From: "Laverty, Brett" To: =?utf-8?Q?Davidson _Landon?=
Page 1
From: "Laverty, Brett" To: =?utf-8?Q?Davidson _Landon?= =?utf-8?Q?Smith _Eric?= <[email protected]> Date: 10/18/2010 2:58:49 PM Subject: RE:_Cliffside_Approved_Groundwater_Monitoring_Plan_Letter_10-18-10 A bedrock well has to be deep enough to allow enough transmitting fractures to intercept the borehole. Anything less defeats the purpose. I advocate a depth of 50-100 ft into competent rock and an adequate supply of water for sampling as part of the working definition. According to Rick Wooten of the Geologic Survey, this area underwent both ductile and brittle deformation. The liniment trends can be seen clearly on the LIDAR maps in and around the Cliffside plant. It is likely that bedrock fractures are an important conduit for groundwater between the coal ash pond and the Broad River. Brett Laverty Brett Laverty - [email protected] North Carolina Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources Asheville Regional Office Division of Water Quality - Aquifer Protection Section 2090 U.S. 70 Highway Swannanoa, NC 28778 Tel: 828-296-4500 Fax: 828-299-7043 Notice: E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and therefore may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Davidson, Landon Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 2:31 PM To: Smith, Eric Cc: Watts, Debra; Bolich, Rick; Laverty, Brett Subject: RE: Cliffside Approved Groundwater Monitoring Plan Letter 10-18-10
Eric- Goin back out in the field so this is likely it if due today. Our only concern is the bedrock definition. We tried the same approach or language with Progress for one bedrock well (different site) and ended up with a well that penetrates bedrock in the range of only 15-20 ft. The WL in the bedrock well is different than the adjacent transition zone well but we feel Progress’ ‘bedrock’ well is likely just a well placed in the lower transition zone or very upward portion of bedrock. An option to try and get a true bedrock well (ie, deeper) would be to put a minimum depth requirement. I had thought 50ft minimum depth (not based on any onsite geologic information). When we say ‘sufficient to obtain’ in the bedrock definition, I think we are leaving it too open ended. Any other opinions out there? Landon
web page: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/agw.html This e-mail contains a public record which is subject to disclosure to third parties and the public pursuant North Carolina's Public Records Law. N.C. Gen. Stat. §132-1, et seq. This e-mail may contain materials prepared during or in anticipation of a legal proceeding as part of preparation for that legal proceeding, in which case third party or public access to it is subject to N.C. Gen. Stat. §132-1.9 and may be denied until the conclusion of the legal proceeding, including the completion of all appeals and post-judgment proceedings, or, in the case where no legal proceeding has been commenced, upon the expiration of all applicable statutes of limitations and periods of repose.
4_29_2014
Page 2 From: Smith, Eric Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 5:15 PM To: Davidson, Landon Cc: Watts, Debra Subject: Cliffside Approved Groundwater Monitoring Plan Letter 10-18-10
Landon: Attached is the revised letter to Duke for the Cliffside Steam Station. I have included the letter, the Groundwater Monitoring Plan, and the revised map for your review. -Eric G. Smith ________________________________ Eric G. Smith, P.G. Hydrogeologist NCDENR Aquifer Protection Section Groundwater Protection Unit 1636 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1636 919-715-6196 919-715-0588 Fax http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/aps/gpu.htm
DISCLAIMER: Per Executive Order No. 150, all e-mails sent to and from this account are subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
4_29_2014
Page 3
4_29_2014
From: "Laverty, Brett" To: =?utf-8?Q?Davidson _Landon?= =?utf-8?Q?Smith _Eric?= <[email protected]> Date: 10/18/2010 2:58:49 PM Subject: RE:_Cliffside_Approved_Groundwater_Monitoring_Plan_Letter_10-18-10 A bedrock well has to be deep enough to allow enough transmitting fractures to intercept the borehole. Anything less defeats the purpose. I advocate a depth of 50-100 ft into competent rock and an adequate supply of water for sampling as part of the working definition. According to Rick Wooten of the Geologic Survey, this area underwent both ductile and brittle deformation. The liniment trends can be seen clearly on the LIDAR maps in and around the Cliffside plant. It is likely that bedrock fractures are an important conduit for groundwater between the coal ash pond and the Broad River. Brett Laverty Brett Laverty - [email protected] North Carolina Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources Asheville Regional Office Division of Water Quality - Aquifer Protection Section 2090 U.S. 70 Highway Swannanoa, NC 28778 Tel: 828-296-4500 Fax: 828-299-7043 Notice: E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and therefore may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Davidson, Landon Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 2:31 PM To: Smith, Eric Cc: Watts, Debra; Bolich, Rick; Laverty, Brett Subject: RE: Cliffside Approved Groundwater Monitoring Plan Letter 10-18-10
Eric- Goin back out in the field so this is likely it if due today. Our only concern is the bedrock definition. We tried the same approach or language with Progress for one bedrock well (different site) and ended up with a well that penetrates bedrock in the range of only 15-20 ft. The WL in the bedrock well is different than the adjacent transition zone well but we feel Progress’ ‘bedrock’ well is likely just a well placed in the lower transition zone or very upward portion of bedrock. An option to try and get a true bedrock well (ie, deeper) would be to put a minimum depth requirement. I had thought 50ft minimum depth (not based on any onsite geologic information). When we say ‘sufficient to obtain’ in the bedrock definition, I think we are leaving it too open ended. Any other opinions out there? Landon
web page: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/agw.html This e-mail contains a public record which is subject to disclosure to third parties and the public pursuant North Carolina's Public Records Law. N.C. Gen. Stat. §132-1, et seq. This e-mail may contain materials prepared during or in anticipation of a legal proceeding as part of preparation for that legal proceeding, in which case third party or public access to it is subject to N.C. Gen. Stat. §132-1.9 and may be denied until the conclusion of the legal proceeding, including the completion of all appeals and post-judgment proceedings, or, in the case where no legal proceeding has been commenced, upon the expiration of all applicable statutes of limitations and periods of repose.
4_29_2014
Page 2 From: Smith, Eric Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 5:15 PM To: Davidson, Landon Cc: Watts, Debra Subject: Cliffside Approved Groundwater Monitoring Plan Letter 10-18-10
Landon: Attached is the revised letter to Duke for the Cliffside Steam Station. I have included the letter, the Groundwater Monitoring Plan, and the revised map for your review. -Eric G. Smith ________________________________ Eric G. Smith, P.G. Hydrogeologist NCDENR Aquifer Protection Section Groundwater Protection Unit 1636 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1636 919-715-6196 919-715-0588 Fax http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/aps/gpu.htm
DISCLAIMER: Per Executive Order No. 150, all e-mails sent to and from this account are subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
4_29_2014
Page 3
4_29_2014
