NC0003425_Rox_Appendix F_20191231

Corrective Action Plan Update December 2019
Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
APPENDIX F
FRACTURED BEDROCK EVALUATION
SynTerra

Llp
synTerra
FRACTURED BEDROCK EVALUATION
ROXBORO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
1700 DUNNAWAY ROAD
SEMORA, NC 27343
DECEMBER 2019
PREPARED FOR
DUKE
ENERGY
PROGRESS
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS,, LLC
��
Cra' ady, NC LG 1t99
Project Manager

Fractured Bedrock Evaluation December 2019
Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant SynTerra
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
1.0 INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................1-1
2.0 LINEAMENT EVALUATION.................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Imagery Selection......................................................................................................2-1
2.2 Lineament Selection and Summary........................................................................ 2-1
3.0 DEEP BEDROCK EVALUATION FIELD PROCEDURES AND
IMPLEMENTATION................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1
Purpose.......................................................................................................................
3-1
3.2
Drilling Methodology and Well Design................................................................
3-1
3.3
Well Development....................................................................................................
3-4
3.4
Hydraulic Conductivity Measurements................................................................
3-4
3.5
Water Quality Analysis............................................................................................3-5
3.6
Additional Bedrock Evaluation..............................................................................
3-5
4.0
BEDROCK FRACTURE EVALUATION METHODS ...........................................
4-1
4.1
Flow Profile Characterization.................................................................................
4-1
4.2
Fracture Hydraulic Apertures.................................................................................4-2
4.3
Fracture Spacing........................................................................................................4-3
4.4
Fracture Orientation Plots and Statistics...............................................................
4-4
4.5
Summary of Bedrock Fracture Characteristics.....................................................
4-5
4.6
Implications of Bedrock Fracture Network for Groundwater Flow..................4-5
5.0
BEDROCK MATRIX CHARACTERISTICS...........................................................5-1
5.1 Sample Selection........................................................................................................5-1
5.2 Matrix Porosity and Bulk Density.......................................................................... 5-2
5.3 Petrographic Evaluation.......................................................................................... 5-2
5.4 Implications of Bedrock Matrix Characteristics for Fate and Transport........... 5-2
6.0 REFERENCES................................................................................................................ 6-1
Page i

Fractured Bedrock Evaluation December 2019
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Roxboro Steam Electric Plant SynTerra
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1A 1968 USGS Topographic Map without Lineaments - East Ash Basin
Figure 1B 1968 USGS Topographic Map without Lineaments — West Ash Basin
Figure 1C 1968 USGS Topographic Map with Lineaments — West Ash Basin
Figure 2A 1951 Aerial Photograph without Lineaments — East Ash Basin
Figure 2B 1951 Aerial Photograph with Lineaments — East Ash Basin
Figure 2C 1951 Aerial Photograph without Lineaments — West Ash Basin
Figure 2D
1951 Aerial Photograph with Lineaments — West Ash Basin
Figure 3
Deep Bedrock Evaluation Locations
Figure 4
Hydraulic Conductivity Vertical Profiles
Figure 5
Hydraulic Aperture Vertical Profiles
Figure 6
Fracture Spacing Vertical Profile
Figure 7A
General Cross Section B-B' — East Ash Basin
Figure 7B
General Cross Section C-C' — West Ash Basin
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Analytical Results for Deep Bedrock Wells
Table 2 Porosity and Bulk Density Results
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A Boring Logs, Well Construction Records and Well Development
Summary Table
Attachment B USGS FLASH Results and Calculations
Attachment C Geophysical Logging Report
Attachment D Petrographic Evaluation of Core Samples
Page ii

Fractured Bedrock Evaluation December 2019
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Roxboro Steam Electric Plant SynTerra
LIST OF ACRONYMS
02L
North Carolina Administrative Code, Title 15A, Subchapter 02L,
Groundwater Classification and Standards
ASTM
American Society for Testing and Materials
bgs
below ground surface
CAP
Corrective Action Plan
COI
constituent of interest
Core Labs
Core Laboratories
CSA
Comprehensive Site Assessment
DEM
digital elevation model
Duke Energy
Duke Energy Progress, LLC
EAB
East Ash Basin
en
hydraulic aperture
ENE
east-northeast
FLASH
Flow -Log Analysis of Single Holes
g
acceleration due to gravity
g
gram
g/cm3
grams per cubic centimeter
GEL
Gel Solutions, LLC
Geologic
Geologic Exploration, LLC
gpm
gallons per minute
HPF
heat pulse flowmeter
HSZ
Hyco Shear Zone
I.D.
inner diameter
IMP
Interim Monitoring Plan
Ka
constituent partition coefficient
µ
viscosity of water
µm
micrometer or micron
µg/L
micrograms per liter
n
number of individual fractures in a flow layer
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
NNW
north-northwest
NTU
nephelometric turbidity unit
pW
density of water
Plant/Site
Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
PVC
polyvinyl chloride
Roxboro
Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
Q
flow rate
Page iii

Fractured Bedrock Evaluation
December 2019
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
LIST OF ACRONYMS (CONTINUED)
ro
radius of influence
rW
radius of borehole
s
well drawdown
SP
spontaneous potential
SPR
single point resistance
SSE
south-southeast
TD
total depth
USGS
United States Geological Survey
WAB
West Ash Basin
WSW
west-southwest
SynTerra
Page iv

Fractured Bedrock Evaluation
December 2019
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Roxboro Steam Electric Plant SynTerra
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report provides a detailed characterization of the bedrock in the areas near the ash
basins at the Roxboro Steam Electric Plant (Roxboro, Plant, or Site). The characterization
is based on additional evaluation of lineaments, the bedrock fracture system, and the
bedrock matrix. The information in this report supplements information presented in
the Comprehensive Site Assessment (CSA) Update (SynTerra, 2017) and further
supports the development of groundwater remedial alternatives as part of the Roxboro
Corrective Action Plan (CAP) Update.
Page 1-1

Fractured Bedrock Evaluation December 2019
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Roxboro Steam Electric Plant SynTerra
2.0 LINEAMENT EVALUATION
To supplement the bedrock characterization and support the Roxboro CAP Update,
SynTerra evaluated lineaments in the vicinity of the ash basins. Lineaments are linear
features at ground surface that might have resulted from underlying bedrock fractures,
fracture zones, faults, or other geologic structures and might represent the approximate
vicinity of preferential groundwater flow zones in bedrock.
2.1 Imagery Selection
Aerial imagery and topographic survey information used for the lineament evaluation
met the following criteria:
• The aerial image (1951 aerial) used for the evaluation predated East Ash Basin
(EAB) construction in 1964 and West Ash Basin (WAB) construction in 1973.
• The topographic map (1968), the earliest available for the region, predated WAB
construction in 1973.
• The scale and resolution are sufficiently detailed to identify apparent linear
features that are interpreted to be unrelated to anthropogenic activity.
Details regarding the selected image and map are as follows:
• Topographic survey — U.S. Geological Survey, 1968, USGS 1:24000-scale
Quadrangle for Olive Hill, NC 1968: U.S. Geological Survey.
(Figures 1A and 1B).
• April 20, 1951, aerial photograph obtained from the USGS Earth Explorer website
at http://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/ (Figures 2A and 2C)
2.2 Lineament Selection and Summary
The following USGS list (Clark et al., 2016) summarizes features used to identify
lineaments in this evaluation:
• Linear topographic features
• Straight stream segments
• Aligned gaps in ridges
• Vegetation
Page 2-1

Fractured Bedrock Evaluation December 2019
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Roxboro Steam Electric Plant SynTerra
East Ash Basin
Areas near the EAB north of Dunnaway Road, west of McGhee Mill Road, and south of
Hyco Reservoir were visually reviewed to identify linear features. Lineaments
identified in the vicinity of the EAB on the 1951 aerial photograph are presented on
Figure 2B. Lineament orientations from each image have been summarized on a 360-
degree compass rose diagram to identify general trends.
Observations from the aerial photograph review in the vicinity of the EAB are
summarized as follows:
1951 USGS Aerial Photograph
• 16 linear features identified
• Lineament orientations widely scattered — no predominant lineament
orientation identified
West Ash Basin
Areas near the WAB north of Semora Road, west of Dunnaway Road, and south and
east of Hyco Reservoir were visually reviewed to identify linear features. The selected
aerial photograph and topographic map were evaluated separately.
Lineaments identified in the vicinity of the WAB on the 1968 topographic survey map
are presented on Figure 1C, and lineaments identified on the 1951 aerial photograph are
presented on Figure 2D. Lineament orientations from each image have been
summarized on a 360-degree compass rose diagram to identify general trends.
Observations from the topographic survey and aerial photograph review in the vicinity
of the WAB are summarized as follows:
1968 Topographic Survey
• 45 linear features identified
• Primary group oriented northeast — southwest with 40 percent of the identified
lineaments between azimuths of 48 degrees and 72 degrees (13 percent of
azimuth range)
• In addition, interpreted lineaments showed a wide range of cross -cutting
orientations
Page 2-2

Fractured Bedrock Evaluation December 2019
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Roxboro Steam Electric Plant SynTerra
1951 USGS Aerial Photograph
• 39 linear features identified
• Primary group oriented northeast — southwest with 31 percent of the identified
lineaments between azimuths of 48 degrees and 70 degrees (12 percent of
azimuth range)
• In addition, interpreted lineaments showed a wide range of cross -cutting
orientations
There is general agreement on 32 linear features identified with the topographic survey
and aerial photograph (approximately 70 percent). These data indicate a predominant
lineament orientation of northeast -southwest, with multiple cross -cutting lineaments of
various orientations.
Page 2-3

Fractured Bedrock Evaluation December 2019
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
SynTerra
3.0 DEEP BEDROCK EVALUATION FIELD PROCEDURES AND
IMPLEMENTATION
3.1 Purpose
To refine the site conceptual model and improve the accuracy of model predictions
being prepared for the CAP, additional bedrock wells were installed adjacent to the ash
basin dams and in areas of known bedrock groundwater impacts. Additional data
regarding the occurrence of water -bearing fracture(s) and the presence or absence of
constituents were needed to refine the groundwater flow model and fate and transport
model. Therefore, the scope of work described below was implemented to evaluate
deep bedrock groundwater quality and to refine the assumptions of hydraulic
conductivity, fracture characteristics, and depth of groundwater impact in the vicinity
of the ash basins.
3.2 Drilling Methodology and Well Design
In general, three areas related to the EAB were evaluated and two areas related to the
WAB were evaluated. A total of 10 deep bedrock evaluation monitoring wells were
installed either as single wells, pairs, or clusters within these evaluation areas. Deep
bedrock evaluation locations are depicted on Figure 3.
Prior to drilling activities, subsurface utility scans were conducted in the area of the
proposed borings. Monitoring wells were installed in accordance with 15A NCAC 02C
.0108 Standards of Construction: Wells Other Than Water Supply. Geologic Exploration,
LLC (Geologic) conducted drilling operations under contract to Duke Energy Progess,
LLC (Duke Energy). A qualified scientist oversaw drilling and well installation. Boring
advancement and well design/installation were similar at nine (9) of the 10 deep
bedrock evaluation locations. ABMW-7BRLL varied as the only location installed
within an ash basin waste boundary. The following description applies to the nine
locations at which boring advancement and well design/installation were similar:
Owing to near -surface partially weathered rock, pneumatic air hammer technology (air
hammer) drilling techniques were used from ground surface to top -of -rock at each
location. These borings measured 10 to 12 inches in diameter based on air hammer
tooling. A permanent 8- or 10-inch diameter, schedule 40 flush joint threaded polyvinyl
chloride (PVC) outer casing was installed, "socketed" approximately 5 to 10 feet within
competent bedrock. The casing was fitted with a grout shoe seated into the top of rock
and tremie-grouted into place. Air hammering was continued through the outer surface
casing to the target depth. The target depth was approximately 30 feet below the screen
interval of the deepest adjacent monitoring well or borehole with constituent of interest
Page 3-1

Fractured Bedrock Evaluation December 2019
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Roxboro Steam Electric Plant SynTerra
(COI) detections. Once the boring reached its target depth, a 6-inch diameter, schedule
40 flush -joint threaded PVC inner casing was installed and tremie-grouted into place.
Schedule 80 PVC material was used on inner casings that exceeded approximately 100
feet in depth. After the grout cured (at least 24 hours), the borings were advanced to a
prescribed total depth (TD) of either 200 feet below ground surface (bgs)(MW-1BRL,
MW-108BRL, MW-205BRL, and MW-208BRL) or 400 feet bgs (ABMW-7BRLL). Based on
field screening results collected at the time of installation, subsequent deep bedrock
borings were installed to prescribed depths of approximately 300 feet bgs (MW-
205BRLL and MW-208BRLL) and 450 feet bgs (MW-108BRLL, MW-205BRLL, and MW-
208BRLL).
At ABMW-7BRLL, 121/4-inch hollow -stem augers (16-inch outer diameter) were used to
advance the borehole through approximately 80 feet of overlying ash to auger refusal.
Auger refusal was encountered at 85 feet bgs. Air hammering advanced the boring
through the hollow -stem augers to competent rock, approximately 88 feet bgs. A
permanent 8-inch diameter, schedule 40 flush joint threaded PVC outer casing was
installed, "socketed" within competent bedrock. The casing was fitted with a grout shoe
seated into the top of rock and tremie-grouted into place. Air hammering was
continued through the outer surface casing to the target depth. The target depth was
approximately 30 feet below the screen interval of the adjacent ABMW-7BRL,
approximately 330 feet bgs with reported COI detections. Once the boring reached its
target depth, a 6-inch diameter, schedule 80 flush -joint threaded PVC inner casing was
installed and tremie-grouted into place. After the grout cured (at least 24 hours), the
boring was advanced to a prescribed depth TD of 400 feet bgs.
During the air hammer boring advancement below the 6-inch PVC casing, the field
scientist noted potential fractures based on driller observations and percussion hammer
frequency. Estimated yield of water -bearing zones was determined through downhole
circulation after approximately each 10-foot run. Upon determination of a potential
water -bearing fracture or fracture zone [yielding approximately 1 gallon per minute
(gpm) or more], a sample was collected by air -lifting formation water from the
borehole. The sample was screened for boron with a Hach TNT877 spectrophotometer.
Samples were field -filtered with a 0.45 micron (µm) filter to reduce influence of
turbidity (i.e., suspended solids) on screening results. The Hach TNT877 test kit enables
detection of boron concentrations from 50 micrograms per liter (µg/L) to 2,500 µg/L.
The presence or absence of boron at depth is significant for refining groundwater model
assumptions. The North Carolina regulatory standard for boron (700 µg/L) was
considered during well design.
Page 3-2

Fractured Bedrock Evaluation December 2019
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Roxboro Steam Electric Plant SynTerra
Field boron screening results were considered during boring advancement. Screening
results represent a composite sample from the length of open borehole. Boron
concentrations greater than 700 µg/L were encountered at depths that were already
screened with existing wells, and at some depths below the deepest existing deep
bedrock boring (MW-108BRL, MW-205BRL, MW-205BRLL, MW-208BRL, and MW-
208BRLL). If the water quality testing indicated a boron concentration greater than 700
µg/L, the boring was terminated and a second (or third) offset boring was installed with
a surface casing followed by inner casing set below the adjacent boring. This process
was repeated until reaching the predetermined TD of approximately 450 feet bgs; the
depth necessary to refine the flow and transport model. Vertical evaluation at each
location was deemed complete when the specified TD was reached. Field screening
results from MW-1BRL and ABMW-7BRLL indicated concentrations less than the
regulatory standard. Field screening concentrations results from MW-108BRLL, MW-
205BRLLL, and MW-208BRLL indicated boron field -screening concentrations greater
than 700 µg/L. Drilling was discontinued at these deep bedrock boreholes at depths of
approximately 430 feet bgs (MW-108BRLL) and 448 feet bgs (MW-205BRLLL and MW-
208BRLLL). Discontinuing of drilling would allow for geophysical logging, well
completion, and collection of samples from discrete intervals for analysis by a North
Carolina certified laboratory to support model refinement and preparation of the CAP.
Upon reaching TD at each boring, geophysical logging was conducted using the
following downhole tools: acoustic televiewer, optical televiewer, caliper, fluid
conductivity, fluid temperature, single point resistance (SPR), spontaneous potential
(SP), and heat pulse flowmeter (HPF). HPF data were collected during non -pumping
(ambient) conditions and pumping conditions. At each deep bedrock well, with the
exception of MW-1BRL, MW-205BRL, and MW-208BRL, a portion of open borehole was
backfilled with a bentonite clay plug. The purpose of the backfilling was to facilitate
well installation at the desired screened interval based on field boron screening and
geophysical logs. Well materials were suspended in a vertical position from a lift ring
to avoid casing deflection while the wells were constructed.
Screen intervals were selected to bracket the deepest water -bearing fracture zone as
determined by drilling observations and preliminary geophysical logging data and (if
applicable) the lesser of boron concentrations reported from the field screening process.
Each well consists of a 2-inch inner diameter (I.D.) schedule 40 flush -joint threaded 10-
foot prepacked screen. Screens have 0.010-inch-wide slots and were packed in the field
with a No. 2 sand filter pack. The annular space between the borehole wall/inner casing
and prepacked well screens for each of the wells was also filled with No. 2 sand filter
Page 3-3

Fractured Bedrock Evaluation December 2019
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
SynTerra
pack. The sand pack extends 3-5 feet above the top of the prepacked screen at each
well. The well seal consists of at least 10 feet of coated pelletized bentonite.
The remainder of the annular space was backfilled into the outer casing with portland
cement grout. If the annulus exceeded 100 feet in length, grouting was conducted in lifts
of approximately 80 feet at a time.
Monitoring wells were completed with above -ground aluminum protective casings,
locking caps, and well tags. The protective covers were secured and completed in a
concrete collar and a minimum 2-square-foot concrete pad with bollards.
3.3 Well Development
Installed monitoring wells were developed via submersible pump (SS Mega Monsoon
XL) and drop tubing extending to the total well depth. The drilling contractor
developed the new deep bedrock monitoring wells until water quality indicator
parameters (e.g., conductivity, pH, temperature) were generally stable and turbidity
reached acceptable levels [10 nephelometric turbidity units (NTUs) or less]. The
geologic logs and well development summary table — which include development
method(s), water volume removed, and field measurements of pH and turbidity — are
provided in Attachment A.
3.4 Hydraulic Conductivity Measurements
Prior to well completion, packer testing across multiple fracture intervals was
conducted within four open bedrock borings (MW-108BRL, MW-108BRLL, MW-
205BRLLL, and MW-208BRLLL). Borings selected for testing exhibited boron field
screening concentrations during drilling in excess of the maximum detectable
instrument range of 2,500 µg/L. Packer testing confirmed field screening concentrations
observed during drilling and viable water -producing zones for well screen intervals.
Slug tests were conducted at each screened interval after well completion. Multiple
falling and rising head tests were completed at the 10 deep bedrock wells. Slug tests
were performed in general accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM) D4044-96 Standard Test Method (Field Procedure) for Instantaneous Change in Head
(Slug) Tests for Determining Hydraulic Properties of Aquifers and in general accordance
with North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR)
Performance and Analysis of Aquifer Slug Test and Pumping Test Policy, dated May 31, 2007.
Page 3-4

Fractured Bedrock Evaluation December 2019
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Roxboro Steam Electric Plant SynTerra
3.5 Water Quality Analysis
After well installation, development, and slug testing, groundwater was collected at
each well for a suite of chemistry analysis [Interim Monitoring Plan (IMP) parameter
list]. The wells were sampled when water quality parameters stabilized (per the Low
Flow Sampling Plan for Duke Energy Facilities, June 2015). Boron was tested in relation
to North Carolina Administrative Code, Title 15A, Subchapter 02L, Groundwater
Classification and Standards (02L). Preliminary results indicate boron concentrations
greater than the 02L standard (700 µg/L) at eight (8) of the 10 wells. Boron results for the
remaining two locations were either less than the method reporting limit (<50 µg/L at
MW-01BRL) or slightly greater (137 µg/L at ABMW-07BRLL). Consistent with the boron
screening data collected during drilling, the samples collected at the deepest bedrock
monitoring wells (MW-108BRLL, MW-205BRLLL, and MW-208BRLLL) had boron
concentrations greater than the 02L standard. These wells are screened approximately
400 feet bgs. Analytical results for the 10 deep bedrock wells are presented in Table 1.
3.6 Additional Bedrock Evaluation
In response to a request from NCDEQ to further characterize groundwater to the south
of the WAB, an additional deep bedrock borehole (MW-38BR) was drilled and
geophysical logging was conducted during a separate mobilization. MW-38BR was
drilled as part of a well cluster, MW-38D/BR, located south of the WAB (Figure 3).
During drilling, little evidence of water was observed in competent rock. The
geophysical logging data confirmed field observations, in that no transmissive fractures
were identified deeper than 107 feet bgs (56 feet below the top of bedrock). These data
indicating that the bedrock at this location exhibits little permeability at depth. The
geophysical logging data are included in the evaluation below. A groundwater
monitoring well will be installed at MW-38BR with a screen interval of 95-110 feet bgs.
Page 3-5

Fractured Bedrock Evaluation December 2019
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Roxboro Steam Electric Plant SynTerra
4.0 BEDROCK FRACTURE EVALUATION METHODS
Deep bedrock borehole logging data were used to characterize the general depths of
flow zones (to target for monitoring well screen placement), hydraulic conductivity, the
hydraulic apertures of fractures and fracture spacing, and the in -situ orientations of
bedrock fractures in the vicinity of the ash basins. These evaluations provide a
comprehensive assessment of the bedrock fracture system near the ash basins in
support of the CAP.
4.1 Flow Profile Characterization
FLASH (Flow -Log Analysis of Single Holes), a computer program developed by the
USGS, uses HPF data for ambient and pumping conditions to estimate transmissivity
profiles along single boreholes (Day -Lewis et al., 2011). FLASH software was used to
analyze the HPF data from the deep bedrock boreholes and generate a transmissivity
profile for each logged borehole. To produce a unique fit to the data, FLASH estimates
either transmissivity or radius of influence. All model iterations used an estimated
radius of influence of 1,000 feet. Calculated transmissivity results are relatively
insensitive to this parameter, but a conservatively large estimate was selected to
produce conservatively high estimates for transmissivity. The "objective function" for
the FLASH code incorporates the mean squared error between interpreted (from
borehole HPF data) and predicted flow profiles and the sum of squared differences
between the water level in the borehole and the far -field head. For each borehole, the
automated solver in FLASH ran until the objective function reached a minimum value.
Total transmissivity for each borehole was also calculated using the Thiem Equation for
steady-state flow to a well in a confined aquifer (Thiem, 1906):
T
_ Q (ro l
In
27c(s) \rWl
where T is transmissivity, Q is flow rate, s is drawdown, ro is radius of influence, and rW
is the radius of the borehole. For boreholes with a Thiem-calculated transmissivity that
exceeded the FLASH estimated total transmissivity, the transmissivity values for
borehole intervals from FLASH were scaled up proportionally to produce a total
FLASH transmissivity equal to the transmissivity value calculated for the entire
borehole.
Results from FLASH analysis of the HPF data from 10 boreholes are presented in detail
in Attachment B. Transmissivity values for individual bedrock intervals were divided
by interval vertical length to calculate hydraulic conductivity values, which are
Page 4-1

Fractured Bedrock Evaluation December 2019
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
SynTerra
illustrated versus depth below top of bedrock on Figure 4. Measured deep bedrock
hydraulic conductivity values based on FLASH analysis generally range from
approximately 0.004 feet per day to 26 feet per day, with seven measurements below
0.001 feet per day. For comparison, Figure 4 also shows hydraulic conductivity based
on slug test results from 13-foot packer -test intervals prior to monitoring well
construction, and from the completed deep bedrock monitoring wells. Both of these
data sets indicate a general decline in hydraulic conductivity versus depth below the
top of rock, particularly at depths greater than 300 feet below the top of rock.
Most of deep bedrock borehole intervals did not indicate any notable transmissivity (or
hydraulic conductivity) based on HPF data. Therefore, data related to those borehole
intervals are not included in this analysis. In addition, monitoring wells were installed
at depths interpreted to have the most significant water -bearing fractures. Therefore,
the overall hydraulic conductivity of the bedrock fracture system is less than suggested
by the data shown on Figure 4.
4.2 Fracture Hydraulic Apertures
Transmissivity data generated by FLASH were also used to estimate the average
hydraulic aperture (en) for individual bedrock intervals applying the local cubic law
(Steele, 2006):
F12 eh
where T is transmissivity, µ is the viscosity of water, pw is the density of water, g is the
acceleration due to gravity, and n is the number of individual fractures in the flow
layer. Bedrock fractures are rough, so fracture widths (apertures) vary at different
points within the fracture. The hydraulic aperture is the width of an idealized parallel -
plate opening with the same transmissivity as an actual, rough -walled fracture, and it is
approximated by the geometric mean of the individual aperture values within the
fracture (Keller, 1998).
Average hydraulic apertures were estimated for each deep bedrock borehole interval
with a transmissivity greater than zero. The number of fractures in each zone was
determined from the fracture summary table provided in the geophysical evaluation
report by GEL Geophysics, LLC (GEL) (Attachment Q. Only "open major" and "open
minor" fractures identified by GEL were included in the fracture count for each zone;
"closed" fractures were excluded. For layers without any identified open fractures but
with measurable transmissivity, one fracture was assumed present.
Page 4-2

Fractured Bedrock Evaluation December 2019
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Roxboro Steam Electric Plant SynTerra
Based on HPF data and FLASH analysis, estimated mean hydraulic apertures of
bedrock fractures at the Site range up to 0.53 millimeters (530 micrometers, or microns)
(Figure 5). Figure 5 also shows fracture apertures based on slug test results from
multiple 13-foot intervals prior to monitoring well construction and from the completed
deep bedrock monitoring wells. Both data sets show a general decline in aperture
versus depth.
As noted above, many of the bedrock borehole intervals logged using heat -pulse
flowmeter did not indicate any significant contribution to flow within the borehole.
Most of these intervals had interpreted open fractures but indicated negligible
(approximately zero) transmissivity; therefore, data from those intervals were not used
in fracture aperture calculations. Those depth intervals have hydraulic apertures near
zero. This fracture aperture evaluation represents only the most transmissive fractures
within each logged bedrock borehole. The overall aperture sizes within the bedrock
fracture system are less than suggested by the data shown on Figure 5.
4.3 Fracture Spacing
Fracture spacing for each borehole interval was calculated by dividing the length of the
interval by the number of open fractures identified in that interval. For intervals that do
not have any identified open fractures and had an estimated transmissivity of zero, it is
assumed that there are no fractures in that interval; therefore, no fracture spacing was
calculated for that interval.
Televiewer logging results (discussed below) from the combined dataset indicated
approximately 155 open fractures identified by GEL in 1,023 vertical feet of logging at
the 10 logged bedrock boreholes, which indicates an overall average spacing of 6.6 feet
(vertical separation) between interpreted open fractures. However, the frequency of
dipping bedrock fractures is greater than that indicated in vertical borehole data (Morin
et al., 1997). Within the investigated depth intervals, the bedrock at the Site is
extensively fractured. In geophysical logs, fractures of various orientations often were
identified within short vertical intervals, indicating that fractures of various orientations
intersect one another and produce an overall, interconnected fracture network.
Figure 6 shows the mean vertical spacing of open fractures in bedrock intervals
identified as relatively transmissive based on HPF logging; these intervals were
evaluated using FLASH software to calculate hydraulic apertures shown on Figure 5.
These data suggest that fracture spacing within transmissive bedrock intervals is
relatively consistent with depth below the top of rock.
Page 4-3

Fractured Bedrock Evaluation
December 2019
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Roxboro Steam Electric Plant SynTerra
4.4 Fracture Orientation Plots and Statistics
GEL measured the orientations of in -situ bedrock fractures at 10 deep bedrock
boreholes using a combination of optical televiewer and acoustic televiewer. Data are
summarized as bedrock fracture tables, stereonet plots, and rose diagrams of fracture
orientation statistics in Attachment C. GEL classifies each identified fracture as either
"closed," "minor open," or "major open" based on flow logging or other evidence. The
two open classes were evaluated in terms of orientation; "closed" fracture orientations
were compared qualitatively.
Bedrock fracture orientations logged at the deep bedrock boreholes support the
following general observations:
• In the vicinity of the EAB, fracture orientations are highly variable, indicating no
preferential orientation (as shown in the logs for ABMW-7, MW-108BRL, and
MW-108BRLL) with multiple dip directions and cross -cutting fractures, or a
weak preferential strike toward the northeast -southwest (as shown in the log for
MW-01).
• In the vicinity of the northern end of the WAB, fracture orientations are
somewhat more consistent. Most fractures logged near the WAB strike toward
the east-northeast and dip gently to moderately to the south-southeast (as shown
in the logs for MW-205BRL, MW-205BRLLL, and MW-208BRLL). However dips
toward the northwest and cross cutting fractures are also observed (as shown in
the logs for MW-205BRLL and MW-208BRL, respectively).
• Near the southern end of the WAB (MW-38BR), fracture orientations strike
toward the east-northeast and dip steeply to the south-southeast. Cross -cutting
fractures with different dip directions (northwest and east-northeast) are also
observed.
Cross sections presented on Figures 7A and 7B illustrate generalized fracture
orientations as identified based on televiewer data. Figure 7A is a cross-section through
the EAB and includes the ABMW-7 well cluster where televiewer logging was
performed. As noted above, in -situ bedrock fractures at this location lacked a
predominant orientation; thus, the conceptually depicted fractures on Figure 7A also
lack any preferential orientation. Figure 7B is a cross-section through the WAB and
includes the MW-208 well cluster, where televiewer logging was performed. In -situ
fractures at the MW 208 well cluster indicated a predominant strike of ENE -WSW, with
most dips to the SE, and fewer to the NW, as illustrated conceptually on Figure 7B.
Page 4-4

Fractured Bedrock Evaluation December 2019
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Roxboro Steam Electric Plant SynTerra
These cross -sections have 5x vertical exaggeration, so the illustrated predominant
fracture dip is greater than the actual dip within the plane of the cross-section. The
relative lengths of fractures shown on the cross -sections decrease with depth to
illustrate, at a conceptual level, that the degree of overall fracturing decreases with
depth. However, the lengths and spacing of fractures are conceptual and qualitative.
As noted above, the overall average vertical spacing between open fractures is
approximately 6.6 feet; therefore, fractures in the vicinity of the ash basins are too
numerous to illustrate on the cross sections. In -situ fracture lengths are impractical to
measure, but Gale (1982) suggested that typical fracture lengths may be on the order of
3 to 4 times the fracture spacing.
4.5 Summary of Bedrock Fracture Characteristics
Overall, the bedrock hydraulic conductivity in bedrock near the ash basins decreases
with increasing depth below the top of rock. This finding is consistent with the
literature. Gale (1982) showed that bedrock well yield and fracture permeability
decrease systematically as a function of depth. Neretnieks (1985) also showed a
systematic decline in bulk bedrock hydraulic conductivity with increasing depth.
Fracture spacing in the logged intervals of the bedrock are relatively consistent with
depth below the top of rock. This finding is consistent with data reported for a variety
of rock types by Snow (1968).
Overall, calculated fracture apertures in bedrock near the ash basins decrease with
increasing depth in the deep bedrock. This finding is also consistent with information
reported in the literature. Snow (1968) published fracture aperture as a function of
depth for several rock types, including crystalline rocks such as granite, gneiss, and
schist, and concluded that fracture apertures generally decrease with increasing depth.
With increasing depth, the weight of the overlying rock increases. This increases the
effective stress and causes the fracture walls to deform and flatten, reducing fracture
apertures with increasing depth.
4.6 Implications of Bedrock Fracture Network for Groundwater
Flow
The Site is located within the Hyco Shear Zone (HSZ), a regional bedrock structure that
is oriented ENE by west-southwest (WSW), with a general foliation dip direction
toward the south-southeast (SSE) (Hibbard et al., 1998). Where bedrock fractures at the
site show preferential orientations, they generally align with the structural fabric within
the HSZ. Based on the predominant orientations of lineaments and bedrock fractures at
the Site, general interpretations can be made regarding the potential for preferential
flow directions. Horizontal groundwater flow within the bedrock in the vicinity of the
Page 4-5

Fractured Bedrock Evaluation December 2019
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Roxboro Steam Electric Plant SynTerra
EAB would not be expected to show any preferential orientation, because fractures in
that area do not indicate a significant preferential orientation. Thus, groundwater near
the EAB is expected to flow in the direction of the hydraulic gradient. Near the WAB,
however, horizontal groundwater flow may occur preferentially in a general direction
of ENE -WSW, parallel to the predominant strike of bedrock fractures and consistent
with the HSZ structure. The difference in hydraulic conductivity and flow as a function
of map direction is referred to as anisotropy. Horizontal flow rates in the perpendicular
map directions (north-northwest(NNW)-SSE) near the WAB are expected to be
comparatively less.
The observed decline in bedrock hydraulic conductivity and hydraulic aperture with
increasing depth is consistent with expectations based on the literature and indicates
that the overall volumetric rate of groundwater flow in the bedrock decreases with
depth. Nevertheless, the detection of boron at concentrations greater than 02L standards
at depths of approximately 400 feet bgs (wells MW-108BRLL, MW-205BRLLL, and MW-
208BRLLL) indicates the possible presence of steep preferential flow zones extending to
similar depths in the vicinity of these monitoring wells. As noted above, several
lineaments have been identified in the vicinity of the ash basins at the Site. The
possibility of preferential flow zones in bedrock will be considered during groundwater
model calibration based on the deep bedrock investigation results.
The hydraulic conductivity and hydraulic aperture values in approximately the upper
60 feet of the MW-38BR borehole are smaller than those in the upper portion of the
bedrock at the other deep bedrock boreholes locations at the site. Also, as observed
during drilling, packer testing, and geophysical logging, the bottom 500 feet bgs of the
MW-38BR borehole exhibits no measureable transmissivity. These results suggest that
the overall bedrock permeability at this location - near the southern end of the WAB - is
less than that in the investigated areas further north at the site.
Page 4-6

Fractured Bedrock Evaluation December 2019
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Roxboro Steam Electric Plant SynTerra
5.0 BEDROCK MATRIX CHARACTERISTICS
Bedrock rock core samples were collected and analyzed by Core Laboratories (Core
Labs) for porosity, bulk density, and thin section petrography. Data provided by Core
Labs can be used to evaluate the potential influence of matrix diffusion and sorption on
constituent fate and transport within the fractured bedrock system in the area of the ash
basins.
5.1 Sample Selection
Rock core samples were selected from four bedrock locations — ABMW-7BR, CCR-
207BR, MW-1BR, and MW-22BR — that represent areas of affected groundwater
migration, north and northeast of the EAB and west of the WAB (Figure 3). Additional
rock core samples were selected from background locations MW-13BR and BG-2BR.
Samples were chosen from discrete portions of rock core with the most notable
weathering of fracture surfaces, as these are interpreted to coincide with zones of
preferential groundwater flow. Sample locations and depth intervals were:
• ABMW-7BR:
0 88 feet bgs
0 126 feet bgs
• CCR-207BR:
0 47.5 feet bgs
0 67 feet bgs
• MW-1BR:
0 36 feet bgs
0 69 feet bgs
• MW-22BR
o 56.3 feet bgs
• BG-2BR:
0 65.2 feet bgs
0 230 feet bgs
• MW-13BR:
o 56 feet bgs
Page 5-1

Fractured Bedrock Evaluation December 2019
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Roxboro Steam Electric Plant SynTerra
5.2 Matrix Porosity and Bulk Density
Core Labs prepared samples by pulling 1-inch diameter plugs drilled into the rock core
and trimming into right cylinders with a diamond -blade trim saw. Samples were then
cleaned by Soxhlet extraction and oven -dried at 240' F to weight equilibrium
(+/- 0.001 g).
Rock core samples were analyzed for porosity using Boyle's Law technique by
measuring grain volume and pore volume at ambient conditions. Grain density values
were calculated by direct measurement of grain volume and weight on the dried plug
samples. Grain volume was measured by Boyle's Law technique.
Results from the matrix porosity and bulk density analysis are presented in Table 2.
The reported matrix porosity values ranged from 0.10 percent to 4.83 percent with an
average of 2.04 percent. Bulk density ranged from 2.60 grams per cubic centimeter
(g/cm3) to 2.80 g/cm3 with an average of 2.70 g/cm3.
5.3 Petrographic Evaluation
Thin sections were prepared by impregnating the samples with epoxy to augment
cohesion and to prevent loss of material during grinding. Each thinly sliced sample
was mounted on a slide and ground to an approximate thickness of 30 microns. Thin
sections were stained to aid in mineral identification and analyzed using standard
petrographic techniques. The thin section petrographic evaluation results are presented
in Attachment D.
Core Labs identified all 10 samples as igneous rocks. Five samples were classified as
quartz diorite, four were classified as tonalite, and one as vein/fracture fill. The
principal minerals were plagioclase, quartz, biotite, and amphibole. Accessory minerals
consist of epidote, pyrite, K-feldspar, zircon, apatitie, magnetite, and sphene. Three
samples showed extensive weathering, as indicated by the alteration of plagioclase into
sericite/illitic clays (ABMW-7, 88 feet bgs; ABMW-7, 126 feet bgs; and MWABR, 36 feet
bgs). In the remaining seven samples, plagioclase crystals are locally altered into
sericite. Biotite and amphibole are altered into chlorite. Fe -calcite and Fe -dolomite are
rare to minor.
5.4 Implications of Bedrock Matrix Characteristics for Fate and
Transport
The reported matrix porosity values are within the range of those reported for
crystalline rocks in the literature (Freeze and Cherry, 1979; L6fgren, 2004; Zhou et al.,
2008; Ademeso et al., 2012). The presence of measurable matrix porosity suggests that
matrix diffusion contributes to plume retardation at the Site (Lipson et al., 2005). In
Page 5-2

Fractured Bedrock Evaluation
December 2019
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
SynTerra
addition, the identification of sericite (a mixture of muscovite, illite, or paragonite
produced by hydrothermal alteration of feldspars) in all the thin section samples
indicates the bedrock has the capacity to sorb boron and other elements associated with
coal ash. The influences of matrix diffusion and sorption are implicitly included in the
groundwater fate and transport model as a component of the constituent partition
coefficient (Kd ) term used for the bedrock layers.
Page 5-3

Fractured Bedrock Evaluation
December 2019
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Roxboro Steam Electric Plant SynTerra
6.0 REFERENCES
Ademeso, O.A., J.A. Adekoya and B.M. Olaleye. 2012. The Inter -relationship of Bulk
Density and Porosity of Some Crystalline Basement Complex Rocks: A Case
Study of Some Rock Types In Southwestern Nigeria. Journal of Engineering, Vol.
2, No. 4, pp. 555-562.
Clark, S.F., Moore, R.B., Ferguson, E.W., Picard, M.Z. 2016. "Criteria and Methods for
Fracture Trace Analysis of the New Hampshire Bedrock Aquifer." U.S.
Geological Survey Open File Report 96-479.
Day -Lewis, F.D., C.D. Johnson, F.L. Paillet, and K.J. Halford, March 7, 2011. FLASH: A
Computer Program for Flow -Log Analysis of Single Holes. Computer software.
Version 1.0. U.S. Geological Survey.
Duke Energy, June 10, 2015. Low Flow Sampling Plan, Duke Energy Facilities, Ash
Basin Groundwater Assessment Program, North Carolina.
Freeze, R.A. and J.A. Cherry. 1979. Groundwater. Prentice -Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey. 604 p.
Gale, J.E. 1982. Assessing the permeability characteristics of fractured rock. Geological
Society of America Special paper 189.
Hibbard, J.P., Shell, G.S., Bradley, P.J., Samson, S.D., and Wortman, G.L. 1998. The Hyco
Shear Zone in North Carolina and Southern Virgina: Implications for the
Piedmont Zone -Carolina Zone boundary in the Southern Appalachians.
American Journal of Science, 298, pp. 85-107.
Keller, A., 1998. High -resolution, non-destructive measurement and characterization of
fracture apertures. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., 35(8), pp. 1037-1050.
Lipson, D.S, B.H. Kueper and M.J. Gefell. 2005. Matrix diffusion -derived plume
attenuation in fractured bedrock. Ground Water, Vol. 43, No. 1, pp. 30-39.
L6fgren, M. 2004. Diffusive properties of granitic rock as measured by in -situ electrical
methods. Doctoral Thesis, Department of Chemical Engineering and Technology
Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.
Page 6-1

Fractured Bedrock Evaluation
December 2019
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
SynTerra
Morin, R.H., G.B. Carleton, and S. Poirier. 1997. Fractured -Aquifer Hydrogeology from
Geophysical Logs; The Passaic Formation, New Jersey. Ground Water, 35(2), 328-
338.
Neretnieks, I. 1985. Transport in fractured rocks. Hydrology of Rocks of Low
Permeability. Memoirs. Internatoinal Association of Hydrogeologists, v. XVII,
part 1 of 2, pp. 301-318.
Snow, D.T. 1968. Rock fracture spacings, openings, and porosities." J. Soil Mech. Found.
Div., Proc. Amer. Soc. Civil Engrs., v. 94, pp. 73-91.
Steele, A., D.A. Reynolds, B.H. Kueper, and D.N. Lerner. "Field determination of
mechanical aperture, entry pressure and relative permeability of fractures using
NAPL injection." Geotechnique 56, no. 1 (2006): 27-38.
SynTerra. 2017. Comprehensive Site Assessment Update — Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
— October 2017. Semora, NC.
Thiem, G. 1906. Hydrologische methoden. Leipzig: Gebhardt.
Zhou, Q., H.H. Liu and F.J. Molz. 2008. Field -scale effective matrix diffusion coefficient
for fractured rock: results from literature survey. Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory. https:Hescholarship.org/uc/item/3dw5c7ff.
Page 6-2

Fractured Bedrock Evaluation
December 2019
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
FIGURES
SynTerra

erg l , I N:.f
ROXBORO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT I
ROXBORO STEAM ELECTRIC
PLANT PARCEL LINE
1 h EAST ASH BASIN
l .gal Waste P _
WASTE BOUNDARY (APPROXIMATE). �
4"-
FUTURE WEST
ASH BASIN FUTURE WASTE BOUNDARY 4
(APPROXIMATE) -,
41 ` 4
SOURCE: '� - I • •
1958 USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OBTAINED FROM THE EDR TOPOGRAPHIC MAP REPORT FOR THE t ram/
ROXBORO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, DATED AUGUST 5, 2015. I -
DUKE GRAPHIC SCALE
500 0 500 i000 FIGURE 1A
44� ENERGY IN FEET 1968 USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP WITHOUT
PROGRESS DRAWN BY: J. CHASTAIN DATE:12/15/2019 LINEAMENTS
16 REVISED BY: J. CHASTAIN DATE: 12/15/2019
1 CHECKED BY: B. WYLIE DATE:12/15/2019 EAST ASH BASIN
APPROVED BY: B. WYLIE DATE 12/15/2019 PROJECT MANAGER: C. EADY ROXBORO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
synTeira r www.synterracorp.com
SEMORA, NORTH CAROLINA

• EAST ASH BASH
. r i
11,
FUTURE WEST ASH BASIN
WASTE BOUNDARY
I } I (APPROXIMATE)
ROXBORO STEAM ELECTRIC -
PLANT PARCEL LINE ! y
FUTURE WASTE BOUNDARY
`� ). • '+i (APPROXIMATE)
f"
i
f
A.
SOURCE:
1968 USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OBTAINED FI
ROXBORO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, DATED AI
4' DUKE
ENERGY
PROGRESS
16,
synTena
EDR TOPOGRAPHIC MAP REPORT FOR THE
2015.
GRAPHIC SCALE
500 0 500 1000
IN FEET
DRAWN BY: J. CHASTAIN DATE: 12/15/
REVISED BY: J. CHASTAIN DATE: 12/15/
CHECKED BY: B. WYLIE DATE: 12/15/
APPROVED BY: B. WYLIE DATE: 12/15/
PROJECT MANAGER: C. EADY
www.synterraco rp.com
1
FIGURE 1B
1968 USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP WITHOUT
LINEAMENTS
WEST ASH BASIN
ROXBORO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
SEMORA, NORTH CAROLINA

DISCHARGE POND
1r
ROXBORO STEAM ELECTRIC
PLANT PARCEL LINE
SOURCE:
1968 USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OBTAINED FI
ROXBORO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, DATED AI
4' DUKE
ENERGY
PROGRESS
16,
synTena
EAST ASH
BASIN
i
FUTURE WEST ASH BASIN
N
t -'WASTE BOUNDARY
1 ` (APPROXIMATE)
EDR TOPOGRAPHIC MAP REPORT FOR THE
2015.
GRAPHIC SCALE
500 0 500 1000
IN FEET
DRAWN BY: J. CHASTAIN DATE: 12/15/
REVISED BY: J. CHASTAIN DATE: 12/15/
CHECKED BY: B. WYLIE DATE: 12/15/
APPROVED BY: B. WYLIE DATE: 12/15/
PROJECT MANAGER: C. EADY
www.synterraco rp.com
ORIENTATIONLINEAMENT SUMMARY
'
\1 IIV
06
,. ,.
Of
ryry9
180°
iE OF PREDOMINANT
NTATIONS
FUTURE WASTE BOUNDARY
/(APPROXIMATE)
1
FIGURE 1C
1968 USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP WITH
LINEAMENTS
WEST ASH BASIN
ROXBORO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
SEMORA, NORTH CAROLINA

r
-i wl ' FUTURE ROXBORO r
STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, 10J
. 7
_ dip ROXBORO STEAM ELECTRIC
�?''• . n Y' ` �� ; PLANT PARCEL LINE
FUTURE EAST ASH BASIN
If
• ;. .< _ t
pr
•• t q.�' �' FUTURE WASTE BOUNDARY /
(APPROXIMATE)
01
7
FUTURE WEST �, �' �,;• a.:
ASH BASIN
FUTURE WASTE BOUNDARY
(APPROXIMATE)
try .
SOURCE: ` r i
APRIL 20, 1951 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OBTAINED FROM THE USGS EARTH EXPLORER WEB SITE AT G' t
http://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/
DUKE GRAPHIC SCALE
500 0 500 loon FIGURE 2A
40) ENERGY IN FEET 1951 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH WITHOUT
PROGRESS DRAWN BY:J.CHASTAIN DATE:9/4/2019 LINEAMENTS
REVISED BY: J. CHASTAIN DATE: 10/23/2019
CHECKED BY: B. WYLIE DATE: 10/23/2019 EAST ASH BASIN
APPROVPROJECT
MANAGER:C. DATE:10/23/2019 ROXBORO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
PROJECT MANAGER: C. EADY
synTelra r www.synterracorp.com
SEMORA, NORTH CAROLINA

��1 •r �•�j f�• y3
FUTURE ROXBORO _ y r
STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT. 10l
--� f
ROXBORO STEAM ELECTRIC
PLANT PARCEL LINE
FUTURE EAST ASH BASIN // R
. toolf"
FUTURE WASTE BOUNDARY
r� 7 +� �, •, (APPROXIMATE)
V, ice
4.
1 r l� It`.�1.Af �'1-l�r717
1, � ♦ � .t1
• FUTURE WEST • �
ASH BASIN
FUTURE WASTE BOUNDARY
/(APPROXIMATE) y • tj =; 1f
�/ � '�' _ •fir ,fir
LINEAMENT ORIENTATION t • '
SUMMARY
0° j'i.
278^
;,..
zoo° so°
7 980
180°
RANGE OF PREDOMINANTl�'
ORIENTATIONS
SOURCE:
APRIL 20, 1951 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OBTAINED FROM THE USGS EARTH EXPLORER WEB SITE AT " 4' i HC
http://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/ ...Y'y.
DUKE GRAPHIC SCALE
40)
500 0 500 loon
ENERGY IN FEET FIGURE 2B
PROGRESS DRAWN BY:J.CHASTAIN DATE:12/15/2019 1951 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH WITH LINEAMENTS
16 REVISED BY: J. CHASTAIN DATE: 12/15/2019 EAST ASH BASIN
10 CHECKED BY: B. WYLIE DATE: 12/15/2019
APPROVED BY: B. WYLIE DATE:12/15/2019 ROXBORO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
PROJECT MANAGER: C. EADY SEMORA, NORTH CAROLINA
synTerra r www.synterracorp.com

; i
Sa •N rye=7r'
1
ll-
llF l } ..:��no.
"ter
r
FUTURE EAST ASH BASIN ' _
••fit `iA� •.,` '.
M'
i FUTURE WASTE BOUNDARY
(APPROXIMATE)
II +Y
ROXBORO STEAM ELECTRIC
PLANT PARCEL LINE `•
FUTURE WASTE BOUNDARY,,
(APPROXIMATE)
1
yl
♦ +!y
r ie ti
^�
T �
4f
SOURCE:
APRIL 20, 1951 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OBTAINED FROM THE USGS EARTH EXPLORER WEB SITE]AT
http;//earthexplorer.usgs.gov/
i'
DUKE GRAPHIC SCALE
500 0 500 loon FIGURE 2C
ENERGY IN FEET 1951 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH WITHOUT
PROGRESS DRAWN BY... CHASTAIN DATE:12/15/2019 LINEAMENTS
REVISED BY: J. CHASTAIN DATE: 12/15/2019
CHECKED BY: B. WYLIE DATE:12/15/2019 WEST ASH BASIN
APPROVPROJECT
MANAGER:C. DATE:12/15/2019 ROXBORO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
PROJECT MANAGER: C. EADY
synTeira r www.synterracorp.com
SEMORA, NORTH CAROLINA

j .
JCF
?-
RE HEATED WATER
HARGEPOND
,FUTURIEWESTASH BASIN
FUTURE WASTE BOUNDAKT
(APPROXIMATE)
I /
TURE WESTERN
iCHARGE CANAL
LINEAMENT ORIENTATION
SUMMARY
0°
"
RANGE OF PREDOMINANT
ORIENTATIONS
ROXBORO STEAM ELECTRIC
PLANT PARCEL LINE
x. _ - FUTURE WASTE BOUNDARY.
(APPROXIMATE)
• is
SOURCE:A ,
APR IL 20, 1951 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OBTAINED FROM THE USGS EARTH EXPLORER WEB SITE AT
Min: //..,thexnlnYrr.us2s.Fn�/
\.4bL
90°
GRAPHIC SCALE
DUKE 500 0 500 1000
tnENERGY IN FEET FIGURE 2D
PROGRESS DRAWN BY:J.CHASTAIN DATE:12/15/2019 1951 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH WITH LINEAMENTS
REVISED BY:J. CHASTAIN DATE: 12/15/2019 WEST ASH BASIN
CHECKED BY: B. WYLIE DATE: 12/15/2019
APPROVED BY: B. WYLIE DATE: 12/15/2019 FRACTURED BEDROCK EVALUATION
PROJECT MANAGER: C. MY ROXBORO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
synTerm www.synterracorp.com SEMORA, NORTH CAROLINA

HYCO
RESERVOIR DFA
HANDLING.!
AREA
s l�y
• s. INTAKE
c CANAL u`
. GYPSUM ;�
z
w - STORAGE
UNIT 3 COOLING _ AREA
r' ?r TOWER POND
v <a.+ - a- �'- ♦ ELECTRICAL
• _ HEATED WATER
UNIT 3 HEATED WATER yb SUBSTATION.
DISCHARGE POND DISCHARGE POND t -
Ll
Amer-
Opq RO ♦� `' ,
/0
J
�t I
/ ■ rc
■
kit
LEGEND
.� o
1
■
.� NOTES:
J,
J
'''� % DUKE
�, ENERGY
I PROGRESS
■
wnTerra
GRAPHIC SCALE
700 0 700 1,400
(IN FEET)
DRAWN BY: J. KIRTZ DATE: 08/22/2019
REVISED BY: C. WYATT/K. KING DATE: 12/18/2019
CHECKED BY: K. LAWING DATE: 12/18/2019
APPROVED BY: K. LAWING DATE: 12/18/2019
PROJECT MANAGER: C. EADY
0
914110 W
DEEP BEDROCK EVALUATION LOCATIONS
FRACTURED BEDROCK EVALUATION
ROXBORO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
SEMORA, NORTH CAROLINA

T
v
T
x
1.0E+02
FIKIM1I11
fi��l��Z7
1.0E-08
0.00
50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00 250.00 300.00
Depth (Feet Below Top of Rock)
350.00 400.00 450.00
•ABMW-7BRLL FLASH
OABMW-7BRLL SLUG
0MW-01BRL FLASH
OMW-0113RL SLUG
0MW-108BRL FLASH
OMW-108BRL SLUG
0MW-108BRLL FLASH
OMW-108BRLL SLUG
• M W-205BRL FLASH
O M W-205BRL SLUG
• M W-205BRLL FLASH
OMW-205BRLL SLUG
• M W-205BRLLL FLASH
OMW-205BRLLL SLUG
• M W-208BRL FLASH
OMW-208BRL SLUG
• M W-208BRLL FLASH
OMW-208BRLL SLUG
0MW-208BRLLL FLASH
OMW-208BRLLL SLUG
0MW-38BR FLASH
NOTES:
(> DUKE
DRAWN BY: P.ALTMAN DATE:10/22/2019
Y ENERG
1
REVISED BY:
FIGURE 4
1. FLASH hydraulic conductivity values calculated from FLASH
PROGRESS
CHECKED BY: K. CAWING
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY
estimated transmissivity values.
APPROVED BY: K. LAWING
VERTICAL PROFILE
2. SLUG hydraulic conductivity values estimated from slug
PROJECT MANAGER: C. EADY
FRACTURED BEDROCK EVALUATION`
test data.
4ri
�
ROXBORO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
SEMORA, NORTH CAROLINA
3. No slug test was Conducted in MW-3813R.
S)/C1T2ffd
I www.synterracorp.com

0.60
0.50
0.40
E
E
w
3
4& 0.30
a
U
0.20
0.10
50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00 250.00 300.00
Depth (Feet Below Top of Rock)
350.00 400.00 450.00
•ABMW-7BRLL FLASH
OABMW-7BRLL SLUG
0MW-016111- FLASH
OMW-01BRL SLUG
• MW-108BRL FLASH
OMW-108BRL SLUG
MW-108BRLL FLASH
MW-108BRLL SLUG
• MW-205BRL FLASH
O MW-205BRL SLUG
• MW-205BRLL FLASH
OMW-205BRLL SLUG
• MW-205BRLLL FLASH
OMW-205BRLLL SLUG
• MW-208BRL FLASH
OMW-208BRL SLUG
• MW-208BRLL FLASH
OMW-208BRLL SLUG
• MW-208BRLLL FLASH
O MW-208BRLLL SLUG
O MW-38BR FLASH
NOTES:
e(> DUKE
DRAWN BY: P.ALTMAN DATE:10/22/2019
1. FLASH hydraulic aperture values calculated from FLASH
estimated transmissivity values.
ENERGY
PROGRESS 1
REVISED BY:
CHECKED BY: K. CAWING
APPROVED BY: K. LAWiNG
FIGURE 5
HYDRAULIC APERTURE
VERTICAL PROFILE
2. SLUG hydraulic aperture values estimated from slug test
data.
PROJECT MANAGER: C. EADY
FRACTURED BEDROCK EVALUATION�
ROXBORO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
4
www.synterracorp.com
3. No slug test was Conducted in MW-3813R.
S)/C1T2ffd
SEMORA, NORTH CAROLINA

12
•
8
4
• • •
•
•
0 1 1
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Depth (Feet Below Top of Rock)
400 450
NOTES ( DUKE DRAWN BY: P. ALTMAN DATE: 10/22/2019
1. Fracture spacing data shown above are specific to relatively
V ENERGY,
REVISED BY:
transmissive bedrock intervals identified based on HPF
PROGRESS
CHECKED BY: K. CAWING
logging and FLASH analysis.
APPROVED BY: K. LAWING
PROJECT MANAGER: C. EADY
2. Fracture spacing calculated by dividing the length of the
`�
interval by the number of open fractures identified in that
�r
interval.
synTerra
www.synterracorp.com
•ABMW-7BRLL
• MW-01BRL
MW-108BRL
MW-108BRLL
• MW-205BRL
• MW-205BRLL
• MW-205BRLLL
MW-208BRL
• MW-208BRLL
• MW-208BRLLL
• MW-38BR
FIGURE 6
FRACTURE SPACING
VERTICAL PROFILE
FRACTURED BEDROCK EVALUATION
ROXBORO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
SEMORA, NORTH CAROLINA

B B'
600
550
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
(NORTHWEST)
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS PROPERTY LINE
APPROXIMATE EAST ASH BASIN COMPLIANCE BOUNDARY
APPROXIMATE EAST ASH BASIN WASTE BOUNDARY
- --- --- --- --- --- ---- = ASH ---_ ----_ ----_ ----_ ------ -
0
m
m
m
o
- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- --- =APPROXIMATE
-_-_- -_-_- -___-
- ______________________ENGINEEREDBASE -_
_ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ _ LINER ELEVATION - -__ -__ -__ -__ -__ -
mac_
Q
=-= --= --= --= --= --= - - - - - - - -
a
m
m
m
m
_
---------------- ---------------------------------
_______________________________________
------------------------------
INTAKE 0 --
CANAL / -
WATER ELEV. UNIT 3 -_ -
=409.0 COOLING (7 0 / 2,800
/ TOWER POND 459.31' -
WA ER ELEVATION=409' / N
_\
5,950
19.3
080
BE6RO,
1 \ \
464.82LILL
r / /
RESERVOIR
NOTE:
CROSS SECTION B-B' IS LINEAR IN NATURE AND NOT
ALL LOCATIONS ALONG THE CROSS SECTION ARE
PROJECTED ONTO THE CROSS SECTION.
CROSS SECTION LOCATION
(SOUTHEAST)
o
Lu
w
J
J
I
U
Lu
Lu
0
W
w U)
w cn
W
In
�
� fVASH
BASINdcmRATOR
DIKE
o art rt--4A*
/1 \ /1
-------------------------- APPROXIMATE TOP OF DAM AT THE-------------------
-__________ EASTERN IMPOUNDMENT IN 1993 AERIAL______ SOIL ASH PORE
____-_____ -____ -�� ��� -- -- _-__=====__ ASH WATER _
---------------__--�_ ASH -PORE WATER==-- - WATER ELEVATION=46a / `% \/ /<50 I
-- 499.34' /;
--_ -_` - REGOLITH
ZI
_� \/I, \l. �\ I�\/./\/I, \l.l\/ �\/. \/I,\/./\/I�\/.'\rl, J:\rl,\,�l\rl,\l.l\rl�\/.l\rI,\/././I�\/i /\�!-V�;`/1�\/. \rl.\l. \rl•\ i.,�.l�/I.\ l ��r , l r , /
7 \/1-0
1,
41 I,
.1761
/488.27
/.--
'I'\li\/il\
BEDROCK,1�/\/\'/1`/\/\'/1;'\/\'/1`/\/\'/1;'\/1`/\/\'/1;'�i�'i�"�i.'i/�BEDROCK`\ BEDROCK`,i�;'�i\'/�`
1?�/\'/1`
, ,
\l'
\`il\/I/\.l�rl,
LEGEND
PIEZOMETER
WELL IN ASH PORE WATER v ASH PORE WATER
LEVEL ELEVATION NOTES
WELL IN TRANSITION ZONE
DEEP FLOW LAYER GROUNDWATER
_ \/ ,' `
ABMW-7BR WELL IN COMPETENT BEDROCK
LEVEL ELEVATION
1. WATER ELEVATIONS REPRESENT THE MANUAL WATER LEVELS COLLECTED FOR APRIL 22-23, 2019
1 \/ ; � / \'
—
R04
BEDROCK FLOW LAYER GROUNDWATER
FOR EACH WELL. ELEVATIONS WITHIN EACH CLUSTER ARE MEASURED IN THE SAME DAY.
r ,
/
26
WATER SUPPLY WELL
LEVEL ELEVATION
REFERENCED TO NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM, 1988.
GENERALIZED WATER TABLE
2. FRACTURES CONCEPTUALLY DEPICTED ON THIS CROSS SECTION REPRESENT GENERALIZED
ORIENTATIONS OF FRACTURES OBSERVED BASED ON TELEVIEWER LOGGING AT THE ABMW-7BRLL
464.82'
MEAN BORON (B) CONCENTRATION (Ng/L)
/� \
�► GENERALIZED GROUNDWATER
BOREHOLE. THE DEPICTED FRACTURE ORIENTATIONS ACCOUNT FOR APPARENT DIP WITHIN THE
FLOW DIRECTION
GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE ASH
/ \ / PORE WATER FLOW DIRECTION
GENERALIZED VERTICAL
HYDRAULIC GRADIENT
LITHOLOGIC CONTACT
0
ASH
ASH PORE WATER / WASTEWATER
SAPROLITE
®
TRANSITION ZONE
I
BEDROCK
0
REGOLITH
0
SOIL FILL
®
STRUCTURAL FILL
FN-Sl
NOT SAMPLED
- 'S� -
PREDOMINANT BEDROCK
FRACTURE ORIENTATION
SURFACE WATER
PLANE OF THE CROSS SECTION AND VERTICAL EXAGGERATION. THE ACTUAL NUMBER OF FRACTURES
WELL SCREEN
IS FAR TOO NUMEROUS TO ILLUSTRATE AT THIS SCALE. IN ADDITION, THE DEPTHS AND LENGTHS OF
FRACTURES VERSES DEPTH ARE CONCEPTUAL ONLY.
- - - COMPLIANCE BOUNDARY 3.
DISPLAYED WATER SUPPLY WELL LOCATIONS REFLECT INFORMATION AVAILABLE UP TO DECEMBER
WASTE BOUNDARY
31, 2015.
4.
< - CONCENTRATION NOT DETECTED AT OR ABOVE THE ADJUSTED REPORTING LIMIT.
5.
j - ESTIMATED CONCENTRATION ABOVE THE ADJUSTED METHOD DETECTION LIMIT AND BELOW THE
ADJUSTED REPORTING LIMIT.
6.
ALL BOUNDARIES ARE APPROXIMATE.
'DUKE
ENERGY
PROGRESS
10011,
synTerra
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 100 250 500
HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1" = 500'
VERTICAL SCALE: 1" = 100'
5X VERTICAL EXAGGERATION
DRAWN BY: A.FEIGL DATE: 08/02/2019
REVISED BY: D. KREFSKI DATE: 12/13/2019
CHECKED BY: K. LAWING DATE: 12/13/2019
APPROVED BY: C. EADY DATE: 12/13/2019
PROJECT MANAGER: C. EADY
LAYOUT: SECTION B-B' (FBR)
www.synterracorp.com
FIGURE 7a
GENERAL CROSS-SECTION B-B'
EAST ASH BASIN
FRACTURED BEDROCK EVALUATION
ROXBORO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
SEMORA, NORTH CAROLINA

C C'
(NORTH)
J
a
z
Q
/J
w
0
0'
a
x
U
ABANDONED SLUICE
y
PIPE TRENCH
0
QZ~
at
IL �'
PLANT
W LOU ELECTRIC
a
?� a
p
SUBSTATION
a
O LQ
o
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS PROPERTY LINE
APPROXIMATE WEST ASH BASIN COMPLIANCE
BOUNDARY
APPROXIMATE WEST ASH BASIN WASTE
BOUNDARY
J
a
J J z
a' a
U
m m m co co W
co co 0 0 o HC9
CTOR N � � LIJ
z Q
(SOUTH)
J
O
O
2
U
JZ
pW
om
o
O� ov
m m
m N
J
REGOLITH
—�MJAVU V LLV'1, �����\ mil'♦
464.83' j — -_ _ = ASH7`
d 2 REGOLITH / REGOLITLIT_ REGOLITH -
IN
00 / <50 568 `'I"\i�i\�_ ��/\'/1 449.01' _ ---� - -/\i I�;�i\'/I���i\�/1���/\'/1��\/♦�/ `
y 451.74' - -159 \i . - -- -\i• --- \i-\-\'/♦--\-\i ` -\-\'/ -\i ` -
\. 411.95'`/
182 43 88'/�
♦/- i,1/\/1;'�/.'.1 /\/. ,1/.'/1;'�/\' ,/.'/1; �\/♦' .'/1`��♦./♦',�L♦/��/.'/1;'�/.'/1"_�`I-1\
�'/♦ ,\-\ /-'�"\�. -452.31'\N,
50 ,♦I/1`�-/\' 1.32' 1`�-/♦' �' /♦'`\462.75 \/'/1���/\'/1�'\/\'/1���/\'/1�'\/♦'/1`
\ I \/. \ I_\/i \ / 1 \/i \ I_\/i \ / I \li ; I! \/ \; I \/. \ I_\/i \ / I \/. \ I_\/i \ / I \/. \ I! \/i \ / ,, \li \ 1_\/i \
/♦'/I���i�'/"\/\'/I���i�'i��'\/♦'/1��-i�'��"\/♦'/1�'�i�'/�'\/♦'/1�'�i�'i��'\/♦'/1�'�i�'i��'\/Jil�'�i�'i��'\ �'-`''ii�/
\'/- \-\'/\'/- \-\'/- \-\'/-
7.25'
00 / \/// -/ ♦ \�/ / -1 ♦ ♦mil `/'/ -I ♦ ♦mil `/'/ -/ ♦il ♦/'/ -1 ♦ `i' l ♦ ♦mil /'/ l ♦mil `/'/ -I ♦ �
�\ / , , y. \ / , , \lam \ r , . BEDROCK \/� \ / , . \/ / , I , \/� / , . \/� \ / 1 • \// , , \/. / , BEDROCK
, \ / - `
/\'/1;'�iJi��'�i\'i�;'�i♦'i��'�i\'i ii�;'�iJi��'�i\'i�;'�i�'i��'�i �'/1;'�iJi��'�i♦'/1`/
\50
\\�. . \�. :il'\\�'`'/I'\\�.N
1i\-�\-1i/\-�\-1i/\-�\-1i/\-�\-1i�
\ / , , \/ ` , , , \li \ / , . \/ i I' \l i \ / , • \/. . / I \/i ; ' , i \/i \ / I' \l i ; ' ,' \/i \ / I \l i N.
00 %\'/I;\%\'/1"\`'/I;\%♦'/1"�%\'/I;�\%\'/1"�%\'/1;/\'/1'/\'/1;��/'/1"\%♦'/1;�\`\'/1"�%♦'/1;''-%\'/1"�%♦'/I; C�i\`1"�%\'/1���
\/I/\/l\/,,\`i \/I/\/l\/,,\`i \/I/\il\/,,\`i ♦/I/\ /\/I \` \i \/I/\/l\/,,\`i \/I/\/l/, \♦ \/I/\
I I I 'I\
N.
\
HYCO / /
l� ♦ / I' \ / /i \ / I' \ / , li \ / I' \ / / li \ / I \ / , li \ / I' /I ,
\ \ I \ \ I \ \ I \ I \ \
RESERVOIR _.'./- _♦�./ _♦'./- _♦�./- _`"/- _♦�./- _♦'./- _♦�./- _♦'./- _♦� ,- _♦'./ _
\
LEGEND
- - - - - - -
POWER PLANT
0
o
&
J
W
m
>
ENGINEERED
a
<
BASE LINER
c�
PORE
i
WEST FGD SETTLING POND
g DING
TER Q
SOIL FILL
CCR-208S WELL IN SHALLOW MATERIAL
SHALLOW ZONE FLOW LAYER
1,570 `
(i
MW-6D WELL IN TRANSITION ZONE
GROUNDWATER LEVEL ELEVATION
457.15' /I
MW-6BR WELL IN COMPETENT BEDROCK
TRANSITION ZONE FLOW LAYER-
ABMW-3 WELL IN ASH PORE WATER
GROUNDWATER LEVEL ELEVATION
EAST ASH BASIN
R010
BEDROCK FLOW LAYER GROUNDWATER
DW-46 WATER SUPPLY WELL
LEVEL ELEVATION
Z GENERALIZED WATER TABLE
ASH PORE WATER
WEST ASH
GENERALIZED
LEVEL ELEVATION
BASIN
IIIIIIIIIIIINN► GROUNDWATER FLOW
DIRECTION
BORON
(NAVD
GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE ASH
WATER LEVELENTRATION ELEVATION 88)
DONNgK'gY
PORE WATER FLOW DIRECTION
(LABEL COLORING BY FLOW ZONE)
RD
GENERALIZED VERTICAL
WELL SCREEN
HYDRAULIC GRADIENT
— LITHOLOGIC CONTACT
— — —
COMPLIANCE BOUNDARY
WASTE BOUNDARY
0 ASH
ASH PORE WATER / WASTEWATER
NWYRO
BEDROCK
NOTE:
0 REGOLITH
CROSS SECTION C-C' IS LINEAR IN NATURE AND NOT
ALL LOCATIONS ALONG THE CROSS SECTION ARE
SOIL FILL
PROJECTED ONTO THE CROSS SECTION.
CROSS SECTION LOCATION
_ _ PREDOMINANT BEDROCK
FRACTURE ORIENTATION
NOTES-
/
i 1.
WATER ELEVATIONS REPRESENT THE MANUAL WATER LEVELS COLLECTED FOR APRIL 22-23, 2019 FOR EACH
WELL. ELEVATIONS WITHIN EACH CLUSTER ARE MEASURED IN THE SAME DAY. REFERENCED TO NORTH
AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM, 1988.
2.
FRACTURES CONCEPTUALLY DEPICTED ON THIS CROSS SECTION REPRESENT GENERALIZED ORIENTATIONS OF
FRACTURES OBSERVED BASED ON TELEVIEWER LOGGING AT THE MW-208 BOREHOLE. THE DEPICTED FRACTURE
ORIENTATIONS ACCOUNT FOR APPARENT DIP WITHIN THE PLANE OF THE CROSS SECTION AND VERTICAL
EXAGGERATION. THE ACTUAL NUMBER OF FRACTURES IS FAR TOO NUMEROUS TO ILLUSTRATE AT THIS SCALE.
IN ADDITION, THE DEPTHS AND LENGTHS OF FRACTURES VERSES DEPTH ARE CONCEPTUAL ONLY.
3.
DISPLAYED WATER SUPPLY WELL LOCATIONS REFLECT INFORMATION AVAILABLE UP TO DECEMBER 31, 2015.
4.
< - CONCENTRATION NOT DETECTED AT OR ABOVE THE ADJUSTED REPORTING LIMIT.
5.
j - ESTIMATED CONCENTRATION ABOVE THE ADJUSTED METHOD DETECTION LIMIT AND BELOW THE ADJUSTED
, ` /� , ` ♦'i ` /�
6.
REPORTING LIMIT.
ALL BOUNDARIES ARE APPROXIMATE.
,`
\ /,1 !
7.
CROSS SECTION REPRESENTATIVE OF PRE -DECANTING CONDITION.
' 1" -� �I ♦ i
'DUKE
n ENERGY
PROGRESS
16,
synTena
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 100 250 500
HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1" = 500'
VERTICAL SCALE: 1" = 100'
5X VERTICAL EXAGGERATION
DRAWN BY: A.FEIGL DATE: O8/02/2019
REVISED BY: D. KREFSKI DATE: 12/13/2019
CHECKED BY: K. LAWING DATE: 12/13/2019
APPROVED BY: C. EADY DATE: 12/13/2019
PROJECT MANAGER: C. EADY
LAYOUT: SECTION C-C' (FBR)
www.synterracorp.com
FIGURE 7b
GENERAL CROSS-SECTION C-C'
WEST ASH BASIN
FRACTURED BEDROCK EVALUATION
ROXBORO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
SEMORA, NORTH CAROLINA

Fractured Bedrock Evaluation
December 2019
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
TABLES
SynTerra

TABLE 1
ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR DEEP BEDROCK WELLS
FRACTURED BEDROCK EVALUATION
ROXBORO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, SEMORA, NC
Analytical Parameter
pH
Antimony
Boron
Chromium
(VI)
Chromium
Cobalt
Iron
Manganese
Molybdenum
Selenium
Strontium
Sulfate
Total
Dissolved
Solids
Total Uranium
Vanadium
Reporting Units
S.U.
Ng/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
mg/L
mg/L
Ng/mL
Ng/L
15A NCAC 02L Standard
6.5-8.5
1*
700
NE
10
1*
300
50
NE
20
NE
250
500
0.03A
0.3*
2019 Background Threshold Values (Bedrock Flow Zone)'
6.1-8.3
1
50
1
4
18
5130
1773
22
1
438
69
560
0.006
3
Sample ID
Screen Interval
(ft bgs)
Sample
Collection Date
Analytical Results
ABMW-07BRLL
370 - 385
04/09/2019
7.8
<1
137
<0.025
0.592 j
<1
460
64
2.52
<1
634
90
400
0.00164
0.497
MW-01BRL
201 - 216
04/09/2019
7.0
<1
22.934 j
<0.025
0.511 j
<1
2150
1480
1.3
<1
335
99
620
0.000516
0.359
MW-01BRL
201 - 216
06/18/2019
6.9
<1
24.064 j
<0.025
0.436 j
<1
1420
1480
1.26
<1
337
87
594
0.000654
0.367
MW-108BRL
146 - 156
04/09/2019
6.6
<1
24300
<0.025
<1
11.9
831
2620
1470
<1
2080
2000
3100
0.00786
2.03
MW-108BRL
146 - 156
06/18/2019
6.8
1 <1
22700
<0.025
0.571 j
13.4
1 741
2530
1450 M4
<1
2020
1900
1 3030
0.00345
1.33
MW-108BRLL
393 - 403
04/09/2019
7.6
1.06
5220
<0.025 M1,R1
0.596 j
0.415 j
207
312
268
<1
411
470
930
0.00265
2.27
MW-108BRLL
393 - 403
06/18/2019
7.8
0.517 j
4770
0.097
0.584 j
<1
188
225
261
<1
414
400
927
0.00745
0.802
MW-205BRL
160 - 170
04/08/2019
6.8
<1
5990
<0.025
0.598 j
3.04
288
1800
1.97
<1
668
99
1500
0.000672
0.757
MW-205BRL
160-170
06/18/2019
6.7
<1
6350
0.03
0.336j
3.3
84
1860
2.13
<1
687
100
1960
0.000444
0.693
MW-205BRLL
221 - 231
04/08/2019
7.0
1 <1
8240
<0.025
0.436 j
0.474 j
1 4130
1690
2.91
<1
970
240
1 2000
0.00299
0.229 j
MW-205BRLL
221 - 231
06/18/2019
6.9
<1
7860
<0.025 P4
<1
0.338 j
3810
1620
2.22
<1
914
290
2510
0.00411
0.368
MW-205BRLLL
400 - 415
04/08/2019
6.7
<1
18900
<0.025 P4,R0
0.547 j
2.59
2590
3140
2.04
<1
2490
500
4700
0.00667
0.423
MW-205BRLLL
400 -415
06/18/2019
7.2
1.9
17900
<0.025 P4
4.97
1.25
7120
2940
1.29
<1
2660
580
4730
0.0078
0.669
MW-208BRL
153 - 163
04/09/2019
7.5
0.46 j
865
<0.025
2.06
0.465 j
1280
459
4.31
<1
354
150
720
0.00171
1.3
MW-208BRL
153 - 163
06/18/2019
7.5
<1
678
0.031
<1
0.463 j
1 1060
402
4.15
<1
448
150
703
0.000688
0.411
MW-208BRLL
223 - 233
04/08/2019
7.8
0.617 j
1400
<0.025
1.03
<1
236
568
2.3
<1
568
110
990
0.000484
0.16 j
MW-208BRLL
223 - 233
06/18/2019
7.9
<1
1850
<0.025
1.54
<1
333
785
1.99
<1
627
160
1440
0.000195 j
0.264 j
MW-208BRLLL
372 - 382
04/08/2019
7.5
<1
1570
<0.0025 M1
0.551 j
0.704 j
246
789
4.44
<1
855
310
820
0.0132
0.626
MW-208BRLLL
372 - 382
06/18/2019
7.3
<1
1390
0.034
0.469 j
<1
480
901
1.27
<1
1340
730
2190
0.00652
0.848
Notes•
1 - Updated BTVs were calculated using data from background groundwater samples collected November 2010 to November 2018.
Mean values have been rounded to similar levels of precision as 15A North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC) 02L Standard or Interim Maximum Allowable Concentration (IMAC).
* - Interim Maximum Allowable Concentrations (IMACs) of the 15A NCAC 02L Standard, Appendix 1, April 1, 2013.
^ - Federal MCL.
< - concentration not detected at or above the adjusted reporting limit.
lag/L - micrograms per liter
lag/mL - microgram per milliliter
ft bgs - feet below ground surface
j - Estimated concentration above the adjusted method detection limit and below the adjusted reporting limit.
M1 - Matrix spike recovery was high: the associated Laboratory Control Spike (LCS) was acceptable.
M4 - The spike recovery value was unusable since the analyte concentration in the sample was disproportionate to the spike level.
mg/L - milligrams per liter
NE - Not established
P4 - Sample field preservation does not meet EPA or method recommendations for this analysis.
pCi/L - picocuries per liter
RO - The data are unusable. The sample results are rejected due to serious deficiencies in meeting QC criteria. The analyte may or may not be present in the sample.
R1 - Relative Percent Difference (RPD) value was outside control limits.
Prepared by: WJW Checked by: KTL
S.U. - Standard Units
Page 1 of 1

TABLE 2
POROSITY AND BULK DENSITY RESULTS
FRACTURED BEDROCK EVALUATION
ROXBORO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, SEMORA, NC
Sample Number
Depth (ft)
Porosity (%)
Grain Density
(g/cm)
Bulk Density
(g/cm )
ABMW-7BR
88.00
1.72
2.845
2.803
ABMW-7BR
126.00
2.08
2.735
2.693
BG-2BR
65.20
2.34
2.659
2.597
BG-2BR
230.00
0.10
2.640
2.638
CCR-207BR
47.50
1.39
2.743
2.712
CCR-207BR
67.00
3.12
2.865
2.793
MW-1BR
36.00
4.83
2.804
2.693
MW-1BR
69.00
1.26
2.786
2.754
MW-13BR
56.00
2.76
2.676
2.613
M W-22BR
56.30
0.85
2.740
2.723
Prepared by: PWA Checked by: GRK
Notes:
1.0" diameter plugs were drilled and trimmed into right cylinders with a diamond -blade trim saw.
Plugs selected for routine core analysis were cleaned by Soxhlet extraction cycling between a chloroform /methanol (87:13)
azeotrope and methanol.
Samples were oven dried at 2400 F to weight equilibrium (+/- 0.001 g).
Porosity was determined using Boyle's Law technique by measuring grain volume & calculating pore volume at ambient
conditions.
Grain density values were calculated using Boyle's Law technique by direct measurement of grain volume and weight on dried
plug samples.
ft - feet
g/cm3 - gram per cubic centimeter
Page 1of1

Fractured Bedrock Evaluation
December 2019
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
ATTACHMENT A
SynTerra
BORING LOGS, WELL CONSTRUCTION RECORDS,
AND WELL DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY TABLE

PROJECT: Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
WELL/BORING NO:
ABMW-7BRLL
PROJECT NO: 1026.107
STARTED: 12/06/2018
COMPLETED: 03/05/2019
DRILLING COMPANY:
Geologic Exploration, Inc.
NORTHING: 993673.13
EASTING: 1980969.04
DRILLING METHOD:
HSA/Air Rotary/Hammer
G.S. ELEV: 479.37
M.P. ELEV: 482.80
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
16,10,8,5.5 IN
DEPTH TO WATER:
20.84 ft TOC
TOTAL DEPTH: 401 ft BGS
NOTES:
Drill Max 2400 Drill Rig
LOGGED BY:
W. Wimberly
CHECKED BY: K. Lawing
Caliper
V
5.5
(n) 8.0
W
^
_
a
DESCRIPTION
>
(A 0
j
F
WELL CONSTRUCTION
HPF-Ambient
0.00 0.03
w
o
(9 )
a
O.OHPF-PPumping 0.8
c
Own)po
u. gpo
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
4.1
40 Fill: Silty SAND as FILL, medium density, coarse
grained, dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2), dry,
non -plastic, noncohesive, some coarse gravel
Ash: Ash as poorly graded SAND, medium grained,
V V V black (10YR 2/1), moist, non -plastic, noncohesive
V V V - see logs ABMW-7/-7BR/-7BRL for detailed
uvv lithologic description
V V V V
vVVV
vVVV
v v'
Ash: Ash as sandy SILT, fine to medium grained,
v VI very dark gray (10YR 3/1), wet, fluid cuttings with
v v intermittent recovery
v.
Cement Grout
8" Surface
Casing (0'-97'
bgs)
6" Surface
Casing (0'-330'
bgs)
2" PVC Riser
41P SynTerra CLIENT: Duke Energy Progress, LLC
148 River Street, Suite 220 PROJECT LOCATION: Semora, NC
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
s)mTerra Phone: [phone] PAGE 1 OF 7

PROJECT: Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
WELL/BORING NO:
ABMW-7BRLL
PROJECT NO: 1026.107
STARTED: 12/06/2018
COMPLETED: 03/05/2019
DRILLING COMPANY:
Geologic Exploration, Inc.
NORTHING: 993673.13
EASTING: 1980969.04
DRILLING METHOD:
HSA/Air Rotary/Hammer
G.S. ELEV: 479.37
M.P. ELEV: 482.80
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
16,10,8,5.5 IN
DEPTH TO WATER:
20.84 ft TOC
TOTAL DEPTH: 401 ft BGS
NOTES:
Drill Max 2400 Drill Rig
LOGGED BY:
W. Wimberly
CHECKED BY: K. Lawing
Caliper
V
5.5
(n) 8.0
W
^
_
a
DESCRIPTION
>
(A 0
j
F
WELL CONSTRUCTION
HPF-Ambient
0.00 0.03
w
o
(9 )
a
HPF-Pumping
0.0 0.8
c
Own)po
u. gpo-1111
60
W,
70
75
80
RR
90
VKI
100
105
110
115
Cement Grout
8" Surface
Casing (0'-97'
bgs)
6" Surface
Casing (0'-330'
bgs)
2" PVC Riser
41P SynTerra CLIENT: Duke Energy Progress, LLC
148 River Street, Suite 220 PROJECT LOCATION: Semora, NC
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
SynTerra Phone: [phone] PAGE 2 OF 7

PROJECT: Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
WELL/BORING NO:
ABMW-7BRLL
PROJECT NO: 1026.107
STARTED: 12/06/2018
COMPLETED: 03/05/2019
DRILLING COMPANY:
Geologic Exploration, Inc.
NORTHING: 993673.13
EASTING: 1980969.04
DRILLING METHOD:
HSA/Air Rotary/Hammer
G.S. ELEV: 479.37
M.P. ELEV: 482.80
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
16,10,8,5.5 IN
DEPTH TO WATER:
20.84 ft TOC
TOTAL DEPTH: 401 ft BGS
NOTES:
Drill Max 2400 Drill Rig
LOGGED BY:
W. Wimberly
CHECKED BY: K. Lawing
Caliper
V
5.5
(n) 8.0
W
^
_
a
DESCRIPTION
>
(A 0
j
F
WELL CONSTRUCTION
HPF-Ambient
0.00 0.03
w
o
(9 )
a
HPF-Pumping
0.0 0.8
c
Own)po
u. gpo-1111
120
125
130
135
140
145
150
155
160
165
170
175
Biotite GNEISS, gray, ocassisional small rock
fragments, pulverized rock cuttings as dust
Biotite GNEISS, dark gray, pulverized rock cuttings
as dust
At 159'-160' apparent fracture (fractures based on
percussion hammer frequency) with water yield
(-1 GPM), coarser cuttings, fragments of biotite
schist / GNEISS
GNEISS with chlorite and biotite minerals, some
hornblende schist fragments
Cement Grout
6" Surface
Casing (0'-330'
bgs)
2" PVC Riser
41P SynTerra CLIENT: Duke Energy Progress, LLC
148 River Street, Suite 220 PROJECT LOCATION: Semora, NC
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
s)mTerra Phone: [phone] PAGE 3 OF 7

PROJECT: Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
WELL/BORING NO:
ABMW-7BRLL
PROJECT NO: 1026.107
STARTED: 12/06/2018
COMPLETED: 03/05/2019
DRILLING COMPANY:
Geologic Exploration, Inc.
NORTHING: 993673.13
EASTING: 1980969.04
DRILLING METHOD:
HSA/Air Rotary/Hammer
G.S. ELEV: 479.37
M.P. ELEV: 482.80
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
16,10,8,5.5 IN
DEPTH TO WATER:
20.84 ft TOC
TOTAL DEPTH: 401 ft BGS
NOTES:
Drill Max 2400 Drill Rig
LOGGED BY:
W. Wimberly
CHECKED BY: K. Lawing
Caliper
V
5.5
(n) 8.0
W
^
_
a
DESCRIPTION
>
(A 0
j
F
WELL CONSTRUCTION
HPF-Ambient
0.00 0.03
w
o
(9 )
a
HPF-Pumping
0.0 0.8
c
(9�)
po u. gpo-1111
180
185
190
195
200
205
210
215
220
225
230
235
Biotite schist / GNEISS with plagioclase minerals
At 190' increase in K-feldspar minerals
At 200' apparent fracture, no observable increase
in water yield
Biotite schist / GNEISS with few discernible
fragments, primarily rock flour
At 215' increase in K-feldspar minerals
Occasional quartz minerals, increase in K-feldspar
minerals, dark gray to black
Biotite schist / GNEISS, chlorite fragments, green
to black
Cement Grout
6" Surface
Casing (0'-330'
bgs)
2" PVC Riser
41P SynTerra CLIENT: Duke Energy Progress, LLC
148 River Street, Suite 220 PROJECT LOCATION: Semora, NC
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
ynTerra Phone: [phone] PAGE 4 OF 7

PROJECT: Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
WELL/BORING NO:
ABMW-7BRLL
PROJECT NO: 1026.107
STARTED: 12/06/2018
COMPLETED: 03/05/2019
DRILLING COMPANY:
Geologic Exploration, Inc.
NORTHING: 993673.13
EASTING: 1980969.04
DRILLING METHOD:
HSA/Air Rotary/Hammer
G.S. ELEV: 479.37
M.P. ELEV: 482.80
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
16,10,8,5.5 IN
DEPTH TO WATER:
20.84 ft TOC
TOTAL DEPTH: 401 ft BGS
NOTES:
Drill Max 2400 Drill Rig
LOGGED BY:
W. Wimberly
CHECKED BY: K. Lawing
Caliper
V
5.5
(n) 8.0
W
^
_
a
DESCRIPTION
>
(A 0
j
F
WELL CONSTRUCTION
HPF-Ambient
0.00 0.03
w
o
I9 I
a
HPF-Pumping
0.0 0.8
c
Own)po
u. gpo-1111
240
245
250
255
260
265
270
275
280
285
290
At 235' increase in plagioclase minerals
At 240' increase in plagioclase and K-feldspar
minerals
At 245' some epidote minerals on faces of
fragments
Biotite schist / GNEISS, chlorite fragments, green
to black
At 290' intervals with increased mafic minerals,
very fine cuttings, difficult to discern
Cement Grout
6" Surface
Casing (0'-330'
bgs)
2" PVC Riser
41P SynTerra CLIENT: Duke Energy Progress, LLC
148 River Street, Suite 220 PROJECT LOCATION: Semora, NC
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
s)mTerra Phone: [phone] PAGE 5 OF 7

PROJECT: Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
WELL/BORING NO:
ABMW-7BRLL
PROJECT NO: 1026.107
STARTED: 12/06/2018
COMPLETED: 03/05/2019
DRILLING COMPANY:
Geologic Exploration, Inc.
NORTHING: 993673.13
EASTING: 1980969.04
DRILLING METHOD:
HSA/Air Rotary/Hammer
G.S. ELEV: 479.37
M.P. ELEV: 482.80
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
16,10,8,5.5 IN
DEPTH TO WATER:
20.84 ft TOC
TOTAL DEPTH: 401 ft BGS
NOTES:
Drill Max 2400 Drill Rig
LOGGED BY:
W. Wimberly
CHECKED BY: K. Lawing
Caliper
V
5.5
(n) 8.0
W
^
_
a
DESCRIPTION
>
(A 0
j
F
WELL CONSTRUCTION
HPF-Ambient
0.00 0.03
w
o
I9 I
a
O.OHPF-PPumping 0.8
c
Own)po
u. gpo
295 I=Biotite schist / GNEISS, chlorite fragments, green
to black
300
305 At 305' rock fragments with increase mafic
minerals, some chlorite
310
A
Diabase: DIABASE-basalt or meta -basalt, black,
AAAAAA
accessory minerals of K-feldspar, some green
A^A^A^
feldspar
A^A^A^
315
A^A^A^
^AAAAA
^AAAAA
^AAAAA
^^A^A^
At 320' coarse grained, occasional K-feldspar
320
nAnAnA
minerals, some plagioclase
A^A^
_AA
AAAAA'
^�^�^
AAA
At 325' apparent fracture, no observable increase
325
.
in water yeild
Gneiss: Biotite GNEISS, increased in felsic
-;j
minerals, some chlorite
330
335 jr�N At 335' dark gray, pulverized rock cuttings as dust
340
345 At 345'-346' apparent fracture with increased
water yield (cumulatively —5-10 GPM)
At 351' apparent fracture, no observable increase
in water yield
350
Biotite-hornblende GNEISS, dark gray
Cement Grout
6" Surface
Casing (0'-330'
bgs)
2" PVC Riser
Bentonite Seal
41011 SynTerra CLIENT: Duke Energy Progress, LLC
148 River Street, Suite 220 PROJECT LOCATION: Semora, NC
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
ynTerra Phone: [phone] PAGE 6 OF 7

PROJECT: Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
WELL/BORING NO:
ABMW-7BRLL
PROJECT NO: 1026.107
STARTED: 12/06/2018
COMPLETED: 03/05/2019
DRILLING COMPANY:
Geologic Exploration, Inc.
NORTHING: 993673.13
EASTING: 1980969.04
DRILLING METHOD:
HSA/Air Rotary/Hammer
G.S. ELEV: 479.37
M.P. ELEV: 482.80
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
16,10,8,5.5 IN
DEPTH TO WATER:
20.84 ft TOC
TOTAL DEPTH: 401 ft BGS
NOTES:
Drill Max 2400 Drill Rig
LOGGED BY:
W. Wimberly
CHECKED BY: K. Lawing
Caliper
V
5.5
(n) 8.0
W
^
_
a
DESCRIPTION
>
(A 0
j
F
WELL CONSTRUCTION
HPF-Ambient
0.00 0.03
w
o
I9 I
a
O.OHPF-PPumping 0.8
c
Own)po
u. gpo
355 At 354' apparent fracture, no observable increase
in water yield M-L-L
Biotite-hornblende GNEISS, dark gray
360
At 361' apparent fracture with increased water
yield (cumulatively -10-15 GPM)
365
370
Granite: Meta -GRANITE with K-feldspar and quartz
minerals
375 , At 372' apparent fracture with increased water
yield (cumulatively -20 GPM)
380
385
At 387-390' less resistance, very fine cuttings, soft
interval
390
395
% \ % \
At 395' 397' less resistance, very fine cuttings, soft
interval
400 I= Borehole terminated at 401' BGS
405
Bentonite Seal
2" PVC Riser
Sand Pack
(364'-391')
2" Pre -Pack
Well Screen
(370'-385')
Bentonite
Backfill
41P SynTerra CLIENT: Duke Energy Progress, LLC
148 River Street, Suite 220 PROJECT LOCATION: Semora, NC
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
WTerra Phone: [phone] PAGE 7 OF 7

PROJECT: Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
WELL/BORING NO:
MW-01BRL
PROJECT NO: 1026.107
STARTED: 01/08/2019
COMPLETED: 03/05/2019
DRILLING COMPANY:
Geologic Exploration, Inc.
NORTHING: 994427.00
EASTING: 1983006.23
DRILLING METHOD:
Air Rotary/Hammer
G.S. ELEV: 505.41
M.P. ELEV: 508.75
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
10,8,5.5 IN
DEPTH TO WATER:
56.42 ft TOC
TOTAL DEPTH: 220 ft BGS
NOTES:
Geoprobe 3230 Drill Rig
LOGGED BY:
W. Wimberly
CHECKED BY: K. Lawing
Caliper
V
6.0
(n) 6.5
w
^
_
a
DESCRIPTION
>
(A 0
j
F
WELL CONSTRUCTION
HPF-Ambient
0.01 0.01
w
o
(g )
a
O.OHPF-PPumping 0.5
a
Own)po
u. gpo
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
01.1
50
55
T T :
T T
T -6
. T T '
Silty Sand: Silty SAND as SAPROLITE, firm, grayish
brown, dry- see log MW-0113R for detailed
lithologic description
Sandy Silt: Sandy SILT as SAPROLITE, firm, light
yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/3), dry
PWR: Sandy SILT as PARTIALLY WEATHERED
ROCK, gray (2.5Y 6/1), dry
At 26' cuttings become light gray (2.5Y 7/2), some
very fine rock fragments, softer intervals
At 30' cuttings become light gray (5Y 7/1), some
granite/meta-granite fragments
At 33.5' cuttings become brown, softer
At 34.5' firm, dark grayish brown (2.5Y 4/2), wet,
fragments of granitic schist
Gneiss: Biotite GNEISS, blue -black with white
plagioclase minerals, competent, wet
Biotite GNEISS, blue -black with white plagioclase
minerals, competent, wet
Cement Grout
8" Surface
Casing (0'-50'
bgs)
6" Surface
Casing (0'-110'
bgs)
2" PVC Riser
41P SynTerra CLIENT: Duke Energy Progress, LLC
148 River Street, Suite 220 PROJECT LOCATION: Semora, NC
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
s)mTerra Phone: [phone] PAGE 1 OF 4

PROJECT: Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
WELL/BORING NO:
MW-01BRL
PROJECT NO: 1026.107
STARTED: 01/08/2019
COMPLETED: 03/05/2019
DRILLING COMPANY:
Geologic Exploration, Inc.
NORTHING: 994427.00
EASTING: 1983006.23
DRILLING METHOD:
Air Rotary/Hammer
G.S. ELEV: 505.41
M.P. ELEV: 508.75
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
10,8,5.5 IN
DEPTH TO WATER:
56.42 ft TOC
TOTAL DEPTH: 220 ft BGS
NOTES:
Geoprobe 3230 Drill Rig
LOGGED BY:
W. Wimberly
CHECKED BY: K. Lawing
Caliper
V
6.0
(n) 6.5
w
^
_
a
DESCRIPTION
>
(A 0
j
F
WELL CONSTRUCTION
HPF-Ambient
0.01 0.01
w
o
(g )
a
O.OHPF-PPumping 0.5
a
Own)po
u. gpo
60
110
Biotite GNEISS, blue -black with white plagioclase
minerals, competent, wet
At 105' fragments of felsic granite-metagranite
Cement Grout
6" Surface
Casing (0'-110'
bgs)
2" PVC Riser
41P SynTerra CLIENT: Duke Energy Progress, LLC
148 River Street, Suite 220 PROJECT LOCATION: Semora, NC
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
s)mTerra Phone: [phone] PAGE 2 OF 4

PROJECT: Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
WELL/BORING NO:
MW-01BRL
PROJECT NO: 1026.107
STARTED: 01/08/2019
COMPLETED: 03/05/2019
DRILLING COMPANY:
Geologic Exploration, Inc.
NORTHING: 994427.00
EASTING: 1983006.23
DRILLING METHOD:
Air Rotary/Hammer
G.S. ELEV: 505.41
M.P. ELEV: 508.75
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
10,8,5.5 IN
DEPTH TO WATER:
56.42 ft TOC
TOTAL DEPTH: 220 ft BGS
NOTES:
Geoprobe 3230 Drill Rig
LOGGED BY:
W. Wimberly
CHECKED BY: K. Lawing
Caliper
V
6.0
(n) 6.5
w
^
_
a
DESCRIPTION
>
(A 0
j
F
WELL CONSTRUCTION
HPF-Ambient
0.01 0.01
w
o
(g )
a
O.OHPF-PPumping 0.5
a
Own)
po u. gpo
115 �"Biotite GNEISS, blue -black with white plagioclase
minerals, competent, wet
120 J[-L At 119' cuttings become gray, increase in
plagioclase minerals, phaneritic
125 nnnnnn Diabase: Diabase, greenish -black, soft
nnnnnn
nnnnnn
nnnnnn
130 nnnnnn
nnnnnn
nnnnnn
nnAt 132' apparent fracture (fractures based on
nnnn percussion hammer frequency), minor water yield
135 nnnnnn
nnnnnn
nnnnnn At 136' softer zone
nnnnnn
nnnnnn At 138' apparent fracture, no observable increse in
140 nnnnnn water yield
n n n
nnnnnn
nnnnnn
nnnnnn
nnnnnn
145 nnnnnn At 144' apparent fracture, no observable increse in
nnnnnn water yield
nnnnnn
nnnnnn
nnnnnn
n A n A n
150 nnnnnn
nnnnnn
nnnnnn
nnnnnn
nnnnnn
155 nnnnnn
nnnnnn
nnnnnn
n
n n n n n n n n At 157apparent 160' arent fractures, no observable
nnnnnn increse in water yield
160 nnnnnn
nnnnnn
nnnnnn
nnnnnn
nnnnnn
165 nnnnnn
nnnnnn
nnnnnn
nnnnnn
nnnnnn
nnnnnn
170 nnnnnn
nnnnnn
Cement Grout
2" PVC Riser
41p SynTerra CLIENT: Duke Energy Progress, LLC
148 River Street, Suite 220 PROJECT LOCATION: Semora, NC
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
s)mTerra Phone: [phone] PAGE 3 OF 4

PROJECT: Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
WELL/BORING NO:
MW-01BRL
PROJECT NO: 1026.107
STARTED: 01/08/2019
COMPLETED: 03/05/2019
DRILLING COMPANY:
Geologic Exploration, Inc.
NORTHING: 994427.00
EASTING: 1983006.23
DRILLING METHOD:
Air Rotary/Hammer
G.S. ELEV: 505.41
M.P. ELEV: 508.75
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
10,8,5.5 IN
DEPTH TO WATER:
56.42 ft TOC
TOTAL DEPTH: 220 ft BGS
NOTES:
Geoprobe 3230 Drill Rig
LOGGED BY:
W. Wimberly
CHECKED BY: K. Lawing
Caliper
V
6.0
(n) 6.5
w
^
_
a
DESCRIPTION
>
(A 0
j
F
WELL CONSTRUCTION
HPF-Ambient
0.01 0.01
w
o
(g )
a
O.OHPF-PPumping 0.5
a
Own)po
u. gpo
nnnnnn
n n n
AAAAAA Diabase, greenish -black, soft
175 nnnnn^
.A.A. '
Gneiss: Biotite GNEISS, light gray
180
185
190 �L� At 188' apparent fracture, no observable increse in
water yield
195
-
nnnn
Diabase: DIABASE, greenish -black, softer drilling
nnnn
nnnnn
nnnnnn
AAAAAA
200
� AAAAA
At 205'-206' apparent fracture (water yield —1
nnnnnn
GPM)
nnnnn
205
nnnnn
At 207-208' apparent fractures with increased
nnnnn
yield (cumulatively —4 GPM)
nnnnn
nnnnn
nnnnn
At 212' apparent fracture, no observable increase
210
nnn nn
in water yield
nnnnn
At 214' quartz and plagioclase in cuttings
At 215'-220' apparent fractured zone with increase
215
in water yield (cumulatively —7 GPM)
Gneiss: Biotite GNEISS, light gray
220 ��Diabase: DIABASE, black to greenish black, harder
drilling
At 220' borehole terminated
225
Cement Grout
2" PVC Riser
Bentonite Seal
Sand Pack
(195'-220')
2" Pre -Pack
Well Screen
(201'-216')
41P SynTerra CLIENT: Duke Energy Progress, LLC
148 River Street, Suite 220 PROJECT LOCATION: Semora, NC
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
ynTerra Phone: [phone] PAGE 4 OF 4

PROJECT: Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
WELL/BORING NO: MW-38BR
PROJECT NO: 1026.107
STARTED: 9/10/2019
COMPLETED: 11/13/2019
DRILLING COMPANY:
Geologic Exploration, Inc.
NORTHING: 986199.40
EASTING: 1979127.69
DRILLING METHOD:
Air Rotary/Hammer
G.S. ELEV: 510.32
M.P. ELEV: 512.71
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
8 and 6 IN
DEPTH TO WATER: 28.91 ft TOC
TOTAL DEPTH: 110 ft BGS
NOTES:
Geoprobe 3230 Drill Rig
LOGGED BY: W. Wimberly
CHECKED BY: K. Lawing
Caliper
V
2.5
(n) 6.6
w
^
_
OJ
DESCRIPTION
>
c�
j
WELL CONSTRUCTION
SPF-Ambien
0.00 013
Lu
C
(9 )
(A 0
V
0
O.00HPF-PPuumPing0.02
Own)
po u. gpo
I.
E
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
125
Clayey Sand: Clayey Sand (10YR 5/6), medium
dense, nonplastic, dry, some gravel
T.
T.T T . Silty Sand: Silty Sand/Saprolite with rock
T -F. fragments, density increasing with depth.
T T'
Granite: PWR, light brownish gray (10YR 6/2)
moderate strength, dry, small rock fragments of
N meta -granite
PWR, light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4), dry, quartz
and Meta -Granite present.
Schist: PWR, light gray (10YR 7/1), chips of meta
Granite -Granitic Schist w/ Biotite, Muscovite
present, minor K-Spar
Pyroxene: Pyroxene/ Amphibole Schist with
chlorite, dark greenish gray (5GY 4/1), very strong,
aphanitic, foliated, moist
Granite: Biotite Granite/ Meta -Granite, gray (10YR
6/1), phaneritic, foliated, wet, K-Spar present, dust
is pinkish gray
Schist: Seam of Chlorite/ Pyroxene/Amphibole
Schist, dark greenish gray
Granite: Biotite Granite/ Meta -Granite, gray (10YR
6/1), phaneritic, foliated, wet, increase in Biotite
content in Meta -Granite
Granite: Biotite Meta -Granite/ Granite Schist/
Gneiss
Schist: Seam of Chlorite/ Pyroxene/Amphibole
Schist, dark greenish gray
Granite: Increase in Chlorite minerals
Cement Grout
6" PVC Sch 40
Casing
2" PVC Sch 40
Casing
Bentonite Seal
2" Pre -Pack
Well Screen
(95'-110' bgs)
.,yam Sand Pack
(90'-125' bgs)
41011 SynTerra CLIENT: Duke Energy Progress, LLC
148 River Street, Suite 220 PROJECT LOCATION: Semora, NC
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
ynTerra Phone: [phone] PAGE 1 OF 5

PROJECT: Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
WELL/BORING NO: MW-38BR
PROJECT NO: 1026.107
STARTED: 9/10/2019
COMPLETED: 11/13/2019
DRILLING COMPANY:
Geologic Exploration, Inc.
NORTHING: 986199.40
EASTING: 1979127.69
DRILLING METHOD:
Air Rotary/Hammer
G.S. ELEV: 510.32
M.P. ELEV: 512.71
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
8 and 6 IN
DEPTH TO WATER: 28.91 ft TOC
TOTAL DEPTH: 110 ft BGS
NOTES:
Geoprobe 3230 Drill Rig
LOGGED BY: W. Wimberly
CHECKED BY: K. Lawing
Caliper
V
2.5
(n) 6.6
w
^
_
OJ
DESCRIPTION
>
c�
j
WELL CONSTRUCTION
SPF-Ambien
0.00 013
Lu
C
(9 )
(A 0
V
0
O.00HPF-PPuumPing0.02
Own)
po u. gpo
130
135
140
145
150
155
160
165
170
175
180
185
190
195
200
205
210
215
220
225
230
235
240
245
250
Biotite Meta -Granite/ Granite Schist/ Gneiss
Dust is Dark Gray, meta-gabbro rock chips, very
dark bluish gray (Gray 2 3/1013), very strong,
porphyrytic, fine grained mafic matrix with
plagioclase grains, foliated
Meta -Granite, very strong, matrix, gray (Gray 1
6/N) phaneritic, foliated
Meta -Granite, very strong, matrix, Gray (Gray 1
6/N) phaneritic, foliated, occasional K-Spar grains
Schist: Chlorite/ Pyroxene/ Amphibole Schist, very
strong, dark greenish gray (5GY 4/1), aphanitic,
foliated
Biotite Meta -Granite/ Granitic Schist, gray (10YR
6/1), very strong, phaneritic, foliated
Amphibole/ Pyroxene Schist, dark gray (Gray 1
4/N), very strong, aphanitic, foliated
Chlorite/ Amphibole/ Pyroxene Schist, dark
greenish gray (5GY 4/1), very strong, aphanitic,
foliated
Bentonite
Backfill
Cement Grout
41p SynTerra CLIENT: Duke Energy Progress, LLC
148 River Street, Suite 220 PROJECT LOCATION: Semora, NC
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
ynTerra Phone: [phone] PAGE 2 OF 5

PROJECT: Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
WELL/BORING NO: MW-38BR
PROJECT NO: 1026.107
STARTED: 9/10/2019
COMPLETED: 11/13/2019
DRILLING COMPANY:
Geologic Exploration, Inc.
NORTHING: 986199.40
EASTING: 1979127.69
DRILLING METHOD:
Air Rotary/Hammer
G.S. ELEV: 510.32
M.P. ELEV: 512.71
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
8 and 6 IN
DEPTH TO WATER: 28.91 ft TOC
TOTAL DEPTH: 110 ft BGS
NOTES:
Geoprobe 3230 Drill Rig
LOGGED BY: W. Wimberly
CHECKED BY: K. Lawing
Caliper
V
2.5
(n) 6.6
w
^
_
OJ
DESCRIPTION
>
c�
j
WELL CONSTRUCTION
SPF-Ambien
0.00 013
Lu
C
i9 )
(A 0
V
0
O.00HPF-PPuumping0.02
Own)
po u. gpo
255
260
265
270
275
280
285
290
295
300
305
310
315
320
325
330
335
340
345
350
355
360
365
370
375
380
Cement Grout
41p SynTerra CLIENT: Duke Energy Progress, LLC
148 River Street, Suite 220 PROJECT LOCATION: Semora, NC
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
ynTerra Phone: [phone] PAGE 3 OF 5

PROJECT: Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
WELL/BORING NO: MW-38BR
PROJECT NO: 1026.107
STARTED: 9/10/2019
COMPLETED: 11/13/2019
DRILLING COMPANY:
Geologic Exploration, Inc.
NORTHING: 986199.40
EASTING: 1979127.69
DRILLING METHOD:
Air Rotary/Hammer
G.S. ELEV: 510.32
M.P. ELEV: 512.71
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
8 and 6 IN
DEPTH TO WATER: 28.91 ft TOC
TOTAL DEPTH: 110 ft BGS
NOTES:
Geoprobe 3230 Drill Rig
LOGGED BY: W. Wimberly
CHECKED BY: K. Lawing
Caliper
V
2.5
(n) 6.6
w
^
_
OJ
DESCRIPTION
>
c�
j
WELL CONSTRUCTION
SPF-Ambien
0.00 013
Lu
C
(9 )
(A 0
V
0
O.00HPF-PPuumPing0.02
Own)
po u. gpo
Granite: Meta-Biotite/Hornblende Granite, dark
385
gray matrix (10YR 4/1) very strong, w/ Black mafic
,
minerals, pink K-Spar grains, phaneritic, weakly
390
'
foliated, wet rock cuttings
395
400
405
410
Schist: Chlorite/ Pyroxene/ Amphibole Schist, very
415
strong, dark greenish gray (5GY 4/1), aphanitic,
foliated
420
Granite: meta-Biotite/Hornblende Granite, dark
gray matrix (10YR 4/1) very strong, w/ black mafic
425
` `
minerals, pink K-Spar grains, phaneritic, weakly
foliated, wet rock cuttings
430
� ` � `
435
Biotite/Hornblende Meta -Granite
440
Biotite/Hornblende Meta -Granite increase in felsic,
445
`
less Biotite/Hornblende
450
Biotite/Hornblende Meta -Granite
455
460
465
470
475
480
Schist: Chlorite/ Pyroxene/ Amphibole Schist, very
strong, dark greenish gray (5GY 4/1), aphanitic,
485
foliated, greenish gray dust
490
K-Spar minerals increased, cuttings very fine, few
495
rock fragments, pinkish -gray dust
500
505
Chlorite/ Amphibole/ Pyroxene Schist, dark
greenish gray (5GY 4/1)
41p SynTerra CLIENT: Duke Energy Progress, LLC
148 River Street, Suite 220 PROJECT LOCATION: Semora, NC
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
ynTerra Phone: [phone] PAGE 4 OF 5

PROJECT: Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
WELL/BORING NO: MW-38BR
PROJECT NO: 1026.107
STARTED: 9/10/2019
COMPLETED: 11/13/2019
DRILLING COMPANY:
Geologic Exploration, Inc.
NORTHING: 986199.40
EASTING: 1979127.69
DRILLING METHOD:
Air Rotary/Hammer
G.S. ELEV: 510.32
M.P. ELEV: 512.71
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
8 and 6 IN
DEPTH TO WATER: 28.91 ft TOC
TOTAL DEPTH: 110 ft BGS
NOTES:
Geoprobe 3230 Drill Rig
LOGGED BY: W. Wimberly
CHECKED BY: K. Lawing
Caliper
V
2.5
(n) 6.6
w
^
_
OJ
DESCRIPTION
>
c�
j
WELL CONSTRUCTION
SPF-Ambien
0.00 013
Lu
C
(9 )
(A 0
V
0
O.00HPF-PPuumping0.02
Own)
po u. gpo
510
515
Black Schist
520
Chlorite/ Amphibole/ Pyroxene Schist, dark
greenish gray (5GY 4/1), very strong, aphanitic,
525
foliated, greenish black rock fragments
530
535
540
545
550
555
560
565
570
575
580
Chlorite/ Amphibole/ Pyroxene Schist, dark
585
greenish gray (5GY 4/1), very strong, aphanitic,
foliated, greenish black rock fragments
590
595
At 600' bgs - borehole terminated
600
Cement Grout
41p SynTerra CLIENT: Duke Energy Progress, LLC
148 River Street, Suite 220 PROJECT LOCATION: Semora, NC
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
ynTerra Phone: [phone] PAGE 5 OF 5

PROJECT: Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
WELL/BORING NO:
MW-1O8BRL
PROJECT NO: 1026.107
STARTED: 11/27/2018
COMPLETED: 03/19/2019
DRILLING COMPANY:
Geologic Exploration, Inc.
NORTHING: 993898.24
EASTING: 1983391.19
DRILLING METHOD:
Air Rotary/Hammer
G.S. ELEV: 519.7
M.P. ELEV: 522.76
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
12,8,5.5 IN
DEPTH TO WATER:
39.68 ft TOC
TOTAL DEPTH: 200 ft BGS
NOTES:
Geoprobe 3230 Drill Rig
LOGGED BY:
W. Wimberly
CHECKED BY: K. Lawing
Caliper
V
6.0
(n) 7.0
w
^
_
a 0
DESCRIPTION
>
V H
j
F
WELL CONSTRUCTION
1iPF-Ambient
-0_0 0.02
w
(9 1
�_
HPF-Pu�mpin9
0.0 0.5
Own)po
LL gpo
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
01.1
50
55
T T :
T T
silty sand: Silty SAND as SAPROLITE, dense,
medium grained, olive brown (2.5Y 4/3), dry,
non -plastic, noncohesive
------------------------------'
PWR: Silty SAND as PARTIALLY WEATHERED
ROCK, dense, medium grained, olive brown (2.5Y
4/3), dry, non -plastic, noncohesive
At 10' very dense, olive gray (5Y 4/2)
gneiss: Biotite-hornblende GNEISS, medium dark
gray (N4) to white (N9), moderately decomposed
with abundant Fe staining, dry pulverized rock
cuttings
At 45' apparent fracture (fractures based on
percussion hammer frequency) cuttings remain dry
At 50' slightly decmoposed, infrequent Fe staining
Cement Grout
8" Surface
Casing (0'-30'
bgs)
6" Surface
Casing (0'-103'
bgs)
2" PVC Riser
41P SynTerra CLIENT: Duke Energy Progress, LLC
148 River Street, Suite 220 PROJECT LOCATION: Semora, NC
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
s)mTerra Phone: [phone] PAGE 1 OF 4

PROJECT: Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
WELL/BORING NO:
MW-1O8BRL
PROJECT NO: 1026.107
STARTED: 11/27/2018
COMPLETED: 03/19/2019
DRILLING COMPANY:
Geologic Exploration, Inc.
NORTHING: 993898.24
EASTING: 1983391.19
DRILLING METHOD:
Air Rotary/Hammer
G.S. ELEV: 519.7
M.P. ELEV: 522.76
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
12,8,5.5 IN
DEPTH TO WATER:
39.68 ft TOC
TOTAL DEPTH: 200 ft BGS
NOTES:
Geoprobe 3230 Drill Rig
LOGGED BY:
W. Wimberly
CHECKED BY: K. Lawing
Caliper
V
6.0
(n) 7.0
w
^
_
a 0
DESCRIPTION
>
V H
j
F
WELL CONSTRUCTION
1iPF-Ambient
-0_0 0.02
w
(9 1
�_
HPF-Pu�mpin9
0.0 0.5
Own)po
LL gpo-1111
Biotite GNEISS, medium dark gray (N4) to white
60 (N9), moderately decomposed with abundant Fe
Cement Grout
staining, dry pulverized rock cuttings
6" Surface
65 ' ' Casing (0'-103'
At 66'-68' fractured zone with quartzite, Fe staining bgs)
on gneissic fragments, dry pulverized rock cuttings ' '
70 2" PVC Riser
75
80
85 At 84' apparent fracture, dry pulverized rock
cuttings
nAAAAA diabase: DIABASE, black (N1), fresh, aphanitic
90 ^n^n^ '
n^n^n^
n^n^n^
n^n^n^
n^n^n^
95 n^n^n^
n^n^n^
n^n^n^
n^n^n^
n^n^n^
n n n
100 AAAAAA
n^n^n^
gneiss: Biotite GNEISS, black (N1) to white (N9),
105 fresh, dry pulverized rock cuttings
110
41P SynTerra CLIENT: Duke Energy Progress, LLC
148 River Street, Suite 220 PROJECT LOCATION: Semora, NC
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
SynTerra Phone: [phone] PAGE 2 OF 4

PROJECT: Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
WELL/BORING NO:
MW-1O8BRL
PROJECT NO: 1026.107
STARTED: 11/27/2018
COMPLETED: 03/19/2019
DRILLING COMPANY:
Geologic Exploration, Inc.
NORTHING: 993898.24
EASTING: 1983391.19
DRILLING METHOD:
Air Rotary/Hammer
G.S. ELEV: 519.7
M.P. ELEV: 522.76
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
12,8,5.5 IN
DEPTH TO WATER:
39.68 ft TOC
TOTAL DEPTH: 200 ft BGS
NOTES:
Geoprobe 3230 Drill Rig
LOGGED BY:
W. Wimberly
CHECKED BY: K. Lawing
Caliper
V
6.0
(n) 7.0
w
^
_
a 0
DESCRIPTION
>
V H
j
F
WELL CONSTRUCTION
1iPF-Ambient
-0_0 0.02
w
(9 1
�_
HPF-Pu�mpin9
0.0 0.5
Own)po
LL gpo
115
120
125
130
135
140
145
150
155
160
165
170
Biotite GNEISS, black (N1) to white (N9), fresh,
dry pulverized rock cuttings
At 148' apparent fracture with water yield (-0.6
GPM)
Cement Grout
2" PVC Riser
Bentonite Seal
Sand Pack
(141'-161')
2" Pre -Pack
Well Screen
(146-156)
41p SynTerra CLIENT: Duke Energy Progress, LLC
148 River Street, Suite 220 PROJECT LOCATION: Semora, NC
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
s)mTerra Phone: [phone] PAGE 3 OF 4

PROJECT: Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
WELL/BORING NO:
MW-108BRL
PROJECT NO: 1026.107
STARTED: 11/27/2018
COMPLETED: 03/19/2019
DRILLING COMPANY:
Geologic Exploration, Inc.
NORTHING: 993898.24
EASTING: 1983391.19
DRILLING METHOD:
Air Rotary/Hammer
G.S. ELEV: 519.7
M.P. ELEV: 522.76
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
12,8,5.5 IN
DEPTH TO WATER:
39.68 ft TOC
TOTAL DEPTH: 200 ft BGS
NOTES:
Geoprobe 3230 Drill Rig
LOGGED BY:
W. Wimberly
CHECKED BY: K. Lawing
Caliper
V
6.0
(n) 7.0
w
^
_
a 0
DESCRIPTION
>
V H
j
F
WELL CONSTRUCTION
1iPF-Ambient
-0_0 0.02
w
(9 1
�_
HPF-Pu�mpin9
0.0 0.5
Own)po
LL gpo-1111
175
180
185
190
195
200
205
Bentonite
Backfill
41p SynTerra CLIENT: Duke Energy Progress, LLC
148 River Street, Suite 220 PROJECT LOCATION: Semora, NC
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
SynTerra Phone: [phone] PAGE 4 OF 4

PROJECT: Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
WELL/BORING NO:
MW-1O8BRLL
PROJECT NO: 1026.107
STARTED: 12/14/2018
COMPLETED: 03/19/2019
DRILLING COMPANY:
Geologic Exploration, Inc.
NORTHING: 993878.96
EASTING: 1983378.98
DRILLING METHOD:
Air Rotary/Hammer
G.S. ELEV: 520.2
M.P. ELEV: 523.60
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
10,8,5.5 IN
DEPTH TO WATER:
64.52 ft TOC
TOTAL DEPTH: 430 ft BGS
NOTES:
Geoprobe 3230 Drill Rig
LOGGED BY:
W. Wimberly
CHECKED BY: K. Lawing
Caliper
V
5.5
(n) 6.5
w
^
_
a 0
DESCRIPTION
>
V H
j
F
WELL CONSTRUCTION
1iPF-Ambient
-0_0 0.02
w
(9 1
�_
HPF-Pu�mpin9
0.0 0.5
Own)po
LL gpo
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
01.1
50
55
60
T T :
T T
silty sand: Silty SAND as SAPROLITE, dense,
medium grained, olive brown (2.5Y 4/3), dry,
non -plastic, noncohesive
PWR: Silty SAND as PARTIALLY WEATHERED
ROCK, dense, medium grained, olive brown (2.5Y
4/3), dry, non -plastic, noncohesive
At 10' very dense, olive gray (5Y 4/2)
gneiss: Biotite-hornblende GNEISS, medium dark
gray (N4) to white (N9), moderately decomposed
with abundant Fe staining, dry pulverized rock
cuttings
Cement Grout
8" Surface
Casing (0'-30'
bgs)
6" Surface
Casing (0'-230'
bgs)
2" PVC Riser
41P SynTerra CLIENT: Duke Energy Progress, LLC
148 River Street, Suite 220 PROJECT LOCATION: Semora, NC
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
s)mTerra Phone: [phone] PAGE 1 OF 7

PROJECT: Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
WELL/BORING NO:
MW-1O8BRLL
PROJECT NO: 1026.107
STARTED: 12/14/2018
COMPLETED: 03/19/2019
DRILLING COMPANY:
Geologic Exploration, Inc.
NORTHING: 993878.96
EASTING: 1983378.98
DRILLING METHOD:
Air Rotary/Hammer
G.S. ELEV: 520.2
M.P. ELEV: 523.60
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
10,8,5.5 IN
DEPTH TO WATER:
64.52 ft TOC
TOTAL DEPTH: 430 ft BGS
NOTES:
Geoprobe 3230 Drill Rig
LOGGED BY:
W. Wimberly
CHECKED BY: K. Lawing
Caliper
V
5.5
(n) 6.5
w
^
_
a 0
DESCRIPTION
>
V H
j
F
WELL CONSTRUCTION
1iPF-Ambient
-0_0 0.02
w
(9 1
�_
HPF-Pu�mpin9
0.0 0.5
Own)po
LL gpo-1111
RR
70
75
80
RR
90
W7
100
105
110
115
120
Cement Grout
6" Surface
Casing (0'-230'
bgs)
2" PVC Riser
41P SynTerra CLIENT: Duke Energy Progress, LLC
148 River Street, Suite 220 PROJECT LOCATION: Semora, NC
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
SynTerra Phone: [phone] PAGE 2 OF 7

PROJECT: Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
WELL/BORING NO:
MW-1O8BRLL
PROJECT NO: 1026.107
STARTED: 12/14/2018
COMPLETED: 03/19/2019
DRILLING COMPANY:
Geologic Exploration, Inc.
NORTHING: 993878.96
EASTING: 1983378.98
DRILLING METHOD:
Air Rotary/Hammer
G.S. ELEV: 520.2
M.P. ELEV: 523.60
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
10,8,5.5 IN
DEPTH TO WATER:
64.52 ft TOC
TOTAL DEPTH: 430 ft BGS
NOTES:
Geoprobe 3230 Drill Rig
LOGGED BY:
W. Wimberly
CHECKED BY: K. Lawing
Caliper
V
5.5
(n) 6.5
w
^
_
a 0
DESCRIPTION
>
V H
j
F
WELL CONSTRUCTION
1iPF-Ambient
-0_0 0.02
w
(9 1
�_
HPF-Pu�mpin9
0.0 0.5
Own)po
LL gpo-1111
125
130
135
140
145
150
155
160
165
170
175
180
Cement Grout
6" Surface
Casing (0'-230'
bgs)
2" PVC Riser
41P SynTerra CLIENT: Duke Energy Progress, LLC
148 River Street, Suite 220 PROJECT LOCATION: Semora, NC
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
SynTerra Phone: [phone] PAGE 3 OF 7

PROJECT: Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
WELL/BORING NO:
MW-1O8BRLL
PROJECT NO: 1026.107
STARTED: 12/14/2018
COMPLETED: 03/19/2019
DRILLING COMPANY:
Geologic Exploration, Inc.
NORTHING: 993878.96
EASTING: 1983378.98
DRILLING METHOD:
Air Rotary/Hammer
G.S. ELEV: 520.2
M.P. ELEV: 523.60
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
10,8,5.5 IN
DEPTH TO WATER:
64.52 ft TOC
TOTAL DEPTH: 430 ft BGS
NOTES:
Geoprobe 3230 Drill Rig
LOGGED BY:
W. Wimberly
CHECKED BY: K. Lawing
Caliper
V
5.5
(n) 6.5
w
^
_
a 0
DESCRIPTION
>
V H
j
F
WELL CONSTRUCTION
1iPF-Ambient
-0_0 0.02
w
(9 1
�_
HPF-Pu�mpin9
0.0 0.5
Own)po
LL gpo
185
n^^^^
`
—AA
^^^A
^^A^A^
At 188'-189' significant fracture (water yield —5
GPM)
190
nAAAAA
A^A^A^
DIABASE, black to greenish black
A A A A A A
A A A A A A
195
AAAAAA
Cement Grout
A A A A A A
A A A A A A
A A A
�A�A�A
6"Surface
200
A A A A A A
Casing (0'-230'
A^A^A^
bgs)
A^A^A^
AAAAAA
AAAAAA
205
2" PVC Riser
gneiss: Biotite-hornblende GNEISS
210
215
220
th
225 At 225' solfteKzonespar
230
granite: Meta -GRANITE, dark greenish gray (5G
4/1), with K-feldspar, fresh, phaneritic, dry
pulverized rock cuttings
235
240
gneiss: Granitic GNEISS, grayish black (N2), with
K-feldspar, grayish black (N2), fresh, weak
foliations observed on larger chips
245
41P SynTerra CLIENT: Duke Energy Progress, LLC
148 River Street, Suite 220 PROJECT LOCATION: Semora, NC
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
SynTerra Phone: [phone] PAGE 4 OF 7

PROJECT: Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
WELL/BORING NO:
MW-1O8BRLL
PROJECT NO: 1026.107
STARTED: 12/14/2018
COMPLETED: 03/19/2019
DRILLING COMPANY:
Geologic Exploration, Inc.
NORTHING: 993878.96
EASTING: 1983378.98
DRILLING METHOD:
Air Rotary/Hammer
G.S. ELEV: 520.2
M.P. ELEV: 523.60
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
10,8,5.5 IN
DEPTH TO WATER:
64.52 ft TOC
TOTAL DEPTH: 430 ft BGS
NOTES:
Geoprobe 3230 Drill Rig
LOGGED BY:
W. Wimberly
CHECKED BY: K. Lawing
Caliper
V
5.5
(n) 6.5
w
^
_
a 0
DESCRIPTION
>
V H
j
F
WELL CONSTRUCTION
1iPF-Ambient
-0_0 0.02
w
(9 I
�_
HPF-Pu�mpin9
0.0 0.5
Own)po
LL gpo
250
255
260
265
270
275
280
285
290
295
300
305
At 254' apparent fracture, increase in felsic
minerals, initial water production (-0.5 GPM)
following 6" drill -out
Granitic GNEISS, grayish black (N2), with
K-feldspar, grayish black (N2), fresh, weak
foliations observed on larger chips
gneiss: Biotite GNEISS, black (N1) to white (N9),
fresh, thin foliations observed on larger chips
Cement Grout
2" PVC Riser
41p SynTerra CLIENT: Duke Energy Progress, LLC
148 River Street, Suite 220 PROJECT LOCATION: Semora, NC
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
s)mTerra Phone: [phone] PAGE 5 OF 7

PROJECT: Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
WELL/BORING NO:
MW-1O8BRLL
PROJECT NO: 1026.107
STARTED: 12/14/2018
COMPLETED: 03/19/2019
DRILLING COMPANY:
Geologic Exploration, Inc.
NORTHING: 993878.96
EASTING: 1983378.98
DRILLING METHOD:
Air Rotary/Hammer
G.S. ELEV: 520.2
M.P. ELEV: 523.60
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
10,8,5.5 IN
DEPTH TO WATER:
64.52 ft TOC
TOTAL DEPTH: 430 ft BGS
NOTES:
Geoprobe 3230 Drill Rig
LOGGED BY:
W. Wimberly
CHECKED BY: K. Lawing
Caliper
V
5.5
(n) 6.5
w
^
_
a 0
DESCRIPTION
>
V H
j
F
WELL CONSTRUCTION
1iPF-Ambient
-0_0 0.02
w
(9 1
�_
HPF-Pu�mpin9
0.0 0.5
Own)po
LL gpo-1111
310
315 At 314' cuttings appear aphantic
Biotite GNEISS, black (N1) to white (N9), with
320 plagioclase minerals, fresh, thin foliations observed
on larger chips
325
330
�LXXJ
SCHIST: Gneissic -SCHIST, dark greenish gray (5G
335 4/1), K-feldspar and thin foliations observed in
larger chips
340
345
350 ------------------------------
SCHIST: SCHIST, very light gray (M8) to pale pink
(5RP 3/2), increase in plagioclase and quartz
355
At 357' softer zone, no significant increase in yeild
(� 1 GPM)
360 -
365
At 367' some Fe staining observed on chips
Cement Grout
2" PVC Riser
41p SynTerra CLIENT: Duke Energy Progress, LLC
148 River Street, Suite 220 PROJECT LOCATION: Semora, NC
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
s)mTerra Phone: [phone] PAGE 6 OF 7

PROJECT: Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
WELL/BORING NO:
MW-1O8BRLL
PROJECT NO: 1026.107
STARTED: 12/14/2018
COMPLETED: 03/19/2019
DRILLING COMPANY:
Geologic Exploration, Inc.
NORTHING: 993878.96
EASTING: 1983378.98
DRILLING METHOD:
Air Rotary/Hammer
G.S. ELEV: 520.2
M.P. ELEV: 523.60
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
10,8,5.5 IN
DEPTH TO WATER:
64.52 ft TOC
TOTAL DEPTH: 430 ft BGS
NOTES:
Geoprobe 3230 Drill Rig
LOGGED BY:
W. Wimberly
CHECKED BY: K. Lawing
Caliper
V
5.5
(n) 6.5
w
^
_
a 0
DESCRIPTION
>
V H
j
F
WELL CONSTRUCTION
1iPF-Ambient
-0_0 0.02
w
(9 I
�_
HPF-Pu�mpin9
0.0 0.5
Own)po
LL gpo
370
SCHIST, very light gray (M8) to pale pink (5RP
375 3/2), increase in plagioclase and quartz
gneiss: Biotite GNEISS, black (N1) to white (N9),
380 thin foliations observed in larger chips
At 381' softer zone, no significant increase in water
385 yield (cumulatively —1 GPM)
390
395
At 397' softer zone, yield increases (cumulatively
—3 GPM)
400
405
410
415
420
425
At 425' softer zone, no significant increase in yield
(cumulatively —3 GPM)
430 At 430' borehole terminated
Bentonite Seal
Sand Pack
(386'-408')
2" Pre -Pack
Well Screen
(393-403)
Bentonite
Backfill
41p SynTerra CLIENT: Duke Energy Progress, LLC
148 River Street, Suite 220 PROJECT LOCATION: Semora, NC
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
s)mTerra Phone: [phone] PAGE 7 OF 7

PROJECT: Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
WELL/BORING NO:
MW-205BRL
PROJECT NO: 1026.107
STARTED: 11/28/2018
COMPLETED: 03/19/2019
DRILLING COMPANY:
Geologic Exploration, Inc.
NORTHING: 991841.38
EASTING: 1976472.18
DRILLING METHOD:
Air Rotary/Hammer
G.S. ELEV: 476.3
M.P. ELEV: 479.68
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
10,8,5.5 IN
DEPTH TO WATER:
46.62 ft TOC TOTAL DEPTH: 173 ft BGS
NOTES:
Geoprobe 3230 Drill Rig
LOGGED BY:
G. Khang
CHECKED BY: K. Lawing
Caliper
V
5.5
(n) 6.5
w
^
_
a 0
DESCRIPTION
>
V H
j
F
WELL CONSTRUCTION
1iPF-Ambient
-0_0 0.02
w
(9 1
�_
HPF-Pu�mpin9
0.0 0.5
Own)po
LL gpo
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
T T :
T T
T T
T T
T'
silty sand: Silty SAND as SAPROLITE, dense,
medium to coarse grained, olive yellow (2.5Y 6/6),
dry, non -plastic, noncohesive, some quartz
fragments
PWR: Silty SAND w/ gravel as PARTIALLY
WEATHERED ROCK, very dense, medium to coarse
grained, light olive brown (2.5Y 5/4), dry,
non -plastic, noncohesive
------------------------------
PWR: Silty SAND w/ gravel as PARTIALLY
WEATHERED ROCK, very dense, light gray (2.5Y
7/2) to brownish yellow (10YR 6/6), dry,
non -plastic, noncohesive, some gneissic rock
fragments
gneiss: GNEISS, grayish black (N2) to dark
yellowish orange (10YR 6/6), moderately
decomposed, dry pulverized rock cuttings
At 35' weak, decomposed with Fe staining, light
gray to brown rock cuttings
Cement Grout
8" Surface
Casing (0'-35'
bgs)
6" Surface
Casing (0'-116'
bgs)
2" PVC Riser
41P SynTerra CLIENT: Duke Energy Progress, LLC
148 River Street, Suite 220 PROJECT LOCATION: Semora, NC
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
s)mTerra Phone: [phone] PAGE 1 OF 4

PROJECT: Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
WELL/BORING NO:
MW-205BRL
PROJECT NO: 1026.107
STARTED: 11/28/2018
COMPLETED: 03/19/2019
DRILLING COMPANY:
Geologic Exploration, Inc.
NORTHING: 991841.38
EASTING: 1976472.18
DRILLING METHOD:
Air Rotary/Hammer
G.S. ELEV: 476.3
M.P. ELEV: 479.68
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
10,8,5.5 IN
DEPTH TO WATER:
46.62 ft TOC TOTAL DEPTH: 173 ft BGS
NOTES:
Geoprobe 3230 Drill Rig
LOGGED BY:
G. Khang
CHECKED BY: K. Lawing
Caliper
V
5.5
(n) 6.5
w
^
_
a O
DESCRIPTION
>
U
j
F
WELL CONSTRUCTION
1iPF-Ambient
-0_0 0.02
w
(9
�_
HPF-Pu�mpin9
0.0 0.5
Own)po
LL gpo-1111
4.
60
W,
70
75
80
EE
90
W7
100
Cement Grout
6" Surface
Casing (0'-116'
bgs)
2" PVC Riser
41P SynTerra CLIENT: Duke Energy Progress, LLC
148 River Street, Suite 220 PROJECT LOCATION: Semora, NC
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
SynTerra Phone: [phone] PAGE 2 OF 4

PROJECT: Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
WELL/BORING NO:
MW-205BRL
PROJECT NO: 1026.107
STARTED: 11/28/2018
COMPLETED: 03/19/2019
DRILLING COMPANY:
Geologic Exploration, Inc.
NORTHING: 991841.38
EASTING: 1976472.18
DRILLING METHOD:
Air Rotary/Hammer
G.S. ELEV: 476.3
M.P. ELEV: 479.68
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
10,8,5.5 IN
DEPTH TO WATER:
46.62 ft TOC TOTAL DEPTH: 173 ft BGS
NOTES:
Geoprobe 3230 Drill Rig
LOGGED BY:
G. Khang
CHECKED BY: K. Lawing
Caliper
V
5.5
(n) 6.5
w
^
_
a 0
DESCRIPTION
>
V H
j
F
WELL CONSTRUCTION
1iPF-Ambient
-0_0 0.02
w
(9 1
�_
HPF-Pu�mpin9
0.0 0.5
Own)po
LL gpo-1111
Granitic GNEISS with mafic minerals, gray, low
7low
dust, moist rock cuttings
105
At 103' quartz, K-feldspar, and plagioclase present, dust, moist rock cuttings
110 -Ik-L�-q I _ I i i i i i1 HV,1 �,iN— Cement Grout
6" Surface
115
Casing (0'-116'
T bgs)
^"n"x" diabase: Mafic with biotite schist, gray, slightly
120
n^n^n^ aphanitic
;
2" PVC Riser
^^^^^^
n^n^n^
n^n^n^
^^^^^^
^n^n^n
125
n^n^n^
n^n^n^ At 123' and 128' some granitic gneiss, thin
nAnAnAfoliations on rock chips, dry pulverized rock
^n^n^n cuttings
130
A AAAA
^^^^^
^n^
n n
gneiss: GNEISS, with K-feldspar, schistose texture,
135
fresh
-
------------------------------
gneiss: Biotite GNEISS, gray, some mica schist,
140
schistose texture, slightly aphanitic
At 143' greenish gray
145
At 147' apparent fracture with no significant
increase in water yield
Bentonite Seal
schist: SCHIST, gray
150
At 151' softer zone
41P SynTerra CLIENT: Duke Energy Progress, LLC
148 River Street, Suite 220 PROJECT LOCATION: Semora, NC
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
ynTerra Phone: [phone] PAGE 3 OF 4

PROJECT: Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
WELL/BORING NO:
MW-205BRL
PROJECT NO: 1026.107
STARTED: 11/28/2018
COMPLETED: 03/19/2019
DRILLING COMPANY:
Geologic Exploration, Inc.
NORTHING: 991841.38
EASTING: 1976472.18
DRILLING METHOD:
Air Rotary/Hammer
G.S. ELEV: 476.3
M.P. ELEV: 479.68
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
10,8,5.5 IN
DEPTH TO WATER:
46.62 ft TOC TOTAL DEPTH: 173 ft BGS
NOTES:
Geoprobe 3230 Drill Rig
LOGGED BY:
G. Khang
CHECKED BY: K. Lawing
Caliper
V
5.5
(n) 6.5
w
^
_
a 0
DESCRIPTION
>
V H
j
F
WELL CONSTRUCTION
1iPF-Ambient
-0_0 0.02
w
(9 1
�_
HPF-Pu�mpin9
0.0 0.5
Own)po
LL gpo
155
160
165
170
175
Bentonite Seal
Sand Pack
(155'-173')
2" Pre -Pack
Well Screen
(160'-170')
41P SynTerra CLIENT: Duke Energy Progress, LLC
148 River Street, Suite 220 PROJECT LOCATION: Semora, NC
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
SynTerra Phone: [phone] PAGE 4 OF 4

PROJECT: Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
WELL/BORING NO:
MW-205BRLL
PROJECT NO: 1026.107
STARTED: 12/14/2018
COMPLETED: 03/05/2019
DRILLING COMPANY:
Geologic Exploration, Inc.
NORTHING: 991831.53
EASTING: 1976473.82
DRILLING METHOD:
Air Rotary/Hammer
G.S. ELEV: 476.95
M.P. ELEV: 480.35
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
10,8,5.5 IN
DEPTH TO WATER:
47.40 ft TOC
TOTAL DEPTH: 261 ft BGS
NOTES:
Geoprobe 3230 Drill Rig
LOGGED BY:
G. Khang
CHECKED BY: K. Lawing
Caliper
V
5.0
(n) 6.0
w
^
_
a 0
DESCRIPTION
>
V H
j
F
WELL CONSTRUCTION
1iPF-Ambient
-0_0 0.02
w
(9 1
�_
HPF-Pu�mpin9
0.0 0.5
Own)po
LL gpo
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
T T :
T T
T T
T T
T.'
silty sand: Silty SAND as SAPROLITE, dense,
medium to coarse grained, olive yellow (2.5Y 6/6),
dry, non -plastic, noncohesive, some quartz
fragments
PWR: Silty SAND w/ gravel as PARTIALLY
WEATHERED ROCK, very dense, medium to coarse
grained, light olive brown (2.5Y 5/4), dry,
non plastic, noncohesive
------------------------------
PWR: Silty SAND w/ gravel as PARTIALLY
WEATHERED ROCK, very dense, light gray (2.5Y
7/2) to brownish yellow (10YR 6/6), dry,
non -plastic, noncohesive, some gneissic rock
fragments
gneiss: GNEISS, grayish black (N2) to dark
yellowish orange (10YR 6/6), moderately
decomposed, dry pulverized rock cuttings
At 35' weak, decomposed with Fe staining, light
gray to brown rock cuttings
Cement Grout
8" Surface
Casing (0'-37'
bgs)
6" Surface
Casing (0'-200'
bgs)
2" PVC Riser
41P SynTerra CLIENT: Duke Energy Progress, LLC
148 River Street, Suite 220 PROJECT LOCATION:
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
symTerra Phone: [phone] PAGE 1 OF 5

PROJECT: Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
WELL/BORING NO:
MW-205BRLL
PROJECT NO: 1026.107
STARTED: 12/14/2018
COMPLETED: 03/05/2019
DRILLING COMPANY:
Geologic Exploration, Inc.
NORTHING: 991831.53
EASTING: 1976473.82
DRILLING METHOD:
Air Rotary/Hammer
G.S. ELEV: 476.95
M.P. ELEV: 480.35
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
10,8,5.5 IN
DEPTH TO WATER:
47.40 ft TOC
TOTAL DEPTH: 261 ft BGS
NOTES:
Geoprobe 3230 Drill Rig
LOGGED BY:
G. Khang
CHECKED BY: K. Lawing
Caliper
V
5.0
(n) 6.0
w
^
_
a 0
DESCRIPTION
>
V H
j
F
WELL CONSTRUCTION
1iPF-Ambient
-0_0 0.02
w
(9 1
�_
HPF-Pu�mpin9
0.0 0.5
Own)po
LL gpo-1111
55
60
W,
70
80
RKI
90
VKI
100
105
Cement Grout
6" Surface
Casing (0'-200'
bgs)
2" PVC Riser
41p SynTerra CLIENT: Duke Energy Progress, LLC
148 River Street, Suite 220 PROJECT LOCATION:
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
SynTerra Phone: [phone] PAGE 2 OF 5

PROJECT: Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
WELL/BORING NO:
MW-205BRLL
PROJECT NO: 1026.107
STARTED: 12/14/2018
COMPLETED: 03/05/2019
DRILLING COMPANY:
Geologic Exploration, Inc.
NORTHING: 991831.53
EASTING: 1976473.82
DRILLING METHOD:
Air Rotary/Hammer
G.S. ELEV: 476.95
M.P. ELEV: 480.35
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
10,8,5.5 IN
DEPTH TO WATER:
47.40 ft TOC
TOTAL DEPTH: 261 ft BGS
NOTES:
Geoprobe 3230 Drill Rig
LOGGED BY:
G. Khang
CHECKED BY: K. Lawing
Caliper
V
5.0
(n) 6.0
w
^
_
a 0
DESCRIPTION
>
V H
j
F
WELL CONSTRUCTION
1iPF-Ambient
-0_0 0.02
w
(9 1
�_
HPF-Pu�mpin9
0.0 0.5
Own)po
LL gpo-1111
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
145
150
155
160
Cement Grout
6" Surface
Casing (0'-200'
bgs)
2" PVC Riser
41P SynTerra CLIENT: Duke Energy Progress, LLC
148 River Street, Suite 220 PROJECT LOCATION:
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
SynTerra Phone: [phone] PAGE 3 OF 5

PROJECT: Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
WELL/BORING NO:
MW-205BRLL
PROJECT NO: 1026.107
STARTED: 12/14/2018
COMPLETED: 03/05/2019
DRILLING COMPANY:
Geologic Exploration, Inc.
NORTHING: 991831.53
EASTING: 1976473.82
DRILLING METHOD:
Air Rotary/Hammer
G.S. ELEV: 476.95
M.P. ELEV: 480.35
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
10,8,5.5 IN
DEPTH TO WATER:
47.40 ft TOC
TOTAL DEPTH: 261 ft BGS
NOTES:
Geoprobe 3230 Drill Rig
LOGGED BY:
G. Khang
CHECKED BY: K. Lawing
Caliper
V
5.0
(n) 6.0
w
^
_
a 0
DESCRIPTION
>
V H
j
F
WELL CONSTRUCTION
1iPF-Ambient
-0_0 0.02
w
(9 1
�_
HPF-Pu�mpin9
0.0 0.5
Own)po
LL gpo-1111
165
170
175
180
185
190
195
200
205
210
Biotite SCHIST, with K-feldspar, gray to light gray,
aphanitic
At 173' some gneissic rock chips
At 178' dark, mafic minerals, appears intensely
foliated, fresh
At 183' gray to light gray, felsic minerals including
K-feldspar and plagioclase, thin foliations of rock
chips
At 188' dark, mafic minerals, ocassional K-feldspar
At 198' dark, mafic minerals, ocassional quartz and
K-feldspar, thin foliations on rock chips, some Fe
staining
Cement Grout
6" Surface
Casing (0'-200'
bgs)
2" PVC Riser
Bentonite Seal
41P SynTerra CLIENT: Duke Energy Progress, LLC
148 River Street, Suite 220 PROJECT LOCATION:
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
symTerra Phone: [phone] PAGE 4 OF 5

PROJECT: Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
WELL/BORING NO:
MW-205BRLL
PROJECT NO: 1026.107
STARTED: 12/14/2018
COMPLETED: 03/05/2019
DRILLING COMPANY:
Geologic Exploration, Inc.
NORTHING: 991831.53
EASTING: 1976473.82
DRILLING METHOD:
Air Rotary/Hammer
G.S. ELEV: 476.95
M.P. ELEV: 480.35
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
10,8,5.5 IN
DEPTH TO WATER:
47.40 ft TOC
TOTAL DEPTH: 261 ft BGS
NOTES:
Geoprobe 3230 Drill Rig
LOGGED BY:
G. Khang
CHECKED BY: K. Lawing
Caliper
V
5.0
(n) 6.0
w
^
_
a 0
DESCRIPTION
>
V H
j
F
WELL CONSTRUCTION
1iPF-Ambient
-0_0 0.02
w
(9 1
�_
HPF-Pu�mpin9
0.0 0.5
Own)po
LL gpo
215 'X�'I aiotite c HIST, with K-feldspar, gray to light gray,
220
225 11�lk9l At 224' and 226' apparent fractures (cumulative
water yield —0.5 GPM)
230 �h6% At 228.5' apparent fracture (cumulative water yield
—8 GPM) concurrent with quartz
235 At (cu234.5' and mul twater war fractures
yield —10 GPM)
240 Jj��V4 At 239' and 240' apparent fractures (cumulative
water yield —18 GPM)
245
250 At 250' apparent fracture with no significant
increase in yield
255
Biotite SCHIST, with K-feldspar, gray to light gray,
aphanitic
At 259' and 260' apparent fractures (cumulative
260 water yield —25 GPM)
10 At 261' borehole terminated
Bentonite Seal
Sand Pack
(215'-236')
2" Pre -Pack
Well Screen
(221'-231')
Bentonite
Backfill
41P SynTerra CLIENT: Duke Energy Progress, LLC
148 River Street, Suite 220 PROJECT LOCATION:
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
ynTerra Phone: [phone] PAGE 5 OF 5

PROJECT: Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
WELL/BORING NO:
MW-205BRLLL
PROJECT NO: 1026.107
STARTED: 12/19/2018
COMPLETED: 03/19/2019
DRILLING COMPANY:
Geologic Exploration, Inc.
NORTHING: 991823.39
EASTING: 1976476.03
DRILLING METHOD:
Air Rotary/Hammer
G.S. ELEV: 477.85
M.P. ELEV: 480.85
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
10,8,5.5 IN
DEPTH TO WATER:
50.41 ft TOC
TOTAL DEPTH: 448 ft BGS
NOTES:
Geoprobe 3230 Drill Rig
LOGGED BY:
G. Khang
CHECKED BY: K. Lawing
Caliper
V
5.0
(n) 6.0
w
^
_
a 0
DESCRIPTION
>
V H
j
F
WELL CONSTRUCTION
1iPF-Ambient
-0_0 0.02
w
(9 1
�_
HPF-Pu�mpin9
0.0 0.2
Own)po
LL gpo
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
01.1
50
T T :
T T
T T
T T
silty sand: Silty SAND as SAPROLITE, dense,
medium to coarse grained, olive yellow (2.5Y 6/6),
dry, non -plastic, noncohesive, some quartz
fragments
PWR: Silty SAND w/ gravel as PARTIALLY
WEATHERED ROCK, very dense, medium to coarse
grained, light olive brown (2.5Y 5/4), dry,
non -plastic, noncohesive
------------------------------
PWR: Silty SAND w/ gravel as PARTIALLY
WEATHERED ROCK, very dense, light gray (2.5Y
7/2) to brownish yellow (10YR 6/6), dry,
non -plastic, noncohesive, some gneissic rock
fragments
gneiss: GNEISS, grayish black (N2) to dark
yellowish orange (10YR 6/6), moderately
decomposed, dry pulverized rock cuttings
At 35' weak, decomposed with Fe staining, light
gray to brown rock cuttings
Cement Grout
8" Surface
Casing (0'-39'
bgs)
6" Surface
Casing (0'-300'
bgs)
2" PVC Riser
41P SynTerra CLIENT: Duke Energy Progress, LLC
148 River Street, Suite 220 PROJECT LOCATION: Semora, NC
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
s)mTerra Phone: [phone] PAGE 1 OF 9

PROJECT: Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
WELL/BORING NO:
MW-205BRLLL
PROJECT NO: 1026.107
STARTED: 12/19/2018
COMPLETED: 03/19/2019
DRILLING COMPANY:
Geologic Exploration, Inc.
NORTHING: 991823.39
EASTING: 1976476.03
DRILLING METHOD:
Air Rotary/Hammer
G.S. ELEV: 477.85
M.P. ELEV: 480.85
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
10,8,5.5 IN
DEPTH TO WATER:
50.41 ft TOC
TOTAL DEPTH: 448 ft BGS
NOTES:
Geoprobe 3230 Drill Rig
LOGGED BY:
G. Khang
CHECKED BY: K. Lawing
Caliper
V
5.0
(n) 6.0
w
^
_
a 0
DESCRIPTION
>
V H
j
F
WELL CONSTRUCTION
1iPF-Ambient
-0_0 0.02
w
(9 1
�_
HPF-Pu�mpin9
0.0 0.2
Own)po
LL gpo-1111
55
60
RR
70
75
80
RKI
90
VKI
100
105
Cement Grout
6" Surface
Casing (0'-300'
bgs)
2" PVC Riser
41P SynTerra CLIENT: Duke Energy Progress, LLC
148 River Street, Suite 220 PROJECT LOCATION: Semora, NC
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
SynTerra Phone: [phone] PAGE 2 OF 9

PROJECT: Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
WELL/BORING NO:
MW-205BRLLL
PROJECT NO: 1026.107
STARTED: 12/19/2018
COMPLETED: 03/19/2019
DRILLING COMPANY:
Geologic Exploration, Inc.
NORTHING: 991823.39
EASTING: 1976476.03
DRILLING METHOD:
Air Rotary/Hammer
G.S. ELEV: 477.85
M.P. ELEV: 480.85
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
10,8,5.5 IN
DEPTH TO WATER:
50.41 ft TOC
TOTAL DEPTH: 448 ft BGS
NOTES:
Geoprobe 3230 Drill Rig
LOGGED BY:
G. Khang
CHECKED BY: K. Lawing
Caliper
V
5.0
(n) 6.0
w
^
_
a 0
DESCRIPTION
>
V H
j
F
WELL CONSTRUCTION
1iPF-Ambient
-0_0 0.02
w
(9 1
�_
HPF-Pu�mpin9
0.0 0.2
Own)po
LL gpo-1111
110 I=Granitic GNEISS with mafic minerals, gray, low
dust, moist rock cuttings
115
Arun
diabase: Mafic with biotite schist, gray, slightly
120
A^A^A^
aphanitic
^AAAAA
A^A^A^
A^A^A^
A^A^A^
^AAAAA
125
A^A^A^
^AAAAA
At 123' and 128' some granitic gneiss, thin
on rock chips, dry pulverized rock
nAAAAAfoliations
cuttings
^^^^^^
A^A^A^
130
A^A^A^
A^A^A^
A^A^A^
A^A^A^
gneiss: GNEISS, with K-feldspar, schistose texture,
135
fresh
140 Tugneiss: Biotite GNEISS, gray, some mica schist,
, schistose texture, slightly aphanitic
At 143' greenish gray
145
At 147' apparent fracture with no significant
increase in yield
schist: SCHIST, gray
150
At 151' softer zone
diabase: Mafic with schist and gneiss, gray
155
160 1%, A light gray, aphanitic schist: Biotite ST, with K feldspar, gray to
Cement Grout
6" Surface
Casing (0'-300'
bgs)
2" PVC Riser
41P SynTerra CLIENT: Duke Energy Progress, LLC
148 River Street, Suite 220 PROJECT LOCATION: Semora, NC
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
ynTerra Phone: [phone] PAGE 3 OF 9

PROJECT: Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
WELL/BORING NO:
MW-205BRLLL
PROJECT NO: 1026.107
STARTED: 12/19/2018
COMPLETED: 03/19/2019
DRILLING COMPANY:
Geologic Exploration, Inc.
NORTHING: 991823.39
EASTING: 1976476.03
DRILLING METHOD:
Air Rotary/Hammer
G.S. ELEV: 477.85
M.P. ELEV: 480.85
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
10,8,5.5 IN
DEPTH TO WATER:
50.41 ft TOC
TOTAL DEPTH: 448 ft BGS
NOTES:
Geoprobe 3230 Drill Rig
LOGGED BY:
G. Khang
CHECKED BY: K. Lawing
Caliper
V
5.0
(n) 6.0
w
^
_
a 0
DESCRIPTION
>
V H
j
F
WELL CONSTRUCTION
1iPF-Ambient
-0_0 0.02
w
(9 1
�_
HPF-Pu�mpin9
0.0 0.2
Own)po
LL gpo-1111
165
170
175
180
185
190
195
200
205
210
215
Biotite SCHIST, with K-feldspar, gray to light gray,
aphanitic
At 173' some gneissic rock chips
At 178' dark, mafic minerals, appears intensely
foliated, fresh
At 183' gray to light gray, felsic minerals including
K-feldspar and plagioclase, thin foliations of rock
chips
At 188' dark, mafic minerals, ocassional K-feldspar
At 198' dark, mafic minerals, ocassional quartz and
K-feldspar, thin foliations on rock chips, some Fe
staining
Cement Grout
6" Surface
Casing (0'-300'
bgs)
2" PVC Riser
41P SynTerra CLIENT: Duke Energy Progress, LLC
148 River Street, Suite 220 PROJECT LOCATION: Semora, NC
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
symTerra Phone: [phone] PAGE 4 OF 9

PROJECT: Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
WELL/BORING NO:
MW-205BRLLL
PROJECT NO: 1026.107
STARTED: 12/19/2018
COMPLETED: 03/19/2019
DRILLING COMPANY:
Geologic Exploration, Inc.
NORTHING: 991823.39
EASTING: 1976476.03
DRILLING METHOD:
Air Rotary/Hammer
G.S. ELEV: 477.85
M.P. ELEV: 480.85
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
10,8,5.5 IN
DEPTH TO WATER:
50.41 ft TOC
TOTAL DEPTH: 448 ft BGS
NOTES:
Geoprobe 3230 Drill Rig
LOGGED BY:
G. Khang
CHECKED BY: K. Lawing
Caliper
V
5.0
(n) 6.0
w
^
_
a 0
DESCRIPTION
>
V H
j
F
WELL CONSTRUCTION
1iPF-Ambient
-0_0 0.02
w
(9 I
�_
HPF-Pu�mpin9
0.0 0.2
Own)po
LL gpo-1111
Biotite SCHIST, with K-feldspar, gray to light gray,
aphanitic
220
225
230
235
240
245
250
255
260
265
270
Cement Grout
6" Surface
Casing (0'-300'
bgs)
2" PVC Riser
41P SynTerra CLIENT: Duke Energy Progress, LLC
148 River Street, Suite 220 PROJECT LOCATION: Semora, NC
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
s)mTerra Phone: [phone] PAGE 5 OF 9

PROJECT: Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
WELL/BORING NO:
MW-205BRLLL
PROJECT NO: 1026.107
STARTED: 12/19/2018
COMPLETED: 03/19/2019
DRILLING COMPANY:
Geologic Exploration, Inc.
NORTHING: 991823.39
EASTING: 1976476.03
DRILLING METHOD:
Air Rotary/Hammer
G.S. ELEV: 477.85
M.P. ELEV: 480.85
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
10,8,5.5 IN
DEPTH TO WATER:
50.41 ft TOC
TOTAL DEPTH: 448 ft BGS
NOTES:
Geoprobe 3230 Drill Rig
LOGGED BY:
G. Khang
CHECKED BY: K. Lawing
Caliper
V
5.0
(n) 6.0
w
^
_
a 0
DESCRIPTION
>
V H
j
F
WELL CONSTRUCTION
1iPF-Ambient
-0_0 0.02
w
(9 1
�_
HPF-Pu�mpin9
0.0 0.2
Own)po
LL gpo-1111
275
280
285
290
295
300
305
310
315
320
Biotite SCHIST, with K-feldspar, gray to light gray,
aphanitic
At 273' gray, gneissic texture, aphanitic
At 288' increase in K-feldspar minerals
At 288' with K-feldspar and quartz minerals, fine to
medium grained, intermittent Fe staining
At 300' with K-feldspar, quartz, and pyrite
minerals, fresh, some Fe staining
At 303' dark, with mafic minerals and pyrite, some
gneissic rock fragments, fresh, aphanatic
At 305' apparent fracture, dry (fractures based on
percussion hammer frequency)
At 316' apparent fracture, dry
At 323' gray, some gneissic rock fragments, dry
pulverized rock cuttings, fresh
Cement Grout
6" Surface
Casing (0'-300'
bgs)
2" PVC Riser
41P SynTerra CLIENT: Duke Energy Progress, LLC
148 River Street, Suite 220 PROJECT LOCATION: Semora, NC
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
SynTerra Phone: [phone] PAGE 6 OF 9

PROJECT: Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
WELL/BORING NO:
MW-205BRLLL
PROJECT NO: 1026.107
STARTED: 12/19/2018
COMPLETED: 03/19/2019
DRILLING COMPANY:
Geologic Exploration, Inc.
NORTHING: 991823.39
EASTING: 1976476.03
DRILLING METHOD:
Air Rotary/Hammer
G.S. ELEV: 477.85
M.P. ELEV: 480.85
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
10,8,5.5 IN
DEPTH TO WATER:
50.41 ft TOC
TOTAL DEPTH: 448 ft BGS
NOTES:
Geoprobe 3230 Drill Rig
LOGGED BY:
G. Khang
CHECKED BY: K. Lawing
Caliper
V
5.0
(n) 6.0
w
^
_
a 0
DESCRIPTION
>
V H
j
F
WELL CONSTRUCTION
1iPF-Ambient
-0_0 0.02
w
(9 I
�_
HPF-Pu�mpin9
0.0 0.2
Own)po
LL gpo-1111
325
330
335
340
345
350
355
360
365
370
375
Biotite SCHIST, with K-feldspar, gray to light gray,
aphanitic
At 325' apparent fracture, dry
At 330', 336', and 342' apparent fractures (initial
water yield —0.5 GPM)
At 350' apparent fracture with no significant
increase in water yield
At 353' some intermittent Fe staining
At 358' gray, with quartz and some gneissic rock
fragments, fresh
At 365' apparent fracture with no significant
increase in water yield
At 368' dark, with mafic minerals, some gneissic
rock fragments
At 373' gray, with quartz and some gneissic rock
fragments, fresh
Cement Grout
2" PVC Riser
41p SynTerra CLIENT: Duke Energy Progress, LLC
148 River Street, Suite 220 PROJECT LOCATION: Semora, NC
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
SynTerra Phone: [phone] PAGE 7 OF 9

PROJECT: Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
WELL/BORING NO:
MW-205BRLLL
PROJECT NO: 1026.107
STARTED: 12/19/2018
COMPLETED: 03/19/2019
DRILLING COMPANY:
Geologic Exploration, Inc.
NORTHING: 991823.39
EASTING: 1976476.03
DRILLING METHOD:
Air Rotary/Hammer
G.S. ELEV: 477.85
M.P. ELEV: 480.85
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
10,8,5.5 IN
DEPTH TO WATER:
50.41 ft TOC
TOTAL DEPTH: 448 ft BGS
NOTES:
Geoprobe 3230 Drill Rig
LOGGED BY:
G. Khang
CHECKED BY: K. Lawing
Caliper
V
5.0
(n) 6.0
w
^
_
a 0
DESCRIPTION
>
V H
j
F
WELL CONSTRUCTION
1iPF-Ambient
-0_0 0.02
w
(9 1
�_
HPF-Pu�mpin9
0.0 0.2
Own)po
LL gpo
380 I���� aiotite c HIST, with K-feldspar, gray to light gray,
385
390
At 393' gray, with mafic minerals and quartz, fresh
395
400 At 399' apparent fracture with increase in water
yield (cumulatively —1 GPM)
At 403' dark, with mafic minerals, some gneissic
405 rock fragments
410 �L14k7j gneissic
408' brown gray to black, mafic minerals, some
rock fragments, fresh
� kV4 At 413' apparent fracture with pyrite and increase
415 water yield (cumulatively —2 GPM)
gneiss: Biotite GNEISS, gray, schistose texture,
420 fresh, medium grained
At 421' apparent fracture with increase in water
yield (cumulatively —3 GPM)
425 schist: SCHIST, gray, with gneissic rock fragments,
Fe staining
430
Cement Grout
Bentonite Seal
Sand Pack
(395'-420')
2" Pre -Pack
Well Screen
(400'-415')
Bentonite
Backfill
41P SynTerra CLIENT: Duke Energy Progress, LLC
148 River Street, Suite 220 PROJECT LOCATION: Semora, NC
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
s)mTerra Phone: [phone] PAGE 8 OF 9

PROJECT: Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
WELL/BORING NO:
MW-205BRLLL
PROJECT NO: 1026.107
STARTED: 12/19/2018
COMPLETED: 03/19/2019
DRILLING COMPANY:
Geologic Exploration, Inc.
NORTHING: 991823.39
EASTING: 1976476.03
DRILLING METHOD:
Air Rotary/Hammer
G.S. ELEV: 477.85
M.P. ELEV: 480.85
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
10,8,5.5 IN
DEPTH TO WATER:
50.41 ft TOC
TOTAL DEPTH: 448 ft BGS
NOTES:
Geoprobe 3230 Drill Rig
LOGGED BY:
G. Khang
CHECKED BY: K. Lawing
Caliper
V
5.0
(n) 6.0
w
^
_
a 0
DESCRIPTION
>
V H
j
F
WELL CONSTRUCTION
1iPF-Ambient
-0_0 0.02
w
(9 I
�_
HPF-Pu�mpin9
0.0 0.2
Own)po
LL gpo-1111
435
440
22M
450
gneiss: Biotite GNEISS, gray, schistose texture
schist: SCHIST, gray, with K-feldspar minerals and
gneissic rock fragments
At 439' and 446' apparent fractures with no
significant increase in water yield (cumulatively —3
GPM)
At 448' borehole terminated
\\EEN
Bentonite
Backfill
41P SynTerra CLIENT: Duke Energy Progress, LLC
148 River Street, Suite 220 PROJECT LOCATION: Semora, NC
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
s)mTerra Phone: [phone] PAGE 9 OF 9

PROJECT: Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
WELL/BORING NO:
MW-208BRL
PROJECT NO: 1026.107
STARTED: 11/29/2018
COMPLETED: 03/06/2019
DRILLING COMPANY:
Geologic Exploration, Inc.
NORTHING: 990536.20
EASTING: 1976783.24
DRILLING METHOD:
Air Rotary/Hammer
G.S. ELEV: 470.55
M.P. ELEV: 473.76
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
10,8,5.5 IN
DEPTH TO WATER:
16.12 ft TOC TOTAL DEPTH: 170 ft BGS
NOTES:
Geoprobe 3230 Drill Rig
LOGGED BY:
G. Khang
CHECKED BY: K. Lawing
Caliper
V
5.5
(n) 7.0
W
^
_
a 0
DESCRIPTION
>
V H
j
F
WELL CONSTRUCTION
1iPF-Ambient
-0_0 0.02
w
(9 1
�_
HPF-Pu�mpin9
0.0 0.5
Own)po
LL gpo
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
fill: SILT with sand as FILL, loose, brown -dark to
40 � gray, dry, some organics present and weathered
:' ' rock fragments
40 o
�Q.
fill: Clayey SILT as FILL, orange brown to brown,
moist, low to medium plasticity, cohesive
40 o
Clay and Silt: Clayey SILT as SAPROLITE, loose,
olive brown to dull brown, moist, cohesive, low
plasticity, some weathered rock fragments
------------------------------
silt: SILT as SAPROLITE, loose, olive gray, moist,
some weathered rock fragments, intermittent
hammering
At 23' gneissic rock chips
------------------
silt: SILT with sand as SAPROLITE, loose, fine to
medium grained, brownish gray to light brown,
moist
silt: SILT as SAPROLITE, loose, olive gray, moist,
some weathered rock fragments
pwr: Silty SAND as PARTIALLY WEATHERED
ROCK, brown to gray, wet
gneiss: Biotite GNEISS, olive -gray, with Fe staining,
phyllitic
Cement Grout
8" Surface
Casing (0'-55'
bgs)
6" Surface
Casing (0'-100'
bgs)
2" PVC Riser
41011 SynTerra CLIENT: Duke Energy Progress, LLC
148 River Street, Suite 220 PROJECT LOCATION: Semora, NC
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
s)mTerra Phone: [phone] PAGE 1 OF 3

PROJECT: Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
WELL/BORING NO:
MW-208BRL
PROJECT NO: 1026.107
STARTED: 11/29/2018
COMPLETED: 03/06/2019
DRILLING COMPANY:
Geologic Exploration, Inc.
NORTHING: 990536.20
EASTING: 1976783.24
DRILLING METHOD:
Air Rotary/Hammer
G.S. ELEV: 470.55
M.P. ELEV: 473.76
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
10,8,5.5 IN
DEPTH TO WATER:
16.12 ft TOC TOTAL DEPTH: 170 ft BGS
NOTES:
Geoprobe 3230 Drill Rig
LOGGED BY:
G. Khang
CHECKED BY: K. Lawing
Caliper
V
5.5
(n) 7.0
W
^
_
a 0
DESCRIPTION
>
V H
j
F
WELL CONSTRUCTION
1iPF-Ambient
-0_0 0.02
w
(9 1
�_
HPF-Pu�mpin9
0.0 0.5
Own)
po LL gpo
60 I®Biotite GNEISS, olive -gray, with Fe staining,
phyllitic
65
diabase: Mafic, with minor biotite gneiss, schistose,
Cement Grout
m�
olive -bluish gray, dry pulverized rock cuttings
A^A^A '-
AAAAA.
6" Surface
A A A A A
70
i At 66' apparent fracture (fractures based on f
Casing (0'-100'
^AAAA
' percussion hammer frequency)
bgs)
^AAAA -
------------------------ - - - - --
^AAAA
diabase: Mafic, some biotite schist fragments,
A A --
blue -greenish gray, schistose
75
^ ^
A^^^^
2" PVC Riser
A A A A A
AA
diabase: Mafic, minor gneissic zones with quartz,
AAAAAA.
black, fresh, fine-grained
80
AAAAAA
AAAAAA
At 79' some plagioclase and quartz minerals, salt
A^A^A^
and pepper appearance
A A A A A A
85
AAAAAA
A^A^A^
A A A A A A
A A A A A A
AAAAAA
A^A^A^
90
A^A^A^
A A A A A A
AAAAAA
A^A^A^-
A A A A Ak
95
A A A
AA
AAAA
AAAAA
AA AAA
100
gneiss: Biotite GNEISS, bluish gray, thin foliations
observed, shistose, salt and pepper appearance,
medium to coarse grained
105
110
115
41P SynTerra CLIENT: Duke Energy Progress, LLC
148 River Street, Suite 220 PROJECT LOCATION: Semora, NC
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
symTerra Phone: [phone] PAGE 2 OF 3

PROJECT: Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
WELL/BORING NO:
MW-208BRL
PROJECT NO: 1026.107
STARTED: 11/29/2018
COMPLETED: 03/06/2019
DRILLING COMPANY:
Geologic Exploration, Inc.
NORTHING: 990536.20
EASTING: 1976783.24
DRILLING METHOD:
Air Rotary/Hammer
G.S. ELEV: 470.55
M.P. ELEV: 473.76
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
10,8,5.5 IN
DEPTH TO WATER:
16.12 ft TOC TOTAL DEPTH: 170 ft BGS
NOTES:
Geoprobe 3230 Drill Rig
LOGGED BY:
G. Khang
CHECKED BY: K. Lawing
Caliper
V
5.5
(n) 7.0
W
^
_
a 0
DESCRIPTION
>
V H
j
F
WELL CONSTRUCTION
1iPF-Ambient
-0_0 0.02
w
(9 1
�_
HPF-Pu�mpin9
0.0 0.5
Own)po
LL gpo
gneiss: Biotite GNEISS with thin phyllitic zones and
120 schist, light gray, dry pulverized rock cuttings
125
130
gneiss: Biotite GNEISS with phyllitic zones, some
garnets, light gray, thin foliations obserrved, dry
135
140
145
150
155
160
At 160' and 161' apparent fractures with no
significant increase in yield
At 163' some schist
165
At 170' borehole terminated
170
Cement Grout
Bentonite Seal
Sand Pack
(148'-173')
2" Pre -Pack
Well Screen
(153-163)
41p SynTerra CLIENT: Duke Energy Progress, LLC
148 River Street, Suite 220 PROJECT LOCATION: Semora, NC
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
symTerra Phone: [phone] PAGE 3 OF 3

PROJECT: Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
WELL/BORING NO:
MW-208BRLL
PROJECT NO: 1026.107
STARTED: 12/12/2018
COMPLETED: 03/06/2019
DRILLING COMPANY:
Geologic Exploration, Inc.
NORTHING: 990527.17
EASTING: 1976786.72
DRILLING METHOD:
Air Rotary/Hammer
G.S. ELEV: 470.55
M.P. ELEV: 473.95
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
10,8,5.5 IN
DEPTH TO WATER:
16.26 ft TOC
TOTAL DEPTH: 263 ft BGS
NOTES:
Geoprobe 3230 Drill Rig
LOGGED BY:
G. Khang
CHECKED BY: K. Lawing
Caliper
V
5.5
(n) 6.5
w
^
_
a 0
DESCRIPTION
>
V H
j
F
WELL CONSTRUCTION
1iPF-Ambient
-0_0 0.02
w
(9 1
�_
HPF-Pu�mpin9
0.0 0.5
Own)po
LL gpo
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
01.1
50
fill: SILT with sand as FILL, loose, brown -dark to
40 � gray, dry, some organics present and weathered
:' ' rock fragments
40 o
�Q------------------------------
fill: Clayey SILT as FILL, orange brown to brown,
.46 Cmoist, low to medium plasticity, cohesive
40 o
Clay and Silt: Clayey SILT as SAPROLITE, loose,
olive brown to dull brown, moist, cohesive, low
plasticity, some weathered rock fragments
------------------------------
silt: SILT as SAPROLITE, loose, olive gray, moist,
some weathered rock fragments, intermittent
hammering
_- At 23' gneissic rock chips
------------------------------
silt: SILT with sand as SAPROLITE, loose, fine to
medium grained, brownish gray to light brown,
moist
-----------------------------
silt: SILT as SAPROLITE, loose, olive gray, moist,
some weathered rock fragments
pwr: Silty SAND as PARTIALLY WEATHERED
ROCK, brown to gray, wet
gneiss: Biotite GNEISS, olive -gray, with Fe staining,
phyllitic
Cement Grout
8" Surface
Casing (0'-54'
bgs)
6" Surface
Casing (0'-200'
bgs)
2" PVC Riser
41011 SynTerra CLIENT: Duke Energy Progress, LLC
148 River Street, Suite 220 PROJECT LOCATION: Semora, NC
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
s)mTerra Phone: [phone] PAGE 1 OF 5

PROJECT: Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
WELL/BORING NO:
MW-208BRLL
PROJECT NO: 1026.107
STARTED: 12/12/2018
COMPLETED: 03/06/2019
DRILLING COMPANY:
Geologic Exploration, Inc.
NORTHING: 990527.17
EASTING: 1976786.72
DRILLING METHOD:
Air Rotary/Hammer
G.S. ELEV: 470.55
M.P. ELEV: 473.95
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
10,8,5.5 IN
DEPTH TO WATER:
16.26 ft TOC
TOTAL DEPTH: 263 ft BGS
NOTES:
Geoprobe 3230 Drill Rig
LOGGED BY:
G. Khang
CHECKED BY: K. Lawing
Caliper
V
5.5
(n) 6.5
w
^
_
a 0
DESCRIPTION
>
V H
j
F
WELL CONSTRUCTION
1iPF-Ambient
-0_0 0.02
w
(9 1
�_
HPF-Pu�mpin9
0.0 0.5
Own)po
LL gpo
55
Biotite GNEISS, olive -gray, with Fe staining,
phyllitic
60
65
n^n^n^
diabase: Mafic, with minor biotite gneiss, schistose,
n^n^n^
olive -bluish gray, dry pulverized rock cuttings
n^n^n^
n^n^n
n^n^n
t 66' apparent fracture (fractures based on
n n n
70
nnnnn
AAA
I percussion hammer frequency)
n n
n^n^n
-
diabase: Mafic, some biotite schist fragment-- s--,
^n^n^
blue -greenish gray, schistose
^^^
n^n^n
75
,
n^n^n
LA
n^n^n
diabase: Mafic, minor gneissic zones with quartz,
AAAAA
black, fresh, fine-grained
80
n n n
nnnnnn
At 79' some plagioclase and quartz minerals, salt
^n^n^n
and pepper appearance
n^n^n^
n^n^n^
85
n^n^n^
^n^n^n
n^n^n^
n^n^n^
n^n^n^
n^n^n^
90
^^^^^^
n^n^n^
n^n^n^
n^n^n^
n^n^n^
n^n^n^
95
^^^^^
n^n^n^`
n^n^n^
n^n^n^
n^n^n
100
gneiss: Biotite GNEISS, bluish gray, thin foliations
j
observed, shistose, salt and pepper appearance,
-
medium to coarse grained
105
Cement Grout
6" Surface
Casing (0'-200'
bgs)
2" PVC Riser
41P SynTerra CLIENT: Duke Energy Progress, LLC
148 River Street, Suite 220 PROJECT LOCATION: Semora, NC
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
symTerra Phone: [phone] PAGE 2 OF 5

PROJECT: Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
WELL/BORING NO:
MW-208BRLL
PROJECT NO: 1026.107
STARTED: 12/12/2018
COMPLETED: 03/06/2019
DRILLING COMPANY:
Geologic Exploration, Inc.
NORTHING: 990527.17
EASTING: 1976786.72
DRILLING METHOD:
Air Rotary/Hammer
G.S. ELEV: 470.55
M.P. ELEV: 473.95
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
10,8,5.5 IN
DEPTH TO WATER:
16.26 ft TOC
TOTAL DEPTH: 263 ft BGS
NOTES:
Geoprobe 3230 Drill Rig
LOGGED BY:
G. Khang
CHECKED BY: K. Lawing
Caliper
V
5.5
(n) 6.5
w
^
_
a 0
DESCRIPTION
>
V H
j
F
WELL CONSTRUCTION
1iPF-Ambient
-0_0 0.02
w
(9 1
�_
HPF-Pu�mpin9
0.0 0.5
Own)po
LL gpo-1111
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
145
150
155
160
Biotite GNEISS, bluish gray, thin foliations
observed, shistose, salt and pepper appearance,
medium to coarse grained
gneiss: Biotite GNEISS with thin phyllitic zones and
schist, light gray, dry pulverized rock cuttings
gneiss: Biotite GNEISS with phyllitic zones, some
garnets, light gray, thin foliations obserrved, dry
At 160' and 161' apparent fractures with no
significant increase in yield
Cement Grout
6" Surface
Casing (0'-200'
bgs)
2" PVC Riser
41P SynTerra CLIENT: Duke Energy Progress, LLC
148 River Street, Suite 220 PROJECT LOCATION: Semora, NC
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
s)mTerra Phone: [phone] PAGE 3 OF 5

PROJECT: Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
WELL/BORING NO:
MW-208BRLL
PROJECT NO: 1026.107
STARTED: 12/12/2018
COMPLETED: 03/06/2019
DRILLING COMPANY:
Geologic Exploration, Inc.
NORTHING: 990527.17
EASTING: 1976786.72
DRILLING METHOD:
Air Rotary/Hammer
G.S. ELEV: 470.55
M.P. ELEV: 473.95
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
10,8,5.5 IN
DEPTH TO WATER:
16.26 ft TOC
TOTAL DEPTH: 263 ft BGS
NOTES:
Geoprobe 3230 Drill Rig
LOGGED BY:
G. Khang
CHECKED BY: K. Lawing
Caliper
V
5.5
(n) 6.5
w
^
_
a 0
DESCRIPTION
>
V H
j
F
WELL CONSTRUCTION
1iPF-Ambient
-0_0 0.02
w
(9 1
�_
HPF-Pu�mpin9
0.0 0.5
Own)po
LL gpo-111111
165
Biotite GNEISS with phyllitic zones, some garnets,
light gray, thin foliations obserrved, dry
At 163' some schist
170 1 1 i i i i i1 4: Ok— Cement Grout
6" Surface
175�0 Casing (0'-200'
' bgs)
185
190
195
200
205
At 209.5' and 211' apparent fractures with increase
in water yield (-8 GPM)
------------------------- - -- - -'
210 gneiss: Biotite GNEISS, some mafic minerals, gray,
fresh, dry pulverized rock cuttings Bentonite Seal
diabase: Mafic, blueish green, fresh with ocassional
215 Fe staining
41011 SynTerra CLIENT: Duke Energy Progress, LLC
148 River Street, Suite 220 PROJECT LOCATION: Semora, NC
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
SynTerra Phone: [phone] PAGE 4 OF 5

PROJECT: Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
WELL/BORING NO:
MW-208BRLL
PROJECT NO: 1026.107
STARTED: 12/12/2018
COMPLETED: 03/06/2019
DRILLING COMPANY:
Geologic Exploration, Inc.
NORTHING: 990527.17
EASTING: 1976786.72
DRILLING METHOD:
Air Rotary/Hammer
G.S. ELEV: 470.55
M.P. ELEV: 473.95
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
10,8,5.5 IN
DEPTH TO WATER:
16.26 ft TOC
TOTAL DEPTH: 263 ft BGS
NOTES:
Geoprobe 3230 Drill Rig
LOGGED BY:
G. Khang
CHECKED BY: K. Lawing
Caliper
V
5.5
(n) 6.5
w
^
_
a 0
DESCRIPTION
>
V H
j
F
WELL CONSTRUCTION
1iPF-Ambient
-0_0 0.02
w
(9 I
�_
HPF-Pu�mpin9
0.0 0.5
Own)po
LL gpo
At 216.5' apparent fracture with increase in water
220 yield (cumulatively —9 GPM)
gneiss: Biotite GNEISS, gray
225 j�L� At 220' apparent fracture with increase in water
yield (cumulatively —10 GPM)
^^^^^^
diabase: Mafic, dark gray to black, some biotite
230
^ ^ ^
n^n^nn
gneiss, fresh
A AnAn
At 232' apparent fracture with increase in water
^^^^^/1
yield, some quartz minerals
^^^^^
235
^^^^^
^^^^ All
At 236' apparent fracture with increase in water
^^^^^-
yield
schist: SCHIST, bluish -gray
240
gneiss: Biotite GNEISS, with quartz, phaneritic
(cumulative yield —20 GPM)
245
250 �r� At 248' apparent fracture with no significant
increase in water yield
255
]gneiss: Biotite GNEISS, pinkish gray, accessory
260 minerals include pyrite, thin foliations observed on
rock chips
]7­1 At 260' apparent fracture with increase in water
265
At
(cumulatively —25 GPM)
At 263' borehole terminated
Bentonite Seal
Sand Pack
(218'-238')
2" Pre -Pack
Well Screen
(223-233)
Bentonite
Backfill
41p SynTerra CLIENT: Duke Energy Progress, LLC
148 River Street, Suite 220 PROJECT LOCATION: Semora, NC
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
3ynTerra Phone: [phone] PAGE 5 OF 5

PROJECT: Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
WELL/BORING NO:
MW-208BRLLL
PROJECT NO: 1026.107
STARTED: 12/19/2018
COMPLETED: 03/19/2019
DRILLING COMPANY:
Geologic Exploration, Inc.
NORTHING: 990515.27
EASTING: 1976790.87
DRILLING METHOD:
Air Rotary/Hammer
G.S. ELEV: 470.7
M.P. ELEV: 474.10
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
10,8,5.5 IN
DEPTH TO WATER:
16.55 ft TOC
TOTAL DEPTH: 448 ft BGS
NOTES:
Geoprobe 3230 Drill Rig
LOGGED BY:
G. Khang
CHECKED BY: K. Lawing
Caliper
V
5.5
(n) 6.0
w
^
_
a 0
DESCRIPTION
>
V H
j
F
WELL CONSTRUCTION
1iPF-Ambient
-0_0 0.02
w
(9 1
�_
HPF-Pu�mpin9
0.0 0.2
Own)po
LL gpo
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
01.1
50
55
fill: SILT with sand as FILL, loose, brown -dark to
40 � gray, dry, some organics present and weathered
:' ' rock fragments
40 o
�Q.
fill: Clayey SILT as FILL, orange brown to brown,
moist, low to medium plasticity, cohesive
40 o
Clay and Silt: Clayey SILT as SAPROLITE, loose,
olive brown to dull brown, moist, cohesive, low
plasticity, some weathered rock fragments
------------------------------
silt: SILT as SAPROLITE, loose, olive gray, moist,
_
-_ some weathered rock fragments, intermittent
- hammering
- At 23' gneissic rock chips
------------------------------
silt: SILT with sand as SAPROLITE, loose, fine to
medium grained, brownish gray to light brown,
moist
------------------------------
silt: SILT as SAPROLITE, loose, olive gray, moist,
some weathered rock fragments
pwr: Silty SAND as PARTIALLY WEATHERED
ROCK, brown to gray, wet
gneiss: Biotite GNEISS, olive -gray, with Fe staining,
phyllitic
Cement Grout
8" Surface
Casing (0'-59'
bgs)
6" Surface
Casing (0'-300'
bgs)
2" PVC Riser
41P SynTerra CLIENT: Duke Energy Progress, LLC
148 River Street, Suite 220 PROJECT LOCATION: Semora, NC
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
s)mTerra Phone: [phone] PAGE 1 OF 8

PROJECT: Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
WELL/BORING NO:
MW-208BRLLL
PROJECT NO: 1026.107
STARTED: 12/19/2018
COMPLETED: 03/19/2019
DRILLING COMPANY:
Geologic Exploration, Inc.
NORTHING: 990515.27
EASTING: 1976790.87
DRILLING METHOD:
Air Rotary/Hammer
G.S. ELEV: 470.7
M.P. ELEV: 474.10
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
10,8,5.5 IN
DEPTH TO WATER:
16.55 ft TOC
TOTAL DEPTH: 448 ft BGS
NOTES:
Geoprobe 3230 Drill Rig
LOGGED BY:
G. Khang
CHECKED BY: K. Lawing
Caliper
V
5.5
(n) 6.0
w
^
_
a 0
DESCRIPTION
>
V H
j
F
WELL CONSTRUCTION
1iPF-Ambient
-0_0 0.02
w
(9 1
�_
HPF-Pu�mpin9
0.0 0.2
Own)po
LL gpo
�= Biotite GNEISS, olive -gray, with Fe staining,
60 phyllitic
65
-
n ^nn n ^n^n
diabase: Mafic, with minor biotite gneiss, schistose,
^n^n^n
olive -bluish gray, dry pulverized rock cuttings
n^n^n
n^n^n
A.A.
70
t 66' apparent fracture (fractures based on
n^n^n
^A^A^
percussion hammer frequency)
n n n
-A--
--,
n^n^n
diabase: Mafic, some biotite schist fragment-- s
^^^^^
blue -greenish gray, schistose
n n n
n^n^n
75
n^n^n
n n
AAAAA
diabase: Mafic, minor gneissic zones with quartz,
n^n^n
black, fresh, fine-grained
80
^^^^^
n^n^n
n^n^n
At 79' some plagioclase and quartz minerals, salt
n^n^n
and pepper appearance
n^n^n
n^n^n^
85
n^n^n^
n^n^n^
n^n^n^
n^n^n^
n^n^n^
90
n^n^n^
^n^n^n
n^n^n^
n^n^n^
n^n^n^
n^n^nh
95
^n^n^A.
n^n^n^
n^n^n^
^^^^^^,
n^n^n
100
gneiss: Biotite GNEISS, bluish gray, thin foliations
observed, shistose, salt and pepper appearance,
medium to coarse grained
105
110
8" Surface
Casing (0'-59'
bgs)
Cement Grout
6" Surface
Casing (0'-300'
bgs)
2" PVC Riser
41011 SynTerra CLIENT: Duke Energy Progress, LLC
148 River Street, Suite 220 PROJECT LOCATION: Semora, NC
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
symTerra Phone: [phone] PAGE 2 OF 8

PROJECT: Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
WELL/BORING NO:
MW-208BRLLL
PROJECT NO: 1026.107
STARTED: 12/19/2018
COMPLETED: 03/19/2019
DRILLING COMPANY:
Geologic Exploration, Inc.
NORTHING: 990515.27
EASTING: 1976790.87
DRILLING METHOD:
Air Rotary/Hammer
G.S. ELEV: 470.7
M.P. ELEV: 474.10
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
10,8,5.5 IN
DEPTH TO WATER:
16.55 ft TOC
TOTAL DEPTH: 448 ft BGS
NOTES:
Geoprobe 3230 Drill Rig
LOGGED BY:
G. Khang
CHECKED BY: K. Lawing
Caliper
V
5.5
(n) 6.0
w
^
_
a 0
DESCRIPTION
>
V H
j
F
WELL CONSTRUCTION
1iPF-Ambient
-0_0 0.02
w
(9 1
�_
HPF-Pu�mpin9
0.0 0.2
Own)po
LL gpo-1111
115
120
125
130
135
140
145
150
155
160
Biotite GNEISS, bluish gray, thin foliations
observed, shistose, salt and pepper appearance,
medium to coarse grained
gneiss: Biotite GNEISS with thin phyllitic zones and
schist, light gray, dry pulverized rock cuttings
gneiss: Biotite GNEISS with phyllitic zones, some
garnets, light gray, thin foliations obserrved, dry
At 160' and 161' apparent fractures with no
significant increase in yield
- —�\ At 163' some schist
165
170
Cement Grout
6" Surface
Casing (0'-300'
bgs)
2" PVC Riser
41P SynTerra CLIENT: Duke Energy Progress, LLC
148 River Street, Suite 220 PROJECT LOCATION: Semora, NC
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
s)mTerra Phone: [phone] PAGE 3 OF 8

PROJECT: Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
WELL/BORING NO:
MW-208BRLLL
PROJECT NO: 1026.107
STARTED: 12/19/2018
COMPLETED: 03/19/2019
DRILLING COMPANY:
Geologic Exploration, Inc.
NORTHING: 990515.27
EASTING: 1976790.87
DRILLING METHOD:
Air Rotary/Hammer
G.S. ELEV: 470.7
M.P. ELEV: 474.10
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
10,8,5.5 IN
DEPTH TO WATER:
16.55 ft TOC
TOTAL DEPTH: 448 ft BGS
NOTES:
Geoprobe 3230 Drill Rig
LOGGED BY:
G. Khang
CHECKED BY: K. Lawing
Caliper
V
5.5
(n) 6.0
w
^
_
a 0
DESCRIPTION
>
V H
j
F
WELL CONSTRUCTION
1iPF-Ambient
-0_0 0.02
w
(9 1
�_
HPF-Pu�mpin9
0.0 0.2
Own)po
LL gpo-1111
175
180
185
190
195
200
205
210
215
220
225
Cement Grout
6" Surface
Casing (0'-300'
bgs)
2" PVC Riser
41P SynTerra CLIENT: Duke Energy Progress, LLC
148 River Street, Suite 220 PROJECT LOCATION: Semora, NC
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
SynTerra Phone: [phone] PAGE 4 OF 8

PROJECT: Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
WELL/BORING NO:
MW-208BRLLL
PROJECT NO: 1026.107
STARTED: 12/19/2018
COMPLETED: 03/19/2019
DRILLING COMPANY:
Geologic Exploration, Inc.
NORTHING: 990515.27
EASTING: 1976790.87
DRILLING METHOD:
Air Rotary/Hammer
G.S. ELEV: 470.7
M.P. ELEV: 474.10
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
10,8,5.5 IN
DEPTH TO WATER:
16.55 ft TOC
TOTAL DEPTH: 448 ft BGS
NOTES:
Geoprobe 3230 Drill Rig
LOGGED BY:
G. Khang
CHECKED BY: K. Lawing
Caliper
V
5.5
(n) 6.0
w
^
_
a O
DESCRIPTION
>
U
j
F
WELL CONSTRUCTION
1iPF-Ambient
-0_0 0.02
w
(9
�_
HPF-Pu�mpin9
0.0 0.2
Own)po
LL gpo-1111
230
235
240
245
250
255
260
265
270
275
280
285
Cement Grout
6" Surface
Casing (0'-300'
bgs)
2" PVC Riser
41P SynTerra CLIENT: Duke Energy Progress, LLC
148 River Street, Suite 220 PROJECT LOCATION: Semora, NC
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
SynTerra Phone: [phone] PAGE 5 OF 8

PROJECT: Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
WELL/BORING NO:
MW-208BRLLL
PROJECT NO: 1026.107
STARTED: 12/19/2018
COMPLETED: 03/19/2019
DRILLING COMPANY:
Geologic Exploration, Inc.
NORTHING: 990515.27
EASTING: 1976790.87
DRILLING METHOD:
Air Rotary/Hammer
G.S. ELEV: 470.7
M.P. ELEV: 474.10
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
10,8,5.5 IN
DEPTH TO WATER:
16.55 ft TOC
TOTAL DEPTH: 448 ft BGS
NOTES:
Geoprobe 3230 Drill Rig
LOGGED BY:
G. Khang
CHECKED BY: K. Lawing
Caliper
V
5.5
(n) 6.0
w
^
_
a 0
DESCRIPTION
>
V H
j
F
WELL CONSTRUCTION
1iPF-Ambient
-0_0 0.02
w
(9 1
�_
HPF-Pu�mpin9
0.0 0.2
Own)po
LL gpo-1111
290
295
300
305
310
315
320
325
330
335
340
SCHIST, dark gray, with quartz and plagioclase
minerals, fresh
At 302' apparent fracture, moist rock cuttings
schist: SCHIST, gray, some mafic minerals,
relatively aphanitic, fresh
At 319' and 322' apparent fractures (cumulative
yield —0.25 GPM)
Cement Grout
6" Surface
Casing (0'-300'
bgs)
2" PVC Riser
41p SynTerra CLIENT: Duke Energy Progress, LLC
148 River Street, Suite 220 PROJECT LOCATION: Semora, NC
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
s)mTerra Phone: [phone] PAGE 6 OF 8

PROJECT: Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
WELL/BORING NO:
MW-208BRLLL
PROJECT NO: 1026.107
STARTED: 12/19/2018
COMPLETED: 03/19/2019
DRILLING COMPANY:
Geologic Exploration, Inc.
NORTHING: 990515.27
EASTING: 1976790.87
DRILLING METHOD:
Air Rotary/Hammer
G.S. ELEV: 470.7
M.P. ELEV: 474.10
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
10,8,5.5 IN
DEPTH TO WATER:
16.55 ft TOC
TOTAL DEPTH: 448 ft BGS
NOTES:
Geoprobe 3230 Drill Rig
LOGGED BY:
G. Khang
CHECKED BY: K. Lawing
Caliper
V
5.5
(n) 6.0
w
^
_
a 0
DESCRIPTION
>
V H
j
F
WELL CONSTRUCTION
1iPF-Ambient
-0_0 0.02
w
(9 I
�_
HPF-Pu�mpin9
0.0 0.2
Own)po
LL gpo
345
350
355
360
365
370
375
380
385
390
395
400
SCHIST, gray, some mafic minerals, relatively
aphanitic, fresh
At 346' and 347' apparent fractures with no
significant increase in water yield
At 363' apparent fracture with green
staining/mineralization on rock cuttings, sligth
increase in water yield
At 375.5'and 383' apparent fractures with no
significant increase in water yield (cumulative 2
GPM)
schist: SCHIST, gray, with K-Feldspar minerals,
fresh, thin foliations observed on rock chips
At 389' and 391' apparent fractures with slight
increase in water yield (cumulative 3 GPM)
At 396' apparent fracture with no significant
increase in water yield
Cement Grout
Bentonite Seal
Sand Pack
(367-387)
2" Pre -Pack
Well Screen
(372'-382')
Bentonite Seal
41P SynTerra CLIENT: Duke Energy Progress, LLC
148 River Street, Suite 220 PROJECT LOCATION: Semora, NC
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
s)mTerra Phone: [phone] PAGE 7 OF 8

PROJECT: Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
WELL/BORING NO:
MW-208BRLLL
PROJECT NO: 1026.107
STARTED: 12/19/2018
COMPLETED: 03/19/2019
DRILLING COMPANY:
Geologic Exploration, Inc.
NORTHING: 990515.27
EASTING: 1976790.87
DRILLING METHOD:
Air Rotary/Hammer
G.S. ELEV: 470.7
M.P. ELEV: 474.10
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
10,8,5.5 IN
DEPTH TO WATER:
16.55 ft TOC
TOTAL DEPTH: 448 ft BGS
NOTES:
Geoprobe 3230 Drill Rig
LOGGED BY:
G. Khang
CHECKED BY: K. Lawing
Caliper
V
5.5
(n) 6.0
w
^
_
a 0
DESCRIPTION
>
V H
j
F
WELL CONSTRUCTION
1iPF-Ambient
-0_0 0.02
w
(9 1
�_
HPF-Pu�mpin9
0.0 0.2
Own)po
LL gpo-1111
SCHIST, gray, with K-Feldspar minerals, fresh, thin
foliations observed on rock chips
405
410
schist: SCHIST, gray, some garnets
415
���791 At 415' and 421' apparent fractures with slight
420 increase in water yield (cumulative —3 GPM)
425
430
435
At 435' and 436' apparent fractures with increase
in water yield (cumulative —5 GPM)
440
445 jh'k� At 442' and 445' apparent fractures with increase
in water yield (cumulative —6 GPM)
At 448' borehole terminated
450
Bentonite Seal
41p SynTerra CLIENT: Duke Energy Progress, LLC
148 River Street, Suite 220 PROJECT LOCATION: Semora, NC
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
s)mTerra Phone: [phone] PAGE 8 OF 8

WELL CONSTRUCTION RECORD
This form can be used for single or multiple wells
For Internal Use UNLY:
1. Well Contractor Information-.
BRIAN THOMAS
Well Contractor Name
A - 2581
NC Well Contractor Certification Number
GEOLOGIC EXPLORATION, INC
Company Name
2. Well Construction Permit #:
List all applicable Ire// construction permits (i.e. Coun4,, State, Variance, etc.)
3. Well Use (check well use):
❑Agricultural ❑Municipal/Public
❑Geothermal (Henting/Cooling Supply) ❑Residential Water Supply (single)
❑Inclustrial/Commercial ❑Residential Water Supply (shared)
❑Irrigation
Non -Water Supply Well:
hJMonitoring ❑Recovery
❑Aquifer Recharge
❑Groundwater Remediation
❑Aquifer Storage and Recovery
❑Salinity Barrier
❑Aquifer Test
❑Stormwater Drainage
❑Experimental Technology
❑Subsidence Control
❑Geothermal (Closed Loop)
❑Tracer
❑Geothermal (Heatiniz/Cooling Return)
❑Other (explain under #21 I
4. Date well(s) Completed: 03/05/19 well ID# ABMW-7BRLL
5r. Well Location:
ROXBORO STEAM PLANT
Facility/Owner Name Facility ID# (if -applicable)
1700 DUNNAWAY ROAD SEMORA 27343
Physical Address, City, and Zip
PERSON
County Parcel Identification No. (PIN)
5b. Latitude and Longitude in degrees/minutes/seconds or decimal degrees:
(if well field, one lat/long is sufficient)
360 28' 48.26" N 790 03' 52.36" NV
6. Is (are) the well(s): ©Permanent or ❑Temporary
7. Is this a repair to an existing well: ❑Yes or IDNo
ff thi.v is it repair, fill oat known bell c•onstruclion inlorniation and explain the mature of the
repair under `21 rentarks section or on the hack i fhi.s fimn.
1
la. WATER ZONES
FROM
TO
DESCRIPTION
ft.
ft.
15. OUTER CASING for multi -cased wells OR LINER ifa licable
FROM
TO
DIAMETER THICKNESS
III ER1AL
0.0 ft•
97 0 ft'
1 8.0 in SCH 40
PVC
16. INNER CASING OR TUBING(geothermal closed -loop)
FROM
I TO
I DIAMETER I
THICKNESS
MATERIAL
0.0 ft.
370.0 fr,
1 2.0 in
SCH 40
1 PVC
0.0 ft.
330.0 ft'
6.0 in' I
SCH 80
PVC
17. SCREEN
FROM
TO
DIAMETER
SLOTSIZE
THICKNESS
MATERIAL
370.0fr'
385.0 ft'
2.0 in.
.010
SCH 40
PVC*
ft.
ft.
in.
18. GROUT
FROM
TO
MATERIAL
EMPLACEMENT METHOD & AMOUNT
0.0 ft'
349.0 ft'
PORTLA DBENTONITE
SLURRY
0.0 ft.
330.0 ft.
RDRR OBENTONITE
SLURRY
0.0 ft'
97.0 ft'
PORT4WDBENTONITE
SLURRY
19. SAND/GRAVEL PACK(if applicable)
FROM
TO
MATERIAL
EMPLACEM ENT METHOD
364.0 ft•
391.0 ft•
20-40
FINE SILICA SAND
ft.
ft.
20. DRILLING
LOG attach additional sheets if necessary)
FROM
TO
DESCRIPTION color, hardness, soil(mck type, rain sin, etc.)
0.0 rr.
79.0 rr.
ASH
79.0 ft•
85.0 ft•
TAN SILTY SAND
85.0 tr.
94.0 rr.
PWR
94.0 ft•
401.0 ft.
ROCK
ft.
ft.
fr.
ft.
ff.
ft.
21. REMARKS
BENTONITE SEAL FROM 349.0 TO 364.0 FT & 391.0 TO 401.0 FT
***U-PACK SCREEN***
22. Certification:
Signature of Certified Well Contractor
03/26/19
Date
Hy signing dii.s.1brm, I herehv cerlijy that the Ire//(v) was (were) conviraeled in accordance
with 15A NCAC 01C .0100 or 15A NC'AC (RC .0200 Well C'onrmuc•tion Smndards and that a
copy af7his record has been provided to the well owner.
23. Site diagram or additional well details:
You may use the back of this page to provide additional well site details or well
8. Number of wells constructed: construction details. You may also attach additional pages if necessary.
For nuthiple injection or non-trater supply bells ONI. i' u•idt die .same construction. oft can
submit one fimnt. SUBMITTAL INSTUCTIONS
9. Total well depth below land surface: 385.0 (fL)
For inaiople wells list all depths ifdillcrent (example- 3 a hill' and 1 n 101
10. Static water level below top of casing: 21.0 (fL)
ll'u•atcr lerel is ahore coving, icse "! ..
11. Borehole diameter: 16.0/6.0/7.875/10.0 (in.)
AUGER/AIR
24a. For All Wells: Submit this form within 30 days of completion of well
construction to the following:
Division of Water Quality, Information Processing Unit,
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
24b. For lniection Wells: In addition to sending the form to the address in 24a
above, also submit a copy of this form within 30 days of completion of well
12. Well construction method: construction to the following:
(i.e. ringer, rotary, cable, direct push, etc.)
Division of Hater Quality, Underground Injection Control Program,
FOR WATER SUPPLY WELLS ONLY: 1636 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1636
13a. Yield (gpm) Method of test: 24c. For Witter Supply & lniection Wells: In addition to sending the form to
the address(es) above, also submit one copy of this form within 30 days of
13b. Disinfection type: Amount: completion of well construction to the county health department of the county
where constructed.
Form CiW-I North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources - Division of Water Quality Revised Jar. 2013

WELL CONSTRUCTION RECORD
This form can be used for single or multiple wells
1. Well Contractor Information:
BRIAN THOMAS
Well Contractor Name
A - 2581
NC Well Contractor Certification Number
GEOLOGIC EXPLORATION, INC
Company Name
2. Well Construction Permit #:
List all applicable bell construction pernios (i.e. Coung5 State, Variance, eta)
3. Well Use (check well use):
Water Supply Well:
❑Agricultural
❑Municipal/Public
❑Geothermal (Heating/Cooling Supply)
❑Residential Water Supply (single)
❑Industrial/Commercial
❑Residential Water Supply (shared)
❑Irrl ation
Non -Water Supply Well:
(DMunitoring
❑Recovery
Injection Well:
❑Aquifer Recharge
❑Groundwater Remediation
❑Aquifer Storage and Recovery
❑Salinity Barrier
❑Aquifer Test
❑Stormwater Drainage
❑Experimental Technology
❑Subsidence Control
❑Geothermal (Closed Loop)
❑Tracer
❑Geothermal (Heating/CoolingReturn)
❑Other (explain under #21 Remarks)
4. Date Well(s) Completed: 01/10/19 well ID# HWMW-1 BR
Sa. Well Location:
ROXBORO STEAM PLANT
Facility/Owner Name Facility ID# (if applicable)
1700 DUNNAWAY ROAD SEMORA 27343
Physical Address, City, and Zip
PERSON
County
Parcel Identification No. (PIN)
5b. Latitude and Longitude in degrees/minutes/seconds or decimal degrees:
(il'well field, one fat/long is sufficient)
360 28' 55.63" N 790 03' 27.98" NY
6. Is (are) the wcll(s): Permanent or ❑Temporary
7. Is this a repair to an existing well: ❑Yes or ONo
l/'diis is a repair, Jill out known hell constriction ii Jbrnation and explain the nature of die
repair under ii2/ remarks section or on the back of dii.s Jiirnt.
8. Number of wells constructed: 1
hor inulliple injection or non -hater supply ive/ls ONLY with die same construction, You can
submit one firm.
9. Total well depth below land surface: 101.0 (ft )
hor nuthiple ire//.r list all depths /l d fluent (eraniple- 3 tt 200' and 2 a 100')
10. Static water level below top of casing: 11.0 (ft)
if water level is above casing, use "-
I I. Borehole diameter: 6.0/7.875/10.0 (in.)
For Internal Use ONLI':
14. WATER ZONES
FROM
TO
DESCRIPTION
I.S. OUTER CASING for multi -cased wells) OR LINER if r licable
FROM
TO
DIAMETER
THICKNESS
MATERIAL
0.0 ff•
49.0 ff•
6.0 i"
SCH 40
PVC
16. INNER CASING OR TUBING(geothermal closed -loop)
FROM
TO
DIAMETER
THICKNESS
MATERIAL
0.0 fL
91.0 fL
2.0 in.
SCH 40
PVC
ft.
ft.
in.
17. SCREEN
FROM
TO
DIAMETER
SLOTSIZE
THICKNESS
MATERIAL
91.0 ft'
101.0 ff•
2.0 in.
.010
SCH 40
PVC*
ft.
ff.
in.
18. GROUT
FROM
I TO
MATERIAL
EMPLACEMENT METHOD&AMOUNT
0.0 ft'
64.0 It'
MRTL DBENTONITE
SLURRY
0.0 ft.
49.0 ft-
PORTU DDENTONITE
SLURRY
ft.
fr.
19. SAND/GRAVEL PACK if applicable
FROM
TO
MATERIAL I
EMPLACEMENT METHOD
88.0 ff•
102.0 ff.
20-40
FINE SILICA SAND
20. DRILLING
LOG attach additional sheets if necessary)
FROM
TO
DESCRIPTION color, hardness, soil/rock type, grain siu, etc.)
0.0 ft.
1.0 ft.
GRAVEL
1.0 ff•
17.0 ff•
RED SILTY SAND
17.0 ff•
40.0 ff•
TAN SILTY SAND
40.0 rt.
45.0 rt•
P W R
45.0 ff•
102.0 ff•
ROCK
ft.
ft.
rf.
rr.
21. REMARKS
BENTONITE SEAL FROM 64.0 TO 88.0 FEET
***U-PACK SCREEN-
22. Certification:
Signature of Certified Well Contractor
By signing this Jima, I herehv certJi, that the ire//(s) was(irere) constructed in accordance
frith 15A NCAC 02C.0100 or 15A AfCAC 02C .0200 Well Conriruction Standards and that a
copy aJ'llii.s record has been provided to the well owner.
23. Site diagram or additional well details:
You may use the back of this page to provide additional well site details or well
construction details You may also attach additional pages if necessary.
SUBMITTAL INSTUCTIONS
24a. For All Wells: Submit this form within 30 days of completion of well
construction to the following:
Division of Water Quality, Information Processing Unit,
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
24b. For Infection Wells: In addition to sending the form to the address in 24a
above, also submit a copy of this form within 30 days of completion of well
12. Well construction method: AIR construction to the following:
(i.e anger, rotary, cable, direct push, etc )
Division of Water Quality, Underground Injection Control Program,
FOR WATER SUPPLY WELLS ONLY: 1636 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1636
13a. field (gpm) Method of test: 24c. For Water Supply & Infection Wells: In addition to sending the form to
the address(es) above, also submit one copy of this form within 30 days of
13b. Disinfection type: Amount: completion of well construction to the county health department of the county
where constructed.
Form G W-I North Carolina Department of Envoo nient and Natural Resources - Division of Water Quality Revised Jan. 2013

WELL CONSTRUCTION RECORD
This lurm can be used for single or multiple wells
For Internal Use UNLY
I. Well Contractor Information:
BRIAN THOMAS
Well Contractor Name
A - 2581
NC Well Contractor Certification Number
GEOLOGIC EXPLORATION, INC
Company Name
2. Well Construction Permit #:
List till applicahle well construction permits (i.e. County, Slate, Variance, etc.)
3. Well Use (check well use):
❑Agricultural
❑Geothermal (Heating/Cooling Supply)
❑ Industrial/COmmerc ial
❑Municipal/Public
❑Residential Water Supply (single)
❑Residential Water Supply (shared)
Non -Water Supply Well:
O Monitoring
❑ Recovery
Injection Well:
❑Aquifer Recharge
❑Groundwater Remediation
❑Aquifer Storage and Recovery
❑Salinity Barrier
❑Aquifer Test
❑Stormwater Drainage
❑Experimental Technology
❑Subsidence Control
❑Geothermal (Closed Loop)
❑Tracer
❑Geothermal (lieating/Cooling Return)
❑Other (explain under 921 Remarks)
4. Date well(s) Completed: 03/05/19 Well ID# MW-1 BRL
5a. Well Location:
ROXBORO STEAM PLANT
Facility/Owner Name Facility ]DO (if applicable)
1700 DUNNAWAY ROAD SEMORA 27343
Physical Address, City, and Zip
PERSON
County
Parcel Identification No (PIN)
Sb. Latitude and Longitude in degrees/minutes/seconds or decimal degrees:
(il"well field, one tat/long is sufficient)
360 28' 55.63" N 790 03' 27.98" W
6. Is (are) the well(s): OPermanent or ❑Temporary
7. Is this a repair to an existing well: ❑Yes or ElNo
//'this is it repair, fill out known well construction itybri ation and explain lire nature r f the
repair under fill remarks sec lion or on the hack r f this fnrnn.
8. Number of wells constructed: 1
hor athiple injection or non-uwt•rsupply iru:/Ls ONLY iNih the .sane construction, you can
submit oue.fonu.
9. Total well depth below land surface: 216.0 (ft.)
har multiple ire/ls list all depths ij'd///ereni (exantple- 3 n 2W' and 1 tt 1001
10. Static water level below top of casing: 56.0
ll'vaier level is above caving, use " � "
11. Borehole diameter: 6.0/7.875/10.0 (in.)
12. Well construction method: _
(i.e. auger, rotary, cable, direct push, etc )
14. WATER ZONES
FROM
TO
DESCRIPTION
ft.
ft.
rt.
ft.
15. OUTER CASING for multi-cused wells OR LINER if u licable)
FROM
TO
DIAMETER
Tf11CKNESS
MATERIAL
0.0 fr•
50.0 ft'
8.0 i"
SCH 40
PVC
16. INNER CASING OR TUBING(geothermal closed -loin
FROM
TO
DIAMETER
THICKNESS
MATERIAL
0.0 ft.
201.0 ft.
2.0 in.
SCH 40
PVC
0.0 ft.
110.0 ft.
6.0 in.
SCH 40
PVC
17. SCREEN
FROM
TO
DIAMETER
SLOTSIZE
THICKNESS
MATERIAL
201.0ft•
216.0 ft'
2.0 in.
.010
SCH 40
PVC'
ft.
ft.
in.
18. GROUT
FROM
I TO
MATERIAL
EMPLACEMENT METHOD & AMOUNT
0.0 ft'
181.0 ft"
PORTL DBENTONITE
SLURRY
0.0 ft.
110.0 ft-
PORTVNOBENTONITE
SLURRY
0.0 ft'
50.0 ft'
MRTA DBENTONITE
SLURRY
19. SAND/GRAVEL PACK if applicable)
FROM
TO
MATERIAL
Eh1PLACEMENTMETHOD
195.0 ft'
220.0 ft'
20-40
FINE SILICA SAND
ft.
ft.
20. DRILLING LOG attach additional sheets if necessary)
FROM
7'D
DESCRIPTION color, hardness, suittruck type, rain size, etc.)
0.0 ft.
1.0 ft.
GRAVEL
1.0 ft.
18.0 ft.
RED SILTY SAND
18.0 ft-
34.0 ft.
TAN SILTY SAND
34.0 ft.
45.0 ft'
PWR
45.0 ft.
220.0 ft.
ROCK
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
21. REMARKS
BENTONITE SEAL FROM 181.0 TO 195.0 FEET
"'U-PACK SCREEN"'
22. Certification:
Signature of Certified Well Contractor
03/26/19
Date
By signing this frnrnt, l herehy cerli/y that the we//(sJ it -as (here) constructed in accordance
with 15.4 NCAC 01C .0100 or 15.4 NC'AC 02C .1200 Well Construction Standards and that u
copy ofthi.s record has been provided is lire ire// owner.
23. Site diagram or additional well details:
You may use the back of this page to provide additional well site details or well
construction details. You may also attach additional pages if necessary.
SUBMITTAL INSTUCTIONS
24a. For All Wells: Submit this form within 30 days of completion of well
construction to the following:
Division of Water Quality, Information Processing Unit,
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
24b. For Infection Wells: In addition to sending the form to the address in 24a
above, also submit a copy of this form within 30 days of completion of well
construction to the following:
Division of Water Quality, Underground Injection Control Program,
FOR WATER SUPPLY WELLS ONLY: 1636 Nluil Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1636
13a. field (gpm) Method of test: 24c. For Water Sunoly & Iniection Wells: In addition to sending the form to
the address(es) above, also submit one copy of this form within 30 days of
13b. Disinfection type: Amount: completion of well construction to the count)' health department of the county
where constructed.
AIR
Form Ci W-I North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources - Division of Water Quality Revised Jan 2013

WELL CONSTRUCTION RECORD
This loan can he used for single or multiple wells
For Internal Use ONLY
I. Well Contractor Information:
BRIAN THOMAS
Well Contractor Name
A - 2581
NC Well Contractor Certification Number
GEOLOGIC EXPLORATION, INC
Company Name
2. Well Construction Permit #:
List rill applicable Well construction permits (i.e. County, State, Variance, etc.)
3. Well Use (check well use):
Water Supply Well:
❑Agricultural
❑Geothermal (Heating/Cooling Supply)
❑ Industrial/Commercial
❑Irrigation
Nun -Water Supply 1Vell:
MMonitoring
Injection Well:
❑Aquifer Recharge
❑Aquiter Storage and Recovery
❑Aquifer Test
❑Experimental Technology
❑Geothermal (Closed Loop)
❑Geothermal (Heating/Cooling Return)
4. Date Well(s) Completed:
❑Municipal/Public
❑Residential Water Supply (single)
❑Residential Water Supply (shared)
❑Groundwater Remediation
❑Salinity Barrier
❑Stormwater Drainage
❑Subsidence Control
❑Tracer
❑Other (explain under #21 1
03/19/19 WellID# MW-108BRL
Sa. 1Vell Location:
ROXBORO STEAM PLANT
Facility/Owner Name Facility ID# (ifapphcable)
1700 DUNNAWAY ROAD SEMORA 27343
Physical Address, City, and Zip
PERSON
County
Parcel Identification No. (PIN)
5b. Latitude and Longitude in degrees/minutes/seconds or decimal degrees:
(d'well field, one lat+long is sufficient)
360 28' 50.17" N 790 03' 23.58" NV
6. Is (are) the well(s): CaPermanent or ❑Temporary
7. Is this a repair to an existing well: 01'es or ElNo
// thus is a repair. fill out known well con.riruc•Iion i tbrntation and erplain the nature u f'the
repair tinder - 2I remarks vecnon or on the hack (J'Ihi.s fi)rnt.
8. Number of wells constructed: 1
h•or nntlnple injection or non-u ater supply irc/ls ONLY iNih the same construction, you can
vubmrtoneform
9. Total well depth below land surface: 156.0
I -'or multiple a cl/_v livi all depths f d!flerew (example- 9 a 200' and 2 a 100')
10. Static waiter level below top of casing: 35.0
//barer level is above casing, use " • '•
11. Borehole diameter: 6.0/7.875/10.0 (in.)
14. WATER ZONES
FROM
TO
I DESCRIPTION
ft.
ft.
rt.
rr.
15. OUTER CASING for multi -cased wells OR LINER if a liS.ble)
FROM
TO
DIAMETER
THICKNESS
MATERIAL
0.0 ft•
30.0 ft•
10.0 i"
SCH 40
PVC
16. INNER CASING OR TUBING eothermal closed -loop)
FROM
TO
DIAMETER
THICKNESS
MATERIAL
0.0 ft'
146.0 ft-
2.0 in.
SCH 40
PVC
0.0 ft'
103.0 ft'
6.0 in.
SCH 40
PVC
17. SCREEN
FROM
TO
DIAMETER
SLOT SIZE
THICKNESS
MATERIAL
146.0ft-
156.0 f'
2.0 in.
.010
SCH 40
PVC'
ft.
ft.
in.
18. GROUT
FROM
TO
MATERIAL
EMPLACEMENTMETHOD&AMOUNT
0.0 ft'
126.0 ft'
PORTL DBENTONITE
SLURRY
0.0 ft.
103.0 ft-
PORTIANOBENT"NITE
SLURRY
0.0 ft-
30.0 ft'
POFMANDBENTONITE
SLURRY
19. SAND/GRAVEL PAC T+ if a licable
FROM
TO
MATERIAL
EMPLACEMENT METHOD
141.0 ft•
161.0 ft-
20-40
FINE SILICA SAND
rr.
ft.
20. DRILLING LOG attach additional sheets if necessary)
FROM
TO
DESCRIPTION (color, hardness, soil/mck type, Cmin sin, etc.)
0.0 ft.
1.0 fr.
GRAVEL
1.0 fr-
17.0 ft'
RED SILTY SAND
17.0 ft.
40.0 fr•
TAN SILTY SAND
40.0 ft'
45.0 ft'
PWR
45.0 ft.
200.0 fr-
ROCK
ft.
ft.
e.
rr.
21. REMARKS
BENTONITE SEAL FROM 126.0 TO 141.0 FT 8, 161.0 TO 200.0 FT
"'U-PACK SCREEN"'
22. Certification:
Signature ofCenifted Well Contractor
03/26/19
Date
By signing Ibis form, I hereby c•ertlfj, that the well(.I) u•a.s (were) coustruc•ted in accordance
with 15A NCAC 02C.0100 or 15.4 NC'AC 02C .0200 Well Construction Standards and that a
copy of ihi.v record has been provided to the well owner.
23. Site diagram or additional well details:
You may use the back of this page to provide additional well site details or well
construction details. You may also attach additional pages if necessary.
SUBMITTAL INSTUCTIONS
24a. For All Wells: Submit this form within 30 days of completion of well
construction to the following:
(ft.) Division of Water Quality, Information Processing Unit,
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
24b. For Infection Wells: In addition to sending the form to the address in 24a
above, also submit a copy of this form within 30 days of completion of well
12. Well construction method: AIR construction to the following:
(i.e. auger, rotary, cable, direct push, etc)
Division of Water Quality, Underground Injection Control 1'rogranl,
FOR WATER SUPPLY WELLS ONLY: 1636 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1636
13a, field (gpm) Method of test: 24c. For Water Supply & Infection Wells: In addition to sending the form to
the address(es) above, also submit one copy of this form within 30 days of
13b. Disinfection type: Amount completion of well construction to the county health department of the county
where constructed.
Form GW-1 North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources - Division of Water Quality Revised Jaw. 2013

WELL CONSTRUCTION RECORD
This loan can be used fbr single or multiple wells
For Internal Use ONLY
1. Well Contractor Information:
BRIAN THOMAS
Well Contractor Name
A - 2581
NC Well Contractor Certification Number
GEOLOGIC EXPLORATION, INC
Company Name
2. Well Construction Permit #:
Litt till applicable well construction permits (i.e. County, State, Variance, etc.)
3. Well Use (check well use):
❑Agricultural
❑Geothermal (Heating/Cooling Supply)
❑ Industrial/Commerc ial
❑Irrigation
Non -Water Supply Well:
❑Aquifer Recharge
❑Aquifer Storage and Recovery
❑Aquifer Test
❑Experimental Technology
❑Geothermal (Closed Loop)
❑Geothermal (1-leating/Cooling
4. Date Well(s) Completed:
❑Municipal/Public
❑Residential Water Supply (single)
❑Residential Water Supply (shared)
❑Groundwater Remediation
❑Salinity Barrier
❑Stormwater Drainage
❑Subsidence Control
❑Tracer
❑Other (explain under #21 1
03/19/19 WcIIID# MW-108BRLL
5a. Well Location:
ROXBORO STEAM PLANT
Facility/Owner Name Facility ID# (ifapplicable)
1700 DUNNAWAY ROAD SEMORA 27343
Physical Address, City, and Zip
PERSON
Counts
Parcel Identification No. (PIN)
5b. Latitude and Longitude in degrees/minutes/seconds or decimal degrees:
(ifwell field, one lit/long is sufficient)
360 28' 50.17" N 790 03' 23.58" W
14. WATER ZONES
FROM
TO
DESCRIPTION
ft.
ft.
15. OUTER CASING for multi -creed wells OR LINER if r licable
FROM
TO
DIAMETER
THICKNESS
MATERIAL
0.0 ft•
30.0 ft
8.0 i"
SCH 40
PVC
16. INNER CASING OR TUBING(geothermal closed -loop)
FROM
TO
DIAMETER
THICKNESS
MATERIAL
0.0 ft'
393.0 ft.
2.0 in.
SCH 40
PVC
0.0 ft.
230.0 ft'
6.0 in.
SCH 80
PVC
17. SCREEN
FROM
TO
DIAMETER
SLOTSIZE
THICKNESS
MATERIAL
393.0ft-
403.0 ft'
2.0 "'
.010
SCH 40
PVC*
ft.
ft.
in.
18. GROUT
FROM
TO
MATERIAL
EMPLACEMENT METHOD &AMOUNT
0.0 ft'
371.0 ft'
PORTLME)BENTONITE
SLURRY
0.0 ft-
230.0 ft-
PORT DBENTONITE
SLURRY
0.0 ft'
30.0 ft'
PORTUNBBENTMITE
SLURRY
19. SAND/GRAVEL PACK if applicable)
FROM
TO
MATERIAL
EMPLACEMENT METHOD
386.0 ft.
408.0 ft'
20-40
FINE SILICA SAND
rt.
ft.
20. DRILLING
LOG attach additional sheets if necessary)
FROM
TO
DESCRIPTION color, hardness, soil/mck type, rain sim, etc.
0.0 ft.
1.0 ft.
GRAVEL
1.0 ft'
17.0 ft'
RED SILTY SAND
17.0 ft'
40.0 ft.
TAN SILTY SAND
40.0 ft.
45.0 ft'
PWR
45.0 ft.
430.0 ft•
ROCK
ft.
ft.
H.
D.
21. REDIARKS
BENTONITE SEAL FROM 371.0 TO 386.0 FT & 408.0 TO 430.0 FT
***U-PACK SCREEN***
22. Certification:
!:2/ sn:7-
Signature of Certified Well Contractor
03/26/19
Date
6. Is (are) the well(s): ©Permanent or ❑Tempurary �. (�
HJ � signing this �• ornr, l herehv c•ern v that the u•ell.r was here ronrtructed in ac•c•tirdanee
frith 15A NCAC 02C .0100 or 15A NC'AC02C .0100 Well Construction Standards and that a
7. Is this a repair to an existing well: ❑Yes or IZ)No copy of this record has been prorided to the well owner.
117hi.r is a relxrir, fill out known well construction hybrnration andexplain the nantre ofthe
r•eftair under ii21 renrar/a section or on the back r fthis firm. 23. Site diagram or additional well details:
You may use the back of this page to provide additional well site details or well
8. Number of wells constructed: 1 construction details. You may also attach additional pages if necessary.
hor multiple Injection or non-u•aer supply rre//s• ONLY with the same construction, _ton con
subnn/t one fimn. SUBMITTAL INSTUCTIONS
9. Total well depth below land surface: 403.0 (ft )
For auhiple we//.r list all depdov /fdl[Jerent (exannple- 3 1100' and 2 a /till')
10. Static water level below top of casing: 64.0
g'irater /ere/ is ahore casing, use - t "
11. Borehole diameter: 6.0/7.875/10.0 (in.)
24a. For All Wells: Submit this form within 30 days of completion of well
construction to the following:
Division of Water Quality, Information Processing Unit,
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
24b. For Infection Wells: In addition to sending the form to the address in 24.1
above, also submit a copy of this form within 30 days of completion oi' well
12. Well construction method: AIR construction to the following:
(i.e. auger, rotary, cable, direct push, etc)
Division of Water Quality, Underground Injection Control Program,
FOR WATER SUPPLY WELLS ONLY: 1636 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1636
13a. Yield (gpm) Method of test: 24c. For Water Supply & Infection Wells: In addition to sending the form to
the address(es) above, also submit one copy of this form within 30 days of
13b. Disinfection type: amount completion of well construction to the county health department of the county
where constructed.
Form GW-I North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources - Division of Water Quality Revised Jan. 2013

WELL CONSTRUCTION RECORD
This form can be used for single or multiple wells
For Internal Use ONLY.
I. Well Contractor Information:
BRIAN THOMAS
Well Contractor Name
A - 2581
NC Well Contractor Certification Number
GEOLOGIC EXPLORATION, INC
Company Name
2. Well Construction Permit #:
List all applicable irel/ construction permits (i.e. County, State, Variance, etc.)
3. Well Use (check well use):
❑Agricultural ❑Municipal/Public
❑Geothermal (Heating/Cooling Supply) ❑Residential Water Supply (single)
❑Industrial/Commercial ❑Residential Water Supply (shared)
❑Irrl atlon
Nun -Water Supply Well:
OMonitorinf; ❑Recovery
❑Aquiter Recharge
❑Aquiter Storage and Recovery
❑Aquiter Test
❑Experimental Technology
❑Geothermal (Closed Loop)
❑Geothermal (Heating/Cooling
❑Groundwater Remediation
❑Salinity Barrier
❑Stormwater Drainage
❑Subsidence Control
❑Tracer
❑Other (explain under 921 1
4. Date Well(s) Completed: 03/05/19 Well ID# MW-205BRL
5a. Well Location:
ROXBORO STEAM PLANT
Facility/Owner Name Facility ID# (dapplicable)
1700 DUNNAWAY ROAD SEMORA 27343
Physical Address, City, and Zip
PERSON
County Parcel Identification No. (PIN)
14. WATER ZONES
FROM
TO
DESCRIPTION
ft.
ft.
rt.
rt.
15. OUTER CASING for multi -cased wells OR LINER if a licable
FROM
TO
DIAMETER
THICKNESS
MATERIAL
0.0 rt
35.0 ft'
8.0 i"•
SCH 40
PVC
16. INNER CASING OR TUBING(geothermal closed -loop)
FROM
TO
DIAMETER I
THICKNESS
MATERIAL
0.0 rt
160.0 ft
2.0 "' I
SCH 40
PVC
0.0 fr
116.0 fr
6.0 in.
SCH 40
PVC
17. SCREEN
FROM
TO
DIAMETER
SLOTSIZE
THICKNESS
MATERIAL
160.0"'
170.0 "'
2.0 in.
.010
SCH 40
PVC`
ft.
ft.
in.
18. GROUT
FROM
I TO
MATERIAL
EMPLACEMENT METHOD&AMOUNT
0.0 ft'
140.0 ft'
PORT 0BENTONITE
SLURRY
0.0 ft.
116.0 ft.
PORT DBENTONITE
SLURRY
0.0 ft'
35.0 ft'
voaneaDBENTaMTE
SLURRY
19. SAND/GRAVEL PACK if appliciable
FROM
I TO
I MATERIAL I
EMPLACEMENTMETHOD
155.0 ft
173.0 fr
20-40
FINE SILICA SAND
fr.
ft.
20. DRILLING
LOG attach additional sheets if necessary)
FROM
TO
DESCRIPTION color, hardness, soii1mck type, grain sin, etc.
0.0 ft
1.0 ft
GRAVEL
1.0 rt.
7.0 rt.
RED SILTY SAND
7.0 ft
18.0 ft
TAN SILTY SAND
18.0 ft•
31.0 ft'
PWR
31.0 ft
173.0 ft'
ROCK
ft.
ft.
e.
e.
21. REMARKS
BENTONITE SEAL FROM 140.0 TO 155.0 FEET
***U-PACK SCREEN***
5b. Latitude and Longitude in degrees/minutes/seconds or decimal degrees: 22. Certification:
(ifwell field, one lat/long is sufficient) �!'� C4h }1^�i�--
360 28' 30.13" N 790 04' 47.84" 11, �
6. Is (are) the well(s): OPermanent or ❑Temporary
7. Is this a repair to an existing well: 01'es or ZINo
lfthiv is a repair. fill ow known re// construction oifiumanon and explain the nature ofihe
repair under all remarks section or on the back rJ'ihi.s fbrm.
8. Number of wells constructed: 1
bur multiple injeclion or non-iraier.sopply wells ONLY with the saute construction, you can
submit one. fbrm.
9. Total well depth below land surface: 170.0 (ft.)
har multiple cells list all depths ifd/(Jerent (erantplD- 3 u 200' and 3(ci,100)
10. Static water level below top of casing: 49.0 (ft.)
l/\rarer level is above caving, use "
11. Borehole diameter: 6.0/7.875/10.0 (in.)
Signature of Certified Well Contractor
03/26/19
Date
By signing this./ban, l hereby cenifi, that the uell(r) wav (were) constructed in accordance
with 15A NCAC 02C.0/00 or 15A NC'AC 02C .0200 Well C'anstrucvion Standards and that a
copy o/7his record has been provided to the hell owner.
23. Site diagram or additional well details:
You may use the back of this page to provide additional well site details or well
construction details. You may also attach additional pages if necessary.
SUBMITTAL INSTUCTIONS
24a. For All Wells: Submit this form within 30 days of completion of well
construction to the following:
Division of Water Quality, Information Processing Unit,
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
24b. For lniection Wells: In addition to sending the form to the address in 24a
above, also submit a copy of this form within 30 days of completion of well
12. Well construction method: AIR construction to the fallowing:
(i a auger, rotary, cable, direct push, etc.)
Division ofWater Quality, Underground Injection Control Program,
FOR WATER SUPPLY WELLS ONLY: 1636 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1636
On. field (gpm) Method of test: 24c. For Waiter Supply & lniection Wells: In addition to sending the form to
the address(es) above, also submit one copy of this form within 30 days of
13b. Disinfection type: Amount: completion of well construction to the county health department of the county
where constructed.
Form G W-I North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources - Division of Water Quality Revised Jam 2013

WELL CONSTRUCTION RECORD
This form can be used for single or multiple wells
1. Well Contractor Information:
BRIAN THOMAS
Well Contractor Name
A - 2581
NC Well Contractor Cenitication Number
GEOLOGIC EXPLORATION, INC
Company Name
2. Well Construction Permit #:
List all applicable ire/1 c•onstruc•tion perimis (i.e. County. State, Variance, etc.)
3. Well Use (check well use):
Water Supply Well:
❑Agricultural
❑Municipal/Public
❑Geothermal (Heating/Cooling Supply)
❑Residential Water Supply (single)
❑Industrial/Commercial
❑Residential Water Supply (shared)
❑Irri ation
Non -Water Supply Well:
loMonitorine
❑Recovery
❑Aquifer Recharge
❑Aquifer Storage and Recovery
❑Aquifer Test
❑Experimental Technology
❑Geothermal (Closed Loop)
❑Geothermal (Heating/Cooling
❑Groundwater Remediation
❑Salinity Barrier
❑Stormwater Drainage
❑Subsidence Control
❑Tracer
❑Other (explain under #21 1
4. Date Well(s) Completed: 03/05/19 well ID# MW-205BRLL
5a. Well Location:
ROXBORO STEAM PLANT
Facility/Owner Name Facility ID# (tfapplicable)
1700 DUNNAWAY ROAD SEMORA 27343
Physical Address, City, and Zip
PERSON
County
Parcel Identification No. (PIN)
For Internal Use ONLY
14. WATER ZONES
FROM
TO
I DESCRIPTION
rt.
rt.
ft.
ft.
15. OUTER CASING for multi -cased wells OR LINER if applicable)
FROM
TO
DIAMETER THICKNESS
MATERIAL
0.0 ft•
1 37.0 ft-
1 8.0 in SCH 40
PVC
16. INNER CASING OR TUBING eothermal closed -loop)
FROM
TO
DIAMETER
THICKNESS
MATERIAL
0.0 ft'
221.0 ft•
2.0 in.
SCH 40
PVC
0.0 fL
200.0 ft•
6.0 in.
SCH 80
PVC
17. SCREEN
FROM
TO
DIAMETER
SLOTSIZE
THICKNESS
MATERIAL
221.Oft'
231.0 ft'
2.0 in.
.010
SCH 40
PVC*
ft.
ft.
in.
18. GROUT
FROM
I TO
MATERIAL
EMPLACEMENT METHOD& AMOUNT
0.0 ft'
205.0 ft'
v RT 13SENTONITE
SLURRY
0.0 ft-
200.0 ft-
PORK DBENTONITE
SLURRY
0.0 ft'
37.0 ft•
MftrL [)DENTONITE
SLURRY
19. SAND/GRAVEL PACK if applicable)
FROM
I TO
I MATERIAL
EMPLACEMENT METHOD
215.0 ft•
236.0 ft-
1 20-40
FINE SILICA SAND
ft.
I ft.
20. DRILLING
LOG attach additional sheets if necessary)
FROM
TO
DESCRIPTION (color, hardness, suilfrock type, gmin sirs, etc.
0.0 ft.
1.0 ft.
GRAVEL
1.0 ft.
7.0 ft'
RED SILTY SAND
7.0 ft'
18.0 ft'
TAN S I LTY SAND
18.0 ft'
31.0 ft'
PWR
31.0 ft-
261.0 ft.
ROCK
ft.
ft.
ft.
I ft.
21. REMARKS
BENTONITE SEAL FROM 205.0 TO 215.0 FT & 236.0 TO 261.0 FT
`"'U-PACK SCREEN""
5b. Latitude and Longitude in degrees/minutes/seconds or decimal degrees: 22. Certification:
(il'well field, one hat/long is sufficient) �"� (L� ^�7�-
(J1
36' 28' 30.13" N 790 04' 47.84" W ��
6. Is (are) the well(s): (OPermanent or ❑Temporary
7. Is this a repair to an existing well: ❑Yes or EINo
Ij'ihi.v is a repair. Jill out known ire// construction i» lbrnmtion andexplain the nature oj'ihe
relwir under r 2/ renmrkv section or on the hack olthi.v Jbrun.
8. Number of wells constructed: 1
For multiple injection or non -hater supply ire//.v ONLY frith the s'arne construction, You can
suhmlt one.1i rnh.
9. Total well depth below land surface: 231.0
For mtilliple ire/h list all depth.v ifdilferenl (example- 3 rr 200' and 2 cc 100')
10. Static water level below top of curing: 49.0
ll'u•ater level is above casing, use •' . "
11. Borehole diameter: 6.0/7.875/10.0 (in.)
Signature of Certified Well Contractor
03/26/19
Dale
Rr.Tuning this./grin, l hereby certify that the wel(s) was (mere) c•anstruc•ted in acc•arrlouce
with 15A NCAC 02C .0100 or 15A NCAC 02C . r1200 Well Cnnstruc•tiohr .57unrlardv and that o
copy ofthis record has been prorided to the Krell owner.
23. Site diagram or additional well details:
You may use the back of this page to provide additional well site details or well
construction details. You may also attach additional pages if necessary.
SUBMITTAL INSTUCTIONS
(ft.) 24a. For All Wells: Submit this form within 30 days of completion of well
construction to the following:
(ft.) Division of Water Quality, Information Processing Unit,
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
24b. For Infection Wells: In addition to sending the form to the address in 24a
above, also submit a copy of this form within 30 days of completion of well
12. Well construction method: AIR construction to the billowing:
(i.e. auger, rotary, cable, direct push, etc.)
Division of Water Quality, Underground Injection Control Program,
FOR WATER SUPPLY WELLS ONLY: 1636 dlail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1636
13a. field (gpm) Method of test: 24c. For Water Supply & Infection Wells: In addition to sending the form to
the address(es) above. also submit one copy of this form within 30 days of
13b. Disinfection type: Amount completion of well construction to the county health department of the county
where constructed.
Form G W-I North Carolina Deparinient of Environment and Natural Resources - Division of Water Quality Revised Jan. 2013

WELL CONSTRUCTION RECORD
This form can be Used for single or multiple wells
For Internal Use ONLY
I. Well Contractor Information:
BRIAN THOMAS
Well Contractor Name
A - 2581
NC Well Contractor Certification Number
GEOLOGIC EXPLORATION, INC
Company Name
2. Well Construction Permit #:
List all applicable well con.slrticlion permits (i.e. County, State, Variance, etc.)
3. Well Use (check well use):
❑Agricultural ❑Municipal/Public
❑Geothermal (Heating/Cooling Supply) ❑Residential Water Supply (single)
❑Industrial/Commercial ❑Residential Water Supply (shared)
❑lrri ation
Non -Water Supply Well:
OMonituring ❑Recovery
❑Aquifer Recharge
❑Aquifer Storage and Recovery
❑Aquifer Test
❑Experimental Technology
❑Geothermal (Closed Loop)
❑Geothermal (Heating/Cooling
OGroundwater Remediation
❑Salinity Barrier
❑Stormwater Drainage
❑Subsidence Control
❑Tracer
❑Other (explain under 921 I
4. Date 11'ell(s) Completed: 03/19/19 Well ID# MW-205BRLLL
5a. Well Location:
ROXBORO STEAM PLANT
Facility/Owner Name Facility ID# (iftytplicable)
1700 DUNNAWAY ROAD SEMORA 27343
Physical Address, City, and Zip
PERSON
County
Paicel Identification No. (PIN)
5b. Latitude and Longitude in degrees/minutes/seconds or decimal degrees:
(ifwell field, one fat/long is suflicient)
360 28' 30.13" N 790 04' 47.84" W
6. Is (are) the well(s): OPermanent or ❑Temporary
7. Is this a repair to an existing is -ell: 01'es or EINo
lt'ihis is a repair, Jill out known well construction ittfilrinalion and explain the naitire a/'the
repair under N,2I retuarkv seviton or on the hack c f this Jimnt.
8. Number of wells constructed: 1
bar nnihiple injection or noir-water stipply yells ONLY will; the scone construction, you can
submit one./brit.
9. Total well depth below land surface: 415.0 (ft.)
For multiple wells list all depths ifdiJJirem (example- 3 a 200' and 2 a 1001
10. Static water level below top of casing: 49.0
//lrater level is above casing. use "* -
11. Borehole diameter: 6.0/7.875/10.0 (in.)
14. WATER ZONES
FROM
TO
DESCRIPTION
ft.
ft.
rr.
fr.
1.5. OUTER CASING for multi -cased wells OR LINER if a livable
FROM
TO
DIAMETER
THICKNESS
MATERIAL
0.0 ft•
39.0 ft
8.0 i"
SCH 40
PVC
16. INNER CASING OR TUBING(geothermal closed -loop)
FROM
I TO
DIAMETER
THICKNESS
MATERIAL
0.0 fL
400.0 ft.
2.0 i"'
SCH 40
PVC
0.0 ft•
300.0 ft•
6.0 in.
SCH 80
PVC
17. SCREEN
FROM
TO
DIAMETER
SLOTSIZE
THICKNESS
MATERIAL
400.0ft'
415.0 ft'
2.0 "'
.010
SCH 40
PVC*
ft.
ft.
in.
18. GROUT
FROM
TO
MATERIAL
EMPLACEMENT P]ETROD&ADIOUNI-
0.0 ft'
380.0 ft'
PORTI OBENTONITE
SLURRY
0.0 ft.
300.0 fl.
MRTLMOBENTONITE
SLURRY
0.0 ft'
39.0 ft'
MRu DBENTONITE
SLURRY
19. SAND/GRAVEL PACK if applicable)
FROM
TO
MATERIAL
EMPLACEMENTIIIETHOD
395.0 ft'
420.0 ft.
20-40
FINE SILICA SAND
rt.
ft.
20. DRILLING
LOG attach additional sheets if necessary)
FROM
TO
DESCRIPTION color, hardness, soil/mck type, gritin sins, etc.
0.0 ft.
1.0 ft.
GRAVEL
1.0 1-
7.0 ft•
RED SILTY SAND
7.0 ft'
18.0 ft•
TAN SILTY SAND
18.0 Ir.
31.0 rr.
P W R
31.0 ft•
448.0 ft•
ROCK
ft.
ft.
21. REMARKS
BENTONITE SEAL FROM 380.0 TO 395.0 FT & 420.0 TO 448.0 FT
***U-PACK SCREEN***
22. Certification:
' -act`'` 0, 03/26/19
Signature ofCertifted Well Contractor
Hy signing this,16mr, l hereby ceriijj, that the irell(s) was (here) constructed in uccorclance
with ISA NCAC 02C .11I00 or 15A NCAC 02C .0200 Well Construction Standards and that it
copy oJUtis record has been provided to the well ow/ler.
23. Site diagram or additional well details:
You may use the back of this page to provide additional well site details or well
construction details. You may also attach additional pages if necessary.
SUBMITTAL INSTUCTIONS
24a. For All Wells: Submit this form within 30 days of completion of well
construction to the following:
Division of Water Quality, Information Processing Unit,
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
24b. For Iniection Wells: In addition to sending the form to the address in 24a
above, also submit a copy of this form within 30 days of completion of well
12. Well construction method: AIR construction to the following:
(i.e. auger, rotary, cable, direct push, etc.)
Division of 11'ater Quality, Underground Injection Control Program,
FOR WATER SUPPLY WELLS ONLY: 1636 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1636
13a. field (gpm) N9ethod of test: 24c, For Water Supply & Iniection Wells: In addition to sending the form to
the address(es) above, also submit one copy of this form within 30 days of
13b. Disinfection type: Amount: completion of well construction to the county health department of the county
where constructed.
Form GW-I North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources - Division of Water Quality Revised Jam 2013

WELL CONSTRUCTION RECORD
This form can be used for single or multiple wells
For Internal Use ONLY:
I. Well Contractor Information:
BRIAN THOMAS
Well Conlractor Name
A - 2581
NC Well Contractor Certification Number
GEOLOGIC EXPLORATION, INC
Company Name
2. Well Construction Permit #:
List all applicable bell c•onstnic•tion permits (i.e. Coungl, State, Variance. etc.)
3. Well Use (check well use):
Water Supply Well:
❑Agricultural
❑Geothermal (Heating/Cooling Supply)
❑ Industrial/Commercial
❑ Irrigation
Non -Water Supply Well:
OMonitoring
Injection Well:
❑Aquifer Recharge
❑Aquifer Storage and Recovery
❑Aquifer Test
❑Experimental Technology
❑Geothermal (Closed Loop)
❑Geothermal (Heating/Cooling Return)
❑Municipal/Public
❑Residential Water Supply (single)
❑Residential Water Supply (shared)
❑Recovery
❑Groundwater Remediation
❑Salinity Barrier
❑Stormwater Drainage
❑Subsidence Control
❑Tracer
❑Other (explain under 421 I
4. Date Well(s) Completed: 03/06/19 Well 1D# MW-208BRL
5a. Well Location:
ROXBORO STEAM PLANT
Facility/Owner Name Facility ID# (if applicable)
1700 DUNNAWAY ROAD SEMORA 27343
Physical Address, City, and Zip
PERSON
County
Parcel Identification No. (PIN)
14. WATER ZONES
FROM
TO
I DESCRIPTION
fr.
rt.
15. OUTER CASING for multi -cased wells OR LINER if a licable)
FROM
TO
DIAMETER
THICKNESS
MATERIAL
0.0 ft•
55.0 ft'
1 8.0 i"
SCH 40
PVC
16. INNER CASING OR TUBING(geothermal closed -loop)
FROM
TO
DIAMETER
THICKNESS
MATERIAL
0.0 ft•
153.0 ft•
2.0 in.
SCH 40
PVC
0.0 ft•
100.0 ft.
6.0 in.
SCH 40
PVC
17. SCREEN
FROM
TO
DIAMETER
SLOTSIZE
THICKNESS
MATERIAL
153.Oft•
163.0 ft'
2.0 "'
.010
SCH 40
PVC*
ft.
ft.
in.
18. GROUT
FROM
I TO
MATERIAL
EMPLACEMENT METHOD g AMOUNT
0,0 ft'
133.0 ft'
PORTL DBENTONITE
SLURRY
0.0 ft.
100.0 ft-
PORTLP DBENTONITE
SLURRY
0.0 ft'
55.0 ft'
PORTU DBENTONITE
SLURRY
19. SAND/GRAVEL PACK if a licable
FROM
TO
MATERIAL
EMPLACEMENTItIETHOD
148.0 ft'
170.0 ft'
20-40
FINE SILICA SAND
(r.
e.
20. DRILLING
LOG attach additional sheets if necessary)
FROM
TO
DESCRIPTION (color, hardness, soil/rock type, grain sim etc.)
0.0 ft.
1.0 (t•
GRAVEL
1.0 ft.
10.0 ft.
RED SILTY SAND
10.0 ft'
24.0 ft'
TAN SILTY SAND
24.0 ft'
50.0 (t'
PWR
50.0 ft•
170.0 ft'
ROCK
ft.
ft.
ft.
I ft.
21. REMARKS
BENTONITE SEAL FROM 133.0 TO 148.0 FEET
***U-PACK SCREEN***
5b. Latitude and Longitude in degrees/minutes/seconds or decimal degrees: 22• Certification:
(il'well field, one IatMong is sufficient) (4i.. ^�--
360 28' 31.33" N 790 04' 42.34" W �h
6. Is (are) the well(s): [OPermanent or ❑Temporary
7. Is this a repair to an existing well: ❑Yes or E]No
Il'tluv rs a repair, ill out known well c•onviruction htibrmation and evplam the nature c f the
relwhr under • 21 remarks section or on the back s flhi.s Jonn.
8. Number of wells constructed: 1
Nor nnttlhple ulec•tion or non-irater.iupph, hells ONLY with
vubrnit one fiirnn.
Signature o f Cert i fted Well Contractor
03/26/19
Date
By signing this fin, I hereby c•erti& that the iiell(s) was (were) constructed at accordance
with l5A NC•AC 02C .I1100 or I5A NCAC 02C .0200 Well Conctruc•tion Standards and that it
copy c f this record has been provided to the hell owner.
23. Site diagram or additional well details:
You may use the back of this page to provide additional well site details or well
construction details You may also attach additional pages if necessary.
same construction, you care
SUBMITTAL INSTUCTIONS
9. Total well depth below land surface: 163.0 (fL)
I•irr nnillnple it ells list all depths f dijjeran (e.caniple- 3@2I111' and 2 t l all')
10. Static water level below top of casing: 14.0 (ft )
li hater level is above casing, use "{ "
11. Borehole diameter: 6.0/7.875/10.0 (in.)
24a. For All Wells: Submit this form within 30 days of completion of well
construction to the following:
Division of Water Quality, Information Processing Unit,
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
24b. For lniection Wells: In addition to sending the form to the address in 24a
above, also submit a copy of this form within 30 days of completion of well
12. Well construction method: AIR construction to the following:
(i.e. auger, rotary, cable, direct push, etc.)
Division ofWater Quality, Underground Injection Control Program,
FOR WATER SUPPLY WELLS ONLY: 1636 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1636
13a. Yield (gpm) Method of test: 24c. For Water Supply & lniection Wells: In addition to sending the form to
the address(es) above, also submit one copy of this form within 30 days of
13b. Disinfection type: Amount: completion of well construction to the county health department of the county
where constructed.
Form G W-I North Carolina Department of Ens ironment and Natural Resources - Division of Water Quality Revised Jan 2013

WELL CONSTRUCTION RECORD
This form can be used for single or multiple wells
For Internal Use ONLY:
1. Well Contractor Information:
BRIAN THOMAS
Well Contractor Name
A - 2581
NC Well Contractor Certification Number
GEOLOGIC EXPLORATION, INC
Company Namc
2. Well Construction Permit #:
List all applicable irell construction permits (i.e. County. State, Variance, etc)
3. Well Use (check well use):
Water Supply Well:
❑Agricultural ❑Municipal/Public
❑Geothermal (Heating/Cooling Supply) ❑Residential Water Supply (single)
❑Industrial/Commercial ❑Residential Water Supply (shared)
❑Irrl ation
Nun -Water Supply Well:
OMonitorine ❑Recovery
❑Aquifer Recharge
❑Aquifer Storage and Recovery
❑Aquifer Test
❑Experimental Technology
❑Geothermal (Closed Loop)
❑Geothermal (FleatinPWoolina
❑Groundwater Remediation
❑Salinity Barrier
❑Stormwater Drainage
❑Subsidence Control
❑Tracer
❑Other (explain under 421 1
4. Date Well(s) Completed: 03/06/19 well ID# MW-208BRLL
5a. Well Location:
ROXBORO STEAM PLANT
Facility/Owner Name Facility ID# (ifapplicable)
1700 DUNNAWAY ROAD SEMORA 27343
Physical Address, City, and Zip
PERSON
County
Parcel Identification No. (PIN)
Sb. Latitude and Longitude in degrees/minutes/seconds or decimal degrees:
(it'well field, one lat/long is sutlicient)
360 28' 31.33" N 790 04' 42.34" W
6. Is (are) the well(s): OPermanent or ❑Temporary
7. Is this a repair to an existing well: ❑l'es or ONo
if this is a repair,,/ill out knower ire// construction ihVimitalion and erplain the nature q/7he
repair under d:2/ remarks section or on the back c flhi.r.fornl.
8. Number of wells constructed: 1
I•ihr inrttiple igieclion or non -water supp/t' wells ONL I' with the same construction, you can
suhinit one frtrm.
9. Total well depth below land surface: 233.0
I•iir anthiple ire//r list all depths tfd!/lereni (example- 3 a 200' and 2 a 100')
10. Static water level below top of casing: 14.0
//looter level is above caring, u.re " u "
11. Borehole diameter: 6.0/7.875/10.0 (in.)
14. WATER ZONES
FROM
TO
DESCRIPTION
fr.
ft.
rr.
rt.
15. OUTER CASING for Itwells OR LINER ifr licrble
FROM
TO
DIAMETER
THICKNESS
MATERIAL
0.0 ft•
54.0 ft.
1 8.0 i"
SCH 40
PVC
16. INNER CASING OR TUBING eothermal
closed -loop)
FROM
TO
DIAMETER
THICKNESS
MATERIAL
0.0 ft'
223.0 ft.
2.0 in.
SCH 40
PVC
0.0 ft'
200.0 ft'
6.0 in'
SCH 80
PVC
17. SCREEN
FROM
TO
DIAMETER
SLOTSIZE
THICKNESS
MATERIAL
223.Oft•
233.0 ft.
2.0 "'
.010
SCH 40
PVC*
ft.
ft.
in.
18. GROUT
FROM
I To
MATERIAL
EMPLACEMENTMETHOD&AMOUNr
0.0 ft'
203.0 fr.
PORn DBENTONITE
SLURRY
0.0 ft.
200.0 ft.
PORTVNDBENTONITE
SLURRY
0.0 ft'
54.0 ft'
PORnANDBENTONITE
SLURRY
19. SAND/GRAVEL PACE if applicable)
FROM
TO
MATERIAL
EMPLACEMENTMETHOD
218.0 ft'
238.0 fL
20-40
FINE SILICA SAND
ft.
ft.
20. DRILLING
LOG attach additional sheets if necessary)
FROM
TO
DESCRIPTION color, hardness, soillrock type, gmin sin, etc.
0.0 fr.
1.0 ft.
GRAVEL
1.0 ft.
10.0 ft.
RED SILTY SAND
10.0 ft'
24.0 ft.
TAN SILTY SAND
24.0 ft'
50.0 ft'
PWR
50.0 ft.
263.0 ft'
ROCK
ft.
ft.
rt.
ft.
21. REMARKS
BENTONITE SEAL FROM 203.0 TO 218.0 FT & 238.0 TO 263.0 FT
***U-PACK SCREEN'**
22. Certification:
03/26/19
Signature of Certified Well Contractor
Hy signing this Jinn, I hereby certify that the tru/lO was (were) cointrucied in accordance
with 15A NCAC 02C .0100 or 15A NCAC02C .0200 Well Construction Standards and that a
copy of this record has been provided to the well owner.
23. Site diagram or additional well details:
You may use the back of this page to provide additional well site details or well
construction details. You may also attach additional pages if necessary.
SUBMITTAL INSTUCTIONS
24a. For All Wells: Submit this form within 30 days of completion of well
construction to the following:
(ft.) Division of Water Quality, Information Processing Unit,
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
24b. For Infection Wells: In addition to sending the form to the address in 24a
above, also submit a copy of this form within 30 days of completion of well
12. Well construction method: AIR construction to the following:
(i.e auger, rotary, cable, direct push, etc)
Division of Water Quality, Underground Injection Control Program,
FOR WATER SUPPLY WELLS ONLY: 1636 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1636
13a. field (gpm) Method of test: 24c. For Water Supply & Infection Wells: In addition to sending the form to
the address(esI above, also submit one copy of this form within 30 days of
13b. Disinfection type: Amount: completion of well construction to the county health department of the county
where constructed.
Fmm G W-I North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources - Division of Water Quality Revised Jan. 2013

WELL CONSTRUCTION RECORD
This form can be used for single or multiple wells
I. Well Contractor Information:
BRIAN THOMAS
Well Contractor Name
A-2581
NC Well Contractor Certification Number
GEOLOGIC EXPLORATION, INC
Company Name
2. Well Construction Permit #:
List all applicable urll construction permits (i.e. CounrY, Sate. Variance, etc.)
3. Well Use (check well use):
Water Supply Well:
❑Agricultural ❑Municipal/Public
❑Geothermal (Heating/Cooling Supply) ❑Residential Water Supply (single)
❑Industrial/Commercial ❑Residential Water Supply (shared)
❑lrri ation
Non -Water Supply Well:
Monitoring ❑Recovery
❑Aquifer Recharge
❑Aquifer Storage and Recovery
❑Aquifer Test
❑Experimental Technology
❑Geothermal (Closed Loop)
❑Geothermal (Heating/Cooling Return
❑Groundwater Remediation
❑Salinity Barrier
❑Stormwater Drainage
❑Subsidence Control
❑Tracer
❑Other (explain under #21 1
4. Date Well(s) Completed: 03/19/19 Well ID# MW-208BRLLL
Sa. Well Location:.
ROXBORO STEAM PLANT
Facility/Owner Name Facility IDff (ifapplicable)
1700 DUNNAWAY ROAD SEMORA 27343
Physical Address, City, and Zip
PERSON
Countv Parcel Identification No. (PIN)
5b. Latitude and Longitude in degrees/minutes/seconds or decimal degrees:
(if\well field, one lat/long is sufficient)
360 28' 31.33" N 790 04' 42.34" N,,
6. Is (are) the well(s): [OPermanent or ❑Temporary
7. Is this it repair to an existing well: ❑Yes or IZJNo
ffifus is a repair. fill out known well con.siruclion iglbrination and explain the nature r f7he
repair ander °21 remarks seclion or on the back (V'this fornr.
8. Number of wells constructed: 1
For muhiple injection or non -water supply wells ONL P with the same construction. You can
submit one /ornr.
9. Total well depth below land surface: 382.0
har multiple wells list all depths ifdilferent (exantple- 3@200' and 2 a 100')
10. Static water level below top of casing: 13.0
l/Enter level is above casing, use "+"
11. Borehole diameter: 6.0/7.875/10.0 (in.)
12. Well construction method: _
(I a auger, rotary, cable, direct push, etc )
For Internal Use ONLY.
14. WATER ZONES
FROM TO DESCRIPTION
ft. ft.
ft. ft.
15. OUTER CASING for multi -cased wells OR LINER ifr licable
FROM TO DIAMETER THICKNESS MATERIAL
0.0 ft• 59.0 ft• 1 8.0 in SCH 40 PVC
16. INNER CASING OR TUBING(geothermal closed -loop)
FROM TO DIAMETER THICKNESS MATERIAL
0.0 fr' 372.0 ft. 2.0 in. SCH 40 PVC
0.0 fr• 300.0 fL 6.0 in. SCH 80 PVC
17. SCREEN
FROM I TO I DIAMETER I SLOTSIZE THICKNESS MATERIAL
372.0ft' 1382.0 ft• 1 2.0 in. 1 .010 SCH 40 PVC*
ft. I ft. I in.
18. GROUT
FROM TO MATERIAL EMPLACEMENT METHOD & AMOUNT
0.0 fr• 352.0 ft' PORTV DBENTONITE SLURRY
0.0 e• 300.0 ft- PORTLMDBENTONITE SLURRY
0.0 fr' 59.0 ft' PORTvwDBENTONITE SLURRY
19. SAND/GRAVEL PACK if applicable)
FROM TO MATERIAL EMPLACEMENT METHOD
367.0 fr• 387.0 e• 2040 FINE SILICA SAND
20. DRILLING LOG attach additional sheets ifnecessary)
FROM TO DESCRIPTION (color, hardness, soil/ruck type, grain sin, etc.)
0.0 ft. 1.0 ft. GRAVEL
1.0 ft. 10.0 ft. RED SILTY SAND
10.0 ft' 24.0 ft' TAN SILTY SAND
24.0 fL 50.0 fL PWR
50.0 ft• 448.0 ft• ROCK
ft. ft.
ft. ft.
21. REMARKS
BENTONITE SEAL FROM 352.0 TO 367.0 FT & 387.0 TO 448.0 FT
***U-PACK SCREEN***
22. Certification:
G, 03/26/19
Signature ot'Certified Well Contractor Date
HY signing this fornr, l hereby cerilfj, that the we/1(i) "'as (here) cointruc•ted in accordance
with 15A NCAC 02C.0100 or 15A NCAC 02C.0200 We// Constnrciion Standards and that a
cane of7his record has been provided to to irell ouvrer.
23. Site diagram or additional well details:
You may use the back of this page to provide additional well site details or well
construction details. You may also attach additional pages if necessary.
SUBMITTAL INSTUCTIONS
24a. For All Wells: Submit this Ibrm within 30 days of completion of well
construction to the following:
Division of Water Quality, Information Processing Unit,
1617 i•lail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
24b. For Infection Wells: In addition to sending the form to the address in 24a
above, also submit a copy of this form within 30 days of completion of well
construction to the following:
Division of Water Quality, Underground Injection Control Program,
FOR WATER SUPPLY WELLS ONLY: 1636 lylail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1636
13a. Yield (gpm) Method of test: 24c. For Water Supply & Infection Wells: In addition to sending the form to
the address(es) above, also submit one copy of this form within 30 days of
13b. Disinfection type: Amount: completion of well construction to the county health department of the county
where constructed.
OLZ
Form GW-I North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources - Division of Water Quality Revised Jan. 20l 3

Fractured Bedrock Evaluation
December 2019
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
ATTACHMENT B
SynTerra
USGS FLASH RESULTS AND CALCULATIONS

-1... Roxboro ABMW-7BRLL
Elevation of measuring point [FT]
0
Number of Flow zones[-]
8
Well diameter [IN]
6
Dmwdown [FT]
1.80
Depth to ambient water level [FT]
16.8
Depth at bottom of casing [FT]
329.6
Depth at bottom of well [FT]
398.7
Radius of influence (Ro) [FT]
1000.0
Total tmnsmissivity (Tew) [FT'/day]
92.46
Flow above layer bottom depths
Bottom DePlh [FT[ Ambient [GPM] Stressed [G
336 0.0096 0.6087
[-0' Esllm ale Tlana1111WIll I
n Estimate ROI 1
O S01 ra whhout Regult". atlon
C' SGlvewltll Requ Mrization
ABS(Ah) maximum 5.00E+00
Regularization weight 1.00E-04
Tf.-minimum[-) 1.00E-09
dh rFTI Farfield Mad
MSE [GPMI
7.966800E-04
Sum Tye, 1.000
Sum dhA2 0.0504441 a27264
Ambient W L [FT]
-16.80
Estimated Ttotal [FT'/day] 92.461
Regularizod Misfit 0.00
Pumped WL[FT]
-18.60
Ambient Stressed Ambient
Stressed
Depth
Flow above Flow above Error
Error Zone T Fraction of..I
FRACTURES:
[FT]
[GPM] [GPM] [GPM]
[GPM] [FT -may] transmissivily
11 ��
111
I111�
11
111
11
11
111
�
11
Ambient Flow Profile
Pumped
Flow Profile
Upward Flow, in GPM
Upward Flow, in GPM
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
l�
I
-
E
-360
E
I
1
I
I
1
I•
I
I
I
I
I
410
ABMW-7BRLL FLASH

ABMW-7BRLL FLASH R ... It, and Individual Hydraulic Ap— ... Val...
Noes:
1. Following a logarithmic sensitivity analysis of [he FIASH model [a o dios of influence, a conservative value of 3000
fe
feet was i used.
2. Objective function, F, for model intmean squared error (MSE) between interpreted and predicted Flow prof les
and the sum of squared differences (Ah) Ah) between
een the borehole's water level and far-Fle10 heads. Model objective is to
roinirnize F; therefore, a value closer to zero indicates. better fit.
3. Model was run until no more Iterations produced changes In output.
4. FLASH Software: Day -Levels, F.D., Ichnson, C. D., Palllet, F.L., and Halford, K.J, 2011, FLASH: A Computer Program for
Flow -Log Analysis of Single Holes v1.0: U.S. Geological Survey Software Release, 07 March 2011,
5. FLASH Report: Day -Lewis, F.D., Johnson, C. D., Paillet, F.L., and Halford.
K.J., 2011, A computer program for Flow -log
analysis of single hales (FLASH): Ground Water, https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.2011.00798..
6. Highlighted cells indicate Flow levels that do not have any observed open factures and did not contribute to total
transmissivity. These depth intervals were not used for fracture spacing versus depth below top of rock figure because It
is assumed that there are no fractures in these intervals.
Total Transmissivity Calculated from Thiem Equation
Q (ym) Q (ft3/day) D—do—, 5 (ft) Ro (ft) R„ (in) R„, (ft) TTOTu (ft3/tlay)
1 192.5 1.8 1000 3 0.250 141.1]
FLASH Total T and Fit Parameters
Noes:
1. Following a logarithmic sensitivity analysis of [he FIASH model [a o dios of influence, a conservative value of 3000
fe
feet was i used.
2. Objective function, F, for model intmean squared error (MSE) between interpreted and predicted Flow prof les
and the sum of squared differences (Ah) Ah) between
een the borehole's water level and far-Fle10 heads. Model objective is to
roinirnize F; therefore, a value closer to zero indicates. better fit.
3. Model was run until no more Iterations produced changes In output.
4. FLASH Software: Day -Levels, F.D., Ichnson, C. D., Palllet, F.L., and Halford, K.J, 2011, FLASH: A Computer Program for
Flow -Log Analysis of Single Holes v1.0: U.S. Geological Survey Software Release, 07 March 2011,
5. FLASH Report: Day -Lewis, F.D., Johnson, C. D., Paillet, F.L., and Halford.
K.J., 2011, A computer program for Flow -log
analysis of single hales (FLASH): Ground Water, https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.2011.00798..
6. Highlighted cells indicate Flow levels that do not have any observed open factures and did not contribute to total
transmissivity. These depth intervals were not used for fracture spacing versus depth below top of rock figure because It
is assumed that there are no fractures in these intervals.
Total Transmissivity Calculated from Thiem Equation
Q (ym) Q (ft3/day) D—do—, 5 (ft) Ro (ft) R„ (in) R„, (ft) TTOTu (ft3/tlay)
1 192.5 1.8 1000 3 0.250 141.1]
FLASH Total T and Fit Parameters
Radius of
To—oniasivuy,
Influence, &
TT—
MSE
Ah
F
(ft)
(W/Gay)
1000
92.45
J.96E-04
5.04E-02
8.01E-04
Slu Test Information - Com leted Well
Screen Interval Screen Interval Mid -Point of screen Transmissivi,y Hydraulic Aperture Hydraulic
ft b s R BTOR interval ft2 tla ContluRivit
3J0-385 385 29] 290 ]3.40 0.24 4.89

B
weunam.. Roxboro MW-01BRL
Elevation of measuring point [FT]
0
Number of Flow zones[-]
11
Well diameter [IN]
6
Drawdown [FT]
5.70
Depth to ambient water level [FT]
52.9
Depth at bottom of casing [FT]
110.1
Depth at bottom of well [FT]
220
Radius of influence (Re) [FT]
1000.0
Total tmnsmissivity (Tew) [FT'/day]
19,17
Flow above layer bottom depths
Bottom Depth [FT[ Ambient [GPM] Stressed [G
1 Solver n E511m ele Tlanan11WIlly
n Esgmale ROI
O Solve without Regularization
C' Solvewlth Requ Mrization
ABS(Ah) maximum 5.00E+00
Regularization weight 1.00E-04
Tfanormmimvm[-[ 1.00E-09
Ah [FT] Farfield Mad
���
11•
111�
MSE [GPMI 1.666462E-04
Ambient W L [FT] -52.90
Pumped WL[FT] -58.60
FRACTURES:
11
1a
Depth
Sum Tyr 1.000 Sum dhA2 0.0332706247072
Estimated Ttotal[FT''/day] 19.174 Re0ulerized Misfit 0.00
Ambient Stressed Ambient Stressed
Flow above Flow above Eno Eno Zone T Fra Ion f..I
• 11
1 11
�
1 11
I 1
111
1 1
111
I111�
111:
®"1'
111
1 1�
111
11
1111
1111
111
1 1�
1111
11
1111
1111
1111
11
111
I111�
11
Ambient Flow Profile
Pumped
Flow Profile
Upward Flow, in GPM
Upward Flow, In GPM
1.
II
•
2
211
MW-018RL FIASH

a
o
Total TransmissivityCalculatetl from Thiem Equation
Q (BPm) Q (ft2/daY) D—down, s (ft) Re (ft) R„ (In) R. (ft) Trorac (R2/daY)
1.1 211.7 .7 1000 .2 4 4
FLASH Total T and Fit Parson —
Radius""
Transmissivity,
InflYence, R.
T—
MSE
Ah
F
(R)
2/day)
1000
19.1]
1.6JE-04
3.32E-02
1.]OE-04
Slu Test Information - Com hated well
Screen Interval Screen Interval Mid -point Of screen Transmissivity Hydraulic Aperture Hydraulic Conductivity
b s R BTOR interval RZ tla R tla
201---- 2116 1J1 169 23.10 0.26 1.64
Notea:
1. Following a logarithmic sensitivity analysis of the FLASH model to adios of influence, a conservative value of 3000 feet was used.
2. objective function, F, for model incoporates mean squared error (MSE) between Interpreted and predicted flow profiles and the sum of squared differences
(Ah) between the borehole', water level and far-feld heads. Model objective is to minimize F; therefore, a value closer to zero indicates a better fit.
3. Model was run until no more Iterations produced changes In output.
4. FLASH Software: Day -Lewis, F.D., Johnson, C. D., Paillet, F.L., and Halford, K.J, 2011, FLASH: A Computer Program for Flow -Log Analysis of Single Holes
v1.0: U.S. Geologlcal Survey Software Release, 07 March 2011, https://dz.dol.orq110.5066/F7319SZC.
5. FLASH Report: Day -Lewis, F.D., Johnson, C. D., Paillet, F.L., and Halford, K.J., 2011, A computer program for Flow -log analysis of single holes (FLASH):
Ground Water, https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.2011.00798.,
6. Highlighted cells Indicate flow levels that do not have any observed open factures and did not contribute to total transmisslvity. These depth Intervals were
not used for fracture spacing versus depth below top of rock figure because it is assumed that there are no factures in these intervals.

writ e.... Roxboro MW-108BRL
Elevation of measuring point [FT]
0
Number of Flow zones[-]
10
Well diameter [IN]
6
Dmwdown [FT]
2.80
Depth to ambient water level [FT]
38.4
Depth at bottom of casing [FT]
102.1
Depth at bottom of well [FT]
199.6
Radius of influence (Ro) [FT]
1000.0
Total tmnsmissivity (Tew) [FT'/day]
36.21
Flow above layer bottom depths
Bottom Depth [FT] Ambient [GPM] Stressed
105.7 0.0075 0.30
[-0' Esllm ale TlanSn11WIll I
n EsBmele ROI 1
O S01 ra whhout ReguMrizafion
C' Solvewltll Requ MRZa0on
ABS(Ah) maximum 5.00E+00
Regularization weight 1.007
04
Tf.-minimum[-] 1.00E-09
Ah rFTI Farfield Mad
���
111
111
���
111
111
���
111
111
���
111
111
��
I II•
11
11
��
111.
11
11
MSE [GPMr] 1.002007E-03
Ambient W L [FT] -38.40
Pumped WL[FT] -01.20
FRACTURES:
10
Sum Tyr 1.000 Sum AM2 0.0870851495800
Estimated Ttotal[FT'/day] 36.206 Regularized mifiti 0.00
Ambient Stressed Ambient Stressed
Depth Flow above Flow above Error Error Zone FraVU.n oftdal
[FT] [GPM] [GPM] [GPM] [GPM] [FT•Iday] trarsmtsslvhy
111
1�1
111
11�•
1111
1111
111
1�1
111
I1�•
1111
1111
11
�
111•
1 I1
1111
1111
11
�
111•
I111��
1111
111•
11
I111�
11
Ambient Flow Profile
Pumped
Flow Profile
OIT
Upward Flow, in GPM
oil
Upward Flow, In GPM
1
E
p
_
1
G
1
1
I
•
200
MW-1086RL FLASH

TIM
1. Following a logarithmic sensitivityanalysis of the FLASH model to radius of influence, a conservative value of 1000
feet was used.
2. Objective function, F, for model intes mean squared error (MSE) between interpreted and predicted Flow profiles
and the sum of squared differences (Ah) Ah) between the borewater level and far-Fle10 heads. Model objective Is to
'ze F; therefore, a value closer [,zero indicates a bettertter fit.
fit.
3. Model was run until no more lmratlons Produced changes in output.
4. FLASH Software: Day -Lewis, F.D., Johnson, C. D., Pallet, F.L., and Halford, K.J, 2011, FLm ASH: A Computer Prom grafor
Flow -Log Analysis of Single Holes v1.0: U.S. Geological Survey Software Release, 07 March 2011,
httDs://dx.dol.om/10.5066/F7319SZC.
5. FLASH Report: Day -Lewis, F.D., Johnson, C. D., Paillet, F.L., and Halford, K.J., 2011, A computer program for Flow -log
analysis of single holes (FLASH): Ground Water, hUPs://dx.dol.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.2011.00798..
6. Highlighted cells Indicate Flow levels that do not have any observed open factures and did not contribute to total
[ra.—issivity. These depth intervals were not used far fracture spacing versus depth below top of rock figure because it
Is assumed that there are no fractures in these Intervals.
Total Transmisslvlty Calculated from Thiem Equation
Q (9Prn) Q (ft3/day) Drawdown, s (ft) R. (ft) R„ (in) R.(ft) T-TAL (ft'/day)
1 192.5 2.8 1000 3 0.2501 90.15
FLASH Total T and Fit Parameters
Radius of
Transmissivity,
Influence, Ra
TT
MSE
Ah
F
(ft)
(R3/day)
3000
36.21
1.00E-03
8.]IE-02
1.01E-03
S1.9 Test
Information - Completed
in O en Borehole
Screen Interval
Screen Interval
IftTOR
Mid -point of screen
interval
Tmmaonissivity
R2 da
Hytlraulic Aperture
Hytlraulic
C nduct' ' R da
145-158
158
1330
127
0.46
0.07
3.54E-02
176-189
176
164
168
0.19
0.06
1.42E-02
Slug Test Information - Completed Well
Screen Interval
Screen Interval
Mld-point of screen
Transmisslvlty
Hydraulic Aperture
Hydraulic
(ft, bgs)
(R .TOR)
interval
(ft2/tlay)
(mm)
Contluc[ivity (R/tlay)
146-156
141
121
126
41.30
0.31
4.13
156

FLASH - Flow Log Analysis of Single Holes
REQUIRED Weuname. Roxboro MW-108BRLL
NPUT:
Elevation of measuring point [FT] 0 tun Solver C' ESIIM ale Trallsmisslvlly
Number of Flow zones [-] 20 0Esumale ROl
Well diameter [IN] 6
Drawdown [FT] 19.50
Depth to ambient water level[FT] 59 O Solve without RegUMrlZatlon
Depth at bottom of casing [FT] 228.9
Depth at bottom of well [FT] 429.9 C' Solvewltll RequMRzatlon
Radius of influence (Re) [FT] 1000.0
Total tmnsmissivity (Taw) [FT'/day] 5.17
ABS(Ah) maximum 5.00E+00
s
Regularization weight 1.00E-04
Tfanor minimum[-] 1.00E-09
Flow above layer bottom depths
FRACTURES Bottom Depth [FT1 Ambient [GPM] Stressed [GPM] Tfactor [FT -ID] Ah [FT] Farfield Mad [FT1
2a
236 0.0057 0.3972 0.00 0.00 -59.00
19
18
17
16
is
14
13
12
11
10
246
0.0102
0.3972
0.00
0.00
-59.00
256
0.0000
0.3972
0.06
0.00
-59.06
266
0.0000
0.3742
0.13
0.01
-58.99
276
0.0082
0.2880
0.00
0.00
-59.06
286
0.0000
0.3535
0.03
0.00
-59.00
296
0.0066
0.3022
0.00
0.00
-59.06
306
-0.0047
0.3177
0.31
0.03
-58.97
316
-0.0071
0.1865
0.11
0.01
-58.99
326
-0.0052
0.1429
0.13
0.01
-58.99
336
-0.0048
0.0527
0.00
0.00
-59.00
346
0.0041
0.0863
0.00
0.00
-59.06
356
0.0041
0.0835
0.00
0.00
-59.00
366
0.0041
0.1177
0.00
0.00
-59.06
376
0.0040
0.0894
0.00
0.00
-59.00
385
0.0041
0.0822
0.00
0.00
-59.06
395
0.0041
0.1151
0.20
0.03
-58.97
406
0.0065
0.0088
0.01
0.00
-59.00
416
0.0106
0.0000
0.00
0.00
-59.00
426
0.0077
0.0067
0.01
0.00
-59.00
Ambient Flow Profile Pumped Flow Profile
Upward Flow, in GPM Upward Flow, In GPM
o-a iso o�so
MSE [G PMrJ
1.464401E-04
Sum Ta�mr 1.G00
Sum Ah^2
0.0023a73802380
4
Ambient W L [FT]
Estimated Ttotal [FT'/day] 5.171
Regularized Misfit
0.00
Pumped WL[FT]
_59.00
78.50
Ambient Stressed Ambient
Stressed
Depth
Flow above Flow above Error
Error Zone T Fraction of..l
FRACTURES:
[FT]
[GPM] [GPM] [GPM]
[GPM] [FT'/day] tratrsmisslvlly
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
1.
236.04
0.000
0.397
0.005
0.000
0.0011
0.000
245.79
0.000
0.397
0.010
0.000
0.000
0.000
256.26
0.000
0.397
0.000
0.000
0.299
0.058
266.20
0.000
0.374
0.000
0.000
0.697
0.135
276.04
0.000
0.321
0.008
-0.033
0.000
0.000
286.03
0.000
0.321
0.000
0.033
0.140
0.027
296.09
0.000
0.310
0.006
-0.008
0.000
0.000
305.90
0.000
0.310
-0.005
0.008
1.607
0.311
316.11
0.000
0.186
-0.007
0.000
0.567
0.110
326.13
0.000
0.143
-0.005
0.000
0.695
0.134
336.23
0.000
0.090
-0.005
-0.037
0.000
0.000
345.94
0.000
0.090
0.004
-0.003
0.000
0.006
356.20
0.000
0.090
0.004
-0.006
0.000
0.000
366.12
0.000
0.090
0.004
0.028
0.000
0.006
376.05
0.000
0.090
0.004
0.000
0.000
0.000
385.47
0.000
0.090
0.004
-0.007
0.000
0.006
395.13
0.000
0.090
0.004
0.026
1.051
0.203
406.04
0.000
0.009
0.007
0.000
0.071
0.014
415.85
0.000
0.003
0.011
-0.003
0.000
0.000
426.05
0.000
0.003
0.008
0.003
0.043
0.008
Notes:
MW-1086RLL FLASH

MW-108BRLL FLASH R ... It, and Individual Hydraulic Apart... Val...
�®p
1
Notes:
1. Following a logarithmic sensitivity analysis of the FLASH model to radius of Influence, a conservative value of 1000
feet was used.
2. Objective function, F, for model Incoporates mean squared error (MSE) between Interpreted and predicted Flow profiles
and the sum of squared differences (6h) between the borehole', water level and far -field heads. Model objective is to
— F; therefore, a value Closer to Zero indicates a better fit.
3. Model was run until no more Iterations produced changes In output.
4. FLASH Software: Day -Lewis, F.D., Johnson, C. D., Palllet, F.L., and Halford, K.J, 2011, FLASH: A Computer Program for
Flow -Log Analysis of Single Holes v1.0: U.S. Geological Survey Software Release, 07 March 2011,
5. FLASH Report: Day -Lewis, F.D., Johnson, C. D., Palllet, F.L., antl Halford, K.J., 2011, A computer program for Flow -log
analysis of single hales (FLASH): Ground Water, hdps://d,.doi.org/10.1111/J.1745-6584.20ll.00798.,
6. Highlighted cells indicate Flow levels that do not have any observed open fractures and did not contribute to total
transmisslvity. These depth Intervals were not used for fracture spacing versus depth below top of rock figure because It
i, assumed that there are no fractures in these intervals.
Total Transmisslvlty Calculated from Thlem Equation
Q (gpm) Q (ft'/day) Drawdown, s (it) R. (it) R. (in) Rw (ft) T_ (ft/day)
1 192 5 19.5 1000 I3 0 250 13 03
FLASH Total T and Fit Parameters
Radius of
Transmisslvlty,
Influence, R.
TT-.
MSE
Ah
F
(ft)
(ft'/day)
1000
5.1)
1.46E-04
2.34E-03
1.47E-04
Slu Test Information -Com letee
In O en Borehole
Screen Interval
b s
Screen Interval
ft BTOR
Mitl-point of screen
Interval
Transmisslvlty
ft2 ea
Hytlraulic Aperture
mm
Hydraulic
C nductivlt
392-405
374
0.07
0.04
5.02E-03
405
380
Slu
Test Information - Completed
Well
Screen Interval
(ft, bgs)
Screen Interval
(R BTOR)
Mld-point of screen
interval
Transmisslvlty
(ft2/Gay)
Hydraullc Aperture
(mm)
Hydraullc
Co(rid—wintl day)ty
393-403
373
33.90
0.07
0.03
403
3J8

weunam.. Roxboro MW-205BRL
Elevation of measuring point [FT]
0
Number of Flow zones[-]
6
Well diameter [IN]
6
Dmwdown [FT]
1.30
Depth to ambient water level [FT]
42.6
Depth at bottom of casing [FT]
116
Depth at bottom of well [FT]
172.5
Radius of influence (Ro) [FT]
1000.0
Total tmnsmissivity (Tew) [FT'/day]
85.19
Flow above layer bottom doptbe
Bottom Deem IFTI Ambient rGPMI Stressed
[-0' Esllm ale TlanSnl1 WIll I
n Esllmale ROI 1
O S01 ra whhout Reg"'..zatlon
C' SolvewI111 Requ MRZa0on
ABS(Ah) maximum 5.00E+00
Regularization weight 1.00E-04
Tf.-mmimam[-] 1.00E-09
Ah rFTI Farfield Mad
I II
�
111
111
I I I
�
111
111
®"
111•
I I
11
11
MSE [GPMr] 2.160297E-04
Ambient W L [FT] -02.60
Pumped WL[FT] -03.90
Depth
FRACTURES: [FT]
Sum Tyr 1.000 Sum AM2 0.0106111423979
Estimated Ttotal[FT'/day] 85.193 Regularized Mlfltj 0.00
Ambient Stressed Ambient Stressed
Flow above Flow above Error Error Zone T FraVU.n oft.1al
[GPM] [GPM] [GPM] [GPM] [FT•Iday] trarsmisslvhy
®
111•�
111
I11•
1111
1111
®'"
111
11
111�
I111�
11
Ambient Flow Profile
Pumped
Flow Profile
Upward Flow, in GPM
Upward Flow, In GPM
31
•
I
1
1
MW-205BRL FLASH

MW-205BRL FLASH R ... It, ad Individual Hydraulic Apart... Val...
a
Notes:
1. Following a logedthrale sensitivity analysis of the FLASH model to radius of Influence, a conservative value of 1000
feet was used.
2. Objective function, F, for model Incoporates mean squared error (MSE) between Interpreted and predicted flow profiles
and the sum of squared differences (6h) between the borehole's water level and far -field heads. Model objective is to
minimize F; therefore, a value closer to zero Indicates a better fit.
3. Model was run until no more iterations produced changes in output.
4. FLASH Software: Day -Lewis, F.D., Johnson, C. D., Paillet, F.L., and Halford, K.J, 2011, FLASH: A Computer Program for
Flow -Log Analysis of Single Holes v1.0: O.S. Geological Survey Software Release, 07 March 2011,
5. FLASH Report: Day -Lewis, F.D., Johnson, C. 0., Paillet, F.L., and Halford, K.l., 2011, A computer program for Flow -log
analysis of single hales (FLASH): Ground Water, https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.2011.00798.,
6. Highlighted cells indicate Flow levels that do not have any observed open fractures and did not contribute to total
trans
misslvity. These depth Intervals were not used for fracture spacing versus depth below top of rock figure because It
is assumed that there are no fractures in these intervals.
Average 0.26
Total Transmissivity Calculated from Thiem Equation
FLASH Total T and Fit parameters
Radius of
Transmissivity,
Influence, R.
Tr—
MSE
Ah
F
100g
85.19
2.16E-04
1.06E-02
2.17E-04
sill Test Information - Com letee well
Screen Interval Screen Interval Mid -point of screen Transmissivity Hytlraulic Aperture Hytlrauli<
as.) it BTOR interval ft2 ea C nductivit
160-170 SJ0 141 136 86.00 0.27 8.60

weunam.. Roxboro MW-2056RLL
Elevation of measuring point [FT]
0
Number of Flow zones[-]
6
Well diameter [IN]
5.8
Dmwdown [FT]
2.10
Depth to ambient water level [FT]
44.1
Depth at bottom of casing [FT]
199.7
Depth at bottom of well [FT]
260.4
Radius of influence (Ro) [FT]
1000.0
Total tmnsmissivity (Tew) [FT'/day]
58.65
Flow above layer bottom depths
Bottom DePlh [FT[ Ambient [GPM] Stressed [C
205 0.0000 0.4834
[-0' Esllm ale Tlenan11WIll I
n Esllmale ROI 1
O S01 ra whhout ReguMrizafion
C' SolvewI111 Requ Mriza0on
ABS(Ah) maximum 5.00E+00
Regularization weight 1.00E-04
Tf.-minimum[-[ 1.00E-09
Ah rFTI Farfield head
MSE [GPMrJ
1.310228E-05
Sum Tye, 1.000
Sum AhA2 0.0724008a039a7
Ambient W L [FT]
-04.10
Estimated Ttotal [FT'/day] 58.645
Regularizod Misfit 0.00
Pumped WL[FT]
-06.20
Ambient Stressed Ambient
Stressed
Depth
Flow above Flow above Error
Error Zone T Fraction of..I
FRACTURES:
[FT]
[GPM] [GPM] [GPM]
[GPM] [FT-Iday] transmissivily
®
1 11
�
1 11
1111
111
11
111•
111
1111
1111
®
111
11
111:
I11
�
11
Ambient Flow Profile
Pumped
Flow Profile
OT
Upward Flow, in GPM
Upward Flow, In GPM
I
i
I
1
'
MW-2056RLL FLASH

®_____
3T
No[ea:
fe Following a logarithmic sensitivity analysis of [he FL45H model [o adios of influence, a conservative value of 3000
feet was used.
2. Objective function, for model i between
mean squared error (MSE) between interpreted and predicted Flow profiles
and the sum of squaredd differences (Ah) (Ah) between the borehole', water level and far-Fle10 heads. Model objective Is to
minima, F; therefore, a value closer to zero indicates a better fit.
3. Model was run until no m m Iteatlons produced changes in output.
4. FLASH Software: Day -Lewis, F.D., Johnson, C. D., Paillet, F.L., and Halford, K.J, 2011, FLASH: A Computer Prora gm for
Flow -Log Analysis of Single Holes v1.0: U.S. Geological Survey Software Release, 07 March 2011,
5. FLASH Report: Day -Lewis, F.D., Johnson, C. D., Paillet, F.L., and Halford, K.J., 2011, A computer program for Flow -log
analysis of single hales (FLASH): Ground Water, https://tlx.doi.org/10.1111/J.1745-6584.2011.00798..
6. Highlighted cells Indicate Flow levels that do not have any observed open factures and did not contilbute to total
transinwivity. These depth intervals were not used for fracture spacing versus depth below top of rock figure because it
Is assumed that there are no fractures In these Intervals.
Average 0.26
Total Transmissivity Calculated from That, Equation
Q (gpm) Q (ft'/day) Drawtlown, s (ft) Re (fit) R. (in) Rw (ft) TT . (ft'/day)
1 192 5 2 1 1000 2 9 0 242 121 50
FLASH Total T and Fit parameters
3T
No[ea:
fe Following a logarithmic sensitivity analysis of [he FL45H model [o adios of influence, a conservative value of 3000
feet was used.
2. Objective function, for model i between
mean squared error (MSE) between interpreted and predicted Flow profiles
and the sum of squaredd differences (Ah) (Ah) between the borehole', water level and far-Fle10 heads. Model objective Is to
minima, F; therefore, a value closer to zero indicates a better fit.
3. Model was run until no m m Iteatlons produced changes in output.
4. FLASH Software: Day -Lewis, F.D., Johnson, C. D., Paillet, F.L., and Halford, K.J, 2011, FLASH: A Computer Prora gm for
Flow -Log Analysis of Single Holes v1.0: U.S. Geological Survey Software Release, 07 March 2011,
5. FLASH Report: Day -Lewis, F.D., Johnson, C. D., Paillet, F.L., and Halford, K.J., 2011, A computer program for Flow -log
analysis of single hales (FLASH): Ground Water, https://tlx.doi.org/10.1111/J.1745-6584.2011.00798..
6. Highlighted cells Indicate Flow levels that do not have any observed open factures and did not contilbute to total
transinwivity. These depth intervals were not used for fracture spacing versus depth below top of rock figure because it
Is assumed that there are no fractures In these Intervals.
Average 0.26
Total Transmissivity Calculated from That, Equation
Q (gpm) Q (ft'/day) Drawtlown, s (ft) Re (fit) R. (in) Rw (ft) TT . (ft'/day)
1 192 5 2 1 1000 2 9 0 242 121 50
FLASH Total T and Fit parameters
Radius of
Transmisslvlty,
Influence, R.
TTa
MSE
Oh
F
(ft)
(ft'/day)
1000
58.65
1.31E-OS
1.24E-02
1.43E-OS
slu Teat Ioformanon - Com leted wall
Screen Interval Screen Interval Mid -point of screen Transmissivity Hytlraulic Aperture Hytl r.or
I.BT 0. Interval ft2 da C ndueth it
221-211 231 202 19] 51.20 0.25 5.12

weunam.. Roxboro MW-205BRLLL
Elevation of measuring point [FT]
0
Number of Flow zones[-]
15
Well diameter [IN]
6
Drawdown [FT]
22.50
Depth to ambient water level [FT]
46.3
Depth at bottom of casing [FT]
299
Depth at bottom of well [FT]
446.5
Radius of influence (Ra) [FT]
1000.0
Total tmnsmissivity (Tew) [FT'/day]
0,93
Flow above layer bottom depths
Bottom Depth [FT[ Ambient [GPM] Stressed [G
[-0' Esllm ele TlanSn11HIl" I
n Estimate ROI 1
O Solve whhout Regula112ation
C' Solvewlth Requ MRZetlon
ABS(Ah) maximum 5.00E+00
Regularization weight 1.00E-04
Tfanor mlaimam[-] 1.00E-09
Ah rFTI Farfield Mad
���
11•
111
���
11•
111
MSE [GPMI 8.246044E-06
Ambient W L [FT] -06.30
Pumped WL[FT] -68.80
FRACTURES:
11
14
13
12
11
10
Depth
Sum Tye, 1.000 Sum dhA2 0.0000073511219
Estimated Ttotal[FTa/day] 0.928 Regularized Misfit 0.00
Ambient Stressed Ambient Stressed
Flow above Flow above Error Error Zone T Fraction of..I
1111
11•
1111
111:
1111
1111
1111
11•
1111
I11
1 I:�
1111
11
1111
I11
11:
11:•
1111
11�
1111
I111
11
11
1111
11 •
1111
1II
1111
1111
1 111
1 1
1 111
1111
1 111
1 111
1 111
1111
1 111
1 111
Ambient Flow Profile
Pumped
Flow Profile
Upward Flow, in GPM
Upward Flow, in GPM
S
a
a
•
MW-2056RLLL FLASH

MW-205BRLLL FLASH R ... It, and Individual Hydraulic Apart ... Val...
a
TIM
1. Following a logarithmic sensitivity analysis of the FLASH model to radius of Influence, a conservative value of 1000
feet was used.
2. Objective function, F, for model Incoporates mean squared error (MSE) between Interpreted and predicted flow profiles
and the sum of squared differences (dh) between the borehole', water level and far -field heads. Model objective is to
minimize F; therefore, a value closer to zero indicates a better fit.
3. Model was run until no more Iterations produced changes In output.
4. FLASH Software: Day -Lewis, F.D., Johnson, C. D., Paillet, F.L., and Halbert, K.1, 2011, FLASH: A Computer Program for
Flow -Log Analysis of Single Holes vl.o: L.I. Geological Survey Software Release, 01 March 1111,
6. FLASH Report: Day -Lewis, F.D., Johnson, C. D., Paillet, F.L., and Halford, K.3., 2011, A computer program for flow -log
analysis of single hales (FLASH): Ground Water, https://d,.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.2011.00798.,
6. Highlighted cells indicate Flow levels that do not have any observed .pen fractures and did not contribute to total
transmissivity. These depth intervals were not used for fracture spacing versus depth below top of rock figure because It
is assumed that there are no fractures in these intervals.
Total Transmissivity Calculated from Thiem Equation IF
Q (gpm) Q (ft2/day) Drawdown, s (ft) Re (ft) R. (In) P. (R) Tr_, 1.13 (fychay)
0.1 19.11 22.5 1000 3 0.250
FLASH Total T and Fit Parameters
Radius of
Transmissivity,
Influence, Re
TT
MSE
Ah
F
(R)
(ft2/day)
3000
0.93
8.25E-06
].35E-06
8.25E-06
Slu Test
Information - Com letetl
In Op en Borehole
Screen Interval
Screen Interval
Mid -point of screen
Transmissivity
Hydraulic Aperture
HYtlraulic
(R, bgs)
(R BTOR)
Interval
(ft2/day)
(mno
Cond"b" Y
ft/da
403-416
381
1.81
O.O7
1.39E-01
4/6
38]
Slu
Test Information - Com
feted Well
Screen Interval
Screen Interval
Mid -point of screen
Transmissivity
Hydraulic Aperture
HYtlraulic
(ft, bgs)
(ft BTOR)
interval
(ft2/day)
(mm)
Conductivity
ft/tla
400-415
400
386
379
10.90
0.13
0.]3

weuname. Roxboro MW-2086RL
Elevation of measuring point [FT]
0
Number of Flow zones[-]
10
Well diameter [IN]
6
Drawdown [FT]
24.80
Depth to ambient water level [FT]
12.2
Depth at bottom of casing [FT]
99.8
Depth at bottom of well [FT]
169.1
Radius of influence (Ra) [FT]
1000.0
Total tmnsmissivity (Tew) [FT'/day]
2.17
Flow above layer bottom depths
Bottom Depth [FT[ Ambient [GPM] Stressed [G
Esllm ale TranSm155," I
Estimate ROI 1
O Solve whhout Regulallzation
C' Solvewlth Requ MRZetlon
ABS(Ah) maximum 5.00E+00
Regularization weight 1.00E-04
Tfanormmimam[-) 1.00E-09
Ah rFTI Farfield Mad
���
11•
11
MSE [GPMaJ 1.330429E-03
Ambient W L [FT] -12.20
Pumped WL[FT] -37.00
FRACTURES:
10
Depth
Sum Tyr 1.000 Sum AhA2 0.0786456536136
Estimated Ttotal[FTa/day] 2.174 Regulerized Misfit 0.00
Ambient Stressed Ambient Stressed
Flow above Flow above Error Error Zone T Fraction of..I
1 11
�
1 11
1 1
1 111
1 111
111
�
111:
I I •
1111
1111
1111
11.•
111:
111
1111
1111
1111
11.•
11 •
I11.�
®'
1111
111•
111.
I111
11.•
111
Ambient Flow Profile
Pumped
Flow Profile
Upward Flow, in GPM
Upward Flow, In GPM
1
I
,
ll
,
1
I
r
MW-2086RL FLASH

MW-208BRL FLASH R ... It, and Individual Hydraulic Ap—... Val...
0��®i•oit���
i a
0�m
No[ea:
1. Following a logarithmic sensitivity analysis of the FL45H model [o adios of influence, a conservative value of 1000
feet was used.
2. Objective function, F, for model incoporates mean squared error (MSE) between interpreted and predicted Flow profles
and the sum of squared differences (An) between the borehole's water level and far -field heads. Model objective is to
minimize F; therefore, a value closer to zero indicates a better fit.
3. Model was run until no more iterations produced changes in output.
4. FLASH Software: Day -Lewis, F.D., Johnson, C. D., Palllet, F.L., and Halford, K.J, 2011, FLASH: A Computer Program for
Flow -Log Analysis of Single Holes v1.0: U.S. Geological Survey Software Release, 07 March 2011,
5. FLASH Report: Day -Lewis, F.D., Johnson, C. D., Paillet, F.L., and Halford, K.J., 2011, A computer program for Flow -log
analysis of single holes (FLASH): Ground Water, hUps://dx.dol.org/10,1111/j.1745-6584.2011.00798.x
6. Highlighted cells Indicate flow levels that do not have any observed open fractures antl dId not contribute to total
transmissivity. These depth intervals were not used for fracture spacing versus depth below top of rock fgum because it
Is assumed that there are no fractures In these Intervals.
Total Tm—ml-ivlty Calculated from Thom Equation
Q (gprn) Q (R3/daY) Drawdo11 s (ft) R. (ft) R. (in) R. (ft) TrorAc
0.9 1]3.25 24.8 1000 3 0.250 9.22
FLASH Total T and Fit Parameters
Radius of
Transm(saillty,
Influence, R.
Tr—
MSE
Ah
F
(ft)
(ft'/day)
1000
2.IJ
1.33E-03
1.86E-02
1.33E-03
Sh
Test Information - Completed well
Screen Interval
Screen Interval
Mitl-point of screen
Transmissivi[y
Hydraulic Aperture
Hydraulic
(tt, bgs)
(R BTOR)
Interval
(R2/day)
(mm)
ContluRivity
(ft/eav)
1631
1114
163-1fi3
109
1.60
0.O7
O.'h

-1... Roxboro MW-208BRLL
Elevation of measuring point [FT]
0
Number of Flow zones[-]
9
Well diameter [IN]
5.8
Dmwdown [FT]
3.20
Depth to ambient water level [FT]
12.6
Depth at bottom of casing [FT]
199.4
Depth at bottom of well [FT]
262.4
Radius of influence (Ro) [FT]
1000.0
Total tmnsmissivity (Tew) [FT'/day]
52.39
Flow above layer bottom depths
Bottom Depth [FT[ Ambient [GPM] Stressed [G
201 0.0064 0.6636
[-0' Esllm ale TlenSn11WIll I
n Estimate ROI 1
O S01 ra whhout Regult". anon
C' SolvewI111 Requ Mriza0on
ABS(Ah) maximum 5.00E+00
Regularization weight 1.00E-04
Tf.-minimum[-) 1.00E-09
Ah rFTI Farfield Mad
MSE [GPMI
2.443480E-05
Sum Tye, 1.000
Sum AhA2 0.008T7352803T8
Ambient W L [FT]
-12.60
Estimated Ttotal [FT'/day] 62.387
Regularizod Misfit 0.00
Pumped WL[FT]
-15.80
Ambient Stressed Ambient
Stressed
Depth
Flow above Flow above Error
Error Zone T Fraction of..I
FRACTURES:
[FT]
[GPM] [GPM] [GPM]
[GPM] [FT -may] transmissivily
11
111
�
111
1II•
1111
1111
11
1111
11 •
111:
I111�
111
®" 1
1 111
1 11
1 11
1111
1 111
1 111
• 11
1 111
1 11
1 11
1111
1 111
1 111
Ambient Flow Profile
Pumped
Flow Profile
OT
Upward Flow, in GPM
Upward Flow, in GPM
•
1I
T
f
1
1
•
MW-2086RLL FLASH

MW-208BRLL FLASH R ... It, and I,dilid,li Hydraulic Apart ... Val...
�®OIL
j
FLOW
11.11.11E. FLOW
a
TIM
1. Following a logarithmic sensitivity analysis of [he FLASH model [o adios of influence, a conservative value of 3000
feet was used.
2. Objective function, F, for model Incoporates mean squared error (MSE) between Interpreted and predicted Flow profiles
and the sum of squared differences (An) between the borehole', water level and far -field heads. Model objective is to
minim
ize F: therefore, a value closer to zero indicates a better fit.
3. Model was run until no more iterations produced changes In output.
4. FLASH were: Day -Lewis, F.D., Johnson, C. D., Paillet, F.L., and Helfand, K.J, 2011, FLASH: A Computer Program for
Flow -Log Analysis of Single Holes vl.o: U.S. Geological Survey Software Release, 07 March 2011,
5. FLASH Report: Day -Lewis, F.D., Johnson, C. D., Paillet, F.L., and Helfand, K.J., 2011, A computer program for Flow -log
analysis of single hales (FLASH): Ground Water, hdp,://d,.doi..rg/10.1111/J. 1745-6584.2011.00798.x
6. Highlighted cells indicate Flow levels that do not have any observed open fractures and did not contribute to total
transmisslvity. These depth Intervals were not used for fracture spacing versus depth below top of rock figure because It
is assumed that there are no fractures in these intervals.
Total Transmi-mity Calculated from Thiem Equation
Q (gpm) ft3/tla Dr down, s (ft) Re (ft) Rw (In) R. (ft) T ft2/da
1 192 5 1 3 2 1 1000 2 9 0 242 79.73
FLASH Total T and Fit Parameters
Radius of
Transmissivity,
Influence, Ro
T_.
MSE
nh
F
(ft)
(ft2/day)
3000
62.39
2.44E-OS
8.77E-03
2.53E-OS
Slu Test Information-Com letetl Well
Screen Interval Screen Interval Mid -Point of screen hansmissivity Hydraulic Aperture Hydraulic
ftb s ft g R interval ft2 tla ConduRivit
223-233 233 223 174 "1 32.60 0.2 3.26
184

weuname. Roxboro MW-208BRLLL
Elevation of measuring point [FT]
0
Numberofflowzones[-]
16
Well diameter [IN]
3
Drawdown [FT]
2020.
Depth to ambient water level [FT]
12.8
Depth at bottom of casing [FT]
298
Depth at bottom of well [FT]
446.7
Radius of influence (Ra) [FT]
1000.0
Total tmnsmissivity (Taw) [FT'/day]
2.31
Flow above layer bottom depths
Bottom Depth [FT[ Ambient [GPM] Stressed [G
[-0' Esllm ale T1e11911111W," I
n Estimate ROI 1
O Solve whhout Regula112ation
C' Solvewlth Requ MRZetlon
ABS(Ah) maximum 5.00E+00
Regularization weight 1.00E-04
Tfanormmimam[-) 1.00E-09
Ah rFTI Farfield Mad
���
11•
111
®��
11•
111
MSE [GPMaJ 5.269368E-06
Ambient W L [FT] -12.80
Pumped WL[FT] -33.00
FRACTURES:
1a
15
14
13
12
11
10
Depth
Sum Tyr 1.000 Sum AhA2 0.0000000248528
Estimated Ttotal[FTa/day] 2.310 Regularized Misfit 0.00
Ambient Stressed Ambient Stressed
Flow above Flow above Error Error Zone T Fraction of..I
1 111
�
1 111
1111
��
1111
11
1111
111
1111
1111
1.1
1111
11 •
1111
I111
11:
11 .
1111
11
1111
I11:�
1 I•
1 111
1 111
1 111
1111
1 111
1 111
1 111
1 111
1 111
1111
1 111
1 111
1 111
1 111
1 111
1111
1 111
1 111
®""
1 111
1 111
1 111
1111
1 111
1 111
Ambient Flow Profile
Pumped
Flow Profile
Upward Flow, in GPM
Upward Flow, In GPM
S
a
•
•
MW-2086RLLL FLASH

MW-208BRLLL FLASH R ... It, and Individual Hydraulic Apart ... Val...
JL
JAL
Jam.
Ji
m
Motes:
1. Following a logarithmic sensitivity analysis of [he FL45H model [o adios of influence, a conservative value of 1000
feet was used.
2. Objective function, F, for model incoporates mean squared error (MSE) between interpreted and predicted Flow profiles
and the sum of squared differences (Ah) between the borehole's water level and far -field heads. Model objective Is to
minimise F; therefore, a value closer to zero indicates a better fit.
3. Model was run until no more Iterations produced changes In output.
4. FLASH Software: Day -Lewis, F.D., Johnson, C. D., Paillet, F.L., and Halford, K.J, 2011, FLASH: A Computer Program for
Flow-Loq Analvsis of Single Holes v1.0: U.S. Geological Survey Software Release, 07 March 2011,
5. FLASH Report: Day -Lewis, F.D., Johnson, C. D., Paillet, F.L., and Halford, K.J., 2011, A computer program for Flow -log
analysis of single holes (FLASH): Ground Water, h.ps://d..tloi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.2011.00798..
6. Highlighted cells indicate Flow levels that do not have any observed open fractures and did not contribute to total
transmisslvlty. These depth intervals were not used for fracture spacing versus depth below top of rock figure because It
is assumed that there are no fractures in these intervals.
Total Transmisslvi[y Calculated from Thlem Equation
Q (gpm) Q (W/daY) Drawdown, s (ft) R. (ft) R„ (in) R„. (ft) TT.- (ftz/tlay)
0.9 1]3.25 20.2 1000 3 0.250 11,32
FLASH Total T and Fit parameters
Radius of
Transmlaslvlty,
InFluence, Ro
TToru
MSE
Ah
F
(ft)
WNW
1000
2.31
5.27E-06
2.49E-OB
5.27E-06
Slua Test Information - Complete
In O en Borehole
Screen Interval
Screen interval
Mitl-point of screen
Transmissivity
Hydraulic Aperture
Hydraulic
(ft, bgs)
(ft DIOR)
interval
(ft2/day)
(mm)
Cond.c ity
(ft/say)
315
266
328
279
315-328
273
2.46
0.08
1.90E-01
371-384
322
329
0.50
0.07
3.63E-02
384
335
410-423
4230
374
368
0.30
0.05
7.46E-03
425-438
376
383
0.30
0.05
8.05E-03
438
389
Slu
Test Information -Com
leted Well
Screen Interval
Screen Interval
Mid -point of screen
Transmissivity
Hydraulic Aperture
HYtlraulic
(fy bgs)
(ft BTOR)
interval
(ft2/day)
(mm)
Conductivity
fttla
372-382
1 328
9.96
0.2
0.996
382
333

FLASH - Flow Log Analysis of Single Holes
REQUIRED Wellname: Roxboro MW-38BR
INPUT:
Elevation of measuring point [FT]
0
Number of flow zones[-]
10
Well diameter [IN]
6
Drawdown [FT]
24.20
Depth to ambient water level [FT]
21.2
Depth at bottom of casing [FT]
55
Depth at bottom of well [FT]
600
Radius of influence (Ro) [FT]
1000.0
Total transmissivity (Tevi) [F-2/day]j
0.19
Run Solver `• Eslimace 7-nnissivity
Estimate ROI
Solve without Regularization
- Solve with Regularization
ABS(Ah) maximum 5.00E+00
Regularization weight 1.00E-04
Tfactor minimum[-] 1.00E-09
Flow above layer bottom depths
.S Bottom Depth [FT] Ambient [GPM] Stressed [GPM] Tfactor [FT2/D] Ah [FT] Fairfield head [FT]
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
66.12
0.01
0.02
0.27
0.00
-21.20
75.87
0.01
0.01
0.04
0.00
-21.20
85.90
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
-21.20
96.14
0.01
0.01
0.18
0.00
-21.20
106.03
0.00
0.01
0.51
0.01
-21.19
115.93
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-21.20
126.09
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-21.20
135.43
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-21.20
145.451
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-21.20
154.88
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-21.20
Ambient Flow Profile
Upward Flow, in GPM
-0.025 -0.015 -o.00s o.00s 0.015 0o25
MSE [.'.90.000
Sum Tfa�ar 1.000
Sum oh^2 0.00
Ambient WL [FT]
-21.20
Estimated Ttotal [FTWay]
0.193
Regulanzed Misfit 0.00
soo
Pumped WL I
-45.40
Ambient Stressed
Ambient
Stressed
Depth
Flow above Flow above
Error
Error Zone T Fraction of total
FRACTURES:
[FT]
[GPM] [GPM]
[GPM]
[GPM] [FT -/day] transmissivity
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Noles:
66.12
0.000
0.0181
0.010
0.000
0.052
0.268
75.87
0.000
0.013
0.009
0.000
0.008
0.042
85.90
0.000
0.013
0.013
0.000
0.000
0.000
96.14
0.000
0.013
0.011
0.000
0.035
0.182
106.03
0.000
0.009
0.000
0.000
0.098
0.507
115.93
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
126.09
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
135.43
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
145.45
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.881
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
soo
700
Pumped Flow Profile
Upward Flow, in GPM
-0.10 0.00 0.50 1.o0
0
200 1
�irz�s
MW-38BR FLASH

0�0
am�m�
a0�m
am�m
Total Transmissivity Calcula[etl from Thiem Equation
Q (9Pm)I Q (ftt/day) Drawdown, s (ft) Re (flj Rw (In) Rw (R) Tr •u Rz/tla
01 1 19.25 1 24.2 1 1000 3 0.2so 1.05
FLASH Total Tame! Fit Parameters
Radiusof
Transmissivity,
Influence, Ro
T­
MSE
4h
F
(R)
(R'/day)
3000
0.19
2.40E-OS
8.06E-05
2.40E-OS
Rotes:
1. Following a logarithmic sensitivity analysis of the FLASH model to radius of Influence, a conservative value of 1000 feet was used
2. Objective function, F, for model incoporates mean squared error (MSE) between Interpreted and predicted flow profiles and the sum of squared differences
(Oh) between the borehole's water level and far -field heads. Model objective is to minimize F; therefore, a value closer to are indicates a better fit.
3. Model was run until no more Iterations produced changes in output.
4. FLASH Software: Day -Lewis, F.D., Johnson, C. D„ Palllet, F.L., and Halford, K.J, 2011, FLASH: A Computer Program for Flow -Log Analysis of Single Holes
v1.0: U.S. Geological Survey Software Release, 07 March 2011, https:Hdx.dol.org/10.5066/F7319SZC.
S. FLASH Report: Day -Lewis, F.D., Johnson, C. D., Pa fillet, F.L., and Halford, K.J., 2011, A computer program for Flow -log analysis of single holes (FLASH):
Ground Water, https://dx.tloi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.2011.00798.x
6. Highlighted cells indicate Flow levels that do not have any observed open fractures and did not contribute to total h-ansmissivity. These depth intervals
were not used for fracture spacing versus depth below top of rock figure because It Is assumed that there are no fractures In these Intervals.

Fractured Bedrock Evaluation
December 2019
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
ATTACHMENT C
GEOPHYSICAL LOGGING REPORT
SynTerra

Solutions
821 Livingston Court, Suite E
Marietta, GA 30067
770.980.1002
Geophysical Logging Report
ABMW-7 BRLL, MW-01 BRL, MW-108 BRL, MW-108 BRLL, MW-205 BRL,
MW-205 BRLL, MW-205 BRLLL, MW-208 BRL, MW-208, BRLL, MW-208 BULL
Roxboro Steam Electric Plant, Semora, North Carolina
Performed for:
SynTerra
April 18, 2019
problem solved

Geophysical Logging Report, ABMW-7 BRL, MW-01 BRL, MW-108 BRL, MW-108 BRILL, MW-205 BRL,
MW-205, BRILL, MW-205 BRLLL, MW-208 BRL, MW-208 BRILL, MW-208 BRLLL
Roxboro Steam Electric Plant, Semora, North Carolina
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
SignaturePage..................................................................................................................................ii
ExecutiveSummary.........................................................................................................................iii
1.0 Introduction........................................................................................................................... 1
2.0 Equipment and Methodology................................................................................................ 1
2.1 Acoustic Televiewer...................................................................................................... 1
2.2 Optical Televiewer........................................................................................................ 2
2.3 3-Arm Caliper................................................................................................................ 2
2.4 Fluid Temperature........................................................................................................ 2
2.5 Fluid Conductivity......................................................................................................... 2
2.6 Single Point Resistance(SPR)........................................................................................ 3
2.7 Spontaneous Potential (SP).......................................................................................... 3
2.8 Heat Pulse Flowmeter(HPF)......................................................................................... 3
3.0 Field Procedures.................................................................................................................... 3
4.0 Data Processing and Results.................................................................................................. 5
Appendices
Appendix 1 Fracture Summary Table
Appendix 2 Schmidt Stereonets and Rose Diagrams
Appendix 3 Heat Pulse Flowmeter Logs and Fracture Characteristics
Appendix 4 Geophysical Logs
problem solved

Geophysical Logging Report, ABMW-7 BRL, MW-01 BRL, MW-108 BRL, MW-108 BRLL, April 18, 2019
MW-205 BRL, MW-205, BRLL, MW-205 BRLLL, MW-208 BRL, MW-208 BRLL, MW-208 BRLLL Page ii
Roxboro Steam Electric Plant, Semora, North Carolina (synt00118)
SIGNATURE PAGE
This report, entitled "Geophysical Logging Report, ABMW-7 BRL, MW-01 BRL, MW-108 BRL, MW-108
BRLL, MW-205 BRL, MW-205, BRLL, MW-205 BRLLL, MW-208 BRL, MW-208 BRLL, MW-208 BRLLL, Roxboro
Steam Electric Plant, Semora, North Carolina" has been prepared for SynTerra located in Greenville, South
Carolina. It has been prepared under the supervision of Mr. Jorgen Bergstrom at the request of and the
exclusive use of SynTerra. This report has been prepared in accordance with accepted quality control
practices and has been reviewed by the undersigned.
GEL Solutions. LLC
A Member of the GEL Group, Inc.
Jorgen Bergstrom, P.Gp.
Senior Geophysicist
Nicholas Rebman
Geophysical Specialist
April 18, 2019
Date
problem solved

Geophysical Logging Report, ABMW-7 BRL, MW-01 BRL, MW-108 BRL, MW-108 BRLL, April 18, 2019
MW-205 BRL, MW-205, BRLL, MW-205 BRLLL, MW-208 BRL, MW-208 BRLL, MW-208 BRLLL Page iii
Roxboro Steam Electric Plant, Semora, North Carolina (synt00118)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
GEL Solutions performed geophysical borehole logging services in ten borings located at Roxboro Steam
Electric Plant in Semora, North Carolina. The field investigations were performed between January 7, 2019 and
January 17, 2019 during two separate mobilizations. This investigation was conducted to aid SynTerra in
evaluating potential pathways for groundwater migration through fractured bedrock at the site. The
geophysical logs consisted of acoustic televiewer, optical televiewer, caliper, fluid conductivity, fluid
temperature, single point resistance (SPR), spontaneous potential (SP), and heat pulse flowmeter (HPF).
The logging data was analyzed to determine the location and orientation of fractures and other features.
In addition to these data sets, synthetic caliper logs were calculated from the acoustic televiewer travel time
data to aid in the interpretation. Dip and azimuth (dip direction) were calculated for each detected fracture
based on the televiewer dataset. HPF data was analyzed to detect water producing fractures.
problem solved

Geophysical Logging Report, ABMW-7 BRL, MW-01 BRL, MW-108 BRL, MW-108 BRLL, April 18, 2019
MW-205 BRL, MW-205, BRLL, MW-205 BRLLL, MW-208 BRL, MW-208 BRLL, MW-208 BRLLL Page 1
Roxboro Steam Electric Plant, Semora, North Carolina (synt00118)
1.0 INTRODUCTION
GEL Solutions performed geophysical borehole logging services in ten borings located at Roxboro Steam
Electric Plant in Semora, North Carolina. The geophysical logs consisted of acoustic and optical televiewer, 3-
arm caliper, fluid conductivity, fluid temperature, single point resistance (SPR), spontaneous potential (SP), and
heat pulse flowmeter (HPF). The field investigation was performed between January 7, 2019 and January 17,
2019. The logging data was analyzed to determine the location and orientation of fractures and other features.
In addition to these data sets, synthetic caliper logs were calculated from the acoustic televiewer travel time
data to aid in the interpretation.
2.0 EQUIPMENT AND METHODOLOGY
The information below is an overview of the geophysical methodologies used for this investigation. The
intent of this overview is to give the reader a better understanding of each method, and background information
as to what is actually measured, the resolution of the method, and the limitations imposed by site -specific
subsurface conditions.
2.1 Acoustic Televiewer
Acoustic televiewer (ATV) logging produces a high resolution, magnetically oriented digital image of the
borehole wall to map the location and orientation of intersecting fractures, foliations, and lithologic contacts.
The Acoustic televiewer tool emits a rotating, narrow, acoustic beam that is reflected off the borehole wall.
The travel time and amplitude of the reflected wave are recorded by the tool and used to create borehole
images. Both datasets are useful for identifying the location and orientation of fractures. The amplitude of the
reflected signal will decrease at the location of fractures and the travel time will increase. The travel time data
can also be used for developing a high resolution caliper log for a more comprehensive analysis of fractures.
Acoustic televiewers can only be used in fluid filled boreholes. However, the fluid does not have to be optically
clear for the method to work.
When operating the ATV, a "time window" is set based on the borehole diameter. The time window is
the time interval in which the ATV instrument searches for an echo from the borehole wall. For smaller
increases in borehole diameter around fractures and sections of weaker rock, the ATV typically records an
accurate borehole diameter (correlates well with three -arm caliper data). However, if borehole openings are
problem solved

Geophysical Logging Report, ABMW-7 BRL, MW-01 BRL, MW-108 BRL, MW-108 BRILL, April 18, 2019
MW-205 BRL, MW-205, BRLL, MW-205 BULL, MW-208 BRL, MW-208 BRILL, MW-208 BRLLL Page 2
Roxboro Steam Electric Plant, Semora, North Carolina (synt00118)
much larger than the borehole diameter, the echo from the borehole wall may fall outside the time window, or
be too weak to be detected. In these situations, borehole diameters recorded with ATV may be inaccurate.
Since ATV only records the reflection from the borehole wall, the data cannot be used to determine how far a
fracture extends from the borehole. The acoustic televiewer has a vertical resolution of 2 millimeters.
2.2 Optical Televiewer
Optical televiewer (OTV) logging is used to record and digitize a 360-degree color image of the borehole
wall. Planar features such as fractures, foliation, and lithologic contacts can be identified directly on the
images. The tool is magnetically oriented in order to determine the orientation of features. Televiewers have a
vertical resolution of 2mm, which is significantly better than many other geophysical tools. As a result, it is able
to see features other tools cannot resolve. Optical images can be collected above or below the water surface,
provided the water is sufficiently clear for viewing the borehole wall.
2.3 3-Arm Caliper
Caliper logging is used to generate a profile of the borehole diameter with depth. The tool measures the
borehole diameter using three spring -loaded arms. Narrow enlargements in the borehole diameter can, in
most cases, be attributed to fractures. Caliper logging can be conducted above and below the water surface.
2.4 Fluid Temperature
Fluid temperature logging is used to identify where water enters or exits the borehole. In the absence of
fluid flow, a gradual increase on water temperature of approximately 1°F per 100 feet of depth is expected.
Rapid changes in the fluid temperature indicate water -producing or water -receiving zones. Little or no
temperature gradient indicates intervals of vertical flow.
2.5 Fluid Conductivity
Fluid conductivity logging is used to measure the electrical conductivity of the fluid in the borehole.
Variations in fluid conductivity can be contributed to concentration variations of dissolved solids. These
differences can occur when sources of water have contrasting chemistry and have come from different
transmissive zones. Fluid temperature and conductivity are measured concurrently using the same logging
tool.
problem solved

Geophysical Logging Report, ABMW-7 BRL, MW-01 BRL, MW-108 BRL, MW-108 BRILL, April 18, 2019
MW-205 BRL, MW-205, BRLL, MW-205 BRLLL, MW-208 BRL, MW-208 BRILL, MW-208 BRLLL Page 3
Roxboro Steam Electric Plant, Semora, North Carolina (synt00118)
2.6 Single Point Resistance (SPR)
Single point resistance logging involves passing an alternate current between a surface electrode and a
probe electrode and measuring the voltage difference created by the current. SPR is then calculated using
Ohm's law. SPR is the sum of cable resistance, and the resistance based on the composition of the medium,
the cross sectional area and length of the path through the medium. Therefore, the single point resistance log
does not provide quantitative data. In general, SPR increases with increasing grain size and decreases with
increasing borehole diameter, fracture density, and the concentration of dissolved solids in the water. Single -
point resistance logs are useful in the determination of lithology, water quality, and location of fracture zones
2.7 Spontaneous Potential (SP)
SP logging is conducted to measure naturally occurring voltage differences along a borehole. The method has
been found useful for delineating sandstone/shale layering and other boundaries between permeable and
impermeable beds. The measurements are made with reference to an electrode at ground level. Therefore, SP
logging does not provide quantitative data.
2.8 Heat Pulse Flowmeter (HPF)
HPF logging measures the direction and rate of vertical fluid flow in a borehole by heating up a small
volume of water and monitoring temperature variations as the heated water moves with the fluid flow in the
borehole. Under ambient conditions, differences in hydraulic head between two transmissive fractures
produce vertical flow in the borehole. However, if the hydraulic head is the same, no flow will occur under
ambient conditions. Therefore, HPF logging is also conducted under low -rate pumping conditions. HPF
readings are point readings at the location of fractures. The location and number of these readings can be
determined after analyzing the other geophysical logs for fractures. HPF can be used for measuring vertical
flows in the borehole between 0.005 gallons per minute (gpm) and approximately 1.5 gpm. In HPF data,
upward flow is shown as positive flow, and downward flow is shown as negative flow.
3.0 FIELD PROCEDURES
All GEL Solutions activities on -site were supervised by a senior geophysicist. For this investigation, GEL
Solutions used a Mount Sopris Matrix logging system. Pumping tests during HPF testing were conducted using
a Grundfos Redi-Flow-2 water pump with variable speed control box and an in -situ Mini -Troll pressure
transducer with logging capabilities. The pump is placed in the casing above the open hole section of the
problem solved

Geophysical Logging Report, ABMW-7 BRL, MW-01 BRL, MW-108 BRL, MW-108 BRLL, April 18, 2019
MW-205 BRL, MW-205, BRLL, MW-205 BULL, MW-208 BRL, MW-208 BRLL, MW-208 BRLLL Page 4
Roxboro Steam Electric Plant, Semora, North Carolina (synt00118)
borehole. HPF logging under pumping conditions commenced after the borehole water level had stabilized.
HPF logging was conducted at every 10 feet throughout the logging intervals under ambient and pumping
conditions. More closely spaced readings were then conducted at sections with abrupt changes in flow. A
summary of the configuration of the boreholes, pumping rates, and water levels is provided below. All depth
measurements are referenced from the ground surface. All borings are surface cased and open hole below the
casing.
Logging Configuration Summary
Well ID:
ABMW-7 BRLL
MW-01 BRL
MW-108 BRL
MW-108 BRLL
MW-205 BRL
Casing material:
PVC
PVC
PVC
PVC
PVC
Casing diameter (in):
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
Open hole (ft):
329.6-398.7
110.1-220.0
102.1-199.6
228.9-429.9
116.0-172.5
Open hole diameter (in):
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
Pumping rate (gpm):
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
Pump depth (ft):
45
84
68
90
76
Water level before pumping (ft):
16.8
52.9
38.4
59.0
42.6
Water level at equilibrium (ft):
18.6
58.6
41.2
78.5
43.9
Well ID:
MW-205 BRLL
MW-205 BRLLL
MW-208 BRL
MW-208 BRLL
MW-208 BRLLL
Casing material:
PVC
PVC
PVC
PVC
PVC
Casing diameter (in):
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
Open hole (ft):
199.7-260.4
299.0-446.5
99.8-169.1
199.4-262.4
298.0-446.7
Open hole diameter (in):
5.8
6.0
6.0
5.8
5.8
Pumping rate (gpm):
1.0
0.1
0.9
1.0
0.9
Pump depth (ft):
76
76
40
40
40
Water level before pumping (ft):
44.1
46.3
12.2
12.6
12.8
Water level at equilibrium (ft):
46.2
68.8
37.0
15.8
33.0
problem solved

Geophysical Logging Report, ABMW-7 BRL, MW-01 BRL, MW-108 BRL, MW-108 BRLL, April 18, 2019
MW-205 BRL, MW-205, BRLL, MW-205 BRLLL, MW-208 BRL, MW-208 BRLL, MW-208 BRLLL Page 5
Roxboro Steam Electric Plant, Semora, North Carolina (synt00118)
4.0 DATA PROCESSING AND RESULTS
The logs were analyzed for fractures and other features using WellCAD software, manufactured by
Advanced Logic Technology. The travel time data from the acoustic televiewer log was used to develop a
maximum caliper log. Fractures were interpreted through a complete data analysis of all logs. Dip and azimuth
(dip direction) were calculated for each detected fracture. The fracture data was corrected from apparent to
true dip and azimuth using deviation logs included with the televiewer dataset, and from magnetic north to
true north by rotating the fracture azimuths 9.0° counterclockwise. Magnetic north is 9.0° west of true north at
the site (according to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). The reported azimuth or dip
direction is measured clockwise from true north (Figure 1). A fracture summary table including fracture
attributes is provided in Appendix 1. Dominating water producing fractures based on flow logging or other
evidence are highlighted and shown in bold and italics text. Minor water producing fractures based on flow
logging are shown in bold.
Schmidt stereonets (lower hemisphere) with fracture characteristics and fracture rose diagrams are
presented on Appendix 2. HPF logs and fracture characteristics are shown on Appendix 3. All logs are
presented on Appendix 4. All depths are referenced from ground surface.
vest
Fwst
Rela6ns beApm Dip and A�bvwb angle
Figure 1: Explanation of azimuth and dip for fractures
problem solved

APPENDIX 1

Roxboro Steam Electric Plant, Semora, North Carolina
Fracture Data from Geophysical Logging
ABMW-7 BRLL
Depth Azimuth Dip
ft deg deg
330.8 155 75
334.1 22 33
335.5 145 88
335.5 139 43
336.1 160 36
336.2 160 35
336.9 151 25
339.5 325 50
340.1 136 42
340.9 51 45
341.4 90 45
341.9 97 51
342.6 159 33
343.0 131 35
343.3 134 38
344.5 229 26
345.3 141 66
346.3 69 33
346.5 276 14
347.3 345 15
347.6 34 75
348.0 152 50
348.8 79 62
349.0 98 78
350.1 121 33
350.3 133 36
351.3 88 80
351.8 82 78
352.0 73 79
353.1 126 46
353.6 51 47
354.6 85 74
356.0 23 38
356.8 158 40
357.2 171 40
358.0 41 62
358.8 38 76
361.3 14 58
363.0 47 45
363.2 75 81
363.7 327 68
364.3 358 63
365.7 9 77
368.5 53 63
368.9 35 73
370.0 132 35
371.8 162 71
373.3 110 42
377.0 123 48
377.7 120 51
379.1 194 60
379.9 341 38
379.9 162 53
380.2 171 52
381.0 199 38
381.4 231 37
383.3 151 53
384.8 192 53
385.5 173 53
387.5 16 71
388.6 34 43
389.0 29 66
389.4 46 61
389.8 63 54
390.0 161 49
391.9 97 67
393.0 89 72
394.1 78 78
ABMW-7 BRLL
Depth
Azimuth
Dip
ft
deg
deg
394.2
86
35
394.6
48
5
394.8
80
52
395.3
292
43
395.3
80
52
397.2
29
75
MW-01 BRL
Depth Azimuth Dip
ft deg deg
110.8 136 61
111.3 144 48
112.0 129 43
112.6 135 58
113.4 136 36
113.6 120 34
113.9 112 29
114.5 150 49
115.8 14 61
116.3 179 39
116.7 213 22
117.3 194 37
117.3 355 28
117.9 181 19
118.5 186 32
119.2 175 55
120.5 178 58
121.0 359 76
121.1 138 11
121.6 72 76
122.9 346 40
124.5 75 25
125.2 244 78
126.3 177 30
126.4 41 30
126.8 224 14
127.4 281 38
128.0 149 64
128.3 148 62
128.9 128 47
130.7 164 37
131.0 40 76
131.4 353 34
132.0 211 72
132.3 58 57
133.0 75 38
133.8 319 32
134.8 239 17
135.6 317 7
136.3 85 58
137.0 108 48
137.3 314 37
137.4 56 77
138.1 73 39
138.4 244 34
138.8 231 33
139.7 310 31
139.9 302 31
140.2 342 31
140.6 317 34
141.3 154 45
144.2 99 42
145.1 76 45
145.7 51 47
147.4 218 23
149.2 333 29
149.4 142 75
149.5 202 66
151.1 114 35
151.3 261 43
151.7 2 20
152.4 81 66
153.4 339 31
155.6 191 50
155.9 172 37
156.2 173 47
156.5 21 3
157.4 151 62
MW-01 BRL
Depth Azimuth Dip
ft deg deg
158.5 143 14
158.8 143 30
159.0 135 38
161.2 343 63
161.4 324 35
162.0 163 50
162.6 306 22
162.9 326 16
163.7 155 68
164.2 345 56
164.6 190 62
165.5 357 11
165.7 252 17
166.4 30 50
166.5 174 73
166.5 323 68
166.5 208 72
167.2 333 67
169.5 228 49
169.9 317 54
171.3 166 28
171.5 162 81
171.5 194 18
173.2 168 37
173.7 190 28
173.8 345 69
173.9 20 29
174.7 203 62
176.3 201 36
176.6 188 45
177.4 35 67
178.0 14 11
178.8 168 41
181.5 10 29
182.1 167 48
182.7 166 52
183.4 163 52
184.1 161 48
185.3 99 48
185.8 328 28
185.9 163 48
186.2 164 71
186.6 170 74
187.6 158 46
188.0 159 49
188.8 135 54
189.3 299 18
190.3 162 55
191.1 174 52
192.7 161 47
193.1 156 35
194.6 158 59
194.7 160 24
195.7 165 50
196.1 163 58
196.4 157 54
197.0 112 49
197.7 326 23
198.9 163 55
199.5 152 57
199.7 148 52
200.9 360 44
201.3 163 49
202.1 277 36
203.6 130 36
204.3 95 53
204.7 216 17
206.6 32 33
Major open fractures are highlighted and shown in bold and italics text. Minor open fractures are shown in bold. Closed fractures are shown in plain text.

Roxboro Steam Electric Plant, Semora, North Carolina
Fracture Data from Geophysical Logging
MW-01 BRL
Depth
Azimuth
Dip
ft
deg
deg
208.0
72
13
208.3
165
58
209.0
3
17
209.5
149
58
210.0
147
59
210.0
153
71
210.3
152
78
211.1
158
53
211.9
356
46
212.0
153
55
214.1
167
59
214.4
169
66
215.3
128
56
215.7
351
42
216.0
145
47
217.6
161
36
218.1
340
16
218.4
143
36
219.04
172
31
219.31
172
29
MW-108 BRL
Depth Azimuth Dip
ft deg deg
102.1 165 59
103.1 227 26
103.8 141 35
104.0 47 66
104.3 105 17
105.0 152 39
105.8 150 24
106.7 235 43
107.8 149 50
108.1 144 39
108.6 139 31
109.0 20 43
110.0 148 40
111.1 44 6
111.9 171 51
112.3 161 51
112.5 168 53
113.2 161 57
114.0 165 25
115.6 152 19
116.1 173 31
117.2 166 43
117.4 222 59
117.9 161 31
118.2 25 57
118.2 159 45
118.4 171 44
119.4 15 51
119.6 114 70
120.6 47 19
121.4 123 48
123.3 156 28
123.6 151 40
124.0 153 39
124.3 139 33
126.1 354 13
126.7 150 29
129.0 145 16
130.6 115 26
131.1 162 25
131.5 357 19
132.0 178 69
132.2 174 65
132.8 157 25
133.4 147 46
133.6 150 50
133.9 151 48
135.1 348 34
135.3 154 39
136.2 162 57
137.8 169 69
137.8 129 54
138.3 102 50
138.6 161 55
140.2 17 3
141.1 34 77
141.2 157 48
141.6 37 71
142.1 146 68
142.1 39 69
143.7 359 67
144.1 17 68
144.6 145 55
144.8 148 50
145.5 174 37
146.0 162 72
146.5 160 51
148.2 146 59
MW-108 BRL
Depth Azimuth
Dip
ft
deg
deg
148.5
150
59
149.3
75
57
149.7
81
65
151.1
176
77
151.3
165
42
151.3
14
23
151.5
161
36
151.8
66
55
154.5
19
55
154.7
83
62
157.2
154
79
157.3
7
58
157.5
165
56
159.6
186
36
160.6
104
16
161.1
161
21
161.8
165
59
166.1
151
34
166.8
22
12
167.1
161
39
167.5
347
30
167.5
148
75
168.5
340
39
170.3
352
11
170.7
17
79
171.5
34
36
173.8
191
72
174.3
356
43
175.1
267
51
177.0
164
21
178.1
9
39
178.5
26
41
178.8
176
50
179.8
349
32
180.9
153
16
181.8
193
50
182.1
200
36
182.4
209
37
183.0
185
65
185.6
192
65
187.6
146
49
189.2
135
25
189.4
148
35
189.9
156
30
190.4
166
58
190.5
168
70
192.1
196
58
193.1
140
40
193.9
213
24
195.1
251
49
195.5
39
72
197.4
63
51
198.7
174
31
198.8
157
68
MW-108 BRLL
Depth Azimuth Dip
ft deg deg
233.7 350 34
235.8 170 79
236.2 303 47
241.1 286 73
242.8 293 72
247.7 265 49
251.5 2 45
252.9 249 47
253.4 331 27
254.2 359 12
255.8 262 61
258.2 144 9
260.1 344 56
261.1 257 51
268.0 254 67
268.3 144 87
270.9 246 58
274.4 235 68
275.4 261 14
278.3 225 22
282.8 182 49
284.1 321 11
287.8 66 36
289.5 335 27
290.5 332 14
291.4 319 23
304.6 120 3
304.8 65 4
306.7 169 10
307.0 5 3
307.2 313 23
307.8 171 89
311.7 306 9
314.0 149 53
314.0 159 57
314.1 157 59
314.2 170 75
315.0 272 13
317.0 166 46
317.2 150 43
317.5 326 25
318.5 185 83
319.3 175 81
319.4 353 67
321.3 158 60
321.5 162 49
321.9 172 51
322.5 327 29
322.6 304 33
324.3 266 40
325.5 180 73
332.8 290 19
344.8 160 50
345.1 153 49
354.3 230 62
359.3 38 64
359.9 25 55
360.7 33 60
360.9 35 60
361.2 37 57
361.4 30 49
361.8 41 57
361.9 39 53
362.3 40 60
363.1 46 70
363.4 50 67
363.9 54 68
367.8 59 83
Major open fractures are highlighted and shown in bold and italics text. Minor open fractures are shown in bold. Closed fractures are shown in plain text.

Roxboro Steam Electric Plant, Semora, North Carolina
Fracture Data from Geophysical Logging
MW-108 BRILL
Depth
Azimuth
Dip
ft
deg
deg
368.9
253
77
369.5
36
77
372.7
33
8
374.8
309
33
376.5
309
37
377.8
140
52
381.1
329
9
381.2
317
66
381.2
354
15
387.9
176
80
391.5
292
17
393.3
152
76
393.6
151
74
393.8
153
66
397.9
312
34
398.2
269
20
399.2
156
84
409.1
302
40
410.7
327
16
412.7
191
13
415.6
152
81
415.9
154
82
416.3
164
83
418.4
155
80
418.9
309
19
420.0
153
73
420.5
155
72
421.0
153
67
424.7
234
18
425.1
159
62
425.4
11
11
428.1
289
14
MW-205 BRL
Depth Azimuth Dip
ft deg deg
117.6 167 55
119.0 175 60
119.2 167 58
120.5 132 55
120.8 139 57
121.1 150 70
122.3 158 55
122.5 152 48
123.0 157 41
123.9 146 46
124.2 155 49
125.2 154 49
126.7 153 71
126.9 161 72
128.8 169 67
129.7 168 54
133.1 164 58
133.7 147 57
133.8 146 60
134.0 149 60
134.7 154 51
135.3 145 44
135.7 155 70
136.6 157 51
137.0 158 56
138.0 160 54
138.2 165 43
138.8 153 66
139.2 153 38
141.2 162 57
143.0 162 52
143.1 159 54
143.9 160 63
144.4 162 56
144.9 171 55
145.2 161 61
148.1 161 66
148.7 159 61
149.5 164 57
152.9 163 64
154.7 162 54
155.0 160 44
155.3 158 53
155.6 159 52
156.1 145 43
157.4 155 47
158.0 153 49
158.3 156 49
159.2 149 49
159.5 150 39
160.4 165 47
160.9 296 59
161.1 11 33
161.4 157 43
162.0 133 51
162.5 147 45
162.8 156 53
163.0 155 42
163.3 133 2
163.4 151 48
164.5 155 50
165.1 150 47
167.3 165 47
167.7 93 7
168.1 158 51
168.2 164 51
169.0 146 37
170.9 30 12
MW-205 BRL
Depth Azimuth Dip
ft deg deg
171.8 147 39
172.0 151 39
MW-205 BRLL
Depth
Azimuth
Dip
ft
deg
deg
199.7
14
65
200.2
162
54
201.7
170
51
201.7
356
35
201.8
162
49
204.2
171
48
204.5
163
48
205.3
162
48
206.7
143
44
208.1
154
49
209.0
153
43
209.6
154
40
210.6
151
49
211.5
156
48
212.6
144
58
213.2
148
56
213.4
150
57
214.6
351
37
215.7
157
64
216.5
155
63
220.0
147
40
220.6
187
2
224.0
163
56
224.1
171
57
224.3
162
50
225.8
155
63
226.9
159
44
227.4
355
27
228.7
160
51
229.7
158
53
230.7
160
62
231.7
176
61
233.6
349
20
234.3
163
47
234.7
330
32
238.4
160
77
239.0
161
73
239.9
147
70
241.0
154
81
242.9
156
49
243.3
156
47
243.7
156
51
244.2
157
50
245.4
139
58
247.9
158
38
248.0
158
38
249.1
165
41
249.4
156
44
249.8
156
41
250.2
156
66
252.5
169
51
252.7
159
55
253.9
171
52
255.8
164
58
256.6
164
66
257.5
165
46
257.7
167
53
258.0
158
51
259.4
168
65
Major open fractures are highlighted and shown in bold and italics text. Minor open fractures are shown in bold. Closed fractures are shown in plain text.

Roxboro Steam Electric Plant, Semora, North Carolina
Fracture Data from Geophysical Logging
MW-205 BRLLL
Depth Azimuth Dip
ft deg deg
299.1 160 64
299.8 168 66
302.5 167 45
303.4 174 39
305.2 158 67
306.9 170 41
308.3 145 46
310.0 172 60
311.3 168 57
312.7 159 52
313.1 160 49
315.9 176 39
317.3 161 53
319.0 154 51
321.4 156 48
322.7 153 45
323.7 161 44
324.4 158 54
325.3 152 54
327.5 160 44
327.8 153 52
328.2 154 44
329.1 155 60
330.9 147 49
331.5 146 40
333.7 183 31
335.6 161 40
336.1 175 35
336.7 146 39
337.5 162 48
338.6 168 38
339.3 171 43
340.1 161 42
340.3 161 38
340.4 161 37
341.2 158 44
342.2 235 7
343.1 157 48
344.9 156 44
345.0 159 45
347.4 162 65
347.5 164 63
349.8 152 49
351.4 148 44
352.1 160 48
353.4 162 44
354.3 158 42
367.3 140 50
368.0 147 45
368.3 143 49
370.5 152 26
371.7 143 29
373.0 148 40
373.4 156 41
374.8 139 59
375.6 138 38
377.2 147 42
378.5 142 39
382.0 156 46
384.1 159 46
391.4 160 42
393.5 165 47
399.0 164 45
399.5 153 46
399.9 161 46
400.3 149 53
401.0 150 53
401.6 142 55
MW-205 BULL
Depth Azimuth
ft deg
Dip
deg
402.5
142
63
403.2
154
68
403.6
150
70
406.4
316
79
410.0
I55
56
411.5
188
48
412.3
139
25
412.4
123
28
412.7
132
44
417.2
127
49
417.6
319
32
419.6
154
48
419.7
169
50
421.9
131
18
423.0
123
50
423.4
146
35
425.3
144
39
427.1
132
38
428.9
148
47
429.7
168
10
430.5
189
44
431.1
168
32
431.9
147
30
432.6
134
23
433.8
146
31
433.9
151
34
434.6
119
35
434.9
112
31
437.4
141
36
438.0
145
32
441.1
126
36
443.6
154
42
444.2
152
38
MW-208 BRL
Depth Azimuth Dip
ft deg deg
101.1 180 70
101.7 242 59
102.0 75 52
102.6 149 35
103.4 9 11
103.5 162 44
103.7 180 36
105.0 158 44
105.2 163 46
106.2 182 42
107.0 157 24
108.8 161 37
109.0 169 48
109.4 175 46
110.2 165 70
110.3 17 17
110.5 174 31
111.4 156 48
112.3 164 63
114.3 153 62
114.8 169 58
115.0 144 56
115.1 144 77
115.2 149 69
116.3 152 71
116.3 150 74
116.4 152 51
119.0 186 82
119.7 178 63
121.1 137 28
122.2 188 66
122.8 172 56
123.1 185 35
123.7 149 59
124.0 156 70
126.1 160 53
127.3 152 65
128.4 161 42
128.6 143 78
128.8 128 38
129.4 298 23
129.5 116 45
129.9 138 50
130.3 122 47
130.4 314 39
133.2 117 60
134.9 128 72
135.2 132 23
135.3 140 17
137.3 137 67
138.3 163 38
139.8 170 46
141.0 160 49
141.3 159 44
141.7 144 51
142.1 153 38
142.7 148 51
145.0 145 61
145.1 149 75
145.4 149 76
148.3 150 67
149.2 154 57
150.4 146 69
150.8 155 60
151.7 141 52
151.8 141 53
152.3 147 51
152.5 153 54
MW-208 BRL
Depth
Azimuth
Dip
ft
deg
deg
153.0
147
56
155.4
152
41
155.8
146
51
156.8
15
77
157.4
9
79
157.8
5
76
158.8
348
12
158.9
4
8
161.6
19
83
162.3
16
82
166.4
168
23
166.7
350
8
167.9
158
50
Major open fractures are highlighted and shown in bold and italics text. Minor open fractures are shown in bold. Closed fractures are shown in plain text.

Roxboro Steam Electric Plant, Semora, North Carolina
Fracture Data from Geophysical Logging
MW-208 BRLL
Depth
Azimuth
Dip
ft
deg
deg
199.3
68
39
200.1
73
7
201.4
163
67
201.4
164
67
202.7
165
71
202.8
167
70
207.2
328
31
208.9
167
58
209.1
163
65
210.0
179
77
213.4
11
18
213.4
137
74
214.7
39
15
215.8
114
71
217.5
147
66
218.2
340
31
218.3
141
46
220.2
81
74
221.6
141
69
224.6
149
74
226.7
171
60
227.8
154
44
229.9
157
56
230.8
236
3
231.0
166
26
232.3
209
18
232.4
215
18
233.6
209
19
235.8
171
62
236.0
356
22
236.1
3
25
236.9
94
8
237.4
15
8
237.5
28
7
241.2
162
73
247.4
160
59
247.6
154
58
248.7
165
54
249.4
165
55
252.6
164
60
260.6
62
7
260.7
39
10
261.5
171
62
MW-208 BRLLL
Depth Azimuth Dip
ft deg deg
300.7 356 27
300.9 123 22
301.0 117 18
303.2 161 47
305.5 145 67
306.2 147 64
307.8 177 37
309.9 149 49
311.1 185 24
311.5 149 54
312.1 139 53
313.4 131 44
315.3 144 61
315.4 150 32
317.6 148 30
318.4 136 67
319.3 135 66
321.3 141 54
321.5 112 61
323.2 134 50
323.7 136 56
324.3 128 60
325.7 178 39
326.6 142 37
329.7 91 22
331.1 95 47
332.8 149 64
334.1 131 51
334.7 355 28
337.3 149 54
343.1 351 25
344.7 0 27
344.8 4 33
346.5 138 49
347.3 149 53
348.5 140 51
349.3 148 56
354.2 355 25
355.9 349 34
359.9 150 56
363.8 7 33
367.2 147 62
368.6 135 56
369.0 138 56
369.8 151 57
371.6 151 58
373.7 348 56
374.2 348 58
378.1 349 44
380.8 140 55
381.3 336 43
385.2 166 47
386.0 160 56
387.2 332 43
387.8 342 53
396.0 150 56
401.4 150 56
410.4 143 60
412.8 160 62
414.9 152 62
415.6 143 59
417.7 153 51
419.9 142 52
421.1 152 62
425.6 135 47
425.9 154 66
428.3 150 63
429.4 152 56
MW-208 BRLLL
Depth
Azimuth
Dip
ft
deg
deg
431.3
156
56
432.0
147
53
434.2
156
57
435.4
144
51
435.7
145
52
436.4
133
45
441.8
157
47
443.2
142
53
444.3
152
48
444.5
146
50
Major open fractures are highlighted and shown in bold and italics text. Minor open fractures are shown in bold. Closed fractures are shown in plain text.

APPENDIX 2

Depth Fractures Poles - Dip - Lower Hemisphere Great Circles - Strike - Lower Hemisphere
1ft:400ft 0 90 Schmidt Plot - LH - Type Schmidt Plot (Strike) - LH - Type
300
Well ID:
Schmidt Plot - LH -Type Schmidt Plot (Strike) - LH -Type
Depth: 296.26 [ft] to 423.43 [ft] ABMW-7 BRLL Depth: 296.39 [ft] to 423.56 [ft]
0° 0`
80 80--70 —
325
i
7o
o o-
50 50-��
I
0 0—_
30 � 30� is
20 20 °
\
10 10
350
0° 20-30-40-50-80-70-80 90° 270° 10 20 30
271 of -qo so so 7oVVV-so so°
I,
375
----------
180° 180'
Counts Dip[deg] Azi[deg] Counts Dip[deg] Strike[deg]
400
Mean 74 37.33 101.87 Mean 74 37.33 11.87
v 47 42.34 96.83 O 47 42.34 6.83
O 23 26.30 96.66 O 23 26.30 6.66
O 4 58.91 4 58.91 67.72
425
Major open fracture
Minor open fracture
Closed fracture
450
Page 1

Depth Fractures Poles - Dip - Lower Hemisphere Great Circles - Strike - Lower Hemisphere
1ft:400ft 0 90 Schmidt Plot - LH - Type Schmidt Plot (Strike) - LH - Type
100
Well ID:
Schmidt Plot - LH - Type Schmidt Plot (Strike) - LH - Type
MW-01 BRL
Depth: 101.44 [ft] to 233.73 [ft] Depth: 101.71 [ft] to 234.25 [ft]
0' Q..
125
80 ao- -
7'0 - \�
,- >o —
�
i 0 -,..- 80 ...,
50 _- , ,0,; 1
50
0 _- 0
O � 0 \�
r,
30
150
30
�
0 /
270' 10-20-30-40-50-60-70-80 90" 270 10-20f30 0 SOT6�0-70-80 90°
O
O
175
O_
200
i
180' 180°
Counts Dip[deg] Azi[deg] Counts Dip[deg] Strike[deg]
Mean 156 30.64 157.76 Mean 156 30.64 67.76
129 26.79 158.72 O 129 26.79 68.72
O 24 49.55 152.58 G 24 49.55 62.58
225
O 3 29.91 188.07 0 3 29.91 98.07
Major open fracture
250
0— Minor open fracture
—
At
Closed fracture
I —E I
Page 1

Depth
Fractures
Poles - Dip - Lower Hemisphere
Great Circles - Strike - Lower Hemisphere
1ft:400ft
0
90
Schmidt Plot - LH - Type
Schmidt Plot (Strike) - LH - Type
Schmidt Plot - LH - Type
Well ID: Schmidt Plot (Strike) - LH - Type
100
Depth: 91.80 [ft] to 212.40 [ft]
MW-108 BRLDepth: 91.80 [ft] to 212.01 [ft]
�
0°
ao
io
o°
so
70
0O0
0
50
50
125
0
- --- 0
30
20
310
20 j
270° 10-20-30-40-50 0-70-80
90° 270° 10-20-30-40 ,50-80 .70-80 90°
O
150
d
�A
175
Q180°
\
180'
Counts Dip[deg] Azi[deg]
Counts Dip[deg] Strike[deg]
Mean 122 36.28 157.00
Mean 122 36.28 67.00
200
116 36.64 157.85
O 116 36.64 67.85
O 4 29.75 141.82
O 4 29.75 51.82
0 2 17.05 117.87
0 2 17.05 27.87
Major open fracture
225
Minor open fracture
Closed fracture
Page 1

Depth Fractures Poles - Dip - Lower Hemisphere Great Circles - Strike - Lower Hemisphere
1ft:500ft 0 90 Schmidt Plot - LH - Type Schmidt Plot (Strike) - LH - Type
200
225
Well ID:
MW-108 BRILL
250
Schmidt Plot - LH - Type Schmidt Plot (Strike) - LH - Type
Depth: 205.18 [ft] to 442.85 [ft] Depth: 204.92 [ft] to 442.98 [ft]
0° 0°
2 7 5
Sao so _
70 _ io-- —
1
50
0 �' 0
300
i 3
320 20
io i 1�0
270° 10 20�30-40-50-60-70-80 90° 270`', 10-20-30-40-50-670-80 90°
�
325
O
0 A
\"
O
350�
�-
180° 180,
Counts Dip[deg] Azi[deg] Counts Dip[deg] Strike[deg]
375
Mean 100 11.25 308.08 Mean 100 11.25 218.08
81 35.44 347.94 O 81 35.44 257.94
O 18 18.64 262.91 0 18 18.64 172.91
400
0 1 20.10 268.66 0 1 20.10 178.66
Major open fracture
425
Minor open fracture
p Closed fracture
450
Page 1

Depth Fractures Poles - Dip - Lower Hemisphere Great Circles - Strike - Lower Hemisphere
1ft:200ft 0 90 Schmidt Plot - LH - Type Schmidt Plot (Strike) - LH - Type
100
110
Well ID:
MW-205 BRL
Schmidt Plot - LH - Type Schmidt Plot (Strike) - LH - Type
Depth: 105.81 [ft] to 179.00 [ft] Depth: 106.10 [ft] to 179.13 [ft]
120
; - --�— a,
80
70 70
0 0 ,
130
50 50
30 30
20 20
10 10
270° 10-20-30-40-50-80-70-80 90° 270° 10-20-30-40-50=8 0'. 80 90°
, ,
140
�.
A
150
160
180° 180'--
Counts Dip[deg] Azi[deg] Counts Dip[deg] Strike[deg]
Mean 70 51.04 155.98 Mean 70 51.04 65.98
61 52.33 155.82 61 52.33 65.82
170
O 8 45.14 157.37 O 8 45.14 67.37
0 1 2.43 132.81 0 1 2.43 42.81
Major open fracture
180
Minor open fracture
Closed fracture
Page 1

Depth Fractures Poles - Dip - Lower Hemisphere Great Circles - Strike - Lower Hemisphere
1ft:200ft 0 90 Schmidt Plot - LH - Type Schmidt Plot (Strike) - LH - Type
190
Well ID:
MW-205 BRILL
200
1
•
Schmidt Plot - LH - Type Schmidt Plot (Strike) - LH - Type
Depth: 190.26 [ft] to 269.86 [ft] Depth: 190.39 [ft] to 270.05 [ft]
0. 0.
210
80 so
io
7o
° 0-
I0
5 50
°
220
°
i 30 30 �
20 20
10 10
270' 10-20-30-40-50-50-70-80 90" 270' 10-20-30-40 50 ' 70s 80 90"
230
--
240
�
180° 180`
Counts Dip[deg] Azi[deg] Counts Dip[deg] Strike[deg]
250
O
\
Mean 59 51.80 158.88 Mean 59 51.80 68.88
45 52.74 158.26 45 52.74 68.26
O 13 48.95 161.60 0 13 48.95 71.60
260
O 1 26.86 355.33 0 1 26.86 265.33
iMajor open fracture
270
- Minor open fracture
Q Closed fracture
280
Page 1

Depth Fractures Poles - Dip - Lower Hemisphere Great Circles - Strike - Lower Hemisphere
1ft:400ft 0 90 Schmidt Plot - LH - Type Schmidt Plot (Strike) - LH - Type
300
Well
ID:
MW-205
BRLLL
Schmidt Plot - LH - Type
Schmidt Plot (Strike) - LH - Type
325
Depth: 290.04 [ft] to 458.22 [ft]
o°
Depth: 289.91 [ft] to 458.22 [ft]
o°
ao
70
ao �
70 -
so
350
0
10
0
5I0
I 1
30
30
20
20 I
0
10
270° 10-20-30-40-50-60-70-80 90°
270° 10-20-307740+15 0 OI 90°
375
�
r
400
180°-180'�
-
Counts Dip[deg] Azi[deg]
Counts Dip[deg] Strike[deg]
Mean 101 43.49 154.07
Mean 101 43.49 64.07
O 16 50.02 154.11
O 16 50.02 64.11
425
O 84 42.23 154.06
O 84 42.23 64.06
0 1 56.30 155.27
0 1 56.30 65.27
Major
open fracture
450
Minor
open fracture
Closed
fracture
Page 1

Depth Fractures Poles - Dip - Lower Hemisphere Great Circles - Strike - Lower Hemisphere
1ft:200ft 0 90 Schmidt Plot - LH - Type Schmidt Plot (Strike) - LH - Type
90
Well ID:
MW-208 BRL
100
Schmidt Plot - LH - Type Schmidt Plot (Strike) - LH - Type
110
Depth: 91.47 [ft] to 180.45 [ft] Depth: 91.47 [ft] to 180.51 [ft]
0° 0.
80
70 �70- �
0 Q 0
120
510
o � o
30> / 30
I
130
20 - 20
F - i
270° 10-20-30-40-50-60-70-80 90° 270° 10-20-30�050-60x70 80 90°
-
r
i
140
150
iaa° iaa°
Counts Dip[deg] Azi[deg] Counts Dip[deg] Strike[deg]
Mean 81 50.39 155.73 Mean 81 50.39 65.73
160
64 50.94 155.85 64 50.94 65.85
O 15 52.67 155.15 O 15 52.67 65.15
0 2 15.22 157.28 • 2 15.22 67.28
170
Major open fracture
180
40— Minor open fracture
0 Closed fracture
Page 1

Depth Fractures Poles - Dip - Lower Hemisphere Great Circles - Strike - Lower Hemisphere
1ft:200ft 0 90 Schmidt Plot - LH - Type Schmidt Plot (Strike) - LH - Type
190
Well ID:
MW-208 BRLL
200
Schmidt Plot - LH - Type Schmidt Plot (Strike) - LH - Type
Depth: 190.96 [ft] to 270.62 [ft] Depth: 190.96 [ft] to 270.81 [ft]
o° o
210
so o—=
/ 70 70 -
0 60
50 50
0 0
220
•3I0 3
10 I / 10
270° 10-20-30-40-50�0-70-80 90° 270° 10-207,30-40-500 70 86 90`
230
�I
240
180` 180"
Counts Dip[deg] Azi[deg] Counts Dip[deg] Strike[deg]
250
Mean 43 40.94 155.81 Mean 43 40.94 65.81
O 33 35.23 148.71 33 35.23 58.71
0 4 60.72 166.51 0 4 60.72 76.51
260
G 6 39.35 169.19 0 6 39.35 79.19
Major open fracture
270
0 Minor open fracture
tClosed fracture
Page 1

Depth Fractures Poles - Dip - Lower Hemisphere Great Circles - Strike - Lower Hemisphere
1ft:400ft 0 90 Schmidt Plot - LH - Type Schmidt Plot (Strike) - LH - Type
Well
ID:
300
MW-208
BRILL
Schmidt Plot - LH - Type
Schmidt Plot (Strike) - LH - Type
325
Depth: 288.27 [ft] to 458.22 [ft]
0`
Depth: 288.27 [ft] to 458.54 [ft]
0"
�80
0
0
0
0 A
350
5I0
�0
5I0
0 —
30r
- 30 -
20
10
20 �\ 'A
10 I
270° 10-20-30-40-50-60-70-80 90°
270' 10-20-3110-40-50-60-70-80 1 90`
I
375
6 7
O
,
400
180°
--------- --
Counts Dip[deg] Azi[deg]
Counts Dip[deg] Strike[deg]
Mean 78 50.37 144.86
Mean 78 50.37 54.86
425
61 51.07 144.96
O 61 51.07 54.96
O 17 47.77 144.63
0 17 47.77 54.63
Major
open fracture
450
�— Minor
open fracture
Closed
fracture
Page 1

Depth Fractures Poles - Dip - Lower Hemisphere Great Circles - Strike - Lower Hemisphere
1ft:800ft 0 90 Schmidt Plot - LH - Type Schmidt Plot (Strike) - LH - Type
100
ALL
WELLS
150
Schmidt Plot (Strike) - LH - Type
Schmidt Plot LH -Type
Depth: 76.44 [ft] to 458.54 [ft]
Depth: 76.44 [ft] to 469.82 [ft]
0°
01
->—I— ---
80
s o-
70--
200
70
6050
�\ \.
30
-30- \ .
_20_
1
250
10
270` 0-20-30-40-50-60-70-80 90°
270° 10 20--30-40-50 0-70-80 90°
I� I
O\
I
i
300
%\ \
180'
180'
Counts Dip[deg] Strike[deg]
Counts Dip[deg] Azi[deg]
350
Mean 884 43.04 64.53
Mean 884 43.04 154.53
721 43.66 64.35
C 721 43.66 154.35
0 144 40.08 64.45
O 144 40.08 154.45
19 38.10 73.64
0 19 38.10 163.64
400
Major
open fracture
450
Minor
open fracture
Closed
fracture
Page 1

Depth Fractures Rose Diagram - Dip Direction Rose Diagram - Dip
1ft:400ft 0 90 Azimuth - Absolute (Count) Dip Count - Absolute (Count)
Azimuth -Absolute (Count)
Depth: 310.24 [ft] to 408.01 [ft]
0°
325
Dip Count -Absolute (Count)
Depth: 310.24 [ft] to 408.01 [ft]
350
0°
6
Well ID:
ABMW-7 BRL
375
15
Counts: 74.00
Mean (3D): 37.33
180°
Min: 4.73
Components: Azimuth
Max: 88.20
400
Counts: 74.00
Mean (3D): 101.87
Min: 9.26
Max: 357.87
Page 1

Depth Fractures Rose Diagram - Dip Direction Rose Diagram - Dip
1ft: 500ft Azimuth - Absolute (Count) Dip Count - Absolute (Count)
100
Azimuth -Absolute (Count)
Depth: 107.74 [ft] to 230.12 [ft]
0°
125
—
Dip Count -Absolute (Count)
Depth: 107.74 [ft] to 230.12 [ft]
150
0°
02024A
Well ID:
175
32 MW-01 BRL
- -
Counts: 156.00
200
Mean (3D): 31.12
180'
Min: 2.82
Components: Azimuth
Max: 80.69
Counts: 156.00
225
Mean (3D): 156.98
Min: 2.02
Max: 359.52
Page 1

Depth Fractures Rose Diagram - Dip Direction Rose Diagram - Dip
1ft:500ft 0 90 Azimuth - Absolute (Count) Dip Count - Absolute (Count)
75
Azimuth -Absolute (Count)
Depth: 88.55 [ft] to 209.12 [ft]
100
0°
Dip Count -Absolute (Count)
Depth: 86.91 [ft] to 209.12 [ft]
0°
125
02024
Well ID:
gli_i(024
MW-108 BRL
150
Counts: 122.00
175
Mean (3D): 36.28
180'
Min: 2.96
Components: Azimuth
Max: 79.44
Counts: 122.00
200
Mean (3D): 157.00
Min: 6.59
Max: 358.55
225
Page 1

Depth Fractures Rose Diagram - Dip Direction Rose Diagram - Dip
1ft: 500ft
90 0 Azimuth - Absolute (Count) Dip Count - Absolute (Count)
225
250
Azimuth -Absolute (Count)
275
Depth: 228.28 [ft] to 440.14 [ft]
0°
1
Dip Count -Absolute (Count)
Depth: 228.20 [ft] to 440.14 [ft]
300
Oo
16
325
12
Well ID:
4MW-
108 BRILL
350
2-16
Counts: 100.00
Mean (3D): 11.25
180'
Min: 3.06
375
Components: Azimuth
Max: 89.26
Counts: 100.00
Mean (3D): 308.08
400
Min: 2.47
Max: 358.95
425
Page 1

Depth Fractures Rose Diagram - Dip Direction Rose Diagram - Dip
1ft:200ft 0 90 Azimuth - Absolute (Count) Dip Count - Absolute (Count)
110
120
Azimuth -Absolute (Count)
Depth: 113.85 [ft] to 179.07 [ft]
0°
130
3
Dip Count -Absolute (Count)
Depth: 113.78 [ft] to 179.33 [ft]
0°
140
Well ID:
z2E32
MW-205 BRL
150
- - � C2428
Counts: 70.00
Mean (3D): 51.04
160
180'
Min: 2.43
Components: Azimuth
Max: 72.40
Counts: 70.00
Mean (3D): 155.98
170
Min: 11.10
Max: 295.92
180
190
Page 1

Depth Fractures Rose Diagram - Dip Direction Rose Diagram - Dip
1ft:200ft 0 90 Azimuth - Absolute (Count) Dip Count - Absolute (Count)
180
190
200
Azimuth -Absolute (Count)
Depth: 182.22 [ft] to 271.00 [ft]
0°
210
Dip Count -Absolute (Count)
I
Depth: 182.22 [ft] to 271.26 [ft]
♦
0°
220
1
C2428
230
Well ID:
— - 6-20 MW-205 BRLL
Counts: 59.00
Mean (3D): 51.80
240
180'
Min: 2.02
Components: Azimuth
Max: 80.52
Counts: 59.00
Mean (3D): 158.88
250
Min: 14.33
Max: 355.85
260
270
Page 1

Depth Fractures Rose Diagram - Dip Direction Rose Diagram - Dip
1ft:500ft 0 90 Azimuth - Absolute (Count) Dip Count - Absolute (Count)
275
300
Azimuth -Absolute (Count)
Depth: 274.33 [ft] to 473.31 [ft]
325
0°
3
Dip Count -Absolute (Count)
Depth: 274.82 [ft] to 473.97 [ft]
0°
350
6
z282
Well ID:
375
MW-205 BRLLL
13:36
Counts: 101.00
400
Mean (3D): 43.49
180°
Min: 6.80
Components: Azimuth
Max: 78.94
Counts: 101.00
425
Mean (3D): 154.07
Min: 111.94
Max: 319.38
450
475
Page 1

Depth Fractures Rose Diagram - Dip Direction Rose Diagram - Dip
1ft:200ft 0 90 Azimuth - Absolute (Count) Dip Count - Absolute (Count)
90
100
110
Azimuth -Absolute (Count)
Depth: 94.36 [ft] to 178.48 [ft]
0°
120
Dip Count -Absolute (Count)
Depth: 94.49 [ft] to 178.54 [ft]
130
0°
1
620
4
I
140
-(-16 Well ID:
Counts: 81.00 MW-208 BRL
Mean (3D): 50.39
150
180°
Min: 8.19
Components: Azimuth
Max: 82.76
Counts: 81.00
Mean (3D): 155.73
160
Min: 3.55
Max: 350.27
170
180
Page 1

Depth Fractures Rose Diagram - Dip Direction Rose Diagram - Dip
1ft:200ft 0 90 Azimuth - Absolute (Count) Dip Count - Absolute (Count)
190
200
Azimuth -Absolute (Count)
Depth: 190.41 [ft] to 271.00 [ft]
210
0°
Dip Count -Absolute (Count)
Depth: 190.41 [ft] to 271.26 [ft]
220
6
0'
8
Ai
230
Well ID:
MW-208 BRLL
—1
240
Counts: 43.00
Mean (3D): 40.94
180'
Min: 2.57
Components: Azimuth
Max: 76.66
250
Counts: 43.00
Mean (3D): 155.81
Min: 2.95
Max: 355.72
260
270
Page 1

Depth Fractures Rose Diagram - Dip Direction Rose Diagram - Dip
1ft:500ft 0 90 Azimuth - Absolute (Count) Dip Count - Absolute (Count)
275
300
Azimuth -Absolute (Count)
Depth: 290.85 [ft] to 462.93 [ft]
325
0°
Dip Count -Absolute (Count)
Depth: 290.85 [ft] to 463.75 [ft]
350
0°
20241
V)
Well ID:
375
MW-208 BRLLL
400
- 024
Counts: 78.00
Mean (3D): 50.37
180°
Min: 18.44
Components: Azimuth
Max: 67.13
425
Counts: 78.00
Mean (3D): 144.86
Min: 0.47
Max: 355.99
450
Page 1

APPENDIX 3

Depth Caliper Fractures HPF - Ambient
1ft:120ft 5.5 in. 6 0 90 0 gpm 0.8
Caliper - from AN HPF - Pumping
5.5 in 7.5 0 gpm 0.8
322.5
325.0
327.5--i'
WELL ID:
ABMW-07 BRL
Bottom of Casing
330.0
332.5
335.0
337.5
340.0
342.5
345.0
347.5
350.0
352.5
355.0
357.5
360.0
362.5
365.0
Major open fracture
Minor open fracture
Closed fracture
367.5
370.0
372.5
375.0
377.5
380.0
382.5
385.0
387.5
390.0
392.5
395.0
397.5
Page 1

Depth Caliper Fractures HPF Pumping
1ft:100ft 6 in. 6.5 0 90 0 gpm 0.5
Caliper - from AN HPF Ambient
6 in 7 0 gpm 0.5
102.5
105.0
107.5
WELL ID:
MW-01 BRL
110.0
Bottom of Casing
112.5
115.0
117.5
120.0
122.5
Major open fracture
�-- Minor open fracture
Closed fracture
125.0
40
127.5
130.0
132.5
135.0
137.5
140.0
1 IL
142.5
145.0
147.5
ITT
t
150.0
152.5
155.0
157.5
160.0
162.5
165.0
167.5
170.0
172.5
Page 1

177.5
180.0
182.5
185.0
187.5
190.0
192.5
195.0
197.5
200.0
202.5
205.0
207.5
210.0
212.5
215.0
217.5
Page 2

Depth Caliper Fractures HPF Ambient
1ft:100ft 6 in. 6.5 0 90 -0.02 gpm 0.5
Caliper - from AN HPF Pumping
6 in 7 -0.02 gpm 0.5
95.0
WELL ID:
MW-108 BRL
100.0
Bottom of CasinAh
105.0
110.0
115.0
Major open fracture
120.0
Minor open fracture
Closed fracture
125.0
v
I
40
130.0
135.0
Q40
140.0
Q
145.0
Q
150.0
155.0
160.0
Q
Page 1

1
170.0
175.0
180.0
Q
185.0
190.0
Q7
R;�
195.0
Page 2

Depth Caliper Fractures HPF - Ambient
1ft:100ft 5.5 in. 6 0 90 -0.02 gpm 0.5
Caliper - from AN HPF - Pumping
5.5 in 7 -0.02 gpm 0.5
222.5
WELL ID:
MW-108 Bli
225.0
227.5
Bottom of Casing
230.0
232.5
235.0
237.5
240.0
242.5
245.0
247.5AL
Major open fracture
�- Minor open fracture
Closed fracture
250.0
252.5
255.0
257.5
260.0
262.5
265.0
267.5
270.0
272.5
275.0
277.5
280.0
282.5
285.0
287.5
lid
290.0
292.5
Page 1

297.5
300.0
302.5
305.0
307.5
310.0
312.5
315.0
317.5
320.0
322.5
325.0
327.5
330.0
332.5
335.0
337.5
340.0
342.5
345.0
347.5
350.0
352.5
355.0
357.5
360.0
362.5
365.0
367.5
370.0
372.5
375.0
Page 2

377.5
380.0
382.5
385.0
387.5
390.0
392.5
395.0
397.5
400.0
402.5
405.0
407.5
410.0
412.5
415.0
417.5
420.0
422.5
425.0
427.5
Page 3

Depth Caliper Fractures HPF - Ambient
1ft:100ft 5.5 in. 6 0 90 -0.02 gpm 0.5
Caliper - from AN HPF - Pumping
5.5 in 7 -0.02 gpm 0.5
107.5
110.0
Well ID:
MW - 205 BRL
41
112.5
115.0
Bottom of Casing
117.5
120.0
122.5
125.0
127.5
130.0
132.5
135.0
Major open fracture
Minor open fracture
Closed fracture
137.5
140.0
142.5
145.0
147.5
150.0
152.5
155.0
157.5
160.0
162.5
165.0
167.5
170.0
172.5
Page 1

Depth Caliper Fractures HPF - Ambient
1ft:100ft 5.2 in. 5.6 0 90 -0.02 gpm 0.5
Caliper - from AN HPF - Pumping
5.5 in 7 -0.02 gpm 0.5
192.5
195.0
Well ID:
MW - 205 BRLL
197.5
Bottom of Casing
200.0
202.5
205.0
207.5
210.0
212.5
Major open fracture
• Minor open fracture
Closed fracture
215.0
217.5
220.0
222.5
225.0
227.5
230.0
232.5
235.0
237.5
240.0
242.5
245.0
247.5
250.0
252.5
255.0
257.5
260.0
Page 1

Depth Caliper Fractures HPF - Ambient
1ft:100ft 5.5 in. 6 0 90 -0.02 gpm 0.1
Caliper - from AN HPF - Pumping
5.5 in 7 -0.02 gpm 0.1
292.5
295.0
297.5
WELL ID:
MW-205 BRLLL
Bottom of Casing
300.0
302.5
305.0
307.5
Major open fracture
Minor open fracture
Closed fracture
1 17
1
1
310.0
312.5
315.0
317.5
320.0
40
322.5
325.0
327.5
330.0
40
332.5
335.0
337.5
340.0
342.5
345.0
347.5
350.0
352.5
355.0
357.5
360.0
41
362.5
Page 1

367.5
370.0
372.5
375.0
377.5
380.0
382.5
385.0
387.5
390.0
392.5
395.0
397.5
400.0
402.5
405.0
407.5
410.0
412.5
415.0
417.5
420.0
422.5
425.0
427.5
430.0
432.5
435.0
437.5
440.0
442.5
445.0
Page 2

Depth Caliper Fractures HPF - Ambient
1ft:120ft 5.8 in. 6.4 0 90 -0.02 gpm 0.4
Caliper from ATV HPF - Pumping
6 in 7 -0.02 gpm 0.4
92.5
95.0
WELL ID:
MW-208 BRL
97.5
Bottom of Casing
100.0
102.5
105.0
107.5
110.0
112.5
115.0
117.5
or
i Major open fracture
Minor open fracture
Closed fracture
120.0
122.5
125.0
127.5
130.0
132.5
135.0
137.5
140.0
142.5
145.0
41
147.5
150.0
152.5
155.0
157.5
160.0
162.5
165.0
167.5
Page 1

Depth Caliper Fractures HPF - Ambient
1ft:100ft 5.5 in. 6 0 90 -0.02 gpm 0.8
Caliper - from AN HPF- Pumping
5.5 in 7 -0.02 gpm 0.8
-192.5-4
195.0
197.5
4
1
WELL ID:
MW-208 BRILL
Bottom of Casing
200.0
202.5
205.0
207.5
210.0
212.5
215.0
217.5
220.0
Major open fracture
Minor open fracture
Closed fracture
222.5
225.0
-4
t
227.5
230.0
232.5
235.0
237.5
240.0
242.5
245.0
247.5
250.0
252.5
255.0
257.5
260.0
Page 1

Depth Caliper Fractures HPF - Ambient
1ft:105ft 5.5 in. 6 0 90 -0.02 gpm 0.2
Caliper - from AN HPF - Pumping
5.5 in 7 -0.02 gpm 0.2
292.5
295.0
WELL ID:
MW-208 BRLLL
Bottom of Casing
297.5
300.0
302.5
305.0
307.5
310.0
Major open fracture
40_ Minor open fracture
Closed fracture
312.5
315.0
7V
317.5
320.0
322.5
325.0
327.5
330.0
332.5
335.0
337.5
340.0
342.5
345.0
347.5
350.0
352.5
355.0
357.5
360.0
362.5
365.0
367.5
Page 1

370.0
372.5
375.0
377.5
380.0
382.5
385.0
387.5
390.0
392.5
395.0
397.5
400.0
402.5
405.0
407.5
410.0
412.5
415.0
417.5
420.0
422.5
425.0
427.5
430.0
432.5
435.0
437.5
440.0
442.5
445.0
447.5
Page 2

APPENDIX 4

NEES
NONE
MIT
r lip�,
k;
F
•r , SEEN
z!,X
Af
3
1f� _

.NONE
IR
'NONE3 4
_ NONE
} MEMO
w-- NONE
n
NONE
NONE
NONE
F LL END,

lE�
_E€r

INNIMMON
INNIMEMI
Emomil [Pliq
An
NONE 13".1
IME11=1[i WRI
INNIMMEN
1"i
IMMIMMMI
imml
immil
IMMIMMOR
immi 101
immi ol
immi ol
imml a@
immillemmkill
immi
I
immi
IMMILEMN'll,
immi .0211,
IMMILI�011tq.11

OL
! I I - 1 7 -- F,. %, �
A7
7
1.
;-Wmnr

. Adio;.-_"ig
9;gdo io v
g
" 4:10Vim: R
;&-t-02
rm -W

NIM
MOM"
0001
mlmll�iml
F—MA
I'MIMMIMEN
mgmm�llmml
I�Illmmm
I�Immmm
mlmm�llmml
it
m no I I I I
Ills'
1. IN
A
was I I i N VA, 3 CID
Emillmlsoffil

Rk,
m-'Fat
�WRk,- i
IM

Mollaffilltl
MI
-194.5
MR,
195.0
00WRISIMMINIMINIA
Mll
195.5
��.
��
�1
�■
� III
■■I
..,
�LLk
mommi
F MIME
q�_
�..•7 7
i'�i -'n.•
n
MEN
-197.0-,
197.5
198.5
Q
�
'134
Mcm,
MA
Elm
• ,
S -
�
_
e
dowpiwAs
1995
• • •
■■■■■■■■NO■■
■1-■■■■I
Page 7

rem 2rm
RK
— i�,

NEW
jp
RMUK,410',
L �,v
N, i
-s
.-,i d
ARE
SIR
ice+
Ram,
-
7�
ARM
"If MIN.
5 o

I 10iKiqffi
�a-a-
Mm
N 'i"
■

MEN
M--- A
m _
_
m�
J -
� xy � �f �•
_

4 ilk

TWO e- R. l , _�: m.
� t
X;.-
504-11R,pomm
m6mmup
z
Wo!]
ACI
01MR-11 i!`
t -
�. • �f
�rtr. i f -•1,.
ow
Kil"N"I'd
-,tee.
lioa-s Ej
MEMO
.,NOME
lefflil W*Mv � Wo_ 11.
am
Y
W
■ �J6�. JCL
; z W ; NONE
J rr ____

fir_ J' i
i

..�
;\�<}
::¥.
•��■::�
-
-
-�®kt
�
-
\W \^
\\

MMIMIMINNIM11.
MMIMMINNIER
Mol ilmliml
MMIKAMIEN-101
=0101=110101
mmillmilmims
MMIMMINNION
MEIM=lmmlml
MEIE=lmmlml
MMIMMINNION
mmimmlimmimp,
MEIMMAINsimm
Mol MISMIEN
MMIEWMIMILIMMI
Imimilm-limp-
IMIMINIMIMPA
mmimimismilml
MMIMI=Iqh, MIMPA
mml mml Eml i�

on V Aw" owl

- N�z/2./ �
-
��

..........
77

)3��
MRr t
i
L Jai➢' - - :'t_ , � -
�
- 5 -.
M6

"ff
Az-<.
�l _
�l _

a
r
�L4
F
y S ,
y�J14� :
1

�- Ali„ _«�''�.• _
MW
7-�,3
�i

Mwi
V �
r
_
1;R

#�#
31""O&SH
�"
rt
L
F"

3: �E
.2115f -MI-QWZ�
re
{
r'"wAr"IM
man' -
0!0001 >- -

31
E T{
re. ON
k-
t b
WK
-U sEy a
lip
,emv.s.
~
-
-
M.Mg,
-

.f- �
P.
_ 1 x'�i
®-
�
�. ` � �
rC:
���:
-�--`
f_r
�- -
� � �
-
,�-.F.
~F�7'_
T ��- � _

-ice=- •-.. •4� -� -
x
�•t
-

7
%

.. 3'- P-t a z _ _

mr
_ry ,
- s
RN,
y
--Zip
�r
.� 040--
T mul-m-
MEN,
�-A

PAC
mff
o
� WS
moms®i 4
-WOREP,
rm
Wi V `

- W-
-14,
e.
r_77- - -

. MEN
SEES
MEN
loom-
�
d
- 260.5_
11
MEN
MOM
LIEFA
261.5
..._`:
--
mom
ELMOM
mom
Page 5

0
i
d --

7r-
w

a.IP
a L
Ma P.—
M.
-
In

- re

,e.

AN
M
i��.7
NNE-
07
,
Ri MIN.-

Solutions
821 Livingston Court, Suite E
Marietta, GA 30067
P 770.980.1002
Geophysical Logging Report
MW — 38 BR
Roxboro Steam Electric Plant, Semora, North Carolina
Performed for:
SynTerra
October 11, 2019
problem solved

Geophysical Logging Report, MW — 38 BR,
Roxboro Steam Electric Plant, Semora, North Carolina
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
SignaturePage..................................................................................................................................ii
ExecutiveSummary.........................................................................................................................iii
1.0 Introduction........................................................................................................................... 1
2.0 Equipment and Methodology................................................................................................ 1
2.1 Acoustic Televiewer...................................................................................................... 1
2.2 Optical Televiewer........................................................................................................ 2
2.3 3-Arm Caliper................................................................................................................ 2
2.4 Fluid Temperature........................................................................................................ 2
2.5 Fluid Conductivity......................................................................................................... 2
2.6 Single Point Resistance(SPR)........................................................................................ 3
2.7 Spontaneous Potential (SP).......................................................................................... 3
2.8 Heat Pulse Flowmeter(HPF)......................................................................................... 3
3.0 Field Procedures.................................................................................................................... 3
4.0 Data Processing and Results.................................................................................................. 5
Appendices
Appendix 1
Appendix 2
Appendix 3
Appendix 4
Fracture Summary Table
Schmidt Stereonets and Rose Diagrams
Heat Pulse Flowmeter Logs and Fracture Characteristics
Geophysical Logs
problem solved

Geophysical Logging Report, MW — 38 BR October 11, 2019
Roxboro Steam Electric Plant, Semora, North Carolina (synt00118) Page ii
SIGNATURE PAGE
This report, entitled "Geophysical Logging Report, MW — 38 BR, Roxboro Steam Electric Plant, Semora,
North Carolina" has been prepared for SynTerra located in Greenville, South Carolina. It has been prepared
under the supervision of Mr. Jorgen Bergstrom at the request of and the exclusive use of SynTerra. This
report has been prepared in accordance with accepted quality control practices and has been reviewed by
the undersigned.
GEL Solutions. LLC
A Member of the GEL Group, Inc.
Jorgen Bergstrom, P.Gp.
Senior Geophysicist
Nicholas Rebman
Geophysical Specialist
October 11, 2019
Date
problem solved

Geophysical Logging Report, MW — 38 BR October 11, 2019
Roxboro Steam Electric Plant, Semora, North Carolina (synt00118) Page iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
GEL Solutions performed geophysical borehole logging services at one boring located at Roxboro Steam
Electric Plant in Semora, North Carolina. The field investigation was performed between October 3, 2019 and
October 4, 2019 during one mobilization. This investigation was conducted to aid SynTerra in evaluating
potential pathways for groundwater migration through fractured bedrock at the site. The geophysical logs
consisted of acoustic televiewer, optical televiewer, caliper, fluid conductivity, fluid temperature, single point
resistance (SPR), spontaneous potential (SP), and heat pulse flowmeter (HPF).
The logging data was analyzed to determine the location and orientation of fractures and other features.
In addition to these data sets, synthetic caliper logs were calculated from the acoustic televiewer travel time
data to aid in the interpretation. Dip and azimuth (dip direction) were calculated for each detected fracture
based on the televiewer dataset. HPF data was analyzed to detect water producing fractures.
problem solved

Geophysical Logging Report, MW — 38 BR October 11, 2019
Roxboro Steam Electric Plant, Semora, North Carolina (synt00118) Page 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
GEL Solutions performed geophysical borehole logging services in one boring located at Roxboro Steam
Electric Plant in Semora, North Carolina. The geophysical logs consisted of acoustic and optical televiewer, 3-
arm caliper, fluid conductivity, fluid temperature, single point resistance (SPR), spontaneous potential (SP), and
heat pulse flowmeter (HPF). The field investigation was performed between October 3, 2019 and October 4,
2019. The logging data was analyzed to determine the location and orientation of fractures and other features.
In addition to these data sets, synthetic caliper logs were calculated from the acoustic televiewer travel time
data to aid in the interpretation.
2.0 EQUIPMENT AND METHODOLOGY
The information below is an overview of the geophysical methodologies used for this investigation. The
intent of this overview is to give the reader a better understanding of each method, and background information
as to what is actually measured, the resolution of the method, and the limitations imposed by site -specific
subsurface conditions.
2.1 Acoustic Televiewer
Acoustic televiewer (ATV) logging produces a high resolution, magnetically oriented digital image of the
borehole wall to map the location and orientation of intersecting fractures, foliations, and lithologic contacts.
The Acoustic televiewer tool emits a rotating, narrow, acoustic beam that is reflected off the borehole wall.
The travel time and amplitude of the reflected wave are recorded by the tool and used to create borehole
images. Both datasets are useful for identifying the location and orientation of fractures. The amplitude of the
reflected signal will decrease at the location of fractures and the travel time will increase. The travel time data
can also be used for developing a high resolution caliper log for a more comprehensive analysis of fractures.
Acoustic televiewers can only be used in fluid filled boreholes. However, the fluid does not have to be optically
clear for the method to work.
When operating the ATV, a "time window" is set based on the borehole diameter. The time window is
the time interval in which the ATV instrument searches for an echo from the borehole wall. For smaller
increases in borehole diameter around fractures and sections of weaker rock, the ATV typically records an
accurate borehole diameter (correlates well with three -arm caliper data). However, if borehole openings are
problem solved

Geophysical Logging Report, MW — 38 BR October 11, 2019
Roxboro Steam Electric Plant, Semora, North Carolina (synt00118) Page 2
much larger than the borehole diameter, the echo from the borehole wall may fall outside the time window, or
be too weak to be detected. In these situations, borehole diameters recorded with ATV may be inaccurate.
Since ATV only records the reflection from the borehole wall, the data cannot be used to determine how far a
fracture extends from the borehole. The acoustic televiewer has a vertical resolution of 2 millimeters.
2.2 Optical Televiewer
Optical televiewer (OTV) logging is used to record and digitize a 360-degree color image of the borehole
wall. Planar features such as fractures, foliation, and lithologic contacts can be identified directly on the
images. The tool is magnetically oriented in order to determine the orientation of features. Televiewers have a
vertical resolution of 2mm, which is significantly better than many other geophysical tools. As a result, it is able
to see features other tools cannot resolve. Optical images can be collected above or below the water surface,
provided the water is sufficiently clear for viewing the borehole wall.
2.3 3-Arm Caliper
Caliper logging is used to generate a profile of the borehole diameter with depth. The tool measures the
borehole diameter using three spring -loaded arms. Narrow enlargements in the borehole diameter can, in
most cases, be attributed to fractures. Caliper logging can be conducted above and below the water surface.
2.4 Fluid Temperature
Fluid temperature logging is used to identify where water enters or exits the borehole. In the absence of
fluid flow, a gradual increase on water temperature of approximately 1°F per 100 feet of depth is expected.
Rapid changes in the fluid temperature indicate water -producing or water -receiving zones. Little or no
temperature gradient indicates intervals of vertical flow.
2.5 Fluid Conductivity
Fluid conductivity logging is used to measure the electrical conductivity of the fluid in the borehole.
Variations in fluid conductivity can be contributed to concentration variations of dissolved solids. These
differences can occur when sources of water have contrasting chemistry and have come from different
transmissive zones. Fluid temperature and conductivity are measured concurrently using the same logging
tool.
problem solved

Geophysical Logging Report, MW — 38 BR October 11, 2019
Roxboro Steam Electric Plant, Semora, North Carolina (synt00118) Page 3
2.6 Single Point Resistance (SPR)
Single point resistance logging involves passing an alternate current between a surface electrode and a
probe electrode and measuring the voltage difference created by the current. SPR is then calculated using
Ohm's law. SPR is the sum of cable resistance, and the resistance based on the composition of the medium,
the cross sectional area and length of the path through the medium. Therefore, the single point resistance log
does not provide quantitative data. In general, SPR increases with increasing grain size and decreases with
increasing borehole diameter, fracture density, and the concentration of dissolved solids in the water. Single -
point resistance logs are useful in the determination of lithology, water quality, and location of fracture zones
2.7 Spontaneous Potential (SP)
SP logging is conducted to measure naturally occurring voltage differences along a borehole. The
method has been found useful for delineating sandstone/shale layering and other boundaries between
permeable and impermeable beds. The measurements are made with reference to an electrode at ground
level. Therefore, SP logging does not provide quantitative data.
2.8 Heat Pulse Flowmeter (HPF)
HPF logging measures the direction and rate of vertical fluid flow in a borehole by heating up a small
volume of water and monitoring temperature variations as the heated water moves with the fluid flow in the
borehole. Under ambient conditions, differences in hydraulic head between two transmissive fractures
produce vertical flow in the borehole. However, if the hydraulic head is the same, no flow will occur under
ambient conditions. Therefore, HPF logging is also conducted under low -rate pumping conditions. HPF
readings are point readings at the location of fractures. The location and number of these readings can be
determined after analyzing the other geophysical logs for fractures. HPF can be used for measuring vertical
flows in the borehole between 0.005 gallons per minute (gpm) and approximately 1.5 gpm. In HPF data,
upward flow is shown as positive flow, and downward flow is shown as negative flow.
3.0 FIELD PROCEDURES
All GEL Solutions activities on -site were supervised by a senior geophysicist. For this investigation, GEL
Solutions used a Mount Sopris Matrix logging system. Pumping tests during HPF testing were conducted using
a Grundfos Redi-Flow-2 water pump with variable speed control box and an in -situ Mini -Troll pressure
transducer with logging capabilities. The pump is placed in the casing above the open hole section of the
problem solved

Geophysical Logging Report, MW — 38 BR October 11, 2019
Roxboro Steam Electric Plant, Semora, North Carolina (synt00118) Page 4
borehole. HPF logging under pumping conditions commenced after the borehole water level had stabilized.
HPF logging was conducted at every 10 feet throughout the logging intervals under ambient and pumping
conditions. More closely spaced readings were then conducted at sections with abrupt changes in flow. A
summary of the configuration of the boreholes, pumping rates, and water levels is provided below. All depth
measurements are referenced from the ground surface. All borings are surface cased and open hole below the
casing.
Logging Configuration Summary
Well ID:
MW —38 BR
Casing material:
PVC
Casing diameter (in):
6.0
Open hole (ft):
55-600
Open hole diameter (in):
6.0
Pumping rate (gpm):
<0.1
Pump depth (ft):
51
Water level before pumping (ft):
21.2
Water level at equilibrium (ft):
45.4
4.0 DATA PROCESSING AND RESULTS
The logs were analyzed for fractures and other features using WellCAD software, manufactured by
Advanced Logic Technology. The travel time data from the acoustic televiewer log was used to develop a
maximum caliper log. Fractures were interpreted through a complete data analysis of all logs. Dip and azimuth
(dip direction) were calculated for each detected fracture. The fracture data was corrected from apparent to
true dip and azimuth using deviation logs included with the televiewer dataset, and from magnetic north to
true north by rotating the fracture azimuths 9.0° counterclockwise. Magnetic north is 9.0° west of true north at
the site (according to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). The reported azimuth or dip
direction is measured clockwise from true north (Figure 1). A fracture summary table including fracture
attributes is provided in Appendix 1. Dominating water producing fractures based on flow logging or other
evidence are highlighted and shown in bold and italics text. Minor water producing fractures based on flow
logging are shown in bold.
problem solved

Geophysical Logging Report, MW — 38 BR October 11, 2019
Roxboro Steam Electric Plant, Semora, North Carolina (synt00118) Page 5
Schmidt stereonets (lower hemisphere) with fracture characteristics and fracture rose diagrams are
presented on Appendix 2. HPF logs and fracture characteristics are shown on Appendix 3. All logs are
presented on Appendix 4. All depths are referenced from ground surface.
vest
! sast
Relations hefinen Do and A#&wh angle
Figure 1: Explanation of azimuth and dip for fractures
problem solved

Appendix 1

Roxboro Steam Electric Plant, Semora, North Carolina
Fracture Data From Geophysical Logging
MW-38BR
Depth
Azimuth
Dip
ft
deg
deg
56.5
151
34
56.9
164
50
57.3
145
57
59.6
27
62
63.2
122
67
66.0
25
57
68.0
135
67
68.5
143
61
70.1
153
64
73.2
159
67
75.5
169
75
76.8
160
65
77.5
156
71
79.1
133
56
82.5
124
45
90.6
139
70
91.0
139
70
93.8
160
65
95.1
151
59
98.4
171
35
99.8
144
62
101.1
317
67
104.2
126
58
107.1
74
55
107.6
137
55
109.2
139
56
111.9
204
82
112.1
8
58
113.3
302
82
118.4
131
52
118.8
130
43
119.3
129
45
120.2
167
54
123.2
152
26
123.7
93
44
124.6
129
45
125.4
115
48
127.4
331
33
127.4
78
63
MW-38BR
Depth
Azimuth
Dip
ft
deg
deg
129.0
99
73
131.0
138
31
131.5
131
34
132.8
124
45
137.0
218
84
139.8
93
87
141.8
199
77
153.7
172
53
154.6
177
55
157.6
161
42
163.2
8
49
168.3
153
45
171.7
188
25
174.3
165
69
178.5
158
61
179.9
319
35
183.6
152
74
189.2
188
70
193.5
3
76
196.1
3
86
197.4
15
84
201.0
152
54
203.1
130
49
206.1
190
88
211.1
184
87
222.8
12
84
224.2
142
58
231.2
141
68
234.4
263
58
235.4
194
69
240.1
28
79
241.1
8
84
241.4
214
81
242.7
198
75
249.0
146
4
249.0
304
21
255.9
133
61
257.3
119
62
257.7
147
54
MW - 38 BR
Depth
Azimuth
Dip
ft
deg
deg
267.1
283
38
276.6
156
58
284.2
184
62
284.5
170
57
290.5
143
51
291.3
21
40
292.9
35
74
294.5
40
64
301.0
158
63
313.8
25
88
326.3
28
86
342.9
35
82
345.9
135
52
347.9
140
50
348.0
119
84
353.2
38
78
356.8
30
80
357.6
39
70
360.6
35
83
372.2
152
66
381.0
319
47
381.2
204
22
383.8
37
80
386.4
162
44
388.3
135
39
390.0
137
36
390.4
146
32
400.5
127
46
402.8
185
18
403.9
135
42
404.2
206
66
404.4
127
40
426.6
40
84
436.0
164
46
436.6
174
52
440.3
135
27
441.2
107
31
449.8
149
38
453.2
27
66
Major open fractures are highlighted and shown in bold, italics text. Minor open fractures are shown in bold. Closed fractures are shown in
plain text

Roxboro Steam Electric Plant, Semora, North Carolina
Fracture Data From Geophysical Logging
MW-38BR
Depth Azimuth Dip
ft
deg
deg
454.5
30
82
456.5
28
85
459.7
310
35
464.3
115
43
478.0
133
50
482.2
150
37
482.5
144
38
483.0
138
38
484.1
134
40
491.6
147
51
499.8
152
38
499.9
139
39
504.6
132
44
505.6
153
47
507.6
214
76
509.6
218
80
522.2
143
63
537.7
162
37
549.8
113
39
549.8
170
65
558.1
163
62
559.2
146
60
561.7
148
65
564.0
140
58
566.4
157
60
566.8
36
56
569.5
29
68
Major open fractures are highlighted and shown in bold, italics text. Minor open fractures are shown in bold. Closed fractures are shown in
plain text

Appendix 2

Depth Fractures Poles - Dip - Lower Hemisphere Great Circles - Strike - Lower Hemisphere
1 ft:1000ft 0 90 Schmidt Plot - LH - Type Schmidt Plot (Strike) - LH - Type
50
Well
ID:
MW -
38 BR
100
150
Schmidt Plot - LH - Type
Schmidt Plot (Strike) - LH - Type
Depth: 34.78 [ft] to 601.38 [ft]
Depth: 34.78 [ft] to 602.03 [ft]
200
0.
0.
80
0 710
80
....' 10
0 l0
60
M
I _i
250
50
0
50
40
30
20D
30/
/ 20
300
270° 10-20-30-40-50-60-70-8 90'
270° 10-20-30-40,/6" 80-70-8 90'
350
-
400
180*
180,
450
500
Major
open fracture
550
0Minor
open fracture
Closed
fracture
600
Page 1

Depth Fractures Rose Diagram - Dip Direction Rose Diagram - Dip
1ft: 1000ft 0 90 Azimuth -Absolute (Count) Dip Count -Absolute (Count)
50
100
150
Azimuth - Absolute (Count)
200
Depth: 39.04 [ft] to 598.75 [ft]
00
Dip Count - Absolute (Count)
Depth: 39.04 [ft] to 599.41 [ft]
250
300
00
350
0
Counts: 144.00 Well ID:
1800
Mean (3D): 53.62 MW - 38 BR
400
Components: Azimuth
Min: 3.71
Counts: 144.00
Max: 88.33
Mean (3D): 154.59
450
Min: 2.65
Max: 330.72
500
550
600
Page 1

Appendix 3

Depth Caliper Fractures HPF Pumping
1ft:500ft 5 in 7 0 90 -0.01 Gal./min. 0.02
Caliper from ATV HPF Ambient
5 in 7 -0.01 Gal./min. 0.02
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
55.0
WELL ID:
MW-38 BR
Bottom of Casing
60.0
65.0
70.0
75.0
80.0
85.0
It
90.0
95.0
100.0
105.0
110.0
115.0
120.0
125.0
130.0
135.0
140.0
145.0
150.0
155.0
160.0
165.0
170.0
175.0
180.0
101
Major open fracture
�- Minor open fracture
Closed fracture
185.0
190.0
195.0
200.0
205.0
210.0
215.0
220.0
225.0
230.0
235.0
240.0
245.0
250.0
255.0
260.0
265.0
270.0
275.0
280.0
285.0
290.0
295.0
300.0
305.0
310.0
315.0
320.0
325.0
330.0
335.0
340.0
345.0
350.0
355.0
360.0
365.0
370.0
375.0
380.0
385.0
390.0
395.0
Page 1

405.0
410.0
415.0
420.0
425.0
430.0
435.0
440.0
445.0
450.0
455.0
460.0
465.0
470.0
475.0
480.0
485.0
490.0
495.0
500.0
505.0
510.0
515.0
520.0
525.0
530.0
535.0
540.0
545.0
550.0
555.0
560.0
565.0
570.0
575.0
580.0
585.0
590.0
595.0
Page 2

Appendix 4

'gam_
- -; 3 a y
-- INS

Wit-_

Tr(g_v -
14
sue.:
_ 4
A 11-
A'_ ��
-
__
gay
--
Air
_ _
IM
- -

R _
o.;
MOW
"
- .-,- x�
0
F'Z
lawn
_ --
Nita -
Alp<< s
4 7q.1Wk
imam
_- 3t rvr�
Al
- �=

is
t
MW
F
lk-
x_
_

a_ fim

F
400
-
-x
rAw ' _-
S�
5
�
ems` �

- s

s -
M -f
-
OR
-
� -
Muls
w ma
al o
4

�_ t_, _ _` __-

771
v
L

Page 17

Fractured Bedrock Evaluation
December 2019
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
ATTACHMENT D
SynTerra
PETROGRAPHIC EVALUATION OF CORE SAMPLES

Umm Lab
1ESInon arrnoLARl
PETROLEUM SERVICES
Petrographic Evaluation
Of Core Samples
SynTerra Corporation
Roxboro Project
August 2019
Core Laboratories, Inc.
Houston Advanced Technology Center
6316 Windfern Road
Houston, Texas 77040
Houston ATC Job File No.: 1902308G
The analytical results, opinions or interpretations contained in this report are based upon information and material supplied by the client for whose
exclusive and confidential use this report has been made. The analytical results, opinions or interpretations expressed represent the best judgment of
Core Laboratories. Core Laboratories, however, makes no warranty or representation, expressed or implied, of any type, and expressly disclaims
same as to the productivity, proper operations or profitableness of an oil, gas, coal or other mineral, property, well or sand in connection with which
such report is used or relied upon for any reason whatsoever. This report shall not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without the written approval of
Core Laboratories.

PETROGRAPHIC SUMMARY
Ten core samples from Roxboro project were selected for thin section petrographic
analysis (Table 1). The analytical program and petrographic summary are
presented in Table 1. Thin section photomicrographs and descriptions are provided
in Plates 1 — 10.
• Ten samples are all igneous rocks. These igneous rocks are classified as
quartz diorite and tonalite (Table 1), based on the relative abundances of
minerals (quartz, alkali feldspar, and plagioclase).
• The principal minerals are plagioclase, quartz, biotite, and amphibole.
Accessory minerals consist of epidote, pyrite, K-feldspar, zircon, apatite,
magnetite, and sphene.
• Three samples have been severely altered or weathered, as indicated by the
extensive alteration of plagioclase into sericite/illitic clays (Plates 1AB, 2AB,
7AB). In the rest of samples, plagioclase crystals are locally altered into
sericite/illitic clays. Minor biotite and amphibole crystals are altered into
chlorite. Rare to minor Fe -calcite and Fe -dolomite are present in a few
samples.
• Macropores are rare to minor, and consist of dissolution intracrystal, moldic
and fracture pores. Micropores are probably rare to minor in abundance and
associated with some illitic clays.
Thank you for choosing Core Laboratories to perform this study. Please feel free
to contact us if you have any questions or comments concerning this report.
Sincerely,
�s bl_z�
Yong Q. Wu PhD
Staff Geologist
Reservoir Geology
Core Laboratories - Houston
Phone: [phone]
E-mail: Yong.Wu(a)corelab. com

ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
THIN SECTION PETROGRAPHY
Thin sections were prepared by first impregnating the samples with epoxy to augment
cohesion and to prevent loss of material during grinding. Each thinly sliced sample was
mounted on a frosted glass slide and then grounded to an approximate thickness of 30
microns. The thin sections were stained with the following: Alizarin Red-S to
differentiate calcite (stains red) from clear dolomite (does not stain); potassium
ferricyanide to identify ferroan dolomite (stains dark blue) and ferroan calcite (stains
purple to dark blue depending on acid concentration and iron content of the sample).
They were also stained with sodium cobaltinitrite for potassium feldspar (stains yellow).
The thin sections were analyzed using standard petrographic techniques.
Igneous rock classification scheme is as follows (Q = quartz; A = alkali feldspar; P =
plagioclase; F = feldspathoid):
quaicz
alkah feldspar
Syen11P
alkalifeklspar S
syenife A
fa���ng
alkali r,.0 par
syenlfe
0
F
quadz diorlie
rplariz gabhrn
quarizarnorthome
gabbro
diorite
P anorthosite
fd,&Lwar ing gabbre
foid bearingdionle
foid-bearing wWh&we

TABLE 1
SynTerra Corp., Roxboro Project
ANALYTICAL PROGRAM AND SAMPLE SUMMARY
Sample No.:
Depth (ft):
TS
Porosity (%)
Grain
Density
(g/cc)
Lithology:
Classification:
Plate No.
ABMW-7BR
88.0
X
1.72
2.845
Igneous Rock
Quartz diorite
1
ABMW-7BR
126.0
X
2.08
2.735
Igneous Rock
Tonalite
2
BG-2BR
BG-2BR
65.2
230.0
X
X
2.34
0.10
2.659
2.640
Igneous Rock
Igneous Rock
Tonalite
Vein/Fracture-fill
3
4
CCR-207BR
47.5
X
1.39
2.743
Igneous Rock
Quartz diorite
5
CCR-207BR
67.0
X
3.12
2.865
Igneous Rock
Quartz diorite
6
MW-1 BR
36.0
X
4.83
2.804
Igneous Rock
Quartz diorite
7
MW-1 BR
69.0
X
1.26
2.786
Igneous Rock
Quartz diorite
8
MW-13BR
56.0
X
2.76
2.676
Igneous Rock
Tonalite
9
MW-22BR
56.3
X
0.85
2.740
Igneous Rock
Tonalite
10

PLATE 1
Thin Section Petrography
Company: SynTerra Corp. Sample Description
Project: Roxboro Lithology: Igneous Rock
Location: na
Sample NO.: ABMW-7BR Classification: Quartz diorite
Depth (ft): 88.0 Crystal Size (mm): 1.10
Structures:
A massive, fractures
B
Relative Abundances:
Rare
<1 %
Minor
1-5%
Moderate
5-10%
Common
10-20%
HESERVOIR Abundant
>20%
Core Analysis Data:
Porosity (%): 1.72
Grain Density (g/cc): 2.845
Principal Minerals:
abundant plagioclase; common amphibole; common
epidote; moderate quartz
Accessory Minerals:
rare to minor biotite, zircon, pyrite, potassium feldspar, and
apatite
Alteration and Replacement:
abundant plagioclase crystals are altered into sericite
and/or illitic clays; rare biotite and amphibole crystals are
altered into chlorite; rare Fe -dolomite and Fe -calcite
Pore Types:
rare dissolution intracrystal pores
Photomicrograph Caption
The principal minerals are plagioclase (Plag), amphibole
(Am), epidote (Ep), and quartz (Q) in this igneous rock
(quartz diorite). These mineral crystals show an interlocking
fabric. Accessory minerals are biotite (Bi), zircon, pyrite,
apatite, and K-feldspar. This sample has been severely
altered/weathered, as indicated by the extensive alteration
of plagioclase into sericite/illitic clays (Ser). Dissolution
intracrystal pores are rarely observed. Micropores are
probably rare to minor in abundance and associated with
some illitic clays. The green box in Image A indicates the
location of Image B.

PLATE 2
Thin Section Petrography
Company:
SynTerra Corp.
Sample Description
Project:
Roxboro
Lithology: Igneous Rock
Location:
na
Sample NO.: ABMW-7BR
Classification: Tonalite
Depth (ft):
126.0
Crystal Size (mm): 2.20
Structures:
A
massive, fractures
B
Relative Abundances:
Rare
<1 %
Minor
1-5%
Moderate
5-10%
Common
10-20%
HESERVOIR Abundant
>20%
Core Analysis Data:
Porosity (%): 2.08
Grain Density (g/cc): 2.735
Principal Minerals:
abundant plagioclase; abundant quartz; moderate to
common amphibole
Accessory Minerals:
rare to minor biotite, epidote, zircon, pyrite, potassium
feldspar, and apatite
Alteration and Replacement:
abundant plagioclase crystals are altered into sericite
and/or illitic clays; rare biotite and amphibole crystals are
altered into chlorite; rare Fe -dolomite and Fe -calcite
Pore Types:
rare dissolution intracrystal pores
Photomicrograph Caption
Plagioclase (Plag), quartz (Q), and amphibole (Am) are the
principal minerals in this igneous rock (tonalite). These
mineral crystals show an interlocking fabric. Accessory
minerals consist of K-feldspar (KF; stained yellow), biotite,
epidote, zircon, pyrite, and apatite. This sample has been
severely altered/weathered, as indicated by the extensive
alteration of plagioclase into sericite/illitic clays (Ser). Biotite
and amphibole are locally altered into chlorite (Ch).
Macropores are rare, and mostly dissolution intracrystal
pores (IP). Micropores are probably rare to minor in
abundance and associated with some illitic clays. The
green box in Image A indicates the location of Image B.

PLATE 3
Thin Section Petrography
Company: SynTerra Corp.
Project: Roxboro
Location: na
Sample No.: BG-2BR
Depth (ft): 65.2
A
Relative Abundances:
Rare
<1 %
Minor
1-5%
Moderate
5-10%
Common
10-20%
HESERVOIR Abundant
>20%
100 pm
:r
Core Analysis Data:
Porosity (%): 2.34
Grain Density (g/cc): 2.659
Sample Description
Lithology: Igneous Rock
Classification: Tonalite
Crystal Size (mm): 1.30
Structures:
massive
Principal Minerals:
abundant plagioclase; abundant quartz
Accessory Minerals:
rare to minor muscovite, biotite, pyrite, potassium feldspar,
and apatite
Alteration and Replacement:
abundant plagioclase crystals are altered into sericite
and/or illitic clays; rare biotite crystals are altered into
chlorite; rare illitic clays fill intracrystal pores
Pore Types:
rare to minor dissolution intracrystal and fracture pores
Photomicrograph Caption
The principal minerals are plagioclase (Plag) and quartz (Q)
in this igneous rock (tonalite). These mineral crystals show
an interlocking fabric. Accessory minerals are biotite (Bi),
muscovite (Mus), pyrite, and apatite. The plagioclase has
been locally altered into sericite/illitic clays (Ser).
Macropores are rare, and consist of dissolution intracrystal
(IP) and moldic pores. Some pores are partly filled with illitic
clays (IL). Micropores are probably rare to minor in
abundance and associated with some illitic clays. The
green box in Image A indicates the location of Image B.

PLATE 4
Thin Section Petrography
Company: SynTerra Corp. Sample Description
Project: Roxboro Lithology: Igneous Rock
Location: na
Sample No.: BG-2BR Classification: Vein/Fracture-fill
Depth (ft): 230.0 Crystal Size (mm): 0.50
Structures:
A massive, faint lineation, fractures
B
Relative Abundances:
Rare
<1 %
Minor
1-5%
Moderate
5-10%
Common
10-20%
HESERVOIR Abundant
>20%
Core Analysis Data:
Porosity (%): 0.10
Grain Density (g/cc): 2.640
Principal Minerals:
abundant quartz; moderate to common calcite/Fe-calcite;
moderate amphibole; minor biotite; minor epidote; minor
plagioclase
Accessory Minerals:
rare sphene
Alteration and Replacement:
minor calcite and Fe -calcite; rare to minor plagioclase
crystals are altered into sericite and/or illitic clays
Pore Types:
rare to minor dissolution intracrystal and fracture pores
Photomicrograph Caption
This sample is most likely from a vein or facture -fill, which is
composed of quartz (Q), calcite (Cal; stained reddish) and
Fe -calcite (Fcal; stained purplish). The host rock is possibly
an igneous rock (diorite), and composed of amphibole
(Am), plagioclase, biotite, and epidote. Macropores are
rare, and consist of dissolution intracrystal and fracture
pores. Micropores are probably rare in abundance. The
green box in Image A indicates the location of Image B.

PLATE 5
Thin Section Petrography
Company: SynTerra Corp. Sample Description
Project: Roxboro Lithology: Igneous Rock
Location: na
Sample NO.: CCR-207BR Classification: Quartz diorite
Depth (ft): 47.5 Crystal Size (mm): 0.45
Structures:
A massive, faint lineation
Y
r'
ors` fps r ::r 1 mm
B
61,
I
Relative Abundances:
Rare
<1 %
Minor
1-5%
Moderate
5-10%
Common
10-20%
HESERVOIR Abundant
>20%
Core Analysis Data:
Porosity (%): 1.39
Grain Density (g/cc): 2.743
Principal Minerals:
abundant plagioclase; common to abundant quartz;
moderate biotite
Accessory Minerals:
rare muscovite, epidote, pyrite, sphene, and apatite
Alteration and Replacement:
abundant plagioclase crystals are altered into sericite
and/or illitic clays; rare biotite crystals are altered into
chlorite
Pore Types:
rare dissolution intracrystal and moldic pores
Photomicrograph Caption
Image A shows that biotite (Bi) is unevenly distributed in
this igneous rock (quartz diorite). Image B reveals that
plagioclase (Plag), quartz (Q), and biotite (Bi) are the
principal minerals. These mineral crystals show an
interlocking fabric. Accessory minerals include apatite (Ap),
muscovite, epidote, pyrite, and sphene. The plagioclase is
locally altered into sericite/illitic clays (Ser). Macropores are
rare and mainly dissolution intracrystal pores. Micropores
are probably rare to minor in abundance and associated
with some illitic clays. The green box in Image A indicates
the location of Image B.

PLATE 6
Thin Section Petrography
Company: SynTerra Corp. Sample Description
Project: Roxboro Lithology: Igneous Rock
Location: na
Sample NO.: CCR-207BR Classification: Quartz diorite
Depth (ft): 67.0 Crystal Size (mm): 0.42
Structures:
A massive, faint lineation, fractures
B
Relative Abundances:
Rare
<1 %
Minor
1-5%
Moderate
5-10%
Common
10-20%
HESERVOIR Abundant
>20%
-v Q
Core Analysis Data:
Porosity (%): 3.12
Grain Density (g/cc): 2.865
Principal Minerals:
abundant plagioclase; abundant biotite; common to
abundant quartz; moderate amphibole
Accessory Minerals:
rare epidote, pyrite, and apatite
Alteration and Replacement:
abundant plagioclase crystals are altered into sericite
and/or illitic clays; rare biotite crystals are altered into
chlorite
Pore Types:
rare to minor dissolution intracrystal and moldic pores
Photomicrograph Caption
Plagioclase (Plag), biotite (Bi), quartz (Q), and amphibole
(Am) are the principal minerals in this igneous rock (quartz
diorite). These mineral crystals show an interlocking fabric.
Accessory minerals consist of epidote (Ep), pyrite, and
apatite. The plagioclase is locally altered into sericite/illitic
clays (Ser). Chlorite rarely replaces biotite. Macropores are
unevenly distributed, and mostly dissolution moldic (MP)
and intracrystal pores. Micropores are probably rare to
minor in abundance and associated with some illitic clays.
The green box in Image A indicates the location of Image
B.

PLATE 7
Thin Section Petrography
Company: SynTerra Corp. Sample Description
Project: Roxboro Lithology: Igneous Rock
Location: na
Sample NO.: MWA BR Classification: Quartz diorite
Depth (ft): 36.0 Crystal Size (mm): 0.40
Structures:
A massive, fractures
B
Relative Abundances:
Rare
<1 %
Minor
1-5%
Moderate
5-10%
Common
10-20%
HESERVOIR Abundant
>20%
Core Analysis Data:
Porosity (%): 4.83
Grain Density (g/cc): 2.804
Principal Minerals:
abundant plagioclase; moderate biotite; moderate quartz;
minor amphibole
Accessory Minerals:
rare to minor epidote, pyrite, magnetite, potassium feldspar,
zircon, sphene, and apatite
Alteration and Replacement:
abundant plagioclase crystals are altered into sericite
and/or illitic clays; minor biotite and amphibole crystals are
altered into chlorite
Pore Types:
rare to minor dissolution intracrystal and fracture pores
Photomicrograph Caption
The principal minerals are plagioclase (Plag), biotite (Bi),
quartz (Q), and amphibole (Am) in this igneous rock (quartz
diorite). These mineral crystals show an interlocking fabric.
Accessory minerals are epidote (Ep), pyrite (Py), magnetite,
potassium feldspar, zircon, sphene, and apatite. This
sample has been severely altered/weathered, as indicated
by the extensive alteration of plagioclase into sericite/illitic
clays (Ser). Clay -filled fractures (Fr/clay) are also common.
Chlorite locally replaces biotite and amphibole. Dissolution
intracrystal pores (IP) and open fractures (Fr) are rarely
observed. Micropores are probably rare to minor in
abundance and associated with some illitic clays. The
green box in Image A indicates the location of Image B.

PLATE 8
Thin Section Petrography
Company:
SynTerra Corp.
Project:
Roxboro
Location:
na
Sample No.: MW-1 BR
Depth (ft):
69.0
A
K:. �.•-:
MP
.r .
Sample Description
Lithology: Igneous Rock
Classification: Quartz diorite
Crystal Size (mm): 0.51
Structures:
massive, faint lineation
Principal Minerals:
abundant plagioclase; common biotite; common quartz;
minor amphibole; minor epidote
Accessory Minerals:
rare to minor pyrite, magnetite, zircon, and apatite
,�. Alteration and Replacement:
�X- �`' - moderate plagioclase crystals are altered into sericite
"�._. —� t mm and/or illitic clays; rare biotite crystals are altered into
chlorite
B
e
7.-
Relative Abundances:
Rare
<1 %
Minor
1-5%
Moderate
5-10%
Common
10-20%
HCnore„�b Abundant
>20%
Core Analysis Data:
Porosity (%): 1.26
Grain Density (g/cc): 2.786
Pore Types:
rare to minor dissolution intracrystal and moldic pores
Photomicrograph Caption
Image A shows that biotite (Bi) is unevenly distributed in
this igneous rock (quartz diorite). Moldic pores (MP) are
locally observed. The plagioclase (Plag) is locally altered
into sericite/illitic clays (Ser). Image B reveals that
plagioclase, quartz (Q), biotite (Bi), amphibole (Am), and
epidote (Ep) are the principal minerals. These mineral
crystals show an interlocking fabric. Pyrite (Py) is rarely
observed. Micropores are probably rare to minor in
abundance and associated with some illitic clays. The
green box in Image A indicates the location of Image B.

PLATE 9
Thin Section Petrography
Company: SynTerra Corp.
Project: Roxboro
Location: na
Sample No.: MW-13BR
Depth (ft): 56.0
A
�o
}
`4 r
J
ri-
B
-Al
N ,t F
ss
Relative Abundances:
Rare
<1 %
Minor
1-5%
Moderate
5-10%
Common
10-20%
HESERVOIR Abundant
>20%
S.? A
Core Analysis Data:
Porosity (%): 2.76
Grain Density (g/cc): 2.676
Sample Description
Lithology: Igneous Rock
Classification: Tonalite
Crystal Size (mm): 0.63
Structures:
massive, fractures
Principal Minerals:
abundant plagioclase; abundant quartz; minor biotite
Accessory Minerals:
rare epidote, zircon, pyrite, magnetite, potassium feldspar,
muscovite, and apatite
Alteration and Replacement:
abundant plagioclase crystals are altered into sericite
and/or illitic clays
Pore Types:
rare to minor dissolution intracrystal and fracture pores
Photomicrograph Caption
Plagioclase (Plag), quartz (Q), and biotite (Bi) are the
principal minerals in this igneous rock (tonalite). These
mineral crystals show an interlocking fabric. Accessory
minerals consist of epidote (Ep), zircon, pyrite (Py),
muscovite, K-feldspar, and apatite. The plagioclase is
locally altered into sericite/illitic clays. Macropores are rare,
and mostly dissolution intracrystal (IP) and fracture (Fr)
pores. Micropores are probably rare to minor in abundance
and associated with some illitic clays. The green box in
Image A indicates the location of Image B.

PLATE 10
Thin Section Petrography
Company:
SynTerra Corp.
Project:
Roxboro
Location:
na
Sample No.: MW-22BR
Depth (ft):
56.3
A
WW--
60
,lagtSer ,
�.„ -A
I° 1 mm
'*an V& 9W5011111111111 ad
Sample Description
Lithology: Igneous Rock
Classification: Tonalite
Crystal Size (mm): 0.40
Structures:
massive, faint lineation
Principal Minerals:
abundant plagioclase; abundant quartz; common biotite;
minor amphibole
Accessory Minerals:
rare epidote, pyrite, magnetite, potassium feldspar, and
apatite
Alteration and Replacement:
abundant plagioclase crystals are altered into sericite
and/or illitic clays; rare biotite crystals are altered into
chlorite; rare Fe -dolomite
B Pore Types:
rare dissolution intracrystal pores
01ag/5e_ t
Q
jo
_ Ell
�'.
3a' ems" 100 iam
Relative Abundances: Core Analysis Data:
Rare <1 % Porosity (%): 0.85
Minor 1-5% Grain Density (g/cc): 2.740
Moderate 5-10%
Common 10-20%
Core„�b Abundant >20%
Photomicrograph Caption
The principal minerals are plagioclase (Plag), quartz (Q),
biotite (Bi), and amphibole (Am) in this igneous rock
(tonalite). Note that biotite is unevenly distributed. These
mineral crystals show an interlocking fabric. Accessory
minerals are epidote (Ep), pyrite (Py), magnetite, potassium
feldspar, and apatite. The plagioclase is locally altered into
sericite/illitic clays (Ser). Macropores are rare, and mainly
dissolution intracrystal pores. Micropores are probably rare
to minor in abundance and associated with some illitic
clays. The green box in Image A indicates the location of
Image B.