ML102010538

Letter to Duke Energy from Cline, Site Characterization Report,Groundwater Protection Initiative, Oconee, Cover Letter Through Appendix C

ML102010538
Person / Time
Site:	Oconee
Issue date:	04/20/2009
From:	Armstrong L, Cline M S&ME
To:	Sullivan E Duke Energy Corp, Office of Information Services
References
FOIA/PA-2010-0209
Download: ML102010538 (158)

Text

$S&ME April 20, 2009 Duke Energy Mail Code ECI 3K 526 South Church Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 Attention: Mr. Ed Sullivan, P.E.

Reference:

Site Characterization Report - Errata No. 1 Groundwater Protection Initiative Duke Energy Oconee Nuclear Station Seneca, South Carolina S&ME Project 1264-07-234

Dear Mr. Sullivan:

S&ME, Inc. (S&ME) issued the Site Characterization Report (SCR) for the Groundwater Protection Initiative at Duke Energy's Oconee Nuclear Station in Seneca, South Carolina on August 29, 2008.

Errors have been found on the following pages of the report.

Volume 1 Table 7 - Vertical Gradients Summary (1 page in Volume 1))

Figure 12 - Vertical Gradients (1 sheet in Volume 1))

Volume 2 Appendix J - Vertical Gradient Calculation Sheets (24 pages in Volume 2))

Please replace the original pages with the attached corrected pages. An updated .pdf copy of the entire SCR report, with the affected pages replaced, is provided on the included compact disc for your records.

We point out the~efror were related to the t6p-of-screen and bottom-of-screen elevations in the vertical gradient.computationis.(Appendix J), Correcting'these elevations resulted in numerical changes in the magnitude of vertical gradients reported in Appendix J, Table 7, and Figure 12. Correcting these elevations did not-effect the direction of vertical gradients reported in Appendix J, Table 7, and Figure 12; nor did it affect the text or conclusions in Section 81.2.2 Vertical Gradients of the SCR.

We apologize for the inconvenience of this Errata No. 1. We appreciate the opportunity to make these corrections. If you have any questions regarding these changes or desire our assistance further, please do not hesitate to contact u. I Sincerely, .0,.,%.\kOA AR, V ~MaryvReth Cline, E.I.T, -. N 0473 . r-~13i Environmeital Professional Seirv-e:oe" Mana* 1" .0 "mcline@smeinc.com larmstrong@smeinc.com o..',

SAENVIRONM207\1264 Proiects\6407234-Ocoiee UNear GroundwaterStudjR&ACKApritI2009 Edits\ONS:Errara No. I 7 l,4 \eJte S&ME, INC. / 301 Zima Park Drive / Spartanburg, SC 29301 /-p 064.5742ý360 f 864.576.7'30/'

One Marcus Drive, Suite 301 / Greenville, SC 29615 / p 864-232-8987 / www.smeinc.com f*)

V

SS&ME Celebrating35 Years 1973 2008 August 29, 2008 Duke Energy Mail Code EC12K 526 South Church Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 Attention: Mr. Gregory D. Robison, P.E.

Reference:

Site Characterization Report Groundwater Protection Initiative Duke Energy Oconee Nuclear Station Seneca, South Carolina S&ME Project 1264-07-234

Dear Mr. Robison:

S&ME, Inc. (S&ME) is pleased to present this Site Characterization Report for the Groundwater Protection Initiative at Duke Energy's Oconee Nuclear Station in Seneca, South Carolina. Our Groundwater Protection Initiative activities were provided in accordance with our January 24, 2007 Proposal 07064, Duke Energy's authorization Contract 00080694, and our Professional Services Agreement 0233032.04/MI 1342 002 with Duke Energy.

This Site Characterization Report comprises two volumes that include discussion of the Groundwater Protection Initiative Project, site activities, and findings, with supporting tables, figures, and record documents in associated appendices. Conclusions include development and discussion of a Site Conceptual Hydrogeologic Model.

S&ME is honored to have supported Duke Energy on this important Groundwater Protection Initiative.

We trust this information is responsive to your needs at this time. If you have questions regarding the Site Characterization Report or desire our assistance further, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely, S&ME, Inc.

Mary Beth Cline, E.I.T. Scott Dacus, P.G.

Environmental Professional Senior Geologist mcline@smeinc.com sdacus@smeinc.com VIROM\2007\1264\6407234 Oconee NMclt?ý#(*iJ;A'idy\SCR\Cover Lettue,'J5(I I I I%%"\'

S&ME, INC./ 155 Tradd Street / Spartanburg, SC 29301 / p 864.574.2360 f 864.576.8730 1 Marcus Drive, Suite 301 / Greenville, SC 29615 / p 864-232-8987 / www.smeinc.com

TABLE OF CONTENTS (VOLUME 1)

SECTION PAGE

1.0 INTRODUCTION

AND PURPOSE ......................................................... 1 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION ............................................................................ 2 2.1 Site Location .................................................................................................... 2 2.2 Site Setting .................................................................................................... 2 2.2.1 Lake Keowee ............................................................................................. 3 3.0 STATION DESCRIPTION ..................................................................... 4 3.1 Overview of Primary Plant Building Construction ........................................ 4 3.1.1 ReactorBuildings ....................................................................................... 4 3.1.2 Auxiliary Building......................................................................................... 4 3.1.3 Turbine Buildings ........................................................................................ 5 3.1.4 Radwaste Facility....................................................................................... 5 3.1.5 Standby Shutdown Facility......................................................................... 5 3.2 Overview of Plant Water Use ......................................................................... 5 3.2.1 Cooling and Service Water Systems ........................................................... 6 3.2.1.1 Intake Structure .................................................................................... 6 3.2.1.2 Discharge Structure ............................................................................. 6 3.2.1.3 Conventional Wastewater Treatment System (Chemical Treatment P o nd s) ...................................................................................................... ... . 6 3.2.2 Domestic Water and Sanitary Waste .......................................................... 7 3.2.3 GroundwaterUse ......................................................................................... 7 3.2.3.1 Groundwater Supply Wells ................................................................... 7 3.2.3.2 Standby Shutdown Facility Dewatering System ................................... 8 3.2.3.3 Groundwater Use Summary ............................................................... 8 3.2.4 Storm Water ................................................................................................ 8 4.0 OVERVIEW OF STATION HYDROGEOLOGIC SETTING ................... 9 4.1 Regional Physiographic Province .................................................................. 9 4.2 Regional Geology ........................................................................................... 9 4.3 Regional Hydrogeology ............................................................................... 10 4.4 Site Geology .................................................................................................. 13 4.5 Site Hydrogeology ......................................................................................... 14 4.5.1 Site HydrostratigraphicUnits..................................................................... 14 5.0 SOURCE/SOURCE PATHWAY EVALUATION AND MONITORING LOCATIONS ............................................................................................ 15 Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS (VOLUME 1)

SECTION PAGE 5.1 Contaminants of Interest and Their Fate in the Environment .................... 15 5.1.1 Tritium .................................................................................................... . . 15 5 .1.1.1 K dV alues fo r T ritium ............................................................................... 16 5.2 Structures, Systems and Component Evaluation ...................................... 16 5.2.1 Risk Assessment Process......................................................................... 16 5.2.2 Risk Assessment Results ......................................................................... 17 5.2.3 OperatingExperience ............................................................................... 18 5.3 Groundwater Protection Initiative Monitoring Well Location Selections ...... 21 5.3.1 Existing Boring and Well Information ........................................................ 22 5.3.2 Permanent Wells ....................................................................................... 22 5.3.3 Tem porary Wells ...................................................................................... 22 6.0 REGULATORY APPROVALS AND DOCUMENTATION ................... 23 7.0 FIELD METHODS FOR GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLATIONS .................................................................................. 24 7.1 Preliminary Well Locations ........................................................................... 24 7.2 Utility Clearance, Final Well Locations, and Soft-Dig Precautions ........... 24 7.3 Plant Access Training, Mobilization, Safety Orientation, Security Access .. 24 7.4 Soil Test Borings, Soil Classification, Soil Testing .................................... 24 7.4.1 Permanent Wells ....................................................................................... 24 7.4.2 Tem porary Wells ....................................................................................... 25 7.5 Rock Coring and Classification .................................................................... 25 7.6 Permeability and Packer Testing .................................................................. 26 7.7 Well Construction ......................................................................................... 27 7.7.1 Permanent Wells ....................................................................................... 27 7.7.2 Tem porary Wells ........................................................................................... 29 7.8 Well Development ......................................................................................... 29 7.9 Slug Testing .................................................................................................. 29 7.10 Equipment Cleaning and Investigative Derived Waste Management ....... 29 7.11 Groundwater Monitoring Well Location Survey ........................................ 30 7.12 Groundwater Sample Collection ............................................................... 30 7.12.1 Well Sampling ......................................................................................... 30 7.12.2 Catch Basin Sampling........................................................................... 31 7.12.3 Sample Collection Presentation............................................................. 31 7.13 Groundwater Sample Analysis .................................................................. 32 7.14 Temporary Well Abandonment .................................................................. 32 8.0

SUMMARY

OF FINDINGS .............................................................. 33 Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS (VOLUME 1)

SECTION PAGE 8.1 Geologic Summary ...................................................................................... 33 8.1.1 HydrostratigraphicUnits........................................................................... 33 8.1.2 Soil Porosity and Specific Yield ................................................................ 34 8.1.3 PartiallyWeathered/FracturedRock and Sound Rock Secondary Porosity.. 35 8.2 Hydrogeologic Findings ................................................................................ 35 8.2.1 GroundwaterOccurrence and Flow ........................................................ 35 8.2.2 GroundwaterGradients............................................................................. 37 8.2.2.1 Horizontal G radients ............................................................................ 37 8.2.2.2 Vertical G radients ..................................................................... 38 8.2.3 Hydraulic Conductivities............. ..................... 38 8.2.4 GroundwaterFlow Rates ........................................................................... 39 8.3 Groundwater Quality .................................................................................... 40 8.3.1 Shallow (Water Table) GroundwaterCondition Wells ............................... 40 8.3.1.1 January 2008 Sampling Event ........................................................... 40 8.3.1.2 April/May 2008 Sampling Event ......................................................... 41 8.3.1.3 May 21-22, 2008 Sampling Event ....................................................... 41 8.3.2 Deeper (Submerged) GroundwaterCondition Wells ................................. 41 8.3.2.1 January 2008 Sampling Event ........................................................... 41 8.3.2.2 April/May 2008 Sampling Event ......................................................... 41 8.3.2.3 May 21-22, 2008 Sampling Event ....................................................... 42 8.3.3 Catch Basin Water Conditions .................................................................. 42 8.4 Site Conceptual Hydrogeologic Model ........................................................ 42

9.0 CONCLUSION

S ................................................................................ 44 9.1 Groundwater Monitoring ............................................................................. 44 10.0 QUALIFICATIONS .......................................................................... 45 11.0 SELECTED REFERENCES ........................................... m.................. 46 Table of Contents

TABLES AND CHARTS (VOLUME 1)

WITHIN TEXT TABLE T-1 LAKE KEOWEE

SUMMARY

DATA TABLE T-2 CONVENTIONAL WASTEWATER TREATEMNT SYSTEM (CHEMICAL TREATMENT PONDS)

SUMMARY

TABLE T-3 GROUNDWATER SUPPLY WELLS

SUMMARY

TABLE T-4 GROUNDWATER USE

SUMMARY

TABLE T-5 MEAN HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY

SUMMARY

WITHIN TABLES TAB TABLE 1 MONITORING WELL CONSTRUCTION

SUMMARY

TABLE 2 HYDROSRATIGRAPHIC UNITS

SUMMARY

TABLE 3 SOIL TESTING

SUMMARY

(SOIL POROSITY AND SPECIFIC YIELD)

TABLE 4 SECONDARY POROSITY

SUMMARY

(PARTIALLY WEATHERED/FRACTURED ROCK AND SOUND ROCK)

TABLE 5 GROUNDWATER LEVEL

SUMMARY

TABLE 6 HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC UNITS AND GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS

SUMMARY

TABLE 7 VERTICAL GRADIENTS

SUMMARY

TABLE 8 PERMEABILITY TESTING

SUMMARY

(OPEN-HOLE FALLING HEAD, PACKER, AND SLUG TESTING)

CHART 8A MEAN HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY CHART TABLE 9 GROUNDWATER VELOCITY ESTIMATES

SUMMARY

TABLE 10 ANALYTICAL RESULTS

SUMMARY

TRITIUM IN GROUNDWATER TABLE 11 SAMPLE COLLECTION MEASUREMENTS

SUMMARY

JANUARY 2008 TABLE 12 SAMPLE COLLECTION MEASUREMENTS

SUMMARY

APRIL/MAY 2008 TABLE 13 SAMPLE COLLECTION MEASUREMENTS

SUMMARY

MAY 21-22, 2008 Table of Contents

FIGURES (VOLUME 1)

WITHIN TEXT FIGURE F-i PHYSIOGRAPHIC PROVINCES OF SOUTH CAROLINA FIGURE F-2 GEOLOGIC BELTS OF THE CAROLINAS FIGURE F-3 PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS OF GROUNDWATER SYSTEM IN PIEDMONT GEOLOGIC PROVINCE FIGURE F-4 CONCEPTUAL GROUNDWATER FLOW SYSTEM IN PIEDMONT GEOLOGIC PROVINCE WITHIN FIGURES TAB FIGURE 1 STATION LOCATION AND PROPERTY MAP FIGURE 2 UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MAP FIGURE 3 STATION SITE PLAN AND FEATURES FIGURE 4 GROUNDWATER PROTECTION INITIATIVE MONITORING WELLS FIGURE 5 HYDROGEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION LOCATIONS FIGURE 6 HYDROGEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION A-A' FIGURE 7 HYDROGEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION B-B' FIGURE 8 HYDROGEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION C-C' FIGURE 9 HYDROGEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION D-D' FIGURE 10 GROUNDWATER POTENTIOMETRIC MAP

- SHALLOW (WATER TABLE) WELLS FIGURE 11 GROUNDWATER POTENTIOMETRIC MAP

- DEEPER (SUBMERGED),

FIGURE 12 VERTICAL GRADIENTS FIGURE 13 TRITIUM CONCENTRATIONS IN GROUNDWATER

- JANUARY 2008 FIGURE 14 TRITIUM CONCENTRATIONS IN GROUNDWATER

- APRIL/MAY 2008 Table of Contents

APPENDICIES (VOLUME 2)

APPENDIX A HISTORICAL DRAWING LIST APPENDIX B SOURCE AND SOURCE PATHWAY RISK ASSESSMENT TABLE B-1 SOURCE AND SOURCE PATHWAY RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS APPENDIX C SOIL TEST BORING FIELD REPORTS AND MONITORING WELL INSTALLATION RECORDS FOR SELECTED EXISTING OCONEE WELLS APPENDIX D - REGULATORY DOCUMENTATION:

GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL APPLICATION AND VARIANCE REQUEST SCDHEC MONITORING WELL APPROVAL #3159 NON-RESIDENTIAL WATER WELL RECORDS - SUBMITTALS 1, 2,3, and 4 AS-BUILT WELL DRAWINGS (GM-O-1 Rev. 5, GM-O-2 Rev. 4, GM-O-3 Rev. 3, and GM-O-4 Rev. 2)

GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL APPLICATION AND VARIANCE REQUEST 2 SCDHEC TEMPORARY MONITORING WELL APPROVAL #3340 NON-RESIDENTIAL WATER WELL RECORDS SUBMITTAL FOR TEMPORARY WELLS TEMPORARY MONITORING WELLS ABANDONMENT SUBMITTAL APPENDIX E BORING LOGS, ROCK CORE LOG, WELL LOG, SOIL PHOTOS, ROCK PHOTOS, PERMEABILITY TESTS (BOREHOLE TESTS, SLUG TESTS), PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS, FETTER AND BEAR DIAGRAMS (ARRANGED BY WELL LOCATION)

APPENDIX F NON-HAZARDOUS WASTE MANIFEST (SOIL DISPOSAL)

APPENDIX G LABORATORY ANALYTICAL REPORTS - JANUARY 2008 APPENDIX H LABORATORY ANALYTICAL REPORTS - APRIL/MAY 2008 APPENDIX I LABORATORY ANALYTICAL REPORTS - MAY 21-22, 2008 APPENDIX J VERTICAL GRADIENT CALCULATION SHEETS APPENDIX K HISTORICAL BORING RECORDS (ON COMPACT DISC)

Table of Contents

Groundwater Protection Initiative Site Characterization Report S&ME Project 1264-07-234 Duke Energy Oconee Nuclear Station September 2008

1.0 INTRODUCTION

AND PURPOSE Water containing trace amounts of various radioactive materials is normally released from U.S. nuclear power plants under controlled, monitored conditions that meet conservative Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) limits to protect public health and safety. Recently, several instances of unintended, abnormal releases of radioactive liquids to the environment were identified. Materials detected to date in groundwater around nuclear power plants include Tritium and Strontium 90 (NRC, 2007). Of these two materials, Strontium-90 is only associated with specific, isolated plant systems, such as the Spent Fuel Pool - tritium is much more prevalent in plant systems than Strontium-90, and is thus considered a much better indicator of potential radioactive releases. As such, while Strontium-90 as a material is monitored by Duke Energy on a specific basis, tritium and potential sources of tritium is the focus material of this Groundwater Protection Initiative.

In 2006, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) announced the U.S. commercial nuclear power industry's unanimous approval of a voluntary initiative to improve the industry's management of groundwater protection issues. More specifically, the initiative addressed radiological releases to groundwater, with tritium (H 3) being the primary indicator. The initiative calls for the establishment of on-site groundwater monitoring programs at operating nuclear power plants (NEI, 2007). To this end, Duke Energy, Devine Tarbell

& Associates, Inc. (DTA) and S&ME, Inc. (S&ME) formed a collaborative team to design and install comprehensive groundwater monitoring well networks at Duke Energy's operating nuclear power fleet comprising McGuire Nuclear Station in Huntersville, North Carolina, Catawba Nuclear Station in York, South Carolina, and Oconee Nuclear Station in Seneca, South Carolina. The overriding purposes of the groundwater monitoring well networks are:

1. Establish post-construction hydrogeology of the operating nuclear plant site, confirm consistency with the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR),

and develop a Site Conceptual Model for understanding groundwater presence and movement at the plant sites; and,

2. Establish site-specific monitoring well networks for Groundwater Protection Initiative monitoring comprising both near-field (nearer potential radiological tritium sources) and far-field (further from potential radiological tritium sources) well arrays.

This Groundwater Protection Initiative Site Characterization Report presents the implementation of and findings from the activities associated with the Groundwater Protection Initiative at the Duke Energy Oconee Nuclear Station (Oconee) in Seneca, South Carolina. This report establishes the foundation for the Radiological Groundwater Protection Initiative at Oconee (NSD-517).

1

Groundwater Protection Initiative Site Characterization Report S&ME Project 1264-07-234 Duke Energy Oconee Nuclear Station September 2008 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION 2.1 Site Location Oconee is located in the northwestern portion of South Carolina, in eastern Oconee County, adjacent to Lake Keowee. The nearest town, Seneca, S.C., is located approximately 6 miles south-southwest of the site. The site is located at Latitude 34 degrees-47 minutes-40 seconds North and at Longitude 82 degrees-53 minutes-48 seconds West. The location of the plant site is shown on Figure 1, Station Location and Property Map. Duke Energy owns additional property surrounding Oconee that is beyond the plant site proper that is not illustrated on Figure 1.

2.2 Site Setting Oconee lies in the Piedmont Physiographic Province. The Piedmont is a northeast trending zone that varies in width from about 80 to 120 miles. The site is bounded on the northwest by the Blue Ridge Province and on the southeast by the Atlantic Coastal Plain Province. The plateau generally slopes southeastward with an elevation range from about 1200 feet to 400 feet.

Groundwater recharge in the Piedmont is derived entirely from infiltration of local precipitation. Groundwater recharge occurs in areas of higher topography (i.e., hilltops) and groundwater discharge occurs to areas of lower topography (i.e., valley creeks and streams).

Oconee is located on a peninsula bounded by Keowee River to the east, the main body of Lake Keowee to the north and west, and private property to the south. Lake Keowee is impounded by Duke Energy's Jocassee and Keowee Dams. Plant property and surrounding geography is portrayed on Figure 2, United States Geologic Survey Map.

Elevation across the site ranges from 700+/- feet above mean sea level (msl) near the Keowee River to 950+/- feet above msl on the western portion of the site.

Land use nearby Oconee comprises primarily residential, with limited commercial (e.g.,

restaurants, service stations) and institutional (e.g., churches) development. Private residences are located along and on streets off of Stamp Creek Road to the north; Pickens Highway to the northeast and east; Keowee River Road to the south; and Doug Hollow Road and Rochester Highway to the west (Figure 1).

2

Groundwater Protection Initiative Site Characterization Report S&ME Project 1264-07-234 Duke Enerav Oconee Nuclear Station Seotember 2008 2.2.1 Lake Keowee Lake Keowee serves as the cooling water source for Oconee. Lake Keowee extends between Jocassee Dam and Keowee Dam. Lake Keowee was formed by damming the water of the Little River and the Keowee River above the Hartwell Reservoir. Lake Keowee initially achieved full pond in 1971.

Lake Keowee is part of the Keowee-Toxaway Complex and is owned and operated by Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC and licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) as FERC Project 2503. The Keowee-Toxaway Complex includes the Oconee Nuclear Station and the Keowee, Jocassee, and Bad Creek hydroelectric stations.

Table T-1, Lake Keowee Summary Data, below, provides a summary of selected data for Lake Keowee.

V Wee tilIo Maximum Drawdown 25 feet Full Pond Surface Area 18,357 acres Full Pond Volume 952,300 acre-feet Shoreline Length 388 miles Mean Depth 51.9 feet Maximum Depth 140.7 feet Drainage Area 439 square miles Mean Flow (at Keowee Dam) 830 cubic feet per second Minimum Average Daily Flow (FERC) 125 cubic feet per second Source: 316(a) Report, Duke Energy EHS, June 2007 In addition to serving the needs of the nuclear and hydroelectric power plants, Lake Keowee is a source of municipal drinking water for Greenville and Seneca, South Carolina.

3

Groundwater Protection Initiative Site Characterization Report S&ME Project 1264-07-234 Duke Energy Oconee Nuclear Station September 2008 3.0 STATION DESCRIPTION 3.1 Overview of Primary Plant Building Construction This section provides an overview description of Oconee and construction elements of the primary plant buildings of significance relative to groundwater movement and monitoring. Plant buildings and features are depicted on Figure 3, Station Site Plan and Features.

Oconee Unit 1 began commercial operation in February 1973; Unit 2 began commercial operation in October 1973; and Unit 3 began commercial operation in July 1974.

The primary plant buildings at Oconee comprise three Reactor Buildings, two Auxiliary Buildings (one shared for Units I and 2 and a separate structure for Unit 3), and one Turbine Building, collectively considered the "Power Block". Other shared support features include a Radwaste Facility, a Standby Shutdown Facility, the water Intake Structure, the water Discharge Structure, and three Chemical Treatment Ponds. In addition to these primary buildings and features, there are ancillary office buildings and other facilities at the site used by and for Oconee support staff.

While not the primary focus of this site characterization effort, Oconee has additional locations containing groundwater monitoring wells that are included in the radiological ground water protection program. These locations include the aforementioned Chemical Treatment Ponds, the landfill, the landfarm (Moisture Separator Reheater (MSR) Tube Burial Site) as well as several other miscellaneous groundwater monitoring well locations.

3.1.1 ReactorBuildings Oconee Units 1, 2, and 3 each employ a pressurized water reactor Nuclear Steam Supply System (NSSS) which was furnished by Babcock & Wilcox Company. In the reactor itself, control rods and boron are used to control the amount of nuclear fission. The primary cooling system for the reactor is known as the reactor coolant system. Each Reactor Building houses the reactor coolant system for that unit. The Reactor Buildings are constructed on rock at elevation 766 feet msl (relative to a surrounding plant grade level of approximately 796 feet msl).

A key area of interest in this Groundwater Protection Initiative associated with the Reactor Buildings is an area known as the lower tendon gallery. Because the Reactor Buildings contain a post-tensioning system, the termination of the vertical portion of the tensioning system occurs below grade in a compartment exterior to the Reactor Building known as the lower tendon gallery. Groundwater from the areas surrounding each Reactor Building occasionally leaks into this compartment.

3.1.2 Auxiliary Building Oconee Nuclear Station has two Auxiliary Buildings. One structure is shared by the Unit 1 and 2 reactors; the other structure supports the Unit 3 reactor. The Auxiliary 4

Groundwater Protection Initiative Site Characterization Report S&ME Project 1264-07-234 Duke Energy Oconee Nuclear Station September 2008 Buildings are essentially free-standing, reinforced concrete structures with no structural tie-ins to either the Turbine Buildings or the Reactor Buildings. The Auxiliary Buildings serve as enclosures to protect the auxiliary systems supporting the reactor coolant system, the control room, and other systems necessary for the safe operation.of the plant. Units 1 and 2 share a fuel handling facility that includes a spent fuel pool, located in the western portion of the Unit 1 and 2 Auxiliary Building. Unit 3 also has a fuel handling facility that includes a spent fuel pool, again located in the western portion of the Unit 3 Auxiliary Building.

Key components of interest in this Groundwater Protection Initiative are sumps within the Auxiliary Buildings that may encounter leaking fluid and the spent fuel pools which operating experience has indicated to be the source of groundwater contamination at other utilities. An interesting design feature of note for the spent fuel pools is the existence of a side-wall leak chase system. The foundations for the Auxiliary Buildings bear directly either on rock or on "fill" concrete placed on rock.

3.1.3 Turbine Buildings One Turbine Building, located east of each Reactor Building, houses the main turbines, electrical generators and the supporting equipment such as the main condensers and feedwater pumps for each of the three units. The Turbine Building is a steel frame structure supported on reinforced concrete substructures. The Turbine Building substructure is founded on bedrock with foundation dowels connecting the mat foundation to the underlying bedrock. The Turbine Building contains two main sumps.

Units I and 2 share a sump with Unit 3 having a separate sump. These sumps, their contents and their discharge path are of interest to this initiative.

3.1.4 Radwaste Facility The Radwaste Facility is located south of the Unit 3 Turbine and Auxiliary Buildings.

The yard grade elevation in this area is about 796 feet msl. Approximately 80 ft.

southeast of the Radwaste Facility, the yard fill slopes downward at 2 to 1 (horizontal to vertical) to original ground about 55 feet below. There are two pipe trenches between the Radwaste Facility and the main structures of Unit 3; one connecting to the Turbine Building and one to the Auxiliary Building.

3.1.5 Standby Shutdown Facility The Standby Shutdown Facility (SSF) is a reinforced concrete structure. The Standby Shutdown Facility is designed as a standby system for use under extreme emergency conditions. The SSF is provided as an alternate means to achieve and maintain shutdown conditions following postulated fire, sabotage, and flooding events. The SSF is located to the west of the Unit 2 Reactor Building.

3.2 Overview of Plant Water Use This section provides an overview description of water use at Oconee of significance relative to groundwater movement and monitoring.

5

Groundwater Protection Initiative Site Characterization Report S&ME Project 1264-07-234 Duke Energy Oconee Nuclear Station September 2008 3.2.1 Cooling and Service Water Systems Oconee uses water from Lake Keowee for cooling and process water. The average daily withdrawal from Lake Keowee for the cooling water and other service water systems is 2520 million gallons per day (mgd). The average daily discharge via pass through to Lake Keowee from Oconee is 2520 mgd. An average flow of 1.4 mgd passes from Chemical Treatment Pond 3 through the Wastewater Conveyance and is discharged to the Keowee River / Lake Hartwell which is the impoundment immediately below Keowee Hydro.

3.2.1.1 Intake Structure The Condenser Circulating Water (CCW) System withdraws water from Lake Keowee via the Condenser Circulating Water Intake Structure. This system, in turn, supplies water to other plant systems, including the Low Pressure Service Water System and the High Pressure Service Water System.

The Condenser Circulating Water Intake Structure is located southwest of the Oconee Power Block and at the north end of the Intake Canal. The Intake Structure is a reinforced concrete structure that houses the 12 CCW pumps (4 per unit), supports the pump motors and the beginning sections of the CCW pipe. The structure is approximately 50' high, 325' long, and 45' in depth.

3.2.1.2 Dischar-qe Structure The discharge structure is the terminus of the once-through Condenser Circulating Water (CCW) System and is located northeast of the Oconee Power Block. This structure is a reinforced concrete structure that is designed to allow warm discharge water to re-enter Lake Keowee. The CCW Systems for all three units discharge through this structure.

3.2.1.3 Conventional Wastewater Treatment System (Chemical Treatment Ponds)

The Oconee Conventional Wastewater Treatment System consists of three chemical treatment ponds, labeled CTP 1, CTP 2 and CTP 3. CTP 1 and 2 are parallel ponds with one pond receiving wastewater and the other pond providing treatment or discharging.

Pumps are provided for recirculation or controlled discharge via the West yard drain system to CTP 3. The Conventional Wastewater Treatment System receives input primarily from the Turbine Building Sump or the Water Treatment Room. In 2007, both CTP 1 and CTP 2 were lined with a synthetic liner. Table T-2, Conventional Wastewater Treatment System (Chemical Treatment Ponds) Summary describes the ponds.

Ipacity gaons)

F ruiiu. Eh tllhtruc oll I Chemical Treatment Pond 1 Earth with Synthetic Liner 3,179,365 Chemical Treatment Pond 2 Earth with Synthetic Liner 1,633,251 Chemical Treatment Pond 3 Earth 2,453,814 I

6

Groundwater Protection Initiative Site Characterization Report S&ME Project 1264-07-234 Duke Energy Oconee Nuclear Station September 2008 Treated water from CTP 3 proceeds through the Wastewater Conveyance to NPDES Outfall 002 at the headwaters of Lake Hartwell at a rate of approximately 1.4 mgd. In addition to the treated water passing through CTP 3, an additional volume of groundwater collects there and is discharged through the Wastewater Conveyance. A hydraulic study for CTP 3 was performed in 2003. This study states..."Groundwater seepage is flowing into CTP 3 on the north, west, and south sides. Approximately 5 to 50 gpm (7200 to 72,000 gpd) of unaccounted for seepage [not designed as part of the Conventional Wastewater Treatment System] is entering CTP 3." (Duke, 2003) 3.2.2 Domestic Water and Sanitary Waste The city of Seneca supplies potable water used at Oconee, including both the plant proper and the softball field restroom facility and nearby Lake Management Facility. Sanitary wastes are discharged to CTP 3 and then to the Keowee River. The station will make a municipal connection to the City of Seneca for treatment of sanitary wastewater in early 2009 and the on-site treatment for sanitary wastewater will be abandoned.

3.2.3 GroundwaterUse The Oconee site uses several groundwater supply wells and also has a dewatering system associated with the Standby Shutdown Facility.

3.2.3.1 Groundwater Supply Wells The Oconee site does not have any wells used for drinking water purposes. All groundwater supply wells located on the site are considered to be irrigation wells. There are a total of six groundwater supply wells at the Oconee site. A brief description of these wells and their usage is presented in Table T-3, Groundwater Supply Wells Summary. As shown in Table T-3, the average annual groundwater withdrawal rate from these wells is 10,000 gallons per year.

of Wells Oconee Softball Field 10,000 gallon per Supplies water to irrigate the softball field area.

1 well year or < 1 gpm Security Track and Firing The well at the security track and firing range is Negligible (well not Range used for irrigation purposes only. in use)

I well Warehouse #5 Well The well at warehouse #5 is used for radiological Negligible 1 well monitoring only.

Complex Irrigation Wells The three wells at the Oconee complex office Negligible (wells not 3 wells building are used for irrigation purposes only. in use)

Total Average Annual Groundwater Withdrawal Rate 10,000 gallons per year or < I gpm 7

Groundwater Protection Initiative Site Characterization Report S&ME Project 1264-07-234 Duke Enerqy Oconee Nuclear Station September 2008 3.2.3.2 Standby Shutdown Facility Dewatering System A groundwater dewatering system was installed in August 2007 to lower the water table around the Standby Shutdown Facility. This system pumps an approximate average of 20 gpm of groundwater into the yard drainage system. This yard drainage system discharges into CTP 3 and then into the Keowee River.

3.2.3.3 Groundwater Use Summary Considering the groundwater supply wells and the SSF dewatering system, Table T-4, Groundwater Use Summary, provides a summary of groundwater use at Oconee.

Withdrawal Rate for Groundwater Supply Wells (Refer to Section 3.2.3.1) <1 gpm Standby Shutdown Facility Groundwater Withdrawal Rate (Refer to Section 3.2.3.2) 20 gpm Total Groundwater Use 21 gpm 3.2.4 Storm Water Storm water from improved areas of Oconee is collected in a system of roof drains, a yard drain system, and ditches arranged around the plant in such a way as to direct runoff away from the plant to natural drainage channels. The yard drain system consists of catch basin inlets which are connected by corrugated metal pipes to form several networks. The yard drain system, ditches, and graded areas are all arranged to primarily direct storm water to Chemical Treatment Pond (CTP) 3 or the Wastewater Conveyance area between CTP 3 and NPDES Outfall 002.

8

Groundwater Protection Initiative Site Characterization Report S&ME Project 1264-07-234 Duke Energy Oconee Nuclear Station September 2008 4.0 OVERVIEW OF STATION HYDROGEOLOGIC SETTING 4.1 Regional Physiographic Province Oconee Nuclear Station is located in the Piedmont Physiographic Province (Figure F-1).

The Piedmont Province lies between the Coastal Plain Province to the southeast and the Blue Ridge Mountain Province to the northwest. The boundary between the Piedmont and Coastal Plain Provinces is the "fall line" - the zone where the soft sedimentary rocks of the Coastal Plain give way to the harder, crystalline rocks of the Piedmont. The boundary between the Piedmont and Blue Ridge is the Blue Ridge scarp - a prominent topographic feature varying from about 1200 to 2500 feet high in the upper drainages of the Keowee River system.

Elevations of the Piedmont Province range from 220 to 600 feet in the eastern portion of the Piedmont and gradually rise to the west to about 1500 feet at the foot of the Blue Ridge scarp. Gently rolling, well-rounded hills and long low ridges underlain by saprolite developed on crystalline rocks characterize the Piedmont Province. Local relief ranges up to about 200 feet. Mountainous remnants of erosion resistant rock stand above the rolling surfaces.

The vegetation of the Piedmont shows the impact of man's activities on the land. Several centuries of logging, farming, grazing, and increasing urbanization have converted a once forested landscape into patches of pine and deciduous forest mixed with fields in varying kinds of cultivation and in varying stages of abandonment.

Blue Rid M Piedmont Sandhills N Coastal Plain Coastal Zone Figure F- I Physiographic Provinces of South Carolina USFWS, 2008 4.2 Regional Geology The rocks of the southern crystalline Appalachians are divided based on similar rock types, structures, and areal distribution into parallel geologic belts oriented in a southwest to northeast direction. From northwest to southeast the geologic belts crossing the Blue Ridge and Piedmont Provinces are: Blue Ridge, Chauga, Inner Piedmont, Kings 9

Groundwater Protection Initiative Site Characterization Report S&ME Project 1264-07-234 Duke Energy Oconee Nuclear Station September 2008 Mountain, Charlotte, and Carolina slate belts. Oconee Nuclear Station is located in the Inner Piedmont Belt (Figure F-2).

The Inner Piedmont belt is an allochthonous terrane consisting of four westward-transported stacked thrust sheets. In ascending order the thrust sheets are the Chauga-Walhalla thrust complex, the Six Mile thrust sheet, the Paris Mountain thrust sheet, and the Laurens thrust sheet. Oconee Nuclear Station is just west of the Six Mile thrust sheet within the Chauga-Walhalla thrust complex. The Chauga-Walhalla thrust sheet is a migmatitic complex of metamorphosed sedimentary and volcanic rocks including hornblende plagioclase gneiss (granitic gneiss), amphibolite (homblende gneiss), and schist with interspersed intrusive granitoid rocks and minor mafic to ultramafic rocks.

The structure within the thrust sheet is characterized by large, reclined antiformal nappes directed to the northwest related to the stacking of the separate thrust sheets.

0-V.

.0 .. 0e 0 50 100 Q\4~MILES OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION LEMMt1

~'B~ ~FAULT mb - Murphy Belt

/gaw- Grand Father Mounter V\lndow toesro - Strth Plver Atllochton sn - Souratown Mountains AntIctinorlum Csb - Carolina Slate Belt rio - Raleigh BPt"

_kmb - Kings Mountain Belt kb - Klokee Belt bE - Belo"" Belt drb - Dan River Triasslc Basin d, - Dosis Court y Triossic Basin dsb - Dur-hatn Triosstc Sub0-Bash ssb - stanford Triassic Sub-Basln wb - Wadeýoaora Triasoic B Isin Figure F-2 Geologic Belts of the Carolinas 4.3 Regional Hydrogeology The hydrogeology of the Piedmont region is different from and has to be considered in a different way from conventional sedimentary aquifer systems (LeGrand, 1988). LeGrand (1988, 1989) has developed a conceptual groundwater model for the Piedmont Province (Figure F-3).

10

Groundwater Protection Initiative Site Characterization Report S&ME Project 1264-07-234 Duke Energy Oconee Nuclear Station September 2008 SOIL ZONE zone J Ww.e# table REGOTITHI{ SAPROLITE WEATHEREO ZO NE SEDROCK, BOULDERS UNWEATHERED BEDROCK FRACTuRED,,BEDROCK; S14EET JOINT BEDROCK, STRuCTURE FRACTURE Figure F-3 Principal Components of Groundwater System in Piedmont Geologic Province (LeGrand, 2004)

In the Piedmont region, a thoroughly weathered and structureless material termed residuum occurs near the ground surface with the degree of weathering decreasing with depth. The residuum grades into a coarser-grained material that retains the structure of the parent bedrock and is termed saprolite. Beneath the saprolite, partially weathered bedrock occurs with depth until sound bedrock is encountered. This mantle of residual soil, saprolite, and weathered rock (regolith) is a special hydrogeologic unit that covers and crosses various types of rock (LeGrand, 1988). It provides an intergranular medium through which the recharge and discharge of water from fractured rock commonly occurs. A transition zone at the base of the regolith is present in many areas of the Piedmont (Harned and Daniel, 1989). In this zone the unconsolidated material grades into the bedrock. It consists of partially weathered bedrock and lesser amounts of saprolite. This zone may serve as a channel for rapid movement of groundwater toward the discharge points.

The fractured nonporous bedrock is the most abundant lithologic unit underlying the Piedmont region (LeGrand, 1988). It includes many different types of igneous and metamorphic rocks. The fractures control both the hydraulic conductivity and the storage capacity of the rock mass (Trainer, 1988). Fractures tend to be more extensive and permeable in homogenous aluminum-deficient rocks than in micaceous rocks (Randall and others, 1988). The latter are less brittle and their weathering products have a high 11

Groundwater Protection Initiative Site Characterization Report S&ME Project 1264-07-234 Duke Energy Oconee Nuclear Station September 2008 clay content that tends to reduce fracture permeability (Randall and others, 1988).

Fracture permeability tends to be greater in alkalic igneous rocks (granites/quartz diorites) than in calcic igneous rocks (gabbros/ultramafics/diorites) because potassium and sodium-rich feldspars tend to produce about half as much clay as calcium-rich feldspars (Randall and others, 1988).

Groundwater recharge in the Piedmont Province is derived entirely from infiltration of local precipitation. Groundwater occurs within the pore space of the residuum/saprolite and within fractures of the underlying bedrock. The residuum/saprolite is capable of storing water readily, but transmits it slowly. In contrast, the bedrock fracture system has a relatively low storage capacity but is capable of transmitting water readily where interconnecting fractures occur (LeGrand, 2004). The transition zone characteristics will exist between the two, but will commonly store and transmit groundwater readily. The hydraulic connection between the residuum/saprolite medium and bedrock medium will depend on the characteristics of the transition zone, a function of rock/soil type, amount of weathering, and degree (location/frequency) of fracturing within the bedrock.

LeGrand's (1988, 1989) conceptual model of the groundwater setting in the Piedmont incorporates the above two medium system into an entity that is useful for the description of groundwater conditions. That entity is the surface drainage basin that contains a perennial stream (LeGrand, 1988) (Figure F-4).

F- RRECHARGE Figure F-4 Conceptual Groundwater Flow System in Piedmont Geologic Province (LeGrand, 2004)

Each basin is similar to adjacent basins and the conditions are generally repetitive from basin to basin. Within a basin, movement of groundwater is generally restricted to the area extending from the drainage divides to a perennial stream (Slope-Aquifer System; 12

Groundwater Protection Initiative Site Characterization Report S&ME Project 1264-07-234 Duke Energy Oconee Nuclear Station September 2008 LeGrand, 1988, 1989). Rarely does groundwater move beneath a perennial stream to another more distant stream (LeGrand, 1989).

Therefore, in most cases in the Piedmont, the groundwater system is a two medium system (LeGrand, 1988) restricted to the local drainage basin. The groundwater occurs in a system composed of two interconnected layers: residuumrsaprolite and weathered rock overlying fractured crystalline rock. Typically, the residuum/saprolite is partly saturated and the water table fluctuates within it. Water movement is generally through the fractured bedrock. The near-surface fractured crystalline rocks can form extensive aquifers. The character of such aquifers results from the combined effects of the rock type, fracture system, topography, and weathering. Topography exerts an influence on both weathering and the opening of fractures, while the weathering of the crystalline rock modifies both transmissive and storage characteristics.

Groundwater will migrate from areas of high hydraulic pressure, or recharge areas, to areas of low hydraulic pressure, or areas of discharge, through the pore space of the soil and through fractures in the bedrock. Typically in the Piedmont, topographically high areas (hilltops) correspond to recharge areas and topographically low areas (valley streams) correspond to discharge areas. The direction of groundwater flow is determined by the hydraulic gradient. The rate of groundwater movement in the saprolite is a function of the gradient, the hydraulic conductivity of the soil, and the effective porosity (a measure of the pore space interconnection). The rate of groundwater movement in the bedrock, although influenced by gradient, is most dependent upon the hydraulic conductivity and interconnectedness of the fracture system. Complex local geologic conditions cause wide differences in rates of flow, ranging from greater than one foot per day to less than one foot per century (LeGrand, 2004).

4.4 Site Geology The physiography of the site is typical of that within the Inner Piedmont Province.

Topography of the area is undulating to rolling; surface elevations range from 700 to 900 ft with an average relief of 150 ft. The region is moderately well dissected with rounded hilltops, representing a mature regional development.

The primary rock types underlying Oconee Nuclear Station are granitic gneiss and biotite-hornblende gneiss which have been metamorphosed to lower amphibolite facies.

The granitic gneiss dominates with the biotite-hornblende gneiss present in layers generally less than two feet thick. Minor amounts of coarse-grained granitic gneiss are present in layers less than six inches thick. Cross-cutting the above rock types are quartz-biotite pegmatites and quartz veins. Foliation generally parallels the subhorizontal compositional layering and the foliation is related to the recumbent isoclinal folding. The foliation generally strikes northeast with low dips both southeast and northwest. The dominant foliation and compositional layering are locally folded. The rock is cut by four sets of joints: 1) N60E; 73NW, 2) N30E; 80NW, 3) NIOE; 65NW, and 4) N87E; 85SE (Schaeffer, 1987). Minor northwest joints are present. Some joints are open with no mineralization, but the majority are healed by quartz-feldspar with some healed by combinations of chlorite, epidote, and biotite (Schaeffer, 1987).

13

Groundwater Protection Initiative Site Characterization Report S&ME Project 1264-07-234 Duke Energy Oconee Nuclear Station September 2008 4.5 Site Hydrogeology During Oconee site development, groundwater was generally encountered under water table conditions in the residual soil/saprolite and weathered rock that overlie less weathered rock. Local subsurface drainage generally traveled down the topographic slopes within the more permeable saprolite soil zones toward the nearby surface creek or stream. Gross drainage was southward to the Little and Keowee Rivers which acted as a base for the gradient. (UFSAR, 2007) 4.5.1 Site HydrostratigraphicUnits Given (1) knowledge of the Oconee site from the UFSAR description and (2) experience in the Piedmont Geologic Province, the following hydrostratigraphic units were selected for site characterization use on this project:

1. Fill (F) - Embankment material that has been either dumped or sluiced into place.

2. Alluvium (S) - Material deposited by stream action and consisting mainly of sandy silts and silty sands.

3. Soil/Saprolite (Ml) - Soil and saprolite, primarily sandy silt and silty sand, developed by the in-place weathering of the underlying bedrock with Standard Penetration Resistance of N<100.

4. Weathered Rock (M2) - Saprolite and weathered rock with Standard Penetration Resistance of N> 100 and/or Rock Core Recovery < 50%.

5. Partially Weathered/Fractured Rock (WF) - Rock with Rock Core Recovery >

50% and Rock Quality Designation < 50%.

6. Sound Rock (D) - Rock with Rock Core Recovery > 85% and Rock Quality Designation > 50%.

14

Groundwater Protection Initiative Site Characterization Report S&ME Project 1264-07-234 Duke Energy Oconee Nuclear Station September 2008 5.0 SOURCE/SOURCE PATHWAY EVALUATION AND MONITORING LOCATIONS 5.1 Contaminants of Interest and Their Fate in the Environment Water containing trace amounts of various radioactive materials is normally released from U.S. nuclear power plants under controlled, monitored conditions that meet conservative Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) limits to protect public health and safety. Recently, several instances of unintended, abnormal releases of radioactive liquids to the environment were identified. Materials detected to date in groundwater around nuclear power plants include Tritium and Strontium 90 (NRC, 2007). Of these two materials, Strontium-90 is only associated with specific, isolated plant systems, such as the Spent Fuel Pool - tritium is much more prevalent in plant systems than Strontium-90, and is thus considered a much better indicator of potential radioactive releases. As such, while Strontium-90 as a material is monitored by Duke Energy on a specific basis, tritium and potential sources of tritium is the focus material of this Groundwater Protection Initiative.

As a background, therefore, the following section provides a brief overview of the properties, sources, and occurrence of tritium, and its fate in the environment.

5.1.1 Tritium Tritium, H3 , is a radioactive isotope of the element hydrogen. The most common form of tritium is in water, since both radioactive tritium and non-radioactive hydrogen readily bond with oxygen to form water. Tritium replaces one of the stable hydrogens in the water molecule, H20. When this happens, the resulting water, called tritiated water (H 3HO or HTO), is radioactive. Tritiated water (not to be confused with heavy water) is chemically identical to normal water, i.e., colorless and odorless, and the tritium cannot be filtered out of the water (EPA, 2007; NRC, 2006, 2007).

Tritium is formed by natural and man-made processes. Tritium occurs naturally in the upper atmosphere when cosmic rays strike air molecules. It is also produced during nuclear weapons explosions, and commercially in nuclear reactors producing electricity.

Most of the tritium produced in an electrical power reactor is as a byproduct of the absorption of neutrons by boron, which nuclear reactors use to help control the fission chain reaction (EPA, 2007; NRC, 2006, 2007).

Tritium formed in the atmosphere enters the groundwater as precipitation recharge.

Tritium was produced by thermonuclear explosions that took place in the atmosphere, primarily between 1952 and 1969 (Drever, 1988). Tritium levels in rainwater are expressed as TU, tritium units'. Although few tests were made prior to atmospheric testing, the natural occurring concentration of tritium in rainwater prior to atmospheric testing was taken to be about 10 TU. During the Veak of atmospheric testing, in the 1960's the levels rose significantly, approaching 10 TU. Current values of tritium in 11 TU = one tritium atom per 1018 hydrogen atoms.

15

Groundwater Protection Initiative Site Characterization Report S&ME Project 1264-07-234 Duke Energy Oconee Nuclear Station September 2008 rainwater are around 10 TU [Drever, 1988]. Average tritium concentrations in rainwater at the USEPA RAD NET monitoring station in Charlotte, North Carolina averaged 93 pCi/L for the period 1986 to 2007. [USEPA RAD NET] This monitoring station in Charlotte is the closest station to the Oconee site. The USEPA equates 1 TU as being approximately equal to 3.2 picocuries per liter (piC/L). The USEPA health standard for tritium in drinking water is 20,000 piC/L (- 6250 TU) (NRC, 2006).

Tritium has a half-life of 12.3 years. As it undergoes radioactive decay, tritium emits a very low energy beta particle and transforms to stable, nonradioactive helium. (EPA, 2007).

5.1.1.1 Kd Values for Tritium Since tritium readily combines with oxygen to form water, its behavior in aqueous systems is controlled by hydrologic processes and it migrates at the same velocity as surface water and groundwater. Sorption processes are therefore not expected to be important relative to the movement of tritium through aqueous environments. Typically, a partition coefficient, Kd, of 0 ml/g is used to model the migration of tritium in soil and groundwater environments. (EPA, 1999) 5.2 Structures, Systems and Component Evaluation Duke Energy staff from multiple plant disciplines, including Radiation Protection, Environment, Health and Safety, Engineering and Project Management performed an evaluation of potential radiological (tritium) sources at Oconee. This evaluation consisted of a structured, risk assessment as well as a review of relevant plant operating experience.

5.2.1 Risk Assessment Process In order to focus on potential contamination sources and source pathways to groundwater, a risk assessment was performed on the plant structures, systems and components (SSC). This risk assessment took into consideration four distinct aspects of these SSC and the environment in which they are located. The four distinct aspects are the hydrogeologic profile, the volume profile, the tritium profile and the engineering profile.

For the hydrogeologic profile, a value was assigned to the SSC based on the ease with which any liquid contained within or directed by it could reach groundwater. For example, a higher value was given to an SSC if no difficulty existed for any liquid contained within or directed by it to reach groundwater should a failure or leak occur. An example here is a buried pipe where its contents could easily reach groundwater if the contents escaped. In contrast, a component or system inside a building with lined sumps would receive a low ranking since there would be little to no opportunity for any escaped contents to reach groundwater.

A similar ranking philosophy was used for the other profiles. For the volume profile, the amount of contained liquid volume determined the risk ranking. A higher volume equaled a higher risk ranking value. Large pipes and tanks received a higher volume 16

Groundwater Protection Initiative Site Characterization Report S&ME Project 1264-07-234 Duke Energy Oconee Nuclear Station September 2008 profile ranking. For the tritium profile, the tritium concentration determined the risk ranking. Known tritium sources such as the spent fuel pool and several process water tanks containing radioactive liquids received higher risk-ranking values.

For the engineering profile, the materials of construction, known aging issues and physical location that could affect the ability to inspect and maintain the SSC were included in the engineering profile logic. For example, a higher engineering profile risk ranking was given to buried piping and tanks.

The risk assessment algorithm consisted of averaging the four independently determined profile values to establish an overall groundwater risk profile. The latter two profiles, the tritium profile and the engineering profile, were given more weight in this risk assessment than the former two. The final groundwater risk profile resulted in a rank ordering of plant SSC with those higher on the list considered to be more "risky" and thus of higher importance to the Ground Water Protection Project. Section 5.2.2 contains a summary of the plant SSC of higher importance for the purposes of this investigation.

5.2.2 Risk Assessment Results The results of the risk assessment are captured in Table B-I of Appendix B. Before these results could be used to select additional monitoring well locations, the output from the Oconee risk assessment was processed through an additional step by considering relevant operating history. This operating history is discussed in Section 5.2.3 below. An Oconee expert panel was convened on May 23, 2007 to review the relevant operating history, the key plant structures, systems or components (SSC) and the risk assessment results. Table B-2 of Appendix B captures the results of this expert panel review.

In summary, the following plant structures, systems or components (SSC) emerged as exhibiting a higher risk of contributing past or future unmonitored releases of tritium to the environment:

• Chemical Treatment Ponds 1 & 2

• Chemical Treatment Pond 3

• Radwaste Discharge Line

• Reactor Building sump lines to Radwaste Facility

• Turbine Building Sumps, Units 1 & 2 and Unit 3 discharge lines

• Spent Fuel Pools, Units 1 & 2 and Unit 3

• Borated Water Storage Tanks, Units 1, 2 and 3 Further details on the groundwater risk profile for these and all relevant SSC considered in this investigation along with the results of the expert panel review are contained in Appendix B.

17

Groundwater Protection Initiative Site Characterization Report S&ME Project 1264-07-234 Duke Energy Oconee Nuclear Station September 2008 5.2.3 Operating Experience A review of operating experience was completed as part of the overall project investigation. The operating experience results were included in a letter dated August 3, 2006, from James R Morris, Duke Energy, to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Specific occurrences of inadvertent releases of radioactive liquids that had the potential to reach groundwater were noted as follows:

Events listed below are those which have been documented in accordance with 10 CFR 50.75(g) and hadpotential to reach groundwater,; however, an actual release to groundwatermay not have occurred.

• 9/10/1973.

While filling Chem-Nuclear tank truck, approximately 20 gallons of water spilled to ground when tanker overflowed. Waste had been pumped from "B" Miscellaneous Waste Hold-up Tank (MJWHUT) and line was being flushed with demineralized water.

• 11/12/1974 Spill occurred when vent line from inservice letdown filter (HP-F2B) was removed in error. Approximately 3500 gallons of water spilled into Letdown FilterRoom and adjacenthallways.

• 12/18/1974 Approximately 50 gallons of water overflowed Chem-Nuclear transport tanker duringfill. Tanker was located at loading area adjacentto Unit 1.

• 1/18/1977 Discharge of Turbine Building Sump, following a primary to secondary leak, resulted in liquidrelease in excess of 10 CFR 20, Appendix 6, Table II, Column 2.

Sump contents were pumped to Upper Settling Basin, Lower Setting Basin, and Waste Oil Collection Basin (CTP-2, CTP-1, CTP-3.) A spill occurred when contents overflowed the Waste Oil Collection Basin. Note: currently these are only referredto as the Chemical Treatment Ponds.

• 7/04/1977 2B Low Pressure Injection (LPI)pump was placed in service after maintenance on LP valves. Pump drain and vent valves were left open and approximately 11,500 gallons of water was spilledfrom the Spent Fuel Pool and Unit 2 Fuel Transfer Canal to the LPI sump. Spillage was transferredto the High Activity Waste Tank (HA WT). Water eventually backed up from the HA WT throughfloor drains in the High PressureInjection (HPI)pump room. Approximately 10 inches of water was found in the HPIpump room.

18

Groundwater Protection Initiative Site Characterization Report S&ME Project 1264-07-234 Duke Energy Oconee Nuclear Station September 2008

• 12/05/1978 Small cask usedfor transferring incore material inside the protected areafell off back of truck outside Unit 2 Reactor Building Equipment Hatch. Approximately 1 gallon of water spilledfrom cask onto pavement.

• 5/16/1979 Overflow of Unit 3 Borated Water Storage Tank (BWST) occurred during drain down offuel transfer canal. Canal waterflooded back through vent (3LP-59) to a West PenetrationRoom floor drain. Waterflowed under the door and reachedthe ground outside.

• 10/16/1979 LPI water spilled into West PenetrationRoom through Gaseous Waste Disposal (GWD) system valve 3GWD-152. Approximately 130 gallons of water spilled on to the ground near Unit 3 B WST.

• 11/10/1979 Once-Through-Steam-Generator (OTSG) sample line was drained to onsite sewage treatmentplant. OTSG samplingpoint in Unit 3 primary sample hood was connected by tygon tubing to an adjacent restroom sink. Sink drained to sewage treatment plant and water was eventually discharged through the Waste Oil Collection Basin (CTP-3).

• 5/29/1980 Unit 2 Tendon Galleryfoundflooded to a depth of approximately 2feet. Source of water concluded to be from Decon Tank Room through the Reactor Building-Auxiliary Building interface.

• 7/16/1980 Approximately 5 gallons of evaporator concentrates spilled during transfer to a liner in the mobile solidification area south of the Interim Radwaste Building.

Leak was noticedfrom spillagefrom an inspection hole in the cask containing the liner.

• 7/21/1980 Approximately 1 quart of water spilled on asphaltfrom shielded cask containinga letdown filter when the caskfell over.

• 9/18/1981 Large volume of secondary system water was contaminatedas a result of a steam generator tube leak on Unit 2. Much of the water processed through portable demineralizers was routedfrom the Turbine Building Sumps to CTP-2for release.

19

Groundwater Protection Initiative Site Characterization Report S&ME Project 1264-07-234 Duke Enerqy Oconee Nuclear Station September 2008

• 2/24/1982 Leak in Liquid Waste Disposal (L WD) system (valves L WD-686 and L WD-668) discovered in trench during transfer of concentrates from Interim Radwaste Facility to Chem-Nuclear Solidificationunit.

• 7/09/1982 A spill occurred near the Unit 3 solidification area while filling a portable demineralizer.

• 11/13/1982 During a resin transfer, approximately 2-3 gallons leaked from the cask dewateringpump to the groundoutside the Hot Machine Shop.

• 9/06/1984 Valve misalignment resulted in transfer of spent Powdex resinfrom cells 2D and 2E to CTP-J instead of the Powdex backwash tank.

• 3/31/1985 LPI leak into Unit 2 East PenetrationRoom (2GWD-153) down the outside Unit 2 Auxiliary Building to an area near Unit 2 Reactor Building equipment hatch.

Approximately 50 gallons of water entered the yard drain to CTP-3.

• 4/25/1985 Batch of used resin from Powdex cells ]A and ID was transferred to CTP-2 instead of the Powdex Backwash Tank.

• 6/10/1985 Approximately 517 gallons of water containing Powdex resin was releasedto the Yard Drain System and CTP-3.

• 10/07/1987 A spill occurredfrom Unit 1 B WST when freeze plug melted Nitrogen supply to freeze plug depleted and approximately 30,000 gallons leaked at welds (East PenetrationRoom) between BWST and 1LP41. A portion of the water drained to the B WST pipe chase/pit and then to the Yard Drain System and CTP-3.

• 5/17/1990 Unit 1 and 2 Spent Fuel Pool overflowed resulting in a spill of about 10,000 gallons of water. Most of the water entered the cask decon pit and other areas of the Auxiliary Building.An estimated 60 gallons of the spilled water were released through a floor drain in the Spent Fuel Pool change room to the Sanitary Waste Lagoon. Another estimated 50 gallons spilled on asphalt outside the Fuel Receiving Bay roll up door and the Cask Decon Pump Room door.

20

Groundwater Protection Initiative Site Characterization Report S&ME Project 1264-07-234 Duke Energy Oconee Nuclear Station September 2008

• 4/25/1998 Flange leak on 2LPI-IV-0007 resulted in 6.5 liters of water spillage under 2BWST siding.

• 11/29/2000 A spill occurred at Treatment Storage Disposal Facility (TSDF) Pad 5 (oil collection storage at south end of Auxiliary Building) resulting in contaminated soil.

• 5/17/2003 Contamination occurredat the Unit 3 equipment hatch as a result of moving the contaminatedUnit 3 head during a rain event.

This operating experience was also factored into the selection of additional monitoring well locations as discussed in Section 5.3.

5.3 Groundwater Protection Initiative Monitoring Well Location Selections Locations and depths of the new Groundwater Protection Initiative monitoring wells were selected based on considering a collaboration of information and goals. Information available for the selection process comprised the following:

" Plant structures, systems and components (SSC) considered primary potential sources of tritium from both a structured, risk assessment and from relevant operating experience (Section 5.2);

" Master Conceptual Model of geology and hydrogeology in the Piedmont Geologic Province of North Carolina (LeGrand, 2004); and,

" Knowledge of site geology and hydrogeology from the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR).

Goals for the installed Groundwater Protection Initiative monitoring well system were:

" Hydrogeologic characterization of the operating plant site; and,

" A robust monitoring well network capable of providing early detection of tritium releases (near-field wells) and verifying no off-site migration (far-field wells).

Well locations were first selected (1) in proximity to plant system tritium sources and/or (2) in nearby projected down-gradient groundwater flow directions from plant system tritium sources (i.e., near-field monitoring locations). Spatial distribution then considered additional locations that would (1) provide monitoring to confirm the absence of off-site migration (i.e., far-field monitoring locations) and/or (2) be helpful for site characterization. Following spatial distribution, consideration for well depths (vertical screen intervals) was considered. Shallower wells were utilized where shallow groundwater was expected present, as first detection monitoring locations. Deeper wells (top of rock wells) were utilized where plant systems were deep and founded on bedrock (e.g., Reactor Buildings, Auxiliary Buildings, and Turbine Buildings), placing the well 21

Groundwater Protection Initiative Site Characterization Report S&ME Project 1264-07-234 Duke Energy Oconee Nuclear Station September 2008 screen (sampling interval) nearer the level of potential tritium release. Combinations of shallow/top of rock and/or top of rock/deeper bedrock were utilized to evaluate vertical components of groundwater flow.

Final Groundwater Protection Initiative well locations were subject to plant accessibility and overhead and underground system obstructions.

5.3.1 Existing Boring and Well Information Early in the well location evaluation process, it was recognized that selected existing Oconee wells would be beneficial to the Groundwater Protection Initiative, these being three wells installed in the area of Cable Hill (MW RPOl, MW RP02, and MW RP03),

one well installed near the ball field (BG-4), eight wells installed near CTP-1 (MW A-I, MW A-2, MW A-8, MW A-9, MW A-13, MW A-14, MW A-17, MW A-18), and three wells installed near CTP-3 (MW A-10, MW A- 11, and MW A-12).

Locations of the above existing wells are portrayed on Figure 4, Groundwater Protection Initiative Project Monitoring Wells. Soil Test Boring Field Reports and Monitoring Well Installation Records for these wells are included in Appendix C. Groundwater measurements and tritium concentrations from the above wells are considered within this report, as applicable.

5.3.2 Permanent Wells Ultimately, an initial suite of 28 new Groundwater Protection Initiative monitoring wells (designated with the identification prefix "GM") was selected for installation at Oconee.

Of the 28 wells, 13 were targeted to monitor the shallow water table groundwater occurring in saprolite (and have no suffix to their designation); 13 were targeted to monitor groundwater occurring in the transition zone of highly fractured bedrock (and have the suffix "R"); and two were targeted to monitor groundwater present in the deeper less fractured/weathered bedrock (and have the suffix "DR").

Two of the proposed wells (GM-2 and GM-3) were not installed, as shallow groundwater was not present above bedrock at their locations west of and between Units 1, 2, and 3.

Locations of the Permanent Groundwater Protection Initiative monitoring wells, the 26 new wells and 15 existing wells, are portrayed on Figure 4, Groundwater Protection Initiative Monitoring Wells.

5.3.3 Temporary Wells In response to tritium levels detected in the newly installed well GM-7 near the radioactive waste discharge pipe, Duke Energy selected 15 temporary groundwater monitoring well locations to assess the horizontal extent of tritium detected in well GM-

7. These 15 wells were installed using direct-push technology. Locations of the fifteen temporary groundwater protection monitoring wells are portrayed on Figure 4, Groundwater Protection Initiative Monitoring Wells.

22

Groundwater Protection Initiative Site Characterization Report S&ME Project 1264-07-234 Duke Energy Oconee Nuclear Station September 2008 6.0 REGULATORY APPROVALS AND DOCUMENTATION S&ME submitted a Groundwater Monitoring Well Application and Variance Request to the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (Department) for the originally proposed 28 groundwater protection wells at Oconee on September 12, 2007. A copy of the application is included in Appendix D. The Department subsequently issued Monitoring Well Approval #3159 dated September 13, 2007 (Appendix D).

In accordance with permit conditions, S&ME periodically submitted completed and signed Water Well Record (DHEC 1903) forms to the Department as wells were constructed and surveyed. A copy of the four Non-Residential Water Well Records -

Submittals 1, 2, 3, and 4, are included for reference and record in Appendix D.

As-Built drawings (GM-O-1 Rev. 5, GM-O-2 Rev. 4, GM-O-3 Rev. 3, and GM-O-4 Rev.

2) were completed after installation of the 26 permanent groundwater monitoring wells for Duke Energy reference and record (Appendix D).

In response to tritium concentrations detected in well GM-7, S&ME submitted a Groundwater Monitoring Well Application and Variance Request 2 to the Department for the 15 temporary groundwater protection wells at Oconee on April 22, 2008. A copy of the application is included in Appendix D. The Department subsequently issued Temporary Monitoring Well Approval #3340 dated April 23, 2008 (Appendix D).

In accordance with permit conditions, S&ME submitted completed and signed Water Well Record (DHEC 1903) forms to the Department once the wells were constructed and surveyed. This submittal. satisfied Item 2 of Temporary Monitoring Well Approval

1. 3340. A copy of the electronic submittal dated June 6, 2008 is included for reference and record in Appendix D.

On June 17, 2008, S&ME submitted the completed and signed Water Well Record (1903) forms to the Department for abandonment record of the 15 temporary groundwater wells.

This submittal satisfied Item 4 of Temporary Monitoring Well Approval #3340. A copy of the electronic submittal is included for reference andrecord in Appendix D.

23

Groundwater Protection Initiative Site Characterization Report S&ME Project 1264-07-234 Duke Energy Oconee Nuclear Station September 2008 7.0 FIELD METHODS FOR GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLATIONS The following text provides a general overview of field methods utilized for groundwater monitoring well installations. Note that deviations from the general procedures discussed were, in instances, dictated by field conditions, but produced comparable results.

7.1 Preliminary Well Locations Preliminary well locations were initially spatially estimated on site plans considering a collaboration of information including potential tritium sources, existing groundwater monitoring well locations, the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR), and Piedmont Geologic Province geology. Vertical distribution, i.e., shallow wells, well pairs, and/or well triplets, were subsequently selected. Station and/or state plane coordinates of the initially selected well locations were identified and the locations were marked in the field on the ground by either Global Positioning System (GPS) technology or Total Station surveying.

7.2 Utility Clearance, Final Well Locations, and Soft-Dig Precautions Duke Energy engineering and surveying personnel reviewed the initially selected well locations versus existing site plans with underground utility information and conducted underground utility surveys. Duke Energy surveyors identified an approximate 10 foot by 20 foot work area (room for drill rig access and orientation) in the vicinity of each initially selected well location that was free of underground and overhead interferences.

They marked the clear work area on the ground in the field and surveyed its plant coordinates. Duke Energy utilized the surveyed work area to complete the plant modification package for the final well installations to occur within the cleared work areas.

Prior to drilling, Duke Energy subcontracted Phillips Recovery to soft-dig (excavation by air, water, and/or vacuum) approximately seven feet at each boring location, as a precaution against drilling encountering underground utilities.

7.3 Plant Access Training, Mobilization, Safety Orientation, Security Access Duke Energy and S&ME had coordinated personnel plant access training (PAT) earlier in the nuclear fleet project (2006). Duke Energy and S&ME coordinated mobilization of personnel, equipment, supplies, and materials to Oconee on September 19, 2007. Safety orientation and security access occurred on September 19, 2007.

7.4 Soil Test Borings, Soil Classification, Soil Testing 7.4.1 Permanent Wells S&ME began soil test borings for permanent well installations on September 20, 2007 using a Diedrich D50 track-mounted drill rig and a Mobile BK-51 mounted on an ATV drill rig. Soil test borings were generally drilled into the residual soil/saprolite using 41/4-inch inside diameter (nominal 81/4-inch outside diameter) hollow-stem augers and/or 24

Groundwater Protection Initiative Site Characterization Report S&ME Project 1264-07-234 Duke Energy Oconee Nuclear Station September 2008 mud-rotary drilling using NW casing (nominal 2 7/8-inch diameter) fronted with a nominal 4 7/8 -inch diameter roller cone bit. Split-spoon sampling (ASTM D1586) was utilized to sample soils at approximate 5-foot intervals. Drilling and soil sampling at single well locations was advanced to a depth of approximately 50 feet below ground surface; exceptions included shallower auger refusal depths or groundwater encountered deeper than 50 feet below ground surface. Drilling and soil sampling at multiple well locations was continued to auger refusal.

Soil samples were observed, visually classified, and photographed in the field by the on-site geologist for origin, consistency/relative density, color, and soil type in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D2487/D2488). A selected distribution of the soil samples (i.e., F, S, Ml, M2) from across the site were transferred to S&ME's soil laboratories for grain size distribution (ASTM D422) and specific gravity testing (ASTM D854) to support estimation of soil porosity for groundwater flow rate calculations and modeling.

Soil Boring Logs portraying drilling depth, soil sample depths, blow counts (N-values),

and soil classifications are included in Appendix E, arranged by well location. Also included are photographs of split-spoon soil samples, arranged by well location, for reference and record. A Legend to Soil Classifications and Symbols is included for reference.

7.4.2 Temporary Wells Borings for the temporary wells were advanced using direct-push technology, specifically a GeoProbe 7740 DT. During advancement, soil was collected for observation and classification within four foot disposable plastic soil sleeves. In general, direct-push borings were advanced to a level approximately 10 feet below the estimated groundwater table.

Soil samples were observed, visually classified, and photographed in the field by the on-site geologist for origin, color, and soil type in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D2487/D2488).

Soil Boring Logs portraying drilling depth, soil sample depths, and soil classifications are included in Appendix E, arranged by well location. Also included are photographs of soil samples, arranged by well location, for reference and record. A Legend to Soil Classifications and Symbols is included for reference.

7.5 Rock Coring and Classification For the borings advanced into bedrock, drilling was continued with NQ (nominal 3-inch diameter) rock coring techniques (ASTM D2113) below auger/roller cone refusal. In general, a minimum of 20 feet of rock was cored at each rock well location for visual and manual classification. More rock was cored depending on fracture locations, groundwater level, and if additional depth was required for screen separation.

The on-site geologist photographed and visually classified the rock samples for color, weathering, fracturing, and rock type in accordance with Field Guide for Rock Core 25

Groundwater Protection Initiative Site Characterization Report S&ME Project 1264-07-234 Duke Energy Oconee Nuclear Station September 2008 Logging and Fracture Analysis (Midwest Geosciences). Percent recovery and Rock Quality Designation (RQD) were calculated for each rock core interval.

Soil Boring Logs portraying rock core intervals, percent recovery, RQD, and rock classifications are included in Appendix E, arranged by well location. Also included are Rock Core Logs presenting a graphical presentation of the rock coring interval and photographs of the rock core samples, arranged by well location, for reference and record.

7.6 Permeability and Packer Testing Open-hole falling head (OHFH) permeability tests and packer tests were conducted in the soil boreholes/rock coreholes and rising head permeability tests (slug tests) were performed in the completed monitoring wells. The goal of the in-situ permeability testing was to obtain a representation of the permeability/hydraulic conductivity across and within the various hydrostratigraphic units.

OHFH permeability tests were conducted at selected intervals in the soil/saprolite (Ml) and/or weathered rock (M2) hydrostratigraphic units (above auger/roller cone refusal).

The OHFH permeability tests in the soil/saprolite comprised drilling to the desired depth, removing drilling tools (as applicable), inserting and seating NW casing to the bottom of the borehole, and advancing a 2 15/16 roller bit 3+/- feet below the casing. The extended borehole and casing were then filled with water. The rate of water loss/seepage with time was measured using a pressure transducer and data-logger. Open-borehole (horizontal) permeability (Kh) was computed from the raw field data within Excel computation sheets (Appendix E).

OHFH permeability tests were conducted at selected intervals in the partially weathered/fractured rock (WF) and sound rock (D) hydrogeologic units below auger/roller cone refusal. The OHFH permeability tests below refusal were generally conducted at the following location levels:

• One test within the first core interval (generally 5 feet or less); and,

• One test within the first and second core intervals combined (generally 10-feet or less).

The OHFH permeability tests in the partially weathered/fractured rock and sound rock comprised coring to the desired depth and removing the core barrel. The NW casing was left in place, seated at the top of rock. The corehole and casing were then filled with water. The rate of water loss with time was measured using a pressure transducer and data-logger. Open-borehole (horizontal) permeability (Kh) was computed from the raw field data within Excel computation sheets (Appendix E).

Packer tests were performed within field selected corehole locations. Generally, two packer tests per boring were performed at intervals and pressures selected in the field by the on-site geologist. Intervals and pressures were selected based on in-situ corehole conditions (weathering, fracturing, etc.) and groundwater presence with the objective of 26

Groundwater Protection Initiative Site Characterization Report S&ME Project 1264-07-234 Duke Energy Oconee Nuclear Station September 2008 evaluating groundwater movement in rock. Packer testing comprised testing a 5-foot incremental section of corehole, by lowering the packer assembly into the corehole to the predetermined depth. The packers were then pressurized and seated to seal off the 5-foot interval to be tested.

The packer tests were conducted at three different effective pressures specified in the field by the on-site geologist. The test was started at the lowest pressure and advanced incrementally to the maximum allowable pressure, after which the pressure was reduced by the same decrements to the initial starting pressure. The total water intake in tenths of gallons for specified time intervals at each pressure was measured by a flowmeter.

Permeability was computed from the raw field data within Excel computation sheets (Appendix E).

Open-hole falling head and packer test permeability data and calculations are provided in Appendix E, arranged by well location.

7.7 Well Construction 7.7.1 PermanentWells Monitor wells were constructed of 2-inch I.D., NSF Grade PVC (meeting ASTM D-178S and F480) Schedule 40 flush-joint threaded casing and 0.010-inch machine slotted screen.

Once the borehole/corehole was drilled, the on-site geologist selected the screen interval and depth then approved the monitoring well construction based on site-specific hydrogeologic conditions and the following general criteria:

1. For shallow monitoring wells located above refusal, the saprolite groundwater monitoring well screen intervals were generally 15 feet in length and located so that the stabilized water table intersected the screen interval with approximately 10 feet of screen submerged beneath the water table. In areas where relatively shallow groundwater levels (i.e., less than five feet below land surface) were encountered, the top of the screen was placed at a depth of approximately five feet below land surface to allow adequate seal and to allow sufficient grout and concrete collar to secure the protective casing.

If the bottom of the shallow monitoring well's screened interval was located above the borehole termination depth, the interval below the screen bottom was sealed using pelletized bentonite prior to placement of the screen.

The annular space between the borehole wall and the well screen was backfilled with clean, well rounded, washed, high grade #1 silica sand. The sand pack was placed to approximately two feet above the slotted screen. A 1- to 2-foot pelletized bentonite seal was placed above the filter pack. The remainder of the annular space was filled with a cement/bentonite grout (neat cement) from the top of the bentonite seal to near ground surface.

2. For wells with their screen interval located below auger/roller cone refusal, the screen interval was selected based on in-situ conditions of the bedrock [e.g., most 27

Groundwater Protection Initiative Site Characterization Report S&ME Project 1264-07-234 Duke Energy Oconee Nuclear Station September 2008 apparent groundwater bearing fracture(s)] and maintaining a separation interval (e.g., 20-+/- feet) between adjacent shallow and deep monitor intervals. Well screens were generally five feet in length unless greater screened intervals were deemed necessary by the on-site geologist to allow more fractures to intersect the screened interval.

If the bottom of monitoring well's screened interval was located above the corehole termination depth, the interval below the screen elevation and bottom of boring was sealed using pelletized bentonite and capped with a minimum 1-foot thick sand layer.

No sand pack was placed within the annular space between the corehole and screen.

To seal the monitored interval, a rubber k-packer assembly (manufactured by Western Rubber & Mfg., Part KPRR23, 2"X3" coupling) was installed above the screen which uses three rubber ribs to form a seal between the corehole and casing.

To further reinforce the seal, an approximatelyl- to 2-foot thick granular bentonite layer was placed above the k-packer. The remainder of the annular space was filled with a cement/bentonite grout (neat cement) from the top of the bentonite seal to near ground surface.

Based on well location and Oconee requirements, either a 4-inch square aluminum protective casing (manufactured by IES Drilling Supplies, T-60 aircraft aluminum, 0.125" wall thickness) with a locking cap or an 8-inch steel manhole (manufactured by IES Drilling Supplies, cast iron with Buna rubber seals) was installed over the well's riser pipe. If a protective casing was installed, then it was sealed and immobilized in a concrete collar placed around the protective casing. If a manhole was installed, then it was seated in a pea gravel collar to allow for drainage of surface water away from the wall of the casing if it penetrates the manhole seal. Wells constructed in paved areas were completed with a 2-foot square concrete pad. Wells constructed in soil, grass, or gravel areas were completed with a 3-foot square concrete pad. All pads were sloped gently away from the well in all directions and inscribed with the well's identification number.

The only exception to the above was at well set GM-3R/GM-3DR, where a larger concrete pad was designed by S&ME and constructed by Duke Energy to provide passage of a refueling cask hauler.

Each well location was affixed with a permanent well tag which includes at a minimum the following information:

• Well identification number;

• Driller registration number;

• Total depth of well;

• Depth of screen interval;

• Depth to groundwater following well completion; and,

• A warning that the well is not for water supply and that the groundwater may contain hazardous materials.

28

Groundwater Protection Initiative Site Characterization Report S&ME Project 1264-07-234 Duke Energy Oconee Nuclear Station September 2008 As-built well locations are identified on drawings GM-O-1 Rev. 5 and GM-O-2 Rev. 4 provided in Appendix D. As-built well details are provided on drawings GM-O-3 Rev. 3 and GM-O-4 Rev. 2, also provided in Appendix D. A summary of installation details for the 26 permanent wells is provided in Table 1, Monitoring Well Construction Summary.

Well Logs presenting a graphical depiction of well construction details are included in Appendix E, arranged by well location.

7.7.2 Temporary Wells Temporary monitor wells were constructed of 0.75-inch I.D., NSF Grade PVC (meeting ASTM D-178S and F480) Schedule 40 flush-joint threaded casing and 0.010-inch machine slotted GeoProbe System Prepacked Screen. As the borehole was advanced, the on-site geologist selected the monitor depth. The temporary groundwater monitoring well screen intervals were 10-15 feet in length and located so that the stabilized water table intersected the screen interval with approximately 10 feet of screen submerged beneath the water table. Protective casings and pads were not installed on the temporary wells.

A summary of installation details for the 15 Temporary Wells is provided in Table 1, Monitoring Well Construction Summary. Well Logs presenting a graphical depiction of well construction details are included in Appendix E, arranged by well location.

7.8 Well Development Following well installation, the permanent and temporary monitoring wells were developed in order to remove clay, silt, sand, and other fines which may have been introduced into the formation or sand pack during drilling and well installation, and to establish communication of the well with the aquifer. Well development was performed using a portable well pump and was performed as soon as possible after well construction. Development pumping continued until the water being removed was relatively clear and sediment free. At least five well volumes of water were pumped from the wells.

7.9 Slug Testing Following monitoring well installation and development, slug tests were performed in each new permanent groundwater monitoring well to evaluate the horizontal permeability or hydraulic conductivity of the subsurface materials surrounding the saturated portion of the screened interval. Slug tests were performed by removing a field specified amount of water from the well using a portable well pump. The well was then allowed to recharge as measurements of increasing water level with time were recorded using a pressure transducer and data logger. Rising head (horizontal) permeability (Kh) was then computed from the field data using the Bouwer and Rice Graphical Method.

Slug test data and computations are included in Appendix E, arranged by well location.

7.10 Equipment Cleaning and Investigative Derived Waste Management Prior to initial drilling activities, down-hole equipment was cleaned with high pressure hot water and allowed to dry. Cleaning was performed similarly between each soil test boring location.

29

Groundwater Protection Initiative Site Characterization Report S&ME Project 1264-07-234 Duke Energy Oconee Nuclear Station September 2008 During on-site drilling activities, soil cuttings were contained until Duke Energy's Radiation Protection (RP) group performed radiological testing and cleared soil for disposal. Soil was temporarily contained in a steel mud tub during mud rotary drilling and in a Bobcat bucket during auger drilling. Composite soil samples were collected by S&ME every 25 feet in soil borings until refusal was achieved. RP retrieved the samples from S&ME for on-site analysis. Drilling operations were temporarily halted while on-site analysis was performed. Problems were not encountered in the samples collected by RP. Drilling activities continued after receiving verbal confirmation from RP. Ultimately, soil cuttings and drilling fluids collected in the mud tub or Bobcat bucket were deposited into a roll-off filter container. Filter container soil was disposed by STAT Inc. at Environmental Soils Landfill in Lattimore, North Carolina.

The Non-hazardous Waste Manifest documenting soil transport and disposal is included in Appendix F.

Water generated from field activities such as rock core water, development water, and in-situ testing water, was allowed to filter through gravel before entering yard drains.

However, during assessment activities in the vicinity of GM-7 (i.e., Temporary Wells),

water generated from field activities was containerized in a 55 gallon steel drum. After completion of drilling activities, and with direction of site RP, the drum was emptied into CTP-3.

7.11 Groundwater Monitoring Well Location Survey Duke Energy surveyors surveyed the horizontal and vertical control locations of all newly installed permanent and temporary Groundwater Protection Initiative monitoring wells (designated with prefix "GM" and "GP"). Additionally, Duke Energy provided survey documentation of the existing monitoring wells. Horizontal datum is South Carolina Grid NAD 27 and Plant Grid; vertical datum is NGVD 29. Survey documentation is duplicated in Table 1.

7.12 Groundwater Sample Collection 7.12.1 Well Sampling Sampling and purging equipment for well sampling are chosen to ensure the material making up the equipment are compatible with the sample parameters and also comply with relevant guidelines for sampling. Samples are collected in accordance with Duke Energy Procedure 3175.0; Procedure for Groundwater Monitoring and Sample Collection, February 2006.

Groundwater for Duke Energy's Nuclear Groundwater Protection Initiative is collected by "Low Flow/Low Energy" methodology. Samples are collected using pneumatic bladder pumps and dedicated tubing. Pumps are placed near the middle of the wetted well screen and flow rates are adjusted to match (where achievable) the groundwater recharge rate of the well. Purged water is passed through a flow-through chamber connected to a calibrated multi-parameter instrument for measurement of stabilization 30

Groundwater Protection Initiative Site Characterization Report S&ME Project 1264-07-234 Duke Energy Oconee Nuclear Station September 2008 parameters. Sample collection begins when three consecutive readings collected at five minute intervals meet stabilization criteria between readings (temperature +/- 10%, specific conductance +/-5%, pH +/- 0.2 SU, ORP +/-10mV, and DO +/-10%). Samples are collected into new sample containers supplied by the laboratory for the collection of groundwater samples. Samples are preserved at the time of collection with preservatives appropriate for the parameters to be analyzed. A chain of custody program allows for the tracking of possession and handling of samples from the time of field collection through laboratory analysis and report preparation.

Duke Energy conducted Groundwater Protection Initiative sampling events January 7-9, 2008 (permanent and existing wells) and April 7-9, 2008 (permanent and existing wells).

S&ME conducted Groundwater Protection Initiative sampling events April 29 through May 6, 2008 (temporary wells) and May 21-22, 2008 (temporary wells).

For reference and record, sample collection measurements for the period of record sampling events are summarized in Table 11, Sample Collection Measurements Summary - January 2008, Table 12, Sample Collection Measurements Summary -

April/May 2008, and Table 13, Sample Collection Measurements Summary - May 2008.

7.12.2 Catch Basin Sampling During investigation associated with GM-7, field observations identified groundwater flow in catch basins as a source of information. Arrangements were made to sample groundwater flowing in catch basins along with other permanent and temporary wells in the area of GM-7.

Duke Energy sampled water flowing in catch basins near the 525 kV switchyard/well GM-7 April 9, 2008. S&ME sampled water flowing in catch basins near the 525 kV switchyard/well GM-7 May 21-22, 2008.

Being grab samples only, no field parameters were recorded for the catch basin sampling.

7.12.3 Sample Collection Presentation For the purpose of this report, we have elected to summarize and present the four sets of groundwater sample collection measurements on three tables:

• Table 11, Sample Collection Measurements Summary - January 2008 (existing and permanent wells sampled January 7-9, 2008);

• Table 12, Sample Collection Measurements Summary -April/May 2008 (existing and permanent wells sampled April 7-9, 2008 and temporary wells sampled April 29 through May 6, 2008); and,

• Table 13, Sample Collection Measurements Summary - May 2008 (temporary wells sampled May 21-22, 2008).

Our rationale is that the samplings of the existing and permanent wells April 7-9, 2008 and the temporary wells April 29 through May 6, 2008 comprise the two closest sampling events to consider water level measurements and tritium concentrations 31

Groundwater Protection Initiative Site Characterization Report S&ME Project 1264-07-234 Duke Energy Oconee Nuclear Station September 2008 collectively for the groundwater potentiometric maps and tritium concentration maps presented in this report.

7.13 Groundwater Sample Analysis The Duke Energy radiological environmental monitoring laboratory (EnRad Laboratories), located in Huntersville, NC, performs radiological analysis of environmental samples collected around the McGuire, Catawba, and Oconee nuclear stations. This laboratory has an internal quality assurance program which monitors each type of instrumentation for reliability and accuracy. EnRad Laboratories uses National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) standards to establish and verify counting equipment efficiency calibrations. Control of samples and data are maintained in a secure laboratory environment. EnRad Laboratories participates in an extensive Duke Energy inter-laboratory comparison program. This program involves purchasing NIST traceable cross-check standards from an outside supplier and testing at four Duke Energy laboratories (EnRad, McGuire, Catawba, and Oconee). EnRad Laboratories is audited by the Duke Energy Quality Assurance division and by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to ensure compliance with Regulatory Guide 4.15, Selected Licensee Commitments, Technical Specifications and all Duke Energy required quality assurance procedures.

EnRad Laboratories also participates in a split sampling program with the Bureau of Radiological Health of South Carolina's Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) and with the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).

For reference and record, Duke Energy's Radiological Data Reports for the four period of record monitoring events are included in Appendix G, Appendix H, and Appendix I.

7.14 Temporary Well Abandonment After development and two rounds of sampling, the temporary wells were abandoned from the bottom of the boring to the ground surface with bentonite grout. Water Well Record (DHEC 1903) forms were submitted to DHEC for abandonment record of the 15 temporary groundwater wells on June 17, 2008 (Appendix D).

32

Groundwater Protection Initiative Site Characterization Report S&ME Project 1264-07-234 Duke Energy Oconee Nuclear Station September 2008 8.0

SUMMARY

OF FINDINGS This summary initially considers the findings from the 26 Permanent and 15 Temporary Groundwater Protection Initiative wells, as well as the 15 existing wells in the area of Cable Hill, the ball field, CTP-1, and CTP-3, as appropriate. The findings from this specific project are considered within the context of the historical site information (UFSAR) to develop the Site Conceptual Hydrogeologic Model, discussed in later sections.

8.1 Geologic Summary 8.1.1 HydrostratigraphicUnits Of the 41 borings, 21 encountered man-placed fill (F) beneath varying surface improvements of asphalt, concrete, stone, or grass. The fill composition varies from clayey silt, sandy silt, to silty sand with occasions of gravel and concrete, possibly placed as working platforms during plant construction. The fill varied in depth from as shallow as 1.5 feet to as deep as 51 feet below ground surface (bgs). The fill is deepest in borings adjacent to plant buildings, consistent with construction excavation and soil replacement.

Alluvial (S), water-deposited, soil was encountered in only one boring, GM-5R, performed south of Unit 3, near the protected area fence line. The alluvium comprised fine to coarse sand with rounded quartz fragments. The alluvium, 0.25 feet thick, was encountered beneath approximately 79 feet of fill.

Soil/saprolite (MI) was encountered in 38 boring locations. The soil/saprolite comprised silty sand and sandy silt with variable clay content., The top of soil/saprolite units was encountered as shallow as 0.27 feet to as deep as 79.25 feet bgs. The bottom of the soil/saprolite units was observed 10.3 feet bgs to 83.5 feet bgs.

Weathered rock (M2) was encountered in seven borings. The weathered rock was generally sampled as silty sand, and occasionally sandy silt. The top of the weathered rock units was encountered between 28.5 feet bgs and 61.2 feet bgs. The bottom of the weathered rock units was measured between 29.8 feet bgs and 80.0 feet bgs.

Partially weathered, fractured rock (WF) was encountered in 11 borings. The partially weathered, fractured rock was predominately sampled as medium-grained granitic gneiss, with intermittent medium-grained biotite hornblende gneiss. Mostly, the partially weathered, fractured rock was observed highly weathered and intensely fractured. The top of the weathered rock units was encountered as shallow as 11.3 feet bgs and as deep as 83.5 feet bgs. The bottom of the weathered rock units was documented between 22.1 feet bgs and 100.3 feet bgs.

Sound rock (D) was encountered in 13 borings. The sound rock was predominately sampled as medium-grained granitic gneiss, with intermittent medium-grained biotite hornblende gneiss. The sound rock was observed moderately to intensely fractured, and generally less weathered than the partially weathered, fractured rock. The top of the 33

Groundwater Protection Initiative Site Characterization Report S&ME Project 1264-07-234 Duke Energy Oconee Nuclear Station September 2008 sound rock units was encountered between 10.3 feet bgs and 95.65 feet bgs. The coring termination depths were documented in the sound rock unit between 11.3 feet bgs and 98.3 feet bgs.

Refusal to auger or roller cone advancement was encountered in 16 borings at depths between 5.5 feet bgs and 83.5 feet bgs.

The above discussion of geology encountered in the project monitoring wells is relatively brief and general. It is largely derived from Table 2, Hydrostratigraphic Units Summary.

Detailed geologic findings are presented in the documentation contained in Appendix E.

Figure 5, Hydrogeologic Cross-Section Locations, portrays the locations of four selected cross-sections graphically depicted on: Figure 6, Hydrogeologic Cross-Section A-A';

Figure 7, Hydrogeologic Cross-Section B-B'; Figure 8, Hydrogeologic Cross-Section C-C'; and, Figure 9, Hydrogeologic Cross-Section D-D'.

8.1.2 Soil Porosity and Specific Yield A total of 20 split-spoon soil samples from the Oconee borings were selected for particle size distribution analysis (ASTM D-422). Fetter (1994) and Bear (1972) diagrams were used to estimate porosity and specific yield, based on the soil sample's grain size distribution. Soil samples were selected from various boring locations across the site, from various depths, and from the three hydrostratigraphic units yielding split-spoon soil samples - fill (F), soil/saprolite (Ml), and weathered rock (M2). Testing locations were distributed with the objective to obtain a representation of soil characteristics throughout the site in these hydrostratigraphic units.

Table 3, Soil Testing Summary (Soil Porosity and Specific Yield), presents a summary of the split-spoon sample locations, depths, hydrostratigraphic unit, percent particle size distribution, and estimated total porosity and specific yield. While it is recognized that specific yield and effective porosity are not synonymous, in practice, they may be estimated to be approximately equal in value.

That said, the fill (F) unit samples comprised an average of 59.3 percent sand, 18.3 percent silt, and 22.6 percent clay. The Fetter and Bear estimated average total porosity is 44.3+/-0.9 percent; the estimated average specific yield (Z effective porosity) is 15.8+/-6.3 percent. The soil/saprolite (Ml) unit samples comprised an average of 70.8 percent sand, 24.5 percent silt, and 4.5 percent clay. The Fetter and Bear estimated average total porosity of the soil/saprolite (Ml) is 42.6+1.4 percent; the estimated average specific yield (z effective porosity) is 26.0+/-8.6 percent. The weathered rock (M2) unit samples comprised an average of 78.9 percent sand, 17.6 percent silt, and 3.3 percent clay. The Fetter and Bear estimated average total porosity is 42.3+/-0.5 percent; the estimated mean specific yield (z effective porosity) is 28.4+/-2.7 percent.

Numerous references (Fetter, 1994; Freeze and Cherry, 1979; LeGrand, 2004; Heath, 1998) document order of magnitude of porosity and/or specific yield consistent with those estimated above.

34

Groundwater Protection Initiative Site Characterization Report S&ME Project 1264-07-234 Duke Energy Oconee Nuclear Station September 2008 8.1.3 PartiallyWeathered/FracturedRock and Sound Rock Secondary Porosity Porosity (total and effective) of partially weathered/fractured rock (WF) and sound rock (D) hydrostratigraphic units are more problematic to measure and/or estimate than soil.

Crystalline igneous and metamorphic rock given their matrix of interlocking crystals, are considered to have very low primary porosity/specific yield (LeGrand, 2004). Rather, secondary porosity results from weathering and fracturing of the matrix (Freeze and Cherry, 1979). The magnitude of secondary porosity is a function of the degree of weathering and density of fracturing and is dependent on the interconnectedness of the same (LeGrand, 2004).

LeGrand, 2004, references "secondary porosity of crystalline bedrock.. .ranges from one to ten percent (Freeze and Cherry, 1979) but according to Daniel and Sharpless (1983),

porosity values of from one to three percent are more typical". Taking secondary porosity to approximate effective porosity, we will estimate the secondary (effective) porosity of the WF and D units within the above ranges. That is, we will assume the secondary (effective) porosity of the partially weathered/fractured rock (WF) unit at near 5.5 percent and the secondary (effective) porosity of the sound rock (D) unit at near 3 percent.

For record, Table 4, Secondary Porosity Summary (Partially Weathered/Fractured Rock and Sound Rock, summarizes the above assumptions for this Groundwater Protection Initiative.

8.2 Hydrogeologic Findings 8.2. 1 GroundwaterOccurrence and Flow Groundwater levels were measured in the project monitoring wells during January, April, and May 2008. Water level measurements from the project monitoring wells for the period of record are summarized in Table 5, Groundwater Level Summary.

Groundwater flows from areas of higher hydraulic head to areas of lower hydraulic head.

The hydraulic head in the subsurface is established by plotting and contouring the groundwater elevations measured in the monitoring wells. The resulting contour map provides a two-dimensional depiction of the subsurface hydraulic head and is called a potentiometric surface (Freeze and Cherry, 1979). The slope of the potentiometric surface defines groundwater flow direction, perpendicular to the potentiometric surface contours.

Conventionally, individual potentiometric surface maps would be constructed using data from wells screened in similar hydrostratigraphic units, i.e., for soil/saprolite/weathered rock (Ml/M2), partially weathered rock (WF), and sound rock (D), in as much as sufficient data is available for each unit.

As we began development of individual potentiometric surfaces, and identification of data for inclusion to each surface, it became apparent that hydrostratigraphic condition 35

Groundwater Protection Initiative Site Characterization Report S&ME Project 1264-07-234 Duke Energy Oconee Nuclear Station September 2008 rather than hydrostratigraphic unit was the better criterion for selection of potentiometric surface data inclusion. This is best cataloged and presented in Table 6, Hydrostratigraphic Units and Groundwater Conditions Summary (a continuation of Table 2). What is observed is that two "R" series wells (GM-2R, and GM-3R) exhibit water table type conditions, i.e., the groundwater level exists within the well screen interval.

The above observations are best considered in context of the Power Block foundation, constructed largely in the partially weathered rock (WF) and sound rock (D) hydrostratigraphic units. It appears, and is rationale, that the foundation has lowered the groundwater table conditions down into the level of the partially weathered rock (WF) and sound rock (D) hydrostratigraphic units.

Continuing the observations from Table 6, 11 no-suffix series wells, originally targeted to measure water table groundwater, conceived to be present in soil/saprolite/weathered rock (M1/M2), are actually screened in fill (F) and/or soillsaprolite/weathered rock (Ml/M2), and do in fact exhibit water table type conditions. That is, the groundwater level exists either within the well screen interval and/or slightly above (within 10+/- feet) of the top of the well screen interval.

Lastly, 13 "R" or "DR" series wells, targeted to monitor groundwater in the transition zone of partially weathered rock (WF) and/or sound rock (D), actually are screened in partially weathered rock (WF) and/or sound rock (D), and exhibit submerged monitoring well type conditions, i.e., the groundwater level is well above (8+/- to 76+/- feet) the top of the screen interval.

Therefore, potentiometric surface conditions at Oconee are best represented by treating 13 of the project monitoring wells (reference Table 6) as exhibiting water table groundwater conditions and 13 of the project monitoring wells (reference Table 6) as exhibiting submerged groundwater conditions.

A shallow water table groundwater potentiometric surface map was generated for the April/May sampling event using Surfer and included the following data points:

& Surface water elevations of Lake Keowee (796.1 ft msl);

• Surface water elevations of CTP 3 (705.8 ft msl);

• Assumed surface water elevations of the Conveyance (685.0 ft msl);

0 Flume elevations (710, 715, 720, 725, and 728 ft msl);

• 13 newly installed permanent shallow condition groundwater monitoring wells;

• 15 newly installed temporary shallow groundwater monitoring wells;

• 15 existing shallow condition groundwater monitoring wells;

• Groundwater seep at the flume; and,

• Groundwater seeps east of the 525 kV Switchyard.

(For the record, the surface water elevation of Lake Keowee during the April/May time period was established from the Duke Energy lake levels website; the surface water elevation of CTP 3 and the Conveyance was provided by Duke Energy.)

36

Groundwater Protection Initiative Site Characterization Report S&ME Project 1264-07-234 Duke Ener-gy Oconee Nuclear Station September 2008 A site visit was conducted on June 26, 2008 to identify areas on the site where groundwater was seeping from the ground (springs). Four locations were observed that were thought useful in portraying shallow groundwater flow. These locations were a seep behind the concrete lined flume that drains into CTP 3. Water was observed seeping through an expansion joint of the concrete and flowing directly into the flume. Other observed locations were the toe of the slope southeast of the 230 kV Switchyard, near the northeast comer of the 525 kV Switchyard, and in the natural drainage feature west of the garage building. The elevation and location of these seeps were surveyed by Duke personnel on July 16, 2008.

Figure 10, Groundwater Potentiometric Map - Shallow (Water Table) Wells, is our interpretation of the shallow, water table groundwater potentiometric surface at Oconee, based on data available from the Groundwater Protection Initiative activities.

Based on the shallow water table groundwater potentiometric surface, groundwater is observed to flow from northwest toward southeast.

We followed a similar approach for the deeper, submerged groundwater well conditions, with the exception of omitting the data points representing the surface water elevations of Lake Keowee, CTP 3, Conveyance, the Flume elevations, and the groundwater seeps, considering these surface water bodies are better represented linked to shallower, water table groundwater conditions than deeper, submerged groundwater conditions. Figure 11, Groundwater Potentiometric Map - Deep (Submerged) Wells represents the deeper submerged groundwater flow conditions at Oconee, based on data available from the Groundwater Protection Initiative activities.

Based on the deeper, submerged groundwater potentiometric surface, deeper groundwater is also observed to flow southeast toward the Conveyance. Comparison of the shallower, water table groundwater potentiometric surface to the deeper, submerged groundwater potentiometric surface reveals very similar flow conditions.

8.2.2 GroundwaterGradients 8.2.2.1 Horizontal Gradients The horizontal gradient, or degree of slope, of the groundwater table has a directly proportional effect on the rate of groundwater flow (considered in Section 8.2.4, Groundwater Flow Rates). Gradient between specific points of interest will vary. For the purpose of this discussion, we will consider general gradient observations within selected regions of the site for an overall vantage.

Horizontal gradients measured within the wells installed in fill soils on the site are on the order of 0.027 feet per foot (ft/ft). Horizontal gradients measured within the wells installed in soil/saprolite on the site are on the order of 0.017 ft/ft. Horizontal gradients measured within the wells installed in partially weathered rock on the site are on the order of 0.023 ft/ft. Horizontal gradients measured within the wells installed in sound rock on the site are on the order of 0.024 ft/ft.

37

Groundwater Protection Initiative Site Characterization Report S&ME Project 1264-07-234 Duke Energy Oconee Nuclear Station September 2008 8.2.2.2 Vertical Gradients The vertical gradients, or tendency for groundwater to migrate vertically upward or downward, can be estimated at the locations of the 12 well pair installations. (Ideally, vertical gradients are best evaluated using point piezometers. But vertical gradients can be approximated from screened monitoring wells.) Using the approach established in Freeze and Cherry (1979), the vertical gradient between the wells in the pair can be estimated by the following equation:

Gv = GWelev(Mws) - GWelev(Mwd)

SSI(Mw,) - SSI(gwd)

Where:

G, = Vertical Gradient GWelev(mw.,) = Groundwater elevation in the shallower monitoring well GWelev(mwd) = Groundwater elevation in the deeper monitoring well SSI(Mws) = Mid-point elevation of the saturated screen interval in the shallower monitoring well SSI(Mwd = Mid-point elevation of the saturated screen interval in the deeper monitoring well Computed vertical gradients are summarized in Table 7, Vertical Gradient Summary and on Figure 12, Vertical Gradients. Vertical Gradient Calculation Sheets are included in Appendix J.

Using this method, downward gradients exist at well pairs GM-2R/GM-2DR and GM-5/GM-5R. Relatively lesser but consistent downward gradients occur at well pairs GM-7/GM-7R, and GM- 10/GM- 1OR. Upward gradients occurred at well pairs GM- 13/GM-13R and GM-14/GM-14R. Relatively lesser but consistent upward gradients occurred at well pairs GM-3R/GM-3DR, GM-6/GM-6R, GM-8/GM-8R, GM-9/GM-9R, GM-11/GM-I IR, GM- 12/GM-12R.

8.2.3 Hydraulic Conductivities Hydraulic conductivity was measured by a combination of open-hole falling head (OHFH) tests, packer tests, and slug tests. Test results from the Groundwater Protection Initiative monitoring wells are summarized in Table 8, Permeability Testing Summary (Open-Hole Falling Head, Packer, and Slug Testing). These hydraulic conductivity measurements were placed into specific hydrogeologic units after data interpolation by Devine Tarbell & Associates.

38

Groundwater Protection Initiative Site Characterization Report S&ME Project 1264-07-234 Duke Energy Oconee Nuclear Station September 2008 Table T-5, Mean Hydraulic Conductivity Summary, summarizes the mean hydraulic conductivity calculations computed for the hydrostratigraphic units of this Groundwater Protection Initiative. The mean hydraulic conductivities are also illustrated on Chart 8A.

CONDUCTIVITY ,I1 8.2.4 GroundwaterFlow Rates The groundwater flow velocity (V,) can be estimated using the hydraulic conductivity measurements (Kgm), the estimated effective porosity of the medium (nr), and the measured horizontal gradient (dh/dl) using the following variation of Darcy's Law (Fetter, 1994):

Q = Kg dh Vx-A xne ne dl Where:

Vx = Groundwater flow velocity Q = Flow A = Area n = Effective porosity Kg,, = Hydraulic Conductivity (geometric mean) dh = Groundwater gradient (slope) dl A very simplified evaluation of potential site-wide groundwater velocities is summarized in Table 9, Groundwater Velocity Estimates Summary. These computations consider the following:

1. the mean estimated effective porosity of the fill (F), the soil/saprolite (Ml), and the weathered rock (M2) hydrostratigraphic units discussed in Section 8.1.2 Soil Porosity and Specific Yield;

2. the assumed secondary (effective) porosity of the partially weathered/fractured rock (WF) and sound rock (D) hydrostratigraphic units discussed in Section 8.1.3 Partially Weathered/Fractured Rock and Sound Rock Secondary Porosity;

3. the horizontal groundwater gradients between wells screened in the various hydrostratigraphic units discussed in Section 8.2.2.1, Horizontal Gradients; and, 39

Groundwater Protection Initiative Site Characterization Report S&ME Project 1264-07-234 Duke Energy Oconee Nuclear Station September 2008

4. the mean hydraulic conductivities of the fill (F), soil/saprolite (Ml), weathered rock (M2), partially weathered/fractured rock (WF), and sound rock (D) hydrostratigraphic units discussed in Section 8.2.3 Hydraulic Conductivities.

We note that groundwater velocity computations are not considered for the alluvium (S) hydrostratigraphic unit considering the relatively limited occurrence compared to the more predominant F, M l, M2, WF, and D hydrostratigraphic units.

Regarding the above groundwater flow rate estimates, we raise caution to several considerations. Effective porosity for the soil/saprolite (Ml) and weathered rock (M2) units can be estimated with more confidence than the effective secondary porosity for the partially weathered/fractured rock (WF) and sound rock (D) units. All of the above estimates will vary, the latter two in particular based on bedrock fracture characteristics.

Lastly, the above is a much generalized evaluation of groundwater velocity at Oconee.

These values should be used cautiously; more rigorous evaluation must be conducted for specific groundwater flow scenarios.

8.3 Groundwater Quality Groundwater quality is discussed relative to the groundwater conditions established in Section 8.2.1, Groundwater Occurrence and Flow. That is, we consider groundwater quality monitored in the following:

• 13 permanent project monitoring wells, 15 temporary project monitoring wells, and 15 existing monitoring wells exhibiting shallow, water table type groundwater conditions;

• 13 project wells exhibiting deeper, submerged type groundwater conditions; and,

• Six catch basins and one culvert.

8.3.1 Shallow (Water Table) GroundwaterCondition Wells 8.3.1.1 January 2008 Sampling Event Fifteen wells (MW-RPO1, MW-RP02, MW-RP03, A-12, A-18, BG-4, GM-3R, GM-5, GM-6, GM-9, GM-10, GM-11, GM-12, GM-13, and GM-14) exhibited no detection of tritium during the January 2008 sampling event. Tritium concentrations in the remaining 13 shallow, water table condition wells ranged from a minimum detection of 174 picocuries per liter (pCi/1) in well A-8 to a maximum detection of 19,800 pCi/1 in well GM-7. No shallow groundwater condition wells exhibited tritium concentrations above the 20,000 pCi/l EPA drinking water standard during this sampling event.

The temporary project monitoring wells were not installed at the time of the January 2008 sampling event.

Tritium concentrations in groundwater are summarized in Table 10, Analytical Results Summary Tritium in Groundwater. Tritium concentrations from the January 2008 sampling event are summarized on Figure 13, Tritium Concentrations in Groundwater January 2008.

40

Groundwater Protection Initiative Site Characterization Report S&ME Project 1264-07-234 Duke Energy Oconee Nuclear Station September 2008 8.3.1.2 April/May 2008 Sampling Event Twenty-three wells (MW-RPOI, MW-RP02, MW-RP03, A-8, A-11, A-12, A-18, BG-4, GM-5, GM-6, GM-9, GM-10, GM-11, GM-12, GM-13, GM-14, GP-1, GP-4, GP-11, GP-12, GP-13, GP-14, and GP-15) exhibited no detection of tritium during the April/May 2008 sampling event. Tritium concentrations in the remaining 20 shallow, water table groundwater condition wells ranged from a minimum detection of 159 picocuries per liter (pCi/1) in well A-17 to a maximum detection of 14,200 pCi/l in well GP-8. No shallow groundwater condition wells exhibited tritium concentrations above the 20,000 pCi/l EPA drinking water standard during this sampling event.

Tritium concentrations in groundwater are summarized in Table 10, Analytical Results Summary Tritium in Groundwater. Tritium concentrations from the April/May 2008 sampling event are summarized on Figure 14, Tritium Concentrations in Groundwater April/May 2008.

8.3.1.3 May 21-22, 2008 Sampling Event Of the 15 temporary project monitoring wells sampled during this event, six (GP-i, GP-11, GP-12, GP-13, GP-14, and GP-15) exhibited no detection of tritium. Concentrations of tritium in the remaining nine temporary wells ranged from a minimum detection of 177 picocuries per liter (pCi/1) in well GP-4 to a maximum detection of 14,000 pCi/I in well GP-10. Tritium concentrations in groundwater are summarized in Table 10, Analytical Results Summary Tritium in Groundwater. No shallow groundwater condition wells exhibited tritium concentrations above the 20,000 pCi/l EPA drinking water standard during this sampling event.

8.3.2 Deeper (Submerged) Groundwater Condition Wells 8.3.2.1 January 2008 Samplinq Event Nine deeper, submerged groundwater condition wells (GM-5R, GM-6R, GM-8R, GM-9R, GM-10R, GM-11R, GM-12R, GM-13R, and GM-14R) exhibited no detection of tritium during the January 2008 sampling event. Tritium concentrations in the remaining four deeper groundwater condition wells ranged from a minimum detection of 223 picocuries per liter (pCi/l) in well GM-3DR to a maximum detection of 2,850 pCi/l in well GM-7R. No deeper groundwater condition wells exhibited tritium concentrations above the 20,000 pCi/l EPA drinking water standard during this sampling event.

Tritium concentrations in groundwater are summarized in Table 10, Analytical Results Summary Tritium in Groundwater. Tritium concentrations from the January 2008 sampling events are summarized on Figure 13, Tritium Concentrations in Groundwater January 2008.

8.3.2.2 April/May 2008 Sampling Event Eight deeper, submerged groundwater condition wells (GM-5R, GM-6R, GM-9R, GM-10R, GM-11R, GM-12R, GM-13R, and GM-14R) exhibited no detection of tritium during the April/May 2008 sampling event. Tritium concentrations in the remaining five deeper groundwater condition wells ranged from a minimum detection of 239 picocuries 41

Groundwater Protection Initiative Site Characterization Report S&ME Project 1264-07-234 Duke Energy Oconee Nuclear Station September 2008 per liter (pCi/1) in well GM-8R to a maximum detection of 3,670 pCi/i in well GM-7R.

No deeper groundwater condition wells exhibited tritium concentrations above the 20,000 pCi/1 EPA drinking water standard during this sampling event.

Tritium concentrations in groundwater are summarized in Table 10, Analytical Results Summary Tritium in Groundwater. Tritium concentrations from the April/May 2008 sampling event are summarized on Figure 14, Tritium Concentrations in Groundwater April/May 2008.

8.3.2.3 May 21-22, 2008 Sampling Event Two deeper groundwater condition wells GM-6R and GM-7R were sampled during the May 21-22, 2009 sampling event. Tritium concentrations were reported at 3951 pCi/l in GM-7R and less than detectable in GM-6R. Tritium concentrations in groundwater are summarized in Table 10, Analytical Results Summary Tritium in Groundwater. No deeper groundwater condition wells exhibited tritium concentrations above the 20,000 pCi/1 EPA drinking water standard during this sampling event.

8.3.3 Catch Basin Water Conditions On April 9, 2008, samples were collected from six catch basins (CB-97, CB-130, CB-131, CB-135, CB-146, CB-147) and the 48 inch diameter culvert that empties into CTP 3.

On May 21 and 22, 2008, samples were collected from five catch basins (CB-130, CB-131, CB-135, CB-146, and CB-147). Tritium concentrations reported in these samples ranged from 4560 pCi/l in CB-131 (April 9 th sampling event) to less than detectable in CB- 131 (May 21 st sampling event).

Tritium concentrations in catch basins are summarized in Table 10, Analytical Results Summary Tritium in Groundwater. Tritium concentrations from the April/May 2008 sampling event are summarized on Figure 14, Tritium Concentrations in Groundwater April/May 2008.

8.4 Site Conceptual Hydrogeologic Model Findings from the initial site investigation during construction in the 1970's as documented in the PSAR, UFSAR, and this Groundwater Protection Initiative confirm the Site Conceptual Hydrogeologic Model of the Oconee Nuclear Station site to conform, expectedly, to the regional models established by LeGrand, et al. for the Piedmont Physiographic Province (Section 4.0, Station Hydrogeologic Setting). The only observed discrepancy is considered minor, and relates to relative groundwater flow velocity between the partially weathered/fractured rock (WF) and the sound rock (D) hydrostratigraphic units (discussed below).

The Oconee hydrogeology is consistent with LeGrand's (Section 4.2, Regional Hydrogeology), in that it comprises the two medium system of regolith (residual soil, saprolite, weathered bedrock) underlain by fractured, nonporous bedrock. Most conventionally, groundwater occurs within the pore space of the residuum/saprolite and within fractures of the underlying bedrock. Groundwater exists in combination of pore 42

Groundwater Protection Initiative Site Characterization Report S&ME Project 1264-07-234 Duke Energy Oconee Nuclear Station September 2008 space and/or fractures within the transition zone (partially weathered/fractured rock) occurring between the two.

The Oconee site drainage basin is consistent with LeGrand's surface drainage basin model (Slope-Aquifer System, Section 4.2), albeit influenced by plant construction (e.g.,

Chemical Treatment Ponds, Lake Keowee Intake, Power Block foundations, etc.).

Within the Oconee Nuclear Station site drainage basin, conventional Piedmont groundwater movement is observed from northwest, the location of CTP-l and CTP-2, toward southeast, location of Conveyance.

In very simplified terms, the average groundwater velocity in the fill (F) soils is on the order of 74 feet per year. The estimated groundwater velocity for the combined soil/saprolite and weathered rock hydrostratigraphic units (Ml/M2) is on the order of 28 feet per year. Groundwater velocity is estimated on the order of 91 feet per year in the partially weathered/fractured rock unit (WF), and is estimated on the order of 103 feet per year in the sound rock (D) unit. All of these will vary, the latter two in particular based on bedrock fracture characteristics.

Normally, the transition zone of the partially weathered/fractured rock (WF) unit is expected to exhibit the greatest groundwater flow/velocity capacity. Within the confines of this Groundwater Protection Initiative characterization alone, the groundwater velocity in the sound rock (D) is estimated slightly higher than the groundwater velocity in the partially weathered/fractured rock unit. However, the relative difference between the two (91 feet per year versus 103 feet per year) is not considered overly significant for the purpose of this characterization and groundwater protection program.

43

Groundwater Protection Initiative Site Characterization Report S&ME Project 1264-07-234 Duke Energy Oconee Nuclear Station September 2008

9.0 CONCLUSION

S Reconsidering Section 5.3, Groundwater Protection Initiative Monitoring Well Location Selections, the Groundwater Protection Initiative goals were the following:

" An exploration scheme that would provide hydrogeologic characterization of the operating plant site; and,

" A robust monitoring well network capable of providing early detection of tritium releases (near-field wells) and verifying no off-site migration (far-field wells).

In short, the Groundwater Protection Initiative well installations, testing, and Site Characterization Report accomplish the project goals. Hydrogeologic characterization is well documented. Further, a network array of near-field and far-field wells is established at the site. Selected sub-set(s) of the near-field wells will provide for ongoing sentinel monitoring for radioactive materials in groundwater. Otherwise, all wells are available for incident and/or migration observations.

9.1 Groundwater Monitoring The results presented in this Site Characterization Report establish the foundation for the Radiological Groundwater Protection Initiative at Oconee. As augmented by these results, the enhanced groundwater monitoring under this Program, described in Nuclear System Directive (NSD-517), will provide reasonable assurance that any unplanned releases of radioactive material to groundwater are discovered and properly managed.

44

Groundwater Protection Initiative Site Characterization Report S&ME Project 1264-07-234 Duke Energy Oconee Nuclear Station September 2008 10.0 QUALIFICATIONS The hydrogeologic assessment activities were conducted, and this report was prepared, in accordance with generally accepted practices for projects of this type and applicable standards of our profession at the time this report was prepared. The analysis and findings submitted in this report are based on information available to S&ME at the time of this report and upon data obtained from subsurface exploration. The nature and extent of variations between boring and sampling locations may not be evident. Analysis and findings of this report are based on interpolation between data points and may not be representative of all subsurface conditions. Regardless of the thoroughness of a hydrogeologic assessment, there is always the possibility that conditions between borings are different from those at specific boring locations due to the variability of subsurface conditions.

It is our understanding that this report is for the sole purpose of providing a hydrogeologic evaluation of the site. This report has been prepared for the use of Duke Energy for specific application to this project. The party or parties involved in this specific evaluation, as authorized by the addressee, may rely upon this report. The use of this report by any third party or parties will be such party's sole risk, and S&ME disclaims liability for any such use or reliance by third parties. No other warranties are implied or expressed.

45

Groundwater Protection Initiative Site Characterization Report S&ME Project 1264-07-234 Duke Energy Oconee Nuclear Station September 2008 11.0 SELECTED REFERENCES Appendix A: South Carolina. United States Fish & Wildlife Service, Southeast Region

[Online]; www.fws.gov/southeast/partners/StrategicPlan/Appendix%20A%20SC.pdf (Accessed February 19, 2008).

Bear, J., 1972. Dynamics of Fluids in Porous Media.

Bower and Rice, 1976. A Slug Testfor DeterminingHydraulic Conductivity of UnconfinedAquifer with Completely or PartiallyPenetratingWells.

Bower and Rice, 1989. Bower and Rice Slug Test - An Update.

Drever, 1988. The Geochemistry of Natural Waters, Second Edition.

Duke Energy. Oconee Nuclear Station, Environmental Report, As Revised through December 31, 2007.

Duke Energy. Oconee Nuclear Station, Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR),

As Revised through December 31, 2007.

Duke Energy, August 2003, HydraulicEvaluation of CTP-3, Oconee Nuclear Station, South Carolina.

Duke Energy [Online]. http://www.duke-energy.com/lakes/facts-and-maps/lake-keowee.asp (Accessed March 2008).

Duke Energy [Online]. http://www.duke-energy.com!lakes/levels/lake-keowee.asp?lake=lake-keowee&range=1 3monthhistorical (Accessed March 2008).

Fetter, C.W., 1994. Applied Hydrogeology, 3 rd Edition.

Freeze, R. Allen and Cherry, John A, 1979. Groundwater.

Harned, D. A. and Daniel, C. C., III, 1989, The transition zone between bedrock and regolith: Conduit for contamination?, p. 336-348, in Daniel, C. C., III, White, R. K., and Stone, P. A., eds., Groundwater in the Piedmont: Proceedings of a Conference on Ground Water in the Piedmont of the Eastern United States, October 16-18, 1989, Clemson University, 693p.

Heath, Ralph C., 1998. Basic Ground-Water Hydrology, Water Supply Paper 2220.

LeGrand Sr., Harry E., 2004. A Master Conceptual Model for Hydrogeological Site Characterization in the Piedmont and Mountain Region of North Carolina, A Guidance Manual.

46

Groundwater Protection Initiative Site Characterization Report S&ME Project 1264-07-234 Duke Energy Oconee Nuclear Station September 2008 LeGrand, H. E., 1989, A conceptual model of ground water settings in the Piedmont Region, p.317-327, in Daniel, C. C., III, White, R. K., and Stone, P. A., eds.,

Groundwater in the Piedmont: Proceedings of a Conference on Ground Water in the Piedmont of the Eastern United States, October 16-18, 1989, Clemson University, 693p.

LeGrand, H. E., 1988, Region 21, Piedmont and Blue Ridge, p.201-208, in Black, W.,

Rosenhein, J. S., and Seaber, P. R., eds., Hydrogeology: Geological Society of America, The Geology of North America, v. 0-2, Boulder, Colorado, 524p.

Midwest Geosciences. A Field Guide for Rock Core Logging and Fracture Analysis.

Randall, A. D., Francis, R. M., Frimpter, M. H., and Emery, J. M., 1988, Region 19, Northeastern Appalachians, p. 177-188, in Black, W., Rosenhein, J. S., and Seaber, P. R.,

eds., Hydrogeology: Geological Society of America, The Geology of North America, v.

0-2, Boulder, Colorado, 524p.

Trainer, F. W., 1988, Plutonic and metamorphic rocks, p.367-380, in Black, W.,

Rosenhein, J. S., and Seaber, P. R., eds., Hydrogeology: Geological Society of America, The Geology of North America, v. 0-2, Boulder, Colorado, 524p.

United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation EPA 402-R-99-004B, August 1999. Understanding Variation In Partition Coefficinet, Kd, Values, Volume II: Review of Geochemistry and Available Kd Values for Cadmium, Cesium, Chromium, Lead, Plutonium, Radon, Strontium, Thorium, Tritium (3H), and Uranium.

United States Environmental Protection Agency [Online].

http://www.epa.gov/enviro/html/erams/ (Accessed February 2008).

United States Environmental Protection Agency [Online];

hutp://www.epa.gov/radiation/radionuclides/tritium.html (Last updated November 15, 2007; Accessed January 11, 2008).

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, July 2006. Tritium, Radiation Protection Limits, and Drinking Water Standards.

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission [Online];

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/tritium/info-Ir-release.html (Last updated February 13, 2007; Accessed January 11, 2008).

47

TAML I MWOORING WEII CON.STUU)nON SUM""R s&'AEProjwct w:~ i264-0y7-234 *S&,ME p

U mz=2oS~~P22 1,,

TABLE 2 HYDROSTRATI6RAPHIC UNITS 5UAUAMRY buke Energy Oconee Nuclear Station *S&ME S&ME Project No: 1264-07-234 62 23 238 3712 0 T113 1 61 1I 319.3 5206 43 4 501 501

'175 19,6 196 205 027 1754154 75 33 33 904 34 020 168 127 168 176 25 23 064O 47,47 592 1606 66 68 18 705 1705 739 76 762 71 489 486 6 56713303 6 G2R 6 22804 483 483 498 49 163 583 6216 46, 508686 405h 570 572 7 433 720 603 803 6 77 261 449 70 839 88 6=

9 30 S7 323 303 273 27 3165 3165 336 0840.4 80-3 am-is 0 30 30 0 40 00 20 20 W4R1m1 0 235 23 38 3383 2 43 48 68 30 WrPI 03

9. 29 0 40 6 43I3 33 0 462 OPII2 0 218 2 Maimm= 19 ?0 35 498 583 583 S20 45 35 1 3 97 621 82o 1207 P13 9 18 2778 3 27 16 3A 4011813 2326 2 EMT =,n, 31 2 7 6 835 462 25 5 46.3221 1 5 03 I 0 11.686., 3 6 8 3 0 7 128.5 45. 835 635 7003 4637 780305 4M64. 03 260 762351. 352 43, 44.8 323 365 4684 7 0 664 6 fV O 2665' 356 5604,-e 072-01064 0. 1 6 0Th 7 S TABLESTAtE6 P_ 1-

TABLE 3 SOIL TESTING

SUMMARY

(SOIL POROSITY AND SPECIFIC YIELD)

Duke Energy Oconee Nuclear Station S&ME Project No: 1264-07-234 *S&ME Well ID %Sad %Sl Ca-apeDph Specific Yield P~oroity ~Hydrostratigraphic GM-4 15.4 16.9 74 15 11 19 44 F GM-5R 18.5 20.0 62 19 18 19 44 F GM-5R 63.5 65.0 69 22 9 23 43.5 F GM-8R 13.3 14.8 69 19 13 16 44 F GM-9R 37.7 38.2 28 -- 23 50 1" 49** F GM-9R 42.7 44.2 56 17 27 5 46 F GM-13R 8.5 10.0 65 19 16 13 44.5 F GM-14R 8.5 10.0 51 12 37 3.5* 48** F Average = 59.3 18.3 22.6 15.8 44.3 F StandardDeviation = 6.3 0.9 GM-1R 13.8 15.3 83 14 3 30 42 M1 GM-6R 18.5 20.0 87 12 2 32 41 M1 GM-7R 28.9 30.4 81 16 2 30 42 M1 GM-10R 23.5 25.0 24 62 14 9 45 M1 GM-10R 36.5 38.0 70 26 3 26 43 M1 GM-13R 43.5 45.0 80 17 3 29 42.5 M1 Average = 70.8 24.5 4.5 26.0 42.6 8.6 1.4 M1 StandardDeviation =

GM-6R 28.5 30.0 84 13 3 30 42 M2 GM-6R 33.5 35.0 70 25 5 25 43 M2 GM-7R 48.9 50.4 82 15 3 30 42 M2 GM-7R 53.9 55.4 67 28 5 24 43 M2 GM-8R 58.3 59.8 83 13 3 30 42 M2 GM-9R 57.7 59.2 84 14 2 30 42. M2 GM-1R 49.0 50.5 82 15 2 30 42 M2 Average = 78.9 17.6 3.3 28.4 42.3 M2 StandardDeviation = 2.7 0.5 Average (combined MU/M2) = 27.3 Notes:

• Estimated Value

• • Based on Table of Selected Values of Porosity, Specific Yield and Specific Retention, USGS Water Supply Paper 2220.

S:\ENVIRON\2007\1264\6407234 Oconee Nuclear Groundwater Study\SCR\Tables\ONS TABLESTABLE 3 Page 1 of 1

Table 4 SECONDARY POROSITY

SUMMARY

(PARTIALLY WEATHERED/FRACTUREb ROCK AND SOUND ROCK)

Duke Energy Oconee Nuclear Station S&ME Project No. 1264-07-234 HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC UNIT Secondary Porosity Range Assumed Value

(%) (%)

Partially Weathered/Fractured Rock (WF) 1 to 10 5 Sound Rock (D) 1 to 3 3 NOTES:

1. Secondary Porosity ranges from Legrand, Harry E. Sr., A Master Conceptual Model for HydrogeolociicSite Characterization in the Piedmont and Mountain Region of North Carolina, 2004.

S:\ENVIRON\2007\1264\6407234 Oconee Nuclear Groundwater Study\SCR\Tables\ONS TABLESTABLE 4 Page 1 of 1

Table 5 GROUNDWATER LEVEL

SUMMARY

Duke Energy Oconee Nuclear Station "INM E S&ME Project No. 1264-07-234 SAENVIR014\200M\264\64O7234 Ooooee Nuclear Grou~ndwaterStudyýSC\Talbles\ONS TABLESTA13LE 5 ae1o2 Page 1 of 2

Table 5 GROUNDWATER LEVEL

SUMMARY

buke Energy Oconee Nuclear Station Am9M1%

S&ME Project No. 1264-07-234 NOTES:

Top of Casings (TOC) surveyed by Duke Energy ft-msl = feet relative to Mean Sea Level ft-TOC = Feet relative to Top of Casing S:\ENVIRON\20O1\1264k6407234 Ocoee NurdearGroundwaterStudy\SCR\TablesýONS TABLESTABLE 5 ae2o Page 2 of 2

TABLE6 HYWCOSTRATIGRAPHIC UNITS AND GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS

SUMMARY

buke Energy Ocone Nuclear Station S&MEProject No: 1264-07-234

• 6&ME

.18R 82 2M8 238 271 271I 2,7"v V,20 3230 t 2187 13089000870 W M -W SbV Ulwg

.5

,9 127 12.1 127 15 15 a i11 212 237 20.1 30.3 m07 94.9755 10.3 '0.3 103 173 w'm 1 1 ,mmg 319 33 315,0 35-w.5877 -5~

00 087e0ow 92041178f W72D 1 .87e,9b9a W.0erT788. 00. Table 1

.388 a2 at. 78.8 18A 1"8 1 2579 25.8 .8489 2990W 8748 311 ý88 A-ed 898.b.0. SUI-.g.

17'8 1-8 Is'8 0 6,W 1 2"m 1 111. Iae a~ ý48bbw topaf F wa be WtrTeý W~ Tlbý W. 3327V5M W U428 008817.40 13 0810.8 07878.7 F 08.707 80.8.7.94 10.8.7I~e 7489 7m2579 79 799 125 .32 95ý 99.5 9 2& 553 0084 5 s5 2s 1735 80749 5 55 285 285 341 .7 37 40's 42.W 47. *1862 010.7 7j 23 23 sw ZIN 8.6 o.A71 -8 489 507 501 0.7 IOU 1003 " 57 000877.0F we e-95S eow 7121 47487 ofsým 83 III

- ~ 9977.

8.8884 Týb w0.7 88.

WlmlrT"bl

.8.,7..7 084. 0037087 02 7 .08.b 7 8.8.777.8 10887..8 3U07 8140 8 28.94 r 483 398 81.87.

30 4084 708887 5,8 47894 9*9.84 87898 398 %03 503 821 629 827 837 20 Wr WP&ý WM w -Wf S~bmergd Subnýeý 01843,S 433 335* 9087.100976 10998

,a7 .b87.0d Sub.0.80 8t.0878.

000 20 351

-2

.8v ,,e~ wlto f Af wte MJ arTý~k WarTab "44t 0A 47 21 592 58 80 80 w08 18 111A7 ms "0. 73. 739 837 887884 774 00118 70471787 Orý 807830 998.88 8.

8.987898

-13 940 7-08bM-0.9.7 .9"778 0*8777 w~r*/-25 , eow*o* /* waw eb WI*Tý W-~w Tab 118. 289- 1 57 201 48884 8009. 87490.8 88Or4 3998774 87-8T8 8887

.808 8 7 7 012 612 8082 8300 1 78.7 I 918

.987*0 10.8.1..8 W.8b-..

7 83707 70- 0 178 0 007984

-=w 2N74 2849 808.8 0 1 9 92 125 338, 31W 1010 0 9 273 ý, 3 2. 918

.9 315 33I 329 3.9 04 I 43

TABLE6 IrYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC UNITS AND SPOUNWATER CONDITIONS SU#MMAYR buie Energy Ocome. Nucleer Station S&MEProlect No: 1264-07-234

• S&ME M1 m Mbh,,,. 70 55 790 790 793 792 793 03 835 SOS 052 238 80M 277 450 755 835 05 7835 1193 75.3 53 03

.57 903 713 7193 39.3 NO

• f 70 AEw 10 M-. 79o 703 79.5 M39 40 5'.' 33 307 407 7.5 378 478 W m70.77.7r0.9~537s7~

059 734025.9495

$ 4099509494070 025.794.97..

S4~$79C97T.O7C 7flL757*9~36

TABLE 7 VERTICAL GRADIENTS

SUMMARY

Duke Energy Oconee Nuclear Station S&ME Project No: 1264-07-234 *S&ME Actuial Vertical Gradien~t WELLS DATE (ft/ft) Dirction 1/7/2008 0.3946 Downward GM-2R / GM-2DR 4/7/2008 0.3938 Downward GM-3R GM-,3IDR 1/30/2008 0.0166 Upwad

___________ 4/7/2008 0.0108 Upward_____

1/7/2008 0.1310 Downward 4/7/2008 0.1301 Downward GM-6 / GM-6R 1/8/2008 0.0179 Upiward

___________ 4/8/2008 0.0179 Upward, 1/8/2008 0.0107 Downward 4/8/2008 0.0150 Downward 0.0120 Upar 6M-8 S 1/7/2008 1/7/2008 0.0868 Upward 4/7/2008 0.0456 Upward

/ &-M4OR .1...0 1//00 .0242 Downward

___________ 4/8/2008 0.0259 Downward____

1/9/2008 0.0459 Upward GM-11 / GM-ttR Uoward I GM-13 / GM-13R S:\ENVIRON\2007\1264 Projects\6407234 Oconee Nuclear Groundwater Study\SCR\April 2009 Edits\TabloTABLE 7 Page 1 of 1

TABLE 8 PERMEABILITY TESTING SUVAAARY (OPEN-HOLE FALLING HEAD. PACKER, AND SLUG TESTING)

Duke Energy Oconee Nuclear Station *S&ME S&ME Project No: 1264-07-234 27A G-IR I 32.10 I 37.10 I 769.53 I 764.53 I 50.10 I 27.10 774.3 32 1 37 12.80E-03 32.1 37 9.68E-04 40 1 45 2.60E-05 GM-2 I 25.30 I 30.30 I 770.82 I 76582 I 30.30 I 12.70 1 783.42 3.23E-04 247.75 4 IM-3t* 1 55.30 I 60.30 I 740,89 I 735.89 I 60.30 I 16,80 779.39 776.66 Ij 7 I- 4 I_ _

3.38E-05 I I 4 I4 I 4I 1 JI27.75 1 42.75 1 9.86E-04 I~ I I____ I___

83.5 88.5 1.15E-04 "M-59 93.00 98.00 703.09 69&.09 98.30 83.50 712.59 83.5 93.5 2.91E-04 93 I 98 &.90E-04 665-6 8.00 23.00 734.27 719.27 25.00 Nw LINK "6-6R 42.00 47.00 700.05 695.05 54.70 34.70 707,35 349 9 72E-5 ---

8-7 8.00 23.00 728.44 713.44 23.00 NE UNK8 2317E0 56.7 603.9.85E00 "M-B 28.06 4306 749.88 734.88 45.00 NwN 2&.06 43.06 4,740-03 62.1 67.1 6.90E-05

&M-00 63.61 73.61 714.57 70457 82.0 62 10 716.08 6. 2 M-56.1 7.137E0 6-44 704 9.10E05O 72.8 78.9 9.20E-05 GM-9 2800 43.00 1752.60 1737.60 43.30 NE UNK 28 43 1.79E-04 865-88 68.70 7370 711.72 706.72 80.30 6060 719.82 669 793M 5 68.7 73.7 6.960-05 719 76.9 1.60E-06 GM-10 13.80 28.80 721.47 706,47 30.00 NO UNK 13.8 28.8 1.830-03 335 36.5 1 I120-O 70 75 6. 6-0 _ _ ___

GM-10k 8300 88.00 652.29 647.29 88.00 61.2 &70 674.109&665.29 70 80E000 183 88 1.55E-03 SgOrT24AT3 w. ,oseSSTC 'tOS TABES.UaL*ý EofTABE 8 t~~S

TABLE 8 PERMEABILITY TESTING

SUMMARY

(OPEN-HOLE FALLING HEAD). PACKER, AND) SLUG TESTING)

Duke Energy Oconee Nuclear Station *S&ME S6ME Project No: 1264-07-234 SM-1OS 37.5 42.0 65&221 653.22 54.3 27. 66.9 27. 35. 3.86856-.04760 199E0E-404 35 42 67 3.30E-04 42 M-12P 30.8 4528 7058.45 690.42546.20 46203 6690,0 35038-E3 30.3 41.

43.5 146.2 Z.54E-0!'

46.1 51.1 3,9-4-0-0

~1 I

46,1 561 2.018*-0 GM-13R 581 68.15 1678A18 1668.18 168A15 454 69093 5614 -I 4 - . 1 6 - 6 I 51,9 J9 5815 6815 1,34E-04 589 164.9 r M-14 13,43128.3 1 706A3 691.13 29.00 w LNK 5,66E-05 i i 1 13.43 28.43 1.L49f-03 _____ 1 _______

28.5 31.5ý 39.8 44.8 3.92E-05 888-14R 57.5 167,5 1662,13 1652.13 1 68 39.8 679.83 39.8 49.8 W10 57.5 1 67.5 1189f05 NOTES, 1, Pe-meablty test classified .,I sp.69c hy,*ogwo6gi-mmtr4 based - date i~er.1si685 by Dei-, 76868 &Assoc-ees Sir vIROnl2~7,i264MOTa34 000.,..Nc.,0,004maS00tSCRY1a~tflt4S TAStES -MWA,8EdkSfABtE S P.s.?

P*2*2 .,12

MEAN HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY CHART 2.1OE-03 V

C 0

0 5.11E-ON O.OOE+00 1

Hydrostratigraphic Unit FE Fill 0 Soil/Saprolite U Weathered Rock U Partially Weathered/Fractured Bedrock MSound Rock

Table 9 GROUNDWATER VELOCITY ESTIMATES

SUMMARY

Duke Energy Oconee Nuclear Station #S&ME S&ME Project No. 1264-07-234 r o.,Z,--u4 U.110 U.UZ (

M1 6.11 E-04 0.26 0.017 M2 2.95E-05 0.28 0.016 WF 4.06E-04 0.05 0.023 D 7.26E-05 0.03 0.024 F feet per year 109 M1 feet per year 42 M2 feet per year 2 WF feet per year 197 D feet per year 59 NOTES:

1. cm/sec converted to ft/day by multiplying hydraulic conductivity by 2835.

2. The above information is a much generalized evaluation of groundwater velocity at Oconee. These values should be used cautiously; more rigorous evaluation must be conducted for specific groundwater flow scenarios.

S:\ENVIRON\2007\1264\6407234 Oconee Nuclear Groundwater Study\SCR\Tables\ONS TABLES - Malcolms EditsTable 9 Page 1 of 1

Table 10 ANALYTICAL RESULTS

SUMMARY

TRITIUM IN GROUNDWATER buke Energy Oconee Nuclear Station S& l E S&ME Project No. 1264-07-234 1/9/2008-7912 4/9/20084 -32.2 A-1/8/200848 A-2 ~ 4/7/200827 A-174 4/8/2008 A-'4/8/2008 3467 1/7/208 '141.0 A-17 4/8/2008 159 1/7/2008 '-06 GM-9R 4/7/2008 '180.

SAENVIRONV2007\1264\6407234 Ocooe NuclearGormndwalar StudySCR\TablssýONSTABLESTABLE 10 Pg I oft 2 Page

Table 10 ANALYTICAL RESULTS

SUMMARY

TRITIUM IN GROUNDWATER Duke Energy Oconee Nuclear Station tS8IM E S&ME Project No. 1264-07-234 418/200"1.

1/8/2008 5-75.4 4/8/200 8 '40. 19 4//00..........'57.2 1

GMB11R 4/98'1208 0

4/9/2008 4/9/200812 0-~o Nula Gcn~

SAENVIRONX2OO7264*64O7234 TABLESTABLE StudyISCRMTableaONS 10 Pg 2 oft 2 Page

TABLE 11 SAMPLE COLLECTION MEASUREMENTS

SUMMARY

- JANUARY 2008 Duke Energy Oconee Nuclear Station S&ME Project No: 1264-07-234

• S&ME NOTES:

Purge Methods LF Low Flow CP = Coventional Purge (3 to 5 well vot)

S:ýENVIRON\20O1\1264ý6407234 0ooetr NuclearGroundwaterStudy\SCRXTablesONS TABLESTAeLE11Pe page 1OI Ifof 1

TABLE 12 SAMPLE COLLECTION MEASUREMENTS

SUMMARY

- APRIL/MAY 2008 Duke Energy Oconee Nuclear Station S&ME Project No: 1264-07-234

• S&ME 118 721i.41 NA IF 22 11.28 9 t.50 NO 17. 1.4 68 10.0 82 24 m

NOTES:

Purge Methods LF = Low Flow CP Coventional Purge (3 to 5 well vol)

Oýooee N*,eor GNrondwaterStoiySMCRTabiem\ONSTABLESTABLE S:AENVIRONR20O7)1264*r407234 12 Page 1 of 1

TABLE 13 SAMPLE COLLECTION MEASUREMENTS

SUMMARY

- MAY 21-22, 2008 Duke Energy Oconee Nuclear Station S&ME Project No: 1264-07-234

• S&ME NOTES:

Purge Methods LF = Low Flow SAENVIRON\2007f1264W6407234 OconeeNuclearGroundwater Stu*ySCRXTab~eskONS TABLESTABLE 13 Pg I off I Page

FIGURES

MWA-$2

0 I

• I f 1

A A' I

liii w

I 0

El X-PASR M CAV*E-El COCR V VATe l L (APR4L/Y OD)

T.1

- OMWAT TAE

1. "- ISo.

DTLL 6 141 MCS)R

(,)

PDA,VTIED DOS I DAWVIL (d)

] SOUN m*ROSE(

I. ODOUNDWATEBTABLEISAPPRaUSINTEDEPDEDENTATIDNDV ROUD AlI OTNSOSIU URPACSSODHLLW (VAlI TABLE)WLLS IDGHWDVIF ABE ETEE WELLSANDSlABT BID ING S WILLvAD nouINDArmN

& maBOV ODU REPRESENATIONS or BUILDINGAB 1 TU PURPOSESONLYAND w NOT REPRESENTACTUABUILDIN NEDOtS AN"t OIE

-. -- - -- --- . ... . I--

woz

• ,/ I

+

---

..+-." ------- +

i+= '* - - -- + --

Zl l+

K-PACS LII

• AME LEVL (APPAAUMY L(,)

RWMEVATERTAL SONS) r-,w+'* " I- ..... l

[]Dfu WEATEEVEROTE ALW=U (-V D~~~~~EAhRD flA~~fl~~=

BOK

PAIALL ~~

RS-S2CVIOB SNOW ARE SSOATMUMCAEIDVRFOLAION RUDWAIT TABL ES ý APPONBTEBERSENTUIO B

OP CRP ZME SMOILEBND ACTA STEGA&RPff BETWEE BORW= WIL WATEMITEISNTrNC SURAC MORSHLLW (WATERTABL) WELS ART RUNWATE TALEBTWE

()WELL AND EAR/AT BIEBN IONBTIEI WIL VART

& ASOVVý PJU"="Aý OFBUROMW AAC"A ý ý92 MY M MOr PZMý Aý BUIU Iffix4m Pýs

flý C

7 Ii 00 04 cA4 *~* ~

7 AITSLZME (AP44rI/A 200)

-- INoDWAITST,ALJE 8

D uAERl D. OP D)

D irVEAVRR R*,$DISAS*LaT Q" o a=RS-EWN RONAESWNSBJ ORRATN E iD,, M- L DRURUAn P81D MAE MWUPI APPRIWMATK POMNIYNEIU DUPA RPZESKNIVflOr PO SKLW (WATR ArLE) WELLS PROUMD R TAL STNSWEL N

t. - ",o S. AMOV18005 REPRUENT170DKOP W0*0 AR TSR 17SrUt PURPOSE Ol/LYAMDDO501 REPRESENSW UL PIDN DEWS AnDPRPFILE

D D ULLPMRI V WAS MSIL(AVHA500 D

LI sWZWsD 0"

[j] ......S -to PACRS7-5CD75 SMW= S ISOCAM SOPL 75 "O TS A 05US MA.POIr7WIOOONEISJ St 15SALW M~ (WOWS MJU)0WELL 000uDWAtTS MWSL 517E OU AND SARWATSOLDWOP055 M75 WILL040

& R10500S SPRSMMSTOONS "7 SULOO AS m0 VItI 0155OSLO AND0050 WRSS ACTA 51IL05

- Al OPHAPL

lAWA-U f

I rI

6 MWA-U

,6*43 MWA-U

MWA-4 APPENDIX A HistoricalDrawings- Oconee Nuclear Station 5b5KV Switcling station Loncrete 1iases Layout 525KV Switching Station Concrete Bases Layout 0-2357-B 13 5/3/1973 525KV Switching Station Cable Trench Sections & Details 0-2368-3 4 11/10/1972 Well Locations Plan 0-1-B 0 undated 4 I 4 4 4

APPENDIX B Appendix B Source and Source Pathway Determination B.1 Risk Assessment B. 1.1 Determining Groundwater Risk Profile In order to focus on potential contaminated sources and source pathways to groundwater, a risk assessment was performed on the plant structures, systems and components (SSC).

This risk assessment took into consideration four distinct aspects of these SSC and the environment in which they are located. The four distinct aspects are the hydro-geologic profile, the volume profile, the tritium profile and the engineering profile.

The risk assessment algorithm consisted of averaging the four independently determined profile values to establish an overall groundwater risk profile. The latter two profiles, the tritium profile and the engineering profile, were given more weight in this risk assessment than the former two. The final groundwater risk profile resulted in a rank ordering of plant SSC with those higher on the list considered to be more "risky" and thus of higher importance to the Ground Water Protection Project. Because of less-specific labeling on the Oconee plant composite yard drawings, a further review by an expert panel was able to highlight key, higher-risk SSC. The focus and results of this expert panel are described in Section B.2. Section 5.2.2 contains a summary of the plant SSC of higher importance for the purposes of this investigation.

Groundwater Risk Profile Profile Profile Value Weight Formula Hydro-geologic (HG) Section B. 1.1 1 Volume (V) Section B. 1.2 1 Groundwater Risk (GW) Profile =

Tritium (H3) Section B. 1.3 2 Sum(Profile*Weight)/Sum(Weight)

Engineering (E) Section B. 1.4 2 Sum 16 B. 1.1.1 Hydro-Geology Profile:

Judgments on the hydro-geologic profile were done by the Duke hydro-geologic subject matter expert. Hydro-geology profile risk ranking ranged from 1 to 5, with a higher value indicating that the structure, system, or component (SSC) has a higherrisk of reaching groundwater if the contents escaped and/or discharging offsite.

Profile Definition 5- Located in or at groundwater 4- Located above groundwater but below land surface 3- Located at land surface on exposed soil 2- Located at land surface on improved surface 1- Facility buildings / roofs / gaseous systems (leaks self-evident)

I

B. 1.1.2 Volume Profile Judgments on the volume profile were done by the Duke Project Team as a part of developing the initial SSC listing.

Profile Definition using static liquid volume of SSC in cubic feet 5 - 1 million or greater cubic feet 4 - 100,000 to 1 million cubic feet 3 - 10,000 to 100,000 cubic feet 2 - 100 to 10000 cubic feet 1 - less than 100 cubic feet B. 1.1.3 Tritium Profile Judgments on the tritium profile for each SSC were done by the Duke Radiation Protection subject matter experts with the criteria being the concentration and volume of contaminated water. Also considered was the change in tritium over time.

Profile Definition using tritium concentration approximations for each range (PCi/fl 5 - 1E9 pCi/1 4 - 500,000 pCi/l 3 - 1,000 pCi/I 2 - 200 pCi/l 1 - <MDA(minimum detectable activity) (200 pCi/l)

B. 1.1.4 Engineering Profile Judgments of the engineering profile for each SSC were done by various plant engineering experts. The following standard was used to rank the risk of groundwater contamination which could result from failure of a specific SSC, with 5 being the highest risk of contamination and 1 being the lowest risk of contamination.

• Buildings, walls, roofs, parking lots areas, pads, ramps - - risk = 1

• Sumps, trenches, catch basins, wells, pits, manholes - - risk = 4 without maintenance rating, = 3 with maintenance rating (note that the existence of a maintenance rating was identified to the project team by plant maintenance)

" Conduit - - risk = I

" Gaseous system and components - failure of gaseous system and components is self-evident and does not contaminate groundwater - - risk = 1

• Piping systems and components inside a building - leaks contained by building sumps - ý risk = I

• Direct buried piping o risk = 5 for lines known to have some leakage o risk = 4 without maintenance rating o risk = 3 with maintenance rating 2

o risk = 2 for drinking water lines and newly replaced polyethylene lines (Catawba)

• Ponds are end points o risk = 5 for active ponds o risk = 4 for inactive ponds

" Tanks o risk = 1 for tanks in buildings where overflow/failure captured by building sump o risk = 1 for tanks outside with catch basins where overflow/failure captured by basin o risk = 3 for tanks outside without catch basins, but with a maintenance rating on spreadsheet o risk = 4 for tanks / cooling towers outside without catch basins and no maintenance rating on spreadsheet B. 1.2 Risk Assessment Results A listing of the Oconee SSC Groundwater Risk Profiles is provided in Table B-1.

B.2 Expert Panel Review An Oconee expert panel was convened on May 23, 2007 to review the relevant operating history, the key plant structures, systems or components (SSC) and the risk assessment results. The expert panel consisted of plant representatives from Engineering, Environment, Health and Safety (EHS), Operations, and Radiation Protection (RP). In addition, representatives from the Nuclear General Office RP group, the Corporate EHS groundwater remediation subject matter expert, the Projects Group and S&ME participated on the panel. A working document, created by John Estridge (Oconee EHS) and modified by Libby Wehrman (Oconee RP) based on their understanding of plant operating history, was reviewed by the panel to identify the potential groundwater contamination sources. Table B-2 of Appendix B captures the results of this expert panel review.

3

Table B-1 Oconee Nuclear Stattion Ground Water Protection Project Source and Source Pathway Risk Assessment Results proffit Profile 5

5 5

--i 5 4 4 4 4 4

4 4

4 4 4

4 4

4 4

4 4

4 4

4 4

4 4

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 =4

,3 3

3 4 3 4 4 4 4 4

4 4

4 4

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Page 1 8/18/2008

Table B-1 Oconee Nuclear Stattion Ground Water Protection Project Source and Source Pathway Risk Assessment Results profil Eno HG 2 4 4 2 4 4 2 4 4 2 4 4 2 4 4 2 4 4 2 4 4 2 4 4 2 4 4 2 4 4 2 4 4 2 4 4 2 4 4 2 4 4 2 4 4 2 4 4 2 4 4 2 4 4 2 4 4 2 4 4 2 4 4 2 4 4 2 4 4 2 4 4 2 4 4 2 4 4 2 4 4 2 4 4 2 4 4 2 4 4 2 4 4 2 4 4 2 4 4 2 4 4 2 4 4 2 4 4 2 4 4 2 4 4 2 4 4 2 4 2 4 4 2 4 4 2 4 4 2 4 4 2 4 4 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 4 2 44 4 2

,4 4

1 4 4

1 4 Page 2 8/18/2008

Table B-I Oconee Nuclear Stattion Ground Water Protection Project Source and Source Pathway Risk Assessment Results Profile 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 4 4 2 4 4

-2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 4

-1 4 4 4 4 1 4 4

1 4 4

4 4

-1 4

-1 4 4 4

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Page 3 8/18/2008

Table B-1 Oconee Nuclear Stattion Ground Water Protection Project Source and Source Pathway Risk Assessment Results

-E - ELM -

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

4 4

4 4

4 4

4 4

4 4

4 4 4 4 4

4r 4 4 4

4 4

Page 4 8118/2008

Table B-i Oconee Nuclear Stattion Ground Water Protection Project Source and Source Pathway Risk Assessment Results GIN Ps'ofltPrProfil 4 4' 4 4 4 4~

44-4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Page5 8/18/2008

Table B-I Oconee Nuclear Stattion Ground Water Protection Project Source and Source Pathway Risk Assessment Results

~ HG 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

4 4 4 4 4

4 4

4 4

4 4 4

4 4 44 4 4 2 4 4

2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 4

2 4 4 4 1 4 I 4 4

I 4 44 I 44 I 44 4

4 Page 6 8/18/2008

Table B-1 Oconee Nuclear Stattion Ground Water Protection Project Source and Source Pathway Risk Assessment Results praftl I Profile 1 4 I 4 I

4 I

I I

I ---

I I

I 2 I

I I

I I

I ~1 I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I

~2~

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

Page 7 8/18/2008

Table B-I Oconee Nuclear Stattion Ground Water Protection Project Source and Source Pathway Risk Assessment Results

• "W,. .I I

I I

1 I

I I

I I

I I

I 1'

I I

I 1

I I

I I

1 I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I Page 8 8/18/2008

Table B-2 Oconee Nuclear Station Ground Water Protection Project Sour~ zlnd Soure~A Pathwaiv IExnert Panel Review Results. May 23. 2007 System / SSC Description Leak Risk Monitored Inside Comment Component (H, M, L) (Y N) Power Block?

Chemical Chemical Treatment Ponds #1 and H Y N Groundwater monitored quarterly. Most Treatment Ponds #2. Receives inputs from turbine recent values for tritium were approximately (CTP) 1 & 2 building sumps (secondary side) 4000 pci/l. Past results have been as high and water treatment room. as 14,000 pci/I for tritium. Neither pond has a synthetic liner. Work is underway in 2007 to add synthetic liner to both ponds.

Area is considered a Radioactive Material Area (RMA) due to sludge in the ponds.

Ponds are roped off with magenta rope.

Risks: Primary to secondary tube leaks in steam generators CTP 1,2, 12 inch carbon steel that encircles H Y N Will be replaced with pond upgrades. Pipe Recirculation line each pond will be outside of the synthetic liner.

Existing piping is carbon steel and in need of replacement - there are potential leaks from this piping.

CTP3 Chemical Treatment Pond #3. L Y N Previously called 'storm water collection Receives CTP1,2, storm water pond'. Most runoff and industrial runoff, sanitary, landfill leachate, wastewater from the site flows through this and dam seepage flows, pond.

Discharge is routinely monitored for tritium.

Groundwater wells (3) are routinely monitored for tritium.

All yard drains inside the fence drain to CTP

3. All yard drains in the switchyard drain to CTP 3.

Page 1 of 7

Table B-2 Oconee Nuclear Station Ground Water Protection Project Source and Source Pathway Exoert Panel Review Results. May 23. 2007 System/ SSC Description Leak Risk Monitored Inside Comment Component (H, M, L) (Y N) Power Block?

Wastewater Corrugated metal piping between M Y Y, in part Piping was recently refurbished by 'slip Conveyance CTP1,2 and CTP3. lining' (Storm Drains)

CMP piping comprises a significant amount of the yard piping.

Wastewater See comment area M N N Formerly considered to be a 'wetland'. This Conveyance area at one time was a rip rap ditch that (Below CTP3) deteriorated over the years. Beaver dams and other natural factors have caused water to impound in this area.

All water from CTP3 flows through this area as well as the site garage.

Monitored liquid radwaste effluent release pathway.

Sediment samples have detectable levels of some gamma emitting radionuclides.

Radwaste Small diameter piping between M N Y, small Work request has been written to pressure Discharge Line Radwaste treatment and Keowee portion test this line (Work Order 01674175).

Hydro. Testing could be difficult due to lack of isolation valves.

Concentration of H3 could be high in the line.

OE from other nuclear sites indicates this is a potential problem.

Testing currently scheduled for early 2008.

Page 2 of 7

Table B-2 Oconee Nuclear Station Ground Water Protection Project Source and Source Pathway Expert Panel Review Results, May 23, 2007 System / SSC Description Leak Risk Monitored Inside Comment Component (H, M, L) (Y /N) Power Block?

Reactor Building Lines are in a trench between L N Y Sumps in each Reactor Building are Sump lines to Auxiliary Building and Radwaste transferred to miscellaneous waste tanks in Radwaste treatment area the Auxiliary Building. From this area the liquid is sent to radwaste in an underground line. The line is visible and inside a concrete trench. The line is a 4 inch stainless steel pipe.

Laundry / Hot Between Aux Building and L N Y Similar to above. Pipe in visible and inside Shower Line Radwaste treatment area concrete trench.

Condenser Large diameters pipes (13' L N Y, in part Since Oconee Nuclear Station is a once Circulating Water diameter) and 40 feet or more through cooling water system, the volume of (CCW) below grade. lake water (3058 MGD) when all CCW pumps are in operation is very large.

Dilution would be very large.

Should condenser tubes leak, lake water will enter the secondary system. The system pressures are such that secondary water should not leak to the lake.

General storm Varies across the site L N Y, in part Site has had problems with 'sink holes' in drain many locations with the corrugated metal piping (CMP) storm drain lines.

Turbine Building Discharge lines from Turbine M N Y, in part Risk:

Sumps discharge Building sumps to either CTP1 and Leaks in the line from the sumps to the lines 2 or CTP3. Alignment varies for the ponds could be undetected.

different sumps.

High Pressure High Pressure service Water serves L N Y, in part Lake water, should be low risk.

Service Water as the site fire protection system.

(HPSW)

Page 3 of 7

Table B-2 Oconee Nuclear Station Ground Water Protection Project Source and Source Pathway Expert Panel Review Results, May 23, 2007 System I SSC Description Leak Risk Monitored Inside Comment Component (H, M, L) (Y N) Power Block?

Low Pressure Specifically, the portion of the M N Y The LPI heat exchangers are cooled by Service Water LPSW system that cools the Low LPSW. LPSW discharge from the LPI (LPWS) Pressure Injection (LPI) heat coolers is monitored (by RIA) for exchangers. The discharge piping radioactivity should a heat exchanger tube of concern is under the Auxiliary leak. The LPSW discharge line flows into Building. the CCW system where it is diluted and discharged to Lake Keowee.

Sanitary Sewage Site has 11 lift stations. L Y Y, in part Most sewage lines on the site are pressure Lines force mains - leaks from this should be minimal. Sewage is routinely monitored for activity.

Weekly grab sample of lagoon effluent analyzed for gamma emitting radionuclides.

H3 performed on outfall 2/CTP3 composite.

Upcoming station modifications will tie the site sanitary sewage system into the Seneca waste system.

Page 4 of 7

Table B-2 Oconee Nuclear Station Ground Water Protection Project Source and Source Pathway Expert Panel Review Results, May 23, 2007 System / SSC Description Leak Risk Monitored Inside Comment Component (H,M, L) (Y / N) Power Block?

Tendon Galleries Tendon galleries are the annular L Previously Y 60 foot deep circular gallery around each space at the bottom of each reactor building. Each gallery has two Reactor Building where lower end sump pumps to remove rain water, of the containment tendons groundwater etc. Past monitoring has terminate. These galleries are shown very low levels of tritium. Water is outside of the Reactor Building and pumped into storm water system which below grade such that groundwater flows to CTP3.

seepage can collect in them.

Probab!y want to consider periodic sampling for gamma emitting radionuclides and H3 to monitor/demonstrate status.

Decomissioning file contains event where spill occurred from Aux Bldg to Tendon Gallery (5/29/80 U2). Current CA to PIP 04-1437 (response to OE on SFP leakage) to reinvestigate U3 Tendon Gallery contamination. 1999 surveys did not find active leak and area in expansion joint contaminated with Cs-137.

Also concern that MatCon upgrades to relieve groundwater inflow to LPI rooms might create path for leakage from LPI to groundwater. (PIP 06-3785, CA#5). Drilling of outside wells and drainage holes into Tendon Gallery are part of plan to lower groundwater levels.

Spent Fuel Pool Two located on site. One pool H Y, in part Y Contains primary coolant water with (SFP) serving Units 1 and 2 is located elevated tritium levels.

between U1 and U2. A separate pool serves Unit 3. Side wall of SFP liner contains taletells to monitor and side wall leakage. No monitoring system exists for the bottom of the pools.

Spill event due to SFP overflow (5/17/90)

PIP 04-1437 response to OE on SFP leakage.

Page 5 of 7

Table B-2 Oconee Nuclear Station Ground Water Protection Project Source and Source Pathway Expert Panel Review Results, May 23, 2007 System / SSC Description Leak Risk Monitored Inside Comment Component (H, M, L) (Y / N) Power Block?

Industrial landfill Landfill used for low level waste L Y N Clay lined landfill. Very little usage - takes generated at Oconee Nuclear items such as roofing debris... Has many monitoring wells and leachate collection system.

Leachate not monitored for radioactivity.

May want to consider periodic analysis for gamma emitting radionuclides and H3 to monitor/demonstrate status. Operating Experience (OE) at McGuire Nuclear Station identified H3 in their landfill leachate.

MSR Tube Bundle Old tube bundles buried on-site L Y N Annual groundwater monitoring. Located Burial site on road to cable hill parking area.

Borated Water One tank adjacent to each reactor M N Y Risk: Leakage from tank, especially at Storage Tanks building. Contains borated water valve to flange joints as has occurred in used in the primary system: past.

These tanks are a prime focus for the Groundwater Monitoring Protection Initiative and have been specifically considered in the location of the sentinel monitoring wells.

Oconee has had flange leaks in the past that were recorded in the decommissioning file (PIP 98-2218).

Atmospheric vents for each reactor H Y Y Atmospheric deposition is considered the Unit Vent Pipes building largest source of off site tritium from the site.

H3 is the largest dose contributor from gaseous effluents but much more H3 is released in liquids.

Page 6 of 7

Table B-2 Oconee Nuclear Station Ground Water Protection Project Source and Source Pathway Expert Panel Review Results, May 23, 2007 ISystem / SSC Description Leak Risk Monitored Inside Comment Component (H, M, L) (Y N) Power Block?

Independent Spent Dry cask storage of spent fuel. L N N Spent fuel from spent fuel pool is placed Fuel Storage into dry casks and stored (semi permanently (ISFSI) at this location on the site)

Risk: Stormwater runoff Stormwater drains from the ISFSI yard drain into the Oconee intake canal.

Standby Shutdown Used by operators to shutdown L N Y Recent groundwater well installations make Facility (SSF) Oconee for various scenarios monitoring easy to perform. Initial tests show very low tritium levels.

Steam Generator Building contains old steam L N N Located near the Oconee office complex at Retirement facility generators and reactor heads site entrance.

As awareness, Catawba Nuclear Station has a similar steam generator retirement facility and has found H3 in the sump inside their facility.

Powdex sump line Powdex sump line to Radwaste M N Y Buried pipe - one alignment is to CTP 1 and to Radwaste Facility. 2 and one is to Radwaste.

Facility Interim Radwaste Former area where liquid radwaste M N Y Former piping to this building. Lines are Facility was treated. Buried lines in this currently out of service but past leaks could area. have occurred.

Groundwater Monitoring Protection Project should take this location into consideration in designing the sentinel well population.

Page 7 of 7

APPF.NDIX C SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL Ground Water Protection Division 2600 Bull Street Columbia, S.C. 29201 (803) 734-5331 Water Well Record U.11.1 /

Tiiephiiie No.

I. LOCATION OF WELL Eineer' > K

~Adda

- -~ , ~ C.

OTebphome Noý

5. WELDET .C0 pld DateSta!ed: 1- - a I - 9:3 Distance And DirectionCt fWllLcto adrMRfrom Road Intersections fr.

Date Completed: 12. -. 73 Street~~~~~M

[IMud Rotary D]Jetted CbBoreci t Dtg tJ Air Rotary E] Driven [D cable tool C3 Oshor Street address & City of Well Location 7. USE:

D1 Domestic 0 Public Supply-Permit No. 0_ Industry Sketch Mao: (See extample on back) 0 Irrigation E] Air Conditioning OCo.. al El Test Well (g ..,6oJ" ;o rr B.CASlNG. OLThreaded 0 Welded Diam.

• i Height: Above Type E PVC CGalvanized Surface Z'I it.

Q Steel 0-Other Weight lbs./ft.

0.01 in. to & _ftt. depth Drive Shoe? flYes & No in. to ft. depth

9. SCREEN:

2. CUTTING SAMPLES IV YesJ No Type- a,____,ia Slot/Gauze 0/ Length /010 Set Between 1.4 5' ' ft. and 2 5' ft. NOTE:-MULTIPLE SCREENS

- ft. and ft. USE SECOND SHEET Sieve Analysis []Yes (Please enclose) gNo

10. STATIC WATER LEVEL P9473 it. below land surface after 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />

11. PUMPING LEVEL Below Land Surface h~ f.after .. etj~frs. pumping .... /...G.l'.M.

Pumping Test: ;j Yes (Please enclose) fNo yield U /A_

12. WATER QUALITY Chemical Analysis E]YesONo Bacterial Analysis -YesgNo Please Enclose Lab Results.

13, ARTIFICIAL FILTER (Gravel Pack) [Yes E]No Installed from . /C .Žo ft. to .30, ft.

Effective size 0 it -uniformity coefficient _ t _g_....

14. WeLL GROUT-O? [ Yes--No Neat Cement Sand Cement Q Concrete[] Other Q Depth From 01 0, ft. to It.

f___"

15. NEAREST SOURCE OF POSSIBLE CONTAMINATION:.. A---et.-.L.." M A '

Type Well disinfected [3 Yes Type, AVO upon completion KNo Amount_/l ____

16. PUMP: Date Installed W-- not installed EL Mr, name ... '64A _ .model no, A/!

I-f.PA41,& vlts.4L.Iength of drop pipem "I. ceapcity TYPE: --Submersible Q Jot (shallow) El Turbine Jet (deep) C] Reciprocating [ Centrifugal

I PAGE 1OF 1 DUKE POWER COMPANY PROJECT Oconee Nuclear Station SOIL TEST BORING FIELD REPORT BORING NO. MW-RPOI STARTING TIME n/a 3OB NO. 7320LANDFILL GROUND SURFACE ELEV. 783.96 JOB NAME MW Installation MSR Tube Bundle HRS. DRILLING 0/a HRS. MOVING DATE 12-03-93 WEATHER sunny/mild INSPECTORIDRILLER C A Medlin, 3H Barker SAMPLING -UD 1St6" 2NO6 3RD6' 0 SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND REMARKS 1 1.2' 5 9 11 5 , Strong brown micaceous silty fine to medium sand 5.7' 2 9.2 5 7 10 o10 Reddish brown micaceous silty fine sand 10.7' 3 14.2' 3 4 4 _15- Light brown very micaceous fine sandy silt 15.7' 4 19.2' 3 2 7 ,_Rustybrown very micaceous fine sandy silt 20.7 20 5 24.2' 2 3 4 25 Strong brown very micaceous silty fine sand 25.7' 6 29.2' 8 13 14 30 Light gray micaceous silty fine sand 30.7' Boring terminated @ 29.2' 35 E40 _ _

BORING TERMINATED 29.2' METHOD OF ADVANCING BORING DEPTH BORING REFUSAL n/a POWER AUGER 0.0' TO 29.2' WATER TOB 19.6' 12-01-93 HAND CHOP: W/MUD: W:[WATER TO WATER 24 HR: DEPTH 193' 12-02-93 ROTARY DRILL W/MUD TO WATER LOSS n/a DIAMOND CORE TO CASING SIZE n/a

MONITORING WELL INSTALLATION RECORD JOB NAME: OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION

< - TOP OF PROTECTIVE CASING TOP OF WELL

<_ PROTECTIVE CASING C-GROUT

<< WELL CASING

/

/ ' DEPTH OF GROUT - TOP OF SEAL .

DEPTH OF SAND _______BOTTOM OF SEAL -

DEPTH OF SCREEN SCREEN GRAVEL PACK DEPTH OF SCREEN DEPTH OF SAND < - .DEPTH OF HOLE DATE INSTALLED Z WELL NUMBER.--m~" Jz'p~o /

C. A. MEDLIN INSPECTOR:

Engineer Topographic Laboratories Star Chamber Expedition 12/9/1993 All input values. are NAD 27, state plane zone 3901 (FEET).

All output values are NAD 27, geographic coordinates.

STATION INPUT (transformed to) OUTPUT MW-.RPOi ELEV. 783.96 659149.010 N 3.4. 47 48. 19853 N 143130i.790 E 82 53 39.34220 W Convergence -1 4 9.50 Scale Factor 0,99297341 Engineer Topographic Laboratories Star Chamber Expedition . 12/9/1993 All input-values are NAD 27, state plane zone 3901 (FEET).

All output values are NAD 27, geogralhic coordinates.

S---------------------------------------------------------

STATIO--N INPUT (transformed 'to) OUTPUT MW-RP02 ELEV. 771.51 658606.450 N 34 47 448B6904 N 1431618. 140 E 82 53 35.47307 W C-onvergence 1i 4 7 .3 Scale Factor, 0.99997329 Engineer' Topographic Laboratories Star Cliamber. Exoedition 12/9/1993 All input values 'are NAD 27, state plane zone 390i (FEET).

Al] output values are NAD 27, geographic coordinates.

S'TATION -NPUT (transformed to) OUTPUT MW-RP03 ELEV. 770.90 65281iO.260 N 34 47 44.9223i N 143i-702.6580 E 82 53 34.46044 W Conve rFaenoe -i 4 6/7 5 Scale Factor. 0. 9997330 U.S. Army Engi neer- Topographic Lab-, v 2 . 1I Pag~e. i of I

SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL Ground Water Protection Division 2600 Bull Street Columbia, S.C. 29201 (803) 734-5331 Water Well Record

1. LOCATION OF WELL

= i."Address,'" .*,..: ,, **,, ',.

... Engineer ,..

5. WELL DEPTH (Completed) Date Startetl; /I-*Z ,

Distance And Direction from Road intersections t.* / 7, / ft. ~Date Completed: /,._.*J

[] Air Ro ta ry ( Dri ven [] C able too,l [ Other _

7. USE:

Street address & City of Well Locat;on C] Domestic []Public Supply.Permit No. Indu.....

Sketch Map: (See example on back)

El Irrigation Li Air Conditioning Cc ...... a 8.CASING. FA Threaded []Welded Diam. I Heighr:gýEeeo--

Type QQPVC E]Galvanized Surface ' 's ft.

[] Steel Other Weight Al____ lbs,/ft, Oi in. to MY!". depth Drive Shoe? Li Yes P No in. to ft. depth

9. SCREEN:

2. CUTTING SAMPLES

• Yes7j No Type:* r_, ____--.Dia Geophysical Logs Slot/Gauze . 0/ Length 16 6 Set Between

• Tt.." ft. and coLa.."4L ft. NOTE: MULTIPLE SCREENS

- ft. and -_ __ft. US9 SECOND SHEET Sieve Analysis E] Yes (Please enclose) ZNo 10O.STATIC WATER LEVEL

' ft. below land surface after 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />

11. PUMPING LEVEL Below Land Surface 4 ft. after .A6&hrs . pumping 6?m G.P.M.

Pumnping Test: Li Yes (P lease enclose) v Yield L14

12. WATER QUALITY Chemical Analysis C]Yes[No - Bacteri.a Analysis []Yes[aNo Please Enclose Lab Results.

13. ARTIFICIAL PFILTER (Gravel Pack) UYes []No Installed from to f....It. f't./

Effective size

• 0 / uniformity coefficient 2 . 0

14. WELL GROUTED? fAYes[_NO Neat C.m.nto SandCement ) Concrete C Other Ej Depth From 0- ft. to /2Ly'. It.

t(5. NEAREST SOURCE OF POSSIBLE CONTAMINATION:IIA.Fo A)1 0,+ -tctian Dlra

-Type Well disinfectedl C Yes TVp upon completion 9 No Amount )/

16. PUMP: ae Installed __not installed Mi, .......me/ & .4

.. . Model . -_*_,_

H.P. W_ volts length of drop pipeo,0

_V/& I. capacity 1J1 4

gpr TYPE: C Submersible Q Jet Ishallow) C] Turbine fl Jet (deep) C1 Reciprocating r, Centrifugal

• Indicate water bearing zones nwrf- At '061 Copy IR

MONITORING WELL INSTALLATION RECORD JOB NAME: OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION

< - TOP OF PROTECTIVE CASING

-<- TOP OF WELL r

< .PROTECTIVE CASING GROUT

< WELL CASING 11,* DEPTH OF GROUT TOP OF SEAL @

I Z1 7L DEPTH OF SAND < BOTTOM OF SEAL @

< - .DEPTH OF SCREEN SCREEN

<GRAVEL

..<. PACK

- DEPTH OF SCREEN D

3*.f DEPTH OF SAND >,.

DEPTH OF HOLE DATE INSTALLED 11-Z WELL NUMBER /t4o-R*o ,

C. A. MEDLIN INSPECTOR

PAGE 1 OF DUKE POWER COMPANY PROJECT Ocornee Nuclear Station SOIL TEST BORING FIELD REPORT BORING NO. MW-RPO2 STARTING TIME i/a JOB NO. 7320LANDFILL GROUND SURFACE ELEV. 771.51 JOB NAME MW Installation MSR Tube Bundle HRS. DRILLING I/a HRS. MOVING n/a DATE 11-22-93 WEATHER sunny/mild INSPECTORIDRILLER CA Medlin, J H Barker SAMPLNG UD 1ST 6 2ND6' 3RD6'0 SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND REMARKS 1 4.8' 3 4 8 5 Reddish orange micaceous silty fine sand 6.3' 2 9.8' 4 9 5 10 Pinkish brown micaceous silty fine sand 11.3' 3 14.8' 4 7 4 _15 _ Light brown micaceoussiltyyfine to medium sand 16.3' __________________________________

4 19.8' 3 2 7 Orangish brown micaceous fine sandy silt 21.3' 5 24.8' 4 3 5 25- Brown micaceous silty fine to medium sand 2 6 .3 ' . .... ........ .............

6 29.8' 2 2 3 30 Brown micaceous silty fine to medium sand - sample damp 31.3' static Water level 27.4' 7 34.8' 4 6 11 _35 Grayish brown very micaceous silty fine medium sand 36.3' Boring terminated @ 37.1' BORING TERMINATED 37.1' &METHODOFADVANCING BORING DEFPTH BORING REFUSAL R/a POWER AUGER 0.0' TO 37.1' WATER TOB 27.4' 11-22-93 HAND CHOP: WIMUD: W:(WATER TO WATER 24 HR: DEPTH 27.4' 11-23-93 ROTARY DRILL- W/MUD TO WATER LOSS u/a DIAMOND CORE TO CASING SIZE n/a

Engineer Top6graphic Laboratories Star Chamber Expedition 12/9/1993 All input values are NAD 27, state plane zone 3901 (FEET).

All output values are NAD 27, geographic coor'dinates.

STATION INPUT (transformed to) OUTPUT MW-RPOI ELEV. 783.96 659149.010 N 3.4. 47 48.19853-N 1431301.790 E 82 53 39.34220 W Convergence -1 4 9.50 Scale Factor 0.99997341 Engineer Topographic Laboratories Star Chamber Expedition 12/9/1993 All input'valhes are. NAD 27, state plane zone 3901 (FEET).

All output values are NAD 27, geografhic coordinates.

STATION INPUT (transformed to) OUTPUT MW-RP02 ELEV. 77i.51 658806. 4 50 N 34 47 44.686904 N 143i6i8.140 E 82 53 35.47307 W Convergence -i 4 7.32 Scale Factor, 0.99997329 Engineer, Topographic Laboratories Star Chamber" Expedition 12/9/ i 993 AJi input values 'are. NAD 27, s tate plane zone 3901 (PEET).

AIl output values are NAD 27, geographic coordinates.

STAT ION !NPUT (transformed to) OUTPUT MW-RP* 3 ELEV. 770.90 65'&SiO.260 N 34 47 44.9223i N 1430102.6830 E 82 53 34.46044 W Conver' en ce - 1 4 6.75

,cale Factor.

U. S. Army Engi neer Topographic Labis CORPSCON V".-2 1.

I age I of i

SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL Ground Water Protection Division 2600 Bull Street Columbia, S.C. 29201 (803) 734-5331 Water Well Record

-O~WNR 0.. E~LL

.rA ddreee .

,, ....

.:*,. . .,. . - -

• A,.

LOCATION FTeephone WELL-.'. No. '; ,- '! .

~ ~

~~y~tem.Na~~pe -.

Engineer

' Address-1 T .$.1i~~

~~

~~k . I~~elbphoneN

5. WELL DEPTH (Completed) Date Started:

~

/ -29 *J

.sance And Direction from Road Intersections 3 7,1 '/ ft. Cate Completed: 11-30+*7

6. [j Mud Rotary Li Jetted [] Bored C] Dug C] Air Rotary E] Driven E] Cable tool OOther eet address & City of Well Location 7 USE:

etch Map; (See example on back) C] Domestic C] Public SupplyPermit No. _[_] industry C] Irrigation C] Air Conditioning ]Com..erc...

fTest Well rx-& 11 t1ec Ec.ASING: 1 Threaded E] Welded I

)iam. Zo '/ I Height; Ctw I1 vypea PVC E]Galvanized , Surface 2'.S ft.

C] Steel QOche I Weight lbs./ft.

_0,_ in. to *-.*7*ft. depth Drive Shoe? C] Yes 4 No

- in. to ft. depth

9. SCREEN:

Type:-- _________ Dia,, Z Slot/Gauze _____ _ Length_ /6. 0 Set Between Z--7O ft. and 370 - ft. NOTE:-MULTIPLE SCREENS

-_ft. and _ __ ft. USE SECOND SHEET Sieve Analysis DYes (Pleaseenclose) IANo

10. STATIC WATER LEVEL 3 I 0 ft. below land surface after 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />

11. PUMPING LEVE L Below Land Surface d1% ft. after A49hs pumiping t~G.P.M.

Pumping Tess: O]Yes (Please enclose) eNo Yield NI)A-

12. WATER DUALITY Chemical Analysis C]yesf& No Bacterial Analysis []YesZNo Please Enclose Lab Results.

13. ARTIFICIAL FILTER iGravet Pack) Riyes 0 No Installed from a Lt 1O -ft. to a 7i. 1 ft.

Effective size ,* I -uniformity coefficient__________

14. WELL agRru-eD? MjYesC]No Neat Cement&_ Sand Cement C] Concrete C] Other E]

Depth Fran, 0 1 I t, to ZI e,0 ft.

15. NFAREST SOURCE OF POtSIBLE CONTAMINATION: l--,-r tot Al-t

• .*.*roltlon Type Well disinfected C] Yes Type upon completion Amount____._

16. PUMP: Date Installed not install*d Mit. name - dYA2 model no. Z2

&.P.... ,volts onth of, oo drop 0 iped l r capacity

_pf, TYPE: C]Submersible J]let (shallow) C] Turbine n- Jet (deep) F1 Reciprocatinga Centrifugal

MONITORING WELL INSTALLATION RECORD JOB NAME: OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION i< - TOP OF PROTECTIVE CASING TOP OF WELL PROTECTIVE CASING

- GROUT

< WELL CASING DEPTH OF GROUT _ _ TOP OF SEAL @ 2Ie DEPTH OF SAND

< -. DEPTH OF SCREEN 1< SCREEN

-<GRAVEL PACK V -~DE'PTH OF SCREEN -77 37,l DEPTH OF SAND < -DEPTH OF HOLE DATE INSTALLED //- 3,9 - 5u WELL NUMBER 16- W'- PQ3 C. k. MEDLIN INSPECTOR:

I PAGE F0T7 COMPANY DUKE POWER PROJECT Oconee Nuclear Station SOIL TEST BORING FIELD REPORT BORING NO. MW-RP03 STARTING TIME n/a JOB NO. 732OLANDFILL GROUND SURFACE ELEV. 770.90 JOB NAME MW Installation MSR Tube Bundle HRS. DRILLING n/a HRS. MOVING n/a DATE 11-29-93 WEATHER sunny/mild INSPECTOR/DRILLER C A Medlin, J H Barker SAMPLING UD IST6' 2ND6" 3RD6' 0 SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND REMARKS 1 4.0' 5 6 9 5_- Brown micaceous siltyfine to medium sand 5.5' 2 9.0' 5 6 6 _10 1 Brown very micaceousfine sandy silt 10.5' 3 14.0' 17 17 14 15 White gray micaceous silty fine to medium sand 15.5' 4 19.0' 6 4 5 -20_ Brownish gray micaceous silty fine to medium sand 20.5' 5 24.0' 6 7 8 _25 Brown gray micaceous silty fine to medium sand 25.5' 6 29.0' 3 4 7 30 Brownish gray micaceous silty fine sand 30.5' 7 34.0' 2 4 7 35. Brownish gray micaceous silty fine to medium sand 35.5' Auger refusal @ 37.1'

_1040 BORING TERMINATED 37.1' METHOD OF ADVANCING BORING DEPTH BORING REFUSAL 37.1' POWER AUGER 0.0' TO 37.1' WATER TOB 31.3' 11-29-93 HAND CHOP: W(MUD: W:/WATER TO WATER 24 HR: DEPTH 27.4' 11-30-93 ROTARY DRILL, W/MUD TO WATER LOSS n/a DIAMOND CORE TO CASING SIZE 0/a

Engineer Top6graphic Laboratories Star Chamber Expedition 12/9/199B All input values are NAD 27, state plane zone 3901 (FEET).

" All output values are NAD 27, geographic coordinates.

STATI ON INPUT (transformed to) OUTPUT NW-RP01 ELEV. 783.96 659i49.0i0 N 34 47 48.i9853 N 1431301.790 E 82 53 39.34220 W Convergence -1 4 9.50 Scale Factor 0.99997341 Engineer Topographic Laboratories Star Chamber Expedition 12/9/1993 All input values are NAD 27, state plane zone 3901 (FEET).

All output values are NAD 27, geographic coordinates'.

STATION INPUT (transformed to) OUTPUT MW-RP02 ELEV. 77i.51 658806-450 N 34 47 44.86904 N 1431613.140 E 82 53 35.47307 W Convergence -i 4 7.32 Scale Factor, 0.99997329 Engineer Topographic Laboratories Star C.hamber Expedition 12/9/1993 All input values *are NAD 27, state plane zone 3901 (FEET).

All output values are NAD 27, geographic coordinates.

STATION iNPUT (transformed to) OUTPUT MW-RP03 ELEV. 770.90 65ý8910.260 N 34 47 44.9223i N i4S31702.680 E 82 53 34.46044 W Conver'gence -1 4 6 .71 Scaie Factor- 0.0959 -- 7, U._. Army Engi neer Topoogr'aphic Labs. C'RPSCN "v. 1. 'ae 1 of

S SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL Ground Water Protectlon Division 2600 Bull Street Columbia, S.C. 29201 (803) 7S8-5213 Water Well Record ii4 UAddF8SSELL t.' w Q ~ -&

III . . .. . .. ..

Engiewl is~

Address "L S. WELL.t DEPTH (C', 431d DasSateo stattaw 5 Cate Cornpoldled;/o-

a. n J Mu Rotary r"I I IC (3 Air Rotary v ] Driven 0 Catoe tool pother 7 ,USE 7,

0* Domestic (3 Puablic Suootv.Permit No. ___________

(3 Irrigetion A' AiC dritioning 0OTest Well 7

8.CASIN: §6 Threaded Diam.

(3 Welded Hemghs AbovQ16*l=w Type SPVC QaGalvanited Sur face t Osresis 0 Other Weight- ibsjfit.

Drive shoo? yese .[: No

- in. to _ft. depth' SCREEN.: - - 1 --

.Sot Between' #......LQtand...J.Q.....ft. NOTh- MULTIPLE SCI

- ft. and - ~

It.___USE SECONO SHEET Sieve Analysis Clyes (Please encltose) XNo ft. bsto0w land surface after 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> ft. after _ hrs.

Pumping Test: Q Yes IPlease enclose) NNO YIeld

12. WATER OUALITY Chemical Analysis J)YOes1 No Bacterial Analysis (3YoCMNo Please Enclose Lab Results.

,ARTIFICIAL r-LTE R tGrave.1 Packi) 50yes E]No installed from t, toit

-i...................

Effective tiie __________urtirormictV coefficient

. .... ..

• I II

14. WGLL GROUTED? NrV0I3ON 0 -3 Neat Ceament Send Cement 0 Concrete Other 9 Oepth From It. to_*_ . ft.

NEAREST SOURCC OF POSSIBLE CONTAMINATION: -75 .!yL e v -~i~t,rsiori 4flms091 rfjj~ff~p* ffidifle~ed Yes Type e4',0d po cmpt~letid~on No A~mount -

18. PUMP: 0 t, Installed -4n - Z' -V5 not in$fieda C3 Mir. nam9E a - ~j. In-;_odel *oý7ý Q H-P . _.....Voltst.......,..lengthl of drop pipe IV-f.t'caoaectv..A&

TYPE: (3$Submersible [3 Jest 1111816W) (3 Turbine rl Jet (dilol C3 Reirctn 9 centrifuvait

17. WATER WELL CONTRACTORS CERTIFICATION: This walt was drilled under my direction anm t*is repot is nu to the best of my lnossedge anid e*miel'"..'"' '.

AE"IST"REO

• Y:Y- , - el.-..'.:'c cif ir P SNAin .'"d ,4. V' o=, Ice_

,~ ~ ~ ~ *~ ~~~~T .. ... -,*Leee*.,,m gs-*',.' ..

l I .. .. ..... . ... i ir i , i FORM M-27A I)czr.,n FOMM23RVSO) 1 REVISION 2 flIJKCfMPAN PAWR AG EL.o F /

CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT PROJECT Cr.A-zog.,

SOIL TEST BORING FIELD REPORT STARTING TIME JOB No. ,, ~

GROUN AC ELV-I JoB AM/PRS.

ERI I MHRS. MOVING 3o DATE 1*ly.--- WEATHER__ N -SPECTOR* C.2L ;'i*5oR,..o. -.

SAMPLING ISCALE IUD SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND REMARKS IS f 61 1Nn All IIROD6'-

L 4 in I A-m ,.e ./ _p

..~ C~tGel Belr v VT fT -+

'H f

.5 6 Fitee-u~I-35Zv.,77-e~ 77o_,~__Q 2bI p, i+fr~c~

/

I

-o :7:;;+! A I Z i -9At,-AeE A .,' s

• Z_

.0 If 00

(

61 - ... - ' -. I-I J I J

.D~v A4 L*' /AAI4(

9 i7.eyft z 1"aye- V6 t

'5 i'/ I ,'

BORING TERMINATED METHOD OF'ADVANCING BORING OEPTH BORING REFUSAL--. 4 Le ,. TO

( WATER TOB DEPTH "-WA" HW H CJ" WA TO WATER 24 D E PT H H ,R: W,,,7.WA

'd,;lOP ATER 0o, 6 WATER LOSSES ... ... 'i'!!ATER... 2' CASING SIZE, _ L.ENGTH CIi. iu fTO

25630 (5-23-80) I FORM M-27A I REVISION 2

-- "'- ' .... . ..... IPAGE l O__10 _-

DUKE POWER COMPANY CONSTRUCT LON DEPARTMENT PROJECT< ý-J41.ý,

SOIL TEST BORING FIELD REPORT

/ STARTING TIME 9 4 0.

JOB WHSPC GROUND SURFACE ELEV. "

JOB NAME 0=DA HR LJWNG Z-HRS. MOVING 6 DATE__/9-1 -8tWEATHýER'IN NSPETO ý ý ORN NO.

SAMPLING jl ry

- i ,"- jcu%on '- SCA1 LL£ I UD SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND REMARKS

- rLM.. JM~ MC~ 0 i aX3qi,

---

5 I c17 71- n~"' ý;/Al kl 5-I "cz'e7- --..

g -le'4c I 4Cu,.

f 7 *1 IL M isw, *[

bg I

I I

L4,11Ar, & Z51:-4,A t-I 711: rA 9 0 Lk, N=P

-1="l & -&-*2 ý/ I --R SACex L i aW7~i 201 (* .. L__ II £/tt4444 P)Ae. -5'A'-d I le, '4'-- ArA,,, --owva.

-2ZJ 7vZ =- ý-pw'I' "1~

~6T I J9-I 1-1OIA~c~1Ar~2Y -

4 -

I~

om3 I ............ ..

Z, W

-- - - -. -. -v~#---~r . I *.h K~.~~ZZ15 inr

• ,+

I BORING TERMINATED BORING REFUSAL WATER TOB DEPTH -A, o77V,.

4 7' *""R

"-P-METHOD OF ADVANCING BORING

ý/

IOWER-DEPTH TO TO WATER 24 HR: DEPTH 'O LCA:'7,,* . WL'AEF ,TO WATER LOSSES ,PhQB*iORUL: W . E -,0TOZ, t CASING SIZELENGTH /- I__,,

25630 (5-23-80) I FORM M-27A I REVISION 2 PAGE...Fl .. .

DUKE POWER COMPANY CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT PROJECT O*C*A*me ALCr 51-,

SOIL TEST BORING FIELD REPORT STARTING TIME Z'-

JOB NO,. A,. GROUND SURFACE ELEV.... I..".

JOB NAME 0< H1S. DRILLING &'"

, a)*:,". HRS. MOVING DATE A/: -8766rb- WEATHER cl'*"4*/"JNSPECTOR 1*A-1I2 BORINGNO.

SAMPLING zs6"__06rG6 SCALE ULD SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND REMARKS T 6U1 ----

7 Z 6i e ea L~iz I~/ r/A 1 -, c"-~ I,,st c . 00

-z

~ý1U Yr ýKIC I I~1 t.~~d/~jji~.rJi Zl~A.L~ / /A~9j~v

~*~pv~~*4.' .,~-.JA' ~ I I z w a: 2 00 U.

s li i i

-wo Ye- ll'A -:J"ý jwýae IIm Vý.w .1 * " T Vq -

4-I1 cy /' 1 -4 /IA .U if 4,"- . -.C."5ve-5A-M

?L2L~ (

A?!2~Z 40 zi 3o7 "t'o

-I BORING TERMINATED " METHOD OF ADVANCING BORING DEPTH BORING REFUSAL-WATER TOO DEPTH ,

WATER 24 HR: DEPTH WATER LOSSES CASING SIZE , , i, Al"/.AW 2-..I":

dW 4

'4'0/*

LENGTH ., i-I OAR 4,

D-RI R

Wy**AyfR

~ cw w"u m H, I:

n TO TO TO TOW TO

.FORM M-26C IREVISION 2 rorm 25630 (R3-87)

)*,'*;'lz ,'io, ,*.-I /,UKE POWER COMPANY PAGE OF .

/*'.,'/r )*'*-<5 Ze'*rc(NSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT PROJECT.:-, orý SOIL TEST BORING FIELD REPORT STARTING TIME - ,

JOB NO. . ChA)l*/, 7 GROUND SURFACE ELEV.

JOB NAM *O4/1 "H* E ~--4/f HRS, DRILLING .tL".HRS. MOVING AIU.t" DATE ýEATHER *:

• INSPECTOR *A. e'*/ BORING. AN-O SAMPLING u SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND REMARKS E UD IST " 2N 6"' 3RD'6" e ,,,,

Lu hL// A A-eoJO 2'* -_ *'*,*.¢7i* _-,,i* >uw-9 m

_1,3-

)',A  ;,,-:; -_7AL-f M,, -r CC 0

.z uZE 00

-.....- -L 0 C (U -*

q/ Rz)jl,.qý 1!57,le4 7FA_ 41-1 U.

' i~ i~'l I

/ / 4 0

-- I- ý 5 4 (I'

-~

!ý) w 2, -- 1 4 I L, II IS' " - -~ f C,ý - n , , __24. .ru -, AmC c<

/ - /1 I fi zz4z La.

9 13iýf 1

0,-

+

f v

/ z 7 BORING TERMINATED , METHOD OF ADVANCING BORING DEPTH BORING WATER TOB REFUSAI DEPTH- A

!5.. 1. 21z' 2 -,?-7 P 2f4-

"TO

• W ATER 24 HR: DEPTH "0, R"g, . TO

WATER LOSSES ,1 i.To CASING SIZE LTENGTH A_//,_-_ _ _ _ TO

Form 25630 (R*3-87) IFORM M-26C REVISION 2 DUKE POWER COMPANY PAG LOF -

,/ /4; CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMEN)"

PROJECTT al,,./--e SOIL TEST BORING FIELD REPORT STARTING TIME Ah',..

JOB NO. 23199 1,, nOý4,1 GROUND SURFACE ELEV.

JOBNAME .NR ING /H RS. MOVING A)

DATE THERINSPECTOR 7BORING SAMPLING .

SCAt LE UD SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND REMARKS IST 6" 6"

-- ,1 100 IAIL~9Pi f~ f2j MCI

'noZ

(-b' ~to cw..

C 94U

+L

/v BORING TERMINATED___________________ METHOD OF ADVANCING BORING DEPTH BORING REFUSAL 'A)M4* 0-O5,

,-- ,O T WATER TOB DEPTH ER TO DEPTH - -SD I 6'" ' v -"." ' " "" R""

WATER 24 HR: TO-ON JRO,*..

-R Q RHJ-eOý\

WATER LOSSES .

CASING SIZE A / - LENGTH A6J( 4 - t"----TO.,

_)_.....,,,_*_* _

SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL Ground Water Protection Division 2600 Bull Street Columbia, S.C. 29201 (803) 734-5331 Water Well Record Distance And Direction 1ram Hoed Intersections 20 " ft,. Cate Completed: 0_-/- .

Dl Mud Rotary C] Jetted El Bored El Dug.

0 Air Ro*lar [] Driven [] Cable tool [ O~or Street address & City of Well Location 7..USE: _" __ " _: -_/

Sketch Map: (See example on back) El Domestic El Public Supply-Permit No. 0_ IEd-ulry El Irrigation El Air Conditioning Elce....... ia E) Test Wail rCi /Voi.1 A or1 S.CASING; [(ahreaded El Welded I Diam. z I Height: AboveAll Type I-PVC [--ZGalvanized I ESteel Elomer I Weight Ibs.fft.

0.0. .in, to VI00tdepth I Drive Shoe? _] Yes (Eý-No in. to ft. depth I

9. SCREEN:

2. CUTTING SAMPLES ejNo Type: ______ _ im___.. _ ___

Geophysical Logs rI Yes IPlease enclose) [* o Stot/Gauze .Oi 0 Length /_D, "

Set Between ... 4-g2.

4 ft- eind .-...- . °. ft. NOTE:-MULTIPLE SCREENS ft. and -ft. USE SECOND SHEET Sieve Analysis 3 (Please enclose) ONo

10. STATIC WATER LEVEL

_50-

• ft. below land surface after 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />

11. PUMPING LEVEL Below Lanrd Surface a*fter W hrs. pumping f Gil G.P.M.

See W .. ~~A .~i , Pumping Test; El Yes (Please enclose) Sm.

Yield ^ 11A-

12. WATER OUALITY Chernical Analysis Eloes(*11o Bacterial Analysis []VYOeSI-oll Please Enclose Lab Results.

13. ARTIFICIAL FILTER (Gravel Pack) 9-Yes C]No installed from y:6. 0 -ft. to _ft.

Effective size . Z-- uniformity coefficient

14. WELL OROIJTED? ElYesl] No Neat Cement aýSand Cement Q Concrete E] Other El Depth From fft. tO - ft.

15. NEAREST SOURCE OF POSSIBLE CONTAMINATION.--.Fe.%- _l _Direction A.AJI*- Type Well disinfected El Yes Type .Jil upon oompletion Blo Amount- 424&

16. PUMP: Date Installed . A./. _ __.... not installed Mfr. name /U/i .mrodel no.-..

I.Pl volts length of drop pipe Alft. capacity gpm TYPE: ElSubmersible El Jet (shallow) El Turbine r_1 t-[I.. I....~..... f-- tI ,..,. , ..

• Indicate water bearing zones luse a 2nd sheet it needed)

.H~,f .90

(,)6 COPY 1 MAI TO S.C. DEPARTM, N ,, ,IT A, DH C If 1903 {10/86) OPY I MAIL  : C. DEPARTMENT OF 14EALTH AND

MONITORING WELL INSTALLATION RECORD JOB NAME: Oc-f-5i C~**ACi V5"*

locking cap - >

security plug -  :

,c< well stickup ,

concrete collar->

protective well

<- depth of seal seal 5depth of gravel pack-> <- depth of seal N'-

- depth of screen S5

-depth of screen threaded cap depth of gravel pack -> <-----depth of boring

/3' DATE INSTALLED: ý-d'-;-? DUKE POWER COMPANY MONITORING WELL INSPECTOR:, C A Medlin GEOTECHNICAL CENTER NUMBER: ~

Form 25630 (R3-87) IFORM M--26C IREVISION 2 Form2~63Q (R3-87) FORM M-26C REVISION 2 D?.

K, J-.. es 7,*_AVr DUKE POWER COMPANY.

r flc, '*oC$

CONSTRUCTION PROJECT 0CoNe DEPARTMENT .

SOIL TEST BORING FIELD REPORT STARTING TIME_____ _

JOB NO. GROUND SURFACE ELEV.

JOB NAME HRS. DRILLING HRS. MOVING DATE--.m W/EATHER]NSPECTOR BORING NO. d SAMPLING S CAL-E UD SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND REMARKS IST 6" 2ND 6"1 3R1 6" 0

5 i2w oc.,

'0 I*'!3

_, Iz LL.

5

- -9 ... ...... x U.

• z*.....

• ,, ,,,.* *.~s_: , ,,,+!*<,J.

. s. z--

+.

-I Z2 w-0 cl

.5 0:

-ICU

.. .. .. . L*j

, j c,

. , , , j a-

5 ,,,n 0O 7-BORING TERMINATED E METHOD OF ADVANCING BORING DEPTH B3ORING REFUSAL - - J 'r . POW ER AUGER 7/ ,, ,1,O S~ '

WATER TOB DEPTH PWAUGERM -TO WATER 24 HR: DEPTH _GT R aND -. WM.,.-_9,R - TO-WATER LOSSES ROTAflY oD-, ILL: !co D.f W/WA-IR D'Ku-/ - TO -

CASING SIZE Lk LENGTH , DIAMI -VO

SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL Ground Water Protection Division 2600 Bull Street Columbia, S.C. 29201 (803) 734-5331 Water Well Record L DEPTH (Completed)

/5 -, 1 3 Distance And Direction from Road Intersections w___

Y ft. rlate Completed: _z__'--

0 M~d Rotary Jl Jetted 2 Bored 2 Dug.

[) Air-Rotary Driven 0 cable tool Oz.her /

Street address & City of Well Location 7. USE:

Sketch Map: (See example on back) 13 Domestic [ Public Supply-Permit No. _._ lndun,,

2D Irrigation fl Air Conditioning EIComnercial Q3TestWell 21 Mc ',A-ov' 8.CASING: [Threaded n Welded Diam. _ _I Height: Abovehalaw Type ]PVC -]Galvanized Surface Z- It.

'-Steel LOrher LtWeight _ lbs./ft.

in. to ___ft. depth Drive Shoe? Yes fNo in, to ft. depth

.SCREEN:

2. CUTTING SAMPLES [allYes jj No Type: ji' , Diem_ Z --

Geophysical Logs 11 Yes (Please enclose) F] No Slot/Gauze 0/0 Length 5.,e--0 Set Between I*,L " ft*. end ft. and ene L ;*., c . ft. NOTE:-MULTIPLE SCREENS USE SECOND SHEET Sieve Analysis e-s (Please enclose) [.No

10. STATIC WATER LEVEL S, 0_ ft. below land surface after 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />

11. PUMPING LEVEL Below Land Surface

___ ____ft. after .A) hrs. pumping ._*_k_)/* ._G. P.M.

, eo, -/ -o Pumping Test: [I Yes (Please enclose) g]No I %j YiaeId . " lI

12. WATER QUALITY Chemical Analysis QYesla-No Bacterial Analysis Q]YesR-NO Please Enclose Lab Results.

13. ARTIFICIAL FILTER (Gravel Pack) EJyes [] No Installed from . 5 ft. to / . *I' ft.

Effective size 3, uniformIty coefficient 0 3

14. WELL GROUTED? 2',es["No Neal Cement ;Sand Cement Ej Concrete E] Other Ei Deopth From E0' It. to _Z .__ ft.

IS. NEAREST SOURCE OF POSSIBLE CONTAMINATION:- .- L.-eFet_. _._oliretlion

/V/ZA- Type Weildisintected E Yes Type A --

upon completion [ No Amount .& .

16. PUMP: Date Installed __not installed Mtr. name _______________no.-____m.dd H.P, AMA-_volts ZV___.length of drop pipe __ft. capacity Al gpm TYPE: El]Submersible 2 Jet (shallow) 2 Turbine I Indicate water bearing zones

MONITORING WELL INSTALLATION RECORD JOB NAME: Cc'-- &u~eo, -,

locking cap > 2 security plug >st-- <:

.well stickup z5 concrete collar->

protective gI grout - -/

well of seal Zo o

• ,.0 depth of gravel pack-> of seal th of screen -

Z--'depth of well- of screen threaded cap

• depth of gravel pack -> of boring 1,-

DATE INSTALLED: DUKE POWER COMPANY MONITORING WELL INSPECTOR: C A Medlin GEOTECHNICAL CENTER NUMBER: /)2 r

IFORM M,-26C Form 25630 iFR3-87)

Form 2~3O IR3~87) I FORM M-26C I IREVISION REVISION 2

2 Rr(ut C&~ ~cR" ' I PAGEL.0OF IL t!- J

• 5 '- IUKE POWER COMPANY p*r,/(1r _T *', f CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMEN

,~//- 7 PROJECTj_6* Am*41Z*

/ C SOIL TEST BORING FIELD REPORT STARTING TIME_________

JOB NO. GROUND SURFACE ELEV._

JOB NAME 0 ' - elz HRS.-PRILLING

• HRS. MOVING . ___- ..

DATE -/-2'EWATHERcl2 Z 4 NSPECTOR eiZ BORING NO. -/Il SAMPLING SCAL cE UD SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND REMARKS I,, 1S 6i IN 6", VR 0 5- f-f ~2AJ,'4~

6~iA~

. . //

A-~-~

/

~ ~~/A

<'--U..

4~ *A/kA I

-I._______

_ , I , /, " .1 4n

/0 Zb 7-1  ;,Z* 7** ..

ul:

. z iT

~ui 0 we r

-I Z<

CLN 35 Z00 L

BORING TERMINATED - METHOD OF ADVANCING BORING DEPTH J,

BORING REFUSAL- POWER

_,_,TO AUGER 16 Y.

WATER TOB DEPTH 'H R - -TO WATER 24 HR: DEPTHT .f "-/M.7 . -,. TO-WATER LOSSES r) u...... . -TO .

CASING SIZE. Lt - LENGTH-- /, -________________,,,__-,_T__--

SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL Ground Water Protection Division 2600 Bull Street Columbia, S.C. 29201 (803) 734-5331 Water Well Record

6. El Mud Rotary ] Jetted El Bored [ Dug C] Air Rotary fl Driven [] Cable tool I.o2J,¶4r-Street address & City of Well Location 7. USE: -- ___ .. ..

Sketch Map: (See example on back) E] Domestic D Public Supply-Permit No. _E],_ d-tr, 0 Irrigation [] Air Conditioning DCornserCial 0 Test Wall Ix 8.CASING: E'hreaded F Welded I Oiae*. __- _ I Height: Above/Oolvi*e Type [RýVC E]Gaivanized I Surace.. Z.5_________ It.

L*Steel -- Other Weight __ lbs./ft.

O,_*.in. to .ZOfl. depth Drive Shoe? E) Yes RiNo in. to ft. depth I

2. CUTTING SAMPL-ES 2 ý*as 1- No

9. SCREEN:

Type: I(J Dia, l Geophysical Logs Yes (Please enclose) Slot/Gauze o) l Length 0

0.

• Set Between ft. and Z? (5Oft.NOTE.-MULTIPLE SCREEN$

ft. and . USE SECOND SHEET Sieve Analysis Et1Ye' (Please enclose) [)No

10. STATIC WATER LEVEL

A ft. below land surface after 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />

1. PUMPING LEVEL Below Land Surface after i__/Afrhrs. pumping.A2L& .G .M.

Pumping Test: LI Yes (Please enclose) R]No Yield A)

12. WATER QUALITY Chemical Analysis EIYes3 No Bacterial Analysis '-YesRNo Please Enclose Lab Results.

13. ARTIFICIAL FILTER (Gravel Pack) £hYes []No so Installed from , 0 ft. to I-t.

see Effective size 3 , uniformitv coefficient .,

14. WELL GROUTESD? [EVes--No Neat Ce.enttK* Send Cement [ Concrete C) Other fl Depth From 0 ft. to , ft.

15. NEAREST SOURCE OF POSSIBLE CONTAMINATION: -- M- oueet a--A DIrectlon A)h-A Type Well disinfected 0Yes Type . )14 upon completion 1 No Amount __._

16. PUMP: Date Installed IkI .-- not installed Mir. name A)/a .n__odel no______________

H.P.. _A6L volts" -A0- length of drop pipe A4/-f I. capacity AMAqpm TYPE: E3Subrnersibla Q Jet (shallow) [D Turbine nl Jet (deep) M- Reciorocartine F1 Centrifugal i ndicate water bearing zones

MONITORING WELL INSTALLATION RECORD JOB NAME: OCOke- k-\c- SVV locking cap security plug ... .-

> < well stickup 2.5 concrete collar->

protective casing>

well

<- depth of seal sei

-*-~ depth of gravel pack-> <- depth of seal

-* depth of screen screo

/2, -- depth of screen -

depth of gravel pack-> <-----depth of boring

-.--.-----------.--. I DATE INSTALLED: DUKE POWER COMPANY MONITORING WELL INSPECTOR: C A Medlin GEOTECHNICAL CENTER NUMBER: /T -'

Form 25630 (R3-87) IFORM M-26C I ISIO RE 2

• J,*;5-Z,5"z_ I PAGE I OFJ

• )'L rs *T &,*5ve IZCONSTRUCTION COMPANY DUKE POWER DEPARTMEN*T PROJECTO *,,je---, j SOIL TEST BORING FIELD REPORT STARTING TIME /

JOB NO. GROUND SURFACE ELEV._

JOB NAME- M 6&2 4-0 r - 5 ftle. HRS. DRILLING HRS. MOVING DATE -A " 9-/- WEATHER Ct,/Ear hNSPECTOR (fA LL--ORNG NO.-_-Z SAMPLING SCAILE UD SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND REMARKS "ST6" NtQ6"" 3RD 6" 0

~- 4

/ - -/ -- ' . .. // . . .-

.. I ......

A ILl

-*i. .*'. ;**;. . '*1,: :P*,-.*.... ' XIC,z C

.,, 'c"

~4 - -15 15 Oqc~

IU , w 00.

U. z cnot W a.

0-j:.,

0

.'x

-~____3o

....... 01-LuI

' (n"-

..-.. -- 35 z co

+

I -

BORING TERMINATED 13,() METHOD OF ADVANCING BORING DEPTH BORING REFUSAL A,) tI-- POWER AUGER aq ýO 1 WATER TOB DEPTH 3 D -TO -

WATER 24 HR: DEPTH TO-To WATER LOSSES CASING SIZE .LL LENGTH ,, I- .AM.if- -TO

SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL Ground Water Protection Division 2600 Bull Street. Columbia, S.C. 29201 (803) 734-5331 Water Well Record 3

.I z ft, rlate Completed:?-/3-

6. 0 Mud Rotary ] ejted

.. f Bored l Dug.

[]Air Rotary Dl Driven Cable tool Street address & City of Well Location 7. USE:

Sketch Map: (See example on back) El Domestic El Public Su'pply-Permit No. _ _ En .....

[3 Irrigation [C Air Conditioning [Corarcial 8,CASING; [Threaded [D Welded Diarn. Z _" I Height: Above/Beever Type E1FVC j*Galvanized I Surface =f ft.

ISreel 00the I Weight __ lbs./ft.

Ds ' in. to ..2-.c9'ft. depth Drive Shoe? [ Yes ONo in. to _ ft, depth

9. SCRrtEN:

2. CUTTING SAMPLES E-50D No Tvpe: E C- Diam, Ž'--"

Geophysical Logs F] Yes (Please enclose) 0 Slot/Gauze f iD Length _ _ _ _

Set Between .2 6- ' ft. and La2.. '-ft. NOTE:' MULTIPLE SCREENS ft. and -_ ,. USE SECOND SHEET Sieve Analysis £1(-(Please enclose) [3No

10. STATIC WATER LEVEL 3.. 5 Ift. below land surface after 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />

11. PUMPING LEVEL Below Land Surface f.after -WA Inr., pumpntorg' .~L~G.P.M.

Pumping Test: ElYes (Please enclose) kNo yield A

12. WATER QUALITY Chemical Analysis " EYesE&.No Bacterial Analysis [3YeOs[No Please Enclose Lab Results.

13. ARTIFICIAL FILTER (Gravel Pack) BL-Y's [3NO Installed from D.-.-.L.." ft. to  ?.3 e ft.

Effective size 4(3P 7. uniformity coefficient 0 13 3

14. WELL GROUTED? BlesFJNo Neat Cement Sand Cement E. Concrete[] Other [r Depth Prom rn 0 ft. to fft.

16. NEAREST SOURCE OF POSSIBLE CONTAMINATION: tJ.- L Fe.* *)*. Dlrection A,! ._ - Type Well disinlected [] Yes Type &JO upon complelion R..o Amount "*t___

16. PUMP: Data Installed ____"__ not installed Mir. name-_______________ noe no.

ength of drop piPezv!A- capacity.me TYPE: []Submersible [3 Jet (shallowl [3 Tufbine r- Jet (deep) rl Reciorocatieo rF Centrifugal

- Indicate water bearing zones f1W 001 I- -

MONITORING WELL INSTALLATION RECORD JOB NAME: 0 C-Cme- A-)-c-\ear S+,

locking cap >>-

security plug Well stickup 2 "

concrete collar->

protective well

<- depth of seal 4 depth of gravel pack-> <- depth of seal 6 of screen 7, 0

• -L---depth of well of screen threaded cap depth of gravel pack -> of boring DATE INSTALLED: - DUKE POWER COMPANY MONITORING WELL INSPECTOR: C A Medlin GEOTECHNICAL CENTER NUMBER: __-/_

REVISION 3 FORM M-26C FORM M-26C REVISION 3 Form 25830 (RI 1-92) I I DUKE POWER COMPANY PAGE OF_

PROJECT fct.oPJE,:--.

SOIL TEST BORING FIELD REPORT BORING NO. h- STARTING TIME A JOB NO. _ _ - _ _ _ _...... GROUND SURFACE ELEV._

JOBNAME Mt1*Y -l IET*I*

( V411..

.I / HIIS. DRILLING I1,.HRS.MOVING j',4 DATE -ff1 -- ,WEATHER -_ INSPECTOR/DRILLER "_ ._____i __e,_____ ,___" __-- _

SAMPLING SCA5 UD SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND REMARKS i--i A)b 6okL- 5Av-,-RL-106 ZMtILRk55Q If .5

+

Io 4

4-

-4 4 W Zu U5 =

H VV

-scf-ý,D 62K

£0Lu

_B 7i

- -+-" - "r11]

4-I BORING TERMINATED ____________________ ..METHOD OF ADVANCING BORING DEPTH BORING REFUSAL __POWER AUGER C TQýý WATER TOB DEPTH HAND CHOP:WIMUD:W/WATER TO WATER LOSS:ES * [ROTARY DRILL:W/MUD:W/WATER TO WATER LOSSES MAI DIENGTH

'DIAMOND CORE TO CASING SIZE ~E01A____ G H

SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL Ground Water Protection Division 2600 Bufl Street Columbia, S.C. 29201 (803) 734-5331 Water Well Record

• ' X-I0OrATION OF WELL eli8N r ~ It Date Completed; cg-lit -s'k

6. 3 mudl Rotary El jettedi Q BorediDu eo Ao Q Air Rotary 0 Driven O.Cable. too Street address & City of Well Locavion 7. USE:

(See example on back) 0J Oomestic 0 Public Supply.Permit No. _ _ Infunstry Sketch Map:

SIrrigation EJ Air Conoi~tioning ncammiercial E3Test Wvell /V dro / j4,Ih/( 7 B.CASING: [kThreaded C] Welded Diam. Height: A4,oellelow Type *ZPVC EGalvanized I Surface .. t IStael JOther I Weight lbs./ft.

t'A) _____in. to 1jft. depth Drive Shoe? C. Yes n No

- in. tO ft. depth No

9. SCREEN:

2, CUTTING SAMPLES Ytjý Type' qqc- Diea "Z '

Geophysical Logs Yes (Please enclose) F-No Slot/Gauze . 0 ( Length Set Between 1 .3, ft. and Q 7 ft. NOTE:.MULTIPLE SCREENS ft. and , . USE SECOND SHEET Sieve Analysis [_]Yes (Please enclosel .VNo

10. STATIC VATER LEVEL

_ _ _ ft. below land surface after 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />"

11. PUMPING LEVEL Below Land Surface

-ft. after -_hrs. pumping G.P.M.

A-ATTAC- XD Pumping Test: C]Yes (Please enclose) ElNo Yield 12, WATER QUALITY .

Chemical Analysis DYes..No 8acterial An'lysi. [Dyes No Please Enclose Lab Results.

13. ARTIFICIAL FILTER (Gravel Pack) fYes [cINo Installed ft.

Irons .! ........ to "4-- - fi.

Effective size - uniformity coefficient -15"

14. WELL OROUTED?'qYesfj- No Neat Camen 0.W Sand Cement Cj concrete 0 Other C]

A-ii Depth Prom - "I. to  %-I_. ft.

(5. NEAREST SOURCE OF POSSIBLE CONTAMINATION: F.01 -- Direction

- Type Welldisinfected 0 Yes Type upon completion 0 No Amount -

16. PUMP: Date installed __ _not installed [

Mfr. name - model no.--_

H.P -- volts -- length of drop pipe __It. capacity _ _gprn TYPE: ElSubmersible Q Jet (shallow) E] Turbine r- Jet (leeo) M' Recioro-ai..o " Centrifugal Indicate water bearing zones (use a 2nd sheet if needed) df&~5i I P,

RECOVERY WELL INSTALLATION RECORD JOB NAME: OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION

-flush-mounted cover assembly locking security c, .5' well 8.1'

<- -depth of seal 11,1 depth of gravel pack-> of seal 13.

-h of screen gravel pai 23.7' threaded of screen 24.5' 24.5' depth of gravel pack-> <----depth of boring DATE INSTALLED:8-13-94 DUKE POWER COMPANY MONITORING WELL INSPECTOR: J.W. MEADERS GEOTECHNICAL CENTER NUMBER: A-13

nqineer Topographic Laboratories Star Chamber Expedition 8/15/ 1994 All input values ace Nl _2.7, state plane zone 390i (FEETr.

All output' values are' ` q, q-eographic c6ordinates.

STATION INPUT (transformed to) OUTPUT A.13 Lid 796.69 Pipe 796.45 658562.002 N 34 47 42.06427 N 1429523.170 E 82 54 0.53315 W Convergence -1 4 21.46 Scale.Factor 0.99997319 U.S. Army Engineer Topographic Labs, CORPSCON V2.1, Page I of 1

FORM M-26C I REVISION 3 Form 25630 (Ri 1-92) I FORM M-260 REVISiON 3 PAGE_.LOFI.

DUKE POWER COMPANY [

PROJECT e%OeAE SOIL TEST BORING FIELD REPORT BOSTO. AI STARTING TIME W _.

JOB NO. AN.A GROUND SURFACE ELEV..

JOB.NAME T,-, L '...-(* --- HRS..DRILLING ,1 41 7 HRS. MOVING DATE-- I WEATHE,*c- da-rINSPECTOR/DRILLER

-"4 (AA"Iý& /,2A1.9,.

SAMPLING b'CAULE UD SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND REMARKS 1ST Y" ZND6" -o

"--'-* 0 '-,o1-L IkA--a ',.*** X 5

i cm H W.'

'4 Ftm 5 Lu *C,4

'4 U-

_1 tI r

-0 13~liii C

U I..

I, h

-I.

• 0 -- i-0 BORING TERMINATED METHOD OF ADVANCING BORING DEPTH BORING REFUSAL POWER AUGER (DTO .

WATER TOR DEPTH. HAND CHOP:W/MUD:WAWATER TO WATER 24 HR:DEPTH .. .* ROTARY DRILL:WIMUD:W/WATER TO WATER LOSSES DIAMOND CORE TO CASING SIZE, LENGTH "-

SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL Ground Water Protection Division 2600 Bull Street Columbia, S.C. 29201 (803) 734-5331 Water Weil Record 4, UWIF.::l 01WWhI.

1. . ý T~ehne4 No;,

s. WELL DEPTH (Completed)

Date Completed:

5. LiMud Rotary 0 jJetted, Boren (] Dug IjAir Rotary D riven (JCable tool WO 5g Z-Street address & City of Well Locatlon 7, USE; Sketch Map: (See example on beck) Domestic D Li Public Supply.Permit No. 0, Inutry Ej Irrigation 0 Air Conditioning Cemvel C] Test Wall lodrazý ,Ja B.CASING: 5Threaded L] Welded I Diemn. 11L Height: Above/Below Type 1PVC -Galvanized I Surface ft.

Li Steel CDOther i Weight Ibs./ft.

in. to CL-*t. depth Drive Shoe? Q Yes No in. to - It. depth

9. SCREEN:

2. CUTTING SAMPLES D Yes N]

Geophysiical Logs Yes (Please enclose) j-- No Slot/Gauze o. e t 0* Length t o, Set,Between Bel ft. andS eOTE:-MULTIPLE SCREENS

,__ft.__ nft. USE SECOND SHEET Sieve Analysis LYes (Please enclose) ELN o

10. STATER WAR LEVY L I "(** ft. below land surface after 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> 1 1. PUMPING L EVEL Below Land Surface

-- ft. after hrs., pumping GPM.

Pumping Test: [ Yes (Please enclose) C]No Yield /A

12. WATER QUALITY Chemical Analysis OYeso No Bacterial Anart/rsis [vYeslNo Please Enclose Lab Results.

-13. ARTIFICIAL FILTER (Gravel Peck) MYes LiNo Installed from 0_

_. f to ft, Z3 l0 ft.

Effective size '01k uniforty-lW coefficient S-

14. WELL GROUTED? 15YesoiNo NeatCement Send Cement rj concrete 0D Other Depth FrOm .5 ft. to .Q. ' IR ft.

15. NFAREST SOURCE OF POSSIBLE CONTAMINATION: -_Fat_"_ DIrstion Type upon completion fLiDYes Well dlisinfecled No Type Amount

16. PUMP: Date Installed - not installed EL Mir-. name _ _ _ .model no.

H.P. volts length of drop pipe -t. capacity pm TYPE: r3Submersible Li Jet (shallow) L] Turbine Indicate water bearing zones fuse a 2nd sheet if needed) 1' r ft '5

RECOVERY WELL INSTALLATION RECORD JOB NAME: OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION

-flush-mounted cover assembly locking security cap-- .5' Lcasing

\ \\' \\\ \

\\\ \

grout well casing 6.8'

< -- depth of seal seal 9.8' 9.8'

- depth of gravel pack-> <--depth of seal 11.8,

- depth of screen gravel pack screen 22.4' threaded can -depth of screen

17. 0'

- depth of gravel pack-> <---depth of boring 231.0' DATE INSTALLED:8-13-94 DUKE POWER COMPANY MONITORING WELL INSPECTOR: J.W. MEADERS GEOTECHNICAL CENTER NUMBER: A-14

neer Topographic Laboratories Star Chamber Expedition 8/15/1994

.A-.i1 input values are NA§<'.7, state plane zone 39.01 (FEET).

All output values a"re" A gographic cobrdinates.

---

A N------------------------------

.STATIEON !NPUT (transformed to.) OUTPUT A -i4 Lid 797.09 Pi"pe 796.76 658585.482 N 34 47 42.30718 N 1429580.944 E 82 53 59.84582 W

-Convergence -i 4 21.08 Scale Factor' 0.99997320 i

J. S. Army Eniineer Topographic Labs, CORPSCON V2 1. Page i ot' 1

FORM M-26C I REVISION 3 Form 25630 (RI1-92) I FORM M-26C REVISION 3 PAGE__.*O .1FP DUKE POWER COMPANY L PROJECT)________F-__

SOIL TEST BORING FIELD REPORT BORING NO. .- \ . . STARTING TIME tU (4 JOB NO. 0A*7 GROUND SURFACE ELEV.. ....... ......

JOB NAME M 0-A \T-.- m " HAS. DRILLNG 1Ž'1/LHRS. MOVIW (A-SAMPLING SCALE EI UD SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND REMARKS

_ IST" m2NDE" 0

01MP. .5 M 5

I ro cc* z L*

J*

C

_~~ .L%*J*IATE*P ~ 1-7. 0' U.

- , a to U,

4

-4 1 U

a

-4 C F

4 4

-I

-* a C

a C

-4 IL1 I-4 C, i4 BORING TERMINATED_'___

I-

-~

-1 I

____ METHOD OF ADVANCING BORING DEETH BORING REFUSAL -1 POWER AUGER 0 TO17-0 WATER TOB DEPTH __ ,_ __ "HAND CHOP:W/MUD:W/WATER - TO -

WATER 24 HR:DEPTH .,j ,ROTARY --- DRILL:W/MUD:W/WATER - TO-WATER LOSSES - DIAMOND CORE -TO-CASING SsIZ_ LENGTH I_,AORE-__ _-

SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL Ground Water Protection Division 2600 Bull Street Columbia, S.C. 29201 (803) 734-5331 Water Well Record V,:

5. WELL DEPTH (Completed) Date Started: 9% - 1l '9-j, t stance Ana uirection r uau [ cu a 112 b ft, DateCompleted. 8 - t 1 -*

6. Q Mud Rotary 0 Jetted Bored [] Dug 0 Air Rotary E Driven Cable cL toot [.Ot I.*r~o

7. USE:

Street address & City Domestic n ePublic SuDp Permit NSo? Indeustr

[] irrigation Air conditioning [:]CommrnMrC LIII Seel Crher N1J\

B. CASING; T Threaded []Welded :i Diam* A Height: Abuy.l/Below Type g] PVC E]Galvanized I Surface .... 5 ft.

[-Jsteel 00 ther I Weight- - lbs./f t.

n.to .L .3t. depth D rive Shoe? -- Yes (&No in. to ft. depth

9. SCREEN:

2. CUTTING SAMPLES No Slot /Gauze C l0 Length b I Geophysical Logs F]Yes (Please enclose) 1:1 No Set Between LL tft. and ft. NOTE: MULTIPLE SCREENS

-t".,

ft. and ,_ft. USE SECOND SHEET sieve Analysis []Yes (Please enclose) [JNo

10. STATIC WATER LEVEL A7. 4 ft. below land surface after 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />

11. PUMPING LEVEL Below Land Surface 5e -A, r, cvA --

Pumping Test; [

ft. after Yes (Please enclosel

-- hrs. pumping _

E-No G.P.M.

Yield

12. WATER QUALITY Chemical Analysis C]Yest No Bacterial Analysis CYestNo 3bEpo 2'T__ Please Enclose Lab Results.

13. ARTIFICIAL FILTER (Gravel Pack) &Yes E-No Installed from _ 0 _. __ ft. to Xl t0-f.

Effective size .011. uniformity coefficient

14. WELL GROUTED? (Yeso No Neat Cement i Sand Cement (I] Concrete o] Other []

Depth From " 5 ft. to . D ft.

15. NEAREST SOURCE OF POSSIBLE CONTAMINATION:.. -_F.9 - Diretlion Type Wolldisinfected C] Yes Type upon completion -].No Amount

16. PUMP; Date Installed ___not installed Mfr. name _ _ _ __ model no.

H.P. - volts _-_ length of drop pipe - It. capacity -" .gpm TYPE: -- Submersible 0 Jet (shallow) E] Turbine Indicate water bearing zones (use a 2nd sheet if needed)

RECOVERY WELL INSTALLATION RECORD JOB NAME: OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION

-- flush-mounted cover assembly locking security cap- .5'

• ing

\ \\

\ \\

grout well casing 2.0' of seal seal 5.0' 5.0' depth of gravel pack-> .h of seal 6.31 of screen -c----

gravel pack screen 17.0' threaded cap of screen 17.0' 17.0' of boring DATE INSTALLED:8-11-94 DUKE POWER COMPANY MONITORING WELL INSPECTOR: J.W. MEADERS GEOTECHNICAL CENTER NUMBER: A-17 C,

{nqineer Topographic Laboratories Star Chamber Expedition 8/ 15/1 9 94

.AI] input. values a.re N..'217. state plane zone 3901 (FEET).

All outout values are N qa g4oqr,'phic cocrdinates.

-- - - - - ------------- j - -- - -(...- - - - - - - - - - -

S T-

• TATION INPUT (tr'ansiorm~ed to) OUTPUT

,A -+7. Lid 801.31 pipe 801*.09 658816.602 N 34 47 44.59090 N 1429570.025 E 82 54 0.02859 W Qonver'qence -1 4 21.18 Scale Factor 0.99997328 a.

U.S. Artmv Engineer Topographic Labs, CORPSCON V2.1, Page 1 of 1

REVISION 3 Form 25630 (R11-92)

III I FORM M-26C I 7IRIISON PAGEJLOF~j_

DUKE POWER COMPANY L PROJECT =\FCe SOIL TEST BORING FIELD REPORT OnING NO. 4-* A STARTING TIME JOB No. _ _ _ _ __ GROUND SURFACE ELEV.

.UiR NAME i 't,*.T"c*Q \ J.L.. " RS. ORILLINI *)}*'

HItS. MOVING -~ (A DATE ~3- V-WAHR ~INSPECTOR/DRILLER 9.u* 4/t zk -t AMPLINGL SCALI LE UD SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND REMARKS o

Sc~jiLýN u

-5 10 s ~ ~'c~9-LuJ

-2.5 00 I-'

i u Il BORING TERMINATED -- I. METHOD OFA DVANCING BORING DEPTH BORING REFUSAL - -. kA POWER AUGER 0TOt-l WATER TOB DEPTH _ _ _ " HAND CHOP:W/MUD:W/WATER - TO -

WATER 24 HR:DEPTH " 0,* ROTARY DRILL:W/MU D:WlWATER -TO-WATER LOSSES \P DIAMOND CORE TO-CASING SIZE. f kv , LENTL DIMOD

SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL Ground Water Protection Division 2600 Bull Street Columbia, S.C. 29201 (803) 734-5331 Water Well Record 14_WIlR 0OE.WELLij?

1. LOCATION OF WELL Wen J5. WELL DEPTH (Completed) Date Started: Jý- -%*

• ZV "

Distance And Direction f'oM Road InterS.ectionS

. [Mud Rotary *tted.

je [] or0e Dug Street'4'dress & CifV of-Well Locat'or 7. USCE; Sketch Map: (See example on back) El Domestic Public Supply-Permit No.. -- inrus ,a

[] irrigation E] Air Conditioning []Comerha,*l 8.CASING: o Threaded C] Weeded I Sieve Anal v esHeight: A(Plieaeec elow Type EPP V bC oGavanized a Iurface 2h I1 .[ Steef 13 O ther. W eight Ios./ft.

_ in. to afl depth _ rie Sumop? GYesN.

Pum in. to f-est.depth e

2. CUTTING SAMPLES LIYesrVNo 9. SCREREN:

10an.

STTCITE EE

• Siot/Ga*=e 11IUPN EVLBlwLn 61*0 Surface t I t Geophysicai Logq Yes (Please enclose) No SetBetween AnalIit. and Ba1tea. NOTai -MULTIPLE SCREENS

' " ft. and -- ft. USE SECOND SHEET Sieve Analysis LC]NoYes (Please enclose)

10. STATIC WATER LEVEL In e ft. below land surface after 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> PUMPING Nt1. LEVEL Below Land Surface p ft. after ft hrs. Pumping t. G. F.

Pumping Test: il Yes (Pleaseenclose) -ubNo Yield Ja

12. WATER QUALITY Chemical Analysis D*YesjA No Bacterial Anal'ysis [3Yes[VNO Please Enclose Lab Results.

13. ARTIFICIAL FILTER (Gravel Pack) N ]Yes [] No in'stelled from (0-)" - ft. to X cl..'-I ft.

• Effective size i (51 to uniformity coefficient 1 ."15

14. WEL.L GROUTED? S*Yesr3"No NeetCemontV Send Cemen, [j Coc... eo[ Other 03 Depth From ft. to 21 ft.

15. NEAREST SOUJRCE OF POSSIBLE CONTAMINATION: -- F*.t= . Diractlen

, ~Type Weilldisinfected C3 Yes Type upon completion 13 No Amount I&. PUMP!. Date Installed - -not Instaled[

Mfr. name _ model no.

H.,P. *__ _ volts _ leIngth of drop pipe - It. capacity -- g r TYPE; O"Submersible [-]Jet (shallow) [] Turbine i . Jet (deep) []Reciprocating _ Centrifugal Indicate water bearing zonel luse a 2nd sheet if needed)

N I71 L

RECOVERY WELL INSTALLATION RECORD JOB NAME:OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION

~1

- flush-mounted cover assembly

\ casing .5 well casing 3.2'

<-----depth of seal seal 6.2' 6.2'

- depth of gravel pack-> <-- depth of seal T

8.2:

-- depth of screen gravel pack screen 18.9' threaded cap depth of screen 19.7' 19.7' dpnth of stave]t1 non1c-> <----depth of boring DATE INSTALLED:8-11-94 DUKE POWER COMPANY MONITORING WELL INSPECTOR: J.W. MEADERS GEOTECHNICAL CENTER NUMBER: A-18

-..nqineer Topographic Laboratories Star, Chamber Expedition 8/15/ 1994 M.ll input values are NAE".1'27-, state plane zorne 390i (FEET).

All' output Values are N*  ;. geegraphic coof-dinates.

--- - - - I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

STATION INPUT (transformed to) OUTPUT A`A-i. Lid 804.34 Pipe 804.14 658871.211 N 34 47 45.12575 N 1429541.782 E 82 54 0.37943 W

-Converqence -1 4,21.38 Scale Factor" 0.99997330 U.S. Army Enqineer" Topographic Labs, CORPSCON V2.'l, Page 1 of I

25630 15-23-80) I FORM M-27A REVISION 2 DUKE POWER COMPANY PAGELOF-CONSTRUCJON DEPARTMENT PROJE CTaf^ EC 1 SOIL TEST BORING FIELD REPORT STARTING TIME JOB NO. . , 'GROUND SURFACE ELEV ,

JOB NAME ddt2-,"d". 7 HRS. DRILLING I'7 HARS. MOVING L DATE Z42 / ~lt~lm6 rT--r -

SdmCTOR 02 AAAýoRING Of4.

SAMPLING SCA'LLE U', SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND REMARKS

-hTi- *I3 R,),e.

,S, m

MQ.15,4, L_ N _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ t

eo5

)

0 OX LW-I__---- -.

wn 1z;

- Ii In e

-- w wjczm

ý,2t

~ -cr~u~~ 4

"~s +l BORING TERMINATED to I I METHOD OF ADVANCING BORING DEPTH BORING REFUSAI 6,,2 ..A... '24rkk- TO WATER TOB DEPTH / -* "/A".. -8 HE JQR ,M:

HAD-CHO: Wi#Mtt: W;0ýER TO WATER24 HR: DEPTH - - *,4, "0 -, ROTARYDRI*LL:W,'1MD: W&TE.j o,"O,*z WATER LOSSES -"__________

____ _TO CASING SIZE ,/V'Ao, LENGTH .' 0 - D N e TO

25630 (5-23-80) I FORM M-27A IF REVISION 2 DUKE POWER COMPANY PAGE A

• -

• oF -4 CNSTRUCT.ON DEPARTMENT PROJECT C.3JE,*c SOIL TEST BORING FIELD REPORT STARTING TIME / Z 'Zo JOB NO. GROUNDSURF ELEV.

JOB NAME W*,.4r Ct),:-,Ci'iG./ L-*-//HRS. D '-HRS. HRO*A/kI MOVING /

DATE /? -- ,5 WEATHER .ri, INSPECTOR BORING NO , -

SAMPLING SCAI LE IUD SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND REMARKS isT&,, *imF- ARD" dl.-,,

- -A

-P~ SCt~-A ON4..

¶4JDo

-..- y.

4 ~ t) Foe -r- /v ri j.ins 0i Ii:

Rl "" Y' VAX,4-,

7,..i/d ~ ~IJJ ~7Z/~J -

• F LA Ae - VC:

oe& +

)ýa ~A!Ae? / c 633 'i JA .1.. ""-A A ' I - , 'r- ý4 ý BORNGTERINTEO4~4 ~METHOD OF ADVANCING BORING DETH BORING TO WATER TOB DEPTH * .

-m "-yww,-w,'W'fiw TO WATER 24*HR: DEPTH4 _,8l- 11,*--/ WMNA)- W "TO WATER LOSSES "A DI/AM4OND a...

CASING SIZE= LENGTH iIA= - TO