### ANNUAL GROUNDWATER MONITORING REPORT

JULY 1, 2009 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2010

DUKE ENERGY

CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION

CLASS TWO LANDFILL

PERMIT # 463303

‐ 1601 SITE ID # 00534

YORK COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA

Prepared by:

526 South Church Street

Charlotte, North Carolina 28202

July 2010

________________ ______________ ___________________ ____________

Timothy S Hunsucker, Senior Scientist Keith A Rowland, PE

Duke Energy / EHS

‐ Scientific Services Duke Energy / Catawba Nuclear StationTABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND............................................................................... 1

1.1 INTRODUCTION

......................................................... .............................................1

1.2 BACKGROUND........................................................................................................2

2.0 MONITORING WELL NETWORK........................................................................................ 3

2.1 HISTORICAL MONITORING SYSTEM.................................................................... 3

2.2 CURRENT MONITORING SYSTEM........................................................................ 3

3.0 LANDFILL HYDROGEOLOGY............................................................................................... 4

3.1 GROUNDWATER LEVELS....................................................................................... 4

3.2 GROUNDWATER FLOW......................................................................................... 5

3.3 GROUNDWATER VELOCITY......

............................................................................ 5

4.0 JULY 1, 2009 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2010 GROUNDWATER MONITORING................... 6

4.1 APRIL 2010 GROUNDWATER MONITORING...................................................... 6

4.1.1 R.61

‐ 107.19 APPENDIX III RESULTS........................................................ 8

4.1.2 R.61

‐ 107.19 APPENDIX V RESULTS......................................................... 10

4.2 OCTOBER 2009 GROUNDWATER MONITORING............................................... 12

4.3 DECEMBER 2009 CONFIRMATION SAMPLING.............

.................. ................12

5.0 SUMMARY AND COMPLIANCE DISCUSSION................................................................... 13

6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMENDATIONS.................................

............. ............ ..........14

Tables within Text:

Table 2.1: Monitoring Well Information

Table 3.1: Hydraulic Gradient Comparisons among Wells

Table 4.1: R.61

‐ 107.19 Appendix V Sampling Summary

Table 5.1: Limit Exceptions List

Figures within Text:

Figure 3.1: Groundwater Elevation Trends

Figure 4.1: Historical pH Trends

Figure 4.2: Historical Mercury TrendsTables within Tables Tab:

Table 1: Groundwater Monitoring Report / R.61

‐ 107.19 Appendix III / Inorganics,

April 2010

Table 2: Groundwater Monitoring Report / R.61

‐ 107.19 Appendix III / Organics,

April 2010

Table 3: Groundwater Monitoring Report / Radiological Data

April 2010

Table 4: Groundwater Monitoring Report / R.61

‐ 107.19 Appendix V /Detected

Parameters, April 2010

Table 5: R.61

‐ 107.19 Appendix III Organic Compounds / April 2009 through April

2010 Comparison Table

Table 6: R.61

‐ 107.19 Appendix V Detected Parameters / April 2009 through April

2010 Comparison Table

Table 7: Screening Levels for Chemical Contaminants (RSL Tables) / EPA Region 9

Figures within Figures Tab:

Figure 1: Groundwater Monitoring Wells

Figure 2: April 2010 Groundwater Contours

Figure 3A

‐ 3R: Concentration Maps (R.61

‐ 107.19 Appendix III VOCs)

Figure 4A

‐ 4E: Concentration Maps (R.61

‐ 107.19 Appendix V Detected Organics)

Figure 5A

‐ 5G: VOC Trend Graphs

Appendices:

Appendix A: Groundwater Monitoring Data Sheets (April 2010)

Appendix B: Chain of Custody and Laboratory Analytical Data (April 2010)

Appendix C: Groundwater Monitoring Report Tables (October 2009)Catawba Nuclear Station Class Two Landfill Permit # 463303

‐ 1601 Site # 00534

July 1, 2009

‐ June 30, 2010 Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report

1 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1.1 Introduction

This Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report covers the monitoring period from July 1, 2009

through June 30, 2010 and covers two semi

‐ annual sampling events at the Catawba Nuclear

Station Class Two Landfill. Included in this report are the results and data analysis from the

samplings conducted in October 2009 and April 2010.

In addition to routine groundwater monitoring during the July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010

time period, Duke Energy (Duke) also responded to the South Carolina Department of Health

and Environmental Control's (SCDHEC) March 26, 2009 letter that requested Duke Energy to

perform additional assessment to "characterize the nature and extent of release" relating to

detected volatile organic compounds (VOCs) northeast of the landfill.

Duke Energy contracted S&ME Inc. to prepare and submit (June 3, 2009) a Groundwater

Assessment Plan to address the above SCDHEC request. The Groundwater Assessment Plan

was subsequently approved by SCDHEC on June 30, 2009 and implemented between August 26,

2009 and October 8, 2009.

The October 2009 semi

‐ annual groundwater monitoring event was conducted by Duke Energy

on October 27

‐ 28, 2009 in compliance with new landfill Regulation 61

‐ 107.19. Continuing the

guidance from the Department's March 26, 2009 letter, Duke attempted to collect groundwater

samples from all historical monitoring wells and the newly installed assessment monitoring

wells for R.61

‐ 107.19 Appendix III and Appendix IV parameters. Analytical results for the

October 27

‐ 28, 2009 sampling were reported to SCDHEC (December 17, 2009) in compliance

with the reporting requirements of R.61

‐ 107.19. Additionally, discussion of the October 2009

analytical results was incorporated into the March 2010 Groundwater Assessment Report

(prepared by S&ME for Duke Energy) and submitted to SCDHEC on April 13, 2010.

The April 2010 semi

‐ annual groundwater monitoring event was conducted in compliance with

the requirements of R.61

‐ 107.19 and continued guidance from the Department. With the

exception of water level only wells (LMW

‐ 1A, LMMW

‐ 2 and LMW

‐ 3), all historical and all

assessment monitoring wells were sampled for R.61

‐ 107.19 Appendix III and Appendix IV

parameters.Catawba Nuclear Station Class Two Landfill Permit # 463303

‐ 1601 Site # 00534

July 1, 2009

‐ June 30, 2010 Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report

2 1.2 Background

The Catawba Class Two Landfill was originally permitted on February 2, 1984 to accept

construction and demolition wastes (C&D) and industrial wastes (wastewater sludge, oils, non

‐

radioactive carbon and slightly radioactive carbon).

The October 1998 sampling event was the initial sampling for volatile organic compounds

(VOCs). Detected concentrations of chlorinated solvents at monitoring well LMW

‐ 1A resulted

in the development and implementation of a Groundwater Quality Assessment Plan (Duke

Power Company, May 1999)

. Assessment monitoring wells LMW

‐ 5S, LMW

‐ 5D, GPMW

‐ 22P and

GPMW

‐ 23P were installed downgradient of LMW

‐ 1A in support of assessment activities and

have been sampled on the same frequency as the landfill system wells.

A South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC) March 26, 2009

letter requested Duke Energy to perform additional assessment to "characterize the nature

and extent of release" relating to detected volatile organic compounds (VOCs) northeast of the

landfill. Implementation of the SCDHEC approved Groundwater Assessment Plan (June 2009)

resulted in the construction of five new monitoring wells (LMW

‐ 6, LMW

‐ 7, LMW

‐ 8, LMW

‐ 9 and

LMW

‐ 10).Catawba Nuclear Station Class Two Landfill Permit # 463303

‐ 1601 Site # 00534

July 1, 2009

‐ June 30, 2010 Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report

3 2.0 MONITORING WELL NETWORK

2.1 Historical Monitoring System

The original groundwater monitoring network consisted of four wells. LMW

‐ 1A, LMW

‐ 2 and

LMW

‐ 3 were located downgradient of the landfill and LMW

‐ 4 was located upgradient to serve

as a background well.

Drought conditions in the region beginning around 1998 resulted in sampling difficulties at

monitoring wells LMW

‐ 1A, LMW

‐ 2 and LMW

‐ 3. As drought conditions continued, these wells

often yielded insufficient volume for collection of samples. To maintain an adequate

groundwater monitoring system, Duke requested and received approval from SCDHEC to

replace wells LMW

‐ 2 and LMW

‐ 3 with wells LMW

‐ 2A and LMW

‐ 3A respectively in 2004. Duke

received approval from SCDHEC to replace well LMW

‐ 1A with LMW

‐ 1B in 2008. Old wells

LMW

‐ 1A, LMW

‐ 2 and LMW

‐ 3 were maintained to provide additional groundwater elevation

data.

2.2 Current Monitoring System

On November 18, 2008, Duke Energy submitted and SCDHEC subsequently approved (February

2, 2009) a Groundwater Monitoring System Design Report (November 2008) to comply with the

requirements in Regulation 61

‐ 107.19. The design report incorporated all of the then existing

wells into the monitoring system. Implementation of the June 2009 Groundwater Assessment

Plan resulted in installation of five additional monitoring wells. The locations of all current

monitoring wells are provided on Figure 1. Table 2.1 below provides construction and use

information for each well in the current monitoring system.

Table 2.1 Monitoring Well Information

Monitoring

Well Year Installed Location size Type of

Casing Top of Casing

(ft

‐ msl) Total Depth

(ft

‐ toc) Screen

Length (ft) Screened

Interval

(ft

‐ msl)

LMW

‐ 1B 2008 Down 2” PVC 625.14 47.60 30 577.54

‐ 607.54

LMW

‐ 2A 2004 Down 2” PVC 610.90 23.37 10.0 587.53

‐ 597.53

LMW

‐ 3A 2004 Down 2” PVC 620.70 36.31 10.0 584.39

‐ 594.39

LMW

‐ 4 1985 Up 4” PVC 630.19 37.5 5.0 592.69

‐ 597.69

LMW

‐ 5S 2002 Down 2” PVC 615.23 47.46 30.0 567.77

‐ 597.77

LMW

‐ 5D 2002 Down 2” PVC 615.18 63.71 4.7 551.47

‐ 556.17

LMW

‐ 6 2009 Down 2" PVC 633.03 49.95 10 583.08

‐ 593.08

LMW

‐ 7 2009 Down 2" PVC 622.62 38.03 10 584.59

‐ 594.59

LMW

‐ 8 2009 Down 2" PVC 603.95 22.90 10 581.05

‐ 591.05

LMW

‐ 9 2009 Down 2" PVC 591.28 21.58 10 569.70

‐ 579.70

LMW

‐ 10 2009 Side 2" PVC 625.79 45.90 15 579.89

‐ 594.89

GPMW

‐ 22P 2003 Down 0.5” PVC 600.90 20.94 6.0 579.96

‐ 585.96

GPMW

‐ 23P 2003 Down 0.5” PVC 593.91 14.28 6.0 579.63

‐ 585.63

LMW

‐ 1A 1 1985 Down 2” PVC 628.00 37.36 10.0 590.64

‐ 600.64

LMW

‐ 2 1 1985 Down 4” PVC 625.32 33.9 5.0 591.42

‐ 596.42

LMW

‐ 3 1 1985 Down 4” PVC 630.16 35.28 5.0 594.88

‐ 599.88

1: Water Elevation onlyCatawba Nuclear Station Class Two Landfill Permit # 463303

‐ 1601 Site # 00534

July 1, 2009

‐ June 30, 2010 Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report

4 Dedicated sampling pumps were first installed in the original network monitoring wells in 1990.

Prior to this date, groundwater sampling was accomplished using bailers. Much of the

variability in the early groundwater data during this period can be attributed to sampling

techniques using bailers. After the installation of dedicated sampling systems, data variability

decreased because the dedicated sampling systems minimized the disturbance of the water

column sampled and the amount of suspended particulates collected during the sampling.

All system monitoring sampling wells are currently equipped with dedicated sampling pumps

with the exception of GPMW

‐ 22P and GPMW

‐ 23P which are sampled using a peristaltic pump

and dedicated tubing and LMW

‐ 1A, LMW

‐ 2 and LMW

‐ 3 which are used for water levels only.

The monitoring well network has been maintained in an operable condition due to the

cooperative efforts of the station personnel and the sampling team. The sampling team

completes an inspection checklist during each sampling. Information on the checklist includes

items related to well security, well labeling, protective casings, concrete pad conditions, etc.

Inspection concerns are communicated to station personnel and station personnel have been

extremely responsive to addressing any concerns noted.

3 .0 LANDFILL HYDROGEOLOGY

3.1 Groundwater Levels

The general historical trend in groundwater levels has followed a seasonal pattern. Higher

water elevations most frequently occur during the spring monitoring period, while lower water

elevations tend to occur during the fall monitoring period. An extended downward trend of

water elevation began in 1998 (Figure 3

‐ 1). After recovering slightly in 2002

‐ 2003,

groundwater levels have generally continued on a downward trend.

Figure 3.1: Groundwater Elevation Trends

GW Elv (ft)

GPMW-22P GPMW-23P LMW-1A LMW-1B LMW-2 LMW-2A LMW-3 LMW-3A LMW-4 LMW-5Sft-msl

Sample Date 580 590 600 610 620

1/1/19851/1/19861/1/19871/1/19881/1/19891/1/19901/1/19911/1/19921/1/19931/1/19941/1/19951/1/19961/1/19971/1/19981/1/19991/1/20001/1/20011/1/20021/1/20031/1/20041/1/20051/1/20061/1/20071/1/20081/1/20091/1/20101/1/2011Catawba Nuclear Station Class Two Landfill Permit # 463303

‐ 1601 Site # 00534

July 1, 2009

‐ June 30, 2010 Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report

5 3.2 Groundwater Flow

Groundwater elevations measured during the April 2010 groundwater monitoring event were

contoured using Surfer® software. The potentiometric contours are portrayed on Figure 2. The

contour flow regime suggests groundwater flow from the northern area of the landfill is toward

the northeast, and to the east from the southern portion of the landfill, both consistent with

historical observations. Although the average groundwater gradient across the landfill (inside

fenced boundary) is relatively flat (0.00414 ft/ft), topography east and northeast of the fenced

boundary falls approximately 35 feet from the landfill to monitoring well LMW

‐ 9 resulting in a

steeper average groundwater gradient (0.0165 ft/ft). The calculated hydraulic gradients

between monitoring wells are shown in Table 3.1 below.

The hydraulic gradients were calculated using the following equation:

UG MW Water Elevation

‐ DG MW Water Elevation

Hydraulic Gradient = ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Distance Between UG MW and DG MW

Table 3.1 Hydraulic Gradient Comparisons among Monitoring Wells

Gradient (ft/ft) Gradient (ft/ft)

LMW-4 to LMW-1A 0.007198 LMW-1A to LMW-9 0.016118

LMW-4 to LMW-2 0.003270 LMW-2 to LMW-9 0.017247

LMW-4 to LMW-3A 0.001942 LMW-6 to LMW-9 0.018446

LMW-7 to LMW-9 0.017367

LMW-8 to LMW-9 0.013730

Average 0.004137 Average 0.016582

3.3 Groundwater Velocity

The groundwater flow velocity (v) can be estimated using hydraulic conductivity (k), the

estimated effective porosity of the medium (n) and the measured horizontal gradient (i)

according to the following variation of Darcy's Law:

(k)(i)(2835)

v = ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

n

2835= Conversion factor for converting cm/sec to ft/d

The following values were substituted in to the equation:

Fenced Landfill Boundary East / N-East of Landfill

Hydraulic Conductivity (k) 1.78 E-4 1 2.74 E-4 2

Effective Porosity (n) 27 % 27%

Horizontal Gradient (i) 0.004137 0.016582

1

‐ Historical value

2

‐ From Groundwater Assessment Report (S&ME, February 2010)

Substituting these values into the equation suggest the groundwater flow velocity is in the

order of 3 ft/yr across the landfill and in the order of 18 ft/yr east and north

‐ east of the landfill.Catawba Nuclear Station Class Two Landfill Permit # 463303

‐ 1601 Site # 00534

July 1, 2009

‐ June 30, 2010 Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report

6 4.0 JULY 1, 2009 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2010 GROUNDWATER MONITORING

This annual report contains monitoring results for two semi

‐ annual groundwater samplings

(October 2009 and April 2010) as required by the permit. The October 2009 report was

previously submitted to SCDHEC (December 17, 2009). This annual report includes the initial

submittal of the April 2010 sampling results.

The objective of this groundwater monitoring report is to assess the impact of the landfill on

groundwater resources. Specific objectives of this monitoring program include:

• Conduct groundwater monitoring at the monitoring wells at the frequency stated in the

permit.

• Analyze the groundwater samples for the parameters listed in the permit.

• Assess groundwater flow characteristics.

• Assess the impact of the landfill on groundwater quality.

4.1 April 2010 Groundwater Monitoring

The April 2010 semi

‐ annual groundwater monitoring event was conducted in compliance with

new landfill Regulation 61

‐ 107.19. Continuing with of SCDHEC guidance, groundwater samples

were analyzed for R.61

‐ 107.19 Appendix V parameters in addition to the Appendix III

parameters during the April 2009 monitoring event. No samples were collected from elevation

only wells LMW

‐ A, LMW

‐ 2 and LMW

‐ 3.

Water Level Measurements

Prior to well purging, water levels measurements were made with an electronic water level

meter graduated in 0.01

‐ ft increments. Depth to water was measured from the top of the

surveyed well casing and recorded on Groundwater Monitoring Data Sheets (Appendix A). The

depth

‐ to

‐ water measurements were used to calculate the volume of standing water in the

wells and to determine groundwater elevations.

Monitoring Well Purging and Sampling

Monitoring wells were purged and sampled by conventional methods utilizing the following

equipment:

• LMW

‐ 1A NA

‐ Water level only

• LMW

‐ 1B Dedicated bladder pump

• LMW

‐ 2 NA

‐ Water level only

• LMw

‐ 2A Dedicated bladder pump

• LMW

‐ 3 NA

‐ Water level only (dry)

• LMW

‐ 3A Dedicated bladder pump

• LMW

‐ 4 Dedicated bladder pumpCatawba Nuclear Station Class Two Landfill Permit # 463303

‐ 1601 Site # 00534

July 1, 2009

‐ June 30, 2010 Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report

7 • LMW

‐ 5S Dedicated bladder pump

• LMW

‐ 5D Dedicated bladder pump

• LMW

‐ 6 Dedicated bladder pump

• LMW

‐ 7 Dedicated bladder pump

• LMW

‐ 8 Dedicated bladder pump

• LMW

‐ 9 Dedicated bladder pump

• LMW

‐ 10 Dedicated bladder pump

• GPMW

‐ 22P Peristaltic pump with dedicated tubing

• GPMW

‐ 23P Peristaltic pump with dedicated tubing

Samples were collected after field measurements were stable over three consecutive well

volumes (pH +/

‐ 0.20 units variation; temperature +/

‐ 0.20 C; specific conductance +/

‐ 5%

variation), or the volume of the well was evacuated. Purged volumes and field measurements

were recorded on Groundwater Monitoring Data Sheets (Appendix A).

Samples were collected for analysis of the parameters listed in R

‐ 61.107.19 Appendices III and

V. Additionally, radiological parameters were collected at wells LMW

‐ 1B, LMW

‐ 2A, LMW

‐ 3A,

LMW

‐ 4, LMW

‐ 5S and LMW

‐ 5D.

Samples were collected in the order of the volatilization sensitivity and preserved by methods

appropriate to the individual parameters. The samples were delivered under proper chain of

custody to the analytical laboratory at Duke Energy's Environmental Center for analysis.

Data Analysis

Field analysis of pH, specific conductance, and temperature were made with a Hydrolab® Water

Quality Analyzer (Hydrolab®, Inc.) Laboratory samples were analyzed by a South Carolina

certified laboratory using approved United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)

and SCDHEC methods.

Groundwater contours (Figure 2) were created using the Krigging Function for gridding option

in the Surfer for Windows software (Golden Software, Inc.). The analysis of the chemistry data

and assessment of the groundwater quality was made by comparing the data to the laboratory

Practical Quantitation Limits (PQLs), SC R.61

‐ 68 or EPA Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs),

EPA Region 9 Screening Levels and to historical monitoring data. Data exceeding a groundwater

standard was then addressed in more detail. All laboratory analytical data for the April 2010

sampling is included in Appendix B.Catawba Nuclear Station Class Two Landfill Permit # 463303

‐ 1601 Site # 00534

July 1, 2009

‐ June 30, 2010 Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report

8 4.1.1 R.61

‐ 107.19 Appendix III Results

Inorganic Parameters

Analytical results for R.61

‐ 107.19 Appendix III inorganic parameters are presented in Table 1.

All data values with the exception of pH were below the applicable SC R.61

‐ 68 MCLs.

Values for pH have historically been below the groundwater standard of 6.5 units and are

similar to those reported previously. The low pH is attributed to soil characteristics. Figure 4.1

depicts historical pH trends for the landfill wells.

Figure 4.1: Historical pH Trends

Naturally occurring metals (e.g., barium) are often detected in Piedmont Geologic Provence

groundwater samples. The only Appendix III metal detections that appear of consequence at

the landfill are the concentrations of mercury detected in wells LMW

‐ 1B (0.00081 mg/L), LMW

‐

5S (0.00089 mg/L), LMW

‐ 5D (0.00033 mg/L), and LMW

‐ 10 (0.00064 mg/L). pH (field)

GPMW-22P

GPMW-23P

LMW-10

LMW-1B

LMW-2A

LMW-3A

LMW-4

LMW-5D

LMW-5S

LMW-6

LMW-7

LMW-8

LMW-9pH standard units

Catawba Landfill Groundwater Lower MCL

4 5 6 7

1/1/1985 1/1/1986 1/1/1987 1/1/1988 1/1/1989 1/1/1990 1/1/1991 1/1/1992 1/1/1993 1/1/1994 1/1/1995 1/1/1996 1/1/1997 1/1/1998 1/1/1999 1/1/2000 1/1/2001 1/1/2002 1/1/2003 1/1/2004 1/1/2005 1/1/2006 1/1/2007 1/1/2008 1/1/2009 1/1/2010 1/1/2011

During the October 2009 monitoring event, mercury was detected in LMW

‐ 5S at a

concentration of 0.0021 mg/l versus the regulatory standard of 0.002 mg/L. The mercury

concentration in LMW

‐ 5S during the December 2009 re

‐ sample was 0.002 mg/L. Mercury

values in LMW

‐ 5S have been erratic since sampling began in 2003 and similar mercury trends

are observed in monitoring well LMW

‐ 1B. Monitoring wells downgradient of LMW

‐ 1B and

LMW

‐ 5S continue to be non

‐ detect for mercury. Figure 4.2 depicts historical (2002 to present)

mercury trends for the landfill wells.Catawba Nuclear Station Class Two Landfill Permit # 463303

‐ 1601 Site # 00534

July 1, 2009

‐ June 30, 2010 Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report

9 Figure 4.2: Historical Mercury Trends

Hg, tot (mg/L)

GPMW-22P

GPMW-23P

LMW-10

LMW-1B

LMW-2A

LMW-3A

LMW-4

LMW-5D

LMW-5S

LMW-6

LMW-7

LMW-8

LMW-9mg/L

Catawba Landfill Groundwater MCL

0.0000 0.0005 0.0010 0.0015 0.0020 0.0025

1/1/2003 1/1/2004 1/1/2005 1/1/2006 1/1/2007 1/1/2008 1/1/2009 1/1/2010 1/1/2011

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)

R.61

‐ 107.19 Appendix III VOCs compounds detected in the April 2010 samples are summarized

in Table 2. Where no SC R.61

‐ 68 MCL has been established for a constituent, values are

compared with the EPA MCL, if established, or the screening level obtained from EPA Region 9

RSL Tables, May 2010 (Table 7). No Appendix III VOCs were detected in wells LMW

‐ 3A, LMW

‐ 4,

LMW

‐ 5D, LMW

‐ 10, GPMW

‐ 22P and GPMW

‐ 23P.

Detected compounds and concentrations in monitoring wells LMW

‐ 1B, LMW

‐ 2A and LMW

‐ 5S

were similar to past data. Concentration maps were prepared for each Appendix III VOC

constituent (Figures 3A through 3R). VOC trend graphs were prepared for each Appendix III

VOC constituent with detected concentrations (Figures 5A through 5H).

Although VOC compounds continue to be detected in some wells, they are present in relatively

low concentrations and are not trending upward. Natural attenuation processes continue to

degrade chlorinated solvents.

A side by side comparison of detected Appendix III organics is provided in Table 5 for samples

collected from April 2009 through April 2010. Detected Appendix III organics are compared to

State or EPA MCLs or to EPA Region 9 Screening Levels (SL) when no MCL has been established.

Table 7 contains information extracted from the EPA Region 9 RSL Tables.Catawba Nuclear Station Class Two Landfill Permit # 463303

‐ 1601 Site # 00534

July 1, 2009

‐ June 30, 2010 Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report

10 Radiological Parameters

Radiological parameters (tritium and gamma emitters) are analyzed as a condition of the landfill

permit. Analytical results for radiological parameters are presented in Table 3.

4.1.2 R.61

‐ 107.19 Appendix V Results

Analytical results for April 2010 detected R.61

‐ 107.19 Appendix V parameters are presented in

Table 4. All other Appendix V parameters were less than laboratory PQLs.

Note: Sample GPMW

‐ 23P was selected for the method 8270D matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate samples.

The matrix spiking mix was also added to the sample, therefore there was no valid analysis for this sample. The

test was canceled (See laboratory case narrative). No method 8270D compounds have been detected in any

groundwater samples to date.

All wells have been sampled for R.61

‐ 107.19 Appendix V parameters for two or more

monitoring events with the exception of old wells LMW

‐ 1A, LMW

‐ 2 and LMW

‐ 3 as summarized

in Table 4.1 below.

Table 4.1 R.61

‐ 107.19 Appendix V Sampling Summary

Apr. 2009 Oct. 2009 Apr. 2010

LMW-1A NS 1 NS 1 NS

LMW-1B S S S

LMW-2 S S 2 NS

LMW-2A S S S

LMW-3 NS 1 NS 1 NS

LMW-3A S S S

LMW-4 S S S

LMW-5S S S S

LMW-5D S S S

LMW-6 * S S

LMW-7 * S S

LMW-8 * S S

LMW-9 * S S

LMW-10 * S S

GPMW-22P S S S

GPMW-23P S S S

S = Sampled 1 = Dry or insufficient volume

NS = Not Sampled 2 = Insufficient vol. / VOCs only

*

= Well not installed until Oct. 2009

A side by side comparison of detected Appendix V parameters is provided in Table 6 for

samples collected from April 2009 through April 2010. Detected Appendix V parameters are

compared to State or EPA MCLs or to EPA Region 9 Screening Levels (SL) when no MCL has been

established. Table 7 contains information extracted from the EPA Region 9 SL Tables. A

detection occurrence summary of the Appendix V parameters follows:Catawba Nuclear Station Class Two Landfill Permit # 463303

‐ 1601 Site # 00534

July 1, 2009

‐ June 30, 2010 Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report

11 Antimony: 8 of 35 analyses > PQL and detected in four wells.

(MCL 0.006 mg/L) Highest detected value in LMW

‐ 2 (0.007 mg/L) but also detected in

background well LMW

‐ 4 (0.004 mg/l).

Beryllium: 4 of 35 analyses > PQL and detected in three wells.

(MCL 0.004 mg/L) Highest detected value in LMW

‐ 3A (0.0008 mg/L).

Cobalt: 1 of 35 analyses > PQL. Detected in one of three events in LMW

‐ 3A

(SL 0.011 mg/L) (0.006 mg/l).

Copper: 7 of 35 analyses > PQL and detected in 6 wells.

(MCL 1.0 mg/L) Highest detected value in GPMW

‐ 23P (0.0031 mg/L).

Cyanide: 1 of 35 analyses > PQL. Detected in one of three events in LMW

‐ 1B

(MCL 0.2 mg/L) (0.012 mg/L).

Nickel: 3 of 35 analyses >PQL and detected in 3 wells.

(SL 0.73 mg/L) Highest detected value in LMW

‐ 10 (0.01 mg/L).

Sulfide: 3 of 35 analyses >PQL and detected in 2 wells.

(No Estab. MCL or SL) Highest detected value in background well LMW

‐ 4 (6.6 mg/L).

Tin: 1 of 35 analyses > PQL. Detected in one of three events in GPMW

‐ 22P

(SL 22 mg/L ) (0.006 mg/L).

Vanadium: 5 of 35 analyses > PQL and detected in four wells.

(SL 0.0026 mg/L) Highest detected value in LMW

‐ 9 (0.014 mg/l).

Zinc: 8 of 35 analyses > PQL and detected in 5 wells.

(MCL 5.0 mg/L) Highest detected value in LMW

‐ 9 (0.015 mg/L) but also detected in

background well LMW

‐ 4 (0.013 mg/L).

Chloroethane: 5 of 36 analyses > PQL and detected in 2 wells.

(SL 21000 ug/L) Highest detected value in LMW

‐ 1B (3.8 ug/L).

Trichlorofluoromethane: 1 of 36 analyses > PQL. Detected in one of three events in

(SL 1300 ug/L) LMW

‐ 5S (1.1 ug/L).

Dichlorodifluoromethane: 3 of 36 analyses >PQL and detected in 2 wells.

(SL 390 ug/L) Highest detected value in LMW

‐ 8 (6.7 ug/L).Catawba Nuclear Station Class Two Landfill Permit # 463303

‐ 1601 Site # 00534

July 1, 2009

‐ June 30, 2010 Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report

12 DBCP: 1 of 36 analyses > PQL. Detected in one of two events in LMW

‐ 2

(MCL 0.2 ug/L) (0.08 ug/L).

DDT: 1 of 35 analyses > PQL. Detected in one of three events in LMW

‐ 5D

(SL 0.2 ug/L) (0.045 ug/L).

Heptachlor: 2 of 35 analyses > PQL and detected in one well. Highest detected

(MCL 0.4 ug/L) value in LMW

‐ 10 (0.29 ug/L).

2,4

‐ D: 1 of 36 analyses > PQL

. Detected in one of two events in LMW

‐ 7

(MCL 70 ug/L) (5.3 ug/L).

4.2 October 2009 Groundwater Monitoring

The October, 2009 Groundwater Monitoring Report was previously submitted to SCDHEC

(December, 2009). Additionally, discussion of the October, 2009 analytical results was

incorporated into the March 2010 Groundwater Assessment Report (prepared by S&ME for

Duke Energy) and submitted to SCDHEC (April, 2010).

Data summary tables associated with the October, 2009 report are included in Appendix C for

reference.

4.3 December 2009 Confirmation Sampling

During the October 2009 monitoring event, benzene in well LMW

‐ 2 was detected at 5.8 ug/L

versus its regulatory standard of 5 ug/L. Benzene was not detected in groundwater from LMW

‐

2 in the December 2009 confirmation sample, nor was it detected in any other well in the

October 2009 monitoring event. Based on this, the benzene detection should be considered a

false positive.

During the October 2009 monitoring event, mercury in well LMW

‐ 5S was detected at 0.0021

mg/L versus its regulatory standard of 0.0020 mg/L. Then mercury concentration in a

December 2009 confirmation sample from LMW

‐ 5S was 0.0020 mg/L.Catawba Nuclear Station Class Two Landfill Permit # 463303

‐ 1601 Site # 00534

July 1, 2009

‐ June 30, 2010 Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report

13 5.0 SUMMARY AND COMPLIANCE DISCUSSION

This Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report covers the monitoring period from July 1, 2009

through June 30, 2010 and covers two semi

‐ annual sampling events at the Catawba Nuclear

Station Class Two Landfill. Included in this report are the results and data analysis from the

samplings conducted in October 2009 and April 2010.

The October 2009 and April 2010 semi

‐ annual groundwater monitoring events were conducted

in compliance with the requirements of R.61

‐ 107.19. Under continued guidance of SCDHEC

(March 26, 2009 letter), existing monitoring wells at the Catawba Class Two Landfill were

sampled for R.61

‐ 107.19 Appendix V parameters during the October 2009 and April 2010

monitoring events. Other requirements of the March 26, 2009 letter were addressed in a

Groundwater Assessment Plan (S&ME for Duke Energy, June 2009) and have previously been

reported to SC DEHEC in a Groundwater Assessment Report (S&ME for Duke Energy, February

2010).

A summary of detected constituents that met or exceeded their respective regulatory standard

with the exception of pH is provided in Table 5.1 below.

Table 5.1: Limit Exceptions Lists

CNS-Landfill

Limit Exceptions (List)

Date Range: 10/01/2009 to 04/13/2010

S ample Analys is

LimitType P arame te r Units Loc ation Date Re s ult Limit

SC R.61-68-MCL Hg, tot mg/L LMW-5S 10/27/2009 0.00210 0.002

SC R.61-68-MCL Methylene Chloride ug/L LMW-5S 10/27/2009 7.800 5

SC R.61-68-MCL Tetrachloroethene ug/L LMW-5S 10/27/2009 6.4 5

LMW-5S 04/12/2010 7.8 5

SC R.61-68-MCL Trichloroethene ug/L LMW-5S 04/12/2010 6.9 5

EPA-Screening-Level 1,1-Dichloroethane ug/L LMW-1B 10/27/2009 8.3 2.4

LMW-1B 04/12/2010 7.4 2.4

LMW-2A 10/27/2009 33.0 2.4

LMW-2A 04/12/2010 16.0 2.4

LMW-5S 10/27/2009 30.0 2.4

LMW-5S 04/12/2010 30.0 2.4

LMW-6 10/28/2009 3.6 2.4

LMW-7 04/13/2010 3.0 2.4

LMW-7 10/28/2009 2.8 2.4

LMW-8 04/13/2010 2.7 2.4

LMW-8 10/28/2009 4.8 2.4

LMW-9 10128/2009 2.4 2.4

EPA-Screening-Level V, tot mg/L LMW-10 10/28/2009 0.007 0.0026

LMW-1B 04/12/2010 0.010 0.0026

LMW-3A 04/13/2010 0.011 0.0026

LMW-9 04/13/2010 0.014 0.0026Catawba Nuclear Station Class Two Landfill Permit # 463303

‐ 1601 Site # 00534

July 1, 2009

‐ June 30, 2010 Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report

14 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMENDATIONS

Groundwater northeast of the landfill continues to exhibit relatively low concentrations of

VOCs. However, trend plots of detected VOCs do not indicate increasing trends and the

natural attenuation process appears to be reducing concentrations.

Four wells (LMW

‐ 1B, LMW

‐ 5S, LMW

‐ 5D and LMW

‐ 10), all near the northern extent of the

landfill, exhibit a detectable concentration of mercury. The mercury concentration in LMW

‐ 5S

in the October 2009 sample (0.0021 mg/L) exceeded the MCL of 0.002 mg/L. However, the

April 2010 mercury concentration in LMW

‐ 5S was 0.00089 mg/l. Mercury values in LMW

‐ 5S

have been erratic since sampling began in 2003 and similar mercury trends are observed in

monitoring well LMW

‐ 1B. Mercury has not been detected in monitoring wells downgradient of

LMW

‐ 1B and LMW

‐ 5S.

Groundwater assessment and monitoring well maintenance activities associated with the

Catawba landfill since 2002 have resulted in replacement of three poor performing wells (LMW

‐

1A, LMW

‐ 2 and LMW

‐ 3) and the construction of nine additional wells. Currently the landfill is

monitored with a network of 13 monitoring wells. Continued semi

‐ annual groundwater

monitoring under R.61

‐ 107.19 will afford the opportunity to observe and respond to future

trends in the concentrations of R.61

‐ 107.19 Appendix III constituents.

Duke Energy respectfully requests and recommends discontinuance of R.61

‐ 107.19 Appendix

‐ V

monitoring. Of the detected Appendix V constituents, only antimony, vanadium and heptachlor

appear of possible consequence to constitute additional discussion:

Antimony: 8 of 35 analyses > PQL and detected in four wells.

(MCL 0.006 mg/L) Highest detected value in LMW

‐ 2 (0.007 mg/L) but also detected in

background well LMW

‐ 4 (0.004 mg/l).

Detection of antimony at a concentration of 0.004 mg/L in background well LMW

‐ 4 indicates

that antimony is naturally occurring in Piedmont Geologic Provence groundwater and not due

to landfill influence.Catawba Nuclear Station Class Two Landfill Permit # 463303

‐ 1601 Site # 00534

July 1, 2009

‐ June 30, 2010 Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report

15 Vanadium: 5 of 35 analyses > PQL and detected in four wells.

(SL 0.0026 mg/L) Highest detected value in LMW

‐ 9 (0.014 mg/l).

Detected values for vanadium are inconsistently distributed among wells and monitoring

events with the highest detected value being in the most downgradient well LMW

‐ 9.

The following diagram from Geochemical Landscapes of the Conterminous United States, USGS

Professional Paper 1648, November 2001 lends evidence that vanadium is naturally occurring in

Piedmont Geologic Provence groundwater and not due to landfill influence.

Heptachlor: 2 of 35 occurrences > PQL and detected in one well. Highest detected

(MCL 0.4 ug/L) value in LMW

‐ 10 (0.29 ug/L).

Heptachlor has only been detected in new monitoring well LMW

‐ 10 which was installed to

investigate possible influence from the area north and west of the landfill. The use of

heptachlor was phased out during the 1970s and the landfill wasn't permitted until 1984. The

source heptachlor is likely from a legacy use of the land and not influence from the landfill.