Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNC0022406_Final BC Basis of Design Report 60 Percent_20170410tip syn,T(erra BASIS OF DESIGN REPORT (60% SUBMITTAL) BELEWS CREEK STEAM STATION 3195 PINE HALL ROAD BELEWS CREEK, NORTH CAROLINA 27009 APRIL 2017 PREPARED FOR DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC. 526 SOUTH CHURCH STREET CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA 28202 f DUKE ENERGY William LantzJAC PE 44301 Senior P oject Engineer �7 Cbig Eady, NC LG (lt99 ./ Project Manager Basis of Design Report (60% Submittal) April 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station SynTerra TABLE OF CONTENTS (GRAY HIGHLIGHTS INDICATE WORK THAT WILL BE INCLUDED IN FINAL BASIS OF DESIGN REPORT) SECTION PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND..............................................................1-1 1.1 Project Background...................................................................................................1-1 1.1.1 Settlement Agreement........................................................................................1-1 1.1.2 Interim Action Plan.............................................................................................1-2 1.1.3 Purpose of Basis of Design................................................................................1-2 1.1.4 Scope and Objectives of Interim Action..........................................................1-3 1.2 Interim Action Alternatives Evaluation................................................................1-3 1.3 Report Organization.................................................................................................1-3 2.0 REFINED SITE CONCEPTUAL MODEL................................................................ 2-1 2.1 Geology and Hydrogeology....................................................................................2-1 2.2 Summary of Baseline Site Conditions....................................................................2-3 2.2.1 Summary of HDR Field Investigation............................................................. 2-3 2.2.2 Summary of HDR Recent Groundwater Quality Results ............................. 2-5 2.3 Summary of Aquifer Characteristics......................................................................2-6 3.0 INTERIM ACTION DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS.............................................3-1 3.1 Preliminary Design Criteria and Layout............................................................... 3-1 3.2 Evaluation of Alternative Technologies................................................................ 3-2 3.3 Groundwater Fate and Transport Modeling........................................................ 3-3 3.3.1 Groundwater Flow Model Conceptualization Design .................................. 3-3 3.3.2 Groundwater Flow Model Calibration............................................................ 3-4 3.3.3 Implications of Remedy on Geochemical Conditions and Plume Stability 3-4 3.4 Groundwater Extraction System Design............................................................... 3-6 3.4.1 Current Conditions............................................................................................. 3-6 3.4.2 Post -Basin Closure Conditions.......................................................................... 3-6 3.5 Groundwater Extraction System Design Limitations..........................................3-6 Page i P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\60 PERCENT DESIGN\Final 60 Percent Basis of Design Report, Belews Creek, 3-31-2017.docx Basis of Design Report (60% Submittal) April 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station SynTerra TABLE OF CONTENTS (GRAY HIGHLIGHTS INDICATE WORK THAT WILL BE INCLUDED IN FINAL BASIS OF DESIGN REPORT) SECTION PAGE 4.0 WELL DESIGN..............................................................................................................4-1 4.1 Overview of Extraction Well Network.................................................................. 4-1 4.2 Well Construction..................................................................................................... 4-1 4.3 Groundwater Extraction Rates................................................................................ 4-2 5.0 EXTRACTION SYSTEM PUMP AND PIPELINE DESIGN.................................5-1 5.1 Overall Pipeline Design Basis................................................................................. 5-1 5.1.1 Design Basis and Assumptions.........................................................................5-1 5.1.2 Calculation Method............................................................................................ 5-1 5.1.3 Well Head Configuration...................................................................................5-1 5.2 Extraction Well Pipeline...........................................................................................5-2 5.2.1 Pipe Pressure....................................................................................................... 5-2 5.2.2 Pipe Flow..............................................................................................................5-3 5.2.3 Pipe Expansion/Contraction..............................................................................5-4 5.2.4 Pipe Trenching..................................................................................................... 5-4 6.0 ELECTRICAL AND INSTRUMENTATION DESIGN ......................................... 6-1 6.1 Piping and Instrumentation Diagram.................................................................... 6-1 6.2 Pump Controls.......................................................................................................... 6-1 6.3 Emergency System Shutdown................................................................................ 6-1 7.0 DESIGN DOCUMENTS..............................................................................................7-1 7.1 Design Drawings....................................................................................................... 7-1 7.2 Specifications............................................................................................................. 7-1 8.0 GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION SYSTEM OPERATION................................8-1 8.1 System Performance Metrics................................................................................... 8-1 8.2 Permits........................................................................................................................ 8-1 8.3 Institutional Controls................................................................................................ 8-1 8.4 Contingency Plans.................................................................................................... 8-1 8.5 Construction and Monitoring Schedules............................................................... 8-1 9.0 REFERENCES................................................................................................................ 9-1 Page ii P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\60 PERCENT DESIGN\Final 60 Percent Basis of Design Report, Belews Creek, 3-31-2017.docx Basis of Design Report (60% Submittal) April 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station SynTerra LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1 Site Location Map Figure 1-2 Site Layout Figure 2-1 Boron in Surficial Zone Figure 2-2 Boron in Transition Zone Figure 2-3 Boron in Bedrock Zone Figure 2-4 Chloride in Surficial Zone Figure 2-5 Chloride in Transition Zone Figure 2-6 Chloride in Bedrock Zone Figure 2-7 Selenium in Surficial Zone Figure 2-8 Selenium in Transition Zone Figure 2-9 Selenium in Bedrock Zone Figure 2-10 Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) in Surficial Zone Figure 2-11 Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) in Transition Zone Figure 2-12 Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) in Bedrock Zone Figure 2-13 Boron Results - Cross Section A -A' Figure 2-14 Chloride Results - Cross Section A -A' Figure 2-15 Selenium Results - Cross Section A -A' Figure 2-16 Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) - Cross Section A -A' Figure 2-17 Boron Results - Cross Section B -B' Figure 2-18 Chloride Results - Cross Section B -B' Figure 2-19 Selenium Results - Cross Section B -B' Figure 2-20 Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) - Cross Section B -B' LIST OF TABLES Table 1-1 Summary of Select Constituent Analytical Data in Area of Interest LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Aquifer Testing Analysis (HDR Field Investigation and Pumping Test Report, October 6, 2016) Appendix B Evaluation of Alternative Remedial Technologies Appendix C Groundwater Flow Model Report Appendix D Geochemical Model Report Appendix E Pipe and Pump Selection Package Appendix F Design Drawings Appendix G Technical Specifications Appendix H Permits Page iii P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ 20. BELEWS CREEK\ 04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\ 60 PERCENT DESIGN\ Final 60 Percent Basis of Design Report, Belews Creek, 3-31-2017.docx Basis of Design Report (60% Submittal) April 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station SynTerra LIST OF ACRONYMS 2L DEQ/Division of Water Resources Title 15, Subchapter 2L. Groundwater Quality Standards AOI Area of Interest BCSS Belews Creek Steam Station BGS Below Ground Surface CAMA Coal Ash Management Act CAP Corrective Action Plan (Parts 1 and 2) CCR Coal Combustion Residuals CSA Comprehensive Site Assessment DEQ North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality FGD Flue Gas Desulfurization FPS Feet per Second GPM Gallons per Minute HDPE High Density Polyethylene HMI Human Machine Interface HP Horsepower IAP Interim Action Plan IMAC Interim Maximum Allowable Concentrations NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System O&M Operations and Maintenance P&ID Piping and Instrumentation Diagram PPBTVs Proposed Provisional Background Threshold Values PSI Pounds per Square -Inch PVC Polyvinyl Chloride SCM Site Conceptual Model TDS Total Dissolved Solids VFD Variable Frequency Drive Page iv P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ 20. BELEWS CREEK\ 04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\ 60 PERCENT DESIGN\ Final 60 Percent Basis of Design Report, Belews Creek, 3-31-2017.docx Basis of Design Report (60% Submittal) April 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station SynTerra The Basis of Design Report (30% Submittal) for accelerated remediation at the Belews Creek Steam Station was submitted to the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) on December 21, 2016. DEQ comments on the 30% Submittal were forwarded to Duke Energy on February 1, 2017. The table below includes the DEQ comments, a brief summary response and/or the section(s) of the current submittal containing a detailed response. DEQ Comment 1 While it is acknowledged this is a 30% Basis of Design Report, several components of this document are sparse or are not present, making an evaluation of the proposed system problematic. Please work to provide more information across all facets of system design, especially regarding further aquifer testing and groundwater modeling, to facilitate review of the Final Basis of Design Report. Response Summary The 30% BOD provided the system design for remediation. Further design details of the groundwater extraction system are included within the 60% BOD including groundwater modeling efforts related to groundwater flow and geochemistry. Contingencies for additional aquifer testing will be provided in the Final BOD Report. DEQ Comment 2 The scope and objectives outlined in Section 1.1.4 are not clear and should be refined for the Final Basis of Design Report. Response Summary Located Within Report: Section 1.1.4 The scope and objectives have been further defined in Section 1.1.4. DEQ Comment 3 The evaluation of remedial alternatives in Section 3.2 is not thorough and requires more consideration in the Final Basis of Design Report. Response Summary Located Within Report: Section 3.2 and Appendix B. A detailed evaluation of remedial alternatives including groundwater extraction and/or a low permeability barrier wall was presented in detail in Section 3.2. Additional discussion for clarification is provided in Section 3.2 and Appendix B. P:\ Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\60 PERCENT DESIGN\Final 60 Percent Basis of Design Report, Belews Creek, 3-31-2017.docx Basis of Design Report (60% Submittal) April 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station SynTerra DEQ Comment 4 Section 2.1 Geology and Hydrogeology indicates that in the area of Parcel A, groundwater flows across the topographic divide of Middleton Loop Road to the northwest toward Parcel A and the Dan River. Please evaluate whether the crossing is due to head conditions from the ash basin or preferential flow paths within the shallow and/or deep flow layers and, if necessary, adjust the designed system accordingly Response Summary Located Within Report: Section 2.1 and 2.2.1 The lithology and hydrologic characteristics in the vicinity of Parcel A were further clarified based on details provided in the HDR October 2016 Field Investigation and Pumping Test Report. The predominant driver for groundwater flow in the area is related to the hydraulic head differences created by the ash basin. As well, lithology observations indicate a thicker transition zone in the vicinity of the pumping test area and GWA-20SA/D/BR as opposed to the south and north ends of the extraction system well alignment. This indicates a preferential flow pathway via the thicker transition zone in the central portion of the extraction system and corresponds to the direction of groundwater flow from the ash basin to the northwest in this area. The extraction system will be adjusted with additional wells, as necessary, based on observations after Phase I implementation. DEQ Comment 5 As indicated in 2.2.2 Summary of HDR Recent Groundwater Quality Results, the boron concentration in GWA-19S exhibited a value elevated above 2L Standards, displaying a significantly higher level than wells GWA-18S and GWA-10S that are located between GWA-19S and the edge of the ash basin. The distribution of boron in this area does not appear to conform to the LeGrand slope -aquifer model. Additional characterization is needed to delineate the extent of potential CCR impacts and evaluate the possibility of a preferential pathway in the area. Based on Appendix A figure 2, an additional shallow monitoring well west of the plume should be installed to further refine the plume. Response Summary Additional characterization of the boron distribution in the shallow zone west of GWA- 19S is beyond the scope of the Interim Action Plan and Accelerated Remediation Basis of Design report. Based on topographic contours and lithology information from the HDR October 2016 Field Investigation and Pumping Test Report, there is an apparent trough present along an axis defined to an extent by the GWA-19 cluster, GWA-10 cluster and GW -18 cluster extending to the ash basin. Groundwater flow within the surficial zone from the ash basin may preferentially flow along this draw. Isoconcentration plots for boron (Figure 2-1) and selenium (Figure 2-7) in the surficial zone support this conclusion. However, the delineation of the plume is more appropriately addressed with additional data gap site assessment activities. P:\ Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\60 PERCENT DESIGN\Final 60 Percent Basis of Design Report, Belews Creek, 3-31-2017.docx Basis of Design Report (60% Submittal) April 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station SynTerra DEQ Comment 6 Please also show groundwater concentrations on the Cross -Sections in Appendix A, which helps evaluate the designed system. Response Summary Located Within Report: Section 2.2.2 and Figures 2-13 through 2-20 Geologic cross-sections A -A' and B -B', as provided in the HDR October 2016 Field Investigation and Pumping Test Report, have been revised to include the selected constituents as depicted in the isoconcentration maps, and are included as Figures 2-13 through 2-20. DEQ Comment 7 Only five deep (transition zone) wells spaced approximately 200 feet were proposed for phase 1. Based on the distribution of the groundwater contamination plumes and the aquifer testing results, the designed phase I groundwater extraction system may not be able to prevent the groundwater from flowing across the boundary toward Parcel A because of less number of recovery wells. Please note, Section 3.4 indicated that up to twenty 6 -inch diameter extraction wells may be needed along the southeastern side of Middleton Loop Road based upon a spacing of 45 feet as suggested from the pumping test report. Furthermore, as indicated in Section 4.1, following the Phase I implementation, greater pumping rates and drawdown levels may be needed so a design flow rate of 80 gpm is currently anticipated, which means more wells may be needed. It is reasonable to have a phased approach for system design and installation because of variable hydrogeologic conditions. However, it is not clear on what basis only five deep wells were proposed for phase I. More information on the rationale for the limited number is needed along with discussion regarding additional phases of work. Response Summary Located Within Report: Sections 3.1; Appendices C and D Based on analysis of the pumping test data as presented in the HDR October 2016 Field Investigation and Pumping Test Report, the 45 foot spacing between extraction wells appears to be conservative. Based on groundwater flow model results, as presented in Appendix C of the 60% BOD report, ten (10) extraction wells, with an average spacing of approximately 85 feet, is proposed. The proposed extraction well locations were optimized taking into consideration the variable hydraulic conductivities and thickness of the transition zone. The initial extraction system will be monitored for a six month period after initial startup to determine system efficiency. Based on the observations, additional extraction wells will be installed as part of additional phases. P:\ Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\60 PERCENT DESIGN\Final 60 Percent Basis of Design Report, Belews Creek, 3-31-2017.docx Basis of Design Report (60% Submittal) April 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station SynTerra DEQ Comment 8 In addition, there are no plans for potential phase 2 extraction well testing, which may be needed, or proposed monitoring well locations to evaluate performance of the proposed system. This information should be provided as part of the Final Basis of Design Report to facilitate review of the progress concerning the design package. Response Summary Located Within Report: Sections 3.1 The initial extraction system will be monitored for a six month period after initial startup to determine system efficiency. The elements of a potential Phase 2 implementation and evaluation would be determined once results from Phase 1 are available. Phase 2 elements will be additional extraction wells and, if appropriate, additional monitoring elements. DEQ Comment 9 Further aquifer testing in deep (transition) zone is needed after the phase I extraction wells are installed. In addition, testing of an extraction well or wells at the western portion the proposed extraction system should be considered to evaluate the heterogeneity and anisotropy of the aquifer system in an area where there may be preferential pathways as indicated by elevated leading edge indicators at GW195. Response Summary After implementation of Phase 1 extraction system and monitoring for a 6 -month period, additional system performance will be conducted including aquifer testing and response of extraction wells along the southern end of the system to determine potential impacts to a preferential pathway as discussed in Response Comment #5. DEQ Comment 10 The distance between each observation well and the testing well should be measured and listed in the table. An enlarged area map clearly showing pumping and observation wells should be provided. Response Summary Located Within Report: Appendix A and Figure 1-2 The distances between each observation well and the testing well have been measured and provided in a revised Table 1 Well Information (HDR October 2016 Field Investigation and Pumping Test Report). An enlarged area map showing pumping and observation wells from the HDR field investigation is provided as Figure 1-2. P:\ Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\60 PERCENT DESIGN\Final 60 Percent Basis of Design Report, Belews Creek, 3-31-2017.docx Basis of Design Report (60% Submittal) April 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station SynTerra DEQ Comment 11 To evaluate impacts from the coal ash basin through the groundwater discharge, surface water samples should be collected from the Dan River in the vicinity of where S-2 discharges to evaluate site conditions for the proposed interim action. Response Summary Potential impacts from coal ash basin groundwater discharge to the Dan River were evaluated by groundwater -to -surface water interaction modeling, submitted initially in the Corrective Action Plan (CAP) Part 1 (HDR Engineering, December 2016) and updated in CAP Part 2 (HDR Engineering, March 2016). Compliance with surface water standards is achieved through compliance with the NPDES permit for the station. Discharges from S-2 to the Dan River are permitted by the NPDES permit as S-2 is permitted as Outfall 102 in the draft NPDES permit. As required by conditions of the permit, samples will be collected for specified parameters and the results submitted to DEQ. DEQ Comment 12 Page 2-5 paragraph 4, last line, 217 feet/day, the number does not sound right. Please check and correct it. Response Summary Located Within Report: Sections 2.3 The average hydraulic conductivity in the deep layer is 2.17 feet/day (7.68 x 10-4) cm/sec). The value of 217 feet/day was erroneously reported in the HDR October 2016 Field Investigation and Pumping Test Report (Summary of Findings (Section 4.0) and Table 6: Calculated Transmissivity and Hydraulic Conductivity). P:\ Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\60 PERCENT DESIGN\Final 60 Percent Basis of Design Report, Belews Creek, 3-31-2017.docx Basis of Design Report (60% Submittal) April 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station SynTerra DEQ Comment 13 The boring log for EW -1 seems to indicate that the well screen fully penetrates the transition zone. The well screens in the boring logs for TW -2 and TW -1 don't appear to fully penetrate the transition zone. TW -2 and TW -1 do not appear on the cross sections in Figures 3 and 4. The well screen in GW -20D does not appear to fully penetrate the transition zone. Heterogeneity in the aquifer appears to be a significant factor based on the recharge rates. Therefore, the results of the pumping test on TW -1 may not have provided sufficient data to calculate hydraulic conductivity and transmissivity for the deep flow zone. Response Summary It is acknowledged the variation in the well screen placement of the pumping and observations wells installed by HDR has potential ramifications for hydraulic data interpretation. However, the extraction system wells will be installed to fully penetrate the transition zone. As indicated in Section 4.4. and presented in Drawing 6-6, Appendix F, the well screens will be installed near the bottom of the transition zone into a sump created in the competent bedrock to provide for maximum flexibility in varying drawdown while still facilitating groundwater capture throughout the water column. The submerged screen placement will also reduce premature oxidation of iron during extraction which could cause extraction and pumping system fouling and loss of efficiency. P:\ Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\60 PERCENT DESIGN\Final 60 Percent Basis of Design Report, Belews Creek, 3-31-2017.docx Basis of Design Report (60% Submittal) April 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station SynTerra 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke Energy) owns and operates the Belews Creek Steam Station (BCSS), located on Belews Lake in Stokes County, North Carolina (Figure 1-1). BCSS began operation in 1974 and operates two coal-fired units. Coal combustion residuals (CCR) and other liquid discharges from the coal combustion process have been disposed in the ash basin since its construction. In 1983, BCSS converted to dry handling of fly ash with disposal in on-site landfills with bottom ash sluiced to the ash basin and fly ash sluiced to the ash basin on plant start-up and in emergency situations. Water discharge from the ash basin is permitted by the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Division of Water Resources (DWR) under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit NC0024406. 1.1 Project Background In order to satisfy requirements of the North Carolina Coal Ash Management Act (CAMA), a Comprehensive Site Assessment (CSA) and Corrective Action Plan (CAP) Parts 1 and 2 were prepared and submitted to the DEQ by HDR Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinas (HDR). The CAP (Parts 1 and 2) describes means to restore groundwater quality to the level of the standards, or as close as is economically and technologically feasible in accordance with T15A NCAC 02L .0106. Exceedances of numerical values contained in Subchapter 2L and Appendix 1 Subchapter 02L (IMACs) at or beyond the compliance boundary were determined to be the basis for corrective action with the exception of parameters for which naturally occurring background concentrations are greater than the standards. A CSA Supplement 1, prepared by HDR, was submitted to DEQ on February 18, 2016 as an appendix to the CAP Part 2 and provided information to address information requested by DEQ subsequent to submittal of the CSA report, additional data validation reporting, and a response to site-specific DEQ comments obtained during in-person meetings. A CSA Supplement 2, prepared by HDR, was submitted to DEQ on August 11, 2016. 1.1.1 Settlement Agreement A Settlement Agreement between DEQ and Duke Energy signed on September 29, 2015, requires accelerated remediation to be implemented at sites that demonstrate off-site groundwater impacts. Historical and CSA assessment information indicates the potential for off-site groundwater impact northwest of the ash basin in the area of the 2.23 -acre parcel (hereafter Parcel A) not owned by Page 1-1 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ 20. BELEWS CREEK\ 04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan -Design & Dev\ 60 PERCENT DESIGN\ Final 60 Percent Basis of Design Report, Belews Creek, 3-31-2017.docx Basis of Design Report (60% Submittal) April 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station SynTerra Duke Energy. Figure 1-2 illustrates Parcel A with pertinent features and shows the general area to be addressed for accelerated remediation. Duke Energy provided an Accelerated Remediation Summary report to DEQ on February 17, 2016 which supplemented and updated information included with the CAP Part 2. In correspondence dated March 28, 2016, DEQ acknowledged receipt of the Remediation Summary and requested additional information. DEQ conditionally approved the Interim Action Plan (IAP) in a letter dated July 22, 2016 with the condition (among others) that a Basis of Design (BOD) Report be submitted for review. Duke Energy provided a response to the conditional approval letter on September 9, 2016. In follow-up, the Table of Contents for the Basis of Design report was adjusted by DEQ in a letter dated September 27, 2016. 1.1.2 Interim Action Plan Interim action activities associated with Parcel A consisted of pilot testing with the potential of installing a groundwater extraction system along the northwest corner of the ash basin. Specific objectives outlined in the Interim Action Plan (HDR, April 2016) were: 41, Acquire Parcel A. This activity is no longer being pursued by Duke Energy. E1, Conduct initial aquifer tests to evaluate feasibility and aid in the preliminary design of a groundwater extraction system and/or subsurface barrier wall. Recently completed aquifer tests indicate groundwater extraction is a viable remedial alternative at BCSS. E1 Initiate preliminary design of a groundwater extraction system. 41, Initiate permitting for a groundwater extraction system. 1.1.3 Purpose of Basis of Design The purpose of this Basis of Design Report is to provide a system layout and sizing of system components including wells, piping, pumps, discharge system with control system capabilities and power requirements. A 30 % Basis of Design report was submitted to DEQ on December 21, 2016 and review comments were received on February 1, 2017 and are incorporated in the this 60 % Basis of Design report. The purpose of this 60 % Basis of Design Report further provides the details of the extraction system layout and system components as provided in the 30% BOD report. This report also includes evaluation of fate and transport of Page 1-2 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ 20. BELEWS CREEK\ 04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\ 60 PERCENT DESIGN\ Final 60 Percent Basis of Design Report, Belews Creek, 3-31-2017.docx Basis of Design Report (60% Submittal) April 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station SynTerra constituents, and potential changes to site geochemistry as a result of remedial efforts. Key elements include: 161, Refined site conceptual model which incorporates aquifer test results. r? Groundwater extraction system design. y Groundwater fate and transport modeling. -6' Geochemical modeling to address constituent mobility and potential geochemical changes related to remediation. 1.1.4 Scope and Objectives of Interim Action Constituents associated with coal ash pore water have been identified within groundwater in shallow (saprolite) and deep (transition zone between saprolite and competent bedrock) flow layers between the ash basin and Parcel A and downgradient of Parcel A. Groundwater in shallow and deep layers near Parcel A flows north and northwest toward the Dan River. Groundwater monitoring wells delineating concentrations in this area are located on Duke Energy property. The compliance boundary coincides with the southeast property line of Parcel A. Implementation of a groundwater extraction system located between the ash basin and the southeast side of Parcel A will capture groundwater flow from the ash basin prior to migration toward Parcel A. The primary objective of the groundwater extraction system is to reduce groundwater migration of source area constituents from the ash basin towards the 2.23 -acre parcel and remove constituent mass from the area of highest constituent concentrations. 1.2 Interim Action Alternatives Evaluation In accordance with a letter from DEQ to Duke Energy dated July 22, 2016, evaluation of alternative technologies to achieve Agreement objectives related to potential off-site groundwater impacts must be considered as part of the implementation of the Interim Action Plan. Options considered in the IAP included groundwater extraction and/or a low permeability barrier wall. A detailed evaluation of the alternatives is presented in Section 3.2. 1.3 Report Organization The 60% submittal provides additional detail for the groundwater extraction design to conceptualize system components, performance, and initiate evaluation of site specific considerations. Section 2 contains an overview of site specific conditions including a Page 1-3 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ 20. BELEWS CREEK\ 04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\ 60 PERCENT DESIGN\ Final 60 Percent Basis of Design Report, Belews Creek, 3-31-2017.docx Basis of Design Report (60% Submittal) April 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station SynTerra refined conceptual site model, summary of the site geology and hydrogeology, summary of baseline conditions, and findings from the aquifer pumping test which determined potential extraction system yield and area of influence. Section 3 presents system design considerations including evaluation of alternative remedial technologies, flow modeling, geochemical modeling, and fate and transport modeling. Section 4 through Section 8 contain details of the extraction well system design and operation and will continue to be developed and incorporated into the final (100%) BOD report. Page 1-4 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ 20. BELEWS CREEK\ 04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\ 60 PERCENT DESIGN\ Final 60 Percent Basis of Design Report, Belews Creek, 3-31-2017.docx Basis of Design Report (60% Submittal) April 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station SynTerra 2.0 REFINED SITE CONCEPTUAL MODEL The site conceptual model (SCM) is an interpretation of processes and characteristics associated with hydrogeologic conditions and constituent interactions at the BCSS ash basin. The purpose of the SCM is to evaluate areal distribution and flow pattern of constituents with regard to site-specific geological/ hydrogeological and geochemical properties at the BCSS ash basin relative to the source, potential receptors and natural control mechanisms. The SCM was developed using data and analysis from the CSA (HDR, September, 2015) and further refined in the CAP Part 2 (HDR, March 2016) and recent field investigations related to Parcel A. Key components of the SCM are as follows: �7 The hydraulic head of the ash basin, coupled with the significant topographic relief from the ash basin to the Dan River, drives groundwater flow through the system. This concept is further described in the Groundwater Flow and Transport Modeling Report for the BCSS (CAP Part 1). E1P Partition coefficient (Kd) values were developed for major constituents at the BCSS. Boron has a Kd determined to facilitate high mobility across the site. Analysis of site specific Kd values is provided in the Soil Sorption Evaluation Belews Creek Steam Station (CAP Part 1, Appendix D). y Groundwater flow within the Area of Interest (AOI), incorporating Parcel A and the northwest corner of the ash basin, is generally to the northwest from the ash basin toward the Dan River. The topographic grade between the basin and the river averages approximately 6 percent (southeast to northwest). It is likely that the water table exhibits a similar trend. The water table is typically 20 to 30 feet below ground surface in the topographic high areas near the ash basin and decreases nearer the river. The water table is in the upper portions of the saprolite; however, the transition zone has a greater transmissivity (by a factor of approximately 40) and thus the bulk of groundwater flow and constituent transport is in this zone (HDR Field Investigation and Pumping Test Report, October 6, 2016). 2.1 Geology and Hydrogeology The BCSS site is located in the Milton terrane, of the Piedmont Physiographic Provence, one of a number of tectonostratigraphic terranes that exist in the southern and central Appalachians. The Milton terrane is comprised of strongly foliated gneisses and schists that commonly exhibit distinct compositional layering and felsic composition. Page 2-1 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ 20. BELEWS CREEK\ 04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\ 60 PERCENT DESIGN\ Final 60 Percent Basis of Design Report, Belews Creek, 3-31-2017.docx Basis of Design Report (60% Submittal) April 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station SynTerra Hornblende gneiss and schist quartzite, calc-silicate gneiss, and marble are minor constituents found in the Milton terrane. The groundwater system in the Piedmont province is comprised of two interconnected layers or mediums: residual soil/saprolite and weathered fractured rock (regolith) overlying fractured crystalline bedrock. The regolith layer is a thoroughly weathered and structureless residual soil that occurs near the ground surface with the degree of weathering decreasing with depth. The residual soil grades downward into saprolite, a coarse-grained material that retains the structure of the parent bedrock. Beneath the saprolite, partially weathered/fractured bedrock occurs with depth until bedrock is encountered. The regolith serves as the principal storage reservoir and provides an intergranular medium through which the recharge and discharge of water from the underlying fractured rock occurs. Within the fractured crystalline bedrock layer, the fractures control both the hydraulic conductivity and storage capacity of the rock mass. A transition zone (TZ) at the base of the regolith is present in many areas of the Piedmont. It consists of partially weathered/fractured bedrock that grades into bedrock and is considered to be the most permeable part of the system (HDR, 2015). The groundwater system in the natural materials (soil, soil/saprolite, and fractured bedrock) at BCSS is consistent with the regolith -fractured rock system and is an unconfined, connected aquifer system. The BCSS groundwater system is divided into three layers referred to as the shallow, deep, and bedrock groundwater zones to distinguish flow layers within the connected aquifer system. Consistent with the Piedmont Slope Aquifer System (LeGrand 2004), fracture density in bedrock decreases with depth, limiting deep groundwater flow. The predominant direction of groundwater flow within the ash basin drainage is north and northwest toward the Dan River. Outside of the ash basin drainage (across topographic divides), groundwater flows east and southeast toward Belews Lake and west into the neighboring basin. Groundwater flow and transport at the BCSS site can be approximated from surface topography. The topography at the BCSS site ranges from a high elevation of approximately 878 feet (North American Vertical Datum [NAVD] 88) southeast of the ash basin (near the intersection of Pine Hall Road and Middleton Loop Road) to a low elevation of approximately 646 feet at the base of the earthen dam (at the north end of the ash basin). Ash Basin effluent flows from the base of the ash basin dam to the northwest for approximately 4,400 feet where it enters the Dan River through NPDES Page 2-2 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ 20. BELEWS CREEK\ 04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\ 60 PERCENT DESIGN\ Final 60 Percent Basis of Design Report, Belews Creek, 3-31-2017.docx Basis of Design Report (60% Submittal) April 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station SynTerra Outfall 003. The elevation at the Dan River discharge point is 578 feet while the maximum storage elevation of the ash basin is approximately 750 feet. A topographic divide along Pine Hall Road separates the ash basin and Pine Hall Road landfill, both located north of the road, from the ash structural fill, coal pile, and power plant, located south of the road (Figure 1-1). Additional topographic divides are located west and north of the ash basin approximated by Middleton Loop Road. These divides separate the surface drainage area containing the ash basin from adjacent drainage areas. While the topographic divides generally function as groundwater divides, groundwater flow across the topographic divides can occur based on head conditions from the ash basin and, to a lesser degree, potential preferential flow paths within the shallow and/or deep flow layers. In the area of Parcel A, groundwater flows across the topographic divide, represented by Middleton Loop Road, to the northwest toward Parcel A and the Dan River is primarily a result of the hydraulic head differences created by the ash basin. The approximate elevation in the ash basin is 750 feet while monitoring wells in the vicinity of Parcel A along Middleton Loop Road (GWA-18S/D, GWA-20S/D) historically demonstrate lower hydraulic heads from 3 to 5 feet in relation to the ash basin. 2.2 Summary of Baseline Site Conditions 2.2.1 Summary of HDR Field Investigation The following summarizes results from the October 2016 HDR report. The HDR field investigation and pumping test activities included the advancement of four soil borings (SB -1, SB -2, SB -4, and SB -5) along the property boundary and Middleton Loop Road, and installation of two extraction wells (EW -1 and EW -2) and four observation wells (TW -1 through TW -4) (Figure 1-2). The activities were conducted in August/September 2016. The soil borings were advanced to evaluate geologic conditions within the estimated extent of impacted groundwater in the AOI and evaluate target depths for potential groundwater extraction wells. The results of the HDR field investigation activities are included in Appendix A. Lithology encountered during installation of the four soil borings (SB -1, SB -2, S13- 4, and SB -5) along the western property boundary primarily included low - plasticity silt from approximately 0 to 55 feet below ground surface (ft bgs) with relict foliation and structure identified with increasing depth. Lenses of sandy silt and sandy silt with gravel were identified within the range of 25 to 55 ft bgs in soil borings SB -2, SB -4 and SB -5. Partially weathered and fractured rock was Page 2-3 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ 20. BELEWS CREEK\ 04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\ 60 PERCENT DESIGN\ Final 60 Percent Basis of Design Report, Belews Creek, 3-31-2017.docx Basis of Design Report (60% Submittal) April 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station SynTerra encountered in SB -1 at 54 ft bgs, in SB -2 at 59 ft bgs, at 60 ft bgs in SB -4, and at 45 ft bgs in SB -5. Competent (sound) bedrock was encountered at 59 ft bgs in SB -1 and 53 ft bgs in SB -5. Observation well TW -1 was installed along the western property boundary, immediately downgradient from extraction well EW -1. Silt, sandy silt, and sandy silt with gravel were encountered from 0 to 42 ft bgs during installation and weathered/fractured rock was encountered from 42 to 58 ft bgs. An additional observation well (TW -4) was installed with a fully penetrating screen in the shallow flow layer adjacent to TW -1. Conditions encountered in TW -4 were similar to those encountered during installation of TW -1. During installation of extraction well EW -1, low -plasticity silt and lenses of silty sand were encountered from 0 to 46 ft bgs. Weathered and fractured rock was encountered at 46 ft bgs and sound rock was encountered at 63 ft bgs. An additional extraction well (EW -2) was installed approximately 15 ft south of EW - 1 and screened within the shallow flow layer from approximately 15 to 45 ft bgs. Conditions encountered in EW -2 were similar to those encountered during installation of EW -1. Conditions encountered during installation of two observation wells (TW -2 and TW -3) located between the extraction well EW -1 and the ash basin were generally similar to those encountered with the other soil borings and extraction wells. Low -plasticity silt with lenses of silty sand with gravel was encountered from 0 to 48 ft bgs. Slightly weathered and fractured rock was encountered at 48 ft bgs and sound bedrock was encountered at 58 ft bgs. The water table was encountered from approximately 20 to 28 ft bgs in shallow extraction and observation wells installed for the pumping test. Water levels in the deep (TZ) extraction and observation wells ranged from 21 to 29 ft bgs. The saturated thickness within the soil/saprolite zone (above weathered and fractured rock) ranged from approximately 11 to 29 ft at the pumping test site. Other than the sound rock beneath the transition zone, there is no unit identified that will impede vertical migration of groundwater flow and contaminant transport. Geologic cross-sections created from the lithology of monitoring wells from the ash basin (AB-1S/D/BR) to the southwest across the 2.33 -acre parcel and beyond to GWA-19S/D/BR and along the alignment of the extraction system (GWA- 1S/D/BR to GWA-18S/D) demonstrates a thickening of the transition zone in the Page 2-4 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ 20. BELEWS CREEK\ 04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\ 60 PERCENT DESIGN\ Final 60 Percent Basis of Design Report, Belews Creek, 3-31-2017.docx Basis of Design Report (60% Submittal) April 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station SynTerra vicinity of the pumping test area and GWA-20SA/D/BR as opposed to the south and north ends of the extraction system boring alignment. This indicates a preferential flow pathway via the thicker transition zone in the central portion of the extraction system and corresponds to the direction of groundwater flow from the ash basin to the northwest. 2.2.2 Summary of HDR Recent Groundwater Quality Results The most recent groundwater analytical data available (May/June 2016) as provided by HDR were used to develop isoconcentration maps for the three flow layers (shallow (surficial), deep/transition zone, and bedrock) for select constituents as depicted in Figures 2-1 through 2-12. The constituents: boron, chloride, selenium and total dissolved solids (TDS) were chosen based on exceedances above 2L in the AOI and to represent constituent behavior in subsurface media. The analytical data is also posted on the geologic cross- sections A -A' and B -B', as provided in the October 2016 HDR report, and presented in Figures 2-13 through 2-20. A summary of the analytical data provided by HDR is presented in Table 1. A brief summary of results follows: 167 Concentrations of boron in the shallow and transition zones have been defined and are shown on Figures 2-1 and 2-2. No 2L exceedances were observed in bedrock (Figure 2-3). �3 Chloride concentrations are shown on Figures 2-4 to 2-6. Exceedances of 2L exist in the shallow and transition zones in small areas and no exceedances are found in bedrock. ,61P Selenium concentrations are shown on Figures 2-7 to 2-9. The transition and bedrock zones have no exceedances of 2L, while the shallow zone has an exceedance. ,61P Total dissolved solids concentrations are shown on Figures 2-10 to 2-12. Exceedances of 2L are present in the shallow and transition zones but not in bedrock. Exceedances of 2L are confined to the upper two zones and not present in bedrock. It is likely that these concentrations represent near stable conditions (that is concentrations are not changing with time) because of the age of the system and the velocity of groundwater. Page 2-5 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ 20. BELEWS CREEK\ 04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\ 60 PERCENT DESIGN\ Final 60 Percent Basis of Design Report, Belews Creek, 3-31-2017.docx Basis of Design Report (60% Submittal) April 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station SynTerra 2.3 Summary of Aquifer Characteristics HDR conducted pumping test activities within the AOI which included step draw down tests on EW -1 and EW -2; a 24-hour pumping test on EW -2 and single well pumps tests on TW -1 and TW -3. Drawdown and recovery information was obtained using downhole pressure transducers. The pumping test activities were performed from September 7 to 9, 2016. The results of the HDR pumping test activities are included in Appendix A. Transmissivity and hydraulic conductivity values were calculated for both the shallow and deep flow layers. Using graphical calculation methods and AQTESOLV, the transmissivity in the shallow flow layer based on the drawdown and recovery test results was 6.78 to 13.2 gallons per day/foot (0.9 to 1.8 feetz/day), respectively. These transmissivity values equate to hydraulic conductivities of 0.08 feet per day (2.8 x10-5 centimeters/second) and 0.04 feet/day (1.41 x 10-5 centimeters/second), respectively. These values are representative of silt and sandy silt (Freeze and Cherry, 1979). Hydraulic communication was observed between the shallow and deep flow layers during the pumping test activities. Using graphical calculation methods, the average transmissivity in the deep flow layer based on the TW -1 single pumping test results was 570 gallons per day/foot (76.1 feet2/day), which equates to a hydraulic conductivity of 2.17 feet/day (7.68 x 10-4 centimeters/second). Based on drawdown observed in shallow and deep wells during the constant rate test at TW -1, the shallow and deep flow layers are connected and pumping from the deep layer will draw groundwater from the shallow layer. The radius of influence calculations for the deep flow layer indicate that a well spacing of 45 feet may be needed to provide hydraulic control for impacted groundwater migrating offsite in the deep flow layer for wells pumping at 2 gpm. Page 2-6 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ 20. BELEWS CREEK\ 04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\ 60 PERCENT DESIGN\ Final 60 Percent Basis of Design Report, Belews Creek, 3-31-2017.docx Basis of Design Report (60% Submittal) April 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station SynTerra 3.0 INTERIM ACTION DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS This section addresses the identification and evaluation of corrective measures applicable to the capture of groundwater flow between the ash basin and Parcel A. 3.1 Preliminary Design Criteria and Layout A series of extraction wells upgradient of the southeastern perimeter of Parcel A will be installed to capture groundwater and create hydraulic control by minimizing the flow of groundwater passing from the ash basin through Parcel A. Results from the pumping test (HDR, October 2016) suggest that it is appropriate to plan for several phases of well installation given the highly variable nature of the transition zone (in terms of thickness and hydraulic conductivity). Note that the methods for determining capture are based on assumptions of homogeneity and isotropy. Due to local variations in hydrogeologic properties along the proposed alignment, well spacing (to provide capture) will vary throughout the 750 foot length of the line of extraction wells. Based on groundwater flow and transport modelling results (Section 3.3), a ten well extraction system, as shown in Appendix F, was determined to be appropriate as an initial phase. The initial extraction well locations were determined to optimally provide hydraulic control within the transition zone based on the site conditions (i.e., variable thickness, hydraulic conductivity), groundwater flow characteristics and hydraulic head distribution. As part of the initial phase, a 6 -month monitoring period will be initiated after system startup where water level and water quality data will be collected from the extraction wells and nearby existing and proposed observation/monitoring wells. The data will be used to determine if additional wells will need to be added. Extraction wells will be screened in the transition zone at each location (Appendix F). Reduced heads in the transition zone will cause flow from the shallow zone to migrate to the transition zone, which will result in further reduction of mass transport. Based on the HDR pumping test results, the flow rate from each extraction well was estimated at 2 gpm; however, due to the heterogeneity of the transition zone, the actual flow rates can only be determined once the extraction wells have been installed and the system monitored. Existing and proposed observation monitoring wells will also be used to measure the effectiveness of the system in controlling groundwater flow in the area. Extracted groundwater will be pumped through discharge piping directly into the ash basin. Page 3-1 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ 20. BELEWS CREEK\ 04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\ 60 PERCENT DESIGN\ Final 60 Percent Basis of Design Report, Belews Creek, 3-31-2017.docx Basis of Design Report (60% Submittal) April 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station SynTerra 3.2 Evaluation of Alternative Technologies Options considered in the IAP included groundwater extraction and/or a low permeability barrier wall. An evaluation of remedial alternative technologies is provided in Appendix B and summarized below. A low permeability barrier wall as a method of alternative remediation has been evaluated and is not considered technically feasible for the following reasons: E7 Constituent concentrations greater than 2L are observed within the shallow and transition zone flow systems. The fractures inherent within the transition zone formation preclude the suitability for the installation of slurry walls or permeable reactive barriers because completely sealing this formation would not be possible. Boron treatment via a reactive barrier is not a proven technology. Increased hydraulic heads would be created behind a barrier wall and localized leaks through unsealed fractures could result in accelerated flow through areas of the transition zone. �� Site conditions indicate that it is infeasible to ensure that a barrier wall is hydraulically sealed at the interface with bedrock. The variability and structure of the bedrock interface preclude a sound seal. The surface of the competent bedrock beneath the transition zone is uneven, the thickness of the transition zone is variable, the surface of the transition zone is uneven, the rock comprising the transition zone is fractured, and the depth to competent bedrock is significant. y A barrier wall would have to extend significant distances to the northeast and southwest beyond Parcel A property boundaries to prevent impacted groundwater from flowing around the wall and beneath Parcel A. ,61P The area where a barrier wall is most apt to be located consists of major topographic relief southeast to northwest, from the crest of the ash basin dam to the Dan River. The topography, along with an irregular bedrock surface, renders the implementation of a slurry trench technically infeasible and would not benefit the off-site parcel. Another option considered was a combination of extraction wells and a low permeability barrier. This option was also rejected because of the technical infeasibility to ensure an effective hydraulic seal between the barrier wall and the bedrock interface as discussed above. Page 3-2 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ 20. BELEWS CREEK\ 04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\ 60 PERCENT DESIGN\ Final 60 Percent Basis of Design Report, Belews Creek, 3-31-2017.docx Basis of Design Report (60% Submittal) April 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station SynTerra The pumping tests conducted by HDR in September 2016 confirmed the feasibility of implementation of extraction wells northwest of the ash basin. As indicated in the pumping test report, soils and pumping test data indicate that extraction from the deeper, more permeable transition zone is a viable approach to limiting plume migration. Review of the boring logs for wells in this area indicates that the shallow zone and the transition zone are connected hydraulically. This means that groundwater extraction from the transition zone will result in lowering the water level in the shallow zone and creation of a hydraulic barrier to down gradient migration throughout the water column. Several additional monitoring wells will be added to monitor the shallow zone as part of Phase 1. Once steady state conditions are reached, a hydraulic barrier can be maintained with a sustainable, relatively constant, extraction flow rate from the transition zone. Note that the groundwater extraction system operation may not be necessary once the ash basin is dewatered and closed (as groundwater levels are anticipated to drop below the transition zone). 3.3 Groundwater Fate and Transport Modeling A Groundwater Flow and Transport Modeling Report has been developed and submitted with the CAP Part 1 (December 8, 2015) and the CAP Part 2 (March 4, 2016). The HDR model is being updated with information obtained from the installation of data gap wells and the recently completed aquifer pumping tests and the domain expanded to include the area incorporating Parcel A. The HDR updated groundwater flow model was further refined to include the planned remediation system to predict potential performance of the system. The focus of the groundwater model is to determine optimum extraction well location, sustainable extraction well flow rates and simulation of the remediation effects on geochemistry using boron as the primary constituent of concern. 3.3.1 Groundwater Flow Model Conceptualization Design Groundwater flow modeling was conducted to optimize the extraction well placement and evaluate potential well yield for groundwater extraction under a phased approach using an initial 5 well scenario. Based on modeling results, a ten well extraction system was determined to be more appropriate as an initial phase. Page 3-3 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ 20. BELEWS CREEK\ 04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\ 60 PERCENT DESIGN\ Final 60 Percent Basis of Design Report, Belews Creek, 3-31-2017.docx Basis of Design Report (60% Submittal) April 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station SynTerra The calculated pumping rates for extraction wells ranged from 0.2 gpm (southern end of the extraction system) to 7.25 gpm (central portion of the extraction system), depending on the extraction well scenario, and were based on variable hydraulic conductivities within the model and simulation drawdown limitations (no cells drying out). The simulated steady state drawdown within the transition zone (model layer 6) for the five extraction well scenario predicts that pumping from the initial five extraction wells will lower groundwater levels by more than 1 foot in the transition zone, causing the water table to drop within the surficial zone in much of the area. However, the model indicates that a five well extraction system is not sufficiently robust to provide adequate hydrologic impact. Subsequently, a 10 well extraction well scenario with closer well spacing was simulated. The model predicts that ten extraction wells within the transition zone (model layer 6) will lower groundwater levels for more than 5 to 10 feet along the extraction system axis, with hydraulic impacts to Parcel A. Due to the heterogeneity of the transition zone, the actual sustainable pumping rates will need to be evaluated once the initial phase of the extraction system is in operation. Following a six-month evaluation period, additional extraction wells will be installed as needed and the model will be modified to better match actual site conditions. Fate and transport modeling for boron shows little impact after pumping for six months. However, modeling for a long time period of pumping (five year simulation) demonstrates slight reductions of boron (> 7,000 ug/L) along the extraction system axis. Periodic monitoring of groundwater chemistry from the extraction system observation wells and groundwater monitoring wells in the vicinity will assist in the efficiency of the extraction system. Further discussion of the Groundwater Flow Model Conceptualization is provided in Appendix C. 3.3.2 Groundwater Flow Model Calibration Discussion of Groundwater Flow Model Calibration is included in Appendix C. 3.3.3 Implications of Remedy on Geochemical Conditions and Plume Stability Geochemical modeling was undertaken to help understand the mobility of constituents and the influence of the active ash basin on downgradient areas. The Page 3-4 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ 20. BELEWS CREEK\ 04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\ 60 PERCENT DESIGN\ Final 60 Percent Basis of Design Report, Belews Creek, 3-31-2017.docx Basis of Design Report (60% Submittal) April 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station SynTerra goals of the geochemical modeling effort were to 1) provide a qualitative conceptual model of the behavior of several constituents at the Belews Creek site with a focus on arsenic, boron, and selenium in the accelerated remediation area, and 2) provide a qualitative assessment of the potential effects of accelerated remedial efforts at the site. These modeling efforts were compiled in the Focused Geochemical Report provided in Appendix D. The geochemical modeling incorporated an examination of the behavior of key parameters of interest from seven coal ash basin sites (referred to as the global model), and then focused on conditions and constituent behavior as exemplified by data from wells within the area of interest in the vicinity of Parcel A, northwest of the active basin dam. The Parcel A model investigates the active ash basin's influence on the subsurface environment using wells within a hydraulically significant flow path (Figure 1-2). The geochemical modeling efforts indicate that pH and redox potential (Eh) play a key role in constituent mobility (Powell, 2015; Appendix D). As a result, the primary emphasis of the geochemical modeling was to understand the influences of pH and Eh on the aqueous speciation, sorption, and solubility of arsenic, boron, and selenium using the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) geochemical modeling program PHREEQC. A groundwater extraction well system will result in enhanced pore water removal which will increase the hydraulic gradient toward the extraction system. Assuming the newly introduced water equilibrates with the subsurface solids, and that the solids are the primary redox and pH buffer, no change in the pH or redox potential is expected. Removal of pore waters containing CCR constituents will induce a concentration gradient causing desorption of sorbed constituents and lower the solid phase concentration. One limitation is that a rapid re -equilibration is assumed. Based on the relative consistency of measured pH and Eh values in Belews Creek site wells over time, the assumption of a rapid equilibration seems appropriate. Therefore it is anticipated that the extraction well system will not impact the pH and Eh of the pore waters and is unlikely to result in enhanced mobilization of constituents. This can be monitored once the groundwater extraction system is operational. Additional detail and discussion of the geochemical modeling can be found in the Focused Geochemical Modeling Report included as Appendix D. Page 3-5 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ 20. BELEWS CREEK\ 04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\ 60 PERCENT DESIGN\ Final 60 Percent Basis of Design Report, Belews Creek, 3-31-2017.docx Basis of Design Report (60% Submittal) April 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station SynTerra 3.4 Groundwater Extraction System Design The groundwater extraction system design is based on effective and efficient capture and conveyance of groundwater for discharge. Based on the HDR pumping test results, up to twenty 6 -inch diameter extraction wells may ultimately be installed along the southeastern side of Middleton Loop Road, between the ash basin and Parcel A based upon a spacing of 45 feet as suggested from the pumping test report. However, flow rates are likely to vary significantly throughout the transition zone and spatially along the proposed well alignment. The phased installation approach will allow refinement of the well spacing and flow rates. The flow rate achieved from the transition zone of 2 gallons per minute (gpm) during the test of well TW -1 resulted in a sustained drawdown of approximately 16 feet in the well. If all proposed groundwater extraction wells achieve a similar flow rate, the total flow rate for the extraction system could be 40 gpm. Extraction wells will be completed to depths expected to be 55 to 65 feet below grade to encounter the fractured rock constituting the transition zone/deep flow layer. Pump controls will allow operation based on speed, flow rate, or water level. An ideal pumping scenario will create a constant drawdown with continuous pumping after steady state conditions are reached. During initial dewatering of the shallow zone soil, pump cycling will likely occur. High level and low level pump controls will be used as an alternative method for pump cycling should conditions warrant. Thermal and electrical current load protection (shut-off) is built into the pump motor. 3.4.1 Current Conditions The area of the proposed extraction well network is located between the ash basin and Middleton Loop Road. The southern portion of the area is slightly wooded, while the northern area is an open area associated with maintenance of the ash basin discharge structure. 3.4.2 Post -Basin Closure Conditions Plans for basin closure are not complete at this time although it is anticipated the ash basin will be dewatered and capped. 3.5 Groundwater Extraction System Design Limitations Discussion of Groundwater Extraction System Design Limitations will be included in the final Basis of Design Report submittal. Page 3-6 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ 20. BELEWS CREEK\ 04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\ 60 PERCENT DESIGN\ Final 60 Percent Basis of Design Report, Belews Creek, 3-31-2017.docx Basis of Design Report (60% Submittal) April 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station SynTerra 4.0 WELL DESIGN The extraction well system is designed to capture groundwater flow between the ash basin and Parcel A to provide mass removal of constituents of concern to accelerate groundwater remediation at the property boundary. 4.1 Overview of Extraction Well Network Based on this objective, the Phase I preliminary design spacing between extraction wells is an average of 85 feet along Middleton Loop Road, adjacent to the subject property. Additional extraction wells may be needed depending of site conditions. Based on the HDR pump test results, with the assumption of 2 gpm per well, the total flow rate for the 10 well extraction system would be 20 gpm. However, to accommodate potential additional extraction wells, a design flow rate of 80 gpm is used. 4.2 Well Construction The extraction wells will be installed by a North Carolina licensed well driller in accordance with North Carolina Administrative Code Title 15A, Subchapter 2C - Well Construction Standards, Rule 108 Standards of Construction: Wells Other Than Water Supply (15A NCAC 02C.0108). The wells are planned to be drilled using either hollow stem augers utilizing 12 -inch O.D. (81/4 -inch I.D.) hollow stem augers to the bottom of the transition zone followed by an 8 -inch air hammer to approximately 5 feet into the upper bedrock or using 8 -inch air hammer from the ground surface to approximately 5 feet in the upper bedrock. The drilling method will be contingent on site conditions. Either drilling method will allow for a 2 -inch annular space around the 4 -inch casing and screen. The top of the sand pack will extend to two feet above the top of the well screen. The bentonite well seal will be at least one foot thick. Neat cement grout with 5% bentonite will be placed to within three feet of the ground surface. All materials and installations will be in accordance with 15A NCAC 02C. A well construction drawing is included in Appendix F. The wells will be drilled and installed to depths of between about 55 and 65 feet, corresponding to the depth of competent bedrock. The exact depths will be determined during drilling. The well screens will be installed to the bottom of the transition zone to provide capture across the depth of this layer. The extraction wells will be 4 -inch diameter wells with Schedule 40 PVC casings. At a maximum depth of 65 feet, the worst case scenario collapse pressure will be 28.1 psi. Page 4-1 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ 20. BELEWS CREEK\ 04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\ 60 PERCENT DESIGN\ Final 60 Percent Basis of Design Report, Belews Creek, 3-31-2017.docx Basis of Design Report (60% Submittal) April 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station SynTerra Pressure (psi) = Depth of Casing (feet) x Water Weight (lbs per cubic foot) Pressure (psi) = 65 feet x 62.4 lbs f t3 x 144 int 1 f t2 _ 28.1 psi The collapse pressure for 4 -inch Schedule 40 PVC is 190 psi. Four -inch diameter PVC casing installations are allowed to depths of 253 feet in accordance with 15A NCAC 02C. The well screens will be installed near the bottom of the permeable formation to provide for maximum flexibility in varying drawdown while still facilitating groundwater capture throughout the water column. The submerged screen placement will also reduce premature oxidation of iron during extraction which could cause extraction and pumping system fouling and loss of efficiency. Wound wire screens will be used to reduce loss of efficiency over time and to facilitate rehabilitation if necessary. The well screens will be 0.010 -inch (10 -slot) Johnson Screen@ 304 stainless steel wound wedge (or comparable) wire screens. These screens have a collapse pressure of 326 psi. The well screens will be 10 feet long which will provide for a minimum flow capacity of 74 gpm which is significantly greater than the maximum design flow of 4 gpm. Capacity (gpm) = Open Area x 0.31 @ 0.1 f t/sec x Screen Length (feet) Q=24 x0.31 x10 =74.4 gpm Technical specifications for the well screens are provided in Appendix G. 4.3 Groundwater Extraction Rates As discussed above, groundwater extraction rates, based on the HDR pump test results, are expected to be 2 gpm per well. At this pumping rate, the expected production of the system with the ten initial extraction wells will be 20 gpm. However, given that additional wells may be installed, up to a total of 20 wells, the header piping will be designed for a maximum flow of 80 gpm, which includes a safety factor of 2. Page 4-2 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ 20. BELEWS CREEK\ 04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\ 60 PERCENT DESIGN\ Final 60 Percent Basis of Design Report, Belews Creek, 3-31-2017.docx Basis of Design Report (60% Submittal) April 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station SynTerra 5.0 EXTRACTION SYSTEM PUMP AND PIPELINE DESIGN 5.1 Overall Pipeline Design Basis The anticipated flow rate for the system is 20 to 80 gpm. The pipeline design basis is 80 gpm to allow for the higher end of the anticipated pumping rate range. The piping system will be constructed below grade with high density polyethylene (HDPE). 5.1.1 Design Basis and Assumptions The extraction wells will be equipped with variable frequency drive (VFD) motor controls which will allow for speed, flow rate and water level control of the pump speeds. Electrical and thermal motor protection are also integrated into the pump controllers. 5.1.2 Calculation Method The proposed submersible pumps provide 230 feet of nominal head, operate on 230 volt single phase power and have a 0.75 horsepower (hp) submersible electric motor (e.g., Grundfos SQE Smart Flo 5SQE07-230 or equivalent). The pump diameter is 3 inches with a 1 -inch discharge. At 4 gpm, the pump provides 310 feet of head based on the motor drive frequency. The expected head requirement assumes a maximum of 65 feet from the well water column, 14 feet for surface elevation changes, 35 feet for piping losses, 2 feet for fittings loss, and an estimated 50 feet for treatment system requirements if this becomes necessary. This pump provides the greatest efficiency over the design flow rate range. Use of a VFD will provide the capability to operate the pump at lower flow rates, if necessary, while not significantly sacrificing efficiency or subjecting the pump to unnecessary working pressure. The well pumps will discharge through 1 -inch diameter discharge piping to the surface. The pipe will be secured in the center of the well casing with Simmons (or equal) top guides. 5.1.3 Well Head Configuration Well vaults will be finished below grade with insulated covers to simplify O&M (Appendix F) and utilize the following design parameters. �� Well vault piping and fittings will be 304 stainless steel to reduce risk of damage due to O&M. The piping will transition to high density Page 5-1 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ 20. BELEWS CREEK\ 04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\ 60 PERCENT DESIGN\ Final 60 Percent Basis of Design Report, Belews Creek, 3-31-2017.docx Basis of Design Report (60% Submittal) April 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station SynTerra polyethylene (HDPE) fusion -welded pipe for the buried sections of the piping system 07 The well seal will be Simmons Model 316 (or equal) cast solid plate, 4 -bolt seal with threaded openings for the pump power cable and level monitor. 47 The piping will be fitted with a Simmons Model 516SS (or equal) check valve. 47 Flow monitoring at the well head will be accomplished with a Sparling Tigermag EP FM656-OF-1-1-1-8-1 (or equal) electromagnetic flow meter with direct read and transmitter, along with a grounding ring AC615-01-1. `7 Well water level will be monitored with a Dwyer submersible level transmitter (or equal). 101 The piping will be fitted with a 1/4 -inch, lever handle, stainless steel ball valve sampling port. y A 1/4 -inch, 2 -inch face, 0-100 psig, liquid filled, stainless steel pressure gauge will also be installed. y A 1 -inch stainless steel ball valve and 1 -inch stainless steel pipe unions will also be installed to isolate the well and allow access to the well head piping elements for maintenance or repair. 5.2 Extraction Well Pipeline The extraction well header pipe will connect all of the well discharges to the treatment system. It will be constructed of 2 -inch diameter DR -11 HDPE. 5.2.1 Pipe Pressure The maximum pressure of the system is anticipated to be less than 150 psi. Manufacturers' pressure rating for DR -11 HDPE pipe is 200 psi. DR -11 pipe also meets long term pressure performance criteria. where: PR = 2(HDS) fE fT DR -1 PR: pressure rating, psi HDS: hydrostatic design stress, psi; 800 @ 73 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) fE: environmental design factor; 1.00 for water Page 5-2 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ 20. BELEWS CREEK\ 04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\ 60 PERCENT DESIGN\ Final 60 Percent Basis of Design Report, Belews Creek, 3-31-2017.docx Basis of Design Report (60% Submittal) April 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station SynTerra fT; operating temperature multiplier; 1.11 @ 73 OF DR: pipe dimension ratio, DR=D/t; D: diameter, t: thickness 150 = 2(800)(1.00)(1.11) DR -1 DR = 12.84; 12.84 > 11, so DR -11 is acceptable 5.2.2 Pipe Flow Flow velocities for the extraction well and header piping were estimated using the Hazen Williams formula with US units. where: Pd 4.52 Q1.852 S= L — C1.852 44.8704 S = frictional resistance (pressure drop per foot of pipe) in psig/ft (psi gauge pressure per foot) Pd = pressure drop over the length of pipe in psig L = length of pipe in feet Q = flow, gpm C = pipe roughness coefficient d = inside pipe diameter, in At the header pipe operating flow rate of 20 gpm, the water velocity in the pipe would be 1.12 feet per second (fps) and the head loss would be 0.003 feet of water per foot of pipe length (ft/ft). At the design flow rate of 80 gpm, the velocity will be 8.96 fps and the head loss will be 0.156 ft/ft (Appendix E). Piping from the well boxes to the header will be 1 -inch diameter DR -11 HDPE. At the expected well line operating flow rate of 2 gpm, the water velocity in the pipe will be 0.82 fps and the head loss will be 0.004 ft/ft. At the design flow rate of 4 gpm, the velocity will be 1.63 fps and the head loss will be 0.014 ft/ft (Appendix E). The fluid velocities and head losses are within acceptable ranges given the fluid and piping material characteristics. Installation of the pipe will be completed with heat fused joints and all piping connections will be pressure tested prior to burial. Page 5-3 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ 20. BELEWS CREEK\ 04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\ 60 PERCENT DESIGN\ Final 60 Percent Basis of Design Report, Belews Creek, 3-31-2017.docx Basis of Design Report (60% Submittal) April 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station SynTerra 5.2.3 Pipe Expansion/ Contraction HDPE pipe has a thermal expansion coefficient of 67.0 x10-6 in/in. Using a conservative groundwater temperature variation of 20 °F, the linear dimension change per 100 feet of pipe length is estimated to be: AT = 20 °F OL = 100 f t x 12 in in x 67.0 x 10-6 in°Fx 20 °F. = 1.6 in ft in This fluctuation assumes no soil resistance and can be accommodated at the connections of the header. 5.2.4 Pipe Trenching The extraction piping system will be installed in 3 -foot deep trenches constructed with granular bedding material, backfilled with excavated native soil and compacted to achieve H2O intermittent traffic loading requirements. Page 5-4 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ 20. BELEWS CREEK\ 04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\ 60 PERCENT DESIGN\ Final 60 Percent Basis of Design Report, Belews Creek, 3-31-2017.docx Basis of Design Report (60% Submittal) April 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station SynTerra 6.0 ELECTRICAL AND INSTRUMENTATION DESIGN Single-phase, 230 -Volt, 200 -Amp electrical service is available to the system from a power drop initiated from a transformer on Middleton Loop Road and terminated inside the fenced area at the current ash basin outlet structure location. The control panel for the system will be located in the same location. Power to the well pumps, through the VFDs, as well as the pumping system controls will be provided from this panel. 6.1 Piping and Instrumentation Diagram The Piping and Instrumentation Diagram (P&ID) will be completed as part of the Final Basis for Design package. 6.2 Pump Controls The pumps will be controlled with individual Grundfos (or equal) VFDs which adjust the power frequency to vary the motor speed to control the pumping rate. The pumping rate can be adjusted manually or based on set points for flow rate or water level in the well from flow or level sensor signals. The VFDs allow for soft starts of the motor and allow the motors to operate efficiently by only drawing the necessary amperage to provide the desired pumping rate. The control units include a basic Human Machine Interface (HMI) screen for ease of operation. 6.3 Emergency System Shutdown The pump motors have internal shutdown systems if the motors start to draw excessive power indicative of pump problems. The motors also have internal shutdown systems for motor overheating. In addition to these safeguards, high pressure conditions or other treatment system malfunctions can also trigger complete system shutdown. These safeguards will be programmed into the pumping control system. The control system will be equipped with an auto -dialer to notify operations staff of a system shutdown condition. Page 6-1 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ 20. BELEWS CREEK\ 04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\ 60 PERCENT DESIGN\ Final 60 Percent Basis of Design Report, Belews Creek, 3-31-2017.docx Basis of Design Report (60% Submittal) April 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station SynTerra 7.0 DESIGN DOCUMENTS This 60% design package includes a site layout drawing, a plan and profile, well details and well head configurations. Additional details and specifications will be finalized in the Final Basis of Design package. 7.1 Design Drawings The complete design package will include site layout plans and profiles, P&ID diagram, construction details, electrical and control drawings, and indices and notes. 7.2 Specifications Complete equipment, materials and construction specifications will be incorporated into the final design package. Supporting equipment performance data, calculations, and significant equipment and materials cut -sheets will also be included. This 60% design package includes supporting documentation for the significant elements necessary to evaluate the conceptual design. Page 7-1 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ 20. BELEWS CREEK\ 04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\ 60 PERCENT DESIGN\ Final 60 Percent Basis of Design Report, Belews Creek, 3-31-2017.docx Basis of Design Report (60% Submittal) April 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station SynTerra 8.0 GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION SYSTEM OPERATION 8.1 System Performance Metrics Effectiveness of groundwater extraction can be assessed through monitoring and evaluation of groundwater elevation and constituent concentrations in select wells. The system is designed to provide sufficient hydraulic control to reduce migration of source area constituents into the area of interest and remove constituent mass from the area of highest concentrations. Effectiveness can be evaluated by comparing baseline site condition information obtained during the CSA to information obtained following system startup, and compared to the groundwater fate and transport model predictive simulations. Information planned to be collected in support of system performance monitoring includes system operational data such as run time, pumping rates, and water levels, as well as water quality sampling of extraction wells and select monitoring wells. 8.2 Permits Discharge for the system will be into the ash basin under the requirements of the existing site NPDES permit. Additional permits will be required for erosion and sediment control and groundwater extraction well installation. 8.3 Institutional Controls 8.4 Contingency Plans 8.5 Construction and Monitoring Schedules These sections will be provided in the Final Basis of Design report. Page S-1 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ 20. BELEWS CREEK\ 04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\ 60 PERCENT DESIGN\ Final 60 Percent Basis of Design Report, Belews Creek, 3-31-2017.docx Basis of Design Report (60% Submittal) April 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station SynTerra 9.0 REFERENCES HDR Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinas, September 9, 2015. Comprehensive Site Assessment Report — Belews Creek Steam Station Ash Basin. HDR Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinas, December 8, 2015. Corrective Action Plan — Part 1: Belews Creek Steam Station Ash Basin. HDR Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinas, March 4, 2016. Corrective Action Plan — Part 2: Belews Creek Steam Station Ash Basin. HDR Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinas, August 11, 2016. Comprehensive Site Assessment — Supplement 2 — Belews Creek Steam Station Ash Basin. HDR Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinas, October 6, 2016. Field Investigation and Pumping Test Report. Page 9-1 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ 20. BELEWS CREEK\ 04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\ 60 PERCENT DESIGN\ Final 60 Percent Basis of Design Report, Belews Creek, 3-31-2017.docx Basis of Design Report (60% Submittal) April 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station FIGURES SynTerra P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ 20. BELEWS CREEK\ 04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\ 60 PERCENT DESIGN\ Final 60 Percent Basis of Design Report, Belews Creek, 3-31-2017.docx F� � �,4 V6p IPS P ACCELERATED REMEDIATII AREA OF INTEREST Cr � nL� Q L rr _,UNNAMED CREEK ASH BASIN — �� i �0> PARCEL LINE (APPROXIMATE) CD 1 � PINE HALL ROAD =�r I ASH LANDFILL _ D --STRUCT URAL FILL LROAO _ I _ — SOURCE: USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OBTAINED FROM THE USGS STORE AT http://store. usgs.gov/b2c_usgs/b2c/start/%%%28xcm=r3sta nda rd pitrex_prd%%%29/.do BELEWS CREEK STEAM STATION STOKES COUNTY WINSTON-SALEM • •RALEIGH synTerra GREENY •CHARLOTTE •FAYETTEWLLE 148 RIVER STREET, SUITE 220 GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA PHONE 864-421-9999 Ww .Symerracorp.com u e ner ro Me ,1026\20. BELEWS CREEK 04. CCP ACCelereteI Rem, Interim Aaion Plan - De n ev J E AyERS"RO l Riverview Golf Coucse_ �' PARCEL LINE (APPROXIMATE) \ \.� BELEWS LAKE COAL PILE k, Iii' io'. � - POWER PLANT O oD �J r) i I FIGURE 1-1 SITE LOCATION MAP DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS BELEWS CREEK STEAM STATION 3195 PINE HILL RD BELEWS CREEK, NORTH CAROLINA BELEWS LAKE NC QUADRANGLE IG70N DRAWN BY: JOHN CHASTAIN DATE: 11/28/2016 GRAPHIC SCALE PROJECT MANAGER: BILL MILLER CONTOUR INTERVAL: 20 FEET 1000 O 1000 ZOOO LAYOUT: USGS TOPO MAP DATE: 2013 1 DESIGN tlw \OE BELEWS CK FIG 1-1 USGS TOPO.d.2 IN FEET GWA- EXISTING AXLE i - V i ° MIDDLETON LOOP ROAD SB5� I NS]\ mum mom ;i m SB 4 i IC OUTLET I I EW 2 ITW 4; �i� b0_ / STRUCTURE T TW -2 T GWA-20SA��'"��' TW -3\V Viso — — GWA-20D GWA-20BR 4 .r `�`�\ wA z/„sB-2 LEGEND COMPLIANCE BOUNDARY vv A r; vv !' — — — — COMPLAINCE BOUNDARY COINCIDENT WITH PROPERTY LINE ASH BASIN WASTE BOUNDARY 0,//,,,.�r APPROX.ROAD RIGHT OF WAY — — — — DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS PROPERTY LINE �-� ----- PARCEL A BOUNDARY \\ EXISTING CONCRETE MONUMENT SB -1 4, v 10 �a°mv�v T r .r ��� �r ASH BASIN Ill AMW 17S CSA MONITORING WELL ELEVATION: APPROX. 750' 0 EW -1 EXTRACTION WELL FOR HDR PUMP TEST 770`/ n TW -1 TEMPORARY WELL FOR HDR PUMP TEST \\ -.'so. \\ \\ i \' • � SB -1 HDR SOIL BORING G \ - / O S-2 AOW -AREA OF WETNESS \ BO NOTES: 1. THE DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS PROPERTY LINE, COMPLIANCE BOUNDARY AND WASTE BOUNDARY SHOWN ARE FROM THE HDR SCSA SUPPLEMENT 2. DUKE IS ANTICIPATING COMMENTS FROM DEQ \\ CONCERNING THE COMPLIANCE BOUNDARY. 2. PARCEL A (2.23 ACRES) PROPERTY LINE IS BASED ON A PLAT PREPARED BY LDSI TITLED "EXHIBIT MAP \\ / FOR DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION", DATED 09-28-2016, PROJECT NUMBER 4115187, FILE NAME 4115198.DWG. 3. SITE FEATURES AND TOPOGRAPHY OBTAINED FROM MAP PREPARED BY WSP TITLED "MONITORING WELL / LOCATION SURVEY BELEWS CREEK STEAM STATION', JOB NUMBER 1188313A, DATED JULY 22, 2015, FILE NAME "BELEWS GWA FINAL 07-22-15.DWG". \ 4. THE COMPLIANCE BOUNDARY, WASTE BOUNDARY, DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS PROPERTY LINE, \\ ,' TEMPORARY WELLS, SOIL BORINGS, AND AOW LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. \ MIDDLETON GRAPH IC SCALE LOOP ROAD 100 0 100 200 FIGURE 1-2 IN FEET SITE LAYOUT 148 RIVER STREET, SUITE 220 DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS GREEN/ PHONE 64-421-9999LLE, SOUTH CAROLINA 29601 BELEWS CREEK STEAM STATION / PHONE 864-421-9999 www.synte"aco'p.com 3195 PINE HALL RD Terra PROJECT MANAGIGLER* DATE: PRINTED* BELEWS CREEK, NORTH CAROLINA O F PROJECT MANAGER: E LADY DATE PRINTED: / CHECKED BY: B. MILLER 12/27/2016 2:14 PM P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\30 PERCENT DESIGN\dwg\DE BELEWS CK FIG 1.2 SITE LAYOUT.dwg NOTES ' 1. CONCENTRATIONS SHOWN ARE FROM APRIL 27, 2016 1 TO OCTOBER 18, 2016. a 2. THE 2L FOR BORON IS 700 ug/L. 3. J = INDICATES CONCENTRATION REPORTED BELOW PRACTICAL QUANTITATION LIMIT (PQL), BUT ABOVE ^/ METHOD DETECTION LIMIT (MDL) AND THEREFORE CONCENTRATION IS ESTIMATED. LC SB -5 MIDDLETON LOOP ROAD ��(' � . AB - '14 <- Y__- / i ., Tw-4/ bUTLET / STRUCTURE \ ` _3 1 " / GW 5301S 05m 155 PIPEHARGE �SB-2 LEGEND --- WELL � BORON ISOCONCENTRATION CONTOUR (ug/L) ALIGNMENT — — — PARCEL A PROPOSED PHASE 1 EXTRACTION WELL (APPROXIMATE) ASH BASIN PROPOSED PHASE 1 OBSERVATION WELL (APPROXIMATE) GMW-18S CSA MONITORING WELL EXISTING CONCRETEMONUMEN= / SB1 28J CONCENTRATION IN ug/L SEEP/AREA OF WETNESS (AOW) LOCATION no Ew-1 EXTRACTION WELL FOR PUMP TEST vvv __w ,�� �� Tw-1 TEMPORARY WELL FOR PUMP TEST \\ / GRAPHIC SCALE 240 0 240 480 FIGURE 2-1 HORIZONTAL SCALE 1" = 240' BORON IN SURFICIAL ZONE o \ �oZ\\ GWA-18S GREE RIVER LE,STREET, H CAR LIN DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS °m\�\ // 28J PHONE 864-420U�T999AROLINA29601 BELEWS CREEK STEAM STATION wwwsynterracorp.com D DRAWN BY: A. EEIGL DATE: 03/30/2017 MIDLETON Terra PROJECT MANAGER: G EADY BELEWS CREEK, NORTH CAROLINA LOOP ROAD \ CHECKED BY3- 'o7771026\20 rogress1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem 1—r n Action Plan - Design & Dev\60 PERCENT DESIGN\DWG\DE BELEWS CK FIG 2-1 To 2-12 ISOCONTOURS 20170330.dwg NOTES ' 1. CONCENTRATIONS SHOWN ARE FROM APRIL 27, 2016 a TO OCTOBER 18, 2016. \ o 2. THE 2L FOR BORON IS 700 ug/L. 1 3. J = INDICATES CONCENTRATION REPORTED BELOW PRACTICAL QUANTITATION LIMIT (PQL), BUT ABOVE METHOD DETECTION LIMIT (MDL) AND THEREFORE 4 2q o CONCENTRATION IS ESTIMATED. go U eso 0 26.9 J J GW00D�� II J d000 / SB-5v11DDLETON N \\\ Tao-- EXISTING AXLE. // 13,0-—.� > / /II I BTW-2OUTLET � STRUCTURE GWA 20D } y , ry_31 W DISCHARGE \V // PIPE 11 SB -2 LEGEND EXTRACTION WELL — — — — BORON ISOCONCENTRATION CONTOUR (Ug/L) ALIGNMENT — — /� PARCEL A PROPOSED PHASE 1 EXTRACTION WELL (APPROXIMATE) PROPOSED PHASE 1 OBSERVATION WELL (APPROXIMATE) ASH BASIN 9 GM28J8S CSA CONCEONTITORING WELL RAATIION IN ug/L \\ \\ EXISTING CONC ETE MONUMENT 0 SEEP/AREA OF WETNESS (AOW) LOCATION O OFEW--11 EXTRACTION WELL FOR PUMP TEST \\ — _ � C TW -1 TEMPORARY WELL FOR PUMP TEST �. GRAPHIC SCALE 240 0 240 480 `v '° GWA-1oD vv FIGURE 2-2 B1 � HORIZONTAL SCALE S=240' BORON IN TRANSITION ZONE 148 RIVER STREET, SUITE 220 GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA 29601 PHONE 864-421-9999 DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS \ l \\ <50 www.synterracorp.com BELEWS CREEK STEAM STATION DRAWN BY: A Terra - A. EEIGL DATE 03/30/2017 \\ -i BELEWS CREEK, NORTH CAROLINA MIDDLETON PROJECT MANAGER C EADY LOOP ROAD� CHECKED BY B WICKER \ P'.\Duke Energy Progress 1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, I—r,, Acton Plan - Design & Dcv\6D PERCENT DESIGN\DWG\DE BELEWS CK FIG 2-1 To 2-12 ISOCONTOURS 20170330.tlwg NOTES 1. CONCENTRATIONS SHOWN ARE FROM APRIL 27, 2016 TO OCTOBER 18, 2016. 2. THE 2L FOR BORON IS 700 ug/L. � 3. J = INDICATES CONCENTRATION REPORTED BELOW PRACTICAL QUANTITATION LIMIT (PQL), BUT ABOVE METHOD DETECTION LIMIT (MDL) AND THEREFORE CONCENTRATION IS ESTIMATED. 10 6 �1 690. 9 �'G I I 6G I I Aya Ic �so SB -4 EXISTING AXLE L EW -1 I � II BTW -1. /S 11 I TW -2 \ I / GWA-20BR iT�V 28.6 J \ G_- \\ 8B-1 - \\ EXISTING CONCRETE MONUMENT < 'r -770 v- vv v, .� \\ C MIDDLETON LOOP ROAD GW <5050 � � I I i MIDDLETON .00P ROAD a DISCHARGE PIPE LEGEND / EXTRACTION WELL — — BORON ISOCONCENTRATION CONTOUR (ug/L) ALIGNMENT — — — PARCEL A PROPOSED PHASE 1 EXTRACTION WELL (APPROXIMATE) PROPOSED PHASE 1 OBSERVATION WELL (APPROXIMATE) ASH BASIN GMW-18S CSA MONITORING WELL 28J CONCENTRATION IN ug/L S-2 SEEP/AREA OF WETNESS (AOW) LOCATION OO *FEW --ll EXTRACTION WELL FOR PUMP TEST -TW-1 TEMPORARY WELL FOR PUMP TEST GRAPHIC SCALE 240 0 240 480 FIGURE 2-3 HORIZONTAL E220CALE "=24 BORON IN BEDROCK ZONE 148 RIVER STREET, SUITE 220 GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA 29601 DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS PHONE s64421 www.synte rra co rp. BELEWS CREEK STEAM STATION .com com PROJECT ROJECTM MANAGER: DATE: 03/30/2017 BELEWS CREEK, NORTH CAROLINA PROJECT MANAGER:C.EADY % CHECKED BY: B. WICKER P:\Duke Energy Progr—.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Acc I—tetl R— Interim Action Plan - Design & De,\60 PERCENT DESIGN\DWG\DE BELEWS CK FIG 2-1 To 2-12 ISOCONTOURS 20170330—g NOTES 1. CONCENTRATIONS SHOWN ARE FROM APRIL 27, 2016 TO OCTOBER 18, 2016. 2. THE 2L FOR CHLORIDE IS 250 mg/L. 3. J = INDICATES CONCENTRATION REPORTED BELOW PRACTICAL QUANTITATION LIMIT (PQL), BUT ABOVE METHOD DETECTION LIMIT (MDL) AND THEREFORE CONCENTRATION IS ESTIMATED. --7 6 9pNoJ �?o rsso \\ EXISTING AXLE EW �' TW -2 GWA-20SA //; . 486 a • .. YG 519 S sm \\71,/L I \ a 157 o\\ EXISTING CONCRETE MONUMENTa� 770 _ \ \ 00A�,---- / � m \\� \ G A OS \\\4 so B 1 GN DDLETON OP ROAD M SB 5 AIDDLETC LOOP ROAD G LEGEND EXTRACTION WELL — — — — BORON ISOCONCENTRATION CONTOUR (Ug/L) ALIGNMENT — — — PARCEL A ® PROPOSED PHASE 1 EXTRACTION WELL (APPROXIMATE) 9 PROPOSED PHASE 1 OBSERVATION WELL (APPROXIMATE) ASH BASIN GMW-18S CSA MONITORING WELL 28J CONCENTRATION IN ug/L S-2 SEEP/AREA OF WETNESS (AOW) LOCATION FEW --11 EXTRACTION WELL FOR PUMP TEST -,C Tw-1 TEMPORARY WELL FOR PUMP TEST GRAPHIC SCALE 240 0 240 480 FIGURE 2-4 "°EET,SAL "=2°° CHLORIDE IN SURFICIAL ZONE E220CAIE 148 RIVER STREET, SUITE 220 GREENVILLE,SOUTH CAROLINA 296O1 DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS PHONE864-421-9999 6 www.synto,,aoo,p,c o m BELEWS CREEK STEAM STATION DRAWNEIY:A.EEIGL DATE: 03/30/2017 T BELEWS CREEK, NORTH CAROLINA Wn erra PROJECT MANAGER C.EADY CHECKED BY B WICKER P'.\Duke Energy Progress 1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem In[er n Action Plan - Design & Dev\60 PERCENT DESIGN\DWG\DE BELEWS CK FIG 2-1 To 2-12 ISOCONTOURS 20170330.dwg NOTES 1. CONCENTRATIONS SHOWN ARE FROM APRIL 27, 2016 TO OCTOBER 18, 2016. 2. THE 2L FOR CHLORIDE IS 250 mg/L. 3. J = INDICATES CONCENTRATION REPORTED BELOW PRACTICAL QUANTITATION LIMIT (PQL), BUT ABOVE METHOD DETECTION LIMIT (MDL) AND THEREFORE CONCENTRATION IS ESTIMATED. � II%� i / D p I \x I o� ( GWA-30D \ 0 Aj �J a: I w\\ ;...:r, \..,... --�5 �I SB-5v1IDDLETON \.., _ LOOP ROAD 4 9 459 OUTLET I . STRUCTURE GWA-31D `�^' )NDISCHARGE \\ // PIPE 27D / ,I ;6° \ LEGEND EXTRACTION WELL — BORON ISOCONCENTRATION CONTOUR (ug/L) ALIGNMENT — — — PARCEL A PROPOSED PHASE 1 EXTRACTION WELL (APPROXIMATE) ( :GWA-19D / �� / i 1 m \\ n / � � PROPOSED PHASE 1 OBSERVATION WELL (APPROXIMATE) o ASH BASIN 3 \, \�\ / _ / GMW-18S CSA MONITORING WELL EXISTING CONCRETE MON T �B-1 2Hj CONCENTRATION IN ug/L V 240. WS\V / SEEP/AREA OF WETNESS (AOW) LOCATION EW -1 EXTRACTION WELL FOR PUMP TEST \\ 1` �`I - / TW -1 TEMPORARY WELL FOR PUMP TEST \\ GRAPHIC SCALE vV ''GWA-10D v��� 240 0 240 480 FIGURE 2-5 21.7 `� B ' _ HORIZONTAL E220CALE "=2° CHLORIDE IN TRANSITION ZONE 148 RIVER STREET, SUITE 220 PHONE 86 -421-9HCARouNA296o1 DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS PHONE 864 4219999 vv WWWsynterracorp.c°m BELEWS CREEK STEAM STATION vv % MIDDLETON ���� PROECTMANAGER`C.EADY DATE:°3i3°/zD17--] BELEWS CREEK, NORTH CAROLINA \\ LOOP ROAD CHECKED BY B WILKER — - P'.\Duke Energy Progress 1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem 1—r,,, Action Plan -Design & Dev\GO PERCENT DESIGN\DWG\DE BELEWS CK FIG 2-1 To 2-12 ISOCONTOURS 201]0330.tlwg _-7 I / � l5 d G NOTES 1. CONCENTRATIONS SHOWN ARE FROM APRIL 27, 2016 TO OCTOBER 18, 2016. 2. THE 2L FOR CHLORIDE IS 250 mg/L. 3. NO CHLORIDE EXCEEDANCES OF 2L IN BEDROCK ZONE. 4. J = INDICATES CONCENTRATION REPORTED BELOW PRACTICAL QUANTITATION LIMIT (PQL), BUT ABOVE METHOD DETECTION LIMIT (MDL) AND THEREFORE CONCENTRATION IS ESTIMATED. --7 '00 313-5MIDDLETON LOOP w�so SBA - Tw �\ \V 17 EW 2 T_W-2OUTLET SRUCTURE � \ DISCHARGE PIPE s / LEGEND EXTRACTION WELL BORON ISOCONCENTRATION CONTOUR (ug/L) ALIGNMENT — — — PARCEL A PROPOSED PHASE 1 EXTRACTION WELL (APPROXIMATE) PROPOSED PHASE 1 OBSERVATION WELL (APPROXIMATE) ASH BASIN CSA MONITORING WELL \\\ 1 \ \\\ EXISTING CONCRETEMONUMEN\n SB -_1 28� CONCENTRATION IN ug/L O SEEP/AREA OF WETNESS (AOW) LOCATION so � EW -1 EXTRACTION WELL FOR PUMP TEST -770 - O O C TW -1 TEMPORARY WELL FOR PUMP TEST \ \\ V t os \t � GRAPHIC SCALE \\ so 240 0 240 480 vv B HORIZONTAL SCALE I"=2° FIGURE 2-6 CHLORIDE IN BEDROCK ZONE 148 RIVER STREET, SUITE 220 GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA 29601 DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS \\ / PHONE 864-421-9999 ynterracorp.com BELEWS CREEK STEAM STATION wwws Terra[11AWNBY:A.EEIGL DATE: 03/30/2017 BELEWS CREEK, NORTH CAROLINA MIDDLETON PROJECT MANAGER C. EADY LOOP ROAD j CHECKED BY B WICKER P'.\Duke Energy Progress 1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem In[er n Action Plan - Design & Dev\60 PERCENT DESIGN\DWG\DE BELEWS CK FIG 2-1 To 2-12 ISOCONTOURS 20170330.dwg NOTES 1. CONCENTRATIONS SHOWN ARE FROM APRIL 27, 2016 TO OCTOBER 18, 2016. 2. THE 2L FOR SELENIUM IS 20 ug/L. 1 3. J = INDICATES CONCENTRATION REPORTED BELOW 1 PRACTICAL QUANTITATION LIMIT (PQL), BUT ABOVE \ METHOD DETECTION LIMIT (MDL) AND THEREFORE J\ CONCENTRATION IS ESTIMATED. 0.41 J II �� \\ ss° �� I �� �V\\ - V�V��• I a l SB -5 w�%V. z°�F �.I�. LO OOPROAD ( i, SBA 8. \\ 740 ,6 y - �osm\� EW -1 \\ I II EW 2 TW -4i /i �TW-2 - OUT STRUCTURE TW -3 GWA-31S--- GWA- \\ 5. % Q /AV . o , 70 EXISTING CONCRETE MONUMENT �o GWA-10S m \\\ c �V GU � 31.8 1 _ o \ a / bts-2 LEGEND EXTRACTION WELL — BORON ISOCONCENTRATION CONTOUR (ug/L) ALIGNMENT PARCEL A PROPOSED PHASE 1 EXTRACTION WELL (APPROXIMATE) PROPOSED PHASE 1 OBSERVATION WELL (APPROXIMATE) ASH BASIN Se -1 ` GMW-18S CSA MONITORING WELL 28J CONCENTRATION IN uVL S-2 SEEP/AREA OF WETNESS (AOW) LOCATION OO *FEW --ll EXTRACTION WELL FOR PUMP TEST -C Tw-1 TEMPORARY WELL FOR PUMP TEST % GRAPHIC SCALE 240 0 240 480 FIGURE 2-7 8S HORIZONTAL SCALE T' = 240- 3 SELENIUM IN SURFICIAL ZONE 148 RIVER STREET, SUITE 220 GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA 29601 DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS 999 wHONEs6rracor .com BELEWS CREEK STEAM STATION www.synte rra co rp. com C Terra[IRAWNBY:A.l0GL DATE: 03/30/2017 BELEWS CREEK, NORTH CAROLINA IOP ROAN - S�ROJECT MANAGER: C. EADY )OP ROAD /HECKED BY B. WICKER P:\Duke Energy Progr-1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accele,W,d Rem Inter m Acton Plan - Design & Dev\60 PERCENT DESIGN\DWG\DE BELEWS CK FIG 2-1 To 2-12 ISOCONTOURS 20170330.tlwg NOTES 1. CONCENTRATIONS SHOWN ARE FROM APRIL 27, 2016% TO OCTOBER 18, 2016. 2. THE 2L FOR SELENIUM IS 20 ug/L. H� 3. NO SELENIUM EXCEEDANCES OF 2L IN TRANSITION ZONE. 4. J = INDICATES CONCENTRATION REPORTED BELOW PRACTICAL QUANTITATION LIMIT (PQL), BUT ABOVE1 METHOD DETECTION LIMIT (MDL) AND THEREFORE CONCENTRATION IS ESTIMATED. I 1� 6 11 � GWA-21D MoD �,, <0.5 WA -11D JI SB -4 \\ � so „n EXISTING AXLE B AB -1D G OUTLET-� STRUCTURE \\� TW -3 °--c t� \\ I PIPEHARGE GWA57D � I LEGEND o vv EXTRACTION WELL — BORON ISOCONCENTRATION CONTOUR (ug/L) ALIGNMENT — — — PARCEL A PROPOSED PHASE 1 EXTRACTION WELL (APPROXIMATE) PROPOSED PHASE 1 OBSERVATION WELL (APPROXIMATE) 71, ASH BASIN 3 1. <0.5 � GMW-18S CSA MONITORING WELL \\ 1 \\\ EXISTING CONCRETE MONUMENT SB -1 / --- 28J CONCENTRATION IN ug/L SEEP/AREA OF WETNESS (AOW) LOCATION FE W --11 EXTRACTION WELL FOR PUMP TEST -770 0 0TW-1 TEMPORARY WELL FOR PUMP TEST vv o \\t GRAPHIC SCALE 240 0 240 480 GWACO-50D \�'= HORIZONTAL SCALE I"=240' FIGURE 2-8 148 RIVER STREET, SUITE 220 SELENIUM IN TRANSITION ZONE �X GWos D PrRioN sea a2ou�rgggARouNA2sso1 DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS \\ WWWsynterracorp.com BELEWS CREEK STEAM STATION \\\r ���� BELEWS CREEK, NORTH CAROLINA \ DRAWN BY: A EEIGL DATE: 03/30/2017 \ LOOPMIDDROAD PROJECT MANAGER G EADY LOOP ROAD / CHECKED BY: B. WICKER PHONE Energy Progress 1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem In[er n Action Plan - Design & Dcv\60 PERCENT DESIGN\DWG\DE BELEWS CK FIG 2-1 To 2-12 ISOCONTOURS 20170330.tlwg NOTES 1. CONCENTRATIONS SHOWN ARE FROM APRIL 27, 2016 TO OCTOBER 18, 2016. 2. THE 2L FOR SELENIUM IS 20 ug/L. 3. NO SELENIUM EXCEEDANCES OF 2L IN BEDROCK ZONE. 4. J = INDICATES CONCENTRATION REPORTED BELOW PRACTICAL QUANTITATION LIMIT (PQL), BUT ABOVE METHOD DETECTION LIMIT (MDL) AND THEREFORE CONCENTRATION IS ESTIMATED. G GW % 5BR \ wo1M. '�,°%.i,. SB5 OIOPROAOD \\\ 0 10=0= 0 ___-- ---�- \1 bUTLET GWA-20BR } STrRUCTURE DISCHARGE \ \\\ PIPE 1�. GWA-27BR + / n <5 ' - - - LEGEND V m\V � , SB -2 ""o EXTRACTION WELL - BORON ISOCONCENTRATION CONTOUR (ug/L) ALIGNMENT - - - PARCEL A PROPOSED PHASE 1 EXTRACTION WELL (APPROXIMATE) PROPOSED PHASE 1 OBSERVATION WELL (APPROXIMATE) 71, ASH BASIN 0 GMW-18S CSA MONITORING WELL SB -1 EXISTING CONCRETE MONUMENT' / �- / --- 28� CONCENTRATION IN 'Q0 0° j SEEP/AREA OF WETNESS (AOW) LOCATION \\ FEW --11 EXTRACTION WELL FOR PUMP TEST -770 0 vv�C TW -1 TEMPORARY WELL FOR PUMP TEST \\ GRAPHIC SCALE 240 HORIZONTAL SCALE 12'40240' 48D FIGURE 2-9 SELENIUM IN BEDROCK ZONE 148 RIVER STREET, SUITE 220 GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA 29601 DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS / PHONE 864-421-9999 \\ ; www.synterracorp.com BELEWS CREEK STEAM STATION /` ���� DRAWN BV: A. FEIGL DATE: 03/30/2017 BELEWS CREEK, NORTH CAROLINA MDDLETON ': PROJECT MANAGER GEADY 1 LOOP ROAD / CHECKED BY B WILKER �—.� -- _ A / P'.\Duke Energy Progress 1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem In[er n Action Plan - Design & Dcv\60 PERCENT DESIGN\DWG\DE BELEWS CK FIG 2-1 To 2-12 ISOCONTOURS 20170330.tlwg NOTES 1. CONCENTRATIONS SHOWN ARE FROM APRIL 27, 2016 TO OCTOBER 18, 2016. 2. THE 2L FOR TDS IS 500 mg/L. 3. J = INDICATES CONCENTRATION REPORTED BELOW PRACTICAL QUANTITATION LIMIT (PQL), BUT ABOVE METHOD DETECTION LIMIT (MDL) AND THEREFORE CONCENTRATION IS ESTIMATED. 01 w - \k \p S 03 / ao B GWA-1S GWA 30S 48 OD B-5 MIDDLETON POP ROAD000, �_� \ // AB -1S SEA/� ,,n '� 1,260 \\ / -- TING AXLE.- EW_1 ' \V � II ♦ BTW -2 _ _ bUTLET GWA-20SA STRUCTURE , DISCHARGE \\ / PIPE d 1� _-7 �o GWA2-51S � G SB- 11�j LEGEND EXTRACTION WELL — BORON ISOCONCENTRATION CONTOUR (Ug/L) ALIGNMENT — — — PARCEL A PROPOSED PHASE 1 EXTRACTION WELL (APPROXIMATE) PROPOSED PHASE 1 OBSERVATION WELL (APPROXIMATE) ° GWA-19S1, ASH BASIN '3 299 \ \\ / SB- 9 GMW-18S CSA MONITORING WELL O/ \\ EXISTING CONCRETE MONUMENT 1 28J CONCENTRATION IN ug/L SEEP/AREA OF WETNESS (AOW) LOCATION so \\ / FEW --11 EXTRACTION WELL FOR PUMP TEST V`V A\ 770 00 �`II \\C TW -1 TEMPORARY WELL FOR PUMP TEST A- - \ 05 \t GRAPHIC SCALE 240 0 240 480 FIGURE 2-10 GWA--18S '' HORIZONTAL SCALE 1"=240 TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS (TDS) 125 �'148 RIVER STREET, SUITE 220 IN SURFICIAL ZONE j GREENVILLE,SOUTH CAROLINA 296O1 v v� PHONE 864-421-9999 DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS WWW.synterrac0rp.00m BELEWS CREEK STEAM STATION WTena PRAWNeMA.FEIGLAGER: DATE: os/so/zov BELEWS CREEK, NORTH CAROLINA �—� LOOP ROAD PROJECT MANAGER C.EADY LOOP ROAD �I / CHECKED BY B WICKER P'.\Duke Energy Progress 1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem In[er n Action Plan - Design & D-\60 PERCENT DESIGN\DWG\DE BELEWS CK FIG 2-1 To 2-12 ISOCONTOURS 20170330.dwg NOTES ' 1. CONCENTRATIONS SHOWN ARE FROM APRIL 27, 2016 a TO OCTOBER 18, 2016. ! o d 2. THE 2L FOR TDS IS 500 mg/L. 1� 3. J =INDICATES CONCENTRATION REPORTED BELOW PRACTICAL QUANTITATION LIMIT (PQL), BUT ABOVE METHOD DETECTION LIMIT (MDL) AND THEREFORE 4 2° CONCENTRATION IS ESTIMATED. \\ V J 21 WA- D— \1 G 545 ` 5� S,im `'oSSB-5G11DDRETOp Y \\\ _ - EXISTING AXLE II o // 1,250 740- \1 y °s\V s m \ \\ OUTLET DISCHARGE PIPE SB-2 LEGEND i EXTRACTION WELL BORON ISOCONCENTRATION CONTOUR (ug/L) ALIGNMENT — — — PARCEL A / ® PROPOSED PHASE 1 EXTRACTION WELL (APPROXIMATE) / \\>32p ASH BASIN PROPOSED PHASE 1 OBSERVATION WELL (APPROXIMATE) V\lGWA-19D \\ / \\\\\TORING WELL S61 / GM 8J8S CONCECSA ONTIRAATIION IN ug/L .o\ EXISTING CONCR EMONUMENT � - Q0 /O SEEP/AREA OF WETNESS (AOW) LOCATION O EW-1 EXTRACTION WELL FOR PUMP TEST 770 - O \\! �_ / a TW-1 TEMPORARY WELL FOR PUMP TEST GRAPHIC SCALE 240 0 FIGURE 2-11 y G2soD 240 480 2\\� ��� HORIZONTAL SCALE 1"=240 TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS (TDS) 148 RIVER STREET, SUITE 220 IN TRANSITION ZONE tsm-\\ ! GW18D A-GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA 29601 94 PHONE 8644219999 DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS / www.synterracorp.com BELEWS CREEK STEAM STATION \\/ DRAWN BY: A. EEIGL DATE: 03/30/2017 MIDDLETON Terra FIR JECT MANAGER: C.EADY BELEWS CREEK, NORTH CAROLINA LOOP ROAD :I / � CHECKED BY: B. WILKER /J P:\Duke Energy Progre55.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan- Design & De,\60 PERCENT DESIGN\DWG\DE BELEWS CK FIG 2-1 To 2-12 ISOCONTOURS_201703 NOTES 1. CONCENTRATIONS SHOWN ARE FROM APRIL 27, 2016 TO OCTOBER 18, 2016. 2. THE 2L FOR TDS IS 500 mg/L. � 3. NO TDS EXCEEDANCES OF 2L IN BEDROCK ZONE. 4. J = INDICATES CONCENTRATION REPORTED BELOW PRACTICAL QUANTITATION LIMIT (PQL), BUT ABOVE METHOD DETECTION LIMIT (MDL) AND THEREFORE CONCENTRATION IS ESTIMATED. °2, 9 �'G I I _ I I SB -4 EXISTING AXLE L EW -1 /TW -2 % GW191 BR 'TW -3 / o j 'aD AV SB - EXISTING CONCRETE MONUMENT 240.., �� X54 S°m\\V vv, C \\ MIDDLETON LOOP ROAD MIDDLETON .00P ROAD / vm� Q DISCHARGE PIPE LEGEND EXTRACTION WELL — — BORON ISOCONCENTRATION CONTOUR (ug/L) ALIGNMENT — — — PARCEL A PROPOSED PHASE 1 EXTRACTION WELL (APPROXIMATE) PROPOSED PHASE 1 OBSERVATION WELL (APPROXIMATE) ASH BASIN GMW-18S CSA MONITORING WELL 28J CONCENTRATION IN uVL S-2 SEEP/AREA OF WETNESS (AOW) LOCATION OO *FEW --ll EXTRACTION WELL FOR PUMP TEST -TW-1 TEMPORARY WELL FOR PUMP TEST HORIZONTAL SA40 GRAPHIC SCALE 240 0 240 Oso FIGURE 2-12 TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS (TDS) 148 RIVER STREET, SUITE 220 IN BEDROCK ZONE GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA 29601 PHONE 864-421-9999 DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS RAW WN BY:A. racorp.com BELEWS CREEK STEAM STATION s)mTerla PROJECT A GER:DGL DATE D6�30�2017 BELEWS CREEK, NORTH CAROLINA PROJECT BY B. R:C.EADY % CHECKED BY: B. WICKER P:\Duke Energy Progr-1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & D,,\60 PERCENT DESIGN\DWG\DE BELEWS CK FIG 2-1 To 2-12 ISOCONTOURS 201T0330.d,g GWA-19S:1,320 GWA-19D: <50 STRATIGRAPHY LEGEND N WEST 800 r--- 700 GWA-27S: 155 GWA-27D: 5,420 GWA-27BR: <50 PARCELA GWA-20SA: 11,300 GWA-20D: 8,700 GWA-20BR: 51 200 400 600 op 000 ASH BASIN ASH BASIN DAM A' EAST ABA S: 14,900 ASA D: 13,000 ASA BR: 12,000 ft -%b ftft ftftxft qft�\7 ♦` INFERRED BORON 2L LIMIT EXCEEDANCE 1000 1200 1400 1600 SECTION A -A' SCALE: HORIZ 1"=200' M1 - SOIL/SAPROLITE; N<50 VERT 1"=50' M2 - SAPROLITE/WEATHERED ROCK; N>50 OR REC<50% 112" 0 112° 1,, TZ - PARTIALLY WEATHERED/FRACTURED ROCK; REC>50% AND RQD<50% BR - SOUND ROCK; REC>85% AND RQD>50% _ FILL - FILL MATERIAL BASE CROSS SECTION NOTES: '.ORIGINAL CROSS SECTION OBTAINED FROM "FIGURE 3 - CROSS SECTION A -A'", ACCELERATED REMEDIATION A01 REPORT, CREATED BY HDR, DATED SEPTEMBER 30, 2016. 2. GROUNDWATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS WERE TAKEN ON SEPTEMBER 14, 2016. WATER LEVELS PRESENTED ON CROSS SECTIONS ARE FROM SHALLOW WELLS ONLY AND REPRESENT THE WATER TABLE. 3. RECOVERY (REC) AND ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION (RQD) ARE MEASUREMENTS OF THE QUALITY OF ROCK CORE RECOVERED FROM A BOREHOLE. 4. STANDARD PENETRATION TESTING (SPT), REC AND RQD WERE THE PRIMARY SOURCES OF DATA USED IN THE DETERMINATION/ASSIGNMENT OF HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC LAYERS TO NATURAL MATERIALS (ALLUVIUM, SOIL, SAPROLITE, AND ROCK) IN A BOREHOLE; IN CASES WHERE SPT WAS NOT PERFORMED AND WHERE REC AND/OR RQD DATA WERE UNAVAILABLE DUE TO DRILLING METHOD, THE NATURAL MATERIALS WERE ASSIGNED TO A HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC LAYER BASED ON A REVIEW OF THE BOREHOLE LOG, FIELD PHOTOGRAPHS, AND GEOLOGIC JUDGMENT. 5. TOP OF CASING IS NOT PRESENTED HEREIN FOR WELL CONSTRUCTION GRAPHICS. 700 NOTES: 1. CONCENTRATIONS SHOW ARE FROM APRIL 27, 2016 TO OCTOBER 18, 2016. 2. THE 2L FOR BORON IS 700 ug/L. 3. J = INDICATED CONCENTRATION REPORTED BELOW PRACTICAL QUANTITATION LIMIT (PQL), BUT ABOVE METHOD DETECTION LIMIT (MDL) AND THEREFORE CONCENTRATION IS ESTIMATED. 4. CONCENTRATIONS ARE IN ug/L. WELL GRAPHIC LEGEND GWA-18D� WELL CASING-\ WELL SCREEN GWA-19S: 157 GWA-19D: 3 STRATIGRAPHY LEGEND N WEST GWA-27S:51.9 800 GWA-27D: 393 GWA-27BR:6 700 PARCELA GWA-20SA: 486- GWA-20D: 471 GWA-20BR: 26.4 isop mom aw 600 ' 0 200 400 600 ASH BASIN ASH BASIN DAM A' AB -1 S: 4�lm AS -1 D: 4 AS -1 BR: I 1� INFERRED CHLORIDE 2L LIMIT EXCEEDANCE EAST 1000 1200 1400 1600 SECTION A -A' SCALE: HORIZ 1"=200' M1 — SOIL/SAPROLITE; N<50 VERT 1"=50' M2 — SAPROLITE/WEATHERED ROCK; N>50 OR REC<50% 112" 0 112° 1,, TZ — PARTIALLY WEATHERED/FRACTURED ROCK; REC>50% AND RQD<50% BR — SOUND ROCK; REC>85% AND RQD>50% _ FILL — FILL MATERIAL BASE CROSS SECTION NOTES: 1. ORIGINAL CROSS SECTION OBTAINED FROM "FIGURE 3 - CROSS SECTION A -A'", ACCELERATED REMEDIATION AOI REPORT, CREATED BY HDR, DATED SEPTEMBER 30, 2016. 2. GROUNDWATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS WERE TAKEN ON SEPTEMBER 14, 2016. WATER LEVELS PRESENTED ON CROSS SECTIONS ARE FROM SHALLOW WELLS ONLY AND REPRESENT THE WATER TABLE. 3. RECOVERY (REC) AND ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION (RQD) ARE MEASUREMENTS OF THE QUALITY OF ROCK CORE RECOVERED FROM A BOREHOLE. 4. STANDARD PENETRATION TESTING (SPT), REC AND RQD WERE THE PRIMARY SOURCES OF DATA USED IN THE DETERMINATION/ASSIGNMENT OF HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC LAYERS TO NATURAL MATERIALS (ALLUVIUM, SOIL, SAPROLITE, AND ROCK) IN A BOREHOLE; IN CASES WHERE SPT WAS NOT PERFORMED AND WHERE REC AND/OR RQD DATA WERE UNAVAILABLE DUE TO DRILLING METHOD, THE NATURAL MATERIALS WERE ASSIGNED TO A HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC LAYER BASED ON A REVIEW OF THE BOREHOLE LOG, FIELD PHOTOGRAPHS, AND GEOLOGIC JUDGMENT. 5. TOP OF CASING IS NOT PRESENTED HEREIN FOR WELL CONSTRUCTION GRAPHICS. 700 NOTES: 1. CONCENTRATIONS SHOW ARE FROM APRIL 27, 2016 TO OCTOBER 18, 2016, 2. THE 2L FOR CHLORIDE IS 250 mg/L. 3. J = INDICATED CONCENTRATION REPORTED BELOW PRACTICAL QUANTITATION LIMIT (PQL), BUT ABOVE METHOD DETECTION LIMIT (MDL) AND THEREFORE CONCENTRATION IS ESTIMATED. 4. CONCENTRATIONS ARE IN mg/L. WELL GRAPHIC LEGEND GWA-18D� WELL CASING-\ WELL SCREEN GWA-19S: 30.9 GWA-19D: <0.5 STRATIGRAPHY LEGEND A WEST GWA-27S: 5.8 800 GWA-27D: <5 GWA-27BR: <5 PARCELA GWA-20SA: 3 GWA-20D: 0.83 GWA-20BR: 0.59 ASH BASIN ASH BASIN DAM A' EAST 800 AB -1 S: F " AS -1 D: 1: AS -1 BR: SELENIUM � ERRED 700 V 2LFLIMIIT EXCEEDA CE I 1 lk 700 600 10 200 400 .o 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 SECTION A -A' SCALE: HORIZ 1"=200' M1 - SOIL/SAPROLITE; N<50 VERT 1"=50' M2 - SAPROLITE/WEATHERED ROCK; N>50 OR REC<50% 112" 0 112° r TZ - PARTIALLY WEATHERED/FRACTURED ROCK; REC>50% AND RQD<50% BR - SOUND ROCK; REC>85% AND RQD>50% _ FILL - FILL MATERIAL BASE CROSS SECTION NOTES: '.ORIGINAL CROSS SECTION OBTAINED FROM "FIGURE 3 - CROSS SECTION A -A'", ACCELERATED REMEDIATION AOI REPORT, CREATED BY HDR, DATED SEPTEMBER 30, 2016. 2. GROUNDWATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS WERE TAKEN ON SEPTEMBER 14, 2016. WATER LEVELS PRESENTED ON CROSS SECTIONS ARE FROM SHALLOW WELLS ONLY AND REPRESENT THE WATER TABLE. 3. RECOVERY (REC) AND ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION (RQD) ARE MEASUREMENTS OF THE QUALITY OF ROCK CORE RECOVERED FROM A BOREHOLE. 4. STANDARD PENETRATION TESTING (SPT), REC AND RQD WERE THE PRIMARY SOURCES OF DATA USED IN THE DETERMINATION/ASSIGNMENT OF HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC LAYERS TO NATURAL MATERIALS (ALLUVIUM, SOIL, SAPROLITE, AND ROCK) IN A BOREHOLE; IN CASES WHERE SPT WAS NOT PERFORMED AND WHERE REC AND/OR RQD DATA WERE UNAVAILABLE DUE TO DRILLING METHOD, THE NATURAL MATERIALS WERE ASSIGNED TO A HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC LAYER BASED ON A REVIEW OF THE BOREHOLE LOG, FIELD PHOTOGRAPHS, AND GEOLOGIC JUDGMENT. 5. TOP OF CASING IS NOT PRESENTED HEREIN FOR WELL CONSTRUCTION GRAPHICS. M NOTES: 1. CONCENTRATIONS SHOW ARE FROM APRIL 27, 2016 TO OCTOBER 18, 2016. 2. THE 2L FOR SELENIUM IS 20 ug/L. 3. J = INDICATED CONCENTRATION REPORTED BELOW PRACTICAL QUANTITATION LIMIT (PQL), BUT ABOVE METHOD DETECTION LIMIT (MDL) AND THEREFORE CONCENTRATION IS ESTIMATED. 4. CONCENTRATION ARE IN ug/L. WELL GRAPHIC LEGEND GWA-18D� WELL CASING-\ WELL SCREEN GWA-19S: 299 GWA-19D: 90 STRATIGRAPHY LEGEND A WEST 800 r--- 700 GWA-27S: 108 GWA-27D: 990 GWA-27BR: 145 PARCELA GWA-20SA: 1,240 GWA-20D: 1,120 GWA-20BR: 191 200 400 600 op oop dow ASH BASIN ASH BASIN DAM A' EAST 800 AB -1S: 1,2''^ AS -1 D: 1,2 AS -11311: ov`_Iftowmm"mm ���� INFERRED TDS 2L LIMIT EXCEEDANCE 1000 1200 1400 1600 SECTION A -A' SCALE: HORIZ 1"=200' M1 - SOIL/SAPROLITE; N<50 VERT 1"=50' M2 - SAPROLITE/WEATHERED ROCK; N>50 OR REC<50% 112" 0 112° 1,, TZ - PARTIALLY WEATHERED/FRACTURED ROCK; REC>50% AND RQD<50% BR - SOUND ROCK; REC>85% AND RQD>50% _ FILL - FILL MATERIAL BASE CROSS SECTION NOTES: '.ORIGINAL CROSS SECTION OBTAINED FROM "FIGURE 3 — CROSS SECTION A—A'", ACCELERATED REMEDIATION A01 REPORT, CREATED BY HDR, DATED SEPTEMBER 30, 2016. 2. GROUNDWATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS WERE TAKEN ON SEPTEMBER 14, 2016. WATER LEVELS PRESENTED ON CROSS SECTIONS ARE FROM SHALLOW WELLS ONLY AND REPRESENT THE WATER TABLE. 3. RECOVERY (REC) AND ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION (RQD) ARE MEASUREMENTS OF THE QUALITY OF ROCK CORE RECOVERED FROM A BOREHOLE. 4. STANDARD PENETRATION TESTING (SPT), REC AND RQD WERE THE PRIMARY SOURCES OF DATA USED IN THE DETERMINATION/ASSIGNMENT OF HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC LAYERS TO NATURAL MATERIALS (ALLUVIUM, SOIL, SAPROLITE, AND ROCK) IN A BOREHOLE; IN CASES WHERE SPT WAS NOT PERFORMED AND WHERE REC AND/OR RQD DATA WERE UNAVAILABLE DUE TO DRILLING METHOD, THE NATURAL MATERIALS WERE ASSIGNED TO A HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC LAYER BASED ON A REVIEW OF THE BOREHOLE LOG, FIELD PHOTOGRAPHS, AND GEOLOGIC JUDGMENT. 5. TOP OF CASING IS NOT PRESENTED HEREIN FOR WELL CONSTRUCTION GRAPHICS. 700 NOTES: 1. CONCENTRATIONS SHOW ARE FROM APRIL 27, 2016 TO OCTOBER 18, 2016. 2. THE 2L FOR TDS IS 500 mg/L. 3. J = INDICATED CONCENTRATION REPORTED BELOW PRACTICAL QUANTITATION LIMIT (PQL), BUT ABOVE METHOD DETECTION LIMIT (MDL) AND THEREFORE CONCENTRATION IS ESTIMATED. 4. CONCENTRATIONS ARE IN mg/L. WELL GRAPHIC LEGEND GWA-18D� WELL CASING-\ WELL SCREEN 801 GWA-1 S: 42 GWA-1 D: 26.9 GWAA BR: <5 751 A z 0 Q w 701 J W 30m STRATIGRAPHY LEGEND -.0111111 PARCEL A blo B B' NOTES: 1. CONCENTRATIONS SHOW ARE FROM APRIL 27, 2016 TO OCTOBER 18, 2016. 2. THE 2L FOR BORON IS 700 ug/L. 3. J = INDICATED CONCENTRATION REPORTED BELOW PRACTICAL QUANTITATION LIMIT (PQL), BUT ABOVE METHOD DETECTION LIMIT (MDL) AND THEREFORE CONCENTRATION IS ESTIMATED CONCENTRATIONS ARE IN ug/L.. 0 200 400 600 800 DISTANCE (FT) SECTION B -B' 1000 SCALE: HORIZ 1"=200' M1 - SOIL/SAPROLITE; N<50 VERT 1"=50' M2 - SAPROLITE/WEATHERED ROCK; N>50 OR REC<50% 112" 0 112° 1,, TZ - PARTIALLY WEATHERED/FRACTURED ROCK; REC>50% AND RQD<50% BR - SOUND ROCK; REC>85% AND RQD>50% _ FILL - FILL MATERIAL BASE CROSS SECTION NOTES: '.ORIGINAL CROSS SECTION OBTAINED FROM "FIGURE 3 - CROSS SECTION A -A'", ACCELERATED REMEDIATION A01 REPORT, CREATED BY HDR, DATED SEPTEMBER 30, 2016. 2. GROUNDWATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS WERE TAKEN ON SEPTEMBER 14, 2016. WATER LEVELS PRESENTED ON CROSS SECTIONS ARE FROM SHALLOW WELLS ONLY AND REPRESENT THE WATER TABLE. 3. RECOVERY (REC) AND ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION (RQD) ARE MEASUREMENTS OF THE QUALITY OF ROCK CORE RECOVERED FROM A BOREHOLE. 4. STANDARD PENETRATION TESTING (SPT), REC AND RQD WERE THE PRIMARY SOURCES OF DATA USED IN THE DETERMINATION/ASSIGNMENT OF HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC LAYERS TO NATURAL MATERIALS (ALLUVIUM, SOIL, SAPROLITE, AND ROCK) IN A BOREHOLE; IN CASES WHERE SPT WAS NOT PERFORMED AND WHERE REC AND/OR RQD DATA WERE UNAVAILABLE DUE TO DRILLING METHOD, THE NATURAL MATERIALS WERE ASSIGNED TO A HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC LAYER BASED ON A REVIEW OF THE BOREHOLE LOG, FIELD PHOTOGRAPHS, AND GEOLOGIC JUDGMENT. 5. TOP OF CASING IS NOT PRESENTED HEREIN FOR WELL CONSTRUCTION GRAPHICS. 8S: 28 J 8D: <50 1200 1400 1600 vvu WELL GRAPHIC LEGEND GWA-18D� WELL CASING-\ WELL SCREEN B r 800 GWA-1 S: 51.5 GWA-1 D: 50.7 GWA-1 BR: 2.9 750 A z 0 Q w 700 J W Flo STRATIGRAPHY LEGEND PARCEL A wift a 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 vvu DISTANCE (FT) SECTION B -B' SCALE: HORIZ 1"=200' M1 - SOIL/SAPROLITE; N<50 VERT 1"=50' M2 - SAPROLITE/WEATHERED ROCK; N>50 OR REC<50% 112" 0 112° 1,, TZ - PARTIALLY WEATHERED/FRACTURED ROCK; REC>50% AND RQD<50% BR - SOUND ROCK; REC>85% AND RQD>50% _ FILL - FILL MATERIAL BASE CROSS SECTION NOTES: '.ORIGINAL CROSS SECTION OBTAINED FROM "FIGURE 3 - CROSS SECTION A -A'", ACCELERATED REMEDIATION AOI REPORT, CREATED BY HDR, DATED SEPTEMBER 30, 2016. 2. GROUNDWATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS WERE TAKEN ON SEPTEMBER 14, 2016. WATER LEVELS PRESENTED ON CROSS SECTIONS ARE FROM SHALLOW WELLS ONLY AND REPRESENT THE WATER TABLE. 3. RECOVERY (REC) AND ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION (RQD) ARE MEASUREMENTS OF THE QUALITY OF ROCK CORE RECOVERED FROM A BOREHOLE. 4. STANDARD PENETRATION TESTING (SPT), REC AND RQD WERE THE PRIMARY SOURCES OF DATA USED IN THE DETERMINATION/ASSIGNMENT OF HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC LAYERS TO NATURAL MATERIALS (ALLUVIUM, SOIL, SAPROLITE, AND ROCK) IN A BOREHOLE; IN CASES WHERE SPT WAS NOT PERFORMED AND WHERE REC AND/OR RQD DATA WERE UNAVAILABLE DUE TO DRILLING METHOD, THE NATURAL MATERIALS WERE ASSIGNED TO A HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC LAYER BASED ON A REVIEW OF THE BOREHOLE LOG, FIELD PHOTOGRAPHS, AND GEOLOGIC JUDGMENT. 5. TOP OF CASING IS NOT PRESENTED HEREIN FOR WELL CONSTRUCTION GRAPHICS. NOTES: 1. CONCENTRATIONS SHOW ARE FROM APRIL 27, 2016 TO OCTOBER 18, 2016. 2. THE 2L FOR CHLORIDE IS 250 mg/L. 3. J = INDICATED CONCENTRATION REPORTED BELOW PRACTICAL QUANTITATION LIMIT (PQL), BUT ABOVE METHOD DETECTION LIMIT (MDL) AND THEREFORE CONCENTRATION IS ESTIMATED. 4. CONCENTRATIONS ARE IN mg/L. A-1 8S: 21.5 A -18D: 7.9 WELL GRAPHIC LEGEND GWA-18D� WELL CASING-\ WELL SCREEN B r 800 GWA-1 S: 0.41 J GWA-1 D: 0.5 GWA-1 BR: <0.5 750 A z 0 Q w 700 J W Flo STRATIGRAPHY LEGEND PARCEL A n. NOTES: 1. CONCENTRATIONS SHOW ARE FROM APRIL 27, 2016 TO OCTOBER 18, 2016. 2. THE 2L FOR SELENIUM IS 20 ug/L. 3. J = INDICATED CONCENTRATION REPORTED BELOW PRACTICAL QUANTITATION LIMIT (PQL), BUT ABOVE METHOD DETECTION LIMIT (MDL) AND THEREFORE CONCENTRATION IS ESTIMATED. CONCENTRATIONS ARE IN ug/L. 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 vvu DISTANCE (FT) SECTION B -B' SCALE: HORIZ 1"=200' M1 - SOIL/SAPROLITE; N<50 VERT 1"=50' M2 - SAPROLITE/WEATHERED ROCK; N>50 OR REC<50% 112" 0 112° r TZ - PARTIALLY WEATHERED/FRACTURED ROCK; REC>50% AND RQD<50% BR - SOUND ROCK; REC>85% AND RQD>50% _ FILL - FILL MATERIAL BASE CROSS SECTION NOTES: '.ORIGINAL CROSS SECTION OBTAINED FROM "FIGURE 3 - CROSS SECTION A -A'", ACCELERATED REMEDIATION AOI REPORT, CREATED BY HDR, DATED SEPTEMBER 30, 2016. 2. GROUNDWATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS WERE TAKEN ON SEPTEMBER 14, 2016. WATER LEVELS PRESENTED ON CROSS SECTIONS ARE FROM SHALLOW WELLS ONLY AND REPRESENT THE WATER TABLE. 3. RECOVERY (REC) AND ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION (RQD) ARE MEASUREMENTS OF THE QUALITY OF ROCK CORE RECOVERED FROM A BOREHOLE. 4. STANDARD PENETRATION TESTING (SPT), REC AND RQD WERE THE PRIMARY SOURCES OF DATA USED IN THE DETERMINATION/ASSIGNMENT OF HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC LAYERS TO NATURAL MATERIALS (ALLUVIUM, SOIL, SAPROLITE, AND ROCK) IN A BOREHOLE; IN CASES WHERE SPT WAS NOT PERFORMED AND WHERE REC AND/OR RQD DATA WERE UNAVAILABLE DUE TO DRILLING METHOD, THE NATURAL MATERIALS WERE ASSIGNED TO A HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC LAYER BASED ON A REVIEW OF THE BOREHOLE LOG, FIELD PHOTOGRAPHS, AND GEOLOGIC JUDGMENT. 5. TOP OF CASING IS NOT PRESENTED HEREIN FOR WELL CONSTRUCTION GRAPHICS. 8S: 0.53 8D: <0.5 WELL GRAPHIC LEGEND GWA-18D� WELL CASING-\ WELL SCREEN i81 GWA-1 S: GWA-1 D: 1 GWA-1 BR: 1 75 A z 0 Q w 70 J W 309 STRATIGRAPHY LEGEND PARCEL A B B' 0 200 400 600 800 DISTANCE (FT) SECTION B -B' 1000 1200 1400 1600 vvu SCALE: HORIZ 1"=200' M1 - SOIL/SAPROLITE; N<50 VERT 1"=50' M2 - SAPROLITE/WEATHERED ROCK; N>50 OR REC<50% 112" 0 112° r TZ - PARTIALLY WEATHERED/FRACTURED ROCK; REC>50% AND RQD<50% BR - SOUND ROCK; REC>85% AND RQD>50% _ FILL - FILL MATERIAL BASE CROSS SECTION NOTES: '.ORIGINAL CROSS SECTION OBTAINED FROM "FIGURE 3 - CROSS SECTION A -A'", ACCELERATED REMEDIATION AOI REPORT, CREATED BY HDR, DATED SEPTEMBER 30, 2016. 2. GROUNDWATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS WERE TAKEN ON SEPTEMBER 14, 2016. WATER LEVELS PRESENTED ON CROSS SECTIONS ARE FROM SHALLOW WELLS ONLY AND REPRESENT THE WATER TABLE. 3. RECOVERY (REC) AND ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION (RQD) ARE MEASUREMENTS OF THE QUALITY OF ROCK CORE RECOVERED FROM A BOREHOLE. 4. STANDARD PENETRATION TESTING (SPT), REC AND RQD WERE THE PRIMARY SOURCES OF DATA USED IN THE DETERMINATION/ASSIGNMENT OF HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC LAYERS TO NATURAL MATERIALS (ALLUVIUM, SOIL, SAPROLITE, AND ROCK) IN A BOREHOLE; IN CASES WHERE SPT WAS NOT PERFORMED AND WHERE REC AND/OR RQD DATA WERE UNAVAILABLE DUE TO DRILLING METHOD, THE NATURAL MATERIALS WERE ASSIGNED TO A HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC LAYER BASED ON A REVIEW OF THE BOREHOLE LOG, FIELD PHOTOGRAPHS, AND GEOLOGIC JUDGMENT. 5. TOP OF CASING IS NOT PRESENTED HEREIN FOR WELL CONSTRUCTION GRAPHICS. NOTES: 1. CONCENTRATIONS SHOW ARE FROM APRIL 27, 2016 TO OCTOBER 18, 2016. 2. THE 2L FOR TDS IS 500 mg/L. 3. J = INDICATED CONCENTRATION REPORTED BELOW PRACTICAL QUANTITATION LIMIT (PQL), BUT ABOVE METHOD DETECTION LIMIT (MDL) AND THEREFORE CONCENTRATION IS ESTIMATED. 4. CONCENTRATIONS ARE IN mg/L. A -18S: 125 A -18D: 94 WELL GRAPHIC LEGEND GWA-18D WELL CASING V_ WELL SCREEN Basis of Design Report (60% Submittal) April 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station TABLES SynTerra P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ 20. BELEWS CREEK\ 04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\ 60 PERCENT DESIGN\ Final 60 Percent Basis of Design Report, Belews Creek, 3-31-2017.docx Table 1-1 Summary of Select Constituent Analytical Data in Area of Interest Belews Creek Steam Station Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Belews Creek, NC Notes: Prepared by: BDW Checked: CDE * Analytical data provided by HDR, Inc. - Bold highlighted concentration indicates exceedance of the 15A NCAC 02L Standard. < = Concentration not detected at or above the reporting limit j = Indicates concentration reported below Practical Quantitation Limit (PQL), but above Method Detection Limit (MDL) and therefore concentration is estimated. mg/L = Milligram per liter ug/L = Microgram per liter P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\30 PERCENT DESIGN\Table 1-1 Data Summary AOI Page 1 of 1 Analytical Parameter Boron Chloride Selenium TDS Reporting Units ug/L mg/L ug/L mg/L 15A NCAC O2L Standard 700 250 20 500 Sample ID Sample Collection Date Analytical Results AB -1S 9/20/2016 14,900 458 8.4 1,260 AB -1D 9/20/2016 13,000 459 13.8 1,250 AB-1BR 5/13/2016 12,100 0.4 <5 1.1 GWA-1BR 9/28/2016 <50 2.9 <0.5 113 GWA-1D 9/22/2016 26.9 J 50.7 0.5 190 GWA-1S 9/21/2016 428 51.5 0.41 J 94 GWA-10D 9/21/2016 <50 21.7 <0.5 228 GWA-10S 9/21/2016 84.2 66.1 31.8 153 GWA-11D 9/21/2016 69.4 203 <0.5 576 GWA-11S 9/21/2016 379 157 7.3 441 GWA-18D 9/21/2016 <50 7.9 <0.5 94 GWA-18S 4/27/2016 283 21.5 0.53 125 GWA-18SA 6/8/2016 112 56.6 0.71 169 GWA-19BR 9/26/2016 28.6 J 5.9 0.52 83 GWA-19SA 9/21/2016 1,880 202 36.8 379 GWA-19D 4/28/2016 <50 3 0.31 J 90 GWA-19S 5/11/2016 1,320 157 30.9 299 GWA-20SA 9/21/2016 11,300 486 3 1,240 GWA-20BR 6/20/2016 51 26.4 0.59 191 GWA-20D 9/21/2016 8,700 471 0.83 1,120 GWA-21D 9/21/2016 125 190 <0.5 545 GWA-21S 9/21/2016 126 150 6.3 267 GWA-27BR 6/16/2016 <50 6 <5 145 GWA-27D 6/16/2016 5,420 393 <5 990 GWA-27S 6/17/2016 155 51.9 5.8 108 GWA-30D 9/22/2016 <50 3.6 <0.5 146 GWA-30S 9/22/2016 <50 3.9 <0.5 48 GWA-31D 9/22/2016 <50 1.9 <0.5 97 GWA-31S 9/22/2016 <50 2.5 <0.5 <25 S-2 10/18/2016 236 74 <1 220 S-3 10/18/2016 <50 4.9 <1 120 S-4 10/18/2016 <50 82 <1 270 S-5 10/18/2016 <50 3.4 <1 120 Notes: Prepared by: BDW Checked: CDE * Analytical data provided by HDR, Inc. - Bold highlighted concentration indicates exceedance of the 15A NCAC 02L Standard. < = Concentration not detected at or above the reporting limit j = Indicates concentration reported below Practical Quantitation Limit (PQL), but above Method Detection Limit (MDL) and therefore concentration is estimated. mg/L = Milligram per liter ug/L = Microgram per liter P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\30 PERCENT DESIGN\Table 1-1 Data Summary AOI Page 1 of 1 Basis of Design Report (60% Submittal) April 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station SynTerra AQUIFER TESTING ANALYSIS (HDR FIELD INVESTIGATION AND PUMPING TEST REPORT, OCTOBER G, 201E)) P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ 20. BELEWS CREEK\ 04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\ 60 PERCENT DESIGN\ Final 60 Percent Basis of Design Report, Belews Creek, 3-31-2017.docx Belews Creek Steam Station Ash Basin Accelerated Remediation Interim Action Field Investigation and Pumping Test Report October 6, 2016 Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC I Belews Creek Steam Station Ash Basin Accelerated Remediation �� Field Investigation and Pumping Test Report TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents Section Page 1.0 Introduction.......................................................................................................................1 2.0 Geology and Hydrogeology...............................................................................................2 2.1 Site Geology and Hydrogeology............................................................................2 3.0 Field Investigation and Pumping Test Activities................................................................3 3.1 Soil Borings and Well Installation..........................................................................3 3.2 Conditions Encountered During Field Investigation...............................................3 3.3 Pumping Test Implementation...............................................................................4 3.4 Interpretation of Pumping Test Data......................................................................6 3.4.1 24 -Hour Pumping Test (EW-2)..................................................................6 3.4,2 Single Well Pumping Tests (TW -1 and TW -3) ...........................................7 3.4.3 Overall Pumping Test Activities.................................................................7 4.0 Summary of Findings........................................................................................................9 4.1 Findings.................................................................................................................9 5.0 References......................................................................................................................11 Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC I Belews Creek Steam Station Ash Basin Accelerated Remediation Feld FN Investigation and Pumping Test Report LIST OF FIGURES, TABLES, AND APPENDICES Figures Figure 1 Site Layout Map Figure 2 Interim Action Soil Boring and Well Location Map Figure 3 Cross -Section A -A' Figure 4 Cross -Section B -B' Figure 5 Background vs. Time Prior to Pumping Test in Shallow Groundwater Zone Figure 6 Drawdown vs. Time at EW -2 Figure 7 Drawdown vs. Time at TW -1 Figure 8 Drawdown vs. Time at TW -3 Figure 9 Drawdown vs. Time at TW -4 Figure 10 Drawdown vs. Time at GWA-20SA Figure 11 Drawdown vs. Time at GWA-20D Figure 12 Recovery vs. Time at EW -2 Figure 13 Recovery vs. Time at TW -1 Figure 14 Recovery vs. Time at TW -3 Figure 15 Recovery vs. Time at TW -4 Figure 16 Recovery vs. Time at GWA-20SA Figure 17 Recovery vs. Time at GWA-20D Figure 18 Manual Drawdown Measurements at TW -1 Figure 19 Interpretation of EW -2 Recovery Data Figure 20 Interpretation of GWA-20D Drawdown Data Figure 21 Interpretation of TW -2 Drawdown Data Figure 22 Interpretation of EW -1 Drawdown Data Tables Table 1 Well Information Table 2 Pumping Rates and Manual Water Level Measurements at EW -2 Table 3 Range of Water Level and Groundwater Temperature Measurements at EW -2 Table 4 Pumping Rates and Manual Water Level Measurements at TW -3 Table 5 Manual Water Level Measurements at TW -1 (Pumping Rate = 2 gpm) Table 6 Calculated Transmissivity and Hydraulic Conductivity Table 7 Preliminary Well Spacing and Produced Water Volume Table 8 EW -2 Sustained Pumping Sample Results Appendices Appendix A Boring Logs Appendix B Laboratory Analytical Report (EW -2 Sustained Pumping Sample) Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC I Belews Creek Steam Station Ash Basin Accelerated Remediation FN Investigation and Pumping Test Report INTRODUCTION 1.0 Introduction This report provides a description of the activities and findings from an interim action field investigation and pumping test performed at the Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke Energy) Belews Creek Steam Station (BCSS) site located in Belews Creek, North Carolina. The Settlement Agreement (Agreement) between the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) and Duke Energy dated September 29, 2015 required Duke Energy to implement accelerated remediation at BCSS to address off-site groundwater impacts. The Area of Interest (AOI), where groundwater has been impacted by ash basin -related constituents and migrated off-site, is northwest of the ash basin in the area of a 2.23 -acre parcel not owned by Duke Energy (Figure 1). In a letter dated March 28, 2016, NCDEQ provided technical direction for accelerated remediation and requested a response from Duke Energy. The BCSS Accelerated Remediation Interim Action Plan (Plan), dated April 30, 2016, was developed and submitted to NCDEQ to provide those responses. The proposed Plan was approved by NCDEQ via the Interim Action Plans Conditional Approval Letter dated July 22, 2016. As proposed in the Plan, the field investigation and pumping test were performed to allow for evaluation of the viability of three potential groundwater remediation approaches to address impacted groundwater within the AOI. The potential options in the Plan were proposed to provide hydraulic control for impacted groundwater migrating toward the 2.23 -acre parcel, and are included below. 1. Installation of a groundwater extraction system between the parcel and ash basin. 2. Installation of a subsurface barrier wall (e.g., slurry trench barrier wall, grout curtain, sheet pile barrier wall, or deep soil mixing barrier wall) between the parcel and ash basin. 3. A combination of options 1 and 2. The optimal configuration of a barrier wall and/or location and number of extraction wells will be evaluated through the incorporation of newly acquired data into the groundwater flow model that was constructed for the BCSS Corrective Action Plan (CAP2 model). Further evaluation of the remediation alternatives should be provided in the Basis of Design Report, as requested in the July 22, 2016 Conditional Approval Letter from NCDEQ. The remaining sections of this report provide descriptions of site geology and hydrogeology; the interim action field investigation and pumping test activities; interpretation of the pumping test data; findings; and recommendations for moving forward with accelerated remediation in the AOI at BCSS. Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC I Belews Creek Steam Station Ash Basin Accelerated Remediation FN Investigation and Pumping Test Report GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY 2.0 Geology and Hydrogeology 2.1 Site Geology and Hydrogeology The BCSS site is located in the Milton terrane of the Piedmont Physiographic Provence; the Dan River Triassic Basin is located approximately 3,000 feet north of the site. Geologic units mapped in the vicinity of the site include alluvium, terrace deposits, sedimentary rocks of the Dan River Basin, a diabase dike, and felsic gneisses and schists with interlayered hornblende gneiss and schist. Alluvial and terrace deposits have not been encountered in boreholes advanced in the area of the BCSS ash basin, but alluvial deposits have been mapped along the unnamed stream north of the ash basin main dam and along the Dan River. The hydrogeologic regime at BCSS is characterized by residual soil/saprolite and weathered rock overlying fractured crystalline rock separated by the transition zone (TZ). Based on the site investigation completed for the Comprehensive Site Assessment (CSA; HDR, 2015), the groundwater system in the natural materials (soil, soil/saprolite, and bedrock) at BCSS is consistent with the regolith -fractured rock system and is an unconfined, connected aquifer system. The BCSS groundwater system is divided into three layers referred to as shallow, deep (TZ), and bedrock to distinguish the flow layers within the connected aquifer. Groundwater flow and transport at the BCSS site can be approximated from the surface topography. A topographic divide along Pine Hall Road separates the ash basin and Pine Hall Road landfill, both located north of the road, from the ash structural fill, coal pile, and power plant, located south of the road. Groundwater flow north of the road is to the north-northwest toward the Dan River, while groundwater flow south of the road is to the south-southeast towards Belews Lake. Additional topographic divides are located west and north of the ash basin approximately near Middleton Loop Road. These divides separate the surface drainage area containing the ash basin from adjacent drainage areas. While the topographic divides generally function as groundwater divides, groundwater flow across topographic divides may occur based on driving head conditions from the ash basin or preferential flow paths within the shallow and/or deep flow layers. In the accelerated remediation AOI, groundwater flows across the topographic divide of Middleton Loop Road to the northwest toward the 2.23 -acre parcel and eventually to the Dan River. Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC I Belews Creek Steam Station Ash Basin Accelerated Remediation Feld FN Investigation and Pumping Test Report FIELD INVESTIGATION AND PUMPING TEST ACTIVITIES 3.0 Field Investigation and Pumping Test Activities The field investigation and pumping test activities included advancement of four soil borings (SB -1, SB -2, SB -4, and SB -5) along the property boundary and Middleton Loop Road, and installation of two extraction wells (EW -1 and EW -2) and four observation wells (TW -1 through TW -4). The soil borings were advanced to evaluate geologic conditions within the estimated extent of impacted groundwater in the AOI and evaluate target depths for potential groundwater extraction wells. Soil boring and well installation activities were conducted between August 1 and August 30, 2016. The pumping test activities were performed from September 7 to 9, 2016. 3.1 Soil Borings and Well Installation EW -1, TW -1 and TW -2 were installed and screened within the deep (TZ) flow layer. EW -2, TW - 3 and TW -4 were installed with fully -penetrating screens in the shallow flow layer, immediately above the deep flow layer. The soil boring and well locations are depicted on Figure 2 and a summary of well construction details are included in Table 1. Lithologic descriptions are provided on the boring logs in Appendix A. EW -1 was installed with a 6 -inch diameter poly -vinyl chloride (PVC) casing and a 10 -ft 10 -slot screen in the deep flow layer. EW -2 was installed with a 6 -inch diameter PVC casing and 30 -ft 10 -slot screen across the shallow flow layer (i.e., the saturated thickness of soil/saprolite above the deep flow layer). TW -1 and TW -2 were installed with 2 -inch diameter PVC casings and 10 -ft 10 -slot screens in the deep flow layer. TW -3 and TW -4 were installed with 2 -inch diameter PVC casings and 20 -ft 10 -slot screens in the shallow flow layer. A sand filter pack (#2) was installed around the extraction and observation well screens and a hydrated bentonite seal was placed prior to grouting the borehole annulus to the ground surface. Note that existing monitoring wells GWA-20SA and GWA-20D were utilized during the pumping test. Following well installation, and no sooner than 24 hours after installation, development of the observation wells and extraction wells were performed using surging techniques and a submersible pump to remove fines that may have been introduced into the sand pack and to establish communication of the wells with the aquifer. The extraction and observation wells were developed until the extracted water was visibly clear throughout the screened interval, and the water level meter indicated a "hard" (sediment -free) bottom. Pumping test details are provided in the section below. 3.2 Conditions Encountered During Field Investigation Lithology encountered during installation of four soil borings along the western property boundary primarily included low -plasticity silt from approximately 0 to 55 feet below ground surface (ft bgs) with relict foliation and structure identified with increasing depth. Lenses of sandy silt and sandy silt with gravel were identified within the range of 25 to 55 ft bgs in soil borings SB -2, SB -4 and SB -5. Partially weathered and fractured rock was encountered at 54 ft bgs and sound rock was encountered at 59 ft bgs in S13-1. Slightly weathered sound rock was Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC I Belews Creek Steam Station Ash Basin Accelerated Remediation Feld FN Investigation and Pumping Test Report FIELD INVESTIGATION AND PUMPING TEST ACTIVITIES encountered at 59 ft bgs in SB -2 and at 60 ft bgs in SB -4. Partially weathered and fractured rock was encountered at 45 ft bgs in SB -5 and sound rock was encountered at 53 ft bgs. Observation well TW -1 was installed along the western property boundary, immediately downgradient from extraction well EW -1. Silt, sandy silt, and sandy silt with gravel were encountered from 0 to 42 ft bgs during installation of TW -1 and weathered and fractured rock was encountered from 42 to 58 ft bgs. An additional observation well (TW -4) was installed with a fully penetrating screen in the shallow flow layer adjacent to TW -1. Conditions encountered in TW -4 were similar to those encountered during installation of TW -1. During installation of extraction well EW -1, low -plasticity silt and lenses of silty sand were encountered from 0 to 46 ft bgs. Weathered and fractured rock was encountered at 46 ft bgs and sound rock was encountered at 63 ft bgs. Note that the rock was intensely fractured from 50 to 54.5 ft bgs in the boring and the screen was installed at approximately 50 to 60 ft bgs for extraction well EW -1. An additional extraction well (EW -2) was installed approximately 15 ft south of EW -1 and screened within the shallow flow layer from approximately 15 to 45 ft bgs. Conditions encountered in EW -2 were similar to those encountered during installation of EW -1. Conditions encountered during installation of two observation wells (TW -2 and TW -3) located between the extraction well EW -1 and the ash basin were generally similar to those encountered with the other soil borings and extraction wells. Low -plasticity silt with lenses of silty sand with gravel were encountered from 0 to 48 ft bgs. Slightly weathered and fractured rock was encountered at 48 ft bgs and sound rock was encountered at 58 ft bgs. The water table was encountered from approximately 20 to 28 ft bgs in shallow extraction and observation wells installed for the pumping test, and approximately 21 to 29 ft bgs in the deep (TZ) extraction and observation wells. The saturated thickness within the soil/saprolite zone above weathered and fractured rock ranged from approximately 11 to 29 ft at the pumping test site. Other than the sound rock beneath the weathered and fractured rock zone (i.e., the TZ/deep flow layer), there was no unit identified that would impede vertical migration of groundwater flow and contaminant transport. Conditions observed during the interim action field investigation and existing data from the 2015 Comprehensive Site Assessment (CSA) activities (including post -CSA additional assessment activities) were interpreted and geologic cross sections were developed for the transects shown on Figure 2. Section A -A' shows lithology from the ash basin dam to the southwest across the 2.23 -acre parcel and beyond to existing monitoring wells GWA-19S/D/BR (Figure 3). Section B- B' shows lithology along the alignment of soil borings advanced during the interim action field investigation (Figure 4) between the ash basin and the 2.23 -acre parcel. The cross sections indicate a thicker transition in the vicinity of the pumping test area and GWA-20SA/D/BR compared to the north and south ends of the soil boring alignment (i.e., S13-1, SB -3, SB -4 and SB -5), which indicates there may be a preferential flow pathway via the thicker transition zone. This condition corresponds with the direction of the approximate plume shown on Figure 2. 3.3 Pumping Test Implementation Following development of EW -1 and TW -1 through TW -3, a step drawdown test was performed at EW -1. The purpose was to evaluate drawdown in the extraction well to determine a sufficient Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC I Belews Creek Steam Station Ash Basin Accelerated Remediation Feld FN Investigation and Pumping Test Report FIELD INVESTIGATION AND PUMPING TEST ACTIVITIES pumping rate for the constant rate pumping test. The initial pumping rate for the step drawdown test was set to 1 gallon per minute (gpm) and caused significant drawdown. Therefore, the pumping rate was decreased to approximately 0.5 gpm after 45 minutes of pumping. The water level in EW -1 did not stabilize following the drop in pumping rate and eventually was pumped dry after 80 minutes. Following the step drawdown test at EW -1, which indicated a constant rate pumping test would not be suitable using EW -1, shallow observation TW -3 was pumped at approximately 1.25 gpm to evaluate the potential for conducting a pumping test in the shallow flow layer. There was minimal drawdown (approximately 0.3 feet) when pumping from TW -3 at a rate of approximately 1.25 gpm for 45 minutes. Due to the significant drawdown in EW -1 when pumping at only 1 gpm and the minimal drawdown in TW -3 when pumping at 1.25 gpm, EW -2 and TW -4 were installed in the shallow flow layer to perform the pumping test in the shallow flow layer. Subsequently, a step drawdown test was performed at EW -2 starting with a pumping rate of 1 gpm. After approximately 1 hour of pumping at 1 gpm, the drawdown in EW -2 was approximately 4 feet and the water level was generally stable for another 30 minutes. The pumping rate was then increased to approximately 1.5 gpm, the water level continued to drop, and the well was pumped dry after 1 hour. Therefore, the target rate for the constant rate pumping test at EW -2 was determined to be 1 gpm or less such that the target drawdown during the test would be less than 25% of the shallow aquifer thickness. Due to the limited flow observed during the step drawdown test, the pumping test at EW -2 consisted of a 24-hour drawdown period and a recovery period after pumping ceased. The drawdown period began on Wednesday, September 7, 2016, at 1409 hours and ended on Thursday, September 8, 2016, at 1413 hours. The duration of the recovery period was 2 hours and 14 minutes. Drawdown in the extraction well recovered more than 95% during the recovery test period. Head pressure and depth to water readings were collected in extraction wells EW -2 and EW -1 and in observation wells TW -1, TW -3, TW -4, GWA-20SA, and GWA-20D during the pumping test using Level TROLL 700 pressure transducers (15 PSIG). The transducers were placed approximately 2 to 2.5 feet above the bottom of the observation wells and at least 1 foot above the pump intake in EW -2. The hydraulic head in each well was within the pressure range of the transducers. The data were managed using the In -Situ Virtual Hermit net hub and Win -Situ v.5 software installed on a laptop computer. Note that vented pressure transducer cables were used to eliminate barometric pressure effects on head data. The weather was clear and there were no rainfall events before the pumping test, or during the drawdown and recovery periods of the test. The 24-hour pumping test began with a pumping rate of 1.1 gpm based on the step drawdown test results. Shortly following start of the test, drawdown in the well reached and exceeded the "stabilized level" observed during the step drawdown and the pumping rate was decreased to 0.75 gpm and then 0.5 gpm. The pumping rate remained at approximately 0.5 gpm for the remainder of the test and the water level in EW -2 was generally stabilized. The pumping rate was measured using a calibrated bucket and stopwatch. Manual water level measurements were also recorded during the 24-hour pumping test and are provided in Table 2 along with the Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC I Belews Creek Steam Station Ash Basin Accelerated Remediation Feld FN Investigation and Pumping Test Report FIELD INVESTIGATION AND PUMPING TEST ACTIVITIES measured pumping rates throughout the test. The range of water level and groundwater temperature measurements recorded with the Level TROLL pressure transducers during the drawdown and recovery periods of the 24-hour pumping test are provided in Table 3. Prior to stopping the 24-hour pumping test, one water sample was collected from the discharge tubing on Thursday, September 8, 2016, to be analyzed by a North Carolina -certified laboratory. The purpose of collecting the water sample was to obtain concentration data during sustained pumping conditions to aid in design of a water treatment system, if needed. The analytical results are summarized in Table 8 and the laboratory report is provided in Appendix B. In addition to the 24-hour pumping test, single well pumping tests were performed at TW -3 and TW -1 on Friday, September 9, 2016. Due to the greater well yield observed in TW -3 during well development, a single well pumping test was performed at TW -3 to evaluate hydraulic properties in the shallow flow layer between EW-1/EW-2 and the ash basin. The single well pumping test at TW -1 was performed to evaluate hydraulic properties in the deep flow layer along the property boundary and Middleton Loop Road downgradient of EW -1 and EW -2. The single well pumping test at TW -3 was performed as a step drawdown test while manually measuring depth to water in TW -3. The step test reached a maximum pumping rate of 4.25 gpm, which was the capacity of the pump under the present conditions. The pumping rates and measured drawdown for the single well pumping test at TW -3 are provided in Table 4. The single well pumping test at TW -1 was performed as a constant rate test while manually measuring depth to water in TW -1 and surrounding observation wells (EW -1, EW -2, TW -2, TW - 3, TW -4, GWA-20SA, GWA-20D, and GWA-2013R). Water was pumped from TW -1 at a rate of approximately 2 gpm for 3 hours and 33 minutes. The water level measurements for the single - well pumping test at TW -1 are provided in Table 5. 3.4 Interpretation of Pumping Test Data 3.4.1 24 -Hour Pumping Test (EW -2) Depth to water measurements were recorded in the extraction and observation wells over a 83 minute period prior to the start of pumping EW -2 on September 7, 2016 and are depicted on Figure 5. The water levels were steady in EW -2, TW -1, TW -3, TW -4, GWA-20D, and GWA- 20SA before the pumping test. During the drawdown period, the pumping rate was manually adjusted to maintain a constant pumping rate of 0.5 gpm in EW -2. Slight fluctuations in the pumping rate are evident in the drawdown data presented in Figure 6. The slight variability in the pumping rate is likely due to the low flow rate used for the pumping test. The transducers in extraction well EW -2 and observation wells TW -1, TW -3, TW -4, GWA-20SA, and GWA-20D were programmed to collect data in the logarithmic mode with a greater density of readings during the early stages of the drawdown test. The transducers were "stepped" when the pump was turned off and the recovery period began to repeat collecting readings at a higher density. Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC I Belews Creek Steam Station Ash Basin Accelerated Remediation Feld FN Investigation and Pumping Test Report FIELD INVESTIGATION AND PUMPING TEST ACTIVITIES The drawdown data collected by transducers in TW -1, TW -3, TW -4, GWA-20SA and GWA-20C are presented in Figures 7 to 11. These figures show that minimal drawdown occurred in observation wells during the test (shallow and deep flow layers). The water level data from the recovery period in Figures 12 to 17 show that significant recovery occurred at EW -2, but again the recovery is considered minimal in the observation wells. An exception was TW -4 (Figure 15) where a significant change in water level occurred between 10 and 20 minutes. This was produced by the transducer slipping several feet in the well. The range of water level measurements in observation wells was on the order of several tenths of a foot while pumping and several hundredths of a foot during recovery. The groundwater temperatures recorded were similar in most of the wells, except that a lower temperature was observed in TW -3 during the background, drawdown, and recovery periods. This may indicate that groundwater in the shallow zone near TW -3 flows at a higher rate and is recharged quicker than other surrounding observation wells. 3.4.2 Single Well Pumping Tests (TW -1 and TW -3) The maximum pumping rate (4.25 gpm) during the step drawdown test at TW -3 resulted in 4.89 feet of drawdown in the well. The specific capacity of TW -3 was calculated at 0.87 gpm/foot, which is significantly higher than the conditions observed during the 24-hour pumping test at EW -2, which is located approximately 40 feet downgradient of TW -3. Observations made during installation of TW -3 indicate that there is more sand and gravel in the soil/saprolite layer in this area compared to the soil borings and extraction and other observation wells installed closer to Middleton Loop Road. During the constant rate test at TW -1, drawdown remained generally stable in TW -1 while increasing drawdown was observed in all observation wells used (EW -2, TW -2, TW -3, TW -4, GWA-20SA, and GWA-20D). More drawdown was observed in deep wells EW -1, GWA-20D, and TW -2 compared to the shallow observation wells. However, the observed drawdown in all wells indicates that the shallow and deep flow layers are connected and pumping from the deep layer will draw groundwater from the shallow layer. The water level measurements collected during the TW -1 pumping test are plotted on Figure 18. 3.4.3 Overall Pumping Test Activities The Cooper and Jacob (1946) straight-line method (also referred to as modified non -equilibrium equation) was applied to recovery data from the EW -2 shallow flow layer test (Figure 19) and drawdown data from GWA-20D, TW -2 and EW -1 during the TW -1 deep flow layer test (Figures 20 to 22). Since unconfined aquifers behave in a similar manner as confined aquifers, except when delayed yield effects are observed, confined solutions were applied to the late -time pumping test data. The time -drawdown curve for data collected during pumping and recovery periods becomes a straight line on a semi -log diagram. The slope of the line on the semi -log diagram can be used to calculate transmissivity; this is a graphical method used to estimate the hydraulic parameters. The assumptions for applying the Cooper and Jacob method include: o All layers are horizontal and extend infinitely in the radial direction. o The aquifer is homogeneous and isotropic. Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC I Belews Creek Steam Station Ash Basin Accelerated Remediation �� Field Investigation and Pumping Test Report FIELD INVESTIGATION AND PUMPING TEST ACTIVITIES o Groundwater flow can be described by Darcy's Law. o Groundwater density and viscosity are constant. o Groundwater flow is horizontal and directed radially towards the well. o The pumping rate is constant. o The extraction well and observation wells are screened over 80% of the Surficial Aquifer thickness. o Drawdown is small compared to the aquifer saturated thickness (<25%). o Head losses through the well screen and pump intake are negligible. The slope of the line applied in the transmissivity equations is from late -time data, as this is when the unconfined aquifer was behaving similarly to a confined aquifer (u<0.05 which is normally satisfied at large time or short distance from the pumping well). Transmissivity and hydraulic conductivity values were calculated for both the shallow and deep flow layers, and are provided in Table 6. The shallow flow layer calculations were verified using AQTESOLV v4.5 (Duffield 2007). Note that the deep flow layer calculations were not verified due to the low number of data points defining the curves. The Neuman (1974) solution was used in AQTESOLV. As shown in Table 6, the calculated transmissivity of the deep flow layer is more than an order of magnitude higher than the transmissivity of the shallow flow layer. The transmissivity of the sand and gravel layers such as those observed at TW -3 in the shallow flow layer were not quantified, but are likely similar to deep flow layer results. Radius of influence for wells screened in the shallow and deep flow layers were calculated using the transmissivity values from the EW -2 and TW -1 pumping tests, and are provided in Table 7. Based on the calculated values, the number of wells required to control impacted groundwater migrating northwest from the ash basin beneath the 2.23 -acre parcel not owned by Duke Energy was estimated for the shallow and deep flow layers. As shown in Table 7, it is estimated that 150 extraction wells would be needed to contain the plume in the shallow flow layer, while 20 wells would be needed to contain the plume within the deep flow layer. The estimated volume of extracted water is 108,000 gallons per day for 150 shallow pumping wells (pumping at 0.5 gpm) and 57,600 gallons per day for 20 deep pumping wells (pumping at 2 gpm). Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC I Belews Creek Steam Station Ash Basin Accelerated Remediation �� Field Investigation and Pumping Test Report SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 4.0 Summary of Findings 4.1 Findings Findings of the field investigation and pumping test are summarized below: • Mostly low -plasticity silt with lenses of sandy silt and sandy silt with gravel were observed in the shallow flow layer along Middleton Loop Road between the ash basin and the 2.23 -acre parcel. The thickness of the aquifer in the shallow flow layer ranged from 11 to 29 feet. • The thickness of the deep flow layer (i.e., transition zone/partially weathered rock) ranged from approximately 0 to 10 feet in the field investigation and pumping test area. The deep flow layer is thicker is in the vicinity of EW -1, EW -2, GWA-20SA/D, TW -1, and TW -2. The soil borings located to the south and north of the pumping test area indicate the deep flow layer is less thick and there may be a preferential flow pathway that corresponds with the direction of the approximate plume shown on Figure 2. • Hydraulic communication was observed between the shallow and deep flow layers during the pumping test activities. • Using graphical calculation methods and AQTESOLV, the transmissivity in the shallow flow layer based on the drawdown and recovery test results was 6.78 to 13.2 gallons per day/foot (0.9 to 1.8 feet2/day), respectively. These transmissivity values equate to hydraulic conductivities of 0.08 feet per day (2.8 x 10-5 centimeters/second) and 0.04 feet/day (1.41 x 10-5 centimeters/second), respectively. These values are representative of silt and sandy silt (Freeze and Cherry, 1979). • Using graphical calculation methods, the average transmissivity in the deep flow layer based on the TW -1 single pumping test results was 570 gallons per day/foot (76.1 feet2/day), which equates to a hydraulic conductivity of 217 feet/day (7.68 x 10-4 centimeters/second). • Based on drawdown observed in shallow and deep wells during the constant rate test at TW -1, the shallow and deep flow layers are connected and pumping from the deep layer will draw groundwater from the shallow layer. The radius of influence calculations for the deep flow layer indicate that a well spacing of 45 feet would be needed to provide hydraulic control for impacted groundwater migrating offsite in the deep flow layer if pumping at 2 gpm. Groundwater extraction from the deep flow layer may be a suitable option for controlling impacted groundwater migrating offsite. Options #2 and #3 included in the Interim Action Plan included a subsurface barrier wall. Based on the results of this field investigation and pumping test, its likely extraction wells would be required if a barrier wall option was implemented. Therefore, Options #2 or #3 may not be as feasible as groundwater extraction only. Given the variability of the hydrogeologic environment, implementation of an extraction system could be performed in phases to further assess conditions in the area. For example, Phase 1 would consist of a well spacing of 180 feet (every 5th extraction well) to further characterize the variability in the flow system. The Phase 1 wells would then Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC I Belews Creek Steam Station Ash Basin Accelerated Remediation �� Field Investigation and Pumping Test Report SUMMARY OF FINDINGS be pumped for a duration such as four to six months to allow for refinement of extraction well spacing prior to installing additional wells (in Phase 2). To monitor conditions in the AOI, existing monitoring wells could be used along with additional wells as needed. Further evaluation can be performed during Phase 1 to determine if extraction wells screened in the shallow flow layer are needed. Note that due to the shallow and deep flow layers being connected, it is anticipated that as the deep flow layer is dewatered the shallow flow layer will recharge the deep layer and potentially reduce the need for additional extraction wells. Additional extraction wells would be installed and connected to the collection and treatment system during Phase 2. Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC I Belews Creek Steam Station Ash Basin Accelerated Remediation �� Field Investigation and Pumping Test Report REFERENCES 5.0 References Cooper, H.H., Jr. and C.E. Jacob. 1946. A Generalized Graphical Method for Evaluating Formation Constants and Summarizing Well -Field History. Transaction, American Geophysical Union, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp. 526-534. Driscoll, F.G. 1986. Groundwater and Wells. Second Edition. Johnson Division, St. Paul, MN. Duffield, G.M. 2007. AQTESOLV for Windows Version 4.5 User's Guide. HydroSOLVE, Inc., Reston, VA. HDR. 2015. Comprehensive Site Assessment Report. Belews Creek Steam Station Ash Basin. September 9, 2015. Freeze, R.A. and J.A. Cherry. 1979. Groundwater. Prentice -Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Kruseman, G.P. and N.A. deRidder. 1994. Analysis and Evaluation of Pumping Test Data. Second Edition. Publication 47. International Institute for Land Reclamation and Improvement, Wageningen, The Netherlands. Neuman, S.P., 1974. Effect of partial penetration on flow in unconfined aquifers considering delayed gravity response, Water Resources Research, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 303-312. • LLM mm 41 LEGEND: — — DUKE ENERGY PROPERTY BOUNDARY • ASH BASIN WASTE BOUNDARY .- ... -+--- .. -� _ _ - .. LANDFILL/STRUCTURAL FILL BOUNDARY r �' • ASH BASIN COMPLIANCE BOUNDARY PINE HALL ROAD ASH LANDFILL COMPLIANCE r BOUNDARY J,� f ASH BASIN COMPLIANCE BOUNDARY COINCIDENT WITH DUKE PROPERTY BOUNDARY �' . } ci`r� �;' �T l�' y 4 . : • ,�► '�i i Ohm ;? STREAM • �� ���' y TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOUR NCDEQ SAMPLE LOCATIONS ASH BASIN VOLUNTARY GROUNDWATER •r 14 MONITORING WELL - • 4g `r h, ,.' ASH BASIN COMPLIANCE GROUNDWATER •z 24 MONITORINGWELL •20 2915 E, 1 y r CSA GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL LOCATION so �, :, .. a�� ` POST CSA GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL LO•�R - � ' F � � _►- � "'' �'�`'� '���=:��. � a CSA SURFACE WATER AN D/OR SEDIMENT SAMPLE LOCATION CSA AREA OF WETNESS SAMPLE LOCATION -- e- � `_ '-""• - � PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY WELL FIELD IDENTIFIED PRIVATE WATER SUPPLY WELL - a:a RECORDED PRIVATE WATER SUPPLY WELL • �, �t' ASSUMED PRIVATE WATER SUPPLY WELL REPORTED PRIVATE WATER SUPPLY WELL NOTES: 1. PARCEL DATA FOR THE SITE WAS OBTAINED FROM DUKE ENERGY REAL ESTATE AND IS APPROXIMATE. 2. WASTE BOUNDARY IS APPROXIMATE. 3. AS -BUILT MONITORING WELL LOCATIONS PROVIDED BY DUKE ENERGYANDWSP. 4. COMPLIANCE SHALLOW MONITORING WELLS (S) ARE SCREENED ACROSS THE SHALLOW FLOW LAYER. 5. COMPLIANCE DEEP MONITORING WELLS (D) ARE SCREENED IN THE DEEP FLOW LAYER. 6. TOPOGRAPHY DATA FOR THE SITE WAS OBTAINED FROM NCDOTWEB SITE (DATED 2010). 7. AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY WAS OBTAINED FROM WSP(DATED 2014). S. THE COMPLIANCE BOUNDARY IS ESTABLISHED ACCORDING TO THE DEFINITION FOUND IN 15A NCACO2L.0107 [a}. 9. THE COMPLIANCE BOUNDARY SHOWN ON THIS FIGURE IS FROM THE 2015 COMPREHENSIVE SITE ASSESSMENT REPORTSUBMITTEDTO DEQ ON SEPTEMBER 9,2015, AND IS NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF RECENT PROPERTY LINE REVISIONS ALONG MIDDLETON LOOP ROAD. 10. PARCEL DATA FOR THE 2.23 -ACRE PROPERTY NORTHWEST OF THE ASH BASIN WAS OBTAINED FROM LDSI, INC. (SURVEY DATED SEPTEMBER 29,2016). 11. PROPERTY RESEARCH CONDUCTED BY DUKE ENERGY IN AUGUST 2016 INDICATES THAT DUKE ENERGY'S PROPERTYALONG MIDDLETON LOOP ROAD EXTENDSTOTHE2.23-ACRE PARCEL AND INCLUDES THE ROADWAY WHERE DUKE ENERGY PROPERTY EXISTS ON BOTH SIDES OF MIDDLETON LOOP ROAD(i.e.,THE PROPERTY EXTENDSTOAPPROXIMATELY THE CENTER OF THE ROADWAY). SCALE (FEET) 600' 0 600' 1,200' SITE LAYOUT MAP ACCELERATED REMEDIATION AOI DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC BELEWS CREEK STEAM STATION ASH BASIN STOKES COUNTY, NORTH CAROB NA DATE 10/06/2016 FIGURE NOTES: CSA GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL 1. PARCEL DATA FOR THE SITE WAS OBTAINED FROM DUKE ENERGY REAL ESTATE AND IS APPROXIMATE. POST -CSA ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENT 2. SHALLOW MONITORING WELLS (S) ARE SCREENED ACROSS THE SHALLOW FLOW LAYER. 3. DEEP MONITORING WELLS (D) ARE SCREENED IN THE DEEP FLOW LAYER. GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL 4. TOPOGRAPHY DATA FOR THE SITE WAS OBTAINED FROM WSP (DATED 2015). 5. AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY WAS OBTAINED FROM NCONEMAP (DATED 2014). `:-> EXTRACTION WELL (INTERIM ACTION) 6. THE COMPLIANCE BOUNDARY IS ESTABLISHED ACCORDING TO THE DEFINITION FOUND IN 15A NCAC 02L.0107 (a). SOIL BORING (INTERIM ACTION) 7. THE COMPLIANCE BOUNDARY SHOWN ON THIS FIGURE IS FROM THE 2015 COMPREHENSIVE SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT SUBMITTED TO DEQ ON SEPTEMBER 9, 2015, AND IS NOT REPRESENTATIVE INTERIM ACTION OBSERVATION WELL ( ) OF RECENT PROPERTY LINE REVISIONS ALONG MIDDLETON LOOP ROAD. 8. PARCEL DATA FOR THE 2.23 -ACRE PROPERTY NORTHWEST OF THE ASH BASIN WAS OBTAINED FROM LDSI, INC. (SURVEY DATED SEPTEMBER 29, 2016). SCALE (FEET) 9. PROPERTY RESEARCH CONDUCTED BY DUKE ENERGY IN AUGUST 2016 INDICATES THAT DUKE ENERGY'S PROPERTY ALONG MIDDLETON LOOP ROAD EXTENDS TO THE 2.23 -ACRE PARCEL AND 150' 0 150' 300' INCLUDES THE ROADWAY WHERE DUKE ENERGY PROPERTY EXISTS ON BOTH SIDES OF MIDDLETON LOOP ROAD (i.e., THE PROPERTY EXTENDS TO APPROXIMATELY THE CENTER OF THE ROADWAY). I" = 300' F)l INTERIM ACTION SOIL BORING AND WELL LOCATION MAP ACCELERATED REMEDIATION AOI DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC BELEWS CREEK STEAM STATION ASH BASIN STOKES COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA DATE 1010618016 FIGURE 2 NT A A' WEST EAST :m 700 .m STRATIGRAPHY LEGEND GWA-19S/D GWA-27S/D/BR 0 200 400 600 M1 - SOIL/SAPROLITE; N<50 M2 - SAPROLITE/WEATHERED ROCK; N>50 OR REC<50% TZ - PARTIALLY WEATHERED/FRACTURED ROCK; REC>50% AND RQD<50% BR - SOUND ROCK; REC>85% AND RQD>50% _ FILL - FILL MATERIAL GWA-20SA/D/BR AB -1 S/C' inn 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 SECTION A -A' SCALE: HORIZ 1 "=200' VERT 1"=50' 112" 0 112" NOTES: 1. GROUNDWATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS WERE TAKEN ON SEPTEMBER 14, 2016. WATER LEVELS PRESENTED ON CROSS SECTIONS ARE FROM SHALLOW WELLS ONLY AND REPRESENT THE WATER TABLE. 2. RECOVERY (REC) AND ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION (RQD) ARE MEASUREMENTS OF THE QUALITY OF ROCK CORE RECOVERED FROM A BOREHOLE. 3. STANDARD PENETRATION TESTING (SPT), REC AND RQD WERE THE PRIMARY SOURCES OF DATA USED IN THE DETERMINATION/ASSIGNMENT OF HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC LAYERS TO NATURAL MATERIALS (ALLUVIUM, SOIL, SAPROLITE, AND ROCK) IN A BOREHOLE; IN CASES WHERE SPT WAS NOT PERFORMED AND WHERE REC AND/OR RQD DATA WERE UNAVAILABLE DUE TO DRILLING METHOD, THE NATURAL MATERIALS WERE ASSIGNED TO A HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC LAYER BASED ON A REVIEW OF THE BOREHOLE LOG, FIELD PHOTOGRAPHS, AND GEOLOGIC JUDGMENT. 4. TOP OF CASING IS NOT PRESENTED HEREIN FOR WELL CONSTRUCTION GRAPHICS. F)l :w• 700 m CROSS SECTION A -A' ACCELERATED REMEDIATION AOI DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC BELEWS CREEK STEAM STATION ASH BASIN STOKES COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA WELL GRAPHIC LEGEND GWA-18D WELL CASING V_ WELL SCREEN DATE SEPTEMBER 30, 2016 FIGURE 3 i�01 750 17 z O a Lu 700 J Lu 650 We] STRATIGRAPHY LEGEND B NORTH nl AIA nnC`A /fl /f"m B' SOUTH 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 M1 - SOIL/SAPROLITE; N<50 M2 - SAPROLITE/WEATHERED ROCK; N>50 OR REC<50% TZ - PARTIALLY WEATHERED/FRACTURED ROCK; REC>50% AND RQD<50% BR - SOUND ROCK; REC>85% AND RQD>50% DISTANCE (FT) SECTION B -B" SCALE: HORIZ 1"=200' VERT 1"=50' 112" 0 112" f. NOTES: 1. GROUNDWATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS WERE TAKEN ON SEPTEMBER 14, 2016. WATER LEVELS PRESENTED ON CROSS SECTIONS ARE FROM SHALLOW WELLS ONLY AND REPRESENT THE WATER TABLE. 2. RECOVERY (REC) AND ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION (RQD) ARE MEASUREMENTS OF THE QUALITY OF ROCK CORE RECOVERED FROM A BOREHOLE. 3. STANDARD PENETRATION TESTING (SPT), REC AND RQD WERE THE PRIMARY SOURCES OF DATA USED IN THE DETERMINATION/ASSIGNMENT OF HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC LAYERS TO NATURAL MATERIALS (ALLUVIUM, SOIL, SAPROLITE, AND ROCK) IN A BOREHOLE; IN CASES WHERE SPT WAS NOT PERFORMED AND WHERE REC AND/OR RQD DATA WERE UNAVAILABLE DUE TO DRILLING METHOD, THE NATURAL MATERIALS WERE ASSIGNED TO A HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC LAYER BASED ON A REVIEW OF THE BOREHOLE LOG, FIELD PHOTOGRAPHS, AND GEOLOGIC JUDGMENT. 4. TOP OF CASING IS NOT PRESENTED HEREIN FOR WELL CONSTRUCTION GRAPHICS. F)l M-0] 750 700 650 .SN] CROSS SECTION B -B' ACCELERATED REMEDIATION AOI DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC BELEWS CREEK STEAM STATION ASH BASIN STOKES COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA WELL GRAPHIC LEGEND GWA-18D WELL CASING v- WELL SCREEN DATE SEPTEMBER 30, 2016 FIGURE 4 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 - 0 Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC I Belews Creek Steam Station Ash Basin Accelerated Remediation �A Field Investigation and Pumping Test Report i FIGURES Background (feet) vs. Time (minutes) 0 0 0 0 0 Ln 0 0 0 Figure 5. Background vs. Time Prior to Pumping Test in Shallow Groundwater Zone 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 Drawdown (feet) at EW -2 vs. Time (minutes) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N lD 00 O N � c -I c -I c -I Figure 6. Drawdown vs. Time at EW -2 Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC I Belews Creek Steam Station Ash Basin Accelerated Remediation �A Field Investigation and Pumping Test Report i FIGURES Drawdown (feet) at TW -1 vs. Time (minutes) 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N lD 00 O N lD ci ci c -I c-1 Figure 7. Drawdown vs. Time at TW -1 Drawdown (feet) at TW -3 vs. Time (minutes) 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 AOMLOG CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N lD 00 O N lD c -I c -I c -I c -I Figure 8. Drawdown vs. Time at TW -3 Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC I Belews Creek Steam Station Ash Basin Accelerated Remediation �A Field Investigation and Pumping Test Report i FIGURES Drawdown (feet) at TW -4 vs. Time (minutes) 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 monk 0.1 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N lD 00 O N lD ci ci c -I c -I Figure 9. Drawdown vs. Time at TW -4 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 Drawdown (feet) at GWA-20SA vs. Time (minutes) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N lD 00 O N lD c -I c -I c -I c -I Figure 10. Drawdown vs. Time at GWA-20SA Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC I Belews Creek Steam Station Ash Basin Accelerated Remediation �A Field Investigation and Pumping Test Report i FIGURES Drawdown (feet) at GWA-20D vs. Time (minutes) 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N lD 00 O N lO ci ci ci c -I Figure 11. Drawdown vs. Time at GWA-20D 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 O Recovery (feet) at EW -2 vs. Time (minutes) ON lO 00 O N ci a -I Figure 12. Recovery vs. Time at EW -2 0.2 0.18 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 0 Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC I Belews Creek Steam Station Ash Basin Accelerated Remediation �A Field Investigation and Pumping Test Report i FIGURES Recovery (feet) at TW -1 vs. Time (minutes) o 0 0 0 0 0 o N N ti � Figure 13. Recovery vs. Time at TW -1 Recovery (feet) at TW -3 vs. Time (minutes) 0.2 0.18 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 Figure 14. Recovery vs. Time at TW -3 N 1.5 1 0.5 Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC I Belews Creek Steam Station Ash Basin Accelerated Remediation �A Field Investigation and Pumping Test Report i FIGURES Recovery (feet) at TW -4 vs. Time (minutes) 0 Allinowd" O O O� w 00 o0 0 11 N Figure 15. Recovery vs. Time at TW -4 0.2 0.18 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 0 Recovery (feet) at GWA-20SA vs. Time (minutes) ov 0 0 0 0 0 o N N Figure 16. Recovery vs. Time at GWA-20SA 0.2 0.18 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 0 Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC I Belews Creek Steam Station Ash Basin Accelerated Remediation �A Field Investigation and Pumping Test Report i FIGURES Recovery (feet) at GWA-20D vs. Time (minutes) oT 0 0 0 0 0 N ti �1 Figure 17. Recovery vs. Time at GWA-20D 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 Drawdown (feet) vs. Time (minutes) - Pumping TW -1 0 0 0 0 in o Ln o � � N Figure 18. Manual Drawdown Measurements at TW -1 0 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC I Belews Creek Steam Station Ash Basin Accelerated Remediation �A Field Investigation and Pumping Test Report i FIGURES Recovery (feet) at EW -2 vs. Log Time (minutes) 0 0 0 Figure 19. Interpretation of EW -2 Recovery Data C) 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Drawdown (feet) at GWA-20D vs. Log Time (minutes) O c O 0 0 01-1 Figure 20. Interpretation of GWA-20D Drawdown Data Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC I Belews Creek Steam Station Ash Basin Accelerated Remediation �A Field Investigation and Pumping Test Report i FIGURES Drawdown (feet) at TW -2 vs. Log Time (minutes) o 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 Figure 21. Interpretation of TW -2 Drawdown Data 1-1 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 Drawdown (feet) at EW -1 vs. Log Time (minutes) Drawdown between 20 and 200 Figure T minutes (estimated) = 1.3 feet Drawdown between 20 and T _ 264 x z gpm = 406 gpd/ft 200 minutes = 0.85 feet 0.77 ft T _ 264 x z gpm = 621 gpd/ft 0.85 f t - EIV - Figure 21. Interpretation of TW -2 Drawdown Data 1-1 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 Drawdown (feet) at EW -1 vs. Log Time (minutes) Drawdown between 20 and 200 Figure minutes (estimated) = 1.3 feet T _ 264 x z gpm = 406 gpd/ft 0.77 ft - EIV - Figure 22. Interpretation of EW -1 Drawdown Data Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC I Belews Creek Steam Station Ash Basin Accelerated Remediation �� Field Investigation and Pumping Test Report LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Well informatten Well Groundwater Flow Layer Flush Mount or Stick-up Dia. (inches) Distance to EW -2 (feet) Time (hours) Static Depth to Water (feet -TOC) TD (feet -TOC) static Water Column Height (feet) EW -1 deep flush 6 17 1022 22.53 59.85 37.32 EW -2 shallow stick-up 6 NA 1026 25 47.72 22.72 TW -1 deep flush 2 43,9 1036 28.70 56.98 28.28 TW -2 deep flush 2 40 1024 20.90 62.40 41.50 TW -3 shallow flush 2 34.8 1025 19.80 42.30 22.50 TW -4 shallow stick-up 2 38.1 1035 30.45 41.10 10.65 GWA-20SA shallow stick-up 2 27 1028 26 - - GWA-20D deep stick-up 2 20.2 1029 26.72 - - GWA-20BR bedrock stick-up 2 26.5 1033 31.60 - - GWA-20S shallow stick-up 2 14 1028 dry - - N otes• NA - Not Applicable Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC I Belews Creek Steam Station Ash Basin Accelerated Remediation �A Field Investigation and Pumping Test Report i LIST OF TABLES Table 2. Pumping Rates and Manual Water Level Measurements at EW -2 Time (hours) Pumping Rate (gpm) Manual WLs Measured in EW -2 (feet -TOC) 9/7/16 - 1409 1.125 NM 1443 0.75 35.35 1520 0.5 37.90 1600 0.375 38.40 1627 0.35 38.75 1748 0.45 38.95 1900 0.5 39.59 1940 0.4 39.61 2045 0.5 39.53 2200 0.45 39.50 2300 0.5 39.85 2350 0.5 39.95 9/8/16 - 0300 0.4 39.55 0400 0.5 39.58 0545 0.5 39.33 0730 0.5 39.70 1100 0.55 39.29 Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC I Belews Creek Steam Station Ash Basin Accelerated Remediation �� Field Investigation and Pumping Test Report LIST OF TABLES Table 3. Range of Water Level and Groundwater Temperature Measurements at EW -2 Well Maximum Water Level Measurement Recorded (feet) Minimum Water Level Measurement Recorded (feet) Difference in Water Level Measurement (feet) Maximum Groundwater Temperature Recorded CC) Minimum Groundwater Temperature Recorded (°c) Difference in Temperature (°c) Background Data (83 minutes) EW -2 24.972 24.866 0.106 16.356 16.247 0.109 TW -3 19.810 19.782 0.028 15.373 15.273 0.100 TW -4 20.467 20.431 0.036 16.415 16.336 0.079 TW -1 28.724 28.687 0.037 16.120 16.023 0.097 GWA-20D 26.736 26.704 0.032 16.043 15.957 0.086 GWA-205A 26.018 25.975 0.043 16.124 16.008 0.116 Drawdown Test (1,440 minutes) EW -2 39.284 24.717 14.567 16.276 16.130 0.146 TW -3 19.999 19.791 0.199 15.353 15.284 0.069 TW -4 20.678 20.424 0.254 16.364 16.292 0.072 TW -1 28.901 28.700 0.201 16.053 16.002 0.051 GWA-20D 26.913 26.713 0.200 16.002 15.949 0.053 GWA-205A 26.403 25.997 0.406 16.082 16.016 0.066 Recovery Test (118 minutes) EW -2 36.819 25.728 11.541 16.196 16.121 0.075 TW -3 20.001 19.918 0.083 15.383 15.285 0.098 TW -4 20.619 18.126 2.493 16.370 16.215 0.155 TW -1 28.904 28.854 0.05 16.075 16.001 0.074 GWA-20D 26.914 26.851 0.063 16.014 15.941 0.073 GWA-205A 26.398 26.196 0.202 16.100 15.993 0.107 Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC I Belews Creek Steam Station Ash Basin Accelerated Remediation �A Field Investigation and Pumping Test Report i LIST OF TABLES Table 4. Pumping Rates and Manual Water Level Measurements at TW -3 DTW (ft -TOC) DD (ft) Pumping Rate (gpm) 19.96 - Initial, 0 20.13 0.17 0.8 21.81 1.85 1.1 22.10 2.14 1.8 22.85 2.89 2.3 24.85 4.89 4.251 1Maximum pumping rate with equipment Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC I Belews Creek Steam Station Ash Basin Accelerated Remediation Field Investigation and Pumping Test Report 01 LIST OF TABLES Table 5. Manual Water Level Measurements at TW -1 - Pumping Rate = 2 gpm 1Manual Readings while pumping 2.0 gpm at TW -1 (deep), 1036 - 1409 hours (213 minutes) 2Bad data point Static DTW DTW DTW DTW Time DTW DTW Time DD Time DD Time DD Time DD DD Time DD WL (feet- (feet- (feet- (feet- (hou (feet- (feet - Well (hours) (feet) (hours) (feet) (hours) (feet) (hours) (feet) (feet) (hours) (feet) (feet- TOC)1 TOC) TOC) TOC) rs) TOC) TOC) TOC) Measurement 1 Measurement 2 Measurement 3 Measurement 4 Measurement 5 Measurement 6 EW -1 22.53 1124 22.98 0.45 23.59 1.06 23.72 1.19 EW -2 25.00 1127 25.40 0.4 25.47 0.47 25.48 0.48 TW -1 28.70 1157 45.15 16.45 1253 44.74 16.04 1307 45.25 16.55 1320 45.25 16.55 1350 45.55 16.85 1409 45.51 16.81 TW -2 20.90 1137 21.80 0.9 - - - - - - - 22.45 1.55 - 22.5 1.6 - - - TW -3 19.80 1142 20.05 0.25 20.1 0.3 20.1 0.3 TW -4 30.45 1154 31.32 0.87 31.05 0.6 31.1 0.65 26.00 1131 26.37 0.37 25.34 -0.662 26.45 0.45 2 WA GWA- 26.72 1129 28.05 1.33 28.44 1.72 28.49 1.77 20D GWA- 31.60 1133 31.65 0.05 31.63 0.03 31.61 0.01 20BR 1Manual Readings while pumping 2.0 gpm at TW -1 (deep), 1036 - 1409 hours (213 minutes) 2Bad data point Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC I Belews Creek Steam Station Ash Basin Accelerated Remediation �A Field Investigation and Pumping Test Report i LIST OF TABLES Table 6. Calculated Transmissivity and Hydraulic Conductivity 1Neuman (1974) solution for unsteady flow to a fully or partially penetrating well in a homogeneous, anisotropic unconfined aquifer with delayed gravity response. The Neuman solution is used to analyze both pumping and recovery data from constant -rate or variable-rate pumping tests. 0 Transmissivity Hydraulic Conductivity Transmissivity Hydraulic Conductivity Well gpd/ft feet/day gpd/ft feet/day (feetz/day) (cm/sec) (feetz/day) (cm/sec) Shallow Flow Laver — Recovery Test at EW -2 Graphical Method AQTESOLV1 13.2 0.08 6.78 0.04 EW -2 (1.8) (2.80E-05) (0.9) (1.41E-05) Deep Flow Laver — Drawdown Test at TW -1 Graphical Method AQTESOLV GWA-20D 685 2.61 (91.5) (9.23E-04) TW -2 621 2.37 --- --- (83.0) (8.37E-04) EW -1 406 1.54 --- --- (54.0) (5.44E-04) Average for 570 217 Transition Zone (76.1) (7.68E-04) 1Neuman (1974) solution for unsteady flow to a fully or partially penetrating well in a homogeneous, anisotropic unconfined aquifer with delayed gravity response. The Neuman solution is used to analyze both pumping and recovery data from constant -rate or variable-rate pumping tests. 0 Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC I Belews Creek Steam Station Ash Basin Accelerated Remediation �A Field Investigation and Pumping Test Report i LIST OF TABLES Table 7. Preliminary Well Spacing and Produced Water Volume Well Spacings Number of Wells Required for Plume Contro12 Volume of Produced Water (gallons per day)3 Shallow Flow Layer— pumping rate = 0.5 gpm 6feet 150 108,000 Deep Flow Laver — pumping rate = 2 gpm 45 feet 20 57,600 sThe radius of influence, r (diameter = well spacing) was calculated as follows (Cooper and Jacob 1946): FT�O3r where: T = transmissivity (from Table 6.) t = time, based on pumping test results, it is assumed that steady-state conditions are reached after pumping one day in both shallow and deep flow layers S = storage coefficient, in this case the specific yield (assigned by lithology type). A specific yield of 0.21 was used for silt (observed in the shallow flow layer), and 0.23 for silt with sand (deep flow layer). 2The number of wells is based on the length of the boron, chloride, selenium or TDS plume in groundwater along Middleton Loop Road southeast of the parcel of land that is not owned by Duke Energy. In this case, plume control refers to recovering contaminants that are migrating from the ash basin towards the parcel of land. Note that the contaminant plume that already exists beyond Middleton Loop Road and beneath the parcel would not be recovered. 3The volume of produced water = number of wells x pumping rate x time (one day). 7 Table 8 - EW -2 Sustained Pumping Sample Results (Sample Collected on September 8, 2016) Belews Creek Interim Action Field Investigation and Pumping Test Analyte Method Result (pg/L) Antimony EPA 200.8 < 0.50 Alkalinity SM 2320 B < 5000 Aluminum EPA 200.7 228 Arsenic EPA 200.8 1.7 Barium EPA 200.7 424 Beryllium EPA 200.8 11.5 Boron EPA 200.7 8460 Cadmium EPA 200.8 1.5 Calcium EPA 200.7 141000 Chloride SM 4500 Cl E 496000 Chromium EPA 200.8 0.82 Cobalt EPA 200.8 9.5 Copper EPA 200.8 0.56 Hexavalent Chromium EPA 218.7 < 0.03 Iron EPA 200.7 1560 Lead EPA 200.7 < 5.00 Magnesium EPA 200.7 52700 Manganese EPA 200.7 3720 Mercury EPA 245.1 < 0.20 Methane RSK 175 < 10.00 Molybdenum EPA 200.8 0.83 Nickel EPA 200.8 6.9 Potassium EPA 200.7 7380 Selenium EPA 200.8 6.5 Sodium EPA 200.7 16000 Strontium EPA 200.7 751 Sulfate EPA 300.0 43900 Sulfide SM 4500 S D < 100 Thallium EPA 200.8 0.47 Vanadium EPA 200.8 < 0.30 Zinc EPA 200.7 13 U Ammonia Nitrogen EPA 350.1 < 100 Nitrogen, Nitrate EPA 353.2 92 Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) SM 2540 C 1060000 Residue Suspended (TSS) SM 2540 D < 2500 Total Organic Carbon (TOC) SM 5310 B < 1000 Notes: 1. pg/L indicates micrograms per liter. 2. Analytical results provided by Pace Analytical on September 20, 2016. 3. < indicates constituent not detected at or above the laboratory reporting limit. Page 1 of 1 BORING NUMBER EW-1 440 S. Church Street, Suite 900 Charlotte, 28202-2075 PAGE 1 OF 3 Phone: 704-338-6700 hdrinc.com/follow-us CLIENT Duke Energy Carolinas PROJECT NAME Belews Creek - Accelerated Remediation PROJECT NUMBER 10030143 PROJECT LOCATION Stokes County, NC DATE STARTED 8/1/16 COMPLETED 8/3/16 GROUND ELEVATION TBD HOLE SIZE(S) 9, 4 inches DRILLING CONTRACTOR Geologic Exploration, Inc. NORTHING TBD EASTING TBD DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger, HQ Core GROUND WATER LEVELS: LOGGED BY T. Campbell CHECKED BY DATE/TIME --- NOTES DATE/TIME --- LLI � c o e } (n W Z J Lu p dW W J 0 0 J D Q W > U 0> DESCRIPTION REMARKS MONITORING WELL W Q dU m0 > O E0 Y U �0 UZ W U 0 U)O WW/ 0 (ML) SILT, hard, yellowish red (5YR 5/8) to red (1 OR 4/8), dry, non-plastic, cohesive, sparse fine sand, trace construction gravel (FILL) 5 4.5' Sharp contact SS - 1 15-24-28 18 (SM) SILTY SAND, brown (7.5YR 4/4) to pinkish gray (7.5YR 7/2), dry, non-plastic, non-cohesive, becoming sandier with depth (FILL) Continued: red (2.5YR 5/8) grading to very pale brown (10YR 7/3) 10 SS - 2 7-20-50/4° 12 15 SS - 3 17-21-27 (as) 15 (ML) SILT, very stiff, red (2.5YR 5/8) to very pale brown (10YR 7/3), non-plastic, cohesive, relict foliation, micaceous (SAPROLITE) (ML) SILT WITH SAND, light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4) to dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6), dry, non-plastic, cohesive, trace mica 4-23-37 (SAPROLITE) 20 ISS-4 (60) 18 24' Split spoon shoe broke in hole; Shoe drilled 25 SS - 5 12-40- 50i2-- 0 out, no recove rY BORING NUMBER EW -1 440 S. Church Street, Suite 900 Charlotte, 28202-2075 PAGE 2 OF 3 F)Ill Phone: 704-338-6700 hdrinc.com/follow-us CLIENT Duke Energy Carolinas PROJECT NAME Belews Creek - Accelerated Remediation PROJECT NUMBER 10030143 PROJECT LOCATION Stokes County, NC LLl Z c o e cl) Z J LU p 0_ w v Lu W J O O J p Q > LuL.LJ > U p> Y DESCRIPTION REMARKS MONITORING WELL p o U �0 m0 UZ O W0 U O W LU 0 25 U) (ML) SILT WITH SAND, light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4) to dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6), dry, non -plastic, cohesive, trace mica (SAPROLITE) (continued) -------------------- (ML) SILT, hard, yellowish brown (10YR 5/6), dry, non -plastic, cohesive, trace fine sand, trace coarse gravel sized gneiss fragments, gray (N6) SS - 6 15-50/3^ 11 to dark gray (N4), thinly foliated (SAPROLITE) 30 Continued: wet SS - 7 50/6^ 35 11 Continued: dark olive brown (2.5Y 3/3) to very 40 SS -8 12-25-35 (60) 16 pale brown (10YR 8/4), moist, non -plastic, cohesive, micaceous, relict foliation, trace intensely weathered gravel -sized gneiss fragments (SAPROLITE) SS - 9 50/2° 45 SS - 50/0" 9 46' SPT Refusal GNEISS, moderate strength, light brown (7.5YR 10 0 6/4) and gray (7.5YR 5/1), gneissic to schistose, intensely foliated, moderately weathered (WEATHERED/FRACTURED ROCK) ; 50 ' BORING NUMBER EW -1 440 S. Church Charlotte, 28202-2075 Street, Suite 900 PAGE 3 OF 3 Phone: 704-338-6700 hdrinc.com/follow-us CLIENT Duke Energy Carolinas PROJECT NAME Belews Creek - Accelerated Remediation PROJECT NUMBER 10030143 PROJECT LOCATION Stokes County NC LL j C o 0 = } r1 H uj U) � ~ > Y O_ o C'J w -1 0p � zj Q o > p > DESCRIPTION REMARKS MONITORING Lu p 0_U co0�U)0 0.O U gb UZ w w O U) Z 0 0' 0_ 50 GNEISS, moderate strength, light brown (7.5YRBegin HQ core 6/4) and gray (7.5YR 5/1), gneissic to schistose, 50'-54.5' Intensely fractured, Fe stained intensely foliated, moderately weathered (WEATHERED/FRACTURED ROCK) (continued) 55 RC - 90 30 54.5'-58.5' Moderately fractured, fracture surfaces Fe and Mn stained 56.5'-56.7' Quartz band Continued: slightly weathered 58.5'-60' Intensely fractured 60 i: Continued: gray (N5) to very dark gray (N3) 60'-68' Unfractured 62'-64' Gradational contact MICA SCHIST, gray (N5) to very dark gray (1\13), trace augens, fresh to slightly weathered r.' • . RC -2 98 84 (SOUND ROCK) 65 Boring terminated at 68', screened interval set at 50.4'-60.4', extraction well installed 8/3/16 Bottom of borehole at 68.0 feet. BORING NUMBER EW -2 440 S. Church Street, Suite 900 Charlotte, 28202-2075 PAGE 1 OF 2 Phone: 704-338-6700 hdrinc.com/follow-us CLIENT Duke Energy Carolinas PROJECT NAME Belews Creek - Accelerated Remediation PROJECT NUMBER 10030143 PROJECT LOCATION Stokes County NC DATE STARTED 8/30/16 COMPLETED 8/30/16 GROUND ELEVATION TBD HOLE SIZE(S) 9 inches DRILLING CONTRACTOR Cascade Drilling L.P. NORTHING TBD EASTING TBD DRILLING METHOD Sonic GROUND WATER LEVELS: LOGGED BY J. Pendleton CHECKED BY DATE/TIME 8/31/2016 7:50:00 AM 22.40 ft NOTES 1 DATE/TIME --- LL j _ C o 0 = } fY HLLJ U) W > O w _j 0p _, zj 0 > p > DESCRIPTION REMARKS MONITORING Lu p O_(-) Q m0>00 E0 y g-� 0 w w U O 0 < ZO uj Lu 0 (CL) SILTY CLAY, reddish brown (2.5yr 4/4) and yellowish brown (10yr 5/6), dry, low plasticity, Hand auger first 5' non -cohesive (saprolite) -------------------- (ML) SILT, medium, yellowish red (5YR 4/6), dry, non -plastic, non -cohesive (soil) 5 7.0' - color change to red (1 OR 4/8) SD -1 60 ---------------------- SILTY SAND, dense, gray (10YR 6/1), moist, 10 non -plastic, non -cohesive (soil) ---------------------- (ML) SILT, dense, dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4), non -plastic, non -cohesive 15 SD -2 103 (ML) SILT, dense, yellowish brown (10YR 4/4), i non -plastic, non -cohesive 20 — — — — Very fine grained sand, well sorted, rounded 25 BORING NUMBER EW -2 440 S. Church Street, Suite 900 Charlotte, 28202-2075 PAGE 2 OF 2 Phone: 704-338-6700 hdrinc.com/follow-us CLIENT Duke Energy Carolinas PROJECT NAME Belews Creek - Accelerated Remediation PROJECT NUMBER 10030143 PROJECT LOCATION Stokes County NC W j c o 0 2 W �W U) �ZJ (YjW Cil Wp v d 0 m 0> O O DESCRIPTION REMARKS MONITORINGW UZ W U <Z w O 25 (ML) SILT WITH SAND, medium dense, brownish yellow (10YR 6/6), non -plastic, non -cohesive (soil) (continued) (ML) SILT, dense, gray (10YR 6/1) and white Laminae bedding plane structural components (9/4), non -plastic, non -cohesive (saprolite) (foliation bedding planes) 30 (ML) SILT, very dense, light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4), non -plastic, non -cohesive (saprolite) 35 SD -4 120 (SW -SM) WELL GRADED SAND WITH SILT dense, very pale brown (10YR 7/3), non -plastic, non -cohesive (saprolite) 40 (ML) SANDY SILT, very dense, grayish brown Relic mica schist present with laminae bedding SD -5 60 (10YR 5/2), non -plastic , non -cohesive plane structure 45 (ML) SILT, very dense, very dark grayish black (10YR 3/2), non -plastic, non -cohesive (saprolite) SD -6 36 Bottom of borehole at 48.0 feet. BORING NUMBER SB-1 440 S. Church Street, Suite 900 Charlotte, 28202-2075 PAGE 1 OF 3 Phone: 704-338-6700 hdrinc.com/follow-us CLIENT Duke Energy Carolinas PROJECT NAME Belews Creek - Accelerated Remediation PROJECT NUMBER 10030143 PROJECT LOCATION Stokes County NC DATE STARTED 8/4/16 COMPLETED 8/4/16 GROUND ELEVATION TBD HOLE SIZE(S) 9, 4 inches DRILLING CONTRACTOR Geologic Exploration Inc. NORTHING TBD EASTING TBD DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger HQ Core GROUND WATER LEVELS: LOGGED BY T. Campbell CHECKED BY DATE/TIME 8/9/2016 1:35:00 PM 22.50 ft NOTES 1 DATE/TIME --- LL j _ C o 8 = } fY H w U) w ~ > Y O O w _j 0p _, zj 0 > p > DESCRIPTION REMARKS MONDE RING Lu p O_(-) Q m0>�0 E0 g-� 0 w w U 0 O < z0 LU Lu 0 (ML) SILT, stiff, strong brown (7.5YR 5/6), dry, non-plastic, cohesive, few consolidated nodules, trace roots (SOIL) 5 SS - 1 5-12-17 (29) 18 (ML) SILT, stiff, red (10R 4/6) and pink (5YR 7/6), non-plastic, cohesive, relict foliation, micaceous, trace Mn (SAPROLITE) Continued: very stiff 10_ i SS - 2 12-17-21 38) 18 15 SS - 3 6-7-16 (23) 18 20 20_LSS-:4 Continued: strong brown (7.5YR 5/6), dry, with trace fine sand, Mn absent SS - 4 927 (61 18 Y (ML) SILT, hard, pale brown (10YR 6/3), dry, non-plastic, cohesive, thinly laminated, micaceous, with Fe and Mn staining, relict - 5 13-50/6° structure evident, friable (SAPROLITE) 25SS 15 BORING NUMBER SB -1 440 S. Church Street, Suite 900 Charlotte, 28202-2075 PAGE 2 OF 3 Phone: 704-338-6700 hdrinc.com/follow-us CLIENT Duke Energy Carolinas PROJECT NAME Belews Creek - Accelerated Remediation PROJECT NUMBER 10030143 PROJECT LOCATION Stokes County NC W j c o 0 _ �W U) �ZJ UW C'J wp v d 0 m 0> O Z O> DESCRIPTION REMARKS MONITORING g UZ W U cQ Z w W O 25 (ML) SILT, hard, pale brown (10YR 6/3), dry, non -plastic, cohesive, thinly laminated, micaceous, with Fe and Mn staining, relict structure evident, friable (SAPROLITE) (continued) 30 Continued: very stiff SS - G 14 49-26 SS - 7 26-50/5' 35 Continued: light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4) and very pale brown (10YR 7/4), moist, trace dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/4), lamination less distinct Continued: with Mn veins 418-36-47 0 $S-8 (83) 45 SS _ 9 16-28-50 (78) (ML) SILT, hard, light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3), smaller amounts of reddish yellow (5YR 6/8) and pale brown (10YR 6/3), non -plastic, cohesive, micaceous, common Fe staining and Mn veins, relict foliation (SAPROLITE) 50 SS _ 7-19-36 BORING NUMBER SB -1 440 Charlotte, S. Church Street, 28202-2075 Suite 900 PAGE 3 OF 3 Phone: 704-338-6700 hdrinc.com/follow-us CLIENT Duke Energy Carolinas PROJECT NAME Belews Creek - Accelerated Remediation PROJECT NUMBER 10030143 PROJECT LOCATION Stokes County, NC LLJ � c o e w w 0 dU j 0 Q j p> Y DESCRIPTION REMARKS KION LL p m0 O w WO W U O <Z UZ Qf 50 (ML) SILT, hard, light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3), smaller amounts of reddish yellow (5YR 6/8) and pale brown (10YR 6/3), non -plastic, cohesive, micaceous, common Fe staining and Mn veins, relict foliation (SAPROLITE) (continued) 54' SPT refusal; Begin HQ core at 54.7' ss- 50i0" MICA SCHIST, weak to strong, very dark gray 55 11 (N3) to gray (N5), trace light brown (7.5YR 6/4), fine to coarse grained, schistose, undulatory, 54.7' -56.3' Intensely fractured 54.7'-59.2' Fractures Fe and Mn stained intensely foliated, slightly weathered, common pinhead garnets, Fe and Mn staining on fractured surfaces 56.3-59' Intensely to moderately fractured (WEATHERED/FRACTURED ROCK) 57.4'-57.5' Intensely weathered 57.8', 58', 58.6', Fractures, subhorizontal, open, Fe stained 59'-64.7' Slightly to moderately fractured MICA SCHIST, strong, very dark gray (N3) to 60 RC -1 100 59 gray (N5), trace light brown (7.5YR 6/4), fine to coarse grained, schistose, undulatory, intensely 59'-59.2' Zone of residual soil, Fe stained foliated, slightly weathered, common pinhead garnets, Fe and Mn staining on fractured 61' Fracture, 500, open, angular, Fe stained surfaces (SOUND ROCK) 62', 62.6', 62.9', Fractures, subhorizontal, open, minor Fe staining Boring terminated at 64.7' on 8/4/16 and grouted to surface on 8/9/16 Bottom of borehole at 64.7 feet. BORING NUMBER SB -2 440 S. Church Street, Suite 900 Charlotte, 28202-2075 PAGE 1 OF 3 Phone: 704-338-6700 hdrinc.com/follow-us CLIENT Duke Energy Carolinas PROJECT NAME Belews Creek - Accelerated Remediation PROJECT NUMBER 10030143 PROJECT LOCATION Stokes County NC DATE STARTED 8/4/16 COMPLETED 8/5/16 GROUND ELEVATION TBD HOLE SIZE(S) 9, 4 inches DRILLING CONTRACTOR Geologic Exploration Inc. NORTHING TBD EASTING TBD DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger HQ Core GROUND WATER LEVELS: LOGGED BY T. Campbell CHECKED BY DATE/TIME 8/9/2016 1:30:00 PM 24.20 ft NOTES 1 DATE/TIME --- LL Z _ C o 0 _ } fY W U) W ij J > Y O O w _j 0p _, zj 0 > p > DESCRIPTION REMARKS MONITORING Lu p O_(-) Q m0>00 E0 y U g-� � 0 w w O <ZO Lu 0 0 (CL) CLAY, medium stiff, red (2.5YR 4/8), dry, low plasticity, cohesive, massive texture, trace mica (SOIL) 54- 455 5-5 1o) 15 9.3' Sharp contact 4-4-5 (ML) SILT, medium stiff, pink (7.5YR 7/4) to 10 SS -2 (9) 18 reddish yellow ( (7.5YR 6/6), dry, non -plastic, cohesive, indistinct laminae, kaolinitic below 10' (SAPROLITE) Continued: relict foliation becoming more distinct, 15 LSS 4-6-7 13) 17 decreasing kaolin content, with Mn veins (ML) SILT, stiff, red (2.5YR 5/6) to light red i 20 CSS 4 5($2)4 18 (2.5YR 7/6), dry, non -plastic, cohesive, relict foliation, trace Mn nodules and veins, friable, trace quartzite (SAPROLITE) ---------------------- (ML) GRAVELLY SILT, hard, very pale brown (10YR 7/4) and grayish brown (10YR 5/2), dry, non -plastic, silt component is cohesive, indistinctly foliated with Fe staining and Mn nodules, trace fine to coarse sand y 5oi2 SS - 5 (SAPROLITE) 25 9 BORING NUMBER SB-2 440 S. Church Street, Suite 900 Charlotte, 28202-2075 PAGE 2 OF 3 Phone: 704-338-6700 hdrinc.com/follow-us CLIENT Duke Energy Carolinas PROJECT NAME Belews Creek - Accelerated Remediation PROJECT NUMBER 10030143 PROJECT LOCATION Stokes County NC LL j C o 0 _ } rr W U) ij � J > Y o O w _j 0p � zj Q o > 0 > DESCRIPTION REMARKS MONITORING Lu p o_0 m0�U)0 0�O g- UZ U) w w U O z0 of of 25 ---------------------- (SW-SM) SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, hard, very pale brown (10YR 7/4), moist, non-plastic, non-cohesive (SAPROLITE) SS - 6 50/2" 30 3 35 SS - 7 1 6-24-26 (so) g (ML) SILT, hard, olive brown (2.5Y 4/3) to dark grayish brown (2.5Y 4/2), moist, non-plastic, cohesive, micaceous, slightly sandy, relict foliation, Mn veins, Fe stained (SAPROLITE) (ML) SILT, hard, black (2.5Y 2.5/1), trace yellowish red (5YR 5/6), Mn stained throughout, large mica flakes, relict schistose structure, i8-26- trace rock fragments (SAPROLITE) 40 SS - 8 50/3" 13 SS - 9 26-50/4" 10 45 ss- 50/4" 50 10 4 BORING NUMBER SB -2 440 S. Church Street, Suite 900 Charlotte, 28202-2075 PAGE 3 OF 3 Phone: 704-338-6700 hdrinc.com/follow-us CLIENT Duke Energy Carolinas PROJECT NAME Belews Creek - Accelerated Remediation PROJECT NUMBER 10030143 PROJECT LOCATION Stokes County NC Wz c o 0 U) LU v d 0 m 0> O Z O> DESCRIPTION REMARKS MONDE RING g Uz w W U cQ Z W O 50 (ML) SILT, hard, black (2.5Y 2.5/1), trace yellowish red (5YR 5/6), Mn stained throughout, large mica flakes, relict schistose structure, trace rock fragments (SAPROLITE) (continued) -------------------- (ML) SANDY SILT WITH GRAVEL, hard, light brownish gray (10YR 6/2) to dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2), dry, non -plastic, silt competent is SS - 36-5011^ 55 11 6 cohesive, micaceous, few thin mica schist fragments (SAPROLITE) 56' SPT Refusal SS- 50/0^ MICA SCHIST, strong, very dark gray (N3) to 12 0 bluish gray (5PB 6/1), schistose to gneissic, intensely crenulated, slightly weathered, with pinhead garnets (WEATHERED/FRACTURED ROCK) 58.9' Begin HQ core 58.9'-66.9' Hole losing water; 8' cored in 25 60 minutes, —50 gallons of water lost 58.9'-62' Moderately to intensely fractured 59.2'-64' Fractures subhorizontal, open, Fe stained, trace Mn stained 62'-64' Slightly fractured Continued: (SOUND ROCK) RC - 1 98 83 64'-64.5' Intensely fractured 65 64.5'-68.9' Slightly fractured 67'-68.9' Rig chattering Boring terminated at 68.9' on 8/5/16 and grouted to surface on 8/9/16 Bottom of borehole at 68.9 feet. BORING NUMBER SB-4 440 S. Church Street, Suite 900 Charlotte, 28202-2075 PAGE 1 OF 3 Phone: 704-338-6700 hdrinc.com/follow-us CLIENT Duke Energy Carolinas PROJECT NAME Belews Creek - Accelerated Remediation PROJECT NUMBER 10030143 PROJECT LOCATION Stokes County NC DATE STARTED 8/5/16 COMPLETED 8/8/16 GROUND ELEVATION TBD HOLE SIZE(S) 9, 4 inches DRILLING CONTRACTOR Geologic Exploration Inc. NORTHING TBD EASTING TBD DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger HQ Core GROUND WATER LEVELS: LOGGED BY T. Campbell CHECKED BY DATE/TIME 8/9/2016 1:40:00 PM --- NOTES DATE/TIME --- LL j _ C o 8 = } fY HLLJ U) W > O w _j 0p _, zj 0 > p > DESCRIPTION REMARKS MONITORING Lu p O_(-) Q m0>00 E0 Y g-� UZ w w U O <ZO � Lu 0 0 (ML) SILT, hard, reddish brown (5YR 5/4), light 5CS 8-36-38 741 18 brown (7.5YR 5/3), and trace red (1 OR 5/6), moist, trace fine sand, non-plastic, cohesive, slightly micaceous, relict foliation common, Fe and Mn staining (SAPROLITE SS - 2 30-50/3" 0 10 Continued: few cemented nodules, dry, increasing SS - 3 16-50/4° 15 9 mica content Continued: grading to brown (7.5YR 5/4), dry, z0-50/5" 20 SS - 4 12 friable 25 CSS 5 19-50/5" 12 BORING NUMBER SB -4 440 S. Church Street, Suite 900 Charlotte, 28202-2075 PAGE 2 OF 3 Phone: 704-338-6700 hdrinc.com/follow-us CLIENT Duke Energy Carolinas PROJECT NAME Belews Creek - Accelerated Remediation PROJECT NUMBER 10030143 PROJECT LOCATION Stokes County NC LL j C o 0 _ } rr W U) ij � J > Y o O w _j 0p � zj Q o > p > DESCRIPTION REMARKS MONITORING Lu p 0_U co0��0 0.O gb UZ w w U O U) z0 0 0' 0_ 25 (ML) SILT, hard, brown (7.5YR 5/4), dry, trace fine sand, non -plastic, cohesive, slightly micaceous, friable, Fe and Mn staining (SAPROLITE) (continued) SS - 6 50/6^ 30 6 Continued: light brown (7.5YR 6/4) to dark brown 49-50/5• 35 SS 11 (7.5YR 3/2) Continued: less friable with depth -X= SS 8 so/4" 40 4 45' Sharp contact P 45 SS - 9 13-48- so/s 18 (ML) ML SANDY SILT, hard, ra 10YR 6/1 to light gray ( ) g yellowish brown (10YR 6/4), dry, non -plastic, cohesive, fine sand, trace mica (SAPROLITE) SS - 50/2" 50 10 2 BORING NUMBER SB -4 440 S. Church Street, Suite 900 Charlotte, 28202-2075 PAGE 3 OF 3 Phone: 704-338-6700 hdrinc.com/follow-us CLIENT Duke Energy Carolinas PROJECT NAME Belews Creek - Accelerated Remediation PROJECT NUMBER 10030143 PROJECT LOCATION Stokes County NC LL j C o 0 } r1 = H uj U) � ~ > Y O_ o C'J w _j 0p � zj Q o > p > DESCRIPTION REMARKS MONITORING Lu p 0_U co0�U)0 0.O U gb UZ w w O U) Z 0 0' 0_ 50 (ML) SANDY SILT, hard, gray (10YR 6/1) to light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4), dry, non -plastic, cohesive, fine sand, trace mica (SAPROLITE) (continued) (ML) SILT WITH SAND, hard, gray (10YR 6/1), dry, non -plastic, cohesive, fine sand, micaceous, few cemented lenses (SAPROLITE) ss- 50/1" 55 11 1 58' SPT refusal SS - 50/0" SCHISTOSE MICA GNEISS, moderate to 12 0 strong, dark gray (N3) to bluish gray (5PB 6/1), gneissic, intensely foliated, slightly weathered, 60 pinhead garnets (WEATHERED/FRACTURED ROCK) 59.8' Begin HQ core 59.8'-66.8 Moderately fractured 60.3'-60.6' Fracture zone, open, Fe and Mn staining 61' Fracture, open, subhorizontal, Fe staining 61.3' Fracture, 401, open, Fe and Mn staining 61.7', 62.7' Fractures, 0°-20°, open, Fe and Mn staining 64.1'-64.4' Fracture zone, open, Fe and Mn 65 RC - 1 98 93 Continued: strong, gray (N5) to dark gray (1\14), staining throughout fresh to slightly weathered, trace augens 65.1', 65.5', 65.8' Fractures, open, subhorizontal, Fe and Mn staining 66.1' Fracture zone in quartz lens, Fe and Mn staining 66.8'-69.8' Slightly fractured Boring terminated at 69.8' on 8/8/16 and grouted to surface on 8/9/16 Bottom of borehole at 69.8 feet. BORING NUMBER SB-5 440 S. Church Street, Suite 900 Charlotte, 28202-2075 PAGE 1 OF 3 Phone: 704-338-6700 hdrinc.com/follow-us CLIENT Duke Energy Carolinas PROJECT NAME Belews Creek - Accelerated Remediation PROJECT NUMBER 10030143 PROJECT LOCATION Stokes County NC DATE STARTED 8/8/16 COMPLETED 8/9/16 GROUND ELEVATION TBD HOLE SIZE(S) 9, 4 inches DRILLING CONTRACTOR Geologic Exploration Inc. NORTHING TBD EASTING TBD DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger HQ Core GROUND WATER LEVELS: LOGGED BY T. Campbell CHECKED BY DATE/TIME 8/9/2016 1:45:00 PM 27.30 ft NOTES 1 DATE/TIME --- LL j _ C o 8 = } fY HLLJ U) W > O w _j 0p _, zj 0 > p > DESCRIPTION REMARKS MONDE RING Lu p O_(-) Q m0>00 E0 g-� 0 w w U O <ZO ui Lu 0 0 (CL) CLAY, stiff, red (1 OR 4/6), dry, low plasticity, cohesive, trace roots, massive (SOIL) 5:S1 4-7-9 (16) 18 (ML) SILT, stiff, red (1 OR 4/6) to yellowish red (5YR 5/6), dry, non-plastic, cohesive, trace kaolina, micaceous, Fe staining, trace Mn staining, relict foliation (SAPROLITE) -------------------- (ML) SILT, hard, mottled light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/4) and red (2.5YR 5/6), dry, non-plastic, cohesive, micaceous, common Fe staining, 10-29-39 trace Mn staining, relict foliation (SAPROLITE) 10 SS 2 -_(6 8) 18 Continued: increased Mn, decreased mica and relict foliation SS-3 798 17) 18 15 20 (ML) SILT, medium stiff, grading from light SS - 4 12-50/5" 13 reddish brown (2.5YR 6/4) to red (2.5YR 4/6), moist, non-plastic, slightly kaolinitic, Fe and Mn 25 4-4-5 staining (SAPROLITE) BORING NUMBER SB -5 440 S. Church Street, Suite 900 Charlotte, 28202-2075 PAGE 2 OF 3 Phone: 704-338-6700 hdrinc.com/follow-us CLIENT Duke Energy Carolinas PROJECT NAME Belews Creek - Accelerated Remediation PROJECT NUMBER 10030143 PROJECT LOCATION Stokes County NC W j c o 0 2 W �W U) 3:ZJ (YjW Wp v d 0 m 0> 5D W O Z O DESCRIPTION REMARKS MONITORINGW g UZ W U U Z w W O 25 -------------------- (SM) SILTY SAND, dark gray (N4), non -plastic, non -cohesive, fine sand, with quartzite rock fragments (SAPROLITE) 30 XSS-6 27-5016^ 12 35 SS -7 2(16)9 14 35.5' Sharp contact (ML) SILT, stiff, yellow (10YR 7/6) to reddish yellow (10YR 6/8), moist, non -plastic, cohesive, few Mn veins, trace Kaolin, indistinct relict structure (SAPROLITE) (ML) SILT, stiff, light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4), moist, non -plastic, cohesive, generally massive with few Mn veins (SAPROLITE) 40 LSS 579 16) 18 45 -- — (SM) SILTY SAND, hard, grayish brown (10YR 5/2), dry, non -plastic, non -cohesive, lightly 44.4' Sharp contact P 45' SPT refusal 20-50/3" 9 ss- 5010° 10 LL_0j cemented, fine grained (SAPROLITE) 45.7' Begin HO core '-49.5' SCHISTOSE MICA GNEISS, moderate, gray (N5), indistinct foliation, moderately weathered Moderately to intensely fractured, (WEATHERED/FRACTURED ROCK) 201 , open, heavy Mn mineralization, Fe staining staininnin g of fracture surfaces RC -1 100 16 Continued: weak, reddish yellow (7.5YR 6/6) to 50 brown (7.5YR 5/4) 49.5-52.3 Intensely fractured, Fe stained 440 S. Church Street, Suite 900 Charlotte, 28 75 Phone: 704-338-6700 hdrinc.com/follow-us CLIENT Duke Energy Carolinas PROJECT NUMBER 10030143 BORING NUMBER SB -5 PAGE 3OF3 PROJECT NAME Belews Creek - Accelerated Remediation PROJECT LOCATION Stokes Countv. NC 6011 Boring terminated at 60.7' and grouted to surface on 8/9/16 Bottom of borehole at 60.7 feet. on WELL W Z c o e = HW�Hp C) Lu W 0 � Q W p> Y DESCRIPTION REMARKS p 2 m0 0 O �O W U <Z w O 50 throughout, Mn staining an fracture surfaces SCHISTOSE MICA GNEISS, weak, very dark gray (7.5YR 3/1) and brown (7.5YR 4/4), - schistose to gneissic, intensely foliated, moderately weathered 52.3-53' Intensely fractured -(WEATHERED/FRACTURED ROCK) 53'-60.7' Unfractured RC -2 95 50 MICA SCHIST, strong, gray (N6) to dark gray - (N3) with bluish gray (5PB 5/1) crenulations, intensely foliated, fresh (SOUND ROCK) 55 100 100 6011 Boring terminated at 60.7' and grouted to surface on 8/9/16 Bottom of borehole at 60.7 feet. on WELL BORING NUMBER TW -1 440 S. Church Street, Suite 900 Charlotte, 28202-2075 PAGE 1 OF 3 Phone: 704-338-6700 hdrinc.com/follow-us CLIENT Duke Energy Carolinas PROJECT NAME Belews Creek - Accelerated Remediation PROJECT NUMBER 10030143 PROJECT LOCATION Stokes County, NC DATE STARTED 8/9/16 COMPLETED 8/10/16 GROUND ELEVATION TBD HOLE SIZE(S) 9, 4 inches DRILLING CONTRACTOR Geologic Exploration, Inc. NORTHING TBD EASTING TBD DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger, HQ Core GROUND WATER LEVELS: LOGGED BY T. Campbell CHECKED BY DATE/TIME 8/11/2016 9:55:00 AM 23.40 ft NOTES 1 DATE/TIME --- W Z c o e W (nLIJ Z J LUJ p C) 0_ w v W O O J D Q LLI U p> DESCRIPTION REMARKS MONITORING WELL W Q dU CO > 0 O W� Y U 20 UZ W Lu 0 U)O 0 (ML) SANDY SILT, very stiff, red (2.5YR 5/6), grading to reddish yellow (7.5YR 7/4), dry, fine to coarse, non -plastic, silt fraction cohesive, relict foliation, large mica flakes, Fe staining, Mn veins (SAPROLITE) 5ss 1 6-20-27 (47) 18 10 -------------------- (ML) SANDY SILT WITH GRAVEL, hard, pale SS - 2 7-50/6^ 9 15 x SS - 3 10-50/6^ 12 brown (10YR 6/2) to gray (N5) with red (2.5YR 4/6) nodules, dry, non -plastic, silt fraction cohesive, few quartzitic fragments broken into thin horizontal disks, Fe staining (SAPROLITE) 20 ISS -4 18-24-48 (72) 15 --------------------- (SW-SM) SAND WITH SILT AND GRAVEL, very stiff, very pale brown (10YR 7/3) to brownish yellow (10YR 6/6), moist, fine grained, fine to coarse gravel, non -plastic, non -cohesive, - micaceous, kaolinitic, Mn veins (SAPROLITE) 25 15-16-14 BORING NUMBER TW -1 440 S. Church Street, Suite 900 Charlotte, 28202-2075 PAGE 2 OF 3 Phone: 704-338-6700 hdrinc.com/follow-us CLIENT Duke Energy Carolinas PROJECT NAME Belews Creek - Accelerated Remediation PROJECT NUMBER 10030143 PROJECT LOCATION Stokes County NC W j c o 0 2 W �W U) 3:ZJ (YjW Wp v d 0 m 0> FD W O Z O DESCRIPTION REMARKS MONITORINGW g UZ W U U Z w O 25 -- ------------------- (ML) SILT, light brownish gray (10YR 6/2) to brown (10YR 4/3), moist, non -plastic, cohesive, relict foliation, abundant large mica flakes, Fe staining, Mn nodules and veins, friable (SAPROLITE) 30 KS:S6 7-9-17 26) 18 35 $S-79-13-18 (31) 18 Continued: brown (10YR 4/3) and bluish gray 40 $S_89-34-50/3" 16 (5P13 5/1) 42' SPT refusal SS -9 50/0^ MICA SCHIST, strong, very dark gray (N3) and 0 bluish gray (5PB 6/1), schistose texture, intensely foliated, crenulated, slightly weathered 42.9' Begin HQ core with pinhead garnets, few quartz bands, trace 42.9'-53.1' Moderately fractured augens 43'-44' Rig chattering 43.3', 43.5' Fractures, open, 01-201, Fe and 45 Mn staining, Mn mineralization 43.9'-44.2' Fractures, open, 401, Fe and Mn staining 44.7', 45' Fractures, open, subhorizontal, Fe and Mn staining 45' Driller reports fracture (slight rod drop) 45.2'-45.4' Intensely weathered RC - 1 79 28 45.8'-47.9' Multiple fractures, tight, subhorizontal, Fe and Mn staining 46'-47.5' Losing water (-25 gallons) 48.5'-49.1' Fracture zone, horizontal to 800, moderately to intensely weathered 50 440 S. Church Street, Suite 900 Charlotte, 28 75 Phone: 704-338-6700 hdrinc.com/follow-us CLIENT Duke Energy Carolinas PROJECT NUMBER 10030143 BORING NUMBER TW -1 PAGE 3OF3 PROJECT NAME Belews Creek - Accelerated Remediation PROJECT LOCATION Stokes Countv. NC LLJ Z c o e w w dU -i � Q j p > Y DESCRIPTION REMARKS KION LRING p m0 0 O w �O W U O <Z 50 MICA SCHIST, strong, very dark gray (N3) and Fractures, open, subhorizontal, e bluish gray (5PB 6/1), schistose texture, and Mn staining - intensely foliated, crenulated, slightly weathered 49.8'-50.1' Fracture zone, open to tight, Fe with pinhead garnets, few quartz bands, trace and Mn staining - augens (continued) 50'-52' Losing water (-20 gallons) 50.1'-53' Fractures at 0.3'-0.5' intervals, open, minor Fe staining 53.1'-54.8' unfractured, abundant healed fractures 55 54.8'-55.3' Fracture zone, open to tight, Fe RC -2 2 92 45 and Mn staining _ 55.3'-58.2' Moderately fractured, fractures at 0.4' average intervals, open, Fe and Mn staining Boring terminated at 58.2', screened interval set at 46.8'-56.8', well installed 8/10/16 ' Bottom of borehole at 58.2 feet. BORING NUMBER TW -2 440 S. Church Street, Suite 900 Charlotte, 28202-2075 PAGE 1 OF 3 Phone: 704-338-6700 hdrinc.com/follow-us CLIENT Duke Energy Carolinas PROJECT NAME Belews Creek - Accelerated Remediation PROJECT NUMBER 10030143 PROJECT LOCATION Stokes County, NC DATE STARTED 8/10/16 COMPLETED 8/10/16 GROUND ELEVATION TBD HOLE SIZE(S) 9, 4 inches DRILLING CONTRACTOR Geologic Exploration, Inc. NORTHING TBD EASTING TBD DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger, HQ Core GROUND WATER LEVELS: LOGGED BY T. Campbell CHECKED BY DATE/TIME 8/11/2016 8:05:00 AM 21.30 ft NOTES 1 DATE/TIME --- W � c o e Z J LUJ dW O O J D Q LLI U p> DESCRIPTION REMARKS MONITORING WELL W Q dU m0 > O W� Y U g0 UZ W U 0 U)O WW/ 0 (ML) SILT, stiff, red (1 OR 4/6) to yellowish red (5YR 4/6), dry, non -plastic, cohesive, trace mica (SAPROLITE) 5SS 1 5-8-12 (20) 18 Continued: hard, brown (7.5YR 5/4), friable, ISS -2 21-50/4^ 10 9 micaceous, trace fine sand, trace kaolin 15 Continued: reddish brown (10YR 5/4), dry to x SS - 3 18-50/6° 12 a0-50/5^ 20 SS - 4 g moist, relict foliation, Fe staining, Mn veins Y 25 20-40-37 BORING NUMBER TW-2 440 S. Church Street, Suite 900 Charlotte, 28202-2075 PAGE 2 OF 3 Phone: 704-338-6700 hdrinc.com/follow-us CLIENT Duke Energy Carolinas PROJECT NAME Belews Creek - Accelerated Remediation PROJECT NUMBER 10030143 PROJECT LOCATION Stokes County NC W j c o 0 _ �W U) �ZJ UW C'J wp v d 0 m 0> O Z O> DESCRIPTION REMARKS MONITORING g UZ w W U cQ Z O 25 (ML) SILT, hard, reddish brown (10YR 5/4), dry to moist, non-plastic, cohesive, micaceous, trace fine sand, trace kaolin, relict foliation, Fe staining, Mn veins (SAPROLITE) (continued) ------ -------------- (SW-SC) SAND WITH SILT AND GRAVEL, hard, light greenish gray (10Y 7/1) to gray (N5), dry, non-plastic, non-cohesive, sand fine to SS - 6 5014^ 30 4 coarse, gravel fine to coarse, trace Fe staining (SAPROLITE) -------------------- (ML) SILT, hard, light brown (7.5YR 6/4) to pinkish gray (7.5YR 6/2), moist, non-plastic, cohesive, massive to intensely foliated, Mn veins and nodules, trace mica and kaolin, slightly sandy (SAPROLITE) 35 SS - 7 12-15- 5015^ 15 -------------------- (ML) SILT, hard, gray (7.5YR 6/1), thinly laminated with white (N9.5), moist, non-plastic, cohesive, with Mn veins, Fe staining on relict fractures, original gneissic structure preserved, micaceous at base of spoon (SAPROLITE) 40 S - $ $ 17-25-45 (70) 18 (SW-SM) SAND WITH SILT AND GRAVEL, hard, grayish brown (10YR 5/2), trace light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4), sand fine to SS - 9 501311 45 L3 coarse, fine gravel, non-plastic, non-cohesive, trace kaolin, trace mica (SAPROLITE) 48' SPT refusal ss- 5010 SCHISTOSE MICA GNEISS, strong, dark gray 10 0 (N4) with white (N9.5) foliation, fresh to slightly weathered, button plagioclase, trace garnet, few 49.2' Begin HQ core 50 augens (SOUND ROCK) 49.2'-59.2' Moderately fractured Fe and Mn 440 S. Church Street, Suite 900 Charlotte, 28 75 Phone: 704-338-6700 hdrinc.com/follow-us CLIENT Duke Energy Carolinas PROJECT NUMBER 10030143 BORING NUMBER TW -2 PAGE 3OF3 PROJECT NAME Belews Creek - Accelerated Remediation PROJECT LOCATION Stokes Countv. NC N 60 i[8I1l W-% SCHISTOSE MICA GNEISS, strong, dark gray (N4) with white (N9.5) foliation, fresh to slightly weathered, button plagioclase, trace garnet, few augens (SOUND ROCK) (continued) QUARTZ FELDSPAR GNEISS, strong, white (7.5YR 9.5/1) and brown (10YR 4/3), fresh, common pinhead garnet (SOUND ROCK) SCHISTOSE MICA GNEISS, strong, dark gray (N4) with white (N9.5) foliation, fresh to slightly weathered, button plagioclase, trace garnet, few augens (SOUND ROCK) Bottom of borehole at 62.5 feet. staining on open Tractures, mostly subhorizontal, few fractures to 600 49.6'-50' Fracture zone, open, subhorizontal to 700, Fe and Mn staining 50.5' Fracture, open, subhorizontal, Fe and Mn staining 50.9', 51' Fractures, open, subhorizontal, Fe and Mn staining 53.2'-53.9' Intensely fractured 53.2'-53.9' Fracture, 800, open, Mn mineralization 54.2'-54.8' Fracture, 800, open, Mn mineralization 56'-56.2' Fracture, subhorizontal 56.8'-57.3' Fracture, open, 800, Fe and Mn staining 57.3'-58' Abundant healed fractures 58.6'-59.2' Fracture, open, 801, minor Fe staining, heavy Mn mineralization 59.2'-62.5' Drilled out (not sampled) to allow for screen length Boring terminated at 62.5', screened interval set at 52.1'-62.1', well installed 8/10/16 LLJ � c o e ww 0 dU j� Q j p> DESCRIPTION REMARKS HOWELL p m0> UZ 0�0 0 <0 W L OC N 60 i[8I1l W-% SCHISTOSE MICA GNEISS, strong, dark gray (N4) with white (N9.5) foliation, fresh to slightly weathered, button plagioclase, trace garnet, few augens (SOUND ROCK) (continued) QUARTZ FELDSPAR GNEISS, strong, white (7.5YR 9.5/1) and brown (10YR 4/3), fresh, common pinhead garnet (SOUND ROCK) SCHISTOSE MICA GNEISS, strong, dark gray (N4) with white (N9.5) foliation, fresh to slightly weathered, button plagioclase, trace garnet, few augens (SOUND ROCK) Bottom of borehole at 62.5 feet. staining on open Tractures, mostly subhorizontal, few fractures to 600 49.6'-50' Fracture zone, open, subhorizontal to 700, Fe and Mn staining 50.5' Fracture, open, subhorizontal, Fe and Mn staining 50.9', 51' Fractures, open, subhorizontal, Fe and Mn staining 53.2'-53.9' Intensely fractured 53.2'-53.9' Fracture, 800, open, Mn mineralization 54.2'-54.8' Fracture, 800, open, Mn mineralization 56'-56.2' Fracture, subhorizontal 56.8'-57.3' Fracture, open, 800, Fe and Mn staining 57.3'-58' Abundant healed fractures 58.6'-59.2' Fracture, open, 801, minor Fe staining, heavy Mn mineralization 59.2'-62.5' Drilled out (not sampled) to allow for screen length Boring terminated at 62.5', screened interval set at 52.1'-62.1', well installed 8/10/16 BORING NUMBER TW -3 440 S. Church Street, Suite 900 Charlotte, 28202-2075 PAGE 1 OF 2 Phone: 704-338-6700 hdrinc.com/follow-us CLIENT Duke Energy Carolinas PROJECT NAME Belews Creek - Accelerated Remediation PROJECT NUMBER 10030143 PROJECT LOCATION Stokes County, NC DATE STARTED 8/11/16 COMPLETED 8/11/16 GROUND ELEVATION TBD HOLE SIZE(S) 9 inches DRILLING CONTRACTOR Geologic Exploration, Inc. NORTHING TBD EASTING TBD DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger GROUND WATER LEVELS: LOGGED BY T. Campbell CHECKED BY DATE/TIME 8/12/2016 7:45:00 AM 21.20 ft NOTES 1 DATE/TIME --- LLJ � c o e Z J LU dw w J O O J Q w U p> DESCRIPTION REMARKS MONITORING WELL w Q dU m0 > O w� Y U �0 UZ w w 0 U)O 0 See TW -2 for lithology 5 Y 10 15 20 25 BORING NUMBER TW -3 440 S. Church Street, Suite 900 Charlotte, 28202-2075 PAGE 2 OF 2 Phone: 704-338-6700 hdrinc.com/follow-us CLIENT Duke Energy Carolinas PROJECT NAME Belews Creek - Accelerated Remediation PROJECT NUMBER 10030143 PROJECT LOCATION Stokes County, NC LLI � c o e } W (n W z J >- LU p dW R O p J Q W U p> DESCRIPTION REMARKS MONITORING WELL W p av m0> Opp U �0 UZ W � O U) 0 25 30 Boring terminated at 44', screened interval set 35 40 at 23.5-43.5', well installed 8/11/16 ;. .:. Bottom of borehole at 44.0 feet. BORING NUMBER TW-4 440 S. Church Street, Suite 900 Charlotte, 28202-2075 PAGE 1 OF 2 Phone: 704-338-6700 hdrinc.com/follow-us CLIENT Duke Energy Carolinas PROJECT NAME Belews Creek - Accelerated Remediation PROJECT NUMBER 10030143 PROJECT LOCATION Stokes County NC DATE STARTED 8/31/16 COMPLETED 8/31/16 GROUND ELEVATION TBD HOLE SIZE(S) 6 inches DRILLING CONTRACTOR Cascade Drilling L.P. NORTHING TBD EASTING TBD DRILLING METHOD Sonic GROUND WATER LEVELS: LOGGED BY J. Pendleton CHECKED BY DATE/TIME --- NOTES DATE/TIME --- LL j _ C o 0 } fY U) W > O w _j 0p _, zj 0 > p > DESCRIPTION REMARKS MONITORING Lu p O_(-) Q m0>00 E0 y g-� 0 w w U 0 O < z0 � Lu 0 (CL) SILTY CLAY, medium red (2.5YR 4/6), low plasticity, cohesive (soil) Hand auger first 5' (ML) SANDY SILT, hard, red (2.5YR 4/8), gray Mica flakes present throughout (10YR 5/1) and white (9.5N), moist, non-plastic non-cohesive (saprolite) 5 Relic laminae/bedding planes present (structure or saprolite) (CL) SILTY CLAY, very stiff, red (2.5YR 4/8), SD - 1 60 moist, non-plastic, non-cohesive (saprolite) — Laminae bedding lanes with residual relic (ML) SILT, stiff, red (2.5YR 5/6) and light structure yellowish brown (10YR 6/4), moist, non-plastic, non-cohesive (saprolite) 10 Color change to greater amount of light yellowish brown, saprolite characteristics increase 15 SD-2 102 20 i.. (ML) SILT, stiff, pale brown (10YR 6/3), Wet/saturated non-plastic, non-cohesive (saprolite) 25 BORING NUMBER TW -4 440 Charlotte, S. Church Street, 28202-2075 Suite 900 PAGE 2 OF 2 Phone: 704-338-6700 hdrinc.com/follow-us CLIENT Duke Energy Carolinas PROJECT NAME Belews Creek - Accelerated Remediation PROJECT NUMBER 10030143 PROJECT LOCATION Stokes County, NC LLJ � c o e w w 0 dU j 0 Q j p> Y DESCRIPTION REMARKS KION LL p m0 0 O w �0 W U O �Z Qf 25 (ML) SILT, stiff, pale brown (10YR 6/3), non -plastic, non -cohesive (saprolite) (continued) (ML) SILT WITH SOME SAND, medium, light Very weathered mica schist and mica flakes yellowish brown (10YR 6/4), dry, non -plastic present throughout (sand fine -medium) 30 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -- (ML) SILT, stiff, yellowish brown (10YR 5/4), red (1 OR 4/6) and black (5YR 2.5/1), moist, non -plastic, non -cohesive (saprolite) Weathered mica schist decomposition with laminae and structural makeup 35 (ML) SILT WITH GRAVEL, very stiff, dark gray Fragmented mica schist present throughout (5Y 4/1), dry, non -plastic, non -cohesive most of 37-40 interval Weathered mica schist with saprolite structure 40 (ML) SILT WITH GRAVEL, hard, very dark gray Beginning of transition zone located at 40' bgs (10YR 3/1),moist, non -plastic, non -cohesive (saprolite) Bottom of borehole at 42.0 feet. aceAnaiXical www.pacelabs.com September 20, 2016 Chad Hearn HDR 440 S. Church Street Suite 1000 Charlotte, NC 28202 RE: Project: BCSS Accelerated Remediation Pace Project No.: 92311854 Dear Chad Hearn: Pace Analytical Services, Inc. 9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100 Huntersville, INC 28078 (704)875-9092 Enclosed are the analytical results for sample(s) received by the laboratory on September 09, 2016. The results relate only to the samples included in this report. Results reported herein conform to the most current TNI standards and the laboratory's Quality Assurance Manual, where applicable, unless otherwise noted in the body of the report. Analyses were performed at the Pace Analytical Services location indicated on the sample analyte page for analysis unless otherwise footnoted. If you have any questions concerning this report, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Kevin Godwin kevin.godwin@pacelabs.com Project Manager Enclosures e pccft 2�' O REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc.. Page 1 of 40 aceAnaiXical www.pacelabs.com Project: BCSS Accelerated Remediation Pace Project No.: 92311854 Ormond Beach Certification IDs 8 East Tower Circle, Ormond Beach, FL 32174 Alabama Certification #: 41320 Connecticut Certification #: PH -0216 Delaware Certification: FL NELAC Reciprocity Florida Certification #: E83079 Georgia Certification #: 955 Guam Certification: FL NELAC Reciprocity Hawaii Certification: FL NELAC Reciprocity Illinois Certification #: 200068 Indiana Certification: FL NELAC Reciprocity Kansas Certification #: E-10383 Louisiana Certification #: FL NELAC Reciprocity Louisiana Environmental Certificate #: 05007 Maryland Certification: #346 Michigan Certification #: 9911 Mississippi Certification: FL NELAC Reciprocity Missouri Certification #: 236 Montana Certification #: Cert 0074 Charlotte Certification IDs 9800 Kincey Ave. Ste 100, Huntersville, NC 28078 North Carolina Drinking Water Certification #: 37706 North Carolina Field Services Certification #: 5342 North Carolina Wastewater Certification M 12 Asheville Certification IDs 2225 Riverside Drive, Asheville, NC 28804 Florida/NELAP Certification M E87648 Massachusetts Certification #: M-NC030 North Carolina Drinking Water Certification #: 37712 Pace Analytical Services, Inc. 9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100 Huntersville, NC 28078 (704)875-9092 CERTIFICATIONS Nebraska Certification: NE -OS -28-14 Nevada Certification: FL NELAC Reciprocity New York Certification #: 11608 North Carolina Environmental Certificate #: 667 North Carolina Certification #: 12710 North Dakota Certification #: R-216 Oklahoma Certification #: D9947 Pennsylvania Certification M 68-00547 Puerto Rico Certification #: FLO1264 South Carolina Certification: #96042001 Tennessee Certification #: TN02974 Texas Certification: FL NELAC Reciprocity US Virgin Islands Certification: FL NELAC Reciprocity Virginia Environmental Certification #: 460165 Wyoming Certification: FL NELAC Reciprocity West Virginia Certification #: 9962C Wisconsin Certification #: 399079670 Wyoming (EPA Region 8): FL NELAC Reciprocity South Carolina Certification #: 99006001 Florida/NELAP Certification #: E87627 Kentucky UST Certification #: 84 Virginia/VELAP Certification #: 460221 North Carolina Wastewater Certification #: 40 South Carolina Certification #: 99030001 Virginia/VELAP Certification #: 460222 REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc.. Page 2 of 40 aceAnaiXical www.pacelabs.com SAMPLE ANALYTE COUNT Pace Analytical Services, Inc. 9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100 Huntersville, NC 28078 (704)875-9092 Project: Pace Project No.: BCSS Accelerated Remediation 92311854 Analytes Lab ID Sample ID Method Analysts Reported Laboratory 92311854001 BCSS EW -2 RSK 175 Modified WDV 1 PASI-C EPA 200.7 SH1 12 PASI-A EPA 200.8 Rev 5.4 CDF 13 PASI-A EPA 245.1 WAB 1 PASI-A SM 2320B KDF 1 PASI-A SM 2540C MJS 1 PASI-A SM 2540D MJP 1 PASI-A SM 4500-S2D MDW 1 PASI-A EPA 218.7 AEM 1 PASI-O EPA 300.0 MDW 1 PASI-A EPA 350.1 1993 Rev 2.0 SER 1 PASI-A EPA 353.2 SER 2 PASI-A SM 4500 -CI -E WRC 1 PASI-A SM 5310B MDW 1 PASI-A REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc.. Page 3 of 40 aceAnaiXical www.pacelabs.com PROJECT NARRATIVE Project: BCSS Accelerated Remediation Pace Project No.: 92311854 Method: RSK 175 Modified Description: RSK 175 Headspace Client: HDR Engineering Date: September 20, 2016 Pace Analytical Services, Inc. 9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100 Huntersville, NC 28078 (704)875-9092 General Information: 1 sample was analyzed for RSK 175 Modified. All samples were received in acceptable condition with any exceptions noted below or on the chain -of custody and/or the sample condition upon receipt form (SCUR) attached at the end of this report. Hold Time: The samples were analyzed within the method required hold times with any exceptions noted below. Initial Calibrations (including MS Tune as applicable): All criteria were within method requirements with any exceptions noted below. Continuing Calibration: All criteria were within method requirements with any exceptions noted below. Surrogates: All surrogates were within QC limits with any exceptions noted below. Method Blank: All analytes were below the report limit in the method blank, where applicable, with any exceptions noted below. Laboratory Control Spike: All laboratory control spike compounds were within QC limits with any exceptions noted below. Matrix Spikes: All percent recoveries and relative percent differences (RPDs) were within acceptance criteria with any exceptions noted below. Additional Comments: REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc.. Page 4 of 40 aceAnaiXical www.pacelabs.com PROJECT NARRATIVE Project: BCSS Accelerated Remediation Pace Project No.: 92311854 Method: EPA 200.7 Description: 200.7 MET ICP Client: HDR Engineering Date: September 20, 2016 Pace Analytical Services, Inc. 9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100 Huntersville, NC 28078 (704)875-9092 General Information: 1 sample was analyzed for EPA 200.7. All samples were received in acceptable condition with any exceptions noted below or on the chain -of custody and/or the sample condition upon receipt form (SCUR) attached at the end of this report. Hold Time: The samples were analyzed within the method required hold times with any exceptions noted below. Sample Preparation: The samples were prepared in accordance with EPA 200.7 with any exceptions noted below. Initial Calibrations (including MS Tune as applicable): All criteria were within method requirements with any exceptions noted below. Continuing Calibration: All criteria were within method requirements with any exceptions noted below. Method Blank: All analytes were below the report limit in the method blank, where applicable, with any exceptions noted below. Laboratory Control Spike: All laboratory control spike compounds were within QC limits with any exceptions noted below. Matrix Spikes: All percent recoveries and relative percent differences (RPDs) were within acceptance criteria with any exceptions noted below. QC Batch: 328187 A matrix spike and/or matrix spike duplicate (MS/MSD) were performed on the following sample(s): 92311647004,92311847001 M1: Matrix spike recovery exceeded QC limits. Batch accepted based on laboratory control sample (LCS) recovery. • MS (Lab ID: 1818789) • Aluminum • MSD (Lab ID: 1818790) • Aluminum Additional Comments: REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc.. Page 5 of 40 aceAnaiXical www.pacelabs.com PROJECT NARRATIVE Project: BCSS Accelerated Remediation Pace Project No.: 92311854 Method: EPA 200.8 Rev 5.4 Description: 200.8 MET ICPMS Client: HDR Engineering Date: September 20, 2016 Pace Analytical Services, Inc. 9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100 Huntersville, NC 28078 (704)875-9092 General Information: 1 sample was analyzed for EPA 200.8 Rev 5.4. All samples were received in acceptable condition with any exceptions noted below or on the chain -of custody and/or the sample condition upon receipt form (SCUR) attached at the end of this report. Hold Time: The samples were analyzed within the method required hold times with any exceptions noted below. Sample Preparation: The samples were prepared in accordance with EPA 200.8 Rev 5.4 with any exceptions noted below. Initial Calibrations (including MS Tune as applicable): All criteria were within method requirements with any exceptions noted below. Continuing Calibration: All criteria were within method requirements with any exceptions noted below. Internal Standards: All internal standards were within QC limits with any exceptions noted below. Method Blank: All analytes were below the report limit in the method blank, where applicable, with any exceptions noted below. Laboratory Control Spike: All laboratory control spike compounds were within QC limits with any exceptions noted below. Matrix Spikes: All percent recoveries and relative percent differences (RPDs) were within acceptance criteria with any exceptions noted below. Additional Comments: REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc.. Page 6 of 40 aceAnaiXical www.pacelabs.com PROJECT NARRATIVE Project: BCSS Accelerated Remediation Pace Project No.: 92311854 Method: EPA 245.1 Description: 245.1 Mercury Client: HDR Engineering Date: September 20, 2016 Pace Analytical Services, Inc. 9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100 Huntersville, NC 28078 (704)875-9092 General Information: 1 sample was analyzed for EPA 245.1. All samples were received in acceptable condition with any exceptions noted below or on the chain -of custody and/or the sample condition upon receipt form (SCUR) attached at the end of this report. Hold Time: The samples were analyzed within the method required hold times with any exceptions noted below. Sample Preparation: The samples were prepared in accordance with EPA 245.1 with any exceptions noted below. Initial Calibrations (including MS Tune as applicable): All criteria were within method requirements with any exceptions noted below. Continuing Calibration: All criteria were within method requirements with any exceptions noted below. Method Blank: All analytes were below the report limit in the method blank, where applicable, with any exceptions noted below. Laboratory Control Spike: All laboratory control spike compounds were within QC limits with any exceptions noted below. Matrix Spikes: All percent recoveries and relative percent differences (RPDs) were within acceptance criteria with any exceptions noted below. Additional Comments: REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc.. Page 7 of 40 aceAnaiXical www.pacelabs.com PROJECT NARRATIVE Project: BCSS Accelerated Remediation Pace Project No.: 92311854 Method: SM 2320B Description: 2320B Alkalinity Client: HDR Engineering Date: September 20, 2016 Pace Analytical Services, Inc. 9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100 Huntersville, NC 28078 (704)875-9092 General Information: 1 sample was analyzed for SM 23208. All samples were received in acceptable condition with any exceptions noted below or on the chain -of custody and/or the sample condition upon receipt form (SCUR) attached at the end of this report. Hold Time: The samples were analyzed within the method required hold times with any exceptions noted below. Method Blank: All analytes were below the report limit in the method blank, where applicable, with any exceptions noted below. Laboratory Control Spike: All laboratory control spike compounds were within QC limits with any exceptions noted below. Matrix Spikes: All percent recoveries and relative percent differences (RPDs) were within acceptance criteria with any exceptions noted below. Additional Comments: REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc.. Page 8 of 40 aceAnaiXical www.pacelabs.com PROJECT NARRATIVE Project: BCSS Accelerated Remediation Pace Project No.: 92311854 Method: SM 2540C Description: 2540C Total Dissolved Solids Client: HDR Engineering Date: September 20, 2016 Pace Analytical Services, Inc. 9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100 Huntersville, NC 28078 (704)875-9092 General Information: 1 sample was analyzed for SM 2540C. All samples were received in acceptable condition with any exceptions noted below or on the chain -of custody and/or the sample condition upon receipt form (SCUR) attached at the end of this report. Hold Time: The samples were analyzed within the method required hold times with any exceptions noted below. Method Blank: All analytes were below the report limit in the method blank, where applicable, with any exceptions noted below. Laboratory Control Spike: All laboratory control spike compounds were within QC limits with any exceptions noted below. Matrix Spikes: All percent recoveries and relative percent differences (RPDs) were within acceptance criteria with any exceptions noted below. Duplicate Sample: All duplicate sample results were within method acceptance criteria with any exceptions noted below. Additional Comments: REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc.. Page 9 of 40 aceAnaiXical www.pacelabs.com PROJECT NARRATIVE Project: BCSS Accelerated Remediation Pace Project No.: 92311854 Method: SM 2540D Description: 2540D Total Suspended Solids Client: HDR Engineering Date: September 20, 2016 Pace Analytical Services, Inc. 9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100 Huntersville, NC 28078 (704)875-9092 General Information: 1 sample was analyzed for SM 2540D. All samples were received in acceptable condition with any exceptions noted below or on the chain -of custody and/or the sample condition upon receipt form (SCUR) attached at the end of this report. Hold Time: The samples were analyzed within the method required hold times with any exceptions noted below. Method Blank: All analytes were below the report limit in the method blank, where applicable, with any exceptions noted below. Laboratory Control Spike: All laboratory control spike compounds were within QC limits with any exceptions noted below. Matrix Spikes: All percent recoveries and relative percent differences (RPDs) were within acceptance criteria with any exceptions noted below. Duplicate Sample: All duplicate sample results were within method acceptance criteria with any exceptions noted below. QC Batch: 328583 D6: The precision between the sample and sample duplicate exceeded laboratory control limits. • DUP (Lab ID: 1821350) • Total Suspended Solids Additional Comments: REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc.. Page 10 of 40 aceAnaiXical www.pacelabs.com PROJECT NARRATIVE Project: BCSS Accelerated Remediation Pace Project No.: 92311854 Method: SM 4500-S21) Description: 4500S2D Sulfide Water Client: HDR Engineering Date: September 20, 2016 Pace Analytical Services, Inc. 9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100 Huntersville, NC 28078 (704)875-9092 General Information: 1 sample was analyzed for SM 4500-S2D. All samples were received in acceptable condition with any exceptions noted below or on the chain -of custody and/or the sample condition upon receipt form (SCUR) attached at the end of this report. Hold Time: The samples were analyzed within the method required hold times with any exceptions noted below. Method Blank: All analytes were below the report limit in the method blank, where applicable, with any exceptions noted below. Laboratory Control Spike: All laboratory control spike compounds were within QC limits with any exceptions noted below. Matrix Spikes: All percent recoveries and relative percent differences (RPDs) were within acceptance criteria with any exceptions noted below. Additional Comments: REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc.. Page 11 of 40 aceAnaiXical www.pacelabs.com PROJECT NARRATIVE Project: BCSS Accelerated Remediation Pace Project No.: 92311854 Method: EPA 218.7 Description: Hexavalent Chromium by IC Client: HDR Engineering Date: September 20, 2016 Pace Analytical Services, Inc. 9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100 Huntersville, NC 28078 (704)875-9092 General Information: 1 sample was analyzed for EPA 218.7. All samples were received in acceptable condition with any exceptions noted below or on the chain -of custody and/or the sample condition upon receipt form (SCUR) attached at the end of this report. Hold Time: The samples were analyzed within the method required hold times with any exceptions noted below. Method Blank: All analytes were below the report limit in the method blank, where applicable, with any exceptions noted below. Laboratory Control Spike: All laboratory control spike compounds were within QC limits with any exceptions noted below. Matrix Spikes: All percent recoveries and relative percent differences (RPDs) were within acceptance criteria with any exceptions noted below. Additional Comments: REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc.. Page 12 of 40 aceAnaiXical www.pacelabs.com PROJECT NARRATIVE Project: BCSS Accelerated Remediation Pace Project No.: 92311854 Method: EPA 300.0 Description: 300.0 IC Anions 28 Days Client: HDR Engineering Date: September 20, 2016 Pace Analytical Services, Inc. 9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100 Huntersville, NC 28078 (704)875-9092 General Information: 1 sample was analyzed for EPA 300.0. All samples were received in acceptable condition with any exceptions noted below or on the chain -of custody and/or the sample condition upon receipt form (SCUR) attached at the end of this report. Hold Time: The samples were analyzed within the method required hold times with any exceptions noted below. Method Blank: All analytes were below the report limit in the method blank, where applicable, with any exceptions noted below. Laboratory Control Spike: All laboratory control spike compounds were within QC limits with any exceptions noted below. Matrix Spikes: All percent recoveries and relative percent differences (RPDs) were within acceptance criteria with any exceptions noted below. Additional Comments: REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc.. Page 13 of 40 aceAnaiXical www.pacelabs.com PROJECT NARRATIVE Project: BCSS Accelerated Remediation Pace Project No.: 92311854 Method: EPA 350.1 1993 Rev 2.0 Description: 350.1 Ammonia Client: HDR Engineering Date: September 20, 2016 Pace Analytical Services, Inc. 9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100 Huntersville, NC 28078 (704)875-9092 General Information: 1 sample was analyzed for EPA 350.1 1993 Rev 2.0. All samples were received in acceptable condition with any exceptions noted below or on the chain -of custody and/or the sample condition upon receipt form (SCUR) attached at the end of this report. Hold Time: The samples were analyzed within the method required hold times with any exceptions noted below. Method Blank: All analytes were below the report limit in the method blank, where applicable, with any exceptions noted below. Laboratory Control Spike: All laboratory control spike compounds were within QC limits with any exceptions noted below. Matrix Spikes: All percent recoveries and relative percent differences (RPDs) were within acceptance criteria with any exceptions noted below. QC Batch: 328388 A matrix spike and/or matrix spike duplicate (MS/MSD) were performed on the following sample(s): 92311266001,92311331001 M1: Matrix spike recovery exceeded QC limits. Batch accepted based on laboratory control sample (LCS) recovery. • MS (Lab ID: 1820052) • Nitrogen, Ammonia • MSD (Lab ID: 1820053) • Nitrogen, Ammonia Additional Comments: REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc.. Page 14 of 40 aceAnaiXical www.pacelabs.com PROJECT NARRATIVE Project: BCSS Accelerated Remediation Pace Project No.: 92311854 Method: EPA 353.2 Description: 353.2 Nitrogen, NO2/NO3 unpres Client: HDR Engineering Date: September 20, 2016 Pace Analytical Services, Inc. 9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100 Huntersville, NC 28078 (704)875-9092 General Information: 1 sample was analyzed for EPA 353.2. All samples were received in acceptable condition with any exceptions noted below or on the chain -of custody and/or the sample condition upon receipt form (SCUR) attached at the end of this report. Hold Time: The samples were analyzed within the method required hold times with any exceptions noted below. Method Blank: All analytes were below the report limit in the method blank, where applicable, with any exceptions noted below. Laboratory Control Spike: All laboratory control spike compounds were within QC limits with any exceptions noted below. Matrix Spikes: All percent recoveries and relative percent differences (RPDs) were within acceptance criteria with any exceptions noted below. QC Batch: 328072 A matrix spike and/or matrix spike duplicate (MS/MSD) were performed on the following sample(s): 92311854001 M1: Matrix spike recovery exceeded QC limits. Batch accepted based on laboratory control sample (LCS) recovery. • MS (Lab ID: 1818066) • Nitrogen, Nitrite • MSD (Lab ID: 1818067) • Nitrogen, Nitrite Additional Comments: REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc.. Page 15 of 40 aceAnaiXical www.pacelabs.com PROJECT NARRATIVE Project: BCSS Accelerated Remediation Pace Project No.: 92311854 Method: SM 4500 -CI -E Description: 4500 Chloride Client: HDR Engineering Date: September 20, 2016 Pace Analytical Services, Inc. 9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100 Huntersville, NC 28078 (704)875-9092 General Information: 1 sample was analyzed for SM 4500 -CI -E. All samples were received in acceptable condition with any exceptions noted below or on the chain -of custody and/or the sample condition upon receipt form (SCUR) attached at the end of this report. Hold Time: The samples were analyzed within the method required hold times with any exceptions noted below. Method Blank: All analytes were below the report limit in the method blank, where applicable, with any exceptions noted below. Laboratory Control Spike: All laboratory control spike compounds were within QC limits with any exceptions noted below. Matrix Spikes: All percent recoveries and relative percent differences (RPDs) were within acceptance criteria with any exceptions noted below. QC Batch: 328523 A matrix spike and/or matrix spike duplicate (MS/MSD) were performed on the following sample(s): 92311363001,92311971001 M1: Matrix spike recovery exceeded QC limits. Batch accepted based on laboratory control sample (LCS) recovery. • MS (Lab ID: 1820943) • Chloride • MSD (Lab ID: 1820944) • Chloride M6: Matrix spike and Matrix spike duplicate recovery not evaluated against control limits due to sample dilution. • MS (Lab ID: 1820941) • Chloride • MSD (Lab ID: 1820942) • Chloride Additional Comments: REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc.. Page 16 of 40 aceAnaiXical www.pacelabs.com PROJECT NARRATIVE Project: BCSS Accelerated Remediation Pace Project No.: 92311854 Method: SM 5310B Description: 531013 TOC Client: HDR Engineering Date: September 20, 2016 Pace Analytical Services, Inc. 9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100 Huntersville, NC 28078 (704)875-9092 General Information: 1 sample was analyzed for SM 53106. All samples were received in acceptable condition with any exceptions noted below or on the chain -of custody and/or the sample condition upon receipt form (SCUR) attached at the end of this report. Hold Time: The samples were analyzed within the method required hold times with any exceptions noted below. Method Blank: All analytes were below the report limit in the method blank, where applicable, with any exceptions noted below. Laboratory Control Spike: All laboratory control spike compounds were within QC limits with any exceptions noted below. Matrix Spikes: All percent recoveries and relative percent differences (RPDs) were within acceptance criteria with any exceptions noted below. Additional Comments: This data package has been reviewed for quality and completeness and is approved for release. REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc.. Page 17 of 40 aceAnaiXical www.pacelabs.com ANALYTICAL RESULTS Project: BCSS Accelerated Remediation Pace Project No.: 92311854 Pace Analytical Services, Inc. 9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100 Huntersville, NC 28078 (704)875-9092 Sample: BCSS EW -2 Lab ID: 92311854001 Collected: 09/08/16 13:45 Received: 09/09/16 16:30 Matrix: Water Parameters Results Units Report Limit DF Prepared Analyzed CAS No. Qual RSK 175 Headspace Analytical Method: RSK 175 Modified Methane ND ug/L 10.0 1 09/12/1613:54 74-82-8 200.7 MET ICP Analytical Method: EPA 200.7 Preparation Method: EPA 200.7 Aluminum 228 ug/L 100 1 09/12/16 21:30 09/13/16 20:05 7429-90-5 Barium 424 ug/L 5.0 1 09/12/16 21:30 09/13/16 20:05 7440-39-3 Boron 8460 ug/L 50.0 1 09/12/16 21:30 09/13/16 20:05 7440-42-8 Calcium 141000 ug/L 500 5 09/12/16 21:30 09/14/16 14:48 7440-70-2 Iron 1560 ug/L 50.0 1 09/12/16 21:30 09/13/16 20:05 7439-89-6 Lead ND ug/L 5.0 1 09/12/16 21:30 09/13/16 20:05 7439-92-1 Magnesium 52700 ug/L 100 1 09/12/16 21:30 09/13/16 20:05 7439-95-4 Manganese 3720 ug/L 5.0 1 09/12/16 21:30 09/13/16 20:05 7439-96-5 Potassium 7380 ug/L 5000 1 09/12/16 21:30 09/13/16 20:05 7440-09-7 Sodium 16000 ug/L 5000 1 09/12/16 21:30 09/13/16 20:05 7440-23-5 Strontium 751 ug/L 5.0 1 09/12/16 21:30 09/13/16 20:05 7440-24-6 Zinc 13.0 ug/L 10.0 1 09/12/16 21:30 09/13/16 20:05 7440-66-6 200.8 MET ICPMS Analytical Method: EPA 200.8 Rev 5.4 Preparation Method: EPA 200.8 Rev 5.4 Antimony ND ug/L 0.50 1 09/13/16 18:45 09/14/16 20:05 7440-36-0 Arsenic 1.7 ug/L 0.10 1 09/13/16 18:45 09/14/16 20:05 7440-38-2 Beryllium 11.5 ug/L 0.10 1 09/13/16 18:45 09/14/16 20:05 7440-41-7 Cadmium 1.5 ug/L 0.080 1 09/13/16 18:45 09/14/16 20:05 7440-43-9 Chromium 0.82 ug/L 0.50 1 09/13/16 18:45 09/14/16 20:05 7440-47-3 Cobalt 9.5 ug/L 0.10 1 09/13/16 18:45 09/14/16 20:05 7440-48-4 Copper 0.56 ug/L 0.50 1 09/13/16 18:45 09/14/16 20:05 7440-50-8 Lead 0.35 ug/L 0.10 1 09/13/16 18:45 09/14/16 20:05 7439-92-1 Molybdenum 0.83 ug/L 0.50 1 09/13/16 18:45 09/14/16 20:05 7439-98-7 Nickel 6.9 ug/L 0.50 1 09/13/16 18:45 09/14/16 20:05 7440-02-0 Selenium 6.5 ug/L 0.50 1 09/13/16 18:45 09/14/16 20:05 7782-49-2 Thallium 0.47 ug/L 0.10 1 09/13/16 18:45 09/14/16 20:05 7440-28-0 Vanadium ND ug/L 0.30 1 09/13/16 18:45 09/14/16 20:05 7440-62-2 245.1 Mercury Analytical Method: EPA 245.1 Preparation Method: EPA 245.1 Mercury ND ug/L 0.20 1 09/17/16 05:50 09/20/16 13:37 7439-97-6 2320B Alkalinity Analytical Method: SM 2320B Alkalinity, Total as CaCO3 ND mg/L 5.0 1 09/14/16 15:58 2540C Total Dissolved Solids Analytical Method: SM 2540C Total Dissolved Solids 1060 mg/L 50.0 1 09/14/16 17:30 2540D Total Suspended Solids Analytical Method: SM 2540D Total Suspended Solids ND mg/L 2.5 1 09/14/16 23:30 4500S2D Sulfide Water Analytical Method: SM 4500-S2D Sulfide ND mg/L 0.10 1 09/14/16 01:26 18496-25-8 REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, Date: 09/20/2016 05:31 PM without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc.. PPa Page 18 of 40 aceAnaiXical www.pacelabs.com ANALYTICAL RESULTS Project: BCSS Accelerated Remediation Pace Project No.: 92311854 Pace Analytical Services, Inc. 9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100 Huntersville, NC 28078 (704)875-9092 Sample: BCSS EW -2 Lab ID: 92311854001 Collected: 09/08/16 13:45 Received: 09/09/16 16:30 Matrix: Water Parameters Results Units Report Limit DF Prepared Analyzed CAS No. Qual Hexavalent Chromium by IC Analytical Method: EPA 218.7 Chromium, Hexavalent ND ug/L 0.030 1 09/19/16 15:23 18540-29-9 300.0 IC Anions 28 Days Analytical Method: EPA 300.0 Sulfate 43.9 mg/L 6.0 3 09/11/1618:40 14808-79-8 350.1 Ammonia Analytical Method: EPA 350.1 1993 Rev 2.0 Nitrogen, Ammonia ND mg/L 0.10 1 09/14/16 03:18 7664-41-7 353.2 Nitrogen, NO2/NO3 unpres Analytical Method: EPA 353.2 Nitrogen, Nitrate 0.092 mg/L 0.020 1 09/10/16 05:34 Nitrogen, Nitrite ND mg/L 0.020 1 09/10/16 05:34 M1 4500 Chloride Analytical Method: SM 4500 -CI -E Chloride 496 mg/L 50.0 50 09/15/16 23:26 16887-00-6 531013 TOC Analytical Method: SM 5310B Total Organic Carbon ND mg/L 1.0 1 09/16/16 09:33 7440-44-0 Date: 09/20/2016 05:31 PM REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc.. Page 19 of 40 aceAnaiXical www.pacelabs.com QUALITY CONTROL DATA Project: BCSS Accelerated Remediation Pace Project No.: 92311854 QC Batch: 328132 Analysis Method: RSK 175 Modified QC Batch Method: RSK 175 Modified Analysis Description: RSK 175 HEADSPACE Associated Lab Samples: 92311854001 METHOD BLANK: 1818353 Matrix: Water Associated Lab Samples: 92311854001 Blank Reporting Parameter Units Result Limit Analyzed Qualifiers Methane ug/L ND 10.0 09/12/1610:21 N2 Pace Analytical Services, Inc. 9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100 Huntersville, NC 28078 (704)875-9092 LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLE & LCSD: 1818354 1818355 Spike LCS LCSD LCS LCSD % Rec Max Parameter Units Conc. Result Result % Rec % Rec Limits RPD RPD Qualifiers Methane ug/L 396 412 389 104 98 70-130 6 20 N2 Results presented on this page are in the units indicated by the "Units" column except where an alternate unit is presented to the right of the result. REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, Date: 09/20/2016 05:31 PM without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc.. Page 20 of 40 aceAnaiXical www.pacelabs.com QUALITY CONTROL DATA Pace Analytical Services, Inc. 9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100 Huntersville, NC 28078 (704)875-9092 Project: BCSS Accelerated Remediation Pace Project No.: 92311854 QC Batch: 328143 Analysis Method: EPA 245.1 QC Batch Method: EPA 245.1 Analysis Description: 245.1 Mercury Associated Lab Samples: 92311854001 METHOD BLANK: 1818475 Matrix: Water Associated Lab Samples: 92311854001 Blank Reporting Parameter Units Result Limit Analyzed Qualifiers Mercury ug/L ND 0.20 09/20/1613:37 LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLE: 1818476 Spike LCS LCS % Rec Parameter Units Conc. Result % Rec Limits Qualifiers Mercury ug/L 2.5 2.7 107 85-115 MATRIX SPIKE & MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE: 1818477 1818478 MS MSD 92311423005 Spike Spike MS MSD MS MSD % Rec Parameter Units Result Conc. Conc. Result Result % Rec % Rec Limits RPD Qual Mercury ug/L 2.6 2.5 2.5 4.6 5.0 79 95 70-130 8 MATRIX SPIKE & MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE: 1818479 1818480 MS MSD 92311693006 Spike Spike MS MSD MS MSD % Rec Parameter Units Result Conc. Conc. Result Result % Rec % Rec Limits RPD Qual Mercury ug/L ND 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.6 99 100 70-130 2 Results presented on this page are in the units indicated by the "Units" column except where an alternate unit is presented to the right of the result. REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, Date: 09/20/2016 05:31 PM without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc.. Page 21 of 40 aceAnaiXical www.pacelabs.com QUALITY CONTROL DATA Project: BCSS Accelerated Remediation Pace Project No.: 92311854 QC Batch: 328187 Analysis Method: EPA 200.7 QC Batch Method: EPA 200.7 Analysis Description: 200.7 MET Associated Lab Samples: 92311854001 METHOD BLANK: 1818785 Associated Lab Samples: 92311854001 Parameter Units Matrix: Blank Result Water Reporting Limit Analyzed Qualifiers Aluminum ug/L ND 100 09/13/1619:32 Barium ug/L ND 5.0 09/13/1619:32 Boron ug/L ND 50.0 09/13/1619:32 Calcium ug/L ND 100 09/14/1614:44 Iron ug/L ND 50.0 09/13/1619:32 Lead ug/L ND 5.0 09/13/1619:32 Magnesium ug/L ND 100 09/13/1619:32 Manganese ug/L ND 5.0 09/13/1619:32 Potassium ug/L ND 5000 09/13/1619:32 Sodium ug/L ND 5000 09/13/1619:32 Strontium ug/L ND 5.0 09/13/1619:32 Zinc ug/L ND 10.0 09/13/1619:32 Pace Analytical Services, Inc. 9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100 Huntersville, NC 28078 (704)875-9092 LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLE: Parameter 1818786 Units Spike Conc. LCS Result LCS % Rec % Rec Limits Qualifiers Aluminum ug/L 5000 5040 101 85-115 Barium ug/L 500 517 103 85-115 Boron ug/L 500 491 98 85-115 Calcium ug/L 5000 5290 106 85-115 Iron ug/L 5000 4770 95 85-115 Lead ug/L 500 478 96 85-115 Magnesium ug/L 5000 4900 98 85-115 Manganese ug/L 500 493 99 85-115 Potassium ug/L 5000 4800J 96 85-115 Sodium ug/L 5000 4860J 97 85-115 Strontium ug/L 500 493 99 85-115 Zinc ug/L 500 486 97 85-115 MATRIX SPIKE & MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE: 1818787 1818788 MS MSD 92311847001 Spike Spike MS MSD MS MSD % Rec Parameter Units Result Conc. Conc. Result Result % Rec % Rec Limits RPD Qual Aluminum ug/L 163 5000 5000 5000 5120 97 99 70-130 2 Barium ug/L 13.5 500 500 512 522 100 102 70-130 2 Boron ug/L 185 500 500 668 686 97 100 70-130 3 Calcium ug/L 15000 5000 5000 19800 19900 96 98 70-130 1 Iron ug/L 573 5000 5000 5090 5240 90 93 70-130 3 Results presented on this page are in the units indicated by the "Units" column except where an alternate unit is presented to the right of the result REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, Date: 09/20/2016 05:31 PM without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc.. Page 22 of 40 aceAnaiXical www.pacelabs.com QUALITY CONTROL DATA Pace Analytical Services, Inc. 9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100 Huntersville, NC 28078 (704)875-9092 Project: BCSS Accelerated Remediation Pace Project No.: 92311854 MATRIX SPIKE & MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE: 1818787 1818788 MS MSD 92311847001 Spike Spike MS MSD MS MSD % Rec Parameter Units Result Conc. Conc. Result Result % Rec % Rec Limits RPD Qual Lead ug/L ND 500 500 446 458 89 91 70-130 3 Magnesium ug/L 3430 5000 5000 7980 8170 91 95 70-130 2 Manganese ug/L 39.8 500 500 504 519 93 96 70-130 3 Potassium ug/L 18000 5000 5000 22600 22700 93 95 70-130 0 Sodium ug/L 104000 5000 5000 108000 108000 82 88 70-130 0 Strontium ug/L 54.9 500 500 528 537 95 96 70-130 2 Zinc ug/L 94.0 500 500 553 567 92 95 70-130 3 MATRIX SPIKE & MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE: 1818789 1818790 MS MSD 92311647004 Spike Spike MS MSD MS MSD % Rec Parameter Units Result Conc. Conc. Result Result % Rec % Rec Limits RPD Qual Aluminum ug/L 3040 5000 5000 9870 9930 136 138 70-130 1 M1 Barium ug/L 93.9 500 500 603 605 102 102 70-130 0 Boron ug/L 52.7 500 500 536 536 97 97 70-130 0 Calcium ug/L 23100 5000 5000 28300 28500 105 108 70-130 0 Iron ug/L 4000 5000 5000 9030 9060 101 101 70-130 0 Lead ug/L ND 500 500 460 457 91 91 70-130 1 Magnesium ug/L 6500 5000 5000 11500 11400 99 99 70-130 0 Manganese ug/L 80.7 500 500 562 560 96 96 70-130 0 Potassium ug/L 11800 5000 5000 16700 16800 99 101 70-130 1 Sodium ug/L ND 5000 5000 9040 9060 96 96 70-130 0 Strontium ug/L 84.8 500 500 566 566 96 96 70-130 0 Zinc ug/L 42.1 500 500 503 500 92 92 70-130 1 Results presented on this page are in the units indicated by the "Units" column except where an alternate unit is presented to the right of the result. REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, Date: 09/20/2016 05:31 PM without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc.. Page 23 of 40 aceAnaiXical www.pacelabs.com QUALITY CONTROL DATA Pace Analytical Services, Inc. 9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100 Huntersville, NC 28078 (704)875-9092 Project: BCSS Accelerated Remediation Pace Project No.: 92311854 QC Batch: 328336 Analysis Method: EPA 200.8 Rev 5.4 QC Batch Method: EPA 200.8 Rev 5.4 Analysis Description: 200.8 MET Associated Lab Samples: 92311854001 METHOD BLANK: 1819664 Matrix: Water Associated Lab Samples: 92311854001 Blank Reporting Parameter Units Result Limit Analyzed Qualifiers Antimony ug/L ND 0.50 09/14/1618:39 Arsenic ug/L ND 0.10 09/14/1618:39 Beryllium ug/L ND 0.10 09/14/1618:39 Cadmium ug/L ND 0.080 09/14/1618:39 Chromium ug/L ND 0.50 09/14/1618:39 Cobalt ug/L ND 0.10 09/14/1618:39 Copper ug/L ND 0.50 09/14/1618:39 Lead ug/L ND 0.10 09/14/1618:39 Molybdenum ug/L ND 0.50 09/14/1618:39 Nickel ug/L ND 0.50 09/14/1618:39 Selenium ug/L ND 0.50 09/14/1618:39 Thallium ug/L ND 0.10 09/14/1618:39 Vanadium ug/L ND 0.30 09/14/1618:39 LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLE: 1819665 Spike LCS LCS % Rec Parameter Units Conc. Result % Rec Limits Qualifiers Antimony ug/L 100 93.1 93 85-115 Arsenic ug/L 100 93.9 94 85-115 Beryllium ug/L 100 98.0 98 85-115 Cadmium ug/L 100 94.1 94 85-115 Chromium ug/L 100 97.7 98 85-115 Cobalt ug/L 100 98.4 98 85-115 Copper ug/L 100 99.2 99 85-115 Lead ug/L 100 96.3 96 85-115 Molybdenum ug/L 100 95.2 95 85-115 Nickel ug/L 100 97.3 97 85-115 Selenium ug/L 100 91.8 92 85-115 Thallium ug/L 100 96.5 96 85-115 Vanadium ug/L 100 96.6 97 85-115 MATRIX SPIKE & MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE: 1819666 1819667 MS MSD 92311888001 Spike Spike MS MSD MS MSD % Rec Parameter Units Result Conc. Conc. Result Result % Rec % Rec Limits RPD Qual Antimony ug/L 4.0 100 100 101 101 97 97 70-130 0 Arsenic ug/L 28.9 100 100 125 123 96 95 70-130 1 Beryllium ug/L 0.038J 100 100 98.2 99.0 98 99 70-130 1 Results presented on this page are in the units indicated by the "Units" column except where an alternate unit is presented to the right of the result REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, Date: 09/20/2016 05:31 PM without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc.. Page 24 of 40 aceAnaiXical www.pacelabs.com QUALITY CONTROL DATA Pace Analytical Services, Inc. 9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100 Huntersville, NC 28078 (704)875-9092 Project: BCSS Accelerated Remediation Pace Project No.: 92311854 MATRIX SPIKE & MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE: 1819666 1819667 MS MSD 92311888001 Spike Spike MS MSD MS MSD % Rec Parameter Units Result Conc. Conc. Result Result % Rec % Rec Limits RPD Qual Cadmium ug/L ND 100 100 96.0 96.2 96 96 70-130 0 Chromium ug/L 0.51 100 100 97.7 97.8 97 97 70-130 0 Cobalt ug/L 1.0 100 100 99.1 100 98 99 70-130 1 Copper ug/L 2.8 100 100 99.6 99.6 97 97 70-130 0 Lead ug/L 0.54 100 100 96.0 95.8 95 95 70-130 0 Molybdenum ug/L 10.6 100 100 109 109 98 98 70-130 0 Nickel ug/L 4.4 100 100 99.1 99.4 95 95 70-130 0 Selenium ug/L 1.5 100 100 95.0 95.3 93 94 70-130 0 Thallium ug/L 0.060J 100 100 95.7 95.2 96 95 70-130 1 Vanadium ug/L 22.6 100 100 121 121 99 98 70-130 0 MATRIX SPIKE & MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE: 1819668 1819669 MS MSD 92311904006 Spike Spike MS MSD MS MSD % Rec Parameter Units Result Conc. Conc. Result Result % Rec % Rec Limits RPD Qual Antimony ug/L 0.66 100 100 96.0 96.7 95 96 70-130 1 Arsenic ug/L 0.81 100 100 97.2 98.1 96 97 70-130 1 Beryllium ug/L ND 100 100 102 102 102 102 70-130 0 Cadmium ug/L ND 100 100 95.6 97.1 96 97 70-130 2 Chromium ug/L 0.54 100 100 99.9 100 99 100 70-130 0 Cobalt ug/L 0.087J 100 100 102 103 102 103 70-130 1 Copper ug/L 2.1 100 100 105 105 103 103 70-130 0 Lead ug/L ND 100 100 97.1 98.1 97 98 70-130 1 Molybdenum ug/L 4.7 100 100 101 102 96 97 70-130 1 Nickel ug/L 1.3 100 100 101 101 100 100 70-130 0 Selenium ug/L 0.38J 100 100 94.5 94.9 94 94 70-130 0 Thallium ug/L ND 100 100 96.7 98.2 97 98 70-130 2 Vanadium ug/L 9.3 100 100 109 109 99 100 70-130 0 Results presented on this page are in the units indicated by the "Units" column except where an alternate unit is presented to the right of the result. REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, Date: 09/20/2016 05:31 PM without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc.. Page 25 of 40 aceAnaiXical www.pacelabs.com QUALITY CONTROL DATA Pace Analytical Services, Inc. 9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100 Huntersville, NC 28078 (704)875-9092 Project: BCSS Accelerated Remediation Pace Project No.: 92311854 QC Batch: 328234 Analysis Method: SM 23208 QC Batch Method: SM 2320B Analysis Description: 2320B Alkalinity Associated Lab Samples: 92311854001 METHOD BLANK: 1818913 Matrix: Water Associated Lab Samples: 92311854001 Blank Reporting Parameter Units Result Limit Analyzed Qualifiers Alkalinity, Total as CaCO3 mg/L ND 5.0 09/14/16 11:40 LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLE: 1818914 Spike LCS LCS % Rec Parameter Units Conc. Result % Rec Limits Qualifiers Alkalinity, Total as CaCO3 mg/L 50 48.2 96 80-120 MATRIX SPIKE & MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE: 1818915 1818916 MS MSD 92311888004 Spike Spike MS MSD MS MSD % Rec Parameter Units Result Conc. Conc. Result Result % Rec % Rec Limits RPD Qual Alkalinity, Total as CaCO3 mg/L 135 50 50 186 185 102 100 80-120 1 MATRIX SPIKE & MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE: 1818917 1818918 MS MSD 92311904009 Spike Spike MS MSD MS MSD % Rec Parameter Units Result Conc. Conc. Result Result % Rec % Rec Limits RPD Qual Alkalinity, Total as CaCO3 mg/L ND 50 50 48.2 48.2 96 96 80-120 0 Results presented on this page are in the units indicated by the "Units" column except where an alternate unit is presented to the right of the result. REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, Date: 09/20/2016 05:31 PM without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc.. Page 26 of 40 aceAnaiXical www.pacelabs.com QUALITY CONTROL DATA Pace Analytical Services, Inc. 9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100 Huntersville, NC 28078 (704)875-9092 Project: BCSS Accelerated Remediation Pace Project No.: 92311854 QC Batch: 328443 Analysis Method: SM 2540C QC Batch Method: SM 2540C Analysis Description: 2540C Total Dissolved Solids Associated Lab Samples: 92311854001 METHOD BLANK: 1820306 Matrix: Water Associated Lab Samples: 92311854001 Blank Reporting Parameter Units Result Limit Analyzed Qualifiers Total Dissolved Solids mg/L ND 25.0 09/14/16 17:30 LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLE: 1820307 Spike LCS LCS % Rec Parameter Units Conc. Result % Rec Limits Qualifiers Total Dissolved Solids mg/L 250 250 100 90-110 SAMPLE DUPLICATE: 1820308 92311295041 Dup Parameter Units Result Result RPD Qualifiers Total Dissolved Solids mg/L ND ND SAMPLE DUPLICATE: 1820309 92311295049 Dup Parameter Units Result Result RPD Qualifiers Total Dissolved Solids mg/L ND ND Results presented on this page are in the units indicated by the "Units" column except where an alternate unit is presented to the right of the result. REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, Date: 09/20/2016 05:31 PM without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc.. Page 27 of 40 aceAnaiXical www.pacelabs.com QUALITY CONTROL DATA Pace Analytical Services, Inc. 9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100 Huntersville, NC 28078 (704)875-9092 Project: BCSS Accelerated Remediation Pace Project No.: 92311854 QC Batch: 328583 Analysis Method: SM 2540D QC Batch Method: SM 2540D Analysis Description: 2540D Total Suspended Solids Associated Lab Samples: 92311854001 METHOD BLANK: 1821348 Matrix: Water Associated Lab Samples: 92311854001 Blank Reporting Parameter Units Result Limit Analyzed Qualifiers Total Suspended Solids mg/L ND 2.5 09/14/16 23:30 LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLE: 1821349 Spike LCS LCS % Rec Parameter Units Conc. Result % Rec Limits Qualifiers Total Suspended Solids mg/L 250 248 99 90-110 SAMPLE DUPLICATE: 1821350 92311864002 Dup Parameter Units Result Result RPD Qualifiers Total Suspended Solids mg/L 5.9 6.5 10 D6 SAMPLE DUPLICATE: 1821351 92311674001 Dup Parameter Units Result Result RPD Qualifiers Total Suspended Solids mg/L ND ND Results presented on this page are in the units indicated by the "Units" column except where an alternate unit is presented to the right of the result. REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, Date: 09/20/2016 05:31 PM without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc.. Page 28 of 40 aceAnaiXical www.pacelabs.com QUALITY CONTROL DATA Pace Analytical Services, Inc. 9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100 Huntersville, NC 28078 (704)875-9092 Project: BCSS Accelerated Remediation Pace Project No.: 92311854 QC Batch: 328350 Analysis Method: SM 4500-S2D QC Batch Method: SM 4500-S2D Analysis Description: 4500S2D Sulfide Water Associated Lab Samples: 92311854001 METHOD BLANK: 1819817 Matrix: Water Associated Lab Samples: 92311854001 Blank Reporting Parameter Units Result Limit Analyzed Qualifiers Sulfide mg/L ND 0.10 09/14/16 01:26 LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLE: 1819818 Spike LCS LCS % Rec Parameter Units Conc. Result % Rec Limits Qualifiers Sulfide mg/L .5 0.53 106 80-120 MATRIX SPIKE & MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE: 1819819 1819820 MS MSD 92311840006 Spike Spike MS MSD MS MSD % Rec Parameter Units Result Conc. Conc. Result Result % Rec % Rec Limits RPD Qual Sulfide mg/L ND .5 .5 0.51 0.51 102 103 80-120 1 Results presented on this page are in the units indicated by the "Units" column except where an alternate unit is presented to the right of the result. REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, Date: 09/20/2016 05:31 PM without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc.. Page 29 of 40 aceAnaiXical www.pacelabs.com QUALITY CONTROL DATA Pace Analytical Services, Inc. 9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100 Huntersville, NC 28078 (704)875-9092 Project: BCSS Accelerated Remediation Pace Project No.: 92311854 QC Batch: 320989 Analysis Method: EPA 218.7 QC Batch Method: EPA 218.7 Analysis Description: Chromium, Hexavalent IC Associated Lab Samples: 92311854001 METHOD BLANK: 1707753 Matrix: Water Associated Lab Samples: 92311854001 Blank Reporting Parameter Units Result Limit Analyzed Qualifiers Chromium, Hexavalent ug/L ND 0.030 09/19/16 11:15 LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLE: 1707754 Spike LCS LCS % Rec Parameter Units Conc. Result % Rec Limits Qualifiers Chromium, Hexavalent ug/L .075 0.072 97 85-115 MATRIX SPIKE & MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE: 1707757 1707758 MS MSD 92312085003 Spike Spike MS MSD MS MSD % Rec Parameter Units Result Conc. Conc. Result Result % Rec % Rec Limits RPD Qual Chromium, Hexavalent ug/L 0.24 .025 .025 0.26 0.26 90 98 85-115 1 MATRIX SPIKE & MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE: 1710138 1710139 MS MSD 92311904011 Spike Spike MS MSD MS MSD % Rec Parameter Units Result Conc. Conc. Result Result % Rec % Rec Limits RPD Qual Chromium, Hexavalent ug/L ND .075 .075 0.079 0.079 105 106 85-115 0 Results presented on this page are in the units indicated by the "Units" column except where an alternate unit is presented to the right of the result. REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, Date: 09/20/2016 05:31 PM without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc.. Page 30 of 40 aceAnaiXical www.pacelabs.com QUALITY CONTROL DATA Pace Analytical Services, Inc. 9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100 Huntersville, NC 28078 (704)875-9092 Project: BCSS Accelerated Remediation Pace Project No.: 92311854 QC Batch: 328087 Analysis Method: EPA 300.0 QC Batch Method: EPA 300.0 Analysis Description: 300.0 IC Anions Associated Lab Samples: 92311854001 METHOD BLANK: 1818103 Matrix: Water Associated Lab Samples: 92311854001 Blank Reporting Parameter Units Result Limit Analyzed Qualifiers Sulfate mg/L ND 2.0 09/11/1616:22 LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLE: 1818104 Spike LCS LCS % Rec Parameter Units Conc. Result % Rec Limits Qualifiers Sulfate mg/L 20 19.2 96 90-110 MATRIX SPIKE & MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE: 1818105 1818106 MS MSD 92311291001 Spike Spike MS MSD MS MSD % Rec Parameter Units Result Conc. Conc. Result Result % Rec % Rec Limits RPD Qual Sulfate mg/L 18.5 20 20 39.5 39.7 105 106 90-110 0 Results presented on this page are in the units indicated by the "Units" column except where an alternate unit is presented to the right of the result. REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, Date: 09/20/2016 05:31 PM without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc.. Page 31 of 40 aceAnaiXical www.pacelabs.com QUALITY CONTROL DATA Pace Analytical Services, Inc. 9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100 Huntersville, NC 28078 (704)875-9092 Project: BCSS Accelerated Remediation Pace Project No.: 92311854 QC Batch: 328388 Analysis Method: EPA 350.1 1993 Rev 2.0 QC Batch Method: EPA 350.1 1993 Rev 2.0 Analysis Description: 350.1 Ammonia Associated Lab Samples: 92311854001 METHOD BLANK: 1820050 Matrix: Water Associated Lab Samples: 92311854001 Blank Reporting Parameter Units Result Limit Analyzed Qualifiers Nitrogen, Ammonia mg/L ND 0.10 09/14/16 03:04 LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLE: 1820051 Spike LCS LCS % Rec Parameter Units Conc. Result % Rec Limits Qualifiers Nitrogen, Ammonia mg/L 5 5.4 107 90-110 MATRIX SPIKE & MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE: 1820052 1820053 MS MSD 92311266001 Spike Spike MS MSD MS MSD % Rec Parameter Units Result Conc. Conc. Result Result % Rec % Rec Limits RPD Qual Nitrogen, Ammonia mg/L 4.9 5 5 10.5 10.5 111 112 90-110 1 M1 MATRIX SPIKE & MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE: 1820054 1820055 MS MSD 92311331001 Spike Spike MS MSD MS MSD % Rec Parameter Units Result Conc. Conc. Result Result % Rec % Rec Limits RPD Qual Nitrogen, Ammonia mg/L 0.14 5 5 5.5 5.5 107 107 90-110 0 Results presented on this page are in the units indicated by the "Units" column except where an alternate unit is presented to the right of the result. REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, Date: 09/20/2016 05:31 PM without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc.. Page 32 of 40 aceAnaiXical www.pacelabs.com QUALITY CONTROL DATA Project: BCSS Accelerated Remediation Pace Project No.: 92311854 QC Batch: 328072 Analysis Method: EPA 353.2 QC Batch Method: EPA 353.2 Analysis Description: 353.2 Nitrate + Nitrite, Unpres. Associated Lab Samples: 92311854001 METHOD BLANK: 1818064 Matrix: Water Associated Lab Samples: 92311854001 Blank Reporting Parameter Units Result Limit Analyzed Qualifiers Nitrogen, Nitrate mg/L ND 0.020 09/10/16 05:30 Nitrogen, Nitrite mg/L ND 0.020 09/10/16 05:30 Pace Analytical Services, Inc. 9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100 Huntersville, NC 28078 (704)875-9092 LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLE: 1818065 Spike LCS LCS % Rec Parameter Units Conc. Result % Rec Limits Qualifiers Nitrogen, Nitrate mg/L 2.5 2.5 99 90-110 Nitrogen, Nitrite mg/L 1 1.0 103 90-110 MATRIX SPIKE & MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE: 1818066 1818067 MS MSD 92311854001 Spike Spike MS MSD MS MSD % Rec Parameter Units Result Conc. Conc. Result Result % Rec % Rec Limits RPD Qual Nitrogen, Nitrate mg/L 0.092 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 98 98 90-110 0 Nitrogen, Nitrite mg/L ND 1 1 1.1 1.1 113 113 90-110 0 M1 Results presented on this page are in the units indicated by the "Units" column except where an alternate unit is presented to the right of the result. REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, Date: 09/20/2016 05:31 PM without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc.. Page 33 of 40 aceAnaiXical www.pacelabs.com QUALITY CONTROL DATA Pace Analytical Services, Inc. 9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100 Huntersville, NC 28078 (704)875-9092 Project: BCSS Accelerated Remediation Pace Project No.: 92311854 QC Batch: 328523 Analysis Method: SM 4500 -CI -E QC Batch Method: SM 4500 -CI -E Analysis Description: 4500 Chloride Associated Lab Samples: 92311854001 METHOD BLANK: 1820939 Matrix: Water Associated Lab Samples: 92311854001 Blank Reporting Parameter Units Result Limit Analyzed Qualifiers Chloride mg/L ND 1.0 09/15/16 22:41 LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLE: 1820940 Spike LCS LCS % Rec Parameter Units Conc. Result % Rec Limits Qualifiers Chloride mg/L 20 20.6 103 90-110 MATRIX SPIKE & MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE: 1820941 1820942 MS MSD 92311363001 Spike Spike MS MSD MS MSD % Rec Parameter Units Result Conc. Conc. Result Result % Rec % Rec Limits RPD Qual Chloride mg/L 20.6 10 10 41.7 41.4 211 208 90-110 1 M6 MATRIX SPIKE & MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE: 1820943 1820944 MS MSD 92311971001 Spike Spike MS MSD MS MSD % Rec Parameter Units Result Conc. Conc. Result Result % Rec % Rec Limits RPD Qual Chloride mg/L 4.0 10 10 15.1 15.2 112 112 90-110 0 M1 Results presented on this page are in the units indicated by the "Units" column except where an alternate unit is presented to the right of the result. REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, Date: 09/20/2016 05:31 PM without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc.. Page 34 of 40 aceAnaiXical www.pacelabs.com QUALITY CONTROL DATA Pace Analytical Services, Inc. 9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100 Huntersville, NC 28078 (704)875-9092 Project: BCSS Accelerated Remediation Pace Project No.: 92311854 QC Batch: 328802 Analysis Method: SM 53108 QC Batch Method: SM 5310B Analysis Description: 5310B TOC Associated Lab Samples: 92311854001 METHOD BLANK: 1822465 Matrix: Water Associated Lab Samples: 92311854001 Blank Reporting Parameter Units Result Limit Analyzed Qualifiers Total Organic Carbon mg/L ND 1.0 09/16/16 04:49 LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLE: 1822466 Spike LCS LCS % Rec Parameter Units Conc. Result % Rec Limits Qualifiers Total Organic Carbon mg/L 25 23.6 95 90-110 MATRIX SPIKE & MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE: 1822467 1822468 MS MSD 92312241001 Spike Spike MS MSD MS MSD % Rec Parameter Units Result Conc. Conc. Result Result % Rec % Rec Limits RPD Qual Total Organic Carbon mg/L ND 25 25 24.5 24.2 97 96 90-110 1 MATRIX SPIKE & MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE: 1822469 1822470 MS MSD 92312401006 Spike Spike MS MSD MS MSD % Rec Parameter Units Result Conc. Conc. Result Result % Rec % Rec Limits RPD Qual Total Organic Carbon mg/L 5.8 25 25 29.3 29.2 94 94 90-110 0 Results presented on this page are in the units indicated by the "Units" column except where an alternate unit is presented to the right of the result. REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, Date: 09/20/2016 05:31 PM without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc.. Page 35 of 40 aceAnaiXical www.pacelabs.com QUALIFIERS Project: BCSS Accelerated Remediation Pace Project No.: 92311854 DEFINITIONS DF - Dilution Factor, if reported, represents the factor applied to the reported data due to dilution of the sample aliquot. ND - Not Detected at or above adjusted reporting limit. J - Estimated concentration above the adjusted method detection limit and below the adjusted reporting limit. MDL -Adjusted Method Detection Limit. PQL - Practical Quantitation Limit. Pace Analytical Services, Inc. 9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100 Huntersville, NC 28078 (704)875-9092 RL - Reporting Limit. S - Surrogate 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine decomposes to and cannot be separated from Azobenzene using Method 8270. The result for each analyte is a combined concentration. Consistent with EPA guidelines, unrounded data are displayed and have been used to calculate % recovery and RPD values. LCS(D) - Laboratory Control Sample (Duplicate) MS(D) - Matrix Spike (Duplicate) DUP - Sample Duplicate RPD - Relative Percent Difference NC - Not Calculable. SG - Silica Gel - Clean -Up U - Indicates the compound was analyzed for, but not detected. Acid preservation may not be appropriate for 2 Chloroethylvinyl ether, Styrene, and Vinyl chloride. A separate vial preserved to a pH of 4-5 is recommended in SW846 Chapter 4 for the analysis of Acrolein and Acrylonitrile by EPA Method 8260. N-Nitrosodiphenylamine decomposes and cannot be separated from Diphenylamine using Method 8270. The result reported for each analyte is a combined concentration. Pace Analytical is TNI accredited. Contact your Pace PM for the current list of accredited analytes. TNI -The NELAC Institute. LABORATORIES PASI-A Pace Analytical Services - Asheville PASI-C Pace Analytical Services - Charlotte PASI-O Pace Analytical Services - Ormond Beach ANALYTE QUALIFIERS D6 The precision between the sample and sample duplicate exceeded laboratory control limits. M1 Matrix spike recovery exceeded QC limits. Batch accepted based on laboratory control sample (LCS) recovery. M6 Matrix spike and Matrix spike duplicate recovery not evaluated against control limits due to sample dilution. N2 The lab does not hold TNI accreditation for this parameter. REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, Date: 09/20/2016 05:31 PM without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc.. Page 36 of 40 aceAnaiXical www.pacelabs.com QUALITY CONTROL DATA CROSS REFERENCE TABLE Pace Analytical Services, Inc. 9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100 Huntersville, NC 28078 (704)875-9092 Project: Pace Project No.: BCSS Accelerated Remediation 92311854 Analytical Lab ID Sample ID QC Batch Method QC Batch Analytical Method Batch 92311854001 BCSS EW -2 RSK 175 Modified 328132 92311854001 BCSS EW -2 EPA 200.7 328187 EPA 200.7 328217 92311854001 BCSS EW -2 EPA 200.8 Rev 5.4 328336 EPA 200.8 Rev 5.4 328400 92311854001 BCSS EW -2 EPA 245.1 328143 EPA 245.1 328224 92311854001 BCSS EW -2 SM 2320B 328234 92311854001 BCSS EW -2 SM 2540C 328443 92311854001 BCSS EW -2 SM 2540D 328583 92311854001 BCSS EW -2 SM 4500-S2D 328350 92311854001 BCSS EW -2 EPA 218.7 320989 92311854001 BCSS EW -2 EPA 300.0 328087 92311854001 BCSS EW -2 EPA 350.1 1993 Rev 2.0 328388 92311854001 BCSS EW -2 EPA 353.2 328072 92311854001 BCSS EW -2 SM 4500 -CI -E 328523 92311854001 BCSS EW -2 SM 5310B 328802 REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, Date: 09/20/2016 05:31 PM without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc.. Page 37 of 40 KM-�-J-17PV.tTW7L7Ml1111 Client Name: Project t#: Courier: 0fed Ex CUPS ❑HSPS Client ❑ Commercial []Pace ❑Other: Custody Seal Present? Packing Material: Thermometer: ❑Yes IZINo ❑Bubble Wrap T1505 Seals Intact? Bubble Bags []Yes �eNo ❑None Type of Ice: PWet 2 of 2 for Internal Use ONLY W0#:92311854 1111111111111111111111 date/Initials Person Examining Contents:] [-]other: - []Blue []None Correction Factor: 0.0'C Cooler Temp Corrected ('C): ! L Temp should be above fr ezing to 6°C USDA Regulated Soil N/A, water sample) Did samples originate in a quarantine zone within the United States: CA, NY, or SC (check maps)? ❑Yes o Samples on ice, cooling pro esshas begun Biological Tissue Frozen? ❑Yes to ❑N/A Did samples originate from a foreign source (interna Tonally, including Hawaii and Puerto Rico)? []Yeso Document Name: Document Revised:April 25, 2016 9 Sample Condition Upon Receipt(SCUR) Page 1 of 2 Document No.: Issuing Authority: r aCBAI]c��ytlCc?I 1. F-CHR-CS-003-rev.19 Pace Huntersville Quality Office KM-�-J-17PV.tTW7L7Ml1111 Client Name: Project t#: Courier: 0fed Ex CUPS ❑HSPS Client ❑ Commercial []Pace ❑Other: Custody Seal Present? Packing Material: Thermometer: ❑Yes IZINo ❑Bubble Wrap T1505 Seals Intact? Bubble Bags []Yes �eNo ❑None Type of Ice: PWet 2 of 2 for Internal Use ONLY W0#:92311854 1111111111111111111111 date/Initials Person Examining Contents:] [-]other: - []Blue []None Correction Factor: 0.0'C Cooler Temp Corrected ('C): ! L Temp should be above fr ezing to 6°C USDA Regulated Soil N/A, water sample) Did samples originate in a quarantine zone within the United States: CA, NY, or SC (check maps)? ❑Yes o Samples on ice, cooling pro esshas begun Biological Tissue Frozen? ❑Yes to ❑N/A Did samples originate from a foreign source (interna Tonally, including Hawaii and Puerto Rico)? []Yeso CLIENT NOTIFICATION/RESOLUTION Person Contacted: Comments/Sample Discrepancy: Date/Time: Field Data Required? Des ❑No Project Manager SCURF Review: Date: c/ z / / �- Project Manager SRF Review: J Date: 5/ ,114, Note: Whenever there is a discrepancy aff;c­tin� N96h Carolina compliance samples, a copy of this form will be sent to the North Carolina DEH NR Certification Office (i.e. Out of hold, incorrect preservative, out of temp, incorrect containers) Page 38 of 40 Comments/Discrepancy; Chain of Custody Present? dYe s ❑No ❑N/A 1. Samples Arrived within Hold Time? Yes ❑No []N/A 2. /� G Short Hold Time Analysis (<72 hr.)? 0U 1 rJ s []N/A 3. Rush Turn Around Time Requested? ❑Yes No ❑N/A 4. Sufficient Volume? Yes ❑No ❑N/A S. Correct Containers Used? PlYes [:]No ❑N/A 6. -Pace Containers Used? Yes ❑No ❑N/A Containers Intact? Yes ❑No [-]N/A 7. Samples Field Filtered? ❑Yes ZNo []N/A S. Note if sediment is visible in the dissolved container Sample Labels Match COC? )+Yes []No []N/A 9. -Includes Date/Time/ID/Analysis Matrix: All containers needing acid/base preservation have been 10. HNC3pHe2 checked? PYes ❑No ❑N/A All containers needing preservation are found to be in "QpN`2 compliance with EPA recommendation? HZ504 pHQ (HNO3, H2SO4, HCI<2; NaOH >9 Sulfide, NaOH>12 Cyanide) Z]Yes []No ❑N/A Exceptions: VOA, Coliform, TOC, Oil and Grease, NsOH pH,12 DRO/8015 (water) DOC,LLHg &Yes [_—]No ❑N/A Na OH/Z.OAC pH,9 Samples checked for dechlorination? ❑Yes []No N/A 11. Headspace in VOA Vials (>5-6mm)? ❑Yes 2fN. ❑N/A 12. Trip Blank Present? ❑Yes ANo ❑N/A 13. Trip Blank Custody Seals Present? ❑Yes No ❑N/A Pace Trip Blank Lot # (if purchased): / CLIENT NOTIFICATION/RESOLUTION Person Contacted: Comments/Sample Discrepancy: Date/Time: Field Data Required? Des ❑No Project Manager SCURF Review: Date: c/ z / / �- Project Manager SRF Review: J Date: 5/ ,114, Note: Whenever there is a discrepancy aff;c­tin� N96h Carolina compliance samples, a copy of this form will be sent to the North Carolina DEH NR Certification Office (i.e. Out of hold, incorrect preservative, out of temp, incorrect containers) Page 38 of 40 N o tO m m N A w ru ITEM #_ to a. o a n n a o a S C7 D v > m W c m C3 R ro Z a w Y•'• r-m� m mL no° 0 d x. - m r^ LJ ., o U) OdD�Omb��l7 � > +_ N h on m arom m xx .# -,Q - a m m en v m o o a m c. Q N.I.I �O r-u ycr' n' a -A � O m MATRIX CODE Isee valid codes to left) ^ SAMPLE TYPE (G=GRAB C=COMP) p z - m m ^ O -A01 Q < m n o av rn n Y n W x o Y w m n m o w v ;0 ET a O r O c u m A m 09 O w 3 m pmO o N m O v_ D n O A y m 0 z m o a 71 y 0 m m C ^ � P? EF �. n w SAMPLE TEMP AT COLLECTION m E g o n S o n -- "' # OF CONTAINERS o q1 m o p m n y Unpreserved 2 H2SO, 3, ' HNO3 m v 0 o a a v HCI m NaOH a 0) o n Na25203 a m m Methanol Other IOJILJnq T 07 m jAnalysis Test l YIN j 3 � n m ,� AI- .1 C 1 Iti+►T i' i vy .M a m y m CD O ' -a / 'iii. 4 '. :. rb l` t�A 33 rt m v o �= tof:. ., m n C 0 CD tom 3' rn 0 rt >s CL Z ti" �yO ?Ao F3~ ` D 2 O w A �{¢. i1."> %�-• `1, Temp in'C C" a m rQ �.r. Residual Chlorine (Y/N) N Received on Ice (YIN) D y x —� CD m a r`� V"' C3 r r� T CD Cuslody 5n Sealed Cooler O 0 �N 5 Ln (YIN) o - °� m X z ^ � 1 \.J o z z O' rn 4 Samples Intact N Q m (YIN) O x3 Waae 39 of 40 $ \ $ \ { ƒ / / / ) ) ) \ \ \ J Ln § \ \ § § co ° y k U a } < § 2 r ƒ f 9 rD ^ / ) 3 3 t e } / { § /} ; $ /rD\ { 0 0 a E J -_ \ )E # } rD \}M \ < 2 � 5 33J j\ƒ) D 3392. r ° \ \ 3 » / / )E�2 g) \9urD' § \3. . § Basis of Design Report (60% Submittal) April 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station SynTerra . . 1 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES P:\ Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\60 PERCENT DESIGN\Final 60 Percent Basis of Design Report, Belews Creek, 3-31-2017.docx tip syn,T(erra FOCUSED EVALUATION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES BELEWS CREEK STEAM STATION 3195 PINE HALL ROAD BELEWS CREEK, NORTH CAROLINA 27009 MARCH 2017 PREPARED FOR DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC. CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA (� DUKE ENERGY,.. PROGRESS A4� / William Lantz Senior Project Engineer Crai .,lady Project Manager Focused Evaluation of Remedial Alternatives Belews Creek Steam Station TABLE OF CONTENTS March 2017 SynTerra SECTION PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Project Background...................................................................................................1-1 1.2 Regulatory Summary...............................................................................................1-1 2.0 REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES........................................................................2-3 3.0 IDENTIFICATION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES ........................................ 3-4 3.1 Groundwater Extraction.......................................................................................... 3-4 3.2 In -Situ Chemical Immobilization............................................................................ 3-4 3.3 Permeable Reactive Barrier......................................................................................3-5 4.0 RECOMMENDATION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES ................................. 4-1 LIST OF ACRONYMS 2L DEQ/Division of Water Resources Title 15, Subchapter 2L. Groundwater Quality Standards CAMA Coal Ash Management Act CAP Corrective Action Plan (Parts 1 and 2) CCR Coal Combustion Residuals CSA Comprehensive Site Assessment DEQ North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality PRB Permeable reactive barrier RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency Page i P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\60 PERCENT DESIGN\Belews Appendix B Eval of Rem Alt.docx Focused Evaluation of Remedial Alternatives March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station SynTerra 1.0 INTRODUCTION The following focused evaluation of remedial alternatives has been developed to evaluate Interim Action Accelerated Remediation measures to be taken at the Belews Creek Steam Station (Plant or Site). The USEPA RCRA Corrective Measures Study (July, 2011) has been used as a guideline for this evaluation. 1.1 Project Background The North Carolina Coal Ash Management Act of 2014 (CAMA) directs owners of coal combustion residuals (CCR) surface impoundments in North Carolina to conduct groundwater monitoring, assessment, and remedial activities, if necessary. A Comprehensive Site Assessment (CSA) for the Belews Creek Steam Station (BCSS) was performed and the BCSS CSA Report was submitted to NCDENR on September 9, 2015. Subsequent to submittal of the CSA Report, CAMA requires submittal of a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) for each regulated facility. The BCSS CAP Part 1 was submitted to NCDEQ on December 8, 2015 and the CAP Part 2 was submitted on March 4, 2016. The CAP (Parts 1 and 2) was designed to describe means to restore groundwater quality to the level of the standards, or as close as is economically and technologically feasible in accordance with T15A NCAC 02L.0106. Exceedances of numerical groundwater standards contained in Subchapter 2L (21, standards) and Appendix 1 Subchapter 2L (IMACs) at or beyond the compliance boundary were determined to be the basis for corrective action with the exception of parameters for which naturally occurring background concentrations are greater than the standards. 1.2 Regulatory Summary A Settlement Agreement between DEQ and Duke Energy signed on September 29, 2015, requires accelerated remediation to be implemented at sites that demonstrate off-site groundwater impacts. Historical and CSA assessment information indicates the potential for off-site groundwater impact northwest of the ash basin in the area of the 2.23 -acre parcel (hereafter Parcel A) not owned by Duke Energy. Figure 1-2 illustrates Parcel A with pertinent features and shows the general area to be addressed for accelerated remediation. Duke Energy provided an Accelerated Remediation Summary report to DEQ on February 17, 2016 which supplemented and updated information included with the CAP Part 2. In correspondence dated March 28, 2016, DEQ acknowledged receipt of the Remediation Summary and requested additional information. DEQ conditionally Page 1-1 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ 20. BELEWS CREEK\ 04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan -Design & Dev\ 60 PERCENT DESIGN\Belews Appendix B Eval of Rem Alt.docx Focused Evaluation of Remedial Alternatives Belews Creek Steam Station March 2017 SynTerra approved the Interim Action Plan (IAP) in a letter dated July 22, 2016 with the condition (among others) that a Basis of Design (BOD) Report be submitted for review. Page 1-2 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ 20. BELEWS CREEK\ 04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\ 60 PERCENT DESIGN\Belews Appendix B Eval of Rem Alt.docx Focused Evaluation of Remedial Alternatives March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station SynTerra 2.0 REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES The goal of groundwater corrective action in accordance with T15A NCAC 2L.0106 is: "... where groundwater quality has been degraded, the goal of any required corrective action shall be restoration to the level of the standards, or as closely thereto as is economically and technologically feasible"... using best available technology (j), or to an alternate standard (k) or using natural attenuation mechanisms (l). The evaluation of various methods for groundwater remediation will be based on the objective of meeting groundwater protection standards at the compliance boundary. The methods may include one, or a combination of, best available technologies and natural attenuation processes. Source control measures (such as excavation) are being addressed separately but are assumed to occur in addition to the groundwater corrective action alternatives evaluated herein. In addition to the requirements described above, Duke Energy has agreed to conduct accelerated remediation at the Belews Creek Steam Station in accordance with the September 29, 2015 Settlement Agreement. To meet the objectives outlined in the Agreement, the selected remedial action(s) should accelerate the reduction of constituents in groundwater to below 2L standards within the area of interest. Remedial action alternatives will be evaluated on the basis of the following criteria: 0 Effectiveness — Reliability, usefulness under analogous conditions, and projected lifespan; �i Reduction in Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume of Constituents - How much the corrective measures alternatives will reduce the waste, toxicity, volume and/or mobility; 10 Implementability - The relative ease of installation (constructability) and the time required to achieve a given level of response; y Community Acceptance - Community includes the public, state and federal regulatory agencies. Community Acceptance is included in the evaluation process. A re-evaluation of proposed remedial alternatives may be conducted if the community opposes the recommended remedy; and y Cost — Relative comparison of evaluated remedial alternatives. Page 2-3 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ 20. BELEWS CREEK\ 04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\ 60 PERCENT DESIGN\Belews Appendix B Eval of Rem Alt.docx Focused Evaluation of Remedial Alternatives March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station SynTerra 3.0 IDENTIFICATION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES The following strategies will be evaluated to implement accelerated groundwater remediation of the area of interest. 3.1 Groundwater Extraction Groundwater extraction provides hydraulic control to reduce or prevent groundwater constituent migration. Groundwater in the area to be remediated can be removed by one or more recovery well(s) designed to remove groundwater by pumping or by the installation of a collection trench designed to capture shallow groundwater. The extracted groundwater is typically pumped to a permitted NPDES outfall, possibly with treatment prior to the outfall. Preliminary tests at the site indicate groundwater extraction would be an effective groundwater remedial action, therefore will be retained for implementation. Review of the boring logs for wells in this area indicates that the shallow zone and the transition zone are connected hydraulically. This means that groundwater extraction from the transition zone will result in lowering the water level in the shallow zone and creation of a hydraulic barrier to down gradient migration throughout the water column. Several additional monitoring wells will be added to monitor the shallow zone as part of Phase 1. Once steady state conditions are reached, a hydraulic barrier can be maintained with a sustainable, relatively constant, extraction flow rate from the transition zone. Note that the groundwater extraction system operation may not be necessary once the ash basin is dewatered and closed (as groundwater levels are anticipated to drop below the transition zone). The future water levels following basin closure will be predicted through groundwater modeling currently underway. Groundwater modeling of the final extraction system under closure condition simulations will be provided in the final Basis of Design report. 3.2 In -Situ Chemical Immobilization The placement of chemical media within areas of high constituent concentrations to immobilize dissolved phase concentrations through precipitation or sorption is a well- documented and effective approach to reducing downgradient migration of dissolved constituents. Reagents such as ferrous sulfate, zero -valent iron, organo -phosphorous nutrient mixture (PrecipiphosTM), and sodium dithionate have all been evaluated as potentially effective at CCR management sites. The use of hydraulic fracturing technology to place reagent within the target treatment zone could also be used to reduce downstream constituent migration at Parcel A. This alternative may have Page 3-4 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ 20. BELEWS CREEK\ 04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\ 60 PERCENT DESIGN\Belews Appendix B Eval of Rem Alt.docx Focused Evaluation of Remedial Alternatives March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station SynTerra significant impact on areas with ash, but would have limited in the matrices upgradient of Parcel A. 3.3 Permeable Reactive Barrier Permeable reactive barriers (PRBs) can be a cost-effective, passive, in situ groundwater treatment technology for CCR management sites (EPRI, 2006). General design involves excavation of a narrow trench perpendicular to groundwater flow similar to a groundwater interceptor trench and then backfilling the trench with a reactive material that either removes or transforms constituents of concern into a less toxic form as the groundwater passes through the PRB (EPRI, 2006). Until relatively recently the technology has been used favorably for treatment of organic constituents. Recent application of the technology for treatment of inorganic constituents in groundwater has produced favorable results. However, treatment for boron has only been applied at bench -scale level tests and therefore is not a confirmed applicable technology. In addition, site geology and geography at the area of interest are not conducive to this technology for the following reasons: y Constituent concentrations greater than 2L are observed within the shallow and transition zone flow systems. The fractures inherit within the transition zone formation preclude the suitability for the installation of slurry walls or permeable reactive barriers because completely sealing this formation would not be possible. Boron treatment via a reactive barrier is not a proven technology. 161, Increased hydraulic heads would be created behind a barrier wall and localized leaks through unsealed fractures could result in accelerated flow through areas of the transition zone. Site conditions indicate that it is infeasible to ensure that a barrier wall is hydraulically sealed at the interface with bedrock. The variability and structure of the bedrock interface preclude a sound seal. The surface of the competent bedrock beneath the transition zone is uneven, the thickness of the transition zone is variable, the surface of the transition zone is uneven, the rock comprising the transition zone is fractured, and the depth to competent bedrock is significant. 0 A barrier wall would have to extend significant distances to the northeast and southwest beyond Parcel A property boundaries to prevent impacted groundwater from flowing around the wall and into the property. Page 3-5 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ 20. BELEWS CREEK\ 04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\ 60 PERCENT DESIGN\Belews Appendix B Eval of Rem Alt.docx Focused Evaluation of Remedial Alternatives Belews Creek Steam Station March 2017 SynTerra y The area where a barrier wall is most apt to be located consists of major topographic relief southeast to northwest, from the crest of the ash basin dam to the Dan River. The topography, along with an irregular bedrock surface, renders the implementation of a slurry trench technically infeasible and would not benefit the off-site parcel. 0 Another option considered was a combination of extraction wells and a low permeability barrier. This option was also rejected because of the technical infeasibility to ensure an effective hydraulic seal between the barrier wall and the bedrock interface as discussed above. y The pumping tests conducted by HDR in September 2016 confirmed the feasibility of implementation of extraction wells northwest of the ash basin. As indicated in the pumping test report, soils and pumping test data indicate that extraction from the deeper, more permeable transition zone is a viable approach to limiting plume migration. Page 3-6 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ 20. BELEWS CREEK\ 04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\ 60 PERCENT DESIGN\Belews Appendix B Eval of Rem Alt.docx Focused Evaluation of Remedial Alternatives March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra 4.0 RECOMMENDATION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES Groundwater extraction is the recommended approach for accelerated remediation of the area of interest. Initial predictive groundwater modeling demonstrates removal of constituent mass will accelerate the reduction of constituents in groundwater within the area of interest. Taking into account the need for a readily implementable technology to target remediation within the area of interest, and the recent pumping test results, groundwater extraction is recommended as a remedial alternative for accelerated remediation. Page 4-1 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ 20. BELEWS CREEK\ 04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\ 60 PERCENT DESIGN\Belews Appendix B Eval of Rem Alt.docx Basis of Design Report (60% Submittal) April 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station APPENDIX C SynTerra UPDATED GROUNDWATER FLOW MODEL REPORT P:\ Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\60 PERCENT DESIGN\Final 60 Percent Basis of Design Report, Belews Creek, 3-31-2017.docx Lip synTerra ACCELERATED REMEDIATION INTERIM ACTION PLAN GROUNDWATER FLOW AND TRANSPORT MODELING REPORT BELEWS CREEK STEAM STATION BELEWS CREEK,, NC MARCH 2017 PREPARED FOR: DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC. 526 SOUTH CHURCH STREET CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA 28202 �•� DUKE ENERGY Regula raziano Groundwater Modeler Ronald W. Falta, Ph.D. Reviewed By Accelerated Remediation Interim Action Plan Groundwater Flow and Transport Modeling Report March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................1-1 1.1 General Setting and Background............................................................................1-1 1.2 Study Objectives........................................................................................................1-1 2.0 CONCEPTUAL MODEL.............................................................................................2-1 2.1 Aquifer System Framework.................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Groundwater Flow System......................................................................................2-1 2.3 Hydrologic Boundaries............................................................................................ 2-2 2.4 Hydraulic Boundaries.............................................................................................. 2-2 2.5 Sources and Sinks......................................................................................................2-2 2.6 Water Budget.............................................................................................................2-2 2.7 Modeled Constituents of Interest........................................................................... 2-2 3.0 COMPUTER MODEL.................................................................................................. 3-1 4.0 ACCELERATED REMEDIATION GROUNDWATER FLOW AND TRANSPORT MODEL................................................................................................ 4-1 4.1 Simulation of Accelerated Remediation Extraction Wells .................................. 4-2 5.0 PREDICTIVE SIMULATIONS OF CORRECTIVE ACTION SCENARIOS ....5-1 5.1 Flow and Fate and Transport Model Results........................................................5-1 6.0 REFERENCES................................................................................................................ 6-1 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Site Location Map Figure 2 Five Proposed Extraction Wells Figure 3 Ten Proposed Extraction Wells Figure 4 Simulated Hydraulic Heads 2016 Transition Zone (Layer 6) Figure 5 Simulated Boron 2016 Transition Zone (Layer 6) Figure 6 Simulated Drawdown Five Extraction Wells Transition Zone (Layer 6) Figure 7 Simulated Hydraulic Heads Ten Extraction Wells Transition Zone (Layer 6) Figure 8 Simulated Drawdown Ten Extraction Wells Transition Zone (Layer 6) Figure 9 Simulated Boron (6 Months) Ten Extraction Wells Transition Zone (Layer 6) Figure 10 Simulated Boron (5 years) Ten Extraction Wells Transition Zone (Layer 6) Page i P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\Groundwater Modeling\Final Belews Creek GW Accelerated Model March 2017.docx Accelerated Remediation Interim Action Plan Groundwater Flow and Transport Modeling Report March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Pumping Rates for 5 Extraction Well Scenario Table 2 Pumping Rates for 10 Extraction Well Scenario Page ii P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\Groundwater Modeling\Final Belews Creek GW Accelerated Model March 2017.docx Accelerated Remediation Interim Action Plan Groundwater Flow and Transport Modeling Report March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra 1.0 INTRODUCTION Duke Energy Progress, LLC (Duke Energy) owns and operates the Belews Creek Steam Station (BCSS, or Site) located in Stokes County, North Carolina (Figure 1). The Site is located on 6,100 acres which includes 3,100 acres of Belews Lake. 1.1 General Setting and Background The Site became operational in the 1974 and operates an electricity -generating plant utilizing two coal -fire units. Coal combustion residuals (CCR) and other liquid discharges have been disposed an approximately 283 acre ash basin, located northwest of the station, since its construction. The ash basin is bounded by an impounded earthen dam and a natural ridge to the north; Pine Hall Road to the east and south; and Middleton Loop Road to the west. In 1983, BCSS converted to dry handling of fly ash with on-site disposal to landfills while the bottom fly ash is sluiced to the ash basin on plant start-up and in emergency situations. Water discharge from the ash basin is permitted by the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Division of Water Resources (DWR) under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit NC0024406. BCSS is located in the Piedmont province region of North Carolina. The topography is hilly and mountainous with elevations ranging from a high of approximately 875 feet above mean sea level (MSL) southeast of the ash basin, to an elevation of approximately 575 feet MSL along the Dan River to the north and northwest. 1.2 Study Objectives A Settlement Agreement between DEQ and Duke Energy signed on September 29, 2015, requires accelerated remediation to be implemented at sites that demonstrate off-site groundwater impacts. Historical and CSA assessment information indicates the potential for off-site groundwater impact northwest of the ash basin in the area of the 2.23 -acre parcel (hereafter Parcel A) not owned by Duke Energy. Constituents associated with coal ash pore water have been identified within groundwater in shallow (saprolite) and deep (transition zone between saprolite and competent bedrock) flow layers between the ash basin and Parcel A and downgradient of Parcel A. Groundwater in shallow and deep layers near Parcel A flows north and northwest toward the Dan River. Groundwater monitoring wells delineating concentrations in this area are located on Duke Energy property. The compliance boundary coincides with the southeast property line of Parcel A. Page 1-1 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\Groundwater Modeling\Final Belews Creek GW Accelerated Model March 2017.docx Accelerated Remediation Interim Action Plan Groundwater Flow and Transport Modeling Report March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra Implementation of a groundwater extraction system, located between the ash basin and the southeast side of Parcel A, has been indicated to capture groundwater flow from the ash basin prior to migration toward Parcel A. The primary objective of the groundwater extraction system is to reduce groundwater migration of source area constituents from the ash basin towards Parcel A and to remove constituent mass from the area of highest constituent concentrations. The extraction system layout and system components, including wells, piping, pumps, discharge system with control system capabilities and power requirements, were provided in a 30% Basis of Design (BOD) report which was submitted by Duke Energy to DEQ on December 21, 2016 with review comments received on February 1, 2017. The groundwater extraction system involved the installation of up to 20 extraction wells in a phased approach based on pumping test results conducted by HDR in October 2016. The purpose of this groundwater modeling study is to estimate sustainable extraction well flow rates and evaluate the likely remediation effects on boron extent under a phased approach. Page 1-2 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\Groundwater Modeling\Final Belews Creek GW Accelerated Model March 2017.docx Accelerated Remediation Interim Action Plan Groundwater Flow and Transport Modeling Report March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra 2.0 CONCEPTUAL MODEL The site conceptual model for the Site is primarily based on the Comprehensive Site Assessment Report (CSA Report) (HDR, 2015a), the Corrective Action Plan Part 1 (CAP 1) Report (HDR, 2015b), the CAP 2 Report (HDR, 2016a), the Field Investigation and Pumping Test Report (HDR, 2016c); and the most recent iteration of the Groundwater Flow and Transport Model of the Belews Creek site, provided by HDR, as a baseline for the Accelerated Remediation simulations. 2.1 Aquifer System Framework The hydrogeologic regime at BCSS is characterized by residual soil/saprolite and weathered rock overlying fractured crystalline rock separated by a transition zone (TZ). The BCSS groundwater system is divided into three layers referred to as shallow, deep (TZ), and bedrock to distinguish the flow layers within the interconnected unconfined aquifer. Depending on the local topography and hydrogeology, the water table surface may exist in the saprolite, the transition zone, or in the fractured bedrock. Site specific hydraulic conductivities ranges within each hydrostratigraphic unit can be found in the CSA Report (HDR, 2015a) and the Field Investigation Pumping Test Report (HDR, 2016c). 2.2 Groundwater Flow System The unconfined groundwater system at the Site can be approximated from surface topography. The topography at the BCSS site ranges from a high elevation of approximately 878 feet (North American Vertical Datum [NAVD] 88) southeast of the ash basin (near the intersection of Pine Hall Road and Middleton Loop Road) to a low elevation of approximately 646 feet at the base of the earthen dam (at the north end of the ash basin). Ash Basin effluent flows from the base of the ash basin dam to the northwest for approximately 4,400 feet where it enters the Dan River through NPDES Outfall 003. The elevation at the Dan River discharge point is 578 feet while the elevation of the water level in the ash basin is approximately 750 feet. A topographic divide along Pine Hall Road separates the ash basin and Pine Hall Road landfill, both located north of the road, from the ash structural fill, coal pile, and power plant, located south of the road (Figure 1). Additional topographic divides are located west and north of the ash basin approximated by Middleton Loop Road. These divides separate the surface drainage area containing the ash basin from adjacent drainage areas. While the topographic divides generally function as groundwater divides, groundwater flow across the topographic divides can occur based on head conditions Page 2-1 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\Groundwater Modeling\Final Belews Creek GW Accelerated Model March 2017.docx Accelerated Remediation Interim Action Plan Groundwater Flow and Transport Modeling Report March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra from the ash basin and, to a lesser degree, preferential flow paths within the shallow and/or deep flow layers. 2.3 Hydrologic Boundaries Dan River, to the northwest, and the ash basin, to the southeast, serve as major hydrologic boundaries in the area. 2.4 Hydraulic Boundaries Natural groundwater divides often exist along topographic divides, but are a result of local flow conditions and are not necessarily hydraulic barriers. In the area of Parcel A, groundwater flows across a topographic divide, represented by Middleton Loop Road, to the northwest toward Parcel A and the Dan River is a result of the hydraulic head differences created by the water level in the ash basin. The approximate water level elevation in the ash basin is 750 feet while monitoring wells in the vicinity of Parcel A along Middleton Loop Road (GWA-18S/D, GWA-20S/D) historically demonstrate lower hydraulic heads from 3 to 5 feet in relation to the ash basin. Groundwater flow is towards the Dan River which is at an elevation of about 580 feet. 2.5 Sources and Sinks Recharge is the major source of water for the groundwater system for the larger drainage basin that contains the ash basin. Recharge from the ash basin and, to a lesser degree, rainfall infiltration serve as sources of water to the groundwater system within the study area. 2.6 Water Budget Over a period of time, the rate of water inflow to the study area is equal to the rate of water outflow from the BCSS ash basin system. Water enters the groundwater system primarily from recharge from the ponded ash basin. Water leaves the system through discharge to the Dan River and several small springs located north and west of Parcel A. 2.7 Modeled Constituents of Interest The current accelerated remediation simulations are based on the recently updated flow and transport model from HDR. The site -wide HDR model considers transport of several constituents including: arsenic, beryllium, boron, chloride, chromium, hexavalent chromium, cobalt, selenium, and thallium. In the vicinity of Parcel A, boron is the dominant constituent found above 2L standards in several surficial and transition zone wells. Exceedances of 2L are confined to the upper two zones and not present in bedrock. It appears that these concentrations Page 2-2 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\Groundwater Modeling\Final Belews Creek GW Accelerated Model March 2017.docx Accelerated Remediation Interim Action Plan Groundwater Flow and Transport Modeling Report March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra represent near stable conditions (that is concentrations are slowly changing with time) because of the age of the system and the velocity of groundwater. The present accelerated remediation simulations only consider transport of boron. Page 2-3 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\Groundwater Modeling\Final Belews Creek GW Accelerated Model March 2017.docx Accelerated Remediation Interim Action Plan Groundwater Flow and Transport Modeling Report March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra 3.0 COMPUTER MODEL The baseline numerical groundwater flow model for the BCSS site was constructed by HDR. The numerical groundwater flow model was developed using MODFLOW (McDonald and Harbaugh, 1988), a three-dimensional (31)) finite difference groundwater model created by the United States Geological Survey (USGS). This study uses the MODFLOW-NWT version (Niswonger, et al., 2011) to improve the stability of drying and re -wetting of grid cells within the model. The chemical transport model is the Modular 3-D Transport Multi -Species (MT3DMS) model (Zheng and Wang, 1999). MODFLOW and MT3DMS are widely used in industry and government, and are considered to be industry standards. The models were assembled using the Environmental Simulations Incorporated (ESI) Groundwater Vistas graphical user interface (http://www.groundwatermodels.com). Page 3-1 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\Groundwater Modeling\Final Belews Creek GW Accelerated Model March 2017.docx Accelerated Remediation Interim Action Plan Groundwater Flow and Transport Modeling Report March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra 4.0 ACCELERATED REMEDIATION GROUNDWATER FLOW AND TRANSPORT MODEL The flow and transport model for the study area near Parcel A was developed by slightly modifying the most recent HDR model to account for several scenarios of groundwater extraction wells located east of Middleton Loop Road. The HDR modeling effort included a steady-state groundwater flow model calibrated to available current conditions, a transient historical model of flow and constituent transport, and predictive simulations of different remediation scenarios. The HDR model was calibrated to best match water levels in monitoring wells (September and October 2016 data), seep flows (November 2015 and May 2016 data), stream flows (July 2016 data), and COI concentrations observed during the CAMA and CCR sampling (September and October 2016). The site -wide HDR model domain extends approximately 13,500 feet north to south, 13,000 feet east to west, and has a grid consisting of 1,607,379 active cells in nine layers. The BCSS model domain is bounded by the following hydrologic features of the site: E7 the edge of Belews Creek to the east and southeast; the northern rim of the Craig Road Landfill; tf the edge of the Dan River to the west; E7 the Dan River parallel to the northern edge of the ash basin. The lower limit of the model domain coincides with an assumed maximum depth of water -yielding fractures in bedrock. This was estimated to be approximately 710 feet below the base of the transition zone. The HDR model has a total of nine model layers divided among the identified hydrostratigraphic units to evaluate flow with a vertical flow component. The units are represented by the model layers listed below: 0 Model layers 1 and 2 'j Model layer 3 'Gj Model layer 4 Ash, dam, and fill material M1: Soil/Saprolite M2: Saprolite Page 4-1 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\Groundwater Modeling\Final Belews Creek GW Accelerated Model March 2017.docx Accelerated Remediation Interim Action Plan Groundwater Flow and Transport Modeling Report March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra '67 Model layers 5 and 6 Transition Zone '7 Model layers 7 through 9 Fractured Bedrock (as an equivalent porous medium) Horizontal hydraulic conductivity and the ratio of horizontal to vertical hydraulic conductivity, which are specific for each hydrostratigraphic unit, are the primary determinants of groundwater flow for a given configuration of boundary conditions and sources and sinks, including recharge. Field measurements of these parameters in the CSA Report; slug test results for the additional assessment wells in the BCSS CSA Supplement 2 Report; and pumping test results provided in the Field Investigation and Pumping Test Report provided guidance for their selection during the HDR flow model calibration. The outer boundary of the HDR model domain was selected to primarily coincide with physical hydrologic boundaries, surface water and drainage features. Constant head boundaries were used to represent the ash basin pond and were assigned constant head elevations (749.3 feet) from July 2016 measurements. Drain boundaries were used to represent seeps within the model domain. All seeps had measured flow. Drain boundary conductance and stage were adjusted in conjunction with the hydrogeologic parameters to best match the modeled flow to the measured flow during the HDR model calibration. Recharge is the main water source considered in the HDR model. A value of 9 inches per year was used to represent recharge to the parts of the ash basin that are not covered with water. The part of the ash basin containing water was simulated as a constant head boundary in the HDR model. With this boundary condition, water can enter (or exit) the system in proportion to the hydraulic head gradient and the hydraulic conductivity. The calibrated hydraulic heads and boron concentrations from Quarter 3, 2016 results can be found in Figures 2 and 3. 4.1 Simulation of Accelerated Remediation Extraction Wells The model simulation involved a phased approach with an initial 5 extraction well scenario, as indicated in the 30% BOD Report, and an adjusted 10 extraction well scenario (Figures 4 and 5). Several pumping tests were performed in observation and pumping test wells in the area by HDR (2016). The pumping test wells were only capable of sustainable flowrates of a few gallons per minute or less. Those results are consistent with the relatively low hydraulic conductivities that are present in the calibrated HDR flow model in this area. Variable hydraulic conductivities within the Page 4-2 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\Groundwater Modeling\Final Belews Creek GW Accelerated Model March 2017.docx Accelerated Remediation Interim Action Plan Groundwater Flow and Transport Modeling Report March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra transition zone, interpreted by HDR and defined in the HDR model, have a major effect on simulated extraction well pumping rates. Given the variable low hydraulic conductivities in the area, it is important to account for drawdown that occurs at a scale that is smaller than the model gridblock size. The site -wide HDR model uses gridblocks that have horizontal dimensions of 25 feet x 25 feet. That grid spacing can be considered to be fine grid spacing in the context of the overall site hydrogeology and constituent transport, and it is expected to capture the overall behavior of the pumping system. However, at the scale of an individual well, the use of gridblocks that are larger than the well bore dimensions result in an underestimate of the drawdown inside the well (Anderson and Woessner, 1992) In a finite difference model such as MODFLOW, an extraction well is represented as a point source or sink within a gridblock. This means water is injected or extracted over the entire volume of a cell that contains the well. Since the gridblock size usually is larger than the actual size of the well, the computed drawdown in the gridblock does not accurately represent the drawdown at the extraction well itself, but it can be thought of as a representation of the head at some distance (re) from the well (Anderson and Woessner, 1992). That theoretical distance depends on the numerical grid spacing (Ax). By considering steady-state radial flow inside the gridblock, the well drawdown can be calculated from the gridblock drawdown using: hW=htj— wTln( re 2 rcT r,, Where: hW = the head in the well hid = head computed by the finite difference model at the well gridblock QWT = total pumping or injection rate T= transmissivity re = 0.208 Ox = effective well block radius r,, = radius of pumping or injection well Page 4-3 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\Groundwater Modeling\Final Belews Creek GW Accelerated Model March 2017.docx Accelerated Remediation Interim Action Plan Groundwater Flow and Transport Modeling Report March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra In the present accelerated remediation model, the well drawdown correction equation was employed to ensure that realistic well flow rates were used in the model, based on acceptable well drawdowns. Extraction wells were screened within the transition zone (layer 6) which has an average 10 foot thickness, based on information from the HDR pump test report (HDR, 2016c), that represents the surrounding lithology observed in soil borings and test wells with the extraction well area. Theoretical drawdowns ranged from 25 to 50 feet by using the drawdown equation above. Page 4-4 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\Groundwater Modeling\Final Belews Creek GW Accelerated Model March 2017.docx Accelerated Remediation Interim Action Plan Groundwater Flow and Transport Modeling Report March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra 5.0 PREDICTIVE SIMULATIONS OF CORRECTIVE ACTION SCENARIOS The calibrated HDR model of the September/October 2016 steady-state flow model configuration for the ash basin and simulated October 2016 concentration distributions were used as initial conditions for the extraction system simulations of future flow (hydraulic head) and boron transport at the site (Figures 4 and 5). The accelerated remediation extraction simulations depict the steady state drawdowns. 5.1 Flow and Fate and Transport Model Results The HDR groundwater model, calibrated for flow and constituent fate and transport under existing conditions (2016), with phased extraction well scenarios were used to evaluate the predicted hydraulic control within the transition zone upgradient from Parcel A. In addition, the model predicted boron distribution after six months and five years of pumping. Pumping rates for the 5 and 10 extraction well scenarios can be found in Tables 1 and 2. The calculated pumping rates for extraction wells ranged from 0.2 gpm (southern end of the extraction system) to 7.25 gpm (central portion of the extraction system), depending on the extraction well scenario, and were based on variable hydraulic conductivities within the model and simulation drawdown limitations (no cells drying out). The simulated drawdown within the transition zone (model layer 6) for the five extraction well scenario is shown in Figure 6. The model predicts that pumping from the initial five extraction wells will lower groundwater levels by more than 1 foot in the transition zone, causing the water table to drop within the surficial zone in much of the area. However, the model indicates that a five well extraction system is not sufficiently robust to provide adequate hydrologic impact. Subsequently, a 10 well extraction well scenario with closer well spacing was simulated. The model predicts that ten extraction wells within the transition zone (model layer 6) will lower groundwater levels for more than 5 to 10 feet along the extraction system axis, with hydraulic impacts to Parcel A (Figures 7 and 8). Due to the heterogeneity of the transition zone, the actual sustainable pumping rates will need to be evaluated once the initial phase of the extraction system is in operation. Following a six-month evaluation period, additional extraction wells will be installed as needed and the model will be modified to better match actual site conditions. Fate and transport modeling for boron shows little impact after pumping for six months (Figure 9). However, modeling for a longer time period of pumping (five year Page 5-1 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\Groundwater Modeling\Final Belews Creek GW Accelerated Model March 2017.docx Accelerated Remediation Interim Action Plan Groundwater Flow and Transport Modeling Report March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra simulation) demonstrates slight reductions of boron (> 7,000 ug/L) along the extraction system axis (Figure 10). Quarterly monitoring of groundwater chemistry from the extraction system observation wells and groundwater monitoring wells in the vicinity will assist in the efficiency of the extraction system. Page 5-2 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\Groundwater Modeling\Final Belews Creek GW Accelerated Model March 2017.docx Accelerated Remediation Interim Action Plan Groundwater Flow and Transport Modeling Report March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra 6.0 REFERENCES Anderson, M.P., and W.W. Woessner, 1992, Applied Groundwater Modeling Simulation of Flow and Advective Transport, Academic Press, New York NY, 381p. HDR Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinas, September 9, 2015a. Comprehensive Site Assessment Report — Belews Creek Steam Station Ash Basin. HDR Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinas, December 8, 2015b. Corrective Action Plan — Part 1: Belews Creek Steam Station Ash Basin. HDR Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinas, March 4, 2016a. Corrective Action Plan — Part 2: Belews Creek Steam Station Ash Basin. HDR Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinas, August 11, 2016b. Comprehensive Site Assessment — Supplement 2 — Belews Creek Steam Station Ash Basin. HDR Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinas, October 6, 2016c. Field Investigation and Pumping Test Report. McDonald, M.G. and A.W. Harbaugh, 1988, A Modular Three -Dimensional Finite - Difference Ground -Water Flow Model, U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water Resources Investigations, book 6, 586 p. Niswonger, R.G.,S. Panday, and I. Motomu, 2011, MODFLOW-NWT, A Newton formulation for MODFLOW-2005, U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods 6- A37,44-. SynTerra, December, 2016. Basis of Design (30% Submittal— Belews Creek Steam Station Ash Basin. Zheng, C. and P.P. Wang, 1999, MT3DMS: A Modular Three -Dimensional Multi -Species Model for Simulation of Advection, Dispersion and Chemical Reactions of Contaminants in Groundwater Systems: Documentation and User's Guide, SERDP-99-1, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. Page 6-1 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\Groundwater Modeling\Final Belews Creek GW Accelerated Model March 2017.docx Accelerated Remediation Interim Action Plan Groundwater Flow and Transport Modeling Report March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC Figures SynTerra P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\Groundwater Modeling\Final Belews Creek GW Accelerated Model March 2017.docx Ip LD AYERS 4i Riverview a Golf Course< .. I\ \ PARCEL LINE (APPROXIMATE) SOP' O AREA OF INTEREST o it j.gI'k f'�' - COMPLIANCE BUNDARY �- C � M/DDL6T �N LOOP 0 at �, PARCEL A (2.23 ACRES) _ _ _ ASH BASIN BELEWS LAKE CONSTRUCTED WETLAND 3401 WASTEBOUNNNDA\RY 77 � — — COAL PILE - o�� .a PINE HALL ROADd ASH LANDFILL '0 I STRUCTURAL (IFILL POWER PLANT �800 o = _ 00 D J � FGD LANDFILL SOURCE J USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OBTAINED FROM THE USGS STORE AT h Ltp://store. usgs.gov/b2c—usgs/b2c/start/%%%28xcm=r3standardpitrex_prd%%%29/.do NOTE: ---- - PARCEL LINE, WASTE BOUNDARY AND COMPLIANCE BOUNDARY BASED ON INFORMATION OBTAINED "BELEWS -- FROM AN HDR DRAWING TITLED CREEK STEAM STATION GW FLOW DIRECTION" - BELEWS CREEK STEAM STATION FIGURE 1 STOKES COUNTY SITE LOCATION MAP 141P DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS WINSTON-SALEM. .RALEIGH BELEWS CREEK STEAM STATION GREE".LLE• 3195 PINE HILL RD #� Terra •CHARLOTTE - *FAYETTEVILLE BELEWS CREEK, NORTH CAROLINA BELEWS LAKE NC QUADRANGLE 148 RIVER STREET, SUITE 220 GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA WILMINGTON DRAWN BY: iDHv cHASTAIN DATE: 12/27/2016 GRAPHIC SCALE PHONE 864-421-9999 PROJECT MANAGER: C. EADY CONTDURINTERVAL: 20 FEET 1000 O 1000 2000 www.synterra0orp.com LAYOUT: USGSTOPO MAP DATE: 2013 \DE BELEWS CK FIG 1 USGS TOPO_20170321.dw P'.\Duke Ener Pro ress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelera Led Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\30 PERCENT DESIGN\dw IN FEET • 4 IL T r- .. a e q y ♦ . , a FA ■., �' • PARCEL A (2.23- r� d / I ♦♦ P �} • / �- IL UT EX -2 1, r - ii i.. � ■ I .ice' ♦ ♦ i r EX -3 '-.. II r = / y �_ -" y •• t ,� , / EXTRACTION SYSTEM t „^ Ns to I IA Px LN 41 _ 6 "p IN 'fid ;f. 7 f .is arz R i 10 " LEGEND ii� PROPOSED EXTRACTION WELL EXTRACTION SYSTEM PARCEL BOUNDARY ASH BASIN BOUNDARY COMPLIANCE BOUNDARY DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS BELEWS CREEK PLANT - — SITE BOUNDARY GRAPHIC SCALE NOTES: 75 0 75 150 FIGURE 2 PARCEL (2.23 ACRES) PROPERTY LINE IS BASED ON A PLAT PREPARED BY LDSI TITLED "EXHIBIT MAP FOR DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION", DATED 09-28-2016, IN Feer FIVE PROPOSED EXTRACTION WELLLS PROJECT NUMBER 4115187, FILE NAME 4115198.DWG. GR RIVERSTREET,SOUTH CAROLINA 220 LIN BELEWS STEAM STATION PLANT 2014 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OBTAINED FROM USDA NRCS GEOSPATIAL DATA GATEWAY (https://gdg.sc.egov.usda.gov/GDGOrder.aspx). PHONES LE,so-99 cARouNA29so1 BELEWS CREEK, NORTH CAROLINA PHONE 864-421-9999 synTern rr or o DRAWING HAS BEEN SET WITH A PROJECTION OF NORTH CAROLINA STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM FIPS 3200 (NAD83). ra wnvw DRAWN BY: e. YOUNG m DATE: 03/24/2017 PROJECT MANAGER: C. EADY CHECKED BY: R. GRAZIANO P:\Duke Ener Pro ress.1026\00 GIS BASE DATA\Belews Creek Steam Station\Ma Docs\GW Modelin \Belews Creek - Fi ure 2 -Five Pro osed Extraction Wells.mxd a P E ''L if , - PARCELA(2.23ACRES) — -—-—- — - — - -- • � � � t, �■ � I � EX -1 ■ / A � � ♦. - ■■ / ■ ;I Pa r Y r : • .: EX -3 Ar qr4 s lip ■ -qo' L ,,�, it \ EX -5 " Alf ■ ■ d� L a -3+ ,F� e ■ EX -6 ' EXTRACTION SYSTEM ir r" � ■ � r �• ■ I EX -8 a �,p r .r_r■, Ilk �_.. ♦ ■ .. ' 6 r. ye 4 r E a ' ,r a 14 -10 L , �'- /y —i ,_ � IL PF -A / - ■ 7Ih 4V .111`2 io 1 411 r'10 y. NOTES: PARCELA (2.23 ACRES) PROPERTY LINE IS BASED ON A PLAT PREPARED BY LDSI TITLED "EXHIBIT MAP FOR DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION", DATED 09-28-2016, PROJECT NUMBER 4115187, FILE NAME 4115198.DWG. 2014 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OBTAINED FROM USDA NRCS GEOSPATIAL DATA GATEWAY (https://gdg.sc.egov.usda.gov/GDGOrder.aspx). DRAWING HAS BEEN SET WITH A PROJECTION OF NORTH CAROLINA STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM FIPS 3200 (NAD83). ss Terra v 11 GRAPHIC SCALE 75 0 75 150 148 RIVER STREET, SUITE 220 GREENVILLE'SOUTH CAROLINA 29601 PHONE 864-421-9999 wwwsvnterracorp.com DRAWN BY: B. YOUNG DATE: 03/28/2017 PROJECT MANAGER: C. EADY CHECKED BY: R. GRAZIANO LEGEND ii� PROPOSED EXTRACTION WELL EXTRACTION SYSTEM PARCEL A BOUNDARY ASH BASIN BOUNDARY COMPLIANCE BOUNDARY DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS BELEWS CREEK PLANT - — SITE BOUNDARY FIGURE 3 TEN PROPOSED EXTRACTION WELLLS BELEWS STEAM STATION PLANT BELEWS CREEK, NORTH CAROLINA % $ ,`1 r' ► ' ' �., /_ n �' 1 r F . r r [ a F • w �� ,r�J y' .^. - r . � � _ � Li �)1 4&t� � " - Ii -T _ •4- ' y y,Y r. u,/ Af Ar .'Ei 9 • . 1 r .• rte . I W ' f 1 - � ,. � w. x _ � - * � ;,• 8 � t — Mr tr r r � flf. rg.� r f , ,y .. m 'l 1j ♦'-.. _ ..�,• !-�!,r. �.''. i r ... - i T lip fw [ c4,d fd Tf ro n ■ e 9 r . el ! 1 or T L _ r • L r J .' PARCELA(2.23ACRES) ' 1 i 1 I 1 I � � + '" �� � � .� � , PYA• i "" "�y r ` r +� r � ! 3 t 1 'I I "A__ #" ifs f•-+� I 41 � .Y � � S f 1� rt X`E� ,r �'r �'� � tib � a p-� ♦}) 1 t 4ro- i p . f ��`,//�}} � �:, �. � , - w � t it ►, i NOTES: PARCEL (2.23 ACRES) PROPERTY LINE IS BASED ON A PLAT PREPARED BY LDSI TITLED "EXHIBIT MAP FOR DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION", DATED 09-28-2016, PROJECT NUMBER 4115187, FILE NAME 4115198.DWG. ELEVATIONS ARE REFERENCED TO THE NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM 88 (NAVD88). 2014 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OBTAINED FROM USDA NRCS GEOSPATIAL DATA GATEWAY (https:Hgdg.sc.egov.usda.gov/GDGOrder.aspx). DRAWING HAS BEEN SET WITH A PROJECTION OF NORTH CAROLINA STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM FIPS 3200 (NAD83). LEGEND HYDRAULIC HEAD (10 FOOT INTERVAL) NAVD88 ASH BASIN BOUNDARY GRAPHIC SC E 15o O 50 300 FIGURE 4 IN FEET SIMULATED HYDRAULIC HEADS 2016 220 RIVERSTREET,SOUTH TRANSITION ZONE (LAYER 6) GR LIN CAROLINA GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA 29601 PHONE 864-421-9999 BELEWS STEAM STATION PLANT n or DRAWN BY: B. YOUNG DATE: 03/28/2017 synTerra BELEWS CREEK, NORTH CAROLINA PROJECT MAA NAGER: C. EADY PROD C. CHECKED BY: R. GRAZIANO P:\Duke Energy Progress, 1026\00 GIS BASE DATA\Belews Creek Steam Station\Ma Docs\GW Modelin \Belews Creek -Figure 4 -Hydraulic Heads 2016.mxd I lro - .-w "44, �' -Ji. ..ri r .l J ^ •'-' r �o, NOTES: PARCEL (2.23 ACRES) PROPERTY LINE IS BASED ON A PLAT PREPARED BY LDSI TITLED "EXHIBIT MAP FOR DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION', DATED 09-28-2016, PROJECT NUMBER 4115187, FILE NAME 4115198.DWG. 2014 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OBTAINED FROM USDA NRCS GEOSPATIAL DATA GATEWAY (https://gdg.sc.egov.usda.gov/GDGOrder.aspx). DRAWING HAS BEEN SET WITH A PROJECTION OF NORTH CAROLINA STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM FIPS 3200 (NAD83). 141P synTerra GRAPHIC SCALE 150 0 150 300 148 RIVER STREET, SUITE 220 GREENVILLE'SOUTH CAROLINA 29601 PHONE 864-421-9999 wwwsvnterracorp.com DRAWN BY: B. YOUNG DATE: 03/28/2017 PROJECT MANAGER: C. EADY CHECKED BY: R. GRAZIANO I LEGEND CONCENTRATION RANGE (7,000 - 70,000 pg/L) CONCENTRATION RANGE (700 - 7,000 pg/L) ASH BASIN BOUNDARY FIGURE 5 SIMULATED BORON 2016 TRANSITION ZONE (LAYER 6) BELEWS STEAM STATION PLANT BELEWS CREEK, NORTH CAROLINA PARCEL A (2.23 ACRES) d -fT dr po It, EX -1 1 i ' EX=2 1 .1 � EX -3 \ 1 i ir EX 4; EXTRACTION SYSTEM 4' EX -5 NOTES: PARCEL (2.23 ACRES) PROPERTY LINE IS BASED ON A PLAT PREPARED BY LDSI TITLED "EXHIBIT MAP FOR DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION", DATED 09-28-2016, PROJECT NUMBER 4115187, FILE NAME 4115198.DWG. DRAWDOWN DEPTHS ARE REFERENCED TO THE NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM 88 (NAVD88). 2014 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OBTAINED FROM USDA NRCS GEOSPATIAL DATA GATEWAY (https://gdg.sc.egov.usda.gov/GDGOrder.aspx). DRAWING HAS BEEN SET WITH A PROJECTION OF NORTH CAROLINA STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM FIPS 3200 (NAD83). 1�lp synTerra .r GRAPHIC SCALE 150 0 150 300 148 RIVER STREET, SUITE 220 GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA 29601 PHONE 864-421-9999 wwwsvnterracorp.com DRAWN BY: B. YOUNG DATE: 03/28/2017 PROJECT MANAGER: C. EADY CHECKED BY: R. GRAZIANO LEGEND PROPOSED EXTRACTION WELL DRAWDOWN CONTOUR (NAVD88) EXTRACTION SYSTEM ASH BASIN BOUNDARY FIGURE 6 SIMULATED DRAWDOWN FIVE EXTRACTION WELLS TRANSITION ZONE (LAYER 6) BELEWS STEAM STATION PLANT BELEWS CREEK, NORTH CAROLINA of qFF a F fir, e „fir �� 4 a I ` � � � • � - 5 w Fa � I A 1�lp synTerra .r GRAPHIC SCALE 150 0 150 300 148 RIVER STREET, SUITE 220 GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA 29601 PHONE 864-421-9999 wwwsvnterracorp.com DRAWN BY: B. YOUNG DATE: 03/28/2017 PROJECT MANAGER: C. EADY CHECKED BY: R. GRAZIANO LEGEND PROPOSED EXTRACTION WELL DRAWDOWN CONTOUR (NAVD88) EXTRACTION SYSTEM ASH BASIN BOUNDARY FIGURE 6 SIMULATED DRAWDOWN FIVE EXTRACTION WELLS TRANSITION ZONE (LAYER 6) BELEWS STEAM STATION PLANT BELEWS CREEK, NORTH CAROLINA fm�,AIIir I ef V a ,4 ,r t.�'i� ij CJI-�� ; ,. '� �... ♦�'� �. _ - �I "�1 . � •I '� � s , !�'` .R , ' rw -:t •'' R „' J ill A. e Jl, y l „Y� -It 4 + At If l ,r IL � � ♦ � 5 a � r t 4 �1� iAAAyr� 7% � r /r 4 n , * PARCEL A (2.23 ACRES) r i , a ., � , 1 ♦ 1♦41 EX-1 41 "~ r ♦ - \ EX -2 ' 41EX-3' \ EX -4 1 ' EX -5 P a ' z. 1 A♦ \ EX -6 EX -7 . 1 I EX -8 EX -9. 40"M r' EXTRACTION SYSTEM .d+ . • i ak � � \ EX -10 # +MY No dl r l df ry j t NOTES: PARCEL (2.23 ACRES) PROPERTY LINE IS BASED ON A PLAT PREPARED BY LDSI TITLED "EXHIBIT MAP FOR DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION", DATED 09-28-2016, PROJECT NUMBER 4115187, FILE NAME 4115198.DWG. ELEVATIONS ARE REFERENCED TO THE NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM 88 (NAVD88). 2014 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OBTAINED FROM USDA NRCS GEOSPATIAL DATA GATEWAY (https:Hgdg.sc.egov.usda.gov/GDGOrder.aspx). DRAWING HAS BEEN SET WITH A PROJECTION OF NORTH CAROLINA STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM FIPS 3200 (NAD83). r � , Y 4 r r t s 0 , its 1�lp synTerra GRAPHIC SCALE 150 0 150 300 IN FEET 148 RIVER STREET, SUITE 220 GREENVILLE'SOUTH CAROLINA 29601 PHONE 864-421-9999 wwwsvnterracorp.com DRAWN BY: B. YOUNG DATE: 03/28/2017 PROJECT MANAGER: C. EADY CHECKED BY: R. GRAZIANO 4r LEGEND PROPOSED EXTRACTION WELL HYDRAULIC HEAD (10 FOOT INTERVAL) NAVD88 EXTRACTION SYSTEM ASH BASIN BOUNDARY FIGURE 7 SIMULATED HYDRAULIC HEADS TEN EXTRACTION WELLS TRANSITION ZONE (LAYER 6) BELEWS STEAM STATION PLANT BELEWS CREEK, NORTH CAROLINA n\ManY)n \rW MM. inn\RPl.w, rr—k - Finnrr 7 - Hvdr.,,Ii, Ha d, Six Mn th, '' - ; - � ; , • � ' � 'fir �' ,;�`'i _ p,4''` _ r' r. tie L. V ` ' r Y r ` � t dr it f ,�74 1/ ' _ r r r*1 SII .P.- 1 ♦ J Y.{ � ,N W_ -�i � Y 6P p q r 4 P�. -4 n —A. yyy 1 u �`f• ;� J 1 ` 1, it 4 f f � `, �I �, ' • : 1 -,� s� �� I, P ; M �A R .r �- R j r 4 NOTES: PARCEL (2.23 ACRES) PROPERTY LINE IS BASED ON A PLAT PREPARED BY LDSI TITLED "EXHIBIT MAP FOR DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION--, DATED 09-28-2016, PROJECT NUMBER 4115187, FILE NAME 4115198.DWG. DRAWDOWN DEPTHS ARE REFERENCED TO THE NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM 88 (NAVD88). 2014 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OBTAINED FROM USDA NRCS GEOSPATIAL DATA GATEWAY (https://gdg.sc.egov.usda.gov/GDGOrder.aspx). DRAWING HAS BEEN SET WITH A PROJECTION OF NORTH CAROLINA STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM FIPS 3200 (NAD83). GRAPHIC SCALE 150 0 150 300 IN FEET 148 RIVER STREET, SUITE 220 GREENVILLE'SOUTH CAROLINA 29601 PHONE 864-421-9999 www.svnterra c orQ. c om DRAWN BY: B. YOUNG DATE: 03/28/2017 PROJECT MANAGER: C. EADY CHECKED BY: R. GRAZIANO i LEGEND PROPOSED EXTRACTION WELL DRAWDOWN CONTOUR (NAVD88) EXTRACTION SYSTEM ASH BASIN BOUNDARY FIGURE 8 SIMULATED DRAWDOWN TEN EXTRACTION WELLS TRANSITION ZONE (LAYER 6) BELEWS STEAM STATION PLANT BELEWS CREEK, NORTH CAROLINA n\MaDDocs\GW Modeling\Belews Creek - Figure 8 - Drawdown Six Months - 10 We R P" ` � t dr it f ,�74 1/ ' _ r r r*1 SII .P.- 1 ♦ J Y.{ � ,N W_ -�i � Y 6P p q r 4 P�. -4 n —A. yyy 1 u �`f• ;� J 1 ` 1, it 4 f f � `, �I �, ' • : 1 -,� s� �� I, P ; M �A R .r �- R j r 4 NOTES: PARCEL (2.23 ACRES) PROPERTY LINE IS BASED ON A PLAT PREPARED BY LDSI TITLED "EXHIBIT MAP FOR DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION--, DATED 09-28-2016, PROJECT NUMBER 4115187, FILE NAME 4115198.DWG. DRAWDOWN DEPTHS ARE REFERENCED TO THE NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM 88 (NAVD88). 2014 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OBTAINED FROM USDA NRCS GEOSPATIAL DATA GATEWAY (https://gdg.sc.egov.usda.gov/GDGOrder.aspx). DRAWING HAS BEEN SET WITH A PROJECTION OF NORTH CAROLINA STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM FIPS 3200 (NAD83). GRAPHIC SCALE 150 0 150 300 IN FEET 148 RIVER STREET, SUITE 220 GREENVILLE'SOUTH CAROLINA 29601 PHONE 864-421-9999 www.svnterra c orQ. c om DRAWN BY: B. YOUNG DATE: 03/28/2017 PROJECT MANAGER: C. EADY CHECKED BY: R. GRAZIANO i LEGEND PROPOSED EXTRACTION WELL DRAWDOWN CONTOUR (NAVD88) EXTRACTION SYSTEM ASH BASIN BOUNDARY FIGURE 8 SIMULATED DRAWDOWN TEN EXTRACTION WELLS TRANSITION ZONE (LAYER 6) BELEWS STEAM STATION PLANT BELEWS CREEK, NORTH CAROLINA n\MaDDocs\GW Modeling\Belews Creek - Figure 8 - Drawdown Six Months - 10 We PARCEL A (2.23 ACRES) 1 ♦4f EX -1 1 I 1 : EX -2 I ♦♦ EX -3 EX -4 EXTRACTION SYSTEM ' ; I EX -6 i� • EX7 *,O EX -8 f l E x EX -10 �y �.jy1 W- - .Ji. ..ri NOTES: PARCEL (2.23 ACRES) PROPERTY LINE IS BASED ON A PLAT PREPARED BY LDSI TITLED "EXHIBIT MAP FOR DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION", DATED 09-28-2016, PROJECT NUMBER 4115187, FILE NAME 4115198.DWG. 2014 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OBTAINED FROM USDA NRCS GEOSPATIAL DATA GATEWAY (https://gdg.sc.egov.usda.gov/GDGOrder.aspx). DRAWING HAS BEEN SET WITH A PROJECTION OF NORTH CAROLINA STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM FIPS 3200 (NAD83). 141P synTerra k LEGEND j ^dile V 1 iii� PROPOSED EXTRACTION WELL r -� � �, �t � �' .�: � �� �°�T � q "� y��, y � ,ori k � t .• .d Y�.� rr f CONCENTRATION RANGE (700 - 7,000 pg/L) X •. e" '�Jf, �, y d .Ie- R. - Y 4 r � l I. r* � _ FIGURE 9 IN FEET SIMULATED BORON (6 MONTHS) 10 EXTRACTION WELLS 148 RIVER STREET, SUITE 220 PHONE I_I_-421-9HCARouNA29601 PHONE 864-421-9999 www, n rr or om TRANSITION ZONE (LAYER 6) BELEWS STEAM STATION PLANT BELEWS CREEK NORTH CAROLINA DATE: 03/28/2017 ! � CHECKED BY: R. GRAZIANO 4 PADuke Energy Progress, 1026\00 GIS BASE DATA\Belews Creek Steam Station\MaDDocs\GW Modeling\Belews Creek -Figure 9 -Boron Six Months - 10 Wells.m P u � 4 k LEGEND iii� PROPOSED EXTRACTION WELL IPIP CONCENTRATION RANGE (7,000 - 70,000 pg/L) CONCENTRATION RANGE (700 - 7,000 pg/L) EXTRACTION SYSTEM ASH BASIN BOUNDARY APHICSCE 300 150 G0 50 FIGURE 9 IN FEET SIMULATED BORON (6 MONTHS) 10 EXTRACTION WELLS 148 RIVER STREET, SUITE 220 PHONE I_I_-421-9HCARouNA29601 PHONE 864-421-9999 www, n rr or om TRANSITION ZONE (LAYER 6) BELEWS STEAM STATION PLANT BELEWS CREEK NORTH CAROLINA DATE: 03/28/2017 PRAWNBM MANAGER: PROJECT MANAGER: C. EADY � CHECKED BY: R. GRAZIANO PADuke Energy Progress, 1026\00 GIS BASE DATA\Belews Creek Steam Station\MaDDocs\GW Modeling\Belews Creek -Figure 9 -Boron Six Months - 10 Wells.m a { 4L. .. ` 1 R 2 R;� / 4�� V T1F' p •y`J �q.,qr PARCEL A (2.23 ACRES) ILw A t . 1 � 1 j 1 •♦ EX -1 EX -2 ♦ EX -3 1 � EX -4 w 4 '. j ♦ I EX -5 EXTRACTION SYSTEM ' EX -6 1 ,, • 1- EX -7 EX -8 EX -9 + �a ' hr , EX -10 kNO t T t i rW_, •Ji...ri NOTES: PARCELA (2.23 ACRES) PROPERTY LINE IS BASED ON A PLAT PREPARED BY LDSI TITLED "EXHIBIT MAP FOR DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION", DATED 09-28-2016, PROJECT NUMBER 4115187. FILE NAME 4115198.DWG. 2014 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OBTAINED FROM USDA NRCS GEOSPATIAL DATA GATEWAY (https://gdg.sc.egov.usda.gov/GDGOrder.aspx). DRAWING HAS BEEN SET WITH A PROJECTION OF NORTH CAROLINA STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM FIPS 3200 (NAD83). 141P synTerra � � �:'i'" �•, . `Ru. ^ails +r '". ,�I dl� .s+ o �,« r+,t', ot GRAPHIC SCALE 150 0 150 300 1148 RIVER STREET, SUITE 220 I GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA 29601 PHONE 864-421-9999 DRAWN BY: B. YOUNG DATE: 03/29/2017 PROJECT MANAGER: C. EADY CHECKED BY: R. GRAZIANO k LEGEND i;� PROPOSED EXTRACTION WELL CONCENTRATION RANGE (7,000 - 70,000 pg/L) CONCENTRATION RANGE (700 - 7,000 pg/L) EXTRACTION SYSTEM ASH BASIN BOUNDARY FIGURE 10 SIMULATED BORON (5 YEARS) 10 EXTRACTION WELLS TRANSITION ZONE (LAYER 6) BELEWS STEAM STATION PLANT BELEWS CREEK, NORTH CAROLINA Accelerated Remediation Interim Action Plan Groundwater Flow and Transport Modeling Report March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC Tables SynTerra P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\Groundwater Modeling\Final Belews Creek GW Accelerated Model March 2017.docx Accelerated Remediation Interim Action Plan Groundwater Flow and Transport Modeling Report March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra Table 1 Pumping Rates for Proposed Five Extraction Well Scenario Well ID Pumping Rate (gpm) EX -1 2.50 EX -2 2.00 EX -3 6.00 EX -4 0.50 EX -5 0.20 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\Groundwater Modeling\Final Belews Creek GW Accelerated Model March 2017.docx Accelerated Remediation Interim Action Plan Groundwater Flow and Transport Modeling Report March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra Table 2 Pumping Rates for Proposed Ten Extraction Well Scenario Well ID Pumping Rate (9Pm) EX -1 2.75 EX -2 2.75 EX -3 5.75 EX -4 5.75 EX -5 6.25 EX -6 7.25 EX -7 1.0 EX -8 1.0 EX -9 0.9 EX -10 0.9 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\Groundwater Modeling\Final Belews Creek GW Accelerated Model March 2017.docx Basis of Design Report (60% Submittal) April 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station APPENDIX D UPDATED GEOCHEMICAL MODEL REPORT SynTerra P:\ Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\60 PERCENT DESIGN\Final 60 Percent Basis of Design Report, Belews Creek, 3-31-2017.docx 4clp s)(nTerra FOCUSED GEOCHEMICAL REPORT PARCEL A BELEWS CREEK STEAM STATION 3195 PINE HALL RD. BELEWS CREEK., NORTH CAROLINA 27009 MARCH 2017 PREPARED FOR: ('DUKE ENERGY DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC. 526 SOUTH CHURCH STREET CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA 28202 Reviewed Y. Erin Black Brian A. Powell Geochemical Modeler Craig edy Senior Geologist Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................1-1 2.0 OBSERVATIONS FROM GROUNDWATER PARAMETERS ........................... 2-1 2.1 General Observations from Groundwater Parameters ....................................... 2-1 2.2 Parcel A Model.......................................................................................................... 2-5 2.3 Speciation Modeling Using Pourbaix Diagrams .................................................. 2-6 3.0 GEOCHEMICAL MODELING OF BORON........................................................... 3-8 3.1 Pourbaix Diagram Analysis.................................................................................... 3-8 3.2 Parcel A Model Analysis.......................................................................................... 3-9 3.3 Boron Trends Indicated by the PHREEQC Global Model Analysis..................3-9 3.4 Comparison of Modeled and Experimental Kd Values for Boron ................... 3-12 4.0 GEOCHEMICAL MODELING OF CHLORIDE....................................................4-1 4.1 Pourbaix Diagram Analysis.................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Parcel A Model Analysis.......................................................................................... 4-1 5.0 GEOCHEMICAL MODELING OF SELENIUM.....................................................5-3 5.1 Pourbaix Diagram Analysis.................................................................................... 5-3 5.2 Parcel A Model Analysis..........................................................................................5-3 5.3 Selenium Trends Indicated by the PHREEQC Global Model Analysis ............ 5-5 5.4 Comparison of Modeled and Experimental Kd Values for Selenium ................ 5-9 6.0 POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF ACCELERATED REMEDIATION ...........................6-1 7.0 SUMMARY.................................................................................................................... 7-1 8.0 REFERENCES................................................................................................................ 8-1 Page i P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev \ Geochemical Modeling \ Focused Geochemical Report. docx Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE Figure 2-1 Dissolved Oxygen vs. pH in Parcel A Groundwater Measurements........ 2-2 Figure 2-2 Eh vs. pH in Parcel A Groundwater Measurements ................................... 2-2 Figure 2-3 Dissolved Concentrations of Aluminum and Iron in Parcel A Groundwatervs pH.......................................................................................... 2-3 Figure 2-4 Dissolved Concentrations of Boron and Selenium in Parcel A Groundwatervs pH..........................................................................................2-3 Figure 2-5 Total Concentrations of Chloride and Sulfate in Parcel A Groundwater vspH...................................................................................................................2-4 Figure 2-6 Concentration of Total Dissolved Solids in Parcel A Groundwater vs. pH..................................................................................................................2-5 Figure 2-7 pH vs. Distance from Waste Boundary for Parcel A ................................... 2-7 Figure 2-8 Redox Potential (Eh) vs. Distance from Waste Boundary for Parcel A..... 2-7 Figure 3-1 Pourbaix Diagram for Boron Species............................................................. 3-8 Figure 3-2 Boron vs. Distance from Waste Boundary .................................................. 3-10 Figure 3-3 Ka vs. Distance from Waste Boundary for Parcel A ................................... 3-10 Figure 3-4 Total Boron Distribution Coefficients (Kd) Calculated from Global PHREEQC Model Output..............................................................................3-11 Figure 3-5 Saturation Indices for Four Relevant Boron Bearing Solid Phases Considered in the Global PHREEQC Model .............................................. 3-11 Figure 3-6 Predicted Boron Speciation vs. pH from Global PHREEQC Modeling.. 3-12 Figure 4-1 Pourbaix Diagrams of Chlorine Species........................................................ 4-2 Figure 4-2 Chloride vs. Distance from Waste Boundary ............................................... 4-2 Figure 5-2 Selenium vs. Distance from Waste Boundary ............................................... 5-5 Figure 5-3 PHREEQC Predicted Selenium Ka Values vs. Distance from Waste Boundary in Parcel A....................................................................................... 5-6 Page ii P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev \ Geochemical Modeling \ Focused Geochemical Report.docx Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE Table 3-1 Comparison of Boron Ka Values Measured and Modeled for Seven DEPSites.......................................................................................................... 3-13 Table 5-1 Comparison of Selenium Kd Values Measured and Modeled for Seven DEP Sites and Belews Creek............................................................................ 5-9 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Attachment A Geochemical Model Development Focused Geochemical Report Page iii P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\Geochemical Modeling\Focused Geochemical Report.docx Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra 1.0 INTRODUCTION Accelerated remediation using groundwater extraction (pumping wells) west of the active ash basin dam and dewatering/cap-in-place of the active ash basin are proposed for the Belews Creek Steam Station (Belews Creek, the Site or the Plant). As part of the evaluation of remedial alternatives, geochemical modeling was undertaken to help understand the mobility of select constituents and the influence of the ash basin on downgradient areas, specifically in Parcel A, a 2.23 acre area of land northwest of the ash basin dam. Additionally, the potential effects of basin dewatering/cap-in-place and groundwater extraction on the existing geochemical conditions and resulting changes in constituent mobility are considered. Boron, chloride, selenium, and total dissolved solids (TDS) are the primary focus within the focused area of interest (Parcel A). This report highlights three select constituents from that list: boron, chloride, and selenium, based on exceedances above 2L and their behavior in subsurface media. Within the subsurface, exceedances of 2L are confined to the upper two zones (saprolite and transition zone) and not present in bedrock. Previous investigations (HDR, 2015; HDR, 2016) indicate that pH and redox potential (Eh) play a key role in constituent mobility. The primary emphasis of the geochemical modeling was to understand the influences of pH and Eh on the aqueous speciation, sorption, and solubility of constituents of interest using the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) geochemical modeling program PHREEQC. Migration of constituents in groundwater is inhibited by geochemical mechanisms such as sorption to aquifer solids and precipitation in mineral phases. The degree of sorption is measured by the distribution (or partitioning) coefficient (Kd). Hydrous ferric oxide (HFO) and gibbsite (HAO) minerals were used as the basis for sorption and capacity determination because of the available thermochemical databases for surface complexation modeling of many constituents of interest [Dzombak and others, 1990; Karamalidis and Dzombak, 2010]. Note, TDS is the combination of all dissolved inorganic and organic ions or molecules in water, consisting of a mixture of cations such as sodium, calcium, magnesium, and anions including chloride and sulfate [IDNR, 2009]. Within Parcel A at the Belews Creek site, TDS is largely a function of the major anion, chloride. In this report, the chloride discussion will act as a proxy for further discussion of TDS within the area of interest. Two modeling efforts are described in this report. The first is a global model where the approach was to conceptually understand how changes in pH, redox potential, and dissolved ion concentrations influence the sorption, aqueous speciation, and solubility of several constituents of interest. The global model used averaged concentrations of Page 1-1 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\Geochemical Modeling\Focused Geochemical Report.docx Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra constituents from seven Duke Energy Progress power plant sites (Sutton, Weatherspoon, H. F. Lee, Mayo, Cape Fear, Asheville, and Roxboro) and is described further in Attachment A, Geochemical Model Development. While Belews Creek was not a direct input into the global geochemical model, the global model is still considered relevant for discussion because: 1) the broad scope of sites and conditions investigated across NC in the global model; and, 2) the Belews Creek Steam station is in a comparable physiographic region (the Piedmont) as both the Roxboro and Mayo Plants. In a second modeling effort, Parcel A was examined by incorporating measured ion concentrations and geochemical parameters from wells within the AOI downgradient from the active ash basin (see 60% Basis of Design Report, Figure 1-2). Wells within Parcel A are discussed in terms of distance from the ash basin waste boundary, as the general pattern is that water flows down gradient in Parcel A, with distance from the waste boundary. In this site-specific Parcel A model the concentrations of HAO and HFO sorbents were fixed using the Fe and Al concentrations in solids obtained from wells within the area. Page 1-2 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\Geochemical Modeling\Focused Geochemical Report.docx Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra 2.0 OBSERVATIONS FROM GROUNDWATER PARAMETERS Groundwater monitoring has been conducted three times a year at the Site as part of NPDES compliance activities since 2011. Additional monitoring wells were installed in 2015 as part of CSA and CAMA activities. The CAMA monitoring well network was initially sampled in early 2015 and has been sampled periodically since that time. Groundwater parameters including pH, Eh and DO are routinely collected as part of both NPDES and CAMA monitoring events. Some baseline trends in geochemical parameters of interest are established below. An overview of Parcel A groundwater parameter trends are reviewed first, and then groundwater modeling and the significance of specific trends are addressed in subsequent chapters. 2.1 General Observations from Groundwater Parameters Review of the groundwater parameters at the Belews Creek Site leads to several observations which help to explain the mobility of select constituents. These observations are discussed below along with the relevant implications. The groundwater parameter data presented in Figure 2-1 through Figure 2-5 are taken from NPDES and/or CAMA sampling from July 2015 through May 2016. Review of dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations in groundwater indicates that high dissolved oxygen conditions (i.e., >1 mg/L) are maintained for samples below a pH of 7 (Figure 2-1). This is supported by Eh measurements in the same waters. Fitting a trend line to Eh vs. pH data points in Figure 2-2 gives a slope of 50.7 mV per unit change in pH. This value is close to the Nernstian slope of 59 mV for oxidation reduction of water. Therefore, oxygen appears to be a dominate redox buffer for the entire range of conditions with area of interest at the Belews Creek site. The general behavior of many species can be delineated via comparisons of the dissolved concentration in groundwater samples versus pH. Such plots for Belews Creek's Parcel A are shown below for several major ions and constituents of interest (Figure 2-3 through Figure 2-5). In the figures below, aluminum and iron are investigated because of their role in facilitating sorption sites; chloride and sulfate are investigated because of their role as anionic competition for sorption sites, in the overall charge balance of the system, and the role they play in the concentration of total dissolved solids. While there is significant scatter in the data which is an inherent function of the heterogeneous nature of the site, general trends in ion behavior become apparent. Page 2-1 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\Geochemical Modeling\Focused Geochemical Report.docx Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra Figure 2-1 Dissolved Oxygen vs. pH in Parcel A Groundwater Measurements 9 N 8 ® • c 7 • • 6 • • • X • • 0 5 % •• • > E 4 • = N • • • • vi 3 l • f • C 2 • • 1 ; • • % 0L • 0 0 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 pH •Surface Seep •Ash Porewater Saprolite/Alluvium Zone •Saprolite Zone Transition Zone Prepared By: ALA Checked By: EMB Figure 2-2 V-11 V,. PF1 111 VOI L.CI N VI UUIIUVVQLCI MCQJLII CIIICIIL, 7.0E+02 •�«� 6.0E+02 • • • 5.0E+02 .c 4.0E+02 W .� 3.0E+02 2.0E+02 1.0E+02 0.0E+00 3 4 Surface Seep • Saprolite Zone Linear (Trendline) ••o 61 M • • 5 6 7 8 pH • Ash Porewater Transition Zone y = -50.692x + 689.34 9 10 11 12 13 Saprolite/Alluvium Zone Prepared By: ALA Checked By: EMB Page 2-2 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev \ Geochemical Modeling \ Focused Geochemical Report. docx Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra Figure 2-3 Dissolved Concentrations of Aluminum and Iron in Parcel A Groundwater vs pH p' 3 4 5 6 7 OAluminum C01 00 0 0 8 9 10 11 12 13 pH 0Iron Prepared By: ALA Checked By: EMB Figure 2-4 Dissolved Concentrations of Boron and Selenium in Parcel A Groundwater vs pH 1.0E+05 a� 0 U. V c 1.00E+04 8ctpO f° �a M 1.0E+04 m 0 o gd, R 1.00E+03 Q0 8 0 1.0E+03 �j ° °0 J °OO ® % O o g Og 00 ®° y 1.0E+02 "�O �} '® �00 C" 0 8 Ob O 0 O U 1.0E+01 �a a� of 1.0E+00 p' 3 4 5 6 7 OAluminum C01 00 0 0 8 9 10 11 12 13 pH 0Iron Prepared By: ALA Checked By: EMB Figure 2-4 Dissolved Concentrations of Boron and Selenium in Parcel A Groundwater vs pH 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 pH 0Boron oSelenium Prepared By: ALA Checked By: EMB Note: Detection limits are 50 pg/L and 5 pg/L for Boron and Selenium respectively. Samples that had constituent concentrations below this level are represented as data points at their detection level. Page 2-3 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev \ Geochemical Modeling \ Focused Geochemical Report. docx 1.00E+05 a� V c 1.00E+04 8ctpO f° O m o gd, C 1.00E+03 c^ i -0—)1.00E+02 O ° O C v ck3�OC�0 O° O 000 O O° 00 0o 1.00E+01 °OO ® % O o g U ° 1.00E+00 0 0° °c�5b mgko°cam Oo ° ° 1.00E-01 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 pH 0Boron oSelenium Prepared By: ALA Checked By: EMB Note: Detection limits are 50 pg/L and 5 pg/L for Boron and Selenium respectively. Samples that had constituent concentrations below this level are represented as data points at their detection level. Page 2-3 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev \ Geochemical Modeling \ Focused Geochemical Report. docx Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra Figure 2-5 Total Concentrations of Chloride and Sulfate in Parcel A Groundwater vs pH 1.0E+06 1.0E+05 U 1.0E+04 w O 0 1.0E+03 4 0� N� 1.0E+02 WO 1.0E+01 0 U 7i 1.0E+00 4j O 1.0E-01 9E"-' 0 OD 0 of 8 0 G 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 pH OSulfate Chloride Prepared By: ALA Checked By: EMB These trends are interpreted and based on known behavior of the ions. Some noteworthy observations from these data are: ,61P Aluminum concentrations decrease with increasing pH. This is consistent with the pH dependent dissolution of aluminum oxides and aluminosilicate minerals (Figure 2-3). 41P Similar behavior is observed for iron which may indicate that Fe(II) is the dominant oxidation state. The higher solubility of Fe(II) is consistent with the observation of increased concentration with increasing pH, until pH - 7(Figure 2- 3). Though Fe(II) is also expected to sorb to metal oxide minerals with increasing pH, leaching of Fe(II) ions from mineral phases could provide a source of the observed concentrations at pH values below 7. This hypothesis is supported by the decrease in dissolved oxygen concentrations (i.e. increasingly reducing conditions) with increasing pH (Figure 2-1). 01 Boron aqueous concentrations vary between 100 and 1,000 ppb above pH 5. Below pH 5, sorption of the neutrally charged H3BO3 or anionic H2BO3 complexes likely reduces the aqueous concentration (Figure 2-4). Page 2-4 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\Geochemical Modeling\Focused Geochemical Report.docx Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra 101 As pH decreases and Eh increases, selenium concentrations increase, indicating that Se(IV) is the dominant aqueous species around Parcel A at the Belews Creek site (Figure 2-4). 01 Chloride and sulfate concentrations are highly variable but generally increase with pH (Figure 2-5). Sulfate concentrations could decline with pH < 7 and is consistent with a small degree of anion sorption to metal oxide surfaces which will have net positive surface charges at lower pH values. With a majority of the B and Se species forming anionic complexes, competition with other anions for available sorption sites can play a key role in the aqueous concentration of COIs. 0, TDS concentrations are highly variable, but show a positive correlation with the chloride concentrations indicating that chloride is the dominant factor controlling TDS concentrations in Parcel A (Figure 2-5 and 2-6). Figure 2-6 Concentration of Total Dissolved Solids in Parcel A Groundwater vs. pH 1.0E+07 1.0E+06O �O G 1.0E+05 ® C@ �O 00 O `U OD O O L. OHO O c 1.0E+04 U m 0— 1.0E+03 U 1.0E+02 O H 1.0E+01 1.0E+00 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 pH Total Dissolved Solids Prepared By: ALA Checked By: EMB 2.2 Parcel A Model Wells within the area interest, west of the ash basin dam, were chosen to investigate the active ash basin's influence on the subsurface environment along hydraulically significant flow paths through Parcel A (see 60% Basis of Design Report, Figure 1-2). In general, the groundwater in Parcel A flows downgradient with distance from the ash basin perimeter. The flow modeling begins at the ash basin perimeter, and includes all wells in the vicinity of the Parcel A area, as a function of distance from the ash basin. In Page 2-5 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\Geochemical Modeling\Focused Geochemical Report.docx Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra Figures 2-7 and 2-8, below, also include AB-01S/D cluster, located within the northwest corner of ash basin perimeter, and noted on the graphs as a distance of zero feet from the waste boundary. AB -01S was screened within the ash pore water and AB -01D is screen in the transition zone beneath the active ash basin. With the pH and redox potential as the dominant geochemical conditions influencing the partitioning of constituents of interest, an understanding of how the pH and Eh change within the area of interest away from the ash basin is a crucial component to understanding the geochemical behavior of each constituent. There is no distinguishable trend in pH and Eh values with distance from the waste boundary for wells proximal to Parcel A at the Belews Creek Plant. In general, pH values in the transition zone wells and surface seeps ranged from 5-7 and pH values in the saprolite and saprolite/alluvium wells range from 4-6 (Figure 2-7). The Eh values ranged from 250-650 mV in the saprolite and saprolite/alluvium wells, from 100-500 mV in the transition zone, and from 300-400 mV in the surface seep locations (Figure 2-8). The wells encircled in red in Figure 2-7 indicate wells that were excluded from further investigation, because the elevated pH values are considered to be a result of grout contamination during well installation. The surface seep sample encircled in red in Figure 2-8 was also omitted from further investigation because it is assumed to be a product of equipment or human error during the singular sampling event. Overall, the Eh and pH values observed in Parcel A area are consistent with the ranges seen in the site wide background wells. 2.3 Speciation Modeling Using Pourbaix Diagrams To gain an understanding of the aqueous chemical species of each constituent of interest, Pourbaix diagrams were generated using Geochemist Workbench (GWB) version 10. In these Pourbaix diagrams, the Eh and pH measurements from site groundwater measurements are shown as individual data points. A generic groundwater chemistry containing 500 ppb of each constituent of concern was used in the simulations (see Attachment A, Table A-10). These concentrations are generally higher than the concentrations observed in groundwater samples from the site considered in this report with the exception of B, Fe, and Mn. However, fixed concentrations were used for most constituents to provide a direct comparison of the model output. If precipitation is not observed in these diagrams for the Eh -pH regions of interest, it will not be occurring for lower concentrations which would be less saturated. For more information on the how these Pourbaix Diagrams were modeled refer to Attachment A, Geochemical Model Development. Page 2-6 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\Geochemical Modeling\Focused Geochemical Report.docx Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra Figure 2-7 pH vs. Distance from Waste Boundary for Parcel A 13 0 12 11 — 10 9 8 X 7 e 6 • o • • 5 • 4 0 3 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 Distance from Waste Boundary (feet) • Ash Basin • Surface Seep Saprolite/Alluvium o Saprolite Transition GW Standard Prepared By: ALA Checked By: EMB Note: The four measurements encircled in red are considered to the result of grout contamination and are excluded in our pH discussion because they are artificially high. Figure 2-8 Redox Potential (Eh) vs. Distance from Waste Boundary for Parcel A 1400 1200 1000 20 c 800 a� CL E 600 X 400 a� I 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 Distance from Waste Boundary (feet) *Ash Basin *Surface Seep Saprolite/Alluvium 0Saprolite Transition Prepared By: ALA Checked By: EMB Note: The Eh values encircled in red is a singular event expected to be a result of equipment error and is not discussed further in the Eh discussion because the values are considered artificially elevated. Page 2-7 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev \ Geochemical Modeling \ Focused Geochemical Report. docx Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra 3.0 GEOCHEMICAL MODELING OF BORON Pourbaix diagrams and the site-specific area of interest were evaluated to gain an understanding of boron behavior at the Belews Creek site. Both site- specific and global geochemical modeling were used to provide insight on the current extent and potential means of boron transport. 3.1 Pourbaix Diagram Analysis The pH and Eh values from the global model and the site-specific values are plotted over a Pourbaix diagram in Figure 3-1 to gain an understanding of the expected speciation under equilibrium conditions. As shown in Figure 3-1, boron exhibits relatively simple chemistry existing as either neutrally charged boric acid, noted in the literature as either B(OH)3 or H3BO3, or as a borate anion H2BO3 (also noted as B02-) which persists above pH 9. Boron exhibits no redox reactions and solely exists as B(III). The relatively simple aqueous speciation of boron is due to lack of affinity to form complexes with other ions. This lack of chemical reactivity also limits boron sorption to mineral surfaces. Thus boron behaves as a highly mobile ion in the subsurface. Figure 3-1 Pourbaix Diagram for Boron Species 1 Mobile p 7 LU � s —.5 • Mobile 25°C 2 4 6 r H()z —.5 8 10 12 pH Global Chemical Model Mobile NO i efo® aaz Mobile - 25°C 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 pH Parcel A Model *Surface Seep •Saprolite/Alluvium •Saprolite Transition Prepared By: EMB Checked By: ALA Notes: — The round symbols represent the boron species that correspond to the range of pH and Eh values used in the global geochemical model (left) and the Belews Creek Parcel A model (right). — The error bars on the center data point of the global geochemical model (left) represents the standard deviation of the average pH and Eh value calculated from the combined measurements at seven ash basin sites. Page 3-8 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\Geochemical Modeling\Focused Geochemical Report.docx Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra 3.2 Parcel A Model Analysis As shown in Figure 3-2, boron concentrations decrease with distance from the ash basin perimeter (waste boundary). Borate exhibits no redox reactions and solely exists as B(III). The relatively simple aqueous speciation of borate is due to lack of affinity to form complexes with other ions. This lack of chemical reactivity also limits borate sorption to mineral surfaces. Thus boron is essentially inert and behaves as a highly mobile ion in the subsurface. The slight decrease in boron concentrations along the flow transects is likely a result of dispersion rather than sorption or precipitation onto mineral surfaces. The PHREEQC modeled Kd values for boron in Parcel A are shown in Figure 3-3. While boron is an anion and will be more attracted to mineral surfaces at lower pH values, sorption still remains minimal (this is manifested as the low Kd values in Figure 3-3). The lack of sorption in the system, and the lack of redox reactions which boron may undergo, indicates that boron is essentially a non-reactive species and is likely to be transported in the subsurface with minimal retardation. Thus, the use of zero or low Kd values in fate and transport modeling simulations is reasonable. 3.3 Boron Trends Indicated by the PHREEQC Global Model Analysis The PHREEQC model predicts relatively low sorption of boron as expected based on the observed mobility of boron in actual site groundwater data. There is relatively little change in the predicted Kd values as a function of pH for the "minimum" groundwater containing relatively low concentrations of major ions (Figure 3-4). This limited influence of pH is consistent with the persistence of boron as the neutral H3BO3 species as shown in Figure 3-1 and the relatively low competition with other major ions for sorption sites. In the models of the average and maximum major ion concentrations from Table A-9, competition for sorption sites by other major ions results in a decrease in the observed Kd values. There are no changes in boron aqueous speciation across this pH range. Furthermore, precipitates containing boron are not expected to form. The saturation indices for the four boron bearing minerals considered in the model are shown in Figure 3-5 and all are well below zero. Therefore, the changes in Kd shown in Figure 3-4 are only due to changes in pH and the influence of competing ions. As discussed in the geochemical model development (Attachment A), sorption was modeled assuming aluminum and iron hydroxide minerals were the dominant sorbing surfaces. Sorption of boron to ferrihydrite was predicted to be higher than gibbsite for pH values up to 9 as shown in Figure 3-6. This is consistent with the higher site density (and resulting higher surface site concentration) of HFO relative to HAO. Page 3-9 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\Geochemical Modeling\Focused Geochemical Report.docx Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra Figure 3-2 Boron vs. Distance from Waste Boundary 1.0E+05 c 0 1.0E+04 �a L y J 1.0E+03 c rn = • U 1.0E+02 - • ! • 8 C— — — —0 OE— —®—& — — —♦ — — — — — 0-— -00 — — — — — L • O n m 1.0E+01 1.0E+00 0 500 1000 1500 Distance from Waste Boundary (feet) • Ash Porewater • Surface Seep Saprolite/Alluvium o Saprolite Transition GW Standard — — Detection Limit Prepared By: ALA Checked By: EMB Figure 3-3 Kd vs. Distance from Waste Boundary for Parcel A 1.80 1.60 1.40 1.20 1.00 Y 0.80 m J 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 Distance from Waste Boundary (feet) *Surface Seep Saprolite/Alluvium 0Saprolite Transition Prepeared By: ALA Checked By: EMB Page 3-10 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev \ Geochemical Modeling \ Focused Geochemical Report. docx Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra Figure 3-4 Total Boron Distribution Coefficients (Kd) Calculated from Global PHREEQC Model Output 1.00E+00 1.00E-01 Y 1.00E-02 c L p1 m J 1.00E-03 1.00E-04 1.00E-05 4.0/482 5.6/-20 6.5/220 6.9/513 9.1/-103 5.1/372 7.1/76 pH / Eh (mV) ■Total B Kd, Min GW Values ■Total B Kd, Avg GW Values Total B Kd, Max GW Values Prepared By: BP Checked By: EMB Note: Predicted boron Kd values from PHREEQC modeling using the range of groundwater (GW) concentrations listed in Tables A-8 and A-9. Figure 3-5 Saturation Indices for Four Relevant Boron Bearing Solid Phases Considered in the Global PHREEQC Model 0 -30 10/yg %S6 %6s 101-16 %9-Z %9r 82 10/-/ Fy 11 , Fy 2 , Fti2 , Fy s Fy I Fy3) Fy )6 0 �0 li 03 ■ Pb(B02)2 ■ Zn(B02)2 Cd(B02)2 ■ Co(1302)2 Prepared By: BP Checked By: EMB Note: Saturation indices for four relevant boron bearing solid phases considered in the PHREEQC model. Other species for which the saturation index never reached a value > -30 are not shown. Page 3-11 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev \ Geochemical Modeling \ Focused Geochemical Report. docx Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra Figure 3-6 Predicted Boron Speciation vs. pH from Global PHREEQC Modeling 1.00E-03 _ O Z 1.00E-04 �a 4.0 .0 v J 1.00E-05 U _ O O v 1.00E-06 v (D 1.00E-07 a 1.00E-08 4 Aqueous H2BO3- 0 9 10 pH HAO-1-121303 _ HFO-H2B03 Prepared By: BP Checked By: EMB Notes: — The figure depicts aqueous boron and boron sorption to aluminum and iron hydroxides vs. pH. Model output using the minimum groundwater concentrations listed in Tables A-8 and A-9. However, boron sorption to HAO has a higher stability constant compared with HFO and therefore, has the potential for greater sorption to solids containing higher extractable aluminum concentrations [Dzombak and others, 1990; Karamalidis and others, 2010]. 3.4 Comparison of Modeled and Experimental Kd Values for Boron The Kd values predicted from the PHREEQC model along with experimentally measured batch values and values used in reactive transport modeling are shown in Table 3-1. The highest values value predicted by the global PHREEQC model (0.031 L/kg) corresponds well with the values used in the fate and transport model (0.2 L/kg). An earlier version of the PHREEQC model, which only assumed sorption to iron oxides, significantly under predicted the boron Kd with values near 1X 10-3L/kg. The stronger sorption of boron to aluminum bearing solids and the inclusion of HAO sorption reactions in the current model are responsible for the higher Kd values predicted by this updated PHREEQC model. It is noteworthy that in the batch sorption experiments, leaching of boron into the aqueous phase (i.e. the solid selected contained native boron which was desorbing) was observed for many samples and/or a non-linear sorption isotherm with minimal sorption was observed. Therefore, the low Kd values are expected. Considering the assumptions in the PHREEQC model regarding the sorption site density, background ion concentrations, and a somewhat arbitrary solid phase concentration assumed in the model, the PHREEQC model is generally in good Page 3-12 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\Geochemical Modeling\Focused Geochemical Report.docx Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra agreement with the other values. The updated site-specific PHREEQC model in the area of interest around Parcel A, the Kd values ranged from 1.54 x 10-1 to 1.56 L/kg. The sorption constants could be revised to provide specific Kd values but this would mainly be a "fitting" exercise. This model does not consider alternative reactions for sequestration of boron such as isomorphic substitution into mica [Sposito, 1989]. However, the rates of isomorphic substitution are not known and there is no field data to demonstrate if such a process is occurring at the site. Therefore, this mechanism of substitution is not included in the model. Table 3-1 Comparison of Boron Kd Values Measured and Modeled for Several Duke Energy Sites Prepared By: BP Checked By: EMB Notes: ' Values are from the Groundwater Flow and Transport Modeling Reports for the following sites: HF Lee Energy Complex (Brame et. al., 2015), Mayo Steam Electric Plant (Murdoch et. al, 2015), Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant (Graziano et. al., 2015), LV Sutton Energy Complex (Falta et. al., 2015), WH Weatherspoon Power Plant (Falta et. al., 2015), Roxboro Steam Electric Plant (Murdoch et. al., 2015), Asheville Steam Electric Plant (Falta et. al., 2015), and Belews Creek Steam Station (HDR, 2016). z Values are from the Soil Sorption Evaluation Reports (Langley, W.G., Oza, S., 2015) for the following sites: HF Lee Energy Complex, Mayo Steam Electric Plant, Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant, LV Sutton Energy Complex, WH Weatherspoon Power Plant, Roxboro Steam Electric Plant, Asheville Steam Electric Plant, and Belews Creek Steam Station. 3 Measured in the laboratory, and modeled using PHREEQC Page 3-13 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev \ Geochemical Modeling \ Focused Geochemical Report. docx Fate &Transport Mean Kd Value Range of Kd Values Site: Modeling Derived Measured by UNCC From PHREEQC Kd Value Batch Experiments Global Geochemical (L/ kg) 1 (L/ kg Z Model3 Sutton 0 1.7 Range: 1.1 x 10-5 to 0.031 Geometric mean: Lee 0 and 3.5 4 Weatherspoon 1 to 4 2 Roxboro 1 0 2.4 x 10-3 Asheville 0.1 2.7 Value for average GW conditions: 0.006 Mayo 0.12 0 Cape Fear 1 0 Belews Creek 0.3 2.1 Prepared By: BP Checked By: EMB Notes: ' Values are from the Groundwater Flow and Transport Modeling Reports for the following sites: HF Lee Energy Complex (Brame et. al., 2015), Mayo Steam Electric Plant (Murdoch et. al, 2015), Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant (Graziano et. al., 2015), LV Sutton Energy Complex (Falta et. al., 2015), WH Weatherspoon Power Plant (Falta et. al., 2015), Roxboro Steam Electric Plant (Murdoch et. al., 2015), Asheville Steam Electric Plant (Falta et. al., 2015), and Belews Creek Steam Station (HDR, 2016). z Values are from the Soil Sorption Evaluation Reports (Langley, W.G., Oza, S., 2015) for the following sites: HF Lee Energy Complex, Mayo Steam Electric Plant, Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant, LV Sutton Energy Complex, WH Weatherspoon Power Plant, Roxboro Steam Electric Plant, Asheville Steam Electric Plant, and Belews Creek Steam Station. 3 Measured in the laboratory, and modeled using PHREEQC Page 3-13 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev \ Geochemical Modeling \ Focused Geochemical Report. docx Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra 4.0 GEOCHEMICAL MODELING OF CHLORIDE Multiple methods were used to provide an understanding of chloride mobility to Parcel A at the Belews Creek site. Pourbaix diagrams, site-specific flow zones, and PHREEQC geochemical modeling was used to evaluate the current extent and potential means of chloride transport. 4.1 Pourbaix Diagram Analysis Chlorine can exist in multiple oxidation states ranging from -1 to +7. Chloride is the anion Cl-. Chloride is formed when the chlorine element gains an electron or when a compound containing Cl- dissolves in a polar solvent (e.g., when MgCl dissolves in water). The dominant chlorine species is the free chloride ion, Cl-, across all pH and Eh regions within the area of interest around Parcel A at the Belews Creek site. Like boron, chloride is generally non-reactive and highly soluble. Therefore, there are no expected mineral phases which will contain chloride. Sorption of chloride may occur to a limited extent if the pH decreases and the surface charge of mineral surfaces increase. However, these are expected to be weak, outer sphere complexes and only remove a small fraction of the total Cl- from the aqueous phase. It is noteworthy that the Na+ and Cl- concentrations were fixed at 1 mmol/L each when generating the Pourbaix diagrams (Figure 4-1) to maintain a relatively constant charge balance in the simulation. If the chloride concentration in groundwater decreases, formation of aqueous complexes such as the FeC12+ and FeCl+2 species in the upper left portion of the Pourbaix diagram may occur. 4.2 Parcel A Model Analysis Chloride concentrations at the Belews Creek show no distinct trend with distance from the waste boundary (ash basin perimeter, Figure 4-2). Cl- concentrations were only above the 2L Standard within the ash basin perimeter and at the closest well cluster, GWA-20 in the saprolite well GWA-20SA and transition zone well GWA-20D. As Cl- is largely non -redox active, it shows minimal signs of sorption to aquifer solids. This aligns with the Kd value of zero used in the fate and transport models, indicating that it is not reactive and mobility is governed by the physical features rather than by its chemistry(HDR, 2016). Page 4-1 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \20. BELEWS CREEK\ 04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\ Geochemical Modeling\Focused Geochemical Report.docx Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra .5- 0 W Figure 4-1 Pourbaix Diagrams of Chlorine Species 1- _.5 25'C D 2 4 {3 a 10 12 14 pH Global Chemical Model r N O Y O O d- w wx 0 ®� � CI W -.5 25°C 0 2 *Surface Seep Saprolite/Alluvium ,-,Saprolite II Transition 4 B 8 10 12 14 PH Parcel A Model Prepared By: EMB Checked By: Notes: - The round symbols represent the chlorine species that correspond to the range of pH and Eh values used in the global geochemical model (left) and the Belews Creek Parcel A model (right). - The error bars on the center data point of the global geochemical model (left) represents the standard deviation of the average pH and Eh value calculated from the combined measurements at seven ash basin sites. 1.0E+00 0 Figure 4-2 Chloride vs. Distance from Waste Boundary Mw • Ash Porewater o Saprolite — — Detection Limit 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 Distance from Waste Boundary (feet) • Surface Seep Saprolite/Alluvium Transition GW Standard Prepared By: ALA Checked By: EMB Page 4-2 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan -Design & Dev\Geochemical Modeling\Focused Geochemical Report.docx 1.0E+06 c 0 1.0E+05 M L c 1.0E+04 v ^ J vo) 1.0E+03 .- a� �L 1.0E+02 O U 1.0E+01 1.0E+00 0 Figure 4-2 Chloride vs. Distance from Waste Boundary Mw • Ash Porewater o Saprolite — — Detection Limit 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 Distance from Waste Boundary (feet) • Surface Seep Saprolite/Alluvium Transition GW Standard Prepared By: ALA Checked By: EMB Page 4-2 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan -Design & Dev\Geochemical Modeling\Focused Geochemical Report.docx Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra 5.0 GEOCHEMICAL MODELING OF SELENIUM Multiple methods were used to provide an understanding of selenium mobility in the area of interest, proximal to Parcel A at the Belews Creek site. Pourbaix diagrams and both site-specific and global geochemical modeling was used to evaluate the current extent and potential means of selenium transport. 5.1 Pourbaix Diagram Analysis Selenium exists as oxyanionic species under oxidizing conditions as selenite (SeO32-) or selenate (SeO4z-). Under the Eh -pH conditions at the site under consideration, Se(IV) present as HSeO3, and Se(0) present as elemental Seo are expected to be the dominant species (Figure 5-1). However, it is noteworthy that these Pourbaix diagrams show only the dominant species. The neutral pH and high reduction potential conditions (noted as pH = 6.9 and Eh = 514 mV in Figure 5-1), is close to the dividing line between Se(IV) and Se(VI). Thus is can be expected that Se(VI) will be present in the site groundwater under high reducing conditions. Both selenite and selenate sorb to mineral surfaces (primarily iron oxides)[Straw et al., 2002; USEPA, 2007; Zawislanski & Zavarin, 1996]. Oxidation of Se(IV) to Se(VI) could influence the mobility of selenium in the subsurface, however, both are subject to competition from other oxoanions such as phosphate and sulfate. Selenium is also readily reduced to zero valent Seo which is relatively stable under mildly reducing conditions. Under extreme reducing conditions, Se( -II) species will form and can have an impact on other metal ion concentrations such as through the precipitation of CoSe(s). 5.2 Parcel A Model Analysis Selenium concentrations in the vicinity of Parcel A were detected sporadically, with no pattern evident with distance from the source area (Figure 5-2). Selenium concentrations above the 2L Standard generally correspond to groundwater with low pH values, ranging from 4.1 to 4.6 and relatively high redox potential, ranging from 538 to 633 mV. In general, as the pH decreases and Eh increases, the concentration of selenium increases indicating that selenite (Se(IV)) is the dominant species in the groundwater at the Belews Creek site. At these pH and Eh conditions, Se(-II)(s) may also occur (Figure 5-1). Within the vicinity of Parcel A, the only selenium concentrations above the 2L Standard are in the saprolite wells GWA-19S/SA, GWA- 20SA, CCR -2S, and intermittently at GWA-10S. Page 5-3 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \20. BELEWS CREEK\ 04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\ Geochemical Modeling\Focused Geochemical Report.docx FocusedGeochmnical Parcel March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station, DelewaCreek, NC Syn7na Figure 5-1 Pourbaix Diagrams of Selenium Species *Surface Seep ^0 sapm|ite/AUuv|um � osapm|,te m ~ Transition oH � .5 Surface Seep 0� � �Sapm|�e /AUuv|um > 7 _n _o Sapm|ne Tmnsit|on o s n m o 14 o 2 4 a o m 1e 14 pH pH Prepared By: EMB Checked By: Notes: The diagrams atthe top allow for both solid and aqueous phase species toform, whereas the diagrams on the bottom only allow major aqueous phase species. The round symbols represent the sulfate species that correspond to the range of pH and Eh values used in the global geochem|ca| model (left) and the Be|ewsCreek , Parcel Amodel (right). Page 5-4 P: \Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan Design &ou'\orv,acmicu mmddmG\Focused Gevcarm/ca|n^p",/.dvcx Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra at, c 50 ++ M L.c 40 v c z:�- 30 o a, U E 20 v 10 rn Figure 5-2 Selenium vs. Distance from Waste Boundary r v v ti — l�A r3 ��r 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 Distance from Waste Boundary (feet) Ash Porewater • Surface Seep Saprolite/Alluvium Saprolite o Transition GW Standard Prepared By: ALA Checked By: EMB The PHREEQC model for the area of interest around Parcel A indicates that sorption of Se increases slightly as a function of distance from the ash basin (Figure 5-3). This is consistent with the decrease in pH observed with distance from the waste boundary (excluding the surface seeps) which would cause greater sorption of the anionic HSe03 and SeOs z species. It is noteworthy that the sorbed selenium is Se(IV) in almost all cases, this is due to the stronger adsorption of Se(IV) compared to Se(VI). 5.3 Selenium Trends Indicated by the PHREEQC Global Model Analysis The PHREEQC model predicts Se(IV) as the dominant aqueous species with Se(VI) only becoming the dominant aqueous species under oxidizing conditions (Figure 5-4). This model is consistent with the Pourbaix diagram shown in Figure 5-1. Measurements of the oxidation state speciation of selenium from groundwater at several sites (Asheville, Roxboro, Cape Fear, and Sutton) indicate that selenium is present as a mixture of Se(IV) and Se(VI). The total selenium aqueous concentrations in most groundwater measurements are very low making accurate determination of the dominant oxidation state difficult Page 5-5 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \20. BELEWS CREEK\ 04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\ Geochemical Modeling\Focused Geochemical Report.docx Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra Figure 5-3 PHREEQC Predicted Selenium Kd Values vs. Distance from Waste Boundary in Parcel A 0.125015 0.125010 - 0.125005 � J 0.125000 0.124995 O ® O • O ^ O • (i O O 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 Distance from Waste Boundary (feet) *Surface Seep Saprolite/Alluvium oSaprolite Transition Prepared By: ALA Checked By: EMB Figure 5-4 Fraction of Selenium Oxidation States vs Eh 1.2 C o .210., 1.0 �a 0.8 00 u 3 0.6 M Cr W Q w y 0.4 o s 0 = 0.2 id 0.0 0.0 LL v) -2 00 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Eh (mV) • Se( -II) Fraction • Se(IV) fraction Se(VI) fraction Prepared By: BP Checked By: EMB Page 5-6 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan -Design & Dev\Geochemical Modeling\Focused Geochemical Report.docx Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra The PHREEQC model predicted Kd values consider the formation of all oxidation states of selenium and therefore average out some of the influences of oxidation or reduction reactions(i.e., a total se Kdvalue was considered rather than separate Se( -II), Se(IV), and Se(VI) Kd values). The PHREEQC global model predicted values are shown in Figure 5- 5 as a function of pH. For the groundwater simulant with the minimum ion concentrations, selenium exhibits the expected behavior of most anions with sorption decreasing with increasing pH. This is a manifestation of the fact that mineral surface charge on metal oxide minerals transitions from a net positive to a net negative charge with increasing pH. Therefore, as the pH increases, the sorption affinity of anionic selenium species to the more negatively charged mineral surface decreases. The dominant selenium species in this model (Se(IV)) exists as H2SeO3, HSeO3, and Se032- and changes speciation as the pH increases. This is demonstrated by the model output shown in Figure 5-6. The H2SeO3 species is only dominant under very low pH conditions and does not influence this model. The HSeO3 species is dominant up to pH 7, after which Se032- becomes the dominant species. Thus, Se(IV) persists as either a monovalent or divalent anion across the entire pH range considered which causes the decrease in sorption with increasing pH observed in Figure 5-5. Figure 5-5 PHREEQC Predicted Kd Values vs pH from Global Model 1.00E+04 1.00E+03 0-1 a� Y 1.00E+02 Y 1.00E+01 a� 1.00E+00 4J U 1.00E-01 L a 1.00E-02 WGIRMIX pH 7 9 * MIN GW Values ■ AVG GW Values MAX GW Values Prepared By: BP Checked By: EMB Note: PHREEQC modeling using the range of ground water (GW) concentrations listed in Table A-8 and A-9. Page 5-7 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \20. BELEWS CREEK\ 04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\ Geochemical Modeling\Focused Geochemical Report.docx Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra Figure 5-6 PHREEQC Predicted Fraction of Se(IV) Species vs pH from Global Model m 1.2 a� U a 1.0 o 0.8 a� Q Q 0.6 N 0.4 w 0 0 0.2 4J U 0 Ui 0.0 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 pH H2SeO3 Fraction HSe03- Fraction Se03-- Fraction Prepared By: BP Checked By: EMB Note: PHREEQC modeling using the range of ground water (GW) concentrations listed in Table A -Band A-9. Under the average and maximum groundwater simulant conditions (see Attachment A, Table A-8 and A-9), there is significant scatter in the predicted Kd values with respect to pH (Figure 5-5). Generally the trend discussed above reverses, and sorption increases with increasing pH. This could be due to changes in selenium speciation at the low pH region or competition between selenium and other ions for sorption sites. The speciation analysis in Figure 5-6 demonstrates that the aqueous species of selenium are relatively simple and selenium is unlikely to form aqueous complexes which can influences sorption. Therefore, the decrease in Kd values in Figure 7-5 is likely the result of competition from other ions such as SO4z- and P043- for sorption sites. Such competition with other anions for sorption sites would be diminished at higher pH values were anion sorption is minimal. This is indeed the case in the model output where above pH 7, all Kd values decrease with increasing pH. As with the other models discussed in this report, the potential formation of mineral phases was monitored but not included in the model. For selenium, elemental Se and CoSe are both saturated in the PHREEQC model with pH 5.3 and Eh -20 mV. These are the only conditions under which any selenium phase is saturated. Since these values represent the extreme low pH and low Eh conditions of the seven sites under Page 5-8 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \20. BELEWS CREEK\ 04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\ Geochemical Modeling\Focused Geochemical Report.docx Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra consideration, it can be reasonably concluded that formation of selenium bearing mineral phases is unlikely to be a major factor controlling selenium mobility. 5.4 Comparison of Modeled and Experimental Kd Values for Selenium The Kd values from the PHREEQC model are shown in Table 5-1 and are wide ranging due to the strong influence of both pH and Eh on selenium speciation and sorption behavior. The influence of ion competition for sorption sites is demonstrated by the decreasing Kd for the minimum, average, and maximum groundwater simulants. Groundwater fate and transport models for the seven sites in the global model did not consider selenium; however the fate and transport model for Belews Creek did look at selenium, and chose a Kd value of 11 L/kg (HDR, 2016). This value fits with the global model approach falling between the PHREEQC predicted Kd values for the average and maximum groundwater simulants, but was elevated as compared to the Parcel A specific PHREEQC model. Table 5-1 Comparison of Selenium Kd Values Measured and Modeled for Several Duke Energy Sites Prepared By: BP Checked By: EMB Note: 1 Values used in HDR Fate and Transport Model (HDR, 2016). z Values are from the Soil Sorption Evaluation Reports (Langley, W.G., Oza, S., 2015) for the following sites: HF Lee Energy Complex, Mayo Steam Electric Plant, Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant, LV Sutton Energy Complex, WH Weatherspoon Power Plant, Roxboro Steam Electric Plant, Asheville Steam Electric Plant, and Belews Creek Steam Station . 3 Measured in the laboratory, and modeled using PHREEQC. Page 5-9 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan -Design & Dev\Geochemical Modeling\Focused Geochemical Report.docx Fate &Transport Mean Kd value Range of values from Site: Modeling Derived Kd measured by UNCC PHREEQC global Value batch experiments geochemical model L/kg) 1 (L/ kg Z(L/kg 3 Sutton - 10.2 Values varied with GW Simulants Minimum GW Lee - 69.0 simulant: 3415 Weatherspoon - - Average GW simulant: 96 Roxboro - 8.3 Maximum GW simulant: 3.1 Average groundwater conditions: 160 Asheville - 228.1 Mayo - 8,3 Cape Fear - - Belews Creek 11 1241 - Prepared By: BP Checked By: EMB Note: 1 Values used in HDR Fate and Transport Model (HDR, 2016). z Values are from the Soil Sorption Evaluation Reports (Langley, W.G., Oza, S., 2015) for the following sites: HF Lee Energy Complex, Mayo Steam Electric Plant, Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant, LV Sutton Energy Complex, WH Weatherspoon Power Plant, Roxboro Steam Electric Plant, Asheville Steam Electric Plant, and Belews Creek Steam Station . 3 Measured in the laboratory, and modeled using PHREEQC. Page 5-9 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan -Design & Dev\Geochemical Modeling\Focused Geochemical Report.docx Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra 6.0 POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF ACCELERATED REMEDIATION The goals of this modeling exercise are to 1) provide a qualitative conceptual model of the behavior of several constituents at the Belews Creek site with a focus on boron, chloride, and selenium and 2) provide a qualitative assessment of the potential effects of accelerated remediation efforts at the site. The intent is to evaluate whether accelerated remediation efforts may inadvertently increase the mobility of constituents. The two primary accelerated remediation techniques planned for the site are dewatering of the ash basin/cap-in-place and installation of a groundwater extraction system northwest of the active basin dam. As discussed above for both the Parcel A model and the global model, the pH and Eh of the system are the primary factors which could increase or decrease the mobility of a constituent. Dewatering of the ash basin and cap -in-place has the potential to increase the redox potential of the system through the introduction of oxygen at depth. Ultimately, the system should re -equilibrate and stabilize after these activities have been implemented. A groundwater extraction well system will result in enhanced groundwater removal which will generate a hydraulic gradient and bring in waters from further up the flow path at a faster rate. Assuming the newly introduced water equilibrates with the subsurface solids, and that the solids are the primary redox and pH buffer, no change in the pH or redox potential is expected. The intended goal of the extraction system is to promote removal of groundwater containing CCR constituents, which will induce a concentration gradient causing desorption of sorbed constituents and lower the solid phase concentration. One limitation in this discussion is that a re -equilibration is assumed but if the kinetics of pH, redox and sorption/desorption equilibration are not sufficient to reach equilibrium then the model predicted values (which inherently assume equilibrium is achieved) may not be accurate. However, based on the relative consistency of measured pH and Eh values in Belews Creek site wells over time, assumption of a rapid equilibration seems appropriate. Therefore, it is anticipated that the extraction well system will not impact the pH and Eh of the groundwater and is unlikely to result in enhanced mobilization of constituents. This can be monitored once the groundwater extraction system is operational. Page 6-1 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ 20. BELEWS CREEK\ 04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\ Geochemical Modeling\Focused Geochemical Report.docx Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra 7.0 SUMMARY The behavior of select constituents of interest were investigated in order to provide a qualitative conceptual model of the area of interest, around Parcel A, west of the active basin dam at the Belews Creek site. A few key points to take from this investigation are: Boron and chloride are relatively non-reactive species under the Eh and pH conditions in the area proposed for accelerated remediation. 01 Boron exists only in the B(III) oxidation state and generally persists as the neutrally charged chemical species boric acid (HsBOs), which is a weak acid and exhibits minimal sorption to mineral surfaces. y Chlorine exists as the free Chloride ion, Cl-, across all pH and Eh ranges at the Belews Creek site. Chloride is generally non-reactive and highly soluble, with no mineral phases containing and minimal sorption of Cl-. y The behavior of selenium is highly dependent on the Eh of the groundwater. Under reducing conditions, selenium can persist as the reduced Se (-II) or Se (0) species causing a decrease in aqueous Se mobility. Under mildly reducing to oxidizing conditions Se (IV) and Se (VI) exist as anionic species Se03 2 and Se04 2. The sorption of these anions is controlled by pH and competition with other anions, resulting in a wide range of Kd values. In general, selenium concentrations in groundwater are predicted to increase with decreasing pH and increasingly oxidizing conditions. However, given the range of pH and Eh values at the site, and the generally high PHREEQC predicted Kd values for selenium, the remedial alternatives are not expect to have any significant impact on selenium mobility. 43 TDS at the Belews Creek site is dominated by chloride in the area of interest around Parcel A. When considering the effect of remedial alternatives on TDS concentrations, the major anions sulfate and chloride should be considered an analogue for TDS. The two primary remedial alternatives in the area of interest at the Belews Creek site are dewatering/cap-in-place for the active ash basin and installation of a groundwater extraction system northwest of the active basin dam. Given these the proposed alternatives, pH is not expected to have any significant change post remedial activities Page 7-1 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ 20. BELEWS CREEK\ 04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\ Geochemical Modeling\Focused Geochemical Report.docx Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra while Eh has the potential to show a slight increase overall. Using these assumptions the following qualitative conclusions can be drawn: 161P Neither fluctuating nor increasing redox potential should affect the mobility of boron and chloride. 41, The mobility of selenium is affected by variations in redox potential. Increased Eh will cause Se(IV) to oxidize to Se(VI), the less mobile selenium oxidation state. Given these conditions, the total aqueous selenium concentration in groundwater would likely decrease. Page 7-2 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ 20. BELEWS CREEK\ 04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\ Geochemical Modeling\Focused Geochemical Report.docx Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra 8.0 REFERENCES Brame, S. E., Graziano, R., Falta, R. W., Murdoch, L.C., Groundwater Flow and Transport Modeling Report for H.F. Lee Energy Complex. 2015. Dzombak, D.A. and F.M.M. Morel, Surface complexation modeling: hydrous ferric oxide. xvii. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons; 1990:393. Falta, R.W., et al., Groundwater Flow and Transport Modeling Report for Asheville Steam Electric Plant, Arden, NC. 2015. Falta, R.W., et al., Groundwater Flow and Transport Modeling Report for L. V. Sutton Energy Complex, Wilmington, NC. 2015. Falta, R.W., et al., Groundwater Flow and Transport Modeling Report for the W. H. Weatherspoon Power Plant, Lumberton, NC. 2015. Graziano, R., et al., Groundwater Flow and Transport Modeling Report for Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant, Moncure, NC. 2015. HDR Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinas, August 11, 2016. Comprehensive Site Assessment — Supplement 2 — Belews Creek Steam Station Ash Basin. HDR Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinas, October 5, 2016. Field Investigation and Pump Test Report. Hem, J.D., Reactions of metal ions at surfaces of hydrous iron oxide. Geochem. Cosmochim. Acta; 1977:41, 527-538. IDNR, Water Quality Standards Review: Chloride, Sulfate, and Total Dissolved Solids. 2009. Karamalidis, A.K. and D.A. Dzombak, Surface Complexation Modeling: Gibbsite. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.; 2010. Langley, W.G., Oza, S., Soil Sorption Evaluation: Asheville Steam Electric Plant. UNC Charlotte, NC. 2015. Page 8-1 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \20. BELEWS CREEK\ 04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\ Geochemical Modeling\Focused Geochemical Report.docx Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra Langley, W.G., Oza, S., Soil Sorption Evaluation: Belews Creek Steam Station. UNC Charlotte, NC. 2015. Langley, W.G., Oza, S., Soil Sorption Evaluation: Cape Fear Steam Station. UNC Charlotte, NC. 2015. Langley, W.G., Oza, S., Soil Sorption Evaluation: Mayo Steam Electric Plant. UNC Charlotte, NC. 2015. Langley, W.G., Oza, S., Soil Sorption Evaluation H.F. Lee Steam Station. UNC Charlotte, NC. 2015. Langley, W.G., Oza, S., Soil Sorption Evaluation: Roxboro Steam Electric Plant. UNC Charlotte, NC. 2015. Langley, W.G., Oza, S., Soil Sorption Evaluation: L. V. Sutton Energy Complex. UNC Charlotte, NC. 2015. Langley, W.G., Oza, S., Soil Sorption Evaluation: W. H. Weatherspoon Steam Station. UNC Charlotte, NC. 2015. Murdoch, L.C., et al., Groundwater Flow and Transport Modeling Report for Mayo Steam Electric Plant, Roxboro, NC. 2015. Murdoch, L.C., et al., Groundwater Flow and Transport Modeling Report for Roxboro Steam Electric Plant, Semora, NC. 2015. Powell, B., Analysis of Geochemical Phenomena Controlling Mobility of Ions from Coal Ash Basins at the Duke Energy H.F. Lee Energy Complex. Pendleton, SC. 2015. Sposito, G., The chemistry of soils. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1989. Stachowicz, M., T. Hiemstra, and W.H. van Riemsdijk, Surface speciation of As(III) and As(V) in relation to charge distribution. Journal of Colloid and Interface Science; 2006:302(1), 62-75. Page 8-2 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ 20. BELEWS CREEK\ 04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\ Geochemical Modeling\Focused Geochemical Report.docx Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra Strawn, D., Doner, H., Zavarin, M., & McHugo, S. Microscale investigation into the geochemistry of arsenic, selenium, and iron in soil developed in pyritic shale materials. Geoderma; 2002:108(3), 237-257. Stumm, W. and J.J. Morgan, Aquatic Chemistry: Chemical Equilibria and Rates in Natural Waters. 3rd ed. 1996, Chicago: Wiley -Interscience. 1040. SynTerra Corporation, Comprehensive Site Assessment Report —Asheville Steam Electric Plant, Arden, NC. September, 2015. USEPA, Monitored Natural Attenuation of Inorganic Contaminants in Ground Water -Volume 2. Assessment for Non -Radionuclides Including Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Lead, Nickel, Nitrate, Perchlorate, and Selenium. 2007 Zawislanski, P.T. and M. Zavarin, Nature and rates of selenium transformations: A laboratory study of Kesterson Reservoir soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal; 1996: 791-800. Page 8-3 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \20. BELEWS CREEK\ 04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\ Geochemical Modeling\Focused Geochemical Report.docx Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra ATTACHMENT A GEOCHEMICAL MODEL DEVELOPMENT FOCUSED GEOCHEMICAL REPORT P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan -Design & Dev\Geochemical Modeling\Focused Geochemical Report.docx 161p synTerra ATTACHMENT A GEOCHEMICAL MODEL DEVELOPMENT PARCEL A BELEWS CREEK STEAM STATION 3195 PINE HALL RD BELEWS CREEK, NC 27009 MARCH 2017 PREPARED FOR: (� DUKE ENERGY DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC. 526 SOUTH CHURCH STREET CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA 28202 Reviewed by: -Erin BIack Brian A. Powell Geochemical Modeler r Craig e dy Senior Geologist Attachment A- Geochemical Model Development March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE A. GEOCHEMICAL MODEL DEVELOPMENT............................................................1 A.1 General Sorption Model Description........................................................................ 1 A.2 Sorption Model Development.................................................................................... 4 A.3 Sorption Model Development for Global Model Development ........................... 9 A.4 Global Geochemical Model Parameterization.......................................................13 A.5 Speciation Modeling using Pourbaix Diagrams .................................................... 22 A.6 The Use of Kd Values................................................................................................. 24 A.7 Detailed Discussion of Iron Aqueous Speciation .................................................. 26 REFERENCES............................................................................................................................ 29 LIST OF FIGURES Figure A-1 Average Extractable Al and Fe Concentrations and Standard Deviation in Page A -i P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ 02.ASHEVILLE PLANT \ 43.Basis of Design Report & Modeling \ Design Rpt (60)\01. Geochemical Model\ 10. Appendix A\Attachment A.docx Solids Figure A-2 Minimum, Geometric Mean, Average, and Maximum Extractable Fe (top) and Al (bottom) Concentrations in Solids from Seven Sites Figure A-3 Measured pH and Eh Values at Seven Sites Figure A-4 Histograms of Eh Values Measured at Seven Sites Figure A-5 Histograms of pH Values Measured at Seven Figure A-6 Minimum, Average, and Maximum Al, Sb, As, Ba, B, Cd, Cr, and Co Concentrations in Groundwater at Seven Sites Figure A-7 Minimum, Average, and Maximum Cu, Pb, Mn, Mo, Ni, Se, Sr, and V Concentrations in Groundwater at Seven Sites Figure A -S Theoretical Relationship Between Kd Values and PHREEQC Predicted Sorbed Fraction Figure A-9 Speciation of Fe(II) (top) and Fe(III) (bottom) Figure A-10 Total dissolved Fe(II) and Fe(III) vs pH Page A -i P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ 02.ASHEVILLE PLANT \ 43.Basis of Design Report & Modeling \ Design Rpt (60)\01. Geochemical Model\ 10. Appendix A\Attachment A.docx Attachment A- Geochemical Model Development March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra LIST OF TABLES Table A-1 Example Reactions Used in Surface Complexation Modeling Table A-2 Parcel A Measured Fe and Al Solid Phase Concentrations Table A-3 Parcel A Calculated Al and Fe Molar Site Concentrations Table A-4 Surface Areas, Site Density, and Molecular Weight Values Used for Conversions to Sorption Site Density Table A-5 Input Values for Constituent Concentrations and Geochemical Parameters Table A-6 Average Extractable Fe and Al Concentrations and Calculated Molar Site Concentrations Table A-7 pH and Eh Values for Global Model Input Table A-8 Constituents to Hold Constant at Average Concentrations in Global Model Table A-9 Constituents Concentrations to Vary Between Minimum, Average, and Maximum Ground Water Concentrations for Global Model Table A-10 Concentrations of Reagents Used to Generate Pourbaix Diagrams Page A -ii P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ 02.ASHEVILLE PLANT \ 43.Basis of Design Report & Modeling \ Design Rpt (60)\01. Geochemical Model\ 10. Appendix A\Attachment A.docx Attachment A — Geochemical Model Development Focused Geochemical Report March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra A. GEOCHEMICAL MODEL DEVELOPMENT A.1 General Sorption Model Description To examine the sorption behavior of multiple ions of interest in the subsurface environment surrounding coal-fired power plants, a combined aqueous speciation and surface complexation model was developed using the USGS geochemical modeling program PHREEQC. Equilibrium constants for aqueous speciation reactions were taken from the USGS WATEQ4F database. This database contained the reactions for most elements of interest except for Co, Sb, V, and Cr. Constants for aqueous reactions and mineral formation for these elements were taken from the MINTEQ v4 database which is also issued with PHREEQC. The constants were all checked to provide a self - consistent incorporation into the revised database. The source of the MINTEQ v4 database is primarily the well-known NIST 46 database [ Martell & Smith, 2001]. Sorption reactions were modeled using a double layer surface complexation model. For self -consistency in the sorption model, a single database of constants was used as opposed to searching out individual constants from the literature. The diffuse double layer model describing ion sorption to HFO and HAO by Dzomback and Morel [1990] and Karamalidis and Dzombak [2010], respectively, was selected for this effort. Many surface complexation reactions for ions of interest on HFO are included in the standard release of the PHREEQC database. Constants for Co, V, Cr, and Sb were added to the modified database as well as all constants involving ion sorption to HAO. Using surface complexation models, the sorption of an element is written as a standard chemical reaction such as those shown in Table A-1. In these equations, =SOH represents a site on the HFO or HAO mineral surface where sorption can occur. Speciation models utilize this reaction convention to describe a "concentration" of surface sites to be used in a thermochemical approach to sorption modeling [Davis et al., 1998; Davis et al., 1978; Dzombak & Morel, 1990; Goldberg, 19901. The primary difficulty in this approach is quantifying the concentration of reactive surface sites. Many approaches have been used, the most common being potentiometric titrations of the solid phase to quantify surface site concentrations using proton sorption/desorption behavior and surface area analysis. These studies are typically done on pure, synthetic mineral phases and still exhibit large variations in the surface site density determined from the data. Therefore, determination of surface site densities for complex mineral assemblages cannot be accurately performed using currently available techniques. Page A-1 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\Geochemical Modeling\BCSS Attachment A\Attachment A.docx Attachment A — Geochemical Model Development Focused Geochemical Report March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra The model proposed by Dzomback and Morel [1990] assumes that all surfaces have a combination of strong sorption sites and weak sorption sites. As discussed above, quantifying the reactive surface site density for complex mineral assemblages such as those used in this work, is difficult if not impossible. Therefore, attempting to delineate between mineral surfaces, let alone strong and weak sites on such surfaces, would add unnecessary uncertainty and fitting parameters to the models. Therefore, sorption to only one site on both HFO and HAO is considered. There are two primary approaches to modeling complex mineral assemblages such as those considered in this work. The component additivity approach considers sorption reactions to all mineral phases present in a sample [Davis et al., 1998]. Such an approach requires separate reactions for each analyte sorbing to each mineral phase present in a sample. These can be very complicated but robust models provide a means for determining the surface site density of each mineral phase is available. A simpler alternative is the generalized composite approach wherein data are modeled assuming a generic surface site (i.e., =SOH) which represents an average reactivity of all minerals in the solid assemblage [Davis et al., 19981. This modeling approach still combines the flexibility of an aqueous speciation model with a sorption model under a thermochemical framework. This work assumes that sorption occurs only to aluminum and iron oxide minerals. Other mineral surfaces can be considered and modeled. In the absence of data with sufficient resolution to determine the presence of these mineral phases and accurate methods to determine the surface site density for the minerals being considered, fitting additional surface reactions becomes a curve fitting exercise with a high probability of a non -unique solution. By modeling ion sorption to HFO and HAO based on extractable metal content but not considering other phases, the model is essentially a combined generalized composite and component additivity model. Page A-2 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\Geochemical Modeling\BCSS Attachment A\Attachment A.docx Attachment A — Geochemical Model Development Focused Geochemical Report March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra Table A-1 Example Reactions Used in Surface Complexation Modeling Reaction Type Reaction Expression Stability Constant Surface protonation (i.e., develops positive =SOH + H <* -SOHZ K=[SOH2'] expFWsurface (RT [SOH]{H+} J charge at low pH) Surface deprotonation (i.e., develops negative —SOH :=> -SO- + H+ K—[SO-]{H+} F,, 1 surface charge at high exp - [SOH] RT J pH) Cation sorption -SOH + M"+ -SOMn 1 + H+ K [SOM°"'](H+) exp�(n-1} F� M [SOH] {M° } RT —SOH + H+ + A-<=> -SOHZ+A" Anion Sorption or KA — [SOH exp —RTl [H+][A-] RT/ —SOH + A � -SA + 01-1-[SOH] Prepared By: BP Checked By: LWD Note: SOH represents a sorption site To constrain the number of sorption sites to be used in this model, a concentration of surface sites (=—SOH) must be calculated in units of mol/L for application in the aforementioned chemical equations. Such a concentration is conceptually difficult because =SOH represents a point on a solid particle where another ion may sorb, not an aqueous species as indicated by the units of mol/L. So to make this transition, a density of sorption sites on the mineral surface must be assumed (e.g. "x" moles of sorption sites per mole of total iron or aluminum in the solid phase). Additionally, in order to calculate a Kd value to compare with reactive transport models and batch laboratory data, a solid phase concentration in gr.lid/L must also be assumed. The model proposed by Dzomback and Morel [1990] assumes that all surfaces have a combination of strong sorption sites and weak sorption sites. As discussed above, quantifying the reactive surface site density for complex mineral assemblages such as those used in this work, is difficult if not impossible. Therefore, attempting to delineate between mineral surfaces, let alone strong and weak sites on such surfaces, would add unnecessary uncertainty and fitting parameters to the models. Therefore, sorption to only one site on both HFO and HAO is considered. Page A-3 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\Geochemical Modeling\BCSS Attachment A\Attachment A.docx Attachment A — Geochemical Model Development Focused Geochemical Report March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra A.2 Sorption Model Development Wells in the area of interest nearest Parcel A were selected for analysis (see 60% Basis of Design Report, Figure 1-2). As discussed below, the initial concentrations of major ions, constituents of interest, pH, and Eh were fixed in the model based on measured values in wells nearest Parcel A. Multiple methods were attempted to provide a technically reliable and consistent method of constraining the total sorption site density within the PHREEQC model using site specific data. Three modeling approaches which were investigated are detailed below. Modeling Option 1 This approach uses the total Fe and Al solid phase concentrations in specific wells to identify how much sorbent is available. The EQUILIBRIUM_PHASES command within PHREEQC can be used to allow a specified amount of a mineral to react with the aqueous phase. The utility of the EQUILUIBRIUM_PHASES command, in this case, is that it can provide the total number of sorption sites to produce HFO and HAO, and it is linked to the stability of the gibbsite and ferrihydrate solid phases which are used to approximate the sorption sites. So in effect, the model is calculating the aqueous concentrations of Fe(II), Fe(III), and Al(III) as well as moles of gibbsite and ferrihydrate by combining the total aqueous Fe and Al concentrations from well measurements with the total Fe and Al available as solid phases measured from wells with solid phase data available (listed in Table A-2). Data were not available for each specific zone as a function of depth; the values used are listed in Table A-2. These values represent the average Fe and Al concentrations taken from solid phase samples (i.e., soil and sediment) obtained from the same well or from a nearby well at the same depth. For accuracy in substitution of data, boring log lithology was cross checked at coordinating depth intervals between wells used in the Parcel A model with substituted wells. Page A-4 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\Geochemical Modeling\BCSS Attachment A\Attachment A.docx Attachment A - Geochemical Model Development Focused Geochemical Report March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra Table A-2 Parcel A Measured Fe and Al Solid Phase Concentrations Parcel A Well ID(s) Solid Phase Aluminum Concentration (mg/kg) Solid Phase Iron Concentration (mg/kg) GWA-10D 11,500 26,300 GWA-10S 11,800 32,600 GWA-11D 29,900 45,800 GWA-11S 16,900 24,100 GWA-18D 29,900 45,800 GWA-18S 19,300 36,150 GWA-19D 11,500 26,300 GWA-19S 18,100 34,400 GWA-19SA 18,100 34,400 GWA-1D 17,000 32,400 GWA-1S 19,300 36,150 GWA-20D 29,900 45,800 GWA-20SA 19,300 36,150 GWA-21 D 16,900 24,100 GWA-21S 18,100 34,400 GWA-27D 11,500 26,300 GWA-27S 19,300 36,150 'GWA-30D 19,850 34,375 S-2 11,600 10,900 S-3 12,100 18,300 S-4 8,060 8,320 S-5 10,400 21,700 2EW-2 17,570 32,737 CCR -2D 29,900 45,800 CCR -2S 17,000 32,400 Prepared By: ALA Checked By: LWD Note: 'Screened interval data for transition well GWA-30D was unavailable. Therefore, a conservative approach was taken where the average of all Al and Fe solid phase data from transition zone screened intervals between 34-55.4 ft. from TOC was used. z Solid phase data was not available for well EW -2. Because this is an open borehole with no zone confined by screen, the geomean value was used from all Parcel A wells with solid phase data; GWA-11D, GWA-10D, GWA-1S. To convert from mgFe-Ai/kgsolid into a sorption site concentration in mo1Fe-Ai/Liiq. d for use in PHREEQC, one correction was applied to link the measured Fe and Al in the solid Page A-5 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev \ Geochemical Modeling \ BCSS Attachment A\Attachment A.docx Attachment A — Geochemical Model Development Focused Geochemical Report March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra phases to a consistent concentration in PHREEQC per well location. To provide the most direct comparison with reactive transport modeling efforts, the same bulk density and porosity were used to calculate input values for the PHREEQC geochemical model. At the Belews Creek site, 1.6 g/cm3 was used for the bulk density. Porosity was 0.2 and 0.05 for unconsolidated saprolite material and partially weathered transition material respectively [HDR, 20161. For unconsolidated material, assuming a 1,000 cm3 volume as an example would yield 1.6 kg of solid material and 0.2 L of liquid volume. Therefore, we can estimate a solid phase concentration of 8.0 kg/L (1.6 kg / 0.2 L). To normalize all aqueous concentrations to the default value of 1,000 cm3 in PHREEQC, the total moles of Fe and Al used as input to the EQUILIBRIUM —PHASES pool was obtained by multiplying the moles/kg of Al and Fe by 8.0 kg/L to apply the ratio of 1.6 kg of solid to 0.2 L present in the assumed 1,000 cm3 simulation volume. The resulting value is moles Al and Fe per one L of liquid volume. For partially weathered rock of the transition zone, the fracture's pore volume available for adsorption surface reactions is decreased by lowering the porosity of the material. Still assuming a 1,000 cm3 volume, this yields 1.6 kg of solid material per 0.05 L of liquid volume. The resulting solid phase concentration of 32 kg/L accounts for the high density of transition zone material. Similarly, the total moles of Fe and Al used as input to the EQUILIBRIUM_PHASES pool was obtained by multiplying the moles/kg of Al and Fe by 1.6 kg/L. Calculated results of molar sorption site concentration in mo1Fe- ,U/Lliquid are listed in Table A-3. Surface areas of 600 mz/g and 32 mz/g for HFO and HAO, respectively, were assumed based on a self -consistent application of these surface complexation. The site density of 0.2 molsites/mo1Fe and 0.033 molsites/molAl were determined using specific surface area and site density values recommended for modeling sorption to HAO and HFO models [Dzombak & Morel, 1990; Karamalidis & Dzombak, 2010]. These values were calculated using the equation below and the values listed in Table A-4. Where: molesites 1018nm2 1 mole sites =SD* *SA*MW* moleFe or Al 1m2 SD is the site density in sites/nm2 SA is the surface area in mz/g MW is the molecular weight in g/mol 6.022 x 1023sites Page A-6 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\Geochemical Modeling\BCSS Attachment A\Attachment A.docx Attachment A - Geochemical Model Development Focused Geochemical Report March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra Table A-3 Parcel A Calculated Al and Fe Molar Site Concentrations Well Aluminum m9al/ k9solid Aluminum Site Concentration mOIAI/Lliquid Iron m9Fe/ k9solid Iron Site Concentration mOIFe/Lliquid GWA-10D 11,500 13.64 26,300 7.54 GWA-10S 11,800 3.50 32,600 2.34 GWA-11D 29,900 35.46 45,800 13.12 GWA-11S 16,900 5.01 24,100 3.45 GWA-18D 29,900 35.46 45,800 26.24 GWA-18S 19,300 5.72 36,150 5.18 GWA-19D 11,500 13.64 26,300 15.07 GWA-19S 18,100 5.37 34,400 4.93 GWA-19SA 18,100 5.37 34,400 4.93 GWA-1D 17,000 20.16 32,400 18.57 GWA-1S 19,300 5.72 36,150 5.18 GWA-20D 29,900 35.46 45,800 26.24 GWA-20SA 19,300 5.72 36,150 5.18 GWA-21D 16,900 20.04 24,100 13.81 GWA-21S 18,100 5.37 34,400 4.93 GWA-27D 11,500 13.64 26,300 15.07 GWA-27S 19,300 5.72 36,150 5.18 GWA-30D 19,850 23.54 34,375 19.70 S-2 11,600 3.44 10,900 1.56 S-3 12,100 3.59 18,300 2.62 S-4 8,060 2.39 8,320 1.19 S-5 10,400 3.08 21,700 3.11 EW -2 17,570 5.21 32,737 4.69 CCR -2D 29,900 35.46 45,800 26.24 CCR -2S 17,000 5.04 32,400 4.64 Prepared By: ALA Checked By:LWD Page A-7 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev \ Geochemical Modeling \ BCSS Attachment A\Attachment A.docx Attachment A — Geochemical Model Development Focused Geochemical Report March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra Table A-4 Surface Area, Site Density, and Molecular Weight Values Used for Conversions to Sorption Site Density Molecular Weight (g/mol) Ferrihydrate, Fe203.H2O(S) Gibbsite, AI(OH)3(s) 89g/mol Fe203'H20(s) 78g/mol AI(OH)3(s) Site Density (sites/nm2) 2.31 8 Surface Area (m2/g) 600 32 Conversion to mOlsites/mOlmineral 0.205 0.033 Prepared By: BP Checked By: ALA Modeling Option #2 This approach specifically noted a concentration of HFO and HAO sorption sites available in the PHREEQC input file. The moles of HFO and HAO sites were calculated using the fixed values discussed for modeling option #1 above (i.e. 0.2 mol FeOHsites/mol HFO and 0.033 mol AIOHsites/mol HAO). Then the total moles of each site were divided by the assumed 0.2 or 0.05 L aqueous volume in a.1000 cm3 (i.e., 1 L) volume of aquifer material [estimated from the porosity of 0.2 and 0.05 used in reactive transport modeling for the Site; HDR, 2016]. While modeling option #2 does provide an explicit and consistent concentration of HFO and HAO sites near Parcel A, it does not explicitly link the sorption site availability to the presence of ferrihydrate and gibbsite. Since sorption to these solid phases is a fundamental assumption of this model, linking together the saturation state (i.e. stability) of these two solids phases to the aqueous geochemical conditions was desirable. However, the results were generally comparable and only deviated in a few cases where the systems became unsaturated with respect to ferrihydrate in option #1. Thus, option #1 was selected as a better approximation method because of explicitly modeling both the aqueous and solid phase Fe and Al and using the amount of gibbsite and ferrihydrate present in the systems to constrain the concentration of surface sorption sites. It is noteworthy that this option is the option chosen for the global model discussed below because average Fe and Al solid phase concentrations were assumed for the input HAO and HFO concentrations based on extractable Fe and Al data from seven Duke Energy Progress sites. Page A-8 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\Geochemical Modeling\BCSS Attachment A\Attachment A.docx Attachment A — Geochemical Model Development Focused Geochemical Report March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra Modeling Option #3 To examine the saturation state of ferrihydrate and gibbsite, a third method was used to define the HFO and HAO sorption site concentrations. The measured total Al and Fe concentrations in each well were used as input values and the EQUILIBRIUM —PHASES command in PHREEQC was used to calculate the amount of ferrihydrate and gibbsite present for sorption to occur. No additional Fe or Al was added to the EQUILIBRIUM PHASES command. Therefore, the solutions would only produce ferrihydrate and gibbsite if the initial aqueous phase was supersaturated. While this is the case for a number of samples, this approach generally predicted higher aqueous phase concentrations of all constituents in the model because it does not account for the Fe and Al which are present in the solid phase. Therefore, this model was not used for further analysis since it does not appropriately represent the system. Groundwater Data Used in PHREEQC Model The concentrations of ions, pH, and Eh values used for the PHREEQC model input were based on measured values in wells nearest Parcel A. The input concentrations of several major ions (Al, As, Ba, B, Ca, Cl, Cr, Co, Fe, Mg, Mn, K, Se, Na, Sr, V, Zn and sulfate) used site specific data for wells nearest Parcel A. In the event that a measurement for one of these ions was not performed either the median or the maximum value considering all measurements made from wells nearest Parcel A was then used in the PHREEQC input file. Table A-5 show the values used for each constituent in the event that no measurement was taken. In the event that a concentration was measured, but the value reported was below detection limits (BDL), the highest detection limit for that constituent was used in place of the BDL. A.3 Sorption Model Development for Global Model Development A second modeling effort was undertaken to examine general behavior of several constituents of interest under changing geochemical conditions. This modeling effort is referred to as a global model because it considers the range of ion concentrations, pH, Eh, and extractable Fe and Al concentrations from seven coal ash disposal sites in NC. The results of this model remain applicable to Belews Creek because nearby sites, DEP Roxboro and DEP Mayo, used in the Global Model have similar onsite geology and geochemistry as Belews Creek. Page A-9 P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\Geochemical Modeling\BCSS Attachment A\Attachment A.docx Attachment A - Geochemical Model Development Focused Geochemical Report March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra Table A-5 Input Values for Constituent Concentrations and Geochemical Parameters Prepared By: ALA Checked By: LWD Note: Units are in pg/L unless otherwise noted. 1 Averaged values of all wells nearest Parcel A were only used for open borehole EW -2, where no pH, Eh or dissolved oxygen data was available [HDR, 20161 Page A-10 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev \ Geochemical Modeling \ BCSS Attachment A\Attachment A.docx Parcel A Substitute Input Value Aluminum 276 Arsenic 1 Barium 18 Boron 11,600 Calcium 15,050 Chloride 496,000 Chromium 1 Cobalt 7 Iron 226 Magnesium 10,550 Manganese 220 Potassium 5,615 Selenium 56 Sodium 13,150 Strontium 130 Sulfate 895 Vanadium 0.415 Zinc 20 1pH (S.U.) 5.2 'Eh (mV) 379 'Dissolved Oxygen 3,300 Prepared By: ALA Checked By: LWD Note: Units are in pg/L unless otherwise noted. 1 Averaged values of all wells nearest Parcel A were only used for open borehole EW -2, where no pH, Eh or dissolved oxygen data was available [HDR, 20161 Page A-10 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev \ Geochemical Modeling \ BCSS Attachment A\Attachment A.docx Attachment A — Geochemical Model Development Focused Geochemical Report March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra Using a similar approach to that described above for the site specific Parcel A analysis, the concentration of sorption sites based on extractable Fe and Al concentrations are based on the following equation [- FeOH] _ [Solid] * [Fe]extr * [- AIOH] _ [Solid] * [Al]extr * Where: 19Fe molFe 0.2 mol - FeOH 1000mgFe 55.845gFe mol Feextr 19Al molAl 0.033 mol - AIOH 1000mgAl 26.989AI mol Alextr [Solid] is the solid phase suspension concentration in gsolid/Lvolume assumed for the model, [Fe] ext, and [Al] ext, are the concentrations of extractable iron and aluminum respectively, in mgFe or Al/9solid [- FeOH] and [- AIOH] are the concentration of iron and aluminum surface sites respectively in the model input (units of molsites/Lvolume)• Note: In this conversion, the molecular weight of Fe and Al is used instead of the values of 89 and 78 g/mol used by Dzomba& and Morel [1990] because extractable Fe and Al is used in the model instead of total ferrihydrate and gibbsite. The model output is in mol/L of sorbed ions and mol/L of aqueous ions, therefore, to convert to a Kd value (units of L/kg), the mol/L of sorbed ions are converted to mol/kgsoiid. This is done by using the solid phase concentration assumed in the above reaction to keep the model self -consistent and essentially cancel the assumed solid phase concentration as noted above. This is the approach used in the global model and the assumed solid phase concentration was 50 gsolid/Lvolume. An average sorption site concentration of HFO and HAO for the model was determined by comparing the extractable Fe and Al concentrations in solids from seven Duke Energy Progress sites (H.F. Lee, Weatherspoon, Mayo, Cape Fear, Sutton, Asheville, and Roxboro). The average concentrations of extractable Fe and Al from solids obtained from the seven sites are shown in Figure A-1 and the global average of the seven sites is listed in Table A-6. These data indicate that the average concentrations are relatively similar though there is a significant amount of variation at each site. To see the data in Page A-11 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\Geochemical Modeling\BCSS Attachment A\Attachment A.docx Attachment A — Geochemical Model Development Focused Geochemical Report March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra Table A-6 Average Extractable Fe and Al Concentrations and Calculated Molar Site Concentrations Prepared By: BP Checked By: ALA Note: Values are from the Soil Sorption Evaluation Reports [Langley, W.G., Oza, S., 2015] for the following sites: HF Lee Energy Complex, Mayo Steam Electric Plant, Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant, LV Sutton Energy Complex, WH Weatherspoon Power Plant, Roxboro Steam Electric Plant, and Asheville Steam Electric Plant. W 3500 L 0 3000 Q a) 0) 2500 s� E 2000 X 1500 W 1000 500 Figure A-1 Average Extractable Al and Fe Concentrations and Standard Deviation in Solids 0 �ra,`\a �J��o� �`a�o e oto aat t Q�e� �a Average Extractable Fe ■Average Extractable Al Prepared By: BP Checked By: EMB Page A-12 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev \ Geochemical Modeling \ BCSS Attachment A\Attachment A.docx m9Fe-AI/ k9solid MOIFe-AI/ 9solid molsites/ 9solid Site Concentrations in MOlsites /11 -volume Extractable Fe 1,002 1.79E-05 3.67E-06 1.79E-04 Extractable Al 762 2.83E-05 9.37E-07 4.68E-05 Prepared By: BP Checked By: ALA Note: Values are from the Soil Sorption Evaluation Reports [Langley, W.G., Oza, S., 2015] for the following sites: HF Lee Energy Complex, Mayo Steam Electric Plant, Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant, LV Sutton Energy Complex, WH Weatherspoon Power Plant, Roxboro Steam Electric Plant, and Asheville Steam Electric Plant. W 3500 L 0 3000 Q a) 0) 2500 s� E 2000 X 1500 W 1000 500 Figure A-1 Average Extractable Al and Fe Concentrations and Standard Deviation in Solids 0 �ra,`\a �J��o� �`a�o e oto aat t Q�e� �a Average Extractable Fe ■Average Extractable Al Prepared By: BP Checked By: EMB Page A-12 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev \ Geochemical Modeling \ BCSS Attachment A\Attachment A.docx Attachment A — Geochemical Model Development Focused Geochemical Report March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra finer resolution, the minimum, geometric mean, average, and maximum values are shown in Figure A-2. Due to the relatively similar values of extractable Fe and Al at each site, a "global" sorption model was selected using the average extractable Fe and Al from the data from the seven sites. This average was used to determine the input concentration of sorption sites for the PHREEQC model. A.4 Global Geochemical Model Parameterization The main geochemical parameters influencing sorption are pH, Eh, and the availability of sorption sites. The pH and Eh of numerous groundwater samples have been measured at the seven sites along with other relevant geochemical parameters including the dissolved ion concentrations and the oxidation state speciation of redox active ions such as As, Cr, and Se [SynTerra Corporation, 2015a, 2015b, 2015c, 2015d, 2015e, 2015f, 2015g]. Similar to the method described above to examine the similarities of extractable Fe and Al concentrations from solid phases, the measured pH and Eh values from the seven sites are compared in Figure A-3. The values from each site all fall within a similar range and there is not a particular site with drastically different values than the others. Therefore, a reasonable range of pH and Eh values was selected for all sites to parameterize the speciation model which will cover the expected range of chemical speciation expected at the sites. It is a reasonable assumption that if the speciation models are run using the approximate Eh and pH conditions within the inset box of Figure A-3, the geochemical behavior of each constituent can be determined. The variability of the pH and Eh conditions at each site will essentially be "noise" considering the wide range of Kd values predicted as a function of pH (discussed below). Therefore, one "global" model which shows the influence of Kd as a function of pH and Eh within the selected range is appropriate for the seven sites. The range of selected pH and Eh values listed in Table A-7 are depicted in Figure A-3 with the black open circles. This range was chosen by selecting values to represent a global average, a high pH/low Eh extreme, a high pH/high Eh extreme, a low pH/low Eh extreme, a low pH, high Eh extreme, and values representing the pH at 25% and 75% cumulative fractions from the histograms in Figure A-4 and Figure A-5. Page A-13 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\Geochemical Modeling\BCSS Attachment A\Attachment A.docx Attachment A — Geochemical Model Development Focused Geochemical Report March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra Figure A-2 Minimum, Geometric Mean, Average, and Maximum Extractable Fe (top) and Al (bottom) Concentrations in Solids from Seven Sites 5000 4) L� q2 4000 4a U � E 3000 xv W 2000 1000 I1n---.. MIN ■Asheville ■Sutton 6000 5000 R 4000 3000 U a M X 2000 LU 1000 0 1 ■ - MIN ■ Asheville ■ Sutton 1111011 11111111111111 GEOMEAN AVG MAX Lee ■ Mayo Roxboro Cape Fear ■ Weatherspoon Prepared By: BP Checked By: EMB I I Elm E, 110 1 ' 111111 GEOMEAN AVG MAX Mayo ■ Roxboro Cape Fear Weatherspoon Prepared By: BP Checked By: EMB Note: Values are from the Soil Sorption Evaluation Reports (Langley, W.G., Oza, S., 2015) for the following sites: HF Lee Energy Complex, Mayo Steam Electric Plant, Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant, LV Sutton Energy Complex, WH Weatherspoon Power Plant, Roxboro Steam Electric Plant, and Asheville Steam Electric Plant. Page A-14 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev \ Geochemical Modeling \ BCSS Attachment A\Attachment A.docx Attachment A - Geochemical Model Development Focused Geochemical Report March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra 650 450 E 250 s W 50 Figure A-3 Measured pH and Eh Values at Seven Sites \o • • • ip • • Weatherspoon • Sutton Lee Asheville • Cape Fear Mayo • Roxboro - - - Water Oxidation - - - Water Reduction O Selected Values 8 10 12 pH Notes: Prepared By: BP Checked By: EMB - The dashed lines represent the conditions where water is stable (i.e. below the bottom line water will reduce to H2(g) and above the top dashed line water will oxidize to 02(g))- - The inset box represents an approximate range of pH and Eh values that will capture the majority of conditions at the site. - The open symbols represent the values selected for PHREEQC modeling. - Based on data from [SynTerra Corporation, 2015a, 2015b, 2015c, 2015d, 2015e, 2015f, and 2015g]. Page A-15 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\Geochemical Modeling \ BCSS Attachment A\Attachment A.docx Attachment A — Geochemical Model Development Focused Geochemical Report March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra Figure A-4 Histograms of Eh Values Measured at Seven Sites 60 1 0.9 50 ♦ • ♦ Histogram ♦ 0.8 ♦ • o U 40 r,♦♦ • 0.7 ■ Cumulative ♦ ♦ 0.6 L U 30 Fraction • ♦ 0.5 0 0.4 2 0 20 • 3 10 ♦ • 02 v ♦ ■ ♦ 0.1 ■ 0 ♦ 0 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Eh (mV) 70 M 50 U C 40 3 U o 30 4- 0 4 20 10 0 ♦ -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Eh (mV) ♦ Histogram Eh +1SD Eh mean Eh-lSD Notes: Prepared By: BP Checked By: EMB - The bottom figure shows the mean Eh values and +/- 1 standard deviation in the blue and black lines, respectively. - Values at approximately 25% and 75% for each pH and Eh condition were included in geochemical modeling at each site (Table A-7). - Based on data from [SynTerra Corporation, 2015a, 2015b, 2015c, 2015d, 2015e, 2015f, and 2015g]. Page A-16 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev \ Geochemical Modeling \ BCSS Attachment A\Attachment A.docx Attachment A — Geochemical Model Development Focused Geochemical Report March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra 45 40 35 a� = 30 a� 25 20 c 15 10 50 45 40 y 35 U 30 L 25 G 20 0 # 15 10 5 0 Figure A-5 Histograms of pH Values Measured at Seven Sites ♦ ♦ ■ OEM ♦ Histogram ♦ ■• ■ ■ Cumulative Fraction ■♦ N ■ ♦ No fix 0.8 c 0.7 u M 0.6 ii 0.5 > 0.4 f° 0.3 3 0.2 v 0.1 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 pH 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 pH 9 10 11 12 ♦ Histogram pH + 1 SD pH mean value pH - 1 SD Notes: Prepared By: BP Checked By: EMB - The bottom figure shows the mean pH values and +/- 1 standard deviation in the blue and black lines, respectively. Values at approximately 25% and 75% or each pH and Eh condition were included in geochemical modeling at each site (Table A-7). - Based on data from [SynTerra Corporation, 2015a, 2015b, 2015c, 2015d, 2015e, 2015f, and 2015g]. Page A-17 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev \ Geochemical Modeling \ BCSS Attachment A\Attachment A.docx Attachment A — Geochemical Model Development Focused Geochemical Report March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra Table A-7 pH and Eh Values for Global Model Input pH (mV) pe Notes 4 482 8.16 low pH, high Eh value 5.6 -21 -0.35 low pH, low Eh value 6.47 220 3.72 global average pH and Eh 6.9 514 8.69 high pH, high Eh value 9.1 -104 -1.75 high pH, low Eh value 5.1 372 6.29 pH range covering 25-75% of sites from Figure A-1 7.1 75.5 1.28 Prepared By: BP Checked By: ALA Note: Eh was entered into PHREEQC using pe (-Iog(e )) based on the equation Eh = 59 mV*pe Such a model could also be used to delineate between geologic units and choose the Kd values which are best represented by the Eh and pH values of that unit. However, the reactive transport modeling and similarity in the pH and Eh conditions between the different geologic units at each site do not necessarily justify this effort. Thus, the approach taken in this report is to compare the Kd values required by the reactive transport model, the Kd values from the PHREEQC geochemical model, and the Kd values measured in laboratory experiments to check that the trends, which are a manifestation of the underlying geochemical behavior, are similar. In addition to the pH and Eh range, a range of ion concentrations must also be selected for the PHREEQC modeling. Similar to the model parameterization discussed above, the measured values from seven sites were compared to determine if there was significant variability. Hundreds of data points from various geologic units at seven sites were plotted together in the following series of figures (Figure A-6 and Figure A- 7). There is variability in the ion concentrations at each site, but the average values from site to site are relatively constant. Therefore, it was assumed that a global set of average values could be used to approximate the geochemical behavior at each site. Using these values, a set of three conditions were used as input values for the model. The concentrations of major ions (e.g., Ca2+1 Na+, Fe (II/III), Cl-, SO42-) were varied to consider the range of potential values. The concentrations of several trace ions and constituents of interest were not varied so that the model could examine the potential for competition for sorption sites between the varying major ion concentration conditions and a fixed condition for the trace elements (Table A-8). Page A-18 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\Geochemical Modeling\BCSS Attachment A\Attachment A.docx Attachment A — Geochemical Model Development Focused Geochemical Report March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra Figure A-6 Minimum, Average, and Maximum Al, Sb, As, Ba, B, Cd, Cr, and Co Concentrations in Groundwater at Seven Sites 1000 100 M L 4j C U Z' 10 O IM U y 3 E 1 ._ I 0.1 Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Boron Cadmium Chromium Cobalt 10000 C O a 1000 41L C v � o Im 100 U Z 10 O Q Aluminum Antimony Arsenic 100000 m 10000 z £ 1000 Xi = 100 d v O 10 U ■ 1 Barium Boron Cadmium Chromium Cobalt ■ Sutton ■ Weatherspoon Lee ■Cape Fear ® Roxboro Mayo Asheville Sutton Weatherspoon Lee ■Cape Fear ■ Roxboro ■ Mayo w- Asheville ■ Sutton ■ Weatherspoon ■ Lee ■Cape Fear ■ Roxboro ■ Mayo ■Asheville Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Boron Cadmium Chromium Cobalt Note: Prepared By: BP Checked By: EMB Based on data from [SynTerra Corporation, 2015a, 2015b, 2015c, 2015d, 2015e, 2015f, 2015g]. Page A-19 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev \ Geochemical Modeling \ BCSS Attachment A\Attachment A.docx Attachment A — Geochemical Model Development Focused Geochemical Report March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra Figure A-7 Minimum, Average, and Maximum Cu, Pb, Mn, Mo, Ni, Se, Sr, and V Concentrations in Groundwater at Seven Sites ill 10000 C 1000 �a L .N J 100 C \ O O1 U � a� 10 to > 1 Q 0.1 C O 10000 L C J 1000 C \ O tM U? 100 3 .X 10 f Copper Lead Manganese Molybdenum Nickel Selenium Strontium Vanadium Copper Lead Manganese Molybdenum Nickel Selenium Strontium Vanadium ■ Sutton ■ Weatherspoon ■ Lee ■ Cape Fear ■ Roxboro ■ Mayo ■Asheville ■ Sutton ■ Weatherspoon ■ Lee ■ Cape Fear ■ Roxboro ■ Mayo Asheville ■ Sutton ■ Weatherspoon ■ Lee ■ Cape Fear ■ Roxboro ■ Mayo Asheville 1 Copper Lead Manganese Molybdenum Nickel Selenium Strontium Vanadium Note: Prepared By: BP Checked By: EMB Based on data from [SynTerra Corporation, 2015a, 2015b, 2015, 2015d, 2015e, 2015f, 2015g]. Page A-20 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev \ Geochemical Modeling \ BCSS Attachment A\Attachment A.docx Attachment A - Geochemical Model Development Focused Geochemical Report March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra For example, sorption of Fe 2+ and SO42- can effectively block sites for cation and anion sorption, respectively. Therefore, by considering the ranges of ferrous iron and sulfate listed below in Table A-9, the potential for sulfate to outcompete another anion (e.g., arsenate ASO43-) can be examined. In the model output described below, this impact is demonstrated by comparison of the Kd values measured under "low", "average" and "maximum" groundwater ion concentrations based on the values in Table A-9. Table A-8 Constituents to Hold Constant at Average Concentrations in Global Model Constituent Molecular Weight Average (Ng/L) Average (mol/L) Antimony 121.76 2.28E+00 1.87E-08 Arsenic 74.92 8.46E+01 1.13E-06 Beryllium 9.01 1.94E+01 2.15E-06 Boron 10.81 1.42E+03 1.32E-04 Cadmium 112.41 1.82E+00 1.62E-08 Chromium 52.00 1.22E+01 2.34E-07 Cobalt 58.93 2.72E+01 4.61E-07 Copper 63.55 8.90E+00 1.40E-07 Lead 207.20 6.24E+00 3.01E-08 Mercury 200.59 1.52E-01 7.60E-10 Molybdenum 95.94 4.74E+01 4.94E-07 Nickel 58.69 2.54E+01 4.32E-07 Selenium 78.96 7.78E+00 9.86E-08 Strontium 87.62 6.22E+02 7.10E-06 Thallium 204.38 5.12E-01 2.51E-09 Vanadium 50.94 9.96E+00 1.96E-07 Zinc 65.39 6.68E+01 1.02E-06 Prepared By: BP Checked By: LWD Page A-21 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\Geochemical Modeling \ BCSS Attachment A\Attachment A.docx Attachment A - Geochemical Model Development Focused Geochemical Report March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra Table A-9 Constituents Concentrations to Vary Between Minimum, Average, and Maximum Ground Water Concentrations for Global Model Constituent Mol. Weight (g/mol) Minimum (mg/L) Average (mg/L) Maximum (mg/L) Minimum (mol/L) Average (mol/L) Maximum (mol/L) Aluminum 26.98 5.00E-03 1.88E+00 5.74E+01 1.85E-07 6.98E-05 2.13E-03 Barium 137.33 6.00E-03 9.56E-02 1.92E+00 4.37E-08 6.96E-07 1.40E-05 Calcium 40.08 4.40E-02 5.10E+01 5.64E+02 1.10E-06 1.27E-03 1.41E-02 Carbonate Alkalinity 60.01 0.00E+00 1.44E+02 3.80E+02 0.00E+00 2.41E-03 6.33E-03 Chloride 35.45 1.10E+00 3.70E+01 5.70E+02 3.10E-05 1.04E-03 1.61E-02 Iron 55.85 1.00E-02 8.42E+00 2.14E+03 1.79E-07 1.51E-04 3.83E-02 Magnesium 24.31 7.00E-03 1.40E+01 2.81E+02 2.88E-07 5.76E-04 1.16E-02 Manganese 54.94 5.00E-03 1.28E+00 4.55E+01 9.10E-08 2.32E-05 8.28E-04 Nitrate as N 14.01 1.00E-02 5.75E-01 2.50E+01 7.14E-07 4.10E-05 1.78E-03 Potassium 39.10 1.23E-01 4.82E+00 1.91E+02 3.15E-06 1.23E-04 4.89E-03 Sodium 22.99 4.52E-01 3.15E+01 5.61E+02 1.97E-05 1.37E-03 2.44E-02 Sulfate 96.06 1.10E-01 1.31E+02 1.80E+04 1.15E-06 1.36E-03 1.87E-01 Sulfide 32.07 1.00E-01 4.29E-01 4.18E+00 3.12E-06 1.34E-05 1.30E - Prepared By: BP Checked By: LWD A.5 Speciation Modeling using Pourbaix Diagrams To gain an understanding of the aqueous chemical species of each constituent of interest, Pourbaix diagrams were generated using Geochemist Workbench (GWB) version 10.v10. To perform these simulations, the WATEQ4F database was utilized as this is the same database used in PHREEQC modeling of the sorption behavior described below. However, Se and V were not available in the GWS database. Instead, the LLNL.v8.r6+ database was used to generate the Pourbaix diagrams for Se and V described below. Constants for Se and V were added to the PHREEQC database for the sorption modeling below. However, based on the similarity of the revised WATEQ4F database used in PHREEQC modeling and the LLNL.v8.r6+ database, the speciation exhibited in the Pourbaix diagrams below is representative of the species. The database contains redox coupled reactions between bicarbonate (HCO3) and ammonium (NH3(aq)) with several organic species which are not expected to form. Therefore, all Page A-22 P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026 \ 20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev \ Geochemical Modeling \ BCSS Attachment A\Attachment A.docx Attachment A - Geochemical Model Development Focused Geochemical Report March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra organic matter -HCO3 and organic matter-NH3 reactions were decoupled in the model and not allowed to form. Arsenic and boron and, chloride, iron, and sulfate Pourbaix diagrams from the Asheville site specific model are compared with the global model diagrams in the main body of text. In these Pourbaix diagrams, the Eh and pH measurements from site groundwater measurements and the global model (Table A-9) are shown as individual data points. A generic groundwater chemistry containing 500 ppb of each constituent of concern was used in the simulations (Table A-10). These concentrations are generally higher than the concentrations observed in groundwater samples from the sites considered in this report, with the exception of B, Fe, and Mn which has a median value above 500 ppb. However, fixed concentrations were used for most constituents to provide a direct comparison of the model output. If precipitation is not observed in these diagrams for the Eh -pH regions of interest, it will not be occurring for lower concentrations which would be less saturated. Table A-10 Concentrations of Reagents Used to Generate Pourbaix Diagrams Species Basis Species in GWB Concentration (ppm) Concentration (mol/L) Calcium Ca+2 5.9 1.47 x 10-4 Magnesium Mg+2 1.0 4.17 x 10-5 Sulfate SO4-2 18.0 1.88 x 10-4 Sodium Na+ 23.0 1.00 x 10-3 Chloride CI- 35.4 1.00 x 10-3 Bicarbonate HCO3- 7.3 1.19 x 10-4 Arsenic H2AsO4- 0.9 6.67 x 10-6 Barium Ba+2 0.5 3.64 x 10-6 Boron B(OH)3(aq) 2.9 4.62 x 10-5 Cobalt Co+2 0.5 8.49 x 10"6 Selenium Se03-2 0.8 6.33 x 10-6 Vanadium VO+2 0.7 9.82 x 10-6 Chromium Cr04-2 0.5 9.66 x 10-6 Nitrate NH3(aq) 0.4 2.43 x 10-5 Manganese Mn+2 0.5 9.00 x 10 - Prepared By: BP Checked By: EMB Note: ppm levels set to provide 0.5ppm of the primary component (e.g., 0.5 ppm B in B(OH)3(aq)) Page A-23 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\Geochemical Modeling\BCSS Attachment A\Attachment A.docx Attachment A — Geochemical Model Development Focused Geochemical Report March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra It is important to note in these diagrams that only the most abundant aqueous species is shown. There are numerous aqueous and mineral species contributing to the reactivity of these systems, these diagrams only serve to show major trends in the speciation. More detailed calculations using PHREEQC consider all aqueous species involved and changes with respect to Eh and pH as done in these Pourbaix diagrams. However, in those models sorption is considered and distribution coefficients are calculated which reflect all of the chemical species present under a given set of conditions. Thus, while these Pourbaix diagrams are useful tools to identify the major species, it is important to note some limitations: 41, The dividing lines between boxes are where species may be equal, but there is no information in the diagram regarding the uncertainty of the simulation or the change in speciation as pH and Eh move away from the boundary lines. So there may be significant concentrations of other species present which cannot be seen on the diagrams. 411 The speciation is also considered only for the conditions given (Table A-10). Altering the concentrations of aqueous constituents may influence the data. y The Pourbaix diagrams report the activity of species, not molar concentrations. So corrections must be made to get molar units or mass units that are typical measures of concentration. 07 Pourbaix diagrams show only the aqueous species and precipitates with no consideration of sorption. Therefore, when comparing with ground water measurements at the site, some consideration must be made regarding the potential for a species to be present in the subsurface but sorbed to the solid phase and not present in the ground water. A.6 The Use of Kd Values In this report the PHREEQC model, which predicts both aqueous and solid phase speciation based on thermochemical principles, is used to calculate Kd values and examine how pH, Eh, and ground water ion concentrations influence the predicted Kd values. The stability constants used in the PHREEQC database to describe chemical reactions are on a log scale. Therefore, small differences in the stability constants can have a large impact on the predicted Kd values. As an example of this phenomenon, a plot of the Kd versus fraction sorbed (assuming a 50 g/L suspension of sorbent) is shown in Figure A-8. Page A-24 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\Geochemical Modeling\BCSS Attachment A\Attachment A.docx Attachment A — Geochemical Model Development Focused Geochemical Report March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra The Kd values were calculated using: _ [M]soltid _ Kd [M] aqueous Where: [MITotal — LMlaqueous V [M] aqueous m [M]soitd is the sorbed concentration of a constituent M in units of mol/kgsorbent [M]aqueous is the aqueous concentration of the constituent in units of mol/L [M]Total is the total initial concentration of the constituent in units of mol/ V is the volume of the sample in L, and m is the mass of sorbent in kg Thus V/m is the inverse of the suspended sorbent concentration (50 g/L in the simulation below). The Kd equation above can be rearranged to estimate the sorbed fraction of the constituent as: 1 ff (sorbed — 1 — laqueous — 1 — 1+KdV Figure A-8 is meant to illustrate the fact that at Kd values less than 1 or greater than 1000, only small increase in the concentration of sorbed ions can cause orders of magnitude differences in the predicted Kd values. Such small differences would be difficult to determine experimentally based on analytical equipment resolution or detection limits. Thus, in many cases, very low or very high Kd values are reached which could not be determined in many laboratory studies. Page A-25 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\Geochemical Modeling\BCSS Attachment A\Attachment A.docx Attachment A - Geochemical Model Development Focused Geochemical Report March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra Figure A-8 Theoretical Relationship Between Kd Values and PHREEQC Predicted Sorbed Fraction 1.00 0.90 7E -Of y 0.70 M c 0.60 = 0.50 O v 0.40 LL 0.30 0.20 0.10 llxlIl Kd Fraction Sorbed 1.00E-03 0.000050 1.00E-02. 0.000500 1.00E-01 0.004975 1.00E,+00 0.047619 1.00E+01 0.333333 1.00E+02 0.833333 1.00E+03 0.980392 1.00E+04 0.998004 1.00E+05 0.999800 1.00E+06 0.999980 1.00E+07 0.999998 1.00E+08 1.000000 1.0E-03 1.0E-01 1.0E+01 1.0E+03 1.0E+05 1.0E+07 Kd (L/ kg) Note: Prepared By: BP Checked By: EMB - The model was conducted using a hypothetical 50 g/L suspension of sorbent. - Numerical values are provided to the right to demonstrate the small change in the fraction sorbed with increasing Kd. A.7 Detailed Discussion of Iron Aqueous Speciation The ferrous iron species is more soluble because, due to its lower acidity, it remains as the free Fe+2 ion across a wide pH range as shown in Figure A-8. Comparatively, the stronger acidity of Fe(III) indices hydrolysis of the free Fe+3 ion to form FeOH+, Fe(OH)2+, and Fe(OH)3(aq) species from acidic to neutral pH ranges (Figure A-9). The formation of Fe(III)-hydroxide leads to precipitation of iron (hydr)oxide minerals (e.g., ferrihydrate, goethite, hematite) and significantly limits the aqueous concentration of Fe(III) in circumneutral pH waters. These hydrolysis species are shows as the dominant Fe(III) complexes under oxidizing conditions in the Pourbaix diagrams (see Appendix D, Figure 3-1). To demonstrate the importance of these hydrolysis reactions, the total Fe(II) and Fe(III) solubility in these simulations is plotted in Figure A-9. The concentration of Fe(III) decreases from pH 2.5 to 8 which is consistent with the hydrolysis of Fe+3 to form Fe(OH)X3-X species. The solubility of Fe(III) reaches a minimum at pH 8 where the neutrally charged species Fe(OH)3(aq) is the dominant aqueous complex. The lack of electrostatic repulsion between uncharged Page A-26 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\Geochemical Modeling\BCSS Attachment A\Attachment A.docx Attachment A — Geochemical Model Development Focused Geochemical Report March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra a� 1.0 a 0.8 .. 0.6 N d 0.4 U - w 0 0.2 c 0.0 U M L LL 1.00 'v a 0.80 N 0.60 N M v 0.40 LL w c 0.20 0 0.00 L LL Figure A-9 Speciation of Fe(II) (top) and Fe(III) (bottom) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Fe++ pH FeOH+ Fe(OH)2 Fe(OH)3- Prepared By: BP Checked By: EMB 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 pH Fe+++ Fe(OH)2+ Fe(OH)3 Fe(OH)4- Prepared By: BP Checked By: EMB Notes: Simulation was run with a total Fe(II) and Fe(III) concentration of 1uM using Geochemist Workbench v11 and the thermos.V6.R6+ database in a 1 mM NaCl solution. Fe(OH)3(aq) species leads to precipitation of Fe(III) mineral phases which in this simulation was hematite (a-Fe203). The predominance of Fe(II) as the free Fe+2 ion minimizes precipitation of Fe(II) minerals. It is not until pH -9 when FeOH+ and Fe(OH)2(aq) species form that precipitation of Fe(II) occurs (Figure A-10). Based on these results, we expect the pore water concentrations migration of Fe(II) to be controlled by sorption of Fe+2 to mineral surfaces whereas the pore water concentrations of Fe(III) are likely controlled by solubility of Fe(III) minerals. Note that the distribution Page A-27 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev \ Geochemical Modeling \ BCSS Attachment A\Attachment A.docx Attachment A — Geochemical Model Development Focused Geochemical Report March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra between Fe(II) and Fe(III) will be dependent on the redox state of the system as discussed relative to the Pourbaix diagrams in the main body of the document (see Appendix D, Figure 3-1). Figure A-10 Total dissolved Fe(II) and Fe(III) vs pH 1.00E-05 0 1.00E-06 L y 1.00E-07 U C U 1.00E-08 a 1.00E-12 �a H 1.00E-13 2 3 4 -Total Dissolved Fe(II) 5 6 7 8 9 10 pH Total Dissolved Fe(III) Prepared By: BP Checked By: EMB Notes: Simulation was run with a total Fe(II) and Fe(III) concentration of 1NM using Geochemist Workbench v11 and the thermos.V6.R6+ database. Page A-28 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev \ Geochemical Modeling \ BCSS Attachment A\Attachment A.docx Attachment A — Geochemical Model Development Focused Geochemical Report March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra REFERENCES Davis, J.A., et al., Application of the surface complexation concept to complex mineral assemblages. Environmental Science and Technology; 1998:32, 2820-2828. Davis, J.A., R.O. James, and J.O. Leckie, Surface ionization and complexation at the oxide -water interface.l. Computation of electrical double layer properties in simple electrolytes. Journal of Colloid and Interface Science; 1978: 63(3), 480-499. Dzombak, D.A. and F.M.M. Morel, Surface complexation modeling: hydrous ferric oxide. xvii. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons; 1990:393. Goldberg, S., Use of Surface Complexation Models in Soil Chemical Systems, in Advances in Agronomy, D.L. Academic Press, Inc.; 1990: 233-329 HDR Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinas, August 11, 2016. Comprehensive Site Assessment — Supplement 2 — Belews Creek Steam Station Ash Basin. HDR Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinas, October 6, 2016. Field Investigation and Pumping Test Report. Karamalidis, A.K. and D.A. Dzombak, Surface Complexation Modeling: Gibbsite. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.; 2010. Langley, W.G., Oza, S., Soil Sorption Evaluation H.F. Lee Steam Station. UNC Charlotte, NC. 2015. Langley, W.G., Oza, S., Soil Sorption Evaluation: Asheville Steam Electric Plant. UNC Charlotte, NC. 2015. Langley, W.G., Oza, S., Soil Sorption Evaluation: Cape Fear Steam Station. UNC Charlotte, NC. 2015. Langley, W.G., Oza, S., Soil Sorption Evaluation: L. V. Sutton Energy Complex. UNC Charlotte, NC. 2015. Langley, W.G., Oza, S., Soil Sorption Evaluation: Mayo Steam Electric Plant. UNC Charlotte, NC. 2015. Page A-29 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\Geochemical Modeling\BCSS Attachment A\Attachment A.docx Attachment A — Geochemical Model Development Focused Geochemical Report March 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra Langley, W.G., Oza, S., Soil Sorption Evaluation: Roxboro Steam Electric Plant. UNC Charlotte, NC. 2015. Langley, W.G., Oza, S., Soil Sorption Evaluation: W. H. Weatherspoon Steam Station. UNC Charlotte, NC. 2015. Martell, A.E. and R.K. Smith, Critical Stability Constants, Standard Reference Database 46 -Version 6.30. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards; 2001. SynTerra Corporation, Comprehensive Site Assessment Report — Asheville Steam Electric Plant, Arden, NC. 2015d. SynTerra Corporation, Comprehensive Site Assessment Report — Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant, Moncure, NC. 2015b. SynTerra Corporation, Comprehensive Site Assessment Report — HF Lee Energy Complex, Goldsboro, NC. 2015g. SynTerra Corporation, Comprehensive Site Assessment Report — Mayo Steam Electric Plant, Roxboro, NC. 2015a. SynTerra Corporation, Comprehensive Site Assessment Report — Roxboro Steam Electric Plant, Semora, NC. 2015c. SynTerra Corporation, Comprehensive Site Assessment Report — W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant, Lumberton, NC. 2015e. SynTerra Corporation, Comprehensive Site Assessment Report —L.V. Sutton Electric Plant, Wilmington, NC. 2015f. Page A-30 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\Geochemical Modeling\BCSS Attachment A\Attachment A.docx Basis of Design Report (60% Submittal) April 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station APPENDIX E PIPE AND PUMP SELECTION PACKAGE SynTerra P:\ Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\60 PERCENT DESIGN\Final 60 Percent Basis of Design Report, Belews Creek, 3-31-2017.docx Extraction Well Pumps GRUNDFOS DATA BOOKLET SQ, SQE, SQE=NE, CU331 SP 11 SQ, SIDE, SQE-NE, CU331 SP 2 43riuNOFos•N 1. Product introduction 3 11. CU331SP variable frequency drive 37 E Features and benefits 3 Features 37 0 Identification 5 Applications 37 o System components 37 0 2. Applications 6 Identification 38 Z SQ with pressure switch and pressure tank 6 CU331 SP product range 39 Constant -pressure control with CU331 SP performance range 39 CU 301 - residential water supply 7 CU331 SP sizing 39 Constant -pressure control with CU331 SP operation 40 CU 301 - irrigation 8 CU331 SP installation 44 Maintaining a constant water table 9 CU331 SP electrical connection 45 Emptying or filling a tank 10 CU331 SP technical data 51 Pumping from one tank to another 11 CU331 SP curve charts 53 Setting of operating parameters 12 SQE with manual speed control 13 12. Accessories 59 CU331 SP Constant Pressure 3. Performance range 14 Drive Kits (with sensor) 59 CU 301 Constant Pressure System 59 4. Installation 15 CU 300 Status Box & R100 59 SQ, SQE flow sleeves 59 5. Sizing and selection 16 System sizing guide 16 13. Further product documentation 60 WebCAPS 60 6. Cable sizing 17 WinCAPS 61 Cable sizing chart 17 7. SQ curve charts 18 5 SQ, SQE 18 10 SQ, SQE 19 15 SQ, SQE 20 22 SQ, SQE 21 30 SQ, SQE 22 10 SQE-NE 23 22 SQE-NE 24 8. Technical data 25 Electrical data 25 Operating conditions 25 Motor data 26 Dimensions and weights 27 9. Construction 28 Materials of construction 28 Material specification 29 10. Control units 30 CU 301 30 CU 300 33 2 43riuNOFos•N SQ, SQE, SQE-NE, CU331 SP 1. Product introduction 3 -inch SQ, SQE submersible well pumps for 3 -inch and larger wells SQ, SQE pumps are suitable for both continuous and intermittent operation for a variety of applications: • Domestic water supply • light commercial • irrigation • tank applications. Features and benefits SQ, SQE pumps offer these features: • Dry -run protection • high efficiency pump and motor • protection against up -thrust • soft -start • over -voltage and under -voltage protection • over -temperature protection • high starting torque. Additionally, SQE pumps offer these advantages: • Constant pressure control • variable speed • electronic control and communication. SQ, SQE innovative motor technology SQ, SQE pumps feature an innovative motor design incorporating permanent -magnet technology. By combining permanent -magnet motors and a Grundfos micro -frequency converter, we are able to deliver unmatched performance and the ability to control and communicate with the pump in ways never before possible. A few of the features that result from this combined technology are Constant Pressure Control, Soft -Start, and Integrated Dry -Run Protection, but these are just a few of the features these pumps offer SQ pump models operate at a constant speed much like today's conventional pumps. The difference is that SQ delivers the benefits of an electronically controlled permanent -magnet motor that cannot be achieved with a conventional induction motor. SQ pumps are available for single-phase power; a simple 2 -wire design makes installation easy. SQE pumps are equipped with a Grundfos "Smart Motor." Like the SQ models, SQ pumps have a high efficiency permanent -magnet motor — but we add the ability to communicate. The "Smart Motor" communicates via the CU301 status box through the power leads. It is not necessary to run any additional wires down the well. Communication with the pump provides Constant Pressure Control and the highly useful ability to change the pump performance while the pump is installed in the well. Like the SQ motor, this is also a 2 - wire motor designed for single-phase operation. Dry -running protection The pumps are protected against dry running. A value of Pcut-out ensures cut-out of the pump in case of lack of water in the borehole thus preventing a burnout of the motor. Pcut-out is factory -set both for the SQ and SQE, SQE- NE pumps. H Q N P N P1 N Pcut-out o — — > Q Fig. 1 Pcut-out curve High pump efficiency The hydraulic pump components are polyamide reinforced with 30 % glass fiber. The hydraulic design provides for high pump efficiency resulting in low energy consumption and therefore low energy costs. High motor efficiency The motors are based on a permanent magnet rotor (PM motor) featuring high efficiency within a wide load range. 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 P2 [W] Fig. 2 Efficiency curves of Grundfos SQ motor versus conventional motors m N m W N H GRUNOFOS i%e 3 d Wear resistance The pump design features "floating" impellers (not fastened to the shaft). Each impeller has its own tungsten carbide/ceramic bearing. The construction and materials ensure high wear resistance to sand for long product life. SQ, SQE, SQE-NE, CU331 SP Overvoltage and undervoltage protection Overvoltage and undervoltage may occur in case of unstable voltage supply. The integrated protection of all motors prevents damage to the motor in case the voltage moves outside the permissible voltage range. The pump will cut out if the voltage falls below 150 V or rises above 315 V. The motor is automatically cut in again when the voltage again falls within the m permissible voltage range. Therefore no extra protection relay is needed. Fig. 3 Example of Grundfos floating impeller Overload protection Protection against upthrust Starting up a pump with a very low counter pressure involves the risk of the entire impeller stack being lifted, also called upthrust. Upthrust may cause breakdown of both pump and motor. SQ, SQE, SQE-NE motors are fitted with a top bearing protecting both pump and motor against upthrust, thus preventing breakdown during the critical start-up phase. Excellent starting capabilities The integrated electronic unit of the motor features soft starting. Soft start reduces the starting current and thus gives the pump a smooth and steady acceleration. The soft starter minimizes the risk of wear on the pump and prevents overloading of the mains during start-up. The excellent starting capabilities are a result of the high locked -rotor torque of the permanent magnet motor together with the few pump stages. The high starting reliability also applies in case of low voltage supply. [A] DOL (direct -on-line starting) Soft start Fig. 4 Soft -start feature GRUN0FOS se Time [s] Exposure of the pump to heavy load causes the current consumption to rise. The motor will automatically compensate for this by reducing the speed to 3000 rpm. Further overload will lead to stop. If the rotor is being prevented from rotating, this will automatically be detected and the power supply will be cut out. Consequently, no extra motor protection is needed. Overtemperature protection A permanent magnet motor gives off very little heat to its surroundings. In combination with an efficient internal circulation system leading the heat away from the rotor, stator and bearings, this ensures optimum operating conditions for the motor. As an extra protection, the electronic unit has a built-in temperature sensor. When the temperature rises too high, the motor is cut out; when the temperature has dropped, the motor is automatically cut in again. Reliability The motors are built for high reliability and feature: • Tungsten carbide / ceramic bearings • thrust bearings protecting against downthrust • product life time equal to conventional AC motors. Variable speed The SQE motor enables continuously variable speed control from 3,000 to 10,700 rpm. The pump can be set to operate in any duty point in the range between the 3,000 and 10,700 rpm performance curves of the pump. Consequently, the pump performance can be adapted to any specific requirement. The variable speed control facility requires the use of the CU 300 or CU 301 control unit. For the calculation of pump speed, the program "SQE Speed Calculation" is available on CD-ROM as an accessory. SQ, SQE, SQE-NE, CU331 SP Identification Type key example SQ, SQE, SQE-NE 10 SQ E 05 - 160 N E Rated gallons per minute -� ! 1 i Basic version (without _ communication) Electronic communication Horsepower Total Dynamic Head in (ft) at rated flow Stainless steel 316 Environmental, PVDF impellers — GRUNDFOS % r- 0 Z 0 C W 7 0 R A SQ, SQE, SQE-NE, CU331 SP Maintaining a constant water table A constant water table can be maintained by adjusting pump performance. It may be important to maintain a constant water table, e.g. in connection with keeping out the groundwater on a building site or water remediation projects. The example shows how to maintain a constant water table by adjusting pump performance. Sensors Level Description Reaction Level sensor (pos. 11) Part Too high water level. Alarm relay Warning (max.) Possible cause: Insufficient operates. pump capacity. Cable Desired level The water level which should 3 be maintained. Too low water level. Alarm relay Warning (min.) Possible cause: Too high operates. pump capacity. 29 1 Pump, SQE R100 2 Cable Safety cable 3 Cable clips 31 5 Control unit, CU 300 11 Level sensor 21 Mains connection 22 Riser pipe 29 Remote control, R100 30 Safety cable 31 Wire clamp )mmended min. 20 inches (0.5 m) Min. 0.5 m Fig. 8 Application example: Maintaining a constant Water table 0 Pos. Part Type No. of units Product number Unit price Total price 1 Pump SQE 2 Cable 3 Cable clips 5 Control unit CU 300 11 Level sensor 29 Remote control R100 30 Safety cable 31 Wire clamp cRUNUFos --% 9 0 U CIL CL ;t C Setting of operating parameters Using the R100 and the CU 300 enables change of the motor speed and thereby setting of the pump to a specific performance. The software program "SQE Speed Calculation" has been developed for the calculation of the speed in order to obtain the required flow rate and head. CU 300 R100 SQ, SQE, SQE-NE, CU331 SP Dry -running protection The value Pcut-out, ensuring dry -running protection, is factory -set for the SQE pump. If the speed of the SQE pump is reduced by more than 1000 rpm, the Pcut-out value must be readjusted by means of the CU 300 and R100. Note: The SQE pump must not be started until the pump has been completely submerged below the water table. However, the change of the motor speed can be made even if the pump is not submerged. Fig. 11 Application example: Workshop setting of operating parameters Part Pump Remote control Type SQE R100 Control unit CU 300 SQE Speed Calculation program 12 GRUNOFOS i� No. of units Product number Unit price Total price 0 SQ, SQE, SQE-NE, CU331 SP SQE with manual speed control Functioning and benefits Manual speed control of the SQE pumps is possible by means of R100 and an SPP 1 potentiometer. This application is especially suitable for sampling from groundwater monitoring wells. The monitoring well is purged at high speed and the sample is taken at a low speed (quiet flow). For contaminated groundwater the SQE-NE type range is recommended. In case frequent sampling is required, dedicated installation of the pump is recommended, thus eliminating wear caused by frequent assembly and dismantling the installation. 2�. Recommended•' min. 20 inches ) — x 30 Furthermore, dedicated installations saves the costs of assembling and dismantling the installation. Important: Through dedicated installation the transfer of contamination from one monitoring well to another is avoided. Dry -running protection The value Pcut out, ensuring dry -running protection, is factory -set for the SQE pump. If the speed of the pump is reduced more than 1,000 rpm, the value of Pcut out must be readjusted by means of CU 300 and R100. 1 SQE pump 2 Cable 3 Cable clips 5 Control unit, CU 300 21 Mains connection 22 Riser pipe 30 Stainless-steel safety cable 31 Stainless-steel wire clamps, 2 per lifting eye 32 Potentiometer, SPP 1 / N Min. 20 inches o (0.5 m) Fig. 12 Application example: Sampling/manual speed control of SQE Pos. Part 1 Pump 2 Cable 3 Cable clips 5 Control unit 22 Riser pipe Type SQE CU 300 30 Stainless-steel safety cable 31 Wire clamps 2 per lifting eye 32 Potentiometer SPP 1 No. of units Product number Unit price Total price GRUNDFOS ;o 13 SQ, SQE, SQE-NE, CU331 SP 3. Performance range [m]- [ft] 800- 200- 600- 400- 100-1 00 200600-400-100 90 300- so- 70- 60 - 00 -807060— 200- so 00-50 — 150-40 30 100- 80- 20- 60- 40- 10-1 00- 80- 2060-40-10 30 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 Q [US GPM] N N m 0 2 4 6 8 Q [m'/h] No 14 GRUNDFOS % -- _.............. -- - I SQ SQE SQE-NE 150 9906 Annex W Z ll�Wy vi a Ln dd N . a �•-� W Z WW1 d vi a d Ln N N NO v a Ln d 0 O m 30 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 Q [US GPM] N N m 0 2 4 6 8 Q [m'/h] No 14 GRUNDFOS % SQ, SIDE, SQE-NE, CU331 SP 4. Installation The SQ and SQE, SQE-NE may be installed vertically, horizontally or in any position in between. Note: The pump must not fall below the horizontal level in relation to the motor. The following features ensure simple installation of the pump: • Built-in check valve with spring • low weight ensuring user-friendly handling • installation in 3" or larger boreholes • only on/off switch is needed, which means that no extra motor starter / starter box is necessary. For horizontal installation a flow sleeve is recommended in order to: • ensure sufficient flow velocity past the motor and thus provide sufficient cooling • prevent motor and electronic unit from being buried in sand or mud. Allowed � m l7. ! s Not allowed � Fig. 13 SQE installation GRUIVOFOS V 15 SQ, SIDE, SQE-NE, CU331 SP N 5. Sizing and selection m System sizing guide CL U, Step 1 m m Calculate minimum head requirements at no flow conditions: CHmax (required) = dynamic head + system pressure (in feet) + above grade elevation + friction loss Step 2 Select pump from chart as follows: • Choose model family based on the desired flow rate (i.e. 15SQE for a flow rate of 15 gpm) • Select the first model with a value in Column 2 greater than the Hmax calculated in Step 1 (For example: the choice for a 22 gpm model with an Hmax of 140 ft would be the 22SQE-160). • Double check your selection in the performance curves; see 7. SQ curve charts on p. 18. System sizing matrix H [ft] Column 1 Column 2 Pump curve at 10,700 ft Shutoff head (0 Head @ rated gpm gpm) Pump type @ 3000 rpm @ 10700 rpm Model B min. speed max. speed TDH [feet] TDH [feet] " .".. ........ ' - 5SQE-90 11 86 0 3 Pump curve ; o at 3,000 rpm ; 5SQE-140 17 131 a� o �0 5SQE-180 22 177 m m r 5SQE-270 34 270 CU N o 5SQE-320 39 315 t r 5SQE-360 45 360 m f0 5SQE-410 51 405 q� ✓ 1 Q [gpm] 5SQE-450 56 - 450 Fig. 14 Recommended sizing 10SQE-110 12 105 Note: All calculated head requirements must lie 10SQE-160 17 164 between the selected pump models minimum and 10SQE-200 23 215 maximum speed curves. 10SQE-240 29 267 10SQE-290 34 328 10SQE-330 40 390 15SQE-70 10 75 15SQE-110 14 123 15SQE-150 19 164 15SQE-180 24 205 15SQE-220 29 246 15SQE-250 33 287 15SQE-290 38 328 22SQE-40 5 36 22SQE-80 9 77 22SQE-120 14 117 22SQE-160 18 159 22SQE-190 23 200 22SQE-220 27 240 30SQE-40 5 33 30SQE-90 11 82 30SQE-130 16 126 16 GRUNDFOS i� SQ, SQE, SQE-NE, CU331 SP 6. Cable sizing Cable sizing chart Motor rating Copper wire size (AWG) Volts Hp Amps 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 115 0.5 12 140 220 360 550 680 1380 2260 2..30 0.5 5.2 1 640 1000 1660 2250 4060 — — 230 0.75 8,4 ' 400 620 1030 1580 2510 3970 — 230 1 11.2 1 300 460 770 1180 1890 2960 4850 230 1.5 12 1 280 430 720 1110 1760 2790 4530 Cable length in feet. Note: shaded values do not apply when using a CU 301 as its max. recommended cable length is 650 ft. GRUNDFOS i� 17 Ll 7. SQ curve charts 5 SQ, SQE H H [m] [ftl 250- 800- 700- 200- 50800700200 600- 150- 00150- 500- 400- 100- 300- 200- so- 100- Ll 00400100- 300200-50-100 SQ, SQE, SQE-NE, CU331 SP 0 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Q [US GPM] H H [ml-- IN 24 6- 16 4- 2 8 0 0 1 0.0 5 SQ 5 SQE ISO 9906 Annex A -45D -410 -360 kfPSH— -320 -270 -180 140 -90 \ 0 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Q [US GPM] H H [ml-- IN 24 6- 16 4- 2 8 0 0 p 1 0.0 kfPSH— p 1 0.0 18 GRUNDFOS % 2 3 4 5 6 Q [US GPM] s N r� N r 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 Q [m'/hl o SQ, SQE, SQE-NE, CU331 SP 8. Technical data Electrical data Supply voltage: Operation via generator: 1x200 -240V +6%/-10%, 50/60 Hz, PE 1x100 -115V +6%/-10%, 50/60 Hz, PE As a minimum, the generator output must be equal to the motor P1 [kw] + 10% Starting current: The motor starting current is equal to the highest value stated on the motor nameplate Starting: Soft Start Run-up time: Maximum: 2 seconds Motor protection: Motor is protected against: — Dry running — overvoltage — undervoltage — overload — overtemperature. Power factor: PF=1 Motor cable: 3 wire, 14AWG XLPE, 5 It Motor liquid: Type SML 2 pH Values: SQ and SQE: 5 to 9 SQE-NE: 2 to 13 Liquid tamperature' The temperature of the pumped liquid must not exceed 86 °F (30 °C) Note: If liquids with a viscosity higher than that of water are to be pumped, please contact Grundfos. Control units CU 300 and CU 301 Voltage; 1 x 100-240 V — 10 %/+ 6 %, 50/60 Hz, PE Power consumption: 5 W Current consumption: Maximum 130 mA Enclosure class: �IP 55 Ambient temperature: During operation: —22 °F to +122 °F (-30 °C to +50 °C) During storage: —22 °F to 140 °F ( —30 °C to +60 °C) Relative air humidity: 95%. Pump cable: Maximum length between CU 300 or CU 301 and pump: 650 ft (198 m) Back-up fuse: Maximum: 16 A Radia noise: CU 300 and CU 301 comply with EMC Directive 89/336/EEC. Approved according to the standards EN 55014 and EN 55014-2 Marking: CE, cUL (CU 301) Load; Max. 100 mA Operating conditions Minimum ambient fluid temperature: Maximum ambient fluid temperature: +34 °F (+1 °C) +86 °F (+30 °C) Well diameter: Installation depth (maximum): 3 -inch or larger 500 feet below static water level Storage conditions Minimum ambient temperature: —4 °F (-20 °C) Maximum ambient temperature: +140 °F (+60 °F) Frost protection; If the pump has to be stored after use, it must be stored at a frost -free location, or it must be ensured that the motor liquid is frost -proof. GRUNOFOS i� 25 SQ, SQE, SQE-NE, CU331 SP m Motor data = Pump type Hp Voltage Full load amps 230V 115V Overload amps 230V 115V Min. well diameter Discharge a 5SQE05-90 1/2 230V 1115V 2.1 4.2 5 11 3" 1" NPT epi 5SQE05-140 1/2 230V 1115V 2.9 6.0 5 11 3" 1" NPT gt 5SQE05-180 1/2 230V / 115V 3.7 7.7 5 11 3" 1" NPT 5SQ -2 0 3/4 230V 5.3 - B - 3" 1" NPT 5SQE07-320 3/4 230V 6.2 8 - 3' 1" NPT 5SQE10-360 1 230V 7.2 11 - 3" 1" NPT 5SQE10-410 1 230V 8.1 - 11 3" 1" NPT 5SQE15-450 1 1/2 230V 9.2 - 12 3" 1" NPT 10SQE05-110 1/2 230V 1115V 2.9 6.1 5 11 3" 1 1/4" NPT 10SOE05-160 1/2 230V 1115V 4.1 8.6 8 11 3" 1 1/4" NPT 10SQE07-200 3/4 230V 5.3 - 8 - 3" 1 1/4" NPT 10SQE7-240 3/4 230V 6.0 8 3" 1 1/4" NPT 10SQE10-290 1 230V 7.7 11 - 3" 1 1/4" NPT 10SQE15-330 1 1/2 230V 8.9 - 12 3" 1 1/4" NPT 15SQE05-70 1/2 230V 1115V 2.9 6.0 5 11 3" 1 1/4" NPT 15SQE05-110 1/2 230V /115V 4.0 8.3 5 11 3" 1 1/4" NPT 15SQE07-150 3/4 230V 5.1 - 8 - 3' 1 1/4" NPT 15SQE07-180 3/4 230V 6.2 8 - 3' 1 1/4" NPT 15SQE10-220 1 230V 7.4 11 3" 1 1/4" NPT 15SQE10-250 1 230V 8.4 11 3" 1 1/4" NPT 15SQE15-290 1 1/2 230V 9.7 - 12 3" 1 1/4" NPT 22SQE05-40 1/2 230V 1115V 1.9 3.9 5 3" 1 1/2" NPT 22SQE05-80 1/2 230V 1115V 3.4 7.2 5 3° 1 1/2" NPT 22SQE07-120 3/4 230V 4.9 - 8 3" 1 1/2" NPT 22SQE10-160 1 230V 6.4 8 - 3" 1 1/2" NPT 22SQE10-190 1 230V 7.9 11 3" 1 1/2" NPT 22SQE15-220 1 1/2 230V 9.5 - 12 3" 1 1/2" NPT 30SQE05-40 1/2 230V / 115V 2.8 5.7 5 3" 1 1/2" NPT 30SQE07-90 3/4 230V 5.2 - 8 3" 1 1/2" NPT 30SQE10-130 1 230V 7.6 - 11 3" 1 1/2" NPT 26 GRUNDFOS i00 SQ, SQE, SQE-NE, CU331 SP Dimensions and weights SQ, SQE Dimensions In Inches C Motor Discharge Approx. t Model Hp size size A a C D ship. wt. m H SSQ/SQE05-140 5SQ/SQE05-180 til 47-y30 5SQ/SQE07-270 1/2 1/2 .2114 3/4 3" 3" 3"' 3" 1" NPT 1" NPT V NPT 1" NPT 30.4 31.5 33.8 336 19.8 19.8 19,8' 19.8 10.6 11.6 '137 13.7 2.6 2.6 7 6 2.6 2.9 2 9 2 9 2.9 12 12 1:! 13 5SQISQE07-320 5SQ/SQE10-360 5SQ/SQE10-410 3/4 1 1 3" 3" 3" 1" NPT 1" NPT 1" NPT 34.6 38.2 38.2 19.8 21.3 21.3 14.8 16.9 16.9 2.6 2.6 2.6 2,9 2.9 2.9 13 16 16 5SQ/SQE15-450 1 1/2 3" 1" NPT 39.3 21.3 18.0 2.6 2.9 16 10SQ/SQE05-110 1/2 Y 1 1/4" NPT 30.4 19.8 10.6 2.6 2.9 12 10SQ/SQE05-160 1/2 3" 1 1/4" NPT 30.4 19.8 10.6 2.6 2.9 12 10SQ/SQE07-200 314 3- 1 114" NPT 31.5 19.8 11.6 2.6 2.9 13 10SQ/SQE07-260 314 3" 1 1/4" NPT 33.6 19.8 13.7 2.6 2.9 13 10SQ/SQE10-290 1 3" 1 1/4" NPT 35.0 21.3 13.7 2.6 2.9 16 10SQISQEI5-330 1 1/2 3" 1 1/4" NPT 36.14 21.3 14.8 2.6 2.9 16 15SQISQE05-70 1/2 3" 1 1/4" NPT 30.4 19.8 10.6 2.6 2.9 12 15SQ/SQE05-110 1/2 3" 1 1/4" NPT 30.4 19,8 10.6 2.6 2,9 12 15SQ/SQE07-150 3/4 3" 1 1/4" NPT 31.5 19,8 11.6 2.6 2,9 13 15SQ/SQE07-180 314 3" 1 114" NPT 33.6 19.8 13.7 26 2,9 13 15SQ/SQE10-220 1 3" 1 1/4" NPT 35.0 21.3 13.7 2.6 2.9 16 15SQ/SQE10-250 1 3- 1 1/4" NPT 36.1 21.3 14.8 2.6 2.9 16 15SQ/SQE10-290 1 1/2 3" 1 1/4" NPT 38.2 21.3 16.9 2.6 2..9 16 22SQ/SQE05-40 1/2 3- 1 1/2" NPT 30.4 19.8 10,6 2.6 2.9 12 22SQISQE05-80 1/2 3- 1 1/2" NPT 30.4 19.8 10.6 2.6 2.9 12 22SQISQE07-120 3/4 3" 1 1/2" NPT 31.5 19.8 11.6 2.6 2.9 13 22SQ/SQE10-160 1 3- 1 1/2" NPT 33.6 19.8 13.7 2.6 2.9 13 22SQ/SQE10-190 1 3" 1 1/2" NPT 38.2 21.3 16.9 2.6 2.9 16 22SQISQEI5-220 1 1/2 3" 1 1/2" NPT 38.2 21.3 16.9 2.6 2.9 16 30SQ/SQE05-40 1/2 3- 1 1/2" NPT 30.4 19.8 10.6 2.6 2.9 12 30SQ/SQE07-90 3/4 3" 1 1/2" NPT 30.4 19.8 10.6 26 2.9 13 30SO/SQE10-130 SQE-NE 10SQE-05-10ONE 1 112 3- 3" 1 1/2" NPT 1 1/4" NPT 35.0 30.4 21.3 19.8 13.7 10.6 2.6 2,.6 2.9 2.9 13 12 10SQE-05-14ONE 112 3" 1 1/4" NPT 30.4 19.8 10.6 2.6 2.9 12 10SQE-05-18ONE 3/4 3" 1 1/4" NPT 31.5 19.8 11.6 2.6 2.9 13 10SQE-07-22ONE 3/4 3" 1 1/4" NPT 33.6 19.8 13.7 2.6 2,9 13 10SQE-10-260NE 1 3" 1 1/4" NPT 35.0 21.3 13.7 2.6 2.9 16 10SQE-10-30ONE 1 3" 1 1/4" NPT 36.1 21.3 14.8 2.6 2.9 16 10SQE-10-340NE 1 3" 1 1/4" NPT 38.2 21.3 16.9 2.6 2.9 16 22SQE05-40NE 1/2 3" 1 1/2" NPT 30.4 19.8 10.6 2.6 2.9 12 22SQE05-80NE 1/2 3" 1 1/2" NPT 30.4 19.8 10.6 2.6 2.9 12 22SQE07-11ONE 3/4 3" 1 1/2" NPT 31.5 19.8 11.6 2.6 2.9 13 22SQE07-14ONE 3/4 3" 1 1/2" NPT 33.6 19,8 13.7 2.6 2.9 13 22SQE10-180NE 22SQE10-21ONE 1 1 3" 3" 11/2"NPT 1 1/2" NPT 38.2 38.2 21.3 21.3 16.9 16.9 2.6 2.6 2.9 2.9 16 16 GRUNDFOS�i� 27 28 CRUNDFos i� SQ, SQE, SQE-NE, CU331 SP F 0 Discharge sizes: a 1" NPT 5 SQ/SQE iy 1 1/4" NPT 10 - 15 SQ/SQE 1 1/2" NPT 22-30 SQ/SQE 9. Construction ON Materials of construction $Q, SQE SQE-NE Component Spllned shaft Component Spllned shaft Valve casing Polyamide Valve casing PVDF Discharge chamber 304 stainless steel Discharge chamber 316 stainless steel at ;, •; Valve guide Polyamide O-ring FPM rubber Valve spring 316LN stainless steel Valve cone PVDF Valve cone Polyamlde Valve seat FPM rubber Valve seat NBR rubber Top chamber PVDF O-ring NBR rubber Empty chamber PVDF Lock ring 310 stainless steel Tap bearing FPM rubber U '1. Top bearing NBR rubber Neck ring PVDF Top chamber Polyamlde Lack ring 316 stainless steel Guide vanes Polyamide Guide vanes PVDF Impeller Polyamide w/ tungsten Bottom chamber PVDF carbide bearings Bottom chamber Polyamlde Impeller wl tungsten PVDF carbide bearing Neck ring TPU / PBT Suction interconnector PVDF t BearingAluminum oxide Ring 316 Stainless sural e Suction interconnector Polyamide Sintered steel Shaft w/coupling - j, Ring 304 stainless steel 316 slainlesa steel Pump sleeve 304 stainless steel Cable guard 316 stainless steel Pressure equalization cone Polyamide Cable guard screws 316 stainless steel Spacer Polyamlde Pressure aqualizatinn cone PVDF Sand trap 316 stainless steel Valve spring 316 stainless steel Shaft wlcoupling 304 stainless steel Pump sleeve 316 stainless steel Valve guide PVDF Cable guard 304 stainless steel Spacer 316 stainless steel m 28 CRUNDFos i� SQ, SQE, SQE-NE, CU331 SP F 0 Discharge sizes: a 1" NPT 5 SQ/SQE iy 1 1/4" NPT 10 - 15 SQ/SQE 1 1/2" NPT 22-30 SQ/SQE SQ, SQE, SQE-NE, CU331 SP Material specification Pump DIN DIN tat N Pos. Component Material W -Nr. AISI W -Nr. AISI C SQ/SQE SQ/ -NE 'f - 1 Valve casing Polyamide 1.4301 304 1.4401 316 q�{ 1a Discharge chamber Stainless steel 70--M 14 1 d O-ring NBR rubber 39-0 r 11a Ij 2 Valve cup Polyamide j u 3 Valve seat NBR rubber j 4a Empty chamber Polyamide 3 6 Top bearing NBR rubber r 7 Neck ring TPU / PBT _ I 55 I. Stainless 18b Lock ring spring7a spring steel 1.4301 310 1.4401 316 7b Neck ring retainer Polyamide-"- 9b Chamber lop Polyamide 7a ••,rt. 9c Chamber bottom Polyamide Impeller with °«-6q 13 tungsten carbide Polyamide bearing 4a 14 14 Suction Polyamide + 30 inter -connector � 87 14a Ring Stainless steel 1.4301 304 1.4401 316 A6 Stainless steel 1.4301 304 1.4401 316 16 Shaft with coupling Sintered steel 32 18 Cable guard Stainless steel 1.4301 304 1.4401 316 ... 13-- 18a Screws for cable guard Stainless steel 1.4301 316 1.4401 316 16 18b i.8n 30 Cone for pressure Polyamide R equalization 32 Guide vanes Polyamide 7 39 Spring Stainless 1.4406 316LN 1.4406 316LN 7j spring steel 55 Pump sleeve Stainless steel 1.4301 304 1.4401 316 64 Priming screw Polyamide 70 Valve guide Polyamide 66 Lip seal ring NBR rubber Cone for pressure Polyamide / 222a 87 equalization complete NBR rubber 1I 225 — 0 232 224 --_ 205 Motor _-- DIN DIN 202a Pos. Component Material W -Nr. AISI W -Nr. AISI SQ-SQE SQE-NE 2021, --1, 201 201 Stator Stainless steel 1.4301 304 1.4401 316 202 Rotor Stainless steel 1.4301 304 1..4401 316 202a Stop ring PP 202b Filter Polyester _ 202 203 Thrust bearing Carbon 205 Radial hearing Ceramic tungsten carbine 220 220 Molar cable with plug EPR 203 222a Filling plug MS NBR " MSE3: 0 224 O-ring FKM N 225 Top cover PPS N 232 Shaft seal MS 3: NBR o MSE 3: FKM F Motor liquid SML-2 GRUNDFOS i% 29 10. Control units CU 301 The CU 301 is a control and communication unit developed especially for the SQE submersible pumps in constant -pressure applications. The CU 301 control unit provides: • Full control of the SQE pumps • two-way communication with the SQE pumps • possibility of adjusting the pressure • alarm indication (LED) when service is needed • possibility of starting, stopping and resetting the pump simply by means of a push-button • configuration with R100 remote control. The CU 301 communicates with the pump via mains borne signalling (Power Line Communication), meaning that no extra cables are required between the CU 301 and the pump. The CU 301 features the following indications (see drawing in right column): 1. Pump running indicator 2. System pressure setting 3. System ON/OFF 4. Button lock indicator 5. Dry -running indicator 6. Service needed in case of: — — no contact to pump — overvoltage — undervoltage — speed reduction — overtemperature — overload — sensor defective. The CU 301 incorporates: • External signal input for pressure sensor • connection to an operating relay for indication of pump operation. Optional R100 remote control Wireless infrared remote control of the CU 301 is possible by means of the R100. Using the R100, it is possible to monitor and change the operating parameters, see the R100 menu structure on page 31. The R100 is a valuable tool in case fault finding is required. 30 GRUNDF05 SQ, SQE, SQE-NE, CU331 SP 6 1 2 3 Fig. 15 CU 301 control unit Submersible cable entry Fig. 16 CU 301 entry ports 9.13 in. (XI? mml Fig. 17 CU 301 dimensions Operating o relay entry o C-4 Pressure " N sensor entry 4.49 in. (114 mm} 0 N m 0 L � Fig. 17 CU 301 dimensions Operating o relay entry o C-4 Pressure " N sensor entry 4.49 in. (114 mm} 0 N m 0 Pipe Flow and Head Loss Calculations Hazen Williams Pipe Flow Equation where: Pd 4.52 Q1.852 e L 01.852 44.8704 S = frictional resistance (pressure drop per foot of pipe) in psig/ft (psi gauge pressure per foot) Pd = pressure drop over the length of pipe in psig L = length of pipe in feet Q = flow, gpm C = pipe roughness coefficient d = inside pipe diameter, in Main Forum HIGH PERFORMANCE BROADBAND FOR BUSINESS to 1 Utip" LEARN MORE Flow in pressurized pipe Search Enginaer;ng index Pressure drop by,Hazen-Williams equation. C;n;l ngfneerirkg index ►� Pipe length Pressure pt Pressure p2 Discharge :�-- rate Diameter Pressure loss = p2 -p1 Pipe diameter. - Pipe length: Discharge rate: Roughness coefficient: Water velocity.- Pressure elocity:Pressure loss Total pressure loss: 1.91 inches 800 Peet 10 gal(US)/min 140 1.11978 Feet/second 0.0033201 Ift H2O per feet 2.656116 ft H2O Calculate! Add O Share / Save 93 %V '"� ... © Andy & Steve Shipway 2008 the talc The pressure form of the Hazen -Williams equation is evaluated to provide the pressure loss per unit len th and over the entire length of a pipe. Convenient (metric, imperial, US) units may be chosen from the menus. notes The Hazen -Williams formula is an empirical rule, that holds well for cold water running in pipes under turbulent flow conditions. This is very suitable for situations such as domestic piping and hosing, sprinkler and irrigation systems, etc. For gravitational flow, and for open -channel flow, other talcs are available. Typical values of the roughness (friction loss) coefficient include: 100 (concrete, cast iron); 120 (steel); 140 (cement); 150 (copper, plastics). HIGH PERFORMANCE BROADBAND FOR BUSINESS Ar LEARN MORE I` Flow i n pressurized pipe Search Ennineering index Pressure drop by Hazen -Williams equation. Civil engineering index Pressure Pipe length , P ' Pressure p2 Discharge —-: :�— rate Diameter PteSSure loss =p.2 -p1 Pipe diameter.' 1.91 inches Pipe length: ;B00 feet Discharge rate. 40 gal(US)/min Roughness 140 coefficient: Water velocity: 4.47911 feet/second Pressure loss 0.0432692 ft H2O per Feet Total pressure 34 6153 ft H2O loss: Calculate! Add 9 d Share /Save 91 V !:,.... © Andy & Steve Shipway 2008 *he Calc The pressure form of the Hazen -Williams equation is evaluated to provide the pressure loss per unit length and over the entire length of a pipe. Convenient (metric, imperial, US) units may be chosen from the menus. notes The Hazen -Williams formula is an empirical rule, that holds well for cold water running in pipes under turbulent flow conditions. This is very suitable for situations such as domestic piping and hosing, sprinkler and irrigation systems, etc. For gravitational flow, and for open -channel flow, other calcs are available. Typical values of the roughness (friction loss) coefficient include: 100 (concrete, cast iron); 120 (steel); 140 (cement); 150 (copper, plastics). Main HIGH PERFORMANCE BROADBAND FOR BUSINESS ad A LEARN MORE Flow in pressurized pipe Search Enq'ne� erEnc� index Pressure drop by Hazen -Williams equation. i it En in erin index Pipe length Pressure Pt r Pressure p2 Discharge ►: :�- rate Diameter Pressure i. = p2-pl Pipe diameter. 1.91 inches Pipe length: 1600 feet Discharge rate: 160 gal(US)/min Roughness 140 coefficient: Water velocity: 6.95822 feet/second Pressure loss Ift H2O per feet Total pressure 124.961 ft H2O loss: Calculate! Add G D Share/ Save 0 V r�* © Andy & Steve Shipway 2008 the talc The pressure form of the Hazen -Williams equation is evaluated to provide the pressure loss per unit length and over the entire length of a pipe. Convenient (metric, imperial, US) units may be chosen from the menus. notes The Hazen -Williams formula is an empirical rule, that holds well for cold water running in pipes under turbulent flow conditions. This is very suitable for situations such as domestic piping and hosing, sprinkler and irrigation systems, etc. For gravitational flow, and for open -channel flow, other talcs are available. Typical values of the roughness (friction loss) coefficient include: 100 (concrete, cast iron); 120 (steel); 140 (cement); 150 (copper, plastics). MvCT Main Forum [a— Sedum,._ $10.95 Shop Now! Popcorn,... $3.95 Shop Now! Salad Greens,_. $3.95 Shop Now! B4-�E' Flow in pressurized pipe Search Eagineering i Pressure drop by Hazen -Williams equation. civil Engineering index Pressure `F Pipe length t + p ' F Pressure p2 Discharge —i►: — rate Diameter Pressure los = p2 -p1 Pipe diameter. - Pipe length: Discharge rate: Roughness coefficient: Water velocity: Pressure loss Total pressure loss: 1 inches 10 feet 4 gal(US)/min v 140 1.63402 feet/second D.0141758 ft H2O per feet iD.141758 ft H2O Calculate! Add 0 Share/ Save 0 4, 1-,.... © Andy & Steve Shipway 2008 t. Theres�sure_ form of the Hazen -Williams equation is evaluated to provide the pressure loss per unit length and over the entire length of a pipe. Convenient (metric, imperial, US) units may be chosen from the menus. The Hazen -Williams formula is an empirical rule, that holds well for cold water running in pipes under turbulent flow conditions. This is very suitable for situations such as domestic piping and hosing, sprinkler and irrigation systems, etc. For gravitational flow, and for open -channel flow, other talcs are available. Typical values of the roughness (friction loss) coefficient include: 100 (concrete, cast iron); 120 (steel); 140 (cement); 150 (copper, plastics). L a mr O 01 tD > 3 CL �° r -I Ln C14 - v Ln ao rl rl 01 O tD c O Ln rl M rl Q1 c H rl N 0 _a M tA C O �C c in > > a a a air- Ln L c Y U E L L c c n N T L 7 eo C ri U N N n ++ m M M 7 U oo O00 00 00 c m �c 0 O G 00 W 00 00 Io .1 a 4 Ln n i 4 (3i N 00 N OD Q v Q c v Ln a N a' d0 c O a LU m -1 O p > m 3 3 O O = W +1 41 N LO 00 l0 .-1 q l0 'C 00 f, rl 01 00 r -I `7 00 m ++ d H M M rl rl rl rl a1 a $ c 3 > 3 CL �° a = - v ao c M c m a _a M tA a dA a c c in > > a a a air- Ln L c Y U E L L c c n N T L 3 O eo C ri U N N n ++ m 7 U a U m U c m O G � a 4 N C v c v Ln N N a a c O a LU m -1 p > m 3 3 = W HDPE Pipe Specifications 5 a e PIPELINE P L A S T I C S f WATER PIPE PE4710 ilil!Ill��i C, OL low A& PIPELINE PLASTICS WATER v Corporate Heaftsarters 1401 Solana Blvd., Bldg. I Sum- 1410. WustlAer TN 7620 0., 417 &93.4100 F: 817-693 41L11 APPLICATIONS Pipeline Plastics PE4710 Water Pipe is a high performance bimodal, high density polyethylene (HDPE) pipe designed for raw water transmission, potable and municipal water applications, as well as gravity and force sewer mains. Our PE4710 Water Pipe's heat fused joints provide a leak free, NSF certified, quality water system which is corrosion and seismic resistant to ensure a lifetime of safe and clean water. FEATURES AND BENEFITS OF HDPE WATER PIPE • Heat fused leak -free joints • Small minimum bending radius • Impact Resistant • Resistant to fatigue from repetitive surge events • Immune to corrosion • Resistant to rapid crack propagation • Highly resistant to scale build up that can reduce flow capacities • Installed by open cut or trenchless method • High fluid flow coefficient C=150 over the life of the piping systems PRESSURE DESIGN Pipeline Plastics Water Pipe is manufactured using a high performance PE4710 compound meeting the demanding require- ments and rigors of water transmission, distribution and sanitary sewer. Design operation temperatures range up to 140°F. Maximum operating pressures follow the PPI Handbook of Polyethylene Pipe, second edition, Chapter 3 and 6 for determi- nation of maximum operating pressures. For design temperatures other than 73*F a temperature service factor must also be used (see Chapter 3, Table A.2). For the transportation of fluids other than water see PPI publication TR -9 for additional service factor guidance. 0.7 w. 06 F 0.5 Pipeline Plastics Water Pipe Temperature (F) Service Factor (SFr) 70 90 110 130 150 Temperature (F) WORKING PRESSURE, SURGE AND FATIGUE Pipeline Plastics Water Pipe can withstand surge events as- sociated with frequent pump on/off cycles, fast value clo- sures or catastrophic system shutdown. Pressures and surge events generating up to 2X PC for occasional surge, and 1.5X PC for repeated surge is allowed for up to 10 million cycles (see PPI Technical Report, "Fatigue of Plastic Water Pipe: A Technical Review with Recommendations for PE4710 Pipe Design Fatigue."). Pipeline Plastics, LLC 2*HDS PC= * SFE * SFT (DR - 1) Where: PC = pressure class, psi HDS = hydrostatic design stress = 1000 psi for PLP Water Pipe at 73°F DR = dimension ratio (actual average OD/min wall thickness, t) SFE = environmental service factor = 1.0 for water and most sanitary sewer (see PPI TR -9 for additional information) SFT = temperature service factor = 1.0 at 737 (see chart) * Note: Working Pressure rating for PE4710 at 73°F Total Pressure = Working Pressure + Surge Pressure Allowance — Working • WP • WP Pressure Pressure Recurring Occasional Class (PC) DR_ WP (psi) Surge (psi) Surge (psi) 250 9 250 375 500 200 11 200 300 400 150 14.3 150 275 300 100 21 100 150 200 * Note: Working Pressure rating for PE4710 at 73°F Total Pressure = Working Pressure + Surge Pressure Allowance >100 i i 80 — 60 t^ 40 — 20 0 IAINING Design Fatigue Life Example installation for a 100 yr. design life: ASTM -F714 AWWA-C906 PE4710 10" DIPS DR 14.3 vs. PVC 10" CIOD DR 18 PVC • Working Pressure 70 psi • Recurring flow velocity 4 fps • Occasional flow velocity 8 fps • Surge events per day 55 • HDPE design fatigue life >100 yrs. • PVC design fatigue life Source — PPI PACE software, beta ver. 1.0, ©eTrenchless Group, Inc. Pipeline Plastics Water Pipe can be joined by heat fusion using industry accepted ASTM F2620 procedure for butt -fusion and saddle fusion. Electro -fusion as well as many types of mechanical couplings or flange adaptors designed for use on HDPE pipe can also be used. Always follow the fitting manufacturer installation procedure. DESIGN, INSTALLATION AND LEAK TESTING Pipeline Plastics recommends following the practices and guidance of the Plastics Pipe Institute Handbook of Polyethylene Pipe, second edition available on the PPI website www.plasticpipe.org. Additional guidance is available with the PPI Calcula- tor http://plasticpipe.org/publications/software-ppi-calculator.html. Leak testing should be performed according to ASTM F2164, "Standard Practice for Field Leak Testing of Polyethylene (PE) and Crosslinked Polyethylene (PEX) Pressure Piping Systems Using Hydrostatic Pressure." Appropriate safety considerations should always be followed. CONFORMANCE • ASTM F714, "Standard Specification for Polyethylene (PE) Plastic Pipe (DR -PR) Based on Outside Diameter." ASTM D3035, "Standard Specification for Polyethylene (PE) Plastic Pipe (DR -PR) Based on Controlled Outside Diameter." • ANSI/AWWA C906, "Polyethylene (PE) Pressure Pipe and Fittings, 4" to 63", for Water Distribution and Transmission." • Cell Classification PE445574C per ASTM D3350 • NSF/ANSI Standard 61 Certified for Potable Water Contact • Plastics Pipe Institute (PPI) TR -4 Listing as PE4710 / PE3408 Hydrostatic Design Basis 1,600 psi @ 73°F (23°C) and 1,000 psi @ 140"F (60°C) per ASTM D2837 • Color & UV Stabilizer: (C) Black with 2% min Carbon Black per ASTM D3350 Heat Fusion Joining as per ASTM F2620 and PPI TR-33/TR-41. • Installation as per AWWA M55 and PPI PE Pipe Handbook, 2nd ed. Physical Properties Nominal Value* Test Method Physical Properties _ Nominal Value' _ Test Method Density 0.960 g/cm3 ASTM D1505 Elongation @ Break >500 % ASTM D638 Melt Index (MI) 190"C/2.16kg 0.07 g/10 min ASTM D1238 Flexural Modulus 150,000 psi ASTM D790 High Load Melt Index (190°C/21.6kg) 7 - 16 g/10 min ASTM D1238 Brittleness Temperature <-103'F ASTM D746 PENT >500 hours ASTM F1473 I Hardness 62 Shore D ASTM D2240 Tensile Stress @ Yield 3,500 psi ASTM D638 I Vicat Softening Temperature 256 °F ASTM D1525 Tensile Stress @ Break 5,000 psi ASTM D638 1 Thermal Expansion 1'.0 x 101 in/in/°F ASTM D696 • Nominal values are typical results and are not guaranteed or intended to be used as a product specification. Pipeline Plastics, LLC Note - These tables represent standard sizes Other DRs and PCs available upon request A. PR: Pressure Rating in pounds/sq in. (psi) for ASTM F714 Water up to 800F. B PC: Pressure Class In pounds/sq in. (psi) for ANSI / AWWA C906 Water up to 80'F. C ID: Inside Diameter may vary due to manufacturing tolerances. D. Wt / Ft: Weight per foot in pounds may vary due to manufacturing tolarances. Corporate Headquarters 1301 Solana Blvd. Bldg. 1, Suite 1440 Westlake, TX 76262 O: 817-693-4100 North Texas Facility West Texas Facility PO BOX 1988, 1453 FM 2264 2309 Commerce Drive Decatur, TX 76234 Levelland, TX 79336 0:940-627-9100 F:940-627-9101 0:806-568-0800 F: 806-568-0801 :) PIPELINE South Dakota Facility PO Box 578, 10805 US Hwy 212 Belle Fourche, SD 57717 0:605-892-0500 F:605-892-0501 Pipeline Plastics, LLC www.plpe.us Version 5/2016 DIPS ANSI / AW WA C906; ASTM F714 - PE4710 ASTM F714 - PE4710 DR 7 9 11 13.514.3 17 PM / PC' 335 7 250 9 200 11 160 13.5 150 14.3 125 - - - - - Min IDc Wt/ Min IDc Wt / Min ID° Wt/ Min IDc Wt/ Min IDc Wt/ Min IDc Wt/ Size OD (In) Wall (avg) Pt' Wall (ave) Ft' Wall avg) Fta Wall (avg) Fta Wall (ave) Fill Wall lave) Ft' 4" 4.800 0.686 3.346 3.872 0.533 3.669 3.129 0.436 3.875 2.625 0.356 4.046 2180 0.336 4.088 2.069 0.282 4.201 1.760 6" 6.900 0.986 4.810 8.000 0.767 5.275 6.470 0.627 5.570 5.421 0.511 5.816 4.506 0.483 5.877 4.269 0.406 6.040 3.638 e" 9.050 1.293 6.309 13.76 1.006 6.918 11.13 0.823 7.306 9.32 0.670 7.629 7.752 0.633 7.708 7.351 0.532 7.921 6.258 10" 11.10 1.586 7.738 20.70 1.233 8.485 16.74 1.009 8.961 1 14.03 0.822 9.357 1 11.66 0.776 9.454 11.06 0.653 9.716 9.417 12" 13.20 1.886 9.202 29.28 1.467 10.091 23.68 1.200 10.66 19.84 0.978 11.13 1648 0.923 11.24 15.63 0.776 11.55 13.32 14" 15.30 2.186 10.67 39.33 1.700 11.70 31.80 1.391 12.35 26.65 1.133 12.90 22.14 1.070 13.03 21.00 0.900 13.39 17.89 16" 17.40 2.486 12.13 50.87 1933 13.30 41.13 1.582 14.05 34.47 1.289 14.67 28.64 1.217 1482 27.17 1.024 15.23 23.14 18" 19.50 2.786 1359 63.89 2.167 14.91 51.67 1.773 15.74 43.29 1.444 16.44 35.97 1.364 16.61 34.11 1.147 1707 29.07 20" 21.60 3.086 15.06 78.39 2.400 16.51 63.38 1.964 17.44 53.11 1.600 18.21 44.14 A 1.510 18.40 41.86 1 1.271 18.91 35.67 Note - These tables represent standard sizes Other DRs and PCs available upon request A. PR: Pressure Rating in pounds/sq in. (psi) for ASTM F714 Water up to 800F. B PC: Pressure Class In pounds/sq in. (psi) for ANSI / AWWA C906 Water up to 80'F. C ID: Inside Diameter may vary due to manufacturing tolerances. D. Wt / Ft: Weight per foot in pounds may vary due to manufacturing tolarances. Corporate Headquarters 1301 Solana Blvd. Bldg. 1, Suite 1440 Westlake, TX 76262 O: 817-693-4100 North Texas Facility West Texas Facility PO BOX 1988, 1453 FM 2264 2309 Commerce Drive Decatur, TX 76234 Levelland, TX 79336 0:940-627-9100 F:940-627-9101 0:806-568-0800 F: 806-568-0801 :) PIPELINE South Dakota Facility PO Box 578, 10805 US Hwy 212 Belle Fourche, SD 57717 0:605-892-0500 F:605-892-0501 Pipeline Plastics, LLC www.plpe.us Version 5/2016 IPS ANSI / AW WA C906; ASTM F714 - PE4710 DR 7 9 11 13.5 14.3 17 160 PRA/ PC' 335 250 200 150 125 Min IDc 1 Wt / Min IDc Wt / Min IDI Wt / Min IDC Wt / Min IDc Wt / Min IDc Wt / Size OD lin) Wall lavg) Ft' Wall (avg) Ft° Wall lavg) Ft° Wall (ave) Ft' Wall lave) Fta Wall lave) Pia 3" 3.500 0.500 2 440 2.058 0.389 2.676 1.663 0.318 2.825 1.394 0.259 2.950 ' 1.160 0.245 2.981 1 1.098 0.206 3.064 0.935 4" i 4.500 0.643 3.137 3.400 0.500 3.440 2.751 0.409 3.633 I 2.307 0.333 3.793 1 1.914 0.315 3.833 1.819 0.265 3.939 1.550 6" 6.625 0.946 4.619 7.373 0.736 5.064 5.961 0.602 5.348 4 994 0.491 5.585 4.151 0.463 5.643 3.938 0.390 5.799 3.354 a,' 8.625 1.232 6.01 12.50 0.958 6.59 10.11 0.784 6.96 8.468 0.639 7.27 7.035 0 603 7.35 6.672 0.507 7.55 5.689 10" 10.75 1.536 7.49 19.42 1.194 8.22 1570 1 0.977 8.68 13.16 0.796 9.06 10.93 0.752 9.16 10.37 0.632 9.41 8.830 12" 12.75 1.821 8.89 I 27.32 1.417 9.75 22.09 1.159 10.29 18.51 0.944 10.75 15.38 0.892 10.86 14.59 0.750 11.16 12.43 14" 14.00 2.000 9.76 32.93 1.556 10.70 26.63 1.273 11.30 22.31 1.037 11.80 1854 0.979 11.92 1759 0.824 12.25 14.98 16" 1 16.00 2.286 � 11.15 1 43.01 1.778 12.23 34.77 1.455 12.92 29.15 1.185 13.49 24.21 1.119 13.63 22.97 0.941 14.00 19.58 I 18" 18.00 2.571 12.55 X4.44 2000 13.76 44.02 1 636 14.53 36.90 1.333 15.17 30.64 1.259 1533 29.07 1.059 15.76 24.76 20" 20.00 2.857 13.94 67.21 2.222 15.29 54.35 1.818 16.15 45.54 1.481 16.86 37.83 1399 17.03 35.90 1.176 17.51 30.58 22" 22.00 3.143 15.34 81.31 2.444 1682 65.75 j 2.000 17.76 55.10 1.630 18.55 45.78 1.538 18.74 43.44 1 294 19.26 37.00 24" I 24.00 3.429 16.73 96.77 2.667 18.35 78.26 2.182 19.37 65.59 1.778 20.23 54.48 1.678 20.44 51.69 1.412 21.01 44.02 Note - These tables represent standard sizes Other DRs and PCs available upon request A. PR: Pressure Rating in pounds/sq in. (psi) for ASTM F714 Water up to 800F. B PC: Pressure Class In pounds/sq in. (psi) for ANSI / AWWA C906 Water up to 80'F. C ID: Inside Diameter may vary due to manufacturing tolerances. D. Wt / Ft: Weight per foot in pounds may vary due to manufacturing tolarances. Corporate Headquarters 1301 Solana Blvd. Bldg. 1, Suite 1440 Westlake, TX 76262 O: 817-693-4100 North Texas Facility West Texas Facility PO BOX 1988, 1453 FM 2264 2309 Commerce Drive Decatur, TX 76234 Levelland, TX 79336 0:940-627-9100 F:940-627-9101 0:806-568-0800 F: 806-568-0801 :) PIPELINE South Dakota Facility PO Box 578, 10805 US Hwy 212 Belle Fourche, SD 57717 0:605-892-0500 F:605-892-0501 Pipeline Plastics, LLC www.plpe.us Version 5/2016 HDPE Pipe Pressure Calculations Long Term Pipe Pressure Performance Criteria PR (H S) f,, fr DR -1 PR: pressure rating, psi HDS: hydrostatic design stress, psi; 800 @ 73 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) fs: environmental design factor; 1.00 for water fT; operating temperature multiplier; 1.11 @ 73 °F DR: pipe dimension ratio, DR=D/t; D: diameter, t: thickness 150 = 2(800)(1.00)(1.11) DR -1. DR =11.8; 11.8 > 11, so DR -11 is acceptable II PRESSURE ■ RATING Rk".Ir IM —doolifthh- 14 j PLASTICS Me ideal Aping Solation WL Plastics HDPE Pressure Pipe — Determining Pressure Ratings for Applications Short -Term and Long -Term Performance WL Plastics pressure rated HDPE pipe is manufactured from polyethylene materials that are custom engineered to provide the unique properties needed for pressure pipe. Pipes must withstand short-term and long-term loads from the application, and here polyethylene is unique because its strength under load depends on the magnitude of the load and how long the load is applied. Under short-term loads, polyethylene typically reacts in a resilient, ductile -elastic manner, but the reaction to long- term loads is very different. Short-term ultimate strength is characterized by tremendous ductile elongation (necking down and stretching) and then failure in the elongated area. In contrast, long-term ultimate strength is characterized by cracks that grow slowly through the pipe wall (slow crack growth). Short-term and long-term characteristics are so different that short-term properties cannot be used to predict long-term performance. Polyethylene pressure pipes are designed for years of continuous internal pressure. To predict (rate) long-term internal pressure performance, polyethylene pipe materials must undergo long-term testing and analysis to determine the internal pressure the pipe can withstand at an operating temperature. For polyethylene pressure pipe materials, testing and analysis is conducted in accordance with ASTM and PPI standards'. The hydrostatic design stress, HDS, is a maximum long- term design stress at an operating temperature for the material. For polyethylene pressure pipe materials, the HDS is typically determined at 73°F and 140°F. Table 1 shows HDS ratings for WL Plastics HDPE materials. Table 1 HDS — WL Plastics HDPE HDS at 73°F HDS at 140°F PE4710 1000 psi 630 psi PE3608/PE3408 800 psi 400 psi ' ASTM D1598 Time -to -Failure of Plastic Pipe Under Constant Internal Pressure; ASTM D2837 .Obtaining. Hydrostatic Design Basis for Thermoplastic Pipe Materials; PPI TR -3 Policies and Procedures for Developing Hydrostatic Design Basis (HDB), Pressure Design Basis (PDB), Strength Design Basis (SDB), and Minimum Required Strength (MRS) Ratings for Thermoplastic Piping Materials or Pipe Internal Pressure Rating The equations below are used to determine a long-term internal pressure rating by taking into account the material's long-term strength, operating temperature, environmental (application) conditions and pipe size. PR = 2 HDS fT fE (1) (DR —1) Where PR = pressure rating, psi. HDS = hydrostatic design stress at 73°F, psi fT = operating temperature multiplier fE = environmental design factor DR = pipe dimension ratio DR = � (2) D = pipe outside diameter, in t = pipe minimum wall thickness, in Polyethylene material strength is inversely dependent on temperature, that is, its strength decreases at elevated temperatures. Eq. 1 relates strength to temperature using a Table 2 operating temperature multiplier, fT. When determining an application pressure rating, the fT for the highest application operating temperature is typically used for a conservative rating. Table 2 Operating Temperature Multiplier, fT Maximum Operating Temperature Multiplier, fT PE3608 °F °C PE4710 PE3408 540* 54 1.23 1.31 >40 560* >4 516 1.16 1.21 >60 580 <16 527 1.00 1.00 >80 590 >27 532 0.93 0.90 >905100 >32 538 0.87 0.82 >100 5110 >38 543 0.81 0.75 >110 5120 >43 s49 0.76 068 >120 5130 >49 554 0.70 0.61 >130 5140 >54!560 0.65 0.54 * Multipliers based on midrange temperature. For water distribution and transmission applications, multipliers for 60°F (16°C) and lower temperatures are not used. The application "environment" within and outside the pipe is factored into Eq. 1 using a Table 3 environmental design factor, fE. , WL118-0308 Rev Mar 2008 Supersedes all previous editions. © 2008 WL Plastics Corp. www.wlplasbcs.com Pg. 1 of 4 Table 3 Environmental Design Factor, fE Factor, fE Environmental and Applications Conditions, Liquids that are chemically benign to polyethylene such as potable and process water, municipal sewage, wastewater, reclaimed water, salt water, brine solutions, glycol/antifreeze solutions, 1.00 alcohol; Buried pipes for gases that are chemically benign to polyethylene such as dry natural gas (in Class 1 locations where U.S. and Canadian Federal Regulations do not limit pressure), methane, propane, butane, carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide. Buried pipes for compressed air, oxygen, and other oxidizing gases at ambient temperature (580°F/527°C); U.S. Only — Buried pipes for fuel gases such as natural gas, LP gas, propane, 0.64 butane in gas distribution systems and Class 2, 3 or 4 locations where U.S. Federal Regulations limit pipe pressure to the lesser of 125 psi for 512 - in or 100 psi for >12 -in. or the design pressure rating. Canada Only — Buried pipes for fuel gases such 0.80 as natural gas, LP gas, propane, butane in distribution systems subject to Canadian Federal and Provincial Regulations. PR <--125 psi or 2 (800)(1.00)(0.64) =128 psi (9-1) The calculation yields 128 psi, but US Federal Regulations limit the pressure rating to 125 psi for 12" IPS and smaller pipes (100 psi max for >12" IPS through 24" IPS.) 4. Determine the long-term pressure rating for DR 11 WL Plastics HDPE pipe on the surface transporting compressed air at 120°F. Per Table 3, this application is not recommended. Liquid Flows Short term internal pressure surges such as water hammer result from instantaneous liquid flow velocity changes. These conditions are accommodated above the long-term internal pressure rating by short-term physical capabilities. For distribution and transmission of liquids such as water or water -borne slurries, the standard surge pressure allowance above the long-term design pressure rating is: PSA = 1.00 x PR (3) Permeating or solvating liquids in the pipe or the Surge pressures typically result from instantaneous liquid 0.50 surrounding soil such as gasoline, fuel oil, velocity chfrom conditions such as firefighting, kerosene, crude oil, diesel fuel, liquid hydrocarbon y an ges g g' fuels, vegetable and mineral oils slurry blockage or component failure. Pipe size is factored into Eq. 1 through the dimension ratio, DR, Eq. 2. For a given DR, wall thickness increases or decreases in direct proportion to the outside diameter. DR is convenient because it remains constant as pipe size varies. That is, a 2" DR 11 pipe and a 24" DR 11 pipe have the same pressure rating for the same application temperature and environment. A side benefit is that minimum wall thickness is easily determined by dividing the pipe diameter by the DR. Internal Pressure Rating Examples Determine the long-term pressure rating for DR 11 WL Plastics PE4710 HDPE pipe transporting brine water at 125°F. PR — 2 (1000) (0.70)(1 .00) — —140 psi (11 — 1) 2. Determine the long-term pressure rating for DR 17 WL Plastics PE3608/PE3408 HDPE pipe transporting crude oil at 115°F. Liquid flow velocity is determined using V — 1.283 Q (4) n D,2 Where V = velocity, ft/sec. Q = flow quantity, U.S. gal/min D; = pipe average inside diameter, in Di = D — 2.12DR (5) (Note — Di is an average pipe ID for flow estimation purposes only. Actual pipe 1D will vary depending on specification dimensions and tolerances. Consult specifications or measure actual pipe 1D for devices such as stiffeners that install in the pipe bore.) When a surge pressure event such as water hammer occurs in a pipe, the velocity of the pressure surge is dependent on the instantaneous elastic modulus of the pipe material and pipe dimensions. PR — 2 (800(0.75)(0.50) = 37.5 psi a — 4660 (6) 17-1) 1+kD 3. Determine the long-term pressure rating for 8" IPS DR E t 9 WL Plastics PE3608/PE3408 HDPE pipe carrying 70°F natural gas in a US Class 3 location. Where _ a = pressure.wave velocity, ft/sec k = fluid bulk modulus, psi 2 U.S. — Department of Transportation Title 49 Code of Federal = Regulations Part 192; Canada — CSA Z662 Clause 13. 300,0{)0 psi for water WL118-0308 Rev Mar 2008 Supersedes all previous editions. © 2008 WL Plastics Corp. www.wlplasbcs.com Pg. 2 of 4 E = instantaneous dynamic elastic modulus of pipe material, psi = 150,000 psi for HDPE per AWWA M55 The surge pressure, PS, caused by a sudden change in liquid flow velocity is: PS = a (AV) (7) 2.31 g Where PS = surge pressure, psi Ov = sudden velocity change, ft/sec g = gravitational acceleration. ft/secZ 322 ft/seC2 (Note - The sudden velocity change, dv, must occur within the critical time, 2U6, where `L' is the pipe length in feet and 'a' is the pressure wave velocity (Eq. 6). A surge pressure does not occur if the time required for the velocity change exceeds the critical time.) During steady pressure operation, the maximum operating pressure, MOP, should not exceed the long-term pressure rating, and during a pressure surge event, the total internal pressure should not exceed the long-term pressure rating plus the pressure surge allowance. Table 4 shows the approximate instantaneous water velocity change to produce a surge pressure equal to the surge pressure allowance. If the potential velocity change results in a surge pressure that is higher than the pressure surge allowance, the MOP is reduced or pipe having a higher pressure rating is used (Eq. 9), with the difference between PR and MOP added to PSA. During steady pressure operation, fo PR >- MOP (8) And during a surge pressure event, modulus of elasticity, psi PR + PsA >- MOP + Ps (9) Table 4 Pressure Rating, Surge Allowance and Corresponding Velocity Change for Water PR, psi PSA, psi dv, ft/sec DR PE3608 PE3608 PE3608 PE4710 PE4710 PE4710 PE3408 PE3408 PE3408 7 333 267 333 267 17.6 14.1 7.3 317 254 317 254 17.3 13.8 9 250 200 250 200 155 12.4 11 200 160 200 160 1&9 11.1 13.5 160 128 160 128 12.5 10.0 17 125 100 125 100 11.1 8.9 21 100 80 100 80 10.0 8.0 26 80 64 80 64 8.9 7.2 32.5 63 51 63 51 8.0 6.4 kPa = psi x 6.895; m/sec = ft/sec x 0.305 External PressureNacuum Resistance Circumferentially applied external pressure or internal vacuum or a combination of external pressure and internal vacuum will attempt to flatten the pipe. Freestanding non- pressure pipe in surface, sliplining, submerged and like applications is not supported by embedment or other external confinement that can significantly enhance resistance to flattening from external pressure. The resistance of freestanding pipe to flattening from external pressure depends on wall thickness (pipe DR), elastic properties (time and temperature dependent elastic modulus and Poisson's ratio), and roundness. P 2E fo ( 1 )3 PCR - 1-P2 DR -1 (9 ) Where fo PCR = flattening resistance limit, psi E = modulus of elasticity, psi p = Poisson's Ratio = 0.35 for short-term stress = 0.45 for long-term stress fo = roundness factor DR = pipe dimension ratio, (Eq. 2) PAL = PC (10) Where PAL = safe external pressure, psi N = safety factor (typically > 2) Table 5 Roundness Factor, fo Deflection fo % Deflection fo 0 1.00 6 052 1 0.92 7 0.48 2 0.88 8 042 3 0.78 9 0.39 4 0.70 67.1 59.9 (1793) s10 0.36 5 0.62 (463) (413) Table 6 Modulus of Elasticity for PE4710 and PE3608/PE3408 HDPE Temperature. Modulus of Elasticity for Load Time, kpsi (MPa) of (oC) Short- 10h 100h 1000h 1 y 10y 50 y term -20(-29) 300.0 140.8 125.4 107.0 93.0 77.4 69.1 (2069) (971) (865) (738) (641) (534) (476) 0(-18) 260.0 122.0 108.7 92.8 80.6 67.1 59.9 (1793) (841) (749) (640) (556) (463) (413) 40 (4) 170.0 79.8 71.0 60.7 52.7 43.9 39.1 (1172) (550) (490) (419) (363) (303) (270) 60 (16) 130.0 61.0 54.3 46.4 40.3 33.5 29.9 (896) (421) (374) (320) (278) (231) (206) 73 (23) 110.0 57.5 51.2 43.7 38.0 31.6 28.2 (758 (396 ((353) (301) (262) (218) (194) 100 (38) 100.0 46.9 41.8 35.7 31.0 25.8 23.0 (690) (323) (268) (246) (214) (178) (159 120 (49) 65.0 30.5 27.2 23.2 20.2 16.8 15.0 (448) (210) (188) (160) (139) (116) (103) 140 (60) 50.0 23.5 20.9 17.6 15.5 12.9 11.5 (345) (162) (144) (123) (107) (89) (79) WL118-0207 Rev Feb 2007 Supersedes all previous editions. © 2007 WL Plastics Corp. Pg. 3 of 4 Table 7 Safe External Pressure for HDPE, PAL, psi, by Load Duration and Service Temperature' Load Max Service DR Duration Temp., °F 7 7.3 9 11 13.5 15.5 17 21 26 325 _< 40 328.4 283.7 138.5 70.9 36.3 23.3 17.3 8.9 4.5 2.3 > 40 < 60 251.0 216.8 105.9 54.2 27.8 17.8 13.2 6.8 3.5 1.7 > 60 < 80 236.6 204.4 99.8 51.1 26.2 16.8 12.5 6.4 3.3 1.6 ;4 Day > 60 < 100 193.0 166.7 81.4 41.7 21.3 13.7 10.2 5.2 2.7 1.3 > 100 < 120 125.5 108.4 53.0 27.1 13.9 8.9 6.6 3.4 1.7 09 > 120 < 140 96.7 83.5 40.8 20.9 10.7 6.9 5.1 26 1.3 07 < 40 274.9 237.4 116.0 59.4 30.4 19.5 14.5 7.4 3.8 1.9 > 40 < 60 210.1 181.5 886 45.4 23.2 14.9 11.1 5.7 2.9 1.5 > 60 < 80 197.9 170.9 83.5 42.7 21.9 140 10.4 5.3 27 14 42 Days > 60 < 100 161.7 139.6 68.2 34.9 17.9 11.5 8.5 4.4 2.2 1.1 > 100 < 120 105.1 90.7 44.3 22.7 11.6 7.4 5.5 2.8 1.5 0.7 > 120 < 140 80.6 69.6 34.0 17.4 8.9 5.7 4.3 2.2 1.1 0.6 _< 40 238.6 206.1 100.7 51 5 26.4 16.9 12.6 6.4 33 1 6 > 40 < 60 182.5 157.6 77.0 39.4 20.2 12.9 9.6 4.9 2.5 1.3 > 60 < 80 172.1 148.6 726 37.2 19.0 12.2 9.1 4.6 2.4 1 2 1 Year > 60 < 100 140.4 121.3 59.2 30.3 15.5 9.9 7.4 3.8 1.9 1.0 > 100 < 120 91.5 79.0 38.6 19.8 10.1 6.5 4.8 2.5 1.3 0.6 > 120 < 140 70.2 60.6 29.6 15.2 7.8 5.0 3.7 1.9 1.0 0.5 < 40 177.0 152.9 74.7 38.2 19.6 125 9.3 4.8 2.4 1.2 > 40 < 60 135.4 117.0 57.1 29.2 15.0 9.6 7.1 3.7 1.9 0.9 > 60 < 80 127.7 110.3 53.9 27.6 14.1 9.0 6.7 3.4 1.8 0.9 50 Years - > 60 < 100 104.1 90.0 43.9 22.5 11.5 7.4 5.5 2.8 1.4 0.7 > 100 < 120 67.9 58.7 28.7 14.7 7.5 4.8 3.6 1.8 0.9 0.5 > 120 < 140 52.1 45.0 22.0 11.2 5.8 3.7 2.7 1.4 0.7 0.4 ' Table 7 ratings for PE4710 and PE3608/PE3408 are for free-standing non -pressure pipe with 3% ovality using a safety factor of 2; short-term Poisson ratio, 0.35, used for'/ day load duration; long-term Poisson ratio, 0 45, used for all other load durations. Ratings will vary for greater or lesser ovality, safety factor and load duration. Internal pressure will increase external load resistance by rounding the pipe and counteracting external load. Burial in suitable, properly installed embedment soils can more than triple external load resistance. This publication is intended for use as a piping system guide. It should not be used in place of a professional engineer's judgment or advice and it is not intended as installation instructions. The information in this publication does not constitute a guarantee or warranty for piping installations and cannot be guaranteed because the conditions of use are beyond our control. The user of this information assumes all risk associated with its use. WL Plastics Corporation has made every reasonable effort to ensure accuracy, but the information in this publication may not be complete, especially for special or unusual applications. Changes to this publication may occur from time to time without notice. Contact WL Plastics Corporation to determine if you have the most current edition Copying withoutchange permitted NSFJ& American Water Works Association liin,V CASPER PLANT: 2075 North Pyrite Road • P. 0. Box 1120 . Mills, WY 82644 • Customer Service: 307472-6000 • Fax: 307-472-6200 CEDAR CITY PLANT: 4660 W Highway 56 • P. 0. Box 627 • Cedar City, UT 84721 • Customer Service: 435-867-8908 • Fax: 435-865-2703 GILLETTE PLANT: 1301 E Lincoln St • Gillette, WY 82716. Customer Service: 307-682.5554 • Fax: 307-682-3339 BOWIE PLANT: 1110 Old Wise Road • PO Box 32 • Bowie, TX 76230 • Customer Service: 940-872-8300 . Fax: 940-872-8304 CALGARY PLANT: PO Box 860 . 1030 Western Drive • Crossfield, AB TOM OSO Canada • Customer Service: -403-946-0202 • Fax: 403-946-0252 WL118-0308 Rev Mar 2008 Supersedes all previous editions. © 2008 WL Plastics Corp. www.wiplasbcs.com Pg. 4 of 4 Basis of Design Report (60% Submittal) April 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station APPENDIX F DESIGN DRAWINGS SynTerra P:\ Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\60 PERCENT DESIGN\Final 60 Percent Basis of Design Report, Belews Creek, 3-31-2017.docx _ - "Zoll REMEDIATION SYSTEM r �00��� r ASH BASIN 1 / PROPERTY BOUNDARY m Lam. BELEWS LAKE o -800 i ter'. ♦ ,v 40, ♦ i i. 3RAPHIC MAP OBTAINED FROM THE USGS STORE AT http.,//store.usgs.gov/b2c_usgs/b2c/start/%%%28xcm=r3standardpitrex_prd%%%29/.do p0jimp . M, aW�rin(L%- mp M0IMI � ��� GRAPHIC ��� 0 ---EEIN FEE REMEDIATION SYSTEM GRAPHIC SCALE 16 0 16 32 IN MILES DRAFT 2017-03-17 SHEETINDEX SHEET 1 OF 6 COVER SHEET SHEET 2 OF 6 OVERALL DESIGN LAYOUT SHEET 3 OF 6 PLAN & PROFILE - HEADER PIPE SHEET 4 OF 6 WELL ENCLOSURE SHEET 5 OF 6 WELL SCHEMATIC SHEET 6 OF 6 TRENCH DETAIL GRAPHIC SCALE 16 0 16 32 IN MILES DRAFT 2017-03-17 PROPERTY LINE —760 I / i - I �o I I I I I I I PARCEL A (2.23 ACRES) I I� / l i / ROAD RIGHT OF WAY (APPROXIMATE) — - , PP a° A, A. / // TIE-IN TO EXISTING /! POWER POLE / PROPOSED C OBSERVATION i+ WELL �0 % EXTRACTION WELL EX -1 AND VAULT \, (TYPE) POWER POLE -� 0 TW -1 FENCE CONTROL PANEL TW-4�}/ EW -1 EW2� ' TW -2' E , �j �'C TW -3 GWA-20S + , GWA-20D y GWA-20SA GWA-20BR ' DISCHARGE PI EX -3 GATE / EX -4 I / UNDERGROUND PUMP POWER SUPPLY AND 1 / SENSOR WIRE CONDUIT TO EXTRACTION WELL IEX-5 /,' PROPOSED / OBSERVATION / WELL HEADER PIPE i i P. / EX -6 <v UNDERGROUND 2"0 HDPE QO" / DISCHARGE PIPE EX -7 / / l / / / / I UNDERGROUND PUMP EX -8 POWER SUPPLY AND I / SENSOR WIRE CONDUIT TO EXTRACTION WELL r � I /s / EX -10 L7 synTerra ASH BASIN LEGEND DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS PROPERTY LINE (SURVEYED) ® EX -1 PROPOSED PHASE 1 EXTRACTION WELL (APPROXIMATE) PROPOSED EXTRACTION SYSTEM OBSERVATION WELL (APPROXIMATE) AMW 17S CSA MONITORING WELL FE _W —11 EXTRACTION WELL FOR HDR PUMP TEST C TW -1 TEMPORARY WELL FOR HDR PUMP TEST SITE FEATURES AND TOPOGRAPHY OBTAINED FROM MAP PREPARED BY SP TITLED "MONITORING ELL LOCATION SUR EY BELE S CREEK STEAM STATION", OB NUMBER 11. 313A, DATED ULY 22,201 , FILE NAME "BELE S G A FINAL 0 22 1 D i G" PARCEL A 2 23 ACRES PROPERTY LINE IS BASED ON A PLAT PREPARED BY LDSI TITLED "E HIBIT MAP FOR DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION", DATED 0 -2 2016, PRO ECT NUMBER 411 1 , FILE NAME 411 1 D G GRAPHIC SCALE 30 0 30 IN FEET 148 RIVER STREET, SUITE 220 GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA 29601 PHONE 864-421-9999 www.synterracorp.com DRAWN BY: ADAM FEIGL ENGINEER: BILL LANTZ PROJECT MANAGER: CRAIG EADY DATE: 03/30/2017 LAYOUT: SH 2 SYSTEM DESIGN DRAFT 2017-03-31 REV 1DATE 1 DR 1 CK 1 APP DESCRIPTION 60 DUKEENERGY BELEWS CREEK STEAM STATION 3195 PINE HALL RD BELEWS CREEK, NORTH CAROLINA DRAWING TITLE: SHEET NO OVERALL DESIGN LAYOUT 2 OF 6 DUKE DRAWING NUMBER: REV NO X PARCEL A (2.23 ACRES) L.- ----774--- -�-- 772, PROPOSED - 770 OBSERVATION WELL _ - ___ 766 764- , —7s2— HEADER PIPE EX -10 z 0 Qw > W W LL w? 768 766 764 762 760 758 756 754 752 750 748 EX -6 S6 1 754 752 / HORIZONTAL SCALE 0 30 60 (IN FEET) VERTICAL SCALE 0 6 12 (IN FEET) Xx-�-->GWA-20S 77 TW -1 - -GWA-20D X -X -X � -F-�-->F-- GWA-20SA� ` GWA-20BR POLE (D POLE -� EW -1 PROPOSED OBSERVATION 770 WELL TW -3 c �- CTW-2------------------------------------- EX -4; EX -3 -FLOW EX -5 - -- -- EXM �\ DISCHARGE PIPE % , 60 POWER POLE o � GRAPHIC SCALE 30 0 30 60 IN FEET O LOCD O o o Lo OO OO O Lr) + + + + + + + + + O O rl -1 N N M M DATE PRINTED: 03/31/2017 10:41 AM SYNTERRA FILE PATH: P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\60 PERCENT DESIGN\DWG\DE BELEWS CK (PLAN & PROFILE) 20170330.dwg TO DISCHARGE PIPE 0 0 0) Lon Ln Lo ti r n X p Lo 04 D LIIL CZ Mo �f Wai;'� x oz _ -- � FLOW —� Lo oo Lo0 Lo + + + + � Lf) Lf) co VIP 148 RIVER STREET, SUITE 220 GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA 29601 PHONE 864-421-9999 www.synte rr... rp.Dom Terra DRAWN BY: ADAM FEIGL ENGINEER: BILL LANTZ Sw PROJECT MANAGER: JUDD MAHAN an DROJECT MANAGER: LAYOUT: SH 3 PLAN & PROFILE 0 Lo O OUTLET STRUCTURE 7y` TT~► �o z z 0 Qw > LL LU LL w? 768 766 764 762 760 758 756 754 752 750 0 748 0 00 DRAFT 2017-03-31 DUKE ENERGY BELEWS CREEK STEAM STATION 3195 PINE HALL RD BELEWS CREEK, NORTH CAROLINA DRAWING TITLE: SHEET NO PLAN & PROFILE - HEADER PIPE 3 OF 6 DUKE DRAWING NUMBER: REV NO X o rn o In rn 0) L00o Lo M M Ln r n ° o LLo , rno Goo ro coo Ln -io Wo w0 0 w� W� ------- --- -- -- Luo 11 Flow-► O LOCD O o o Lo OO OO O Lr) + + + + + + + + + O O rl -1 N N M M DATE PRINTED: 03/31/2017 10:41 AM SYNTERRA FILE PATH: P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\60 PERCENT DESIGN\DWG\DE BELEWS CK (PLAN & PROFILE) 20170330.dwg TO DISCHARGE PIPE 0 0 0) Lon Ln Lo ti r n X p Lo 04 D LIIL CZ Mo �f Wai;'� x oz _ -- � FLOW —� Lo oo Lo0 Lo + + + + � Lf) Lf) co VIP 148 RIVER STREET, SUITE 220 GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA 29601 PHONE 864-421-9999 www.synte rr... rp.Dom Terra DRAWN BY: ADAM FEIGL ENGINEER: BILL LANTZ Sw PROJECT MANAGER: JUDD MAHAN an DROJECT MANAGER: LAYOUT: SH 3 PLAN & PROFILE 0 Lo O OUTLET STRUCTURE 7y` TT~► �o z z 0 Qw > LL LU LL w? 768 766 764 762 760 758 756 754 752 750 0 748 0 00 DRAFT 2017-03-31 DUKE ENERGY BELEWS CREEK STEAM STATION 3195 PINE HALL RD BELEWS CREEK, NORTH CAROLINA DRAWING TITLE: SHEET NO PLAN & PROFILE - HEADER PIPE 3 OF 6 DUKE DRAWING NUMBER: REV NO X CONCRETE VAULT 1"U WELL SEAL VAULT DOORS ELECTROMAGNETIC 1/4" SS BALL VALVE PRESSURE GAUGE FLOW METER SAMPLE PORT C. 4-1/2"0 SS FLANGE . 1" SS CHECK VALVE SS REDUCER 1x1/4� /1" SS UNION (TYP.) SS 90 ° 5" MIN -►l I I N1" SS TEE --,"SS I � I I I I I I I I I j I I I I I I I I I EXISTING EXTRACTION WELL JUSTABLE PIPE PPORT 1" SS COUPLING DERGROUND RIGID CONDUIT 'ROUND DISCHARGE PIPE /CONCRETE VAULT BOW (TYP.) VALVE 1" TRANSITION FITTING /HDPE TO MALE THREADED METAL DRAFT 2017-03-17 CONCRETE VAULT SEE FIGURE 5-1 FOR MORE DETAILS WELL SEAL (MINIMUM OF 2) WATER TABLE 11 HIGH LEVEL CONTROL SENSOR I % I II I I II DISCHARGE PIPE I I 1 Ii I NOTE.FRACTURE DEPICTION IS FOR 4" BGS L LL SCREEN CONCRETE GROUT TO SEAL WELL PIPE GUIDES (MINIMUM `OF 2) :EMENT WITH 5 % BENTONITE A/A////'���� DRAFT 2017-03-31 RICAL AND UMENTATION CONDUIT j TOP OF TRANSITION ZONE APPROXIMATELY 45' BGS TRANSITION ZOLO� PROXIMATELY 10' PRESSUREETRANSDUCERCABLE WELL PUMP 1 FEET FROM NOT TO SCALE DUKE ENERGY BELEWS CREEK STEAM STATION 148 RIVER STREET, SUITE 220 3195 PINE HALL RD GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA 29601 BELEWS CREEK, NORTH CAROLINA PHONE 564-421-9999 www.synterracorp.com DRAWING TITLE: SHEET NO Terra DRAWN BY JOHN CHASTAIN ENGINEER: BILL LANTZ WELL SCHEMATIC 5 OF 6 s�mPROJECT MANAGER: CRAIG EADY DUKE DRAWING NUMBER: REV NO DATE: 03/31/2017 LAYOUT: SH 5 WELL SCHEMATIC y V P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\60 PERCENT DESIGN\DWG\DE BELEWS CK DETAILS_20170330.dwg 36" MIN GEOTEXTLE FABRIC 6" MAGNETIC LOCATION TAPE 12" DEEP CLASS II BACKFILL (EXISTING FILL MAYBE USED IF ACCEPTABLE) MAINTAIN VERTICAL OR SLOPED FACE MINIMUM 4" SEPARATION BETWEEN PIPES CLASS I BEDDING 6" MIN ,ELECTRICAL CONDUIT ELECTRICAL CONDUIT 6" yMIN 1 --p— 4" MIN f 4" MIN f 24" MIN TRENCH DETAIL 2"0 HDPE DISCHARGE LINE DRAFT 2017-03-31 NOT TO SCALE DUKE ENERGY BELEWS CREEK STEAM STATION 148 RIVER STREET, SUITE 220 3195 PINE HALL RD GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA 29601 BELEWS CREEK, NORTH CAROLINA PHONE 864-421-9999 www.synterracorp.com DRAWING TITLE: SHEET NO Terra DRAWNBY:JOINCHASTAIN IN13INEIR:1111LLANTZ TRENCH DETAIL 6OF6 s�mPROJECT MANAGER: CRAIG EADY DUKE DRAWING NUMBER: REV NO DATE: 03/31/2017 X LAYOUT: SH 6 TRENCH DETAIL P:\Duke Energy Progra-1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\60 PERCENT DESIGN\DWG\DE BELEWS CK DETAILS_20170330.dwg AGGREGATE OR TOPSOIL TO MATCH EXISTING SURFACE GEOTEXTLE FABRIC 6" MAGNETIC LOCATION TAPE 12" DEEP CLASS II BACKFILL (EXISTING FILL MAYBE USED IF ACCEPTABLE) MAINTAIN VERTICAL OR SLOPED FACE MINIMUM 4" SEPARATION BETWEEN PIPES CLASS I BEDDING 6" MIN ,ELECTRICAL CONDUIT ELECTRICAL CONDUIT 6" yMIN 1 --p— 4" MIN f 4" MIN f 24" MIN TRENCH DETAIL 2"0 HDPE DISCHARGE LINE DRAFT 2017-03-31 NOT TO SCALE DUKE ENERGY BELEWS CREEK STEAM STATION 148 RIVER STREET, SUITE 220 3195 PINE HALL RD GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA 29601 BELEWS CREEK, NORTH CAROLINA PHONE 864-421-9999 www.synterracorp.com DRAWING TITLE: SHEET NO Terra DRAWNBY:JOINCHASTAIN IN13INEIR:1111LLANTZ TRENCH DETAIL 6OF6 s�mPROJECT MANAGER: CRAIG EADY DUKE DRAWING NUMBER: REV NO DATE: 03/31/2017 X LAYOUT: SH 6 TRENCH DETAIL P:\Duke Energy Progra-1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\60 PERCENT DESIGN\DWG\DE BELEWS CK DETAILS_20170330.dwg Basis of Design Report (60% Submittal) April 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station APPENDIX G TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS SynTerra P:\ Duke Energy Progress.1026\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\60 PERCENT DESIGN\Final 60 Percent Basis of Design Report, Belews Creek, 3-31-2017.docx Well Screens FSc ..-� a Ali. � -._ 1 .4:� �.._, � _ n� �, �.� �L_ i � . � �" . 'i Johnsonscreens j li � ,i FREE-FLOW 304 STAINLESS STEEL SCREENS Telescope size screens (left) I install through the casing and usually have a Figure K packer as the upper fitting_ Pipe size screens (right) usually have weld rings at each end and attach directly to the casing. NOTES: Screens are available in up to 40 ft. lengths of continuously wrapped screen with no mid -weld 316 stainless steel screen. Technical information is available upon request P - pipe size, T - telescope For application depths > 1, 000 ft., contact Technical Support 1. Based on 0.030 in. slot size (collapse values contain no safety factor) 2. Recommended hang weight is 50 percent of the calculated tensile strength 3. Transmitting capacity in gpm/ft. of screen = open area x 0 31 @ 0.1 ft./sec. 100 65 6.0 44 4,300 87 35 61 82 98 111 123 140 153 250 6.6 6.0 4.8 4,300 194 20 37 51 64 75 85 102 115 6 P 600 6.7 5.9 6.0 8,800 185 20 37 52 65 76 86 103 117 1,000 6.B 59 7.6 8,800 677 16 30 43 54 64 73 89 103 250 7.6 6.7 7 0 11 000 127 23 42 59 73 86 98 117 133 8 T 1,000 7 7 6 7 89 11,000 468 18 34 48 61 73 83 101 116 250 8.7 7.9 79 12,100 85 26 48 67 84 99 112 134 152 8 P 1,000 8.8 7.9 10.1 20,800 314 21 39 55 70 83 95 115 133 250 9.5 86 8.3 12,100 65 28 53 74 92 108 122 146 166 10T 1,000 9.6 86 107 12,100 242 23 43 60 76 90 103 126 145 600 10.8 9.8 12.6 15,400 170 25 48 68 86 102 116 142 163 lop 1,000 10.8 9.8 17.8 15,400 226 25 48 68 86 102 116 142 163 600 11.4 10.4 136 17,600 145 27 51 72 90 107 123 149 172 12 T 1,000 11.4 10.4 190 17,600 192 27 51 72 90 107 123 149 172 250 12.8 11.8 14,8 17,600 103 30 57 80 102 121 138 168 193 12 P 600 12.8 11.8 20.9 17,600 136 30 57 80 102 121 138 168 193 1,000 12.9 11.8 25.2 17,600 193 29 55 78 98 117 134 163 188 250 12.6 11.6 136 14,300 108 30 56 79 100 119 136 165 190 14 T 600 126 11.6 19.6 14,300 143 30 56 79 100 119 136 165 190 1,000 12.6 11.6 24.0 14,300 207 28 53 76 96 114 131 160 184 250 14.1 13.1 15,5 17,100 77 33 63 89 112 133 152 185 213 14P/ 600 14.1 13.1 22.2 17,100 102 33 63 89 112 133 152 185 213 16T 1,000 14.1 13.1 27.2 17,100 148 32 60 85 107 128 146 179 206 1. Based on 0.030 in. slot size (collapse values contain no safety factor) 2. Recommended hang weight is 50 percent of the calculated tensile strength 3. Transmitting capacity in gpm/ft. of screen = open area x 0 31 @ 0.1 ft./sec. Flow Meter and Well Head Fittings Product Data Sheet PDS -656 cc -r. n Tesreo 9 FM APPR(IVED TigermagEP Technical Specifications FM656 Obstructionless Electromagnetic Flowmeter DESCRIPTION The Model 656 is a microprocessor based electromagnetic flowmeter designed to measure the flow of conductive liquids in full pipes. The sensor and the transmitter are integral and enclosed in a NEMA -7 explosion -proof housing. The sensor housing is made of steel. A wide variety of liners and electrodes are available to tailor the meter to operate in many processes. The Model 656's nonvolatile EEPROM memory and circuitry eliminates the need for a microprocessor backup battery. It is not necessary to reprogram if the electronic module is replaced or exchanged with electronics from another size flowmeter. APPLICATIONS The Model 656's high signal frequency makes it ideally suited to applications with high levels of inherent noise including; Process Chemicals, Heavy Slurries, Polymers, Acids, Alkalies, Sewage, Cooling Water. Nearly any conductive liquid can be measured. CERTIFIED ACCURACY Each TigemagEPTM is wet -flow calibrated in Sparting's Primary Flow tab traceable to the National Institute of Standards and Technology. A certificate of accuracy is furnished with each meter. PRINCIPLE OF OPERATION The Model 656 magnetic flowmeter is based on Faraday's Law which states that the voltage induced in a conductor moving through a magnetic field is proportional to the velocity of that conductor. The magnetic flowmeter will measure liquids with conductivities greater than 5 micromhos. STANDARD FEATURES • Sampling frequency up to 100 Hz for accurate measurement of fluids with high levels of inherent noise • Forward, reverse and net totalization • Programmable high and low flow alarms • Nonvolatile EEPROM memory • Universal electronics module compatibility • 2 -Line, 16 character backlit display • Programming made easy with Mag -Command • User -selectable damping & low flow cutoff • NEMA4X or NEMA -7 explosion proof enclosure • Accidental Submergence (NEMA611P67), Permanent Submergence (NEMA6PIIP66) and Direct Burial Sensors available • Approvals include: FM, CSA, NSF61 • Rotatable modular display • Empty pipe detection • PZR - Positive Zero Return • Standard 0.5% accuracy • Sizes available from 0.5" - 72" EASY TO READ BACKLIT ROTATABLE DISPLAY The 16 character, 2 -line backlit transmitter display is rotatable 360° in 90° increments ensuring easy reading in any orientation. INSTALLATION The meter must be mounted at a point in the line in which the pipe is always full of the process liquid under flowing conditions. The meter may be equipped with ANSI 150 or 300 Ib., AWWA, DIN, PN10 or 16, JIS 1 OK or 20K, or British Standard flanges. Only three diameters of straight pipe length are required from the center of the meter to normal obstructions to obtain specified accuracies. In the smaller sizes all of the necessary straight pipe is contained within the meter itself. EPROM NONVOLATILE MEMORY A backup battery is not required and there is no need to reprogram if the electronics module is replaced or exchanged, Meter identifica- tion (tube ID, serial number, K, offset, etc.) is stored on an EIPROM chip independent of transmitter electronics. The EIPROM chip has lifetime data retention, EMPTY PIPE DETECTION - Standard The Sparling TigermagEPTI is designed to detect absence or inadequate volume of process fluid in the pipe and will hold the output signal to 4 mA or zero. This feature does not require any hard wiring as it is asoftware selection. One of the most important values of this feature is that it prevents false totalization possible with other meters under partially filled pipeconditions. EASE OF COMMUNICATIONS The TigermagEP`" is programmable with Mag -Command, Hart Protocol. 4-20 mA, RS -232 or RS -485 outputs give you flexibility w hen interfacing with your distributed control system. REMOTE MOUNTED TRANSMITTER Remote mounting of the transmitter is required when pipe vibration is excessive, when flooding is possible or where high temperature conditions exist (over 212°F / 100°C). The TigermagEP" remote transmitter is housed in a NEMA -0 enclosure and features a larger sized (8mm) 16 digit 2 -line backlit display. All power, coil and electrode connections are made within the transmitter enclosure and junction box. The meter is programmed using Mag -Command. Hall -effect switches which are energized from outsidethe enclosure. The enclosure can be wall mounted. An optional bracket for pipe mounting is available. NI -Z CIRCUITRY The Sparling TigermagEPT" provides superior performance in liquids which tend to deposit nonconductive coatings. Hi-ZT1 circuitry produces a high input impedance to the transmitter's preamplifier (1012 ohms). The impedance of the coating is negligible as compared to the impedance of the receiving instrument. The voltage drop across.the electrode coating is also negligible eliminating the need for electrode cleaners. TWO FLOW ALARMS Fault alarms can be configured with alarm set points between 0-99% of flowfor each alarm. Open collector output turns on above programmed set point. PZR — Positive Zero Return An electronic circuit is activated by an external contact closure when lines go empty or when a pump or valve is shut down, indicating to the meter that it should drive the output signal to 4 mA or zero. REMOVABLE ELECTRODES (option) Two configurations of removable electrodes are available in sizes 6" or greater for all FM656 meters. The first configuration allows removal of the electrode after the line has been depressurized and drained. Removal is performed with an 11/32" nut driver and a 3/4" socket wrench. Ti T 1f �— Llectrocie Cable Thumbscrew Shut-off Valve Handle The second is the "hot -tap" electrode which allows electrode replacement while the system is still under pressure without disturbing the process flow. Removal can be easily performed with a phillips screwdriver and a crescent wrench. Special locking catches were designed to prevent high pressure accidents during electrode removal. The shut-off valve must be closed before the electrode may be removed. GROUNDING The use of grounding rings is recommended to ensure accuracy. Grounding rings are required if adjacent piping is lined or nonconduc- tive. Pump noise or excessive RF should be minimized to achieve highest accuracy. FLOW RATES & DIMENSIONS Table 1 Flow & Dimensions M[ FM _ FM656 Dimensions (inches) AA = 0.10" OA = 0.25" OB = 0.375" OD = 0.5" Of r 1"' , OG = 1.5" 02 = 2" OH = 2.5" 03 = 3" 04 = 4" 06 = 6" 08 = B" etc. Size A B C 5 - PDlyllreth,3ne (2" - 72") D Flowratas GPMl Full Scale (Inch) 150 lb 3001b 150 Ib 300 lb 150 lb 300 Ib 150 Ib 300 Ib 1 has 3 fias 33 f?s 0-1 4.00 4.00 3.50 3.75 9.50 9.62 9.25 9.30 0.04 0.1 1.3 0.25 4.00 4.00 3-50 3.75 9..50 9.62 9.25 9.30 0.15 0.5 5.0 0.375 4.00 4.00 3.50 3.75 9. SIT 9.62 9.25 9.30 0.34 1.0 11 0.5 4.00 4.00 3.50 3.75 9.'.,a 9.62 9..25 9.30 0.6 1.7 18 1 4,00 . 440 4.25 4.88 10:19 1050 10.21 2 6 6 1.5 4-00 4,00 5.00 5.12 10.88 11.44 VITA 11.13 5 15 174 2 4-00 4.00 6.00 6.50 11.69 11.89 11.44 11.64 9 27 303 2.5 6.00 6.00 7.00 7.50 12.62 1 12.88 11.56 1 11.88 13 39 431 3 6.00 6.00 7.50 8-25 13.00 13-40 12.75 13.15 20 60 _ 664 4 6.00 6.00 9.00 10.00 14.38 14-88 14.13 14.63 35 107 1,182 6 13.38 14.88 11.00 12.50 17.00 17.75 16.75 17-50 85 254 2,800 8 1 13.38 15.40 13.50 14.25 19.40 19.78 19.15 19.53 145 436 4,800 10 18.15 20.55 16.00 17.50 22.56 23.31 22.31 23.06 236 709 7,800 12 19.40 21.78 19.00 20.50 25.00 25.75 24.75 25.50 333 1,000 11,060 14 21.38 23.75 71.00 23.00 26.67 27.57 26.42 27.42 409 1,227 13,500 16 23.38 25.88 23.50 25.50 28.97 29.47 28.72 1 29.72 545 1,636 18,000 18 27.25 29.88 25.00 1 28.00 31.14 32.64 30.89 1 32-39 667 2,000 22,000 20 27.63 30.40 27.50 30.50 33.39 1 34.89 33.14 34.64 819 2_6 U 29 000 24 32.75 35.75 32.00 36.00 37.44 39.44 37.19 39.19 1,273 3,818 42„000 30 4150 46,63 38.75 43.00 43.72 45.85 43.47 45.60 1.909 5,727 63,000 36 47.75 50.85 46.00 56:00 50.20 52.20 49.95 51.95 2,925 8,775 96,525 42 51.75 55.12 53.00 57.00 56.90 56.90 56.65 58.65 4,040 12,120 133,320 48 51.75 5_5.38 59.50 65.00 63.05 65.80 62.80 65.55 5,322 26 54 53.50 66.25 69.88 69.63 7,144 0 60 65,50 • 73.00 ' 16.75 76.50 8,500 0 ADOD3 66 6-5 ' 80.00 83.75 83.50 10,3000072 72.75 86.50 90.011 89,75 12,70000 Dimensions for flanges. Allow 1/8" to !/4' for lining thickness/Dimensions C & ❑ 3 0125" Flow Rates: 0.25" - 4.0"flow rates are for FEP/PTFE, Poly and HR liners. Ceramic sensor flow rates differ slightly. Please see PDS -626 for ceramic sensor flow rates for 0.25" - 4.0". How to Order a TlgermagEP FM656 Base Model Number FM656 Table 2: Size AA = 0.10" OA = 0.25" OB = 0.375" OD = 0.5" Of r 1"' , OG = 1.5" 02 = 2" OH = 2.5" 03 = 3" 04 = 4" 06 = 6" 08 = B" etc. Table 3:I.Iner - i latd ilubsler -fat NSF61 Meters 'U (1" - 72") 5 - PDlyllreth,3ne (2" - 72") 6 - Ceramic' (0.1" - 4") 8 - FEP / PTFE - for NSF61 Meters (0.25" - 48") 9 - Neoprene (6" - 72") A - Polyurethane - for NSF61 Meters (2" - 72" Table 4: Electrode i - 316Ss 6 - Fused Platinum: only with Ceramic 2 - HastelloyC 7 - Platinum: liners other than Ceramic 3 - 316 SS Bullet Nosed 8 -Zirconium 4 - Titanium 9 - Monel 5 -Tantalum 0 -Tun sten Carbide Table 5: Flange Rating (NS and DIN avaNabie upon rvquesf) 1 150111 flanges` A - 816.5 Cl 150 C - B16.5 Cl 400 J 300 Ib flanges 8 - 816.5 Cl 300 D 816.5 CI 600 Table 6: Tr4rumitter and Sensor Protection Rating Remote Transmitters include 15 ft of cable 0 - Integral NEMA4X/NEMA7 enc! (FM Appr) 1- Remote NEMA4X/NEMA7 encl 2 - Remote NEMA4X/NEMA7 encl, perm sub (NEMA6P/IP68) 3 - Remote NEMA4X/NEMA7 encl, acc sub (NEMA6/IP67) 4 - Remote NEMA4X/NEMA7 encl, direct burial 5 - Remote NEMA4X encl 6 - Remote NEMA4X encl, acc. sub (NEMA6/IP67) 7 -Remote N k e Icl, direct burial nernn Sub I'N`-. MAGI'/li'68) Table 7: Power 0.= 77- 265 VA{ 1-12 - 60 VDC Options Comm: HART, Modbus, R5485, RS232 High Temperature Coils - required over 266F Hot Tap removable electrodes (4"+) Removable electrodes (4" +) Add Cable Lengths (over 15 ft - max 300 ft) R6,)y for Fault and Flow Alarms del size Liner - Electrode Flange Transmitter- Power 656 24 8 7 A 5 1 is 24", PTFEllner, Pt elect, 816.5 C1150flonges, NEMA4X Trans, VDC Ceramic Liner not available in the following sizes: 00 - 0.375"or DH - 2112" `FM approval is up to 120 molts Integral Mount Transmitter Remote Mount Transmitter I` "4 i . I � 17 �1 I�A�I A sensor Trensmiller Enclasum 11VEM4�4Xj " I[ Front Side i Eno �)`. f� Wal I Pipe Mounted Mounted Note. -Remote enclosure shown for meters shipped after July '16 Please toll factory for dimensions for/uly'16 and Ware. Standard Specifications Accuracy: 0.1" -0.25": 1% of flow (1- 33 fps) (Freq Out) 0.5' - 72": 0.5% of flow (1-33 fps) Optional 0.25% of flow (1 - 33 fps) Temp Effect: ±0.025% FS/"C Full Scale Ranges: From 0-3 fto0-33ft/sec Repeatability: ±0.1% offull scale Electrodes: 316 stainless steel standard (others available) Liner: Ceramic (AIOx 99.5%)Hard Rubber, Neoprene, Polyurethane Food Grade Polyurethane, TEF (FEP/PTFE) Outputs: 1) Isolated analog 4-2omA DC Into 800 ohms (std) 2) scaled ppulse 24 V DC wlth selectable f 2.5/25750!100 ms on time, max,freq, 60 Hz 3) 0-1000 Hz fraq., for 0-100% of flow rate, 15 V DC 4) Two flow alarms 5) Fault, with open collector 6) RS232 communication 7) flow direction with open collector 8) Positive Zero Return (PZR) for external relay contacts. Outputs 2 & 3 can be open collector if required. Mag-CommandTm: Selection and change of meter parameters by magnetic probe wilhout opening the enclosure. Display: 2-1.1ne, 18 Digit alphanumeric backlit display (rate and tntal). Modular, rotatable 360' in 90° increments Conductivity: Minimum 5 micromhos/cm Min Velocity: 0.3 fps (0.1 mps) Power Requirements: 77-265 Vac 50/60 Hz (12-60 Vdc optional) Power Consumption: Less than 20 Watts Enclosures: Transmitter: Cast aluminum epoxy coated. Integral (NEMA -7) or remote mounted (NEMA -0) Sensor Housing: Fabricated steel, epoxy coated. Preamp Impedance: 1012ohms minimum Amb. Temp: -20° to 140-F (-30" to 60"C) Display darkens over 158"F(70"C) End Connections: 150 Ib or 300 Ib Sensor Tube: 304 Stainless Steel Process Temp: Integral Mount: Hard Rubber, Neoprene, Polyurethane, Food Grade Polyurethane ....... .40-180"F TEF, Ceramic ................... -40 - 212"F Remote Mount (opt): TEF, Ceramic...................40 - 266"F High Temp Coils (opt) TEF....................................40 - 300"F Ceramic ............................-40 - 420"F Selectable Damping: 0-99 seconds Low Flow Cutoff: Selectable 0-9% of FS Options: - Remote Mounted NEMA4X or NEMA -7 Enclosure • Sensor rating of NEMA6/IP67, NEMA6P/IP68 and Direct Burial Electrode Materials: Titanium, Hastelloy C, Monel, Zirconium, Tantalum, Platinum, Fused Platinum (ceramic only) • Process Temperature to 420°F (216"C) (Ceramic Only) 12-60 Vdc operation HART, Modbus RS -485 Communication • Alarm with 10A relays (NEMA4X remote only) Process Pressure to 1750 psi SNO INSTRUMENTS. LLC. www.sparlinginstruments.com 4097 N. Temple City Blvd. EI Monte, CA 91731 (800) 800 -FLOW sales@sparlinginstrument.com 04/02 (Rev 1608) - 160826 Model FM -656 Specifications 1.0 The magnetic flowmeter shall be microprocessor -based and flanged. It shall indicate, totalize, and transmit flow in full pipes. 1.1 The magnetic flowmeter shall utilize DC bipolar pulsed coil excilation,operating at frequencies up to 100 Hz and automatically re -zeroing after every cycle. 1.2 The accuracy shall be at least 0.5% of flow rate over a 33:1 tum -down at all flow rates above 1 fps. Accuracy shall be verified by calibration in a flow laboratory traceable to the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology. 1.3 The flow sensor liner shall be Ceramic, Hard Rubber, Neoprene, Polyurethane, Food Grade Poly, or TEF. The housing shall be steel. 1.4 NSF 61 certified for potable water. 1.5 The integrally -mounted flow sensor and transmitter shall be FM approved for Class I, Division 1 & 2, Groups B, C, D and Class II, Division 1, Groups E, F, G environments without use of air purge. CSA Approved for Class 1, Division 2. 1.6 The electronics shall be integrally or remote mounted. 1.7 When remote mounted, the Flowmeter transmitter shall be furnished in a NEMA - 4X enclosure box, with a larger 318" character, 2 -line 16 digit backlit display and 15 feet of cable (standard). NEMA -7 remote option available. The remote mounted flow sensor shall be accidental submergence proof, 33 ft/48 hours 1.8 The flowmeter shall be suitable for operation at temperatures from -40"F to 266"F and at pressures from full vacuum to 740 psi. (Optional: higher temperature & pressure) 1.9 The flowmeter electrodes on ceramic liners shall be fused platinum. 1.10 The meter shall incorporate Hi -Z circuitry. The preamplifier input Impedance shall not be less than 1012 ohms, External ultrasonic electrode cleaners shall not be acceptable. 2.0 Available outputs 1) Isolated analog 4-20mAdc into 800 ohms (std); 2) scaled pulse 24 Vdc with selectable 12.5/25/50/100 ms on time, max. freq.60 Hz; 3) 0- 1000 Hz freq., for 0-100% of flow rate, 15 Vdc; 4) two flow alarms; 5) fault, with open collector; 6) RS232 communication; 7) flow direction with open collector; 8) Positive Zero Return (PZR) for external relay contacts. Outputs 2 & 3 can be open collector if required. 2.1 Low flow cutoff shall be selectable from 0-9% of FS and there shall be two now alarms settable from 0-99% of span. 2.2 A 2 -line, 16 character backlit alphanumeric display shall include user -defined Mow units and total flow. All menu advice and commands shall be visible on this display. The display shall be modular and rotatable 360", in 90" increments. Characters shall be at least 0.125" high for ease of readability. 2.3 The flowmeter shall incorporate the MAG-COMMANDTM feature allowing menu selection and changes to be made from outside the housing via Hall -effect sensors. It shall not be necessary to remove covers, panels or fasteners to accomplish calibration or program changes. 2.4 The TigennagEPs unique diagnostic functions eliminate the need for a technician to carry test equipment or open the housing. Current ramp, complete coil check and true front-end input simulator may be activated in MAG - COMMAND'' without opening the enclosure. 2,5 The meter software shall incorporate a password feature preventing changes. 2.6 The meter shall feature nonvolatile E1PROM memory and universal electronics module compatibility between all TigermagEPTm meters. 2.7 The flowmeter shall have a switching power supply having an operating range from 77-265 Vac, 50160 Hz (12-60 Vdc). Power consumption shall not exceed 20 Watts. 2.8 All printed circuit boards shall be contained in a plug-in module and be interchangeable for any size without requiring test equipment. 2.9 The flowmeter manufacturer shall have meters of the DC pulse type in similar flowing media for a minimum of five years. 3.0 The flowmeter shall be warranted against defective workmanship or materials for a period of two years from date of shipment. 4.0 Totalized flow and programmed configuration shall be maintained in memory for the meters lifetime. 5.0 The flowmeter shall be FM 656 TigermagEPTm manufactured by Spading Instruments, LLC © 2016 Sperling Instruments LLC, All Rights Reserved Home About New Products Piodtjc(i speemcatsaM Downloads Lead Free Cerfikabons Search NOM Sales Agents Contact Home > Products > Well Seals > Well Seal — Solid Top Plate Well Seal - Solid Top Plate lead free painted cast iron • Zinc plated steel bolts • Single Hole • 3/4" molded rubber, 50 durometer St Well Seal — Assembled in U.S.A. Single Drop with U.S. & Imported Pipe — Solid Components Top Plate — Warranty Submersible Pump Click here for Product Warranty Information • Class 25 Non-toxic Please note: 6 5/8", 10" and 12" cast iron well seals and all heavy duty cast iron well seals have been replaced by steel well seals. Part No Well Size I.D. Drop Pipe Cable Hole Vent Size Tapping Tapping 106 2 3/4 1/8 1/8 107 2 1 1/8* 1/8* 301 4 1 3/4 1/2 301B 4 Blank - 048 4 1Offset 3/4 1/2 049 4 11/4 Offset 3/4 1/2 306 41/4 1 3/4 1/2 323 5 1 3/4 1/2 E 327B 55/8 Blank - 313A 6 Blank 1 1/2 E 313B 6 Blank — 1 E 313 6 1 1 1/2 E 314 6 11/4 1 1/2 315 6 11/2 1 1/2 i 021* 6 3 Offset 1 1/2 L 318 61/4 1 1 1/2 E 318B 61/4 Blank — ¢ 319 61/4 11/4 1 1/2 r 320 61/4 11/2 1 1/2 321 61/4 2 1 1/2 * One 116' Drilled ho% — no threads Blank well seals available upon request Cour Address Simmons Manufacturing P.O. Box 1509 McDonough, GA. 30253 1608 Highway 20 East Got Questions? Call our Live Support Team! (800) 241-1935 Lead Free Certifications Quality Assurance is Top Priority at Simmons. Click here for more J)JJ I U ac L i ng) co � i i pa n y •borne About New Products Products Spee#leadons Downloads I Lead Free Certltcatlons Search Nevis Sales Agenls � contnet Home > Check Valve — Stainless Steel Check valve — Stainless Steel Check Valve — Stainless Steel Certified Lead Free • 304 Stainless Steel cast body • 304 Stainless Steel cast poppet • Female Threads All check valves furnished with Buna-N O -Ring, stainless steel spring, stainless steel washer and stainless steel locknut. All valves 3/4" through 1-1/2" have a working pressure of 400 psi. All valves 2" and larger have a working pressure of 600 psi. Made In U.S.A SL Prices shown are MSRP and are subject to change. Certified Lead Free learn more Need Product Dimensions? Click here Part No Size Weight to view product 4+ t adobe dimensions 3rd Party Ir j 0l,L� Certified Truesdail NSF/ANSI 372 Laboratories Click here to learn more Need Product Dimensions? Click here Part No Size Weight to view product 4+ t adobe dimensions Basis of Design Report (60% Submittal) April 2017 Belews Creek Steam Station APPENDIX H PERMITS SynTerra P: \ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ 20. BELEWS CREEK\ 04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\ 60 PERCENT DESIGN\ Final 60 Percent Basis of Design Report, Belews Creek, 3-31-2017.docx