NC0022406_FINAL Belews Creek Basis of Design Report_20170911

L,
synTerra
BASIS OF DESIGN REPORT
(100% SUBMITTAL)
BELEWS CREEK STEAM STATION
31915 PINE HALL ROAD
BELEWS CREEKS NORTH CAROLINA 27009
AUGUST 2017
PREPARED FOR
DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS. LLC.
526 SOUTH CHURCH STREET
CHARLOTTE,, NORTH CAROLINA 25202
r' DUKE
ENERGY
William LantzC PE 44301
Senior PrObject Engineer
`, I
i
LG 1 99
��• Pf �e t
Manager
qty:, 1599
' S
L
�'�,.f''•
/lllll 1

Basis of Design Report (100% Submittal) August 2017
Belews Creek Steam Station SynTerra
TABLE OF CONTENTS
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.................................................................................................1-4
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 .................................. 3-4
3.3.2 Groundwater Flow Model Calibration............................................................ 3-5
3.3.3 Implications of Remedy on Geochemical Conditions and Plume Stability 3-5
3.4 Groundwater Extraction System Design............................................................... 3-6
3.4.1 Current Conditions............................................................................................. 3-6
3.4.2 Post -Basin Closure Conditions..........................................................................3-7
3.5 Groundwater Extraction System Design Limitations..........................................3-7
4.0 WELL DESIGN..............................................................................................................4-1
4.1 Overview of Extraction Well Network.................................................................. 4-1
4.2 Extraction Well Construction.................................................................................. 4-1
4.3 Observation Well Construction.............................................................................. 4-2
Page i
P:\Duke Energy Carolinas\ 20. BELEWS CREEK\ 04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev \ 100 PCT
BOD\Basis of Design Report (100% Submittal), Interim Action Plan, Belews Creek Steam Station.docx

Basis of Design Report (100% Submittal) August 2017
Belews Creek Steam Station SynTerra
4.4 Groundwater Extraction Rates................................................................................ 4-3
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..............................................................................5-3
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........................................................................................................................ 8-2
8.3 Institutional Controls................................................................................................ 8-2
8.4 Contingency Plans.................................................................................................... 8-2
8.5 Construction and Monitoring Schedules............................................................... 8-2
9.0 REFERENCES................................................................................................................ 9-1
Page ii
P: \ Duke Energy Carolinas\ 20. BELEWS CREEK\ 04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev \ 100 PCT
BOD\Basis of Design Report (100% Submittal), Interim Action Plan, Belews Creek Steam Station.docx

Basis of Design Report (100% Submittal) August 2017
Belews Creek Steam Station SynTerra
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
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
Page iii
P:\Duke Energy Carolinas\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\ 100 PCT
BOD \ Basis of Design Report (100% Submittal), Interim Action Plan, Belews Creek Steam Station.dooc
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 Carolinas\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\ 100 PCT
BOD \ Basis of Design Report (100% Submittal), Interim Action Plan, Belews Creek Steam Station.dooc

Basis of Design Report (100% Submittal) August 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
Page iv
P:\Duke Energy Carolinas\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\ 100 PCT
BOD \ Basis of Design Report (100% Submittal), Interim Action Plan, Belews Creek Steam Station.dooc

Basis of Design Report (100% Submittal) August 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 Carolinas\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\ 100 PCT
BOD \ Basis of Design Report (100% Submittal), Interim Action Plan, Belews Creek Steam Station.dooc

Basis of Design Report (100% Submittal) August 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. A 60% Basis of Design report was
submitted to DEQ on April 10, 2017 and review comments were received on June
30, 2017. DEQ review comments are incorporated into this 100 % Basis of Design
report.
Page 1-2
P:\Duke Energy Carolinas\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\ 100 PCT
BOD \ Basis of Design Report (100% Submittal), Interim Action Plan, Belews Creek Steam Station.dooc

Basis of Design Report (100% Submittal) August 2017
Belews Creek Steam Station SynTerra
The purpose of this 100 % Basis of Design Report provides the details of the
extraction system layout and system components. This report also includes
evaluation of fate and transport of constituents, and potential changes to site
geochemistry as a result of remedial efforts. Key elements include:
47 Refined site conceptual model which incorporates aquifer test results.
10 Groundwater extraction system design.
0 Groundwater fate and transport modeling.
t7 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 achieve a
hydraulic boundary control proximal to the extraction well network.
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.
Page 1-3
P:\Duke Energy Carolinas\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\ 100 PCT
BOD \ Basis of Design Report (100% Submittal), Interim Action Plan, Belews Creek Steam Station.dooc

Basis of Design Report (100% Submittal) August 2017
Belews Creek Steam Station SynTerra
1.3 Report Organization
The 100% submittal provides detail for the groundwater extraction design, including
system components, performance, and evaluation of site specific considerations.
Section 2 contains an overview of site specific conditions including a 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.
Page 1-4
P:\Duke Energy Carolinas\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\ 100 PCT
BOD \ Basis of Design Report (100% Submittal), Interim Action Plan, Belews Creek Steam Station.dooc

Basis of Design Report (100% Submittal) August 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 Carolinas\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\ 100 PCT
BOD \ Basis of Design Report (100% Submittal), Interim Action Plan, Belews Creek Steam Station.dooc

Basis of Design Report (100% Submittal) August 2017
Belews Creek Steam Station SynTerra
Hornblende gneiss and schist quartzite, calcic -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 NAVD 88 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 NAVD 88
Page 2-2
P:\Duke Energy Carolinas \ 20. BELEWS CREEK \ 04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\ 100 PCT
BOD \ Basis of Design Report (100% Submittal), Interim Action Plan, Belews Creek Steam Station.dooc

Basis of Design Report (100% Submittal) August 2017
Belews Creek Steam Station SynTerra
while the normal operating elevation of the ash basin is approximately 750 feet NAVD
88.
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 NAVD 88 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 Carolinas\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\ 100 PCT
BOD \ Basis of Design Report (100% Submittal), Interim Action Plan, Belews Creek Steam Station.dooc

Basis of Design Report (100% Submittal) August 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 (749 to 741
feet NAVD 88) 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 (748 to 740 feet NAVD 88). 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 Carolinas\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\ 100 PCT
BOD \ Basis of Design Report (100% Submittal), Interim Action Plan, Belews Creek Steam Station.dooc

Basis of Design Report (100% Submittal) August 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 Carolinas\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\ 100 PCT
BOD \ Basis of Design Report (100% Submittal), Interim Action Plan, Belews Creek Steam Station.dooc

Basis of Design Report (100% Submittal) August 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 Carolinas\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\ 100 PCT
BOD \ Basis of Design Report (100% Submittal), Interim Action Plan, Belews Creek Steam Station.dooc

Basis of Design Report (100% Submittal) August 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 hydraulic control of groundwater 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 the need and location of additional extraction
wells along the extraction system.
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 creating a hydraulic barrier. 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 Carolinas\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\ 100 PCT
BOD \ Basis of Design Report (100% Submittal), Interim Action Plan, Belews Creek Steam Station.dooc

Basis of Design Report (100% Submittal) August 2017
Belews Creek Steam Station SynTerra
3.2 Evaluation of Alternative Technologies
Options considered in the IAP included groundwater extraction, a low permeability
barrier wall, and in-situ chemical immobilization. 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.
In-situ chemical immobilization would not be an applicable technology for preventing
plume migration onto the target property. While it might be effective in immobilizing
the materials at the points of injection, it would not address the plume flow which
would continue to emanate from the source area. Reagent distribution would also be
Page 3-2
P:\Duke Energy Carolinas\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\ 100 PCT
BOD \ Basis of Design Report (100% Submittal), Interim Action Plan, Belews Creek Steam Station.dooc

Basis of Design Report (100% Submittal) August 2017
Belews Creek Steam Station SynTerra
limited by the formation characteristics discussed above. The efficacy of this
technology for all constituents of concern is also not well proven.
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.
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 was 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.
Page 3-3
P:\Duke Energy Carolinas\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\ 100 PCT
BOD \ Basis of Design Report (100% Submittal), Interim Action Plan, Belews Creek Steam Station.dooc

Basis of Design Report (100% Submittal) August 2017
Belews Creek Steam Station SynTerra
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.
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, the model will be updated
to reflect actual site conditions under the pumping conditions and an evaluation
made to determine the need and location for additional extraction wells.
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.
Page 3-4
P:\Duke Energy Carolinas\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\ 100 PCT
BOD \ Basis of Design Report (100% Submittal), Interim Action Plan, Belews Creek Steam Station.dooc

Basis of Design Report (100% Submittal) August 2017
Belews Creek Steam Station SynTerra
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
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 used site-specific analyses in our modeling approach
as well as a "global" modeling approach considering a range of geochemical
conditions to evaluate how variations in geochemical conditions could result in
the mobilization of constituents of interest. The discussion and modeling efforts
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
Page 3-5
P:\Duke Energy Carolinas\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\ 100 PCT
BOD \ Basis of Design Report (100% Submittal), Interim Action Plan, Belews Creek Steam Station.dooc

Basis of Design Report (100% Submittal) August 2017
Belews Creek Steam Station SynTerra
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.
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.
High and low water level pump controls will allow operation of the extraction system
to maintain a consistent drawdown. Due to the expected relatively low flow rates from
the wells, achieving and maintaining a consistent drawdown in the target area will be
necessary. The actual drawdown level will be determined once the performance of the
wells is evaluated. 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.
Page 3-6
P:\Duke Energy Carolinas\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\ 100 PCT
BOD \ Basis of Design Report (100% Submittal), Interim Action Plan, Belews Creek Steam Station.dooc

Basis of Design Report (100% Submittal) August 2017
Belews Creek Steam Station SynTerra
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
With the exception of the uncertainty associated with the flow response of the
formation, as discussed above, there are no significant design limitations.
Page 3-7
P:\Duke Energy Carolinas\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\ 100 PCT
BOD \ Basis of Design Report (100% Submittal), Interim Action Plan, Belews Creek Steam Station.dooc

Basis of Design Report (100% Submittal) August 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 achieve a hydraulic boundary control proximal to the extraction
well network and to secondarily reduce groundwater migration of source area
constituents.
4.1 Overview of Extraction Well Network
Based on this objective, the Phase I preliminary design includes 10 extraction wells with
design spacing between extraction wells on an average of 85 feet along Middleton Loop
Road, adjacent to the subject property. Additional extraction wells may be needed
depending of site conditions. In addition, two observations wells will be installed in the
central and northern portion of the extraction system to augment existing monitoring
wells, including GWA-20SA/D/BR, CCR-2D/BR, and GWA-18S/D, for monitoring the
extraction system.
The extraction and observation 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).
4.2 Extraction Well Construction
The extraction 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. An extractionwell construction schematic 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.
Page 4-1
P:\Duke Energy Carolinas\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\ 100 PCT
BOD \ Basis of Design Report (100% Submittal), Interim Action Plan, Belews Creek Steam Station.dooc

Basis of Design Report (100% Submittal) August 2017
Belews Creek Steam Station SynTerra
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.
Pressure (psi) = Depth of Casing (feet) x Water Weight (lbs per cubic foot)
Pressure (psi) = 65 feet x 62.4 lbs lbs x 1 f t2 144 int 28.1 psi
ft3
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 (f eet)
Q=24 x0.31 x10 =74.4 gpm
Technical specifications for the well screens are provided in Appendix G.
4.3 Observation Well Construction
The observation wells are planned to be drilled using either hollow stem augers
utilizing 8.5 -inch O.D. (41/4 -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 3.5 -inch annular space around the 2 -inch casing and
screen. The wells will be constructed with 2 -inch inner diameter (ID), Schedule 40
flush -joint -threaded PVC pipe fitted with a prepacked (sand) 10 -foot Johnson U-PackTM
Page 4-2
P:\Duke Energy Carolinas\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\ 100 PCT
BOD \ Basis of Design Report (100% Submittal), Interim Action Plan, Belews Creek Steam Station.dooc

Basis of Design Report (100% Submittal) August 2017
Belews Creek Steam Station SynTerra
PVC well screens with 0.010 -inch wide slots and 2 -inch ID Schedule 40 PVC casings to
the ground surface. 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 O2C. Wells will be
completed at the surface with approximately 3 feet of a stick up pipe protected by a
steel surface casing and concrete -filled bollards. An observation well construction
schematic 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
monitor this flow zone.
4.4 Groundwater Extraction Rates
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
which includes a safety factor of 2.
Page 4-3
P:\Duke Energy Carolinas\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\ 100 PCT
BOD \ Basis of Design Report (100% Submittal), Interim Action Plan, Belews Creek Steam Station.dooc

Basis of Design Report (100% Submittal) August 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 high and low water level pump
controls to enable development and maintenance of drawdown across the target
area. Electrical and thermal motor protections 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.
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.
y 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
polyethylene (HDPE) fusion -welded pipe for the buried sections of the
piping system
41, 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.
Page 5-1
P:\Duke Energy Carolinas\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\ 100 PCT
BOD \ Basis of Design Report (100% Submittal), Interim Action Plan, Belews Creek Steam Station.dooc

Basis of Design Report (100% Submittal) August 2017
Belews Creek Steam Station SynTerra
�� The piping will be fitted with a Simmons Model 516SS (or equal) check
valve.
01 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.
10 Well water level will be monitored with a Dwyer submersible level
transmitter (or equal).
y The piping will be fitted with a 1/4 -inch, lever handle, stainless steel ball
valve sampling port.
`7 A 1/4 -inch, 2 -inch face, 0-100 psig, liquid filled, stainless steel pressure
gauge will also be installed.
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
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
Page 5-2
P:\Duke Energy Carolinas\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\ 100 PCT
BOD \ Basis of Design Report (100% Submittal), Interim Action Plan, Belews Creek Steam Station.dooc

Basis of Design Report (100% Submittal) August 2017
Belews Creek Steam Station SynTerra
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.
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
Page 5-3
P:\Duke Energy Carolinas\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\ 100 PCT
BOD \ Basis of Design Report (100% Submittal), Interim Action Plan, Belews Creek Steam Station.dooc

Basis of Design Report (100% Submittal) August 2017
Belews Creek Steam Station SynTerra
AL=100ft x12in in°Finx 67.0 x10-6 x20 °F.=1.6in
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 Carolinas\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\ 100 PCT
BOD \ Basis of Design Report (100% Submittal), Interim Action Plan, Belews Creek Steam Station.dooc

Basis of Design Report (100% Submittal) August 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 and
pumping system controls will be provided from this panel.
6.1 Piping and Instrumentation Diagram
The Piping and Instrumentation Diagram (P&ID) is included with the design drawings.
6.2 Pump Controls
The pumps will be controlled with individual controllers which use high and low water
level sensors to cycle operation of the pumps as necessary to maintain set drawdown
levels. Additional control of pumping discharge flow rates could also be achieved with
appropriate manual valve control on the pump discharge line. The pumps are
constructed to allow soft starts and include motor protection.
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 Carolinas\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\ 100 PCT
BOD \ Basis of Design Report (100% Submittal), Interim Action Plan, Belews Creek Steam Station.dooc

Basis of Design Report (100% Submittal) August 2017
Belews Creek Steam Station SynTerra
7.0 DESIGN DOCUMENTS
This 100% design package is provided for procurement and construction purposes and
includes a site layout drawing, a plan and profile, well enclosure, trench and discharge
piping outlet details, well construction schematics, and a P&ID diagram.
7.1 Design Drawings
The complete design package includes a site layout drawing, a plan and profile, well
enclosure, trench and discharge piping outlet details, well construction schematics, and
a P&ID diagram.
7.2 Specifications
Complete equipment, materials and construction specifications are incorporated into
this design package. Supporting equipment performance data, calculations, and
significant equipment and materials cut -sheets are also included.
Page 7-1
P:\Duke Energy Carolinas\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\ 100 PCT
BOD \ Basis of Design Report (100% Submittal), Interim Action Plan, Belews Creek Steam Station.dooc

Basis of Design Report (100% Submittal) August 2017
Belews Creek Steam Station SynTerra
8.0 GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION SYSTEM OPERATION
The groundwater extraction system is designed to be operated to achieve the objectives
of this accelerated remediation effort including reduced migration of constituents into
the area of interest and removal of constituent mass from the area of highest
concentrations. The system is designed to handle significantly lower or higher
pumping rates to achieve the desired results.
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 achieve a hydraulic boundary control
proximal to the extraction well network. 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:
E1P System operational data such as run time and pumping rates.
y Quarterly groundwater sampling of select existing monitoring (GWA-20SA/D/BR,
CCR-2D/BR, GWA-18S/D) and the two new observation wells. Note: Following
well installation for the two new observation wells and prior to extraction system
startup, the new observation wells will be sampled for CSA analytical parameters
for two events to determine baseline conditions.
,61P Measurement of water levels by manual gauging and/or through the use of
pressure transducers.
The use of pressure transducers to obtain water level measurements throughout the
first quarter of operation will allow a refined understanding of pumping influence on
the transition zone/fractured bedrock flow system.
In addition to well monitoring, the extraction system will be monitored to assess system
performance on an on-going basis. Routine operations monitoring will include weekly
individual well pump flow rate and totalizer readings, and piping system pressure.
Page S-1
P:\Duke Energy Carolinas \ 20. BELEWS CREEK \ 04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev \ 100 PCT
BOD \ Basis of Design Report (100% Submittal), Interim Action Plan, Belews Creek Steam Station.dooc

Basis of Design Report (100% Submittal) August 2017
Belews Creek Steam Station SynTerra
Extraction well water levels will be monitored on a weekly basis after the initial startup
period.
It is understood that additional work may be necessary to facilitate optimization of
system operations or address concerns related to preferential pathways in the study
area, variable flow direction that may develop because of pumping and confirmation of
boundary control. If it becomes necessary to conduct a focused investigation to address
potential questions, suggested approaches and resolutions will be reported to the
Department.
8.2 Permits
Discharge for the system will be into the ash basin under the requirements of the
existing site NPDES permit.
8.3 Institutional Controls
No institutional controls are necessary to implement this system.
8.4 Contingency Plans
The phased approach to address observed flow response of the formation, as discussed
above, is the contingency plan for this interim measure.
8.5 Construction and Monitoring Schedules
Construction, startup and monitoring schedules will be established once the final report
has been approved.
Page S-2
P:\Duke Energy Carolinas\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\ 100 PCT
BOD \ Basis of Design Report (100% Submittal), Interim Action Plan, Belews Creek Steam Station.dooc

Basis of Design Report (100% Submittal) August 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 Carolinas\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\ 100 PCT
BOD \ Basis of Design Report (100% Submittal), Interim Action Plan, Belews Creek Steam Station.dooc

Basis of Design Report (100% Submittal) August 2017
Belews Creek Steam Station
FIGURES
SynTerra
P:\ Duke Energy Carolinas\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan -Design & Dev\ 100 PCT
BOD \ Basis of Design Report (100% Submittal), Interim Action Plan, Belews Creek Steam Station.dooc

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 [phone]
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 [phone]LLE, SOUTH CAROLINA 29601 BELEWS CREEK STEAM STATION
/ PHONE [phone]
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
e
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 \ `f I f
CONCENTRATION IS ESTIMATED.
m I /
go
\".0 S-03 'I of j—\ ao GWA-1S
\\
// II
\ \\�o'° i ,pow i r
ova-
/, / B-5 AIDDLOOPLETON
'?o -°��`\\�, ADOP
n
B-4 S
\\ _ 14,900
AVA y°s\V'. I i� EW_1
740
/ FG—W—A-3—IS—lso5m \\ GWA 27S m I ,
PIPEHARGE
d
LEGEND
---
EXTRACTION WELL � BORON ISOCONCENTRATION CONTOUR (ug/L)
ALIGNMENT — — — PARCEL A
PROPOSED PHASE 1 EXTRACTION WELL (APPROXIMATE)
\ ASH BASIN � PROPOSED PHASE 1 OBSERVATION WELL (APPROXIMATE)
'3p '� W -18S CSA MONITORING WELL§13-1GM
1 \ EXISTING CONCRETEMONUMEN= / S2Hj CONCENTRATION IN ug/L
SEEP/AREA OF WETNESS (AOW) LOCATION
FEW --ll EXTRACTION WELL FOR PUMP TEST
vv
\ ��- -770 y �v � , v�v - 00C Tw-1 TEMPORARY WELL FOR PUMP TEST
\\
GRAPHIC SCALE
240 0 240 480 FIGURE 2-1
\ ° GWA-10S \\
\ \ 84 2 � HORIZONTAL SCALE 1" = 240'
BORON IN SURFICIAL ZONE
°Z\\ GWA-18s148
/ VE STREET,
GREELE,SOUTHCAROLINA2960°28J 1 DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS
PHONE
Twww.synterracorp.com BELEWS CREEK STEAM STATION
DRAWN BY: A. FEIGL DATE: 03/30/2017 BELEWS CREEK, NORTH CAROLINA
LOOP ROAD
erra PROJECT MANAGER: G EADY
LOOP Wn
CHECKED BY B. WICKER
- - P'.\Duke Energy Carol'nas\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rern Inter m Act— Plan - Design & De,\100 PCT BOD\DWG\DE BELEWS CK 2-1 To 2-12 ISOS.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. J /
3. J = INDICATES CONCENTRATION REPORTED BELOW
PRACTICAL QUANTITATION LIMIT (PQL), BUT ABOVE
METHOD DETECTION LIMIT (MDL) AND THEREFORE 4 12° /-5'
CONCENTRATION IS ESTIMATED.
GWA-1
U
--7
iii
d
G
ao _. wyai\-�� lop SB-3AIDDLETON
° --_� LOOP ROAD
\\ -- EXISTING AXLE.
STRUCTURE
l
DISCHARGE
PIPE
saz0 LEGEND
°myv
vv i EXTRACTION WELL BORON ISOCONCENTRATION CONTOUR (ug/L)
vvv /j B ALIGNMENT
PARCEL A
PROPOSED PHASE 1 EXTRACTION WELL (APPROXIMATE)
I, A\
PROPOSED PHASE 1 OBSERVATION WELL (APPROXIMATE)
/�� ASH BASIN
\ <50 \\ING WELL
s i / GM2W8-�8S CSA CONCEONTIR�TR
EXISTING ETE MONUMENT
ION IN ug/L
1 \\ \\ CONC '
°
SEEP/AREA OF WETNESS (AOW) LOCATION
Ew-1 EXTRACTION WELL FOR PUMP TEST
�0C Tw-1 TEMPORARY WELL FOR PUMP TEST
\ \ 05 \\ / GRAPHIC SCALE
\ m \\ >so 240 0 240 480
FIGURE 2-2
HORIZONTAL SCALE S=240' BORON IN TRANSITION ZONE
o \\ "Oft -mm 148 RIVER STREET, SUITE 220
GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA 29601 DUKE ENERGY
CAROLINAS
PHONE [phone]
\\ �/ WWWsynterracorp.com BELEWS CREEK STEAM STATION
Terra
PRAWNSMANAGER:
A EEIGL DATE 03/30/2017 BELEWS CREEK, NORTH CAROLINA
\ LOOP ROAD PROJECT MANAGER C EADY
LOOP ROAD CHECKED BY B WICKER
\\ /
— - �I P'.\Duke Energy Carol'nas\20. ©FLEWS CREEK\04. CCP Acceleratetl Rern Inter m Aclion Plan -Design & Dev\100 PCT BOD\DWG\DE RELEWS CN 2-1 To 2-12 ISOS.dwg

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
I _
60
I
I
SB -4
EXISTING AXLE
I
EW-1BTW-1.
Tw
it I ��TW-2
GWA-20BR
51 BTW -3 i
- \\ EXISTING CONCRETE MONUMENT
X54°m\\V
IX
.� \\ 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 -11 EXTRACTION WELL FOR PUMP TEST
-C TW -1 TEMPORARY WELL FOR PUMP TEST
GRAPHIC SCALE
240 0 240 480 FIGURE 2-3
"°EET,SAL E220CALE "=14 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 A. GER: DATE: 03/30/2017 BELEWS CREEK, NORTH CAROLINA
PROJECT BY B. MANAGER:
% CHECKED BY: B. WICKER
P:\Duke Energy Carolinas\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & De,\10D PCT BOD\DWG\DE BELEWS CK 2-1 To 2-12 ISOS.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. J = INDICATES CONCENTRATION REPORTED BELOW
PRACTICAL QUANTITATION LIMIT (PQL), BUT ABOVE
METHOD DETECTION LIMIT (MDL) AND THEREFORE
CONCENTRATION IS ESTIMATED.
--7
6
00 , G 1501S 9
' - I
111 \
'?o
AXLE
I.
/EW
TW 1
II EW_2 Tw-4� ii
BTW -2
jam`\ �o U\ � j l GWA-20SA r, _ti
': FW -3 r
519 S
sm \\71,/L
I
GWA-19S I V\\
\ a 157 o\\ EXISTING CONCRETE MONUMENTa�
770 _
� m
GN
�V AA/
IDDLETON
)OP ROAD
� SB 5 NIDDLETON
LOOP ROAD
G
LEGEND
EXTRACTION WELL
—
CHLORIDE ISOCONCENTRATION CONTOUR (ug/L)
ALIGNMENT
— — —
PARCEL A
PROPOSED PHASE 1 EXTRACTION WELL (APPROXIMATE)
9
PROPOSED PHASE 1 OBSERVATION WELL (APPROXIMATE)
ASH BASIN
GMW-18S I
CSA MONITORING WELL
28J
CONCENTRATION IN ug/L
S-2
SEEP/AREA OF WETNESS (AOW) LOCATION
FEW --ll
EXTRACTION WELL FOR PUMP TEST
-,C
Tw-1
TEMPORARY WELL FOR PUMP TEST
GRAPHIC SCALE
240 0 240
480
FIGURE 2-4
HORIZONTAL "=2°°
CHLORIDE IN SURFICIAL ZONE
E220CALE
148 RIVER STREET, SUITE 220
GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA 29601
DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS
PHONE [phone]
sy n to r ra c o rracorr p. c o m
www.ROJECT
BELEWS CREEK STEAM STATION
DATE: 03/30/2017
rrajllAWNBY:A.lEIGL
BELEWS CREEK, NORTH CAROLINA
�mTe
PMANAGER C.EADY
CHECKED BY B WICKER
P'.\Duke Energy Carol'nas\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rern Inter
m Act- Plan - Design & De,\100 PCT BOD\DWG\DE BELEWS CK 2-1 To 2-12 ISOS.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
p I \x I
o� ( GWA-30D
0
Aj \J
'' SB-50IDDLETON ***4
.' LOOP
\\\ GWA-11\
��,
\\ r sa SB-4
X \\\ ---..740-- EXISTING AXLE 11 0 // 459 --- �
\\ v °
TW-2 OUTLET
I
GWA-20D ' STRUCTURE
GWA-31D
DISCHARGE
�
\\ GWA-27D PIPE
LEGEND
SB-2
EXTRACTION WELL — CHLORIDE ISOCONCENTRATION CONTOUR (ug/L)
ALIGNMENT — — — PARCEL A
PROPOSED PHASE 1 EXTRACTION WELL (APPROXIMATE)
/
� PROPOSED PHASE 1 OBSERVATION WELL (APPROXIMATE)
o ASH BASIN
GMW-18S CSA MONITORING WELL
EXISTING CONCRETE MON T E 28� CONCENTRATION IN ug/L
V 240. WS\V /
SEEP/AREA OF WETNESS (AOW) LOCATION
EW-1 EXTRACTION WELL FOR PUMP TEST
TW-1 TEMPORARY WELL FOR PUMP TEST
GRAPHIC SCALE
vV ''GWA-10D v��� 240 0 240 Oso FIGURE 2-5
21.7 B ' _ HORIZONTAL SCALE S=240' CHLORIDE IN TRANSITION ZONE
148 RIVER STREET, SUITE 220
GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA 29601 DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS
PHONE [phone]
vv WWW.synterracorp.com BELEWS CREEK STEAM STATION
nnIDDLETON T
��� PRoECTMANAGERC.EADv DATE: o3i3o/zov BELEWS CREEK, NORTH CAROLINA
\\ LOOP ROAD Wn CHECKED BY B WICKER
— - P'.\Duke Energy Carol'nas\20. ©FLEWS CREEK\04. CCP Acceleratetl Rern Inter m Aclion Plan -Design & Dev\100 PCT BOD\DWG\DE RELEWS CN 2-1 To 2-12 ISOS.dwg
_-7
/ / /
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
"or. \ �� SB -5 MIDLOOD RETOp
Q 1
/�
740
\\ EXISTING AXLE
GWA-20BR }
URE
� �. �-W'
�\ 0 05m DISCHARGE
PIPE
GWA-27BR / �f
s / LEGEND
EXTRACTION WELL — — — — CHLORIDE 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
\\\ 1 \ \\\ EXISTING CONCRETE MONUMENTSB-_1 28� CONCENTRATION IN ug/L
O
SEEP/AREA OF WETNESS (AOW) LOCATION
so �
770 00
0 FEW 11 EXTRACTION WELL FOR PUMP TEST
C Tw-1 TEMPORARY WELL FOR PUMP TEST
\ \\
GRAPHIC SCALE
240 0 240 480
vv 1 FIGURE 2-6
HORIZONTAL SCALE I"=24 CHLORIDE IN BEDROCK ZONE
o 0-\\ 148 RIVER STREET, SUITE 220
GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA 29601 DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS
\\ /
PHONE [phone]
wwwsynterracorp.com BELEWS CREEK STEAM STATION
c�m
Terra DRAWN BY: A.FEIGL DATE: 03/30/2017 BELEWS CREEK, NORTH CAROLINA
MIDDLETON PROJECT MANAGER C.EADY
LO ROAD j CHECKED BY B WILKER
" P'.\Duke Energy Carol'na,\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rern Inter m Acton Plan - Design & De,\100 PCT BOD\DWG\DE BELEWS CK 2-1 To 2-12 ISOS.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
vv\�\ a /
313-5
OOP ROAD
O
D
SBA 8.4
EXISTI NG AXLE
\\ Tao -- I I ^^° \I✓� ..: _ .. _
,6 y -
�osm\�
'STRUCTURE
GWA-320SA1'
.----
<0.5GWA-
\\ 5.
71,
o ,
EXISTING CONCRETE MONUMENT
-'-770—
�o
GWA-10S GU
31.8 31
o
o
\
a
/ sBz�'^ LEGEND
EXTRACTION WELL — SELENIUM 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
00 FEW -11 EXTRACTION WELL FOR PUMP TEST
-C TW -1 TEMPORARY WELL FOR PUMP TEST
% GRAPHIC SCALE
240 0 240 480 FIGURE 2-7
85 HORIZONTAL SCALE 1" = 240-
3 SELENIUM IN SURFICIAL ZONE
148 RIVER STREET, SUITE 220
GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA 29601 DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS
PHONE [phone]
ynte rra co BELEWS CREEK STEAM STATION
www.srracorrp. com
Terra DRAWN BY: A.FEIGL DATE: 03/30/2017 BELEWS CREEK, NORTH CAROLINA
IDDLETON - PROJECT MANAGER. C. EADY
)OP ROAD / CHECKED BY 6 WICKER
P:\Duke Energy Carol'nas\20. BELEWS CREEK\04, CCP Accelerated Rem, Inter m Action Plan - Design & Dev\10D PCT BOD\DWG\DE BELEWS CK 2-1 Te 2-12 ISOS.d,g

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
I. SB 5 NIDDLETON � - ,
\\saSBA„n
\\ .740-- EXISTING AXLE
B
G
EW -2 o TW -2 OUTLET-�
T
GWA-20D ' SRUCTURE
\\ I PIPE GWA57D � I
LEGEND
��o1myv SB -z
o vv F r i EXTRACTION WELL — SELENIUM ISOCONCENTRATION CONTOUR (ug/L)
ALIGNMENT — — — PARCEL A
r ® PROPOSED PHASE 1 EXTRACTION WELL (APPROXIMATE)
V ° ' ° Av /
GWA-19D 71, ASH BASIN
PROPOSED PHASE 1 OBSERVATION WELL (APPROXIMATE)
\ � I� sm \\\
3 1.
< . � GMW-18S CSA MONITORING WELL
05
\\ 1 \\\ EXISTING CONCRETE MONUMENT SB -1 / --- 28J CONCENTRATION IN ug/L
\\ aq SEEP/AREA OF WETNESS (AOW) LOCATION
EW -1 EXTRACTION WELL FOR PUMP TEST
-,7D O T71 TEMPORARY WELL FOR PUMP TEST
vv
o \\t y GRAPHIC SCALE
1m \V >so� ✓) 240 0 240 480
\\\ ,o GWA-50D \\\,.. �' t� HORIZONTAL SCALE I”=240' FIGURE
IGURE 2-8
O
1
SELENIUM IN TRANSITION ZONE
48 RIVER STREET, SUITE 220
v v °1� w �� GW - 1D GREsSOUTHCARouNA296O1 DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS iEeaa
\\ WWW.synterracorp.com BELEWS CREEK STEAM STATION
\\���� BELEWS CREEK, NORTH CAROLINA
\ DRAWN BY: A EEIGL DATE: 03/30/2017
\
jMIDDLETON PROJECT MANAGER G EADY
LOOP ROAD / CHECKED BY B. WICKER
P'.\Duke Energy Carol'nas\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated R— Inter m Act- Plan - Design & De,\100 PCT BOD\DWG\DE BELEWS CK 2-1 To 2-12 ISOS.dwg

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
\
OIOP ROAOD
10 \\ \ I
�>30
X11
sso
EXISTING AXLE II // _--_
740-=
STRUCTURE �
DISCHARGE
V AV\ PIPE
GW«SBR / f LEGEND
SB -2' — — —
EXTRACTION WELL - SELENIUM ISOCONCENTRATION CONTOUR (ug/L)
ALIGNMENT - - - PARCEL A
PROPOSED PHASE 1 EXTRACTION WELL (APPROXIMATE)
2p WA-19BR°� PROPOSED PHASE 1 OBSERVATION WELL (APPROXIMATE)
? 0.52 \\ / ASH BASIN
0
GMW-18S CSA MONITORING WELL
SB -1
EXISTING CONCRETE / �- / --- � 28� CONCENTRATION IN
\
S-2SEEP/AREA OF WETNESS (AOW) LOCATION
\\FEW -11 EXTRACTION WELL FOR PUMP TEST
-770 0
vv�C Tw-1 TEMPORARY WELL FOR PUMP TEST
A-
)0
\ ) \\t- / GRAPHIC SCALE
240 HORIZONTAL SCALE 12'40240' 480 FIGURE 2-9
SELENIUM IN BEDROCK ZONE
148 RIVER STREET, SUITE 220
GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA 29601 DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS
/ PHONE [phone]
\\ ; www.Synterracorp.com BELEWS CREEK STEAM STATION
C ���� PROJECT
ROJECTM N GER: DATE: 03/30/2017 BELEWS CREEK, NORTH CAROLINA
\\, LOOP ROAD
S� PROJECT MANAGER G EADY
1
LOOP RDAD / CHECKED BY B WICKER
�—.�
-- - / P'.\Duke Energy Carol'nas\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rern Inter m Act- Plan - Design & De,\100 PCT BOD\DWG\DE BELEWS CK 2-1 To 2-12 ISOS.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
CONCENTRATION IS ESTIMATED.
wm
\ \\
S
GWA 30S
48
SB-5AIDDROAD
LOOP
441
\\
sB-4 1,260
hyo C o>— �fl
nva EW-1
s m
W_4
\V I� ♦ BTW-2 �. _ bUTLET
G A-20 A S UCTURE —
W'
DISCHARGE
\V\ / PIPE
se-z LEGEND
EXTRACTION WELL — TDS ISOCONCENTRATION CONTOUR (ug/L)
ALIGNMENT — — — PARCEL A
PROPOSED PHASE 1 EXTRACTION WELL (APPROXIMATE)
PROPOSED PHASE 1 OBSERVATION WELL (APPROXIMATE)
?3 GWA-19S 1 \\ ASH BASIN
1\ 299 W-18S CSA MONITORING WELL
GM
\\ 1 \\ EXISTING CONCRETE MONUMENT SB-1 28J CONCENTRATION IN ug/L
wpm SEEP/AREA OF WETNESS (AOW) LOCATION
O EW-1 EXTRACTION WELL FOR PUMP TEST
CF w-1 TEMPORARY WELL FOR PUMP TEST
\\ GRAPHIC SCALE
I /
1 240 0 240 480 FIGURE 2-10
Gw258S HORIZONTAL SCALE 1"=240 TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS (TDS)
148 RIVER STREET, SUITE 220
GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA 29601
IN SURFICIAL ZONE
vv �� PHONEs644219999 DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS
�v
www.synterracorp.comBELEWS CREEK STEAM STATION
\\ � DRAWN BV: A. EEIGL DATE: 03/30/2017
A.,A., MI°DLEroN Terra PROJE°TMANAGER: G.EADV BELEWS CREEK, NORTH CAROLINA
\\ \ LOOP ROAD CHECKED BY B WICKER
P'.\Duke Energy Carol'nas\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rern Inter m Acton Plan - Design & De,\100 PCT ROD\DWG\DE BELEWS CK 2-1 To 2-12 ISOS.dwg

NOTES '
1. CONCENTRATIONS SHOWN ARE FROM APRIL 27, 2016 a >�
TO OCTOBER 18, 2016. ! o \
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.
\ \\ VGl
J
21 WA- D—
\1 G
545 ` 5�
-�d-_. ROD\� I ! _ _ .\,,,..,:� ..
,111
C-
4 , �6p ii �. • �r� AB-1D
740---
\ \\ 1 17 ♦ o�TW-2 _ bT
STRUCTURE
�\ � \\\ '.�6° •. / 1,120 '
\ DISCHARGE
WA-27D % \ I PIPE
LEGEND
i
\\ / EXTRACTION WELL — TDS ISOCONCENTRATION CONTOUR (ug/L)
A, ALIGNMENT — — — PARCEL A
/ ® PROPOSED PHASE 1 EXTRACTION WELL (APPROXIMATE)
\ \\ >32p 90 1 \\\\ "° / PROPOSED PHASE 1 OBSERVATION WELL (APPROXIMATE)
ASH BASIN
CSA
GM
8 JCONCENTRATION 8S CONCEONTIN ug/LI
EXISTING CONCR EMONUMENT � -
SEEP/AREA OF WETNESS (AOW) LOCATION
O OFEW--11 EXTRACTION WELL FOR PUMP TEST
Q
\\! �_ / aC TW-1 TEMPORARY WELL FOR PUMP TEST
GRAPHIC SCALE
m \\ 240 0 240 480 FIGURE 2-11
y G 228oD \\� ' ��� HORIZONTAL SCALE 1"=240 TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS (TDS)
148 RIVER STREET, SUITE 220 IN TRANSITION ZONE
�'s o\ ! GWA-18D GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA 29601
vv ��94 PHONE [phone] DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS
o wwwsynterracorp.com
BELEWS CREEK STEAM STATION
DRAWN BY: A. FEIGL DATE: 03/30/2017
MI°DLEroN Terra PROJECTMANAGER:G.EADY BELEWS CREEK, NORTH CAROLINA
LOOP ROAD CHECKED BY. B. WILKER
P:\Duke Energy Caroli—\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\100 PCT BOD\DWG\DE BELEWS CK 2-1 TO 2-121505.tlwg

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,
0
690
9
I _
I
I
SB -4
EXISTING AXLE
L EW -1
S �I GW2 SITW-2
% 191 BR 'TW -3
o j
AV
SB -
EXISTING CONCRETE MONUMENT
\\
vv, C
°\\
MIDDLETON
LOOP ROAD
MIDDLETON
.00P ROAD
/ vm�
a
DISCHARGE
PIPE
LEGEND
EXTRACTION WELL — — — TDS 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 PSA40
GRAPHIC SCALE
240 0 240 480 FIGURE 2-12
TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS (TDS)
148 RIVER STREET, SUITE 220 IN BEDROCK ZONE
GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA 29601
PHONE [phone] DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS
www.synte,,aco,,,com BELEWS CREEK STEAM STATION
PROJECT
RAWN OJECTM MANAGER:
DATE: 06/30/2017 BELEWS CREEK, NORTH CAROLINA
PROJECT MANAGER:C.EADY
% CHECKED BY: B. WICKER
P:\Duke Energy Carolinas\20. BELEWS CREEK\0/, CCP Acceleratetl Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & De,\10D PCT BOD\DWG\DE BELEWS CK 2-1 To 2-12 ISOS.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 (100% Submittal) August 2017
Belews Creek Steam Station
TABLES
SynTerra
P:\ Duke Energy Carolinas\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan -Design & Dev\ 100 PCT
BOD \ Basis of Design Report (100% Submittal), Interim Action Plan, Belews Creek Steam Station.dooc

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 (100% Submittal) August 2017
Belews Creek Steam Station SynTerra
AQUIFER TESTING ANALYSIS
(HDR FIELD INVESTIGATION AND PUMPING
TEST REPORT, OCTOBER G, 201E))
P:\ Duke Energy Carolinas\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan -Design & Dev\ 100 PCT
BOD \ Basis of Design Report (100% Submittal), Interim Action Plan, Belews Creek Steam Station.dooc

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
10/06/2016
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: [phone]
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: [phone]
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: [phone]
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: [phone]
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: [phone]
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: [phone]
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: [phone]
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: [phone]
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: [phone]
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: [phone]
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: [phone]
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: [phone]
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: [phone]
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: [phone]
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: [phone]
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: [phone]
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: [phone]
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: [phone]
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: [phone]
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: [phone]
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: [phone]
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: [phone]
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: [phone]
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: [phone]
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: [phone]
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
[phone]
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
[e-mail]
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
[phone]
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
[phone]
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
[phone]
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
[phone]
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
[phone]
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
[phone]
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
[phone]
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
[phone]
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
[phone]
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
[phone]
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
[phone]
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
[phone]
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
[phone]
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
[phone]
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
[phone]
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
[phone]
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
[phone]
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
[phone]
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
[phone]
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
[phone]
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
[phone]
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
[phone]
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
[phone]
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
[phone]
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
[phone]
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
[phone]
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
[phone]
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
[phone]
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
[phone]
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
[phone]
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
[phone]
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
[phone]
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
[phone]
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
[phone]
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
[phone]
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
[phone]
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 (100% Submittal) August 2017
Belews Creek Steam Station
SynTerra
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE REMEDIAL
TECHNOLOGIES
P:\ Duke Energy Carolinas\ 20. BELEWS CREEK\ 04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev \ 100 PCT
BOD\Basis of Design Report (100% Submittal), Interim Action Plan, Belews Creek Steam Station.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 (100% Submittal) August 2017
Belews Creek Steam Station
APPENDIX C
SynTerra
UPDATED GROUNDWATER FLOW MODEL REPORT
P:\ Duke Energy Carolinas\ 20. BELEWS CREEK\ 04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev \ 100 PCT
BOD\Basis of Design Report (100% Submittal), Interim Action Plan, Belews Creek Steam Station.docx

tip
syn,T(erra
ACCELERATED REMEDIATION INTERIM ACTION
PLAN GROUNDWATER FLOW ANCA 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
�CENERGY
J
CraignGlogist L.G., NC
Projec Q'�: G'•a�'f��
1
15
t r
� •. CJsr ��, i
�rf�1©I I 111
I qg aZraziano
Gr-fiii�water Modeler
j k
Ronald W. Fal ta, 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 [phone]
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 [phone]
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 [phone]
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 [phone]
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 [phone]
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 [phone]
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 [phone]
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 [phone]
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 [phone]
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 [phone]
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 [phone]
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 [phone]
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 [phone]
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 (100% Submittal) August 2017
Belews Creek Steam Station
APPENDIX D
UPDATED GEOCHEMICAL MODEL REPORT
SynTerra
P:\ Duke Energy Carolinas\ 20. BELEWS CREEK\ 04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev \ 100 PCT
BOD\Basis of Design Report (100% Submittal), Interim Action Plan, Belews Creek Steam Station.docx

4CIP
s)(nT-(e-rra
FocUSED +GEOCHEMICAL REPORT
BELEWS CREEK STEAM STATION
3195 PINE HALL RD.
BELEWS CREEK, NORTH CAROLINA 27009
AUGUST 2017
PREPARED FOR:
DUKE
ENERGY,
DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS. LLC
526 SOUTH CHURCH STREET
CHARLOTTES NORTH CAROLINA 25202
�l�it+�r l v —% +'b�:
' E N
EA1
+0 159
k
0 UG, �t�
Erin Black
Geochemical Modeler
Craig dy
Senior Geol ist

Final BOD Report -Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A August 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..........................................................................................
4-2
5.0
GEOCHEMICAL MODELING OF SELENIUM.....................................................5-1
5.1 Pourbaix Diagram Analysis.................................................................................... 5-1
5.2 Parcel A Model Analysis.......................................................................................... 5-3
5.3 Selenium Trends Indicated by the PHREEQC Global Model Analysis ............ 5-4
5.4 Comparison of Modeled and Experimental Kd Values for Selenium ................ 5-8
6.0 POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF ACCELERATED REMEDIATION ...........................6-1
7.0 SUMMARY.................................................................................................................... 7-1
8.0 REFERENCES................................................................................................................ 8-1
Page i
P:\Duke Energy Carolinas\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design &
Dev \ Geochemical Modeling \90% BOD UPDATES \ Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A.docx

Final BOD Report -Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A August 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 Groundwater
vspH...........................................................................................................................................2-3
Figure 2-4 Dissolved Concentrations of Boron and Selenium in Parcel A Groundwater
vspH........................................................................................................................................... 2-3
Figure 2-5 Total Concentrations of Chloride and Sulfate in Parcel A Groundwater vs pH
...................................................................................................................................................... 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 for Parcel A ................................. 3-10
Figure 3-3 Kd vs. Distance from Waste Boundary for Parcel A ........................................3-10
Figure 3-4 Total Boron Kd Values from Global PHREEQC Model ................................... 3-11
Figure 3-5 Saturation Indices of Boron Bearing Solid Phases from Global PHREEQC
Model........................................................................................................................................ 3-11
Figure 3-6 Boron Speciation vs. pH from Global PHREEQC Model ............................... 3-12
Figure 4-1 Pourbaix Diagrams of Chlorine Species............................................................. 4-2
Figure 4-2 Chloride vs. Distance from Waste Boundary for Parcel A ...............................4-3
Figure 5-2 Selenium vs. Distance from Waste Boundary for Parcel A ..............................5-3
Figure 5-3 Selenium Ka Values vs. Distance from Waste Boundary for Parcel A ........... 5-4
Page ii
P:\Duke Energy Carolinas \ 20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design &
Dev \ Geochemical Modeling \90% BOD UPDATES \ Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A.docx

Final BOD Report -Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A August 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 Several Duke
EnergySites.............................................................................................................................. 3-13
Table 5-1 Comparison of Selenium Kd Values Measured and Modeled for Several Duke
EnergySites................................................................................................................................ 5-8
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A Geochemical Model Development Focused Geochemical Report
Page iii
P:\Duke Energy Carolinas \ 20. BELEWS CREEK \04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design &
Dev \ Geochemical Modeling \90% BOD UPDATES \ Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A.docx

Final BOD Report -Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A August 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. The
modeling efforts were intended to investigate how the proposed remedial actions may
impact groundwater beyond Duke Energy's property, as a means to ensure constituents
of concern will not inadvertently mobilize under changing conditions. The goals of this
geochemical modeling effort 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, specifically in Parcel A, a 2.23 acre area of
land northwest of the ash basin dam.
Beryllium, boron, chloride, cobalt, selenium, thallium and total dissolved solids (TDS)
are the primary focus within the 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. 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. Within the subsurface of Parcel A,
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 influences of pH and Eh on the
aqueous speciation, sorption, and solubility of constituents of interest were primarily
investigated 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).
Geochemical modeling, particularly including sorption reactions, requires several
assumptions and has several limitations (see Attachment A) that limit our ability to
develop a quantitative model. In this modeling effort we have employed a surface
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- Parcel A.docx

Final BOD Report -Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A August 2017
Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra
complexation based modeling approach that approximates ion sorption reactions using
a thermodynamic construct similar to that used for aqueous speciation modeling [Davis
et al, 1998]. Hydrous ferric oxide (HFO or ferrihydrite) 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].
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
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 Final 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 downgradient 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. The use of both at the site-specific data within the AOI at the Site
and the global model, strengthens constituent evaluations and discussions. The global
modeling approach provides a qualitative understanding of how changes in pH, Eh,
and ion concentrations can influence the mobility of constituents of interest. Then site-
specific transects are modeled using site-specific groundwater data and the model
output is evaluated with consideration of the overall behavior of each constituent.
While this model does use geochemical modeling to evaluate the behavior of several
constituents of concern, it does not explicitly predict concentrations of those
constituents given changes in geochemical parameters. As a qualitative model, this
report gives the reader insight into how changes in site conditions could impact the
behavior of select constituents.
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- Parcel A.docx

Final BOD Report -Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A August 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 Comprehensive Site Assessment (CSA) activities under the Coal Ash
Management Act (CAMA). 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. Note that the high
pH values (i.e., >10) are expected to be buffered by cement grout contamination from
monitoring well installation rather than by a natural or source related events.
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
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- Parcel A.docx

Final BOD Report -Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A August 2017
Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra
function of the heterogeneous nature of the site, general trends in ion behavior become
apparent.
Figure 2-1
Dissolved Oxygen vs. pH in Parcel A Groundwater Measurements
9
M
8 • •
C 7 • •
6 • • •
K • •
O\5 % •• •
E 4 • = N • • •
•
vi 3 l • f •
�► • • •
D 2 • •
• ••• • •
0 %01� ; •
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
Eh vs. pH in Parcel A Groundwater Measurements
VA11=110
6.0E+02
5.0E+02
t 4.0E+02
W
3.0E+02
2.0E+02
1.0E+02
0.0E+00
3
2
• Surface Seep
• Saprolite Zone
—Linear (Trendline)
M
•
5 6 7 8 9
pH
• Ash Porewater
Transition Zone
y = -50.692x + 689.34
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- Parcel A.docx

Final BOD Report -Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A August 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- Parcel A.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- Parcel A.docx

Final BOD Report -Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A August 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).
17 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).
,67 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- Parcel A.docx

Final BOD Report -Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A August 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).
17 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+06
O o
_
G 1.0E+05
01O
®� C6D0 �
0 r8OD 0
OHO
L.
c 1.0E+04
O
U a�
0— 1.0E+03
U
G 1.0E+02
0
H
1.0E+01
1.0E+00
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
pH
OTotal Dissolved Solids
00 n
C
10 11 12 13
Prepared By: ALA Checked By: EMB
2.2 Parcel A Model
Wells within the area of 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 Final 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
Figures 2-7 and 2-8, below, also include AB-01S/D cluster, located within the northwest
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- Parcel A.docx

Final BOD Report -Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A August 2017
Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra
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- Parcel A.docx

Final BOD Report -Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A August 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 • 0 • •
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- Parcel A.docx

Final BOD Report -Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A August 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 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 H2B03 (also noted as B02-) which persists above pH 9. At very high
sodium concentrations, the borate anion H2B03- can react with sodium to form the
neutral species NaB(OH)4(aq). As boron is already mobile, it is unlikely formation of
such sodium complexes will alter boron mobility. 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.
—.5
Ch
Q
L
LU 0
—'5
Figure 3-1
Pourbaix Diagram for Boron Species
Motrife
• J-7 �•
• *«� •
B(OH)3(aq) • •
N •
MvbPPeM1
B6-2
2s°c
• Deep
•Shales
• Surfrial
•Transirianal
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 1. a 2 4 5 8 10 12 14
pH pH
Notes: Prepared By: EMB Checked By: ALA
— The round symbols represent the pH and Eh values measures In cseiews t-reeK grounawater.
Some values with pH near 11 have been removed as they are artificially high due to interactions
with cement.
— Pourbaix diagrams were produced using the site specific minimum (left) and maximum (right)
groundwater ion concentrations from Belews Creek as reported in Table A-10.
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- Parcel A.docx
Mot rPe
it •
BF -4
• 0POO
•
• •IN
•
LU
B(aH)3(aiq)
Mobile
—.5-
25T
• Deep
•Shales
• Surfrial
•Transirianal
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 1. a 2 4 5 8 10 12 14
pH pH
Notes: Prepared By: EMB Checked By: ALA
— The round symbols represent the pH and Eh values measures In cseiews t-reeK grounawater.
Some values with pH near 11 have been removed as they are artificially high due to interactions
with cement.
— Pourbaix diagrams were produced using the site specific minimum (left) and maximum (right)
groundwater ion concentrations from Belews Creek as reported in Table A-10.
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- Parcel A.docx
MvbPPe
it •
• 0POO
•
• •IN
•
-
NaB(GH),(aq)
• Deep
•Shales
• Surfrial
•Transirianal
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 1. a 2 4 5 8 10 12 14
pH pH
Notes: Prepared By: EMB Checked By: ALA
— The round symbols represent the pH and Eh values measures In cseiews t-reeK grounawater.
Some values with pH near 11 have been removed as they are artificially high due to interactions
with cement.
— Pourbaix diagrams were produced using the site specific minimum (left) and maximum (right)
groundwater ion concentrations from Belews Creek as reported in Table A-10.
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- Parcel A.docx

Final BOD Report -Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A August 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- Parcel A.docx

Final BOD Report -Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A August 2017
Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra
Figure 3-2
Boron vs. Distance from Waste Boundary for Parcel A
1.0E+05
0 1.0E+04
M
L.
J 1.0E+03
U �
v v 1.0E+02
0
L
m 1.0E+01
011=1h1
O
0 500 1000 1500
Distance from Waste Boundary (feet)
• Ash Porewater • Surface Seep Saprolite/Alluvium
O Saprolite o 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
RE1111
1.20
WI
Y 0.80
CO J
�- 0.60
0.40
0.20
NX1111
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- Parcel A.docx

Final BOD Report -Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A August 2017
Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra
Figure 3-4
Total Boron Kd Values from Global PHREEQC Model
iollifUnlif
1.00E-01
Y 1.00E-02
c
o �
m 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 of Boron Bearing Solid Phases from Global PHREEQC
Model
0
C
c -15
++
�a
L
-20
4J
M
-25
-30
py5% pys6 %6S %6 py9l pysd py�I
Fy �g2 Fti "10 ";Y Fy S13 Fti '1 p J, Fy 3j� Fti>6
■ Pb(B02)2 ■ Zn(B02)2 Cd(B02)2 ■ Co(B02)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- Parcel A.docx

Final BOD Report -Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A August 2017
Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra
Figure 3-6
Boron Speciation vs. pH from Global PHREEQC Model
1.00E-03
1.00E-04
4J
M
L
41
y J 1.00E-05
= O
v E 1.00E-06
a�
U
o, 1.00E-07
W ■
1.00E-08
Notes:
4 5 6
*Aqueous Boron
7
pH
HAO-H2BO3
0
■ HFO-H2BO3
9 10
Prepared By: BP Checked By: EMB
— 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- Parcel A.docx

Final BOD Report -Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A August 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- Parcel A.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- Parcel A.docx

Final BOD Report -Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A August 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 were 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. At higher groundwater ion
concentrations, complexes such as FeC12+ and FeC12+ may form at low pH and high Eh
conditions. Reduction of Cu(II) to Cu(I) facilitates the formation of stable Cu(I)CI
aqueous complexes. It is noteworthy that CuCI will also precipitate as the mineral
Nantokite (CuCI(s)) under the maximum groundwater ion concentration simulation.
Page 4-1
P:\Duke Energy Carolinas \ 20. BELEWS CREEK \04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev \ Geochemical
Modeling\90% BOD UPDATES\Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A.docx

Final BOD Report -Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A August 2017
Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra
1
.5
0
M
LU
0
—.5
Figure 4-1
Pourbaix Diagrams of Chlorine Species
M i
25'C y p
0 2 4 3
pH
Notes:
L
W
4
cl-
10 12 14
1 FeCI—
y, FeCI-,
Cr63Cl-
i •
• ,d" .
r
CI-
cucl-2
2a°C
0 2 4 b 8 10 12 14
pH
• Deep
• Shafim
• SurFeial
•Transi[unal
Prepared By: EMB Checked By: ALA
— The round symbols represent the pH and Eh values measured in Belews Creek groundwater.
Some values with pH near 11 have been removed as they are artificially high due to interactions
with cement.
— Pourbaix diagrams were produced using site specific minimum (left) and maximum (right)
groundwater ion concentrations from Belews Creek as reported in Table A-10.
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 4-2
P:\Duke Energy Carolinas \ 20. BELEWS CREEK \04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev \ Geochemical
Modeling\90% BOD UPDATES\Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A.docx

Final BOD Report -Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A August 2017
Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra
Figure 4-2
Chloride vs. Distance from Waste Boundary for Parcel A
1.0E+06
C
01p 1.0E+05
M
L
c 1.0E+04
U J
U Sm 1.0E+03
a�
1.0E+02
�L
Q
V 1.0E+01
1.0E+00
0 + O 0 v i
O
i
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
Distance from Waste Boundary (feet)
• Ash Porewater • Surface Seep Saprolite/Alluvium
0 Saprolite Transition GW Standard
— Detection Limit Prepared By: ALA Checked By: EMB
Page 4-3
P: \Duke Energy Carolinas\20. BELEWS CREEK\ 04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\ Geochemical
Modeling\90% BOD UPDATES\Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A.docx

Final BOD Report -Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A August 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 (Se032-) or
selenate (SeO42-). Under the Eh -pH conditions at the site under consideration, Se(IV)
present as HSe03, and reduced Se minerals such as umangite (CuaSe2) are expected for
form (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 highly oxidizing (high Eh) 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 Se(0) or selenide
Se( -II) species. These reduced selenite species are generally insoluble and can form
Se(0), CoSe(s), umangite (Cu3Se2), or realgar (a-As4Se4) precipitates. While these
precipitates are thermodynamically predicted to form in this model, it is unclear if
conditions are favorable at Belews Creek for these minerals to form or if there are
kinetic limitations which may limit the formation of such minerals.
Page 5-1
P:\Duke Energy Carolinas \ 20. BELEWS CREEK \04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev \ Geochemical
Modeling\90% BOD UPDATES\Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A.docx

Final BOD Report -Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A August 2017
Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra
— .5
Ln
Q
7
W 0
-.5
1
5
W
--5
Figure 5-1
Pourbaix Diagrams of Selenium Species
HSeO..
Se(VI)
Se(VI}
H2SeO3(ag)
SEMI
Se(tV)
HSeG3
,�
5e
Se(M
•
Krutaite-40
�•��.�• •�•
Se(FV)
y AZ
HSeG3-
MoSe02
Klockmannite
'• • 1
SeG3
M • Se(N}
U m a ngite
25°C
3 7 4
Fi R 1t� 12 7
e HSeD3
•„ Se(VI)
Seca- -
H2Se03(aq) Se(VI}
Se(IV)
HSeO3
Se(N)
•
H25e(aq) ♦ •
Se( -I I) •
SeG3
Se(IY)
H Se'
Se(-[[)
25'C
i
t
1
5
O
s
i. 0
-.5
1
HSeo
H35 03(aq)
S_(Nl
Krutaite HSeG,-
Se(iV)
•:r� v
Klockmannite
• • SeG'3
MoSe02 Se(!V
U m a ngite
25'C
] 2 4 B R 1 f 17 1.
-.5
pH
• Deep
•Shalm
•Surtnal
•Transitunal
• Deep
•Shalm
• 5urfual
ransi[unal
pH pH
Prepared By: EMB Checked By: ALA
Notes:
- The round symbols represent the pH and Eh values measured in Belews Creek groundwater.
Some values with pH near 11 have been removed as they are artificially high due to interactions
with cement.
- Pourbaix diagrams were produced using site specific minimum (left) and maximum (right)
groundwater ion concentrations from Belews Creek as reported in Table A-10.
- Diagrams on the bottom row were produced by suppressing precipitation/dissolution. Diagrams
on the top row allow for precipitation/dissolution to occur.
Page 5-2
P: \Duke Energy Carolinas\20. BELEWS CREEK\ 04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\ Geochemical
Modeling\90% BOD UPDATES\Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A.docx
Se(VI}
SeOq
H2Se03(aq)
SOO
Se(FV)
HSeG3-
Se(N}
Ir
�•a
H,Waq)
• •
Se( -11)
i
Se03
Se(IV}
HSe-
�7C r/
25'C
i 2
4
6 8 10
12 11,
• Deep
•Shalm
•Surtnal
•Transitunal
• Deep
•Shalm
• 5urfual
ransi[unal
pH pH
Prepared By: EMB Checked By: ALA
Notes:
- The round symbols represent the pH and Eh values measured in Belews Creek groundwater.
Some values with pH near 11 have been removed as they are artificially high due to interactions
with cement.
- Pourbaix diagrams were produced using site specific minimum (left) and maximum (right)
groundwater ion concentrations from Belews Creek as reported in Table A-10.
- Diagrams on the bottom row were produced by suppressing precipitation/dissolution. Diagrams
on the top row allow for precipitation/dissolution to occur.
Page 5-2
P: \Duke Energy Carolinas\20. BELEWS CREEK\ 04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\ Geochemical
Modeling\90% BOD UPDATES\Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A.docx

Final BOD Report -Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A August 2017
Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra
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.
.e
c 50
+j
M
40
c
v
C z_- 30
o a,
U
E 20
a�
10
0
Figure 5-2
Selenium vs. Distance from Waste Boundary for Parcel A
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Distance from Waste Boundary (feet)
1400 1600 1800
0 Ash Porewater Surface Seep Saprolite/Alluvium
• Saprolite 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 Se03 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).
Page 5-3
P:\Duke Energy Carolinas \ 20. BELEWS CREEK \04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev \ Geochemical
Modeling\90% BOD UPDATES\Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A.docx

Final BOD Report -Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A August 2017
Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra
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
Figure 5-3
Selenium Kd Values vs. Distance from Waste Boundary
for Parcel A
0.125015
0.125010
1 0.125005
v-
0.125000
0.124995
0
0 •
00
o e
0 00 •
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
Distance from Waste Boundary (feet)
Surface Seep •Saprolite/Alluvium •Saprolite OTransition
Prepared By: ALA Checked By: EMB
Page 5-4
P:\Duke Energy Carolinas \ 20. BELEWS CREEK \04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev \ Geochemical
Modeling\90% BOD UPDATES\Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A.docx

Final BOD Report -Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A August 2017
Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra
Figure 5-4
Fraction of Selenium Oxidation States vs Eh
c 4)
1.2 —
o V)
= s 1.0
Ma
�a
O o 0.8
v 0.6
�a
LU
0.4
os
0 0.2
4�
M 1 0.0
LL 41
ie -200
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500
Eh (mV)
Se( -II) Fraction Se(IV) fraction Se(VI) fraction
.11
Prepared By: BP Checked By: EMB
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, HSe03, 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 HSe03 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.
Page 5-5
P:\Duke Energy Carolinas \ 20. BELEWS CREEK \04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev \ Geochemical
Modeling\90% BOD UPDATES\Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A.docx

Final BOD Report -Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A August 2017
Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra
Figure 5-5
Selenium Kd Values vs pH from Global PHREEQC Model
1.00E+03
..
Y 1.00E+02
4-0
1 1.00E+01
1.00E+00
v
1.00E-01
L
a
1.00E-02
1.00E-03
3 5 pH 7 9
• MIN G W Values
■ AVG GW Values
MAX GW Values
Prepared By: BP Checked By: EMB
Note: PHREEQC modeling using the range of global groundwater (GW) concentrations listed in Table A-8 and A-9.
Page 5-6
P: \Duke Energy Carolinas\20. BELEWS CREEK\ 04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\ Geochemical
Modeling\90% BOD UPDATES\Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A.docx

Final BOD Report -Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A August 2017
Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra
Figure 5-6
Predicted Fraction of Se(IV) Species vs pH from Global PHREEQC 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 global groundwater 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 5-7
P:\Duke Energy Carolinas \ 20. BELEWS CREEK \04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev \ Geochemical
Modeling\90% BOD UPDATES\Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A.docx

Final BOD Report -Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A August 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 5-8
P: \Duke Energy Carolinas\20. BELEWS CREEK\ 04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\ Geochemical
Modeling\90% BOD UPDATES\Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A.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 5-8
P: \Duke Energy Carolinas\20. BELEWS CREEK\ 04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev\ Geochemical
Modeling\90% BOD UPDATES\Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A.docx

Final BOD Report -Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A August 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
provide an hydraulic barrier for groundwater flow from the ash basin to Parcel A and,
secondarily, 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 Carolinas \ 20. BELEWS CREEK \04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev \ Geochemical
Modeling\90% BOD UPDATES\Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A.docx

Final BOD Report -Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A August 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:
0 Boron and chloride are relatively non-reactive species under the Eh and pH
conditions in the area proposed for accelerated remediation.
0 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.
-0 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 primarily due to precipitation
of insoluble phases. Under mildly reducing to oxidizing conditions Se (IV) and
Se (VI) exist as anionic species Se032- and Se042-. 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.
,61P 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.
Page 7-1
P:\Duke Energy Carolinas \ 20. BELEWS CREEK \04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev \ Geochemical
Modeling\90% BOD UPDATES\Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A.docx

Final BOD Report -Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A August 2017
Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra
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
while Eh has the potential to show a slight increase overall. Using these assumptions
the following qualitative conclusions can be drawn:
,61P Neither fluctuating nor increasing redox potential should affect the mobility of
boron and chloride.
0, 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 Carolinas \ 20. BELEWS CREEK \04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev \ Geochemical
Modeling\90% BOD UPDATES\Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A.docx

Final BOD Report -Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A August 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 Carolinas \ 20. BELEWS CREEK \04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev \ Geochemical
Modeling\90% BOD UPDATES\Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A.docx

Final BOD Report -Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A August 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 Carolinas \ 20. BELEWS CREEK \04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev \ Geochemical
Modeling\90% BOD UPDATES\Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A.docx

Final BOD Report -Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A August 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 Carolinas \ 20. BELEWS CREEK \04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev \ Geochemical
Modeling\90% BOD UPDATES\Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A.docx

Final BOD Report -Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A August 2017
Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra
ATTACHMENT A
GEOCHEMICAL MODEL DEVELOPMENT
FOCUSED GEOCHEMICAL REPORT
P:\ Duke Energy Carolinas \ 20. BELEWS CREEK \ 04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev \Geochemical
Modeling\90% BOD UPDATES\Focused Geochemical Report- Parcel A.docx

41P
synTerra
ATTACHMENT A
GEOCHEMICAL MODEL DEVELOPMENT
PARCEL A
BELEWS CREEK STEAM STATION
3195 PINE HALL RD
BELEWS CREEK, NC 27009
AUGUST 2017
PREPARED FOR:
DUKE
ENERGY
DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS,, LLC
526 SOUTH CHURCH STREET
CHARLOTTEr NORTH CAROLINA 28202
�\++�ViVyyd by:
,��� Q,'t'aat�•��ell
_ JEA
C7 ;
Lo
III+++�
Erin Black
Geochemical Modeler
Craig dy
Senior Geologist

Attachment A — Geochemical Model Development Focused Geochemical Report August 2017
Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
1. GEOCHEMICAL MODEL DEVELOPMENT............................................................1
1.1 General Sorption Model Description........................................................................ 2
1.2 Sorption Model Development.................................................................................... 5
1.3 Sorption Model Development for Global Model Development .........................12
1.4 Global Geochemical Model Parameterization.......................................................16
1.5 Speciation Modeling using Pourbaix Diagrams .................................................... 26
1.6 The Use of Kd Values................................................................................................. 29
1.7 Comparison of MINTEQv4 and WATEQ4 databases using PHREEQC ........... 30
2. REFERENCES................................................................................................................. 34
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure A-1 Average Extractable Al and Fe Concentrations and Standard Deviation in
Page A -i
P:\Duke Energy Carolinas \ 20. BELEWS CREEK \04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design &
Dev\Geochemical Modeling\90% BOD UPDATES\BCSS 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 Sites
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-8
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 Carolinas \ 20. BELEWS CREEK \04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design &
Dev\Geochemical Modeling\90% BOD UPDATES\BCSS Attachment A.docx

Attachment A — Geochemical Model Development Focused Geochemical Report August 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 Fe and FAl Molar Site Concentrations
Table A-4 Surface Area, 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 Carolinas \ 20. BELEWS CREEK \04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design &
Dev\Geochemical Modeling\90% BOD UPDATES\BCSS Attachment A.docx

Attachment A — Geochemical Model Development Focused Geochemical Report August 2017
Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra
1. GEOCHEMICAL MODEL DEVELOPMENT
Geochemical modeling, particularly including sorption reactions, requires several
assumptions and has several limitations that limit our ability to develop a quantitative
model. Empirical distribution coefficients cannot be used in our model because such
coefficients do not consider changes in geochemical parameters (pH, Eh, ionic strength)
or changes in chemical speciation of the constituents. Therefore, we have employed a
surface complexation based modeling approach that approximates ion sorption
reactions using a thermodynamic construct similar to that used for aqueous speciation
modeling [Davis et al, 1998]. While surface complexation modeling approaches do
consider changing geochemical conditions and chemical speciation, there are specific
limitations to consider including:
1. The thermochemical sorption constants (i.e. surface complexation constants)
are only available for a relatively small group of minerals. In this work, we
have primarily used the self -consistent reactions describing ion sorption to
ferrihydrite and gibbsite compiled by Dzombak and Morel [1990] and
Karamalidis and Dzombak [2010]. Including ion sorption to other minerals in
the model cannot be done unless a similar set of self -consistent surface
complexation constants are available for site-specific minerals and generally
this is not the case. Thus, the models are not representing site-specific
mineralogy and are using ferrihydrite and gibbsite as representative sorbing
surfaces.
2. Incorporation of surface complexation based sorption models requires that a
modeler make assumptions regarding the concentration of reactive sites on the
mineral surface where sorption of ions can occur. We have followed the same
site density assumptions used by Dzombak and Morel [1990] and Karamalidis
and Dzombak [2010] to constrain the surface site concentrations in our
modeling approach and used measurements of extractable iron and aluminum
concentrations from well -bore samples to constrain the model. However, this
approach follows an inherent assumption that the extractable iron and
aluminum represents available mineral surfaces.
The use of gibbsite and ferrihydrite as representative minerals due to the availability of
surface complexation reactions for these minerals necessitates that all coal -ash disposal
sites are modeled using these same minerals. Therefore, the only differences between
the sorption behavior at each site will be due to 1) differences in the pH, Eh, and ion
concentrations at each site, and 2) differences in the extractable iron and aluminum
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 August 2017
Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra
concentrations from site specific solids. However, our "global" analysis of 7 coal -ash
disposal sites indicated a relatively similar distribution in the pH, Eh, and extractable
iron and aluminum concentrations despite the fact that the seven sites have different
geologic characteristics. Therefore, we have taken a global modeling approach to
provide a qualitative understanding of how changes in pH, Eh, and ion concentrations
can influence the mobility of constituents of interest. Then site-specific transects are
modeled using site-specific groundwater data and the model output is evaluated with
consideration of the overall behavior of each constituent.
1.1 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].
Furthermore, to verify consistency, models were run using both databases and the
results were comparable (see Section 1-7). As noted above, ferrihydrite and gibbsite
were used to simulate sorbing surfaces. The surface complexation constants for
ferrihydrite [Dzomback and Morel, 1990] are included in both databases released with
PHREEQC. However, surface complexation constants for gibbsite reported by
Karamalidis and Dzombak [2010] are not included in either database and were added
for this work.
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. The remaining constants were added to the existing
PHREEQC database to create the final, modified database used in these modeling
efforts. The constants for Co, V, Cr, and Sb on HFO and all constants involving ion
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 August 2017
Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra
sorption to HAO were taken from the compiled databases described by Dzombak and
Morel [1990] and Karamalidis and Dzombak [2010].
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.
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. In this model, HFO was considered
only as a weak sorption site, and HAO was considered only as a strong sorption site
[Karamalidis and Dzombak, 2010].
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. While these are robust models, provided a means of determining
the surface site density of each mineral phase, the inherent complexity is not
appropriate for the already complicated geochemical assemblages observed at the Duke
Energy Sites. 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., 1998]. This modeling
approach still combines the flexibility of an aqueous speciation model with a sorption
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 August 2017
Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra
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.
Table A-1
Example Reactions Used in Surface Complexation Modeling
Reaction Type
Note:
Reaction Expression
Stability Constant
Surface protonation
(i.e., develops positive
+
—SOH + H <=>-SOH2
K = [SOH2+] expR1
[Sox]{H+} RT J
surface charge at low
pH)
Surface deprotonation
(i.e., develops negative
--SOH � -SO- + H+
K—[SO-]{H+}
surface charge at high
exp(_W
[SOH]
pH)
Cation sorption
—SOH + Mn+ =SOMn 1 + H+
K (n-1)
M [SOM"']{H+}exP FW
[SOH]IM-1 RT
—SOH + H+ + A-<* -SOHz+A_
Anion Sorption
or
KA _ [SOHZA-] eXp —F l
][A-] \ RT/
—SOH + A � -SA + OH -
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
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 August 2017
Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra
calculate a Kd value to compare with reactive transport models and batch laboratory
data, a solid phase concentration in gsoiid/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, sorption to only one site on both HFO and HAO is
considered.
1.2 Sorption Model Development
Wells in the area of interest nearest Parcel A were selected for analysis (see Final 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 (Fe and Al concentrations in soils were
measured via digestion and elemental determination using EPA method 6010). The
EQUILIBRIUM_PHASES command within PHREEQC can be used to allow a specified
amount of a mineral to react with the aqueous phase. The EQUILIBRIUM_PHASES
command in PHREEQC is allowing ferrihydrite and gibbsite to form if the input
aqueous concentrations of Fe(III) and Al(III) are above saturation levels. Then the
ferrihydrite and gibbsite that are formed become the sorbing surfaces (HFOs and
HAOs). This essentially gives the model a method of predicting how much sorbent will
be available without additional user input. In effect, the model is calculating the
aqueous concentrations of Fe(II), Fe(III), and AI(III) as well as moles of gibbsite and
ferrihydrite by combining the total aqueous Fe and Al concentrations from well
measurements with the total Fe and Al available as solid phase concentrations
measured by digestion and elemental analysis (listed in Table A-2). This approach can
be compared with simulations where we estimate the concentration of sorbent based on
the solid phase concentration and using the site density standard assumptions
described by Dzombak and Morel [1990] and Karamalidis and Dzombak [2010].
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 August 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.
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 August 2017
Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra
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.
To convert from mgFe-Ai/kgsolid into a sorption site concentration in mo1Fe-Ai/Liiquid for use
in PHREEQC, one correction was applied to link the measured Fe and Al in the solid
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 the 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-
Al/Lliquid are listed in Table A-3.
While lowering the porosity of the transition zone does appear to overestimate available
sorption sites, these values are normalized on the back end of the modeling process,
when reporting Kd values. In the PHREEQC output, both the total sorbed and the total
aqueous phase concentration of each constituent of interest is presented in units of
mol/L. To determine the Kd value in units of L/kg, the total sorbed or solid phase
concentration must be in units of mol/kg. To convert these units, the bulk density (p),
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 August 2017
Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra
effective porosity (0e), and the established total volume (Voltot) are used to create a
liquid -solid ratio for each geo unit (e.g., surficial and transition zone) as shown below.
Using the established total cell volume of 1000 cm3, a bulk density of 1.6 g/cm3, and
effective porosity values of 0.2 and 0.05 for the surficial and transition zone units
respectively, the calculations for liquid -solid ratios are as follows:
Surficial Zone
VOlpore space [L] 0.2 L V011iquid
Liquid [L] _ �e [ Voltot [L] I _ [ 1.0 L Voltot J = 0'2 L = 0.125 L
Solid [kg] Voltot [cm3] * p [gsol3 � 1000 cm3 * 1.69solid * 1 kg 1.6 kg kg
cm cm,3 1000 g
Transition Zone
VOlporespace [L] 0.05 L Volliguidl
Liquid [L] _ �e [ Voltot [L] ] _ [ 1.0 L Voltot J 0.05 L
Solid [kg] Vol cm3 * [gsolid] 3 1.69solid 1 kg 1.6 kg
Voltot [ ] P cm3 1000 cm * cm3 * 1000 g
= 3.125 x 10-2 L
kg
Using the liquid -solid ratios calculated above, the total sorbed (Totsorb) concentrations
of constituents of interest are converted to mol/kg and Kd values calculated as follows:
molI
(Totsorb
RL
oll l Liquid [L]
TOtsorb I kg = J / * Solid [kg]
L [Mk Total Sorbed Concentration mo
Kd Lkg1 Total Aqueous Concentration nmol ll
q [L�l
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 August 2017
Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra
Surface areas of 600 m2/g and 32 m2/g for HFO and HAO, respectively, were assumed
based on a self -consistent application of these surface complexations. The site density
of 0.2 molsites/molFe and 0.033 molsites/molAi 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
moleFe or At SD * * SA * MW *
1rn2 6.022 x 1023 sites
SD is the site density in sites/nm2
SA is the surface area in m2/g
MW is the molecular weight in g/mol
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 August 2017
Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra
Table A-3
Parcel A Calculated Al and Fe Molar Site Concentrations
Well
Aluminum
m9Ai/ k9sard
Aluminum Site
Concentration
molAi/Lfiquid
Iron
m9Fe/ k9sord
Iron Site
Concentration
molFe/Liquid
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-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 August 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)
Ferrihydrite,
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 m01sites/M01mineral
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 ferrihydrite 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
ferrihydrite 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 ferrihydrite 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-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 August 2017
Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra
Modeling Option #3
To examine the saturation state of ferrihydrite 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 ferrihydrite 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 ferrihydrite 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 shows 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.
1.3 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 global model is meant to supplement the site- specific model and give a qualitative
insight into the potential mobility of selected constituents across a wide range of
conditions. 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-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 August 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-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
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-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 August 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
19A1 molA1 0.033 mol - AIOH
1000mgAl 26.989A1 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 concentrations 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 Dzomback and Morel [1990] because extractable Fe and Al is used in the model instead of total
ferrihydrite 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/kgsolid. This is done by using the solid phase concentration assumed in the above
reaction to keep the model self -consistent and essentially normalize the assumed solid
phase concentration as noted above. This is the approach used in the global model. The
solid phase concentration used in the global model was 50 gsolid/ Lvolume, a value chosen
to match the solid to liquid ratio used in the batch sorption experiments conducted for
the seven Duke Energy Progress sites [Langley, W.G., Oza, S., 2015].
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 extractable concentrations of Fe and Al mentioned in Table A-6 were
measured using a standard soil analysis approach described by Chao et al.[1978 and
1998]. These values were determined during part of an initial laboratory based study
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 August 2017
Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra
that included the batch sorption work discussed above regarding the global model,
since then, total digestion analysis of solids from site-specific wells have been obtained.
Those values are listed in Tables A-2 and A-3. As expected, the values from the total
digestion are considerably higher. Additionally, the global model assumes 50 g/L solid
phase concentration versus the 8 kg/L or 32 kg/L assumed for the site-specific model.
.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 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.
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.
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
mgFe-AI/
k9solid
MOIFe-AI/
9solid
M01sites/
9solid
Site Concentrations in
M011sites Avolume
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.
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 August 2017
Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra
4000
3500
LL
0 3000
20Q
y o; 2500
s�
E 2000
X 1500
W
1000
500
0
Figure A-1
Average Extractable Al and Fe Concentrations and
Standard Deviation in Solids
Oto e, t Qee�
�a
Average Extractable Fe ■Average Extractable All
Prepared By: BP Checked By: EMB
1.4 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
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 August 2017
Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra
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.
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
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 August 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-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 August 2017
Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra
650
450
E 250
s
W
50
-150
-350
2
Figure A-3
Measured pH and Eh Values at Seven Sites
\o •
• •
ip
• ;:•• • •
' � N
•'1i�Ab
• •
o go •
U to
le •
• 0• •
•
•
Weatherspoon
•
z`
Lee
Asheville
•
4
`6
•
•
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-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 August 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-1SD
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-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 August 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% 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-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 August 2017
Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra
Such a model could also be used to investigate expected variation between geologic
units where one would 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+, 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-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 August 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
rAsheville
■ 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-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 August 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-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 August 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
1 6.68E+01
1.02E-06
Prepared By: BP Checked By: LWD
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 August 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
1.5 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-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 August 2017
Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra
organic matter -HCO3 and organic matter-NH3reactions were decoupled in the model
and not allowed to form.
Boron and, chloride, and selenium Pourbaix diagrams from the Belews Creek -Parcel A
site specific model are presented in the main body of the text. In these Pourbaix
diagrams, the Eh and pH measurements from site groundwater measurements are
shown as individual data points. The groundwater ion concentrations from the BCSS
site were used as input values for the Pourbaix diagrams. To get the widest range of
concentrations possible, the minimum and maximum groundwater ion concentrations
were used as input values.
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:
101 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.
,67 The speciation is also considered only for the conditions given (Table A-10).
Altering the concentrations of aqueous constituents may influence the data.
47 The Pourbaix diagrams report the activity of species, not molar concentrations.
So corrections must be made to get molar units or mass units.
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.
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 August 2017
Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra
Table A-10
Concentrations of Reagents Used to Generate Pourbaix Diagrams
Element
Minimum
Concentration
(mol/L)
Median
Concentration
(mol/L)
Average
Concentration
(mol/L)
Max
Concentration
(mol/L)
Aluminum
1.85 x 10-09
9.17 x 10-06
4.47 x 10-0'
3.17 x 10-03
Arsenic
9.61 x 10-10
1.74 x 10.08
3.21 x 10-08
2.14 x 10-07
Barium
2.04 x 10-08
6.36 x 10-07
1.43 x 10-06
3.07 x 10-0s
Beryllium
1.50 x 10-09
1.29 x 10-07
3.75 x 10-07
5.47 x 10-06
Bicarbonate
1.97 x 10-05
9.84 x 10-05
2.25 x 10-04
1.58 x 10-03
Boron
3.80 x 10-09
1.0 x 10E-05
1.81 x 10-04
1.07 x 10-03
Cadmium
3.30 x 10-10
4.20 x 10-09
5.27 x 10-09
1.88 x 10-08
Calcium
2.77 x 10-05
4.01 x 10-04
1.09 x 10-03
4.89 x 10-03
Chloride
5.37 x 1005
2.32 x 1003
4.15 x 10-03
1.41 x 10-02
Chromium (VI)
1.92 x 10-10
1.47 x 10-09
3.93 x 10-08
1.52 x 10-06
Chromium
1.83 x 10-09
1.92 x 10-08
2.81 x 10-07
9.42 x 10-06
Cobalt
2.04 x 10-10
7.98 x 10-08
3.87 x 10-07
6.43 x 10-06
Copper
7.87 x 10-09
2.30 x 10-08
1.67 x 10-06
2.52 x 10-0s
Fluoride
5.74 x 1006
5.74 x 10-06
1.08 x 10-05
5.74 x 10"05
Iron
4.68 x 10-10
4.14 x 10-06
2.80 x 10-05
6.95 x 10-04
Lead
2.56 x 10-10
1.11 x 10-09
2.92 x 10-09
3.71 x 10-08
Lithium
8.57 x 10-07
8.51 x 10-06
6.36 x 10-06
1.18 x 10-0s
Magnesium
4.86 x 10-09
5.02 x 10-07
8.52 x 10-07
2.98 x 1006
Manganese
6.01 x 1011
3.16 x 1006
1.18 x 10-05
1.35 x 1004
Mercury
2.35 x 10-15
9.97 x 10-10
1.75 x 10-08
6.98 x 10-07
Molybdenum
1.15 x 10-09
5.21 x 10-09
7.18 x 10-08
4.06 x 10-06
Nickel
6.47 x 10-09
1.46 x 10-07
2.10 x 10-07
2.86 x 10-06
Nitrate + Nitrite
1.61 x 10-07
2.82 x 10-06
3.8 x 10E-06
1.77 x 10-05
Potassium
3.53 x 10-05
1.64 x 10-04
1.32 x 10-02
1.28 x 10-01
Selenium
2.78 x 10-09
1.09 x 10-08
1.36 x 10-07
5.06 x 10-06
Sodium
1.13 x 10-04
6.26 x 10-04
2.91 x 10-02
1.67 x 10+00
Strontium
1.42 x 10-07
1.6 x 10-06
2.88 x 10-06
1.19 x 10-01
Sulfate
2.08 x 10-06
1.35 x 10-05
1.22 x 10-04
8.73 x 1004
Thallium
8.33 x 1011
9.80 x 1010
5.58 x 10-09
2.99 x 1007
Vanadium
1.45 x 10-09
6.77 x 10-09
8.49 x 10-08
4.71 x 10-06
Zinc
7.65 x 10-11
3.58 x 10-07
1.80 x 10-0'
1.42 x 10-04
Note: Reagent concentration based on BCSS minimum and maximum groundwater ion concentrations in the
focused area of interest (Parcel A).
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 August 2017
Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra
1.6 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 groundwater 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.
The Kd values were calculated using:
[Mbolid _ [M]Total — LMlaqueous V
Kd _ [Ml aqueous [Ml aqueous * M
Where:
f M]Sohd 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]Totai 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 Vlm 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 ff
Jsorbed — 1 — laqueous — 1 1 + Kd V
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-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 August 2017
Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra
V
Q
L
O
U)
r-
0
v
M
L
LL
Note:
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
1.0E-03 1.0E-01
Figure A-8
Theoretical Relationship Between Kd Values and
PHREEQC Predicted Sorbed Fraction
1.0E+01 1.0E+03 1.0E+05 1.0E+07
Kd (L/kg)
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.
1.7 Comparison of MINTEQv4 and WATEQ4 databases using
PHREEQC
There were concerns expressed by the reviewers regarding the choice of the WATEQ4
database for this work. As discussed above (Section 1-1), the WATEQ4 database was
selected because it is the foundation of the standard database deployed with PHREEQC
(phreegc.dat) and therefore was selected to use as the primary database. Both WATQ4F
and MINTEQ v4 databases use a substantial portion of the NIST v46 "Smith and
Martell" database [2001] as well as additional reactions from Ball and Nordstrom [1991].
Therefore, these databases are relatively consistent. We have also noted some issues
with the MINTEQ v4 database incorporation into the PHREEQC format (i.e. the
MINTEQv4.dat database that is deployed with PHREEQC). For example, the reaction:
Fe3+ + 3H2O C* 3H+ + Fe(OH)3(aq) has a log K value of -15 in the actual visual
MINTEQ program. However, the value is listed as -12.56 in the MINTEQv4.dat file
deployed with PHREEQC. The later value is consistent with the phreegc.dat database.
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
Fraction
Sorbed
1.00E-03
0.000050
1.00E-02
0.000500
1.00E -OL
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
I.00E+081
1.000000
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.
1.7 Comparison of MINTEQv4 and WATEQ4 databases using
PHREEQC
There were concerns expressed by the reviewers regarding the choice of the WATEQ4
database for this work. As discussed above (Section 1-1), the WATEQ4 database was
selected because it is the foundation of the standard database deployed with PHREEQC
(phreegc.dat) and therefore was selected to use as the primary database. Both WATQ4F
and MINTEQ v4 databases use a substantial portion of the NIST v46 "Smith and
Martell" database [2001] as well as additional reactions from Ball and Nordstrom [1991].
Therefore, these databases are relatively consistent. We have also noted some issues
with the MINTEQ v4 database incorporation into the PHREEQC format (i.e. the
MINTEQv4.dat database that is deployed with PHREEQC). For example, the reaction:
Fe3+ + 3H2O C* 3H+ + Fe(OH)3(aq) has a log K value of -15 in the actual visual
MINTEQ program. However, the value is listed as -12.56 in the MINTEQv4.dat file
deployed with PHREEQC. The later value is consistent with the phreegc.dat database.
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

Attachment A — Geochemical Model Development Focused Geochemical Report August 2017
Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra
To confirm the consistency of both databases, we simulated speciation of multiple
constituents using the average pH, Eh, and groundwater concentrations of all ions from
the BCSS site (Table A-10). The MINTEQv4 database does not contain sorption
reactions for gibbsite so only ferrihydrite was included as a sorbing surface in the
simulations to provide a direct comparison. The model output showed the databases
produced very comparable results. Example output for the aqueous species and
concentrations of Al, Cr(III), and As(V) are shown in Figures A-9 through A-11 below.
The agreement between the model output using the MINTEQv4 and WATEQ4
databases is quite good and almost all species agree within 10%. The primary
differences are for the fluoride complexes with some variation observed for the CrF2+
(27%), A1F3 (29%), and A1F4- (105%) species and sulfate species A1SO4+ (39%) and
Al(SO4)2- (86%). While the percent differences for these species are relatively high, it is
noteworthy in the simulations that these species represent only a small fraction of each
ion and the major species predicted which account for greater than 99% of the Al, Cr,
and As agree quite well. Therefore, the use of the WATEQ4 database with our addition
of surface complexation reactions for gibbsite as well as addition of aqueous complexes
for Co, Sb, V, and Cr is a valid approach.
Page A-31
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 August 2017
Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra
Figure A-9
Comparison of PHREEQC Model Output UsingWATEQ4 vs MINTEQv4
Databases- Aqueous As(V) Complexes
= 1.00E-01
0
+� 1.00E-03
L
1.00E-05
U J
= 0 1.00E-07
0
U E 1.00E-09 ■ MINTEQ
a00i 1.00E-11 ■ WATEQ4
1.00E-13
a
1.00E-15
1.00E-17 L
H2As04- HAs04-2 H3As04 As04-3
Species
Prepared by: BP Checked by: EMB
Notes: Constituent input based on values in pH and Eh values were fixed at 5.5 and 385 mV,
respectively, based on average values at Belews Creek (Table A-10).
Figure A-10
Comparison of PHREEQC Model Output UsingWATEQ4 vs MINTEQv4
Databases- Aqueous AI(III) Complexes
Species
Prepared by: BP Checked by: EMB
Notes: Constituent input based on values in pH and Eh values were fixed at 5.5 and 385 mV,
respectively, based on average values at Belews Creek (Table A-10).
Page A-32
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
1.00E-01
4J
1.00E-03
1.00E-05
c -
0E
1.00E-07
EA .�
1.00E-09
0
■ MINTEQ
1.00E-11
Cr
■ WATEQ4
a
1.00E-13
1.00E-15
'15 x'1,
O x� ,x tix Stix
Species
Prepared by: BP Checked by: EMB
Notes: Constituent input based on values in pH and Eh values were fixed at 5.5 and 385 mV,
respectively, based on average values at Belews Creek (Table A-10).
Page A-32
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 August 2017
Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra
Figure A-11
Comparison of PHREEQC Model Output UsingWATEQ4 vs MINTEQv4
Databases- Aqueous Cr(III) Complexes
= 1.00E-06
Ira 0 1.00E-07
M 1.00E-08
4J
C „ 1.00E-09
C 1.00E-10
0 0
U E 1.00E-11
1.00E-12
Q 1.00E-13
Q 1.00E-14
1.00E-15
1.00E-16
1.00E-17
1.00E-18
+ + N � O
O U O 2
U
U U
O
V U O
2
O
i
U
Species
■ MINTEQ
■ WATEQ4
Prepared by: BP Checked by: EMB
Notes: Constituent input based on values in pH and Eh values were fixed at 5.5 and 385 mV,
respectively, based on average values at Belews Creek (Table A-10).
Page A-33
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
®n..
N
I
N
-,
N
';D1U
Z
O
U
n�i
i
O
i
U
Prepared by: BP Checked by: EMB
Notes: Constituent input based on values in pH and Eh values were fixed at 5.5 and 385 mV,
respectively, based on average values at Belews Creek (Table A-10).
Page A-33
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 August 2017
Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra
2. REFERENCES
Ball, J.W., and Nordstrom, D.K., 1991, User's manual for WATEQ4F, with revised
thermodynamic data base and test cases for calculating speciation of major, trace, and
redox elements in natural waters: U.S. Geological Survey Open -File Report 91-183, 189
p. (Revised and reprinted August 1992.)
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.
Page A-34
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 August 2017
Belews Creek Steam Station, Belews Creek, NC SynTerra
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.
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-35
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 (100% Submittal) August 2017
Belews Creek Steam Station
APPENDIX E
PIPE AND PUMP SELECTION PACKAGE
SynTerra
P:\ Duke Energy Carolinas\ 20. BELEWS CREEK\ 04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev \ 100 PCT
BOD\Basis of Design Report (100% Submittal), Interim Action Plan, Belews Creek Steam Station.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: [phone]
CEDAR CITY PLANT: 4660 W Highway 56 • P. 0. Box 627 • Cedar City, UT 84721 • Customer Service: 435-867-8908 • Fax: [phone]
GILLETTE PLANT: 1301 E Lincoln St • Gillette, WY 82716. Customer Service: 307-682.5554 • Fax: [phone]
BOWIE PLANT: 1110 Old Wise Road • PO Box 32 • Bowie, TX 76230 • Customer Service: 940-872-8300 . Fax: [phone]
CALGARY PLANT: PO Box 860 . 1030 Western Drive • Crossfield, AB TOM OSO Canada • Customer Service: -403-946-0202 • Fax: [phone]
WL118-0308 Rev Mar 2008 Supersedes all previous editions. © 2008 WL Plastics Corp. www.wiplasbcs.com Pg. 4 of 4

Basis of Design Report (100% Submittal) August 2017
Belews Creek Steam Station
APPENDIX F
DESIGN DRAWINGS
SynTerra
P:\ Duke Energy Carolinas\ 20. BELEWS CREEK\ 04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev \ 100 PCT
BOD\Basis of Design Report (100% Submittal), Interim Action Plan, Belews Creek Steam Station.docx

t r REMEDIATION SYS'
-
-ASH BASIN—� Pv�_)
_
I -
0 4 ,
I �
-PR. Ty UfNDARY - - _-r
SG t S{ t7 7. d
r
mow•
BELEWS LAKE
` n'\ r
L
SUUHUt:
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OBTAINED FROM THE USGS STORE AT hllp://store.usgs gov/b2c_usg�/b2c/star(/%•7,%26xcm=r3standardpitrex_prdXY.x(29/.do
DATE PAINTED'
T
GRAPHIC SCALE
1000 0 1000 2000
IN FEET
REMEDIATION SYSTEM
SHEET INDEX
SHEET 1 OF 8
COVER SHEET
SHEET 2 OF 8
OVERALL DESIGN LAYOUT
SHEET 3 OF 8
PLAN & PROFILE - HEADER PIPE
SHEET 4 OF 8
WELL ENCLOSURE
SHEET 5 OF 8
TRENCH DETAIL
SHEET 6 OF 8
WELL SCHEMATIC
SHEET 7 OF 8
J)
SHEET 8 OF 8
f I
mow•
BELEWS LAKE
` n'\ r
L
SUUHUt:
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OBTAINED FROM THE USGS STORE AT hllp://store.usgs gov/b2c_usg�/b2c/star(/%•7,%26xcm=r3standardpitrex_prdXY.x(29/.do
DATE PAINTED'
T
GRAPHIC SCALE
1000 0 1000 2000
IN FEET
REMEDIATION SYSTEM
SHEET INDEX
SHEET 1 OF 8
COVER SHEET
SHEET 2 OF 8
OVERALL DESIGN LAYOUT
SHEET 3 OF 8
PLAN & PROFILE - HEADER PIPE
SHEET 4 OF 8
WELL ENCLOSURE
SHEET 5 OF 8
TRENCH DETAIL
SHEET 6 OF 8
WELL SCHEMATIC
SHEET 7 OF 8
DISCHARGE PIPE OUTLET
SHEET 8 OF 8
PIPING & INSTRUMENTATION DIAGRAM
GRAPHIC SCALE
16 0 16 32 r//
IN MILES ��.(N � �Ri O /'

l
Ir PROPERTY LINE
1 1
1
760
I I _
t t
If
f
." TW -1 >t
PARCEL A I (2.23 ACRES) f/r
TW-4�!,
ol
s
/ t
f �C• . ♦a J f
/
TIE-IN TO EXISTING
PROPOSED POWER DOLE
r �`T
/T OBSERVATION n
•- WELL Rir
/. EXTRACTION WELL 7_PO�E
'AND VAULT (TYPE) POWE+EX-10�--EeNeECONTROL PAN
, 4�r
I + W /
EW -2
'TW 2 j?
TW -3
r � t C
R ,
! j 'N�GATE di�l
IG OF WAY
f ✓ / Ij/
ROAD RHT
I (APPRO(IMATE) � / ///j • -
// *.1'
EX -4
I il��rr UNDERGROUND PUMP POWER '
SUPPLY AND SENSOR WIRE
CONDUIT TO EXTRACTION WELL
11. EX -5
PROPOSED
rir �} OBSERVATION
`r f /WELL HEADER PIPE
/ r �6 .l_ oo r EX -6
,j'I+ ■ UNDERGROUND 2"0 HDPE
DISCHARGE PIPE
EX -7
l fr
F T~•
ri�i � ■ t T,
UNDERGROUND PUMP POWER EX -8
SUPPLY AND SENSOR WIRE
CONDUIT TO EXTRACTION WELL
Ir _
EX -9
EX -2
ASH BASIN
LEGEND
— – — PARCEL A PROPERTY LINE (SURVEYED)
r � EX -1 PROPOSED PHASE 1 EXTRACTION WELL (APPROXIMATE)
r PROPOSED EXTRACTION SYSTEM OBSERVATION WELL (APPROXIMATE)
/ ► �" IAM1NaZS CSA MONITORING WELL
CCR MONITORING WELL
► EW -1 EXTRACTION WELL FOR HDR PUMP TEST
EX -10 1 C TW -1 TEMPORARY WELL FOR HDR PUMP TEST
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 GVVA FINAL 07-22.15.DWG".
PARCEL A;2.23 ACRES) PROPERTY LINE IS BASED ON A PLAT PREPARED BY LDSI TITLED "EXHIBIT
NUMBER 41151 B7, FILE
MAP FOR DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION". DATED 09-28-2016. PROJECT
.� NAME 4115198.DWG
�
1
A
'i 301
ISSUE AS FINAL
201_7-09-01 _
1 i 7-07-2s1,11;CDE Url• LL:LTDADDCCR2saOCR2D
DATECK APP DESCRIPTION
GRAPHIC
30 O60 DUKE ENERGY
IN EEEr BELEWS CREEK STEAM STATION
148 RIVER STREET, SUITE 220 � 3195 PINE HALL RD
GREENVILLE.'St)UTH CAROLINA 29601 BELEWS CREEK, NORTH CAROLINA
PI LOVE 863-421.4999
www.synterracorp.com DRAWING TITLE: SHEET NO
w OVERALL DESIGN LAYOUT 2 OF S
DRAWN BY: JOHN CHASTAIN ENGINEER: RILL LANTI
T
PROTECT R: CRAIG EADY DUKE DRAWING NUMBER: REV NO
�
synra
DATE: 04/10/20110/2017
LAYOUT: SH 2 SYSTEM DESIGN X

01
+L—t-^ter PARCEL A (2.23 ACRES)l ---------
_' 774 ��•
rr— I dJ
I772- PROPOSED
r - - '~ 770 OBSERVATION
-^-�^ 766 WELL
N �IQOP 766
764
r-- 762 HEADER PIPE
HEADER WIPE �LOW� 758
STA 0+00
ELEVATI^NI
IN FEE1
768
766
764
762
760
758
756
754
752
750
748
6WA-20S NW -4 TW -1
-- GWA-20D x_ -x- x—x- x- x -x --x
GWA-20SA - --
GWA-20SR (D POLE - -
POLE h -
-
OF PROPOSED
-_2 - OBSERVATION
_ _ _ WELL
TW �rro4 ___--- - --- -- - ---
DISCHARGE PIPE__- --------------------- --- --
STA 0+00 HEADER
PIPE
7+ �.
/STA
�S DISCHARGE PIPE 1 ?' POWER POLE -
e
-
DISCHARGE PIPE
STA 0+65
- DISCHARGE PIPE
OUTLET INTO ASH BASIN
'1. 754 _
--�_. 752 � - -
GRAPHIC SCALE _
- y 30 0 30 60 OUTLET STRUCTURE
IN FEET
ELEVATION
I FEET
768
766
764
762
760
758
756
754
752
750
748
0
cc ELEVATION
IN FEET
768
ELEVATION
IN FEET
768
766
764
762
760
758
756
754
752
750
748
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o In o L0 o In o LID o u') o In o
+ + + + + + + + + + + LI +
0 o N N m In Ln co
o
0
1
Lr)
0
annommommil-i5�!'1M
o
V
LID
o LV
n
o
In o
��->ill��ll■w■���rl■II�I■���>������■r��.�� Imtr>i.a�r,�,rltsl�ll��
+
0
+
rA—L—�����IiR;�YLtire'�111��\��
■
+
CN
+ +
m m
+
+ +
o
0
1
Lr)
0
0
ln
o
V
LID
o LV
n
o
In o
+
0
+
0
+
+
rI
+
N
+
CN
+ +
m m
+
+ +
ISSUE AS FINAL
2017-09_01
--
IVJ7T15 JEC CUE COE
REPOSITIONEDDRAWINGTOADDCCR-2S&CCR-2D
Terra
REV
Cn. AFP
RIPTION
DATE PRINTED: 08/31/2017 6:36 PM ST7iTE9RA flit PATH: P'+Jyubo EreJLy C•�d-Aht30. BELEW: AEC91; 1. CCPWf !--1 Rem Jrm7- Aaron Plan-
Desitin & D-\100 PCT BOD\DWG`,DE BELEWS CK (PLAN & PROFILE) dwe
U0
Lo s a
148 RIVER STREET, SUITE 220
GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA 29601
PHONE [phone]
www.synterracorp.com
DRAWN BY: JOHN CHASTAIN ENGINEER: BILL LANTZ
PROJECT MANAGER: CRAIG EADY
DATE:04/10/2017
LAYOUT: SH 3 PLAN & PROFILE
766
764
762
760
758
756
754
752
750
748
co o Ln o
QD ti 00
DUKE ENERGY
BELEWS CREEK STEAM STATION
3795 PINE HALL RD
BELEWS CREEK, NORTH CAROLINA
DRAWING TITLE: SHEET NO
PLAN 8r PROFILE - HEADER PIPE 3 OF 8
DUKE DRAWING NUMBER: REV NO
X

CSI
do 4'an-4' MINIMUM WALL
TTHICKNESS (TYP.)
OPENING IN BOTTOM OF
` 1" MAGFLOW METER PRECAST CONCRETE VAULT
(DISPLAY ORIENTED
w VERTICALLY)
DfIS71NG
yXTRACTION WELL 1' HDPE EXTRACTION PIPE
d -
n 'J
D ❑
WELL SEAL \ 1.
s ` \
\ SENSOR WIRE TERMINAL BLOCK
OPENING IN BOTTOM OF \!' UNDERGROUND
PRECAST CONCRETE VAULT RIGID CONDUIT
` MOTOR DISCONNECT
OPENING FOR CONDUIT
a (GROUT SEAL)
PRECAST CONCRETE VAULT/
NOTES:
1. VAULT DOORS SHALL HAVE HYDRAULIC ASSIST OPENING.
2. VAULT DOORS SHALL BE LOCKABLE.
3. VAULT SHALL BE PRECAST CONSTRUCTION (SPECIFICATION 03 4100).
4. PIPING SHALL BE SCH 40,304 STAINLESS STEEL.
5. ALL THREADED JOINTS SHALL BE TAPED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
MANUFACTURES RECOMMENDATIONS.
ALUMINUM OR FIBERGLASS VAULT DOORS
PRESSURE GAUGEFULL OPENING, WITH HYDRAULIC ASSIST
1/4" SS BALL VALVE1 Z
AND LOCKABLE
ELECTROMAGNETIC d
SAMPLE PORT—,;a XFLOW METER a
1"SSTEE -� I:f_rir FLOWS �1"SS90`ELBOW (TYP.)
da
�1" SS INION (TYP.)
1" SS CHECK VALVE —�- 3" MIN
1" SS BALL VALVE
1" UNION----",- ADJUSTABLE PIPE
SUPPORT
WELLSEAL�� — —
i , -EXISTING j
OPENING FOR EXISTING EXTRACTION WELL
4" EXTRACTION WELL I ; I 1" SS COUPLPNG a
s I j j LEAVE OPEN FOR DRAINAG "
�' I I I ! 1^ TRANSITION FITTING
I I HDPE TO MALE THREADED METAL ,�
4" MINIMUM I I d
FLOOR THICKNESS a I j 1" HDPE PIPE
1" HDPE
1" HDPE ELBOW DISCHARGE
DATE M W
6" GRAVEL
w
El
0
WELL VAULT
BOLLARD (TYP.) cr
BOLLARD PLACEMENT AT
WELL VAULT
CAP
0
4"0 SCH. 40 GALV. STEEL PIPE.
PIuE FILLED WITH CONCRETE
AND TWO COATS OF SAFETY
G? YELLOW PAINT APPLIED TO PIPE.
2" SLOPED CONCRETE BASE
VAULT
w _
o
3 Fl
2" HDPE LATERAL WYE
HEADER PIPE FLOW FLOW TO DISCHARGE PIPE
HEADER PIPE FLOW
FROM EX -3 THRU EX -10
-' —0-
2" HDPE LATERAL WYE
CONCRETE FOOTING
3 (CONCRETE SPECIFICATION 03 3000)
c
3
C7 G
0
m H
0 z
0
m
X)
1' O"
PIPE BOLLARD FOR
z OBSERVATION WELLS AND WELL VAULTS
2" HDPE PI
m
HDPE ELBOW
PIPE I
HEADER PIPE FLOW I
FROM EX -1 AND EX -2

36"
ELECTRICAL CONDUIT
AGGREGATE OR TOPSOIL TO
MATCH EXISTING SURfkCE
4• MINI+— � MoN
24" MIN �#—
TRENCH DETAIL
�GEOTEXTLE FABRIC
1
,-6" MAGNETIC LOCATION TAPE
12" DEEP
CLASS II BACKFILL
~(EXISTING FILL MAYBE USED IF ACCEPTABLE)
�—�MAINTMN VERTICAL
OR SLOPED FACE
—MINIMUM 4" SEPARATION BETWEEN PIPES
CLASS I BEDDING
`ELECTRICAL CONDUIT
—2"0 HDPE DISCHARGE LINE
NOTES:
1.4" MINIMAL HORIZONTAL SEPARATION BETWEEN ALL PIPE
AND CONDUIT.
2. 6" VERTICAL SEPARATION WHEN CROSSING OVER ALL PIPE
AND CONDUIT.
3.36" MINIMUM COVER FOR ALL PIPE AND CONDUIT.
4. PLACE BACKFILL AND FILL SOIL MATERIALS IN LAYERS NOT
MORE THAN 8" IN LOOSE DEPTH FOR MATERIAL COMPACTED
BY HEAVY COMPACTION EQUIPMENT AND NOT MORE THAN 4
INCHES LOOSE DEPTH FOR MATERIAL COMPACTED BY HAND
OPERATED TAMPERS.
5. PLACE BACKFILL AND FILL MATERIALS EVENLY ON ALL
SIDES OF STRUCTURES TO REQUIRED ELEVATIONS AND
UNIFORMLY ALONG THE FULL LENGTH OF EACH STRUCTURE.
6. COMPACT SOIL MATERIALS TO NOT LESS THAN 95
PERCENT OF MAXIMUM DRY UNIT WEIGHT ACCORDING TO
ASTM D 698.
�<t�Q4~�ssiay��2
4
r
i ►'r J?.

VAULT LID
SEE SHEET 4 OF 8
ELECTRICAL AND FOR BOLLARD DETAILS
INSTRUMENTATION CONDUIT �-
WELL SEAL -
CONCRETE VAULT 3' MINIMUM DEPTH
SEE SHEET4 FOR � � ABOVE GROUND SURFACE
MORE DETAILS
y IIISOHANG E RIPE GROUND SURFACE
CASING CENTRALIZER
(MINIMUM OF 2) -11 rl
A
V APPROXIMATE WATER TABLE '
7',777,-7
LEVEL CONTROL SENSOR CABLES
f
. fif ,rte i r
DEPTH TO TOP OF COMPETENT BEDROCK
APPROXIMATELY 55'-65' BGS (BELOW GROUND
TWE PURPOSES.
COMPRESSION CAP
°I -
----_WELL PIPE GUIDES LJ
+
(MINIMUM OF 2)
i f r r1
CEMENT WITH 5 L BENTONITE % ' r
5" BOREHOLE
r+ REGOLITH,' 2' x2' CONCRETE PAD
3 Vct!LLCASING
r BENTONITE SEAL s /
—(2- MINIMUM THICKNESS) r % s r PROTECTIVE
TOP OFTRANSITI0N ZONE CASING
f 1 i APPROXIMALY45° BGS
,,✓��,.�✓�� o
ri fi
4" DIA STEEL PIPE BOLLARD
LOCATED AT EACH CORNER (TYP)
BOLLARD LOCATION
PLAN VIEW
TRANSITION ZONE -APPROXIMATELY 10'
' ,
PRESSURE TRANSDUCER
it r ♦� AR,r� •/�
WELL PUMP POWER CABLE '
1 �
y SAND PACK • ^.
1
r WATER LEVE L PRESS U R E TRANS DUC ER OBSERVATION WELL
EXTRACTION WELL
OF
�wwwwlr
ISSUE AS FINAL
2017-09-01
41,
synTerra
NOT TO SCALE
148 RIVER STREET. SUITE 220
GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA 29601
PHONE [phone]
www.synterracorp.com
DRAWN BY: JOHN CHASTAIN ENGINEER: BILL LANT7
PROJECT MANAGER: CRAIG EADY
DATE: 04/10/2017
LAYOUT: SH-6EXT & OBSER WELL)
-.,-------LOCK
PROTECTIVE CASING
2' x2' CONCRETE PAD
(MINIMUM 6" THICK)
4 ° - I T'^
4" MINIMUM DEPTH
4 ti�
MENT WITH 5% BENTONITE
BORE HOLE DIAMETER
2" PVC WELL CASING
(SCHEDULE 40)
SAPROLITE/TRANSTITION ZONE
1 WATER TABLE ABOVE BEDROCK
BENTONITE STEAL
(2' MINIMUM THICKNESS)
SAND PACK -WASHED HIGH GRADE
NO. 10R 2 SILICA SAND
(MINIMUM 2' ABOVE TOP OF THE
PRE PACKED WELL SCREEN)
PREPACKED WELL SCREEN
SCHEDULE 40
10' SCREEN SLOT SIZE 0.010"
_ APPROXIMATE DEPTH 55'
BELOW GROUND SURFACE
DUKE ENERGY
BELEWS CREEK STEAM STATION
3195 PINE HALL RD
BELEWS CREEK, NORTH CAROLINA
DRAWING TITLE: EXTRACTION WELL & SHEET NO
OBSERVATION WELL SCHEMATICS 6 OF 8
DUKE DRAWING NUMBER: REV NO
X -

a
0
w x
TRANSITION FITTING
ur
u,
WELL IVB
PI 0
U)
GAUGE IV
1/2" SS
SAMPLE PORT (SP)
FLOW METER (FM1)
CHECK VALVE (CV)
U
U
I
1
I-
i X
L_
Lu
0
(TYP)
LE
LT EX -2 �
JE
H A (TYP)
I
I
I
I
l
I
I
l
FE LT
LE
I
I
I JE
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
--WELL SEAL (SL)
--WELL CASING (WC)
—LEVEL SENSOR (LE)
WELL PUMP (WP)
r --WELL SCREEN (WS)
2" HDPE
Lu
Lu
W
Uj
Lu
Lu
LU
0
0
o
c
o
EL
0
0
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
a
2" HDPE DISCHARGE
FLOW METER
(FM2)
Equipment Schedule Summary
Identifier
Description
Size
Material
Manufacturer
Part Number
WS
Wound Well Screen
4 -in x 10 -ft, 0.010 slot
EX -3
EX -4
EX -5
EX -6
EX -7
EX -8
EX -9
EX -10
a
2" HDPE DISCHARGE
FLOW METER
(FM2)
Equipment Schedule Summary
Identifier
Description
Size
Material
Manufacturer
Part Number
WS
Wound Well Screen
4 -in x 10 -ft, 0.010 slot
3134 Stainless Steel
Johnson Screen (or equal)
'WP
Submersible Pump
0.75 Hp
Stainless Steel
Grundfos
5SQE07-230
LC
Level Sensor/Transmitter
60 -foot cable
Stainless Steel/Polyurethane
Dwyer (or equal)
SBLT2-20-60
IWC
Well Casing
4 -inch
Sch 40 PVC Casing
ISL
Well Seal
4 -inch
Cast Iron
Simmons (or equal)
Model 301
CV
Check Valve
1 -inch
Stainless Steel
Simmons (or equal)
Model 516SS
FM1
Electromagnetic Flow Meter
1 -inch
Polyurethane liner; 316SS Electrode
Sparling (or equal)
FM656-01-5-1-1-8-0
FM2
Electromagnetic Flow Meter
2 -inch
Polyurethane liner; 31655 Electrode
Sparling (or equal)
FM656-02-5-1-1-8-0
SP
Ball Valve Sample Port
1/2 -inch
Stainless Steel
PI
"ressureGau)te
2 -inch
Stainless Steel
Refer to specifications for detailed requirements for all equipment.
—All proposed equivalents shall be approved by Engineer.
CAR�7"/r���
►r T: r•rrrrrr 4r/ fj
� J ref I E�"�•�'��
1 LA`
13,0vM Ener&•Ca,bl vasV O.
LEGEND:
EX EXTRACTION WELL
FE FLOW SENSOR/VISUAL INDICATOR
FIT FLOW TRANSMITTER
HDPE HIGH DENSITY POLYETHYLENE
HOA HAND/OFF/AUTO PANEL (ONE SWITCH PER WELL)
IV ISOLATION VALVE
JE POWER SUPPLY TO PUMP MOTORS
LE LEVEL SENSOR
LT LEVEL TRANSMITTER
PI PRESSURE GAUGE
SS STAINLESS STEEL
----- CONTROL SIGNAL
PIPING
- - - POWER SUPPLY
BALL VALVE
CHECK VALVE
FLOW METER
Q PIPE REDUCER
SUBMERSIBLE PUMP
M
NOTES:
1. ALL TEN WELL CONFIGURATIONS AND EQUIPMENT ARE THE SAME.
2. PUMP CONTROLS WILL BE SET FOR LEVEL.
3. AUTO DIALER ALARM SIGNAL INTEGRATED INTO LEVEL CONTROL SIGNAL.
7
aELEWS GK

Basis of Design Report (100% Submittal) August 2017
Belews Creek Steam Station
APPENDIX G
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS
SynTerra
P:\ Duke Energy Carolinas\ 20. BELEWS CREEK\ 04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan - Design & Dev \ 100 PCT
BOD\Basis of Design Report (100% Submittal), Interim Action Plan, Belews Creek Steam Station.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
[e-mail]
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!
[phone]
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 (100% Submittal) August 2017
Belews Creek Steam Station
APPENDIX H
PERMITS
SynTerra
P:\ Duke Energy Carolinas\20. BELEWS CREEK\04. CCP Accelerated Rem, Interim Action Plan -Design & Dev\ 100 PCT
BOD \ Basis of Design Report (100% Submittal), Interim Action Plan, Belews Creek Steam Station.dooc

ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secreta"
Water Resources S. JAY ZIMMERMAN
EnviromnentaK,ruality Director
August 22, 2017
Ms. Melonie Martin
Duke Energy
3191 Pine Hall Road
Walnut Cove, North Carolina 27052
SUBJECT: RECOVERY WELL CONSTRUCTION
PERMIT NO. WR0400431
COUNTY: Stokes
FILE NAME: Duke Energy Belews Creek
Dear Ms. Martin:
In accordance with your application received on August 21, 2017, we are forwarding herewith:
Recovery Well Construction Permit No. WR0400431 for the construction of twelve (12)
recovery wells at 3195 Pine Hall Road in Belews Creek in Stokes County.
Henceforth, correspondence and data relating to this well shall be designated as specified in the
subject heading above. This Permit will be effective from the date of issuance and shall be
subject to the conditions and limitations as specified therein. If you have any questions
regarding this permit, please contact me or Jim Gonsiewski at [phone].
Sincerely,
Sherri V. Knight, PE
Regional Supervisor
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Division of Water Resources, NCDEQ - WSRO
cc: WQROS — Groundwater Protection Unit, 1636 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699
WSRO Files
htng Comma ::
State ol'Nonh Carolina I Environmental Quality
450 W, Hanes Mill Rd., Suite 300 1 Winston Salem, North Carolina 27105-7400
336-776-9800

NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES — WATER QUALITY REGIONAL OPERATIONS
SECTION
PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
In accordance with the provisions of Article 7, Chapter 87, North Carolina General Statutes, and
other applicable Laws, Rules and Regulations.
PERMISSION IS HEREBY GRANTED TO
Duke Energy
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A RECOVERY WELL SYSTEM consisting of twelve recovery
wells owned by Duke Energy. The wells will be located at 3195 Pine Hall Road in Belews
Creek, North Carolina, in Stokes County. This Permit is issued in accordance with the
application received on August 21, 2017, in conformity with specifications and supporting data,
all of which are filed with the Department of Environmental Quality and are considered integral
parts of this Permit.
This Permit is for well construction only, and does not waive any provision or requirement of
any other applicable law or regulation. Construction of any well under this Permit shall be in
strict compliance with the North Carolina Well Construction Regulations and Standards (15A
NCAC 02C .0100), and other State and Local Laws and regulations pertaining to well
construction.
If any requirements or limitations specified in this Permit are unacceptable, you have a right to
an adjudicatory hearing upon written request within 30 days of receipt of this Permit. The
request must be in the form of a written petition conforming to Chapter 150B of the North
Carolina General Statutes and filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail
Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-6714. Unless such a demand is made, this
Permit is final and binding.
This Permit will be effective for one year from the date of its issuance and shall be subject to
other specified conditions, limitations, or exceptions as follows:

1. Issuance of this Permit does not obligate reimbursement from State trust funds, if these
wells are being installed as part of an investigation for contamination from an
underground storage tank or dry cleaner incident.
2. Issuance of this Permit does not supersede any other agreement, permit, or requirement
issued by another agency.
3. The well(s) shall be located and constructed as shown on the attachments submitted as
part of the Permit application.
4. Each well shall have a Well Contractor Identification Plate in accordance with 15A NCAC
02C .0108(0).
5. Well construction records (GW -1) for each well shall be submitted to the Division of
Water Resources' Information Processing Unit within 30 days of the well completion.
6. When the well is discontinued or abandoned, it shall be abandoned in accordance with
15A NCAC 02C .0113 and a well abandonment record (GW -30) shall be submitted to
the Division of Water Resources' Information Processing Unit within 30 days of the well
abandonment.
7. The County Health Department may require a county monitoring well construction
permit. Please contact the health department for their requirements.
Permit issued the 22nd day of August, 2017
FOR THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
Sherri V. Knight, Regional Supervisor
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Division of Water Resources, NCDEQ - WSRO
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission
Permit No. # WR0400431

r-nergy, mLnerae
and Land Resources
ERVINWH19ENT-C -0-CF, 7
Aprii 26, 2017
LETTER OF APPROVAL
Duke Ener,y
Ea Sullivan
526 SOulh C:huruh St
C timiatte, NC 28201
KUY 4vvrLK
ti -we......
MXHAhL S. REGAN
1 Rf1C T LH�IJ
xt: P.-.je-vt N=..c: BELEWS CREEK STEwtv1 aTATION PROPOSED CiRuuNUwA1ER
EXTRACTION SYSTEM
Acres Approved: 1.5
PrajeGL ID: STOKE -2017-018
Ceullty: Stukcs, City: Belews Uluck
AZO.ess- MiddWIV-1L Loop Rd.
idvn' Jim;.: yZK7
Stream Classification: other
Subutiauil By: SynLerra
Date Received by LQS: April 20- 2017
Flan Type: Utilities
Deaf- Sir or Madam:
This ott,m nos ,.uviewed the subject elUJiull dad seaiumittatiou cuimal plan. We tilLa the plan to
oz acceptable ann hc.uby issue this LCUU, at App.uvNl. The enclosed Uxtiticate at AppluvSl
must be posted at the goo a;tc. i nis ply. app.. -,M ahatl cep;.c tnrec (3) ycma rvlluw;...i the dote
of approval, if no land -disturbing activity has been undertaken, as is req,.ir4a oy T;tIc 15A
NCAU 4H .0129.
PI 03c be zzvvazc that ythu p.Ujeit w;11 be covered by the euclasea NPDES Coustructiull
Stormwater uene,ai Pe.;t NC;G01UUuU. PICSasc t=ul.lu r=itiar ,,.in all the requ;,G ucuts amEl
canditionS of"this permit in order to achieve compliance.
Title lbA NCuAC: 4B .0118(a) requires that a COPY at -the approved et'asiatl cantral plan be On file
at tm jab sate. Alla, tnis tette. gives the siotice lequi,.eZl by G.S. 113A -61.1(x) of UU1 li6hL of
periva;c in3pcct.nTi to .n3ux cu...pl;m'[a u w;m the app.uvea plzm.
Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resuurc es
Energy Section - Geological Survey Sectium - Land wuality Section
450 West Hanc3 Mill Road, Saite 300, Winston-Salem: NC 27105- Mune: 336-776-9800 - FAX: [phone]
Inlemal:
An Equal Opportunity IAffirmauve Actlon Employer- 50% "fa k10% POS[ Consumer Paper

Letter of Al 1. rwvui
Sullivan
4126117
Page 2 uf 2
North Carolina's Sedimentation Pollution Control Act is performance -or Tented. requirin'L,,
prUteCLiall of existing natural resources and adjoining properties. If following the
COIIUIIULICUILIUL t ut thib piuject. the ClObiVLI dna 01ILLCntatiull COLILL-01 plan is iLLadegU&C LO meet
tnc Iequilements of the SUdLLIIULItatIVLL PMutim, control Act of 1971 (North UCLIelal
aStatuty 113A-51 tnr`Vugn 66), mid may r,.tluliG C1.V13lV1L3 to MU plarL aan 1ll1p1eMCLAat1VLl VI
the revisions to insure compliance with the Act.
Acceptance Una UppiavaO Of this plan is COLlaiUMICd upon your�iConLpliance with Federal turd
State watGl qua-llty laws, regulatluns, and Iuius. III RadiLiUll_ IOCdl City UI COLILIty oldlllarrueS 01
IuIC3 may aI3v apply to trli3 lm il-Ei3turbillg activity. lnis ifpprUYU1 dOCs Ilvt SupCLDCdC at7y OthCL
permit or approval.
Please not-, that this appruval is based in pan on the accuracy of the information provided in the
Financial R-,spon5ibility Faim, which you provided. You are IequesLed tuu- file an amended tuna
iI there iS any Lnaz7ge TIL the iiIIVLIIIation included on the funn. In allditiull, it would be helpful it
yvu Ilutify mi3 utrice uI the propu3cFL startiLlg date M. mi3 project. Please notify us if you plan to
have a preconstruction conference.
Your couperation is appreciated.
§ima ink
A3aistax-d RCglvllaI Euginwr
Land Quality Section
Encli-,3.,3: Curtificate on Approval
NPDES Per.it
cc: SyLILerL-a
148 F&CL St. SUiLe��220
u,L,c.,v.nu, Su 2v6u1

v
E
O
Q
R
R+
,.,."
C
�;JD
v
O
AQ
e�
C
>'
4
O
^
v
v
U
�
�
•^
�
.I.d
O
G�
•�
V
FI
�+
ri
i•d
O
�i/
�"�
�
�I
V
•�
U
C�
�
.r
.I..►
int
I1
�
�..I
4-0
Rai
pm
�►
o
E
O
Q
R