantly
smaller than most values presented in the literature for the COI (e.g., EPRI, 1984; Baes and Sharp,
1983). This means that, using the actual measured Kd's for the Allen site, the times required to reach
North Carolina water quality standards at the Compliance Boundary are more than a factor of 10 longer
(see additional discussion below) than cleanup times predicted by the CAP transport model.
The CAP modeling report (CAP Appendix C; Section 4.8) argues that the major Kd reductions were
needed due to the following:
"The conceptual transport model specifies that COis enter the model from the shallow saturated source
zones in the ash basins. When the measured Kd values are applied in the numerical model to COls
migrating from the source zones, some COls do not reach the downgradient observation wells where they
were observed in June/July 2015 at the end of the simulation period. The most appropriate method to
calibrate the transport model in this case is to lower the Kd values until an acceptable agreement
between measured and modeled concentrations is achieved. Thus, an effective Kd value results that
likely represents the combined result of intermittent activities over the service life of the ash basin. These
may include pond dredging, dewatering for dike construction, and ash grading and placement. This
approach is expected to produce conservative results, as sorbed constituent mass is released and
transported downgradient."
First, considering the approach that was used to develop the chemical transport model (history matching),
it is not true that "the most appropriate method to calibrate the transport model is to lower the Kd values."
The CAP transport model used an incorrect value (2.65 g/cm3) for overburden materials; this value is the
density of a solid mass of mineral (e.g., quartz) with zero porosity. The bulk density should have been
computed using the total porosity (n) values in CSA Table 11-1 using the following formula (e.g., Baes
and Sharp, 1983):
Pb = 2.65 (1— n)
Based on the Table 11-1 values Pb — 1.1 - 1.8 g/cm3, which means that the CSA model Rd values before
Kd adjustment were as much as a factor of 2.4 (2.65/1.1) too high. Also, as discussed earlier, the
20

overburden slug test values were about 25 percent too low. Both of these errors correspond to a
modeled transport rate that was up to three times too low before calibration simply due to data input
errors.
At least two other important factors were not considered during the transport model calibration. First, the
groundwater flow model is based on average hydraulic conductivity (K) values within a material zone, but
K distributions in aquifers are highly variable (e.g., varying by factors of 3-10, or more, over distances as
small as a few feet: Gelhar, 1984, 1986, 1987; Gelhar and Axness, 1983; Rehfeldt et al., 1992;
Rehfeldt and Gelhar, 1992; Molz, 2015). The Allen site hydrogeology certainly qualifies as
"heterogeneous". This is very important to consider for the CAP transport model calibration because the
high -permeability zones and/or layers control the time required (Ttra el ) for a constituent to reach a
downgradient observation point, and HDR used differences in observed versus simulated Tt,,,,el (i.e., time
to travel from sources zones to downgradient monitoring wells) as the justification for lowering measured
Kd values.
Second, the history matching that was performed is very sensitive to the assumed time at which the
source (i.e., coal ash) is "turned on" and the assumed distribution of source concentrations (fixed pore
water concentrations) in source area cells. Section 5.2 of CAP Appendix C explains that the source was
activated 58 years ago and that:
"a source term matching the pore water concentrations for each COI was applied within the inactive ash
basin, active ash basin and the ash storage areas at the start of the calibration period. The source
concentrations were adjusted to match measured values in the downgradient monitoring wells that had
exceedances of the 2L Standard for each
COI in June 2015."
For several reasons it is a major simplification (and generally inaccurate) to use 2015 ash pore water
concentrations to define year-1957 source zone (fixed concentration) boundary conditions. These
reasons include: coal ash was gradually and nonuniformly distributed (spatially and temporally) in ash
basins throughout the 58-year simulation period (not instantaneously in 1957); it is very difficult (or not
possible) to accurately extrapolate geochemical or ash -water leaching conditions (i.e., predict COI pore -
water concentrations) that existed during the 2015 sampling round to conditions that may have existed in
1957 and thereafter; the actual source -area concentration distributions are highly nonuniform, but it is not
clear from the CAP modeling report how "... source concentrations were adjusted to match measured
values ... ", or if the source area concentrations were nonuniform. All of these uncertainties are further
magnified when using history matching to calibrate a transport model.
Based on the above model input errors and major uncertainties in hydraulic -conductivity variations and
source -term modeling, it is incorrect for HDR to simply reduce Kd values by factors of 10 to 100 below site
21

measurements (and the large database of literature Kd values) based only on the transport model "history
matching" exercises that HDR performed. My additional comments on the CAP 1 transport modeling of
Closure Scenarios are listed in the following section.
Simulation of Closure Scenarios
As discussed below, CAP 1 Closure Scenario simulations greatly underestimate (by factors of 10 or
more) the time frames required to achieve meaningful groundwater concentration reductions in response
to remedial actions. Compared to the Cap -in -Place remedial alternative evaluated in the CAP Part 1, the
Excavation Scenario results in COI concentration reductions at the Compliance Boundary that are
generally two to four times greater compared to Cap -in -Place and best reduces impacts to surface water.
In addition, the time frames to achieve equivalent concentration reductions are factors of 2.5 to 5 shorter
for excavation compared to cap -in -place.
Source Concentrations for Cap -in -Place Scenario
In this scenario the CAP 1 flow model predicts a cap -induced water -table decline equal to approximately
26 feet (relative to the Existing Conditions simulation) in the center of the inactive ash basin; the
predicted water -table decline in the active ash basin is about 36 feet. The geologic cross -sections
presented in the CSA show that the saturated coal ash thickness at several locations is up to twice the
value assumed in the Cap -in -Place simulation. For example, the CSA geologic cross -sections show
saturated coal ash thicknesses in the active ash basin equal to about 54 feet at boring AB-25 and in
cross-section E-E ; 95 feet across cross-section B-B ; 47 feet at boring AB-21; and 70 feet across
section F-F . Saturated coal ash thicknesses in the inactive ash basin are equal to approximately 43 feet
at boring AB-29; 29 feet at boring AB-29; and 29 feet in cross-section D-D .
This means that under the simulated Cap -In -Place Scenario up to one-half of the coal ash, which is the
source of dissolved COI, would remain saturated and continue to leach constituents into groundwater.
The CAP 1 simulations ignored this fact and set all source concentrations equal to zero (i.e., assumed all
coal ash was dewatered). Therefore, the simulated Cap -in -Place concentrations should be much higher
than the values presented in the CAP.
It is important to note, however, that the CAP groundwater flow model simulations exaggerate the
hydraulic effects of the cap (i.e., overstates water table lowering) due to the no -flow boundaries and the
incorrect (i.e., significantly too low) bedrock permeability. The no -flow boundary conditions along the
entire western, southern, and northern grid boundaries prevent flow into the ash basin when large,
laterally inward hydraulic gradients are created by capping. In addition, the flow model uses a hydraulic
conductivity value that is on the order of 50-100 (or greater) times too small, thus restricting upward flow
from bedrock into the capped area and exaggerating predicted water table lowering.
22

In addition, a site -specific distribution of groundwater recharge values should have been developed for
this and the other simulation scenarios to take into account site -specific topography and soil types (e.g.,
runoff estimation) and climate data (precipitation, evapotranspiration, etc.; e.g., using the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers HELP Model; Schroeder et al., 1994). The CAP flow model uses an assumed
uniform value of 5 inches year outside of the Ash Basin System and 8.5 inches/year inside ash basins
(except zero recharge for the Retired Ash Basin) even though the actual values are highly variable across
the Ash Basin System and site land surface. The predicted water table lowering due to capping is very
sensitive to the model recharge value, so more effort should have been made to develop a site -specific
recharge -rate distribution.
Slow and Multirate Nonequilibrium Desorption of COI
Since the 1980's the groundwater industry has learned how difficult it is to achieve water quality
standards at remediation sites without using robust corrective actions such as source removal (Hadley
and Newell, 2012, 2014; Siegel, 2014). Two of the key reasons for this in aqueous -phase contaminated
soil are inherently low groundwater or remediation fluid flushing rates in low -permeability zones and slow,
nonequilibrium chemical desorption from the soil matrix (Culver et al., 1997, 2000; Zheng et al., 2010). A
good example of this is the "tailing effect" (i.e., very slow concentration reduction with time) that is
commonly observed with pump -and -treat, hydraulic containment systems. These factors are also related
to the "rebound effect" in which groundwater concentrations sometimes increase shortly after a
remediation system is turned off (Sudicky and Illman, 2011; Hadley and Newell, 2014; Culver et al.,
1997).
The CAP flow model uses different permeability (K) zones, but the scale of these zones is very large and
within each zone K is homogeneous even though large hydraulic conductivity variations (e.g., lognormal
distribution) are known to exist at any field site over relatively small length scales (Molz, 2015). Moreover,
the transport model assumes linear, equilibrium soil -water partitioning which corresponds to
instantaneous COI release into flowing groundwater. The transport code (MT3D) has the capability of
simulating single -rate nonequilibrium sorption, but the Close Scenario simulations did not utilize this
modeling feature. Slow desorption of COI can also be expected at the Allen site because sorption rates
are generally highly variable, and multi -rate (Culver et al., 1997, 2000; Zheng et al., 2010), and Kd
values are nonuniform spatially (Baes and Sharp, 1983; EPRI, 1984; De Wit et al., 1995. The CAP flow
and transport models can be expected to significantly underestimate cleanup times required to meet
groundwater standards at the compliance boundary because they do not incorporate these important
physical mechanisms.
23

Adequacy of the Kd Model for Transport Simulation
The laboratory column experiment effluent data (CAP Appendix D) generally gave very poor matches with
the analytical (one-dimensional) transport model used to compute Kd values. Since the CAP transport
model solves the same governing equations in three dimensions, the adequacy of the Kd modeling
approach for long-term remedial simulations should have been evaluated in much more detail in the
modeling appendix. The sensitivity analyses that were performed only varied Kd by +/- 20 percent (Table
7 in CAP Appendix C), which is much too small to address the actual uncertainty.
The transport modeling also did not evaluate alternative nonlinear sorption models such as the Freundlich
and Langmuir isotherms (Hemond and Fechner, 1994), which are input options in the MT31D transport
code. Several of the batch equilibrium sorption experiments (CAP Appendix D) exhibited nonlinear
behavior, and such behavior is commonly observed in other studies (e.g., EPRI, 1984). However, HDR
only computed linear sorption coefficients (i.e., Kd) for the Allen site. De Wit et al. (1995) showed that the
nonlinear sorption mechanism is similar in importance to aquifer heterogeneities in extending remediation
time frames.
Closure Scenario Time Frames
As outlined in my report, the CAP chemical transport model underestimates the time intervals required to
achieve groundwater concentration reductions (i.e., achieve groundwater quality restoration) by a factor
of 10 or more. In other words, the CAP transport model significantly overestimates the rate at which
concentrations may reduce in response to remedial actions such as capping or source removal. This is
due to several factors, including major errors in model input data, model calibration mistakes, field data
analysis errors, and oversimplified model representation of field conditions (e.g., hydraulic conductivity)
and transport mechanisms (e.g., chemical sorption/desorption). These limitations of transport models for
realistically predicting cleanup times have been recognized by the groundwater industry for the past few
decades based on hands-on experience at hundreds of extensively -monitored remediation sites.
Even if we ignore the factors of 10 or more errors in cleanup time predictions with the CAP model, the
remediation time frames for the Excavation Scenarios are still more than two centuries for several
constituents due to slow groundwater flushing rates from secondary sources (surrounding residual soil)
left in place after excavation and due to high chemical retardation factors for most of the COI. However,
excavation of secondary -source material would further accelerate cleanup rates under this alternative.
The simulated Cap -In -Place concentration reduction rates are much slower, compared to excavation, but
are also incorrect (i.e., overestimated) because the cap -induced water -table lowering is insufficient to
dewater all of the source -area coal ash, as discussed above, and the CAP flow model overestimates cap -
induced water -table lowering due to boundary condition errors. Furthermore, these simulation times are
well beyond the prediction capabilities of any chemical transport model for a complex field site (especially
24

one that is as geochemically complex as the Allen site). The historical model -calibration dataset (1957-
2015) is also significantly smaller than the predictive (remediation) time frames. In addition, the "history
matching" technique used to calibrate the transport model (e.g., major reduction in measured Kd values)
was not performed correctly.
Cap -In -Place versus Excavation Closure Scenarios
Even though the CAP model underestimates remediation time frames, the CAP Closure Scenario
simulations demonstrate several significant advantages of excavation for restoring site groundwater
quality versus cap -in -place. First, predicted COI concentration reductions in groundwater downgradient
from the ash basin system are generally factors of 2-4 greater with excavation compared to cap -in -place
(e.g., refer to most of the simulated concentration versus time curves in CAP Appendix C). Further, if the
cap -in -place simulations would have been performed correctly the simulated cap -in -place concentrations
would be much higher because predicted water -table lowering due to the cap would be insufficient to
dewater all of the coal ash. Second, North Carolina 2L or IMAC standards for many COI are not achieved
by cap -in -place but are achieved by excavation (e.g., Appendix C Figures 16, 17, 31, 74, and 104-107).
Third, the time frames to achieve equivalent concentration reductions are factors of 2.5 to 5 (2.5 - 5x)
shorter for excavation compared to cap -in -place [e.g., Antimony, 2.5x (Fig. 17), 4x (Fig. 16); Arsenic, 5x
(Fig. 30); Barium, 5x (Fig. 44); Chromium, 4x (Fig. 74); Cobalt, 3x (Fig. 105); Selenium, 2.5 (Fig. 121) ].
The CAP Closure Scenarios do not include hydraulic containment remedial alternatives (e.g., gradient
reversal) for the bedrock aquifer that would address the risk of off -site COI transport. As discussed
above, the CSA data show many exceedances of groundwater standards in bedrock not only at the
compliance boundary but also inside the CB. In addition, strong downward groundwater flow components
from the deep overburden to bedrock aquifers were measured during the CSA at multiple locations
across the site, including the western shoreline of the Catawba River. The cap -in -place alternative does
not address either concentration reduction or off -site chemical migration control in the fractured bedrock
aquifer.
The CAP does not assess whether water quality standards will be achieved in the tributaries and
wetlands between the ash basins and the Catawba River under any closure scenario. Tributaries
downgradient of the active ash basin currently receive contaminated groundwater discharge from the
active ash basin at seep locations S-3 and S-4. As discussed above, for the cap -in -place scenario a
significant fraction of the source material will remain saturated and dissolved COI will continue to migrate
with groundwater toward these seep locations. Although unaddressed by the model, COI concentration
decreases in groundwater and unsaturated zone pore water due to source removal would also reduce
impacts to tributaries and wetlands that are influenced by the ash basins.
25

Conclusions
Based on my technical review and analyses of the referenced information for the Allen site I have
reached the following conclusions:
• A total of 44 Compliance Boundary groundwater samples exceeded North Carolina groundwater
standards for these COI: boron, chromium, cobalt, iron, manganese, sulfate, total dissolved
solids, and vanadium. Of these 44 exceedances, 29 were greater than the proposed provisional
background concentrations by HDR, which exaggerate background levels;
• Most of the background wells are either likely to be downgradient from coal -ash source areas, or
appear to be downgradient from coal ash. As a result, groundwater concentration data from
these wells overestimate actual site background levels;
• The statistical analyses of background groundwater concentrations at the Allen site (well AB-1 R)
are invalid. The time periods between groundwater sample collection from this well are too small
and the concentration data are not independent;
• There is a significant risk of chemical migration from the ash basin to neighboring private and
public water supply wells in fractured bedrock. The design of the CAP flow and transport models
prevents the potential for off -site migration from being evaluated;
• The limited CAP model domain size; the no -flow boundary conditions along the western,
southern, and northern boundaries; the incorrect hydraulic conductivity value for the bedrock
aquifer; and incorrect boundary condition representation of the Catawba River prevent simulation
and analysis of off -site COI migration;
• The CAP Closure Scenario simulations greatly underestimate (by factors of 10 or more) the time
frames required to achieve meaningful groundwater concentration reductions in response to
remedial actions. This is due to oversimplification of field fate and transport mechanisms in the
CAP model and several model input errors;
• The simulated water table lowering for the Cap -in -Place Scenario is almost a factor of two too low
at several locations in the ash basin system in order to dewater all source material; and the
actual cap -induced water table elevation reduction would be much less than predicted due to the
incorrect no -flow boundary conditions and bedrock permeability in the flow model. Therefore, the
remediation time frames for this scenario would be much greater because part of the source zone
would still be active with the cap installed;
• For either the Existing Condition or Cap -in -Place Model Scenario groundwater concentrations of
coal -ash constituents much higher than background levels will continue to exceed North Carolina
groundwater standards at the Compliance Boundary because saturated coal -ash material and
secondary sources will remain in place;
26

• Source -area mass removal included in the Excavation Scenario results in COI concentration
reductions at the Compliance Boundary that are generally two to four times greater compared to
Cap -in -Place and best reduces impacts to surface water. In addition, the time frames to achieve
equivalent concentration reductions are factors of 2.5 to 5 shorter for excavation compared to
cap -in -place, and source removal reduces the number of COI that will exceed North Carolina
groundwater standards in the future. Additional excavation of secondary sources would further
accelerate concentration reductions;
• The CAP Closure Scenarios do not include hydraulic containment remedial alternatives for the
bedrock aquifer and do not address the risk of off -site COI transport. CSA data show multiple
exceedances of groundwater standards in bedrock not only at the compliance boundary but also
inside the CB. The cap -in -place alternative does not address either concentration reduction or
off -site chemical migration control in the fractured bedrock aquifer; and
• Future Compliance Monitoring at the site should include much more closely -spaced Compliance
Wells to provide more accurate detection, and the time intervals between sample collection
should be large enough to ensure that the groundwater sample data are statistically independent
to allow accurate interpretation of concentration trends.
My expectation was that the results of the CAP Part 2 data collection and groundwater flow and chemical
transport modeling would be available prior to submitting this report, but this information was not available
for my meaningful review. The recently -completed CAP Part 2 may address some of the data gaps and
limitations of the CSA and CAP Part 1. 1 intend to review the CAP 2 information and, if necessary,
supplement my report at that time.
27

References
Baes, C.F., and R.D. Sharp. 1983. A Proposal for Estimation of Soil Leaching and Leaching Constants
for Use in Assessment Models. Journal of Environmental Quality, Vol. 12, No. 1. 17-28.
Barker, J.A., and J.H. Black. 1983. Slug Tests in Fissured Aquifers. Water Resources Research. Vol.
19, No. 6. 1558-1564.
Bear, J. 1979. Hydraulics of Groundwater. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Bouwer, H., and R.C. Rice. 1976. A Slug Test for Determining Hydraulic Conductivity of Unconfined
Aquifers with Completely or Partially Penetrating Wells. Water Resources Research. Vol. 12, No. 3.
423-428.
Culver, T.B., S.P. Hallisey, D. Sahoo, J.J. Deitsch, and J.A. Smith. 1997. Modeling the Desorption of
Organic Contaminants from Long -Term Contaminated Soil Using Distributed Mass Transfer Rates.
Environmental Science and Technology, 31(6), 1581-1588.
Culver, T.B., R.A. Brown, and J.A. Smith. 2000. Rate -Limited Sorption and Desorption of 1,2-
Dichlorobenzene to a Natural Sand Soil Column. Environmental Science and Technology, 34(12),
2446-2452.
De Wit, J.C.M., J.P. Okx, and J. Boodle. 1995. Effect of Nonlinear Sorption and Random Spatial
Variability of Sorption Parameters on Groundwater Remediation by Soil Flushing. Groundwater
Quality: Remediation and Protection, Proceedings of the Prague Conference, May 1995. IAHS
Publication No. 225.
EPA. 1985. Full -Scale Field Evaluation of Waste Disposal from Coal -Fired Electric Generating Plants.
Report EPA-600/7-85-028a, June 1985, Volume I, Section 5. Prepared by Arthur D. Little, Inc.
EPA. 2009. Statistical Analysis of Groundwater Monitoring Data at RCRA Facilities - Unified Guidance.
Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, Program Implementation and Information Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Report EPA 530/R-09-007. March 2009.
EPRI. 1984. Chemical Attenuation Rates, Coefficients, and Constants in Leachate Migration. Volume 1:
A Critical Review. Electric Power Research Institute Report EA-3356, Volume 1. Prepared by
Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, Washington. February 1984.
Gelhar, L.W. 1984. Stochastic analysis of flow in heterogeneous porous media. In Selected Topics in
Mechanics of Fluids in Porous Media, edited by J. Bear and M.Y. Corapcioglu, pp. 673-717, Martinus
Nijhoff, Dordrecht, Netherlands.
Gelhar, L.W. 1986. Stochastic subsurface hydrology from theory to applications. Water Resources
Research 22: 135S-145S.
Gelhar, L.W. 1987. Stochastic analysis of solute transport in saturated and unsaturated porous media.
In Advances in Transport Phenomena in Porous Media, NATO ASI Ser., edited by J. Bear and M.Y.
Corapcioglu, pp. 657-700, Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, Netherlands.
Gelhar, L.W., and C.L. Axness. 1983. Three-dimensional stochastic analysis of macrodispersion in
aquifers. Water Resources Research 19, no. 1: 161-180.
Hadley, P.W., and C.J. Newell. 2012. Groundwater Remediation: The Next 30 Years. Groundwater,
Vol. 50, No. 5. 669-678.
28

Hadley, P.W., and C.J. Newell. 2014. The New Potential for Understanding Groundwater Contaminant
Transport. Groundwater, Vol. 52, No. 2. 174-186.
Hantush, M.S. 1964. Hydraulics of Wells. Advances in Hydroscience. Vol. 1. Academic Press. Ed.
V.T. Chow. 282-437.
Hemond, H.F., and E.J. Fechner. 1994. Chemical Fate and Transport in the Environment. Academic
Press.
LeGrand, H.E. 2004. A Master Conceptual Model for Hydrogeological Site Characterization in the
Piedmont and Mountain Region of North Carolina. Prepared for North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, Groundwater Section.
Lyman, W.J., W.F. Reehl, and D.H. Rosenblatt. 1982. Handbook of Chemical Property Estimation
Methods. McGraw-Hill Book Company.
McDonald, M.G., and A.W. Harbaugh. 1988. MODFLOW, A Modular Three -Dimensional Finite -
Difference Ground -Water Flow Model. Techniques of Water -Resources Investigations of the United
States Geological Survey, Department of the Interior.
Molz, F. 2015. Advection, Dispersion, and Confusion. Groundwater, Vol. 53, No. 3. 348-353.
Rehfeldt, K.R., and L.W. Gelhar. 1992. Stochastic analysis of dispersion in unsteady flow in
heterogeneous aquifers. Water Resources Research 28, no. 8: 2085-2099.
Rehfeldt, K.R., J.M. Boggs, and L.W. Gelhar. 1992. Field study of dispersion in a heterogeneous aquifer,
3, geostatistical analysis of hydraulic conductivity. Water Resources Research 28, no. 12: 3309-
3324.
Schroeder, P.R., T.S. Dozier, P.A. Zappi, B.M. McEnroe, J.W. Sjostrom, and R.L. Peyton. 1994. The
Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance (HELP) Model: Engineering Documentation for
Version 3. Report EPA/600/R-94/168b, September 1994, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Research and Development, Washington, D.C.
Siegel, D.I. 2014. On the Effectiveness of Remediating Groundwater Contamination: Waiting for the
Black Swan. Groundwater, Vol. 52, No. 4. 488-490.
Simon, R.B., S. Bernard, C. Meurville, and V. Rebour. 2105. Flow -Through Stream Modeling with
MODFLOW and MT3D: Certainties and Limitations. Groundwater, Vol. 53, No. 6. 967-971.
Sudicky, E.A., and W.A. Illman. 2011. Lessons Learned from a Suite of CFB Borden Experiments.
Groundwater, Vol. 49, No. 5. 630-648.
van Genuchten, M.Th., and W.J. Alves. 1982. Analytical Solutions of the One -Dimensional Convective -
Dispersive Solute Transport Equations. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research
Service, Technical Bulletin No. 1661.
Winter, T.C., D.O. Rosenberry, and J.W. La Baugh. 2003. Where Does the Ground Water in Small
Watersheds Come From?. Groundwater, Vol. 41, No. 7. 989-1000.
Yin, Z.-Y., and G.A. Brook. 1992. The Topographic Approach to Locating High -Yield Wells in Crystalline
Rocks: Does It Work?. Groundwater, Vol. 30, No. 1. 96-102.
29

Zheng, C., G.D. Bennett, and C.B. Andrews. 1991. Analysis of Ground -Water Remedial Alternatives at a
Superfund Site. Groundwater, Vol. 29, No. 6. 838-848.
Zheng, C., M. Bianchi, S.M. Gorelick. 2010. Lessons Learned from 25 Years of Research at the MADE
Site. Groundwater, Vol. 49, No. 5. 649-662.
30

$ 5 d b S
N Tine (yeah)
(b)
as
J 25
a
pC
y ]0
CAN i
e 15
U
m
B
U 10
5
E S $
Tine (yeah) r
8 R S
Figure 1
Modeled Compliance Boundary Concentrations
31

Table 1. Exceedances of NC Groundwater Standards at Compliance or Property Boundaries and in Bedrock
for 2015 Monitoring Well and Seep Samples
Background
Constituent
Sample
Sample
Location b
Concentration
Concentrations°d
Standards
Name
Deptha
Measured PPBC
2L IMAC
Boron
AB-26S
Shallow
CBMe
730e
ND 50
700 -
GWA-4S
CBMe
1,700e
(All Wells)
AB-31 S
CBMe
1,800e
GWA-5BR
Bedrock
BR, PB
720
ND
ANWW-002
Seep
-
1,900
-
S-4
-
800
Chromium
AB-26D
Deep
CBMe
16e
16 (BG-1D)9 16
10 -
8 (BG-2D)g, 1.1 (BG-3D)
AB-23BRU
Bedrock
BR
65.6
AB-21 BR
BR
18.9
25.6 (BG-2BR)g
Cobalt
AB-1 OS
Shallow
CBMe
1.2e
0.74
- 1
GWA-5S
CBMe
17e
GWA-4S
CBMe
3e
GWA-7S
CB
51.6
0.65 (BG-1S)9
GWA-3S
CB
16.2
0.63 (BG-2S)g
GWA-9S
CB'
8.5
1.6 (BG-3S)
AB-9S
CBMe
4e
ND (AB-1R)g
GWA-2S
CB
2.4
GWA-1 S
CB
11.4
AB-14S
CB'
10.1

Table 1. Continued
Constituent
Sample
Name
Sample
Depth'
Location
Concentration'
Background
Concentrationsc,d Standard
Measured PPBC 2L IMAC
Cobalt
GWA-9D
Deep
CBf
1.9
0.74 (BG-1D)g
- 1
(continued)
AB-14D
CBf
10.1
2.4 (BG-2D)g,
0.32 (BG-3D)
Iron
GWA-8S
Shallow
CB
780
960
300 -
GWA-3S
CB
6,000
130 (BG-1S)g
AB-13S
CB
370
1,300 (BG-2S)g
GWA-2S
CB
750
2,800 (BG-3S)
AB-9S
PB
4,200
ND (AB-1R)9
GWA-2D
Deep
CB
410
960 (BG-1D)g
GWA-9D
CBf
1,700
3,700 (BG-2D)g,
110 (BG-3D)
GWA-4D
PB
340
GWA-1 BR
Bedrock
CB, BR
410
71 (BG-2BR)g
GWA-6BR
BR
520
S-3
Seep
-
2,200
-
S-4
-
1,900
-
Manganese
GWA-7S
Shallow
CB
400
38
50 -
GWA-3S
CB
3,300
GWA-2S
CB
100
38 (BG-1S)g
GWA-1 S
CB
92
150 (BG-2S)g
GWA-9S
CBf
490
620 (BG-3S)
AB-4S
CBf
110
ND (AB-1 R)g
GWA-15S
CB
240

Table 1. Continued
Constituent
Sample
Name
Sample
Depth'
Location
Concentration'
Background
Concentrationsc,d
Measured PPBC
Standard
2L IMAC
Manganese
AB-2
CB
56
38
50 -
(continued)
GWA-5S
PB
6,700
GWA-4S
PB
590
AB-9S
PB
8,000
AB-1 OS
PB
530
GWA-9D
Deep
CBf
96
29 (BG-1D)g
GWA-15D
CB
64
130 (BG-2D)g, 34 (BG-3D)
GWA-4D
PB
92
GWA-6BR
Bedrock
BR
210
ND (BG-2BR)g
ANSW-015
Seep
-
160
-
ANWW-002
-
87
ANWW-004
-
100
S-3
-
800
S-4
-
890
Sulfate
GWA-6S
Shallow
CBMe
1,500,000e
30,300
250,000
AB-33S
CBMe
300,000e
880 (BG-2S)g
1,400 (BG-3S), 760 (BG-1S)g
37,800(AB-1R)g
Total Dissolved
AB-23BRU
Bedrock
BR
590,000
198,000
500,000
Solids
2,040, 000(BG-2BR)g

Table 1. Continued
Constituent Sample
Name
Sample
Depth'
Location
Concentration'
Background
Concentrationsc,d Standard
Measured PPBC 2L IMAC
Vanadium GWA-3D
Deep
CB
18.7
22.5 - 0.3
GWA-8D
CB
6.7
GWA-7D
CB
5.4
22.5 (BG-1D)9
GWA-2D
CB
11.8
14.9 (BG-2D)g, 6.5 (BG-3D)
GWA-1 D
CB
14.3
GWA-9D
CB'
13
AB-13D
CB'
7.1
GWA-5D
PB
22.5
GWA-4D
PB
4.1
AB-9D
PB
7.2
AB-1 OD
PB
5.3
GWA-3BR
Bedrock
CB, BR
17.9
0.6 (BG-2BR)g
GWA-1 BR
CB, BR
2.6
GWA-5BR
PB, BR
10.1
AB-35BR
BR
16.1
AB-25BR
BR
27.2
AB-23BRU
BR
29.9
AB-25BRU
BR
18.1
AB-21 BR
BR
17.7
ANSW-001
Seep
-
1.1
-
ANSW-015
-
0.98
ANWW-004
-
1.3
S-3
-
1.3
S-4
-
0.94

a Refer to the CSA Report for Monitoring Well locations and screen intervals
b CB = Monitoring Well located on the Ash Basin Compliance Boundary; PB = Monitoring Well located on the Duke
Energy Property Boundary; BR = Monitoring Well screened in Bedrock
All values are total measured concentration in the water samples in units of micrograms per liter
Refer to the CSA Report for information regarding placement of Background Wells.
PPBC = Proposed Provisional Background Concentration (CAP Report Table 2-3)
e CBM = Projected downgradient concentration at Compliance Boundary based on calibrated one-dimensional, analytical
chemical transport model discussed in this Report
f Monitoring Well is downgradient from Ash Basin Waste material based on immediately adjacent monitoring well water
level data
5 Based on hydraulic head contour maps presented in the CSA Report this Background Well is likely downgradient from
Ash Basin Waste material. The hydraulic head contour maps and "approximate groundwater flow direction" arrows
presented in CSA Report Figures 6-5, 6-6, and 6-7 do not accurately delineate groundwater flow directions in the vicinity
of these Background Wells.